1154 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

1993, 32, 1154-1162

Dynamics and Control of Recycle Systems. 4. Ternary Systems with

One or Two Recycle Streams
Bjorn D. Tyreus
E. I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., Newark, Delaware 19714-6090

William L. Luyben*
Department of Chemical Engineering, Iacocca Hall, Lehigh University 111, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015

This paper is the fourth in a series of papers that explore the challenging problems associated with
the dynamics and control of recycle systems. The reactions considered in previous papers were
fairly simple. Only first-order reactions were considered, so there was only one fresh feed stream.
In this paper, second-order kinetics are considered with two fresh-feed makeup streams. Two cases
are considered: (1) instantaneous and complete one-pass conversion of one of the two components
in the reactor so there is an excess of only one component that must be recycled and (2) incomplete
conversion per pass so there are two recycle streams. It is shown that the generic liquid-recycle rule
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

proposed by Luyben applies in both of these cases: “snowballing” is prevented by fixing the flow
Downloaded via IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON on February 7, 2019 at 19:25:41 (UTC).

rate somewhere in the recycle system. An additional generic rule is proposed: fresh feed makeup
of any component cannot be fixed unless the component undergoes complete single-pass conversion.
In the complete one-pass conversion case, throughput can be set by fixing the flow rate of the
limiting reactant. The makeup of the other reactant should be set by level control in the reflux drum
of the distillation column. In the incomplete conversion case, two workable schemes were found:
(1) Both recycle flow rates are fixed and both fresh-feed makeups are brought in on level control.
Throughput is controlled by changing either the reactor temperature or the recycle flow rates. (2)
One fresh-feed makeup controls reactor level and the other controls the composition in the reactor.
Throughput is controlled by setting reactor temperature or reactor effluent flow rate.

Introduction Table I. Physical Properties of Components A, B, and C

In previous papers, simple reactions have been component A B C
considered: binary systems with the single reaction A -* component number 1 2 3
molecular weight (lb/ft3) 50 50 100
B in a process consisting of one reactor and one column, heat of vaporization at 32 °F 18000 18000 18 000
and ternary systems with first-order consecutive reactions (Btu/lb-mol)
A-*B-*-C occurring in a reactor and separation occurring liquid heat capacity 0.6 0.6 0.6
in two distillation columns. Unreacted component A was (Btu/(lb °F))
recycled back to the reactor from one of the columns. There vapor heat capacity (Btu/(lb °F)) 0.3 0.3 0.3
was a single fresh-feed stream.
Antoine constants0
Aj 16.9963 15.5000 16.1931
In this paper we consider reactions in which two Bj -5000 -5000 -5000
components, A and B, react to form product C. Therefore Cj 273.16 273.16 273.16
there are two fresh-feed streams to be accommodated in 0
The Antoine equation for pure-component vapor pressures is
the control strategy. In addition, if there is incomplete In Py = A, + [B¡/(Cj + T)], where PJ = vapor pressure of component
one-pass conversion of both reactants, two recycle streams j (psia) and T = temperature (°C).
must be handled.
We assume there is a single, isothermal, perfectly mixed such that equimolal overflow applied). The physical
reactor followed by a separation section. One distillation properties for the three hypothetical components A, B,
column is used if there is only one recycle stream. Two and C are given in Table I.
are used if two recycle streams exist. In the first section we will consider the case where one
A number of alternative control structures will be of the reactants is completely consumed in one pass
studied. All composition controllers are tuned by using through the reactor. In the second section we will look at
the relay-feedback method to determine the ultimate gain the more realistic case where conversion per pass is
and ultimate frequency for the composition loop with the incomplete for both components.
unit isolated from the rest of the plant. Then detuned
Ziegler-Nichols settings were used in most loops. In the Complete One-Pass Conversion of One Component
higher purity loops the controllers were tuned by assuming Figure 1 shows the process. Pure component B is fed
that the process consisted of an integrator and deadtime into the reactor on flow control. The concentration of B
and using the tuning procedure proposed by Tyreus and in the reactor, z®, is zero because we assume complete
Luyben (1992). one-pass conversion of B. A large recycle stream of
All the dynamic simulations for this paper were carried component A is fed to the reactor. The reactor effluent
out on an interactive dynamic simulator developed at Du is a mixture of unreacted component A and product C.
Pont. The column dynamics are simulated with models This binary mixture is separated in a distillation column.
similar to those described in Luyben (1990). Equilibrium We assume that the relative volatility of A is greater than
at each stage was determined from a bubblepoint calcu- that of C, so the distillate product is recycled back to the
lation (with vapor pressure assumed such that relative reactor.
volatiles were constant). The vapor rates were calculated This simple system is encountered in a number of
from an energy balance (with physical properties assumed commercial reaction systems. It occurs when reaction rates
0888-5885/93/2632-1154$04.00/0 © 1993 American Chemical Society

RECYCLE R
with
Figure 1. Process one recycle stream.
RECYCLE A
FRESH FEED
Figure 3. Scheme B: limiting reactant makeup stream flow
controller; other reactant brought in on level control.
are so fast that B reacts quickly with A, but a large excess
of A is needed. There are several reasons why a large
recycle of one component is needed. One important one
is to prevent the occurrence of undesirable side reactions.
The alkylation process in petroleum refining is a common
and important example. Another reason for recycle may
be the need to limit the temperature rise through an
adiabatic reactor by providing a thermal sink for the heat
of reaction.
A. Steady-State Design. The purity of the product
stream B leaving the bottom of the distillation column
XB(i) is set at 0.01 mole fraction component A, with the
concentration of component C being 0.99. There is no
component B in the feed to the column because complete
one-pass conversion has been assumed. The column is
designed for a distillate purity xd<i) of 0.95 mole fraction
component A. In the base case the fresh feed flow rate is
100 lb-mol/h (Fob), and it is pure component B. Since
component B is completely converted, the amount of
component C in the product stream must also be 100 lb-
mol/h at steady state. Therefore the total flow rate of the
product stream and the flow rate of the makeup fresh feed
of component A, Fqa, can both be calculated.
•® =
Fob/ U xB(i)l
^0B +
=
Fqa -®XB(1)
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 32, No. 6,1993 1155
Under the assumption of complete one-pass conversion
of component B, in theory both the recycle flow rate D
and the holdup of the reactor Vr can be set at any arbitrary
values. Once these are selected, the system can be
designed. The feed flow rate F and composition z¡ to the
column can be calculated once D has been specified.
F = B+D (3)
^XD(1) + ^XB(1>
=
(4)
The separation in the distillation column is binary
between A and C, so the design of the column is
straightforward. The reflux ratio was set at 1.2 times the
minimum, and tray-to-tray calculations gave the total
number trays Nr and the optimum feed tray Nf.
Table II gives steady-state design results for a range of
values of recycle flow rate D. As D increases, the
concentration of A in the reactor z(i> increases. This causes
the reflux flow rate to increase initially, but then decrease.
At very high recycle flow rates, the reflux rate goes to zero,
indicating that the distillation column becomes just a
stripping column.
A As D increases, energy consumption, capital investment,
and total cost all increase. Thus the recycle flow rate
should be kept as low as possible, subject to the constraints
on the minimum recycle flow, e.g., preventing undesirable
side reactions from occurring or limiting adiabatic tem-
perature rise through the reactor.
B. Dynamics and Control. Two alternative control
schemes were evaluated. In the first, both of the fresh
feed streams, Fqa and Fob, are flow controlled (or one is
ratioed to the other). This is a control strategy that is
quite commonly seen in plants, but it has major weaknesses
as will be demonstrated below. One of the objectives of
this paper is to clearly point out these problems and to
illustrate them quantitatively by means of a numerical
example.
As sketched in Figure 2, reactor level is held by column
feed. Column base level is held by bottoms. Reflux drum
level is held by distillate recycle back to the reactor. Reflux
flow rate is flow controlled. Distillate composition is not
controlled since the recycle is an internal stream in the
unit. Bottoms product purity is controlled by manipu-
lating heat input. Note that this scheme violates the rule
proposed by Luyben for liquid recycles since the streams
in the recycle loop (F and D) are both on level control. We
call this control structure scheme A.
In the second control scheme, Figure 3, the total recycle
flow rate to the reactor (distillate plus makeup A) is flow
controlled. The makeup of reactant A is used to hold the
level in the reflux drum. This level indicates the inventory
of component A in the system. We call this control
structure scheme B.
Results of dynamic simulation studies of the process
using these two control structures are given in Figures
4-7. Figure 4 shows what happens using scheme A when
the flow rate of makeup A is incorrect by only 1 %, which
is smaller than any real flow measurement device can
achieve in most plants. The recycle flow rate D and the
composition of component A in the reactor ramp up with
time, and it takes more and more vapor boilup in the
column to keep component A from dropping out the
bottom. These trends would continue until the column
floods or some other constraint in heat input, heat removal,
(1) or pumping capacity is encountered.
Figure 5 shows that if a pulse is made in the makeup
(2) flow rate of component A, the system goes through a
1156 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 32, No. 6, 1993

Table II. Steady-State Designs for Complete Conversion Case

D (lb-mol/h) 25 50 100 200 400 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
2d) (m.f.)“ 0.1965 0.3212 0.4776 0.6346 0.7605 0.8446 0.8636 0.8770 0.8867 0.8942
F (lb-mol/h) 126 151 201 301 501 901 1101 1301 1501 1701
RRmin 4.71 2.81 1.80 1.22 0.83 0.48 0.37 0.27 0.19 0.12
Dc (ft) 2.37 2.72 3.27 4.08 5.20 6.53 6.97 7.33 7.61 7.85
V (lb-mol/h) 166 219 316 494 799 1262 1439 1589 1716 1825
/ 24/14 24/14 23/13 21/13 19/13 18/14 18/14 17/15 17/15 18/16
R (lb-mol/h) 141 169 216 294 399 462 439 389 316 225
energy (106 Btu/h) 2.08 2.73 3.95 6.17 9.99 15.8 18.0 19.9 21.5 22.8
capital costs (K^S)
column 124 144 169 199 238 290 311 314 327 353
trays 3.3 4.1 5.2 6.7 3.9 12.0 13.2 13.5 14.3 15.9
heatexch 148 177 225 301 412 554 603 644 677 704
total capital 276 325 388 507 658 856 928 971 1018 1074
energy cost (lO^/yr) 91 120 173 270 438 691 788 870 940 999
total cost (103$/yr) 183 228 306 439 657 976 1097 1194 1279 1357
0
m.f. =
mole fraction.

Time (hours)

Figure 4. Scheme A: 1% over-feed of component A. Figure 5. Scheme A: pulse in component A feed.

transient and lines out with a new recycle flow rate and
a new reactor composition.
These results quantitatively illustrate the basic flaw in
scheme A: both reactants cannot be flow controlled
because flow measurement inaccuracy makes it impossible
to achieve perfect stoichiometric amounts of the two
reactants in an open-loop system.
Thus scheme A is not a workable scheme. Somehow
the amount of component A in the system must be
determined and the makeup of component A must be
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 32, No. 6,1993 1157

960

950

940

930 |
>
920

910

900

Fi*ure 7’ Scheme B: increase in throughput.

Figure 6. Scheme B: reduction in recycle flow.

adjusted to maintain the inventory of component A at a
reasonable level.
Scheme B is a control structure that provides good
control of the system. Figure 6 shows what happens using
scheme B when the total recycle flow rate is reduced from
500 to 400 lb-mol/h. The system goes through a transient
and ends up at the same fresh feed flow rate for reactant
A. The reflux drum level controller adjusts the flow rate
of Fqa to maintain the correct inventory of component A
in the system. Note that the concentration of component
A in the reactor, Z(u, decreases when the recycle flow rate
is decreased (Figure 6b, middle). This has no effect on
the reaction rate because we have assumed the instan-
taneous reaction of component B.
Figure 7 shows the response of scheme B for a step
increase in component B makeup flow rate, Fob· The
control system automatically increases the makeup of
component A to satisfy the stoichiometry of the reaction.
Process with Two Recycle Streams
conversion of neither reactant is 100%. The concentra-
tions of the two reactants in the reactor are z<n and z®,
and therefore both reactants must be recycled.
The volatilities of the A, B, and C components dictate
what the recycle streams will be. If components A and B
are both lighter or heavier than component C, a single
column can be used, recycling a mixture of components
A and B from either the top or the bottom of the column
back to the reactor and producing product at the other
end. If the volatility of component C is intermediate
between components A and B, two columns and two recycle
streams will be required.
As sketched in Figure 8, the process studied had
volatilities that were =
4, =
1, and «3 = 2. Therefore
component B, the heaviest, recycled from the bottom
is
of the first column back to the reactor. Component A, the
lightest, is recycled from the top of the second column
back to the reactor.
Second-order kinetics were assumed in the reaction A
+ B —* C:
Ji —

VRkz(1)z( 2) (5)
We look at the more common situation in which
now
both reactants are present in the reactor since one-pass where = reaction rate (lb-mol/h), Vr = holdup in reactor
 1158 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 32, No. 6, 1993
RECYCLE fl
6. Calculate the feed to the first column:
F =
B1 + D1 (9)

-BiXbki) +
=
.Fz(i) ^ixdki) (10)

Bz( 2)
=
B1Xb1Xb1(2)
+ £*1*01(2) (11)
The rate of production of product C is equal to
7.
B2Xb2<3),and this must be equal to the rate of generation
of component C in the reactor (assuming the two fresh
feed streams contain no component C). Therefore the
(lb-mol),A = specific reaction rate (h-1),Z(u = concentration reactor volume can be calculated:
of component A in the reactor (mole fraction A), and z®
= concentration of component B in the reactor (mole B2*B2(3)
fraction B). Note that “moles” are not conserved in this Vr =
(12)
fcZ(l)Z(2)
system.
A. Steady-State Design. The process is described by Note that there is a unique reactor size for each selected
three component balances for each unit: reactor, column pair of light and heavy recycle flow rates.
1, and column 2. There are a number of ways to solve the 8. Calculate the fresh-feed makeup flows of both
nine nonlinear algebraic equations, but the following component A (Fqa) and component B (Fob)·
procedure was found to be straightforward and involved
iteration. Bz(i) + VRfez(1)z(2) (13)
~

no Bqa £*2*02(1)
1. The flow rate of the product stream B2 leaving the
Bz(2) + VRfez(1)z(2)
=
Bob
-

B1xb1(2) (14)
bottom of column 2 was fixed at 100 lb-mol/h.
2. The composition of this stream was specified to be 9. Calculate the minimum number of trays for each
*B2(i)
=
0.01, 0.01, and xb2(3) = 0.98.
XB2(2)
=
column from the Fenske equation and the minimum reflux
3. The flow rate of the light recycle stream D2 from the ratio from the Underwood equation. Set the actual number
top of column 2 was specified (to be varied later in order of trays equal to 1.5 times the minimum, and set the actual
to determine the optimum flow rate). The composition reflux ratio equal to 1.2 times the minimum. Results are
of this recycle stream was specified to be xd2<d = 0.99, given in Table III.
XD2<2)
=
0, and xd2(3) = 0.01. Figure 9 shows how several design parameters vary as
The flow rate of the heavy recycle stream
4. from the heavy and light recycle flow rates are varied.
the bottom of column 1 was specified (to be varied later 1. Low flow rates of either light or heavy recycle result
in order to determine the optimum flow rate). The in very large reactor size and high capital cost but low
composition of this recycle stream was specified to be xbkd energy cost.
=
0, XB1(2) = 0.99, and (3) = 0.01. 2. As heavy cycle Bi is increased, reactor holdup VR
5. Calculate the feed to the second column:
decreases, the concentration of component B in the reactor
increases, energy cost increases slightly, and capital cost
B2 + d2
=
£*i (6) decreases slightly. There is a minimum in the total cost
curve at some heavy-recycle flow rate because of the trade-
B2Xr2(1) + £*2*D2(1)
=
£*1*D(1) (7)
off between increasing energy cost and decreasing capital
^1*D<2)
=
B2X;B2(2)
+ £>2*D2<2) (8) cost (due to the decrease in reactor size).
Two Recycles; Light Recycle; solid-10, dashe*20, doped"40 Two Recycles: Ugh Recycle; eoBd-lO, deshed-20, dooed-40 Two Recycles Light Recycle: soli*· 10, dished*20, doeed-*0

Two Recycles Light Recycle: ioBd-10.dashetMO, doPed-40 Two Reeyctes Light Recycle: ioBd-10,dtthe**20, dooed-40

Figure 9. Effect of light and heavy recycle flow rates: (a, left top) on reactor holdup; (b, left bottom) on composition of component A in the
reactor; (c, middle top) on annual energy cost; (d, middle bottom) on total capital cost; (e, right top) on composition of component B in the
reactor; (f, right bottom) on total annual cost.
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 32, No. 6,1993 1159

Table III. Two-Recycle-Process Designs FRESH FEED A

energy total
d2 s, Vr cost cost
(lb-mol/h) (lb-mol/h) (lb-mol) z(l) z<2> (lfWyr) (lWyr)
10 20 7305 0.0838 0.1600 203 574
40 4982 0.0727 0.2707 218 551
60 4302 0.0641 0.3553 232 555
80 4047 0.0574 0.4221 245 568
15 20 5417 0.1174 0.1541 214 554
40 3659 0.1023 0.2619 229 537
60 3135 0.0906 0.3451 243 544
20 20 4440 0.1486 0.1486 224 548
40 2971 0.1300 0.2538 240 535
60 2527 0.1156 0.3356 253 542
80 2350 0.1040 0.4010 266 555
25 20 3847 0.1776 0.1435 234 549
30 2978 0.1661 0.1981 242 540
40 2552 0.1561 0.2461 250 539
50 2308 0.1471 0.2886 256 541
60 2157 0.1392 0.3265 263 546 reflux drum in the second column. Fresh-feed makeup of
40 20 2971 0.2538 0.1300 263 570
component B controls the level in the base of the first
40 1926 0.2256 0.2256 278 562
60 1599 0.2030 0.3020 291 569
column.
80 1457 0.1846 0.3646 303 581 This scheme works well. Throughput can be changed
by changing either the recycle flow rates (Figure 11) or the
3. As light recycle D2 increases, reactor holdup decreases, reactor temperature (Figure 12). Increasing recycle flow
the concentration of component A in the reactor increases, rates increases the concentrations of both components A
energy cost increases rapidly, and capital cost decreases.
and B in the reactor, and this increases the production of
There is an optimum pair of light and heavy recycle component C. Increasing reactor temperature increases
the specific reaction rate, k, to increase the production of
flow rates. As can be seen in Figure 9f, the minimum total
cost ($535 500/y) occurs with a light recycle flow rate D2 component C. The concentrations of reactants z<d and
Z(2) both decrease slightly (see Figure 12d, bottom).
= 20 lb-mol/h and a heavy recycle flow rate = 40 lb-
2. Scheme 2 (Figure 13): Fresh-feed makeup of
mol/h. Table III gives more design details over a range
of values of two recycle flows. component A is fixed. Fresh-feed makeup of component
B is used to control reactor level. Reactor effluent is fixed.
All of the above calculations used a specific reaction This scheme is similar to scheme B (in the previous section)
rate k = l h_1. If other values of k are used, the optimum in that the limiting component is flow controlled into the
light and heavy recycle flow rates and the minimum total reactor. The difference is that here the limiting component
cost change. This occurs primarily because the size of the is not completely converted per pass through the reactor.
reactor depends directly on the value of k. This scheme does not work. Figure 14 shows what
The smaller the value of k, the larger the optimum happens when we attempt to increase throughput by
recycle flow rates and the higher the total cost. For increasing Foa· The system begins to fill up with com-
example, when k = 10 h_1, the optimum recycle flow rates ponent A, and the concentration of B in the reactor, z(2>,
are D2 = 5 and = 10 lb-mol/h, and the minimum total becomes so low that the reaction rate drops.
cost is $409 000/yr. When k = l h-1, the optimum recycle 3. Scheme 3 (Figure 15): Fresh-feed makeup of
flow rates are D2 20 and = 40 lb-mol/h, and the
component A is fixed. Fresh-feed makeup of component
-

minimum total cost is $535 000/yr. When k = 0.1 h-1, the
optimum recycle flow rates are D2 = 40 and = 70 lb-
mol/h, and the minimum total cost is $832 000/yr.
B. Dynamics and Control. A number of alternative
control structures were studied. No control structures
that violated the recycle route proposed by Luyben (1992)
were found to work. Unless one flow somewhere in the
recycle loops was fixed, the recycle flow rate would grow
to very high rates when a disturbance occurred or when
additional throughput was desired. Two schemes were
found to be fairly effective. Four control structures that
are typical of the many studied are described below.
In all the schemes, the following control structures were
used: (a) the reflux flow rates on both columns are fixed;
dual composition control was not used in order to keep
the column control systems as simple as possible; (b) vapor
boilup in the first column controlled the impurity of B in
final product stream (the bottoms from the second column)
through a composition/composition cascade strategy; (c)
impurity of component A in the final product was
controlled by vapor boilup in the second column; (d) base
level in the second column was controlled by bottoms flow
rate; (e) reactor temperature was controlled by coolant
flow rate.
'
1. Scheme 1 (Figure 10): Both recycle flow rates are
fixed. Reactor level is controlled by reactor effluent. Fresh-
feed makeup of component A controls the level in the
B is used to control the composition of component B in
the reactor. Reactor level is controlled by reactor effluent.
This scheme does not work because of the “snowball”
effect. As shown in Figure 16, the flow rates of reactor
effluent, light recycle, and heavy recycle change drastically
when the feed rate is changed. Note that this control
structure has only liquid level controllers in both recycle
feedback loops, so snowballing can easily occur.
4. Scheme 4 (Figure 17): Fresh-feed makeup of
component A is used to control reactor level. Fresh-feed
makeup of component B is ratioed to the flow rate of fresh-
feed makeup of component A, and the ratio is changed by
a reactor composition controller. Reactor effluent is flow
controlled.
This scheme works well. Throughput is adjusted by
changing the flow rate of reactor effluent as suggested by
Downs (1988). Figure 18 shows that as F is ramped up,
both fresh feed makeup flows (FqA and Fob) are increased
by the level and composition controllers. Notice that the
concentration of component A ( < >) must increase to give
the required increase in the production rate of component
C since the concentration of component B (z<2>) is constant.
Throughput could also be changed by changing reactor
temperature as in scheme 1. It might seem that there is
a third way of changing throughput in scheme 4, namely
by changing the setpoint of the composition controller
(component B composition in the reactor). However, at
1160 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 32, No. 6, 1993

Time (hours)

Figure 12. Scheme 1: increase in reactor temperature.

Figure 11. Scheme 1: increase in both recycle flow rates.
fixed reactor effluent flow rate, this is not an option. For
both increases and decreases in the composition of
component B in the reactor, the production rate decreased.
The reason for this is that, with everything else constant,
the composition of component A in the reactor, z(d,
assumes a new value so as to make the product of z<d and
Z(2> decrease.
For example, under normal conditions, z(= 0.13 and
Z(2)
=
0.2538, giving a product < > (2) = 0.033. Now if z<2>
is increased to 0.317, the composition of component A
decreases to z<u = 0.098, giving a product z(1)z(2) = 0.031.
Likewise if zy> is decreased to 0.164, the composition of
component A increases to < = 0.192, giving a product
Z(pz<2)
= 0.031.
It should be recognized that
an additional composition
analyzer is required in scheme 4 compared to scheme 1.
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 32, No. 6,1993 1161
RECYCLE fl RECYCLE fi

Figure 13. Scheme 2: component A feed fixed; component B feed Figure IS. Scheme 3: component A feed fixed; component B feed
controls reactor level; reactor effluent fixed. controls reactor composition; reactor effluent controls reactor level.
1162 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 32, No. 6, 1993

RECYCLE A
This may be a serious drawback of scheme 4 in many
processes because of the high capital and operating costs
of some analyzers and because of their poor reliability.

Conclusion

This paper has studied a recycle process in which a

second-order reaction takes place in a CSTR and reactor
Figure 17. Scheme 4: component A feed controls reactor level;
component B feed controls reactor composition; reactor effluent flow
effluent is separated in two downstream distillation
rate fixed. columns. One or two recycle streams from the separation
section are returned to the reactor.
These studies support the rule that the flow rate of one
stream somewhere in a liquid recycle loop must be fixed
in order to prevent “snowballing”. They also support the
rule that the flow rate of a makeup stream of a reactant
can be fixed if and only if that component is completely
consumed in one pass through the reactor. In the
incomplete conversion case, reactant makeup streams
should be brought into the process to control an appro-
priate level or composition.

Nomenclature

Ac =
area of condenser (ft2)
Aj = coefficient in Antoine equation
Ar = area of reboiler (ft2)
Bj = coefficient in Antoine equation
Bk = bottoms flow rate from kth column (lb-mol/h)
Cj
= coefficient in Antoine equation
Dk =
distillate flow rate from kth column (lb-mol/h)
Dck = diameter of column of kth column (ft)
Dr = diameter of reactor (ft)
F = column feed flow rate = reactor effluent (lb-mol/h)
F0j
= fresh feed rate of component j to reactor (lb-mol/h)
k = specific reaction rate (Ir1)
Nr>, = feed tray number in kth column
Py
=
pure component vapor pressure (psia)
Njk = total number of trays in kth column
Rk = reflux flow rate in kth column (lb-mol/h)
ft = reaction rate (h-1)
T = temperature (°C)
Vk = vapor boilup in kth column (lb-mol/h)
Vr = reactor holdup (lb-mol)
xrk¡ bottoms composition in kth column (mole fraction of
—

component j)
xokj distillate composition in kth column (mole fraction of
=

component j)
z¡
=
reactor composition (mole fraction of component j)
zoj
= fresh feed composition (molte fraction of component j)
aj = relative volatility of component j

Literature Cited

Downs, J. Paper presented at a Workshop on Plant-Wide Control,

Lehigh University, 1988.
Luyben, W. L. Process Modeling, Simulation and Control for
Chemical Engineers, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1990.
Luyben, W. L. Dynamics and Control of Recycle Systems. 3.
Alternative Process Designs in a Ternary System. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 1993, preceding paper in this issue.
Tyreus, B. D.; Luyben, W. L. Tuning PI Controllers for Integrator/
Deadtime Processes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1992, 31, 2625-2628.

Time (hours) Originally submitted June 22, 1992

Figure 18. Scheme 4: throughput increased by increasing flow rate Resubmitted for review March 1,1993
of reactor effluent. Accepted March 16, 1993