A TALK ON

Plantwide Control- case study

considering formic acid processes having
RDWC

Dipesh S Patle
PhD (USM Malaysia)
PDF (POLIMI Italy)

http://www.mnnit.ac.in/index.php/department/engineering/cm/cmfp
OUTLINE

• Introduction to plantwide control

1

Recent PWC methodologies

2

• Case study: Formic acid process

3
 EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Degree Discipline Year University CGPA/ Div.
Percentage
Post Doctorate (Mentor: Prof PSE 2017 POLIMI, Italy -
Davide Manca)
Ph.D. Simulation & 2015 USM Malaysia Graduation -
[Supervisors: Computer on time
Dr Zainal Ahmad Aided award (GOT)
(USM Malaysia) and Prof. G. Process
P. Rangaiah (NUS Singapore)]
M. E. Chemical 2009 BITS Pilani 8.86/ 10 I
B. Tech. Chemical 2007 SGBAU 71.7 % (FY) I

WORK EXPERIENCE
Institute/ Position Experience (yrs) Duration
Organization
Post-PhD 4 yrs & 7 months
MNNIT Allahabad Assistant Professor From 11/05/2018
VIT Vellore Associate Professor 30/06/2015 to 30/04/2018
Pre-PhD 4 yrs & 5 months
IIT Kharagpur SRF (BARC) 06/08/2010 to 31/01/2012
BITS Pilani Lecturer 01/01/2010 to 31/07/2010
BITS Pilani Teaching Assistant 01/01/2008 to 31/12/2009
BITS Pilani Project Assistant 18/08/2007 to 31/12/2007
SELECTED AWARDS
✓ A prestigious Young Scientist Award from Venus International Foundation in August
2018.
✓ Sanggar Sanjung Award (Journal Publication) from USM Malaysia.
✓ Graduation on Time award (GOT).
✓ Erasmus Mundus Post Doctoral fellowship at Politecnico de Milano, Italy in 2016.
✓ Entry 'Operator Training Simulator' was selected as one of the finalists for the Training

4
and Development Award in IChemE Singapore Awards in 2016.

MEMBERSHIPS
o Member of American Institute of Chemical Engineers
(AIChE) [009901827490].
o Life Associate Member of Indian Institute of
Chemical Engineers (IIChE) [LAM-38851].
o Member of BITSAA, BITS Pilani [L-18428].

EDITORIAL/PEER-REVIEW ACTIVITIES
o Currently, acting as a Guest Editor for CPPM journal
o Acted as a reviewer for several good journals
RESEARCH GRANTS
Sr No On-going/ Duration (years) Agency PI/Co- Amount (INR)
Completed PI
1 On-going 3 DST-SERB, India PI 9.71 L
2 On-going 2 Research Co-PI MYR 70,000
University (RUI), (i.e.
USM Malaysia ~12.5 L)
3 On-going 1 TEQIP III PI 2.00 L
4 Completed 1 SEED Grant, VIT PI 2.85 L
Vellore

PUBLICATION OUTCOMES

Refereed journals: 36
h-index: 12

Courtesy: Scopus
 Plantwide
Control (PWC)
Plantwide control
PWC refers to the development of a control system for a complete
chemical plant having interconnected unit operations with mass and/or
energy recycles.

o Buckley presented the first study on PWC in 1964.

o However, PWC has been actively studied mainly in the past 2
decades.

Classification:
Approach-based classification
Heuristics, optimization (algorithmic), mathematical (model
oriented) and mixed approaches.

Structure-based classification
Decentralized, centralized and mixed strategies
 CHEMICAL PROCESS OPERATION

Every Process has some Key

production objectives.
➢ Safety Key Production
Objectives
➢ Stability
➢ Economics Safety Stability
Good
Economics

 Product Quality Effluent

Product quality Production rate Specs
 Production rate

 Effluent Specs
 Operation of plant need to be done as such to
meet these production objective 24X7.
 Production objective itself can change ? Why ?

Process
Disturbances

Ambient Raw Material Equipment

Sensor Noise
Conditions Quality Characteristics
 We would like to operate a continuous process plant to
meet key production objectives even as the production
objective itself can change and in the presence of ever
present disturbances.
 So , how can we deal with the problem of ever present
process variability.
 By merely managing the ever present process
variability, by transforming it from undesirable locations
to locations where it is acceptable to have that
variability. i.e. Plantwide Control
 In recent years, complexity of chemical processes has
NEED OF
increased due to competitiveness.

PLANTWI
Competitiveness has led to increased material recycles ,
DEi.e. to recover un-reacted material and to improve
yields, and also due to increased energy integration of
plants to minimize energy consumption.
CONTROL
? These factors although favorable for sustainability,
have led to increased interaction among the various
unit operations.
The PWC problem is very complex, and it has a large
combinatorial number of alternative choices and
strategies.
This complexity is best described as follows
“Which variables should be measured in order to monitor
completely the operation of a plant? Which inputs should be
manipulated for effective control? How should measurements
be paired with the manipulations to form the control
structure, and finally, what the control laws are?”
-Stephanopoulos (1982)
In practice, the control system is usually
divided into several layers, separated by time
scale, including
 Scheduling (weeks),
 Site-wide optimization (days),
 Local optimization (hours),
 Supervisory (predictive, advanced) control
(minutes),
 Regulatory control (seconds)
FIG. : TYPICAL CONTROL
HIERARCHY IN A CHEMICAL
PLANT.(SOURCE: LUYBEN
ET AL., 2010)
Here, we consider the lower three layers,
 The local optimization layer typically recomputes new
setpoints only once an hour or so, whereas the
feedback layers operate continuously.
 The layers are linked by the controlled variables ,
whereby the setpoints are computed by the upper layer
and implemented by the lower layer.
 An important issue is the selection of these variables.
 Steps:
Selection of manipulated variables m (‘‘inputs’’).
A.
B. Selection of controlled variables (‘‘outputs’’; variables
with setpoints).
C. Selection of extra measurements for control purposes
including safety, stabilization.
D. Selection of control configuration (the structure of the
CONTROL
overall controller that interconnects the controlled,
STRUCTURE
manipulated and measured variables).
DESIGN
E. Selection of controller type (control law specification).
 !!!..

REGULATORY CONTROL VS SAFETY CONTROL

Rinard (in 1990) has poignantly noted,

“The regulatory control system affects the size of your

paycheck; the safety control system affects whether or not you
will be around to collect it”
Important considerations in PWC
@Murthy Konda, N. V. S. N.; Rangaiah, G. P.; Krishnaswamy, P. R.

A simple and effective procedure for control degrees of freedom.

✓ CDOF Chem. Eng. Sci. 2006, 61, 1184−1194.

e.g.1:
@CDOF : [total number of
mass and energy streams] –
[(number of restraints) +
(number of redundancies )].
OMB: F1 + F2 = F3
Restraining number of a
unit: number of overall mass
balances (independent).
3 - [1+0] = 2
Number of redundancies:
number of variables that are not
e.g.2: Valve required to be manipulated.

It is not necessary to have the number of

MVs to be equal to that of CVs; there can
be non-square systems.
Contd..

Counting the number of control valves to compute the available CDOF

Luyben (1996)

CDOF = number of unknown variables − (number of independent equations

+number of external variables, i.e., disturbances)

Stephanopoulos (2003)
 Contd..
✓ & Throughput manipulator (TPM) selection (for inventory control)

TPM at the start

TPM at the end

TPM in between &Skogestad, S. Control structure design

for complete chemical plants, Computers

& Chemical Engineering, 28 (1-2), 2004,
219-234.

✓Snowballing effect: Disturbances produce more than proportionate

changes in the recycle(s)
PWC Methodologies
Luyben’s method
✓ Purely heuristics
✓ Hierarchical
✓ Easy and no/less computation
No role of process
simulators
Luyben’s method (in 1997-98)
Level 1: Establish Control Objectives
Level 2: Determine Control Degrees of
Freedom (CDOF)
Level 3: Establish Energy Management
System
Level 4: Set Production Rate
Level 5: Product Quality, Safety, Operational
and Environmental Constraints
Level 6: Fix Flow in Recycle Loop and Select
the Best Manipulated Variables for
Inventory Control
Level 7: Check Component Balances
Level 8: Control of Individual Unit Operations
Level 9: Optimize Economics or Improve
Dynamic Controllability
Self-Optimizing Control (in 2004)
✓ In this procedure, the control system is divided into three layers
based on time scale:
➢ local optimization (hours),
➢ supervisory control (minutes) and
➢ regulatory control (seconds).

✓ The layers are linked by the CVs, whereby the set points computed
by the upper layer are implemented by the lower layer.

✓ The implementation of this procedure is divided into two main

parts: top-down analysis (levels 1 to 4 below) to identify degrees of
freedom (DOF) and primary CVs (self-optimizing variables) and
bottom-up design (levels 5 to 8) to determine secondary CVs and
control system structure.
PWC where the goal is to find a set of CVs ,
which when kept at constant set points,
lead to near-optimal operation with
acceptable loss
Contd..
✓ Level 1: Definition of Operational Objectives (cost function)
✓ Level 2: Manipulated Variables and Degrees of Freedom
✓ Level 3: Primary Controlled Variables
Level 3.1: Optimization.
Level 3.2: Local Linear Analysis
Level 3.3: Non-Linear Analysis (Evaluation of the Loss)
✓ Level 4: Production Rate Manipulator (Bottleneck)
✓ Level 5.1: Regulatory Control Layer (like avoiding drifts)
✓ Level 5.2: Possible Intermediate Regulatory Control Layer
(purpose of the intermediate control layer is to achieve indirect control of the
primary CVs, and thus ensure near optimal plant operation in case any of
the primary control loops fails)

✓ Level 6: Supervisory Control Layer (i.e. Decentralized or multivariable

control (MPC)?; Pairing?)

✓ Level 7: Possible Optimization Layer (on-line optimization ?)

✓ Level 8: Validation
 IFSH Level 1.1: Define PWC Objectives
Level 1.2: Determine CDOF
Level 2.1: Identify and Analyze Plant-Wide
✓ Combines the advantages of heuristics
Disturbances
and simulators
✓ Structured and systematic Level 3.1: Production Rate Manipulator
✓ Easy and less computation Selection
Level 3.2: Product Quality Manipulator Selection
Level 4.1: Selection of Manipulators for More
SS and dynamic Severe Controlled Variables
commercial Level 4.2: Selection of Manipulators for Less
process Severe Controlled Variables.
simulators are Level 5: Control of Unit Operations
effectively used in Level 6: Check Component Material Balances
conjunction with Level 7: Effects due to Integration
the heuristics Level 8: Enhance Control System Performance
Luyben’s method (in 1997-98)
Level 1: Establish Control Objectives
Level 2: Determine Control Degrees of
Freedom (CDOF)
Level 3: Establish Energy Management
System
Level 4: Set Production Rate
Level 5: Product Quality, Safety, Operational
and Environmental Constraints
Level 6: Fix Flow in Recycle Loop and Select
the Best Manipulated Variables for
Inventory Control
Level 7: Check Component Balances
Level 8: Control of Individual Unit Operations
Level 9: Optimize Economics or Improve
Dynamic Controllability
Integrated Framework of Simulation and
Heuristics (in 2005)
Level 1.1: Define PWC Objectives
Level 1.2: Determine CDOF
Level 2.1: Identify and Analyze Plant-Wide
Disturbances
Level 3.1: Production Rate Manipulator
Selection
Level 3.2: Product Quality Manipulator Selection
Level 4.1: Selection of Manipulators for More
Severe Controlled Variables
Level 4.2: Selection of Manipulators for Less
Severe Controlled Variables.
Level 5: Control of Unit Operations
Level 6: Check Component Material Balances
Level 7: Effects due to Integration
Level 8: Enhance Control System Performance
PLANTWIDE CONTROL DESIGN PROCEDURE
FOR AN OPTIMAL OPERATION OVER A
WIDE THROUGHPUT RANGE
SELF-OPTIMIZING CONTROL
A PERFECT PLANTWIDE CONTROL MODEL ?
 To achieve a truly optimal operation we would need a perfect model,
 We would need to measure all disturbances
 We would need to solve the resulting dynamic optimization problem
on-line.
 Finding a perfect model is unrealistic for most cases, so we find
simpler models which operates satisfactorily but with an acceptable
loss(L).

Where,
 J = Value of Cost function obtained with specific control strategy.
 Jopt= Truly optimal value of cost function.
So the simplest operation would be,
 Selecting controlled variables with constant
setpoints,
 With Acceptable performance
 With Acceptable loss.
Thus, We can effectively turn the complex
optimization problem into a simple feedback problem
and achieve what we call “Self-Optimization
Control”.
EXAMPLE OF SELF
OPTIMIZING CONTROL

A Simple example of self optimization

control can be Baking of cake,
 Baking of cake need to be done at
optimum temp.
 Optimum tempr.) is achieved by
controlling oven temperature.(Controlled
Variable)
 Baking time at the setpoints (Optimum
tempr.) is given in the cook book
(Optimizer)
 Here we see that there is a loss
if we keep constant setpoint
for controlled variable, Rather
than reoptimizing it when a
disturbance moves process
away from its nominally
optimum operating
point(denoted *)
 Its better to select C1,s constant
than to keep C2,s constant.

FIG.: LOSS IMPOSED BY KEEPING

CONSTANT SETPOINTS FOR THE
CONTROLLED VARIABLES.
PROCEDURE FOR CONTROL STRUCTURE
DESIGN FOR CHEMICAL PLANTS

The procedure is divided in two main parts,

I. Top-down analysis, including definition of
operational objectives and consideration of degrees
of freedom(DOFs) available to meet these.
II. Bottom-up analysis design of the control system,
starting with the stabilizing control layer.
 Procedure for control structure
design for chemical plants
STEP 1:
DEFINITION
Top-Down
OF Bottom-Up

OPERATIONAL
OBJECTIVES
 Operational objectives must be clearly defined
AND
before attempting to design a control system.
CONSTRAINTS
Degree of freedom analysis:
 Number of dynamic or control degrees of freedom, Nm which is equal to the
number of manipulated variables.
 SmTEP
N 2:easily obtained by process insight as the number of
is usually
MANIPULAT
independent variables that can be manipulated by external means
(typically, the number of adjustable valves plus other adjustable electrical
EDmechanical variables).
and
 After this, We must identify the Nopt optimization degrees of
VARIABLES
freedom, that is, the degrees of freedom that affect the operational
AND
cost J.
 DEGREES
The OFon the steady-state only, and Nopt equals the
cost depends
number of steady-state degrees of freedom Nss.
FREEDOM
𝑁𝑠𝑠 = 𝑁𝑚 − (𝑁0𝑚 + 𝑁0𝑦 )
 N0m: The number of manipulated (input) variables with no steady-state
effect
 N0y : The number of (output) variables that need to be controlled, but which
have no steady-state effect (or more generally, no effect on the cost).
Example 1. The integrated
distillation process in the figure
has Nm=11 manipulated
variables (including the feed
rate), and N0y= 4 liquid levels
with no steady state effect, so
FIG. : DEGREES OF FREEDOM FOR
there are Nss=11- 4 = 7 degrees
INTEGRATED DISTILLATION PROCESS
of freedom at steady-state. .(SOURCE: LUYBEN ET AL., 2010)
What should we control?
We first need to control the variables directly related to
ensuring optimal economic operation which are the primary
controlled variables.
 Control active constraints.

 Selecting unconstrained controlled variables so that

with constant setpoints the process is kept close to its
optimum in spite of disturbances and implementation
errors.
In particular, we should
 Control unstable/integrating liquid levels.

 Stabilize other unstable modes,

 Control variables which would otherwise ‘‘drift

away’’ due to large disturbance sensitivity
REGULATORY LAYER
 The regulatory control layer should usually be of
‘‘low complexity’’.
 The main objective is to stabilize the plant.

 The controlled variables for stabilization are

measured output variables y2, and their
setpoints y2s may be used as degrees of freedom
by the layers above.
A good secondary controlled variable (measurement)
usually has the following properties:
 The variable should be easy to measure.
 The variable is easy to control using one of the available
manipulated variables.
 For stabilization: the unstable mode should be detected
‘‘quickly’’ by the measurement
 For local disturbance rejection: the variable is located
‘‘close’’ downstream of an important disturbance
Keep (primary) controlled outputs y1c at optimal setpoints cs, using as degrees
of freedom (inputs) the setpoints y2s for the regulatory layer and any unused
manipulated variables.

The purpose of the

supervisor control layer
is to keep the (primary)
controlled outputs c at
their optimal setpoints
cs

Fig. Selection of secondary controlled variables y2.

(Source: Luyben et al., 2010)
 GOOD CANDIDATE CONTROLLED VARIABLES
(FOR SELF OPTIMIZING CONTROL)

1)The optimal value of c should be insensitive

to disturbances.
CHARACTERISTI
2) c should be easy to measure and control.
CS
3) Value of c should be sensitive to changes in
OF GOOD CONT
the manipulated variables.
ROLLED VARIAB
4) For cases with more than one unconstrained
LES
degrees of freedom, the selected controlled
variables should be independent.
PROCESS SIMULATORS….

“A model should be as simple as possible and no simpler”

~ Albert Einstein ~

"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.“

[Box, George E. P.; Norman R. Draper (1987). Empirical Model-Building and Response
Surfaces, p. 424, Wiley. ISBN 0471810339]
 Case study:
Formic acid production
IFSH
Level 1.1: Define PWC Objectives
Level 1.2: Determine CDOF
Level 2.1: Identify and Analyze Plant-Wide
Disturbances
Level 3.1: Production Rate Manipulator Selection
Level 3.2: Product Quality Manipulator Selection
Level 4.1: Selection of Manipulators for More
Severe Controlled Variables
Level 4.2: Selection of Manipulators for Less
Severe Controlled Variables.
Level 5: Control of Unit Operations
Level 6: Check Component Material Balances
Level 7: Effects due to Integration
Level 8: Enhance Control System Performance
 1. Imperatives

o Formic acid (FA), a strong organic acid, is

principally used in various industries, such as
chemical, pharmaceuticals, rubber, textile,
agriculture, and leather.

o FA is readily bio-degradable, hence it is

environmentally sustainable, which makes it a
popular raw material

45
2. Process Design and
Simulation

o FA capacity is assumed to be 120 kmol/h

(85% purity).

o A two step process:

➢Carbonylation of methanol to produce
MF
➢Hydrolysis of MF to produce FA and
methanol

46
Contd..

Fig. FA process
3. Plantwide Control (PWC)

PWC objectives:
(1) to obtain the desired production
rate under normal operation;

(2) to achieve quick & smooth

control in rejecting the
disturbances; and

(3) to maintain the desired product

purity despite the disturbances.
Contd..

49

Fig . PWC for FA process

 Contd..
Table: Performance evaluation of the PWC system
Criteria
Settling time (h)
Disturbance
Based on production Based on DDS
DPT TV DDS
rate (h) (h)
D1 (+5% in CO flow
9.08 4.41 +550 62 29
rate)
D2 (-5% in CO flow
9.19 5.15 -488 53 22
rate)
D3 (-10% in the pre-
exponent factor of kf
13.6 0.21 -38 24 17
in carbonylation
reaction)
D4 (D2 and D3
8.17 5.11 -461 51 23
simultaneously)
D5 (+10% in CO flow
9.31 5.1 +1351 159 48
rate)
D6 (-10% in CO flow
9.75 6.3 -969 103 31
rate)
D7 (+20% in CO flow
11.27 20.14 +1716 407 70
rate)
D8 (-20% in CO flow
12.92 12.04 -2254 209 53
rate)
 Contd..
Fig: Transient profile Fig : Accumulation
for selected disturbances
144 D7 D-1
20 D-2
D-3
D5
D-4

Accumulation
15
Formic Acid

128 D1 D-5
(kmol/h)

(kmol/h)
D-6
D3 10
D-7
D2,D4 D-8
112
5
D6

0
96 D8
-5
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (h)
D-1
Time (h) D-2
0.864 D-3
D-4
D-5
FA purity

D-6
0.852
D-7
D-8
SP
0.840

0.828

0 5 10 15 20
Time (h)
Fig: FA purity
Contd.. Fig: Performance of
important loops for
selected disturbances
(c) Level Control in RD
Sump,
(d) Level Control in C2 Sump,
(e) Pressure Control in C2
Column,
(f) Pressure Control in C1
Column,
(g) Pressure Control in C1
Column,
(h) Pressure Control in RD
 Books on PWC…

Zhang, C.; Rangaiah, G. P.; Kariwala, V.

Design and plantwide control of a
biodiesel plant. In Plantwide Control:
Recent Developments and Applications;
Rangaiah, G. P., Kariwala, V., Eds.;
Wiley: New York, 2012; pp 293−317.

Luyben, W. L. Plantwide Dynamic

Simulators in Chemical Processing and
Control; Marcel Dekker: New York, 2002.
 Contd..
21. Gujarathi, A.M., Patle D. S., Agarwal, P., Karemore, A., and
Babu, B.V., “Simulation and analysis of ethane cracking process”,
The Indian chemical engineering congress-2009 (CHEMCON –
2009), along with the 62nd Annual Session of the Indian institute
of chemical engineers, Waltair Regional Centre of the IIChE and
the Department of chemical engineering, Andhra university,
Thank You
Visakhpatnam, India, December 27-30th 2009.
22. Patle, D. S., Angira, R.,
For“Design of GMC-ASE control scheme for
your kind attention
nonlinear continuous stirred tank reactor", 8th world congress of
chemical engineering, (WCCE8) incorporating 58th Canadian
chemical engineering conference and XXIV interamerican
congress of chemical engineering, Montreal, Canada, August
23-27, 2009.
23. Patle, D. S., “Concentration of orange juice by membrane
separation technique", Proceeding of international conference on
54
emerging trends in engineering, Pravara Rural Engineering
College, Loni, India, 20-22 December, 2008.