This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Paul S. Fruehauf, PE Engineering Department E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. P.O. Box 6090 Newark, Delaware 19714-6090 & Donald P. Mahoney Hyprotech, Inc. 501 Silverside Road Wilmington, DE 19809
KEYWORDS Computer Aided Engineering, Simulated Distillation, Chemical Processing, Distillation Control, Steady State Modeling
ABSTRACT Steady state models continue to be powerful and efficient tools for designing control systems for distillation columns. This paper presents a control design procedure and an example application of this technique to an actual column.
One obvious limitation of steady state modeling is that it tells us nothing about the dynamic response. This tool would provide the efficiency of steady-state analysis. et al (1988). Luyben (1975) presents the potential energy savings for many different types of separations. The combined tool would allow the designer to perform both tasks without requiring an investment in time to develop two different models. This does not have to be accepted on faith because the design procedure explicitly tests this hypothesis. with the large number of industrial columns still operating in manual or with ineffectual controls. This too can lead to incorrect results. • • This paper deals exclusively with the design of single point composition controls. Ltd. The ideal design tool would be one that has both steady state and dynamic capabilities. will combine steady state and dynamic modeling in one such package. the energy savings is small and does not justify the added difficulty of implementing and maintaining dual point control. While our procedure is an extension of that proposed by Tolliver and McCune. we have improved the procedure in the following ways: • We advocate that mass flows be used in models versus the previous standard of molar flows. In most cases. Additionally.INTRODUCTION Steady state process models have long been used to assist the control engineer in designing control strategies for distillation columns. For a good development on the rationale behind using steady state models refer to the chapters on Quasi-Static Analysis in Rademaker. those in which a single point composition control scheme can keep both top and bottom product compositions at or below limits for a wide range of disturbances. we have found that using steady state models coupled with experience and a general knowledge of distillation column dynamics is adequate for many problems and can be more efficient than using dynamic models. dual point schemes often have significantly longer recoveries from upsets due to interactions between the control loops. While both tools have a place. et al (1975). We have determined independently that use of molar flows can lead to incorrect results. A new product soon to be released by Hyprotech. We show that this technique can be used for multicomponent columns to quantify the incremental benefit of composition control using on-line analyzers versus temperature control. When we encounter a difficult and important problem we invest the extra engineering time to develop a dynamic model. there remains a need for sound distillation column control design techniques. The predominance of one sided specifications leaves the main incentive for dual point control schemes to be energy savings. We believe it is appropriate to contrast steady state and dynamic models as control design tools. Tolliver and McCune advocate varying only molar distillate flow regardless of the proposed control structure. We also advocate that the actual control structure be enforced when using the steady state simulation to identify a temperature sensor location for composition control. We believe that Tolliver and McCune (1978) have made the greatest contribution to the development of this type of design procedure. This is accomplished by a careful choice of independent variables when defining the model solution conditions. making it difficult to compare the dynamic disturbance rejection capability of alternative control schemes. but would also have the added benefit of comparing the disturbance rejection capabilities of different schemes with the dynamic model. The vast majority of columns have one sided composition specifications. However. . Two other very good papers on this subject are by Thurston (1981) and Roat. A recent review article on distillation column control by Skogestad (1992) confirms these findings.
Our design procedure can be best thought of as general approach rather than a single detailed procedure that covers all cases. The procedure must be adapted to each problem because there are many different types of distillation and almost every industrial problem usually has some unique requirement. .
and the bottoms valve. and the difficulty of the separation. This is the objective for the vast majority of cases that we work on. we begin by presenting some background material on distillation column control and the use of steady state models. the bottoms. The feed split is simply the amount of feed that leaves as distillate versus the amount that leaves as bottoms. The reflux drum and the column bottoms level must be controlled. The assumption is that the control objective is to produce high purity products in both ends of the column. No matter what valves we use for composition control or how we use them. the distillate valve. or the distillate rate is set independently to define the production rate of the column. thereby eliminating one valve. First. Next. Traditionally. We then conclude by illustrating the design procedure with an actual applied industrial example. . either the feed. we use some numerical examples to show the relative importance of the two manipulative variables. we describe our design procedure in detail. the steam valve. Figure 1 . BACKGROUND Distillation Column Control Fundamentals Figure 1 illustrates a schematic of a simple distillation column.Schematic of Simple Distillation Column The five valves are used as follows. This figure identifies the nomenclature used in this paper and points out the five valves available to control the column. There are five degrees of freedom in a typical binary distillation column which are represented by the feed valve. The other fundamental manipulative variable is the fractionation which is the amount of separation that occurs per stage. requiring two more valves. fundamentally there are two things that we can manipulate: the feed split and the fractionation. We call this the demand stream. the reflux valve. In order to explain how we pick the single point control schemes it is necessary to show the relative effect of the feed split and fractionation on product compositions. This leaves us with two compositions to be controlled with two valves. In Figure 2. An overall material balance for a column tells us that the distillate flow plus the bottoms flow must equal the feed flow. The overall fractionation in a column depends on the number of stages. the energy input. simple distillation is viewed as a 2x2 control problem because the remaining two composition control loops have strong interactions.In this article.
8B 20% Fractionation Change 20% Feed Split Change 200% Fractionation Change Figure 2 . Pressure control is a subject in itself. we obtain slightly higher purities in both the top and the bottom of the column.5B 100 pph 50A 50B 0. we must make sure that it is able to adjust the feed split. but only 83% purity in the bottom. The feed split is such that 50 pph leaves as distillate and 50 pph leaves as bottoms. In the last case (bottom right). The column has sufficient heat input to produce enough fractionation to obtain 99% purity in the top and bottom of the column. a 20% feed split change is made simultaneously with a 200% fractionation increase.2B 50 pph 100 pph 50A 50B 50 pph 40 pph 0.6A 0.3A 49.2% purity in the distillate but only 82. the feed split is changed by 20% so that 40 pph leaves as distillate and 60 pph leaves as bottoms. 100 pph is fed to the column made up of 50 pph of A and 50 pph of B. Again. we obtain 99. the 50 lb of A fed to the column must leave the column and does so in part by forcing its way down the column and leaving in the bottoms stream.8% purity in the bottom. is being allowed to leave in the distillate stream.Numerical Examples Showing Importance of Feed Split and Fractionation In the base case (top left). we obtain very high purity A in the overhead.7B 20% Feed Split Change 49. In the third case (bottom left). The academic approach always assumes the feed is the demand stream.5A 49.3B 60 pph 10. In this paper.8A 0. In almost all columns. we are able to achieve very tight and responsive pressure control so that it can be considered a constant. From this development it should be clear that adjusting feed split is equally important when feed composition and feed rate changes hit the column.6B 60 pph 10. we are not going to discuss pressure control. This substantially reduces the bottoms purity. . The feed split to the column is the most important variable to control. it must be right in order to achieve high purities in both the top and bottom of the column. In the second case (top right). The remaining 10 pph of A has to leave the column and does so by forcing its way down the column and going out in the bottoms stream.2A 49. In this case. and it is independent of our main topic of discussion.5A 0. In this case.7A 0. This leads us to a very important concept in distillation column control.50 pph 100 pph 50A 50B 50 pph Base Case 49.4B 100 pph 50A 50B 39. The feed rate and composition are the same. This is one way in which our approach differs from a popular academic approach which includes pressure control as one of the things to be controlled and coolant flow as one of the things to be manipulated. In this case. While fractionation must be great enough to obtain the desired purity. again drastically reducing the bottoms purity. it is only used to fine tune composition control. When we select the manipulative variable for composition control.5B 40 pph 39. but now the fractionation is increased by 20%.4A 49. The explanation is that only 40 lb of the 50 lb of A fed to the column. the feed conditions are the same.
a little more should be said about these cases. Step 4 "Closed loop" test candidate control scheme for feed rate and feed composition disturbances. . Because we often encounter columns with multiple components in the feed. Step 3 "Open loop" test using model to find a candidate temperature sensor location. then the procedure is complete. extractive distillation. We have also used this procedure for many different column configurations including columns with either liquid or vapor side draws. The step that we return to depends on the nature of the problem. In one case. very little time is spent getting converged solutions. only a few changes need to be made to the model input file. columns with partial condensers and with both packed and tray columns. DESIGN PROCEDURE We have extended the design procedure reported by Tolliver and McCune (1978). In multicomponent columns. Generally. This is where steady state models can be very helpful to us because we can use them to quantify the incremental benefit of on-line analyzers versus temperature control. In order to make a change to the solution conditions. fixing temperature and pressure does not fix composition.Specialized and Multicomponent Distillation Columns We have applied this general procedure to many different types of specialized columns including homogeneous and heterogeneous azeotropes. temperature control can still be used to meet many composition specifications. The design procedure is composed of the following steps: Step 1 Develop design basis Step 2 Select a candidate control scheme. If the objectives are met. Often this results in larger yield losses or higher energy consumptions than if an on-line analyzer was available for control. The model input file is then submitted to the software which finds a new solution. Step 5 Objectives met? We have included a Step 5 to illustrate that the procedure can be iterative. Steady State Distillation Models Steady state models are easily manipulated and provide robust solutions. which allows us to efficiently generate the large number of case studies necessary for this design procedure. strippers and absorbers and multicomponent columns. The first four steps of the design procedure are explained in detail in the following sections. we might return to Step 2 and select a different candidate control scheme or we might return to Step 3 and select a different candidate sensor location. unlike binary columns. Otherwise. In spite of this limitation. The savings was over two hundred thousand dollars a year. we used this technique to document the yield improvement to be gained from the addition of an on-line analyzer.
then the level needs to be controlled by manipulating the larger stream. And this is without considering combinations of process outputs as variables. some specifications are picked arbitrarily simply to have a sizing basis for a column and we find that tight control is not critical. The components of the design basis are summarized in Table 1. If the process has recycle streams. The control strategy selection procedure is as follows. For example. This is important because if we see a need to change the control strategy. The accuracy of the basis is mainly the client's responsibility. we need to make sure that the change will not upset the overall control strategy for the process. Step 2 Select a Candidate Control Scheme - The second step of the design procedure is to select a candidate control strategy. bottoms or distillate streams will be the demand stream. we need to determine how the column base and reflux drum level will be controlled. We need to know which of the streams will be the demand stream. A two sided specification means that we need to keep a composition within a certain range. economics. a good definition of the range of feed rate and feed composition disturbances is required to complete the design procedure. in most situations. It is very similar to the procedure outlined by Buckley. The reasons for a given control strategy can be very subtle. This is done by comparing the relative magnitudes of the reflux flow versus the distillate flow and the boilup flow versus the bottoms flow. etc. If there is a 10 to 1 or greater difference. First. particularly if there are recycle streams in the process. This basis should be a contract between the client and the designer. If the design is a retrofit of an existing column. we need to determine which of the feed. (1985). We need to know if the specifications are one or two sided. We have encountered only one column that has a two sided specification.) is considered. single output control combinations. A one sided specification means that we need to meet or exceed a product composition specification. It is also important to know the reasons for the specifications. As you will see. a two sided specification would require that the product composition stay within 90-110 ppm. Occasionally. et. it is just an extension of this procedure. In a 5x5 system. the approach is to draw a box around the process so that the recycle stream remains inside the box and then analyze that part of the process as a system. Generally. the ideal first step is to completely define the design basis providing all the information needed to select the best design alternative. Other constraints include those imposed by the upstream and downstream equipment and recycle streams involving the products from the distillation column. The first piece is the product composition specifications for the top and bottom of the column. Although the design procedure for recycle systems is not covered here. only a few combinations are left after everything (constraints. like simple binary distillation. Second. One common situation where this . A one sided specification is much more common.Step 1 Develop Design Basis - Like any design effort. Fortunately. the feed is set as the demand stream. The next element of the design basis is the constraints. The design basis also includes the economic considerations and the disturbances to the column. al. there are 120 possible single input. The last part of the design basis is simply the base case that was originally used to size the column. we need to know how the column is currently controlled and why.
consideration is important. the control strategy choice usually comes down to two very common choices illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. rather than the very small bottoms stream. The temperature controller manipulates the distillate flow. the base level must be controlled by manipulating the steam flow.Direct Feed Split Control Scheme In Figure 3. is continuous. has a high degree of resolution. The boilup can be 100 times that of the bottoms stream. and dynamics all simultaneously and pick the best feed split control scheme. In most cases. This control scheme is often selected when the heat input is limited or must be fixed. This is a direct feed split control scheme because the distillate is manipulated directly to control composition. repeatable. . In a tar still. therefor. is in a tar still. We use temperatures because the measurement is inexpensive. Product compositions are controlled by fixing a column temperature. If the feed to the column is the demand stream and we do not have a tar still. the economics. we have a direct feed split control scheme. Figure 3 . we use a column tray temperature to infer composition. we are usually trying to remove a small quantity of a high boiling material. and is generally an excellent indicator of column product compositions. highly reliable. The bottoms stream is too small to compensate for common disturbances. The third step in the control strategy selection process is to consider the constraints.
The compositions are controlled by a temperature controller which manipulates the steam flow.Steady-State Temperature Profile Sensitivity to Changes in Distillate (Fixed Heat Input) In this example..e.. we looked for a location where the temperature change was significant and nearly equal in both directions. This is accomplished by changing the temperature control manipulative variable up and down from the base case value. the candidate control strategy is to fix the heat input and vary the distillate flow to control composition (i. This is an indirect feed split scheme because the distillate flow is increased indirectly by increasing the steam flow. This scheme will likely consume less energy than the non-ratio alternative because as the feed flow to the column decreases. some tray temperatures increase. The performance is reported as example number two in Chien and Fruehauf (1990). The last part of the control strategy selection process is to select a ratio-control alternative that might use less energy than the primary alternative. Less reflux will require less heat input.e. the Figure 3 scheme). and one where the distillate flow is decreased by 1%. Figure 5 provides a plot of three steady state runs where temperature is plotted versus tray number .2. Tray 10 would be a poor location because there is no temperature sensitivity to negative changes in the distillate flow. a shorter natural period) and therefore provides better disturbance rejection. when the distillate flow is increased. The amount to change the temperature control manipulative variable varies from case to case. One is that it generally has faster closed loop response (i. Figure 5 .5 & 10% and observe how much the temperature profiles move. This is because the concentration of the high boiling point material is higher in the distillate which shifts the composition profile up. These temperature profiles are taken from the design procedure used for an actual column that is currently operating and giving very good control performance. Step 3 "Open Loop" Test Using Model To Find Candidate Temperature Sensor Location - The third step of the design procedure involves what we have termed "open loop" testing. The three temperature profiles shown in Figure 5 are a base case profile. In this particular case. the opposite effect occurs.1.Figure 4 . We usually start with +/. As you can see. This control strategy alternative has two advantages. When we decrease the distillate. The second is that since the reflux drum level sets the distillate flow. To achieve flow smoothing the level controller must have averaging level controller tuning. One example of a ratio control alternative for the scheme illustrated in Figure 4 would be a controller that keeps a constant reflux to feed flow ratio. the amount of reflux will decrease. The temperature sensor location we picked was tray 38. producing higher temperatures in the top trays.Indirect Feed Split Control Scheme The second common choice is illustrated in Figure 4. The purpose of the "open loop" testing is to use the steady state model to identify a candidate temperature sensor location for inferred composition control. the reflux drum can be used to smooth flow disturbances to other downstream unit operations. . one where the distillate flow is increased by 1%.
we can get incorrect results when the molecular weights of the components are different. we consider a plus or minus one degree change at a given location to be sufficient for temperature control. the temperature at the sensor location ought to be reasonably sensitive to changes in the manipulative variable. we need to find the feed conditions that require the highest reflux flow to satisfy the product composition specifications. After we complete the design procedure and finalize the temperature sensor location. we believe that a technique that uses dynamic modeling may be superior. We also must find a . a modeling tool which has both dynamic and steady state modeling will be required. The technique would involve plotting temperature profiles at fixed time intervals for step increases and decreases in the temperature control manipulative variable. If we set molar flows. This is one area where we feel more research work is needed to find a single reliable method. The control strategy is simulated by setting the model solution specifications to mimic the way the column is controlled. we control mass flows. then the steady state model solution conditions would be to set the mass reflux flow and tray temperature. Based on this performance. All previous reports of design procedures using steady state models have incorrectly set molar flows. Adding a nozzle required welding inside the column to retain the integrity of the lining. and should vary linearly with increasing and decreasing values of the manipulative variable. The first step is to find a set of operating conditions that meet or exceed the product composition specifications for all expected feed rates and compositions. volumetric flows. In the literature. When looking for a candidate temperature sensor location it is important to fix the other flows per the candidate control strategy. it is important to set the steady state model solution condition so that the reflux ratio is fixed. For example. This can be an iterative process. we install two extra nozzles. however in many situations we can use our knowledge of distillation to help find these conditions. One column we worked on had a Hastelloy C liner. we routinely specify three temperature nozzles. if we are considering a control strategy where the reflux flow is fixed and a tray temperature is controlled with steam flow. We have found that the equal temperature change rule used in the above example does not always determine the best location. This is very costly because it requires a vessel entry as well as packing removal and reinstallation. It is also important to fix mass flows and not molar flows. if we are fixing the reflux flow. In addition to the primary nozzle. This is one area where steady state techniques are limited. In this step. We have found that in some cases we can control tray temperature to within a half of a degree centigrade. there are many different techniques proposed on how to locate a temperature sensor. Although it is not fully tested. To do this efficiently. In practice. Additionally. Step 4 "Closed Loop" Test Candidate Control Scheme for Known Disturbances - The last step in the design procedure is to perform what we have termed "closed loop" testing. One of the many techniques is reported by Shunta and Luyben (1975). One example that illustrates the problem with using molar flows is that the use of molar flows does not predict the existence of multiple steady states that have recently been shown to exist in some columns where mass flows are controlled. The reflux flow will then be set at this value for all other feed rate and feed composition combinations. or flows measured by the differential pressure generated by an orifice plate. we use the steady model to simulate the candidate control strategy and test it for feed composition and feed flow changes. These are added to accommodate for any small inaccuracies in the model-predicted results. Again. If we are fixing a reflux ratio as part of our control strategy. one theoretical stage above and one below the primary nozzle. The last two are essentially the same as mass flow and are different from molar flows when the molecular weights are different. Adding a nozzle to a column after installation can be very expensive.In general we prefer to measure temperature for control purposes nearer to the end of the column with the most important purity specification.
then another candidate control scheme should be evaluated to see if a more energy efficient scheme exists. INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION OF THE DESIGN PROCEDURE Example . For some multicomponent cases. the a ratio alternative. however. and the minimum. The split-column arrangement exists to accommodate another process which happens to share the equipment. is illustrated in Figure 6. economic considerations.temperature setpoint that will keep the top and bottom product compositions at or below specifications for all expected conditions. we have selected an example of an actual column from one of our plants. If two compositions are varied then 27 cases must be simulated. If the top and bottom product specifications are met or exceeded for all cases. used to separate methanol and water. then we have found an acceptable control strategy for the column. Next we test the model with these operating conditions for various feed composition and feed rate combinations. a middle. For our analysis. Step 1 is to define the design basis including product specifications. the candidate control scheme and the ratio alternative. If the energy cost difference is large between the minimum. This particular column. This column has the following one sided product specifications: less than 100 ppm water in distillate less than 100 ppm methanol in bottoms . and a maximum feed rate and feed composition be selected which defines nine cases to be simulated. and typical disturbances and constraints. The case study features of the steady state models make it easy to run the large number of cases needed. We recommend that a minimum.Methanol-Water Column - Figure 6 . more than one feed composition may need to be varied independently.Methanol-Water Distillation Column Schematic To illustrate the design procedure. the system may be thought of as one large column. The last step in the closed loop testing procedure is to compare the energy consumption of the candidate scheme. The minimum energy consumption is found by setting the top and bottom product purities exactly at the specifications.
Notice that while there is sufficient sensitivity in this region of the column. Figure 7 shows the temperature sensitivity to changes in steam rate around the base case profile.The economic considerations amount to 8000 pph of steam that the process consumes during 1/3 of the year. the result is a more linear temperature variation in the region of our temperature measurement. the feed is the demand stream. We have developed a technique to deal with unequal temperature sensitivity like this by redefining the base case so that the temperature at the location selected is equally spaced between the temperature extremes. Here. However. While the new base case will have a slightly higher bottoms purity and steam flow rate. Normally. We are therefor left with the region above the feed. and to find an appropriate temperature sensor location. Step 3 is to evaluate the open loop temperature sensitivity to the manipulative variable. The candidate control strategy selected is the same as that illustrated in Figure 4. Additionally. In this example. the feed and reflux streams are flow controlled. not a large incentive for minimizing energy usage. 120 100 -2. the changes are not symmetrical about the base case profile.Temperature Profile Sensitivity to Changes in Steam Rate Having selected a candidate control scheme. Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Control Location . positive changes are nearly equal in magnitude to negative changes. and the base level is controlled by manipulating the bottoms flow.5% Base Case Temperature [C] 80 +1% +0. Step 2 is to select a candidate control strategy. Temperature no longer uniquely defines composition under such conditions. Composition is regulated by a temperature controller that manipulates steam flow. we selected stage 34. the reflux drum level is controlled by manipulating distillate flow.5) shows that we have no restrictions on the choice of level control variables because the ratios are significantly less than 10.5% -5% 60 40 20 0 0 Top 5 10 15 20 25 Theoretical Stage 30 35 40 Feed 45 50 Bottom Figure 7 . The disturbances and constraints are: Feed Rate: 4 to 26 Kpph Feed Composition: 15 to 60% methanol plus some salts Demand stream: Column Feed Upstream/Downstream Equipment: Feed Tanks No recycle streams Having defined the design basis. Temperatures below the feed appear to be reasonably sensitive to steam rate changes. For this example. the presence of variable amounts of salts which are high boiling components make temperature sensing below the feed unreliable for inferring composition. we would select a temperature location in this region based on the above characteristics. Comparing the relative magnitude of reflux versus distillate (L/D = 2.0) and boilup versus bottoms (V/B = .
the reflux rate was further increased to meet the distillate specification.60 Trace* Trace* Case 4 26. Feed [pph] Feed .15 Trace* 18 .000 0. To correct this. and identified an appropriate temperature sensor location. we proceed to Step 4: closed-loop testing.Steady-State Cases Used To Establish New Base Case (Tray 34 Temp Centered Between Extreme Profiles) Table 2 illustrates the steady state cases run to select the new base case. forcing tray 34 to be 75. The closed loop performance is tested by fixing reflux flow at 7700 pph.5 7308 226 8 77.5 7308 328 7 75. and that the variations in the positive and negative directions are nearly equal. Case 4 was defined with a lower temperature and higher reflux rate.200 0.200 0.000 0.5 7308 156 13 75. and then subjecting the column model to the extremes of feed rate and feed composition.5 10 Control Location Case 3 4. Figure 8 indicates that we do have significant temperature sensitivity.Tray 34 Temp [C] Reflux [pph] Top Water [ppm] Bottom Methanol [ppm] 73.Temperature Profile Sensitivity With New Base Case Having completed the open-loop testing to determine sensitivity.15 Trace* Trace* Case 2 26. Case 5 is the new base case where tray 34 is set at 75.5 7700 100 5 Table 2 .5 7500 156 7 75. 120 100 Temperature [C] 80 +5% Base Case -5% 60 40 20 0 0 Top 5 10 15 20 25 Theoretical Stage 30 35 40 Feed 45 50 Bottom Figure 8 .5 degrees C and the reflux flow is set at 7700 pph. Notice in Case 3 that the top water specification is significantly exceeded. Cases 1 to 3 are experiments in moving the temperature profile up the column by increasing the base-case steam flow.5 degrees C. Table 3 shows that for the expected range of feed rate and composition disturbances.% Methanol Top Water [ppm] Bottoms Methanol [ppm] * Trace indicates compositions less than 1 ppm Case 1 4. We decided to recheck the temperature sensitivity at the sensor location because we have changed the base case conditions. the selected control strategy does indeed maintain the top and bottom compositions below the specifications.40 0. In Case 5.
Table 3 . however it was found to have significantly higher energy consumption."Closed Loop" Testing of Control Strategy This completes the design procedure for this column. A fixed reflux-ratio alternative scheme was also analyzed. .
the steady state model allows us to quantify the incremental benefit of on-line analyzers versus temperature controls. . We have improved the technique originally proposed by Tolliver and McCune (1978). We have shown that the most important manipulative variable. by far. The steps of the design procedure are: Step 1: Develop design basis Step 2: Select candidate control scheme Step 3: "Open loop" test to find sensor location Step 4: "Closed loop" test candidate control scheme for known disturbances The procedure has been successfully applied to 33 industrial columns. We advocate the use of mass flows in the model versus molar flows. for composition control is the feed split. We have shown that for multicomponent cases. and that the proposed control strategy be enforced when performing "open loop" and "closed loop" testing. We have found that for the vast majority of cases we can exceed our objectives with single point composition control where temperature is used to infer composition.CONCLUSIONS We have developed and successfully applied an effective and efficient control design procedure for distillation columns using steady state models.
Figure 6: Process schematic for example No. Figure 2: Numerical examples showing the effect of changing the feed split and fractionation on product compositions for distillation columns. Changes are made to steam flow with mass reflux flow fixed.Figure 1: Schematic of a simple distillation column showing nomenclature and the five valves available for control. A split column configuration is used. when column is not a tar still and feed is demand stream. Figure 7: "Open loop" testing results for example No. Figure 3: A very common control strategy. This strategy directly manipulates the feed split.e. when feed is a demand stream and column has relatively low reflux ratio. 1. water separation). Steady state temperature profiles for three different distillate flows used to locate temperature sensor. Figure 5: "Open loop" testing example. 1 (i. methanol. . This strategy indirectly manipulates the feed split. Figure 4: Another very common control strategy..
Moore C. Proceedings IEEE Southeast Con. "Steady-State Energy Conservation Aspects of Distillation Column Control Design". "Computer-Aided Design of Distillation Column Controls". No. Vol.E. January 1971. "Distillation Column Control Design Based On Steady State Simulation". Pages 296-300 Skogestad S. and Luyben W. I&E. 17. October 1990. Pages 321-325 Chien I-L and Fruehauf P. Dynamics and Control of Continuous Distillation Columns. F. 17. Fundam. Part 2. Vol. New York. No. No. Thurston C.. "Dynamics and Control of Distillation Columns ..E... Luyben and Shunta. Preprints IFAC Symposium. 1988. ISA Transactions. Pages 92-96 Rademaker O..C.. Vol. Distillation Column Control Design.A Critical Survey". USA. 86.. C. P. and McCune L. 3.References Buckley.P.. Inc. Pages 3-10 Roat S. C. D. 4. and Maarleveld A. New York. "Dynamic Effects of Temperature Control Tray Location in Distillation Columns".. J. L.. Hydrocarbon Processing. AICHE J.. L. and Downs J. 1975 . "Consider IMC Tuning to Improve Controller Performance". L. DYCORD + 92. W. Pages 1-25 Luyben W. No. College Park. "A Steady State Distillation Column Control System Sensitivity Analysis Technique". Part 1. MD... Rijnsdorp J. 14. 10. 1.. Page 5 Tolliver T. Vol. July 1982. American Elsevier Publishing Company. 1975. S.. 1978. Pages 33-41 Shunta J. August 1981.
Flooding limits. Table 4: "Closed loop" testing of candidate control strategy for example 1.Upstream and downstream equipment: Recycle streams? Column Design Basis .Feed composition Min and Max for each component Constraints .Reason for? Economic Considerations .Energy costs .Product valve .Waste treatment Costs Disturbances .Value of Incremental Production Increase (when sold out) . Design Basis Product Composition Specifications .5 Degrees C.Reason for currant control approach ( if retrofit) .Table 2: Steady state runs used to find new base case where Stage 34 temperature is centered between extremes Table 3: Check of temperature sensitivity of Stage 34 at new base case conditions.Safety Limits . and Max. Reboiler and Condenser Capacities .Feed Rate: Min. .One or Two Sided? .Demand Stream . Steady state results for different feed rates and compositions with reflux fixed at 7700 pph and Stage 34 temperature at 75. Table 1.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.