Computers and Chemical Engineering 26 (2002) 747 755 www.elsevier.

com/locate/compchemeng

Decision support tools for process design and selection

Soorathep Kheawhom *, Masahiko Hirao
Department of Chemical System Engineering, The Uni6ersity of Tokyo, 7 -3 -1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113 -8656, Japan

Abstract We proposed a new tool that is capable of reducing the complexity of the process synthesis problem and analyzing a trade-off between the environmental impact, economy and robustness of a chemical process. In addition, new efcient process robustness parameters were also proposed. Static exibility was indicated by the failure probability which could be calculated with a small number of iterations. The operability was evaluated by the de6iation ratio. Applicability of the method was illustrated in case studies, syntheses of a closed-loop toluene recovery process and a propylene glycol production process. By the proposed methodology, it is possible to design an appropriate process with minimal environmental impact and maximal robustness at a desired economic performance. The solution obtained using proposed methodology denes an optimal design with adequate static exibility and operability. Moreover, the solution obtained using proposed methodology was compared with the conventional value function method. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Process synthesis; Multi-criteria optimization; Environmental impact; Failure probability; Deviation ratio

1. Introduction The need for an environmentally benign process has been increasing due to the pressure on chemical process industries to improve their environmental performance (Friedlander, 1989). Conventional design methods involve addressing environmental impact issues after the process structure has been synthesized (Petrides, Konstadinos, & Subir, 1994; Friedler, Varga, & Fan, 1994). In general, this approach will result in a sub-optimal process because the impact of a process on the environment is dependent on its structure and design characteristics. Thus, the environmental impact of a process must be considered and minimized at an early stage of process design as an integral part of process synthesis and design (Constantinou, Jaksland, Bagherpour, & Gani, 1994; Linninger, 1994). As chemical process plants become more efcient, they tend to become more tightly integrated; for example, raw materials are recycled and hot process streams are heat exchanged with cold process streams. This integration introduces tight couplings between processing units, which in some cases may make the dynamic
* Corresponding author. Tel.: + 81-3-5841-6876. E-mail address: kong@pse.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp (S. Kheawhom).

and steady state behavior of the more complex, and lead to plants which are more difcult to operate and control. Therefore, the robustness performance is also important for the selection of good designs because of the requirement for a process that is robust under given input variations. Even in a case where there are no input variations, the problem still contains uncertainties. Therefore, the robustness objectives should be considered at the design stage to ensure that a process can properly operate with an acceptable performance under these uncertainties. Conventional methods for indicating robustness are based on the feasibility function (Chacon-Mondragon & Himmeblau, 1996; Rooney & Biegler, 1999), which is a measure of the ability of a process to meet design specications under uncertainties. However, the calculation of process exibility parameters involves the solution of a very complex multi-extremal and non-differentiable optimization problem (Zariou & Chiou, 1996; Ostrovsky, Achenie, & Wang, 2000). A synthesis problem has more than one objective. Frequently, this problem is nonlinear and involves discrete variables. Most of the literature on decision support tools for process design focuses only on economic and environmental problems (Constantinou et al., 1994; Linninger, 1994) or on economic and robustness prob-

0098-1354/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0098-1354(01)00798-0

748

S. Kheawhom, M. Hirao / Computers and Chemical Engineering 26 (2002) 747755

lems (Bernardo, Pistikopoulos, & Saraiva, 2001; Seferlis & Grievink, 2001). Only a few studies have been on the development of methodologies for considering economic, environmental and robustness problems simultaneously.

2. Economic indicator The economic performance can be evaluated based on a summation of xed costs and operating costs and the subtraction of product revenues. The evaluation procedure is to map alternatives into ow rates and process equipment specications. The ow rates can be changed into revenues and operating costs. Fixed costs can be evaluated from process equipment specications through the use of cost correlations. The equipment costs (C) increase nonlinearly with equipment size (S) which can be expressed as C =C0

1999) is designed to deal with various environmental objectives simultaneously. The SPI uses the concept of a sustainable development as reference system. The basic concept of the SPI is to calculate the area required to sustainingly embed a process into an environment. All mass ows that the process either extracts or emits to the environment must not inuence the environment in such a way that brings natural evolution into danger. The total required area consists of the raw material area, energy supply area, infrastructure area, staff area, and product dissipation area. Fig. 1 shows the basis of the life-cycle assessment in the SPI concept.

4. Process robustness indicator Process robustness is based on the feasibility function, which is a measure of the ability of a process to meet design specications under uncertainties (Biegler, Grossmann, & Westerberg, 1997). The basic model of exibility test problem is described as (d)= max min max gj (d,z,q)5 0.
qU zZ jJ


S S0

0.65

(1)

where C0 and S0 are the base capacities and costs, respectively (Gerrard, 2000). The major equipment costs typically represent 30% of the xed costs (Gerrard, 2000). The rest of the xed costs are assumed to increase in direct proportion to the cost of major equipments. The operating costs were estimated using following costs: cooling water, 2.5 10 6 $/kcal; steam 3.16 10 6 $/kcal; electricity 0.15 $/kWh (Peter & Timmerhaus, 1990); toluene price 0.42 $/kg; propylene oxide price 1.41 $/kg; propylene glycol (USP) price 1.56 $/kg (ChemExpo, 2001). It is necessary to determine the amount of money which is available at the present time in order to have a certain amount accumulated at some denite time in the future. Because the element of time is involved, interest rate must be considered. Here, the interest rate is assumed to be 15%. The economic objective is then represented by the net present value.

(2)

Here, d is a vector of design variables, Z is a region of admissible value of control variables z, and U is the domain of the uncertain parameter q, F(d) is exibility indicator, and gj (d,z,q) is a constraint of the process. The exibility test problem only evaluates whether a design does or does not have the exibility to operate over the specied range of uncertain parameters U. The exibility index was developed to measure exibility quantitatively (Biegler et al., 1997). The problem can be posed as F= max l, (3)

3. Environmental indicator The sustainable process index (SPI) (Krotscheck & Narodoslawsky, 1996; Narodoslawsky and Krotscheck,

where, (d)5 0, and U(l)={qq N l5q5 q N + l,l ] 0}. Several methods to calculate the process exibility parameters involve solving a very complex multi-extremal and concave optimization problem, which in the worst case requires a large number of iterations. In this article, new efcient parameters for the evaluation of the process exibility and operability are proposed.

4.1. Failure probability

The static exibility of a process can be evaluated using the failure probability. The exibility is the ability of the plant to obtain feasible steady state operation at any operating point within a given domain. The calculation of this parameter requires only a small number of iterations, and it provides a picture of feasible and infeasible regions. Failure probability is dened as the probability of failure scenarios. Fig. 2 is the probability

Fig. 1. Life cycle assessment in the SPI concept.

S. Kheawhom, M. Hirao / Computers and Chemical Engineering 26 (2002) 747755

749

Fig. 4. Input-output of the process. Fig. 2. Failure probability.

density surface of two uncertain inputs (Klienbaum, Kupper, Muller, Nizam, & Nizati, 1997), which in this case are the feed rate and the concentration of input. The volume under the infeasible region is the failure probability. The region where the process cannot operate without an adjustment of control variables denotes the infeasible region. The smaller failure probability implies a more exible process.

input variations is compared with a linear combination of all input variations as shown in following expression. DR of parameter x= ,
|*1 + |*2 + +|* 2/(v*1 + v*2 + + v* ) i i in i i in
2 2

|*x /v*x o o

(4)

4.2. De6iation ratio

The operability can be indicated by the deviation ratio (DR). The operability is the ability of the plant to provide acceptable static and dynamic operational performance. The basic idea of the DR is to investigate how cost or environmental impact increases when a uctuation of input occurs, as shown in Fig. 3. In order to calculate the DR, the standard DR (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2000) of a concerned parameter under given

where gj (d,z,q)5 0, o*= {o*oi o*] o o} and o o is a i i i i nominal point value; | and v are the standard deviation and an arithmetic mean of the input or output distributions, respectively. Fig. 4 shows the input-output analysis of the process. In order to calculate the DR, the subproblems must be solved for a new set of optimal control variables. The formulation of the sub-problem is dened as min O(d,z,q)
zZ

s.t.

gj (d,z,q)5 0.

(5)

Here, d is a vector of design variables, z is a vector of control variables, Z is a region of admissible values of control variables, and q is the uncertain parameter.

Fig. 3. Performance distribution.

750

S. Kheawhom, M. Hirao / Computers and Chemical Engineering 26 (2002) 747755

5. Synthesis methodology Fig. 5 illustrates a owchart of the synthesis methodology. The primary attributes of a problem must be identied and classied according to the following quantities: design variables, state variables, control variables and uncertain parameters. A certain set of objectives, goals, hard constraints and soft constraints must be dened. The problem usually involves more than one objective function, such as economic and environmental objectives. Thus, it becomes a simultaneous multi-objective optimization. In this and most other similar cases, it is unlikely that the different objectives can be optimized by the same parameter. Hence, some tradeoff between the objectives is required to ensure a satisfactory design. The search space of a problem containing many objective functions is large which in turn renders the synthesis problem requiring a large number of iterations. If all objective functions were used to construct a Pareto set, there would soon be overwhelming number of many surfaces. Thus, each objective function should be ranked by its signicance. Two most important objective functions are used to construct a trade-off (Pareto) set. Economic and environmental performance are often applied in general chemical process synthesis. Nevertheless, environmental performance consists of various environmental aspects such as global warming potential, ozone depletion potential and critical water mass (EPA, 1999). These environmental aspects are lacking correlation with each other. For the reason that SPI is a parameter that makes it possible to deal with various environmental aspects simultaneously as it inherently includes the amount of wastewater, carbon dioxide emission, and all other environmental impacts, the problem can be constructed as a two objective functions problem: the cost (economic performance) and the

SPI (environmental performance). With these criteria, the Pareto set can be constructed using available multi-objective optimization techniques. In this study, we apply a method called normalboundary intersection (Das & Dennis, 1998). It uses geometrically intuitive parameterization to produce an even spread of points on the Pareto set, giving an accurate picture of the entire surface. Though, SPI is used as an environmental indicator. Unfortunately, some parameters such as the concentration of discharged wastewater may be required to be lower than a natural concentration of that species in local area or in case that some species are very sensitive in bringing natural evolution into danger. These parameters may be required to be separately considered. To investigate these parameters, the multi-criteria optima surface (MOS) is used. The MOS is a surface obtained from a plot between objective functions and other criteria. This surface shows how each criterion changes under given circumstances. The sensitivity analysis of each criterion can be retrieved from the created MOS. Moreover, a computationally expensive indicator such as a exibility index, failure probability and DR should be investigated using MOS. Previously, the basic calculation method of a failure probability and a DR have been described. In order to calculate the DR, the sub-problems must be solved to obtain a new set of control variables. By adjusting the control variable set, an aspect of the process performance of process such as cost or environmental impact may change. If the performance of the process decreases substantially under uncertainties, the DR of that parameter becomes high. All data should be considered in normalized terms. In order to normalize each criterion in the entire range of Pareto-set or MOS, the maximum and minimum values of each criterion are required as follow Fn = FFw , Fb Fw (6)

Fig. 5. Diagram of the synthesis methodology.

where Fn is the normalized value of F, Fb and Fw are the maximum and minimum values of each criterion, respectively. We used the most sensitive and unbiased lines of each criterion to analyze and select the appropriate solution from the Pareto set and MOS. Figs. 6 and 7 show the solution analysis based on the method using the most sensitive and unbiased lines of convex and concave set, respectively. The line of the most sensitive to f1 is the tangent line at each local maximum value of df2/df1. At the point that the tangent line touches a Pareto curve or MOS, the values of f1 are very sensitive to the values of f2. In a similar fashion, the line of the most sensitive to f2 is the tangent line at each local maximum value of df1/df2. The sensitivity of f1 to f2 is

S. Kheawhom, M. Hirao / Computers and Chemical Engineering 26 (2002) 747755

751

If a satisfactory solution cannot be reached in this stage, then the problem must be reformulated. After reformulation, the design problem will be solved again.

6. Case study

6.1. Synthesis of a closed-loop toluene reco6ery process

The synthesis procedure described above is applied to a case study of the synthesis of a closed-loop volatile organic compound recovery process. The closed-loop toluene recovery process is used to dry-off excess toluene in an adhesive tape manufacturing process. The ue gas containing 0.53 vol.% of toluene is fed to the toluene recovery process to recover toluene and the lean gas is used as the inert gas to purge toluene from the manufacturing process. The problem description is to design a process that can treat 2500 kgmol/h ue gas with 3 vol.% toluene concentration. Distributions of ow rate and toluene concentration are assumed to follow a normal distribution with | 2 = 1000 (kgmol/h)2 and | 2 = 110 6 respectively. There are several candidate processes for this case study: membrane-based, condensation-based and adsorption-based processes. Fig. 8 shows the process of the membrane-based closed-loop toluene recovery process (Sea, Yamaguchi, Nakao, & Hirao, 1999). To reduce the size of the synthesis search space, we compared the characteristics of all candidate processes. Figs. 9 and 10 show the relations of cost and SPI versus toluene feed concentration, respectively. These gures were created by applying a uniform weighting parameters. The adsorption-based process is economically attractive for low toluene concentration, while the membrane-based process becomes more competitive when the toluene concentration increases. However, on the basis of the environmentally benign condition, the membrane-based process is more attractive than the others over the entire range of toluene concentration.

Fig. 6. Solution analysis of convex set.

Fig. 7. Solution analysis of concave set.

Fig. 8. The membrane-based closed-loop toluene recovery process.

maximum at the point that the tangent line touches a Pareto curve or MOS. The unbiased line is the line projected from the origin to the intersection of the most sensitive lines of both criteria. This line represents the equal sensitivity of f1 to f2, and f2 to f1. The number of unbiased line may be more than one in case of concave set. The solution of a trade-off curve should be on the unbiased line or the nearest one if more than two criteria are considered. By considering the Pareto set and MOS, it is possible to design an appropriate process and select operating conditions with minimal environmental impacts and maximal robustness at a desired economic performance.

Fig. 9. Cost versus feed concentration.

752

S. Kheawhom, M. Hirao / Computers and Chemical Engineering 26 (2002) 747755

Fig. 10. SPI versus feed concentration.

The most economically attractive solution may not necessarily be environmentally attractive. Hence, a trade-off between economic and environmental objectives is required to ensure a satisfactory design. Furthermore, the failure probability, the cost DR and the SPI DR are also considered to ensure that the process is adequately robust. The MOS of normalized cost versus normalized CO2 emission, normalized cost versus normalized discharged wastewater, normalized cost versus normalized failure probability, normalized cost versus normalized cost DR and normalized cost versus normalized SPI DR are shown in Figs. 1215 and Fig. 16, respectively. The Pareto set and a number of MOSs were used to select the most preferable solution. The unbiased lines are varying between A and C. Alternative B can be selected as the most preferable process due to the positive compromise between economic, environmental and robustness performance. Moreover, alternative B is the nearest to the unbiased lines in average. The solution obtained using described methodology was also compared with the solution obtained using conventional value function. A value function method is to form a value function from all objectives as:

Fig. 11. Pareto trade-off curve between normalized cost and normalized SPI.

Fig. 13. 2D-plotted MOS between normalized cost and normalized discharged wastewater.

Fig. 12. 2D-plotted MOS between normalized cost and normalized CO2 emission.

After screening, the membrane-based process is selected. The design variables are the membrane area, permeability and selectivity. The control variables are the pressure of both sides of the membrane. Fig. 11 shows the Pareto set for the design problem. This gure was created on the normalized cost and SPI. The SPI decreases when cost increases. The most sensitive line to cost, SPI, and the unbiased line were drawn. A, B and C are the alternatives near the unbiased line.

Fig. 14. 2D-plotted MOS between normalized cost and normalized failure probability.

S. Kheawhom, M. Hirao / Computers and Chemical Engineering 26 (2002) 747755

F(x1,x2,,xn )= % i x p i
i=1

753

1/p

(7)

Fig. 15. 2D-plotted MOS between normalized cost and normalized cost DR.

Fig. 16. 2D-plotted MOS between normalized cost and normalized SPI DR.

where is a weighting factor for each objective which is proportional to the preference factor assigned to that objective, and p is a dimensional parameter. It is important to realize that the trade-off solution obtained using the conventional value function strategy is largely sensitive to the weighting factors used in forming the value function. A change in these weighting factors will result in a different solution. Any arbitrary weighting factors need not result in a trade-off optimal solution to all problems. Besides this difculty, it is intuitive to realize that nding a set of weighting factors itself is highly subjective and not straightforward. This requires an analysis of the non-technical, qualitative, and experience-driven information to nd a weighting factor. Without any knowledge of the likely trade-off solutions, this is an even more difcult task. Moreover, it is very difcult to nd an appropriate dimensional parameter p on account of lacking physical meaning. The appropriate dimension parameter depends on a characteristic of a trade-off curve. Here, we used a uniform weighting factor set to compare our solution. Table 1 shows the value function of alternatives A, B and C at various p. The solutions obtained using value function method are C, B, B, B and A when p= 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. In this case, most of the solutions obtained using value function method were as same as the solution obtained using proposed methodology. For the reason that, the trade-off set is convex. Nevertheless, the value function method may not yield the same solution in case of concave set.

Table 1 The value function of alternatives A, B and C p A B C 1 0.5214 0.3921 0.3471 2 0.2032 0.1658 0.1686 3 0.1499 0.1329 0.1426 4 0.1293 0.1230 0.1337 5 0.1186 0.1193 0.1293

6.2. Synthesis of a propylene glycol production process

Propylene glycol is exploited in various applications. It is used in liquid laundry detergents, resins, food, pharmaceutical, personal care and hard surface cleaners to assist product clarity (Lyondell, 2001). Production of propylene glycol is by hydration of propylene oxide. Propylene oxide is mixed with water to produce propylene glycol in a CSTR. The reactor products are then fed to a distillation tower, where essentially all the glycol is recovered in the bottom of the distillation column. The owsheet of propylene glycol production process is shown in Fig. 17. The simulation was performed using Hysys plant (Hyprotech, 2001). The problem description is to design a process that can produce 100 kgmol/hr propylene glycol USP. The variation of the steam and propylene oxide prices are assumed to follow a normal distribution with | 2 =1 10 13 ($/kcal)2 and | 2 = 210 2 ($/kg)2, respectively. The design variables are the number of stages, the

Fig. 17. The propylene glycol production process.

754

S. Kheawhom, M. Hirao / Computers and Chemical Engineering 26 (2002) 747755

feed location and the pressure of the distillation column. The control variables are the recycle ratio, the temperature of the reactor, the reux ratio and the temperature of the distillation column. Fig. 18 shows the trade-off set for the synthesis problem. This gure was created on the normalized

Fig. 21. 2D-plotted MOS between normalized cost and normalized cost DR.

Fig. 18. Pareto trade-off curve between normalized cost and normalized SPI.

Fig. 19. 2D-plotted MOS between normalized cost and normalized energy consumption.

cost and SPI. The SPI was calculated by the amount of discharged wastewater and steam consumption in the process. The SPI decreases when cost increases. In this case, the optimization problem contains integer variables, the number of stages and the feed location of the distillation column. Therefore, the trade-off set becomes concave. Consequently, there are several unbiased lines. A, B, C, D, E and F are the alternatives near each unbiased line. The MOS of normalized cost versus normalized energy consumption, normalized cost versus normalized discharged wastewater and normalized cost versus normalized cost DR are shown in Figs. 19 21, respectively. The energy consumption is largely sensitive to the recycle ratio. Even though the alternative with the highest recycle ratio, F, is the most environmentally attractive alternative, the economic performance is repulsive. Furthermore, the cost DR of the most environmentally attractive alternative, F, is high, and it is not robust under given input variations. Alternative A may be selected as the most attractive alternative based on cost and operability. Unfortunately, the SPI of alternative A is very high and quite not decreases even the cost increases. Alternatives C may also be selected to compromise between economic and environmental. In this case, the proposed methodology suggested two alternatives A or C. The solution obtained using described methodology was also compared with the solution obtained using conventional value function strategy.The solution obtained using value function of alternatives are shown in Table 2. The solutions are E, C, C, B and B when p=1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively.

7. Conclusions
Fig. 20. 2D-plotted MOS between normalized cost and normalized discharged wastewater.

This article presents a new methodology for environmentally benign process synthesis. The applicability of

S. Kheawhom, M. Hirao / Computers and Chemical Engineering 26 (2002) 747755 Table 2 The value function of alternatives A, B, C, D, E and F p A B C D E F 1 0.1238 0.1171 0.1000 0.0919 0.0880 0.0900 2 0.3036 0.2414 0.2293 0.2327 0.2362 0.2780 3 0.4246 0.3203 0.3194 0.3371 0.3471 0.4146 4 0.4996 0.3666 0.3765 0.4033 0.4168 0.4999 5 0.5556 0.4030 0.4208 0.4531 0.4686 0.5623

755

the proposed methodology has been described and demonstrated in case studies, syntheses of a closed-loop toluene recovery process and a propylene glycol production process. In rst case study, three types of closed loop toluene recovery processes, (1) membrane-based, (2) condensation-based, and (3) adsorption-based, were investigated to quantitatively compare the characteristics of each process. A propylene glycol production process was investigated in second case study. The synthesis methodology is capable of designing and selecting the process with minimal environmental impact and maximal robustness at a desired economic performance. The solution obtained using proposed methodology denes an optimal design with adequate static exibility and operability. The new efcient robustness parameters are also presented. The failure probability can be used to identify static exibility of the process. This parameter can be rapidly calculated as it requires only a small number of iterations. The DR is capable of identifying the operability of the process.

References
Bernardo, F. P., Pistikopoulos, E. N., & Saraiva, P. M. (2001). Quality Costs and Robustness Criteria in Chemical Process Design Optimization. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 25, 2740. Biegler, L. T., Grossmann, I. E., & Westerberg, A. W. (1997). Systematic methods of chemical process design. Upper Saddle River, New Jersy: Prentice Hall. Chacon-Mondragon, O. L., & Himmeblau, D. M. (1996). Integration of Flexibility and Control in Process Design. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 20, 447452. ChemExpo (2001). Available: http://www.chemexpo.com. Constantinou, C., Jaksland, C., Bagherpour, K., & Gani, R. (1994). Application of the group contribution approach to tackle environmentally related problems. American Institue of Chemical Engineering Symposium Series, 90 (303), 105 116.

Das, I., & Dennis, J. E. (1998). Normal-Boundary Intersection: An alternate approach for generating Pareto optimal points in multicriteria optimization problems. SIAM Journal Optimization, 8, 631 657. EPA (1999). The United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available: http://www.epa.gov. Friedlander, S. K. (1989). The implications of environmental-issues for engineering and education. Chemical Engineering Progress, 85, 22 28. Friedler, F., Varga, J. B., & Fan, L. T. (1994). Algorithmic approach to the integration of total owsheet synthesis and waste minimization. American Institue of Chemical Engineering Symposium Series, 90 (303), 86 97. Gerrard, A. M. (2000). Guide to capital cost estimation. Warwickshire, UK: Institution of Chemical Engineers. Hyprotech (2001). Hyprotech Ltd. Available: http:// www.hyprotech.com. Klienbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., Muller, K. E., Nizam, A., & Nizati, A. (1997). Applied regression analysis and multi6ariable methods. North Scituate, Massachusetts: Duxbury Press. Krotscheck, C., & Narodoslawsky, M. (1996). The Sustainable Process Index. A new dimension in ecological evaluation. Ecological Engineering, 6, 241 258. Linninger, A. A. (1994). Synthesis and assessment of batch processes for pollution prevention. American Institue of Chemical Engineering Symposium Series, 90 (303), 46 58. Lyondell (2001). Lyondell Chemical Company. Available: http:// www.lyondell.com. Narodoslawsky, M., Krotscheck, C. (1999). Integrated Ecological Optimization of Processes with the Sustainable Process Index. Second conference on process integration, modeling and optimization for energy sa6ing and pollution reduction, pp. 77 86. Ostrovsky, G. M., Achenie, L. E. K., & Wang, Y. (2000). A new algorithm for Computing Process Flexibility. Industrial Engineering Chemistry Research, 39, 2368 2377. Peter, M. S., & Timmerhaus, K. D. (1990). Plant design and economics for chemical engineers. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Petrides, D. P., Konstadinos, G. A., & Subir, K. M. (1994). Envirocad: a design tool for efcient synthesis and evaluation of the integrated waste recovery, treatment and disposal process. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 18, S603 S607. Rooney, W. C., & Biegler, L. T. (1999). Incorporating joint condence regions into design under uncertainty. Computer and Chemical Engineering, 23, 1563 1575. Sea, B. K., Yamaguchi, T., Nakao, S., Hirao, M. (1999). Evaluation of toluene recovery process using membrane separation. Eighth APCChE Congress, 1, 455 458. Seferlis, P., & Grievink, J. (2001). Process Design and Control Structure Screening based on Economic and Static Controllability criteria. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 25, 177 188. Tabachnick, B. G. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2000). Using multi6ariate statistics. USA: Allyn & Bacon, Inc. Zariou, E., & Chiou, H. W. (1996). On the dynamic resiliency of constrained processes. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 20, 347 355.