12.00 67 62 17.

50 75
12.15 47 82 22.50 65
12.30 47 82 22.50 75

Table 3

7.1 MODEL IDENTIFICATION model which will be generated in future. By

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

[ ]
Temp.
Variable Upper Side Temp. 0 500 - -
Reboiler Valve Position
Constraint Reboiler Valve
- - 0 95 =
Variable Position Upper SideTemperature
Reflux Valve
Position
- - 0 95 Reflux Valve 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
Disturbanc
0.893 e−2 s R

[
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
Time to Steady State and Step Size. Here values for above 0 0 0 0
4.15 s+1
parameters are 240 sec and 5% respectively. Step testing
offers interaction between process variables during MPC
implementation. DeltaV provides Pseudo Random Binary Model is verified by choosing the Control and Constraint
Signal (PRBS) signal to MV for a test to generate parameter. The squared error is shown for all Control and
corresponding CV response. As shown in Figure 2. Constraint parameters. In addition, for selected
Table 2 and Table 3 parameters, the calculated and actual values can be
gives us corresponding values of Controlled and plotted for the original time or for the timeframe selected
Constraint variables for change in Manipulated variable. by the green bar in the overview.
From this we can obtain gain and can verify the
8 MODEL VERIFICATION
Table 2 Alternatively, the FIR response can be used as a guide in
Manipulated Variable manually editing the step response. FIR identifies pulse
Time Reflux Reboile Pressur Sidestream response coefficients, as in below for a SISO process.
r e

11.45 57 72 20 70.99

Figure 3: Model overview in DeltaV

 p
∆ y k =∑ hi ∆ uk −i ---------------------- (5) b0 0 0 0

[ ][ ]
∆u k
i=1 b1 b0 0 0
∆ uk +1
where p is prediction horizon, with a typical default value
b2 b1 b0 0
∆ uk +2
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 bi bi−1 bi−2 bi−c+1
⋮
at the time k – i; and hi is the pulse response coefficient of ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮
the model[8]. On other hand ARX has fewer coefficients
∆u k+c−1
b p−1 b p−2 b p −3 b p−c
which are defined with higher confidence, provided the ∆ y0

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
Constraint parameters. Here squared error is 0.21. Refer
Figure 4: Comparison between ARX and FIR Response
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.
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
moves of MV, defined by the vector∆ u (k ).
∆ X k =¿ Su ∆ u(k).=
[]
∆ 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 {‖Г y
[CV ( k )−R (k )]‖ +‖Г u ∆ MV (k )‖ }
∆ MV (k)
----------- (7)
where CV(k) is the controlled output p-step ahead
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).

Figure 5: Performance of Model

10 MPC CONTROLLER EQUATION

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
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)

Table 4
Δ MV ( k )=K mpc E p ( k )----------------(9) Controlled Variable Manipulated Variable
S.P. of Bottom Side Reboile Sidestrea
Reboiler Reflux
Where K mpc =¿(SuT Г yT Г ySu + Г uT Г u)-1 SuT Г yT Bottom Side Temperatur r Valve
Flow
m
Flow
Temperatur e Position flow
Гy e 0 0 69.90KPP 76.79
217.62 F 217.62 F 94.40%
H
69.71BPD
Bbl/day
69.95KPP 76.90
218.910 F 218.910 F 94.45%
H
71.13 BPD
Bbl/day
11 RESULTS 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
the application of Interactive Multivariable Control
to 218.910 F . This value is noted down. It also deviates
System. As seen from above results MPC was able to
other controlled variable, Upper Side Temperature from handle constraints very effectively as in this case Reflux
their Set Point (SP) and constraint variable from its steady Valve Position and Reboiler Valve Position was
state value. During this procedure, other manipulated constrained between low limit and high limit.
variables remained to its original position. Note that,
constraint variable (Reboiler valve Position) crossed its
higher limit (95%) i.e. 97.49%.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
A. In Local Mode (Without MPC) 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 REFERENCES:
e
Reboiler Botto Upper Reb Ref
Flow m Side side oile lux
[ 1] Willian L. Luyben, ‘Process Modelling, Simulation
Tempe tempe r Val
rature Figure7: How better Interactive process is handled by MPC over
0rature 0Val
94.9 ve
95.
70 KPPH 217.62 127.79
F 2%F 43
PID
75 KPPH 218.910128.77
F 97.4
0
F 95. and Control for Chemical Engineers’, 1990.
9% 38
0 94.9
0 95.
70 KPPH 217.64 127.89
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
Edition,1993.
mode is given as Set Point of Bottom Side Temperature
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.
higher limit, Reboiler flow (MV) didn’t change Ltd.2003.
significantly (69.90 KPPH to 69.95 KPPH). Instead of
[ 5] S. Joe Qin, Thomas A. Badgwell, ‘A survey
that, sidestream is changed from 69.71 BPD to 71.13 of industrial model predictive control technology’,
BPD. Again set point is changed from 218.910 F to Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733-764.
217.620 F . Then, Reboiler flow (mv) is changed
[ 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.