CDB 3052

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY II

JANUARY 2016

EXPERIMENT1: CONTINUOUS STIRRED TANK REACTOR, CSTR, DYNAMIC

GROUP

GROUP MEMBERS

:7

: MOHANA A/P SUPPAYAH

19117

ISWARYA

19135

FARAH NADIAH BTE SIDEK

19264

MOHD FIRDAUS BIN LABABA

19473

ALEU MAJOK ALEU MAJOK

20486

LAB INSTRUCTOR

: MR. MUHAMMAD ATHAR

DATE OF EXPERIMENT

: 24th MARCH, 2016

Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 2
2.0 RESULTS........................................................................................................... 3
3.0 DISCUSSION.................................................................................................... 13
4.0 CONCLUSION................................................................................................. 15
5.0 APPENDIX....................................................................................................... 16
6.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................. 17

1.0 INTRODUCTION
A reactor is the key thing of gear in which crude materials experience a concoction
change to frame coveted items based on the majority of the larger part of industrial chemical
processes. The configuration and operation of chemical reactors is essential to the entire
achievement of the industrial operation.
Continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) dynamics was included in this experiment.
This experiment shows a system containing circulation pumps plus three stirred reactors
which was connected in series complete. Two CSTRs are associated together in a series
arrangement, for instance the way out of the first CSRT turns to be feed to the next CSTR.
This course of action permits higher conversion to be accomplished from the CSTR. The
CSTRs in a cascade can all be of the same size or of various sizes. This method (CSTR)
was broadly used in water treatment, in both chemical and organic procedures.
This experiment was conducted into two different parts. The first one is to study the
effect of step change input. In this experiment, the use of step change input and the
movement of the tracer will then be observed by using the conductivity measurements in
those three reactors and the dead time coil. Deionized solution which is the water is poured
in all three reactors and halted when all reactors are full. After that, 0.0025M sodium chloride
solution was prepared along with the ionized water is fed from another tank and conductivity
is recorded every minute for 45 minutes.
The next one is to observe the effect of pulse input. In this experiment a single pulse
would be presented and the progression of the tracer will be checked by means of the
conductivity measurements in all three reactors and after the dead time coil. . Deionized
solution which is the water is poured in all three reactors and halted when all reactors are
full, then the same arrangement of sodium chloride was pumped for two minutes and
afterwards conductivity values were recorded every minute for 45 minutes.

The objective of this experiment is to observe the transient behaviour of those three
continuous stirred-tank reactors associated in an arrangement (series). Likewise, determine
the concentration reaction to different disturbances, pulse input and step change. At that
point the analysis continues to find out he relations between conductivity and flow rate in
each reactor with time. The impact of the residence tmie on the response curve is explored
as well. In addition, we also look in how genuine (non-ideal) reactor functions by
investigation on dead time coil.

2.0 RESULTS
Raw Data
Table 1: Variation of Conversion with Conductivity
Conductivity (micro
Concentration (g/L)
0.2922
0.5844
0.8766
1.1688
1.461
2.922
5.844
8.766
11.688

S)
814
1394
1969
2300
2880
5400
10100
15120
19300

Table 2: Effect of Step Change Input

Table 3: Effect of Pulse Input

Table 4: Investigation on Dead Time Coil

Sample Calculations
a) To calculate residence time distribution function, E(t)

N =C ( t ) v t
vC ( t )
No

E (t)=

Where

N o= vC ( t ) dt
0

t=time increment

v =effluent volumetric flow rate

Take at one point
eg:

at t=1
C (1) = 245.056 (g/m3)

E ( t ) = 11

C (t )

C ( t ) dt
0

E ( 1 )=

24.064
2726.976

= 0.008824414min-1

For other experiments, the calculation was done in the same way as in
this sample calculation.

Concentration (g/L) vs Conductivity (micro S)

25000
20000
f(x) = 1634.54x + 483.51
R = 1

15000
Concentration (g/L)

10000
5000
0
0

10

12

14

Conductivity (micro S)

Figure 1: Variation of Concentration with Conductivity for calibration experiment

Concentration vs Time
1400
1200
1000
Reactor 1

800

Concentration (g/m3

Reactor 2
Reactor 3

600
400
200
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Time (min

Figure 2: Variation of tracer concentration with time for step input

E(t) vs Time (min)

0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03

E(t)

0.03

Reactor 1

0.02

Reactor 2

0.02

Reactor 3

0.01
0.01
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Time (min)
Figure 3: Variation of E(t) with time for step input

Flow rate (ml/min) vs Time (min)

160
140
120
100

Flow rate (ml/min)

80
60
40
20
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Time (min)
Figure 4: Variation of flow rate with time for step input
10

11

Concentration vs Time
200
180
160
140

Concentration (g/m3)

120

Reactor 1

100

Reactor 2

80

Reactor 3

60
40
20
0

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Time (min)

Figure 5: Variation of tracer concentration with time for pulse input

E(t) vs Time (min)

0.05
0.04
0.03

E(t)

Reactor 1
Reactor 2

0.02

Reactor 3

0.01
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Time (min)
Figure 6: Variation of E(t) with time for pulse input
12

Flow rate (ml/min) vs Time (min) )

156
154
152

Flow rate (ml/min 150

148
146
144

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Time (min)

Figure 7: Variation of flow rate with time for pulse input

Concentration vs time

Concentration (g/m3)

1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Time (min)

Figure 8: Variation of tracer concentration with time for dead time

13

E(t) vs Time
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05

E(t) (min)

0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Time(min)

Figure 9: Variation of E(t) with time tracer concentration with time for

dead time

Flow rate vs time

600
500
400

Flow rate (ml/min)

300
200
100
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Time (min)

Figure 10: Variation of flow rate with time

tracer concentration with

time for dead time

14

3.0 DISCUSSION
In Part A of the experiment, the tracers are injected continuously to the feed at a flow
rate of 150 ml/ min for a certain time in order to study the effect of step change input. The
system runs at an isothermal condition and at atmospheric pressure of 1atm. Three graphs
have been plotted after obtaining the results which are Graph of Tracer Concentration Vs
Time, Graph of E(t) Vs Time and Graph of Flowrate vs Time. A smooth curved graph was
obtained in the first plot for all the three reactors and this indicates that a well mixing
occurred in the reactor tanks. In the first reactor, the concentration of tracers increases and
becomes constant at 800 g/m3 to indicate that it has reached the steady state. While in the
reactor 2 and 3, the concentration of tracers increase and become constant between 1200
g/m3 and 1300 g/m3 and they have reached the steady state. Thus, we can say that reactor 1
has a smaller residence time compared to reactor 2 and 3 based on the second graph since
the first reactor requires a lower concentration of NaCl while the other two reactors have a
higher residence time because they require a higher concentration NaCl. The flowrate kept
fluctuating at some parts because the flowmeter was too sensitive that the flowrate has to be
maintained by regulating the flowmeter. Hence, reactor 1 is the most well mixed reactor as it
reaches constant value faster compared to the other two.
While in the Part B of the experiment, the tracer was injected at a higher concentration
once only (at one shot) for about 2 minutes at the feed to study the effect of pulse input. The
concentration of the tracer exponentially decreases as the time increases. Since the tracer is
injected for a short time, the concentration of NaCl peaks up immediately as it enters reactor
1 with a very limited amount and it starts to drop once it begins entering the next reactor.
Then, in the reactor 2, the initial concentration of NaCl is 50 g/m 3 where we can say that it is
noticeably higher compared to reactor 1 which is 21 g/m 3 . While in the third reactor, the
initial concentration of NaCl is higher compared to reactor 1 and 2 which is 90 g/m 3 . From
the obtained results, we noticed that the residence time for all the three reactors is almost
similar which is at 41th minute.
Apart from the two parts of the experiment, experiment C was conducted to study on
the dead time coil where the experiment replicates real reactor by introducing stagnation
zone using dead-time coil. A certain amount of NaCl is allowed to flow into the dead time
15

coil by introducing pulse. Based on the results obtained, the time taken for the concentration
to achieve constant level is longer compared to time taken in step or pulse input. This is due
to the higher peak of concentration and higher residence time in the reactor. The time taken
for the final concentration to reach the same value as the initial value is longer compared to
reactor without coil. Apart from that, it is not stable because based on the graphs, it shows
that the concentration increases again at some time before it reaches the initial state. This is
due to the dead time coil which acts as a contamination agent. Again, the flowrate kept
fluctuating at some parts because the flowmeter was too sensitive that the flowrate has to be
maintained by regulating the flowmeter.
Errors and Recommendations
1. The reading for the strirrer speed was not constant and kept on fluctuating
throughout the experiment. Therefore, a better instrument could be used for the
reading to be constant for the stirrer speed.
2. When flushing out the waste mixture or water some volume could still remain in the
pipes. Ensure the reactors and tubings are cleaned properly after each experiment to
obtain a correct reading.Flush the system with de-ionized water until there is no
traces of salt detected.
3. Parallax error was encountered in measuring the volumes of reacting solutions.
When measuring volumes of reactants, the experimenter should move eyes closer
and at almost the same level as the desired mark on the measuring cylinder to
reduce parallax error

16

4.0 CONCLUSION
In the step change experiment (Part A), the experimental data showed that reactor 1
has a lower concentration of NaCl compared to reactor 2 and 3 where the residence time is
higher due to higher concentration. So, it can be said, the higher the concentration of NaCl,
the higher the residence time. Based on the data, the higher the concentration of NaCl, the
higher the conductivity.
In the pulse input experiment, the concentration of NaCl peaks the moment it enters
the reactors. After the pumping is completed, the concentration of NaCl started to reduce.
Therefore, it can be said that the residence time for all three reactors is almost similar.
Experiment C was conducted to study the dead time coil where the experiment
replicates real reactor by introducing stagnation zone using dead-time coil. The time taken
for this experiment is quite long compared to the other two experiments which is due to the
higher concentration and residence time in the reactors. The higher the concentration and
the residence time in the reactor, the longer time it takes for the concentration to achieve
constant level.

17

5.0 APPENDIX

Figure A1: Feed tanks to the series CSTRs

Figure A2: Three CSTRs in series and the main board

18

19

6.0 REFERENCES
Fogler, H. (1999). Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering. 3rd Ed., Prentice
Hall PTR

Geankoplis, C. (1995). Transport Processes and Unit Operations. Prentice Hall,

Singapore.

Levenspiel, O. and John, W. (1972). Chemical Reaction Engineering.

Perry, R. (1997). Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook. McGraw Hill, USA

Smith, J. (1981). Chemical Engineering Kinetics, McGraw Hill.

20