71

UNIT 7
Ammonia Plant Control- A Detailed Example
This unit presents a detailed example of a control project for which costs
and benefits can be calculated with reasonable certainty. The project, com-
puter control of ammonia production, is described in narrative form with
the reader in the project developer's seat.
Learning Objectives When you have completed this unit you should:
A. Know why computer control of ammonia production is an attractive
project.
B. Have a better understanding of the information required to
estimate costs and benefits.
C. Appreciate the uncertainties that still exist even for a well-defined
project.
7-1. Benefit Identification
It is oil price crisis time (again). You are control engineer of a complex that
includes a 1000 ton/day ammonia plant. Your plant uses the same tech-
nology as 50 other plants around the country. A flow diagram is shown in
Fig. 7-1. Several of these plants have installed computer control and are
reporting benefits. Should you put your plant under computer control?
What loops should be controlled? What benefits will computer control
produce? You decide to talk to some of the vendors and study the open lit-
erature.
Several vendors are offering package systems with preprogrammed con-
trol loops. The literature indicates that almost all of the plants that have
installed computer control have controlled hydrogen/nitrogen ratio
(H/N), steam/gas ratio (S/G), and synthesis loop pressure. All of these
loops offer cost savings. Optimal H/N and S/G ratios minimize the
amount of synthesis gas that must be processed to produce a ton of ammo-
nia. Maximizing loop pressure maximizes the conversion per pass
through the synthesis loop. Are these cost savings attractive?
7-2. Benefit Evaluation
Ammonia production uses natural gas as both raw material and fuel, so
natural gas is by far the largest cost component. Oil prices have already
Friedmann05.book Page 71 Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:31 AM
72 UNIT 7: Ammonia Plant Control A Detailed Example
Fig. 7-1. Kellogg Ammonia Process (Reprinted by Permission from Hydrogen Processing,
November 1980, Copyright 1980 by Gulf Publishing Co. All rights reserved)
Friedmann05.book Page 72 Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:31 AM
UNIT 7: Ammonia Plant Control A Detailed Example 73
gone up this year, and gas prices are expected to follow. Efficiency is mea-
sured by the amount of natural gas consumed per unit product, expressed
as mscf/ton or, in metric units, m
3
/kg. Your plant is typical, with natural
gas usage of 37.5 mscf/ton (34020 m
3
/kg). Computer control has been
reported to produce efficiency increases of 1 to 5%. What can you expect
from your plant?
The historic control performance of your plant can be estimated from log
sheets. 95% ranges around average values are 0.13 for H/N, 0.05 for
S/G, and 0.7 atmospheres for loop pressure. Consistent 95% ranges of
0.05 for H/N, 0.02 for S/G, and 0.3 atmospheres for loop pressure are
reported under computer control. Unfortunately, published data are
scarce on control performance and efficiency before and after application
of computer control. One unpublished report lists typical results. Historic
control performance of your plant is slightly worse than typical before
results.
One paper (Ref. 2) mentions a production increase of 1% when the H/N
ratio standard deviation is reduced by 0.1 units. You expect to reduce the
95% range from 0.26 to 0.1 units. Since the 95% range equals 4 standard
deviations, this is equivalent to a 0.04 unit standard deviation reduction.
Assuming linearity, this should produce a 0.4% efficiency increase. Similar
reasoning leads to an estimate of a 0.3% efficiency increase from better
S/G ratio control. The efficiency increase from better pressure control can
be estimated from Fig. 7-2. There is a constraint at 148 atmospheres, so
operation has been at an average pressure of 146.6 atmospheres to avoid
violating the constraint. This value is 4 standard deviations from the con-
straint. With computer pressure control, the pressure set point can be
moved to 147.4 atmospheres while maintaining the relationship between
average value and the constraint [see Eq. (4-1)]. This shift in average pres-
sure will increase production, or efficiency, by 0.4%.
S/G and pressure control involve no new sensors and should be on line
whenever the computer is running. H/N ratio control depends on new
composition measurements, including a gas chromatograph. Your plant
has had difficulties with chromatographs, so you assume that this loop
will be out of service 20% of the time. This assumption reduces the
expected benefit from H/N control to 0.8 x 0.4% = 0.32%. The total
increase in efficiency that you expect is 0.32% + 0.3% + 0.4% = 1.02%. How
much is this worth?
Your plant now buys incremental natural gas for a spot price of $2.50/
mscf, and following the oil price increases, the price is expected to climb.
Without allowing for price escalation, your plant will use 37.5 x 1000 x
$2.50 = $93,750 worth of natural gas per operating day. The plant runs 350
days per year, so the expected 1.02% increase in efficiency should be
Friedmann05.book Page 73 Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:31 AM
74 UNIT 7: Ammonia Plant Control A Detailed Example
worth $93,750 x 350 x 0.0102 = $335,000/year. Assuming that computer
control will take six months to implement and that the system will have a
useful life of six years, benefit cash flow will be as shown in Fig. 7-3.
7-3. Cost Evaluation
Costs of this project are relatively easy to estimate, since vendors are will-
ing to offer fixed-price turnkey packages that include application soft-
ware. The best price quote you receive is for $200,000. System installation
cost will be only about $20,000, since the computer will be installed in an
existing control room and most of the signals are already available in the
control room.
Fig. 7-2. Effect of Pressure on Ammonia Production (Adapted from Ref. 1 by permission from
Hydrocarbon Processing, No. 1980, Gulf Publishing Co., all rights reserved.)
Fig. 7-3. Benefit Cash Flows
Friedmann05.book Page 74 Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:31 AM
UNIT 7: Ammonia Plant Control A Detailed Example 75
Additional equipment costs will include $10,000 for an uninterruptible
power supply and $30,000 for additional instrumentation. Installation
costs for these items will be $20,000. In-house engineering costs are esti-
mated at $20,000, most of which is for electrical design and start-up assis-
tance. Operator training is included in the vendor's turnkey price.
Operating costs include system and instrumentation maintenance. You
have no in-house computer maintenance capability, so you contract with
the vendor to provide hardware and software support for $10,000/year. In
addition, you budget $5,000/year for instrument maintenance, principally
for the H/N loop sensors. Cost cash flows are shown in Fig. 7-4. It is
assumed that the system and instrumentation are purchased at the start of
the project, and other first costs are incurred during the first year.
7-4. Project Evaluation
Overall cash flows are shown in Fig. 7-5. Your company's guideline for
energy-saving projects like this one is an internal pre-tax rate of return of
40% (The oil crisis has produced double-digit inflation, so the cost of capi-
tal is high). This project qualifies easily, with an IRR of 87.5%.
It should be realized that many features of this project are unusually risk-
free. The control strategy and equipment are already in use at several sim-
ilar plants, so the chance of technical success is high. Costs are virtually
certain. Application software, usually the hardest category to estimate, is
covered by a turnkey fixed-price contract. Benefits come from raw mate-
rial and energy savings and therefore are not strongly dependent upon
market conditions. Internal rate of return more than doubles the guideline
value, so small changes in costs or benefits will not affect project viability.
Fig. 7-4. Cost Cash Flow
Friedmann05.book Page 75 Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:31 AM
76 UNIT 7: Ammonia Plant Control A Detailed Example
7-5. Epilogue
The author has gone through this exercise for two ammonia plants. Com-
puter control systems were approved and installed for both plants. Con-
trol performance was similar to that reported for other plants (Ref. 3).
Process improvement was larger than anticipated, as average efficiency
improved by 1.75%. Internal rate of return was only slightly higher than
estimated, since natural gas spot prices, contrary to all expectations,
declined to as low as $1.25/mscf.
The reader probably realizes that some things have changed since the
events described in this chapter. A new control scheme for a petrochemi-
cal plant is likely to involve model predictive control, manipulating multi-
ple variables to hold operations close to limiting constraints. Software will
account for a higher percentage of costs. Raw material and energy costs
are much higher. None of these changes affects the basic themes of this
chapter. Upgrading control of a plant where feedstock and energy are the
major costs is still likely to be an attractive project when these costs
increase sharply. Risk will be low if the control scheme has already been
applied to similar plants. Volatility of natural gas prices will quite possi-
Fig. 7-5. Overall Cash Flows
Friedmann05.book Page 76 Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:31 AM
UNIT 7: Ammonia Plant Control A Detailed Example 77
bly affect estimated benefits - the current (late 2005) price of $13/mscf is
not chiseled in stone.
References
1. Blevins, T. L., and Langley, K., 1980 Process Control Models.
Hydrocarbon Processing, 59, 11, pp. 197-201.
2. Daigre, L. C., and Nieman, G. R., 1974. Computer Control of
Ammonia plants. Chemical Engineering Progress, 70, 2, pp. 50-53.
3. Friedmann, P. G., 1978. Evaluating Computer Control of
Ammonia Plants. AIChE Ammonia Plant Safety Symposium, 20,
pp. 85-88.
Exercises
7-1. How would the internal rate of return be affected if the plant produced only
300 tons/day?
7-2. List some possible scenarios that would make this project a loser.
7-3. What would the annual benefits be if production is limited by feedstock
availability and increased production can be sold for $120/ton? Assume
that incremental production expenses other than natural gas are $10/ton
and that total natural gas consumption is unchanged.
Friedmann05.book Page 77 Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:31 AM