See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224294541

Analysis and design of startup control of a chemical plate reactor with

uncertainties; a hybrid approach

Conference Paper · November 2007

DOI: 10.1109/CCA.2007.4389436 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

6 33

2 authors, including:

Per Hagander
Lund University
84 PUBLICATIONS   2,492 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Probing control - a new idea for control of fed-batch microbial cultivation / Project closed View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Per Hagander on 16 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

16th IEEE International Conference on Control Applications
Part of IEEE Multi-conference on Systems and Control
Singapore, 1-3 October 2007
Analysis and design of startup control of a chemical plate reactor
with uncertainties; a hybrid approach
Staffan Haugwitz and Per Hagander
Abstract— The startup of a chemical plate reactor is in-
vestigated. A hybrid startup control scheme is presented and
a discussion is made on how hybrid transition points may
be chosen to allow safe startup despite actuator limitations,
process nonlinearities and model uncertainties. The event-
driven startup improves the robustness to uncertainties and
disturbances, since each part of the startup is associated with
a feedback in the form of a transition condition that needs to
be satisfied to allow the startup to continue.
I. I NTRODUCTION
For industrial production of temperature sensitive exother-
mic reactions, safe and efficient startup control is important.
Normally the continuous reactor operates around an optimal
operating point in steady state. However, it may be non-trivial
how to reach the optimal operating point when starting from
a cold, empty reactor.
The dynamics of the plate reactor and the exothermic
reaction form a highly nonlinear process and for some
operating conditions multiple steady state solutions may
exist. The reaction dynamics are also very fast, and in many
cases much faster than the actuator dynamics for the control.
In this paper we will design a startup strategy that will safely
take the process to a desired steady state, despite rate limits
in the control variables and large uncertainties in the model
parameters.
Our proposed method is a hybrid event-driven startup.
Even though the reactor has entirely continuous dynamics,
we will in this paper show that a hybrid startup control
may lead to increased safety and robustness of the startup in
the presence of control limitations and uncertainties. It also
connects naturally to the practice of startup in the industry.
In [1], the startup of an adiabatic tubular reactor sys-
tem is studied. Open loop trajectories of the manipulated
variables are calculated by minimizing the total amount of
unreacted chemicals exiting the reactor during the startup
period. The trajectories of the manipulated variables are then
implemented in open loop.
In contrast to [1], the reactor in this paper is a plate reactor
equipped with a cooling system, it has multiple injection
points for reactants, and feedback control is used to increase
safety and robustness towards process uncertainty.
Startup of the plate reactor was introduced in [2]. This
paper extends that work and we focus here on the choice
of these transition points and the analysis of the open and
closed-loop system for the chosen transition points. The
Authors are with the department of Automatic Control, Lund university,
Box 118 SE-22100 Lund, Sweden. Corresponding author: Staffan Haugwitz,
staffan.haugwitz@control.lth.se
1-4244-0443-6/07/$20.00 ©2007 IEEE.
WeC02.5
objective is to find transition points that yield event-driven
start-up trajectories with reduced sensitivity to uncertainties.
This facilitates the task of the feedback controller to maintain
safe operation despite uncertainties and actuator limitations.
II. T HE A LFA L AVAL P LATE R EACTOR
The Alfa Laval Plate Reactor [3] consists of a number
of reactor plates, where the reactants mix and react. On
each side of a reactor plate there is a cooling plate, through
which cold water is circulated. In this paper a second order
exothermic reaction is considered, where C is the product of
interest.
A + B → C + D + heat (1)
In Figure 1, a schematic figure of the first rows of a
reactor plate is shown. The reactant A flows into the reactor
from the upper left inlet. Between the inlet and the outlet,
the reactants are forced by inserts to flow in horizontal
channels in alternating directions. The inserts are specifically
designed to enhance the mixing and at the same time the heat
transfer capacity. The concept relies on a flexible reactor
configuration. The type of inserts and the number of rows
in the reactor plate, which determines the residence time,
can be adjusted, based on the type and rate of the chosen
reaction.
The reactant B can be added through multiple inlet ports,
typically in the beginning and in the middle of the reactor.
With additional inlet points the production capacity can be
increased and the reactor can be tailor-made for any complex
reaction, e.g. multi-stage reactions. Temperature sensors can
be mounted arbitrarily inside the reactor, specifically after
each inlet port. This improves the possibility for accurate
temperature control.
A. Modelling
A model of the plate reactor can be derived from first
principles for heat transfer, reaction kinetics, mass, energy
and chemical balances, see for example [4]. The reaction
kinetics can be approximated with the Arrhenius law.
The multiple consecutive horizontal channels inside the
reactor in Figure 1, can be approximated as a continuous
tubular reactor with axial dispersion with multiple inlet ports
of reactant B along the reactor. The distributed nature of
the process leads to five partial differential equations (PDEs)
in reactor temperature Tr , cooling water temperature Tc and
concentrations for the reactants and products, cA , cB and cC .
The PDEs are approximated with the Method-of-Lines, [5],
using the Finite Volume Method. The spatial derivatives are
approximated with a first order backward difference method
1426
 WeC02.5

TABLE I
B OUNDED UNCERTAINTIES IN FOR THE PLATE REACTOR

Variable/Parameter Nominal value uncertainty

Activation energy, Ea 76000 J/mol 2%
Pre-exponential factor, k0 2e7 m3 /(mol s) 5%
Heat of reaction, ∆H 1.17e6 J/mol 5%
Heat transfer coefficient, k 1120 W/(m2 K) 10%
Feed concentration, c f eed,A 2391.9 mol/m3 2%
Feed concentration, c f eed,B 19135 mol/m3 2%

control variables uB1 = qB1 /q f eed,B and uB2 = qB2 /q f eed,B ,

Fig. 1. Left: A schematic of a few rows of a reactor plate. Reactant A
enters at top left and reactant B is added through several inlet ports along the
reactor. Y1 and Y2 are internal temperature sensors used for process control
and supervision. The cooling water flows from top to bottom in separate
cooling plates. Right: The plate reactor seen from the side, with the reactor
part in the middle and cooling plates on each side.
to a finite system of ordinary differential equations (ODEs).
The model equations for the first of n control volumes can
then be written as
dTr,1
=
q f eedA
T f eed,A +
qB1
T f eed,B −
qr,1
Tr,1
dt V V V difficulties for the controller, when the process gain changes
kAheat ∆Hr Ea
+ (Tc,1 − Tr,1 ) + k0 e RTr,1 cA,1 cB,1 (2)
ρ c pV ρ cp
dcB,1 qB1 qr,1 Ea
= c f eed,B − cB,1 − k0 e RTr,1 cA,1 cB,1 (3)
dt V V
where V is the control volume, q f eed,A is the feed flow of
A, qr is the reactor flow and qB1 is the flow of B injected at
the first injection point. The heat transfer coefficient and area
are denoted with k and Aheat , respectively. ∆Hr is the heat of
reaction. The reaction rate r, last term in (3), is influenced by
the pre-exponential factor k0 , the activation energy Ea and
the universal gas constant R. There are similar PDEs for the
cooling water Tc and the other chemical components cA and
cC . Each PDE is approximated with n = 30 control volumes,
thus Tr , Tc , cA , cB and cC are all vectors of size n each. Let us
define the full state vector x = [Tr ; Tc ; cA ; cB ; cC ] of
size 5n. In addition, we define the reactor temperature after
the first injection point as T1 and the temperature after the
second injection point as T2 .
B. Inputs and outputs
In this paper, we consider a reactor configuration with two
inlet ports for reactant B and one single cooling flow, that
is, the same water cools the entire reactor.
In this paper, we consider the following four input vari-
ables as manipulated variables: qB1 , qB2 , T f eed,A and Tcool ,
where qB1 and qB2 are the two feed flow rates of reactant
B added at the two injection points, Tcool is the inlet
temperature of the cooling water and T f eed,A is the inlet
temperature of the primary reactant A, which constitutes the
main part of the total reactor flow. In the sequel, T f eed,A will
be referred to as T f eed . Furthermore, we will use the scaled
where q f eed,B is a scaling factor.
Each control input is in reality a set-point, in a cascade
control setting, to a low-level feedback controller manipulat-
ing the actuator system, e.g. a pump or a valve. The combi-
nation of actuator system and low-level feedback controller
can be roughly approximated with a first order system and
a rate limit.
C. Process dynamics and uncertainties
The nonlinearities in the model appear in particular in
the reaction rate r, which is exponential in temperature Tr .
For the nominal values in Table I, the reaction rate at 70◦ C
is almost 100 times larger than at 20◦ C. This may lead to
several orders of magnitude during the startup.
In this paper, safe and fast startup should be achieved for
all models within a given uncertainty set, see Table I. The
main uncertainties are associated with the reaction kinetics.
A reasonable model for the reaction kinetic is available,
but is in general only validated for the desired operating
point. Therefore, especially during startup, there may be
considerable uncertainty concerning the reaction kinetics.
III. P ROBLEM FORMULATION
The general problem is to control the process from an
initial point x0 , where Tr = 20◦ C and no reactant B is being
fed, uB1 = uB2 = 0, to a given operating point xf where more
than 98.0% of the reactants are converted to product.
The main priority, however, is always safety, that is,
the reactor temperature should always stay below a pre-
defined limit Tmax . Secondary priorities may be to minimize
the amount of off-spec product, the amount of unreacted
chemicals in the reactor outlet or the time required for the
startup to the desired operation point. The problem can be
formalized as Z tf
min L(x, u, p) (4)
∆u t0
subject to
ẋ = f(x, u, p) x(t0 ) = x0 x(t f ) ∈ X p∈P (5)
◦ ◦ ◦
− 2 C < Ṫ f eed < 3 C, −2 C < Ṫcool < 1 C ◦
(6)
Tr,i ≤ Tmax = 155◦ C ∀ i = 1..n (7)
where the vector x represents the state vectors Tr , Tc , cA , cB
and cC . X is the desired target region. The vector u
represents the four control variables uB1 , uB2 , T f eed and Tcool .

1427

180
Reactor temperature ( C)
150
°
120
90
60
30
80
60
40
° 20
Feed temperature T ( C)
feed
Fig. 2. Startup with open loop control; injecting at low temperature (solid),
at high temperature (dashed) and closed loop control (dash-dot).
The vector p represents the uncertain model parameters and
P is the uncertainty region from Table I.
The robust startup optimization problem in (4-7) is very
difficult to solve due to the unknown process uncertainties
in Table I, the nonlinear process dynamics (2-3) and the
limitations on some of the control variables (6). As safety is
the main priority, we will in this paper present a method to
achieve feasibility of (4-7) using as simple tools as possible.
Based on industrial practice, we will, inspired by operator
heuristics, define a hybrid startup controller that will give
inherent robustness for process uncertainties.
IV. S TARTUP DYNAMICS
There are many interesting problems associated with
startup of temperature sensitive exothermic reactions. Based
on [1] and [2], we propose two startup conditions that
needs to be satisfied in order to achieve a safe startup. Each
condition is illustrated with an example.
Startup condition 1: Ignition
The reactor temperature at the injection point, T1 , should
be driven to a required initial temperature Tstart at which
reactant B can be fed into the reactor safely, meaning that
the reaction rates are high enough to start the reaction.
The required initial temperature Tstart will be used as a
transition point, to ensure safe operation. It will be discussed
more in the next section.
Example: Consider here injections in the first injection
point only. In Figure 2, several startup trajectories are plotted.
The two control variables uB1 and T f eed are on the x-axis
and y-axis, respectively. The reactor temperature at the first
injection point T1 is on the z-axis. The trajectories are
parameterized in time. The star on the lower left is the initial
point. The final point is denoted with a square on the upper
right.
The solid line is open loop startup, where initially uB1 is
increased, but the reaction does not start due to low reaction
WeC02.5
250
200
Temperature ( C)
150
°
100
50
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 0
0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0 Position in reactor (0 = inlet, 1 = outlet)
Injection flow rate uB1
Fig. 3. Temperature profiles along the uncontrolled reactor in steady state,
nominal case (solid) and for small perturbations in Ea and k0 (dashed).
rate. When T f eed is subsequently increased, ignition occurs
very sudden and the temperature increases extremely fast and
exceeds the maximum temperature allowed, Tmax = 155◦ C.
T f eed is then decreased to its original steady-state value. The
process dynamics along this path is extremely nonlinear and
offers no chance for any feedback controller with limited
actuator bandwidth.
The dashed line is open loop startup where the reactant A
is pre-heated before injection of B is allowed. The dynamic
response is much smoother and less nonlinear. However,
the reactor temperature exceeds Tmax also here, so it is not
feasible to maintain constant pre-heating of reactant A while
injecting B.
Finally, the dash-dot line is startup with closed loop
feedback using the hybrid startup control from Section V.
Reactant A is pre-heated, to increase T1 before injection is
allowed to start. The feedback control ensures that the reactor
temperature reaches steady-state without violating Tmax .
The idea is to divide the startup sequence into several
modes such as “pre-heat reactor” and “start first injection”
and enforce that some transition condition are satisfied before
the startup can proceed to the next mode. Furthermore, the
startup trajectories should avoid areas in the state-space,
where the dynamics are highly nonlinear. In addition to
the ignition condition, there is another condition for the
subsequent injection points. Consider now two injection
points.
Startup condition 2: Conversion
Before the next downstream injection starts, it is necessary
to check that almost all reactants injected upstream has
converted, that is, cB < cB,req just before the next injection
point
With a concentration measurement available, it is straight
forward to check this condition, as the amount of injected
reactant is known. With temperature measurements only, this
condition is translated to a temperature condition on T1 ≥
Tconv corresponding to the high temperature, resulting from
1428

the massive heat release from the reaction.
Example: If the ignition condition is satisfied upstream,
then the conversion condition should also be satisfied. How-
ever, uncertainties and disturbances can lead to unexpected
situations. For the nominal case, the steady-state temperature
profile has two temperature maxima, see Figure 3. However,
with some small errors in the estimates of the activation
energy Ea and the reaction rate coefficient k0 within the
uncertainty set, the nominal control trajectories may lead to
a disastrous situation. Almost no reaction occurs in the first
half of the reactor, whereas all the reaction and subsequent
heat release occurs in the second half. The cooling system is
not designed for this level of heat release and the emergency
shutdown has to be initiated.
V. S TARTUP CONTROL OF THE P LATE R EACTOR
In the previous section, we defined two conditions neces-
sary for safe startup, namely
• Ignition: The reactor temperature at the injection point
T1 ≥ Tstart to ensure high reaction rate so the reaction
starts.
• Conversion: The reactor temperature at the first injec-
tion point T1 ≥ Tconv to ensure that most of the reactant
B has been consumed.
To satisfy these two conditions, the startup sequence is
divided into four modes, schematically outlined in Figure 4.
The two required temperatures Tstart and Tconv will be used as
transition points in the startup sequence. This means that the
condition has to be fulfilled in order for the startup sequence
to proceed.
The feedback in form of an event-driven startup, where
the injection start depends on the actual reactor temperature,
leads to increased robustness, compared to a time-driven
startup sequence, where the injections start at pre-defined
times from an off-line computed startup scheme. With this
feedback, it is easy to avoid dangerous situations as in
Figure 3. Here is an example of the transition conditions
for each mode.
1) Pre-heat: To satisfy the first startup condition in the
first injection point, T1 should be controlled with the
inlet temperature T f eed so that T1 > T1,start = 55◦ C.
2) First injection starts: To satisfy the ignition condition
for the second injection point, T2 should be controlled
with Tcool so that T2 > T2,start = 65◦ C. To satisfy the
conversion condition T1 should be controlled so that
T1 > T1,conv = 145◦ C.
3) Second injection starts: To satisfy the conversion
condition for the second injection point, control T2
so that T2 > T2,conv = 145◦ C. Then the startup can be
defined as completed.
4) Final state: This state can represent operation at
steady-state or use of an optimizing controller with
other objectives than the startup controller.
A. The Hybrid Controller
The main components in the hybrid controller are the
transition points - deciding when to switch mode - and the
1429
WeC02.5
Transition Available
points control signals
1 Pre−heat reactor T f eed
T1 ≥ T1,start = 55◦ C
T f eed
uB1
2 Start first
injection
Tcool
T1 ≥ T1,conv = 145◦ C
T2 ≥ T2,start = 65◦ C T f eed
uB1
3 Start second
injection
Tcool
uB2
T1 ≥ T1,conv = 145◦ C
T2 ≥ T2,conv = 145◦ C T f eed
4 Final
state
uB1
Tcool
uB2
Fig. 4. State machine to illustrate the different steps during startup and the
guards corresponding to each transition. Note that the transitions are one-
directional and that not all control variables are available in each mode.
control variable trajectories u(t) for each mode - bringing
the process from the previous transition point to the next
transition point. The block diagram is shown in Figure 5.
Note how the feedback from the reactor to the hybrid
controller enables an event-driven startup instead of a time-
driven startup.
How should the transition points be computed? The aim is
to choose transition points that promotes startup trajectories
where the dynamics are less nonlinear and the sensitivity
to uncertainties is small. This will facilitate the task of the
feedback controller to achieve safe startup despite the uncer-
tainties. For example, the transition point T1,start represents
the desired reactor temperature around the first injection
point so reactant B can be injected safely. We know from the
process model (2) and Figure 2 that the process will react
very differently depending on whether we inject B at T1 =
20◦ C or 65◦ C. In Section VIII, we will present a sensitivity
analysis that gives us insights on how to choose the transition
points. Assume we choose T1,start = 55◦ C, which leads to
startup trajectories with reduced sensitivity to uncertainties.
Similarly, we pick T2,start = 65◦ C, here the guard is higher,
because cA is lower at the second injection point compared
to the first injection point. For the conversion condition,
we choose T1,conv = T2,conv = 145◦ C, which corresponds to
a conversion of 98% of reactant B to product C.
Given the transition points, the next step is to calculate
suitable control trajectories that will bring the process from
one transition point to the next. In this paper, the trajectories
are calculated offline with dynamic optimization to transfer
the system from one transition point to the next. The opti-
mization utilizes orthogonal collocation over finite elements
with Radau points and Lagrange polynomials and employs
the IPOPT algorithm, [6]. This optimization does not need to
 WeC02.5

0.8

Injection flow [-]

T1,re f −
T f eed uB2
+ C1 0.6
uB1 T1 uB1
Hybrid uB2 Reactor T2
0.4

T2,re f Tcool 0.2

+ C2
− 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

Fig. 5. Block diagram of the control structure for the plate reactor. With
80
feedback from the reactor to the hybrid block, the startup becomes event-

Temperature [◦ C]
driven instead of time-driven. T f eed Tcool
60

40

address the robustness issues, as the robustness of the startup

20
trajectories follows from the choice of transition points.
The dynamic optimization uses the process model and 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
problem formulation described in (2)-(7), but as shown in
Time [s]
the startup scheme in Figure 4, not all control variables are
available at all times. The optimization variables are therefore Fig. 6. Control signals during startup. The vertical lines indicate the mode
changes.

Mode 1 : u = [T f eed ] (8) 160

Mode 2 : u = [T f eed ; uB1 ; Tcool ] (9) 140

Tmax
Mode 3 : u = [T f eed ; uB1 ; Tcool ; uB2 ] (10)
Mode 4 : u = [T f eed ; uB1 ; Tcool ; uB2 ] (11) 120
T1
Temperature [◦ C]

and the transition points in Figure 4 are terminal constraints 100

for each interval. The process model used for the optimiza-
80
tion is of lower accuracy with n = 10 control volumes. In the
simulation, the controller is verified against a more accurate 60
model with n = 30 control volumes.
40
VI. F EEDBACK CONTROL OF THE REACTOR T2
TEMPERATURE 20

Even though the hybrid controller ensures that the ignition

condition and the conversion condition are satisfied, feedback 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
control of the reactor temperature is necessary, due to the Time [s]
uncertainties, to satisfy the temperature constraints (7). In
Fig. 7. Reactor temperatures (solid) during startup with perturbed model
addition, the integral action in the temperature feedback parameters. The dashed curves represent the offline optimized reference
controllers ensures that the transition points defined in the temperatures to the PID controllers. The vertical lines indicate the mode
hybrid controller are reached. changes.

Remember that T1 and T2 denote the temperatures after
injection point 1 and 2, respectively. These temperatures
should be controlled with the four available control variables
uB1 , uB2 , Tcool and T f eed . Relative Gain Array-analysis, shows
that the least interaction is achieved, quite logically, with
T f eed controlling T1 and Tcool controlling T2 . The block
diagram of the closed loop system can be seen in Figure 5.
C1 and C2 represent two PID controllers. The reference
temperatures T1,re f and T2,re f and the set-points for uB1 and
uB2 come from the offline optimization in Section V-A.
The tuning of the parameters for the PID-controllers are
based on the AMIGO method, which involves robust loop-
shaping and optimization of the integral gain [7]. The model
used in the control design is a linearization of the nonlinear
model during the startup. For the T f eed /T1 -controller the
process is linearized after the first injection has started,
whereas the Tcool /T2 -controller is based on linearization after
the second injection has started. With the hybrid control
approach it is straight forward to implement separate PID-
parameters for each controller in each mode, similar to gain-
scheduling. However, in this application one set of PID-
parameters was sufficient, due to the well chosen transition
points. The controller parameters are K = 0.87 and Ti = 2.87
for C1 and K = 0.23 and Ti = 9.60 for C2 .
VII. S IMULATION OF HYBRID STARTUP
To illustrate the robustness of the startup controller, the
simulation is performed with the model parameter Ea 2%, k0
5%, ∆H 5% and c f eed 2% higher than in the nominal model
and k is 10% lower, see Table I. Additionally, the offline
optimization uses a lower order model of the process, thus
creating even more model mismatch.
Figures 6 and 7 show the startup sequence. The reactor
temperature starts at 20 ◦ C. During the first mode, the aim is

1430
 WeC02.5

0.005
optimal startup trajectory has been computed as previously
Tstart = 55◦ C
0 described. It is clear that transition conditions forcing the
reactor temperature to be higher before injection may start,
significantly reduces the sensitivity. However, a higher tran-
−0.005
Tstart = 50◦ C
sition condition leads to a slightly longer startup time.
−0.01
Tstart = 45◦ C
∂ Ea
∂ T1

The sensitivity analysis gives quantitative measures of

−0.015
Tstart = 40◦ C how the choice of transition points influence the situation
Sensitivity

−0.02
Tstart = 35◦ C
−0.025
−0.03
Tstart = 30◦ C
−0.035
Tstart = 25◦ C
−0.04
20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Time [s]
Fig. 8. Parametric sensitivity of startup trajectories for different transition
conditions T1 ≥ Tstart . The time of the sensitivity peaks reflects the somewhat
longer startup time that follows from higher Tstart .
to pre-heat the feed flow so that T1 ≥ T1,start = 55◦ C, see the
transition conditions in Figure 4. The vertical lines indicate
the mode changes. When the second mode becomes active,
injection of reactant B starts in the first injection point and
the reactor temperature increases very quickly. When T1 ≥
T1,conv = 145◦ C and T2 ≥ T2,start = 65◦ C, the two transition
conditions are satisfied and the hybrid controller switches
to mode 3. Reactant B flows into the second injection point,
increasing T2 . When T1 and T2 passes 145◦ C, mode 4 begins.
The uncertainties in Ea leads to higher temperature required
for the reaction to start, but when it starts a higher ∆H and
c f eed leads to more energy being released, thus leading to
higher temperatures than in the nominal model.
The transition points can be viewed as state-dependent
constraints in the state space to avoid areas where the
process nonlinearities are very large, see Figure 2. This
will also lead to a reduced sensitivity of the trajectories to
uncertainties. It is therefore easier for the PID controllers to
successfully track the given reference temperatures from the
hybrid controller despite uncertainties.
VIII. G UIDANCE FOR CHOOSING TRANSITION POINTS:
In this section we will perform a sensitivity analysis with
DASSPK [8] to gain insights how to choose the transition
points, to ensure safe and robust startup. Let us for exam-
ple analyze the temperature sensitivity with respect to the
uncertain process parameter Ea , the activation energy, for
various transition conditions, each defining a separate startup
trajectories.
∂ T1
T1 = T1nom + ∆Ea (12)
∂ Ea
The objective is to find transition points, Tstart , leading
to startup trajectories, which have reduced sensitivity to
parameter uncertainties.
Figure 8 shows the parametric sensitivity of the reactor
temperature T1 with respect to the activation energy Ea for
the open loop system. For each transition condition, the
for feedback control. Startup trajectories that have large
parametric sensitivity will lead to large deviations from the
nominal trajectory, thus demanding large actions from the
feedback controller. This may lead to actuator saturation and
hazardous transients.
IX. S UMMARY & C ONCLUSIONS
34 36 In this paper, startup of a temperature sensitive reaction
in the novel plate reactor concept has been presented. The
startup is challenging due to severe process nonlinearities,
rate limits in the control variables and large uncertainties.
To achieve safe and robust startup, the startup sequence is
divided into several steps and each step is associated with
a transition condition that needs to be satisfied to allow the
startup to continue. This event-driven startup improves the
robustness to uncertainties and disturbances as it forces the
process to be in a certain state-space area before the next
startup step is initiated. For example, no injections are al-
lowed before the reactor temperature is high enough to allow
safe ignition. This reduces the sensitivity to uncertainties,
which enables the startup to be controlled with simple PID
controllers.
It can also be concluded that time-optimal trajectories for a
nominal case may leave very little robustness to disturbances
and uncertainties. Closing the loop and use PID control
during startup will increase the robustness, but closing the
loop for the reference trajectories as in Figure 5 will improve
the robustness even further.
X. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge funding within the
HYCON-project of the European Union, http://www.ist-
hycon.org/.
R EFERENCES
[1] J. Verwijs, H. van den Berg, and K. Westerterp, “Startup strategy design
and safeguarding of industrial adiabatic tubular reactor systems,” AIChE
Journal, vol. 42, pp. 503–515, 1996.
[2] S. Haugwitz and P. Hagander, “Challenges in start-up control of a heat
exchange reactor with exothermic reactions; a hybrid Approach,” in
Proceedings of the 2nd IFAC Conference on Analysis and Design of
Hybrid Systems, Alghero, Italy, June 2006.
[3] Alfa Laval AB, “Alfa Laval Reactor Technology,” 2006,
http://www.alfalaval.com.
[4] G. Froment and K. Bischoff, Chemical reactor analysis and design.
Wiley, 1990.
[5] W. Schiesser, The Numerical Method of Lines: Integration of Partial
Differential Equations. Academic Press, 1991.
[6] A. Wächter and L. T. Biegler, “On the implementation of an interior-
point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear program-
ming.” Mathematical Programming, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 25–58, 2006.
[7] K. J. Åström and T. Hägglund, Advanced PID Control. Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709: ISA - The Instrumentation, Systems, and
Automation Society, 2005.
[8] T. Maly and L. R. Petzold, “Numerical methods and software for sen-
sitivity analysis of differential-algebraic systems,” Applied Numerical
Mathematics, vol. 20, pp. 57–82, 1996.

1431

View publication stats