Tearing and Precedence Ordering in Flowsheeting-an Effective Method

Lakshminarayanan, S.; Rao, S. Subba; Rao, Ch. Durgaprasada

doi:10.1080/00986449208936028

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the other more recent papers (Gundersen and Hertzberg (1983), Lakshminarayanan et al (1992), Lien and Hertzberg (1990) and Varma et al (1993», only Varma et al, claimed to have achieved the optimal cardinality tear sets for 13 of the above test problems (they did not include the coal conversion plant) although their Table HI seems to contain a typographic error. Gundersen and Hertzberg found minimum cardinality tear sets for 6 out of 10 of the above problems while Lien and Hertzberg modified the method to obtain all minimum tear sets.…”

Section: Discussion Of Minimum Cardinality Tear Set Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…General reviews of earlier work have been carried out by Mah (1990), Lakshminarayanan et al (1992) and Varma et al (1993). The essential attributes of the various heuristic methods reported may be considered in the following categories:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It uses a weighting scheme based on edge (stream source) node degrees. The method is computationally direct and efficient and achieves minimum tear-set cardinality for the fourteen (14) exainples in a standard literature test set (Lakshminarayanan et al (1992)). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This can be done by modifying the strongly connected component analysis algorithm or by forming a new DAG consisting only of the strongly connected components as nodes and carrying out a topological sorting of the resultant DAG. 8,13,14,15,9,10,11,12,4,5,1,2,6,7,3 Step 1: The flowsheet (Lakshminarayanan (1992)) can be divided into 3 strongly connected components (see) by visual inspection, viz: Node set see 1 is {I, 2, 3,4, 5} Node set sec2 is {6, 7, 8,9, 10} Node set sec3 is {II, 12, 13, 14, 15}…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A New Synthetic Method for Stream Tearing in Process Systems Analysis

Roach

O’Neill

Hocking

1997

Chemical Engineering Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A straightforward heuristic-oriented method for stream tearing is proposed in this work. It does not use the traditional methods of evolutionary process-cycle analysis. First, an edge (stream) weighted spanning-tree is constructed from the process graph using weights based on the 'in' and 'out' degrees of the process digraph vertices. Second. a direcred acyclic graph (DAG) is constructed such that it is the maximum edge (stream) acyclic sub-set of the process digraph. The VAG is constructed by adding ('put-back'), where possible, directed edges (streams) not already in the spanning-tree. A hierachial ordering based on the same preferential weighting system as the spanning-tree determines the sequence of the 'put-back' trials. The remaining edges which cannot be 'put-back' into the VAG form a tear set. The weighting system used formed a minimal cardinality tear set in all of the examples tested. Pre-partitioning of the network into strongly connected components is not required and a node computational order is easily derived. Further, the method is extended to produce tear sets~hich minimise another set of stream weights, in this case the variables per stream. While the scheme proposed in this paper is heuristic-oriented. most of its methods are contained in classical graph theory and are consequently easily reproduced with efficient algorithms.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Of Minimum Cardinality Tear Set Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations