1. 1 ECONOMIC PLANTWIDE CONTROL: Control structure design for complete processing plants Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering Norwegian University of Science and Tecnology (NTNU) Trondheim, Norway ICCAS 2011, Korea

2. 2 Abstract and bio ECONOMIC PLANTWIDE CONTROL: Control structure design for complete processing plants. Sigurd Skogestad, Department of Chemical Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway Abstract: A chemical plant may have thousands of measurements and control loops. By the term plantwide control it is not meant the tuning and behavior of each of these loops, but rather the control philosophy of the overall plant with emphasis on the structural decisions. In practice, the control system is usually divided into several layers, separated by time scale: scheduling (weeks), site-wide optimization (day), local optimization (hour), supervisory (predictive, advanced) control (minutes) and regulatory control (seconds). Such a hiearchical (cascade) decomposition with layers operating on different time scale is used in the control of all real (complex) systems including biological systems and airplanes, so the issues in this section are not limited to process control. In the talk the most important issues are discussed, especially related to the choice of variables that provide the link the control layers. Bio: Sigurd Skogestad received his Ph.D. degree from the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA in 1987. He has been a full professor at Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway since 1987 and he was Head of the Department of Chemical Engineering from 1999 to 2009. He is the principal author, together with Prof. Ian Postlethwaite, of the book "Multivariable feedback control" published by Wiley in 1996 (first edition) and 2005 (second edition). He received the Ted Peterson Award from AIChE in 1989, the George S. Axelby Outstanding Paper Award from IEEE in 1990, the O. Hugo Schuck Best Paper Award from the American Automatic Control Council in 1992, and the Best Paper Award 2004 from Computers and Chemical Engineering. He was an Editor of Automatica during the period 1996-2002. His research interests include the use of feedback as a tool to make the system well-behaved (including self- optimizing control), limitations on performance in linear systems, control structure design and plantwide control, interactions between process design and control, and distillation column design, control and dynamics.

3. 3 Trondheim Oslo UK NORWAY DENMARK GERMANY North Sea SWEDEN Arctic circle

4. 4 NTNU, Trondheim

5. 5 How we design a control system for a complete chemical plant? Where do we start? What should we control? and why? etc.

6. 6 Alan Foss (“Critique of chemical process control theory”, AIChE Journal,1973): The central issue to be resolved... is the determination of control system structure. Which variables should be measured, which inputs should be manipulated and which links should be made between the two sets? There is more than a suspicion that the work of a genius is needed here, for without it the control configuration problem will likely remain in a primitive, hazily stated and wholly unmanageable form. The gap is present indeed, but contrary to the views of many, it is the theoretician who must close it. Previous work on plantwide control: Page Buckley (1964) - Chapter on “Overall process control” (still industrial practice) Greg Shinskey (1967) – process control systems Alan Foss (1973) - control system structure Bill Luyben et al. (1975- ) – case studies ; “snowball effect” George Stephanopoulos and Manfred Morari (1980) – synthesis of control structures for chemical processes Ruel Shinnar (1981- ) - “dominant variables” Jim Downs (1991) - Tennessee Eastman challenge problem Larsson and Skogestad (2000): Review of plantwide control

7. 7 c s = y 1s MPC PID y 2s RTO u (valves) Follow path (+ look after other variables) Stabilize + avoid drift Min J (economics) OBJECTIVE Dealing with complexity Plantwide control The controlled variables (CVs) interconnect the layers

8. 8 Control structure design procedure I Top Down Step 1: Define operational objectives (optimal operation) –Cost function J (to be minimized) –Operational constraints Step 2: Identify degrees of freedom (MVs) and optimize for expected disturbances Step 3: Select primary controlled variables c=y 1 (CVs) Step 4: Where set the production rate? (Inventory control) II Bottom Up Step 5: Regulatory / stabilizing control (PID layer) –What more to control (y 2 ; local CVs)? –Pairing of inputs and outputs Step 6: Supervisory control (MPC layer) Step 7: Real-time optimization (Do we need it?) y1y1 y2y2 Process MVs

9. 9 Step 1. Define optimal operation (economics) What are we going to use our degrees of freedom u (MVs) for? Define scalar cost function J(u,x,d) –u: degrees of freedom (usually steady-state) –d: disturbances –x: states (internal variables) Typical cost function: Optimize operation with respect to u for given d (usually steady-state): min u J(u,x,d) subject to: Model equations: f(u,x,d) = 0 Operational constraints: g(u,x,d) < 0 J = cost feed + cost energy – value products

10. 10 Step 2: Identify degrees of freedom and optimize for expected disturbances Optimization: Identify regions of active constraints Time consuming! Control: 2 active constraints (x A, x B ) + 2 “selfoptimizing” 3+13+1 1+31+3 Example (Magnus G. Jacobsen): Two distillation columns in series. 4 degrees of freedom 3+13+1 4+04+0 5

11. 11 Step 3: Implementation of optimal operation Optimal operation for given d * : min u J(u,x,d) subject to: Model equations: f(u,x,d) = 0 Operational constraints: g(u,x,d) < 0 → u opt (d * ) Problem: Usally cannot keep u opt constant because disturbances d change How should we adjust the degrees of freedom (u)?

12. 12 Implementation (in practice): Local feedback control! “Self-optimizing control:” Constant setpoints for c gives acceptable loss y FeedforwardOptimizing controlLocal feedback: Control c (CV) d

13. 13 Question: What should we control (c)? (primary controlled variables y 1 =c) Introductory example: Runner Issue: What should we control?

14. 14 –Cost to be minimized, J=T –One degree of freedom (u=power) –What should we control? Optimal operation - Runner Optimal operation of runner

15. 15 Sprinter (100m) 1. Optimal operation of Sprinter, J=T –Active constraint control: Maximum speed (”no thinking required”) Optimal operation - Runner

16. 16 2. Optimal operation of Marathon runner, J=T Unconstrained optimum! Any ”self-optimizing” variable c (to control at constant setpoint)? c 1 = distance to leader of race c 2 = speed c 3 = heart rate c 4 = level of lactate in muscles Optimal operation - Runner Marathon (40 km)

17. 17 Conclusion Marathon runner c = heart rate select one measurement Simple and robust implementation Disturbances are indirectly handled by keeping a constant heart rate May have infrequent adjustment of setpoint (heart rate) Optimal operation - Runner

18. 18 Step 3. What should we control (c)? (primary controlled variables y 1 =c) Selection of controlled variables c 1.Control active constraints! 2.Unconstrained variables: Control self-optimizing variables!

19. 19 Example active constraint Optimal operation = max. throughput (active constraint) Time Back-off = Lost production Rule for control of hard output constraints: “Squeeze and shift”! Reduce variance (“Squeeze”) and “shift” setpoint c s to reduce backoff Want tight bottleneck control to reduce backoff!

20. 20 Control “self-optimizing” variables 1. Old idea (Morari et al., 1980): “We want to find a function c of the process variables which when held constant, leads automatically to the optimal adjustments of the manipulated variables, and with it, the optimal operating conditions.” 2. The ideal self-optimizing variable c is the gradient (c =  J/  u = J u ) –Keep gradient at zero for all disturbances (c = J u =0) –Problem: no measurement of gradient Unconstrained degrees of freedom u cost J J u =0 JuJu

21. 21 H Ideal: c = J u In practise: c = H y

22. 22 Optimal operation Cost J Controlled variable c c opt J opt Unconstrained optimum

23. 23 Optimal operation Cost J Controlled variable c c opt J opt Two problems: 1. Optimum moves because of disturbances d: c opt (d) 2. Implementation error, c = c opt + n d n Unconstrained optimum

24. 24 H

25. 25 Guidelines for selecting measurements as CVs Rule 1: Optimal value for CV (c=Hy) is insensitive to disturbances d (minimizes effect of moving optimum) –|dc opt /dd| is small Rule 2: c should be easy to measure and control (small implementation error n) Rule 3: “Maximum gain rule”: c should be sensitive to input changes (large gain |G| from u to c) or equivalently the optimum J opt should be flat with respect to c (minimizes effect of implementation error n) –|G| = |dc/du| is large Reference: S. Skogestad, “Plantwide control: The search for the self-optimizing control structure”, Journal of Process Control, 10, 487-507 (2000).

26. 26 Optimal measurement combination H Candidate measurements (y): Include also inputs u

27. 27 Nullspace method No measurement noise

28. 28 c s = constant + + + + + - K H y c u “Minimize” in Maximum gain rule ( maximize S 1 G J uu -1/2, G=HG y ) “Scaling” S 1 “=0” in nullspace method (no noise) Optimal measurement combination, c = Hy With measurement noise

29. 29 Example: CO2 refrigeration cycle J = W s (work supplied) DOF = u (valve opening, z) Main disturbances: d 1 = T H d 2 = T Cs (setpoint) d 3 = UA loss What should we control? pHpH

30. 30 CO2 refrigeration cycle Step 1. One (remaining) degree of freedom (u=z) Step 2. Objective function. J = W s (compressor work) Step 3. Optimize operation for disturbances (d 1 =T C, d 2 =T H, d 3 =UA) Optimum always unconstrained Step 4. Implementation of optimal operation No good single measurements (all give large losses): –p h, T h, z, … Nullspace method: Need to combine n u +n d =1+3=4 measurements to have zero disturbance loss Simpler: Try combining two measurements. Exact local method: –c = h 1 p h + h 2 T h = p h + k T h ; k = -8.53 bar/K Nonlinear evaluation of loss: OK!

31. 31 CO2 cycle: Maximum gain rule

32. 32 Refrigeration cycle: Proposed control structure Control c= “temperature-corrected high pressure”

33. 33 Step 4. Where set production rate? Where locale the TPM (throughput manipulator)? Very important! Determines structure of remaining inventory (level) control system Set production rate at (dynamic) bottleneck Link between Top-down and Bottom-up parts

34. 34 Production rate set at inlet : Inventory control in direction of flow* * Required to get “local-consistent” inventory control TPM

35. 35 Production rate set at outlet: Inventory control opposite flow TPM

36. 36 Production rate set inside process TPM

37. 37 LOCATE TPM? Default choice: place the TPM at the feed Consider moving if there is an important active constraint that could otherwise not be well controlled.

38. 38 Degrees of freedom for optimization (usually steady-state DOFs), MVopt = CV1s Degrees of freedom for supervisory control, MV1=CV2s + unused valves Physical degrees of freedom for stabilizing control, MV2 = valves (dynamic process inputs) Optimizer (RTO) PROCESS Supervisory controller (MPC) Regulatory controller (PID) H2H2 H CV 1 CV 2s y nyny d Stabilized process CV 1s CV 2 Physical inputs (valves) Optimally constant valves Always active constraints

39. 39 Step 5: Regulatory control layer Step 5. Choose structure of regulatory (stabilizing) layer (a) Identify “stabilizing” CV2s (levels, pressures, reactor temperature,one temperature in each column, etc.). In addition, active constraints (CV1) that require tight control (small backoff) may be assigned to the regulatory layer. (Comment: usually not necessary with tight control of unconstrained CVs because optimum is usually relatively flat) (b) Identify pairings (MVs to be used to control CV2), taking into account –Want “local consistency” for the inventory control –Want tight control of important active constraints –Avoid MVs that may saturate in the regulatory layer, because this would require either reassigning the regulatory loop (complication penalty), or requiring back-off for the MV variable (economic penalty) Preferably, the same regulatory layer should be used for all operating regions without the need for reassigning inputs or outputs.

40. 40 Example: Distillation Primary controlled variable: y 1 = c = x D, x B (compositions top, bottom) BUT: Delay in measurement of x + unreliable Regulatory control: For “stabilization” need control of (y 2 ): –Liquid level condenser (M D ) –Liquid level reboiler (M B ) –Pressure (p) –Holdup of light component in column (temperature profile) Unstable (Integrating) + No steady-state effect Variations in p disturb other loops Almost unstable (integrating) TC TsTs T-loop in bottom

41. 41 Why simplified configurations? Why control layers? Why not one “big” multivariable controller? Fundamental: Save on modelling effort Other: –easy to understand –easy to tune and retune –insensitive to model uncertainty –possible to design for failure tolerance –fewer links –reduced computation load

42. 42 ”Advanced control” STEP 6. SUPERVISORY LAYER Objectives of supervisory layer: 1. Switch control structures (CV1) depending on operating region Active constraints self-optimizing variables 2. Perform “advanced” economic/coordination control tasks. –Control primary variables CV1 at setpoint using as degrees of freedom (MV): Setpoints to the regulatory layer (CV2s) ”unused” degrees of freedom (valves) –Keep an eye on stabilizing layer Avoid saturation in stabilizing layer –Feedforward from disturbances If helpful –Make use of extra inputs –Make use of extra measurements Implementation: Alternative 1: Advanced control based on ”simple elements” Alternative 2: MPC

43. 43 Summary. Systematic procedure for plantwide control 1.Start “top-down” with economics: –Step 1: Define operational objectives and identify degrees of freeedom –Step 2: Optimize steady-state operation. –Step 3A: Identify active constraints = primary CVs c. Should controlled to maximize profit) –Step 3B: For remaining unconstrained degrees of freedom: Select CVs c based on self-optimizing control. –Step 4: Where to set the throughput (usually: feed) 2.Regulatory control I: Decide on how to move mass through the plant: Step 5A: Propose “local-consistent” inventory (level) control structure. 3.Regulatory control II: “Bottom-up” stabilization of the plant Step 5B: Control variables to stop “drift” (sensitive temperatures, pressures,....) –Pair variables to avoid interaction and saturation 4.Finally: make link between “top-down” and “bottom up”. Step 6: “Advanced/supervisory control” system (MPC): CVs: Active constraints and self-optimizing economic variables + look after variables in layer below (e.g., avoid saturation) MVs: Setpoints to regulatory control layer. Coordinates within units and possibly between units cscs http://www.nt.ntnu.no/users/skoge/plantwide

44. 44 Summary and references The following paper summarizes the procedure: –S. Skogestad, ``Control structure design for complete chemical plants'', Computers and Chemical Engineering, 28 (1-2), 219-234 (2004).``Control structure design for complete chemical plants'', There are many approaches to plantwide control as discussed in the following review paper: –T. Larsson and S. Skogestad, ``Plantwide control: A review and a new design procedure'' Modeling, Identification and Control, 21, 209-240 (2000).``Plantwide control: A review and a new design procedure'' The following paper updates the procedure: –S. Skogestad, ``Economic plantwide control’’, Book chapter in V. Kariwala and V.P. Rangaiah (Eds), Plant-Wide Control: Recent Developments and Applications”, Wiley (late 2011). More information: http://www.nt.ntnu.no/users/skoge/plantwide

45. 45 S. Skogestad ``Plantwide control: the search for the self-optimizing control structure'', J. Proc. Control, 10, 487-507 (2000).``Plantwide control: the search for the self-optimizing control structure'', S. Skogestad, ``Self-optimizing control: the missing link between steady-state optimization and control'', Comp.Chem.Engng., 24, 569- 575 (2000).``Self-optimizing control: the missing link between steady-state optimization and control'', I.J. Halvorsen, M. Serra and S. Skogestad, ``Evaluation of self-optimising control structures for an integrated Petlyuk distillation column'', Hung. J. of Ind.Chem., 28, 11-15 (2000).``Evaluation of self-optimising control structures for an integrated Petlyuk distillation column'', T. Larsson, K. Hestetun, E. Hovland, and S. Skogestad, ``Self-Optimizing Control of a Large-Scale Plant: The Tennessee Eastman Process'', Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 40 (22), 4889-4901 (2001).``Self-Optimizing Control of a Large-Scale Plant: The Tennessee Eastman Process'', K.L. Wu, C.C. Yu, W.L. Luyben and S. Skogestad, ``Reactor/separator processes with recycles-2. Design for composition control'', Comp. Chem. Engng., 27 (3), 401-421 (2003).``Reactor/separator processes with recycles-2. Design for composition control'', T. Larsson, M.S. Govatsmark, S. Skogestad, and C.C. Yu, ``Control structure selection for reactor, separator and recycle processes'', Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 42 (6), 1225-1234 (2003).``Control structure selection for reactor, separator and recycle processes'', A. Faanes and S. Skogestad, ``Buffer Tank Design for Acceptable Control Performance'', Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 42 (10), 2198-2208 (2003).``Buffer Tank Design for Acceptable Control Performance'', I.J. Halvorsen, S. Skogestad, J.C. Morud and V. Alstad, ``Optimal selection of controlled variables'', Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 42 (14), 3273-3284 (2003).``Optimal selection of controlled variables'', A. Faanes and S. Skogestad, ``pH-neutralization: integrated process and control design'', Computers and Chemical Engineering, 28 (8), 1475-1487 (2004).``pH-neutralization: integrated process and control design'', S. Skogestad, ``Near-optimal operation by self-optimizing control: From process control to marathon running and business systems'', Computers and Chemical Engineering, 29 (1), 127-137 (2004).``Near-optimal operation by self-optimizing control: From process control to marathon running and business systems'', E.S. Hori, S. Skogestad and V. Alstad, ``Perfect steady-state indirect control'', Ind.Eng.Chem.Res, 44 (4), 863-867 (2005).``Perfect steady-state indirect control'', M.S. Govatsmark and S. Skogestad, ``Selection of controlled variables and robust setpoints'', Ind.Eng.Chem.Res, 44 (7), 2207-2217 (2005).``Selection of controlled variables and robust setpoints'', V. Alstad and S. Skogestad, ``Null Space Method for Selecting Optimal Measurement Combinations as Controlled Variables'', Ind.Eng.Chem.Res, 46 (3), 846-853 (2007).``Null Space Method for Selecting Optimal Measurement Combinations as Controlled Variables'', S. Skogestad, ``The dos and don'ts of distillation columns control'', Chemical Engineering Research and Design (Trans IChemE, Part A), 85 (A1), 13-23 (2007).``The dos and don'ts of distillation columns control'', E.S. Hori and S. Skogestad, ``Selection of control structure and temperature location for two-product distillation columns'', Chemical Engineering Research and Design (Trans IChemE, Part A), 85 (A3), 293-306 (2007).``Selection of control structure and temperature location for two-product distillation columns'', A.C.B. Araujo, M. Govatsmark and S. Skogestad, ``Application of plantwide control to the HDA process. I Steady-state and self- optimizing control'', Control Engineering Practice, 15, 1222-1237 (2007).``Application of plantwide control to the HDA process. I Steady-state and self- optimizing control'', A.C.B. Araujo, E.S. Hori and S. Skogestad, ``Application of plantwide control to the HDA process. Part II Regulatory control'', Ind.Eng.Chem.Res, 46 (15), 5159-5174 (2007).``Application of plantwide control to the HDA process. Part II Regulatory control'', V. Kariwala, S. Skogestad and J.F. Forbes, ``Reply to ``Further Theoretical results on Relative Gain Array for Norn-Bounded Uncertain systems'''' Ind.Eng.Chem.Res, 46 (24), 8290 (2007).``Reply to ``Further Theoretical results on Relative Gain Array for Norn-Bounded Uncertain systems'''' V. Lersbamrungsuk, T. Srinophakun, S. Narasimhan and S. Skogestad, ``Control structure design for optimal operation of heat exchanger networks'', AIChE J., 54 (1), 150-162 (2008). DOI 10.1002/aic.11366``Control structure design for optimal operation of heat exchanger networks'', T. Lid and S. Skogestad, ``Scaled steady state models for effective on-line applications'', Computers and Chemical Engineering, 32, 990-999 (2008). T. Lid and S. Skogestad, ``Data reconciliation and optimal operation of a catalytic naphtha reformer'', Journal of Process Control, 18, 320-331 (2008).``Scaled steady state models for effective on-line applications'', ``Data reconciliation and optimal operation of a catalytic naphtha reformer'', E.M.B. Aske, S. Strand and S. Skogestad, ``Coordinator MPC for maximizing plant throughput'', Computers and Chemical Engineering, 32, 195-204 (2008).``Coordinator MPC for maximizing plant throughput'', A. Araujo and S. Skogestad, ``Control structure design for the ammonia synthesis process'', Computers and Chemical Engineering, 32 (12), 2920-2932 (2008).``Control structure design for the ammonia synthesis process'', E.S. Hori and S. Skogestad, ``Selection of controlled variables: Maximum gain rule and combination of measurements'', Ind.Eng.Chem.Res, 47 (23), 9465-9471 (2008).``Selection of controlled variables: Maximum gain rule and combination of measurements'', V. Alstad, S. Skogestad and E.S. Hori, ``Optimal measurement combinations as controlled variables'', Journal of Process Control, 19, 138-148 (2009)``Optimal measurement combinations as controlled variables'', E.M.B. Aske and S. Skogestad, ``Consistent inventory control'', Ind.Eng.Chem.Res, 48 (44), 10892-10902 (2009).``Consistent inventory control'',