/w EPDw UKLTE5MTM3MDc2MGQYAQUpY3RsMDAkQ29udGVudFBsYWNlSG9sZGVyMSRtdndBcnRjaWxlV

Optimize steam system control with dynamic

simulation
06.05.2008 | Chittibabu, H., Bechtel India Pvt Ltd., India; Kostjuhin, I., Bechtel India Pvt
Ltd., India; Valli, A., Bechtel India Pvt Ltd., India
Dynamic simulation was used to evaluate two control schemes of a steam utility system
Keywords:
A typical refinery or a gas plant steam system is a highly integrated network of multipressure-level steam
distribution headers, generators and consumers. Steam generators could be utility boilers, heat recovery steam
generators (HRSGs) or process waste heat boilers. To ensure smooth steam system operation, it is essential to
conduct a rigorous transient analysis with the objective of studying controllability and stability. Such a study
should take into account steam generation capacities, generator response times, distribution header hydraulics,
let-down valve capacities and the overall control strategy.
This article reports results of a dynamic analysis of a steam utility system. The steam system consisted of four
utility boilers, two HRSGs at the exhaust of dedicated gas turbines and a four-level steam distribution network.
The objective of the analysis was to ensure that the let-down valve control scheme responded adequately to
major steam load rejection during a turbine trip. A detailed dynamic process model of the steam system was
used to evaluate two control schemes for manipulating the let-down valves.
Introduction. Steam system stability and reliability are very important to maintain normal plant operations.
Steam header pressures are required to be maintained within specified limits under all operating conditions.
For the particular design in question, during normal operation, about 50% of high-pressure (HP) steam is being
let down to a low-pressure (LP) steam header through steam turbines that are used as compressor drivers. Trip
of the compressor(s) and associated steam turbine(s) without adequate control system response could lead to
HP steam header pressure exceeding the acceptable limit, resulting in a loss of HP steam through venting and
even greater upset in LP steam header pressure. Dynamic simulation was undertaken to determine if the
proposed control strategies are capable of maintaining steam pressures in the headers within required limits
during the steam turbine trip and to select the best option.
Initially, dynamic studies were carried out without any complex control for operating let-down valves to
determine the header pressure variations during a turbine trip. The study showed that it is possible to prevent
HP and LP steam venting using very aggressive tuning on the controllers. It was recognized that the tuning may
not be practical. Further, LP header pressure experienced high variations, exceeding acceptable limits leading

to upsets in steam consumers. Two complex control strategies have been studied to directly or indirectly
manipulate the let-down valve(s) to maintain the steam header pressure in the event of a turbine trip.
Fig. 1 shows a simplified diagram of the steam system. HP superheated steam is generated in two HRSGs and
four utility boilers that meet the normal HP steam demand and leave appropriate spare capacity. The HRSGs
operate continuously with the residual steam requirement met using three of the package boilers in parallel,
each operating at approximately 50??67% capacity for rapid pickup of steam load if a generator fails. The
remaining package boiler is used as a cold spare. The HRSGs utilize the gas turbine (GT) exhaust waste heat
installed on the two booster gas compressors. The three operational utility boilers supply the remaining HP
steam demand.

Fig.
1

Simplified steam system schematic.

HP superheated steam is used to drive steam turbines CT101A and B on acid gas compressors. HP superheated
steam is let down and desuperheated with boiler feed water (BFW) to produce medium-high-pressure (MHP)
steam to accommodate the mechanical requirements of the selected boiler area steam turbines.
HP superheated steam is let down and desuperheated with BFW to produce medium-pressure (MP) steam in
the MP steam header. MP saturated steam is used for heating reboiler A.

HP superheated steam is let down and desuperheated with BFW to produce LP steam in the LP header. LP
steam is used as a heating medium in reboilers B and C. Other continuous LP steam users include the
deaerator, where the steam raises the temperature of the contents to the required BFW temperature and steam
tracing. The excess LP steam is dumped to the dump cooler.
Header pressure control strategy. The supply to each of the steam distribution headers is regulated by
pressure controllers on the respective headers.
The HP steam header controller PICHP1 controls the utility boiler firing rate. Under normal operation, the
HRSG steam production rate is the maximum that could be extracted from the compressor gas turbine
exhausts. The remaining HP steam demand is drawn under pressure control from the three operating package
boilers, each operating between 50% and 67%. In the event one package boiler fails in service, the required load
will be picked up under pressure control by the two remaining boilers while the cold unit is started up or the
failed unit is repaired.
The MHP steam header pressure controller controls the HP steam let down to the MHP header. The MP steam
header pressure controller controls the HP steam let down to the MP header.
Normally, LP steam is provided through the backpressure steam turbines used to drive the gas compressors,
BFW pumps and utility boiler forced-draft fans. Under normal operation the desuperheated flow controller FIC
is under cascaded pressure control with a setpoint from the maximum output of either PICHP2 or PICLP1. The
LP steam header pressure controller PICLP1 has two functions. It makes up any shortfall in the LP steam
supply by regulating the pressure let down from the HP steam header to the LP steam header. Secondly, the
controller ensures that excess LP steam is routed under header pressure control to the dump cooler.
Dynamic simulation modeling approach and assumptions. The dynamic model simulated the steam
distribution header hydraulics, steam producers, consumers and let-down station operation. The model
topology was derived using the relevant PFDs, P&IDs, piping isometrics, plot plan and equipment datasheets.
The PFDs gave an indication of the overall model connectivity. P&IDs, isometrics and the plot plan were then
used to determine the process equipment layout with respect to piping, other process equipment and relevant
control devices.
The general modeling assumptions were:

The upstream boundaries to the model are the steam production rates from the HRSGs and utility
boilers.

HRSGs produce steam at constant rate, independent of HP header pressure.

Utility boilers A, B and C are in parallel control and the ramping down steam production is limited to
0.25%/sec. each in response to controller output (PICHP1).

All steam consumer rates were kept constant except the acid gas steam turbines CT101A&B. In reality
steam consumption reduces as steam header pressure decreases. However, from the dynamic
simulation study point of view to observe the impact of a steam turbine trip on LP steam header
pressures it was conservative to assume constant steam flow to the consumers.

Let-down valves are assumed to have an actuator rate of 25%/sec. and linear pressure valve
characteristics. The actuator rate was based on a 12-in. valve with 3 in./sec. travel, i.e. total travel from
0 to 100% in 4 sec.

The key component of the model is the rigorous representation of the hydraulic data for capturing the transient
pressureflow relationships when the process is subjected to disturbances. The hydraulic data, including
relevant pipeline diameters, volumes and resistances, were processed from the isometrics and incorporated into
the model.
All the relevant processes and control systems have been modeled using a standard simulation program's
model library. The library is robust and provided most of the functionalities required for the project. However,
the library is not exhaustive and hence some workarounds were incorporated along with the standard
simulation program's components to obtain the desired functionalities.
Turbine CT101A trip without complex control across let-down valve. Following the initiation of the
CT101A trip at 100 seconds, the HP steam header pressure increases sharply and peaks at 51.06 bara before the
HP steam header pressure controller PICHP1 can respond to decreased steam production from utility boilers A,
B and C. Fig. 2 shows the HP steam header pressure increase from its setpoint of 50.7 bara to 51.06 bara during
CT101A trip.

Fig.
2

HP steam header pressure controller PICHP1

response without complex control.

An aggressive tuning of the LP steam header pressure controller PICLP1 that acts as a master to the let-down
flow controller FIC is required to quickly let down the HP steam and prevent any transient high pressures on
the HP steam header. This is important since the high HP steam header pressure would result in increasing the
back pressure downstream of the utility boiler and HRSG stop valves. Pressures greater than the steam
generation pressure of 53.3 bara (PICHP3 setpoint) would result in the steam venting via safety valves. Fig. 3
shows the LP steam header pressure PICLP1 decreases to 4.92 bara at the instance when CT101A trips and
restores to its 6.3 bara setpoint when FIC starts letting down HP steam. The LP steam header pressure swing is
between 4.92 bara and 6.8 bara and stabilized in about 900 seconds. Fig. 4 shows the gradual increase in the
let-down flow controller FIC setpoint and its response. The step change in the setpoint is the amount of HP
steam that is required to be let down.

Fig.
3

LP steam header pressure controller PICLP1

response without complex control.

Fig.
4

Letdown flow controller FIC) response

without complex control.

The controller action of PICHP1 subsequently results in restoring the HP header pressure to its setpoint of 50.7
bara by modulating the steam production. The HP header pressure swing is between 50.65 bara and 51.06 bara
and stabilized in about 600 seconds. There is no venting of HP and LP steams and no LP steam is required to
be dumped in the dump cooler.
Complex control manipulating setpoint of let-down flow controller. A complex control strategy
across the let-down valve was studied for implementation to minimize LP header pressure fluctuation during
CT101A trip. In this strategy, during CT101A trip the control is switched from pressure to flow control. The last
flow value of the desuperheated LP steam from CT101A prior to the trip is added to the normal let-down flow
controller FIC. Therefore, the setpoint to FIC is the sum of PICLP1's output and the previous flow through the
tripped steam turbine CT101A activated by interlock.
Following the initiation of the CT101A trip at 100 seconds, the HP steam header pressure increases sharply and
peaks at 50.95 bara before the HP steam header pressure controller PICHP1 can respond to decreased steam
production from utility boilers A, B and C. Fig. 5 shows the HP steam header pressure increase from its setpoint
of 50.7 bara to 50.94 bara during the trip of CT101A. The HP steam header pressure swing is between 50.67
bara and 50.94 bara and stabilized in about 400 seconds.

Fig.
5

HP steam header pressure controller PICHP1

response with complex control.

Fig. 6 shows the LP steam header pressure (PICLP1) decreases to 5.56 bara at the instance when CT101A trips
and restores to its setpoint of 6.3 bara when FIC starts letting down HP steam. The LP header pressure swing is

between 5.56 bara and 6.74 bara and stabilized in about 800 seconds. Fig. 7 shows the steep increase in the letdown flow controller FIC setpoint and its response. There is no venting of HP and LP steams and no LP steam
is required to be dumped in the dump cooler.

Fig.
6

LP steam header pressure controller PICLP1

response with complex control.

Fig. 7
Letdown flow controller FIC response with
complex control.

Modified complex control manipulating let-down valve position. To further reduce the LP header
pressure fluctuation during CT101A trip, the complex control strategy was modified. In the modified strategy,
during CT101A trip the control mode of let-down flow controller FIC is changed to manual and the output
increased by a calculated percentage based on previous flow through the turbine and the valve characteristics.
In this case, output was increased from 36% during normal operation to 69% during turbine trip. The let-down
flow controller was kept in manual for 10 seconds and then switched back to cascade from LP steam header

pressure controller PICLP1. For bumpless transition, PICLP1 has to be configured to track a slave PV when letdown flow controller FIC is in manual or auto.
Following the initiation of the CT101A trip at 100 seconds, the HP steam header pressure increases sharply and
peaks at 50.85 bara before the HP header pressure controller PICHP1 can respond to decreased steam
production from utility boilers A, B and C. The HP header pressure swings between 50.67 bara and 50.85 bara
and stabilizes in about 370 seconds.

Fig.
8

HP steam header pressure controller PICHP1

response with modified complex control.

Fig. 9 shows that LP header pressure PICLP1 drops to 5.64 bara at the instance when CT101A trips and restores
to its set point of 6.3 bara. The LP header pressure swings between 5.64 bara and 6.37 bara and stabilizes in
about 650 seconds. Fig. 10 shows the steep increase in the output of let-down flow controller FIC in manual and
its response when switched back to auto. There is no venting of HP and LP steams and no LP steam is required
to be dumped in the dump cooler.

Fig.
9

LP steam header pressure controller PICLP1

response with modified complex control.

Fig. 1
0

Let-down flow controller FIC response with

modified complex control.

Comparison of complex control strategies during CT101A trip. Table 1 summarizes the dynamic
results for the control strategies discussed above.

Benefits of direct valve control versus flow controller setpoint adjustment. Benefits of modified
complex control by directly manipulating the let-down flow controller FIC output are:

HP, and more importantly, LP steam header pressure deviations from the setpoint are significantly
reduced which allows maintaing both header pressures within the required range.

Offers faster response and better stability providing better protection against possible process upsets
and steam venting.

The output of HP steam controller PICHP1 has smaller variation when compared to complex control,
i.e., controlling burners in the utility boiler is more stable which, in turn, leads to less upset in the fuel
gas system.

The system response to modified complex control does not depend on the actual controller tuning in
the field.

LP steam controller output (PICLP1) with complex control after the CT101A trip is close to the pretrip value.
The additional let-down setpoint contribution comes from the calculation block that has to be gradually
reduced to zero for LP steam pressure controller PICLP1 to regain full control. Even a slow ramp-down of this
offset will lead to prolonged upset in the system.
Disadvantages of direct valve control compared to flow controller setpoint adjustment.

The pressure control is interrupted albeit only shortly10 seconds was chosen arbitrarily and the
combination of valve actuator rate and required increase in opening allows reducing this time to 2
seconds or less.

Accurate calculation of the let-down valve PV opening is required based on previous steam flow
through the tripped turbine and valve characteristics. HP

The authors

Haribabu Chittibabu is an engineering specialist in the Advanced Simulation and Analysis

group at Bechtel. His experience includes steady-state and dynamic simulation, developing
operator training simulators (OTSs), conceptual studies and front-end engineering for refineries
and gas plants. Prior to joining Bechtel, Mr. Chittibabu worked for Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (L&T),
India. He holds a BTech degree in chemical engineering from the University of Madras, India and
an MTech degree in petroleum refining and petrochemicals from Anna University, India.

Igor Kostjuhin is an engineering specialist in the Advanced Simulation and Analysis group at
Bechtel. His responsibilities include technical lead on projects in dynamic simulation studies,
developing operator training simulators (OTSs) and implementing multivariable control. Prior to
joining Bechtel, Dr. Kostjuhin worked for Bayer and KBR. He holds a PhD degree in chemical

engineering from the University of Rochester, New York.

Amudha Valli is an engineering specialist in the advanced simulation and analysis group at
Bechtel. Her experience includes dynamic and steady-state process simulation studies, process
modeling for OTS development, front-end engineering design and detailed engineering for
refineries, gas plants and oil sands development projects. Ms. Valli holds a BTech degree in
chemical engineering from Coimbatore Institute of Technology, India and an MTech degree in
chemical engineering from Anna University, India.

Submit comment

290