Steady State Analyses for Reactive Distillation Control:

An MTBE Case Study

Bhanu Pratap Singh, Ram Singh, M V Pavan Kumar and Nitin Kaistha
*
Department of Chemical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology
Kanpur 208016 (INDIA)
Abstract
Systematic steady analyses are conducted to synthesize effective control structures for an
MTBE reactive distillation column. The control objective is to maintain the product
purity and reaction conversion for changes in the production rate and feed composition.
The steady state relations between manipulated variables (inputs), namely, fresh feed
flows and reboiler duty, and potential controlled variables (outputs), namely, tray
temperatures and compositions, are studied to assess the steady state multiplicity and
linearity of the input-output relations. Input-output pairings that are sensitive, away from
the zone of steady state multiplicities and nearly linear about the base case operating
condition, are preferred. A control structure that controls a sensitive tray temperature in
the stripping section using the reboiler duty and maintains the isobutene composition on a
reactive tray using one of the fresh feeds is found suitable. Controlling a reactive tray
composition is essential for balancing the fresh feeds into the column as per the reaction
stoichiometry. The tray locations for temperature and composition measurements must be
chosen so that dynamic instability due to interaction between the two control loops is
avoided.
Keywords: Reactive distillation, control structure, process intensification
*
Corresponding author. Email: nkaistha@iitk.ac.in; Phone: +91-512-2597513; Fax: +91-512-2590104
Introduction
The operation and control of reactive distillation (RD) columns is a complicated
issue that must be addressed at the design stage for successful implementation of the
technology. The coupling of reaction and separation in a single unit makes the system
highly non-linear so that predicting column behavior in the presence of disturbances and
changed operating conditions is non-trivial. The control degrees of freedom vis--vis
conventional processes is reduced so that the separation and reaction extent must be
regulated using fewer available valves. The operability and control issue is further
compounded by the existence of multiple steady states that are routine phenomena in RD
systems (Jacobs and Krishna (1993); Nijhuis et al (1993); Ciric and Miao (1994);
Sneesby et al (1998); and Chen et al (2002)). Formulating the best operating strategy can
be quite complex and non-intuitive. A robust control strategy that ensures safe, stable and
economic operation in the presence of disturbances is thus essential.
In recent years, many articles have appeared in the literature on the control of RD
columns. Prominent among these is the pioneering work of Al-Arfaj and Luyben who
have published a series of articles on RD control (Al-Arfaj and Luyben (2000); Al-Arfaj
and Luyben (2002a-d); and Al-Arfaj and Luyben (2004)). Their work offers much insight
on key issues that a RD column control system must address. Control of an RD column
with ideal VLE is studied in Al-Arfaj and Luyben (2000). The authors show that
controlling a tray temperature in the stripping section and a composition in the reactive
section provides good control. The control of the industrially important methyl acetate
column is studied in Al-Arfaj and Luyben (2002a). A control structure that maintains a
tray temperature in both the reactive and stripping sections using the fresh acetic acid and
2
methanol feeds respectively, provides the best control of all the control structures studied.
The column is operated at fixed reflux ratio and the reboiler duty is the production rate
handle. It is worth mentioning that this is the control structure implemented at Eastman.
Al-Arfaj and Luyben have also studied the control of an olefin metathesis column (Al-
Arfaj and Luyben (2002b)), an ethylene glycol column (Al Arfaj and Luyben (2002c)),
an ETBE column (Al-Arfaj and Luyben (2002d)) and the design and control of a RD
based process for TAME production (Al-Arfaj and Luyben (2004)).
Other authors have also studied the control of RD columns. These include the
work of Vora and Daoutidis (1999) who study the non-linear control of an ethyl-acetate
column. Sneesby et al (1999) study the two point control of an ethylene glycol column.
Grner et al (2002) apply asymptotically exact input-output linearization to derive and
implement a control law on a simulated industrial RD column operated by Bayer AG.
Pattern based control of an ETBE column is studied by Tian et al (2003). Most of the
work is however esoteric and un-necessarily mathematical and does not provide much
intuitive insight on RD control. The rationale behind why a particular control structure
gives better performance than others does not come across clearly. This work is
motivated by this need to better understand why a control structure is preferred over
others through a systematic analysis of the governing steady state input-output
relationships for the different control structures.
RD Control
An RD column must be operated so that the product purity and reaction
conversion are maintained close to their design values for major disturbances entering the
3
column. A robust control system needs to put in place that can regulate the column for
anticipated production rate changes and changes in the feedstock composition, the
principal disturbances into a column. In the design of such a control system, the selection
of the control structure is the most crucial decision.
A control structure refers to the number of control loops and the specific input-
output pairing used in the loops. Potential input variables are the reflux rate, reflux ratio,
reboiler duty, reboil ratio, distillate rate, bottoms rate and the fresh feeds. Potential output
variables are easily measurable variables such as tray / stream temperatures and
compositions. There are thus several possible input (manipulated) variables and output
(controlled) variables even in a simple RD column. The various permutations and
combinations lead to a large number of possible control structures from which a small set
of good control structures must be chosen. Evidently, the key to successful column
operation is this screening of control structures to zero in on the most appropriate
controlled variables and effective handles to manipulate them so that by maintaining the
controlled variables at their set-points, the purity and conversion of the column remain
near the design specifications. Indeed, for a good control structure, other control system
design decisions such as the choice between sophisticated versus simple control
algorithms becomes obvious in that simple PI control should suffice. On the other hand,
no amount of sophistication in the control algorithm can compensate for an inherently
poor control structure.
A good control structure is one that rejects disturbances effectively. In order to do
so, controlled variables that are sensitive to the occurrence of the primary disturbances
should be chosen so that timely control action can be initiated (Moore (1992)). Also, the
4
manipulated variables used for control should affect the controlled variables in a
substantial and easily predictable way. Such a choice assures enough stick for column
regulation even for large disturbances. At steady state, linear or nearly linear input-output
relationships are certainly desirable so that the process gain does not change appreciably.
In case multiple control loops are used, the input output pairings should not cause
stability problems due to interaction between the loops. Last but not least, since sensor
measurements are never exact, the column performance should be robust to typical
measurement errors or errors in the set-point inputs.
Systematic steady state analyses can be conducted to reveal the control structure/s
that provides effective column regulation for the primary disturbances into a column.
These analyses include sensitivity studies for obtaining potential controlled variables that
are sensitive to disturbances and manipulated variables. For different control structures,
the column response in terms of performance variables such as steady state product purity
and conversion, and the steady state input-output relationship that a controller sees, can
be studied for the major anticipated disturbances. From these analyses, good control
structures are obtained as the ones that ensure product purity and conversion within
acceptable limits while avoiding steady state multiplicities with nearly linear input-output
relations.
This simple philosophy for control structure synthesis is demonstrated on a
double feed MTBE RD system in this work. The approach taken is to study the effect of
varying the input handles about their base case values, on the column outputs to identify
potential input-output pairings. Pairings that are sensitive, avoid multiplicities and give
nearly linear input output relationships are short listed. Next, control loops are
5
systematically added and the column steady state response to the primary disturbances
evaluated until we arrive at the simplest control structure(s) that satisfies the control
objective of maintaining conversion and purity.
For the double feed MTBE case study reported here, the preferred control
structure operates at fixed reflux ratio and maintains a stripping section tray temperature
by manipulating the reboiler duty. A reactive tray composition is controlled by
manipulating one of the fresh feed rates in order to balance the fresh feed as per the
reaction stoichiometry. Both the fresh feeds can be used as the manipulation handle in the
composition loop. The tray location for the composition measurement must be carefully
chosen to avoid stability problems due to interaction with the temperature loop.
Steady State Multiplicities
We distinguish between two types of multiplicities: output multiplicity and input
multiplicity. The former refers to multiple output values for the same input specification
while the latter refers to multiple input specifications giving the same output. This is
illustrated in Figure 1 . From a control perspective, input variables are manipulated
variables such as the reboiler duty or reflux ratio while output variables are potential
controlled variables such as tray temperatures / compositions. Wang et al (2003) study
the effect of multiplicities on the design of a control system for an MTBE column.
The choice of the control structure substantially affects the number of steady state
multiplicities and the size of the operating space in which these multiplicities occur. In
other words, the complexity of the input-output relationships depends on the control
structure used. The control structure chosen must avoid output multiplicities to ensure
6
that the column does not drift from say a high conversion steady state to a low conversion
steady state even though there is no apparent change in the inputs to the column.
The consequences of input multiplicity are not as severe. If possible, it should be
avoided as the sign of the gain between the input and output variable changes depending
on the column operating condition. Also, if the output variable is used in a control loop,
the range of feasible set-point specifications becomes limited so that measurement biases
can drive the control system to seek an infeasible steady state.
The MTBE Reactive Distillation Column
The primary reaction in MTBE production is the etherification of isobutene with
methanol to form MTBE in the presence of a strong acid catalyst. The MTBE RD column
studied is shown in Figure 2. The base case operating conditions and design parameters
are given in the Figure. For VLE calculations, the liquid phase activity coefficients are
modeled using the Wilson equation. The Wilson parameters are tabulated in Table 1. The
vapor phase is assumed ideal. An activity based rate expression is used to model the
reaction kinetics as
2
IB MTBE
r
MeOH a MeOH
a a
r k
a K a
1

1
]
The reaction rate constant and equilibrium constant are modeled as

13 11110/
1.80 10 mol/(s kg catalyst )
T
k e
r


exp( 16.33 6820/ )
a
K T +
and
i i i
x a
The column operates at a high reflux ratio of 7 with a base case conversion of 91.95%
with 99.86% pure MTBE leaving from the bottoms. A control system that maintains the
7
product purity and reaction conversion near the design values is desired. It should provide
smooth transitions for production rate changes and compensate for any changes in the
butene feed composition. In order to synthesize such a control structure the effect of the
various potential manipulated variables on the column tray temperatures and
compositions is studied.
Effect of Column Inputs on Output Variables
The potential input variables or valves that can be manipulated to regulate the
column are the two fresh feeds, the reflux rate and the reboiler duty. It is also possible to
maintain the flow ratios of two streams such as the reflux ratio or the reboil ratio.
Manipulating the reflux rate or ratio for column regulation is not a good idea since the
hold up (or catalyst weight) on each reactive stage in an RD column is large so that the
column response can be extremely sluggish. In contrast, manipulating the reboiler heat
duty causes an immediate change in the vapor rate throughout the column. These
dynamic considerations indicate that fixed reflux rate or reflux ratio operating policies are
preferable and the reboiler duty and feed flows can be used for regulating the separation
and the reaction in the column.
Now in order to decide between the fixed reflux rate vs fixed reflux ratio policy,
Figure 3 plots the steady state purity and conversion as the reboiler duty is varied with the
feed conditions at their base case values for the two operating policies. Output
multiplicity is evident for both the fixed reflux rate and the fixed reflux ratio policies. It is
however noted that in the latter case, the base case point is away from the zone of output
multiplicity while output multiplicity occurs in the former even for the base case. The
8
column can thus drift from a high conversion steady state to a low conversion steady state
even as the reboiler duty and the feed conditions remain the same for a fixed reflux rate.
The same cannot happen in case the reflux ratio is kept fixed. Also the range of reboiler
duty about the base case for which the conversion and purity are acceptable is greater if
the fixed reflux ratio policy is used. Therefore, the fixed reflux ratio policy is preferred.
Having decided on maintaining a fixed reflux ratio, the response of the tray
temperatures to changes in one of the remaining input variables is studied. Figure 4 plots
the steady state tray temperature response to changes in the reboiler duty about the base
case respectively. All the tray temperatures, especially for trays 11 to 14 in the stripping
section are quite sensitive to changes in the reboiler duty. A small zone with output
multiplicities is observed. This zone is however away from the base case so that reboiler
duty may be used to maintain a sensitive tray temperature in the stripping section, as in
ordinary distillation.
Next, the effect of varying the fresh feed flows on the column tray temperatures is
studied. The tray temperatures for changes in fresh methanol are shown in Figure 5.
Substantial input multiplicity in the temperature of reactive trays is evident from the
plots. The multiplicity is also seen if the fresh butene feed flow is varied (figure not
shown). The process gain thus changes sign depending on the operating condition. Also it
is seen that the base case tray temperatures differ from the maximum tray temperatures
by only about 2
o
C so that sensor bias can cause an infeasible temperature specification.
The reactive tray temperature should therefore not be controlled.
An alternative to reactive tray temperature measurement is the tray composition.
Figure 6 illustrates the isobutene composition response to changes in the fresh butene
9
feed and the fresh methanol feed for the reactive trays. Reactive trays that are sensitive
and do not show input / output multiplicity are seen in the plots eg tray 3 composition for
both the fresh feeds. These measurements can be used for balancing the fresh feeds into
the column to be nearly stoichiometric, as shown in the next section.
Control Structure Synthesis
We start with the simplest column operation strategy of no control and then keep
adding complexity in the form of control loops until we arrive at the simplest control
structure that achieves the desired control objective. The objective here is to maintain the
product purity and reaction conversion for the principal disturbances, namely change in
production rate and feeds composition. Operating the column at fixed reflux ratio and a
fixed reboiler duty is the starting point. The fresh feeds are assumed under flow control.
Even for a relatively small change of +10% in the fresh methanol feed rate, the MTBE
product purity drops dramatically to less 95%. The fresh feed rates may be varied by an
operator or may be off due to the typically high errors involved in flow measurements.
This is because one of the reactants (methanol) becomes excess and exits with the
product stream, reducing its purity.
Clearly the feeds need to be kept in stoichiometric balance in order to avoid this
problem. If the feeds are assumed to be in stoichiometric balance (using some feedback
arrangement), the product purity still reduces to < 95% as the fresh feed rate is increased
by 10%. The problem is that the reboiler duty remains fixed so that the additional
separation load is not handled by the column. Accordingly, as in ordinary distillation, a
tray temperature control loop that manipulates the reboiler duty to keep a tray
10
temperature in the stripping section fixed, is added. Since tray 11 is the most sensitive to
the reboiler duty, it is chosen as the location for placing the temperature sensor.
Assuming that the feeds are in stoichiometric balance, the product purity and conversion
are maintained even for 20% change in feed rates. The temperature controller thus
assures product purity.
A feedback control loop arrangement is necessary in order to maintain the feeds
in stoichiometric balance. The previous section showed that due to input multiplicities,
reactive tray temperatures should not be used in a control loop. The tray compositions, on
the other hand, are potential controlled variables for balancing the fresh feeds. A tray
composition control loop using one of the fresh feeds as the manipulation handle is
therefore added. The corresponding control structures are shown in Figure 7.
Note that since there are now two control loops, the tray location for composition
measurement must be chosen to avoid instability due to interaction between the two
control loops. The overall decision on which fresh feed and reactive tray composition to
use in the control loop is now a compromise between tray sensitivity, low interaction and
quick dynamic response time. The Niederlinski Index (NI) (Niederlinski, (1971)), a
measure of loop interaction, is tabulated in Table 2 for composition measurements on
different reactive trays. A negative NI indicates that the two control loops will be closed
loop unstable while a NI between 0.4 to 2 is considered acceptable. For the methanol
fresh feed, tray 3 shows the highest sensitivity and has an acceptable NI of 0.48. The NI
for other sensitive reactive trays is near zero or negative. Note that tray 9 is not very
sensitive, even though the NI is acceptable. For the butenes fresh feed, tray 10 is sensitive
and has an acceptable NI of 0.46. Note that trays 5-8, though sensitive, have a negative
11
NI and cannot be used for control. Also, tray 9 composition is not sensitive even though
the NI is acceptable. Thus a composition controller that either manipulates the methanol
feed to track tray 3 iso-butene composition or manipulates the butenes feed to track tray
10 isobutene composition should balance the feed flows to satisfy the reaction
stoichiometry.
In order to assess the steady state column performance for the proposed control
structures, Figure 8 plots the conversion and purity for production rate changes. Both the
structures are able to maintain the column at high product purity and reaction conversion
for 20% changes in the production rate. For the other major disturbance into the
column, namely, 5% changes in the isobutene feed composition, similar results (figure
not shown) are obtained. These steady state results indicate that the proposed control
structures can easily handle both production rate changes and feed composition changes.
Validation via dynamic simulations is necessary and will be taken up in the near future. It
is noted that in RD literature, a similar control structure has been dynamically validated
by Wang et al (2003).
12
Conclusions
This work clearly illustrates that systematic steady analyses are a powerful tool
that aid in synthesizing effective control structures for reactive distillation columns. Such
control structures are necessary to provide robust, stable, safe and economical column
operation to tide over disturbances entering the column. The analyses provide valuable
insight on the governing input output relations, steady state multiplicities and their impact
on the control structure. The MTBE case study clearly demonstrates the substantial effect
that a control structure has on steady state multiplicities. The results show that
maintaining the stoichiometric balance of the fresh feeds is the key to successful RD
column operation. The control structures synthesized for the MTBE column need to be
validated via dynamic simulations. This shall be taken up in the near future.
Acknowledgements
The financial support from the IIT Kanpur Initiation Grant Scheme is gratefully
acknowledged.
13
References
Jacobs, R., & Krishna, R. (1993). Multiple solutions in reactive distillation for methyl-
tert-butyl ether synthesis. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 32, 1706-
1709.
Nijhuis, S.A., Kerkhof, F.P.J.M., & Mak, A.N.S. (1993). Multiple steady states during
reactive distillation of methyl tertiary butyl ether. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
Research, 32, 2767-2774.
Ciric, A.R., & Miao, P. (1994), Steady state multiplicities in an ethylene glycol reactive
distillation column. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 33, 2738-2748.
Sneesby, M.G., Tade, M.O., Datta, R., & Smith, T.N. (1998). Steady state transitions in
the reactive distillation of MTBE. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 22, 879-892.
Chen, F., Huss, R.S., Doherty, M.F., & Malone, M.F. (2002). Multiple steady states in
reactive distillation: kinetic effects. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 26, 81-93.
Al-Arfaj, M.A., & Luyben, W.L. (2000). Comparison of alternative control structures for
an ideal two-product reactive distillation column. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
Research, 39, 3298-3307.
Al-Arfaj, M.A., & Luyben, W.L. (2002a). Comparative control study of ideal and methy
acetate reactive distillation. Chemical Engineering Science, 57, 5039-5050.
Al-Arfaj, M.A., & Luyben, W.L. (2002b). Design and control of olefin metathesis
reactive distillation column. Chemical Engineering Science, 57, 715-733.
Al-Arfaj, M.A., & Luyben, W.L. (2002c). Control of ethylene glycol reactive distillation
column. AIChE Journal, 48, 905-908.
Al-Arfaj, M.A., & Luyben, W.L. (2002d). Control study of ETBE reactive distillation.
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 41, 3784-3796.
Al-Arfaj, M.A., & Luyben, W.L. (2004). Plant-wide control for TAME production using
reactive distillation, AIChE Journal, 50, 1462-1473.
Vora, N., & Daoutidis, P. (2001). Dynamics and control of ethyl acetate reactive
distillation column. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 40, 833-849.
Sneesby, M.G., Tade, M.O, & Smith, T.N. (1999). Two-point control of a reactive
distillation column for composition and conversion. Journal of Process Control, 9, 19-31.
14
Grner, S., Mohl, K.D., Kienle, A., Gilles, E.D., Fernholz, G., & Friedrich, S. (2003).
Nonlinear control of a reactive distillation column. Control Engineering Practice, 11,
915-925.
Tian, Y.C., Jhao, F., Basowarno, B.H., & Tade, M.O. (2003). Pattern based predictive
control for ETBE reactive distillation. Journal of Process Control, 13, 57-67.
Wang, S.J., Wang, D.S.H., & Lee, E.K. (2003). Effect of interaction multiplicity on
control system design for a MTBE reactive distillation column, Journal of Process
Control, 13, 503-515.
Moore, C.F. (1992). Selection of controlled and manipulated variables. In W. Luyben
(Ed) Practical Distillation Control. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Niederlinski, A. (1971). A heuristic approach to the design of linear multivariable
interacting control systems. Automatica, 7, 691-697.
15
Vitae
Bhanu Pratap Singh
Mr BP Singh received his Bachelors degree in Chemical Engineering from Institute of
Engineering and Technology, Lucknow (India) in July 2002. He has finished all the
requirements for his Masters in Chemical Engineering from the Indian Institute of
Technology, Kanpur (India) and will be receiving the degree in the next Convocation. He
is currently working as a scientist in National Physical Laboratories, New Delhi (India).
His research interest is in the area of chemical process control.
Ram Singh
Mr Ram Singh received his Bachelors degree in Chemical Engineering from Hardcourt
Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur (India) in April 2002. He has finished all the
requirements for his Masters in Chemical Engineering from the Indian Institute of
Technology, Kanpur and will be receiving the degree in the next Convocation. He is
currently working as Design Engineer in Process Design India Limited, Noida (India).
His research interest is in the area of chemical process design.
M V Pavan Kumar
Mr M V Pavan Kumar received his Bachelors degree in Chemical Engineering from
Osmania University, Hyderabad (India) in July 2001. He received his Masters in
Chemical Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India) in 2003.
He is currently pursuing his doctorate in the same department. His research interests are
in the areas of plant-wide control and nanotechnology.
Nitin Kaistha
Dr Nitin Kaistha received his Bachelors in Chemical Engineering from the Indian
Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India) in May 1996. He received a doctorate in
Chemical Engineering from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (USA) in December
1999. He is currently an Assistant Professor in Chemical Engineering at the Indian
Institute of Technology, Kanpur (INDIA). His research interests include process
intensification, process safety, design and control.
16
17
III
A
A
II
A
A
I
A
A
O U T
P U T
V A R I
A B L
E
INPUT VARIABLE
(b)
III
A
A
II
A
A
I
A
A
O U
T P
U T
V A
R I A
B L
E
INPUT VARIABLE
(a)
Figure 1. Illustration of input and output multiplicities
(a) Output multiplicity
(b) Input multiplicity
MTBE
Reboiler Duty: 36.918 MW
1
2
3
10
11
15
Rectifying Section
Reactive Section
Catalyst Hold up: 1800 kg / tray
Stripping Section
Pure Liquid Methanol Feed
T=320 K, P=11 atm.
Flow Rate =711.30 kmol hr
-1

Mixed Butenes Vapor Feed
iso-butylene: 36 mol %
n-butane : 64 mol %
T=350 K, P= 11 atm.
Flow Rate = 1965.18 kmol hr
-1
Reflux Ratio
L/D=7
9
n-Butane
Bottoms flow rate
B = 640.8 kmol hr
-1
Figure 2. MTBE RD Column schematic
18
Figure 3. Variation in conversion and purity with respect to reboiler duty
(a) Fixed reflux ratio
(b) Fixed reflux rate
19
Figure 4. Variation in tray temperatures with respect to reboiler duty at fixed reflux ratio
(a) Rectifying section trays (0 to 2)
(b) Reactive section trays (3 to 6)
(c) Reactive section trays (7 to 10)
(d) Stripping section trays (11,13, 15 & 16)
20
Figure 5. Variation of reactive tray temperatures with respect to methanol feed
Figure 6. Variation in reactive section tray iso-butene composition with respect to fresh
methanol and fresh butenes feed
21
LC
MeOH
Butenes
RC
Reflux Ratio
set point
CC
FC
TC
LC
LC
MeOH
Butenes
RC
Reflux Ratio
set point
CC
FC
TC
LC
CS2
Figure 7. Proposed control structures
CS1: Fresh MeOH as production rate handle
CS2: Fresh butenes as production rate handle
CS1
Figure 8. Variation of conversion and purity for proposed control structures
(a) Fresh methanol production rate handle
(b) Fresh butenes production rate handle
(a)
(b)
Figure Captions
Figure 1. Illustration of input and output multiplicities
(a) Output multiplicity
(b) Input multiplicity
Figure 2. MTBE RD Column schematic
Figure 3. Variation in conversion and purity with respect to reboiler duty
(a) Fixed reflux ratio
(b) Fixed reflux rate
Figure 4. Variation in tray temperatures with respect to reboiler duty at fixed reflux
ratio
(a) Rectifying section trays (0 to 2)
(b) Reactive section trays (3 to 6)
(c) Reactive section trays (7 to 10)
(d) Stripping section trays (11,13, 15 & 16)
Figure 5. Variation of reactive tray temperatures with respect to methanol feed
Figure 6. Variation in reactive section tray iso-butene composition with respect to
fresh methanol and fresh butenes feed
Figure 7. Proposed control structures
CS1: Fresh MeOH as production rate handle
CS2: Fresh butenes as production rate handle
Figure 8. Variation of conversion and purity for proposed control structures
(a) Fresh methanol production rate handle
(b) Fresh butenes production rate handle
22
Table 1: Wilson
*
parameters for MTBE system
Wilson Parameters IB MeOH MTBE NB
, i j
a
IB 0.0 -0.7420 0.2413 0.0729
MeOH 0.7420 0.0 0.9833 0.8149
MTBE -0.2413 -0.9833 0.0 -0.1684
NB -0.0729 -0.8149 0.1684 0.0
, i j
b
IB 0.0 -85.5447 30.2477 0.0
MeOH -1296.719 0.0 -746.3971 -1149.280
MTBE -136.6574 204.5029 0.0 0.0
NB 0.0 -192.4019 0.0 0.0

*:
,
,
1 1
,
1
ln 1 ln
c c
k i k
i i j j c
j k
k j j
j
x
x
x

_

,

;
,
, ,
exp
i j
i j i j
b
a
T
+
_

,
23
Table 2: Niederliski index for composition measurement on different reactive trays
Tray Number 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Butenes 2.44 18.03 -1.55 -0.675 -0.513 -0.684 1.35 0.461
MeOH 0.481 0.35 0.211 0.129 0.103 0.131 0.658 -1.336
24