2012
DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-444-59519-5.50120-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimal design of chemical processes with chance constraints

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Soft inequality constraints do not have to be strictly satisfied but in a probabilistic manner. Inequality constraints h nq (x(t), u(t), p) ≤ 0 formulated on the probability space are also named chance constraints [43] and read as:…”
Section: Robust Formulation Of Soft Inequality Constraintsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Soft inequality constraints do not have to be strictly satisfied but in a probabilistic manner. Inequality constraints h nq (x(t), u(t), p) ≤ 0 formulated on the probability space are also named chance constraints [43] and read as:…”
Section: Robust Formulation Of Soft Inequality Constraintsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One special case of SMOO is deterministic multiobjective optimization (MOO), for which general formulations and computational frameworks are well-established [35,41,22]. SMOO formulations have a a wide range of applications that include finance [2], energy systems [9], chemical processes [43,37,31], transportation logistics [21], facility location [16,14], manufacturing and production planning [42], supply chain management [40], telecommunication, health care management [3,5], budget allocation [23], and project management [20]. SMOO problems present several interesting technical challenges.…”
Section: Motivationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is the field of robust optimal experiment design (Goodwin et al, 2007). The approaches presented in the literature, i.e., a worst case approach (Körkel et al, 2004) or an expected value approach (Ostrovsky et al, 2013;Li et al, 2008;Galvanin et al, 2010;Telen et al, 2014;Mesbah…”
Section: The Droop Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%