Computers and Chemical Engineering, Vol. I, pp. 149-160. Pergamon Press, 1971.

Printed in Great Britain

EVOLUTIONARY SEARCH FOR AN OPTIMAL

LIMITING PROCESS FLOWSHEET”

V. MAHALECt and R. L. MOTARDS

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77004,U.S.A.

(Received 18 April 1977)

Abstract-The depth-first heuristic search for a process flowsheet proposed earlier by the authors is now extended
to generate good (optimal) limiting process flowsheets. A look-back strategy follows the initial look-ahead
procedure to eliminate the fragmentation of process tasks. Then an evolutionary search improves the process
structure by eliminating the earlier dependence on the order of consideration of individual product goals followed by
the implementation of by-product recycling to reduce raw material consumption. In recycling, preference is given
either to those by-product streams requiring the smallest changes to the current flowsheet or to those which maximize
the mass of recycled streams. Six look-back heuristics and three evolutionary rules are described.
Examples of evolutionary structure generation are chosen from the production of multicomponent hydrocarbon
mixtures and the production of monochlorodecane.

Scope-Defining precise procedures that can generate feasible chemical processing plant structures to achieve
optimal production goals is a lively area for basic research. Some of the procedures, especially in the area of
process separation trains and energy management networks, i.e. heat exchangers, etc., are probably close to in-
dustrial exploitation. Indeed, the latter are useful subprocedures to a general process synthesis package as we have
shown in this paper in the case of the Thompson & King[ll] separation scheme generating package. General
process synthesis programs are much further removed from immediate commercial potential. Part of the difficulty
is the heterogeneity and amount of the data with which general process structuring is concerned. Another
constraint is the fact that very few really new chemical enterprises are designed in any individual industrial group
in any given year. The experience and engineering expertise of people relative to any one of these few projects
rapidly outgrows the present capabilities of general synthesis programs.
The most significant prior work on general process synthesis is the AIDES procedure[ 101.We have already
contrasted the latter with our BALTAZAR procedure[6]. The AIDES procedure requires the user to determine a
species allocation scheme before the program is initiated. This requirement imposes tight constraints on any
subsequent possibilities of structure generation by the program in that a conceptual structure must already be
predicated. The tightening of structural constraints is compounded further after linear programming is applied to
each species allocation scheme in the system which imposes additional constraints on the fine structure of the
process. In BALTAZAR the search procedure allocates resources and matches goals stream by stream. No
preliminary species allocation is required, hence no implied structural constraints are given by a problem
specification. Intermediate results allow discarding a number of flowsheets without detailed design whereas AIDES
can only dispose of the same flowsheets after detailed design.
Nevertheless, in the work accomplished so far, a logical framework and a set of successful search procedures
have been developed which devise good material balanced and energy balanced process structures with the help of
a computer. The economic objective function, i.e. minimize cost or maximize profit, is considered only indirectly.
That is, heuristics or rules are employed which emphasize the best economic performance. The latter can only be
really judged when detailed design of alternatives is complete but the notion that mass flow in the plant must be
minimal, that raw material consumption is to be reduced and energy is to be conserved can not be disputed as
worthy intermediate objectives. The manner of their application in this work has been tested against ultimate
economic objectives and found to lead to optimal solutions.
What remains to be done beyond the further enrichment of the process structural selection rules are interfaces.
Three major interfaces are recognizable: (1) the human interface which allows an engineer to manipulate strategy,
to understand the results and to innovate new technology; (2) the data interface which provides extensive access to
reaction chemistry, to physical properties, to design standards and to safety and reliability criteria and (3)
interfaces to a number of homogeneous synthesis procedures such as separation trains, energy networks, reaction
paths, catalyst design and control systems.

Conclusionsand Significance-A procedure for the design of chemical processing systems can be decomposed into
three major steps:
(1) Determination of the overall material balance constraints and an initial feasible flowsheet.
(2) Generation of a limiting optimal process flowsheet containing alI of the processing tasks.
(3) Detailed design of the individual processing tasks to reduce them to hardware elements.
In the first step, sources of species are identified either as raw materials or reaction chemistries. Then a
one-step, look-ahead heuristic strategy[6] leads very quickly to a feasible flowsheet.

*Presented at: 82nd National Meeting, Session 23a, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Atlantic City, New
Jersey, 29 August-l September 1976. _
tPresent address: College of Technology, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Yugoslavia.
*Person to whom correspondence should be addressed.

149
CACE
Vol. 1. No. 2-D
150 V. MAHALEC
and R. L. MOTARD

In the second step, which is the major contribution of this paper, undesirable features of the initially feasible
flowsheet can be successfully eliminated by an analysis of already generated portions of a process structure using a
look-back strategy. This look-back strategy is supported by an evaluation function or criterion which leads to the
optimal integration of separation tasks (C&S).Finally, the structure is further refined by evolutionary search for
optimality implemented by redefining the substructure producing each particular (intermediate) product. A second
evaluation function (GL) is considered in the evolutionary procedure to identify opportunities for the recycling of
by-products and resealing. The substructure redefined during an evolutionary search is that subset of the process
tasks between the product and the raw materials. If such a substructure is also used to satisfy some other
requirements, they too are to be met by the new substructure. The evolutionary procedure combined with the
depth-first search strategy leads very quickly to a good limiting process flowsheet.
The thud step follows standard chemicalengineeringpractice, however the generation of a limiting process
flowsheet as a prelude to hardware design focusses the attention of the designer on any opportunities for
innovations which are outside of existingtechnology.

INTRODUCTION level of abstraction, one may think only of the species

Devising structures for chemical processing systems has
for a long time been treated more as an art rather than as
the execution of a precisely defined procedure. Ex-
perience has always played a significant part in all stages
of a plant design. While it is easy to define a set of
criteria and guidelines accumulated during a number of
different design exercises, it is difficult to grasp the exact
content of the heuristic procedures which comprise the
design experience.
The most important short-term benefit of the computer
implementation of chemical process synthesis proce-
dures is a detailed analysis of precisely defined design
methods. The accumulation of well-defined and properly
analyzed design methods will lead to the moment when
the knowledge of an experienced designer will be
matched by a set of equivalent design procedures. This
does not mean that a human being will play a less
important role in the design. On the contrary, the very
existence of a number of well-defined procedures will
allow a higher level of structural considerations and will
lead to better designs.
THE PROCESSSYNTHRSIS
PROBLEM
In a previous paper[6], we have considered the pro-
blem of initial design as one of selecting each possible
product, one at a time and developing the processing
tasks backwards from the goal (product). Raw materials
and their quantity, chemical reactions and physical
operations (tasks) are selected as necessary to achieve
mass and energy balance. The approach was first des-
cribed in axiomatic form and shown to be convergent.
Then, a heuristic depth-first, multistep procedure was
developed which tended to minimize mass load on se-
paration tasks rather than minimize cost. Despite certain
problems, the procedure to this point is an essential first
step in design since objectives such as cost can only be
resolved by a detailed economic analysis of completed
structures.
In the following material we develop evaluation func-
tions which, as additional heuristics in initial design,
guide the generation of structure along near optimal
economic paths. We include a set of evolutionary rules in
a second stage procedure which transform feasible
designs by regeneration of partial structures into im-
proved designs. The results of the second stage pro-
cedure eliminate undesirable features of the first-stage
procedure such as the dependence on the order of con-
sideration of goals and the fragmentation of tasks and
enhance desirable objectives such as the exploitation of
recycle opportunities.
Considering process synthesis in more detail, let us
look at a description of various mixtures. At the highest
being present in a given mixture, disregarding all other
properties. Introduction of concentrations and total
quantity provides more information. For a complete
definition of a mixture, one should specify pressure,
enthalpy, color, particle distribution if it is a solid, etc.
Hence, one could try to solve the process synthesis
problem employing different levels of mixture descrip-
tions.
Regardless of a particular problem decomposition,
there are several stages of design usually employed by
different synthesis methods. Initially, neither the set of
reactions and raw materials to be used nor the specific
products to be manufactured have been selected. Hence,
the first step in a solution procedure is to find the overall
material balance constraints for the future process. Once
the material balance constraints are fixed, a process
structure is developed without designing in detail any
specific operation. Such a flowsheet consists of abstract
tasks, e.g mixing, separation, change of pressure, reac-
tion, etc. This type of flowsheet will be called a limiting
process flowsheet. Material and energy balance con-
straints on a structure are specified and they are to be
met by the proper detailed design of individual opera-
tions. An example of a limiting process flowsheet is given
in Fig. 6(c). The flowsheet represents a system for
production of monochlorodecane. Note that there is a
separation task with four specified outlet streams. There
is no processing hardware unit within the existing tech-
nology which can perform such a task. It is assumed that
for each specified task there is a design procedure to find
the optimal design, according to given constraints. Ior
example, there is a procedure to design an optima1 se-
paration train for a specified task.
The last stage in a design of a chemical processing
system is a detailed design of the tasks specified in a
limiting process flowsheet, reducing them to hardware
operations achievable in the existing technology. It is
desirable to have several limiting process flowsheets as
candidates in the last stage.
A different type of limiting flowsheet arises if one
provides a family of processing units existing within
current technology and requires that such a family
satisfies the constraints imposed upon particular tasks.
Redundant members of such a family are eliminated by
an optimization procedure. Such a flowsheet will be
called a limiting plant flowsheet, to emphasize that all
items in a flowsheet are actual hardware units. This type
of a flowsheet is employed in the so called structural
parameter method[3,12].
The various synthesis procedures generate different
types of limiting flowsheets by different methods and
consequently proceed in different ways towards the
detailed design of a process plant.
 Evolutionary search for an optimal limiting process flowsheet
EVALUATIONFUNCTIONOF A LIMITING
PROCESS FLOWSRRET
A chemical processing system is very often evaluated
according to the cost of production per unit mass of the
product. This criterion can be used only if a rather
detailed design of the system is known. Rapid evaluation
of different limiting process structures and a selection of
some of them to be designed in detail, requires a
criterion based on variables which are known to be
significant without a detailed design.
At the highest level of abstraction, a flowsheet con-
sisting of tasks only (i.e. neither material nor energy
balances are available) can be evaluated by the number
of separations it includes. In a flowsheet with a known
material balance, the most expensive operations in a
chemical processing system are separations and chemical
reactions. The mass load on separations and their num-
ber can be combined to estimate the quality of the
design. A total mass load on separation tasks by itself is
not a sufficient criterion. It is possible to have two
flowsheets with the same total mass load on separation
tasks but one of them may include a much larger number
of separation units than the other. The investment for the
first flowsheet is significantly higher than for the second
one.
Since the initial specifications are based only on
material balance considerations, the internal structure of
the separation sequences should not be specified at this
level of problem decomposition. The separation
sequence structures are to be defined through a pro-
cedure considering the material balance and the physical
properties. Therefore, a good performance criterion
favors the process flowsheets which do not determine
the internal structure of separation sequences, but in-
stead of that develop only good material balance con-
straints on entire separation trains.
Let SEP be a set of separation subsequences in a
process such that there are no interlinks between any
two elements of SEP.
As a measure of the investment and operating cost of a
process, the following criterion can be used:
Criterion GLOBAL-SEPARATION, GS
Total number of Number of separation
GS=
separation subsequences tasks in subsequence j
If each separation has only two outlet streams, the GLOBAL-SEPARATION, GS criterion reduces to:
12 [
Total number of Number of separation
separation subsequences j=SEP tasks in subsequence j
Comparison of different process flowsheets on a basis
of the GS criterion is shown in Fig. 1.
The GLOBAL-SEPARATIONS criterion can be
successfully used to compare serial structures processing
the same amount of raw materials and producing the
same products, i.e. having the same overall material
balance constraints. The comparison of a cyclic structure
containing a recycle with a serial structure by the GLO-
BAL-SEPARATION criterion favors the serial structure
if a recycle includes additional separations. To compare
any two structures, serial or cyclic, the following cri-
terion can be used:
151
Criterion GLOBAL, GL
1
Total mass of
GSt
processed material
GL=
Total mass of + Total mass of
useful products I [ recycled streams 3
1
Total mass load
[ of reactors
t
[ 1
Total mass of ’
useful products
The total mass term reflects the expenditure on the raw
materials. The mass of recycled streams term is in-
troduced since recycled streams are useful intermediate
products requiring additional processing operations with
respect to a serial structure. The term including total
mass load of reactors is introduced in order to evaluate
the same processing system operating under different
conversion levels in reactors.
DERH-FIRST SEARCH FOR A LIMITING
PROCESS FLOWSHEET
A heuristic procedure for the quick generation of
limiting process flowsheets has been developed by Ma-
halec & Motard[6]. The objective of the procedure is to
minimize the number of separation sequences and their
mass load. The procedure is based on a successive
comparison of available raw materials and reaction
products as species sources with the required products
and reactor inlets as species sinks. All species in the
source are simultaneously compared with all species in
the goal. A species source most similar to a particular
sink is used to satisfy the requirements.
Let s be a stream selected to achieve G. The total
available quantity of s is qso. The quantity qs of the
stream, s, to be processed is calculated via a tie com-
ponent, a species present in both s and G. Based on the
consideration of concentration in the stream, s and the
product, goal G, there are three possible choices for a tie
1Ix[ I[ 1’
Number of outlet Mass load of the ith
iej streams in i minus one separation task
I[ 1’
Total mass load
of units in j
component:
(1) Key SR, selecting that species having the smallest
ratio of concentration in G to concentration in s;
(2) Key LR, selecting that species having the largest
such ratio;
(3) None of the above.
The procedure compares all available species sources
with a particular goal, G. The sources are ordered with
respect to their compositional similarity to G. One or
more among the most similar sources are used to satisfy
G, depending on the available and required quantities.
The procedure outlined above is a heuristic depth-first
152 V. MAHALECand R. L. MOTARD

search. At each step, the partial solution already

generated is modified to eliminate redundant portions of
the structure. The assumption is that a direction of
search determined by the evaluation function is good.
Restructuring of the current partial solution returns the
search to the good path. Such a procedure is analogous
to a several step look-ahead strategy to account for the
a) dependence among the steps along a solution path.
The following rules are used to modify already
generated partial solutions:
(1) An output from a divider can not be an input to
another divider; instead, the stream is divided into two
streams, both being outlets from the current divider.
(2) An outlet from a mixer can not be an input to
another mixer; all inlets to both mixers become the inlets
to the mixer furthest downstream.
GS=l20 (3) A redundant separation or division operation is one
whose outlet streams are all inlets to the same mixing or
reaction task. Delete such an operation. Its inlets become
b) inlets to the downstream mixing or reaction task.

3IO a) LUMPING OF DIVIDERS, RULE

b) LUMPING OF MIXERS,
t
RULE 2
I

5
20

+ 5

GS=60

d) C) REMOVAL OF REDUNDANT DIVIDER OR

SEPARATION, RULE 3
Fig. 1. Comparison of separation schemes.

search for a flowsheet, DFSFF. It is a very fast pro-

cedure. The solutions generated by the procedure are
feasible and are found very quickly. Unfortunately, the
solutions very often contain redundancies (a divider fol-
d)LUMPING OF CONSECUTIVE SEPARATIONS, RULE 4
lows a divider, a mixer follows a mixer, etc.). Moreover,
the results depend on the ordering of the originally
assigned goals.
An analysis of the undesirable properties of the
DFSFF solutions reveals that the single-step look-ahead
strategy used in DFSFF is a cause of some of the
problems. The DFSFF procedure considers only the next
step along a solution path. A possible dependence
between the current next step and some of the following e)LUMPlNG OF PARALLEL STREAMS, RULE 5
steps is not analyzed. Such an analysis would require a
generation of partial or complete structures to look
ahead several steps. Moreover, different successors of
the current structure would have to be examined. This
would slow down the advance towards a solution quite
significantly. Hence, instead of using a several step ‘look-
ahead’ strategy, it is proposed to employ a ‘look-back’
strategy which is more efficient. f)LUMPING OF PARALLEL SEPARATIONS,RULE6
The solution always proceeds along a path determined
by the heuristics for a single-step look-ahead depth-first Fig. 2. Prevention of redundancy.
 Evolutionary search for an optimal limiting process flowsheet 153

(4) An outlet from a separation operation can not be GOALS : 3.1.2

an inlet to another separation. Instead, a new task re-
places the two separations. Outlet streams of the new
operation satisfy the requirements on the outlet streams
of the removed operations.
(5) Two or more outlet streams from the same se-
1 PRODUCT I 1
paration or stream division operation can not have the
same destination. Instead, a new stream, a mixture of the

3”
considered streams, is introduced. S 4.33 13.0
(6) Two separations can not be parallelled. BC
These rules are illustrated by Fig. 2.
To demonstrate the characteristics of the DFSFF al-
AB 067
gorithm, the following example will be used.

Example 1: problem 2R3P M

There are two raw materials and three required AB~II.0 ABC 1
products. The compositions and quantities are given in
PRODUCT 3 PRODUCT 2
Table 1[9, pp. 159-1651. Problem 2R3P is tightly ma-
terially balanced, i.e. only as much of each species is GS = 20.6
b) GL 1.82
available as is required, and there is no possibility of q

recycling. This will be considered in a later example. Any

GOALS:3,2,1 or 1.2.3
solution procedure can produce only flowsheets differing
in the specification and arrangement of processing units,
rather than differing in the choice of raw materials and
their quantity.

PRODUCT 2 12.33 1 8.67

Table 1. Data for the 2R3P problem

Quantity
Species (lb moles/h)

Case I C3 Cd CS AC 2.0
Case II Cd C, CS r
Case III C4 CS C3 PRdDUCT I
Raw material 1 0.168 0.833 1200.0
Raw material 2 0.385 0.385 0.321 1300.0
Product 1 0.5 0.5 200.0
GS=20.6
Product 2 0.417 0.417 0.167 1200.0 GL=l.82
Product 3 0.091 0.909 - 1100.0 PRODUCT 3

GOALS: 2.3,l or 2.1.3 GOALS: 1,3,2

PRODUCT 3
PRODUCT 2
6.0

-r
1.2 8.67
A 1.33 AB
II
JlII

GS = 26.9
d) PRODUCT 2 GL = 2.01

Fig. 3. Look-back solutions of 2R3P.

154 V. MAHALECand R. L. MOTAW

The problem has been solved with all possible order-
ings of products considered, by employing the Key SR
look-back strategy as shown in Fig. 3. Even though some
identical solutions may be obtained with different goal
ordering, the dependence of the solution on the goal
ordering still exists.
In order to demonstrate the validity of the limiting
process flowsheet concept and the evaluation functions
GS and G, let us associate real substances with the
species in the 2R3P problem. In particular, species A, B
and C are chosen among normal paraffins C3, C4 and Cs.
All six possible permutations of the species are ex-
amined. It is assumed that in all cases raw materials are
at 250 psia pressure and 122°F temperature. Data is given
in Table 2 and represent a resealing of 2R3P.
Several different solutions to 2R3P were presented
earlier. The best solutions are shown in Fig. 3(b) and (c).
They represent material balance constraints on a real
process structure. In order to examine these solutions, an
existing procedure [ll] has been used to design the se-
paration sequences. The basic cost of a distillation tower
is taken from a graph in Peters & Timmerhaus [7, p. 6591.
Utility costs are: water $0.02/1000gal, electricity
$O.Ol/kWh, 500 psia steam %0.60/1000lb, 100psia steam
$0.5O/lOOOlband exhaust steam $0.25/lOOOIb.The cost
of the solution obtained by separating all mixtures into
pure substances and then mixing them in required ratios
is given for comparison. The four design solutions, Fig.
EVOLUTIONARYSEARCH FOR AN OPTIMAL
LIMITING PROCESS F‘LOWSHRRT
Importance of mixing constraints
Let us consider a process flowsheet generated by some
solution procedure, for instance DFSFF. Is it possible to
improve the flowsheet, in particular the separation
operations?
An analysis of any process flowsheet reveals that the
separation operations are determined by the mixing of
intermediates into final products. In other words, once a
decision what to mix has been made, rather tight material
balance constraints have been imposed on the possible
process structure. Therefore, in order to find an optimal
structure, mixing tasks in a process have to be re-
examined. A single stream product can be considered as
a special case of mixing (mixed with itself). The evolu-
tionary search for an optimal solution is based on the
redefinition of mixing tasks and their corresponding
substructures.
If the initial solution is obtained by any procedure
which considers assigned products in a sequential man-
ner, then the solution to the first goal is obtained when
no process structure is yet available. On the other hand,
the final product is attempted when solutions to all other
goals are known. Previously generated portions of the
structure can be used to achieve part of or the complete
final product. It can be expected that the largest im-
provements of the existing flowsheet will be obtained by

Table 2. Annual cost of solutionsto 2R3P(units: $lOOO/yr; I: investment; 0: operating)

Criterion GL Species A B C
Structure Mass load C3C4Cs C4CICS C&x, C&G CFX‘l C3CsC4

364 2.01 I: 29 49 53 75 45 33
833.0 0: 47 38 28 45 40 29
3(blt 1.82 I: 39* 48 36 43* 46 38
1033.0 0: 36 52 21 26 33 23
wt 1.82 I: 50 38* 36* 61 42* 29*
1033.0 0: 34 31 18 34 23 24
3(d) 2.01 I: 48 41 56 71 47 30
913.0 0: 31 30 15 40 36 25
Complete 4.00 I: 73 73 62 138 95 78
separation 2500.0 0: 63 63 50 110 100 68

*Optimal by detailed design.

Wptimal by evolutionary search.

3(a)-(d), for each selection of A, B and C in terms of regeneration of the first generated, the oldest part of the
annual costs are contained in Table 3. structure.
Detailed design of limiting process flowsheets confirms Let PR = J&r,, pr2, . . .,prk} be a set of mixtures in a
that the flowsheets (b) and (c), optimal according to the process flowsheet which impose the material balance
GS and GL criteria, are indeed optimal solutions. constraints on the process. An element of PR can be
either a single product stream, or an outlet from a mixer
Table 3. Production of monochlorodecane,MCDC (40% con- or a reacting mixture. The following rule is defined.
version of DC)
Evolutionary Rule 1. Replace a substructure produc-
Item T, “F P, psia Composition Quantity ing pri by another substructure satisfying the same
requirements.
nn Cl* 75.0 44.1 1.0 Cl 400.0 The following strategy is employed to implement
n?lDC 75.0 14.7 1.0 DC 600.0 Evolutionary Rule 1.
pr MCDC 75.0 14.7 1.0 MCDC 71.5 (1) Let pri be the oldest stream in PR not yet con-
Reacting
mkture 212.0 350.0 0.4 Cl, 0.6 DC 1.0 sidered as an evolutionary goal. Remove pri from the
process flowsheet and convert it into a goal.
Reaction 0.36 DC, 0.282 HCl
(2) Destroy the structure upstream from pr,. Destruc-
product 212.0 210.0 0.118C1,0.198MCDC, 1.0
tion is carried out until raw materials are encountered.
0.042 DCDC
(3) Outlet streams of a destroyed upstream path used
 Evolutionary search for an optimal limiting process flowsheet 155

to satisfy some requirements other than pri are con- 54 A 56 C GS =50.0

verted into subgoals. GL= 3.00

T
(4) Arrange the generated subgoals in the first-
generated first-attempted sequence, i.e. the subgoal cor-
responding to pn is attempted first.
s 2
(5) Find a solution.
(6) Designate pn as the considered mixture, stream. s5
Repeat (l)-(6) until all elements of pr have been con- PRODUCT 3, AE PRODUCT 2, ABC
sidered. a) INITIAL SOLUTION
(7) If the same sequence of solutions has been
successively generated during execution, exit; a local
optimum has been found. Otherwise proceed.
(8) Designate all streams in PR as unconsidered. Go to
% GI
(I).
PRODUCT I
It may seem unnecessary to destroy a process struc-
ture up to the raw materials. In particular, if a unit in the PRODUCT 3
upstream path is used to satisfy some other substructure, PRODUCT 2. ABC
it may seem that the destruction should stop at that unit.
b) STRUCTURE IN a) DESTROYED FROM s3 UP
However, the remaining process structure is so rigid that
in most cases the same solution will be found. The sl5 A s6 C
second step ensures that enough freedom will be created
by the structure-destroying procedure. The third step
ensures that the new solution will satisfy the same
requirements as the old solution. The solution procedure
applied in Step 5 is the Key SR look-back DFSFF. s13
Steps l-6 are repeated in the evolutionary search in s5
Y
order to find a solution containing all dependencies PRODUCT 2 , ABC
between productions of different mixtures. For instance,
the DFSFF initial solution is such that the last attempted T sl6
PRODUCT3, AE
GS=3B.O
GLc2.52
goal is achieved when all other solutions are already
c) SOLUTION $5 b)
known. On the other hand, the first attempted goal is 62
achieved when none of the solutions to other goals is yet
known. This also motivates the first-generated first-at-
tempted ordering of regenerated subgoals.
PRODUCT I rm2

Example 2: Evolutionary solution of 2R3P GI

Having defined the evolutionary strategy, let us con-
sider again the 2R3P problem. The evolutionary search PRODUCT 2
for an optimal solution of 2R3P is shown in Fig. 4. The PROD&T 3

initial solution is the Key LR (3, 2, 1) goal ordering d)STRUCTURE IN c)DESTROYED FROM s5 UP
solution. After two evolutionary steps the optimal solu-
tion is found, Fig. 4(e). This particular solution has also
been found by the Key SR (3, 1,2) goal ordering DFSFF
procedure, Fig. 3-b.
It is to be emphasized that the ordering of goals (3, 2,
1, 3, 2) employed in the evolutionary steps is different
from the ordering (3, 1, 2) which leads to the same
solution by the DFSFF. The next evolutionary step
GS=20.6
generates the optimal solution shown in Fig. 4(g) which is
GL=l.B2
the same as Fig. 3(c). This solution is found in the
succeeding evolutionary steps. Hence, the search PRDDlkT 3 PRODUCT 2
procedure terminates. e)SOLUTION OF d)

Recirculation 51 s12
The procedures described so far have dealt explicitly PRODUCT I
with a generation of serial substructures. In particular
s20
the best combination of the species sources and a 63
process structure has been sought. An analysis of the M
evolutionary search procedure described in the previous
sl6
section, shows that a cyclic structure may be generated -_
during evolutionary synthesis. Let us consider a process
consisting of a reactor and a separation sequence, Fig. f)STRUCTURE IN e)DESTROYED FROM s7 UP
156 V. MAHALEC
and R. L. MOTARD

AC PRODUCT
_ A PRODUCT I --J_

R S

---f
01 ACYCLIC STRUCTURE

PRODUCT

PRODUCT 3 PRODUCT 2 R S

g)SOLUTION OF f)
-+I
b) INTERMEDIATE INCOMPLETE STRUCTURE
G2
PRODUCT

PRODUCT I
M R S

PRODUCT 2 c) CYCLIC STRUCTURE

h)STRUCTURE IN e) DESTROYED FROM s7 UP WITH

Fig. 5. Evolution to a cyclic structure.
DIFFERENT ORDERING OF GOALS The following heuristic rules are employed to im-
plement Evolutionary Rule 2:
(1) Recycle the by-product stream requiring the smal-
lest changes of the existing flowsheet.
(2) Recycle the by-product stream producing the lar-
gest quantity of the recycled stream.
Composition similarity between a by-product stream
and a potential destination is used as a measure of
3.67 structural changes which would result from the recir-
culation to that particular intermediate stream. To apply
the second rule, the available by-product streams in a
particular flowsheet are all examined as recycle sources.
After that, the best new flowsheet with the new set of
by-product streams and DST = {dst,, dst,, . . ., dst,} to be
~68 A s72 C
L 1.0 1.0
until the same flowsheet is successively generated.
The following recirculation strategy is defined:
s& (1) Set BPR = {bpr,, bprz, . . ., bpr.} to be the set of
6.0 ’ by-product streams and DST-{dst,, dstz,. . ., dst,} to be
AB the set of all other streams in the process, i.e. potential
2.0 destinations.
(2) Compare each by-product stream with each poten-
tial destination. Let d(i, j) be the similarity of the by-
~28 product stream bpri to its closest potential destination, si.
2.0 Order the elements of BPR by decreasing similarity, i.e.
GS = 29.3
GL = 2.17 the first element in the sequence is a stream more similar
to a particular potential destination than any other by-
j) KIGHBOR OF STRUCTURE il
product stream is to any potential destination. d(i, j) =
X ICt,i - &I; sum over species in i.
Fig. 4. Evolutionary search for an optimal solution of 2R3P. (3) Let bprk be the first not yet considered element of
the sequence of the ordered by-product streams. If all
5(a). An evolutionary search starting from the reactor streams are considered, go to (10). Designate bprk as a
inlet mixture may lead to a structure with a recycle, considered stream.
shown in Fig. 5(c). (4) Compare bprk with its most similar destination s,.
Since an economical use of raw materials through Establish a recycle goal consisting of species present in
recirculation is very important, the following two ad- both bprk and s,. If bpn cannot satisfy all species
ditional evolutionary rules are defined: requirements in s,, a complementary goal accounting for
Evolutionary Rule 2. Use a by-product stream to these additional requirements is computed. Otherwise go
satisfy intermediate product requirements, i.e. recycle to (7).
by-product streams. (5) If the recycled stream has the same composition as
Euolutionary Rufe 3 (inverse of 2). Let a stream s be sr, decrease the production of s, as needed and go to (8).
produced by the mixing of a recycle stream with another Otherwise, destroy a process structure upstream from sI.
stream. Replace the structure producing s by another If any of the removed streams is in BPR, remove it from
substructure. the sequence of ordered by-product streams.
 Evolutionary search for an optimal limiting process flowsheet 157

(6) Introduce a new mixing task. The subgoals as-

sociated with the task are the recycle and the comple-
mentary subgoals. The design specification of the mixing
task is the stream s,.
(7) Find a solution.
(8) Evaluate the solution. If the new structure is better
a) INITIAL SOLUTION
than the previous structure, go to (3). Otherwise proceed.
GL=l2.5
(9) Return to the previous structure and go to (3).
(10) Repeat (l)-(9) until the same solution is suc- mK
cessively found to be the best solution, i.e. no more
structural changes are introduced in a process flowsheet.
If the composition of the recycled stream is different
from the recycle destination stream, the recycled stream b)lNTERMEDIATE SOLUTION
is to be mixed with another, yet unknown stream in order GL=l I.5
to produce the destination stream. The destination
stream was originally produced by the structure which,
by assumption, is the optimal structure for production of
such a stream. Since the newly required stream is of
different composition, the old structure may not be op-
timal for its production. This motivates structure des-
c)LAST GENERATED RECYCLE SOLUTION
truction applied in Step 5.
The evolutionary search for an optima1 structure con- Fig. 6. Evolution to the optimal flowsheet for production of MCD.
taining recycle loops is demonstrated by the following
example.

Example 3: Evolutionary design of monochlorodecane

production
Let us consider the production of monochlorodecane
by a photochlorination of decane. The following reac-
tions occur in the system:

Clz + C,oHzz- C,oHz,Cl t HCl

a) FLOWSHEET WITHOUT RECIRCULATION
Cl1+ C,oHzCl- CroHzoClzt HCl. DC

Dichlorodecane is further cholorinated to compounds

with a higher number of Cl atoms, but for the purposes
of a preliminary design study, these can be neglected.
The process has been described in detail by Hughes[2].
Only the necessary equations will be given in the Ap-
pendix.
As a base case, the production of 1.0 x 10”lb of MCDC
per year is considered. The prices of the raw materials
and the expected selling prices of the products are as
follows: b) FLOWSHEET WITH RECIRCULATION OF DECANE

chlorine 1.77$/lb mole

decane 4.80
monochlorodecane 13.0
dichlorodecane 0.0
hydrogen chloride 1.O

These prices are the same as the prices used by

Powers[8]. This allows a comparison of the generated
structures.
Cost calculations are based upon correlations presen-
ted by Guthriell] and by Peters & Timmerhaus[7], the
latter being used in Thompson’s separation train pro-
gram.
A solution procedure for a 0.4: 0.6 ratio of Clz to DC in
the feed and 0.4 conversion of DC will be elaborated in
detail. Table 3 contains data defining the problem. The
initial process flowsheet, obtained by the Key SR
DFSFF is shown in Fig. 6(a). The corresponding plant
c) -FLOWSHEET WITH RECIRCULATION OF DECANE
flowsheet is shown in Fig. 7(a). AND CHLORINE
l The process does not contain any recycle loops and
the only required product is monochlorodecane. Hence, Fig. 7. Flowsheets for the manufacture of MCDC.
158 V. MAHALECand R. L. MOTARD

the design specification on the separation train is: se- Distillation is chosen by the program as the operation
parate MCDC from the remaining components. The employed to separate chlorine from hydrogen chloride.
initial structure found by DFSFF has been further Since the purpose of this study is to develop an overall
improved by evolutionary search. The recycle of decane process structure, such a design has been accepted
is introduced as the first recycle loop, Fig. 6(b). The cor- without an attempt to design some other separation
responding flowsheet is shown in Fig. 7(b). Criterion GL process, e.g. absorption. The cost of processing units is
indicates that it is profitable to recycle decane. The next summarized in Table 5. Sample cost calculations for
evolutionary step results in the recirculation of chlorine, flowsheets (b) and (c) (CIZ:DC = 4.6 feed composition
Figs. 6(c) and 7(c). Again, criterion GL evaluates the new and 0.4 decane conversion) are given in Table 6.
structure as better than the two previous solutions.
The preliminary evaluation of the monochlorodecane
manufacturing processes is carried out by the com- Table 5. Capital cost for manufacturing MCDC
putation of the criterion G. Figure 8 shows G vs the
conversion of chlorine for two different feed ratios and Production: 1 x 10’lb MCDClyr
flowsheets 7(b) and (c). Criterion G indicates that the Operation: 330dayslyr
Conversion of DC: 0.3-0.7, 212°F 350psia
conversion of chlorine should not be below 0.3, since
then the amount of unreacted material becomes ex- Plowsheets (a) and (b) Installed costs, $
cessively large. For conversion 0.3 through 0.6, both Tanks, steel, cylindrical
chlorine and decane are to be recycled, flowsheet 7(c), 2-150,000gal
while at conversion above 0.6, only decane should be l-15,aoogai
recycled, Rowsheet 7(b). One has to accept these es- 1-8aoogal loo,wo
timates with caution and confirm them by detailed Pumps, steel, centrifugal
design. l-100 gal/min
l-40 gal/min
t-60 gal/min 20,000
Distillation

I
, RECIRCULATION OF DC
AND Cl DC distillation 80,ooO
il MCDC distillation ~,~
GL Flash drum 25,000
Reactor 450,ooo
Additional heat exchangers 23,OOG

TOTAL 1,t00,Oocl
Contingency, misc. @ 32%
I
Total fixed capital 1,450,OOo
, \;,RECIRCULATION OF DC
4 Plowsheet (c)
Chlorine distillation 300,000
Other equipment cost 1,100,Ooa

TOTAL 1,406~
Total tixed capital 1,850,OOo
Conversion of DC 0.1-0.2

Plowsheets (a) and (b)

I I Additional reactor cost vwm
l--.-I Other equipment cost 1,100,ooo
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 1.0
CONVERSION OF CHLORINE TOTAL 3,500,ooo
Total fixed capital 460,~
Fig. 8. Preliminary evaluation of the MCDC manufacturing
systems. Plowsheet (c)
Additional reactor cost
The detailed design of the separation sequence has Other equipment cost
been carried out by the program written by R. W.
TOTAL 3,800,OOO
Thompson[ll]. Table 4 contains design and cost es-
Total fixed capital 5@WJ@J
timates for decane and monochlorodecane separations.

Table 4. Design and cost of DC and MCDC separations

Operation DC distillation MCJX distillation

Conversion of DC 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.7

Pressure, psia 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7
Diameter, ft 9.3 4.1 2.6 4.1 4.2 4.8
Number of plates 18 16 14 58 58 57
Reboiler area, ft’ 6300 1600 800 2200 2400 3ooo
Condenser area, ft’ 430 85 30 70 70 90
Total investment, $ 238,000 81,000 44,000 331,ooo 350,ooo 395,000
Operating cost, $/yr 120,ooo 23,000 9000 23,000 25,ooo 31,ooa
 Evolutionary search for an optimal limiting process flowsheet 159

Table 6. Evaluation of MCDC designs q quantity of a stream

s stream
Flowsheet (b)
Product cost: $6,8OO,OOO/yr Capital letters
Feed Cl:DC=4:6 DC decane
Conversion of DC = 0.4 DCDC dichloro decane
Operating and manufacturing costs: Cost, $/yr DFSFF depth-first search for a flowsheet
G goal
Cooling water, 0.02 $/lOOO gal 8000 GL criterion Global
DC and MCDC distillations 48,000 GS criterion Global-Separations
Reactor preheater, steam 0.50 $I1000lb 15,COO K conversion
Operating labor, 60 man hrlday 80,000 MCDC monochloro decane
Administrative and laboratory 50.000 N molal flowrate
Fixed capital related factors PR set of products
Insuranck, 0.01X 1.45x 10” 14,000 s selectivity
Deureciation. 0.10x 1.45x lo6 145,000
Maintenance; 0.10x 1.45x 10” 145,000
Marketing and distribution REFERENCES
10% of product costs 680.000 1. K. M. Guthrie, Capital cost estimating. Chem. Engng 76, 114
Raw materials (1%9).
Cl 2,020,000 2. R. R. Hughes, Mathematical models for process design and
DC 3,290,OOO optimization, A.1.Ch.E. Today Series, Niw York (1974).
3. A. Ichikawa & L. T. Fan, Optimal synthesis of process
TOTAL 6,490,OOO systems. Chem. Engng Sci. 38, 357 (1973).
4. V. Mahalec, Synthesis of process flowsheets by a theorem
Flowsheet (c) moving method. M.S. thesis, University of Houston (1974).
Product cost: 5. t. Mahalec, Procedures for the initial design of chemical
DC 6,800,000 processing systems. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hous-
HCI 800,000 ton (July 1976).
6. V. Mahalec & R. L. Motard, Procedures for the initial design
TOTAL 7,600,OOO of chemical processing systems. Comput. Chem. Engng 1,57
(1977).
Cooling water, 0.20 $/gal 21,000 7. M. S. Peters & K. D. Timmerhaus, Plant Design and
DC and MCDC distillations 48,000 Economics for Chemical Engineers. McGraw-Hill, New York
HCl distillation 25,000 (1968).
Reactor preheater, steam 0.50 $I1000lb 15,000 8. G. L. Powers, Recognizing patterns in the synthesis of
Operating labor, 60 man hr/day 80,000 chemical processing systems. Ph.D. dissertation,. University
Administrative and laboratory 50,000 of Wisconsin, Madison (1971).
Fixed capital related factors 9. D. F. Rudd, J. J. Siirola‘Brd. J. Powers, Process Synthesis.
Insurance, 0.01x 1.85x lo6 18,000 Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1973).
Depreciation, 0.10x 1.85x 10” 185,000 10. J. J. Siirola, G. J. Powers & D. F. Rudd, Synthesis of systems
Maintenance, 0.10x 1.85x 10” 185,000 designs: III. Toward a process concept generator. A.1.Ch.E.
Marketing and distribution Jf 17, 677 (1971).
10% of product costs 760,000 11. R. W. Thompson & C. J. King, Systematic synthesis of
Raw materials separation schemes. A.1.Ch.E. JI 18, 941 (1972).
Cl 1,500,OOO 12. T. Umeda, A. Hirai & A. Ichikawa, Synthesis of optimal
DC 3,290,OOO processing systems by an integrated approach. Chem. Engng
Sci. 27, 795 (1972).
TOTAL 6,180,OOO 13. C. Walling, Free Radicals in Solutions. John Wiley, New
York (1957).
A number of different flowsheets for the manufacture
of MCDC were studied by Powers[8]. Flowsheet 7(b)
corresponds to Powers’ flowsheet 1. Flowsheet 7(c) MPENDIX
should be the best flowsheet containing the HCl-Cl se- Kinetics of phorochlorination of n-decane
paration. Since the procedures developed in this work There are five isomers of n-C,,,H&I. The product consists of
can not predict the use of DC as an absorption agent for the mixture of all isomers. However, only the primary isomer,
Cl, flowsheet 7(c) corresponds to Powers’ flowsheets I-chlorodecane has significantly unique properties. The dich-
lorides are a by-product so they are all lumped together. The
employing substances outside of the process (water to
formation reaction for dichlorides must be considered separately
separate Cl from HCl). Hence, flowsheet 7(c) is for primary and secondary isomers. An analysis shows that the
equivalent to Powers’ flowsheet 6. selectivity with respect to the desired monochlorides in a batch
It is interesting to note that flowsheet 7(b) is recom- or a plug flow reactor is given by the following equations.
mended by Powers for high conversion of chlorine and
flowsheet 7(c) is recommended for lower conversions of Conoersion of DC
cNorine (below 0.6). Detailed design therefore confirms
the estimate obtained from the Global criterion. This can
be expected since the unit costs of raw materials do not
Amount in reaction product
differ significantly from one another.
Ni=Nf+hP,KS,, i=Cl,DC,p-MCDC,s-MCDC,DCDC.
NOMENCLATURE
Lower case letters Selectivity with respect to primary CIOH&~, p-MCDC
bpr by-product
pr product S, = Z,(K T) - (N;/&)Z;(& T).
160 V. MAHALEC
and R. L. MOTAR~

Selectioity with respect to secondary CIoHZICI,s-MCLX

S, = &(K, T) - (N,o/&)Z(K, T). m, (l-K)“s-(l-K)

“=(1-n,) K
Selectivity with respect to other species
Z; = (1 - (1 - K)“$)/K
SDcDc=l-S,-s,
m, = 16~/(6•t 167)
&Cl = 1+ SDCDC
mP= 6/(6+ 167)
SC1
= - SIC
n, = 21(1+ 2~)/(24t 64~)
SW=-1
np= (3 t 145)/(6+ 167)

and T is a ratio of the reactivity of a secondary C-H bond to a

mp (1-KP-(1-K) primary C-H bond in the saturated hydrocarbons toward
&=(1-n,) K chlorine atoms. Values of 7 are given by WaUing[l3].