02APCOV

Honeywell Forge APC-4516
Process Controller Implementation

Advanced Control Overview
Honeywell Confidential
Copyright © 2012 Honeywell International Inc.
Honeywell Restricted
1 September 26, 2022
Contents Honeywell
• Advanced Control Overview
– Levels of process control
– Benefits
• MVC Overview
• MVC Techniques
• Model Based Predictive Control
– Horizon strategy & prediction
– Model reconciliation
– Target CV trajectory & control
– Optimization
Honeywell Restricted 2 September 26, 2022
Levels of Process Control Honeywell
• Basic regulatory
• Advanced regulatory (intermediate regulatory)
• Multivariable, model based
• Constrained economic optimization
Increasing complexity and costs and

diminishing benefits
Basic Regulatory Honeywell
• Single sensing element - single final control element
– Single Input Single Output (SISO)
• Simple cascades, ratio control
• Primary goal:
– Operational stability
FC
Advanced Regulatory Honeywell
• Pressure or temperature compensation
• Feed-forward based on measurements
• Simple process calculations based on measurements
– Heat and material balance
– Simple inferential estimations, duty control
• Multiple Input Single Output (MISO)
• Primary Goals:
– Enhanced Stability
– Enhanced performance
Example of ARC: Coil Outlet Temperature Control Honeywell
Multivariable, Model based Honeywell
• Simultaneous consideration of:
– many controlled variables (CV)
– by adjusting many manipulated variables (MV)
– optionally observing feedforward variables (DV)
• Internal model of process behavior
– predicts future paths of controlled variables.
• Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO)
Example of Different Kinds of Control: Distillation Tower Honeywell
PC
FC
H2 & CH4
C3 Refrig.
TI
LC CVs
FC
FC FC Calculated CVs
RMPCT
CV:
FC AI Product Qualities Ethylene AI
C2 Feed AI Ethylene
Reflux Drum Level Quality Calc.
Compressor Limits T,F,P
Valve Positions
Tower Flooding Bottom Product AI
MV: Quality Calc.
DVs AI
Pressure
Reflux Flow
Top Product Flow Tower Flooding T,F,P,DP
Reboiler Duty Calculation
AI DV:
Feed Flow
Non-Linear Feed Quality
LC
Level Control
AI FC
MVs
Reboiler Ethane Recycle
FC
Duty Control
C3 refrig.
C3 refrig. pres.
Constrained Economic Optimization1 Honeywell
• Premise
– Some of controlled variables are not controlled to setpoints
• Required to be maintained between high and low ranges
• User specifies an objective function
– Assign costs or values to variables
– Translates into a direction to move the manipulated variables
• Optimizer finds best position (corner)
– within space constrained by controlled and manipulated variable limits
Constrained Economic Optimization2 Honeywell
• Optimizer is a “steady state controller”
– Calculates one set of MV moves to maximize or minimize objective function.
– Generally too aggressive to implement directly in closed loop
– Typically used in conjunction with a multivariable control engine to
implement solution
Levels of Process Control Honeywell
Optimization Local LP/QP Multi-unit LP/QP Rigorous model based Gate to Gate
Optimization Optimization Optimization Optimization
Model Based
E.g.
Smith Multivariable
Control Profit Controller or
predictors predictive
etc. control [DMC] +
Advanced Feedforward Dynamic On-stream Constraint

Regulatory control decoupling Analyzers Control
Control
Basic Single Cascade

Regulatory PID
Control
Different technologies available at each level
Benefits of Advanced Control Honeywell
• Advanced control can improve plant profitability in a number of ways
– Setpoint control
• Reduced variability allows closer operation to the constraint (i.e. less
give-away)
– Quicker grade changes
• Increased plant flexibility
– Basis for more sophisticated advanced controls
• Optimization
Incentives for Advanced Control (Constraint Control) Honeywell
Variable
Constraint Limit
$ Advanced
Control
Good Regulatory
Control
Poor control
Time
Incentives for Advanced Control (Quicker Grade Changes) Honeywell
Quality
Quality Transition
Minimise transition time

Time
Incentives for Advanced Control (Optimization Platform) Honeywell
MV 1 High
MV 1 Low
MV 2 High
‘best’ operating region

Constrained Optimum
MV 2 Low
Multivariable Control Overview
Honeywell Restricted
16 September 26, 2022
Multivariable Control Definition Honeywell
• Simultaneous control of more than one controlled variable (CV) by the
co-ordinated adjustment of more than one manipulated variable (MV)
• Controller may use additional feedforward or disturbance variable (DV)
information to improve control performance
Why Use MVC Techniques Honeywell
• When the process is interactive
– CV’s are affected ‘significantly’* by multiple MV’s.
– Metric for interactive process: RGA (Bristol)
• MV Rangeability
• Common CV constraints
– competing control sub-strategies
• Ease of use / configuration
– MV / CV relationships are similar in gain and dynamics
Debutanizer Column1 Honeywell
Interaction: Cooling water
CV1
Increase in reflux (MV1)
LC
causes: TI
↓ in top temperature FC MV1 FC

CV3
↓ in distillate
DV1
CV4 Distillate
↓ in base temperature Feed
↑ in base product
MV2
FC
Steam
CV5
LC
CV Controlled variable Base
DV Disturbance (FF) variable product
MV Manipulated variable CV2 TI
Interaction: Cooling water
Increase in steam (MV2) CV1
causes: LC
TI
Reflux
↑ in top temperature FC MV1 FC
CV3
↑ in distillate
DV1
CV4 Distillate
↑ in bottom temperature Feed
↓ in base product FC MV2
Both steam and CV5

Steam
reflux affect LC
Base
most column CV2
TI
product
variables
Dynamic Interaction Honeywell
2 CV1
1
CVs
0 CV2
MV2
1.5
1 MVs
0.5
MV1
0
Cooling water
MV Rangeability CV1
TI LC
With explicit pairing: Reflux
CV1 paired to MV1 (in Manual) FC MV1 FC

CV2 paired to MV2 CV3
CV4 Distillate
Is it possible to control DV1
both CV1 and CV2 ? Feed
FC MV2
Steam
CV5
LC
Base
TI product
CV2
Cooling water
MV Rangeability CV1
LC
TI
Without explicit pairing: Reflux
Is it possible to control FC MV1 FC
CV1 and CV2 ? CV3
DV1
CV4 Distillate
Probably not to two
Feed
setpoints
Probably to within two
ranges FC MV2
Steam
CV5
LC
Base
product
CV2
TI
Cooling water
Common Constraints
CV1
LC
TI
CV4 and CV5 constraints Reflux
to maximizing FC MV1 FC
fractionation. CV3
CV4 and CV5 also MV3

CV4 Distillate
constraints to maximizing Feed
feedrate
MVC (with an optimizer) FC MV2
allows objectives to be
prioritized. Steam
CV5
LC
Base
product
CV2
TI
Model Based Predictive Control1 Honeywell
SPs
OP1
PV1
OP2
PV2 MBPC OP3
PNn OPm
Optimizer
Prediction Controller Process

MV’s CV’s
+
Model -
CV Targets
Optimizer
MVs
CVs
Model
-
Prediction Model Error
• Control structure is flexible, hence can be used for control problems that
are
– square (#MVs = #CVs)
– over-specified (#MVs > #CVs) (Fat control problem)
– under-specified (#MVs < #CVs)
• Applicable to many types of process control problems
• Not too difficult to implement, even for relatively large problems
• Robust technology insensitive to model error
Prediction (future) Honeywell
CV Targets
Optimizer
MVs
CVs
Model
-
Horizon Strategy Honeywell
12
Now
10
Unforced Response
8
MV
Value
6 CV
2
History Settling Time
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time Intervals
(SISO) Prediction Models1 (Parametric models) Honeywell
Laplace Domain model:
(Τ1S + 1)e − sDT

Y( s ) = U (s)
(Τ2 S + 1)(Τ3S + 1)
Discrete Time model:
Y( z ) =
(b1Z −1 + b2 Z −2 ....bn Z −n )Z −d
U ( z)
1 + f1Z −1 + f 2 Z −2 .... f n Z −n
(SISO) Prediction Models2 Honeywell
2.5
1.97 1.99 1.9

2 1.95
1.90 1.98 1.999 2.00
1.81 1.93 1.96
1.86
1.73
1.62 Finite step response model
1.5 1.47 MV
CV
Value
1.26
1 0.97
Deadtime =2
0.57
0.5 Lag =3
Unit MV Change at t = 1 Gain =2
0
0 1 5 10 Time Intervals15 20 25
(SISO) Prediction Models3 (MV stepped one unit at t = 1) Honeywell
A × ∆U = Y
 0.00   0.00 
 0.00   0.00 
   
0.57  0.57 
   
 0 . 97   0 . 97 
1.26  1.26 
   
1 . 47  1 . 47 
1.62  × [1]t =1 = 1.62 
   
1.73  1.73 
1.81  1.81 
   
1.86  1.86 
   
 .......   ....... 
 2.00 
   2.00 
 
A × ∆U = Y
0.00  0.00  − 0.00  − 0.00 

       
0.00 0.00  0 . 00   − 0 . 00   − 0 . 00 
0.57 0.00 0.57   − 0.00 + 0.57 
       
0.97 0.57   0 . 97   − 1 . 14   − 0 . 16 
1.26 0.97  1.26   − 1.95   − 0.68 
       
1.47 1.26   1  1 . 47   − 2 . 53   − 1 . 06 
1.62 ×   = + =
1.47  − 2
1.62   − 2.95  − 1.32 
       
1.73 1.62  1.73   − 3.24   − 1.52 
       
1.81 1.73   1 . 81   − 3 . 46   − 1 . 65 
1.86 1.81  1.86   − 3.61  − 1.75 
       
 ...... .......  .......   .......   ....... 
2.00 2.00 2.00 − 4.00  − 2.00 
      
12
Now
10 Unforced Response
8
Value
MV
CV
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time Intervals
Prediction Models6 Honeywell
MV 1 MV 2 MV 3 DV 1
CV 1
CV 2
CV 3
Model Reconciliation1 Honeywell
CV Targets
Optimizer
MVs
CVs
Model
-
Model Reconciliation2 Honeywell
12
Now
10
Bias update
8
Value
6
MV
Reconciled CV trajectory CV
4 CVrev
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time Intervals
Control Honeywell
CV Targets
Optimizer
MVs
CVs
Model
-
Desired CV Trajectory Honeywell
12
Now SP Reconciled CV trajectory
10
Error Vector MV
Now/SS
Value
6 CV
Target
Error

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time Intervals
Move Calculation (Simplified) Honeywell
Prediction: A Prediction matrix

[Y ] = [ A]× [∆U ] YT Target CV vector
Y Unforced CV vector
E Error vector
Controller Error: ∆U MV history vector
[E ] = f ([YT ], [Y ]) ∆UT MV future vector
‘Least squares error’ control solution:

[∆UT ] = [A ] −1
T
×A × AT × [E ]
Horizon With Control (one MV move) Honeywell
12
Now SP Forced CV trajectory
10
Error Vector MV
Now/SS
Value
6 CV
Target
Error
4
Future MV move

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time Intervals
Horizon With Control (seven MV moves) Honeywell
12
Now SP Forced CV trajectory
10
Error Vector MV
Now/SS
Value
6 CV
Target
Error
4
Future MV moves

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time Intervals
Move Calculations Honeywell
• Planning multiple future MV moves allows
– Improved control performance
• Multivariable system (dynamic decoupling)
• Complex dynamics and dead-times
– Game plan of where MV’s will move
• Can defer MV movement
• Least squares method is very aggressive / unstable
– No mechanism to tune controller performance
– Alternatives
• Modify reference trajectory
• Use movement suppression for MV’s
• Use alternative solution strategy
Optimization1 Honeywell
CV Targets
Optimizer
MVs
CVs
Model
-
• Starting point for optimizer
– Current values of the MVs
– Steady state (unforced) values for the CVs
• Based on MV and DV moves until current time
• Optimizer solves for a set of new MV steady state values (one step
controller) taking into account
– MV constraint limits
– CV constraint limits
– An objective function (direction of steepest decent)
• Based on economics for the process
MV 2 Contour of equal cost

MV 1 Low MV 1 High
MV 2 High
Current position
MV 2 Low
Direction: from economics
MV 1
• Alternative solution technologies
– QP (Quadratic)
– LP (Linear)
• Alternative implementation strategies
– SP targets downloaded to controller
– MV targets superimposed on control plan
• Alternative methods of adjusting speed
– Step sizes
– tunable time horizon
Example Objective Functions Honeywell
Linear objective function:
J = ∑a
i =1, # MVs
i × MVi SS
Quadratic objective function:
∑ ai × MVi SS +
i =1, # MVs
∑
j =1, # CVs
b j × CV jSS +
J =
∑ (
ci2 × MVi SS − MViT ) 2
+ ∑ (
d i2 × CV jSS − CV jT )
2
i =1, # MVs j =1, # CVs

02APCOV

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

02APCOV

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Honeywell Forge APC-4516

Process Controller Implementation

Increasing complexity and costs and

Advanced Feedforward Dynamic On-stream Constraint

Basic Single Cascade

Different technologies available at each level

Minimise transition time

‘best’ operating region

Interaction: Cooling water

↓ in top temperature FC MV1 FC

Interaction: Cooling water

Increase in steam (MV2) CV1

↓ in base product FC MV2

Both steam and CV5

CV1 paired to MV1 (in Manual) FC MV1 FC

both CV1 and CV2 ? Feed

CV4 and CV5 also MV3

MVC (with an optimizer) FC MV2

Prediction Controller Process

Prediction Model Error

Prediction Model Error

Laplace Domain model:

(Τ1S + 1)e − sDT

Discrete Time model:

1.97 1.99 1.9

0.00  0.00  − 0.00  − 0.00 

Prediction Model Error

Prediction Model Error

History Settling Time

Prediction: A Prediction matrix

‘Least squares error’ control solution:

History Settling Time

History Settling Time

Prediction Model Error

MV 2 Contour of equal cost

Direction: from economics

Linear objective function:

Quadratic objective function:

i =1, # MVs j =1, # CVs

You might also like