Objective coefficient

Cell Name Final Value Reduced Cost Objective Coefficient Allowable Increase Allowable Decrease... 

Constructive searches based on more complicated efficiency ratios are much more common than the pure greedy notion of considering only objective coefficient magnitudes. One example is Dobson s (1982), heuristic for generalized covering problems of the form... 

Basic controllers implement a fixed strategy. MVC permit more CVs than MVs and will select which CVs to control based on objective coefficients specified by the engineer. The MVC package will employ a linear program (LP) or similar algorithm to select the least costly (most profitable) strategy. Objective coefficients are applied to each MV and, in some packages, also to each CV. 

The technique is well-suited to predicting the behaviour of a multivariable controller, even before steptesting has been started. Plant history databases comprise a number of instrument tag names with measurements collected at regular intervals. If we imagine the data arranged in a matrix so that each column corresponds to either a MV or a C V in the proposed controller and each row is a time stamped snapshot of the value of each parameter. To this we add a column in which we place the value of the proposed MVC objective function (C) derived from the values in the same row (where P are the objective coefficients for the m CVs, and Q the objective coefficients for the n MVs), i.e. 

What drives the MVC to select a node are the objective coefficients (or cost coefficients). These are applied to each MV (P) and, in some MVC packages, also to each CV (0. 

In this case, for the mass balance to be correct, Kp)ii must be — 1, Kf) 2 must be 0 and (Ap>33 must be 1. There is no need to include propane flow as a C V, since its inclusion as an MV already permits an objective coefficient to be assigned. 

If the MVC package does not pennit CVs to be given objective coefficients, then the coefficients for the MVs should be modified to take account of the effect that changing each MV has on each CV. 

The purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate the impact of process economics on M VC. In this case, if the price difference between the two products approaches or exceeds the unit cost of steam, it would incorrect to operate at the minimmn energy point. It is common practice to treat objective coefficients as weighting factors than are adjusted by trial and error to force the controller to drive the process to what is believed to be the optimum operation. Doing so risks better achieving the wrong objective and so losing money when the MVC is commissioned. 

Finally, the use of real economics means the MVC objective function is a real measure of process profitability. This can then be used to assess the value of the application. While the minute-to-minute value is probably too noisy and subject to change if the objective coefficients are changed, it can be used offline. For example, the average C4 content of propane before implementation might have been 4.1 %. With the MVC in place it was increased to 4.5 % and so the improvement is 0.4 %. We repeat this calculation for the other hmiting constraints such as the C3 content of bottoms and the reboiler steam flow. 

At the beginning of this section we considered the retention of the tray temperature controller. Assuming this is in the lower section of the column and manipulates reboUer steam then the SP of this controller becomes an MV, instead of that of the steam flow controller. However we may wish to include steam flow as a CV so that we can apply an objective coefficient. The control matrix then becomes that shown in Table 12.14. 

Cooccurrence matrix is divided into four bloeks delimited by a threshold t (fig.3). In the block Bl, the included coefficients belong to the background of the image. In the block B4, the coefficients correspond to the objects of the image, and finally, the blocks B2 and B3 contain the coefficients linked to the transitions between background and objects. 

U, - meaning of linear relaxation coefficient for i - element tomogram s, Vi - volume of object, appropriate i -clement tomogram s, po - meaning of linear relaxation coefficient of a matrix material, (p/p)mei - mass relaxation coefficient of metal, wo - faaor of a pore filling material... 

The coefficient of friction between two unlubricated solids is generally in the range of 0.5-1.0, and it has therefore been a matter of considerable interest that very low values, around 0.03, pertain to objects sliding on ice or snow. The first explanation, proposed by Reynolds in 1901, was that the local pressure caused melting, so that a thin film of water was present. Qualitatively, this explanation is supported by the observation that the coefficient of friction rises rapidly as the remperarure falls, especially below about -10°C, if the sliding speed is small. Moreover, there is little doubt that formation of a water film is actually involved [3,4]. 

Consequently, we can construct a similarity measure intuitively in the following way all matches c -i- d relative to all possibilities, i.e., matches plus mismatches (c+ d) + (a -I- h), yields (c -t- d) / a + b+ c + d), which is called the simple matching coefficient [18], and equal weight is given to matches and mismatches. (Normalized similarity measures are called similarity indices or coefficients see, e.g.. Ref. [19].) When absence of a feature in both objects is deemed to convey no information, then d should not occur in a similarity measure. Omitting d from the above similarity measure, one obtains the Tanimoto (alias Jaccard) similarity measure (Eq. (8) see Ref. [16] and the citations therein) ... 

If the binary descriptors for the objects s and t are substructure keys the Hamming distance Eq. (6)) gives the number of different substructures in s and t (components that are 1 in either s or but not in both). On the other hand, the Tanimoto coefficient (Eq. (7)) is a measure of the number of substructures that s and t have in common (i.e., the frequency a) relative to the total number of substructures they could share (given by the number of components that are 1 in either s or t). 

Equation (8.97) shows that the second virial coefficient is a measure of the excluded volume of the solute according to the model we have considered. From the assumption that solute molecules come into surface contact in defining the excluded volume, it is apparent that this concept is easier to apply to, say, compact protein molecules in which hydrogen bonding and disulfide bridges maintain the tertiary structure (see Sec. 1.4) than to random coils. We shall return to the latter presently, but for now let us consider the application of Eq. (8.97) to a globular protein. This is the objective of the following example. 

Our primary objective in undertaking this examination of the coil expansion factor was to see whether the molecular weight dependence of a could account for the fact that the Mark-Houwink a coefficient is generally greater than 0.5 for T 0. More precisely, it is generally observed that 0.5 < a < 0.8. This objective is met by combining Eqs. (9.55) and (9.68) ... 

---