769513

Mathematical Modeling in Chemical Engineering
A solid introduction to mathematical modeling for a range of chemical engineering

applications, covering model formulation, simplification, and validation. It explains how
to describe a physical/chemical reality in mathematical language and how to select the
type and degree of sophistication for a model. Model reduction and approximate methods
are presented, including dimensional analysis, time constant analysis, and asymptotic
methods. An overview of solution methods for typical classes of models is given. As final
steps in model building, parameter estimation and model validation, and assessment are
discussed. The reader is given hands-on experience of formulating new models, reducing
the models, and validating the models.
The authors assume a knowledge of basic chemical engineering, in particular transport
phenomena, as well as basic mathematics, statistics, and programming. The accompa-
nying problems, tutorials, and projects include model formulation at different levels,
analysis, parameter estimation, and numerical solution.
Anders Rasmuson is a Professor in Chemical Engineering at Chalmers University of

Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden. He obtained his Ph.D. in chemical engineering at
the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, in 1978. His research has focused on
mathematical modeling combined with experimental work in many areas of chemical
engineering, for example particulate processes, multiphase flows and transport phenom-
ena, mixing, and separation processes.
Bengt Andersson is a Professor in Chemical Engineering at Chalmers University of
Technology. He obtained his Ph.D. in chemical engineering at Chalmers in 1977. His
research has focused on experimental studies and modeling of mass and heat transfer
in various chemical reactors, ranging from automotive catalysis to three-phase flow in
chemical reactors.
Louise Olsson is a Professor in Chemical Engineering at Chalmers University of
Technology. She obtained her Ph.D. in chemical engineering at Chalmers in 2002. Her
research has focused on experiments and kinetic modeling of heterogeneous catalysis.
Ronnie Andersson is an Assistant Professor in Chemical Engineering at Chalmers
University of Technology. He obtained his Ph.D. at Chalmers in 2005, and from 2005
until 2010 he worked as consultant at Epsilon HighTech as a specialist in computational
fluid dynamic simulations of combustion and multiphase flows. His research projects
involve physical modeling, fluid dynamic simulations, and experimental methods.
Mathematical Modeling in
Chemical Engineering
ANDERS RASMUSON
Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenberg
BENGT ANDERSSON
LOUISE OLSSON
RONNIE ANDERSSON
University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.
It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of
education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107049697

C Cambridge University Press 2014
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2014
Printed in the United Kingdom by Clays, St Ives plc
A catalog record for this publication is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication data
Rasmuson, Anders, 1951–
Mathematical modeling in chemical engineering / Anders Rasmuson, Chalmers University of Technology,
Gothenberg, Bengt Andersson, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenberg, Louise Olsson, Chalmers
University of Technology, Gothenberg, Ronnie Andersson, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenberg.
pages cm
Includes index.
ISBN 978-1-107-04969-7 (hardback)
1. Chemical engineering – Mathematical models. I. Title.
TP155.2.M35R37 2014
660 – dc23 2013040670
ISBN 978-1-107-04969-7 Hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of
URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication,
and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
Contents
Preface page ix
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Why do mathematical modeling? 1
1.2 The modeling procedure 5
1.3 Questions 9
2 Classification 10
2.1 Grouping of models into opposite pairs 10
2.2 Classification based on mathematical complexity 14
2.3 Classification according to scale (degree of physical detail) 16
2.4 Questions 18
3 Model formulation 20
3.1 Balances and conservation principles 20
3.2 Transport phenomena models 22
3.3 Boundary conditions 26
3.4 Population balance models 28
3.4.1 Application to RTDs 32
3.5 Questions 34
3.6 Practice problems 35
4 Empirical model building 40

4.1 Dimensional systems 40
4.2 Dimensionless equations 41
4.3 Empirical models 46
4.4 Scaling up 48
5 Strategies for simplifying mathematical models 53

5.1 Reducing mathematical models 54
vi Contents
5.1.1 Decoupling equations 55

5.1.2 Reducing the number of independent variables 55
5.1.3 Lumping 56
5.1.4 Simplified geometry 56
5.1.5 Steady state or transient 58
5.1.6 Linearizing 61
5.1.7 Limiting cases 63
5.1.8 Neglecting terms 64
5.1.9 Changing the boundary conditions 67
5.2 Case study: Modeling flow, heat, and reaction in a tubular reactor 68
5.2.1 General equation for a cylindrical reactor 68
5.2.2 Reducing the number of independent variables 69
5.2.3 Steady state or transient? 70
5.2.4 Decoupling equations 72
5.2.5 Simplified geometry 72
5.2.6 Limiting cases 75
5.2.7 Conclusions 76
5.3 Error estimations 76
5.3.1 Sensitivity analysis 77
5.3.2 Over- and underestimations 77
5.4 Questions 77
6 Numerical methods 81
6.1 Ordinary differential equations 81
6.1.1 ODE classification 81
6.1.2 Solving initial-value problems 82
6.1.3 Numerical accuracy 87
6.1.4 Adaptive step size methods and error control 88
6.1.5 Implicit methods and stability 90
6.1.6 Multistep methods and predictor–corrector pairs 93
6.1.7 Systems of ODEs 94
6.1.8 Transforming higher-order ODEs 96
6.1.9 Stiffness of ODEs 97
6.2 Boundary-value problems 99
6.2.1 Shooting method 99
6.2.2 Finite difference method for BVPs 102
6.2.3 Collocation and finite element methods 107
6.3 Partial differential equations 108
6.3.1 Classification of PDEs 109
6.3.2 Finite difference solution of parabolic equations 110
6.3.3 Forward difference method 110
6.3.4 Backward difference method 113
Contents vii
6.3.5 Crank–Nicolson method 114

6.4 Simulation software 114
6.4.1 MATLAB 114
6.4.2 Miscellaneous MATLAB algorithms 115
6.4.3 An example of MATLAB code 116
6.4.4 GNU Octave 117
6.5 Summary 117
6.6 Questions 117
7 Statistical analysis of mathematical models 121

7.1 Introduction 121
7.2 Linear regression 121
7.2.1 Least squares method 123
7.3 Linear regression in its generalized form 125
7.3.1 Least square method 126
7.4 Weighted least squares 127
7.4.1 Stabilization of the variance 127
7.4.2 Placing greater/less weight on certain experimental parts 128
7.5 Confidence intervals and regions 130
7.5.1 Confidence intervals 130
7.5.2 Student’s t-tests of individual parameters 133
7.5.3 Confidence regions and bands 134
7.6 Correlation between parameters 136
7.6.1 Variance and co-variance 136
7.6.2 Correlation matrix 137
7.7 Non-linear regression 138
7.7.1 Intrinsically linear models 138
7.7.2 Non-linear models 139
7.7.3 Approximate confidence levels and regions for non-linear models 140
7.7.4 Correlation between parameters for non-linear models 142
7.8 Model assessments 142
7.8.1 Residual plots 142
7.8.2 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) table 145
7.8.3 R2 statistic 149
7.9 Case study 7.1: Statistical analysis of a linear model 149
7.9.1 Solution 150
7.10 Case study 7.2: Multiple regression 153
7.10.1 Solution 154
7.11 Case study 7.3: Non-linear model with one predictor 158
7.11.1 Solution 159
7.12 Questions 163
viii Contents
Appendix A Microscopic transport equations 168

Appendix B Dimensionless variables 170
Appendix C Student’s t-distribution 173
Bibliography 180
Index 181
Preface
The aim of this textbook is to give the reader insight and skill in the formulation,
construction, simplification, evaluation/interpretation, and use of mathematical models
in chemical engineering. It is not a book about the solution of mathematical models,
even though an overview of solution methods for typical classes of models is
given.
Models of different types and complexities find more and more use in chemical
engineering, e.g. for the design, scale-up/down, optimization, and operation of reactors,
separators, and heat exchangers. Mathematical models are also used in the planning and
evaluation of experiments and for developing mechanistic understanding of complex
systems. Examples include balance models in differential or integral form, and algebraic
models, such as equilibrium models.
The book includes model formulation, i.e. how to describe a physical/chemical reality
in mathematical language, and how to choose the type and degree of sophistication of
a model. It is emphasized that this is an iterative procedure where models are gradually
refined or rejected in confrontation with experiments. Model reduction and approximate
methods, such as dimensional analysis, time constant analysis, and asymptotic methods,
are treated. An overview of solution methods for typical classes of models is given.
Parameter estimation and model validation and assessment, as final steps, in model
building are discussed. The question “What model should be used for a given situation?”
is answered.
The book is accompanied by problems, tutorials, and projects. The projects include
model formulation at different levels, analysis, parameter estimation, and numerical
solution.
The book is aimed at chemical engineering students, and a basic knowledge of chemi-
cal engineering, in particular transport phenomena, will be assumed. Basic mathematics,
statistics, and programming skills are also required.
Using the book (course) the reader should be able to construct, solve, and apply
mathematical models for chemical engineering problems. In particular:
r construct models using balances on differential or macroscopic control volumes for

momentum, heat, mass, and numbers (population balances);
r construct models by simplification of general model equations;
x Preface
r understand and use methods for model simplification;

r understand differences between models;
r understand and use numerical solution methods;
r understand and perform parameter estimation;
r use model assessment techniques to be able to judge if a model is good enough.
1 Introduction
In this introductory chapter the use of mathematical models in chemical engineering is

motivated and examples are given. The general modeling procedure is described, and
some important tools that are covered in greater detail later in the book are outlined.
1.1 Why do mathematical modeling?
Mathematical modeling has always been an important activity in science and engineering.
The formulation of qualitative questions about an observed phenomenon as mathematical
problems was the motivation for and an integral part of the development of mathematics
from the very beginning.
Although problem solving has been practiced for a very long time, the use of math-
ematics as a very effective tool in problem solving has gained prominence in the last
50 years, mainly due to rapid developments in computing. Computational power is par-
ticularly important in modeling chemical engineering systems, as the physical and chem-
ical laws governing these processes are complex. Besides heat, mass, and momentum
transfer, these processes may also include chemical reactions, reaction heat, adsorption,
desorption, phase transition, multiphase flow, etc. This makes modeling challenging but
also necessary to understand complex interactions.
All models are abstractions of real systems and processes. Nevertheless, they serve
as tools for engineers and scientists to develop an understanding of important systems
and processes using mathematical equations. In a chemical engineering context, math-
ematical modeling is a prerequisite for:
r design and scale-up;

r process control;
r optimization;
r mechanistic understanding;
r evaluation/planning of experiments;
r trouble shooting and diagnostics;
r determining quantities that cannot be measured directly;
r simulation instead of costly experiments in the development lab;
r feasibility studies to determine potential before building prototype equipment or
devices.
2 Introduction
Figure 1.1. Pilot dryer, Example 1.1.
A typical problem in chemical engineering concerns scale-up from laboratory to full-

scale equipment. To be able to scale-up with some certainty, the fundamental mecha-
nisms have to be evaluated and formulated in mathematical terms. This involves careful
experimental work in close connection to the theoretical development.
There are no modeling recipes that guarantee successful results. However, the
development of new models always requires both an understanding of the physical/
chemical principles controlling a process and the skills for making appropriate simpli-
fying assumptions. Models will never be anything other than simplified representations
of real processes, but as long as the essential mechanisms are included the model pre-
dictions can be accurate. Chapter 3 therefore provides information on how to formulate
mathematical models correctly and Chapter 5 teaches the reader how to simplify the
models.
Let us now look at two examples and discuss the mechanisms that control these
systems. We do this without going into the details of the formulation or numerical
solution. After reading this book, the reader is encouraged to refer back to these two
case studies and read how these modeling problems were solved.
Example 1.1 Design of a pneumatic conveying dryer

A mathematical model of a pneumatic conveying dryer, Figure 1.1, has been developed
(Fyhr, C. and Rasmuson, A., AIChE J. 42, 2491–2502, 1996; 43, 2889–2902, 1997)
and validated against experimental results in a pilot dryer.
1.1 Why do mathematical modeling? 3
Figure 1.2. Interactions between particles, steam, and walls.
Figure 1.3. Wood chip.
The dryer essentially consists of a long tube in which the material is conveyed by, in
our case, superheated steam. The aim of the modeling task was to develop a tool that
could be used for design and rating purposes.
Inside the tubes, the single particles, conveying steam, and walls interact in a complex
manner, as illustrated in Figure 1.2. The gas and particles exchange heat and mass due
to drying, and momentum in order to convey the particles. The gas and walls exchange
momentum by wall friction, as well as heat by convection. The single particles and walls
also exchange momentum by wall friction, and heat by radiation from the walls. The
single particle is, in this case, a wood chip shaped as depicted in Figure 1.3.
The chip is rectangular, which leads to problems in determining exchange coefficients.
The particles also flow in a disordered manner through the dryer. The drying rate is
controlled by external heat transfer as long as the surface is kept wet. As the surface
dries out, the drying rate decreases and becomes a function of both the external and
internal characteristics of the drying medium and single particle. The insertion of cold
material into the dryer leads to the condensation of steam on the wood chip surface,
which, initially, increases the moisture content of the wood chip. The pressure drop at
the outlet leads to flashing, which, in contrast, reduces the moisture content.
The mechanisms that occur between the particles and the steam, as well as the
mechanisms inside the wood chip, are thus complex, and a detailed understanding is
necessary. How would you go about modeling this problem? Models for these complex
processes have been developed in the cited articles by Fyhr and Rasmuson.
4 Introduction
Figure 1.4. Schematic of a Wurster bed, Example 1.2.
Example 1.2 Design and optimization of a Wurster bed coater

In the second example, a mathematical model of a Wurster bed coater, Figure 1.4, has
been developed (Karlsson, S., Rasmuson, A., van Wachen, B., and Niklasson Bjorn, I.,
AIChE J. 55, 2578–2590, 2009; Karlsson, S., Rasmuson, A., Niklasson Bjorn, I., and
Schantz, S., Powder Tech. 207, 245–256, 2011) and validated against experimental
results.
Coating is a common process step in the chemical, agricultural, pharmaceutical, and

food industries. Coating of solid particles is used for the sustained release of active
components, for protection of the core from external conditions, for masking taste or
odours, and for easier powder handling. For example, several applications in particular
are used for coating in the pharmaceutical industry, for both aesthetic and functional
purposes.
The Wurster process is a type of spouted bed with a draft tube and fluidization flow
around the jet (Figure 1.4). The jet consists of a spray nozzle that injects air and droplets
of the coating liquid into the bed. The droplets hit and wet the particles concurrently
in the inlet to the draft tube. The particles are transported upwards through the tube,
decelerate in the expansion chamber, and fall down to the dense region of particles
outside the tube. During the upward movement and the deceleration, the particles are
dried by the warm air, and a thin coating layer starts to form on the particle surface.
From the dense region the particles are transported again into the Wurster tube, where
the droplets again hit the particles, and the circulation motion in the bed is repeated.
The particles are circulated until a sufficiently thick layer of coating material has been
built up around them.
The final coating properties, such as film thickness distribution, depend not only on
the coating material, but also on the process equipment and the operating conditions
during film formation. The spray rate, temperature, and moisture content are operating
parameters that influence the final coating and which can be controlled in the process.
The drying rate and the subsequent film formation are highly dependent on the flow field
of the gas and the particles in the equipment. Local temperatures in the equipment are
also known to be critical for the film formation; different temperatures may change the
properties of the coating layer. Temperature is also important for moisture equilibrium,
and influences the drying rate.
Several processes take place simultaneously at the single-particle level during the
coating phase. These are: the atomization of the coating solution, transport of the
droplets formed to the particle, adhesion of the droplets to the particle surface, sur-
face wetting, and film formation and drying. These processes are repeated for each
applied film layer, i.e. continuously repeated for each circulation through the Wurster
bed.
Consequently, the mechanisms that occur at the microscopic and macroscopic levels
are complex and include a high degree of interaction. The aim of the modeling task is to
develop a tool that can be used for design and optimization. What models do you think
best describe the mechanisms in this process?
1.2 The modeling procedure
In undergraduate textbooks, models are often presented in their final, neat and elegant
form. In reality there are many steps, choices, and iterative processes that a modeler goes
through in reaching a satisfactory model. Each step in the modeling process requires an
understanding of a variety of concepts and techniques blended with a combination of
critical and creative thinking, intuition and foresight, and decision making. This makes
model building both a science and an art.
Model building comprises different steps, as shown in Figure 1.5. As seen here,
model develpoment is an iterative process of hypotheses formulation, validation, and
refinement.
Figure 1.5 also gives an outline of this process. Conceptual and mathematical model
formulation are treated further in Chapters 3–5; solution methods are discussed in
Chapter 6; and finally parameter estimation and model validation are discussed in
Chapter 7.
6 Introduction
Figure 1.5. The different steps in model development.
Step 1: Problem definition

The first step in the mathematical model development is to define the problem. This
involves stating clear goals for the modeling, including the various elements that pertain
to the problem and its solution.
Consider the following questions:
What is the objective (i.e. what questions should the model be able to answer)?
What resolution is needed?
What degree of accuracy is required?
Step 2: Formulation of conceptual model (Chapter 3)

When formulating the conceptual model, decisions must be made on what hypothesis and
which assumptions to use. The first task is to collect data and experience about the subject
to be modeled. The main challenges are in identifying the underlying mechanisms and
governing physical/chemical principles of the problem. The development of a conceptual
model involves idealization, and there will always be a tradeoff between model generality
and precision.
Step 3: Formulation of mathematical model (Chapters 3–5)

Each important quantity is represented by a suitable mathematical entity, e.g. a variable,
a function, a graph, etc.
What are the variables (dependent, independent, parameters)? The distinction between
dependent and independent variables is that the independent variable is the one being
changed, x, and the dependent variable, y, is the observed variable caused by this change,
e.g. y = x3 . Parameters represent physical quantities that characterize the system and
model such as density, thermal conductivity, viscosity, reaction rate constants, or activa-
tion energies. Parameters are not necessarily constants, and can be described as functions
of the dependent (or independent) variables, e.g. heat capacity cp (T) and density ρ(p,T).
What are the constraints? Are there limitations on the possible values of a variable?
For example, concentrations are always positive.
What boundary conditions, i.e. the relations valid at the boundaries of the system, are
suitable to use?
What initial conditions, i.e. conditions valid at the start-up of a time-dependent pro-
cess, exist?
Each relationship is represented by an equation, inequality, or other suitable mathe-
matical relation.
Step 4: Solution of the mathematical problem (Chapter 6)

Check the validity of individual mathematical relationships, and whether the relation-
ships are mutually consistent.
Consider the analytical versus the numerical solution. Analytical solutions are only
possible for special situations; essentially the problem has to be linear. Most often, a
numerical solution is the only option; luckily the cost of computers is low and models
can run in parallel on computer clusters if necessary.
Verify the mathematical solution, i.e. ensure that you have solved the equations
correctly. This step involves checking your solution against previously known results
(analytical/numerical), simplified limiting cases, etc.
Step 5: Estimation of parameters (Chapter 7)

The parameters of the system must be evaluated and the appropriate values must be
used in the model. Some parameters can be obtained independently of the mathematical
model. They may be of a basic character, like the gravitation constant, or it may be
possible to determine them by independent measurements, like, for instance, solubility
data from solubility experiments. However, it is usually not possible to evaluate all the
parameters from specific experiments, and many of them have to be estimated by taking
results from the whole (or a similar system), and then using parameter-fitting techniques
to determine which set of parameter values makes the model best fit the experimental
results. For example, a complex reaction may involve ten or more kinetic constants.
These constants can be estimated by fitting a model to results from a laboratory reactor.
Once the parameter values have been determined, they can be incorporated into a model
of a plant-scale reactor.
Step 6: Evaluation/validation (Chapter 7)

A key step in mathematical modeling is experimental validation. Ideally the validation
should be made using independent experimental results, i.e. not the same set as used
8 Introduction
for parameter estimation. During the validation procedure it may happen that the model
still has some deficiencies. In that case, we have to “iterate” the model and eventually
modify it. In the work by Melander, O. and Rasmuson, A. (Nordic Pulp Paper Res.
J. 20, 78–86, 2005) it was found that the original model for pulp fiber flow in a gas
stream severely underestimated lateral spreading of the fibers. Detailed analysis led to
a modified model (Melander, O. and Rasmuson, A., J. Multiphase Flow 33, 333–346,
2007) with an additional term in the governing equations, and good agreement with
experimental data.
In Chapter 7, the general question of model quality is discussed. Is the model good
enough?
In the evaluation of the model, sensitivity analysis, i.e. the change in model output
due to uncertainties in parameter values, is important.
There are certain characteristics that models have to varying degrees and which have
a bearing on the question of how good they are:
r accuracy (is the output of the model correct?);
r descriptive realism (i.e. based on correct assumptions);
r precision (are predictions in the form of definite numbers?);
r robustness (i.e. relatively immune to errors in the input data);
r generality (applicable to a wide variety of situations);
r fruitfulness (a model is considered fruitful if its conclusions are useful or if it inspires
development of other good models).
Step 7: Interpretation/application
The validated model is then ready to be used for one or several purposes as described
earlier, e.g. to enhance our understanding, make predictions, and give information about
how to control the process.
Let us conclude this chapter with a classical modeling problem attributable to Galileo
Galilei (1564–1642).
Example 1.3 Galileo´s gravitation models

One of the oldest scientific investigations was the attempt to understand gravity. This
problem provides a nice illustration of the steps in modeling.
“Understanding” gravity is too vague and ambitious a goal. A more specific question
about gravity is:
Why do objects fall to the earth?
Aristotle´s answer was that objects fall to the earth because that is their natural place,
but this never led to any useful science or mathematics. Around the time of Galileo
(early seventeenth century), people began asking how gravity worked instead of why it
worked. For example, Galileo wanted to describe the way objects gain velocity as they
fall. One particular question Galileo asked was:
1.3 Questions 9
What relation describes how a body gains velocity as it falls?
The next step is to identify relevant factors. Galileo decided to take into account only
distance, time, and velocity. However, he might have also considered the weight, shape,
and density of the object as well as air conditions.
The first assumption Galileo made was:
Assumption 1 If a body falls from rest, its velocity at any point is proportional to the distance
already fallen.
The mathematical description of Assumption 1 is:

dx
= ax. (1.1)
dt
This equation has the solution
x = keat . (1.2)
The constant k is evaluated by
x(0) = 0, (1.3)
giving k = 0, and thus
x = 0 for all t.
The implication is that the object will never move, no matter how long we wait!
Since this conclusion is clearly absurd, and there are no mistakes in the mathemat-
ical manipulation, the model has to be reformulated. Galileo eventually came to this
conclusion, and replaced Assumption 1 with:
Assumption 2 If a body falls from rest, its velocity at any point is proportional to the time it has
been falling.
The mathematical description of this assumption is:

dx
= bt, (1.4)
dt
and the solution, with x(0) = 0, is
x = bt 2 . (1.5)
This law of falling bodies agrees well with observations in many circumstances, and
the parameter b can be estimated from matching experimental data. Incidentally, the
model constant b equals the gravitational constant, g.
1.3 Questions
(1) Give some reasons for doing mathematical modeling in chemical engineering.
(2) Explain why the model development often becomes an iterative procedure.
2 Classification
In this chapter mathematical models are classified by

r grouping into opposite pairs;
r mathematical complexity;
r degree of resolution.
The intention is to give the reader an understanding of differences between models as

reflected by the modeling goal. Which question is the model intended to answer?
2.1 Grouping of models into opposite pairs
In this section, we will examine various types of mathematical models. There are many
possible ways of classification. One possibility is to group the models into opposite
pairs:
r linear versus non-linear;
r steady state versus non-steady state;
r lumped parameter versus distributed parameter;
r continuous versus discrete variables;
r deterministic versus stochastic;
r interpolation versus extrapolation;
r mechanistic versus empirical;
r coupled versus not coupled.
Linear versus non-linear

Linear models exhibit the important property of superposition; non-linear ones do not.
Equations (and thus models) are linear if the dependent variables or their derivatives
appear only to the first power; otherwise they are non-linear. In practice, the ability to
use a linear model for a process is of great significance. General analytical methods for
equation solving are all based on linearity. Only special classes of non-linear models
can be attacked with mathematical methods. For the general case, where a numerical
method is required, the amount of computation is also much less for linear models, and
in addition error estimates and convergence criteria are usually derived under linear
assumptions.
Steady state versus transient

Other synonyms for steady state are time invariant, static, or stationary. These terms
refer to a process in which the point values of the dependent variables remain con-
stant over time, as at steady state and at equilibrium. Non-steady-state processes are
also called unsteady state, transient, or dynamic, and represent a situation in which
the process dependent variables change with respect to time. A typical example of a
non-steady-state process is the start-up of a distillation column which would eventu-
ally reach a pseudosteady-state set of operating conditions. Inherently transient pro-
cesses include fixed-bed adsorption, batch distillation, reactors, drying, and filtration/
sedimentation.
Lumped parameter versus distributed parameter

A lumped-parameter representation means that spatial variations are ignored, and the
various properties and the state of a system can be considered homogeneous throughout
the entire volume. A distributed-parameter representation, in contrast, takes into account
detailed variations in behavior from point to point throughout the system. All real
systems are, of course, distributed in that some variations occur throughout them. As
the variations are often relatively small, they may be ignored, and the system may then
be “lumped.”
The answer to the question whether or not lumping is valid for a process model
is far from simple. A good rule of thumb is that if the response of the process is
“instantaneous” throughout the process, then the process can be lumped. If the response
shows instantaneous differences throughout the process (or vessel), then it should not
be lumped. Note that the purpose of the model affects its validity. Had the purpose
been, for example, to study mixing in a stirred tank reactor, a lumped model would be
completely unsuitable because it has assumed from the first that the mixing is perfect
and the concentration a single variable.
Because the mathematical procedures for solving lumped-parameter models are sim-
pler than those for solving distributed-parameter models, we often approximate the
latter using an equivalent lumped-parameter system. Whilst lumping is often possible,
we must be careful to avoid masking the salient features of a distributed element and
subsequently building an inadequate model by lumping.
As an example of the use of lumped versus distributed mathematical models, consider
the equilibrium stage concept of distillation, extraction, and similar processes. As shown
in Figure 2.1, we usually assume that the entire stage acts as a whole, and we do not
consider variations in temperature, composition, or pressure in various parts of the
stage. All of these variables are “lumped” together into some overall average. The errors
introduced are compensated for by the stage efficiency factor.
Continuous versus discrete variables

Continuous means that the variables can assume any values within an interval; discrete
means that a variable can take on only distinct values within an interval. For example,
concentrations in a countercurrent packed bed are usually modeled in terms of continuous
variables, whereas plate absorbers are modeled in terms of staged multicompartment
12 Classification
Figure 2.1. Lumped-parameter and distributed-parameter visualization of a distillation tray.

(a) Actual plate with complex flow patterns and resulting variations in properties from point to
point. (b) Idealized equilibrium stage ignoring all internal variations.
Figure 2.2. Continuous versus discrete modeling of a packed column absorber.
models in which a concentration is uniform at each stage but differs from stage to stage in
discrete jumps. Continuous models are described by differential equations and discrete
models by difference equations. Figure 2.2 illustrates the two configurations.
The left-hand figure shows a packed column modeled as a continuous system, whereas
the right-hand figure represents the column as a sequence of discrete (staged) units. The
concentrations in the left-hand column would be continuous variables; those in the right-
hand column would involve discontinuous jumps. The tick marks in the left-hand column
represent hypothetical stages for analysis. It is, of course, possible to model the packed
Figure 2.3. Danger of extrapolation. Yield of a chemical reactor versus time.
column in terms of imaginary segregated stages and to treat the plate column in terms
of partial differential equations in which the concentrations are continuous variables.
Deterministic versus stochastic

Deterministic models or elements of models are those in which each variable and
parameter can be assigned a definite fixed number, or a series of numbers, for any given
set of conditions, i.e. the model has no components that are inherently uncertain. In
contrast, the principle of uncertainty is introduced in stochastic or probabilistic models.
The variables or parameters used to describe the input–output relationships and the
structure of the elements (and the constraints) are not precisely known. A stochastic
model involves parameters characterized by probability distributions. Due to this the
stochastic model will produce different results in each realization.
Stochastic models play an important role in understanding chaotic phenomena such as
Brownian motion and turbulence. They are also used to describe highly heterogeneous
systems, e.g. transport in fractured media. Stochastic models are used in control theory
to account for the irregular nature of disturbances. In the present context, we will focus
upon deterministic models.
Interpolation versus extrapolation

A model based on interpolation implies that the model is fitted to experimentally deter-
mined values at different points and that the model is used to interpolate between
these points. A model used for extrapolation, in comparison, goes beyond the range of
experimental data.
Typically, thermodynamic models are used for interpolation as well as correlations
in complicated transport phenomena applications. Extrapolation requires, in general, a
detailed mechanistic understanding of the system. The procedure requires great care to
avoid misleading conclusions. Figure 2.3 illustrates an exaggerated case of extrapolation
14 Classification
by means of a linear model into a region beyond the range of experimental data for a
chemical reaction that reaches a maximum yield in time.
In the safety analysis of nuclear waste repositories models are used to predict the fate of
leaking radionuclides into the sur rounding rock formation over geological time scales.
Naturally, it is of the utmost importance that these models are physically/chemically
sound and based on well-understood mechanistic principles.
Mechanistic versus empirical

Mechanistic means that models are based on the underlying physics and chemistry
governing the behavior of a process; empirical means that models are based on cor related
experimental data. Empirical modeling depends on the availability of process data,
whereas mechanistic modeling does not; however, a fundamental understanding of the
physics and chemistry of the process is required. Mechanistic models are preferably
used in process design, whereas empirical models can be used when only trends are
needed, such as in process control. Semi-empirical models cover the range in between.
This discussion closely resembles the one regarding extrapolation/inter polation.
Coupled versus not coupled

When a model consists of two or more interacting relations, we have a coupled model.
The coupling may be weak or strong. If the interaction only works in one direction, we
speak of weak coupling (one-way coupling); if it operates in both directions we speak of
strong (two-way) coupling. Forced convection is an example of one-way coupling, and
free convection is an example of two-way coupling. In forced convection, the flow field
is independent of the transport of energy and can be solved first and then introduced
into the energy equation. In free convection, flow and energy transport are intimately
coupled since the flow is generated by density differences originating from temperature
differences. A model of a pneumatic conveying dryer involves a high degree of coupling
(see Example 1.1).
2.2 Classification based on mathematical complexity
Another classification scheme to be considered is shown in Figure 2.4. It can be seen

that the complexity of solving a mathematical problem roughly increases as we go down
Figure 2.4. In other words, algebraic equations are usually easier to solve than ordinary
differential equations, which in turn are usually easier to solve than partial differential
equations. This is not always true, of course, since a linear partial differential equation
may be easier to solve than a non-linear ordinary differential equation. The accuracy of
the representation of the actual physical system attained using the mathematical model
also roughly increases as we go down the figure, because the more independent variables
and parameters that are taken into account, the more accurate the mathematical model
will be.
The theory of ordinary differential equations is reasonably well advanced with regard
to analytical solutions, but the same is not true for the theory of partial differential
2.2 Classification based on mathematical complexity 15
Table 2.1. Classification of mathematical problems and their ease of solution using analytical methods
Linear equations Non-linear equations

One Several Many One Several Many
Equation equation equations equations equation equations equations
Algebraic trivial easy essentially very difficult very difficult impossible

impossible
Ordinary easy difficult essentially very difficult impossible impossible
differential impossible
Partial difficult essentially impossible essentially impossible impossible
differential impossible impossible
Figure 2.4. Classification based on mathematical complexity.
equations. Thus we can rather seldom find the analytical solution to a partial differential
equation, and, in fact, when we do, it very often involves such things as infinite series,
which are sometimes difficult to handle computationally. Table 2.1 shows the various
classes of mathematical equations and the limited class amenable to analytical solution.
It should be noted that, in a model with more than one equation, the difficulty in
obtaining a solution is dependent on the degree of coupling.
16 Classification
Table 2.2. Classification of models according to scale
Level of physicochemical
description Topical designations Parameters
Molecular treats discrete entities; quantum distribution functions; collision integrals

mechanics, statistical mechanics,
kinetic theory
Microscopic laminar transport phenomena, phenomenological coefficients; viscosity,
statistical theories of turbulence thermal conductivity, diffusivity
Mesoscopic laminar and turbulent transport “effective” transport coefficients
phenomena; transport in porous
media
Macroscopic process engineering, unit operations interphase transport coefficients
A model formulated in terms of differential equations can often be rephrased in terms

of integral equations (and vice versa) so that many additional models are essentially
included in this classification scheme. Difference equations account for finite changes
from one stage to another and have significance parallel to that given above for (contin-
uous) differential equations.
The classification scheme given in Table 2.1 for analytical methods has its counterpart
for numerical methods. In such a case, the borderline to difficult/impossible problems is
shifted to the right. In most cases, the models need to be solved numerically. Some reasons
for this might be non-linearities, varying material properties, and varying boundary
conditions. Luckily the computational power available in modern computers seldom
conflicts with the requirement of solving the model equations numerically.
2.3 Classification according to scale (degree of physical detail)
Physicochemical models based on the degree of internal detail of the system encom-
passed by the model are classified in Table 2.2. The degree of detail about a process
decreases as we proceed down the table.
Molecular description
The most fundamental description of processes, in the present context, would be based
on molecular considerations. A molecular description is distinguished by the fact that it
treats an arbitrary system as if it were composed of individual entities, each of which
obeys certain rules. Consequently, the properties and state variables of the system are
obtained by summing over all of the entities. Quantum mechanics, equilibrium and
non-equilibrium statistical mechanics, and classical mechanics are typical methods of
analysis, by which the properties and responses of the system can be calculated.
Microscopic description
A microscopic description assumes that a process acts as a continuum and that the
mass, momentum, and energy balances can be written in the form of phenomenological
equations. This is the “usual” level of transport phenomena where detailed molecular
2.3 Classification according to scale 17
Figure 2.5. Concept of representative elementary volume for a fluid (a) and a porous medium (b),
respectively.
interactions are ignored and differential balance equations are formulated for momentum,
energy, and mass.
The continuum concept is illustrated in Figure 2.5(a) with the density of a fluid. The
density, ρ, at a particular point in the fluid is defined as
m
ρ = lim , (2.1)
V →Vr V
where m is the mass contained in a volume V, and Vr is the smallest volume (the
representative elementary volume) surrounding the point for which statistical averages
are meaningful (in the figure, λ is the molecular mean free path and L is the macroscopic
length scale). For air at room temperature and atmospheric pressure, the mean free path,
λ, is approximately 80 nm. The concept of the density at a mathematical point is seen to
be fictitious; however, taking ρ = limV →Vr (m/V ) is extremely useful, as it allows
us to describe the fluid flow in terms of continuous functions. Note that, in general, the
density may vary from point to point in a fluid and may also vary with respect to time.
Mesoscopic description
The next level of description, mesoscopic, involves averaging at larger scales and thus
incorporates less detailed information about the internal features of the system of interest.
This level is of particular interest for processes involving turbulent flow or flow in
geometrically complex systems on a fine scale, such as porous media. The values of the
dependent variables are averaged in time (turbulence) or space (porous media). Processes
at this level are described by “effective” transport coefficients such as eddy viscosity
(turbulence) or permeability (porous media).
The continuum concept at the porous media level is illustrated in Figure 2.5(b) for
porosity:
Vv
ε = lim , (2.2)
V →Vr V
where Vv is the void volume in V, and d is the pore length scale.
Time averaging in turbulence is illustrated in Figure 2.6. The instantaneous velocity vz
oscillates irregularly. We define the time-smoothed velocity v z by taking a time average
of vz over a time interval t0 , which is large with respect to the time of turbulent oscillation
18 Classification
Figure 2.6. Time averaging.
but small with respect to the overall time changes:

1 t+t0
vz = vz dt. (2.3)
t0 t
Macroscopic description
The final level, macroscopic, ignores all the details within a system and merely creates
a balance equation for the entire system. The dependent variables, such as concentration
and temperature, are not functions of position, but represent overall averages throughout
the volume of the system. The model is effective as long as detailed information internal
to the system is not required in model building. Macroscopic and lumped mean the
same thing.
In science, events distinguished by large differences in scale often have very little
influence on one another. The phenomena can, in such a case, be treated independently.
Surface waves in a liquid, for instance, can be described in a manner that ignores the
molecular structure of the liquid. Almost all practical theories in physics and engineering
depend on isolating a limited range of length scales. This is why the kinetic theory of
gases ignores effects with length scales smaller than the size of a molecule and much
larger than the mean free path of a molecule. There are, however, some phenomena where
events at many length scales make contributions of equal importance. One example is the
behavior of a liquid near the critical point. Near that point water develops fluctuations in
density at all possible scales: drops and bubbles of all sizes occur from single molecules
up to the volume of the specimen.
2.4 Questions
(1) What is the difference between a lumped- and a distributed-parameter model?

(2) Explain the difference between deterministic and stochastic models.
2.4 Questions 19
(3) Why is a linear mathematical model tractable for analytical solution?

(4) Describe the continuum concept.
(5) At what scale is Darcy’s law formulated? Are there alternatives that describe flow in
porous materials?
3 Model formulation
Formulating mathematical models by applying balance and conservation principles and

constitutive relations for fluxes is the topic of this chapter. The aim is to give the reader
tools and skills for:
r constructing models using balances on differential or macroscopic control volumes
for momentum, heat, mass, and numbers (population balances);
r constructing models by simplifying general model equations.
3.1 Balances and conservation principles
Before formulating a model it is crucial to define the system boundary. The purpose of
the boundary is to define the system in relation to its surroundings. In Figure 3.1, a stirred
tank is isolated from its surroundings by the dashed circle. All significant phenomena
enclosed within this boundary need to be included in a successful model. The system
boundary may be chosen in different ways, but for most systems the boundary to use
is natural. Models derived from physicochemical principles are usually based on the
general balance concept:
⎡ ⎤
net transport into
accumulation net generation
= ⎣ system through ⎦ + .
within system within system
boundaries
This relation is very general. The objective of model building is to transform the
verbal concept into mathematical statements that are specific to the quantity of interest.
We may balance mass, energy, and momentum as well as, for example, entropy and
countable entities such as size and age distributions (population balances). Some of
these entities are conserved, for example total mass, whilst some are not, for example
the mass of a species in a mixture (due to chemical reactions).
By using the balance principle, we can derive model equations by balancing the
quantities within the defined system boundary. A few examples of important balance
equations are given in the following.
Overall (total) mass balance

The overall total mass balance describes the total mass in a system. Obviously there
can be only one total mass balance equation, and the net generation term is zero, which
means that mass is a conserved quantity.
3.1 Balances and conservation principles 21
Figure 3.1. System boundary for a stirred tank.
Species (component) material balance

Most chemical engineering systems contain more than one component. In contrast to the
total mass, the components or species are not always conserved; they may be generated
or consumed due to chemical reactions. In this case, the net generation rate within the
system must be quantified by reaction rate equations.
An N-component system will have N balance equations. As the species balance
equations and the total balance are related, the N − 1 species balances and the overall
mass balance are sufficient to describe completely the mass flow in the system.
Energy balance
An energy balance equation for the total energy, TE, in the system, taking into con-
sideration temperature-dependent thermal energy U, the potential energy PKE, pressure
energy PE, and the kinetic energy KE, is given by
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
accumulation net flow of U, PKE, net generation
⎣ of TE ⎦ = ⎣ PE, KE into system ⎦ + ⎣ within ⎦.
within system through boundaries system
In general, transformation between all these energies must be considered. In some

cases, the transformation of mechanical energy, i.e. between PKE, PE, and KE, is
of primary interest, and isothermal conditions may be assumed. In other cases, the
potential and kinetic energies can be neglected, because the difference in elevation
and low velocities contribute to small changes in total energy. Consequently, it is often
possible to neglect the transformation of potential and kinetic energies to thermal energy,
and the energy balance simplifies to a balance equation for the thermal energy.
As an example, consider a pipe flow where the fluid is being heated externally to 20 °C
and is simultaneously decelerated due to an increase in the pipe diameter. In this case,
the kinetic energy will typically contribute little to temperature change in comparison
to the heating. Let us assume that the velocity at the inlet equals 1 m s−1 . The limiting
case with a maximum temperature increase occurs with infinite pipe expansion, where
the velocity reduces to 0 m s−1 . The balance between enthalpy and kinetic energy is
given by ρc p T = ρv 2 /2. For water, a fluid with a high heat capacity, approximately
4.2 J g−1 K−1 , the temperature increase will be T ≈ 0.1 °C. Consequently, the kinetic
22 Model formulation
Table 3.1. Constitutive relations in transport phenomena models
Mechanism Dimension Flux Name

∂vx
Momentum N m−2 τ yx = −μ Newton
∂y
∂T
Heat J m−2 s−1 qx = −k Fourier
∂x
∂ yA
Mass mol m−2 s−1 JA,x = −C DAB Fick
∂x
k ∂P
Flow (porous) m−3 m−2 s−1 qx = − Darcy
μ ∂x
energy leads to an almost negligible increase in temperature. In this heating application,

the balance equation can be reduced safely to a thermal energy balance.
Because the thermal energy not only depends on temperature, but also on the com-
position, the energy balance equation is most often accompanied by species (material)
balance equations. Several phenomena may cause heat generation within a system, e.g.
reaction heat (exothermic and endothermic reactions), heating and cooling due to con-
vection, conduction, radiation, condensation, evaporation, work done by the system on
the surroundings, and shaft work due to an impeller.
Momentum balance
Momentum and force are vector quantities, and the number of equations equals the
number of spatial dimensions in the model, e.g. a 2D model must contain momentum
balances for x- and y-momentum. Three kinds of forces are typically accounted for in
chemical engineering: pressure force, shear force, and gravitational force. A force is
associated with momentum production (Newton´s second law) and thus enters via the
last term in the general balance.
3.2 Transport phenomena models
The most common types of models in chemical engineering are those related to the
transport of mass, heat, and momentum. In addition to the balance equation, a constitutive
equation that relates the flux of interest to the dependent variable (e.g. mass flux to
concentration) is needed. These relations (in simple 1D form) for the microscopic level
and for flow at the porous media level are given in Table 3.1. It should be noted that all
these relations have the general form
flux = transport coefficient × gradient.
A simple example of setting up a model at the microscopic level (1D transient heat
conduction with a heat source) is given in Example 3.1 (Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2. Simple shell balance.
Example 3.1 1D transient heat conduction with a source term

The variables and parameters used in this example are as follows: ρ = density, cp =
heat capacity, q = heat flux, k = thermal conductivity, A = cross-sectional area, S =
source strength (J m−3 s−1 ).
accumulation: ρc p T (Ax);
in (conduction): (q A)|x t;
out (conduction): (q A)|x+x t;
production: S Axt.
Insertion of these terms into the balance equation yields

T q|x − q|x+x
ρc p = + S.
t x
By taking the limit as x → 0 and t → 0 we have
∂T ∂q
ρc p =− + S.
∂t ∂x
Finally, introducing Fourier’s law, qx = −k(∂ T /∂ x), yields
∂T ∂2T
ρc p = k 2 + S,
∂t ∂x
that is to be solved with proper boundary and initial conditions.
General microscopic transport equations can be found in standard text books on

transport phenomena (see the Bibliography). For example, the transient 3D binary mass
transport equation in rectangular coordinates is obtained by using a differential control
volume in three dimensions, as depicted in Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3. Differential control volume in three dimensions.
Example 3.2 Derivation of the transient 3D binary mass transport equation

in rectangular coordinates
The variables and parameters used in this example are as follows: CA = concentration,
JA = diffusion flux, v = velocity, RA = source term (mol m−3 s−1 ).
accumulation: CA xyz;

in (diffusion): x-direction JA,x |x yzt,
y-direction JA,y | y xzt,
z-direction JA,z |z xyt;
in (flow): x-direction (vx CA )|x yzt,
y-direction (v y CA )| y xzt,
z-direction (vz CA )|z xyt;
out (diffusion): x-direction JA,x |x+x yzt,
y-direction JA,y | y+y xzt,
z-direction JA,z |z+z xyt;
out (flow): x-direction (vx CA )|x+x yzt,
y-direction (v y CA )| y+y xzt,
z-direction (vz CA )|z+z xyt;
production: RA xyzt.
Using the balance equation and taking the limit as x, y, z, t → 0 yields
∂CA ∂(vx CA ) ∂(v y CA ) ∂(vz CA ) ∂ JA,x ∂ JA,y ∂ JA,z

=− − − − − − + RA . (3.1)
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂x ∂y ∂z
Finally, using Fick’s law, JA,x = −DAB (∂CA /∂ x) etc., we obtain
∂CA ∂(vx CA ) ∂(v y CA ) ∂(vz CA ) ∂ 2 CA ∂ 2 CA

=− − − + DAB + D AB
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂x2 ∂ y2
∂ CA
2
+ DAB + RA , (3.2)
∂z 2
or, in vector notation,

∂CA
= −∇ · (vCA ) + DAB ∇ 2 CA + RA . (3.3)
∂t
For convenience, the general equations for mass, momentum, and heat transport, in
rectangular, cylindrical, and spherical coordinates, are provided in Appendix A.
Given these general equations, one approach to mathematical modeling is to apply

appropriately and simplify these equations for the particular problem. This involves a
clear statement of assumptions and an estimation of the relative importance of various
terms (e.g. using dimensional analysis; see Chapter 4). In Example 3.3, the energy
balance equation has been simplified from its generic form to an equation describing the
heat conduction in one dimension (Example 3.1).
Example 3.3 Reduction of the general energy balance in Example 3.1

The energy balance equation for rectangular coordinates is given by (see Appendix A)

2
∂T ∂T ∂T ∂T ∂ T ∂2T ∂2T
ρc p + vx + vy + vz =k + + 2 + S.
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂x2 ∂ y2 ∂z
In Example 3.1, there is no convective flow, consequently there is no heat convection,
and the following terms are canceled:
∂T ∂T ∂T
vx , vy , vz ≡ 0.
∂x ∂y ∂z
Furthermore, it is a 1D problem, which means that conduction in the y- and
z-directions can also be omitted, i.e.
∂2T ∂2T
k , k 2 ≡ 0.
∂ y2 ∂z
The only terms that remain in the general balance equation are accumulation,
conduction in the x-direction, and the source term. Thus, the balance equation
simplifies to
∂T ∂2T
ρc p = k 2 + S,
∂t ∂x
which is the same model equation as derived in Example 3.1.
In Example 3.1, the flow was set to zero by definition. In many situations the problem
is more complex and involves estimating the various terms. For instance, in Example 3.3
there may be both flow and conduction of heat. To estimate if one mechanism dominates,
a dimensionless number comparing the terms can be used.
The total flux of a quantity is the sum of its molecular flux and convective flux. The
ratio of the convective flux to the molecular flux (the Péclet number) can be used to
determine the relative importance of each flux. The dimensionless Péclet numbers are
defined by
Peheat = u L/α (heat transfer),
Pemass = u L/DAB (mass transfer).
Here, u and L are the characteristic velocity and length scales, and α and DAB are
the diffusivities for heat and mass transport, respectively. They obviously both have
the same unit (m2 s−1 ). Heat diffusivity is defined as α = λ(ρcp ) where λ is the heat
conductivity.
Depending on the magnitude of the Péclet number, we have
Pe 1 total flux ≈ molecular flux,
Pe ≈ 1 total flux = molecular flux + convective flux,
Pe 1 total flux ≈ convective flux.
3.3 Boundary conditions
Equally as important as formulating the differential equation(s) when developing a

mathematical model is the selection of an appropriate set of boundary conditions and/or
initial conditions. In order to calculate the values of arbitrary constants that evolve in
the solution of a differential equation, we generally need a set of n boundary conditions
for each nth-order derivative with respect to a space variable or with respect to time. For
example, the differential equation
∂T ∂2T
ρc p =k 2 +S (3.4)
∂t ∂x
requires the value of T to be specified at two locations of x and one value of t.
Appropriate boundary conditions arise from the actual process or the problem state-
ment. They essentially are given, or, more often, must be deduced from, physical prin-
ciples associated with the problem. These physical principles are usually mathematical
statements that show that the dependent variable at the boundary is at equilibrium, or,
if some transport is taking place, that the flux is conserved at the boundary. Another
type of boundary condition uses interfacial transport coefficients (e.g. heat transfer or
mass transfer coefficients) that express the flux as the product of the interphase transport
coefficient and some kind of driving force.
The common boundary conditions for use with momentum, energy, and mass transport
are listed in Tables 3.2–3.4. Note the similarities among the three modes of transport.
These boundary conditions apply to all strata of description shown in Table 2.2, except
for the molecular one.
Recall the mathematical classification of boundary conditions summarized in
Table 3.5. For example, in energy transport, the first type corresponds to the speci-
fied temperature at the boundary; the second type corresponds to the specified heat flux
at the boundary; and the third type corresponds to the interfacial heat transport governed
by a heat transfer coefficient.
3.3 Boundary conditions 27
Table 3.2. Common boundary conditions for use with the transport of mass
Description Math
Concentration at a boundary is specified C = C0

Mass flux across a boundary is continuous (n i )x=0− = (n i )x=0+
Concentrations on both sides of a boundary are related (Ci )x=0− = f (Ci )x=0+
functionally
Convective mass (mole) flux at a boundary is specified (NA )x=0 = kc (Cbulk − Csurface )
Rate of reaction at a boundary is specified (NA )x=0 = RA
Table 3.3. Common boundary conditions for use with the transport of momentum
Description Math
Velocity at a boundary is specified vr el = 0 (no-slip condition at solid–fluid

interface)
Momentum flux across a boundary is e.g. τ is continuous at a liquid–liquid interface
continuous
Velocity at a boundary is continuous (v)x=0− = (v)x=0+
Momentum flux is specified e.g. τ in liquid is approximately zero at
gas–liquid interfaces (at low relative velocities)
Table 3.4. Common boundary conditions for use with the transport of energy
Description Math
Temperature at a boundary is specified T = T0

Heat flux across a boundary is continuous (qi )x=0− = (qi )x=0+
Temperature at a boundary is continuous (T )x=0− = (T )x=0+
Convective heat flux at a boundary is specified (q)x=0 = h(Tbulk − Tsurface )
Heat flux at a boundary is specified q = q0
Table 3.5. Classification of boundary conditions
Type Description Math
Dirichlet (first type) specifies the value a solution must take at its y(0) = γ1
boundary
∂y
Neumann (second type) specifies the value the derivative of the solution = γ1
∂ x x=0
must take at its boundary
∂y
Robin (third type) specifies a linear combination of the value of a1 y + b1 = γ1
∂x
the function and the value of its derivatives at
the boundary
In setting up the domain to be modeled, all symmetries in the problem should be used
to reduce the computational domain. (As long as this does not compromise the physics
of the system, i.e. we do not want to restrict the solution.)
3.4 Population balance models
The basis of a population balance model is that the number of entities with some
property in a system is a balanceable quantity. Properties include, among others, size,
mass, and age.
There are many examples in the process industries for which discrete entities are
created, destroyed, or changed in some way as a result of processing. A classical example
concerns crystallization, where the size distribution of crystals and its evolution is of
the highest relevance. In this application, the evolution of the crystal size distribution is
predicted using population balance models and closures describing mechanisms such as
nucleation, growth, and breakage. Granulation is another example; in this process, fine
particles are bound together into larger granules. Applications include manufacturing of
pharmaceuticals, detergents, and fertilizers. Consequently, population balance models
serve as a tool to predict, control, and optimize the complex dynamics of these systems.
Many biochemical processes also have characteristics that lend themselves to analysis via
the population balance model. Other examples include flocculation for purifying drinking
water, gas–liquid dispersions, and liquid–liquid extraction and reaction.The residence
time distribution (RTD) theory is a special case of the general population balance.
Let us first, as an introduction, discuss a commonly used population balance model
for flocculation in stirred reactor tanks. The aim of flocculation is to agglomerate fine
particles in water, using chemical additives, to large aggregates that are easy to separate
in sedimentation processes. The agglomerates are formed due to binary collisions of
particles. Not every collision is successful, however, so the collision efficiency has to be
accounted for. As the agglomerates grow, there is an increasing risk that they fragment
into smaller aggregates or even “primary” particles. This may be the result of shear
forces or collisions with the impeller, walls, or other particles.
Figure 3.4 shows the experimental results, using laser techniques, to follow the evolu-
tion of floc sizes over time. The primary data have been evaluated, using image analysis
techniques, and the result is also shown in the figure as the evolution of the number
concentration of flocs of different sizes (“population”) over time. It can be seen that the
number of small flocs decrease, and larger flocs form, over time.
The population balance, including these effects, can be written as follows:
∞ ∞
dn k 1
= α(i, j)β(i, j)n i n j − α(i, k)β(i, k)n i n k − χ (k)n k + χ (i)n i .
dt 2 i+ j=k i=1 i>k
(3.5)
In this equation, the term on the left-hand side represents the rate of change of the
number concentration of agglomerates of size k (valid for any size k). This is the result
of the processes accounted for on the right-hand side of the equation. The first term
accounts for the formation of agglomerates of size k due to collisions of two smaller
Figure 3.4. Change in floc size distribution during a flocculation process (Pelin, K., Licentiate
thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, 1999).
particles with sizes i and j (the factor of ½ is to avoid counting the same collision twice).
The second term gives a decrease in the number of k agglomerates, due to collisions
with existing agglomerates of this size and other particles with arbitrary size i (note
the negative sign). The third term, also negative, is a breakage function for particles of
size k; and the last term is a breakage function for agglomerates larger than k giving
fragments of size k. Here
α(i, j) is the collision efficiency of binary collision between i and j (a number between
0 and 1);
β(i, j) is the collision frequency between i and j (strongly dependent upon local flow
conditions);
χ (i) is the breakage function.
This population balance model is able to reproduce the results in Figure 3.4.
Flocculation is an example of a discrete growth of particles. In other processes,
notably crystallization, the growth is continuous. As a second, introductory, example,
we derive the population balance for batch crystallization (well mixed), only accounting
for continuous growth given by the growth rate:
dm
v= ,
dt
where m is the crystal mass. The number distribution is now given by f (m, t), where
f (m, t)m represents the number of crystals with mass within the range
m, m + m at time t.
Figure 3.5. Cell behavior in a simple flow reactor.
The population balance for this case becomes
f m = [( f v)|m − ( f v)|m+m ]t.
The left-hand side of this relation represents the change in the number of crystals in the
size range m, m + m at time t. The right-hand side gives the number of smaller crystals
that reach this size by continuous growth minus the number of crystals of the “right”
size growing to a larger size.
Taking the limit as mt → 0, we obtain
∂f ∂( f v)
=− , (3.6)
∂t ∂m
which is to be solved with appropriate boundary conditions.
Before deriving the general population balances, we will give another example with
one spatial dimension and one distributed property (mass of cell): continuous cell growth
in a plug flow reactor.
Example 3.4 Population balance for cell behavior in a simple flow system
Let us consider a population of cells flowing through a plug flow reactor (Figure 3.5).
The cells are characterized at time t by their position, x, and their mass, m. They are
supposed to grow, to die, and to divide into two daughter cells (with mass conservation).
Figures 3.6(a) and (c) illustrate the “trajectories” of the cells in the physical space
domain and in the mass–time domain, respectively. These two curves may be
summarized in a single one, Figure 3.5(b), illustrating the mass–abscissa relationship.
Figure 3.5(d) considers a small control surface x over m.
Let
f (x, m, t)mx represent the number of cells within the range m, m + m and x,
x + x at time t;
G(x, m, t) = G+ − G− be the net generation of cells (where G+ represents birth and
G− represents death);
v (= dm/dt) be the growth rate of an individual cell in a uniform medium of
constant composition.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 3.6. Illustration of the basis for establishing a population balance.
The mass balance for the cells in the (x, m, t) space is thus given by
f mx = [( f v)|m − ( f v)|m+m ]xt + [( f u)|x − ( f u)|x+x ]

acc net “growth” net “inflow”
× mt + Gxmt.
generation
Taking the limit as mxt → 0, we obtain

∂f ∂( f v) ∂( f u)
=− − + G. (3.7)
∂t ∂m ∂x
This equation is readily generalized to three spatial dimensions by replacing the term
∂( f u)/∂ x by ∇ · ( f u).
There is a growing interest in what is, somewhat misleadingly, called “multidimen-

sional” population balance models. One example of a “2D” population balance model
is the description of a granulation process where not only the particle size distribution
with time, but also the fractional binder content is predicted by the model. The binder
(liquid) content of the granules governs the agglomeration process.
General 3D microscopic population balance equations, including several distributed
properties, e.g. size and moisture content, can be derived using the same balance method.
Let us denote the distributed properties by pi , where vi is their respective rate of change
(vi = dpi /dt). The local population balance equation then becomes
∂f ∂ ( f vi )
n
=− − ∇ · ( f u) + G. (3.8)
∂t i=1
∂ pi
In the case of granulation, there will now be two terms in the sum on the right-hand side
of the equation: one associated with granule growth, and one associated with change in
liquid content. Note that particle velocity may differ from the fluid velocity due to slip
or external forces.
In cases where diffusion cannot be neglected, the additonal term ∇ · [ D p ∇ f ] must be
included in Equation 3.8:
∂f ∂ ( f vi )
n
=− − ∇ · ( f u) + ∇ · [ D p ∇ f ] + G. (3.9)
∂t i=1
∂ pi
Sometimes it is convenient to define a macroscopic population balance by averaging

over the physical space and over the inlet and outlet streams. Let us define

1

f = f d V,
V
V

Q in f in = u f d S,
Sin

Q out f out = u f d S.
Sout
Integrating Equation (3.8) over space and dividing by V (note that V is not necessarily
constant with time) yields
1 ∂(V
f ) ∂(
f vi )
n
1
=− − (Q out f out − Q in f in ) +
G. (3.10)
V ∂t i=1
∂ pi V
Equation (3.10) can, of course, be derived directly using a macroscopic control volume.
3.4.1 Application to RTDs

The concept of residence time distributions (RTDs) is central to classical chemical
engineering. In this concept, the outlet response of a system to a known input disturbance
(i.e. tracer concentration) is analyzed. Relations are derived for the outlet age distribution
using material balances. In the following, we will demonstrate that identical relations
are obtained via a completely different route using population balances.
Let us consider the age of fluid “particles” in an arbitrary flow system (no generation).
If we denote age by α, the growth rate of age is given by
dα
v= = 1. (3.11)
dt
Let f be the number of fluid particles of age α. Equation (3.10) for this case becomes
1 ∂(V
f ) ∂
f 1
=− − (Q out f out − Q in f in ). (3.12)
V ∂t ∂α V
Define the normalized distributions:

f n =
f /
C,
f in,n = f in /Cin ,
f out,n = f out /Cout ,
where
C, Cin , and Cout are the mean concentration, and the inlet and outlet concentra-
tions, respectively.
Insertion of these definitions into Equation (3.12) and using the mass balance,
∂(V
C)
= Q in Cin − Q out Cout , (3.13)
∂t
yields

∂
f n ∂
f n 1 1 f out,n f in,n
=− −
fn − 1 − − 1 , (3.14)
∂t ∂α τin
1 τout τout
1 τin
where τ 1 are characteristic hydrodynamic times defined on a molar (or mass) basis,
and
τin1 = (V
C)/Q in Cin ,
τout
1
= (V
C)/Q out Cout .
Using standard RTD nomenclature:

f n is the normalized internal age distribution, I(α, t),
fout,n is the distribution of age in the outlet stream, E(α, t),
fin,n is the normalized distribution of age in the inlet stream, i.e. δ(α) (Dirac’s delta
function).
Consequently, Equation (3.14) may be written as follows:

∂I ∂I 1 1 E δ(α)
=− −I − 1 − − 1 . (3.15)
∂t ∂α τin1 τout τout
1 τin
Equation (3.15) is the generalized relationship between the residence time distribution,
E, and the internal age distribution, I, in the transient state for an arbitrary flow system.
For an incompressible fluid (given a constant volume),
Q in = Q out .
Assuming further steady state:
Cin = Cout
and
τin1 = τout
1
= τ 1.
Figure 3.7. Internal age distribution in a semi-batch reactor.
Equation (3.15) simplifies to

dI
τ1 + E = δ(α). (3.16)
dα
Example 3.5 Semi-batch reactor (incompressible)

Let us consider a single incompressible fluid that is poured into the reactor at a
constant flow rate Qin (see Figure 3.7). Since there is no outlet stream, E = 1/τout
1
= 0.
The inlet hydrodynamic time is given by
τin1 = V /Q in = t Q in /Q in = t,
and Equation (3.12) reduces to

∂I ∂I I δ(α)
=− − + .
∂t ∂α t t
The solution of this equation is
1
I (α, t) = (H (α) − H (t − α)),
t
where H is the Heaviside step function.
From this result, we can deduce the following:
r the ages are less than t (luckily!);
r the fraction of fluid particles of age between α and α + dα is the volume
d V = Q in dα poured at t – α divided by the volume V = Q in t of fluid at time t.
Consequently,
I dα = d V /V = dα/t.
3.5 Questions
(1) What are the key steps in deriving a transport phenomena model?
(2) What does a generic balance equation describe?
(3) Explain what is meant by a boundary condition, and how they can be classified.
(4) What is the difference between a balance and a conservation principle?

(5) What is a population balance?
(6) What is the balanceable property in residence time distributions?
3.6 Practice problems
3.1 A spherical nuclear fuel element consists of a sphere of fissionable material with
radius RF , surrounded by a spherical shell of aluminum cladding with outer radius
RC . Fission fragments with very high kinetic energies are produced inside the
fuel element. Collision between these fragments and the atoms of the fissionable
material provide the major source of thermal energy in the reactor. The volume
source of thermal energy, in the fissionable material, is assumed to be

r 2
Sn = Sn0 1 + b (J m−3 s−1 ),
RF
where b is a constant between 0 and 1, and Sn = 0 for r > RF.

Derive a model for heat flux and temperature profile at steady conditions. Assume
constant temperature T0 at the outer surface.
3.2 It is possible to increase the energy transfer between a surface and an adjacent fluid
by increasing the surface area in contact with the fluid. This may be accomplished by
attaching metal fins to the surface (see Figure P3.1). Derive, using a shell balance,
a stationary model for the heat transfer in a single fin. The wall temperature is T0
and the surrounding fluid is at temperature T∞ . Radial temperature variations in
the fin can be neglected, and the convective heat transfer coefficient, h, is given.
The cross-sectional area A and circumference P vary with distance from the wall
according to A = A(x) and P = P(x).
Figure P3.1
3.3 In the Liseberg Amusement Park in Gothenburg, there is a “fountain” where a water
film flows along the outside of a vertical pipe. Derive a model for the velocity profile
in the film:
(a) by using a shell balance approach;
(b) by simplifying the general momentum transport equation.
3.4 In making tunnels in the ground (porous material), water infiltration is a complicat-
ing factor. Assume a cylindrical tunnel (see Figure P3.2) with P1 ˃ P0 . Formulate
a model that can be used to calculate the flow into the tunnel. Assume that Darcy’s
law is valid.
Figure P3.2
3.5 Around 1850, Fick conducted experiments that convinced him of the correctness of
the diffusion equation. He dissolved salt crystals at the bottom of the experimental
setups shown in Figure P3.3. The water in the top section was continually renewed
to fix the concentration at zero. What concentration profiles did Fick obtain in the
lower section at steady conditions?
Figure P3.3
3.6 A fluid flows in the positive x-direction through a long flat duct of length L, width
W, and thickness B, where L W B (see Figure P3.4). The duct has porous walls
at y = 0 and y = B, so that a constant cross flow can be maintained, with v y = v0 .
Derive, by simplifying the general transport equation, a steady-state model for the
velocity distribution vx (y).
Figure P3.4
3.7 Consider two concentric porous spherical shells of radii κR and R (see Figure P3.5).
The inner surface of the outer shell is kept at temperature T1 and the outer surface
of the inner shell is to be maintained at a lower temperature Tκ . Dry air (mass
flow wr kg s−1 ) at temperature Tκ is blown radially from the inner shell into the
intervening space and out through the outer shell.
Develop, using a shell balance, an expression for the temperature at steady
conditions. In addition, give an expression for the rate of heat removal from the
inner sphere. Assume steady laminar flow.
Figure P3.5
3.8 A liquid (B) is flowing at laminar conditions down a vertical wall (see Figure P3.6).
For z < 0 the wall does not dissolve in the fluid, but for 0 < z < L the wall contains
a species A that is slightly soluble in B. Develop a mathematical model for the
dissolution process.
Figure P3.6
3.9 In a cookbook, a “gentle” way of preparing fish is suggested (a fish is ready when
the temperature is around 60 °C). A pan is filled with water that is boiled. The pan
is then taken from the stove and put upon a heat-insulating material. Thereafter
the piece of fish is placed into the pan and the lid is put on. State a model for the
process, assuming the following:
the piece of fish is “spherical” and initially at room temperature;

the water in the pan is well mixed.
3.10 Develop a model for the freezing of a spherical falling water drop (see Figure P3.7).
The drop is surrounded by cool air at temperature T∞ and its initial temperature
is Ti (˃ freezing temperature T0 ). Assume no volume change in the freezing
process.
Figure P3.7
3.11 Chlorine dioxide (ClO2 ) is a common chemical for bleaching aqueous suspensions
of wood pulp. The ClO2 reacts rapidly and irreversibly with lignin, which constitutes
about 5% of the pulp; the remainder of the pulp (predominantly cellulose) is inert
with respect to ClO2 . In addition to its reaction with lignin, ClO2 also undergoes
a slow spontaneous decomposition. The bleaching process may be studied under
simplified conditions by assuming a water-filled mat of pulp fibers exposed to a
dilute aqueous solution of ClO2 (see Figure P3.8). The solution–mat interface is
at x = 0 and the thickness of the mat is taken to be infinite. As ClO2 diffuses in
and reacts, the boundary between brown (unbleached) and white (bleached) pulp
moves away from the interface, the location of that boundary being denoted by
x = δ(t). Assuming the reaction between ClO2 and lignin to be “infinitely” fast,
a sharp moving boundary is formed separating bleached and unbleached pulp.
The concentration of ClO2 at x = 0 is constant, CA0 , and the unbleached lignin
concentration is CB0 . Lignin is a component of the pulp fibers and may be regarded
as immobile. The decomposition of ClO2 is assumed to be as a first-order chemical
reaction.
Develop a model of the process.
Figure P3.8
3.12 Erik released two newly born rabbits on the island of Tistlarna in the archipelago
of Gothenburg during the summer. Now it is autumn, and he wonders how many
rabbits there will be in five years.
Help Erik to solve this problem, assuming that rabbits are born pair-wise (one
female and one male) and that the number of pairs follows the Fibonacci sequence:
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, . . . (every number in the series is the sum of its two predecessors).
Assume further that the death frequency is given by
death frequency (age) = a · age2 − b · age + c[yr−1 ].
Develop a model, giving how many rabbits there are as a function of time, as
well as the age distribution of the rabbits. Calculate the number of rabbits after five
years by solving the discretized problem with time step 1 yr, a = 0.015, b = 0.1,
and c = 0.3.
3.13 Formulate a population balance for the number of crystals with “characteristic”
dimension (size), assuming:
r the crystallizer is operating at steady conditions and is well mixed (tank volume =
V);
r the flow rate through the reactor is constant (= Q) and the inflow contains no
crystals;
r the growth rate is v (m s−1 );
r agglomeration and breakage of crystals can be neglected.
3.14 Use the method of population balances to develop expressions for the RTDs in the
following reactor systems:
(a) ideal tank reactor with volume V, constant flow rate q, and no chemical
reaction;
(b) as in (a) but in series with an ideal tube reactor with volume V1 ;
(c) two ideal tank reactors in series (both with volume V).
4 Empirical model building
Many phenomena in engineering are very complex and we do not have sufficient knowl-
edge at the moment to develop a model from first principles; instead, we have to rely
on empirical correlations. Today most process development is done using empirical or
semi-empirical models. These models are usually accurate and very useful. The draw-
back is that they are only valid for specific equipment within an experimental domain
where the parameters are determined.
In developing a correlation, we need first to identify all the variables that may have
an influence on it. There are different approaches to finding important variables. One
approach is to formulate the governing equations even if we do not have sufficient
knowledge or computer resources to solve the equations. These equations and the corre-
sponding boundary conditions provide information about which variables are important
in formulating an empirical correlation. A second approach, used by experienced engi-
neers, is to list all variables that are believed to be important. The final correlation is
then obtained by experimenting and model fitting using experimental design to obtain
reliable results and to minimize correlations between the parameters in the model.
The recommended approach to formulating an empirical correlation is to use dimen-
sionless numbers for describing both the dependent and the independent variables. Using
dimensionless variables decreases the degrees of freedom, i.e. it decreases the number
of variables and parameters in the fitting. All terms in an equation must have the same
dimension, and a system that contains n variables involving m dimensions can be stud-
ied by varying the n − m dimensionless variables. An additional advantage of using
dimensionless variables is that correlations written in dimensionless variables are also
easier to read and cause less confusion when used.
4.1 Dimensional systems
A dimensional system consists of the selected base dimensions and the dimensions of all
involved variables. Table 4.1 contains a useful set of base dimensions; note that this set
has the potential for additional variables for the sake of convenience, e.g. the enthalpy
(in joules) is added despite the fact that it has the dimension J = kg m2 s−2 and can
be rewritten as a function of mass, length, and time. In formulating the model, we can
remove one of the dimensions in enthalpy, i.e. mass, length, or time, and replace it with
enthalpy to keep the base dimension at a minimum. In addition to the base dimensions
Table 4.1. A set of base dimensions
Variable Dimension SI units
Length L m
Mass M kg
Time t s
Temperature T K
Enthalpy H J
Amount of species N mole
Table 4.2. Dimensions of variables
Measured variable Dimension SI units
Force MLt−2 kg m s−2 = N

Pressure ML−1 t−2 kg m−1 s−2 = Pa
Power ML2 t−3 or Ht−1 kg m2 s−3 = J s−1 = W
Density ML−3 kg m−3
Surface tension Mt−2 kg s−2 = N m−1
in Table 4.1, there are several more variables that can be selected as base dimensions if
required, e.g. electric cur rent (ampere) and magnetic field (gauss).
The dimensions of all variables can then be written as functions of the base variables
in Table 4.1, as seen in Table 4.2. Depending on the selection of base dimensions, the
dimension can be written in different forms.
4.2 Dimensionless equations
All models we use in chemical engineering can be formulated in the dimensionless

form. The fundamental equations that describe the most phenomena in chemical engi-
neering are formulated in Equations (4.1)–(4.5), and the involved variables are listed
in Table 4.3. The characteristic dimensions are mass (M), length (L), time (t), enthalpy
(H), temperature (T), and moles (N).
The momentum equation, Equation (4.1), together with the continuity equation, Equa-
tion (4.2), describe the flow, and with the heat balance, Equation (4.4), and the species
balance, Equation (4.5), a complete system is described. However, this is a simplified
example because most source terms are not included.
Momentum balance

∂v kg
ρ + v · ∇v = μ∇ v + ρG − ∇ p
2
. (4.1)
∂t m2 s2
Equation of continuity

∂ρ kg
= −[∇(ρv)] . (4.2)
∂t m3 s
Table 4.3. Variables involved in Equations (4.1)–(4.5)
Variable Physical property Characteristic dimension SI units

−1 −1 −1
k thermal conductivity HL T t J m−1 K−1 s−1
T temperature T K
U velocity Lt−1 m s−1
L length L m
ρ density ML−3 kg m−3
μ viscosity ML−1 t−1 kg m−1 s−1
cp specific heat HM−1 T−1 J kg−1 K−1
C concentration NL−3 mol m−3
D diffusivity L2 t−1 m2 s−1
As pressure is not an explicit variable in the momentum equation, the continuity equation
is often rewritten by combining momentum balance and the continuity equation. For
constant viscosity and density, the continuity equation can be replaced by the Poisson
equation:

Pa kg
∇ p = −∇ · ρv · ∇v
2
= 3 2 . (4.3)
m2 m s
Heat balance (without source terms)

∂T J
ρc p + v · ∇T = ∇ · k∇T . (4.4)
∂t m3 s
Species balance (without source terms)

∂Ci mol
+ v · ∇Ci = ∇ · D∇Ci . (4.5)
∂t m3 s
Rewriting the governing equations in the dimensionless form simplifies the estimation
of the behavior of processes on different scales. Since all terms in the equations have
the same dimensions, we can obtain a dimensionless equation by dividing the terms in
the equations by any of the other terms. However, dividing by the term that we assume
is the most important will simplify the analysis. In many cases, the convective term is
the dominating term. The tables in Appendix B show how the dimensionless variables
are formed from momentum, heat, and mass balances.
All variables must be scaled with a variable characteristic of the process. The char-
acteristic velocity U may be the average inlet velocity. The characteristic length L may
be the tube diameter, the reactor length, or the catalyst particle diameter, depending on
the processes involved. Time may be scaled with residence time or the time constant for
diffusion.
Throughout the book we will be using ˆ to denote dimensionless variables, and we
will obtain
x U D
x̂ = and tˆ = t or tˆ = t 2 . (4.6)
L L L
Concentration is usually scaled with the total or inlet concentrations. The characteristic
temperature may be inlet temperature, but it is often scaled with the minimum and
maximum temperatures to obtain a dimensionless variable between 0 and 1:
C T − Tmin T − Tmin
Ĉ = and T̂ = = . (4.7)
CT O T Tmax − Tmin T
Gravity is important for buoyancy, and the maximal force caused by gravity due to the
difference in density is a suitable characteristic variable:
G
Ĝ = . (4.8)
ρ g
The additional dimensionless dependent variables are formed from the characteristic
velocity and the pressure difference over the system:
v (x, t ) p (x, t )
v̂ (x̂, tˆ) = , p̂ (x̂, tˆ) = . (4.9)
U p
The Reynolds, Euler, Froude, and Péclet numbers,
ρU L p gLρ UL UL
Re = , Eu = , Fr = , Pe H = , Pe D = ,
μ ρU 2 ρU 2 α D
are dimensionless numbers that are most often used in formulating the transport equa-
tions, Equations (4.1)–(4.5), in the dimensionless form. The Péclet number for heat con-
duction, Pe H = U L/α , with thermal diffusion α = k/ρ c P , has a cor responding Péclet
number for diffusion, Pe D = U L/ D . It is often convenient to separate the dimensionless
variables into variables that describe the properties of a flow and a fluid. The Prandtl and
Schmidt numbers are useful dimensionless variables that describe the fluid properties
heat conduction and diffusion, respectively:
cpμ μ
Pr = and Sc = . (4.10)
k ρD
Note that the Péclet number can also be formulated as a product of the Reynolds number,
i.e.
Pe H = Re · Pr and Pe D = Re · Sc. (4.11)
By multiplying Equations (4.1)–(4.5) by L/ U and substituting the dependent variables

with corresponding dimensionless variables, we obtain the following dimensionless
equations.
Momentum balance
∂ v̂ 1 2 1 1
+ v̂ · ∇ v̂ = ∇ v̂ + Ĝ − ∇ p̂. (4.12)
∂t ˆ Re Fr Eu
1
∇ 2 p̂ = − ∇ · v̂ · ∇ v̂. (4.13)
Eu
Heat balance
∂ T̂ 1
+ v̂ · ∇ T̂ = ∇ 2 T̂ . (4.14)
∂ tˆ Pe H
Species balance
∂ Ĉ 1
+ v̂ · ∇ Ĉ = ∇ 2 Ĉ. (4.15)
∂ tˆ Pe D
It is not possible to solve these equations with unknown time-dependent boundary

conditions. However, we can use the equations to identify the important variables that
will affect pressure drop, heat, or mass transfer. The velocity, pressure, temperature,
and concentration described with these models should be completely described by the
dimensionless variables Re, Fr, Pe H , Pe D , and Eu. Keeping all these dimensionless
numbers constant will also give the same solution expressed in the dimensionless form.
Equations (4.12) and (4.13) contain Re, Fr, and Eu, and we can find cor relations for
pressure drop by empirically determining the function
f (Re, Fr, Eu) = constant; (4.16)
we can conclude that Euler is only a function of Reynolds and Froude. We know the
correlation for the laminar flow in a horizontal pipe, and, for constant density, i.e. Fr = 0,
we have the Hagen–Poiseuille equation,
p 32μU
= , (4.17)
L d2
that, in the dimensionless form using p = Eu · ρU 2 , becomes
Eu · ρU 2 32μU 32μU L 32 L
= or Eu = ⇒ Eu = . (4.18)
L d2 ρU 2 d 2 Re d
A corresponding correlation for turbulent flow is
L
Eu = 0.158Re−0.25 . (4.19)
d
Example 4.1 Fluid–particle heat transfer

Find a suitable dimensionless model for heat transfer between a fluid and a spherical
body, as seen in Figure 4.1. Heat transfer to a particle in a turbulent flow is a complex
phenomenon involving convection and conduction. The objective is to develop an
empirical correlation that can describe the time-averaged heat transfer coefficient h.
The characteristic variables must be identified in order to formulate a dimensionless
model. In this case, our aim is to formulate the average heat transfer; the interesting
dependent variable is heat flux, and the independent variables are temperature, velocity,
and size. If we are testing different materials, then the thermal conductivity, specific
heat, density, and viscosity are also independent variables. Here we will use the
characteristic length L as the diameter of the sphere and the characteristic velocity U as
the velocity far from the body. The characteristic temperature is set as the difference
Figure 4.1. Heat transfer to a spherical particle.
between the bulk temperature and the surface temperature, i.e. T = Tb − Tw . Time is
not relevant here, but is discussed in Section 5.1.5. The governing equations and the
characteristic dimensions are written in the following using particle diameter as the
characteristic length L = d .
The film theory describes heat transfer to the surface. The heat flux modeled using
the heat transfer coefficient is balanced with the flux into the solid sphere:

dT J
q = h(Tb − Tw ) = k . (4.20)
dr r = R m2 s
Defining T̂ = (T − Tb )/T and r̂ = r/(d/2) with N u = h · d/ k , we obtain, after

dividing by T and h, the dimensionless equation for heat transfer to the surface.
Heat transfer at the particle surface

1 d T̂
1= . (4.21)
N u d r̂
r̂ =1
Removing the transient part from Equations (4.12)–(4.14) gives the remaining
equations.
Momentum balance
1 2 1 1
v̂ · ∇ v̂ = ∇ v̂ + Ĝ − ∇ p̂. (4.22)
Re Fr Eu
1
∇ 2 p̂ = − ∇ v̂ · ∇ v̂. (4.23)
Eu
Heat balance
1
v̂ · ∇ T̂ = ∇ 2 T̂ . (4.24)
Pe H
Velocity and pressure are determined from Equations (4.22)–(4.23), i.e.

Eu = f ( Re, Fr ). For simplicity, we can assume that there are no density differences,
and the term containing the Froude number can be neglected. Only Nu, Re, Eu, and
Pe H remain, and as Eu = f ( Re) the Nusselt number Nu must be a function of Re and
Pe H . However, in most empirical cor relations, the Prandtl number, Pr, is preferred
instead of the Péclet number, Pe H , but as Pr = Pe H / Re no new dimensionless
variables are introduced:
N u = b0 + b1 Reα1 Pr β1 + b2 Reα2 Pr β2 + · · · . (4.25)
The parameters bi , αi , and βi are determined from experimental data. One common
cor relation is the Frössling/Ranz–Marshall cor relation,
N u = 2 + 0.6 Re1/2 Pr 1/3 . (4.26)
Using dimensionless variables allows for the development of scale-independent

design equations. Note that the species balance equation is almost identical to the heat
balance, and that, by replacing the Pr number in Equation (4.25) with the Schmidt
number Sc, we obtain a similar cor relation for mass transfer as for heat transfer. In
principle they describe similar phenomena, and, if we replace heat conduction k with
heat diffusion α = k/ρ c p containing the same dimension as diffusivity (m2 s−1 ), we
obtain the same expression.
Many different dimensionless numbers can be obtained by simply dividing the terms
in any dimensional consistent equation, as seen in Appendix B. The most commonly
used dimensionless numbers are listed in Table B.4.
4.3 Empirical models
The dimensionless form is also suitable for developing models or correlations that
have a less theoretical basis and cannot be deduced from simple balance equations. The
advantage of using dimensionless variables is that, if there are any n variables containing
m primary dimensions, the correlation can be formulated using n − m dimensionless
groups. However, we need experience or some preliminary experiments to identify the
variables that are important.
To illustrate this method, we will use Example 4.1 with heat transfer to a particle or a
wall. Fluid solid heat transfer can be modeled as in Equation (4.20) as follows:

dT
q = h (Tb − Tw ) = k . (4.20)
dr r = R
The objective is to develop a model that can predict the heat transfer coefficient h
or the Nusselt number. Equation (4.20) says nothing about the heat transfer coefficient
h, and we need to conduct experiments to develop a model of heat flux that includes
convection, heat conduction, viscosity, heat capacity, etc., so that we can predict the
4.3 Empirical models 47
Table 4.4. Basic dimensions as functions of the variables

in the recurring set of variables
Variables Dimension SI units
Length L=l m
Mass M = ρl3 kg
Time t = ρl2 μ−1 s
Temperature T = T K
Enthalpy H = kl3 ρμ−1 T J
Nusselt number. In formulating a general correlation, we can list all variables that we
believe will affect heat transfer:
q = f (k, T, U, l, ρ, μ, c p , βg). (4.27)
These n variables have dimensions in length L (m), mass M (kg), time t (s), temperature
T (K), and enthalpy H (J). The variables with their dimensions are listed in Table 4.3.
In contrast to Example 4.1, we allow free convection, and an additional variable βg
describes the effect of gravity on free convection. The thermal expansion coefficient β
describes how fluid density changes with temperature, e.g. for an ideal gas β = 1/T . A
correlation for heat transfer should include these variables in a dimensional consistent
form.
The dimensionless variables can be found by selecting m variables as a recurring
set. These variables should contain the different variables that form a complete set
of dimensions, i.e. it should not be possible to formulate a dimensionless variable
by combining the variables in the recurring set. Here we will select l, ρ, μ, T, k as
the recurring set. They are listed with their dimensions in Table 4.4. The selection of
variables is not critical, and other combinations of variables containing length, mass,
time, temperature, and enthalpy that could form the recurring set of variables are possible.
Selecting l, ρ, μ, T, k as the recurring set leaves the n − m variables q, U, βg, c p as
the non-recurring variables. Using the dimensions in Table 4.4, the dimensional variables
are then identified as functions of the recurring variables. The non-recurring variables
q [J m−2 s−1 ], U [m s−1 ], cp [J kg K−1 ], and βg [m s−2 K−1 ] can be reformulated into
dimensionless variables, e.g. q [J m−2 s−1 ] can be made dimensionless by dividing by
enthalpy H (J) and multiplying by length (L2 ) and time (t). After replacing H, L, and t
by the variables in Table 4.4 and q by hT, we obtain
qL2 t q(l 2 )(ρl 2 /μ) ql h hl
1 = = = = = N u,
H (kl ρT /μ)
3 kT h k
U Uρl
2 = = = Re,
Lt μ
(4.28)
c p MT cpμ
3 = = = Pr,
H k
βgt2 T βgTρ 2l 3
4 = = = Gr.
L μ2
The use of as the symbol for dimensionless variables was introduced by Bucking-
ham, and this method has been called Buckingham’s theorem since then. This is a
very general and useful method, but it will not guarantee the most physical meaningful
correlation.
According to Equation (4.27), heat flux should be a function of the remaining variables,
which allows us to write the dimensionless heat flux as a function of the remaining
dimensionless numbers:
1 = f (2 , 3 , 4 ) or N u = f (Re, Pr, Gr ). (4.29)
The dimensionless analysis tells us nothing about the correlation; it only reveals which
variables are involved. The final correlations can be formulated in many different ways.
An empirical model for heat transfer may be formulated as
N u = b0 + b1 Reα1 Pr β1 Gr γ1 + b2 Reα2 Pr β2 Gr γ2 + · · · , (4.30)
and the parameters bi , α i , β i , and γ i can be fitted from measurements. The dimension-
less number Gr includes the effect of buoyancy. For heat transfer to a sphere in Exam-
ple 4.1, with no buoyancy, the following empirical model has been found, as shown
previously:
N u = 2 + 0.6Re1/2 Pr 1/3 ; (4.26)
for free convection on a vertical wall,
0.67Ra 1/4
N u = 0.68 + , (4.31)
[1 + (0.492/Pr )9/16 ]4/9
where Ra = Gr · Pr.
4.4 Scaling up
Scaling up equipment is a general problem in chemical engineering. If we were running

all processes at thermodynamic equilibrium, there would be no scaling-up problem
and the final composition could be calculated from thermodynamic data. However, this
solution would require infinitely large equipment, and the thermodynamic equilibrium
may not be the composition we want. In industrial production we aim for maximum
production in the plant whilst keeping the quality of the product high. In scaling up
we cannot maintain the same conditions on all scales, e.g. surface/volume will decrease
with increasing size. Thus we introduce limitations on mass and heat transfer, and cannot
expect the same results on the industrial production scale as on the laboratory scale.
Before we build an industrial-scale process, we need to use the laboratory- and
pilot-plant-scale equipment to develop an understanding of how the industrial-scale
production plant will work. The models we develop on smaller scales must be scalable
and applicable to the large scale.
In general, we can separate the three different cases: scaling up, scaling down, and
scaling out. In scaling up, we aim for building new equipment and will use experiments
4.4 Scaling up 49
on a small scale to develop models that are scale independent and can be used for
designing the full-scale equipment. In scaling down, we already have the large-scale
equipment that we want to optimize for a new process. In such a case, we want to know
how to design and run a pilot plant to mimic the behavior of a large-scale plant in order to
find the optimal conditions for it. In scaling out, we build a large-scale plant by putting
the small-scale equipment in parallel. We then expect to obtain the same conditions
in the large scale as in the small scale. This can be done by, e.g., using small tubular
reactors in parallel instead of building a large tubular reactor. The scaling-up problem
is then limited to obtaining the same flow rate in all tubes and sufficient heat control of
the tube bundle to keep the temperature equal.
The fundamental principle in scaling models is to keep all dimensionless variables
constant. The dimensionless equations, e.g. Equations (4.12)–(4.15), are scale indepen-
dent, and keeping Re, Pr, Eu, and Fr numbers constant results in dimensionless variables
v̂, Ĝ, p̂, T̂ , and Ĉ versus tˆ that is the same at all scales. In the simplest case, scaling with
a constant Re, i.e. an increase in length scale by a factor of 10, requires that the charac-
teristic velocity decreases by a factor of 10. As a result, assuming no density difference,
i.e. Fr = 0, Eu will be constant and the pressure drop is scaled with ρU 2 . Keeping Re
and Pr constant should also result in the same dimensionless heat transfer coefficient,
i.e. the Nusselt number, as obtained in the dimensionless correlations in Example 4.1.
For free convection problems, the Froude number must also be kept constant. Since
we cannot change gravity, the density change with temperature and ρ/ρ must be
increased. This might be very difficult while keeping Re and Pr constant.
More complex phenomena require keeping more dimensionless variables constant.
A more complete heat flux balance will contain more terms, and consequently more
dimensionless variables must be kept constant:
ρc p v · ∇T = ∇ · k∇T + rA H + haT + eσ T 3 T. (4.32)

convection conduction reaction phase transfer radiation
Dividing by ρcp UTL, we obtain
1 2 1 Nu eσ T 3 L
v̂ · ∇ T̂ = ∇ T̂ + r̂A + T̂ + T̂ . (4.33)
Pe Da I I I Re Pr ρc p U
In addition to the dimensionless variables for flow, Re, Fr, and Eu, we also need to keep
Pe, Nu, DaIII , and eσ T 3 L/ρc p U constant to obtain the same dimensionless predicted
conditions, i.e. Re = ρU L/μ, Pr = μ/ρα, Eu = p/ρU 2 , Fr = gLρ/ρU 2 , Pe =
ρc p U L/k, N u = h L/k, Da I I I = rA LH /ρc p U T , and eσ T 3 L/ρc p U should be
kept constant.
We quickly reach a level of complexity that makes it impossible to keep all dimen-
sionless variables constant. Using correlations developed on a small scale to predict the
behavior on the large scale may not be a good solution, because empirical correlations
are only correlations and as such are only valid within the range of experiments that
form the basis for the correlations. As not all the dimensionless variables could be kept
constant on all scales in our example, no experimental data from the small scale are
Figure 4.2. Scaling up of stirred tank reactors.
valid for the large scale. Even if the correlations are written in the dimensionless form,
this limitation must be kept in mind.
The next part of the procedure is to identify the rate-determining step, and to determine
which conditions should be scale similar. All the dimensionless variables may not be
important. There are no general methods for finding the rate-determining steps, and a
genuine understanding of the actual processes is needed. Detailed knowledge of specific
processes is beyond the scope of this book. However, the example below will illustrate
this approach.
Example 4.2 Mixing and reaction in a stirred tank reactor

Assume that the chemical reaction A + B → products is scaled up from a 10 l pilot
plant to 10 m3 full-scale production unit. Temperature control is usually a minor
problem in stirred tank reactors; instead the critical property is the rate of mixing. The
characteristic reaction time can be estimated from the kinetics and the concentration as
follows:

mol Climit
r = k(T ) · f (CA , CB ) 3
and τreact = [s],
m s r
where Climit is the concentration of the limiting reactant.
The rate-limiting steps may be the kinetics, but the macro- or micromixing can also
be rate limiting. A general approach to this problem requires that a large number of
dimensionless variables be kept constant. If the rate-determining step(s) can be
identified, the scale-up process is easier.
In a very slow chemical reaction, the time for mixing is much faster than the reaction
rate. The process is only dependent on species concentration and temperature. Keeping
these constant during scale-up will result in the same production per volume reactor.
However, the surface area per volume will decrease with size, and additional
cooling/heating coils may be required.
4.4 Scaling up 51
In a slow chemical reaction, the flow circulation time in the reactor is on the same
time scale as the chemical reaction time, which will lead to variations in concentration
within the reactor. Scaling up with constant circulation times would be a proper
scaling-up rule. However, the flow must be turbulent in both cases, or the mixing time
will increase by several orders of magnitude.
The pumping capacity of an impeller is proportional to the impeller tip speed
N · π · d and the swept area of the impeller tip π · d · h. Here, N is the impeller speed,
d is the impeller diameter, and h is the height of the impeller blades. Assuming that the
impeller blades scale with the reactor size, D, we can assume that dD and hD are
constant on all scales, and consequently the pumping rate is given by
Q ∝ N π d · π d · h ∝ ND3 [m3 s−1 ], (4.34)
and, following the scaling-up rule with a constant pumping rate per volume reactor,
circulation time is given by
3
3

D D 1 1
τcirc ∝ 3
= 3
or τcirc ∝ = . (4.35)
ND large ND small N large N small
This scaling rule indicates that the impeller speed should be kept constant. However,
the energy input from the impeller scales with N3 D5 , as shown in Practice problem 4.3,
and at constant impeller speed the required power input scales as (Dlarge /Dsmall )5 . An
increase by a factor of 10 in linear dimension will require an increase by a factor of 105
in power input. This is usually not possible to obtain, and a larger variation in
concentration will occur on the large scale.
Fast chemical reactions are affected by the mixing on the smallest scale. The
turbulent properties together with the kinetics determine the outcome. The turbulence
is generated by the impeller, but turbulence is also dissipated much faster in the
impeller region. This will lead to two very different regions in the reactor: the impeller
region with very fast mixing and reaction, and the remaining volume with very slow
mixing and reaction.
The mixing time for fast reactions scales with the lifetime of the turbulent eddies
√
kε or, for more viscous, fluids as ν/ε, where k is the turbulent kinetic energy, ε is
the rate of dissipation, and ν is the kinematic viscosity. The kinetic energy scales as the
impeller tip speed squared, i.e. k ∝ (ND)2 , and the dissipation scales as power input per
volume, ε ∝ P/V ∝ N 3 D 5 /D 3 = N 3 D 2 . The micromixing time is then estimated as

k N 2 D2 1 ν
τmicro ∝ ∝ 3 2 = or τmicro ∝ ∝ N −3/2 D −1 . (4.36)
ε N D N ε
Keeping kε constant requires the same impeller speed on all scales, and
consequently we obtain the same problem with power input as for constant circulation
time. Constant ε requires that when size D increases, the impeller speed should
decrease as

Dsmall 2/3
Nlarge = Nsmall . (4.37)
Dlarge
Here we have assumed that the turbulent kinetic energy and the dissipation rate are
the same throughout the whole reactor. However, stir red tank reactors are very
heterogeneous, with much higher kinetic energy and a higher dissipation rate in the
impeller region than in the rest of the tank. This makes stir red tank reactors very
difficult to scale-up. Reactors containing packed beds, metal foams, or static mixers are
much easier to scale-up since the flow, mass transfer, and reactions are much more
similar on the small and large scales.
4.1 The Ergun equation for pressure drop in porous beds is given by

P 1
= −AμU − B ρU 2 , (4.38)
L 2
with
150(1 − α )2 1.75(1 − α )
A= and B= ,
d 2p α 3 d p α3
where α is the void fraction.
Show that the pressure drop can be written in the form
Eu = b0 + b1 Reβ1 + b2 Reβ2 .
4.2 Derive an expression for the Sherwood number as a function of Re and Sc using
Equations (4.12), (4.13), and (4.15), and suitable boundary conditions.
4.3 The power input per unit volume in a stirred tank reactor depends on liquid density,
the impeller diameter, and speed, i.e. P = f (ρ, D, N ). Write a dimensionless
relation between power input and these variables. Assume that the impeller and tank
size have a constant ratio, and only one characteristic length, the impeller diameter
D, is needed.
4.4 In boiling, the heat transfer coefficient h [W m−2 K−1 ] depends on the heat flux q [W
m−2 ], thermal conductivity k [W m−1 K−1 ], latent heat of vaporization λ [J kg−1 ],
viscosity μ [kg m−1 s−1 ], surface tension σ [J m−2 ], pressure, P [N m−2 ], bubble
diameter d [m], liquid density ρ [kg m−3 ], and the density difference between liquid
and vapor ρ [kg m−3 ]:
h = f (q, k, λ, μ, σ, P, d, ρ, ρ).
Formulate a model for the heat transfer coefficient (Nusselt number) with the
minimum number of dimensionless variables.
5 Strategies for simplifying
mathematical models
A mathematical model can never give an exact description of the real world, and the
basic concept in all engineering modeling is, “All models are wrong – some models are
useful.” Reformulating or simplifying the models is not tampering with the truth. You
are always allowed to change the models, as long as the results are within an acceptable
range. It is the objective of the modeling that determines the required accuracy: Is it a
conceptual study limited to order of magnitude estimations? Or is it design modeling in
which you will add 10–25% to the required size in order to allow for inaccuracies in the
models and future increase in production? Or is it an academic research work that you
will publish with as accurate simulations as possible?
A simulation may contain both errors and uncertainties. An error is defined as a
recognizable deficiency that is not due to lack of knowledge, and an uncertainty is a
potential deficiency that is due to lack of knowledge. All simulations must be validated
and verified in order to avoid errors and uncertainties. Validation and verification are two
important concepts in dealing with errors and uncertainties. Validation means making
sure that the model describes the real world correctly, and verification is a procedure to
ensure that the model has been solved in a correct way.
Poor simulation results are due to many different reasons:
r errors in formulating the problem;
r inaccurate models;
r inaccurate data on the physical properties;
r numerical errors due to the choice of numerical methods;
r lack of convergence in the simulations.
It is always recommended that you do simple by-hand calculations to define the properties
of the system prior to formulating the final model. The objective of this chapter is to
present strategies for simplifying given mathematical models and for reducing the models
already in the formulation.
Many models in chemical engineering are derived from four basic balance equations,
as seen in Chapter 4, but now we have also included the source terms for chemical
reactions and heat formation.
Material balance
∂ CA
+ v · ∇CA = ∇ · DA ∇CA − RA . (5.1)
∂t
54 Strategies for simplifying mathematical models
Heat balance

∂T
ρc p + v · ∇T = ∇ · k∇ T + Q. (5.2)
∂t
Momentum balance

∂v
ρ + v · ∇v = μ ∇ 2 v + ρ G − ∇ p. (5.3)
∂t
∂ρ
= −[∇ (ρ v)], (5.4)
∂t
with suitable initial and boundary conditions.

There are general programs that can solve these equations for simple systems, e.g.
computational fluid dynamics, CFD. However, the equations can easily become very
difficult if they include stiff non-linear equations and complex geometry that call for a
structured approach.
5.1 Reducing mathematical models
Equations (5.1)–(5.4) describe many systems in chemical engineering. But the equations
do not contain the true nature of the real world; they are merely convenient mathematical
approximations of our models of the real world.
These complex mathematical models are in many cases difficult to solve. A very
good work station is necessary for solving 3D flows in a reactor with an exothermic
chemical reaction. If we want to solve the equations for a heterogeneous system, a
computer cluster is required that can give a solution within a reasonable time. Yet in
many cases the equations can be reduced without losing too much accuracy. In some
cases, an even better numerical precision can be reached. The following list covers some
of the most commonly used methods for reducing the computational efforts for solving
mathematical equations.
r decoupling equations;
r reducing the number of independent variables;
r averaging over time or space, “lumping”;
r simplifying geometry;
r separating equations into steady state and transient;
r linearizing;
r solving for limiting cases;
r neglecting terms;
r changing boundary conditions.
5.1.1 Decoupling equations

Decoupling equations is one of the most important tools for reducing complex math-
ematical models. A model with many dependent variables, e.g. different velocities,
concentrations of chemical substances, and temperature, can be simplified substantially
if we look for variables that are not dependent on the others. In Equations (5.1)–(5.4),
the coupling occurs mainly through the velocity in all the equations and through temper-
ature. The reaction rate in Equation (5.1) depends on temperature, and the temperature
in Equation (5.2) depends on the reaction rate through the heat of the reaction. Viscosity
and density of the fluid also depend on temperature and chemical composition, and as a
consequence all equations must be solved simultaneously. On the contrary, if the heat of
the reaction is low, the temperature variation will be small, the fluid density and viscosity
can be assumed constant, and the flow may be calculated in advance. In such a case, the
chemical reactions can then be added to a precalculated velocity distribution.
Coupling may also occur via boundary conditions, e.g. the reaction rate in a cata-
lyst pellet depends on the concentration and the temperature of the fluid surrounding
the pellet. At steady state, when coupling between equations occurs through boundary
conditions, an exact or approximate analytical solution can be calculated with boundary
conditions as variables, e.g. the effectiveness factor for a catalyst particle can be formu-
lated as an algebraic function of surface concentrations and temperature. The reaction
rate in the catalyst can then be calculated using the effectiveness factor when solving the
reactor model. However, this is not possible for transient problems. The transport in and
out of the catalyst also depends on the accumulation within the catalyst, and the actual
reaction rate depends on the previous history of the particle.
A very efficient method is to precalculate steady-state solutions and save the results
in look-up tables. Interpolation in multidimensional look-up tables is most often much
faster than iterative solutions of non-linear equations. It is also possible to use look-up
tables for initial-value differential equations using time as one variable in the look-up
table.
Decoupling equations may also be used to enhance the numerical stability of stationary
problems even when the equations have strong coupling. You can start by solving, e.g.,
the flow field and then continue with species, reactions, and heat, and finally solve the
flow field, species, and heat with updated properties for concentrations, temperature,
density, and viscosity. This control of the iterations allows for a more stable approach to
the final solution.
5.1.2 Reducing the number of independent variables

By reducing the number of independent variables, e.g. space or time, a partial differ-
ential equation can, in the best case, be reduced to an ordinary differential equation or
even an algebraic equation, and the computational effort is reduced substantially. The
most obvious approach is to use the symmetry in geometry. Spherical and cylindrical
symmetry is often easy to find. This will reduce a 3D problem to a 1D or 2D problem
with a significant decrease in computational time.
Geometrical symmetry requires that the boundary conditions as well as the equations
are symmetrical. Problems including gravity can only be symmetrical in a cylinder
with gravity in the axial direction. Reduction to a 1D or 2D problem may also change
the physical appearance, e.g. bubbles do not exist in axisymmetric 2D except on the
symmetry axis; they become toroid in 3D elsewhere. A toroid bubble moving in a radial
direction must alter the diameter to maintain the volume, and the forces around the
bubble will be unphysical.
Symmetry boundary conditions should be used with care. The outflow across a sym-
metry boundary is balanced by an identical inflow, which means that the net transport
will be zero. Transport along the boundary is allowed, but no transport across the bound-
ary will occur. It is not sufficient for a conclusive result that the differential equations
and the boundary conditions are symmetrical; the symmetrical solution may be only one
of many possible solutions.
5.1.3 Lumping
Using the average over one dimension or over a volume, i.e. lumping, may reduce the
complexity of a problem. This will reduce partial differential equations to ordinary
differential equations or algebraic equations. Separation processes are often modeled
as equilibrium stages, as shown in Figure 2.1. Very complex flow and mass transfer
conditions are lumped together into an ideal equilibrium stage with an efficiency factor
to compensate for the non-ideal behavior. A second frequently used simplification is
transforming a tubular reactor with axial and radial dispersion to tank reactors in series
by assuming negligible variations in the radial direction and over a short axial distance.
Tanks in series may also be viewed as an implicit numerical solution of a model for
a tubular reactor. Implicit numerical methods are, in general, more stable than explicit
methods, and the tanks-in-series model can also be chosen for numerical stability reasons.
5.1.4 Simplified geometry

Symmetry can be used to limit the volume over which the problem has to be solved. If
the boundary conditions are the same on all sides, a square can be reduced to 1/8 of its
surface area, as shown in Figure 5.1, and a cube can be reduced to 1/8 of its volume
by modeling one corner, or even to 1/16 or 1/32 by finding more mirror planes. The
boundary conditions must be the same on all external surfaces. The use of mirror planes
does not reduce the number of independent variables, but it results in a smaller volume
and fewer mesh points to solve.
Symmetry boundary conditions reduce the computational effort due to the requirement
that all solution variables have zero normal gradient at the symmetry plane. As such,
only one symmetric solution is obtained, but in reality several solutions may exist.
Periodic boundary conditions are very useful when a system has periodic behavior.
The inflow at one boundary is set as the outflow from another surface, e.g. only 1/6 of a
tank reactor with six impeller blades and no baffles is calculated by using the tangential
outflow on one side as the inflow on the other side.
Figure 5.1. Symmetry in a square.
Figure 5.2. Simplified geometry. When only the outer part of a complex body is active, the body
may be simplified to a slab.
In many cases, irregular-shaped particles or a size distribution of particles can be

treated as spheres with an equivalent diameter that gives the same surface/volume ratio
as the irregular-shaped particle. The Sauter mean diameter, usually denoted d32 , defined
as the total volume divided by the total surface area, is a very common method used to
characterize a size distribution of bubbles or drops. With this definition, the total volume
can be calculated from the number of particles multiplied by the volume of a sphere with
diameter d32 , and the total surface area can be calculated by multiplying the number of
particles by the surface of the sphere.
The use of hydraulic diameter in calculating pressure drop is a commonly used
concept for simplifying geometry. The hydraulic diameter for an opening is calculated
by multiplying the open surface area by 4, then dividing by the wetted periphery, e.g.
for a cylindrical opening d = 4(π d 2 /4)/(π d), and for a square duct d = 4d 2 /(4d).
It is not necessary to solve the complete geometry if only part of a volume is involved
based on the concept that “the earth is locally flat.” For example, a very fast chem-
ical reaction in an irregular-shaped catalyst will involve only the outer surface, and
therefore the catalyst may be treated as a slab with a surface A, equal to the particle
surface and thickness δ, which is sufficient for containing all interesting phenomena (see
Figure 5.2).
5.1.5 Steady state or transient

When different parts of a process have very different time dependencies, the fast varying
variables can be treated as steady-state variables when solving for the slow variables.
Similarly, the slowly varying variables can be considered constant when solving for
the fast varying variables. Time constants are very convenient tools for estimating
time dependence. Assuming a pseudosteady state for a complex reaction sequence,
e.g. combustion involving hundreds of reactions, is a useful method for decreasing the
number of ordinary differential equations that must be solved by transforming them into
algebraic equations. “Pseudosteady state” means that the whole process is unsteady, but
some sequences of the process change very fast, and the accumulation term in that step
can be neglected. This is valid for many radicals in complex chemical reactions. The
radicals react very quickly and have very low concentrations, because once they are
formed they will react further.
Estimating the time constants for convection is straightforward. The residence time
is estimated from length and velocity, t = L/v , or from volume and volumetric flow,
t = V /q . Transport by diffusion is more difficult to estimate. Solving the unsteady
transport equation for diffusion, Equation (5.5), heat conduction, or viscous transport
for transport into a slab will give information about two things: the time needed to bring
about a change in boundary conditions to affect the whole volume, or how far, into an
infinite slab species, heat or momentum can penetrate within a given time.
Unsteady diffusion in a slab is described by
∂C ∂ 2C
=D 2, (5.5)
∂t ∂z
which in dimensionless form is
∂ ŷ ∂ 2 ŷ
= 2, (5.6)
∂ tˆ ∂ ẑ
with
x C tD
x̂ = , ŷ = , tˆ = .
L C(ẑ = 0) L2
Equation (5.6) can also describe heat transfer and slow viscous flow using
T − Tinit tλ
ŷ = , tˆ =
T (ẑ = 0) − Tinit ρc p L 2
for heat and
U tμ
ŷ = , tˆ =
U (ẑ = 0) ρ L2
for velocity. The boundary conditions with constant concentration on one side and no
transport out on the other side,
d ŷ
ŷ = 1 at ẑ = 0 and = 0 at ẑ = 1,
d ẑ
Figure 5.3. Time constants for diffusion in a slab with different boundary conditions. (a) No flux
at ẑ = 1; (b) ŷ (tˆ, ∞) = 0.
together with the initial conditions
ŷ (0, ẑ ) = 0,
describe a step change at the boundary from 0 to 1, and Equation (5.6) has the solution
∞

ẑ − 2i 2i + 2 − ẑ
ŷ (tˆ, ẑ ) = i
(−1) erfc √ + erfc √ . (5.7)
i=0 2 tˆ 2 tˆ
From Figure 5.3(a) we can see that steady state at ŷ = 1 is reached when tˆ 1,
i.e. tˆ = Dt/ L 2 1 or t L 2 / D . It is also very convenient to define dimensionless
time as tˆ = t/τ using the time constants τ = L 2 / D, τ = ρ c p L 2 /λ, and τ = ρ L 2 /μ
for diffusion, heat conduction, and the viscous transport of momentum, respectively.
In Figure 5.3(a), ŷ is close to 1 when tˆ = 1, and in this case we can, with reasonable
confidence, assume steady state when t > τ .
Information about how far the species will penetrate as a function of time is obtained
by changing the boundary condition at ẑ = 1 for Equation (5.6) to ŷ (tˆ, ∞) = 0. This
boundary condition gives the solution

ẑ
ŷ(tˆ, ẑ) = 1 − erf √ . (5.8)
2 tˆ
√
The result is shown in√ Figure 5.3(b). As ŷ depends √ only on ẑ/ 4tˆ, √
there is a linear
ˆ
relation between ẑ and t at constant √ ŷ, and putting ẑ/ t = 1, i.e. z = Dt, will yield
ˆ
a constant value of ŷ = 0.48, and ẑ/2 tˆ = 1 results in ŷ = 0.16. We can then estimate
how far into a fluid a species has reached by diffusion after a certain time, e.g. the
concentration of a species 1 mm into a fluid has reached 0.48 of the boundary condition
after 1000 s with a liquid diffusivity of 10−9 m−2 s−1 . Using dimensionless time tˆ = t/τ
and the time constants τ = ρc p L 2 /λ or τ = ρ L 2 /μ, we can calculate heat transport and
the viscous transport of momentum, respectively.
Knowledge of the relative magnitude of the time constants involved in dynamic

processes is often very useful in the analysis of a given problem, since this knowledge
may be used to:
r reduce the complexity of mathematical models by focusing on relevant time frames;
r check the difficulty of numerical solutions due to the stiffness of the equations;
r determine whether the overall rate process is limited by a particular process, e.g.
chemical reaction rates limited by kinetics or by diffusion, mixing, etc.;
r discover whether a change in the rate-determining step occurs during scale-up.
Time constants are discussed further in the case study given in Section 5.2.3.
Example 5.1 Modeling an unsteady 1D catalytic tubular reactor

The time constants in an unsteady catalytic tubular reactor may be very different for
different phenomena. The concentration may change in seconds, the temperature in
minutes, and the catalyst activity in weeks.
A material balance for a species and heat transported in a tubular reactor can be
expressed as
∂C ∂ 2C ∂C
= Dea 2 − v − k (T, t) · C n , (5.9)
∂t ∂x ∂x
accumulation dispersion convection reaction
∂T ∂2T ∂T
ρm c pm = λea 2 − vρ c p − k (T, t )(−H ) · C n , (5.10)
∂t ∂x ∂x
where ρ m and cpm denote the weighted mean density and the heat capacity of the solid
catalyst and the fluid, respectively, and Dea and λea denote the effective axial dispersion
for axial mass and heat transport, respectively. Catalyst deactivation may be written as
a decrease in the rate constant, which is often a function of temperature:
dk(T, t)
= f (k, T ). (5.11)
dt
When calculating the instantaneous outlet concentrations due to fast variations in
inlet concentrations, the temperature and the catalyst activity do not change, and only
Equation (5.9) is needed if the temperature and the catalyst activity are known. When
solving for bed temperature on the minutes scale, the catalyst activity can be assumed
constant and the species can be assumed to be at steady state. Setting the activity
constant means that the time derivative in Equation (5.11) is zero, and setting the
right-hand side in the species balance to zero means that the species are at steady state
and the accumulation term in the material balance can be omitted. Note the difference
in the equations when the right-hand side is zero and when the left-hand side is zero.
When the right-hand side is zero, the time derivative is zero, and nothing will change in
time; when the left-hand side is zero, we assume negligible accumulation, and the
dependent variable will immediately reach its steady-state value.
The time for reaching steady state for a process with stationary boundary conditions
is estimated using the time constants. We can estimate the importance of the
accumulation term in Equation (5.9) by comparing the accumulation term with the
dominating terms in the equation, i.e. convection or reaction. For simplicity, we can
choose convection. We want to estimate how long it will take to reach steady state. At
that time, the accumulation of species should be negligible:
∂C ∂C
v .
∂t ∂x
Approximate
∂C C C ∂C C C
≈ ≈− and ≈ ≈− .
∂t t τ ∂x x L
The preceding condition will result in
C C L
v or τ .
τ L v
The same discussion for Equation (5.10) yields
T T ρm c pm L
ρm c pm vρc p or τ .
τ L ρc p v
Steady state for concentration is reached when τ L/v, and for temperature when
τ ρm c pm L/ρc p v. For gas-phase reactions, the heat capacity of the bed is much
larger than the heat capacity for the gas, i.e. ρm c pm ρc p , and the time constant for
heat is much larger than the time constant for species. The densities of liquids and
solids are more equal, and the difference between the time constants for species and
heat is
less.
An analysis of the time constant reveals that the first approximation, that change in
concentration is much faster than change in temperature, may be a correct assumption
for gas flow, but this is questionable for liquid flow due to the difference in heat
capacity.
5.1.6 Linearizing
Linear equations are much easier to solve. Many problems that describe laminar flow
or diffusion in simple geometry can be solved analytically if the mathematical model
is linear. In many cases, the equations are basically linear, but small temperature- and
concentration-dependent parameters, e.g. viscosity, density, and diffusivity, make the
equations non-linear. A small non-linearity may have a minor influence on the accuracy
and speed of a numerical solution, but it prevents an analytical solution. Assuming
constant parameters over a volume and solving the equations analytically, and later
iterating the solution with varying parameters, may be a very effective way of solving
difficult equations. Even very simple linear approximations of the true model are useful
for estimating order of magnitude.
Example 5.2 Linearizing a source term

The conversion of a second-order reaction in a tubular reactor with axial dispersion,
d 2C dC
Dea −v − kC 2 = 0 (5.12)
dx2 dx
can be overestimated by replacing the second-order reaction by a first-order reaction
using the maximal concentration in the reactor,
d 2C dC
Dea 2
−v − kC I N C = 0, (5.13)
dx dx
where C I N is the inlet concentration. A better approximation is obtained if C I N is
replaced by the average concentration, calculated from the solution of the first simple
approximation with C I N . Using the average concentration will underestimate the
conversion in the first part of the reactor by giving a reaction rate at the inlet that is too
low and consequently overestimating the reaction rate in the rear part.
More generally a simple form of linearization is a Taylor expansion around a given

value a for the variable x:
f (a) f (a) f (a)
f (x) = f (a) + (x − a) + (x − a)2 + (x − a)3 + · · ·
1! 2! 3!
∞
f (n) (a)
= (x − a)n , (5.14)
n=0
n!
and by evaluating the omitted terms it is possible to determine whether the linearization
is an over- or an underestimation.
Example 5.3 Simplified pendulum motion

The equation for a pendulum is given by
d 2ω g
2
= − sin(ω). (5.15)
dt L
A linearization of the model using a Taylor expansion of sin(ω) around ω = 0 yields
sin(ω) = ω − ω3 /3! + ω5 /5! + · · ·. Keeping the linear term ω gives the linear
differential equation
d 2ω g
2
= − ω, (5.16)
dt L
which has the solution

g
ω(t) = ω0 cos t , ω 1. (5.17)
L
The omitted term ω3 /3! has the opposite sign to ω, and the forces on the right-hand
side will be overestimated using Taylor linearization. The positive third term will
hardly ever have an effect because the maximum angle is π due to the physics of the
pendulum.
5.1.7 Limiting cases

Solving for limiting cases is always a good starting point. If we can estimate an upper
and a lower bound for our calculations, we can easily see when our complete solution
gives unreasonable results. Sometimes the upper and lower limits are both within the
wanted precision, and no further calculations are necessary.
Example 5.4 Limiting cases for free body motion

An object is falling in air according to
dv ρv 2
m + mg − C D A = 0. (5.18)
dt 2
Two limiting cases can be found.
(i) At low velocity, the gravity is much larger than the drag resistance, resulting in
ρ v2
mg C D A . (5.19)
2
Neglecting the term C D A(ρ v 2 /2) in Equation (5.18) yields
dv
+g =0 (5.20)
dt
and
v = vinit + gt. (5.21)
(ii) After a long period of time, the object will reach a constant terminal velocity,
resulting in the acceleration approaching zero:
dv
→ 0. (5.22)
dt
Neglecting the term dv/dt in Equation (5.18) yields
ρv 2
mg − C D A =0 (5.23)
2
and

2mg
vterm = . (5.24)
C D Aρ
The first approximation gives a velocity that is too high after a long period of time,
and the second gives a velocity that is too high after a short period of time. A
combination of Equations (5.21) and (5.24), using the first one until the terminal
velocity is reached and using the terminal velocity after that, will give a good
Figure 5.4. Velocity of a body falling in air.
approximation. However, the solution still overestimates the velocities and the distance
the body has fallen, as shown in Figure 5.4.
5.1.8 Neglecting terms

The desired accuracy in prediction is seldom the maximal accuracy that can be obtained
numerically. A good result is if a reactor volume can be estimated to within 10%. Often
the calculated reactor volume is increased by 20% to 50% in order to compensate for
uncertainties in rate constants and other parameters. In many cases, we can eliminate
the terms in the equations that contribute only a few percent to the final result. If we can
estimate whether omitting the terms will give an over- or underestimation of the final
result, we can compensate for this uncertainty.
5.1.8.1 Order-of-magnitude estimation of derivatives

First we need some tools for analyzing differential equations. The following method is
very simple and useful, but gives only an order-of-magnitude estimation of the terms in a
differential equation. It is always necessary to verify that the assumptions were justified
after the equations have been solved and more accurate estimations of the derivatives
are possible.
In a general differential equation, it may be difficult to estimate the influence of
different terms. One approach is to assume a solution and numerically approximate the
derivatives. After solving the simplified equation by canceling unimportant terms, the
initial assumptions can be confirmed.
A first-order derivative can be approximated by
dC C
≈ ,
dz z
and the second-order derivative can be approximated by

dC dC C C
− −
d2 C dz z+dz dz z z L z 0
2
≈ ≈ .
dz dz L
Figure 5.5. Approximate concentration profiles (solid lines) in the tubular reactor at different
residence times or rate constants, simulated without the axial dispersion term. The dashed lines
indicate slopes of 0.1, 1, and 10, respectively.
Example 5.5 Axial dispersion for a tubular reaction

Find a criterion for neglecting the axial dispersion of a first-order reaction in a tubular
reactor. A first-order reaction in a tubular reactor without dispersion is described by
d 2C dC
Dea 2
−U − kC = 0. (5.25)
dz dz
dispersion convection reaction
In the dimensionless form,
1 d 2 Ĉ d Ĉ
− − kτ Ĉ = 0, (5.26)
Pe d ẑ 2 d ẑ
with τ = L/U , and the boundary conditions
Ĉ = 1 at ẑ = 0
and
d Ĉ
= 0 at ẑ = 1.
d ẑ
First we need an order-of-magnitude estimation of the derivatives. A preliminary
assumption is that the concentration profile has a shape as shown in Figure 5.5, i.e. the
outlet concentration is much lower than the inlet concentration, but not zero. This
assumption must be verified against the final model.
A coarse estimation of the derivatives is for the first-order derivative
dC C 0 − CIN CIN
≈ = =− , (5.27)
dz z L −0 L
in the dimensionless form

d Ĉ Ĉ 1
≈ = − = −1; (5.28)
d ẑ ẑ 1
and for the second-order derivative

dC dC C C C IN
− − 0 − −
d2 C dz z+dz dz z z L z 0 L CIN
≈ ≈ = = , (5.29)
dz 2 dz L L L2
in the dimensionless form

Ĉ Ĉ
−
d 2 Ĉ ẑ ẑ 0 − (−1)
≈ 1 0
= = 1, (5.30)
d ẑ 2 1 1
using the boundary condition d Ĉ/d ẑ = 0 at ẑ = 1.
We can now make an order-of-magnitude estimation of the relative importance of
the different terms in (5.26), repeated here for convenience:
1 d 2 Ĉ d Ĉ
− − k Ĉτ = 0 (5.26)
Pe d ẑ 2 d ẑ
1
1 kτ
Pe
The axial dispersion term can be neglected when it is small in comparison with the
largest terms in the model, i.e.
1
1 ≈ kτ. (5.31)
Pe
It follows from the transport equation (5.26) that kτ ≈ 1 if the axial dispersion can
be neglected. If this criterion is fulfilled, Equation (5.26) can be approximated by
d Ĉ
= −k Ĉτ. (5.32)
d ẑ
This is a first-order ordinary differential equation. For this type of equation, we need
only one boundary condition. In this case, the inlet condition Ĉ = 1 at ẑ = 0 is the
most important.
The solution of Equation (5.32) is
Ĉ = e−kτ ẑ . (5.33)
An analysis of the validity of the approximations is always necessary, and the first
and second derivatives are calculated by differentiating Equation (5.33) to obtain
d Ĉ
= −kτ e−kτ ẑ (5.34)
d ẑ
and
d 2 Ĉ
= k 2 τ 2 e−kτ ẑ . (5.35)
d ẑ 2
Table 5.1. Conversion, first- and second-order derivatives at the inlet

and outlet for different residence times

d Ĉ d Ĉ d 2 Ĉ d 2 Ĉ
kτ Ĉout − −
d ẑ ẑ=0 d ẑ ẑ=1 d ẑ 2 ẑ=0 d ẑ 2 ẑ=1
0.69 0.5 0.69 0.35 0.48 0.24

2.3 0.1 2.3 0.23 5.3 0.53
4.6 0.01 4.6 0.046 21.2 0.21
The results from the approximative solutions in Equations (5.33)–(5.35) are

estimated for different parameters kτ in Table 5.1.
The example shows that, for a reactor with a reasonable conversion between 50%
and 99% (Ĉou t between 0.5 and 0.01), the approximations

d Ĉ d 2 Ĉ
− ≈ 1 and ≈1
d ẑ d ẑ 2
ẑ=0 ẑ=0
are within an order of magnitude of the calculated derivatives, except for the
second-order derivative at the inlet at high conversion. The criterion that we can neglect
axial dispersion when Dea /v L 1 can, for high conversion, be too weak in some
parts of the reactor. The criterion

Dea d 2 y dy
≈ L ky,
vL d x 2 dx v
where the derivatives are calculated from the simplified Equation (5.32), should always
be valid. We also know that (Dea /vL)(d 2 y/d x 2 ) > 0, and consequently removing that
term will result in an overestimation of the conversion.
5.1.9 Changing the boundary conditions

The boundary conditions always affect the solution to an equation, but in many cases
the boundary conditions can be reformulated such that the equation can be solved more
easily analytically or numerically. In many cases, the boundary conditions are not obvious
and have been introduced only to obtain an analytical solution to an equation.
Example 5.6 Boundary condition for a tubular reactor with axial dispersion
This scenario has been discussed for more than 50 years. The condition
dC
= 0 at z = L
dz
is under dispute because it introduces a feedback of information from the end of the
reactor that does not occur in real reactors. A more realistic formulation for an
irreversible reaction is perhaps
C → 0 when z → ∞.
For diffusion and reaction in a porous spherical catalyst, the condition

dC
= 0 at r = 0
dr
is not necessary. A boundary condition that does not allow diffusive transport through
the center of the catalyst may be sufficient, i.e.
dC
r2 →0 when r → 0,
dr
and a sufficient condition is that the derivative dC/dr is limited when r → 0. In addition,
the condition C = 0 at a distance δ from the surface could even be appropriate for fast
reactions.
5.2 Case study: Modeling flow, heat, and reaction in a tubular reactor
The methods listed in Sections 5.1.1–5.1.7 are illustrated by a tubular reactor with a
first-order reaction and laminar flow. Models for species, heat, and momentum have
been formulated and simplified. In addition to showing the methods, we discuss the
assumptions in a traditional 1D lumped-parameter model for a tubular reactor with axial
dispersion,
∂C ∂ 2C ∂C
= Dea 2 − v − kn (T, t) · C n , (5.36)
∂t ∂z ∂z
∂T ∂2T ∂T
ρm cm = λea 2 − vρc p − kn (T, t)(−H ) · C n . (5.37)
∂t ∂z ∂z
5.2.1 General equation for a cylindrical reactor

The following equations describe transport of species, heat, and momentum in a cylin-
drical tubular reactor with laminar flow
Material balance for species A

∂ CA ∂ CA ∂ CA vθ ∂ CA
+ vz + vr +
∂t ∂z ∂r r ∂θ

1 ∂ ∂ CA ∂ 2 CA 1 ∂ 2 CA
= DA r + + 2 − RA . (5.38)
r ∂r ∂r ∂ z2 r ∂θ 2
Heat balance

∂T ∂T ∂T vθ ∂ T
ρc p + vz + vr +
∂t ∂z ∂r r ∂θ

1 ∂ ∂T ∂ T
2
1 ∂2T
=k r + + + QA. (5.39)
r ∂r ∂r ∂ z2 r 2 ∂θ 2
Balances for axial, z, radial, r, and tangential, θ , momentum

∂ vz ∂ vz ∂ vz vθ ∂ vz 1 ∂ ∂ vz ∂ 2 vz 1 ∂ 2 vz
ρ + vr + vz + =μ r + +
∂t ∂r ∂z r ∂θ r ∂r ∂r ∂ z2 r 2 ∂θ 2
∂p
+ ρ Gz − ; (5.40)
∂z

∂ vr ∂ vr ∂ vr vθ ∂ vr v2
ρ + vr + vz + − θ
∂t ∂r ∂z r ∂θ r

∂ 1 ∂ ∂ 2 vr 1 ∂ 2 vz 2 ∂vz ∂p
=μ (r vr ) + + − + ρ Gr − ; (5.41)
∂r r ∂r ∂z 2 r ∂θ
2 2 r ∂θ ∂r

∂ vθ ∂ vθ ∂ vθ vθ ∂ vθ vr vθ
ρ + vr + vz + −
∂t ∂r ∂z r ∂θ r

∂ 1 ∂ ∂ vθ
2
1 ∂ 2 vz 2 ∂vz 1∂ p
=μ (r vθ ) + + 2 + + ρ Gθ − . (5.42)
∂r r ∂r ∂ z2 r ∂θ 2 r ∂θ r ∂θ
∂ρ 1 ∂ 1 ∂ ∂
+ (ρ r vr ) + (ρvθ ) + (ρ vz ) = 0. (5.43)
∂t r ∂r r ∂θ ∂z
5.2.1.1 Boundary conditions

At the inlet, we have only axial velocity, and no radial or tangential variation in concen-
tration or temperature:
vz = vav , vr = 0, vθ = 0, C = CIN, T = T IN.
At the outlet, we have only axial velocity and axial convection of species and heat:
∂vz ∂C ∂T
vr = 0, vθ = 0, = 0, = 0, = 0.
∂z ∂z ∂z
We have no slip at the wall and no penetration of species, but heat transfer through
the wall will occur:
∂C ∂T
vz = 0, vr = 0, vθ = 0, = 0, k = u(T − Tw ).
∂r ∂r
The boundary conditions are not obvious; they require detailed knowledge of the
actual flow pattern, and, as discussed, the outlet conditions are questionable.
5.2.2 Reducing the number of independent variables

With no density differences in the fluid, there will be no source term for the radial and
tangential velocities. If the inlet and boundary conditions are axisymmetric, there will
be no variation in the θ direction. Removing the tangential variations will allow us to
reduce the simulation from 3D to 2D. The symmetric boundary condition at the center
of the tube can be formulated as
∂vr ∂vz ∂C ∂T
= 0, = 0, = 0, = 0 at r = 0.
∂r ∂r ∂r ∂r
With no variation in tangential direction, the balance equation for tangential momen-
tum, Equation (5.42), and the θ dependence in the remaining Equations (5.38)–(5.43)
should be removed.
Radial velocity will occur due to the inlet velocity, which has not taken the final
parabolic form. A general rule of thumb is that the variation in radial velocity that arises
from an uneven inlet can be neglected in a pipe after an inlet distance of δ , estimated
from the pipe diameter and the Reynolds number:
δ
= 0.05 Re.
d
5.2.3 Steady state or transient?

How fast the concentration or temperature will change due to a step change at an inlet
gives us an idea about the time resolution that is required for a transient solution, and
how quickly the reactor will reach steady state. One way to retrieve the time constants
is to compare the accumulation term with the dominating transport term.
Axial transport: the ratio of accumulation to convection is written and simplified as
∂ CA /∂ t CA /t CA,in τ
≈ ≈ .
vz (∂ CA /∂ z ) vz (CA /z ) vz (CA,in / L )
This gives the time constant for axial convection as

CA,in L
τ= = .
vz CA,in / L vz
Radial diffusion
∂ CA /∂ t CA /t CA /τ

≈
≈ .
1 ∂ ∂ CA 1 C DCA / R 2
D r D R 2
r ∂r ∂r R r
This gives the time constant for radial diffusion as

R2
τ = CA /( DCA / R 2 ) = .
D
As expected, it will take one residence time Lvz for a change in inlet concentration
to affect the whole length of the reactor, and it will take R2 D for the concentration to
diffuse from the center of the reactor to the wall in accordance with the time constants
developed in Section 5.1.5.
Similar time constants can be estimated for momentum and heat transfer also.
Table 5.2 shows the time constants for convective transport in the axial direction, the
radial transport of momentum, mass, and heat, assuming L = 10 m, v = 0.1 m s−1
and laminar flow. The fluid properties that are typical for a gas are: density 1 kg m−3 ,
diffusivity 10−5 m2 s−1 , heat capacity 1000 J kg−1 K−1 . Typical liquid properties are:
density 1000 kg m−3 , diffusivity 10−9 m2 s−1 , heat capacity 1000 J kg−1 K−1 , heat
conductivity 0.5 W m−2 K−1 . The main differences between gases and liquids are in the
Table 5.2. Time constants of a 0.1 m s−1 gas and liquid flow in a 10 m tubular reactor with two different
tube diameters, R
The fluid properties are typical for gas and liquid
Axial Radial Radial Radial heat

transport, momentum, diffusion, conduction,
Conditions L/vz R 2 ρ/μ R 2 /D R 2 ρc p /k
Air (25 °C, 1 bar, R = 0.1 m) 100 500 1000 400

Water (25 °C, R = 0.005 m) 100 100 25 000 200
diffusivity and heat conduction. The very low diffusivity in liquids is, to some extent,
compensated for in the table by a much smaller tube radius.
With a step response at the inlet and no external time-dependent influence, the reactor
will reach steady state after the largest of the time constants. The much larger time
constants for the radial diffusion (R2 D) than for the residence time (Lv), indicate that
the concentration will vary radially within the whole reactor if the inflow does not have
equal concentration over the cross section.
In this case study we assume a constant even flow and concentration at the inlet
and only consider steady state. However, the concentration will have a radial variation
downstream due to the reaction and the radial difference in residence time. Assuming
an even inflow and a minor effect of gravity in the radial and tangential directions, the
convective radial transport terms can be removed. Axial viscous transport, diffusion,
and conduction can also be neglected because the convective axial transport is much
larger. After a sufficiently long period of time with no change in flow, the transient terms
become very small, and we obtain a model with steady axial convection, radial diffusion,
and conduction with a reaction source term.
Material balance

∂ CA 1 ∂ ∂ CA
vz = D r − RA . (5.44)
∂z r ∂r ∂r
Heat balance

∂T 1 ∂ ∂T
ρc p vz =k r + QA. (5.45)
∂z r ∂r ∂r
Momentum balance

∂ vz 1 ∂ ∂ vz ∂p
ρ vz =μ r + ρ Gz − . (5.46)
∂z r ∂r ∂r ∂z
∂
(ρ vz ) = 0. (5.47)
∂z
5.2.4 Decoupling equations

If, in the case study, μ and ρ are assumed to be independent of CA and T in the
actual concentration and temperature interval, the solution of the equations is drastically
simplified. The equation of continuity gives ∂vz /∂ z = 0, and using this in Equation
(5.46) yields

1 ∂ ∂vz ∂p
μ r = − ρ G z = constant. (5.48)
r ∂r ∂r ∂z
Integrating Equation (5.48) and using ∂vz /∂ r = 0 when r = 0 and vz = 0 when r =

R yields

∂ p R2 r2 r2
vz (r ) = ρ G z − 1 − 2 = 2 vav 1 − 2 , (5.49)
∂z 4μ R R
where vav denotes the average velocity in the pipe. As expected, we obtain the parabolic
velocity profile for laminar flow in a circular pipe.
5.2.5 Simplified geometry

We have now reduced the equations to two coupled partial differential equations (using
Equation (5.49) in Equations (5.44) and (5.45)):

r 2 ∂ CA 1 ∂ ∂ CA
2 vav 1 − 2 =D r − RA ; (5.50)
R ∂z r ∂r ∂r

r2 ∂ T 1 ∂ ∂T
ρ c p 2 vav 1 − 2 =k r + QA. (5.51)
R ∂z r ∂r ∂r
The dimensionless space coordinates r̂ = r/R and ẑ = z/L yield

∂ CA LD 1 ∂ ∂ CA L
2 1 − r̂ 2 = 2 r̂ − · RA ; (5.52)
∂ ẑ R vav r̂ ∂ r̂ ∂ r̂ vav

∂T L ·k 1 ∂ ∂T L
2 1 − r̂ 2 = 2 r̂ + · QA. (5.53)
∂ ẑ R vav ρ c p r̂ ∂ r̂ ∂ r̂ vav ρ c p
In order to obtain ordinary differential equations, we must eliminate one space coor-
dinate. There are several possibilities for doing this: we can calculate an average by
integrating over the radial or axial coordinates; we can find simple polynomials that can
approximate the radial concentration and temperature dependencies; or we can assume
that the radial coupling is negligible.
The simplest solution is to use the radial average, as we assume that the axial variations
are much larger than the radial variations.
First, we integrate radially (this mean to integrate over a thin circular slice 2π r dr,
which in the dimensionless form is 2π r̂ d r̂ ). The integration of the radial transport term
is straightforward because
1

d dy dy dy dy
r̂ d r̂ = r̂ − r̂ = r̂
d r̂ d r̂ d r̂ r̂ =1 d r̂ r̂ =0 d r̂ r̂ =1
0
and
1 1
∂ CA L D ∂ CA L
2 1 − r̂ 2
2π r̂ d r̂ = 2π 2 − RA 2π r̂ d r̂ , (5.54)
∂ ẑ R vav ∂ r̂ r̂ =1 vav
0 0
1
∂T Lk ∂ T
2 1 − r̂ 2
2π r̂ d r̂ = 2π 2
∂ ẑ R vav ρ c p ∂ r̂ r̂ =1
0
1
L
+ Q A 2π r̂ d r̂ . (5.55)
vav ρ c p
0
The wall is not permeable for mass transport, i.e.

∂CA
= 0. (5.56)
∂ r̂ r̂ =1
Heat is conducted through the wall, so

∂ T k ∂ T
k = = u(Tw − Tx=1 ). (5.57)
∂r r =R R ∂ r̂ r̂ =1
We define the mixed-cup average C A using
1
2vav ( 1 − r̂ 2 ) CA (ẑ, r̂ ) 2π r̂ d r̂
0
C A · vav =
1
2π r̂ d r̂
0
1

= 2vav 1 − r̂ 2 CA (ẑ, r̂ ) 2r̂ d r̂ (5.58)
0
and the mixed-cup average T using
1

T vav = 2 vav 1 − r̂ 2 T (ẑ, r̂ ) 2r̂ d r̂ . (5.59)
0
Observe that this averaging over the radius also eliminates the axial dispersion that is
caused by the parabolic velocity profile.
Also note that the difference between the mixed-cup average and the average
C
1
CA (ẑ, r̂ ) 2π r̂ d r̂ 1
0

CA = = CA (ẑ, r̂ ) 2r̂ d r̂ (5.60)
1
2π r̂ d r̂ 0
0
over the cylinder, is due to the radial variation in velocity. If we take a sample from the
outlet to measure concentration, we will obtain more sample from the center of the pipe
due to the higher velocity in the center. If we measure concentration spectrometrically,
we will have equal contribution from all parts, ir respective of velocity. Usually it is the
mixed-cup average we need as it is related to the total amount converted in the reactor.
The final integrals on the right-hand side of Equations (5.54) and (5.55) are approxi-
mated by
1
L L
2 RA (CA , T ) r̂ d r̂ ≈ RA (C A , T ), (5.61)
vav vav
0
1
L L
2 Q A r̂ d r̂ ≈ Q A (C A , T ), (5.62)
vav ρ c p vav ρ c p
0
i.e. the average of the reaction rate is approximated by the reaction rate at averaged
concentration and temperature.
We now have two coupled ordinary differential equations:
dC L
=− RA (C A , T ), (5.63)
d ẑ vav
dT Lu L
=2 (Tw − T ) + Q A (C A , T ). (5.64)
d ẑ R vav ρ c p vav ρ c p
However, comparing the heat flux through the wall, we have
u(Tw − Tx=1 ) = u(Tw − T ), (5.65)
but, because the mixed-cup temperature differs from the wall temperature, i.e.
T = Tr̂ =1 ,
we must adjust u; one common method is to add a part of the heat transfer resistance in
the reactor as follows:
1 1 R
= +α . (5.66)
u u k
By making this adjustment we assume that we have the temperature T , a distance αR
from the wall, and that heat is conducted through the fluid and the wall.
Because the equations are non-linear, there is still no analytical solution to the equa-
tions. The equations describe a simple initial-value problem, and numerical solutions are
straightforward. An analytical solution is possible only if we assume that, by efficient
cooling or through a reaction of low heat of reaction, the temperature will be constant
axially and the reaction rate will be a function of concentration only, i.e.
CAOUT 1
dC
=− d ẑ. (5.67)
CAIN L
RA (C A )
vav 0
5.2.6 Limiting cases

The partial differential equation, Equation (5.52), can be approximated by using different
assumptions. For an isothermal case, it can be written, for a first-order reaction, as
follows:
∂C DL 1 ∂ ∂ C L k1
2 (1 − r̂ 2 ) = 2 r̂ − C. (5.68)
∂ ẑ R vav r̂ ∂ r̂ ∂ r̂ vav
(1) Assuming no radial variations. When the residence time is much larger than the time
for radial diffusion, i.e.
L R2
, (5.69)
vav D
the ratio between residence time and the radial diffusion time constant appears in
the term for radial diffusion, and
DL
→ ∞
R 2 vav
∂C
⇒ → 0
∂ r̂
⇒ C (r̂ , ẑ ) = C̄ (ẑ );
i.e. the radial concentration is assumed to be constant, equal to the mixed-cup
average, as shown by eliminating radial variation. Integrating the average flow,
1
∂C dC
2 1 − r̂ 2 2r̂ d r̂ = , (5.70)
∂ ẑ d ẑ
0
will simplify the model to
dC L k1
=− C, (5.71)
d ẑ vav
C = exp[−( Lk/vav )ẑ ]. (5.72)
(2) Assuming no radial transport, i.e. a very short residence time in comparison to the
time for radial diffusion, i.e.
R2 L
,
D vav
will remove the radial diffusion term and Equation (5.68) will be simplified to
∂C Lk1
2 (1 − r̂ 2 ) =− · C. (5.73)
∂ ẑ vav
Rear ranging this equation yields

∂C L k1
=− ∂ ẑ (5.74)
C 2 · vav (1 − r̂ 2 )
and the solution

L · k1
C (ẑ, r̂ ) = Cin exp − · ẑ . (5.75)
2 · vav (1 − r̂ 2 )
The concentration in the outlet will be a function of both radius and reactor
length. A mixed-cup average is obtained by integrating the concentration according
to Equation (5.58).
5.2.7 Conclusions
The complex partial differential equations have been simplified all the way, until an
analytical solution is possible. The simplifications can be halted at any point depending
on the desired accuracy and available numerical tools.
The assumptions in a lumped-parameter model are not always transparent. For exam-
ple, in the 1D model for a tubular reactor with axial dispersion (Equations (5.36) and
(5.37), repeated here for convenience)
∂C ∂ 2C ∂C
= Dea 2 − v − kn (T, t) · C n , (5.36)
∂t ∂z ∂z
∂T ∂2T ∂T
ρc p = λea 2 − vρc p − kn (T, t)(−H ) · C n , (5.37)
∂t ∂z ∂z
where the axial dispersion term Dea can be estimated from
R2v2
Dea = D + ,
192D
and λea by replacing D by thermal diffusion α in the equation.
The main assumptions in the lumped-parameter model are
(1) the average reaction rate is the rate at average temperature and concentration;
(2) the axial dispersion term describes the complex combination of transport by velocity
gradients and diffusion;
(3) the velocity is the traditional average, and the concentration and temperature are the
mixed-cup averages.
5.3 Error estimations
The simulations must be validated and verified before they can be trusted. At the
beginning of this chapter, we stated that poor simulation results may be due to many
different reasons: errors in formulating the problem, inaccurate models, inaccurate data
on physical properties, numerical errors due to the choice of numerical methods, and
lack of convergence in the simulations.
5.4 Questions 77
5.3.1 Sensitivity analysis

Validating the model by comparing it with the experimental data of a similar system
is the most direct way to test all the aforementioned errors. However, it is not always
obvious what a difference between simulations and experiments indicates, and it is
important to try to evaluate each possible error separately. Errors in formulating the
problem may be recognized from simulations of limiting cases, e.g. very high or low
kinetic rate constants or velocities. Simulation of an isothermal case will remove errors
in the heat balance, and simulation using a preset velocity profile will remove errors
in the momentum balance, etc. Inaccurate physical data can be evaluated by making a
small change in data values and estimating how sensitive the results are to the absolute
value of the variables. This type of analysis will tell us which variables are critical and
must be known very accurately.
In addition to changing parameters to determine the influence of different phenomena,
the influence of the different terms in a model can be estimated by putting a weighting
factor in front of each term in the model, e.g. the accumulation term or the axial
dispersion term in a chemical reactor model, and comparing the simulations. In this
way, we can easily estimate which factors dominate the model, and perhaps remove the
parts that have negligible influence. We can also judge whether the result supports our
expectations or whether the model must be reformulated.
Numerical errors and convergence can be tested by changing the initial guess of the
solution and the numerical accuracy in the numerical subroutines. In an optimization or
least squares minimization using a gradient search, it is important to have high accuracy
in order to calculate a correct gradient. The step length in a gradient evaluation must
be chosen sufficiently large in comparison with the solution accuracy. A gradient-free
search, e.g. a random Monte Carlo method, may be more efficient.
5.3.2 Over- and underestimations

A sensitivity analysis will reveal how variables affect final results. We can find out, e.g.,
whether our estimated chemical reactor volume will increase or decrease when a certain
parameter is increased. If that parameter is uncertain, we can simulate for an upper and
a lower value of that parameter and obtain an over- and an underestimation of, e.g., the
reactor volume. The same method can be used for other uncertainties in modeling, e.g.
to compare results assuming laminar or turbulent flow, and whether to include radiation
or not.
5.4 Questions
(1) What properties are essential in an equation that may be solved independently of the
remaining equations in a system of equations?
(2) Why are the net mass and heat transfer through a symmetry boundary condition
zero?
(3) What are the maximum number of symmetry planes in a cube, cylinder, and sphere?
(4) In Equation (5.9), what is the difference if the left-hand side or the right-hand side
is set to zero?
(5) How many symmetry planes exist for a cube exposed to gravity? Analyze the cases
with gravity along the sides and along the diagonal of the cube.
5.1 Estimate how far into a liquid a compound will diffuse or heat will conduct in
1 min. (Diffusivity = 10−9 m2 s−1 , ρ = 1000 kg m−3 , cp = 4000 J kg−1 , k =
0.2 J m−1 K−1 .) Use ŷ = 0.16.
5.2 About 150 years ago, Lord Kelvin estimated the age of the earth to be about 100
million years. He assumed that the earth originally had a temperature of 6000 °C
and that it now has an average temperature of 3000 °C. He solved the heat equation
for the different zones,
2
∂T ∂ T ∂2T ∂2T
ρc p =k + + ,
∂t ∂ x12 ∂ x22 ∂ x32
with the boundary conditions

dT dT dT
kn + + = σ T 4,
d x1 d x2 d x3
where n is the normal to the surface and
dT
=0
d xi
in the middle at xi = 0.
Figure P5.1
Discuss how the following methods can be used to simplify the calculations:
r decoupling of equations;
r reducing the number of independent variables;
r separation of equations into steady state and transient;
r simplifying geometry;
r linearizing;
r neglecting terms;
r solving for limiting cases.
Make your own estimation using the data in Figure P5.1. The radiation inflow
from the sun and the radiation outflow are today the dominant terms; the solar
constant is 1400 W m−2 . The net flux from the inner part of the earth is today on
the order of 5 · 10−2 W m−2 . Assume a heat capactity of 5 · 106 J m−3 K−1 .
5.3 Most of the harmful emissions from cars appear during cold start because the
catalyst has to reach 250 °C before it becomes active. It takes about 1 min under
normal driving conditions. An option to reduce the time is to put a smaller catalyst
with less thermal mass close to the engine. Using late ignition in the engine makes
it possible to raise the exhaust temperature very quickly. Calculate an over- and
underestimation of how long it will take to heat the catalytic converter to 250 °C
when the exhaust gas temperature increases linearly from 20 to 700 °C for 10 s and
is then kept constant.
The catalyst has a volume of 0.5 l and a mass of 100 g. The channel surface (i.e.
the area of contact with the exhaust gases) is 2000 m2 m−3 . The mass flow of the
exhaust gas is 0.01 kg s−1 . Assume that the catalyst heat capacity is 1000 J kg−1
K−1 , and that of the exhaust gas is 1000 J kg−1 K−1 . The Nusselt number for heat
transfer in the channels is 4, and the gas heat conduction is 0.04 W K−1 m−1 .
5.4 Over 80 times more CO2 is dissolved in the sea than in the atmosphere, and the
gas will not contribute to global warming if it dissolves in the oceans. The primary
mechanism for the transport of CO2 from the atmosphere to the ocean is through
its dissolution in raindrops. Calculate approximately (over- and underestimates)
how much it needs to rain in Sweden (486 000 km2 ) in m m−2 if the production of
CO2 (55 million tons yr−1 ) is balanced with the amount that dissolves in the rain.
Assume that the raindrops are of about 6 mm diameter and that they fall with a
velocity of 10 m s−1 from 1000 m.
The transport of the CO2 into a raindrop can be approximated by diffusion:

∂C ∂ 2C 2 ∂C
=D + .
∂t ∂r 2 r ∂r
The atmospheric CO2 concentration is 0.0325%, and its solubility in water is 40 mol
m−3 bar−1 . The diffusivity of CO2 in water is 10−9 m2 s−1 . The model neglects the
deformation of the droplet, the convection inside the droplet, and the mass transfer
in the air outside the droplet. Does this lead to an over- or underestimation of CO2
transport into the drop?
Hint: Estimate how far into the drop the CO2 can diffuse in the available time.
5.5 The surface temperature in the desert can vary between +80 °C during day-
time and −10 °C during the night. Estimate how far into the sand the tempera-
ture fluctuations can reach. Define the position where no fluctuation is observed
as the point where less than 1% of the surface variations are noticed. The density
of the sand is 2000 kg m−3 , the heat conductivity is 0.8 W m−1 K−1 , and the heat
capacity is 1000 J kg−1 K−1 .
5.6 Monolithic catalytic converters with a large number of parallel channels are very
common in emission control for cars. The flow is laminar in order to minimize
pressure drop with parabolic velocity profile. The maximum velocity in the center
is twice the average velocity. Calculate the required catalyst volume assuming
the rate-determining step is that the pollutants should have time to diffuse from
the center of the channel to the catalytic wall. The channels are 1 mm wide and the
channel volume is 80% of the catalytic converter volume. The volumetric flow of
exhaust gas for a 2 l engine running at 3000 rpm can be approximated as (engine
speed) × (engine volume)/2.
6 Numerical methods
Differential equations play a dominant role in mathematical modeling. In practical engi-

neering applications, only a very limited number of them can be solved analytically.
The pur pose of this chapter is to give an introduction to the numerical methods needed
to solve differential equations, and to explain how solution accuracy can be controlled
and how stability can be ensured by selecting the appropriate methods. The mathe-
matical framework needed to solve both ordinary and partial differential equations is
presented. A guideline for selecting numerical methods is presented at the end of the
chapter.
6.1 Ordinary differential equations
A characteristic of a differential equation is that it involves an unknown function and

one or more of the function’s derivatives. If the unknown function depends on only
one independent variable, it is classified as an ordinary differential equation (ODE). The
order of the differential equation is simply the order of the highest derivative that appears
in the equations. Consequently, a first-order ODE contains only first derivatives, whilst
a second-order ODE may contain both second and first derivatives. The ODEs can also
be classified as linear or non-linear. Linear ODEs are the ones in which all dependent
variables and their derivatives appear in a linear form. This implies that they cannot be
multiplied or divided by each other, and they must be raised to the power of 1. An ODE
has an infinite number of solutions, but with the appropriate conditions that describe
systems, i.e. the initial value or the boundary value, the solutions can be determined
uniquely.
6.1.1 ODE classification

ODEs can be classified as initial-value problems (IVPs), or boundary-value problems
(BVPs). The classification into IVP or BVP depends on the location of the extra condi-
tions specified. For IVPs they are given at the same value of the independent variable (the
lower boundary, and consequently the initial value), whereas for BVPs they are given
at different values of the independent variable. Consider Equation (6.1), a second-order
82 Numerical methods
ODE on an interval x ∈ [a, b], with two different sets of conditions, which cause the
equation to be classsified as either IVP or BVP:

d2 y dy
= f x, y, . (6.1)
dx2 dx
Initial-value problem
y(a) = α,

dy
= β.
d x x=a
Boundary-value problem
y(a) = α,
y(b) = γ .
The numerical methods used to solve these two classes of problems, i.e. IVPs and
BVPs, are different, and the two separate conditions for the BVP generally make it more
difficult to solve. Methods for solving both of these types of problems will be introduced
in this chapter.
6.1.2 Solving initial-value problems

In order to give an introduction to the most important concepts used in different methods,
such as accuracy, stability, and efficiency, we will start with the explicit Euler method,
which is the simplest numerical method to use when solving ODEs. At this point, we
should stress that the accuracy of this method is low, and that it is only conditionally
stable. For this reason, it is not used in practice to solve any engineering problems.
However, it serves well to illustrate a method for solving ODEs numerically, and for
introducing the concepts of accuracy and stability. Later in this chapter more advanced
numerical methods will be presented; methods that have higher accuracy and better
stability properties, and that are implemented in modern software products.
6.1.2.1 The explicit Euler method

Consider the solution of an initial-value problem
dy
= f (x, y), (6.2)
dx
with the initial condition y(x0 ) = y0 . The approach used in the explicit Euler method is
based on the discretization of the interval x ∈ [a, b] into M equal subintervals, which
gives the step size h = (b − a) M. The explicit Euler method approximates the solution
as
yn+1 = yn + h f (xn , yn ). (6.3)

Figure 6.1. Principle of the Euler method.
The er ror made in the Euler method in a single step, ε, can be estimated by using the
Taylor expansion
1
y (x0 + h ) = y (x0 ) + hy (x0 ) + h 2 y (x0 ) + O(h 3 ). (6.4)
2
By subtracting Equation (6.3) from Equation (6.4) we obtain
1 2
ε= h y (x0 ) + O(h 3 ), (6.5)
2
which shows that the local truncation error is approximately proportional to h2 . It can
also be shown that the global error over the interval x ∈ [a, b] is O(h). (This will be
dicussed in detail later in the chapter.) As shown in Figure 6.1, the derivative changes
between xn and xn+1 , but the Euler method simply relies on the derivative at xn .
Example 6.1 Error versus step size

A simple problem illustrates how the error is related to step size. Consider the
following problem:
⎧
⎪
⎪ dy = f (t, y) = y + t,
⎨
dt
⎪ y(0) = 1,
⎪
⎩t ∈ [0, 1].
The numerical solution using the explicit first-order Euler method, and the step size
h = 0.2, is shown in Figure 6.2.
By using the globally first-order accurate Euler method, O(h), the error is halved
becomes when the step size is halved. If the step size is further reduced, the global
error continues to decrease, but very slowly, as shown in Figure 6.3. A major drawback
of the Euler method is that it has low accuracy; a very small step size is required to
control and keep error low. The errors, shown in Figure 6.3, have been calculated as the
Figure 6.2. Solution using the Euler method, step size h = 0.2.
Figure 6.3. Global error vs. step size.
difference between the numerical solution and the true value. In this case, the error can
be easily calculated as the analytical solution is given by y(t) = 2 exp(t) − t − 1.
6.1.2.2 The midpoint method

The midpoint method is an improvement on the Euler method in that it uses information
about the function at a point other than the initial point of the interval. As seen in
Figure 6.4, the values of x and y at the midpoint are used to calculate the step across the
whole interval, h.
Figure 6.4. Principle of the midpoint method.
Figure 6.5. Solution using the midpoint method, step size h = 0.2.
The midpoint method requires two function evaluations in the step,
k1 = h f (xn , yn ), (6.6)
k2 = h f (xn + h/2, yn + k1 /2), (6.7)
and gives the approximate solution as
yn+1 = yn + k2 + O(h 3 ). (6.8)
Consequently, the midpoint method increases accuracy by one order. Obviously the
increased order of accuracy leads to a better approximation than the Euler solution, as
shown in Figure 6.5.
A comparison between the errors in the Euler and midpoint methods is summarized
in Table 6.1 and shown in Figure 6.6.
Table 6.1. Comparison between errors in the Euler

and midpoint methods
Steps, n Error, ei (Euler) Error, ei (midpoint)
5 0.4599 0.0311
10 0.2491 0.0084
20 0.1300 0.0022
50 0.0534 0.000357
100 0.0269 8.99e − 5
1000 0.0027 9.05e − 7
Figure 6.6. Euler, O(h), and midpoint, O(h2 ), vs. step size.
6.1.2.3 Runge–Kutta (fourth order)

The fourth-order Runge–Kutta method is sometimes used because the method is accu-
rate, stable, and easy to program. However, there are much better alternatives, as we will
soon discover. This method uses four function evaluations per step,
k1 = h f (xn , yn ), (6.9)
k2 = h f (xn + h/2, yn + k1 /2), (6.10)
k3 = h f (xn + h/2, yn + k2 /2), (6.11)
k4 = h f (xn + h, yn + k3 ), (6.12)
and gives the approximate solution as
yn+1 = yn + k1 /6 + k2 /3 + k3 /3 + k4 /6 + O(h 5 ). (6.13)

Figure 6.7. Local and global errors.
These methods (Euler, midpoint, and Runge–Kutta) are examples of explicit algorithms.
For the same step size, the higher-order Runge–Kutta method gives better precision but
at the cost of more calculations in each step.
6.1.3 Numerical accuracy

There are always errors present when we solve differential equations numerically. These
errors can be divided into two different parts:
r a local truncation error, which is due to the numerical method in each step;
r a global error, which is due to previous local errors and amplification.
To be clear, let us first define the correct solution to the initial-value problem as y(x).
The approximative solution using a single-step numerical method, e.g. the Euler method,
with an increment function f (xn , yn ) and step size h is yn+1 = yn + h f (xn , yn ), and it
is approximated at a number of discrete points {(xn , yn )}n=0 M
.
The global truncation error, en , is defined as the difference between the approximation,
yn , and the correct solution of the IVP, y(xn ):
en = yn − y(xn ). (6.14)
The local error, εn+1 , is defined as the error committed in each step from xn to xn+1 .
Let us introduce z(x), which is the correct solution of the IVP over that single step. The
local truncation error is then given by
εn+1 = yn+1 − z(xn+1 ). (6.15)
Whereas the local error is due to a single step, the global error, en+1 , is the sum of the
local error, εn+1 , and the amplified error from previous steps. As a consequence, it is
not equal to the sum of the local errors from previous steps. The local and global errors
are illustrated in Figure 6.7. Note that the upper curve, y(x), is the correct (true) solution
to the IVP and that the lower curve, z(x), is the correct solution of the IVP on xn < x <
xn+1 , given y(xn ) = yn .
Table 6.2. Summary of accuracy of the three single-step methods
Method Local error Global error

2
Euler O(h ) O(h)
Midpoint (second-order Runge–Kutta) O(h3 ) O(h2 )
Fourth-order Runge–Kutta O(h5 ) O(h4 )
Generally, if the local discretization error is O(hn ), the global error is O(hn−1 ). Con-
sequently, the Euler method is locally second-order accurate, O(h2 ), and globally (over
the interval x ∈ [a, b]) it is first-order accurate, O(h).
The accuracy of the three single-step methods introduced so far in this chapter is
presented in Table 6.2. For practical applications, higher-order methods are needed to
reduce the computational effort. Therefore, the advantage of using a higher-order method
does not come from getting an extremely accurate solution; in most cases, it is satisfying
to reach a specified target accuracy. The advantage comes instead from the fact that it is
possible to more rapidly, i.e. computationally more efficiently, reach the specified target
by using fewer steps.
As shown in Table 6.2, the global error in the Euler method is O(h). This means that
if the step size is reduced by a factor of 12, the overall error will be reduced by a factor
of 12. In contrast, the global error in the fourth-order Runge–Kutta method is O(h4 ),
which means that the error will decrease by a factor of 1/16 when the step size is reduced
by a factor of 12.
Why not use higher-order methods beyond the fourth order? One reason is that the
Runge–Kutta methods with higher order use more function evaluations, which means
that the number of computations increases. The objective of numerical solutions is to
obtain a solution with sufficient accuracy, not an exact solution. Consequently, it is
often not necessary to use higher-order methods because the improvement in accuracy is
offset by the increase in computational effort. A better strategy for increasing accuracy
is instead to use adaptive step size methods.
6.1.4 Adaptive step size methods and error control

Using a small fixed step size to resolve fast changes in a solution to maintain good
accuracy could mean that the rest of the solution is solved very slowly. Often the best
strategy for obtaining high accuracy, and at the same time minimizing computational
effort, is to use adaptive step size methods when solving IVPs. This means that the step
size is controlled and locally adjusted automatically during the solution where necessary.
Since the basic idea with the adaptive methods is to determine whether a proper step
size h is being used, an estimate of the local error is required.
Instead of evaluating an error by solving the IVP twice, by using two different fixed
step sizes, e.g. h and h2, the adaptive methods rely on error estimations from embedded
pairs of different orders. As the solution proceeds, two solutions with different orders can
be calculated in parallel and compared at each step to ensure that the accuracy is within
acceptable tolerance. The simplest way to do this is to compare the error estimate εi ,
or the relative error estimate εi yi , with the error tolerance, and then double or halve
the step size, depending on the current error. If the error exceeds the tolerance, the
step must be repeated, using a reduced step size to improve accuracy. In regions where
solution accuracy is met unnecessarily well, the step size can be increased to reduce
computational effort.
The Runge–Kutta–Fehlberg method is one example of an adaptive step size method.
It compares the solutions from a fourth-order Runge–Kutta method with a solution
from a fifth-order Runge–Kutta method to determine the optimal step size. The optimal
step, hopt , is determined by evaluating the difference between the fourth- and fifth-order
Runge–Kutta solutions, and accounting for the specified error tolerance.
Another method that uses fourth- and fifth-order embedded pairs is the Dormand–
Prince method. The Dormand–Prince method is more accurate than the Runge–Kutta–
Fehlberg method and it is used by the MATLAB ode45 solver. Both methods have in
common that the difference between the fourth- and fifth-order accurate solutions is
calculated to determine the error, and to adapt the step size. The error estimate, εn+1 ,
for the step is
εn+1 = |z n+1 − yn+1 |, (6.16)
where the fifth-order accurate solution, z n+1 , is

35 500 125 2187 11

z n+1 = yn + h k1 + k3 + k4 − k5 + k6 . (6.17)
384 1113 192 6784 84
Note that k2 is not used except for calculating k3 , and so on. The definitions are
k1 = f (xn , yn ),

1 1
k2 = f xn + h, yn + h k1 ,
5 5

3 3 9
k3 = f xn + h, yn + h k1 + k2 ,
10 40 40

4 44 56 32
k4 = f xn + h, yn + h k1 − k2 + k3 ,
5 45 15 9

8 19 372 25 360 64 448 212

k5 = f xn + h, yn + h k1 − k2 + k3 − k4 ,
9 6561 2187 6561 729

9017 355 46 732 49 5103

k6 = f xn + h, yn + h k1 − k2 + k3 + k4 − k5 ,
3168 33 5247 176 18 656
and the fourth-order accurate solution, yn+1 , is

5179 7571 393 92 097 187 1

yn+1 = yn + h k1 + k3 + k4 − k5 + k6 + k7 ,
57 600 16 695 640 339 200 2100 40
(6.18)
where
k7 = f (xn + h, z n+1 ).
Figure 6.8. Principle of the implicit Euler method.
Consequently, the error estimate in the Dormand–Prince method is given by

71 71 71 17 253
εn+1 = |z n+1 − yn+1 | = h k1 − k3 + k4 − k5
57 600 16 695 1920 339 200

22 1
+ k6 − k7 . (6.19)
525 40
Given this estimate, εn+1 , and a specified target tolerance for the discretization error, the
adaptive method will decrease the step size to comply with the tolerance. If the accuracy
is met unnecessarily well, the step size can be increased to reduce the computational
effort. Furthermore, the step size can be controlled or bounded by a specified minimum
step size, hmin , and maximum step size, hmax , to improve stability.
6.1.5 Implicit methods and stability

All the methods presented so far, e.g. the Euler and the Runge–Kutta methods, are
examples of explicit methods, as the numerical solution at yn+1 has an explicit formula.
Explicit methods, however, have problems with stability, and there are certain stability
constraints that prevent the explicit methods from taking very large time steps. Stability
analysis can be used to show that the explicit Euler method is conditionally stable, i.e.
the step size has to be chosen sufficiently small to ensure stability. This conditional
stability, i.e. the existence of a critical step size beyond which numerical instabilities
manifest, is typical for all explicit methods. In contrast, the implicit methods have much
better stability properties. Let us introduce the implicit backward Euler method,
yn+1 = yn + h f (xn+1 , yn+1 ). (6.20)
In contrast to the forward (explicit) Euler method, which uses the slope at the left-hand
side to step across the interval, the implicit version of the Euler method crosses the
interval by using the slope at the right-hand side, as shown in Figure 6.8. The implicit
formula does not give any direct approximation of yn+1 , instead an iterative method, e.g.
the Newton method, is added inside the loop, thus advancing the differential equation to
solve for yn+1 . This obviously comes at the price of more computation, but allows stability
Figure 6.9. Comparison between the explicit and implicit Euler methods. (a) Step size h = 2.5;
(b) step size h = 0.5.
also with comparatively large step size. This makes the implicit methods efficient and
useful. The implicit Euler method is unconditionally stable for h > 0. Without using a
rigorous stability analysis, the issue with stability is shown in Example 6.2.
Example 6.2 Numerical stability

Consider the problem of prediciting the concentration of a reactant in an isothermal
batch reactor, assuming a first-order reaction, where the reaction rate, r, is given by the
product of the reaction rate constant, k, and the concentration of the reactant, y:
⎧
⎪
⎪ dy
⎨ = f (t, y) = −r = −ky = −y/τ,
dt
⎪ y(0) = 1,
⎪
⎩t ∈ [0, 10].
In this equation, we have introduced the time constant of the system, which is the
inverse of the rate constant k, i.e. τ = 1/k. This simple problem involves a linear
differential equation that allows us to investigate how the implicit and the explicit
methods behave as the step size is modified. Recall that the explicit Euler method is
given by yn+1 = yn + h f (xn , yn ). This means that

yn h
yn+1 = yn − h = yn 1 − . (6.21)
τ τ
Therefore, if the time step, h, is larger than the time constant, the explicit method will
predict negative concentrations and easily diverge, as shown in Figure 6.9(a). In
contrast, the implicit Euler method yn+1 = yn + h f (xn+1 , yn+1 ) has the advantage of
stability,
yn+1
yn+1 = yn − h , (6.22)
τ
which can be written as
yn
yn+1 = . (6.23)
1 + h/τ
Consequently, the implicit method will be stable even for the poor choice of time step
h. However, in order to achieve an appropriate accuracy, the step size h has to be
chosen reasonably small. This simple example differs from most practical applications
in one very important aspect. In this case, it was simple, using algebra, to rewrite the
original implicit formula as an explicit one for evaluation. This is usually not the case
in practical applications. In such cases, the implicit method is more complex to use,
and it involves solving for yn+1 , using indirect means.
Let us now compare the explicit and implicit Euler techniques using two different step
sizes, h = 2.5 and h = 0.5, for the interval t ∈ [0, 10], using τ = 1 and the initial value
y0 = 1. From what we have just learned, the stability issues are manifested as divergence
in the explicit solver when too large time steps are used. As shown in Figure 6.9(a), on
using a step size larger than the time constant of the system, the explicit method diverges,
whereas the implicit formula does not. The solutions are comparable for smaller time
steps (Figure 6.9(b)). Note that both these methods have low accuracy due to their low
order.
Example 6.3 Implict Euler–Newton method

Consider the problem of predicting the concentration of a reactant in an isothermal
batch reactor, where the reaction kinetics is second order (non-linear problem). The
reaction rate, r, is given by r = ky 2 , where k is the reaction rate constant (k = 1) and y
is the concentration of the reactant. We have
⎧
⎪
⎪ dy
⎨ = f (t, y) = −r = −y 2 ,
dt
⎪ y(0) = 1,
⎪
⎩t ∈ [0, 1].
By using the the implicit Euler method, yn+1 = yn + h f (xn+1 , yn+1 ), and a time step of
h = 0.1, we obtain, at the first time step,
y1 = y0 − hy12 .
As the value y1 is unknown we need to iterate, e.g. use the Newton method, to find the
solution. Let us denote y1 = z and implement the Newton method to determine the
solution at the first time step, t = 0.1. First we reformulate the non-linear equation to
F(z) = 0; this gives
F(z) = z − y0 + hz 2 = z − 1 + 0.1z 2 = 0.
The Newton method to find a root of F(z) = 0 and with an initial guess, z i , is given by
F(z i )
z i+1 = z i − for i = 0, 1, 2 . . .
F (z i )
We can obtain an initial guess, z0 , by using the forward Euler method,
y1 = y0 − hy02 = 1 − 0.1 · 12 = 0.9. The first iteration with the Newton method gives
F(z 0 ) z 0 − 1 + 0.1z 02 0.9 − 1 + 0.1 · 0.92
z1 = z0 − = z 0 − = 0.9 −
F (z 0 ) 1 + 0.2z 0 1 + 0.2 · 0.9
= 0.916101694915254,
and the second iteration gives
F(z 1 ) z 1 − 1 + 0.1z 12
z2 = z1 −
= z1 − = 0.916079783140194.
F (z 1 ) 1 + 0.2z 1
Finally the solution converges at z = 0.916079783099616, which is the reactant
concentration, y1 , predicted by the implicit Euler method at the first time step t = 0.1.
This procedure is repeated for the following nine time steps to determine the final
reactant concentration. To sum up, the implicit Euler method involves more
computation; it does not improve accuracy because it is only first-order accurate, but it
significantly improves stability.
6.1.6 Multistep methods and predictor–corrector pairs

In contrast to the one-step methods, e.g. the Runge–Kutta method, where the solution
at xn+1 is calculated from the solution at xn , multistep methods calculate the solution
from previous steps, e.g. xn , xn−1 , xn−2 . In other words, multistep methods attempt to
gain efficiency by keeping and using the information from previous steps rather than
discarding it. Therefore, these methods are more efficient than the single-step Runge–
Kutta methods.
6.1.6.1 Explicit multistep methods

Among the explicit multistep methods, the Adams–Bashforth methods are the most
widely used. The second-order (global error) Adams–Bashforth two-step method is

3 1
yn+1 = yn + h f (xn , yn ) − f (xn−1 , yn−1 ) . (6.24)
2 2
The fourth-order, four-step Adams–Bashforth method,

55 59 37
yn+1 = yn + h f (xn , yn ) − f (xn−1 , yn−1 ) + f (xn−2 , yn−2 )
24 24 24

9
− f (xn−3 , yn−3 ) , (6.25)
24
requires information about f (xn , yn ), f (xn−1 , yn−1 ), f (xn−2 , yn−2 ), and f (xn−3 , yn−3 );
however, only f (xn , yn ) needs to be calculated in this step as the other values have been
calculated in previous steps. Obviously the multistep methods need help getting started
because they require information about previous steps. A one-step method is often used
for this start-up phase. Compared to the fourth-order Runge–Kutta method, which needs
four function evaluations, this method requires only one function evaluation after the
start-up phase. The advantage is clear; the multistep method can be used to obtain the
same accuracy with less computational effort.
6.1.6.2 Implicit multistep methods

Neither the Runge–Kutta nor the Adams–Bashforth methods can handle stiff differential
equations well. The Adams–Moulton method is an implicit multistep method that can
handle stiff problems better (stiff problems are dicussed later in this chapter). The
two-step Adams–Moulton method (third-order accurate) is

5 8 1
yn+1 = yn + h f (xn+1 , yn+1 ) + f (xn , yn ) − f (xn−1 , yn−1 ) , (6.26)
12 12 12
and the three-step Adams–Moulton method (fourth-order accurate) is

9 19 5
yn+1 = yn + h f (xn+1 , yn+1 ) + f (xn , yn ) − f (xn−1 , yn−1 )
24 24 24

1
+ f (xn−2 , yn−2 ) . (6.27)
24
The implicit multistep methods add stability but require more computation to evaluate
the implicit part. In addition, the error coefficient of the Adams–Moulton method of
order k is smaller than that of the Adams–Bashforth method of the same order. As a
consequence, the implicit methods should give improved accuracy. In fact, the error
coefficient for the implicit fourth-order Adams–Moulton method is 19/720, and for the
explicit fourth-order Adams–Bashforth method it is 251/720. The difference is thus
about an order of magnitude. Pairs of explicit and implicit multistep methods of the
same order are therefore often used as predictor–corrector pairs. In this case, the explicit
method is used to calculate the solution, ỹn+1 , at xn+1 . Furthermore, the implicit method
(corrector) uses ỹn+1 to calculate f (xn+1 , ỹn+1 ), which replaces f (xn+1 , yn+1 ). This
allows the solution, yn+1 , to be improved using the implicit method. The combination
of the Adams–Bashforth and the Adams–Moulton methods as predictor–corrector pairs
is implemented in some ODE solvers. The MATLAB ode113 solver is an example of a
variable-order Adams–Bashforth–Moulton multistep solver.
6.1.7 Systems of ODEs

Systems of coupled ODEs might arise from reformulating a higher-order differential
equation to a system of first-order differential equations, or as a description of a system
that consists of coupled variables. Systems of differential equations can be solved as an
extension of the methodology for a single differential equation. The principle is shown
in Example 6.4, which considers a stirred tank reactor.
Figure 6.10. Batch reactor with perfect mixing.
Example 6.4 System of ODEs

Consider an exothermic reaction occur ring in a batch reactor, as shown in Figure 6.10.
r1
The reaction mechanism is a first-order reaction, A → B, and the Ar rhenius reaction
rate law applies, i.e.
r1 = kCA = k0 e− Ea / RT CA . (6.28)
The system is described by the material balance,

dCA
= −r1 = −k0 e− Ea / RT CA = f 1 (CA , T ), (6.29)
dt
and the energy balance,
dT r1 (− H )V − U A(T − Tw )
= = f 2 (CA , T ), (6.30)
dt Vρ c p
with the initial conditions CA (0) = CA0 , T (0) = T0 .
Here, V is the reactor volume, UA(T − Tw ) is the external cooling for controlling the
reaction temperature, and r1 (− H )V is the heat caused by chemical reaction. As these
equations are coupled, they must be advanced simultaneously. For simplicity, and for
pedagogical reasons, we will use the explicit Euler method to solve this problem:
CA,n+1 = CA,n + h f 1 (CA,n , Tn ) = CA,n − hk0 e−Ea /RTn CA,n , (6.31)
h(k0 e−Ea /RTn CA,n (−H )V − U A(Tn − Tw ))

Tn+1 = Tn + h f 2 (CA,n , Tn ) = Tn + .
Vρc p
(6.32)
Solving Equations (6.31) and (6.32) obviously requires that the slopes f 1 (CA,n , Tn ) and
f 2 (CA,n , Tn ) are calculated before CA and T are updated. Using a fourth-order
Runge–Kutta algorithm means that eight slopes need to be calculated in each step.
Table 6.3. Transformation of higher-order derivatives
Define yi ODE for yi

dy1
y1 = y = y2
dx
dy dy2
y2 = = y3
dx dx
d2 y dy3
y3 = = y4
dx2 dx
d n−1 y dyn dy d 2 y d n−1 y
yn = = f 1 (x, y, , 2 , . . . , n−1 )
d x n−1 dx dx dx dx
6.1.8 Transforming higher-order ODEs

The methods described earlier in this chapter apply to higher-order differential equations,
i.e.

dn y dy d 2 y d n−1 y
= f 1 x, y, , , . . . , n−1 . (6.33)
dxn dx dx2 dx
Higher-order ODEs can be rewritten to a system of first-order equations. In this case,
the numerical methods developed for solving single first-order ODEs can be extended
directly to ODE systems. This means that the numerical methods for solving higher-
order differential equations are reduced to integrating a system of first-order differential
equations. The general principle for transforming a higher-order differential equation,
Equation (6.33), is shown in Example 6.5 and is summarized in Table 6.3.
Example 6.5 Transformation

In this example we will consider the transformation of a second-order ODE to a system
of two first-order ODEs. The second-order differential equation is given by
d2 y dy
a(x) 2
+ b(x) = c(x). (6.34)
dx dx
Let
y(x) = y1 (x) (6.35)
and
dy1
= y2 (x). (6.36)
dx
Subsequently, the second-order equation is transformed to the system
⎧ dy
⎪
⎨
1
= y2 (x),
dx (6.37)
⎪ dy c(x) − b(x)y2 (x)
⎩ 2 = .
dx a(x)
This system of first-order differential equations is integrated to solve the second-order

ODE Equation (6.34), using any of the methods described in the previous sections.
6.1.9 Stiffness of ODEs

Differential equations must also be characterized according to their numerical stiffness,
because only a few numerical methods can handle stiff problems. Without trying to give
a precise mathematical definition of stiffness we will consider a problem as stiff when
there are multiple time scales present that cause abrupt changes in a data series. This
often occurs due to the separation of time scales, which is very common in models of
chemical engineering systems. Unfortunately, the performance of the explicit numerical
algorithms presented in this chapter, e.g. the Runge–Kutta methods, are not good because
a faster time scale restricts how large-step size can be used without divergence, i.e. to
maintain numerical stability. Consequently, the problem is considered stiff when the
numerical solution has its step size limited more severely by the stability of the method
than by its accuracy. In other words, the major problem with a non-stiff solver is that
the computation time for stiff equation systems becomes very high. Whilst a non-stiff
solver would require very small time steps throughout an entire interval, a stiff solver
would require only small steps when the solutions rapidly change, i.e. to resolve step
gradients in the interval.
The most popular methods for solving stiff problems are the backward differentiation
formulas (BDFs) and the numerical differentiation formulas (NDFs). The MATLAB
ode15s uses NDFs. These methods belong to the family of implicit methods and have
good stability properties. The BDFs approximate the derivative of a function by using
information from already computed values; they are methods that give an approximation
to a derivative of a variable at xn in terms of its function values y(x) at xn and at earlier
locations. This means that BDFs are implicit, just like the Adams–Moulton methods.
Compared to the Adams–Moulton methods, however, BDFs are not as accurate for
formulas of the same order. Furthermore, they are not stable for orders of 7 and higher.
However, at the orders at which the formulas are stable, they are much more stable than
the Adams–Moulton methods, which explains why they are often used to solve stiff
problems. The simplest BDF is a one-step formula
yn+1 = yn + h f (xn+1 , yn+1 ), (6.38)
which is the backward Euler method. The higher-order BDFs involve previously com-
puted solution values, for example, a second-order BDF,
1
yn+1 = (4yn − yn−1 + 2h f (xn+1 , yn+1 )). (6.39)
3
General purpose methods adapt the step size to the solution of the problem, and they
also adapt the order of the method, which allows both high accuracy and stability. The
stability of the methods generally becomes worse as the order increases. The maximum
order can be specified for stability reasons. A simple numerical experiment can be used
to show how the selection of ODE solver affects a solution. Consider Example 6.6,
which becomes stiff for large α values.
Figure 6.11. Solution to (a) a non-stiff system, α = 2, (b) a stiff system, α = 200 000.
Example 6.6 Stiff differential equation system

Consider the potentially stiff system
dy1
= −y1 (t),
dt
dy2
= −αy2 (t),
dt
y1 (0) = 1,
y2 (0) = 1,
t ∈ [0, 1].
The analytical solution to this problem is given by

y1 (t) = e−t ,
y2 (t) = e−αt .
For large α values, the system becomes stiff as it contains components that vary with
different speeds, i.e. y2 (t) approaches zero much faster than y1 (t) does. The solutions to
this problem for α = 2 and α = 200 000 are shown in Figure 6.11. By analyzing the
number of steps required by the different methods, it becomes clear how the stiff solvers
outperform the explicit methods. Calculations have been performed for different values
of α with different error tolerances; the results are summarized in Table 6.4.
We can draw several conclusions from Table 6.4 after what we have learned in this
chapter. We can conclude that for non-stiff problems and moderate error tolerances all
methods work efficiently. When the error tolerance is stricter, the higher-order method
ode45 performs better than the ode23 method.
Table 6.4. Number of steps used by the different MATLAB solvers
Relative tolerance = 10−3 Relative tolerance = 10−9

Absolute tolerance = 10−6 Absolute tolerance = 10−12
α=2 α = 200 α = 200 000 α=2 α = 200 α = 200 000
ode23 11 105 79 620 688 3708 82 985

ode45 10 73 60 274 39 285 60 486
ode23s 11 53 58 858 4627 4686
ode15s 14 75 91 83 438 461
For stiff problems, both of the explicit methods (ode23 and ode45) perform poorly,
regardless of the error tolerance specified. Both require many steps to advance through
the interval t ∈ [0, 1]. As mentioned before, these two explicit solvers use adaptive step
sizes, but there are also stability constraints that prevent them from taking large time
steps, even if the problem would seem to allow for this in regions where the derivative
is low. In contrast, the implicit ODE solvers have much better stability and solve the
problem more efficiently. When the error tolerence is very strict, ode15s performs better
than ode23s; this is because it is a variable-order method, of orders 1–5, whereas ode23s
is based on a formulation of orders of 2 and 3. More information about these numerical
algorithms can be found at the end of this chapter.
6.2 Boundary-value problems
A differential equation that has data given at more than one value of the independent
variable is a boundary-value problem (BVP). Consequently, the differential equation
must be of at least second order. The solution methods for BVPs are different com-
pared to the methods used for initial-value problems (IVPs). An overview of a few of
these methods will be presented in Sections 6.2.1–6.2.3. The shooting method is the
first method presented. It actually allows initial-value methods to be used, in that it
transforms a BVP to an IVP, and finds the solution for the IVP. The lack of boundary
conditions at the beginning of the interval requires several IVPs to be solved before
the solution converges with the BVP solution. Another method presented later on is the
finite difference method, which solves the BVP by converting the differential equation
and the boundary conditions to a system of linear or non-linear equations. Finally, the
collocation and finite element methods, which solve the BVP by approximating the
solution in terms of basis functions, are presented.
6.2.1 Shooting method

The shooting method uses methods similar to the ones used for solving IVPs; the main
difference comes from the iterative approach that is required for solving BVPs. The
Figure 6.12. Principle of the shooting method.
iterative approach is needed to determine the missing initial values that are consistent
with the boundary values. Consider the following second-order BVP:
⎧ 2
⎪
⎪
d y
=
dy
,
⎪
⎪ f x, y,
⎨ dx2 dx
y(a) = ya , (6.40)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ y(b) = yb ,
⎩
x ∈ [a, b],
which can be transformed to a system of first-order differential equations using the

method described in Section 6.1, i.e. by setting y1 = y and y2 = dy/d x,
⎧
⎪ dy
⎨ 1 = y2 ,
dx
⎪
⎩ dy2 = f (x, y1 , y2 ).
dx
In order to apply any of the IVP methods for solving this system of differential equations,
we need one condition each for the variables y1 and y2 . However, having two conditions
for y1 and none for the other variable does not help. Instead we need to guess y2 (a)
and perform the integration to the point x = b, as illustrated in Figure 6.12. For other
BVPs, the derivative, y2 (a), might be given and y1 (a) might need to be guessed (as in
Example 6.7).
In Figure 6.12 two different slopes have been guessed, resulting in two different solu-
tions, neither of which match the boundary value yb . Different root-finding algorithms
may be used to find the missing initial condition, e.g. the secant method or the Newton
method. When the missing initial condition has been found, the solution of the IVP at
y(b) will match yb .
This iterative procedure is summarized in the following algorithm:
r guess y2 (a) (or y1 (a) if that is missing);

r integrate the system of ODEs over the entire domain, x ∈ [a, b];
r terminate if ε = |y1 (b) − yb | < tol; or else
r adjust y2 (a) and continue to point 2.
Adjustment of the initial guess can be done using the secant method, which can be
applied as soon as two trials have been completed,
y2,i − y2,i−1
y2,i+1 = y2,i − εi . (6.41)
εi − εi−1
As an alternative, the Newton method can be used. The reader is referred to the literature
to learn more about these methods.
Example 6.7 Shooting method

Reaction rates inside a spherical isothermal porous catalyst particle depend on the rate
of diffusion and the kinetics. When the reaction is fast compared to the diffusion, e.g.
at higher temperatures, the reactants will be consumed near the surface and not all the
catalyst will be effectively used. The ratio of the actual reaction rate throughout the
particle to the reaction rate without any diffusion limitation is a good measure of how
effectively the catalyst is used. This is called the effectiveness factor, η. Consider
calculating the effectiveness factor for a spherical catalyst particle for a first-order
reaction at the conditions specified below. The governing equation and boundary
conditions are given in the dimensionless form, and a first-order reaction is assumed:
⎧ 2
⎪
⎪ d C 2 dC
⎪
⎪ + − φ 2 C = 0,
⎪
⎪ dr 2 r dr
⎨C(1) = 1,
(6.42)
⎪ dC
⎪
⎪ = 0,
⎪
⎪
⎪ dr r =0
⎩
r ∈ [0, 1].
√
Here the dimensionless variables are concentration c, radius r, and φ = R k/De is the
Thiele modulus, a dimensionless number used to describe the relation between the
reaction and diffusion rates. In this ODE-BVP, the first boundary condition specifies
the concentration at the catalyst surface, and the second boundary condition specifies
no flux at the center of the particle. In order to use the shooting method, the BVP is
rewritten using dC/dr = w, which gives a system of first-order ODEs,
dw 2
= φ 2 C − w,
dr r
dC
= w. (6.43)
dr
At this point, ordinary ODE-IVP solvers can be used to solve the problem, but, due to
the lack of boundary conditions at the beginning of the interval, i.e. at r = 0, the
C(r = 0) value needs to be guessed. When a converged solution is obtained, i.e. when
C(r = 1) = 1, the effectiveness factor can be calculated using
1
C(r )r 2 dr
η = 10 .
0 C|r =1 r 2 dr
Figure 6.13. Concentration profile in the catalyst particle of Example 6.7 for φ = 2.
Figure 6.14. Computational grid, with n grid points.
When φ = 2 the solution is obtained by guessing C(r = 0) = 0.55. The concentration

profile in the catalyst for φ = 2 is shown in Figure 6.13, and the effectiveness factor,
η = 0.81, agrees with the analytical value that can be determined for this first-order
kinetics.
6.2.2 Finite difference method for BVPs

The basic principle in using the finite difference method to solve BVPs is to replace
all the derivatives in the differential equation with difference-quotient approximations.
First, the interval a < x < b is discretized into n equally spaced intervals (an unequal
spaced interval may also be used):
a = x0 < x1 < x2 < x3 < · · · < xn = b.
Consequently, the mesh (or grid) points are given by

xi = a + i × h, for i = 0, 1, 2, . . . , n,
where h = (b − a)/n is the mesh size, as shown in Figure 6.14.

Assume a general linear BVP
d2 y dy
2
= p(x) + q(x)y + r (x),
dx dx
y(a) = ya ,
y(b) = yb . (6.44)
From the Taylor theorem, we can derive the difference approximation for the first- and
second-order derivatives by expanding y about xi .When using central differences, the
first-order derivative is approximated by

dy y (xi+1 ) − y (xi−1 )
= + O (h 2 ), (6.45)
d x xi 2h
which means that the approximation is O(h2 ). The second-order derivative (using central
difference approximations) is approximated by

d 2 y y(xi+1 ) − 2y(xi ) + y(xi−1 )
= + O(h 2 ). (6.46)
d x 2 xi h2
By substituting Equations (6.45) and (6.46) into Equation (6.44), and introducing
pi = p(xi ), qi = q(xi ), ri = r(xi ), the discretized version of Equation (6.44) is obtained as
follows:
y(xi+1 ) − 2y(xi ) + y(xi−1 ) y(xi+1 ) − y(xi−1 )
= pi + qi y(xi ) + ri ,
h2 2h
for i = 1, 2, . . . , n − 1, (6.47)
which simplifies to
(1 + hpi /2)y(xi−1 ) − (2 + h 2 qi )y(xi ) + (1 − hpi /2)y(xi+1 ) = h 2ri . (6.48)
This means there are n − 1 unknowns, i.e. y1 , y2 , . . . , yn−1 , and n − 1 algebraic equations
that should be solved for. This can be written in the matrix form, Ay = f, where
⎡ ⎤
−2−h 2 q1 1 − hp1 /2 0 0 . .
⎢1 + hp /2 −2 − h 2 q 1 − hp /2 . ⎥
⎢ 2 2 2 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥
A=⎢ ⎥,
⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ . 0 1 + hpn−2 /2 −2 − h 2 qn−2 1 − hpn−2 /2 ⎦
. 0 0 1 + hpn−1 /2 −2 − h 2 qn−1
(6.49)
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
y1 h 2r1 − (1 + hp1 /2)ya
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ h 2 r2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
y2 ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥. ⎢ . ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
y=⎢ ⎥,
. and f =⎢ . ⎥. (6.50)
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥. ⎢ . ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ yn−2 ⎦ ⎣ 2
h rn−2 ⎦
yn−1 h 2rn−1 − (1 − hpn−1 /2)yb
Consequently, the approximative solution to the BVP is calculated on a computational
mesh, and it results in a system of algebraic equations. In this example, the prob-
lem is linear and the Gaussian elimination can be used to solve the equation system
(n − 1 algebraic equations). Dirichlet boundary conditions were specified in this prob-
lem. Note that the boundary conditions are accounted for in two of these equations, i.e.
Figure 6.15. Cooling-fin design.
the first and last rows in the matrix Equations (6.50). The finite difference method can
be summarized as follows.
(1) Convert the continuous variable to discrete variables. The mesh for the independent
variable may be evenly or unevenly spaced.
(2) Use the difference approximation to replace the derivatives.
(3) Implement the boundary conditions.
(4) Solve the equation system using direct or indirect methods.
As shown here, the implementation of Dirichlet boundary conditions is straightfor-

ward. In contrast, if the problem contains a Neumann boundary condition, i.e. a derivative
on the boundary, a little more work will be needed.
If the BVP contains a Neumann boundary condition, one way to solve the problem
is to extend the original computational domain, i.e. from nh to (n + 1)h. This means
introducing a fictitious boundary. This obviously requires one more grid point outside
the original grid; the additional one is at xn+1 , as shown in Example 6.8. By introducing
the fictitious node, the accuracy O(h2 ) is maintained.
Example 6.8 Finite difference method

Cooling fins, Figure 6.15, are frequently used to improve heat transfer from walls to
gases, because gases have low thermal conductivity. The fin efficiency factor, η, is
defined as the ratio between the actual heat transfer and the heat transfer if the entire fin
has the wall temperature Tw . The temperature obviously depends on fin dimensions
(length and thickness) and on the thermal conductivity of the fin material. In order to
quantify the efficiency of a fin, the temperature profile along the fin must be
determined.
The heat transfer is governed by the following differential equation:
d2T α
= (T − Tamb ), (6.51)
dx2 λB
where α is the heat transfer coefficient and λ is the thermal conductivity. This is a
second-order differential equation that requires two boundary conditions. We assume
that the temperature at x = 0 equals Tw , i.e.
T (0) = Tw , (6.52)
and that the flux at the tip is negligible, i.e.

∂ T
= 0. (6.53)
∂ x x= L
By introducing the dimensionless variables

T − Tam b αL2
θ= , ξ = x/ L , H= ,
Tw − Tam b λB
Equation (6.51) can be written as
d 2θ
= H 2 θ, (6.54)
dξ 2
and the new boundary conditions become
θ (0) = 1, (6.55)

dθ
= 0. (6.56)
dξ ξ =1
By using the central difference approximation for the second-order derivative, the
discretized version of Equation (6.54) is obtained:
θ (ξi+1 ) − 2θ (ξi ) + θ (ξi−1 )
− H 2 θ (ξi ) = 0, (6.57)
h2
which simplifies to
θ (ξi−1 ) − (2 + h 2 H 2 )θ (ξi ) + θ (ξi+1 ) = 0. (6.58)
For simplicity, the domain ξ ∈ [0, 1] is discretized into four equally spaced intervals,
h = (1 − 0)4 = 0.25, and we solve the problem for H = 1. This results in the linear
equation system
θ0 − (2 + h 2 )θ1 + θ2 = 0,
θ1 − (2 + h 2 )θ2 + θ3 = 0,
(6.59)
θ2 − (2 + h 2 )θ3 + θ4 = 0,
θ3 − (2 + h 2 )θ4 + θ5 = 0.
Note that a Dirichlet boundary condition is specified for the left-hand side of the
domain, i.e. θ0 = 1. In order to implement the Neumann boundary condition on the
right-hand side of the domain (the no-heat-flux condition on the tip), we can extend the
computational domain from ξi = i × h for i = 0, 1, 2, . . . , n to i = 0, 1, 2, . . . , n + 1.
For this reason, the dependent variable is also calculated at the fictitious boundary
outside the domain, at ξ5 . The Neumann boundary condition, i.e. the derivative at the
Figure 6.16. Temperature profile in the cooling fin of Example 6.8 for H = 1, grid resolution
h = 0.1.
right-hand side of the domain, is approximated by the central difference formula to

maintain the second-order accuracy of the method,

dθ θ5 − θ3
≈ = 0, (6.60)
dξ ξ4 2h
which yields θ5 − θ3 = 0. In total we have five equations and five unknowns in the
equation system Equations (6.59) and (6.60), which can be written as follows:
⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
−(2 + h 2 ) 1 0 0 0 θ1 −1
⎢1 −(2 + h 2 ) 1 0 0⎥ ⎢θ2 ⎥ ⎢0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢0 0⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 −(2 + h 2 ) 1 ⎥ ⎢θ3 ⎥ = ⎢0 ⎥ . (6.61)
⎣0 0 1 −(2 + h 2 ) 1 ⎣θ4 ⎦ ⎣0 ⎦
⎦
0 0 −1 0 1 θ5 0
Equation (6.61) can be solved by using Gaussian elimination, and the predicted
temperature profile inside the cooling fin is θ1 = 0.8396, θ2 = 0.7318, θ3 = 0.6696,
θ4 = 0.6493 (and θ5 = 0.6696).
Note that θ5 is the solution at the fictitious boundary (outside the domain), it can be
excluded when plotting the solution on the domain of interest. In order to reduce the
error, the domain is simply discretized into smaller intervals. The solution to the
problem using finite differences and a mesh with h = 0.1 is shown in Figure 6.16.
The error, evaluated at ξ = 0.5, for different grid resolutions is shown in
Figure 6.17. The error plotted in this log-log plot is a straight line with a slope equal to
2, which can be expected because the central difference approximation is second-order
accurate, O(h2 ).
Figure 6.17. Error vs. step size, Example 6.8.
6.2.3 Collocation and finite element methods

Both the collocation and the finite element methods are function approximation methods.
Similar to the finite difference method, the strategy here is to reduce the differential
equation to a set of algebraic equations that can be solved. Instead of discretizing
the differential equation by replacing the various derivatives with difference-quotient
approximations, the solution is given a functional form,

y(x) = ai φi (x). (6.62)
In other words, the function approximation methods find a solution by assuming a
particular type of function, a trial (basis) function, over an element or over the whole
domain, which can be polynomial, trigonometric functions, splines, etc. These functions
contain unknown parameters that are determined by substituting the trial function into
the differential equation and its boundary conditions. In the collocation method, the
trial function is forced to satisfy the boundary conditions and to satisfy the differential
equation exactly at some discrete points distributed over the range of the independent
variable, i.e. the residual is zero at these collocation points. In contrast, in the finite
element method, the trial functions are defined over an element, and the elements are
joined together to cover an entire domain.
The collocation method is a simple and effective method that is illustrated in the fol-
lowing example. Consider solving the following BVP problem by using the collocation
method:
⎧ 2
⎪
⎪ d y = 6x,
⎪
⎪
⎨ dx2
y(0) = 0, (6.63)
⎪
⎪ y(1) = 1,
⎪
⎪
⎩
x ∈ [0, 1].
In this case, we will select a trial function, φi (x ), which can fulfill the boundary
conditions
y ( x ) = a1 + a2 x + a3 x 2 . (6.64)
The derivatives of the polynomial, y(x), are
dy d2 y
= a2 + 2a3 x and = 2a3 . (6.65)
dx dx2
Three equations are obviously required to determine the unknowns a1 , a2 , a3 . By sub-
stituting Equation (6.65) into the differential equation Equation (6.63) and evaluating at
certain mesh points, the problem is reduced to solving a system of equations in ai . The
collocation points should be selected at points that have a large influence on the function.
We require that the BVP is satisfied in the middle of the domain, at the collocation point
x2 = 0.5, which yields
d2 y
= 2a3 = 6x2 = 6 · 0.5 = 3. (6.66)
dx2
This means that a3 = 1.5. The left boundary condition, y(0) = 0, gives
a1 + a2 · 0 + a3 · 02 = 0,
and the right boundary condition, y(1) = 1, gives
a1 + a2 · 1 + a3 · 12 = 1.
This gives the two other coefficients, a1 = 0, a2 = −0.5, and the polynomial becomes
y(x) = a1 + a2 x + a3 x 2 = −0.5x + 1.5x 2 . (6.67)
The approximative solution to the BVP, i.e. the polynomial, and the true solution are
6.3 Partial differential equations
Many phenomena in chemical engineering depend, in complex ways, on space and

time, and often a mathematical model requires more than one independent variable to
characterize the state of a system, i.e. the systems need to be described using partial
differential equations, PDEs. Examples of such phenomena include chemical reactions,
heat transfer, fluid flow, and population dynamics. For practical engineering applications,
analytic solutions do not exist, and numerical methods need to be applied. This section
is not intended to give a complete discussion of PDEs nor of solution methods. Instead,
the aim is to introduce the terminology and some issues involved in solving PDEs. The
discussion will be limited to linear PDEs that have two independent variables, e.g. space
and time, or two space variables for a steady-state problem, with the form

∂ 2u ∂ 2u ∂ 2u ∂u ∂u
A 2 +B +C 2 + f , , u, x, y = 0 (6.68)
∂x ∂ x∂ y ∂y ∂x ∂y
Figure 6.18. Solution of BVP using the collocation method.
or
Au x x + Bu x y + Cu yy + f (u x , u y , u, x, y ) = 0, (6.69)
where the subscripts denote the partial derivatives of the dependent variable, u, and the
focus is on the finite difference method.
6.3.1 Classification of PDEs

PDEs can be classified in different ways. The classification is important because the
solution methods often apply only to a specified class of PDEs. To start with, PDEs can
be classified by the number of variables, e.g. ut = uxx , which contain two independent
variables, t and x. The order of a PDE is the order of the highest-order derivative that
appears in the PDE. For example, ut = ux is a first-order PDE, whereas ut = uxx is
a second-order PDE. In addition, it is important to make a distinction between non-
linear and linear PDEs. An example of a well-known non-linear PDE is the Navier–
Stokes equation, which describes the motion of fluids. In a linear PDE, the dependent
variable and its derivatives appear in a linear fashion. The linear second-order PDE in
Equation (6.69) can be classified as
(i) parabolic, if B2 − 4AC = 0;

(ii) hyperbolic, if B2 − 4AC > 0;
(iii) elliptic, if B2 − 4AC < 0.
The B2 − 4AC term is refer red to as the discriminant of the solution, and the behavior
of the solution of Equation (6.69) depends on its sign. The smoothness of a solution is
affected by the type of equation. The solutions to elliptic PDEs are smooth. In addition,
boundary conditions at any point affect the solution at all points in the computational
domain. Elliptic PDEs often describe the steady-state condition of a variable, for exam-
ple a diffusion process that has reached equilibrium, or a steady-state temperature
distribution. In hyperbolic PDEs, the smoothness of a solution depends on the initial
and boundary conditions. For instance, if there is a jump in the data at the start or
at the boundaries, this jump will propagate in the solution. Parabolic PDEs arise in
time-dependent diffusion problems, for example the transient flow of heat.
6.3.2 Finite difference solution of parabolic equations

Equation (6.70) is an example of a parabolic partial differential equation:
∂u ∂ 2u
= D 2. (6.70)
∂t ∂x
For instance, Equation (6.70) can describe the diffusion of a chemical species in porous
material as a function of time and space, with diffusivity constant D. The equation
can also describe the heat conduction in a material. As such it can be used to quantify
how temperature is conducted throughout a material in time, with the heat diffusivity
D = λ/(ρc p ). We limit the discussion to how to solve parabolic PDEs by using the finite
difference method.
6.3.3 Forward difference method

The basic idea of the finite difference method for solving PDEs is to use a grid in the
independent variables and to discretize the PDEs by introducing difference-quotient
approximations, thereby reducing the problem to solving a system of equations. The
first derivative in time can be approximated by the forward difference formula,
u(xi , t j+1 ) − u(xi , t j )

u t (xi , t j ) = + O(k), (6.71)
k
and the second derivative to the x variable can be approximated by the central finite
difference formula,
u(xi+1 , t j ) − 2u(xi , t j ) + u(xi−1 , t j )

u x x (xi , t j ) = + O(h 2 ). (6.72)
h2
Substituting Equations (6.71) and (6.72) into the heat equation, Equation (6.70), yields
1 D
(u i, j+1 − u i, j ) = 2 (u i+1, j − 2u i, j + u i−1, j ), (6.73)
k h
where ui, j is the numerical approximation to u(xi , tj ). This forward time central space
(FTCS) discretization has the local error O(k) + O(h2 ), i.e. it is first-order accurate in
Figure 6.19. Mesh points for the forward difference method.
Figure 6.20. Stencil for the explicit forward method.
Figure 6.21. Stencil for the explicit forward method. (a) σ = 0.1; (b) σ = 0.5; (c) σ = 1.
time and second-order accurate in space. On rear ranging, we obtain
kD
u i, j+1 = u i, j + (u i+1, j − 2u i, j + u i−1, j ). (6.74)
h2
Let us now introduce the parameter σ = k D/ h 2 ; then Equation (6.74) can be written as
u i, j+1 = σ u i−1, j + (1 − 2σ )u i, j + σ u i+1, j . (6.75)
The forward difference formula is explicit as the new values can be determined directly
from the previous known values, i.e. the solution takes the form of a marching procedure
in time. The mesh points involved in stepping forward in time are shown in Figure 6.19.
In the figure, the filled circles represent values known from the previous time step and
the open circle is the unknown value.
In order to solve the PDE, the initial and boundary conditions also need to be specified.
The explicit forward difference method is of little practical use because the method is
only conditionally stable. This can be understood better by looking at the relationship
between the unknown value and the values known from previous time steps, as in the
stencil in Figure 6.20.
Note that when σ = 0.5 the solution at the new point is independent of the closest
point (Figure 6.21(b)). When σ > 0.5, the new point depends negatively on the clos-
est point (Figure 6.21(c)). A consequence of this is that the solution is unstable for
σ > 0.5.
Figure 6.22. Solution of the heat equation problem, D = 1.0 and σ < 0.5, Example 6.9.
Example 6.9 Finite difference method – stability constraints

Consider solving the following problem:
⎧
⎨ ∂u ∂ 2u
= D 2,
⎩x∂t∈ [0, 1],
∂x (6.76)
t ≥ 0,
with the simple Dirichlet boundary conditions
u(0, t) = 0,
u(1, t) = 0, (6.77)
and the initial condition
u(x, 0) = sin(π x). (6.78)
The solution of the heat equation problem (D = 1.0), using the explicit forward method,
is shown in Figure 6.22. Here, σ < 0.5 and the solution is stable. Considering that the
time scale for diffusive heat transport is τ = L 2 /D, the temperature profile is expected.
Figure 6.23. Stability of the forward explicit method for the heat equation. Temperature
distributions are shown at t = 1; (a) stable for σ = 0.4; (b) unstable for σ = 0.5005.
The instability in the solution of the heat equation problem occurs for σ > 0.5.
Figure 6.23(a) shows the temperature profile at t = 1.0 for D = 1.0 and σ = 0.4, and
Figure 6.23(b) shows the predicted profile for σ = 0.5005. The instability for σ > 0.5
is very clear. The problem with stability can be overcome by using other difference
methods, e.g. implicit methods.
6.3.4 Backward difference method

The implicit backward difference formula,
u(xi , t j ) − u(xi , t j−1 )
u t (xi , t j ) = + O(k), (6.79)
k
improves stability. Upon substitution into the heat equation and rearrangement, the PDE
is approximated numerically by
1 D
(u i, j − u i, j−1 ) = 2 (u i+1, j − 2u i, j + u i−1, j ). (6.80)
k h
Stability analysis shows that the backward implicit method is stable for any choice of
step size k and h. This means that the method is unconditionally stable; as such, the
stability does not depend on the σ = k D/h 2 value.
As the local error is the same as in the forward difference method, i.e. O(k) + O(h2 ),
the error from the time discretization dominates, assuming step sizes of h k. Although
the method is unconditionally stable, its accuracy is low due to the large local truncation
error. Overall, the backward difference method is O(k), which means that the error at a
certain point decreases linearly with k. In other words, if k is cut in half, so is the error.
In contrast, if h is cut in half (for a given k), the error would be about the same, and the
amount of computation would increase.
6.3.5 Crank–Nicolson method

The Crank–Nicolson method is a combination of implicit and explicit methods, and the
benefit of the method is twofold. First, the method is unconditionally stable, and second
the truncation error is smaller, O(k2 ) +O(h2 ). Implementing the Crank–Nicolson method
in the heat equation gives
Dk
2u i, j − 2u i, j−1 = (u i+1, j − 2u i, j + u i−1, j + u i+1, j−1 − 2u i, j−1 + u i−1, j−1 ).
h2
(6.81)
This section has provided a short introduction to solving PDEs using the finite difference
method. But there is much more to explore, and the reader is referred to books on
advanced numerical methods to learn more about how to solve PDEs. In most cases
the reader will use existing numerical algorithms for solving ODEs and PDEs, either
commercial or open-source. Section 6.4 gives a short description of some of these
software products.
6.4 Simulation software
There are many numerical software products available, both commerical and open-
source. It is good practice to use the available algorithms for solving ODEs and PDEs
rather than to develop new ones from scratch. In this section we list some of most popular
algorithms in MATLAB, since it is used widely in both academia and industry. Another
popular software product is GNU Octave (freeware). Besides these software products,
there is a series of useful books on numerical analysis, “Numerical Recipes.”
6.4.1 MATLAB
The two work horses used for solving ODE problems are ode45 for non-stiff equations
and ode15s for stiff equations. These methods have in common that the step size does not
need to be specified, because the solvers include an estimate of the error at each step. The
solver then adapts the step size to meet the specified error tolerance. The explicit solvers
are all unstable with stiff systems. The solver will shorten time steps and the solution
will take a long time, or the step reduces to a point where machine precision causes the
algorithm to fail. The most widely used ODE solvers are classified in accordance to their
characteristics, as discussed in the preceding sections, and as shown in Table 6.5.
The MATLAB ODE solvers are given three arguments: the function evaluating the
right-hand side of the differential equation; the time interval to integrate over; and the
initial conditions. There are also other important characteristics, besides the ones listed
in the table, that might be of importance when selecting a particular algorithm. For
example, the ode15s solver can solve differential algebraic equations (DAEs).
Methods for solving BVPs and PDEs are summarized in Table 6.6. The standard
MATLAB installation has one PDE solver. But there is also a toolbox for solving PDEs
6.4 Simulation software 115
Table 6.5. Characteristics of MATLAB ODE-IVP solvers
Explicit/ Single step/ Non-

Solver implicit multistep stiff/stiff Accuracy Method
ode23 explicit single non-stiff low Runge–Kutta pair of order 2 and 3, of Bogacki
and Shampine
ode45 explicit single non-stiff medium Runge–Kutta pair of order 4 and 5, of
Dormand–Prince
ode113 explicit multi non-stiff variable low Adams–Bashforth–Moulton
to high predictor–corrector pairs of order 1 to 13
ode15s implict multi stiff variable low numerical differentiation formulas, orders 1
to medium to 5
ode23s implicit single stiff low modified Rosenbrock formula of order 2
Table 6.6. BVP and PDE solvers
Method Category Comment
bvp4c boundary value solves two-point BVPs for ODEs

pdepe parabolic and elliptic, PDEs PDE solver for parabolic-elliptic PDEs
pdetool PDEs graphical user interface to solve PDEs
Table 6.7. Minimization and root-finding methods
Method Comment
fzero finds zero of single-variable function

fsolve solves system of equations of several variables
fminunc finds a minimum of a scalar function of several variables, unconstrained
fmincon finds a constrained minimum of a scalar function of several variables
lsqnonlin solves non-linear least square problems, e.g. regression analysis (see Chapter 7)
in which the command pdetool invokes a graphical user interface (GUI). In this GUI,
the user can draw geometry, define boundary conditions, specify the PDE, generate the
mesh, and compute and display the solution. It allows the solution of PDEs in two space
dimensions and time.
6.4.2 Miscellaneous MATLAB algorithms

For the convenience of MATLAB beginners, we list some other useful algorithms in the
Tables 6.7 and 6.8. Some of these algorithms and commands might assist in completing
the practice problems.
Linear equation systems can be solved with the linsolve algorithm. Various post-
processing and visualization commands are available, as shown in Table 6.8.
Table 6.8. Visualization of the solution
Method Comment
plot linear plot, 2D

loglog log-log plot, 2D
contour3 creates a 3D contour plot of a surface
surf colored surface plot, 3D
Analytical solutions of some ODEs can be obtained with dsolve. As an example, a

solution to a particle settling at low particle Reynolds number can be obtained with the
“Symbolic toolbox” in MATLAB:
y=dsolve(’Dy=k1-k2*y’,’y(0)=0’,’t’)
which gives
y = (k1 - k1/exp(k2*t))/k2
6.4.3 An example of MATLAB code

The solution to the problem in Example 6.1,
⎧
⎪
⎪
dy
⎨ d x = f (x, y) = y + x,
⎪
⎪
⎪ y(0) = 1,
⎪
⎩x ∈ [0, 1],
can be obtained by the following commands in the MATLAB prompt.
opts = odeset(’RelTol’, 1e--4);

[x,y] = ode45(@f, [0 1], 1, opts)
plot(x,y)
and by specifying the differential equation in a function file (m-file),
function dy = f(x,y)
dy = y + x;
Note that the MATLAB ODE solver is given three arguments: the function evaluating
the right-hand side of the differential equation, the time interval to integrate over, and
the initial conditions. The first line of code (opts) sets the relative error tolerance to
1e−4 (default is 1e−3). This line is followed by a command which calls the ode45
solver, and specifies that the differential equation is specified in the m-file. Further, the
command also specifies that the ODE should be solved in the interval 0–1 and at the
initial condition y0 = 1. The third line is just used to plot the solution in a graph.
6.6 Questions 117
It is also possible to solve the problem by defining the function f (x, y) “inline”:
[x,y] = ode45(inline(’y+x’,’x’,’y’), [0 1], 1, opts)
6.4.4 GNU Octave

Octave is a programming language with syntax very similar to that in MATLAB. It is
used in academia and industry for numerical analysis. The software is available for free
under the terms of the GNU General Public License and runs on both Windows and
Unix systems.
6.5 Summary
Differential equations play a dominant role in modeling chemical engineering systems.

This chapter has explained the principles underlying solutions to differential equations.
The purpose was to introduce the concepts of accuracy, stability, and computational effi-
ciency. With this knowledge, the reader can understand how different algorithms work,
and how to select appropriate numerical algorithms for different kinds of differential
equations. Readers who are particularly interested in this area are encouraged to study
more advanced books on numerical analysis for more details.
6.6 Questions
(1) What is the difference between the local truncation error and the global error, and
how are they related?
(2) How can error tolerance be ensured when a true solution does not exist when
solving differential equations?
(3) Explain what is meant by adaptive step size methods, and why they are used.
(4) What characterizes multistep methods, and why are they often used?
(5) How do predictor–corrector pairs work, and why are they used?
(6) How is stability related to explicit and implicit methods, and what is a conditionally
stable method?
(7) Explain what is meant by stiff differential equations, and what category of ODE
solvers is suitable for stiff systems.
(8) Why are different solution methods needed for IVPs and BVPs, and how can BVPs
be solved?
(9) Explain the principle behind the finite difference method.
(10) What do the collocation and finite element methods have in common, and how do
they differ?
There are many books on numerical methods available that contain exercises that allow
you to practice writing your own algorithms to solve differential equations. It is equally
important to learn how to use the existing software products for numerical analysis,
and select appropriate numerical methods for stability and efficiency reasons. With this
in mind, some of the problems in this section require that you work with software for
numerical computing, e.g. MATLAB.
6.1 Find the approximate solution to the IVP dy/dt = t − y, y(0) = 1, for t ∈ [0, 1],
using step sizes h = 0.1, 0.01, and 0.001. Determine the error at t = 1 and make a
log-log plot of the global error as a function of the step size h, using
(a) the forward Euler method,
(b) the fourth-order Runge–Kutta method.
(c) Confirm that the two lines are consistent with the order of the method.
The analytical solution is y(t) = t + 2/et − 1.
6.2 Apply the explicit and implicit Euler methods to find an approximate solution to the
following IVPs:
dy
(a) = 50(1 − y), y(0) = 0.5, t ∈ [0, 1];
dt
dy
(b) = 50(y − y 2 ), y(0) = 0.5, t ∈ [0, 1].
dt
Plot the solutions for different step sizes. What step size is required for the explicit
method to converge to the equilibrium value? Recall that Newton’s method to find a
root of z(x) = 0 and starting guess, x0 , is xi+1 = xi − [z(xi )/z (xi )].
6.3 Write the higher-order differential equation as a system of first-order differential
equations:
d2 y dy
(a) 2
+ x2 − y sin(x) = 0;
dx dx
d2 y dy
(b) 2
−y + x 2 − α = 0;
dx dx
d3 y d 2 y dy
(c) − + y 2 − e x = 0;
dx3 dx2 dx
d4 y dy 2
(d) 4
− y + e x = 0.
dx dx
6.4 Depending on the rate constants, chemical reacting systems might be stiff. One
well-known stiff system is the Robertson example, which consists of non-linear
ODEs characterized by a large difference in the rate constants. The three reactions
occurring in the system are
k1
A −→ B,
k2
B + B −→ B + C,
k3
B + C −→ A + C,
where the rate constants are k1 = 0.04, k2 = 3 · 107 , k3 = 1 · 104 , and the initial
concentrations of the three species are CA0 = 1, CB0 = 0, and CC0 = 0.
(a) Assume the reactions are carried out in a batch reactor operated at isothermal
conditions, and derive the system of ODEs.
(b) Use a solver suitable for stiff problems and plot the solution for t ∈ [0, 100].
(c) Evaluate the performance of non-stiff and stiff solvers, e.g. MATLAB ode45 and
ode15s, by analyzing the number of steps required by the two different solvers.
(d) Determine how the order of the method for stiff solvers is related to the error
tolerance specified.
6.5 An ideal batch reactor is used to hydrogenate compound A. The hydrogen is fed
through a gas sparger and dissolves in the liquid phase, where it reacts with com-
pound A,
r
A + H2 −→ B,
where the reaction rate is r = kCA CH2 and k = 10−3 m3 s−1 mol−1 .
The hydrogen mass transfer rate is dominated by the liquid film resistance. This
allows the mass transfer rate to be modeled as N a = k L a(CHi 2 − CH2 ), where k L a =
10 s−1 . The initial concentration of compound A is CA0 = 10[mol m−3 ], and, as
hydrogen is replenished to maintain the reactor pressure, CHi 2 = 0.1[mol m−3 ].
(a) Derive the material balances that describe how the concentrations CA and CH2
vary in time. Assume perfect mixing and isothermal conditions in the reactor.
(b) Estimate the time constants and select a suitable ODE solver.
(c) Make a plot that shows how the concentrations change in time.
6.6 Diffusion and reaction inside a spherical catalyst particle are described by the
following BVP:
d 2C 2 dC
+ − 4C = 0,
dr 2 r dr
C(1) = 1,

dC
= 0,
dr r =0
r ∈ [0, 1].
(a) Use the collocation method, with a collocation point at r = 0.5, to find an
approximate solution. The result can be compared with the concentration profile
(b) Use the MATLAB built-in BVP solver to find the solution to the problem.
6.7 Heat transport by conduction is described by the parabolic PDE
∂T ∂2T
= D 2,
∂t ∂x
x ∈ [0, 1], t ∈ [0, 1],
the boundary conditions T (0, t) = 0 and T (1, t) = 0, the initial condition T (x, 0) =
sin2 (4π x), and the heat diffusivity D = λ/ρc p = 1. Find the solution by
(a) using the finite difference, forward time central space, method;
(b) using the finite difference, Crank–Nicolson, method;
(c) using the MATLAB built-in PDE solver “pdepe”.
6.8 A metal rod initially at ambient air temperature, 25 °C, is connected on one side
to a wall at constant temperature 100 °C, and the other side is surrounded by air.
Heat conduction through the rod and losses by convection to the surroundings are
balanced by accumulation of thermal energy in the rod. The energy balance is given
by
∂T λ ∂2T
= − k1 (T − Ts ),
∂t ρc p ∂ x 2
where Ts = 25 °C is the surrounding air temperature (constant) and k1 =
5.25 · 10−7 s−1 (depends amongst other things on the heat conduction in air and
the radius of the rod). The rod is 1 m long and made of silver; the corresponding
material data for silver are λ = 424 W m−1 K−1 , ρ = 10 500 kg m−3 , and c p =
236 J kg−1 K−1 .
(a) Propose a suitable boundary condition for the tip of the rod, which is in contact
with air.
(b) Estimate the time constant of the system.
(c) Determine how the temperature profile evolves in time.
7 Statistical analysis of
mathematical models
7.1 Introduction
In chemical engineering, mathematical modeling is crucial in order to design equipment,

choose proper operating conditions, regulate processes, etc. It is almost always necessary
to use experimental data for model development. Figure 7.1(a) shows a data set and
linear fit for these data. From this result, is easy to see that this line describes these data.
However, from the data set shown in Figure 7.1(b), this is not so clear. The solid line
represents the linear fit for these data, which is derived from regression analysis. By
simply observing the data, it can be seen that either of the dashed lines could be possible
fits. These results clearly show that it is not possible to determine parameters for models
only by which line looks a good fit, but that a detailed statistical analysis is needed.
In this chapter, we start by describing linear regression, which is a method for deter-
mining parameters in a model. The accuracy of the parameters can be estimated by confi-
dence intervals and regions, which will be discussed in Section 7.5. Correlation between
parameters is often a major problem for large mathematical models, and the determi-
nation of so-called correlation matrices will be described. In more complex chemical
engineering models, non-linear regression is required, and this is also described in this
chapter.
7.2 Linear regression
Regression analysis is a statistical method for determining parameters in models. The

simplest form is a first-order straight-line model, which can be described by
y = β0 + β1 x + ε, (7.1)
where
y is the dependent variable that can also be called the response variable;
x is the predictor of y, also known as the regressor or independent variable;
βi are parameters;
ε is the stochastic part, and describes the random error.
In this chapter, the vectors and matrices will be written in bold italic style. The
straight-line model can be divided into two parts: the deterministic part, E( y), and
122 Statistical analysis of mathematical models
Figure 7.1. Data sets and cor responding linear fits.
Figure 7.2. Simple linear regression model.
the stochastic part, ε . The term E ( y) is also called the expectation function, and it is
described by
E ( y) = β0 + β1 x. (7.2)
Figure 7.2 shows a straight-line fit. The slope of the line represents β 1 and the y-
intercept β 0 in Equation (7.1). The er rors ε1 for x = x1 and ε2 for x = x2 are also shown
in the figure.
A more general equation for the linear regression is the so-called multiple linear
regression that is described by
y = β0 + β1 x 1 + β2 x 2 + · · · + βk x k + ε, (7.3)
where x1 and x2 could be different variables for, e.g., pressure and temperature, but
may also be powers of x, x2 , x3 , etc. This equation is denoted linear by virtue of its
linear parameters. This can also be seen by the fact that d y/dβ is only a function of
the independent variables, x. To illustrate linear models further, some examples are
given. The model in Equation (7.4) is linear in its parameters and is called a polynomial
model:
y = β0 + β1 x + β2 x 2 + β4 x 4 + ε. (7.4)
7.2 Linear regression 123
Another set of models, which are also linear with respect to the parameters, are the
so-called sinusoidal models:
y = β0 + β1 sin(θ ) + β2 cos(θ ) + ε. (7.5)
An example of a non-linear model is the Ar rhenius equation, which is very important

for describing the temperature dependence of the rate constants. It is given by
k = Ae− E A / R T , (7.6)
where k is the rate constant, A is the pre-exponential factor, EA is the activation bar rier,
R is the general gas constant, and T is the temperature. The rate constant is included
in the material and heat balances for a system, with the result that the concentrations
and temperature depend on the parameters in the rate constants. The parameters of this
equation that should be determined are A and EA . Rewriting Equation (7.6) using the
notation in Equation (7.3) would result in
k = β0 e−β1 / R x . (7.7)
This yields
dk −β0 −β1 / R x
= e ,
dβ1 Rx
and as this derivative contains β 1 it means that it is not linear in the parameter β1 ;
therefore this is a non-linear model.
7.2.1 Least squares method

The least squares method is a statistical approach used to estimate the parameters
previously described. First, we will consider the simplest case, which is the first-order
straight-line model. This model is described by
y = β0 + β1 x + ε. (7.8)
The sum of square er rors is denoted by SSE, or s, and is described by

n
SSE = εi2 , (7.9)
i=1
where ɛi is the random er ror at the experimental point i (see Figure 7.2). To illustrate
this further, if there were experimental points x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 , . . . , xn , the cor responding
er rors would be described by ε1 , ε2 , ε3 , ε4 , . . . , εn . These errors for experimental point
i would be expressed by
εi = yi − (β0 + β1 xi ). (7.10)
This means that the error in each point is the difference between the experimentally
measured value and the value calculated by the model. In the least square method, the
SSE described in Equation (7.9) is minimized. The resulting line, when SSE is at a
minimum, is known as the least square, or regression, line. The true model is described
by
y = β0 + β1 x + ε, (7.11)
and the estimated regression line can be described by
ŷ = b0 + b1 x, (7.12)
where b0 and b1 are estimates of the true β 0 and β 1 , respectively, and ŷ is the y predicted
by the model. When minimizing SSE, the normal equations are set up. This will be
performed for the simplest case, the first-order straight-line model. The least square
error is minimized when the derivative with respect to the two parameters equals zero:
∂SSE
= 0, (7.13)
∂β0
∂SSE
= 0, (7.14)
∂β1
where the least square error is given by

n
n
SSE = εi2 = (yi − (β0 + β1 xi ))2 . (7.15)
i=1 i=1
When using the expression for SSE in Equation (7.15) and differentiating it with
respect to each parameter, the following expressions are obtained:
∂SSE
n
= 2(yi − (b0 + b1 xi ))(−1) = 0; (7.16)
∂b0 i=1
∂SSE n
= 2(yi − (b0 + b1 xi ))(−xi )
∂b1 i=1

n
=2 (yi xi − (b0 xi + b1 xi2 )) = 0. (7.17)
i=1
Simplifications of Equations (7.16) and (7.17) result in

n
n
(yi ) − nb0 − b1 (xi ) = 0, (7.18)
i=1 i=1

n
n
n
(yi xi ) − b0 (xi ) − b1 (xi2 ) = 0. (7.19)
i=1 i=1 i=1
Equations (7.18) and (7.19) are often denoted as normal equations. The parameters
b0 and b1 can be easily retrieved from these equations. Often, the averages of y and x,
respectively, are used. They are denoted by x̄ and ȳ, and are given by
1
n
x̄ = (xi ) (7.20)
n i=1
7.3 Linear regression in its generalized form 125
and
1
n
ȳ = (yi ). (7.21)
n i=1
This results in
b0 = ȳ − b1 x̄ (7.22)
and
n
(xi − x̄)(yi − ȳ)
b1 = n
i=1
. (7.23)
i=1 (x i − x̄)
2
7.3 Linear regression in its generalized form
As discussed in Section 7.2, a multiple linear regression can be described by

y = β0 + β1 x 1 + β2 x 2 + · · · + βk x k + ε. (7.24)
This equation can be written in a more generalized matrix form as follows:
y = Xβ + ε, (7.25)
where the vectors and matrices y, X, β, and ε are defined as
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
y1 1 x11 x12 x13 · · · x1k β0 ε1
⎢ y2 ⎥ ⎢1 x21 x22 x23 · · · x2k ⎥ ⎢β1 ⎥ ⎢ε2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
y = ⎢ y3 ⎥ , X = ⎢1 x31 x32 x33 · · · x3k ⎥ , β = ⎢β2 ⎥ , ε = ⎢ε3 ⎥ .
⎢. ⎥ ⎢. . .. .. ⎥
.. ⎦ ⎢. ⎥ ⎢. ⎥
⎣.. ⎦ ⎣.. .. . . . ⎣.. ⎦ ⎣.. ⎦
yn 1 xn1 xn2 xn3 · · · xnk βk εn
(7.26)
The dimensions of these matrices are n × 1 for y, n × p for X, p × 1 for β, and n × 1

for ε, where p is the number of parameters and is equal to k + 1 and n is the number
of experimental points. As before, E is the expectation operator, and the expectation
function is denoted by
E( y) = Xβ. (7.27)
The vector of expected values for the error is 0, i.e.
E(ε) = 0. (7.28)
The variance of the error is denoted by σ , and can be written using the variance, V:
2
V (ε) = σ 2 . (7.29)
In many experiments, the expected error is not constant for all observation points. We
can still make a least squares minimization, but we cannot make any statistical analysis
unless we stabilize the variance (see Section 7.4). For a detailed statistical analysis, each
observation should be weighted with its variance.
Figure 7.3. Two data sets with (a) small and (b) large variance, respectively.
To illustrate further the importance of the variance, two different data sets are shown in
Figure 7.3. The data in Figure 7.3(a) have a small variance, whilst the data in Figure 7.3(b)
have a large variance. The variance will be determined using so-called analysis of
variance (ANOVA) tables, which will be described in detail in Section 7.8.2.
7.3.1 Least square method

The least square method is used for determining the parameters in the regression model,
as described in Section 7.2.1. The sum of square error is given by

n
SSE = εi2 . (7.30)
i=1
When using models in a more generalized matrix form, the residual sum of squares
is defined by
SSE = ( y − Xβ) ( y − Xβ). (7.31)
In the same way as for the simple case of the straight-line model, the sum of squares
is minimized when the derivative of SSE with respect to the parameters is set at zero.
This results in

∂SSE
= 0, (7.32)
∂β b
where b (p × 1) is a vector with the estimated parameters. In Equation (7.31), SSE can
be further developed into
SSE = y y − y Xβ − β X y + β X Xβ
= y y − 2β X y + β X Xβ. (7.33)
The derivative of SSE with respect to β gives

∂SSE
= −2X y + 2X X b = 0. (7.34)
∂β b
This is the normal equation in matrix form. This equation can be rearranged to yield
X y = X X b, (7.35)
which can be used to retrieve an equation for determining the parameter vector b:
b = (X X)−1 X y. (7.36)
The basis for this equation is that the expected value for the error is 0, i.e.
E(ε) = 0, (7.37)
and the variance of ε is σ 2 , which can be written using the variance, V :
V (ε) = σ 2 . (7.38)
7.4 Weighted least squares
Weighted least squares are important and have several different applications. Examples
of cases where weighted least squares are important include:
(1) stabilization of the variance;

(2) placing greater/less weight on certain experimental parts.
These two topics will be discussed in Sections 7.4.1 and 7.4.2.
7.4.1 Stabilization of the variance

Stabilizing the variance is the fundamental reason behind weighted residuals, where each
experiment is weighted against its variance. The reason for doing this is that in many
experiments the expected error is not equal in different observations. For these cases, in
order to make a detailed statistical analysis we should weight each measurement with its
variance. If adding weight factors, wi , where the variance for each experiment is divided
by the variance, this results in
σ 2
i
wi = . (7.39)
σ
In many types of analytical equipment, the error is a fixed percentage of the maximum
instrument reading, which results in a variance proportional to yi, i.e. σi ∝ yi . This gives
an uneven variance distribution that calls for using a weight factor, for example 1/yi , or
a logarithm:
z i = ln yi . (7.40)
If z i is differentiated, we obtain
1
dz i = dyi , (7.41)
yi
which means that dz i corresponds to a small error in yi divided by yi that yields the
weight factor 1/yi2 . Weight factors are discussed further in the context of residual plots
in Section 7.8.1.
Figure 7.4. Two experimental outliers in a data set.
7.4.2 Placing greater/less weight on certain experimental parts

Another reason for using weight factors is to vary the weight according to different
parts of an experiment. Figure 7.4 shows an example where a large set of data shows
a clear linear trend. However, two experimental points deviate significantly (marked
by arrows in Figure 7.4). These types of data points that exhibit clear deviations from
the others are denoted “outliers” and are occasionally present in experimental series. If
experimental outliers are found, the best procedure would be to repeat the experiment
for these two points a few additional times to verify the observations. However, it is not
always possible to redo the experiments. One possibility, for these cases, could be to
place a lower weight on the error for these measuring points. It is also possible to remove
these outliers in the regression analysis. However, if outliers were removed during the
regression, it would be critical to add them to the figures, clearly indicating that the
weight factor for these outliers would be zero (or another appropriate value).
The outliers in the example of Figure 7.4 do not substantially influence the regression
model because one outlier is below the line and another is above the line. The dashed
line in Figure 7.4 (which is on top of the solid line) shows the resulting regression
line if both points were removed in the least square analysis. The fact that the two
lines are roughly in the same position means that these outliers have only minor effect
on the regression. Another case is shown in Figure 7.5, where there is a single outlier. In
the same way as in Figure 7.4, the dashed line shows the regression line when removing
the outlier (using a weight factor of zero on that point). In this case, this outlier has a
clear impact on the least square estimation. It should be emphasized that outliers cannot
be removed without a clear motivation, and that, if weight factors were used, they would
have to be thoroughly described.
Recall the equation for the linear models,
y = β0 + β1 x 1 + β2 x 2 + · · · + βk x k + ε, (7.42)
where

n n
SSE = εi2 = (yi − ŷi )2 . (7.43)
i−1
i=1
Figure 7.5. Effect of one experimental outlier on the regression model.
Figure 7.6. Model and experimental data for ammonia storage and desorption over a catalyst.
From Olsson, L., Sjövall, H., and Blint, R. J., Appl. Catal. B 81, 203–207, 2008. Reproduced
with permission from Elsevier.
For the case using weight factors, the weighted sum of square errors, WSSE, can be
expressed as follows:

n
n
WSSE = wi ei2 = wi (yi − ŷ i )2 . (7.44)
i=1 i=1
In this section, we have described cases when experimental data points are not fully
reliable, which might be the case with outliers. Another key area for weighted residuals is
when certain parts of the experiment are very important and we would like to emphasize
those parts of the regression model. An example from our research on automotive
catalysis is depicted in Figure 7.6. In this experiment, the catalyst is exposed to ammonia
for 80 min and the experimental (solid line) and simulated (dashed line) outlet ammonia
concentration are shown in the figure. Initially, ammonia adsorbs on the catalyst, which
is why the outlet ammonia concentration is zero. When the catalyst is saturated, ammonia
breaks through. Thereafter, the ammonia is turned off and the temperature is increased,
which results in an ammonia desorption peak. The binding strength can be received
during the temperature ramp, so the desorption part is far more critical than the adsorption
part when tuning a model to the data. However, the concentration in the desorption is quite
low, with the result that, in a standard fitting procedure, the adsorption part influences
the parameters in the model to a greater extent. Since the desorption part is far more
important to the kinetic model, this is not the desired situation. In this case, weighted
residuals can be used, where the error during the desorption part has a larger weight
factor compared to the adsorption. In the example shown in Figure 7.6, the model is
non-linear but the interpretation of weighted residuals remains the same.
Different weight factors can also be applied to the residual sum of squares when the
response variables have varying orders of magnitude. For example, for models describing
emission cleaning with the help of catalysis, it is common to use both molar fractions
and temperatures as response variables. In many cases, the molar fraction is in the range
100 × 10−6 –500 × 10−6 , and the temperature is 400–700 K. If no weight factor were
applied in this case, the errors in the prediction of the temperature would totally dominate
and the molar fraction would have only a minor influence. However, as the errors in
the molar fractions are crucial, this is not a good solution. Therefore, a weight factor
can be applied to the molar fractions, with the result that the errors are similar in size
to those for the temperatures (the opposite would also be possible using a smaller factor
on the temperature instead).
7.5 Confidence intervals and regions
7.5.1 Confidence intervals

The basis for confidence intervals is that the error is normally distributed with the
variance σ 2 , i.e. ε ∼ N (0, Iσ 2 ). This also results in b being normally distributed and
E(b) = β. (7.45)
The variance, s2 , can be estimated by dividing the sum of square errors, SSE, by the
degrees of freedom, v
v = n − p, (7.46)
SSE SSE
s2 = = (7.47)
v n−p
where n is the number of experimental data points and p is the number of parameters
in the model. Equation (7.46) applies to the case for which there is only one source
of errors. The estimation of the degrees of freedom, v, will be discussed in detail in
Section 7.5.1.1. The standard error of the parameter p is calculated according to:

se(b p ) = s {(X X)−1 } pp , (7.48)
Figure 7.7. (a) Straight-line fit to two experimental points. (b) Quadratic fit to three experimental
points.
where {(X X)−1 } pp is the pth diagonal term of the matrix (X X)−1 . For example, the
standard error of parameter b3 is

se(b3 ) = s {(X X)−1 }33 , (7.49)
where {(X X)−1 }33 is the third diagonal term in the matrix. By using these results, it is
possible to determine the 1 − α confidence interval for parameter bp in the model as
follows:
b p ± se(b p )t(n − p; α/2), (7.50)
where t(n − p; α/2) is the Student’s t-distribution with n − p degrees of freedom.

This distribution is described in Section 7.5.1.2. The confidence intervals described in
Equation (7.50) represent one of the most common methods to determine confidence
intervals. It is also possible to determine the 1 − α confidence interval for the dependent
variable ŷ(x 0 ), which can also be denoted the “mean response” and written as μ(x 0 ):

x 0 b ± s x 0 (X X)−1 x 0 t(n − p; α/2). (7.51)
7.5.1.1 Number of degrees of freedom

The number of degrees of freedom is the number of observations of the random variation.
When there is only one source of errors, e.g. the chemical analysis, the degrees of freedom
are
v = n − p. (7.52)
If there were other sources of the random variation that were more important than the
spreading in repeated analyses, the number of observations of the dominant variation
would be the number of degrees of freedom. When determining the confidence inter-
vals, one step would be to calculate the number of degrees of freedom (v = n − p) as
described. The reason why the number of parameters must be extracted from the number
of degrees of freedom can be understood from the following example. In Figure 7.7(a),
the result of a straight line fit ( ŷ = b0 + b1 x) to two points is shown. The fit is naturally
Figure 7.8. NO, NO2 , NH3 , and N2 O concentration after an ammonia selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) experiment over a copper–zeolite catalyst. The inlet gas composition is 400 ppm NOx
(NO or NO2 ), 400 ppm NH3 , and 8% O2 . From Sjövall, H., Olsson, L., Fridell, E., and Blint,
R. J., Appl. Catal. B 64, 180–188, 2006. Reproduced with permission from Elsevier.
perfect because there is only one way in which a line can be drawn between two points.
The number of degrees of freedom for this case is therefore
v = n − p = 2 − 2 = 0. (7.53)
Thus there are no observations of the random er ror and consequently

no degrees of
freedom. Similar results can be obtained if a quadratic model ŷ = b0 + b1 x + b2 x 2
were used to fit three experimental points. For this case, the number of degrees of
freedom would be zero as well (v = n − p = 3 − 3 = 0) (see Figure 7.7(b)).
The number of parameters in the model, p, is often easily calculated. The degrees of
freedom are calculated using n − p (see Equation (7.53)), and this example illustrates
the difficulties that can arise when we determine n and thereby v. However, the number
of data points, n, is not always trivial to determine.
An example will be used to illustrate the number of degrees of freedom. In Figure 7.8,
the experimental results from one ammonia selective catalytic reduction (SCR) experi-
ment are shown. In this experiment, a copper–zeolite catalyst was exposed to ammonia,
NOx (NO + NO2 ) and oxygen, while varying the NO2 to NOx ratio. The outlet concen-
trations of NO, NO2 , NH3 , and N2 O were measured and are depicted in Figure 7.8. If
these data points were used in a model, what would the number of degrees of freedom
be?
The experiment was 160 min long and measurement points were taken approximately
every 6 s, resulting in 1600 data points for each of the four gases, i.e. a total of 6400
data points. However, this does not mean that n = 6400. This is because we have seven
different conditions (varying NO2 to NOx ratio) and each condition takes a long time
to reach steady-state conditions. Thus, the concentrations are constant in the final part
of the experiment for each condition and therefore n is significantly lower than 6400.
However, since transient effects occur when the gas composition changes due to the
Figure 7.9. Student’s t-distribution for 10 degrees of freedom, showing 95% confidence limit.
accumulation of species on the surfaces, n is much larger than 7 × 4 = 28 (seven

conditions and four gases). In order to determine n, only the points where the condition
is changed or when transient effects occur should be considered.
7.5.1.2 Student’s t-distribution

As mentioned earlier, the t-distribution is used to determine confidence intervals. The
t-distribution has two parameters: the number of degrees of freedom, v , and the signif-
icance level of the test divided by two (α/2). We have already discussed v thoroughly.
Figure 7.9 shows the t-distribution for a case with v = 10 degrees of freedom and
α = 0.05. The two tails represent an area of 0.025 each, which is α/2 for each area. This
results in a central area of 1 − 2 × 0.025 = 0.95. Thus, the confidence interval when
using this t-value is at the 95% level. The values for the t-distribution can be found in
Appendix C.
The t-distribution for 2, 10, and 1000 degrees of freedom is shown in Figure 7.10. The
x-value for the 95% confidence limit for the three cases is marked. When increasing the
degrees of freedom, and the number of observations of the random variation is increasing,
the t-value becomes lower. This results in lower confidence intervals. Note that when the
degrees of freedom → ∞, the t-distribution will equal the normal distribution.
7.5.2 Student’s t-tests of individual parameters

It is possible also to conduct t-tests on individual parameters. For this purpose, tobs is
calculated according to
bp
tobs = , (7.54)
se(b p )
and this value is compared with the t-value from the t-distribution with n − p degrees
of freedom, t(n − p; α/2). If tobs > t(n − p; α/2), the parameter is significant.
Figure 7.10. Student’s t-distribution for 2, 10, or 1000 degrees of freedom, showing 95%
confidence limit.
Figure 7.11. Individual confidence intervals and joint confidence region for a two-parameter
model ( ŷ = b0 + b1 x).
7.5.3 Confidence regions and bands

Confidence intervals were described in Section 7.5.1. These intervals are individual
for each parameter. The individual confidence intervals for a two-parameter model
( ŷ = b0 + b1 x) are shown in Figure 7.11, where the dashed lines show the confidence
interval for each parameter. It is easy to assume that the area inside the dashed rectangle
is the confidence region for the combination of these parameters; however, this is not
the case. The joint confidence region for the two parameters is also depicted in the figure.
The confidence region accounts for the variation of both parameters simultaneously,
Figure 7.12. F-distribution for 10 and 10 degrees of freedom, showing 95% confidence limit.
which is indicated by the solid line in Figure 7.11. The joint confidence region is
ellipsoidal, whereas the individual levels form a rectangle, differences that are important
to notice.
To calculate the 1 − α confidence region, the following relationship can be used for
the linear case:
(β − b) X X (β − b) ≤ ps 2 F ( p, n − p ; α ). (7.55)
This yields an elliptical contour. In more general terms, the 1 − α confidence region
is determined by

p
SSE(β ) ≤ SSE( b) 1 + F ( p, n − p ; α ) , (7.56)
n−p
where F ( p, n − p ; α ) is the F-distribution (see Appendix C) for the degrees of freedom,
p, and n − p, respectively, at level α . For linear models, the results for the confidence
regions will be the same when using Equation (7.55) or Equation (7.56). Note that for
the F-distribution the level to be used is α, whilst for the t-distribution it is α/2. The
reason for this difference is that the t-distribution is centered around zero and has two
tails, whereas the F-distribution is non-symmetrical (and positive), and only has one tail
(Figure 7.12).
As described in Section 7.5.1, the 1 − α confidence interval for the dependent variable
ŷ(x 0 ) is determined according to

x 0 b ± s x 0 (X X)−1 x 0 t(n − p; α/2). (7.57)
If this calculation is performed for several different points (x), a “point-wise confi-
dence band” is retrieved. It is also possible to determine the 1 − α confidence interval
for the value predicted, which is obtained when considering all intervals simultaneously,
i.e.

x b ± s x (X X)−1 x p F( p; n − p; α). (7.58)
Figure 7.13. Schematic description of the confidence band.
This is denoted the “simultaneous 1 − α confidence band” for the response function
at any x. Note that the confidence band (Figure 7.13) depends on the independent
variable x.
7.6 Correlation between parameters
After a model has been constructed, it is important to determine the cor relation between
the parameters. If there is high cor relation and one parameter is changed, another
parameter must also change. Multiple choices of parameters can result in a similar sum
of square er rors. In order to determine the cor relation between parameters, the variance
and co-variance must be calculated. Therefore, we start with a description of the variance
calculation, followed by the determination of the co-variance, and finally the cor relation
matrix.
7.6.1 Variance and co-variance

The variance matrix for the parameters consists of the variance for each parameter in the
diagonal and co-variances in the other positions. Equation (7.59) contains an example of
a model with four parameters (b0 , b1 , b2 , and b3 ) shown to illustrate this relationship:
⎛ ⎞
b0
⎜b1 ⎟
V (b) = V ⎜⎝b2 ⎠
⎟
b3
⎡ ⎤
V (b0 ) cov(b0 , b1 ) cov(b0 , b2 ) cov(b0 , b3 )
⎢cov(b1 , b0 ) V (b1 ) cov(b1 , b2 ) cov(b1 , b3 )⎥
=⎢
⎣cov(b2 , b0 )
⎥. (7.59)
cov(b2 , b1 ) V (b2 ) cov(b2 , b3 )⎦
cov(b3 , b0 ) cov(b3 , b1 ) cov(b3 , b2 ) V (b3 )
The variance matrix can be determined by the following correlation:

V (b) = (X X)−1 σ 2 . (7.60)
For the cases when σ 2 is unknown, the estimated variance, s2 , can be used instead.
7.6 Correlation between parameters 137
7.6.2 Correlation matrix

The correlation matrix, C, can be retrieved from the variance matrix according to the
following equation:
cov(bi , b j )
Ci j = . (7.61)
V (bi )V (b j )
Combining Equations (7.60) and (7.61) results in the following expression:
{(X X)−1 }i j
Ci j = , (7.62)
{(X X)−1 }ii {(X X)−1 } j j
which can be used for determining the correlation.
Each component in Ci j is within the range −1 to 1. If the correlation equals 0, there
would be no correlation between the parameters, and if the correlation is close to 1 or
–1, the parameters are highly correlated. This can be a consequence of:
(1) Poor experimental design.
(2) Over-parameterizing, i.e. there are too many parameters and not all of them can be
resolved. Over-parameterization can be estimated using the rank of the X X-matrix
(or the J J-matrix, for the non-linear case; the Jacobian, J, will be described in
Section 7.7.3).
(3) For non-linear models, there can be built-in correlations. An example is when the
Arrhenius equation is used for determining the rate constant;
k = Ae−E A /RT , (7.63)
where k is the rate constant, A is the pre-exponential factor, EA is the activation
barrier, R is the general gas constant, and T is the temperature. The parameters that
are used in the modeling are A and EA , which are always correlated, at least to some
extent.
(4) High correlation can also be obtained if the independent variables are not centered
in a polynomial. For example, in the model
ŷ = b0 + b1 x + b2 x 2 + b3 x 3 + b4 x 4 , (7.64)
the parameters b0 , b1 , b2 , b3 , and b4 are correlated because x is always correlated
with x2 , x3 , and x4 if x ˃ 0, for all x. This model can be centered by
x centered = x − x̄, (7.65)
where x̄ is the mean of x. However, even for this model, there is a correlation between
b0 and b2 , because (x − x̄)2 > 0 for all x. This is also the case for x4 . Likewise, in
the non-linear case, it is recommended that the data are centered in order to decrease
the correlation between the parameters. One example is the Arrhenius equation,
Equation (7.63), in which the temperature can be centered by using a reference
temperature, Tref , which can be chosen to be the mean temperature. This gives

EA 1 1
k = A exp − (7.66)
R T Tr e f
and results in a lower correlation between the parameters when doing the regression
analysis. This transformation will not affect the activation energy, but the pre-
exponential factor will be the rate constant at T = Tref .
7.7 Non-linear regression
In chemical engineering, many models are non-linear, which means that they are non-
linear with respect to the parameters. This will be illustrated by a few examples below.
The simple straight-line model,
ŷ = b0 + b1 x, (7.67)
is of course linear. However, the following models (because they are linear in the
parameters) are also linear. Note that the regressor, x, can have different exponents, sine
form, etc., while the model remains linear. We have
y = β0 + β1 x + β2 x 2 + β3 x 4 + β x 6 ; (7.68)
y = β0 + β1 sin(x) + β2 cos(x). (7.69)
However, due to the form of the parameters, the following models are non-linear:
y = θ0 + eθ1 x ; (7.70)
y = θ0 + θ1 sin(θ2 x) + θ3 cos(θ4 x). (7.71)
In order to separate clearly the linear and non-linear models, we denote the parameters
for the linear models as β i , and that for the non-linear models as θ i . In this chapter, we
discuss the statistical evaluation of non-linear models, which is often very complex;
therefore, iterative numerical solutions will be used.
7.7.1 Intrinsically linear models

The models described in Equations (7.70) and (7.71) are non-linear. It is possible to
transform some non-linear models into linear models; these types of models are referred
to as “intrinsically linear.” It is important to note that the disturbance term is also
transformed when transforming a model. We present two examples of models that can
be transformed and are thereby intrinsically linear. For catalytic reactions, the reaction
rate may contain an inhibition term in the denominator. The reaction rate at constant
temperature can, for some cases, be expressed as
θ1 x
f (x, θ ) = . (7.72)
1 + θ2 x
This equation can be transformed into
1 1 + θ2 x θ2 1 1
y= = = + = γ1 + γ2 u. (7.73)
f (x, θ ) θ1 x θ1 θ1 x
Another example is
f (x, θ ) = exp(θ1 + θ2 x + θ3 x 2 ). (7.74)
This equation can be transformed into
y = ln( f (x, θ )) = θ1 + θ2 x + θ3 x 2 = γ1 + γ2 x + γ3 x 2 . (7.75)
When using logarithms or, more generally, other transformations, it is important to

note that the weights for the different measuring points will differ. The two examples of
models given here can be transformed and are therefore intrinsically linear. However,
non-linear models cannot in most cases be transformed; these are discussed in
Section 7.7.2.
7.7.2 Non-linear models

Non-linear models can be expressed in matrix form as
y = f (x, θ ) + ε. (7.76)
The error sum of squares for the non-linear case can be expressed as

n
n
SSE(θ) = εi2 = (yi − f (xi , θ̂ ))2 . (7.77)
i=1 i=1
In the same way as for the linear case, the normal equations are set up by differentiating
SSE(θ ) with respect to the parameters and setting the equations equal to zero. This will
result in an estimate of θ, which we denote θ̂ ; i.e.
& '
∂SSE(θ) n
∂ f (xi , θ̂ )
=2 {yi − f (xi , θ̂ )} = 0. (7.78)
∂θ ∂θ p
i=1 θ =θ̂
This is performed for each parameter, and results in p (the number of parameters)
normal equations. These equations are solved by different numerical methods. In much
of the available software, it is possible to set up SSE(θ) and then call for a routine that
minimizes the error sum of squares. For example, this can be performed in MATLAB
using the function lsqnonlin.
An early method used for solving these equations is the Gauss–Newton method,
for which the Taylor series is used. Other methods include “steepest descent” and
“Marquardt’s compromise.” It is not the scope of this book to go into the details of
solving non-linear normal equations because they are often solved computationally
by using various software. However, this information is readily available in various
textbooks. In this book, we will use linearization to determine approximate confidence
levels and correlation matrices. For many applications, linearization is a very important
tool that is used as a standard method in research.
7.7.3 Approximate confidence levels and regions for non-linear models

An important method for calculating approximate confidence intervals is through lin-
earization with a first-order Taylor series expansion around the estimated parameter θ̂ ,
which results in
& '
∂ f (x n , θ̂ )
f (x n , θ ) ≈ f (x n , θ̂ ) + (θ − θ̂). (7.79)
∂θ p
θ=θ̂
This can be compared to the linear case, where
f (x, θ ) = b0 + b1 θ. (7.80)
The derivative
& '
∂ f (x n , θ̂ )
∂θ p
θ=θ̂
of Equation (7.79) is denoted Jacobian and can be written as

& '
∂ f (x n , θ̂ )
Jn, p = (7.81)
∂θ p
θ=θ̂
where n is the experimental point and p is the parameter.

Practically, an approximation of the Jacobian can be determined by the following
procedure. First, find the parameters (θ̂) that give a minimum SSE(θ ). Change one
parameter at a time by a certain amount, for example 1% of the parameter value, with
this parameter denoted θ̂ p,1% . Note that in θ̂ p,1% , only one parameter, p, changes, while
all others remain at the minima. Thereafter, change this parameter back, change the next
one, and so on. The approximated Jacobian can then be retrieved by
f (x n , θ̂ ) − f (x n , θ̂ p,1% )
Jn, p ≈ . (7.82)
θ p
The 1 − α approximate confidence interval for the parameter θ̂ p in the model can be
determined by
θ̂ p ± se(θ̂ p )t(n − p; α/2), (7.83)
where t(n − p; α/2) is the Student’s t-distribution with n − p degrees of freedom. The
standard error of the parameter p, se(θ̂ p ), is calculated according to

se(θ̂ p ) = s {( J J)−1 } pp . (7.84)
Note the similarities between this equation and the case of the linear equation. The
only difference is that X is replaced by J. The standard deviation, s, can be retrieved
from the variance, s2 :
SSE SSE
s2 = = . (7.85)
v n−p
In order to determine approximate confidence intervals, it is critical that the model is

really at a minimum. If this is not the case, the model is offset to the minimum region
with large derivatives, and when changing the parameter by 1% there would be a much
larger change to the predicted model than if you were at a flat minimum. As a result,
the Jacobian will be overestimated and the confidence intervals thereby underestimated.
Thus, if you are not at the minimum and the above equations were used for determining
the confidence intervals, severe errors may occur.
7.7.3.1 Confidence bands

As for the linear case, the 1 − α confidence interval for the dependent variable f (x 0 , θ̂ ),
which can also be denoted the “mean response,” can be determined by

f (x 0 , θ̂ ) ± s j 0 ( J J)−1 j 0 t(n − p; α/2), (7.86)
where

∂ f (x 0 , θ )
j0 = . (7.87)
∂θ θ=θ̂
The confidence intervals, for several points, together form a so-called “1 − α point-
wise confidence band.” The “simultaneous confidence band” at the 1 − α level can be
determined according to

f (x, θ̂ ) ± s j ( J J)−1 j p F( p; n − p; α). (7.88)
7.7.3.2 Confidence regions

The 1 − α joined confidence region for a non-linear model can be determined according
to

p
SSE(θ ) ≤ SSE(θ̂) 1 + F( p, n − p; α) . (7.89)
n−p
This is the exact confidence region with approximate confidence levels. The confidence
region considers the effect of varying all parameters. For linear models, the confidence
regions assume an elliptical shape, whereas the region is often more banana shaped for
non-linear models.
It is also possible to determine the approximate elliptical contour for non-linear
models, with exact probability level 1 − α, using
(θ − θ̂ ) × J J × (θ − θ̂ ) ≤ ps2 F( p, n − p, 1 − α). (7.90)
Note that this results in an elliptical confidence region and that this is only an approxi-
mation, not the exact region. The differences between these two confidence regions are
illustrated in Case study 7.3 (see Section 7.11).
7.7.4 Correlation between parameters for non-linear models

The correlation matrix, C, can also be calculated for non-linear models by using the
Jacobian J instead of the X-matrix. This results in the following equation:
{( J J)−1 }i j
Ci j = . (7.91)
{( J J)−1 }ii {( J J)−1 } j j
In the same way as for the linear case, each component in the C-matrix is always in
the –1 to 1 range. There is no correlation between the parameters if Ci j = 0. However,
if the correlation is close to 1 or –1, the parameters are highly correlated.
7.8 Model assessments
After the model has been constructed and the parameters estimated, it is crucial to
evaluate it. In this book, we describe two methods for evaluating models: residual plots
and lack of fit. Residual plots are discussed in Section 7.8.1 and lack of fit is described
in the context of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) table. The error is defined as
e = y − ŷ, (7.92)
which refers to the differences between the experimentally measured values and the
values predicted by the model. The assumptions usually made when developing a model
through regression analysis are that (i) the error is random, (ii) the error is normally
distributed, and (iii) the variance is constant and equal to σ 2 . After the model has been
constructed, it should be confirmed that none of these assumptions has been violated.
7.8.1 Residual plots

Different types of residual plots are constructed in order to check that there are no trends
pertaining to the errors. The error can be plotted versus time, independent variable (X),
predicted response variable ( ŷ), in addition to other parameters, and are discussed below.
7.8.1.1 Overall residual plot

The residual should be normally distributed as described (ε ∼ N (0, σ )). This means that
if we divide by the variance, the following normal distribution would result:
ε
∼ N (0, 1), (7.93)
σ
where σ can be estimated by s (see Equation (7.85)), and thereby standardized residuals
can be retrieved:
e
d= . (7.94)
s
Using the t-distribution, t(n − p; α/2), with an infinite number of degrees of freedom
at the 95% level, (α = 0.05, α/2 = 0.025), the result would be 1.96, and at the 99% level
(α = 0.001, α/2 = 0.005) the result would be 2.576. This means that approximately
Figure 7.14. Residual plot for an example with randomly distributed er rors.
95% of the standardized er rors should be in the −1.96 to 1.96 range and approximately
99% in the −2.576 to 2.576 range. For other degrees of freedom, the t-values should
be taken from the t-distribution (see Appendix C). However, because the variance is not
constant for each error, this is not exact. Therefore, it is better to use the Studentized
residuals,
ei
z i∗ = √ , (7.95)
s 1 − h ii
where h ii is the “leverage” and denotes the diagonal elements of the Hat matrix, H:
H = X(X X)−1 X . (7.96)
It is useful to construct residual plots based on the error, e, or the standardized residuals,
for many applications.
7.8.1.2 Residual plot versus time

An important residual plot is when the residual is plotted against time. Figure 7.14
illustrates an example of errors plotted versus time and where the residuals show no
trend. This is therefore the desired result in a residual plot.
Examples of other results for which the residuals are not random are shown in
Figure 7.15. The results in Figure 7.15(a) show a clear linear trend; thus, with respect
to time, a linear term is missing in the model. In Figure 7.15(b), a quadratic shape is
observed; thus, a term containing t2 must be added to the model. Another type of devi-
ation is shown in Figure 7.15(c), where the error is increasing over time. The reason for
this is an increasing variance, which can be compensated for using weighted residuals.
Also, a transformation might be a solution. Finally, the residual plot in Figure 7.15(d)
illustrates a rather complex behavior with increasing variance which occasionally drops
down to low values, with the performance repeated. With this type of pattern, it is
important to check what happened experimentally at the time of the sudden drop in vari-
ance. An example where this behavior might happen is when components are measured
by means of an analyzer that has a drift in error over time. This means that the error
becomes increasingly larger from the time when the calibration of the instrument was
conducted. When a new calibration is made, the error drops down again. What should
be done in this case is to calibrate the instrument more often, in order not to experience
Figure 7.15. Residual plot versus time for examples with non-random er rors.
Figure 7.16. Residual plot versus the regressor variable (xi ), where the er rors are not random.
this problem. This example clearly shows that all trends observed in the residual plots
should not be removed by adding new terms to the model. For some cases, there are
experimental problems, resulting in experiments having to be repeated or the experi-
mental procedure refined, representing the causes of the trends in residual plots. It is
therefore crucial for the person conducting the experiment to collaborate closely with
the model developer. There are many additional types of patterns that the residual plots
can assume; the objective of Figure 7.15 was to illustrate some of these patterns.
7.8.1.3 Residual plot versus xi

The residual can also be plotted versus each regressor variable (xi ). These plots reveal
any missing trends in the model with respect to that regressor variable. The results shown
in Figure 7.15(a) and (b) could also occur when plotting the residual versus xi , which
indicates that a linear or quadratic term in xi is missing. Another example is shown in
Figure 7.16, where a sinusoidal term could be added.
Figure 7.17. Residual plot versus ŷ calculated from the model, where the errors are not random.
Figure 7.18. Studentized residuals.
7.8.1.4 Residual plot versus ŷ

The residual can also be plotted versus ŷ calculated from the model. This type of residual
plot is shown in Figure 7.17. The results show that the variance is increasing when the
predicted value increases. A reason for this may be that a lot of experimental analysis
equipment has errors that are a percentage level of the value, which means that the error
increases when the value increases. Weighted residuals may represent a solution to such
a case, where the weights decrease as the ŷ value increases. A transformation of the
model might be another alternative.
7.8.1.5 Outliers
Outliers are experimental points that deviate significantly from the others in the plot.
This phenomenon was discussed in Section 7.4.2, and examples are shown in Figure 7.4
and Figure 7.5. If the Studentized residuals z i∗ are plotted, they should be in the –3 to
3 range. However, if there are points larger than 3 or smaller than –3, they represent
outliers. Figure 7.18 illustrates two outliers.
7.8.2 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) table

The variance can be analyzed in detail by using a so-called analysis of variance (ANOVA)
table. An ANOVA table can be used (i) to determine whether a model is significant and
Table 7.1. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) table
Source SS df MS Fobs
SSReg M SReg
Regression SSReg v Reg M S Reg =
vReg s2
SSE
Residual SSE v s2 =
v
SSLoF M SLoF
Lack of fit SSLoF vLoF M SLoF =
vLoF M SPE
SSPE
Pure error SSPE vPE M SPE =
vPE
Total, corrected for mean SStot, corr vtot,corr
Figure 7.19. Data for three factors, showing differences within and between samples.
(ii) to check on its lack of fit. Repeated experiments are needed to examine this. Data
for three different factors (x1 , x2 , and x3 ) are shown in Figure 7.19. Each experiment
is repeated multiple times in order to determine its variance. The figure shows that the
variance is larger for x2 than for the others because its points are more spread out. The
mean value for y, ȳ, is shown for the three factors. With the use of the ANOVA table,
we can investigate if there is a lack of fit to the model. We can also examine whether the
differences between ȳi are significant or are due to the variance of the points.
The ANOVA table is shown in Table 7.1; and in the following paragraph different
terms in the table and its use are discussed.
The first two lines represent the regression model and the residual, where the residual
can be divided into two parts: lack of fit and pure error. We start with the regression and
residual used to test if the model is significant. The sum of squares due to regression,
SSReg , can be calculated according to

n
SSReg = ( ŷi − ȳ)2 . (7.97)
i=1
This value is corrected to the mean, the background to subtracting the number of
parameters by one (for the mean) to retrieve the degrees of freedom:
vReg = p − 1, (7.98)
where p represents the number of parameters. The sum of square errors, SSE, can be
calculated as described earlier as

n
n
SSE = εi2 = (yi − ŷi )2 , (7.99)
i=1 i=1
with
v=n−p (7.100)
degrees of freedom and

m
n= n j, (7.101)
j=1
where n represents the total number of observations and m is the number of different xi .
For example, in Figure 7.19, m = 3 and n = 6 + 5 + 6 = 17. The sum of square errors
contains both the errors associated with the pure error, SSPE , and lack of fit SSLoF , i.e.
SSE = SSPE + SSLoF . (7.102)
The sum of squares of the pure error can be calculated from repeated identical
experiments, according to

m
nj
SSPE = (y ji − ȳ j )2 , (7.103)
j=1 i=1
with the number of degrees of freedom given by

m
vPE = (n j − 1) = n − m. (7.104)
j=1
The lack of fit of the model can be calculated via

m
SSLoF = n j ( ŷ j − ȳ j )2 , (7.105)
j=1
with
vLoF = m − p (7.106)
degrees of freedom. However, an easier way to determine SSLoF is to calculate it based

on Equation (7.102), resulting in
SSLoF = SSE − SSPE . (7.107)
Here, it becomes clear that the number of degrees of freedom for the lack of fit may be
calculated from v and vPE :
vLoF = v − vPE = n − p − (n − m) = m − p. (7.108)

The total cor rected sum of squares is given by

n
SStot,cor r = ( yi − ȳ )2 . (7.109)
i=1
It can also be calculated by adding the sum of squares for the regression and residual,
which results in
SStot,cor r = SSReg + SSE. (7.110)
It is refer red to as “cor rected” because it is cor rected by the total mean, and this cor rection
is done in SSReg . Simultaneously, the degrees of freedom are cor rected by –1 (due to the
mean), so
vtot,cor r = n − 1. (7.111)
Dividing the sum of squares by the number of degrees of freedom for the respective
case yields the values for the mean squares, M SReg , s 2 , M SLoF , M SPE , M Stot,cor r . The
pure er ror mean square, M SPE , is an estimate of σ 2 that is valid both when there is a
lack of fit in the model and when there isn’t.
The reason for setting up the ANOVA table is to determine if the model is significant
and if there is any lack of fit to the model. First, we must determine if there is a lack
of fit to the model. If there is, we cannot use s 2 as an estimation of σ 2 and thus cannot
check the significance of the model. The lack of fit can be determined by examining the
observed F-value for the lack of fit, that is
M SLoF
Fobs,LoF . (7.112)
M SPE
This value should be compared to the F-value from the F-distribution with vLoF
and vPE degrees of freedom at α confidence level (for example, at the 95% or the
99% level), which is denoted F(vLoF , vPE ; α ). In the F-table (see Appendix C), data
are shown for F(v1 , v2 ; α); thus v1 = vLoF and v2 = vPE . If Fobs,LoF > F(vLoF , vPE ; α)
is valid, the lack of fit is significant. For this case, it is not possible to determine
confidence regions, significance of the model, etc. Instead, residual plots and further
examination of the model are needed in order to uncover the reason for the lack of fit and
thereafter to improve the model until there is no longer any lack of fit. For the case when
Fobs,LoF < F(vLoF , vPE ; α), there is no lack of fit observed and it becomes possible to
determine the significance of the model. In this case, we can use s 2 as an estimation of
σ 2 . However, the fact that there is no lack of fit does not mean that the model is perfect,
it merely means that we do not observe any lack of fit in these analyses.
In order to examine the significance of the model, the F-value observed for the
regression, Fobs,Reg , should be calculated:
M SReg
Fobs,Reg = . (7.113)
s2
This value should be compared to F(vReg , v; α) and if Fobs,Reg > F(vReg , v; α) is valid,
the model is significant at the α level. However, if the opposite holds true, i.e. Fobs,Reg <
F(vReg , v; α), the model is not significant, and it is recommended not to use this model.
7.8.3 R 2 statistic
An important tool for examining the model is to use the R2 statistic, which is calculated
by
n
SS Reg ( ŷi − ȳ)2
R2 = = i=1
n . (7.114)
i=1 (yi − ȳ)
SStot,corr 2
Thus, R 2 represents the fraction of the total variation around the mean, ȳ, explained by
the model. Often, R 2 is multiplied by 100 and expressed in percentage terms. Generally,
R 2 can assume values between 0 and 1. However, because the model can never explain
the pure error, R 2 cannot be 1. The higher the value of R 2 , the more capable the model
is of describing experimental data. There are, however, also some issues with using R 2 .
If, for example, there are five different experimental points and you use five parameters
in your model, you will receive a model that goes through all five points and thereby
gives R2 = 1. Of course, this does not mean that you have a good model, only that the
model is over-parameterized, for the set of performed experiments. For this example,
it is obvious that too many parameters were chosen. However, it is also important to
examine this when repeating experiments, where it might not be obvious when the model
is over-parameterized. Assume, for example, that you have 80 experimental points, and
that there are 20 repeated experiments for each x point. If you choose a model with four
parameters, you will get a perfect fit and a very high R 2 value, but this model is over-
parameterized or is developed with too little variation in the experimental conditions.
7.9 Case study 7.1: Statistical analysis of a linear model
In an article about the growth rates of ice crystals (Ryan, B. F., Wishart, E. R., and Show,
D. E. (J. Atmos. Sci. 33, 842–850, 1976)), experiments were conducted in which ice
crystals were placed into a compartment at a constant temperature (–5 °C). In order to
analyze the growth of the ice crystals as a function of time, the saturation of the air by
water was kept constant. The experimental data points were randomized over time. The
experimental data are presented in Table 7.2, where y is the axial length of the crystals
Table 7.2. Data for Case study 7.1
x (s) y (µm) x (s) y (µm)
50 19 125 28
60 20, 21 130 31, 32
70 17, 22 135 34, 25
80 25, 28 140 26, 33
90 21, 25, 31 145 31
95 25 150 36, 33
100 30, 29, 33 155 41, 33
105 35, 32 160 40, 30, 37
110 30, 28, 30 165 32
115 31, 36, 30 170 35
120 36, 25, 28 180 38
in microns and x is the time in seconds. Repeated measurements were also performed
in order to examine the lack of fit.
Use a straight-line model, y = β0 + β1 x + ε, and fit it to the data. In addition, make
a complete statistical analysis of the model. Use a 95% confidence level, i.e. α = 0.05.
7.9.1 Solution
The experimental data are presented in vector and matrix notation:
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
19 1 50
⎢20⎥ ⎢1 60 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢21⎥ ⎢1 60 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢17⎥ ⎢1 70 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
y = ⎢· ⎥ X = ⎢ · · ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢· ⎥ ⎢· · ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢· ⎥ ⎢· · ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣35⎦ ⎣1 170⎦
38 1 180
where y is an n × 1 vector and X is an n × p matrix; n = 43 is the total number of
experimental points, and p represents the number of parameters, in this case two (b0 and
b1 ). The first column in X should only contain 1 at each position. The number of different
x-values is 22, which is denoted m (m = 22). As there are many repeated experiments,
m is significantly lower than the total number of experimental points (n). The number of
m
observations for each xi is named ni , where i = 1, . . . , m and n = i=1 ni .
The model parameters can be calculated as follows:

b 0.33355 −0.0026342 1292 14.19
b = 0 = (X X)−1 X y = = .
b1 −0.0026342 2.23641 × 10−5 158205 0.1346
Thus, the following model is obtained:
ŷ = 14.19 + 0.1346x.
7.9.1.1 Evaluation of the model

When starting to evaluate the developed model, it is advisable to perform both regression
plots and residual plots. Figure 7.20 depicts a regression plot. Although the variance is
high, the data follow the linear model closely. There are no clear trends or evidence of
outliers.
Figures 7.21 and 7.22 show the residual and Studentized residual versus the response
predicted, respectively. These plots show that the residuals are evenly distributed and
that there are no clear trends. In the Studentized residual plot (Figure 7.22), all points
fall between −3 and 3, with no evidence of outliers (see Section 7.8.1).
As the residual plots evidence good behavior, we will proceed to assemble an ANOVA
table (Table 7.3) in order to study the lack of fit and the significance of the model (see
Section 7.8.2).
Figure 7.20. Regression plot.
Figure 7.21. Residual plot.
Figure 7.22. Studentized residual plot.

Table 7.3. ANOVA table for Case study 7.1
Regression 810.3 p−1=2−1=1 810.3 63.45

Residual 523.6 n − p = 43 − 2 = 41 12.77
Lack of fit 239.6 m − p = 22 − 2 = 20 11.98 0.886
Pure er ror 284 n − m = 43 − 22 = 21 13.52
Total, cor rected for the mean 1334 n − 1 = 43 − 1 = 42
7.9.1.2 Lack of fit

The lack of fit is examined by comparing Fobs to the F-value from the F-table (see
Appendix C), i.e.
F(vLoF , vPE ; α) = F(20, 21; 0.05) = 2.1,
where the calculation for the degrees of freedom (df), for lack of fit (vLoF ), and pure
error (vPE ) are found in Table 7.3.
According to the calculation in the ANOVA table, Fobs,LoF = 0.886, which is smaller
than F(vLoF , vPE ; α) = 2.1. Thus, the lack of fit is not significant and there is no reason
to doubt this model. We will therefore examine whether or not the regression model is
significant.
According to Table 7.3, the significance of the model is investigated by calculating
Fobs,Reg = M SReg /s 2 = 63.45. This value is compared with F(vReg , v; α), which becomes
F(1; 41; 0.05) = 4.08 (see Table 7.3 for the calculation of the degrees of freedom).
Thus, Fobs,Reg > F(vReg , v; α), which means that the model is significant at the α level.
In addition, the R2 statistic is determined according to Equation (7.114), i.e.
SSReg
R2 = = 0.608.
SStot,corr
Thus, the regression model describes a great deal of the variation in the data.
7.9.1.3 Confidence intervals

The calculations of the confidence intervals are described in Section 7.5. Briefly, the
1 − α confidence interval for the parameter bp in the model is given by
b p ± se(b p )t(n − p; α/2),
where

se(b p ) = s {(X X)−1 } pp ;
s2 is already calculated and presented in the ANOVA table (Table 7.3). The confidence
intervals are presented in Table 7.4.
The confidence interval can also be written using the following notation:
10.02 ≤ b0 ≤ 18.36;
0.1005 ≤ b1 ≤ 0.1687.
Table 7.4. Confidence intervals for Case study 7.1
Parameter bp se(b p ) tobs Confidence interval
b0 14.19 2.064 6.875 14.19 ± 4.17

b1 0.1346 0.0169 7.966 0.1346 ± 0.0341
Student’s t-tests can be used to determine the significance of the parameters. In order to
do so, the t-value from the t-distribution is needed (see Appendix C):
t(n − p; α/2) = t(43 − 2; 0; 0.05/2) = 2.02.
This value should be compared with the calculated tobs = b p /se(b p ), which are shown
in Table 7.4. For both parameters tobs > 2.02, thus both parameters in the model are
significant.
The confidence interval for the mean response, μ(x0 ), at x0 = 100, can be calculated
according to

ŷ(x 0 ) ± s x 0 (X X)−1 x 0 t(n − p; α/2),
resulting in
x0 = 27.65 ± 1.26,
26.4 ≤ μ(x0 ) ≤ 28.9.
7.9.1.4 Correlation
The correlation coefficient can be determined by
{(X X)−1 }01

C01 = = −0.9645.
{(X X)−1 }00 {(X X)−1 }11
Thus the correlation is quite high.
7.10 Case study 7.2: Multiple regression
A die-casting process was examined and experiments conducted in order to study the
effects of the furnace temperature (x1 ) and the die-closing time (x2 ) on the temperature
difference of the die surface (y). The data are shown in Table 7.5.
Fit the model y = β 0 + β 1 x1 + β 2 x2 + ε to the data. In addition, make a complete
statistical analysis of the model. Use a 95% confidence level, i.e. α = 0.05.
x1 x2 y
1250 6 80
1300 7 95
1350 6 101
1250 7 85
1300 6 92
1250 8 87
1300 8 96
1350 7 106
1350 8 108
See Chang, S. I. and Shivpuri, R.,

Qual. Engng. 7, 371–383, 1994.
7.10.1 Solution
The experimental data are presented below in vector and matrix notation:
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
80 1 1250 6
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 95⎥ ⎢1 1300 7⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢101⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢1
⎢ 1350 6⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 85⎥ ⎢1 1250 7⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
y=⎢ ⎥
⎢ 92⎥ ; X= ⎢
⎢1 1300 6⎥
⎥,
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 87⎥ ⎢1 1250 8⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 96⎥ ⎢1 1300 8⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣106⎦ ⎣1 1350 7⎦
108 1 1350 8
where y is an n × 1 vector and X is an n × p matrix; n = 9 represents the total number

of experimental points, and p represents the number of parameters, in this case three
(b0 , b1 , and b2 ). The first column of X should only contain 1 at each position. In these
experiments, there are no repeated experimental points, and therefore the lack of fit
cannot be determined.
The model parameters are given by:
⎡ ⎤
b0
b = b1 ⎦ = (X X)−1 X y
⎣
b2
⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
120.94 −0.086667 −1.1667 850 −199.56
= ⎣−0.086667 6.6667 × 10−5 5.1283 × 10−17 ⎦ ⎣1108150⎦ = ⎣0.21 ⎦.
−1.1667 5.1283 × 10−17 0.16667 5968 3.00
Figure 7.23. Studentized residual plot versus ŷ.
Figure 7.24. Studentized residual plot versus x1 .
The following model is obtained:
ŷ = −199.56 + 0.21x 1 + 3.00x 2 .
7.10.1.1 Evaluation of the model

First, we start by examining the residual plots in order to ensure that there are no
clear trends for the residuals. Such trends would mean that the model would not be
correctly formulated. Figures 7.23, 7.24, and 7.25 show the Studentized residuals versus
the predicted response ( ŷ), x1 and x2 , respectively. These plots show that the residuals
Regression 715.5 p−1=3−1−2 357.8 319.3

Residual 6.72 n−p=9−3=6 1.12
Total, cor rected for the mean 722.2 n−1=9−1=8
Figure 7.25. Studentized residual plot versus x2 .
are evenly distributed and that there are no clear trends. In addition, all points fall
between −3 and 3, with no evidence of outliers (see Section 7.8.1).
Since the residual plots evidence good results, it is now possible to determine the
significance of the model. See the ANOVA table (Table 7.6).
The significance of the model is examined by calculating Fobs, Reg = M S Reg /s 2 =
319.3 (see Table 7.6). The F-value can be retrieved from the F-table (see Appendix C)
and F(vReg , v; α), which for this case study is F(2, 6; 0.05) = 5.14. This results in
Fobs,Reg > F(v Reg, v; α), i.e. the model is significant at the α level. Further, the R2
statistic is determined using Equation (7.114) to be
SSReg
R2 = = 0.991.
SStot,corr
Thus, we observe that the regression model can describe a large fraction of the
variation in the data.
7.10.1.2 Confidence intervals

The calculations of the confidence intervals are discussed in Section 7.5. The 1 − α
confidence interval for the parameter bp in the model can be determined from
b p ± se(b p )t(n − p; α/2),

Parameter bp se(b p ) tobs Confidence interval
b0 −199.6 11.64 −17.14 −199.6 ± 28.5

b1 0.21 0.00864 24.30 0.21 ± 0.021
b2 3.00 0.432 6.94 3.00 ± 1.06
where

se(b p ) = s {( X X )−1 } pp ;
s 2 is given in Table 7.6.

The confidence intervals for the parameters are shown in Table 7.7. The confidence
intervals can also be expressed as follows:
−228.04 ≤ b0 ≤ −171.07,
0.1889 ≤ b1 ≤ 0.2311,
1.94 ≤ b2 ≤ 4.06.
Student’s t-tests can be used for determining the significance of the parameters. A
t-value is taken from the t-distribution (see Appendix C):
t(n − p; α/2) = 2.45.
The term tobs shown in Table 7.7 is calculated from b p /se(b p ). These values are then
compared with t(n − p; α/2). For all parameters, tobs ˃ 2.45, thus b0 , b1 , and b2 are
significant. Note that tobs for b0 is negative. However, the absolute value for tobs should
be used in these tests, yielding 17.14 for b0 .
The confidence interval for the mean response, μ(x 0 ), at x 0 = [1 1250 8], can be
calculated according to

ŷ(x 0 ) ± s x 0 (X X)−1 x 0 t(n − p; α/2)
which results in
μ(x 0 ) = 86.94 ± 1.73,
85.2 ≤ μ(x 0 ) ≤ 88.7.
The confidence regions are given by
(β − b) X X(β − b) ≤ ps 2 F( p, n − p; α).
The results for the confidence region and interval are shown in Figure 7.26 for b1 and
b2 , while keeping b0 constant. Note that the scales are different on the x- and y-axes.
Thus the confidence interval and band are much larger for b2 .
Figure 7.26. Confidence region and confidence intervals. Note that the scales are different on the
axes.
From Figure 7.26, it is clear that there is a small correlation between the parameters
b1 and b2 . In addition, it becomes evident that the confidence region is very different
from the confidence intervals.
7.10.1.3 Correlation
The correlation matrix can be determined by
{(X X)−1 }i j
Ci j = ,
{(X X)−1 }ii {(X X)−1 } j j
which produces
⎡ ⎤
1 −0.9652 −0.2599
⎣
C = −0.9652 1 1.5 × 10−14 ⎦ .
−0.2599 1.5 × 10−14 1
Note the symmetry of the matrix due to the fact that the correlation between b1 and b2
is the same as that between b2 and b1 . The results in the matrix show that the correlation
is high between b0 and b1 . However, the correlation between b0 and b2 is low, and that
between b1 and b2 is extremely low.
7.11 Case study 7.3: Non-linear model with one predictor
Hydrogen peroxide has been used to oxidize a secondary alcohol in a stirred batch
reactor. In order to increase the reaction rate, a solid catalyst was added. The conversion
(y) of hydrogen peroxide was detected at different times (t); see Table 7.8.
t (min) y
20 0.0476
50 0.0700
80 0.129
110 0.152
140 0.126
170 0.157
200 0.173
230 0.140
260 0.210
290 0.155
320 0.197
Regression 0.240 p=2 0.12 244

Residual 0.0044 n − p = 11 − 2 = 9 0.00049
Total, corrected for the mean 0.244 n = 11
Fit the non-linear model y = θ1 (1 − e−θ2 t ) to the data. Thereafter examine the sig-
nificance of the model and the parameter significance. In addition, construct confidence
bands and joint confidence regions. Use a 95% confidence level, i.e. α = 0.05.
7.11.1 Solution
The non-linear model parameters are determined numerically using the least square
method in MATLAB. In order achieve this, the sum of square errors is used according
to

n
n
2
SSE(θ) = εi2 = (yi − f (xi , θ̂ )) .
i=1 i=1
This results in the following parameters and model:

θ1 = 0.183, θ2 = 0.0122, and y = 0.183(1 − e−0.0122t ).
7.11.1.1 ANOVA table

The ANOVA table is presented in Table 7.9. The reason that the degrees of freedom
equal p not p − 1 is that this model does not contain a constant due to the mean (θ0 ).
The significance of the model is examined by comparing Fobs,Reg with F(vReg , v; α),
which can be retrieved from the F-table. For this example, F(2, 9; 0.05) = 4.26 at the
95% level. This results in Fobs,Reg > F(vReg , v; α), thus the model is significant at the α
level.
Parameter θ̂ p se(θ̂ p ) tobs Confidence interval
θ̂1 0.183 0.0147 12.43 0.183 ± 0.0333

θ̂2 0.0122 0.00319 3.821 0.0122 ± 0.00723
7.11.1.2 Confidence intervals and bands

The 1 − α confidence interval for the parameter θ̂ p in the model can be determined
according to
θ̂ p ± se(θ̂ p )t (n − p ; α/2),
where

se(θ̂ p ) = s {( J J )−1 } pp ,
where J is the Jacobian and can be calculated according to
& '
∂ f ( x n , θ̂ ) f ( x n , θ̂ ) − ( x n , θ p,1% )
Jn, p = ≈
∂θ p θ p
θ=θ̂
or directly through the software. In this case, MATLAB’s built-in functions have been
used to generate the Jacobian, resulting in
⎡ ⎤
0.2166 2.8649
⎢0.4568 4.9662⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢0.6234 5.5096⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢0.7388 5.2529⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢0.8189 4.6356⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
J (θ̂1 , θ̂2 ) = ⎢0.8744 3.9030⎥ ,
⎢ ⎥
⎢0.9129 3.1839⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢0.9396 2.5388⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢0.9581 1.9900⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣0.9710 1.5390⎦
0.9799 1.1775
which yields

7.1627 27.2607
J J =
27.2607 151.8384
and

0.4408 −0.0791
( J J )−1 = ;
−0.0791 0.0208
s2 (= 0.00049) is given in Table 7.9. The calculations for the confidence intervals are
shown in Table 7.10.
The significance of the parameters is evaluated using the t-test. The t-value
t (n − p ; α/2) is 2.26 (for the t-distribution, see Appendix C). Since the values of tobs for
Figure 7.27. Experimental data together with predicted conversion. In addition, the point-wise
and simultneous confidence bands are presented.
both parameters are larger than t(n − p; α/2), θ̂1 and θ̂2 are significant; tobs is calculated
using tobs = θ̂ p /se(θ̂ p ).
The 1 − α confidence interval for the dependent variable f (x0 , θ ), which can also be
called the “mean response,” is retrieved by

f (x0 , θ ) ± s j 0 ( J J)−1 j 0 t(n − p; α/2),
where

∂ f (x0 , θ )
j0 = .
∂θ θ=θ̂
The confidence intervals for several points, calculated using the preceding equation,
together form a so-called “1 − α point-wise confidence band.” The “simultaneous
confidence band” at the 1 − α level is determined by

f (x, θ ) ± s j ( J J)−1 j p F( p; n − p; α).
The experimental data are shown in Figure 7.27 together with the predicted conversion
using the developed model. In addition, the resulting point-wise and simultaneous
confidence bands are shown. The results show that the point-wise and simultaneous
confidence bands are similar for this example.
7.11.1.3 Joint confidence regions

The approximate elliptical contour, with exact probability level 1 − α, is calculated
using
(θ − θ̂ ) × J J × (θ − θ̂) ≤ ps 2 F( p, n − p, 1 − α),
Figure 7.28. Confidence region and confidence intervals.
which yields

θ1 − 0.1829
[θ1 − 0.1829 θ2 − 0.0122] × J J × ≤ 4.177 · 10−3 .
θ2 − 0.0122
The exact contour with approximate probability level 1 − α is determined using
S(θ ) − S(θ̂ ) ≤ ps 2 F( p, n − p, 1 − α),
where
S(θ̂ ) = SSE.
The results for the confidence regions are shown in Figure 7.28, together with the
individual confidence intervals for θ̂1 and θ̂2 . The results clearly show that there is a
large difference between the individual confidence intervals and the joint confidence
regions, but also that there is a difference between the elliptical contour and the exact
region. Further, the results of the joint confidence region also show that there is a
correlation between the parameters θ 1 and θ 2 .
7.11.1.4 Correlation
The correlation is determined using the correlation matrix according to
{( J J)−1 }
Ci j = ,
{( J J)−1 }ii {( J J)−1 } j j
which gives

1 −0.8266
C= .
−0.8266 1
Thus, there is a quite high correlation between the parameters.
7.12 Questions
(1) Set up the normal equations and derive expressions for b0 and b1 in a linear
model.
(2) How can the parameters in vector b be determined using the matrix form?
(3) Why are weighted residuals used?
(4) What is an outlier?
(5) How do you determine confidence intervals and regions, respectively?
(6) What are the differences between confidence intervals and confidence bands?
(7) Describe the ANOVA table and how to calculate the different values in the table.
(8) What is the correlation between parameters and how do you determine it?
(9) Why is the correlation matrix symmetrical?
(10) What makes a model non-linear?
(11) Give an example of an intrinsically linear model.
(12) How do you determine confidence intervals for a non-linear model?
(13) Give examples of residual plots when the residuals are evenly distributed and when
there are clear trends. Also describe how the models should be changed when clear
trends are discernible.
(14) How is R2 determined in order to get information about how much of a variation
can be described by a model?
7.1 The dependence of the reaction rate for the pressure of a hydrogenation reaction in
a tubular reactor has empirically been shown to follow the model
θ1 · P
r( P) =
1 + θ2 · P
where r is the reaction rate (mol s−1 , per kilogram of catalyst) and P is the total
pressure (bar). At 170 °C, the reaction rates given in Table 7.11 were determined.
(a) Determine the parameters θ̂1 and θ̂2 by using one of MATLAB’s (or that of
another software) least squares functions to search for the parameter values that
minimize the model error. In order to obtain a rapid convergence against the
global minima, good start guesses of θ̂1 and θ̂2 are important.
(b) Determine the individual confidence intervals for the parameters at a 95%
level.
Table 7.11. Reaction rates as a function of

pressure
r (mol s−1 per kg catalyst) P (bar)
0.0192 1.382
0.0234 2.075
0.0258 2.431
0.0281 2.762
0.0318 3.500
0.0319 3.833
0.0334 4.129
Table 7.12. Reaction rates for the two cases treated and untreated with
pyromycin
Reaction rate (counts min−2 )

Substrate concentration (ppm) Treated with pyromycin Untreated
0.025 79 69
0.025 45 55
0.07 94 87
0.07 111 81
0.105 127 101
0.105 142 111
0.23 163 129
0.23 156 127
0.54 194 142
0.54 199 159
1.18 209 162
1.18 205 161
(c) Plot the joined, approximate confidence region of the parameters at the 95%
level. Hint: If you use MATLAB, the contour function can be a great help.
(d) Determine the prediction interval for a new observation at 2.8 bar pressure.
7.2 The possible effect the substance pyromycin might have on an enzymatic reaction
is examined. Two experimental series are conducted, one applying the pyromycin
treatment, the other without. In the tests, the dependence of the reaction rate on
the substrate concentration is measured. The kinetics can be assumed to follow the
Michaelis–Menten model:
θ1 · x
f (θ , x) = .
θ2 + x
An hypothesis is that pyromycin influences parameter θ 1 , not θ 2 . Do a statistical
analysis and, based on that result, determine whether the hypothesis is likely to be
true or not. The experimental data are given in Table 7.12.
Table 7.13. Data for pressure drop, pressure, heat loading, and mass flow
Measured Calculated Absolute Heat

pressure drop pressure drop pressure loading Mass flow
(kPa m−1 ) (kPa m−1 ) (kPa) (kW m−2 ) (kg m−2 s−1 )
1.440 1.188 296.9 3.64 316

2.174 1.731 296.0 19.35 201
1.193 0.758 292.9 14.65 125
1.602 1.585 594.7 3.24 316
2.545 2.849 595.8 18.96 201
1.204 1.251 594.0 6.42 125
0.989 1.093 792.6 3.35 316
2.765 3.072 795.6 7.56 201
0.791 0.984 784.4 11.55 125
(a) Determine the parameters θ̂1 and θ̂2 by non-linear regression.

(b) Determine the individual 95% confidence intervals of the parameters. Are the
parameters correlated; if your answer is yes, how?
(c) Conduct a residual analysis using Studentized residuals.
(d) Determine if there are any significant model errors (lack of fit).
(e) Perform the corresponding analysis for the untreated series.
(f) Based on these results, what do you think of the stated hypothesis?
7.3 A PhD student at Chalmers University measured the pressure drop during evapora-
tion of 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane in tubes. The student also calculated what a certain
model, in the form of pressure drop = f (pressure, heat loading, mass flow), was
capable of predicting for the same conditions. The conditions and results are shown
in Table 7.13.
Examine, with the help of residual analysis, if there is reason to suspect that
the model needs further development, and, if so, in what regard. Normalization or
Studentization is not needed.
7.4 When conducting a lack of fit analysis, the following ratio:
SSLoF /vLoF
,
SSPE /vPE
is compared with the F-distribution value for F(v1 , vPE , α). In Figure P7.1, the
reaction rate is given as a function of reactant concentration. The points represent
experimentally measured values, and the solid line represents a model with two
parameters. There are 29 points in total. For the five highest concentrations, repeated
experiments are taking place.
(a) Which contribution to SSRes (the residual sum of squares), SSLoF , respectively
SSPE , originates from the two points between the concentrations 0.4 and 0.6?
Illustrate graphically the differences that form the basis for SSRes and SSPE .
(b) What is the F-distribution value at the 95% level for the example in Figure P7.1?
(c) What does it mean if the ratio becomes larger than the F-distribution value?
Table 7.14. Input data for the model
N T C Yobs Ycalculated Res
1 285 7 2.3 2.94 –0.64

2 254 7 3.2 3.50 –0.3
3 302 9 3.0 2.57 0.43
4 323 6 1.6 2.23 –0.63
5 314 10 2.4 2.41 –0.01
6 282 8.5 3.7 2.95 0.75
7 321 5.3 1.4 2.26 –0.86
8 302 10 3.5 2.61 0.89
9 324 11.5 2.7 2.26 0.44
Figure P7.1. Reaction rate as a function of reactant concentration.
7.5 In order to reduce the shrinkage of an artificial fiber, it is pretreated by dipping into
a solution with concentration C and then heat-treated at temperature T. The goal is
to make a model describing how the shrinkage Y depends on the pretreatment.
Nine experiments were conducted; the data are shown in Table 7.14. The measured
shrinkage is denoted Yobs . The results of a first version of the model are also given
in the column Ycalculated . Note that N is the notation for the experiment number, and
the residual is denoted Res.
With the help of residual analysis, examine the suggested model and propose,
with motivation, if and how the model might be improved.
7.6 As part of an assignment to find the optimal process conditions in a steam stripper,
a simple model is needed. The model should describe how the water content in the
Table 7.15. Water content in the distillate
x (kg s−1 ) y
0.263 0.34
0.294 0.32
0.321 0.24
0.367 0.20
0.429 0.16
0.608 0.11
1.33 0.06
13.6 0.04
distillate (y) depends on the steam consumption (x). As a basis for the model, the
data in Table 7.15 were collected during the experiments.
The following model is suggested:
x −2/3
y = a ln ,
b
where a and b are the parameters in the model.
By minimizing the residual sum of squares, SSE, the following data were obtained:
r a (parameter 1) = 0.1321
r b (parameter 2) = 0.211 kg s−1
r SSE = 0.003726

r J T J = 20.3453 25.9254
25.9254 38.9143

r ( J T J)−1 = 0.3254–0.2168 .
−0.2168 0.1701
(a) Optimal steam flow is expected to be about 0.58 kg s−1 . Calculate a 95%
confidence interval, which will describe the uncertainty of the model for this
flow.
(b) Others that have conducted similar experiments have found a = 0.107 and b =
0.211. Are these parameters within the confidence region on the 95% significance
level?
Appendix A
Microscopic transport equations
A.1 Rectangular coordinates
Mass balance for component A (ρ and DAB constant)

2
∂CA ∂CA ∂CA ∂CA ∂ CA ∂ 2 CA ∂ 2 CA

+ vx + vy + vz = DAB + + + RA .
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂x2 ∂ y2 ∂z 2
Total mass balance (ρ constant)
∂vx ∂v y ∂vz
+ + = 0.
∂x ∂y ∂z
Energy balance (ρ and k constant)

2
∂T ∂T ∂T ∂T ∂ T ∂2T ∂2T
ρc p + vx + vy + vz =k + + + S.
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂x2 ∂ y2 ∂z 2
Momentum balance (ρ and μ constant)

2
∂vx ∂vx ∂vx ∂vx ∂p ∂ vx ∂ 2 vx ∂ 2 vx

x: ρ + vx + vy + vz =− +μ + +
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂x ∂x2 ∂ y2 ∂z 2
+ ρgx ,

2
∂v y ∂v y ∂v y ∂v y ∂p ∂ vy ∂ 2vy ∂ 2vy
y: ρ + vx + vy + vz =− +μ + +
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂y ∂x2 ∂ y2 ∂z 2
+ ρg y ,

2
∂vz ∂vz ∂vz ∂vz ∂p ∂ vz ∂ 2 vz ∂ 2 vz

z: ρ + vx + vy + vz =− +μ + +
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂z ∂x2 ∂ y2 ∂z 2
+ ρgz .
A.2 Cylindrical coordinates (mass and energy)

∂CA ∂CA 1 ∂CA ∂CA 1 ∂ ∂CA 1 ∂ 2 CA ∂ 2 CA

+ vr + vθ + vz = DAB r + 2 +
∂t ∂r r ∂θ ∂z r ∂r ∂r r ∂θ 2 ∂z 2
+ RA .
Microscopic transport equations 169

∂T ∂T 1 ∂T ∂T 1 ∂ ∂T 1 ∂2T ∂2T
ρc p + vr + vθ + vz =k r + 2 2 + 2 + S.
∂t ∂r r ∂θ ∂z r ∂r ∂r r ∂θ ∂z
A.3 Spherical coordinates (mass and energy)

∂CA ∂CA 1 ∂CA 1 ∂CA
+ vr + vθ + vφ
∂t ∂r r ∂θ r sin θ ∂φ

1 ∂ 2 ∂CA 1 ∂ ∂CA 1 ∂ 2 CA
= DAB r + sin θ + + RA .
r 2 ∂r ∂r r 2 sin θ ∂θ ∂θ r 2 sin2 θ ∂φ 2

∂T ∂T 1 ∂T 1 ∂T
ρc p + vr + vθ + vφ
∂t ∂r r ∂θ r sin θ ∂φ

1 ∂ 2 ∂T 1 ∂ ∂T 1 ∂2T
=k r + sin θ + + S.
r 2 ∂r ∂r r 2 sin θ ∂θ ∂θ r 2 sin2 θ ∂φ 2
Appendix B
Dimensionless variables
Useful dimensionless numbers can be created by taking the ratios of different forces,
mass fluxes, or heat fluxes. The dimensionless number will indicate which of the
forces or fluxes is the most important. Various dimensionless quantities are given in
Tables B.1–B.4.
Table B.1. Dimensionless numbers based on force
Inertial Viscous Buoyancy Surface tension Pressure
Force (kg m s−2 ) ρU 2 L 2 μU L gL 3 ρ γL L 2 p

ρUL gLρ ρU L 2
p
Inertial – Re = Fr = We = Eu =
μ ρU 2 γ ρU 2
gL ρ
2
μU Lp
Viscous – Ca =
μU γ μU
gL 2 ρ p
Buoyancy – Eo =
γ gLρ
Lp
Surface tension –
γ
Pressure –
Table B.2. Dimensionless numbers based on mass flux
Convective Diffusion Interface Reaction
Mass flux (mol s−1 ) U C L 2 DC L kw C L 2 rA L 3

UL kw LrA
Convective – Pe = St = Da I =
D U U C
kw L L 2 rA
Diffusive – Sh = Da I I =
D DC
rA L
Interface –
kw C
Reaction –
Dimensionless variables 171
Table B.3. Dimensionless numbers based on heat flux
Convective Conductive Interphase Reaction

−1
Heat flux (J s ) ρC p T U L 2
kT L hT L 2
rA L 3 H
ρc p U L h rA LH
Convective – Pe = St = Da I I I =
k c p ρU ρc p U T
hL rA H L 2
Conductive – Nu = Da I V =
k kT
rA LH
Interphase –
hT
Reaction –
Table B.4. Common dimensionless numbers
Name Definition
hL external heat transfer
Biot Bi =
k internal conductive heat transfer
μU viscous force
Capillary Ca =
γ capillary force
kn C0n reaction rate
Damköhler I Da I = = kn C0n−1 τ
C0 U/L convective mass transport rate
kn C0n−1 reaction rate
Damköhler II Da I I =
kg a mass transport rate
kn C0n−1 LH heat of reaction
Damköhler III Da I I I =
ρc p U T heat transport rate
gL 2 ρ buoyancy force
Eotvos Eo =
γ surface tension force
p pressure force
Euler Eu =
ρU 2 inertial force
αt heat conduction
Fourier Fo =
L2 heat accumulation
gLρ buoyed weight
Froude Fr =
ρU 2 surface inertial force
ρ 2 gβ(Ts − T∞ )L 3 (buoyancy) (inertial force)
Grashof Gr =
μ2 viscous force
hL convective heat transfer
Nusselt Nu =
k conductive heat transfer
LU LU convective transport
Péclet Pe H = or Pe D =
α D diffusive transport
μ viscosity
Prandtl Pr =
ρα heat diffusivity
ρgβ(Ts − T∞ )L 3 free convection
Rayleigh Ra =
μα conduction
(cont.)
172 Appendix B
Table B.4. (cont.)
Name Definition
ρU L inertial force
Reynolds Re =
μ viscous force
μ viscosity
Schmidt Sc =
ρD diffusivity
kc L convective mass transfer
Sherwood Sh =
D conductive mass transfer
τp particle relaxation time
Stokes St =
τfluid fluid characteristic time
ρU 2 L inertial force
Weber We =
γ surface tension force
Appendix C
Student’s t-distribution
Table C.1. t-table

174 Appendix C
C.1 The F-distribution
Table C.2. F-table; 10% confidence limit

Student’s t-distribution 175
176 Appendix C

178 Appendix C

Bibliography
Bird, R.B., W.E. Stewart, and E.N. Lightfoot, Transport Phenomena, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley,
2002.
Levenspiel, O., Chemical Reaction Engineering, 3rd edn. New York: Wiley, 1999.
Welty, J.R., C.E. Wicks, and R.E. Wilson, Fundamentals of Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer,
5th edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2007.
Kunes, J., Dimensionless Physical Quantities in Science and Engineering. Burlington, MA:
Elsevier, 2012.
LeVeque, R.J., Finite Difference Methods for Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations: Steady-
State and Time-Dependent Problems. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM, 2007.
Sauer, T., Numerical Analysis. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2012.
Haberman, R., Applied Partial Differential Equations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2004.
Draper, N.R. and H. Smith, Applied Regression Analysis, 3rd edn. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
1998.
Chatfield, C., Statistics for Technology, 3rd edn. London: Chapman and Hall, 1983.
Mendenhall, W. and T. Sincich, A Second Course in Statistics Regression Analysis, 6th edn. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education International, 2003.
Devore, J. and N. Farnum, Applied Statistics for Engineers and Scientists, 2nd edn. Belmont, CA:
Thomson, 2005.
Montgomery, D.C., Design and Analysis of Experiments, 7th edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons, 2009.
Index
accumulation, 23 decoupling, 54, 55, 72

accuracy, 88 degrees of freedom, 130, 131
Adams–Bashforth method, 93 dependent variable, 121
Adams–Moulton method, 94, 97 deterministic model, 13
adaptive step size, 88 diffusion, 24
ANOVA table, 145, 146, 152, 156 dimensionless equations, 41, 43
approximate confidence interval, 140 dimensionless number
averaging, 54 Euler, 43
Froude, 43
backward difference, 113 Péclet, 43
backward differentiation formulas, 97 Prandtl, 43
balance, 20 Reynolds, 43
component, 21 Schmidt, 43
energy, 21 dimensionless variable, 40, 46
mass, 20 Dirichlet boundary condition, 103
momentum, 22 discrete variable, 11
base dimensions, 40 distributed parameter, 11
boundary conditions, 26, 54, 67 Dormand–Prince method, 89
boundary-value problem, 82, 99
Buckingham’s theorem, 48 elliptic PDE, 110
empirical model, 14, 40, 46
central differences, 103, 110 error, 53
characteristic variables, 44 global, 87
circulation time, 51 local, 87
collocation, 107 error control, 89
collocation points, 107 error estimation, 76
conditional stability, 90 error tolerance, 98
conduction, 23 explicit algorithms, 87
confidence band, 135, 136, 141, 161 explicit Euler method, 82
confidence interval, 130, 152, 156, 162 extrapolation, 13
for the dependent variable, 135
confidence region, 135, 141, 157, 162 F-distribution, 135
conservation, 20 fictitious boundary, 104, 106
constitutive equation, 22 film theory, 45
Darcy, 22 finite difference method, 102, 110
Fick, 22 finite element method, 107
Fourier, 22 first-order derivative, 64
Newton, 22 flow, 24
continuous variable, 11 flux, 22
control volume, 24 forward difference, 110
correlation, 40, 136, 142, 153, 158, 162 Frössling correlation, 46
correlation matrix, 136, 137, 142
coupling, 14 Gaussian elimination, 103, 106
Crank–Nicolson method, 114 grid, 102
182 Index
Hagen–Poiseuille equation, 44 primary dimensions, 46

heat transfer, 44, 46 pumping capacity, 51
higher-order differential equations, 96 pure error, 146, 147
hydraulic diameter, 57
hyperbolic PDE, 110 R2 statistic, 149
random error, 132
implicit Euler method, 91 Ranz–Marshall correlation, 46
implicit methods, 90 rate determining, 50
independent variable, 54, 69, 121 rate of dissipation, 51
initial-value problem, 82 reaction time, 50
interpolation, 13 recurring set, 47
intrinsically linear models, 138 regressor, 121
residence time distribution, 32
Jacobian, 140 residual plots, 142–144
response variable, 121
lack of fit, 146–148, 152 Runge–Kutta method, 86
least square method, 123, 126 Runge–Kutta–Fehlberg method, 89
limiting cases, 54, 63
linear model, 10 scale
linear regression, 121, 122, 125 macroscopic, 18
linearizing, 54, 61 mesoscopic, 17
local truncation error, 83, 87 microscopic, 16
lumped parameter, 11 molecular, 16
lumping, 56 scale-independent model, 49
scaling down, 48
MATLAB, 114 scaling out, 48
mechanistic model, 14 scaling rule, 51
mesh, 102 scaling up, 48
micromixing, 51 second-order derivative, 64
midpoint method, 84 sensitivity analysis, 77
mirror planes, 56 shell balance, 23
mixing, 50 shooting method, 99
multistep methods simplified geometry, 54
explicit, 93 stability, 90, 91
implicit, 94 standard error, 130
steady state, 11, 54, 58, 60, 70
neglecting terms, 54, 64 stencil, 111
Neumann boundary condition, 104 stiff problems, 97
Newton method, 93 stochastic model, 13
non-linear model, 10, 123, 139, 159 straight-line model, 121, 123, 131
non-recurring set, 47 Student’s t-distribution, 133
normal equation, 124 Studentized residual, 150
numerical differentiation formulas, 97 sum of square error, 123, 124, 126, 130, 147
symmetry, 55, 56, 69
Octave, 117 system of differential equations, 94
ordinary differential equation, 81
outlier, 129, 145 Taylor expansion, 62, 83
over- and underestimation, 77 t-distribution, 135
time constants, 58
parabolic PDE, 110 time scales, 97
partial differential equations, 108 total corrected sum of squares, 148
periodic boundary condition, 56 transformation, 96
polynomial model, 122 transient model, 11, 54, 58
population balance, 28 transport phenomena, 22
predictor, 121 trial function, 107
predictor–corrector pairs, 94 truncation error, 87
Index 183
t-tests of individual parameters, 133 validation, 53

turbulent eddies, 51 variance, 125, 127, 136
turbulent kinetic energy, 51 verification, 53
uncertainty, 53 weighted least squares, 127

unconditional stability, 91 weighted sum of square error,
unsteady state, 58 129

769513

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

769513

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

769513

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mathematical Modeling in Chemical Engineering

A solid introduction to mathematical modeling for a range of chemical engineering

Anders Rasmuson is a Professor in Chemical Engineering at Chalmers University of

4 Empirical model building 40

5 Strategies for simplifying mathematical models 53

5.1.1 Decoupling equations 55

6.3.5 Crank–Nicolson method 114

7 Statistical analysis of mathematical models 121

Appendix A Microscopic transport equations 168

r construct models using balances on differential or macroscopic control volumes for

r understand and use methods for model simplification;

In this introductory chapter the use of mathematical models in chemical engineering is

1.1 Why do mathematical modeling?

r design and scale-up;

Figure 1.1. Pilot dryer, Example 1.1.

A typical problem in chemical engineering concerns scale-up from laboratory to full-

Example 1.1 Design of a pneumatic conveying dryer

Figure 1.2. Interactions between particles, steam, and walls.

Figure 1.3. Wood chip.

Figure 1.4. Schematic of a Wurster bed, Example 1.2.

Example 1.2 Design and optimization of a Wurster bed coater

Coating is a common process step in the chemical, agricultural, pharmaceutical, and

1.2 The modeling procedure

Figure 1.5. The different steps in model development.

Step 1: Problem definition

Step 2: Formulation of conceptual model (Chapter 3)

Step 3: Formulation of mathematical model (Chapters 3–5)

Step 4: Solution of the mathematical problem (Chapter 6)

Step 5: Estimation of parameters (Chapter 7)

Step 6: Evaluation/validation (Chapter 7)

Example 1.3 Galileo´s gravitation models

Why do objects fall to the earth?

What relation describes how a body gains velocity as it falls?

The mathematical description of Assumption 1 is:

The mathematical description of this assumption is:

In this chapter mathematical models are classified by

The intention is to give the reader an understanding of differences between models as

2.1 Grouping of models into opposite pairs

Linear versus non-linear

Steady state versus transient

Lumped parameter versus distributed parameter

Continuous versus discrete variables

Figure 2.1. Lumped-parameter and distributed-parameter visualization of a distillation tray.

Figure 2.2. Continuous versus discrete modeling of a packed column absorber.

Figure 2.3. Danger of extrapolation. Yield of a chemical reactor versus time.

Deterministic versus stochastic

Interpolation versus extrapolation

Mechanistic versus empirical

Coupled versus not coupled

2.2 Classification based on mathematical complexity

Another classification scheme to be considered is shown in Figure 2.4. It can be seen

Linear equations Non-linear equations

Algebraic trivial easy essentially very difficult very difficult impossible

Figure 2.4. Classification based on mathematical complexity.

Table 2.2. Classification of models according to scale

Molecular treats discrete entities; quantum distribution functions; collision integrals

A model formulated in terms of differential equations can often be rephrased in terms

2.3 Classification according to scale (degree of physical detail)

Figure 2.6. Time averaging.

but small with respect to the overall time changes: