1: \documentclass{elsart}

2: 

3: \usepackage{natbib}

4: \usepackage{graphicx}

5: \usepackage{amssymb}

6: 

7: 

8: \newcommand{\cc}{\mbox{\boldmath$c$}}

9: \newcommand{\ee}{\mbox{\boldmath$e$}}

10: \newcommand{\ff}{\mbox{\boldmath$f$}}

11: \newcommand{\hh}{\mbox{\boldmath$h$}}

12: \newcommand{\bl}{\mbox{\boldmath$l$}}

13: \newcommand{\yy}{\mbox{\boldmath$y$}}

14: \newcommand{\xxx}{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}

15: \newcommand{\xx}{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}

16: \newcommand{\zz}{\mbox{\boldmath$z$}}

17: \newcommand{\bb}{\mbox{\boldmath$b$}}

18: \newcommand{\bg}{\mbox{\boldmath$g$}}

19: \newcommand{\mm}{\mbox{\boldmath$m$}}

20: \newcommand{\vl}{\mbox{\boldmath$l$}}

21: \newcommand{\BB}{\mbox{\boldmath$B$}}

22: \newcommand{\CC}{\mbox{\boldmath$C$}}

23: \newcommand{\DD}{\mbox{\boldmath$D$}}

24: \newcommand{\FF}{\mbox{\boldmath$F$}}

25: \newcommand{\VV}{\mbox{\boldmath$V$}}

26: \newcommand{\JJ}{\mbox{\boldmath$J$}}

27: \newcommand{\PP}{\mbox{\boldmath$P$}}

28: \newcommand{\HH}{\mbox{\boldmath$H$}}

29: \newcommand{\LL}{\mbox{\boldmath$L$}}

30: \newcommand{\MM}{\mbox{\boldmath$M$}}

31: \newcommand{\NN}{\mbox{\boldmath$N$}}

32: \newcommand{\UU}{\mbox{\boldmath$U$}}

33: \newcommand{\ZZ}{\mbox{\boldmath$Z$}}

34: \newcommand{\bA}{\mbox{\boldmath$A$}}

35: \newcommand{\bOne}{\mbox{\boldmath$1$}}

36: \newcommand{\bZERO}{\mbox{\boldmath$0$}}

37: \newcommand{\bOmega}{\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}}

38: \newcommand{\bPi}{\mbox{\boldmath$\Pi$}}

39: \newcommand{\bPsi}{\mbox{\boldmath$\Psi$}}

40: \newcommand{\bDelta}{\mbox{\boldmath$\Delta$}}

41: \newcommand{\bgamma}{\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}}

42: \newcommand{\bmu}{\mbox{\boldmath$\mu$}}

43: \newcommand{\bnabla}{\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}

44: \newcommand{\balpha}{\mbox{\boldmath$\alpha$}}

45: \newcommand{\bbeta}{\mbox{\boldmath$\beta$}}

46: 

47: \begin{document}

48: 

49: \begin{frontmatter}

50: 

51: 

52: \title{Method of invariant manifold \\for chemical kinetics}

53: 

54: 

55: 

56: \author{Alexander N.\ Gorban}

57:  %\ead{agorban@ifp.mat.ethz.ch}

58: \address{Department of Materials, Institute of Polymer Physics\\

59: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, CH-8092 Z\"urich, Switzerland

60: \\Institute of Computational Modeling RAS, Krasnoyarsk 660036, Russia}

61: 

62: \author{Iliya V.\ Karlin}%\corauthref{cor1}}

63:  %\ead{ikarlin@ifp.mat.ethz.ch}

64: \address{Department of Materials, Institute of Polymer Physics\\

65: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, CH-8092 Z\"urich, Switzerland}

66: 

67: %\corauth[cor1]{Corresponding author: ETH-Zentrum, Sonneggstrasse 3, ML J 19, 

68: %CH-8092 Z\"urich, Switzerland; 

69: %Fax: +41 1 632 10 76}

70: %\address{Department of Materials, Institute of Polymer Physics\\

71: % Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, CH-8092 Z\"urich, Switzerland}

72: 

73: 

74: 

75: 

76: \begin{abstract}

77: In this paper, we review the construction of low-dimensional manifolds of reduced description

78: for equations of chemical kinetics from the standpoint of the method of invariant 

79: manifold (MIM). MIM is based on a formulation of the condition of invariance as

80: an equation, and its solution by Newton iterations. 

81: A review of existing alternative methods is extended by

82: a thermodynamically consistent version of the method of  intrinsic low-dimensional manifolds.

83: A grid-based version of MIM is developed, and model extensions of low-dimensional

84: dynamics are described. Generalizations to open systems are suggested.

85: The set of methods covered makes it possible to effectively reduce description

86: in chemical kinetics.

87: 

88: 

89: 

90: \end{abstract}

91: 

92: \begin{keyword}

93: Kinetics

94: \sep Model Reduction

95: \sep Invariant Manifold

96: \sep  Entropy

97: \sep Nonlinear Dynamics

98: \sep Mathematical Modeling

99: 

100: 

101: \end{keyword}

102: 

103: \end{frontmatter}

104: \section{Introduction}

105: In this paper, we present  a general method of

106: constructing the reduced description for dissipative systems of reaction

107: kinetics. Our approach is based on the method of invariant manifold which

108: was developed  in end of 1980th - beginning of 1990th by

109: \cite{GK92,GK92a,GK92b}.

110: Its realization for a generic

111: dissipative systems was discussed by \cite{GK94,GKIOe01}.

112: This

113: method was applied to a set of  problems of classical kinetic

114: theory based on the Boltzmann kinetic equation

115: \citep{GK94,KDN97,KGDN98}.

116: The method of invariant manifold was  successfully applied to a derivation of

117: reduced description for kinetic equations of polymeric solutions

118: \citep{ZKD00}. 

119: It was also been tested on systems of chemical kinetics \citep{GKZD00}.

120: 

121: 

122: 

123: The goal of nonequilibrium statistical physics is the

124: understanding of how a system with many degrees of freedom

125: acquires a description with a few degrees of freedom.

126: This should lead to reliable methods of extracting

127: the macroscopic description from a detailed microscopic description.

128: 

129: Meanwhile this general problem is still far from the final solution, it is

130: reasonable to study simplified models, where, on the one hand, a

131: detailed description is accessible to numerics, on the other hand,

132: analytical methods designed to the solution of problems in real systems

133: can be tested.

134: 

135: In this paper we address the well known class of finite-dimensional

136: systems known from the theory of reaction kinetics. 

137: These are equations governing a complex relaxation in perfectly stirred closed

138: chemically active mixtures.

139: Dissipative properties of such systems are characterized with a global

140: convex Lyapunov function $G$ (thermodynamic potential) which implements the second law of

141: thermodynamics: As the time $t$ tends to infinity, the system reaches the

142: unique equilibrium state while in the course of the transition the Lyapunov

143: function decreases monotonically.

144: 

145: While the limiting behavior of the dissipative systems just described

146: is certainly very simple, there are still interesting questions to be

147: asked about. One of these questions is closely related to the above

148: general problem of nonequilibrium statistical physics. Indeed,

149: evidence of numerical integration of such systems

150: often demonstrates that the relaxation

151: has a certain geometrical structure in the phase space.

152: Namely, typical individual trajectories

153: tend to manifolds of lower dimension, and further proceed to

154: the equilibrium essentially along these manifolds.

155: Thus, such systems demonstrate a dimensional reduction, and therefore

156: establish a more macroscopic description after some time since

157: the beginning of the relaxation.

158: 

159: There are two intuitive ideas behind our approach, and we shall now

160: discuss them informally. Objects to be considered below are manifolds

161: (surfaces) $\bOmega$ in the phase space 

162: of the reaction kinetic system

163: (the phase space is usually a convex polytope in a finite-dimensional real space).

164: The `ideal' picture of the reduced description we have in mind is as

165: follows: A typical phase trajectory, ${\cc}(t)$,

166: where $t$ is the time, and $\cc$ is an element of the phase space,

167: consists of two pronounced segments. The first segment connects the

168: beginning of the trajectory, $\cc(0)$, with a certain point, $\cc(t_1)$,

169: on the manifold $\Omega$ (rigorously speaking, we should think

170: of  $\cc(t_1)$ not on $\bOmega$ but in a small neighborhood of $\bOmega$

171: but this is inessential for the ideal picture). The second segment belongs  to $\bOmega$,

172: and connects the point $\cc(t_1)$ with the equilibrium

173: $\cc^{\rm eq}={\cc}(\infty)$, $\cc^{\rm eq}\in\bOmega$.

174: Thus, the manifolds appearing in our ideal picture are

175: ``patterns'' formed by the segments of individual trajectories,

176: and the goal of the reduced description is to ``filter out'' this manifold.

177: 

178: 

179: There are two important features behind this ideal picture. The first feature 

180: is the {\it invariance} of the manifold $\bOmega$: Once the individual

181: trajectory has started on  $\bOmega$, it does not leaves $\bOmega$

182: anymore. The second feature is the {\it projecting}: The phase points 

183: outside $\bOmega$ will be projected onto $\bOmega$. 

184: Furthermore, the dissipativity of the system provides an

185: {\it additional} information about this ideal picture:

186: Regardless of what happens on  the manifold $\bOmega$,

187: the function $G$ was decreasing along each individual trajectory

188: before it reached $\bOmega$. This ideal picture is the guide to extract slow invariant

189: manifolds.

190: 

191: The paper is organized as follows. In the section \ref{OUTLINE}, we review

192: the reaction kinetics (section \ref{KINETICS}), 

193: and discuss the main methods of model reduction in chemical kinetics 

194: (section \ref{reduction_review}).

195: In particular, we present two general

196: versions of extending partially equilibrium manifolds

197: to a single relaxation time model in the whole

198: phase space, and develop a thermodynamically consistent version

199: of the intrinsic low-dimensional manifold (ILDM) approach.

200: In the section \ref{MIMG} we  introduce the method of invariant manifold

201: in the way appropriate to this class of nonequilibrium systems.

202: In the sections \ref{THERMO} and \ref{DC} we give some

203: details on the two relatively independent parts of the method,

204: the thermodynamic projector, and the iterations for solving the invariance

205: equation. We also introduce a general

206: symmetric linearization procedure

207: for the invariance equation, and discuss its relevance to the picture

208: of decomposition of motions. In the section \ref{MIM}, these two

209: procedures are combined into an unique algorithm. In the section \ref{EX},

210: we demonstrate an illustrative example of computations for a model catalytic

211: reaction. 

212: In the section \ref{PARAMETERIZATION}

213: we demonstrate how the thermodynamic 

214: projector is constructed without the a priori parameterization of the manifold.

215: This result is essentially used 

216: in the section \ref{grid} where we introduce  

217: a computationally effective grid-based method to construct  invariant manifolds.

218: In the section \ref{open} we describe an extension of the method

219: of invariant manifold to open systems.

220: Finally, results are discussed in the section \ref{conclusion}.

221: 

222: \section{Equations of chemical kinetics and their reduction} 

223: \label{OUTLINE}

224: \subsection{Outline of the dissipative reaction kinetics}

225: \label{KINETICS}

226: We begin with an outline  of the

227: reaction kinetics (for details see e.\ g.\ the book of \cite{YBGE91}).

228: Let us consider a closed system

229: with $n$ chemical species ${\rm A}_1,\dots,{\rm A}_n$,

230: participating in a complex reaction. The complex reaction is

231: represented by the following stoichiometric mechanism:

232: \begin{equation}

233: \label{stoi}

234: \alpha_{s1}{\rm A}_1+\ldots+\alpha_{sn}{\rm A}_n\rightleftharpoons

235: \beta_{s1}{\rm A}_1+\ldots+\beta_{sn}{\rm A}_n,

236: \end{equation}

237: where the index $s=1,\dots,r$ enumerates the reaction steps, and

238: where integers, $\alpha_{si}$ and $\beta_{si}$,  are stoichiometric

239: coefficients. For each reaction step $s$, we introduce 

240: $n$--component vectors $\balpha_s$ and $\bbeta_s$ with components

241: $\alpha_{si}$ and $\beta_{si}$. Notation

242: $\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}_s$  stands for the vector

243: with integer components

244: $\gamma_{si}=\beta_{si}-\alpha_{si}$ (the stoichiometric vector). 

245: We adopt an abbreviated notation for the

246: standard scalar product of the $n$-component vectors:

247: \[\langle\xx,\yy\rangle=\sum_{{i=1}}^{n}x_iy_i.\]

248: 

249: The system is described by the  $n$-component concentration vector

250: $\cc$, where the component $c_i\ge0$ represents the

251: concentration of the specie ${\rm A}_i$. Conservation laws impose linear

252: constraints on admissible vectors $\cc$ (balances):

253: \begin{equation}

254: \label{conser}

255: \langle\bb_i, \cc\rangle=B_i,\ i=1,\dots,l,

256: \end{equation}

257: where $\bb_i$ are fixed and linearly independent vectors, 

258: and $B_i$ are given scalars. Let us denote as $\BB$ the set of vectors

259: which satisfy the conservation laws (\ref{conser}):

260: \[

261: \BB=\left\{\cc|\langle\bb_1,\cc\rangle=B_1,\dots,

262: \langle\bb_l,\cc\rangle=B_l\right\}.

263: \]

264: The phase space $\VV$ of the system is the intersection 

265: of the cone of $n$-dimensional vectors with nonnegative components,

266: with the set $\BB$, and ${\rm dim}\VV=d=n-l$. 

267: In the sequel, we term a vector $\cc\in\VV$ the state

268: of the system. In addition, we assume that each of the conservation

269: laws is supported by each elementary reaction step, that is

270: \begin{equation}

271: \label{sep}

272: \langle\bgamma_s,\bb_i\rangle=0,

273: \end{equation}

274: for each pair of vectors $\bgamma_s$ and $\bb_i$.

275: 

276: Reaction kinetic equations describe variations of the states in time.

277: Given the stoichiometric mechanism (\ref{stoi}),

278: the reaction kinetic equations read:

279: \begin{equation}

280: \label{reaction}

281: \dot{\cc}=\JJ(\cc),\ 

282: \JJ(\cc)=\sum_{s=1}^{r}\bgamma_sW_s(\cc),

283: \end{equation}

284: where dot denotes the time derivative, and $W_s$  is the 

285: reaction rate function of the step $s$.

286: In particular, the mass action law suggests the polynomial form of the

287: reaction rates:

288: \begin{equation}

289: \label{MAL}

290: W_s=k^+_s \prod_{i=1}^{n}c_i^{\alpha_i} -

291: k^-_s \prod_{i=1}^{n}

292: c_i^{\beta_i},

293: \end{equation}

294: where $k^+_s$ and $k^-_s$ are the constants of the direct and of

295: the inverse reactions rates of the $s$th reaction step.

296: The phase space $\VV$ is positive-invariant of the system

297: (\ref{reaction}): If $\cc(0)\in\VV$, then $\cc(t)\in\VV$

298: for all the times $t>0$.

299: 

300: In the sequel, we assume that the kinetic equation (\ref{reaction})

301: describes  evolution towards the unique equilibrium state, $\cc^{\rm eq}$,

302: in the interior of the phase space $\VV$. Furthermore, we assume

303: that there exists a strictly convex function

304: $G(\cc)$ which decreases monotonically in time due to Eq.\

305: (\ref{reaction}):

306: \begin{equation}

307: \label{Htheorem}

308: \dot{G}=

309: \langle\bnabla G(\cc),\JJ(\cc)\rangle

310: \leq 0,

311: \end{equation}

312: Here $\bnabla G$ is the

313: vector of partial derivatives $\partial G/\partial c_i$, and the convexity

314: assumes that the $n\times n$ matrices

315: \begin{equation}

316: \label{MATRIX}

317: \HH_{\cc}=\|\partial^2G(\cc)/\partial c_i\partial c_j\|,

318: \end{equation}

319: are positive definite for all $\cc\in\VV$. In addition, we assume that the

320: matrices (\ref{MATRIX}) are invertible if $\cc$ is taken in

321: the interior of the phase space.

322: 

323: The function $G$ is the Lyapunov function of the system

324: (\ref{reaction}), and $\cc^{\rm eq}$ is the point of global minimum of

325: the function $G$ in the phase space $\VV$. Otherwise stated,

326: the manifold of equilibrium states $\cc^{\rm eq}(B_1,\dots,B_l)$

327: is the solution to the variational problem,

328: \begin{equation}

329: \label{EQUILIBRIUM}

330: G\to{\rm min}\ {\rm for\ }\langle\bb_i,\cc\rangle=B_i,\ i=1,\dots,l.

331: \end{equation}

332: For each fixed value of the conserved quantities $B_i$, the solution

333: is unique. In many cases, however, it is convenient to consider

334: the whole equilibrium manifold, keeping the conserved quantities

335: as parameters.

336: 

337: For example, for perfect systems in a constant volume under a constant

338: temperature, the Lyapunov function $G$ reads:

339: \begin{equation}

340: \label{gfun}

341: G=\sum_{i=1}^{n}c_i[\ln(c_i/c^{\rm eq}_i)-1].

342: \end{equation}

343: 

344: 

345: It is important to stress that $\cc^{\rm eq}$ in Eq.\ (\ref{gfun})

346:  is an {\it arbitrary} equilibrium of the system,

347: under arbitrary values of the balances. In order to compute $G(\cc)$, 

348: it is unnecessary to calculate

349: the specific equilibrium $\cc^{\rm eq}$ which corresponds to the initial state $\cc$.

350: Moreover, for ideal systems, function $G$ is constructed from the thermodynamic 

351: data of individual

352: species, and, as  the result of this construction, it turns out that it has the form of 

353: Eq.\ (\ref{gfun}).

354: Let us mention here the classical formula for the free energy $F=RTVG$: 

355: \begin{equation}

356: F=VRT\sum_{i=1}^{n}c_i[(\ln(c_iV_{{\rm Q}\ i})-1)+F_{{\rm int}\ i}(T)],

357: \end{equation}

358: where $V$ is the volume of the system, $T$ is the temperature, 

359: $V_{{\rm Q}\ i}= N_0(2\pi\hbar^2/m_ikT)^{3/2}$

360: is the quantum volume of one mole of the specie $A_i$, $N_0$ is the Avogadro number,

361: $m_i$ is the mass of the molecule of ${\rm A}_i$, $R=kN_0$, and $F_{{\rm int}\ i}(T)$ is the

362: free energy of the internal degrees of freedom per mole of ${\rm A}_i$. 

363: 

364: 

365: Finally, we recall an important generalization of the mass action

366: law (\ref{MAL}), known as the Marcelin-De Donder kinetic function.

367: This generalization was developed by \cite{Feinberg72} based on 

368: ideas of the thermodynamic theory of affinity \citep{DeDonder36}. 

369: We use

370: the kinetic function suggested by \cite{BGY82}.

371: Within this approach, the functions $W_s$ are

372: constructed as follows: For a given strictly convex function $G$,

373: and for a given stoichiometric mechanism (\ref{stoi}), we define the gain

374: ($+$) and the loss ($-$) rates of the $s$th step,

375: \begin{equation}

376: \label{MDD}

377: W_s^{+}=\varphi_s^+

378: \exp[\langle \nabla G,\mbox{\boldmath$\alpha$}_s\rangle],\quad

379: W_s^{-}=\varphi_s^-\exp[\langle \nabla G,\mbox{\boldmath$\beta$}_s\rangle],

380: \end{equation}

381: where $\varphi_s^{\pm}>0$ are kinetic factors.

382: The Marcelin-De Donder kinetic function reads: $W_s=W_s^+-W_s^-$, 

383: and the right hand side of the kinetic equation (\ref{reaction}) becomes,

384: \begin{equation}

385: \label{KINETIC MDD}

386: \JJ=\sum_{s=1}^{r}\bgamma_s

387: \{\varphi_s^+

388: \exp[\langle\bnabla G,\balpha_s\rangle]\!-

389: \varphi_s^-\exp[\langle\bnabla G,\bbeta_s\rangle]\}.

390: \end{equation}

391: For the Marcelin-De Donder reaction rate (\ref{MDD}), the dissipation

392: inequality (\ref{Htheorem}) reads:

393: \begin{equation}

394: \label{HMDD}

395: \dot{G}=\sum_{s=1}^{r}

396: [\langle\bnabla G,\bbeta_s\rangle -

397: \langle\bnabla G,\balpha_s\rangle]

398: \left\{\varphi_s^+

399: e^{\langle\bnabla G,\balpha_s\rangle}-

400: \varphi_s^-e^{\langle\bnabla G,\bbeta_s\rangle}\right\}\le 0.

401: \end{equation}

402: The kinetic factors $\varphi_s^{\pm}$ should satisfy certain conditions

403: in order to make valid the dissipation inequality (\ref{HMDD}).

404: A well known sufficient condition is the detail balance:

405: \begin{equation}

406: \label{DB}

407: \varphi_s^+=\varphi_s^-,

408: \end{equation}

409: other sufficient conditions are discussed in detail elsewhere

410: \citep{YBGE91,G84,K89,K93}.

411: For the function  $G$ of the form (\ref{gfun}),

412: the Marcelin-De Donder equation casts into the more familiar mass action

413: law form (\ref{MAL}). 

414: 

415: 

416: \subsection{The problem of reduced description in chemical kinetics}

417: \label{reduction_review}

418: What does it mean, ``to reduce the description of a chemical system''? 

419: This means the following:

420: \begin{enumerate}

421: \item To shorten  the list of species.

422: This, in turn, can be achieved in two ways: 

423: 

424: (i) To eliminate inessential components from the list;

425: 

426: (ii) To lump some of the species into integrated components.

427: 

428: \item To shorten the list of reactions. This also can be done in several ways:

429: 

430: (i) To eliminate inessential reactions, those which do not significantly influence the reaction

431: process;

432: 

433: (ii) To assume that some of the reactions ``have been already completed'', and that

434: the equilibrium has been reached along their paths (this leads to dimensional reduction

435: because the rate constants of the ``completed'' reactions are not used thereafter, what one

436: needs are equilibrium constants only). 

437: 

438: \item To decompose the motions into fast and slow, into independent (almost-independent) 

439: and slaved etc.

440: As the result of such a decomposition, the system admits a study ``in parts''. 

441: After that, results of this study

442: are combined into a joint picture. There are several approaches which fall into this category:

443: The famous method of the quasi-steady state (QSS), pioneered by 

444: Bodenstein and Semenov and 

445: explored in considerable detail  by many authors, in particular, by 

446: \cite{Bowen63,Chen88,Segel89,Fraser88,Roussel90}, 

447: and many others;

448: the quasi-equilibrium approximation \citep{Orlov84,G84,Volpert85,Fraser88,K89,K93};

449: methods of sensitivity analysis \citep{Rabitz83,Lam94};

450: methods based on the derivation of the so-called intrinsic low-dimensional manifolds (ILDM,

451: as suggested by \cite{Maas92}). Our method of invariant manifold 

452: (MIM, \citep{GK92,GK92a,GK92b,GK94,GKZD00,GKIOe01}) also belongs to this kind of methods.

453: 

454: \end{enumerate}

455: Why to reduce description in the times of supercomputers? 

456: 

457: First, in order to gain understanding. In the process of reducing the description one is often able

458: to extract the essential, and the mechanisms of the processes under study become

459: more transparent. Second, if one is given the detailed description of the system, then one

460: should be able also to solve the initial-value problem for this system. But what should one do 

461: in the case where the the system is representing just a point in a three-dimensional flow? 

462: The problem of reduction becomes particularly important for modeling the spatially distributed

463: physical and chemical processes. Third, without reducing the kinetic model, it is impossible to

464: construct this model. This statement seems paradoxal only at the first glance: How come,

465: the model is first simplified, and is constructed only after the simplification is done?

466: However, in practice, the typical for a mathematician statement of the problem,

467: (Let the system of differential equations be {\it given}, then ...) is rather rarely applicable

468: in the chemical engineering science for detailed kinetics. Some reactions are known

469: precisely, some other - only hypothetically. Some intermediate species are well studied,

470: some others - not, it is not known much about them. Situation is even worse with the

471: reaction rates. Quite on the contrary, the thermodynamic data 

472: (energies, enthalpies, entropies, chemical

473: potentials etc) for sufficiently rarefied systems are quite reliable. Final identification

474: of the model is always done on the basis of comparison with the experiment and with a help

475: of fitting. For this purpose, it is extremely important to reduce the dimension of the system,

476: and to reduce the number of tunable parameters. The normal logics of modeling for

477: the purpose of chemical engineering science is the following: Exceedingly detailed but coarse 

478: with respect to parameters system $\to$ reduction $\to$ fitting $\to$ reduced model with

479: specified parameters (cycles  are allowed in this scheme, with returns 

480: from fitting to more detailed models etc).

481: A  more radical viewpoint is also possible: 

482: In the chemical engineering science, detailed kinetics is impossible,

483: useless, and it does not exist. For a recently published discussion on this topic see

484: \cite{Levenspiel99,Levenspiel00}; \cite{Y00}.

485: 

486: Alas, with a mathematical statement of the problem

487:  related to reduction, we  all have to begin with the usual:

488: Let the system of differential equations be given ... . Enormous difficulties related to the question

489: of how well the original system is modeling the real kinetics remain out of focus of these studies.

490: 

491: Our present work is devoted to studying reductions in a given system of kinetic equations to

492: invariant manifolds of slow motions. We begin with a brief discussion of existing approaches.

493: 

494: \subsection{Partial equilibrium approximations}\label{partial_eq}

495: 

496: {\it Quasi-equilibrium with respect to reactions} is constructed as follows: 

497: From the list of reactions (\ref{stoi}), one selects those which are assumed to equilibrate first.

498: Let they be  indexed with the numbers $s_1,\dots,s_k$. 

499: The quasi-equilibrium manifold is defined

500: by the system of equations,

501: \begin{equation}

502: \label{st1}

503: W^+_{s_i}=W^-_{s_i},\ i=1,\dots,k.

504: \end{equation}

505: This system of equations looks particularly elegant when written in terms of conjugated (dual)

506: variables,  $\bmu=\bnabla G$:

507: \begin{equation}

508: \label{st2}

509: \langle \bgamma_{s_i},\bmu\rangle=0,\ i=1,\dots,k.

510: \end{equation}

511: In terms of conjugated variables, 

512: the quasi-equilibrium manifold

513: forms a linear subspace. This subspace, $L^{\perp}$, is the orthogonal 

514: completement to the linear

515: envelope of vectors, $L={\rm lin}\{\bgamma_{s_1},\dots,\bgamma_{s_k}\}$.

516: 

517: {\it Quasi-equilibrium with respect to species} is constructed practically  in the same  

518: way but without 

519: selecting the subset of reactions. For a given set of species, $A_{i_1}, \dots, A_{i_k}$, 

520: one assumes 

521: that they evolve fast to equilibrium, and remain there. Formally, this means that in the

522: $k$-dimensional subspace of the space of concentrations with the coordinates

523: $c_{i_1},\dots,c_{i_k}$, one constructs the subspace $L$ which is defined by the balance

524: equations, $\langle \bb_i,\cc\rangle=0$. In terms of the conjugated variables,

525: the quasi-equilibrium manifold, $L^{\perp}$, is defined by equations,

526: \begin{equation}

527: \label{qe1}

528: \bmu\in L^{\perp},\ (\bmu=(\mu_1,\dots,\mu_n)).

529: \end{equation}

530: The same quasi-equilibrium manifold can be also defined with the help of fictitious reactions:

531: Let $\bg_1,\dots,\bg_q$ be a basis in $L$. Then Eq.\ (\ref{qe1}) may be rewritten as follows:

532: \begin{equation}

533: \label{qe2}

534: \langle \bg_i,\bmu\rangle=0,\ i=1,\dots,q.

535: \end{equation}

536: 

537: {\it Illustration:} Quasi-equilibrium with respect to reactions in hydrogen oxidation:

538: Let us assume equilibrium with respect to dissociation reactions,

539: ${\rm H}_2\rightleftharpoons 2{\rm H}$, and, ${\rm O}_2\rightleftharpoons 2{\rm O}$, 

540: in some subdomain of

541: reaction conditions. This gives:

542: \[k_1^+c_{{\rm H}_2}=k_1^-c^2_{\rm H},\ k_2^+c_{{\rm O}_2}=k_2^-c_{\rm O}^2.\]

543: Quasi-equilibrium with respect to species: For the same reaction, let us assume

544: equilibrium over ${\rm H}$, ${\rm O}$, ${\rm OH}$, and ${\rm H}_2{\rm O}_2$, 

545: in a subgomain of reaction conditions.

546: Subspace $L$ is defined by balance constraints:

547: \[ c_{\rm H}+c_{\rm OH}+2c_{{\rm H}_2{\rm O}_2}=0,\ c_{\rm O}+c_{\rm OH}

548: +2c_{{\rm H}_2{\rm O}_2}=0.\]

549: Subspace $L$ is two-dimensional. Its basis, $\{\bg_1,\bg_2\}$ in the coordinates

550: $c_{\rm H}$, $c_{\rm O}$, $c_{\rm OH}$, and $c_{{\rm H}_2{\rm O}_2}$ reads:

551: \[

552: \bg_1=(1,1,-1,0),\quad

553: \bg_2=(2,2,0,-1).

554: \]

555: Corresponding Eq.\ (\ref{qe2}) is:

556: \[ \mu_{\rm H}+\mu_{\rm O}=\mu_{\rm OH},\ 2\mu_{\rm H}+2\mu_{\rm O}=

557: \mu_{{\rm H}_2{\rm O}_2}.\]

558: 

559: {\it General construction of the quasi-equilibrium manifold}: 

560: In the space of concentration, one defines a subspace $L$ which satisfies 

561: the balance constraints:

562: \[ \langle \bb_i,L\rangle\equiv0.\]

563: The orthogonal complement of $L$ in the space with coordinates 

564: $\bmu=\bnabla G$ defines then the quasi-equilibrium manifold $\bOmega_{L}$.

565: For the actual computations, one requires the inversion from $\bmu$ to $\cc$.

566: Duality structure $\bmu\leftrightarrow\cc$ is well studied by many authors 

567: \citep{Orlov84,DKN97}. 

568: 

569: {\it Quasi-equilibrium projector.} It is not sufficient to just derive the manifold,

570: it is also required to define a {\it projector} which would transform

571: the vector field defined on the space of concentrations to a vector field on the manifold.

572: Quasi-equilibrium manifold consists of points which minimize $G$ on the affine

573: spaces of the form $\cc+L$. These affine  planes are hypothetic planes of fast motions

574: ($G$ is decreasing in the course of the fast motions). Therefore, the quasi-equilibrium 

575: projector maps the whole space of concentrations on $\bOmega_L$ parallel to $L$.

576: The vector field is also projected onto the tangent space of $\bOmega_L$ parallel to

577: $L$. 

578: 

579: 

580: Thus, the quasi-equilibrium approximation implies the decomposition of motions

581: into the fast - parallel to $L$, and the slow - along the quasi-equilibrium manifold.

582: In order to construct the quasi-equilibrium approximation, knowledge of reaction rate constants

583: of ``fast'' reactions is not required (stoichiometric vectors of all these fast reaction are

584: in $L$, 

585: $\bgamma_{{\rm fast}}\in L$, thus, knowledge of $L$ suffices), one only needs some

586: confidence in that they all are sufficiently fast \citep{Volpert85}.

587: The quasi-equilibrium manifold itself is constructed based on the knowledge of

588: $L$ and of $G$. Dynamics on the quasi-equilibrium manifold is defined as the quasi-equilibrium projection of the ``slow component'' of kinetic equations (\ref{reaction}).

589: 

590: \subsection{Model equations}

591: 

592: The assumption behind  the quasi-equilibrium is the hypothesis of the decomposition of 

593: motions into fast and slow. The quasi-equilibrium approximation itself describes slow motions. 

594: However, sometimes it becomes necessary to restore to the whole system, and to

595: take into account the fast motions as well. With this, it is desirable to keep intact 

596: one of the important advantages of the quasi-equilibrium approximation -

597:  its independence of the rate constants of fast reactions. 

598: For this purpose, the detailed fast kinetics is replaced by

599: a model equation ({\it single relaxation time approximation}).

600: 

601: {\it Quasi-equilibrium models} (QEM) are constructed as follows: For each concentration vector

602: $\cc$, consider the affine manifold, $\cc+L$. Its intersection with the quasi-equilibrium

603: manifold $\bOmega_L$ consists of one point. This point delivers the  minimum 

604: to $G$ on $\cc+L$. Let us denote this point as $\cc^*_L(\cc)$. The equation of the

605: quasi-equilibrium model reads:

606: \begin{equation}

607: \label{QEmodel}

608: \dot{\cc}=-\frac{1}{\tau}[\cc-\cc^*_L(\cc)]+\sum_{{\rm slow}}\bgamma_{s}W_s(\cc^*_L(\cc)),

609: \end{equation}

610: where $\tau>0$ is the relaxation time of the fast subsystem. Rates of slow reactions are 

611: computed in the points $\cc^*_L(\cc)$ (the second term in the 

612: right hand side of Eq.\ (\ref{QEmodel}), whereas the rapid motion is taken into account

613: by a simple relaxational term (the first term in the right hand side of Eq.\ (\ref{QEmodel}).

614: The most famous model kinetic equation is the BGK equation in the theory of the

615: Boltzmann equation \citep{BGK}. The general theory

616: of the quasi-equilibrium models, including proofs of their thermodynamic consistency,

617: was constructed by \cite{GK92c,GK94a}.

618: 

619: 

620: {\it Single relaxation time gradient models} (SRTGM) 

621: were considered by \cite{AK00,AK02,AK02a}

622: in the context of the lattice Boltzmann method for hydrodynamics. These models

623: are aimed at improving the obvious drawback of quasi-equilibrium models (\ref{QEmodel}):

624: In order to construct the QEM, one needs to compute 

625: the function,

626: \begin{equation}

627: \label{QEA}

628:  \cc^*_L(\cc)=\arg\min_{\xxx\in \cc+L,\ \xxx>0}G(\xxx).

629: \end{equation}

630: This is a convex programming problem. It does not always has a closed-form solution.

631: 

632: Let $\bg_1,\dots,\bg_k$ is the orthonormal basis of $L$. We denote 

633: as $\DD(\cc)$ the  $k\times k$ matrix with the elements 

634: $\langle \bg_i,\HH_{\cc}\bg_j\rangle$, where $\HH_{\cc}$ is the matrix of second derivatives

635: of $G$ (\ref{MATRIX}). Let $\CC(\cc)$ be the inverse of $\DD(\cc)$. The

636: single relaxation time gradient model has the form:

637: \begin{equation}

638: \dot{\cc}=-\frac{1}{\tau}\sum_{i,j}\bg_i\CC(\cc)_{ij}\langle \bg_j,\bnabla G\rangle

639: +\sum_{{\rm slow}}\bgamma_{s}W_s(\cc).\label{SRTGM}

640: \end{equation}

641: The first term drives the system to the minimum of $G$ on $\cc+L$, 

642: it does not require solving the problem (\ref{QEA}), and its 

643: spectrum in the quasi-equilibrium is the same as in the quasi-equilibrium model (\ref{QEmodel}).

644: Note that the slow component is evaluated in the ``current'' state $\cc$.

645: 

646: The models (\ref{QEmodel}) and (\ref{SRTGM}) 

647:  lift the quasi-equilibrium approximation to a kinetic equation

648: by approximating the fast dynamics with a single ``reaction rate constant'' -

649: relaxation time $\tau$.

650: 

651: \subsection{Quasi-steady state approximation}\label{QSS}

652: The quasi-steady state approximation (QSS) is a tool used in a huge amount of works.

653: Let us split the list of species in two groups: The basic and the intermediate (radicals etc).

654: Concentration vectors are denoted accordingly, $\cc^{\rm s}$ (slow, basic species),

655: and $\cc^{\rm f}$ (fast, intermediate species). The concentration vector

656: $\cc$ is the direct sum, $\cc=\cc^{\rm s}\oplus\cc^{\rm f}$.

657: The fast subsystem is Eq.\ (\ref{reaction}) for the component $\cc^{\rm f}$ at fixed

658: values of $\cc^{{\rm s}}$. If it happens that this way defined fast subsystem

659: relaxes to a stationary state, $\cc^{\rm f}\to\cc^{\rm f}_{\rm qss}(\cc^{\rm s})$, then the

660: assumption that $\cc^{\rm f}=\cc^{\rm f}_{\rm qss}(\cc)$ is precisely  the QSS assumption.

661: The slow subsystem is the part of the system (\ref{reaction}) for $\cc^{\rm s}$, in the

662: right hand side of which the component $\cc^{\rm f}$ is replaced with 

663: $\cc^{\rm f}_{\rm qss}(\cc)$. Thus, $\JJ=\JJ_{\rm s}\oplus\JJ_{\rm f}$, where

664: \begin{eqnarray}

665: \dot{\cc}^{\rm f}&=&\JJ_{\rm f}(\cc^{\rm s}\oplus\cc^{\rm f}), \ \cc^{\rm s}={\rm const};

666: \quad \cc^{\rm f}\to\cc^{\rm f}_{\rm qss}(\cc^{\rm s});\label{fast}\\

667: \dot{\cc}^{\rm s}&=&\JJ_{\rm s}(\cc^{\rm s}\oplus\cc_{\rm qss}^{\rm f}(\cc^{\rm s})).

668: \label{slow}

669: \end{eqnarray}

670: Bifurcations in the system (\ref{fast}) under variation of $\cc^{\rm s}$ as a parameter are 

671: confronted to kinetic critical phenomena. Studies of more complicated dynamic phenomena in 

672: the fast subsystem (\ref{fast}) require various techniques of averaging, stability analysis of the 

673: averaged quantities etc. 

674: 

675: Various versions of the QSS method are well possible, and are actually used widely,

676: for example, the hierarchical QSS method.

677: There, one defines not a single fast subsystem but a hierarchy of them,

678: $\cc^{{\rm f}_1},\dots,\cc^{{\rm f}_k}$. Each subsystem  $\cc^{{\rm f}_i}$ is regarded as 

679: a slow system for all the foregoing subsystems, and it is regarded as a fast subsystem for the

680: following members of the hierarchy. Instead of one system of equations (\ref{fast}),

681: a hierarchy of systems of lower-dimensional equations is considered, each of these

682: subsystem is easier to study analytically.

683: 

684: Theory of singularly perturbed systems of ordinary differential equations

685: is used to provide a mathematical background and further development of the

686: QSS approximation \citep{Bowen63,Segel89}.

687: In spite of a broad literature on this subject, it remains, in general, unclear, what 

688: is the smallness parameter that separates the intermediate (fast) species from

689: the basic (slow). Reaction rate constants cannot be such a parameter (unlike in the 

690: case of the quasi-equilibrium). Indeed, intermediate species participate 

691: in the {\it same} reactions, as the basic species (for example,

692: ${\rm H}_2\rightleftharpoons 2{\rm H}$, ${\rm H}+{\rm O}_2\rightleftharpoons {\rm OH}+{\rm O}$).

693: It is therefore incorrect to state that $\cc^{\rm f}$ evolve faster than $\cc^{\rm s}$.

694: In the sense of reaction rate constants, $\cc^{\rm f}$ is not faster.

695: 

696: For catalytic reactions, it is not difficult to figure out what is the smallness parameter 

697: that separates the intermediate species from the basic, and which allows to

698: upgrade the QSS assumption to a singular perturbation theory rigorously

699: \citep{YBGE91}. This smallness parameter is the ratio of balances:

700: Intermediate species include the catalyst, and their total amount is simply

701: significantly less than the amount of all the $\cc_i$'s. After renormalizing to

702: the variables of one order of magnitude, the small parameter appears explicitly.

703: 

704: For usual radicals, the origin of the smallness parameter is quite similar.

705: There are much less radicals than the basic species (otherwise, the QSS

706: assumption is inapplicable). In the case of radicals, however, the smallness

707: parameter cannot be extracted directly from balances $B_i$ (\ref{conser}).

708: Instead, one can come up with a thermodynamic estimate: Function $G$

709: decreases in the course of reactions, whereupon we obtain the limiting estimate

710: of concentrations of any specie:

711: \begin{equation}

712: \label{TDlim}

713: c_i\le \max_{G(\cc)\le G(\cc(0))} c_i,

714: \end{equation}

715: where $\cc(0)$ is the initial composition. If the concentration $c_{\rm R}$ of the

716: radical R is small both initially and in the equilibrium, then it should remain small

717: also along the path to the equilibrium. For example, in the case of ideal $G$ (\ref{gfun})

718: under relevant conditions, for any $t>0$, the following inequality is valid:

719: \begin{equation}

720: \label{INEQ_R}

721: c_{\rm R}[\ln(c_{\rm R}(t)/c_{\rm R}^{\rm eq})-1]\le G(\cc(0)).

722: \end{equation}

723: Inequality (\ref{INEQ_R}) provides the simplest (but rather coarse) thermodynamic

724: estimate of $c_{\rm R}(t)$ in terms of $G(\cc(0))$ and $c_{\rm R}^{\rm eq}$

725: {\it uniformly for $t>0$}. Complete theory of thermodynamic estimates 

726: of dynamics has been developed by \cite{G84}.

727: One can also do computations without a priori estimations, if one accepts

728: the QSS assumption until the values $\cc^{\rm f}$ stay sufficiently small.

729: 

730: Let us assume that an a priori estimate has been found, $c_i(t)\le c_{i\ {\rm max}}$,

731: for each $c_i$. These estimate may depend on the initial conditions, thermodynamic data etc.

732: With these estimates, we are able to renormalize the variables in the kinetic equations

733: (\ref{reaction}) in such a way that renormalized variables take their values

734: from the unit segment $[0,1]$: $\tilde{c}_i=c_i/c_{i\ {\rm max}}$. Then the system (\ref{reaction})

735: can be written as follows:

736: \begin{equation}

737: \label{reduced}

738: \frac{d\tilde{c}_i}{dt}=\frac{1}{c_{i\ {\rm max}}}J_i(\cc).

739: \end{equation}

740: The system of dimensionless parameters, $\epsilon_i=c_{i\ {\rm max}}/\max_i c_{i\ {\rm max}}$

741: defines a hierarchy of relaxation times, and with its help one can establish various 

742: realizations of the QSS approximation. The simplest version is the standard QSS assumption:

743: Parameters $\epsilon_i$ are separated in two groups, the smaller ones, and of the order $1$.

744: Accordingly, the concentration vector is split into $\cc^{\rm s}\oplus\cc^{\rm f}$.

745: Various hierarchical QSS are possible, with this, the problem becomes more tractable

746: analytically.

747: 

748: Corrections to the QSS approximation can be addressed in various ways

749: (see, e.\ g., \cite{Vasil'eva95,Strygin88}). 

750: There exist a variety of ways to introduce the smallness parameter into kinetic equations,

751: and one can find applications to each of the realizations. However, the two particular

752: realizations remain basic for chemical kinetics:

753: (i) Fast reactions (under a given thermodynamic data);

754: (ii) Small concentrations. In the first case, one is led to the quasi-equilibrium approximation, 

755: in the second case - to the classical QSS assumption. Both of these approximations allow 

756: for hierarchical realizations,

757: those which include not just two but many relaxation time scales. Such a multi-scale approach

758: {\it essentially simplifies} analytical studies of the problem.

759: 

760: 

761: The method of invariant manifold which we present

762: below in the section \ref{MIM} allows to use both the QE and the QSS as initial approximations

763: in the iterational process of seeking slow invariant manifolds.

764: It is also possible

765: to use a  different initial ansatz chosen by a physical intuition, like, for example, the 

766: Tamm--Mott-Smith approximation in the theory of strong shock waves 

767: \citep{GK92}.

768: 

769: \subsection{Methods based on spectral decomposition of Jacobian fields}\label{Jacobi}

770: 

771: The idea to use the spectral decomposition of Jacobian fields in the problem 

772: of separating the motions into fast and slow originates from methods of analysis of

773: stiff systems \citep{Gear71}, and from methods of sensitivity analysis in control theory

774: \citep{Rabitz83}. There are two basic statements of the problem for 

775: these methods:

776: (i) The problem of the slow manifold, and

777: (ii) The problem of a complete decomposition (complete integrability) of kinetic equations.

778: The first of these problems consists in constructing the slow manifold $\bOmega$, and

779: a decomposition of motions into the fast one - towards $\bOmega$, and the slow

780: one - along $\bOmega$ \citep{Maas92}. The second of these problems consists

781: in a transformation of kinetic equations (\ref{reaction}) to a diagonal form,

782: $\dot{\zeta}_i=f_i(\zeta_i)$  (so-called

783: {\it full nonlinear lumping}

784:  or {\it modes decoupling}, \cite{Lam94,Li94,Toth97}).

785:  Clearly, if one finds a sufficiently explicit solution

786: to the second problem, then  the system (\ref{reaction}) is completely integrable, and nothing

787: more is needed, the result has to be simply used. The question is only to what extend

788: such a solution can be possible, and how difficult it would be as compared to the first

789: problem to find it. 

790: 

791: One of the currently  most popular methods is the construction of the so-called

792: {\it intrinsic low-dimensional manifold} (ILDM, \cite{Maas92}). 

793: This method is based on the following geometric picture: For each point $\cc$, 

794: one defines the Jacobian matrix of

795: Eq.\ (\ref{reaction}), $\FF_{\cc}\equiv \partial \JJ(\cc)/\partial\cc$. One assumes that, in the 

796: domain of interest, the eigenvalues of $\FF_{\cc}$ are separated into two groups, 

797: $\lambda_i^{\rm s}$ and $\lambda_j^{\rm f}$, and that the following inequalities are valid:

798: \[ {\rm Re}\ \lambda_i^{\rm s}\ge a > b\ge {\rm Re} \lambda_j^{\rm f},\ a\gg b,\ b<0.\]

799: Let us denote as $L_{\cc}^{\rm s}$ and $L_{\cc}^{\rm f}$ the invariant subspaces corresponding

800: to $\lambda^{\rm s}$ and $\lambda^{\rm f}$, respectively, and let $\ZZ_{\cc}^{\rm s}$ 

801: and $\ZZ_{\cc}^{\rm f}$ be the corresponding spectral projectors,

802: $\ZZ_{\cc}^{\rm s}L_{\cc}^{\rm s}=L_{\cc}^{\rm s}$, 

803: $\ZZ_{\cc}^{\rm f}L_{\cc}^{\rm f}=L_{\cc}^{\rm f}$,

804: $\ZZ_{\cc}^{\rm s}L_{\cc}^{\rm f}=\ZZ_{\cc}^{\rm f}L_{\cc}^{\rm s}=\{0\}$,

805: $\ZZ_{\cc}^{\rm s}+\ZZ_{\cc}^{\rm f}=1$.

806: Operator $\ZZ_{\cc}^{\rm s}$ projects onto the subspace of ``slow modes'' $L_{\cc}^{\rm s}$,

807: and it annihilates the ``fast modes'' $L_{\cc}^{\rm f}$. Operator

808: $\ZZ_{\cc}^{\rm f}$ does the opposite, it projects onto fast modes, and it annihilates

809: the slow modes. The basic equation of the ILDM reads:

810: \begin{equation}

811: \label{ILDM}

812: \ZZ_{\cc}^{\rm f}\JJ(\cc)=0.

813: \end{equation}

814: In this equation, the unknown is the concentration vector $\cc$. The set of solutions 

815: to Eq.\ (\ref{ILDM}) is the ILDM manifold $\bOmega_{{\rm ildm}}$.

816: 

817: For linear systems, $\FF_{\cc}$, $\ZZ_{\cc}^{\rm s}$, and $\ZZ_{\cc}^{\rm f}$, do not depend

818: on $\cc$, and $\bOmega_{{\rm ildm}}=\cc^{\rm eq}+L^{\rm s}$. On the other hand, obviously,

819: $\cc^{\rm eq}\in\bOmega_{{\rm ildm}}$. Therefore, procedures of solving of Eq.\ (\ref{ILDM})

820: can be initiated by choosing the linear approximation, 

821: $\bOmega_{{\rm ildm}}^{(0)}=\cc^{\rm eq}+L^{\rm s}_{\cc^{\rm eq}}$, 

822: in the neighborhood of the equilibrium 

823: $\cc^{\rm eq}$, and then continued parametrically into the nonlinear domain. 

824: Computational technologies of a continuation of solutions with respect to

825: parameters are well developed (see, for example, \cite{Khibnik93,Roose90}).

826: The problem of the relevant parameterization is solved locally: In the neighborhood of

827: a given point $\cc^0$ one can choose $\ZZ_{\cc}^{\rm s}(\cc-\cc^0)$ for a characterization

828: of the vector $\cc$. In this case, the space of parameters is $L_{\cc}^{\rm s}$.

829: There exist other, physically motivated ways to parameterize manifolds 

830: (\cite{GK92}; see also section \ref{TDP} below). 

831: 

832: There are two drawbacks of the ILDM method which call for its refinement:

833: (i) {\it ``Intrinsic'' does not imply ``invariant''.} Eq.\ (\ref{ILDM})

834: is not invariant of the dynamics (\ref{reaction}). If one differentiates Eq.\ (\ref{ILDM})

835: in time due to Eq.\ (\ref{reaction}), one obtains a new equation which is the

836: implication of Eq.\ (\ref{ILDM}) {\it only} for linear systems. In a general case, the

837: motion $\cc(t)$ takes off the $\bOmega_{{\rm ildm}}$. 

838: Invariance of a manifold $\bOmega$ means that $\JJ(\cc)$ touches $\bOmega$ in every

839: point $\cc\in\bOmega$. It remains unclear how the ILDM (\ref{ILDM}) corresponds with

840: this condition. Thus, from the dynamical perspective, the status of the

841: ILDM remains not well defined, or ``ILDM is ILDM'', defined self-consistently

842: by Eq.\ (\ref{ILDM}), and that is all what can be said about it.

843: (ii) From the geometrical standpoint, spectral decomposition of Jacobian fields

844: is not the most attractive way to compute manifolds. 

845: If we are interested in the behavior of trajectories, how they converge or diverge,

846: then one should consider the symmetrized part of $\FF_{\cc}$, rather than

847: $\FF_{\cc}$ itself.

848: 

849: 

850: Symmetric part, $\FF_{\cc}^{\rm sym}=(1/2)(\FF_{\cc}^{\dag}+\FF_{\cc})$,

851: defines the dynamics of the distance between two solutions,  $\cc$ and $\cc'$,

852:  in a given local Euclidean metrics.

853: Skew-symmetric part defines rotations.

854: If we want to study manifolds based on the argument about convergence/divergence

855: of trajectories, then we should use in Eq.\ (\ref{ILDM}) 

856: the spectral projector $\ZZ_{\cc}^{\rm f sym}$ for the

857: operator $\FF_{\cc}^{\rm sym}$. This, by the way, is  also a  significant simplification

858: from the standpoint of computations.

859: It remains to choose the metrics.

860: This choice is unambiguous from the thermodynamic perspective.

861: In fact, there is only one choice which fits into the physical meaning of the problem,

862: this is the metrics associated with the  thermodynamic (or entropic) scalar product,

863: \begin{equation}

864: \label{ESP}

865: \langle\langle\xxx,\yy\rangle\rangle=\langle\xxx,\HH_{\cc}\yy\rangle,

866: \end{equation}

867: where $\HH_{\cc}$ is the matrix of second-order derivatives

868: of $G$ (\ref{MATRIX}). In the equilibrium, operator $\FF_{\cc^{\rm eq}}$ is

869: selfajoint with respect to this scalar product (Onsager's reciprocity relations).

870: Therefore, the behavior of the ILDM in the vicinity of the equilibrium does 

871: not alter under the replacement, $\FF_{\cc^{\rm eq}}=\FF_{\cc^{\rm eq}}^{\rm sym}$.

872: In terms of usual matrix representation, we have:

873: \begin{equation}

874: \FF_{\cc}^{\rm sym}=\frac{1}{2}(\FF_{\cc}+\HH_{\cc}^{-1}\FF_{\cc}^{T}\HH_{\cc}),\label{Fsym}

875: \end{equation}

876: where $\FF_{\cc}^{T}$ is the ordinary transposition. 

877: 

878: The ILDM constructed with the help of the symmetrized Jacobian field will be termed

879: the {\it symmetric entropic intrinsic low-dimensional manifold} (SEILDM).

880: Selfadjointness of $\FF_{\cc}^{\rm sym}$ (\ref{Fsym}) with respect to the

881: thermodynamic scalar product (\ref{ESP}) simplifies considerably computations of 

882:  spectral decomposition. Moreover, it becomes necessary to do spectral decomposition

883: in only one point - in the equilibrium. Perturbation theory for selfadjoint operators

884: is a very well developed subject \citep{Kato76}, which makes it possible to easily extend the

885: spectral decomposition with respect to parameters.

886: A more detailed discussion of the selfadjoint linearization will be given below in section

887: \ref{SA}. 

888: 

889: Thus, when the geometric picture behind the decomposition of motions is specified,

890: the physical significance of the ILDM becomes more transparent, and it leads to

891: its modification into the SEILDM. This also gains simplicity in the implementation

892: by switching from non-selfadjoint spectral problems to selfadjoint. The

893: quantitative estimate of this simplification is readily available: Let $d$ be the dimension

894: of the phase space, and $k$ the dimension of the ILDM ($k={\rm dim} L_{\cc}^{\rm s}$).

895: The space of all the projectors $\ZZ$ with the $k$-dimensional image

896: has the dimension $D=2k(d-k)$. The space of all the selfadjoint projectors with the

897: $k$-dimensional image has the dimension $D^{\rm sym}=k(d-k)$.

898: For $d=20$ and $k=3$, we have $D=102$ and $D^{\rm sym}=51$.

899: When the spectral decomposition by means of parametric extension is addressed,

900: one considers equations of the form:

901: \begin{equation}

902: \label{parametric}

903: \frac{d\ZZ_{\cc(\tau)}^{\rm s}}{d\tau}=\bPsi^{\rm s}\left(\frac{d\cc}{d\tau},

904: \ZZ_{\cc(\tau)}^{\rm s}, \FF_{\cc(\tau)}, \bnabla\FF_{\cc(\tau)}\right),

905: \end{equation}

906: where $\tau$ is the parameter, and $\bnabla\FF_{\cc}=\bnabla\bnabla\JJ(\cc)$

907: is the differential of the Jacobian field. 

908: For the selfadjoint case, where we use $=\FF_{\cc}^{\rm sym}$ instead of

909:  $\FF_{\cc}$, this system of equations

910: has twice less independent variables, and also the right hand is of a simpler structure.

911: 

912: It is more difficult to improve on  the first of the remarks (ILDM is not invariant).

913: The following naive approach may seem possible: 

914: 

915: (i) Take $\bOmega_{\rm ildm}=\cc^{\rm eq}+L^{\rm s}_{\cc^{\rm eq}}$ in a neighborhood

916: $U$ of the equilibrium $\cc^{\rm eq}$. [This is also a useful initial approximation

917: for solving Eq.\ (\ref{ILDM})].

918: 

919: (ii) Instead of computing the solution to Eq.\ (\ref{ILDM}), integrate the kinetic

920: equations (\ref{reaction}) {\it backwards in the time}. It is sufficient to take

921: initial conditions $\cc(0)$ from a dense set on the boundary,

922: $\partial U\cap (\cc^{\rm eq}+L^{\rm s}_{\cc^{\rm eq}})$, and to compute

923: solutions $\cc(t)$, $t<0$.

924: 

925: (iii) Consider the obtained set of trajectories as an approximation of the slow invariant manifold.

926: 

927: This approach will guarantee invariance, by construction, but it is prone to pitfalls in what 

928: concerns the slowness. Indeed, the integration backwards in the time will see

929: exponentially divergent trajectories, if they were exponentially converging in the

930: normal time progress. This way one finds {\it some} invariant manifold which touches

931: $\cc^{\rm eq}+L^{\rm s}_{\cc^{\rm eq}}$ in the equilibrium. Unfortunately, there are infinitely

932: many such manifolds, and they fill out almost all the space of concentrations.

933: However, we must select the slow component of motions. Such a regularization is possible.

934: Indeed, let us replace in Eq.\ (\ref{reaction}) the vector field $\JJ(\cc)$

935: by the vector field $\ZZ_{\cc}^{{\rm s sym}}\JJ(\cc)$, and obtain a regularized

936: kinetic equation,

937: \begin{equation}

938: \label{regreaction}

939: \dot{c}=\ZZ_{\cc}^{{\rm s sym}}\JJ(\cc).

940: \end{equation}

941: Let us replace integration backwards in time of the kinetic equation (\ref{reaction})

942: in the naive approach described above by integration backwards in time of the

943: regularized kinetic equation (\ref{regreaction}). With this, we obtain a rather

944: convincing version of the ILDM (SEILDM).

945: Using Eq.\ (\ref{parametric}), one also can write down an

946: equation for the projector $\ZZ_{\cc}^{{\rm s sym}}$, putting $\tau=t$.

947: Replacement of Eq.\ (\ref{reaction}) by Eq.\ (\ref{regreaction})

948: also makes the integration backwards in time in the naive approach more stable.

949: However, {\it regularization will again conflict with invariance}.

950: The ``naive refinement'' after the regularization (\ref{regreaction})

951: produces just a slightly  different  version of the ILDM (or SEILDM) but

952: it does not construct the slow invariant manifold.

953: So, where is the way out? We believe that the ILDM and its version SEILDM

954: are, in general, good initial approximations of the slow manifold. However,

955: if one is indeed interested in finding the invariant manifold, one has to write 

956: out the true condition of invariance and solve it. As for the initial approximation

957: for the method of invariant manifold one can use any ansatz, in particular,

958: the SEILDM.

959: 

960: 

961: {\it The problem of a complete decomposition} of kinetic equations can be solved indeed in

962: some cases. The first such solution was the spectral decomposition for linear systems

963: \citep{Wei62}. Decomposition is sometimes possible also for 

964: nonlinear systems (\cite{Li94}; \cite{Toth97}). 

965: The most famous example of a complete decomposition 

966: of infinite-dimensional kinetic equation is the complete integrability

967: of the space-independent Boltzmann equation for Maxwell`s molecules found

968: by \cite{Bobylev88}.

969: However, in a general case, there exist no analytical, not even a twice differentiable

970: transformation which would decouple modes. The well known Grobman-Hartman 

971: theorem \citep{Hartman63,Hartman82} 

972: states only the existence of a continuous transform which decomposes 

973: modes in a neighborhood of the equilibrium.

974: For example, the analytic planar system,

975: $dx/dt=-x$, $dy/dt=-2y+x^2$, is not $C^2$ linearizable. These problems remain of interest

976:  \citep{Chicone00}.

977: Therefore, in particular, it becomes quite ineffective to construct such a transformation in a 

978: form of a series.

979: It is more effective to solve a simpler problem of extraction of a slow invariant manifold

980: \citep{Beyn98}. 

981: 

982: {\it Sensitivity analysis} \citep{Rabitz83,Rabitz87,Lam94}

983: makes it possible to select essential variables and reactions, and to decompose motions into

984: fast  and slow. In a sense, the ILDM method is a development

985: of the sensitivity analysis. Recently, a further step in this direction was done by 

986: \cite{Zhu99}. In this work, the authors use a {\it nonlocal in time criterion of 

987: closeness of solutions} of the full and of the reduced systems of chemical kinetics.

988: They require not just a closeness of derivatives but a true closeness of the dynamics.

989: 

990: Let us be interested in the dynamics of the concentrations of just a few species,

991: ${\rm A}_1,\dots, {\rm A}_{p}$, whereas the rest of the species, ${\rm A}_{p+1},

992: \dots, {\rm A}_{n}$ are used for building the kinetic equation, and for understanding

993: the process. Let $\cc_{\rm goal}$ be the concentration vector with components

994: $c_1,\dots, c_p$, $\cc_{\rm goal}(t)$ be the corresponding components of the 

995: solution to Eq.\ (\ref{reaction}),

996: and $\cc^{\rm red}_{\rm goal}$ be the solution to the simplified model with

997: corresponding initial conditions. 

998: \cite{Zhu99} suggest to minimize the difference between 

999:  $\cc_{\rm goal}(t)$ and  $\cc^{\rm red}_{\rm goal}$ on the

1000: segment $t\in[0,T]$: $\|\cc_{\rm goal}(t)-\cc^{\rm red}_{\rm goal}\|\to\min$.

1001: In the course of the optimization under certain restrictions one

1002: selects the optimal (or appropriate) reduced model.

1003: The sequential quadratic programming method and heuristic rules of 

1004: sorting the reactions, substances etc were used.

1005: In the result, for some stiff systems studied, one avoids typical pitfalls

1006: of the local sensitivity analysis. In simpler situations this method should give 

1007: similar results as the local methods.

1008: 

1009: 

1010: 

1011: \subsection{Thermodynamic criteria for selection of important reactions}

1012: One of the problems addressed by the sensitivity analysis is the selection of the important

1013: and discarding the unimportant reactions. \cite{BYA77}

1014: suggested a simple principle to compare importance of different reactions according

1015: to their contribution to the entropy production (or, which is the same, according to

1016: their contribution to $\dot{G}$). Based on this principle, \cite{Dimitrov82}  described domains

1017: of parameters in which the reaction of hydrogen oxidation, ${\rm H}_2+{\rm O}_2+{\rm M}$,

1018: proceeds due to different mechanisms. For each elementary reaction, he has derived the domain

1019: inside which the contribution of this reaction is essential (nonnegligible).

1020: Due to its simplicity, this entropy production principle is especially well suited

1021: for analysis of complex problems.

1022: In particular, recently, a version of the entropy production principle

1023: was used in the problem of selection of boundary conditions for Grad's moment equations

1024: \citep{Struchtrup98,GKZ02}. For ideal systems (\ref{gfun}), the contribution of the

1025: $s$th reaction to $\dot{G}$ has a particularly simple form:

1026: \begin{equation}

1027: \label{dotGs}

1028: \dot{G}_{s}=-W_s\ln\left(\frac{W_s^+}{W_s^-}\right),\ \dot{G}=\sum_{s=1}^{r}\dot{G}_s.

1029: \end{equation}

1030: For nonideal systems, the corresponding expressions (\ref{HMDD})

1031:  are also not too complicated.

1032: 

1033: 

1034: \section{Outline of the method of invariant manifold}

1035: \label{MIMG}

1036: In many cases, dynamics of the $d$-dimensional system (\ref{reaction})

1037: leads to a manifold of a lower dimension. Intuitively, a typical

1038: phase trajectory behaves as follows: Given the initial state

1039: $\cc(0)$ at $t=0$, and after some period of time, the trajectory comes

1040: close to some low-dimensional manifold $\bOmega$, and after that 

1041: proceeds towards the equilibrium essentially along this manifold.

1042: The goal is to construct this manifold.

1043: 

1044: The starting point of our approach is based on a formulation of

1045: the two main requirements:

1046: 

1047: (i). {\it Dynamic invariance}:  The manifold $\bOmega$

1048: should  be (positively)  invariant  under the dynamics  of the originating system

1049: (\ref{reaction}): If $\cc(0)\in\bOmega$, then $\cc(t)\in\bOmega$ for

1050: each $t>0$.

1051: 

1052: (ii). {\it Thermodynamic consistency of the reduced dynamics}:

1053: Let  {\it some} (not obligatory invariant)

1054: manifold $\bOmega$ is considered as a manifold of

1055: reduced description. We should define a set of linear operators,

1056: $\PP_{\cc}$, labeled by the states $\cc\in\bOmega$, which

1057: project the vectors $\JJ(\cc)$, $\cc\in\bOmega$ onto the

1058: tangent bundle of the manifold $\bOmega$, thereby

1059: generating the induced vector field,

1060: $\PP_{\cc}\JJ(\cc)$, $\cc\in\bOmega$.

1061: This induced vector field on the tangent bundle of the manifold

1062: $\bOmega$ is identified with the reduced dynamics

1063: along the manifold $\bOmega$.

1064: The thermodynamicity requirement for this induced vector field reads

1065: \begin{equation}

1066: \label{thermo}

1067: \langle\bnabla G(\cc),\PP_{\cc}\JJ(\cc)\rangle\leq 0,\mbox{ for\ each\ }\cc\in\bOmega.

1068: \end{equation}

1069: 

1070: In order to meet these requirements, the method of invariant

1071: manifold suggests two complementary procedures:

1072: 

1073: (i). To treat the condition of dynamic invariance as an equation,

1074: and to solve it iteratively by a Newton method.

1075: This procedure is geometric in its nature, and it does not

1076: use the time dependence and small parameters.

1077: 

1078: (ii). Given an approximate manifold of reduced description,

1079: to construct the projector satisfying the condition

1080: (\ref{thermo}) in a way which does not depend on the vector

1081: field $\JJ$.

1082: 

1083: We shall now outline both these procedures starting with the second.

1084: The solution consists, in the first place, in formulating the

1085: {\it thermodynamic condition} which should

1086: be met by the projectors $\PP_{\cc}$:

1087: For each $\cc\in\bOmega$, let us consider the linear functional

1088: \begin{equation}

1089: \label{FUNC}

1090: M^*_{\cc}(\xx)=\langle\bnabla G(\cc),\xx\rangle.

1091: \end{equation}

1092: Then the thermodynamic condition for the projectors reads:

1093: \begin{equation}

1094: \label{therm1}

1095: {\rm ker}\PP_{\cc}\subseteq{\rm ker}M^*_{\cc},\ 

1096: {\rm  for\ each}\ \cc\in\bOmega.

1097: \end{equation}

1098: Here ${\rm ker}\PP_{\cc}$ is the null space of the projector, and

1099: ${\rm ker}M^*_{\cc}$ is the hyperplane orthogonal to the vector

1100: $M^*_{\cc}$.

1101: It has been shown  \citep{GK92,GK94}

1102: that the condition (\ref{therm1}) is

1103: the necessary and sufficient condition to establish the thermodynamic

1104: induce vector field on the given manifold $\bOmega$ for all possible

1105: dissipative vector fields $\JJ$ simultaneously.

1106: 

1107: Let us now turn to the requirement of invariance.

1108: By a definition, the manifold  $\bOmega$  is  invariant

1109: with respect to the vector field $\JJ$  if and only if 

1110: the following equality is true:

1111: \begin{equation}

1112: \label{INVARIANCE}

1113: \left[1-\PP\right]\JJ(\cc)=0,\ {\rm for\ each\ } \cc\in\bOmega.

1114: \end{equation}

1115: In this expression $\PP$ is an {\it arbitrary}

1116: projector on the tangent

1117: bundle of the manifold $\bOmega$. 

1118: It has been suggested to consider the condition (\ref{INVARIANCE}) as an

1119: {\it equation} to be solved iteratively starting with some appropriate initial

1120: manifold.

1121: 

1122: Iterations for the invariance equation (\ref{INVARIANCE})

1123: are considered  in the section \ref{DC}.

1124: The next section presents construction of the thermodynamic projector

1125: using a specific parameterization of manifolds.

1126: 

1127: \section{Thermodynamic projector}

1128: \label{THERMO}

1129: \subsection{Thermodynamic parameterization}

1130: \label{TDP}

1131: In this section, $\bOmega$ denotes a generic $p$--dimensional

1132: manifold. First, it should be mentioned that {\it any}

1133: parameterization of $\bOmega$ generates a certain projector, and

1134: thereby a certain reduced dynamics.

1135: Indeed, let us consider a set of $m$ independent functionals

1136: $M(\cc)=\{M_1(\cc),\dots,M_p(\cc)\}$,

1137: and let us assume that they form a

1138: coordinate system on $\bOmega$ in such a way that

1139: $\bOmega=\cc(M)$, where $\cc(M)$ is a vector function of the parameters

1140: $M_1,\dots,M_p$. Then the projector associated with

1141: this parameterization reads:

1142: \begin{equation}

1143: \label{proj}

1144: \PP_{\cc(M)}\xx=\sum_{i,j=1}^p\frac{\partial\cc(M)}{\partial M_i}

1145: N^{-1}_{ij}(M)

1146: \langle\bnabla M_j\bigm|_{\cc(M)},\xx\rangle,

1147: \end{equation}

1148: where $N^{-1}_{ij}$ is the inverse to the $p\times p$

1149: matrix:

1150: \begin{equation}

1151: \label{NORMALIZATION}

1152: \NN(M)=\|\langle \bnabla M_i,\partial\cc/\partial M_j\rangle\|.

1153: \end{equation}

1154: This somewhat involved notation is intended to stress that the projector

1155: (\ref{proj}) is dictated by the choice of the parameterization.

1156: Subsequently, the induced vector field of the reduced dynamics

1157: is found by applying projectors (\ref{proj}) on the vectors

1158: $\JJ(\cc(M))$, thereby inducing the reduced dynamics in terms

1159: of the parameters $M$ as follows:

1160: \begin{equation}

1161: \label{dyn}

1162: \dot{M}_i=\sum_{j=1}^pN^{-1}_{ij}(M)

1163: \langle\bnabla M_j\bigm|_{\cc(M)},\JJ(\cc(M))\rangle,

1164: \end{equation}

1165: Depending on the choice of the parameterization,

1166: dynamic equations (\ref{dyn}) are (or are not) consistent

1167: with the thermodynamic requirement (\ref{thermo}).

1168: The {\it thermodynamic parameterization} makes use of the condition

1169: (\ref{therm1}) in order to establish the thermodynamic projector.

1170: Specializing to the case (\ref{proj}), let us consider the linear functionals,

1171: \begin{equation}

1172: \label{derivative}

1173: DM_i\bigm|_{\cc(M)}(\xx)=

1174: \langle\bnabla M_i\bigm|_{\cc(M)},\xx\rangle.

1175: \end{equation}

1176: Then the condition (\ref{therm1}) takes the form:

1177: \begin{equation}

1178: \label{therm2}

1179: \bigcap_{i=1}^p{\rm ker}DM_i\bigm|_{\cc(M)}\subseteq{\rm ker}

1180: M^*_{\cc(M)},

1181: \end{equation}

1182: that is, the intersection of null spaces of the functionals (\ref{derivative})

1183: should belong to the null space of the differential of the

1184: Lyapunov function $G$, in each point of the manifold $\bOmega$.

1185: 

1186: In practice, in order to construct the thermodynamic

1187: parameterization, we take the following set of

1188: functionals in each point $\cc$ of the manifold $\bOmega$: 

1189: \begin{eqnarray}

1190: \label{param_thermo}

1191: M_1(\xx)&=&M_{\cc}^*(\xx),\ \cc\in\bOmega\\

1192: M_i(\xx)&=&\langle\mm_i,\xx\rangle,\ i=2,\dots,p

1193: \label{param_other}

1194: \end{eqnarray}

1195: It is required that vectors $\bnabla G(\cc), \mm_2,\dots,\mm_p$

1196: are linearly independent in each state $\cc\in\bOmega$.

1197: Inclusion of the functionals (\ref{FUNC}) as a part of the 

1198: system (\ref{param_thermo}) and (\ref{param_other}) 

1199: implies the thermodynamic condition

1200: (\ref{therm2}). Also, any linear combination of the parameter

1201: set (\ref{param_thermo}), (\ref{param_other})  will meet the thermodynamicity requirement.

1202: 

1203: It is important to notice here that the thermodynamic

1204: condition is satisfied whatsoever the functionals $M_2,\dots,M_p$ are.

1205: This is very convenient for it gives an opportunity to take into account

1206: the conserved quantities correctly.

1207: The manifolds we are going to deal with should be consistent

1208: with the conservation laws (\ref{conser}). While the explicit

1209: characterization of the phase space $\VV$ is a problem on its own,

1210: in practice, it is customary to work in the $n$--dimensional space 

1211: while keeping the constraints (\ref{conser}) explicitly on each step

1212: of the construction. For this technical reason, it is convenient to 

1213: consider manifolds of the dimension $p>l$, where $l$ is the number of conservation 

1214: laws, in the $n$--dimensional space rather than in the phase space

1215: $\VV$.  The thermodynamic parameterization is then concordant also

1216: with the conservation laws if $l$ of the linear functionals

1217: (\ref{param_other}) are identified with the conservation laws.

1218: In the sequel, only projectors consistent

1219: with conservation laws are considered.

1220: 

1221: 

1222: Very frequently, the manifold $\bOmega$ is represented as a 

1223: $p$-parametric family $\cc(a_1,\dots,a_p)$, where

1224: $a_i$ are coordinates on the manifold. The thermodynamic 

1225: {\it re-parameterization} 

1226: suggests a representation of the coordinates $a_i$ in terms of

1227: $M_{\cc}^*, M_2,\dots,M_p$ (\ref{param_thermo}), (\ref{param_other}).

1228: While the explicit construction of these functions may be

1229: a formidable task, we notice that the construction

1230: of the thermodynamic projector of the form (\ref{proj}) and of the

1231: dynamic equations (\ref{dyn}) is relatively easy because only

1232: the derivatives $\partial\cc/\partial M_i$ enter these expressions.

1233: This point was discussed in a detail by  \cite{GK92,GK94}.

1234: 

1235: \subsection{Decomposition of motions: Thermodynamics}

1236: \label{DEC_THERM}

1237: Finally, let us discuss how the thermodynamic projector is related to the

1238: decomposition of motions.

1239: {\it Assuming} that the decomposition of motions near the manifold

1240: $\bOmega$ is true indeed, let us consider states which were initially

1241: close enough to the manifold $\bOmega$. Even without knowing

1242: the details about the evolution of the states towards $\bOmega$,

1243: we know that the Lyapunov function $G$ was decreasing in the

1244: course of this evolution. Let us consider a set of states $\UU_{\cc}$

1245:  which contains all those vectors $\cc'$ that 

1246: have arrived (in other words, have been projected) into the point

1247: $\cc\in\bOmega$. Then we observe that the

1248: state $\cc$ furnishes the minimum of  the function $G$ on the set $\UU_{\cc}$.

1249:  If a state $\cc'\in\UU_{\cc}$, and if it deviates small enough

1250: from the state $\cc$ so that the linear

1251: approximation is valid, then $\cc'$ belongs to the affine hyperplane

1252: \begin{equation}

1253: \label{hyperplane}

1254: \Gamma_{\cc}=\cc+{\rm ker\ }M_{\cc}^*,\ \cc\in\bOmega.

1255: \end{equation}

1256: This hyperplane actually participates in the condition (\ref{therm1}).

1257: The consideration was entitled `thermodynamic' \citep{GK92}

1258: because it describes the states $\cc\in\bOmega$ as points of minimum

1259: of the function $G$ over the corresponding hyperplanes

1260: (\ref{hyperplane}).

1261: 

1262: \section{Corrections}

1263: \label{DC}

1264: \subsection{Preliminary discussion}

1265: The thermodynamic projector is needed to induce the dynamics on a

1266: given manifold in such a way that the dissipation inequality (\ref{thermo})

1267: holds. Coming back to the issue of constructing corrections, we should

1268: stress that the projector participating in the invariance condition

1269: (\ref{INVARIANCE}) is arbitrary. It is convenient to make

1270: use of this point: When Eq.\ (\ref{INVARIANCE}) is solved iteratively, the

1271: projector may be kept non--thermodynamic unless the induced dynamics

1272: is explicitly needed.

1273: 

1274: Let us assume that we have chosen

1275: the initial manifold, $\bOmega_0$, together with the associated

1276: projector $\PP_0$, as the first approximation to the

1277: desired manifold of reduced description. Though the choice

1278: of the initial approximation $\bOmega_0$ depends on the specific

1279: problem, it is often reasonable to consider quasi-equilibrium or

1280: quasi steady-state approximations.

1281: In most cases, the manifold $\bOmega_0$ is not

1282: an invariant manifold. This means that $\bOmega_0$ does not

1283: satisfy the invariance condition

1284: (\ref{INVARIANCE}):

1285: \begin{equation}

1286: \label{DEFECT}

1287: \bDelta_0=[1-\PP_0]\JJ(\cc_0)\ne0,\

1288: {\rm for\ some\ } \cc_0\in\bOmega_0.

1289: \end{equation}

1290: Therefore, we seek a correction $\cc_1=\cc_0+\delta\cc$.

1291: Substituting $\PP=\PP_0$ and $\cc=\cc_0+\delta\cc$ into the

1292: invariance equation (\ref{INVARIANCE}), and after the linearization in

1293: $\delta\cc$, we derive the following linear equation:

1294: \begin{equation}

1295: \label{METHOD}

1296: \left[1-\PP_{0}\right]\left[\JJ(\cc_0)+

1297: \LL_{\cc_0}\delta\cc\right]=0,

1298: \end{equation}

1299: where $\LL_{c_0}$ is the matrix of first derivatives of the

1300: vector function $\JJ$, computed in the state $\cc_0\in\bOmega_0$.

1301: The system of linear algebraic equations (\ref{METHOD}) should be

1302: supplied with the additional condition. 

1303: \begin{equation}

1304: \label{uni_con}

1305: \PP_0\delta\cc=0.

1306: \end{equation}

1307: 

1308: In order to illustrate the nature of the Eq.\ (\ref{METHOD}), let us consider

1309: the case of linear manifolds for linear systems. 

1310: Let a linear evolution equation is given in the finite-dimensional real space: 

1311: $\dot{\cc}=\LL\cc$, where $\LL$ is negatively definite symmetric matrix

1312: with a simple spectrum.

1313: Let us further assume the quadratic Lyapunov function,

1314: $G(\cc)=\langle\cc,\cc\rangle$. The manifolds we consider are lines,

1315: $\vl(a)=a\ee$, where $\ee$ is the unit vector, and $a$ is a scalar.

1316: The invariance equation for such manifolds reads:

1317: $\ee\langle\ee,\LL\ee\rangle-\LL\ee=0$,

1318: and is simply a form of the eigenvalue problem for the operator $\LL$.

1319: Solutions to the latter equation are eigenvectors $\ee_{i}$, 

1320: corresponding to eigenvalues $\lambda_{i}$.

1321: 

1322: Assume that we have chosen a line, $\vl_0=a\ee_0$, defined by the unit

1323: vector $\ee_0$, and that $e_0$ is not an eigenvector of $\LL$.

1324: We seek another line, $\vl_1=a\ee_1$, where $\ee_1$ is another unit

1325: vector, $\ee_1=\yy_1/\|\yy_1\|$, $\yy_1=\ee_0+\delta\yy$. The additional

1326: condition (\ref{uni_con}) now reads: $\langle\delta\yy,\ee_0\rangle=0$.

1327: Then the Eq.\ (\ref{METHOD}) becomes

1328: $[1-\ee_0\langle\ee_0,\cdot\rangle]L[\ee_0+\delta\yy]=0$.

1329: Subject to the additional condition, the

1330: unique solution is as follows: $\ee_0+\delta\yy=

1331: \langle\ee_0,\LL^{-1}\ee_0\rangle^{-1}\LL^{-1}\ee_0$.

1332: Rewriting the latter expression in the eigen--basis of $\LL$,

1333: we have: $\ee_0+\delta\yy\propto

1334: \sum_{i}\lambda_i^{-1}\ee_i\langle\ee_i,\ee_0\rangle$.

1335: The leading term in this sum corresponds to the 

1336: eigenvalue with the minimal absolute value.

1337: The example indicates that 

1338: the  method of linearization (\ref{METHOD}) seeks  

1339: the direction of the {\it slowest relaxation}.

1340: For this reason, the method (\ref{METHOD}) can be

1341: recognized as the basis of an iterative method for 

1342: constructing the manifolds of slow motions. 

1343: 

1344: For the nonlinear systems, the matrix $\LL_{c_0}$ in the Eq.\ (\ref{METHOD}) 

1345: depends nontrivially on $\cc_0$. In this case

1346: the system (\ref{METHOD}) requires a further specification

1347: which will be done now.

1348: 

1349: \subsection{Symmetric linearization}

1350: \label{SA}

1351: The invariance condition

1352: (\ref{INVARIANCE}) supports a lot of invariant manifolds, and not all of

1353: them are relevant to the reduced description

1354: (for example, any individual trajectory is itself an invariant manifold).

1355: This should be carefully taken into

1356: account when deriving a relevant equation for the correction in

1357: the states of the initial manifold $\bOmega_0$ which are located far from

1358: equilibrium. This point concerns the procedure of the linearization of

1359: the vector field $\JJ$, appearing in the

1360: equation (\ref{METHOD}).

1361: We shall return to the explicit form of the Marcelin--De Donder kinetic

1362: function (\ref{MDD}). Let $\cc$ is an arbitrary fixed element of

1363: the phase space. The linearization of the vector function $\JJ$

1364: (\ref{KINETIC MDD}) about $\cc$ may be written

1365: $\JJ(\cc+\delta\cc)\approx\JJ(\cc)+\LL_{\cc}\delta\cc$

1366: where the linear operator $\LL_{\cc}$ acts as follows:

1367: \begin{equation}

1368: \label{LINEAR}

1369: \LL_{\cc}\xx=\sum_{s=1}^{r}

1370: \bgamma_s[W^{+}_s(\cc)

1371: \langle\balpha_s,\HH_{\cc}\xx

1372: \rangle-

1373: W^{-}_s(\cc)\langle\bbeta_s,\HH_{\cc}

1374: \xx\rangle].

1375: \end{equation}

1376: Here $\HH_{\cc}$ is the matrix of second derivatives of the

1377: function $G$ in the state $\cc$ [see Eq.\ (\ref{MATRIX})].

1378: The matrix $\LL_{\cc}$ in the Eq.\ (\ref{LINEAR}) can be decomposed

1379: as follows:

1380: \begin{equation}

1381: \label{DECOMPOSITION}

1382: \LL_{\cc}=\LL'_{\cc}+

1383: \LL''_{\cc}.

1384: \end{equation}

1385: Matrices $\LL'_{\cc}$ and $\LL''_{\cc}$ act as follows:

1386: \begin{eqnarray}

1387: \label{SYMMETRIC}

1388: \LL'_{\cc}\xx&=&-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{s=1}^{r}

1389: [W^{+}_s(\cc)+W^{-}_s(\cc)]

1390: \bgamma_s\langle\bgamma_s,

1391: \HH_{\cc}\xx\rangle,\\

1392: \label{NONSYMMETRIC}

1393: \LL''_{\cc}\xx&=&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{s=1}^{r}

1394: [W^{+}_s(\cc)-W^{-}_s(\cc)]\bgamma_s

1395: \langle\balpha_s+\bbeta_s,

1396: \HH_{\cc}\xx\rangle.

1397: \end{eqnarray}

1398: Some features of this decomposition are best seen when we

1399: use the thermodynamic scalar product (\ref{ESP}):

1400: The following properties of the matrix $\LL'_{\cc}$ are verified

1401: immediately:

1402: 

1403: 

1404: (i) The matrix $\LL'_{\cc}$ is symmetric in the scalar product

1405: (\ref{ESP}):

1406: \begin{equation}

1407: \label{sym}

1408: \langle\!\langle\xx,\LL'_{\cc}\yy\rangle\!\rangle=

1409: \langle\!\langle\yy,\LL'_{\cc}\xx\rangle\!\rangle.

1410: \end{equation}

1411: (ii) The matrix $\LL'_{\cc}$ is nonpositive definite in the scalar product

1412: (\ref{ESP}):

1413: \begin{equation}

1414: \label{pos}

1415: \langle\!\langle\xx,\LL'_{\cc}\xx\rangle\!\rangle\le 0.

1416: \end{equation}

1417: (iii) The null space of the matrix $\LL'_{\cc}$ 

1418: is the linear envelope of the vectors $\HH^{-1}_{\cc}\bb_i$ 

1419: representing the complete system of conservation laws:

1420: \begin{equation}

1421: \label{bal}

1422: {\rm ker}\LL'_{\cc}={\rm Lin}\{\HH^{-1}_{\cc}\bb_i, i=1,\dots,l\}

1423: \end{equation}

1424: (iv)  If $\cc=\cc^{\rm eq}$, then 

1425: $W_s^+(\cc^{\rm eq})=W_s^-(\cc^{\rm eq})$, 

1426: and 

1427: \begin{equation}

1428: \label{prop4}

1429: \LL'_{\cc^{\rm eq}}=\LL_{\cc^{\rm eq}}.

1430: \end{equation}

1431: 

1432: 

1433: Thus, the decomposition Eq.\ (\ref{DECOMPOSITION}) splits the

1434: matrix $\LL_{\cc}$ in two parts: one part, Eq.\ (\ref{SYMMETRIC})

1435: is symmetric and nonpositive

1436: definite, while the other part, Eq.\ (\ref{NONSYMMETRIC}),

1437: vanishes in the equilibrium. The

1438: decomposition Eq.\ (\ref{DECOMPOSITION}) explicitly takes into account

1439: the Marcelin-De Donder form of the kinetic function.

1440: For other dissipative systems, the decomposition

1441: (\ref{DECOMPOSITION}) is possible as soon as 

1442: the relevant kinetic operator is written in a gain--loss form [for instance,

1443: this is straightforward for the Boltzmann collision operator].

1444: 

1445: In the sequel, we shall make use of the properties of the operator

1446: $\LL'_{\cc}$ (\ref{SYMMETRIC}) for constructing the dynamic correction

1447: by extending the picture of the decomposition of motions.

1448: 

1449: \subsection{Decomposition of motions: Kinetics}

1450: \label{DEC_KIN}

1451: The assumption about the existence of the decomposition of motions

1452: near the manifold of reduced description $\bOmega$ has led to the

1453: {\it thermodynamic} specifications of the states $\cc\in\bOmega$.

1454: This was accomplished in the section \ref{DEC_THERM}, where the

1455: thermodynamic projector was backed by an appropriate

1456: variational formulation, and this helped us to establish

1457: the induced dynamics consistent with the dissipation property.

1458: Another important feature of the decomposition of motions is that the

1459: states $\cc\in\bOmega$ can be specified {\it kinetically}.

1460: Indeed, let us do it again as if the decomposition of motions

1461: were valid in the neighborhood of the manifold $\bOmega$, and let us

1462:  `freeze' the slow dynamics along the $\bOmega$, focusing on the 

1463: fast process of relaxation

1464: towards a state $\cc\in\bOmega$. From the thermodynamic perspective,

1465: fast motions take place on the affine hyperplane 

1466: $\cc+\delta\cc\in\Gamma_{\cc_0}$, where $\Gamma_{\cc_0}$ is given by Eq.\ (\ref{hyperplane}).

1467: From the kinetic perspective, fast motions on this hyperplane should be treated as

1468: a  {\it relaxation} equation,

1469: equipped with the quadratic Lyapunov function

1470: $\delta G=\langle\!\langle\delta\cc,\delta\cc\rangle\!\rangle$,

1471: Futhermore, we require that the linear operator of this evolution equation

1472:  should respect Onsager's symmetry

1473: requirements (selfadjointness with respect to the entropic scalar product).

1474: This latter crucial requirement describes fast motions under

1475: the frozen slow evolution in the similar way, as {\it all} the  motions near the equilibrium.

1476: 

1477: 

1478: 

1479: 

1480: Let us consider now the manifold $\bOmega_0$ which is not the invariant

1481: manifold of the reduced description but, by our assumption, is located

1482: close to it. Consider a state $\cc_0\in\bOmega_0$, and the states

1483: $\cc_0+\delta\cc$ close to it. Further, let us consider an equation

1484: \begin{equation}

1485: \label{RELAX_SYMM}

1486: \dot{\delta\cc}=\LL'_{\cc_0}\delta\cc.

1487: \end{equation}

1488: Due to the properties of the operator $\LL'_{\cc_0}$ (\ref{SYMMETRIC}),

1489: this equation can be regarded as a model of the

1490: assumed true relaxation equation near the true manifold of the reduced

1491: description. For this reason, we shall use the symmetric operator

1492: $\LL'_{\cc}$ (\ref{SYMMETRIC}) {\it instead} of the linear operator $\LL_{\cc}$

1493:  when constructing the corrections.

1494: 

1495: \subsection{Symmetric iteration}

1496: Let the manifold $\bOmega_0$ and the corresponding projector

1497: $\PP_0$ are the initial approximation to the invariant

1498: manifold of the reduced description.

1499: The dynamic correction $\cc_1=\cc_0+\delta\cc$

1500: is found upon solving the following system of linear algebraic

1501: equations:

1502: \begin{equation}

1503: \label{ITERATION}

1504: \left[1-\PP_0\right]\left[\JJ(\cc_0) +

1505: \LL'_{\cc_0}\delta\cc\right]=0,\

1506: \PP_0\delta\cc=0.

1507: \end{equation}

1508: Here $\LL'_{\cc_0}$ is the matrix (\ref{SYMMETRIC})

1509: taken in the states on the manifold $\bOmega_0$. An important

1510: technical point here is that the linear system

1511: (\ref{ITERATION}) always

1512: has the unique solution for any choice of the manifold $\bOmega$.

1513: This point is crucial since it guarantees the opportunity of carrying

1514: out the correction process for arbitrary number of steps.

1515: 

1516: \section{The method of invariant manifold}

1517: \label{MIM}

1518: We shall now combine together the two procedures discussed above.

1519: The resulting method of invariant manifold intends to seek iteratively

1520: the reduced description, starting with an initial approximation.

1521: 

1522: (i). {\it Initialization}. In order to start the procedure, it is

1523: required to choose the initial  manifold $\bOmega_0$,

1524: and to derive corresponding thermodynamic projector $\PP_0$.

1525: In the majority of cases, initial manifolds are available in two

1526: different ways. The first case are the  quasi-equilibrium manifolds described

1527: in the section \ref{partial_eq}.

1528: The macroscopic parameters are $M_i=c_i=\langle\mm_i,\cc\rangle$, 

1529: where $\mm_i$ is the unit vector corresponding to the specie $A_i$. 

1530: The quasi-equilibrium manifold,  $\cc_0(M_1,\dots,M_k,B_1,\dots,B_l)$,

1531: compatible with the conservation laws, is the solution to the variational

1532: problem:

1533: \begin{eqnarray}

1534: \label{QE}

1535: G\to{\rm min\ }, && \langle\mm_i,\cc\rangle=c_i, 

1536: \ i=1,\dots,k,\\\nonumber

1537: &&\langle\bb_j,\cc\rangle=B_j, \ j=1,\dots,l .

1538: \end{eqnarray}

1539: In the case of quasi--equilibrium approximation, the corresponding

1540: thermodynamic projector can be written most straightforwardly in

1541: terms of the variables $M_i$:

1542: \begin{equation}

1543: \label{PROJ-QE}

1544: \PP_0\xx=\sum_{i=1}^{k}\frac{\partial\cc_0}{\partial c_i}

1545: \langle\mm_i,\xx\rangle+

1546: \sum_{i=1}^{l}\frac{\partial\cc_0}{\partial B_i}

1547: \langle\bb_i,\xx\rangle.

1548: \end{equation}

1549: For quasi-equilibrium manifolds, a reparameterization with the set

1550: (\ref{param_thermo}), (\ref{param_other}) is {\it not} necessary (\cite{GK92}; \cite{GK94}).

1551: 

1552: The second source of initial approximations are  quasi-stationary

1553: manifolds (section \ref{QSS}).  Unlike

1554: the quasi-equilibrium case, the quasi-stationary manifolds must be

1555: reparameterized in order to construct the thermodynamic projector.

1556: 

1557: 

1558: (ii). {\it Corrections.} Iterations are organized in accord with the rule:

1559: If $\cc_m$ is the $m$th approximation to the invariant manifold, then

1560: the correction $\cc_{m+1}=\cc_{m}+\delta\cc$ is found from the linear

1561: algebraic equations,

1562: \begin{eqnarray}

1563: \label{corr_eq}

1564: [1-\PP_{m}](\JJ(\cc_m)+\LL'_{\cc_m}\delta\cc)&=&0,\\

1565: \PP_m\delta\cc&=&0.\label{corr_cond}

1566: \end{eqnarray}

1567: Here $\LL'_{\cc_m}$ is the symmetric matrix (\ref{SYMMETRIC})

1568: evaluated at the $m$th approximation. The  projector

1569: $\PP_{m}$ is not obligatory thermodynamic at that step, and it is taken as follows:

1570: \begin{equation}

1571: \label{proj_nonthermo}

1572: \PP_m\xx=\sum_{i=1}^{k}\frac{\partial\cc_m}{\partial c_i}

1573: \langle\mm_i,\xx\rangle+

1574: \sum_{i=1}^{l}\frac{\partial\cc_m}{\partial B_i}

1575: \langle\bb_i,\xx\rangle.

1576: \end{equation}

1577: (iii). {\it Dynamics.} Dynamics on the $m$th manifold is obtained with

1578: the thermodynamic re-parameterization.

1579: 

1580: In the next section we shall illustrate how this all works.

1581: 

1582: 

1583: 

1584: \section{Illustration: Two-step catalytic reaction}

1585: \label{EX}

1586: Here we consider a two-step four-component reaction with one

1587: catalyst $A_2$:

1588: \begin{equation}

1589: \label{mech_ex}

1590: A_1+A_2\rightleftharpoons\ A_3\rightleftharpoons A_2 + A_4.

1591: \end{equation}

1592: We assume the Lyapunov function of the form (\ref{gfun}),

1593: $G=\sum_{i=1}^{4}c_i[\ln(c_i/c_i^{\rm eq})-1]$.

1594: The kinetic equation for the four--component vector of concentrations,

1595: $\cc=(c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4)$, has the form

1596: \begin{equation}

1597: \label{1exequ}

1598: \dot{\cc}=\bgamma_1W_1+\bgamma_2W_2.

1599: \end{equation}

1600: Here $\bgamma_{1,2}$ are stoichiometric vectors,

1601: \begin{equation}

1602: \label{stochio_ex}

1603: \bgamma_1=(-1,-1,1,0),\  \bgamma_2=(0,1,-1,1),

1604: \end{equation}

1605: while functions $W_{1,2}$ are reaction rates:

1606: \begin{equation}

1607: \label{rates_ex}

1608: W_1=k^+_1c_1c_2-k^-_1c_3,\ 

1609: W_2=k^+_2c_3- k^-_2c_2 c_4.

1610: \end{equation}

1611: Here $k_{1,2}^{\pm}$ are reaction rate constants. 

1612: The system under consideration has two conservation laws,

1613: \begin{equation}

1614: \label{cons_ex}

1615: c_1+c_3+c_4=B_1,\ c_2 +c_3=B_2,

1616: \end{equation}

1617: or $\langle\bb_{1,2},\cc\rangle=B_{1,2}$, where

1618: $\bb_1=(1,0,1,1)$ and $\bb_2=(0,1,1,0)$. The nonlinear system

1619: (\ref{1exequ}) is effectively two-dimensional, and we consider a

1620: one-dimensional reduced description. 

1621: 

1622: We have chosen the concentration of the specie

1623: $A_1$ as the variable of reduced description:

1624: $M=c_1$, and 

1625: $c_1=\langle \mm,\cc\rangle$, where $\mm=(1,0,0,0)$.

1626: The initial manifold $\cc_0(M)$ was taken as the quasi-equilibrium

1627: approximation, i.e. the vector function $\cc_0$ is the solution to

1628: the problem:

1629: \begin{equation}

1630: \label{qe}

1631: G\to{\rm min}\ {\rm for}\

1632: \langle\mm,\cc\rangle=c_1,\ \langle\bb_1,\cc\rangle=B_1,\ \langle\bb_2,\cc\rangle=B_2.

1633: \end{equation}

1634: The solution to the problem (\ref{qe}) reads:

1635: \begin{eqnarray}

1636: \label{1ex1}

1637: c_{01}&=&c_1,\\\nonumber

1638: c_{02}&=&B_2-\phi(c_1), \\\nonumber

1639: c_{03}&=&\phi(c_1),\\\nonumber

1640: c_{04}&=&B_1-c_1-\phi(c_1),\\\nonumber

1641: \phi(M)&=&A(c_1)-\sqrt{A^2(c_1)-B_2(B_1-c_1)},\\\nonumber

1642: A(c_1)&=&\frac{B_2(B_1-c^{\rm eq}_1)+c_3^{\rm eq}(c_1^{\rm eq}+

1643: c_3^{\rm eq}-c_1)}{2c_3^{\rm eq}} .

1644: \end{eqnarray}

1645: The thermodynamic projector associated with the manifold

1646: (\ref{1ex1}) reads:

1647: \begin{equation}

1648: \label{proj_0}

1649: \PP_0\xx=\frac{\partial\cc_0}{\partial c_1}\langle\mm,\xx\rangle

1650: +\frac{\partial\cc_0}{\partial B_1}\langle\bb_1,\xx\rangle+

1651: \frac{\partial\cc_0}{\partial B_2}\langle\bb_2,\xx\rangle.

1652: \end{equation}

1653: Computing

1654: $\bDelta_0=[1-\PP_0]\JJ(\cc_0)$

1655: we find that the inequality (\ref{DEFECT}) takes place, and thus

1656: the manifold $\cc_0$ is not invariant. The first correction, $\cc_1=\cc_0+\delta\cc$,

1657: is found from the linear algebraic system (\ref{corr_eq})

1658: \begin{eqnarray}

1659: \label{LIN_SYSTEM}

1660: (1-\PP_0)\LL'_{0}\delta\cc&=&-[1-\PP_0]\JJ(\cc_0),\\\nonumber

1661: \delta c_1&=&0 \nonumber \\

1662: \delta c_1+\delta c_3+\delta c_4&=&0 \nonumber \\

1663: \delta c_3+\delta c_2&=&0,

1664: \label{correction1}

1665: \end{eqnarray}

1666: where the symmetric $4\times 4$ matrix $\LL'_{0}$ has the form

1667: (we write $0$ instead of $\cc_0$ in the subscript in order to simplify

1668: notations):

1669: \begin{equation}

1670: \label{SL}

1671: L'_{0, kl}=-\gamma_{1k}

1672: \frac{W_1^+(\cc_0)+W_1^-(\cc_0)}{2}

1673: \frac{\gamma_{1l}}{c_{0l}}

1674: -

1675: \gamma_{2k}

1676: \frac{W_2^+(\cc_0)+W_2^-(\cc_0)}{2}

1677: \frac{\gamma_{2l}}{c_{0l}}

1678: \end{equation}

1679: The explicit solution $\cc_1(c_1,B_1,B_2)$ to the linear system

1680: (\ref{LIN_SYSTEM}) is easily

1681: found, and we do not reproduce it here. 

1682: The process was iterated. On the $k+1$ iteration, the following projector

1683: $\PP_{k}$ was used:

1684: \begin{equation}

1685: \label{proj_k}

1686: \PP_k\xx=\frac{\partial\cc_k}{\partial c_1}\langle\mm,\xx\rangle+

1687: \frac{\partial\cc_k}{\partial B_1}\langle\bb_1,\xx\rangle+

1688: \frac{\partial\cc_k}{\partial B_2}\langle\bb_2,\xx\rangle.

1689: \end{equation}

1690: Notice that projector $\PP_k$ (\ref{proj_k}) is the thermodynamic

1691: projector only if $k=0$. As we have already mentioned it above,

1692: in the process of finding the corrections to the manifold, 

1693: the non-thermodynamic projectors are allowed.

1694: The linear equation at the $k+1$ iteration is thus

1695: obtained by replacing $\cc_0$, $\PP_0$, and $\LL'_0$ with

1696: $\cc_k$, $\PP_k$, and $\LL'_k$ in all the entries of the Eqs.\ 

1697: (\ref{LIN_SYSTEM}) and (\ref{SL}).

1698: 

1699: Once the manifold $\cc_k$ was obtained on the $k$th iteration,

1700: we derived the corresponding dynamics by introducing the thermodynamic

1701: parameterization (and the corresponding thermodynamic projector)

1702: with the help of the function (\ref{param_thermo}).

1703: The resulting dynamic equation for the variable $c_1$

1704: in the $k$th approximation has the form:

1705: \begin{equation}

1706: \label{1ex3}

1707: \langle\bnabla G\bigm|_{\cc_k},\partial\cc_k/\partial c_1\rangle\dot{c_1}=

1708: \langle\bnabla G\bigm|_{\cc_k},\JJ(\cc_k)\rangle.

1709: \end{equation}

1710: Here $[\bnabla G\bigm|_{\cc_k}]_i=\ln[c_{ki}/ c^{\rm eq}_i]$.

1711: 

1712: Analytic results were compared with the results of the numerical

1713: integration. The following set of parameters was used:

1714: \begin{eqnarray*}

1715: k^+_1=1.0,\ k^-_1=0.5,\  k^+_2=0.4 ,\ k^-_2=1.0;\\

1716: c_1^{\rm eq}=0.5,\ c_2^{\rm eq}=0.1,\ c_3^{\rm eq}=0.1,\ c_4^{\rm eq}=0.4,\\

1717: B_1=1.0    ,\ \ B_2=0.2   .

1718: \end{eqnarray*}

1719: Direct numerical integration of the system has demonstrated

1720: that the manifold $c_3= c^{\rm eq}_3$ in the plane $(c_1,c_3)$

1721: attracts all individual trajectories. Thus, the reduced description in this

1722: example should extract this manifold.

1723: 

1724: Fig.\ \ref{Fig1}  demonstrates the quasi--equilibrium manifold

1725: (\ref{1ex1}) and first two corrections found analytically. It is apparent that

1726: while the initial quasi-equilibrium

1727: approximation is in a poor agreement with the reduced description, the

1728: corrections {\it rapidly} improve the situation. This confirms our expectation

1729: of an advantage of using iteration methods in comparison to methods

1730: based on a small parameter expansions.

1731: 

1732: 

1733: 

1734: 

1735: 

1736: \section{Method of invariant manifold without a priori parameterization}

1737: \label{PARAMETERIZATION}

1738: Formally, the method of invariant manifold does not require a global parameterization of the 

1739: manifolds. However, in most of the cases, one makes use of a priori defined 

1740: ``macroscopic'' variables

1741: $M$. This is motivated by the choice of quasi-equilibrium initial approximations.

1742: 

1743: Let a manifold $\bOmega$ be defined in the phase space of the system, its tangent

1744: space in the point $\cc$  be $T_{\cc}\bOmega$. How to define the projector

1745: of the whole concentrations space onto $T_{\cc}\bOmega$ without using any 

1746: a priori parameterization of $\bOmega$? 

1747: 

1748: The basis of the answer to this question is the condition of thermodynamicity 

1749: (\ref{therm1}). Let us denote $E$ as the concentration space, and consider the

1750: problem of the choice of the projector in the quadratic approximation

1751: to the thermodynamic potential $G$:

1752: 

1753: \begin{equation}

1754: G_{\rm q}=\langle \bg,\HH_{\cc}\Delta\cc\rangle

1755: +\frac{1}{2}\langle\Delta\cc,\HH_{\cc}\Delta\cc\rangle

1756: =\langle\!\langle\bg,\Delta\cc\rangle\!\rangle+

1757: \frac{1}{2}\langle\!\langle\Delta\cc,\Delta\cc\rangle\!\rangle,

1758: \label{Gquadratic}

1759: \end{equation}

1760: where $\HH_{\cc}$ is the matrix of the second-order derivatives of $G$ (\ref{MATRIX}),

1761: $\bg=\HH^{-1}_{\cc}\bnabla G$, $\Delta\cc$ is the deviation of the concentration

1762: vector from the expansion point. 

1763: 

1764: Let a linear subspace $T$ be given in the concentrations space $E$.

1765: {\it Problem:} For every $\Delta\cc+T$, and for every $\bg\in E$, define  a subspace

1766: $L_{\Delta\cc}$ such that:

1767: (i) $L_{\Delta\cc}$ is a complement of $T$ in $E$: 

1768: \[L_{\Delta\cc}+T=E,\ L_{\Delta\cc}\cap T=\{\bZERO\}.\]

1769: (ii) $\Delta\cc$ is the point of minimum of

1770: $G_{\rm q}$ on $L_{\Delta\cc}+\Delta\cc$:

1771: \begin{equation}

1772: \label{minQ}

1773: \Delta\cc=\arg\min_{\xx-\Delta\cc\in L_{\Delta\cc}}G_{\rm q}(\xx).

1774: \end{equation}

1775: Besides (i) and (ii), we also impose the requirement of

1776: a {\it maximal smoothness} (analyticity) on $L_{\Delta\cc}$ as a function of

1777: $\bg$ and $\Delta\cc$. Requirement (\ref{minQ}) implies that $\Delta\cc$ is the quasi-equilibrium

1778: point for the given $L_{\Delta\cc}$, while the problem in a whole is the

1779: {\it inverse} quasi-equilibrium problem: We construct $L_{\Delta\cc}$ such that

1780: $T$ will be the quasi-equilibrium manifold. Then

1781: subspaces $L_{\Delta\cc}$ will actually be the kernels of the quasi-equilibrium projector.

1782: 

1783: Let $\ff_1,\dots,\ff_k$ be the orthonormalized with respect to 

1784: $\langle\!\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle\!\rangle$ scalar product basis of $T$,

1785: vector $\hh$ be orthogonal to $T$, $\langle\!\langle\hh,\hh\rangle\!\rangle=1$,

1786: $\bg=\alpha\ff_1+\beta\hh$. Condition (\ref{minQ})

1787: implies that the vector $\bnabla G$ is orthogonal to

1788: $L_{\Delta\cc}$ in the point $\Delta\cc$.

1789: 

1790: Let us first consider the case $\beta=0$. The requirement of analyticity

1791: of $L_{\Delta\cc}$ as the function of $\alpha$ and $\Delta\cc$ implies

1792: $L_{\Delta\cc}=L_{\bZERO}+o(1)$, where

1793: $L_{\bZERO}=T^{\perp}$ is the orthogonal completement of $T$ with respect

1794: to scalar product $\langle\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle\rangle$.

1795: The constant solution, $L_{\Delta\cc}\equiv L_{\bZERO}$  also

1796: satisfies (\ref{minQ}). Let us fix $\alpha\ne0$, and extend this latter solution

1797: to $\beta\ne0$. With this, we obtain a basis, $\bl_1,\dots,\bl_{n-k}$.

1798: Here is the simplest construction of this basis:

1799: \begin{equation}

1800: \label{ort1}

1801: \bl_1=\frac{\beta\ff_1-(\alpha+\Delta c_1)\hh}{(\beta^2+(\alpha+\Delta c_1)^2)^{1/2}},

1802: \end{equation}

1803: where $\Delta c_1=\langle\langle\Delta\cc,\ff_1\rangle\rangle$

1804: is the first component in the expansion, $\Delta\cc=\sum_i\Delta c_i\ff_i$.

1805: The rest of the basis elements, $\bl_2,\dots,\bl_{n-k}$ form

1806: the orthogonal completement of $T\oplus(\hh)$ with respect to scalar

1807: product  $\langle\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle\rangle$, $(\hh)$ is the line spanned by

1808: $\hh$. 

1809: 

1810: Dependence $L_{\Delta\cc}$ (\ref{ort1}) on $\Delta\cc$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$

1811: is singular: At $\alpha+\Delta c_1$, vector $\bl_1\in T$, and then  $L_{\Delta\cc}$

1812: is not the completement of $T$ in $E$ anymore.

1813: For $\alpha\ne0$, dependence $L_{\Delta\cc}$ gives one of the solutions to the inverse 

1814: quasi-equilibrium problem in the neighborhood of zero in $T$. We are interested only in the limit,

1815: \begin{equation}

1816: \label{lim1}

1817: \lim_{\Delta\cc\to\bZERO}L_{\Delta\cc}={\rm Lin}\left\{

1818: \frac{\beta\ff_1-\alpha\hh}{\sqrt{\alpha^2+\beta^2}},\bl_2,\dots,\bl_{n-k}\right\}.

1819: \end{equation}

1820: 

1821: Finally, let us define now the projector $\PP_{\cc}$ of the space $E$ onto $T_{\cc}\bOmega$.

1822: If $\HH^{-1}_{\cc}\bnabla G\in T_{\cc}\bOmega$,

1823: then $\PP_{\cc}$ is the orthogonal projector with respect

1824: to the scalar product

1825:  $\langle\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle\rangle$:

1826: 

1827: \begin{equation}

1828: \PP_{\cc}\zz=\sum_{i=1}^k\ff_i\langle\langle \ff_i,\zz\rangle\rangle.

1829: \end{equation}

1830: If $\HH^{-1}_{\cc}\bnabla G \notin T_{\cc}\bOmega$, then, according to

1831: Eq.\ (\ref{lim1}),

1832: \begin{equation}

1833: \label{result_projector}

1834: \PP_{\cc}\zz=\frac{\langle\langle \ff_1,\zz\rangle\rangle

1835: -\langle\langle \bl_1,\zz\rangle\rangle

1836: \langle\langle \ff_1,\bl_1\rangle\rangle}

1837: {1-\langle\langle \ff_1,\bl_1\rangle\rangle^2}\ff_1+

1838: \sum_{i=2}^k\ff_i\langle\langle \ff_i,\zz\rangle\rangle,

1839: \end{equation}

1840: where 

1841: $\{\ff_1,\dots,\ff_k\}$ is the orthonormal with respect to

1842: $\langle\langle\cdot,\cdot \rangle\rangle$ basis of $T_{\cc}\bOmega$,

1843: $\hh$ is orthogonal to $T$, $\langle\langle \hh,\hh\rangle\rangle=1$,

1844: $\HH^{-1}_{\cc}\bnabla G=\alpha\ff_1+\beta\hh$, 

1845: $\bl_1=(\beta\ff_1-\alpha\hh)/\sqrt{\alpha^2+\beta^2}$,

1846: $\langle\langle \ff_1,\bl_1\rangle\rangle=\beta/\sqrt{\alpha^2+\beta^2}$.

1847: 

1848: Thus, for solving the invariance equation iteratively, one needs only projector $\PP_{\cc}$

1849: (\ref{result_projector}), and one does not need a priori parameterization of $\bOmega$

1850: anymore.

1851: 

1852: 

1853: \section{Method of invariant grids}

1854: \label{grid}

1855: 

1856: Grid-based approximations of manifolds are attractive

1857: from the computational perspective. Since no a priori parameterization

1858: is required in the method of invariant manifold, in this section

1859: we develop its grid-based realization.

1860: Let us consider a regular grid $Q$ in $R^k$, and its

1861: mapping $F$ into the concentrations space $E$.

1862: It makes sense to consider only

1863: $F$ which map a finite part of the grid into

1864: the phase space $V$. This part of the map is termed {\it essential}.

1865: Extension of the map $F$ onto the rest of the nodes is done by a

1866: simple (for example, linear) extrapolation of the essential part

1867: (in practice, one needs to extrapolate only onto the next

1868: neighbors of the essential nodes). 

1869: 

1870: 

1871: Let operators of grid differentiation $D_i$ 

1872: where be defined for functions on the grid, where $i=1,\dots,k$

1873: label grid coordinates $x_i$. 

1874: With this, the tangent space to the image of the grid in the

1875: point $\cc(x)=F(x)$ is defined for each node of the grid $x$:

1876: \begin{eqnarray}

1877: T_x={\rm Lin}\{\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_k\},\nonumber\\

1878: \varphi_i=D_i\cc(x)=(D_ic_1(x),\dots,D_ic_n(x)).

1879: \end{eqnarray}

1880: The grid is termed invariant if, for each essential node,

1881: \[ \JJ(\cc(x))\in T_x.\]

1882: For the essential nodes, we write down the invariance equation

1883: with the projector, $P_{\cc(x)}: E\to T_x$:

1884: This equation is solved using the Newton method as it was described

1885: above in the section \ref{MIM}. A good initial approximation

1886: is a linear map of the grid on the affine manifold corresponding 

1887: to slow relaxation in the vicinity of the equilibrium.

1888: It is convenient to take this map isometric with respect

1889: to the metrics generated by the entropic scalar product

1890: in the equilibrium.

1891: 

1892: If the vector field of the reduced model, 

1893: $\dot{\cc}=\PP_{\cc(x)}\JJ(\cc(x))$,

1894: is defined on the nodes $F(x)$, then one can define the

1895: dynamics $\dot{x}_i$ on the nodes. In order to do this,

1896: we expand $\dot{\cc}$ over $\varphi_i$: 

1897: $\dot{\cc}=\sum_{i=1}^ka_i\varphi_i$.

1898: The dynamics on the nodes is then defined by equations, 

1899: $\dot{x}_i=a_i$.

1900: Using interpolation, we can define the vector field

1901: $\dot{x}$ within the essential cells of the grid (those cells for

1902: which the all the nodes are essential). The system of equations thus

1903: obtained models the dynamics on the invariant manifold.

1904: 

1905: The essence of this construction is that, by solving a set

1906: of uncomplicated linear equations arising from linearization

1907: of the invariance equations on the nodes one gets a reliable

1908: numerical scheme for constructing invariant manifolds. 

1909: The use of the grid differentiation rather than a differentiable

1910: approximation to the manifold makes the scheme suited for

1911: parallel realizations. We stress it once again that

1912: such realizations are only possible if no a priori global

1913: parameterization of manifolds is required. 

1914: Further refinements of the scheme,

1915: taking into account the process of moving the inessential nodes

1916: into the phase space, and the opposite process of essential

1917: nodes leaving the phase space can be done based in the same way

1918: as for grid-based data analysis \citep{GR99,GZ01}.

1919: 

1920: 

1921: 

1922: 

1923: \section{Method of invariant manifold for open systems}

1924: \label{open}

1925: One of the problems to be focused on when studying closed

1926: systems is to prepare extensions of the result for

1927: open or driven by flows systems.

1928: External flows are usually taken into account

1929: by addidinal terms in the kinetic equations (\ref{reaction}):

1930: \begin{equation}

1931: \label{external}

1932: \dot{\cc}=\JJ(\cc)+\bPi.

1933: \end{equation}

1934: {\it Zero-order approximation} assumes that the flow does

1935: not change the invariant manifold.

1936: Equations of the reduced dynamics, however, do change:

1937: Instead of $\JJ(\cc(M))$ we substitute

1938: $\JJ(\cc(M))+\bPi$ into Eq.\ (\ref{dyn}):

1939: \begin{equation}

1940: \label{zero}

1941: \dot{M}_i=\sum_{j=1}^pN^{-1}_{ij}\langle \bnabla M_j\big|_{\cc(M)},

1942: \JJ(\cc(M))+\bPi\rangle.

1943: \end{equation}

1944: Zero-order approximation assumes that the fast dynamics in the

1945: closed system strongly couples the variables $\cc$, so that

1946: flows cannot influence this coupling.

1947: 

1948: {\it First-order approximation} takes into account the shift

1949: of the invariant manifold by $\delta\cc$. Equations for Newton's iterations have

1950: the same form (\ref{ITERATION}) but instead of the vector field

1951: $\JJ$ they take into account the presence of the flow:

1952: \begin{equation}

1953: \label{one}

1954: [1-\PP_{\cc}](\bPi+\LL'_{\cc}\delta\cc)=0,\ \PP_{\cc}\delta\cc=0,

1955: \end{equation}

1956: where projector $\PP_{\cc}$ corresponds to the unperturbed manifold.

1957: 

1958: The first-order approximation means that fluxes change the coupling

1959: between the variables (concentrations). It is assumed that

1960: these new coupling is also set instantaneously (neglect of inertia).

1961: 

1962: {\it Remark.} Various realizations of the first-order approximation 

1963: in physical and chemical dynamics implement the viewpoint

1964: of an infinitely small chemical reactor driven by the flow.

1965: In other words, this approximation is applicable

1966: in the Lagrangian system of coordinates \citep{KGDN98,ZKD00}. 

1967: Transition to Eulerian coordinates is possible

1968: but the relations between concentrations and the flow will change

1969: its form. In a contrast, the more simplistic zero-order approximation

1970: is equally applicable in both the coordinate system, if it is valid.

1971: 

1972: 

1973: \section{Conclusion}

1974: \label{conclusion}

1975: 

1976: In this paper, we have

1977: presented the method for constructing the invariant manifolds

1978: for reducing systems of chemical kinetics.

1979: Our approach to computations of invariant manifolds

1980: of dissipative systems is close in spritit to the

1981: Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser theory of invariant tori of Hamiltonian systems

1982: \citep{Arnold63,Arnold83}: We also base our consideration on the Newton

1983: method instead of Taylor series expansions \citep{Beyn98}, and systematically

1984: use duality structures.

1985: Recently, a version of an approach based on the invarinace equations

1986: was rediscovered by \cite{Kazantzis00}. He was solving  the invariance 

1987: equation by a Taylor series expansion. A counterpart of Taylor series expansions

1988: for constructing the slow invariant manifolds in the classical kinetic theory

1989: is the famous Chapman-Enskog method. The question of how this 

1990: compares to iteration methods was studied extensively for 

1991: certain classes of Grad moment equations \citep{GK96a,KDN97a,K00}.

1992: 

1993: The thermodynamic parameterization and the selfadjoint linearization arise

1994: in a natural way in the problem of finding slowest invariant manifolds for

1995: closed systems. This also leads to  various applications

1996: in different approaches to reducing the description, in particular, to

1997: a  thermodynamically consistent version

1998: of the intrinsic low-dimensional manifold, and to  model kinetic equations for lifting

1999: the reduced dynamics. Use of the thermodynamic projector

2000: makes it unnecessary global parameterizations of manifolds, and

2001: thus leads to computationally promising grid-based realizations.

2002: 

2003: Invariant manifolds are constructed for closed space-independent chemical systems.

2004: We also describe how to use these manifolds for modeling open and distributed

2005: systems. 

2006: 

2007: 

2008: 

2009: 

2010: 

2011: 

2012: 

2013: 

2014: \begin{thebibliography}{}

2015: 

2016: 

2017: 

2018: \bibitem[Ansumali \& Karlin(2000)]{AK00} Ansumali, S., \&  Karlin, I.\ V. (2000). Stabilization of

2019: the Lattice Boltzmann method by the $H$ theorem: A numerical test.

2020: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ E,} {\bf 62(6)}, 7999-8003.

2021: 

2022: 

2023: \bibitem[Ansumali \& Karlin(2002)]{AK02}Ansumali S.,\ \&  Karlin, I.\ V. (2002). Single relaxation time

2024: model for entropic Lattice Boltzmann methods.  {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ E,} {\bf 65} 056312(1-9).

2025: 

2026: \bibitem[Ansumali \& Karlin(2002a)]{AK02a}

2027:  Ansumali, S., \&  Karlin, I.V. (2002a). Entropy function approach

2028: to the lattice Boltzmann method. {\it J.\ Stat.\ Phys.,} {\bf 107(1/2)} 291-

2029: 308.

2030: 

2031: \bibitem[Arnold(1963)]{Arnold63}

2032: Arnold, V.\ I.\ (1963). Proof of a theorem of A.\ N.\ Kolmogorov on the 

2033: invariance of quasi-periodic motions under small perturbations of the 

2034: Hamiltonian. (English translation). {\it Russian Mathematical Surveys,} {\bf 18}, 9-36.

2035: 

2036: \bibitem[Arnold(1983)]{Arnold83}Arnold, V.\ I.\ (1983). 

2037: {\it Geometrical methods in the theory of ordinary  differential equations.}

2038: New York: Springer.

2039: 

2040: \bibitem[Beyn \& Kless(1998)]{Beyn98}

2041: Beyn, W.-J., \& Kless, W. (1998). Numerical Taylor expansions of invariant 

2042: manifolds in large dynamical systems. {\it Numerische Mathematik,} {\bf 80}, 1-38.

2043: 

2044: \bibitem[Bhatnagar, Gross \& Krook(1954)]{BGK}Bhatnagar, P.\ L., 

2045: Gross, E.\ P., \&  Krook, M. (1954).

2046: A model for collision processes in gases. 

2047: Small amplitude processes in charged and neutral one-component systems.

2048: {\it Phys.\ Rev.,}

2049: {\bf 94}, 511-525.

2050: 

2051: 

2052: \bibitem[Bobylev(1988)]{Bobylev88}Bobylev, A.\ V.\ (1988).  

2053: The theory of the nonlinear spatially uniform Boltzmann equation for Maxwell molecules. 

2054: {\it Mathematical physics reviews,} {\bf 7}, 111-233.

2055: 

2056: \bibitem[Bowen, Acrivos \&  Oppenheim(1963)]{Bowen63}

2057: Bowen, J.\  R., Acrivos, A., \& Oppenheim, A.\  K. (1963). Singular Perturbation 

2058: Refinement to Quasi-Steady State Approximation in Chemical Kinetics, 

2059: {\it Chemical Engineering Science,} {\bf 18}, 177-188.

2060: 

2061: \bibitem[Bykov, Gorban \& Yablonskii(1982)]{BGY82}

2062: Bykov, V.\ I., Gorban, A.\ N., \& Yablonskii, G.\ S. (1982). Description of 

2063: nonisothermal reactions in terms of Marcelin-de Donder kinetics and its 

2064: generalizations. {\it React.\  Kinet.\ Catal.\  Lett.,} {\bf 20}, 261-265.

2065: 

2066: \bibitem[Bykov, Yablonskii \& Akramov(1977)]{BYA77}

2067: Bykov, V.\ I.,  Yablonskii, G.\ S., \& Akramov, T.\ A. (1977). 

2068: The rate of the free energy decrease in the course of the complex chemical reaction.

2069: {\it Dokl.\ Akad.\ Nauk  USSR,} {\bf 234 (3)},  621-634.

2070: 

2071: \bibitem[Chen(1988)]{Chen88}Chen, J.-Y. (1988). A general procedure for constructing 

2072: reduced reaction 

2073: mechanisms with given independent relations. {\it Combustion Science and 

2074: Technology,} {\bf 57}, 89-94.

2075: 

2076: \bibitem[Chicone(2000)]{Chicone00}

2077: Chicone, C., \& Swanson, R. (2000). Linearization via the Lie derivative. 

2078: {\it Electron.\ J.\  Diff.\ Eqns.,} Monograph, 02, 

2079: http://ejde.math.swt.edu or http://ejde.math.unt.edu

2080: ftp ejde.math.swt.edu or ejde.math.unt.edu (login: ftp)

2081: 

2082: \bibitem[Dimitrov(1982)]{Dimitrov82}Dimitrov, V.I. (1982). 

2083: {\it Prostaya kinetika [Simple Kinetics]}. Novosibirsk: Nauka.

2084: 

2085: 

2086: \bibitem[De Donder \& Van Rysselberghe(1936)]{DeDonder36}

2087: De Donder, T., \& Van Rysselberghe, P. (1936). {\it Thermodynamic theory of 

2088: affnity. A book of principles.} Stanford: University Press.

2089: 

2090: \bibitem[Dukek, Karlin \& Nonnenmacher(1997)]{DKN97}

2091: Dukek, G., Karlin, I.\ V., \& Nonnenmacher, T.\ F. (1997). Dissipative brackets 

2092: as a tool for kinetic modeling. {\it Physica A}, {\bf 239(4)}, 493-508.

2093: 

2094: \bibitem[Feinberg(1972)]{Feinberg72}Feinberg, M. (1972). 

2095: On chemical kinetics of a certain class. {\it Arch.\ Rational 

2096: Mech. Anal.,} {\bf 46(1)}, 1-41.

2097: 

2098: \bibitem[Fraser(1988)]{Fraser88}Fraser, S.\ J. (1988). 

2099: The steady state and equilibrium approximations: A 

2100: geometrical picture. {\it J.\ Chem.\ Phys.}, {\bf 88(8)},  4732-4738.

2101: 

2102: \bibitem[Gear(1971)]{Gear71}Gear, C.\ W. (1971).

2103:  {\it Numerical initial value problems in ordinary differential equations.} 

2104: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

2105: 

2106: \bibitem[Gorban(1984)]{G84}

2107: Gorban, A.N. (1984). {\it Obkhod ravnovesiya [Equilibrium encircling].} 

2108:  Novosibirsk: Nauka.

2109: 

2110: 

2111: \bibitem[Gorban \& Karlin(1992)]{GK92}Gorban, A.\ N., \& Karlin, I.\ V. (1992). 

2112: Thermodynamic parameterization. {\it Physica A}, {\bf 190}, 393-404 .

2113: 

2114: \bibitem[Gorban \& Karlin(1992a)]{GK92a} Gorban, A.\ N., \& Karlin, I.\ V. (1992a). 

2115: The constructing of 

2116: invariant manifolds for the Boltzmann equation, {\it Adv.\ Model. and 

2117: Analysis C}, {\bf 33(3)}, 39-54.

2118: 

2119: \bibitem[Gorban \& Karlin(1992b)]{GK92b}

2120: Gorban, A.\ N., \& Karlin, I.\ V. (1992b). Coarse-grained quasi-

2121: equilibrium approximations for kinetic equations. {\it Adv.\ Model. and 

2122: Analysis C}, {\bf 35(1)}, 17-27.

2123: 

2124: \bibitem[Gorban \& Karlin(1992c)]{GK92c}Gorban, A.\ N., \& Karlin, I.\ V. (1992c). 

2125: H-theorem for generalized 

2126: models of the Boltzmann equation. {\it Adv.\ Model. and Analysis C}, {\bf 

2127: 33(3)}, 33-38.

2128: 

2129: \bibitem[Gorban \& Karlin(1994)]{GK94}Gorban, A.\ N., \& Karlin, I.\ V. (1994). 

2130: Method of invariant 

2131: manifolds and regularization of acoustic spectra. {\it Transport Theory and 

2132: Stat.\ Phys.}, {\bf 23}, 559-632.

2133: 

2134: \bibitem[Gorban \& Karlin(1994a)]{GK94a} 

2135: Gorban, A.\ N., \& Karlin, I.\ V. (1994a). General approach to 

2136: constructing models of the Boltzmann equation. {\it Physica A}, {\bf 206}, 

2137: 401-420.

2138: 

2139: \bibitem[Gorban \& Karlin(1996)]{GK96}Gorban, A.\ N., \& Karlin, I.\ V., (1996). 

2140: Scattering rates versus moments: Alternative Grad equations. {\it Phys.\ Rev. E},

2141:  {\bf 54(4)}, R3109-R3113.

2142: 

2143: \bibitem[Gorban \& Karlin(1996a)]{GK96a}Gorban, A.\ N., \&  Karlin, I.\ V., (1996a)

2144: Short-wave limit

2145: of hydrodynamics: A soluble example. {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.,} {\bf

2146: 77}, 282-285. 

2147: 

2148: \bibitem[Gorban, Karlin, Zmievskii \& Nonnenmacher(1996)]{GKZN96}

2149: Gorban, A.\ N., Karlin, I.\ V., Zmievskii, V.\ B., \& Nonnenmacher, T.\ F. 

2150: (1996). Relaxational trajectories: global approximations. {\it Physica A}, 

2151: {\bf 231}, 648-672. 

2152: 

2153: \bibitem[Gorban, Karlin \& Zmievskii(1999)]{GKZ99}

2154: Gorban, A.\ N., Karlin, I.\ V., \& Zmievskii, V.\ B. (1999). Two-

2155: step approximation of space-independent relaxation. {\it Transp.\ Theory 

2156: Stat.\ Phys.}, {\bf 28(3)}, 271-296.

2157: 

2158: \bibitem[Gorban, Karlin, Zmievskii \& Dymova(2000)]{GKZD00}

2159: Gorban, A.\ N., Karlin, I.\ V., Zmievskii, V.\ B., \& Dymova S.\ V. 

2160: (2000). Reduced description in reaction kinetics.

2161: {\it Physica A}, {\bf 275(3-4)}, 361-379.

2162: 

2163: \bibitem[Gorban, Karlin, Ilg \& \"Ottinger(2001)]{GKIOe01}

2164: Gorban, A.\ N., Karlin, I.\ V., Ilg, P., \& \"{O}ttinger, H.\ C. (2001). 

2165: Corrections and enhancements of quasi-equilibrium states. {\it J.\ Non-

2166: Newtonian Fluid Mech.}, {\bf 96(1-2)}, 203-219.

2167: 

2168: 

2169: \bibitem[Gorban \& Rossiev(1999)]{GR99}

2170: Gorban, A.\ N., \& Rossiev, A.\ A. (1999). Neural network iterative method of 

2171: principal curves for data with gaps. {\it Journal of Computer and System 

2172: Sciences Intrnational}, {\bf 38(5)}, 825-831.

2173: 

2174: \bibitem[Gorban \& Zinovyev(2001)]{GZ01}

2175: Gorban, A.\ N., Zinovyev, A.\ Yu. (2001). Visualization of data by method of 

2176: elastic maps and its applications in genomics, economics and sociology. 

2177: Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques, Preprint. IHES M/01/36. Online-

2178: version: http://www.ihes.fr/PREPRINTS/M01/Resu/resu-M01-36.html. 

2179: 

2180: 

2181: \bibitem[Grmela, Karlin \& Zmievski(2002)]{GKZ02}

2182:  Grmela, M., Karlin, I.\ V., \& Zmievski, V.\ B. (2002). Boundary 

2183: layer minimum entropy principles: A case study.

2184:  {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ E} (in press).

2185: 

2186: \bibitem[Hartman(1963)]{Hartman63}

2187: Hartman, P. (1963). On the local linearization of differential equations. {\it  Proc. 

2188: Amer.\ Math.\ Soc.}, {\bf 14}, 568-573.

2189: 

2190: \bibitem[Hartman(1982)]{Hartman82}Hartman, P. (1982). 

2191: {\it Ordinary differential equations}. Boston:  Birkh\"auser.

2192: 

2193: \bibitem[Karlin(1989)]{K89} Karlin, I.\ V. (1989). On the relaxation of the chemical reaction 

2194: rate. In: {\it Mathematical Problems of Chemical Kinetics}, eds. K.\ I.\ 

2195: Zamaraev and G.\ S.\ Yablonskii, (Nauka, Novosibirsk), 7-42. 

2196: 

2197: \bibitem[Karlin(1993)]{K93} Karlin, I.\ V. (1993). The problem of reduced description in 

2198: kinetic theory of chemically reacting gas. {\it Modeling, Measurement and 

2199: Control C}, {\bf 34(4)}, 1-34.

2200: 

2201: \bibitem[Karlin(2000)]{K00} Karlin, I.\ V. (2000). 

2202: Exact summation of the Chapman-Enskog expansion

2203: from moment equations. {\it J.\ Phys.\ A: Math.\ Gen.}, 

2204: {\bf 33}, 8037-8046.

2205: 

2206: \bibitem[Karlin, Dukek \& Nonnenmacher(1997)]{KDN97}Karlin, I.\ V., Dukek, G., 

2207: Nonnenmacher, T.\ F. (1997). Invariance principle 

2208: for extension of hydrodynamics: Nonlinear viscosity. {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ E}, 

2209: {\bf 55(2)}, 1573-1576.

2210: 

2211: \bibitem[Karlin, Dukek \& Nonnenmacher(1997a)]{KDN97a}

2212: Karlin, I.\ V.,  Dukek, G., \&  Nonnenmacher, T.\ F. (1997a)

2213: Gradient expansions in kinetic theory of phonons. 

2214: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ B,} {\bf 55}, 6324-6329.

2215: 

2216: \bibitem[Karlin, Gorban, Dukek \& Nonnenmacher(1998)]{KGDN98} 

2217: Karlin, I.\ V., Gorban, A.\ N., Dukek, \& G., Nonnenmacher, T.\ F. 

2218: (1998). Dynamic correction to moment approximations. {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ E}, 

2219: {\bf 57}, 1668--1672.

2220: 

2221: 

2222: 

2223: \bibitem[Kato(1976)]{Kato76}Kato, T. (1976). 

2224: {\it Perturbation theory for Linear operators.}  Berlin: Springer.

2225: 

2226: \bibitem[Kazantzis(2000)]{Kazantzis00}Kazantzis N, (2000) Singular PDEs and the problem of finding invariant manifolds for nonlinear dynamical systems. {\it Physics Letters}, {\bf A272(4)},

2227: 257-263.

2228: 

2229: \bibitem[Khibnik, Kuznetsov, Levitin \& Nikolaev(1993)]

2230: {Khibnik93}Khibnik, A., Kuznetsov, Y., Levitin, V., \& Nikolaev, E. (1993). Continuation 

2231: techniques and interactive software for bifurcation analysis of ODEs and 

2232: iterated maps. {\it Physica D}, {\bf 62}, 360-370.

2233: 

2234: 

2235: \bibitem[Lam \& Goussis(1994)]{Lam94}

2236: Lam, S.H., Goussis, D. A. (1994). The CSP Method for Simplifying Ki-

2237: netics. {\it International Journal of Chemical Kinetics}, {\bf 26}, 461-486.

2238: 

2239: \bibitem[Levenspiel(1999)]{Levenspiel99}

2240: Levenspiel, O. (1999). Chemical Reaction Engineering. {\it Ind.\ Eng.\ Chem.\ Res.}, 

2241: {\bf 38}, 4139-4143.

2242: 

2243: \bibitem[Levenspiel(2000)]{Levenspiel00}

2244: Levenspiel, O. (2000). Response to Professor Yablonsky. {\it  Ind.\  Eng.\ Chem.\ Res.}, 

2245: {\bf 39}, 3120.

2246: 

2247: \bibitem[Li, Rabitz \& T\'oth(1994)]{Li94}Li, G., Rabitz, H., \& T\'oth, J. (1994). 

2248: A general analysis of exact nonlinear 

2249: lumping in chemical kinetics. {\it Chem.\ Eng.\ Sci.},  {\bf 49(3)}, 343-361. 

2250: 

2251: \bibitem[Maas \& Pope(1992)]{Maas92}Maas, U., \& Pope, S.B. (1992). 

2252: Simplifying chemical kinetics: intrinsic low-

2253: dimensional manifolds in composition space. {\it Combustion and Flame},  {\bf 88}, 

2254: 239-264. 

2255: 

2256: \bibitem[Orlov \& Rozonoer(1984)]{Orlov84}Orlov, N. N., \& Rozonoer, L. I. (1984). 

2257: The macrodynamics of open systems 

2258: and the variational principle of the local potential.  {\it J. Franklin Inst.},  {\bf 318}, 283-

2259: 314 and 315-347. 

2260: 

2261: \bibitem[Rabitz(1987)]{Rabitz87}Rabitz, H. (1987). 

2262: Chemical Dynamics and Kinetics Phenomena as revealed 

2263: by Sensitivity Analysis Techniques. {\it Chem.\ Rev.},  {\bf 87}, 101-112.

2264: 

2265: \bibitem[Rabitz, Kramer \& Dacol(1983)]{Rabitz83}Rabitz, H., Kramer, M., \& Dacol, D. (1983). 

2266: Sensitivity analysis in chemical 

2267: kinetics. {\it Ann.\ Rev.\ Phys.\ Chem.},  {\bf 34}, 419-461.

2268: 

2269: \bibitem[Roose \& Spence(1990)]{Roose90}Roose, De Dier, B., \& Spence, A., eds. (1990). 

2270: {\it Continuation and bifurcations 

2271: numerical techniques and applications}. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

2272: 

2273: \bibitem[Roussel \& Fraser(1990)]{Roussel90}Roussel, M.R., \& Fraser, S.J. (1990). 

2274: Geometry of the steady-state 

2275: approximation: Perturbation and accelerated convergence methods.  {\it J.\  Chem.\ 

2276: Phys.}, {\bf 93}, 1072-1081.

2277: 

2278: \bibitem[Roussel \& Fraser(1991)]{Roussel91}Roussel, M.R., \& Fraser, S.J. (1991). 

2279: On the geometry of transient relaxation. 

2280: {\it J.\ Chem.\ Phys.}, {\bf  94}, 7106-711.

2281: 

2282: \bibitem[Segel \& Slemrod(1989)]{Segel89}Segel, L.A., \& Slemrod, M. (1989). 

2283: The quasi-steady-state assumption: A case 

2284: study in perturbation. {\it SIAM Rev.,} {\bf 31}, 446-477.

2285: 

2286: \bibitem[Struchtrup \& Weiss(1998)]{Struchtrup98}

2287: Struchtrup, H., \& Weiss, W. (1998). Maximum of the local entropy production becomes 

2288: minimal in stationary processes. {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.,} {\bf 80}, 5048-5051.

2289: 

2290: \bibitem[Strygin \& Sobolev(1988)]{Strygin88}

2291: Strygin V.\ V., \& Sobolev, V.\ A. (1988). {\it 

2292: Spliting of motion by means of integral manifolds}. Moscow: Nauka.

2293: 

2294: \bibitem[T\'oth, Li, Rabitz \& Tomlin(1997)]{Toth97}

2295: T\'oth, J., Li, G., Rabitz, H., \& Tomlin, A. S. (1997). The effect of lumping and 

2296: expanding on kinetic differential equations. {\it SIAM J. Appl. Math.,} {\bf 57(6)}, 

2297: 1531-1556. 

2298: 

2299: \bibitem[Vasil'eva, Butuzov \& Kalachev(1995)]{Vasil'eva95}

2300: Vasil'eva A.B., Butuzov V.F., \& Kalachev L.V. (1995). {\it  The boundary 

2301: function method for singular perturbation problems}, Philadelphia: SIAM.

2302: 

2303: \bibitem[Volpert \& Hudjaev(1985)]{Volpert85}Volpert, A. I., \& Hudjaev, S. I. (1985).

2304: {\it  Analysis in classes of discontinuous 

2305: functions and the equations of mathematical physics}. Dordrecht: Nijhoff.

2306: 

2307: 

2308: \bibitem[Wei \& Prater(1962)]{Wei62}Wei, J., \&  Prater, C. (1962). 

2309: The structure and analysis of complex reaction 

2310: systems. {\it  Adv.\ Catalysis,} {\bf 13}, 203-393. 

2311: 

2312: \bibitem[Yablonsky(2000)]{Y00}Yablonsky, G.\ S. (2000). 

2313: Comments on a commentary by Professor 

2314: Levenspiel, {\it Ind.\ Eng.\ Chem.\ Res.}, {\bf 39}, 3120.

2315: 

2316: \bibitem[Yablonskii, Bykov, Gorban \& Elokhin(1991)]{YBGE91}

2317: Yablonskii, G.S., Bykov, V.I., Gorban, A.N., \& Elokhin, V.I. (1991). {\it Kinetic 

2318: models of catalytic reactions.} Comprehensive Chemical Kinetics, Vol. 32, 

2319: Compton, R.\ G., ed.  Amsterdam: Elsevier.

2320: 

2321: \bibitem[Zhu \& Petzold(1999)]{Zhu99}Zhu, W., \&  Petzold, L. (1999).

2322: Model reduction for chemical kinetics: An 

2323: optimization approach. {\it AIChE Journal},  (April 1999), 869-886.

2324: 

2325: \bibitem[Zmievskii, Kalin \& Deville(2000)]{ZKD00} 

2326: Zmievskii, V.\ B., Karlin, I.\ V., \& Deville, M. (2000). The 

2327: universal limit in dynamics of dilute polymeric solutions. {\it Physica A}, 

2328: {\bf 275(1-2)}, 152-177.

2329: 

2330: 

2331: 

2332: 

2333: 

2334: \end{thebibliography}

2335: 

2336: \newpage

2337: 

2338: 

2339: 

2340: \begin{figure}

2341: 

2342: 

2343: 

2344: %\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{invchemFig1.ps}

2345: 

2346: %\vspace*{14cm}

2347: \caption{Images of the initial quasi-equilibrium manifold (bold line)

2348:  and the first two corrections

2349: (solid normal lines) in the phase plane

2350: $[c_1,c_3]$ for two-step catalytic reaction (\ref{mech_ex}).

2351: Dashed lines are individual trajectories.}

2352: \label{Fig1}

2353: \end{figure}

2354: 

2355: \end{document}

2356: 

2357: 

2358: 

2359: 

2360: 

2361: 

2362: 

2363: 

2364: 

2365: 

2366: 

2367: