Source: A Working Guide to Process Equipment

CHAPTER

42

Computer Modeling
and Control

hen I first went to work in the process industry in 1964,

computer control was in its infancy. The use of computer
modeling of distillation towers was just beginning. I believe
I was the first person in the oil refining industry to model a crude
distillation tower with:
Multiple pumparounds
Side-stream steam strippers
Multiple side-product draw-offs
Two-stage overhead system
In 1968, I was the technical support engineer on the crude
distillation unit at the Amoco Refinery in Whiting, Indiana. My job
was to implement a new computer control program for the automated
operation of the unit. Basically, I was to convince the operators that
automated, direct, on-line computer control could produce more
consistent product specifications than an experienced panel board
operator. One of the factors that led to my failure in this assignment
was that in 1968 I was not sure if this was true. Now, in 2002, Im still
not convinced that direct computer control of refinery processes is
always the best approach.
The situation regarding computer modeling is somewhat more
straightforward. No engineering calculation can be better than the
assumptions used as a basis to carry out the calculations.

42.1

Modeling a Propane-Propylene Splitter

I had been hired to review the design for a new 12,000 BSD propanepropylene splitter for a chemical plant in Convent, Louisiana. The tower
was intended to be a replacement for an existing 10,000 BSD
propylene-propane splitter. The incremental capacity of 2000 BSD would
economically justify the $3,000,000 investment for the new splitter.

527
Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)
Copyright 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
Lieberman_Ch42_527-534.indd 527

3/20/08 10:47:58 AM

Computer Modeling and Control

528

A Working Guide to Process Equipment

I asked the operators why the existing tower was limited to its
current 10,000 BSD capacity. They responded by noting that above
10,000 BSD of feed, the concentration of propane in the propylene
overhead product (see Fig. 42.1) would exceed the 2 percent
specification.
Dear reader, note that Im already in trouble. My client had asked
me to review the design for the new tower. No one had asked me to
review the operation of the existing splitter. However, if anybody had
asked what I was doing, I had a ready response: Im gathering data to
verify the accuracy of the computer model used in the design of the
new tower. Im collecting operating data to check the following
parameters assumed in the computer design of the new splitter:
Tray efficiency
Relative volatility for the propylene-propane system (i.e., the
equation of state)
Condenser

Splitter

60
Reflux
Propylene
F
Propane
and
propylene

31
30

Reboiler
Steam
Steam trap
Y
Propane

FIGURE 42.1

A propane-propylene splitter limited by computer control.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Copyright 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
Lieberman_Ch42_527-534.indd 528

3/20/08 10:47:59 AM

Computer Modeling and Control

Chapter 42:

Computer Modeling and Control

529

I asked the operators to increase the splitter feed rate by 500 BSD
to 10,500 BSD. When they complied, the concentration of propane in
the overhead propylene product increased from 2 to 3 percent.
How about increasing the reflux rate from 20,000 BSD to 21,000
BSD? We have to keep the reflux ratio constant as we increase the
feed rate, I explained.
Cant be done, Norm, responded the panel board operator.
The 20,000 BSD reflux rate is our maximum. The reflux flow control
valve is programmed to avoid excessive reflux rates.
Excessive? Whats excessive about 21,000 BSD of reflux? The
reflux flow control valve is only 45 percent open. Let's try for 21,000
BSD, I persisted.
Now, Norm, its part of the computer control logic not to exceed
20,000 BSD of reflux. Its part of the Black Box. These sorts of parameter
limits are imbedded in the computer control logic, explained the
board operator. Frank Skorski spent a lot of time on the computer
control of this splitter. I imagine Frank knew a hell of a lot more about
computer control than you. He was the computer control engineer
here in Convent for 12 years. Norm, I dont think you should be
second-guessing Mr. Skorski.
Lets call Mr. Skorski and get his okay to raise the reflux rate, I
suggested.
No, we cant, replied the operator.
Why?
Because Frank Skorski has been dead for three years.
It required three hours to get the artificial limit on the reflux rate
cancelled. Frank Skorskis 20,000 BSD reflux limit had been well
founded. It reflected a lack of reboiler duty (see Fig. 42.1) needed to
generate the reflux. The splitter was short of reboiler duty because
the condensate steam trap was undersized. A larger steam trap had
been installed last year. However, Mr. Skorski had failed to return
from the spirit world to remove the reflux limit.
Gradually we increased the tower feed rate to 12,000 BSD, and
the reflux rate to 24,000 BSD. The online gas chromatograph stayed at
the desired 2 percent propane in the propylene overhead product.

42.1.1

Predicting Tray Efficiency vs. Relative Volatility

Why had my client decided to build a new splitter when the existing
tower had the required capacity?
The process design engineer for the project informed me that the
existing tower did not have sufficient tray hydraulic capacity to handle
the required feed rate of 12,000 BSD and the required reflux rate of
28,000 BSD. But what was the basis for the 28,000 BSD of reflux?
Hadnt I just demonstrated that a 24,000 BSD reflux rate was sufficient.
True, the tower would flood at 28,000 BSD reflux. True, the computer
model indicated that 28,000 BSD of reflux was needed. But was the
computer model used for this propane-propylene splitter correct?

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Copyright 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
Lieberman_Ch42_527-534.indd 529

3/20/08 10:47:59 AM

Computer Modeling and Control

530

A Working Guide to Process Equipment

42.1.2 The Input Data Problem

When we model any piece of process equipment, some of the data we
supply to the computer to create the model are derived from the
observed performance of existing equipment in similar service. For
instance:
Heat exchangersFouling factors
CompressorsAdiabatic compression efficiency
Centrifugal pumpsClearance between impeller and wear ring
Distillation towersTray efficiency and relative volatility
The relative volatility is a measure of the ease of separation between
the light and heavy components. For ideal components it is the ratio of
the vapor pressure of the more volatile component divided by the
vapor pressure of the less volatile component. For nonideal components,
the relative volatility is calculated from the equation of state.
The equation of state is a set of empirically derived equations.
When you set up a computer model for any process involving vaporliquid equilibrium, you must select an equation of state from perhaps
a dozen choices. Experience is the only real guide in making the most
accurate selection.
When you set up a computer model for any distillation process,
you must select a tray efficiency. Tray efficiencies (for mechanically
intact trays) vary from 30 to 90 percent. Experience is the only guide
in making the least wrong selection.

42.1.3

Establishing a Firm Design Basis

The design engineer for the new propylene splitter had used the
following values in his model:
Relative volatility = 1.18
Tray efficiency = 65 percent
I had used in my computer model:
Relative volatility = 1.21
Tray efficiency = 75 percent
I had arbitrarily manipulated tray efficiency and relative volatility
to force my computer model to match the observed plant data. It
might seem that by arbitrarily selecting both the relative volatility
and tray efficiency for my computer model, my calculations would
be little better than a guess.
My computer model was indeed a guess, but an educated guess.
Its an extrapolation from a known data pointthat is, the observed
operation of the existing splitter at a feed rate of 12,000 BSD and a
reflux rate of 24,000 BSD.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Copyright 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
Lieberman_Ch42_527-534.indd 530

3/20/08 10:47:59 AM

Computer Modeling and Control

Chapter 42:

Computer Modeling and Control

531

Thats it! Computer modeling in the process industry is at best a

very approximate extrapolation technique. The model may begin to
reflect reality insofar as it is based on a wide range of accurate plant
data.
This suggests that an experienced process design engineer can
design a plant based on rules of thumb, prototypes, and experience
better than the novice engineer backed up by the latest in computer
technology.

42.1.4 A Monument Rises

I forgot to mention something. I forgot to mention that the foundation
for the new propane-propylene splitter had been already constructed.
A meeting was held to review my report regarding the design of the
new splitter. My comment that the existing tower was adequate for
the projected 12,000 BSD feed rate was not well received. My
recommendation that the new tower not be built was greeted with
open hostility. My clients design engineer explained, Mr. Lieberman,
data such as your one-day plant test imply the existing tower is
adequate. But the bulk of the available information, based on two years
of computer simulations, has established that a new tower is required.
Furthermore, Mr. Lieberman, we are terminating your contract
immediately. We never asked you to look into the operation of the
existing splitter. Your entire attitude has been politically incorrect.
Well, the new tower was built, a monument to ancient Greek
philosophy, Facts dont count.

42.2

Computer Control
On-line, closed-loop computer control frequently does more harm
than good. This is not a popular opinion, but it is my opinion. Perhaps
my observations only apply to refinery process units, rather than
chemical plants in general. But I know what Ive seen.
Using computer control as an alternate to training panel
board operators in the true nature of process control of their
unit does not work. Reason: When a key process parameter
changes, it is not recognized by the operators.
Using computer control is fine, as long as the technician who
developed and implemented the control strategy is still
around. Once the computer control ascends to the status of a
Black Box, it becomes impossible to adjust the operating
parameters to accommodate a changed situation.
Restricting the authority of the panel board operator to
override the computer control leads to a gradual loss of
knowledge. With time, the panel board operator will fail to
understand the interrelationship of the various operating

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Copyright 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
Lieberman_Ch42_527-534.indd 531

3/20/08 10:48:00 AM

Computer Modeling and Control

532

A Working Guide to Process Equipment

parameters. Then, when I come into the control room and note
the reflux rate is falling when it should be rising, Ill hear, The
computer handles the reflux rate. Its not my responsibility.
This is abusive use of computer technology. The operator has
been turned into an observer and is no longer actively
controlling the process.
The best operators should not be used full time on the panel.
This happens because the computer control has become too
complex for the average operator. The best operators need to
spend half their time outside on the unit.
I have often been persuaded that computer control is really
working very well on a particular process unit. But more often than
not, a closer investigation reveals the truth of what I learned in 1968.
An experienced, intelligent, committed operator, fully involved in his
or her duties, will outperform computer control on most occasions.
Mr. Shinsky of Foxboro, a famous expert in process control, once
explained to me that most control problems are really process limits.
Mr. Shinsky said that for computer control to succeed, we must
update the physical plant limitation data. Nothing has changed in
30 years to make his wise words less true.

42.3

Material Balance Problems in Computer Modeling

Many computer models fail to represent reality because of faulty
input of feed compositions. Common causes of wrong input of feed
compositions are:
Liquid stream compositions that do not reflect the lighter
components in the sample. A sample of gasoline is collected
in a bottle. The methane and half the ethane are flashed off as
the bottle warms on the laboratory bench.
Vapor stream compositions that do not reflect the heavier
components in the sample. Half the pentane and most of the
hexane condense out in the gas sample bladder, as the bladder
cools waiting for the chemist to run the gas through the
chromatograph.
One of my friends, Steve, made such an error in designing a
debutanizer. He failed to account for the methane and ethane in the
existing debutanizer feed stream. The sample from the 25-psig feed
vessel was taken in a bottle. The lighter components weathered off
prior to lab analysis. The results were, for Steve, rather catastrophic.
The debutanizer overhead product could not be fully condensed. The
noncondensable vapor pressured up the overhead reflux drum. The
noncondensables were vented, along with 30 percent of the butane, to

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Copyright 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
Lieberman_Ch42_527-534.indd 532

3/20/08 10:48:00 AM

Computer Modeling and Control

Chapter 42:

Computer Modeling and Control

533

the flare. Steve was promoted to manager of employee relations, an

important but potentially less critical position.

42.3.1 How Steve Could Have Avoided Becoming Employee

Relations Manager
1. Obtain a gas chromatographic analysis of the debutanizer
feed in mole percent.
2. Multiply the mole percent of each component by the vapor
pressure of that component at the temperature in the feed
vessel at the time the sample was drawn. This is the partial
pressure of each component.
3. Add up the sum of the partial pressures to obtain the calculated
total vapor pressure. Compare this calculated vapor pressure
(in psia) to the actual pressure in the feed vessel (i.e., 25 psig or
40 psia).
4. If the calculated vapor pressure is close to the observed
pressure, all is well. If the calculated vapor pressure is well
below the observed pressure, proceed to step 5.
5. Get a fresh sample from the feed vessel. Heat it up by a few
degreesjust enough to fill a gas bladder with the evolved
gas. Send this gas bladder to the lab for gas chrome analysis.
6. Take the mole percent liquid composition obtained in step 1.
Using the composition obtained in step 5 as a guide, manually
add in the lighter components to the calculated mole percent
liquid composition, until the calculated vapor pressure equals
the observed pressure in the feed vessel.

42.3.2

Missing Heavier Components from a Vapor Sample

Steve compounded his error in the design of a sponge oil absorber

used to recover heavier components from a waste gas stream. In this
case, my friend failed to account for the large amount of isopentane
that was recoverable from the methane and ethane waste gas. To
avoid this error, Steve should have:
1. Submit a sample of the waste gas for analysis to obtain a mole
percent composition.
2. Divide the mole percent of each component by the vapor
pressure of the pure component at the temperature of the
drum from which the sample was taken.
3. Sum up the above numbers. If the total is close to the reciprocal
of the drum pressure (in psia) from which the sample was
taken, all is well. If this sum is less than the reciprocal of the
drum pressure, proceed to step 4.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Copyright 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
Lieberman_Ch42_527-534.indd 533

3/20/08 10:48:00 AM

Computer Modeling and Control

534

A Working Guide to Process Equipment

4. Get a fresh bladder sample of the vapor from the drum.
Condense out some of the vapor to liquid with cold water or
ice. Obtain a gas chrome analysis of this liquid.
5. Take the mole percent vapor composition obtained in step 1.
Using the composition obtained in step 4 as a guide, manually
add in the heavier components to the mole percent vapor
composition until the calculated sum of the:
Mole percent divided by vapor pressure
equals the reciprocal of the total absolute pressure in the drum from
which the sample was taken.

42.3.3 The Garbage Rule

All Im doing is checking the validity of my material balance input
data. Im using bubble-point and dew-point calculations to validate
that my material balance represents reality. In the rush to create our
computer models for process equipment, we may sometimes forget
the fundamental rule of computer technology:
GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT
If you dont believe me, ask Steve, now a well-paid but bored vice
president of human resources for a well-known Texas corporation
with headquarters in Houston.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Copyright 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
Lieberman_Ch42_527-534.indd 534

3/20/08 10:48:00 AM