GREEKLETTERS [J] = indicates value of property under conditions of

= defined by Equation 2 stoichiometric feed

6, [TI = indicates value of property under conditions of
8 = defined by Equation 21
maximum temperature
1
U,
= extent of reaction or yield, moles
= tima
= stoichiometric coefficient of component j
[Y] = indicates value of property under conditions of
maximum yield
L
Literature Cited
u(L) = Vj
1 (1) De Donder. Th., Van Lerberghe. G., Bull. Acad. Roy. Belg.
A; (C1.Sc.) 12 (5), 151 (1926).
”(N) = Vf 2 ) Franklin. Philip. “Treatise on Advanced Calculus.” p. 353,
(~,
1 Wiley. New York. 1940.
(3) Hougeii. 0 . A . . \Vatson, K. M.. Ragatz, R. A . , “Chemical
SUBSCRIPTS Process Principles;” Part I, “Material and Energy Balances.”
2nd ed., pp. 253. 258. IViley, New York, 1954.
i = index denoting an inert
(4) Pings, C. J., A.I.Ch.E. J . 10, 934 (1964).
I = index denoting a reactant or product
( 5 ) Pings, C. J., Chem. E n g . Progr. 59, No. 12. 90 (1963).
(6) Pings, c. J., IND. ENG.C H E M . FUNDAMENTALS 2, 244 (1963).
SUPERSCRIPTS (7) Ibzd., p. 321.
0 = indicates condition in initial reaction mixture (8) Prigogine, I.? Defay. R., E\rerett, D. H.. “Chemical Thermo-
dynamics,” p. 134. Longnians Green. London, 1954.
( J ) = indicates summation over the range 1 to J
( L ) = indicates summation over the range 1 to L for review June 15, 1964
RECEIVED
( N ) = indicates summation over the range 1 to S ACCEPTED February 1. 1965

CONTROL OF A CONTINUOUS-FLOW
AGITATED-TANK REACTOR
T HO M A S W . W E B E R , State University o j .Vew Y o r k , Buffalo, iV. Y
P E T E R H A R R I 0 T T , Cornell Uniuersity, Ithaca, N . Y,

The stability criteria for a tank-flow reactor are reviewed for the case where there is no mixing delay and
the dynamics of the cooling system are not important. Stability criteria are then developed for cases where
the dynamics of a cooling coil are significant. Zero-order kinetics are assumed, so the stability criteria
are conservative. A zero-order, exothermic reaction was simulated in a 2-foot tank. Hot water was used
as a feed and live steam was sparged into the tank to simulate the heat of reaction. The reactor was made
inherently stable or unstable by controlling the change in steam rate with temperature. The reactor tem-
perature was controlled by the cooling water rate. For a stable reactor, the system was stable for con-
troller gains below a certain maximum; when the reactor was inherently unstable, the system was conditionally
stable. Good control was achieved with about the same controller settings for both cases because the
absolute value of the largest time constant was much larger than the second largest.

design of a chemical reactor, the desired temperature

N THE
Iand conversion are usually fixed first.
A moderate conversion
may be called for to minimize by-product formation or because
the reactor is the first of a series. If the conversion is low or
moderate (less than 70y0)and the reaction exothermic, the
temperature control system deserves careful study, since the
reactor may lack inherent stability Two approaches are
possible. If sufficient cooling area is used to permit a very low
driving force for heat removal, the reactor will be inherently
stable. A controller is not essential, though some type of
temperature control would probably be provided for improved
response to upsets ‘The other alternative is to use less area for
heat transfer and a larger temperature driving force, and
operate within the unstable region with the aid of a good
control system.
The steady- and unsteady-state behavior of tank-flow reactors
has received considerable attention in the literature. Several
authors have developed stability criteria assuming a constant
coolant flow rate and average coolant temperature (7-3,
7, 8) For the case of control of a reactor, in some studies the
change in average coolant temperature with change in the
flow rate of coolant was accounted for ( 7 , 4, 7). In the first
of these articles. it was even assumed that the over-all co-
efficient of heat transfer varied with the eight-tenths power of
the coolant flow rate. However, in none of these cases were
the dynamics of a coil or jacket considered. It was the purpose
of this study to examine a case where the dynamics of a cooling
coil were significant.
As an aid to understanding systems where coil dynamics
are important, it is worthwhile to consider first the simple
case where the dynamics of the heat removal system are
neglected. This case has merit because the analyses of the
steady and unsteady states are greatly simplified. At the same
time, the mathematical results are fairly easy to interpret
physically. Two other assumptions made for this case are
that the contents of the tank are perfectly mixed and the over-all
coefficient of heat transfer is constant.
Steady-State Analysis
A steady-state analysis can be used as a preliminary check
on reactor stability. Following the method of van Heerden
(70), the rate of heat generation, Qo, and the rate of heat
removal, Q R , are plotted against reactor temperature. The
heat generation curve is sigmoidal, but Q R , the heat removed
through the coil and as sensible heat of the product, is a linear
function of reactor temperature. The reactor is inherently

264 l&EC FUNDAMENTALS

unstable if the slope of the Q G line is greater than the slope of
the Q R line at the point of intersection. For a reactor operating
a t the unstable point B in the following sketch, a slight increase
in temperature would make QG greater than Q R and lead to a
still higher temperature unless corrective action were taken.
e ~Fc,,
Points ,4 and C satisfy the steady-state criterion for stability,
but if the Q R line is only slightly steeper than the Qo line a t the
point of intersection, the unsteady-state criteria for stability
may not be satisfied. Making the steady-state rate of change
of heat removal greater than the steady-state rate of heat
generation is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for stability.
Unsteady-State Analysis, Constant Coolant Temperature
An exact analysis of reactor stability must consider the
change in reactant concentration as well as the change in
temperature. Following a sudden increase in temperature,
the concentration will be higher than the steady-state value
for the new temperature, and the rate of heat generation will
therefore be greater than the steady-state value. T h e stability
criteria are developed from unsteady-state material and
energy balances. T h e differential equations and solutions
have been given by other authors (2, 7), and only the final
criteria and a physical interpretation are given here.
For first-order kinetics, these two criteria are :
By using a steady-state material balance, Equation 2 can be
converted to the steady-state criterion that the rate of change
of heat removal with temperature must exceed the rate of
change of heat generated.
The first criterion. Equation 1, is given physical significance
by considering the time constants of the reactor. For changes
in composition the time constant is:
(3)
If the reactor composition is constant, the time constant for
temperature changes is :
',"=
- U
FcPl + CoAo- bT
dQ
--
(4)
I t is apparent that if bQ b T is greater than the sum of FG
p /
and CoA,, the time constant will be negative. This means
that the system would be unstable to temperature change, if the
concentration remained constant. Suppose. for example, that
there were a slight rise in temperature in a system where To
was negative. T h e n , as the temperatuie increased, the reac-
tion rate would increase at first because the reaction rate
constant rises rapidly with temperature But as the rate in-
creased, the concentration in the reactor would begin to fall.
This would tend to slow the reaction down. Thus, the com-
position effect tends to compensate for the temperature effect,
Therefore, there is reason to suspect that the reactor might he
stable if:
I t is easily shown that this inequality is equivalent to that of
Equation 1.
Considering the system just treated, if the reaction is zero
order, then the stability criteria of Equations 1 and 2 reduce to:
+ UoAo- bQ > 0
-
(5)
bT
and
Fc,,
bQ > 0
+ CoA0- bT ~-
Clearly, if the second relation is satisfied, the first is also.
Hence, instead of there being two stability criteria, there is
only one.
Effect of Coil Dynamics
I n a real tank-flow reactor, the dynamics of the heat removal
system are usually significant, whether a coil or a jacket is used.
T h e criteria for stability are no longer as simple. However,
if the reaction is assumed to be zero-order, the analysis is
greatly simplified. The resulting criteria for the inherent
stability of the reactor are fairly easy to calculate and are at
least conservative. They are conservative. since for a higher-
order reaction, the increase in reaction rate with temperature
is partly compensated for by a decrease in reactant concentra-
tion.
T h e dynamics of heat removal from stirred taqks have
been treated extensively (,5) 6. 9, 7 7 , 72). In the last two of
these references: the dynamics of heat removal are considered
for the case where heat is removed by a liquid coolant passing
through a coil. Four lumped-parameter models and one
distributed model are examined. The lumped-parameter
models can be modified easily to include the heat of reaction
and its change with temperature if zero-order kinetics are again
assumed, .4 modification could be incorporated in the dis-
tributed case but it would not be quite so straightforward.
For purposes of illustration this modification is shown in
detail for Model 2. Briefly, Model 2 is a lumpcd-parameter
model which takes into account the heat capacities of the tank
and coil fluids and utilizes an over-all coefficient of heat trans-
fer. The transfer function relating tank temperature to
coolant flow rate has the form:
B KdT;
VOL. 4 NO. 3 AUGUST 1965 265
T o modify this transfer function for a zero-order exothermic
reaction, only T7 requires modification. When there is no
reaction, T, is defined by:
For the reaction case, T7is replaced by T7', defined by:
(9)
All other parameters in Equation 7 remain unchanged.
Referring to Models 3 and 4 ( 7 7 , 72), only parameters TL4
and T16 require modification. Specifically, for Model 3 :
(*O)
T14' C b
and for Model 4 :
_ 1_ _- -E +
'CP,
- + L'a.*Aa
- LITAT
Tl6' c b cb Cb
A reactor is inherently stable if the denominator of its transfer
function has no roots with positive real parts. From Equation
7 for Model 2, this means that the reactor will be stable if:
T h e first of these criteria is easier to meet than that found for
the simple case (Equation 6 ) . However, it can be shown that
the second criterion is more difficult to meet than that of the
simple case; this is also the expected result based on physical
considerations. I t follows that if Equation 13 is satisfied,
Equation 12 automatically is satisfied.
Similar types of criteria could be developed from Models 3
and 4 .
Control of a Reactor. T h e obvious method of controlling
a reactor is to adjust the flow rate or temperature of the coolant
automatically, using the reactor temperature as the measured
variable. If the only significant lag comes from the capacity
of the fluid in the tank, proportional control gives stability at
any gain that is above a certain minimum value ( 7 , 7). This
minimum value is zero if the reactor is inherently stable, but is
greater than zero if it is inherently unstable. Increasing the
controller gain effectively increases the slope of the heat-
removal line. In the case of a n inherently unstable reactor.
if this line is made much steeper than the heat-generation line.
the reactor system will be stable even for large upsets ( 8 ) .
When the lags in the cooling system, the temperature bulb,
and the control valve are significant, the maximum gain of
the controller must also be considered. T h e maximum gain is
determined from the open-loop frequency response at 180'
phase lag or by other conventional stability criteria for feedback
control systems. Normally these additional lags will be much
smaller than the lag in the reactor, and the maximum gain will
be much larger than the minimum gain. If the reactor is
inherently unstable. the reactor system will be conditionally
stable, but can be operated over a wide range of controller
266 I&EC FUNDAMENTALS
gains. When the additional lags are the same order of magni-
tude as the reactor lag, or the range of gains for stable opera-
tion is small, the calculated minimum gain may exceed the
maximum gain. making stable proportional control impossible.
O n e goal of this study was to test a reactor control system
where the reactor could be made either inherently stable or
inherently unstable. Because of the difficulties in carrying
out a continuous chemical reaction on a large scale over a
range of conditions, a n exothermic reaction was simulated by
feeding live steam and water continuously to the tank.
These studies were carried out with an agitated tank, 2 feet
in diameter and about 4 feet deep. The feed stream to the
tank was hot water produced by heat exchange with steam.
T h e hot water in the tank was cooled by water passing through
a copper coil. Live steam was sparged into the tank to simu-
late the heat of reaction. T o match the rise in reaction rate
with temperature, the rate of flow of steam was increased by a
controller as the temperature rose. T h e temperature in the
tank was controlled by a separate system which varied the
flow of cold water through the cooling coil.
A flow diagram of the system is presented in Figure 1.
More details of the equipment can be found elsewhere (77, 72).
This test scheme simulates zero-order kinetics. As pointed
out previously, this simplifies the criteria for reactor stability.
More importantly, it greatly simplifies the reactor transfer
function, so that stability limits for the reactor system can be
predicted fairly easily even when there are several time con-
stants or delays to consider.
T h e polar Nyquist diagrams for stable, unstable, and
stabilized reactor systems are shown in Figure 2 . T h e largest
time constant is normally associated with the capacity of the
reactor fluid. If this is negative, the major loop of the Nyquist
plot is a mirror image of the plot for a positive time constant.
T h e second largest time constant might be the lag of the coil
or jacket fluid which depends somewhat on the reactor capacity
because of interaction. However, for the conditions of this
study, the coil time constant was virtually the same whether
the reactor time constant was positive or negative. Other
lags such as the measurement lag and the mixing delay would
be the same for stable and unstable conditions.
I n this study the major time constant is much larger than
the others. T h e plots for stable and unstable reactors have
about the same shape in the region of the critical frequency
(180' phase lag). I n this region, the phase lag of the largest
time constant is nearly 90', and the shape depends on the
values of the smaller time constants. Thus, it is expected that
the critical frequency for both the stable and the unstable
reactor would be about the same. A rule of thumb is that the
optimum over-all gain is half the maximum value. This rule
should apply about equally well to the two cases.
Experimental Work
T h e experimental work was divided into two parts. First,
the dynamics of heat removal were studied with the reactor in
an inherently stable condition. In the second phase, the
control loop was closed. T h e response of the system to a load
change was studied for both a n inherently unstable reactor and
a stable one.
T h e heat removal dynamics of the inherently stable reactor
were studied by sinusoidally varying the cooling water rate for
a n agitator speed of 143 r.p.m. I n previous experiments with-
out reactor simulation ( 7 7 , 72), it was found that Model 3
closely fitted the measured dynamics. This is a lumped-
parameter model which accounts for the capacitances of the
fluid in the tank, the fluid in the cooling coil, and the coil
 PNEUMATIC G A S BULB
THERMOCOUPLE
THERMISTOR STABLE REACTOR

HEAT
EXCHANGER FLOW RECORDER I

-
UNSTA0LE REACTOR

PHEUMATIC
VALVES <: i TWO-PEN
TEMPERATURE
RECORDER
v
\ 7r

i FLOW
RECORDING DRAIN
I
n
SYSTEM

Figure 1. Flow diagram of equipment Figure 2. Nyquist plots

metal. T h e transfer function for this model was modified to
include the heat of condensation of the steam. This involved
recalculating time constant TI4 as previously indicated. T h e
calculated reactor transfer function for this case was :
0 - ___~ -0.0131' F./lb./hr.
-
W, (637s -t 1)(7.55s +
1)(0.981s f 1)
T h e gain factor is the true value rather than the one predicted
by the model. T h e measured frequency response was com-
pared with that predicted from this transfer function. Agree-
ment was excellent out to phase lags of about 140' and the
measured amplitude response was very closely predicted by the
model.
Prior to the beginning the control tests, calibrations were
made for all components in the system. T h e time constants
of the cooling water flow process were assumed negligible.
Valve time constants are usually small-1 second or less-
especially if the valve motor is small as it was in this case.
T h e lags of flow processes are generally small. Considering
that most of the pressure drop occurred across the control
valve, the lag was probably about a 0.1 second.
Excluding the reaci.or and controller, transfer functions
found for the components in the control loop were:
Valve 85.4 lb. water/hr./cm. Hg
1.22 cm. Hgj' F .
Pneumatic bare bulb
2.2s +1
1.22 cm. Hg/' F.
Pneumatic bulb in a dry well
(26s + 1)(6s f 1)
Control of Inherently Stable Reactor
With a bare bulb, the calculated maximum gain was 182,
far beyond that obtainable from a standard three-mode con-
troller. At the highest gain setting of the controller. which
corresponded to about 65, the system was only very slightly
underdamped and the offset resulting from a 10' change in
feed temperature barely detectable.
With the bulb in a well. the calculated maximum gain was
about 40 and the critical frequency. 0.049 radian per second.
T h e critical frequency was observed to be about 0 044, which
agrees well with the calculated value. In one transient test
with a controller gain of 17, the response was underdamped
with a damping ratio of about 0.3. Therefore. the predicted
maximum gain of 40 appears reasonable. Some reset action
improved" the transient response and removed offset. T h e
value predicted by the Ziegler-Nichols method was satisfactory
Control of Inherently Unstable Reactor
As discussed in the theory, there is generally a range of
controller gains over which the system is stable in this case.
Therefore, these control studies involved finding not only the
maximum controller gain but the minimum as well.
T h e reactor was made inherently unsiable by increasing the
gain of the proportional controller in the steam loop. The
degree of instability was only moderate-that is, the rate of
change of heat generation by condensation of steam per degree
Fahrenheit was about 60YGgreater than the rate of heat re-
moval per degree. M'ith an agitator speed of 140 r . p . m . , the
calculated transfer function for the reactor was :

9 0.OO51O0 F. /Ib. 'hr.

Control studies were made for both the inherently stable and
unstable reactors. For each case, tests were made with the
bare temperature bulb and with the bulb in a well. T h e
maximum controller gain and ultimate period were found by
gradually increasing the gain until the system cycled. T h e
system was then subjected to rather severe changes in feed
temperature with the controller settings at approximately
those suggested by the Ziegler-Nichols method (73).
_ -
-
W, +
(-251s f 1 ) ( 7 . 5 5 ~ 1)(0.981s + 1)
Since the reactor was only moderately unstable, it was a
tedious j o b to determine the minimum controller gain required
to stabilize the system. T h e temperature runaway proceeded
very slowly when the system was unstable. The minimum
gain \vas found experimentally to be between about 1.6 and 2.0
in the case when a bare bulb was used, whereas a gain of 2.4

VOL. 4 NO. 3 AUGUST 1965 267

 was required to stabilize the system when the bulb was in a dry
well. I n theory, the minimum gain should be the same
whether the bulb is bare or in a well. T h e calculated mini-
mum gain was 1.9. This agreement is fairly good.
As in the case of the stable reactor, the maximum
gain when a bare bulb was used was very high. T h e
predicted value was about 176. This is only slightly below the
value of 182 found for the stable reactor. It'hen the reactor
is only moderately unstable, so that the absolute value of the
largest time constant is a t least ten times that of the second
largest, the maximum controller gain will be nearly constant
as the absolute value of the largest time constant is increased;
furthermore, this gain will be nearly the same as that for the
stable reactor when the largest time constant is a t least ten
times as large as the second largest. T h e reason is that the
phase lag for the largest time constant a t crossover is nearly
90' in either the stable or unstable case, so the crossover
frequency is not changed much as the value of the largest
time constant is increased. At the same time, as this time
constant is increased, the gain factor of the reactor is increased
proportionately to the time constant. Therefore, the change
in amplitude ratio of the reactor a t crossover is offset by that of
the gain factor so the maximum controller gain remains nearly
unchanged. With the controller a t its maximum gain of about
60, excellent control was achieved as in the case of the stable
reactor.
When the bulb was placed in a well, the predicted maximum
gain was slightly below that for the stable reactor, but not
significantly so. Reset action was used to eliminate offset.
Effect of Agitation on Controllability
'4s the agitator speed is reduced, there are reductions in the
coefficients of heat transfer and a n increase in the mixing delay.
Between the two speeds studied, the reduction in the outside
coefficient of the coil would not have a large effect, since this
primarily affects the largest time constant. A t the critical
frequency, the lag contributed by this is nearly 90" in either
case.
T h e main effects on controllability result from the increase
in mixing delay and the change in the time constant of the
bulb. Previous tests on this system indicated that the mixing
delay was about 1 to 2 seconds a t 143 r.p.m. and about 6 to 9
seconds a t 64 r.p.m. ( 7 7 , 72). This increase lowers the critical
frequency. T h e lower film coefficient around the well in-
creases the time constant of the well.
R, - 5.6 Set Point 119.1 t o 120.0'F
0.5.F k 3 Hind
Several tests \\.ere made a t 64 r . p . m . with the reactor in-
herently unstable and the bulb in the well. The response
of the system to a change in set point is shown in Figure 3.
,4t a controller gain of a b o u t ' l l the system was unstable.
I n the figure, the gain of 5.6 represents about the optimum value
based on a decay ratio of 4 . T h e noise level is particularly
evident. I n the lower record a comparison is shown where the
agitator speed was abruptly increased from 64 to 129 r.p.m.
Acknowledgment
T h e authors thank the Taylor Instrument Co.. Rochester,
N. Y . , for furnishing the instruments used in this study. T h e
financial support 'of the Standard Oil Foundation in the form
of a fellowship to T. I V . Weber is gratefully acknowledged.
Nomenclature
A, = total outside heat transfer area of coil. sq. ft.
AT = total heat transfer area of tank wall, baffles, and
agitator. sq. ft.
CPC = heat capacity of cooling water, B.t.u./lb.. O F .
CP, = heat capacity of feed and product streams: B . t . u / l b .
O F.
c, = heat capacity of batch, B.t.u./ O F.
e, = heat capacity of cooling water in coil, B.t.u. O F.
F = feed rate, Ib. 'hr.
h,,, = film coefficient of heat transfer outside tube based on
average of driving forces a t two ends of the tube,
B.t.u. hr., sq. ft.2, O F.
k = reaction rate constant for first-order kinetics, 1/'hr.
QG = rate of heat generation, B.t.u. 'hr.
Qn rate of heat removal, B.t.u. 'hr.
?Q - partial derivative of rate of heat generation with
dT respect to temperature a t constant composition,
B.t.u.:hr., O F.
dQ
~~~ - rate of change of heat generation with respect to
dT -
temperature under steady-state conditions, B.t.u.
hr.. O F.
s = Laplace transform operator
T, = time constant for changes in composition
To = time constant for changes in temperature
c, = over-all coefficient of heat transfer, B . t . u . i h r , , sq. it.,
O F.
co, over-all coefficient of heat transfer based on average
=
of driving forces a t two ends of tube. B.t.u.!hr.,
sq. f t . , O F .
UT = film coefficient of heat transfer between tank fluid and
tank wall, baffles, and agitator, B.t.u./hr., sq. ft., O F.
I' = tank holdup: Ib.
gc = normal value of cooling water flow rate! Ib./hr.
It!, = deviation of cooling water flow rate from normal
value, Ib. t'hr.

GREEK
SYMBOLS
8 = steady-state reactor temperature, F.
e = deviation of reactor temperature from steady-state
value, O F.
8., = steady-state temperature of cooling water a t coil inlet,
O F.

Oc0 = steady-state temperature of cooling water a t coil

Noiae Comparison outlet, O F.

CONSTANTS

I
64 RPM 129 RPM

Figure 3. Response to change in set point at low agitator

speed and noise comparison

268 I&EC FUNDAMENTALS

1 T6 = FC><c, (5) Fanning. K.J., Ph.D. thcsis, University of Oklahoma, 1958.
1 7- = 1 7, + 1 T6 (6) Fanning, K.J., Sliepcmich: C. M., A. I. Ch. E. J . 5 , 240
(1959).
1 713 = h,,,.4" cs ( 7 ) Foss. X. S.. Chem. E n f . Prog. Symp. Ser., No. 25, 55, 47 (1959).
1 714 = 1 7 h + 1 713 (8'1 Harriott. P.. Chem. Ene. 68. S o . 10. 165: No. 11. 81 (1961'1.
1 I , ) = 17A7 e, (9) Stewart,'\V. C.. Sleip&ich, C. M.: Puckett, T. H . , &em. knt,
1 7 , , = 1 r , + 1 7, t 1 7-15 Progr. Syrip. Srr.? No. 36, 57, 119 (1961).
(10) Van Herrden. C.. Ind. En,?.Chem. 45, 1242 (1953).
(1 1) LVeber; T. LV,, Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca,
Literature Cited S . Y.. 1963.
(12) %Veber,T. LV.. Harriott, P., IND.ENG.CIIEM. FUNDAMENTALS
4, 155 (1965).
(1) A r i s ~R.. Amundson. Tu'. K.. Cheni. E n g . Sci.7, 132 (1958).
(2) Rilous. O . , Amundson. S.R.. A . I . Ch. E. J . 1 , 513 (1955). (13) Ziegler. J . G.; Nichols, N. B., Trans. A.S.lM.E. 64, 759 (1942).
(3) Boynton. D. E.. Nichols, L%-. B.. Spurlin, H . M., Ind. Eng.
ChPm. 51, 489 (1959). RECEIVED
for review September 16, 1964
(4) F.llinqsen. LV. K . . Ceag.l5ke, N. H., A . I . Ch. E . J . 5 , 30 (1959). ACCEPTED December 16, 1964

DYNAMICS OF A CLASS OF NONLINEAR, DIS-

TRIBUTEDIPARAMETER, CHEMICAL REACTORS
L O W E L L B. KOPPEL
School of Chemical Engineering, Purdue Unzrersity, bl'est Lafayette, Ind

The dynamics of a homogeneous tubular flow reactor with nonlinear kinetics, in response to changes in f e e d
concentration and flow rate, a r e solved, under the assumptions of plug flow, no backmixing, constant proper-
ties, and irreversible nth-order decomposition of a single reactant. The exact solution for this distributed-
parameter, nonlinear, parametrically forced system i s compared with the solutions to the linearized equations
to assess the accuracy of representation of such systems b y their linearized dynamics. It is shown that linear
solutions a r e accurate when disturbances a r e less than 25% of design values. Extensions of the results to
more complex reactions a r e discussed.

THE
general practice for establishing the theoretical and ex-
perimental dynamics of tubular chemical reactors has been
thar of linearization. I n most cases? the choice for theoretical
dynamics is bettveen linearization and numerical solution,
since analytical solutions are precluded by the nonlinear, non-
stationary behavior of tht: partial line expressions for reaction
rates. or in variation of physical properties. Flow rate changes
cause parametric forcing and: therefore, nonstationary be-
havior. Linearization i ! j often preferred over numerical
solution because of its simplicity, but may require significant
sacrifice of accuracy.
Even in experimental tests of reactor responses, linearity is
frcquently assumed. .4 typical approach is to introduce a step
change in a n input and to treat the output as a linear response.
'l'his response is analyzed for time constants and dead time.
Often the presence of nonlinearities is detected by changing the
amplitude or direction of the step input, and observing any
change in the time constants. Even if nonlinearities are in-
dicated. they may be accounted for by simply using average
valties of the time constants over the expected range of inputs.
Becaiise linearization is so widely used, it is essential to have
as much information as possible about the accuracy of the
linearized dynamics: and the nature of their relation to the
true dynamics. I n the present work, a class of nonlinear
reactors is studied. This class has the property that analytical
expressions for the responses may be obtained, even though
their dynamic behavior is nonlinear, distributed, and para-
metrically forced. T h e major objective is to compare analyti-
cal and linearized solutions, on both qualitative and quantita-
tive aspects.
Statement of Problem
Consider a homogeneous, tubular flow reactor in which sub-
stance A is decomposing irreversibly and isothermally according
to a n nrh-order rate expression :
nA + products
RA = kCA"
Assuming plug flow, no backmixing, and constant physical
properties, the equation of continuity takes the form:
Since the velocity is to be a time-dependent quantity, it is
divided into steady and fluctuaririg components

VOL. 4 NO. 3 AUGUST 1965 269