Biofuels

ISSN: 1759-7269 (Print) 1759-7277 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbfu20

Plantwide control systems design and evaluation

applied to biodiesel production

Bruno Firmino da Silva, Jones Erni Schmitz, Ivan Carlos Franco & Flávio
Vasconcelos da Silva

To cite this article: Bruno Firmino da Silva, Jones Erni Schmitz, Ivan Carlos Franco & Flávio
Vasconcelos da Silva (2019): Plantwide control systems design and evaluation applied to biodiesel
production, Biofuels, DOI: 10.1080/17597269.2019.1600456

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2019.1600456

Published online: 05 May 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 37

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbfu20
BIOFUELS
https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2019.1600456

Plantwide control systems design and evaluation applied

to biodiesel production
Bruno Firmino da Silvaa, Jones Erni Schmitzb , Ivan Carlos Francoa,c and Fl
avio Vasconcelos da
Silvaa
a
School of Chemical Engineering, University of Campinas – UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil; bBioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology,
Federal University of Technology-Paran
a – UTFPR, Toledo, Brazil; cDepartment of Chemical Engineering, FEI University, S~ao Bernardo do
Campo, Brazil

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Chemical processes have complex dynamic behaviors due to the presence of recycle streams, heat Received 24 January 2019
integration and several unit operations being interconnected, leading to interaction problems Accepted 11 March 2019
among variables and difficulties in completing an effective process control. Plantwide control
KEYWORDS
methodologies aim to establish control systems for entire chemical plants; however, it is possible
Plantwide control; biodiesel;
to obtain different control solutions. This work proposes that the evaluation of different plantwide dynamic disturbance
control structures for a specific process could be carried out using key performance indicators sensitivity
(KPIs) to determine which control method best meets the industry strategic goals. In order to
evaluate the proposed approach a typical biodiesel process model was implemented in Aspen Plus
Dynamics; the selected KPIs were the dynamic disturbance sensitivity and an economic indicator
that represents the variation of the ratio between the product’s selling price and the raw material
cost over time. It was observed that both KPIs allowed a view of the plantwide control system per-
formance and aided in choosing a set of designed controllers. However, the economic indicator
enables one to choose a set of designed controllers that reduce the variability of the economic
indicator by around 74% while providing a slight increase in the indicator mean value.

Introduction In order to control highly interconnected processes, like

The consumption of fossil fuels, especially diesel, has led to
concerns that have intensified over the past few decades.
Pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions and the depend-
ence on non-renewable fuels are examples of well-known
problems relating to these types of fuels. Therefore, several
countries have established environmental policies for
reducing or banning the use of fossil fuels in vehicles [1].
To overcome these concerns the use of renewable biofuels
was proposed. Hence, the production of biofuels, such as
biodiesel, bioethanol and biohydrogen, is expected to
increase significantly in the coming years.
One of the most important biofuels is biodiesel. It is used
mainly as a low-GHG-emitting alternative to diesel as a trans-
portation fuel. Scarlat et al. [2] estimated that the demand
for biodiesel for transportation purposes should increase by
approximately 45% between 2015 and 2020. As a conse-
quence of this positive perspective, several improvements in
the biodiesel production process have been proposed,
including new techniques for oil extraction [3], the use of
alternative reactors and catalysts [4–6], and different feed-
stocks [7,8]. Another field that can offer significant improve-
ments is process control. Indeed, control of the biodiesel
production process is a challenging task. It is necessary to
deal with significant variability of feedstock composition,
recycle streams, thermal integration, and quality and eco-
nomic constraints. Hence, biodiesel production process con-
trol has been the focus of several studies [9–16].
the biodiesel production process, it is desirable to minimize
the effects of a control loop oscillatory response over other
control loops. Therefore, the control system must be
designed considering the entire plant and not the individ-
ual control loops. In these cases, the implementation of
plantwide control structures (PWCs) is recommended
[17–20]. In order to design these PWCs, it is necessary to
perform interaction analyses considering all plant variables.
Thus, PWCs are able to soften the effects of oscillations in
mass and energy recycle stream variables.
With the application of PWCs a problem has arisen
regarding how the performance assessment must be car-
ried out. Single control loops have well-established per-
formance indexes, like error-integral criteria or control
effort. However, the comparison of different plantwide con-
trol strategies requires the evaluation of a performance
indicator for the entire process. In order to overcome this
problem, Konda and Rangaiah [18] used the dynamic dis-
turbance sensitivity (DDS) index to compare three different
PWCs applied to a hydrodealkylation process. Besides, eco-
nomic assessment of control structures is normally pro-
posed only to justify the acquisition of new advanced
control systems, and in these cases stability is assumed to
be assured. However, the most profitable control structure
may not be the most stable and vice versa. Therefore, an
ideal performance indicator must consider operating and
financial aspects; thus, key performance indicators (KPIs)

CONTACT Ivan Carlos Franco icfranco@fei.edu.br School of Chemical Engineering, University of Campinas – UNICAMP, 500 Albert Einstein Avenue,
Campinas, ZIP 13083–970, Campinas, Brazil
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 B. DA SILVA ET AL.
become the natural choice. Therefore, in this study differ-
ent control proposals were implemented in a PWC applied
to a typical biodiesel production process, and the results of
these control proposals were compared based on KPIs, sup-
porting the hypothesis that a KPI can be used as a per-
formance index for PWC assessment.
In the following section the biodiesel production process,
the plantwide control methodologies and the proposed strat-
egy based on KPI evaluation will be described. Then, the results
will be presented and discussed and conclusions drawn.
Theory
Plantwide control methodologies
The way in which plantwide control strategies are imple-
mented is based on a systematic methodology. As pointed
out by Downs and Skogestad [21], plantwide control meth-
odologies must interrelate process chemistry, economics
and control theory issues. Environmental constraints could
also be included. In this way, control engineers dealing
with the development and implementation of plantwide
control strategies are mainly concerned with the achieve-
ment of overall objectives set out by the adopted method-
ology. So, the tuning of individual control loops is a
secondary task and must be carried out in accordance with
these overall objectives. The methodologies employed in
plantwide control strategies can be classified into four cate-
gories: heuristics-based approaches, simulation-based
methods, optimization-based methods, and hybrid
approaches [19]. As pointed out by Vasudevan [22], heuris-
tics-based methodologies are easy to understand and
implement. The heuristics-based approach proposed by
Luyben et al. [17] can be found among these methodolo-
gies. This procedure is characterized by the following steps:
STEP 1: Establishment of control objectives;
STEP 2: Calculation of the control degrees of freedom;
STEP 3: Establishment of the energy manage-
ment system;
STEP 4: Setting of production rates;
STEP 5: Establishment of product quality, safety, oper-
ational and environmental constraints;
STEP 6: Fixing of flow rate values of recycle loops and
selecting the manipulated variables for inventory
control;
STEP 7: Checking material balances of every component;
STEP 8: Implementing individual control strategies for
operation of each unit;
STEP 9: Optimization of economics or improving
dynamic controllability.
A complete discussion of the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each type of methodology can be found in the
work by Vasudevan [22].
Key performance indicator-based tuning strategy
After carrying out the steps of the methodology it is pos-
sible to list all control requirements. Therefore, the number
and location of control loops required to keep the process
operating in stable, safe and economical conditions will be
defined. The next step is to tune the controllers in order to
maintain the stability of their respective loops and to
prevent disturbance propagation. There are several well--
known tuning methods, such as the Ziegler–Nichols reac-
tion curve method, the Cohen–Coon method, the
Tyreus–Luyben method or even the autotune method.
After the application of these methods, fine tuning is per-
formed to make the controller response meet individual
and overall control objectives. The performance of individ-
ual control loops is commonly evaluated using integral of
error criteria. However, plantwide control systems are
designed to regulate several control loops simultaneously,
so the integral of individual errors does not properly show
compliance with the overall objectives. In this case it is
preferable to choose performance indicators that exhibit
the overall process performance and that are familiar to
operational personnel. Therefore, KPI could be a valuable
tool to compare different plantwide control systems [23].
A KPI named DDS, which allows us to measure the abil-
ity of the control system to minimize disturbances with
trending to allow propagation in a highly dependent and
interconnected process, was presented by Konda and
Rangaiah [18]. Equation (1) presents the definition of DDS,
where ts is the time to achieve the steady state and Ai is
the absolute molar accumulation per component. The Ai
calculation is done with the sum of all inputs’ molar flow
minus all the outputs flows, considering the generated and
consumed components of the whole system.
ð ts X
n

DDS ¼ A dt (1)
i¼1 i
t¼0
Economic aspects need to be evaluated to indicate a
better system in terms of production costs. A KPI can be
defined to express the relation between the product’s sell-
ing price and the raw material cost.
Materials and methods
Biodiesel process description
It was assumed that biodiesel was produced by the alkali-cat-
alyzed transesterification of triolein, a triglyceride with similar
characteristics to soybean oil, using methanol [20,24].
Furthermore, the three-step reversible reaction mechanism
and kinetic parameters presented by Noureddini and Zhu [25]
were adopted. Thus, in order to minimize the effect of back-
ward reactions and to carry out the reaction to completion,
an excess of methanol is necessary.
The process described by Zhang et al. [20] was used as
a reference in this study (Figure 1). Therefore, it was
assumed that transesterification was carried out continu-
ously in a series of three reactors. Fresh oil was fed to the
first reactor. Its effluent was separated into a glycerol-rich
phase (methanol and glycerol) and a fatty-acid methyl ester
(FAME)-rich phase (FAME and unreacted glycerides) using a
settler. The FAME-rich phase is fed to the second reactor,
whose effluent is processed like the effluent of the first
reactor. The glycerol-rich phase streams from the two set-
tlers are mixed and sent to a distillation column which sep-
arates glycerol and methanol. The effluent of the third
reactor is fed to a distillation column which separates
FAME and methanol. Methanol from both distillation

Figure 1. Biodiesel process. Adapted from Zhang et al. [20].
Figure 2. Process diagram implemented in Aspen Plus.
columns is recycled. The FAME product is neutralized using
hydrochloric acid and washed with water.
Plant simulation
The dynamic simulation was implemented in Aspen Plus
Dynamics, as shown in Figure 2. The steady-state simulation
was used as the base, and additional information, such as the
pressure drop in valves and equipment (Table A1), discharge
pressure of pumps (Table A2) and distillation column design
specifications (Table A3), is included in the Appendix.
The settler present after the two first reactors was con-
figured following the method presented by Sinnot [26],
which found the area of settlers DEC100 and DEC101 to be
25.87 m2 and 21.61 m2, respectively. The respective radiuses
BIOFUELS 3
were accordingly calculated to be 2.87 m and 2.62 m with
1.2 m height, with a 20-min residence time. The reaction
section is composed by three reactors, with volume of
56.2, 61.5 and 56 m3 and different methanol feeds. The first
received almost 90% of available methanol, while the
others received only 9% and 1%.
In Figure 3 the control loop developed for this process
is observed. The procedure outlined in the methodology
section was applied and a plantwide control was imple-
mented. Two different proposals were implemented with
different tuning, in which proposal 1 (Table A4) used the
Ziegler–Nichols reaction curve approach and proposal 2
(Table A5) used the Tyreus–Luyben approach. The control-
ler parameters for the two plantwide control structures can
be seen in the Supplementary material.
4 B. DA SILVA ET AL.
Figure 3. Control behavior after a 5% disturbance for (A) proposal 1 and (B)
proposal 2 for the PC100 controller. PV - Process Variable, SP - Setpoint, MV -
Manipulated Variable.
Step by step implementation of the Luyben plantwide
methodology
STEP 1 – ESTABLISHMENT OF CONTROL OBJECTIVES
In this work, the main goals were:
I. To produce biodiesel; a mean production of
210,640.00 ton/year was considered with 89.75
kmol/h as the production in an operation.
II. The quality standards need to be achieved according
to EM 14214 DIN EN 14214. Temperature constraints
need to be respected to avoid product decompos-
ition. The glycerol cannot reach 250  C and the bio-
diesel needs temperatures above 150  C.
III. Keep the methanol:oil ratio under control.
STEP 2 – CALCULATION OF THE CONTROL DEGREES
OF FREEDOM
The degrees of freedom were defined by the procedure
presented by Konda et al. [27], in which the CDOF are the
control degrees of freedom (Equation 2).
CDOF ¼ n stream  n constrains  redundances (2)
Table 1 presents a summary of the calculation of the
number of constraints, which were obtained evaluating the
operation of each unit individually. These calculations were
based on the work by Konda et al. [27].
Forty-four material streams and eight energy streams
were accounted for, of which three were used in each
reactor and four were used in the condensers and boilers.
The last energy stream is in the heat exchange of the neu-
tralization tank reactor. Finally, the CDOF was calculated to
be 38; this means that the maximum number of control
loops that could be implemented is 38, but it doesn’t imply
that all of them must be used.
Table 1. Calculation of the number of constrains per unit operation using
the technique presented by Konda et al. [27].
Unit operation Number of units Constraints of each unit
CSTR (non-adiabatic) 4 0
Tri-phase separator 3 0
Distillation column 2 0
Mixture 3 1
Stream divisor 1 1
Heat exchange 2 2
Heat exchange with utilities 1 1
Pump/compressor 3 1
Condenser 2 1
Boiler 2 0
Total 14
CSTR: Continuous Stirred-Tank Reactor
STEP 3 – ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ENERGY
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The plantwide control aim is to avoid disturbance
propagation; for this the energetic control system manipu-
lates the utilities system. In the energy integration step, the
hot stream leaves the T101 tower rich in esters (biodiesel)
at a temperature close to 200  C, and exchanges heat with
the oil and alcohol streams. This type of configuration gen-
erates an energy recycle that can propagate disturbances
over the entire process.
The TC100, TC101, and TC102 controllers were estab-
lished for the temperature control of the CSTR1, CSTR2,
and CSTR3 reactors, respectively.
STEP 4 – SETTING OF PRODUCTION RATES
The oil is the limiting component of the reaction and
was chosen as a variable to be controlled to define the
production rate.
The raw material proportion is kept under control by
the AC100 controller. The oil:alcohol ratio is important to
maintain system stability and for high efficiency in reaction
and purification steps. AC100 uses as a measurement the
variable total flow of methanol that enters the process. In
the controller, this amount is divided by the oil flow, and
then the ratio is evaluated. If necessary, the pure alcohol
stream is manipulated to compensate for disturbances.
STEP 5 – ESTABLISHMENT OF PRODUCT QUALITY, SAFETY,
OPERATIONAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
In step 5, the main focus is on implementing product
quality controllers, as well as to assure operational and envir-
onmental safety. In biodiesel production, the purity of bio-
diesel and glycerol is a concern and could be considered the
main constraint. The temperature of the purification columns
is a key variable to control; it must be kept below the deg-
radation temperature.
The temperature of the reboiler is a direct variable of
the product quality, since the products could be decom-
posed in high temperatures. Analogously to the T100 col-
umn, a similar control structure was implemented in the
T101 ester purification column that is responsible for puri-
fying the biodiesel. In column T101 the temperature cannot
exceed 250  C to avoid degradation of the esters.
STEP 6 – FIXING OF FLOW RATE VALUES OF THE RECYCLE
LOOPS AND SELECTING THE MANIPULATED VARIABLES FOR
INVENTORY CONTROL
The next step is the implementation of inventory con-
trol. The pressure in purification columns T100 and T101 is

controlled by the manipulation of heat in the condensers.
The heat transferred is a derivative of the cold utility flow.
For the decanters, two controllers for each equipment
were proposed, one for the control of the light phase level
and another for the heavy phase level. These level control-
lers are important because they will influence the T100 col-
umn, which performs glycerol purification. Level controllers
were also implemented for the CSTR1, CSTR2, CSTR3, and
CSTR4 reactors.
STEP 7 – CHECKING MATERIAL BALANCES OF
EVERY COMPONENT
In the sequence of the implementation of the control-
lers discussed in the last few steps, it is important to carry
a mass balance verification per component. Inert compo-
nents cannot accumulate in the process as well as the
other components.
STEP 8 – IMPLEMENT INDIVIDUAL CONTROL STRATEGIES
FOR OPERATION OF EACH UNIT
Additional controllers are implemented if necessary in
individual units, which need control to maintain some
operational variable within the operating range.
STEP 9 – OPTIMIZATION OF ECONOMICS OR IMPROVING
DYNAMIC CONTROLLABILITY
In the last step, additional controllers could be installed
to improve the economic and process performance. The
remaining CDOFs need to be respected and variable, such
as the energy management of the columns or the reflux
ratio in the columns. This last controller was implemented
to reduce the impact of the energy cost of the column.
Considerations: Due to the subjectivity of the method,
the development of this methodology can lead to different
results depending on the author. However, this is a valid
method due to the simplicity of the application, and in
general it leads to a consistent basic control system that is
comparable with that produced by other methods. For this
work, the basic structure of control is repeated in two dif-
ferent control proposals, differing in relation to the tuning
applied in each proposal. This was done, considering that
the focus would be to apply the indicators in the process,
to then make a comparison between different proposals.
A KPI named ‘economic indicator’ will be calculated
using Equation (3):
PNp
Vi :Pi
Economic indicator ¼ Pi¼1 Nr
(3)
j¼1 Vj :Pj
where Np is the number of the products (glycerin and bio-
diesel), Nr is the number of different raw materials (alcohol
and oil), V is the mass flow (ton/h), and P is the price
($/ton). From the analysis it is clear that increasing the eco-
nomic indicator is possible to improve the profitability of
the process.
Results and discussion
The biodiesel process discussed in previous sections was
implemented in Aspen Plus, a widely used commercial pro-
cess simulator. The process was based on literature condi-
tions, such as those presented by Zhang et al. [20]. In the
biodiesel process, the oil used as the raw material was sim-
plified as pure triolein. Such simplification does not
BIOFUELS 5
Table 2. Comparison of the results obtained from the simulation in this
paper and in Zhang et al. [20].
Zhang
This paper et al. [20] Difference (%)
Biodiesel fraction 0.9840 0.9976 1.4
Glycerin fraction 0.9322 0.9904 5.9
Methanol recycle (kmol/h) 213.1500 216.0000 1.3
Biodiesel production (kmol/h) 97.0900 89.7500 8.2
Glycerin production (kmol/h) 32.3800 29.8100 8.6
significantly affect the results because the molecular
weight of triolein is approximately the mean molecular
weight of soybean oil [28]. This simplification was done to
allow the use of available property databases and to
reduce the complexity of the simulation. The UNIQUAC
model was used in the calculations of thermodynamic
properties. The effect of ionic components in the mixture
was neglected in view of the small quantities present.
Table 2 displays a comparison between the results
obtained in this work and those in the work by Zhang
et al. [20]. The results show a good correspondence. Small
deviations appear due to some suppositions about the
operation conditions or design equipment. The process
reaches a slightly greater biodiesel and glycerin production,
caused by differences in the separation process conditions.
The global biodiesel yield in the simulated process was
99.17%, against 99.92% obtained in the work by Zhang
et al. [20]. Table 3 shows the simulation results for each
material stream and the respective material and
energy balance.
Individual control evaluation
The control strategy could be evaluated by the individual
performance of the controllers, as in the traditional
approach, or with some indicators more generally repre-
senting a plantwide overview. In the first approach, the
individual control results were observed after the global
indexes were calculated to provide a global process
perspective.
The critical step in biodiesel production is the purification
process, due to temperature constraints. The product can be
degraded in temperatures higher than 150  C and 250  C for
glycerol and biodiesel, respectively. Taking this into consider-
ation, the purification process is carried out in a vacuum col-
umn and the pressure controllers have an important role in
maintaining product quality. Figure 3 shows the control
behavior of controller PC100 with the two proposal tuning
sets. The 5% disturbance was applied in the oil flow rate
input, which was from 29.9 to 31.1 kmol/h.
Small variations in PC100 were observed in the conden-
ser pressure of a biodiesel purification column in the two
proposals. Although proposal 2 achieves a faster response,
it is noted that it has a slightly greater variation. This
behavior could be observed in other controllers in the bio-
diesel process.
An open control test was carried out to verify the influ-
ence on the condenser pressure control. The results of the
open controller can be observed in Figure 4, in which it is
possible to see a significant pressure increase in the con-
denser over a disturbance of 5%.
In the fine adjustment of the level controls, the LC111
was selected as a proportional controller in proposal 2. This
6 B. DA SILVA ET AL.

Table 3. Simulation results of the steady state and mass and energy balance.
Genetation
Substance Inflow (kmol/h) Outflow (kmol/h) Consumption (kmol/h) Diff. (kmol/h)
Triolein 29.5900 0.2971 29.2929 9.80  1010
Methanol 91.9624 4.4640 87.4984 5.22  1008
Glycerol – 29.0739 29.0739 8.82  1008
Diolein – 0.1614 0.1614 4.25  1007
Biodiesel – 87.4984 87.4984 4.75  1008
Monoolein – 0.0576 0.0576 1.23  1006
Water 3.6636 3.6636 – 7.65  1007
HCl 0.1097 0.1097 – 3.95  1008
NaOH – – – –
NaCl – – – –
Balance
Molar (kmol/h) 125.3260 125.3260 7.22  1014 1.95  1009
Mass (kg/h) 29,217.1000 29,217.1000 3.37  1008
Enthalpy (Gcal/h) 19.7183 19.8487 6.57  1003

Figure 5. LC111 control behavior after a 5% disturbance for (A) proposal 1

Figure 4. Control behavior after a 5% disturbance for (A) proposal 1 and (B)
proposal 2 for an open control.
was necessary to keep the dynamic simulation stable under
the disturbances. Figure 5 presents the behavior of the
LC111 in proposal 1 (A) and proposal 2 (B).
The other control loops were analyzed and similar behav-
iors were observed. In an individual analysis the two pro-
posals are similar, but in a plantwide approach it is necessary
to evaluate the global performance of the control strategies.
Plantwide control performance evaluation
The process global overview needs to be set according to
previous goal definitions. In this case, the main purpose
aims at a satisfactory stable process, with commercial prod-
uct quality and higher probability to obtain profits. The
two PWC strategies were tested with disturbances in the
oil flow rate with a variation between 5% and 5%. The
control systems kept the process controlled over the distur-
bances applied and the biodiesel purity with low variations
was always larger than 98.4%wt, which is above the com-
mercially required purity of 96.5%wt.
and (B) proposal 2. PV - Process Variable, SP - Setpoint, MV -
Manipulated Variable.
The increment in the triolein flow rate contributed to a
decrease in the purity of the products, since the excess of
oil led to an increase in the alcohol of the system, which
cannot be separated properly by the purification system. It
is particularly true considering the glycerol purity is in the
range 93–99%wt, as can be seen in Figure 6.
In order to quantify and compare the different control
strategies, the dynamic disturbance is an interesting alter-
native to evaluate the global control performance. Figure 7
shows the results of this key indicator, and it can be
observed that the positive disturbances in the raw material
are more detectable than the negative disturbances. This
indicator is useful because it provides information about
how these deviations affect the process stability.
The economic aspect of the process could be evaluated
by an economic indicator, which represents the selling
price of products over the raw materials cost. This ratio
indicates that the first control strategy reaches a more sta-
ble relation, while proposal 2 presents more variation in
this ratio, reaching better results with the negative disturb-
ance. In considering the economic indicator values, the
 BIOFUELS 7

controllers. The proportional nature of the level controller

LC111 in proposal 2 led to worse DDS values.
The simulation of the biodiesel production process in
Aspen Plus and Aspen Plus Dynamics was shown to be a
good strategy to carry out control system evaluation, which
assists in the implementation of control structures in a real
process. However, the proper configuration of models and
numerical methods was a complex and challenging task.
Finally, the proposed approach was applied for a biodiesel
process, but it could be implemented for the evaluation of
plant-wide control of other processes. In addition, KPIs related
to other issues such as safety, environment, and process or
equipment effectiveness could be used to provide control
strategies based on specific process demands.

Conclusions
In conclusion, this work presented procedures to evaluate
different plantwide control structures using key perform-
ance indicators. It was demonstrated that KPIs can be used
for PWC performance assessment. Furthermore, by evaluat-
ing an economic indicator the proposed approach could
Figure 6. Glycerol purity for (A) proposal 1 and (B) proposal 2. There were
disturbances in the triolein flow rate.
be used to improve the profitability of biodiesel plants
while maintaining product specifications.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
The authors are grateful to Coordination for the Improvement of
Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for financial support.

ORCID
Jones Erni Schmitz http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4337-1480
Ivan Carlos Franco http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4811-8158
Fl
avio Vasconcelos da Silva http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1046-3976

References
Figure 7. Comparison between proposals 1 and 2 using key performance
indicators. DDS: Dynamic disturbance sensitivity.
variability for proposal 1 was around 74% smaller than the
variability for proposal 2. Besides, proposal 1 provides a
slight increase in the indicator mean value. In a business-
oriented strategy, a stable strategy is a better choice. Thus,
by using the economic indicator as a performance assess-
ment index for PWC of the biodiesel production process, it
is possible to increase the profitability of biodiesel plants.
The results presented here show a better performance in
proposal 1. Proposal 2 presents a high values of DDS and
more variability in the economic indicator; this performance
could be improved with a review of the parameters of the
[1] Singh R, Tevatia R, White D, et al. Comparative kinetic model-
ing of growth and molecular hydrogen overproduction by
engineered strains of thermotoga maritima. Int J Hydrog
Energy. 2019; 44:7125-7136.
[2] Scarlat N, Dallemand JF, Monforti-Ferrario F, et al. Renewable
energy policy framework and bioenergy contribution in the
European Union – An overview from National Renewable
Energy Action Plans and Progress Reports. Renew Sust Energy
Rev. 2015;51:969–985.
[3] Marousek J, Itoh S, Higa O, et al. The use of underwater high-
voltage discharges to improve the efficiency of Jatropha curcas
L. biodiesel production. Biotech Appl Biochem. 2012;59:
451–456.
[4] Karimi A, Babaei M, Lotfi V, et al. Production of biodiesel by an
impinging jet reactor using alkali and enzymatic catalysts.
Biofuels. 2018;9:19–27.
[5] Gole VL, Gogate PR. A review on intensification of synthesis of
biodiesel from sustainable feed stock using sonochemical reac-
tors. Chem Eng Process. 2012;53:1–9.
[6] Chen K-J, Chen Y-S. Intensified production of biodiesel using a
spinning disk reactor. Chem Eng Process. 2014;78:67–72.
8 B. DA SILVA ET AL.

[7] Marousek J. Use of continuous pressure shockwaves apparatus
in rapeseed oil processing. Clean Techn Environ Policy. 2013;15:
721–725.
[8] Singh K, Kaloni D, Gaur S, et al. Current research and perspec-
tives on microalgae-derived biodiesel. Biofuels. 2017. DOI:
10.1080/17597269.2017.1278932.
[9] Mjalli FS, San LK, Yin KC, et al. Dynamics and control of a bio-
diesel transesterification reactor. Chem Eng Technol. 2009;32:
13–26.
[10] Mjalli FS, Hussain MA. Approximate predictive versus self-tun-
ing adaptive control strategies of biodiesel reactors. Ind Eng
Chem Res. 2009;48:11034–11047.
[11] Bildea CS, Kiss AA. Dynamics and control of a biodiesel process
by reactive absorption. Chem Eng Res Design. 2011;89:187–196.
[12] Shen YH, Cheng JK, Ward JD, et al. Design and control of bio-
diesel production processes with phase split and recycle in the
reactor system. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng. 2011;42:741–750.
[13] Benavides PT, Diwekar U. Optimal control of biodiesel produc-
tion in a batch reactor: Part I: Deterministic control. Fuel. 2012;
94:211–217.
[14] Ignat RM, Kiss AA. Optimal design, dynamics and control of a
reactive DWC for biodiesel production. Chem Eng Res Design.
2013;91:1760–1767.
[15] Segovia-Hernandez JG, V
azquez-Ojedaa M, Go
mez-Castroa FI,
et al. Process control analysis for intensified bioethanol separ-
ation systems. Chem Eng Process. 2014;75:119–125.
[16] Fonseca RR, Fileti AMF, Franco IC, et al. Experimental fuzzy/
split-range control: Novel strategy for biodiesel batch reactor
temperature control. Chem Eng Commun. 2016;203:1251–1259.
[17] Luyben ML, Tyreus BD, Luyben WL. Plantwide control design
procedure. AIChE J. . 1997;43:3161–3174.
[18] Konda NVSNM, Rangaiah GP. Performance assessment of plant-
wide control systems of industrial processes. Ind Eng Chem
Res. . 2007;46:1220–1231.
[19] Vasudevan S, Rangaiah GP. A review of plantwide control
methodologies and applications. In: G. P. Rangaiah, V. Kariwala,
editors. Plantwide Control: Recent Developments and
Applications. New York(NY): John Wiley & Sons; 2012. p.
181–197; Chapter 9.
[20] Zhang C, Rangaiah GP, Kariwala V. Design and plantwide con-
trol of a biodiesel plant. In: Plantwide control: Recent develop-
ments and applications (Eds. G. P. Rangaiah, V. Kariwala). John
Wiley & Sons 2012, Chapter 14:293–316.
[21] Downs JJ, Skogestad S. An industrial and academic perspective
on plantwide control. Annual Reviews in Control. 2011;35:
99–110.
[22] Vasudevan S. Plant-wide Control: Methodologies, Applications
and Performance Assessment, PhD. Thesis, National University
of Singapore, 2010.
[23] Desborough L, Miller R. Increasing customer value of industrial
control performance monitoring—Honeywell’s experience. In:
Chemical engineering control (Eds. J. B. Rawlings, B. A.
Ogunnaike). AIChE Symposium Series 2002, 169–189.
[24] Poddar T, Jagannath A, Almansoori A. Biodiesel production
using reactive distillation: A comparative simulation study.
Energy Procedia. 2015;75:17–22.
[25] Noureddini N, Zhu D. Kinetics of transesterification of soybean
oil. J Amer Oil Chem Soc. 1997;74:1457–1463.
[26] Sinnot RK. Chemical Engineering Design, 4rd ed., Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann 2005.
[27] Konda NVSNM, Rangaiah GP, Krishnaswmy PR. A Simple and
effective procedure for control degrees of freedom. Chemical
Engineering Science. 2006;61:1184–1194.
[28] Silva SP. Influence of temperature on biodiesel production. In:
5th Brazilian Congress of Research and Development in Oil and
Gas, Fortaleza, CE, 2009.

Appendix A

Table A1. Valve pressure drop.

Unit DP [kPa] Unit DP [kPa]
V100 50 V111 50
V101 50 V112 50
V102 50 V113 50
V103 20 V114 50
V104 20 V115 50
V105 20 V116 50
V106 300 V117 50
V107 82 V118 50
V108 300 V119 50
V109 82 V120 50
V110 346 V121 150

Table A2. Pump discharge pressure.

Unit Pout [kPa]
P100 450
P101 450
P102 600
P103 350
P104 150
P105 150
P106 150

Table A3. Distillation column parameters.

T100 T101
Trays 5 10
Reflux ratio 0.5 0.5
Methanol ratio (distilled/feed) 0.98 0.98
Condenser temperature ( C) 10.2 45.7
Condenser pressure (bar) 0.8 0.8
 BIOFUELS 9

Table A4. Control parameters of PWC proposal 1.

ID Process variable Manipulated variable Act. KC (%/%) sI(min) SP OP0
FC100 Oil flow rate V101 opening Dir. 2.37 4.00 29.59 kmol 50.00%
AC100 Methanol:oil ratio V100 opening Dir. 4.22 4.00 10.50 50.00%
TC100 CSTR1 temperature Heat exchange Dir. 7.52 2.10 70.00  C 892.62 kJ/s
LC100 CSTR1 level V106 opening Rev. 61.52 4.07 2.02 m 50.00%
LC101 DEC100 L1 level V120 opening Rev. 2.00 414.11 0.95 m 51.40%
LC102 DEC100 L2 level V107 opening Rev. 2.00 521.99 0.29 m 50.00%
TC101 CSTR2 temperature Heat exchange Dir. 14.10 4.02 70.00  C 23.83 kJ/s
LC103 CSTR2 level V108 opening Rev. 65.10 4.11 1.95 m 50.00%
LC104 DEC101 L1 level V121 opening Rev. 1.05 43.00 0.95 m 51.30%
LC105 DEC101 L2 level V109 opening Rev. 10.00 60.00 0.25 m 50.00%
TC102 CSTR3 temperature Heat exchange Dir. 24.00 4.02 70.00  C 14.82 kJ/s
LC106 CSTR3 level V110 opening Rev. 67.05 4.13 1.95 m 50.00%
PC100 T100 condenser pressure Heat exchange Dir. 0.71 6.93 0.50 bar 1181.2 kJ/s
LC107 T101 Boiler level V114 opening Rev. 1.75 116.95 0.25 m 39.00%
LC108 T101 Condenser level V113 opening Rev. 74.60 4.00 0.70 m 37.00%
PC101 T101 Condenser pressure Heat exchange Dir. 0.60 4.02 0.30 bar 2222.30 kJ/s
LC109 T100 Boiler level V112 opening Rev. 2.50 20.00 0.20 m 18.00%
LC110 T100 Condenser level V111 opening Rev. 4.00 30.00 0.40 m 32.50%
LC111 CSRT4 level V115 opening Rev. 3.00 10.00 3.00 m 50.00%
LC112 WASH L1 level V119 opening Rev. 15.00 40.00 0.55 m 50.20%
LC113 WASH L2 level V118 opening Rev. 10.00 60.00 0.55 m 50.00%

Table A5. Control parameters of PWC proposal 2.

ID Process variable Manipulated variable Act. KC (%/%) sI(min) SP OP0
FC100 Oil flow rate V101 opening Dir. 14.8 2.6 29.59 kmol 50.00%
AC100 Methanol:oil ratio V100 opening Dir. 13.3 4.0 10.50 50.00%
TC100 CSTR1 temperature Heat exchange Dir. 56.2 5.3 70.00  C 892.62 kJ/s
LC100 CSTR1 level V106 opening Rev. 26.0 11.9 2.02 m 50.00%
LC101 DEC100 L1 level V120 opening Rev. 31.0 9.2 0.95 m 51.40%
LC102 DEC100 L2 level V107 opening Rev. 4.2 11.9 0.29 m 50.00%
TC101 CSTR2 temperature Heat exchange Dir. 3.7 2.6 70.00  C 23.83 kJ/s
LC103 CSTR2 level V108 opening Rev. 17.2 5.3 1.95 m 50.00%
LC104 DEC101 L1 level V121 opening Rev. 10.2 4.0 0.95 m 51.30%
LC105 DEC101 L2 level V109 opening Rev. 37.0 9.5 0.25 m 50.00%
TC102 CSTR3 temperature Heat exchange Dir. 81.8 9.2 70.00  C 14.82 kJ/s
LC106 CSTR3 level V110 opening Rev. 22.0 4.0 1.95 m 50.00%
PC100 T100 condenser pressure Heat exchange Dir. 2.1 7.9 0.50 bar 1181.20 kJ/s
LC107 T101 boiler level V114 opening Rev. 13.7 2.6 0.25 m 39.00%
LC108 T101 Condenser level V113 opening Rev. 13.0 7.9 0.70 m 37%
PC101 T101 Condenser pressure Heat exchange Dir. 2.7 11.9 0.30 bar 2222.3 kJ/s
LC109 T100 Boiler level V112 opening Rev. 90.9 2.6 0.20 m 21%
LC110 T100 Condenser level V111 opening Rev. 42.0 2.6 0.40 m 32.50%
LC111 CSRT4 level V115 opening Rev. 2.0 – 3.00 m 50%
LC112 WASH L1 level V119 opening Rev. 43.0 4.0 0.55 m 50.20%
LC113 WASH L2 level V118 opening Rev. 35.0 2.6 0.55 m 49.90%