Control of a Series of Columns

Haitao Huang
Dr. J.B. Riggs

PCOC Fall Meeting

October 27th, 1999
Process Overview
 Control Objectives
• Maintain compositions (A1-A4) at setpoints
• Maximum propane flow constraint
• Flooding constraints (DPs) for all three columns
• Minimize fuel gas vent
• Maximize propane and butane
• Minimize utility usage
 Decentralized Control Design
• Valve position control for dP condenser bypass to
minimize fuel vent from dP overhead.
• Override controls with anti-windup
– F6 maximum decreases overhead temperature.
– dP flooding increases dE reboiler duty.
– dB flooding decreases bottom tray temperature.
– dE flooding decreases feed.
• Tuning
– ATV tuning for composition loops, field tuning for other
loops
 DMC Controller Design
• Inferential control design
– Best trays are located and used for all four
compositions
– Tray temperature setpoints are used as MVs
• ECEs and Ranks for CVs
• LP Costs for MVs
• Tuning
– 50% step changes in A2, A3 setpoints
– Tuning with acceptable response is selected (no search
for minimum IAE is performed)
 Results

✔10% lighter feed change

✔10% heavier feed change
 Response to a 10% lighter feed
2.4% 3.4%

2.0% 3.0%
C2 in C3

C4 in C3
1.6% 2.6%

1.2% 2.2%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (min) Time (min)

1.6% 3.4%

1.4% 3.0%
C3 in C4

C5 in C4
1.2% 2.6%

1.0% 2.2%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (min) Time (min)

- PID -DMC
 Response to a 10% lighter feed - continued

0.30 0.02
dE overhead Fuel (lbmol/sec)

dP fuel vent (lbmol/sec)

PID DMC

0.25

0.01

0.20

PID DMC

0.00
0.15
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (min) Time (min)

1.50E+04 0.16
Total Reboiler Duty (BTU/sec)

PID DMC Maximum Propane flow

1.45E+04
PID DMC Propane (lbmol/sec) 0.15
1.40E+04

1.35E+04
0.14
1.30E+04

1.25E+04 0.13
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (min) Time (min)
 Response to a 10% lighter feed-summary

• Handling the F6 constraint requires optimization

– trade off between F4 and deethanizer overhead fuel gas
• Simple PID overrider
– can handle the constraint, but sacrifices profit and A2
– pairs each constraint to an MV
– does not have flexibility and can not optimize
• DMC
– still maintains good composition control with active constraint
– does not pair a constraint with an MV (multivariate solution)
– has flexibility and saves 6% utility usage compared to PID
 Response to a 10% Heavier feed

3.0% 3.2%

PID DMC 3.0%

2.5%

C4 in C3
2.8%
C2 in C3

2.0% DMC PID

2.6%

1.5% 2.4%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
1.0% Time (min)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (min)

2.5% 3.5%

2.0% 3.0%
C3 in C4

C5 in C4

1.5% 2.5%
PID DMC
PID DMC

1.0% 2.0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (min) Time (min)
 Response to a 10% Heavier feed - continued

3.75 0.16

Propane Flow (lbmol/sec)

DMC PID
3.7 0.14
DP (PSI)

3.65 0.12

3.6 0.10
DMC PID Max. DP
3.55 0.08
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (min) Time (min)

0.36 0.20

Fuel Gas Flow (lbmol/sec)

Butane Flow (lbmol/sec)

0.32 DMC PID

0.16

0.28
DMC PID
0.12
0.24

0.20
0.08
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (min)
Time (min)
 Response to a 10% Heavier feed - summary

• DMC had better composition control

• DMC pushed the process for more propane
and butane production, less fuel gas vent
 Lessons Learned

• Constraint handling
• PID overriders are hardwired logic, pair
constraint with MV, only able to find a
solution.
• DMC uses model to make decisions
according to economics, CV ranks, ECEs, is
able to find the best solution.
 More Lessons Learned

• Plantwide perspectives
– level controls (F6 loop)
– heat integration (L1 loop)
– Plantwide issues still exist even if MPC is
used
 More Lessons Learned

• Inferential control is important and

challenging
– identifying tray temperatures
– choose transforms
– implementation:
• explicit model (infer property from multiple
measurements)
• cascade (one to one relationship)