Jump to content

DOW Experimental Design: Difference between revisions

From mintOC
m Some readjustments
Line 9: Line 9:
The '''DOW Experimental Design problem''' models the OED problem for the parameter estimation problem formulated by the DOW Chemical Co. in 1981. The following formulation is taken from "Nonlinear Parameter Estimation:
The '''DOW Experimental Design problem''' models the OED problem for the parameter estimation problem formulated by the DOW Chemical Co. in 1981. The following formulation is taken from "Nonlinear Parameter Estimation:
a Case Study Comparison" by L. T. Biegler and J. J. Damiano <span style="color:red">add quote</span>.
a Case Study Comparison" by L. T. Biegler and J. J. Damiano <span style="color:red">add quote</span>.
== Chemical background ==


The chemical species are disguised for proprietary reasons and the desired reaction is given by <math>HA + 2BM \rightarrow AB + HBMH</math>, where <math>AB</math> is the desired product. The reactions are described as follows:
The chemical species are disguised for proprietary reasons and the desired reaction is given by <math>HA + 2BM \rightarrow AB + HBMH</math>, where <math>AB</math> is the desired product. The reactions are described as follows:
Line 35: Line 37:
In order to devise a model to account for these reactions, it is
In order to devise a model to account for these reactions, it is
first necessary to distinguish between the overall concentration of
first necessary to distinguish between the overall concentration of
a species and the concentration of its neutral form. Overall con-
a species and the concentration of its neutral form. Overall concentrations are defined for three components based on neutral
centrations are defined for three components based on neutral
and ionic species
and ionic species
<p>
<p>
Line 168: Line 169:
  </math>
  </math>
</p>  
</p>  
== Parameters ==
The initial parameter estimates are:
<p>
<math>
  \begin{array}{c}
  \alpha_1 = 2.0 \times 10^{13} \\
  E_1 = 2.0 \times 10^{4} \\
  \alpha_2 = 2.0 \times 10^{13} \\
  E_2 = 2.0 \times 10^{4} \\
  \alpha_{-1} = 4.3 \times 10^{15} \\
  E_{-1} = 2.0 \times 10^{4} \\
  K_1 = 1.0 \times 10^{-17} \\
  K_2 = 1.0 \times 10^{-11} \\
  K_3 = 1.0 \times 10^{-17} \\
  \end{array}
</math>
</p>
There are four datasets for different temperatures <math>T</math>, with corresponding starting values
<p>
<math>
  \begin{array}{lccc}
  & 40^\circ C & 67^\circ C & 100^\circ C \\
  y_1(0) = & 1.7066 & 1.6749 & 1.5608 \\
  y_2(0) = & 8.32 & 8.2262 & 8.3546 \\
  y_3(0) = & 0.01 & 0.0104 & 0.0082 \\
  y_4 (0) = & 0 & 0.0017 & 0.0086
  \end{array}
</math>
</p>
The initial model conditions in addition to those given in the
data sets are:
<p>
<math>
  \begin{array}{l}
  y_5 = 0 \\
  y_6 = 0.0131 \\
  y_7 = \frac{1}{2} \cdot \left( -K_2 + \sqrt{K_2^2 + 4K_2 y_1(0)} \right) \\
  y_8 = y_7 \\
  y_9 = 0 \\
  y_{10} = 0
  \end{array}
</math>
</p>
== Optimal Experimental Design Problem ==
To be specified.


<!--
<!--
Line 252: Line 301:
time <math>t</math>.
time <math>t</math>.


== Parameters ==
The initial parameter estimates are:
<p>
<math>
  \begin{array}{c}
  \alpha_1 = 2.0 \times 10^{13} \\
  E_1 = 2.0 \times 10^{4} \\
  \alpha_2 = 2.0 \times 10^{13} \\
  E_2 = 2.0 \times 10^{4} \\
  \alpha_{-1} = 4.3 \times 10^{15} \\
  E_{-1} = 2.0 \times 10^{4} \\
  K_1 = 1.0 \times 10^{-17} \\
  K_2 = 1.0 \times 10^{-11} \\
  K_3 = 1.0 \times 10^{-17} \\
  \end{array}
</math>
</p>
There are four datasets for different temperatures <math>T</math>, with corresponding starting values
<p>
<math>
  \begin{array}{lccc}
  & 40^\circ C & 67^\circ C & 100^\circ C \\
  y_1(0) = & 1.7066 & 1.6749 & 1.5608 \\
  y_2(0) = & 8.32 & 8.2262 & 8.3546 \\
  y_3(0) = & 0.01 & 0.0104 & 0.0082 \\
  y_4 (0) = & 0 & 0.0017 & 0.0086
  \end{array}
</math>
</p>
The initial model conditions in addition to those given in the
data sets are:
<p>
<math>
  \begin{array}{l}
  y_5 = 0 \\
  y_6 = 0.0131 \\
  y_7 = \frac{1}{2} \cdot \left( -K_2 + \sqrt{K_2^2 + 4K_2 y_1(0)} \right) \\
  y_8 = y_7 \\
  y_9 = 0 \\
  y_{10} = 0
  \end{array}
</math>
</p>


== Miscellaneous and Further Reading ==
== Miscellaneous and Further Reading ==
The Lotka Volterra fishing problem was introduced by Sebastian Sager in a proceedings paper <bib id="Sager2006" /> and revisited in his PhD thesis <bib id="Sager2005" />. These are also the references to look for more details. The experimental design problem has been described in the habilitation thesis of Sager, <bib id="Sager2011d" />.
To be specified.


== References ==
== References ==
To be added.
<!--
<biblist />
<biblist />
-->


<!--List of all categories this page is part of. List characterization of solution behavior, model properties, ore presence of implementation details (e.g., AMPL for AMPL model) here -->
<!--List of all categories this page is part of. List characterization of solution behavior, model properties, ore presence of implementation details (e.g., AMPL for AMPL model) here -->

Revision as of 10:36, 24 September 2024

DOW Experimental Design
State dimension: 1
Differential states: 11
Discrete control functions: 2
Path constraints: 4
Interior point equalities: 11


The DOW Experimental Design problem models the OED problem for the parameter estimation problem formulated by the DOW Chemical Co. in 1981. The following formulation is taken from "Nonlinear Parameter Estimation: a Case Study Comparison" by L. T. Biegler and J. J. Damiano add quote.

Chemical background

The chemical species are disguised for proprietary reasons and the desired reaction is given by HA+2BMAB+HBMH, where AB is the desired product. The reactions are described as follows:

Slow Kinetic Reactions:

M+BMk1k1MBMA+BMk2ABMM+ABk3k3ABM

Acid-Base Reactions:

MBMHK1MBM+H+HAK2A+H+HABMK2ABM+H+

In order to devise a model to account for these reactions, it is first necessary to distinguish between the overall concentration of a species and the concentration of its neutral form. Overall concentrations are defined for three components based on neutral and ionic species

[HBMH]=[(MBMH)N]+[MBM][HA]=[(HA)N]+[A][HABM]=[(HABM)N]+[ABM]

Here [ ] denotes the concentration of the species in gmol/kg. By assuming the rapid acid-base reactions are at equilibrium, the equilibrium constants K1,K2,K3 can be defined as

K1=[MBM][H+][(MBMH)N]K1=[A][H+][(HA)N]K1=[ABM][H+][(HABM)N]

The anionic species may then be represented by

[MBM]=K1[MBMH]K1+[H+](a)[A]=K2[HA]K2+[H+](b)[ABM]=K3[HABM]K3+[H+](c)

Material balance equations for the three reactants in the slow kinetic reactions yield:

d[M]dt=k1[M][BM]+k1[MBM]k3[M][AB]+k1[ABM](d)d[BM]dt=k1[M][BM]+k1[MBM]k2[A][BM](e)d[AB]dt=k3[M][AB]+k3[ABM](f)

From stoichiometry, rate expressions can also be written for the total species:

d[MBMH]dt=k1[M][BM]+k1[MBM](g)d[HA]dt=k2[A][BM](h)d[HABM]dt=k2[A][BM]+k3[M][AB]k3[ABM](i)

An electroneutrality constraint gives the hydrogen ion con- centration [H+] as

[H+]+[Q+]=[M]+[MBM]+[A]+[ABM](j)

Based on similarities of reacting species, we assume

k3=k1,k3=12k1

With these assumptions, the three rate constants k1,k2 and k3 must be estimated. Each of these can be fitted with two adjustable model parameters, assuming an Arrhenius temperature dependence. That is

ki=αiexp(Ei/(RT)),i{1,1,2}

Here R is the gas constant and T is reaction temperature in Kelvins. The parameter αi, given in mol/(kgh), represent the pre-exponential factor and Ei, with unit cal/mol, is the activation energy.

Mathematical formulation

The chemical processes (a)(j) can be expressed mathematically as six differential equations and four algebraic equations:

y˙1=k2y8y2(1),(h)y˙2=k1y6y2+k1y10k2y8y2(2),(e)y˙3=k2y8y2+k1y6y412k1y9(3),(i)y˙4=k1y6y4+12k1y9(4),(f)y˙5=k1y6y2+k1y10(5),(g)y˙6=k1(y6y2+y6y4)+k1(y10+12y9)(6),(d)y7=[Q+]+y6+y8+y9+y10(7),(j)y8=θ8y1θ8+y7(8),(b)y9=θ9y3θ9+y7(9),(c)y10=θ7y5θ7+y7(10),(a)

Here the letters in parentheses stand for the corresponding chemical process and the quantity [Q+] is a constant during the reaction. The nine parameters form the vector

θ=(α1,E1,α2,E2,α1,E1,K1,K2,K3)

The predicted concentrations form the vector

y=(HA,BM,HABM,AB,MBMH,M,H+,A,ABM,MBM)

Let fk() denote the right hand side of equation (k) for k=1,,6. We reformulate the last four algebraic equations as differential ones:

y˙7=f7=f6+f8+f9+f10(7)y˙8=f8=θ8f1(θ8+f7)θ8y1f7(θ8+y7)2(8)y˙9=f9=θ9f3(θ9+f7)θ9y3f7(θ9+y7)2(9)y˙10=f10=θ7f5(θ7+f7)θ7y5f7(θ7+y7)2(10)

The right hand sides of (1)(6) and (7)(9) are summarized as the vector-valued function f. Moreover, let

fy,m,n()=fm()yn,m,n{1,,10}fθ,m,n()=fm()θn,m{1,,10}; n{1,,9}

Parameters

The initial parameter estimates are:

α1=2.0×1013E1=2.0×104α2=2.0×1013E2=2.0×104α1=4.3×1015E1=2.0×104K1=1.0×1017K2=1.0×1011K3=1.0×1017

There are four datasets for different temperatures T, with corresponding starting values

40C67C100Cy1(0)=1.70661.67491.5608y2(0)=8.328.22628.3546y3(0)=0.010.01040.0082y4(0)=00.00170.0086

The initial model conditions in addition to those given in the data sets are:

y5=0y6=0.0131y7=12(K2+K22+4K2y1(0))y8=y7y9=0y10=0

Optimal Experimental Design Problem

To be specified.

We are interested in when to measure (with an upper bound Mi on the measuring time for each observable). We define

fy()10×10 with (fy)i,j=fy,i,j,fθ()10×9 with (fθ)i,j=fiθj

In this approach, we add the so-called sensitivities G=dy/dθ. For the differential equations this means

G˙(t)=fy(y(t),θ)G(t)+fθ(y(t),θ),G(0)=y(0)θ

Now we formulate the OED problem as described in (Optimal Experimental Design for Universal Differential Equations add quote)

miny,G,F,z,wtrace(F1(tf))subject toy˙(t)=f(y(t),θ)G˙(t)=fy(y(t),θ)G(t)+fθ(y(t),θ)F˙(t)=i=1nowi(t)(hyi(y(t))G(t))T(hyi(y(t))G(t))z˙(t)=w(t),y(0)=y0G(0)=y(0)θF(0)=0,z(0)=0w(t)𝒲zi(tf)Mi

Here h:10no is the observed function. The evolution of the symmetric matrix F:[0,tf]9×9 is given by the weighted sum of observability Gramians hyi(y(t))G(t), i=1,,no for each observed function of states. The weights wi(t){0,1}, i=1,,no are the (binary) sampling decisions, where wi(t)=1 denotes the decision to perform a measurement at time t.


Miscellaneous and Further Reading

To be specified.

References

To be added.