Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Abstract
This paper describes the application of self-optimizing control to a large-scale process, the HDA plant. The idea is to select controlled
variables which when kept constant lead to minimum economic loss. First, the optimal active constraints need to be controlled. Next,
controlled variables need to be found for the remaining unconstrained degrees of freedom. In order to avoid the combinatorial problem
related to the selection of outputs/measurements for such large plants, a local (linear) analysis based on singular value decomposition
(SVD) is used for pre-screening. This is followed by a more detailed analysis using the nonlinear model. Note that a steady-state model,
in this case one built in Aspen PlusTM , is sufcient for selecting controlled variables. A dynamic model is required to design and test the
complete control system which include regulatory control. This is considered in the part II of the series.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: HDA process; Self-optimizing control; Selection of controlled variable; Aspen PlusTM
0967-0661/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.2006.10.014
Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.C.B. de Araujo et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 12221237 1223
2. Previous work on the HDA process based on a hierarchical framework. The selection of
controlled variables is performed somehow heuristically
Stephanopoulos (1984) followed the approach proposed by prioritizing the implementation of the control objec-
by Buckley (1964) based on material balance and product tives. In other words, it is necessary to control the material
quality control. He used an HDA plant model where steam balances of hydrogen, methane and toluene, the energy
is generated from the efuent of the feed-efuent heat balance is controlled by the amount of energy added to the
exchanger (FEHE) through a series of steam coolers. From process (as fuel in the furnace, cooling water, and steam),
the material balance viewpoint, the selected controlled production rate, and product purity.
variables of choice were fresh toluene feed ow rate Cao et al. used the HDA process as a case study in
(production rate control), recycle gas ow rate, hydrogen several papers, but mainly to study input selection, whereas
contents in the recycle gas, purge ow rate, and quencher the focus of the present paper is on output selection. In
ow rate. Product quality is controlled through product Cao and Biss (1996), Cao and Rossiter (1997), Cao,
compositions in the distillation columns and the controlled Rossiter, and Owens (1997a), and Cao and Rossiter (1998)
variables selected are product purity in benzene column issues involving input selection are discussed. Cao,
and reactor inlet temperature. Rossiter, and Owens (1997b) considered input and output
Later, Douglas (1988) used another version of the HDA selection for control structure design purposes using the
process to demonstrate a steady-state procedure for SVD. Cao, Rossiter, and Owens (1998) applied a branch
owsheet design. and bound algorithm based on local (linear) analysis. All
Brognaux (1992) implemented both a steady-state and the papers by Cao et al. utilize the same controlled
dynamic model of the HDA plant in SpeedupTM based on variables selected heuristically by Wolff (1994). Cao,
the model developed by Douglas (1988) and used it as an Rossiter, Edwards, Knechtel, and Owens (1998) discuss
example to compute operability measurements, dene the importance of modeling in order to achieve the most
control objectives, and perform controllability analysis. effective control structure and improves the HDA process
He found that it is optimal to control the active constraints model for such purpose.
found by optimization. Ponton and Laing (1993) presented a unied heuristic
Wolff (1994) used an HDA model based on Brognaux hierarchical approach to process and control system design
(1992) to illustrate a procedure for operability analysis. He based on the ideas of Douglas (1988) and used the HDA
concluded that the HDA process is controllable provided process throughout. The controlled variables selected at
the instability of the heat-integrated reactor is resolved. each stage are: toluene ow rate, hydrogen concentration
After some additional heuristic consideration, the con- in the reactor, and methane contents in the compressor
trolled variables were selected to be the same as used by inlet (feed and product rate control stage); separator liquid
Brognaux (1992). stream outlet temperature and toluene contents at the
Ng and Stephanopoulos (1996) used the HDA process to bottom of the toluene column (recycle structure, rates
illustrate how plantwide control systems can be synthesized and compositions stage); and separator pressure, benzene
Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1224 A.C.B. de Araujo et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 12221237
contents at stabilizer overhead, and toluene contents at constant setpoints cs indirectly leads to near-optimal
benzene column overhead are related to product and operation (see Fig. 2).
intermediate stream composition stage. The stages related More precisely (Skogestad, 2004):
to energy integration and inventory regulation do not cover
Self-optimizing control is when one can achieve an
the HDA process directly, so no controlled variables are
acceptable loss with constant setpoint values for the
assigned at these stages.
controlled variables without the need to re-optimize
Luyben, Tyreus, and Luyben (1998) applied a heuristic
when disturbances occur.
nine-step procedure together with dynamic simulations to
the HDA process and concluded that control performance For continuous processes with infrequent grade changes,
is worse when the steady-state economic optimal design is like the HDA process, a steady-state analysis is usually
used. They chose to control the inventory of all compo- sufcient because the economics can be assumed to be
nents in the process (hydrogen, methane, benzene, toluene, determined by the steady-state operation.
and diphenyl) to ensure that the component material It is assumed that the optimal operation of the system
balance are satised; the temperatures around the reactor can be quantied in terms of a scalar cost function
are controlled to ensure exothermic heat removal from the (performance index) J 0 , which is to be minimized with
process; total toluene ow or reactor inlet temperature (it is respect to the available degrees of freedom u0 ,
not exactly clear which one was selected) can be used to set
production rate and product purity by the benzene min J 0 x; u0 ; d (1)
u0
contents in the benzene column distillate. Luyben (2002)
uses the rigorous commercial owsheet simulators subject to the constraints
HysysTM , Aspen PlusTM and Aspen DynamicsTM to g1 x; u0 ; d 0; g2 x; u0 ; dp0. (2)
propose a heuristic-based control structure for the HDA
process. Here d represents all of the disturbances, including
Herrmann, Spurgeon, and Edwards (2003) consider the exogenous changes that affect the system (e.g., a change in
HDA process to be an important test-bed problem for the feed), changes in the model (typically represented
design of new control structures due to its high integration by changes in the function g1 ), changes in the specica-
and non-minimum phase behavior. They re-implemented tions (constraints), and changes in the parameters (prices)
Brognaux (1992)s model in Aspen Custom ModelerTM and that enter in the cost function and the constraints. x
design a model-based, multivariable H 1 controller for the represents the internal variables (states). One way to
process. They considered the same controlled variables approach this problem is to evaluate the cost function
used by Wolff (1994). for the expected set of disturbances and implementation
Konda, Rangaiah, and Krishnaswamy (2005) used an errors. The main steps of this procedure are as follows
integrated framework of simulation and heuristics (Skogestad, 2000):
and proposed a control structure for the HDA process.
A HysysTM model of the plant was built to assist the 1. Degree of freedom analysis.
simulations. They selected fresh toluene feed ow rate to 2. Denition of optimal operation (cost and constraints).
set production rate, product purity at benzene column 3. Identication of important disturbances (typically, feed
distillate to fulll the product specication, overall toluene ow rates, active constraints and input error).
conversion in the reactor to regulate the toluene recycle 4. Optimization.
loop, ratio of hydrogen to aromatics and quencher outlet 5. Identication of candidate controlled variables c.
temperature to fulll process constraint, and methane 6. Evaluation of loss for alternative combinations of
contents in the purge stream to avoid its accumulation in controlled variables (loss imposed by keeping constant
the process. set points when there are disturbances or implementa-
Table 1 summarizes the selection of (steady state) tion errors), including feasibility investigation.
controlled variables by various authors. It seems clear that 7. Final evaluation and selection (including controllability
the systematic selection of controlled variable for this plant analysis).
has not been fully investigated although the process has
been extensively considered by several authors. In this To achieve optimal operation, the active constraints are
work, a set(s) of controlled variables for the HDA process chosen to be controlled. The difcult issue is to decide
is to be systematically selected. which unconstrained variables c to control.
Unconstrained problem: The original independent vari-
3. Selection of controlled variables using self-optimizing ables u0 u0 ; u are divided into the constraint variables u0
control (used to satisfy the active constraints g02 0) and the
remaining unconstrained variables u. The value of u0 is then
The selection of primary controlled variables is con- a function of the remaining independent variables (u and d).
sidered here. The objective is to achieve self-optimizing Similarly, the states x are determined by the value of the
control where xing the primary controlled variables c at remaining independent variables. Thus, by solving the
Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.C.B. de Araujo et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 12221237 1225
Table 1
Steady-state controlled variables selected by various authors
Note: (1) Stephanopoulos (1984); (2) Brognaux (1992), Wolff (1994), Cao et al., Herrmann et al. (2003); (3) Ng and Stephanopoulos (1996); (4) Ponton and
Laing (1993); (5) Luyben et al. (1998), Luyben (2002); (6) Konda et al. (2005); (7) This work.
a
The total number of steady-state degrees of freedom is 13, so there are additional controlled variables, or xed inputs, which are not clearly specied by
some authors.
b
Y-variables refer to candidates in Table 4.
c
Active constraints found in this work.
model equations (g1 0), and for the active constraints sum the number of degrees for individual units as given in
(g02 0), one may formally write x xu; d and u0 Table 2 (Skogestad, 2002).
u0 u; d and one may formally write the cost as a function of
u and d: J J 0 x; u0 ; d J 0 xu; d; u0 u; d; u; d Ju; d. 3.2. Local (linear) method
The remaining unconstrained problem in reduced space then
becomes In terms of the unconstrained variables, the loss function
around the optimum can be expanded as
min Ju; d, (3)
u
L Ju; d J opt d 12kzk22 (4)
where u represents the set of remaining unconstrained
with z J 1=2 1=2 1
uu u uopt J uu G c copt , where G is the
degrees of freedom. This unconstrained problem is the basis
steady-state gain matrix from the unconstrained degrees of
for the local method introduced below.
freedom u to the controlled variables c (yet to be selected)
and J uu the Hessian of the cost function with respect to the
3.1. Degrees of freedom analysis u. Truly optimal operation corresponds to L 0, but in
general L40. A small value of the loss function L is desired
It is paramount to determine the number of steady-state as it implies that the plant is operating close to its
degrees of freedom because this in turns determines the optimum. The main issue here is not to nd the optimal
number of steady-state controlled variables that need to be set points, but rather to nd the right variables to keep
chosen. To nd them for complex plants, it is useful to constant.
Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1226 A.C.B. de Araujo et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 12221237
Assuming that each controlled variable ci is scaled such where spanci Dci;opt d ni (Dci;opt d is the variation
that ke0c k kc0 c0opt k2 p1, the worst case loss is given by of ci due to variation in disturbances and ni is the
(Halvorsen, Skogestad, Morud, & Alstad, 2003): implementation error of ci ).
It may be cumbersome to obtain the matrix J uu , and if it
1 1 is assumed that each base variable u has been scaled such
Lmax max L 2
, (5)
kec k2 p1 2 sS1 GJ 1=2
uu that a unit change in each input has the same effect on the
cost function J (such that the Hessian J uu is a scalar times
where S 1 is the matrix of scalings for ci :
unitary matrix, i.e., J uu aU), then (5) becomes
1 a 1
S 1 diag , (6) Lmax , (7)
spanci 2 sS1 G2
where a sJ uu .
Thus, to minimize the loss, L, sS 1 GJ 1=2
uu should be
maximized or alternatively maximize sS 1 G; the latter is the
original minimum singular value rule of Skogestad (2000).
Originally, a MatLabTM model was used to obtain the
optimal variation Dcopt d, the steady-state gain matrix G
and the Hessian J uu , but in the present version Aspen
PlusTM is used instead (see the Appendix for details). The
use of a commercial owsheet simulator like Aspen PlusTM
demonstrates the practical usefulness of the approach.
Table 2
Typical number of steady-state degrees of freedom for some process units
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.C.B. de Araujo et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 12221237 1227
processed in the separation section consisting of three 5.1. Step 1. Degree of freedom analysis
distillation columns. The stabilizer column removes small
amounts of hydrogen and methane in the overhead product, It is considered 20 manipulated variables (Table 6), 70
and the benzene column takes the benzene product in the candidate measurements (the rst 70 in Table 4), and 12
overhead. Finally, in the toluene column, unreacted toluene is disturbances (Table 8). The 20 manipulated variables
separated from diphenyl and recycled to the process. correspond to 20 dynamic degrees of freedom. However,
at steady state there are only 13 degrees of freedom because
there are seven liquid levels that need to be controlled
4.1. Details of the HDA process model in Aspen PlusTM
which have no steady-state effect. This is conrmed by
the alternative steady-state degree of freedom analysis in
The model of the HDA process used in this paper is a
Table 5.
modied version of the model developed by Luyben (2002). A
With 13 degrees of freedom and 70 candidate controlled
schematic owsheet of the Aspen PlusTM model is depicted in
variables, there are 70 13 70!=13!57! 4:7466 10
13
(!)
Fig. 3 and the corresponding stream table is shown in Table 3.
control structures, without including the alternative
Details of this model can be found in Luyben (2002). The
ways of controlling liquid levels. Clearly, an analysis
main difference between the model in this paper and
of all of them is intractable. To avoid this combinatorial
Luybens lies on the distillation train. As optimization of
explosion, the active constraints are rst determined,
the entire plant is difcult for this problem, it has been
which should be controlled to achieve optimal opera-
decided to rst optimize the distillation train separately (see
tion, and then a local analysis to eliminate further sets is
Section 5.4.1). The distillation train may then be repre-
applied.
sented by simple material balances with given specica-
tions. This was implemented in Aspen PlusTM using an
ExcelTM spreadsheet, and optimization of the remaining
5.2. Step 2. Definition of optimal operation
plant is then relatively simple.
The following prot function (J) (M$/year) given by
5. Results Douglas (1988)s economic potential (EP) is to be
maximized:
This section describes the self-optimizing control proce- J pben Dben pfuel Qfuel ptol F tol pgas F gas
dure applied to the HDA process model in Aspen PlusTM
starting with the degree of freedom analysis. pfuel Qfur pcw Qcw ppow W pow pstm Qstm 10
GREC PURGE
V5
31
V1 T2
FFH2 2
RX
FUR
V6
V3
FFTOL 22 GAS
T1
28
SEP
COMP
12
18
13
V10 LIQ T3
P1
23 COND 15
T5
27
TREC
7
V11
V4
20 D1
V13 C1
P4 C3 P2
14 C2
D3 D2
F1
V15 21 V14
P5 P3 9
26 17 V12
B3 B2 B1
30
1228
Table 3
Stream table for the nominally optimal operating point for the HDA process
Stream 2 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 26 27 28 29 30
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Temperature [1F] 100.11 93.394 120.25 235.26 357.67 95 223.92 95.359 333 124.89 124.89 224.02 325.6 100.27 289.14 566.56 95.359 95.359 95.578 565.56
Pressure [psi] 555 50 530 31.714 477.4 477 80 530 84 555 555 50 30.75 555 555 82 530 530 487.4 32
Vapor fraction 1 1 0.932 0.4557 1 0.9023 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.0337 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.005
Enthalpy [M Btu/h] 0.3551 0.4846 88.217 9.8177 68.617 90.323 7.2579 10.044 0.8809 99.2 9.2752 7.2579 0.8809 1.8353 0.2276 0.7991 6.1802 3.8635 3.8635 0.7991
Stream 31 32 B1 B2 B3 D1 D2 D3 F1 FFH2 FFTOL GAS GREC LIQ PURGE RIN ROUT TOTTOL TREC
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.C.B. de Araujo et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 12221237 1229
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1230 A.C.B. de Araujo et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 12221237
Table 6 Table 7
List of manipulable variables Economic data for the HDA process based on Douglas (1988)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.C.B. de Araujo et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 12221237 1231
Table 8
Disturbances to the process
Nominal Disturbance
The reason why the impurities in Table 9 are so small is Y20. Fresh toluene feed rate (upper bound).
that the columns in this paper have many stages so that it Y62. Reactor inlet pressure (upper bound).
does not cost much energy to achieve higher purity. This Y70. Hydrogen to aromatic ratio in reactor inlet (lower
also means that the optimal point is at (which is good) bound).
as it is also illustrated by Fig. 5. For the stabilizer column,
the separation is very simple and improving the purity has As expected, the benzene purity at the outlet of the
almost no penalty in terms of reboiler duty. process is kept at its bound for economic reasons.
Note that it has been chosen to use product composi- Moreover, fresh feed toluene is maintained at its maximum
tions as controlled variables (specications) for the ow rate to maximize the prot. The separator inlet
distillation columns. There are two reasons for this: First, temperature is kept at its lower bound in order to maximize
with xed product compositions only mass balances are the recycle of hydrogen and to avoid the accumulation
needed to represent the distillation columns when simulat- of methane in the process. Luybens rule of keeping all
ing the overall process in Aspen PlusTM . Second, composi- recycle loops under ow control is not economically
tions are good self-optimizing variables in most cases (e.g., optimal in this process since it is best to let the recycle
Skogestad, 2000) also note that the product compositions ow uctuates.
should normally be given in terms of impurity of key All the ve active constraints should be controlled to
components Luyben et al., 1998 as this avoids problems achieve optimal operation (Maarleveld & Rijnsdorp, 1970).
with non-unique specications. Consequently, the remaining number of unconstrained
These six specications for the distillation columns degrees of freedom is 2 (7 5 2). This reduces the
consumes six steady-state degrees of freedom. There are number of possible sets of controlled variables to
then 13 6 7 degrees of freedom left. 59
2 59!=2!57! 1711, where the number 59 is found by
subtracting from the initial 70 candidate measurements in
5.4.2. Optimization of the entire process (reactor and Table 4 the six distillation specications and ve active
recycle) constraints of the reactor and recycle process. However,
Optimization with respect to the seven remaining steady- this number is still too large to consider all alternatives in
state degrees of freedom was performed using an SQP detail.
algorithm in Aspen PlusTM . Fig. 5 gives the effect of The next step uses local analysis to nd promising
disturbances on the prot J. Note that disturbances candidate sets of two controlled variables.
D8D12 in the distillation product compositions have
almost no effect. This is expected, since the ve distillation 5.5. Step 5. Identification of candidate controlled
composition specications (Table 9) are in the at region variableslocal analysis
and have practically no inuence in the prot. A change in
the given purity for the benzene product (disturbance D7) A branch-and-bound algorithm (Cao, Rossiter, &
has, as expected, a quite large effect. The detailed results Owens, 1998) for maximizing the minimum singular value
for disturbances D1 to D7 are summarized in Table 10. of S 1 GJ 1=2
uu and S 1 G was used to obtain the candidate
From Table 10, ve constraints are optimally active in all sets of controlled variables (details on the calculation of
operating points: S1 , G, and J uu are given in the Appendix). Note that the
steady-state gain matrix G is obtained with the ve
Y16. Quencher outlet temperature (upper bound). active constraints xed at their optimal values. The
Y19. Separator temperature (lower bound). minimum singular value of the 16 candidate sets are given
Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1232 A.C.B. de Araujo et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 12221237
a x 106
3.7623
3.7622
3.7622
3.7621
3.762
3.762
3.762
3.7619
3.7618
3.7618
10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3
xD,benzene
b 10
x 107
7
xB,benzene = 1.310-3
Qreboiler [Btu/h]
0
10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2
xB,benzene
c x 106
10
7
xD,diphenyl = 510-4
Qreboiler [Btu/h]
0
10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3
xB,toluene
Fig. 4. Typical relations between reboiler duty and product purity: (a) stabilizer distillate; (b) benzene column bottoms; (c) toluene column bottoms.
Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.C.B. de Araujo et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 12221237 1233
in Table 12 and the 15 (out of 59) measurements involved 5.6. Step 6. Detailed evaluation of the loss
in the 16 sets are listed in Table 11, with their nominally
optimal values, the optimal variations, and assumed The next step is to evaluate the loss for the promising
implementation errors (i.e., the total span is the sum of sets of controlled variables in Table 12 by keeping constant
the optimal variation and the implementation error). setpoint policy when there are disturbances and/or
From Table 12 it is seen that the same best 10 sets were implementation errors. The computations were performed
identied for both criteria of maximizing sS1 GJ 1=2
uu and on the nonlinear model in Aspen PlusTM for disturbances
sS 1 G. Also note the 10 best sets all include the reactor D1 through D7 (the losses for disturbances D8 to D12 are
feed inert (methane) mole fraction (Y29) plus another negligible, as discussed above) and the results are shown in
composition (of benzene, toluene, or diphenyl) as con- Table 13.
trolled variable. The remaining six sets (XIXVI) are some As seen in Tables 12 and 13, the results from the linear
other common choices that are reasonable to consider, and nonlinear analysis give the same ranking for the sets of
including inert (methane) recycle concentration (Y49), candidate controlled variables, with the best sets having
the furnace outlet temperature (Y4), the purge rate both the largest value of sS 1 G22 J 1=2
uu (as one would
(Y26), and the compressor power (Y68). Set XII with expect from (7)) and the lowest value of the actual loss.
xed furnace outlet temperature (Y4) and inert (methane) Note from Table 13 that all the structures were found to be
concentration (Y49) is similar to the structure of Luyben feasible for the given disturbances.
(2002), although Luyben does not control all the active Compared to the controlled structure proposed by
constraints. Luyben (2002) the sets of controlled variables selected by
the self-optimizing control approach give smaller economic
losses. This is because the steady-state nominal point of
Luyben (2002) is not optimal: it gives a prot of
Table 9 J 3:955:2 k$=year, which is about 16% smaller
Specications for distillation columns than the nominally optimal operation (4693:4 k$=year)
Column/specication Value Comment
found in this paper. First, Luyben (2002) considers only 12
degrees of freedom at steady state as compressor power is
Stabilizer assumed xed. Second, Luyben (2002) does not control all
Y53 xD;benzene 1 104 (A) the active constraints in the process. Specically, the
Y54 xB;methane 1 106 (B) hydrogen-to-aromatics ratio, which is an important vari-
Benzene column able in the process and should be kept at its lower bound of
Y55 xD;benzene 0:9997 Active constraint 5 (see (12)), is not controlled. Instead, Luyben (2002)
Y56 xB;benzene 1:3 103 (A) controls inert (methane) composition in the recycle
Toluene column gas and reactor inlet temperature which results in large
Y57 xD;diphenyl 0:5 103 (C) economic losses.
Y58 xB;toluene 0:4 103 (A)
6. Discussion
(A) Determined by trade-off between energy usage and recovery (Fig. 4).
(B) xB;methane should be small to avoid methane impurity in distillate of
benzene column. In this paper, it has been considered the standard
(C) Diphenyl should not be recycled because it may reduce the available operation mode with given feed rate (indirectly, through an
production rate if there is bottleneck in the plant. upper bound on toluene feed). Yet another important
4.95
4.90
4.85
4.80
Profit [M$/year]
4.75
4.70
4.65
4.60
4.55
4.50
Fig. 5. Effect of disturbances (see Table 8) on optimal operation. Percentages in parentheses are changes with respect to the nominal optimum.
Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1234 A.C.B. de Araujo et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 12221237
Table 10
Effect of disturbances on optimal values for selected variables
Prot k$/year 4693.4 4552.7 4903.2 4649.0 4585.6 4664.7 4722.5 4705.5
Y4 F 1201.15 1198.20 1202.89 1204.66 1206.66 1196.44 1201.88 1199.33
Y15 F 1277.21 1273.64 1279.25 1277.71 1279.65 1272.25 1276.89 1274.99
Y16a
F 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1170 1150
Y19a
F 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95
Y20a lb mol/h 300 285 315 300 300 300 300 300
Y21 lb mol/h 446.59 431.29 470.33 476.29 460.03 446.75 444.73 445.46
Y26 lb mol/h 445.27 429.78 468.91 474.95 458.44 445.27 443.23 443.90
Y28 0.3558 0.3548 0.3577 0.3454 0.3703 0.3558 0.3526 0.3560
Y29 0.5729 0.5742 0.5707 0.5854 0.5622 0.5730 0.5767 0.5727
Y45 0.8721 0.8671 0.8703 0.8667 0.8792 0.8683 0.8692 0.8662
Y46 0.0491 0.0544 0.0511 0.5419 0.4534 0.5322 0.5205 0.5549
Y49 0.6710 0.6717 0.6691 0.6803 0.6534 0.6708 0.6737 0.6705
Y53b 1 104 1 104 1 104 1 104 1 104 1 104 1 104 1 104
Y54b 1 106 1 106 1 106 1 106 1 106 1 106 1 106 1 106
Y55b 0.9997 0.9997 0.9997 0.9997 0.9997 0.9997 0.9997 0.996
Y56b 1:3 103 1:3 103 1:3 103 1:3 103 1:3 103 1:3 103 1:3 103 1:3 103
Y57b 5 104 5 104 5 104 5 104 5 104 5 104 5 104 5 104
Y58b 4 104 4 104 4 104 4 104 4 104 4 104 4 104 4 104
Y62a psi 500 500 500 500 500 520 500 500
Y68 hp 454.39 443.20 474.93 473.22 485.53 564.09 460.82 455.41
Y70a 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
a
Active constraints.
b
Distillation specication.
Table 11
Candidate controlled variables with small losses in local analysis
Variable Name Nominal optimal Optimal variation Implementation error Total span
mode of operation is maximum throughput, which occurs The nal evaluation and selection of the control
when prices are such that it is optimum to maximize structure involves the selection of sets of controlled
production. variables with acceptable loss, such as those shown in
Another point to stress is the consistency of the results Table 13. These are then analyzed to see if they are
with the empirical arguments made by Douglas (1988) adequate with respect to the expected dynamic control
which is that impurity levels should be controlled in performance (inputoutput controllability). This, in addi-
order to avoid build-up of inerts in the system that tion to maximum throughput case and design of the
eventually makes the process inoperable. This was accom- regulatory layer, will be the focus of part II of the series
plished when the inert (methane) concentration leaving where a dynamic analysis is used. No constraint on the
the mixer (controlled variable Y29 above) was chosen stabilizer column condenser temperature was included. In
to be controlled. practice one should avoid the cryogenic temperature on the
Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.C.B. de Araujo et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 12221237 1235
Table 12
Local analysis: minimum singular values for candidate sets of unconstrained controlled variables
Table 13
Loss in k$/year caused by disturbances and implementation errors for the alternative sets of controlled variables from Table 12
I 70.40 5.37 14.41 4.57 12.85 12.57 9.66 5.33 3.37 15.39
II 86.16 10.91 25.78 18.98 27.11 13.31 17.77 5.33 33.58 26.55
III 100.01 13.22 35.40 26.66 55.52 13.60 21.82 5.33 10.92 31.39
IV 118.45 16.04 38.22 39.52 60.30 37.98 43.17 5.33 4.57 40.40
V 136.60 16.92 48.46 53.16 69.07 41.48 78.59 5.33 16.17 51.75
VI 143.54 19.70 48.47 58.17 79.12 51.23 106.07 5.33 12.02 58.18
VII 149.94 22.01 58.42 67.39 79.27 64.68 112.07 5.33 12.05 63.46
VIII 140.83 23.40 59.81 85.09 81.44 76.60 118.25 5.33 12.03 66.97
IX 150.37 25.25 67.70 96.31 83.30 85.55 136.07 5.33 3.40 72.59
X 151.61 31.07 70.11 99.91 88.29 106.15 141.18 5.33 4.19 77.54
XI 163.29 43.10 97.70 133.87 104.15 127.00 150.84 243.97 176.86 137.87
XIIb 188.09 55.86 125.35 169.45 128.55 151.18 178.46 243.97 25.46 140.71
XIII 162.78 37.49 88.99 144.73 128.55 124.42 148.47 176.86 25.46 115.31
XIV 193.80 61.99 131.70 157.08 137.96 154.38 188.23 243.97 302.04 174.57
XV 179.48 43.24 89.21 183.32 155.35 122.78 159.47 176.86 302.04 156.86
XVI 233.26 188.87 259.70 364.56 186.68 171.82 224.66 25.46 302.04 217.45
a
ny1 and ny2 are the implementation errors associated with each variable in the set.
b
This is similar to the structure of Luyben (2002), but with control of active constraints.
overhead methane product from the stabilizer column by date sets were found to be suitable to select from. Aspen
allowing for a larger benzene contents. However, the ow PlusTM proved to be a valuable tool for the evaluation of
rate of this distillate stream is very small so this would not self-optimizing control structures for large-scale processes.
change the results of this paper.
Appendix A
7. Conclusions
This appendix outlines the steps taken to compute the
This paper has discussed the selection of controlled steady-state linear matrix G and the Hessian J uu of the
variables for the HDA process using the self-optimizing unconstrained inputs as well as the optimal variation for
control procedure. The large number of variable combina- the candidate variables spanci .
tions makes it a challenging problem, and a local (linear) Optimization of the entire plant in Aspen PlusTM was
analysis based on the SVD of the linearized model of the used to identify the active constraints. For the local analysis
plant was used to select good candidate sets for the (calculation of Dcopt d, G, and J uu ), several auxiliary blocks
unconstrained controlled variables. Specically, 16 candi- were used, including a calculator block to compute the value
Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1236 A.C.B. de Araujo et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 12221237
of the cost function; design specication blocks were used to where D is the set of disturbances, cji;opt is the optimal value
close feedback loops for the active constraints; and a of ci due to disturbance j and cnom
i;opt is the nominal optimal
sensitivity block was used to perform auxiliary computa- value of ci .
tions. Finally, Aspen PlusTM was used to compute the For each candidate controlled variable ci , its expected
nonlinear loss imposed by keeping the selected sets of implementation error ni (sum of measurement error
controlled variables constant at their setpoints. and control error) is obtained. Then, the candidate
controlled variables are scaled such that for each variable
A.1. Calculation of the linear matrix G and the Hessian J uu i the sum of the magnitudes of Dci;opt d and the
implementation error ni is similar, which corresponds to
G and J uu are calculated with respect to the nominal selecting the scaling
optimal operating point, i.e., for d 0. The matrix G is spanci Dci;opt d ni . (23)
calculated by the usual approximation:
qci u cu ej h cu Then, the scaling matrix S 1 can be computed as
lim , (20) S1 diagf1=spanci g. All data were retrieved from non-
quj h!0 hj
linear simulations in Aspen PlusTM and the calculations
where i 1; . . . ; nc is the index set of candidate variables, were performed in a dedicated MatLabTM code.
j 1; . . . ; nu is the index set of unconstrained inputs, h is
the vector of increments for each input uj , and ej
000 . . . 1 . . . 0 is the zero vector except for the j-element References
which is 1.
In Aspen PlusTM , cu and cu ej h are evaluated by Brognaux, C. (1992). A case study in operability analysis: The HDA plant.
Master thesis, University of London, London, England.
adding the step ej h to the vector u for each input j in a
Buckley, P. S. (1964). Techniques of process control. New York, USA:
calculator block and then taken the resulting vectors to a Wiley.
MatLabTM code that numerically calculates the terms Cao, Y., & Biss, D. (1996). New screening techniques for choosing
G ij qci u=quj . manipulated variables. in Preprints IFAC 96, 13th world congress of
The Hessian J uu is evaluate similarly. The following IFAC, volume M, San Francisco, CA.
Cao, Y., & Rossiter, D. (1997). An input pre-screening technique for
simple approximation was used:
control structure selection. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 21(6),
q2 Ju 563569.
ji Cao, Y., & Rossiter, D. (1998). Input selection and localized disturbance
qu2j rejection. Journal of Process Control, 8(3), 175183.
Ju E ii h E jj h Ju E ii h Ju E jj h Ju Cao, Y., Rossiter, D., Edwards, D. W., Knechtel, J., & Owens,
lim , D. (1998). Modelling issues for control structure selection in a
h!0 hhT ij chemical process. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 22(Suppl.),
21 S411S418.
Cao, Y., Rossiter, D., & Owens, D. (1997a). Input selection for
where E ij is the zero matrix except for the ij-element which disturbance rejection under manipulated variable constraints. Compu-
is 1. The several functions of J in the denominator of (21) ters and Chemical Engineering, 21(Suppl.), S403S408.
Cao, Y., Rossiter, D., & Owens, D. (1997b). Screening criteria for input
are evaluated in a Calculator block in Aspen PlusTM and
and output selection. In Proceedings of European control conference,
taken to MatLabTM for the numerical calculation of ECC 97, Brussels, Belgium.
H ij q2 Ju=qu2j ji . Cao, Y., Rossiter, D., & Owens, D. (1998). Globally optimal control
structure selection using branch and bound method. In Proceedings of
DYCOPS-5, fifth IFAC symposium on dynamics and control of process
A.2. Optimal variation for the candidate variables systems, Corfu, Greece.
Douglas, J. M. (1988). Conceptual design of chemical processes. New York,
The optimal variation for the candidate variables USA: McGraw-Hill.
(spanci ) is used to scale the linear matrix G obtained by Halvorsen, I. J., Skogestad, S., Morud, J. C., & Alstad, V. (2003). Optimal
linearizing the nonlinear model of the process. In this work, selection of controlled variables. Industrial and Engineering Chemical
Research, 42, 32733284.
it was used direct calculations from the nonlinear model of Herrmann, G., Spurgeon, S. K., & Edwards, C. (2003). A model-based
the HDA process in Aspen PlusTM . sliding mode control methodology applied to the hda-plant. Journal of
For each candidate controlled variable ci , it is obtained its Process Control, 13, 129138.
maximum optimal variation Dci;opt d due to variation in Konda, N.V.S.N.M., Rangaiah, G.P., & Krishnaswamy, P.R. (2005).
disturbances. From the nonlinear model, the optimal para- Simulation based heuristics methodology for plant-wide control of
industrial processes. In Proceedings of 16th IFAC world congress,
meters (inputs and outputs) for various conditions (distur- Praha, Czech Republic.
bances and operating points) are computed. This yields a Luyben, W. L. (2002). Plantwide dynamic simulators in chemical processing
lookup table of optimal parameter values as a function of and control. New York, USA: Marcel Dekker Inc.
the operating conditions. From this, one can identify Luyben, W. L., Tyreus, B. D., & Luyben, M. L. (1998). Plantwide process
control. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.
Dci;opt d maxjcji;opt cnom
i;opt j, (22) Maarleveld, A., & Rijnsdorp, J. E. (1970). Constraint control on
j2D distillation columns. Automatica, 6, 5158.
Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.C.B. de Araujo et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 12221237 1237
McKetta, J. J. (1977). Benzene design problem. Encyclopedia of chemical Skogestad, S. (2002). Plantwide control: Towards a systematic procedure.
processing and design. New York, USA: Dekker. in Proceedings of the European symposium on computer aided process
Ng, C., & Stephanopoulos, G. (1996). Synthesis of control systems engineering, (vol. 12, pp. 5769).
for chemical plants. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 20, Skogestad, S. (2004). Control structure design for complete chemical
S999S1004. plants. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 28, 219234.
Ponton, J. W., & Laing, D. M. (1993). A hierarchical approach to the Stephanopoulos, G. (1984). Chemical process control. New Jersey, USA:
design of process control systems. Transactions of the Institution of the Prentice-Hall International Editions.
Chemical Engineers, 71(Part A), 181188. Wolff, E.A. (1994). Studies on control of integrated plants. Ph.D. thesis,
Skogestad, S. (2000). Plantwide control: The search for the self-optimizing Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim,
control structure. Journal of Process Control, 10, 487507. Norway.