Throughput maximization by improved bottleneck control

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Implementation of MPC in a deethanizer at the Kårstø Gas plant
Advertisements

Dynamic Behavior of Closed-Loop Control Systems
Exercise 3. Solutions From Fujio Kida, JGC Co. All cases
1 INTERACTION OF PROCESS DESIGN AND CONTROL Ref: Seider, Seader and Lewin (2004), Chapter 20.
Advanced Controls Technology An Industrial and Academic Perspective on Plantwide Control James J. Downs Eastman Chemical Company Sigurd Skogestad Norwegian.
Plant-wide Control for Economic Operation of a Recycle Process
EE 685 presentation Optimization Flow Control, I: Basic Algorithm and Convergence By Steven Low and David Lapsley Asynchronous Distributed Algorithm Proof.
1 Real-Time Optimization (RTO) In previous chapters we have emphasized control system performance for disturbance and set-point changes. Now we will be.
1 M. Panahi ’Plantwide Control for Economically Optimal Operation of Chemical Plants’ Plantwide Control for Economically Optimal Operation of Chemical.
Plantwide process control with focus on selecting economic controlled variables («self- optimizing control») Sigurd Skogestad, NTNU 2014.
Practical plantwide process control Sigurd Skogestad, NTNU Thailand, April 2014.
1 Operation of heat pump cycles Jørgen Bauck Jensen & Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
GHGT-8 Self-Optimizing and Control Structure Design for a CO 2 Capturing Plant Mehdi Panahi, Mehdi Karimi, Sigurd Skogestad, Magne Hillestad, Hallvard.
1 Active constraint regions for optimal operation of a simple LNG process Magnus G. Jacobsen and Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering NTNU.
Optimal operation of distillation columns and link to control Distillation Course Berlin Summer Sigurd Skogestad. Part 3.
ERT 210/4 Process Control & Dynamics
1 Coordinator MPC for maximization of plant throughput Elvira Marie B. Aske* &, Stig Strand & and Sigurd Skogestad* * Department of Chemical Engineering,
RELATIVE GAIN MEASURE OF INTERACTION We have seen that interaction is important. It affects whether feedback control is possible, and if possible, its.
Offset Free Tracking with MPC under Uncertainty: Experimental Verification Audun Faanes * and Sigurd Skogestad † Department of Chemical Engineering Norwegian.
1 Outline Skogestad procedure for control structure design I Top Down Step S1: Define operational objective (cost) and constraints Step S2: Identify degrees.
PSE and PROCESS CONTROL
Temperature Controller A model predictive controller (MPC) based on the controller proposed by Muske and Rawlings (1993) is used. For the predictions we.
1 1 V. Minasidis et. al. | Simple Rules for Economic Plantwide ControlSimple Rules for Economic Plantwide Control, PSE & ESCAPE 2015 SIMPLE RULES FOR ECONOMIC.
1 Single-cycle mixed-fluid LNG (PRICO) process Part II: Optimal operation Sigurd Skogestad & Jørgen Bauck Jensen Qatar, January 2009.
1 A Plantwide Control Procedure Applied to the HDA Process Antonio Araújo and Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering Norwegian University.
1 Practical plantwide process control. Extra Sigurd Skogestad, NTNU Thailand, April 2014.
1 E. S. Hori, Maximum Gain Rule Maximum Gain Rule for Selecting Controlled Variables Eduardo Shigueo Hori, Sigurd Skogestad Norwegian University of Science.
EE 685 presentation Optimization Flow Control, I: Basic Algorithm and Convergence By Steven Low and David Lapsley.
1 Active constraint regions for economically optimal operation of distillation columns Sigurd Skogestad and Magnus G. Jacobsen Department of Chemical Engineering.
Implementation of Coordinator MPC on a Large-Scale Gas Plant
Integrated Process Networks: Nonlinear Control System Design for Optimality and Dynamic Performance Michael Baldea a,b and Prodromos Daoutidis a a University.
3) OBJECTIVE FUNCTION & DISTURBANCES Objective function: Assuming product prices are the same, p D = p S = p B and (p-p F ) = p’, with F given and Q =
1 Plantwide control: Towards a systematic procedure Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering Norwegian University of Science and Tecnology (NTNU)
1 Outline Control structure design (plantwide control) A procedure for control structure design I Top Down Step 1: Degrees of freedom Step 2: Operational.
1 Self-optimizing control From key performance indicators to control of biological systems Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering Norwegian.
1 PLANTWIDE CONTROL Identifying and switching between active constraints regions Sigurd Skogestad and Magnus G. Jacobsen Department of Chemical Engineering.
1 II. Bottom-up Determine secondary controlled variables and structure (configuration) of control system (pairing) A good control configuration is insensitive.
1 Unconstrained degrees of freedom: C. Optimal measurement combination (Alstad, 2002) Basis: Want optimal value of c independent of disturbances ) – 
Control Structure Design: New Developments and Future Directions Vinay Kariwala and Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering NTNU, Trondheim,
1 Self-optimizing control From key performance indicators to control of biological systems Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering Norwegian.
1 Combination of Measurements as Controlled Variables for Self-optimizing Control Vidar Alstad † and Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering,
Control strategies for optimal operation of complete plants Plantwide control - With focus on selecting economic controlled variables Sigurd Skogestad,
1 2 Linear Programming Chapter 3 3 Chapter Objectives –Requirements for a linear programming model. –Graphical representation of linear models. –Linear.
Coordinator MPC with focus on maximizing throughput
Implementation of a MPC on a deethanizer
Elvira Marie B. Aske Department of Chemical Engineering
Economic Plantwide Control:
Transfer Functions Chapter 4
Advanced process control with focus on selecting economic controlled variables («self-optimizing control») Sigurd Skogestad, NTNU 2016.
Changing between Active Constraint Regions for Optimal Operation: Classical Advanced Control versus Model Predictive Control Adriana Reyes-Lúa, Cristina.
Coordinator MPC for maximization of plant throughput
Chapter 3 The Simplex Method and Sensitivity Analysis
Plantwide control: Towards a systematic procedure
PLANTWIDE CONTROL Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering
CONTROLLED VARIABLE AND MEASUREMENT SELECTION
Outline Skogestad procedure for control structure design I Top Down
Outline Control structure design (plantwide control)
Implementation of a MPC on a deethanizer
Perspectives and future directions in control structure selection
Step 2. Degree of freedom (DOF) analysis
Plantwide control: Towards a systematic procedure
Example : Optimal blending of gasoline
Implementation of MPC in a deethanizer at the Kårstø Gas plant
Implementation of MPC in a deethanizer at the Kårstø Gas plant
Decentralized control
Vidar Alstad† and Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering,
Plantwide control: Towards a systematic procedure
Operation and Control of Divided Wall (Petlyuk) Column
Optimal measurement selection for controlled variables in Kaibel Distillation Column: A MIQP formulation Ramprasad Yelchuru (PhD Candidiate) Professor.
Outline Control structure design (plantwide control)
Presentation transcript:

Throughput maximization by improved bottleneck control Elvira Marie B. Aske*&, Sigurd Skogestad* and Stig Strand& *Department of Chemical Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway &Statoil R&D, Process Control, Trondheim, Norway Throughput maximization by improved bottleneck control. Work together with Sigurd Skogestad, professor at Norwegian University of Science and Technology and Stig Strand, researcher at Statoil R&D. My background is working in oil industry, mainly with implementation of MPC. In this case, the economic optimal operation is simplified to maximum throughput.

Outline Modes of optimal operation Maximum throughput Throughput manipulator (TPM) Max-flow min-cut theorem Realizing maximum throughput Single-loop MPC Back off Conclusions First, I will talk about modes of optimal operation, then I will talk about maximum throughput. I will mentioned some background information about throughput manipulator and the max-flow min-cut theorem. Then will I discuss how to realize maximum throughput, both single-loop and by using MPC, followed by discussions around back off before I will sum up.

Depending on marked conditions: Two main modes of optimal operation Mode 1. Given throughput (“nominal case”) Given feed or product rate “Maximize efficiency”: Unconstrained optimum (“trade-off”) Mode 2. Max/Optimum throughput Throughput is a degree of freedom + good product prices 2a) Maximum throughput Increase throughput until constraints give infeasible operation Constrained optimum - identify active constraints (bottleneck!) 2b) Optimized throughput Increase throughput until further increase is uneconomical Unconstrained optimum In operation/control there are two main modes of optimal operation: Mode 1. Given throughput, feed or product rate is given. Optimal operation is where the operation is most efficient. Mode 2. Max or optimum throughput. Here the throughput is a degree of freedom and the product prices is good compared to feed and utility costs. We have two situations here. First, maximum throughput where it is optimal to increase the throughput until constraints give infeasible operation. This is a constrained optimum where the active constraints, that is, the bottlenecks should be identified. Second, optimized throughput which is the unconstrained case, a further increase in throughput is uneconomical. For instance, a reactor conversion decreases rapidly (or purge streams increases sharply) at high feed rates. Traditionally: Focus on mode I But: Mode IIa is where we really can make “extra” money!

Mode 2a: Maximum throughput Typical profit function: Feed flows are set in proportion to F and assume constant efficiencies: Leads to: Maximize profit → Maximize throughput F In many cases, and especially when the product prices are high, optimal operation of the plant is the same as maximizing throughput. To understand this, consider a typical profit function where Pj are the product flows, Fi the feed flows, Qk the utility duties (heating, cooling, power), and p denote the prices. Then assume that all feed flows are set in proportion to F, Fi = kF,iF and under the assumption of constant efficiency in the units (independent of throughput) and assuming that all intensive (property) variables are constant, Substitute the above equations, this leads to constant operational profit per unit of feed F processed. Assume p>0 such that we have a meaningful case where the products are worth more than the feedstocks and utilities. Then it is clear that maximizing the profit (-J) is equivalent to maximizing the throughput F. However, F cannot go to infinity, because the operational constraints (g ≤ 0) related to achieving feasible operation (indirectly) impose a maximum value for F. In practice, the gains kP,j and kQ,k and are not constant, because the efficiency of the plant changes. Usually, operation becomes less efficient and p decreases when F increases. Nevertheless, as long as p remains positive, d(−J)/dF = p > 0 is nonzero, and we have a constrained optimum with respect to the throughput F. From the profit function we see that p will remain positive and optimal operation is the same as maximum throughput if the feed is available and product prices pP,j are sufficiently high compared to the prices of feeds and utilities. If the assumption of constant efficiency do not hold, then mode 2b should be used. For instance if there is purge streams and there is no limit for the purge rate, then there is no bottleneck. Ref: Ammonia synthesis process, Antonio Carlos Brandao de Arajo – Studies on Plantwide Control, PhD Thesis, NTNU, 2006. Also submitted for publication in Computers and Chemical Engineering.

Throughput manipulator (TPM) Before we continue with maximum throughput, I will point out some terms. Buckley and Price, Lyman and Georgakis points out three basic schemes for inventory control. Inventory control deals with how the mass balance is maintained in the plant. They defined throughput manipulator (TPM): The TPM is the degree of freedom used to set the throughput in the primary process path (from the major feed to the major products) The three basic schemes are: TPM at feed, inventory control in direction of flow TPM at product, inventory control in direction opposite to flow TPM inside plant, radiating inventory control Direction of inventory control is due to self-consistency, which is that the flow is maintained through the plant by use of the inventory loops only. The placement of the throughput manipulator must be taken with a plant-wide understanding. Buckley (1964). Techniques of Process Control Price, Lyman and Georgakis (1994). Throughput manipulation in plantwide control structures. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 33, 1197–1207.

From network theory: Max-flow min-cut theorem Maximum flow through the network is equal to the capacity of the minimal cut (Ford and Fulkerson, 1962) From network theory we have the max-flow min-cut theorem about maximal flows in flow networks. In layman terms, the theorem states that the maximum flow in a network is dictated by its bottleneck. Lets illustrate the max-flow min-cut theorem with bottlenecks and minimum cuts: Consider a plant with parallel trains, with two feeds, a feed split and a crossover. The maximum throughput is decided by the bottlenecks in the plant. 1) It can be the two last units in each train 2) It can be the first and the last unit (note that the crossover is one-directional) 3) A third possibility is reaching the maximum capacity in the parallel units here, however, the other train feed can be increase, until a unit has reached its maximum capacity, however, there is still possibility to route flow through the bottleneck and the feed can be increased until a forth bottleneck is reached.

 Maximum throughput requires tight control of the bottleneck unit Maximum throughput achieved by maximizing the flow through the bottleneck If the flow for some time is not at its maximum through the bottleneck, then this loss can never be recovered  Maximum throughput requires tight control of the bottleneck unit The term bottleneck is, as far I have noticed, a term mostly used in network theory and design. Now we look at the term bottleneck in a dynamic perspective. That is, the bottleneck may move under presence of disturbances or the maximum flow through the bottleneck (“size”) may vary. Maximum flow is the maximum feed rate that the unit can accept subject to achieving feasible operation. From the bottleneck definition the unit has no available capacity left when the unit its a bottleneck. In some cases the bottleneck can not be located to a specific unit, but rather to a system of units (“system bottleneck”) Example system bottleneck: Reactor-separator-recycle case. If the flow its not at its maximum for some time in the bottleneck, then this loss can never be recovered. This require tight control of the bottleneck unit!

Rules for achieving maximum throughput Maximize flow F through bottleneck at all times Use TPM for control of bottleneck unit Locate TPM to achieve tight control at bottleneck Back off: usually needed to ensure feasibility dynamically Fmax F How to achieve maximum throughput? Tight bottleneck control. Maximize flow thought the bottleneck at all times. Use TPM for control of the bottleneck unit. This follows because TPM is a DOF for throughput, which should be maximized. However, the location of TPM is important at should be places so tight control at the bottleneck is possible. However, some back off is needed to ensure feasibility dynamically due to disturbances etc. Back off gives loss, and therefore important to reduce the back off Fset point Back off Time

Realize maximum throughput Best result (minimize back-off) if TPM permanently is moved to bottleneck unit Max = bottleneck If the bottleneck is fixed at a unit, then single-loop control sufficient. Use throughput manipulator to control the bottleneck unit. Best result is achieved (minimized back off) if throughput manipulator is permanently moved to the bottleneck unit. This has been discussed in literature, e.g. Skogestad “Control structure design for complete chemical plants” Skogestad (2004) Control structure design for complete chemical plants Comp. Chem. Eng 28 p.219-234

Realize maximum throughput in more complex cases Bottleneck moves Multiple feeds and crossovers Proposed solution: Coordinator MPC* Estimate of remaining capacity in each unit is obtained from local MPCs Coordinator MPC manipulate TPMs (+ crossovers) to maximize flow through bottlenecks In more complex cases where the bottleneck moves or if we have multiple feeds and crossovers in the chemical plant. It the bottleneck moves to another unit, then reassignment of level loops is probably unavoidable (ensure self-consistency) and hence single-loop control is not attractive. A better approach is to use a multivariable controller (for example MPC). A proposed solution to maximize throughput with moving bottlenecks is coordinator MPC. The idea here is to use the models in the local MPCs to estimate the remaining feed capacity in each unit, whereas the coordinator MPC is used to manipulate on the TPMs (usually feeds) and crossovers inside the plant. “Coordinator” the term because the MPC takes decisions involves all the unit (or at least several), like throughput manipulator and crossovers. No set point coordination in the local MPCs. The coordinator MPC can be viewed as decentralized controller. *Aske et al. (2007) Coordinator MPC for maximizing plant throughput Submitted to Comp. Chem. Eng

Coordinator MPC CV CV CV CV MV MV MV CV MV CV CV CV MV CV MV CV - maximize throughput (CV with high, unreachable set point with lower priority) - TPMs as MVs - keep columns within their capacity (CV constraints) - disturbances moves the bottlenecks CV CV CV CV MV MV MV CV MV To explain the coordinator MPC I will illustrate with an example. Consider a plant with two processing trains consisting of distillation columns. This is actually part of a gas processing plant in Norway. There is two plant feeds, throughput manipulators, then crossovers: a feed split here with different composition than the train feeds, a crossover between the trains and a feed split between the stabilizers. The task is to maximize throughput, which is implemented as a CV with a high unreachable set point with lower priority. The MVs are the TPMs marked, that is valves which routes the gas through the plant. The CV constraints are the capacity in each unit, which is calculated in each unit using the local MPCs. Disturbances like feed composition changes in the feed may move the bottlenecks in the plant. CV CV CV MV CV MV CV

Back off = loss (in throughput) Back off can be reduced by Improved control (to some extent) Limited by network dynamics from TPM to bottleneck Obtain TPM closer to bottleneck Move TPM (Change in base control) Add buffer tanks to get dynamic TPMs (Design change) or use existing buffer volumes Estimate back off to find economic incentive: Worst case amplification: Back off is the distance to the active constraint needed to avoid dynamic infeasibility in the presence of disturbances, model errors, delay and other sources for imperfect control (Narraway and Perkins, 1993; Govatsmark and Skogestad, 2005). This distance to the active constraint implies a loss, in throughput (or profit). Therefore, we want the back off to be as small as possible. The throughput can be maximized with improved bottleneck control. Reduce back off by improved control. However, this is limited due to the network dynamics from the throughput manipulator to the bottleneck, may be a “long loop” or large disturbances in the bottleneck unit. This “long loop” is reduced by moving the TPM closer to the bottleneck, hence improved control can be obtained. In addition, existing buffer volumes or adding buffer tanks gives dynamic throughput manipulators. That is, the hold-up volumes can be used to obtain a fast increase or decrease in the throughput for a shorter period, before the throughput manipulator affects the throughput in the bottleneck. This is most attractive in the case with moving bottlenecks, since the TPM will not be located at the bottleneck at all times (since reassigning is undesirable). We want to estimate back off to find the economic incentive for moving TPM compared to the cost. How large loss represent a larger back compared to the cost for moving TPM? This is actually a design question (process design including regulatory control). Can we do any estimation of back off needed? Assume feed back control and a linearized system, then the transfer function from y to d is given by SGd, where S is the sensitivity function and Gd is the disturbance model. y max represents the worst case disturbances over all disturbances and all directions and therefore represent the minimum back off

Example – estimation of back off Bottleneck Bottleneck Compare TPM at feed and at bottleneck Feedback controller K tuned by Skogestad’s tuning rules, τc=3θeff Disturbance rejection as function of frequency Lets illustrate the estimation of back off with a scalar example. Consider 5 tanks in series Each tank represented with first order plus dead time model. Each disturbance model is of first order Feedback controller tuned using Skogestads tuning rules, tau c = 3 times effective dead time

Back off as a function of frequency Peak unavoidable Effect of disturbances reduced If we plot the SGd as a function of frequency for the two cases, where red lines are SGd for disturbance 0 to 5 when TPM is located at the feed whereas the blue lines are for the case where TPM is placed at the bottleneck. The green lines are the first order disturbance models. We see that the peak of SGd0 is unavoidable, that is, the disturbance d0 which enters at the bottleneck. However the peak frequency changes the effect of disturbances d1 to d5 is reduced. In worst case the disturbances may occur at the same time, leading to a larger total back off in the case where the TPM is located at the feed.

Conclusions Tighter bottleneck control can reduce back off TPM should be used for control of the bottleneck unit to obtain maximum flow Bottleneck fixed →single-loop control sufficient Bottleneck moves → multivariable control Consider moving/adding TPM if back off is large To sum up how to maximize throughput by improved bottleneck control: We have demonstrated that under the assumptions of feed, product and utility cost and constant efficiency maximum profit is the same as maximum throughput. By tighter bottleneck control we can improve maximum throughput because of less back off is required. First, TPM should be used for control of the bottleneck unit. Then we have to cases. Bottleneck is fixed, then single-loop control is sufficient. The selection of TPM requires reassigning the inventory control to ensure self-consistency. Bottleneck moves, then multivariable control is the obvious choice. Especially in the latter case, “long loop” from the TPM to the bottleneck may still exist, so the use of crossovers (if there exist) and exploiting the hold-up volumes (dynamic TPMs) may be attractively. Moving or/and adding TPM is especially attractive if the back of is large.