Skip to main content
Log in

Symbolic integration of logic in MILP branch and bound methods for the synthesis of process networks

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper deals with the branch and bound solution of process synthesis problems that are modelled as mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) problems. The symbolic integration of logic relations between potential units in a process network is proposed in the LP based branch and bound method to expedite the search for the optimal solution. The objective of this integration is to reduce the number of nodes that must be enumerated by using the logic to decide on the branching of variables and to determine by symbolic inference whether additional variables can be fixed at each node. The important feature of this approach is that it does not require additional constraints in the MILP and the logic can be systematically generated for process networks. Strategies for performing the integration are proposed that use the disjunctive and conjunctive normal form representations of the logic, respectively. Computational results will be presented to illustrate that substantial savings can be achieved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M.J. Andrecovich and A.W. Westerberg, An MILP formulation for heat-integrated distillation sequences synthesis, AIChE J. 31(1985)1461–1474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. E. Balas and C.H. Martin, Pivot and complement — A heuristic for 0–1 programming, Manag. Sci. 26(1980)86–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. A. Barr and E.A. Feigenbaum (eds.),Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, 3 vols. (William Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  4. E.M.L. Beale,Integer Programming. The State of the Art in Numerical Analysis, ed. D. Jacobs (Academic Press, London, 1977) pp. 408–448.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J.F. Benders, Partitioning procedures for solving mixed-variables programming problems, Numer. Math. 4(1962)238–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. T.M. Cavalier, P.M. Pardalos and A.L. Soyster, Modelling and integer programming techniques applied to propositional calculus, Comp. Oper. Res. 17(1990)561–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. V. Chandru and J.N. Hooker, Extended Horn sets in propositional logic, Working Paper 88-89-39, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  8. M. Davis and H. Putnam, A computing procedure for quantification theory, ACM 17(1960)201–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. M.A. Duran and I.E. Grossmann, An Outer-Approximation algorithm for a class of mixed-integer nonlinear programs, Math. Progr. 36(1986)307–339.

    Google Scholar 

  10. R.S. Garfinkel and G.L. Nemhauser,Integer Programming (Wiley, New York, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  11. A.M. Geoffrion, Generalized Benders decomposition, J. Optim. Theory 10(1972)237–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. I.E. Grossmann, MINLP optimization strategies and algorithms for process synthesis,Proc. FOCAPD Meeting, eds. Siirola et al. (Elsevier, New York, 1990) pp. 105–132.

    Google Scholar 

  13. O.K. Gupta, Branch and bound experiments in nonlinear integer programming, Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue University (1980).

  14. J.N. Hooker, H. Yan, I.E. Grossmann and R. Raman, Logic cuts for processing networks with fixed charges (1993), Comp. Oper. Res., to appear.

  15. R.E. Jeroslow and J. Wang, Solving propositional satisfiability problems, Ann. Math. AI 1(1990)167–187.

    Google Scholar 

  16. G.R. Kocis and I.E. Grossmann, A modelling decomposition strategy for MINLP optimization of process flowsheets, Comp. Chem. Eng. 13(1989)797–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. S. Nabar and L. Schrage, Modelling and solving nonlinear integer programming problems,Annual AIChE Meeting, Chicago (1991).

  18. G.L. Nemhauser and L.A. Wolsey,Integer and Combinatorial Optimization (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  19. OSL,OSL User's Manual (IBM Corp., Kingston, New York, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  20. R. Raman and I.E. Grossmann, Relation between MILP modelling and logical inference for chemical process synthesis. Comp. Chem. Eng. 15(1991)73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. R. Raman and I.E. Grossmann, Integration of qualitative knowledge in MINLP optimization for process synthesis, Comp. Chem. Eng. 16(1992)155–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. J. Singhal, R.E. Marsten and T. Morin, Fixed order branch and bound methods for mixed-integer programming: the ZOOM system, Working Paper, Management Information Science Department, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  23. SCICON,SCICONIC/VM User Guide (SCICON Ltd., London, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  24. T.J. Van Roy and L.A. Wolsey, Solving mixed integer programs by automatic reformulation, Oper. Res. 35(1988)45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. H.P. Williams,Model Building in Mathematical Programming (Wiley, Chichester, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Raman, R., Grossmann, I.E. Symbolic integration of logic in MILP branch and bound methods for the synthesis of process networks. Ann Oper Res 42, 169–191 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02023175

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02023175

Keywords

Navigation