The state vector

The derivative of the state vector in this case is given by  

If the model of the system to be simulated can be reduced to the form of equations (2.22), then a timemarching, numerical solution becomes possible by repeated application of, for instance, the first-order Euler integration formula  

Very often the simulation program in a commercial package is divided up for ease of reference and modification, as well as computational efficiency into sections similar to the categories of Table 2.1  

Once programmed, the dynamic simulation will be used to understand the various processes going on inside a complex plant and to make usable predictions of the behaviour that will result from any changes or disturbances that may occur on the real plant, represented on the simulation by forcing functions or alterations to the chosen starting conditions. A basic first step is to characterize the condition of the plant at any given instant in time, and it is the state vector that, taken in conjunction with its associated mathematical model, allows us to do this. The state vector is an ordered collection of all the state variables. For a typical chemical plant, the state vector will consist of a number of temperatures, pressures, levels and valve positions, and the total number of state variables will be the dimension or order of the plant. For those 

In view of the fundamental importance of the state vector to the way in which we look at the plant, it might be supposed that only one set of state variables could emerge from a valid mathematical description of the plant, and that the composition of the state vector would have to be unique. In fact, this is not so. It will normally be possible to choose several different ways of describing a process plant, and each description will lead to a different set of variables making up the state vector, and a different associated mathematical model. 

---

Discrete-time solution of the state vector differential equation... 

An alternative procedure is the dynamic programming method of Bellman (1957) which is based on the principle of optimality and the imbedding approach. The principle of optimality yields the Hamilton-Jacobi partial differential equation, whose solution results in an optimal control policy. Euler-Lagrange and Pontrya-gin s equations are applicable to systems with non-linear, time-varying state equations and non-quadratic, time varying performance criteria. The Hamilton-Jacobi equation is usually solved for the important and special case of the linear time-invariant plant with quadratic performance criterion (called the performance index), which takes the form of the matrix Riccati (1724) equation. This produces an optimal control law as a linear function of the state vector components which is always stable, providing the system is controllable. 

The tracking or servomechanism problem is defined in section 9.1.1(e), and is directed at applying a control u(t) to drive a plant so that the state vector t) follows a desired state trajectory r(t) in some optimal manner. 

The last interesting feature of p to be considered here is its function as a projection operator. The meaning of that phrase will be clear from the following computation. Let p be compounded from the state vector a, and let it act on any vector x. Then... 

A. —The states of any physical system have the same properties as vectors in abstract Hilbert space, and there exists a correspondence between the states of a physical system and the elements of which are in what follows to be called the state vectors of the system. 

B. —The state vector of any system remains some well-defined function of time except in so far as interaction occurs with some other system, when it may change to some other state vector in 3 . Laboratory measurement of any property of a system necessarily involves interaction between the system and the measuring equipment, and in general changes the state vector of the system. Now any change of vector in is equivalent to a transformation in 3, or in other words to an operator in 3. This leads to the following postulate ... 

Example, Free Particle. In this case the hamiltonian is H = Pa/2m and the state vector t> satisfies the equation... 

Now let us use the set, <0> to form a matrix representation of some operator Q at time hi assuming that Q is not explicitly a function of time. The expectation value of Q in the various states, changes in time only by virtue of the time-dependence of the state vectors used in the representation. However, because this dependence is equivalent to a unitary transformation, the matrix at time t is derived from the matrix at time t0 by such a unitary transformation, and we know that this cannot change the trace of the matrix. Thus if Q — WXR our result entails that it is not possible to change the ensemble average of R, which is just the trace of Q. 

The covariant amplitudes describing one-, two-, etc., particle systems can be defined in terms of the Heisenberg field operators (x) as follows oonsider a one-particle system described by the state vector IT) Since it describes a one-particle system, it has the property that... 

The commutations (9-416)-( 9-419) guarantee that the state vectors are antisymmetric and that the occupation number operators N (p,s) and N+(q,t) can have only eigenvalues 0 and 1 (which is, of course, what is meant by the statement that particles and antiparticles separately obey Fermi-Dirac etatistios). In fact one readily verifies that... 

In concluding this section we briefly establish the connection between the Dirac theory for a single isolated free particle described in the previous section and the present formalism. If T> is the state vector describing a one-particle state, iV T> = 1 T> consider the amplitude... 

We next introduce the Meller wave operator l(+> which transforms the state vectors Qn> into T >+... 

In a quantum mechanical framework, Postulate 1 remains as stated. It implies that there exists a well-defined connection and correspondence between the labels attributed to the space-time points by each observer, between the state vectors each observer attributes to a given physical system, and between observables of the system. Postulate 2 is usually formulated in terms of transition probabilities, and requires that the transition probability be independent of the frame of reference. It should be stated explicitly at this point that we shall formulate the notion of invariance in terms of the concept of bodily identity, wherein a single physical system is viewed by two observers who, in general, will have different relations to the system. 

Figure 11-4 Globally and annually averaged oxygen versus CO2 concentration from 1991 to 1994. The oxygen concentration is displayed as the measured O2/N2 ratio and expressed in per meq" which denote the pm deviation from a standard ratio. The inset shows the directions of the state vector expected for terrestrial and oceanic uptake. The long arrow shows the expected atmospheric trend from fossil fuel burning if there were no oceanic and terrestrial exchanges. (Used with permission from Keeling et al. (1996). Nature 381 218-221, Macmillan Magazines.)...

Electron Nuclear Dynamics (48) departs from a variational form where the state vector is both explicitly and implicitly time-dependent. A coherent state formulation for electron and nuclear motion is given and the relevant parameters are determined as functions of time from the Euler equations that define the stationary point of the functional. Yngve and his group have currently implemented the method for a determinantal electronic wave function and products of wave packets for the nuclei in the limit of zero width, a "classical" limit. Results are coming forth protons on methane (49), diatoms in laser fields (50), protons on water (51), and charge transfer (52) between oxygen and protons. 

At this point we introduce the formal notation, which is commonly used in literature, and which is further used throughout this chapter. In the new notation we replace the parameter vector b in the calibration example by a vector x, which is called the state vector. In the multicomponent kinetic system the state vector x contains the concentrations of the compounds in the reaction mixture at a given time. Thus x is the vector which is estimated by the filter. The response of the measurement device, e.g., the absorbance at a given wavelength, is denoted by z. The absorbtivities at a given wavelength which relate the measured absorbance to the concentrations of the compounds in the mixture, or the design matrix in the calibration experiment (x in eq. (41.3)) are denoted by h. ... 

If the eigenkets ia) constitute a discrete set, we may expand the state vector W) as... 

Since the state vector is normalized, this expression gives... 

Without any loss of generality, it has been assumed that the unknown initial states correspond to state variables that are placed as the first elements of the state vector x(t). Hence, the structure of the initial condition in Equation 6.41. 

As both state variables are measured, the output vector is the same with the state vector, i.e., yi=x, and y2=x2. The feed to the reactor was pure benzene. The equilibrium constants K and K2 were determined from the run at the lowest space velocity to be 0.242 and 0.428, respectively. 

By taking the last term on the right hand side of Equation 6.83 to the left hand side one obtains Equation 6.11 that is used for the Gauss-Newton method. Hence, when the output vector is linearly related to the state vector (Equation 6.2) then the simplified quasilinearization method is computationally identical to the Gauss-Newton method. 

When the output vector is nonlinearly related to the state vector (Equation 6.3) then substitution of x<,+l> from Equation 6.74 into the Equation 6.3 followed by substitution of the resulting equation into the objective function (Equation 6.4) yields the following equation after application of the stationary condition (Equation 6.78)... 

The distributed state variables w,(t,z), j=are generally not all measured. Furthermore the measurements could be taken at certain points in space and time or they could be averages over space or time. If we define as y the in-dimensional output vector, each measured variable, y/t), j=l,...,/w, is related to the state vector w(t,z) by any of the following relationships (Seinfeld and Lapidus, 1974) ... 

The pole placement design predicates on the feedback of all the state variables x (Fig. 9.1). Under many circumstances, this may not be true. We have to estimate unmeasureable state variables or signals that are too noisy to be measured accurately. One approach to work around this problem is to estimate the state vector with a model. The algorithm that performs this estimation is called the state observer or the state estimator. The estimated state X is then used as the feedback signal in a control system (Fig. 9.3). A full-order state observer estimates all the states even when some of them are measured. A reduced-order observer does the smart thing and skip these measurable states. 

The next step in this study is to test this control algorithm on the actual laboratory reactor. The major difficulty is the direct measurement of the state variables in the reactor (T, M, I, W). Proposed strategy is to measure total mols of polymer (T) with visible light absorption and monomer concentration (M) with IR absorption. Initiator concentration (I) can be monitored by titrating the n-butyl lithium with water and detecting the resultant butane gas in a thermal conductivity cell. Finally W can be obtained by refractive index measurements in conjuction with the other three measurements. Preliminary experiments indicate that this strategy will result in fast and accurate measurements of the state vector x. 

---