Dfre

Diss. ETHNo.
10666
20.
JUll
KWH
Ma,
Robust Control of
an
Industrial
High-Purity
Distillation Column
A dissertation submitted to the
SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ZURICH
for the
degree
of
Doctor of Technical
Sciences
presented by
HANS-EUGEN MUSCH
Dipl. Chem.-Ing.
ETH
born June
19,1965
citizen of
Germany
accepted
on the recommendation of
Prof. M.
Steiner,
examiner
Prof. Dr. D. W. T.
Rippin,
co-examiner
1994
Leer
-
Vide
-
Empty
3
To
my
grandparents
4
5
Acknowledgments
This Ph. D. thesis was written
during
my years
as a research and educa
tional assistant of the Measurement and Control
Laboratory
at the
Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology (ETH) at Zurich. I would like to
take this
opportunity
to thank the
numerous
persons
who have
supported
this
project.
First of all I
express my gratitude
to Prof. M. Steiner. He
arranged
this
project
and
helped
to overcome
many
difficulties with the industrial
environment.
Many
thanks are also due to him and to Prof. D. W. T.
Rippin
for the critical examination of this
thesis,
which
essentially
improved
its
clarity.
The
numerous discussions with
my colleagues
and their uncountable
suggestions gave
rise to
important
contributions to this work. In this
context,
E.
Baumann,
U.
Christen,
and S. Menzi must be
specially
mentioned.
Last but not least I should
emphasize
the
support
of B. Rohrbach. She
never lost her
patience
with
my
never
ending questions concerning
the
English language.
Without her
willingness
to correct the
manuscript,
the choice of the
English language
for this thesis would have been
impossible.
6
7
Content
Symbols
13
Abstract 15
Kurzfassung
17
1 Introduction 19
1.1 "Modern Control:
Why
Don't We Use It?" 19
1.2
Scope
and
significance
of this thesis 21
1.2.1 Distillation as a unit
operation example
21
1.2.2 Earlier research 21
1.2.3 Robust control and nonlinear
plants
22
1.2.4 Contributions of this thesis 22
1.3 Structure of the dissertation 23
1.4 References 26
2 The Distillation Process
An Industrial
Example
29
2.1 Introduction
29
2.2 Column
design
and
operation
29
2.3
Steady-state
behavior 32
2.4
Composition dynamics
35
2.5 Control
objectives
and
configurations 37
2.5.1 The 5x5 control
problem
39
2.5.2 Control
design steps
40
8
2.6
Tray temperatures
as controlled
outputs
41
2.6.1
Pressure-compensated temperatures
42
2.6.2
Temperature
measurement
placement
44
2.7 References 45
3 A
Rigorous Dynamic
Model of
Distillation Columns 47
3.1 Introduction 47
3.2 Conventions 48
3.3 The
objective
of
modelling
48
3.4
Simplifying assumptions
48
3.5 Balance
equations
51
3.5.1 Material balances 51
3.5.2
Energy
balance
equations
52
3.6 Fluid
dynamics
55
3.6.1
Liquid
flow rates 55
3.6.2 Pressure
drop
57
3.7 Phase
equilibrium
59
3.7.1
Vapor phase composition
59
3.7.2
Boiling points
60
3.8 Volumetric
properties
60
3.8.1 PVT relations
61
3.8.2
Density
61
3.9
Enthalpies
62
3.10 Numerical solution
63
3.10.1 The
dependent
variables and the
equation system...
63
3.10.2 Formal
representation
of the DAE 66
3.10.3 The index
66
3.10.4 Solution methods and software 67
3.11 Notation
71
3.12 References
74
4 Linear Models 77
4.1 Introduction 77
4.2 How to linearize the
rigorous
model? 78
4.2.1 The
state, input,
and
output
vectors 78
4.2.2
Handling
of the
algebraic equation system
80
4.3 Linearization of a
simplified
nonlinear model 80
4.3.1 The
simplified
model 80
4.3.2
Analytical
linearization 84
4.4 Linearization of the
rigorous
model 86
4.4.1 Model modifications 86
4.4.2 Numerical linearization 88
4.5
Comparison
of the linear models 89
4.5.1
Open loop
simulations 89
4.5.2
Singular
values
92
4.6 Order reduction 94
4.7
Summary 96
4.8
Appendix:
Model coefficients
97
4.9 Notation
101
4.9.1 Matrices and Vectors
101
4.9.2 Scalar values
102
4.10 References
103
5 A Structured
Uncertainty
Model
105
5.1 Introduction
105
5.2 Limits of
uncertainty
models
106
5.3
Input uncertainty 107
5.4 Model
uncertainty 110
5.4.1 Column
nonlinearity
110
5.4.2 Unmodelled
dynamics 117
5.5 Measurement
uncertainty 118
5.6
Specification
of the controller
performance
119
5.7
Summary 120
5.8 References
122
6
|0,-Optimal
Controller
Design
123
6.1 Introduction
123
6.2 The structured
singular
value 124
6.2.1
Representation
of structured uncertainties 124
6.2.2 Definition of the structured
singular
value 126
6.2.3 Robustness of
stability
and
performance
128
6.3 The
design
model 130
6.4 Controller
design
with
u-synthesis
133
6.4.1
Synthesis algorithms
134
6.4.2
Applying
the DK-Iteration 137
6.4.3
Applying
the uK-Iteration 137
6.5
Design
of controllers with fixed structure 148
6.5.1
Diagonal
PI(D) control structures 149
6.5.2
PI(D)
control structures with
two-way decoupling ...
156
6.5.3 PID control structures with
one-way decoupling
161
6.6
Summary
164
6.7 References 166
7 Controller
Design
for
Unstructured
Uncertainty
A
Comparison
169
7.1 Introduction 169
7.2
Diagonal
Pl-control 170
7.2.1 The BLT method 170
11
7.2.2
Sequential loop closing
172
7.2.3
Optimized
robust
diagonal
Pi-control 174
7.3 Pi-control with
decoupling
177
7.4
H optimal design
182
7.5
Summary 187
7.6 References
187
8 Feedforward Controller
Design
189
8.1 Introduction
189
8.2 The
design problem
190
8.2.1 The
design objective
190
8.2.2
One-step
or
two-step design?
190
8.3
Hro-minimization 192
8.4
Optimization approach
196
8.5
Summary 199
8.6 References
200
9 Practical
Experiences 203
9.1 Introduction
203
9.2 Controller
implementation 204
9.3
Composition
estimators
207
9.4 Controller
performance 208
9.5 Economic
aspects
214
9.6
Summary 214
10 Conclusions and
Recommendations
217
10.1 Introduction
217
12
10.2 Controller
synthesis
218
10.3
State-space
or
PID control? 219
10.4 How
many temperature
measurements? 220
10.5 Column models
221
10.6 Recommendations
221
10.6.1 Academic research
221
10.6.2 Decentralized control
systems
222
10.6.3
Cooperation industryuniversity
223
Curriculum vitae
225
Symbols
8
Uncertainty
scalar value
A
Uncertainty
matrix or
deviation from nominal
operating point
8 Parameter vector
k Condition
number,
k
=
ov /o_.
ind.x nun
X
Eigenvalue
(j,
Structured
singular
value
p Spectral
radius
a
Singular
value
B Bottom
product
stream (mol/s)
D Distillate stream (mol/s) or
diagonal scaling
matrix
d Disturbance
signals
e Control error
F Feed flow rate (mol/s)
7t
Lower fractional transformation
G(s)
Transfer function
Gu
Transfer function from control
signals
u to
output signals y
I
Identity
matrix
K(s)
Controller
L0
Reflux (mol/s)
M Joint
weighted plant
and
controller,
M
(P, K)
=
^(P,
K)
P
Weighted plant
p
Pressure (N/m2)
r Reference
signals
Se(s) Sensitivity
function at
e,
Se
(s)
=
[I
+ G
(s)
K
(s) ]
-1
Su(s)
Sensitivity
function at
u,
Su(s)
=
[I
+
K(s)G(s)]_1
T
Temperature
(C)
Tr
Transfer function from reference
signals
to
output signals
u Control
signals
V51 Boilup
(mol/s)
W(s)
Diagonal
matrix of
weighting
transfer functions
w(s) Weighting
transfer function
xrj
Top product composition
(mol/mol)
xg
Bottom
product composition
(mol/mol)
xF
Feed
composition
(mol/mol)
y
Output signals
15
Abstract
It is well known that
high-purity
distillation columns are difficult to
control due to their ill-conditioned and
strongly
nonlinear behavior.
Usually
distillation columns are
operated
within a wide
range
of feed
compositions
and flow
rates,
which makes a control
design
even more
difficult.
Nevertheless,
a
tight
control of both
product compositions
is
necessary
to
guarantee
the smallest
possible energy consumption,
as
well as
high
and uniform
product qualities.
This thesis discusses a new
approach
for the dual
composition
control
design,
which takes the entire
operating range
of a distillation column
into account. With the
example
of an industrial
binary
distillation
column, a structured
uncertainty
model is
developed
which describes
quite
well the nonlinear column
dynamics
with several simultaneous
model uncertainties. This
uncertainty
model forms the basis for feed
back controller
designs by |x-synthesis
or
u-optimization.
The
resulting
controllers are
distinguished by
a
high
controller
performance
and
high
robustness
guaranteed for
the entire
operating range.
This method
enables the
synthesis
of
state-space
controllers as well as the
u-optimal
tuning
of advanced PID control structures.
The
already satisfactory compensation
of feed flow disturbances can be
improved
even further
by
use offeedforward control. Even for the
design
of the feedforward controllers the basic ideas of the feedback controller
design
can be
employed.
A simultaneous feedforward controller
design
for two column models
representing
the extreme column loads
yields
outstanding
results. Similar to the feedback controller
design,
a
design
of
state-space
controllers
by Hm
-minimization or an
optimal tuning
of
simple
feedforward control structures
by parameter optimization
is
possible.
Control
engineers working
in an industrial environment are conscious
of the
high
effort needed for the
implementation
of
state-space
control-
16
lers in a distributed control
system.
Therefore a controller
design
based
on
PID
or advanced PID control structures is of
high
relevance for the
industrial
practice. Usually,
the
performance
of these PID control struc
tures is
expected
to
lag significantly
behind the
performance
of
high-
order
state-space
controllers.
However, comparing
the
performances
of
the
state-space
controllers with those of the advanced PID
controllers,
merely slight advantages
of the
state-space
controllers are detected.
This
surprising
result,
achieved with an unconventional
tuning
of the
PID control
structures,
allows the
simple implementation
of advanced
PID control structures in a decentralized control
system
without a
significant
loss of controller
performance.
The
good
robustness
properties
and the
high performance
of the control
schemes are confirmed
by
the
implementation
of an advanced PID
control scheme on a real industrial distillation column. An estimation of
the economic benefits made
by
this
project
much more than
justifies
the
effort
expended.
17
Kurzfassung
Bekanntermafien sind Rektifikationskolonnen mit hohen Produktrein-
heiten
wegen
ihres schlecht konditionierten und stark nichtlinearen
Verhaltens
schwierig
zu
regeln. Haufig
werden sie in einem weiten
Bereich unterschiedlicher Zulaufkonzentrationen und
-mengen
betrieben,
was den Entwurf von
Regelungen
zusatzlich erschwert.
Dennoch ist eine
gute Regelung
beider Produktkonzentrationen
notwendig,
um einerseits einen
moglichst
kleinen
Energieverbrauch
und andererseits hohe und einheitliche
Produktqualitaten
sicher-
zustellen.
Diese Arbeit beschreibt einen neuen Ansatz fur den Entwurf von
Konzentrationsregelungen,
der den
gesamten
Arbeitsbereich einer
Rektifikationskolonne
berucksichtigt.
Am
Beispiel
einer industriellen
binaren Rektifikationskolonne wird ein strukturiertes Unsicherheits-
modell
entwickelt,
welches das nichtlineare
dynamische
Verhalten der
Rektifikationskolonne durch mehrere Modell-Unsicherheiten
gut
beschreibt. Dieses Unsicherheitsmodell bildet die Basis fur den
Entwurf
von
Reglern
mittels
u-Synthese
oder
u-Optimierung.
Die resul-
tierenden
Regler
zeichnen sich durch eine
-
iiber den
gesamten
Betriebsbereich
garantierte
-
hohe
Regelqualitat
bei sehr
grosser
Robustheit
aus. Dieses
Vorgehen
erlaubt sowohl den Entwurf von
Zustandsregelungen
als auch die
Berechnung u-optimaler
Einstel-
lungen
fur erweiterte
PID-Regelstrukturen.
Die bereits zufriedenstellende
Unterdriickung
von
Storungen
der
Zulaufmenge
wird durch den Einsatz einer
Storgrofienaufschaltung
noch verbessert. Auch fur ihren Entwurf kdnnen ahnliche
Konzepte
verwendet werden. Ein Entwurf
von
Storgrossenaufschaltungen,
bei
dem
gleichzeitig
zwei Modelle der Rektifikationskolonne
berucksichtigt
werden,
welche die extremen
Kolonnenbelastungen wiedergeben,
fuhrt
zu
hervorragenden Ergebnissen. Vergleichbar
mit dem
Regelungs-
entwurf konnen sowohl
Storgrossenaufschaltungen
mit der Struktur
18
von
Zustandsregelungen
(durch
Minimierung
der
H^-Norm)
als auch
Storgroflenaufschaltungen
mit einfacher Struktur
(durch
Parameter-
optimierung
im Zeitbereich) berechnet werden.
In der industriellen Praxis
tatige Regelungstechniker
sind sich der
Schwierigkeiten,
die mit der
Realisierung
von
Zustandsregelungen
auf
dezentralen
ProzelJleitsystemen
verbunden
sind,
sicherlich bewufit.
Daher ist der
Regelungsentwurf
aufder
Grundlage
von PID- oder erwei-
terten
PID-Regelstrukturen
von hoher
praktischer
Relevanz. Meist
bleibt die mit solchen Strukturen erzielbare
Regelgiite
hinter der
von
Zustandsregelungen
deutlich zuriick. In dieser Arbeit werden die
entworfenen
Zustandsregelungen
und die
optimal eingestellten fortge-
schrittenen
PID-Regelstrukturen verglichen.
Dabei
zeigt sich,
dafi auch
mit einfachen
Regelstrukturen,
die
entsprechenden
unkonventionellen
Regler-Einstellungen vorausgesetzt,
eine
Regelqualitat
erzielt
wird,
die
der von
Zustandsregelungen
nahekommt. Dieses iiberraschende
Resultat erlaubt die einfache
Implementierung
von erweiterten PID-
Regelstrukturen
in dezentralen
ProzelJleitsystemen
ohne wesentlichen
Verlust an
Regelgiite.
Die
Erprobung
eines
Regelungsentwurfs
auf der
Grundlage
fort-
geschrittener
PID-Strukturen an
der industriellen Rektifikations
kolonne
bestatigt
die
grofie
Robustheit und die hohe
Regelgiite
in der
Praxis. Dabei
zeigt
eine
Abschatzung
der
Wirtschaftlichkeit,
dafi der bei
einem solchen
Projekt notwendige
Aufwand mehr als
gerechtfertigt
ist.
Why
Don't We Use It?" 19
Chapter
1
Introduction
Why
Don't We Use It?"
"Modern Control:
Why
Don't We Use It?" is the title of a
paper
written
by
R. K. Pearson in 1984
[1.4].
In the first section of that
paper
Pearson
states: "Advanced control
systems utilizing
multivariable
strategies
based on
process
models can
outperform
traditional
designs
in broad
classes of
application. Yet,
in
spite
of market forces
demanding
better
process performance
and
ample
evidence
showing
that the
improve
ments can be
achieved,
the
gap
between
theory
and
practice
in the
industrial sector is not
narrowing appreciably."
Ten
years
later the situation has not
changed.
The modern control theo
ries
provide
the
process
control
engineer
with
increasingly sophisticated
tools for a
robust,
model-based controller
design.
The
advantages
of
these controllers over the PID control structures which are
usually
tuned
on-line,
have been shown in numerous
publications.
Neverthe
less,
more than 90% of all control
loops
in the
process industry
use
PID
control,
while
only
a few
applications
of the modern control theories can
be
reported
[1.10].
Therefore the mismatch between
theory
and
practice
is still evident. Some of the reasons for this situation are discussed
below.
20
1 Introduction
Distributed Control
Systems
For
a control
engineer
in the
process industry, process
control in the first
place
is a hardware
problem.
His
perspective
is the installation and
configuration
of a Distributed Control
System
(DCS) [1.1]. Even the
modern DCS are often limited to PID and advanced PID control. For the
DCS,
an
implementation
of modern state
space
controllers
requires
either the
coupling
with an external
computer
or the
programming
of
software modules. Both
ways
are troublesome and
expensive.
The
university
research
pays
little attention to this situation. The
design
of
robust controllers with fixed structures
(e.g.,
PID control structures) is
a
largely unexplored
field.
Dynamic
Models
Linear
dynamic
models are the foundation of a
modern,
robust
controller
design. However,
no
general dynamic
models are available for
unit
operations.
For each
plant
linear
dynamic
models must be devel
oped,
based on either linearization of nonlinear models or on
system
identification methods. Both
ways
are often
expensive
and
very
time-
consuming ([1.5], [1.6]). Furthermore,
most
plants
in the
process
industry
show a
strongly
nonlinear
dynamic behavior,
which is unsatis
factorily
described
by
a
single
linear model.
Economic
benefits
The economic benefits of
improved
control tend to be
significantly
underestimated. Abenchmark
study by
ICI "indicated that the effective
use of
improved process
control
technology
could add more
than one
third to the worldwide ICI
Group's profits"
[1.1].
Another
study
shows
smaller,
but still massive benefits
[1.2].
Of
course it is not
necessary
to
replace
all PID-controllers
by
modern
advanced control structures. Most control
problems
in the
process
industry
are handled well with
simple
PID control.
However, strongly
nonlinear or/and ill-conditioned
plants require
advanced control tech
niques
for a
high
controller
performance.
1.2
Scope
and
significance
of this thesis 21
1.2
Scope
and
significance
of this thesis
1.2.1 Distillation as a unit
operation example
Distillation is one of the most
widely
used unit
operations
in the
process
industry.
In the
simplest case,
a distillation column
separates
a feed of
two
components
into a
top product
stream (with a
high
fraction of the
low-boiling component)
and a bottom
product
stream
(with a
high
frac
tion of the
high-boiling component).
In an industrial
setting,
the feed
flow rate and the feed
composition may vary
within a wide
range
of
oper
ating
conditions.
This
separation
consumes a
huge
amount of
energy.
A minimization of
the
energy consumption
and an economic
optimal operation usually
require
(1) a
tight
control of both
(dual
composi
tion control) and
(2)
often small fractions of
impurities
in the
product
streams
(high purity
distillation). However,
the
strongly
nonlinear and
ill-conditioned behavior makes
high-purity
distillation columns difficult
to control. Therefore
high-purity
distillation columns have become an
interesting
test case for robust control
design
methods.
1.2.2 Earlier research
Without
any
doubt the distillation
process
is the most studied unit
oper
ation in terms of control.
Skogestad
estimates that new
papers
in this
field
appear
at a rate of at least 50 each
year
[1.7].
It is
practically
impossible
to
give
a review of all these
publications.
The interested
reader is advised to consult the reviews of Tolliver and
Waggoner [1.8],
Waller
[1.9], MacAvoy
and
Wang [1.3],
and the recent review of
Skogestad [1.7].
If we focus our interest on the
design
of
linear,
time-invariant control
lers,
we must state that all the well-known model-based and robust
control
design
methods
(LQG/LTR, H^,
Normalized
Coprime
Factoriza
tion, u-synthesis,
etc.) have been
applied
to distillation columns.
However,
all these
publications
discuss the controller
design
for
just
one
operating point.
The
problem designing
a robust controller which maxi-
22
1 Introduction
mizes the controller
performance
for the entire
operating range
has not
been addressed as
yet.
1.2.3 Robust control and nonlinear
plants
The well-known robust control
design
methods like
HM
-minimization or
LQG/LTR
are based on the
assumption
of
an
unstructured, frequency
dependent uncertainty
at one location in the
plant.
Such
an unstruc
tured
uncertainty may
be a
multiplicative uncertainty
at
plant input
or
output,
or an additive
uncertainty.
A controller
design
for the entire
operating range
of a distillation
column
using
one of these well-known methods has two inherent
prob
lems:
Due to the
high
nonlinearities an estimation of unstructured
uncertainty
bounds will lead to
very large bounds,
prohibiting
any acceptable
controller
design.
A controller
design using any arbitrary,
smaller
uncertainty
bound
guarantees
robust
performance
(RP) and robust
stability
(RS)
for the actual
operating point,
but not for the entire
oper
ating range.
1.2.4 Contributions of this thesis
This thesis
presents
a new
approach
for the
composition
control
design
of a
binary
distillation column
(Figure
1.1). The
design concept
is based
on a structured
uncertainty
model which describes the column
dynamics
for the entire
operating range quite
well. The
resulting
controller
designs using u-synthesis
(for
state-space
controller) or
u-optimization
(for
controllers with fixed
structure), respectively,
lead to results which
guarantee
robust
performance
and robust
stability
for the entire
oper
ating
range
of the distillation column.
Special emphasis
is
placed
on the
optimal tuning
of
easy-to-realize
PID-control structures. It will be
shown that
extraordinary
controller
performance
can be achieved even
with these
relatively simple
controller structures.
1.3 Structure of the dissertation
23
Standard
approaches
Linear model for a
single operating point
Robust control
design
IL LQG/LTR,
Weak
point:
Improved approach
Uncertainty
model
describing
column
dynamics
for entire
operating range
(i-synthesis
(X-optimization
Advantage:
RS & RP
guaranteed
for whole
operating range
Figure
1.1: Robust control
design approaches
1.3 Structure of the dissertation
A
robust,
model-based controller
design
for a
distillation column
consists of several
steps.
A
typical
course is illustrated in
Figure
1.2.
The results and methods of each
step
influence all the
following steps.
The consideration of
just
one
of these
design steps, disengaged
from all
others, neglects
the
conceptional
coherence. Therefore all of the
design
steps
are
discussed within this thesis. The
sequence
orients itself to the
natural course of the controller
design.
24
1 Introduction
Nonlinear Model
Uncertainty
structure
Controller
synthesis
Nonlinear simulations
Tests on
plant
Implementation
in DCS
Figure
1.2:
Steps
of a model based controller
design
The
following chapter
consists of three
parts:
The first
part
describes
the
design
and
operating
data of the distillation
column,
followed
by
an
overview of the
steady-state
and
dynamic
column behavior. The second
part
discusses the control
objectives
and control
configuration
for this
column,
while the third
part
describes the use of
pressure-compensated
temperatures
as controlled
outputs.
Rigorous
nonlinear
dynamic
models are
the basis for simulation studies
and for linearization. They
are
discussed in
Chapter
3.
1.3 Structure of the dissertation 25
The main
subject
of
Chapter
4 is the derivation of linear models. Two
different methods are
presented
which lead to linear models which
neglect
and include flow
dynamics, respectively.
A structured
uncertainty
model which describes the nonhnear behavior
of the distillation column for the entire
operating range
is
developed
in
Chapter
5.
Based on that structured
uncertainty model,
controllers can
be
designed
within the framework of the structured
singular
values. In the first
part
of
Chapter
6 the theoretical
background
ofthe structured
singular
value
\i
is summarized. While the second
part
of that
chapter presents
the u-
optimal design
of
state-space controllers,
the third
part
is dedicated to
the
u-optimal design
of PID control structures. Simulation studies
confirm the theoretical results.
In
Chapter
7 the results ofthe
(i-optimal
controller
design
are
compared
with results obtained
by
more common
design methods,
based on an
unstructured
uncertainty description.
Usually
the feed flow rate is a
measured disturbance
input
to a distilla
tion column.
Therefore,
feedforward control can
significantly improve
the
compensation
of feed flow
disturbances,
which is discussed in
Chapter
8.
Acontroller
design
should
yield
a
satisfactory
control
quality
not
only
in
dynamic
simulations but also in the real
plant.
The results of the
prac
tical
implementation
are
presented
in
Chapter
9.
The conclusions and the recommendation for further research in
Chapter
10
complete
this thesis.
The literature references
and,
if
necessary,
the
special
notations are
given
at the end of each
chapter.
26
1 Introduction
1.4 References
[1.1] Brisk,
MX.: "Process Control: Theories and
Profits," Preprints of
the 12th World
Congress of
the International Federation
of
Auto
matic
Control, Sydney, July 18-23, 7,
241-250
(1993)
[1.2] Marlin,
T.
E.,
J. D.
Perkins,
G. W.
Barton,
and M. L. Brisk: "Ben
efits from
process
control: results of a
joint industry-university
study,"
J. Proc.
Cont, 1,
68-83
(1991)
[1.3]
McAvoy,
T. J. and Y. H.
Wang, "Survey
of Recent Distillation
Control
Results,"
ISA
Transactions, 25,1,
5-21
(1986)
[1.4] Pearson,
R. K: "Modern Control:
Why
Don't We Use
It?," InTech,
34,
47-49 (1984)
[1.5] Schuler, H.,
F.
Algower,
and E. D. Gilles: "Chemical Process
Control: Present Status and Future Needs
The View from Eu

ropean Industry," Proceedings of
the Fourth International Con
ference
on Chemical Process
Control,
South Padre
Island, Texas,
February 17-22,
29-52
(1991)
[1.6] Schuler,
H.: "Was behindert den
praktischen
Einsatz moderner
regelungstechnischer
Methoden in der
Prozess-Industrie," atp,
34, 3,
116-123
(1992)
[1.7]
Skogestad,
S.:
"Dynamics
and Control of Distillation Columns
-
a Critical
Survey," Preprints of
the 3rd IFAC
Symposium
on
Dy
namics and Control
of
Chemical
Reactors,
Distillation Columns
and Batch
Processes, April 26-29, College Park, Maryland,
1-25
(1992)
[1.8] Tolliver,
T. L. and R. C.
Waggoner:
"Distillation Column
Control;
a Review and
Perspective
from the
CPI,"
Advances in Instrumen
tation, 35, 1,
83-106
(1980)
[1.9] Waller,
K. V.:
"University
Research on Dual
Composition
Con
trol of Distillation: A
Review",
Chemical Process Control
2,
Sea
Island, Georgia, January 18-23,
395-412
(1981)
1.4 References
27
[1.10] Yamamoto,
S. and I. Hashimoto: "Present Status And Future
Needs: The View from
Japanese
Industry," Proceedings of
the
Fourth International
Conference
on Chemical Process
Control,
South Padre
Island, Texas, February 17-22,
1-28 (1991)
28
1 Introduction
2.1 Introduction 29
Chapter
2
The Distillation Process
An Industrial
Example
2.1 Introduction
A distillation column is not
just any mass-produced
article such as a
toaster or a
washing-machine.
Each distillation column is a
unique
process unit, specially designed
for the
separation
of a
particular
substance mixture.
Nevertheless,
the
thermodynamic principles
and
basic
dynamics
are
always
the same. Therefore it is
possible
to demon
strate ideas for the controller
design by
the
example
of one column
without extensive loss of
generality.
First in this
chapter,
the
design
and
operating
data of the industrial
distillation column are
outlined,
followed
by
a
brief
description
of the
composition dynamics.
The further two sections outline the control
objectives,
the control
structures,
and the use of
tray temperatures
as
controlled
outputs.
The literature references terminate the
chapter.
2.2 Column
design
and
operation
The distillation column described in this thesis is an industrial
binary
distillation column. A
synopsis
ofthe most
important
data for this distil-
30 2 The Distillation Process
An Industrial
Example
lation column is
given
in Table 2.1. The distillation column
(Fig. 2.1)
is
equipped
with 50 sieve
trays,
a total
condenser,
and a steam-heated
reboiler. The subcooled feed F enters the column
on
tray
20
(counted
from the
top)
and for the
greater part
consists of a mixture of two
substances. Because of the small fraction of
impurities,
these are
neglected
and the distillation column is considered to be a
binary
distil
lation column. The desired
are 0.99 mol/mol (low
boiling component)
for the
top product
D and 0.015 mol/mol for the
bottom
product
B. As these
product purities
are
relatively high,
this
distillation column can
be classified as a
"high purity
distillation
column."
Table 2.1:
Steady-state
data
Column data
No. of
trays
50
Column diameter (m) 0.8
Feed
tray
20
Murphree tray efficiency
=0.4
Relative
volatility
a 1.61
Operating
data
Top composition
x-q
(mol/mol)
0.99
Bottom
composition
xg
(mol/mol) 0.015
Feed
composition
xp
(mol/mol) 0.7-0.9
Feed flow rate F
(mol/min)
20-46
Top pressure
(mbar)
60
Nominal
operating point
Feed
composition (mol/mol) 0.8
Feed flow rate (mol/min) 33
Reflux
L0
(mol/min) 65
Boilup V51
(mol/min)
104
2.2 Column
design
and
operation
31
Feed
F,xp
20
47
48
49
50
Reflux
Boilup
Vacuum
Condenser
Top product
(Distillate)
D,xD
Reflux accumulator
Bottom
product
Figure
2.1: The industrial distillation column
An Industrial
Example
Feed disturbances
The distillation column is connected in series
following
two other distil
lation
columns,
which
operate
in
parallel.
The bottom
product
streams
of these two columns are
buffered
by
a tank and fed into the column
considered here. The level of the buffer tank is measured
periodically
(typical period:
2
hours)
and the feed of the column is set to
keep
the
tank level within
specified
bounds.
Therefore,
the feed flow is varied not
continuously
but
stepwise.
In contrast to
that,
the variations of the feed
composition
are
always
smooth. Even a shutdown of one of the other two
columns cannot cause a
sudden increase of the buffer tank's
composi
tion.
Top pressure
control
The
boiling points
ofthe
entering
substances are
high
at standard atmo
spheric pressure.
Because of a thermal
decomposition
of the
light
component
at
higher temperatures,
the column is
operated
under
vacuum.
Correspondingly,
the
cooling
water flow rate for the condenser
is
kept
constant and the
top pressure
is controlled
by
a vacuum
pump.
Top
level control
The reflux accumulator level is controlled
by
overflow. Hence the
top
product
flow rate D is not available as a
manipulated
variable for a
composition
control
system.
2.3
Steady-state
behavior
Let us assume a
composition
control scheme with
integrating
behavior,
e.g.,
one PI controller which controls the
top composition by manipu
lating
the reflux and one
which controls the bottom
composition by
manipulating
the
boilup.
Then,
in
steady-state,
the
product composi
tions are
kept perfectly
at their
set-points,
and an
S-shaped composition
profile
is
developed
within the distillation column.
Figure
2.2 shows the
simulated
composition profiles
for different feed flow rates and
compo
sitions. While these
steady-state profiles
are
nearly independent
of the
2.3
Steady-state
behavior 33
i 1
1
1 1
1i
1ir
xp
= 0.7 mol/mol
xp
= 0.8 mol/mol
xp
= 0.9 mol/mol
F = 20 mol/min
F = 33 mol/min
F = 46 mol/min
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Composition (mol/mol)
0.8 1.0
Figure
2.2: Simulated
for the industrial distillation column
An Industrial
Example
feed flow
rate, they depend essentially
on the feed
composition.
This has
a
high significance
for
a controller
design:
Ifwe want to
keep
the
product
compositions
close to their
setpoints,
we must allow
profile
variations in
the middle of the column.
Consequently,
we cannot control
any composi
tion in the middle
of
the column.
The internal flow rates can be illustrated in a similar
manner.
Figure
2.3 shows the simulated
liquid
and
vapor
flow rates for the nominal
operating point.
As
previously mentioned,
the reflux as well as the feed
are
subcooled,
i.e.
they
enter the column at a
temperature
below the
boiling point.
A fraction of the
vapor
flow is condensed at the
trays
where these two streams are fed into the distillation column. The two
discontinuities of the
vapor
flow
profile
at
trays
1/2 and 20/21 result
Liquid
flow
Vapor
flow
Figure
2.3: Simulated
vapor
and
liquid
flow rates at nominal
operating point
60 80 100 120
Flow rate (mol/min)
2.4
35
therefrom. The reason for the
slopes
of the two
profiles
within the
strip
ping
and
rectifying
section of the column is the different heat of
evapo
ration of the two substances.
2.4
The
composition dynamics
within a distillation column is
effectively
described
by
movements and
shape
alterations of the
composition
profile.
In order to illustrate
this,
let us
control the reboiler level of the
distillation column
by
the bottom
product
flow rate
B,
and let us
keep
the reboiler heat
duty
constant. The simulated
step responses
of the
composition profile
to a 5% increase and a 5% decrease ofthe reflux flow
rate are shown
by Figure
2.4. An increase ofthe reflux
(Fig.
2.4
a)
raises
the fraction of the
light component
in the column bottom.
Consequently,
the
composition profile
of the
light component
moves
towards the
column
bottom, degrading
the bottom
product composition
from 1.5% to
more than 30%
impurity.
The
opposite
effect is observed for a decrease
of the reflux flow rate
(Fig.
2.4
b):
The
composition profile
moves
towards the column
top,
which
improves
the bottom
product composi
tion and debases the
top product composition.
These
plots
illustrate two
important properties
of the
composition
dynamics:
Column
nonlinearity:
The
are a nonlinear
function of the
reflux, boilup,
and the feed condition: A 5%-
increase of the reflux flow rate
improves
the
top product compo
sition
by
0.007
mol/mol,
but a 5% decrease
degrades
it
by
more
than 0.2 mol/mol.
Strong
interactions: A
change
of reflux or
boilup
alters both
product compositions.
The interaction between both
and reflux and
boilup
has
a severe
consequence
for the
composition dynamics, usually
called
An Industrial
Example
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Composition
(mol/mol) Composition
(mol/mol)
a) b)
Figure
2.4: Simulated
composition profiles (light component)
for a
step change
oi
the reflux. Reboiler heat
duty,
feed flow rate and
composition
are kept
at their
nominal values
(see
Table 2.1)
a)
L0=1.05*L0>nom
b)
L0=0.95*L0inom
2.5 Control
objectives
and
configurations
37
Ill-conditioned behavior.
This is best
explained by
another two
examples.
If
we like to increase
both
product purities simultaneously,
we have to increase reflux and
boilup by
an exact
quantity,
for
example
the reflux
by
+26.5% and the
boilup by
+19%
(Figure
2.5
a).
This
keeps
the
composition profile's posi
tion
constant,
but it
slowly
intensifies the
S-shape
of
profile.
However a
slightly
smaller
step
size for the reflux
completely
alters the
dynamic
behavior
(Fig.
2.5
b):
The
purity
ofthe
top product decreases,
the
purity
of the bottom
product increases,
and the
dynamic response
is much
faster. Therefore an exact direction of the
input
vector
[L, V]T
is
required
in order to achieve a simultaneous increase of both
product
purities. Consequently,
even a small
uncertainty
of the
input
vector
[L, V]T
may
lead to undesired results.
High
condition numbers
K.
-.tq>
(2.
<Jmi{G(jo)))
of the
plant
model G indicate such a behavior.
2.5 Control
objectives
and
configurations
The control of distillation columns has three
objectives [2.2]:
Control of the material balance
(inventory
control)
Product
quality
control
Satisfaction of constraints
The first
objective
includes the control of the
vapor holdup (top pres
sure),
the reflux accumulator
level,
and the reboiler level.
Generally,
these control
objectives
are
easily
achieved
by simple
PI controllers.
The second
objective
is the most
important objective.
It is
strongly
related to the economic and
ecological optimal operation
of a distillation
column.
Tight
control of both
product qualities
minimizes the
energy
consumption
and the amount of
products being
off the
specifications.
It
is not a
simple
task to
keep
both
close to their
An Industrial
Example
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Composition (mol/mol) Composition
(mol/mol)
a) b)
Figure
2.5: Simulated
composition profiles (light component)
for a
step change
of
the reflux and the reboiler heat
duty.
The feed is
kept
at nominal condition (see
Table 2.1).
a)
Lo=1.265*L0>nora
b)
L0=1.260*L0,nom
V51=1.19*V51inom V51=1.19*V51>noln
2.5 Control
objectives
and
configurations
39
setpoints, especially
in the
presence
of disturbances such
as variations
of feed flow rate and feed
composition. Tight composition
control
requires sophisticated
control schemes. Their
design
is the main
topic
of
this thesis.
Reflux, boilup,
and
pressure drop
are allowed to
vary
within a
predefined
range. Any operation
of
a distillation column outside of this
range may
cause insufficient
separation
or even
damage
of the column.
Each control
system
must handle such constraints to enable safe
opera
tion. This
topic
is well discussed
by Buckley
et al.
[2.2]
and
Shinskey
[2.4].
2.5.1 The 5x5 control
problem
A
simple
distillation
column,
such as the industrial
example
discussed
here, presents
a control
problem
with the five control
objectives
Top composition
Bottom
composition
Reflux accumulator level
Reboiler level
Top pressure
and the five
manipulated
variables
Reflux
Boilup (indirectly
controlled
by
reboiler
duty)
Top product
flow rate
Bottom
product
flow rate
Cooling
water flow rate
(or
vapor
flow rate to vacuum)
This
problem
is often called the 5x5 control
problem.
As mentioned
above,
the
top pressure
is controlled
by
a vacuum
pump
and the reflux
accumulator level
by
overflow. Thus the 5x5 control
problem
is reduced
to a 3x3 control
problem.
These relations are illustrated in
Figure
2.6.
An Industrial
Example
Controlled
outputs
Manipulated inputs
3x3 control
problem
Top product
xp
Reflux L
Bottom
product
xB
Boilup
V (Reboiler
duty Q)
Reboiler level
Mb
Bottom
product
flow rate B
Condenser level
MD
+
Top product
flow rate D
Top pressure p
* Overhead
vapor Vp
(Cooling
water flow
rate,
vacuum
pump)
5x5 control
problem
Figure
2.6: The distillation control
problems
2.5.2 Control
design steps
In
principle,
the
design
of a MIMO controller for the 5x5 or in this case
the 3x3 control
problem
does not cause
any particular
difficulties.
However,
the failure of
just
one actuator or sensor
disables all control
loops.
Due to the
high sensitivity
of MIMO controllers to sensor or actu
ator
failure,
the
inventory
control and the
composition
control
usually
are
independently designed,
thus
improving
the robustness of the
control
system
and
simplifying
the controller
design.
The
corresponding
design approach
consists of three
steps
[2.5]:
1.
Choosing
the control
configuration
In a first
step
the two
manipulated
variables for the
composition
control
are to be chosen. This choice names the control
configuration.
For
example,
if the
top composition
xrj
is controlled
by
reflux L and the
2.6
Tray temperatures
as controlled
outputs
41
bottom
composition
xjg
is controlled
by boilup V,
the control
configura
tion is called
L,V
control
configuration.
After the choice of the
manipu
lated variables for
composition control,
the
remaining
three
manipulated
variables are available for level and
pressure
control.
The choice of the control
configuration
is often based on
configuration
selection methods such as Relative Gain
Array (RGA),
Niederiinski
Index,
or
Singular
Value
Decomposition
(SVD).
The
application
of these
indices
may
lead to
very
different results
(see [2.1], [2.6]),
and the reli
ability
seems to be low. One reason for the limited
reliability may
be the
neglect
of
inventory
control:
Yang
et. al.
[2.9] point
to the substantial
influence of
inventory
control
on
the
composition
control
dynamics.
Most indices for control
configuration
selection are based on
steady-
state
gains. Consequently, perfect inventory
control is assumed and
dynamic
effects due to the interaction of
inventory
and
composition
control are
neglected.
The most common control
configuration
in the chemical
industry
is the
L,V configuration [2.7].
This control structure is rather
independent
of
inventory
control
dynamics
[2.9]
and has shown
good
results within an
experimental comparison
of different control structures
[2.8].
2.
Inventory
control
design
In
general, tight inventory
control can be achieved with three
simple
PI
controllers. Some distillation columns show an inverse
response
of the
reboiler level to an increase of
boilup.
In this
case, tight
level control
with
boilup
as
manipulated
variable
may
be difficult.
3.
Composition
control
design
A 2x2 controller for
composition
control is to be
designed
as a third
step
of the
design.
This
step
is discussed in
chapters
5-8.
2.6
Tray temperatures
as controlled
outputs
On-line
composition analyzers
are
frequently
used to determine
product
compositions. However,
their investment and maintenance costs are
An Industrial
Example
prohibitive
for distillation columns below a certain size. Provided that
substances with a
boiling point
difference ofat least 10 C are
separated
and that the
product purity specifications
are not
extremely stringent,
pressure-compensated temperatures may
substitute
composition
measurements
([2.2], [2.4]).
2.6.1
Pressure-compensated temperatures
For
binary
mixtures a definite correlation exists between
boiling
temperature, pressure,
and
composition
T =
f(p,x) (2.1)
This correlation is illustrated in
Figure
2.7 for the two
components
entering
the industrial distillation column. A substitution of the
compo
sition measurements
by temperature
measurements
requires
a
compensation
for the effect of
pressure
variations.
If the
pressure
variations are
small,
the
temperature
measurement can
be
compensated by
a linear function. The nominal
pressure
and
compo
sition are denoted
by
the index N.
(P-PN)
(2.2)
N
In
case
of
larger pressure
variations,
a second-order term has to be
supplied:
(p-pN)2
(2.3)
N
Estimation
oftray composition
It is
possible
to infer the
tray composition directly. By regression
of
{x, T, p} data,
the coefficients of a
simple polynomial expression
can be
calculated. An
example
is
given by
T = T
+
Compensated
gp
T = T +
-
Compensated
Qp
N<p-PN>+5aprT
x
=
e]
+
Q2(T:
+
TCon)+e3p
+
Q4p2
(2.4)
2.6
Tray temperatures
as controlled
outputs 43
Figure
2.7:
Boiling points
of the
two-component-mixture
44
2 The Distillation Process
An Industrial
Example
Such
an
equation
in terms of the absolute
temperature
and
pressure
is
simpler
to
implement
in a distributed control
system
than an
equation
in terms of deviations from reference values
x =
e1
+
e2(T-TN)+e3(p-pN)+e4(p-pN)2
(2.5)
One
problem
of the
tray composition
estimate is a
potential
bias of the
temperature
measurements. Practical
experience
has shown that a bias
of
up
to 2 C is to be
expected
due to heat
transport phenomena.
In
(2.4)
the bias is corrected
by
the
parameter
TCoTT

In
practice, however,
this
correction is difficult to estimate. In
principle,
it would be
possible
to
include cross terms such as
0Tp
in the
regression
model.
However,
errors in the absolute
temperature may
lead to incorrect numerical
values of these cross terms.
Therefore,
in the
regression model, cross
terms should be avoided.
Pressure
compensation
as well as the estimation of
tray composition
are
easily implemented
in a
process
control
system.
Without a
pressure
compensation,
it is
impossible
to use
tray temperatures
in
a vacuum
column as controlled variables and
expensive composition analyzers
are
necessary.
For
temperature
measurements close to the column
top,
a
linear
eompensation
is
usually
sufficient. For
trays
close to the column
bottom,
we have to
expect higher pressure variations,
and a
compensa
tion with a second-order
polynomial
is recommended.
2.6.2
Temperature
measurement
placement
The
sensitivity
of the
tray temperatures
near the ends of the column to
changes
of the
is
very
small. To make the
temper
ature measurement sensitive
enough,
it has to be located at some
distance from the column ends.
Figure
2.2 shows simulated
steady-state
for the industrial distillation column. These
profiles
illustrate the fact that the effect of a
change
of
operating
conditions
increases with
growing
distance from the column ends. On the other
hand,
a deterioration of the correlation between
product composition
and
tray temperature
results from an
increasing
distance from the
2.7 References
45
column ends. A
compromise
between correlation with
product composi
tion and
sensitivity
must thus be found. Eister discusses the most
important
rules and tools in
[2.3].
In the case of the industrial distillation
column,
the
temperatures
on
trays
10 and 44 are chosen as controlled
outputs. Additionally,
the
temperature
on
tray
24 is measured. Since
tray
24 is close to the feed
tray,
it is
expected
to be sensitive to
any change
offeed
composition
and,
dynamically,
to the feed flow rate.
2.7 References
[2.1] Ariburnu, D.,
C.
Ozge,
and T. Gurkan: "Selection of the Best
Control
Configuration
for an Industrial Distillation
Column,"
Preprints of
3rd IFAC
Symposium
on
Dynamics
and Control
of
Chemical
Reactors,
Distillation Columns and Batch
Processes,
April 26-29,1992, College Park, MD,
387-392
(1992)
[2.2] Buckley,
P.
S.,
W. L.
Luyben,
and J. P. Shunta:
Design of
Distil
lation Column Control
Systems,
Instrument
Society
of
America,
Research
Triangle Park,
NC
(1985)
[2.3] Kister,
H.
Z.,
Distillation
Operation, McGraw-Hill,
New York
(1990)
[2.4] Shinskey,
F.
G.,
Distillation control
for productivity
and
energy
conservation,
2.
ed.,
McGraw
Hill,
New York
(1984)
[2.5] Skogestad, S.,
and M. Morari: "Control
Configuration
Selection
for Distillation
Control,"
AIChE
J., 33,10,1620-1635
(1987)
P.
Lundstrbm,
and E. W. Jacobsen:
"Selecting
the
Best Distillation Control
Configuration,"
AIChE
J., 36, 5,
753-
764
(1990)
[2.7] Skogestad,
S.:
"Dynamics
A Critical
Survey,"
3rd IFAC
Symposium
on
Dynamics
and Con-
An Industrial
Example
trol
of
Chemical
Reactors,
Distillation Columns and Batch Pro
cesses, April 26-29, 1992, College Park, MD,
1-25
(1992)
[2.8] Waller,
K.
V.,
D. H.
Finnerman,
P. M.
Sandelin,
K. E.
Haggblom,
and S. E.
Gustafsson,
"An
Experimental Comparison
of Four
Control Structures for Two-Point Control of
Distillation,"
Ind.
Eng.
Chem.
Res., 27,
624-630 (1988)
[2.9] Yang,
D.
R.,
D. E.
Seborg,
and D. A.
MeUichamp:
"The Influence
of
Inventory
Control
Dynamics
on Distillation
Composition
Con
trol," Preprints of
the 12th World
Congress of
the International
Federation
of
Automatic
Control, Sydney,
18-23
July 1993,1,
71-
76(1993)
3.1 Introduction 47
Chapter
3
A
Rigorous Dynamic
Model of
Distillation Columns
3.1 Introduction
The
rigorous dynamic
process
simulation has become an
accepted
and
widespread
tool in
process
and even more so in controller
design [3.11].
Increasing competition
and environmental
protection provisions
require
an
optimization
of
process
and control
structures,
which
can be
obtained
only by
a substantial
knowledge
of
process dynamics.
At the
same
time, dynamic experiments
on a
running plant
are less and less
desired.
Rigorous dynamic modelling
and simulation can
replace
such
expensive
and
time-consuming
measurements. This has
special signifi
cance for
high-purity
distillation columns. Due to their
long
time
constants and
varying
feed flow rates and feed
compositions, reproduc
ible
operating
conditions are difficult to
guarantee. Therefore,
new
controllers are
usually
tested
thoroughly by dynamic
simulation for the
full
operating range
of the distillation column. The
rigorous
models of
distillation columns used for that
purpose
match the
reality
to a
large
extent
[3.17].
In this
chapter,
a
rigorous dynamic
model for distillation columns is
discussed. This model is used in all nonlinear
dynamic
simulations
48 3 A
Rigorous Dynamic
Model of Distillation Columns
within this thesis. In
a
special section,
the numerical treatment of the
resulting system
of
algebraic-differential equations
is outlined. The
modelling
and control fields use
very
different notations. Therefore the
notation used within this
chapter
is
explained
in section 3.11.
3.2 Conventions
Figure
3.1 shows a schematic
representation
of a distillation column
equipped
with nt
trays.
The column
top
(condenser and reflux
accumu
lator)
is denoted
by
the index
0,
the
trays
with the indices
1, 2,... nt,
and
the column bottom
(including
the reboiler) with the index nt+1. To
simplify
the formal mathematical
description
the reflux stream R is
designated
as
liquid
flow
(L0).
The feed of the industrial distillation
column, as described in
Chapter 2,
is in
liquid phase
and subcooled. The
top pressure
is controlled
by
a
vacuum
pump
and the condenser is
operated
with a constant
cooling
water flow rate. Flash calculations for the feed stream as well as
dynamic
models for the
top pressure
of the column are therefore not
considered here. For other
applications,
the model
presented
is
easily
extended with
appropriate
model
equations.
3.3 The
objective
of
modelling
The control
or
process engineer
is interested in the
dynamic
behavior of
various
important process
variables
(e.g., tray temperatures, product
compositions)
as a function of the
time-varying
column
inputs.
The
objective
of
a
dynamic
model is
an
approximation
of the real
process
input/output
behavior
by
a
system
of differential and
algebraic equa
tions. These model
equations
are based on material and
energy
balances
as well as on
thermodynamic
and fluid
dynamic
correlations.
3.4
Within a distillation column
many
different
physical phenomena
occur.
Although
it would be
possible
to include models for the fluid streams on
3.4
49
nt-2
.1.
.2.
.3.
4
V;
nt-2
nt.:!
nt
R
(=L0)
Si,
5v,nt-l
Vnt+1
Qo
Condenser
1
Reflux accumulator
D
Q
nt+1
Reboiler
nt+1
&
B
Figure
3.1: Distillation column
50 3 A
Rigorous Dynamic
the
trays,
for the dead time caused
by
the
transport
time of
vapor
flow
from one
tray
to the next one
above,
or for the heat
exchange
with the
environment,
the
resulting
model would be of
very high
order. As
mentioned
earlier,
the aim of
modelling
the distillation column
dynamics
is a sufficient
description
of the real
macroscopic
behavior.
This means that we are interested
primarily
in the
dynamics
of
tray
compositions, temperatures,
and
pressures
etc. rather than in the fluid
streams on the
trays. Experience
shows that no substantial
improve
ment can be achieved with models
including
effects with more micro
scopic
characteristics. Hence the
following assumptions
are
usually
introduced in order to achieve a
compromise
between model
accuracy
and order
([3.3], [3.13], [3.17]):
The
holdup
of the
vapor phase
is
negligible compared
to the
holdup
of the
liquid phase.
Liquid phase
and
vapor phase
are each well mixed
on all
trays,
i.e.,
the
composition
of the
liquid
and of the
vapor phase
are inde
pendent
of the
position
on the
tray.
The residence time of the
liquid
in the downcomer is
neglected.
The variation of the

liquid enthalpy
on a
tray
can be
neglected
on
all
trays.
(This
assumption
is not
applicable
to the
evaporator.)
In the literature
so
far,
uniform
liquid
flows and constant
holdups
for all
trays
have often been assumed
(equimolar
overflow). This
assumption
is
problematic
because it
implies
a
neglect
of flow
dynamics.
Essential
dynamic
effects
may
remain
unmodelled, e.g.,
a non-minimum
phase
behavior
(inverse
response)
of the reboiler level and the
tray composi
tions in the lower section of the column to an increase in reboiler heat
supply.
3.5 Balance
equations
51
3.5 Balance
equations
3.5.1 Material balances
The differential
equations describing
the
dynamics
of the
holdup
for
each
component
on a
tray
are derived from a material balance for each
component.
The balance border is the
single tray
with its
ingoing
and
outgoing
streams
(Figure 3.2).
Figure
3.2: Balance border for the material balances
Material balance
for component
k
on
trayj (k=l,
...,
nc;j=l,
...,
nt)
dnVi d(n-xt-)
"dT
=
dT1^
=
pixF,kj +Vi*kj-i- (VSy)^
(3.
+
(Vj + 1-SVij + 1)yk)j + 1-Vjyk>j
52 3 A
Rigorous Dynamic
In the same
way,
the balance
equations
for the column
top
and the
column bottom are formulated:
Material balance
for component
k in condenser
(k=l,
...,
nc)
dnk0 d(n0xk0)
dt dt
(Vi-Sv,.)yk,i-(Lo
+
D)xk,o
(3.2)
Material balance
for component
k in the
evaporator
(k=l,
...,
nc)
Usually
the
liquid phases
in the column bottom and the reboiler are
mixed either
by
natural convection or
by
a
pump. Assuming perfect
mixing
we obtain
dnk,nt+1
=
d(nnt+lxk,nt+l>
dt dt
(3.3)
=
*-'ntXk, nt
~
"Xk, nt
+ 1
~~
%t + 1 ^k, nt + 1
The total
holdup
on
tray j equals
the sum
of the
holdups
of the indi
vidual substances:
nc
nj
=
X
nk,
(3.4)
k= 1
3.5.2
Energy
balance
equations
The
vapor
flows within a distillation column are calculated
by
an
energy
balance. The balance border is the same to the border in
Figure 3.2,
which was used for the material balance
equations.
Energy
balance
for tray j:
SW=F^
+
V.hH+(VJ + -Sv,] + ,)h"] + ,
(35)
-(S^
+
L^-V^
For the left-hand side of this
equation
the
following
holds
3.5 Balance
equations
53
d dni dh'i
rt(nih'i)=h'jdF+nniF
(3-6)
If in
(3.6) we substitute the
expression
for the differential term dn-/dt
according
to
^
=
VLj-i+vj+i-svj+i-si,rLrvi
w
the
following energy
balance
equation
holds
A"h'
W=
tFi<hVj-h'P+LJ-i^j_1-h-j)
(3g)
+
(Vj + 1-SVfj + 1)(h"j + 1-h'j)-Vj(hj-h'j)]
Usually,
the
assumption
n-
(dh'./dt)
=
0 is
permissible, except
for cases
with
large temperature
variations on the
trays,
a
large
heat of
mixing,
or a
large tray holdup.
With this
assumption
we can rewrite
equation
(3.8) as an
algebraic expression
for the
vapor
flow rate V-
^
=
h-i^[Fi(hF,rhi)+Li-1(hj-1-hj)
(39)
A similar balance
equation
is formed for the
evaporator.
Because of the
large inventory,
the derivative n-
(dh'./dt)
cannot be
neglected.
Since
an increase in
vapor
flow causes an increase in bottom
pressure
and
consequently
an increase of
boiling temperature
in the
evaporator,
the
vapor
flow follows
any change
in reboiler heat
supply
with a time
lag.
Hajdu
et al.
[3.9]
present
a model for this
vapor
flow
lag.
We can
imagine
that an
energy
stream
Q supplied
to the
evaporator
is subdivided into
two fractions: One
part
causes an
evaporation
of
liquid,
the other
increases the bottom
temperature.
Written
as a differential
equation
we
obtain the
energy
balance
equation
54 3 A
Rigorous Dynamic
AQ
= AH
,
,AV
,
.
^
v,
nt + 1 nt+.
dAT
+ n
nt +
lVnt+lPnt+lCp,nt+l
Jt
nt+1
(3.10)
To achieve a first-order differential
equation
in
AVnt+1,
the differential
term
dATnt+1/dt
has to be substituted
by
a differential term in
AVnt+1.
The increase of the
pressure drop
due to a
changing vapor
flow rate
(assuming
a constant total
holdup
on the
tray)
can be estimated with
A(APj)
=
K
+
J
AV.
j
+ l
(3.11)
Hence the
pressure change
in the
evaporator
can be
approximated
for a
distillation column with nt
trays by
A<Pnt+l)
=nt
(
8APj
)
UVj +
J
AV,
nt+1
(3.12)
The increase in
boiling point temperature
caused
by
the increase in
bottom
pressure
can be calculated
according
to
AT
nt+1
3Pnt+l
A(Pnt+l)
(3.13)
Mi, nt + 1
Substituting
(3.13)
in
equation (3.10),
the
following
differential
equa
tion is obtained:
AQ-AHVjnt+1AVnt+1
nnt+lVnt+lPnt+lCp, nt+1
^nt+l
3p
nt
V Hnt+17
r9APj^dAVnt
+ 1
(3.14)
UVi +
J
dt
Therefore,
the
vapor
flow
lag
at an increase in reboiler heat
supply
can
be described
by
the first-order
lag
3.6 Fluid
dynamics
55
lag
with the time constant
nnt+lVnt+lPnt+lcp,nt+l
^-g
=
T3(Q-Qlag)
(3.15)
9Pnt+l
nt
UVj
+
J
lag
AH^
(3'16)
If
we substitute the total bottom
holdup
balance
equation
in the
energy
balance
equation
dn+,
,
"nt+l-ir1
=
Lnth'nt
+
Qlag-Bh'nt+I-Vnt+1h"nt+1
(3.17)
the
following equation
holds:
Energy
balance
for
the
evaporator
V
_
Lnt(nnt-h'nt+l>
+
^lag ,
1Sx
Vnt+1
V5 Iv
l ;
"nt+1
n
nt + 1
The
parameters
(e>Tnt+))/(9pnt+1)
and
(3Ap)/(3V-
+
1)
canbeeval-
uated
numerically
or
analytically
from the
appropriate equations
(see
sections 3.6.2 and 3.7.2)
3.6 Fluid
dynamics
In the
previous sections,
the
equations describing composition
and total
holdup dynamics,
as well as the
vapor
flow rates have been derived.
Here the calculation of the
liquid
flow rates and of the
pressure drop
is
discussed.
3.6.1
Liquid
flow rates
The volumetric
liquid
flow rate over the weir on
tray j
can be calculated
according
to the Francis weir formula
([3.16], [3.10]):
56 3 A
Rigorous Dynamic
LV;j
=
u^2i|bwh^
;j
(3.19)
For
sharp-edged
weirs
jo.
=
0.64 holds. Perfect
mixing
on the
trays,
including
the
liquid
in the
downcomers,
is assumed.
Nevertheless,
if we
calculate the effective
liquid
head
hLW
,
above the weir
edge,
we have
to take the
liquid phase
fraction
ej
and the
liquid
volume in the down-
comer into account
(Figure
3.3).
The
liquid
level in the
downpipe
is the
sum
ofthe
liquid
head
on the
tray
and ofthe
hydrostatic
level due to the
pressure drop according
to
p- -p-
Hydrostatic liquid
level in downcomer =

Pjg
(3.20)
The
liquid
head
hL
of the
pure
liquid
on a
tray
(without a
vapor phase
fraction)
is
equal
to the total
liquid
volume on the
tray
n-v'- minus the
o
o

o o o

Pj
"LWJ
Pj-Pj
-l
Pj*
1
thLJ
Figure
3.3:
Liquid
levels on a
tray
3.6 Fluid
dynamics
57
liquid
volume in the downcomer due to
pressure drop
AB
(P:
-
Pj
_ j)
/
(Pjg)
>
both divided
by
the total area
AA
+
AB:
Vj
Ki
=
Pj-Pj-1,
AA
+
AB
(3.21)
For the
application
of the Francis weir
formula,
we
have to evaluate the
liquid
level of the
pure liquid (liquid
without
vapor phase
fraction).
For
that
purpose,
first the
height
of the
two-phase layer
is to be evaluated
and second the
liquid phase
fraction
j
must be taken into account. The
effective
liquid
level becomes
Ti.W.j
-h
w
Vj-
Pi-Pi_
L-i
j
=
Pjg
AA
+
AB
-jhw
(3.22)
Substituting
(3.22) into the Francis weir formula
(3.19),
we obtain the
volumetric
liquid
flow rate of the
two-phase
mixture. The flow rate from
tray j
in molal units is calculated
by:
u-v^tv
Lj
=
Vr
Pj-p
'izi.
pjg
AA
+
AB
jhw
3/2
(3.23)
In
many
industrial distillation
columns, calming
zones exist in front of
the weir. For this
case,
e-
= 1 holds at the weir
edge. Otherwise,
we
have to estimate the
liquid phase
fraction on the
trays.
The Stichlmair
correlation is well suited for that
purpose
[3.18].
3.6.2 Pressure
drop
A
vapor
flow
through
a
tray
in a distillation column suffers a
pressure
drop.
Its amount
depends
on the
vapor
flow
rate,
the
tray holdup,
and
58 3 A
Rigorous Dynamic
the
geometry
of the
tray. Usually,
the
pressure drop
is assumed to
consist of three different
parts ([3.7], [3.12]):
Dry pressure drop occurring

at the flow
through
the
tray
without
liquid
(Aptr
j)
Hydrostatic pressure drop

due to
liquid
head and
liquid density
(ApLJ)
Pressure
drop by bubble-forming
due to surface tension of
liquid
(APa;i>
The
pressure
drop by bubble-forming usually
is
insignificant
and
can be
neglected.
Dry pressure
drop
With sufficient
accuracy,
the
dry pressure drop
can be
approximated by
the
following
well-known
expression:
AptrJ
=
^(Re)^
V
Ao
J
(3.24)
The orifice coefficient
(Re)
either
can
be evaluated
by
measurement
on
comparable trays,
or it can be estimated with
experimentally
verified
correlations.
During
the
simulations,
the
following
correlation for sieve
trays
is used
[3.19]:
Ap
tr,j
1-
aaJ
+
0.211
f
v
Ao
;
(3.25)
Hydrostatic pressure
drop
The
hydrostatic pressure drop
results from the
liquid
head and the
liquid density.
We have to take the
liquid
volume in the downcomer into
account (see 3.6.1).
3.7 Phase
equilibrium
59
ApL,i'
A.+L
p>
(3'26)
The total
pressure drop
consists ofthe sum ofthe two
parts dry pressure
drop
and
hydrostatic pressure
drop:
APj
=
Pj + i-Pj
=
Aptr>j
+
ApLj
(3.27)
3.7 Phase
equilibrium
All
equations
we have discussed in the
previous
sections are
explicitly
or
implicitly
interrelated with the
vapor phase composition.
In this
section,
the most
important
correlations
concerning
the
vapor phase
compositions
and
boiling points
are
presented.
3.7.1
The
liquid
on each
tray
and in the
evaporator
is at
boiling-point.
Phase
equilibrium
thus can be assumed. At moderate
pressures up
to some few
bar,
the concentration of a substance in the
vapor
flow
leaving tray j
can
be obtained
according
to
yEquilibrium
=
M*Jx
=
Kk .xk
j
(3.28)
If the substance mixture exhibits ideal
behavior,
the
activity
coefficient
y
becomes
one,
and the
vapor phase compositions
are
equal
to the ratios
of the
partial pressures
of the substances and the absolute
pressure
on
the
tray.
The
vapor pressures
of the
pure
substances
pk
can be calculated with a
high
level of
accuracy
by
the Antoine
equation (3.29).
The
parameters A,
B,
and C are listed in
many
tables of substance
properties (e.g.,
[3.5]).
^M^tTC
(3"29)
60 3 A
Rigorous Dynamic
The calculation of the
liquid phase activity
coefficients
yk
. can be
effected
by
one of the well known correlations
(Wilson, NRTL,
UNIQUAC etc.).
In a distillation column
only
little contact time exists
on each
tray
for
the mass transfer between
liquid
and
vapor phase.
Therefore
no
perfect
phase equilibrium
can be
achieved,
and the
tray efficiency
will deviate
from the unit value. This effect
can be modelled
by
the
Murphree tray
efficiency
for the
vapor phase.
-Êquilibrium
,.
yk,j ~yk,j
+ l
3.7.2
Boiling points
The
vapor phase composition according
to
(3.28)
is a function of the
tray
temperature
Tj.
At
boiling point,
the sum of the
vapor phase
mole frac
tions calculated becomes one. Hence for a
tray j,
the
following boiling
point equation
holds:
X
yEquilibrium
=
^
.
^
p.,
^
^
. = ,
(3.31)
k=l k=l
The
is not considered for the
boiling point
calculation,
because it relates to the
mass transfer between
vapor
and
liquid phase
rather than to the
equilibrium composition.
3.8 Volumetric
properties
The fluid
dynamic
models discussed are interrelated with the molar
volumes of the
vapor phase
and of the
liquid phase,
and with the corre
sponding
densities. Their calculation is the
subject
of this section.
3.8 Volumetric
properties
61
3.8.1 PVT relations
The molar volumes ofthe
liquid phase
v'-
or the
vapor phase
v".
depends
on the
pressure
pj,
the
temperature
Tj,
and the actual
compositions
x^j
or
ykj.
A
great
number ofdifferent
equations
ofstate has been
developed
to describe this behavior.
They
are
extremely
well documented
([3.5],
[3.6]),
and a discussion of their
properties
is not
repeated
here.
The PVT behavior is described here
by
the
Soave-Redlich-Kwong equa
tion
(SRK
equation, [3.15], [3.6])
with the Peneloux correction. This
correction
improves
the estimate of the molar volumes of the
liquid
phase,
which is overrated
by
10-15%
using
the SRK
equation.
If measurement data of the PVT behavior of the
pure
substances exist
and their
mixing
behavior is
nearly ideal,
a different
possibility
has
shown
good
results for the
liquid phase:
We can correlate the molar volumes measured with the
temperature by
a
polynomial regression.
The molar volume v'- of the substance mixture
can be
approximated
as a
weighted
sum of the individual molar
volumes:
nc
v'j
=
I
xk,/k,j
(3-32)
k=l
3.8.2
Density
The densities of
liquid
and
vapor phase
can be
computed
from the molar
volume,
the molar
mass,
and the mole fractions.
nc
I
xk,jMk
Liquid phase density:
o'- =
k= ]
,
(3.33)
nc
I
yk>JMk
Vapor phase density: p"
=
(3.34)
Vj
62
3 A
Rigorous Dynamic
3.9
Enthalpies
The
quantity
not discussed so far is the
enthalpy
of a substance mixture
in
liquid
or
vapor phase.
The
enthalpy
of a real fluid is estimated
by
the
sum of an ideal
part
and the value of
a
departure
function
Ahâp
describing
the deviation of the
enthalpy
from the
enthalpy
of the ideal
gas
state:
T
h = h
+
j cjfdT
+
Ahp
(3.35)
T
The ideal
part
can
be calculated
by summing
the ideal
parts
for each
component:
(
T
KddT=
I
xkHdkdT
T
k=l
0
"_iV
*0
Tn
(3.36)
The ideal heat
capacities
c are often
approximated by
a third-order
polynomial
for each
component:
cj,dk
=
Ak
+
BkT
+
CkT2
+
DkT3
(3.37)
The
parameters
for
equation
(3.37) are
listed in
many
tables of
substance
properties,
or
they
can be estimated with
very high accuracy
by
Joback's method
([3.15],
p.
154-156).
The real
part
Ah^
p
describes the
departure
of a mixture from the ideal
behavior. It can be evaluated
using
one of the well-known
equations
of
state,
e.g.,
the SRK
equation ([3.15], [3.6]).
If measurement data for the heat
capacities
and for the heat of
vapor
ization are
available, a
simple
solution is
possible
in
a manner similar
to that mentioned in section 3.8.1:
3.10 Numerical solution 63
f
T,
Liquid phase enthalpy:
ti = V
k=ll
Tft
k,JcP,J,kdT
+ h
(3.38)
Vapor phase enthalpy:
h". = V
Yk
j
k = l
VTn
+ h
(3.39)
The
complete rigorous dynamic
model for distillation
columns,
as intro
duced
above,
consists of a
system
of differential and
algebraic equations
(DAE).
The
complexity
of the model is illustrated
by Figure
3.4. It illus
trates the interconnection of the model
equations
for three
adjoining
trays.
The solution of the differential
equations obviously depends
on
the solution of the
algebraic equation system.
Therefore an efficient
numerical
integration using
standard
integration
methods is not
possible.
This
requires special adapted integration algorithms,
as
outlined in section 3.10.4.
3.10.1 The
dependent
variables and the
equation system
As a first
step
for the numerical
treatment, we have to decide which
variables should form the vector of the
dependent
variables. This vector
of
dependent
variables must at
any
time
completely
describe the state
of
a distillation column and should be of minimum size to avoid exces
sive
computation
times.
The
vapor phase composition
is an illustrative
example
for the
complete
description
of the distillation's state: If we know the
tray composition,
the
tray temperature,
and the
tray
pressure,
then the
vapor
phase
composition
in
equilibrium
is
easily
calculated
by
an
explicit algebraic
equation. Consequently,
it is not
necessary
to insert the
vapor
phase
composition
into the vector of the
dependent
variables.
c
r
c
?
3
o C
O
3.10 Numerical solution 65
As one vector which satisfies the
requirements
of a
complete description
and of minimum
order,
the
following
vector is
proposed
(as a modifica
tion of the vector
proposed by
Holland &
Liapis
[3.10]):
y
-
[QlCond> D>
nl,0
>
nnc,0>
T0> P0> L0>
(Vj, nxj,..., nncJ, (Sy), (SvJ), Tj,
pj( Lj}j=1> 2>...,
nt
Qlag
Q> Vnt+1, nlnt+1, ..., nncnt+1,
B,
Tnt+1, pnt+i,
States of the control
system]
(): Value is inserted
only
if it
physically
exists
The Jacobian matrix of the
equation system
(as described below) corre
sponding
to these
dependent
variables has a
numerically advantageous
block
diagonal
dominant structure.
For the calculation of these
dependent
variables
y,
the
following equa
tions are to be solved
Differential equations
nc material balance
equations
(3.1)
Algebraic equations
1
equation
for
vapor
flow rate (3.9)
1
equation
for
liquid
flow rate (3.23)
1
equation
for
boiling point (3.31)
1
equation
for
pressure drop
(3.27)
Total: nc +4
equations per tray
and in addition the
equations
for the
evaporator,
the
condenser,
and the
control
system. Considering
industrial distillation columns which are
often
equipped
with more than 50
trays,
the
resulting algebraic
differ
ential
equations
amount to several hundred
equations.
The model for
the industrial
binary
distillation
equipped
with 50
trays gives
an
impression
of these numbers: It consists of a
system
of 107 differential
and 210
algebraic equations.
66 3 A
Rigorous Dynamic
3.10.2 Formal
representation
of the DAE
We can
formally represent
the entire
dynamic
model
by
the semi-
explicit equation system
^
= f
(t,
n
(t),
z
(t))
n
(t0)
=
n0
(3.40a)
0 =
g(t,n(t),z(t))
z(t0)=z0
(3.40b)
The vector n consists of all
tray holdups
(for all
components),
while the
vector z contains all other
dependent
variables. A different but
equiva
lent formal
representation
is the
implicit
form:
F(t,y(t),y'(t))
=0
y(t0)
=
y0
(3.41)
Here the vector
y
contains all the
dependent
variables. A simulation of
the
dynamic
behavior
requires
a simultaneous solution of the whole
equation system.
3.10.3 The index
The index of a set of
differential-algebraic equations
(DAE) character
izes the
integration problem.
The
higher
the
index,
the more difficult is
a solution of the DAE. The
differential
index is the most common defini
tion:
The
differential
index m
of
the
system
F
(t, y (t), y' (t))
=
0 is the min
imal number m such that the
system ofF (t,
y (t), y' (t))
=0 and
of
the
analytical differentiations
d(F(t,y(t),y'(t)))
_ A
dm(F(t,y (t), y'(t)))
_
dt
-U'""
dt
can
be
transformed by algebraic manipulations
into
an
explicit ordinary
differential system [3.8].
Consequently,
a
system
of
ordinary
differential
equation
has an index of
m=0.
67
3.10.4 Solution methods and software
The first
general
method for the numerical solution of
semi-explicit
DAE with index 1 was
proposed by
C. WGear in 1971
[3.4]
and was soon
extended to the solution of
implicit
index 1
problems.
The method is
based on a
special
class of the linear
multistep
methods entitled the
backward differentiation
formulas,
which are standard
algorithms
for
the
integration
of stiff
systems.
The most
important convergence
results
may
be found in
[3.1].
In
theory,
it is
possible
to solve
problems
of
higher
indices with the backward differentiation formulas.
However,
the neces
sary
software is not available as
yet.
The
apparently very frequently
used
integrators
DASSL and LSODI are based on Gear's method. These
methods are
distinguished
for their effectiveness in
solving
continuous
problems. However,
the
computational
effort
grows
significantly
for
systems
with discontinuities
arising,
for
example, during
the simulation
ofthe
response
to several feed flow or feed
composition step changes.
For
such
cases,
the
one-step
methods find more and more interest [3.11].
The
one-step
methods are extensions of the well-known
Runge-Kutta,
Rosenbrock,
or
extrapolation
methods. An extensive discussion of the
properties
ofthese methods is found in
[3.8]. However,
the
development
of the
integrators (RADATJ5,
LIMEX) is in an
early stage,
and no
imple
mentations are found in
any
of the
widespread
Fortran libraries.
For the simulation studies the DASSL
integrator,
as
implemented
in the
NAG Fortran
Library
is used with
good
success. The
differential-alge
braic
equations
(DAE) are
solved in an
implicit
manner
according
to
(3.41).
The calculation
sequence
During
the
integration,
the
right-hand
sides of the differential and
alge
braic
equations repeatedly
have to be evaluated for a
given
vector
y
of
the
dependent
variables and for a
given
time t. The
algebraic equations,
and often the differential
equations
as
well are solved in an
implicit
manner. The
equation errors,
which have to be
supplied
to the
integra
tion, are
the difference between the
right-hand
sides of the
equations
68 3 A
Rigorous Dynamic
(that means the calculated
vapor
flow
rates, liquid
flow
rates, etc.)
and
the
corresponding
values within the vector
y.
A correct calculation
sequence evaluating
these terms is
stringent: If,
for
example,
we calculate the
right-hand
side of the
boiling point equa
tion
(3.31),
we must know the
vapor phase composition.
Therefore we
first have to calculate the
and
subsequently
the error of the
boiling point equation.
If this basic idea is
applied
to the
whole
model,
the calculation
sequence
illustrated in
Figure
3.5 results.
The vector
y,
which is
supplied by
the
integration
routine
(Step a),
contains the
component holdups
in
liquid phase,
the
tray temperatures,
tray pressures,
as
well as
liquid
and
vapor
flow rates. With the data
supplied,
all
vapor
phase compositions
in
equilibrium
can be calculated
(Step
b).
In a next
step (Step c), using
the distribution coefficients
Kk
obtained in the
previous step,
the errors of the
boiling point equations
are calculated. Since all the feed data
are known,
its
enthalpy,
molar
volumes and densities are
computed
in
step
d. The
vapor phase compo
sitions deviate from the
equilibrium compositions. Applying
the
Murphree tray efficiency,
the effective
vapor phase compositions
are
computed (Step
e).
Since for the
computation
of the effective
vapor
phase composition
for a
tray
the effective
vapor
phase composition
ofthe
next lower
tray
must be
known,
the
computation
starts at the column
bottom, assuming
n = 1 for the reboiler. Now all
necessary
data are
known to calculate the
enthapies,
molar
volumes,
and densities for all
trays,
the condenser and the
evaporator (Step
f).
In
step g,
the
energy
balance
equations
for the
trays
are
applied,
and the differences between
the
resulting vapor
flow rates and the flow rates
supplied by
the
integra
tion routine are calculated. In
step h,
the same is done for the
evapo
rator.
Similarly
to the
error of the
vapor
flow
rates,
the
errors of the
liquid
flow rates and the
tray pressures
are
computed
in
steps
i and
j.
Using
the flow rates and
compositions
calculated in the
previous steps
rather than the data
supplied by
the
integration routine,
the differential
terms
(left-hand sides)
of the
the
vapor
flow
lag
(Step
k)
and the
holdup
of the substances in
liquid phase (Step
1) are
calculated. In
a
last
step (Step m),
all differential
terms,
the errors
69
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
(
Vector of
dependent
variables
y
J
for
evaporator
and
trays
(Equation (3.28))
Error for
boiling point
at
evaporator
and
trays
k
Calculation of the
thermodynamic
states
h', v', v", p', p"
for the feed
for
trays nt, nt-1,...,
1
yk,J
=
<yk^"lbnum-yk,J+iJ+yk,]+,
Calculation of the
thermodynamic
states
hVhVv'rv>>"j
for
condenser,
all
trays,
and
evaporator
Error for
vapor
flows
hVh*j
Figure
3.5: Calculation
sequence
Explanation:
see text
70 3 A
Rigorous Dynamic
u
h)
Error for
vapor
flow
leaving evaporator
Lnt(hnt-hnt+l>+Qlag
h" -h'
nt+1
"nt+1 "nt+1
V
i)
Error for
liquid
streams
13
p,g
B
,
3/2
3
A + A
J
W
AA+AB
J
I )
If
j)
Error for
pressure drop
P]+1-P3-AP]
(Equation (3.27))
' '
k)
Differential
equation
for
vapor
flow
lag
(Equation (3.15))
< '
1)
Differential
equations
for
holdup
of substances
(Equations (3.1), (3.2)
and
(3.3))
'
'
m)
C
Vector of differeiitials and errors
J
Figure
3.5 continued
3.11 Notation 71
between
supplied
and calculated flow rates and
pressures,
and the
errors of the
boiling point equations
are combined in one vector and
supplied
back to the
integration
routine.
3.11 Notation
A0
[m2] Hole area in
tray
AA
[m2]
Tray
area without downcomer area
Ab
[m2] Downcomer area
bw
[m]
Length
of weir
pid
LP
[J/mol-K]
Ideal
gas
heat
capacity
CP,1
[J/kg-K] Liquid
heat
capacity
do
[m]
Diameter of holes of sieve
tray
Fj
[mol/s]
Feed flow rate to
tray j
h
[J/mol]
Molar
enthalpy
h'j
[J/mol]
Molar
enthalpy
of
liquid phase
h"j
[J/mol] Molar
enthalpy
of
vapor phase
hL
[m]
Liquid
level above
upper edge
of weir
hw
[m]
Weir
height
AHv,k,j
[J/mol]
Heat of
evaporation
of
component
k on
tray j
AHvj
[J/mol]
Heat of
evaporation
of
liquid
on
tray j
Kkj
[mol/mol]
Distribution coefficient for
comp.
k on
tray j
LJ
[mol/s]
Liquid
flow
leaving tray j
Wj
[m3/s] Volumetric flow from
tray j
Mk [g/mol]
Molar mass of
component
k
nt
H
Number of
trays
in column
72 3 A
Rigorous Dynamic
nj
[mol]
nkj
[mol]
nc [-]
Pj
[N/m2]
APj
[N/m2]
K
[N/m2]
P [N/m2]
Q
[J/s]
Qlag
[J/s]
s [m]
SU
[mol/s]
Jvj
[mol/s]
t
[s]
T
[K]
TJ
[K]
Vj
[mol/s]
VVj
[m3/s]
xkj
[mol/mol]
XF,ko
[mol/mol]
ykj
[mol/mol]
Yk
[-]
Total
holdup
on
tray j
Holdup
of substance k
on
tray j
Number of
components
Pressure on
tray j
Pressure
drop
over
tray j
Steam
pressure
of
pure component
k
Pressure
Heat
supply
to
evaporator
"active" heat
supply
Thickness of sieve
tray
Side
product
flow rate from
tray j,
liquid phase
Side
product
flow rate from
tray j,
vapor phase
Time
Temperature
Temperature
on
tray j
Vapor
stream from
tray j
Volumetric
vapor
stream from
tray j
Liquid phase
mole fraction of
component
k on
tray j
Mole fraction of
component
k
in feed to
tray j
Vapor phase
mole fraction of
component
k above
tray j
Liquid phase activity
coefficient
of
component
k
3.11 Notation
j
[m3/m3]
Liquid phase
fraction on
trayj
Tl
[mol/mol]
for
vapor phase
V [m3/mol] Molar volume
V'j
[m3/mol] Molar volume of
liquid phase
on
tray j
V"j
[m3/moI] Molar volume of
vapor phase
on
tray j
%
H
Orifice coefficient
P'j
[kg/m3] Liquid density
on
tray j
P"j
[kg/m3] Vapor density
on
tray j
74 3 A
Rigorous Dynamic
3.12 References
[3.1] Brenan,
K.
E.,
S. L.
Campbell,
and L. R.
Petzold,
Numerical so
lution
of
initial-value
problems
in
differential-algebraic equa
tions, North-Holland,
New York (1989)
[3.2] Byrne,
G.
D.,
P. R.
Ponzi, Differential-Algebraic Systems,
Their
Application
and
Solution, Comp.
Chem.
Eng., 12, 5,
377-382
(1988)
[3.3] Gani, R.,
C. A.
Ruiz,
and I. T. Cameron: "A Generalized Model
for
Distillation
Columns," Comp.
Chem.
Eng., 10, 3,
181-198 (1986)
[3.4] Gear,
C. W.: "Simultaneous Numerical Solution of Differential-
Algebraic Equations,"
IEEE Trans, on Circuit
Theory, CT-18, 1,
89-95 (1971)
[3.5] Gmehling,
J. and U. Onken:
"Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium
Data
Collection;' 1,
Part
1, XI-XXII, DECHEMA,
Frankfurt (1977)
[3.6] Gmehling,
J. and B. Kolbe:
Thermodynamik, Georg
Thieme Ver-
lag, Stuttgart
(1988)
[3.7] Grassmann,
P. and F.
Widmer, Einfiihrung
in die thermische
Verfahrenstechnik,
2nd
ed.,
de
Gruyter,
Berlin (1974)
[3.8] Hairer,
E. and G. Wanner:
Solving Ordinary Differential Equa
tions II
Stiff
and
Differential-Algebraic
Problems, Springer
Verlag,
Berlin (1991)
[3.9] Hajdu, H.,
A.
Borus,
and P. Foldes:
"Vapor
Flow
Lag
in Distilla
tion
Columns,"
Chem.
Eng. Sc, 33,
1-8 (1978)
[3.10] Holland,
C. D. and A. I.
Liapis, Computer
Methods
for Solving
Dynamic Separation
Problems, Chapter 8, McGraw-Hill,
New
York(1983)
3.12 References 75
[3.11] Marquardt,
W.:
"Dynamic
Process Simulation

Recent
Progress
and Future
Challenges,"
Fourth International
Confer
ence on Chemical Process
Control,
South Padre
Island,
Texas
(1991)
[3.12] McCabe,
W.
L.,
J. C.
Smith,
and P. Harriott: Unit
Operations of
Chemical
Engineering,
4th
ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York
(1985)
[3.13] Najim,
K.
(Editor):
Process
Modeling
and Control in Chemical
Engineering,
Marcel
Dekker,
New York
(1989), Chapter III,
145-
211,
S.
Domenech,
L.
Pibouleau,
"Distillation"
[3.14] Petzold,
L.:
"Differential/Algebraic Equations
are not
ODE,"
SIAMJ. Sci. Stat.
Comput, 3, 3,
367-384 (1982)
[3.15] Reid,
R.
C,
J. M.
Prausnitz,
and B. E.
Poling:
The
Properties of
Gases and
Liquids,
4th
ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York (1988)
[3.16] Retzbach,
B.: "Mathematische Modelle von Destillationskolon-
nen zur
Synthese
von
Regelungskonzepten,"
Fortschritt-Berichte
VDI,
Reihe 8:
Mess-, Steuerungs-
und
Regelungstechnik,
Nr.
126,
VDI
Verlag (1986)
[3.17]
Rovaglio, M.,
E.
Ranzi,
G.
Biardi,
and T. Faravelli:
"Rigorous Dy
namics and Control of Continuous Distillation
Systems
Simu
lation and
Experimental Results," Comp.
Chem.
Eng., 14, 8,
871-
887 (1990)
[3.18] Stichlmair,
J.:
Grundlagen
der
Dimensionierung
des GaslFliis-
sigkeit-Kontaktapparates Bodenkolonne, Verlag Chemie,
Wein-
heim
(1978)
[3.19] Weiss,
S. et. al.:
Verfahrenstechnische Berechnungsmethoden,
Teil 2: "Thermisches
Trennen",
VCH
Verlagsgesellschaft,
Wein-
heim
(1986)
76 3 A
Rigorous Dynamic
4.1 Introduction 77
Chapter
4
Linear Models
4.1 Introduction
Robust controllers are
designed
on the basis of linear
process
models.
Therefore the elaboration of linear
dynamic
models for the distillation
column is a central
part
of control
system synthesis.
These models
should describe the
dynamic
behavior of the
process
within a wide
frequency range. They
can be obtained in two
ways:
System
identification
Linearization of a nonlinear model

It is
a
big advantage
of the
system
identification that it avoids a
compli
cated and
expensive
nonlinear model.
Nevertheless,
this
approach
has
some severe
drawbacks,
for
example:
The time-constants of the
are
large.
A
recording
of
input/output
data for the real
plant
is
very
time-
consuming.
Due to the
high sensitivity
of distillation columns to
changes
of
the internal flow
rates, even for small
magnitudes
of the
input
variation
(e.g.,
5% of the
steady-state
value) the
response may
far exceed the linear
region.
78 4 Linear Models
Each
experiment
causes undesired disturbances of the
product
qualities.
It is
practically impossible
to obtain models for the entire
oper
ating range
of the distillation column
These
disadvantages
and some other fundamental
problems
of the iden
tification itself
(see
Jacobsen et al.
[4.5])
lead to a
strong
recommenda
tion of the second method
(Skogestad,
[4.12])
that
means the
linearization of nonlinear column models.
Two linear models are evaluated within this
chapter,
which are based on
the linearization of different nonlinear column models. The first linear
model is obtained
by
an
analytical
linearization of a
simplified
nonlinear model
neglecting
flow
dynamics.
The other model is obtained
by
a numerical linearization of the
rigorous
model
presented
in
Chapter
3. In further sections the
accuracy
of these linear models and the role of
the flow
dynamics
are discussed. Different
mathematically
order reduc
tion methods are
compared
at the end of this
chapter.
The notation is
listed in section 4.9 on
page
101,
the literature references are collected
in section 4.10.
rigorous
model?
4.2.1 The
state, input,
and
output
vectors
The
complete rigorous dynamic
model as
discussed in
Chapter
3
consists of a
high-order system
of
coupled
differential and
algebraic
equations
(DAE).
A linearization of this
large system
would be
possible
in
principle. However,
the
resulting
linear
state-space
model would be
of the same order as the DAE. Such a
high
order causes
high computa
tion times for a controller
design
or even for a model reduction. Conse
quently,
a
compromise
between model order and
accuracy
must be
sought.
This means we have to
decide,
which
dependent
variables are
very important
for the
and should be included in
the state vector x of the linear model. Most
important,
of
course,
are the
tray compositions
themselves. Because flow
dynamics
have a
high
influ-
rigorous
model? 79
ence on the
in the
high-frequency range,
the
tray
holdup
is a candidate as well.
Assuming
a
perfect
level control of the
reboiler and the reflux
accumulator,
it is not
necessary
to include their
holdup.
The
corresponding
candidates for the state vector of the linear
model are
x =
dxc
dx,
dx
51
or
dx0
dx,
dx
51
dn,
dn
50
(4.1)
The
dynamics
of the distillation column are stimulated
by
the
manipu
lated variables (reflux
L0
and
boilup V51)
and the several disturbance
sources. Most
important
disturbances are variations of the feed
compo
sition
xp
and the feed flow rate F. Other disturbances such as variations
of the reflux
temperature
or the feed
temperature
have
significantly
less
influence and can be
neglected
for the
composition
control
design.
Hence
we define the
input
vector
according
to
dxF
d
dF
u
dL0
dv51
(4.2)
The
output
vector
y
follows
directly
from the
temperature
measure
ments. It
represents
the deviations of the
pressure compensated temper
atures on
tray 10, 44,
and 24:
80
4 Linear Models
dTPio
dTP44
dTP24
(4.3)
4.2.2
Handling
of the
The
of the
rigorous
column model defines
dependent
variables such as
tray pressures, vapor flows,
and
liquid
flows,
which are not included in the state vector x of the linear model.
Nevertheless the
algebraic equation system represents algebraic
constraints for the
composition
and
holdup dynamics.
These
equations
can be handled in two
ways:
elimination
by idealizing assumptions,
or
numerical solution
during
linearization
The first method allows an
analytical
linearization of the
resulting
model. This has the
advantage
that
merely
one
steady-state
data set
must be
supplied,
which can be calculated
by
one of the common flow-
sheeting
programs (e.g., PROCESS,
ASPEN PLUS). In contrast to
that,
the second method
requires
rigorous model,
which is discussed in section 4.4.
simplified
nonlinear model
4.3.1 The
simplified
model
In this section we will derive a
simplified
nonlinear column model
neglecting
the
holdup
and thus the flow
dynamics.
For that
purpose
idealizing assumptions
are formulated which allow to
dispense
with all
flow
dynamics
and with most of the
energy
balance
equations. However,
the
subcooling
of reflux and feed have a
significant
influence on the
internal flow rates
(see section
2.3) and are
explicitly
taken into account.
simplified
nonlinear model 81
Idealizing assumptions
The
algebraic
constraints of the
rigorous
model and the
holdup
dynamics
can be eliminated
by
the
following idealizing assumptions:
constant
pressure drop
constant and
equal enthalpies
on all
trays
constant total
holdup
on all
trays (equimolar overflow)
Of
course,
all these
assumptions
do not
agree
with the real conditions.
The first
assumption
means a
neglect
of the correlation between
tray
pressures, holdups,
and
boilup
rates. The second
assumption implies
uniform
vapor
flows within the
stripping
section and within the recti
fying
section of the column. The
assumption
of
a constant
tray holdup
contains a
neglect
of flow
dynamics.
The
error in the
high frequency
range
introduced
by
that is discussed in section 4.5.
It has to be
emphasized
here that these
assumptions
concern
only
the
simplified
nonlinear model as a basis for an
analytical
linearization.
The
steady-state operating points
must be calculated
using
a
model,
which includes the
energy
balance
equations,
as well as the flow
dynamic
models.
The
For a column
separating
a
binary mixture,
it is sufficient to formulate
the material balance
equation
for the
light component
of the substance
mixture. If we assume constant total
holdup,
the
following
material
balance
equation
holds for the
tray j:
^
=
Lj-i+Vj + i+Fj-VVj
= 0
(4.4)
Similar balances are obtained for the reboiler and the condenser. Substi
tuting
these balance
equations
in the material balances
(3.1)-(3.3),
we
obtain the
following
differential
the
composition
dynamics:
82 4 Linear Models
Condenser
7>ays
(Feed
is
liquid phase, j
=
1..
.50)
^j[V.(vi-v+Vi^-v
(4.6)
Evaporator
"aT
=
4[L50(x50-x5i)-V51(y51-x5])]
(4.7)
Effect of
subcooled
reflux
and
feed
Feed and reflux ofthe distillation column are subcooled. A
portion
of the
vapor
flow is condensed at the
trays
where these two streams enter the
column. The effect of an additional condensation of the
vapor
stream
caused
by increasing
the flow rates of these streams must be considered
to avoid
large
model errors. The two
energy
balance
equations
for the
reflux
tray (tray
1) and for the feed
tray (tray
20) become
part
of the
nonlinear model:
0
=
Loh'o-Ljh'j+Vjh'^-V^",
(4.8)
0
=
L19h'19~L20h'20
+
V21h"2]-V20h"20
+
Fh'F
(4.9)
Tray temperatures
as model
outputs
The model
outputs
are the deviations of the
pressure compensated tray
temperatures.
These
temperatures
are correlated with the
tray compo
sition
by
the
boiling point equation
simplified
nonlinear model 83
2
X (y)
-1=0
(4.10)
k=l
Consequently
the
for
tray 10, 44,
and 24
are
part
of the
simplified
column model.
The
vapor
phase composition
The differential
equations
for the
are in terms of
the
yj,
too.
Usually,
the
tray efficiency
is
smaller than
one and the
vapor
phase compositions
deviate from the
equilibrium compositions.
As described in
Chapter 3,
this can be
modelled
by
the
n
Yj
=
O-TDyj^+Tiy'j
(4.11)
Primarily
the
in
equilibrium
y*j
is a function
ofthe
liquid phase composition
x-. For
example,
if we assume a constant
relative
volatility
a. on
tray j,
the
vapor
phase composition
in
equilib
rium is calculated
by
ct X-
y*-
=
i-J
(4.12)
To
simplify
the
analytical linearization,
it is convenient to substitute the
vapor phase composition y by
a correlation exclusive in terms of the
equilibrium compositions y*.
Then the calculation of the derivatives
3
(...)
/dx for each these terms cause no
particular problem.
Such an
equation
in terms of the
equilibrium compositions y*
is derived
by subsequent
substitutions of the
vapor
phase compositions
in
(4.11)
from the
evaporator up
to actual
tray.
For
example
(n=l assumed for the
reboiler)
y50
=
(l-Ti)y*gi+r|y*50
(4.13)
84
4 Linear Models
y49
=
(l-Ti)y50
+
1iy*49
(4.14)
=
(i--n)V5i+Ti(1-1i)y*5o
+
7iy*49
y48
=
(i-Ti)y49
+
1iy*48
,A,E,
(4.15)
=
(l-*i)3y*5i+Ti(i-'ri)2y*5o
+
'rl(i-n)y*49
+
riy*48
For a
binary
distillation column with nt
trays
the
following generalized
formula (with
vapor/liquid equilibrium (n=l)
in the
evaporator)
is
obtained:
y.
=
(l-Tl)at+1-ynt+1
nt+l-j
(4>16)
+
X
lKl-M)nt+1-j-Vnt+,-n
n= 1
This
equation
demonstrates the
strong
influence on the
composition
of
the
trays
below the actual
one, presuming
the
tray efficiency
n is
substantially
smaller than
one.
4.3.2
Analytical
linearization
Let us
formally represent
the
simplified
nonlinear model as the vector
functions f and
g:
d^l
=
f[x(t),u(t),d(t)] (4.17a)
y(t)
=
g[x(t)] (4.17b)
Then the matrices
A, B,
and C of the linear state
space
model
d^
= Ax +
Bd
(4.18a)
y
= Cx
(4.18b)
simplified
nonlinear model 85
are evaluated as
partial
derivatives of the vector functions f and
g
at a
steady-state operating point
(OP).
The OP is calculated either
solving
the
equation system
of the
complete rigorous
model for
steady state,
or
using
a
steady-state flowsheeting program.
The
following
relations hold
for the
partial
derivatives:
A =
3f
3x
OP
*0 <*0
dx0 dx,
3fj 3fj
3x0 dx.
dx,
0
dx51
3f.
51
3x
51
IOP
(4.19)
B =
3f
d
u
OP
"0
3xF
3f0
3F
df0
3L0
3f0
3V51
3f, 3f, 3f, 3f,
3xF
3F
3L0 av51
*5i
3xF
3f51
3F
^51
3L0
3f51
IJ
[OP
(4.20)
L~di
OP
9g] 3g, *i
3xQ 3xj '3x51
3g2 3g2 3g?
3x0 3xj '^Sl
3g3 3g3 3g3
3xQ 3x, '^51
IOP
(4.21)
86 4 Linear Models
Combining
the
idealizing assumptions,
we can conclude that a deviation
of reflux
Lo
or
boilup V51
causes the
same
deviation of the
liquid
flow
and
vapor
flow rates within the whole column:
dL. =
dLn
J
(4.22)
dVj
=
dv51
The
resulting
coefficients of the matrices
A, B,
and C are listed in the
appendix
of this
chapter (page
97).
Although important
interactions in
the column model are
suppressed by
the
idealizing assumptions
it turns
out that this model coincides within
acceptable
bounds with the
rigorous
nonlinear model. This
aspect
is discussed in detail in section
4.5 below.
4.4 Linearization of the
rigorous
model
In this section the linearization of the
rigorous dynamic
column model
is discussed. This model includes the
dynamics
of the
tray holdups
and
thus flow
dynamics.
Hence it describes the
high-frequency dynamics
much better than the
simplified
nonlinear model (section 4.3.1).
4.4.1 Model modifications
The desired
outputs
of the linear model are the deviations of
pressure
compensated tray temperatures,
which
are
functions of the
tray compo
sitions,
but not of a
component's holdups.
Therefore the material bal
ance
equations
(3.1)-(3.3) are
replaced by
the
following, equivalent
differential
equations:
Condenser
^-iv.to,-^)
(4.23)
equations:
vector
following
the
by comprised
be can
equations
these All
equations.
differential the for constraint a is solution whose
system equation
an
form
equation algebraic
These (3.31).
points boiling
the and
(3.23),
flows
liquid (3.9),
flows
vapor
the
(3.27), drop pressure
the for
equations algebraic
the and
(4.24), dynamics holdup
the and
(4.5)-(4.7)
component light
the for
dynamics composition
the
describing
equations
differential the of consists
system equation
whole The
(4.28)
L50-V51
= B
and
(4.27)
V,-L0
= D
to
according
calculated are streams
product
bottom and
top
the
evaporator,
the and accumulator reflux the for
holdup
constant fore
there and control level
perfect
With
loops.
control
composition
the than
faster much tuned be can
evaporator
the and condenser the for
loops
control level the that fact the
by justified
is
assumption
This orator.
evap
the in and accumulator reflux the in control level
perfect
a
of tion
assump
the from follows model
rigorous
the of modification second The
(4-26)
-V51(y51-x51)] (*-**>
5^L
=
T
Evaporator
-vj(yrxP+Fj(xF,rxP]
1-xj)
+
1(yj
+
^[Lj_1(xj_1-xj)+Vj
=
^
(42g)
1-xj;
+
1iyj
+
vj
+
^-ii*j-i-'y
i
dx.
.50)
1.. =
j phase, liquid
is
(Feed
composition Tray
(4-24)
Li-'-VV--VFi
=
S
holdups: Tray
87
model
rigorous
the of Linearization 4.4
88 4 Linear Models
di|P
=
f[x(t),n(t),u(t),z(t),v(x,n,u,z)]
^P
=
l[x(t),n(t),u(t),z(t),v(x,n,u,z)]
y(t)
=
g[x(t)]
0 =
k[v(x, n, u, z)]
(4.29a)
(4.29b)
(4.29c)
(4.29d)
The vector v
(x, n, u, z) represents
the solution of the
algebraic equa
tion
system
k and consists of the
tray pressures,
the
vapor
flow
rates,
the
liquid
flow
rates,
and the
boiling points.
4.4.2 Numerical linearization
The matrices of the linear state
space
model
including
flow
dynamics
d_
dt
X
n
= A
X
n
+ B
d
u
y
= Cx
(4.30a)
(4.30b)
can
be
numerically
evaluated column
by
column
using
a finite difference
approach.
After solution of the whole
equation system
for a
steady-state
operating point
(OP),
each
composition
or
tray holdup
can be varied
by
a small
increment,
the
k
can
be
solved,
and
each column of the state
dynamic
matrix A can
be calculated
according
to
a
i=l
102,j
+ l
for
j
= 0 .51 (4.31a)
4.5
Comparison
a
1=1
102J
+ 52
(dx
dt
V
dx
a
dt
opj
fdn
dt
V
Anj
dn
a
dt
VAnj
opJ
An,
for
j
=
1...50
(4.31b)
In a similar manner
the
input
matrix B can be evaluated.
4.5
Comparison
of the linear models
4.5.1
Open loop
simulations
Most
important
for the control
design
is a
good representation
of the
dynamic
behavior in the
mid-frequency range.
The
steady-state
behavior as well as
the
high-frequency
behavior are less
important.
Some idea of a linear model's
quality
is obtained
by
a
simple qualitative
comparison
of the various models.
Nevertheless,
a definitive
judgement
requires
a
comparison
of control
designs
based on the different models.
A
simple
method to
compare
the two linear models with the
complete
rigorous
model is the simulation of
step responses
to the model
inputs
(reflux
L0, boilup V5i,
feed
composition xp,
and feed flow rate F). These
are shown
by
the
Figures
4.1- 4.4.
During
the nonlinear
simulations,
the
bottom level
was controlled
by
the bottom
product
flow rate B.
Except
for the denoted
input,
all other column
inputs
are
kept
constant at their
steady-state
values. The
changes
of flow rates and feed
composition
are
very
small to maintain the column close to the
steady-state
and to avoid
large
nonlinearities.
The coincidence of the
step responses
with the
rigorous
nonlinear model
is
acceptable
for both linear models.
However,
the linear model obtained
by
a linearization of the
rigorous
model is
distinguished by
a somewhat
better
representation
of the
low-frequency gains.
90 4 Linear Models
Tray
10
Tray
44
Nonhnear model
Anal linearized model
Num linearized model
Figure
4.1:
Step response
to a 0.3 mol/min
(0.46%)
increase in reflux
Tray
10
Tray
44
Nonlinear model
Anal linearized model
Num linearized model
2 4 6
Time
(h)
Figure
4.2:
Step response
to a 0.3 mol/min
(0.29%)
increase in
boilup
4.5
Comparison
of the linear models
91
Tray
10 Tray
44
Nonlinear model
Anal, linearized model
Num. linearized model
Figure
4.3:
Step response
to a 0.005 mol/mol increase in feed
composition
Tray
10 Tray
44
2 4 6
Time
(h)
Tray
24
2 4 6
Time
(h)
Nonlinear model
Anal, linearized model
Num. linearized model
Figure
4.4:
Step response
to a 0.3 mol/min
(0.91%)
increase in feed flow rate
92 4 Linear Models
Surprising
is the
high
coincidence for the
analytically
linearized model
as well.
Apparently
the influence of the
algebraic
constraints on the
is
substantially
smaller than the interactions
within the
themselves.
4.5.2
Singular
values
An
important
difference between the two linear models is the
high
frequency
behavior due to unmodelled and modelled flow
dynamics,
respectively.
Best suited for a
comparison
are the
singular
values of the
transfer functions G,
>y(jco)
andGu.
,
(jco)
,
shown in
Figure
4.5.
in3
Disturbance
inputs
10
1
Magnitude
S
3
O
i "ii .
10" ioJ 10 10
Frequency
(rad/min)
Control
inputs
10 10
10 10' 10" 10
Frequency
(rad/min)
10 10'
Figure
4.5:
Singular
values of the linear models
Upper plots:
GA^y(i<Si)
,
lower
plots:
Gu->y
Solid lines:
Analytically
linearized model
Dashed lines:
Numerically
linearized model
(jo)
4.5
Comparison
Both models show the
typical
course of the
singular
values for a
high
purity
distillation column. In the low
frequency range,
the maximum
and minimum
singular
values of the transfer functions
Gu
(jo)
are
very
different and the condition numbers
<WGu-yfj>)}
K(jco)
=
(4.32)
WGu_>y(J)}
are
high.
With
increasing frequency,
the maximum and minimum
singular
values
approach
and the
corresponding
condition number
decreases,
but never falls below 20. This is illustrated in more detail
by
Figure
4.6 for the transfer functions from the control
inputs
to the
pres
sure
compensated temperatures
on
tray
10 and 44. The
large
condition
numbers indicate a
high sensitivity
of the column
outputs
to the direc
tion of the control
inputs
u.
Consequently,
the
performance
of a control
system
can be
very
sensitive to
uncertainty
at the control
inputs.
Significant
for the
numerically
linearized model is the double as
big
condition number in the
low-frequency range
and the
completely
different course in the
high-frequency range.
These differences of the
high-frequency range
between the models can be
explained
from the
structure of the nonlinear models
they
are calculated from:
As mentioned above the
analytical
model
neglects
the flow
dynamics.
Thus the
high frequency
behavior is determined
only by
the first-order
equations
of the
composition dynamics. Therefore,
the
singular
values
in the
higher frequency
domain (above
0.1
rad/min) are dominated
by
a
negative slope
of one
magnitude
per
decade.
The
numerically
linearized model takes the flow
dynamics
into account.
Thus, considering
the reflux as column
input,
additional
lags
for the
are
introduced,
and for the minimum
singular
value a
negative slope
of several
magnitudes per
decade for the
frequency range
above 1 rad/min results therefrom. The effect of the
flow
dynamics considering
the
boilup
as the column
input
is different:
An increase of the
boilup
increases the
vapor
fraction on the
tray,
which
94
4 Linear Models
10J
v
,o
T3 10
3
'i
10
Singular
values
10
'
-
_ -
.___^^
:
*^^^^^
V
^
-
\
\ -
\
10' 10 10" 10
Frequency (rad/mm)
10
10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
10"
10'
io3
Condition number
1
~ -
-~
^
^
^^^^
--
^
x
'i
J.'.
1
'
1
r
/
:
a)
2
"3 io
3
2
io
0
r
1
N
\
\
\ /
/
/ -
/
10'
Figure
4.6:
Upper plot: Singular
values of the transfer function from the control
inputs
u to the
tray temperature T10
and
T44
Lower
plot:
Condition number K of the same transfer function
Solid lines:
Analytically
linearized model
Dashes lines:
Numerically
linearized model
causes
higher liquid
flow rates
leaving
the
trays.
Because the
composi
tion of the
light component
is
higher
in the
upper part
of the
column,
more
of the
light component
is
transported down,
and the
expected
decrease of the
light component's composition
is retarded in the
frequency range
between 0.2 and 1 rad/min.
4.6 Order reduction
The orders of the linear models
developed
above are 52 for the
analytical
model and 102 for the
numerically
evaluated model.
During
modern
4.6 Order reduction 95
robust control
synthesis procedures
such as H^ or
(x-synthesis,
the order
of the model is
enlarged by frequency-dependent weights
for the model
inputs
and
outputs.
Since the
computation
time for the controller
design
strongly depends
on the model
order,
order reduction is ofutmost
impor
tance.
Many
methods exist to
approximate
the
state-space representa
tion of a linear
system
with a lower-order
state-space approximation
[4.13].
Most of the mathematical methods which are available in
MATLAB
or
MATRLXX
toolboxes are based on
computing
the
Hankel Norm
singular
values and
subsequent removing
of states corre
sponding
to
relatively
small Hankel Norm
singular
values. Jacobsen et
al.
[4.5]
compared
the
following
four
methods,
with a reduction of a
column model of 82 states to 2 states. These methods are
implemented
in one of the MATLABtoolboxes:
I Balanced Truncated
Approximation
[4.7] (Robust Control Tool
box
[4.2] and u-Tools
[4.1])
II Balanced Truncated
Approximation
without balanced minimal
realization
[4.9] (Schur method,
in Robust Control
Toolbox)
III Hankel Norm
Approximation
[4.3]
(n-Tools
[4.1])
IV
Optimal
Hankel Norm
Approximation
without
balancing
[4.8]
(Robust Control Toolbox)
Jacobsen et al. conclude that the methods II and IV
gave significantly
better models than the other two methods. These results have to be
considered
carefully:
It is not
necessary
to reduce the column models to
such an
extremely
low order. Models of
an order 10-15 are
absolutely
suitable for control
synthesis
and show a
very good
coincidence with the
full-order linear model.
As an
example,
a
numerically
evaluated linear model of order 102 was
reduced to an order 10
using
each of the four methods mentioned above.
All
step responses
to the different
inputs
and calculated with the
different reduced-order models have shown a
perfect
coincidence with
the full-order linear model. This fact is
supported by
the
singular-value
plots
of the models.
Figure
4.7 shows that all reduced order models
96 4 Linear Models
10J
10
3
I
10
10
10
Full order model
Methods I + II
Method III
Method TV
10 10* 10
Frequency
(rad/min)
10 10'
Figure
4.7:
Singular
value
plots
of the transfer functions G
(jco)
of the
full order model and the different reduced order models
approximate
the low and medium
frequency
behaviors
up
to 1 rad/min
very
well.
However,
in the
high frequency range
the
singular
values are
best
approximated by
the models derived with a Balanced Truncated
Approximation
(Method
I or II).
4.7
Summary
This
chapter presented
two methods to obtain linear models for the
industrial distillation column. The first model is derived
by
an
analyt
ical linearization of
a
simplified
nonlinear model
neglecting
flow
dynamics
and most of the
energy
balance
equations.
The second linear
model is obtained
by
complete rigorous
4.8
Appendix:
Model coefficients 97
model. Both linear models exhibit
an
acceptable approximation
of the
process dynamics.
The
singular
value
plots
indicate a
high
coincidence
of the linear models in the
mid-frequency range,
but
significant
differ
ences in the low and
high-frequency
range. Comparing step responses
with those of the
rigorous
nonlinear
model,
a
slightly
better
representa
tion of the column
dynamics by
the
numerically
evaluated model is
demonstrated. The
relatively high
order of the linear model
(52
for the
analytically,
and 102 for the
numerically
linearized models) can be
reduced
essentially by
one
of the well known order reduction methods.
All tested methods
yielded
a
nearly perfect approximation
of the Unear
model of order 102
up
to a
frequency
of 1 rad/min
by
a model of order 10.
4.8
Appendix:
Model coefficients
For all coefficients the
following
holds:
Analytically differentiating
the
equation (4.12),
the actual numerical
values of k.
may
be calculated.
A-Matrix
Condenser (k=l. ..50)
a,
,i
=
dx0
-v,
no
,k
+ :
9f0
'"ark
nd-rDk-iVj^
ai
no
ai
,52
:
_ô_.
(1-
n)50Vlk51
no
(4.34)
(4.35)
(4.36)
98
4 Linear Models
Trays (j=l...50, k=j.. 50)
^ _v.
j+,-j_3xJ-r
ni
(4.37)
T
+
i.J
+ i
dx
_
*j
_
^VZiîLVZ&^V
(4.38)
(4.39)
at
-
(V^.-a-TDvp
aJ+,,52
=
axi=(1-Ti)50-Jkk
ox51
(4.40)
Evaporator
_
3f51
_
^50
a52,51
-
ax
_
n
ox50
n51
(4.41)
df
-(B
+
Vksl)
x51 51""51J
l52,52
~
ax
-
n
ox51
n51
(4.42)
B-Matrix
We have to consider the
portion
of the
vapor
flow which is condensed
by
an increase of the feed flow rate because of the subcooled feed. For the
decrease of the
vapor
flow in the
rectifying
section of the distillation
column
dV =
( h' -h'
'*
n20 nF
Vn 20_n20y
dF (4.43)
The
liquid
flow rate in the
stripping
section of the column is increased
by
the same amount.
4.8
Appendix:
Model coefficients 99
Condenser
b,
,
=
at,
L '
"
3x,
= 0 (4.44)
h
3fo
J.2
"
3F~
/ V,' V,' A
h
20
~
n
F
Vn 20 n207
yi-xo
nn
(4.45)
Rectifying
section
(j
= 1...
19)
af.
(4.46)
af.
h =
I
DJ
+
'.2
dF
n
20
X1
F
Vn 20 n2oy
yj-n-yj
(4.47)
Feed
tray
(20)
b
"*20 *20
21>
'
d-x
n
oxF n20
(4.48)
_
5f20
521,2
"
"9F
,
n20~^F
/
,
xF x20
+
, ,,
(y20 x20j
11
20 n20
x20
(4.49)
Stripping
section
(j
= 21
... 51)
(4.50)
af.
b. =
-i
=
J
+
1.2
9F
h'n-h
1+rrr
20 "F
"
20 n2o;
Vl-*j
nj
(4.51)
If the reflux is
subcooled,
the
vapor
stream in the column is condensed
partially
at the first
tray.
The
liquid
stream
leaving
the first
tray
and all
100
4 Linear Models
trays
below is
thereby
increased
by
the same amount. From
(4.8) we
obtain
dV,
'h'i-V
vh"i-h'iy
dL (4.52)
dLt
=
f,.h'i-ho
1+CV7
h"i-h'iy
dLn (4.53)
With
(4.52)
and (4.53)
there follows for the elements of the B matrix:
Condenser
h'j-h'g
_
af0
h"1-h'1(xo_yi)
bL3
=
3L=
n^
(4.54)
_
9fo_yi-xo
Dl>4"av"
nA
(4.55)
Tray
1
h',-h'0
b
^
2,3
"
9L-
x0-x1+(y1-x1)K^j-
l
"
l
n,
(4.56)
af,
i y2-yi
J2,4
av'
n,
(4.57)
Trays (j
= 2...
50)
3f,
x-
,
-
x.
j
+ i.3
3L
j-"3-i "j
nj
h'.-h'
^
1 +
CT
1 "0
h",-h'iy
(4.58)
b; _
9fj
_
yj+i-yj
'j
+ 1,4
gy
(4.59)
4.9 Notation 101
Evaporator
b
f)f X -x
' u' u' N
0I51 x50 x51
52,3-
9L-
5f
1
+
hj-h'0
1
l_n
V h"l-h'l7
(4.60)
afi
-(yi-x,,)
b-w-^r
(4-61)
C-Matrix
The coefficients of the measurement
output
matrix are
numerically
evaluated
by solving
the
for small increments in
tray composition.
4.9 Notation
4.9.1 Matrices and Vectors
A State
dynamic
matrix
B Control
input
matrix
C Measurement
output
matrix
G Transfer function matrix
Gu
Transfer function matrix from
control
signals
u to
output signals y
n Vector of
holdup
deviations from
operating point
(OP)
n
=
[dnpdn2, ...,dn50]T
n Vector of
holdups
iv =
[n,,n2, ...,n50]T
u Vector of the
manipulated
variables
(L0, V51)
deviations
u=
[dL0,dV5,]T
u Vector of column
inputs
*=
[L0>V5l]T
102 4 Linear Models
Vector of
composition
deviations from OP
x=
[dxQ, dxp ...,dx50,dx5,]T
Vector of
tray compositions
X
=
[Xq, Xj,
...,
XjjJ
Vector of the deviations of the
pressure-comp. temperatures
y=[dTP10>dTP44'dTP24]T
Vector of
pressure
compensated tray temperatures
y
[TPio' TP44' TP24
.]
d Vector of the disturbance
input
deviations from OP
z
=
[dxp,dF]T
d Vector of disturbance
inputs
i=
[xF,F]T
4.9.2 Scalar values
B
[mol/s]
Bottom
product
flow rate
D
[mol/s] Top product
flow rate
F
[mol/s]
Feed flow rate
hJ
[J/mol]
Molar
enthalpy
of
liquid phase
on
tray j
h"i
[J/mol]
Molar
enthalpy
of
vapor phase
on
tray j
Lo
[mol/s]
Reflux
LJ
[mol/s]
Rate of
liquid
flow
leaving tray j
nJ
[mol] Holdup
on
tray j
nt
[-]
Number of
trays
in column
T
[K] Temperature
Tpj
[K]
Pressure
compensated temperature
V
[mol/s] Boilup
Vi
[mol/s]
Rate of
vapor
flow
leaving tray j
4.10 References 103
Xj
[mol/mol] Liquid phase composition
on
tray j
xB
[mol/mol]
Composition
in column bottom
xF
[mol/mol]
Feed
composition
yj
[mol/mol] Vapor phase composition
on
tray j
y
[mol/mol] Equilibrium vapor phase composition
on
tray j
a [-]
Relative
volatility
n
[-]
c [-]
Singular
value
k [-]
Condition number
4.10 References
[4.1] Balas,
G.
J.,
J. C.
Doyle,
K.
Glover,
A.
Packard,
and R. Smith: u-
Analysis
and
Synthesis
Toolbox
(\i-Tools),
The Math
Works, Inc.,
Natick,
MA
(1991)
[4.2]
Chiang,
R.
Y.,
and M. G. Safonov: Robust Control
Toolbox,
The
Mathworks, Inc., Natick,
MA
(1988)
[4.3] Glover,
K.: "All
optimal
Hankel-norm
approximations
of linear
multivariable
systems
and their
L error
bounds,"
Int. J. Con
trol, 36,1115-1193(1984)
[4.4]
Haggblom,
K. E.:
"Modeling
of Flow
Dynamics
for Control of Dis
tillation
Columns,"
Proc. 1991 American Control
Conference,
Boston,
USA
(1991)
[4.5] Jacobsen,
E.
W.,
P.
Lundstrom,
and S.
Skogestad: "Modelling
and Identification for Robust Control of Ill-Conditioned Plants
a Distillation Case
Study,"
Proc. 1991 American Control
Confer
ence, Boston,
USA
(1991)
104 4 Linear Models
[4.6]
Kapoor, N.,
and T. J.
McAvoy:
"An
Analytical Approach
to
Ap
proximate Dynamic Modeling
of Distillation
Towers,"
IFAC Con
trol
of
Distillation Columns and Chemical
Reactors,
Bournemouth,
UK
(1986)
[4.7] Moore,
B.C.:
"Principal Component Analysis
in Linear
Systems:
Controllability, Observability
and Model
Reduction,"
IEEE
Trans. Automatic
Control, 32,
115-122 (1981)
[4.8] Safonov, M.G.,
R. Y.
Chiang,
and D. J. N. Limebeer: "Hankel
Model Reduction without
Balancing
A
Descriptor Approach,"
Proc. IEEE
Conf.
on Decision and
Control,
Los
Angeles, CA,
Dec.
9-11(1987)
[4.9] Safonov,
M. G. and R.Y.
Chiang:
"Schur Balanced Model Reduc
tion,"
Proc. American Control
Conference, Atlanta, GA,
June 15-
17
(1988)
[4.10]
Skogestad,
S. and M. Morari: "The Dominant Time Constant for
Distillation
Columns," Comp.
Chem.
Eng., 11, 6,
607-617
(1987)
[4.11]
Skogestad,
S. and M. Morari:
"Understanding
the
Dynamic
Be
havior of Distillation
Columns,"
Ind.
Eng.
Chem.
Res., 27,
1848-
1862 (1988)
[4.12]
Skogestad,
S.:
"Dynamics
A Critical
Survey,"
3rd IFAC
Symp.
on
Dynamics
and Control
of
Chemical
Reactors,
Distillation
Columns,
and Batch
Processes,
April 26-29, College Park, MD,
USA
(1992)
[4.13] Troch, I.,
P. C.
Muller,
and K.-H. Fasol: "Modellreduktion fur Si
mulation und
Reglerentwurf," at, 40, 2,
45-53 (1992)
Chapter
5
A Structured
Uncertainty
Model
5.1 Introduction
Each linear or nonlinear
dynamic
model can
only approximately
describe the behavior of a real distillation column. While a nonlinear
model
may
be valid for a wide
range
of
operating conditions,
the
error of
a linear model
rapidly
increases with the distance from its
steady-state
design point
due to
process nonlinearity.
Since stochastic effects influ
ence the
process
behavior as
well,
the error of a linear model
compared
to the real
process
can never be
exactly
determined.
Lacking
an exact
error
description,
the error between the
process
model and the
process
itself is modelled as a
single frequency-dependent uncertainty
bound
(unstructured
uncertainty)
or as several
frequency-dependent
uncer
tainty
bounds
(structured uncertainties).
Typical
sources of
uncertainty
for a distillation column are measure
ment
errors,
limited actuator
speed,
unmodelled
high-frequency
dynamics,
and
process
nonlinearity.
All these
sources
of
uncertainty
occur
simultaneously
and can be classified into three different
groups:
Uncertainty
of the
manipulated
variables
(input
uncertainties)
Model
uncertainty
due to
process nonlinearity
and unmodelled
high-frequency dynamics
106 5 A Structured
Uncertainty
Model
Uncertainty
of the
temperature
measurements
(output
uncer
tainties)
This
grouping corresponds
to the
principle
that
uncertainty
should be
modelled where it
physically
occurs.
In this
chapter
an
uncertainty
model for the industrial distillation
column is
developed.
The
complete uncertainty
model covers not
only
a
single operating point
but the entire
operating range
of the column. It is
the basis for the
analysis
and
synthesis
of controllers
using
the struc
tured
singular
value u\
5.2 Limits of
uncertainty
models
Before we start to model the
uncertainty
in the
frequency domain,
we
must be conscious of its limits: An uncertain model in the
frequency
domain is
a
model,
which is
time-invariant,
but uncertain in its coeffi
cients.
This statement is best
explained by
an
example:
Let us model a 10%
uncertainty
at the
input
of
any plant
and
design
a controller which
guarantees closed-loop stability
and a certain
performance
for all
plants
within the
specified
bounds. Then the
stability
and
performance
proper
ties of the controller
are not
guaranteed
for a
time-varying plant,
that
means
e.g.
for variations of the
input
error between -10% and +10%.
Consequently, using uncertainty
models in the
frequency domain,
the
excitation ofthe controller
by
the time-variation ofthe
plant
is not taken
into account. If
time-varying
uncertainties are
assumed,
nonlinear
simulations must be used for a validation of the robustness
properties.
However,
the
experience
shows that for most cases
uncertainty descrip
tions with
frequency dependent
and hence time-invariant
uncertainty
bounds are sufficient.
This holds
especially
for our distillation column: The main disturbances
are
step changes
of the feed flow rate. Each
step change
alters the
steady
state
operating point
and defines a new linear model
describing
the
dynamic
behavior
up
to the next
step change.
Each of these linear
5.3
Input uncertainty
107
models is one
of the models within the set of all models. This set is
defined
by
the
specified uncertainty
bounds.
5.3
Input uncertainty
The actual values of the
manipulated
variables reflux and
boilup
will
never match
exactly
the values
requested by
the control
system.
The
error between the
setpoints
for the
boilup
or the reflux and the true
streams will be
frequency dependent.
The main causes are
static and
dynamic
measurement errors
of reflux and
reboiler
duty
changing
heat of
evaporation
due to
pressure
and
temperature
variations
reboiler
lags
actuator
lags
effects of
sampling
The bounds for the relative errors of the column
inputs
u can be
modelled
by
a
multiplicative uncertainty description
with the
frequency-dependent
error bound
wu
for the reflux L and the error
bound
wu
for the
boilup
V These bounds are combined in the
diagonal
matrix
Wu.
As illustrated in
Figure
5.1 the
following uncertainty
model
holds:
u(jco)
=
{I
+
Au(jco)Wu(j<o)}u(j()
(5.1)
1
W
Au
u
1 1
Figure
5.1:
Multiplicative uncertainty description
for column
input
108 5 A Structured
Uncertainty
Model
with
|Au(jco)|
<1
u
loo
(5.2)
Wu(jco)
wUl(joo)
0
0
wUy(jco)
(5.3)
The
frequency-dependent complex
matrix
Au(jco)
is limited in
magni
tude. It
shapes only
the
spatial
direction of the error and is chosen to be
the worst case
during u-analysis
(see
Chapter
6). Therefore the
phase
behavior of the individual
uncertainty
bounds
wu.
is not
significant.
They
should be chosen to be stable and minimum
phase.
If we assume that the reflux and the
boilup
errors are
independent,
the
matrix
Au
(jca)
becomes a
diagonal
matrix with two
single perturbations
8
yielding
the
following uncertainty
model:
u
(jco)
1 +
8Ul(jo
0
0 5U
(jco)
uv
Wu(jco)
u(jco)
(5.4)
with
|5u.(jco)|
<1 (5.5)
Both models have been used for
u-synthesis
with
very
similar results.
For two
reasons,
the model (5.1)
is
preferred
in this
study:
The number of
uncertainty
blocks
(Aj
or
8j)
is reduced
by
one
compared
to
(5.4).
This
simplifies
the
fi-synthesis.
Any change
in reflux
may
cause a
change
of the
vapor
flow rate
within the column and vice versa.
The interactions due to flow
dynamics
and to the
energy
balance are to be considered here.
5.3
Input uncertainty
109
Shaping
the
input
error bounds
It has been shown
by Skogestad
et al.
[5.4] that the controlled
system's
performance
for a
high purity
distillation column is
very
sensitive to
errors in the
manipulated
variables. For controller
design
or
analysis
the error bounds
Wu
should be estimated as
exactly
as
possible.
This
holds
especially
for the
low-frequency range,
where the condition
number of the column models is
high.
Otherwise
potential
controller
performance
is
given away
in case of an overestimation.
In the
lower-frequency range
the
errors of the
manipulated
variables at
the
plant input
are
strongly
dominated
by
flow measurement errors and
parameter
variations. As an
example
for a
parameter
variation we
consider the heat of
evaporation
in the reboiler. The
boilup
is controlled
indirectly by
steam flow rate. Therefore a
change
in heat of
evaporation
will
cause an error in
vapor
flow rate
leaving
the reboiler.
Skogestad
and Morari
[5.4] assume a conservative 20% error in
steady
state,
which is
fairly high.
If all flow measurements are
carefully
cali
brated the error bounds should be less. An error bound of 10% for the
lower
frequency range
is assumed to be
large enough.
The effects of reboiler
lags,
actuator
lags, dynamic
measurement
errors,
and
sampling
time concern the
higher frequency range.
The errors
caused
by
these
uncertainty
sources increase with the
frequency
and
easily
exceed more than 100% of the nominal value for
frequencies
above 0.5-1 rad/min.
The
steady-state error, together
with the
high-frequency error,
is well
approximated by
the first order
lead/lag
transfer function
1 +
s/coM
G(s)=KTT^7uf
withcoN<coD
(5.6)
The
gain
K
represents
the
steady-state
error. The cut-off
frequencies
are
typically
chosen
according
to
coD
>
10coN.
110 5 A Structured
Uncertainty
Model
5.4 Model
uncertainty
5.4.1 Column
nonlinearity
The
highly
nonlinear behavior of distillation columns is observed at
varying operating points (varying
feed flow rate and feed
composition)
and at transients
during
disturbance
rejection.
If we consider the
simpli
fied
(without feed or
side-product
stream)
of
a
tray
(see (4.6))
nj(S)
=
LJ-i(xJ-i-xJ)+vj+i^+!-V-vJ(yJ-xj)
(5-7)
we
recognize
that the
and thus the nonlinear
behavior
depend
on
the
varying
internal flow rates (L
and
V),
and
the
composition profile
within the distillation column
(repre
sented
by
the
liquid
and
vapor phase compositions)
Effect of varying operating points
Any
control
system
for
a distillation column must exhibit
large gains
in
the
low-frequency range
to achieve small control errors at
steady-state.
Therefore,
at
steady-state
both
(or the
tempera
tures on
trays
10 and
44) can be
kept
at their
setpoints.
Thus transients
have no
significant
influence in the
low-frequency range
and the internal
vapor
and
liquid
flow rates as well as the
composition profile
within a
column become a function of feed flow rate and
composition only.
However,
the
dynamic
behavior of a distillation column
depends
substantially
on the actual
composition profile
and on the actual
internal
vapor
and
liquid
flow rates.
Normally
the
operating range
of a
distillation column can be bounded with a maximum and a
minimum
feed flow rate and
composition.
If
we consider the whole
operating range
defined in this
way,
we can observe the
largest
internal flow rates for the
smallest feed
composition
and
largest
feed flow rate
and,
vice
versa,
5.4 Model
uncertainty
111
smallest internal flow rates for the
largest
feed
composition
and
smallest feed flow rates. The
for these two
steady
states bound the domain of all
steady
state
(see
Figure
2.2).
Hence we can conclude that the
low-frequency
behavior of
a
binary
high-purity
distillation column is bounded
by
the models for maximum
and minimum column load. As a basis for further discussion the
following
three linear models are introduced:
Model N column at nominal load
Model I column at maximum feed flow rate and
minimum feed
composition
(increased load)
Model R column at minimum feed flow rate and
maximum feed
composition
(reduced load)
The feed data of the different models are listed in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1:
Operating
conditions for
design purposes
Operating point
Feed flow rate
(mol/min)
Feed
composition
(mol/mol)
OP-N 33 0.8
OP-I 46 0.7
OP-R 20 0.9
The
simplest
way
to
represent
the column
nonlinearity
due to
varying
operating points
would be
by
a
multiplicative output uncertainty.
If
we
assume
that the
uncertainty
for each model
output
is
independent
ofthe
actual value of the other two model
outputs,
the
following
form for the
output uncertainty
holds
(Figure
5.2):
112 5 A Structured
Uncertainty
Model
Figure
5.2:
Multiplicative uncertainty
at
output
y(jco)
=
"
8
(jco)
0 0
M
1 + 0
8y2
(jco)
0
Wy(jco)
.
0 OS
(jco)
3
.
y(jco)
(5.8)
with
and
Nl--1
y(jco)
=
GN(jco)
d(jco)
u(jco)_
The transfer matrix
Wy
is a
diagonal
matrix with the
uncertainty
bounds for each
output (w,r
,
w
,
wv ) on the main
diagonal.
An
upper
^1 ^2 -^3
bound for these uncertainties can
be obtained
by
a calculation of the
standardized errors
AGj
(jco)
and
AGR
(jco)
for each channel
ui
-^
yj
or
d- -
y-
of the models
Gj
(jco)
and
GR
(jco)
,
respectively:
AGj(jco)
=
[GI(jco)-GN(jco)]G^1(Jco)
(5.9)
5.4 Model
uncertainty
113
AGR(jco)
=
[GR(j(o)-GNa<))]GN1afl
(5.10)
The
upper
bound for the
uncertainty weights
w is the maximum of all
j
standardized
errors for the
output y
.
In earlier
papers
it has
already
been
recognized
that column nonlin
earity
is not well
represented by simple multiplicative uncertainty
bounds at model
output
(McDonald [5.2]).
This fact is confirmed
by
the
uncertainty
bounds for the two
numerically
evaluated linear models
Gj
and
Gr
which include the flow
dynamics (Figure
5.3).
The
multiplicative
output uncertainty
exceeds 80% (for
Gu
)
in the
low-frequency range.
It is
significantly
smaller in the medium
frequency range,
but increases
sharply
for
frequencies
above 0.1
rad/min,
where the flow
dynamics
influence the
dynamic
behavior. An
uncertainty description
with such a
high multiplicative uncertainty
in the
low-frequency range
is
prohibi
tive for
any
control
design.
Fortunately
the errors are
highly
correlated: The variation of the
causes a simultaneous increase or
decrease of the
singular
values ofthe transfer functions from the control
signals
u (L and V) to the model
outputs y (T10, T44, T24).
This is illus
trated
by
the
Nyquist plots
for the individual channels
Uj
-
y. (Figure
5.4). It
clearly
shows that the variation of the column load causes a
simultaneous increase or decrease of the
open-loop gains
in the low-
frequency
domain. Thus we can assume that the
dynamic
behavior of
the distillation column must lie "somewhere between OP-I and OP-R."
This
can be
represented by
a linear combination of the two column
models
Gz
(jco)
and
GR
(jco) (Figure
5.5)
GT (jco)
+
GR
(jco) GT (jco)
-
GR
(jco)
G(jco)
=
lU
2
R
+
5G(jco)
lU
2
R
(5.11)
with
|6g|L-i
8Ge
C or
8Ge
R
114 5 A Structured
Uncertainty
Model
Standardized error of
T10, Gj(s)
T44, Gj(s)
10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/mm)
T24, Gj(s)
10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
T10, Gg(s)
10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
T24, Gr(s)
10 10 10 10 10' 10"
Frequency (rad/min)
T44, Gr(s)
1
1
"""%,
/
0.5
\ /
\ /
\
s^.-
. 1
. 1
. !
0
-4l
i1
111
\
' i-
N
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
Legend
xF
F
L
V
Frequency
(rad/mm)
Figure
5.3: Standardized model errors at
operating points
OP-I and OP-R
5.4 Model
uncertainty
115
GL-T10(Jffl)
GV^T
(J>)
GL_T44(jco)
-250
GL^
T
CJ0
6
1
1
V
\\
f
1
/
/
/
\
\
/
/
/
y
<z>
/
500
Figure
5.4:
Nyquist plots
for different column loads
-
solid lines: Model
N;
dash-dotted lines: Model
I;
dashed lines: Model
R;
x: 0) = lxlO"3
rad/min;
o: co = lxlO"4 rad/min
116 5 A Structured
Uncertainty
Model
r-H.Gl
J~^-^'
u
T+ r-
1/2
5G*3
x
y
Figure
5.5:
Uncertainty
model due to
nonlinearity
in the
low-frequency range
The
uncertainty parameter
G
may
be either
complex
or real. If we
define it to be
complex
we
allow
a
phase
shift for all models between
GR
and
GT,
that means the
points
of all models in the defined set in the
Nyquist plots
and for a fixed
frequency
are not
required
to be on a
straight
line.
In this
way
we
generate
a
plant
which covers the
properties
of the distil
lation column at low and at
high
feed
compositions,
and at different feed
flow rates without
introducing
additional conservatism. It is
impossible
to model such a behavior with an unstructured
uncertainty description!
Effect of
transients
While an
appropriate uncertainty
model for different
operating points
requires
a
highly
structured
uncertainty description,
the effect of tran
sients is rather unstructured:
During
disturbance
rejection,
the
compo
sitions on
tray 10, tray 44,
and
tray
24 as well as the
product
compositions
will deviate from their
steady-state
values,
caused
by
a
movement of the
composition profile
toward one column end. Due to the
nonlinear
vapor/liquid equilibrium,
the
singular
values of the transfer
functions
Gu
may change
in different
directions, e.g.,
towards
higher
singular
values of
G .
T
and lower
singular
values of
G . T
.
Due to the
high
controller
performance
in the
low-frequency range,
tran
sients do not affect the
low-frequency range.
However, they
cause
5.4 Model
uncertainty
117
nonlinearity
in the middle and
higher frequency range,
which can be
described with a
multiplicative uncertainty description
as in
equation
(5.8).
The
uncertainty weights
w are chosen to have
large singular
values in the
higher-frequency range
and low
singular
values in the low-
frequency range.
It is not
possible
to calculate these
uncertainty
bounds
exactly.
Each disturbance
input
will cause a variation of the
operating
point,
but the
magnitude
of the deviation from a
steady-state operating
point
cannot be
predicted.
The selection of
appropriate
transfer func
tions is discussed in
Chapter
6.
5.4.2 Unmodelled
dynamics
It has been shown in
Chapter
2 that flow
dynamics
affect the
high-
frequency
behavior of distillation columns. If linear models which
neglect
the flow
dynamics
are used for control
design,
an
appropriate
uncertainty
model is
necessary.
Most authors treat the effect of flow
dynamics
in the same
way
as the
effect of an
input
time
delay
t with 0 < x < 1 minute
([5.1], [5.3], [5.4],
[5.5]).
The
corresponding input uncertainty
is often modelled with a
multiplicative uncertainty, using
a
first order Pade
approximation
for
the
uncertainty
bound
([5.4], [5.5]):
1
_I5
e-B
(5.12)
This
uncertainty
can
be combined with the other
input
uncertainties
(Chapter
5.3). Lundstrom et al.
[5.1]
point
to the fact that some combi
nations of
gain uncertainty
and time
delay uncertainty
are not
repre
sented
using simple uncertainty weights. They developed
new and more
complicated uncertainty bounds,
which cover the whole domain of
combined
gain uncertainty
and time
delay uncertainty. However,
the
control
design
studies in this research
(Chapter 6)
show
very good
results
using simple
first-order
weights
for the
input uncertainty
description.
118 5 A Structured
Uncertainty
Model
Model
uncertainty
due to flow
dynamics
could be
represented by
a multi
plicative output uncertainty,
as well. This
approach
has the disadvan
tage
that the
uncertainty
bounds can no
longer
be
approximated by
time
delays.
5.5 Measurement
uncertainty
An additional source of
uncertainty
are the
temperature
measurements.
The
dynamic
behavior of a
temperature
sensor is well
approximated by
a first-order
lag:
GT(8)
=
~L-
(5.13)
The time constant
TT
of this transfer function
depends
on the
tempera
ture measurement
position.
While the time constant will
usually
be
clearly
below 1 minute if the sensor is
placed
in the
liquid phase,
we have
to
expect
time constants
up
to 10 minutes if it is
placed
in the
vapor
phase.
In the case of the industrial distillation column under
investiga
tion,
a
position
in the
liquid phase
cannot be
guaranteed
because of the
small head on the
plates.
Therefore we have to consider time constants
up
to 10 minutes for the control
design.
The
gain
KT
of the sensor model
GT
depends
on the
sensor
calibration
and on the heat loss to the environment. The sensor can
easily
be cali
brated with
high accuracy.
However,
the
dynamic
effects of the heat loss
due to variations of the environment
temperature
are difficult to esti
mate.
They
concern
mainly
the
low-frequency range
and cause a slow
bias variation of the
temperature
measurements. This effect is
compa
rable to variations of the
setpoints
for the control
system.
The
stability
of the control
system
is not affected if
large
bias variations are avoided.
They
would lead to
which are
very
distinct from
those at the
design operating points.
A
good
thermal isolation of the
temperature
sensors is thus recommendable.
Because the
u-analysis
and
u-synthesis guarantees
the
performance
for
the worst
case,
it is
proposed
to include the model for the
temperature
5.6
Specification
of the controller
performance
119
sensors with a
gain
KT
=
1 and
a time constant
TT
= 10 min into the
column model.
Thereby
further
uncertainty
blocks
can be avoided. It
will be
easily recognized later,
that shorter time constants
TT
will not
endanger
the
closed-loop system's stability
due to the
large output
uncertainties w
specified
for the controller
design
in the
upper
frequency range.
5.6
Specification
of the controller
performance
The
uncertainty
model discussed above is structured. A controller
design
or a robust
performance analysis requires
the framework of the
structured
singular
value
u,
which
expects
the disturbance
inputs
d
(feed
composition,
flow
rate),
the reference
inputs r,
and the control
error to be in a
H^-norm
bounded set. This is illustrated
by
the
frequency shaped plant
in
Figure
5.6.
i!
We(8)
/ I
Wd(s)
GA(s)
+o
K(s)
*\J
-L
1
[*
T24
T10>T44
Figure
5.6: Performance
specification
for the uncertain
plant
The uncertain
plant
GA(jco)
describes the nonlinear behavior of the
distillation column. The
performance objective
is defined as
making
the
weighted
control error e to be in the set
120
5 A Structured
Uncertainty
Model
sup
[jWe
(j co)
e
(j co)
J
2
<
1 Vco
e R+
LrJ
2
The
following
H^
bound is
equivalent
to this
specification:
T
d
r
(jco)
^P
We
(s)
is
a
(usually diagonal)
matrix of transfer functions which
shapes
the maximum allowed
amplitude
of the transfer function from
[d, r]
T
to
e.
If
We
is
large
in a certain
frequency range, only
a small control error
is allowed there.
The matrix
Wd
(s) shapes
the
frequency
content of the disturbances and
setpoint changes.
In the case of our distillation
column,
variations of the
feed
composition
and feed flow rate will affect the medium and lower
frequency range.
First order
lags shape
the
frequency
content of these
two disturbances
quite
well. Because measurement noise enters the
control
loop
at the same
position
as the reference
inputs,
the corre
sponding weights
are chosen to be constant. The
weighting
functions
chosen
are discussed in the
following chapter.
5.7
Summary
The
complete uncertainty
model is shown in
Figure
5.7. It consists of the
input uncertainty (5.1),
the model uncertainties
(5.8) and
(5.11),
and the
performance specifications. Simple dynamic
models of the
temperature
sensors are included in the column models. This
relatively complex
uncertainty
model has the
advantage
that the entire
operating range
of
the distillation column is covered. The
large
conservatism of an unstruc
tured
uncertainty description
is avoided.
Therefore,
with
design proce
dures based on the
u-synthesis
or
u-optimization,
we can
expect high
controller
performance
for the entire
operating range.
5.7
Summary
121
6
Eh
rV)^
**
+
Us
iL iL
s
I
o
0)
O
a
t
u
a
s
a
a
o
O
IO
O
Q.
122 5 A Structured
Uncertainty
Model
The
input uncertainty
bounds
wu
are
easily shaped. Only
a few reflec
tions are
necessary
about the
steady-state
error and the
frequency
where a 100% error is to be
expected. However,
the
output
uncertainties
wy.
are more difficult to
shape. During
the controller
design procedure
it is often
necessary
to
adjust
them
iteratively
until nonlinear simula
tions show a
satisfactory closed-loop dynamics.
This
problem
is
discussed further in
Chapter
6.
5.8 References
[5.1] Lundstrom, P.,
S.
Skogestad,
and
Z.-Q. Wang: "Uncertainty
Weight
Selection for
H-Infinity
and Mu-Control
Methods,"
Proc.
30th
Conference
on Decision and
Control,
Brighton,
U. K.
(1991)
[5.2] McDonald,
K. A.: "Characterization of Distillation
Nonlinearity
for Control
System Design
and
Analysis,"
The Shell Process Con
trol
Workshop,
ed. D. M. Prett and M.
Morari, Butterworth,
Bos
ton,
279-290
(1987)
[5.3] Postlethwaite, I.,
J.-L. Lin and D.-W. Gu: "Robust Control of a
High Purity
Distillation Column
Using
u-K
Iteration,"
Proc. 30th
Conference
on Decision and
Control, Brighton,
U. K
(1991)
[5.4]
Skogestad, S.,
M.
Morari,
and J. C.
Doyle:
"Robust Control of 111-
Conditioned Plants:
High-Purity Distillation,"
IEEE Trans. Auto
matic
Control, 33,12,
1092-1105 (1988)
[5.5]
Skogestad, S.,
and P. Lundstrom:
"Mu-Optimal
LV-Control of
Distillation
Columns," Comp.
Chem.
Eng., 14, 4/5,
401-413
(1990)
Chapter
6
ja-Optimal
Controller
Design
6.1 Introduction
While the
synthesis
and
analysis
of controllers
using
the structured
singular
value a (SSV)
has attracted considerable attention
among
aerospace
and electrical
engineers (e.g., [6.8], [6.9]),
it has been less
commonly
considered
by process
control
engineers.
One reason for that
might
be the lack of
adequate
structured
uncertainty
models for chem
ical
processes.
The
uncertainty
model discussed in the
previous chapter
forms a suitable basis for a
u-optimal
controller
design.
Since this uncer
tainty
model
covers the
dynamic
behavior of the industrial distillation
column for the entire
operating range,
the
resulting
controllers
guar
antee
stability
and
performance
for all
operating points.
This
chapter presents
the results of a
u-optimal
controller
design
for the
LV control structure of the distillation column. After a
summary
of the
most useful
aspects
of the
SSV,
the
design
of
state-space
controllers
by
u-synthesis
is demonstrated. Because the
implementation
of state-
space
controllers in
a distributed control
system
is a troublesome
project,
the
design
of controllers with fixed and
easy-to-implement
structures (PID control
structures)
is considered in a
special
section. A
comparison
of the controller's
performances
in the time-domain termi
nates this
chapter.
124 6
|i-Optimal
Controller
Design
6.2 The structured
singular
value
The
uncertainty
model
approximating
the nonlinear
dynamic
behavior
of the industrial distillation column
(see
Chapter
5)
includes several
simultaneous
uncertainty
blocks
(8i;
A-),
thus
representing
a structured
uncertainty
model. Most of the well-known robust control
design
methods
(e.g., H^, LQG/LTR)
are based
on unstructured
uncertainty
descriptions.
The
application
of these methods on such
uncertainty
models often introduces
unnecessary
conservatism in controller
design,
because these methods combine all the uncertainties in one
large, fully
occupied uncertainty
block. Thus the
special
structure of the uncertain
ties is
neglected.
This conservatism can be avoided
by
the use of the
structured
singular
value
|i,
which was introduced in 1982
by
J. C.
Doyle ([6.5], [6.6]).
The structured
singular
value
(t
so far has seldom been discussed in
textbooks. Therefore the most
important
facts about
|i
are summarized
within the
following
three sections. The discussion is restricted to
complex uncertainty
blocks. Results for mixed
real/complex
uncertain
ties can be found in
[6.15].
The references
[6.4], [6.12],
and
[6.14]
contain additional informations.
6.2.1
Representation
of structured uncertainties
The definition of the structured
singular
value
presumes
that the uncer
tainty
model for a
plant
is
rearranged
into a
special form,
as shown in
Figure
6.1. The
plant
P consists ofthe
process
models and the
weighting
functions. It has three sets of
inputs
and
outputs:
The first set of
inputs
and
outputs
is
highly important.
Within the
uncertainty model,
this set
represent
the
output
and
input signals
ofthe
uncertainty
blocks. In our case
the
inputs
to the
uncertainty
blocks are
the
signals
po,,0
and
no.
The
corresponding outputs
are the
signals
p.î.andTii.
The second set of
inputs
consists of all external
signals
(disturbances d,
reference
inputs r),
while the third set of
inputs
consists of all
manipu
lated
inputs
u. The
corresponding
set of
outputs
contains the
outputs p,
6.2 The structured
singular
value 125
=
z
A
Uncertainties
P
Plant
K
Controller
v
=
Figure
6.1: Standard
representation
of an uncertain
plant.
The definition of the vectors z and v is related to
Figure
5.7
subject
to
any performance
measure
(e.g.,
the
weighted
control
error),
and the measured
plant outputs y, respectively.
If the
uncertainty
model is structured
(i.e.,
it contains more than one
uncertainty
block) the matrix A is a block
diagonal
matrix with all
uncertainty
blocks on the main
diagonal.
In case of the
uncertainty
model for the distillation column considered in this
thesis,
the
following
block structure holds:
A =
diag (A
u,
6GI3,5y], 5^,
6^|Au
e C2
*
2,
8G
e
C,
8y.
C
)
or, alternatively,
A =
diag (A
u,
8GI3,8
8
,8
IAu
e C2
x
2,8G
e R,
8 e C
) (6.1)
y,' y2' y3 î
with
M-^ftl-*1
For an unstructured
uncertainty model,
the matrix A is a
fully occupied
matrix without
predefined
structure.
126 6
(i-Optimal
Controller
Design
The
rearrangement
of an
uncertainty
model into the standard form is
always possible.
The MATLAB
p-Analysis
and
Synthesis
Toolbox
[6.1] as well as the Robust Control Toolbox
[6.3]
provide
efficient tools
for that
purpose.
6.2.2 Definition of the structured
singular
value
Let X be the set of all A matrices with a
given,
fixed
block-diagonal
structure:
X-
{diag
8]Ir,...,8sIr,A1,...,Af 1^
e
C,
A. e CmJxmJ} (6.2)
The structured
singular
value
[6.7]
of the Matrix Me Cmxm with
m
=
Yfj
+
Ym.
(Fig.
6.2) is defined
by
HA(M)
=
'
1
min
{omax(A)|(det(I
+
MA)=0)}
Ae X
0
ifno(AeX)
solves det
(I
+
MA)
=0
(6.3)
Hence 1/u
(M)
is the size of the smallest matrix A which moves a
pole
of the
system
shown in
Figure
6.2 onto the
imaginary
axis. In the case
of a
nominally
stable
system M, 1/li(M)
is the size of the smallest
destabilizing
matrix A. In case of a
nominally
unstable
system M,
Figure
6.2: M-A feedback connection
6.2 The structured
singular
value 127
however, |i(M)
is not
defined,
and the numerical results are
misleading.
Some
important properties of\l [6.7]
Let Dbe the set of
diagonal scaling
matrices:
(6.4)
D=
{diagfD!
,...,Ds,ds
+
1Imi,...,ds
+ FImF]
|DiCrixrsDi=D*>0,ds+jR,ds+j>0}
and let U be the set of
block-diagonal unitary
matrices
U =
{diag(Ulf U2, ...,Un)
|Ui6 CÛÛ^}
(6.5)
With these definitions the
following properties
of
\i
hold:
p(M)<u(M)<omax(M)
(6.6)
H(DMD->)
=
u(M)
(6.7)
max
p(UM) <p(M)
<
inf
ofDMD-1)
(6.8)
UeU DSD
mM
Property
(6.6)
reflects the
advantage
of the structured
singular
value u:
In the
presence
of structured
uncertainty, usually
the
inequality
holds.
Therefore,
u is smaller than the maximum
singular
value.
The invariance of
\i
to
diagonal scaling
is indicated
by property
(6.7),
which is essential for the
approximate
calculation of the structured
singular
values as well as for the DK-iteration for
u-synthesis.
No direct
way
has been found
yet
to calculate u
exactly.
All
algorithms
for the numerical
computation
calculate
upper
and lower bounds
according
to
property
(6.8).
Both bounds
represent
an
optimization problem.
The
optimization
problem
for the
upper
bound is convex. For
simple
block structures with
2S + F
<
3 the
upper
bound is
guaranteed
to be
equal
to
nA
(M).
128
6
fi-Optimal
Controller
Design
The
optimization problem
for the lower bound is not convex and its
calculation
may converge
to local maxima. Nevertheless numerical
experience
indicates that
usually
the difference between
upper
and
lower bounds is within
5%,
and almost
always
within 15%
([6.12],
[6.14]).
6.2.3 Robustness of
stability
and
performance
Before we start to discuss robust
stability
and
performance
within the
framework of the structured
singular value,
we have to
join
the
plant
P
and the known controller K of the standard
configuration
in order to
close the control
loop (Fig.
6.3).
This is
easily
done
by
a linear fractional
transformation
[6.13]:
M(P,K)
=
J,(P,K)
=
Pn+P]2K(I-P22K)-iP
12
(6.9)
The
resulting plant
M has two sets of
inputs
and
outputs:
=
M M12
M21 M22|
z
[d]
|_rj
(6.10)
d
r
Z
(
A ^ 1
) V
1
M(P,K)
Figure
6.3:
Representation
of uncertain control
system
with controller Kand
plant
P combined into the
system
M
6.2 The structured
singular
value 129
The
input
sets are (1)
the
outputs
from the
uncertainty
block
A,
and
(2)
the disturbance and reference
inputs.
The
outputs,
in
turn,
are the
inputs
to the
uncertainty
block A and the set of
performance
measures
P-
Theorem 6.1: Robust
stability
Let BX be the set of all block
diagonal
matrices with a
particular
struc
ture and with
infinity-norm-bounded
submatrices:
BX =
{diagr81Iri,...,8sIvAI,...,Afl
V
(6.11)
|6i6c,Ajec,.m8i|î.hL:si}
The
system
shown in
Figure
6.3 remains stable for all A e BX if and
only
if
sup
uA(Mn)<l
(6.12)
co
Proof: see [6.6]
Theorem 6.1 allows the
stability analysis
of control
systems
with struc
tured uncertainties. If we
plot
the
upper
and lower bounds of
|A
(Mu)
for
enough frequency points
in the
frequency range
of interest and find
that the maximum value of u is smaller than
one,
the control
system
is
stable for the uncertainties
specified
with the
assumption
|oJ
<.
1,
||Aj|
<
1. If
p,
(M)
exceeds one for
any frequency,
the control
system
is
not
guaranteed
to be stable.
However,
for smaller uncertainties with
II5J
<l/(sup
uA) and |A.||
<l/(sup
\iA)
stability
is
guaranteed.
ii iii~
m
a
ii Jiioo
w
a
Theorem 6.2: Robust
performance
The
performance
of the control
system
is
robustly
achieved if and
only
if
supp-(M)<l
with A =
diag[A,Ap]
(6.13)
Proof: see [6.6]
130
6
u-Optimal
Controller
Design
For the
application
of theorem 6.2 we have to add one
uncertainty
block
Ap
to the
uncertainty
structure A
(Fig.
6.4).
Imagine
that the
perform
ance
specification
of the control
system
is met for all allowed distur
bance matrices A in the set BX. In this
case the
output p
is bounded
by
HpIL
<
1 for all
inputs
[dT, rT]T
with
|| [dT, rT] T|L
<
1. If we close the
loop
from
p
to
[dT, rT]T
by
introduction of the block
Ap
with
|Ap|[
<
1,
the
system
will be stable. But if
any
block
Ap
with
||Ap|
<
1 destabilizes
the
loop p
-
[dT, rT]T,
the
specified performance
cannot be achieved
for all
possible plants
within the
specified
set.
Therefore,
in the frame
work of the
SSV,
the robust
performance problem
is handled like a sta
bility problem.
A test for robust
performance
will be similar to a test for
robust
stability.
Because the test for robust
performance
includes robust
stability,
it
usually
will be sufficient.
A 0
0
AP
M(P,K)
Figure
6.4: The robust
performance setup
for the SSV-framework
6.3 The
design
model
The
design
of
u-optimal
controllers for the industrial distillation column
is based on the
uncertainty
model
developed
in
Chapter
5 (see
Figure
5.7 on
page
121).
For this
model,
the
weighting
functions for the
<)
6.3 The
design
model 131
input uncertainties,
output uncertainties,
reference
inputs,
disturbance
inputs,
and
controller
performance
are to be selected.
All
weighting
functions are chosen as
diagonal
matrices:
Wd(s)
=
diag[wXF(s),wp(s),wrio(s),wr44(s)]
(6.14)
Wu(s)
=diag[wUL(s),wUv(s)]
(6.15)
Wy
(s)
=
diag[wyifl
(s),
wy^(s), wy^(a)]
(6.16)
We(s)
=
diag|"we (s),we
(s)l (6.17)
The selection of the
weighting
functions is
primarily
done on the basis
of
physical
considerations:
Feed disturbances: The variations of the feed
composition
and the feed
flow rate will affect the lower
frequency range.
The
frequency
contents
of these disturbances are modelled
by
first-order
lags. Typical weights
chosen here for the control
design
are
wv
(s)
= K -iwithK = 0.1
mol/mol,
T = 180 min
(6.18)
Xp XF1 + 1 S XF XF
wF
(s)
=
KF
*
with
Kp
= 6
mol/min,
Tp
= 120 min
(6.19)
1 +
lps
Reference inputs:
The reference
inputs
r can be used to model
setpoint
changes
as well
as measurement noise.
They
are chosen as constant
weights, representing setpoint changes
and measurement noise of
0.2 C:
132 6
u-Optimal
Controller
Design
wr
(s)
=
wr
(s)
= 0.2 (6.20)
Input
uncertainties: An
uncertainty
of 10% is assumed for both
manip
ulated variables within a wide
frequency range.
For
higher frequencies
the
uncertainty
is
expected
to be much
higher.
An
uncertainty
of more
than 100% is assumed for co > 0.5 rad/minute:
wUl(s),wUv(s)=0.1i^
(6.21)
Output
uncertainties:
The resolution of the
temperature
measurements
is limited. The maximum deviation of the
pressure-compensated
temperatures
from their
setpoints
is
usually significantly
smaller than
1 C. A measurement error
for AT of 10% seems to be reasonable. In the
higher frequency range
the
output uncertainty
is affected
by
model
mismatch. An
assumption
of a 100% error for co
~
1 /16 rad/minute has
shown
good
results in controller
design. Adjusting
of this 100% cross
over is one
of the
possibilities
to influence the
high-frequency
behavior
of the
resulting
controller.
Typical uncertainty weights
are
wy
(s)
=
w
(s)
=
w
(s)
= 0.liif
(6.22)
yiO y44 ylA 1 + 1.0/S
Performance weights:
The
performance weights "punish"
the control
error in the
frequency
domain. These
weights
have been selected as
first-order
lags
with a
large steady-state gain,
which forces
nearly
inte
grating
behavior ofthe controller. The cut-off
frequency
of these
weights
is a matter of
optimization:
If the
frequency
is too
high,
robust
perfor
mance cannot be achieved. On the other hand a cut-off
frequency speci
fication
significantly
lower than the maximum attainable
frequency
may
lead to an unsatisfactory
controller
design.
This holds
especially
for
the uK-iteration which is discussed later. A
typical performance specifi
cation,
which allows a 0.01 C
steady-state offset,
is
given by
^-^-^T^Sooi
(6-23)
6.4 Controller
design
with
u-synthesis
133
All
weights
above are
illustrated
by Figure
6.5
Uncertainty weights Input
and
performance weights
10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
10" 10 10 10"
Frequency (rad/min)
Figure
6.5:
Weights
for
u-synthesis
6.4 Controller
design
with
{i-synthesis
The
objective
of the
(i-synthesis
is the calculation of a
stabilizing
controller Kwithout restriction on
the controller order and its
structure,
which minimizes the SSV for all
frequencies:
K=
arg
inf
|Ui-(M
(P, K))
I
K
stabilizing
" >
(6.24)
As it is not
possible
to calculate the SSV
exactly,
the
design
task (6.24)
is
usually approximated by
the
upper
bound for u
(6.8)
K=arg
inf
| inf
amax(DM(P,K)D-1)
Kstabilizing"
De D
(6.25)
The aim of the
u-synthesis
is
perfectly reached,
if the maximum value
of
|i-
for the
closed-loop system (Figure
6.4)
is below one.
134
6
(i-Optimal
Controller
Design
6.4.1
Synthesis algorithms
The
u-synthesis
is not a trivial task. Yet no
algorithms
have been devel
oped
which allow a
one-step
solution of the
u-synthesis problem
(6.24).
The known
algorithms require
the
repeated
calculation of an
H^
problem, alternating
with a
scaling
of the
plant.
These
algorithms
cannot
guarantee convergence
of the iteration.
DK-Iteration
The
synthesis problem
(6.25)
is a simultaneous
of
the
frequency-dependent scaling
matrices D and the controller K.
Because no direct solutions
exist, Doyle [6.7]
proposes
an iterative
approach:
If
we
keep
the
diagonal scaling
matrices D
constant,
the mini
mization of
1
inf o
(DMD-1) ||
forms the convex H
problem
||
DgD
max^
Ml-
K =
arg
infllDTUP.KJD-1!
(6.26)
Kll
1
II-
If we fix the controller
K, equation (6.26)
represents
a convex
optimiza
tion
problem
for the
diagonal scaling
matrices D. These
scaling
matrices
are
optimized by
a
u-analysis
of the
closed-loop system:
u-
[?i
(P, K) ]
=
inf o
(DMD-1)
(6.27)
A
DeD
The
frequency-dependent scaling
matrices D
are
approximated
with
stable,
rational transfer functions D
(s) . Alternating
the
HM
controller
synthesis
and the
optimal scaling,
convergence
is achieved for most u-
synthesis problems
after several iterations. The iteration
procedure
is
illustrated in
Figure
6.6. The DK-iteration is finished either if the solu
tion does not show
any
further
improvement
or if u < 1.
However,
convergence
cannot be
guaranteed:
Both ofthe
single optimization prob
lems are
convex,
but not the overall
(6.25). The
optimized scaling
matrices D
are an
optimal
solution for the local
opti
mization
problem (6.27),
but
they
are not
optimal
for the
global optimi
zation
problem
(6.25). Therefore,
the DK-iteration
may converge
to local
minima.
6.4 Controller
design
with
u-synthesis
135
K0
=
arg
infl^P.K)^
ZZZ3ZZI
^[^(P.Ko)]
=D>nfDamax(DMD-i)
Fit D(s)
with
stable, mm.
phase
transfer functions D
(s)
T
K,
=arg irfJDfsj^fP.KjD-'fB)!.
|
^[JjCP.K,)]
=D.nfD0-max(DMD-i)
Figure
6.6: DK-Iteration
ui<L-/terafJon
A new
algorithm
for
u-synthesis
has been
proposed by
Lin et al. [6.11].
Instead of
fitting
the
scaling
matrices
D,
this
algorithm
is based on a fit
of the
frequency-dependent
SSV with a stable rational transfer func
tion. At each iteration
step,
the
plant
is
premultiplied
with a
diagonal
matrix of the
u-approximating
transfer function. Thus the
peaks
of u
within the
frequency range
of interest are
punished,
and the
algorithm
tries to flatten the u-curve. The
convergence
of this
algorithm
is not
proved.
The authors
present
"a reasoned
argument
for
believing
that
the
sequence
will
converge" [6.11].
A scheme of the
uK-algorithm
is
136
6
|i-Optimal
Controller
Design
Kârg
inff?, (P,K)|m
u(jco)
=
^[^(P.Kq)]
Fit
|10
(jco)
=
., .
'..
,
ji0(s)
stable,
miminum
phase
z.iz'vi"
:
"
K,
=
arg
inf|jio(s)7'1(P>K)||oo
;::_ :.l."._::..:
u(jco)
=
u-fJiCP.K,)]
:::::: ::\:
' '
*.=[?&
i
K- =
arg infNji.
(s)(l0(s)?1(P, K)||
'
J...
" '
Figure
6.7: uK-Iteration
usually converges
more
slowly
than the
DK-iteration,
and the conver
gence properties
are
strongly dependent
on the fit of the u-curve. Even
if
convergence
is
achieved,
u is not minimized for all
frequencies.
6.4.2
Applying
the DK-iteration
The
apphcation
of the DK-iteration to our
design problem
was not
successful because
convergence
of the
algorithm
is not attainable. Most
6.4 Controller
design
with
u-synthesis
137
likely,
the main
problem
is the fit of the
fully occupied
2x2 or 3x3
(including
or
excluding
the measurement of
T24, respectively)
block of
the
D-scaling
matrices. This block results from the
repeated
scalar
uncertainty
block
8GI.
If
we fit each
position
ofthis block with a
scalar,
stable,
and
minimum-phase
transfer
function, a
minimum-phase
behavior for the
resulting
MIMO
system
is
guaranteed. However,
unnecessary
conservatism is introduced
thereby,
since a minimum
phase
behavior is
only required
for the MIMO
system,
but not for the
single
scalar transfer functions. This
problem
remains to be solved.
6.4.3
Applying
the uK-Iteration
The
apphcation
of the uK-Iteration does
yield convergence. However,
it
is
necessary
to
slightly modify
the
algorithm.
The
premultiplication
of
the
u-curve-fitting
transfer function
jlj
(s)
increases the order of the
design
model at each iteration
step.
This
easily
leads to models with
more than 200 states.
Unacceptable
calculation times and numerical
problems
result therefrom. This
problem
is avoided
by
an order reduc
tion
step
after the
augmentation
of the
plant
and before the
HM design.
The order reduction method utilized is a balanced truncated realization
[6.1].
Experiences
A
typical
course of the iteration is shown
by Figure
6.8. In the
frequency
range
where the
performance specification
u-
(ja>)
< 1 is not
achieved,
the
upper
bound of the SSV is forced down at each iteration
step.
After
six
steps,
the solution is reached for which
no further
improvement
is
possible.
If we look at the
frequency range
between IO-2 and 10_1 rad/
min,
we discover that the first controller exhibits much better robust
performance
than the final
design.
This results from the
"flattening"
behavior of the
uK-Iteration,
which leads to
any
solution of the
design
task,
but not
necessarily
to the
optimal
one.
This behavior of the iteration scheme
may
lead to
strange
results. Even
if the robust
performance
criterion is
achieved,
the simulation of the
closed-loop
behavior
may
exhibit
an
insufficiently damped
oscillation. It
138 6
|i-Optimal
Controller
Design
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency
(rad/min)
10 10
Figure
6.8:
Convergence
of the uK-Iteration
has to be
emphasized
here that such an oscillation is consistent with the
performance specification.
This
performance
ofthe
closed-loop system
is
specified
in the
frequency-domain
rather than in the time-domain!
Slightly increasing
the
performance requirement
or the
uncertainty
specifications usually
removes this
problem.
Another
problem
of the uK-iteration is the small
convergence
area:
The
performance specification
We(s)
(see (6.17))
has to be close to the
maximum achievable
performance,
otherwise the iteration does not
converge.
As a last drawback the
long computation
times have to be
mentioned. The CPU time for a
design usually
exceeds 2h on a SUN
SPARC 2 workstation!
6.4 Controller
design
with
u-synthesis 139
Analytically
or
numerically
linearized models?
In
chapter
4 two different
types
of linear models have been
developed.
The main differences between these model
types
consist of the low
frequency gains
and the
representation
of flow
dynamics.
In the case of
the
analytically
linearized
models,
the relative
uncertainty
in the low
frequency range
due to variation of the
is
essentially
smaller (see
Chapter
5).
For both
types
of
models,
state-space
controllers have been
designed.
In
order to achieve an
acceptable
controller
design
(oscillation free) with
analytically
linearized
models,
the
low-frequency gains
of the distur
bance
weights (6.18)
and
(6.19) must be
approximately
doubled. With
respect
to the
higher frequency range
the fact of unmodelled flow
dynamics
does not dominate the
shape
of the
output uncertainty
weights
w for the
tray temperature T10
and
T44.
Both
weights
may
be
kept equal
for both
types
of linear models.
However,
the
uncertainty
weight
for the
temperature
measurement in the middle of the column
T24
has to be increased for the
analytically
linearized models due to the
unmodelled flow
dynamics.
In accordance with these
adaptations
of the
weighting functions,
the
resulting state-space
controllers
yield nearly
identical
closed-loop
behavior with a small
advantage
from
using
the
numerically
linearized models.
Complex
or real
uncertainty
block
8G
Within the structured
uncertainty models,
the
uncertainty
8G
may
be
chosen
as a
complex
or real
uncertainty.
The choice as a real
uncertainty
reduces the
uncertainty
for the entire
frequency range. However,
the
resulting closed-loop
behavior exhibits
insufficiently damped
oscilla
tions. To avoid this
problem,
the
performance weights
and the distur
bance
weights
must be increased. The
state-space
controller
designed
with the modified
weights
are not
superior
to the
design
obtained with
a
complex uncertainty
block
8r.
140 6
(i-Optimal
Controller
Design
\\K-Iteration
results
for
three
temperature
measurements
The
input
vector of the controller
may
consist either of the
pressure-
compensated tray temperatures T10
and
T44,
or of all three
tempera
tures. The
temperature T24
is close to the feed
tray
and its
response
to
feed flow disturbances is faster than that of the other two
temperatures.
Therefore,
an
improved
controller
design
should result from this addi
tional
temperature
measurement.
Several
synthesis attempts
have shown that it is
possible
to increase the
performance specification by
circa 30%
up
to
w
100
1
1+ 20580s
(6.28)
After the
convergence
of the
uK-Iteration,
the final controllers were
reduced to an order 20
using
a balanced truncated realization of the
control
system
[6.1].
The
u-plot
for the reduced-order controller
(Figure
6.9)
using
the
uncertainty, input,
and
performance weights
(6.14)-(6.23)
demonstrate the excellent robustness
properties
of this controller.
10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
10
Figure
6.9: Robust
performance
and
stability
for the
\i-optimal
state-space
controller (controller
inputs: T10, T44, T24)
An
analysis
of the nominal
closed-loop system
(with
plant
model
G^)
is
shown in
Figure
6.10 and
Figure
6.11. The
singular
values of the
transfer function from the reference
signals
r to the controlled
outputs
(Fig.
6.10
a)
y
indicate a
good set-point tracking
for the
frequency range
of interest. The
singular
values of the individual transfer functions from
6.4 Controller
design
with
u-synthesis
141
10J 10J 10' 10
Frequency
(rad/min)
a)
Frequency
(rad/min)
b)
Figure
6.10:
Singular
values for the nominal
closed-loop system
with the
u-optimal
state-space
controller
(controller inputs: Tig, T44, T24)
a)
Transfer function from reference
signals
to controlled
output signals
b)
Transfer functions from disturbance
signals
to controlled
output signals
Dash-dotted line:
TF
,
solid line:
Tx
10
f
1 1 I HUM T IIJJIL cr-T-rrr 1 J 1 nil 1I Mini.
10 10' 10'
Frequency (rad/min)
Figure
6.11:
Singular
values of the
sensitivity
function at u for the nominal closed-
loop system
with the
\i-optimal state-space
controller (controller inputs: Tig,
T44, T24)
142 6
u-Optimal
Controller
Design
the two disturbance
inputs
to the controlled
outputs (Fig.
6.10
b)
show
a maximum of the
sensitivity
to these disturbances in the mid-
frequency range.
While in the
high-frequency range
the
sensitivity
is
smaller due to the
low-pass
characteristics of the
plant,
the
large
controller
gains
cause an effective
compensation
in the
low-frequency
range.
The
plot
of the
sensitivity
at u
(Fig.
6.11)
Su(s)
=
[I
+
K(s)G(s)]-1 (6.29)
confirms the
good
robustness
properties
in the common
unstructured
uncertainty representation.
The maximum value (=1.6)
guarantees
a
stability phase margin
of at least 35
[6.4].
The simulation of
step responses
using
the
rigorous dynamic
model
described in
Chapter
3 demonstrates the
closed-loop
behavior in the
time-domain. Two disturbances are simulated: An increase of the feed
composition
from 0.8 to 0.9
mol/mol,
and an increase in the feed flow
by
3.6 mol/min.
Figure
6.12 shows the
top
and
product impurities
as well
as the control errors
for these disturbances and for maximum and
minimum feed flow rates. To estimate the
sensitivity
to errors in the
manipulated variables,
a 10% error of the controller
outputs
AL and AV
for the same test bench has been simulated. The results are
represented
by
the thin lines in
Figure
6.12. The
steady-state
offsets of the
product
compositions
are caused
by controlling pressure-compensated tempera
tures on
trays
10 and 44 instead of the
product compositions.
The simulation results confirm the
good
robustness
properties, espe
cially
the low
sensitivity
to errors in the
manipulated
variables. At both
operating points,
the overshoot of the control error is small.
For the
compensation
of the first disturbance

an increase in feed
composition
reflux and
boilup
must be reduced. The second distur
bance is an increase in feed flow
rate,
which has to be
compensated by
an increase in reflux and
boilup
(see Figure
6.13).
The
large
difference
between reflux and
boilup
even at
steady-state
has various reasons.
First,
the reflux and feed are subcooled and a
partial
condensation of the
vapor
flow thus increases the
liquid
flow rates below the
corresponding
6.4 Controller
design
with
u-synthesis
143
0.020
Ft=0=20
mol/min
0.005
Top composition
Bottom
composition
o 10 20 30
Time (h)
40
I
g
a
o
O
a
S
o
O
0.020
0.015
0.010
Ft=0=46
mol/min
0.005
Top composition
Bottom
composition
o 10 20 30
Time (h)
40
-8
a.
B
Ft=0=20
mol/min
0.4
}
'
0.2
0.0
1:
!!
1
^
/K
W'""}i
0.2
!!
0.4
ii
*
Control error T-10
06
Control error T-44

Ft=0=46
mol/min
10 20 30 40
Time (h)
s
I
0 10 20 30 40
Time (h)
Figure
6.12: Simulation results with
\i-optimal
state
space
controller
(controller
inputs: Tjn, T44, T24)
for an increase in feed
composition (0.8
-> 0.9 mol/mol)
at t=0 h and an increase of feed flow rate
(+
3.6 mol/min) at t=20 h
Upper plots:
Product
composition
Lower
plots:
Control error
^
L,
V
equal
to controller
output
AL with +10%
error,
AV with -10% error
144
6
|i-Optimal
Controller
Design
70
60
^ 50
s
u
40
o
Ft=0=20
mol/min
Ft=0=46
mol/min
30
20
1
\
/'
:
V
.
/'

Boilup
\
Reflux
V
-J
]
V
10 20 30
Time
(h)
40
140
10 20 30
Time
(h)
Figure
controller
(controller
in
puts: Tiq, T44, T24)
composition
(0.8 0.9
mol/mol) at
t=0 h and an increase of feed flow rate (+ 3.6 mol/min)
at t=20 h
^^-
L,
V
equal
to controller
output
AL with +10%
error,
AV with -10% error
trays. Second,
the
major part
of the feed leaves the column as
top
product.
If
we
compare
the
plots
for the minimum and maximum feed flow
rate,
we
recognize
an
essentially
slower
rejection
of the feed
composition
disturbance at the maximum feed flow rate. A distinct
improvement
of
the
performance
at maximum feed flow rate is not
possible using
a
linear time-invariant
feedback
controller.
Higher
controller
gains
would
improve
the disturbance
compensation
at this
operating point,
but
simultaneously
destabilize the control
loop
at the minimum feed flow
rate. A closer look at these
figures
demonstrates that
especially
at
high
feed flow rates the controller
response
is more
sluggish
for
changes
in
feed
composition
but not for disturbances in the feed flow rate. This fact
6.4 Controller
design
with
u-synthesis
145
is
explained by
the course of the
manipulated
variables in
Figure
6.13.
An increase in feed
composition
at minimum feed flow rate forces the
controller to reduce the reflux and the
boilup by
=11
mol/min,
while at
maximum feed flow both flow rates have to be reduced
by
=30 mol/min!
Since in
practice
a
step change
of feed
composition
is
improbable,
the
rejection
of feed flow variations has much
higher significance.
[iK-Iteration
results
for
two
temperature
measurements
When
only
the
pressure-compensated temperature
on
trays
10 and 44
are used as the controller
inputs,
it becomes
extraordinarily
difficult to
achieve
convergence
of the uK-Iteration and
an oscillation-free closed-
loop dynamics.
For
design purpose,
the same
weights
as in the
previous
design
for all three
temperature
measurements have been used.
The final controller was reduced to order 20
by
a balanced truncated
realization of the control
system
[6.1]. The
u-plots
of the reduced order
controller
(Figure
6.14)
shows
worse robustness
properties
of this
controller in the
higher frequency range (compared
to the controller
with three measured
temperatures
as
input), only just matching
the
robustness and
stability
criteria.
10 10
Frequency
(rad/min)
10
Figure
6.14: Robust
performance
and
stability
for the
\i-optimal
state-space
controller
(controller
inputs: T10, T44)
An
analysis
of the
sensitivity
functions
(Figure
6.15)
exhibits a small
maximum
sensitivity
at the control error
e,
but an
evidently
reduced
146 6
u-Optimal
Controller
Design
Sensitivity
at e
I
CO
I
10 10" 10'
Frequency
(rad/min)
Sensitivity
at u
10 10' 10 10 10 10'
Frequency
(rad/min)
Figure
6.15:
Singular
values of the
sensitivity
functions at e
{upper plot)
and at u
{lowerplot)
for the nominal
closed-loop system
with the
controller (controller inputs: Tig, T^
6.4 Controller
design
with
u-synthesis
147
stability margin
at u.
This illustrates the direct
relationship
between
the SSV and the common unstructured robustness measures.
Nevertheless the simulation results in
Figure
6.16 demonstrate a
high
controller
performance, paired
with a
larger sensitivity
to
input
errors.
If we
compare
the controllers with 3
temperatures
and 2
temperatures
as
input,
we must state that the "control
qualities"
in the time-domain
are
very
similar. As mentioned
before,
the intuition of a control
engineer
is to
expect
a better
performance
for more measurements due to a faster
state-estimation. This is
obviously
not the case! It will be
possible
to
give
an
explanation
for this result in the further course
of this
chapter.
0.020
Ft=0=20
mol/min
o
I
o
B
a
o
03
o
a
S
o
O
0.015
0.010
0.005
-
Top composition
Bottom
composition
o 10 20 30
Time
(h)
40
0.020
o
el
o
ID
o
a.
S
o
Ft=0=46
mol/min
0.015
0.010
0.005
Top composition
Bottom
composition
o 10 20 30
Time (h)
40
Figure
controller (controller
inputs: Ti0, T^
composition
(0.8
-> 0.9 mol/mol) at
t=0 h and an increase of feed flow rate (+ 3.6 mol/min) at t=20 h
-"
L,
V
equal
to controller
output
AL with +10%
error,
AV with -10% error
148
6
u-Optimal
Controller
Design
6.5
Design
of controllers with fixed structure
In the
process industry
PID
or advanced PID control structures are
very
common. Therefore,
the
implementation
of
a controller
design
and its
acceptance
are
substantially improved
if the
design
is based on PID
control structures. The
corresponding design objective
is the
u-optimal
tuning
of
simple
control elements
(such as PID
controllers,
first-order
lags)
within a fixed control structure:
K =
arg
inf
|MM)||
(6
30)
K
stabilizing
II
A
II~
<,o.ou;
K with fixed structure
The solution of this
design objective
is
extremely
difficult. Because no
synthesis
methods
exist, (6.30) must be solved
by
a
parameter optimiza
tion
approach. During
this
optimization
the SSV has to be calculated
repeatedly
for a number of
frequency points. However,
the maximum of
the SSV
may
be
very
sensitive to the number of
frequency points
calcu
lated. In order to
simplify
the numerical
treatment,
the
design objective
can be
approximated by
a summation of the cube of the SSV for all k
frequency points:
k
8 =
arg
inf
u|
{Jr[P,
K(0) ] }
(6.31)
e
i = l
Summing
the
cube, large
values of the SSV have much more
weight
and
the
design objective
becomes closer to
(6.30).
The calculation of the SSV
presumes nominally
stable control
loops.
Within
u-synthesis,
the controllers are calculated
by solving
an
H^
problem,
which
always guarantees
nominal
stability. However, during
a
parameter optimization, nominally
unstable control
loops may
be
gener
ated.
Therefore,
the
design objective (6.31) must be
supplemented
with
the
boundary
condition for nominal
stability:
Re
Kn *,*!.
K}
<0
(6.32)
6.5
Design
A second
boundary
condition is the robust
stability criterion,
which
should be fulfilled for the final
parametrized
controller:
uA{^[P,K(8)]}
<1
(6.33)
This constrained
parameter optimization problem
is solved
by sequen
tial
quadratic programming
[6.10].
In contrast to the
u-synthesis methods,
this
approach
has shown a
high
reliability,
at the
price
of even
higher computation
times.
However,
the
excellent results
justify
the effort.
6.5.1
Diagonal
PI(D)
control structures
The
diagonal
PI(D)
control structure
(Figure
6.17)
is the
simplest
and
most
frequently
used
composition
control structure for distillation
columns. Due to the
high
interaction between the two control
loops,
this
structure is difficult to
tune,
and the
response
to
setpoint changes
or
disturbances is known to be
very sluggish.
Tio
L
Distillation
Column
with
inventory
control
r10 S
PID!
:^
j
V
r44
f>!
PID2
T44
+
s
J
i
_
Figure
6.17:
Diagonal
PID control structure
The
design
model
The
design
model for this
optimization
is the same
uncertainty
model as
that used for the
u-synthesis, excluding
the
temperature
measurement
150
6
(i-Optimal
Controller
Design
on
tray
24. The
weighting
functions are the same transfer functions
as
discussed in section 6.3.
Results
for
PI control
The matrix transfer function of the
diagonal
PI control structure is
given by
L(s)
V(s).
Table 6.1 summarizes the results of the
parameter optimization
for the
analytically
and
numerically
linearized column
models,
as well as for a
complex
and mixed
real/complex u-analysis.
A
comparison
of the different
optimization
results shows
quite
similar
parameters
for a
complex u-analysis
and
a mixed
real/complex
u-anal
ysis. However,
a
significant
difference exists between the
numerically
and the
analytically
linearized models:
Using
the
analytically
linearized
models,
the time constants
TIj
are much smaller and the
corresponding
low-frequency gains
are much
higher.
The
reason for that are the
smaller
low-frequency gains
of these linear models. An underestimation
of
low-frequency uncertainty
results therefrom. Simulations with these
controller
designs
show a
faster,
but
insufficiently damped closed-loop
behavior. Of
course,
with an increase in the
output uncertainty
of the
Table 6.1: Results for the
diagonal
PI control structure
Model linear
ization
U-analysis
KRt
(mol/min/C)
TIi
(min)
KR2
(mol/minTC)
TI2
(min)
Numerical
Complex
-14.09 137 2.49 34
Mixed R/C -11.27 141 3.15 52
Analytical
Complex
-11.52 49 6.92 56
Mixed R/C -14.58 60 6.36 41
KR
l+TI,s
1
TI,s
KR
l+TI2s
2
TI2s
e10(s)
e44(s)
(6.34)
6.5
Design
design model,
the
design
can be
improved.
This leads to results
compa
rable to those obtained with the
numerically
linearized models. These
experiences corresponds
to those of the
u-synthesis.
Consequently,
the
design
with the
analytical
linearized models is not
further discussed. Due to the
extremely large computation
times
using
mixed
real/complex u-analysis
and the
very
similar
optimized tuning,
the further discussion will focus on the
optimization
with
complex
u-
analysis
and
numerically
linearized models.
The
upper
bounds for robust
stability
and
performance (numerically
linearized
models, complex u-analysis) using
the
diagonal
PI control
structure are shown in
Figure
6.18. While
stability
is
guaranteed
for the
specified
uncertainties and for the entire
frequency range,
the
perfor
mance
specification
is not met in the lower
frequency range. However,
robust
performance
is achieved within the
upper frequency range.
a
CO
2
/T\
1.5
j
RP
1
\/\
0.5
RS-
^
/
\^
Figure
6.18: Robust
performance
and
stability
for
diagonal
PI
control
10 10" 10" 10'
Frequency (rad/min)
The transfer functions from the reference and disturbance
inputs
to the
temperature
measurements for the nominal
closed-loop systems (Figure
6.19) shows a
high
condition number for the
tracking
behavior within
the most
important frequency range.
This means a
high sensitivity
of
the
tracking
behavior to the direction of the reference
inputs.
152
6
|i-Optimal
Controller
Design
io1
r->y
8 io
3
1
S
io
_____^"\
^\
,n-2
\
10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
a)
10 10 10 10
Frequency
(rad/min)
b)
Figure
6.19:
Singular
closed-loop
with
diagonal
Pi-controller
a)
Transfer function from reference to
output signals
b)
Transfer functions from disturbance to
output signals
Dash-dotted line:
TPj,
solid line: T
_.
These conclusions are confirmed
by
the results of the nonlinear simula
tions
(Figure
6.20).
They
demonstrate the
sluggish
disturbance
rejec
tion of the
optimally
tuned
diagonal
PI control.
However,
as
expected
from the robust
performance plot,
the maximum control error is suffi
ciently
small. Another
positive
result is the small
sensitivity
to
input
uncertainty.
Results
for
PID control
The use of real PID control instead of PI control
gives
additional
degrees
of freedom for the controller
design.
Since true differential behavior is
not
realizable,
the
parameters
for PID controllers with a first order
lag
in series are
optimized
(real
PID
controllers).
The
following
transfer
function for the controllers holds:
L(s)
V(8)_
=
GK1
o"
0
GK2
e,0(s)
644(8)
(6.35)
6.5
Design
0.020
0.015
0.010
Ft=0=20
mol/min
0.005
Top composition
Bottom
composition
0 10 20 30 40
Time (h)
Ft==o=20
mol/min
0.4
k
0.2
i \
-
0.0
I
^T^=
0.2
!!
-
0.4
-
ControlI error T-10
0,6
Control,

error
.It
T-44
0 10 20 30 40
Time (h)
o
I
o
6
a
o
CO
o
o.
6
o
O
Ft=o=46
mol/min
0.020
h
0.015
^
H
I i
v.--
V--'
0.010
^
:
\r
0,005
Bottom
composition
0.4
0.2
0 10 20 30 40
Time
(h)
Ft=0=46
mol/min
W
I
U
CD
P.
a
0.0
''
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
f
--
! r>
:
Control error T-10
Control error T-44

0 10 20 30 40
Time
(h)
Figure
diagonal
PI control for an increase in feed
composition
(0.8 - 0.9 mol/mol) at t=0 h and an increase of feed flow rate
(+ 3.6
mol/min)
at t=20 h
Upper plots:
Product
composition
Lower
plots:
Control error
L,
V
equal
to controller
output
AL with +10%
error,
AV with -10% error
154 6
u-Optimal
Controller
Design
with
1+TIs + TI.TD.s2
GKi^=KRi
TI^l
+
sTL,)
(6.36)
The
optimal tuning
results show
unacceptably large
controller
gains
in
the
A
high amplification
of the measurement
noise can be avoided
by
various methods:
"Punishment" of
high frequency
controller
output by
additional
weighting
functions
Limitation of
high frequency gains by
additional
boundary
conditions
In order to
keep
the
uncertainty
model
invariant,
the differential
behavior of the controller was limited
by
a minimum bound of 2 min for
the time constants TL of the first-order
lags.
The
resulting tuning
constants are
given
in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2: Results for the
diagonal
real PID control structure
Controller KR
mol/min/C
TI
(min)
TD
(min)
TL
(min)
PID1 -15.97 101 7.41 2.00
PID 2 4.40 39.0 15.2 7.16
Results achieved with
numerically
linearized model and
complex u-analysis
The
u-plots (Figure
6.21)
for the
diagonal
PID control structure show an
improvement
of the robust
performance. However,
the
design objective
of robust
performance
u-{Jr[P,K(0)]}
<1 (6.37)
is
by
far not reached. The simulation results in
Figure
6.22 illustrate the
same
sluggish
behavior as was obtained with the PI controllers. The im
provement
is a
slight
reduction of the
settling
time.
6.5
Design
10"J 10" 10
Frequency
(rad/min)
Figure
6.21: Robust
performance
and
stability
for
diagonal
real
PID control
10
0.020
Ft=0=20
mol/min
0.005
-
Top composition
- Bottom
composition
o 10 20 30
Time
(h)
40
o
I
o
S
a
o
CO
o
ft
6
o
o
0.020
0.015
\
Ft_o=46
mol/min
0.010
0.005
0
A
l
t
!
^
'_
**"
.'s*-
jr
Top composition
i,
Bottom
composition
10 20 30
Time (h)
40
Figure
diagonal
PID control for an increase in feed
composition (0.8 - 0.9 mol/mol)
at t=0 h and an increase of feed flow rate
(+
3.6
mol/min) at t=20 h
-
L,
V
equal
to controller
output
AL with +10%
error,
AVwith -10% error
156 6
u-Optimal
Controller
Design
An
analysis
of the controller's
singular
values shows
large high-
frequency gains despite
a limitation ofthe minimum filter time constant
TL
(Figure
6.23).
This makes a first-order filter for the reference
inputs
,2
Figure
6.23:
Singular
values of the
diagonal
PID controller
'"lO"5 103 10' 101
Frequency (rad/min)
necessary.
Areduction of these
high-frequency
controller
gains
would be
possible. However, decreasing high-frequency
limits annihilate the
improvements
achieved over the
diagonal
PI control structure.
Summarizing
the results for the
diagonal PI(D)
control
structure,
we
can conclude that this control structure is
absolutely
not suited for a
high performance.
6.5.2
PI(D)
control structures with
two-way decoupling
The
major disadvantage
of the
diagonal
PI(D)
control structures is the
neglect
of the interactions between the two control
loops.
These interac
tions can be
partially
cancelled
by
use of
decoupling techniques.
A
simple
controller structure with
decoupling
is shown in
Figure
6.24.
The
decoupling
elements can be static (static
decoupling)
or
dynamic
(dynamic decoupling).
The
tuning
of the
decoupling
control structure for a distillation column
is difficult. Often
decouplers
are
based on an inversion of the
plant's
transfer function
G(s) .
The
resulting closed-loop
behavior is
very
sensitive to
input uncertainty
and
decoupler
errors.
Summarizing
the
research
results, Skogestad
in
[6.17]
concludes that
(two-way)
decou-
6.5
Design
r10
*"
+
PIDi
PID, o
Distillation
Column
with
inventory
control
10
l44
Figure
6.24: PID control structure with static
decoupling
piers
should never be used for
high-purity
distillation columns with the
LV-configuration.
On the other hand
one-way decoupling
seems to be
less sensitive to
input uncertainty
and should be
preferred
[6.18].
Results
for
static
two-way decoupling
The
simplest decoupling
structure is static
decoupling.
Here the two
decoupling
elements
Cj
and
C2
are constant factors. The results for
this structure are obtained with the same
weighting
functions and with
the same
uncertainty
model as used for the
diagonal
PI(D) control struc
ture.
Table 6.3 summarizes the
u-optimal parameters
for PI and real PID
control with static
decoupling.
The
high-frequency gains
of the PID
controller are small
enough
that no
boundary
conditions
concerning
this
criterion were
necessary.
The results for the
decouplers
are somewhat
surprising. They
indicate
that the
optimal decoupling
is
very
close to a
one-way decoupling!
Let
us examine this control structure in detail:
158 6
u-Optimal
Controller
Design
Table 6.3:
for
PI(D) control with
static
decoupling
Controller or
decoupler
No.
KR
(mol/min/C)
TI
(min)
TD
(min)
TL
(min)
C
(-)
1 -5.21 22.8
- -
-0.0240
2 3.71 46.8
- -
1.11
1 -13.1 51.6 7.83 8.43 -0.217
2 4.56 62.1 5.11 3.07 1.03
numerically
complex u-analysis
The
decoupler parameter
C2
is close to one. Therefore
any
variation of
the
output
of the
top composition
controller
causes a simultaneous
increase or decrease ofreflux and
boilup by
almost the
same
magnitude.
Thus this controller
shapes
the
composition profile
within the column
by
an
adaptation
of the
separation.
The other
decoupler parameter
C}
is small.
Consequently
the
output
of
the bottom
composition
controller has a small effect on the reflux. This
controller
moves
the
composition profile
within the column.
In
light
of this
interpretation,
the limited
advantage
of
an additional
temperature
measurement in the middle of the distillation column is
easily explained.
Since no
setpoint
is available for such a
temperature
measurement,
an
improved
feedback
may
be calculated neither for the
composition profile
nor for the
composition profile's position.
This
special
behavior of the control
system
has its
significant
advan
tages
for the
closed-loop
behavior. The
u-plots
in
Figure
6.25 demon
strate the
superior
robust
performance
of the
decoupling
control
structures. While the
optimal tuning
for PI control shows a
peak
of the
robust
performance plot
within the medium
frequency range,
the PID
control structure shows
nearly
flat and
significant
smaller structured
singular
values.
Using
a
decoupling
control
structure,
the additional
degrees
of freedom in the controller
design
allow a
significantly
better
controller
performance, especially
in the
important mid-frequency
6.5
Design
a
-a
>
a
0.5
03 0 tn 0
,RP-
/
//\
-
-RS-
/
\
10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
10'
Figure
6.25: Robust
performance
and
stability
for PI control
{left)
and
real PID control
{right)
with static
decoupling
range.
Because of the better
performance using
PID
controllers,
the
further discussion focuses on that control structure.
The
singular
value
plots
of the
loop
transfers from the reference and
disturbance
signals
to the
output signals (Figure
6.26) illustrate the
r-y
io1
oitude
10
_^\
"^\\
C8
IO"'
,n-2
\
10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
a)
10 10 10 10
Frequency
(rad/min)
b)
Figure
6.26:
Singular
closed-loop system
for PID control
with static
decoupling
a) Transfer function from reference to
output signals
b) Transfer functions from disturbance to
output signals
Dash-dotted line: Tp^,,, solid line: T
^
r *
y
^f
~*
y
160
6
U-Optimal
Controller
Design
better controller
performance
as well. The condition numbers of
Tr
are
much smaller than those ofthe
diagonal
PI(D)
control
structure,
and
the
tracking
behavior is
significantly improved.
The simulation results
(Figure
6.27) confirm the
fundamentally
improved
controller
performance.
The
sluggish
behavior has
vanished,
and the maximum control errors are
comparable
to those obtained with
the
diagonal
PI(D) control structures. While the
sensitivity
to
input
uncertainty
has
increased,
it is still small.
0.020
o
I
o
g
a
o
XD
o
a
6
o
O
Ft=0=20
mol/min
0.015
0.010
0.005
-
Top composition
-
Bottom
composition
o 10 20 30
Time
(h)
40
0.020
Ft_0=46
mol/min
0.005
Top composition
Bottom
composition
o 10 20 30
Time
(h)
40
Figure
6.27: Simulation results for PID control with static
decoupling
for an in
crease in feed
composition (0.8
> 0.9 mol/mol) at t=0 h and an increase of feed
flow rate
(+
3.6
mol/min) at t=20 h
^^^^^
L,
V
equal
controller
output
AL with +10%
error,
AV with -10% error
6.5
Design
of controllers with fixed structure
161
PID Control with
dynamic decoupling
Using lead-lag
transfer functions for the
decoupler
elements
Cx
and
C2
Ci(B)
=
Kci|g
(6.38)
a
dynamic decoupling
structure is realized. The additional
degrees
of
freedom allow a further
improvement
of the control
design.
The
resulting optimal tuning
constants are listed in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4:
for PID control with
dynamic decoupling
Controller KR
(mol/min/C)
KC
(-)
TI
(min)
TD
(min)
TL
(min)
PID1 -22.2
-
80.2 19.6 44.8
PID 2 5.68
-
59.4 12.6 24.7
CI
- -0.138
-
117 7.42
C2
- 1.07
-
53.0 71.43
numerically
complex u-analysis
The simulation results exhibits a
performance
which is
insignificantly
worse
than that of the
u-optimal state-space
controllers
(Figure 6.28).
However,
the more difficult initialization of
a
control structure with
dynamic decoupling
system
is a
disadvantage.
6.5.3 PID control structures with
one-way
decoupling
The results for
two-way decoupling
have shown
optimal
results for
decoupling
structures which are
close to
one-way
decoupling.
In this
section the
optimal tuning
results for
one-way decoupling
are discussed.
This control structure is
particularly easy
to
implement
in a distributed
control
system
and
simple
to initialize. In order to
keep
the
decoupler
as
simple
as
possible,
the discussion is limited to static
one-way
decou
pling.
162 6
jl-Optimal
Controller
Design
0.020
Ft=0=20
mol/min
0.005
-
Top composition
-
Bottom
composition
o 10 20 30
Time (h)
40
O
CO
o
a
S
o
O
Ft=0=46
mol/min
0.020
fi
a !i
0.015
'\ i\
{\/~.
-'
'-'
TV
0.010
.
f
:
0.005

Bottom
composition
10 20 30
Time (h)
40
Figure
6.28: Simulation results for PID control with
dynamic decoupling
for an in
crease in feed
composition (0.8
-> 0.9 mol/mol) at t=0 h and an increase of feed
flow rate
(+
3.6
mol/min)
at t=20 h
^~~
L,
V
equal
controller
output
AL with +10%
error,
AV with -10% error
Two different
decoupler
structures are
possible
if
we set either
Cj
or
C2
of the control structure shown in
Figure
6.24 to zero. While the results
for the
two-way decoupling
lead us to
expect
a
good performance
for the
firstcase(C,
=
0),
no inference is
possible
for the second case
(C2
=
0).
In
fact,
the
optimization
results show insufficient
performance
for the
second case
(C2
=
0).
Therefore a reversal of the
decoupling
control
structure with
shaping
of the
composition profile by
the bottom
compo
sition controller and
moving
the
composition profiles position by
the
top
composition
controller does not lead to results
comparable
to those
obtained with the other
decoupling
structure.
The
tuning parameters
for the controller with C
j
=
0 can be found in
Table 6.5. The
corresponding
u-curves
(Figure
6.29)
let
us
expect
a
6.5
Design
Table 6.5:
for PID control with
static
one-way decoupling
Controller or
decoupler
No.
KR
(mol/min/C)
TI
(min)
TD
(min)
TL
(min)
C
(-)
1 -10.5 45.7 2.18 5.01 0
2 5.35 67.4 13.4 13.9 1.05
numerically
complex u-analysis
CD
73
>
a
.3 0.5
T3
CD
w
Figure
6.29: Robust
performance
and
stability
for real PID-control with
one-way decoupling
Frequency
(rad/min)
performance
somewhere between that of the PI control with static two-
way decoupling
and that of the real PID control with static
decoupling.
The simulation results in
Figure
6.30
support
this
interpretation.
Therefore this controller
represents
a structure which is
simple
and
easily implemented
system, distinguished by
a
sufficiently high
controller
performance.
164
6
u-Optimal
Controller
Design
Ft=0=20
mol/min
0.020 r"1
' '
0.015
0.010
0.005
Top composition
-
Bottom
composition
0.020
Ft=0=46
mol/min
0.015
0.010
0.005
Top composition
-
Bottom
composition
o 10 20 30
Time
(h)
40 10 20 30
Time (h)
40
Figure
6.30: Simulation results for PID control with static
one-way decoupling
for
an increase in feed
composition
(0.8
-> 0.9 mol/mol)
at t=0 h and an increase
of feed flow rate (+
3.6 mol/min) at t=20 h
^^
L,
V
equal
controller
output
AL with +10%
error,
AV with -10% error
6.6
Summary
The
comparison
of the
state-space
controllers obtained
by u-synthesis
with PID control structures obtained
by u-optimization
leads to
surprising
results. The
frequently
heard
opinion
that
state-space
controllers are much
superior
to PID control structures
apparently
is
not true for this distillation column. The PID control structures with
decoupling
exhibit
nearly
the same
performance
as that achieved with
state-space
controller of a
higher order, provided
that the PID control
structures are
optimally
tuned. The visual results of the u-curves
and
6.6
Summary
165
simulation
plots
shall be
supported by
numerical measures. For
purposes
of
comparison,
the
integral
square
of the control errors
t=40h
ISE =
J
[e20(t)+e|4(t)]dt,
(6.39)
o
and the
integral
of the
time-multiplied
absolute control errors
t=40h
ITAE =
| C|eio<t>|
+
|e44(t)|]
* dt
(6-40>
0
have been calculated and summed
up
for both
operating points
and all
controllers. While ISE
punishes especially large
control
errors,
the
ITAE
performance
measure has
a
higher importance
for the
process
industry
because it
punishes
any undesirably sluggish
disturbance
rejection.
Both
criteria,
relative to the result for the
state-space
controller
using
3
temperature measurements,
can be found in Table
6.6. The last two columns in this table state the maximum absolute
value of the SSV
(RP)
and the value of the
optimization
criterion
k
f(0)
=
u|{^[P,K(0)]}
(6.41)
i= 1
relative to the value for the
state-space
controller
using
3
temperature
measurements. The
high
correlation of the ITAE and the
optimization
criterion are obvious. The
single exception
is the
state-space
controller
using
2
temperature measurements,
which
may
be caused
by
the
convergence problems
mentioned before.
This table
effectively
illustrates the
high performance
achieved with
simple
and
easily
realized PID-control structures. The
u-optimization
approach
has
proved
to be an efficient tool for the
optimal design
of
controllers with fixed structure.
166
6
u-Optimal
Controller
Design
Table 6.6:
Comparison
of controllers in time-domain
Control structure Relative
ISE
Relative
ITAE
Max. u- Relative
2>f
(j<)
State-space controller,
3
temp,
measurements
1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
2
temp,
measurements
0.82 1.05 1.04 1.54
Diagonal
PI control 3.13 2.89 2.14 9.03
Diagonal
PID control 2.08 1.87 1.53 3.98
PI control with static two-
way decoupling
2.42 1.74 1.13 1.55
PID control with static
two-way decoupling
1.44 1.23 0.91 1.19
PID control with
dynamic
two-way decoupling
1.18 1.12 0.88 1.12
one-way decoup. (Ci=0)
1.99 1.51 0.97 1.34
6.7 References
[6.1] Balas,
G.
J.,
J. C.
Doyle,
K.
Glover,
A.
Packard,
and R. Smith:
u-
Analysis
and
Synthesis Toolbox,
MUSYN
Inc., Minneapolis MN,
and The
MathWorks, Inc., Natick,
MA
(1991)
[6.2] Balas,
G.
J.,
A. K.
Packard,
and J. T. Harduvel:
"Application
of
u-
Synthesis Techniques
to Momentum
Management
and Attitude
Control of the
Space Station,"
Proc. 1991 AIAA
Guidance,
Navi
gation
and Control
Conference,
New
Orleans,
LA
(1991)
[6.3]
Chiang,
R.
Y.,
M. G. Safonov: Robust Control Toolbox User's
Guide,
The Mathworks
Inc., Natick,
MA
(1992)
6.7 References 167
[6.4]
Dailey,
R. L.: "Lecture Notes for the
Workshop
on H
and u
Methods for Robust
Control,"
IEEE
Conference
on Decision and
Control, Brighton
(1991)
[6.5]
Doyle,
J. C:
"Analysis
of Feedback
Systems
with Structured
Uncertainties,"IEEProc., 129,
Pt.
D.,
No.
6,
242-250
(1982)
[6.6] Doyle,
J. C: "Performance and Robustness
Analysis
for Struc
tured
Uncertainty,"
Proc.
of
the 21st
Conference
on Decision and
Control, (1982)
[6.7]
Doyle,
J. C: "Structured
Uncertainty
in Control
System Design,"
Proc.
of
the 24th
Conference
on Decision and
Control,
Ft. Lauder
dale,
FL
(1985)
[6.8]
Doyle, J.,
K.
Lenz,
and A. Packard:
"Design Examples Using
u-
Synthesis: Space
Shuttle Lateral Axis FCS
During Reentry,"
NATOASI Series F:
Computer
and
Systems Science, 34,128-154
(1987)
[6.9] Enns,
D. F.: "Rocket Stabilization as a Structured
Singular
Value
Synthesis Design Example,"
Control
Systems, 11, 4,
67-73
(1991)
[6.10] Grace,
A.:
Optimization
Toolbox

User's
Guide,
The Math-
Works, Inc., Natick,
MA
(1990)
[6.11] Lin, J.-L.,
I.
Postlethwaite,
and D.-W. Gu: "u-K Iteration: A New
Algorithm
for
u-synthesis," Automatica, 29,
219-224
(1993)
[6.12] Maciejowski,
J. M.: Multivariable Feedback
Design,
Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company, Wokingham, England (1989)
[6.13] McFarlane,
D.
C,
and K. Glover: "Robust Controller
Design
Using
Normalized
Coprime
Factor Plant
Descriptions,"
Lecture
168 6
u-Optimal
Controller
Design
Notes in Control and
Informations Science, 138, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin
(1990)
[6.14] Packard, A.,
J.
Doyle,
and G. Balas: "Linear Multivariable
Robust Control With a u
Perspective,"
Trans.
oftheASME, 115,
426-438
(1993)
[6.15] Packard, A.,
and J.
Doyle:
"The
Complex
Structured
Singular
Value," Automatica,
29
1,
71-109
(1993)
[6.16] Shinskey,
F.
G.,
''Distillation control
for Productivity
and
Energy
Conservation,"
2nd
ed., McGraw-Hill,
New
York,
194-203
(1984)
[6.17] Skogestad,
S.:
"Dynamics
-
A Critical
Survey," Preprints of
the 3rd IFAC
Symposium
on
Dynamics
and Control
of
Chemical
Reactors,
Distillation Col
umn and Batch
Processes, April 26-29, 1992, College Park, MD,
1-25
(1992)
and M. Morari:
"Implications
of
Large
RGA Ele
ments on Control
Performance,"
Ind.
Eng.
Chem.
Res., 26,
2323-
2330
(1987)
and P. Lundstrom:
"MU-Optimal
LV-Control of
Distillation
Column," Comp.
Chem.
Eng., 14, 4/5,
401-413 (1990)
Chapter
7
Controller
Design
for
Unstructured
Uncertainty
A
Comparison
7.1 Introduction
A controller
design
for the entire
operating range
of the distillation
column
(see
Chapter
6)
requires
a structured
uncertainty
model incor
porating
two linear
models,
and a
huge computational
effort.
Naturally,
the
question
arises what controller
performance
and robustness
proper
ties can be achieved if we use
simpler design methods,
based on
just
one
plant
model for the nominal
operating point
(Model
Gn)
and classical
design
methods or
simple
unstructured
uncertainty
bounds.
A few of these
simpler
methods are discussed in this
chapter. They
are
applied
in a
straightforward manner,
and the
design
results are not
guaranteed
to
represent
the
optimum
achievable controller
perfor
mance.
However,
the results
give
an
impression
of the limits and
inherent
problems
of the
application
of
design
methods based on
simpler uncertainty concepts,
and
they
allow a
comparison
with the
u-
optimal
results
presented
in the
previous chapter.
The
weighting
func-
170 7 Controller
Design
for Unstructured
Uncertainty
A
Comparison
tions of the structured
uncertainty
model used for the
u-analysis
are the
same as
those used in the
previous chapter.
7.2
Diagonal
Pi-control
A
diagonal
Pi-control scheme seems to be most
frequently
used in
conventionally
controlled distillation columns.
Usually
these PI control
lers are
tuned on-line. Due to the
large
time constants of the
composi
tion
dynamics,
we cannot
expect
this on-line
tuning approach
to lead to
a controller
performance
close to the
optimum.
The
attempt
to use
tuning
rules such as
Ziegler-Nichols
for the individual SISO
loops
often
results in an unstable MIMO
closed-loop system,
because these
tuning
rules do not take the interaction between the two control
loops
into
account.
While the
following
two
simple
and model based
tuning
methods make
use of the classical
design methods, they try
to
pay
attention to the
loop
interactions. Both methods lead to a
nominally
stable controller
design.
However,
sufficient
stability margins
for the
closed-loop system
at all
possible operating points
cannot be
guaranteed.
7.2.1 The BLT method
The
Biggest Log
Modulus
Tuning
was
proposed by Luyben
in 1986
([7.5], [7.6]).
This method is a multivariable extension of the classical
Nyquist stability
criterion. The
closed-loop system
(Tr_^y)
with a
square
nominal model G
(s)
=
Gu
(s)
and a
diagonal
PI control law K(s)
is
given by
y(s)
=
[I
+
G(s)K(s)]-1G(s)K(s)r(s) (7.1)
The characteristic
equation
of the multivariable
system
is the scalar
equation
det(I
+
G(s)K(s))
=
0
(7.2)
7.2
Diagonal
Pl-control 171
Ifwe
plot
(7.2) as a function of
frequency,
the number of
right half-plane
zeros of the
closed-loop
characteristic
equation
are determined. In order
to make this multivariable
plot
like the SISO scalar
Nyquist plot,
Luyben
introduces a new function
W(s):
W(s)
=
-l+det(I
+
G(s)K(s)) (7.3)
The closer this function
approaches
the
(-1,0) point
in the
Nyquist plot,
the closer the MIMO
system
is to
closed-loop instability.
The
design
objective
is defined as
L. = 20
log
W(J()
1+W(ja
<
2p
Voe R+
(7.4)
where
p
is the number of
inputs/outputs
of
G(s).
The
proposed tuning
procedure
starts with
independent Ziegler-Nichols settings
for PI-
controllers of the individual control
loops.
In a second
step
these
settings
are detuned
by
a factor F
K,
Ki
=
ZN;
Tli
= F
TIm
(7.5)
in order to achieve the
design objective
(7.4).
Results
of
the BUT
tuning
The
tuning
results for the nominal model
GN
(s)
of the distillation
process
are listed in Table 7.1. A
detuning
factor F of3.82 was
necessary
to achieve the
design objective
(7.4).
The
proportional gain
KR of the
top
composition
controller is too
large
for
satisfactory setpoint tracking
and
Table 7.1:
Tuning
constants with BLT-method
Controller KR
(mol/min/C)
TI
(min)
PI1 -47.1 95.2
PI 2 6.74 171.8
172 7 Controller
Design
for Unstructured
Uncertainty
A
Comparison
measurement noise attenuation. A
plot
of the structured
singular
values
(with
the same
uncertainty
and
performance weights
as used in
the
previous chapter)
illustrates the insufficient robust
stability
and
robust
performance
of this
composition
control
design (Fig.
7.1).
However,
any
further
detuning
would reduce the low and
high-
frequency gains
of the bottom
composition
controller to an
absolutely
insufficient level.
Figure
7.1:
u-plots
for a
diagonal
Pi-control law tuned with BLT-
method
10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
10
7.2.2
The idea of the
sequential loop closing
was introduced
by Mayne ([7.8],
[7.9]). First,
a SISO controller is
designed
for one
pair
of
input
and
output
variables. When this
design
has been
completed,
the corre
sponding
control
loop
is closed and the next
pair
of
input
and
output
variables is chosen. Thus the interaction between the control
loops
is
taken into account. This
design procedure
is illustrated in
Figure
7.2.
It is an
advantage
of this method that each
single loop
can be
designed
using
classical methods.
However,
this method has some severe draw
backs:
First,
the selection of the first one or two
input/output pairs may
have a deleterious effect on the behavior of the
remaining loops
[7.7].
There exists little
help
for this
sequence problem. Second,
this method
cannot
guarantee
robustness for the entire
operating range. Especially
if the
plant
G(s)
is not
diagonal dominant,
that means the condition
7.2
Diagonal
Pi-control
173
G3(s)
G2(s)
G^s)
Figure
7.2:
iGâco)]
>|Gij(jco)|
VcoeR+
(7.6)
is not satisfied,
we
have to
expect
robustness
problems.
Design
Results
The
idea has been
applied
to the
composition
control
problem represented
by
the nominal model
GN(s)
.
For each
SISO
loop,
a
phase margin
of at least 60
degrees
and for both controllers
a maximum
high frequency gain
of 18 mol/min/C has been
required.
The results of both
possible design sequences
and with a
minimal inte
gral
absolute error (LAE)
for the
rejection
of feed
composition
and feed
flow disturbances (with respect
to the linear model) are
summarized in
Table 7.2.
An
analysis
of the robustness to unstructured
peturbations
shows
maximum values for the sensitivities
of
Se=2.6,
and
Su=2.1
for the
Top
Bottom
design sequence,
and of
Se=2.4
and
Su=1.9
for the
174 7 Controller
Design
for Unstructured
Uncertainty
A
Comparison
Table 7.2: Results of the
Design sequence
KR1
(mol/min/C)
Til
(min)
KR2
(mol/min/C)
TI2
(min)
Top
-> Bottom
-18.0 101.9 10.09 55.8
Bottom -
Top
-18.0 52.6 8.78 214.5
sequence
Bottom ->
Top.
These
stability margins
are insufficient. The
results of the
analysis using
the structured
uncertainty
model are illus
trated
by
the
u-plots
in
Figure
7.3. Both controller
designs
can neither
guarantee
robust
performance
nor
robust
stability.
CO
10 10 10 10
Frequency
(rad/min)
a)
a
a
to
10"' 10 10"' 10'
Frequency
(rad/min)
b)
Figure
7.3:
|l-plots
for the
sequential loop closing designs
a) Top
-> Bottom
design sequence
b) Bottom >
Top design sequence
7.2.3
Optimized
robust
diagonal
Pi-control
The
objective
of this controller
design
is a maximization of the distur
bance
rejection
capabilities
with the
boundary
conditions of sufficient
stability margins.
As a measure
of the disturbance
rejection capabilities
the IAE as defined
by
LEnd
IAE =
J []e10(t)|
+
|e44(t)|]dt
(7.7)
7.2
Diagonal
Pi-control 175
is a suitable measure. It is calculated for
step responses
to feed
compo
sition and feed flow rate of the
closed-loop system.
If we tune both PI-
controllers in order to minimize the
IAE-criterion,
the robustness
prop
erties of the
closed-loop system
form
boundary
conditions for the
minimum achievable IAE.
Stabihty
bounds in terms ofthe
sensitivity
at
the
plant input
and
output
are well established. If
we
require
a
phase
margin
of at least 35
degrees
(which
is
relatively small),
the
following
sensitivity
bounds hold
Se(jco)
=
[I
+
G(jco)K(jco)]-1
<1.7 VcogR+
(7.8)
Su(j<o)
=
[I
+
KCJoojGGffl)]-1
<1.7 VcoeR+
(7.9)
The
optimal parameters
which minimize the IAE criterion are found
either
by
trial and error or
by
a constrained
parameter optimization.
Results
The results for this
design approach
are
given
in Table 7.3. The corre
sponding u-plots (Fig.
7.4) illustrate the
improved
robust
stabihty
prop
erties
compared
to the
previous
two methods. While
design guarantees
robust
stability,
the robust
performance
is
substantially
worse than the
u-optimal design
of a
diagonal
Pi-controller
design
(see
Figure 6.18,
page
151).
An
analysis
of the controller behavior in the time domain
(Figure
7.5)
shows
extremely sluggish
disturbance
rejections.
Table 7.3:
Tuning
constants with
optimizing
method
Controller KR
(mol/min/C)
TI
(min)
PI1 -5.10 600.0
PI 2 4.92 86.2
176 7 Controller
Design
for Unstructured
Uncertainty
A
Comparison
Figure
7.4:
u-plots
for
diagonal
Pi-controller
designed by op
timizing
method
10" 10
Frequency
(rad/min)
10
0.020
o
g
a
o
TO
o
o
O
0.015
0.010
0.005
0
Ft=0=20
mol/min
h
V
i
\
!
5
i \
\.
Bottom
composition
^^^
10 20 30
Time (h)
40
0.020
Ft=0=46
mol/min
o
I
o
g
a
o
o
a
s
o
O
0.015
0.010
0.005
"1 ,MUMIIIM"MMI
"
M
1
;
\
11
I1,
fr
-
Top composition
-
-
Bottom
composition
l"
,
yj
0 10 20 30
Time
(h)
40
Figure
diagonal
PI controller
(designed by optimiz
ing method)
composition
(0.8 0.9
mol/mol)
at t=0 h
and an increase of feed flow rate (+ 3.6 mol/min) at t=20 h
Upper plots:
Product
composition
Lower
plots:
Control error
-^^^^^
L,
V
equal
to controller
output
AL with +10%
error,
AV with -10% error
7.3 Pi-control with
decoupling
177
7.3 Pi-control with
decoupling
The basic idea of
decoupling
is a reduction of the
loop
interactions. If
we
increase the
diagonal
dominance of the
system,
the
design
task takes on
more the characteristics of a
multiloop
SISO
design problem. However,
as
emphasized already
in the
previous chapter,
a reduction of the
loop
interactions does not
automatically imply
better control. Due to an
increased
sensitivity
to model and
input errors,
the maximum
perfor
mance of a controller
exhibiting
sufficient
stability margins may
be
strongly
reduced even
compared
to that of a
diagonal
PI controller.
In the
simplest case,
as discussed in this
section,
the
plant
behavior is
altered
by
a
pre-
or
postmultiplied
constant
"compensating"
or "decou
pling"
matrix. Different
approaches
for the selection of these interaction
reducing
matrices are
proposed:
Davison
[7.3]
recommends a
steady-state decoupling
of the
process.
For
the
"decoupled" process
G*
(s)
holds
G*u_y(s)
=Gu^y(s)G-'u^y(0)
or (7.10)
G*u_y(s)
=G-'u_y(0)Gu^y(s)
With a state
space representation
of the
process,
the
decoupling
matrix
is calculated
according
to
G"1u_>y(0)
=
(CA^B)-1 (7.11)
The choice of a
premultiplication
or
postmultiplication
of this interac
tion
reducing
matrix is another
degree
of freedom for the controller
design.
Mayne
[7.9]
proposes
a reduction of the
high-frequency
interactions of
the
plant.
The
corresponding decoupling
matrix is calculated
by
G-u_y(j~)
=
(CB)-1 (7.12)
178 7 Controller
Design
for Unstructured
Uncertainty
A
Comparison
As
before,
the choice of a
pre-
or
postcompensation
has to be decided
during
the controller
design.
Ryskamp
[7.11]
suggests
a
decoupling
scheme which is based on the
idea of a
composition profile
control: The difference in the
temperature
deviations should be used to set the reflux
ratio,
and the sum of the two
temperature
deviations should be used to set the reboiler heat
duty.
This scheme is called
"implicit decoupling."
Another
interesting approach,
based on a
singular
value
decomposition
(SVD)
of the
process
at
steady state,
is
presented by
Brambilla et al.
[7.1].
Let the SVD of the
steady-state
transfer matrix of the
process
Gu_y(0)
be
Gu^y(0)
=
UIVT, (7.13)
where U and V
are
unitary
matrices and X is
a
diagonal
matrix
containing
the
singular
values
=
diag(Oj,a2).
A
plant-inverting
compensator
D (at
plant input) according
to this SVD is the matrix
D = VZ~'UT
(7.14)
In order to avoid a
high sensitivity
to
input
errors due to the
perfect
decoupling
at
steady state,
Brambilla et al. [7.1] introduce a matrix F
F - al+
(l-a)E
(7.15)
and define
a new
compensation
matrix D
as
D = VFIÛT
(7.16)
The
single parameter
a with a
=
0...1 allows a continuous shift
between a
plant-inverting compensator
(a
=
1) and a
compensator
which does not remove the effect of the
directionality
of the
process
(a
=
0).
The
tuning parameter
a has to be chosen on the basis of (1)
the
magnitude
of the assumed errors in the
model, (2) the
sensitivity
of the
process
to the model errors (Relative Gain
Analysis
of
D),
and
(3)
the
7.3 Pi-control with
decoupling 179
required performance
in terms of reduction of interactions and direc
tionality (Relative Gain
Analysis
of
G"1^
(0)
D).
Design
results
The four
proposed compensation
matrices are summarized in Table 7.4.
In order to calculate
"optimal" controllers,
the
optimization approach
described in section 7.2.3 has been
applied
to the different
compensated
plants. However,
it was not
possible
to achieve
any acceptable
control
lers
using
the
proposed compensation matrices,
except
for the SVD-
based
compensator.
This SVD-based
compensator
is
distinguished by
almost the same
one-way decoupling
structure as we obtained as a
result of the
u-optimal decoupling (see
Chapter
6).
Table 7.4:
Compensator
matrices
Type
of
compensator
Position of com
pensator
Compensator
matrix
Decoupling
at
co
= 0
Plant
input
or
plant output
-0.636 0.168
-0.728 0.195
Decoupling
at
0) = oo
Plant
input
or
plant output
0.380 -0.295
0.875
-0.193_
Implicit decoupling
Plant
output
-1 -1
-1 1
SVD-based
compen
sation
(a
=
0.8)
Plant
input
0.901 0.082
0.955 0.391
The
parameters
of the
IAE-optimal
PI controllers
(with
respect
to an
additional
boundary
condition for the
proportional gains
IKRJ < 18 mol/
min/C) are
given
in Table 7.5. The
n-plots
for this controller
design
(Figure
7.6) demonstrate
good
robust
performance
and robust
stability.
However,
the simulation results
(Figure 7.7) show an
insufficiently
damped
oscillation at
higher frequencies
for the minimum feed flow
rate. The
damping
of these oscillations is
significantly
better for a +10%
error in the
change
of the reflux L and a -10% error in the
change
of
180 7 Controller
Design
for Unstructured
Uncertainty
A
Comparison
Table 7.5:
Optimal
PI
tuning
constants for
plant
with
SVD-based
compensation
Controller KE
(mol/min/C)
TI
(min)
PI1 -18.0 47.4
PI 2 18.0 116.0
3
1
S-c
03
1
1
0.5
s
CO
RP-
/
/
-
y
<7\
- - RS-
**
Figure
7.6:
u-plots
for SVD-based
compensation
with
optimally
tuned
diagonal
PI control.
10 10 10
Frequency
(rad/min)
10'
boilup
V. These unwanted oscillations are
allowed
by
the
performance
specification
in the
frequency
domain!
They require
a
detuning
of the
controllers'
proportional gains
which on the other
hand,
reduces the
controller
performance.
7.3 Pi-control with
decoupling 181
0.020
|
0.015
o
g
"a
o
en
o
p.
s
o
O
Ft=0=20
mol/min
0.010
0.005
\
'"1
.J
v..
\
/
"
-
Top composition
-
Bottom
composition
0 10
_
20 30
Time (h)
40
0.020
o
I
o
a
a
a
x
o
e
o
O
Ft=0=46
mol/min
0.015
0.010
0.005
l
/x
i J
-
X*
/
i
:y
\^
'

Bottom
composition
0 10
_
20 30
Time
(h)
40
Figure
7.7: Simulation results with SVD based
compensator
and
diagonal
PI con
trol for an increase in feed
composition (0.8 0.9 mol/mol) at t=0 h and an
increase of feed flow rate
(+ 3.6
mol/min) at t=20 h
Upperplots:
Product
composition
Lower
plots:
Control error
L,
V
equal
to controller
output
AL with +10%
error,
AV with -10% error
182 7 Controller
Design
for Unstructured
Uncertainty
A
Comparison
7.4
H^ optimal design
The
H^-norm minimizing design ([7.2], [7.4], [7.7], [7.10])
of multivari
able controllers have
proved
to be a
powerful
method for
robust,
model-
based controllers.
HM Design specification
The
closed-loop system
with the
plant
G(s)
and the controller
K(s),
augmented
with the
weighting
functions
Wd
(s)
,
We
(s)
,
Wu
(s)
,
and
W
(s)
is outlined in
Figure
7.8. This scheme is often called S/KS/T-
weighting
scheme. The matrix
Wd
(s)
is a
diagonal
matrix of transfer
functions and
represents
the
frequency
content of the feed
composition,
feed flow
rate,
and reference
input signals.
The selection of these
input
weights
is discussed in section 6.3. The
same
weighting
functions are
applied
here.
d(s)-
rOO-
zfi(s)
zu(s)
Zy(s)
Figure
7.8:
Augmented closed-loop system
with
weighting
functions
for the
H^ design
H^ optimal design
183
All other
weighting
functions are chosen as
diagonal frequency-depen
dent
weights
because the
performance
and robustness
properties
are
equal
for all channels:
We
(s)
=
diag
[we
(s),
we
(s) ] (7.17)
Wu
(s)
=
diag
[wu
(s),
wu
(s) ] (7.18)
Wy(s)
=
diag[wy(s),wy(s)]
(7.19)
The
performance
of the
closed-loop system
is
specified
in terms of the
sensitivity
function
by
the
weighting
function
We
(s).
A first-order
lag
with a static
gain
of 100 has been
specified
to achieve a
nearly
inte
grating
behavior.
The bandwidth of the
closed-loop system
is limited
by
the
weighting
function W
(s)
,
which
punishes
the transfer function
T[dT)rT]T_>y
from the disturbance and reference
signals
to the
plant outputs.
A first-
order
lead-lag
transfer function is suitable for this task.
A
weighting
of the
plant inputs
allows
a
frequency-dependent
limitation
ofthe control
energy
and
helps
to achieve sufficient
stability margins
for
the
sensitivity
function at u.
As done with W
(s),
a first-order
lead-lag
transfer function has been selected.
The
poles
and zeros of the
weighting
functions were
adjusted
until the
sensitivity
functions at e and at u ofthe
closed-loop system
had attained
approximately
the same
peak
values as the
u-optimal
controller
design
(with 2
temperature measurements),
a
high performance,
and
1
(7.20)
were achieved. The best
weighting
functions are
given by
(jco)
We(s>
=
100i+^20i
(7.21)
184 7 Controller
Design
for Unstructured
Uncertainty
A
Comparison
,
,
cl+
520s
Wu(s)=-5T7T3T
(7.22)
,
,
,1
+1500s
wy(s)=0JT+T5T
(7.23)
Design
results
Despite
the fact that the
singular
values of
sensitivity
functions for the
H^- design (Figure
7.10)
and for the
u-synthesis (Figure
6.15) are
nearly
identical,
the
u-analysis
shows
significant
differences. The
p>plots
ofthe
H^ design (Figure
7.9) show much
higher peak
values in the low and
mid-frequency ranges.
(Figure
7.11) allow a
conclusion with
respect
to the
larger
structured
singular
values: The
sensitivity
of the
closed-loop performance
to errors in the
manipulated
variables is
large.
A reduction of this
sensitivity
to
plant input
errors
was not
possible using
the common S/KS/T
weighting
scheme.
Figure
7.9:
u-plots
for
H^
op
timal controller
10" 10" 10
Frequency
(rad/min)
10
H optimal design
185
Sensitivity
at e
3
cs
2
10" 10
10 10
Frequency
(rad/min)
10"
10'
Sensitivity
at u
r. 1iiii mi 1ji' i
'
j 'il
1ii i 11 nj ji i i 11 in 1ir-rrrm 1r-i i 11 ra
m
/_>=-
-
itude
//~
:
a
io
2
__X
/
:
10
2
/
"
10 10 10
Frequency
(rad/min)
Figure
7.10:
Singular
values of the
sensitivity
functions at e
{upper plot)
and at u
{lower plot)
for the nominal
closed-loop system
with the
H^
controller
186 7 Controller
Design
for Unstructured
Uncertainty
A
Comparison
0.020
Ft=0
=20 mol/min
(mol/mol)
0.015
v..
If
h.
.. J
\
_
osition Af-
Comp
0.010
\
\ 7
-
Top composition
-
Bottom
composition
0.005 1,,
10 20 30
Time (h)
40
0.020 r
Ft=0=46
mol/min
0.005
Top composition
Bottom
composition
10 20 30
Time (h)
40
Figure
7.11: Simulation results with the
HM-controller
composition (0.8 - 0.9
mol/mol) at t=0 h and an increase of feed flow rate
(+
3.6
mol/min)
at t=20 h
Upperplots:
Product
composition
Lower
plots:
Control error
^^^^^
L,
V
equal
to controller
output
AL with +10%
error,
AV with -10% error
7.5
Summary
187
7.5
Summary
The
application
of
design
methods for unstructured
uncertainty
to the
composition
(or temperature)
control
problem
shows that it is extraordi
narily
difficult to obtain
performances
which are
comparable
to those of
the
u-optimal
controllers.
Despite
the
high
effort for a robust
tuning
of
the Pi-control
structures,
it was not
possible
to achieve
any satisfactory
result.
Better results were obtained
using
the
H^
-minimization
approach.
The
resulting state-space
controller
guarantees stability
for the entire
oper
ating range
and the
singular
values of the
sensitivity
functions
(Se, Su)
are
nearly
identical to those of the
controller.
Nevertheless,
the
high sensitivity
to
input uncertainty
demonstrates
the limits of
simple
unstructured
uncertainty
bounds. Even a robust
controller
design
based on an unstructured
uncertainty
model tends to
be
very
sensitive to
input uncertainty
at
operating points
different from
the
design point.
The
advantages
of a
|x-optimal
controller
design
as
presented
in
Chapter
6 are obvious.
7.6 References
[7.1] Brambilla, A.,
and L. D'Elia: "Multivariable Controller for Distil
lation Column in the Presence of
Strong Directionality
and Mod
el
Errors,"
Ind.
Eng.
Chem.
Res., 31,
536-543 (1992)
[7.2] Dailey,
R. L.: "Lecture Notes
for
the
Workshop
on H
and
]i
Meth
ods
for
Robust
Control,"
1991 IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control, Brighton,
December 9-10
(1991)
[7.3] Davison,
E. J.: "Multivariable
tuning regulators:
The feedfor
ward and robust control of
general
servomechanism
problems,"
IEEE Trans. Aut.
Control, AC-21,
35-47
(1976)
[7.4] Glover, K.,
and J. C.
Doyle:
"A State
Space Approach
to
HM Opti
mal
Control,"
Lecture Notes in Control and
Information Sciences,
135, 179-218, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin
(1989)
188 7 Controller
Design
for Unstructured
Uncertainty
A
Comparison
[7.5] Luyben,
W. L.:
"Simple
Method for
Tuning
SISO Controllers in
Multivariable
Systems,"
Ind.
Eng.
Chem. Process Des.
Dev., 25,
654-660 (1986)
[7.6]
Luyben,
W. L.: Process
Modeling,
Simulation,
and Control
for
Chemical
Engineers,
2nd
ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York
(1990)
[7.7]
Maciejowski,
J. M.: Multivariable Feedback
Design,
Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company, Wokingham
(1989)
[7.8]
Mayne,
D.
Q.:
"The
design
of linear multivariable
systems,"
Au-
tomatica, 9,
201-207 (1973)
[7.9] Mayne,
D.
Q.: "Sequential design
of linear multivariable
sys
tems,"
Proc.
IEE., 126, 6,
568-572
(1979)
[7.10] Raisch, J.,
L.
Lang,
und E.-D. Gilles:
"H^-Reglerentwurf
fur
Zwei- und
Dreistoffdestillationsprozesse", at, 41, 6,
215-224
(1993)
[7.11] Ryskamp,
C. J.:
"Explicit
vs.
implicit decoupling
in distillation
control,"
Chemical Process Control
II,
American Institute of
Chemical
Engineers,
New
York,
361-375
(1982)
Chapter
8
Feedforward Controller
Design
8.1 Introduction
It is a drawback offeedback control that
a corrective action necessitates
a deviation of the controlled variables from their
setpoints.
This disad
vantage
can be overcome
by
the use offeedforward control. A
major
and
probably
the most
frequent
disturbance of a distillation column is a
change
in the feed flow rate. Because the feed flow rate is
always
measured,
it can be used as a controller
input.
An
appropriately
designed
feedforward controller takes most of the
necessary
corrective
action before the
and the controlled
tray temper
atures
change. However,
because of model
errors and other unmeasured
disturbances a feedforward controller alone will
never be able to
yield
perfect
control so that feedback control will still be needed.
Within this
chapter,
the
design
of linear time-invariant feedforward
controllers for our distillation column is discussed. The
proposed design
methods take into account the wide
operating range
of the distillation
column and the unmeasured feed
composition.
190 8 Feedforward Controller
Design
8.2 The
design problem
8.2.1 The
design objective
The
objective
of feedforward control is a
reduction of the control
error
in
presence
of feed flow rate disturbances. The main
problem
is the
nonlinear behavior of distillation columns. The
perfect
control action for
a
rejection
of a feed flow disturbance
depends
on
the actual and
measured feed flow rate and the unmeasured feed
composition.
A
controller
design
for
one
operating point may
be
unsatisfactory
at
any
others.
Consequently,
it is
impossible
to
design
a
perfect
linear time-
invariant feedforward controller for the entire
operating range
of a
distillation column. Hence the
design objective
is a feedforward
controller which
improves
the
compensation
of feed flow disturbances
for the
largest possible part
of the
operating range,
but never makes it
worse.
A
perfect
solution of this
design objective
would be an enormous task.
Fortunately,
the ideas discussed in
Chapter
5 lead to
very good
results:
If we
design
the feedforward controller
simultaneously
for the models
GR(s)
(representing
minimum feed flow rate and maximum feed
composition)
and
GT(s) (representing
maximum feed flow rate and
minimum feed
composition),
we obtain a
design
which
improves
the
compensation
of feed flow disturbances for the entire
operating range.
8.2.2
One-step
or
two-step design?
The
design
of feedforward controllers is feasible either in a
one-step
design, simultaneously
with the feedback
controller,
or as a second
step
for the
closed-loop system (Fig.
8.1) [8.3].
The
design
of a feedforward
controller for the
open-loop system
is not recommended because the
feedback controller shifts the
poles and, consequently,
affects the
dynamics
of the
system.
A
u-optimal one-step design using
the
uncertainty
structure
presented
in
chapter
5 is
tempting.
For that
purpose,
the
uncertainty
structure is
slightly
modified
by
the additional
input
to the
controller, i.e.,
the
8.2 The
design problem
191
a)
One-step design
xF
F-f-
wF(s)
KF(s)
K(s)
b)
Two-step design
Step
1: Feedback
design
A
*
A
1
*-
P
1
K(s)
Step
2: Feedforward
design
F-f
r
wF(s) Kp(8)
K(s)
-*P
Figure
8.1:
Design
of feedforward controllers
a) Simultaneous
design
with feedback controller
b) Design
as a second
step
for the closed
loop system.
The
weighted plant
P*
may
be a
simpler uncertainty
structure than the
plant
P.
Design
weighted
feed flow
signal. However,
this
approach
has certain draw
backs:
Convergence
is unattainable
using
the uK-Iteration in our case
Using
the
u-optimization approach,
the
one-step design
needs
significantly
more
computation
time than the
two-step design.
(The
computing
cost is
proportional
to
{number of
parameters)11
with k>2.)
For
acceptable results,
the
weighting
function for the feed flow
signals
must be modified: Small
improvements
in the
compensa
tion of feed flow disturbances
cause a dominance of the reference
and the feed
composition inputs
with
regard
to the
performance
specification. Very
small
gains
in the feedforward
part
result
therefrom.
Consequently,
the discussion is focused on
the
design
of feedforward
controllers for the
closed-loop system, i.e.,
as a second
design step.
Since
feedforward control does not affect
any stability properties
of the closed-
loop system,
the
design
is
relatively simple.
It is discussed
by
means
of
two
examples.
8.3
H^-minimization
The
H^-minimization [8.4]
is well suited for a feedforward controller
design.
Before we use the numerical tools available
(e.g., [8.1], [8.2]),
we
have to build
up
a
closed-loop plant
with a
previously designed
feedback
controller
K(s).
As an
example,
the
controller
using
all 3
temperature
measurements is selected (see section
6.4.3).
If
we wish to
improve
the
compensation
of feed flow disturbances for the
plant
models
GR
(s)
as well as for
GT (s)
,
we have to close the feedback
loops
for both models
separately,
define the desired
performance,
and
limit the
high-frequency output
of the feedforward controller
KF
(s) .
The
design plant
is outlined in
Figure
8.2.
The
performance weight
We(s)
is a
diagonal
matrix of the transfer
functions
we(s)
H^-minimization
193
KF(S)
F
u
Gr(b)
Wu(8)
K3
uF
Jl
+
K(s) 6
u
GT(s)
K3
K(s)
tO
We(s)
Figure
8.2: The
augmented plant
for a
design
of the feedforward
controller
KF(s) by H^-minimization
Wp(s)
=
diag[w(s),wp(s),wp(s),w(s)]
(8.1)
It demands the
same
performance
for both column models and both
controlled
temperatures.
The transfer function
we(s)
is chosen as a
first-order
lag
with a
high
static
gain.
The
pole
of
we
(s)
is
adjusted
until
|TF
_J
~ 1 is achieved. The final transfer function becomes
We(S>
=
100TT2380i
(8.2)
If we do not
specify any high-frequency
limits of the feedforward
controller
output,
we obtain a
controller with
large high-frequency
gains.
This is undesirable because measurement noise and short-time
feed flow fluctuations cause
unnecessarily, large
control actions.
Using
a
diagonal
transfer function matrix
Wu(s)
for the feedforward
controller
output
uF
according
to
Design
Wu(s)
=
diag[wUF(s),wUF(s)]
with the
lead-lag
transfer function
(8.3)
w
(s)
=
0.5
1 + 104s
l+2.5s
(8.4)
a controller behavior similar to a first order
lag
is obtained. The
singular
values of the controller and the transfer functions from the disturbance
inputs
to the control error (for
the nominal
model) are shown
by Figure
8.3. If
we
compare Figure
8.3 b with
Figure
6.10
b,
we
recognize
the
significant improvement
of the feed flow disturbance
compensation
(dash-dotted lines).
10J 10J 10" 10
Frequency (rad/min)
a)
icr io io io
Frequency (rad/min)
b)
Figure
8.3: a) Singular
values of the feedforward controller
b) Singular
values ofthe transfer function from the disturbance
inputs
d to the
controlled
output signals y
for the nominal model
G^
with feedforward and
feedback control. Solid line: T
_,.
dash-dotted line: Tw
_.
Xr, > y
r >
y
Nonlinear simulations confirm these
expectations (Figure 8.4).
In the
interest of
consistency,
the same disturbances are simulated as in all
previous chapters.
Of
course,
the
response
to the
step changes
in the
feed
composition
remains identical to the one shown in
Figure
6.12.
However,
the maximum control error
during
the
compensation
of the
H^-minimization
195
0.020
Ft=0=20
mol/min
o
I
o
g
a
o
o
a
S
o
O
0.015
0.010
0.005
-
Top composition
Bottom
composition
0 10 20 30 40
Time (h)
Ft=0=20
mol/min
0.4
}'
(K)
0.2
1 .
. J.
i!
-
Temperature
0.0
-0.2
i
i
-0.4
Control error T-10
-0.6

Control error T-44
0 10 20 30 40
Time (h)
0.020
Ft=0=46
mol/min
o
I
o
g
a
o
0.015 r
o
P.
B
o
O
tfl
0.010
0.005
i
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-
Top composition
- Bottom
composition
0 10 20 30 40
Time (h)
Ft=0=46
mol/min
Control error T-10
Control error T-44
0 10 20 30 40
Time
(h)
Figure
\i-optimal
state
space
controller
(controller
in
puts: Tig, T44, T24)
and
feedforward
controller for an increase in feed
composi
tion
(0.8 - 0.9 mol/mol) at t=0 h and an increase of feed flow rate (+
3.6 mol/
min)
at t=20 h
Upperplots:
Product
composition
Lower
plots:
Control error
L,
V
equal
to controller
output
AL with +10%
error,
AV with -10% error
196
8 Feedforward Controller
Design
feed flow disturbance is
approximately halved,
and for the maximum
feed flow rate it is reduced even more.
8.4
Optimization approach
The
implementation
of
state-space
controllers in a distributed control
system
is difficult. Of
course,
this holds for feedforward controllers as
well. Most desirable are feedforward controllers with a
simple
and
easily implementable
structure.
The
singular
values of the
H,
norm-minimizing state-space
controller
suggest
a feedforward controller
structure with a first-order
lag
and
different
gains
for the
outputs
to the reflux L and the
boilup
V:
KF(s)
=
The
parameters
of this
simple
control structure are
computed by
a
constraint
parameter optimization [8.5].
The
objective
may
be of
different kind: One
possibility
is the minimization of the
Hnorm of the
transfer function
TF
_^
for the
plant
shown in
Figure
8.2. This
design
objective
has certain
disadvantages,
however:
Due to the few

degrees
of freedom
resulting
from
using
this
simple
controller
structure,
it is not
possible
to obtain a
controller which is close to
design specifications
for a wide
frequency
range.
The
H^-norm minimizing parameters strongly depend
on the
allowed maximum for
y,
with
y
=
|TF_^J
.
If we allow
y>5
controller
designs
with
large enough gains
(KRL, KRy)
are
obtained. But for a
performance specification allowing y
~
1,
we
attain small controller
gains
and the
improvement
of the distur
bance
compensation
is insufficient
Most of the feed flow disturbances
entering
this distillation column are
step changes. Consequently,
we are able to define an
appropriate design
KRj
KR,
1
1+Ts
(8.5)
8.4
Optimization approach 197
objective
in the time domain. It is the minimum absolute control
error
for a
step change
in the feed flow rate. The
design objective
becomes
[T,
KRL, KRV]
=
arg
inf E
[T,
KRL, KRV]
(8.6)
with
E = f {|e10 (tOl + le^
(t)| + |e10 (t)\
+
\eu (t)|}dt.
(8.7)
J
|
1UR
I I Ê
I I 1UI I | ^*I I
The
performance
measure E is calculated for a
step response
to the
plant input F, employing
the
plant
illustrated
by Figure
8.5.
'io.
'44t
'10,
"44,
Figure
8.5: Plant structure for the
optimization
of
feedforward controller
parameters
Ifwe select the
u-optimal
PID-controller with
one-way decoupling
as the
feedback controller K (see section
6.5.3),
and limit the time constant T
by
a lower bound of 5
minutes,
the
following simple optimal
feedforward
controller results:
Design
KF(s)
=
1.5
2.6
1
l + 5.0s
(8.8)
The
singular
values of the feedforward controller are shown in
Figure
8.6 a. In
Figure
8.6 b
we find the
singular
values of the transfer func
tions
Td
for nominal closed
loop system
with this feedforward
controller. It demonstrates the low
sensitivity
of the feedback and feed
forward controlled distillation column to variations of the feed flow rate.
10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
a)
T,
10'
d
-*y
<D
0
'V 10
i \
=1
' \\
*>
6
/ /
\
\
/ /
s
1U
/ /
/ /
/ i
\v
\ \
\ \
,n2
/
i
\ \
10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
b)
10
Figure
8.6:
a) Singular
values of the feedforward controller with fixed structure
b) Singular
values of the transfer functions for the nominal closed
loop system
from the disturbances
inputs
d to the controlled
output signals y
(Feedback
and feedforward
control).
Solid line: T
,
dash-dotted line: T
F-*y
(Figure
8.7)
demonstrate that the maximum
deviation of the
for a
step change
of the feed flow
rate is
very
small. A
comparison
with the simulation results for the
same feedback controller but without feedforward control in
Figure
6.30
confirms the substantial
improvements by
this
simple
feedforward
controller.
8.5
Summary
199
Ft=0=20
mol/min
0.0201
' '
0.005
Top composition
-
Bottom
composition
o 10 20 30
Time (h)
40
0.020
o
I
o
s
a
o
o
a.
B
o
O
Ft=0=46
mol/min
0.015
0.010
0.005
0
Top composition
Bottom
composition
10 20 30
Time
(h)
40
Figure
^-optimal
PID controller with
one-way
decou
pling
and a
simple feedforward
controller for an increase in feed
composition
(0.8 -> 0.9
mol/mol) at t=0 h and an increase of feed flow rate (+ 3.6
mol/min)
at t=20 h
~-"-
L,
V
equal
to controller
output
AL with +10%
error,
AV with -10% error
8.5
Summary
The
compensation
of feed flow disturbances can be
improved by using
feedforward controllers.
H,-norm
minimization and the minimization
ofthe control errors in the time domain
(for
feedforward controllers with
fixed
structure) are efficient
design
methods.
Frequency
domain as well
as time-domain results demonstrate the
pleasing improvements
which
are obtained even
by
a feedforward controller oforder one.
A
comparison
ofthe ISE and ITAE criteria (see section 6.6) in Table 8.1 demonstrates
Design
improvements up
to 50%! As mentioned
previously,
the maximum struc
tured
singular
value
|i
is not a
good performance
measure
if we include
the feedforward control in the structured
uncertainty
model.
Table 8.1:
Comparison
of controllers in time-domain
Control structure Relative
ISE
Relative
ITAE
Max
n-
3
temp,
measurements
1.0 1.0 0.85
3
temp,
measurements
and feed forward control
0.63 0.51 0.86
one-way
decoupling
(C 1=0)
1.99 1.51 0.97
one-way
decoupling (C 1=0)
and
simple
feedforward control
1.13 0.87 1.05
8.6 References
[8.1] Balas,
G.
J.,
J. C.
Doyle,
K.
Glover,
A.
Packard,
and R. Smith: u-
Analysis
and
Synthesis Toolbox,
MUSYN
Inc., Minneapolis MN,
and The
MathWorks, Inc., Natick,
MA
(1991)
[8.2] Chiang,
R.
Y.,
and M. G. Safonov: Robust Control Toolbox
Us
er's
Guide,
The
MathWorks, Inc.,
Cochituate
Place, Natick,
MA
(1992)
[8.3] Christen, U.,
M. F.
Weilenmann,
and H. P.
Geering: "Design
of
H2
and
H
Controllers with Two
Degrees
of
Freedom,"
Proc.
of
the 1994 American Control
Conference, Baltimore,
MA
(1994)
8.6 References
201
[8.4] Glover, K,
and J. C.
Doyle:
"A State
Space Approach
to
H, Opti
mal
Control,"
Lecture Notes in Control and
Information
Science,
135,179-218,
Springer-Verlag,
Berlin (1989)
[8.5] Grace,
A.:
Optimization
Toolbox
User's Guide,
The Math-
works, Inc., Natick,
MA
(1990)
Design
Chapter
9
Practical
Experiences
9.1 Introduction
In simulations the
performance
of controllers is tested in a sterile envi
ronment.
Lacking
measurement
noise, operator actions,
and
varying
environmental
conditions,
the results of these simulations
represent
a
well established basis for a
comparison
of different controller
designs.
However, only
the
implementation
of a controller in the real
plant
proves
its
performance.
While in the literature a
great
number of
design
methods has been
proposed
and the
resulting
controllers have been
tested
by simulations, only very
few results of an
implementation
at a
real industrial distillation column have been
reported.
This
chapter complements
the simulation results
presented
in
previous
chapters
with the results of a controller
implementation
in the distrib
uted control
system
(DCS)
which is
coupled
with this distillation
column. The first section describes the
implementation including
the
handling
of constraints. Further sections discuss the use of
pressure
compensated temperatures,
the controller
performance observed,
and
economic
aspects.
A short
summary
concludes the
chapter.
204
9 Practical
Experiences
9.2 Controller
implementation
In the research field the
objective
of
any
control
design
is a
high
controller
performance.
A control
design implemented
in an industrial
environment must consider
many
additional
aspects.
A few of them are
listed below.
Simple implementation:
As mentioned
previously, state-space
control
lers are difficult to
implement
in a DCS. Therefore the control scheme
should be based on fixed low order
structures, e.g.
on PID control
or on
advanced PID control structures.
Robustness: The control
design
must
guarantee stability
for the entire
operating range
of the
column, including
time variations due to corro
sion of
trays,
transmitter
drifts,
etc.
Easy
to initialize: The switch from manual to automatic control must be
simple
and
easy
to understand.
Operators
often are semiskilled
workmen who cannot and should not be
expected
to have an
engineering
background.
A
complex
initialization
procedure
of a
control scheme
unnecessarily
increases the risk of errors and
requires
an intensive
operator training.
Handling of
constraints: Constraints are
necessary
to
prevent
the
column from
flooding, weeping, overpressure, overtemperature,
etc.
Often it is sufficient to limit reflux and reboiler heat
duty.
Performance: Despite
the
requirements
listed
above,
the
performance
of
the control scheme should still be
high.
Comparing
the different control schemes
proposed
within this
thesis,
the PID control structure with
one-way decoupling including
the
simple
feedforward controller evolves as
the best
compromise among
all these
requirements.
The control scheme is
simple
to
initialize1,
robust to
1. Initialization
of
the control scheme
(see Figure 9.1): First,
the
output
of the
top
composition
controller in manual mode is
adjusted
to achieve
r^
=
Lactuai.
Then the
top composition
controller is switched to automatic mode.
Second,
the
output
ofthe
bottom
composition
controller in manual mode is
adjusted
to achieve
rq
=
Qactuai-
After that the controller is switched to automatic mode.
9.2 Controller
implementation
205
plant uncertainty,
it allows a
simple handling
of
constraints,
and it
exhibits a
high performance
in simulations.
This control scheme has been
implemented
in the DCS installed at the
plant
considered here
(i.e.,
an
Eckardt PLS 80E). The controller
inputs
are estimated
tray compositions
Xj,
which for the
operators
have
proved
to be easier to understand than
pressure compensated temperatures.
The
proportional gains
of the controllers are
easily
converted for these
controller
inputs.
A scheme of the
implementation
is shown in
Fig.
9.1. The
handling
of
constraints is realized
by using
the
anti-windup facility
of the standard
PID controller blocks within the DCS. The
following
ideas have been
realized:
If the
setpoint
for the reflux controller
rR
becomes smaller than
its minimum limit
Rmjn,
the
top composition
is allowed to rise
above the
setpoint
(=>
top composition purer
than
required),
and
the
top composition
controller must be
prevented
from
windup.
If the
setpoint
for the reflux controller
rR
exceeds its maximum
limit
Rmax,
the
top composition
is allowed to decrease (=>
top
composition
less
pure
than
required),
and the
top composition
controller
again
must be
prevented
from
windup. However,
if at
all
possible,
this case should be avoided.
Equivalent
constraints hold for the bottom
composition
controller.
This
policy
establishes individual constraints for the
top composition
control
loop
as
well as for the bottom
composition
control
loop.
Since we
have to include the feedforward control and the
one-way decoupling,
the
outputs
of the
composition
controllers are limited
by
the
following
four
signals entering
the
anti-windup facility
of the PID controllers:
RFBl,max
=
Rmax_RFF
(9<1)
RFBl,min
=
Rmin
~
RFF
(9-2)
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
r
9
.
1
:
F
i
g
u
r
e
_
Q
"
V
a
l
v
P
I
D
Q
i
9
_
V
a
l
v
e
D
e
c
o
u
p
l
i
n
g
F
B
I
Q
K
q
/
R
"
R
-
^
%
P
I
D
R
r
R
+
F
F
Q
K
q
f
/
r
f
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
r
F
e
e
d
f
o
r
w
a
r
d
V
F
F
Q
m
i
n
-
^
F
F
-
^
F
B
l
L
A
G
m
m
F
B
2
,
Q
Q
m
a
x
^
F
F
^
F
B
l
m
a
x
F
B
2
,
Q
F
B
2
Q
n
,
i
i
P
I
D
2
^
*
0
4
p
2
+
0
,
p
+
T
C
m
l
)
+
0
]
+
0
2
(
T
c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
w
i
t
h
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
r
s
F
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
R
m
i
n
_
R
F
F
v
F
B
l
,
m
i
n
R
F
F
R
m
a
x
m
a
x
F
B
I
,
R
"
F
B
I
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
i
o
n
^
4
4
C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
n
i
i
P
I
D
l
1
1
Q
.
5
o
(
P
5
1
-
P
0
)
+
P
o
P
l
O
^
(
P
5
1
-
P
o
)
+
P
o
P
5
1
P
o
e
3
p
+
T
C
o
r
r
)
+
9
2
<
T
+
e
i
L
1
0
9.3
Composition
estimators 207
-FB2,max
"
Qmax- FF- -FBl
(9-3)
Q-FB2,min
=
Qmin" ^FF- -FBl
(9-4)
These individual constraints make
unnecessary
the
configuration
of
variable structure control in the DCS.
However,
the maximum
constraint of the reflux
may
lead to a
top product quality significantly
below the
product specification,
which is much more undesirable than a
deterioration of the bottom
product quality. Fortunately,
simulation as
well as
practical experiences
have shown that the reboiler heat
duty
exceeds its maximum limit
Qm,v
first. In this
case,
the behavior of the
control scheme is identical to that ofa
single composition
control scheme
with reboiler heat
duty
set at maximum
Qmax
and
top composition
controlled
by
reflux flow rate.
If the reflux as well as the reboiler heat
duty
reach their minimum
constraints,
both
products
become
purer
than desired.
9.3
Composition
estimators
While the
implementation
of the controllers did not cause
any partic
ular
problems,
the correct
parametrization
of the
composition
estima
tors was
very
troublesome. In a first
step
the
parameters
of the
estimators were calculated
by regression
of
{Tpx}
data (see
Chapter
2).
However,
the correlation of the estimated
compositions
on
tray
10 and
44 with the
product compositions analyzed
once a
day proved
to be
unsatisfactory.
Hence
operating
data were recorded for two weeks. Since the feed
composition
was almost
constant,
it was
possible
to
compare
these
measurement data with
tray compositions
calculated
by steady-state
simulations.
Minimizing
the errors between the estimated and the
calculated
tray compositions,
a correction of the estimated
tray pres
sures
by
20% was
necessary
to correct the estimates. Since
pressure
sensors on
tray
10 and 44 are not
installed,
the
pressures
on these
trays
are calculated
by
a linear
interpolation
between
top pressure
and
208 9 Practical
Experiences
bottom
pressure
(see
Fig.
9.1). The
error in the
pressure compensation
might
have been caused
by
this
interpolation.
Other error sources could
have been incorrect
{Tpx}
data or
pressure
measurements. Once the
parameters
of the estimators had been
adjusted,
these
simple
estima
tors worked
fairly satisfactorily. Nevertheless,
the
compensation
of the
pressure
variations' influence on the
tray temperatures
is the
limiting
factor for the overall
performance
of the control scheme. This will be
shown in more detail in the
following
section.
Of
course,
the effort for the
parametrization
of the estimators is
fairly
high
and the
performance
of the control scheme is limited
by
them. In
view of these two
points,
the installation of on-line
gas chromatographs
could be
preferable. However,
in our case the
light component polymer
izes at
temperatures exceeding
a certain level. Since
polymerization
plugs
a
gas chromatograph
in a short
time,
the use of
pressure compen
sated
temperatures
or estimated
tray compositions
as controller
inputs
is
indispensable.
9.4 Controller
performance
The controller
performance
observed matched the simulation results
quite
well.
Figures
9.2 and 9.3
depict
the recorded deviations of the esti
mated
tray compositions
from their
setpoints
in the
presence
of several
feed flow disturbances and at two different feed flow rates.
The
large
measurement noise of the estimated
tray compositions
is
caused
by
the
noisy pressure readings
in the column bottom.
Using
a
first-order
low-pass
element in series with the bottom
pressure
measurement,
the noise could be
significantly
reduced.
Unfortunately,
at the time of the installation of the control
scheme,
the
capacity
of the
DCS
was
exhausted. Even for the
configuration
of this
simple element,
there was no
space
left. As soon as new
capacity
is
available,
the bottom
pressure
measurement will be filtered.
During
the
recording
of these
operating data,
the
setpoints
were
kept
constant. In
Figure
9.2 the feed flow rate was
increased
by
401/h in four
steps.
The feed flow rate at t=0 h
was 260 1/h (49 mol/min),
while the
9.4 Controller
performance
209
Feed
Tray
10
40 60
Time (h)
100 Q
Tray
44
{
L5 >
Ml
i
;,
V
.
ik'3.' MLi >S Jss ieS ills
53S ,*
*
t??^
7
?'
"
165 SflftSf WBt3B%jff"WB5f t HB'Sff
1
1
jj' j;
20 40 60
Time
(h)
80
H-osS 8
9 3
0.5
100
a
o
i-t
+a
CO
"g
Q
a.
a
0)
Figure
9.2: Recorded
operating
data with installed PID control scheme
including
one-way decoupling
and feedforward control.
Top:
Deviation of feed flow rate from 260 1/h (49 mol/min)
Middle: Deviations of estimated
tray composition
and of
pressure
from
setpoint
on
tray
10
Bottom: Deviations of estimated
tray composition
and of
pressure
on
tray
44
210 9 Practical
Experiences
Feed
P 3
30 40
Time
(h)
Tray
10 -a
30 40
Time
(h)
-0.5 g
a
<a
a,
0.5 V
70
P
Tray
44
13
l^^diAilw
-0.5
-
05
10 20 30 40
Time
(h)
50 60 70
a
o
>
a)
P
Figure
9.3: Recorded
operating
data with installed PID control scheme
including
one-way
decoupling
and feedforward control.
Top:
Deviation of feed flow rate from 170 1/h
(32 mol/min)
Middle: Deviations of estimated
tray composition
and of
pressure
from
setpoint
on
tray
10
Bottom: Deviations of estimated
tray composition
and of
pressure
on
tray
44
9.4 Controller
performance
211
feed
composition
was
approximately
0.85 mol/mol.
Although
the feed
flow rate was out of the
design range,
the reflux and
boilup
remained
within the
range
covered
by
the controller
design.
In
Figure 9.3,
the feed
flow rate at t=0 h was 170 1/h
(32 mol/min)
and it was
increased
only
once
by
101/h.
The control errors in
presence
of these feed flow disturbances remain
extraordinary
small. In
fact,
it is almost
impossible
to
separate
the
control error from the measurement noise and the effect of all other
unknown disturbances. This
proves
the
high performance
ofthis
simple
advanced PID control scheme.
The
advantages
ofthe controller
implementation
are demonstratedbest
by
a
comparison
of the
product compositions analyzed
once a
day
before
and after the installation. At the
beginning
of this
project, top
and
bottom
composition
were controlled
manually.
The results are shown on
the left-hand sides of
Figure
9.4 and 9.5.
Obviously,
the
average product
compositions
are
found far from their
setpoints,
and the variations of
the
are
very large.
The
right-hand
sides of
Figure
9.4 and 9.5 show the
analysis
results
beginning
after the
adjustment
of the
composition
estimators.
Clearly,
the variations of the
are much smaller and the
average product compositions
are close to the desired results.
However,
despite
the
high performance
of the control scheme as illustrated
by
Figure
9.2 and
9.3, significant
variations of the
can still be detected. Please remember that
pressure
measurements of
tray
10 and 44 are
lacking.
Therefore the influence of the
large pressure
variations (bottom
pressure:
120-190
mbar)
to the
tray temperatures
cannot be
perfectly compensated
and an
adjustment
of the controller
setpoints depending
on the feed flow rate is
necessary.
Since the results
presented
are achieved with almost constant
setpoints,
the results will
improve
even further as the
operators gain
more extensive
experience
with the
setpoints.
212
9 Practical
Experiences
Manual
operation
Controlled
0.3
~
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
xxx
Xx
x
Xx
X
x
xx
x
X
X
XX
X
x
x
x*-x-
-
v
-
x
"
X
X
X
XX
X
X
*
x
>**
^
35
Days
70
0.25
0.15
Manual
operation
0.25 r
0.05
Controlled
Figure
9.4:
Analysis
data of
top
and bottom
product
Top: Top composition 1-xjj
Bottom: Bottom
composition
xg
Dashed line:
Average composition
9.4 Controller
performance
213
Manual
operation
Controlled
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Top composition (mol/mol)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Top composition (mol/mol)
Manual
operation
Controlled
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Bottom
composition
(mol/mol)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Bottom
composition (mol/mol)
Figure
9.5:
Histograms
of
analyzed product qualities
Top: Top composition 1-xjj
Bottom: Bottom
composition
xg
214
9 Practical
Experiences
9.5 Economic
aspects
The
management
decision for
or
against
the installation of
a control
system depends primarily
on the economic
feasibility
and to some
degree
on
ecological improvements.
In our case the installation of the
control scheme
yields
the
following
most
important improvements:
More uniform
product qualities
=> Less
overpurification
necessary
=>
Energy savings
(which is an
ecological advantage, too)
Reduced mean of
light component
in bottom
=> More
top product
with a market value of > 250000
$/a
Increased maximum column load

=> The installation of an additional column can be avoided
These
pay-offs
are
complemented by
side
effects,
for
example a
deeper
understanding
of column
dynamics by
the
operating staff,
which as a
consequence
achieved a better
operation
of other columns in the same
plant.
These financial benefits must be
weighed against
the investment costs.
Hardware and software
expenses exclusively
for this
project
total
approximately
50000
$. It is not unreasonable to estimate the
necessary
engineering
effort for
a similar
project
to be less than half a man
year.
Therefore the economic benefits are on a
very positive
side.
9.6
Summary
The results ofthe
implementation
of the PID control structure with one
way decoupling
and feedforward control on the real
plant
confirm the
high performance
of this
simple
control scheme indicated
by
simula
tions. The main
problem
of the
implementation was, except
for over
coming high psychological resistances,
the correct
parametrization
of
the
composition
estimators. A solution of this
problem
never would have
been
possible
without an extensive
comparison
of simulation and
oper
ating
data.
Nevertheless,
the
use
of
pressure compensated tempera-
9.6
Summary
215
tures or estimated
tray compositions
remains the
limiting
factor of the
overall
performance
of the
implemented
control scheme. The economic
advantages
achieved
by
this
simple
control scheme exceed the financial
effort
by
far.
216 9 Practical
Experiences
Chapter
10
Conclusions and
Recommendations
10.1 Introduction
This thesis treats all the
necessary steps
for a
composition
control
design
for an industrial
binary
distillation column. Each of these
steps
produced
new
insights
into various
aspects
of the control
design.
Since
a
chronological
discussion of these
steps
would lead to a thematic confu
sion, they
are
summarized in the four sections
Controller
synthesis
State-space
or
PID control?
How
many temperature
measurements?
Column models
This thesis does not
presume
to
present
a final solution to all distillation
control
problems.
The ideas
presented
come
up against many gaps
in
research,
limits of distributed control
systems,
and
problems
of
cooper
ation between
industry
and
university.
In the last section the most
important aspects
of these
topics
are discussed.
218 10 Conclusions and Recommendations
10.2 Controller
synthesis
This thesis discusses the
design
ofrobust controllers for the dual
compo
sition control
problem
of an industrial
binary
distillation column. Distil
lation columns are
usually operated
over a wide
range
of feed
compositions
and feed flow rates.
Consequently,
a controller must
guar
antee
stability
and a
high performance
not
only
at a
single operating
point,
but for the entire
operating range
of the distillation column.
The common robust controller
design
methods are based on unstruc
tured
uncertainty models,
for
example
a
at
plant output.
An estimate of the
corresponding uncertainty
bounds has
shown that these bounds are too
large
to allow
any
controller
design.
Nevertheless a solution of the
design problem
is
possible.
It is based on
a structured
uncertainty
model which to a
large
extent avoids the unnec
essary
conservatism of an unstructured
uncertainty description.
This
model treats the nonlinear column behavior as several simultaneous
uncertainties and
quite
well describes the column
dynamics
for all
oper
ating points
within the
predefined operating range.
Utilizing
this
uncertainty model,
a feedback controller
synthesis
requires
the framework of the structured
singular
value
\i.
The
appro
priate design
methods are the uK-Iteration for the
synthesis
of state-
space
controllers and a constraint
parameter optimization
for the
synthesis
of controllers with fixed structure. These methods lead to
feedback controllers which are
distinguished by
a
high
controller
perfor
mance
and
guaranteed stability
within the entire
operating range,
paired
with
a
low
sensitivity
to errors
in the
manipulated
variables.
A drawback of this
design approach
is the
high
effort for
uncertainty
modelling
and
computation
of the controllers. In
principle, comparable
results could be obtained and the
computational
effort could be
signifi
cantly
reduced
by using design
methods based on
arbitrary
small
unstructured
uncertainty
bounds.
However,
it has been shown that
these common
design
methods
are not well suited for ill-conditioned
plants
such
as
high-purity
distillation columns.
10.3
State-space
or PID control? 219
The ideas of the feedback controller
synthesis
can be extended to the
feedforward control
design.
A simultaneous controller
design
for the
closed-loop
models at maximum and minimum column load
using HM-
minimization
(for
state-space
feedforward
controllers) or
optimization
in the time-domain (for feedforward controllers with fixed
structure)
yield controllers,
which
greatly improve
the
compensation
of feed flow
disturbances.
The theoretical and simulation results are confirmed
by
the results of
the
practical implementation
of a
simple
PID control structure with
one-way decoupling
and a
simple
feedforward control scheme. The
very
satisfactory
controller
performance
achieved without
any expensive
on
line
composition analyzers
leads to
high
economic and
ecologic
benefits
which
justify
the effort of the control
design
and
implementation.
10.3
State-space
or PID control?
A
comparison
of the different
state-space
controllers with
optimally
tuned advanced PID control structures has demonstrated an unex
pected
result:
The
performance
of
u-optimally
tuned advanced PID control
structures is
only insignificantly
worse than the
performance
of
high-order state-space
controllers
This statement is of
great significance
for industrial
practice.
It holds
for the feedback as well as for the feedforward control
design.
The
imple
mentation of advanced PID control structures in a distributed control
system requires
much less effort than that of
state-space
controllers and
increases the
acceptance
of the control
design by
the
operators.
It must
be
emphasized, however,
that the
high performance
of the PID control
structure is achieved with unconventional controller
settings.
The
optimal tuning
of PID control structures with
decoupling
for this
distillation column caused an additional
insight.
The
optimal
controller
performance
is achieved with an
implicit decoupling
scheme where in
essence
the bottom
composition
is controlled
by moving
the
composition
profile,
and
the
top composition
is controlled
by intensifying
or
weakening
the S-form of the
composition profile.
Since the
position
and
shape
of the
composition profile
at
steady-state
depends essentially
on the actual and unmeasured feed
composition,
it
is difficult to make
any
inference from
a
composition
or
temperature
measurement in the column middle to the
manipulated
variables.
Very
similar considerations hold for the relative
performance
of the
state-space
controllers. For the same
reason,
the estimation of the
composition profile by
the inherent observer has
no
advantages.
The
better
performance
results
only
from the
higher degree
offreedom in the
controller
design,
which allows a
higher performance
in the low- and
mid-frequency range
without
destabilizing
the closed
loop system
in the
10.4 How
many temperature
measurements?
A
comparison
of a control
design including
a
temperature
measurement
in the middle of the column with a
design excluding
this measurement
leads to the
following
statement
Additional
temperature
or
composition
measurements in the
middle of the distillation column have no
significant
influence
on the maximum controller
performance.
The reason for the
very
limited
advantage
of additional
temperature
measurements for the control
design
is their unknown
setpoint,
which
depends
on the
actual,
unmeasured feed
composition.
The
high perfor
mance
of the control
design
can be achieved with
just
two
pressure-
compensated temperatures
or two estimated
tray compositions.
Dispensing
with additional measurements reduces the installation
costs of the control
system
and increases its economic
viability.
However,
if
regression
models are used to estimate the
product compo-
10.5 Column models 221
sitions based on
temperature
and flow
measurements,
additional
temperature
measurements are of
great advantage.
10.5 Column models
All results of this thesis are based
directly
or
indirectly
on models of the
distillation column.
Especially
the model-based
adjustment
of the
composition
estimators
clearly proved
that such
process
models are
absolutely necessary. However,
the control
design may
be based on
linear models that include or exclude flow
dynamics.
Within the structured
uncertainty model,
a
is included for each measured
tray temperature,
whose
uncertainty
bounds exceed 100% for
frequencies
above 1/16 rad/min. Since the flow
dynamics
affect the
high-frequency range,
the
following
statement is
justified:
Including
or
excluding
flow
dynamics
in the linear models
is
insignificant
for the controller
design.
This has an
impact
on the
design
effort. If a controller
design
can be
based on an
analytical
linearization of
a
simple
model for the
composi
tion
dynamics
at
particular steady states,
a
rigorous dynamic
model is
not
absolutely necessary.
The
steady
states of a column
may
be calcu
lated with common
flowsheeting programs
such
as ASPEN PLUS
or
PROCESS and the controllers
designed
can be tested
using
a
simpli
fied nonlinear model without flow
dynamics.
10.6 Recommendations
10.6.1 Academic research
Multicomponent
distillation: The results of this thesis are based on the
example
of a
single binary
distillation column. While the
adaptation
of
these results to other
binary
columns is
expected
to be
straightforward,
the
uncertainty modelling
of
multicomponent
distillation columns
needs additional research.
[i-synthesis:
The robustness
analysis
of controllers
using
the structured
singular
value
î
has shown to be a reliable and
outstanding
tool.
However,
the
convergence
properties
of the
corresponding algorithms
for
u-synthesis (DK-iteration,
uK-iteration) are insufficient. More
robust
algorithms
are
absolutely necessary.
Decentralized control:
Generally,
the
design
of robust controllers with
simple
structures is at an
early stage
of
development.
In the
case of this
distillation
column,
it was
relatively
easy
to
propose potential
control
structures and to solve the
design objective
with a constrained
param
eter
optimization (u-optimization).
However, dealing
with
many
more
control
loops
simultaneously,
the
problem
of the
loop pairing
is still not
solved. For
example,
the
high performance
of the controllers in this
thesis has been obtained
using
the LV control
configuration.
Since
common methods for control structure selection
(single loop pairing
of
controlled variables and
manipulated inputs) try
to minimize the inter
actions between the individual control
loops, certainly
these methods
favor other control
configurations.
Therefore methods for the selection
of control structures are
necessary,
which include
simple
multivariable
control schemes. Similar
arguments
hold for the controller
tuning.
The
current methods for the
tuning
of
multiloop
SISO control schemes are
known to be either
very
conservative or else to lack robustness. Better
methods would be
very
desirable.
10.6.2 Decentralized control
systems
Today
a control
engineer
in the research field is familiar with modern
and flexible software tools such as
MATLAB
or
MATRLXX.
His first
contact with a decentralized control
system (DCS),
even
with
a
modern
one,
arouses
feelings
of
working
in the
analog computing
era.
The
replacement
of the old consoles with a
computer
seems to be the
only
idea for the
development
of the DCS. The inherent
possibilities
for a
faster,
more
flexible,
and
simplified
controller
implementation
are
not
exhausted
yet.
10.6 Recommendations 223
10.6.3
Cooperation industryuniversity
Often the
industry complains
of the
inadequate cooperation
between
university
and
industry.
Some
typical problems
of such a
cooperation
were
encountered
during
the course ofthis
project.
The main
problem
is
the
divergence
between the interest of the
partners
in the
project.
University
researchers are interested in
deeper insights
into basic
prob
lems and their
solution,
while the
process
industry
wants a
rapid
solu
tion of the actual
problem. Additionally
the contact
persons
in
industry
are
chronically
overworked with
everyday problems,
thus unable to
spend enough
time to concern
themselves with such a
project.
This leads
to an
insufficient flow of communication.
Consequently,
both
partners
speak
different
languages:
the
university
researcher does not under
stand the industrial
needs,
while the industrial
counterpart
does not
understand the mathematical methods. Therefore it is of
high impor
tance that
the aims and
responsibilities
of both
partners
in the
project
are
spelled
as
clearly
as
possible
at least one control
engineer
of the industrial
partner actively
follows the
progress
of the
project
If these two
points
could be
kept
in
mind,
many
problems
between
industry
and
university
could be avoided.
Curriculum vitae
Name
Hans-Eugen
Musch
Date of birth June
19,1965
Place of birth
Freiburg
im
Breisgau, Germany
Nationality
German
1971-1975
Primary
school
1975-1984 Humanistic
gymnasium Kolleg
St. Sebastian
at
Stegen
near
Freiburg
1984 Abitur
1984-1985
Military
service
1985-1989 Chemical
engineering
studies at the ETH Zurich
1989 Masters
degree
in Chemical
Engineering CDiplom")
Since 1990 Research assistant at the Measurement
and Control
Laboratory,
ETH Zurich

Dfre

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dfre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Diss. ETHNo.

The View from Eu

Reflux accumulator level

The variation of the

Dry pressure drop occurring

Hydrostatic pressure drop

Linearization of a nonlinear model

Control error T-44

Control error T-44

Due to the few

Increased maximum column load

You might also like