Simplex method applications

Let us consider the application of the simplex method to our quadratic function,/ = + 2y ... 

There are two basic types of unconstrained optimization algorithms (I) those reqmring function derivatives and (2) those that do not. The nonderivative methods are of interest in optimization applications because these methods can be readily adapted to the case in which experiments are carried out directly on the process. In such cases, an ac tual process measurement (such as yield) can be the objec tive function, and no mathematical model for the process is required. Methods that do not reqmre derivatives are called direc t methods and include sequential simplex (Nelder-Meade) and Powell s method. The sequential simplex method is quite satisfac tory for optimization with two or three independent variables, is simple to understand, and is fairly easy to execute. Powell s method is more efficient than the simplex method and is based on the concept of conjugate search directions. 

F. Darvas, Application of the sequential simplex method in designing drug analogs. J. Med. Chem., 17 (1974) 99-804. 

Several thousand papers using experimental designs have been published. We summarise in Table 2.34 the most important in our field from 1999 to 2008. Quite surprisingly, the number of papers using simplex methods to optimize analytical procedures is not so large and, so, our review started at 1990 (see Table 2.35). For older references on simplex applications see Grotti [143] and Wienke et al. [144]. 

Details on the simplex algorithm are available elsewhere (33,34,47-50). The advantages and disadvantages of the simplex method pertinent to chromatographic applications are summarized in Table II. 

General aspects of the simplex method. Although the simplex algorithm can in principle be employed for the optimization of any kind or number of parameters of a particular process, for chromatographic applications it appears to be better suited for certain types of a limited number of variables. 

In a process of isomerization of a sulfanilamid compound, the methods of both the steepest ascent and simplex optimization have been analyzed. Trials were performed in a laboratory plant. Table 2.214 shows FUFE 22 with application of the method of steepest ascent. Maximal yield by this method was 80%. Table 2.215 shows the application of simplex method (k=2) to the same process. The position of initial simplex corresponds completely to the position of trials of factor design Fig. 2.54. 

Let us analyze the previous case by taking into account the third factor X,. The outcomes of FUFE 23 and the results of application of method of steepest ascent are given in Table 2.216. Thirteen trials were necessary to reach the maximal yield of 85.2%. The outcomes of the simplex method are in Table 2.217. Maximal yield after 14 trials is 85.0%. Approximately the same number of trials has been necessary by both methods to reach the optimum. It should be stressed once again that FUFE requires replications, so that to reach optimum by the method of steepest ascent, we need at least twice as many trials. Evidently, a half-replica instead of FUFE in the basic experiment may reduce the number of trials. However, there is a possibility of wrong direction of the movement to optimum due to the possible effects of interactions. 

Do optimization of the process of obtaining dibutyldithiophosphorous acid by application of the simplex method. These factors have an essential effect on the product yield Xrtemperature of reaction mixture, °C and X2-retention time, min. The following variation intervals were chosen ... 

Both the development and the optimization of simplex methods are still continuing. Several functions have been designed to test the performance of the simplex algorithms, one example is the famous ROSENBROCK valley. Other test functions have been reported by ABERG and GUSTAVSSON [1982]. Most analytical applications of simplex optimization are found in atomic spectroscopy [SNEDDON, 1990] and chromatography [BERRIDGE, 1990],... 

On the other hand, the practical characteristics of the Simplex method show that its application is usually staightforward (even for multi-parameter optimizations) and requires little knowledge or computational effort. This explains the popularity of the Simplex methods for the optimization of chromatographic selectivity, despite its obvious fundamental shortcomings. 

Fig. 8. Principle of the Simplex method — 2. Application of the basic procedure in a 2 — dimensional representation of finding the optimum T. Eight simplices are required...

The calculation process, which involves only simple arithmetic, is called the simplex method. It will be discussed more fully in the section following. This application to finding a feasible solution is an adaptation of one described by Chames et al. (Cl). 

The modified simplex methods have gained considerable popularity in analytical chemistry, especially for the optimization of instrumental methods. Applications in organic synthesis are, however, remarkably few. There are several reasons for this difference ... 

This section introduces the two most common empirical optimization strategies, the simplex method and the Box-Wilson strategy. The emphasis is on the latter, as it has a wider scope of applications. This section presents the basic idea the techniques needed at different steps in following the given strategy are given in the subsequent sections. 

The Nelder-Mead simplex algorithm was published already on 1965, and it has become a classic (Nelder Mead, 1965). Several variants and applications of it have been published since then. It is often also called the flexible polyhedron method. It should be noted that it has nothing to do with the so-called Dantzig s simplex method used in linear programming. It can be used both in mathematical and empirical optimization. 

The name of the simplex method is not deduced from simple, even when the method in its basic applications is simple to use, but the term simplex refers to the simplex in geometry, i.e., a triangle in two dimensions, the tetrahedron in three dimensions, etc. The method is attributed to Nelder and Mead in 1964 [5]. 

Simplex and the related PDS algorithms were compared against the GA for conformational searching applications. Both the simplex method (using many starting simplexes) and PDS performed about as well as GA for small problems, but GA appears to find lower energies more quickly for large problems. However, the difference in performance is small. 

Linear function is the best function in analysis and application because it is easy to understand and compute. Because of these traits of linear functions, linear programming is popular and powerful. In this section we shall extend the linear programming with single criterion to that with multiple criteria and multilevel constraints of the resource. Instead of the simplex method with single criterion, we shall discuss the multicriteria (MC) simplex method and the multicriteria multiconstraint-level (MC ) simplex method to help resolve the difiSculty of decision problems. 

Suppose that we have W = 1,.. . , n opportunities or products, from which we want to choose a subset to undertake or produce as to maximize profit. We can formulate the problem as in (3). We want to maximize the objective A Cx with constraint and Ax < DA and x a 0. Here A and -y are uncertain. In this way we have a system design problem with multiple-criteria and multiple-resource availability levels. We can use MC -simplex method to identify a set of potentially good systems as candidates for the optimal system. Here, each potentially good system is a subset of a given opportunity set, each of which optimizes the objective when the parameters of contribution coefficients and that of resource availabitity levels faU in certain region. For further discussion along this line and applications, see Lee et al. (1990), Shi (1998a, b). 

Methods are available for fine-tuning dye and pigment mixes by, for example, optimizing tristimulus values or using simplex methods. Such methods can be used to minimize metamerism and pigment costs. The many problems of dye and pigment formulation can be surmounted using specific equations for specific applications. 

Gershwin, S.B. et al/ANALYSIS MODEUNG OF MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS Maros, 1./ COMPUTATIONAL TECHNIQUES OF THE SIMPLEX METHOD Harrison, T., Lee, H. Neale, J./ THE PRACTICE OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT Where Theory And Application Converge... 

The separation characteristics of a considerable variety of other TLC supports were also tested using different dye mixtures (magnesia, polyamide, silylated silica, octadecyl-bonded silica, carboxymethyl cellulose, zeolite, etc.) however, these supports have not been frequently applied in practical TLC of this class of compounds. Optimization procedures such as the prisma and the simplex methods have also found application in the TLC analysis of synthetic dyes. It was established that six red synthetic dyes (C.I. 15580 C.I. 15585 C.I. 15630 C.I. 15800 C.I. 15880 C.I. 15865) can be fully separated on silica high-performance TLC (HPTLC) layers in a three-solvent system calculated by the optimization models. The theoretical plate number and the consequent separation capacity of traditional TLC can be considerably enhanced by using supports of lower particle size (about 5 fim) and a narrower particle size distribution. The application of these HPTLC layers for the analysis of basic and cationic synthetic dyes has also been reviewed. The advantages of overpressured (or forced flow) TLC include improved separation efficiency, lower detection limit, and lower solvent consumption, and they have also been exploited in the analysis of synthetic dyes. 

In the majority of cases the search for the optimal solution requires the application of numerical methods. There is a general method for resolving the LPP, known as Dantzig s simplex algorithm (or simplex method) - please refer to Sultan (1993). It has been shown that the solution of the LPP can be found at one of the corners of a polygonal area that defines the admissible values of factors (Fig. 1.19a). 

---