Sistema de Control 2

300 Process Control
Abstract
This section is an introductory reference to process control. It discusses feedback
control algorithms and controller tuning in depth. The unique requirements of level
controller tuning are covered separately in Section 331. The importance of understanding the various forms of the proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control
algorithm and the impact on various tuning rules is analyzed.
The benefits and application of common multiple-loop control configurations such
as cascade, ratio, and feedforward are described. The control objectives analysis
(COA) process is described. COA is a proven methodology for gathering the necessary information to ensure that a process control system will meet plant objectives
for optimal performance, and provides a sound basis for control loop design.
An introduction to advanced control and optimization is given. Finally, resources
and references are provided to allow the reader to pursue more advanced topics
about process control.
Contents
Page
310
Overview of Process Control and Optimization
300-3
311
Technology Hierarchy
312
Operational Benefits
313
Economic Benefits
320
Basic Control
321
Control Loops
322
Feedback Controllers
323
Types of Control Algorithms
324
On/Off Control
325
PID Controller Modes
326
Discrete Form of PID Equation
327
Honeywell and Yokogawa PID Control Algorithms
328
Typical Closed-Loop Controller Response
ChevronTexaco Corporation
300-9
300-1
December 2003
300 Process Control
December 2003
Instrumentation Control Manual
330
Controller Tuning
300-27
331
Classical Tuning Methods
332
Forms of the PID Equation
333
Model-Based Tuning Methods
334
Typical Tuning Constants for Common Loops
340
Multiple-Loop Control
341
Cascade Control
342
Ratio Control
343
Feedforward Control
350
Control Objectives Analysis (COA)
351
Summary
352
COA Products
353
COA Participants
360
Advanced Control
361
Overview
362
Steps in MPC Implementation
363
MPC Technology Vendors
364
ChevronTexacos Use of Advanced Control
370
Online Optimization
371
Introduction
372
Online Optimization Cycle
373
Online Optimization Technology Vendors
374
ChevronTexacos Use of Online Optimization
380
Resources
381
Process Control Services
382
Support for Projects
390
References
300-54
300-67
300-70
300-90
300-93
300-96
300-2
300 Process Control
310 Overview of Process Control and Optimization

311 Technology Hierarchy
Control and optimization technology is typically implemented in a hierarchy
(Figure 300-1).
Fig. 300-1Technology Pyramid
PLANNING & SCHEDULING
ONLINE PROCESS OPTIMIZATION

(e. g. Invensys / SimSci ROMeo)
ADVANCED PROCESS CONTROL

(e. g. AspenTech DMCplus or Honeywell RMPCT)
BASIC & INTERMEDIATE REGULATORY CONTROL

(e. g. Honeywell DCS or Yokogawa DCS)
PROCESS
300-1
Basic and Intermediate Regulatory Controls

At the lowest level in the hierarchy are the basic and intermediate level controls.
The Basic Regulatory Controls (BRC) consists of the simple control loops
provided to ensure safe, efficient regulation of the process. Examples include
simple single-loop control of flows, pressures, levels, and temperatures, as well
as simple cascades and ratios.
The Intermediate Regulatory Controls (IRC) are somewhat more complicated than BRC loops and include such control strategies as steam drum level
control, boiler combustion control, fuel gas BTU control, feedforward control,
separation factor control for distillation columns, and furnace pass balancing.
The basic and intermediate loops are typically implemented in a Distributed Control
System (DCS) such as provided by Honeywell or Yokogawa. These loops nominally operate once per second. At this level in the technology hierarchy, PID
(proportional, integral, derivative) controllers are typically used.
300-3
December 2003
300 Process Control
Advanced Process Control

Advanced Process Control (APC) as practiced in ChevronTexaco consists of Multivariable, Model-Predictive Control (MPC) such as Honeywells RMPCT or AspenTechs DMCplus.
MPC is layered on top of the BRC and IRC loops and is an effective tool to increase
unit profitability. MPC typically runs once per minute and typically resides in a
computing module direct-connected to the DCS.
In general, MPC maximizes economic benefits by ensuring smoother operation
(reduced impact of process disturbances) and by providing consistent operation at
optimal constraints. Typically, the MPC controller finds new ways to run the
process. The optimum steady-state constrained operating point is determined at each
control cycle. Thus, the process is continuously pushed towards the most profitable
operation.
Online Process Optimization

An online optimizer, which often encompasses the scope of several MPC controllers, can be layered on top of MPC to bring additional opportunities for economic
benefits. Online optimization is based on optimizing a rigorous non-linear steadystate model of the process in real time. An economic objective function is solved
and an optimal set of targets are sent to the MPC for implementation in the process.
The larger scope of the optimizer and its use of non-linear models increase the
probability of finding the true economic optimum. Whereas MPC will always find a
solution at set of constraints, online optimization has the potential to find a solution
between constraints.
Typically, two or three optimization cycles can be completed per day.
Planning and Scheduling

In the planning and scheduling layer, production targets and product qualities are set
to satisfy supply and logistics constraints.
312 Operational Benefits

Tighter control shifts the target closer to the plant constraint or specification. This
can result in significant benefits to the operation such as:
increased throughput,
increased yield,
maximum production of a more valuable product, and
lower energy costs.
This section illustrates how improved control allows the process to run closer to
constraints or setpoints. Figure 300-2 shows typical performance data from a control
loop. The controller attempts to keep the controlled variable at the target. However
due to disturbances and other factors, the controlled variable deviates from the
December 2003
300-4
300 Process Control
target. The target has to be positioned away from the constraint or specification to
achieve an acceptable level of performance.
Controlled Variable
Typical Data and Distribution Plot, Controlled Loop
Controlled Variable
Fig. 300-2
Target
Constraintor
Specification
300-2
Normalized Frequency
of Occurance
Time, days
An improved controller configuration, better controller tuning or the use of

advanced control can reduce the standard deviation. Advanced control can typically
reduce the standard deviation by a factor of two or three (Figure 300-3).
Fig. 300-3
Reduced Standard Deviation With Improved Control
Normalized Frequency of Occurrence
1.5
= 1/4
Constraint/
Specification
1.0
= 1/2
=1
0.5
0.0
3
+1
+2
+3
Controlled Variable Measurement
Reducing the standard deviation brings improved stability to the process, which can
be beneficial in reducing or eliminating upsets (Figure 300-4).
300-5
December 2003
300 Process Control
Fig. 300-4
Shifting Target
= 1/4
Target
(mean)
Constraint/Specification
Normalized Frequency of Occurance
1.5
1.0
0.5
= 1/2
=1
300-4
0.0
3
+1
+2
+3
Controlled Variable Measurement
Figure 300-5 quantifies several aspects of the previous curves, which are assumed to
be normal distribution curves. As such, there will always be a small percentage of
off-spec data, no matter how far the target is from the constraint/specification.
Fig. 300-5
Potential Shift in Target

+3.0
Standard Deviation of Target

from Constraint / Specification
0.1%
% of Data Exceeding
Constraint / Specification
+2.0
2.5%
5.0%
10.0%
+1.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
Reduction in Standard Deviation
For example, to limit the off-spec data to 2.5%, the setpoint (or target) must be
two standard deviations from the constraint/specification, assuming a one sigma
December 2003
300-6
300 Process Control
variation in the data. But, if we were able to reduce the standard deviation in half
due to improved control, we could move the setpoint one standard deviation closer
to the constraint/specification.
313 Economic Benefits

Industry Benchmark
For new plants where plant data is not available, the benefits of applying MPC to a
particular facility are best determined by comparison with industry benchmarks. The
Solomon Associates report, 1994 worldwide study of process control and on-stream
analyzers in the refining industry is the most complete and widely recognized
benchmark. The Solomon numbers have been used throughout the industry both to
benchmark the performance of existing applications and to justify future applications.
Fifty refineries participated in the study (30 US, 10 Europe and 10 other) including
ChevronTexacos Pascagoula, Richmond and Salt Lake refineries.
The study focused on key activities involved in the following:
Planning how the refinery units should operate to maximize profitability,
Setting operating targets to meet the plan and operating objectives,
Controlling the processes to meet those targets, and
Monitoring actual performance.
Economic incentives were reported for advanced control and on-line optimization,
and were based on reported actual applications.
Mid-range Incentives
(US Cents Per Barrel of Process Throughput)
Advanced
Control
Online
Optimization
Total
Atmospheric Distillation
10
15
Vacuum Distillation
10
14
Coking
20
27
Catalytic Cracking
18
10
28
Hydrocracking
18
10
28
Reforming
15
22
Alkylation
15
22
Isomerization
11
Heavy Oil Hydroprocessing
15
22
Gasoline Blending
10
18
Process Unit
The numbers reflect typical incentives for advanced control and optimization above
a base level of performance achieved by regulatory (DCS) controls. For example, an
atmospheric distillation unit with a throughput of 100,000 Bbl/Day would have a
300-7
December 2003
300 Process Control
mid-range incentive of $3,650,000/year for advanced control. Since these are midrange estimates, actual incentives at specific sites could differ substantially.
There is some evidence the Solomon averages are strongly affected by plants that
gain feed max benefits. Typically, only one or two units in a refinery are a bottleneck to production or are required by economics to run at maximum feed rate.
Note Feed maximization benefits are substantially larger than yield and energy
saving benefits.
Relative Costs / Benefits of Controls

Figure 300-6 gives a rough idea of the relative costs and benefits of implementing
the various levels of technology.
The relatively high cost for the basic regulatory controls (BRC) reflects the cost
of the infrastructure that is required (e.g., distributed control system, instrumentation and control valves).
Once the infrastructure is there, more advanced applications can be added for a
relatively low cost (relative to the benefits that can be achieved).
Advanced control and online optimization applications offer the possibility of
very large benefits for a relatively small incremental cost.
Fig. 300-6
Costs & Benefits -BRC-IRC-AC-OPT

100
Relative Cost
300-6
Online
Optimization
Advanced
Control
IRC
BRC
0
Relative Benefits
100
Typically, the biggest bang for the buck comes from advanced control (e.g.,
AspenTechs DMCplus or Honeywells RMPCT).
Depending on the scope of the application and the type of process, costs can range
from $100,000 to $1,000,000, with payout times of from one month to a year.
December 2003
300-8
300 Process Control
320 Basic Control

321 Control Loops
Process control is fundamental to most industrial processes. Although control technology has evolved greatly in arriving at todays microprocessor and digital implementations, all control methods rely on the same basic structure, called a control
loop.
Basic control loops have six main elements:
Controlled variable: The process variable being controlled.

Setpoint: The value at which a controlled variable must be maintained.
Controller: A device or software algorithm that keeps the controlled variable at
the setpoint.
Final control element: The control valve or other device adjusted by the
controller to keep the controlled variable at its setpoint.
Manipulated variable: A condition (variable) that is being adjusted by the
controller to cause the controlled variable to change.
Disturbance: A process condition that changes the value of the controlled variable.
Types of Control Loops

Control loops can be either manual or automatic.
A manual control loop requires a human being to observe the value of the
controlled variable. If this variable is not at the setpoint, the human observer
adjusts a manipulated variable.
An automatic control loop employs a controller to keep the controlled variable at the setpoint.
Feedback Control Loops. Figure 300-7 shows a typical feedback control loop. In
the process furnace, a temperature controller monitors the outlet temperature
(controlled variable) of the furnace. If the outlet temperature is not at the desired
value (setpoint), the controller changes the fuel flow (manipulated variable) by
changing the position of the fuel gas control valve (final control element). A typical
disturbance would be the furnace feed rate. This type of control is called a closed
loop feedback control system. Perfect feedback control is impossible in all cases
since the controlled variable must deviate from the setpoint before any control
action takes place.
Feedforward Control Loops. In contrast, feedforward control uses a measured
disturbance to generate a corrective action which minimizes the deviations of the
controlled variable from its setpoint (outside of any feedback action). Perfect feedforward control is (theoretically) possible in some cases. But, practically speaking,
there will always be errors.
300-9
December 2003
300 Process Control
Fig. 300-7
Typical Feedback Control Loop
Furnace
Feed
Stream
Furnace Outlet
Temperature
Temperature
Transmitter
Burners
TC
301
Control Valve
Temperature
Setpoint
Temperature
Comtroller
Fuel Gas
Supply
Use of Control Loops

In practice, feedforward control is always implemented in conjunction with feedback control. Figure 300-8 is a simplified sketch showing combined feedforward
plus feedback control loop.
Fig. 300-8
Simple Feedforward+Feedback Furnace Control

Furnace
Outlet
Temperature
Feed
Disturbance
Variable
FI
TC
Manipulated
Variable
Controlled
Variable
FFC
Feedforward
Feedback
Fuel Gas
302
Note also that because of control valve non-linearity, feedforward control normally
would be used in conjunction with a furnace outlet temperature to fuel gas flow
cascade feedback control configuration.
December 2003
300-10
300 Process Control
322 Feedback Controllers

A block diagram of a feedback controller is shown in Figure 300-9.
Fig. 300-9
Feedback Controller Block Diagram
Setpoint, %
Error, %
6
-
Control
Algorithm
Controller
Output, %
Measurement, %
303
There are two key elements: the comparator and the control algorithm. The setpoint
(the desired value of the controlled variable) is compared with the actual measured
variable to form an error. As shown in the block diagram, error is usually defined
as follows:
Error(t) = Setpoint(t) - Measurement(t)
(Eq. 300-1)
Note There is inconsistency in the industry on the above definition; error is just as
often defined as measurement minus setpoint.
Direct vs Reverse Controllers

All commercial controllers are consistent on one related issue:
a direct controller is one whose output increases when the measurement

increases and
a reverse controller is one whose output decreases when the measurement
increases.
323 Types of Control Algorithms

In the control algorithm, the controller calculates an output which tends to drive the
error to zero, thus keeping the measurement at the setpoint target.
For single-loop control, the controller output signal is sent to the control valve
(final control element).
For cascade (multiple-loop) control, the controller output becomes the setpoint
of the secondary controller.
The control algorithm is typically one of the following:
On/Off
Proportional Control Mode (P)
Proportional plus Integral Control Mode (PI)
Proportional plus Integral plus Derivative Control Mode (PID)
300-11
December 2003
300 Process Control
These algorithms will now be discussed (along with some less-commonly used variations).
324 On/Off Control

On/Off control. This is the simplest mode of automatic control. It has only two
outputs:
on (100%)
off (0%).
It only responds to the sign of the error, that is, whether it is above or below the
setpoint.
On/Off control is not generally suitable for continuous automatic feedback control
because it results in constant cycling of the controlled variable.
On/Off with differential gap control. This is a refinement of on/off control.
Instead of changing output from on (100%) to off (0%) at a single setpoint, differential gap action changes output at high and low limits called boundaries. As long as
the measurement remains between the boundaries, the controller holds the last
output. A typical application of differential gap control is the operation of a dump
valve or pump to keep a vessel level within an acceptable range.
325 PID Controller Modes

PID control is the most widely used continuous controller type in industry. There
are three control modes:
Proportional: Controller output changes by an amount related to the size of the

error.
Integral: Controller output changes by an amount related to the size and duration of the error.
Derivative: Controller output changes by an amount related to the rate-ofchange of the error.
Most control applications use proportional plus integral control.

Proportional-plus-integral-plus-derivative is sometimes used for temperature control
with delays (dead time) of several minutes.
Proportional only control is sometimes used in non-critical services such as draining
vessels.
Proportional Control (P) Mode

In proportional control, there is a linear relationship between the error (setpoint
deviation) and the controller output. Below is the control algorithm:
CO(t) = KC E(t)
December 2003
300-12
(Eq. 300-2)
300 Process Control
where:
CO(t) = Controller output [=] %
KC = Controller Gain [=] %/% (dimensionless)
E(t) = Error [=] %
t = Time [=] minutes
The controller gain, Kc, is also called the controller sensitivity. It represents the
proportionality constant between the control valve position and controller error.
Figure 300-10 shows the relationship between the controller output (valve position)
and error that is characteristic of proportional control.
Fig. 300-10 Proportional Mode Output is Proportional to Error (Open loop)
Controller
Output
Error
0
304
Time, Minutes
The valve position changes in exact proportion to the amount of error, not to its rate
or duration. The response is almost instantaneous, and the valve returns to its initial
value when the error returns to its original value.
Figure 300-11 shows how controller gain affects valve opening for constant change
in error.
Fig. 300-11 Proportional Mode Plots Step Response (Open loop)
KC=1.5
Controller
Output
KC=1
KC=0.5
Error
305
Time, Minutes
High controller gains result in a larger response.

Proportional Band. Another way of characterizing a proportional controller is to
describe its proportional band. The proportional band is the percent change in value
of the controlled variable necessary to cause full travel of the final control element.
300-13
December 2003
300 Process Control
The percent proportional band, PB, is related to its gain as follows:

KC = 100 / PB
(Eq. 300-3)
Both proportional band and gain are expressions of proportionality. Manufacturers

may call their adjustments gain, sensitivity, or proportional band.
The throttling range is a term used to define the error range over which the control
valve can throttle the flow its adjusting. Beyond that range, the valve is either wide
open or closed (saturated).
Bias. Bias is the amount of output from a proportional controller when the error is
zero. The equation previously given for proportional control implies that when the
error is zero, controller output is zero. (In that case, the valve would be either fully
open or fully closed and provide no throttling action). Adding a bias provides this
throttling action (that is, the nominal valve position when the error is zero). The
final equation for proportional control then becomes:
where:
( 100 )
CO ( t ) = K C E ( t ) + B = ------------- E ( t ) + B
PB
(Eq. 300-4)
B = Bias (percent of full output)

Typically, manufacturers set the bias at 50%. To prevent a process bump, the control
system can usually be configured to set the bias such that the valve will not move
when the controller is switched from manual to automatic.
Figure 300-12 shows controller output (control valve position) versus error at
different proportional bands (and controller gains) with a 50% bias. At zero error,
the controller output is 50% of full range for any proportional band.
Fig. 300-12 Proportional Mode Gain
Controller Output
(Control Valve)
"Throttling Range"
100%
PB=50
PB=100
PB=200
50%
KC=0.5
KC=1
0%
-50%
KC=2
0%
+50%
Error
306
Offset. A controllers error is the difference between its setpoint and measurement.
In a proportional only controller, a change in setpoint or load introduces a permanent error called offset.
December 2003
300-14
300 Process Control
It is impossible for a proportional only controller to return the measurement exactly

to its setpoint, because proportional output only changes in response to a change in
the error, not to the errors duration. For example, consider Figure 300-13, in which
we assume that a proportional only controller controls the outlet temperature of a
furnace and that the temperature is initially at the setpoint.
Fig. 300-13 P-Only Offset (Closed Loop)
Furnace
Outlet
Temperature
Setpoint
Offset
Furnace
Feed Rate
307
Time, Minutes
If the feed rate to the furnace increases, more fuel will be needed. This disturbance
represents a load change to the furnace. To get more fuel, the fuel valve must be
opened more. As is suggested by the equation for proportional action, the only way
that the valve can be at some value other than its starting point is for an error to
exist. Thus, the proportional controller alone cannot return the outlet temperature to
its setpoint. As mentioned, some controllers allow the operator to adjust the bias
until the value of the error (or offset) is zero.
The proportional only controller is the easiest continuous controller to tune. It
provides rapid response and is relatively stable. If tight control is not required,
proportional only control can be used.
Integral Control Mode

Integral (reset) action is the result of an integration of controller error with time.
t
CO ( t ) = K I E ( t ) dt' + CO 0
(Eq. 300-5)
where:
KI = Integral mode gain [=] 1/minutes
E(t) = Error [=] %
CO0 = Initial controller output [=] %
300-15
December 2003
300 Process Control
With integral action, controller output is proportional to both the size and duration
of the error. As long as a deviation from setpoint exists, the controller continues to
drive its output in the direction that reduces the deviation.
The rate of change of controller output is proportional to the magnitude of the error.
dCO
(t) = K E(t)
-----------------I
dt
(Eq. 300-6)
Figure 300-14 illustrates the open loop response of integral action.

Fig. 300-14 Integral Mode Response (Open Loop)
Integral
Mode
Output
Error
0
308
Time, Minutes
Integral action responds to the sign, size, and duration of the error:
TIME 0 A constant error appears. The integral action drives the output
higher at a constant rate proportional to the size of the error
TIME A The size of the error doubles. The integral action drives the output
higher twice as fast.
TIME B The sign of the error changes. The integral action drives the output
in the other direction.
TIME C The error goes to zero. The integral action stops, holding the
existing output.
TIME D The error ramps down at a constant rate. The integral action drives
the output down at an ever increasing rate.
TIME E The error returns to zero. The integral action stops, holding the
existing output.
Integral action is normally used in conjunction with proportional action; it is rarely

used by itself.
December 2003
300-16
300 Process Control
Proportional Plus Integral (PI) Control

Proportional plus integral control is the recommended control action for most applications. Often called PI control, it combines proportional action and integral action
in one controller. The resulting control action has the fast response and stability of
proportional action, but no offset. In eliminating offset, integral action serves as an
automatic bias adjustment.
The output from a proportional plus integral controller may be expressed as follows:
t
1
CO ( t ) = K C E ( t ) + ---- E ( t' )dt' + CO 0
I
(Eq. 300-7)
where:
KC = Controller gain [=] %/% (dimensionless)
E(t) = Error [=] %
I = Integral (reset) time [=] minutes
Note that the effective gain for the integral mode in the above (standard) equation
for a PI controller is KC / I. The overall controller gain KC affects both the proportional and integral action.
On some controllers, integral settings are in repeats, meaning repeats per minute; on
others, settings are in minutes, meaning minutes per repeat. One setting is the reciprocal of the other. Decreasing the integral time increases the amount of integral
action and visa versa. Integral time is also called reset time.
Figure 300-15 shows how the PI algorithm responds to a step change on error (open
loop/no feedback from the process):
Fig. 300-15 PI Step Response (Open Loop)
Controller
Output
KCA
CO0
KCA
WI
Integral (Reset) Time, Minutes
Error
0
309
A
0
300-17
Time, Minutes
December 2003
300 Process Control
Integral time is quantified as the time required for the controller output to change by
an amount equal to the change caused by the initial proportional kick. In other
words, it is the time required for the contribution of the integral mode to repeat
the contribution of the proportional mode.
Reset (Integral) Windup

A basic problem with integral controllers is that integral action continues as long as
an error exists. Consider the following example (Figure 300-16) based on the
furnace temperature control loop illustrated in the introductory section
Fig. 300-16 Integral Windup - Furnace TC
Large Overshoot
Furnace Outlet
Temperature
(DegF)
Setpoint
Offset
Reset Windup
Temperature
Controller
Output
(%)
Controller
Un-winds
Valve Starts
Moving
100%
Control Valve
Wide Open
Feed Rate
Disturbance
(MBD)
Time, minutes
310
The temperature controller responds to the disturbance in feed rate by opening the
control valve. But if the control valve capacity is not large enough, it may saturate
before the furnace outlet temperature (controlled variable) has returned to the
setpoint. A persistent error (offset) will then be present. The integral mode keeps
increasing its output to try to eliminate the offset, but there will be no effect on the
process. This effect is called reset (integral) windup.
If at some later time the feed rate (disturbance) returns to its original value, the
furnace outlet temperature (controlled variable) will drift up to the setpoint due to
the decreased load on the system. The integral action cannot start unwinding until
the error changes sign (when the temperature crosses the setpoint). Then, the
temperature controller output starts un-winding. Since there is no valve movement
until the controller output drops below 100%, furnace outlet temperature overshoots the setpoint significantly.
December 2003
300-18
300 Process Control
All industrial implementations of the PID algorithm have provisions for preventing
reset windup. For standard control loop configurations such as single loop control or
cascade control, anti-windup is generally built in. More complicated, non-standard
control structures may require some custom user configuration.
Lets look at the performance of the same control system with anti-windup included
(Figure 300-17).
Fig. 300-17 Integral Anti-Windup - Furnace TC
Less Overshoot
Furnace Outlet
Temperature
(DegF)
Setpoint
Offset
Temperature
Controller
Output
(%)
No Reset Windup
100%
Controller
Starts Closing
Valve Immediately
Control Valve
Wide Open
Feed Rate
Disturbance
(MBD)
Time, minutes
311
There is no difference in the first part of the plot. But with no reset wind-up, the
temperature controller can start closing the control valve immediately when the
disturbance returns to its initial value. As a result, there is substantially less overshoot in the furnace outlet temperature.
Derivative Control Mode

With derivative action (also called rate action), the controller output is proportional
to the rate of change of the error.
dE ( t )
CO ( t ) = K D ------------- + CO 0
dt
(Eq. 300-8)
where:
KD = Derivative mode gain [=] minutes
300-19
December 2003
300 Process Control
E(t) = Error [=] %

The equation shows that the faster the change in error, the faster the change in
controller output and control valve position. By the same token, if the error remains
constant, even with a large error, the derivative controller output would not change
(Figure 300-18).
Fig. 300-18 Derivative Mode Response (Open Loop)
Derivative
Mode
0
Output
312
Error
Time, Minutes
This makes the use of derivative action by itself impractical.
Proportional Plus Derivative (PD) Control

Derivative action is normally combined with proportional action or proportional
plus integral action. We will first examine proportional plus derivative:
dE ( t )
CO ( t ) = K C E ( t ) + D ------------- + CO 0
dt
(Eq. 300-9)
where:
E(t) = Error [=] %
D = Derivative time [=] minutes
Note that the effective gain for the derivative mode in the above (standard) equation for a PI controller is KC D. The overall controller gain KC affects both modes.
December 2003
300-20
300 Process Control
Figure 300-19 shows how the PD algorithm responds to a ramp change on error
(open loop/no feedback from the process).
Fig. 300-19 PD Ramp Response (Open Loop)
Derivative
Mode
0
Output
312
Error
Time, Minutes
In this case, the derivative time is the time for the proportional contribution to
repeat the initial derivative kick. Notice that derivative action introduces a lead
(or anticipatory) element into the controller.
Derivative Filters. Note that derivative action would produce a spike if the error
were to undergo a step change. However, in all real implementations of the derivative function, the derivative is filtered. The filter time constant is D, with alpha
typically ranging from 1/6 to 1/10. Use of a derivative filter limits the size of the
derivative spike on sudden changes (Figure 300-20).
Fig. 300-20 Derivative Filter
Input
Step
M
Gain
Filter
Devivative
Practical
KC M
f
M KC / D WD
Theoretical
314
Since derivative action is proportional to the rate of change of error, it cannot be

used with controlled variables with high noise levels. Although derivative action is
300-21
December 2003
300 Process Control
sometimes difficult to tune because of its extreme sensitivity to measurement noise

and other high frequency disturbances, it does have some applications.
Most importantly, it is used with proportional and integral action in temperature
processes that have large time lags. Derivative action also can be very helpful in
controlling processes that have significant dead time, but tuning it can be tricky.
Derivative on Measurement Option

A commonly used option for the derivative mode is derivative on measurement
rather than derivative on error. Use of a derivative filter eliminated the infinite
controller impulse for step changes, yet a finite jump, called the derivative kick
still occurs for step changes in setpoint, when derivative on error is used. The derivative can be separated into parts as shown below:
dE ( t )
d [ SP ( t ) M ( t ) ]
dSP ( t ) dM ( t )
------------- = --------------------------------------- = ----------------- --------------dt
dt
dt
dt
(Eq. 300-10)
When the setpoint is not changing, its derivative is zero, and we can use the
following expression for derivative.
dM ( t )
K C D --------------dt
(Eq. 300-11)
Use of the derivative on measurement option is recommended to eliminate the

derivative kick on setpoint changes. Control loop performance would be identical
for either the derivative on error or derivative on measurement option, when the
setpoint is constant.
Proportional Plus Integral Plus Derivative (PID) Control

The complete PID control algorithm includes all three controller modes previously
discussed.
t
1
dE ( t )
CO ( t ) = K C E ( t ) + ---- E ( t' ) dt' + D ------------- + CO 0
I
dt
(Eq. 300-12)
where:
E(t) = Error [=] %
I = Integral (reset) time [=] minutes
December 2003
300-22
300 Process Control
D = Derivative time [=] minutes

Figure 300-21 shows the open-loop response of the PID controller to a step change
in error (no feedback from the process).
Fig. 300-21 PID Step Response (Open Loop)
f
D
Controller
Output
Theoretical Derivative
Filtered Derivative
I
KCA
CO0
KCA
WI
Integral (Reset) Time, Min.
Error
A
315
0
0
Time, Minutes
Note how the individual control modes (P, I, and D) combine to form the complete
controller output. The real controller response includes the derivative filter
discussed earlier.
Figure 300-22 shows the open loop response of the PID controller to a ramp change
in error
Fig. 300-22 PID Ramp Response (Open Loop)
KCB
t2
2WI
Controller
Output
KCBt
P
D
CO0
KCWDB
WD
Derivative Time, Min.
316
Error
B
1
0
0
300-23
Time, Minutes
December 2003
300 Process Control
As stated previously, derivative on measurement is a recommended option. The PID

equation then becomes:
t
1
dM ( t )
CO ( t ) = K C E ( t ) + ---- Et' dt' D --------------- + CO 0
I
dt
(Eq. 300-13)
Derivative on measurement results in smoother control because the measurement

cannot change as rapidly as the setpoint. However, excessive measurement noise
could still rule out the used of derivative action.
326 Discrete Form of PID Equation

We have used the continuous form of the PID equation in these notes. For example,
the ideal form of the PID is as follows:
t
1
dE ( t )
CO ( t ) = K C E ( t ) + ---- E ( t' ) dt' + D ------------- + CO 0
I
dt
(Eq. 300-14)
However, with microprocessor-based implementations of the algorithm in distributed control systems (DCS), programmable logic controllers (PLC), and supervisory control and data acquisition systems (SCADA), discrete approximations are
used. For example, here is the discrete (incremental) equivalent of the above equation.
t s
D
CO n = K C E n + ------- E n + ------- ( E n )
I
t s
(Eq. 300-15)
Or
t s
D
CO n CO n 1 = K C ( E n E n 1 ) + ------- E n + ------- ( E n 2E n 1 E n 2 )
I
t s
(Eq. 300-16)
327 Honeywell and Yokogawa PID Control Algorithms

Honeywell uses Laplace domain notation (s variable) in their documentation even
though the algorithm is implemented discretely. Below is how Honeywell documents their Equation A (Non-interactive) advanced process manager (APM) PID
algorithm:
1 + T1s
T2s
CV S = K ------------------ + ---------------------- [ PVP S SPP S ]
T1s 1 + aT2s
December 2003
300-24
(Eq. 300-17)
300 Process Control
where:
CVS, PVPS, SPPS [=]%
K [=]%/% (Controller Gain)
T1 [=] minutes (Reset Time)
T2 [=] minutes (Derivative Time)
a = 0.1 (Derivative Limit Factor)
Honeywell also has interactive versions of the PID equation.
Below is how Yokogawa documents their Centum CS3000 PID Equation (Noninteractive):
100
T
TD
MV n = K S --------- E n + ------- E n + -------- ( E n )
PB
TI
T
(Eq. 300-18)
where:
MVn, En [=] Eng Units
KS = Scale Conversion Factor
PB [=] % (Proportional Band)
TI [=] seconds (Reset Time)
TD [=] seconds (Derivative Time)
T [=] seconds (Control Period)
(Effective Derivative Limit Factor = 0.125)
Yokogawa does not have an interactive PID alternative.
328 Typical Closed-Loop Controller Response

Finally we compare typical closed-loop controller response for various combinations of control modes. For a setpoint change the expected closed-loop response
would be as shown in Figure 300-23.
300-25
December 2003
300 Process Control
Fig. 300-23 Typical PID Response (Closed Loop)

Setpoint
Controlled
Variable
5 4 3
Offset
2
1
317
Time, Minutes
Notice that both proportional-only (1) and proportional-plus-derivative (2) control

have offset. Integral action is required to eliminate offset. Integral-only control (3)
slowly brings the controlled variable to the setpoint with a relatively long period of
oscillation. Proportional-plus-integral control (4) responds more quickly with a
shorter period. Finally, proportional-plus-integral-derivative control (5) potentially
provides the best performance. But, recall that excessive measurement noise could
preclude the use of derivative action.
For a disturbance the expected closed-loop response would be as follows
(Figure 300-24).
Fig. 300-24 Typical PID Response (Closed Loop) with Disturbance
Controlled
Variable
No Control
2
3
5
Offset
4
318
Setpoint
Time, Minutes
The ordering, in terms of controller performance, are the same.
December 2003
300-26
300 Process Control
330 Controller Tuning

Introduction
Numerous methods are available to tune a controller to function in a specific loop.
This section discusses some of the classical tuning methods commonly used.
Several of the references, particularly Chien and Fruehauf, 1990, should be
consulted for more advanced model-based tuning methods. Consider the following
standard block diagram for a single-loop control system (Figure 300-25).
Fig. 300-25 Single-loop Feedback Control Block Diagram (no s)
D
(EU)
Process
K D GD
Controller
CVSP
KM
(EU)
Control Valve
KC GC
CO
KV GV
(%)
MV
K P GP
CV
(EU)
(EU)
CVSP%
CVM
Controlled Variable
Transmitter
K M GM
318a
(%)
where:
CVSP Controlled variable (CV) setpoint [=] EUCV
EU Engineering units
KM Controlled variable transmitter gain [=] %/EUCV
CVSP% Controlled variable %-setpoint [=] %
KC Controller gain [=] dimensionless (%/%)
GC Controller dynamics (integral, derivative)
KV Control valve gain [=] EUMV/%
GV Control valve dynamics
MV Manipulated variable, [=] EUMV
KP Process gain [=] EUCV/EUMV
GP Process dynamics
D Disturbance [=] EUD
KD Disturbance gain [=] EUCV/EUD
GD Disturbance dynamics
300-27
December 2003
300 Process Control
CV Controlled variable [=] EUCV

GM Controlled variable transmitter dynamics
CVM Controlled variable measurement [=] %
A properly tuned controller ideally would achieve all of the following goals:
Good disturbance rejection
Rapid, smooth response to setpoint changes
Minimal control valve movement
High degree of robustness (insensitive to process changes)
A high performance control loop would have rapid, smooth responses to setpoint
changes and disturbances with minimal control valve movement. A robust control
loop would have good performance for a wide range of process conditions.
However, it is not possible to achieve all of these goals simultaneously. There are
inherent conflicts and tradeoffs that must be considered:
Performance and robustness need to be balanced. Conservative controller

settings (low proportional gain and long integral time) sacrifice performance in
order to achieve robustness.
There is also a trade-off between tuning for good setpoint response and for
good disturbance rejection (with standard PID controllers). Tuning for good
setpoint response typically yields sluggish disturbance response. Tuning for
good disturbance rejection typically yields oscillatory setpoint response.
All of these issues must be considered when tuning a controller.
331 Classical Tuning Methods

Most common process control loops (flow, temperature, composition, gas pressure,
etc.) can be tuned using either the Ziegler-Nichols (Z-N) ultimate sensitivity or reaction curve methods described below.
Level control loops are the exception; special tuning rules have been developed for
levels (refer to Tuning Level Controllers on page 300-33).
Note Direct Synthesis/Internal model control tuning methods (Section 333) are
now accepted as the successor to Z-N tuning rules discussed in this section.
Z-N Ultimate Sensitivity Method (Closed-loop Tuning)

The Z-N ultimate sensitivity method is a closed-loop tuning method; the controller
is kept in automatic.
1.
December 2003
First, the controller is changed to proportional-only by turning off the integral and derivative modes.
300-28
2.
300 Process Control
Then the controller gain is increased in small steps, each time changing the
setpoint if required to induce cycling (Figure 300-26).
Fig. 300-26 Ziegler-Nichols Cycling Plots
Time, Min.
Controlled
Variable
319
Time, Min.
Controlled
Variable
3.
Increase
Controller
Gain
This is repeated until the controller measurement cycles with constant amplitude (Figure 300-27).
Fig. 300-27 Ziegler-Nichols Ultimate Gain and Period
(KC KCU)
Controlled
Variable
Time, Min.
PU
(Minutes)
320
The final controller gain setting is called the ultimate gain, denoted KCU. The
period of oscillation at the ultimate gain is called the ultimate period, measured
in minutes and denoted PU.
4.
The ultimate controller gain and the ultimate period are then used to calculate
tuning constants per the following table:
The ultimate controller gain and the ultimate period are then used to calculate tuning
constants per the following table:
300-29
December 2003
300 Process Control
Prop. Gain, %/%
Integral Time,
Min.
Derivative Time,
Min.
0.50 KCU
PI
0.45 KCU
PU / 1.2
PID
0.60 KCU
PU / 2.0
PU / 8.0
This method was the first systematic method developed for tuning industrial
controllers.
Shortcomings. Note that the Z-N tuning objective was quarter amplitude
damping (the response oscillates with each peak being one quarter that of the
previous peak).
Thus, the tuning is aggressive; it is not robust. It is generally recommended that

the controller gain be reduced to provide more robustness.
Other disadvantages for Z-N include the fact that the process must be brought
to the stability limit (cycling) and that the procedure is very time consuming for
slow processes.
Advantages. On the other hand, the Z-N procedure is simple and the tuning rules
are easy to remember.
Advanced tuning methods address most of these shortcomings. They are generally
model-based and address robustness (directly or indirectly). Model-based tuning
will be described in Section 333.
Z-N Process Reaction Curve Method (Open-loop Tuning)

Ziegler-Nichols also developed an open-loop tuning method. The controller remains
in manual while response tests are made. To perform this test:
1.
Put the controller in manual.
2.
Change the controller valve position by a small amount and record the
controlled variable.
The controlled variable response curve is called the process reaction curve.
Refer to Figure 300-28.
December 2003
3.
Determine the maximum slope, S, of the response curve by drawing a line

through the point of inflection on the curve.
4.
The point that this line crosses the initial value of the controlled variable
measurement is used to determine P.
5.
The quantity X is the size of the controller output step and Y is the final
steady-state response of the controlled variable.
300-30
300 Process Control
Fig. 300-28 Reaction Curve Model-Identification Method #1

1
Maximum Slope, S
Controlled
Variable (%)
1st-Order Lag
+ Dead Time
Approximation
TP
WP
'Y
KP
'Y 'X
322
Controller
Output (%)
'X
Time, Minutes
These values will be used to fit the response curve to a first-order lag plus dead time
model.
dCV (t )
+ CV (t ) = K P CO(t P )
dt
(Eq. 300-19)
The model parameters are determined as follows. The quantity P is the dead time
(minutes) and is determined graphically as explained above. The dead time is the
delay between a change in valve position and the resulting change in the controlled
variable. The process time constant is the time required for the controlled variable to
reach 63% of its final value. It can be determined graphically as sketched on the
response plot or calculated from the following equation:
P = Y/S [=] minutes
Finally, the process steady-state gain is calculated from the following equation:
KP = Y/X [=] % / %
An alternative approach to fitting the model, which is more accurate for noisy
processes, is illustrated below (Figure 300-29).
The process steady-state gain is found as before. The dead time and time constant
are calculated from the following equations:
P = 1.5 (t63% - t28%) [=] minutes
P = t63% - P [=] minutes
300-31
December 2003
300 Process Control
Fig. 300-29 Process Reaction Curve Model-Identification Method #2
Controlled
Variable (%)
"Process
Reaction
Curve"
0.63' Y
'Y
0.28' Y
'Y 'X
KP
323
Controller
Output (%)
'X
t 28% t 63%
Time, Minutes
Having estimated a process model, we then apply the Ziegler-Nichols reaction curve
tuning rules:
Prop. Gain, %/%
Integral Time,
Min.
Derivative Time,
Min.
(1.0/KP)(P/P)
PI
(0.9/KP)(P/P)
3.3P
PID
(1.2/KP)(P/P)
2.0P
0.5P
As with the ultimate sensitivity tuning method, the controller objective function is
quarter amplitude damping. To reduce the oscillatory behavior, simply reduce the
recommended controller gain by 50 to 100%.
Note that the controller gain is proportional to the ratio of the time constant to the
dead time, so be cautious about applying this method when the dead time is small!
December 2003
300-32
300 Process Control
Typical Z-N Tuning Results

Figure 300-30 shows typical Z-N tuning results for a setpoint change and then a
disturbance.
Fig. 300-30 Typical Z-N Tuning Results for a Setpoint Change and then a
Disturbance
Note that the response is oscillatory for both common forms of the PID algorithm.
Refer to Forms of the PID Equation on page 300-44 for more information.
Tuning Level Controllers

The level process has some unusual dynamic characteristics and unique control
objectives that require us to develop specialized controller tuning rules. Consider
the surge vessel shown in Figure 300-31.
Fig. 300-31 Level Process Surge Vessel
QIn
A
LI
QOut
324
Pump
300-33
December 2003
300 Process Control
Level Control Objectives. Ideally, we would maintain a constant level, and minimize the effect of inflow disturbances on downstream units. However, these are
conflicting objectives. To maintain constant level, outflow would have to mimic
every inflow change. To smooth the outflow, the level would have to change to
absorb the inflow fluctuations.
As a result, two distinct types of level control have evolved:
1.
Averaging level control (flow-smoothing)
2.
Tight level control
In most cases, averaging level control is more appropriate. As long as the level stays
within a defined range, we can take advantage of a vessels surge capacity to
smooth out the flow. Averaging level control takes advantage of whatever surge
volume is provided in the vessel. The degree of effectiveness in smoothing the flow
depends on the size of the surge volume relative to the magnitude of the flow disturbances.
We will investigate the level process and develop recommendations for proportional-integral (PI) controller tuning.
The Level Process. The dynamic response characteristics of the level process can
be determined by writing a dynamic material balance (inflow-outflow = rate of
accumulation):
dV ( t )
Q In ( t ) Q Out ( t ) = ------------dt
(Eq. 300-20)
where:
QIn(t) = Inflow [=] GPM
QOut(t) = Outflow [=] GPM
V(t) = Volume [=] Gallons
t = Time [=] Minutes
The volume can be calculated from the measured level as follows (assuming the
cross-sectional area is constant):
V(t) = k A L( t)
(Eq. 300-21)
where:
k = 7.481 Gal / Ft3
A = Cross-sectional area [=] Ft2
L(t) = Level [=] Ft
December 2003
300-34
300 Process Control
then,
dkAL ( t )
Q In ( t ) Q Out ( t ) = -------------------dt
or,
(t)
----------------Q In ( t ) Q Out ( t ) = dCL
dt
Gal
where C k A [ = ] -------Ft
The quantity C is called the capacitance of the vessel. It is effectively the
volume per foot of level. Since C is a constant, it can be moved outside of the
derivative term.
(t)
Q In ( t ) Q Out ( t ) = CdL
----------------(Eq. 300-22)
dt
Typically, the pump head is large compared to the static head provided by the level,
and thus, changes in level have very little effect on outflow (The process is non self
regulating). That is,
QOut f(L)
(Eq. 300-23)
We can now solve for dL(t)/dt and integrate.
L(t ) =
[Q
In
(t ) QOut (t )] dt + L0
(Eq. 300-24)
Because of the form of this equation, level is known as an integrating process.

The response to a step change in net inflow is shown in Figure 300-32.
Fig. 300-32 Level Process Step Response (Open Loop)
Level, L(t)
QNet /C [=] Ft/Min
1
L0
325
QIn(t)-QOut (t)
QNet
0
0
300-35
Time, Minutes
December 2003
300 Process Control
Unlike most processes, the level process is non self-regulating; it does not come to
steady state. For the level process to be at steady state, the net inflow must be zero.
Notice that the slope of the ramp response is QNet/C. Thus, the capacitance of the
vessel can be determined by introducing a known imbalance between inflow and
outflow and measuring the slope of the level response.
Solving for C
Slope = QNet/C
(Eq. 300-25)
Q Net
Gal Min
Gal
C = -------------- [ = ] ---------------------- = -------Ft Min
Slope
Ft
(Eq. 300-26)
Level Control Configurations. There are two common level control configurations:
1.
single-loop control (Figure 300-33)
Fig. 300-33 Level Control Configurations (Single-Loop Control)
QIn
LC
FI
QOut
and
2.
level-to-flow cascade control (Figure 300-34)
Fig. 300-34 Level Control Configurations (Cascade Control)
QIn
LC
FC
QOut
326
December 2003
300-36
300 Process Control
Level Control Response Equations. The closed-loop response equations for both
single-loop and cascade configurations are second-order (and identical) when we
assume the following:
A proportional plus integral controller is used.
Both configurations have the same maximum flow (valve max or flow
controller setpoint max).
For the single-loop case, the valves installed characteristic is linear.
The following second-order differential equation describes the dynamic response of

the outflow to a change in the inflow.
2
d Q Out
dQ Out
dQ In
H I ------------------ + I --------------- + Q Out = I ------------ + Q In
2
dt
dt
dt
where:
(Eq. 300-27)
C H T
H -------------------------- [=] minutes
K C F MAX
HT = Level transmitter span [=] Ft
The degree of flow smoothing between the inflow and outflow depends on the
values of the parameters in this equation.
Note that the measurable volume (within the level transmitter range) is given by
VolMeas = C HT
(Eq. 300-28)
Then
1
1 Vol Meas
H = ------- -------------------= ------- H [ = ]Minutes
KC
K C F Max
where H = VolMeas/FMax [=] minutes
The quantity H is the vessel residence time based on the maximum outflow FMax.
In other words, it is the time to fill the measurable volume (that is, within the level
transmitter range) with an inflow of FMax and with the outflow valve closed.
The following equation describes the level setpoint-to-level response:
2
dL SP
dL
d L
- + L SP
H I --------- + I ------ + L = I ----------2
dt
dt
dt
300-37
(Eq. 300-29)
December 2003
300 Process Control
This equation has exactly the same form and parameters as for the inflow to outflow
response. The following equation describes the inflow-to-level response:
2
H I dQ In
dL
d L
H I --------- + I ------ + L = ----------- ----------- C dt
2
dt
dt
(Eq. 300-30)
This equation tells us how much the level will vary as the inflow changes. Note that
the left-hand side of this equation (known as the characteristic equation) has
exactly the same form and parameters as for the previous two response equations.
Level Control Period and Damping. We will now compare the equations derived
for the level control system with the standard equation for a second-order system.
2 d2 Y ( t )
dY ( t )
n ---------------- + 2 n ------------- + Y ( t ) = K X ( t )
2
dt
dt
(Eq. 300-31)
where:
Y(t) = Dependent variable
X(t) = Independent variable
n = Natural time constant
= Damping coefficient
K = Steady-State Gain
t = Time
The response of a second order system to a step change in the independent variable
is shown in Figure 300-35. The shape of the response varies from a smooth,
S-shaped curve to a highly oscillatory one depending on the value of the damping
coefficient .
Comparing the level control systems equations with the standard form for the
second-order equation we can find the closed-loop period of oscillation, T
(minutes/cycle), and the damping factor, (dimensionless) for the level control
system:
T=
2
1 2
December 2003
300-38
I Vol Meas
KC
FMax
(Eq. 300-32)
1 I K C FMAX
2
Vol Meas
300 Process Control
Fig. 300-35 Step Response General Second-Order System

] < 1 (Underdamped)
] = 0.707 (Butterworth)
K*'X
] = 1 (Critically Damped)
Y0
] > 1 (Overdamped)
328
X
'X
X0
0
Time
These equations show how the level controller tuning parameters affect the period
and degree of damping of the closed-loop response. A close examination reveals
several important (and surprising) facts about level control systems.
Note that increasing the level controller integral time, I, increases level control
stability (i.e., ) and increases control loop period, T. Both of those results are
expected. However, note that increasing level controller gain, KC, decreases control
loop period, but also increases stability (i.e., ). The latter result is exactly opposite of what one would typically expect.
In real-world level control systems, increases in KC eventually will result in an
unstable system because other lags in the system (that we didnt model) will become
significant. (The fact that increasing controller gain initially increases stability, but
ultimately destabilizes the system makes level controllers conditionally stable
systems.)
These observations show that tuning level controllers is non-intuitive.
Averaging Level Control Tuning. Page Buckley of Dupont (1964) developed a
tuning approach for averaging level control that has been applied throughout
ChevronTexaco. First, he proposed that the closed-loop response be critically
damped ( = 1). This will produce a smooth, non-oscillatory response.
Recall that
=
1 I K C FMax
2
Vol Meas
(Eq. 300-33)
Setting = 1 and solving for I yields
300-39
December 2003
300 Process Control
4 Vol
4
H
Meas
I =
F
=
K
C Max K C
(Eq. 300-34)
where H = VolMeas/FMax [=] minutes

Recall that H is the residence time based on the maximum outflow FMax. It is the
time to fill the measurable volume (that is, within the level transmitter range) with
an inflow of FMax and with the outflow valve closed.
Second, Buckley proposed that the level stay within defined bounds for a defined
disturbance. In particular, for an inflow disturbance of half the maximum outflow,
the change in level that results will be half the level transmitter span. In other words,
for this relatively large flow change, level would rise to 100% (assuming it started at
50% level) in order to smooth the outflow.
Figure 300-36 shows how the level and outflow respond to a step change in inflow.
Fig. 300-36 Level & Outflow Response Plot (Zeta=1)
1.5
1.5
(] = 1)
1.14
1.0
Outflow
1.0
Inflow
' L(t) FMax
0.74
' QOut(t) ' QIn(t)
' HT ' QIn
KC
0.5
0.5
Level
0.0
0.0
0
Dimensionless Time, t /W H
10
329
Note that, as expected, there is no oscillation in the response. But the output will
always temporarily exceed (overshoot) the inflow. (With the level process there
always needs to be an imbalance between inflow and outflow to change the level).
The plot shows that at peak level we have the following:
L peak
H
T
FMax
Q
In
K C =0.74
(Eq. 300-35)
Solving for KC gives

K C = 0.74
December 2003
300-40
(QIn FMax )
(LPeak H T )
(Eq. 300-36)
300 Process Control
In mathematical terms, Buckleys second criterion specifies that

QIn 1
=
FMax 2
LPeak 1
=
H T
2
(Eq. 300-37)
Substitution into the previous equation allows us to solve for controller gain.
K C = 0.74
(QIn
(LPeak
FMax )
(1 2) = 0.74
= 0.74
(1 2)
H T )
(Eq. 300-38)
We can now use this value for controller gain to find the controller integral time.
I=
4
KC
Vol M

FMax
4
=
K H
C
(Eq. 300-39)
Substituting KC = 0.74 gives

Vol M
= 5.4 H
FMax
I = 5.4
(Eq. 300-40)
In summary, for averaging (flow smoothing) level control (Buckley tuning), use a
controller gain of 0.74 and a controller integral time of 5.4 times the vessel residence time. For example, for a vessel with a six minute residence time, controller
gain would be 0.74 and controller integral time would be 32.4 minutes.
The following plot (Figure 300-37) shows the level and outflow response to an
inflow change equal to half the maximum outflow with Buckley tuning. (The vessel
has a residence time of H = 6 minutes).
Notice how the vessel surge volume is used to smooth out the inflow change.
Tight Level Control Tuning. Buckley has also solved the response equations for
the general case (that is, for all values of the damping coefficient, ). See
Figure 300-38.
Note that outflow overshoots inflow for any (any controller settings). We will use
these curves to develop tuning guidelines for tight level control
For tight level control, we choose = 0.707 = 1 2 as this will provide the fastest
possible non-oscillatory response. The plot shows that the level peak for = 0.707 is
LPeak
H T
FMax
QIn
K C = 0.64
(Eq. 300-41)
Solving for KC
K C = 0 .64
300-41
( Q In /FMax )
( L Peak / H T )
(Eq. 300-42)
December 2003
300 Process Control
Fig. 300-37 Level & Outflow Response Buckley Tuning

Level, %
Level Controller Setpoint, %
100
100
75
75
50
50
25
25
0
0.0
12.8
25.6
38.4
Time, Minutes
Inflow, GPM
51.2
64.0
Outflow, GPM
330
200.0
200.0
150.0
150.0
100.0
100.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.8
25.6
38.4
Time, Minutes
51.2
64.0
Fig. 300-38 Level & Outflow Peak Plot (Any Zeta)
1.4
1.0
0.74
1.3
0.75
' LPeak FMax
' QOut, Peak ' QIn
0.64
1.22
1.2
0.5
' HT
' QIn
KC
1.14
0.25
1.1
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.707
Underdamped
1.0
1.5
2.0
331
Overdamped
Then we specify a tight level range, e.g. 40% to 60% (starting from 50% level, the
level peak would be one tenth of the level transmitter range) for an inflow disturbance of half the maximum outflow. In mathematical terms, we have:
QIn 1
=
FMax 2
December 2003
300-42
LPeak
1
=
10
H T
(Eq. 300-43)
300 Process Control
The level controller gain is then

K C = 0.64
(QIn /FMax )
( 1/ 2 )
= 0.64
= 3.2
(LPeak /H T )
( 1/ 10 )
(Eq. 300-44)
We can now use this value for controller gain to find the integral time. Recall that
=
1 I K C FMax 1 I K C
=
2
Vol Meas
2
H
Substituting = 0.707 = 1
(Eq. 300-45)
2 and solving for I gives
I=
2
KC
Vol M

FMax
2
=
K H
C
(Eq. 300-46)
Substituting KC = 3.2 gives

Vol M
= 0.625 H
FMax
I = 0.625
(Eq. 300-47)
In summary, for tight level control, use a controller gain of 3.2 and a controller integral time of 0.625 times the vessel residence time. For example, a six minute
vessel would have a controller gain of 3.2 and controller integral time of 3.75
minutes.
The following plot (Figure 300-39) shows the level and outflow response to an
inflow change equal to half the maximum outflow with tight tuning (vessel residence time of H = 6 minutes).
300-43
December 2003
300 Process Control
Fig. 300-39 Level & Outflow Response - Tight Tuning

Level, %
Level Controller Setpoint, %
100
100
75
75
50
50
25
25
0
0.0
12.8
25.6
38.4
51.2
64.0
Time, Minutes
Inflow, GPM
Outflow, GPM
332
200.0
200.0
150.0
150.0
100.0
100.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.8
25.6
38.4
Time, Minutes
51.2
64.0
Notice how the level controller quickly moves the outflow to keep the level near the
setpoint.
332 Forms of the PID Equation

There are two common forms of the PID equation as implemented in industrial
control equipment, that is, distributed control systems (DCS), programmable logic
controllers (PLC), or supervisory control and data acquisition systems (SCADA).
The non-interacting form of the PID algorithm is given below.
1
CO(t ) = K C E (t ) +
E (t )dt +
0
dE (t )
+ CO0
dt
(Eq. 300-48)
This is the ISA standard form, and is sometimes called the parallel or ideal form.
The interacting form of the PID algorithm is given below.
1
CO(t ) = K C E (t ) +
dE (t )
E (t )dt 1 + D
+ CO0
dt
0
(Eq. 300-49)
This is also called the series or factored form.
December 2003
300-44
300 Process Control
In the Honeywell DCS, for example, both the interacting and non-interacting forms
of the PID equation are offered. Yokogawa offers only the non-interacting form.
It is important to note that the tuning parameters are different in the two forms.
Using the same tuning parameters in the two versions will not produce the same
results!
PID Conversion Equations

The equations which follow allow us to convert tuning parameters developed for a
particular PID form to equivalent tuning constants for the other PID form.
For the parallel PID form, we have
1
CO(t ) = K C E (t ) +
E (t )dt + D
dE (t )
+ CO0
dt

K C = K C 1 + D
I
I = ( I + D ) = I 1 +
D =
D I
=
( I + D ) D
(Eq. 300-50)
D
1 +
I
For the series PID form, we have
1
CO(t ) = K C E (t ) +
K C =
dE (t )
E (t )dt 1 + D
+ CO0
dt
0
KC
2 D / I
1 + 1 4 D / I = K C
2
1 1 4 D / I
I =
D =
(1+
2
(1+
) (1
1 4 D / I
(1
1 4 D / I
1 4 D / I =
2 D
1 4 D / I
I
2
2 D
Note that, because of the square root term, the equivalent factored version is valid
only for D/I 1/4.
300-45
December 2003
300 Process Control
Note also that if D/I 1/4 (in the non-interacting/ideal form), then D = I (in the
interacting/factored form).
No conversion necessary for P-only or PI control; there is only one equation form.
PID Equation Form Affects Tuning Rules

We will examine how the form of the PID equation affects controller tuning rules.
For example, the Ziegler-Nichols tuning rules are usually stated as follows:
KC = 0.6 KCU
I = PU/2 D = PU/8
(Eq. 300-51)
But, what form of the PID equation did they assume? The controllers of the day
were closer to the interacting form than the non-interacting/ideal form. If we assume
that the Z-N tuning rules apply to the interacting form, then the following would be
a complete statement of their rules:
1
CO(t ) = K C E (t ) +
K C = 0.6 K CU
E (t )dt 1 +
0
I = PU 2
dE (t )
+ CO0
dt
D = PU 8
But, suppose the PID equation that was available in our control equipment had the
non-interacting form.
1
CO(t ) = K C E (t ) +
E (t )dt + D
dE (t )
+ CO0
dt
(Eq. 300-52)
We could simply use the conversion equations shown earlier to convert to the
Equivalent Values for the non-interacting form.
KC = (0.6 KCU) (1.25)
I = (PU/2) (1.25) I = (PU/2) / (1.25)
(Eq. 300-53)
We would then get the same results as if we had used the original values in the interacting PID equation.
However, if the interacting to non-interacting conversions were not made, the effective proportional gain would be 25% too low (less aggressive), effective integral
time would be 25% shorter (more aggressive), and the effective derivative time
would be 25% longer (more aggressive)
But what if Z-N assumed the non-interacting/ideal formulation? Most textbooks and
many journal articles apply Z-N to the ideal form!
December 2003
300-46
300 Process Control
In this case, the Z-N tuning rules should be stated as follows:
CO(t ) = K C E (t ) +
KC = 0.6 KCU
E (t )dt + D
dE (t )
+ CO0
dt
I = PU/2 D = PU/8
(Eq. 300-54)
But, suppose the PID Equation we were using had the interacting form.
1
CO(t ) = K C E (t ) +
E (t )dt 1 +
0
dE (t )
+ CO0
dt
We could simply convert to the equivalent values for the interacting form.
K C = (0.6 K CU ) 2
I = (PU 2) 2
D = (PU 8) 2
If we did so, we would then get the same results as if we had used the original
values in the non-interacting PID equation.
However, If the non-interacting to interacting conversions were not made, the effective proportional gain would be 100% too high (more aggressive), the effective integral time would be 100% longer (less aggressive), and the effective derivative time
would be 100% shorter (less aggressive).
The following shows Z-N tuning with and without PID form conversion
(Figure 300-40).
The results for the parallel PID and series PID (converted) are very similar but not
precisely the same because the conversion equations used didnt consider the derivative filter term found in real controllers.
The main points to take away from all this when applying any tuning rules are to
1.
Know the form of the PID equation the tuning rules assumed, and
2.
Either apply the rules as intended or convert the tuning parameters to the
equivalent values for the other PID form.
300-47
December 2003
300 Process Control
Fig. 300-40 Z-N Tuning With and Without PID Form Conversion
333 Model-Based Tuning Methods

Introduction
The Direct Synthesis (DS) method is representative of a class of model-based
controller tuning approaches. DS and other related methods involve first identifying
a dynamic process model, specifying a desired closed-loop response, and then
calculating the required controller structure and tuning parameters.
The desired closed-loop response is normally chosen as a smooth response for
setpoint changes with no overshoot. In a recent paper (Chen and Seborg, 2002),
the method was extended to focus on disturbance rejection.
Internal model control (IMC) is another well-known model-based controller
design method. IMC was developed at Caltech by Professor Manfred Morari and coworkers. The application of this methodology to tuning PID loops was developed by
Rivera, Morari and Skogestad (1986). It is closely related to the direct synthesis
design method. The IMC methodology produces the same PID controllers as the
direct synthesis approach, if the same assumptions and approximations are used.
Both approaches give valuable insight into the relationship between the process
dynamics and the controller required to achieve the desired closed-loop response.
The resulting controllers do not always have a PID structure. However, for many
common process models, PI or PID controllers can be derived.
December 2003
300-48
300 Process Control
The DS/IMC tuning rules have been widely accepted as the successor to ZieglerNichols tuning rules.
IMC-PID Tuning Rules

The most complete collection of tuning rules based on the IMC or direct synthesis
approach is found in Chien and Fruehauf, CEP, 1990. Figure 300-41 gives a
sampling of the rules for a few simple models (Laplace domain notation is
used - s).
Fig. 300-41 Tuning Rules
Interacting PID
Ideal PID
KCK
KCK
--
--
-----------+
-----------+
------------------+2
/2
+2
------------------+2
+
--2
-------------2 +
1
---------------------- + 3 +
1 + 2 +
------------------------- + 3 +
Model
K ------------s + 1
Ke ------------s + 1
Ke
-------------s + 1
K ( 3 s + 1 )e
------------------------------------------( 1 s + 1 ) ( 2 s + 1 )
1 + 2 +
1 2
+ -------------------------1 + 2 +
where:
3
= ---------------------- + 3 +
(Eq. 300-55)
The parameter lambda, , in the table is the desired closed-loop time constant, and
is the only tuning parameter the control engineer has to adjust! All other parameters
in the tuning formulas come from the estimate of the process model.
300-49
December 2003
300 Process Control
Model-Based Tuning Example

We will now illustrate the use of the tuning rules. Suppose the control loop we want
to tune has an open loop process response as shown in Figure 300-42.
Fig. 300-42 Open-Loop Process Response
Controlled
Variable
361
Controller
Output
Time
We can approximate the response with a second-order plus dead time model.
ps
KP e
= -------------------------------------------------G
P
( 1P s + 1 ) ( 2P s + 1 )
(Eq. 300-56)
Lets suppose the model parameters are as follows:

Process gain, KP = 4.3 %/%
Process dead time, P = 1.0 minutes
Process time constant #1, 1P = 1.5 minutes
Process time constant #2, 2P = 1.0 minutes
Applying the IMC-PID tuning rules yields a PID controller with the following
tuning constants (ideal PID algorithm):
Lambda = 1 min.
Lambda = 2 min.
Lambda = 3 min.
Controller Gain
0.2907
0.1938
0.1453
Integral Time,
min.
2.5000
2.5000
2.5000
Derivative Time,
min.
0.6000
0.6000
0.6000
Figure 300-43 shows IMC/DS (lambda) tuning for the case when the process model
is an exact representation of the actual process (perfect model). Both a setpoint
change and disturbance are simulated.
December 2003
300-50
300 Process Control
Fig. 300-43 IMC/DS (Lambda) Tuning (Perfect Model)
Notice that the lambda based controller responses are smooth, both for the setpoint
change and the disturbance. A value of lambda of 2 or 3 is a good choice. The
Ziegler Nichols tuning is also shown, for comparison. Notice that the Z-N tuning is
quite oscillatory for the setpoint response.
Figure 300-44 explores the robustness quality of the model-based controller. Here
the actual process gain has changed to 150% of the nominal value.
Fig. 300-44 Model-based Controller (Process Gain 150% Nominal Value)
300-51
December 2003
300 Process Control
The lambda controllers (with the original tuning) perform very well even for this
large process change. The Ziegler Nichols tuned controller is on the verge of instability.
Figure 300-45 explores the robustness to dead time. Here we have increased the
process dead time by 50 percent over the nominal value.
Fig. 300-45 Model-based Controller (Process Dead Time 150% of Nominal Value)
Again the lambda controllers (with the original tuning) are performing very well
even for this large process change. The Ziegler Nichols controller is quite oscillatory. The robustness benefits of IMC/DS (lambda) based tuning are evident in these
plots.
Tuning Tools
The Chien and Fruehauf tuning rules (along with tools to facilitate model identification) are built into two internally-developed software packages available to ChevronTexaco personnel:
IMC Tuning Tool available for Honeywell TDC3000!
TUNE Excel Spreadsheet (independent of control system used)
Both packages are available from the Process Control Team (Process Automation
Unit) of ChevronTexaco Energy Research & Technology Company in Richmond,
CA.
The ICM Tuning Tool is a Honeywell TDC3000 applications module (AM) application. This easy to use package helps users apply the IMC-PID tuning rules on
Honeywell TDC3000 distributed control systems. The user can select a loop to tune,
December 2003
300-52
300 Process Control
perform step testing, plot the data, model the data, implement tuning coefficients,
and examine the closed loop performance all from within the two screens of the tool
while sitting at the TDC console. After entering the desired closed-loop time
constant, tuning coefficients are calculated automatically for the user on the basis of
IMC-PID theory. The tuning parameters automatically account for the Honeywell
PID equation form that is in use (interacting or non-interacting). The package also
includes provision for averaging level control (based on Buckleys approach
described earlier). There are numerous help pages to guide the user through the
tuning process.
For those sites without a TDC3000 system, there is an excel spreadsheet called
TUNE, for model identification and tuning based on the DS/IMC-PID tuning rules.
This spreadsheet imports input/output data (for example, from a controller step test),
facilitates model identification, and then recommends tuning parameters for various
implementations of PID controllers.
There are also a number of excellent commercial tuning packages. For example:
PID Optimize AspenTech (www.aspentech.com)
Profit PID Honeywell (www.acs.honeywell.com)
ProTuner Techmation (www.protuner.com)
ExperTune (www.expertune.com)
These commercial packages often go well beyond loop tuning. For example, the
ExperTune advanced package includes support for the numerous versions of the
PID control algorithm available in different DCS systems. It also facilitates the
process of linearizing control loops, calculates optimal filtering and tuning to reduce
valve wear, provides statistics on control variability, provides robustness plots,
etc.
334 Typical Tuning Constants for Common Loops

The following table gives typical PID controller tuning constants for various
processes based on practical experience (based on ideal PID algorithm form).
Type
Gain
%PB
I, Min.
D, Min.
Flow (Fast)
0.5
200
0.1-0.5
None
Flow (Slow)
Noisy/Sticky Valve
None
None
0.1-0.5
None
Pressure (Fast)
Liquid Packed
0.5
200
0.5-1.5
None
Pressure
1.0
100
1.0-2.0
0-0.5
Level (Tight)
3.2
30
0.6 H(1)
None
(1)
None
Level (Averaging)
0.74
300-53
135
5.4 H
December 2003
300 Process Control
Type
Gain
%PB
I, Min.
D, Min.
Temperature (Fast)
Bypass-Type
0.5-1.0
200-100
1.0-2.0
0-0.5
Temperature
0.5-1.0
200-100
4-20
1-5
(1) H = Vessel holdup time (measurable volume/maximum outflow), [=] minutes
These values are approximate. One of the tuning methods discussed previously
should always be used. For future reference, always record the control loop ID
number (e.g., FRC 123), the date, and the tuning constants when you have finished
tuning the loop.
340 Multiple-Loop Control

By multiple-loop control is meant control loop configurations more sophisticated
than simple, single loop feedback control, including cascade control, ratio control,
feedforward control, signal selector control, and many other techniques too
numerous to mention.
We will only deal here with cascade, ratio and feedforward control. The reader is
encouraged to consult the Resources section for additional information.
341 Cascade Control

In cascade control, the output of one controller cascades to the setpoint of another
controller rather than going straight to the control valve.
For a real-world example, consider the following furnace cascade control options
(Figure 300-46).
Fig. 300-46 PCD Furnace TC-FC vs TC-PC
Process
Furnace
Process
Furnace
334
TC
TC
Primary
Burners
Primary
Burners
PC
Secondary
FC
Secondary
Fuel Gas
December 2003
Fuel Gas
300-54
300 Process Control
In the first example, the furnace temperature controller cascades to the fuel gas flow
controller. In the second, it cascades to a burner pressure controller. In both cases,
the secondary controllers (PC or FC) are much faster than the primary controller
(TC) and would be tuned with much shorter reset times. In fact, for cascade control
to be significantly better than single-loop control, the secondary controller should be
at least 5 to 10 times faster than the primary controller.
Cascade control improves performance in three ways when properly applied:
1.
Disturbances measured by the secondary controller are quickly corrected for by

the (faster) secondary controller. If disturbances in the process can be recognized by the secondary controller and quickly corrected, the primary control
loop will not be affected
2.
Disturbances measured by the primary controller also die away more quickly
because the primary controller can be tuned to be faster
3.
The secondary loop linearizes that part of the process. For example, in the TCFC cascade, the temperature controller output effectively represents fuel gas
flow. The flow controller will position the valve wherever necessary to get the
flow asked for by the temperature controller. If the temperature controller set
the control valve position directly, the nonlinear flow-versus-valve position
relationship would adversely affect the temperature controller performance.
Cascade control is most effective for disturbances that are measured by the
secondary controller.
Lets look at how a furnace outlet temperature to fuel gas pressure control cascade
deals with some typical furnace disturbances: The key to how effective the cascade
will be in rejecting these disturbances is where the disturbance enters the loop
(Figure 300-47).
Fig. 300-47 Furnace TC-PC Disturbance Location Block Diagram
Fuel Gas
Supply
Pressure
335
Temp
SP
Temperature
Controller
Pressure
Controller
Control
Valve
Burner
Dynamics
Feed
Inlet Rate
Temp Ambient
Conditions
Furnace
Dynamics
Outlet
Temp
Secondary Loop
Pressure
Transmitter
Primary Loop
Temperature
Transmitter
300-55
December 2003
300 Process Control
The sketch clearly shows that only the fuel gas supply pressure upset will be picked
up by the (faster) pressure controller, and so we can expect that the biggest improvement over single-loop control would be for that upset.
Figure 300-48 contrasts the effectiveness of the cascade loop in rejecting the feed
flow and fuel gas supply pressure disturbances:
Fig. 300-48 Furnace TC-PC Disturbance Responses
Outlet
Temp
Outlet
Temp
Fuel Gas
Supply
Presure
Process
Flow
336
Time
Time
Response to the process flow upset is not much better than for single-loop control
and the response is slow because the (slower) temperature controller must respond
to the upset.
On the other hand, for the supply pressure upset, burner pressure is affected almost
immediately, and the (faster) pressure controller compensate quickly for the change
in fuel gas flow. The fuel flow remains relatively steady while the pressure is
changing so the furnace temperature will be more constant. Fuel flow changes
almost immediately when the control valve is moved. Therefore, the pressure
controller can be tuned to eliminate most of the disturbances in fuel flow.
The temperature-to-flow cascade control option is the normal choice for fired
heaters. With cascade temperature-to-flow control, the flow controller linearizes the
valve response which helps with temperature controller tuning. However, in some
cases the fuel system is so dirty the flow measurement cannot be made reliable.
When fuel gas heating value (and gravity) fluctuates, the temperature-to-flow
cascade arrangement can be easily modified to fuel gas BTU control by
combining the flow measurement with an online fuel gas heating value measurement (or inferential).
Temperature-to-pressure cascades are sometimes used. Some fuel gas burners have
a very narrow operating range. The cascade temperature-to-pressure control option
allows high and low limits to be easily set (via pressure controller setpoint limits).
Supply pressure upsets are easily handled by the temperature-to-pressure cascade,
but not as directly for the temperature-to-flow cascade. The temperature-to-flow
cascade responds to the pressure upset partially, to the extent the flow measurement is affected by the pressure.
The two cascades respond very differently when adding or removing burners. When
adding (or removing) burners with the temperature-to-flow cascade, the initial
December 2003
300-56
300 Process Control
response of the flow controller is to redistribute the flow keeping the total constant,
whereas with the temperature-to-pressure cascade, the pressure controller will
initially increases (or decreases) heat flow.
342 Ratio Control

Ratio control is another commonly used control configuration. One process variable is kept in proportion to another. Usually flows are involved. For example,
consider the following arrangement (Figure 300-49):
Fig. 300-49 Ratio Control
FFC
201
FC
101
Ratio
Controller
337
Controller FFC-201 is a flow fraction controller (a.k.a. ratio controller). It is basically a flow controller with a setpoint equal to
FFC_SP = R * Flow_101
where:
R = ratio
The operator enters the desired ratio, and the FFC keeps Flow-201 in the proper
ratio to Flow-101. The signal to the FFC can be either the measurement of FC-101
(as shown) or the setpoint. Using the setpoint of FC-101 has the advantage that the
signal will be noise free. On the other hand, if FC-101 becomes saturated, its
measurement and setpoint will differ, so the ratio is normally based on the measurement.
343 Feedforward Control

A feedforward controller uses a measured disturbance to generate a corrective
action which minimizes the deviations of the controlled variable from its setpoint
(outside of any feedback action).
Feedforward control is an added complexity and should be applied only when the
benefits of tighter control justify the additional implementation costs. Quite often,
the most dramatic improvements come when feedforward is added to slow feedback loops (10+ minute periods).
300-57
December 2003
300 Process Control
Feedforward control should always be used in conjunction with feedback control

because of model errors, measurement drift, and unmeasured disturbances.
The feedforward adjustment is most effective when it changes a controller set point
rather than a valve position. The relationship between a change in valve position
and the resulting change in flow can be very nonlinear.
The disturbances must be measurable and relatively noise free. Feedforward
dynamic compensation typically involves lead-lags, which can amplify noise.
The implementation must be such that feedback control and feedforward control can
each be turned off individually, so they can be independently tuned.
Linear Feedforward Control Design

We will develop the theory for a cascade feedback plus feedforward configuration,
as this configuration is recommended for linearity. The standard form of the block
diagram for a cascade feedback plus feedforward control system is given in
Figure 300-50.
Fig. 300-50 Cascade Feedback + Feedforward Control Block Diagram (no s)
Feedforward
Controller
KFF GFF
DM
Disturbance
Transmitter
D
(EU)
KMD GMD
(%)
FF Controller
Output, %
Process
CVSP
KM
(EU)
CO +
K C GC
KSL GSL
(%)
K D GD
Secondary
Control Loop
Primary Controller
MV
K P GP
CV
(EU)
(EU)
CVSP%
Controlled Variable
Transmitter
CVM
KM GM
338
(%)
where:
CVSP Controlled variable (CV) setpoint [=] EUCV
EU Engineering units
CVSP% Controlled variable %-setpoint [=] %
KC Primary controller gain [=] dimensionless (%/%)
GC Primary controller dynamics (integral, derivative)
KSL Secondary control loop closed-loop gain [=] EUMV/%
GSL Secondary control loop closed-loop dynamics
December 2003
300-58
300 Process Control
MV Manipulated variable, [=] EUMV

KP Process gain [=] EUCV/EUMV
GP Process dynamics
D Disturbance [=] EUD
KD Disturbance gain [=] EUCV/EUD
GD Disturbance dynamics
CV Controlled variable [=] EUCV
GM Controlled variable transmitter dynamics
CVM Controlled variable measurement [=] %
KMD Disturbance transmitter gain [=] %/EUD
GMD Disturbance transmitter dynamics
DM Disturbance measurement [=] %
KFF Feedforward controller gain [=] dimensionless (%/%)
GFF Feedforward controller dynamics (lead-lag, dead time)
Basic Idea of Feedforward Control. A feedforward controller moves the manipulated variable, MV, to counter the effects of a disturbance, D. The feedforward
controller (not a controller, but simply an adjustment in gain and dynamics) modifies the response of the controlled variable to the manipulated variable response
such that it is a mirror image of the disturbance response. The two responses cancel
each other, resulting in no change in the controlled variable. Figure 300-51 illustrates the concept.
Fig. 300-51 Generic Plot Mirror Image
Response of
Controlled Variable
to Manipulated
Variable
Feedforward
Compensation
(Adjust Gain
& Dynamics)
Controlled
Variable
Mirror
Images
Net Result:
No Change in Controlled Variable
Response of
Controlled Variable to
Disturbance Variable
339
Time, Minutes
300-59
December 2003
300 Process Control
Practical Feedforward Control Design. In most cases, feedforward control is

implemented as a lead-lag plus dead time function. This is the theoretically
correct feedforward compensation when the process can be modeled as a first order
lag plus dead time, and is usually accurate enough for higher order process models.
The steps required to design a feedforward controller are listed below.
Determine the manipulated variable process response
Determine the disturbance variable response
Apply the feedforward control design equation
First, determine the manipulated variable response by placing the controller in

manual and stepping the primary controller output. The response is modeled as a
first order lag plus dead time, as indicated in Figure 300-52.
Fig. 300-52 Plot FODT Response
CV(t)
63% of Final Response
KP 'CO
339a
CO(t)
'CO
TP
TPWP
Time (t), Minutes
dCV ( t )
P ------------------ + CV ( t ) = K P CO ( t P )
dt
(Eq. 300-57)
where:
KP Effective process gain [=] %/% (alternatively, EUCV/%)
P Effective process time constant [=] minutes
P Effective process dead time [=] minutes
Note that the word effective is used in the above parameter definitions to indicate
that the process dynamics include the closed-loop dynamics of the secondary
control loop.
December 2003
300-60
300 Process Control
Then, the response of the controlled variable to the disturbance is also modeled as a
first order lag plus dead time.
dCV ( t )
D ------------------ + CV ( t ) = K D D ( t D )
dt
where:
(Eq. 300-58)
KD Disturbance gain [=] %/% (alternatively, EUCV/%)

D Disturbance time constant [=] minutes
D Disturbance dead time [=] minutes
Based on the above models, the feedforward controller can be implemented as a
lead-lag plus dead time function.
Feedforward Controller Dead Time Compensation. The feedforward controller
dead time function is shown in Figure 300-53.
Fig. 300-53 Feedforward Dead Time Function
Dead Time
Output
343
Dead Time
Input
0
TDTP
Time, Minutes
The quantity (D - P) represents the dead time (in minutes) that the feedforward
controller must delay the manipulated variable to line up the manipulated-variableto-controlled-variable response with the disturbance-to-controlled-variable
response.
The quantity (D - P) must be positive for it to represent a delay; if it were negative it would be represent a prediction. Thus, for the feedforward controller dead
time to be realizable, the disturbance response dead time must be greater than the
process response dead time (D P).
Feedforward Controller Lead-Lag Compensation. The remainder of the feedforward controller is a lead lag function. The following equation describes the dynamic
response of the lead-lag function to a unit step in its input.
Lead Lag
LLOut (t ) = K LL 1 +
Lag

300-61
t Lag
e
(Eq. 300-59)
December 2003
300 Process Control
where:
KLL Lead-lag gain [=] % / %
Lead Lead time constant [=] minutes
Lag Lag time constant [=] minutes
The lead-lag function gain, KLL, is used to set the overall feedforward controller
gain. The value of this parameter determines the ultimate size of the feedforward
controllers response to a disturbance.
The values of the lead and lag time constants affect the dynamic response (or transient response) of the feedforward controller.
For the case when the lead time constant is greater than the lag time constant, the
response to a unit step at time zero looks somewhat like the (filtered) derivative
mode of the PID algorithm (Figure 300-54).
Fig. 300-54 Feedforward Lead-Lag Step Response (Lead > Lag)
KLL
WLead
WLag
Lead Lag
Output
63%
344
KLL
0
0
WLag
Time
For the case when the lead time constant is less than the lag time constant, the
response to a unit step at time zero looks as follows (Figure 300-55).
Fig. 300-55 Feedforward Lead-Lag Step Response (Lead < Lag)
Lead Lag
Output
KLL
KLL
345
63%
WLead
WLag
0
0
December 2003
WLag
300-62
Time
300 Process Control
The lead-lag parameters must be set to the following values for proper feedforward
compensation:
KLL = -(KD/KP) (- disturbance-to-process gain ratio) [=] % / %
Lead = P (process time constant) [=] minutes
Lag = D (disturbance time constant) [=] minutes
Both the disturbance and process gains must be on a percent of span basis to put
the feedforward controller gain on a dimensionless basis (%/%).
Feedforward Control Design Example

We will illustrate all the steps required to design a feedforward controller for a
process furnace. As mentioned earlier, the feedforward adjustment is most effective
when it changes a controller set point rather than a control valve position because of
linearity considerations.
Consider the following furnace temperature feedforward control system
(Figure 300-56).
Fig. 300-56 PCD Furnace Feedback+Feedforward Control
Feed Rate
Furnace
FI
Furnace
Outlet
Temperature
Feed Rate
Transmitter
Feed
Stream
Temperature
Transmitter
Burners
FY
Feedforward
"Controller"
Temperature
Setpoint
TC
F(t)
Temperature
Comtroller
Control Valve
6
FC
Fuel Gas Flow

Transmitter
FY
Summer
Fuel Gas
Flow Controller
PI
340
Fuel Gas
Supply
Manipulated Variable Response. In order to design a feedforward controller, we

need to determine how the furnace outlet temperature responds to a change in the
manipulated variable (fuel gas flow) and to the disturbance (furnace feed rate). We
first break the TC-FC cascade and make a small step change in the fuel gas flow
controller setpoint.
The following plot (Figure 300-57) shows the results of step testing the process
(manipulated variable response):
300-63
December 2003
300 Process Control
Fig. 300-57 Manipulated-Variable Response
Temperature
Measurement
(%)
341
Temperature
Controller
Output (%)
0
Time, minutes
We can use either of the two methods described earlier to fit this response to a firstorder plus dead time model.
For the above manipulated variable response data, the model parameters are found
to be as follows:
KP = 6.0 %/% (effective process gain)
P = 1.2 minutes (effective process time constant)
P = 1.0 minutes (effective process dead time)
Disturbance Variable Response. Furnace feed rate is the disturbance we want to
compensate for with feedforward control. We need to either wait for a change to
occur naturally or deliberately make a change (Figure 300-58).
Fig. 300-58 Disturbance Response
Temperature
Measurement
(%)
342
Feed Rate
Measurement
(%)
0
Time, minutes
This is called the disturbance variable response.
December 2003
300-64
300 Process Control
Again, we can fit the response to a first-order lag plus dead time model. For the
above response disturbance response data, the model parameters are found to be as
follows:
KD = -12.3 %/% (disturbance gain)
D = 0.52 minutes (disturbance time constant)
D = 2.0 minutes (disturbance dead time)
Feedforward Controller Design. The required feedforward controller (compensator) is a lead-lag and dead time function in series. The feedforward controller
dead time parameter is as follows.
(D - P) = 2.0 - 1.0 = 1.0 minutes.
The feedforward controller lead-lag function parameters are as follows:
KLL = -(KD/KP) = -(-12.3/6.0) = 2.05 (%/%)
Lead = P = 1.2 minutes
Lag = D = 0.52 minutes
Feedforward Controller Performance. Figure 300-59 shows the response of the
furnace temperature feedback plus feedforward control system to a step disturbance
in feed rate and then to a setpoint change.
Fig. 300-59 Furnace Feedforward Control Performance
Furnace Outlet Temperature, DegF
Temp Controller Setpoint, DegF
525.0
525.0
512.5
512.5
500.0
500.0
487.5
487.5
475.0
475.0
0.0
7.0
14.0
21.0
Time, Minutes
Fuel Gas Flowrate, MSCFH
346
28.0
35.0
Furnace Feedrate, MBD
105.5
65.0
87.5
55.0
70.0
45.0
52.5
35.0
35.0
25.0
0.0
7.0
14.0
21.0
Time, Minutes
300-65
28.0
35.0
December 2003
300 Process Control
The feedforward controllers dead time plus lead lag response to the feed rate disturbance is clearly evident in the plot. A derivative spike does not occur with the
setpoint change because of the PID option chosen (derivative on measurement).
Figure 300-60 shows how well the fuel gas flow controller is able to track the feedforward controllers lead-lag command signal.
Fig. 300-60 Fuel Gas FC Response to Lead Lag Command
Fuel Gas Flow Controller SP, MSCFH
Fuel Gas Flowrate, MSCFH
347
105.5
105.0
95.0
95.0
85.0
85.0
75.0
75.0
65.0
65.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
Time, Minutes
The lags in the flow control loop do not allow perfect tracking. But recall that the
closed-loop dynamics of the secondary controller (the fuel gas flow controller) were
included in the overall process dynamics.
Feedforward Controller Fine-Tuning

It will always be necessary to fine-tune any calculated tuning constants in the field.
The feedforward controller should be fine-tuned with the feedback controller in
manual. First adjust the feed forward controller gain so that the controlled variable
returns to the setpoint after a disturbance (Figure 300-61).
Fig. 300-61 Adjust Feedforward Gain
Controlled
Variable
348
Disturbance
0
Time
Then adjust the dead time and lead-lag parameters to minimize deviations from the
setpoint (Figure 300-62).
December 2003
300-66
300 Process Control
Fig. 300-62 Adjust Feedforward Dynamics
Controlled
Variable
349
Disturbance
0
Time
Then feedback controller should be tuned with the feedforward controller in

manual. Use any appropriate tuning method.
350 Control Objectives Analysis (COA)

351 Summary
The COA process is a proven methodology for gathering the necessary information
to ensure that a process control system will meet the plant objectives for optimal
performance. The COA process is widely accepted within ChevronTexaco as a best
practice. Benefits include:
Provides a sound basis for the control design
Less re-work
Improved ownership and buy-in by the operators
Project is more likely to meet managements expectations
COA sessions are typically held in the early stages of a new plant construction
project or before a re-instrumentation or advanced control project to develop a
sound basis for the control design. For new projects, the Control Objective Analysis
(COA) is best done when Process Flow Diagrams are finalized and the P&IDs are in
early development. Often the COA will impact the P&IDs so its good to perform
the COA early in the P&ID development phase. COAs are often performed during
late CPDEP Phase 2 or early Phase 3. CPDEP (ChevronTexaco Project Development and Execution Process) is ChevronTexaco's process for conducting projects.
The Control Objectives Analysis (COA) technique serves as a Quality Improvement method for process operations. The COA meetings provide a forum for
collecting all relevant information on opportunities to improve plant performance. A
snapshot of the current process control related opportunities are documented in the
form of prioritized lists. Each of these lists is then assigned to a different group
(process engineering/designs engineering/maintenance/operations) for follow up.
300-67
December 2003
300 Process Control
The COA participants form a Quality Improvement team. The COA team is
comprised of operators the people who know the process and are directly
involved in the work. Engineers and plant supervisors supplement the team on an
equal ranking basis.
The COA technique, through the defining of control objectives, analyzes the operators work process, provides a better understanding of why things are done, and
empowers the operators to get further involved in improving their work.
The COA process can be applied to any continuous process. Within
ChevronTexaco, it has been used in the refining, chemicals production, and
upstream processing facilities.
352 COA Products

The COA products are in the form of objective statements and prioritized opportunity lists. The COA process is not a problem-solving meeting. The goal is to identify opportunities for further study. Each of the lists is assigned to a different group
(process engineering/designs engineering/maintenance/operations) for follow up.
The COA products are:
December 2003
Overall Process Control Objective The overall process objective consists of

two parts. The first part defines why the process is run. A second part describes
how the process is run. e.g., safely, efficiently, economically, reliably, and in an
environmentally sound manner.
Individual Process Control Objectives There are as many individual objectives as there are control valves. Note: A valve is a discussion focal point to
talk about the process. A control objective does not have to be identified with a
specific valve. The COA discussion should attempt to develop objectives that
are clear, concise and true all the time. (Although in practicality, it is realized
that there may be times that this is not possible.) An example control objective might be: Control the flow to R-100 at the operator Setpoint. Detailed
control strategy design is beyond the scope of the COA process. ChevronTexaco uses a process called Control Design Analysis or CDA for developing detailed control strategies.
Current equipment is identified for each control objective. An example of

current equipment could be: 3" Fail closed Fisher ED control valve. Honeywell
smart transmitter. Honeywell TDC Flow controller, FC100. Control valve
appears to stick.
List of Identified Process Upsets Typical upsets are: feed rate/composition/temperature changes, feed contamination, utility changes (fuel BTUs, fuel
availability, steam pressure, cooling water temperature), and downstream
restrictions/requirements. The frequency and process impact of these disturbances are identified.
List of Identified Process Constraints Typical constraints are capacity limitations on the following equipment: overhead condensers, reboilers/furnaces,
compressors/blowers, hydraulics (pumps, lines, valves), and tray loading. The
300-68
300 Process Control
constraints define the de-bottlenecking opportunities. Product specification

limits, environmental limits, and conversion goals can also be defined as
process constraints.
List of Technical Opportunities Generalized examples: perform economic

studies for determining the ideal operating point for individual unit operations
(distillation columns, reactors, absorber/strippers), determine the basis for the
existing guidelines and limits, decide the cost savings of running in a blocked
operation vs. a continuous operation, investigate the feasibility of installing
new process equipment, investigate the feasibility of an alternative processing
scheme, investigate the impact of modifications to the current product specifications, and define the costs associated with de-bottlenecking (see the previous
List of Identified Process Constraints).
List of Instrumentation Opportunities Typical items: add new sensors,

convert field valves to remote control valves, change the service/control pairing
of existing controllers, and move sensors to a better location. The justification
for these additions fall into three categories: improved process performance,
required for advanced control, and increased operator efficiency. This list
provides a basis for fine tuning the input/output count for the DCS system.
Analyzers are discussed separately on the List of On-line Analyzer Opportunities.
List of Maintenance Opportunities Typical items that will allow a higher

percentage of control loops to run in automatic: fix/calibrate sensors, replace
inadequately sized valves or valve trim, repair sticky or leaky valves, replace
valve packing, fix valve positioners, unplug valves/lines/equipment, redesign
analyzer sample system, retune loops.
List of Operations Opportunities Typical items include: institute a plant

constraint log, post the plant overall objective in the control room, incorporate
the COA results into the operator training program, investigate the feasibility of
new processing schemes or new modes of operations discussed during the
COA.
List of Advanced Control Opportunities A generalized list includes: maximize plant throughput, maximize upgrade/conversion/severity, and balance
performance in parallel equipment, control product specifications, smooth plant
operations, minimize column pressure, and minimize energy requirements.
List of On-line Analyzer Opportunities Justification for on-line analyzers

falls into three categories: smarter operations due to increased feed characterization knowledge, improved process efficiency, and tighter product specification control.
List of Future Considerations This list contains information on proposed or

anticipated process or regulatory changes that may impact the process objectives. These items are considerations to be addressed at a future COA. The realization of any of these conditions would trigger the need for revising the COA.
300-69
December 2003
300 Process Control
353 COA Participants

For existing plants, the COA participants should include of the following:
Two or three operators from different crews Its important to have several
operators so that its evident that its an operator focused meeting and so that
the operators can bounce their thoughts off each other. The selected operators
should have strong process knowledge and good communications skills.
A shift supervisor from a crew not represented above that has had operating
experience on the process.
The process unit process engineer/facility engineer
A process control engineer/automation specialist
An outside moderator The outside moderator should be an experienced

control engineer.
For new plant construction projects, the COA participants would be modified to
include the operations representative, I&E project manager, as well as engineering
contractor representatives.
The control engineer and moderator can alternate between facilitating and taking
notes. It is important that the words used during the COA process be captured as
stated so that the operators recognize the work as their own.
Other optional participants may include: process unit operating assistant or section
supervisor, corporate process expert, designs engineer, planner. Note: The optional
participants need to understand their limited role and not hinder full participation by
the operating people. For effective group dynamics, the maximum COA size is
about eight people.
360 Advanced Control

361 Overview
As practiced today, advanced control is based on multivariable model-predictive
control (MPC) technology. MPC is a generic term for a class of advanced control
techniques that were developed in industry in the late 70s and early 80s. Some
names associated with MPC include DMC, DMCplus, RMPCT, Process Perfector,
SMOC, Connoisseur, QDMC, SMCA, IDCOM and PC. This technology is also
known as multi-variable control (MVC).
MPC is recommended for most large continuous processes. Note that MPC should
be implemented only after a plant has been commissioned, is running smoothly, and
the operators are fully trained and comfortable with the operation.
Key features of MPC technology are listed below:
December 2003
Advanced control is layered above the basic control.
300-70
300 Process Control
The controller contains specific dynamic response information about the plant
obtained through plant testing.
The controller is multivariable and makes simultaneous adjustments to several

setpoints or valve positions to regulate the unit. Typical processing speed is
once per minute.
The controller is predictive and accounts for the impact of past moves. The
predictions are updated after each processing cycle with actual measured
values.
Constraints are defined for all manipulated and controlled variables. The
controller is not allowed to make moves that exceed the limits on the manipulated variables. The controller adjusts the process to ensure that all controlled
variables stay within their limits both now and in the future.
The controller includes an optimization capability that drives the process to a

better operating point. The optimizer uses a steady state process model and
weighting factors that represent economics in order to maximize unit profit (or
minimize cost). Most optimizers are linear program (LP) based with optional
quadratic program (QP) terms.
Constrained, multivariable, model-predictive control is especially effective on

tough control problems which involve, for example:
Large numbers of manipulated and constraint/control variables
Interaction between variables
Large dead times or unusual dynamics
Non-square systems (more inputs than outputs or visa versa)
Changing control objectives
Definitions of Terms used in Model Predictive Control

Manipulated Variables (MVs) are the handles which MPC can adjust (within
limits) to control the process. Usually these are setpoints to simple control loops that
exist in the DCS system. Occasionally the control loops are opened and MPC
adjusts the controller outputs (valve positions); this is done when it is judged that
MPC can provide better control than the DCS loop can.
Disturbance (or Feedforward) Variables (DVs) are the process variables that have
an effect on the process but cannot be manipulated by the MPC controller. Simple
examples include ambient temperature and cooling water temperature.
Controlled Variables, also known as Constraint Variables (CVs) are variables that
respond to changes in the independent variables (MVs and DVs) but cannot be
manipulated directly by the controller. MPC controlled/constraint variables can be
controlled either to a fixed value (or Setpoint) or within operator entered limits.
300-71
December 2003
300 Process Control
LP Targets or Steady-State Targets (SS Target) are the values that the MPC wants to
move the plant to. A linear program, or LP, calculates the targets each time the
controller does a calculation cycle.
Basic Idea of Model Predictive Control

Figure 300-63 illustrates the basic idea of multivariable model predictive control
(MPC). The chart plots both the manipulated variables (MV) and the
controlled/constraint variables (CV). To the left of the vertical line represents the
past, and to the right, is the future.
Fig. 300-63 Basic Idea of MPC
352
Past
Future
Targets (LP)
with Future MV Moves
Predicted CVs
without Future MV Moves
Planned Future
MV Moves
k k+1 k+2
k+p
Prediction Horizon (Time)
A process model, which is determined from step testing, is used to project the future
value of the controlled variables. Given the past history of the manipulated and
controlled/constraint variables, the controller can use the model to predict the future
CV values.
An embedded linear program (LP) is part of the MPC controller and is used to
determine optimal targets for the controlled and constraint variables. At any given
time, k, the controller has knowledge of all the past manipulated variable moves and
the past values of the controlled variables. It then can calculate an optimal series of
future manipulated variable moves which will bring the controlled/constraint variables up to the LP targets
After one time step has passed the controller takes the actual control variable
measurements and compares them with the predicted values. The difference is
added as bias to future predictions. This feedback action brings robustness to the
control algorithm.
December 2003
300-72
300 Process Control
Flexibility in Operating Objectives

MPC is very flexible in terms of its operating objective. The economic drivers built
into the algorithm assure the plant is always operating in the most economically
advantageous state. The benefits of model predictive control (e.g. DMCplus or
RMPCT) fall in two main areas:
1.
Reduced process variability and reduced chance of incidents. A reduction in

product spec variation will allow the increase of product rates up to the limit.
2.
The process runs at a better operating point. For example, if the MPC objective
is to maximize feed, the controller will increase feed to the plant up to multiple
simultaneous limits.
Safe operation is enhanced. Constraints are defined on critical variables such as

valve positions, column loading, compressor inter-stage pressure, etc.
An additional benefit is that there now is a consistent operating strategy from crewto-crew. The process no longer needs to go through major changes each time a new
crew comes on shift.
For those cases where product differentials are low, MPC will truly minimize
energy costs. For most cases, however, MPC will use energy in the most efficient
manner.
Examples of MPC Performance

Several examples are now presented which illustrate how model predictive control
can improve process performance (and the bottom line). The examples presented
below used AspenTechs DMC software, but the performance results can be considered typical of MPC in general.
In Figure 300-64, DMC pushes an FCC wet gas compressor inter-stage pressure to
its upper limit, thereby allowing increased plant throughput.
Figure 300-65 shows how DMC improved excess O2 control in an FCC regenerator, thereby contributing to increased catalyst circulation.
The final example (Figure 300-66) shows how DMC was able to increase heavy
conversion in an FCC at night as the air temperature dropped.
300-73
December 2003
300 Process Control
Fig. 300-64 Pushes Interstage Pressure
353
DMC OFF
DMC ON
Upper
Limit
Compressor
Interstage
Pressure
01:32
04:37
07:41
10:46
13:50
16:55
19:59
18.5 hrs of 1 hr Averages
Fig. 300-65 Improves Excess O2 Control
354
DMC OFF
DMC ON
Lower
Limit
Regenerator
Excess O2
21:52
05:53
13:53
21:53
05:54
13:54
21:54
2.0 days of 1 hr Averages
December 2003
300-74
300 Process Control
Fig. 300-66 Increases Heavy Conversion
DMC ON
355
Day-to-Night
Temperature Variation
Heavy
Conversion
08/30
08/31
09/01
09/02
09/03
09/04
09/05
09/06
1 week of 1 hr Averages
362 Steps in MPC Implementation

Overview
MPC implementation follows a very well defined path which is essentially the same
for any process facility (Figure 300-67).
Fig. 300-67 DMC Project Flow Chart
Develop Operator Displays
& DCS Data Base
Project
Scope &
Objectives
Select / Install
Analyzers &
Inferentials
Develop
LP
Economics
Tune Controllers
Repair Valves
Add Instruments
Install
Additional
Inferentials
Plant
Pre-Test
Plant
Test
Analyze Data &

Build Dynamic
Model
Build/Test
Controller
Offline
356
Commission
Controller
LongTerm
Support
Training & Operator Involvement
300-75
December 2003
300 Process Control
Since some sites do not have experienced MPC engineers, MPC projects are often
led by either the MPC vendor or a third party contractor who performs MPC project
work. Within US Refining, MPC projects are being increasingly done by experience ChevronTexaco engineers without the assistance of outside project consultants.
Typical MPC project activities include pre-testing, testing, model identification,
development of inferential measurements, controller building and off-line tuning,
and commissioning. Project duration would typically be 6 to 9 months. If an outside
MPC contractor is used, he or she would be on site for pre-testing, testing, commissioning. Data analysis, model identification, inferential measurement development,
controller building and off-line tuning can be done at the contractors offices. The
control engineer/technician who will be responsible for maintaining the MPC
system should participate in all of these activities to the extent practical. This participation by the control engineer will enhance his/her ability to support the MPC
application in the future.
A ChevronTexaco experienced Control Engineer should be assigned to the MPC
project. Preferably this person would come from the plant site. However, if a person
with the right skills is not available, an experienced engineer from the central
process control group in Richmond could serve in that role.
Operator proprietorship in the finished product is also crucial to the success of the
project, so an operations representative should be involved in the project. The Operations representative will help to define the design objectives for the MPC
controller. Also, the Operations representative will assist with operator training and
help to promote understanding of the MPC application.
Project Scope and Objectives

A preliminary MPC scope can be determined during the control objectives analysis
(COA). The design for the advanced controls involves considerable discussion with
plant operations and technical personnel.
The list of manipulated variables (MVs) should include all the significant
handles that the operator uses.
The controlled/constraint variable (CV) list must include all the product specifications as well as all of the constraints that may limit the operation at one time
or another during the course of the run.
The disturbance variables (DVs) should include all those disturbances that can
be measured and that have a significant impact on the process.
A final design cannot be completed without some plant testing to determine actual
plant constraints. It should be expected that the list of manipulated, disturbance, and
controlled/constraint variables will be revised/updated after plant testing has been
completed.
Pros and Cons for Large MPC Controller Size

MPC controllers are often quite large because of the extensive heat integration and
interaction between sections of a plant. The large scope ensures that all significant
December 2003
300-76
300 Process Control
constraints are available to the controller and that all the interactions can be effectively dealt with.
However, large MPC controllers are harder for the operator to understand and
harder for the control engineer to maintain. One must balance the benefits gained
from the larger scope against the added complexity.
Controllers with less than 10 MVs are considered small. Controllers with 10 to 20
MVs are considered medium size. Any controller with more than 20 MVs is considered large.
Analyzers and Inferentials

Typically, analyzers and/or inferential measurements (soft sensors) will be
required for MPC projects. Well-designed and maintained on-stream analyzers are
always preferred over inferential measurements for accuracy. However, because of
their generally high cost and difficulty of providing the manpower and infrastructure necessary to keep them running at their best, inferential measurements are often
substituted.
Inferential measurements are used to predict product qualities, such as jet flash point
or diesel 90% point. They are based on correlations with simple, reliable process
measurements like temperatures, pressures, and flows.
ChevronTexaco plant personnel have typically developed these inferentials themselves from process and laboratory data; vendors such as AspenTech have been used
with success. Some product qualities are difficult to infer, especially those intrinsically related to composition, such as freeze point, cloud point, or lube viscosity.
Crude feed composition changes also complicate the picture.
Synchronizing the online analyzer or inferential to the time that a lab sample is
taken is crucial. Obtaining an accurate time stamp on each sample as it is taken is
essential because then the lab results can be compared to how the unit was operating at the same time. Since inferential measurements are based on steady-state
data, it is impossible to get any useful lab information if the unit is not stable.
There are a number of third party inferential analyzer packages (such as AspenIQ by
AspenTech) that assist the development of these soft sensors.
Plant Pre-Test
The objectives of the MPC pre-test are to:
Verify the preliminary controller design
Identify instrumentation problems and missing measurements
Ensure the data collection system is gathering all the necessary data and storing
it properly
Ensure that the regulatory controllers are tuned well and configured properly
Ensure that the control valves are working properly
300-77
December 2003
300 Process Control
Determine typical move sizes for the MVs
Identify information required for the LP cost calculation
Estimate the time to steady-state
Familiarize the MPC implementation team with the plant
Below are some examples of the things one must look for in the pre-test.
Each of the controllers in the MPC scope must be examined for tuning and robustness. In addition, because of the interaction between controllers, one should
examine controllers outside of the MPC scope as well. The dynamics of these loops
will also impact the MPC models.
Much of the work of the pre-test involves improving the tuning of controllers, as
required. But it is also sometimes necessary to re-configure some of the loops for
better performance. For example:
Use a variable gain option on the control algorithm to account for gain differences in split range valves (vent and natural gas makeup).
Add fuel gas flow pressure, temperature, and specific gravity compensation for
a fuel gas flow.
Replace a flow controller with a duty controller to break the interaction with
another section of the plant.
Here are examples of instrumentation and control valve problems:
Improperly calibrated flow transmitter
Control valve bypasses that are open
Faulty or non-existent control valve positioner
Excessive non-linearity, stiction or hysteresis in a control valve
New instruments may need to be added to support 1) new constraints that have been
identified, or 2) improved control configurations that are required:
Install a new TI to implement a duty controller
Install a new TI to support an inferential measurement
Add a column delta-P measurement to detect flooding
The MPC design may indicate need for a number of calculated variables and hence,
tags will need to be created and added to the data collection.
Note that by simply plotting controller output versus flow rate for all key control
valves as they respond to set point changes and disturbances during the testing, will
give a quick indication of the need for linearizing valve transformations. More
focused testing can then be scheduled for suspect valves.
December 2003
300-78
300 Process Control
It is best to linearize the valve in the DCS loop itself rather than in the MPC. This
improves DCS loop performance and eliminates the need to re-tune the controller as
the operation changes.
Plant Test
General. The key to developing a good MPC model is a good plant test. There are
many things that can go wrong in a plant test that can invalidate some or all of the
data. For example, control valves can saturate, large unmeasured disturbances can
enter the system, atypical events can occur, etc. Therefore, it is crucial to do everything possible to ensure the quality of the data.
A good practice is to take data for all variables (tags) in the plant even if theyre not
in the original controller scope. New plant constraints may reveal themselves during
the testing that need to be included in the controllers list of CVs. It is less of a
disruption to operations if the new model can be identified from existing data, rather
than having to go back and repeat part of the plant test.
Typically, 10-15 moves in each MV are targeted for the plant test. It is helpful to
keep a running record of the number good moves for each MV to aid in monitoring the progress of the test. Occasionally, moves have to be rejected because of
control valve saturation, controllers in the wrong mode, major plant upsets, etc.
Various vendor packages are available to partially automate/facilitate the step
testing process. These automated step testing packages can reduce project costs by
reducing the time spent during the plant test.
For, example, Honeywell has a product called the Step Test Builder (unofficially
known as the Robo-Tester). It has two parts:
Signal Generator (an offline PC Tool); includes PRBS (Pseudo-Random Binary

Sequence), ramps, filtered signals, etc.
Automated Step Tester (online software to run the signal sequence)
A display schematic shows the sequence graphically, and allows the amplitude to be
changed, the execution started/stopped, etc.
AspenTech has a product called SmartStep which works with DMC. Unlike other
automated step test packages, SmartStep is best suited for project revamps as it
conducts step testing with a DMC controller in closed loop. Special logic is
employed to enforce manipulated variable limits while keeping the controlled variables within their prescribed limits. SmartStep ensures the dataset contains sufficient MV moves at all frequencies (low, medium and high) to ensure good test data
for the model identification.
SmartStep also has some special features that can be used during the pretest to identify sticky valves and to develop data for model-based PID loop tuning.
Analyze Data and Build Dynamic Model. Analyzing step test data and building
the MPC model requires skill and experience. The step test data is analyzed with a
model identification software package such as AspenTechs DMCplus Model.
300-79
December 2003
300 Process Control
The first step in the process is to carefully analyze the step response data (vector
files) for problems such as control valve saturation, data dropout, unchanging regulatory controller outputs (indicating the controller was put in manual), etc. That
portion of the data must be manually marked bad (sliced out). For major problems affecting all the data, global slices can be used. Sliced out data is not used
for the analysis. The software is then used to generate model curves similar to that
in Figure 300-68 below:
Fig. 300-68 Sample Model Curves
Selecting Model Curves. The engineer will select a curve from this figure to use in
the final MPC model. Typically, the engineer will pick the curve with the shortest
time-to-steady-state where the steady state has been reached. Each curve used in the
final model can have a different TSS. When building the overall controller model,
the shorter curves will automatically be extended.
For Disturbance Variables (DVs), choose curve with lowest gain (other factors
being equal). Otherwise the MPC controller would predict too much CV movement
and move the MVs excessively for control.
For Manipulated Variables (MVs), choose curve with highest gain (other factors
being equal). The MPC controller will plan MV moves based on the models high
gain and so the controller will be less likely to overshoot.
In the response above, the CV comes to steady-state about 50 minutes after the MV
step is introduced.
Figure 300-69 shows another example of the MV-CV step response model. In this
case the CV does not come to steady-state, and is known as a ramp or integrating variable. Levels often respond in this manner.
December 2003
300-80
300 Process Control
Fig. 300-69 MV-CV Response Model Example
The Dynamic Matrix. Step response models are developed for each MV - CV pair.
In addition the step response models for each measured disturbances are identified
(DV - CV). All the significant models are assembled into the dynamic matrix. A
typical example of a complete controller model is shown in Figure 300-70.
Fig. 300-70 Example of a Complete Controller Model
The above plot (an AspenTech DMC model) is arranged with the
controlled/constraint variables (CV) listed across the top and the manipulated vari-
300-81
December 2003
300 Process Control
ables (MV) and disturbance variables (DV) listed vertically on the left. Honeywell
RMPCT models are arranged with the MVs across the top and the CVs vertically.
When deciding whether or not to include particular response curves, be sure to scale
the response plots with typical moves. Note that if the typical move value for a
particular MV or DV is set too low, the response curves for that variable will seem
insignificant.
Singularities in Matrices. The gain matrix must be checked for a condition called
near-singularity using singular value decomposition (SVD). If one observes an LP
target switching back and forth between and high and low limit, this may indicate a
problem with a near-singularity. Matrices should be analyzed for near singularity
before commissioning the MPC on line.
MVs with similar effects on a CV can cause problems from a matrix inversion point
of view, as in pass balancing, for example. In that case it is necessary to manually
make the gains exactly the same so the LP will not trade off small differences.
Singular value decomposition is a mathematical technique that decomposes a matrix
G into three others, typically referred to in the literature as U S and V matrixes
G = UV
(Eq. 300-60)
The diagonal matrix contains the singular values where the condition number of
the matrix is the ratio of the highest singular value to the lowest. A condition
number of infinity means that the matrix is exactly co-linear.
In control engineering MPC terms, this means that there could be a substantial
difference in MV movement from one LP optimum to the next, depending on what
happens to move the LP solution. Events that can cause this to occur are model gain
changes, LP cost changes and variables switched in and out of the controller.
A plot of MV movement from one solution point to another vs. the condition
number for several 2 by 2 matrixes is shown in Figure 300-71.
Fig. 300-71 MV Movement
200
R = 0.9779
MV Movement
150
100
50
Condition 50
100
As shown, the magnitude of the change in MV correlates closely to the condition

number of the matrixes. Careful analysis of model gains should be carried out to
eliminate large MV movement caused by such singularities. These typically occur
December 2003
300-82
300 Process Control
in parallel processes (e.g. two feed trains) or similar manipulated variables (e.g.
furnace fuel gas and fuel oil).
The whole area of the effect of ill-conditioned matrices on the performance of MPC
has only recently been fully recognized. Dealing with this issue is crucial to the
success of the controller.
Sometimes it is advisable not to include certain curves in the dynamic matrix model.
For example, to prevent the LP from finding a solution that is undesirable from a
process standpoint, or to prevent the controller from using a particular MV for
controlling a particular CV.
Develop DMC LP Economics

A linear program (LP) based on the economics of the operation is solved each time
the MPC controller runs. The steady state solution from the linear program is given
to the dynamic part of the controller as targets for execution.
In many cases, the cost factors required by the LP can be determined solely from
steady state gain information identified from plant test data. However, if product
yield and property data is not available from the plant test, an off-line engineering
model can be used instead. Refer to the following article published in the open literature: LP Integrates Economics into Dynamic Matrix Control, by R. C. Sorensen
and C. R. Cutler, Hydrocarbon Processing, September 1998.
Rigorous LP cost calculations should be the standard for any project. It is understood that some of the LP cost factors will be changed for practical reasons, but it is
essential to establish a sound basis.
To facilitate the control engineers job of keeping the cost factors up to date, the
calculations should be done in a well-organized spreadsheet. The documentation
should include a detailed explanation of the calculation method and assumptions,
and provide an analysis of the results.
Build Controller and Test Offline

The MPC Engineer will simulate the application off-line before commissioning the
on-line controller. The engineer tests out the performance of the LP solution (i.e.
behavior of the LP Targets) as well as the dynamic behavior of the MVs. Only after
thorough simulation testing of the controller does the engineer commission the online controller.
It is during this phase of the MPC project that the design of the controller is 95%
finalized. Typically, there are final small changes made to the controller during the
commissioning.
Commission Controller
Initially, MPC is turned on in the prediction-only mode no control moves are
sent to the field, but trends of the planned future moves are available. After evaluation by the project team and given the go-ahead by operations, commissioning can
begin.
300-83
December 2003
300 Process Control
Formal advanced control training must be given to each MPC user prior to commissioning. It must be tailored to their needs. It should not be given too early or key
information might be forgotten. The training manuals and documentation should be
reviewed and accepted by Operations before the formal training commences.
Training and Support Issues

Each site needs to consider its support structure for the MPC application. Typically,
the site control engineer who worked on the project, will spend from one hour to 4
hours per day supporting the new MPC application. The control engineer would
work with the console operator and Process Engineer to make sure the MPC is
achieving its design objectives.
Special skills and experience must be developed for site engineer to become proficient with MPC applications. Planning for basic training on the software and toolset
is essential.
On-line times for the advanced controls should be made critical success factors
(CSF) for management. Operations and Control Engineers should share the responsibility to keep the on-line time high.
If the skill level of on-site personnel is not high enough, consider establishing a
long-term support contract with the MPC vendor or with a third-party MPC implementer. Typically, there would be an onsite and remote monitoring component to the
support arrangement. In some cases, the support engineer may wish to establish a
network connection (view only) to the site and monitor/troubleshoot the MPC applications. Recommended tuning changes or other fixes would be made by the on-site
support personnel for implementation. Additionally, there might be quarterly visits
to the site for more complicated troubleshooting and to provide on the job training
for the local support staff.
Spending time on day to day MPC maintenance is a necessity and it does affect the
time available to do new control projects. However, adding advanced controls to
every unit is neither practical nor effective. The emphasis for day to day maintenance must be placed on those units with significant benefits. Spending time maintaining APC for units with little benefit only takes time away from the more
profitable ones.
Post Audits. MPC applications require periodic audits. The audit identifies if there
has been a change in the models used by the MPC. In addition, the audit will identify instrumentation problems affecting MPC performance. Based on the results of
the audit, a new step test may be warranted.
Tracking Benefits/Online Times. The APC group should develop a method for
clearly communicating the day-to-day benefits being generated by the advanced
controls. Usually, this is no more than an on-line report, since it is often difficult to
keep the economic data up to date on a daily basis.
There is no defined method for how the report should be distributed, however it is
important that a method be adopted that is easy for management to use and understand. Some refineries use their refinery information system (RIS) with a dedicated
page that shows on-line times for easy access; others use a one-page hardcopy
December 2003
300-84
300 Process Control
summary. Whichever method is used, a copy should be issued in operations weekly

report to management.
An improvement to just measuring on line time of advanced controls as a measure
of APC effectiveness is to develop some performance metrics. Typical metrics that
are being employed by some plants are:
% Weighted online time an online time percentage figure weighted to reflect

the relative values of the variables manipulated by the scheme.
%MV Free the percentage of MVs not at constraints. This is an indication

the controller can move MVs to achieve the CV objectives.
% of max based on limits a measure of the benefits attained if the controls

were operating at their limits 100% of the time.
% of max achieved a measure of the benefits actually achieved.
Maximum potential ($) a measure of benefits achievable based on the difference between a baseline condition without advanced control and a stretch goal.
Technology. Standardizing on a single APC vendors technology for a substantial

period of time is recommended. There are many benefits in the areas of training,
consistency of approach, sharing of applications knowledge, level of understanding,
etc. One must constantly evaluate new technology for improvements in features,
ease of use and support, but only switch when the benefits clearly outweigh the very
real costs of switching.
Operations Involvement. Operators, area superintendents, and all unit engineers
must be given job-specific training in order to make effective use of the advanced
controls.
There should be a clear understanding of APC ownership for keeping the controls
on line. In general, ownership should belong to operations and the APC group
should be responsible for maintaining the advanced controls. If on-line times are
made a critical success factor for management, and/or part of the refinery's incentive program, then the unit engineer and operation's management will have a greater
interest in keeping the advanced controls on.
Operator Training. Typical operator training is 4 to 6 hours of classroom instruction on MPC concepts, followed by 2 hours of unit specific training at the control
console. In addition, CBT DMC training will be available over the ChevronTexaco
network beginning in 2004. Similar training has not yet been developed for
RMPCT.
Several ChevronTexaco sites have used a Honeywell TDC based DMC training
simulation on a generic distillation column. This has proved to be very effective in
teaching basic DMC concepts.
300-85
December 2003
300 Process Control
363 MPC Technology Vendors

The following companies represent the state of the art of linear model predictive
control technology:
AspenTech DMCplus (Dynamic Matrix Control)
Honeywell RMPCT (Robust Multivariable Predictive Control Technology)
Shell Global Solutions SMOC-II (Shell Multivariable Optimizing Control)
Invensys Connoisseur (Control and Identification Package)
Adersa HIECON and PFC (Hierarchical Constraint Control and Predictive

Functional Control)
ChevronTexaco facilities have used AspenTechs DMCplus and Honeywells

RMPCT extensively; both are highly recommended. DMCplus is independent of the
DCS being used. Within ChevronTexaco, AspenTechs DMCplus has been used
with Honeywell, Yokogawa and Invensys/Foxboro systems. ChevronTexacos applications of Honeywells RMPCT have been on the Honeywell DCS. Most vendors
are in the process of making their offerings OPC compliant so they can be used on
any DCS.
Implementation work within ChevronTexaco typically has been either contracted to
the MPC software vendor (AspenTech or Honeywell) or to a third-party implementer (e.g., Control Consulting, Inc. www.controlconsulting.com). As local
skills have developed, more and more implementations have been completed internally, with only a small amount of outside consulting.
364 ChevronTexacos Use of Advanced Control

Most major process units throughout refining and chemicals (CPCC) use model
predictive control (MPC). Most applications have used either the AspenTech
DMCplus or Honeywell RMPCT software packages.
There are several examples of successful upstream MPC projects. For example, the
Carter Creek gas plant has implemented AspenTechs DMCplus, and the Woodside
facility (Australia) has used Honeywells RMPCT.
There are also numerous upstream projects that are planning for advanced control.
Plant Test Case Study: Cat Reformer DMC Project. The plant test is often a
journey of discovery revealing aspects of the process that were not originally
envisioned in the preliminary DMC design. Here is an example from a two-stage
catalytic reformer DMC project. The original scope was to put DMC on the second
stage (reactors, furnaces, and stabilizer) where one of the primary control objectives was to maximize feed rate.
During plant testing it became apparent that the first stage would have a significant
impact on the ability to meet that objective. At the time the original scope was
established, the first stage was not a constraint to throughput. However, between the
time of initial scoping and the plant test, the first-stage reactor pressure drop had
December 2003
300-86
300 Process Control
increased significantly, and the first stage had clearly become the limit to second
stage throughput.
All of the relevant loops from the first stage could have been added to the original
scope, but it became evident that first-stage feed control valve capacity was the
constraint. Thus, the increased DMC scope was limited to the feed valve. This ultimately worked, but two show-stopping problems had to be surmounted:
1.
Valve non-linearity
2.
Disturbance magnification from the existing regulatory loops.
The first problem was easily handled with a standard valve transformation. See
Figure 300-72. A linearized first-stage flow control valve position was used as a
constraint in DMC. The valve had to be linearized because it normally operated in
the range of 90 -99% open and the flow/valve characteristics were nonlinear. An
abnormally high pressure drop in the first stage reactor due to plugging contributed
to the valve operating in the 90 -99% region.
Fig. 300-72 Trend Valve Transformation
'Flowrate
Linearized VP
800
100
(Valve Gain is Linear with Flow)
357
95
2 Hrs
By linearizing the valve response, it was possible to develop a better model between
the flow controller setpoint and valve position. As a result, DMC performed better.
Linearizing this valve position allowed DMC to push more flow through the unit.
The second problem required some creative re-structuring of the regulatory loops
controlling the levels in the plant. The original regulatory control scheme is shown
in Figure 300-73.
300-87
December 2003
300 Process Control
Fig. 300-73 Pre-DMC First Stage Level Control Configuration
LC
1
To & From
Furnaces and
Reactor
Feed
Decoupler
358
LC
2
FC
"Level Control In Opposite

Direction of Flow"
Feed from
Storage
To 2nd-Stage
Flow Control
Note that the level controllers were configured to manipulate in the opposite direction as the flow. Note also that the catalytic reformer first stage fed the second-stage
directly, with no intermediate tankage normally used. Thus, second-stage feed rate
set the throughput requirement for the first stage.
In the original scheme, DMC manipulated second-stage feed, which drew down the
levels in the first stage. The first-stage levels then manipulated first-stage feed to
match the second-stage feed demand. The problem was that the two first stage
levels were often out of phase, which caused the first-stage feed valve to go through
unnecessarily large and unpredictable swings.
In the revised control scheme, a calculated variable, 1st-stage total volume, was
included as a DMC controlled variable (Figure 300-74).
Fig. 300-74 Post-DMC First Stage Level Control Configuration
PC
1
From Furnaces
and Reactor
C-1
359
(Reflects Accumulation of Mass

in Upstream Vapor Space
LC
1
Post-DMC
Loop "Open"
Feed
Decoupler
To Furnaces
and Reactor
f(VP) CV
Post-DMC
Loop Remains
"Closed"
CV
1STVOL
V-2
DMC
FC
1STVOL = Vol:L-2 + Vol:L-1 + K * P-1
Feed from
Storage
December 2003
LC
2
To 2nd-Stage
Flow Control
300-88
300 Process Control
This variable was representative of first-stage inventory. The two main inputs to the
calculation were the volumes in C-1 and V-2. Because V-2 was a horizontal cylindrical vessel, the non-linear relationship between level and volume had to be considered. We also found it necessary to correct for the variable mass in the vapor space
upstream of C-1. We didnt anticipate the need for this variable and only came to it
after several iterations.
With the revised configuration, the upstream level controller was opened up and
DMC adjusted first-stage feed rate to keep 1st-stage total volume within range.
Figure 300-75 displays the two individual levels and 1st-stage total volume, and
clearly shows how this variable stabilized the plant response.
Fig. 300-75 Trend First Stage Volume Balance
20 MIN
VOL BALANCE AROUND 1STG
HM HM HM
100
LC1.PV
50
25
0
1st-Stage "Total Volume"
360
75
LC2.PV
20
18
16
14
12
10
07/10/XX 14:06:42 MIN
In this plot, the two levels are swinging and out of phase, but 1st-stage total
volume is essentially constant, so DMC does not have to make any unnecessary
moves to first-stage feed rate. DMC could not have been commissioned without this
variable!
Plant Test Case Study: FCC DMC Project. The importance of the underlying
regulatory control loops on DMC performance was dramatically illustrated in one of
ChevronTexacos FCC DMC projects. The plant was a Model IV (pressure
balance) FCC, in which a reactor-regenerator differential pressure controller (PDC)
manipulated the regenerator vent gas slide valves to adjust catalyst circulation.
Performance of the PDC was marginal, tuning it was difficult, and the PID
controller settings were slow.
DMC was initially tested and commissioned with the differential pressure controller
in AUTO. However, performance was not acceptable. DMC can only perform as
well as the underlying control system.
One of the keys to the ultimate success of this application was the decision to
configure DMC to manipulate the differential pressure controller output (PDC in
MAN) rather than its setpoint (PDC in AUTO). The plant was re-tested with the
new configuration and the controller commissioned. Two significant benefits were
achieved:
1.
The process responded much more quickly to changes in the manipulated variables (the slowest responses settled out in 60, rather than 90 minutes)
300-89
December 2003
300 Process Control
2.
The process responses were simpler (inverse response behavior was eliminated
in most cases).
The dynamic response curves for the two cases are compared below
(Figure 300-76).
Fig. 300-76 Dynamic Response Curves
The time base for the plots is 90 minutes. The shorter curves are for the case when
DMC manipulates the PDCs output; the longer curves, the PDCs setpoint. Each
curve represents the dynamic response of a given control or constraint variable to a
unit change in the manipulated variable, with all other manipulated variables held
constant.
The availability of detailed process response data like this gives us a unique look at
the behavior of a plant and can lead to greater process understanding.
370 Online Optimization

371 Introduction
An online optimizer, which often encompasses the scope of several MPC controllers, can be layered on top of MPC to bring additional opportunities for economic
benefits. The larger scope of the optimizer and its use of non-linear models increase
the probability of finding the true economic optimum.
Real-time optimization is especially valuable when the optimal operating points
change from time to time. The plant may need to shift operating points to deal with
December 2003
300-90
300 Process Control
changing feedstock quality and quantity, changes in product slate and/or demand,
variations in utility costs, etc.
When interfacing an online optimizer to DMC, for example, the optimizer replaces
the steady-state targets that the embedded linear program would otherwise calculate. Specifying the target on the CVs gives DMC the freedom to move the manipulated variables when a significant disturbance enters the system and shifts the level
of operation. Constraining the manipulated variables in the controller would take
away its degrees of freedom, which would reduce the probability the controller
could handle a significant disturbance.
372 Online Optimization Cycle

An online optimization cycle involves a number of steps. First the optimizer checks
key process measurements to see if the plant is at steady-state. If so, and optimization cycle is started. All the measurements are read in and screened for reasonableness. Data reconciliation is then employed to adjust the measurements to ensure
consistency with steady-state material and energy balances. The reconciled data is
then used to update model parameters such as heat exchanger or turbine efficiency
to ensure the model matches the real plant as closely as possible.
The software then determines the optimal setpoint targets based on the economic
objective function. The plant is once again checked for steady-state operation before
the new targets are sent out to the advanced control layer. After waiting for the
effects of the setpoint changes to be felt in the process, the software then begins to
look for steady-state operation again, before kicking off a new optimization cycle.
373 Online Optimization Technology Vendors

Among the vendors offering online optimization technology are the following:
1.
Aspen Plus Optimizer Aspen Technology
2.
ROMeo Invensys/SimSci
3.
Hysys.RTO+ Hyprotech and MDC
4.
Profit Max (Nova) Honeywell and Dot Products
The optimizer applications are built from fundamental first principles models of
individual unit operations. Standard off-line modeling packages (e.g., Aspen Plus
and Simulation Sciences Pro-II) are used for model building.
Each vendor offers a similar approach/functionality. However, ease of use and maintainability features vary from package to package.
To get an idea of what is involved in setting up and running a real-time optimizer,
the Invensys/Simulation Sciences package ROMeo will now be described. A
graphical user interface (GUI) is used to construct the model, configure data links,
preprocess data, generate reports and diagnose problem. ChevronTexaco refineries
have used the Simulation Sciences ProII/ProVision steady-state simulation package
300-91
December 2003
300 Process Control
for process design and off-line simulation work, and the ROMeo GUI is very
similar. ROMeo is an NT based application.
The model is constructed by dropping objects (typical unit operations) onto a flowsheet. When constructing the model, degrees of freedom are automatically
checked to ensure the problem is always kept square.
Measurements are easily added to the model. The connection to the real time historian is configured once, and from then on, all the variables are available to ROMeo.
A gross error detection methodology is used for data reconciliation. Measurements
are given weighting factors for the reconciliation objective function based on the
typical standard deviation for a particular measurement device.
Custom equations can be easily added to the flowsheet using a macro language
called TCL. Links to databases also can be made using TCL. Third-party models (e.
g., reactor kinetic models) can be incorporated via an object-oriented language
called Milano. Custom physical properties also can be added to ROMeo. Physical
properties such as crude assay information form the CAL database can be imported.
The optimization objective function is constructed using a GUI. Any variable can be
added to the objective function. Optimization variables are selected in the same
GUI. Pricing information is imported from Microsoft Access before each optimization run. Tier pricing can be easily incorporated into the objective function.
The optimization problem is solved using successive quadratic programming (SQP)
algorithm. Typical process models are described by thousands of equations and variables. A small number of these are optimization variables. The successive quadratic
programming (SQP) technique is used for manipulating and solving these large
sparse problems.
The sequence of operation for the online optimization problem is also setup using a
GUI. The engineer can graphically construct the online sequence, which can include
such things as solution failure routines; e-mail messages, report generation, etc.
Offline case studies are run with the same model in the same GUI environment.
Considerations for Online Optimization

Cost. Cost of implementing online optimization is quite high compared to implementing a Multivariable Predictive Controller (MPC). Typical costs for on-line optimization on a large refinery unit (e.g. Crude unit, FCC, Hydrocracker) is $1 to
2 MM.
Applicability. Online optimization is best suited for processes which are highly non
linear. Online optimization is used successfully on ethylene plants because of the
non linearities in that process. Online optimization can have potential benefits in
refinery processes that employ significant heat integration or have reactors. Each
process should be considered on a case by case basis to determine if it is a candidate for online optimization.
MPC Must run well: The underlying MPC (e.g. DMC, RMPCT) must be
performing well since the online optimizer resets the targets for the MPC.
December 2003
300-92
300 Process Control
Supportability: Successful online optimization projects have good communication

between the refinery planner, the optimization engineer and the console operator.
There must be a methodology for updating the optimizer feed, product, and utility
costs based on the planner's input.
374 ChevronTexacos Use of Online Optimization

At the time of this writing, online optimization had not achieved the same level of
success as model predictive control.
There are several sites that are actively pursuing online optimization. Our most
notable success has been at the Cedar Bayou Ethylene Unit (now part of Chevron
Phillips Chemical Company), where AspenTechs RT-OPT was installed in 1996
and has continued to be very successful.
At the El Segundo Crude unit, the Invensys/SimSci ROMeo package was installed
successfully. Other projects at El Segundo are in progress.
An alternative approach is being used at Richmonds D&R, FCC and lube facilities.
There, installation of Honeywells Profit Optimizer is being used with good success.
Profit Optimizer uses a cooperative optimization approach that coordinates the
global optimization solution across multiple Profit Controllers (RMPCT), and is
based on dynamic quadratic programming (DQP) techniques. At the same time, it
combines control-level constraints with additional global optimization variables and
inter-application dynamic constraints. Profit Optimizer determines not only the
optimal operating point, but also the optimal path to that point to maximize profit.
At the Port Arthur and Cedar Bayou Ethylene facilities, AspenTechs Composit
Linear Program (CLP) is being used to coordinate several DMCplus controllers in
order to maximize throughput.
380 Resources
Centralized support for process control technology throughout ChevronTexacos
operating companies is provided by the Process Control Team (Process Automation
Unit) of the ChevronTexaco Energy Research and Technology Company in Richmond, CA.
381 Process Control Services

Services are provided in all the following areas: control design and analysis, intermediate regulatory control, advanced control & optimization, inferential calculations, technology and product evaluations, and training.
Control Design and Analysis
Develop and review Process Flow and Control Diagrams (PF&C)
Review P&IDs for control and operability problems
300-93
December 2003
300 Process Control
Perform Control Objectives Analysis (COA) gives a sound basis for control
design and generates a list of opportunities to improve process control
Perform Control Design Analysis (CDA) identifies instrumentation, control,

and DCS requirements, essential for an advanced control project. The CDA
also lists important variables to be included in the advanced controller.
Troubleshoot process controls
Intermediate Regulatory Control
Cross Limiting Control On Furnaces
Furnace Combustion Control
Octane and RVP Control
Advanced Control & Optimization
Provide Justification and Benefits Studies
Develop Specifications
Manage Projects
Conduct Performance Audits
Troubleshoot Advanced Control Problems
Develop Five-year/Master Plans
Inferential Calculations
Some process properties are difficult or costly to measure on-line at the frequency
required, especially for advanced control. The solution is model-based algorithms,
or soft-sensors, which infer process properties from other measurements that are
readily available. These soft sensors use a variety of techniques, including Partial
Least Square and Neural Networks. Examples of Modeled Properties:
Freeze and flash points
Viscosity and melt index
Gasoline & Mid-Distillate Blending Control

Consulting is provided on Honeywells Blend Ratio Control and Blend Property
Control software packages, including the development of a Custom Objective
Functions.
Evaluating New Technology and Products

We scan, evaluate, and recommend process control technologies and products when
first introduced. Weve developed an extensive vendor and academic network that
continuously refreshes our knowledge base.
December 2003
300-94
300 Process Control
Training
CTU Process Control: One and one half day course at ChevronTexaco Technical University designed for new engineers.
Basic Control: a five-day course for the process control professional; it can be
given at customer site.
APC Seminar: This seminar provides a comprehensive review of advanced

process control (APC) and related technologies, as practiced at
ChevronTexaco. Both theory and application are discussed. The emphasis is on
practical knowledge, lessons learned, and case studies.
382 Support for Projects

The Process Automation (PA) unit provides a wide variety of support for projects.
In the areas relevant to this document (process control, and advanced control and
optimization), we offer the following consulting services:
CPDEP Phase 2: Evaluate Alternatives

A control objectives analysis (COA) should be performed as soon as PFDs are
available. This key process defines the process control objectives and identifies
instrumentation, control, operational and management issues for follow-up. The
COA establishes a sound basis for the control design; results in less rework and
improves ownership and buy-in by the stakeholders.
After completing the COA, the process analyzers required to support the process
and control objectives need to be identified. The process control consultant is in the
best position to take the lead in coordinating with process and analyzer specialists.
The purpose, benefits and total cost of ownership of each analyzer are established.
This ensures that the project scope includes all the analyzers that will be required.
The use and benefits of advanced process control (APC) for the process should also
be evaluated when the PFDs are available. An early decision to use APC allows it to
be effectively integrated into the base control system design and reduces rework in
later project phases. The APC benefits can be incorporated into project value
metrics (improved product recovery at lower operating costs).
CPDEP Phase 3: Development

Review P&IDs to ensure the control design meets the process control objectives and
ensures plant operability. It also ensures that sufficient instrumentation and
analyzers have been included to support the implementation of advanced process
control, if planned. This review should be started after early P&IDs are complete,
allowing enough time for changes to be incorporated.
CPDEP Phase 4: Execution

In CPDEP phase 4, there is a window of opportunity for providing a
mentoring/training opportunity for the facility control engineer(s). If 1) an operator
training simulator is being provided as a part of the project, and 2) advanced control
will be implemented, the simulation scope can be expanded to include the APC.
300-95
December 2003
300 Process Control
There are many advantages to implementing APC on the simulator. In addition to

the obvious benefits for operator training, it would be particularly helpful in getting
new control engineer(s) trained in model-predictive control technology. In addition
some of the work that would be required for the actual implementation could be
done in advance (DCS configuration, DCS display, etc.). The simulator effort would
undoubtedly shorten the time required to get APC up and running in the plant.
There are two alternative approaches to implementing APC on the simulation:
1.
Implement full-scope APC on the simulator prior to start-up of the plant. Then,
after startup, implement full-scope APC on the actual plant.
2.
Implement partial-scope APC on the simulator prior to start-up of the plant.

Then, after startup, implement full-scope APC on the actual plant. Finally,
retrofit the actual APC controllers back on the simulation.
The first approach is more costly, as much (approximately 60-70%) of the work of
implementing APC on the simulator would have to be repeated on the actual plant.
On the other hand, the full-scope APC would be available for operator training prior
to startup. Also, you develop more confidence in the final controller design, and
though practice, APC implementation in the actual plant should be smoother. The
second approach would be less costly overall and would be adequate to support the
control engineer mentoring/training objective.
CPDEP Phase 5: Operate & Evaluate

If advanced control is planned, an ERTC process automation (PA) advanced control
consultant can serve as an overall project coordinator and mentor to the site control
engineer(s). He can also participate directly in the implementation along with the
APC vendor. This ensures that ChevronTexaco standards and lessons-learned are
incorporated into the project, ChevronTexaco participation is adequate to ensure
buy-in and ownership, and that long-term support issues are dealt with adequately.
Note that advanced control is implemented only after the facility has started up, is
running smoothly and the operators are comfortable with the operation.
Once the advanced control applications are in service, consultation/troubleshooting
can be provided to ensure the controllers are running at full effectiveness. The
process control group has special tools (e.g., the MVC Inspector) to help analyze
the performance of multivariable model-predictive controllers.
390 References
Chevrons Control Engineering Manual, 2nd edition, 1994 (Available from ChevronTexaco ERTC Process Automation Unit)
McMillan, G.K., Tuning and Control Loop Performance, 2nd ed., Instrument
Society of America, 1990 (3rd ed., 1994)
Marlin, T.E., Process Control: Designing Processes and Control Systems for
Dynamic Performance, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, 2000
December 2003
300-96
300 Process Control
Smith, C.A., and A.B. Corripio, Principles and Practice of Automatic Control, 2nd
ed., John Wiley, 1997
Luyben, W.L. and M.L. Luyben, Essentials of Process Control, McGraw Hill, 1997
Astrom, K.J., and T. Hagglund, PID Controllers: Theory, Design, and Tuning, 2nd
ed., Instrument Society of America, 1995
Shinskey, F.G., Process Control Systems - Application, Design and Tuning, 4th ed.,
McGraw-Hill, 1996
Shinskey, F.G., Feedback Controllers for the Process Industries, McGraw-Hill, 1994
Ogunnaike, B.A. and W.H. Ray, Process Dynamics, Modeling, and Control, Oxford
University Press, 1994
Seborg, D.E., T.F. Edgar and D.A. Mellichamp, Process Dynamics and Control,
John Wiley, 1989 (second edition to be published in 2003)
Chin, T.G., Guide to Distillation Pressure Control Methods, Hydrocarbon
Processing, October 1979. pp. 145-153.
Buckley, P.S., Techniques of Process Control, John Wiley, 1964, Chapter 18.
Chen, D. and D.E. Seborg, PI/PID Controller Design Based on Direct Synthesis and
Disturbance Rejection, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 41, No. 19, 2002, pp 4807-4822.
Chien, I.-L. and P.S. Fruehauf, Consider IMC Tuning to Improve Controller Performance, Chem. Eng. Progress, Vol. 86 (10), Oct. 1990, pp 33-41
Rivera, D.E., M. Morari, and S. Skogestad, Internal Model Control. 4. PID
Controller Design, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., Vol. 25, No. 1, 1986, pp
252-265
Cutler, C. R and B. L. Ramaker, Dynamic Matrix Control - A Computer Control
Algorithm, AIChE 86th National Meeting, Houston, TX, April 1979
Cutler, C. R., A. M. Morshedi, and J.J. Haydel, An Industrial Perspective on
Advanced Control, AIChE National Meeting, Washington, DC, October, 1983
Park, S. (Pembroke Cracking Company), An Application of an Optimized DMC
Multivariable Controller to the PCC Catalytic Cracking Unit, International Symposium, Advanced Process Supervision and Real-Time Knowledge Based Control,
Univ. of Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK, November, 1988
Cutler, C. R. and R. B. Hawkins, Constrained Mulitvariable Control of a Hydrocracker Reactor, American Control Conference, Minneapolis, MN, June 1987
Marchetti, J. L., D. A. Mellichamp and D. E. Seborg, Predictive Control Based on
Discrete Convolution Models, I&EC Process Design and Development, Vol. 22,
1983
Richalet, J., A. Rault, J. L. Testud and J. Papon, Model Predictive Hueristic Control:
Applications to Industrial Processes, Automatica, Vol 14, 1978, pp. 413-428
300-97
December 2003
300 Process Control
Huq, I., M. Morari and R. C. Sorensen, Modifications to Model IV Fluid Catalytic

Cracking Units to Improve Dynamic Performance, AIChE Journal, June 1995, Vol.
41, No. 6, 1481-1499.
Gusciora, P. H., J. H. McAmis, R. C. Sorensen and C. R. Cutler, Experiences
Applying DMC on a Model IV FCC, AIChE Annual Meeting, Miami Beach,
November, 1992.
Coker, R. L., B. G. Houk, D. E. Larson and A. Y. Graham, Multivariable Controllers Improve Performance of Delayed Coker Units, ISA meeting, Chicago,
September, 20-24, 1993.
Houk, B. G., R. L. Coker, D. E. Larson and A. Y. Graham, Development Issues for
Predictive Control of a Delayed Coking Unit, AIChE 1993 Spring National
Meeting, March 1993.
Sorensen, R. C. and C. R. Cutler, LP Integrates Economics into Dynamic Matrix
Control, Hydrocarbon Processing, September, 1998, pages 57-65.
December 2003
300-98

Sistema de Control 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Sistema de Control 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

300 Process Control

Overview of Process Control and Optimization

Types of Control Algorithms

PID Controller Modes

Discrete Form of PID Equation

Honeywell and Yokogawa PID Control Algorithms

Typical Closed-Loop Controller Response

300 Process Control

Instrumentation Control Manual

Classical Tuning Methods

Forms of the PID Equation

Model-Based Tuning Methods

Typical Tuning Constants for Common Loops

Control Objectives Analysis (COA)

Steps in MPC Implementation

MPC Technology Vendors

ChevronTexacos Use of Advanced Control

Online Optimization Cycle

Online Optimization Technology Vendors

ChevronTexacos Use of Online Optimization

Process Control Services

Support for Projects

Instrumentation Control Manual

300 Process Control

310 Overview of Process Control and Optimization

PLANNING & SCHEDULING

ONLINE PROCESS OPTIMIZATION

ADVANCED PROCESS CONTROL

BASIC & INTERMEDIATE REGULATORY CONTROL

Basic and Intermediate Regulatory Controls

300 Process Control

Instrumentation Control Manual

Advanced Process Control

Online Process Optimization

Planning and Scheduling

312 Operational Benefits

Instrumentation Control Manual

300 Process Control

Typical Data and Distribution Plot, Controlled Loop

An improved controller configuration, better controller tuning or the use of

Reduced Standard Deviation With Improved Control

Normalized Frequency of Occurrence

Controlled Variable Measurement

300 Process Control

Instrumentation Control Manual

Normalized Frequency of Occurance

Controlled Variable Measurement

Potential Shift in Target

Standard Deviation of Target

Reduction in Standard Deviation

Instrumentation Control Manual

300 Process Control

313 Economic Benefits

Heavy Oil Hydroprocessing

300 Process Control

Instrumentation Control Manual

Relative Costs / Benefits of Controls

Costs & Benefits -BRC-IRC-AC-OPT

Instrumentation Control Manual

300 Process Control

320 Basic Control

Controlled variable: The process variable being controlled.

Types of Control Loops

300 Process Control