Energy intensity is a commonly used key performance indicator (KPI) for the energy performance ofproduction processes and often serves as an Energy Performance Indicator (EnPI).

© All Rights Reserved

0 views

Energy intensity is a commonly used key performance indicator (KPI) for the energy performance ofproduction processes and often serves as an Energy Performance Indicator (EnPI).

© All Rights Reserved

- Hierarchical Analysis of GSM Network Performance Data
- Clustering and Matlab - QuestionInBox
- cs1.2
- ANALYSIS OF DATA MINING AND SOFT COMPUTING TECHNIQUES IN PROSPECTING DIABETES DISORDER IN HUMAN BEINGS: A REVIEW
- Strategic Prefetching of VoD Programs Based on ART2 driven Request Clustering
- Segmentation by Fusion of Self-Adaptive SFCM Cluster in Multi-Color Space Components
- 1401.5559
- Hierarchical Clustering Algorithms in Data Mining
- Review on Document Recommender Systems Using Hierarchical Clustering Techniques
- IJETTCS-2014-01-08-015
- Econometrics_ch4.ppt
- Cluster Analysis
- A Study for the Discovery of Web Usage Patterns Using Soft Computing Based Data Clustering Techniques
- A Clustering MODEL With Renyi Entropy Regularization
- Clustering
- Survey on Traditional and Evolutionary Clustering
- 41672ddd
- Secure Algorithm for File Sharing Using Clustering Technique of K-Means Clustering
- Denclue2
- Data Mining Tools

You are on page 1of 12

Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

models

Benedikt Beisheim a, *, Keivan Rahimi-Adli a, Stefan Kra

€mer b, Sebastian Engell c

a €ln, Germany

INEOS Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Alte Strasse 201, 50769, Ko

b

Bayer AG, Engineering & Technology, 51368, Leverkusen, Germany

c €t Dortmund, Emil-Figge-Str. 70,

Department of Biochemical and Chemical Engineering, Process Dynamics and Operations Group, Technische Universita

44221 Dortmund, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Energy intensity is a commonly used key performance indicator (KPI) for the energy performance of

Received 28 October 2018 production processes and often serves as an Energy Performance Indicator (EnPI). The energy perfor-

Received in revised form mance of a process depends on a variety of factors like capacity utilization, ambient temperature and

13 May 2019

operational performance. Understanding the inﬂuence of these factors on the relevant KPI or EnPI helps

Accepted 24 May 2019

Available online 18 June 2019

to distinguish between inﬂuenceable and non-inﬂuenceable contributions and to identify the

improvement potential. By describing the best historically observed performance as a function of the

non-inﬂuenceable factors, valuable information on the efﬁciency of the current operation of a plant and

Keywords:

Energy performance indicators

the improvement potential is provided to plant managers and operators. In this contribution, a method is

Energy baseline proposed to identify a surrogate performance model for the attainable energy performance considering

Energy management systems the relevant factors. The modeling method is based solely on the evaluation of historical process data and

Surrogate models employs a novel combination of known surrogate modeling techniques using clustering, model ﬁtting

Process monitoring and model simpliﬁcation by backward elimination. The method is applied to real process data of a large

industrial production plant and the use of the model for process performance monitoring and reporting

in accordance with energy management system requirements is illustrated and discussed.

© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction goals that are deﬁned on the societal level, e.g. the reduction of the

carbon footprint.

1.1. Evaluation of the energy performance of industrial processes In Germany, the problem of the competitive disadvantage for

energy intensive industries caused by high energy prices due to the

The industry in Europe faces enormous challenges regarding energy transition was addressed by a reduction of levies under

productivity and competitiveness. In the chemical industry, sig- certain prerequisites [2]. As one of these prerequisites, energy

niﬁcant investments in new production plants are made outside of intensive companies need to operate a certiﬁed energy manage-

Europe in countries with lower prices of feedstock and energy [1]. ment system according to ISO 50001:2018 [3] or EMAS [4]. Certiﬁed

This trend is expected to continue and these new plants are often sites or companies commit themselves to continuously enhancing

highly efﬁcient, while the plant inventory is relatively old in the environmental and energy performance. Morrow and Rondi-

Europe. In addition, companies have to respond to the political and nelli [5] point out that the introduction of environmental man-

societal pressure asking for a more sustainable production. Thus, agement systems is motivated by the desire to improve the

the European process industry has to increase its energy efﬁciency performance beyond regulatory compliance. However, the attri-

to compete with other regions in the world and to comply with bution of improvements to the adoption and certiﬁcation of man-

agement systems is difﬁcult. Poksinska et al. [6] point out that

management systems can be used as a toolbox for environmental

performance enhancements but that the certiﬁcation alone is

* Corresponding author. insufﬁcient.

E-mail addresses: benedikt.beisheim@ineos.com (B. Beisheim), keivan.rahimi-

adli@ineos.com (K. Rahimi-Adli), stefan.kraemer@bayer.com (S. Kr€ amer),

ISO 50001:2018 demands the use of energy performance in-

sebastian.engell@tu-dortmund.de (S. Engell). dicators (EnPI) which have to be compared with an energy baseline.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.05.176

0360-5442/© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

B. Beisheim et al. / Energy 183 (2019) 776e787 777

Pi ith percentile

Symbol Explanation PT Pretreated

AIC Akaike information criterion Rj Set of points for the identiﬁcation of the

BDP Best demonstrated practice representative point

b Base function r Representative point of the cluster

Cj Set of points in cluster S Subset of active basis functions

c Cluster center S Number of selected basis functions

c Continuous state SU Maximum number of allowed basis functions

d Discrete state Tamb Ambient temperature

EnB Energy baseline Tref Reference temperature

EnPI Energy performance indicator t Time

f Function U Data matrix

i Counting variable U Loose bound for numerical optimization

j Counting variable ut Vector of states at time t

KPI Key perfomance indicator u Data value

MILP Mixed-integer linear program ub Upper bound

MIQP Mixed-integer quadratic program V c Domain of continuous states

NP Non-deterministic polynomial time V d Domain of discrete states

OIP Operational improvement potential Xij ijth entry of the transformed input data matrix

OLR Ordinary least square regression xi Pretreated and scaled data vector

UV Unit variance y Output variable

B Set of basis functions z Data point

E Energy b Regression factor

Fk Model error ratio g Backward elimination error threshold

H Stationarity condition ε Model error

k Counting variable m Mean

lb Lower bound s Standard deviation

m_ P Production rate F Objective function

N Number of data points u Cluster weight

n Number

The indicator and the baseline can be chosen by the users of the 1.2. Overview of currently available evaluation techniques

management systems. As a result, a variety of indicators and

baselines are used. A major challenge is that the performance of The evaluation of process performance and its comparison with

production processes is rarely constant as ambient conditions, modeled, historical or literature data is common practice in the

feedstock quality, throughput and the maintenance status of the process industry.

processes vary over time. The inﬂuence of these variations on the Energy efﬁciency benchmarks for different countries and in-

process performance must be understood for a meaningful analysis dustrial sectors are available (e.g. La€ssig et al. [7] for Germany,

of the effect of measures to improve the energy efﬁciency, both for Phylipsen et al. [8] for the Netherlands or Makridou et al. [9] on a

long term analysis (changes of the performance due to production European scale). There are also several studies available that

levels) and for short term analysis of the improvement potential compare the performance of different production plants of the

under certain conditions as e.g. the outside temperature. same kind using a variety of indicators. The meta-study by Saygin

Using the ambient temperature as an illustrative example it can et al. [10] revealed the energy saving potential for several processes

be seen that a single inﬂuencing factor can have different and and countries based on the Best Practice Technology (BPT), which is

contradictory effects on process performance. On the one hand, low deﬁned as the top 10% percentile of the available processes with

temperatures have a negative inﬂuence on the energy demand of a respect to energy efﬁciency. This evaluation is helpful on high

process since low temperatures increase the heat loss through managerial levels or for policy makers to compare the plant port-

pipes and very low temperatures even require heat tracing. On the folio with plants of other companies or in other countries to be able

other hand, low ambient temperatures decrease the energy de- to estimate possible energy saving potentials [11]. However, it is not

mand in cooling water production and absorption processes adequate to use these literature benchmarks to evaluate the current

perform better at lower temperatures. operational performance of an existing plant as the best-in-class

The knowledge of these factors and their inﬂuence on the pro- efﬁciency might not be attainable with the given equipment.

cess help to explain performance deviations of the processes and The process industry has already developed solutions for the

consequently to identify if ﬂuctuations are induced by non- evaluation of the improvement potential and also standardised

inﬂuenceable external disturbances or are due to sub-optimal them in some cases. Bayer developed a holistic methodology to

operation. The minimization of the duration of periods of sub- identify the most energy efﬁcient operation of a production plant

optimal operation improves the efﬁciency, the economical perfor- [12]. In this method, two different categories of inefﬁciencies for

mance and the environmental footprint of the processes. chemical processes are identiﬁed: dynamic losses and static losses.

Dynamic losses are related to the operation of the given equipment,

whereas static losses are related to the choice of suboptimal

equipment, a lack of heat integration or the use of outdated

778 B. Beisheim et al. / Energy 183 (2019) 776e787

technology. This methodology introduced the term Best Demon- performance of a process. The best possible operation is not

strated Practice (BDP) for the e according to the present knowledge considered during the performance evaluation. Thus, these con-

e best possible mode of operation of a plant. It is based on rigorous cepts can only illustrate the differences in the performance during

models or on linear regression of process data after outlier removal. different time intervals. They are not able to assist plant personnel

The deﬁnition of the best demonstrated practice aims at indicating in improving the current operation as the average performance is

the optimal mode of operation at a speciﬁc set of non-inﬂuenceable not suitable for this purpose. Although different concepts for the

circumstances like ambient conditions or feedstock quality. The assessment of process performance exist in the literature (e.g.

method found its way into the NAMUR Recommendations NE 140 [15,22]), they have not yet been used for energy management

and NE 162 [13,14]. systems. Currently, there exists a gap between the methods pro-

The use of rigorous models for process performance monitoring posed in the literature and the application in industry [28,29].

is the best approach as it provides the most reliable information. In order to close this gap, this contribution proposes a method to

Model-based simulation of chemical processes is a well developed identify a model of the best demonstrated practice (the best

ﬁeld in academia and industry [15,16]. Many approaches for the observed process performance depending on the values of the

efﬁcient modeling of processes are documented (e.g. Dowling and inﬂuencing factors). The ultimate goal is to use this model to

Biegler [17]) and commercial software is available and used analyse the current process performance and to inform plant op-

extensively in industry for process optimization (e.g. AspenPlus or erators and plant managers where there is most likely room for

gPROMS and many inhouse simulators). A detailed rigorous model improvement. Because of this intended use of the model, the best

is suitable for plant optimization and improving process automa- performance is described rather than the average performance,

tion but the development effort is typically not justiﬁed if the distinguishing the method from other applications of regression

model is only used for process monitoring. In general, the models in energy management.

complexity of a model has to match the given task [18]. If sufﬁ- The method is based on a statistical evaluation of historical data

ciently precise rigorous models cannot be developed under the and a nonlinear interpolation of the BDP as a function of the non-

constraints of time and budget, surrogate models are an alternative inﬂuenceable factors. Only limited process knowledge is neces-

that gained popularity in recent years. sary to obtain this “baseline” which can be used to monitor the

A surrogate model is a parameterized mathematical structure process behavior and to identify the potential for operational im-

(also called black-box model) that is ﬁtted to the observations. Such provements. The resulting model represents the most important

models only represent the data that has been used to parameterize inﬂuencing variables so that a normalization of the process per-

them, so extrapolation usually is not possible and their accuracy formance with respect to these factors is possible.

depends on the density, accuracy and reproducibility of the avail- The method provides a basis for the evaluation of complex

able data. Their development also requires considerable efforts in production plants and sites using decomposition and aggregation

data pre-treatment and in the choice and parameterization of the methods as proposed in Beisheim et al. [30] and Beisheim et al. [31].

model structure. As an additional advantage, surrogate models can Prior to the investigation of the BDP, a suitable indicator has to

typically be evaluated quickly, which speeds up process optimiza- be chosen. In the industrial context several frameworks for the

tion [19]. choice of indicators are available (e.g. Giljum et al. [32], Huysman

For process monitoring and reporting, rather simple models are et al. [33], Kujanpa€€a et al. [34] or Beisheim et al. [31]). Two main

commonly used. ISO 50006:2017 [20] proposes the use of linear types are applied in these frameworks: efﬁciency and intensity

regression to account for different factors affecting the energy indicators. In general, the efﬁciency is the ratio of useful output to

performance of a process like the daily temperature ﬁgure or the total input. The intensity is the reciprocal value of the efﬁciency.

process utilization. Linear regression and principal component Throughout this paper, the Energy Perfomance Indicator EnPI is

analysis are effective and established methods to identify models to used which is deﬁned as:

monitor the performance of batch and continuous processes

[21,22]. Ej

Linear regression models are relatively easy to ﬁt to data, but EnPIj ¼ ; (1)

mP

they are not able to capture the nonlinearities that often are present

in chemical processes. Kriging models [23] and artiﬁcial neural where Ej denotes the energy demand and mP the amount of

networks [24,25] are two of the most popular nonlinear surrogate product in speciﬁcation during a speciﬁed time interval. j denotes

models. Such surrogate models have been successfully employed in the type of the energy source. In chemical processes different en-

various ﬁelds. E.g. Audet et al. [26] use Kriging models in order to ergy and utility sources are utilized, e.g. steam, electricity, pres-

optimize the wing planform design of airplanes. Neural networks surized air or cooling water. BDP models for each of these sources

and Kriging models however may exhibit some “roughness” of the can be identiﬁed separately or cumulated indicators can be used

response surfaces which can make it difﬁcult to use them for (e.g. by using an Energy Currency [31]). The operational improve-

optimization using derivative-based methods [27]. ment potential (OIP) is deﬁned as the difference between the EnPI

and the BDP at the given non-inﬂuenceable conditions:

1.3. Scope of this contribution

OIP ¼ EnPI BDP: (2)

The requirements for the certiﬁcation of energy management

systems are continuously reﬁned and the factor-based normaliza- The proposed concept is independent of the chosen source of

tion of energy related indicators is increasingly in the focus of energy. Generally, indicators should be used that can be derived

certiﬁed companies and certiﬁcation bodies. However, to the best from measurements of physical ﬂows.

of the authors’ knowledge, concepts beyond multivariate linear The generation of a BDP model is a multi-step procedure which

regression are not documented in the literature nor are they part of is visualized in Fig. 1. Since the approach is data driven, data

the current standards for energy management systems. In many acquisition is the ﬁrst step of the method. The raw data is pre-

cases, the use of linear regression models is insufﬁcient since the treated by mean centering and unit variance (UV) scaling to have

performance curves of the process data clearly indicate nonlinear the same range of variation of all variables. The data is then clus-

behavior. Moreover, the available concepts focus on the average tered to identify different operational regimes and to reduce the

B. Beisheim et al. / Energy 183 (2019) 776e787 779

number of data points that are used in the model identiﬁcation The sampling time has to suit the purpose. For real-time

step. The model is constructed using surrogate modeling tech- monitoring, the compression interval of the data for model iden-

niques. The different steps of the modeling procedure are explained tiﬁcation has to be a reasonable fraction (12 15) of the time constant

in detail in Section 2. The application to real plant data from INEOS of the process. Much smaller sampling times do not provide addi-

in Cologne is described in Section 3. tional information as the rate of change of the process is limited by

The novelty of this contribution is the combination of state-of- the time constant whereas longer intervals prevent the early

the-art methods for data clustering and model identiﬁcation identiﬁcation of suboptimal operation and increase the reaction

which were not yet used in the context of the computation of en- time of plant personnel.

ergy baselines. The use of the best demonstrated practice enhances The data has to be representative for typical operational sce-

the useablity of the energy baseline for both real-time performance narios. Abnormal regimes must be excluded from the data to avoid

monitoring and reporting. The use of a clustering algorithm re- the identiﬁcation of a non-representative BDP model. The data

sponds to the issue of differently populated operational regimes in must be provided with consistent time stamps, for example, if lab

the model identiﬁcation. The model identiﬁcation combined with a data is used, the time when the sample was taken is important, not

statistical backward elimination of inﬂuence factors with minor the time at which it was sent to the lab or when it was analyzed.

signiﬁcance generates a simple, non-linear model which is acces- The result is a data matrix U where each row represents one

sible for people with limited mathematical knowledge. Thereby, time step tj and each column corresponds to a state variable. In this

the gap between concepts in the scientiﬁc literature and large-scale matrix ci denotes a continuous state, di a discrete state, nt the

application in industry can be closed. number of time steps, nc the number of continuous variables and nd

the number of discrete variables:

2. Modeling procedure 0 1

u

B t 1 C

2.1. Data acquisition U¼B

@ « A¼

C uc1 / ucnc ud1 / udn

d

(3)

utnt

The ﬁrst step is the acquisition of measurement data. The use of

reconciled data is advised to avoid data inconsistency due to

0 1

measurement uncertainties and gross errors. Data reconciliation is

ut1 ;c1 / ut1 ;cnc ut1 ;d1 / ut1 ;dnc

based on physical laws, in particular on conservation laws for mass B C

¼B

@ « 1 « « 1 « C A: (4)

and energy. If such relationships are not available, the method can utnt ;c1 / utnt ;cnc utn ;d1 / utn ;dnc

also be applied to the raw data, possibly after removal of outliers t t

the same method should be used for the live data when the model

is used for monitoring.

In what follows, it is assumed that measured values of the 2.2. Data pretreatment

quantities which enter the model are available in sufﬁcient quality.

The more sampling points are available the better is the repre- The next step after data acquisition is data pretreatment. Three

sentation of the behavior of the process. The occurrence of signif- steps are performed: outlier removal, classiﬁcation of data and

icant process modiﬁcations has to be taken into account when mean centering and unit variance (UV) scaling.

choosing the time interval for the determination of the BDP. Data Outlier removal is performed by ﬁltering data by specifying

prior to modiﬁcations may not be suitable for the model identiﬁ- upper and lower bounds which deﬁne the typical operational en-

cation of the current BDP, but contrariwise a signiﬁcant time period velope. All data vectors at ti , in which at least one variable is outside

is necessary to collect sufﬁcient process data to identify a reliable the speciﬁed limits, are removed. This step is a preliminary one so

and accurate BDP model. the limits should not be chosen to be too narrow. After clustering, a

Besides data on ﬂows of energy and materials, information on second outlier removal step is applied. It is therefore recommended

other factors inﬂuencing the process performance is needed. Such to keep as much data points as possible for clustering and to

factors can be process conditions such as the ambient temperature remove potential outliers by means of selecting the BDP of the

as well as disturbances, e.g., the quality of feedstock. In many cases, clusters (see below).

plant personnel have a good overview, which external inﬂuences The available data is classiﬁed into continuous and discrete

affect the process performance. Conducting interviews before states. Some processes are operated in different distinct regimes

starting the modeling effort is a way to narrow down the set of which may not be under the inﬂuence of the operators. Conse-

factor candidates. The ambient temperature should be initially quently, the computation of the BDP should consider this

included in every analysis in order to be in accordance with information.

normative standards (c.f. ISO 50006:2017 [20]). For continuous processes, the analysis is based upon the

Measurement data is typically available in a process information assumption that the process is stationary, unless storage terms are

management system (PIMS), which archives measurement data taken into account in the computation of the indicators. The values

continuously at different sampling times (due to internal of the energy KPI during large transients will possibly be

compression). When queried, the system interpolates the stored misleading and when the data is collected automatically, a statio-

data. Therefore, data that was recorded at different sampling rates narity analysis should be performed, either manually or automat-

can be used for the computation of the BDP model. ically. Methods for this are available, e.g. comparing the variance

780 B. Beisheim et al. / Energy 183 (2019) 776e787

obtained by the raw data with the variance obtained from ﬁltered

data and performing an F-test [35,36]. If the data was collected at

stationary points for most of the time, KPI values in transient sit-

uations will also be ﬁltered out by the exclusion of the outermost

percentiles of the data. When the actual operation is compared to

the BDP, care must be taken to only compare data from periods

where the process is stationary.

The resulting input to the next step in the BDP modeling pro-

cedure is a pretreated data matrix UPT as deﬁned below:

UPT ¼ ut ulb;ci utj ;ci uub;ci cci 2V c ; j2½1; …; nt

o (5)

∧utj ;dk ¼ ud;dk cdk 2V d ; j2½1; …; nt

the continuous variables. ulb;ci and uub;ci denote the lower and up-

per bounds of the continuous variable i. ud;dk denotes the value of

the discrete variable k of the plant at time point tj .

The pretreated data matrix contains those samples of the time

series that represent normal operating conditions of the plant.

One goal of the model identiﬁcation is to ﬁnd factors that have a

signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the energy performance of the plant. In a

later step, a clustering algorithm is applied to the data. Since this

algorithm is sensitive to the magnitude of the variation of the

process data, data normalization is necessary to avoid that large

factors are preferred.

A standard procedure to scale data to the same magnitude is

mean centering and standard deviation scaling. Each column vector

of the pretreated data matrix UPT is corrected by subtracting its

mean and dividing it by the standard deviation:

1 !

b PT;ci ¼

u uPT;ci m uPT;ci , 1

s uPT;ci (6)

!

cci 2V c and dim 1 ¼ dim uPT;i ;

The resulting data matrix has a zero mean and standard deviation Fig. 2. Illustration of the effect of mean centering and variance scaling on process data

of one for each variable that is used for model identiﬁcation, which as in Eriksson [37].

is why the method is called unit variance (UV) scaling. The effect of

this pretreatment step is illustrated in Fig. 2. For a simpliﬁed pre-

sentation, a pretreated time series vector ub PT;ti is further denoted as a clustering algorithm is applied. For data clustering, two main

xi . X denotes the domain of the vectors xi . types can be distinguished: Hierarchical and partitional clustering.

Jain [39] proposes partitional algorithms for pattern recognition

and thus partitional clustering is used for BDP identiﬁcation.

2.3. Data clustering Here, the kmeansþþ algorithm [40] is applied to the data set. It

is an extension of the kmeans algorithm [41].

The third step is data clustering. The motivation of clustering is Optimal clustering is NP hard, therefore randomized algorithms

to compress the data to a set of characteristic points in the data are often used. The quality of the clustering then depends on the

space to which the model is then ﬁtted. Two major types of data initial guess for the cluster centers. For kmeans, the initial centers

analysis techniques are found in the literature [38]: are chosen arbitrarily. The kmeansþþ algorithm is a compromise

between a better initial guess for the initial points and a justiﬁable

1. Exploratory or descriptive techniques where pre-speciﬁed increase in computation time. In this algorithm, the probability of

models and hypotheses are not available. The goal is to choosing a candidate as a new cluster center is based on a

explore the structure of high-dimensional data sets. weighting by their distance to the closest cluster center.

2. Conﬁrmatory or inferential techniques where the validity of a It is performed as follows:

hypothesis or of a set of assumptions is veriﬁed.

1. Choose one cluster center c1 randomly from x2X .

Two general data analysis approaches for pattern recognition 2. Choose a new center c2 randomly from x2X with the proba-

are available [39]: Classiﬁcation methods and clustering methods. bility of choosing xi :

Both aim at predicting a behavior based on training data. While the

ﬁrst approach is based on categorized data, the latter uses unca-

tegorized data. The classiﬁcation of the dataset for the identiﬁca- Dðxi Þ2

Pðc2 ¼ xi Þ ¼ P ; (7)

tion of the best demonstrated practice according to the discrete x2X DðxÞ2

states of the plant operation has been performed during data pre-

treatment. For each discrete operating state or suitable sets of states where DðxÞ denotes the distance of x to the next cluster center.

B. Beisheim et al. / Energy 183 (2019) 776e787 781

3. Repeat step 2 until k initial cluster centers have been chosen. 2.4. Model selection and parametrization using an adapted ALAMO

approach

After ﬁnding the initial cluster centers, the kmeans algorithm

works as follows: The choice and parametrization of a surrogate model in the

context of determining the best demonstrated practice is per-

1. For each j2f1; …; kg, C j is the set of points in X where the formed using an adapted ALAMO approach. Automated Learning of

distance to the jth cluster center is the smallest among all Algebraic Models for Optimization (ALAMO) is a software package

centers. developed by Cozad et al. [27] for the efﬁcient development of

2. For each j2f1; …; kg, the updated cluster centers cj are surrogate models that are suitable for simulation-based optimiza-

computed by calculating the mass of all points in the corre- tion. It generates simple and accurate models from simulated or

sponding cluster C j : experimental data that are convenient for derivative-based opti-

mization software. In order to overcome the shortcomings of linear

1 X regression models, ALAMO selects a combination of simple basis

cj ¼ x; (8)

Cj functions that ﬁt the responses with an acceptable accuracy. The set

x2C j

of basis functions is deﬁned by the user based on process knowl-

edge, expected physical or chemical relationships etc. When the

where C j is the cardinality of C j .

number of basis functions is increased, the regression has a larger

number of degrees of freedom and starts to capture the noise or

3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 until the cluster centers remain constant. other secondary features of the training dataset which results in so-

called “overﬁtting”. As an outcome of overﬁtting, the model has a

The algorithm is available in many standard engineering soft- low bias but a high variance. This means that a small change in the

ware packages (e.g. MATLAB). For large data sets with a high input variables can result in an unrealistic change in the responses

number of clusters other algorithms are available (e.g. kmeansjj [44]. In order to prevent this behavior, ALAMO utilizes a model

[42]). ﬁtness measure that handles the trade-off between the goodness of

The sensitivity of the kmeansþþ algorithm to the magnitude of the ﬁt and the complexity of the model.

the input data due the use of the Euclidean distance of the data In the following, the mathematical background of model ﬁtting

points from the cluster centers explains the necessity of mean in ALAMO is brieﬂy discussed and an adaptation of this method for

centering and UV scaling. the application discussed here is presented.

The resulting clusters represent typical operational domains of a The general idea behind the model identiﬁcation step in ALAMO

plant. As the idea of the identiﬁcation of the BDP model is to ﬁnd is the determination of the best combination of predeﬁned basis

the most efﬁcient operation regimes, using the cluster center for functions and regression factors to represent the process data. The

model identiﬁcation is not suitable. Instead, a representative point general formulation for a BDP model is given as:

from the cluster is chosen based on percentile ﬁltering.

For this purpose, the following computation is used: X

n X

m

BDP ¼ bij fi xj ; (13)

1 X i¼1 j¼1

rj ¼ x (9)

R j x2R

j

where xj denotes the model input variable j and fi denotes the basis

function i. bij denotes the regression factor for basis function i and

with

model input j.

As presented by Cozad et al. [27], ALAMO solves a nested opti-

x2Rj c Pj;n EnPIðxÞ Pj;m ∧x2C j (10)

mization problem of the following general form:

S

EnPIR j ¼ EnPIðxÞ; (12)

Rj x2R j

min Fb;y ðb; yÞjS (14c)

where R j denotes the set of points which are used to identify the b;y

representative point of the cluster rj and Pj;n , Pj;m are the lower and X

upper percentile bounds for cluster j. s:t: yj ¼ S (14d)

The usage of percentiles to remove outliers is a common pro- j2B

cedure [43]. Here, the data points between the ﬁfth and the tenth

percentile of each cluster are used. The BDP in this context repre-

sents good or very good and reproducible operational regimes that

bl yj bj bu yj j2B (14e)

are not the best-ever operating points but that are achievable for

the plant and the operators. By this procedure, also not previously yj ¼ f0; 1g j2B ; (14f)

removed dynamic effects that falsely indicate a very good or very

bad performance are excluded, so the usage of percentiles robus- where the objective function of the outer optimization problem

tiﬁes the procedure. The smaller the upper percentile is chosen, the (Eq. (14a)) is a model ﬁtness measure, which consists of two terms.

more challenging is it to match the BDP during operations. The ﬁrst term represents the accuracy of the model whereas the

Consequently, it is a tuning parameter for the data analysis. The second term represents the model size (complexity). The inner

resulting cluster representatives are used for model identiﬁcation optimization problem deals with the selection of the basis func-

in the next step. tions and the corresponding parameters for a given model size. yj is

782 B. Beisheim et al. / Energy 183 (2019) 776e787

N

X N

X X

bj Xij :

is zero otherwise. S is the number of basis functions and SU is the

ei ¼ zi (19)

maximum number of basis functions. jB j is the number of basis

i¼1 i¼1 j2B

functions in the problem formulation. bj is the coefﬁcient of each

basis function j. The bounds of bj are given by (Eq. (14e)). The However, those values of the coefﬁcients are to be found that

formulation of these constraints makes sure that bj is zero, if the result from the least squares solution of the curve ﬁtting problem.

Therefore the optimality conditions for the parameters b of the

basis function is not selected, i.e. yj ¼ 0, and can take on a non-zero

selected subset of the basis functions (S ) are added to the opti-

value within its bounds otherwise. The upper and lower bounds are

mization problem as a constraint:

deﬁned using the lasso concept [45] as:

X OLR X OLR d X N X

bl ¼ bj and b ¼

u

bj ; (15) z b X 2 ¼! 0 (20)

dbj i¼1 i j2S j ij

j2B j2B

where bOLR

j is the vector of coefﬁcients calculated by the Ordinary XN X

Least Square Regression (OLR).

f Xij zi bj Xij ¼ 0 j2S : (21)

i¼1 j2S

In the original ALAMO formulation, the “Corrected Akaike In-

formation Criterion” (AICC ) is used as the ﬁtness measure [46,47], Eq. (21) is incorporated into the optimization problem as a set of

which is an extended version of the “Akaike Information Criterion” big-M constraints (Eq. (22)). These constraints make sure that the

[48] tailored for small sample sizes. ﬁrst order optimality condition is met for the coefﬁcients of the

Here, as the resulting model is a curve to ﬁt the calculated active basis functions:

percentile-centers of the clusters, the different weights of the

clusters are considered using a Weighted Least Square (WLS) Uj 1 yj Hj Uj 1 yj j2B (22)

formulation in the objective function rather than the ordinary least

square error, similar to the approach proposed by Banks and Joyner

[49]: X

N X

Hj ¼ Xij ðzi bk Xik Þ j2B ; (23)

X X i¼1 k2S

1 N

AICWLSC ¼ N log ui zi bj Xij 2

N i¼1 j2B

where Uj is calculated as the maximum value that H can have

(16)

within the bounds (Eq. (15)) [27].

2SðS þ 1Þ The inner optimization problem then results as:

þ2S þ

NS1

XN

min ei (24a)

jC j b;y i¼1

with ui ¼ P i ; (17)

j C j

X

where zi is the value of the data point and Xij contains the value of

s:t: ei zi bj Xij i ¼ 1; …; N (24b)

j2B

the jth

basis function of the input variable xi . N is the number of the

data points and S is the number of selected functions. ui is the X

weighting factor of observation (cluster) i and is deﬁned as the ratio ei bj Xij zi i ¼ 1; …; N (24c)

j2B

of the number of the points in cluster i to the sum of all data points

in all clusters. A cluster with a low number of data points indicates X

an operating range that was not observed often. Consequently, yj ¼ S (24d)

these operating ranges might not have been explored as much as j2B

others.

The extension of the approach is suitable for all types of surro-

gate model development using clustered data, not only for the use

Uj 1 yj

in BDP modeling. X

N X

The numerical solution was also adapted. While the original Xij zi bj Xij (24e)

i¼1 j2B

formulation iterates the inner problem for increasing values of S as

long as the value of AICWLSC increases for the ﬁrst time, here it is Uj 1 yj j2B

solved for S ¼ Smax. The maximum value of Smax is

bl yj bj bu yj j2B (24f)

Smax ¼ jB j: (18)

The user can decide on choosing a smaller Smax in order to yj ¼ f0; 1g j2B : (24g)

reduce the computational effort and the solution time. It has to be

ensured that an increase of the outer objective function is observ- The application of ALAMO may require a change of the range of

able when choosing a lower Smax than proposed in Eq. (18). the input variables prior to model identiﬁcation. If the set of the

In order to transform the resulting MIQP problem into a MILP basis functions includes logarithmic terms or functions with ex-

problem to solve it with free available solvers (e.g. CBC [50]), the ponents which are negative or e.g. equal to 1/2, it must be ensured

quadratic formulation of the objective function of the inner prob- that the input variables are not close to zero or negative.

lem is replaced by the sum of absolute values as proposed in Cozad In data preprocessing the values were mean centered and UV

et al. [27]: scaled. This results in a distribution of the input variables around

B. Beisheim et al. / Energy 183 (2019) 776e787 783

zero with a variance equal to one. In order to prevent the afore- improvement factor is a modiﬁed version of the criteria presented

mentioned problem, all of the percentile center variables are shif- by Hocking [52] for backward elimination.

ted to the interval ½1; 2 after the clustering step. The procedure is repeated until the number of relevant inﬂu-

ence factors has been determined.

While during model identiﬁcation the distance between the

2.5. Postprocessing by backward elimination percentiles and the cluster centers was not considered it is now

used for backward elimination. For processes with a small distance

In the previous subsection, a method to identify a general sur- between the BDP model and the cluster centers a more complex

rogate model with multiple inﬂuencing factors (xi ) was provided. model is necessary whereas for large distances a simpler model is

The method computes the model by ﬁtting a curve to the averages sufﬁcient.

of the data points between the chosen percentiles of each cluster. The procedure is numerically straight forward and removes the

This model ﬁtness measure (AICWLSC ) selects the optimum number necessity of a multicriterial optimization, which would arise if both

of the basis functions by solely using the distance of the model from criteria were used in one objective function.

the percentile centers as a measure of accuracy.

In plant operation, the main goal of the development of the BDP 2.6. Summary of the developed modeling procedure

is to provide the plant operators with a measure that indicates the

distance between the current resource consumption and the best The proposed procedure can now be summarized in the

demonstrated practice that was observed under similar conditions following steps:

in the past, the operational improvement potential (OIP). Under the

assumption that the cluster-center represents the average oper- 1. Acquire representative data of the process.

ating point of each cluster, the distance between this point and the 2. Preprocess the data by mean centering and unit variance

ﬁtted BDP is an indication of the average operational improvement scaling according to Eq. (6).

potential. 3. Cluster the data using kmeansþþ and calculate the cluster

For this purpose, it is sufﬁcient to represent the dominating centers.

inﬂuences on the BDP so that the models can possibly be simpliﬁed. 4. Calculate the BDP point for each cluster using Eq. (9)-(12)

This also reduces the risk of artifacts appearing in the model. There where the percentile range is a tuning factor. The represen-

are two possibilities to add this to the method: Either the model tative points for each cluster (EnPIR j ) enter the optimization

ﬁtness measure can be adapted by additional terms in the objective problem as zi in step 7. The model is ﬁtted to these data

function or it can be checked ex post whether the calculated model points.

can be simpliﬁed because some factors have little inﬂuence on the 5. Scale the input data x to a range excluding zero, for example

OIP. Here, the second option as a pragmatic extension of the from 1 to 2.

method is chosen and an approach based on backward elimination 6. Deﬁne the maximum number of basis functions SU . A deﬁ-

[51] to eliminate the inﬂuencing factors with a minor inﬂuence on nition of SU < Smax is advised to reduce the computation time

the OIP is applied. for problems with many input variables.

Firstly, a model is ﬁtted using all of the possible inﬂuencing 7. Start with S ¼ 1 and solve the inner optimization problem in

factors and the average OIP is calculated as: Eq. (24) for increasing values of S until S ¼ SU . The result of

vﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ the optimization at each step is a set of model parameters b.

u N

uX X 2 8. The minimum value of AICWLSC determines the optimal so-

OIPavg ¼t ui EnPIC j bj Xij (25) lution of the outer optimization problem. The corresponding

i¼1 j2S set of parameters b represents the best model.

9. For jV c j > 1 deﬁne the threshold of the backward elimina-

1 X tion, g, and run the backward elimination procedure.

EnPIC i ¼ EnPIPT ðxÞ; (26)

jC i j x2C 10. The model after the backward elimination step is the ﬁnal

i

BDP model.

where EnPIC j is the EnPI of the cluster of preprocessed data points,

The algorithm uses 3 tuning factors, the percentiles used for the

X is the matrix of the transformed inputs by the basis functions

identiﬁcation of the BDP model, the number of clusters and g. The

using the operating conditions of the cluster-center and ui is the

user has to deﬁne a sensible set of basis functions for the curve

weight of each cluster. Afterwards, at each step the inﬂuencing

ﬁtting step.

factors are eliminated one at a time, the model is ﬁtted again and

the average error of the new model is calculated as:

3. Application to real process data of an industrial plant

vﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

u N

uX X 2

εk ¼ t ui zi bjk Xijk ; (27) 3.1. Use of the best demonstrated practice (BDP) in the process

i¼1 j2B industry

where εk is the error of the model when the kth inﬂuencing factor is

models to compute BDP curves or surfaces from clustered data was

left out and zi are the percentile centers used to compute the BDP

developed. These identiﬁed BDP models can be used for different

model. The following ratio Fk is deﬁned, as an indicator of the loss of

purposes.

information considering the average improvement potential:

On the one hand, the method can be the basis for real-time

εk εB process monitoring. By visualizing the operational improvement

Fk ¼ g; (28)

OIPavg potential of the current operating point, performance deviations

are identiﬁed and can be reduced by the plant personnel. From an

where εB is the weighted least squared error of the initial model. g industrial viewpoint, this provides very valuable support for the

is a predeﬁned threshold for backward elimination. This improvement of the operation of plants regarding their energy

784 B. Beisheim et al. / Energy 183 (2019) 776e787

performance.

On the other hand, the concept is suitable for reporting pur-

poses. ISO 50006:2017 [20] proposes the analysis of factors inﬂu-

encing the process performance. While this analysis is not an

explicit requirement of ISO 50001:2018, a continuous improvement

of energy performance is. In this context, it is suggested to make

comparisons between different time intervals more transparent by

normalizing the energy efﬁciency with respect to the key inﬂu-

encing factors.

Furthermore, ISO 50003:2016 [53], which deﬁnes the re-

quirements for certiﬁcation bodies, demands the veriﬁcation of a

continuous improvement of the energy performance including

energy efﬁciency, energy use, and consumption. While the total

energy consumption is related to the productivity of a company and

the energy use is often deﬁned by the processes, the efﬁciency is

Fig. 4. A simpliﬁed representation of the PO plant.

subject to continuous optimization in process industry. The pro-

posed concept can be used in two ways to verify an improvement in

efﬁciency: to indicate a decrease of the average deviation from the

BDP from one time interval to another, which correlates with a

more efﬁcient operation, and secondly to demonstrate a decrease of

the BDP by performing another evaluation after a period of time,

which indicates a technical improvement of the process either by

changing operating conditions or by the use of different equipment.

Finally, the proposed method can be applied to redeﬁne the

energy baseline of a process after retroﬁtting (c.f. ISO 50001:2018).

Fig. 3 illustrates both of these methods to verify improvements in

energy efﬁciency. The BDP model in this example is a function of

the plant load. On the left, the operational improvement potential

from period one to two was halved resulting in a smaller difference

between sampling points and BDP model curve. The BDP model is

still valid in this case. On the right, a process modiﬁcation led to a

Fig. 5. Preprocessed data points before clustering and scaling.

BDP adjustment. The distance between the measurements and

their corresponding BDP model remains constant. The overall EnPI

level decreased. In both cases the speciﬁc energy consumption 2. Dehydrochlorination of PCH to PO using an alkaline solution,

decreased. 3. Puriﬁcation of the product.1

3.2. Propylene oxide production

consume steam, comprising 80% of the total energy consumption.

As the ﬁrst step, the measurement data of the load and the total

An application of the developed method to real industrial data is

5 bar steam consumption of the plant together with the ambient

provided in this subsection. The data is taken from the Propylene

temperature with a sampling interval of 1 h is collected. This step is

Oxide (PO) production plant of INEOS in Cologne. This plant pro-

followed by the pretreatment of the data as explained in Section

duces PO using the Chlorohydrin process, which, as shown in Fig. 4,

2.2. Due to the conﬁdentiality of the data, only the processed data

has three main steps:

are presented throughout this section. Fig. 5 shows the pre-

processed data for the EnPI of 5 bar steam against the plant load

1. Synthesis of Propylene Chlorohydrin (PCH) from Propylene and

and ambient temperature.

Chlorine in the presence of water,

This data was clustered and the 5e10% percentile centers of the

clusters are calculated as presented in Section 2.3. The number of

clusters is a tuning parameter for the model identiﬁcation process

and here it was chosen as 16. As shown in Fig. 5, there are a few

points which lie far below the typical EnPI of the plant at some

operating points, which are considered to be outliers for the cor-

responding operating point. The occurrence of such points is the

reason for deﬁning the lower percentile bound. Fig. 6 shows the

data after clustering.

The percentile centers are used for ﬁtting the BDP model. The

load and the ambient temperature of the cluster centers are used as

input variables (xi ) and the EnPI values are used as the response

variables (zi ). The x variables were shifted to the range of ½1; 2

before model identiﬁcation. A total number of 7 basis functions and

an intercept term 1; x±f1;2;3g ; expðxÞ were used in the model

operational improvement potential, right: decrease of the BDP and of the indicator by

1

technical measures. All variables are scaled to dimensionless units. More detailed information about the process can be found in Kahlich et al. [54].

B. Beisheim et al. / Energy 183 (2019) 776e787 785

ﬁtting algorithm, and the maximum number of basis function was

deﬁned as 10. The MILP problem (Eq. (24)) is solved using the

“Coin-OR Branch and Cut” (CBC) solver [50]. All presented results model with an Fk of 0.0472, indicating that the loss of information

have proven optimality. due to its elimination is not signiﬁcant. The model after the elim-

The resulting AICWLSC is depicted in Fig. 7. The minimum value is ination of the ambient temperature is:

reached when the number of basis functions is equal to 3. This

means that the increase of the model quality due to the addition of y ¼ 0:2287m_ 3p þ 2:7202m_ 2

p : (30)

new basis functions is not worth the added complexity of the

model for more than 3 basis functions. In order to compare the models before and after backward

The developed model is: elimination the percentile centers were shifted to a reference

temperature along the BDP model. The chosen reference temper-

ature is the result of an optimization which minimizes the sum of

y ¼ 0:6989m_ 2p þ 2:9402m_ 1 3

p þ 0:4195T amb (29) the squared distances of the original and transformed percentile

centers in the EnPI space.

and is plotted in Fig. 8. The red circles represent the cluster centers,

the green þ signs show the percentile centers. The surface depicts y ¼ f m_ p þ gðTamb Þ (31)

the ﬁtted model. A conservative method for the deﬁnition of the

validity domain of the regression models in higher dimensions is

the “Convex Hull” of the input variables [55]. This method was used EnPIC i ¼ EnPIC i gðTamb Þ þ g Tref (32)

to calculate the validity bounds of the model. The model is trust-

worthy only for the operating points inside of the hull and its ac-

curacy outside of the limits cannot be guaranteed. XN 2

Tref ¼ argmin EnPIC i EnPIC i ; (33)

As the second step, the backward elimination procedure Tref

i

described in Section 2.5 was applied to the model to evaluate the

importance of the inﬂuencing factors in the ﬁrst step. The trimming

where EnPIC i denotes the transformed value of each EnPIC i . The

criterion g was chosen as 0.05.

BDP model was transformed accordingly.

The original model with 2 inﬂuencing factors has an OIPavg of

Fig. 9 shows the ﬁtted models before and after backward elim-

0.4978 and a value of ε of 0.1318. First, the load of the plant was left

ination, where the dotted line shows the model with both inﬂu-

out, which results in a model with Fk equal to 0.9958. This means

encing factors and the blue circles show the projected data points.

that the plant load has a high effect on the quality of the model and

cannot be left out. Leaving out the ambient temperature results in a

Fig. 9. Comparison of the models before and after backward elimination. Variables

Fig. 7. of the ﬁtted models. shifted and scaled to dimensionless units.

786 B. Beisheim et al. / Energy 183 (2019) 776e787

The solid line shows the model after backward elimination and the 4. Conclusion and outlook

crosses show the data points without the temperature projection.

The left and right bound in the ﬁgure indicate the minimum and In this contribution, a method is proposed to identify a best

maximum value of the percentile centers used in the model iden- demonstrated practice model of a process based on historical

tiﬁcation. Within these bounds the model is applicable for com- process data.

parison with process data whereas outside the limits the results Statistical methods and state-of-the-art surrogate modeling

have to be handled with care due to the lacking extrapolation ca- techniques are utilized to obtain a model that is composed of

pabilities of the BDP model. simple basis functions and can be used by plant personnel without

The data that is used for backward elimination was originally mathematical knowledge. The models can be used for real-time

clustered taking both of the inﬂuencing factors into consideration. process monitoring to improve the operational performance and

As the temperature has a negligible effect on the model quality, as for reporting purposes. The application of the concept to verify

the ﬁnal step, a model was ﬁtted using only the plant load as the energy performance improvements in the context of an ISO

inﬂuencing factor. The motivation for doing this is to base the 50001:2018 certiﬁcation was discussed.

clustering step also only on the plant load. The proposed method is designed to handle real data from in-

The parameters of the algorithm were left unchanged compared dustrial processes. Robustness is achieved by clustering and by

to the previous case. The algorithm identiﬁed a model using 2 basis using percentile averages to identify the best demonstrated prac-

functions as: tice. Due to the use of as few as possible basis functions, the models

are less prone to show local variations that are a result of the

y ¼ 0:7484m_ 2p þ 3:2778m_ 1

p : (34) interpolation procedure and not a property of the process.

The identiﬁcation of the best demonstrated practice is the ﬁrst

and the corresponding curve is shown in Fig. 10. The red line and step towards a more resource efﬁcient production. Since the

the crosses present the model and the percentile centers after method only identiﬁes the operational improvement potential the

backward elimination, whereas the blue dashed lined and circles success depends on the skills and the experience of the plant

present the model ﬁtted and the percentile centers using only the personnel. The development of data driven rule extraction to

plant load as input. This model is different from the model ﬁtted support plant operators to derive efﬁcient process intervention is

after backward elimination despite using the same input data and the next step for processes where expensive modeling and

the same settings as there is a difference in the resulting clusters. advanced process control are not viable.

Nevertheless, it can be seen that the models are very similar. The The concept was applied to process data of a large production

ﬁnal model is depicted against the process data in Fig. 11. plant of INEOS in Cologne, which demonstrates the practical

applicability of the method to real world imperfect data from a

process for which no rigorous model is available. The resulting

models are non-linear but as simple as possible to present clear

trends to the plant personnel. The method does not incorporate any

process knowledge which facilitates the general application to

different processes. The backward elimination step indicates that

the ambient temperature has only a minor inﬂuence on the process

performance and can consequently be removed from the BDP

model which further simpliﬁes the model structure without a

signiﬁcant loss of information. By following the workﬂow proposed

in this contribution, the gap between state-of-the-art methods in

the literature and the application in the industry can be closed,

providing the basis for better process monitoring and energy efﬁ-

cient operation and a substantiated baseline for energy manage-

ment systems.

As an area for further research, the disaggregation of a process

into smaller sub-processes and the description of each sub-process

Fig. 10. Comparison of the model after backward elimination and the model based by a speciﬁc BDP model should be considered. The process can

only on the plant load. afterwards hierarchically be aggregated to obtain consistent BDP

models and performance ﬁgures on the top level. A concept which

considers BDP and performance aggregation was proposed by

Beisheim et al. [30]. It will be used at the INEOS site in Cologne with

over 20 processing plants to monitor and report the energy and

environmental performance. It is a future corner stone for reporting

in the context of the energy management system at INEOS in

Cologne.

Acknowledgments

from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation

programme under grant agreement No 723575 (CoPro) in the

Fig. 11. Final model after backward elimination against process data. Variables shifted framework of SPIRE PPP and also under the FP 7 grant agreement

and scaled to dimensionless units. No 604068 (MORE).

B. Beisheim et al. / Energy 183 (2019) 776e787 787

industrial needs and scientiﬁc literature. J Clean Prod 2011;19:667e79.

[29] Sfez S, Dewulf J, De Soete W, Schaubroeck T, Mathieux F, Kralisch D, De

[1] The european chemical industry council, facts & ﬁgures. 2017. Online, 2017.

Meester S. Toward a framework for resource efﬁciency evaluation in industry:

URL: http://www.ceﬁc.org/Facts-and-Figures/. [Accessed 13 October 2018].

Recommendations for research and innovation projects. Resources 2017;6:5.

[2] Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle. In: Merkblatt für stromkos-

[30] Beisheim B, Kra €mer S, Engell S. A hierarchical aggregation concept for

tenintensive Unternehmen, vol. 2018; 2018.

resource efﬁciency in continuous production complexes. In: Espun ~ a A,

[3] International Organization for Standardization. ISO 50001: energy manage-

Graells M, Puigjaner L, editors. 27th european symposium on computer aided

ment systems e requirements with guidance for use. 2018.

process engineering, volume 40 of computer-aided chemical engineering.

[4] European Comission. Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the European Parlia-

Elsevier; 2017a. p. 1519e24. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63965-

ment and of the Council of 25 november 2009 on the voluntary participation

3.50255-5.

by organisations in a community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS),

[31] Beisheim B, Kalliski M, Ackerschott D, Engell S, Kra €mer S. Real-time perfor-

repealing Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 and Commission Decisions 2001/681/

mance indicators for energy and resource efﬁciency in continuous and batch

EC and 2006/193/EC. Ofﬁcial Journal of the European Union; 2009.

processing. In: Engell S, Kra€mer S, editors. Resource efﬁciency of processing

[5] Morrow D, Rondinelli D. Adopting corporate environmental management

plants: monitoring and improvement. John Wiley & Sons; 2017b. p. 79e128.

systems: motivations and results of ISO 14001 and EMAS certiﬁcation. Eur

[32] Giljum S, Burger E, Hinterberger F, Lutter S, Bruckner M. A comprehensive set

Manag J 2002;20:159e71.

€rn Dahlgaard J, Eklund JA. Implementing ISO 14000 in Sweden: of resource use indicators from the micro to the macro level. Resour Conserv

[6] Poksinska B, Jo

Recycl 2011;55:300e8.

motives, beneﬁts and comparisons with ISO 9000. Int J Qual Reliab Manag

[33] Huysman S, Sala S, Mancini L, Ardente F, Alvarenga RA, De Meester S,

2003;20:585e606.

€ssig J, Schütte T, Riesner W, editors. Energieefﬁzienz-Benchmark Industrie: Mathieux F, Dewulf J. Toward a systematized framework for resource efﬁ-

[7] La

ciency indicators. Resour Conserv Recycl 2015;95:68e76.

Energieefﬁzienzkennzahlen 2015. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesba-

[34] Kujanp€ € M, Hakala J, Pajula T, Beisheim B, Kr€

aa amer S, Ackerschott D,

den; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-19174-0.

Kalliski M, Engell S, Enste U, Pitarch J. Successful resource efﬁciency indicators

[8] Phylipsen D, Blok K, Worrell E, De Beer J. Benchmarking the energy efﬁciency

for process industries, vol. 290. VTT Technology; 2017.

of Dutch industry: an assessment of the expected effect on energy con-

[35] Cao S, Rhinehart RR. An efﬁcient method for on-line identiﬁcation of steady

sumption and CO2 emissions. Energy Policy 2002;30:663e79.

state. J Process Control 1995;5:363e74.

[9] Makridou G, Andriosopoulos K, Doumpos M, Zopounidis C. Measuring the

[36] Bhat SA, Saraf DN. Steady-state identiﬁcation, gross error detection, and data

efﬁciency of energy-intensive industries across European countries. Energy

reconciliation for industrial process units. Ind Eng Chem Res 2004;43:

Policy 2016;88:573e83.

4323e36.

[10] Saygin D, Patel MK, Worrell E, Tam C, Gielen DJ. Potential of best practice

[37] Eriksson L. Introduction to multi-and megavariate data analysis using pro-

technology to improve energy efﬁciency in the global chemical and petro-

jection methods (PCA & PLS). Umetrics AB; 1999.

chemical sector. Energy 2011a;36:5779e90.

[38] Tukey JW. Exploratory data analysis, Addison-Wesley series in behavioral

[11] Saygin D, Worrell E, Patel MK, Gielen D. Benchmarking the energy use of

science : quantitative methods. Reading Mass: Addison-Wesley; 1977. u.a.

energy-intensive industries in industrialized and in developing countries.

[39] Jain AK. Data clustering: 50 years beyond k-means. Pattern Recogn Lett

Energy 2011b;36:6661e73.

2010;31:651e66.

[12] Drumm C, Busch J, Dietrich W, Eickmans J, Jupke A. STRUCTese®eenergy ef-

[40] Arthur D, Vassilvitskii S. k-meansþþ: The advantages of careful seeding. In:

ﬁciency management for the process industry. Chem Eng Process: Process

Proceedings of the eighteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete al-

Intens 2013;67:99e110.

gorithms. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; 2007. p. 1027e35.

[13] NAMUR WG 4.17. Procedure for enhancing energy efﬁciency in chemical

[41] MacQueen J, et al. Some methods for classiﬁcation and analysis of multivariate

plants e contribution of automation engineering, NAMUR recommendation

observations. In: Proceedings of the ﬁfth Berkeley symposium on mathe-

140, NAMUR. Leverkusen, Germany: NAMUR; 2012.

matical statistics and probability, vol. 14; 1967. p. 281e97. Oakland, CA, USA.

[14] NAMUR WG 4.17. Resource Efﬁciency Indicators for monitoring and

[42] Bahmani B, Moseley B, Vattani A, Kumar R, Vassilvitskii S. Scalable k-mean-

improving resource efﬁciency in processing plants, NAMUR Recommendation

sþþ. Proc VLDB Endow 2012;5:622e33.

162, NAMUR. Leverkusen, Germany: NAMUR; 2017.

[43] Walﬁsh S. A review of statistical outlier methods. Pharmaceut Technol

[15] Motard R, Shacham M, Rosen E. Steady state chemical process simulation.

2006;30:82.

AIChE J 1975;21:417e36.

[44] Wilson ZT, Sahinidis NV. The ALAMO approach to machine learning. Comput

[16] Luyben WL. Process modeling, simulation and control for chemical engineers.

Chem Eng 2017;106:785e95.

McGraw-Hill Higher Education; 1989.

[45] Tibshirani R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J R Stat Soc Ser B

[17] Dowling AW, Biegler LT. A framework for efﬁcient large scale equation-

1996:267e88.

oriented ﬂowsheet optimization. Comput Chem Eng 2015;72:3e20.

[46] Sugiura N. Further analysts of the data by Akaike's information criterion and

[18] Falkenhainer B, Forbus KD. Compositional modeling: ﬁnding the right model

the ﬁnite corrections. Commun Stat Theor Methods 1978;7:13e26.

for the job. Artif Intell 1991;51:95e143.

[47] Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC

[19] Søndergaard J. Optimization using surrogate models-by the Space Mapping

in model selection. Socio Methods Res 2004;33:261e304.

technique. Ph.D. thesis. Technical University of Denmark; 2003.

[48] Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identiﬁcation. IEEE Trans Autom

[20] International Organization for Standardization. ISO 50006: energy manage-

Control 1974;19:716e23.

ment systems - measuring energy performance using energy baselines (EnB)

[49] Banks H, Joyner ML. AIC under the framework of least squares estimation.

and energy performance indicators (EnPI) - general principles and guidance.

Appl Math Lett 2017;74:33e45.

2014. ISO 50006:2014.

[50] Forrest J, Lougee-Heimer R. CBC user guide. In: Emerging theory, methods,

[21] Nomikos P, MacGregor JF. Monitoring batch processes using multiway prin-

and applications. INFORMS; 2005. p. 257e77.

cipal component analysis. AIChE J 1994;40:1361e75.

[51] Draper NR, Smith H. Selecting the best regression equation. In: Applied

[22] Ge Z, Song Z. Distributed PCA model for plant-wide process monitoring. Ind

regression analysis. Wiley-Blackwell; 2014. p. 327e68. https://doi.org/

Eng Chem Res 2013;52:1947e57. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie301945s.

10.1002/9781118625590.ch15.

[23] Krige DG. A statistical approach to some basic mine valuation problems on the

[52] Hocking RR. A Biometrics invited paper. the analysis and selection of variables

Witwatersrand. J S Afr Inst Min Metall 1951;52:119e39.

in linear regression. Biometrics 1976;32:1e49.

[24] McCulloch WS, Pitts W. A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous

[53] International Organization for Standardization. ISO 50003: energy manage-

activity. Bull Math Biophys 1943;5:115e33.

ment systems - requirements for bodies providing audit and certiﬁcation of

[25] Hassoun MH. Fundamentals of artiﬁcial neural networks. MIT press; 1995.

energy management systems. 2014. ISO 50003:2014.

[26] Audet C, Denni J, Moore D, Booker A, Frank P. A surrogate-model-based

[54] Kahlich D, Wiechern U, Lindner J. Propylene oxide, ullmann's encyclopedia of

method for constrained optimization. In: 8th symposium on multidisciplinary

industrial chemistry. 2002.

analysis and optimization; 2000. p. 4891.

[55] Brooks DG, Carroll SS, Verdini WA. Characterizing the domain of a regression

[27] Cozad A, Sahinidis NV, Miller DC. Learning surrogate models for simulation-

model, vol. 42. The American Statistician; 1988. p. 187e90. URL: http://www.

based optimization. AIChE J 2014;60:2211e27.

€nsleben P, Brülhart M, Ernst FO. Integrating energy jstor.org/stable/2684998.

[28] Bunse K, Vodicka M, Scho

- Hierarchical Analysis of GSM Network Performance DataUploaded byharishkumarymca
- Clustering and Matlab - QuestionInBoxUploaded byFormat Seorang Legenda
- cs1.2Uploaded byMohamed Al Shaer
- ANALYSIS OF DATA MINING AND SOFT COMPUTING TECHNIQUES IN PROSPECTING DIABETES DISORDER IN HUMAN BEINGS: A REVIEWUploaded byDr Manik Sharma
- Strategic Prefetching of VoD Programs Based on ART2 driven Request ClusteringUploaded byMandy Diaz
- Segmentation by Fusion of Self-Adaptive SFCM Cluster in Multi-Color Space ComponentsUploaded byAI Coordinator - CSC Journals
- 1401.5559Uploaded byAleksa Marusic
- Hierarchical Clustering Algorithms in Data MiningUploaded byAhmed Jaha
- Review on Document Recommender Systems Using Hierarchical Clustering TechniquesUploaded byantonytechno
- IJETTCS-2014-01-08-015Uploaded byAnonymous vQrJlEN
- Econometrics_ch4.pptUploaded byKashif Khurshid
- Cluster AnalysisUploaded bybs_sharath
- A Study for the Discovery of Web Usage Patterns Using Soft Computing Based Data Clustering TechniquesUploaded byIntegrated Intelligent Research
- A Clustering MODEL With Renyi Entropy RegularizationUploaded byCostinel Lepadatu
- ClusteringUploaded byRafael
- Survey on Traditional and Evolutionary ClusteringUploaded byInternational Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
- 41672dddUploaded byTanja
- Secure Algorithm for File Sharing Using Clustering Technique of K-Means ClusteringUploaded byEditor IJRITCC
- Denclue2Uploaded byHanif Awalludin
- Data Mining ToolsUploaded bygmuthur8498
- fcthgchgtbelowUploaded byМагистерски Трудови
- Shape and Scale in Detecting Disease ClustersUploaded byzarcone7
- BirchUploaded byGoTiCoXr
- Clsuter Analysis - Note and SPSSUploaded byhehehuhu
- Entropy FundamentalUploaded bySolenir Figueredo
- tema5_teoria-2830Uploaded byLuis Alejandro Sanchez Sanchez
- 2 Leach 1Uploaded byIsmail Khater
- Fuzzy Metric LearningUploaded byReshma Khemchandani
- learning fuzzy classification rules from dataUploaded byhamecky
- gcb12090.pdfUploaded byMax Ramos

- de-lab.pdfUploaded byPadmasri Girirajan
- 08-08 Piercing the Corporate VeilUploaded byLeizza Ni Gui Dula
- Cengel Heat Transfer Errata SheetUploaded byDINESH KUMAR
- Unit 7 Social Policy AssignmentUploaded byMuhammad Zahid
- Reliability and Availability of Scada SystemsUploaded byraul_gonz
- Cost+Accounting+System+of+BPLUploaded bybluesnaker
- Commercial Energy AuditsUploaded byajib_9881
- Tabla PediodicaUploaded byBryan Cueva
- Installation Manual for 3606E_BUploaded bycostinos
- Chase Simionidis depo.pdfUploaded bybblythe1
- Electrical Test Group Packages Digital MultimeterUploaded byWilmert TR
- GPR 212 Law of Torts Course Outline -Benjamin Musau-(1)Uploaded byjohn7tago
- Verilog QuestionsUploaded byshabbir470
- Abs Guidance Notes on Ice ClassUploaded byJonas Atta Boateng
- 50+ Entrances That 10+2 Students Must Not Miss.pdfUploaded byAbhishek Avhad
- 13-585 Amicus Brief of Cato et alUploaded byEquality Case Files
- [IJCT-V3I2P13]Uploaded byIjctJournals
- 8601 AssigntmentsUploaded byamina
- 04 Connect IBP With APOUploaded byJagannadh Birakayala
- 21393056 Powerline Ampacity SystemUploaded bywasik
- Dash PotUploaded bykhalid7015
- 85196206-Questions-Certif-TFIN50.pdfUploaded bytarunaggarwal11
- KEP ReportUploaded byStephen McGarry
- EssayUploaded byVAISHAK V
- Ortañes vs. CA, G.R. No. 107372, January 23, 1997Uploaded byMaria Angelica Valencia
- EADS Financial Statements 2013Uploaded byThiyagarajan Krishnamoorthy
- Air Pressure Seal ValveUploaded bySaâd Eddine Atif
- TP Link Switch EmulatorUploaded bysdmitar
- Pgsret Proceedings IiuUploaded byJee Malika
- 25_2598_90_00_01_EN_0214Uploaded byjeeva