Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering 23 (2015) 1350–1356

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/CJChE

Process Systems Engineering and Process Safety

Synthesis and optimization of utility system using parameter adaptive

differential evolution algorithm☆
Zeqiu Li, Wenli Du, Liang Zhao ⁎, Feng Qian ⁎
Key Laboratory of Advanced Control and Optimization for Chemical Process, Ministry of Education, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai 200237, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Synthesis and optimization of utility system usually involve grassroots design, retrofitting and operation optimi-
Received 3 September 2014 zation, which should be considered in modeling process. This paper presents a general method for synthesis and
Received in revised form 6 January 2015 optimization of a utility system. In this method, superstructure based mathematical model is established, in
Accepted 30 January 2015
which different modeling methods are chosen based on the application. A binary code based parameter adaptive
Available online 20 March 2015
differential evolution algorithm is used to obtain the optimal configuration and operation conditions of the sys-
Keywords:
tem. The evolution algorithm and models are interactively used in the calculation, which ensures the feasibility of
Utility system synthesis configuration and improves computational efficiency. The capability and effectiveness of the proposed approach
MINLP are demonstrated by three typical case studies.
Operation optimization © 2015 The Chemical Industry and Engineering Society of China, and Chemical Industry Press. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Utility system is an essential part of processing industries and sat-
isfies the utility energy demand of production process. The utility ener-
gy cost of a large processing industry is usually large. A lot of utility
energy cost can be saved by synthesis and optimization of the utility
system. Mathematical optimization models based synthesis and opera-
tion optimization of utility system have been studied extensively over
the last decades. Most of these models rely on specified performance
models of units, which are developed by researchers and are usually dif-
ferent under different considerations. This prevents their further appli-
cations in industry.
Mathematical optimization models were based on linear program-
ming (LP) formulation [1] at first. Papoulias and Grossmann [2] presented
a mixed integer linear programming (MILP) approach, which allows the
optimization procedure to select the optimal configuration of the system
by using linear units model and objective function. The LP/MILP method
ensures the global optimum of the solution. However, a lot of process
characteristics are not linear. Bruno et al. [3] proposed a rigorous mixed
integer nonlinear programming model (MINLP), in which nonlinear
equations are extensively used for cost of equipment and plant
performance. This method gives a more accurate and general method
for optimal synthesis and operation of utility plant. Although the authors
☆ Supported by the Major State Basic Research Development Program of China
(2012CB720500), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (U1162202,
61222303), the National Science Foundation of Shanghai (14ZR1410000),Shanghai R&D
Platform Construction Program (13DZ2295300), Shanghai Rising-Star Program
(13QH1401200) and Shanghai Leading Academic Discipline Project (B504).
⁎ Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: lzhao@ecust.edu.cn (L. Zhao), fqian@ecust.edu.cn (F. Qian).
have indicated that this method can be used to optimize existing systems,
there will be a large deviation due to a lot of simplification on unit models.
Some researchers have developed more practical models [4,5], which ex-
tract the information from the field data. These methods are more suitable
for optimizing existing systems.
Due to the advantage of global searching, differential evolutionary
(DE) algorithm has received great attention in solving MINLP problems.
Lin et al. [6] developed a co-evolution DE algorithm, which consists of an
integer variable evolution and a continuous variable evolution. DE algo-
rithm was extended to optimize mixed integer engineering problems
by handling the integer variables the same as continuous variables
[7–10], and some integer approximation mechanisms were performed
for the function evaluation step. Srinivas and Rangaiah [11] proposed
a DETL method, which integrates a tabu list into DE to improve its com-
putational efficiency. Recently, Datta and Figueira [12] developed a real
integer discrete coded DE, which can handle the integer and discrete
variables of a problem without any conversion. Its successful application
to mechanical design motivates the application in chemical synthesis
and optimization.
In present paper a general method for performing synthesis and op-
timization of a utility system is proposed. In this method, superstructure
based mathematical model is established, in which different modeling
methods are chosen based on the application. A binary code based pa-
rameter adaptive differential evolution algorithm is performed to obtain
the optimal configuration and operation conditions of the system. The
evolution algorithm and models are interactively applied in the calcula-
tion, which ensures feasible configuration and improves the computa-
tional efficiency. The capability and effectiveness of the proposed
approach are demonstrated by two design and one operation optimiza-
tion problems.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cjche.2015.01.013
1004-9541/© 2015 The Chemical Industry and Engineering Society of China, and Chemical Industry Press. All rights reserved.
 Z. Li et al. / Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering 23 (2015) 1350–1356
2. Utility System Modeling
Synthesis and optimization of utility system are to obtain the opti-
mal equipment configuration and their corresponding operating condi-
tions satisfying the demands of electricity, mechanical power and steam
at various pressure levels. The objective is usually to minimize the total
annual cost, energy lost or pollution parameter. The total annual cost is
more important since it can balance the capital and operation costs. The
problem is usually solved by optimizing the structural topology and pa-
rameter of a super-structural model.
The structural optimization is to determine the optimal equipment
location from a set of candidates, including the selection of optimal
size, type and level of corresponding unit. The operation optimization
is to determine the optimal operation conditions for a given system con-
figuration. In the view of mathematics, structural changes are usually
discrete decisions while operation changes are usually continuous in
applications. However, these two types of variables are often interrelat-
ed and interactive. For the synthesis and operation optimization of a
utility system, the super-structural design will introduce some integer
variables (binary variables) in the optimization model. Hence, the over-
all utility system synthesis and optimization are a mix-integer program-
ming problem with a sequence of constraints representing system
characters and feasible operating ranges.
2.1. Structural representation
The structural representation of utility system used in this paper is
similar to that in Bruno et al. [3] and Li et al. [5]. The main conventional
utility plant equipment includes boiler, steam header, gas turbine,
steam turbine, and letdown valve. The steam is the main carrier of
energy transmission and distribution and used in a cycle. In the previous
system [3], the electricity demands are supplied by an electric generator
driven by a gas turbine or a steam turbine. Different from this self-
sufficient system, an external electric line is added in present work
and the electricity demands can be satisfied by external or internal
electric line, which improves the system optimization. The structural
representation is shown in Fig. 1. In this system steam can be generated
Fig. 1. The super-structural diagram of utility system.
1351
in three different boilers: (1) heat recovery steam generator, recovering
the heat in gas turbine or furnace exhaust gases; (2) fuel boiler, gener-
ating different level pressure steam by burning fuel; (3) waste heat
boiler, recovering heat from process units such as chemical reactors.
Then, the steam is collected by steam header and distributed to steam
consumers, such as steam turbines, letdown valves and production
process. The external and internal power demands can be satisfied by
gas turbines and steam turbines. Gas turbines are usually used to consti-
tute a cogeneration system, which is an energy efficient system. Steam
turbines are usually used to supply mechanical power demands or
generate electricity for electric motor.
2.2. Application-oriented unit models
To establish a model presenting the superstructure diagram, basic
units should be modeled first. Application for synthesis and optimiza-
tion of a utility system usually includes grassroots design, existing sys-
tem retrofit or operation optimization. For grassroots design, the unit
model should be established based on theory or experimental charac-
teristics. For retrofit and optimization of existing system, a more actual
unit model consistent with operation characteristic is preferred. Hence,
each unit model is divided into two types. One is mechanism or exper-
imental model for candidate units, another is actual model for existing
unit in industrial field. Proper type is selected and used in synthesis
and optimization process according to the application. The unit models
are described as follows.
2.2.1. Steam turbines
In a large chemical plant, various steam turbines are inter-connected
with each other through steam supply pipe lines as a network. For gen-
erality, the model in this paper is for multi-extraction steam turbines,
and the simple backpressure and condensing steam turbines are consid-
ered as the specific conditions of multi-extraction steams when the
number of extraction is zero. The structure diagram of multi-
extraction steam turbine is shown in Fig. 2.
1352 Z. Li et al. / Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering 23 (2015) 1350–1356

2.2.2. Gas turbine

2.2.2.1. Model of candidate units. For gas turbine screening and system
grassroots design, it is assumed that the gas turbine works at full or de-
sign load operation. Thus the energy balance and mass balance equa-
tions can be used to describe the turbine model. The simplified
linearized equations from Shang [13] are adopted here:
8
>
> F þ F st þ F g f −F ex ¼ 0
> a
>
>
> W gt ¼ ngt F g f −W gt; int
>
> !
< Lgt þ 1 Agt
ngt ¼ LHV− : ð9Þ
>
> Bgt F g f; max
>
>
>
>
> L  
> W gt; int ¼ gt LHV  F g f; max −Agt
:
Fig. 2. The schematic diagram of multi-extraction steam turbine. Bgt

Fg f F st
2.2.1.1. Model of candidate units. With the law of conservation of energy By defining fuel-to-air ratio f ¼ Fa and steam-to-air ratio s ¼ Fa , the
and mass, the thermodynamic model of a steam turbine can be gas turbine model in Eq. (9) can be used to predict the power generation
developed, with specified fuel flow rate and gas turbine size. The parameter values
in Eq. (9) are listed in Table 1.
W s ¼ ηis ηm ΔH is ð1Þ
2.2.2.2. Model of actual units. For the optimization of existing sites, ambi-
X X is
X is ent temperatures should be considered in the model. Eq. (10) [14] is
ΔH is ¼ F i H i ðT i ; P i Þ− F e He ðSi ; P e Þ− F o Ho ðSi ; P o Þ ð2Þ used here to describe the relationship between rated powers and ambi-
i∈In e∈En o∈On
ent temperatures. The related coefficients for temperature correction
X n
X n
X n
are given in Table 1.
Fi − Fe − Fo ¼ 0 ð3Þ
i∈I n e∈En o∈On 0 0 0 2
Q f ¼ Agt þ Bgt T amb þ C gt T amb ð10Þ

where ηis and ηm denote isentropic efficiency and mechanical efficiency,

respectively. The product of efficiencies and ΔHis reflects the real enthal-
Table 1
py change of steam through the turbine. With specifying the efficiencies Parameter values in gas turbine models [13,14]
in Eq. (1), the power generated by steam turbine can be obtained by
Eqs. (1) to (3). The mechanical efficiency ηm is usually assumed to be Coefficient Value

a constant between 0.9 and 1. Although it changes case by case depend- Agt(26.1 MW ≤ Wgt,max ≤ 255.6 MW) 21.9917 MW
ing on the mechanical behavior of a steam turbine, its influence on the Bgt(26.1 MW ≤ Wgt,max ≤ 255.6 MW) 2.6683
Agt′ 80.8917 MW
performance of steam turbines is ignored for the candidate units. ηis is
Bgt′ 0.695 MW · °C−1
set to a design value for grassroots design. Eqs. (1) to (3) constitute a Cgt′ 0.0004033 MW · °C−2
complete candidate steam turbine model for grassroots design.

2.2.1.2. Model of actual units. In practice, there is no isentropic process Eqs. (9) and (10) constitute a complete model of gas turbine for the
and the isentropic efficiency changes with operating conditions. The design and optimization.
hybrid model of steam turbine proposed by Li et al. [5] is used for retrofit
and optimization of existing system. The mathematical formulations of
the hybrid model are described as 2.2.3. Boiler
The steam boiler model presented by Shang [15] is applied here:
W s ¼ ηm ΔH re ð4Þ
h i
X X X F b f qb f ¼ Δhstm ð1 þ bÞF bs þ aF bs; max ð11Þ
ΔH re ¼ F i Hi ðT i ; P i Þ− F e H e ðT e ; P e Þ− F o H o ðRo ; P o Þ ð5Þ
i∈In e∈En o∈On

X n
X n
X n where Δhstm denotes the heat load of steam from feed water tempera-
Fi − Fe − Fo ¼ 0 ð6Þ
i∈I n e∈En o∈On
ture to its superheated temperature, a and b are regression parameters,
which is related to the type of boiler. The boiler model in Eq. (11) relates
the fuel consumption with boiler size Fbs,max, steam load Fbs and its op-
Si ðT i ; P i Þ−Sl ðP o Þ
Ro ¼ ð7Þ erating conditions. The candidate boiler is assumed to be full load. Pa-
Sv ðP o Þ−Sl ðP o Þ
rameters a and b are set to 0.0126 and 0.2156, respectively. For
existing boiler, parameters a and b are obtained by regression using
½T e ; P o  ¼ f NN ðT i ; P i ; F i ; F e ; P e ; T o ; F o Þ: ð8Þ the process data.
For simplicity, deaerator and condenser are not considered in this
Eq. (8) is the neural network model established with industrial data. paper due to their less influence on the optimization of whole sys-
The detailed descriptions of the modeling process can be found in [5]. tem, and the model of other equipment (including steam header
Eqs. (4) to (8) constitute a complete actual unit model of steam turbines and letdown valve) in the system is assumed to be linear without en-
for retrofit and optimization of existing system. The hybrid model intro- ergy conversion. Hence, simple mass balance equations can describe
duces industrial information into the model. Hence, it can compensate the processes in these units, which will be described in the calcula-
the deviation of theoretical model. tion part.
 Z. Li et al. / Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering 23 (2015) 1350–1356 1353

2.3. Synthesis and optimization model 3. Method for Synthesis and Optimization

By defining a set of binary variables yn for describing equipment n, Differential evolution (DE) is one of the evolutionary algorithms, de-
with yn = 1 for existing equipment and yn = 0 for non-existing one, veloped by Storn and Price [16] for solving unconstrained, continuous
the synthesis and optimization model of the utility system can be for- optimization problems. DE becomes popular in recent years with its
mulated as a MINLP problem for representing the superstructure model. successful application in chemical process optimization. The classic DE
consists of three main steps: mutation, evaluation, and selection.
2.3.1. Objective function There exist various DE versions, depending on the selection method
There are several synthesis and optimization models for the utility for the three individuals used in mutation process and the combination
system according to the objective. In this paper, the total annual cost mode of mutated and initial solutions that take place in the crossover
is used as the objective, which includes the capital and operation cost step [17].
of the utility system. The objective function of Bruno et al. [3] is In this paper, the parameter adaptive evolution algorithm (JADE) of
modified as Zhang and Sanderson [18], in which detailed procedure of JADE can be
X found, is modified and used as the basic algorithm for synthesis and op-
ed
min Z ¼ C f F f þ C cw F cw þ C DW F DW þ C e E þ Z cap ð12Þ timization of utility system. The binary variables coded technique and
penalty constraints handling strategy are incorporated into the JADE.
where the operating costs include the price of utility consumption: This algorithm uses the “DE/rand-to-pbest/1” mutation strategy. In the
fuel, demineralized water, cooling water, and electricity. The capital mutation step, the scaling factor F of each individual is randomly gener-
cost depends on the equipment selection, procurement and mainte- ated according to a Cauchy distribution with location parameter of
nance. Some recommended data and function of capital cost can be adaptive update. In the crossover step, the crossover probability CR of
found in literature [3]. each individual is generated according to a normal distribution with
the mean of adaptive update and standard deviation of 0.1. The binary
2.3.2. Mechanical power demand constraints variables coded technique is used here to extend the DE for solving
The mechanical power generated by turbines must be equal to the mix-binary optimization problems. The penalty constrains handling
mechanical power demand in the process. strategy is applied to balance the convergence of objective function
X and explore feasible region.
md
Wt ¼ W md ; ∀md ð13Þ
t 3.1. Handling integer variables

One of the simplest and most effective methods in dealing with

2.3.3. Heat demand constraints MINLP problems is enumeration method, which converts the optimiza-
For each steam header, the steam flow entering the header is equal tion of MINLP problems to solving a series of NLP sub-problems. Once
to the steam leaving the header. For heat demand of each steam level, the algorithm gets the optimum solution of NLP sub-problems, the enu-
the total enthalpy supply of its corresponding steam is greater than or meration method can obtain the global optimum solution of original
equal to the heat demand of the process. problems. However, this method is impractical and less efficient, since
X in
X out the number of integer may be large. Another obvious and straightfor-
F sh ¼ F sh ; ∀sh ð14Þ ward method for DE algorithm in dealing with MINLP problems is to
sh sh
tread discrete variables as continuous variables, while only rounding
p p hd discrete variables at evaluating the fitness function step. However, this
F sh hsh ≥Q sh ; ∀sh ð15Þ
method is not so effective and it is difficult to find global optimum, be-
cause the algorithm cannot search adequately in a continuous space
since discrete variables evolve at the same time [19]. The discrete vari-
2.3.4. Electricity demand constraints
able in the optimization models here is binary variables, denoting the
The total electricity generated by gas turbines and imported from
selection of set or not. Hence, an independent binary variables mutation
external electric line must be equal to the electricity demand of the
method proposed by Datta and Figueira [12] is adopted. The offspring
process.
individuals are generated based on a user-defined mutation probability
X ed Pm. Then, the mutant y j against the binary variable yj is as follows.
Egt þ Eeg ¼ E ð16Þ
gt
vi ¼ yr1 þ F ðyr2 −yr3 Þ ð19Þ
8
2.3.5. Boundary constraints of operation variables >
> 1 if v ∈ð0; 1Þ and rand ð0; 1Þ≥P
< 0 if v j ∉½0; 1 and rand jð0; 1Þ≥P m
All the operation variables must be in their operating ranges. yj ¼ j j m
ð20Þ
>
> v j if v j ∈f0; 1g; and rand j ð0; 1Þ≥P m
:
min max j1−v j j otherwise:
U n yn ≤V n ≤U n yn ; ∀n ð17Þ

where i, r1, r2 and r3 (i ≠ r1 ≠ r2 ≠ r3) denote the index of target vector,

2.3.6. Logical constraints base vector, and two random vectors, respectively, F is the random con-
For the mechanical power demand, only one steam turbine can be stant in the range of (0, 1), and the value of Pm is set to 15%, as recom-
selected for each demand. mended by Datta and Figueira [12]. With this binary-coded method,
the JADE can be extended for solving the mixed binary variables pro-
X
yt
md
¼ 1; ∀md ð18Þ gramming problems, named bcJADE.
t
3.2. Handling constraints
The MINLP model for the synthesis and optimization problem con-
sists of minimizing the objective function (12) subject to constraints In utility system optimal synthesis and operation problems, there
(1) to (11) and (13) to (18). are logical constraints on the system configuration and equipment
1354 Z. Li et al. / Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering 23 (2015) 1350–1356

selections, and the equality or inequality constraints on the operations
optimization. The feasible structure is the precondition of operation op-
timization. As bcJADE is a general optimizer for mixed binary variables
programming problems but not customized for utility system synthesis,
the individuals in the generation step could result in violation of logical
constraints. Thus the examination of structure feasibility is imposed on
each individual generated in the generation step. For the structure in-
feasible individuals, regeneration is carried out to obtain a structure fea-
sible individual. Then the model and objective function are used to
evaluate the solutions.
General constraints are handled by a popular penalty method. For
the solution (xj, yj), the constraint violation is defined as
  X n  o X n   o
 as shown in Table 2 for Cases 1 and 2. Although the internal unit models
V x j; y j ¼ max 0; g x j ; y j þ max 0; jh x j ; y j −δ ; ð21Þ
where h and g denote the equality and inequality constraints, respec-
tively, and δ is a positive tolerance value for equality constraints. The
constraint violation is multiplied by a penalty weight and added to the
objective function. For safety production and operation feasibility, a
very high value 1.0 × 107 is used for the penalty weight to make sure
to select feasible solutions in prior the selection step.
4. Case Study
To verify the effectiveness and reliability of the proposed approach,
three optimal synthesis and operation optimization problems are stud-
ied here. Cases 1 and 2 are taken from Bruno et al. [3], which are two ex-
amples for optimal grassroots design. They are used to illustrate the
ability of the proposed model to choose the optimal configuration and
operation conditions. Case 3 is an application example for the operation
optimization of an ethylene plant [5], which is used to show the
effectiveness and reliability of the proposed method for operation
optimization.
In order to compare the results for these examples with that for orig-
inal cases, the operating conditions and system demands are the same,
are not described in this paper, the cost of internal units is included in
the objective function. The values of parameters in the algorithm for
all the cases are shown in Table 3. 10 runs are executed for each case
and the mean value of the solutions is adopted. A summary of the com-
putational results is shown in Table 4.
Table 2
Utility demands for Cases 1 and Case 2

The overall methodology for the optimal synthesis and optimization Power assignment Case 1 Case 2
of utility system is shown in Fig. 3. It consists of two main parts: super- Medium pressure heating demand 20000 kW 16000 kW
structure based modeling and bcJADE based optimization. The evolution Low pressure heating demand 55000 kW 30000 kW
algorithm and model evolution are interactively performed in the calcu- Electricity 4500 kW 4500 kW
lation, which ensures the feasibility of configuration and improves the Mechanical power no. 1 1200 kW 1200 kW
Mechanical power no. 2 1500 kW 1500 kW
computational efficiency.
Mechanical Power no. 3 700 kW 700 kW

Table 3
Parameter values in the algorithm for solving three cases

Parameters Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

NP 400 400 120

μ CR 0.5 0.5 0.5
μF 0.5 0.5 0.5
Max_Fes 1000000 1000000 100000

Table 4
A summary of results for Case 1 and Case 2

Power assignment Case 1 Case 2

Mechanical power Units Units

demands:
No. 1 HS turbine exhausting to MS MS condensing turbine
No. 2 HS turbine exhausting to LS HS turbine exhausting to MS
No. 3 Electric motor Electric motor
(internal electricity) (local electricity line)
Electricity HS turbine exhausting to LS HS turbine exhausting to LS
Heating demands:
Medium pressure MS header MS header
Low pressure LS header LS header
Annual cost 1.1526 × 107 USD 1.0356 × 107 USD

4.1. Case 1

The aim of this case is to design a utility plant to supply three

Fig. 3. Flowchart for optimal utility system synthesis and optimization.
mechanical power demands, a part of electricity, steam at medium
level, and lower pressure. According to the heat and power demands,
a three-level steam system is selected. To supply the required mechan-
ical power, any type of steam turbines or electric motors can be selected.
To generate electricity, a gas turbine and any type of steam turbines or
the external electric line can be selected. It should be noticed that the
heat recovery boiler is automatically included if a gas turbine is chosen.
The optimization results are shown in Fig. 4. The same optimal configu-
ration of the system is obtained. The high pressure steam (HS) is gener-
ated by a steam boiler, and the electricity demand is supplied by the HS
 Z. Li et al. / Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering 23 (2015) 1350–1356 1355

Fig. 4. Optimal design of utility system for Case 1.

turbines driving an electric generator, because the heating demands in
this case are more than the other demand. Thus this steam turbine for
electricity power is conducive to the steam distribution in different
steam levels. The mechanical power no. 1 and no. 2 is also satisfied by
steam turbines. The mechanical power no. 3 is supplied by electric
motor. A letdown valve is also needed for providing the required low
pressure heating demand. This option is found more attractive than
the single back pressure steam turbine. The annual cost for this optimal
utility system is 1.1526 × 107USD·a−1. Using the proposed model with
the optimal configuration and operation conditions in literature [3], a
very close total cost, 1.1526001 × 107USD·a−1, is obtained.
steam is available to generate mechanical power. Thus a condensing
steam turbine is chosen to supply the mechanical power no. 1. Notice
that the type of steam turbine for mechanical power no. 2 is changed.
Also, a letdown valve is chosen to supply the lower pressure steam de-
mand. Power demand no. 3 is satisfied by external electric line. Then the
steam consumption is reduced from 84.7 t ⋅ h−1 [3] to 79.9 t ⋅ h−1. The total
annual cost is 1.0356 × 107USD·a−1. Compared to 1.0547 × 107USD·a−1 of
the configuration in literature [3], 1.91 × 105USD·a−1 is saved. This case
study shows the capability of the proposed method to choose the
optimal devices for power demand and find the optimal operation
conditions. The optimization results benefits from the external electric
line in superstructure model.

4.2. Case 2
This case is used to study the influence of heating demands on the
system configuration. The heating demands are lower than those in
Case 1 and other power demands are the same, so Case 2 is a retrofitting
problem of Case 1. The optimal configuration and operation condition
for Case 2 is shown in Fig. 5. Since the steam demand is lower, less
4.3. Case 3
This case is a real operation optimization problem of a steam system
in an ethylene plant, which has been studied by Li et al. [5] using GAMS, a
commercial software for mathematical programming and optimization.
The optimal solutions are found by CONOPT solver in GAMS. All the

4500 668 725

F=79.9 Electricity line

Fuel P=4.5MPa
HS
T=369oC
F=4.8 F=47.9 F=32

1500kW
F=82.4
Boiler

P=1.7MPa
MS
T=274oC
F=8.3
F=0.24 F=20
F=3.6
F=0.6 F=3.7
DW 1200kW
P=0.45MPa
LS T=157oC Process
F=51
Deaerator CW
F=79.3

Condensor

Fig. 5. Optimal design of utility system for Case 2.

1356 Z. Li et al. / Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering 23 (2015) 1350–1356

main units in this case exist in the plant and the field data can be used in Fe steam flow rate at bleeding point, t ⋅ h−1
modeling. The same models are used in present work and optimized Fi steam flow rate at inlet, t ⋅ h−1
using bcJADE algorithm. The summary and comparisons of the optimal Fo steam flow rate at outlet, t ⋅ h−1
system are shown in Table 5. The solutions obtained by bcJADE are gt gas turbine
very close to the optimal solution. As suggested by Lampinen [20], an ex- Hree real enthalpy of extract steam, kJ ⋅ t−1
ecution of the evolution algorithm is called global success if the solution Hise ideal enthalpy of extraction steam, kJ ⋅ t−1
[X, Y] is feasible and satisfying f(X, Y) − f(X*, Y *) ≤ 0.0001, where Hiso real enthalpy of exhaust, kJ ⋅ t−1
[X*, Y*] is the optimum solution. The success rate (SR), best, mean, ΔHis ideal enthalpy change, kJ · t−1
worst, and standard deviation (Std) are summarized in Table 6. The ΔHre real enthalpy change, kJ ⋅ t−1
best solution obtained by the proposed algorithm reaches the global op- Δhstm steam heat load of boiler, kJ ⋅ t−1
timal point. And the best, mean, and Std of the solutions by bcJADE are all I set of input stream
better than those by CONOPT, because CONOPT is highly dependent on LHV low heating value, kJ ⋅ t−1
the initial value. Intelligent optimization algorithms can effectively md mechanical power demand
avoid this problem. Hence, bcJADE has the capability of reaching the Pe extraction pressure, MPa
area near the optimal solution and presents good performance of stabil- Po exhaust pressure, MPa
ity and success rates. It can be used as an alternative method for solving Qf heat flow from fuel combustion in a gas turbine, MW
the synthesis and operation optimization problems of utility systems. qbf specific heat load of fuel, kJ ⋅ t−1
Sin entropy of input flow rate, kJ ⋅ t−1 ⋅ °C−1
t turbine
Table 5 Zcap total capital cost, CNY
A summary of results for Case 3

Cost /CNY·h−1 Initial operation Optimal operation I [5] Optimal operation II References
SS steam 183445.3 178932.2 178932.1
[1] T. Petroulas, G. Reklaitis, Computer-aided synthesis and design of plant utility
HS steam 1285.8 3054.3 3054.2 systems, AICHE J. 30 (1) (1984) 69–78.
MS steam 353.5 353.5 353.7 [2] S.A. Papoulias, I.E. Grossmann, A structural optimization approach in process
Total cost 185248.2 182340 182340 synthesis—I: Utility systems, Comput. Chem. Eng. 7 (6) (1983) 695–706.
[3] J.C. Bruno, F. Ferrnandez, F. Castells, I.E. Grossmann, A rigorous MINLP model for the
optimal synthesis and operation of utility plants, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 76 (3) (1998)
246–258.
Table 6
[4] I.S. Han, Y.H. Lee, C.H. Han, Modeling and optimization of the condensing steam
Performance of the proposed algorithm
turbine network of a chemical plant, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 45 (2) (2006) 670–680.
[5] Z. Li, L. Zhao, W. Du, F. Qian, Modeling and optimization of the steam turbine
Indicators CONOPT bcJADE
network of an ethylene plant, Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 21 (5) (2013) 520–528.
SR 2/10 6/10 [6] Y.-C. Lin, K.-S. Hwang, F.-S. Wang, Co-evolutionary hybrid differential evolution for
Best 182340 182340 mixed-integer optimization problems, Eng. Optim. 33 (6) (2001) 663–682.
Mean 192479.3⁎ 182430 [7] H. Schmidt, G. Thierauf, A combined heuristic optimization technique, Adv. Eng.
Worst – 182602.1 Softw. 36 (1) (2005) 11–19.
Std 6991.9 116.7 [8] E. Mezura-Montes, M.E. Miranda-Varela, R. del Carmen Gómez-Ramón, Differential
evolution in constrained numerical optimization: An empirical study, Inform. Sci.
Note: – infeasible solution; * the mean of all feasible solutions. 180 (22) (2010) 4223–4262.
[9] M. Varadarajan, K.S. Swarup, Differential evolution approach for optimal reactive
power dispatch, Appl. Soft Comput. 8 (4) (2008) 1549–1561.
[10] A. Ponsich, C.A.C. Coello, Differential Evolution performances for the solution of
5. Conclusions mixed-integer constrained process engineering problems, Appl. Soft Comput. 11
(1) (2011) 399–409.
[11] M. Srinivas, G.P. Rangaiah, Differential evolution with tabu list for global optimiza-
A general synthesis and optimization method using DE optimizer is tion and its application to phase equilibrium and parameter estimation problems,
proposed. Its generality of application is tested by three case studies Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 46 (10) (2007) 3410–3421.
for grassroots design, system retrofitting and operation optimization. [12] D. Datta, J.R. Figueira, A real–integer–discrete-coded differential evolution, Appl. Soft
Comput. 13 (9) (2013) 3884–3893.
The bcJADE algorithm is used to obtain the optimal configuration and [13] Z. Shang, Analysis and Optimisation of Total Site Utility Systems, UMIST, UK, 2000.
operation conditions of the system. The interaction between the algo- [14] P.S. Varbanov, S. Doyle, R. Smith, Modelling and optimization of utility systems,
rithm and model structure in the calculation can effectively ensure the Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 82 (5) (2004) 561–578.
[15] Z. Shang, A. Kokossis, A transhipment model for the optimisation of steam levels of
feasibility of configuration and improves the computational efficiency. total site utility system for multiperiod operation, Comput. Chem. Eng. 28 (9) (2004)
This method can be used as an alternative method for synthesis and op- 1673–1688.
timization of utility systems. However, to find the optimal solution, [16] R. Storn, K. Price, Differential Evolution—A Simple and Efficient Adaptive Scheme for
Global Optimization Over Continuous Spaces, ICSI, Berkeley, 1995.
bcJADE still needs a large size of population and a larger number of func- [17] F. Neri, V. Tirronen, Recent advances in differential evolution: a survey and
tion evolutions. It is the future work to improve the efficiency of evolu- experimental analysis, Artif. Intell. Rev. 33 (1–2) (2010) 61–106.
tion algorithm for solving chemical engineering optimization problems. [18] J. Zhang, A.C. Sanderson, Adaptive Differential Evolution: A Robust Approach to
Multimodal Problem Optimization, Springer, 2009. 46–75.
[19] L. Yiqing, Y. Xigang, L. Yongjian, An improved PSO algorithm for solving non-convex
Nomenclature NLP/MINLP problems with equality constraints, Comput. Chem. Eng. 31 (3) (2007)
E set of extract stream 153–162.
ed electric power demand, kW [20] J. Lampinen, A constraint handling approach for the differential evolution
algorithm, Proceedings of the World Congress on Computational Intelligence
Fbf fuel flow rate of boiler, t ⋅ h−1 2002, pp. 1468–1473.
Fbs,max maximum steam load of boiler, t ⋅ h−1