123456789

24.1

a)

i.

First model (full compositions model):

Number of variables: NV = 22
w1

xR,A

x2B

w2

xR,B

x2D

w3

xR,C

x4C

w4

xR,D

x5D

w5

xT,D

x6D

w6

VT

x7D

w7

HT

x8D

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
nd

Solution Manual for Process Dynamics and Control, 2 edition,

Copyright 2004 by Dale E. Seborg, Thomas F. Edgar and Duncan A. Mellichamp

24-1

ii. Second model (simplified compositions model):

Number of variables: NV = 14
w1

xR,A

w4

w2

xR,B

x4A

w6

xR,D

x8D

w8

xT,D

HT

x2D

VT

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

HR,A

w4

w2

HR,B

x4A

w6

HR,D

x8D

w8

HT,B

HT

x2D

HT,D

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
Sum
input flows1

2
x8

1
s

1
w8

1
s

x1

Demux

Mux

1
s

w1

2
3000

C
5
-out
+ in
+generated

HR

1
s

x2

w2

x3

Sum
input flows

[-0.5 -0.5 1 0]
330

stoich. factors

k
3000
rho*VR

Demux
generation &
Accumulation

T1
T2

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

24-4

Product3
4
x4

3
2

Product2

Demux

x3

Product

w4

w3
2

Product5

x5

1
Product1

w5

Product4

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

1
Purge Flow

1
2

w7

w5

x5

x7

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

24-5

1010
w1

w1
w1-save

xRA
xRA-save

w1-change
xRB

w2

xRB-save

w2-save
1100

xRD

w2

xRD-save
x2D
w2-change

Equations 2-(32-38)

VT-save

0.01
x2D-set

xTD

110
Purge Flow

HT

xTD-save
w6
w4
w6-save
w4-save

890
x4A

Recycle Flow
w8
E.2-32-38

x4A-save

w8-save

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

24-6

HRA
HRA-save
HRB
1010

w1

w1

w1-save

HRB-save
HRD

1100

HRD-save

w2

w2

HTB

w2-save

HTB-save
Equations 2-(48-52)

HTD
HTD-save

0.01
w4
x2D
w4-save
110
Purge Flow

x4A
w6

x4A-save

w6-save
xTD
890

xTD-save

Recycle Flow

HT
w8
w8-save

E.2-48-52

HT-save

Figure S24.1f. Simulink-MATLAB block diagram for third model

24-7

2010

1014

2008

1013

2006

Full model
Reduced concentrations
Reduced holdups

w4

w1

1015

1012

2004

1011

2002

1010

10

20

30

40

1101

2000

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

0.104

1100.5
w2

0.102
xTD

1100

1099.5
1099

0.1

10

20

30

40

110.5

500
HT

550

w6

111

110

450

109.5
109

400

10

20

30

350

40

890.5

0.0101
x 4A

0.0102

w8

891

890

0.0101

889.5
889

0.01
0.01
0

10

20

30

40

Time (hr)

Time (hr)

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

24-8

1010.5

2006

1010

2004

1009.5
1009

Full model
Reduced concentrations
Reduced holdups

w4

2008

w1

1011

2002

10

20

30

2000

40

0.102

1108

0.1

1106

0.098

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

20

30

40

w2

1110

0.096

x TD

1104
1102
1100

0.094

10

20

30

0.092

40

111

800

110.5
HT

w6

700
110

600
109.5
109

10

20

30

500

40

-3

890.5

10

890

9.95

889.5
889

x 10

x 4A

10.05

w8

891

9.9

10

20

30

9.85

40

Time (hr)

10

Time (hr)

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

24-9

1011

2000
Full model
Reduced concentrations
Reduced holdups

2000

1010.5

w4

2000

w1

1010
2000

1009.5
1009

2000
0

10

20

30

40

2000

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

0.1
0.1

w2

1100.5
1100

0.1

1099.5

0.1

1099

10

x TD

1101

10

20

30

0.1

40

120

500

118

400
HT

116
w6

300

114
200

112
110

10

20

30

40

891

100

0.01

890.5
x 4A

w8

0.01
890

0.01
889.5
889

10

20

30

40

0.01

Time (hr)

Time (hr)

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

24-10

1011

2008

w4

2006

w1

1010.5
1010

2004

1009.5
1009

2002

10

20

30

40

2000

0.1001

1100.5

0.1001

w2

x TD

1101

1100

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

0.1

1099.5
1099

Full model
Reduced concentrations
Reduced holdups

0.1

10

20

30

0.1

40

111

500
498

110.5

HT

w6

496
110

494
109.5
109

492
0

10

20

30

490

40

0
-3

10.01

898

10
9.99

w8

896
894

9.98

892

9.97

890

x 10

x 4A

900

10

20

30

40

9.96

Time (hr)

Time (hr)

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

24-11

1011

2000.5
Full model
Reduced concentrations
Reduced holdups

1010.5
2000
w4

w1

1010

1999.5
1009.5
1009

10

20

30

40

1999

1101

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

0.16

1100.5
w2

x TD

0.14
1100

0.12
1099.5
1099

10

20

30

0.1

40

110.5

515
HT

520

w6

111

110

510

109.5
109

505

10

20

30

500

40

891
0.0105

w8

x4A

890.5
890
0.01
889.5
889

10

20

30

40

Time (hr)
Time (hr)

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

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

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

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
No ratio control
Ratio control

w4

2002
2000
1998
1996

10

15

10

15

10

15

20

25

30

35

20

25

30

35

20

25

30

35

0.0101

x 4A

0.01

0.0099

Time (hr)

0.12

x TD

0.11
0.1
0.09

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

2150
No ratio control
Ratio control

w4

2100
2050
2000
1950

10

15

10

15

10

15

20

25

30

35

20

25

30

35

20

25

30

35

0.01015

x 4A

0.0101
0.01005
0.01
0.00995

Time (hr)

0.104

x TD

0.102
0.1
0.098

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.

c)

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.

d)

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)

24-15

1060

2100

1040

2050

w4

2150

w1

1080

1020
1000

Exercise 24.4
RGA structure

2000

10

20

30

40

1950

1180

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

520

1160

510
HT

1140
w2

500

1120
490

1100
1080

10

20

30

480

40

140

0.102

x TD

120

w6

100
80

0.1

0.098

60
40

10

20

30

40

0.096

0.0102

1200
1100
w8

x 4A

0.0101
1000

0.01
900
800

0.0099
0

10

20

30

40

Time (hr)

Time (hr)

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

24-16

1100

2100

1050

2050

w4

2150

w1

1150

1000
950

2000

10

15

20

1950

600

1300

550

10

15

20

10

15

20

10

15

20

10

15

20

w2

HT

1400

1200

500

1100
1000

Exercise 24.4
RGA structure

450

10

15

400

20

160

0.115
0.11
x TD

140

0.105

w6

120

0.1
100
80

0.095
0

10

15

0.09

20

891

0.012

890.5
x 4A

w8

0.011
890

0.01
889.5
889

10

15

20

Time (hr)

0.009

Time (hr)

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

24-17

1150

2300
2200

1100
w4

w1

2100
Exercise 24.4
RGA structure

1050
2000
1000

20

40

1900

60

1250

20

40

60

20

40

60

20

40

60

20

40

60

540
520

1200
w2

500
1150
HT

480

1100
1050

460

20

40

440

60

150

0.104
0.102

w6

x TD

100

0.1

0.098

50

0.096
0

20

40

60

0.094

0.0104

1400

0.0103

w8

x 4A

1600

1200

0.0102

1000
800

0.0101

20

40

60

Time (hr)

0.01

Time (hr)

Figure S24.4c. Step change in w4 set point(+10%) at t=5 with HT controller

detuned

24-18

24.5
a)

Gain
Matrix
w4
x8D
x4A
HT
HR

Using the same methods as described in solution 24.3, the resulting gain
matrix is:
w1

w2

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

w6

w8

w3

0
0
0
-1
0

5.831E-3
5.445E-6
-2.944E-6
-10.12
1

-1.285E-2
-9.130E-6
6.542E-6
8.829
-1

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
Variable reactor level (P)
Variable reactor level (PI)
Constant reactor level

2100
2080

w4

2060
2040
2020
2000
1980

10

15

20

25

30

35

10

15

20

25

30

35

20

25

30

35

0.104

0.103

x TD

0.102

0.101

0.1

0.099

Time (hr)

0.0108
0.0106

x 4A

0.0104
0.0102
0.01
0.0098

10

15

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

24-20

1200

2150
Variable reactor level (P)
Variable reactor level (PI)
Constant reactor level

2100
w4

w1

1100

2050

1000
900

2000
0

10

20

30

1950

40

0.104

1150

0.102

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

x TD

w2

1200

1100
1050

10

20

30

40

0.1

0.098
510

100

500

w6

HT

150

50
0

490

10

20

30

0.011

1600
1400

x 4A

w8

0.0105

1200

0.01

1000
800

10

20

30

40

3400

0.0095

10

20

30

3030
3020

w3

HR

3200

3010

3000
2800

480

40

3000
0

10

20

30

40

2990

10

20

Time (hr)

Time (hr)

Figure S24.5b. Step change in w4 setpoint (+100) at t=5

24-21

30

40

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

2001

1010

2000

w4

2000.5

w1

1012

1008
1006

Negligible holdup flash

1000 kg holdup flash

1999.5

10

20

30

40

1200

1999

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

0.108
0.106

1150

x TD

w2

0.104
0.102

1100

0.1
1050

10

20

30

40

0.098

510

200

505

w6

HT

250

150

100

500

10

20

30

40

495

0.01

900

0.01
w8

x 4A

850
0.01

800
0.01
750

0.01
0

10

20

30

40

Time (hr)

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

0.5

0.4
0.2

w4

w1

-0.5
0

10

20

30

40

-1

50

1.5

1
x4A

w2

-0.2

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

-0.5

-0.2

-2
-0.4

HT

w6

10

0.5

2
0

-4

-0.6

-6
-8

10

20

30

40

50

-0.8

60

40
xTD

w8

-2
20

-4
0
-20

10

20

30

40

50

-6

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

24-24

-3

4
w4

w1

-2

-4

-5

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

1.5

-2
x4A

w2

-4

-6
-8

0.5

10

20

30

40

50

-0.5

0.1
HT

-5
-10

w6

-0.1
-15
-0.2
-20

10

20

30

40

50

-0.4

15

0.5

10

0
xTD

w8

-25

-0.3

-0.5

0
-5

-1

10

20

30

40

50

-1.5

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

24-25

-1

w4

w1

2
0

-2

10

20

30

40

-3

50

15

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

20
15

10

x4A

w2

10
5
0
-5

10

20

30

40

-5

50

20

0.5

-20
HT

w6

-40

-0.5

-60
-80

10

20

30

40

-1

50

150

100
xTD

w8

-5
50

-10
0
-50

10

20

30

40

50

-15

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

24-26

-5

25
20

-10
w1

w4

15
10

-15

5
-20

10

20

30

40

50

10

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

0
w2

4
x4A

-10
-20

-30

10

20

30

40

-2

50

-20

0.5

-40

0
HT

w6

-40

-60

-0.5

-80

10

20

30

40

50

-1.5

60

40

0
xTD

w8

-100

-1

20
0

-20

-2
-4

10

20

30

40

50

-6

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

24-27