See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267344859

211683 Use of Process Simulation In Ethylene Plant APC and Dynamic

Optimization

Conference Paper · March 2011

CITATION READS

1 1,011

8 authors, including:

Akitoshi Takinami Ravi Nath

Showa Denko Electronics K. K. Honeywell
9 PUBLICATIONS   421 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Long-Term Industrial Applications of Inferential Control Based on Just-In-Time Soft-Sensors: Economical Impact and Challenges View project

Optimal Boiler Load Allocation using Linear Programming View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ravi Nath on 15 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 AIChE Paper Number 39f

USE OF PROCESS SIMULATION IN ETHYLENE PLANT ADVANCED

CONTROL AND OPTIMIZATION

Akitoshi Takinami, Ayumu Fujita, Takeshi Seki, Youichi Takeuchi

Showa Denko K.K.
Oita, Japan

Soichi Iwamoto, Tomoo Niikura

Yamatake Corp.
Kanagawa, JAPAN

Paul Yap and Ravi Nath

Honeywell Process Solutions
Singapore and Houston, TX, USA

Prepared for Presentation at the 2011 Spring National Meeting, Chicago, IL

March 13-17, 2011

AIChE and the EPC shall not be responsible for statements or opinions contained in papers or
printed in its publications.
 USE OF PROCESS SIMULATION IN ETHYLENE PLANT ADVANCED
CONTROL AND OPTIMIZATION

Akitoshi Takinami, Ayumu Fujita, Takeshi Seki, Youichi Takeuchi

Showa Denko K.K.
Oita, Japan

Soichi Iwamoto, Tomoo Niikura

Yamatake Corp.
Kanagawa, JAPAN

Paul Yap and Ravi Nath

Honeywell Process Solutions
Singapore and Houston, TX, USA

ABSTRACT

Showa Denko owns and operates a large Ethylene plant in Oita, Japan. Depending on the
economic environment, plant objective is a combination of Energy Efficiency and Production
Capacity. In order to achieve these objectives, Showa Denko had contracted Yamatake and
Honeywell to design, configure and commission Advanced Control and Optimization (ACO) on
the Ethylene Plant. The project was completed in 2002 and the ACO applications have been
continuously operational for the last decade.

The solution at Showa Denko comprises multiple multivariable Model Predictive Controllers
(MPC) and a Dynamic Optimizer. The Dynamic Optimizer is a layer above the MPC and
inherits the models from MPC and thus maintains a complete consistency between MPC and
the Optimizer. As is customary, the MPC models are linear and dynamic. Since the optimizer
inherits the controller models, the optimizer model is also linear and dynamic. Certain parts of
the process especially the cracking reactions however are highly non-linear, where a linear
model would not be adequate. A strategy for incorporating the process non-linearities is to
continuously update non-linear gains in the ACO applications. A gain updating strategy was
designed and successfully implemented. The original gain updating strategy utilized custom
calculations and a custom interface to Technip’s Spyro.

Since the initial commissioning, Showa Denko has continued to enhance the ACO applications.
Additional variables that accounted for all major energy usage were added. Gain updating for
all major energy variables was also added. The operator workflow was made more effective
by
• a hierarchy of displays in Japanese language,
• a continuous display of active bottlenecks, and
• daily optimization reports.
In 2010, Showa Denko added two MPCs for a newly commissioned cracking furnace and a
new Quench system. The development of MPC was significantly simplified by use of
Honeywell’s Profit Stepper. Concurrently, Showa Denko contracted Yamatake and Honeywell
to convert the custom calculations and custom interface to Spyro for gain updating by a
standard methodology that uses a commercially available Process Simulator. Major advantage
of this approach is that the ACO applications can now be more easily maintained and
enhanced by Showa Denko.

This paper summarizes the existing Advanced Control and Optimization solution at Showa
Denko and discusses the details of the gain updating strategy that was recently implemented.
INTRODUCTION

Showa Denko KK (SDK), a diversified group of manufacturing companies owns and operates a
large olefins complex in Oita, Japan. The main products from the olefins complex include
ethylene, propylene and cracked gasoline. Ethylene and propylene products are primarily used
internally for production of derivatives and polymers.

The Oita Ethylene complex cracks a variety of feed stocks including C2s, C3s, C4s, LPG and
Naphthas.

In general, the operation of Ethylene plants is a challenging task because of the following
complicating factors;
• A mix of fast ands slow Process dynamics
• Frequent Feed quality and product demand variations,
• Frequent operations disturbances
• Multiple interacting tradeoffs

In addition, Ethylene producers in Japan face additional challenges due to a shrinking

domestic economy, fierce competition from emerging Asian producers and government edict
to reduce CO2 emissions.

Showa Denko has dealt with these challenges by use of Honeywell’s Advanced Control and
Optimization solution. Section I below gives a brief description of the process; it is followed by
a discussion of the process characteristics in section II and a discussion of degrees of freedom
in section III. Section IV describes Honeywell’s ACO solution in general terms and compares
them to the traditional ACO solution. Section V discusses the particulars of implementation of
the ACO solution at Showa Denko.

I. PROCESS DESCRIPTION

Showa Denko K. K.’s Olefins Plant in Oita was started up in 1969 and has expanded over the
years. The current Ethylene production capacity is 672 thousand metric tonnes per year. The
Ethylene and propylene products are consumed by the downstream plants with some
exported; however there is only limited intermediate storage capacity for these products.
Depending on the business cycle, the demand for the olefins products varies significantly.

The original ethylene facility comprised two parallel olefins production trains: No. 1 and No. 2.
However the present configuration is that of a single train which comprises the following
process units:

• Feed system, No. 1 cracking Furnaces and No. 2 cracking furnaces

• 3 Quench Systems
 • Cracked Gas Compressor
• Condensate Stripper
• Dryer, Cold Box, Prefractionator, Demethanizer and Ethylene Refrigeration System
• 2 Deethanizers
• 3 Acetylene Converter Units
• 3 Ethylene Fractionators and Propylene Refrigeration System
• 2 Depropanizer
• 3 Propylene Fractionators
• Debutanizer
• Depentanizer, and
• Rerun tower

Figure 1 shows an overview of the process, each of the process areas are briefly discussed
below.

FURNACES AND FEED SYSTEM

There are a total of 15 furnaces of four different geometries. The furnaces crack a variety of
feedstock including ethane, propane, butane, LPG, and Naphthas. There is a complex
arrangement of piping that connects the feedstock to the furnaces. Most feed arrives by
tankers while some arrives by pipeline. There is a furnace effluent analyzer that cycles
between the furnaces.

QUENCH SYSTEM

The quench system comprises oil quench and water quench towers. A gasoline blend is
separated as a product from the quench system. Fuel Oil byproduct is also produced.

CRACKED GAS COMPRESSION (CGC)

The CGC consists of four compression stages with inter-stage knockout drums and cooling
water exchangers. The compressor is driven by a turbine. A C3s and heavier stream is
recovered from the bottoms of the condensate stripper and sent to the Depropanizers.
DRYER, PREFRACTIONATOTR, DEMETHANIZER AND ETHYLENE
REFRIGERATION SYSTEM

Cracked gas from the cracked gas compressor fourth stage is dried and fed to the pre-
fractionator tower. Overhead from the tower goes to the Demethanizer and the bottoms goes
to the Deethanizer towers. The tower is reboiled with propylene refrigerant vapors. The
methane and hydrogen-rich overhead stream is partially condensed in the cold box via
ethylene and propylene refrigerants and the Joule-Thompson Effect.

DEETHANIZER

The bottom stream from the Pre-fractionator enters the two Deethanizers. The towers are
reboiled with utility steam. The condenser uses propylene from the suction drum of the
propylene refrigeration compressor to partially condense the overhead product.

ACETYLENE CONVERTER UNITS

Deethanizer overhead streams along with the Demethanizer bottoms streams go to the three
Acetylene Converter Units for removal of Acetylene impurity by hydrogenation.

ETHYLENE FRACTIONATORS, PROPYLENE REFRIGERATION

Effluent streams form the Acetylene Converter Units are the feed to the three Ethylene
Fractionators. Each of these towers is a super-fractionator with a pasteurization section. It is
reboiled with medium pressure propylene refrigerant. The overhead condenser uses low
pressure propylene refrigerant. A vent stream off the reflux drum is used to purge hydrogen
and methane back to the CGC. When producing directly to the pipeline instead of storage,
energy is recovered from the product by the propylene refrigeration system. When producing
to storage additional cooling is required to condense the product for storage, in which case the
propylene refrigeration system can become overloaded and rates may be lowered. Ethane
from the bottoms is recycled back to the furnaces.

DEPROPANIZERS

There are two depropanizers, each comprises two towers, the rectifying tower is operated at
higher pressure, while the stripping tower is operated at lower pressure to minimize polymer
formation. There are two feeds to a Depropanizer - one from the Deethanizer bottoms, and
the other from the Condensate Stripper. The tower is reboiled with utility steam and
condensed with propylene from the suction drum of the propylene refrigeration compressor.

MAPD CONVERTER UNITS

Overhead streams from the depropanizers go to two MAPD Converter Units to hydrogenate
Methyl Acetylene and Propadiene impurities.

PROPYLENENE FRACTIONATORS

Effluent streams form the MAPD Converter Units are the feed to the three Propylene
Fractionators. Each of these towers is reboiled with quench water waste heat. The overhead
condenser uses sea water. Polymer grade propylene product from the overhead is send to the
consuming processes and propane from the bottoms is recycled back to the furnaces.

DEPENTANIZER

The Depropanizer bottoms enter the Depentanizer that is reboiled with utility steam and
condensed with cooling water. The bottoms gasoline product is sent to the Rerun tower for
further processing.

DEBUTANIZER

The Depentanizer overhead stream enters the Debutanizer that is reboiled with utility steam
and condensed with cooling water. The overhead C4s and bottoms C5s streams are sent to
OSBL.

RERUN TOWER

The Depentanizer bottoms enter the Rerun tower that is reboiled with utility steam and
condensed with cooling water. The overhead gasoline product is sent to OSBL hydrotreater
for further processing. The bottoms stream is recycled back to the Quench Oil tower.
II. PROCESS CHARACTERISTICS

Olefins Plants in general have some unique characteristics that have a strong bearing on the
optimizer design. These are:

SEMI-CONTINUOUS OPERATION OF FURNACES AND DRYERS

Coke is a byproduct of thermal cracking of hydrocarbons, it accumulates on the inside of the

tubes in the furnace and ultimately limits selectivity. Cracking furnaces are therefore
periodically decoked. Decoking operation however causes a huge disturbance in the
operation of an ethylene plant. For the Oita plant with 15 furnaces, this disturbance occurs
once a week on an average.

The dryers situated at the back end of the Charge Gas Compressor are switched frequently
which causes a short but significant disturbance in the flow to the cold side of the plant.

FEED QUALITY VARIATIONS

For the Oita plant, business opportunities offered by free market means that there usually is
significant variability in quality of feed stock. This also results in significant operations
disturbances. On an average, significant feed quality disturbances occur twice a week.

PRODUCT DEMAND VARIATION

Showa Denko’s Oita plants produces ethylene majority of which is consumed by the
downstream polymer or derivatives plants, however there is limited product storage capacity.
Therefore any significant swing in the ethylene demand by the downstream plants requires a
corresponding change in the operation of the plant.

On the whole, semi-continuous operation of the furnaces and dryers, frequent feed quality and
product demand variations result in a process that is very dynamic and seldom at steady state.
Dynamic operating environment of the plant is an important consideration in the use of a
dynamic optimizer for the ethylene plant.

III. DEGREES OF FREEDOM

Optimization of the operations of an Ethylene plant is complicated as there are multiple,
interacting tradeoffs at work. The following are some of the significant ones;

Feed availability
Feed cost
Feed quality
Olefins production

Furnace capacity
Furnace severity
Olefins yield
Furnace run-length
Furnace Energy

Olefins yield
CGC suction pressure
CGC Energy

Column capacity
Column Recoveries
Column Energy

In general, higher quality feeds, yield more ethylene but cost more. Olefins yield increases by
increasing the cracking severity but it adversely impacts the furnace run-length and furnace
energy consumption. Ethylene yield increases by decreasing the CGC suction pressure but at
the cost of increased CGC energy consumption. Column capacity increases by increasing
energy flow in the column, or by backing off on component recoveries. These tradeoffs are
made by a careful optimization of the degrees of freedom which include the following;

For each furnace:

Feed rate,
Feed mix,
Cracking severity, and
Dilution Steam flow.

For each columns

Overhead purity,
Bottoms purity, and
Column operating pressure.

For each multistage compressors:

First stage suction pressure.
IV. SOLUTION TECHNOLOGY

Honeywell’s Advanced Control and Optimization (ACO) solution comprises the following
elements;

• Multiple Profit Controllers with embedded gain mappers for multivariable Model
Predictive Control (MPC)
• A Profit Optimizer with embedded gain mapper for dynamic Real Time Optimization
(RTO)
• A UniSim Design model for computation of inferentials and derivatives, and
• A Profit Bridge application for Real Time execution of the UniSim Design model for gain
extraction

Each of the solution elements is discussed below.

MPC TECHNOLOGY

Multivariable Model Predictive Control (MPC) refers to a class of control algorithms in which
dynamic process models are used to predict and control a process. MPC is well suited for high
performance control of constrained multivariable processes because explicit pairing of
Controlled Variables (CV) and Manipulated Variables (MV) is not required and constraints are
directly imbedded in the problem formulation.

We will discuss two MPC approaches here. First the traditional approach which is available
from a number of vendors, and then a unique robust approach that has been embodied in
Honeywell's Profit Controller.

Traditional MPC Technology

Traditional MPC attempts to keep all process CVs at their target values. A CV target value
could be a setpoint or could be a zone. Setpoint applies to a regulatory CV, and zone applies
to a constrained CV. Reference trajectory is a specified transition path for a CV. In addition,
MPC formulation may also allow for weighing of MVs to convey a sense of preference among
the various MVs.

MPC problem can be represented as the following minimization problem [1]:

min ∑
∆MV
[
W (r
h
(i
i =1
) −
e C
)
V (i ) ) + W
2
MV ∆MV 2 (i ) ]
subject to
)
CV L < CV (i ) < CVU

MV L < MV (i ) < MVU

∆MV L < ∆MV (i ) < ∆MVU

where

i discretized time

h control horizon

We CV weight

WMV MV weight

r(i) CV target: setpoint or reference trajectory

)
CV (i ) CV prediction

∆MV (i ) MV moves

Profit Controller MPC Technology

CONTROLLER ROBUSTNESS

One drawback in conventional MPC technology is that it requires specification of CV reference

trajectories for constrained CVs. Reference trajectories are typically set equal to the steady
state targets and are not dynamically optimum and are often dynamically infeasible and would
result in excessive MV movements without additional move suppression. Honeywell's Profit
Controller removes this requirement. Honeywell's patented Robust MPC Technology is called
RMPCT.

Profit Controller employs Honeywell's patented funnel design [2] in its problem formulation
that enables a simultaneous determination of both the MV moves and the CV reference
trajectories. RMPCT's solution procedure is called the Range Control Algorithm (RCA) and in
matrix notation is as follows [3]:

min [W ( Ax − y ) ]
2
(1)
x, y
 subject to CVL ≤ y ≤ CVH
MVL ≤ Sx ≤ MVH
∆MVL ≤ x ≤ ∆MVH

where
A is the process dynamic matrix
W is a user-specified diagonal weighting matrix
S accumulating sum matrix for MV moves
x control solution in terms of MV moves, and
y CV response trajectories.

For practical applications, there usually are an infinite number of solutions to (1). In RMPCT, a
minimum effort solution is sought which means minimum movement to the process. The
minimum effort solution brings a significant robustness to the control solution. This treatment
of robustness differs from the standard robust control design in that the control robustness is
gained from the freedom provided by CV high/low bounds and not by specification of model
uncertainty.

UNIT OPTIMIZATION

When there are degrees of freedom (DOF) remaining in a controller, a steady-state objective
function could be defined. The objective function in general can be linear, quadratic, or a
combination of the two. For most applications, a steady-state quadratic objective (2) is
versatile enough, which is the default objective function form in Profit Controller.

J = c x t x ss + c y t y ss + ( x ss − x o ) t D x ( x ss − x o ) + ( y ss − y o ) t D y ( y ss − y o ) (2)
subject to CVL ≤ yss ≤ CVH
MVL ≤ xss ≤ MVH
where
J is the unit optimization cost objective function
cx is MV cost coefficient
cy is CV cost coefficient
xss is MV steady state value
yss is CV steady state value
xo the MV desired value
yo the CV desired value
Dx is the cost of deviating from MV desired value
Dy is the cost of deviating from CV desired value

The steady-state optimization problem (2) defines a new economically optimal “setpoint” and
can be solved separately from dynamics of the control system without sacrificing any rigor.
o
Solution to (2) is x ss .
COMBINED CONTROL AND DYNAMIC UNIT OPTIMIZATION

In Profit Controller, the complete unit dynamic optimization is solved as an augmentation of

(2) to (1) as shown below [4];
2
 W 0   A   y 
min      x −  o  (3)
x ,y  0 W0   S   x ss 

subject to CVL ≤ y ≤ CVH

MVL ≤ Sx ≤ MVH
∆MVL ≤ x ≤ ∆MVH

where
W0 is a user-specified diagonal weight for tuning optimization speed

Profit Controller not only solves for the steady-state optimum, but also determines the
trajectory of ‘how to get there’ while handling the control tasks currently at hand. This
trajectory is a combination of control response and economic optimization path. Thus Profit
Controller unifies the control and optimization problems.
o o
Note also that x ss does not have to come from (2). If x ss comes from a plant-wide
optimization solution, (3) can achieve a plant-wide optimization dynamically. This is exactly
how Profit Optimizer integrates with Profit Controller.

ON THE FLY GAIN UPDATING

Unlike, traditional MPC, Profit Controller allows “on the fly” gain updating; that is the controller
gains can be changed at any time without stopping or reinitializing the controller. This is a
very powerful capability as it makes application of Profit Controller possible for non-linear
areas of the process, such as the cracking furnaces.

RTO TECHNOLOGY

Functionally, Real Time Optimization (RTO) is a supervisory layer on top of existing process
controllers. RTO continuously strives to maintain the plant operating conditions at the most
profitable point. In order to achieve this functionality, an RTO system must have the following
three capabilities;
1. way to assess its current state (State Estimation),
2. way to determine the optimum state (Optimum State),
 3. way to determine a path from the current to the optimum (Dynamic Path).

Next we discuss the above mentioned three capabilities.

State Estimation: refers to the determination of the current state of the system. The plant is a
dynamic entity with all manners of disturbances, fast and slow dynamic responses, inverse and
delayed responses. This means that a "snapshot" of process data gives an incomplete and
sometimes incorrect view. A complete assessment of current state requires analysis of
process history. State estimation defines both where the plant is right now as well as where it
is expected to be in the future.

Optimum State: refers to the determination of the steady state optimum point. For a system
described by a set of algebraic equations, there are useful mathematical tools such as linear
algebra and optimality theorems. The task then is to describe the reality of the plant
operation into a set of algebraic equations. Having defined the equations finding the optimum
can be via well established mathematical algorithms.

Dynamic Path: refers to the path to be taken in going from the current state to the optimum
state. In general a multitude of paths exist and the most direct path may not necessarily be
the best path and it may not even be feasible for a process with dynamic interactions.

Next we will analyze two approaches to RTO and their suitability to the problem in hand. First
the traditional approach (first principles, steady state Equation Based Optimization) is
discussed. Then a unique dynamic optimization approach that is embodied in Honeywell's
Profit Optimizer will be discussed.

Traditional RTO

Traditionally, RTO has been formulated as an extension of steady state simulation. The
process is represented by steady state heat, material, and sometimes momentum balances.
Mathematically, the model comprises a massive set of "sparse" algebraic equations that are
amenable to optimum state algorithms, such as Successive Quadratic Programming (SQP).
Traditional RTO formulations for an ethylene process may have several hundred thousand
variables. Obviously, this large problem size would require significant amount of compute
time. For details of the traditional RTO approach refer to [5, 6].

AN EVALUATION

This section evaluates traditional RTO with respect to the above mentioned three capabilities:

State Estimation: Traditional RTO requires a rigorous fitting of steady state process model to
current plant conditions using data reconciliation and parameter estimation. Determining an
accurate current state to update these steady state models is problematic for a dynamic
process such as the one under consideration as it is seldom at steady state. In practical terms
this becomes a tuning issue as to what constitutes a steady state. There are two extremes: 1)
strict criteria for steady state which could mean a long wait, or 2) relaxed criteria for steady
state to reduce the wait. Both approaches have problems. In the first approach, all the
waiting means lost opportunity for optimization, although when you get steady state your
results are more meaningful. In the second approach, optimization can run more frequently,
but you are less sure of the current state which implies that integrity of data reconciliation,
parameter estimation and in fact the whole optimization is compromised.

Optimum State: There are two issues here. First, the optimizer execution time, which of
course depends on the model size, could be up to 60 minutes for a full fledged ethylene plant
optimizer running on a modern computer. Second, intermediate disturbances during program
execution can invalidate results of an optimization solution and result in lost benefits. Because
of wait for steady state, long execution time and intermediate disturbances; traditional
ethylene RTO runs fairly infrequently.

Dynamic Path: A steady state optimizer is incapable of giving a dynamic implementation path.
The path to the optimal state is typically determined by manually entered step size constraints.
Since the optimization model is steady state in nature, typically fairly small optimization steps
are taken to minimize the risk of large dynamic CV violations.

ONE PROCESS TWO MODELS

The traditional RTO approach necessarily requires that two sets of process models be
maintained. One for MPC that has linear, dynamic models and another one for RTO that is a
rigorous, nonlinear, steady state model of the process. The MPC models are empirical and
obtained experimentally by observing process responses to applied stimulus. RTO models, on
the other hand, are typically configured from a canned library of models. Both the MPC and
the RTO models are representations of the same process but typically have little in common!

There is a price to be paid for this duality, first in terms of initial model development effort,
and then in terms of long term model maintenance effort. Another implication of this duality is
manifested in terms of a somewhat adversarial relationship between the optimizer and MPC.
Typical thinking goes like this, the optimizer has a global and more thorough view of the
process, whereas the MPC has a narrower view of the process. This way of thinking justifies
that the optimum results be dictated to the underlying MPCs. But keep in mind that RTO
model although more comprehensive is totally blind to the dynamic aspects of the process. So,
this logic has merit but only for very fast acting processes, which is not the case for most
ethylene plants particularly the one under consideration.

In summary, traditional RTO for a dynamic process such as the one under consideration is
problematic. At the root of the problem lies the fact that traditional RTO is based on steady
state models. Much of the time traditional RTO is waiting for the plant to be steady and when
the plant does get steady one has to hope that no intermediate disturbance will act on the
plant before the optimal state is reached. This is unlikely since the optimization steps in
general are kept very small to avoid unnecessary dynamic violations. On the whole, for a
dynamic process traditional RTO is problematic, not to mention high initial development and
high long-term maintenance costs.

Profit Optimizer

Honeywell's Profit Optimizer is based on Honeywell's patented Distributed Quadratic

Programming (DQP) technology. Profit Optimizer is a paradigm shift in RTO of dynamic
processes. Here one starts with the Profit Controller models of the process and then leverages
these models to create a framework for dynamic optimization. Profit Controller models
provide a basic structure for the optimization problem and capture most of the interactions in
the process. But of course, the controller models have a limited vision. A global vision is
created by adding the following structures to the optimization model;

• Source/clone Models,
• Bridge Models, and
• Combined Constraint Models.

Next the above mentioned model structures are described briefly.

Source Clone Models: A Source Clone model is a simple one to one connection between two
separate Profit Controller applications. Source clone models define common inputs across
multiple controllers to eliminate redundant inputs.

Bridge Models: A Bridge model is a more comprehensive structure that relates interactions
between multiple Profit Controllers. In effect, it defines the interactions between separate
areas of the plant controlled by separate Profit Controllers. An additional benefit of Bridge
models is that they provide intermediate state estimation which is used to correct downstream
optimization variables (e.g., product yields) making the optimization models more accurate
and robust.

Combined Constraint Models: A Combined Constraint Model defines new multi-application CV

constraint that can not possibly be addressed by any one underlying Profit Controller. As an
example consider total hydrocarbon feed to the process which depends on MVs of multiple
Profit Controllers.

Details of these modeling components are beyond the scope of this paper. Interested reader
is referred to [2,7] for details.

AN EVALUATION

Next, we will evaluate Profit Optimizer from the point of view of above mentioned three
capabilities:
State Estimation: With Profit Optimizer plant steady state is not a requirement for optimization
as Profit Optimizer has a dynamic model of the process. In addition Profit Optimizer typically
runs every minute at which time it gets process feedback. This frequent process feedback also
compensates for model mismatch. Profit Optimizer model knows where each process variable
is and where it is going to be in the future.

Optimum State: With Profit Optimizer, the optimization problem is formulated as a (semi-
positive definite) Quadratic Programming problem (QP) for which optimum state calculation is
fast and guaranteed. Profit Optimizer is typically scheduled at the same frequency as the
slowest Profit Controller; that is once every minute.

Dynamic Path: Profit Optimizer has a mathematical property that it will move the process
towards the optimum along the minimum energy path. The minimum energy path is the path
of minimum MV movement. What can happen for non-linear processes with significant gain
changes is that the predictions of optimal state may shift from execution to execution.
Practically speaking this iterative approach to the optimal state is not a problem, as the
optimizer will settle out at the ultimate optimum within the optimization time horizon. In
addition, the path will be robust in the sense of least process MV movement and always in the
direction of improvement.

ONE PROCESS ONE MODEL

In Profit Optimizer, the underlying Profit Controller models form the basic structure for
optimization model. In this approach, there is no duplication of modeling effort. Additional
model structure for Profit Optimizer in terms of Source-Clone, Bridge and Combined Constraint
models that are unique to Profit Optimizer represent a small fraction of the total modeling
effort. For applications with non-linear gain updating, gains are passed to Profit Controllers
and are automatically picked up by the next execution of the Profit Optimizer model.

Profit Optimizer's approach to RTO therefore represents tremendous savings of development

efforts, both in terms of initial development of models as well as in terms of long term
maintenance of the models. Another implication of this unification is manifested in terms of a
cooperative relationship that exists between the optimizer and the controllers. Bridge Models
continue to provide feed forward information to Profit Controllers even when the Profit
Optimizer is turned off. In addition, Profit Optimizer model knows if dynamic violations exist or
are imminent, and if necessary attempts to solve the control problem from a global
perspective. This way Profit Optimizer unifies optimization and control problems.

In summary, Profit Optimizer is an effective technology for optimization of dynamic processes

such as the ethylene application described here. Since Profit Optimizer is based on dynamic
models, steady state for process is not a requirement for optimization to proceed. Profit
Optimizer formulates a Quadratic Programming problem that can be solved efficiently with
guaranteed optimum, typically at the same frequency as the controllers. Profit Optimizer
allows for on-the-fly gain updating, which in essence makes it a successive linear
programming (SLP) optimization. Since Profit Controller models provide bulk of optimization
model, initial development efforts as well as the long-term maintenance efforts for the
optimization are greatly reduced. On the whole, Profit Optimizer is an optimization solution
that can be effectively used to optimize real world dynamic problems in real time.

GAIN UPDATING TECHNOLOGY

Consider the following 2 facts;

1. In general all processes are non-linear, at least to some extent.
2. Over a narrow operating range, any non-linear relationship can be accurately
represented by a linear relationship (using Taylor Series expansion)

For MPC, both the traditional MPC and Profit Controller employ linear dynamic process models.
This raises a question, how can we employ MPC for process areas that are highly non-linear?
A practical and effective solution is to modify the MPC gains so that at any time the linear
model accurately represents the actual non-linear behavior of the process. Profit Controller is
well suited for gain updating, the controller models can be updated “on the fly” without
stopping or re-initializing the controller. Since the controller execution is minute-by-minute (or
faster) and there is a continuous feedback from the process, gain updating is a very effective
and practical solution for handling non-linearities such as those encountered in an ethylene
process (such as the Cracking Furnaces yields).

For RTO, the traditional technology utilizes a non-linear steady state model of the process
(which is totally different than the linear dynamic controller model) and uses quadratic
approximations to solve the optimization problem giving a SQP type performance. So while
non-linearities are handled properly the simplification is made in temporal dimension (steady
state model). Profit Optimizer, on the other hand, has linear but dynamic models which are
completely consistent with the controller models. Similar to Profit Controller, Profit Optimizer
is also designed for “on-the-fly” gain updating. Since Profit Optimizer execution is minute-by-
minute and there is a continuous feedback from the process, gain updating is a very effective
and practical solution for non-linearities such as encountered in the optimization of ethylene
process. In effect, Profit Optimizer with continuous gain updating is in essence gives a
Successive Linear Programming (SLP) performance for a dynamic optimization problem where
as traditional RTO gives Successive Quadratic Programming (SQP) type performance which is
applicable but only when the process is steady.

PROFIT BRIDGE
Honeywell’s solution for gain updating is called Profit Bridge. It comprises three components;
• Gain Extractor,
• Profit Controller Gain Mapper, and
 • Profit Optimizer Gain Mapper.

Gain Extraction is the extraction (or computation) of gains. It is accomplished by perturbation

of a non-linear process model configured in UniSim Design (USD) which is Honeywell’s Process
Simulation program. UniSim Design is an offline Process Simulation program. Real Time
execution of a UniSim Model is made possible by a software component called “USD socket”.
For gain updating purposes a platform application is configured in Honeywell’s Unified Real
Time (URT) framework. The URT platform application computes the gains for Profit
Controllers and Profit Optimizer.

Profit Controller Gain Mapper updates gains in the controller gain matrix that have been
provided by the gain extractor. The Gain Mapper validates and optionally filters the gains and
deposits the validated, filtered gains in the control matrix without re-initializing the controller.

Similarly, Profit Optimizer Gain Mapper updates optimizer gains (Bridge Model and Combined
Constraint gains) provided by the gain extractor in the optimizer gain matrix. The Gain
Mapper validates and optionally filters the gains and deposits the validated, filtered gains
without re-initializing the optimizer.

V. THE SHOWA DENKO PROJECT

SCOPE

In 2002 Honeywell Process Solutions jointly with Yamatake Corp. had completed the original
ACO project. The ACO applications were updated in 2005. Until this point, all gain updating
was accomplished by means of custom programming. In 2010, in an upgrade project, the
gain updating was switched to use the standard Profit Bridge software.

MPC

NEW CONTROLLERS

In 2010, Showa Denko added a new Cracking furnace and a new quench system to the
Ethylene plant.

When the original project was done, MPC models were identified in two separate steps. The
first step comprised applying open-loop, univariate, manual perturbations to the process and
collecting process response to these perturbations. The second step comprised, analyzing the
process response and identifying the dynamic models. This methodology of generating
dynamic process models was both time consuming and tedious.
Since then, Honeywell has introduced a closed-loop, multivariate, automated, dynamic process
models generation methodology for Profit Controller [8]. This new methodology is embedded
in a product called Profit Stepper. Profit Stepper provides multivariate closed-loop automated
step testing, data collection, online model identification and model visualization. In 2010,
Showa Denko used the new methodology for model identification for the new Cracking
Furnace and the new quench system. Use of Profit Stepper significantly reduced the effort for
MPC model generation which resulted in quick startup of the new controllers..

MPC SUMMARY

In the current state, there are 34 Profit Controllers, 13 for the furnaces, 3 for quench system,
1 for CGC, 14 for the separations area and 3 for the olefins main products. In designing the
controllers it was decided to keep logically related units under a single controller to improve
controller performance. So, the feed chilling, cold box, Preefractionator, Demethanizer and
ethylene refrigeration were consolidated under one Profit Controller. Similarly, Ethylene
fractionator and Propylene refrigeration were consolidated under a single Profit Controller.
Similarly, the Depropanizer and the Condensate Stripper were consolidated under another
Profit Controller.

During the controller design stage, Manipulated MV, CV and DVs for individual Profit
Controllers were defined, plant step tests were conducted and dynamic models were identified.
Profit Controllers were commissioned and installed on the three Engineering Workstations.
Controller execution frequency for all Profit Controllers is once per minute. Table 1
summarizes the various Profit Controllers.

Typical constraints for a furnace Profit Controller include the following:

Severity
Steam to hydrocarbon ratio
Total hydrocarbon feed rate
Tube skin temperature, and
Combustion constraints such as excess O2, damper positions etc.

Typical constraints for a column Profit Controller include the following:

Overhead purity
Bottoms purity
Approach to flooding
Reflux drum level
Column pressure
Selected tray temperatures, and
Other constraints such as valve positions etc.

The objective of Profit Controllers is to maintain control of the process and to implement Profit
Optimizer solution.
The controllers execute every minute and the gains for furnace severity and TMT CVs are
updated once every 5 minutes by Profit Bridge.

RTO

The scope of Profit Optimizer is comprehensive and includes the entire Olefins plant. 34 Profit
Controllers mentioned above form the base Profit Optimizer model. 16 Bridge models were
added that provide dynamic feed forward information to the downstream column controllers
and the 3 production controllers. Profit Optimizer also includes 90 Combined Constraints
which define global CVs for constraints or for objective function definition or both. Bridge
Models and Combined Constraint Models were identified from data collected during MPC step
testing and from plant historical data, no additional plant tests were required.

The objective of Profit Optimizer is to maximize the gross profit margin for the Olefins plant
operation by trading off production versus energy and raw material costs.

MAX ( Product value + By product value – raw material cost – energy cost)

= MAX( ∑ vpi * Pi + ∑ vbj * Bj - ∑ crk * Rk - ∑ cel * El )

Where
vpi is the unit value of product i
vbj is the unit value of by product j
crk is the unit cost of raw material k
cel is the unit cost of energy l

Pi is the rate of production of product i

Bj is the rate of production of by product j
Rk is the rate of consumption of raw material k
El is the rate of consumption of energy l

The rates of production of products and by products and the rates of consumption of raw
materials and energy are all variables in the optimizer (MV, CV or Combined Constraint). The
value of these variables are calculated by the optimizer; the user can change the range for any
of these variables.

The unit values for products and by products and unit costs for raw materials and energy
sources are user supplied coefficients that are specified on the “Optimize” pages of MV, CV
and Combined Constraint. x
The objective of optimization can be changed by changing the values of the coefficients and to
some extent by changing the range of variables. For example, profit maximization, the full set
of coefficients are specified. However, when production is constrained, the upper limit on the
production variables is set and under this constrained condition the optimizer will maximize
profit by improving product selectivity and by reducing the raw material and energy costs.
And for maximum ethylene production objective, coefficient for ethylene variable could set to
a positive number and all other coefficients could be zeroed.

Profit Optimizer executes every minute and the gains for furnace controllers, all the Bridge
Models and the Combined Constraints Models are updated every 5 minutes by Profit Bridge.

GAIN UPDATING

In all, 190 Profit Controller gains, 2001 Bridge Models gains and 2231 Combined Constraint
gains are computed and updated every 5 minutes by Profit Bridge. Gain updating requires a
non-linear process simulation model, so a UniSim Design process simulation model for
Ethylene plant was configured. The UniSim Model process flow diagram is shown in Figure 2.
The UniSim model has Technip USA Corporation’s, on-line Spyro as a Unit Op in its library. All
furnaces are modeled using the on-line Spyro Unit Op. The UniSim model also computes
derivatives. Additionally, Showa Denko has configured gain updating for non-linearities in the
energy consumption variables. Ultimately, Profit Bridge pushes the new gains to the Profit
Controllers and the Profit Optimizer and next execution of the Gain Mappers updates the
gains.

Real time execution of the USD model is via Profit Bridge which is a Function Block in the Profit
Bridge application. Profit Bridge application performs the several functions;
• Validate process validation
• Maintain furnace Coke profiles
• Apply severity feedback
• Invokes USD socket
• Extracts gains for Profit Controllers and Profit Optimizer, and
• Populates the gains in the Profit Controller and Profit Optimizer gain mappers

In short, Profit Bridge pushes the extracted gains to the Gain Mappers in the Profit Controllers
and the Profit optimizer. The gain mappers in the Profit Controllers and the profit Optimizer
update the gain upon their next execution.

Figure 3 summarizes the overall solution architecture.

SYSTEMS OVERVIEW
The Olefins plant has Yokogawa DCS system and Honeywell PHD data histotrian. There are 3
Experion Engineering Workstations that run data historian, the 34 Profit Controllers, the Profit
Optimizer and the Profit Bridge. All communication with the DCS is via PHD.

In addition, Showa Denko also maintains a development system; it has 2 engineering

workstations that have identical environment to the production system. The development
system is used for prototyping of new ideas and for staging of major upgrades such as the
current upgrade.

Engineering access is in English on the Engineering Workstations using Profit Suite Operator
Station or URT. Figure 4 shows a sample of URT interface.

OPTIMIZER PERFORMANCE

Optimization of ethylene plant operation is complicated as it involves multiple trade offs

between raw material, production and energy. It is strongly influenced by the cost coefficients
and active constraints. The results of optimization are not always obvious and are at times
even counter intuitive. Active constraint analysis is helpful in understanding the optimum and
could be very insightful as it may be possible to further increase profit by relaxing the active
constraints.
Although, active constraints can be determined by observing the optimizer displays, it is a
cumbersome exercise that is likely to be neglected by a busy operator. To ease this important
task for the operator, Showa Denko has developed a new set of operator graphic displays that
clearly show the optimizer status, the current and future furnace loads and active constraints.
This displays are alive and show the current status at a glance. Figure 5 shows a sample of
this Operators graphics.

In addition Showa Denko has also creates a daily on-line optimizer report which shows process
trends of the active constraints and manipulated variables. The daily reports are generated
automatically. With the report, the operation of ethylene plant is checked and fine-tuning for
the on-line optimizer is performed in the spirit of “kaizen”. Figure 6 shows a sample daily
report.

The introduction of operator graphics and daily optimizer reporting has led to excellent
acceptance of the controller and the optimizer by the operations staff. As a result, the APC
and RTO solution has been in continuous operation for the last decade and is now part of the
normal work flow.

The continuous use of ACO applications along with the operators display and the daily
optimizer reports has resulted in new production records at times of high product demand, as
shown in Figure 7 and an overall improvement in the energy efficiency as is shown in Figure
8. [9]

VII. CONCLUSIONS

Operation of large ethylene plant is seldom at steady state. Operations optimization of such
dynamic plants is further complicated due to many interacting tradeoffs between production,
raw material and energy. MPC controller based Dynamic Optimizer is a practical solution to
this challenging problem. Such an optimizer however has linear dynamic models whereas
certain parts of the process are highly non-linear. An effective strategy for handling non-
linearties is to continuously update non-linear MPC and Optimizer gains. A commercial Process
Simulator based gain updating eases design, configuration and maintenance of gain updating
task.

At Showa Denko’s, Oita Ethylene plant, MPC and Dynamic Optimization with continuous gain
updating has been operational since 2002. In 2010, the gain updating was upgraded from
custom solution to a standard solution that utilizes a commercial Process Simulator. Increased
operator involvement has been achieved by a continuous display of active constraints and by
daily reporting of optimizer result in the “kaizen” tradition. Such strategy has resulted in
threefold benefit: (a) stabilization of plant, (b) increase in production capacity and (c)
decrease in energy intensity. These benefits have come about without increase in operators’
load. Benefits achieved have far surpassed Showa Denko’s original expectations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like thank J. Escarcega, S. Sharma and the Honeywell APC and UniSim development
groups for their support of this project. We would also like to thank the management of
Honeywell and Showa Denko K. K. for permission to publish this work.

REFERENCES

[1] Hokanson, D. A. and J. G. Gerstle

"Dynamic Matrix Control Multivariable Controllers",
Chapter 12 in Practical Distillation Control, William L. Luyben, Editor. Van Nostrand Reinhold
(1992).

[2]"PROFIT Optimizer (DQP) Concepts and Implementation Course Notes",

Honeywell Training Document (2010).
[3] Lu, Z. J., J. W. MacArthur and B. Horn
“Method of multivariable predictive control utilizing range control”
US Patent 5,351,184 granted to Honeywell (1996).

[4] Lu, Z. J.
“Systems and methods using bridge models to globally optimize a process facility”
US Patent 6,055,483 granted to Honeywell (2000).

[5] Nath, R., M. Laiseca, and J. B. Poje,

"Operations Optimization of Cold End of an Ethylene Plant Using OPTCOM/RTOPT",
paper presented at ASPENWORLD, Boston, MA, November, 1994.

[6] Rickard, K. A. et. al.

“Some Key Issues on a Successful Application of Real-Time Optimization to an Ethylene Plant”,
paper presented at the 19th. Annual Ethylene Producers Conference, Houston, TX, April 2007.

[7] Lu, J. and J. Escarcega,

"Introduction to Dynamic Economic Optimization",
Honeywell Internal Technology Document (1998).

[8] MacArthur, J. W. and C. Zhan,

“A Global Multi-Stage (GMS) Method for Fully Automated Closed-Loop Identification of
Industrial Processes”,
Journal of Process Control, Volume 17, Issue 10, December 2007.

[9] Takanami, A and Y. Takeuchi,

" Model Gain Scheduling and Reporting System for Ethylene Plant On-line Optimizer",
Paper presented at the CCA Conference, Taipei, September 2004.
 Table-1: MPC and RTO scope

Process Area Profit Controller

Furnaces and feed system a
Quench Area a
Cracked Gas Compression a
Dryers
Prefractionator, Demethanizer, Cold Box, a
Ethylene Refrigeration
Deethanizers a
Acetylene Converters
Ethylene Fractionators, Propylene a
Refrigeration
Depropanizers and Condensate Stripper a
MAPD Converters
Propylene Fractionators a
Depentanizer a
Debutanizer a
Rerun tower a
Product Controllers a
 Figure-1: Process Overview

Figure-2: UniSim Design Model PFD

 UniSim Tecnip’
Model
s

Figure-3: Solution Architecture

Figure-4: Engineering Access

 Figure-5: Operations Access

Figure-6: Daily Optimizer summary report

 Figure-7: Ethylene Production Maximization

Figure-8: Energy Intensity Minimization

View publication stats