Implementation of a MPC on a deethanizer

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Implementation of MPC in a deethanizer at the Kårstø Gas plant
Advertisements

Chapter 21. Multiloop Control: Performance Analysis
Control Architectures: Feed Forward, Feedback, Ratio, and Cascade
The control hierarchy based on “time scale separation” MPC (slower advanced and multivariable control) PID (fast “regulatory” control) PROCESS setpoints.
Exercise 3. Solutions From Fujio Kida, JGC Co. All cases
Process Control: Designing Process and Control Systems for Dynamic Performance Chapter 6. Empirical Model Identification Copyright © Thomas Marlin 2013.
Dynamic modeling, optimization and control of a CO 2 stripper Marie Solvik Supervisors : Sigurd Skogestad and Marius Støre Govatsmark.
Forget Laplace Transforms….  Industrial process control involves a lot more than just Laplace transforms and loop tuning  Combination of both theory.
San Francisco Refinery, Rodeo
CHE 185 – PROCESS CONTROL AND DYNAMICS
Enhanced Single-Loop Control Strategies
Batch Distillation Model By: Jason Hixson Jennifer Potter Wayne Johnson.
Chapter 18 Control Case Studies. Control Systems Considered Temperature control for a heat exchanger Temperature control of a CSTR Composition control.
PID Controllers Applied to MIMO Processes
CSE 425: Industrial Process Control 1. About the course Lect.TuLabTotal Semester work 80Final 125Total Grading Scheme Course webpage:
Final Stages NGL Separation
Process Operability Class Materials Copyright © Thomas Marlin 2013
Energy Use in Distillation Operation: Nonlinear Economic Effects IETC 2010 Spring Meeting.
TC 1022 LP condensate LP steam 24 LC PC TI LC HA-103 A/B 24-VA PA-102A/B.
Outline Skogestad procedure for control structure design I Top Down
1 Self-Optimizing Control HDA case study S. Skogestad, May 2006 Thanks to Antonio Araújo.
1 A Plantwide Control Procedure Applied to the HDA Process Antonio Araújo and Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering Norwegian University.
1 Active constraint regions for economically optimal operation of distillation columns Sigurd Skogestad and Magnus G. Jacobsen Department of Chemical Engineering.
Implementation of Coordinator MPC on a Large-Scale Gas Plant
Topic 5 Enhanced Regulatory Control Strategies. In the last lecture  Feedforward Control –Measured Vs Unmeasured Loads –Purpose of feedforward control.
MPC in Statoil. 2 In-house tool Septic, Statoil Estimation and Prediction Tool for Identification and Control Developed and maintained by the process.
MPC in Statoil Stig Strand, specialist MPC Statoil Research Center 93  SINTEF Automatic Control Dr. ing 1991: Dynamic Optimisation in State Space.
1 II. Bottom-up Determine secondary controlled variables and structure (configuration) of control system (pairing) A good control configuration is insensitive.
Standards Certification Education & Training Publishing Conferences & Exhibits Process Control & Safety Symposium November Houston, Texas USA.
Control of Distillation Column (精馏塔控制)
Control of Distillation Column (精馏塔控制) Dai Lian-Kui Shen Guo-jiang Institute of Industrial Control, Zhejiang University.
Cascade Control Systems (串级控制系统)
1 Outline Skogestad procedure for control structure design I Top Down Step S1: Define operational objective (cost) and constraints Step S2: Identify degrees.
Multi-Variable Control
Coordinator MPC with focus on maximizing throughput
Implementation of a MPC on a deethanizer
Part 5: Advanced control + case studies
ERT 321 – Process Control & Dynamics Feedforward & Ratio Control
Chapter 2. Control Objectives and Benefits
Name: Marius Støre Govatsmark
Natural Gas Processing I Chapter 9 Fractionation
Workshop for Flipped Class
MPC in Statoil Stig Strand, specialist MPC Statoil Research Center 93  SINTEF Automatic Control Dr. ing 1991: Dynamic Optimisation in State.
Implementation of a MPC on a deethanizer
Process Operability Class Materials Copyright © Thomas Marlin 2013
Plant-wide Control- Part3
Introduction to Crude Oil Distillation
Plant-wide Control- Part2
Process Control Engineering
Refinery: Separation units
Depropaniser Train 100 – 24-VE-107
Enhanced Single-Loop Control Strategies
MPC in Statoil Stig Strand, specialist MPC Statoil Research Center 93  SINTEF Automatic Control Dr. ing 1991: Dynamic Optimisation in State.
Example regulatory control: Distillation
MPC i Statoil Stig Strand, spesialist MPC Statoil Forskningssenter 93  SINTEF Reguleringsteknikk Dr. ing 1991: Dynamic Optimisation in State.
Outline Skogestad procedure for control structure design I Top Down
Implementation of a MPC on a deethanizer
Nordic Process Control workshop, Telemark, 2009
MPC in Statoil.
Process Operability Class Materials Copyright © Thomas Marlin 2013
Implementation of MPC in a deethanizer at the Kårstø Gas plant
Implementation of MPC in a deethanizer at the Kårstø Gas plant
MPC i Statoil Stig Strand, spesialist MPC Statoil Forskningssenter 93  SINTEF Reguleringsteknikk Dr. ing 1991: Dynamic Optimisation in State.
Example regulatory control: Distillation
Plant-wide Control- Part2
Depropaniser Train 100 – 24-VE-107
Example regulatory control: Distillation
Example regulatory control: Distillation
Example “stabilizing” control: Distillation
Outline Control structure design (plantwide control)
Presentation transcript:

Implementation of a MPC on a deethanizer Thanks to: Elvira Aske and Stig Strand, Statoil Aug. 2004

MPC implementation at Kårstø gas processing plant Mainly distillation columns In-house MPC technology (“SEPTIC”) Karsto: So far 9 distillation column with MPC – 11 to go, plus MPC on some other systems, like steam production.

Stepwise approach for implementation Check and possible retuning of the existing controllers (PID). Choose CV, MV and DV for the application Logic connections to the process interface placed and tested Develop estimators Model identification. Step tests, (Have used: Tai-Ji ID tool) Control specifications priorities Tuning and model verifications Operation under surveillance and operator training

1. Base control (PIDs) Stabilize pressure: Use vapor draw-off (partial condenser) Stabilize liquid levels: Use “LV”-configuration Stabilize temperature profile: Control temperature at bottom Note: This is a multicomponent separation with non-keys in the bottom, so temperature changes a lot towards the bottom. However, the sensitivity (gain) in the bottom is small, so this is against the maximum gain rule ??? Seems to work in practice, probably because of update from estimator

2. CV, MV, DV CV DV MV MV CV CV Quality estimator Quality estimator 0 – 65% PC 65-100% CV Flare Propane Fuel gas to boilers Heat ex 34 FC 28 LC Reflux drum 23 FC 21 DV Feed from stabilizators 20 FC FC 16 Product pumps 10 MV Reflux pumps MV One example of using MPC at the column level. What do we want to control? Product quality + avoid flaring Bias update from analyzators TC 1 Quality estimator PC CV LC CV LP Steam LC Quality estimator LP Condensate To Depropaniser

4. Composition (quality) estimators Quality estimators to estimate the top and bottom compositions Based on a combination of temperatures in the column x = i ki Ti Use log transformations on temperatures (T) and compositions (c) Coefficients ki identified using ARX model fitting of dynamic test data. Typical column: “Binary end” (usually top) impurity needs about 2 temperatures – in general easy to establish “Multicomponent end” (usually bottom) impurity needs 3-4 temperatures and in general more difficult to identify – test period often needed to get data with enough variation

Temperature sensors Deethaniser Train 300 0 – 65% 65-100% Flare A - C C1 – CO2 PC 65-100% FI Flare TI Propane Fuel gas to boilers Heat ex TI 34 FC TI 28 TI LC TI Reflux drum 23 FC TI 21 PD TI Feed from stabilizators 20 FC FC 16 TI 10 Reflux pumps TC 1 Product pumps PC FI LC LP Steam To Depropaniser LP Condensate TI

Typical temperature test data

Top: Binary separation in this case Quality estimator vs Top: Binary separation in this case Quality estimator vs. gas chromatograph 7 temperatures 2 temperatures =little difference if the right temperatures are chosen

5. Step tests/Tai-Ji ID MV’s CV’s Reflux TC tray 1 C3 in top (estimator) C2 in bottom (estimator) CV’s Pressure valve position

Step tests/Tai-Ji ID MV1: Reflux MV2: T-SP CV1 C3-top CV2 C2-btm CV3 z-PC

Model in SEPTIC MV Model from MV to CV CV prediction adjustment of lower MV limit setpoint change

6. Control priorities Results: Predicts above SP MV1 SP Priority 2 Meet high limit DV Limit Priority 1

7. Tuning of a CV Logarithmic transformation of CV Model CV in mol % Bias Tuning parameters Control targets

The final test: MPC in closed-loop CV1 MV1 CV2 MV2 CV3 DV

Conclusion MPC Generally simpler than previous advanced control Well accepted by operators Use of in-house technology and expertise successful