Algebraic equations numerical solution methods

Note that fugacities are calculated on the basis of thermodynamic equations with use of one of the state equations. The system of equations (5.169)-(5.172) represents nonlinear system of algebraic equations. Its solution can be found by using appropriate numerical methods. 

Equation (3.38) represents a set of algebraic constraints for the vector of species concentrations expressing the fact that the fast reactions are in equilibrium. The introduction of constraints reduces the number of degrees of freedom of the problem, which now exclusively lie in the subspace of slow reactions. In such a way, the fast degrees of freedom have been eliminated, and the problem is now much better suited for numerical solution methods. It has been shown that, depending on the specific problem to be solved, the use of simplified kinetic models allows the computational time to be reduced by two to three orders of magnitude [85]. 

In Chapters 7 to 12 we deal with numerical solution methods, and partial differential equations (PDE) are presented. Qassical techniques, such as combination of variables and separation of variables, are covered in detail. This is followed by Chapter 11 on PDE transform methods, culminating in the generalized Sturm-Liouville transform. This allows sets of PDEs to be solved as handily as algebraic sets. Approximate and numerical methods close out the treatment of PDEs in Chapter 12. 

In a recent voluminous monograph. Grant presented relativistic atomic structure theory from the perspective of aU developments by himself and his collaboratos in the second half of the 20th century. The total electronic wave function is elegantly constructed in terms of Racah algebra instead of the pedestrian way chosen for the sake of simplicity here. Also, the numerical solution methods for the SCF equations are different from the matrix approach presented here. 

As mentioned in Chapter 2, the numerical solution of the systems of algebraic equations is based on the general categories of direct or iterative procedures. In the finite element modelling of polymer processing problems the most frequently used methods are the direet methods. 

As mentioned earlier, overall accuracy of finite element computations is directly detennined by the accuracy of the method employed to obtain the numerical solution of the global system of algebraic equations. In practical simulations, therefore, computational errors which are liable to affect the solution of global stiffness equations should be carefully analysed. 

Usually the finite difference method or the grid method is aimed at numerical solution of various problems in mathematical physics. Under such an approach the solution of partial differential equations amounts to solving systems of algebraic equations. 

Within esqjlicit schemes the computational effort to obtain the solution at the new time step is very small the main effort lies in a multiplication of the old solution vector with the coeflicient matrix. In contrast, implicit schemes require the solution of an algebraic system of equations to obtain the new solution vector. However, the major disadvantage of explicit schemes is their instability [84]. The term stability is defined via the behavior of the numerical solution for t —> . A numerical method is regarded as stable if the approximate solution remains bounded for t —> oo, given that the exact solution is also bounded. Explicit time-step schemes tend to become unstable when the time step size exceeds a certain value (an example of a stability limit for PDE solvers is the von-Neumann criterion [85]). In contrast, implicit methods are usually stable. 

This equation must be solved for yn +l. The Newton-Raphson method can be used, and if convergence is not achieved within a few iterations, the time step can be reduced and the step repeated. In actuality, the higher-order backward-difference Gear methods are used in DASSL [Ascher, U. M., and L. R. Petzold, Computer Methods for Ordinary Differential Equations and Differential-Algebraic Equations, SIAM, Philadelphia (1998) and Brenan, K. E., S. L. Campbell, and L. R. Petzold, Numerical Solution of Initial-Value Problems in Differential-Algebraic Equations, North Holland Elsevier (1989)]. 

Absorption columns can be modeled in a plate-to-plate fashion (even if it is a packed bed) or as a packed bed. The former model is a set of nonlinear algebraic equations, and the latter model is an ordinary differential equation. Since streams enter at both ends, the differential equation is a two-point boundary value problem, and numerical methods are used (see Numerical Solution of Ordinary Differential Equations as Initial-Value Problems ). 

Dynamic simulations are also possible, and these require solving differential equations, sometimes with algebraic constraints. If some parts of the process change extremely quickly when there is a disturbance, that part of the process may be modeled in the steady state for the disturbance at any instant. Such situations are called stiff, and the methods for them are discussed in Numerical Solution of Ordinary Differential Equations as Initial-Value Problems. It must be realized, though, that a dynamic calculation can also be time-consuming and sometimes the allowable units are lumped-parameter models that are simplifications of the equations used for the steady-state analysis. Thus, as always, the assumptions need to be examined critically before accepting the computer results. 

Digital simulation is a powerful tool for solving the equations describing chemical engineering systems. The principal difficulties are two (1) solution of simultaneous nonlinear algebraic equations (usually done by some iterative method), and (2) numerical integration of ordinary differential equations (using discrete finite-difference equations to approximate continuous differential equations). 

Brenan, K. E., and Petzold, L. R., The numerical solution of higher index differential/algebraic equations by implicit Runge-Kutta methods," UCRL-95905, preprint, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, Livermore, California (1987). 

For a CSTR the stationary-state relationship is given by the solution of an algebraic equation for the reaction-diffusion system we still have a (non-linear) differential equation, albeit ordinary rather than partial as in eqn (9.14). The stationary-state profile can be determined by standard numerical methods once the two parameters D and / have been specified. Figure 9.3 shows two typical profiles for two different values of )(0.1157 and 0.0633) with / = 0.04. In the upper profile, the stationary-state reactant concentration is close to unity across the whole reaction zone, reflecting only low extents of reaction. The profile has a minimum exactly at the centre of the reaction zone p = 0 and is symmetric about this central line. This symmetry with the central minimum is a feature of all the profiles computed for the class A geometries with these symmetric boundary conditions. With the lower diffusion coefficient, D = 0.0633, much greater extents of conversion—in excess of 50 per cent—are possible in the stationary state. 

I will return to this diagram near the end of the chapter, particularly to amplify the meaning of error removal, which is indicated by dashed horizontal lines in Fig. 7.1. For now, I will illustrate the bootstrapping technique for improving phases, map, and model with an analogy the method of successive approximations for solving a complicated algebraic equation. Most mathematics education emphasizes equations that can be solved analytically for specific variables. Many realistic problems defy such analytic solutions but are amenable to numerical methods. The method of successive approximations has much in common with the iterative process that extracts a protein model from diffraction data. 

---