Optimal designs of experiments for non-isothermal kinetic rates: analysis of different strategies

  • Belmiro P. M. Duarte
  • Anthony C. Atkinson
Research Article


We consider the dependence on the measurement schedule of optimal experiments for kinetic parameters when the rates are temperature-dependent and follow the Arrhenius law. We compare three different approaches using the D-optimality criterion: (1) a locally optimal design based on a sequence of four batches where the process is observed at a single time; (2) two batches carried out at constant temperature where the process is observed at a pre-defined grid of times; and (3) a single batch where the temperature profile is optimal regarding the amount of information extracted and the process is observed at a pre-defined grid of times. An extension of the generalized equivalence theorem of optimal experimental design provides insight into the structure of the designs we find. The local D-optimality of the designs obtained is validated using the extended theorem for the latter two approaches.


Dynamic experiments Optimal design of experiments Kinetic rates Non-isothermal kinetics 


  1. Asprey S, Macchietto S (2000) Statistical tools for optimal dynamic model building. Comput Chem Eng 24(2):1261–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson AC (2016) Optimum experiments with sets of treatment combinations. In: Müller CH, Kunert J, Atkinson AC (eds) mODA 11—advances in model-oriented design and analysis. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 19–26Google Scholar
  3. Bauer I, Bock HG, Körkel S, Schlöder JP (2000) Numerical methods for optimum experimental design in DAE systems. J Comput Appl Math 120(1):1–25MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biegler LT (2010) Nonlinear programming: concepts, algorithms, and applications to chemical processes. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, PhiladelphiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birge JR, Louveaux F (1997) Introduction to stochastic programming. Springer, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Box GEP, Lucas H (1959) Design of experiments in non-linear situations. Biometrika 46(1–2):77–90MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen BH, Asprey SP (2003) On the design of optimally informative dynamic experiments for model discrimination in multiresponse nonlinear situations. Ind Eng Chem Res 42(7):1379–1390. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dongarra JJ, Moler CB, Bunch JR, Stewart GW (1979) LINPACK user’s guide. SIAM, PhiladelphiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drud A (1985) CONOPT: a GRG code for large sparse dynamic nonlinear optimization problems. Math Program 31:153–191MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fedorov VV (1971) The design of experiments in the multiresponse case. Theory Probab Appl 16:323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fedorov VV (1972) Theory of optimal experiments. Academic Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Fedorov VV, Leonov SL (2014) Optimal design for nonlinear response models. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, Boca RatonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Galvanin F, Cao E, Al-Rifai N, Gavriilidis A, Dua V (2016) A joint model-based experimental design approach for the identification of kinetic models in continuous flow laboratory reactors. Comput Chem Eng 95:202–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kiefer J (1974) General equivalence theory for optimum design (approximate theory). Ann Stat 2:849–879MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kiefer J, Wolfowitz J (1960) The equivalence of two extremum problem. Can J Math 12:363–366MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pukelsheim F (1993) Optimal design of experiments. SIAM, PhiladelphiazbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Rosenthal RE (2015) GAMS—a user’s guide. Washington, DC, USA.
  18. Shapiro A, Homem-de-Mello T (1998) A simulation-based approach to two-stage stochastic programming with recourse. Math Program 81(3):301–325MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Silvey SD (1980) Optimal design. Chapman & Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ucińsky D, Bogacka B (2004) \(T\)-optimum designs for multiresponse dynamic heteroscedastic models. In: Di Bucchianico A, Läuter H, Wynn HP (eds) mODA 7—advances in model-oriented design and analysis. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ugray Z, Lasdon L, Plummer J, Glover F, Kelly J, Martí R (2005) A multistart scatter search heuristic for smooth nlp and minlp problems. In: Sharda R, Voß S, Rego C, Alidaee B (eds) Metaheuristic optimization via memory and evolution. Springer, Berlin, pp 25–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vassiliadis VS, Sargent RWH, Pantelides CC (1994a) Solution of a class of multistage dynamic optimization problems. 1. Problems with path constraints. Ind Eng Chem Res 33(9):2111–2122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vassiliadis VS, Sargent RWH, Pantelides CC (1994b) Solution of a class of multistage dynamic optimization problems. 2. Problems with path constraints. Ind Eng Chem Res 33(9):2123–2133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Whittle P (1973) Some general points in the theory of optimal experimental design. J R Stat Soc Ser B 35:123–130MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical and Biological EngineeringISEC, Polytechnic Institute of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.CIEPQPF, Department of Chemical EngineeringUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  3. 3.Department of StatisticsLondon School of EconomicsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations