Feasible solution

Since no feasible solution was found, there is no way that w = 4 can be intercepted to reduce the CE content of the terminal wastewater stream to 7 ppmw. Indeed, even if CE in u = 4 is completely eliminated, the terminal wastewater stream will... 

To identify this set of final feasible solutions, X e 1, with low scores, we developed a greedy search procedure, S (Saraiva and Stephanopoulos, 1992c), that has resulted, within an acceptable computation time, in almost-optimal solutions for all the cases studied so far, while avoiding the combinatorial explosion with the number of (x, y) pairs of an exhaustive enumeration/evaluation of all feasible alternatives. The algorithm starts by partitioning the decision space into a number of isovolu-... 

A variety of problems seeking the set of feasible solutions, the set of optimal solutions, or one member of either set. 

Having defined the process of branching, we must now formally define the mechanisms for controlling the expansion of the subsets. The basic intuition behind each of these mechanisms is that we can measure the quality not just of a single feasible solution, but of the entire subset represented by the partial solution string. 

In addition to the elimination of partial solutions on the basis of their lower-bound values, we can provide two mechanisms that operate directly on pairs of partial solutions. These two mechanisms are based on dominance and equivalence conditions. The utility of these conditions comes from the fact that we need not have found a feasible solution to use them, and that the lower-bound values of the eliminated solutions do not have to be higher than the objective function value of the optimal solution. This is particularly important in scheduling problems where one may have a large number of equivalent schedules due to the use of equipment with identical processing characteristics, and many batches with equivalent demands on the available resources. 

If Nv > Nr, Nd > 0, and there is an infinite number of possible solutions. However, for a practical problem there will be only a limited number of feasible solutions. The value of Nd is the number of variables which the designer must assign values to solve the problem. 

A graphic technique may be obtained from the polynomial equations, as represented in Fig. 6. Figure 6a shows the contours for tablet hardness as the levels of the independent variables are changed. Figure 6b shows similar contours for the dissolution response, t50%. If the requirements on the final tablet are that hardness be 8-10 kg and t o% be 20-33 min, the feasible solution space is indicated in Fig. 6c. This has been obtained by superimposing Fig. 6a and b, and several different combinations of X and X2 will suffice. 

Fig. 6 Contour plots for the Lagrangian method (a) tablet hardness (b) dissolution (t50%) (c) feasible solution space indicated by crosshatched area. (From Ref. 15.)... 

The feasible solution space can be represented graphically by plotting the above inequality constraints as equality constraints ... 

This is shown in Figure 3.12. The feasible solution space in Figure 3.12 is given by ABCD. 

The problem is started with an initial feasible solution that is then improved by a stepwise procedure. The search will be started at the worst possible solution when n and n2 are both zero. From Equations 3.15 and 3.16 ... 

Select. Solve the convex relaxed NLP in the new partitions to obtainand fLp. Delete the partition if there is no feasible solution. 

Upper bounds on the objective function can be found from any feasible solution to (3-110), with y set to integer values. These can be found at the bottom or leaf nodes of a branch and bound tree (and sometimes at intermediate nodes as well). The top, or root, node in... 

It fix) and g(x) are nonconvex, additional difficulties can occur. In this case, nonunique, local solutions can be obtained at intermediate nodes, and consequently lower bounding properties would be lost. In addition, the nonconvexity in g(x) can lead to locally infeasible problems at intermediate nodes, even if feasible solutions can be found in the corresponding leaf node. To overcome problems with nonconvexities, global solutions to relaxed NLPs can be solved at the intermediate nodes. This preserves the lower bounding information and allows nonlinear branch and bound to inherit the convergence properties from the linear case. However, as noted above, this leads to much more expensive solution strategies. 

The diversity of the stated constraints dearly shows that feasible solutions can only be achieved where constraints and their interdependency is mapped in their entirety in the production plan. 

At the end of an optimization operator a feasible solution has been built up. Further application of algorithms should improve this plan. Therefore the parts with the most promising potential for improvement must be found. Costs are mostly not a good criterion because they change in a non continuous way quants change from delay to stock costs, changeover costs are zero or non-zero. Also a shift model introduces a lot of volatility. 

The LP solutions in the nodes control the sequence in which the nodes are visited and provide conservative lower bounds (in case of minimization problems) with respect to the objective on the subsequent subproblems. If this lower bound is higher than the objective of the best feasible solution found so far, the subsequent nodes can be excluded from the search without excluding the optimal solution. Each feasible solution corresponds to a leaf node and provides a conservative upper bound on the optimal solution. This combination of branching and bounding or cutting steps leads to the implicit enumeration of all integer solutions without having to visit all leaf nodes. 

As first-stage feasible solutions in general do not necessarily have a feasible completion in the second-stage due to the implicit constraints in (SUB), the total set of feasible solutions for x is a subset of the first-stage feasible solutions. In this case, the program is called a 2S-MILP without relative complete recourse. For a 2S-MILP with relative complete recourse, each first stage feasible solution x has a feasible completion in the second-stage. 

In the second experiment (Figure 9.14b), the ES was initialized by a feasible initial population that consisted of the EV-solution and other randomly generated feasible solutions. Here, the ES converges faster than with infeasible initialization. Although the ES is robust against infeasible initialization, a feasible initialization is recommended to improve speed of convergence. 

CPLEX, a highly advanced commercial MILP solver based on branch-and-bound with cuts and heuristics, and with automatic parameter adaptation is used to address the problem in the form of the large-scale deterministic equivalent program (DEP). After two minutes, the first feasible solution x = 0 with an objective of +29.7 was found. The next feasible solution was found after approximately 90 minutes. The best solution found after eight hours was -17.74. 

On the other hand, if more process variables whose values are unknown exist in category 2 than there are independent equations, the process model is called underdetermined that is, the model has an infinite number of feasible solutions so that the objective function in category 1 is the additional criterion used to reduce the number of solutions to just one (or a few) by specifying what is the best solution. Finally, if the equations in category 2 contain more independent equations... 

---