TRADE-OFF

ANALYSIS

xvi
 For a robust automation, design decision making methods need to be
advanced to represent and manipulate a design’s different concerns and
uncertainties. This development is crucial, since the preliminary decision
making process of any design cycle has the greatest effect on overall cost.
(Research in Engineering Design, Otto and Antonsson, 1991)

Amniprill Corporation’s mission is to manufacture ammonium nitrate

of world renowned quality via a process that is the best in terms of economics,
safety and impact in environment. Thus, continuous research is being
performed by the research and development team of the corporation to attain
plant optimization.

A trade-off analysis answers basic questions like, “Are the solutions

that are being suggested as good as possible? Are they higher tier answers?”
and “How much must I give up to get a little more of what I want most?”
(Richard Tabors, 2000). On a more technical sense, the goal is find the optimal
pareto.

In Uhde neutralization process of producing ammonium nitrate, which

is a neutralization reaction of ammonia and nitric acid and to produce prilled
ammonium nitrate, the finishing process used is a prilling tower. The tower is
used to solidify the ammonium nitrate melt into spherical pellets for industrial
usage. A cool air stream is used to form spherical prills of ammonium nitrate.
There are two prilling process, low-density and high-density prilling in process
of ammonium nitrate production. A proposed alternative for low-density
prilling is the use of high-density prilling. However, there are advantages and
disadvantages of choosing a prilling process which will be discussed later on.

xvii
 Thus, a choice between the types of prilling used in the finishing process
is to be made. The factors considered in order to evaluate the types of prilling
are:
1. Operating Cost
2. Product Usage
3. Pollution Control
4. Maintenance

Prilling Tower
Prilling towers must be of sufficient height for the particles to be strong
enough not to break on impact. Latent heat is transferred from the drop to the
air as it falls, and if significant amounts of water are present evaporation also
occurs, increasing the cooling effect on the drop. It is important for the
temperature of the feed liquor to be as low as possible, just a degree or two
above its solidification point. Higher temperatures require taller towers, as do
larger particle sizes. Prilling towers in the fertilizer industry are typically over
50 m high for a mean particle size of about 2 mm. In the explosives industry
the particle size is smaller, the feed wetter and towers of about 10 m are used.

Low Density Prilling

In low-density prilling, the ammonium nitrate solution is fed to the prill
tower at about 95% concentration, and the resulting prills are dried and cooled.
Low-density prilling is used to produce ammonium nitrate as a blasting agent.

High Density Prilling

The high-density prilling process, 99+% solution concentration, is used
in many plants making straight ammonium nitrate plant for fertilizer use. High-
density prilling requires expensive fume abatement equipment due to high fume

xviii
emissions from the prilling tower and has a low flexibility for production of
different N-content products.

EVALUATION OF PRILLING PROCESSES

OPERATING COST
The operating cost of a low-density prilling process and high-density
priilling process will be based on its electrical consumption a year, considering
also additional auxillary equipment for high-density prilling. Our prill tower
will use of air 830,322.9392 kg/day.

For Low-Density prilling;

Converting it to kg/s.
𝒌𝒈 𝒂𝒊𝒓 830,322.9392 𝑘𝑔 𝑎𝑖𝑟 1 𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑘𝑔
= 𝑥 = 9.61
𝒔 𝑑𝑎𝑦 86,400 𝑠 𝑠
Using sensible heat equation to determine the power usage:
𝑇ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑑 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑠:

c𝑠 = 1.005 + 1.88ℋ

c𝑠 = 1.005 + 1.88 (0.0670)

𝑘𝐽
c𝑠 = 1.1309 𝑘𝑔−˚C

𝑄 = 𝑚𝐶𝑠 ∆𝑇

𝑘𝑔 𝑘𝐽
𝑄 = 9.61 𝑥 1.1309 (48 − 28) ˚C
𝑠 𝑘𝑔−˚C

𝒌𝑱
𝑸 = 𝟐𝟏𝟕. 𝟑𝟔
𝒔

xix
Our prill tower will run 20 hours a day and will be operating for 362 days in a
year.
𝑘𝐽 3600 𝑠 20 ℎ𝑟𝑠 362 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 217.36 𝑥 𝑥 𝑥
𝑠 ℎ𝑟 𝑑𝑎𝑦 1 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝒌𝑱
𝒀𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒍𝒚 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒖𝒎𝒑𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 = 𝟓, 𝟔𝟔𝟓, 𝟐𝟒𝟒, 𝟒𝟓𝟒. 𝟕𝟐
𝒚𝒆𝒂𝒓

Table VI. Price and Energy Content of Prilling Tower

Type Price Energy Content
Electric 𝑃ℎ𝑝 3600 𝑘𝐽
8.90
𝑘𝑊ℎ
*Price is updated as of August 2017 via www.globalpetrolprices.com
𝑘𝐽
5,665,244,454.72 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 𝑥 8.90 𝑃ℎ𝑝
3,600 𝑘𝐽
𝑶𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕 = 𝑷𝒉𝒑 𝟏𝟒, 𝟎𝟎𝟓, 𝟕𝟒𝟑. 𝟐𝟒

For High-Density prilling;

The cost for prill tower is the same with low-density prilling, but since
that as stated above, it requires a fume abatement equipment, that would mean
another air scrubber for the process, thus the total cost for high-density prilling
is,
𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 𝑃ℎ𝑝 31,500,000.00 + 𝑃ℎ𝑝 14,005,743.24
𝑶𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕 = 𝑷𝒉𝒑 𝟒𝟒, 𝟓𝟎𝟓, 𝟕𝟒𝟑. 𝟐𝟒

xx
 Table VII. Summary of Operating Cost (per year) of Prilling processes

𝑷𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒆 𝑬𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒈𝒚
Category
𝒀𝒆𝒂𝒓
Low Density Php 14,005,743.24/year
High Density Php 44,505,743.24/year

Based on the above computation, low-density prilling costs at Php

14,005,743.24 per year and for high density-prilling process we would pay an
additional Php 31,500,000.00 plus some changes in prices in evaporator
because of higher concentration. Thus, we can conclude that the best in terms
of economics is Low-density prilling process.

PRODUCT USAGE
Low-density prills are used mainly as blasting agents, while high-
density prills are used primarily as fertilizers. The company’s main target
market is the blasting industry because possession of small amounts of
fertilizers can be used by terrorists as their improvised explosives, thus giving
us and the customer a problem of securing permits to Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) and Philippine National Police (PNP).

POLLUTION CONTROL
Studies show that pollution control has posed a difficult problem for
high-density prilling process because of large volume of exhausted air from
prill towers and because of the very small particle size of the fume in the air.
Fuming is much more severe in high-density prilling because the AN melt must
be at higher temperature (about 180°C) to keep it from freezing. At this
temperature there is an appreciable vapor pressure of NH3 + HNO3 resulting
from dissociation of AN, according to the equation:
NH4NO3 NH3 + HNO3

xxi
 The dissociation products recombine in the cooler air to form a blue
haze consisting of AN particles of submicron size. Particles of this size are
difficult to collect, and they present a highly visible and stable haze or “blue
fume”. The problem is much less serious with low-density prilling because of
lower AN solution temperature.

MAINTENANCE

Low-density prill tower designs are less complicated than high-density

prill towers. Since high-density towers need some integrated equipment at the
top of the tower to have reasonable amount of emission of air in the atmosphere.
The overall maintenance cost of low-density prill tower is less compared to that
of the high-density prill tower.

xxii
Table VIII. Analysis of Trade-off: Use of Low-Density or High-Density Prilling
Criteria Low-Density Prilling
(Currently in-use)
The operating cost per year
Operating for low-density prilling is
Cost Php 14,005,743.24. This is
based on the sensible heat
needed in the prill tower.
Low-density products are
Product
used as blasting agents
Usage
and are bulk bought.
Less-serious problem
Pollution
because of low AN solution
Control
temperature.
High-Density Prilling
(Trade-Off)
The operating cost per
year for high-density
prilling is Php
44,005,743.24, which is
much higher than low-
density because of the
need for an additional
equipment.
High-density products
are used as fertilizers
and can be used as
explosives by terrorists.
Buyers need to secure a
permit to SEC and
PNP.
Small particle size of
fumes in large volume
of exhausted air,
requires fume
abatement equipment.
xxiii
 Concentrated AN solution
Less complicated than
lead to corrosion,
Maintenance high-density prill towers,
complicated designs mean
easier to clean
longer time of cleaning.

Conclusion

In conclusion, low-density prilling process offers more advantage than

the high-density prilling process in terms of the four factors considered:
Operating Cost, Product Usage, Pollution Control, and Maintenance Cost.
Based on operating cost, the more economical prilling process is the low-
density prilling since it costs only Php 11,607,024.00 which is less than Php
31,500,000.00 as compared to high-density prilling process. Based on product
usage, the better process is still the low-density prilling, since the main target
of the company are mining companies and also to provide lesser work for
buyers in securing permits in PNP and SEC. On the other hand, based on
pollution control, the better process is the low-density prilling process because
of lower emission of fumes and dust in the atmosphere. Lastly, the maintenance
cost is cheaper when low density prilling is used as complicated design of
towers in high-density prilling leads to more time and labor in cleaning.
Looking at the criteria evaluated, it is best to use low-density prilling process
since it meets the requirements of the production at a better, faster, and cheaper
means.

xxiv
 Table IX. Scoring: Use of Low-Density or High-Density Prilling
Score Transmuted Score Total Score
Criteria Weight
T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2
Operating Cost 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00
Product Usage 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Pollution Control 0.20 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.00
Maintenance 0.10 1.00 0.50 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.05
TOTAL 0.90 0.15

Table IX, shows the scoring for the trade-off analysis, where, T1
denotes Low Density Prilling Process and T2 denotes High Density Prilling
Process.

xxv
 TRADE-OFF
SENSITIVITY
ANALYSIS

xxvi
 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Sensitivity analysis is a technique used to determine the performance of
each process and how varied weight values of the attributes: Operating Cost,
Product Usage, Pollution Control and Maintenance will impact the chosen
process. This is done to compare the response of various processes upon
changing conditions. The Single-Factor and the Two-Factor Analysis are
employed in this analysis.

Table X. Worst-Case and Best-Case Benchmark for each Attribute

CRITERION WORST BEST OPERATING COST BEST PRODUCT USAGE BEST POLLUTION CONTROL BEST MAINTENANCE
Operating Cost 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Product Usage 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Pollution Control 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Maintenance 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10

The worst – case benchmark are the lowest weighted scores from each
attribute while the best – score benchmark for each attribute are designated by
the process with the highest weighted score in that attribute. Table X shows the
worst – case and best – case benchmark for each attribute based on the scores
used in the process selection.

Table XI. Score and Weight of Attributes

LEVEL OF
CRITERIA SCORE WEIGHT
IMPORTANCE
Operating Cost 1 100.00 0.48
Product Usage 4 10.00 0.05
Pollution Control 2 60.00 0.29
Maintenance 3 40.00 0.19
TOTAL 210.00 1.00

xxvii
 The level of importance of each attribute had been predetermined based
on the significance of each attribute to the process. Operating cost was deemed
the most significant attribute and is scored as 100. The scores for the succeeding
attributes are calculated by getting of the difference of the best value and worst
value for that attribute divided by the best value for that attribute multiplied by
one hundred. The scores for each attribute are presented in Table XI.
𝐵𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑡 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒 = 𝑥 100
𝐵𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

Table XII. Comparison of scores for trade-off 1 and trade-off 2

CRITERIA T1 T2
Operating Cost 1.00 0.00
Product Usage 1.00 1.00
Pollution
1.00 0.00
Control
Maintenance 1.00 0.00
TOTAL 1.00 0.05
CHOSEN PROCESS T1

The trade-offs were rated from 0 to 1. The trade-off with the highest
score for each attribute was rated as 1. On the other hand, the attribute that has
the lowest score is rated as 0. The rate of the trade-off in between the highest
and the lowest is computed by using linear interpolation. The corresponding
rate for each process of each attribute is shown in Table XII. The total score for
each process is calculated as the sum product of the score and weight.

xxviii
 SENSITIVITY
ANALYSIS
SINGLE-FACTOR
METHOD

xxix
Single-Factor Sensitivity Analysis
In the Single-Factor Analysis, one of the attributes is changed while the
others are kept at baseline values to see its effect to the choice of process. This
is done for each attribute. The Threshold Values identify the value of the
attribute in which the decision changes.

Table XIII. Sensitivity Analysis of Best Operating Cost

BEST OPERATING COST
SCORE CHOICE
10 T1
20 T1
30 T1
40 T1
50 T1
60 T1
70 T1
80 T1
90 T1
100 T1
200 T1
300 T1
400 T1
500 T1
600 T1
700 T1
800 T1
900 T1
1000 T1

xxx
 The results in Table XIII indicate that the chosen process would still be
Trade-off 1 even if the Best Operating Cost score is changed from the base case
score of 100.00. Further increasing the scores even up to 1000, the choice of
process is still Trade-off 1. This implies that the best option in terms of price of
raw materials among the three processes is Trade-off 1 and is the best route for
the production of ammonium nitrate.

xxxi
 Table XIV. Sensitivity Analysis of Best Product Usage
BEST PRODUCT USAGE
SCORE CHOICE
10 T1
20 T1
30 T1
40 T1
50 T1
60 T1
70 T1
80 T1
90 T1
200 T1
300 T1
400 T1
500 T1
600 T1
700 T1
800 T1
900 T1
1000 T1

The results in Table XIV indicate that the chosen process would still be
Trade-off 1 even if the Best Product Usage score is changed from the base case
score of 10.00. Further increasing the scores even up to 1000, the choice of
process is still Trade-off 1. This implies that the best option in terms of price of
raw materials among the three processes is Trade-off 1 and is the best route for
the production of ammonium nitrate.

xxxii
 Table XV. Sensitivity Analysis of Best Pollution Control
BEST POLLUTION CONTROL
SCORE CHOICE
10 T1
20 T1
30 T1
40 T1
50 T1
60 T1
70 T1
80 T1
90 T1
200 T1
300 T1
400 T1
500 T1
600 T1
700 T1
800 T1
900 T1
1000 T1

The results in Table XV indicate that the chosen process would still be
Trade-off 1 even if the Best Pollution Control score is changed from the base
case score of 60.00. Further increasing the scores even up to 1000, the choice
of process is still Trade-off 1. This implies that the best option in terms of price
of raw materials among the three processes is Trade-off 1 and is the best route
for the production of ammonium nitrate.

xxxiii
 Table XVI. Sensitivity Analysis of Best Maintenance
BEST MAINTENANCE
SCORE CHOICE
10 T1
20 T1
30 T1
40 T1
50 T1
60 T1
70 T1
80 T1
90 T1
200 T1
300 T1
400 T1
500 T1
600 T1
700 T1
800 T1
900 T1
1000 T1

The results in Table XVI indicate that the chosen process would still be
Trade-off 1 even if the Best Maintenance score is changed from the base case
score of 40.00. Further increasing the scores even up to 1000, the choice of
process is still Trade-off 1. This implies that the best option in terms of price of
raw materials among the three processes is Trade-off 1 and is the best route for
the production of ammonium nitrate.

xxxiv
SENSITIVITY
ANALYSIS
TWO-FACTOR
METHOD

xxxv
Two-Factor Sensitivity Analysis

Two-Factor Sensitivity Analysis provides insight on the outcome upon

changing a combination of any two attributes.

Table XVII. Operating Cost - Product Usage Sensitivity Analysis

Operating Cost Score

Product
Usage Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

10 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
20 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
30 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
40 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
50 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
60 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
70 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
80 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
90 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
100 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
*Operating Cost Base Case Score is 100 .00
*Product Usage Base Case Score is 10.00

Table XVII shows that T1 is the appropriate choice at any point in

Operating Cost – Product Usage combination.

xxxvi
 Table XVIII. Operating Cost – Pollution Control Sensitivity Analysis

Pollution Operating Cost Score

Control
Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

10 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
20 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
30 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
40 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
50 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
60 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
70 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
80 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
90 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
100 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
*Operating Cost Base Case Score is 100 .00
*Pollution Control Base Case Score is 60.00

Table XVIII shows that T1 is the appropriate choice at any point in

Operating Cost – Pollution Control combination.

xxxvii
 Table XIX. Operating Cost – Maintenance Sensitivity Analysis

Operating Cost Score

Maintenance
Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

10 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
20 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
30 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
40 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
50 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
60 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
70 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
80 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
90 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
100 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
*Operating Cost Base Case Score is 100 .00
*Maintenance Base Case Score is 40.00

Table XIX shows that T1 is the appropriate choice at any point in

Operating Cost – Maintenance combination.

xxxviii
 Table XX. Product Usage – Pollution Control Sensitivity Analysis

Pollution Product Usage Score

Control
Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

10 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
20 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
30 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
40 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
50 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
60 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
70 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
80 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
90 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
100 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
*Product Usage Base Case Score is 10.00
*Pollution Control Base Case Score is 60.00

Table XX shows that T1 is the appropriate choice at any point in

Operating Cost – Maintenance combination.

xxxix
 Table XXI. Product Usage – Maintenance Sensitivity Analysis

Product Usage Score

Maintenance
Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

10 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
20 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
30 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
40 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
50 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
60 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
70 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
80 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
90 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
100 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
*Product Usage Base Case Score is 10.00
*Maintenance Base Case Score is 40.00

Table XXI shows that T1 is the appropriate choice at any point in

Product Usage – Maintenance combination.

xl
 Table XXII. Pollution Control – Maintenance Sensitivity Analysis

Pollution Control Score

Maintenance
Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

10 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
20 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
30 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
40 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
50 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
60 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
70 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
80 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
90 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
100 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1
*Pollution Control Base Case Score is 60.00
*Maintenance Base Case Score is 40.00

Table XXII shows that T1 is the appropriate choice at any point in

Pollution Control – Maintenance combination.

xli
 SUMMARY OF TRADE-OFF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

The sensitivity analysis for the trade-off aims to identify and justify the
appropriate process for the Production of Ammonium Nitrate. Two trade-offs
were considered namely, Low Density Prilling Process (T1) and High Density
Prilling Process (T2) and were evaluated against four chosen attributes. At
either increasing or decreasing the base score values we were able to project the
response of each processes to the changes in the attributes. In the presented
analyses above, Single-Factor and Two-Factor analysis is done.

Table XXIII. Single-Factor Sensitivity Analysis Summary

OPERATING PRODUCT POLLUTION
SCORE MAINTENANCE
COST USAGE CONTROL
10 T1 T1 T1 T1
20 T1 T1 T1 T1
30 T1 T1 T1 T1
40 T1 T1 T1 T1
50 T1 T1 T1 T1
60 T1 T1 T1 T1
70 T1 T1 T1 T1
80 T1 T1 T1 T1
90 T1 T1 T1 T1
300 T1 T1 T1 T1
400 T1 T1 T1 T1
500 T1 T1 T1 T1
600 T1 T1 T1 T1
700 T1 T1 T1 T1
900 T1 T1 T1 T1
1000 T1 T1 T1 T1

xlii
 Based on Single-Factor Sensitivity Analysis it is observed that in all
criteria, Trade-off 1 is the best choice. The base scores for each attribute are
changed with values ranging from 0% up to 1000%, and results show that the
process does not change at any adjustment of scores. Therefore, based on the
scores in single factor analysis, Trade-off 1 is more appropriate than T2.

Table XXIV. Two-Factor Sensitivity Analysis Summary

Criteria Operating Product Pollution

Maintenance
Cost Usage Control
Process Process Process
Operating
choice is choice is choice is
Cost
T1 T1 T1
Process Process
Product
choice is choice is
Usage
T1 T1
Process
Pollution
choice is
Control
T1

Combination of any two criteria will show that the process behaves
differently. Analysis using Two-Factor revealed that change occurs when the
scores are deviated from the base scores in the all combinations. For all
combinations of different criterion, the chosen process is still T1.

Bearing in mind that the most important attribute is Operating Cost in

using the sensitivity analysis in the production of Ammonium Nitrate via Uhde
Neutralization process, the best choice is T1, which is Low Density Prilling
Process.

xliii