1 Plantwide control: Towards a systematic procedure Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering Norwegian University of Science and Tecnology (NTNU) Trondheim, Norway Based om: Plenary Presentation at ESCAPE’12, , May 2002 Updated: August 2002 (for use in Advanced process control)
50
Embed
1 Plantwide control: Towards a systematic procedure Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering Norwegian University of Science and Tecnology (NTNU)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Plantwide control: Towards a systematic procedure
Sigurd Skogestad
Department of Chemical Engineering
Norwegian University of Science and Tecnology (NTNU)
Trondheim, Norway
Based om: Plenary Presentation at ESCAPE’12, , May 2002
Updated: August 2002 (for use in Advanced process control)
2
• Alan Foss (“Critique of chemical process control theory”, AIChE Journal,1973):
The central issue to be resolved ... is the determination of control system structure. Which variables should be measured, which inputs should be manipulated and which links should be made between the two sets? There is more than a suspicion that the work of a genius is needed here, for without it the control configuration problem will likely remain in a primitive, hazily stated and wholly unmanageable form. The gap is present indeed, but contrary to the views of many, it is the theoretician who must close it.
• Carl Nett (1989):Minimize control system complexity subject to the achievement of accuracy
specifications in the face of uncertainty.
3
Outline
• Introduction
• Plantwide control procedure – Top-down
– Bottom-up
• What to control I: Primary controlled variables
• Inventory control - where set production rate
• What to control II: Secondary controlled variables
• Decentralized versus multivariable control
4
Related work
• Page Buckley (1964) - Chapter on “Overall process control” (still industrial practice)
• Alan Foss (1973) - control system structure
• George Stephanopoulos and Manfred Morari (1980)
• Bill Luyben and coworkers (1975- ) - “snowball effect”
• Ruel Shinnar (1981- ) - “dominant variables”
• Jim Douglas and Alex Zheng (Umass) (1985- )
• Jim Downs (1991) - Tennessee Eastman process
• Larsson and Skogestad (2000): Review of plantwide control
5
Idealized view of control(“Ph.D. control”)
6
Practice I: Tennessee Eastman challenge problem (Downs, 1991)
7
Practice II: Typical P&ID diagram(PID control)
8
Practice III: Hierarchical structure
9
Plantwide control
• Not the tuning and behavior of each control loop,
• But rather the control philosophy of the overall plant with emphasis on the structural decisions:– Selection of controlled variables (“outputs”)
– Selection of manipulated variables (“inputs”)
– Selection of (extra) measurements
– Selection of control configuration (structure of overall controller that interconnects the controlled, manipulated and measured variables)
– Selection of controller type (PID, decoupler, MPC etc.).
• That is: All the decisions made before we get to “Ph.D” control
10
Stepwise procedure plantwide control
I. TOP-DOWN
Step 1. DEFN. OF OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES
Step 2. MANIPULATED VARIABLES and DEGREE OF FREEDOM ANALYSIS
Step 3. What should we control? (primary controlled variables)
• Intuition: “Dominant variables” (Shinnar)
• Systematic: Define cost J and minimize w.r.t. DOFs– Control active constraints (constant setpoint is optimal)
– Remaining DOFs: Control variables c for which constant setpoints give small (economic) loss
Loss = J - Jopt(d)
when disturbances d occurs
21
Loss with constant setpoints
22
Self-optimizing control(Skogestad, 2000)
Self-optimizing control is achieved when a constant setpoint policy results in an acceptableloss L (without the need to reoptimize whendisturbances occur)
Loss L = J - Jopt (d)
23
Effect of implementation error on cost
24
Tennessee Eastman plant
J
c = Purge rate
Nominal optimum setpoint is infeasible with disturbance 2
Oopss..bends backwards
Conclusion: Do not use purge rate as controlled variable
25
Example sharp optimum. High-purity distillation : c = Temperature top of column
• Step 3.6 Loss with constant setpoints. Good: xD, L/F. Poor: F, D, L
29
Recycle process: Loss with constant setpoint, cs
Large loss with c = F (Luyben rule)
Negligible loss with c = L/F
30
Recycle process: Proposed control structurefor case with J = V (minimize energy)
Active constraintMr = Mrmax
Active constraintxB = xBmin
31
Recycle systems:
Do not recommend Luyben’s rule of fixing a flow in each recycle loop
(even to avoid “snowballing”)
32
Good candidate controlled variables c (for self-optimizing control)
Requirements:
• The optimal value of c should be insensitive to disturbances
• c should be easy to measure and control
• The value of c should be sensitive to changes in the steady-state degrees of freedom
(Equivalently, J as a function of c should be flat)
• For cases with more than one unconstrained degrees of freedom, the selected controlled variables should be independent.
Singular value rule (Skogestad and Postlethwaite, 1996):Look for variables that maximize the minimum singular value of the appropriately scaled steady-state gain matrix G from u to c
33
Step 4. Where set production rate?
• Very important!
• Determines structure of remaining inventory (level) control system
• Set production rate at (dynamic) bottleneck
• Link between Top-down and Bottom-up parts
34
Production rate set at inlet :Inventory control in direction of flow
35
Production rate set at outlet:Inventory control opposite flow
36
Production rate set inside process
37
Definition of bottleneck
A unit (or more precisely, an extensive variable E within this unit) is a bottleneck (with respect to the flow F) if
- With the flow F as a degree of freedom, the variable E is optimally at its maximum constraint (i.e., E= Emax at the optimum) - The flow F is increased by increasing this constraint (i.e., dF/dEmax > 0 at the optimum).
A variable E is a dynamic( control) bottleneck if in addition - The optimal value of E is unconstrained when F is fixed at a sufficiently low value
Otherwise E is a steady-state (design) bottleneck.
38
Reactor-recycle process:Given feedrate with production rate set at inlet
39
Reactor-recycle process:Reconfiguration required when reach bottleneck
(max. vapor rate in column)
MAX
40
Reactor-recycle process:Given feedrate with production rate set at
bottleneck (column)
F0s
41
II. Bottom-up
• Determine secondary controlled variables and structure (configuration) of control system (pairing)
• A good control configuration is insensitive to parameter changes
42
Step 5. Regulatory control layer
• Purpose: “Stabilize” the plant using local SISO PID controllers to enable manual operation (by operators)
• Main structural issues:• What more should we control? (secondary cv’s, y2)
• Pairing with manipulated variables (mv’s)
y1 = c
y2 = ?
43
Selection of secondary controlled variables (y2)
• The variable is easy to measure and control
• For stabilization: Unstable mode is “quickly” detected in the measurement (Tool: pole vector analysis)
• For local disturbance rejection: The variable is located “close” to an important disturbance (Tool: partial control analysis).
Use for: Interacting process and changes in active constraints
+ Easy handling of feedforward control
+ Easy handling of changing constraints• no need for logic
• smooth transition
- Requires multivariable dynamic model
- Tuning may be difficult
- Less transparent
- “Everything goes down at the same time”
48
Step 7. Optimization layer (RTO)
• Purpose: Identify active constraints and compute optimal setpoints (to be implemented by supervisory control layer)
• Main structural issue: Do we need RTO? (or is process self-optimizing)
49
Conclusion
Procedure plantwide control:
I. Top-down analysis to identify degrees of freedom and primary controlled variables (look for self-optimizing variables)
II. Bottom-up analysis to determine secondary controlled variables and structure of control system (pairing).
50
References• Skogestad, S. (2000), “Plantwide control -towards a systematic procedure”, Proc.
ESCAPE’12 Symposium, Haag, Netherlands, May 2002.
• Larsson, T., 2000. Studies on plantwide control, Ph.D. Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.
• Larsson, T. and S. Skogestad, 2000, “Plantwide control: A review and a new design procedure”, Modeling, Identification and Control, 21, 209-240.
• Larsson, T., K. Hestetun, E. Hovland and S. Skogestad, 2001, “Self-optimizing control of a large-scale plant: The Tennessee Eastman process’’, Ind.Eng.Chem.Res., 40, 4889-4901.
• Larsson, T., M.S. Govatsmark, S. Skogestad and C.C. Yu, 2002, “Control of reactor, separator and recycle process’’, Submitted to Ind.Eng.Chem.Res.
• Skogestad, S. (2000). “Plantwide control: The search for the self-optimizing control structure”. J. Proc. Control 10, 487-507.