Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 9 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 410–423

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Research and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cherd

Design and Control of a Vapour Recompression C3

Splitter

Vivek Kumar, Aditya Anand, Nitin Kaistha ∗

Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur 208016, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Vapor recompression (VRC) based heat integration is usually employed for purifying a
Received 19 July 2019 propylene-propane mixture in a C3 splitter. A fixed-speed drive (FSD) or a variable-speed
Received in revised form 21 March drive (VSD) compressor may be employed for overhead vapor recompression. In this work,
2020 economic controllable designs for the two compressor types in a VRC C3 splitter are obtained
Accepted 25 April 2020 via rigorous steady state and pressure driven closed loop dynamic simulations. Results
Available online 15 May 2020 indicate that for FSD compression, significant pressure drop must be provided across the
compressor suction throttling valve for sufficient rangeability towards worst-case distur-
Keywords: bance rejection. Accordingly, the column pressure and necessary compression ratio are
C3 splitter higher for an overall more expensive process compared to a VSD compressor. The VSD com-
Process design pressor design corresponds to the lowest condenser temperature with water as coolant and
Controllability the reboiler temperature driving force at the minimum constraint. In the FSD compressor
Process control design, the condenser temperature must be increased sufficiently above the minimum for
an acceptable compression ratio. The case study highlights the importance for considering
control at the conceptual design stage for designing a robust operable process.
© 2020 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction ficult separation. The C3 splitter is thus one of the tallest

High purity propylene (>99 mol%) is a very important feed-
stock for the downstream petrochemicals industry. In addition
to polypropylene, it is a raw material into the value chain of
products such as cumene, acrylonitrile, acrylic acid, propy-
lene oxide, epoxies, isopropyl alcohol etc. (Hocking, 1993).
In refineries, the propylene is purified to the desired extent
in a C3 splitter. It fractionates a mixed C3 stream (propy-
lene + propane) to recover high purity propylene as the
distillate product with propane and some propylene leav-
ing down the bottoms. Propylene (boiling point: -47.6 ◦ C) and
propane (boiling point: -42 ◦ C) are close boilers with low rel-
ative volatility. In order to avoid expensive refrigeration, a
conventional C3 splitter must be operated at high pressure
(17-20 bars) for a cheap water cooled condenser. This further
reduces the relative volatility. Even at atmospheric pressure,
the relative volatility is no more than ∼1.25, indicating a dif-
columns in a refinery with up to 250 trays and a very high
reboiler duty.
To achieve a significant reduction in the energy bud-
get, modern C3 splitters employ vapour recompression (VRC)
based heat integration, wherein the overhead vapour stream
is compressed and then used as the heat source in the reboiler
to provide the necessary reboiler duty via condensation of the
compressed vapor. The VRC, in addition to guaranteeing the
temperature driving force for heat exchange in the reboiler,
also allows the column to be operated at a lower pressure than
a conventional column improving the relative volatility.
The most commonly employed C3 splitter VRC flowsheet
arrangement is shown in Fig. 1 (Annakou and Mizsey, 1995).
The overhead vapour from the column is compressed to a
pressure where its bubble temperature is high enough for the
condensing compressed vapour to be the reboiler heat source.
The energy balance on the column is such that the conden-
sation duty of the compressed vapour is slightly higher than

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 512 2597513; fax: +91 512 2590104.
E-mail address: nkaistha@iitk.ac.in (N. Kaistha).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2020.04.036
0263-8762/© 2020 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 9 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 410–423
Fig. 1 – VRC C3 splitter process schematic.
the reboiler duty. Accordingly, the compressed vapour stream
is split into two with the major fraction condensing in the
reboiler to provide vapour boilup into the column. The minor
fraction is condensed in an auxiliary water cooled condenser.
The condensate from the reboiler (major fraction) and the aux-
iliary condenser (minor fraction) are collected in a reflux drum.
Any uncondensed vapour is sent back to the compressor suc-
tion.
The design and control of VRC fractionation systems has
been studied in the literature. Most of these studies are stand-
alone ones, focusing either only on the design aspect or
only on the control aspect and do not address the interac-
tion between design and control. For example, Christopher
et al. (2017) synthesize and optimize a VRC C3 splitter with
heat recuperation to demonstrate significant energy savings.
The controllability aspect is however not considered. Simi-
larly, Leo et al. (2018) optimize a VRC ethylene-ethane splitter
but do not address process controllability. At the other end,
Muhrer et al. (1990) have devised control structures for dif-
ferent VRC distillation systems, including the C3 splitter, for
a given design. Effective control structures for VRC assisted
azeotropic/extractive dividing wall columns have also been
developed (Luyben, 2019; Luyben, 2017; Patrascu et al., 2019;
Patrascu et al., 2017). Hinojosa et al. (2017) apply MPC and real-
time optimization to an industrial VRC C3 splitter. In these
works, how are the designs obtained is however not clari-
fied. Other researchers have also looked exclusively at either
the design aspect or the control aspect of VRC distillation
systems (Jogwar and Daoutidis, 2009; Jana, 2014; Ferre et al.,
1985; Kazemi et al., 2016). This suggests the need for sys-
411
tematically evaluating economic controllable design of VRC
distillation systems. In this context, the C3 VRC splitter is
particularly important from the industrial view point. System-
atically developing a controllable design for the same is the
primary motivation behind this work.
It is well established that control considerations typically
necessitate process overdesign so that the expected worst-
case disturbance is effectively rejected (Fisher et al., 1985;
Doering and Gaddy, 1979). One therefore seeks the cheap-
est equipment overdesign that allows effective rejection of
the expected worst-case disturbance (Sandoval et al., 2011).
In the VRC C3 splitter, the column and the compressor are
the most expensive units. From the control perspective, the
control degree-of-freedom (dof) associated with the compres-
sor is particularly important since the compression provides
the necessary temperature driving force for heat integration
in the reboiler. In a C3 splitter, usually a centrifugal com-
pressor is used for VRC. The compressor drive may be of the
fixed-speed type or the variable-speed type, the former being
cheaper and more common. Fixed-speed drive (FSD) compres-
sors, typically have suction valve throttling as the associated
control dof. Variable-speed drive (VSD) compressors, on the
other hand, have compressor speed as the associated control
dof. For a FSD compressor with suction valve throttling, the
column pressure must necessarily be higher than the suction
pressure due to pressure drop across the suction throttling
valve. Further, this pressure drop must be large enough to
ensure good rangeability for rejecting expected disturbances.
The larger the resistance of the throttling valve, the larger
the pressure drop and the larger the rangeability. This ben-
412 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 9 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 410–423
efit however comes at the cost of a larger compressor as well
as lower relative volatility, since the column must operate at
a higher pressure due to the pressure drop across the suc-
tion valve. Clearly, the design-control interaction for a VRC C3
splitter is intimately tied to the compressor type and associ-
ated control dof. To the best of our knowledge, the issue has
not been addressed in the extant literature and the same is
specifically addressed here.
In the following, a validated vapour-liquid-equilibrium
(VLE) model for the propylene-propane binary system is
briefly described. Economic process designs are then obtained
using steady state sensitivity analyses with column pressure,
compressor suction throttling valve pressure drop and com-
pression ratio as the dominant design variables. Candidate
designs are obtained for both VSD and FSD compressor types.
A decentralized control structure for process regulation is
then developed. The candidate designs are dynamically eval-
uated for worst-case disturbance rejection using the control
structure. The cheapest design that rejects the worst-case dis-
turbance without compressor control dof saturation is finally
recommended. A brief discussion followed by a summary of
the main findings concludes the article.
2. Process Model
Aspen Hysys (Version 8.8) is used for steady state and dynamic
process modelling. Since the system under consideration is a
binary hydrocarbon mixture, the Peng-Robinson equation of
state is used for thermodynamic property modelling. To assess
its suitability for vapour-liquid-equilibrium (VLE) predictions,
Fig. 2, overlays experimental data points (Hanson et al., 1952)
on the model predicted x vs y equilibrium curve at 22.24 bar.
The predictions are in good agreement with the experimental
data, thus validating the model.
Column pressure is an important design dof for the pro-
cess and it is useful to have a feel for the variation in the
average propylene-propane relative volatility with pressure,
as the relative volatility will determine the number of trays in
the tower. A constant relative volatility model is fitted to the
Peng-Robinson equation of state predicted x-y curves and the
shortcut method is applied to obtain the number of minimum
trays, minimum reflux ratio and the actual number of trays
at 1.25 times the minimum reflux ratio for a 99 mol% pure
propylene distillate product and 3 mol% propylene impurity
in the bottoms. The shortcut method is applicable since the
binary propylene-propane system is not expected to deviate
significantly from Raoult’s law (ideal) behaviour. As the pres-
sure increases from 1 to 21 bars, the relative volatility reduces
from 1.26 to 1.11 highlighting the difficult separation. The sep-
aration difficulty is also evident from corresponding ranges for
the minimum reflux ratio, minimum trays and actual trays,
which are, 7.4-15.3, 41-80 and 79-152, respectively.
3. Steady State Economic Process Design
The VRC C3 splitter is to be designed for both FSD and VSD
compressor types. The system is to process 100 kmol/h of
a binary propylene-propane feed with a nominal propylene
mol fraction of 60%. The feed comes in as a liquid from a
pressurized tank at 30 ◦ C. The desired distillate purity is 99
mol% propylene while the desired bottoms propylene impu-
rity is 3 mol%, so that the propylene loss in the bottoms is
small. Similar purity specifications have been used in Muhrer
et al. (1990). To account for controllability considerations at
the design stage, the process is to be designed for effective
rejection of the worst-case disturbance. The worst-case dis-
turbance direction is the one that requires compressor suction
valve opening (compressor duty) to increase when a FSD (VSD)
compressor is used. Given that throughput and feed compo-
sition changes are the principal disturbances, the worst-case
disturbance direction is that of a feed rate increase and an
increase in the feed propylene mol fraction that requires more
propylene to be sent up the column. Here, a simultaneous 10%
increase in the feed rate and a 10 mol% increase in the feed
propylene mol fraction is taken as the worst-case disturbance.
4. Steady State Process Simulation
The principal design variables are the number of trays in the
tower (N), the feed location (NF ), the tower operating pressure
(P), the compression ratio (CR) and the compressor suction
throttling valve pressure drop (P). Note that a VSD compres-
sor will not have a suction throttling valve so that P in that
case is 0 bar.
As noted earlier, the short-cut Fenske-Underwood-
Gilliland method (Fenske, 1932; Underwood, 1949; Gilliland,
1940) is appropriate for column design, since the hydrocarbon
mixture is nearly ideal. Accordingly, the total # of trays (N)
is taken as that calculated from the short-cut method for
the nominal feed conditions and a reflux ratio that is 1.25
times the minimum reflux ratio (Malone and Doherty, 2001).
The column is then converged using a rigorous Hysys steady
state simulation (details described below) and the feed tray
location (NF ) adjusted so that the reboiler duty is minimum at
the nominal feed condition. Exploratory simulations showed
that the optimum feed tray location for the nominal feed is at
about 2/3rd the total trays (top-down numbering). It does not
change appreciably as column operating pressure and hence
total trays change.
For robust steady state flow sheet convergence, the specific
flowsheet in Fig. 1 is built as a reboiled column with a bottoms
product and an overhead vapor product. The vapour product
is sent through a compressor suction throttling valve to a com-
pressor and the compressor outlet stream is split into a major
fraction and a minor fraction and condensed in respective
coolers with the cooler exit stream vapour fraction specified as
zero. The cooler exit streams are fed to the reflux drum after
pressure reduction to the column pressure through a valve.
The flashed vapour generated due to the pressure reduction
is recycled back from the drum to the compressor suction. The
drum liquid outlet is split into the distillate and the reflux. For
clarity, the Hysys steady state flowsheet is shown in Fig. 3.
It also notes the specifications used for robust steady state
flowsheet convergence, as described below.
For the calculations to proceed, the reflux to the column
is torn using a recycle block. A recycle block is also needed
on the reflux drum vapour outlet stream. The tray section top
pressure (P) is fixed at the desired value and the bottom tray
pressure is fixed assuming a 0.5 kPa pressure drop per tray.
The compressor suction valve pressure drop (P) is specified
to the desired value. The compressor outlet stream pressure
is fixed by the compression ratio (CR). On the reboiled column,
the bottom propylene impurity is specified as 3 mol%. A con-
verged column directly gives the reboiler duty (Qreb ) for the
specified bottoms impurity. Since Qreb comes from condensing
the major fraction of the compressed overhead vapour split
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 9 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 410–423 413

Fig. 2 – Predicted VLE x-y curve with overlaid experimental points.

Fig. 3 – Hysys flowsheet used for robust steady state convergence.

stream, a spreadsheet is used to import the calculated Qreb to zero. The exact value of the vapour split for closing the
and the duty of the cooler on the major compressed vapour heat integrated column energy balance is thus obtained. This
split stream (Qc2 ). Another adjuster block is used to adjust the leaves only the reflux-distillate split fraction as the remaining
vapour split to drive the difference between the two (Qreb –Qc2 ) specification, which is adjusted using another adjustor block
414 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 9 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 410–423

Fig. 4 – Variation in TAC with CR for different suction valve pressure drop (P) values.

Table 1 – Cheapest TAC designs at different P.

P (bar) Col Pressure (bar) No. of Trays (N) Feed Location (NF ) CR* Qcmp * (kW) TAC ($ 106 yr−1 )

0 11.7 121 86 1.765 566 0.784

1 13 121 86 1.883 687 0.748
3 15 128 91 2.136 899 0.861
5 17 134 74 2.385 1136 0.983
7 19 144 102 2.634 1374 1.100

∗
: Nominal steady state value.

to drive the distillate propylene purity to 99 mol%. The flow- bance rejection and operating cost for nominal conditions is
sheet thus converges to the desired product purities for the then an appropriate economic objective function. The TAC is
specified P, P and CR. thus defined as

TAC = Worst − Case Equipment Capital Cost/PBP

5. Economic Objective
To obtain an economic steady state design, an objective func-
tion combining the operating cost and the equipment capital
cost is needed. Since the equipment is to be appropriately
oversized for worst-case disturbance rejection, the capital cost
must be for the oversized equipment corresponding to the
steady state material and energy flows for the worst-case dis-
turbance. On the other hand, the operating cost should be for
the nominal steady state as the process is expected to oper-
ate around the nominal steady state most of the time, with
infrequent disturbances. The total annualized cost (TAC), with
capital cost for equipment oversized for worst-case distur-
+ Nominal Yearly Operating Cost
where PBP is the payback period. A PBP of 3 yrs is used here
(Kayode, 2010). The equipment cost correlations and operat-
ing costs used here have been adapted from Turton et al. (2011)
and are provided in Supporting Information Table S1, for com-
pleteness. A pressure correction factor is used in the tower
cost as the tower is expected to operate at moderate pressures
(5-25 bars). The compressor assembly consists of a steam tur-
bine drive and a centrifugal compressor unit. The VSD cost
is taken to be 2 times the FSD cost. Since the scope of the
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 9 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 410–423
Fig. 5 – Hysys flowsheet used for realistic pressure-driven dynamic simulation with nominal operating conditions for
recommended FSD (blue) and VSD (magenta) designs.
study is controllable process design with systematic equip-
ment overdesign, the economic analysis is kept simple with
no discounted cash flow analysis. This is in line with most
literature process design studies.
The equipment is oversized to accommodate the material
and energy flows for the worst-case disturbance. Thus, the
column diameter corresponds to 80% vapour flooding veloc-
ity at the worst-case feed condition. Similarly, the reboiler
and condenser heat transfer areas are oversized to 25% above
the worst-case energy flows. Conservative heat transfer coeffi-
cient values of 800 and 400 W m−2 ◦ C−1 are used, respectively,
for the reboiler and the condenser (Couper et al., 2010). The
compressor duty is oversized by 25% above the duty for the
worst-case disturbance. The 25% oversizing over and above
the size for the worst-case flows is to accommodate dynamic
transients (e.g. overshoots) as well as uncertainty such has
fouling of trays and heat transfer tubes etc.
6. Design Procedure
With N and NF fixed as discussed previously, the dominant
design variables are the column pressure (P), the compressor
415
suction valve pressure drop (P; P = 0 for a VSD compressor)
and the compression ratio (CR). Column pressure is important
as it affects the propylene-propane relative volatility. Suffi-
cient P is needed in FSD compressor designs to ensure good
controllability. It however causes the column pressure to be
higher, adversely affecting relative volatility. Also, the CR is
then higher to ensure sufficient heat transfer temperature
driving force in the reboiler. CR itself is important as it deter-
mines the compressor cost as well as wattage, both being
major contributors to the TAC. Reasonable values are to be
obtained for P, P and CR for an economic controllable design
with single stage compression. This is done as follows.
Single stage compression implies that CR is constrained to
be below 3.0 (Boyce, 2011). At a given P and P, CR fixes the
compressed overhead vapour stream pressure, which in turn
fixes its bubble temperature. In order to use cooling water as
the coolant in the auxiliary condenser, this bubble tempera-
ture must be at least 50 ◦ C (Tcnd MIN ) and not lower for sufficient
temperature driving force in the condenser. Further the com-
pressed overhead vapour bubble temperature must be at least
15 ◦ C (Treb MIN ) above the reboiler temperature to drive reboiler
heat transfer. Designs that do not satisfy any of these two con-
416 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 9 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 410–423
Fig. 6 – Decentralized control system for VRC C3 splitter.
straints are deemed infeasible. Note that it is possible to use a
lower Treb MIN of 10 ◦ C in the reboiler. For such a low T how-
ever, the reboiler area can be impracticably large (>800 m2 ).
A higher minimum Treb MIN of 15 ◦ C is therefore used for a
practical reboiler area. It is further highlighted that it would
always be optimal to have Treb at the chosen minimum value
(15 ◦ C here) as it minimizes CR and hence the compression
cost, which is a significant contributor to TAC.
A very simple step-by-step design procedure is used as
noted below:
1 Choose compressor suction throttling valve pressure drop,
P (candidate values: 0, 1, 3, 5 and 7 bars).
2 Fix column top pressure, P (candidate values: 5, 7, 9, 11, 13,
15, 17, 19 and 21 bars).
(a) FSD compressor drive (b) VSD compressor drive
3 Fix N by shortcut method for nominal feed with reflux ratio
1.25 times minimum.
4 Specify column pressure drop such that per tray pressure
drop is ∼0.5 kPa.
5 Converge column to desired distillate and bottoms purities
and adjust feed tray location (NF ) so that reboiler duty is
minimum for nominal feed conditions.
6 Repeat steps 6 to 9 for different values of compression
ratio, CR.
7 Converge process for nominal feed condition and obtain
nominal operating cost.
8 Converge process for worst-case feed condition. Oversize
equipment based on worst-case material and energy flows.
9 Calculate TAC using nominal operating cost and oversized
equipment capital cost for worst-case disturbance steady
state.
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 9 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 410–423
10 Check if sufficient temperature driving force for heat trans-
fer exists in reboiler and condenser temperature is ≥ 50 ◦ C.
If yes, the design is deemed feasible; else infeasible.
11 From the various designs, shortlist the lowest TAC feasible
design at a given P as one meriting further evaluation.
Fig. 4 plots the variation in TAC with CR at each of the P
values for different column pressures. The solution points for
which sufficient temperature driving force is not available to
drive reboiler or condenser heat transfer are clearly indicated
as infeasible in the Figure (dashed lines). The P and CR val-
ues for the least expensive feasible design are thus obtained
for each of the considered values of P using steady state
analyses.
In Fig. 4, note that at low CR, the process is infeasible due
to insufficient temperature driving force in the reboiler. This
is expected as unless the overhead vapour is sufficiently com-
pressed, using it as the source of heat in the reboiler is not
possible. Also, as the P is increased, the column pressure
that achieves Treb MIN at CRMAX of 3.0, increases. The salient
design parameters for the cheapest feasible design for each of
the considered P values are noted in Table 1. For P = 0 bars,
the cheapest design corresponds to the lowest feasible col-
umn pressure of 11.7 bars and has a low CR of 1.8. At the other
extreme, for P = 7 bars, the column pressure for the cheap-
est design is much higher at 19 bars and the CR is higher at
2.63. Furthermore, note that the TAC for the cheapest design at
P = 0 is more than for the cheapest design for P = 1 bar. This
is because the P = 0 design requires a VSD, which is more
expensive than the FSD implied in non-zero P designs.
The steady state designs in Table 1 have been obtained
from a purely steady state analysis. It would seem that for the
FSD compressor, the cheapest design is for the lowest con-
sidered P of 1 bar. The final recommendation on the design
must however come from a controllability evaluation via rigor-
ous dynamic simulations. The cheapest design that effectively
rejects the worst-case disturbance would be the finally recom-
mended design. Therefore, the cheapest designs in Table 1 are
now subjected to worst-case disturbance rejection evaluation
using rigorous closed loop dynamic simulations.
7. Controllability Evaluation
Each of the candidate designs in Table 1 is dynamically
evaluated for worst-case disturbance rejection. For a realis-
tic dynamic simulation, the reboiled column in the steady
state simulation is replaced with a simple tray section and a
process-to-process heat exchanger that generates the vapour
boilup into the column by condensing the major fraction of the
compressed overhead vapour. Appropriate control valves are
provided in the flowsheet for a fully pressure driven dynamic
simulation with proper plumbing equipment (e.g. pumps for
driving liquid flows etc), as shown in Fig. 5. To converge this
modified flowsheet in steady state, the previously obtained
converged reflux rate and boilup values are input with an
adjuster block adjusting the vapour split to close the column
energy balance. The reflux drum and bottom sump are sized
for a ∼10 min residence time at 50% holdup for the nominal
steady state. The column diameter is fixed for a superficial
vapor velocity that is 80% of the flooding velocity for the
worst-case disturbance. The tray resistance to vapor flow is
calculated for the nominal conditions and the steady state
simulation is exported to dynamics.
417
The process-to-process heat exchanger (HX) in Fig. 5 is the
reboiler for the tray section. In practice, the thermosiphon
effect would “pull in” as much liquid from the bottom sump
as is vaporized providing a self-regulatory flow mechanism
on the cold side of the HX. This is however not the case in
the Hysys dynamic simulation and a controller must regu-
late the flow from the sump into the reboiler. Similarly, on
the condensing fluid side (hot side), all of the compressed
vapour into the HX must leave as saturated liquid condensate.
In practice, the vapor trap (steam trap in steam driven reboil-
ers) provides the self-regulatory mechanism that causes only
the condensate to the leave the reboiler. Thus, only as much
vapour is pulled in as is being condensed. Since such a self-
regulatory mechanism does not exist in the Hysys dynamic
simulation, a controller is again needed. In the Figure, two
temperature controllers, TC1 and TC2 , are shown that pull
in the appropriate amount of process fluid into the cold side
and the hot side, respectively, of the HX to mimic the self-
regulatory mechanisms. TC1 on the cold side manipulates the
flow rate of liquid pulled in from the sump into the HX to hold
the boilup temperature at a value slightly above the saturated
vapour temperature (slight superheat). Similarly, TC2 on the
hot side manipulates the flow rate of the compressed vapour
into the HX to hold the condensate temperature at a value
slightly below the saturated liquid temperature (slight sub-
cooling). These two controllers are tuned tightly to emulate
the extant self-regulatory mechanisms described and should
be viewed as part of process as in Fig. 5 and not external con-
trollers implemented in a distributed control system (DCS).
The decentralized DCS is now developed. Dual-ended com-
position control is applied to the column with the feed rate
under flow control. The valve on the minor compressed vapour
split stream is manipulated to hold the compressor outlet
stream pressure. This makes sense in that the steady state col-
umn energy balance is converged by adjusting the vapor split
such that the energy needed in the column reboiler comes via
condensation of the major compressed vapor split fraction.
In dynamics, if the energy balance is not closed (i.e. [rate of
energy in–rate of energy out] for the column is non-zero), the
column pressure will drift. This change in pressure is used as
an indicator for appropriately adjusting the vapor split. Thus,
in case the pressure is increasing (energy is accumulating in
system), more vapor is diverted to the auxiliary condenser and
vice versa.
With proper closure of the column energy balance, the
rest of the control system is straightforward. The reflux drum
level is maintained by manipulating the distillate rate while
the reflux rate is manipulated to hold the distillate propy-
lene purity. The bottoms rate is manipulated to hold the sump
level. For the FSD (VSD) compressor system, a bottoms propy-
lene impurity controller manipulates the compressor suction
valve position (compressor duty). The control system for the
FSD and VSD compressor systems are shown in Fig. 6 and is
the conventional LV control configuration.
The two level controllers are proportional (P) only and use
a proportional gain of 2. The feed flow controller is propor-
tional integral (PI) with a proportional gain of 0.5 and reset
time of 1 min. The flow span is twice the nominal steady flow.
The compressor outlet stream pressure controller is tuned
using the Hysys autotuner. The autotuner executes the relay
feedback test (Astrom and Hagglund, 1984) to estimate the
ultimate gain and period of the loop and then implements
Zeigler-Nichols or Tyreus-Luyben (Tyreus and Luyben, 1992;
Luyben, 1996) controller tuning. The two composition con-
418 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 9 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 410–423

Fig. 7 – Transient response of FSD/VSD compressor process designs for worst-case disturbance.
(a) FSD design (P–1 bar: dotted; 3 bar: dash dot; 5 bar: dashed; 7 bar: solid)
(b) VSD design (P–0 bar: solid)
Pin : Suction valve inlet pressure; Pout : Suction valve outlet pressure; D: Distillate rate.

trollers are tuned sequentially via hit-and-trial for a smooth
closed loop dynamic response. A 5 min dead-time and a
5 min sampling time is applied to both the composition mea-
surements. Since the distillate is the product stream, tight
distillate purity control is prioritized over bottoms impurity
control. Accordingly, a PI distillate purity controller is first
tightly tuned for a somewhat oscillatory servo response with
the bottoms impurity controller on manual. Then the PI bot-
toms impurity controller is tuned with the distillate impurity
controller on automatic. The controller parameters of the two
composition controllers for the four candidate designs thus
obtained are provided in Supporting Information Table S2, for
completeness.
The bottleneck constraint that limits controllability is the
saturation of the compressor control dof. Thus, for the FSD
compressor type, the compressor suction valve opens fully
while for the VSD compressor, the compressor duty reaches
maximum. Fig. 7 plots the response of the compressor control
dof for the two compressor types. The top and bottoms compo-
sition responses are also plotted. Notice that for designs with
P = 1 and 3 bars, the compressor suction valve saturates for
the worst-case disturbance and the final bottoms propylene
impurity is 12.15 mol% and 5.20 mol% respectively, which is
higher than the desired 3 mol% target. This off-target steady
state loss of propylene in the bottoms stream for the worst-
case disturbance is unacceptable and the designs are rejected.
On the other hand, for both the 5 and 7 bar P designs,
the worst-case disturbance is effectively rejected without the
suction valve saturating and the final steady state bottoms
propylene impurity settles at the target of 3 mol%. Both these
designs are thus acceptable. Since the 5 bar P design is 11.9%
cheaper than the 7 bar P design (see Table 1), the former is
recommended as the cheapest FSD compressor design that
effectively handles the worst-case disturbance.
For the VSD compressor type, the 25% compressor over-
sizing above the worst-case disturbance compressor duty
allows for effective worst-case disturbance rejection without
any valve saturation. This may be verified from the transient
response in Fig. 7. The cheapest P = 0 bar design in Table 1 is
therefore the recommended for the VSD compressor type.
Table 2 reports the salient design and economic details of
the recommended controllable designs for the fixed and VSD
compressor types. Overall, the VSD compressor type design,
with a TAC of $0.784 × 106 , is significantly less expensive than
the recommended FSD compressor type design with a TAC
of $0.983 × 106 , which is a substantial ∼25% higher. This is
because in the latter, controllability considerations require
a larger pressure drop across the compressor suction valve.
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 9 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 410–423 419

Fig. 8 – Trade-off with respect to condenser pressure for FSD compressor design (P = 5 bar).

lower than the recommended controllable designs in Table 1,

Table 2 – Economic data for recommended process
designs. suggesting that the robust controllability comes at an extra
cost. This highlights the need to be systematic in developing
Design and Economic Details P 0 bar* P 5 bar#
controllable designs so that excessive equipment oversizing
Column Pressure (bar) 11.7 17 (and cost) is avoided.
No. of Trays (N) 121 134 It is pertinent here to relate the recommended design
Feed location (NF ) 86 95 results to the physics of the process. Consider first the recom-
Capital cost ($106 ) 0.248 0.259
mended C3 splitter design with VSD compression (no suction
Compressor Duty (Qcmp kW) 566@ (682)& 1136@ (1368)&
Capital cost ($106 ) 1.02 1.04
throttling). Its optimum corresponds to the minimum feasible
Operating cost ($106 ) 0.176 0.352 condenser temperature (Tcnd MIN ) of 50 ◦ C, and the minimum
Reboiler Area (m2 ) 524 556 reboiler temperature driving force (Treb MIN ) of 15 ◦ C. Tcnd MIN
Capital cost ($106 ) 0.436 0.469 makes sense as this gives the least compressor exit pres-
TAC ($ 106 yr−1 ) 0.784 0.983 sure of 20.65 bars for a cheap water cooled condenser. At a
∗ given compression ratio, this minimizes the column operating
: VSD compressor; #: FSD compressor; @: Nominal; &: Worst-case
25% overdesign. pressure and thus maximizes the relative volatility (i.e. easier
separation). Further, for a given compressor discharge pres-
sure, the Treb MIN constraint minimizes the pressure increase
This causes the column pressure and compression ratio to be
across the compressor that is necessary for heat integration
larger in order to satisfy the minimum reboiler temperature
(higher the Treb , higher the compression ratio). The opti-
driving force constraint. Based on the results, the VSD com-
mum C3 splitter VSD compressor design thus corresponds
pressor design is recommended for the VRC C3 splitter. For
to Treb MIN minimizing the necessary compression ratio and
completeness, the design and operating conditions of the rec-
Tcnd MIN maximizing the mixture relative volatility by minimiz-
ommended FSD and VSD compressor C3 splitter designs are
ing the column operating pressure (11.7 bars).
noted in Fig. 5.
Now consider the recommended C3 splitter design with
As a relevant comparison, the capital cost is calculated for
FSD compression (suction throttling). For controllability, a sig-
equipment sizing based on the nominal steady state and not
nificant pressure drop of 5 bars must be taken across the
the worst-case steady state. The TAC thus obtained, where
compressor suction throttling valve. As before, the Treb MIN
both the capital cost and operating cost are for nominal feed
constraint remains active to minimize CR necessary for heat
conditions, is $0.723 × 106 and $0.921 × 106 for the VSD and
integration. Now if the Tcnd MIN constraint is made active, then
FSD designs respectively. This nominal design TAC is ∼8%
420 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 9 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 410–423
Fig. 9 – Transient response of recommended VSD compressor process design for.
(a) ±10% throughput change (+10% solid; -10% dashed)
(b) ±10 mol% feed propylene composition change (+10 mol% solid; -10 mol%: dashed)
P: Column top pressure.
the compressor discharge pressure gets fixed at 20.65 bars, cor-
responding to the bubble-point of the compressed overhead
vapor. The Treb MIN constraint then sets the column overhead
pressure to 11.7 bars (same as VSD design). For a P of 5 bars,
the compressor suction pressure then is 6.7 bars, which gives
a compression ratio of 3.08, which is much higher than for
the recommended VSD design (CR = 1.76). Also, since the CR
is > 3, one would require more expensive double stage com-
pression. Increasing the column pressure to reduce CR while
maintaining Tcnd MIN is not an option as that would result in
violation of the Treb MIN constraint. Clearly then, the Tcnd MIN
constraint must be sufficiently relaxed. The principal idea is
to have a higher compressor discharge pressure so that the
compressor suction is at a higher pressure, thereby reducing
CR. The flip side is that the column is now at a higher pres-
sure so that the relative volatility is lower causing the overhead
vapor rate and flow through the compressor (Fcmp ) to be higher.
A quantitative tradeoff between these two competing effects
is shown in Fig. 8. The first subplot shows the variation in
the TAC and compressor duty (Qcmp ) with condenser pressure
(Pcnd ) while the second subplot shows the variation in CR and
Fcmp . The (near) optimum Pcnd value is obtained as 28 bars,
which corresponds to a condenser temperature of ∼66 ◦ C. This
is much higher than Tcnd MIN of 50 ◦ C. Pcnd lower than ∼22 bar is
not feasible as it requires CR > 3.0. The corresponding design
has a condenser temperature closest to and slightly above
Tcnd MIN and if chosen, would be ∼4% more expensive than
the recommended design. Lastly, notice that the Qcmp curve
exhibits a minimum close to the minimum in the TAC curve.
This clearly suggests that the two competing effects described
above determine the optimum condenser pressure and hence
temperature.
8. Discussion
In this work, direct composition control has been used for
systematic equipment overdesign to ensure controllability for
the worst-case disturbance. In industrial practice however,
temperature inferential control systems are much more com-
mon. The direct composition control based overdesign done
here keeps the analysis simple as the additional complex-
ity of designing the temperature inferential measurement(s)
is avoided. For example, superfractionators typically use tray
temperature difference (T) as inferential measures. Which
Ts to control, single-ended or dual-ended control, the possi-
bility of steady state multiplicity etc. then become additional
issues (see e.g. Gupta and Kaistha, 2015). Controlling fancier
temperature combinations such as double differentials or par-
tial least squares is also possible. This level of control system
detail is however unlikely to alter the overdesign results sig-
nificantly as a well-designed temperature inferential control
system is supposed to emulate direct composition control.
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 9 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 410–423
Fig. 10 – Transient response of recommended FSD compressor process design for.
(a) ±10% throughput change (+10% solid; -10% dashed)
(b) ±10 mol% feed propylene composition change (+10 mol%: solid; -10 mol%: dashed)
Pout : Suction valve outlet pressure.
Nevertheless, proper design of a temperature inferential con-
trol system can be a challenging task for superfractionators
such as the C3 splitter considered here. Research address-
ing the same is underway and shall be reported in the near
future.
A significant concern in the operation and control of
centrifugal compressor systems is the compressor surge
phenomenon, which is an aerodynamic instability whereby
repeated flow reversal occurs inside the compressor as the
head developed by the compressor becomes insufficient
to overcome the discharge pressure. This typically occurs
when the compressor suction pressure or flow through the
compressor goes too low. Spilling back a fraction of the com-
pressor discharge to its suction (anti-surge control) is routinely
employed to ensure the compressor operation remains safe
by avoiding the surge phenomenon (Luyben et al., 1999). Here,
anti-surge control on the compressor is assumed even as the
surge phenomenon is quite complex and has not been mod-
elled. This is acceptable because the primary motivation is
systematic equipment oversizing, which corresponds to high
material and energy flows for the worst-case disturbance. By
its very nature (i.e. high flows), the worst-case operating point
will always be away from the surge phenomenon. On the other
hand, at low flows, the surge phenomenon is easily coun-
tered using anti-surge control. Thus the main result, which is
the overdesigned equipment size for worst-case disturbance
421
rejection remains unchanged even as the surge phenomenon
is not modelled.
The C3 splitter is a high reflux ratio column and the com-
mon LV control configuration has been applied here. It is
sometimes argued in the literature that for such columns,
the reflux drum and the bottom sump levels should be con-
trolled using the large streams, namely, reflux rate and reboiler
duty (compressor control dof in this case), and not the distil-
late and bottoms streams, which are too small to be able to
regulate level (Luyben et al., 1999). These small streams can
however control the level provided the column composition
profile is not allowed to drift too much. This is accomplished
by the composition controllers. With the composition con-
trol, the flow variability into the reflux drum (condensate
rate–reflux rate) is guaranteed to be of the same order as the
distillate rate. Thus the distillate rate then can easily regu-
late the reflux drum level and the action of the composition
controller is said to achieve ‘indirect’ level control. A similar
argument also applies to bottom sump level control using the
small bottoms stream. For robust level control, it is essential
that at least one of the composition controllers be on auto-
matic so that ‘indirect’ level control is achieved (Skogestad,
2007). Our exploratory dynamic simulation studies revealed
that the LV control configuration gives best dynamic response
in terms of the fastest settling time with tight dual-ended con-
trol, as reported here. Other control configurations work well
422 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 9 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 410–423
for single-ended control. For dual-ended control, these struc-
tures require significant detuning in one of the composition
controllers for the dynamic response to settle to steady state
and consequently, the response completion time is unaccept-
ably high.
For completeness, the closed loop dynamic response of
salient process variables for the recommended FSD and VSD
designs and the recommended LV control system to a ± 10%
feed rate step change or a ±10 mol% feed composition step
change are shown in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, respectively. The com-
pressor suction pressure response is plotted along with the
response of the product purities and the compressor control
dof. The smooth overall response as well as tight regula-
tion of both the distillate and bottoms composition with
no saturation of the compressor control dof is highlighted.
Also notice that the variability in the compressor suction
pressure is not severe so that the assumption of process oper-
ation being away from the surge phenomenon seems fine.
These results further validate the controllability of the rec-
ommended designs.
9. Conclusions
In conclusion, this work has demonstrated the importance
of controllability considerations at the design stage on the
design of a propylene-propane VRC splitter. In particular, the
choice of the compressor type, FSD vs VSD, plays a crucial
role in determining the necessary overdesign for rejecting
the expected worst-case disturbance, as observed in rigorous
pressure driven dynamic simulations. In the FSD compressor
process, significant pressure drop must be provided across the
compressor suction throttling valve for good controllability. In
the VSD compressor process, the compressor power must be
sufficiently overdesigned. A simple dual-ended decentralized
composition control structure is shown to provide robust pro-
cess stabilization. Overall, for the specific case study, the VRC
C3 process design using a VSD compressor is found to be sub-
stantially (>20%) cheaper than the corresponding design using
a FSD compressor and is therefore recommended. The case-
study highlights the importance of systematically developing
controllable designs so that excessive equipment oversizing is
avoided.
Acknowledgements
The financial support from SERB Grant No. EMR/2016/000308,
Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India is
gratefully acknowledged. The insightful comments by Prof
Willam Luyben, Lehigh University, are also gratefully acknowl-
edged.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cherd.2020.04.036.
References
Annakou, O., Mizsey, P., 1995. Rigorous investigation of heat
pump assisted distillation. Heat Recov. Syst. CHP. 15, 241–247.
Astrom, K.J., Hagglund, T., 1984. Automatic tuning of simple
regulators with specifications on phase and amplitude
margins. Automatica 20, 31–38.
Boyce, M.P., 2011. Gas turbine engineering handbook, fourth ed,
Oxford, UK.
Christopher, C.C.E., Dutta, A., Farooq, S., Karimi, I.A., 2017.
Process synthesis and optimization of propylene/propane
separation using vapor recompression and self-heat
recuperation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 56,
14557–14564.
Couper, J.R., Penney, J.W.R., Walas, S.M., 2010. Chemical Process
Equipment, Selection and Design., Second ed, Oxford, UK.
Doering, F.J., Gaddy, J.L., 1979. Simultaneous overdesign and
optimization of chemical processes. Comp. Chem. Eng. 3,
465–472.
Fenske, M.R., 1932. Fractionation of straight-run Pennsylvania
gasoline. Ind. Eng. Chem. 24, 482–485.
Ferre, J.A., Castells, F., Flores, J., 1985. Optimization of a
distillation column with a direct vapour recompression heat
pump. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. 24, 128–132.
Fisher, W.R., Doherty, M.F., Douglas, J.M., 1985. Effect of
overdesign on the operability of distillation columns. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Process Des. 24, 593–598.
Gilliland, E.R., 1940. Multicomponent rectification. Ind. Eng.
Chem. 32, 1220–1223.
Gupta, R., Kaistha, N., 2015. Role of Nonlinear Effects in
Benzene–Toluene–Xylene Dividing Wall Column Control
System Design. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 54, 9407–9420.
Hanson, G.H., Hogan, R.J., Nelson, W.T., Cines, M.R., 1952.
Propane-propylene system. Ind. Eng. Chem. 44, 604–609.
Hinojosa, A.I., Ferramosca, A., Gonzalez, A.H., Odloak, D., 2017.
One-layer gradient-based MPC+RTO of a propylene/propane
splitter. Comp. Chem. Eng. 106, 160–170.
Hocking, M.B., 1993. Handbook of Chemical Technology and
Pollution Control, third ed. Academic Press.
Jana, A.K., 2014. Advances in heat pump assisted distillation
column: A review. Energy Convers. Manag. 77,
287–297.
Jogwar, S.S., Daoutidis, P., 2009. Dynamics and control of vapor
recompression distillation. J. Proc. Contr. 19,
1737–1750.
Kayode, A.C., 2010. Ludwig’s applied process design for chemical
and petrochemical plants, fourth ed, Oxford, UK.
Kazemi, A., Hosseini, M., Zeinabad, A.M., Faizi, V., 2016.
Evaluation of different vapor recompression distillation
configurations based on energy requirements and associated
costs. Appl. Therm. Eng. 94, 305–313.
Leo, M.B., Dutta, A., Farooq, S., 2018. Process synthesis and
optimization of heat pump assisted distillation for
ethylene-ethane separation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 57,
11747–11756.
Luyben, W.L., 1996. Tuning Proportional-Integral-Derivative
Controllers for Integrator/Deadtime Processes. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 35, 3480–3483.
Luyben, W.L., Tyreus, B.D., Luyben, M.L., 1999. Plantwide Process
Control. McGraw Hill, New York, USA.
Luyben, W.L., 2017. Improved plantwide control structure for
extractive divided wall columns with vapour recompression.
Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 123, 152–164.
Luyben, W.L., 2019. Improved control structure for extractive
divided-wall column with vapor recompression. Chem. Eng.
Res. Des. 149, 220–225.
Malone, M.F., Doherty, M.F., 2001. Conceptual Design of
Distillation Systems. McGraw Hill, New York, USA.
Muhrer, C.A., Collura, M.A., Luyben, W.L., 1990. Control of vapor
recompression distillation columns. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 29,
59–71.
Patrascu, I., Bildea, C.S., Kiss, A.A., 2017. Dynamics and control of
a heat pump assisted extractive dividing-wall column for
bioethanol dehydration. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 119,
66–74.
Patrascu, I., Bildea, C.S., Kiss, A.A., 2019. Dynamics and control of
a heat pump assisted azeotropic dividing-wall column for
biobutanol purification. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 146, 416–426.
Sandoval, R.L.A., Douglas, P.L., Budman, H.M., 2011. A
methodology for the simultaneous design and control of
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 9 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 410–423 423

large-scale systems under process parameter uncertainty.
Comp. Chem. Eng. 35, 307–318.
Skogestad, S., 2007. The dos and don’ts of distillation column
control. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 85, 13–23.
Turton, R., Bailie, R.C., Wallace, B., Jopesh, W., 2011. Analysis,
synthesis and design of chemical processes, fourth ed. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Tyreus, B.D., Luyben, W.L., 1992. Tuning PI Controllers for
Integrator/Dead Time Processes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 31,
2625–2628.
Underwood, A.J.V., 1949. Fractional distillation of
multicomponent mixtures. Ind. Eng. Chem. 41, 2844–2847.