Proceedings of ESCAPE 35ISSN: 2818-4734
Volume: 4 (2025)
Table of Contents
LAPSE:2025.0428
Published Article
LAPSE:2025.0428
Picard-KKT-hPINN: Enforcing Nonlinear Enthalpy Balances for Physically Consistent Neural Networks
Giacomo Lastrucci, Tanuj Karia, Zoë Gromotka, Artur M. Schweidtmann
June 27, 2025
Abstract
Neural networks (NNs) are widely used as surrogate models but they do not guarantee physically consistent predictions thereby preventing adoption in various applications. We propose a method that can enforce NNs to satisfy physical laws that are nonlinear in nature such as enthalpy balances. Our approach, inspired by Picard’s successive approximations method, aims to enforce multiplicatively separable constraints by sequentially freezing and projecting a set of the participating variables. We demonstrate our Picard-KKT-hPINN for surrogate modeling of a catalytic packed bed reactor for methanol synthesis. Our results show that the method efficiently enforces nonlinear enthalpy and linear atomic balances at machine-level precision. Additionally, we show that enforcing conservation laws can improve accuracy in data-scarce conditions compared to vanilla multilayer perceptron.
Keywords
Constrained learning, Hard-constrained neural networks, Physics-informed neural networks, Surrogate modeling
Suggested Citation
Lastrucci G, Karia T, Gromotka Z, Schweidtmann AM. Picard-KKT-hPINN: Enforcing Nonlinear Enthalpy Balances for Physically Consistent Neural Networks. Systems and Control Transactions 4:1718-1723 (2025) https://doi.org/10.69997/sct.108423
Author Affiliations
Lastrucci G: Process Intelligence Research Team, Department of Chemical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Karia T: Process Intelligence Research Team, Department of Chemical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Gromotka Z: Mathematical Physics Group, Delft Institute of Applied Mathematics, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Schweidtmann AM: Process Intelligence Research Team, Department of Chemical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Journal Name
Systems and Control Transactions
Volume
4
First Page
1718
Last Page
1723
Year
2025
Publication Date
2025-07-01
Version Comments
Original Submission
Other Meta
PII: 1718-1723-1258-SCT-4-2025, Publication Type: Journal Article
Record Map
Published Article

LAPSE:2025.0428
This Record
External Link

https://doi.org/10.69997/sct.108423
Article DOI
Download
Files
Jun 27, 2025
Main Article
License
CC BY-SA 4.0
Meta
Record Statistics
Record Views
863
Version History
[v1] (Original Submission)
Jun 27, 2025
 
Verified by curator on
Jun 27, 2025
This Version Number
v1
Citations
Most Recent
This Version
URL Here
https://psecommunity.org/LAPSE:2025.0428
 
Record Owner
PSE Press
Links to Related Works
Directly Related to This Work
Article DOI
References Cited
  1. Kevin McBride and Kai Sundmacher. Overview of surrogate modeling in chemical process engineering. Chemie Ingenieur Technik, 91(3):228-239 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.201800091
  2. Patrick Bedué and Albrecht Fritzsche. Can we trust ai? An empirical investigation of trust requirements and guide to successful AI adoption. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 35(2):530-549. (2021) https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-06-2020-0233
  3. Artur M. Schweidtmann, Jana M. Weber, Christian Wende, Linus Netze, and Alexander Mitsos. Obey validity limits of data-driven models through topological data analysis and one-class classification. Optimization and Engineering, 23(2):855-876. (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11081-021-09608-0
  4. M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G.E. Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 378:686-707. (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045
  5. Zhiyong Wu, Huan Wang, Chang He, Bingjian Zhang, Tao Xu, and Qinglin Chen. The application of physics-informed machine learning in multiphysics modeling in chemical engineering. Industrial amp; Engineering Chemistry Research, 62(44):18178-18204. (2023) https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02383
  6. Tom Beucler, Michael Pritchard, Stephan Rasp, Jordan Ott, Pierre Baldi, and Pierre Gentine. Enforcing analytic constraints in neural-networks emulating physical systems. Physical Review Letters, 126(9):098302. (2019) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.098302
  7. Priya L. Donti, David Rolnick, and J. Zico Kolter. Dc3: A learning method for optimization with hard constraints. International Conference on Learning Representations. (2021)
  8. Ferdinando Fioretto, Pascal Van Hentenryck, Terrence WK Mak, Cuong Tran, Federico Baldo, and Michele Lombardi. Lagrangian duality for constrained deep learning. Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67670-4_8
  9. Yuntian Chen, Dou Huang, Dongxiao Zhang, Junsheng Zeng, Nanzhe Wang, Haoran Zhang, and Jinyue Yan. Theory-guided hard constraint projection (hcp): A knowledge-based data-driven scientific machine learning method. Journal of Computational Physics, 445:110624. (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2021.110624
  10. Hao Chen, Gonzalo E. Constante Flores, and Can Li. Physics-informed neural networks with hard linear equality constraints. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 189:108764. (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2024.108764
  11. Angan Mukherjee and Debangsu Bhattacharyya. On the development of steady-state and dynamic mass-constrained neural networks using noisy transient data. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 187:108722. (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2024.108722
  12. Artur M. Schweidtmann, Dominik Bongartz, Wolfgang R. Huster, and Alexander Mitsos. Deterministic global process optimization: Flash calculations via artificial neural networks. pages 937-942. (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818634-3.50157-0
  13. Giacomo Lastrucci, Maximilian F. Theisen, and Artur M. Schweidtmann. Physics-informed neural networks and time-series transformer for modeling of chemical reactors. pages 571-576. (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-28824-1.50096-X
  14. Lee, A., Ghouse, J. H., Eslick, J.C., Laird, C.D., Siirola, J.D., Zamarripa, M.A., Gunter, D., Shinn, J. H., Dowling, A. W., Bhattacharyya, D., Biegler, L. T., Burgard, A. P., & Miller, D.C. (2021). The IDAES process modeling framework and model library-Flexibility for process simulation and optimization. Journal of Advanced Manufacturing and Processing, 3(3), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/amp2.10095
  15. Xavier Glorot and Yoshua Bengio. Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, Volume 9 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 249-256. (2010) https://proceedings.mlr.press/v9/glorot10a.html

[0.35 s]