Dynamic Modelling

Overall Assumptions
1. Perfect mixing occurs within system
2. Constant density and Cp
3. Constant holdup
4. Perfectly insulated, no heat loss to surroundings

Overall Mass Balance

𝑑𝑤
= wF - wL - wV
𝑑𝑡
𝑑(𝜌𝑉)
= wF - wL - wV
𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑉
Since density is constant and holdup is constant, =0
𝑑𝑡

𝑑𝑉
𝜌 = wF - wL - wV
𝑑𝑡

0 = wF - wL - wV

wF = wL + wV

Component Balance
𝑑(𝜌𝑉𝑥)
= wFXf - wLX - wVX
𝑑𝑡

Assume that density, holdup and feed flowrate are constant.

𝑑𝑥
𝜌𝑉 = wFXf - wLX - wVX
𝑑𝑡

Energy balance
𝑑(𝜌𝑉𝐶𝑝(𝑇−𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑓)
= wFCp(Tf-Tref)- wLCp(T-Tref) - wVCpv(T-Tref) + Qsteam
𝑑𝑡

Since density, volume and Cp are constant;

𝑑𝑇
𝜌𝑉𝐶𝑝 𝑑𝑡 = wFCp(Tf-Tref)- wLCp(T-Tref) - wVCpv(T-Tref) + Qsteam

Q = Wsλs
𝑑𝑇 𝑞𝐹 𝑞𝐿 𝑊𝑣 Wsλs
= (𝑇 − 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑓) − (𝑇 − 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑓) − (𝑇 − 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑓) +
𝑑𝑡 𝑉 𝑉 𝜌𝑉 𝜌𝐶𝑝𝑉
Process variables of system

Input variables: wF, Xf, Ws

Output variables: wL, wV, T, X

Manipulated variables: wL

Disturbance variables: Xf, wV

Controlled variables: X
Derivation of transfer function for evaporator
For our evaporator, we will be deriving the transfer function based on the dynamic model of
component balance of glycerine.

Dynamic model
𝑑𝑥
𝜌𝑉 𝑑𝑡 = wFXf - wLX - wVX

Steady state model

̅ − ̅̅̅̅̅
0 = wF. Xf wL. ̅X − ̅̅̅̅̅
wV. ̅X--------(1)

Non-linear terms = wLX, wVX

Linearize both terms,

wLX = ̅̅̅̅ wL(𝑋 − X̅ ) + ̅

wL. X̅ + ̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅
X(wL-w L)

wLX = ̅̅̅̅
wL. X̅ + ̅̅̅̅ ̅𝑤𝐿′
wL𝑋′ + X

wVX = ̅̅̅̅ wV(𝑋 − X̅ ) + ̅

wV. X̅ + ̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅
X(wV-w V)

wVX = ̅̅̅̅ wV𝑋′ + ̅

wV. X̅ + ̅̅̅̅ X𝑤𝑉′

Linearised dynamic model

𝑑𝑥
𝜌𝑉 𝑑𝑡 = wFXf – (̅̅̅̅
wL. X̅ + w ̅𝑤𝐿′) – ( ̅̅̅̅
̅̅̅̅L𝑋′ + X ̅𝑤𝑉′)------ (2)
wV𝑋′ + X
wV. X̅ + ̅̅̅̅

Deviation variable form = linearised dynamic model – steady state model

Equation 2 – Equation 1
𝑑𝑥′
𝜌𝑉 wL𝑋′ − ̅
= 𝑊𝐹 𝑋𝑓 ′ − ̅̅̅̅ wV𝑋′ − ̅
X𝑤𝐿′ − ̅̅̅̅ X𝑤𝑉′
𝑑𝑡

𝑑𝑥′ ̅̅̅L ′ X̅
w ̅̅̅̅
wV ′ X ̅
𝑉 = 𝑞𝐹. 𝑋𝑓 ′ − 𝑋 − 𝑤𝐿′ − 𝑋 − 𝑊𝑣′
𝑑𝑡 𝜌 𝜌 𝜌 𝜌
wL= 1000 kg/hr, 𝑋̅= 0.90, ̅̅̅̅
𝜌= 1260 kg/m3, ̅̅̅̅ wV = 800kg/hr, V = 10m3
𝑑𝑥′
10 = 1.43𝑋𝑓 ′ − 0.794𝑋′ − 1.24 𝑤𝐿′ − 0.634𝑋′ − 7.143 x 10−4 𝑊𝑣′
𝑑𝑡
Taking Laplace,
X’(s)[10s +1.43] = 1.43Xf’(s) – 1.24WL’(s) – 7.143 x 10−4 𝑊𝑣′(s)

−1.24
Gp(s) = , process transfer function
10𝑠+1.43
1.43
Gd1(s) = , disturbance due to variations in feed concentration
10𝑠+1.43
−7.143 x 10−4
Gd2(s) = , disturbance due to variations in vapor flow rate
10𝑠+1.43

Closed-loop block diagram

Gd1 Gd2

Ysp Y
Gc Gv=1 Gp

Gm=1
Closed-loop dynamic behaviour of evaporator

The controller used for this case is a P-controller. When a unit step change has been introduced
to the disturbance variables, the system fails to reach the desired setpoint of 0.90 as indicated
by the blue line. There is an offset present between the output and set point. The green line
which denotes the disturbance variable caused by variation in vapor flowrate had seen almost
no increase. Thus, it can be concluded that the disturbance effect due to vapor flowrate is
extremely small and can be deemed negligible. Another disturbance variable is due to variation
of feed concentration. When a unit step change is introduced to it, it reaches a final steady state
of 1.
For this instance, the controller used for the simulation is a PI controller. Under a unit step
change to both disturbance variables, the offset for the system’s output which is present when
using a P-controller has been eliminated. After some fluctuations in the beginning, the PI
controller was able to control the output (blue line) for it to reach its setpoint. The disturbance
variable (orange line) due to change in feed concentration is also able to reach its final steady
state value of 1 with no offset observed. Another disturbance variable which the variation of
vapor flowrate exhibited small to almost none change just like the previous case with a P-
controller.

The last controller used for the simulation is a PID controller which is the most complex. This
controller was also able to eliminate the offset like the PI controller and allowed the system’s
output to reach its setpoint of 0.9. A minor difference between both the controllers’ responses
was the PI controller had lower second peak than that of the PID controller. This shows PID
controller has a higher overshoot for this system as compared to PI. Nevertheless, the output
response for both disturbance variables are like the two previous cases. The feed concentration
variable once again managed to reach steady state and the vapor flowrate variable did not show
any significant change.