Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Design stage optimization of an industrial low-density polyethylene tubular reactor for multiple objectives using NSGA-II and its jumping gene adaptations||Authors:||Agrawal, N.
High-pressure polyethylene reactor
|Issue Date:||May-2007||Citation:||Agrawal, N., Rangaiah, G.P., Ray, A.K., Gupta, S.K. (2007-05). Design stage optimization of an industrial low-density polyethylene tubular reactor for multiple objectives using NSGA-II and its jumping gene adaptations. Chemical Engineering Science 62 (9) : 2346-2365. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2007.01.030||Abstract:||Design stage optimization of an industrial low-density polyethylene (LDPE) tubular reactor is carried out for two simultaneous objectives: maximization of monomer conversion and minimization of normalized side products (methyl, vinyl, and vinylidene groups), both at the reactor end, with end-point constraint on number-average molecular weight (Mn, f) in the product. An inequality constraint is also imposed on reactor temperature to avoid run-away condition in the tubular reactor. The binary-coded elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II) and its jumping gene (JG) adaptations are used to solve the optimization problem. Both the equality and inequality constraints are handled by penalty functions. Only sub-optimal solutions are obtained when the equality end-point constraint on Mn, f is imposed. But, correct global optimal solutions can be assembled from among the Pareto-optimal sets of several problems involving a softer constraint on Mn, f. A systematic approach of constrained-dominance principle for handling constraints is applied for the first time in the binary-coded NSGA-II-aJG and NSGA-II-JG, and its performance is compared to the penalty function approach. A three-objective optimization problem with the compression power (associated with the compression cost) as the third objective along with the aforementioned two objectives, is also studied. The results of three-objective optimization are compared with two different combinations of two-objective problems. © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.||Source Title:||Chemical Engineering Science||URI:||http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/88749||ISSN:||00092509||DOI:||10.1016/j.ces.2007.01.030|
|Appears in Collections:||Staff Publications|
Show full item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
checked on Aug 12, 2019
WEB OF SCIENCETM
checked on Aug 12, 2019
checked on Aug 17, 2019
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.