1 Self-Optimizing Control HDA case study S. Skogestad, May 2006 Thanks to Antonio Araújo.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Exercise 3. Solutions From Fujio Kida, JGC Co. All cases
Advertisements

Hierarchy of decisions
1 Outline Control structure design (plantwide control) A procedure for control structure design I Top Down Step 1: Degrees of freedom Step 2: Operational.
distillation column control
Dynamic modeling, optimization and control of a CO 2 stripper Marie Solvik Supervisors : Sigurd Skogestad and Marius Støre Govatsmark.
Hierarchy of Decisions LEVEL 3 : reactorseparator products purge feeds Liquid ? Liquid / Vapor ? Vapor ?
Self-Optimizing Control of the HDA Process Outline of the presentation –Process description. –Self-optimizing control procedure. –Self-optimizing control.
San Francisco Refinery, Rodeo
Plant-wide Control for Economic Operation of a Recycle Process
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 Single-cycle mixed-fluid LNG (PRICO) process Part I: Optimal design Sigurd Skogestad & Jørgen Bauck Jensen Quatar, January 2009.
1 M. Panahi ’Plantwide Control for Economically Optimal Operation of Chemical Plants’ Plantwide Control for Economically Optimal Operation of Chemical.
1 Single-cycle mixed-fluid LNG (PRICO) process Part II: Optimal operation Sigurd Skogestad & Jørgen Bauck Jensen Quatar, January 2009.
1 Overview of Control System Design Chapter 13 1.Safety. It is imperative that industrial plants operate safely so as to promote the well-being of people.
CHAPTER II PROCESS DYNAMICS AND MATHEMATICAL MODELING
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.
Process Operability Class Materials Copyright © Thomas Marlin 2013
Optimal operation of distillation columns and link to control Distillation Course Berlin Summer Sigurd Skogestad. Part 3.
1 Modelling, Operation and Control of an LNG Plant Jens Strandberg & Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering, Norwegian University of Science.
1 Outline Skogestad procedure for control structure design I Top Down Step S1: Define operational objective (cost) and constraints Step S2: Identify degrees.
1 Plantwide control: Towards a systematic procedure Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering Norwegian University of Science and Tecnology (NTNU)
Outline Skogestad procedure for control structure design I Top Down
1 Outline Control structure design (plantwide control) A procedure for control structure design I Top Down Step 1: Degrees of freedom Step 2: Operational.
Chapter 8 Part 0 – Hierarchical Design Procedures.
1 Active constraint regions for optimal operation of chemical processes Magnus Glosli Jacobsen PhD defense presentation November 18th, 2011.
1 A Plantwide Control Procedure Applied to the HDA Process Antonio Araújo and Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering Norwegian University.
1 E. S. Hori, Maximum Gain Rule Maximum Gain Rule for Selecting Controlled Variables Eduardo Shigueo Hori, Sigurd Skogestad Norwegian University of Science.
1 PLANTWIDE CONTROL Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering Norwegian University of Science and Tecnology (NTNU) Trondheim, Norway.
1 Active constraint regions for economically optimal operation of distillation columns Sigurd Skogestad and Magnus G. Jacobsen Department of Chemical Engineering.
Topic 5 Enhanced Regulatory Control Strategies. In the last lecture  Feedforward Control –Measured Vs Unmeasured Loads –Purpose of feedforward control.
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 Part 3: Regulatory («stabilizing») control Inventory (level) control structure –Location of throughput manipulator –Consistency and radiating rule Structure.
1 PLANTWIDE CONTROL Identifying and switching between active constraints regions Sigurd Skogestad and Magnus G. Jacobsen Department of Chemical Engineering.
The Production of Ethanol from Syngas
Section 5 – Group 7 – Yellow Customer Name(Economist)
1 STUDIES ON PLANTWIDE CONTROL Antonio Carlos Brandão de Araújo Department of Chemical Engineering Norwegian University of Science and Tecnology (NTNU)
INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL
Example of Process with Recycle: TOLUENE HYDRODEALKYLATION
1 II. Bottom-up Determine secondary controlled variables and structure (configuration) of control system (pairing) A good control configuration is insensitive.
Separation Trains S, S&L Chapt. 7. Simple Separation Unit Operations Flash Quench Liquid-liquid decantation Liquid-liquid Flash Crystallization Sublimation.
College of Engineering and Petrolume Chemical Engineering Department
1 Control of maldistribution of flow in parallell heat exchangers Magnus G. Jacobsen, Sigurd Skogestad Nordic Process Controi workshop, Porsgrunn
LOGO Plantwide Control Structure Design of Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) Process Thitima Tapaneeyapong and Montree Wongsri Department of Chemical Engineering.
1 Outline About Trondheim and myself Control structure design (plantwide control) A procedure for control structure design I Top Down Step 1: Degrees of.
1 PLANTWIDE CONTROL Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering Norwegian University of Science and Tecnology (NTNU) Trondheim, Norway August/September.
Examples and Exercises
Multi-Variable Control
Implementation of a MPC on a deethanizer
S, S&L Chapt. 8 T &S Chapter 16 and 17
Economic Plantwide Control:
Plant-wide Control- Part3
Sieder et. al. Chapter 9 and 13
Example regulatory control: Distillation
Plantwide control: Towards a systematic procedure
PLANTWIDE CONTROL Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering
Outline Skogestad procedure for control structure design I Top Down
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 regulatory control: Distillation
Plant-wide Control- Part2
Example regulatory control: Distillation
Example regulatory control: Distillation
Hierarchy of Decisions
Reactor-Separator-Recycle Networks
Example “stabilizing” control: Distillation
Outline Control structure design (plantwide control)
Presentation transcript:

1 Self-Optimizing Control HDA case study S. Skogestad, May 2006 Thanks to Antonio Araújo

2 Self-Optimizing Control Process Description Benzene production from thermal-dealkalination of toluene (high- temperature, non-catalytic process). Main reaction: Side reaction Excess of hydrogen is needed to repress the side reaction and coke formation. References for HDA process: McKetta (1977) – first reference on the process; Douglas (1988) – design of the process; Wolff (1994) – discuss the operability of the process. No references on the optimization of the process for control structure design purposes. CH 3 +H2H2 → ++CH 4 Heat H2H2 + → 2 ← Toluene Benzene Diphenyl

3 Self-Optimizing Control MixerFEHE FurnacePFR Quench Separator Compressor Cooler Stabilizer Benzene Column Toluene Column H 2 + CH 4 Toluene Benzene CH 4 Diphenyl Purge (H 2 + CH 4 ) Process Description

4 Self-Optimizing Control Steady-state operational degrees of freedom Process units DOF External feed streams (feed rate)2 Heat exchangers duties (including 1 furnace)3 Splitters2 Compressor duty1 Adiabatic flash (*) 0 Gas phase reactor (*) 0 Distillation columns6 Equality constraint Quencher outlet temperature Remaining degrees of freedom at steady state 13 (*) No adjustable valves (assumed fully open valve before flash) 14

5 Self-Optimizing Control Steady-state operational degrees of freedom MixerFEHE Furnace Reactor Quencher Separator Compressor Cooler Stabilizer Benzene Column Toluene Column H 2 + CH 4 Toluene Benzene CH 4 Diphenyl Purge (H 2 + CH 4 )

6 Self-Optimizing Control Cost Function and Constraints The following profit is maximized (Douglas’s EP): -J = p ben D ben – p tol F tol – p gas F gas – p fuel Q fuel – p cw Q cw – p power W power - p steam Q steam + Σ(p v,i F v,i ) Constraints during operation: –Production rate: D ben ≥ 265 lbmol/h. –Hydrogen excess in reactor inlet: F Hyd / (F ben + F tol + F diph ) ≥ 5. –Bound on toluene feed rate: F tol ≤ 300 lbmol/h. –Reactor pressure: P reactor ≤ 500 psia. –Reactor outlet temperature: T reactor ≤ 1300 °F. –Quencher outlet temperature: T quencher = 1150 °F. –Product purity: x Dben ≥ –Separator inlet temperature: 95 °F ≤ T flash ≤ 105 °F. –+ Distillation constraints Manipulated variables are bounded.

7 Self-Optimizing Control Disturbances DisturbanceUnitNominalLowerUpper Toluene feed flow ratelbmol/h Gas feed composition mol% of H Benzene price$/lbmol Energetic value of fuel to the furnaceMBTU/lbmol

8 Self-Optimizing Control Optimization Benzene price Disturbance

9 Self-Optimizing Control 14 steady-state degrees of freedom 10 active constraints: 1.Pure toluene feed rate (UB) 2.By-pass valve around FEHE (LB) 3.Reactor inlet hydrogen-aromatics ratio (LB) 4.Flash inlet temperature (LB) 5.Methane mole fraction in stabilizer bottom (UB) 6.Benzene mole fraction in stabilizer distillate (UB) 7.Benzene mole fraction in benzene column bottom (UB) 8.Toluene mole fraction in benzene column distillate (UB) 9.Toulene mole fraction in toluene column bottom (UB) 10.Diphenyl mole fraction in toluene column distillate (UB ) 1 equality constraint: 11. Quencher outlet temperature 3 remaining unconstrained degrees of freedom. Optimization

10 Self-Optimizing Control Optimization – Active Constraints MixerFEHE Furnace Reactor Quencher Separator Compressor Cooler Stabilizer Benzene Column Toluene Column H 2 + CH 4 Toluene Benzene CH 4 Diphenyl Purge (H 2 + CH 4 ) Equality

11 Self-Optimizing Control Candidate Controlled Variables Candidate controlled variables: –Pressure differences; –Temperatures; –Compositions; –Heat duties; –Flow rates; –Combinations thereof. 138 candidate controlled variables might be selected. 14 degrees of freedom. Number of different sets of controlled variables: 10 active constraints + 1 equality constraint leaving 3 DOF: What should we do with the remaining 3 DOF? –Self-optimizing control!!!

12 Self-Optimizing Control Analysis of the linear model Select 3 of 127 candidate measurements. Scale variables properly and linearize. Find max σ(G 3x3 ) by a branch-and-bound algorithm. Alternatively, find max σ(G 3x3 ·J uu -1/2 ) by a branch-and-bound algorithm. Calculate the loss by the exact local method for the most important disturbance: Namely, feed toluene rate. “input scaling”

13 Self-Optimizing Control Analysis of the linear model σ(G 3x3 ) = , Loss = σ(G 3x3 ·J uu -1/2 ) = , Loss = Toluene column reflux flow rate Compressor power Liquid (cooling) flow to quencher Toluene mole fraction in stabilizer bottom Compressor power Furnace heat duty σ(G 3x3 ) = , Loss = σ(G 3x3 ·J uu -1/2 ) = , Loss = Diphenyl mole fraction in benzene column bottom Compressor power Liquid (cooling) flow to quencher Toluene mole fraction in separator liquid outlet Compressor power Furnace heat duty σ(G 3x3 ) = , Loss = σ(G 3x3 ·J uu -1/2 ) = , Loss = Benzene mole fraction in benzene column bottom Compressor power Liquid (cooling) flow to quencher Diphenyl mole fraction in quencher outlet Compressor power Furnace heat duty a.All measurements: σ(G full ) = ; σ(G full ·J uu -1/2 ) = I II III I II III

14 Self-Optimizing Control Self-optimizing variables MixerFEHE Furnace Reactor Quencher Separator Compressor Cooler Stabilizer Benzene Column Toluene Column H 2 + CH 4 Toluene Benzene CH 4 Diphenyl Purge (H 2 + CH 4 ) I III 11 II F W I III x tol Q L Optimal set

15 Self-Optimizing Control Analysis of the linear model b. Distillation train excluded and separator pressure constant (controllability): σ(G full ) = ; σ(G full ·J uu -1/2 ) = σ(G 3x3 ) = , Loss = σ(G 3x3 ·J uu -1/2 ) = , Loss = Toluene mole fraction in separator liquid outlet Compressor power Separator pressure Toluene mole fraction in separator liquid outlet Compressor power Separator pressure σ(G 3x3 ) = , Loss = σ(G 3x3 ·J uu -1/2 ) = , Loss = Benzene mole fraction in mixer outlet Compressor power Separator pressure Benzene mole fraction in mixer outlet Compressor power Separator pressure σ(G 3x3 ) = , Loss = σ(G 3x3 ·J uu -1/2 ) = , Loss = Quencher outlet diphenyl mole fraction Compressor power Separator pressure Quencher outlet diphenyl mole fraction Compressor power Separator pressure I II III I II III Note: The two methods give the same order in this case

16 Self-Optimizing Control Alternative self-optimizing variables MixerFEHE Furnace Reactor Quencher Separator Compressor Cooler Stabilizer Benzene Column Toluene Column H 2 + CH 4 Toluene Benzene CH 4 Diphenyl Purge (H 2 + CH 4 ) P W I x tol II III

17 Self-Optimizing Control Conclusion steady-state analysis Many similar alternatives in terms of loss Need to consider dynamics (Input-output controllability analysis): –RHP-zeros –RHP-poles –Input saturation –Easy of implementation (decentralized control of final 3x3 supervisory control problem)! Now: Consider “bottom-up” design of control system

18 Self-Optimizing Control Bottom-up design of control system Start with stabilizing control –Levels –Pressure –Temperatures Normally start with fastest loops (often pressure) –but let is start with levels

19 Self-Optimizing Control “Bottom-up”: Proposed Control Structure Stabilizing Control: Control 7 liquid levels MixerFEHE Furnace Reactor Quencher Separator Compressor Cooler Stabilizer Benzene Column Toluene Column H 2 + CH 4 Toluene Benzene CH 4 Diphenyl Purge (H 2 + CH 4 ) LC LV-configuration assumed for columns

20 Self-Optimizing Control Avoiding “Drift” I – 4 Pressure loops MixerFEHE Furnace Reactor Quencher Separator Compressor Cooler Stabilizer Benzene Column Toluene Column H 2 + CH 4 Toluene Benzene CH 4 Diphenyl Purge (H 2 + CH 4 ) LC PC Column pressures are given Pressure with purge

21 Self-Optimizing Control Avoiding “Drift” II – 4 Temperature loops MixerFEHE Furnace Reactor Quencher Separator Compressor Cooler Stabilizer Benzene Column Toluene Column H 2 + CH 4 Toluene Benzene CH 4 Diphenyl Purge (H 2 + CH 4 ) LC TC PC psps TsTs

22 Self-Optimizing Control Now suggest pairings for supervisory control

23 Self-Optimizing Control Control of 11 active constraints. MixerFEHE Furnace Reactor Quencher Separator Compressor Cooler Stabilizer Benzene Column Toluene Column H 2 + CH 4 Toluene Benzene CH 4 Diphenyl Purge (H 2 + CH 4 ) LC TC CC TC CC TC FC TC PC TC 3 DOF left PC SP SP methane SP psps TsTs

24 Self-Optimizing Control Control of 3 self-optimizing variables: Optimal set MixerFEHE Furnace Reactor Quencher Separator Compressor Cooler Stabilizer Benzene Column Toluene Column H 2 + CH 4 Toluene Benzene CH 4 Diphenyl Purge (H 2 + CH 4 ) LC TC CC TC CC TC FC TC PC TC Supervisory control problem seems difficult PC SP SP methane SP psps TsTs I x toluene III II Q

25 Self-Optimizing Control Control of 3 self-optimizing variables: Alternative set: SIMPLE MixerFEHE Furnace Reactor Quencher Separator Compressor Cooler Stabilizer Benzene Column Toluene Column H 2 + CH 4 Toluene Benzene CH 4 Diphenyl Purge (H 2 + CH 4 ) LC TC CC TC CC TC FC TC PC TC PC SP psps TsTs I x tol III II Could control another composition, e.g. quencher outlet diphenyl

26 Self-Optimizing Control Conclusion HDA Follow systematic procedure May want to keep several candidate sets of “almost” self-optimizing variables Final evaluation: Non-linear steady- state simulations + Dynamic simulations using Aspen (ongoing!)