Distillation Column

Control

09
APR
2015 Distillation: Inferential Temperature
25
Control & Single-Ended Control
Distillation Column Control controlguru

By Jim Riggs1

In the first article of this series, Jim discussed control relevant issues associated with
distillation columns. The second article presented the major disturbances affecting
composition control and the importance of properly functioning regulatory controls.

In this article, Jim discusses the use of product composition measurements in distillation
column control. He also explores single composition strategies where either the top or
bottom product composition is controlled while the other is allowed to float.

Product Composition Measurements

Product impurity levels (measured either on-line or in the laboratory) are used by
feedback controllers to adjust column operation to meet product specifications. In
addition, tray temperatures are used to infer product compositions, where feasible.
On-line analyzers
There is a range of on-line analyzers commonly used in the chemical process industries
(e.g., gas chromatographs). A key issue with analyzers is their associated analyzer
delay.

For columns that have slow-responding composition dynamics, analyzer delay is usually
less of an issue. For a propylene/propane splitter (i.e., a high reflux ratio column), the
composition dynamics for the primary product have a time constant of about 2 hours. As
the cycle time for the analyzer increases from 5 minutes to 10 minutes, it does not
significantly affect the feedback control performance.

For an ethane/propane splitter (i.e., a low reflux ratio column), even a five-minute
analyzer delay seriously undermines composition control performance because the time
constant for this process is less than five minutes. Fortunately, most fast-acting columns
have a significant temperature drop across them so that product composition can be
effectively inferred from tray temperature measurements.

For columns that have a low relative volatility (i.e., less than 1.4), inferential temperature
control is not feasible and feedback based on an on-line analyzer is required, but these
columns generally have slow composition dynamics compared to the analyzer delay. For
columns with a high relative volatility (i.e., greater than 2.0), inferential temperature
control is usually effective.

Inferential temperature control

Inferential temperature control is an effective means of maintaining composition control
for columns from a control and economic standpoint. That is, it greatly reduces the
analyzer dead time for feedback control and is much less expensive to install and
maintain than an on-line composition analyzer. Because of their superior repeatability,
RTDs (resistance temperature detectors) and thermistors are usually used for inferential
temperature applications.

For multicomponent separations, tray temperatures do not uniquely determine the

product composition. As a result, for these cases it is essential that an on-line analyzer
or, at least, periodic laboratory analysis be used to adjust the tray temperature set point
to the proper level.

If feedback based on laboratory analysis is not used, offset between the desired product
composition and the actual product composition can result. Column pressure also
significantly affects tray temperature measurements. For most systems, a simple linear
correction compensates for variations in column pressure:
where Tpc is the pressure-compensated temperature that should be used for feedback
control, Tmeas is the measured tray temperature, Kpr is pressure correction factor, P is
the operating pressure and P0 is the reference pressure.

Kpr can be estimated by applying a steady-state column simulator for two different
pressures within the normal operating range and using the following equation:

where Ti is the value of the tray temperature for tray i predicted by the column simulator.

A steady-state column model can also be used to determine the best tray locations for
inferential control by finding the trays whose temperatures show the strongest correlation
with product composition. The following procedure is recommended:
Table 1 (click for a large view) shows an example of this approach used to locate the
best tray temperature for inferential temperature control in the stripping section of a
depropanizer.
Note that a temperature measurement anywhere between tray 7 and tray 16 should
work well for this application for the assumed feed composition.

For certain columns, the bulk of the temperature change occurs in a few trays, resulting
in a very steep temperature profile. If a single tray temperature is used to infer the
product composition in such a case, feed composition changes can move the location of
the steep temperature change away from the tray selected for control, leading to a
situation in which the chosen tray temperature is insensitive to changes in product
impurity levels.

This problem can be handled by controlling the average of several tray temperatures
that bracket the area where the steep temperature changes occur for feed composition
changes. In this manner, when feed changes cause the temperature profile in the
column to move, at least one of the tray temperatures used in the average of the
temperatures is located on the steep temperature front. The average of the tray
temperatures should still be sensitive to product impurity changes over the full range of
feed composition changes.

Single Composition Control

Here the composition of one product is controlled while the composition of the other
product is allowed to float. In the chemical industry over 90% of the columns are
operated under single composition control compared to dual composition control, which
controls both the overhead and the bottoms product compositions.
Figure 8 shows single composition control using the reflux to control the purity of the
overhead product while maintaining a fixed reboiler duty. The bottom composition is not
controlled directly and can vary significantly as the feed composition changes.

The control performance of the overhead product is generally best when reflux, L, rather
than either the distillate flow rate, D, or the reflux ratio, L/D is the MV. L is the fastest-
acting MV for the overhead and the least sensitive to feed composition changes.
Because the reboiler duty is fixed, coupling is not an issue
When the bottom product is controlled by single composition control, the control
configuration shown in Figure 9 is recommended. Because the boilup rate, V, is faster
acting and less sensitive to disturbances than either the bottoms product rate, B, or the
boilup ratio, V/B, V is used to control the bottom product composition with the reflux rate
fixed, which allows the overhead composition to float.

Single composition control is much easier to implement, tune and maintain than dual
composition control. The choice between single and dual composition control is based
on the tradeoff between the additional cost associated with dual composition control
(analyzer costs, increased controller maintenance, etc.) and the economic benefit of dual
composition control (increased product recovery and reduced utility costs).

While single composition control is in widespread use in the chemical industry, dual
composition control is generally preferred for refinery columns and columns that produce
high-volume chemical intermediates because the energy usage for these columns is
much larger.

More on Distillation Control

The final article in this four part series on distillation control will discuss advanced issues
including dual composition control and constraint control.

_______

1. This material is reprinted from Chemical Process Control, 2nd Ed. with the permission
of the publisher: Ferret Publishing (806 747 3872).

About the Author

Jim Riggs is a professor of chemical engineering at Texas Tech University, where he has
been since 1983. He has served as an industrial consultant and presented a number of
industrial short courses on various topics relating to process control. He is the author of
several popular chemical engineering textbooks and co-founded the Texas Tech Process
Control Consortium in 1992.

Jim Riggs
Department of Chemical Engineering
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, Texas 79410
Email: jim.riggs@ttu.edu