Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

2003, 42, 1773-1782 1773

Controllability of Different Multicomponent Distillation

Arrangements
Maria Serra,*,† Antonio Espuña,‡ and Lluı́s Puigjaner‡
Institut de Robòtica i Informàtica Industrial, Parc Tecnològic de Barcelona, Llorens i Artigas 4-6,
08028 Barcelona, Spain, and Chemical Engineering Department, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya,
ETSEIB, Diagonal 647, 08028 Barcelona, Spain

In this work, the controllability of different distillation arrangements for the separation of ternary
mixtures is compared. At the same time, the energetic efficiency of each one of the arrangements
is analyzed. Specifically, the direct and indirect sequences of columns, the columns with side
sections, and the divided wall column (DWC) are considered. To compare the controllability of
the different arrangements, the preferred control structures are searched. For the DWC,
operating conditions that favor controllability are discussed. Also, the arrangements have been
compared under different design conditions.

1. Introduction the column with a side stripper and that of the column
with a side rectifier. MRI and condition number (CN)
Different distillation arrangements for the separation controllability indexes were used to quantify the com-
of multicomponent mixtures have been compared in the parisons. They found that the DWC was the most
literature. Comparisons have mainly been based on difficult to control. Their study, however, did not analyze
thermodynamic properties and steady-state conditions. all of the potential given by the DWC complexity.
The main objective has been to find out which distilla-
In this work, using the same controllability indexes
tion arrangements are economically and energetically
as those of Hernandez and Jimenez7 and others, a
more favorable. Conclusions indicate that the divided
comparison between different arrangements is done. To
wall column (DWC) and the Petlyuk column are very
compare the best of every arrangement, optimal designs
attractive in terms of energy consumption.1,2 On the
and optimal operating points from an energetic point
other hand, the control of the DWC has been studied
of view are considered and the best control structures
and it has been seen that the DWC, which is very
are searched. Moreover, to exploit the DWC complexity,
attractive in terms of energy consumption, is also
several DWC operating conditions are compared. The
controllable.3 In this work, the controllability of the
direct and indirect sequences of columns, as well as the
DWC is compared to the controllability of other distil-
columns with side sections and the DWC, are all
lation arrangements. The main objective is to know if
included in the comparison.
the DWC is still attractive when controllability is taken
into account. Energy consumption and controllability depend on the
number of trays of distillation arrangements. For this
In the literature, few works have addressed the
reason, comparisons between distillation arrangements
control of complex distillation arrangements for the
have been carried out under two different design condi-
separation of multicomponent mixtures. Doukas and
tions. In section 4, designs are based on the same
Luyben4 studied the control of a side-stream column.
relationship between the reflux ratio (RR) and the
Three years later the same authors studied the control
minimum reflux ratio (MRR), and the different arrange-
of a prefractionator system.5 Alatiqi and Luyben6 were
ments have different numbers of trays. In section 5,
the first to compare the controllability of two different
arrangements with the same numbers of trays are
distillation arrangements for the separation of a ternary
compared.
mixture. The considered arrangements were the direct
sequence of columns and the column with a side
stripper. Controllability was analyzed through the Mo- 2. Case Study
rari resiliency index (MRI) and other frequency-depend-
ent indexes. They concluded that the recycle and A distillation problem has been selected for the
coupling nature of the column with a side stripper comparison study in this work. It consists of the
contributed positively to disturbance attenuation. separation of an equimolar ideal liquid saturated ter-
nary mixture into 0.99 pure products. The relative
The only authors that have included the DWC in a
volatility of the components (A, B, and C, respectively)
comparison between controllability of different distil-
is 4.65:2.15:1, an approximation of a real benzene,
lation arrangements are Hernandez and Jimenez.7 They
toluene, and o-xylene mixture. The control objective is
compared the controllability of the DWC with that of
to meet A, B, and C purity specifications.
Other DWC distillation problems were treated in the
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Fax: 34
literature by Serra et al.,8 where the separation of
93 4015750. E-mail: maserra@iri.upc.es.
†
Institut de Robòtica i Informàtica Industria, Parc Tecno- different mixtures into 0.99 pure products was analyzed.
lògic de Barcelona. Mixtures with different ease of separation indexes (ESI)
‡
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, ETSEIB. Fax: 34 were considered. Authors showed that the best control
93 4017150. E-mail: antonio.espuna@upc.es (A.E.); lpc@ structures do not depend on the mixture. However, the
eq.upc.es (L.P.). controllability indexes do depend on the mixture. It was
10.1021/ie010609o CCC: $25.00 © 2003 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 03/19/2003
1774 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 8, 2003
found that the DWC has better controllability for
mixtures with ESI close to 1. Notice that the ESI of the
mixture considered in this work is ESI ) 1.
The simple column with a side stream is also de-
scribed as one of the attractive options for ternary
distillation in the literature.9 However, the simple
column with a side stream is not able to solve the
considered separation because of the high purity of
products. Therefore, this arrangement is not included
in the comparative analysis of this work.
3. Control Levels, Models, and Controllability
Indexes
Because of the large difference between the mass flow
dynamics time constants and the composition dynamics
time constants, many authors propose to solve the
control problem of distillation columns by levels.10 This
is the approach in this work. The lower level is the
stabilization of the process or inventory control, and the
upper level is the composition control. Therefore, the
composition control will be studied over the stabilized
arrangements.
As will be explained, pressure is not modeled in this
work. Because of that, the inventory control reduces to
the control of the tank liquid levels (reboilers and
condensers). In this work, the distillate and bottoms flow
rates (external flows) have been chosen as the manipu-
lated variables used for inventory control. This is the
typical inventory control structure, at least for columns
with low to moderate RRs.11
In agreement with the distillation model for the
control study of a binary simple distillation column
proposed by Skogestad,12 the following set of assump-
tions has been considered to model the different distil-
lation arrangements. These assumptions give quite
simple nonlinear models, which contain the essential
elements driving the control system. The assumptions
are constant pressure, constant relative volatility of the
components, constant molar flows through the column
sections, no vapor holdup, linear liquid dynamics, and
equilibrium in all stages. These assumptions allow the
development of models based on the mass balance and
the equilibrium equations of each tray. Energy balance
equations are avoided thanks to the assumption of
constant vapor molar flows through the column sections
at steady state. MATLAB13 is used to model the distil-
lation arrangements.
To calculate the controllability indexes, linear models
are used. These linear models are obtained from lin-
earization of the nonlinear models described above. A
MATLAB13 file is created to obtain the state space linear
models from the nonlinear ones. Small increments in
manipulated and load variables around the nominal
operation and the consequent increments in outputs are
used to construct the linear models. Before linearization,
the inventory control loops of the nonlinear models are
closed. As indicated, the composition control analysis
is done for a specific inventory control, the tuning of
which has been solved previously.
Two of the most important controllability indexes are
the MRI and CN, which derive from the singular value
decomposition of the transfer function (linear model).
The relative gain array (RGA) is also typically used to
study the controllability of distillation systems. In this
work, these controllability indexes are used to select the
best control structures, as well as to compare the
controllability of the different distillation arrangements.
The MRI is the smallest singular value of the open-
loop transfer function. It is the poorer gain of the process
(poorer sensitivity), which corresponds to specific input
and output directions. The set of manipulated variables
that gives the largest MRI over the frequency range of
interest is preferred. The CN is the ratio of the maxi-
mum singular value to the minimum singular value,
typically used for the selection of the best set of
manipulated variables. It provides a numerical indica-
tion of the sensitivity balance in a multivariable system.
Large CNs indicate unbalanced sensitivity and also
sensitivity to changes in process parameters. Therefore,
sets of manipulated variables with small CNs over the
frequency range of interest are preferred. RGA is a
matrix that determines the interaction among control
loops in a multivariable process, and it is frequently
used to select the control pairing. Each element of the
RGA is defined as the ratio of the open-loop gain for a
selected output when all loops in the process are open
to its open-loop gain when all of the other loops are
closed. Pairings that have RGA close to the unity matrix
at frequencies around the bandwidth are preferred.
The closed-loop regulator transfer function may also
be used to compare the behavior of the controlled
distillation arrangements.14 It is (I + GM × B)-1GL,
where GM is the manipulated variables transfer func-
tion, B is the feedback controller transfer function, and
GL is the load variables transfer function. The closed-
loop regulator transfer function relates the changes in
the outputs with the load disturbances when the control
loops are closed. Singular value decomposition of (I +
GM × B)-1GL can be done. Small peaks in the maxi-
mum singular value indicate a low influence of the load
disturbances even in the worst direction. Therefore,
small peaks in the maximum singular value are desired.
MRI, CN, RGA, and the closed-loop regulator transfer
function depend on the frequency. For this reason, they
will be evaluated in the frequency domain. For control
purposes, it is usually the frequency range correspond-
ing to the closed-loop bandwidth that is of main inter-
est.15 The inverse of the main open-loop time constant
is a characteristic frequency of the system related to the
bandwidth. In distillation, the main time constants are
given by the composition dynamics. High-purity col-
umns have very large open-loop time constants. How-
ever, the use of feedback changes the dynamics, and the
closed-loop time constants may become much shorter.
The main open-loop time constant will give a first idea
of the range of frequencies of interest because, as a first
approach, it can be considered that the closed-loop time
constant (bandwidth) is about 10 times smaller than the
open-loop time constant. The main time constant of an
open-loop system can be calculated as the inverse of the
eigenvalue of the state-space matrix A with smallest
magnitude.16 On the other hand, Skogestad12 stated that
the frequency range important for feedback control is
from about 0.01 to 1 rad/min. This gives another idea
of the range of frequencies of interest.
4. Controllability and Energy Consumption
Comparison
In this section, the controllability and energy con-
sumption of the different distillation arrangements are
compared.
4.1. Chosen Designs. To design the different ar-
rangements, a relationship of RR/MRR ) 1.23 is im-
posed. This is a recommended value in industrial

Figure 1. Direct sequence of columns.
Figure 2. Indirect sequence of columns.
implementations. Shortcut methods for simple columns
have been applied to determine the designs of the
column sequences (number of trays and feed trays).
These calculations have been done with the help of
HYSYS.17 For the direct sequence, A recovery in the first
column is a design decision variable that can be used
for design optimization. However, its value is quite
limited because all A entering the second column will
appear with B product and the required B purity is high.
A similar thing occurs for the indirect column sequence.
The design of the direct sequence is found to be NTI )
26, NTII ) 27, NFI ) 14, and NFII ) 13 (Figure 1).
The design of the indirect sequence is found to be NTI
) 26, NTII ) 27, NFI ) 12, and NFII ) 15 (Figure 2).
The columns with side strippers or side rectifiers can
be essentially designed in the same way as the column
sequences.18 The sections of a column sequence and the
sections of a column with a side stripper or a side
rectifier are equivalent in the sense that the same
separations are performed in them. Despite this equiva-
lence, the sequences of the columns do not have thermal
coupling as the columns with side strippers or rectifiers
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 8, 2003 1775
Figure 3. Column with a side rectifier.
Figure 4. Column with a side stripper.
do. Consequently, to design a column with a side
stripper or a side rectifier, the optimal design of the
corresponding sequence of columns can be used as a first
approach. Then, this design has to be adjusted to find
out the actual optimal design, which is the design
permitting the lower boilup flow. Following this proce-
dure, the optimal design of the column with a side
rectifier has been determined to be NM ) 39, NR ) 14,
NF ) 27, and NS ) 12 (Figure 3). The optimal design
of the column with a side stripper has been determined
to be NM ) 39, NSTRIP ) 14, NF ) 12, and NS ) 27
(Figure 4).
Finally, the DWC, designed following the method
introduced by Serra et al.,19 has NP ) 18, NM ) 40,
NT ) 46, NS ) 21, NCB ) 10, NCD ) 31, and NF ) 9
(Figure 5). NCB is the last common plate before the
wall, and NCD is the first common plate after the wall.
4.2. Selection of the Preferred Control Struc-
tures and Comparison. Taking off the manipulated
variables needed to stabilize the system, the direct and
indirect sequences of columns have four possible ma-
nipulated variables, the columns with side sections also
have four possible manipulated variables, and the DWC
has five possible manipulated variables. Because only
three manipulated variables are required to control the
three purity specifications, several sets of manipulated
variables (control structures) are possible.
1776 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 8, 2003

Figure 6. MRI of all of the composition control structures for the

column sequences.

Figure 5. DWC.

Table 1. Energy Consumption and Preferred

Composition Control Structures for Arrangements with
RR/MRR ) 1.23
boilup best control
(kmol/min) structure
direct sequence (53 trays) 2.16 (LI, VI, LII)
indirect sequence (53 trays) 2.10 (LI, LII, VII)
column with a side rectifier 1.95 (LM, VM, LR)
column with a side stripper 1.95 (LM, VM, VS)
(53 trays)
DWC (58 trays) 1.67 (L, S, V)
DWC operation 2, nonoptimal 1.74 (L, S, SPLITD)
(58 trays)
DWC operation 3, nonoptimal 1.87 (L, S, SPLITD)
(58 trays)

Particularly, using the distillate and bottoms flow

rates for the inventory control, the possible manipulated
variables in the column sequences are LI, VI, LII, and
VII (Figures 1 and 2). Similarly, the possible manipu-
lated variables in the column with a side rectifier are
LM, VM, VAP, and LR (Figure 3), and the possible
manipulated variables in the column with a side strip-
per are LM, VM, LIQ, and VS (Figure 4). In the three
cases, one manipulated variable is an extra operational
degree of freedom (DOF). Finally, the possible manipu-
lated variables in the DWC are L, S, V, SPLITD, and
SPLITB (Figure 5), where SPLITD is the ratio of the
liquid descending through the main column to the total
liquid arriving at the top of the wall and SPLITB is the
ratio of the vapor ascending through the main column
to the total vapor arriving at the base of the wall. The
DWC has two extra operational DOFs.
The nominal operation of the studied separations is
chosen as the operation that minimizes the boilup, or
sum of boilups in the arrangements with more than one
reboiler. A constrained optimization using the “constr”
MATLAB function13 has been performed to obtain the
optimal operation conditions. All operational DOFs have
been used to perform this optimization, constrained by
the purity specifications. The DWC has also been
studied at nonoptimal operating conditions because, in
the literature, Serra et al.20 have explained that working
out of the optimal operating conditions, the controllabil-
ity of the DWC may improve. Thus, it will be interesting
Figure 7. CN of all of the composition control structures for the
column sequences.
to compare the controllability of the different arrange-
ments with that of a DWC operated at nonoptimal
conditions.
For the DWC, three operational conditions are ana-
lyzed: the optimal operation (both operational DOFs
used to optimize the column boilup), a nonoptimal
operation obtained by fixing SPLITB at 0.5 (operation
2), and a nonoptimal operation obtained by fixing
SPLITD at 0.65 and SPLITB at 0.5 (operation 3).
Logically, operation 2 has a higher boilup than the
optimal operation (4% more flow rate), and operation 3
still has a higher boilup than the optimal operation (10%
more flow rate). The boilup values are indicated in the
three last rows of Table 1.
To compare the controllability of the different distil-
lation arrangements, their controllability indexes are
analyzed. In Figures 6-11, the MRI and CN for all
possible composition control structures of all of the
arrangements are plotted in the frequency domain. In
Figures 6 and 7, it can be seen that the preferred
structure for the indirect sequence of columns (LI, LII,
VII) has smaller CNs than the preferred structure for
the direct sequence of columns (LI, VI, LII). Therefore,
although the difference is small, the indirect sequence

Figure 8. MRI of all of the composition control structures for the
columns with side sections.
Figure 9. CN of all of the composition control structures for the
columns with side sections.
is preferred. The MRIs of the preferred structures of
both arrangements have very similar values. In Figures
8 and 9, the controllability indexes for the column with
a side stripper and the column with a side rectifier are
shown. Comparing the MRI and CN of the columns with
side sections at low frequencies, it can be seen that the
preferred structures for the column with a side stripper
(LM, VM, VS/LM, VM, LIQ) have larger MRIs and lower
CNs than the preferred structures for the column with
a side rectifier (LM, VM, LR/LM, VM, VAP). Therefore,
according to the controllability indexes at low frequen-
cies, the controllability of the column with a side
stripper is better. However, in an analysis of the
controllability indexes at higher frequencies, the pre-
ferred control structures are others. The main open-loop
time constant for the column with a side stripper is
0.0045, and for the column with a side rectifier, it is
0.0044. It is just at 0.04 rad/min (10 times the main
open-loop time constant) where the preferred control
structures change. If the actual bandwidth is smaller
than 0.04 rad/min, the column with a side stripper with
(LM, VM, VS) or (LM, VM, LIQ) control structures is
better.
In Figures 10 and 11, the MRI and CN of the different
control structures of the DWC are plotted. The DWCs
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 8, 2003 1777
Figure 10. MRI of all of the composition control structures for
the DWC.
Figure 11. CN of all of the composition control structures for
the DWC.
operated at optimal operation and at nonoptimal opera-
tion 3 are shown. There are important differences
between the column operated at optimal operation and
the column operated at operation 3. For the optimal
operated DWC, at frequencies lower than 0.1 rad/min,
the (L, S, V) control structure is clearly the one associ-
ated with the best controllability. The main open-loop
time constant in this case is 0.004 rad/min. Therefore,
taking as a first approach that the bandwidth will be
close to 0.04 rad/min (10 times the main open-loop time
constant), the bandwidth frequency is expected to be
smaller than 0.1 rad/min. Therefore, L S V is the
expected preferred control structure. Contrarily, the
DWC operated at nonoptimal conditions has (L/V, S,
SPLITD/SPLITB) as the best control structure if the
bandwidth is lower than 0.1 rad/min, which is the most
reasonable because the main open-loop time constant
is 0.004 rad/min. Notice that the DWC operated at
different conditions; not only does it have different MRI
and CN values, but it has different preferred control
structures.
In Figures 12 and 13, the MRI and CN values of the
best control structures of the indirect sequence, the
column with a side stripper, and the DWC are plotted
together. Comparing the optimal operated arrange-
1778 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 8, 2003
Figure 12. MRI of the best control structures for different
arrangements.
Figure 13. CN of the best control structures for different
arrangements.
ments, the indirect sequence of columns has the small-
est CN, but it is the column with a side stripper that
has the largest MRI. The column with a side stripper
has the worst controllability in a range of frequencies
around 0.1 rad/min. The DWC has the largest CN of
all of the arrangements and the smallest MRI at low
frequencies. All taken into account, the indirect se-
quence seems to be the arrangement with the best
controllability.
However, when the DWC operated at nonoptimal
conditions enters in the comparison, its controllability
improves. With operation 2, a clear improvement is
obtained, and with operation 3, the DWC clearly has
the best controllability of all of the arrangements. As
has been explained, operation 2 has a higher energy
consumption than optimal operation, and operation 3
has still a higher energy consumption. Consequently,
when the boilup flow rates are increased, the control-
lability has improved. Therefore, there exists a tradeoff
in the DWC between controllability and energy con-
sumption.
In Table 1, the energy requirement of the different
arrangements in terms of boilup is indicated. The energy
requirement corresponds to a feed flow rate of 1 kmol/
min. When the arrangements operated at optimal
Figure 14. RGA diagonal elements of the best paired control
structures for different arrangements.
conditions are compared, it can be seen that the DWC
has the lower energy consumption, followed by the
columns with side sections. The column sequences have
the higher boilup flows. However, the DWC is the less
consuming arrangement even when it is operated at
nonoptimal conditions. Notice that, even with nonopti-
mal operation 3, the boilup of the DWC is lower than
the boilup of the other distillation arrangements. There-
fore, the DWC operated at operation 3 has the best
controllability and the lower energy consumption of all
of the distillation arrangements. This is a very impor-
tant result that shows how, taking advantage of the
complexity offered by the DOFs of the DWC, a conve-
nient operation point with low energy consumption and
good controllability can be chosen.
RGA has also been considered as the controllability
index. It has also been used to select appropriate
pairings. According to the RGA, the pairing showing the
lowest interaction for the indirect sequence is (LII-xAD,
VII-xBS, LI-xCB), where xAD is A molar purity, xBS is B
molar purity, and xCB is C molar purity. The pairing
showing the lower interaction for the column with a side
stripper is (LM-xAD, VS-xBS, VM-xCB). For the DWC
at optimal operation, the best pairing is (L-xAD, S-xBS,
V-xCB), and for the DWC at nonoptimal operation 3,
the best pairing is (L-xAD, SPLITD-xBS, S-xCB). In
Figure 14, the RGA diagonal elements of the three
arrangements can be seen. The DWC at optimal opera-
tion has the larger RGA values. However, the DWC at
nonoptimal operation 3 has the lower RGA values.
Again, a controllability index has indicated that the
DWC operated at operation 3 has the best controllabil-
ity. It is interesting to notice that the indirect sequence
of columns has a variable absolutely decoupled from the
rest (RGA diagonal element equal to 1).
In this section it has been seen (Figures 12-14) that,
even though the energy consumption of the DWC at
nonoptimal operations increases compared to the energy
consumption at optimal operation, operating points with
boilup flow rates close to the optimal values give
controllability conditions considerably better than the
controllability conditions of the other distillation ar-
rangements: higher MRI, lower CN, and more diagonal
RGA. Moreover, the DWC, operated at some specific
nominal conditions, has the lowest energy consumption
and the best controllability of the considered distillation

Figure 15. Maximum singular value of (I + GM × B)-1GL.
Table 2. Tuning of the DWC and the Direct Sequence
Kp τ (min)
DWC nonoptimal operation 3 loop 1: 1.25 loop 1:
loop 2: 0.33 loop 2:
loop 3: 1.75 loop 3:
direct sequence loop 1: 1.9 loop 1:
loop 2: 0.7 loop 2:
loop 3: 1.2 loop 3:
arrangements. The other distillation arrangements
could also be operated at nonoptimal conditions, but
only small changes are expected because, with products
of purity 0.99, the sequences of columns and the
columns with side sections only have a small operability
range.
4.3. Tuning and Simulations. Because the direct
sequence of columns is by far the most frequently used
in the industry, the behavior of the DWC and the
behavior of the direct sequence have been simulated to
compare the performance of the two distillation ar-
rangements. Proportional-integral (PI) controllers have
been tuned for both distillation arrangements. Despite
the fact that there is not a tuning method able to
guarantee a fixed tuning quality for both distillation
arrangements, a tuning method has been followed. The
tuning of the two arrangements has been done following
the BLT14 method. For the DWC, the resulting scaled
tuning (with a detuning factor F ) 8) is indicated in
Table 2. For the direct sequence, the resulting tuning
(with a detuning factor F ) 30) is indicated in Table 2
too.
Once the tuning is chosen, the closed-loop regulator
transfer function can be computed and plotted. In Figure
15, the maximum singular value of (I + GM × B)-1G is
plotted for both tuned distillation arrangements. The
parameter for the DWC has a higher peak. This
indicates that the direct sequence has a better capacity
for rejecting disturbances. However, the difference is not
very important.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 8, 2003 1779
72
96
72
180
630
90
Figure 16. Purity of products for a controlled setpoint change.
In Figures 16 and 17, the simulation of the two
controlled arrangements for a setpoint change is il-
lustrated. In Figure 16, the output variables can be
seen. Clearly, the DWC outputs get the setpoint values
in a shorter time. In Figure 17, the reason can be seen.
The direct sequence of columns has VII and LII increas-
ing at the same time, which diminishes the effect that
each of them would have when changing alone. In
Figures 18 and 19, the simulation of the two controlled
arrangements for a disturbance rejection is illustrated.
The disturbance is a 10% increase of the feed A molar
fraction over 5 min. In Figure 18, it can be seen that
the influence of the disturbance is lower in the direct
sequence, at least initially.
With the help of simulations, indications of the con-
trollability indexes have been illustrated. The DWC has
a lower interaction between loops (better controllability
indexes), but with the chosen controller tunings, the
1780 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 8, 2003
Figure 17. Evolution of inputs for a controlled setpoint change.
Figure 18. Purity of products for a load disturbance.
Figure 19. Evolution of inputs for a load disturbance.
direct sequence has a better disturbance rejection (lower
peak of the closed-loop regulator transfer function).
5. Designs with the Same Number of Trays
Up to this section, the arrangements compared do not
have the same number of trays. The DWC considered
Figure 20. MRI for inventory control structures with internal
flows.
Table 3. Energy Consumption and Preferred
Composition Control Structures for Arrangements with
58 Trays
boilup best control
(kmol/min) structure
indirect sequence (58 trays) 2.00 (LI, LII, VII)
column with a side stripper 1.86 (LM, VM, VS)
(58 trays)
DWC (58 trays) 1.67 (L, S, V)
has more trays than the other distillation arrangements,
and this fact gives the DWC some advantages. It is
difficult to compare the number of trays of different
distillation arrangements. The DWC, for instance, has
all of the plates in the same shell, and this fact makes
the investment cost cheaper. However, in this section,
arrangements with 58 trays are compared. With the
total number of trays fixed, the designs with minimum
boilup are selected. The DWC optimal design with 58
trays was indicated in section 4. The optimal indirect
sequence of columns has NTI ) 29, NTII ) 29, NFI )
13, and NFII ) 16. The optimal column with a side
stripper has NM ) 42, NSTRIP ) 16, NF ) 13, and NS
) 29.
The energy requirement in terms of boilup flow rate
and the best control structures for the different ar-
rangements are indicated in Table 3. As was foreseeable,
increasing the number of trays, the indirect sequence,
and the column with a side stripper has decreased the
energy consumption. However, the DWC is still the most
energy efficient. The preferred control structures have
not changed with the design changes.
In Figures 20 and 21, the MRI and CN plots are
shown for the best control structures of the indirect
sequence of columns, the column with a side stripper,
and the DWC. When Figures 20 and 21 are compared
with Figures 12 and 13, it can be seen that the
controllability of the indirect sequence and the column
with side stripper has improved. This is because of the
decoupling of the different control loops caused by an
increase of the time needed to connect the upper and
lower parts of the columns. However, when those figures
are compared, it can also be seen that the controllability
of the DWC relative to the controllability of the other
distillation arrangements has become worse. It can be
concluded that the DWC, to be competitive, has to be
built with a large number of trays. The DWC will be

Figure 21. CN for inventory control structures with internal
flows.
more competitive then when the price of energy is more
important than the price of column construction.
6. Conclusions
Upon analysis of the MRI, CN, and RGA in the
frequency domain, the controllabilities of the column
sequences, the columns with side sections, and the DWC
are compared for a given separation problem. Through
a constrained optimization, the boilup flow rate of the
different distillation arrangements is minimized and the
energetic efficiency of the distillation arrangements is
also analyzed.
When the direct sequence of columns is compared
with the indirect sequence of columns and the column
with a side rectifier is compared with the column with
a side stripper, it is seen that differences in control-
lability and boilup flow rates are small.
Taking into account all three controllability indexes
at the frequency range of interest, it is concluded that
the indirect column sequence has a better controllability
than the DWC. When the DWC is compared with the
column with a side stripper, it is not clear which has a
better controllability because the DWC has worse
indexes in a large range of frequencies, but the column
with a side stripper has worse indexes just in the range
of frequencies where the bandwidth could be.
At optimal operation, the DWC controllability is worse
than the controllability of the indirect column sequence.
However, operating the DWC at nonoptimal conditions
(not minimized boilup), its controllability is much better,
and it is even better than the controllability of the other
arrangements. Moreover, the energy consumption of the
DWC at these nonoptimal operating conditions is still
lower than the energy consumption of the other distil-
lation arrangements. This result is very important
because it indicates that the DWC operated at some
nonoptimal operating conditions has the best control-
lability and the lower energy consumption of all of the
arrangements.
Finally, when different comparisons are made be-
tween the different distillation arrangements at differ-
ent design conditions, it is seen that the DWC is more
competitive when it is designed with a large number of
trays. The DWC needs long columns to be really
attractive in terms of energy as well as in terms of
controllability.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 8, 2003 1781
Nomenclature
B ) bottoms flow rate
BI ) bottoms flow rate in an upstream column
BII ) bottoms flow rate in a downstream column
BS ) bottoms flow rate in a stripper
D ) distillate flow rate
DI ) distillate in an upstream column
DII ) distillate in a downstream column
DR ) distillate in a rectifier
L ) reflux
LI ) reflux of the upstream column
LII ) reflux of the downstream column
LIQ ) liquid from the stripper to the main column
LM ) reflux of the main column
LR ) reflux in the rectifier
MRR ) minimum reflux ratio
NCB ) last common tray before the wall in a DWC
NCD ) first common tray after the wall in a DWC
NF ) feed tray
NFI ) feed tray of the upstream column
NFII ) feed tray of the downstream column
NM ) number of trays of the main column
NP ) number of trays of the prefractionator
NR ) number of trays of the rectifier
NS ) tray in the main column connected to the side section
NSTRIP ) number of trays of the stripper
NT ) total number of trays
NTI ) total number of trays of the upstream column
NTII ) total number of trays of the downstream column
RR ) reflux ratio
S ) side-stream flow rate
SPLITB ) split in the base of the wall in a DWC
SPLITD ) split at the top of the wall in a DWC
V ) boilup
VI ) boilup of the upstream column
VII ) boilup of the downstream column
VAP ) vapor from the main column to the rectifier
VM ) boilup of the main column
VS ) boilup of the stripper
xAD ) purity of product A (M)
xBS ) purity of product B (M)
xCB ) purity of product C (M)
Literature Cited
(1) Petlyuk, F. B.; Platonov, V. M.; Slavinskii, D. M. Thermo-
dynamically Optimal Method for Separating Multicomponent
Mixtures. Int. Chem. Eng. 1965, 5 (3), 555-561.
(2) Fidkowski, Z.; Krolikowski, L. Minimum Energy Require-
ments of Thermally Coupled Distillation Systems. AIChE J. 1987,
33 (4), 643-653.
(3) Wolff, E. A.; Skogestad, S. Operation of Integrated Three-
Product (Petlyuk) Distillation Columns. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
1995, 34, 2094-2103.
(4) Doukas, N.; Luyben, W. L. Control of Sidestream Columns
Separating Ternary Mixtures. Inst. Tech. 1978, 25, 43-47.
(5) Doukas, N. P.; Luyben, W. L. Control of an Energy-
Conserving Prefractionator/Sidestream Column Distillation Sys-
tem. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 1981, 20, 147-153.
(6) Alatiqi, I. M.; Luyben, W. L. Control of a Complex Side-
stream Column/Stripper Distillation Configuration. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Process Des. Dev. 1986, 25, 762-767.
(7) Hernandez, S.; Jimenez, A. Controllability Analysis of
Thermally Coupled Distillation Systems. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
1999, 38, 3957-3963.
(8) Serra, M.; Perrier, M.; Espuña, A.; Puigjaner, L. Analysis
of Different Control Possibilities for the Divided Wall Column:
Feedback Diagonal and Dynamic Matrix Control. Comput. Chem.
Eng. 2001, 25 (4-6), 859-866.
(9) Glinos, K.; Malone, M. F. Optimality regions for Complex
Column Alternatives in Distillation Systems. Chem. Eng. Res. Des.
1988, 66, 229-240.
1782 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 8, 2003
(10) Luyben, W. L. Practical Distillation Control; Van Nostrand
Reinhold: New York, 1992.
(11) Luyben, W. L.; Tyreus, B. D.; Luyben, M. L. Plantwide
Process Control; 1998.
(12) Skogestad, S. Dynamics and Control of Distillation Col-
umns: A Tutorial Introduction. Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., Part A
1997, 75.
(13) MATLAB; The MathWorks Inc.: 1998.
(14) Luyben, W. L. Process Modeling, Simulation, and Control
for Chemical Engineers; McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.: New York,
1990.
(15) Skogestad, S.; Jacobsen, E. W.; Morari, M. Inadequacy of
Steady-State Analysis for Feedback Control: Distillate-Bottom
Control of Distillation Columns. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1990, 29,
2339-2346.
(16) Skogestad, S.; Postlethwaite, I. Multivariable Feedback
Control Analysis and Design; Wiley: Chichester, U.K., 1996.
(17) HYSYS; Hyprotech Ltd.
(18) Finn, A. J. Consider Thermally Coupled Distillation. Chem.
Eng. Prog. 1993, 41-45.
(19) Serra, M.; Espuña, A.; Puigjaner, L. Improving the Design
of the Divided Wall Column. AIChE Meeting, Los Angeles, 1997.
(20) Serra, M.; Espuña, A.; Puigjaner, L. Control and Optimi-
sation of the Divided Wall Column. Chem. Eng. Proc. 1999, 38,
549-562.
Resubmitted for review October 28, 2002
Revised manuscript received January 24, 2003
Accepted February 10, 2003
IE010609O