8704 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

2008, 47, 8704–8712

Dynamic Control of a Column/Side-Reactor Process

Devrim B. Kaymak† and William L. Luyben*,‡
Department of Chemical Engineering, Istanbul Technical UniVersity, 34469, Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey,
Department of Chemical Engineering, Lehigh UniVersity, Bethlehem, PennsylVania 18015

If the temperature range suitable for reasonable chemical reaction kinetics does not match the temperature
range suitable for vapor-liquid equilibrium, reactive columns are not economically attractive. One way to
overcome this temperature mismatch is use a flowsheet that features a distillation column with multiple side
reactors. The column operates at a pressure that gives temperatures favorable for separation, while the reactors
operate at temperatures (and pressures) favorable for reaction kinetics. This paper discusses the controllability
of a column/side-reactor process based on the steady-state design studied by Kaymak and Luyben.1 The
performances of two different control structures are explored. The first uses two temperature controllers, one
with direct action and the other with reverse action. The second control structure uses an internal composition
analyzer. One of the main conclusions is that the opposite actions of controllers in the two-temperature control
structure result in a composition breakthrough that moves the column to a different operating condition. The
composition and temperature controllers in the second structure have the same action and provide reasonably
effective control.

1. Introduction change with temperature. At a temperature of 320 K, which is

Reactive distillation can yield significant economic benefits
in some systems. However, for reactive distillation to be
attractive, the temperatures that are good for reaction must match
the temperatures that are good for vapor-liquid separation.
Therefore traditional reactive distillation is not effective in many
chemical systems because of a mismatch in temperatures.
Kaymak et al.2 demonstrated quantitatively that reactive distil-
lation becomes less attractive as the temperature mismatch
increases.
To overcome this temperature mismatch, a flowsheet com-
bining a distillation column with external side reactors can be
considered where the column operates at temperatures favorable
for separation, while the reactors operate at temperatures
favorable for chemical kinetics. There are several papers in the
literature dealing with the design of combined column/reactor
systems.3-7 However, we are not aware of any paper in the
literature that discusses the controllability of these column/side-
reactor configurations.
In this paper we explore the dynamic control of a column/
side-reactor process based on a recent design paper.1
2. Process Studied
The process studied has an ideal exothermic liquid-phase
reaction where products C and D are formed from the reactants
A and B in several side reactors linked to a distillation column.
A+BSC+D (1)
The reactors operate at pressures and temperatures conducive
for reaction kinetics. The side reactors are connected to a
distillation column that operates at a pressure conducive for
vapor-liquid separation. No reaction occurs within the column.
The parameter used by Kaymak et al.2 to quantify reaction/
separation temperature mismatch is R390, which is a measure
of how the relative volatilities among the four components
* To whom correspondence should be addressed: E-mail: WLL0@
Lehigh.edu. Tel.: 610-758-4256. Fax: 610-758-5057.
†
Istanbul Technical University.
‡
Lehigh University.
typical of the reflux drum temperature in a condenser using
cooling water, the relative volatilities between adjacent com-
ponents are R320 ) 2. As temperature increases, the relative
volatilities decrease. A value of R390 ) 1 means that all
components have the same relative volatility at 390 K. The
temperature of 390 K is selected because this temperature gives
favorable kinetics in terms of both the forward specific reaction
rate and the chemical equilibrium constant in the numerical case
used to illustrate the issues.
Although we studied a wide range of R390 values in the design
paper,1 in this control paper we only deal with the R390 ) 0.95
case in which there is considerable reaction/separation mismatch.
The vapor pressure PjS of component j is a function of
temperature as given in the Antoine equation.
BVP,j
ln PSj ) AVP,j - (2)
T
where AVP,j and BVP,j are constants over a limited temperature
range. The Antoine constants for the case considered here are
given in Table 1. The detailed calculations to obtain these values
are explained in a previous paper.2
The process configuration is given in Figure 1. There is a
distillation column operating at its optimum pressure and
temperature for separation (320 K in the reflux drum). The
reactants A and B are fed to the column in two pure reactant
fresh feed streams F0A and F0B, both with a flowrate of 12.60
mol/s. There are 17 trays and a partial reboiler in the stripping
section below fresh feed streams F0A, and a rectifying section
with 7 trays and a total condenser above fresh feed streams
F0B. There is a middle zone with 7 trays between these two
sections, where three total liquid trap-out trays are installed
at different locations. The lower and upper trap-out trays are
immediately below the fresh feed streams of reactants A and
B, respectively. It is assumed that the number of trays
Table 1. Vapor Pressure Constants
R390 constant A B C D
0.95 AVP 12.34 15.80 8.89 19.26
BVP 3862.00 5189.23 2534.77 6516.46

10.1021/ie701705m CCC: $40.75  2008 American Chemical Society

Published on Web 10/04/2008

Figure 1. Column/side-reactor process.
between each liquid trap-out tray is the same. Thus, the
second trap-out tray is at the midpoint of this middle zone.
This column is just used for separation; no reaction occurs
in any part of the column. The light product C leaves in the
distillate, while the heavy product D is removed in the
bottoms. The dynamic component balances for the column
are given in the design paper.1
All the reaction takes place in three side reactors. These
reactors are adiabatic plug-flow reactors, and the holdups of
each reactor are the same (VR ) 80 kmol). The vapor from
the tray below each trap-out tray flows up through the
chimney to the tray above with no vapor-liquid contacting.
Each liquid trap-out tray collects all the liquid coming down
from the tray above the trap-out tray. Liquid from each tray-
out tray is pumped to a high enough pressure so that the
material stays liquid at the higher temperatures in the external
side reactors. Reactor effluents are fed back to the column
on the tray below the trap-out tray from which they were withdrawn.
Since we are interested in the dynamic behavior of the
system for this control paper, the tubular reactor model used
in the flowsheet must be dynamic, not just steady-state as in
the design paper. The spatial variation in temperature and
composition variables is approximated by using a lumped
model. With a reasonable number of lumps, the lumped model
gives a steady-state profile similar to the real steady-state
profile we get using the rigorous steady-state equations. A
lumped model of a distributed system is equivalent to using
a series of CSTRs to approximate a tubular reactor. Each
lump has its dynamic component and energy balances with
variables needed to be numerically integrated in time: dT/
dt, dx/dt, etc.
In these reactors, both the process liquid and the catalyst
have thermal capacitance, so the temperatures of these two
phases can be dynamically different in each lump with heat
transfer between the solid and liquid phases. Of course the
liquid compositions change dynamically from lump to lump
because of the convective flows in and out and because of
the reaction. The kinetics used is based on the volume of
the liquid. That brings up the issue of specifying the amount
of liquid and the amount of solid catalyst in a given total
vessel volume. It is assumed that the void volume of the
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 47, No. 22, 2008 8705
catalyst is 0.5, so the vessel is half-filled with liquid and
half-filled with solid.
The reaction occurs at the catalyst site, so that is where
the heat of reaction affects the catalyst temperature. There
is also heat transfer from the catalyst to the liquid. This means
that there will be a temperature difference between the liquid
and the solid even under steady-state conditions. The energy
equation for the solid catalyst in the nth lump is
dTcat,n -λFliqVliq ⁄ Mliq
) (kFxA,nxB,n - kRxC,nxD,n) -
dt FcatVcatCPcat
UA
(T - Tliq,n) (3)
FcatVcatCPcat cat,n
The energy equation for the liquid in each lump includes the
convective terms associated with flow of liquid in and out of
the lump at their respective temperatures.
dTliq,n MliqFliq,n UA
) (T - Tliq,n) + (T - Tliq,n)
dt FliqVliq liq,n-1 FliqVliqCPliq cat,n
(4)
The last term in both of these energy balances comes from the
heat transfer between the catalyst and the liquid.
Two assumptions have been made to calculate the values of
heat transfer coefficient U and area A needed for these equations:
(i) the temperature difference between the liquid and solid is
∼1.5 K at steady state, and (ii) the catalyst particles are spherical
with a 0.002 m diameter.
The reaction directly affects the compositions in the liquid
phase. The forward and reverse specific reaction rates follow
the Arrhenius Law.
kF ) aFe-EF ⁄RTcat (5)
kR ) aRe-ER ⁄RTcat (6)
The overall reaction rate is based on concentrations in mole
fractions and liquid holdups in moles. To avoid confusion, the
specific reaction rates used in this paper (with the reactor half-
full of catalyst) are twice those used in the design paper in which
catalyst was not considered.
dxi,n Fliq,n
) (x - xi,n) ( (kFxA,nxB,n - kRxC,nxD,n)
dt FliqVliq ⁄ Mliq i,n-1
(7)
Since the reaction is exothermic, some vapor is produced
as the liquid from the high-pressure reactor flashes into the
low-pressure column. This results in an increase of the vapor
flow rate at each external reactor location and a corresponding
decrease of the liquid rate below the external reactor location.
The quantity of this vapor is calculated from the heat
generated by the reaction occurring in the external reactor,
the flow rate of material into the reactor and the thermal
properties. The steady-state vapor and liquid rates are constant
through the stripping and rectifying sections since equimolal
overflow is assumed. However, there are different liquid and
vapor rates in the middle sections of the column. The physical
and chemical parameter values are given in Table 2. Figure
2A gives the composition and temperature profiles for
column. The left graphs are steady-state results using rigorous
ordinary differential equation models for the three reactors.
The right graphs are steady-state results using the lumped
reactor model. The column profiles are essentially identical.
Figure 2B gives composition and temperature profiles for
each of the three reactors using either the rigorous reactor
8706 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 47, No. 22, 2008

Table 2. Physical and Chemical Parameters 3. Control Structures

activation energy of reaction cal/mol In practical applications it is desirable to use inferential
forward 30000 temperature measurements whenever possible instead of direct
reverse 40000
specific reaction rate at 366 K kmol/(s-kmol) composition measurements. Composition analyzers have higher
forward 0.016 cost, require more maintenance, and can introduce deadtime into
reverse 0.016/(KEQ)366 the control loop. Therefore, we first explore a control structure
heat of reaction, λ kJ/mol - 41.8 that does not have any composition analyzer. The performance
heat of vaporization, ∆Hv kJ/mol 29 of this two-temperature control structure will then be compared
molecular weight of the mixture, Mliq g/mol 50
catalyst density, Fcat kg/m3 2000 with a structure that uses a composition analyzer.
liquid density, Fliq kg/m3 800 The control structures are single-input-single-output (SISO)
ideal gas constant cal/(mol-K) 1.987 structures with PI controllers for temperature and composition
catalyst heat capacity, CPcat kJ/(kg-K) 0.50 and P-only controllers for levels with gains of 2. The
liquid heat capacity, CPliq J/(kg-K) 2.93
Tyreus-Luyben tuning method is used to tune the temperature
heat-transfer coefficient, U kJ/(s-K-m2) 0.02
heat-transfer area, A m2 749 and composition controllers. The ultimate gain and ultimate
period necessary for this method are obtained using the relay-
model (solid lines) or the lumped reactor model (dashed feedback test. Two first-order measurement-lags of 60 s each
lines). These profiles are quite similar. are used in all temperature loops, while a 3 min deadtime is

Figure 2. (A) Composition and temperature profiles for column, (B) composition and temperature profiles for reactors (length ) 8.6 m).

used for the composition analyzer. All the control valves in the
process are designed to be half-open at steady state.
The effectiveness of the control structures studied in this paper
is demonstrated by using dynamic simulations and subjecting
the processes to production rate changes (∆F0j or ∆VS) and feed
composition disturbances (∆z0A and ∆z0B).
As with any control system, factors such as criticality of the
online analyzers and failure of measurements would need to be
considered in any actual plant installation. These factors have
not been considered in this study.
3.1. Control Structure CS7. Control structure CS7 is based
on a paper by Roat and co-workers8 and is shown in Fig-
ure 3.
Two temperature controllers manipulate the two fresh-feed
flowrates to maintain the temperatures on two trays. Reboiler
heat-input is flow controlled and serves as the production-
rate handle. The base level is controlled by manipulating the
bottoms flowrate, while the reflux drum level is controlled
Figure 3. Control structure CS7.
Figure 4. Gains and SVD for CS7.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 47, No. 22, 2008 8707
by the reflux flowrate. Reflux ratio is controlled by measuring
the reflux flowrate, multiplying this by the reciprocal of the
desired reflux ratio and sending this signal to a remote-set
cascade flow controller on the distillate stream. The col-
umn pressure is assumed to be constant and controlled by
condenser heat removal. Note that the liquid levels on the
three trap-out trays are held constant by manipulating the
three valves in the liquid streams from the reactors back to
the column (controllers not shown in Figure 3). The pressures
in the liquid-filled reactors are set by the pump head.
The selection of the trays to temperature control is the main
issue in this structure. From the rigorous steady-state simulation,
the gain matrix between the inputs (two fresh-feed flowrates)
and the outputs (the temperatures on all trays) is calculated
numerically. Using these steady-state gains, the locations of the
most sensitive trays whose temperatures are to be controlled
are selected by applying singular value decomposition (SVD)
analysis. Some engineering judgment must be also exercised
in this selection. The procedure is discussed in detail in a
previous paper.9
The steady-state gains (KF0A and KF0B) between tray
temperatures and feed flow rates and their related SVD results
for CS7 structure are given in Figure 4. The steady-state gains
between tray temperatures and the F0A feed are negative (an
increase in feed flowrate decreases tray temperature) through-
out the column except for a small region in the lower
stripping section that has very small positive values. On the
other hand, the steady-state gains between tray temperatures
and the F0B feed are mostly positive, especially at the most
temperature sensitive regions. Note that the most sensitive
temperature measurements to the change in the fresh feed
streams are in the rectifying section with a negative maximum
at tray 27 for F0A and with a positive maximum at tray 26
for F0B. However, since these two trays are so close to each
other, it is not possible to use both of them.
To overcome this problem, we look for secondary sensitive
regions for both gains (second peaks that are smaller than
the biggest ones). By looking at the curves in Figure 4, these
secondary peaks are found in the upper stripping section (tray
16 for both gains). Although the problem defined above may
be solved by selecting one of these trays to pair with one of
the fresh feed stream, a bigger problem still exists. While
8708 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 47, No. 22, 2008

both primary and secondary sensitive trays have negatiVe
gains for changes in F0A, the gains are positiVe for changes
in F0B. Therefore there will be a difference in the actions of
control loops, and this may result in difficulties for this
control structure. Kaymak and Luyben9 pointed out that the
actions of the two temperature controllers used in a reactive
distillation column should be the same (e.g., both positive).
Controlling an upper tray in rectifying section by manipu-
lating the fresh-feed flowrate F0B (the upper-feed flowrate)
and controlling a tray in the stripping zone by manipulating
the fresh-feed flowrate F0A (the lower-feed flowrate) sounds
more reasonable than the reverse. Therefore the F0A/T16 and
F0B/T26 pairings are first selected as the control loops instead
of the alternative pairings of F0A/T27 and F0B/T16.
Figure 5 gives relay-feedback test results for both loops used
in this structure. Note the difference in the time scales for the
two loops. Although the amplitude and period look reasonable
for the F0A/T16 pairing, the shark-tooth shape of the tray 26
temperature response is characteristic of a process with inverse
response. This is confirmed by the controller gain and reset time
values calculated from test data. As given in Table 3, the values
for the F0A/T16 loop have reasonable values. However, the
controller for tray 26 has an unrealistically large reset time of
8624 min.
Therefore, the alternative structure with the F0A/T27 and F0B/
T16 pairings is checked by applying the relay-feedback test. This
structure also results in inverse response as revealed in the huge
reset time of the F0A/T27 loop. Thus, switching the pairing does
not help solve the problem.
Figure 6 shows the response of CS7 to (5% step changes in
production rate (vapor boilup) using the F0A/T16 and F0B/T26
pairings. The response of the system is stable, but it takes a
long time for T26 temperature to go back to its setpoint for both
positive and negative disturbances. Such a long time to settle
down is a problem related to the inverse response and the huge
reset time. A bigger problem is that even fairly small 5%
disturbances result in large changes in the purities of the product
streams xD,C and xB,D. While one of the purities settles down to
a new steady state above its setpoint, the other one goes to a
new steady state that is far below its setpoint.
This problem occurs because the two temperature control-
lers in the CS7 structure give different initial responses
because of their opposite actions. An increase in vapor boilup
Table 3. Tuning Parameters for Control Structure CS7
pairing span KC τI
F0A/T16 10 1.37 37.95
F0B/T26 10 0.06 8624
produces an increase in the temperature on both control trays
(tray 16 and tray 26). The tray 16 temperature controller has
direct action, so it increases the F0A feed flowrate. However,
the tray 26 temperature controller has reverse action, so it
decreases the F0B feed flowrate. Not enough reactant B is
added in a timely enough manner to prevent light reactant A
from going to the upper section of the column. Once this
breakthrough occurs, the column moves to a different
operating condition where the impurity of A in the distillate
stream increases and product purities are lower. Thus, we
can conclude that control structure CS7 is not a good choice
for controlling this column/side-reactor process.
3.2. Control Structure CS5. As mentioned in the previous
section, it is desirable to use inferential temperature measure-
ments instead of direct composition measurements whenever
possible. However, the results show that the control structure
CS7 is not an effective control structure at least for the
process studied here, which is the optimum economic steady-
state design. It appears that some direct composition informa-
tion about reactant inventory inside the system is required
for a more effective control system since the column is
designed for neat operation. Thus, another control structure
CS5 that includes one composition analyzer is explored in
this section.
This control structure differs from control structure CS7 only
in how the fresh feed streams and the reboiler heat inputs are
manipulated. Figure 7 shows that the temperature of a tray near
the bottom of the column is used to infer bottoms product purity,
and it is controlled by manipulating the vapor boilup. Tray 16,
which has the biggest steady-state gain (KVS) in the stripping
section, is selected. Distillate purity is not controlled. The fresh
feed F0B is flow controlled and serves as the production rate
handle.
A composition analyzer is used to detect the inventory of
component A in the system. Feedback can be used to prevent
the gradual buildup or depletion of reactant A. Thus, the flowrate
of the other fresh feed F0A is manipulated by a composition

Figure 5. Relay-feedback test results for CS7 pairings.


Figure 6. A (5% step change in production rate handle ∆VS.
controller than maintains the concentration of component A on
a selected tray.
To see which tray is the best for detecting component A
concentration, a disturbance sensitivity approach was explored.
The compositions of both products are driven to their correct
values by varying reflux ratio and heat input at different feed
flowrates. The composition and temperature profiles have to
change to give “perfect” composition control of the two
products. The changes of composition of component A through
the column at ( 20% of original feed flowrates are shown in
Figure 8. From this figure, the tray with the least changing
composition (tray 20) is selected as the preferred one to control
by manipulating the flowrate of the other fresh feed F0A. This
tray is also the effluent of the second (middle) reactor returned
back to the column.
Figure 9 gives relay-feedback test results for both loops:
F0A/xA,20 and VS/T16. The amplitudes and periods look
Figure 7. Control structure CS5.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 47, No. 22, 2008 8709
reasonable for both loops. These results are also confirmed
by the controller gain and reset time values given in Table
4. There is no inverse response (huge reset times) problem.
There is also no action-related problem because both loops
have the same action. The unusual spikes in the composition
on tray 20 are caused by the step changes in the F0A feed,
which is pure component A and is fed directly on tray 20.
To check the effectiveness of this control structure, quite
large (20% step changes in the production rate (fresh-feed
stream F0B) are applied to the system. Figure 10 shows the
response of the CS5 structure to these disturbances. Both
controlled variables go back to their setpoints for both
positive and negative disturbances in a short time. Also, even
with these very large (20% step changes, the purities of the
product streams xD,C and xB,D settle down smoothly to steady-
state values that are within (1% of the 95% specification
value. Therefore the CS5 structure is a much better choice
for controlling this column/side-reactor process compared to
CS7 structure.
The responses of CS5 with tray 20 composition controlled
for changes in feed compositions are given in Figures 11 and
Figure 8. Disturbance sensitivity results.
8710 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 47, No. 22, 2008
Figure 9. Relay-feedback test results for CS5 pairings.
Table 4. Tuning Parameters for Control Structure CS5
pairing span KC τI
F0A/xa,20 0.5 4.79 49.87
VS/T16 10 1.30 7.04
12. In Figure 11 the composition of the fresh feed F0A is changed
from pure A to either 95 mol % A with 5 mol % B (solid lines)
or 90 mol % A with 10 mol % B (dashed lines). Control
structure CS5 handles this type of disturbance quite well. The
purities of both products are maintained within 1% of the desired
95% specification. However, as the impurity amount is increased
to 10 mol % B, the purity of the bottoms stream xB,D moves to
the limit of the specifications which is 1% below from the
setpoint. Thus, it can be said that this purity of the bottoms
stream will deviate by more than 1% for larger feed composition
disturbances.
Figure 12 gives the responses of CS5 to 3% and 5%
impurities of A in fresh-feed stream F0B. The control structure
keeps product purities within 1% of their specified values for
Figure 10. Step change ((20%) in production rate handle ∆F0B.
the 3% feed stream impurity. However, the purity of the distillate
stream xD,C goes out of the specification limits for a 5% feed
stream impurity.
4. Conclusion
Two different control structures have been studied for the
control of a column/side-reactor process with three external
reactors. The chemical system studied has two reactants and
two products and operates without any excess reactant. The
effectiveness of each control structure is demonstrated using
disturbances in production rate and fresh-feed compositions.
For the first control structure CS7, two tray temperatures are
controlled by manipulating the two fresh-feed streams. The
vapor boilup (or reboiler duty) is the production rate handle.
Simulation results indicate that this control structure is not a
good choice for controlling this process. The main problem is
the disharmony between the actions of the loops. While one of
the loops has a direct action, the other loop has a reverse action.

Figure 11. Impurity of B in fresh feed composition ∆z0A.
Figure 12. Impurity of A in fresh feed composition ∆z0B.
A secondary problem is that one of the loops shows the
characteristic of a process with inverse response.
For the second control structure CS5, an internal composi-
tion analyzer is used, and the fresh feed stream F0B is the
production-rate handle. This control structure shows better
responses to disturbances because of several reasons. First,
a composition analyzer that supplies information about
reactant inventory inside the system that can be used to
improve the controllability in a “neat” process. In addition,
the similarity in the actions of the two loops and the absence
of the inverse response behavior result in a more effective
control structure compared to CS7.
In a previous paper,10 the same control structures have been
used for a reactive distillation column in the same two
reactants-two products system. Although the column/side-
reactor process and the reactive distillation column are
different in terms of reaction-separation interactions, simi-
larities have been observed in their dynamic responses to
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 47, No. 22, 2008 8711
control structures CS5 and CS7. For both flowsheets the use
of control structure CS7 results in similar conflicts between
the actions of the loops and inverse response problems for
one of the loops. These problems affect the robustness of
control structure CS7 significantly. On the other hand, control
structure CS5 could easily handle disturbances that are typical
in most chemical processes for both the column/side-reactor
process and the reactive distillation column.
We have not explored in this paper the possibility of changing
the design to provide a more controllable process. Instead of
using the economic optimum design, controllability may be
improved by changing design parameters such as the number
and size of reactors and the number of trays in the various
sections of the column. The suboptimal design may result in a
process that can be controlled by the two-temperature control
structure, which would eliminate the need for analyzers. We
plan to explore this possibility in a future paper.
8712 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 47, No. 22, 2008
Nomenclature
A ) heat transfer area between catalyst and liquid (m ) 2
aF ) pre-exponential factor for the forward reaction (mol-sec-1-
mol-1)
aR ) pre-exponential factor for the reverse reaction (mol-sec-1-
mol-1)
AVP ) vapor pressure constant
B ) bottoms flow rate in the column (mol-sec-1)
BVP ) vapor pressure constant
CPcat ) heat capacity of catalyst (kJ-kg-1-K-1)
CPliq ) heat capacity of liquid (kJ-kg-1-K-1)
D ) distillate flow rate in the column (mol-sec-1)
EF ) activation energy of forward reaction (cal-mol-1)
ER ) activation energy of reverse reaction (cal-mol-1)
F0j ) fresh feed flow rate of reactant j (mol-sec-1)
Fliq,n ) flow rate of liquid in lump n (mol-sec-1)
KC ) controller gain
kF ) specific reaction rate of forward reaction (mol-sec-1-mol-1)
kR ) specific reaction rate of reverse reaction (mol-sec-1-mol-1)
KEQ ) equilibrium constant
KFoj ) steady-state gain related to the fresh feed j (K-mol-1-sec)
Mliq ) molecular weight of the liquid mixture (kg-kmole-1)
PSj ) vapor pressure of component j (bar)
R ) perfect gas law constant (cal-mol-1-K-1)
R ) reflux flowrate (mol-sec-1)
t ) time (sec)
Tcat,n ) temperature of catalyst in lump n (K)
Tliq,n ) temperature of liquid in lump n (K)
Ti ) column temperature on tray i (K)
U ) heat transfer coefficient between catalyst and liquid (kJ-s-1-
m-2-K-1)
Vcat ) volume of catalyst in each lump (m3)
Vliq ) volume of liquid in each lump (m3)
VR ) molar holdup of the reactor (moles)
VS ) vapor boilup (mol-sec-1)
xB,j ) bottoms composition of component j in liquid (mole fraction
j)
xD,j ) distillate composition of component j in liquid (mole fraction
j)
xi,j ) composition of component j in liquid on tray i (mole fraction
j)
xi,n ) composition of component i in lump n (mole fraction i)
z0i,j ) composition of fresh feed stream i (mole fraction j)
Greek Symbols
R390 ) relative volatility at 390 K
λ ) heat of reaction (kJ-mol-1)
Fcat ) catalyst density (kg-m-3)
Fliq ) liquid density (kg-m-3)
τI ) reset time (min)
Literature Cited
(1) Kaymak, D. B.; Luyben, W. L. Optimum design of a column/side
reactor process. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2007, 46, 5175–5185.
(2) Kaymak, D. B.; Luyben, W. L.; Smith, O. J. Effect of relative
volatility on the quantitative comparison of reactive distillation and
conventional multi-unit systems. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2004, 43, 3151–
3162.
(3) Schoenmakers, H. G.; Buehler, W. K. Distillation column with
external reactors - an alternative to the reaction column. Ger. Chem. Eng.
1982, 5, 292–296.
(4) Jakobsson, K.; Pyhälahti, A.; Pakkanen, S.; Keskinen, K.; Aittamaa,
J. Modelling of a side reactor configuration combining reaction and
distillation. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2002, 57, 1521–1524.
(5) Gadewar, S. B.; Tao, L.; Malone, M. F.; Doherty, M. F. Process
alternatives for coupling reaction and distillation. Chem. Eng. Res. & Des.
2004, 82, 140–147.
(6) Ouni, T.; Jakobsson, K.; Pyhälahti, A.; Aittamaa, J. Enhancing
productivity of side reactor configuration through optimizing the reaction
conditions. Chem. Eng. Res. & Des. 2004, 82, 167–174.
(7) Citro, F.; Lee, J. W. Widening the applicability of reactive distillation
technology by using concurrent design. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2004, 43,
375–383.
(8) Roat, S. ; Downs. J.; Vogel, E.; Doss, J. Integration of rigorous
dynamic modeling and control system synthesis for distillation columns.
In Chemical Process Control-CPC III; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Neth-
erlands, 1986.
(9) Kaymak, D. B.; Luyben, W. L. Evaluation of a two-temperature
control structure for a two-reactant/two-product type of reactive distillation
column. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2006, 61, 4432–4450.
(10) Kaymak, D. B.; Luyben, W. L. Quantitative Comparison of dynamic
controllability between a reactive distillation column and a conventional
multi-unit process. Comput. Clum. Eng. 2008, 32, 1456–1470.
ReceiVed for reView December 13, 2007
ReVised manuscript receiVed August 14, 2008
Accepted September 2, 2008
IE701705M