Advertisement

Journal of Pharmaceutical Innovation

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 131–145 | Cite as

Surrogate-Based Optimization of Expensive Flowsheet Modeling for Continuous Pharmaceutical Manufacturing

Research Article

Abstract

Simulation-based optimization is a research area that is currently attracting a lot of attention in many industrial applications, where expensive simulators are used to approximate, design, and optimize real systems. Pharmaceuticals are typical examples of high-cost products which involve expensive processes and raw materials while at the same time must satisfy strict quality regulatory specifications, leading to the formulation of challenging and expensive optimization problems. The main purpose of this work was to develop an efficient strategy for simulation-based design and optimization using surrogates for a pharmaceutical tablet manufacturing process. The proposed approach features surrogate-based optimization using kriging response surface modeling combined with black-box feasibility analysis in order to solve constrained and noisy optimization problems in less computational time. The proposed methodology is used to optimize a direct compaction tablet manufacturing process, where the objective is the minimization of the variability of the final product properties while the constraints ensure that process operation and product quality are within the predefined ranges set by the Food and Drug Administration.

Keywords

Surrogate-based optimization Simulation-based optimization Kriging Pharmaceutical manufacturing Flowsheet simulation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the funding provided by the ERC (NSF-0504497, NSF-ECC 0540855).

References

  1. 1.
    Baldi Antognini A, Zagoraiou M. Exact optimal designs for computer experiments via kriging metamodelling. J Stat Plan Infer. 2010;140(9):2607–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Banerjee I, Ierapetritou MG. Design optimization under parameter uncertainty for general black-box models. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2002;41(26):6687–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banerjee I, Ierapetritou MG. Feasibility evaluation of nonconvex systems using shape reconstruction techniques. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2005;44(10):3638–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Banerjee I, Pal S, et al. Computationally efficient black-box modeling for feasibility analysis. Comput Chem Eng. 2010;34(9):1515–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bertsimas D, Nohadani O, et al. Robust optimization for unconstrained simulation-based problems. Oper Res. 2010;58(1):161–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biegler LT, Grossmann IE, et al. Systematic methods of chemical process design. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Booker AJ, Dennis JE, et al. A rigorous framework for optimization of expensive functions by surrogates. Struct Multidiscip Optim. 1999;17(1):1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boukouvala F, Dubey A, et al. Computational approaches for studying the granular dynamics of continuous blending processes, 2-population balance and data-based methods. Macromol Mater Eng. 2012;297(1):9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boukouvala F, Ierapetritou MG. Feasibility analysis of black-box processes using an adaptive sampling kriging-based method. Comput Chem Eng. 2012;36:358–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boukouvala F, Niotis V, et al. An integrated approach for dynamic flowsheet modeling and sensitivity analysis of a continuous tablet manufacturing process. Comput Chem Eng. 2012;42:30–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boukouvala F, et al. Computer aided design and analysis of continuous pharmaceutical manufacturing processes, In: Computer aided chemical engineering, Elsevier. 2011;29:216–220.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Box GEP, Wilson KB. On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions. J R Stat Soc B (Methodological). 1951;13(1):1–45.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Caballero JA, Grossmann IE. An algorithm for the use of surrogate models in modular flowsheet optimization. AICHE J. 2008;54(10):2633–50.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crary SB. Design of computer experiments for metamodel generation. Analog Integr Circ Sig Process. 2002;32(1):7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cressie, N. (1993). Statistics for Spatial Data (Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics), Wiley-InterscienceGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davis E, Ierapetritou M. A kriging method for the solution of nonlinear programs with black-box functions. AICHE J. 2007;53(8):2001–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davis E, Ierapetritou M. A kriging-based approach to MINLP containing black-box models and noise. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2008;47(16):6101–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davis E, Ierapetritou M. A kriging based method for the solution of mixed-integer nonlinear programs containing black-box functions. J Glob Optim. 2009;43(2–3):191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Davis E, Ierapetritou M. A centroid-based sampling strategy for kriging global modeling and optimization. AICHE J. 2010;56(1):220–40.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dec RT, Zavaliangos A, et al. Comparison of various modeling methods for analysis of powder compaction in roller press. Powder Technol. 2003;130(1–3):265–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Engisch, W. and F. J. Muzzio (2010). Hopper refill of loss-in-weight feeding equipment. AIChE Annual Conference, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Forrester AIJ, Sóbester A. et al. Engineering design via surrogate modeling—a practical guide. New York: Wiley; 2008.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fowler K, Jenkins E, et al. Understanding the effects of polymer extrusion filter layering configurations using simulation-based optimization. Optim Eng. 2010;11(2):339–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fu MC. Feature article: optimization for simulation: theory vs. practice. INFORMS J Comput. 2002;14(3):192–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gernaey KV, Cervera-Padrell AE, et al. A perspective on PSE in pharmaceutical process development and innovation. Comput Chem Eng. 2012;42:15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gernaey KV, Gani R. A model-based systems approach to pharmaceutical product-process design and analysis. Chem Eng Sci. 2010;65(21):5757–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gruhn G, Werther J, et al. Flowsheeting of solids processes for energy saving and pollution reduction. J Clean Prod. 2004;12(2):147–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Halemane KP, Grossmann IE. Optimal process design under uncertainty. AICHE J. 1983;29(3):425–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Heckel RW. Density–pressure relationships in powder compaction. Trans Metall Soc AIME. 1961;221(4):671–5.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Horowitz B, Guimarães LJDN, et al. A concurrent efficient global optimization algorithm applied to polymer injection strategies. J Pet Sci Eng. 2010;71(3–4):195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Huang D. Experimental planning and sequential kriging optimization using variable fidelity data, in Industrial and Systems Engineering. 2005, Ohio State University: Ohio.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Huang D, Allen T, et al. Global optimization of stochastic black-box systems via sequential kriging meta-models. J Glob Optim. 2006;34(3):441–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Husain A, Kim K-Y. Enhanced multi-objective optimization of a microchannel heat sink through evolutionary algorithm coupled with multiple surrogate models. Appl Therm Eng. 2010;30(13):1683–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jakobsson S, Patriksson M, et al. A method for simulation based optimization using radial basis functions. Optim Eng. 2010;11(4):501–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jones DR. A taxonomy of global optimization methods based on response surfaces. J Glob Optim. 2001;21(4):345–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jones DR, Schonlau M, et al. Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions. J Glob Optim. 1998;13(4):455–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kleijnen JPC. Kriging metamodeling in simulation: a review. Eur J Oper Res. 2009;192(3):707–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Leuenberger H. New trends in the production of pharmaceutical granules: batch versus continuous processing. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2001;52(3):289–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McKenzie P, Kiang S, et al. Can pharmaceutical process development become high tech? AICHE J. 2006;52(12):3990–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ng KM. Design and development of solids processes—a process systems engineering perspective. Powder Technol. 2002;126(3):205–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nunnally BK, McConnell JS. Six sigma in the pharmaceutical industry: understanding, reducing, and controlling variation in pharmaceuticals and biologics. Boca Raton: CRC; 2007.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pedone P, Romano D, Vicario G. New Sampling Procedures in coordinate metrology based on kriging-based adaptive designs. Statistics for Innovation. 2009;103–21.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pistone G, Vicario G. Design for computer experiments: comparing and generating designs in kriging models. Statistics for Innovation. 2009;91–102.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Plumb K. Continuous processing in the pharmaceutical industry: changing the mind set. Chem Eng Res Des. 2005;83(6):730–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Queipo NV, Haftka RT, et al. Surrogate-based analysis and optimization. Prog Aerosp Sci. 2005;41(1):1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Regis RG. Stochastic radial basis function algorithms for large-scale optimization involving expensive black-box objective and constraint functions. Comput Oper Res. 2011;38(5):837–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sacks J, Welch WJ, et al. Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat Sci. 1989;4(4):409–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sankaran S, Audet C, et al. A method for stochastic constrained optimization using derivative-free surrogate pattern search and collocation. J Comput Phys. 2010;229(12):4664–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schaber SD, Gerogiorgis DI, et al. Economic analysis of integrated continuous and batch pharmaceutical manufacturing: a case study. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2011;50(17):10083–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schonlau M, Welch W. Screening the input variables to a computer model via analysis of variance and visualization. Screening. 2006;308–27.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Seider WD. Product and process design principles: synthesis, analysis, and evaluation. Hoboken: Wiley; 2009.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sen M, Ramachandran R. A multi-dimensional population balance model approach to continuous powder mixing processes. Adv Powder Technol. 2013;24(1):51–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sen M, Singh R, et al. Multi-dimensional population balance modeling and experimental validation of continuous powder mixing processes. Chem Eng Sci. 2012;80:349–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Soh JLP, Wang F, et al. Utility of multivariate analysis in modeling the effects of raw material properties and operating parameters on granule and ribbon properties prepared in roller compaction. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2008;34(10):1022–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Stephanopoulos G, Reklaitis GV. Process systems engineering: from Solvay to modern bio- and nanotechnology. A history of development, successes and prospects for the future. Chem Eng Sci. 2011;66(19):4272–306.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Vanarase AU, Alcala M, et al. Real-time monitoring of drug concentration in a continuous powder mixing process using NIR spectroscopy. Chem Eng Sci. 2010;65(21):5728–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Villemonteix J, Vazquez E, et al. Global optimization of expensive-to-evaluate functions: an empirical comparison of two sampling criteria. J Glob Optim. 2009;43(2):373–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Villemonteix J, Vazquez E, et al. An informational approach to the global optimization of expensive-to-evaluate functions. J Glob Optim. 2009;44(4):509–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wan X, Pekny JF, et al. Simulation-based optimization with surrogate models—application to supply chain management. Comput Chem Eng. 2005;29(6):1317–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Werther J, Reimers C, et al. Flowsheet simulation of solids processes—data reconciliation and adjustment of model parameters. Chem Eng Process. 2008;47(1):138–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Werther J, Reimers C, et al. Design specifications in the flowsheet simulation of complex solids processes. Powder Technol. 2009;191(3):260–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Yin J, Ng SH, et al. Kriging metamodel with modified nugget-effect: the heteroscedastic variance case. Comput Ind Eng. 2011;61(3):760–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Yu L. Pharmaceutical quality by design: product and process development, understanding, and control. Pharm Res. 2008;25(4):781–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Yuan J, Wang K, et al. Reliable multi-objective optimization of high-speed WEDM process based on Gaussian process regression. Int J Mach Tools Manuf. 2008;48(1):47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical and Biochemical EngineeringRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA

Personalised recommendations