e Pergamon

Computers chem. Engng Vol. Ie}. No.3, pp. 321 ·331. IWS

0098-1354(94)00057-3
Copyright © !e}e}S Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
IK)'JR·13541e}5 $e}. SO + 0 (K)

PLANT-WIDE CONTROL OF THE TENNESSEE EASTMAN

PROBLEM
P, R, LYMAN and C. GEORGAKtst
ChemicalProcess Modelingand Control Research Center and Department of Chemical Engineering,
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015-4732, U.S.A.

(Received 6 May 1993; final revision received 15 February 1994; received for publication 16 May 1994)

Abstract-This study focuses on the developmentand performanceof four plant-widecont~ol structures

for the Tennessee Eastman challenge problem. The control structures are developed to a tiered fashion
and without the use of a quantitative steady state or dynamicmodel of the process. The throughput or
production rate manipulator is selected first so. tha~ it is located on the major process path. The
inventory controls are arranged in an outward direction from this throughput maOlpulato~. The four
structures are described and commentsare givenon their effective handlingof the defineddisturbances
and setpoint changes, One structure provides effectivecontrol under all circumstances for 50 hours of
processtime, The effectivedynamicperformance of these structures supports the strength of the tiered
plant-wide control design methodology used.

l. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The synthesis of plant-wide control structures has

The purpose of plant-wide control is to provide an
overall structure for the coordinated control of
several important variables of a multi-unit process,
including the overall plant throughput and the pro-
duct quality control. The main incentive for this
approach is the coordination of the different local
control tasks so that one can achieve substantial
reduction of costly intermediate storage facilities,
The classical aproach to the plant-wide control prob-
lem has consisted in the past of the breaking down of
the over-all problem into a series of smaller control
problems around the individual unit operations of
the process, For this approach to work effectively,
the designer must provide sufficient material inven-
tories between units which serve to isolate one from
the dynamic characteristics of the others, These
inventories might need to be large and are costly in
many ways, They contribute to a high capital cost,
increase the overall holdup of valuable processing
material and occupy valuable plant space. Large
storage of possibly hazardous material also poses a
safety and an environmental hazard and the possible
degradation and contamination could significantly
affect the product quality, Furthermore, the exis-
tence of such large material hold-ups make required
production shifts between different products or pro-
duct grades difficult and time consuming, The use of
an effective plant-wide control structure may lead to
a significant reduction in the size of these interme-
diate inventories or possibly their elimination from
the plant design
t To whom all correspondence should be addressed.
321
been the topic of recent research by Price and
Georgakis (1993), They have provided a systematic
method and a set of guidelines which enable the user
to develop a plant-wide structure which provides
tight and effective control of the overall plant. This
can be extremely valuable, especially in a system
which includes large recycle streams which often
propagate and amplify process variation and the
effect of disturbances. The proposed method con-
sists of a tiered framework in which control loops
are classified and ordered according to their import-
ance for the plant as a whole. The categories which
compose the tiered framework are production and
inventory control, product specification control,
equipment and operating constraints, and economic
performance enhancement, respectively in the order
in which they are developed. One of the major
recommendations of the cited references is to design
the structure so that the inventory control loops are
arranged in an outwardly fashion away from the
location of the production rate manipulator. Control
structures which possess this characteristic are called
"self-consistent" .
In this paper, attention is focused on the plant-
wide control of the Tennessee Eastman (TE) chal-
lenge problem, defined in Downs and Vogel (1993).
They have also made available an open-loop dyna-
mic simulation of the already designed process but
have refrained from providing even the simplest
SISO controllers. The primary solution to the chal-
lenge problem described in the present paper is a set
of SISO loops, labelled structure 2, Three additional
control structures, labelled structures I.' and 4, will
322 P. R. LYMAN
also be briefly described and compared to the prim-
ary solution. All these control structures have been
described in great detail by Lyman (1992). We focus
here on structure 2 because this has been able to
successfully handle all of the process disturbances
described in the posed problem. The other struc-
tures are also of interest because they provide alter-
native structures that handle the great majority of
the defined disturbances. The paper is organized as
follows. The development procedure which was
used to synthesize the control structure is described
in Section 2. The three additional structures, result-
ing from alternate locations of the variable that
manipulates the production rate, are described in
Section 3. The response performance of the main
structure to the applied disturbances and setpoint
changes and its comparison with the other structures
is described in Section 4. Finally the conclusions of
this work are provided in Section 5.
2. SYNTHESIS OF A PLANT-WIDE SISO CONTROL
STRUCTURE
In the following discussion we will describe how
the tiered framework method proposed by Price and
Georgakis (1993), leads to a plant-wide SISO
control structure for the TE process. For complete-
ness, the Appendix details the tuning approach used
for the different control loops. The description of
the control structures starts with the selection of the
variable that will manipulate the production rate of
the plant and with the design of the inventory
control loops. The last ones are to be located along
the primary process path and oriented in an outward
direction from the location of the manipulation
variable for the production rate. This arrangement
of inventory controllers follows the recommenda-
tions made by Price and Georgakis (1993) who
called it a self-consistent structure through the prim-
ary process path. Consequently, it is important to
first identify the primary process path.
The primary process path for the TE process
starts at the raw material feeds to the reactor, goes
through the reactor, condenser, and separator, goes
on to the stripper, and through the liquid stream of
the stripper to the liquid outflow from the stripper,
the product stream. The next step is to locate the
production rate manipulator. A second recommen-
dation from the same references is to locate the
production rate manipulator near the center of the
process flow path. With such a choice, the produc-
tion rate changes will propagate in both directions
simultaneously and thus faster. Although it might
not be obvious on first sight, the condenser cooling
water valve (valve 11) can be considered to be on
the major process flow path. The control structure
and C. GEORGAKIS
which uses valve 11 as the production rate manipu-
lator, shown in Fig. 1, will be called control struc-
ture 2.
As valve 11is being closed, the temperature of the
reactor product stream at the exit of the condenser
rises and a lesser amount of the G and H products
are condensed and separated. More of G and Hare
sent back to the reactor where they cause a rise in
the reactor level. The reactor level is controlled with
the flow rate of stream 4. This stream has a substan-
tial effect on the reactor level because it is the
largest feed stream and contains both A and C which
take part in both product producing reactions. The
separator and stripper levels are controlled by the
liquid efflux stream flow rates from each vessel
following the rules defined previously. For example,
as the condenser cooling water flow rate is reduced
in response to a reduction in the product flow rate
setpoint, the separator and stripper efflux valves
close to maintain their corresponding vessel levels
resulting in a reduction in the final product flow rate.
This sequence illustrates the action of a self consis-
tent structure.
The one inventory which has not been addressed
is the gas content in the reactor/recycle system,
indicated by any of the different but interrelated
pressure values. In all of the structures described in
this paper, the reactor pressure is left uncontrolled
and is allowed to float. Although the reactor pres-
sure can cause large variations in reaction rates, its
effective control would require the simultaneous
and coordinated manipulation of the many factors
which can influence the reactor pressure. This list
includes the raw material flow rates, the recycle flow
rate and the reactor temperature and level. Because
there are substantial interactions between the differ-
ent variables, one should consider the design of a
multivariable controller for this reactor. Such a
controller was not considered here for two primary
reasons. First we wished to consider the simplest
control structure possible and we chose to restrict
the problem solution to SISO structures with PID
type controllers. The second reason that restrained
us from considering a multivariable controller is its
requirement for a dynamic process model. We con-
sidered it of interest to investigate what type of
control performance one could obtain without the
use of a process model. This completes the descrip-
tion of the inventory control tier of the development
of control structure 2.
Additional tiers in the structure development
must provide for reactor temperature control,
inventory control of individual species in the recycle
loop and final product purity. The reactor tempera-
ture is controlled through a cascade controller by
 ~ ~
:. i
~ Purge >!
~ !
XQ ~
! @
I I ~ • \

9
71 -® :l

[
ISEPARATOR I 8.,
:r
(b

ews ;;i
:l
:l
(b

!l!J '"
o»
(b
(b

rn
!!
! ... , ""
'"
3
·····i··@ , 12 : ""
:l

® @ "c:
.® @ <ID ~
sr

Al"" '"
Ir-R-EA-cr-oR-1 :3
~ ® '
;.. 4 .0- 1

L1 ...

I
L .

Fig. 1. TE process- control structure 2. ...,

...,
N
324 P. R. LYMAN
manipulating in the master loop the set point of the
outlet temperature of the cooling water in the reac-
tor. In the inner or slave loop the outlet cooling
water temperature is controlled by manipulating the
cooling water flow rate. This minimizes disturbances
to the reactor temperature from the cooling water
inlet temperature. A number of additional loops are
used to control the overall material balance of some
individual components from the reactor/recycle
system. Stream 1 is used to maintain a constant
composition of A in the reactor feed stream. This
controller is required to compensate for a variable
amount of A which might enter the system from
stream 4. Stream 3, which is nearly pure E, is used in
order to maintain the proper product ratio which is
measured at the product stream. The purge flowrate
is manipulated in order to maintain a constant com-
position of the inert component B in the recycle
stream. The purity of the product at the bottom of
the stripper is related to the composition of E, the
heaviest of the impurities. It is controlled through
the outer loop in a cascade structure by manipula-
tion of the set point of an inner temperature control
loop. The temperature controller manipulates the
steam flow rate.
The performance characteristics of this control
structure will be examined in the section after the
next and are also detailed by Lyman (1992).
3. ADDITIONAL PLANT·WIDE CONTROL STRUCTURES
This section briefly describes three additional
structures which result from the use of the tiered
approach mentioned above. These structures differ
in the location of the manipulated variable for the
production rate. They are all self-consistent and
have several of the same control loops as structure 2.
Figure 2 shows the location of the production rate
manipulated variable for the structure already des-
cribed and for the three additional structures.
Detailed information about these additional control
structures is presented elsewhere (Price et al., 1994).
Structure 1 sets the production rate by manipulating
the feed flow rate of D into the reactor. In order to
reduce the production rate the flow rate of D is
reduced. This lowers the production rate of G and
causes a drop in the level within the reactor. In this
structure, the condenser cooling water valve is used
to maintain the reactor liquid level. It closes in order
to condense less product vapor and return it to the
reactor as part of the recycle gas. The reduction in
condensate flow to the separator is carried down-
stream by the separator and stripper level con-
trollers resulting in a reduction in the product flow
rate.
and C. GEORGAKIS
Structure 3 controls the production rate by mani-
pulating the outflow from the separator tank. As this
valve is closed the flow into the stripper is reduced
and the level within the separator will rise. The
outflow from the stripper is then reduced in order to
maintain the stripper bottoms level as in structures 1
and 2. The condenser cooling water flow is used to
control the separator level in this structure. As the
separator level rises the condenser cooling water
valve closes in order to maintain this level. This
condenses less reactor product and sends it back to
the reactor where it causes a temporary increase in
reactor level. The reactor level is maintained by
manipulating the flow rate of stream 4 as in
structure 2.
Structure 4 controls the production rate by mani-
pulating the stripper underflow valve. A closure of
this valve will cause the stripper level to rise. The
stripper level is controlled with the separator out-
flow, and the separator level is controlled with the
condenser cooling water valve. The level in the
reactor is controlled as described for structures 2
and 3. The above description illustrates the differ-
ences between the four control structures studied.
Several controllers are identical in all control
structures. These include control of the reactor tem-
perature by the use of the cooling water flow and the
control of the composition of the inert component B
with the flow rate of the purge stream. The product
quality control loop described above is also common
to all control structures examined and the compo-
sition of A in the reactor feed is controlled using the
feed rate of A to avoid accumulation of this compo-
nent. The composition of the components D and E
are controlled in structures 2, 3 and 4 in a similar
manner to prevent their accumulation. Lastly and
very importantly, the recycle flowrate is maintained
at a constant value in structures 2, 3 and 4 using the
compressor recycle valve. This valve is kept at a
constant position in structure 1 to avoid interaction
with the reactor level control loop. None of the four
structures include control of the reactor pressure for
reasons explained earlier.
4. CLOSED LOOP PERFORMANCE OF PLANT·WIDE
CONTROL STRUCTURES
In this section we will concentrate on the perfor-
mance of structure 2 and we will make some com-
parisons between structure 2 and the other ones with
respect to their response performance to the
provided disturbances and the recommended set-
point changes. The discussion of the control struc-
ture's performance is divided into three segments:
operating costs, some disturbance response results
and the responses to the defined setpoint changes.
 ~
__
A ~
Structure 1

i ,
!!...........

~
[
€p ....® ISEPARATOR] g,
L->-" - "2 s
(1)
cws
;3
e
~
'"
'"
(1)
(1)

[STRIPPER! [I1
~
3"
@ '"
::l
"0
a
IREACTOR I CJ

"3
4

Fig. 2. TE process-locations of the production rate manipulated variable for four SISO control structures.
...,
N
Ul
326 P. R. LYMAN and C. GEORGAKIS

Table I. Total operating cost

another disturbance or setpoint change. In order to
Control structure satisfy this recommendation, a 15% setpoint reduc-
Disturbance 2 3 4
tion in the production rate, was selected since it
None 8459 8470 8471 8472 represents a plant-wide shift and therefore provides
1 8225 8226 8230 8228 a rigorous test for these plant-wide control struc-
2 14,144 14,042 14,038 14,037
3 8460 8471 8472 8472 tures.
4 8459 8470 8471 8472
8475
The results shown in Table 1 indicate that all four
5 8459 8464 8647
6 SD @7.5h 14,899 14,943 14,881 structures are capable of rejecting the majority of
7 8493 8470 8475 8473
8696
the disturbances and Structure 2 is capable of con-
8 8548 8678 8698
9 8459 8469 8470 8470 trolling the TE process simulation for 50 hand
10 8458 8470 8470 8471
8472
responds efectively to all disturbances and set-point
11 8459 8470 8473
12 8469 8489 SD @28h SD@ 19h changes postulated, A total of six process shutdowns
13 8371 8346 8647 SD @50h
6957* 6758* 6765 6775
occur in the other three structures all of them due to
14
15 6956* 6763* 6890* 6791* high pressure. Control structure 1 has a slightly
16 6957* 6758* 6765* 6775*
6965* 6778* 6854* 6824*
lower operating cost at steady state but will shut-
17
18 6992* 6812* SD@7.5h* SD @8.0h* down with disturbance 6. Control structure 3 has
19 6957* 6759* 6772* 6780*
6981* 6772* 6776* 6790*
two shutdowns: disturbances 12 and 18. Control
20
21 6957* 6758* 6765* 6775* structure 4 has three shutdowns: disturbances 12, 13
22 8563 8392 8544 8404
8461 8461 8460
and 18. Detailed descriptions of the results from
23 8347
24 7527 7559 7581 7562 each of the four structures with each disturbance is
* These runs include a 15% reduction in the production rate and
provided by Lyman (1992). For clarity and brevity,
can be expected to have lower operating costs. SD denotes process only selected plots will be presented here.
shutdown at the simulation time given.
Disturbance 12 and the setpoint changes are des-
cribed in more detail below.
4,1. Operating cost
The total process operating costs calculated from 4.2. Disturbance 12
the simulation runs that lasted 50 hours and repre- Disturbance 12 provides some interesting results
senting each control structure's response to the since it occurs in the center of the main process path.
different disturbance upsets and setpoint changes The control structures described above can be
are presented in Table 1. The operating cost is a sum expected to respond very differently to this distur-
of costs associated with the purge stream, the pro- bance since the production rate manipulated vari-
duct stream, the recycle compressor and steam able is in a different location for each structure.
usage and has been defined in the problem defining Disturbance 12, random variation in the condenser
paper (Downs and Vogel, 1993). At the base case cooling water temperature, has the effects on pro-
provided, about two-thirds of the total operating duction rate and reactor pressure shown in Figs 3
cost can be attributed to the purge stream. Since and 4. Control structures 1 and 2 transmit the
each structure incorporates identical purge stream variation out through the primary process flow
controllers the operating cost does not show large stream resulting in variation of the product flow
differences between structures. Disturbance 2 which rate. This is contrasted to control structures 3 and 4
is an increase of component B in stream 4 results in which maintain a nearly constant product flow rate
very high operating costs for all structures because by rejecting the disturbance's effect and propagating
of the high purge rate needed to maintain a low it back to the feed flow rates, through the recycle
concentration of B in the system. Disturbance 6, loss stream, resulting in increased reactor pressure varia-
of stream 1, also gives high operating costs since one tion, eventually causing the process to shutdown. In
mechanism utilized to remove excess C from the this case, it is preferable to transmit the disturbance
system is a higher purge flow rate. This is imple- out of the process as quickly as possible in order to
mented with the use of an override controller on the minimize its effect upon the reactor system. Control
purge stream flow rate. The override responds to an structures 3 and 4 could be made more robust by
excess of C in the sytem by purging more material to either reactor pressure control such that the pres-
control the composition of C instead of B in the sure variation could be removed from the process or
recycle stream. Entries denoted with a (*) symbol by relaxing the production rate control in appropri-
are runs in which the production rate is decreased ate situations to allow specific disturbances to be
and they should be compared only with other entries transmitted out of the process. To summarize, the
of the same type. The problem statement suggests location of the production rate manipulated variable
using disturbances 14 through 20 in conjunction with relative to a specific disturbance to a large extent
 Control of the Tennessee Eastman problem 327

Product Flowrate, Disturbance 12

30r---....,...----,r__--r--~--..,_-....,..--r_-....,...--r__-__,

29
- Structure 1
28 - - Structure 2
.. Structure 3
~27 . - . - Structure 4
E
1126
~
~25
~
u::: 24
1)
~

~23
a.

22

21

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
time (hrs)

Fig. 3. Closed loop response of product flowrute to disturbance 12 for each control
structure.

determines the ability of the structure to reject that
disturbance. In the example provided above, it is
better to pass the disturbance through the process
quickly using structures 1 and 2 rather than hold the
disturbance in the recycle loop as with structures 3
and 4.
4.3. Setpoint changes
The following setpoint changes are defined In the
postulation of the problem to allow comparisons
between structures and test their ability to move the
process to alternate operating points.

Reactor Pressure, Disturbance 12

3000r---,----r---r---,----r---r---,----r------,

2900

2800

(if
~2700

l!!
:::>
'~" 2600
0..

2500
- Structure 1
- - Structure 2
2400 Structure 3
. - - Structure 4

2300 '--- ....J...- - -'-- ---''--- ....J...- - -'-- ---'L-- ......L-- - -'-- --J
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
time (hrs)
Fig. 4. Closed loop response of reactor pressure to disturbance 12 for each control
structure.
328 P . R. LYMAN and C. G EOR GAKIS

includes the dynamic lag of the stripper column

while structure 4 could be retuned to give a faster
- s....",•• response. Figure 5(B) shows the response of the
- - Stuc\Jr.2
... .. Stue",.3 flow of D , the most expensive raw material , with the
. _ .• S...."'.4
same setpoint change . Control structure 1 turns
down the flow rate of raw materials the fastest as
expected while the other three structures are about
the same. In short, control structure 1 wastes the
fewest raw materials in a production rate reduction .
20
The impact on the reactor can be seen in Fig. 5(C).
Control structure 2 affects the reactor pressure first.
19.5
Although control structure 1 turns down the flow of
D and the other raw materials faster this has a much
20
more gradual impact on the reactor pressure since
Flow •• 01D. Solpon(11 the flows are small compared to the recycle flow.
3.00r-----.-...,.....-~____,-........-~___.~....,...-....... __,

The reactor pressure also equilibrates at the new

3700
-SANd 1 reaction rate sooner for structure 2. A production
- - Sttuch 2
3800 ... .. Swell."..3 rate reduction is easily accomplished using any of
. _ . ~ SlruaUl'••
the four structures. Those structures in which the
production rate is controlled towards the end of the
primary process path give a faster turn down of the
production rate as could be expected.
3200 4.3.2. Setpoint change 2. Setpoint change 2 is a
3100 shift in the product ratio of G/H from 1.0 to 0.67 in
mass units. The ratio of products is plotted for
3000
control structure 2 in Fig. 6. The setpoint change is
10 12 14 18 18 20 made directl y in the reactor feed composition loops
limol'n,
as a step change. The change in operating conditions
_ " '....... ~11
2'5O'r-~-""""-~___''''-'''''''-'''''''''-~____'-~---, is complete after 15 h. All four control structures are
2'00
able to move the process to produce this new pro-
duct rat io. The shift in operating point s takes about
/.[1':/'Vl'f't t \!':,:';./' 15 h using structure 2.
4.3.3. Setpoint change 3. The reactor pressure is
,' /.'0.1
r: stepped down in setpoint change 3. Since all four
structures are designed to let the pressure float, the
\\,,\:W//
, ~ :
pressure can only be adjusted by changing another
If' variable which is controlled. The reactor tempera-
2500
~' : : -s.ruc...... , tur e was found to be the best variable to use for this
- - S'rucU92
2450
.. .. $lruck.n3 purpose . A temperature shift of + l OC gives approxi-
_ . • Slructur.4
mat ely a 50 kPa reduction in reactor pressure . This
10 12 14 18 18 20
Imt~)
shift in reactor temperature was used with control
structure 2 giving the results shown in Fig. 7. The
Fig. 5. Closed loop response of product fiowrate, flowrate
of 0 and reactor pressure to setpoint change I for each pressure reduction per °C change in the reactor
control structure . temp er ature setpoint is greater for structures 2. 3
and 4 than for structure I (not shown). This effect is
4.3. J. Setpoint change I. The first setpoint a result of recycle flow rate control differences
change , which is a 15% reduction in production between the control schemes . For instance. in struc-
rate, is described by Fig. 5(A-C). Figure 5(A) ture I the recycle flow rate is uncontrolled; the
shows the response of the stripper underflow to a higher temperature gives a higher molecular weight
production rate change at 1 h. Control structure I recycle mixture however control structures 2. 3 and
gives the slowest respon se, as expected , since the 4 hold the molar flow rate const ant despite pressure
production rate is controlled at the start of the changes and the density shift. In the case of struc-
process . Control structure 3 is actually slightly faster tur e I. the molecular weight shift and the new
at turning down the production rate than control operating pressure cause the recycle flow rate to
structure 4. This is surpri sing because structure 3 drop . This reduced flow rate lessens the impact of
 Control of the Tennessee Eastman problem 329

Ratio 01 GIH in Product. Setpoint(2)

1.05r---"T""""--r--~----,r---"T""""--r--~----,---.----..,

- Structure1
- - Structure2
0.95 Structure3
. - .- Structure4
~ 0.9
-.
C}
0>0.85
e
J:
<3 0.8
"0
.2
~0.75

0.7

0.65

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
time (hrs)

Fig. 6. Closed loop response of product ratio to setpoint change 2 for control
structure 2.

the recycle stream composition hence the pressure
within the reactor is only marginally reduced. In
summary, the reactor pressure can be changed indir-
ectly by manipulating the reactor temperature set-
point for control structures 2, 3 and 4. In order to
control the reactor pressure for structure 1 the
recycle flow rate must be fixed.
4.3.4. Setpoint change 4. The composition of the
purge stream is changed in setpoint change 4. The
mechanism used to achieve the new composition is
the same in each of the control structures since loops
19 and 6 are identical in all four structures. Control
structure 1 causes a step change in reactor pressure
as shown in Fig. 8. Structure I rises to a much higher

ReactorPressure. Setpoint(3)
2720...---r----,r---....----r--.......--,---,.----r---~-..,

2710

2700

'i"2690
~
~2680
i
~2670
ia: 2660
2650

2640

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
time (hrs)
Fig. 7. Closed loop response of reactor pressure to setpoint change 3 for control
structure 2.
330 P. R. LYMAN and C. GEORGAKIS

ReactorPressure, Setpolnt(4)
2900

2850

<il2800
a..

!i',/
, NA ,t\,i~~i';': , fl ~;~~W ,I, ~i!t
~
~
.,
:>

~ 2750 II
;pr:~ : :t~};·¥/(!'V~~'A!v~N~~.tr\f:J:\Hti~Y:: <lN~r~IUW~:
l .·
f! ;"0: (;11;;iW
o,

~
'"
CD
a:: 2700
\n'j~F > ~ j',!;,
I~ . _ Structure1 1 : ' •
il - - Structure2
2650
..... Structure3
.- . - Structure4

2600
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
time (hrs)

Fig. 8. Closed loop response of reactor pressure to setpoint change 4 for each
control structure.

pressure than the other structures. Since the recycle
stream is now lighter (B is a noncondensible and low
molecular weight component) the recycle flow rate
is higher. The additional flow of a lighter stream
gives a much higher reactor pressure. In the case of
the other control structures, the recycle flow rate is
held constant by loop 5 despite the shift in the
recycle stream molecular weight. This results in a
lower pressure rise compared to control structure 1.
Control structure 3 gives significantlymore variation
in reactor pressure than any of the other structures.
The same behavior was observed with structure 3
without any disturbances present and is attributed to
interaction between the separator level control loop
and the recycle flow rate control loop. In structure 3,
the separator level is controlled using the condenser
cooling water flow rate and recycle flow rate loop is
the same as shown in Fig. 1. In light of this evalu-
ation of control structure performance, control
structure 2 is selected as the best of the four studied.
This control structure has reasonable operating costs
and more importantly is able to withstand all of the
disturbances and setpoint changes without exper-
iencing a process shutdown. Control structure 1 is
the second structure of choice since it only shuts
down with disturbance 6, the most severe distur-
bance. Also, structure 1 has a lower operating cost
with no disturbances. The reactor pressure can be
manipulated by changing the reactor temperature in
control structures 2, 3 and 4. This could also be used
in control structure 1 if the recycle flow rate were
controlled.
S. CONCLUSIONS
The TE process was found to be particularly
difficult to control because the recycle stream and
the reaction characteristics introduce the potential
for excessive interaction between reactor tempera-
ture, reactor pressure, reaction or production rate
and reactor level. Despite these difficulties, four
plant-wide SISO control structures were developed.
The development of these structures is consistent
with the tiered structure development framework.
In this method, the production rate manipulator is
chosen first and located on the primary process path.
The inventory control loops function in an outward
direction from the production rate manipulator.
This ensures that production rate and inventory
controls are self consistent as described in Price and
Georgakis (1993) and Price (1993). Control struc-
ture 2 offers the best control system of those studied
for the TE process. This structure weathers all
disturbances and setpoint changes without exper-
iencing a process shutdown. It has the further bene-
fit of being composed of a simple set of SISO loops
and a few cascade systems. This would enable it to
be easily implemented and understood by operating
personnel. If additional complexity could be toler-
ated a supervisory level of control may allow for
 Control of the Tennessee Eastman problem
indirect control of the reactor pressure. The feasibi-
lity of this algorithm was shown by the use of the
reactor temperature setpoint to change the reactor
operating pressure in setpoint change 3. The deve-
lopment of the supervisory algorithm is left for
future work.
Acknowledgements-The authors would like to acknow-
ledge William L. Luyben for helpful discussions during the
course of this study.
REFERENCES
Downs J. and E. Vogel, A plant-wide industrial process
control problem. Computers chern. Engng 17, 245-255
(1993).
Lyman P., Plant-wide control structures for the Tennessee
Eastman process. Master's thesis, Lehigh University
(1992).
Price R., Design of plant-wide regulatory control systems.
Ph.D. dissertation, Lehigh University (1993).
Price R. and C. Georgakis, Plantwide regulatory control
design procedure using a tiered framework. Ind. Engng
Chern. Res. 32,2693-2705 (1993).
Price R., P. Lyman and C. Georgakis, Throughput mani-
pulation in plantwide control structures. Ind. Engng
Chern. Res. 33,1197-1207 (1994).
Tyreus B. and W. Luyben, Tuning PI controllers for
intcgrator/deadtime processes. Ind. Engng Chern. Res.
31,2625-2628 (1992).
CACE 19-3-F
331
APPENDIX
Controllers and tuning decisions are based on the fol-
lowing criterion. Level controllers for the separator tank
and the stripper column bottoms use proportional action
only with a dimensionless gain of one. The range of the
valve is set such that a maximum allowable level corre-
sponds to a fully opened or closed valve depending on if
the valve is located downstream or upstream of the vessel.
respectively _ Series cascade arrangements arc used for
reactor level or composition control. In these cases. the
slave portion is a very simple flow controller. Thc slave
controller uses proportional action only while the master
loop uses proportional-integral action. The slave controller
is tuned such that the closed loop time constant is one half
the open loop time constant. The ultimate gain and period
for the master loop are calculated from an integrator-
deadtime model of the open loop response of the
controlled variable to a step change in the manipulated
variable. In this arrangement the manipulated variable 01
the master loop is the set point of the slave loop. During the
identification procedure. the step change is implemented in
the manipulated variable of the slave loop and not the
manipulated variable of the master loop. This difference
may be neglected if one assumes that the dynamics of the
slave loop are sufficiently fast as to be negligible. The usc
of proportional only control for the slave loop helps to
ensure that this is the case. Once the ultimate properties
are obtained. the controller tuning is calculated using
settings described in Tyreus and Luyben (1992). These
settings are referred to as TL settings and are less oscilla -
tory than Ziegler-Nichol settings. The remaining loops usc
proportional-integral action and arc tuned in the same
manner described above for the master controllers.