Initiation conditions control

There are significant differences between tliese two types of reactions as far as how they are treated experimentally and theoretically. Photodissociation typically involves excitation to an excited electronic state, whereas bimolecular reactions often occur on the ground-state potential energy surface for a reaction. In addition, the initial conditions are very different. In bimolecular collisions one has no control over the reactant orbital angular momentum (impact parameter), whereas m photodissociation one can start with cold molecules with total angular momentum 0. Nonetheless, many theoretical constructs and experimental methods can be applied to both types of reactions, and from the point of view of this chapter their similarities are more important than their differences. 

The problems of monomer recovery, reaction medium viscosity, and control of reaction heat are effectively dealt with by the process design of Montedison Fibre (53). This process produces polymer of exceptionally high density, so although the polymer is stiU swollen with monomer, the medium viscosity remains low because the amount of monomer absorbed in the porous areas of the polymer particles is greatly reduced. The process is carried out in a CSTR with a residence time, such that the product k jd x. Q is greater than or equal to 1. is the initiator decomposition rate constant. This condition controls the autocatalytic nature of the reaction because the catalyst and residence time combination assures that the catalyst is almost totally expended in the reactor. 

Transparent monoliths can be prepared by drying high density gels (49,50). Control of initial conditions of sol preparation is essential to achieve success during the drying step. 

A differential equation for a function that depends on only one variable, often time, is called an ordinary differential equation. The general solution to the differential equation includes many possibilities the boundaiy or initial conditions are needed to specify which of those are desired. If all conditions are at one point, then the problem is an initial valueproblem and can be integrated from that point on. If some of the conditions are available at one point and others at another point, then the ordinaiy differential equations become two-point boundaiy value problems, which are treated in the next section. Initial value problems as ordinary differential equations arise in control of lumped parameter models, transient models of stirred tank reactors, and in all models where there are no spatial gradients in the unknowns. 

These differential equations are readily solved, as shown by Luyben (op. cit.), by simple Euler numerical integration, starling from an initial steady state, as determined, e.g., by the McCabe-Thiele method, followed by some prescribed disturbance such as a step change in feed composition. Typical results for the initial steady-state conditions, fixed conditions, controller and hydraulic parameters, and disturbance given in Table 13-32 are listed in Table 13-33. 

TABLE 13-32 Initial and Fixed Conditions, Controller and Hydraulic Parameters, and Disturbance for Ideal Binary Dynamic-Distillation Example... 

In a typical dynamic trajectory, the initial position is well controlled but the endpoint of the trajectory is unknown. For chemical reaction dynamics, we are interested in trajectories that link known initial (reactant) and final (product) states so that both the initial conditions and the final conditions of the trajectory are fixed. 

A transfer function is the Laplace transform of a differential equation with zero initial conditions. It is a very easy way to transform from the time to the. v domain, and a powerful tool for the control engineer. 

Fig. 5.25. The shock temperature in LiCl KCl electrolytes is controlled with the use of eleetrolytes with initial densities as shown. The cirele represents the shock conditions. Upon release of pressure the final temperature is expected to cross the melt eurve for certain initial conditions.

The first component on the right-hand side controls dynamic development of the response in the same way as in Eq. (3.8), and the other two control spectral exchange due to collisions. Solution of Eq. (3.26) should satisfy the initial condition... 

This set of first-order ODEs is easier to solve than the algebraic equations where all the time derivatives are zero. The initial conditions are that a ut = no, bout = bo,... at t = 0. The long-time solution to these ODEs will satisfy Equations (4.1) provided that a steady-state solution exists and is accessible from the assumed initial conditions. There may be no steady state. Recall the chemical oscillators of Chapter 2. Stirred tank reactors can also exhibit oscillations or more complex behavior known as chaos. It is also possible that the reactor has multiple steady states, some of which are unstable. Multiple steady states are fairly common in stirred tank reactors when the reaction exotherm is large. The method of false transients will go to a steady state that is stable but may not be desirable. Stirred tank reactors sometimes have one steady state where there is no reaction and another steady state where the reaction runs away. Think of the reaction A B —> C. The stable steady states may give all A or all C, and a control system is needed to stabilize operation at a middle steady state that gives reasonable amounts of B. This situation arises mainly in nonisothermal systems and is discussed in Chapter 5. 

The rabbit and l5mx problem does have stable steady states. A stable steady state is insensitive to small perturbations in the system parameters. Specifically, small changes in the initial conditions, inlet concentrations, flow rates, and rate constants lead to small changes in the observed response. It is usually possible to stabilize a reactor by using a control system. Controlhng the input rate of lynx can stabilize the rabbit population. Section 14.1.2 considers the more realistic control problem of stabilizing a nonisothermal CSTR at an unstable steady state. 

In principle, these approaches are very attractive because they probe multiple pathways in the critical regions where the pathways are separated, but in practice these are extremely challenging experiments to conduct, and the interpretation of results is often quite difficult. Furthermore, these experiments are difficult to apply to bimolecular collisions because of the difficulty of initiating the reaction with sufficient time resolution and control over initial conditions. 

Show that in the absence of control and feed disturbances (u = v = 0), the system has a singular, stable, steady-state solution of C = 0.1654 and T = 550. This can best be done by carrying out runs with different initial conditions (CO and TEMPO) and plotting the results as a phase-plane, TEMP versus C. 

What we argue (of course it is tme) is that the Laplace-domain function Y(s) must contain the same information as y(t). Likewise, the function G(s) contains the same dynamic information as the original differential equation. We will see that the function G(s) can be "clean" looking if the differential equation has zero initial conditions. That is one of the reasons why we always pitch a control problem in terms of deviation variables.1 We can now introduce the definition. 

We now present two theorems which can be used to find the values of the time-domain function at two extremes, t = 0 and t = °°, without having to do the inverse transform. In control, we use the final value theorem quite often. The initial value theorem is less useful. As we have seen from our very first example in Section 2.1, the problems that we solve are defined to have exclusively zero initial conditions. 

The letters A to C in Figure 26 represent the possible interventions a company can make, to arrest the development of an accident. The interventions react to the situation as shown prior to them. The thick arrow represents a cause effect relationship that is so direct, no intervention can be implemented preventing the effect from occurring if the cause is not removed. In Figure 26 one relation is present, between the initial ineffective control elements and the precursors, implying that if latent conditions are present, the initial ineffective control elements are automatically present to and will automatically result into precursors. 

To identify the latent conditions which enable the initial ineffective control element. Contents... 

The number of initial ineffective control elements on each hierarchical control level (=where) and the corresponding latent conditions leading to these ineffective control elements (=why) will be discussed. The results of the discussion will be reflected on the number of affected safety barriers (=consequences). Furthermore, the individual affected safety barriers will be combined, to find possible alignments of affected safety barriers that enable accidents (=risks). Finally, the weaknesses of the current safety management system are indicated by the previous findings. 

Stages 5 and 6, the identification of latent conditions and affected safety barriers, cannot be retrieved. Due to the lack of the initial ineffective control elements, the corresponding latent conditions and affected safety barriers cannot be retrieved. The affected safety barriers can be independently identified from the accident information (as will be shown in an example given in this sub-Section). However, the causal relationship between ineffective control and the affected safety barrier cannot be established. 

Please note, that if the identified contributing types of latent conditions were resolved, i.e. sufficient information from the transformation process its history of deviations and no cost pressure from stockholders were present, the control element turns effective. However, this does not automatically imply that the corresponding precursor will be alleviated. It is still possible that a control element preceding the previous initial ineffective control element, is also ineffective. 

The latent conditions from all initial ineffective control elements are derived in a similar way. The final results are shown in Figure 44. The data from which this figure has been derived is depicted in three tables, for company A, B and C successively, as shown and explained in Appendix D. By adding the numbers of each type of latent condition per company (see the last row of all three tables in Appendix D), the results graphically shown in Figure 44 are derived. 

---