123456789

24.1

a)

i.

First model (full compositions model):

Number of variables: NV = 22 w1 w2 w3 w4 w5 w6 w7 w8 Number of Equations: NE = 17 Eqs. 2-8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20(3X), 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 31 Number of Parameters: NP = 4 VR, k, , Degrees of freedom: NF = 22 17 = 5 Number of manipulated variables: NMV = 4 w1, w2, w6, w8 Number of disturbance variables: NDV = 1 x2D Number of controlled variables: NCV = 4 x4A, w4, HT, x8D
Solution Manual for Process Dynamics and Control, 2 edition, Copyright 2004 by Dale E. Seborg, Thomas F. Edgar and Duncan A. Mellichamp
nd

xR,A xR,B xR,C xR,D xT,D VT HT

x2B x2D x4C x5D x6D x7D x8D

24-1

ii. Second model (simplified compositions model): Number of variables: NV = 14 w1 w2 w6 w8 x2D xR,A xR,B xR,D xT,D VT w4 x4A x8D HT

Number of Equations: NE = 9 Eq. 2-33 through Eq. 2-41 Number of Parameters: NP = 4 VR, k, , Degrees of freedom: NF = 14 9 = 5 Number of manipulated variables: NMV = 4 w1, w2, w6, w8 Number of disturbance variables: NDV = 1 x2D Number of controlled variables: NCV = 4 x4A, w4, HT, x8D iii.Third model (simplified holdups model): Number of variables: NV = 14 w1 w2 w6 w8 x2D HR,A HR,B HR,D HT,B HT,D w4 x4A x8D HT

24-2

Number of Equations: NE = 9 Eq. 2-48 through Eq. 2-56 Number of Parameters: NP = 3 VR, k, Degrees of freedom: NF = 14 9 = 5 Number of manipulated variables: NMV = 4 w1, w2, w6, w8 Number of disturbance variables: NDV = 1 x2D Number of controlled variables: NCV = 4 x4A, w4, VT, x8D b) Model 1: The first model is left in an intermediate form, i.e., not fully reduced, so the key equations for the units are more clearly identifiable. Also, such a model is easier to develop using traditional balance methods because not as much algebraic effort is expended in simplification. Models 2 and 3: Both of the reduced models are easier to simulate (fewer equations), yet contain all of the dynamic relations needed to simulate the plant. Model 3: The holdups model has the further advantage of being easier to analyze using a symbolic equation manipulator because of its more symmetric organization. Also, it requires one less parameter for its specification. c) Each model can be simulated using the equations given in Appendix E of the text. Models 2 and 3 are simulated using the differential equation editor (dee) in Matlab. An example can be found by typing dee at the command prompt. Step changes are made in the manipulated variables w1, w2, w6 and w8 and in disturbance variable x2D to illustrate the dynamics of the entire plant.

24-3

Figure S24.1a. Simulink-MATLAB block diagram for first model

1 w3 2 x8 1 w8 3 x1 4 w1 5 x2 6 w2 Sum input flows 330 k 3000 rho*VR -out + in +generated Demux 1 s A 1 s B 1 s C 1 s D Mux 2 3000 HR x3 Sum input flows1

[-0.5 -0.5 1 0] stoich. factors

Demux generation & Accumulation T1 T2

Figure S24.1b. Simulink-MATLAB block diagram for the reactor block

24-4

Product3 4 x4

3 2 x3 Demux Product2 1 w3 2 x5 Product1 1 w5 Product w4

Product5

Product4

Figure S24.1c. Simulink-MATLAB block diagram for the flash block

1 Purge Flow 1 2 w5 w7

3 x5

2 x7

Figure S24.1d. Simulink-MATLAB block diagram for purge block

24-5

1010 w1

w1 w1-save xRA xRA-save

w1-change w2 w2-save 1100 w2 x2D w2-change 0.01 x2D-set 110 Purge Flow w6 w4 w6-save w4-save 890 Recycle Flow w8 E.2-32-38 w8-save x4A x4A-save Equations 2-(32-38) HT VT-save xTD xTD-save xRD xRD-save xRB xRB-save

Figure S24.1e. Simulink-MATLAB block diagram for second model

24-6

w2

0.01 w4 x2D w4-save x4A w6 w6-save xTD xTD-save x4A-save

w8 w8-save

24-7

1015 1014 w1 1013 1012 1011 1010 0 10 20 30 40

2010 2008 2006 w4 2004 2002 2000 0 10 20 30 40 Full model Reduced concentrations Reduced holdups

1101 1100.5

0.104

0.102 w2 1100 xTD 0.1 0 10 20 30 40 550 500 HT 450 400 350 0

1099.5 1099

10

20

30

40

111 110.5 w6 110

109.5 109

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

891 890.5 w8 890

0.0102 0.0101 x 4A 0 10 20 Time (hr) 30 40 0.0101 0.01 0.01 0 10 20 Time (hr) 30 40

889.5 889

Figure S24.1g. Step change in w1 (+5) at t=5

24-8

1011 1010.5 w1 1010

2008 2006 w4 2004 2002 2000 Full model Reduced concentrations Reduced holdups

1009.5 1009

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

1110 1108 1106 w2 1104 1102 1100

0.102 0.1 0.098 0.096 0.094 0.092

10

20

30

40

x TD

10

20

30

40

111 110.5

800

700 110 HT 600 109.5 109 500 0 10 20 30 40 0 x 10

-3

w6

10

20

30

40

891 890.5 890

10.05 10 x 4A 0 10 20 Time (hr) 30 40 9.95 9.9 9.85

w8

889.5 889

10

20 Time (hr)

30

40

Figure S24.1h. Step change in w2 (+10) at t=5

24-9

1011 1010.5 w1 1010

2000 2000 w4 2000 2000 Full model Reduced concentrations Reduced holdups

1009.5 1009

2000 0 10 20 30 40 2000 0 10 20 30 40

1101 1100.5 w2 1100

0.1 x TD 0 10 20 30 40 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

1099.5 1099

10

20

30

40

120 118 116 114 112 110 0 10 20 30 40

500 400 HT 300 200 100

w6

10

20

30

40

891 890.5

0.01

0.01 890 x 4A 0.01 889.5 889 0.01 0 10 20 Time (hr) 30 40 0 w8

10

20 Time (hr)

30

40

Figure S24.1i. Step change in w6 (+10) at t=5

24-10

1011 1010.5 w1 1010

2008 2006 w4 2004 2002 2000 Full model Reduced concentrations Reduced holdups

1009.5 1009

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

1101 1100.5 w2 1100

0.1001 0.1001 x TD 0 10 20 30 40 0.1 0.1 0.1

1099.5 1099

10

20

30

40

111 110.5 w6 110

500 498 496 HT 494 492 0 10 20 30 40 490 0 x 10

-3

109.5 109

10

20

30

40

900 898 896 w8 894 892 890 0 10 20 Time (hr) 30 40

10.01 10 x 4A 9.99 9.98 9.97 9.96

10

20 Time (hr)

30

40

Figure S24.1j. Step change in w8 (+10) at t=5

24-11

1011 1010.5

2000.5 Full model Reduced concentrations Reduced holdups

2000 w1 w4 1999.5 1009.5 1009 1999 0 10 20 30 40 0 1010

10

20

30

40

1101 1100.5

0.16

0.14 1100 x TD 0.12 1099.5 1099 0.1 0 10 20 30 40 0 w2

10

20

30

40

111 110.5 w6 110

520 515 HT 0 10 20 30 40 510 505 500

109.5 109

10

20

30

40

891 0.0105 890.5 w8 890 0.01 889.5 889 x4A 0 10 20 Time (hr) Time (hr) 30 40 0

10

20

30

40

Figure S24.1k. Step change in x2D (+0.005) at t=5

24-12

24.2 To obtain a steady state (SS) gain matrix through the use of simulation, step changes in the manipulated variables are made. The resulting matrix should compare closely with that found in Eq. 24.1 of the text (or the table below). The values calculated are: Gain Matrix w1 w2 w6 w8 1.93 2.26 E-2 0 6.25 E-3 w4 8.8 E-4 -7.62 E-4 0 5.68 E-6 x8D 2.57 E-5 -1.14 E-5 0 -3.15 E-6 x4A -0.918* 0.973* -1* -6.25 E-3* HT * For integrating variables: Gain = the slope of the variable vs. time divided by the magnitude of the step change. RGA w4 x8D x4A HT 24.3 Controller parameters are given in Tables E.2.7 and E.2.8 in Appendix E of the text. A transfer function block is placed inside each control loop to slow down the fast algebraic equations, which otherwise yield large output spikes. These blocks are of the form of a first-order filter.:
G f ( s) = 1 0.001s + 1

w1 0.9743 0 0.0257 0

w2 0.0135 0.9737 0.0128 0

w6 0 0 0 1

w8 0.0122 0.0263 0.9615 0

In principle, ratio control can provide tighter control of all variables. However, it is clear from the x2D results that it offers no advantage for this disturbance variable. For a step change in production rate, w4, one would anticipate a different situation because a change in manipulated variable w1 is induced. Using ratio control, w2 does change along with w1 to maintain a satisfactory ratio of the two feed streams. Thus, ratio control does provide enhanced control for the recycle tank level, HT, and composition, xTD, but not for the key performance variables, w4 and x4A. This characteristic is likely a result of the particular features of the recycle plant, namely the use of a splitter (instead of a flash unit) and the lack of holdup in that vessel.

24-13

2004 2002 w4 2000 1998 1996 0.0101 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 No ratio control Ratio control

0.01 x 4A 0.0099 0.12 0.11 x TD 0.1 0.09

10

15

Time (hr)

20

25

30

35

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure S24.3a. Step change in x2D (+0.02) at t=5 (Corresponds to Fig.24.7)

2150 2100 w4 2050 2000 1950 0.01015 0.0101 x 4A 0.01005 0.01 0.00995 0.104 0.102 0.1 0.098 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 No ratio control Ratio control

Time (hr)

x TD

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure S24.3b. Step change in w4 (+100) at t=5 (Corresponds to Fig.24.8)

24-14

24.4 a) A simple modification of the controller pairing is needed. The settings for the modified controller setup are: Loop xTD-w6 HT-R w4-w1 x4A-w8 Gain Integral Time (hr) -5000 1 0.002 1 2 1 -500000 1

(See Figure S24.4a) b) The RGA shows that flowrate w6 will not directly affect the composition of D in the recycle tank, xTD, but the xTD-w6 loop will cause unwanted interaction with the other control loops. The system can be controlled, however, if the other three loops are tuned more conservatively and assist the xTD-w6 loop. The manipulated variable, w6, is the rate of purge flow. Purging a stream does not affect the compositions of its constituent species, only the total flowrate. Therefore, purging the stream before the recycle tank will only affect the level in the tank and not its compositions. The resulting RGA yields a zero gain between xTD and w6. The RGA structure handles a positive 5% step change in the production rate well, as it maintains the plant within the specified limits. The setup with one open feedback loop defined by this exercise, however, goes out of control. The xTD-w6 loop requires the interaction of the other loops to maintain stability. When the x4A-w8 loop is broken, the system will no longer remain stable. (See Figure S24.4b) e) With a set point change of 10%, the controllers must be detuned to keep variables within operating constraints. The HT-w6 loop in the RGA structure must be more conservative (gain reduced to -1) to keep the purge flow, w6, from hitting its lower constraint, zero. A 20% change will create a problem within the system that these control structures cannot handle. The new set point for w4 does not allow a steady-state value of 0.01 for x4A. This will make the x4A-w8 control loop become unstable. This outcome results for production rate step changes larger than roughly 12% (for this system). (See Figure S24.4c)

c)

d)

24-15

1080 1060 w1 1040 1020 1000

2150 2100 w4 2050 2000 1950

Exercise 24.4 RGA structure

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

1180 1160 1140 w2 1120 1100 1080

520 510 HT 0 10 20 30 40 500 490 480

10

20

30

40

140 120

0.102

x TD 0 10 20 30 40

100 w6 80 60 40

0.1

0.098

0.096

10

20

30

40

1200 1100

0.0102

0.0101 1000 900 800 0.0099 0 10 20 Time (hr) 30 40 0 10 20 Time (hr) 30 40 x 4A 0.01 w8

Figure S24.4a. Step change in w4 set point(+5%) at t=5

24-16

1150 1100 w1 1050 1000 950

2150 2100 w4 2050 2000 1950 Exercise 24.4 RGA structure

10

15

20

10

15

20

1400 1300 w2 1200 1100 1000

600 550 HT 0 5 10 15 20 500 450 400

10

15

20

160 140 w6 120 100 80

0.115 0.11 x TD 0 5 10 15 20 0.105 0.1 0.095 0.09 0 5 10 15 20

891 890.5

0.012

0.011 890 x 4A 0.01 889.5 889 0.009 0 5 10 Time (hr) 15 20 0 w8

10 Time (hr)

15

20

Figure S24.4b. Step change in w4 set point(+5%) at t=5 with one loop open.

24-17

1150

1100 w1 1050 1000 0

20

40

60 540 520 500

1250 1200 w2 1150

480 1100 1050 460 440

20

40

60

20

40

60

150

100 w6 50 0 0

20

40

60 0.0104 0.0103 x 4A 0.0102 0.0101 0.01

1600 1400 w8 1200 1000 800

20 Time (hr)

40

60

20 Time (hr)

40

60

24-18

24.5 a) Using the same methods as described in solution 24.3, the resulting gain matrix is: w1 w2 w6 0 0 0 -1 0 w8 5.831E-3 5.445E-6 -2.944E-6 -10.12 1 w3 -1.285E-2 -9.130E-6 6.542E-6 8.829 -1

Gain Matrix w4 x8D x4A HT HR

5.762E-3 4.760E-3 5.554E-6 4.558E-6 -2.905E-6 -2.398E-6 -2.137 -1.927 1 1 All variables are integrating

The resulting RGA does not provide useful insight for the preferred controller pairing due to the nature of these integrating variables. b) Results similar to those obtained in Exercise 24.3 can be obtained with an added loop for reactor level using the w3 flow rate as the manipulated variable. Both P and PI controllers yield relatively constant reactor level. The quality variable, x4A, cannot be controlled as tightly however. The responses with P-only control are only slightly different as compared to PI control, which means that zero-offset control on the reactor volume is not necessary for reliable plant operation. Controller parameters used for variable reactor holdup simulation: Loop w4-w1 xTD-w2 x4A-w8 HT-w6 HR-w3 Gain (Kc) 123456789
49 I) 1 1 -6300 1 -200000 1 -3.5 1 -10 1* * For PI control

24-19

2120 2100 2080 2060 w4 2040 2020 2000 1980 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Variable reactor level (P) Variable reactor level (PI) Constant reactor level

0.104

0.103

0.102 x TD 0.101 0.1 0.099 0

10

15 Time (hr)

20

25

30

35

0.0108 0.0106 0.0104 x 4A 0.0102 0.01 0.0098

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure S24.5a. Step change in w4 set point (+100) at t=5

24-20

24.6 To simulate the flash/splitter with a non-negligible holdup, derive a mass balance around the unit. Assume that components A and C are well mixed and are held up in the flash for an average HF/w4 amount of time. Also assume that the vapor components B and D are passed through the splitter instantaneously. dH F = w3 w4 w5 = 0 dt d ( H F xFA ) = w3 x3 A w4 x4 A dt d ( H F xC ) = w3 x3C w4 x4C dt Since the holdup is constant, the flows out of the splitter can be modeled as: w5 = w3 ( x3 B + x3 D ) w4 = w3 w5 Use the component balances and output flow equations to simulate the flash/splitter unit. This will add a dynamic lag to the unit which slows down the control loops that have the splitter in between the manipulated variable and the controlled variable. However, a 1000kg holdup only creates a residence time of 0.5 hr. Considering the time scale of the entire plant, this is very small and confirms the assumption of modeling the flash/splitter as having a negligible holdup.

24-22

1014 1012 w1 1010 1008 1006

2001 2000.5 w4 2000 Negligible holdup flash 1000 kg holdup flash

1999.5 1999

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

1200

0.108 0.106

1150 w2

0.104 x TD 0 10 20 30 40 0.102 0.1

1100

1050

0.098

10

20

30

40

250

510

200 w6

505 HT 500 0 10 20 30 40 495 0

150

100

10

20

30

40

900

0.01 0.01

850 x 4A 0 10 20 30 40 w8 0.01 0.01 750 0.01 0 10 20 Time (hr) 30 40

800

Figure S24.6. Step change in x2D (+0.005) at t=5

24-23

24.7 The MPC controller achieves satisfactory results for step changes made within the plant. The production rate can easily be maintained within desirable limits and large set-point changes (20%) do not cause a breakdown in the quality of this stream. A change in the kinetic coefficient (k), occurring simultaneously with a 50% disturbance change will, however, initially draw the product quality (composition of the production stream) out of the required limits.

0.6 0.4

0.5

0 w1 w4 -0.5 0 -0.2 -1 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.2

10

20

30

40

50

8 6 4 2 0 x4A 0 10 20 30 40 50 w2

1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5

10

20

30

40

50

2 0 w6 -2 -4 -6 -8 0 10 20 30 40 50 HT

0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8

10

20

30

40

50

60 40

-2 20 0 -20 -6 xTD -4 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 w8

10

20

30

40

50

Figure S24.7a. Step change in x2D (+50%). All variables are recorded in percent deviation.

24-24

-2

-3 w1 w4 -4

-5

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

2 0 w2 -2 x4A 0 10 20 30 40 50

1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5

-4 -6 -8

10

20

30

40

50

-5 -10 w6 -15 HT 0 10 20 30 40 50

0.1 0

-0.1 -0.2 -20 -25 -0.3 -0.4 0 10 20 30 40 50

15 10 5 0 -5 xTD 0 10 20 30 40 50 w8

0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5

10

20

30

40

50

Figure S24.7b. Step change in production rate w4 (+5%). All variables are recorded in percent deviation.

24-25

8 6 w1 w4 0 10 20 30 40 50 4 2 0

1 0 -1 -2 -3

10

20

30

40

50

15 10 w2 5 x4A 0 -5 0 10 20 30 40 50

20 15 10 5 0 -5

10

20

30

40

50

20 0 w6 -20 HT 0 10 20 30 40 50

1 0.5 0

-40 -60 -80

-0.5 -1

10

20

30

40

50

150 100

-5 50 0 -50 -15 xTD -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 w8

10

20

30

40

50

Figure S24.7c. Simultaneous step changes in x2D (+50%) and k(+20%). All variables are recorded in percent deviation.

24-26

-5

25 20 w4 0 10 20 30 40 50

-10 w1

15 10 5

-15

-20

10

20

30

40

50

10 0 w2 -10 x4A 0 10 20 30 40 50

6 4 2 0 -2

-20 -30 -40

10

20

30

40

50

-20 -40 w6 -60 -80 -100 HT 0 10 20 30 40 50

0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5

10

20

30

40

50

60 40 20 0 -20 xTD 0 10 20 30 40 50 w8

2 0 -2 -4 -6

10

20

30

40

50

Figure S24.7d. Step change in production rate w4 (+20%). All variables are recorded in percent deviation.

24-27