See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/231367023

Efficient Implementation of the Normal Boundary Intersection (NBI) Method on

Multiobjective Optimization Problems

Article  in  Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · December 2000

DOI: 10.1021/ie000400v

CITATIONS READS

25 849

3 authors:

Young Il Lim Pascal Floquet

Hankyong National University Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Ingénieurs en Arts Chimiques et Technologiques (IN…
93 PUBLICATIONS   861 CITATIONS    112 PUBLICATIONS   700 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Xavier Joulia
Université de Toulouse - INP-ENSIACET
153 PUBLICATIONS   1,226 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CFD simulation of amine absorber in LNG-FPSO. View project

CFD simulation of slurry phase hydrocracking (SHC) reactor. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pascal Floquet on 13 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

648 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2001, 40, 648-655

Efficient Implementation of the Normal Boundary Intersection

(NBI) Method on Multiobjective Optimization Problems

Young Il Lim, Pascal Floquet, and Xavier Joulia*

Laboratoire de Génie Chimique (LGC, UMR-CNRS 5503), INPT-ENSIGC, 18 chemin de la loge,
F-31078 Toulouse Cedex 4, France

This study attempts to address efficient implementation of the normal boundary intersection
(NBI) method for the tradeoff between economics and pollution prevention with appropriate
analysis methods. For the multiobjective optimization problem (MOOP), a noninferior solution
curve (or Pareto curve) is efficiently obtained by using an enhanced NBI method combined with
the SWOF (summation of weighted objective functions) method within a chemical process
simulator. Then, the Pareto curve is analyzed by the ideal compromise solution set, sensitivity
and elasticity analyses that give the decision basis between the conflicting objectives to the
decision maker. Through the combined use of the SWOF and NBI methods, the upper and lower
values of the ideal compromise set are exactly located. The total calculation time for the entire
Pareto curve can be reduced owing to evenly distributed Pareto points.

1. Introduction tigation (PSI).5 However, it is difficult for these MOOP

During the early phases of designing a chemical
process, many important decision variables should be
based on all available information, including chemical,
technological, and economic knowledge, as well as
knowledge about the environmental and health aspects.
To meet these various aims at once, multiobjective
approaches are very often required to make decisions
in process simulation and optimization problems. In
engineering applications of the multiobjective optimiza-
tion problem (MOOP), the desired result helpful in
facilitating design is a whole collection of Pareto optimal
points, representative of the entire spectrum of nonin-
ferior solutions. In this context, evenly distributed
Pareto points are essential for knowledge of the entire
spectrum of the Pareto curve.
To obtain Pareto points (solutions of the MOOP), the
multiobjective problem is generally converted to a
parametric single-objective problem. Thus, it is very
important to efficiently select parameters so that Pareto
points are uniformly distributed even in the non-
convex feature of the Pareto curve. Efficient parameter
selection in the MOOP algorithm not only gives a
reliable MOOP solution but also reduces total optimiza-
tion time.
Ciric and Huchette (1993)1 presented a multiobjective
approach based on the SWOF (summation of weighted
objective functions) method to process synthesis and
optimization problems where profitability conflicts with
waste reduction. Parameters (weighting factors) were
selected by the SAM (sequential approximation method).
For assessment of the global environmental impact and
profit in a chemical process, biobjective optimization was
carried out by Lim et al. (1999),2 using multiobjective
optimization techniques such as the SWOF method,1
goal programming (GP),3,4 and parameter space inves-
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
Xavier.Joulia@ensigct.fr. Phone: +33 5 6225 2355. Fax: +33
5 6225 2318.
10.1021/ie000400v CCC: $20.00 © 2001 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 12/28/2000
algorithms to locate an ideal compromise solution at the
norm p ) ∞ (δ∞) without Pareto curve fitting. These
algorithms are not clearly applicable to general cases,
in particular, for obtaining Pareto points in nonconvex
regions.
In this study, a new multiobjective optimization tool
called NBI (normal boundary intersection)7 is considered
for chemical process optimization problems, extending
the study of Lim et al. (1999). In the next section, we
present an algorithm that can form and handle system-
atically the noninferior solution curve (Pareto curve) for
tradeoff between the conflicting objectives within the
chemical process simulator. Then, three MOOP methods
(SWOF, GP, and NBI) are compared within two small
biobjective problems. The optimization result of the
MEK (methyl ethyl ketone) production process is also
illustrated in the third section.
2. Multiobjective Optimization Programming
(MOOP)
2-1. MOOP Based on NBI. For a multiobjective
optimization whose solution is a set of optimization
results called “Pareto points” or “noninferior solution
points”, one of the most popular methods is to minimize
a convex combination of objectives and thus to convert
the multiobjective problem into a parametric single-
objective problem. For the case of two objective functions
min {u(f1, f2, R) ) Rf2+(1 - R)f1} (1)
x∈Ω
where 0.0 e R e 1.0 and the utility function, u(f1, f2, R),
is linearly combined with the objective functions
(fi) and the parametric weighting factors (R) under the
constraint set (Ω). This SWOF (summation of
weighted objective functions) method suffers from
two major drawbacks: nonuniform spread of Pareto
points with respect to uniform weighting parameters

Figure 1. Pareto point B obtained by the NBI method and Pareto
point A obtained by the SWOF method in the normalized objective
space.
and lack of information about nonconvex parts of the
Pareto set.7
The NBI method is a technique motivated by a
geometrical intuition to provide a better parametriza-
tion of the Pareto set than that provided by other
techniques. This parametrization is better in the sense
that the points obtained by using the NBI method
produce a more even coverage of the Pareto curve and
this coverage does not miss the interesting middle part
of the Pareto curve. The goal programming method
constrains a parametrized value of objective functions
other than the main objective function, and the SWOF
method uses slope values [(R - 1)/R] to obtain a set of
optimum results. In contrast, the NBI method finds
intersection points of the Pareto curve with normal
directions toward the origin, emanating from any points
of the segment PQ that connects two respective opti-
mization points (P and Q), as shown in Figure 1. In the
original NBI method, an equality constraint containing
one parameter (β) is added to the optimization problem
(Das and Dennis, 1998).7 In the case of a biobjective
problem, employing the normalization of two objective
functions (see Appendix A),
min f̂2
x∈Ω
s.t. f̂2 ) f̂1 + (1 - 2β), 0 e β e 1.0
the parameter β normally is a value of f̂1 determined
by the number (n) of wanted Pareto points, as follows:
βi ) i/n, i ) 0, 1, 2, ..., n
A problem at β0 ) 0.0 corresponds to minimization of
f̂1 without consideration of f̂2. At βn ) 1.0, it is equivalent
to the problem of R ) 1 in the SWOF method. When
βn/2 ) 0.5, an ideal compromise point at norm δ∞ is
obtained, i.e., f̂1 ) f̂2 ≡ µ.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 40, No. 2, 2001 649
For more evenly distributed Pareto points, a sequen-
tial procedure of the NBI method is performed after a
Pareto point at β ) 0.5 in eq 2 is obtained. Once the
Pareto point (f̂1, f̂2) ) (µ, µ) at β ) 0.5 is located, normal
directions emanating from the slope (s1) of QB and the
slope (s2) of PB can intersect the Pareto curve more
evenly than they would through the original NBI
method.7 Accordingly, new constraints substituting for
eq 2 are formed in the case of n ) 10 for the upper (from
QB) and lower (from PB) parts of the Pareto curve. For
the upper part of the Pareto curve:
(f̂2)up ) -() (
1 1
)
f̂ + s1 + (βi)up + 1, (βi)up ) i
s1 1 s1
µ
10
,( )
1 e i e 9 (4)
and for the lower part:
(
(f̂2)down ) -s1f̂1 + s1 +
1
)
s1 i
1
(β )down - ,
s1
(βi)down ) i( )
1-µ
10
+ µ, 1 e i e 9 (5)
where µ corresponds to the f̂1 value at point B, as shown
in Figure 1. Here, two simple relations are introduced
such that s2 ) 1/s1 and s1 ) (µ - 1)/µ, because the two
objective functions are normalized between zero and
one. The modified NBI method is also efficient for
locating more uniformly distributed Pareto points (non-
inferior solution points) than the SWOF and the GP
methods. Hence, reliable sensitivity (∂f2/∂f1) and elastic
rate (∂ ln f2/∂ ln f1) can be approximated from the
optimization results without Pareto curve fitting. For
every Pareto optimal point, there exists a corresponding
NBI subproblem of which it is the solution. Most NBI
points are guaranteed to be only locally Pareto optimal
points even though the Pareto curve is nonconvex.7
The Pareto curve is analyzed by two ideal compromise
points at δ1 and δ∞, for sensitivity and elasticity
analyses for the basis of decision-making, as mentioned
in the study of Lim et al. (1999).2 It is worth emphasiz-
ing that the Pareto points of δ1 and δ∞ will provide the
lower and upper bounds of the ideal compromise solu-
tions,10 if these exist.
2-2. Implementation of the MOOP Algorithm
within a Chemical Process Simulator. The MOOP
approach is achieved by substituting the MOOP module
for the optimization module in the process simulator.
Figure 2 shows the MOOP algorithm using the SQP
optimization solver.11 The objective functions are first
normalized by the SWOF method with the weighting
(2) parameters R ) 0.0 and R ) 1.0. Then, if possible, the
SWOF method at R ) 0.5 is performed to search for an
ideal compromise solution of δ1. In the case of β ) 0.5
in the NBI method, another ideal compromise point of
δ∞ is found. Depending on the parameters (β) of the
modified NBI method using eqs 4 and 5, Pareto points
(3)
are found to obtain the entire Pareto curve. Finally, one
can make a tradeoff between the conflicting
objectives in order to understand the process charac-
teristics and to determine new operating conditions
through Pareto curve analysis using ideal compromise
solutions as well as the sensitivity and elasticity of the
Pareto curve.
650 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 40, No. 2, 2001

Figure 2. MOOP algorithm in the process simulator.

Figure 3. Comparison of the three MOOP methods at even parameter spread in the small biobjective problem.

3. Case Studies points is measured as a standard deviation of the Pareto

3-1. A Biobjective Problem for a Convex Pareto

point arc lengths (∆si ) x(∆f̂1)2i +(∆f̂2)2i )

x∑
Curve. The test example is n
1
(sj - ∆si)2

[ ]
η) (7)
n
x21
f1(x) ) + + + +x22 x23 x24 x25 i)1

min x3 3
(6)
x f2(x) ) 3x1 + 2x2 - + 0.001(x4 - x5)
3
s.t. x1 + 2x2 - x3 - 0.5x4 + x5 - 2.0 ) 0.0
4x1 - 2x2 + 0.8x3 + 0.6x4 + 0.5x25 ) 0.0
x21 + x22 + x23 + x24 + x25 - 10.0 e 0.0
First of all, the three methods such as SWOF, GP and
the original NBI are compared by their numerical
results for this biobjective problem. For the solution
quality, a positive equidistribution index (η) of Pareto
where sj denotes the mean arc length. Thus, as the
equidistribution index approaches zero, the points ob-
tained are more uniformly distributed for the same
number of parameters (R, , and β for the SWOF, GP,
and NBI methods, respectively). Using an even spread
of parameters (with 21 points at 0.05 step size, 0.0 e R,
, or β e 1.0), three Pareto curves are shown in Figure
3. Note that Pareto points obtained by the SWOF
method in this example are clustered near the minimum
point of f1, and the middle part for the ideal compromise
zone is not well captured. In contrast, the GP method
provides poor information in the steep regions of the
Pareto curve. Employing the NBI method with even
spread of parameters, more uniformly distributed Pare-

Figure 4. Pareto points obtained by the modified NBI method
within the normalized objective space.
to points are assured. The equidistribution indexes (η)
are 0.1219, 0.0269, and 0.0038 for the SWOF, GP, and
NBI methods, respectively.
Using the proposed MOOP algorithm, 22 Pareto
points are plotted in Figure 4 within the normalized
objective space. Two black square points found by the
SWOF method (R ) 0.5) and the NBI method (β ) 0.5)
are upper and lower values of the ideal compromise
solution set at δ1 and δ∞, respectively. The modified NBI
method enhances a little equidistribution as η ) 0.0021
due to parametrization of the two parts. The values of
sensitivity and elastic rate shown in Figure 5, which
are obtained directly from optimization results without
Pareto curve fitting, are reliable because of the evenly
distributed Pareto points.
3-2. A Biobjective Problem for a Nonconvex
Pareto Curve. A nonconvex biobjective problem pre-
sented by Li et al. (1999)12 is described as
[ ]
f1 ) 1 - x1x2
min 1 (8)
x f2 ) 3(2x1 + x2)
s.t. 0.0 e x1, x2 e 1.0
It is easy to verify that this example problem is
nonconvex because the Hessian matrix of the objective
function f1 is negative definite. Applying the SWOF
Figure 5. Sensitivity and elasticity analyses of the Pareto curve in the small biobjective problem.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 40, No. 2, 2001 651
method, it is impossible to obtain Pareto points. In
Figure 6, even though the Pareto curve is nonconvex
(or one objective function is nonconvex), Pareto points
are captured using the GP and the original/modified
NBI methods with 21 uniform parameters.
The equidistribution indexes (η) are 0.0344, 0.0046,
and 0.0024 for the GP, original NBI, and modified NBI
(this study) methods, respectively. Therefore, the results
of the modified NBI method are more evenly distributed
than those of the original NBI method. Figure 7 shows
objective function values (f1 and f2) with respect to
sensitivity (df2/df1) of the Pareto curves obtained by the
three methods. Whereas the GP method gives an
insufficient resolution in certain regions, the two NBI
methods give reliable solutions in any regions. The
modified NBI method shows results superior to those
of the original NBI method in the region of high
variation of the Pareto curve.
3-3. MEK Process with 100% Recycle of the
Waste SBA Stream. MEK is predominantly produced
by the dehydration of SBA (sec-butyl alcohol or 2-bu-
tanol), which is carried out in a vapor-phase isothermal
reaction over an air-oxidized brass catalyst (composition
) 60% Cu + 40% Zn) at temperatures of ∼500-700K
under a pressure slightly above atmospheric.
sec-C4H9OH f CH3COC2H5 + H2 (9)
In the interesting temperature zone (∼623.15-
673.15K), the catalytic reaction rate (rA, kmol/h)13 is
(
C PA -
K )
PKPH
( )
rA ) S (10)
PA
PK 1 + KAPA + KAK
PK
The notation is explained in the nomenclature, and the
constants such as C, K, KA, and KAK are calculated from
the relation equations with the reaction temperature,
which were developed by Perona and Thodos (1957).13
The catalyst surface area (S) is assumed to be equal to
2500 m2.
In Figure 8, the MEK process flowsheet2,8,14 is shown.
The SBA feed containing 0.1 mol % water is mixed at a
fixed feedrate (45.8128 kmol/h at 15 °C and 1 atm) with
a recycle stream from the purification column. The
combined liquid stream is fed to a hydrogen scrubber
where the SBA scrubs residual MEK from the hydrogen
652 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 40, No. 2, 2001
Figure 6. Comparison of the three MOOP methods in the case of the nonconvex Pareto curve.
Figure 7. Sensitivity analysis of the Pareto curve according to
the MOOP methods in a nonconvex case.
byproduct stream subject to the maximum MEK flow-
rate of 1.0 kmol/h. The SBA feed is then pumped up to
the reaction pressure and heated to the reaction tem-
perature via a heat exchanger. Once at the reaction
temperature, the highly endothermic reaction takes
place in the isothermal catalytic reactor. The mixture
of MEK, H2 and unconverted SBA is cooled further and
then sent to a separator where the hydrogen is flashed
off. Hydrogen is further scrubbed, and the liquid phase
of the separator is fed to a dehydration column where
water over 99 mol % of feedwater into the column is
removed as the phase of H2O-MEK azeotrope. MEK of
at least 99 mol % purity is produced as the top product
of the purification column. The bottom product is
completely recycled.
For convenience, the SBA feed flowrate is fixed and
the objective functions of the SBA feed basis are used.
The simplified cost-benefit function (f2, $/kmol-SBA) is
calculated by using the following costs: cooling water,
2.512 × 10-6 $/kcal; compressing power, 0.135 $ kW-1
h-1; heating steam, 3.1694 × 10-5 $/kcal; and raw
material, 0.095 $/kg. The sale price for MEK is taken
to be 1.014 $/kg based on 1996 prices. With three output
streams indicated in Figure 5, the pollution function,
Φp,8,14 is calculated only about SBA (ψi ) 100 × 0.9209
Imp/kmol) and MEK (ψi ) 100 × 23.6117 Imp/kmol)
except for the MEK product, as the other components
(H2O and H2) are considered to be nonpollutants.14 The
impact of fugitive emissions is also ignored. In sum-
mary:
(a) Objective functions
Minimize f1(Imp kmol-1 SBA-1) ) [(three effluent
flowrates of SBA) × 92.09 + (two effluent flowrates
of MEK) × 2361.17]/(SBA feed)
Minimize f2($ kmol-1 SBA-1) ) [(cooling water heat
duty) × 2.512 × 10-6 + (compressing power) × 0.135
+ (steam heat duty) × 3.1694 × 10-5 + (SBA feed) ×
0.095 - (MEK product) × 1.014]/(SBA feed)
(b) Independent decision variables
Dehydration column reflux ratio [(reflux flowrate)/
(vapor distillate)]: 40.0 e R1 e 80.0
Purification column reflux ratio ([(reflux flowrate)/
(liquid distillate)]: 2.0 e R2 e 10.0
Ratio of liquid distillate to input feed in purification
column [(liquid distillate)/(input feed)]: 0.550 e RLD
e 0.950
Reaction temperature (K): 623.15 e TR e 673.15
(c) Constraints
MEK product molar fraction: xMEK g 0.9900
MEK flowrate in H2 exit stream: FMEK e 1.0 kmol/h
Molar ratio of removing H2O to input H2O in dehy-
dration column: Rwater g 0.9900
Note that the severe product purity of 0.99 mol % is
employed in this problem and this constraint is almost
active over the optimization procedures. The process is
simulated and optimized using the process simulator
ProSim, which simultaneously performs simulation of
flowsheet and optimization of design variables. A par-
ticular thermodynamic model (MHV2 model)15 is used
for the water-hydrocarbon system. The simulation time
is 2.2s at the nominal value of decision variables on a
bi-processor Digital Alpha server 4000 in double preci-
sion. According to the objective functions, the optimiza-
tion time varies from 20 to 130 s (average 61.8 s).
Twenty-two Pareto points, 19 points by the modified
NBI method, and three points by the SWOF method,
are obtained at a convergence tolerance (KTE) of 1.0 ×
10-5 and a proportional numerical perturbation of 1.0
× 10-4, as shown in Figure 9. Two ideal compromise
solutions (points A and B) are identified by the SWOF
method at R ) 0.50 and by the NBI method at β ) 0.50.
As mentioned above, the Pareto points obtained by NBI
are evenly distributed on the Pareto curve, which seems
to be nonconvex in the upper part. In fact, this biobjec-
tive problem shows a nonconvex feature on the Pareto
curve because of the active constraints, the nonlinear
reaction rate, and the complex thermodynamics such

Figure 8. Flowsheet of the MEK process with 100% recycle.
Figure 9. Pareto points and two ideal compromise points (A and
B) in the normalized objective space.
as are found in an azeotropic system. In the nonconvex
parts, we can see abrupt changes of the dehydration
column reflux ratio (R1), which is a very sensible
independent variable to the objective functions in
certain regions, as shown in Figure 10. Slight perturba-
tions of the other variables are also found in the
nonconvex parts.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 40, No. 2, 2001 653
The characteristic value (γ, $/Imp) is
(
fU
)
L
2 - f 2
γ) ) (56.525 - 52.138)/(71.446 -
fU L
1 - f 1
57.397) ) 0.31225 (11)
With the characteristic value, the sensitivity curve (û
vs ∂f2/∂f1) and the elasticity curve (û vs ∂ ln f2/∂ ln f1)
can be derived from the optimization results, as shown
in Figure 11. Point A is located at the marginal cost )
-0.31225; in other words, $0.31225 of the cost is
consumed by decreasing the pollution impact by one
unit. Also, point B can be found at the same value of
the two normalized objective functions, which is the
maximum point of the utility function (ûmax ) 0.3616).
The nonconvex feature of the Pareto curve is more
clearly shown as zigzag forms of the objective functions
in Figure 11.
In the elasticity curve of Figure 11, the elasticity [(∂f2/
∂f1) (f1/f2)] is positive because we let the cost-benefit
function be negative and the marginal cost is always
negative. However, intrinsically, this implies opposing
action between the two objective functions.
Suppose that a decision-maker wants to operate this
process within an ideal compromise solution zone. In
other words, this process would be operated at a point
between points A (R ) 0.50 in the SWOF method) and
B (β ) 0.5 in the NBI method). In Table 1, the ideal
compromise solutions are compared with nominal points
of the decision variables, minimum points of the pollu-
654 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 40, No. 2, 2001

Figure 10. Profiles of four independent variables with respect to the pollution function values. (a) Dehydration column reflux ratio (R1).
(b) Purification column reflux ratio (R2). (c) Ratio of liquid distillate (RLD). (d) Reaction temperature.

Table 1. Operating Conditions by the MOOP Approach in the MEK Process

optimum values
decision lower upper nominal Pareto point Pareto point
variables value value value min f1 min f2 at δ1 at δ∞
1. reflux ratio R1 40.0 80.0 60.0 80.0 40.00 40.00 40.14
(RF/VD)
2. reflux ratio R2 2.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 2.813 5.776 5.990
(RF/LD)
3. liquid distillate ratio 0.550 0.950 0.820 0.6718 0.9383 0.8268 0.8155
RLD (LD/Feed)
4. reaction temperature 623.2 673.2 648.2 623.2 673.2 640.9 639.1
TR (K)
f1 (Imp/kmol-SBA) 92.951 57.397 71.446 62.979 62.442
objective f̂1 2.5307 0.000 1.000 0.3973 0.3629
functions
(f1 and f2) f2 ($/kmol-SBA) -54.938 -52.138 -56.525 -55.085 -54.969
f̂2 0.3715 1.000 0.000 0.3282 0.3631

It is pointed out that the new operating conditions

between the ideal compromise solution points are an
advanced level for the decision-maker to simultaneously
satisfy increases in profit and reductions in pollution.

Figure 11. Sensitivity and elasticity analyses of the Pareto curve.
tion function (R ) 0.0), and traditional operating condi-
tions of the minimum cost-benefit function (R ) 1.0).
4. Conclusions
Within a chemical process simulator, a new MOOP
algorithm (normalization, the combined use of SWOF
and NBI, and finally Pareto curve analysis) is employed
in terms of economics and potential environmental
impact through the MEK process. The modified NBI
method gives evenly distributed Pareto points and
reliable optimization results even in a nonconvex feature
of the Pareto curve.
Decision information for making a tradeoff between
profitability and pollution is obtained by performing
sensitivity and elasticity analyses of the Pareto curve.
It is worth noting that the sensitivity of the Pareto curve
is a marginal cost, that is, the cost change over a unit
change of environmental impact. The elasticity of the

Pareto curve means the ratio of cost change rates to a
unit rate of the environmental impact change.
The ideal compromise solution set between δ1 and δ∞
on the Pareto curve is thought of as a mild condition to
simultaneously satisfy two objectives. The proposed
MOOP algorithm has exactly identified its upper and
lower values.
Acknowledgment
We thank the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France
and the Embassy of France in Korea, which support our
research in the framework of France-Korea collabora-
tion.
Nomenclature
A ) Point at norm p ) 1
B ) Point at norm p ) ∞
C ) Kinetic constant in rate equation (kmol h-1 m-2)
fi ) Objective function i
K ) Chemical equilibrium constant (atm)
KA ) Adsorption equilibrium constant for SBA (atm-1)
KAK ) Constant in rate equation
KTE ) Kuhn-Tucker error
O ) Utopia point or shadow minimum
p ) Norm
P ) Point at minimum cost function
PA ) Partial pressure of SBA (atm)
PH ) Partial pressure of hydrogen (atm)
PK ) Partial pressure of MEK (atm)
Q ) Point at minimum pollution function
rA ) Reaction rate (kmol/h) for converted SBA
sj ) Mean arc length
s1 ) Slope of the upper baseline for the NBI method
s2 ) Slope of the lower baseline for the NBI method
S ) Catalyst surface area (m2)
u ) Utility function of the SWOF method
f Li ) Minimum value of objective function i
fU L
j ) Value of other objective functions j at a f i (i * j)
f̂i ) Normalized objective function fi
û ) Utility function with normalized objective functions
in the SWOF method
Greek Letters
R ) Parameter for the SWOF method
β ) Parameter for the NBI method
δp ) Minimum distance at norm p
 ) Parameter for the GP method
γ ) Characteristic value in a process
η ) Equidistribution index (standard deviation of the arc
length)
µ ) Normalized objective function value at ideal compro-
mise point of δ∞
ψi ) Potential environmental impact index (Imp/kmol)
Φp ) Global pollution index (Imp/kmol-feed)
Ω ) Constraint set
Appendix A. Normalization of Objective
Functions.
We suppose that (f L1 , f U U L
2 ) and (f 1 , f 2 ) are solution
sets in objective space when minimized over the con-
straint set Ω. That is
L U
min f1(x) ) f 1 and at this optimum point, f2 ) f 2
x∈Ω
L U
min f2(x) ) f 2 and at this optimum point, f1 ) f
x∈Ω
View publication stats
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 40, No. 2, 2001 655
The point (f L1 , f L2 ) can be defined in the objective
space as the utopia point. The utopia point (or shadow
minimum) will generally be infeasible because it will
lie outside the attainable objectives (Λ, inside the
noninferior solution curve) given by
Λ ) {(f1, f2) |x ∈ Ω}
Also, the following normalization can be employed:
(f1 - f L1 ) (f2 - f L2 )
f̂1 ) , f̂ 2 )
fU1 - f 1
L
fU2 - f 2
L
where f̂1 and f̂2 represent the normalized objective
functions, and explicitly
0 e f̂1 e 1, 0 e f̂2 e 1
Literature Cited
(1) Ciric, A. R.; Huchette, S. G. Multi-objective optimization
approach to sensitivity analysis: Waste treatment costs in discrete
process synthesis and optimization problems. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
1993, 32, 2636.
(2) Lim, Y. I.; Floquet, P.; Joulia X.; Kim, S. D. Multiobjective
optimization in terms of economics and potential environmental
impact for process design and analysis in a chemical process
simulator. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1999, 38, 4729.
(3) Haimes, Y. Y. The integration of system identification and
system optimization. Ph.D. Thesis, Engineering Systems Dept.,
University of California, CA, 1970.
(4) Luyben, M. L.; Floudas, C. A. Analyzing the interaction of
design and control. I. A multiobjective framework and application
to binary distillation synthesis. Comput. Chem. Eng. 1994, 18, 933.
(5) Steuer, R. E.; Sun, M. The parameter space investigation
method of multiple objective nonlinear programming: A computa-
tion investigation. Oper. Res. 1995, 43, 641.
(6) Davis, G. A.; Kincaid, L.; Swanson, M. Chemical hazard
evaluation for management strategies: A method for ranking and
scoring chemicals by potential human health and environmental
impacts; Final Report EPA/600/R-94/177; U.S. Environmaental
Protection Agency: Cincinnati, OH, 1994.
(7) Das, I.; Dennis, J. E. Normal boundary intersection: A new
method for generating the Pareto surface in nonlinear multicriteria
optimization problems. SIAM J. Optim. 1998, 8, 631.
(8) Mallick, S. K.; Cabezas, H.; Bare, J. C.; Sikdar, S. K. A
pollution reduction methodology for chemical process simulators.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1996, 35, 4128.
(9) Grossmann, I. E.; Drabbant, R.; Jain, R. K. Incorporating
toxicology in the synthesis of industrial chemical complexes. Chem.
Eng. Commun. 1982, 17, 151.
(10) Freimer, M.; Yu, P. L. Some new results on compromise
solution for group decision problems. Manage. Sci. 1976, 22, 628.
(11) Vasantharajan, S.; Biegler, L. T. Large-scale decomposition
for successive quadratic programming. Comput. Chem. Eng. 1988,
12, 1087.
(12) Li, D.; Yang, J. B.; Biswal, M. P. Quantitative parametric
connections between methods for generating noninferior solutions
in multiobjective optimization. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1999, 117, 84.
(13) Perona, J. J.; Thodos, G. Reaction kinetics studies: cata-
lytic dehydrogenation of sec-butyl alcohol to methyl ethyl ketone.
AIChE J. 1957, 3, 230.
(14) Cabezas, H.; Bare, J. C.; Mallick, S. K. Pollution prevention
with chemical process simulators: The generalized WAste Reduc-
tion algorithm (WAR). Comput. Chem. Eng. 1997, 21, s305.
(15) Michelsen, M. L. A modified Huron-Vidal mixing rule for
cubic equation of states. Fluid Phase Equilib. 1990, 60, 213.
Received for review April 11, 2000
Accepted October 19, 2000
1
IE000400V