implementation.

DeltaV provides Pseudo Random Binary

Signal (PRBS) signal to MV for a test to generate
corresponding CV response. As shown in Figure 2.
Table 2 and Table 3
gives us corresponding values of Controlled and
6 Constraint variables for change in Manipulated variable.
From this we can obtain gain and can verify the
7 MPC IMPLEMENTATION ON THE PART
Table 2
OF DISTILLATION COLUMN Manipulated Variable
Here bottom product composition is considered for
Time Reflux Reboile Pressur Sidestream
control. Temperature is the indirect measurement r e
parameter for the composition [3]. Bottom temperature is
main control variable for the bottom composition. To 11.45 57 72 20 70.99
manipulate this control variable, used manipulated 12.00 67 62 17.50 75
variables are Reboiler flow ,Side Stream flow, Reflux 12.15 47 82 22.50 65
12.30 47 82 22.50 75
flow and Pressure. Reflux Valve Position and Re-boiler
Valve position are constraint variables. By the following
Table 3
way MPC has been implemented using DeltaV.

7.1 MODEL IDENTIFICATION

Model plays an important role in Model Predictive Controlled Variable Constraint Variable
Control (MPC) because it facilitates approximately
Time Upper Side Bottom Side Reboiler Reflux
correct time response of change in process output Temp. Temp. Valve Valve
(controlled or constrained variable) for a change in Position Position
process input (manipulated variable). Looking at the 11.45 135.81 226.34 96.07 85.47
difficulties of Distillation Process, model identification 12.00 138.54 231.13 91.01 87.43
12.15 138.66 221.11 100 80.75
assists in the development of plant model that can
12.30 141.58 235.66 100 80.45
adequately characterize temperature and flow control.
Multivariable model tries to show relationships between
model which will be generated in future. By
input-output pair that may have prominent association
selecting the AUTO generation button, model is
with each other. By using MPCPro block of DeltaV
Figure 2: PRBS test for Model Identification
variables can be selected. Selected variables are shown in
generated. The validity of the step response can
Condition to execute MPCPro algorithm
be obtained from the background color of the
is that number of controlled and constrained parameters
individual step response as shown in the Figure
must be less than or equal to manipulated parameter. [13]
3. Red colored step response is the most
significant for the associated Manipulated
Table 1
process input.Step test provides Steady State
Process Gain, Time Constant and Dead Time.
SP SP Low High Matrix is obtained in the Transfer Function form
Variables
Low High Limit Limit
as below:
Bottom Side
Controlled 0 300 - - Bottom side temperature

[ ]
Temp.
Variable
Upper Side Temp. 0 500 - - Reboiler Valve Position
Constraint Reboiler Valve =
Variable Position
- - 0 95 Upper SideTemperature
Reflux Valve
- - 0 95 Reflux Valve Position
Position
Manipulate Sidestream flow - - 35 80
d Variable Reboiler Flow - - 45 90 0.19 e−22 s 0.4 e−10 s 0.211e−16 s

[ ]
Pressure - - 15 25 0 0
Reflux Flow - - 50 90
18 s +1 15.2 s +1 16.61 s+1
0.893 e−2 s R

[
Disturbanc Reflux
- - - -
e Temperature 0 0 0 0 Re
4.15 s+1
Pre
After putting all the relevant values for the Controlled, −0.20 e−8 s 0.078 e−20 s
Manipulated, Constraints and Disturbances, launch the 0 0 0 Re
19.72 s +1 20.109 s +1
DeltaV PredictPro application for the commission and Side
testing. Parameters required for model generation are 0.98 e−2 s
0 0 0 0
Time to Steady State and Step Size. Here values for above 4.15 s+1
parameters are 240 sec and 5% respectively. Step testing
offers interaction between process variables during MPC
Model is verified by choosing the Control and Constraint
 parameter. The squared error is shown for all Control and moves of MV, defined by the vector∆ u (k ).
Constraint parameters. In addition, for selected
parameters, the calculated and actual values can be ∆ X k =¿ Su ∆ u(k).=
plotted for the original time or for the timeframe selected
by the green bar in the overview.
b0 0 0 0

[ ][ ]
8 MODEL VERIFICATION ∆u k
Alternatively, the FIR response can be used as a guide in
b1 b0 0 0
∆ uk +1
manually editing the step response. FIR identifies pulse b2 b1 b0 0
response coefficients, as in below for a SISO process. ∆ uk +2
⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ =
⋮
p bi bi−1 bi−2 bi−c+1
⋮
∆ y k =∑ hi ∆ uk −i ---------------------- (5) ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮
∆u k+c−1
i=1 b p−1 b p−2 b p −3 b p−c
where p is prediction horizon, with a typical default value
∆ y0
for MPC model 120; ∆ y k is change in the process

output at the time k; ∆ u k−i is change in the process input
at the time k – i; and hi is the pulse response coefficient of
Figure 3: Model overview in DeltaV
the model[8]. On other hand ARX has fewer coefficients
which are defined with higher confidence, provided the
process dead times are known.
v a
y k =∑ ai y k−i+ ∑ bi uk−d −i -------------- (6)
i=1 i=1
Where a, v are autoregressive and moving average
equation orders of ARX; a = 4, v = 4 satisfy most
applications;a i , bi are moving average and autoregressive
coefficients of the ARX model; and d is dead time in
scans. As shown in Figure 4, the FIR response provides
valuable information on the process gain and response.
This alternative method essentially involves comparison
of ARX (Auto Regressive model with External input)
with FIR. The squared error is shown for all Control and
Figure 4: Comparison between ARX and FIR Response
Constraint parameters. Here squared error is 0.21. Refer
Figure 5. In addition, for selected parameters, the
calculated and actual value can be plotted for the original
time or for the timeframe selected by the green bar in the
overview. This involves comparison of calculated output
and actual output. This is shown in the Figure 6.
[]
∆ y1
∆ y2
⋮
∆ yi
⋮
∆ y p−1
Once the model is accurate, Controller Generation is the
next stage. Condition to execute Controller Generation is
number of Controlled and Constrained Parameters must
be less than or equal to Manipulated Parameter. Penalty
on Move (POM) and Penalty on Error (POE) are two
parameters to adjust the robustness of control and speed
of response. By using Controller Setup, parameters are
selected for controller generation. This gives condition
number. Lower condition number gives better control.
Penalty on Move is a parameter that affects robustness.
To make control less aggressive Penalty on Move of that
parameter increases. The MPC controller minimizes the
squared error of a controlled variable over prediction
horizon and the squared error of controller output over
control horizon.
2 2
min
∆ MV (k)
{‖Г y
[CV ( k )−R (k )]‖ +‖Г u ∆ MV (k )‖ }
----------- (7)

where CV(k) is the controlled output p-step ahead

Figure 6 : Comparison between actual and predicted value of CV
9 CONTROLLER GENERATION
A dynamic matrix is used for developing an MPC
controller. A dynamic matrix is built from step responses
to predict the changes in the process outputs that result
from moves of the manipulated variables over the control
horizon. Dynamic matrix Su as in Equation below,
calculates prediction vector ∆ X k resulting from c future
prediction vector; R(k) is the p-step ahead reference
trajectory (set point) vector; ΔMV(k) is the c-step ahead
incremental control moves vector; Гy is a diagonal
penalty matrix on the controlled output error; Гu is a
diagonal penalty matrix on the control moves; p is the
prediction horizon (number of scans); and c is the control
horizon (number of scans).
10 MPC CONTROLLER EQUATION

Figure 5: Performance of Model


ΔMV(k) = (SuT Г yT Г ySu + Г uT Г u)-1 SuT Г yT Г y Ep(k)
--------- (8)
Where Su is the p × c process dynamic matrix built from
the step responses of dimension p ×c for a SISO model
and pn × cm for a MIMO model with m manipulated
inputs and n controlled outputs; and E p (k ) is the error
vector over prediction horizon. Presenting MPC control
equation in the form
higher limit, Reboiler flow (MV) didn’t change
significantly (69.90 KPPH to 69.95 KPPH). Instead of
that, sidestream is changed from 69.71 BPD to 71.13
BPD. Again set point is changed from 218.910 F to
217.620 F . Then, Reboiler flow (mv) is changed
significantly, because now, its related constraint (Reboiler
Valve Position) is in limit. Like this way, Set point tracks
Set point tracks as well as constraints are handled Using
MPC as shown in Figure 7.
B. In MPC Mode (With MPC)

Δ MV ( k )=K mpc E p ( k )----------------(9) Table 4

Controlled Variable Manipulated Variable
S.P. of Bottom Side Reboile Sidestrea
Where K mpc =¿(S Г Г S + Г
uT yT y u uT
Г ) S Г
u -1 uT yT
Bottom Side Temperatur r Valve Reboiler
m
Reflux
Flow Flow
Г y Temperatur
e
e Position flow
0 0 69.90KPP 76.79
217.62 F 217.62 F 94.40%
H
69.71BPD
Bbl/day
69.95KPP 76.90
11 RESULTS 218.910 F 218.910 F 94.45%
H
71.13 BPD
Bbl/day
65.11KPP 74.75
217.620 F 217.620 F 92.48%
H
70.25 BPD
Bbl/day
11.1 Comparison of variables between with MPC and
without MPC (local)
In Local Mode i.e. without MPC, deviation of 5% in 12 CONCLUSION
steady state value of manipulated variable ( Reboiler Model generated in MPC is of high accuracy, as it is
Flow) results in change in most relevant controlled rightly confirmed from the methods used in Model
variable i.e. Bottom Side Temperature from 217.620 F Verification. Further MPC gives better results over PID in
to 218.910 F . This value is noted down. It also deviates the application of Interactive Multivariable Control
other controlled variable, Upper Side Temperature from System. As seen from above results MPC was able to
their Set Point (SP) and constraint variable from its steady handle constraints very effectively as in this case Reflux
state value. During this procedure, other manipulated Valve Position and Reboiler Valve Position was
variables remained to its original position. Note that, constrained between low limit and high limit.
constraint variable (Reboiler valve Position) crossed its
higher limit (95%) i.e. 97.49%.
A. In Local Mode (Without MPC) ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
We are very thankful to Emerson Export
Engineering Centre for giving us opportunity. We would
Table 3 like to thank Mr. Koustubh Palnitkar and Mr. Archis Labhe
for technical assistance. We are very grateful to Mr. Sachin
Manip Controlled Constrai Soman for moral inspiration while carrying out this project.
ulated Variable nt
Variabl Variable
e REFERENCES:
Reboiler Botto Upper Reb Ref
Flow m Side side oile lux [ 1] Willian L. Luyben, ‘Process Modelling, Simulation
Tempe tempe r Val
rature 0rature 0Val
94.9 ve
95. Figure7: How better Interactive process is handled by MPC over
70 KPPH 217.62 127.79
F 2%F 43 PID
0 97.4
0 95.
75 KPPH 218.91 128.77
F 9%F 38 and Control for Chemical Engineers’, 1990.
94.9 95.
217.64 0127.89 0
70 KPPH F 1%F 42
[ 2] Warren L. McCabe, Julian C. Smith, Peter
Harriott, ‘Unit Operations of Chemical engineering’,
Mc GRAW-HILL International Editions, Chemical
Now, noted value of Bottom Side Temperature in local and Petroleum Engineering Series, Fifth
mode is given as Set Point of Bottom Side Temperature Edition,1993.
in MPC mode and results are checked. It is rightly
observed that not only controlled variable tracks set point [ 3] Bѐla G. Lipták, Instrument Engineers’ handbook :
but also does not affect other CVs (Controlled and Process Control, Third Edition, 1995.
Constraint Variable). To track set point, MV
(Manipulated Variable) utilization is carried out. As [ 4] B. Wayne Bequette, ‘Process Control, Modelling
constraint (Reboiler Valve Position) is reached to its and Simulation’, Prentice Hall of India Pvt.
 Ltd.2003.

[ 5] S. Joe Qin, Thomas A. Badgwell, ‘A survey

of industrial model predictive control technology’,
Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733-764.

[ 6] Sudhir Panditrao, Sudhir Agashe, Prashant

Shevgaonkar, ‘Model Predictive Control of Pilot
Spray Dryer Unit Designed and implemented for an
Educational Institute ’.

[ 7] Dale E. Seborg, Thomas. F. Edgar, Duncan A.

Mellichamp, ‘Process Dynamics and
Control’,Second Edition, 2004.

[ 8] W.K. Wojsznis (2005), Model Predictive Control

and Optimization.

[ 9] Tri Chandra S.Wibowo, Nordin Saad, and Mohd

Noh Karsiti, ‘System Identification of an Interacting
Series Process for Real-Time Model Predictive
Control’, 2009 American Control Conference Hyatt
Regency Riverfront, St. Louis, MO, USA June 10-
12, 2009.

[ 10] Vu Trieu Minh, Wan Mansor Wan

Muhamad, ‘Model Predictive Control of a
Condensate Distillation Column’, International
Journal of Systems Control (Vol. 1-2010/ Iss.1).

[ 11] Saniye Ay and Suleyman Karacan,

‘Decoupling Constrained Model Predictive Control
of Multi-component Packed Distillation Column’,
World Applied Sciences Journal 13, 2011.

[ 12] Yucai Zhu, Rohit Patwardhan, Stephen B.

Wagner, Jun Jhao, ‘Toward a low cost and high
performance MPC: The role of system
identification’, Computers and Chemical
Engineering 51 (2013) 124-135.

[ 13] Books on-line, DeltaV DCS Documentation,

Emerson Process Management, USA.