CHEMICAL PROCESS OPTIMIZATION

Dr. Agus Arsad

Enhanced Polymer Research Group (EnPRO)
Faculty of Chemical Engineering
 WHAT IS OPTIMIZATION?

Optimization is the science and the art of determining

THE BEST solutions to problems

why optimize at all?

answer = economics, environment, safety

FORMULATION- 4
 Why OPTIMIZE?
• Monetary reason
– Largest production
– Greatest profit
– Maximum cost
– Least energy usage
– Etc

• Improved plant performance

– Improved yields of valuable products (or reduced yield of contaminant)
– Reduced energy consumption
– Higher processing rates
– Longer time between shutdowns
– Reduced maintenance costs
– Less equipment wear
– Better staff utilisation
– Improved quality of design, faster and more reliable trouble-shooting, and
faster decision making
 Incentives for Optimization
• economic incentives:
– maximum profit
– minimum costs
– maximum use of resources
– minimum effort
• technical incentives:
– safest design and operating strategy
– best processing strategy
– increased yield, conversion
– optimum selectivity
– minimum holdup
• integral part of design and operation:
– optimisation of process structure (synthesis)
– optimisation of operation
– technical/economic
– control
 What Optimization is ALL about
• A typical engineering problem:
– Problem/process can be represented by some equations of perhaps solely
by experimental data
– Model development requires:
1. Critical analysis of the process or design
2. Insights as to what the appropriate performance objectives are to be
accomplished e.g. improve yield, reduce energy consumption

• Goal of optimization:
– To find the values of the variables in the process that yield the best value of
the performance criterion.
– Usually involved a trade of between capital and operating costs.

• Optimization
– Is concerned with selecting the best among the entire set of possible
solutions by efficient quantitative methods.
– Decision - use of past experience (engineering judgment)
 Three levels optimization
• Management
– Makes decision concerning project evaluation, product selection,
corporate budget, investment in sales versus research and development
and etc.
– Information is qualitative and has a high degree of uncertainty.
• Process design and equipment specification
– Concerned with the choice of a process and nominal operating conditions.
– Resolved with the aid of process design simulators or flowsheeting
programs.
– Needs iteration to arrive at a desirable process flowsheet.
– Performed prior to the implementation of the process
• Plant operations
– Concerned with operating controls for a given unit at certain T, P, F etc
that are the best in some sense.
– Is carried out monthly, weekly, daily, hourly or even every minute at the
extreme – (real time optimisation)
– Deals with the allocation of raw materials on a daily or weekly basis
– Also concerned with the overall picture of shipping, transportation, and
distribution of products to engender minimal costs.
 Optimization in engineering

The purpose of optimization is to maximize

(or minimize) the value of a function (called
objective function) subject to a number of
restrictions (called constraints).
 DEFINITION & JARGON
Objective function

– that function that you which to minimise or maximise, usually

an economic value eg. maximize profit, production rate,
throughput, minimize energy utilisation, cost

Decision variables

– those variables that you can adjust or choose in order to

minimize or maximize the objective function
– variables can be:
• real e.g. Flowrates, concentration, temperature, pressure
• integers eg. # of trays
• binary eg. Select/not select - plant process flowsheet

FORMULATION- 34
 DEFINITION & JARGON

Constraints

 Limitations or restrictions of decision variables. They can be

physical, economic, policy, or environmental
constraints can be explicitly defined in terms of the decision
variables eg. flow rate > 0 or implicitly defined in terms of other
variables eg. product concentration > 95%

M02- 35
 FEATURES OF MATHEMATICAL
PROGAMMING

objective function to be minimised (or maximised)

min f(xi)
xi vector of decision variables to be chosen to find the min. or
max. of f(x)
equality
constraints i = 1, 2, … i i, j, k are the
# of decision
s.t. variables and
in-equality hj(xi) = 0 j = 1, 2, … j constraints
constraints

gk(xi)  0 k = 1, 2, … k

FORMULATION- 36
 Optimization in engineering

1. Maximize reactor conversion

Subject to reactor modeling equations
kinetic equations
limitations on T, P and x

2. Minimize cost of plant

Subject to mass & energy balance equations
equipment modeling equations,
environmental, technical and
logical constraints
 Constraints
(Performance Restrictions)
 Constraints determine the feasible region
 Arise from a wide variety of sources:
 External restrictions
- Government (legal, statutory)
- Laws of nature (heat and material balances, summation of mole
fractions)
- Market place

 Internal restrictions
- Imposed by designer
- Set by design relations
- Arise from equipment design
- Material properties (T,P)
- Positive flows
- Capacities (min, max)
- Regimes (flooding, weeping)
 Equality Constraints
Equality constraints, hk (x) = 0, represent process restrictions:

• Product purity must be exactly 98%

• More commonly, equality constraints represent the process model:
• The heat and material balance
• Mole fraction summation equations
• Equilibrium equations, etc.
 Inequality Constraints

Inequality constraints, gj (x) ≥ 0, represent restrictions

imposed by the designer and by nature.

For Example:
• Mole fraction flowrate must be greater than or equal to zero (no negative
flowrates are allowed)
• Pressure in a particular vessel cannot exceed an upper limit
• A reactor volume cannot exceed the maximum currently manufactured
• Production rates and product purities must all be greater than minimum
values.
 OPTIMIZATION FORMULATION

min (or max) f(x1,x2,……,xN)

subject to g1(x1,x2,……,xN)≤0
Inequality g2(x1,x2,……,xN)≤0
Constraints

gm(x1,x2,……,xN)≤0

h1(x1,x2,……,xN)=0
Equality Constraints h2(x1,x2,……,xN)=0

hE(x1,x2,……,xN)=0
FORMULATION- 41
 Basic Jargons/Terminology

• Feasible solution is a set of values of the variables that satisfy all the
constraints
• Local Optimal solution provides an optimal value for the
• If other local optimal solution exist in the feasible region, one or more
could be a global optimal solution.
• Linear programming (LP) problem is when the objective function, equality
constraints, and inequality constraints are linear with respect to the
variables, x.
• Unconstrained optimisation is an optimisation problem without equality
constraints, inequality constraints and lower and upper bounds.
• Constrained optimisation is vice versa to unconstrained optimisation.
Feasible region for an optimisation problem involving
two independent variables

Nonlinear
Inequality
constraints

Linear
equality
constraints

Axis is
linear
Inequality
constraints Feasible region is along the heavy line

Axis is
linear
Inequality
constraints
 Linear Objective Function
Maximum objective function is desired.

f(x) f(x)

x xopt = xU x

Unconstrained Constrained: subject to

(No inequality inequality constraint. x ≤ x.
constraints, no solution (Optimal solution is at the
exists) bound)
 Working Session 1
Graph the feasible sets corresponding to each of the
following systems of constraints
a) x1 + x2  2
3x1 + x2  3
x1, x2  0

b) x1 + x2  2
3x1 + x2 = 3
x1, x2  0
 Example 1

Owing to the recent environmental regulations, the scrubbing of

hydrogen sulfide from gaseous emissions is becoming a common
industrial practice. One of the efficient solvents is
monoethanolamine “MEA”. In the chemical plant, there are two
variable grades of MEA. The first grade consists of 80 weight%
MEA and 20% weight water. Its cost is 80 cent/kg. The second
grade consists of 68 weight% MEA and 32 weight% water. Its
Cost is 60 cent/kg. It is desired to mix the two grades so as to
obtain an MEA solution that contains no more than 25 weight%
water. What is the optimal mixing ratio of the two grades which
will minimize the cost of MEA solution (per kg)?

M02- 47
 GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR
SOLVING OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM

STEP 1. DEFINE THE DECISION VARIABLES

PROBLEM
STEP 2. DEFINE THE OBJECTIVE FUNCTION
FORMULATION

STEP 3. DEFINE THE CONSTRAINTS

STEP 4. APPLY SUITABLE SOLUTION

TECHNIQUE e.g graphical method vs PROBLEM
optimization tools SOLVING

STEP 5. PERFORM SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

LP-48
 sOLUTION EXAMPLE 1:
Model Formulation

Basis: 1 kg solution
Grade 1
x1 kg Step 1: Define the decision variables
0.80 MEA, 0.20 water
1 kg MEA solution
80 cents/kg x1 Amount of grade 1 (kg)
MIXER 
water content 25 wt. %
x2 Amount of grade 2 (kg)
Grade 2
x2 kg z Cost of 1 kg solution (cents)
0.68 MEA, 0.32 water
60 cents/kg

Step 2: Define the objective function

min z = 80x1 + 60x2

Step 3: Define the equality and inequality constraints

0.20x1 + 0.32x2 ≤ 0.25 Water content limitation
x1 + x2 =1 Overall material balance
x1, x2 ≥ 0 Non-negativity
 SOLUTION EXAMPLE 1: GRAPHICAL
SOLUTION
Step 4: Choose the best solution technique
• The set of points (x1, x2) satisfying all the constraints, including
the non-negativity conditions.
• Constraint on water content 0.20x1 + 0.32x2 ≤ 0.25
• Non-negativity constraints x1  0 , x2  0
• Mass balance constraint x1 + x2 = 1
x2 Feasibility
Any vector (or point) which satisfies
0.2 all the constraints of the optimization
0x
1+ program is called a feasible vector
0.3
2 x2 (or a feasible point)
= 0.2
5
The set of all feasible points is called
feasibility region or feasibility domain

x1
Any optimal solution must lie within
the feasibility region!
 SOLUTION EXAMPLE 1: GRAPHICAL
SOLUTION

x2

Feasibility region
0.2
0x
1+
0.3
is this heavy line
2x
2=
0.2
5

Any optimal solution x1

must lie within the
feasibility region!
 SOLUTION EXAMPLE 1: GRAPHICAL
SOLUTION

By plotting objective function curves for arbitrary values of

z
(here 70 and 75) we can evaluate the results

Optimal Point
Intersection between
x1 + x2 = 1
and
0.20x1 + 0.32x2 = 0.25

In addition
70 < zmin < 75
 SOLUTION EXAMPLE 1: GRAPHICAL
SOLUTION

x1
x2
+x
2=
1
0.2
0 x1 z* = 71.6
+0
.32
x 2=
0.2
Optimal
5
point
x2* = 0.42
x1
x1* = 0.58
 EXAMPLE 2

Julia wonders if she can keep the amount of fat in

her diet down and still get all the protein (45 g),
carbohydrate (256 g), and calories (1,980 kcal) that she
needs every day by eating fast food only. For other
nutrients, such as vitamins, iron, and calcium, she will
depend on pills (nutritionists would disapprove, but this
example ought to be simple). She chooses her favorite
fast foods: hamburger and French fries. The nutritive
values per serving are given below.
How many servings of
Hamburger Fries hamburger and fries
Fat (g) 10 18 would Julia need to eat
Protein (g) 15 3 to satisfy her daily diet
Carbohydrate (g) 32 32 requirements?
Calories (kcal) 220 396

FORMULATION- 54
 GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR
SOLVING OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM

STEP 1. DEFINE THE DECISION VARIABLES

STEP 2. DEFINE THE OBJECTIVE FUNCTION

STEP 3. DEFINE THE CONSTRAINTS

STEP 4. APPLY SUITABLE SOLUTION TECHNIQUE

STEP 5. PERFORM SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

 SOLUTION EXAMPLE 2

Julia is looking for

HB = the number of servings of Hamburger

decision variables
FF = the number of servings of French Fries
that minimizes the total amount of fat

objective function 10 HB + 18 FF

subject to the following minimum diet requirements

15 HB + 3 FF >= 45 Protein constraint

constraints
32 HB + 32 FF >= 256 Carbohydrate constraint
220 HB + 396 FF >= 1980 Calories constraint
nonnegativity
constraints Of course HB >= 0 and FF >= 0

FORMULATION- 56
Example 3

FORMULATION- 57
 Solution Example 3
STEP 1: Define the desicion variables
x1 = bags of Super-gro
x2 = bags of Crop quick

STEP 2: Define the objective function

min f(x) = 6x 1 + 3x2

STEP 3: Define the equality and inequality constraints

 Equality constraint
- None except if the farmer said that the phosphate requirement must be exactly 24 pound, the constraint should be written
4x1 + 3x2 = 24 (phosphate constraint)

• Inequality constraint
2x1 + 4x2 16 (nitrogen constraint)
4x1 + 3x2 24 (phosphate constraint)

 Nonnegativity constraints – to indicate that negative bags of fertilizer cannot be purchased

x1, x2 0




 FORMULATION- 58
 Solution Example 3

The complete optimization formulation for this LP problem

Min f(x) = 6x1 + 3x2

Subject to
2x1 + 4x2 16 (nitrogen constraint)
4x1 + 3x2  24 (phosphate constraint)
x1, x 2 0 (nonnegativity constraint)


FORMULATION- 59
 SOLUTION EXAMPLE 3:
GRAPHICAL SOLUTION
STEP 5: Apply suitable optimization technique

4x1 + 3 x2 =24

2x1 + 4x2 = 16

STEP 6: Perform sensitivity analysis e.g. What if the cost of the raw material
(e.g. super-grow) is increased by 10%
FORMULATION- 60
 SOLUTION TERMINOLOGY

@Copyright PROSPECT, Title of presentation Title Initials - 61

UTM
 EXAMPLE 4: WYNDOR CLASS CO.

The Wyndor Glass co. is a producer of high-quality glass products,

including windows and glass doors. It has three plants. Aluminum frames
and hardware are made in Plant 1, wood frames are made in Plant 2, and
Plant 3 is used to produce the glass and assemble the products. How
much product 1 and product 2 should be produced to maximize profit?

Production Time per Batch Production

(Hours) time available
Plant Product per week
(Hours)
1 2

1 1 0 4
2 0 2 12
3 3 2 18
Profit per 3 5 LP-62
 MODEL FORMULATION

The complete mathematical formulation can be written as,

max 3x1 + 5x2

s.t.
x1 ≤ 4
2x2 ≤ 12
3x1 +2x2 ≤ 18
x 1, x 2 ≥ 0

LP-63
 GRAPHICAL SOLUTION METHOD
1. Plot each of the constraints
2. Identify the feasible region
3. Plot isoprofit line (objective function) to find the point on boundary of
this space that maximizes (or minimizes) value of objective function
4. Align a straight edge with the plotted objective function, move it towards
the inside of the feasible region
5. Move in the direction that will increase the value of the objective
function (if maximizing) and move in the direction that will decrease the
value of the objective function (if minimizing)
6. Move the straight edge until it gets out of the feasible region. The
last point that the straight edge touches before leaving the feasible region is
the optimal solution. If the straight edge touches a whole line segment
before it leaves the feasible region, then any point on that line is
optimal. In that case we have alternative optima.

LP-64
 FEASIBLE SOLUTION
A SOLUTION THAT SATISFIES THE CONTRAINTS
x2

3X1 + 2x2 ≤ 18 Optimal solution:

x1 = 2 and x2 = 6
X1 ≤ 4
(2,6) with an optimal
objective of 36.
X2 ≤ 6

3x1 + 5x2 = 36
Feasible region

6
x1
0 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10
3x1 + 5x2 = 10

LP-65
 INFEASIBLE SOLUTION
A SOLUTION THAT VIOLATES ONE OF THE
CONSTRAINTS
What if there is another constraint?
x2

The resulting model is:

max 3x1 + 5x2

s.t. x1 ≤ 4 3x +
1 5x ≥
2x2 ≤ 12 2 60
3x1 +2x2 ≤ 18
3x1 + 5x2 ≥ 60
x 1, x 2 ≥ 0

another constraint

6
x1
0 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10

LP-66
 UNBOUNDED FEASIBLE
REGION
NO SOLUTION
x2

Unbounded feasible region

Unbounded Problem

6
x1
0 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10

LP-67
UNBOUNDED FEASIBLE REGION
NO SOLUTION
x2

Unbounded feasible region

Bounded Problem

6
x1
0 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10

LP-68
SOLUTION TERMINOLOGY

LP-69
 SOLUTION TERMINOLOGY
x2

Optimal Solution

Isoprofit Line
(2,6) Corner-point feasible solution (CPF)
Vertex Extreme Point

Feasible Region

6
x1
0 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10

LP-70
 WORKING SESSION 2:
LP PROBLEM
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
Labor Clay Revenue
PRODUCT (hr/unit) (lb/unit) ($/unit)
Bowl 1 4 40
Mug 2 3 50

There are 40 hours of labor and 120 pounds of clay available each
day

Decision variables
x1 = number of bowls to produce
x2 = number of mugs to produce

Copyright 2006 John WileyLP-71

& Sons,
Inc.
 WORKING SESSION:
LP Formulation

Maximize Z = $40 x1 + 50 x2

Subject to
x1 + 2x2 40 hr (labor constraint)
4x1 + 3x2 120 lb (clay constraint)
x1 , x2 0

Copyright 2006 John WileyLP-72

& Sons,
Inc.
 Example
Graphical Solution
x2
50 –

40 –
4 x1 + 3 x2 120 lb

30 –
Optimal value
X1 = 24 bowls Z = $50(24) + $50(8) =
20 – X2 = 8 mugs $1,360

10 – x1 + 2 x2 40 hr

| | | | | |
0–
10 20 30 40 50 60 x1

Copyright 2006 John WileyLP-73

& Sons,
Inc.
 Extreme Corner Points

x1 = 0 bowls
x2 x2 =20 mugs
x1 = 224 bowls
Z = $1,000
x2 =8 mugs
40 –
x1 = 30 bowls
Z = $1,360
30 – x2 =0 mugs

20 – A Z = $1,200

10 – B
| | | C|
0–
10 20 30 40 x1

Copyright 2006 John WileyLP-74

& Sons,
Inc.
 WORKING SESSION 3:
Two Crude Petroleum

Two Crude Petroleum runs a small refinery on the Texas coast. The refinery
distills crude petroleum from two sources, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, into
three main products: gasoline, jet fuel and lubricants.

The two crudes differ in chemical composition and thus yield different product
mixes. Each barrel of Saudi crude yields 0.3 barrel of gasoline, 0.4 barrel of
fuel jet and 0.2 barrel of lubricants. On the other hand, each barrel of
Venezuela crude yields 0.4 of gasoline, 0.2 barrel of fuel jet and 0.3 barrel of
lubricants. The remaining 10% of each barrel is lost to refining.

The crudes also differ in cost and availability. Two Crude can purchase up two
9000 barrels per day from Saudi Arabia at $20 per barrel. Up to 6000 barrels
per day of Venezuela petroleum can are also available at the lower cost of
$15 per barrel because of the shorter transportation distance.

Two Crude’s contracts with independent distributors require it to produce

2000 barrels per day of gasoline, 1500 barrels per day of jet fuel, and 500
barrels per day of lubricants. How can these requirements be fulfilled most
efficiently? LP-75
 MODEL FORMULATION

The resulting model is:

min 20x1 + 15x2 (total cost)

s.t 0.3x1 + 0.4x2 ≥ 2.0 (gasoline requirement)

0.4x1 + 0.2x2 ≥ 1.5 (jet fuel requirement)

0.2x1 + 0.3x2 ≥ 0.5 lubricant requirement)

x1 ≤9 (Saudi availability)

x2 ≤6 (Venezuelan availability)

x1: barrels x
of1,Saudi
x2 crude refined
≤ 0per day (in thousands)
(non-negativity)
x2: barrels of Venezuelan crude refined per day (in thousands)

The standard statement of an optimization model has the form

min or max (objective function(s))
s.t (main coinstraints)
(variable-type constraints)
where “s.t.” stands for “subject to”. LP-76
 Unique Optimal Model
x2

20x1 + 15x2 = 140

0.4

X2 ≤ 6
The optimal solution is
x1
+0

unique because it is the

.2 x 2

Optimal solution
only feasible solution
≥1

x1 = 2
.5

x2 = 3.5
achieving the optimal
value
X1 ≤ 9

0.3
0.2 x
x 1 +0
1 +0 .4
.3 x 20x1 + 15x2 = 220
x2 2 ≥2
≥0
.5 20x1 + 15x2 = 180

6
x1
0 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10
20x1 + 15x2 = 92.5 20x1 + 15x2 = 100

LP-77
 Alternative Optimal Model

Suppose that the crude price from Venezuela drop to $10 per barrels,
the new objective function is,

total cost = 20x1 + 10x1

min 20x1 + 10x2 (total cost)

s.t 0.3x1 + 0.4x2 ≥ 2.0 (gasoline requirement)

0.4x1 + 0.2x2 ≥ 1.5 (jet fuel requirement)

0.2x1 + 0.3x2 ≥ 0.5 (lubricant requirement)

x1 ≤9 (Saudi availability)

x2 ≤6 (Venezuelan availability)

x1, of
x1: barrels x2Saudi crude ≤refined
0 per day (non-negativity)
(in thousands)
x2: barrels of Venezuelan crude refined per day (in thousands)

new objective function LP-78

 Alternative Optimal SOLUTION

x2

20x1 + 10x2 = 140

X2 ≤ 6
If the optimal-value
contour intersects at
alternative optimal solution
more than one point, the
model has alternative
optimal solutions.
0.4
x1

X1 ≤ 9
+0
.2 x 2

0.3
0.2 x
≥1

x 1 +0
+0
.5

1 .4 20x1 + 10x2 = 190

.3 x
x2 2 ≥2
≥0
.5

6
x1
0 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10

20x1 + 10x2 = 75

LP-79
 Infeasible Model
Consider modifying our Two Crude case so that only 2000 barrels per
day are available from each source. The resulting model is:

min 20x1 + 15x2 (total cost)

s.t 0.3x1 + 0.4x2 ≥ 2.0 (gasoline requirement)

0.4x1 + 0.2x2 ≥ 1.5 (jet fuel requirement)

0.2x1 + 0.3x2 ≥ 0.5 (lubricant requirement)

x1 ≤2 (Saudi availability)

x2 ≤2 (Venezuelan availability)

x1, of
x1: barrels x2Saudi crude ≤refined
0 per day (non-negativity)
(in thousands)
x2: barrels of Venezuelan crude refined per day (in thousands)

new constraint
LP-80
 Infeasible SOLUTION

x2

X1 ≤ 2 An optimization model is
0.4
x1

infeasible if no choice of
+0

No feasible region!
.2 x 2

decision variable
≥1

satisfies all constraints.

.5

0.3 X2 ≤ 2
x
0.2 1 +0
x1 .4
+0 x
.3
2 ≥2
x
2 ≥0
.5
x1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

LP-81
 Unbounded Model
x2 X1 is infinite

0.4

X2 ≤ 6
x1 +0
.2 x 2

70
≥1

60
.5

50

40

30
0.3
0.2 x 20
x1 1 +0
+0 .4
.3 x 10
x 2 ≥2
2 ≥0
.5 0

6
-10
x1
0 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10

i. An optimization model is unbounded when feasible choices of the decision variables

can produce arbitrarily good objective function values
ii. Unbounded modes have no optimal solution because any possibility can be
improved LP-82
 Unbounded Model

Suppose that Saudi Arabia decides to subsidize oil prices heavily so

that Two Crude is paid $2 for each barrel it consumes, and further that
Saudi Arabia will supply unlimited amounts of petroleum at this negative
price. The result is a revised model:

unlimited oil supply from

x1: barrels of Saudi crude refined per day (in thousands) Saudi Arabia
x2: barrels of Venezuelan crude refined per day (in thousands)

new objective function LP-83

 Example 5

During the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah, a local plant
X received a rush order for 100 gals of A containing 4.0% vol%
alcohol. Although no 4% A was in stock, large quantities of A-4.5 with
4.5% alcohol at a price of $6.40/gal and A-3.7 with 3.7% alcohol
priced at $5.00/gal were available, as well as water suitable for
adding to the blend at no cost. The plant manager wanted to use at
least 10 gal of A-4.5. Neglecting any volume change due to mixing,
determine the gallons each of A 4.5, A-3.7, and water that should be
blended together to produce the desired order at the minimum cost.
Use 6 steps approach to solve optimization problem.
Step 4 : Simplification.
The problem can be reduced to two decision variables by solving eq 3 for
VA-3.7,
VA-3.7 = 100 – VA-4.5 – VW (eq 4)
And substituting it into eq. 1 and 2 to give the following restatement of this
problem:

Minimize Cost, $ = 6.40VA-4.5 + 5.00 VA3.7

Subject to:

0.045VA-4.5 + 0.037 VA3.7 = 4…………………………...(eq 6)

VA-3.7 = 100 - VA-4.5 - VW ……………………… …….(eq 7)
VA-4.5  10
VA-3.7  0
VW  0

The optimal volume of A-3.7 need only to be calculated from eq 7, after the
optimal volumes of A-4.5 and water have been determined. Since the
objective function, the equality constraints, and the lower and upper bound are
all linear, this constitutes an LP problem.
 Solution to Example 5 (Cont.)

Step 5 : Choose suitable optimization technique

With just two decision variables, the problem can be shown graphically on a plot of V
against cost as shown in Figure 1. Note that eq 6 can be rearranged to give:
VW = VA-4.5 - 37.5 ………………………………………eq 8
4.625
 Result for Example 5

VA-4.5 (gal) VA-3.7 (gal) VW (gal) Cost ($)

10 95.95 -5.95 543.73
15 89.86 -4.86 545.32
20 83.78 -3.78 546.92
25 77.70 -2.70 548.51
30 71.62 -1.62 550.11
35 65.54 -0.54 551.70
40 59.46 0.54 553.30
45 53.38 1.62 554.89
50 47.30 2.70 556.49
55 41.22 3.78 558.08
60 35.14 4.86 559.68
65 29.05 5.95 561.27
70 22.97 7.03 562.86
75 16.89 8.11 564.46
80 10.81 9.19 566.05
85 4.73 10.27 567.65
90 -1.35 11.35 569.24
 Graphical Method to Find Optimal solution
120

100 V W constraint V A3.7 constraint

Feasible region
80
V A4.5 constraint
V, gallons

60 VA4.5
VW

40 VA3.7

20
V A4.5 constraint

V A3.7 & V W 0
constraint
540 545 550 555 560 565 570 575
-20
Cost, $

With the constrained given, the optimal solution is when V A4.5 is 37.5 gal,
VA3.7 is 62.5 and VW is 0 with the minimum cost at $552.50.
 Example 6
A chemical plant makes three products
(E, F, G) and utilizes three raw Maximum
materials (A, B, C) in limited supply. Raw available, Cost,
Each of the three products is produced Material lb/day cent/lb
in a separate process (1, 2, 3); a
schematic of the plant is shown in A 40,000 1.5
Fig.2. The available materials A, B and
B 30,000 2.0
C do not have to be totally consumed.
Find the optimum production to C 25,000 2.5
maximize the total profit per day in $/day

Reactant
requirement (lb) Processing Selling price
Process Product per lb product cost of product
1 E 2/3 A, 1/3 B 1.5 cent/lb E 4.0 cent/lb E
2 F 2/3 A, 1/3 B 0.5 cent/lb F 3.3 cent/lb F
3 G 1/2 A, 1/6 B, 1/3 C 1.0 cent/lb G 3.8 cent/lb G
 EXAMPLE 6 (CON’T)
Process 1: A + B  E
The reactions involving Process 2: A + B  F
A, B and C Process 3: 3A + 2B + C  G
are as follows:
A
1 E

2 F
B

3 G
C
Figure 2
 Example 6(Cont)

Step 1: Define the decision variables

Step 2: Define the objective function
Step 3: Define the equality and inequality constraints
Step 4: Simplification
Step 5: Choose the best solution technique
Step 6: Perform sensitivity analysis
 Solution Example 6

Step 1 : Define the decision variable, XA, XB, Xc, XE, XF, XG
Step 2 : Define the objective function
Profit = Income – raw material cost – Processing cost
• Income = 0.04 xE + 0.033 xF + 0.038 xG
• Operating costs in $ per day include:
– (a) Raw material costs : 0.015xA + 0.02xB + 0.025xC
– (b) Processing costs: 0.015xE + 0.005xF + 0.01xG
Therefore
Max f(x) = (0.04xE + 0.033xF + 0.038xG) – (0.015xA + 0.02xB + 0.025xC + 0.015xE
+ 0.005xF + 0.01xG)

Step 3: Define equality & inequality constraint

Equality constraint, from material balances,
xA = 0.667 xE + 0.667 xF + 0.5 xG
xB = 0.333 xE + 0.333 xF + 0.167 xG
xC = 0.333 xG
xA + xB + xC = xE + xF + xG
 Solution Example 6 (cont)

Inequality constraint (con’t step 3)

• Three are also bounds on the amount of A, B, and C processed:
xA ≤ 40,000
xB ≤ 30,000
xC ≤ 25,000

Step 4: Simplification
Not applicable

Step 5: Choose the best suitable optmization technique

The optimisation problem is comprised of a linear function and linear constrained, hence
linear programming would be the best technique. However, this problem cannot be solve
using graphical technique because it consists of more than 2 variables. Solve using
computation e.g. Excel/GAMS
Solving using Excel ‘Solver’
Setting Solver Iteration Number