Study of the Implementation of a Robust MPC in a Propylene/Propane

Splitter Using Rigorous Dynamic Simulation

Aldo Ignacio Hinojosa and Darci Odloak*

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of So Paulo, Av. Prof. Luciano Gualberto, trv 3 380 61548, So Paulo, Brazil

This work addresses the application of the Robust Innite Horizon Model Predictive Control (RIHMPC) to a heat integrated propylene distillation
system at a Petrobras renery. The approach proposed here is tested on the rigorous dynamic simulation software (Dynsim1) that reproduces the
system as a virtual plant and is able to communicate with the MPC algorithms developed in Matlab, through an Open Platform Communication (OPC)
interface. The controller is based on a minimal order statespace model that is equivalent to the system step response and considers the zone control of
the outputs and optimizing targets for the inputs. The optimizing targets are obtained through the steadystate economic optimization using the real
time optimization package (ROMeo11). The proposed integration approach provides convergence and stability to the closedloop system. The
propylene distillation system is simulated with the proposed control and optimization strategies and the results show that, from the economic
performance and robustness viewpoint, for this particular system, the proposed robust MPC is signicantly better than the nominal IHMPC based on a
single linear model obtained at the most probable operating point.

Keywords: advanced control of distillation, real time optimization, dynamic simulation, propylene production unit

INTRODUCTION several practical features such as the zone control and the
consideration of optimizing the targets for the inputs and

O
ne of the key challenges in the process industry is how to
best control and stabilize the process plant while
searching for the economic optimum operating point.
Advanced control based on MPC, which is a control standard in
the oil rening industry, is frequently implemented as one of the
layers of the control structure where real time optimization
(RTO) lies in an upper layer and denes optimum targets for
some of the inputs and outputs.[1] Examples of successful
implementations of MPC have been reported in the literature
in the last 30 years.[24] Most of the MPC applications in industry
are still based on the stepresponse model of the process system as
in the seminal application of dynamic matrix controller (DMC)
presented in Cutler and Ramaker.[5] Despite the good perfor-
mance of the MPC based on the step response model, some
limitations of this approach can be mentioned, as the lack of
nominal stability related with the nite output prediction
horizon. Also, the state of the equivalent state space model is
nonminimal, which means that a state with a smaller dimension
could be obtained. The state estimation strategy is also not
optimal and adhoc solutions need to be adopted for the unstable
or integrating system.
As a consequence, system representations based on the state
space approaches that allow the use of innite prediction horizon
have been considered in MPC implementations. First, Rodrigues
and Odloak[6] developed a minimal statespace representation
for stable and integrating systems that is equivalent to the step
response of systems that can also be represented by transfer
functions. The model was extended by Carrapio and Odloak[7]
for time delayed systems, but it resulted in a nonobservable
model for systems with multiple delays. More recently, Santoro
and Odloak[8] developed a spacestate representation that solves
the observability problem of the delayed systems. The new state
space system representation approach allows the implementa-
tion of innite horizon model predictive control (IHMPC) with
outputs. The method can be applied to stable, integrating and
timedelayed systems and provides guaranteed nominal
stability.
The lack of robust stability is also a weakness of available model
predictive controllers that are usually implemented in industry.
A robust controller is able to maintain the stability of the closed
loop at different operating conditions. Typically, at each operating
point the process system can be represented by a different linear
model. This case is called the multiplant uncertainty,[9] and a
robust control strategy (RIHMPC) can be proposed in which a set of
models is used to represent the uncertain system and the controller
is stable for any single model of that set.[10,11] In a similar strategy,
polytopic uncertainty can also be considered where the true
model is assumed to be the convex combination of a nite set of
models that represent the vertices of a polytope.[12,13] These ideas
can also be included in the innite horizon MPC and result in
various strategies for implementing robust controllers that can be
integrated with the RTO layer.[14,15]
In practice, the design, tuning and implementation of IHMPC or
RIHMPC integrated with RTO would be costly and time consuming
mainly because the approach would need the identication of the
process model at different operating points, which would demand
extensive plant testing. The alternative is to develop a study based
on simulation scenario. Steadystate and dynamic simulation
based on rst principles are now mature technologies and have
*Author to whom correspondence may be addressed.
Email address: odloak@usp.br
Can. J. Chem. Eng. 92:12131224, 2014
2014 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering
DOI 10.1002/cjce.21980
Published online 26 May 2014 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com).

VOLUME 92, JULY 2014 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 1213
been extensively applied in industry. As plant designs are
becoming more complex, integrated and interactive, the control
of their dynamic behaviour tends to represent challenges of
increasing difculty.[16] Then, commercial process simulators tend
to be used for the understanding of the process interacting
dynamics as well as the evaluation and tuning of control strategies
before implementation. Control practitioners have adopted the use
of dynamic simulation as an alternative to plant testing so that the
required information about the process dynamics can be obtained
without disturbing the process operation. The advantages of
performing a step test on a dynamic simulation instead of on the
real plant are obvious. As no plant test is required, the effort can be
minimized especially for processes with many variables and/or
long settling times.[17] Once all the required data for model
identication is available, the implementation of the advanced
control becomes much simpler.[18] Here, this approach will be
extended to the study of the implementation of IHMPC and
RIHMPC integrated with RTO in a real propylene/propane splitter
of an oil renery.
The main scope of this work is to study the implementation of the
IHMPC and the RIHMPC, based on the statespace representation of
the process step response as will be explained in the paper, in an
industrial propylene/propane splitter without performing any
plant test. Also, the closedloop performance of these controllers
will be compared using the dynamic simulation in order to evaluate
the possible advantage of the RIHMPC over the conventional
IHMPC. The control scheme to be tested assumes that a RTO layer is
present in the control structure and provides the optimum targets
for the manipulated inputs.
The paper is organized as follows: The control problem of the
propylene/propane splitter and the dynamic simulation is briey
discussed in the next section. Then, the statespace system
representation developed in Santoro and Odloak[8] and adopted
in the MPC implementation is highlighted. Next, the IHMPC and
robust IHMPC are formulated to be tested in the propylene/
propane system. Results of simulation scenarios are presented and
discussed in the simulation section. Finally, some conclusions
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the propylene/propane splitter.
1214 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
about the implementation of the advanced control strategy at the
propylene/propane splitter are presented.
THE CONTROL PROBLEM AND OPENLOOP SIMULATION OF
THE PROPYLENE/PROPANE SPLITTER
The industrial propylene process system considered here consists
of four sections: the depropanizer column (T01), the deethanizer
column (T02), the propylene/propane splitter (T03) and the
caustic treatment section. The system was designed to produce
highpurity propylene (99.5% molar) from liqueed petroleum gas
(LPG), which is fed at column T01, where the bottom product
(butane) is sent to storage while the top product is sent to the
caustic treatment so that its sulphur content is reduced to 4 ppm.
The desulphurized stream is then fed to column T02 where ethane
and the lighter ends are separated and incorporated in the renery
fuel gas, while the bottom product is sent to column T03, which is
schematically represented in Figure 1. In this column, propylene is
separated from propane, which also carries other hydrocarbons
with four atoms of carbon. A typical composition of the feed of
column T03 is shown in Table 1. The propylene stream is
produced as the top stream of the splitter and is sold to a nearby
petrochemical plant, while the propane stream obtained as the
bottom product is stored in propane spheres.
The distillation system studied here includes an energy recovery
system through the integration of the top cooling system into
the bottom heating system. As it can be observed from Figure 1,
there is a vapour recompression system where energy savings of
about 50% have been reported.[19] In this way, compressor V01
increases the pressure and temperature of the vapour leaving
the top of the column at about 16 kgf/cm2 and 50 8C, and the
recompressed vapour is condensed in the reboilers M01 A/B and
M02 at the bottom section of the column. This column presents
three bottom reboilers that work in parallel. Reboilers (M01 A/B)
are vertical, while reboiler (M02), which was included in
the system in a revamp project of the system, is horizontal.
All the reboilers have variable heat transfer areas that depend on
VOLUME 92, JULY 2014
 Table 1. Typical feed composition of the propylene/propane splitter The high concentration of propylene in the product stream and
the variable heat transfer area of the bottom reboilers justify the use
Component % Molar fraction
of a multivariable advanced controller to maximize the economic
Ethane 0.0102 benet and to attain the product specications. As a consequence,
Propylene 64.41 the implementation of MPC in conjunction with RTO needs to be
Propane 34.77 evaluated. Possible manipulated inputs for the advanced controller
iButene 0.337 are the feed ow rate (FC1), the reux ow rate (FC2) and the heat
1Butene 0.061 pump ow rate (FC3), and the controlled outputs are the molar
cis2Butene 0.0334 concentration of propane in the propylene stream (AC1), the molar
trans2Butene 0.0334 concentration of propylene in the propane stream (AC2) and the
1,3Butadiene 0.012 level of liquid in separator O03 (LC5), which affects the heat
iButane 0.298
transfer area in the bottom reboilers M01 A/B. The controller to be
Butane 0.0334
implemented should drive the system inputs to the optimum
targets while keeping the system outputs inside control zones that
are dened by the operators as will be seen in the next section.
Besides, the propylene splitter has a highly nonlinear behaviour,
the level of the condensed liquid inside drums O03 and O04. which is a common characteristic of highpurity distillation
The existing PID control loops of the system are presented in processes. Then, stability is an additional issue in the control
Table 2. problem to be studied here and justies the consideration of new
The operation of the main regulatory control loops described in control strategies as the ones that will be described in the following
Table 2 can be described as follows: FC5 and LC1 are cascaded sections.
such that the liquid level at the bottom of T03 is maintained at The dynamic simulation of the propylene distillation column
1.9 m. In the same way, LC4 cascades FC7 such that liquid level in will be developed in the simulation package Dynsim. The idea is to
drum O04 is kept at 65 % of its range. Also, PC1 cascades FC6 in use the rigorous dynamic model as a virtual plant so that the design
order to keep the top pressure at 9.0 kgf/cm2. There is an override of the advanced control, the controller tuning and the model
control strategy involving LC3, LC3A and FC4. The resulting identication will not result in any cost. All the regulatory PID
signal of the high selector of the outputs of LC3 and FC4 is control loops will be included in the simulation in order to test the
compared in a low selector with the output of LC3A so that the implementation of the advanced control in a simulated system that
level of liquid propylene in separator O02 is held inside its upper closely represents the real system. The dynamic simulation will
and lower limits. Since the percentage of propylene in the also help the identication of the linear models that represent
propylene product is the most important controlled variable, there the process at different operating points and will be included in the
is a composition analyser (AC1) that cascades FC2 so that the RIHMPC. To characterize the dynamics of the propylene/propane
reux ow rate setpoint will be driven by the AC1 output signal. splitter, Figure 2 shows the step responses corresponding to three
Finally, in order to minimize the loss of propylene to the bottom different operating points. From these responses two main
product, there is a composition analyser (AC2) that cascades FC3 conclusion can be drawn: the model gain can change signicantly
and the resulting signal is compared with the output of LC05 in a from one operating point to the other and the settling time of the
low selector so that the liquid level in drum O03 is maintained system is very large (about 30 h), which can make the model
above a minimum value. identication experiments in the real system very time consuming.
To study the implementation of the advanced control strategy,
which was developed in MATLAB, and the real time optimization,
which was based on the rigorous steadystate optimization
Table 2. Main PID controllers used in the propylene/propane splitter package ROMeo integrated with the dynamic simulation that
PID
represents the true plant, it was necessary to integrate the various
controller Function software into a realtime data communication. Therefore, there is a
communication interface based on OPC technology that allows the
FC1 Feed flow rate to column T03 realtime data transfer between Dynsim, MATLAB and ROMeo.
PC1 Pressure at the top of T03 The OPC drive was designed to provide a common bridge for
LC1 Liquid level at the bottom of T03 Windows based software applications and process control
FC2 Reflux flow rate of column T03 hardware. To obtain a successful communication, there must be
PC2 Pressure at the outlet of compressor V01 (Relief) at least one OPC server and one or various OPC clients. In this case,
LC2 Liquid level in the knockout drum O01
the OPC server is the OPC Gateway which lies in Dynsim and
FC3 Total flow rate through the heat pump
the OPC clients are the OPC DA which is part of the OPC toolbox
LC3 Upperliquid level in separator O02
LC3A Lowerliquid level in separator O02
of MATLAB, and the OPC external data interface (EDI) of
FC4 Propylene flow rate to storage ROMeo. A representative scheme of this structure is shown in
LC4 Liquid level in drum O04 and reboiler M02 Figure 3.
FC5 Propane flow rate to storage
LC5 Liquid level in drum O03 and reboilers M01 A/B STATESPACE FORMULATION OF THE STEP RESPONSE
FC6 Flow rate through water cooler M03
FC7 Outlet flow rate of drum O04 MODEL
AC1 Propane molar composition in the propylene Consider a system with nu inputs and ny outputs, and assume that
product stream there are transfer function models relating the inputs and outputs.
AC2 Propylene molar composition in the propane Then, a state space realisation of the step response model of the
product stream system originally presented in Rodrigues and Odloak[6] and

VOLUME 92, JULY 2014 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 1215
 O03 level x Heat pump (%/ton/h) O03 level x Feed (%/ton/h) O03 level x Reflux (%/ton/h)
0 0.18 0.2
Model 1
Model 2 0.16 0.18
Model 3
0.14 0.16

0.14
0.5 0.12
0.12
0.1
0.1
0.08
0.08
1 0.06
0.06
Model 1 Model 1
0.04
Model 2 0.04 Model 2
Model 3 Model 3
0.02 0.02

1.5 0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
minutes minutes minutes

Propane in Propylene x Heat pump (molar %/ton/h) Propane in Propylene x Feed (molar %/ton/h) Propane in Propylene x Reflux (molar %/ton/h)
0.06 0.025 0
Model 1
Model 2
0.05 Model 3
0.01
0.02

0.04
0.02
0.015
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.01
Model 1 Model 1
0.005
Model 2 Model 2 0.05
0 Model 3
Model 3

0.01 0 0.06
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
minutes minutes minutes

Propylene in Propane x Heat pump (molar %/ton/h) Propylene in Propane x Feed (molar %/ton/h) Propylene in Propane x Reflux (molar %/ton/h)
0.1 0.4 0.7
Model 1 Model 1
0 Model 2 Model 2
0.35 0.6
Model 3 Model 3
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.25
0.3 0.4
0.2
0.4 0.3
0.15
0.5
Model 1 0.2
0.1
0.6 Model 2
Model 3
0.05 0.1
0.7

0.8 0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
minutes minutes minutes

Figure 2. Step responses of the PP splitter at different operating points.

extended in Santoro and Odloak[8] for the timedelayed system, is follows:

considered here to represent the propylene/propane splitter. For
2 3 2 3 2 3 2 s 3
this purpose, let us designate umax as the maximum dead time of the xs k 1 I ny 0 Bs1 Bs2    Bsumax 1 Bsumax xs k B0
6 xd k 1 7 6 7 6 xd k 7 6 d 7
system and let na be the maximum order of the transfer functions of 6 7 6 0 F Bd1 Bd2    Bdumax 1 Bdumax 7 6 7 6 B0 7
6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7
6 z1 k 1 7 6  0 7 6 z1 k 7 6 I 7
the system. Then, a state space model that can represent the 6
6
7 6
76
0 0 0 0 0 7
7
6
6
7 6 nu 7
76 7
6 z2 k 1 7 6 Duk
distillation column, which has only stable poles can be written as 6 7 6 0 0 I nu 0  0 0 7 7
6 z2 k 7 6 0 7
6 7 6 7
6 7 6 .. 7 6 7 6 7
6 .. 7 6 .. .. .. .. .. 7 6 .. 7 6 ... 7
4 . 5 4 . . . .  . . 5 4 . 5 4 5
zumax k 1 0 0 0 0  I nu 0 zumax k 0

1
2 3
x k s

6 xd k 7
6 7
6 7
6 z1 k 7
6 7
yk I ny C 0 0  0 6 7
6 z2 k 7 2
6 7
6 .. 7
6 7
4 . 5
zumax k
where,

x 2 C nx ; nx 2ny nd umax  nu; xs 2 <ny ; xd 2 C nynuna ;

xi 2 <ny ; z1 ; ; zumax 2 <nu

One advantage of this model structure is that the state vector is

split into components that can be explicitly associated to the
Figure 3. Schematic representation of the OPC interface. system modes. In the state dened in Equation (1), the state

1216 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING VOLUME 92, JULY 2014
component xs corresponds to the predicted output steady state and where ddi;j;k is the coefcient of the partial fraction expansion
xd corresponds to the stable dynamic modes that tend to zero when corresponding to the kth pole of the step response of the transfer
the system approaches steady state. For the case of nonrepeated function Gi, j(s).
poles F is a diagonal matrix with components of the form er i Dt Alternatively, if l 6 0, then each matrix Bdl would have the same
where ri is a pole of the system and Dt is the sampling period. The dimension as DdFN where those elements corresponding to
upper right block of matrix A is included to account for the time transfer functions with dead time different from l are replaced
delay of the system. with zeros.
Matrices Bsl , with l 1; ; umax can be computed as follows: Finally, matrix c is dened as follows:

If l 6 ui;j ; then Bsl i;j 0

2 3
F 0
If l ui;j ; Bsl i;j d0i;j 6 .. 7
then C 6
4 . 7;
5 C 2 <nynd ; F 1  1 ; F 2 <nu na

where d0i;j is the steadystate gain of output yi with respect to 0 F

input uj.
Construction of matrices Bdl is a little more subtle. If there were
no dead times (l 0) then Bd0 Dd FN, where matrices Dd and N are
computed as follows:
INFINITE HORIZON MPC WITH ZONE CONTROL AND
8 2 3 OPTIMIZING TARGETS
>
>1 0  0
6 > <
.. 7
The zone control of the outputs is a control strategy, which is
6 na .. .. .. 7 usually implemented in applications where the exact values of the
6 >. . . . 7
6 > 7
6 > 7 controlled outputs are not important, as long as they remain inside
6 :1 0  07
6 8 7 a range with specied bounds. To handle the zone control strategy,
6 7
6 > >0 1  07 we may adopt an appropriate choice of the output error
2 39 6 > 7
J >
> 6 <. .. .. 7 penalization in the conventional MPC cost function. In this case,
6 J 7>> 6 na . 7
6 7= 6 >. . . 07 the output weight is made equal to zero when the system output is
6 7
N 6 . 7 ny; N 2< ndnu
J6
6 > > 7
7 J 2 <nu nanu
6 :0
4 .. 5>
>
inside the zone. Then, some inputs are released and it becomes
>
>
; 6 1  07 7 possible to move one or more of them towards the optimal
J 6 7
6 .. 7 economic values determined by the optimization stationary layer
6 . 7
6 8 7 (RTO targets). In the other case, the output weight is made different
6 >0 0  17
6 > 7 from zero when the output prediction is violating any of its bounds,
6 > < 7
6 . .. .. .. 7 so that the output variables are strictly controlled only when they
6 na .. . . . 7
4 > > 5 are outside the control zones. Another strategy to implement the
>
:
0 0  1 output control zone is to assume that the outputs setpoints are free
to be moved inside the control zones. In the latter approach, the set
points become additional decision variables for the control
problem.
Dd diagdd1;1;1    dd1;1;na    dd1;nu;1    dd1;nu;na    ddny;1;1    ddny;1;na
   ddny;nu;1    ddny;nu;na Dd 2 C ndnd IHMPC for the Nominal System
Based on the work of Gonzles and Odloak,[20] and taking into
account that the propylene/propane splitter is an open loop stable
2 3
dd1;1;1 er 1;1;1 0  0 system, the IHMPC is based on the following nominal cost
6 7 function:
6 .. .. .. .. 7
6 . . . . 7
6 7
6 d 7
6 d1;1;na er1;1;na 0  0 7
6 7 X
1
6 7 Vk yk jjk  ysp;k  dy;k T Qy yk jjk  ysp;k  dy;k
6 0 dd1;2;1 er1;2;1  0 7
6 7
6 7 j0
6 .. .. .. .. 7
6 . . . . 7 X
1
6 7
6
6
7
7
uk jjk  udes;k  du;k T Qu uk jjk  udes;k  du;k
6 0 dd1;2;na er 1;2;na  0 7 j0
6 7
6 .. 7
6 . 7 X
m 1
D FN 6
d
6
7;
7 Dd FN 2 <ndnu Duk jjkT RDuk jjk dy;k T Sy dy;k du;k TSu du;k
6 0 0  dd1;nu;1 er 1;nu;1 7
6 7 j0
6 .. .. .. .. 7
6 7 3
6 . . . . 7
6 7
6  dd1;nu;na er 1;nu;na 7
6 0 0 7
6 7
6 .. 7 where Duk jjk is the control move computed at time k to be
6 . 7
6 7
6 d
6d
7
7
applied at time k j, m is the control or input horizon, Qy, Qu, R, Sy,
6 ny;1;1 e
r ny;1;1
0  0 7
6 7 Su, are positive weighting matrices of appropriate dimension, ysp,k
6 .. .. .. .. 7
6 . . . . 7 and udes,k are the output set point and input optimizing
4 5
target, respectively. In the adopted control strategy, the output
0 0  ddny;nu;na er ny;nu;na
target ysp,k becomes a computed set point that is restricted within

VOLUME 92, JULY 2014 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 1217
a zone. This cost explicitly incorporates an input deviation
penalty that tries to accommodate the system at an optimal
economic stationary point. The slack variables dy,k and du,k are
included to guarantee that the innite horizon objective function is
bounded and to eliminate any infeasibility of the control problem.
It can be shown that the cost dened in Equation (3) will be
bounded only if the following constraints are included in the
control problem:[20]
xs k m umax jk  ysp;k  dy;k 0 4a
uk m  1jk  udes:k  du;k 0 4b
The IHMPC also includes the usual constraints related with the
input bounds and input moves:
Dumin  Duk jjk  Dumax j 0; 1; ; m  1
5
umin  uk jjk  umax ; j 0; 1; ; m  1
Since the proposed controller considers the existence of an input
target udes, which is dened by the RTO layer, constraint (4b)
means that the input target should be reached at the end of the
control horizon. However, in order to assure the feasibility of
the control problem that is solved by the controller at each sample
time, we cannot impose the exact value of the inputs at the end of
the control horizon, and instead a relaxed constraint should
be used.
The slack variable du,k, is unrestricted and guarantees feasibility
of Equation (4b) in any condition. The use of this slack variable is
heavily penalized in the objective function to prevent an offset in
the desired input, which would happen if du,k 6 0.
As explained before, there are not xed set points for the
outputs of the propylene/propane splitter as in the majority of
the MPC applications. The set points are replaced with control
zones in which the controlled outputs must remain. As a result
of this strategy, when the value of setpoint ysp,k is not a
parameter dened by the optimization layer, it becomes a
decision variable of the control problem. The constraint that
must be imposed to this setpoint corresponds to the denition
of the control zone:
ymin  ysp;k  ymax 6
Constraint (4a) means that, it is desired that the predicted values
of the outputs at steadystate should be equal to the setpoints. As it
is not always possible to achieve this target after a nite number of
steps, the inclusion of the slack variable, dy,k, guarantees the
feasibility of this constraint.
Nevertheless, the system has time delays and it is necessary to
wait m umax time intervals until the last control action affects the
output with the largest time delay.
For systems with time delay, the term corresponding to the
innite sum in the cost dened in Equation (3) is divided into two
parts: the rst part goes from the current time k to the end of the
control horizon plus the largest time delay k m umax, while the
second part goes from time k m umax 1 to innity. This is
because, in the MPC strategy, it is assumed that there will be no
control actions beyond the control horizon and consequently, the
innite sum can be reduced to a single terminal term that can be
easily computed. As a result, and assuming that constraints (4a)
1218 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
and (4b) are satised it can be shown that the cost dened in
Equation (3) can be developed as follows:
Xmax
mu
Vk yk jjk  ysp;k  dy;k T Qy yk jjk  ysp;k  dy;k
j0
X
1
CF j xd k umax mjkT Qy CF j xd k umax mjk
jmumax 1
X
m 1
uk jjk  udes;k  du;k T Qu uk jjk  udes;k  du;k
j0
X
m1
Duk jjkT RDuk jjk dy;k T Sy dy;k du;k T Su du;k
j0
7
Finally, the optimization problem solved by the IHMPC can be
dened as follows:
min Vk 8
Duk ; dy;k ; du;k ; di;k ; ysp;k
Subject to
Dumin  Duk j  Dumax j 1; ; m
umin  u k j  umax
b
j 1; ; m
uk m  1  udes  du;k 0
ymin  ysp;k  ymax
xs k m umax  ysp;k  dy;k 0
 T
where Duk DukjkT    Duk m  1jkT :
It is easy to show that the problem dened in Equation (8) is a
quadratic program because all constraints are linear and the
objective function is quadratic. The advantage of solving a
quadratic program is the robustness of the commercial solvers
and the guarantee that the optimum solution is a global optimum
because of the convexity of the problem.
Robust IHMPC
It can be shown that the controller resulting from the solution to the
problem dened in Equation (8) is nominally stable. This means
that if the model considered in the controller is the true model of
the plant, the resulting closed loop is stable and if the input targets
are reachable, the manipulated inputs are driven to their targets
while the controlled outputs tend to a steadystate inside their
control zones. This property is followed by a better performance
of IHMPC in comparison with the usual MPC with nite output
horizon. However, for nonlinear systems or when there is a
mismatch between the model considered in the controller and the
true model of the plant, the performance of the IHMPC may not be
as good as it would be expected. As already shown in Figure 2, a
linear model that represents the propylene distillation column at a
given operating condition will change signicantly depending on
the operating point of the system. Then, the consideration of a
single nominal model in the IHMPC may not be an adequate
strategy and some improvements should be included in the control
strategy when model uncertainty is present.
There are several ways to represent model uncertainty in model
predictive control, but the most practical way is the multimodel
uncertainty. In this case, we consider a set V of possible plant
models and the real plant is unknown, but it is known that the real
VOLUME 92, JULY 2014
plant is one of the components of this set. Therefore, we can dene subject to Equations (4b), (10) and
the set of possible plant models as V fQ1 ; ; QL g where each Qn
corresponds to a particular model. This approach is particularly Dumin  Duk jjk  Dumax ; j 0; 1; ; m  1
suitable to a nonlinear process system that can operate at different umin  uk jjk  umax ; j 0; 1; ; m  1
operating points that correspond to different product specica-
tions, market economic conditions, unknown disturbances, etc. In ymin  ysp;k Qn  ymax ; n 1; ; L
this case, each model Qn only represents the true system locally   
around an operation point. ~ k Du
V k Duk ; ysp;k Qn ; dy;k Qn ; du;k ; Qn  V ~ k ; ~ysp;k Qn ;

Badgwell [10] developed a robust linear quadratic regulator ~dy;k Qn ; ~du;k ; Qn n 1; ; L 12
for stable systems with the multiplant uncertainty. Later,
Odloak[21] extended the method to the output tracking of stable
systems considering the same kind of model uncertainty. These where, QN corresponds to the most probable model and assuming
  
strategies include a new constraint that prevents the plant cost that Duk1 ; ysp;k1 Qn ; dy;k1 Qn ; du;k1 is the optimum solu-
function to increase at successive time steps. More recently, tion to the control problem at time step k1, we dene:
Gonzlez and Odloak[15] presented an extension of the method
to time delayed systems and included the idea of considering the h  
iT
output set point as a new restricted decision variable to develop ~ k Du kjk  1T    Du k m  2jk  1T
Du 0 ; ~ysp;k Qn

a robust MPC for systems where the control objective is to ysp;k1 Qn
maintain the output variables into their corresponding feasible
zone. In this case the system can be driven to the desired optimal and ~dy;k Qn , ~du;k are such that
economic operation point given by the input target of the
supervisory stationary optimization (RTO). Therefore, in the ~ k  I ny ~ysp;k  I ny~dy;k 0
N s Ap Qn xk Aumax Qn CoQn Du
control of the propylene splitter, we consider the multimodel 13
uncertainty and assume that each model is characterized
 by a
set of parameters dened as Qn Bsn ; Bdn ; F n ; un ; n 1; ; L ~ k  udes  I nu~du;k 0
uk  1 I Tnu Du 14
Also, we dene p m maxun, which is used in the model
construction to guarantee that the state vector has the same
dimension for all models belonging to set V. Then, for stable Stability of the propylene distillation column with the proposed
systems, we can dene, for each model Qn, the following cost robust MPC is achieved through the inclusion of the non
function: increasing cost constraints dened in Equation (12), which
prevent the cost corresponding to the true plant to increase. The
inclusion of these constraints, which are nonlinear, turns the
X
p
control problem a nonlinear program and a NLP solver is required
V k Qn yn k jjk  ysp;k Qn  dy;k Qn T Qy yn k jjk  ysp;k Qn  dy;k Qn
j0 for its solution.
X
1
yn k jjk  ysp;k Qn  dy;k Qn T Qy yn k jjk  ysp;k Qn  dy;k Qn
jp1
Economic Objective of the Propylene/Propane Splitter
X
m1
The input optimizing targets udes,k are dened by the RTO layer,
uk jj  udes;k  du;k T Qu uk jjk  udes;k  du;k
j0 which is based on a rigorous steadystate simulation of the
X
1
distillation process and computes the optimum operation point of
uk jjk  udes;k  du;k T Qu uk jjk  udes;k  du;k
jm the plant that maximizes the economical function:
X
m1
Duk jjkT RDuk jjk dy;k T Qn Sy dy;k Qn du;k T Su du;k
j0 X
product streams feedX
streams X
utilities

9 f eco PPSi  PFRi  PFSi  FFRi  PUi  UCi

i1 i1 i1

15
Following the same steps as in the case of the nominal system,
we can conclude that the cost dened in Equation (9) will be where PPS is the price of the propylene product [$/ton], PFR is the
bounded only if the control actions, set points and slack variables product ow rate [ton/h], PFS: is the price of the feedstock [$/ton],
are such that Equation (5) and Equation (4b) are satised, and FFR is the feed ow rate [ton/h], PU is the price of electricity
Equation (4a) can be written as follows: [$/kWh], UC is the electricity consumption [kWh/h].
The economic function dened in Equation (15) is maximized
xn s k m umax jkQn  ysp;k Qn  dy;k Qn 0 n 1; ; L producing the optimum input and/or output targets subject to the
following constraints:
10
The rigorous steadystate model that relates the system inputs
and measured disturbances to the outputs.
where xn s k m umax jk Qn is the output prediction at steady Lower and upper bounds to the input targets.
state corresponding to model Qn. Lower and upper bounds to the controlled outputs.
The robust controller of the propylene/propane splitter results
The usual hierarchical structure that integrates the RTO and
from the solution to the following optimization problem:
MPC layers through the optimizing targets to the MPC layer and,
subsequently, to the distributed control system (DCS) layer
min V k QN 11 through the set points to the regulatory loops is shown in Figure 4.
Duk ; ysp;k QN ; dy;k QN ; du;k

VOLUME 92, JULY 2014 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 1219

Figure 4. Hierarchical control structure of the propylene system.
Simulation Results
The implementation of the control and optimization structure
presented in the previous section on the propylene/propane splitter
described in the paper was tested through simulation. The system
studied is the propylene/propane splitter of the propylene
production unit of the Capuava Renery (RECAP/Petrobras)
located in So Paulo, Brazil. As described in a previous section,
the advanced control system considered has three manipulated
inputs and three controlled outputs. In order to simulate the control
structure based on the robust IHMPC, the linear models that locally
represent the system at the three different operating points
presented in Figure 2 were identied. Therefore, in this study
only three models constitute the multimodel set V on which the
robust controller is based. These points correspond to the following
operating conditions: Point 1 corresponds to the normal operating
condition, Point 2 corresponds to an operating condition near the
maximum production capacity and Point 3 corresponds to an
operating point where the ow rate to the heat pump system is near
the upper bound. The operating conditions corresponding to each
of these points are dened in Table 3. These operating points were
dened based on the process history database within the last
2 years. The three models considered (Table 4) show the transfer
functions, where the time constants are in minutes.

Table 3. Operating conditions of the PP splitter

Process variable Operating point 1 Operating point 2 Operating point 3

Feed flow rate (kg/h) 29 510 32 300 30 000

Column pressure (kgf/cm2g) 9.0 9.0 9.0
Reflux flow rate (kg/h) 255 798 273 019 268 000
Reflux temperature (8C) 18.9 18.99 19.5
Compressor outlet temperature (8C) 50.4 48.9 50.01
Total heat pump flow rate (kg/h) 281 284 289 133 302 000
Propylene product flow rate (kg/h) 17 790 19 480 18 455
Propane molar composition in propylene stream (%) 0.35 0.436 0.5
Propane product flow rate (kg/h) 11 720 12 820 11 545
Propylene molar composition in Propane stream (%) 8.0 7.54 1.0

Table 4. Models of the propylene/propane splitter

2 3
1:035 0:1303 0:145
6 29s 1 118:7s 1 118:6s 1 7
6 7
6 5 6 6 6 7
6 5:589  10 s 2:73  10 1:496  10 3:141  10 exp111s 7
6
GQ1 6 2 7
5 5 5 7
6 s 0:02156s 7:439  10 s 0:01688s 9:857  10
2 0:6s 0:01355s 7:557  10 7
2
6 7
4 0:0003027s  3:267  105 0:000135 1:942  105 5
5 4 5
0:2s 0:01034s 4:756  10
2 1:4s 0:04418s 4:425  10
2 s 0:0149s 5:535  10
2

2 3
1:237 0:18exp3s 0:0928exp3s
6 32:2s 1 138:79s 1 126:54s 1 7
6 7
6 5 6 6 6 7
6 5:361  10 s 2:51  10 exp7s 1:252  10 exp4s 2:843  10 exp92s 7
6
GQ2 6 7
s 2 0:0225s 6:873  105
s 2 0:01439s 9:732  10 5 2 0:01465s 7:883  10 5 7
6 0:6s 7
6 5 5 7
4 0:0003005s  3:039  10 0:000122exp3s 2:11  10 exp7s 5
5 4 5
0:2s2 0:0129s 3:846  10 1:4s2 0:054s 6:75  10 s2 0:0141s 3:956  10
2 3
1:44 0:1684exp6s 0:1821exp10s
6 31:5s 1 159s 1 119:8s 1 7
6 7
6 7
6 7:657  105 s 3:69  106 exp7s 2:094  10 6
exp4s 3:501  10 6
exp98s 7
6
GQ3 6 7
s 2 0:017156s 6:439  10 5
s 2 0:01776s 9:857  10 5 2 0:013s 6:257  10 5 7
6 0:6s 7
6 5 5 7
4 0:0003423s  3:704  10 0:0001589 1:99  10 exp9s 5
0:2s2 0:0142s 4:986  105 1:4s2 0:0423s 4:194  104 s2 0:0184s 5:66  105

1220 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING VOLUME 92, JULY 2014
 340
Table 5. Output zones of the propylene/propane splitter

u1
320
Output ymin ymax
300
y1 (% level) 4 80 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
y2 (% molar) 0 0.45 nT (min)
y3 (% molar) 0 2 35

u2
Table 6. Input constraints of the propylene/propane splitter 30
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Input ~umax umin umax nT (min)
300
u1 (ton/h) 0.15 220 350
u2 (ton/h)

0.02 10
u3 (ton/h) 0.13 200
In this system, the manipulated variables correspond to: u1 the
heat pump ow rate (FC03), u2 the feed ow rate (FC01) and u3
the reux ow rate (FC02). The controlled variables are: y1 the
liquid level in the bottom reboiler, y2 the propane molar % in the
propylene stream and y3 the propylene molar % in the propane
stream.
The output and input constraints, as well as the bounds in the
input increments, are shown in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.
The following tuning parameters are considered for the controllers
simulated: Dt 1 min, m 3, Qy diag(6 25 2), R diag(0.5 3 0.5),
Qu diag(0.1 10 1), Sy 107diag(1 10 1), Su 104diag(0.1 100 1).
The reading and writing of data from and to the dynamic
simulation, is performed through the timer function of Matlab. The
time period for the reading of data from Dynsim to Matlab was set
equal to 5 s, while the sampling time for the innite horizon MPC is
1 min and the control action is computed based on the average of
the last 12 readings of the outputs. This is also the time period in
which the input setpoints calculated by the MPC algorithms are
written on the PID controllers of the regulatory layer of the
dynamic simulation. In addition, the transfer of data from ROMeo
to Matlab and Dynsim is set to be performed at a much larger time
period of several hours. For this purpose, the export function of
OPC EDI was used, and in the same way, the reading of data was
done using the import and download functions.
Therefore, the implementation of the advanced control and
optimization in the propylene distillation column was tested
considering initially the innite horizon MPC using G(Q1) as the
60
y1
u3
45 280
320
260
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
nT (min)
Figure 6. Manipulated inputs ( IHMPC), ( RIHMPC),
( Optimizing targets).
nominal model. The closed loop simulation began at the steady
state corresponding to Point 3 as dened in Table 3, which
corresponds to input u0 [302 30 268] and to output y0 [42 0.5 1]
that are read from the dynamic simulation at the beginning of the
test. The initial steadystate corresponds to feco 14 800 $/h. Then
with the assumed market conditions and available feedstock to the
propylene distillation system, ROMeo computes a new optimum
operating point and denes the optimum targets to the MPC. These
input targets are udes [329.6 34 294.8], which corresponds to an
increase of the feed ow rate while the heat pump and reux ow
rates are minimized. At this operating point the value of the
economic function is feco 16 400 $/h.
The simulation of the dynamic behaviour of the propylene/
propane splitter starting from the initial state towards the optimum
steadystate dened by the RTO with the nominal IHMPC are
shown in Figures 5 and 6 in blue lines. From these gures, it is easy
to realize that the controller is able to stabilize the plant and to
maintain the controlled variables inside their respective zones,
while the manipulated variables are driven to their desired targets.
The responses are quite slow and the system takes about 24h to
reach the new steady state. In Figure 7 it is represented in blue
lines, the behaviour of the instantaneous and the accumulated
economic objective along the response time of the propylene
system with the IHMPC. In the computation of the economic
function, it is assumed that when the propylene product is out of
specication it can only be valued as propane, which has a lower

40
market value.
20
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 At this point, it should be interesting to note that the new
nT (min) operating point corresponding to the optimum economic point is
0.5 quite far from the initial operating point where the nominal model
was obtained. Certainly, model uncertainty is signicant at this
y2

operating point when only the nominal model is included in the

0 IHMPC. Then, there is motivation to investigate if the performance
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 of the advanced control structure based on the RIHMPC would be
nT (min)
improved when compared with the performance of the IHMPC.
10
The robust IHMPC was tested in the distillation column
assuming G(Q1) as the most probable model and including the
y3

5
other two models represented in Table 4 to account for the multi
0 model uncertainty. The system starts from the same steadystate as
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
nT (min) in the previous simulation case with IHMPC and the optimum
targets dened by ROMeo are also the same as in case of the
Figure 5. Controlled outputs ( IHMPC), ( RIHMPC). IHMPC, as well as the input and output bounds.

VOLUME 92, JULY 2014 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 1221
 5
x 10
20000 4.5

15000 3.5

10000 2.5
($/h)

($)
2

eco
eco

f
5000 1.5
f

0 0.5

5000 0.5
0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500
nT (min) nT (min)

Figure 7. Instantaneous and accumulated economic function ( IHMPC), ( RIHMPC).

30
Figure 5 compares the system outputs for RIHMPC (red line)
alongside the responses for IHMPC (blue line), and the output

y1
25
zones (dashed line) for the total simulation time (1800 min). It is
20
clear that the two controllers have acceptable performances, but 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
when comparing the IHMPC and RIHMPC performances, it is easy nT (min)
to see that the robust controller has a better performance than the 1
IHMPC. The robust controller drives the controlled variables to
y2

0.5
their control zones faster than the nominal IHMPC. As a result,
with the robust controller, the controlled output y2, which 0
corresponds to the most important process specication of the 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
nT (min)
propylene/propane splitter and started at a point outside its control
4
zone, was brought to inside the control zone very rapidly and
maintained almost all the simulation time in its control zone.
y3

2
However, with the IHMPC, y2 violates the upper bound of its
control zone for a signicant period of time. Figure 6 compares the 0
1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
calculated inputs for the two controllers and also shows the nT (min)
optimizing input targets (green line) calculated by ROMeo. It is
clear, that both controllers are capable of driving the propylene/ Figure 8. Controlled outputs ( IHMPC), ( RIHMPC) for the feed
propane splitter to the optimum operating point, but with the disturbance.
RIHMPC, the inputs u1 (heat pump ow rate) and u3 (reux ow
rate) are driven faster to their targets, which corresponds to a better
transient economic performance (Figure 7). Observe that the
estimated accumulated economic benet for the strategy based on
the robust controller is nearly US$ 200  103 higher than the benet 330
for the strategy based on the nominal controller.
u1

325
It was clear from the simulation results presented above that, for
the propane/propylene splitter, the nominal IHMPC shows a 320
1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
nT (min)
34.1
Table 7. Feed molar composition (disturbance)
u2

34
Component % Molar fraction
33.9
1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
Ethane 0.0118
nT (min)
Propylene 50.37
298
Propane 48.69
iButene 0.3895
u3

296
1Butene 0.0705
cis2Butene 0.0386 294
1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
trans2Butene 0.0386 nT (min)
1,3Butadiene 0.0134
iButane 0.3442 Figure 9. Manipulated inputs ( IHMPC), ( RIHMPC),
Butane 0.0386 ( optimizing targets) for the feed disturbance.

1222 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING VOLUME 92, JULY 2014

20000
15000
10000
($/h)
eco
5000
f
0
5000
2000 2500 3000 3500
nT (min)
Figure 10. Instantaneous and accumulated economic function ( IHMPC), (
reasonable performance, but the highnonlinearity of the propyl-
ene distillation column may not be properly dealt with by this
controller if strict specications of product quality are enforced.
This is evidenced by the long period of time that the controlled
variables may remain outside of the control zones when a change
of the operating point is required. While the controlled outputs are
outside their control zones, the propylene stream will be out of
specication and cannot be valued as the propylene product to be
commercialized. Meanwhile, the robust controller showed a better
performance and does not seem to be signicantly affected by the
process nonlinearities since it considers plant models correspond-
ing to different operating points and is able to stabilize the plant
faster than the nominal controller.
The second simulation experiment started when the plant was
already stabilized at time 1800 min and a disturbance, which was
unknown by the controller, was introduced in the feed of the
propylene/propane splitter. The new feed molar composition
represented in Table 7 is signicantly different from the initial feed
composition represented in Table 1.
Assuming that this disturbance was known by ROMeo, a new
optimum steady state was calculated and corresponds to the
following input targets udes [325.7 34 295.4]. Analogously to the
rst simulation case, the controllers should be able to reject the
disturbance and drive the distillation column to the new optimum
operating point. The results of the simulation based on the IHMPC
(blue lines) and RIHMPC (red lines) are shown in Figures 810.
When comparing the IHMPC and RIHMPC performances, it is
easy to realize that, as in the rst simulation case, the robust
controller has a better performance than the nominal IHMPC,
because the controlled variables respond faster and were kept
inside the control zones more efciently. For instance, controlled
output y2, which started the simulation at a point at the upper
bound of its zone control, tends to leave the control zone for a
period of time, but it was brought back to the zone by the RIHMPC
faster than by the IHMPC. Figure 9 compares the inputs for the
two controllers and also shows the optimum input targets (green
line) provided by ROMeo and corresponding to the feed column
composition (Table 7). As a consequence of the new feed
composition, the ow rate of the propylene product has to be
decreased while the propane product ow rate is increased. The
consequence is that the economic function tends to decrease, but
the optimizer manages to maximize the propylene production,
VOLUME 92, JULY 2014
5
x 10
3
2.5
2
($)
1.5
eco
f
0.5
0
2000 2500 3000 3500
nT (min)
RIHMPC) for the feed disturbance.
which represents the most valued product and the economic
function is increased again (Figure 10). As in the rst simulation
case, the robust controller has a better economic performance,
which corresponds to an accumulated benet nearly US$ 70  103
higher than the nominal controller.
CONCLUSION
In this work, the implementation of two advanced control and
optimization strategies based on the nominal IHMPC and on the
robust IHMPC in a propylene production unit were studied. The
study was based on the commercial dynamic simulation software
Dynsim integrated to the real time process optimizer ROMeo and
the real time facilities of Matlab. The robust control structure
assumes that model uncertainty can be represented as a discrete
set of models (multimodel uncertainty), each one corresponding
to a possible operating point of the system. Representative
simulation examples were presented, leading to the conclusion
that, for the propane/propylene splitter, the robust controller
shows a better performance when compared with the nominal
one. Since this better performance was achieved with a reduced
set of only three models to represent the separation system, we
can conclude that the implementation of the control structure
based on the robust IHMPC in the real process is feasible in terms
of the required computing time. The solution of the NLP problem
that produces the robust MPC considered in this work takes
about 1.44 s, which is only a small fraction of the controller
sampling time.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Support for this work was provided by CNPq under grant 160465/
20125.
REFERENCES
[1] D. E. Kassman, T. Badgwell, R. B. Hawkins, AIChE J. 2003,
45, 1007.
[2] C. R. Cutler, R. B. Hawkins, Constrained multivariable
control of a hydrocracker reactor, in Proceedings of the
American Control Conference, Minneapolis, USA, 1987,
1014.
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 1223
 [3] O. L. Carrapio, M. M. Santos, A. C. Zanin, D. Odloak,
Application of the IHMPC to an industrial process system,
in 7th IFAC International Symposium on Advanced Control
of Chemical Processes, 2009, 7, 851.
[4] C. Pinheiro, J. Fernandes, L. Domingues, A. Chambel, I.
Graa, N. Oliveira, H. Cerqueira, F. Ribeiro, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 2012, 51, 1.
[5] C. R. Cutler, B. L. Ramaker, Dynamic matrix controla
computer control algorithm, in Joint Control Conference,
San Francisco, USA, 1980.
[6] M. A. Rodrigues, D. Odloak, Comp. Chem. Eng. 2003, 27,
1113.
[7] O. L. Carrapio, D. Odloak, Comp. Chem. Eng. 2005, 29, 1089.
[8] B. F. Santoro, D. Odloak, J. Process Control 2012, 22, 1209.
[9] S. J. Qin, T. A. Badgwell, Control Eng. Pract. 2003, 11, 733.
[10] T. A. Badgwell, Int. J. Control 1997, 68, 797.
[11] J. H. Lee, B. L. Cooley, Automatica 2000, 36, 463.
[12] M. V. Kothare, V. Balakrishnan, M. Morari, Automatica 1996,
32, 1361.
[13] Z. Wan, M. V. Kothare, J. Process Control 2002, 12, 763.
[14] L. A. Alvarez, D. Odloak, Comp. Chem. Eng. 2010, 34, 1937.
[15] A. H. Gonzles, D. Odloak, Robust Model Predictive Control
for Time Delayed Systems With Optimising Targets and Zone
Control, Robust Control, Theory and Applications, 2011.
ISBN 9789533072296.
[16] W. Y. Svrcek, D. P. Mahoney, B. R. Young, A RealTime
Approach to Process Control, John Wiley & Sons, 2000. ISBN
0471804525.
[17] N. Alsop, J. Ferrer, Chem. Eng. World 2004, 39, 42.
[18] N. Alsop, J. Ferrer, Step Test Free Advanced Process Control
Implementation Using dynamic simulation, in Proceedings
of AIChE annual meeting, Orlando, USA, 2006.
[19] D. Bruinsma, S. Spoelstra, Heat Pump in Distillation, in
Distillation and Absorption Conference, Eindhoven, The
Netherlands, 2010.
[20] A. H. Gonzles, D. Odloak, J. Process Control 2009, 19, 110.
[21] D. Odloak, AIChE J. 2004, 50, 1824.

Manuscript received July 17, 2013; revised manuscript received

September 18, 2013; accepted for publication October 27, 2013.

1224 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING VOLUME 92, JULY 2014