Originally appeared in:

September 2006 issue, pgs 69–75

Used with permission.
www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com

Article copyright © 2006 by Gulf Publishing Company. All rights

reserved. Not to be distributed in electronic or printed form, or posted
SPECIALREPORT
on a Website, without express written permission of copyright holder.

Analyzing the value of first-

principles dynamic simulation
Use it to test new control schemes before implementing them in a plant
R. GONZÁLEZ, Petronor, Repsol YPF Group, Bilbao, Spain;
and J. M. FERRER, AspenTech, Barcelona, Spain

C
ontrol engineers can make practi-
cal use of first-principles dynamic �����
� ��������� ����� ����
modeling technologies, which are ���� �������� �����
now becoming mature enough to provide ������
�� ������� ������� ����
� ��������� �������
significant value for control purposes. The ��
���� ����� ��������
modeling efforts used in this case study have ��� ������ ��������
�
�� ���������� ����
been analyzed from the control engineer’s ����� ���
perspective, including a discussion of best �������� ��� ��� ��� ����
���
�� ����� ��� ����
practices to optimize the use of internal ���� �����
resources. ���� ����� ����� �������
A first-principles dynamic model of a ������� ���
� � � ��
depropanizer column is used to test and ����� ����� � ���
�������� � ������� ����
to confirm a new proposed operation and ����
����� ���� �����
control mode that improves the steam con- ���������
���� ��� ������� �� ��
� �
sumption and the stability of the column. ���� ������
���� �
The previous column operation mode was �������� �� ���� ���
��
��� ��
not suitable for the planned advanced pro- ���������� ���
�������
cess control (APC) project in the area of
this unit, so a new basic control scheme FIG. 1 Depropanizer and associated controllers.
was proposed, simulated and validated in
the rigorous dynamic model. The new con-
trol scheme was tested and implemented in
the plant confirming the predicted results �����
� ��������� ����� ����
�������� �����
of the model. ����
������ �������
�� ������� ����
� ���������
Introduction. This study was prompted �� ����� ��������
��� ������ ��������
by the modeling problems found in the �� ����������
�
����
new FCC unit APC system. After some ����� ���
�������� ��� ��� ���
step tests, the identified multivariable ��� ��� ����
�� ����� ��� ����
controller models showed some problems �������� �����
���� ����� ����� �������
related to the heat and material balance in ������� ���
the FCC gas unit depropanizer column, � � � ��
����� ����� � ���
specifically associated with the head pres- �������� � ������� ����
����� ���� �����
sure and bottom and top qualities. ����
���������
A golden rule in APC projects is to ���� ���
� ������� �
�� ��
solve all basic control problems first, 1 ���� ������
���� ���� �
�������� �� ���
since step testing is usually a major exer- ��� �� ��
�������
cise that no one will want to repeat until ���������� ���
process changes require it. Therefore, a
more detailed study of the depropanizer FIG. 2 New control scheme.
was required.
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING SEPTEMBER 2006
SPECIALREPORT REFINING DEVELOPMENTS
����������������� ������������
�������������
�������� ���������� �������
������������
����
����� ����� �����
������������� ������������
��� ��� �������������
����������� ������� �������������
����������� ����������
���������������
���
FIG. 3 Dynamic modeling methodology.
Process and problem description. The depropanizer
column (T6) with the feed drum (D-10) and condenser drum
(D-11) is represented in the DCS screenshot in Fig. 1.
The study of the unit focused on two specific areas of concern:
mass balance and column pressure control.
The steady-state mass balance equation:
column feed (FC-69) = bottom extraction (FC-74) + distillate (FC-14)
cannot be matched with the plant data. Other significant streams
must need to be considered in the mass balance equation since
there is a 10 –12% mass imbalance.
The column pressure (PC-20) is controlled through the distil-
late flow controller (FC-14), which varies the condensing capac-
ity of the condenser by partially flooding the shell side, since the
condenser drum (D-11) remains always totally full of liquid. The
usual response time of this kind of system (pressure vs. distillate
flow) should be less than one hour, but the step tests revealed that
the column needed three hours to stabilize the pressure after a
change in the distillate flow. This affected control performance,
causing oscillations to the propylene-propane splitter feed.
Problem analysis. These two problems indicated that some-
thing different is happening in this column compared to standard
binary distillation columns. The difference in this case is a pres-
sure balance line from the top of the column to the feed drum
(D-10) (Fig. 1).
The original purpose of this balance line was to keep a certain
pressure in the feed drum (D-10) to assure enough NSPH in pump
P-15 under all operating conditions. The initial design estimated a
flow of 1 m3/h through this balance line to keep the right pressure,
but in real operation, it was not possible to pressurize drum D-10
when the column load was 90 m3/h. This fact suggests that the real
flow through the balance line could be well above 1 m3/h.
The lack of pressure control in drum D-10 limits the attainable
feed flow. The flow control valve FV-69 bypass (FC-69) has to
be opened to reach the right flow, and even the preheater (E-21)
bypass has to be opened as well to reduce the heat and thus reduce
the backpressure.
Therefore, it was concluded that:
• To improve column controllability, proper feed control is
needed, and this requires the right pressure in the feed drum
(D-10).
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING SEPTEMBER 2006
• The 10 –12% imbalance could all result from flow through
the balance line.
• Difficulty in controlling the column pressure (PC-20) can
be explained by a significant flow through the balance line.
This balance flow is out of control since it is determined by the
upstream (column) and downstream (D-10) pressures, which are
affected by the ambient conditions. For example, if a rainstorm
decreases the column pressure, then the balance flow is lower
and pressure in the feed drum (D-10) also decreases. This in
turn causes the load to the column to be reduced, which again
reduces the column pressure.
• To improve the column control it is necessary to look for a
different pressure source, so that it is possible to completely close
the balance line.
Proposed solution. Feed drum D-10 is working in equilib-
rium, so the pressure is determined by the feed composition. The
only way to set a desired pressure is to inundate it completely, and
use the feed drum as a filled pipe segment (Fig. 2).
The flow control valve FV-69, previously used by FC-69 and
LC-26 (D-10 level), is now used by the new PC-19 pressure
controller. It is not needed to control the feed flow to the column
since it is imposed upstream by the debutanizer column pressure
controller.
It is also important to note that with the drum D-10 totally
full, the capacity to absorb load variations is lost. But D-10 geom-
etry and flow conditions reveal that the real residence time is
three minutes, so the dumping capacity was, therefore, almost
negligible.
Simulation platform. To validate the proposed new control
scheme, a first-principles dynamic model of the unit was cre-
ated. Building a model has traditionally been considered very time
consuming and requiring expert skills to achieve valuable results.2
Depending on the chosen simulation platform, however, this effort
can be reduced significantly.3,4 Ideally companies should consider
the following criteria when selecting simulation technologies:
• Reusability of steady-state process models for the dynamic
simulation
• Consistent and easy conversion to dynamic models
• Rich set of process control objects, including real APC con-
trollers
• Mature and widely proven technology
• Intuitive, quick-to-build and easy-to-use, requiring little
training
• Fast simulation execution.
Some software-independent factors that will contribute to
make the dynamic modeling task easier are:
• Quality of the steady-state models from process engineering:
Most of the steady-state models handled by process engineering
departments are updated from the design conditions to the real
operating conditions, but since they are not needed, they will not
contain all the valves, bypasses, pumps, etc.
• Access to equipment design engineering data: A quick and
easy electronic archive of all datasheets and design details will
simplify data collection.
• Access to real plant process data: A good process information
system and historic database will facilitate access to process data
for calibration.
• Instrumentation level and quality: A reliable and well-instru-
mented plant will make model calibration easier.
 REFINING DEVELOPMENTS
FIG. 4 Depropanizer dynamic model.
• Understanding the process: The experience of the control
engineer with the unit being modeled is an advantage when build-
ing a dynamic model.
• Unit complexity: Distillation, compression and heat transfer
systems are well know and require less time to achieve reliable
results. Reactors, however, require more knowledge of the kinetics,
which are not always well known.
Modeling methodology. The depropanizer steady-state
model was provided by the Petronor process engineering group,
but additional efforts were required to build the dynamic model.5,6
This involves a series of tasks that could be jointly executed by the
process engineering group and process control groups. The steps
followed are shown in Fig. 3.
Percentages shown in the figure represent the estimated spent
time for every step; for the depropanizer case the four steps took
about ten days for a control engineer with no previous experience
in dynamic modeling. This can be normally reduced to three or
four days once the control engineer gets more familiar with the
tool and methodology. The steps were:
1. Collect design and plant data: First, all equipment data of
the depropanizer and associated equipment were collected:
• Valves: Cv , characteristic, delta P, from valve datasheets
• Relief valves: type, setting pressures, from valve datasheets
• Pumps: head and efficiency curves, from pump test
certificates
• Vessels: volume, height, nozzles, level taps, from design
datasheets
• Column: tray spacing and type, diameter, weir height and
length from design datasheets
• Elevations: from plant floor elevations sheet
• Controllers: PV, OP, SP, range and tuning gains from DCS.
For the process data, a relatively short period (one day) was
selected when the process stayed at steady conditions and then the
average of all available instrumentation devices (pressures, tem-
peratures, flows, level, controllers’ PV, OP, SP ) was calculated.
Laboratory composition analyses from the feed and products were
also taken for that day. It was important to ensure that the process
didn’t suffer major changes during the selected period, otherwise it
would have been difficult to calibrate the model later.
2. Introduce engineering data into the model: Models used
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING SEPTEMBER 2006
SPECIALREPORT
FIG. 5 Operation change sequence.
by the process engineering group don’t need to incorporate all
the minor equipment and devices like valves, pumps, filters,
pipe segments or bypasses. To replicate the plant conditions, it
is, therefore, necessary to introduce most of these items into the
same steady-state model. Most of the data like volumes or con-
trollers will not be used in the steady-state mode, but it is entered
once to simplify the process and keep the entire data model in
one file case.
3. Calibrate the model with process data: This is the most criti-
cal phase of the process since the model has to be manually tuned
and calibrated to reflect the true conditions in the real plant. The
user has to equilibrate the differences by changing boundary con-
ditions by a small amount: delta P and OP of valves, efficiencies,
heat losses, pressure drops, etc. Sometimes this task is not trivial,
and frequently other hidden equipment or device problems are
found when the model resists matching the plant data. Once
the model is calibrated, all the heat transfer coefficients or flow
resistance factors are calculated, and all pressure-flow relations
are correctly configured, so that the steady-state model is ready
to switch to dynamic mode when required.
4. Switch to dynamic and stabilize: The solver is switched to
dynamic mode and the integrator started. The unit should then be
stabilized (note that static heads are not considered in steady state)
and all the controllers can be put in auto. The model is then ready
to be used for the operating changes and control studies (Fig. 4).
Testing the model. The new proposed controller design was
incorporated in the dynamic model, and the same operation change
procedure was programmed. The sequence is shown in Fig. 5.
The tested sequence began with switching off the old control-
lers (LC-26, FC-69) and activating the new pressure controller
(PC-19). Then, the bypasses were closed and the balance gas line
is closed with a ramp. This transient is shown in Fig. 6.
The results show how the D-10 pressure (red trend line)
rises to 11.3 Kg/cm2_g when the FV-69 and preheater bypasses
are closed. Then, the balance line valve starts to close and the
flow goes from 8.3 m3/h to zero (brown trend), and logically the
column feed decreases the same amount (from 88.3 to 80 m3/h,
green trend).
At the same time, the vessel is filled (blue trend) since it is not
in equilibrium; the D-10 liquid temperature is decreased 12°C
(from 44°C to 32°C, pink trend) because the heat source from the
hot gas balance line has been closed. It is also observed that, even
with the D-10 cooler liquid content at 32°C, the column pre-
heater outlet temperature rises 3°C (from 69°C to 72°C, orange
trend) because there is less feed flow to heat.
SPECIALREPORT REFINING DEVELOPMENTS
FIG. 6 Simulation: gas balance line closing and D-10 filling.
FIG. 8 Real plant: Gas balance line closing and D-10 filling.
When the hot gas balance line is totally closed and D-10 is
completely full, the reflux flow and the steam to the reboiler are
adapted to the new configuration to achieve the same product
qualities. Fig. 7 shows how the reflux flow (green trend) and the
steam (red trend) are both reduced by 10%.
The dynamic simulation results confirmed that the new opera-
tion scheme was feasible and operable with better control of the
D-10 pressure, less steam consumption and more stable product
qualities.
Plant tests. The new proposed scheme was tested and then
implemented into the plant, where similar results were obtained.
Figs. 8 and 9 show real plant data, with the same trend lines and
colors than in Figs. 6 and 7.
Plant results in Fig. 8 confirm the same reduction in feed flow
(green trend) and achievable pressure control in D-10 (red trend).
D-10 temperature (pink trend) and preheated feed (orange trend)
evolved as predicted in Fig. 6.
Plant results in Fig. 9 reduce the reflux (green trend) and steam
(red trend) with a less aggressive ramp than in Fig. 7, but the plant
reached similar quality levels.
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING SEPTEMBER 2006
FIG. 7 Simulation: Reflux and steam reduction with same
qualities.
FIG. 9 Real plant: Reflux and steam reduction with same qualities.
In this example, it was possible to test the changes in the real
plant, however, this is not always the case. Dynamic simulation
has even greater potential value for changes that cannot be tested
in normal operation and which necessitate a physical plant change
that requires a planned shutdown.
To improve internal efficiencies, steady-state models provided
by a process engineering group could already be calibrated with
the plant conditions, making it easier and faster for control engi-
neers to build the dynamic model. Cooperation between the two
groups is required to establish an optimum modeling workflow
methodology.
In addition to performing basic control studies, dynamic models
could be used as a support tool in certain APC projects.7,8 HP
LITERATURE CITED
1 King, M., “How to lose money with Advanced Controls,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, June 1992.
2 Mahoney, D. P. and B. D. Tyréus, “Applications of Dynamic Simulation,”
Proceedings of the Chemical Engineering Chemputers II Conference, March 1994.
3 Stanley, P., “Dynamic Simulation for Insight,” Chemical Processing, December
1999.
4 Feliu, J. A., I. Grau, M. A. Alós and J. J. Macias-Hernández, “Match your
 REFINING DEVELOPMENTS
process constraints using Dynamic Simulation,” Chemical Engineering
Progress, December 2003.
5 McMillan, G. K. and R. A. Cameron, Models Unleashed, Virtual Plant and
Model Predictive Control Applications, Chapter 1, 2004, ISA, ISBN 1-55617-
857-3.
6 Luyben, W. L., “Plantwide Dynamic Simulators in Chemical Processing and
Control,” 2002, Marcel Dekker, Inc., ISBN 0-8247-0801-6.
7 Trivella, F. and G. Marchetti, “Integration for innovation,” Hydrocarbon
Engineering, November 2004.
R. González Martín holds a BSc degree (University of Mon-
dragon) and an MSc degree (University of Manchester Institute of
Science and Technology) in control engineering. He has 14 years’
experience in advanced control; four years developing advanced
control applications for the Machine Tool Division of the Mon-
dragon Cooperative and 10 years designing and implementing advanced control
applications for Repsol-YPF in the Petronor refinery, Bilbao, Spain. Mr. González also
lectures on process control systems at Mondragon University. He can be reached at
rgonzalezm@repsolypf.com.
Article copyright © 2006 by Gulf Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Not to be distributed in electronic or printed form, or posted on a website, without express written permission of copyright holder.
SPECIALREPORT
8 Alsop, N. and J. M. Ferrer, “What dynamic simulation brings to a Process
Control Engineer—Applied Case Study to a Propylene/Propane Splitter,”
ERTC Computing, London, May 2004.
9 Mahoney, D. P., “HYSYS An integrated system for process engineering and
control,” Hydrocarbon Asia, November/December 1994.
10 Contreras, J. and J. M. Ferrer, “Sagunto LNG terminal dynamic simula-
tion—Design’s verification of Emergency Shutdown system and transient
studies,” Hydrocarbon Engineering, May 2005.
J. M. Ferrer Almazán holds an MSc degree in electrical engi-
neering (University of Zaragoza, Spain). He worked four years for
Dow Chemical at the Tarragona site as process control engineer,
three years at Electronic Data Systems in automatic warehouse sys-
tems and five years at Aspentech developing applications of dynamic
simulators in advanced control, ESD design, controllability studies, DCS checkout and
operator training. He can be reached at josemaria.ferrer@aspentech.com
Printed in U.S.A.