Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

2000, 39, 2935-2946 2935

PROCESS DESIGN AND CONTROL

Economic and Dynamic Impact of the Use of Excess Reactant in

Reactive Distillation Systems
William L. Luyben†
Department of Chemical Engineering, Iacocca Hall, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015

Reactive distillation columns are sometimes operated with an excess of one of the reactants,
but this mode of operation may have the disadvantage of requiring the recovery and recycle of
the reactant that is in excess. The flowsheet typically consists of a two-column system: a reactive
column and a recovery column. An alternative is to use a single reactive column that is operated
“neat” (exact stoichiometric amounts of the reactants fed and consumed). The one-column process
has lower capital investment and energy costs than the two-column system. However, Al-Arfaj
and Luyben1 recently explored the control of a one-column “neat” system and demonstrated
that a composition analyzer may be required to detect the inventory of one of the reactants so
that the fresh feed can be adjusted. Because composition analyzers are expensive and sometimes
unreliable, the economic advantages of the single-column system need to be assessed. The purpose
of this paper is to quantitatively compare the single-column (neat operation) and the two-column
system (excess of one of the reactants fed to the reactive column). The comparison includes both
steady-state economics and dynamic controllability. The reversible reaction is A + B h C + D.
The relative volatilities are favorable for reactive distillation; i.e., the reactants are intermediate
boilers between the light product C and the heavy product D. In the two-column system, an
excess of B is fed to the reactive column. The distillate from the reactive column is product C.
The bottoms is a mixture of components D and B, which are separated in the second column.
The distillate of the second column is mostly B and is recycled back to the first column. Steady-
state economics show a very significant incentive for the single-column system. Total annual
cost of the two-column system is 50% more than that of the single-column process if a 10%
reactant excess is needed to compensate for flow-measurement uncertainties and fresh-feed
composition changes. If a 20% excess is needed, the total annual cost is 100% more. Both systems
are dynamically controllable, but the dynamic response of the two-column process is slower
because of the presence of the recycle and is more complex. Only tray temperature control is
required in the two-column process.

1. Introduction column. If the excess ethanol can be included in the

The past decade has been a period of intensifying
exploration of the use of reactive distillation to reduce
capital and energy costs. Most of the work has concen-
trated on steady-state analysis and open-loop dynamic
behavior. Only a few papers have appeared that study
the closed-loop control of reactive distillation systems2-6
and are reviewed in a recent paper.1
Most of the systems studied do not use stoichiometric
amounts of reactants. An excess (10-20% above the
stoichiometric amount) of one of the reactants is fed to
the column. There may be kinetic reasons for using an
excess in some systems. These include suppressing
undesirable side reactions, reducing catalyst require-
ments, and increasing conversion. However, even in the
absence of kinetic reasons, the use of an excess of one
of the reactants makes the control problem easier
because the component inventories do not have to be
measured by on-line analyzers. For example, in the
ETBE system, a 10% excess of ethanol is fed to the
† E-mail: wll0@lehigh.edu.
10.1021/ie000004c CCC: $19.00 © 2000 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 07/20/2000
ETBE bottoms product from the column and blended
into gasoline, there may be no economic penalty. How-
ever, in other systems, the excess reactant must be
removed from the product and recycled. This involves
an additional separation step, so capital investment and
energy costs are increased.
Al-Arfaj and Luyben1 studied the control of a reactive
distillation column that produced two products from a
single reactive column by feeding exactly stoichiometric
amounts of the two fresh feed streams. They explored
a number of control structures, all of which included
the measurement of the composition of one of the
reactants inside the reactive section of the column. This
composition is then used to adjust the appropriate fresh
feed stream. The detection of component inventories is
a fundamental requirement in all plantwide control
structures.7
In the single-column process, the reactive section of
the column contains a multicomponent mixture, so the
use of temperature to infer compositions in the reactive
section is usually ineffective. On-line analyzers can be
2936 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 39, No. 8, 2000
Figure 1. Reactive distillation; “neat” operation.
used, but they have disadvantages in some systems of
high cost, unreliability, and costly maintenance. This
is not to say that temperature measurements cannot
be used at the two ends of the column to infer product
purity. In these sections the mixture is closer to being
binary. For example, a temperature near the base of the
column gives some indication of the purity of the
bottoms stream. The impurity can be either of the
reactants.
In the two-column process, the recovery column acts
conceptually as an on-line analyzer: a higher recycle
flow rate means that more of the excess reactant is
leaving the reactive column, so the fresh feed flow rate
of that reactant must be decreased. An effective control
structure for the two-column system is to flow control
the sum of the recycle stream and the appropriate fresh
feed stream, as discussed later in this paper. When the
recycle flow rate increases, the fresh feed flow rate is
decreased to keep the total constant. Thus, the scheme
changes the fresh feed flow rate to accommodate changes
in the component inventory of the reactant.
From a steady-state economic perspective, the two
alternative processes (single column and two columns)
have different capital investments and different operat-
ing costs. From a dynamic perspective, the two processes
show different dynamic behavior and require different
control structures. These differences are quantitatively
explored in this paper.
2. Process Studied
The reversible exothermic reaction occurring on the
reactive trays is
A+BSC+D (1)
The volatilities are such that the products C and D are
the lightest and heaviest, respectively, in the system.
RC > RA > RB > RD (2)
The reactants A and B are intermediate boiling between
the products. Therefore, the fresh feed stream FOA
containing reactant A is fed at the bottom of the reactive
zone, and the fresh feed stream FOB containing reactant
B is fed at the top of the reactive zone. The reactive
section contains NRX. The rectifying section above the
reactive section contains NR trays, and the stripping
section below the reactive section contains NS trays.
Thus, we are considering a reactive distillation column
in which reaction only occurs in the reactive section.
This is typically the situation when the reaction uses a
solid catalyst that is present on the trays in the reactive
section. This type of reactive distillation is called
catalytic distillation.
2.1. One-Column Process. Figure 1 shows the one-
column reactive distillation column flowsheet. Specifica-
tion products are produced at both ends of the column.
The key feature of the one-column process is the need
to detect the inventory of at least one of the reactants
in the reactive zone of the column. Without this mea-
surement, there will always be an imbalance in the
amounts of the two reactants fed to the system. Simply
ratioing the two fresh-feed flow rates is ineffective
because of the inherent inaccuracies in flow measure-
ments. Changes in fresh-feed compositions also change
the component balances. Thus, some type of reactant
composition measurement internal to the column is
required in the one-column process.
2.2. Two-Column Process. Figure 2 shows a typical
flowsheet in which two columns are required. Fresh
reactant A is fed to the first reactive column in stream
FOA. An excess of reactant B is also fed to this column.
This stream consists of fresh feed FOB and the recycle
stream from the recovery column D2, which contains
mostly reactant component B with a little impurity of
product component D. The amount of impurity depends
on the design and operation of the recovery column and
is a design optimization variable.
For purposes of illustration, the excess component is
selected as B. If for some reason reactant A were chosen,

Figure 2. Reactive and recovery columns; excess of reactant B.
Figure 3. Optimization of reactive column.
the flowsheet would be different. The bottoms from the
reactive column would be product D, and the distillate
would be fed to the recovery column in which product
C would be taken overhead and excess reactant A would
be recycled from the bottom. The selection of which
reactant to keep in excess depends on kinetics, relative
volatilities, and heats of vaporization. In either flow-
sheet, the excess reactant and one of the products are
vaporized only once, so there is no inherent energy
difference between the two flowsheets.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 39, No. 8, 2000 2937
3. Steady-State Design
The purities of both product streams are assumed to
be 95 mol % in the numerical case studied. This fixes
the conversion at 95%. Reactive tray holdup is assumed
to be 1 kmol, as suggested by Al-Arfaj and Luyben,1 for
fresh feed flow rates of 12.6 mol/s of both A and B. This
gives reasonable liquid heights of about 10 cm. Table 1
gives kinetic, physical property, and vapor-liquid equi-
librium parameter values. Table 2 gives economic
parameters and sizing basis used in the designs to
2938 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 39, No. 8, 2000

Table 1. Physical Properties (cal/mol) Table 3. Optimum Design for Different Reactant
Excesses
activation energy (cal/mol)
forward 30 000 % excess
backward 40 000
0 5 10 20
specific reaction rate at 366 K
(kmol s-1 kmol-1)) First Column
forward 0.008 VS1 (mol/s) 28.14 35.44 35.55 35.74
backward 0.004 R1 (mol/s) 32.78 35.44 35.55 35.74
heat of reaction (cal/mol) -10 000 D1 (mol/s) 12.60 12.73 12.77 12.84
heat of vaporization (cal/mol) 6944 B1 (mol/s) 12.60 13.10 13.69 14.88
relative volatilities FOB (mol/s) 12.60 12.85 12.95 13.07
RC 8 xD1
RA 4 (mf A) 0.04755 0.039 79 0.036 46 0.031 56
RB 2 (mf B) 0.00246 0.010 20 0.013 53 0.018 43
RD 1 (mf C) 0.94999 0.950 00 0.950 00 0.950 00
vapor pressure constantsa C A B D (mf D) 0.00000 0.000 01 0.000 01 0.000 01
AVP 13.04 12.34 11.45 10.96 xB1
BVP 3862 3862 3862 3862 (mf A) 0.00164 0.000 53 0.000 76 0.001 37
(mf B) 0.04839 0.073 83 0.106 65 0.168 03
a ln Psj) AVP,j - BVP,j /T, where T is K and Psj is the vapor (mf C) 0.00000 0.000 00 0.000 00 0.000 00
pressure of pure component j in bar. (mf D) 0.94999 0.925 64 0.892 58 0.830 61
DC1 (m) 0.780 0.804 0.805 0.808
Table 2. Sizing and Economic Basis AR1 (m2) 41.4 45.3 45.4 45.7
column sizing AC1 (m2) 111.5 118.3 118.7 119.3
diameter F-factor ) 1 (English engineering units) capital (1000$)
height 2-ft tray spacing +20% Hx. 1 238 249 250 251
heat exchanger sizing column 1 116 120 120 121
reboilers U)0.568 (kJ m-2 K-1 h-1) tray 1 3 3 3 3
∆T)34.8 (K) energy (1000$/year) 97.5 106.5 106.9 107.5
condensers U)0.852 (kJ m-2 K-1 h-1) TAC1 (1000$/year) 216.7 230.8 231.4 232.4
∆T)13.9 (K)
energy cost 5.9 $/106 kJ Second Column
VS2 (mol/s) 4.87 9.82 13.34
column shell ($) )17 640D1.066L0.802 D2 (mol/s) 0.38 0.91 2.05
with D and L in meters B2 (mol/s) 12.73 12.78 12.83
column trays ($) ) 229D1.55NT xD2
with D in meters, NT is number of trays (mf A) 0.016 70 0.011 45 0.009 90
heat exchangers ($) ) 7296(area)0.65 (mf B) 0.891 14 0.899 23 0.907 01
with area in m2 (mf C) 0.000 02 0.000 01 0.000 01
(mf D) 0.092 14 0.089 31 0.083 08
xB2
evaluate capital investment (column shell, trays, con- (mf A) 0.000 06 0.000 00 0.000 00
denser, and reboiler) and operating cost (energy). (mf B) 0.049 94 0.049 45 0.050 00
Both of the flowsheets were designed to achieve the (mf C) 0.000 00 0.000 00 0.000 00
steady-state economic objective of minimizing total (mf D) 0.950 00 0.950 55 0.950 00
annual cost, which is the sum of energy cost and annual DC2 (m) 0.435 0.618 0.720
AR2 (m2) 7.18 14.5 19.6
capital cost. Annual capital cost is assumed to be capital AC2 (m2) 12.0 24.1 32.8
investment divided by a payback period of 3 years. capital (1000$)
There are a large number of design optimization Hx. 2 62.9 99.2 121
variables in both systems, so some heuristics are used column 2 62.5 90.8 107
to simplify the optimization procedure. trays 2 1.3 2.2 3
energy (1000$/year) 16.9 34.0 46.2
3.1. One-Column Process. With tray holdups speci- TAC2 (1000$/year) 59.1 98.1 123.1
fied, there are four design optimization variables: num-
ber of stripping trays, number of reactive trays, number TAC of process 216.7 289.9 329.5 356.5
(1000$/year)
of rectifying trays, and operating pressure. Since the
relative volatility between each adjacent component is Table 4. Effect of Trays in Recovery Column
2 (RC ) 8, RA ) 4, RB ) 2, and RD ) 1), it is reasonable
NT2 RR ) R2/D2 VS2 (mol/s) TAC2 (M$/year)
to assume that the number of stripping and rectifying
trays will be the same. This assumption reduces the 10 14 31.23 205
15 7 16.58 135
design optimization variables to three.
20 5.5 13.34 123
Figure 3 gives results of the design optimization. 30 5.2 12.82 133
Pressure is varied from 5 to 15 bar. At low pressures,
temperatures are low, which means reaction rates are varied (NRX ) 4, 6, 8), giving the corresponding number
small. It takes a lot of vapor boilup and reflux to build of stripping and rectifying trays (NS ) NR ) 8, 7, 6). In
up reactant concentrations in the reactive section of the the right column, the total number of trays is fixed at
column to achieve the required conversion. At high 30 and the number of reactive trays is varied (NRX ) 6,
pressures, temperatures are high, which reduces the 8, 10), giving the corresponding number of stripping and
reaction equilibrium constant of the exothermic reac- rectifying trays (NS ) NR ) 12, 11, 10).
tion. It again takes a lot of vapor boilup to strip out The optimum design is a column with 20 trays and 6
reactants from the reaction section and drive the reactive trays, operating at 9 bar. Table 3 gives design
reaction to the right. Thus, there is an optimum pres- parameter values. The fresh feed flow rate FOA is fixed
sure of about 9 bar. at 12.6 mol/s for all cases in Table 3. The total annual
In the left column of Figure 3, the total number of cost of this one-column process is $216,700/year. The
trays is fixed at 20 and the number of reactive trays is portion of this that is energy is $97,500/year.

Figure 4. Composition profiles in 7/6/7 reactive column.
Figure 5. Temperature profiles in 7/6/7 reactive column.
3.2. Two-Column Process. The presence of the
second recovery column adds additional design optimi-
zation variables. To simplify the optimization, we as-
sume that the reactive column is the same as that in
the one-column process and operates at the same
pressure. These appear to be reasonable assumptions
because the total annual cost is fairly insensitive to the
number of trays chosen in each section as long as the
number of trays is kept fairly large (well above the
minimum).
The pressure in the recovery column is fixed at 1 bar
since this permits the use of cooling water in the
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 39, No. 8, 2000 2939
condenser (about 330 K with mostly B). The composition
of impurity D in the distillate from the recovery column
is heuristically fixed at about 10 mol % since case
studies showed that the total annual cost of the system
is fairly insensitive to this parameter. We do not want
to recycle too much product D back to the reactive
column because this will drive the reaction in the wrong
direction.
The feed composition to the second column is mostly
D, with about 5-15 mol % B, depending on the excess
reactant fed to the first column. Therefore, the ratio of
the feed tray to the total number of trays in the second
2940 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 39, No. 8, 2000
Figure 6. Reactive column; changes in FOB.
Figure 7. Reactive column; +20% change in RR.
column is kept constant at 1/3 (counting from the bottom
up). Using a 20% excess of reactant B fed to the first
column (1.2FOA ) FOB + D2), the number of trays in the
second column is varied. Increasing the number of trays
increases capital cost but decreases energy cost. Table
4 shows that the optimum design has 20 trays.
Finally, different percentages of excess reactant were
studied, using the same column configurations (20 trays
in each column). Results are summarized in Table 3.
As the percent excess reactant increases, the total
annual cost of the two-column process increases. If a
20% excess is required to handle flow measurement
uncertainties and fresh feed composition changes, the
total annual cost of the two-column process is more than
twice that of the one-column process. Thus, there
appears to be a significant economic incentive to use
the one-column process.
Figure 4 shows how the percent excess reactant
affects the composition profiles in the reactive column.
As more B is fed into the column, the A profile in the
middle of the column is shifted down and the B profile
is shifted up. Notice that some B is lost out the top of
the column, along with the A, when the excess of B is
increased (see also Table 3). Figure 5 shows that
temperatures in the stripping section go down (more B
instead of D) as the percent excess is increased, and

Figure 8. Changes in FOA.
temperatures in the rectifying section go up (more B
instead of A).
4. Dynamics and Control
Control structures were developed for both processes
using conventional PI controllers. In both flowsheets,
the following loops are used:
1. Pressure is controlled by condenser heat removal.
2. Base level is controlled by manipulating bottoms
flow rate.
3. Reflux-drum level is controlled by manipulating
reflux flow rate.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 39, No. 8, 2000 2941
4. Distillate flow rate is changed to maintain a
constant reflux ratio.
Two 30-s lags are assumed in the temperature loops.
Ultimate gains and periods are obtained by relay-
feedback testing. The temperature controllers are tuned
using the Tyreus-Luyben settings. All levels use pro-
portional-only control.
4.1. One-Column Process. The control scheme used
(see Figure 1) is the same as that called CS5 in Al-Arfaj
and Luyben.1 The temperature on Tray 5 is controlled
by manipulating vapor boilup. The composition of
reactant A on Tray 8 at the bottom of the reactive
section is measured, and the fresh feed flow rate of
2942 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 39, No. 8, 2000
Figure 9. Changes in FOA with +20% RR2.
component A (FOA) is manipulated using a proportional-
only controller. Fresh feed of component B (FOB) is flow
controlled and is the production rate handle. The
proportional-only composition controller on Tray 8 uses
a gain of one-third the ultimate gain.
Figure 6 gives the responses of the system to step
changes of (20% in the flow rate of FOB. Production rate
changes and the control scheme brings in more or less
FOA to satisfy the component balance. Vapor boilup
changes directly with production rate. Remember that
reflux ratio is being held constant. Notice that product
purities, which are not controlled, change inversely with
production rate. If purities higher than 95% are desired
under worst-case conditions, the normal steady-state
reflux ratio can be increased.
Figure 7 shows the responses for +20% step changes
in reflux ratio. The unmarked curves are for the reflux
ratio change only. More vapor boilup is required. Distil-
late product purity improves, but bottoms product purity
gets worse. The curves labeled “+2T5” are the responses
to a change in reflux ratio and a simultaneous change
in the temperature controller setpoint. Both product
purities improve.
These results illustrate that inferential temperature

Figure 10. Temperature setpoint changes.
control can be used in the single-column process to
control product purities. Higher reflux ratios and higher
control-tray temperatures must be used in order to keep
products at or above specifications. However, on-line
composition measurement of conditions inside the col-
umn may be required to satisfy the component balance.
The need for this on-line composition measurement is
the principal disadvantage of the one-column process.
The possible use of inferential methods to estimate
internal column compositions is an area of future
research.
4.2. Two-Column Process. Figure 2 gives the con-
trol structure used with the two-column process. The
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 39, No. 8, 2000 2943
reflux ratios are controlled in both columns. A tray
temperature is controlled in each of the columns by
manipulating the two vapor boilups. In the reactive
column the distillate is the product stream, so a tem-
perature in the rectifying section is chosen. Tray 18 is
in a region where the separation is primarily between
the lightest component C and component B (see Figure
4). There are small amounts of A in this region also,
but temperature is influenced mostly by the purity of
C. In the second recovery column the product stream is
the bottoms, but the feed composition is high in D with
only a small amount of B. The temperature profile is
flat throughout most of the lower part of the column
2944 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 39, No. 8, 2000
Figure 11. Higher purities; changes in FOA.
but shows a significant break at about Tray 15, so this
is selected as the control tray. The setpoint of the total
B flow controller (the sum of FOB + D2) is ratioed to the
FOA fresh feed flow rate.
Figure 8 shows the responses of the process to (20%
step changes in FOA, the production rate handle. There
are immediate changes in FOB because of the ratio
controller. Temperatures are returned to their setpoints
within about 60 min, but product compositions take over
3 h to come to their new steady states. Increasing
throughput causes a slight decrease in the purity of the
C product (xD1,C) but causes a larger decrease in the
purity of the D product (xB2,D). Decreasing throughput
causes a transient drop in the purity of the D product.
An increase in the reflux ratio in the second column, as
shown in Figure 9, improves the dynamic response.
Reflux ratio is increased 20%, and the same changes in
FOA are made. Now the purity of the D product is above
specification.
The responses of the system to changes in tempera-
ture controller setpoints are shown in Figure 10. De-
creasing the temperature on Tray 18 in the first column
increases the purity of the C product, while increasing
the temperature on Tray 15 in the second column

Figure 12. Comparison of flowsheets; changes in throughput.
increases the purity of the D product. One set of curves
gives the response to a -2K step change in the Tray 18
temperature controller setpoint. The other set of curves
gives the response to simultaneous changes of -2K in
Tray 18 in the first column and +2K in Tray 15 in the
second column.
The system was converged to a new steady-state
condition with the modified control tray temperatures
and 20% higher reflux ratio in the second column. Then,
(20% changes in FOA were made. Results are shown in
Figure 11. The initial product purities are now xD1,C )
0.9538 and xB2,D ) 0.9841. The vapor boilup in the
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 39, No. 8, 2000 2945
recovery column has increased from 13.34 to 19.40 mol/s
(compare Figure 11 with Figure 8). Products purities
remain above their specification values despite the
changes in throughput.
These results demonstrate that the two-column pro-
cess is controllable and that product qualities can be
maintained using simple temperature controllers if
reflux ratios and tray temperature controller setpoints
are selected to handle the worst-case conditions. No on-
line composition measurements are required.
A direct comparison of the dynamic responses of the
two flowsheets is given in Figure 12. The disturbances
2946 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 39, No. 8, 2000
are (20% step changes in throughput (FOB for the
single-column system and FOA for the two-column
system). The reflux ratios and tray temperature set-
points have been adjusted so that the initial product
purities are above the specified values (95 mol %). Note
that the initial product purites are slightly different in
Figure 12 than those used in Figure 11.
Both systems are controllable. The two-column sys-
tem (FS2) is slower as expected because of the recycle
stream. For the +20% increase the two-column process
exhibits a dynamic dip in the B2 product stream purity
after about 80 min (see the xB2,D plots in Figures 11 and
12). Thus, the dynamics of the two-column process are
more complex and slightly inferior to the one-column
process.
Conclusion
A quantitative comparison of the steady-state eco-
nomics and the dynamic controllability of two alterna-
tive reactive distillation systems has been presented.
There is a significant steady-state penalty in using the
two-column process, but the need for an on-line analyzer
is eliminated. The one-column process is more efficient,
but its operation depends on having a reliable composi-
tion measurement. The dynamic performance of the two-
column process is not as good as the one-column process.
This work represents the initial phase of an extensive
investigation of the control of reactive distillation
columns. Our future research will focus on a number of
specific chemical systems of different types. There are
a variety of systems, depending on the chemistry, the
vapor-liquid equilibrium, the existence of inert com-
ponents, one or two products, etc. A variety of control
structures will probably be required for effective control
of the individual systems.
Nomenclature
aB ) pre-exponential factor for reverse reaction (kmol s-1
kmol-1)
ACk ) heat-transfer area in condenser of column k (m2)
aF ) pre-exponential factor for forward reaction (kmol s-1
kmol-1)
ARk ) heat-transfer area in reboiler of column k (m2)
A ) reactant component
B ) reactant component
Bk ) bottoms flow rate in column k (mol/s)
C ) product component
D ) product component
Dk ) distillate flow rate in column k (mol/s)
DCk ) diameter of column k (m2)
EB ) activation energy of reverse reaction (cal/mol)
EF ) activation energy of forward reaction (cal/mol)
FOA ) fresh feed flow rate of reactant A (mol/s)
FOB ) fresh feed flow rate of reactant B (mol/s)
kF ) specific reaction rate of forward reaction (kmol s-1
kmol-1)
kB ) specific reaction rate of reverse reaction (kmol s-1
kmol-1)
Ln ) liquid flow rate from tray n (kmol/s)
Mn ) liquid holdup on tray (kmol)
NFk ) feed tray in column k (counting from the bottom)
NR ) number of rectifying trays in reactive column
NRX ) number of reactive trays in reactive column
NR ) number of stripping trays in reactive column
NTk ) total number of trays in column k
P ) total pressure (bar)
Psj ) vapor pressure of component j (bar)
Rk ) reflux flow rate in column k (mol/s)
R ) perfect gas law constant (cal mol-1 K-1)
RC ) rate of production of C (kmol of C/s)
Tnk ) temperature on tray n in column k (K)
TAC ) total annual cost (1000$/year)
Vnk ) vapor flow rate from tray n in column k (mol/s)
VSk ) vapor boilup in column k (mol/s))
xknj ) composition of component j in liquid on tray n in
column k (mole fraction)
yknj ) composition of component j in vapor on tray n in
column k (mole fraction)
xBkj ) bottoms composition of component j in column k
(mole fraction)
xDkj ) distillate composition of component j in column k
(mole fraction)
Rj ) relative volatility of component j
∆Hv ) heat of vaporization (cal/mol)
λ ) heat of reaction (cal/mol of C produced)
Literature Cited
(1) Al-Arfaj, M.; Luyben, W. L. Comparison of Alternative
Control Structures for an Ideal Two-Product Reactive Distillation
Column. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2000, in press.
(2) Roat, S.; Downs, J. J.; Vogel, E. F.; Doss, J. E. Integration
of Rigorous Dynamic Modeling and Control System Synthesis for
Distillation Columns. Chemical Process ControlsCPC III; Elsevi-
er: Amsterdam, 1986; pp 99-138.
(3) Bock, H.; Wozny, G.; Gutsche, B. Design and Control of a
Reaction Distillation Column Including the Recovery System.
Chem. Eng. Process. 1997, 36, 101-109.
(4) Kumar, A.; Daoutidis, P. Control of an Ethylene Glycol
Reactive Distillation Column. AIChE J. 1999, 45, 51.
(5) Vora, N.; Daoutidis, P. Dynamics and Control of an Ethyl
Acetate Reactive Distillation Column. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.,
submitted.
(6) Sneesby, M. G.; Tade, M. O.; Smith, T. N. Two-Point Control
of a Reactive Distillation Column for Composition and Conversion.
J. Process Control 1999, 9, 19-31.
(7) Bartlett, D.; Wahnschafft, O. Dynamic Simulation and
Control Strategy Evaluation for MTBE Reactive Distillation. Paper
presented at FOCAP, 1999.
(8) Luyben, W. L.; Tyreus, B. D.; Luyben, M. L. Plantwide
Process Control; Mc-Graw Hill: New York, 1999.
Received for review January 6, 2000
Revised manuscript received May 5, 2000
Accepted June 9, 2000
IE000004C