Optimization objectives

Transfer function models are linear in nature, but chemical processes are known to exhibit nonhnear behavior. One could use the same type of optimization objective as given in Eq. (8-26) to determine parameters in nonlinear first-principle models, such as Eq. (8-3) presented earlier. Also, nonhnear empirical models, such as neural network models, have recently been proposed for process applications. The key to the use of these nonlinear empirical models is naving high-quality process data, which allows the important nonhnearities to be identified. 

Our case studies prove that optimization objectives generally followed in synthesis design and during scale up show a high potential for increasing resource efficiency. These objectives are, for example, increases of yield and the recycling efficiency of solvents and auxiliary materials. 

The formulation for this scenario entails 1411 constraints, 511 continuous and 120 binary variables. The reduction in continuous variables compared to scenario 1 is due to the absence of linearization variables, since no attempt was made to linearize the scenario 2 model as explained in Section 4.3. An average of 1100 nodes were explored in the branch and bound search tree during the three major iterations between the MILP master problem and the NLP subproblem. The problem was solved in 6.54 CPU seconds resulting in an optimal objective of 2052.31 kg, which corresponds to 13% reduction in freshwater requirement. The corresponding water recycle/reuse network is shown in Fig. 4.10. 

Plugging the first-stage solution of the EV problem xEV into the stochastic program (2S-MILP) gives the expected result of using the EV solution (EEV problem). The solution of the EEV problem is not necessarily optimal for the original 2S-MILP. Consequently, the optimal objective value of the EEV problem is always greater than (or at least equal to) the optimal objective value of the 2S-MILP, such that the objective of EEV is an upper bound for the optimal solution of the 2S-MILP ... 

The advantage of using a 2S-MILP instead of the corresponding deterministic approach is measured by the value of the stochastic solution (VSS) which is the difference of the respective optimal objective values ... 

Due to the campaign structure, the existing decomposition techniques in the SNP optimizer like time decomposition and product decomposition are not applicable. For problems with this structure it is possible to use the resource decomposition in case a good sequence of planning of the campaign resources can be derived. However, in our case, problem instances could be solved without decomposition on a Pentium IV with 2 GHz in one hour to a solution quality of which the objective value deviates at most one percent from the optimal objective function value. 

In addition to providing optimal x values, both simplex and barrier solvers provide values of dual variables or Lagrange multipliers for each constraint. We discuss Lagrange multipliers at some length in Chapter 8, and the conclusions reached there, valid for nonlinear problems, must hold for linear programs as well. In Chapter 8 we show that the dual variable for a constraint is equal to the derivative of the optimal objective value with respect to the constraint limit or right-hand side. We illustrate this with examples in Section 7.8. 

For larger r values, x(r) is forced further from the constraint boundary. In contrast, as r approaches zero, xx r) and x2(r) converge to their optimal values of 1.5 and 2.5, respectively, and the constraint value approaches zero. The term — ln(g(x)) approaches infinity, but the weighted barrier term — rln (g(x)) approaches zero, and the value of B approaches the optimal objective value. 

A specification of the NLP problem to be solved—at a minimum, the number of functions, the number of variables, which function is the optimization objective, bounds on the functions and variables (if different from some default scheme), and initial values of some or all variables (the system may supply default values, but using these is recommended only as a last resort). 

The Excel Solver. Microsoft Excel, beginning with version 3.0 in 1991, incorporates an NLP solver that operates on the values and formulas of a spreadsheet model. Versions 4.0 and later include an LP solver and mixed-integer programming (MIP) capability for both linear and nonlinear problems. The user specifies a set of cell addresses to be independently adjusted (the decision variables), a set of formula cells whose values are to be constrained (the constraints), and a formula cell designated as the optimization objective. The solver uses the spreadsheet interpreter to evaluate the constraint and objective functions, and approximates derivatives, using finite differences. The NLP solution engine for the Excel Solver is GRG2 (see Section 8.7). 

We redefined the sense of the optimization to be maximization. The optimal objective value of this problem is a lower bound on the MINLP optimal value. The MILP subproblem involves both the x and y variables. At iteration k, it is formed by linearizing all nonlinear functions about the optimal solutions of each of the subproblems NLP (y ),/ = 1,. .., , and keeping all of these linearizations. If x solves NLP(yl), the MILP subproblem at iteration k is... 

The big-M formulation is often difficult to solve, and its difficulty increases as M increases. This is because the NLP relaxation of this problem (the problem in which the condition yt = 0 or 1 is replaced by yt between 0 and 1) is often weak, that is, its optimal objective value is often much less than the optimal value of the MINLP. An alternative to the big-M formulation is described in Lee and Grossman (2000) using an NLP relaxation, which often has a much tighter bound on the optimal MINLP value. A branch-and-bound algorithm based on this formulation performed much better than a similar method applied to the big-M formulation. An outer approximation approach is also described by Lee and Grossmann (2000). 

Khogeer (2005) developed an LP model for multiple refinery coordination. He developed different scenarios to experiment with the effect of catastrophic failure and different environmental regulation changes on the refineries performance. This work was developed using commercial planning software (Aspen PIMS). In his study, there was no model representation of the refineries systems or clear simultaneous representation of optimization objective functions. Such an approach deprives the study of its generalities and limits the scope to a narrow application. Furthermore, no process integration or capacity expansions were considered. 

Operational risk factor 02 Optimal objective value Expected variation in profit V(z0)(E + 8) Expected total unmet demand/ production shortfall Expected total excess production/ production surplus Expected recourse penalty costs Es Expected variation in recourse penalty costs Vs p = E[z ] - Es c a P... 

Pk the optimal objective value of the primal subproblem P(yk). This is a valid upper bound on (6.52). 

The search for an advantageous condition of a system is a common problem in science and many algorithms are available to optimize objective functions. In this chapter we will discuss the methods commonly used in molecular mechanics. For a more detailed discussion we refer to specialist texts on computational chemistry193-961. 

Apart from optimization, a problem is often set for mathematical modeling or interpolation. The optimum does not interest us in that case but the model that adequately describes the obtained results in the experimental field. A subdomain is not chosen in that case, but the polynomial order is moved up until an adequate model is obtained. When a linear or incomplete square model (with no members with a square factors) is adequate it means that the research objective corresponds to the optimization objective. 

Evaluate Best Flowsheet Alternatives on the Basis of Criteria not in the Optimization Objective Function... 

---