PROCESS AND PLANT OPTIMIZATION SPECIALREPORT

Multivariable control and

real-time optimizationan
industrial practical view
Here's what can be achieved with each technology
and how they are integrated at this plant
O. ROTAVA and A. C. ZANIN, Petrobras, Brazil
P
rocess optimization, once mainly a subject of academic
interest, was made possible when tools such as multivari-
able control (MVC) and real-time optimization (RTO)
became available. These tools are a consequence of the move
from analog to digital instrumentation and development of the
distributed control system (DCS).
Among people not familiar with control theory, and even
among process engineers, a perception exists that implementing
advanced control in the form of a multivariable controller on a
process unit solves once and for all the optimization problem
of that unit. To the disappointment and frustration of control
engineers that implement such systems and managers responsible
for automation investments, evaluating multivariable controller
payback after it has operated for a while shows that profits are
smaller than those planned.
MVC generates benefits in three ways: stabilizing the process
(decoupling the manipulated variables), protecting the process
from violating operating constraints and using available degrees of
freedom. This allows some constraints to become active, optimiz-
ing the ptocess by maximizing yield oFthe most valuable products
and minimizing expenditure oi raw materials and utilities.
The first and second points are usually true: MVC stabilizes
the process and protects it from violating constraints. Hence, the
frustration is largely due to no satisfaction From point three. Such
dissatisfaction is based on a real and a False assumption. The real
assumption: By lack oFconstant tollow-up by a process engineer,
MVC operation tends to degrade with time. Eventual changes in
plant operation and production objectives require changes in the
controller structure, sometimes immediately after commissioning.
These changes are not done because experts are not available. The
most common reasons for degradation are: inadequate limits of
the manipulated variables, conflicting specifications of the con-
trolled variables and inadequate tuning.
The false assumption is that MVC gives a complete solution
to the unit optimization problem. Actually, MVC is required to
perform functions that are not in its designed scope. Examples
are distributing the heat load between reflux and pumparounds
in an atmospheric distillation unit and defining the reaction
temperature of maximum conversion in an FCC unit. These
features are not covered by MVC. Only an RTO system, based
on a rigorous process model, takes care of both of them.
This unfair view oFwhat can be achieved with MVC in
terms of ptocess optimization allows continuous questioning
of the heavy investments applied in upgrading instrumenta-
tion. In an MVC and RTO implementation project, invest-
ments in instrumentation and a DCS, if not already in place,
represent the largest cost. On the other hand, it is important
that such investments should be made anyway, even without
implementing MVC and RTO because of analog instrumenta-
tion obsolescence.
Nevertheless, upgrading instrumentation and DCS implemen-
tation do not define a competitive advantage because competitors
are obliged to do the same. The convenience oF implementing
MVC and RTO tools provides the real advantages.
The objective of this article is to show clearly through examples
what can be achieved in terms of optimization ftom MVC and what
can only be obtained through RTO via a rigorous process model.
Suppliers of automation and optimization technology usually
split total benefits related to petroleum refining operation optimi-
zation equally between MVC and RTO applications. According
to Cutler and Perty,' available benefits for online optimization
plus advanced control can amount to 610% of the added value
of a given process.
Multivariable control: steady-state quadratic opti-
mization and dynamic control. Iwo distinct algorithms
{Fig. 1) executed at the same frequency perform MVC. These
algorithms are associated with solving the process control static
and dynamic problems.
The algorithm that corresponds to solving the static problem,
executed First, searches a set of optimum values of the manipulated
variables, maximizing a quadratic objective function, namely
operating proFit. Solving this problem must satisfy constraints
established by maximum and minimum values oi the controlled
and manipulated variables. Controlled variables are evaluated at
the steady state produced by the linear dynamic process model,
with manipulated variables and disturbances as inputs. The result-
ing optimum operating point is then sent to the objective ftmction
of the dynamic problem.
The second algorithm solves the dynamic problem and accom-
plishes two tasks. The first consists of keeping the process inside
the operating region, compensating for the frequent disturbances
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING JUNE 2005 61
SPECIALREPORT PROCESS AND PLANT OPTIMIZATION
subject to:
Y'""" <Y'<Y
that enter the plant and would lead the unit to violate its con-
straints. The second consists oi implementing the optimum val-
ues infotmed by the static solution oft he first algorithm. The
mathematical procedure that satisfies the requirements solves a
least-squares ptoblem.
The quadratic optimization (first task) solves the following
problem:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
/here:
w,,, = vector of manipulated variables values at present time
Us - vector of manipulated variables values at steady state
W\ = diagonal matrix of economic coefficients ofthe manipu-
lated variables (partial derivatives ofthe economic func-
tion in relation to the manipulated variables)
W2 - diagonal matrix of suppression factors ofthe manipu-
lated variables
Wi, - diagonal matrix of slack variable weights
Ys = vector of predictions ofthe controlled variables on the
steady state (those that must strictly satisfy the chosen
boundaries)
Y^' = vector of controlled variable predictions at steady state
(those whose boundaries do not need to be strictly satis-
fied)
SCV= vector of slack variables (represents how much each
variable in Y^' surpasses its boundary; they are added
to guarantee existence of a solution to the optimization
problem).
The dynamic control (second task) is formulated as:
(6)
submitted to the following constraints:
-A""-(y7')<A(;T)<A(;T); y- 1 nl (7)
u""' [jT) <u^+ A ( / T ) < H-" ( ; T) ; ; = \,...,nl (8)
where:
H / = control horizon
nr = prediction horizon
7"= sampling or algorithm period execution
A = vector of control action size
u* = vector of optimal manipulated variable values calculated
by the linear optimizer
W4 = diagonal matrix of weights on the dynamically controlled
^
Linear optimizer (1 min)
- steady-state linear model
- QP or LP algorithm
Optimum values: 0*', y''
^
Controller (1 min)
-dynamic linear model
- predictive multivariable algorithm
*
Setpoints (manipulated), u Variables,
DCS - regulatory control
Two distinct algorithms (linear optimizer and controller)
perform multivariable control.
variables
tt^^ = diagonal matrix of manipulated variable supression fac-
tors
W(, = matrix of weights to lead the manipulated variables to
their respective optimum values
yi= vector of upper or lower boundaries ofthe dynamically
controlled variables
yj, = vector oi linear prediction ofthe dynamically controlled
variables.
Operating region. Performance of MPC: optimum
on t he constraints. The term operating region designates
the polyhedron ot dimension equal to the number of manipulated
variables. This region encloses all feasible unit operating condi-
tions. The surface that limits the region is defined by the operating
constraints, made up mainly by the controlled variables. Neverthe-
less, the operator can also make active constraints related to upper
and lower boundaries ofthe manipulated variables, making the
operating region even more restricted. Obviously, this practice is
not recommended, because controller freedom is reduced and the
solution eventually achieved is not the best.
Fig. 2 illustrates an operating region for an FCC unit converter
where two variables are considered: con\ersion (controlled variable)
and teed flowrate (manipulated variable). A solution ofthe MVC
linear or quadratic optimizxr corresponds to a constraint vertex in
Fig. 2. For instance, if the optimal operating points are represented
by point A (maximum conversion) or B (maximum feed load) the
MVC will fmd the best solution, pro\'ided the convenient coefficients;
ofthe manipulated variables (feed flowrate and reactor temperature)
are given to the linear or quadratic optimization objective function.
If the largest coefficient corresponds to reaction temperature,
the optimum solution will correspond to point A, otherwise the
operating optimum will be point B. If the operating economical
optimum alternates between points A and B, the relative values of
the aforesaid coefficients need to be changed tor the right solution
to be found by the optimizer. Overall, the optimizer has tuning
parameters that are the coefficients oi the manipulated variables in
the linear or quadratic programming {Wi m Eq. 1) that must be
changed according to the energy cost or product prices.
62 JUNE 2005 HYDROCARBON PROCESSING
SPECIALREPORT
PROCESS AND PLANT OPTIMIZATION
Gas compressor
constraint
Max catalyst
circulation rate
Max feed
temperature
Feed pump
constraint
Min. conversion
Feed rate
Operating region of the FCC converter with two variables.
If the operating optimum is unconstrained (for instance, an
interior point of the shadowed area on Fig. 2), ir cannot be found
by the MVC quadratic optimizer.
Multivariable controller optimization algorithm
limitation. The hmitation of the MVC consists of its inability
to find an optimum sokition when the optimum is inside the
operating region, since the controller quadratic programming
algorithm only fmds solutions on the boundaries defined by the
process constraints.
As an example, consider the diesel production of an atmo-
spheric fractionator (Figs. 3 and 4).
Fig. 3 shows that an economical balance exists between the
increase of diesel production through its heavy fraction and the
energy consumption in the furnace. For the same feed flowrate
and diesel ASTM 85% distillation specification, an increase of
the coil outlet temperature (COT) corresponds to an augment of
the o\erflash that then improves fractionarion, allowing a larger
diesel draw. A limit to this procedure is when a diese! production
increase does not compensate economically for the additional
energy consumption.
Again in Fig. 3, we see the optimum operating point is a func-
tion of an economical balance between the energy cost and diesel
price. For instance, tor a larger energy cost, the optimum operat-
ing point consists of a smaller COT and consequently smaller
amount of ovetflash.
Fig. 4 illustrates the diesel production increase as a function
of the fractionation constrained by the maximum ASTM 85%
specification. Starting from an operating point with low overflash
flowrate, SV', a COT increase allows the process to reach an
optimum overflash flowrate, 5V'"', which is the best economical
balance between energy consumption and diesel production.
Operating with excess overflash. SV*, the economical gain with
the additional diesel production does not compensate for the extra
energy consumption cost.
If the optimization task was attributed to the MVC, it would
lead the proce.ss to the maximum COT, provided no constraints
were violated, even if maximum COT was not the most economi-
cally advantageous operating condition.
In diesel optimization by MVC, the process is operated with
fixed overflash flowrate setpoint (calculated offline by the pro-
Energy consumption/feed rate
FI G. 3 An economical balance exists between increasing diesel
production and energy consumption.
cess analysis team), in spite of changes in petroleum quality and
fractionator operating conditions.
Real-time optimization. Optimization through MVC is
hindered by the simplicity of the process model, which is a set
of linear equations. The objective function is related to maxi-
mum or minimum values of the MVC manipulated variables. A
quadratic or linear programming algorithm achieves the optimal
solution. According to Marlin and Forbes,^ due to the reliability
and relative simplicity of MVC technology, the preferred location
tor economic optimization would be the controller, provided it
performed well.
On the other hand, the RTO model consists of a ser of nonlin-
ear equations that represent as close as possible the system steady
state. The objective function consists of the system economic
model that translates into its profitability. A nonlinear program-
ming algorithm achieves the optimal solution.
Optimization makes the connection between production plan-
ning and scheduling tasks and those evaluated by MVC. Fig. 5
illustrates the traditional RTO structure of a system with multiple
MVCs, with the interrelationship of its components.^ Its main
components are:
Process steady-state model. The mathematical model must
represent the system over a wide range of operating conditions
with a high degree of accuracy in such a way that the maximum
profitabilit)' predicted by the objective function be effectively the
maximum potential profit of the real process. Also, constraints
of the real process must not be violated when the optimizer
solution is implemented. According to Friedman,'^ effective
optimization is still limited by availability of good models.
Data reconciliation and model parameter updating. Rig-
orous models require a large amount of measured information
that contains uncertainties. This subject is dealt with by the data
reconciliation procedure. The first data reconciliation procedure
consists of gross error detection. In this step, invalid measure-
ments due to instrumentation malkmctioning are identified and
treated. Afterward, the small differences in the mass and energy
balances are spread among measurements throughout the pro-
cess model, taking into consideration the statistical uncertainties
of the instruments and redundant measurements.
Rigorous models are expected to accurately reproduce the real
64 JUNE 2005 HYDROCARBON PROCESSING
SPECIALREPORT PROCESS AND PLANT OPTIMIZATION
process over a wide range of operation conditions. Parameters of
such models are updated to compensate for nonmcasured distur-
bances and changes in process performance caused by factors such
as catalyst deactivation, heat exchanger fouling, and furnace and
columns efficiency reduction. By analogy to a traditional PID con-
troller, model parameter updating using plant data corresponds
to process Feedback.
Optimization algorithm. After the model is properly fit-
ted ro real plant data, optimization is performed. To attain the
optimal solution of the optimization problem, a nonlinear pro-
gramming (NLP) algorithm is used. Such a solution corresponds
to the maximum profitability of the unit inside the operating
region limited by process constraints. The NLP algorithm usu-
ally employed in industrial applications is successive quadratic
programming (SQP).^
The real-time optimization problem is defmed as:
Diesel ASTM 85%
SV
Atmosphetic
residue
Delta die5el
(economic benefit)
V ol., %
F I G . 4 Diesel production is a function of the fractionation
constrained by the maximum ASTM 85% specification.
subject to the constraints:
<<;
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
where:
- Constraints limits
- Parameters
- Instrumentation data
Scheduling/planning
- Economic data
- Constraints: feed/products
Data base/information system
Optimizer
Targets
Process
model
NLP
solver
Multivariable
controller 1
Multivariable
controller 2
Setpoints Setpoints Setpoints
DCS - regulatory control
Traditional real-time optimization structure.
i/; = steady-state disturbances vector
^,,y = economic objective function
h^ = economic model constraints
hp = nonlinear model constraints
X; = vector of constraints on the steady state.
Integrating the real-time optimizer with the MVC.
RTO determines the optimum operating point to which the
process must be driven. This solution cannot be implemented
directly in the DCS due to dynamic constraints. High-frequency
disturbances would destabilize the process and move it outside
its constrained region. This can happen because the low-fre-
quency optimizer is not able to deal with such disturbances. By
its characteristics, MVC is the adequate tool to move the process
in a robust way to such an operating optimum.
The optimizer solution is normally made a\'ailable to the MVC
in the form of optimum steady-state targets of its manipulated
and/or controlled variables (Fig. 6).
Fig. 6 illustrates the classical structure of RTO integrated to
the MVC, available in most industrial applications. This strategy
displays two main functions:
a) Optimization of the steady state, which is accomplished by
the RTO in a relatively low frequency (superior layer).
b) Implementing the optimal solution
achieved in (a) above by the MVC (interme-
diate and lower layers), which is responsible
by the dynamic driving of the process from
the present state to the optimum operating
point calculated by the RTO.
MVC execution is divided in two parts:
Dynamic control, which is executed in
a relatively high Frequency and is responsible
for keeping che process inside the envelope
established by its constraints and for moving
the unit to its optimum operating point.
Linear optimization, which is executed
in the same frequency as the dynamic con-
trol, whose function is to send the RTO
solution to the MVC, but making small
adjustments to it due to disturbances enter-
ing the process inside the RTO execution
interval.
Thus, each task of the control and opti-
mization strategy is distinct and displays its
own algorithm, which is executed sequen-
tially at the same MVC run.
Integrating RTO with MVC is achieved
through the objective function of the MVC
Data reconciliation
model updating
Multivariable
controller N
66 JUNE 2005 HYDROCARBON PROCESSING
SPECIALREPORT
PROCESS AND PUNT OPTIMIZATION
RTO {4h)
- steady-state rigorous model
- economic model of process
- nonlinear programming {NLP)
I
Optimum values: Manipulated variables, u'"'
Controlled variables, y'"'
Linear optimizer (1 min}
- steady-state linear model
- QP or LP algorithm
Optimum values: u'', y''
Controller (1 min)
-dynamic linear model
- predictive multivariable algorithm
Setpoints (manipulated), u Variables
y.u
DCS - regulatory control
FI C. 6 The optimizer solution is normally made available to
the multivariable controller in the form of optimum
steady-state targets of its manipulated and/or controlled
variables.
linear optimization layer. In this way, when the RTO is active,
Eq. 1 is modified to:
mm
U, JiCV
(14)
subject to constraints represented by Eqs. 2-5, where:
u " = vector of optimal values of rhe manipulated variables
determined by the RTO.
The first term of Eq. 14, which represents implementation
of the optimizer solution, does not possess the tuning parameter
present in Eq. 1. In this case, the information embedded in the
vector of economic weights, W,, is informed through the product
price.s in the RTO economic function.
Case studi es. Next, some variables of a crude distillation unit
and a. fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) converter are analyzed. In
the first case studied, it is shown that MVC optimization must
be complemented by RTO. In the other cases, the optimization
task is exclusively made by RTO.
Cases that can be optimized exclusively by MVC, i.e., their
optimum is on the constraints, are not analyzed. Maximizing jet
fuel in a petroleum fractionator and pressure balance on an FCC
converter when compressors/blowers are operating in their full
capacity are examples of such cases.
Crude atmospheric distillation unit: COT and overflash
flowrate. COT is manipulated to optimize diesel production,
generally constrained by maximum diesel ASTM 85% distillation
temperature. Fig. 7 illustrates diesel production and overflash
control once furnace outlet temperature has been fixed. Overflash
is adjusted by the setpoint of the external reflux. The heavy diesel
Feed
TTT
Overflash (optimizer
Overflash is adjusted by the setpoint of the external reflux.
The heavy diesel production is determiend by a mass
balance over that particular region of the column.
production is determined by a mass balance over that particular
region of the column.
The MVC of the fractionator column increases the COT until
the diesel ASTM 85% distillation temperature becomes active.
Fig. 8 illustrates the influence of furnace outlet temperature and
overflash flowrate on the diesel quality.
When operating with a deficient overflash, SV~, the MVC
increases the COT until operation point 1 is attained, where
Vi is the diesel flowrate and the diesel ASTM 85% distillation
temperature constraint becomes active.
As the overflash flowrate is optimized, SV'", increasing the
controller flowrate setpoint without increasing the COT, a new
operating condition represented by point 2 is achieved in which
the mass and energy balances of the heavy diese! region reduce
the diesel flowrate to Vj. In this condition, there is a giveaway in
the ASTM 85% diese! speciflcation.
Starting from point 2, the MVC increases the COT until the
diesel ASTM 85% distillation temperature constraint becomes
active again at point 3. In this condition, diesel flowrate, V'3, is
increased by A V' in relation to initial point 1.
Operating with excessive overflash, SV'', the operating point
represented by 4, the economic gain with the additional diesel
production, A^'*, does not compensate for the additional energy
expenditure.
In this case, we verify that the MVC optimizers benefltsby
maximizing the COTdepends on the overflash flowrate, whose
optimum value can be determined by the RTO since it depends
on the feed quality and many other variables of the atmospheric
column.
Determining the optimum overflash flowrate, as shown, is not
part of the scope of the MVC, thus the fractionation problem
requires an RTO based on a rigorous model.
Distribution of pumparounds in a fractionation column.
Distribution of energy withdrawal through the pumparounds
{Fig. 9) is exclusively an RTO problem. An economic balance
exists between the energy recovery by the pumparounds and
the internal reflux along the column that are responsible for the
products fractionation.
In the case shown in Fig. 9, the distribution of pumparounds
68 JUNE 2005 HYDROCARBON PROCESSING
SPECIALREPORT PROCESS AN D PLANT OPTIMIZATION
umparounds distribution:
- Frattitniation x energy recovery
Diesel ASTM 85%
Optimum stripping steam:
- Kerosene flash point
- Bottom light components
Heavy naphtha
_ T^ Steam
Diesel
Delta diesel
( economic RTO
benefit)
When operating with a deficient overflash, the
multivariable control increases the COT until operation
point 1 is attained.
must consider the following internal refluxes:
i ] and i g, responsible for the fractionation, respectively, of
the kerosine light and hea\y ends
L^j, responsible for the fractionation between diesel and
atmospheric residue
I46, that corresponds to overflash flowrate.
www, GEAJ ET. CO M
More than
just vacuum
We provide optimal, process in-
tegrated solutions for any type of
vacuum system, using our well
known jet pumps together with
other types of vacuum pumps.
Our jet vacuum pumps are used
in oil refineries, steel degassing,
deodorizing and dehumidifying
of vegetable oils/fatty acids, sea
water desalination and vjriou.s
applications in the chemical, phar-
maceutical and food industries.
The opiimum design of a jet
vacuum pitmp requires a lot of
experience. We have it.
GEA Jet Pumps
GEA Jet Pumps GmbH Einsteinstrasse 9-15 76275 Ettlingen Germany
Tel.: +49 7243 705-0 E-mail: i nfogeaj et.de Internet; www,geaj et.com
Select 95 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
Atmospheric residue
Distribution of energy withdrawal through the
pumparounds is exclusively a real-time optimization
problem.
As consequence of the strong system nonlinearities, the col-
umn duty distribution is not conveniently handled by MVC,
which operates hased on linear models. In cases where the MVC
manipulates pumparound flowrates, their setpoint values remain
almost permanently on their operating limits, not being effectively
manipulated MVC variables.
Additionally, heat load distribution must consider pressure
drops in the pumparounds regions to optimize pressure in the
vaporization zone. This task is exclusive of an optimizer with a
rigorous model because MVC does not take into account the
column tray hydraulics for flooding detection.
Stripping steam flowrate. Kerosinc .stripping steam is meant to
be the fine-tuning factor of tbe product flash point property; mean-
while, stripping steam in the bottom of the fractionator removes the
light components of tbe atmospheric residue. Only through a rigor-
ous process model is it possible to determine the optimum stripping
steam flowrates. Tbe optimizer can determine an optimum product/
steam ratio, which depends on crude quality, and the steam flowrate
can be controlled by regulatory control in the DCS.
Stripping steam manipulation cannot he bandied by MVC
because the process model (obtained from plant tests) depends
on the steam rate at the very moment of the test. For instance, if
the steam flowrate is above a certain value, the controlled prop-^
erty is not sensible to it. Therefore, this is a system with strong
nonlinearities in whicb tbe economic gain may change its signal.
For instance, sometimes it is economically convenient to increase
the steam injection; other times the optimum is obtained by the
opposite procedure.
Preheat trains and furnace feed allocation. One of the open
questions in optimizing distillation unit operation consists of
allocating the crude feed to preheat trains and furnaces.
When active constraints exist, the allocation problem can be
solved with MVC alone by keeping tbe process variables equally
away from the constraints.
70
PROCESS AND PLANT OPTIMIZATION
On the other hand, when there is no active constraint, feed
allocation becomes a rigorous model optimization with an eco-
nomic objective function that minimizes energy consumption.
Column reboiler duty. In a distillation column with top
and bottom products (for instance, stabilizer and crude pre-
flash), normally the effective manipulated variables are reflux
flowrate and reboiler duty, and the controlled variable is a
property oft he top product. In such a situation, several pairs
of reflux flowrate and reboiler duty values satisfy the same top
product specification.
The difference among those pairs of manipulated variables is
translated into larger or smaller distillate amounts. It becomes
clear that a point of economic optimum must exist. Operating
outside this point causes distillate product loss or excess energy
consumption. This optimum point can be determined by a rigor-
ous model and an RTO, but cannot be determined by MVC since
it does not consider the trade-off between energy consumption
and product fractionation.
FCC converter: reaction temperature. To keep a converter
stable, MVC normally constrains the operating reaction tem-
perature to a value in the range of 1C to 2C. This is practically
equivalent to keeping such a variable at a fixed setpoint.
This operating procedure is adopted because the MVC optimizer
tends to augment the conversion by increasing reaction temperature
up to the compressor limit. Nevertheless, the operating optimum
can occur before such a constraint is activated. In this case, operat-
ing on the constraint (compressor limit) causes overcracking, result-
ing in inadequate yield profile or high olefin content in the cracked
naphtha. Hence, determining the optimum reaction temperature
is an optimization problem with a rigorous model.
In practical operation, the values that bound the narrow reac-
tion temperature operating range are calculated "offline" hy the
process analysis engineering as a function of an economic ohjec-
tive and sent to the MVC to be sought.
Regenerator dense phase temperature. In the total
combustion FCC converter, the regenerator dense phase tempera-
ture is a consequence ofthe burned coke on the spent catalyst. The
regenerator control is performed through the excess of oxygen.
O scar R ot ava is a senior process control engineer for Petrobras.
He graduated as a chemical engineer at the Federal University of
Rio de Janeiro and joined Petrobras, Brazil's largest oil company,
the same year and worked in the training department, lecturing
on fluid mechanics (pipe and pump design), thermodynamics and
process control. Presently Dr. Rotava works with the optimization group, commission-
ing multivanabie process control systems on distillation and FCC units in several of the
company's refineries. He is in charge of the corporate mass balance implementation
program. Dr. Rotava got an MSc degree in chemical engineering from the Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro and a PhD degree in process control from the Imperial
College, London.
A nt oni o C arl os Z ani n is a senior process control engineer
for Petrobras automation group. He received his BSc in chemical
engineering from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul. Dr,
Zanin holds an MSc (dissertation in predictive multivariabie control)
and PhD (thesis in real-time optimization] degrees in chemical
engineering from the University of Sao Paulo. He worked in developing Petrobras's
multivariable control technology. Presently, Dr, Zanin is responsible for developing
and implementing inferential property algorithms, advanced control and real-time
optimization on crude and FCC units at the company's refineries.
In the partial comhustion FCC converter, the regenerator
dense phase temperature is related to the CO/ CO2 ratio in fuel
gases and to coke content in the regenerated catalyst.
In the latter case, regenerator temperature optimization must
consider the catalyst/oil ratio and the coke content on the regen-
erated catalyst, which affect the conversion in opposite ways. For
instance, a reduction in the regenerator temperature increases the
catalyst/oil ratio and, consequently, the conversion. On the other
hand, the coke content on the regenerated catalyst Increases, too.
Therefore, the combined action can decrease conversion. Balanc-
ing these effects can only he accomplished through an optimizer
with a rigorous model. HP
LITERATURE CITED
' Cutler, C. R. and R. T. Perry, "Real time optimization with multivariable
control is tequired to maximize profits," Computers and Chemical Engineering,
V. 7, n. 5. pp, 663-667, 1983.
^ Marlin, E. T. and J. R Fotbes, "Selecting the proper location for economic
optimization: multivariabie control or RTO," NPRA Computer Conference,
National Petroleum Refiners Association, paper CC-95-125, Nashville, Nov.
6-8, 1995.
^ Hardin, M. B., R. Sharun, A. Joshi and J. D. Jones, "Rigorous crude unit
optimization," NPRA Computer Conference, National Petroleum Refiners
Association, paper CC-95-122, Nashville, Nov. (i-8, 1995.
* Friedman, Y. Z., "Closed-loop optimization updateWe are a step closer to
fulfilling the dream," Hydrocarbon Processing, HPIn Control, January 2000.
'' White, D. C, "Online optimization; what, where and estimating ROK" Hydro-
carbon Ib-ocessing, pp. 43-51, June 1997.
PcTROLAB
www.petrolab.com
Select 96 at www.HydrocarbonProcessJng.com/RS
71