Distribution:
The EnTech Report
VOLUME 14
ISSUE 1
MARCH
2002
As We See It
by Bill Bialkowski
I
n this EnTech Report we turn
to consistency control -- the
most important process vari-
able in the mill. This is not new
to us because for the last twenty
years we have been focusing on
process variability and inventing
ways of reducing variability in
order to make mills run more
efficiently and to make better,
more uniform product.
It is interesting that the word
consistency means "uniformity"
the very opposite of variability,
the in-vogue term today. And
from the beginning of time con-
sistency control has captured the
spirit of the pulp and paper
industry's drive towards unifor-
mity. Since we are still attempt-
ing to achieve that elusive goal
these attempts have obviously
not been completely successful,
at least not on a long-term basis.
Over the years, we at EnTech
Please see page two
Leaders in the design, application and implementation of process control technology
CONSISTENCY CONTROL - AN
ELUSIVE GOAL
he challenge of consistency control is as old as the paper
T industry and it must be truly elusive since we are still chasing
the same challenge today. According to the dictionary, consis-
tency is defined as the degree of density of a thick liquid, or the
state of being consistent. The former describes the concept of pulp
consistency perfectly and the latter is synonymous with uniformity.
Today we tend to speak of the opposite term - variability - a slightly
more "dramatic" term that we hope will somehow add visibility to the
issue and help us solve this age-old problem.
As we all know, papermaking has a long history. The Egyptians
made papyrus sheets in about 1000 BC, and the Chinese were the
first to make paper by hand as early as 105 AD. We do not know how
successful these ancient craftsmen were at meeting the variability
expectations of their customers -- the scribes of the day. However,
we do know that the first mechanized paper machine is attributed to
the Fourdrinier brothers in 1804, and ever since then consistency
control has been a challenge in this type of continuous operation.
Making paper is a simple enough concept: fiber for paper manu-
facture is transported in a water-born slurry. Eventually the slurry is
ejected as a thin wide jet onto a moving fabric web, the water drains
though and presto - we have a paper sheet that simply needs to be
pressed and dried. The thicker the slurry the higher the consistency,
which is a measure of the mass percentage of fiber. If the slurry is
too thick we need to add some water to thin it out. If it varies acci-
dentally we will make off-spec paper or have a paper break - bad
news!
It should be fairly easy to automate this -- all you have to do is
invent a way of measuring consistency, then add dilution water in a
controlled way to keep the consistency on setpoint not a compli-
cated idea! Solving this consistency control problem promises uni-
form fiber delivery to the paper machine and uniform finished paper.
Yet consistency control remains a challenge to this very day.
In a way consistency control represents a microcosm of the paper
Please see page two
 The EnTech Report
VOLUME 14
ISSUE 1
As We See It
from page one
have provided many dynamic
specifications to help the paper
maker achieve reduced variabili-
ty. The best known of these is
the EnTech Control Valve
Specification that became avail-
able in 1993. This specification
significantly changed how con-
trol valve suppliers design their
control valves and the good
news is that, today, as a direct
result, control valve performance
2 has improved substantially. Our
other specifications include the
EnTech Automatic Controller
Dynamic Specification on which
at least one modern DCS system
design is based.
With this issue of the EnTech
Report we are launching a new
specification: the EnTech
Consistency Control Loop
Dynamic Specification.
EnTech engineers have been
working with consistency con-
trol for nearly two decades and
our experience is that the condi-
tions have to be just so to
allow consistency control to
function really well. Like many
other process and control issues,
success requires good process
design, good equipment selec-
tion, and good tuning. It has to
work as a system. This specifica-
tion sets out the conditions need-
ed by the consistency loop for
this to be true under most condi-
tions.
We hope you find this to be
a useful addition to the tools
already available to the mill staff
in order to forge the right ideas
to achieve greater success.
Consistency Control - An Elusive Goal
from page one
industry in which the challenge is
multi-faceted and success requires
all the parts to work together as a
system. The many people involved
each understand their own part, but
few see the whole picture as a sys-
tem.
Enter the chemical engineer/
process designer. As was noted, the
concept of making paper is a simple
one. However, to make good paper,
"uniform paper, we need to design a
mass-balance for the paper process,
and calculate exactly the right
amount of fiber and water for each
grade we are going to make. We will
feed each process unit from an agitat-
ed stock tank, and in that way we will
provide some assurance that any con-
sistency variability will be leveled
out. That done, we need to have the
piping designers size the pipes so that
we will get exactly the flows and con-
sistencies that we need. Then all we
have to do is have our instrument
people specify the valves and trans-
mitters they need to control these
flows just right. This way the steady
state consistencies and flows will be
as required to make the paper grades
we need.
The problem is the instrument
engineers need a consistency trans-
mitter that measures consistency
accurately. Enter the physicist.
How to measure consistency? The
lab people do the test by drawing a
physical pulp sample, weighing it,
extracting the fiber and weighing it
after it has been dried in an oven.
The answer is obtained by calculat-
ing the percentage of fiber over the
total and this cannot be automated
as a continuous measurement. It
took a physicist to learn that when
the consistency goes up, the fluid
becomes more viscous and flows
more slowly. This principle was
used to build the first consistency
measurement in about 1940 the
"Gooseneck". The pulp to be sam-
pled flowed into a small tank at a
"fixed rate". The level in the tank
built up and propelled fluid out of
the tank through a long curved pipe
called the "Gooseneck". The level in
the tank would stabilize when the
height was great enough to push the
pulp out through the Gooseneck --
the higher the consistency, the high-
er the level. At this time, pneumatic
level measurements were available.
This device did work after a fashion,
but the inlet flow was not quite con-
stant; the level in the tank introduced
a time lag, the pulp sample took a
long time to reach the Gooseneck
creating deadtime, the flow resis-
tance was sensitive to particle size,
and there were a few other problems
also.
Enter the physicist again (and
again over the years). If we sub-
merge a rotating disc or impeller in
the pulp and turn it with an electric
motor, the thicker the pulp, the more
current will be needed to maintain a
constant speed. We have only to
measure the current and this will be
proportional to consistency! True
but unfortunately, big fibers cause
much more drag than little fibers or
other particles such as ash, and
therefore, the measurement can be a
bit off.
Well then, suppose we just insert
a blade in the pipe. As the pulp
flows by the blade it will cause a
drag force proportional to consisten-
cy. We have only to measure the
drag force. Great idea, but, again, the
Please see page three

Consistency Control
from page two
big fibers cause more drag than lit-
tle ones, and also, as the pulp flow
rate changes the drag will also
change so we may have invent-
ed a flow meter instead of a con-
sistency meter. We must also keep
the blade far away from any pipe
turbulence, so we locate it far
down the pipe after any pump or
pipe elbow - hence more dead-
time.
Well then, here is a sure-fire
way why not shine some light
inside the pipe and measure how
much light is reflected? If there
are no fibers present no light will
be reflected! The more fiber, the
more reflected light! Except that
the light reflection depends on
which way each fiber is pointing
relative to the light so the
reflected light does not "see" the
fiber mass properly. Besides,
what if the fiber is brown? Well
then, eureka, here is the real
answer (the physicist again):
Microwave energy travels through
a medium at a speed determined
by its dielectric constant. The
dielectric constant of fiber and
water are quite different. If we
shine microwaves through the
pipe the speed of travel will be the
average between the speed in
water and the speed in fiber and
hence a direct measure of consis-
tency. Indeed this is a good mea-
surement. Unfortunately, if air is
present in the pulp and it often is,
its dialectic constant is close to
that of fiber and this throws the
measurement off. Today, all of
these inventions plus a few others
are used to measure consistency.
They are all imperfect to some
degree and vary in accuracy, sen-
sitivity and cost. Each consisten-
cy installation has struck a com-
promise on these various issues.
Fortunately, the mill process
designers thoughtfully added agi-
tated stock tanks to smooth out
the consistency through mixing
action. All chemical engineers
are familiar with the theory of
mixing. The tank volume and the
flow rate determine the "mixing
time and the bigger the tank, the
imperfect
They are all
to
some degree
more mixing as long as there is
adequate agitation horsepower
provided to achieve "perfect mix-
ing". Unfortunately this theory
assumes liquids, not slurries.
Stock tank agitation design today
is based only on rules of thumb
derived from experience. Mill
variability audits show that few
stock tanks achieve the recom-
mended 12 minutes of mixing
time, and many have much less.
Nevertheless, the stock tanks do
help smooth out some of the fast
process variability.
Now for the easy part
adding dilution water in a con-
trolled way to regulate consisten-
cy. All you need is a source of
dilution water under pressure and
a control valve. If the consistency
The EnTech Report
VOLUME 14
ISSUE 1
measurement is higher than set-
point, then add a bit more water -
- problem solved. Well of course
there are a few complications.
One of which is that source of
dilution water under pressure.
This is called a dilution header,
which draws water from a tank,
via a pump and supplies dilution
water to as many users as there
might be. When one user, a con-
sistency control loop, needs more
dilution water it takes it by open- 3
ing its valve. Unfortunately this
causes the water pressure to drop
for the whole header and this
results in a reduced water flow to
all other consistency dilution
users. Suddenly all of the other
consistency loops experience a
higher consistency and a nasty
squabble ensues in which the real
loser is the paper machine.
Clearly, this is a process design
issue that was not apparent to the
process designer when calculating
the steady state mass balance for
the mill design. At the very least,
tight pressure control of the head-
er pressure is needed.
Those are only some of the
issues, there are many others. The
consistency transmitter or mea-
surement has to be located after
the point of injection of the dilu-
tion water. This creates transport
delay or deadtime. Deadtime
makes control very difficult, and
the controller cycles as it "chases"
the delayed measurement, thereby
creating a new source of variabil-
ity. Slowing down the control can
reduce but not eliminate this ten-
dency. To make matters worse,
Please see page four
 The EnTech Report
VOLUME 14
ISSUE 1
Consistency Control
from page two
the deadtime varies with flow, and
variable deadtime compounds this
difficulty to the extreme. And
there are still more problems.
There are process design problems,
instrumentation problems, control
theory problems and more. What
are the chances that all of these
problems can be understood and
solved at the mill? Our experience
4 is that they are not very high.
At EnTech we have con-
tributed many ideas on how to
minimize variability. One of the
best known was the EnTech Control
Valve Dynamic Specification.
When this came out in 1993 many
control valves did not move con-
sistently, having as much as 5%
deadband or backlash. This made
control almost hopeless. The spec-
ification changed how the paper
industry regarded control valve
performance and how control
valve manufacturers designed
their control valve products. As a
result the industry now has much
better control valve designs and
digital positioners available today
giving a much improved control
capability. Along these same lines
we are launching the Consistency
Control Loop Dynamic Spec-
ification with this issue of the
EnTech Report. As this article dis-
cussed, the consistency control
loop is a dynamic system with
many interacting and sometimes
conflicting elements. We hope that
the consistency specification will
help address these in a balanced
way.
CONTROL ENGINEERING QUIZ
usgpm. The recirculation line "T"
T his quiz is about the same con-
sistency loop example as in the
Audit Example on Page 5. Figure 1
was a flush mounted weld into the
14" stock line about 5 feet after the
of the Audit Example shows the pump discharge. The transmitter
P&ID, while Figure 2 shows the was located 25 feet after the "T" in
consistency variability before and order to comply with the transmit-
after tuning of the Blend Chest con- ter installation instructions, includ-
sistency controller (NC-101). The ing interference from elbows and
machine chest consistency (NT- other pipe fittings. The dilution
104) is uncontrolled, and no dilu- valve was an eccentric plug type
tion water is added at the suction of with approximately linear inherent
the machine chest pump. The mix-
ing time constant of the machine
flow characteristic.
Bump tests revealed that the
chest was determined to be 5 min- deadtime for the Blend Chest
utes based on bump tests. Details Consistency was 18 seconds and
for the Blend Chest consistency did not vary substantially with
control loop are as follows (NC- stock flow to the paper machine.
101). The blade type consistency The bump tests also gave a process
transmitter was located on a 4" gain = -0.54%Span/%Out and time
recirculation line with a flow con- constant = 5 seconds. The loop was
troller (FC-102) in order to main- tuned for a Lambda value of 50 sec-
tain a constant flow as the transmit- onds. Explain how the design and
ter was known to be flow sensitive. tuning of the consistency loop (NC-
The flow setpoint was maintained 101) can be improved based on the
at 100 usgpm, while the demand EnTech Consistency Control
flow to the paper machine was typ- Dynamic Specification.
ically in the range of 1900 to 2800
Q1: List the design errors as per the specification.
Q2: If you could replace equipment as desired what would you change
and how much could you improve the control performance?
Q3: Calculate how much your new design & tuning combined with the
M/C mixing would attenuate Machine Chest consistency variability at
100 min/cycle, 10 min/ cycle 1 min/ cycle.
ANSWERS TO CONTROL ENGINEERING QUIZ
VOLUME 13, ISSUE 3
A1: Clearly the process gain is a A2: This phenomenon can be over-
strong function of the operating come by gain scheduling. Adapt
point. The gain progressivley gets the controller gain as a function of
smaller as the flow increases. the opering point so the the loop
gain remains effectively constant.
 The EnTech Report
VOLUME 14
ISSUE 1

AUDIT EXAMPLE
This audit example shows consistency control on a paper machine. Fig 1 shows a simplified P&ID. Fig 2
shows the variability before and after tuning with the top graphs showing Machine Chest consistency and bot-
to Stuffbox

NT
FC 104
Furnish Stocks A, B, C, D 102

NC
101
Blend Chest Machine Chest

LC
103
Whitewater
Dilution
Header

Figure 1 P&ID
5
NT104.PV - Ind. 2500aa.dat NT104.PV - Ind. 2601aa.dat
Machine Chest Consistency Machine Chest Consistency

%Cons Time Series %Cons Time Series

3.850 3.850

3.800 3.800

3.750 3.750

3.700 3.700

3.650 3.650
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Sec Sec
Mean=3.72709 2Sig=0.0346 (0.928%) Mean=3.73247 2Sig=0.02017 (0.541%)
NC101.PV - Auto 2500ae.dat NC101.PV - Auto 2601ae.dat
Blend Chest Consistency Blend Chest Consistency

%Cons Time Series %Cons Time Series

3.850 3.850

3.800 3.800

3.750 3.750

3.700 3.700

3.650 3.650
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Sec Sec
Mean=3.75813 2Sig=0.03179 (0.846%) Mean=3.75737 2Sig=0.01143 (0.304%)

Figure 2 Machine Chest (upper) and Blend Chest (lower) consistency Blend
variability before (left) and after (right) Lambda Tuning

tom showing Blend Chest consistency before and after tuning of the Blend Chest consistency loop for a
Lambda of 50 seconds. Note that the machine chest consistency is measured only and not controlled. Note
also that the Blend Chest dilution valve is closed for part of the run from second 1000 to 1800 before tuning
while it stays open after tuning.
Q1: By how much did the variability improve as a result of retuning and what impact might this have on PM
basis weight variability?
Q2. Does the existing control (NC-101) violate the new EnTech Consistency Control Loop Dynamic
Specification in any way based on the data presented?
 The EnTech Report
VOLUME 14
ISSUE 1

Consistency Control is Easy

C onsistency control seems like a
simple little loop -- and tuning
should be easy -- a little bit of gain
and reset and the problem is solved.
Or so it would seem. HOWEVER,
if you really want to stabilize the
paper machine and make more sal-
able tons -- the above tune-by-feel
6 knee-jerk reaction is guaranteed to
increase fast process variability, not
reduce it!
Using the tune-by-feel ap-
proach will result in the loop
cycling at about 30 seconds and
you can be confident that you
will enjoy sheet breaks on the
paper machine. Not what you
intended? Why? Hendrick Bode
(of Bode Plot fame - about 1940)
predicted that unless the control
algorithm can cancel the process
dynamics - (something called pole-
zero cancellation - whatever that
means?) that feedback control cant
reduce total variability. As it tries to
reduce slow variability, the fast
variability will increase for a net
change of zero (due to resonance
whatever that is). Unfortunately
consistency control has deadtime
and this cannot be canceled by a
controller, not even a deadtime
compensator. What should we do?
The story is too long to tell in one
paragraph, BUT come to EnTech's
Process Control for Engineers
courses to find out. We have a
series of courses designed for mill
and plant engineers and technicians
including:
PCE I Process Dynamics,
Control & Tuning Fundamentals
builds a solid foundation in process
dynamics and control. It links theo-
ry and practice and allows practical
insight to be gained. It also adds
Lambda Tuning a new technique
for process optimization using PID
controllers as the primary tool.
PCE I is the foundation for
everything else. PCE II builds a
solid foundation in process vari-
ability auditing based on time
series analysis how to find and
isolate variability sources. For the
EnTech Toolkit user, PCA I exer-
cises all of the extensive features of
this EnTech variability reduction
software to build an understanding
of how these apply practically in a
process setting. PCA II and PCA
IV apply the optimization tech-
niques from PCE I and II to the
paper machine (PCA II) and pow-
erhouse (PCA IV). Each of these
courses also presents a thorough
review of the operating principles
of each process.
Course information may also be
found on our website
www.entechcontrol.com

ENTECH SEMINARS REGISTRATION COURSE SCHEDULE

2002
Courses are held in Toronto.
PCE I Process Dynamics, Control & Tuning Fundamentals April 1, May 6, June 3, Sept. 9, Nov. 4
PCE II Process Analysis & Minimizing Variability May 13, Sept. 16, Nov. 11
PCA I EnTech Toolkit Training March 11, Oct. 21
PCA II Paper Machine Applications & Problem Solving June 10
PCA IV Boiler & Furnace Applications & Problem Solving October 7 (rescheduled)
For more information or to register for the courses of your choice, please call
EnTech at (416) 626-6908, fax (416) 626-7691 or email entech@entechcontrol.com.

The EnTech Report is published three times per year by:

EnTech, a Division of Emerson Performance Solutions
Suite 100, 16 Four Seasons Place, Toronto, Canada M9B 6E5
Telephone: (416) 626-6908 Fax: (416) 626-7691
Email: entech@entechcontrol.com Web site: www.entechcontrol.com