Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

2003, 42, 4753-4771

4753

PROCESS DESIGN AND CONTROL Plantwide Control System Design: Methodology and Application to a Vinyl Acetate Process
Rong Chen and Thomas McAvoy*
Department of Chemical Engineering, Institute for Systems Research, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742

A new approach to the design of plantwide control systems that is based on a linear dynamic process model and output optimal control is presented. The approach also makes use of engineering judgment in eliminating and evaluating candidate architectures. The design of a plantwide architecture is split into four stages, and results from one stage are used as the input to the next. During the design process, transient responses are easily calculated, and they are used to compare candidate architectures to one another so that those with poor performance can be eliminated. The methodology is applied successfully to a model of a vinyl acetate process that has 26 manipulated variables and 43 measurements. The methodology presented is facilitated through a user-friendly software package that makes use of the best currently available algorithms for solving output optimal control problems. A detailed discussion of the various algorithms used in the package is presented.
1. Introduction Plantwide control is an approach that guides control system design for an entire plant. Plantwide control tries to answer some basic questions that a control engineer regularly meets in practice:1 which variables should be controlled, measured, and manipulated, and how should these variables be linked together? The first comprehensive discussion of plantwide control was provided by Buckley,2 who presented a number of engineering insights into material balance control, production rate control, inventory control, recycle use, impurity purging, and predictive optimization. In 1973, Foss1 stated that the central issue to be solved by new theories of chemical process control is how to determine a control system structure. He urged the development of new theories to carry out plantwide control design in an efficient and organized manner. Although the control objectives that plantwide control should address were identified years ago, there is no agreed-upon systematic method for generating control structure alternatives. Some of the reasons for the slow progress include the size of the problem, the lack of static and dynamic models, and the difficulties in tailoring heuristics for a specific plantwide design. Current approaches to plantwide control can be loosely categorized as mathematically oriented (optimization-based) approaches, process-oriented (heuristicbased) approaches, and a combination of these two approaches (hybrid approaches).3 Mathematically oriented approaches try to identify control structure candidates by using process models (either static or dynamic) and quantitative methods from modern control and nonlinear optimization. Process-oriented approaches
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: (301) 405-1939. Fax: (301) 314-9920. E-mail: mcavoy@eng.umd.edu.

use heuristics that are developed from engineering experience and process insight. Many authors believe that hybrid approaches are more promising, because the hybrid approaches can facilitate the design task in an efficient way by automatically generating and evaluating control structure candidates. In most of the current approaches, a hierarchical design procedure that decomposes the plantwide control problem into several stages and solves them in sequence is used by researchers, as good scalability is retained. To construct a plantwide control system, the simplest approach is to design a control system for each unit individually, without considering interactions. A number of case studies show that this approach does not work, because a control system that is feasible and/or optimized in controlling a single unit might not be feasible and/or optimized after the unit becomes an integrated part of the whole plant. For example, in the Tennessee Eastman (TE) process,4 there are three major units (the reactor, the separator, and the stripper). From the point of view of single-unit operations, the three pressures in these units should be controlled for the safe operation of the individual processes. From the point of view of the overall process, however, only one of the three pressures needs to be controlled because the pressures are highly correlated and attempting to control all three results in severe interactions. In another case, a simple process involving a reactor, a separator, and a liquid recycle stream was presented by Luyben.5 He observed a snowball effect that caused a shut-down of the process for a certain type of plantwide control structure, which was obtained by designing control systems for the units separately. In recent years, the plantwide perspective on designing control systems for a chemical process has received increasing attention from people in both academia and

10.1021/ie030202e CCC: $25.00 2003 American Chemical Society Published on Web 09/06/2003

4754 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 20, 2003

industry. There are two key issues in the plantwide control design area: (1) how to qualitatively and/or quantitatively capture process interactions and explain them and (2) in the face of process interactions, how to systematically define a control structure design problem and practically solve it. For the first key issue, information about process interactions can be extracted from a process model, which ranges from a simple qualitative model, e.g., a process flowsheet with steady-state data, to a complicated quantitative one, e.g., a first-principles nonlinear dynamic model. When a process model is available, the issue of how to extract process information and use the information in control structure design is very important. For example, the relative gain array (RGA) is a popular tool for representing process interactions, and several RGA-based rules have been developed for loop pairings design.6 The second key issue involves selecting controlled variables (measurements), manipulated variables, control configurations (decentralized or centralized control structures), and control laws.7 For this issue, a hierarchical design procedure is generally used to decompose the design problem into several stages. The reason for such an approach is that, for chemical process plantwide control design, it is very difficult to find a global optimum solution to all of the control objectives to be achieved. A hierarchical design procedure can provide a systematic and practical way to locate satisfactory solutions in a reduced search space. The basis of this paper involves taking advantage of a linear dynamic process model in designing a plantwide control system. Increasingly dynamic models are available for processes, even in the design stage, and our objective is to investigate how much plantwide control design can benefit when a linear process model is available. Nonlinear models can be linearized around an operating point to generate the models used here. The goal of this paper is to develop a plantwide control design methodology in which a linear time-invariant (LTI) state space model is used to provide information about process dynamics and interactions. The original idea of using an LTI model and optimal control theory in control structure design came from Schnelle.8 The original idea of the hierarchical design procedure used here came from McAvoy and co-workers previous work.3,9 Several guidelines are applied in developing our plantwide control design methodology. These guidelines represent our design philosophy: (1) The methodology should not require an experienced control engineer to use it, and only a limited amount of engineering judgment should be involved in designing a plantwide control system. (2) The methodology should easily extract process information from an LTI model and explain it in a simple manner. (3) The methodology should have good scalability. When the size of the design problem (i.e., the number of the states in the LTI model) increases, the computation load should not increase dramatically. (4) The methodology should be implemented using a highly automated computer-aided design tool. After a control structure is selected, controllers can be easily tuned, and control performance can be visually evaluated. In this paper, an optimal control-based plantwide control design methodology that complies with these guidelines is presented. The methodology uses a hier-

archical design procedure involving optimal static output feedback (OSOF) controller design. After the details of the methodology are explained, the approach is applied successfully to a model of a vinyl acetate process that has 246 states, 26 manipulated variables, and 43 measurements. 2. Overview of Optimal Control-Based Plantwide Control Design Methodology The optimal control-based plantwide control design methodology is a design procedure that identifies feasible control structures for an entire chemical plant. The control structures are determined by a combination of mathematical analysis and engineering judgment. There are three major characteristics of the methodology: First, the methodology extracts process information from a linear time-invariant (LTI) state space model that is developed at a local operating point. Because a dynamic model gives more process insight than a static model does, dynamic models should be used in plantwide control design whenever available. The process gain matrix is the simplest process model, and it contains static information about process interactions. Several popular tools, e.g., RGA and singular value decomposition (SVD),3 are available for designing decentralized control structures. The focus of this paper is to find a simple form, analogous to a process gain matrix, to represent dynamic information about a process and to develop tools to extract and explain the information. In the next section, a multi-input-multioutput optimal static output feedback controller is introduced as the simple form that meets this requirement for plantwide control design. Second, the optimal control-based methodology is a hierarchical design procedure, consisting of four stages that are extended from an original design procedure used by McAvoy and co-workers.3,9 In stage 1, the process model is scaled, and the controlled variables related principally to safe process operation are identified. In stage 2, decentralized control structures are determined for the stage 1 variables. In stage 3, either centralized or decentralized control structures are generated for the control of product rate and quality. In stage 4, either centralized or decentralized control structures are designed for other controlled variables related to component inventory and unit operation control. Third, the optimal control-based methodology is implemented using a highly automated computer-aided toolkit. The code requires a limited amount of interaction from a user who is not necessarily an experienced control engineer. Some engineering judgment is required to determine design parameters and evaluate control structure candidates that are generated in each design stage. Because the plantwide control design problem is quite computationally intensive, special consideration is taken in developing the numerical algorithms used to provide good scalability. 3. Basic Optimal Static Output Feedback Control Problem Given an LTI state space model, an optimal static output feedback (OSOF) controller is designed to stabilize the system and bring the states from arbitrary initial values to zero, following a trajectory that minimizes a linear quadratic objective function (LQR). The basic formulation of the OSOF LQR design problem is

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 20, 2003 4755

presented by Lewis as follows:10

Process Model

x ) Ax + Bu (a) (b) y ) Cx x(0) ) x0 (c) u ) -Ky

(1)

Output Feedback (2) 1 General Objective Function min J )

K

0(yTQy + uTRu) dt + 2 gijkij2 2 i j

(3)

where x represents the states, u represents the manipulated variables, y represents the measurements, Q and R are weight matrices, and gij is a weight on element kij in K. In most cases where eq 3 is solved to develop a plantwide control system, the gijs are zero. However, as discussed below, in some cases, a multiloop single-input-single-output (SISO) structure is used. Then, the gijs are used to force the off-diagonal elements of K to be zero so that the resulting controller has a diagonal structure. To make element kij small, a large value for the corresponding weight, gij, should be used. The design equations for K and two auxiliary matrices, P and S, that result from the first-order necessary conditions for optimality are given by Lewis10 as presented in eq 4

function model, they are left unscaled. Manipulated variables (MVs) can be either valve opening percentages or set points of inner cascade controllers, and the MVs should always be scaled. If cascade controllers are used, they need to be proportional-only controllers so that they can be incorporated into eq 1. One scaling method is to use the ranges of allowable movement. Another scaling method is to use physical valve ranges. The measurements can be scaled by either the physical ranges of their transmitters or the ranges of their desired movement. When the model is scaled, Q and R can be chosen as identity matrices. If it is desired to put more or less weight on measurements and/or manipulated variables, the diagonal elements of Q and R can be adjusted. As eq 4e shows, the OSOF controller K depends on the initial states, x0. In some cases, this dependence is not desirable because x0 might not be known. This problem can be sidestepped by minimizing the expected value of J, as discussed by Levine and Athans.11 In this case, eq 4e becomes

X ) E[x(0) x(0)T]

(5)

where X is the initial autocorrelation of the states. It is usual to assume that the initial states are uniformly distributed on the unit sphere, and as a result, X ) I, the identity matrix. It is possible to design control structures for specific set-point tracking and/or disturbance rejection purposes, where X * I.12 To simplify the presentation, designs based on eq 5 are considered in this paper. 4. Numerical and Other Considerations for the OSOF Problem Several issues need to be considered when a plantwide control design approach based on an OSOF controller is used. One question involves whether a system can be stabilized by static output feedback (SOF). The problem of the existence of a stabilizing SOF controller in multivariable cases is still open,13 as no testable necessary and sufficient conditions exist to test the stability of an arbitrary system using an SOF controller. Given eq 1, an engineer does not know whether a stabilizing SOF exists until it is found. In our approach, the even parity-interlacing property necessary condition14 is used to check whether a given system can be stabilized by static output feedback. If the system does not violate this necessary condition, it is assumed that an SOF controller that stabilizes the system exists. Numerical algorithms for designing OSOF controllers can be roughly divided into two broad categories. The first category includes all algorithms that iteratively calculate a solution that satisfies the first-order necessary conditions for optimality.15 Although global convergence is obtained under certain conditions, global optimality is not guaranteed, and most of these algorithms require an initial stabilizing SOF controller. The second category comprises methods using linear matrix inequalities (LMIs).16 These methods do not need an initial stabilizing controller and can conditionally reach global optimality, but global convergence is not guaranteed. In our approach, Moerder and Calises algorithm17 is implemented for its conditionally global convergence, simplicity, and efficiency. Four major computational issues with this algorithm are summarized in Table 1.

ACTP + PAC + CTKTRKC + CTQC ) 0 (a) (b) ACS + SACT + X ) 0 T T T (c) RKCSC - B PSC + g*K ) 0 AC ) A - BKC (d) T (e) X ) x(0) x(0)

(4)

where g*K is a matrix with elements gij*kij. In solving eq 4, R should be positive definite, and Q should be positive semidefinite to ensure that CQC is positive semidefinite. P will be positive definite (or positive semidefinite) as long as AC is stable and (CKRKC + CQC) is positive definite (or positive semidefinite). S is positive definite (or positive semidefinite) as long as AC is stable and X is positive definite (or positive semidefinite). It can be noted that including nonzero gij in the LQR design calculation dramatically reduces the computation speed when a SISO controller is calculated. An alternative approach to tuning SISO controllers is discussed later. Because there is no explicit analytical solution for the OSOF controller K, numerical optimization routines are used to solve the three coupled nonlinear matrix eqs 4a-c simultaneously and obtain the K matrix that minimizes J. As discussed later, K can be used to gain insight into the dynamic interactions that occur in a process. The OSOF solution depends on how x, y, and u are scaled. The following scaling guidelines are recommended. Whether the states are scaled or not depends on whether they can be compared to one another. If states have physical meanings, e.g. obtained from a first-principles model, they should be scaled by either their steady-state values or the ranges of their desired movement. If states do not have physical meanings, e.g., the state space model is converted from a transfer

4756 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 20, 2003
Table 1. Computational Issues with Moerder and Calises Algorithm
issues (1) numerical algorithm selection Moerder and Calises algorithm faster than the Levine-Athans-like methods18 simpler than the Newton-like methods19 (2) sufficient conditions a K exists such that A - BKC is asymptotically stable for global convergence C has full row rank R is positive definite CTQC is positive semidefinite ( QC,A) is detectable when A is not stable (3) convergence properties local optimum (4) calculating an random selection initial stabilizing K minimize the maximum of the eigenvalues of A - BKC Petkovski and Rakics method21

Table 2. Running Time Comparison of Numerical LQR Algorithms on the Tennessee Eastman Model algorithm Moerder and Calise default method alternative method 10-100 s 1000-2000 s Toivonen 1000-2000 s 8000-12 000 s

numerical algorithms, the detectability condition guarantees that the Lyapunov matrix, P, in eq 4a has a unique positive semidefinite solution. Fortunately, the detectability condition is not compulsory,20 which means that, even when ( QC,A) is not detectable, eq 4 can still be solved, and the algorithm can still converge. Two methods are implemented in our approach to handle situations in which the detectability condition is not satisfied. The first method is based on executing the algorithm without checking the detectability of ( QC,A). If a solution to eq 4a cannot be found or is not unique, the LQR calculation is aborted. The algorithm is coded in MATLAB, and a standard routine, lyap(), is used to solve for P. When a solution cannot be found or is not unique, this routine returns with a failure signal that will stop the algorithm, and then an alternative method is used to calculate the OSOF controller. The alternative method removes the detectability condition by altering the objective function. In this method, the objective function is changed as follows10

Issue 1: Algorithm Selection. There are three groups of numerical OSOF LQR design algorithms that iteratively solve for the necessary optimal conditions,15 descent Anderson-Moore-like methods (e.g., Moerder and Calises algorithm), Levine-Athans-like methods (e.g., Toivonens algorithm18), and Newton-like methods (e.g., Toivonen and Makilas algorithm19). Basically, descent Anderson-Moore-like methods run faster than Levine-Athans-like methods. For example, from our experience with the algorithms, represented in Table 2, it is obvious that Moerder and Calises algorithm runs much faster than Toivonens algorithm. Descent Anderson-Moore-like methods are also less complex to implement than Newton-like methods. Therefore, Moerder and Calises algorithm is the default algorithm used in calculating K in our approach. It should be pointed out that, as the size of a design problem gets larger, e.g., when hundreds of states are present, the running times of all of these algorithms grow rapidly. Therefore, model order reduction might be necessary before an OSOF calculation is executed. Issue 2: Convergence Properties. According to the conclusions given in refs 13 and 15, Moerder and Calises algorithm converges to a local optimum. If the set of stabilizing static output feedback gains is convex and the solution to eq 4 for K, P, and S is unique, then the global optimum is obtained. However, these two sufficient conditions are not testable, and therefore, it is necessary to compare different solutions to determine the global optimum. For all of the cases we have studied so far for the Tennessee Eastman process,4 Moerder and Calises algorithm always gives the same solution when starting from a number of different initial stabilizing gains. Issue 3: Sufficient Conditions for Global Convergence. All five sufficient conditions for global convergence should be satisfied to guarantee that the algorithm converges to a stationary point of the objective function. In practice, there are cases in which A is not stable and ( QC,A) is not detectable, and as a result, the fifth condition is not satisfied. For example, the Tennessee Eastman process4 is open-loop unstable, and as stated by Lewis,10 this detectability condition basically means that all unstable states should be weighted in the objective function. From the point of view of

1 min J ) E K 2

0(tyTQy + uTRu) dt + 2 gijkij2

i j

(6)

where a time-varying weighting t places a heavy penalty on errors that occur late in the response. As pointed out by Lewis,10 when eq 6 is used, the detectability condition is no longer necessary. The price one pays is that the number of design equations, given in eq 7, is increased and, as a result, the computation time increases.

For example, using the scaled state space model in the design of the Tennessee Eastman process,4 both the basic and alternative Moerder and Calises algorithms were tested. The alternative method ran much more slowly than the default method, because additional nonlinear matrix equations had to be . The results, which were calculated on a Pentium III 550-MHz personal computer, are shown in Table 2. Therefore, the alternative method is not recommended until the default method fails. The same conditions on R, Q, P, and S, discussed earlier after eq 4, apply to eq 7 as well. Issue 4: Calculating an Initial Stabilizing SOF Controller K. Three methods have been studied to calculate an initial guess for K that makes an unstable open-loop process model asymptotically stable. The first method is based on a random search. Random numbers, ranging between (R, are generated for the elements of K until A - BKC is asymptotically stable. R is a design parameter, and its value is given by users, with a default value of 1.0. This method is slow for large problems. The second method is based on optimization. A nonlinear optimization routine is used to find a K matrix that can minimize the maximum eigenvalue of

ACTP0 + P0AC + CTQC ) 0 ACTP1 + P1AC + P0 + CTKTRKC ) 0 ACS1 + S1ACT + X ) 0 ACS0 + S0ACT + S1 ) 0 RKCS1CT - BT(P0S0 + P1S1)CT + g*K ) 0 AC ) A - BKC X ) E[x(0) x(0)T] ) I

(a) (b) (c) (d) (7) (e) (f) (g)

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 20, 2003 4757

A - BKC in a fixed number of iterations. The optimization routine is repeated until A - BKC is asymptotically stable. This method is also slow for large problems. The third method is called Petkovski and Rakics method21 in which a minimum error excitation criterion is used to generate an initial guess that can stabilize the system. This method requires the solution of only one Riccati equation and one Lyapunov equation, and therefore, it is fast for large problems. However, a necessary condition for using this method is that ( QC,A) should be detectable when A in not stable. Therefore, Petkovski and Rakics method is recommended, except when ( QC,A) is not detectable and A is not stable. The OSOF calculation procedure is outlined in Appendix A, using a generic procedure language. The details of the algorithms and a listing of software used to implement them are available in ref 12. From the modeling side, a major concern related to the computation load is the order of the model, which is equal to the number of state variables. If one wishes to speed up calculations, it is recommended that the model order be reduced. The major characteristics of the process dynamics and interactions, as well as the inputs (MVs) and outputs (measurements), should be retained. In the plantwide control design approach, the relationships among the inputs and outputs are major concerns. States are used only for the purpose of controller design, and it does not matter whether they represent real process variables or not. As a result, some model error is introduced by model reduction techniques. This inaccuracy is the price one must pay for retaining an efficient design algorithm. If one uses a reduced-order model, then there is a possibility that the resulting plantwide control design could be different from the one that would result from using the full model. Currently, several model reduction methods with software are available. The model reduction method that we have implemented in our methodology is the balance and truncate approximation method without coprime factorization22 and the related MATLAB software program, sysred(), provided in the SLICOT package.23,24 A user can specify either a desired order or a tolerance for the model error. In the latter case, the model order is automatically determined by the number of Hankelsingular values greater than the tolerance. An important aspect of this software is that it can handle unstable systems because all unstable states, and integrators are retained in the reduced model. The Tennessee Eastman process4 is used to test the feasibility of the model reduction method. The original model contains 50 states, and the reduced-order model has 23 states. Two OSOF controllers with 5 measurements and 12 manipulated variables are generated for the two models. The control structures developed from the two different OSOF controllers are essentially the same. However, the computation time related to generating the OSOF controller for the reduced-order model is roughly 50 times less. The model reduction method is implemented as an option in our plantwide control design approach. In the application to the vinyl acetate process discussed below, model reduction was not used, because the computation speed is acceptable on a Pentium III 1-GHz personal computer.

5. Using the OSOF Solution for Plantwide Control Design a. Designing SISO Controllers. In part of a plantwide control design, it can be desirable to have a multiloop SISO control structure. In stage 1, discussed below, such a decentralized control architecture is used. The OSOF controller K contains information about process dynamics and interactions that can be used in designing a SISO architecture. After K is obtained, the next question is how to extract the information from K and use it for SISO control structure design. Because the process model has been scaled, K is dimensionless, and the magnitudes of the elements in K can be compared to one another. To extract information about process dynamics, the simplest metric is the absolute value of each element in the OSOF controller. Generally, an element with absolute value close to zero indicates a weak relation between the manipulated variable and the measurement. The following general rules can be used for control structure design: (1) If a row of the OSOF controller contains only small elements, e.g., absolute values less than 0.1, then the corresponding manipulated variable should not be included in the control structure design. (2) If a column of the OSOF controller contains only small elements (e.g., absolute values less than 0.1), then the corresponding measurement should not be included in the control structure design. (3) For decentralized control structures, if an element of the OSOF controller is small (e.g., absolute values less than 0.1), then the corresponding pairing should not be used. In an earlier paper,25 two approaches to defining a dynamic relative gain array based on the OSOF controller K were proposed. In essence, these approaches try to extract the information about process interactions that is contained in K. One of the two approaches is a sensitivity approach, which is used in our plantwide design methodology. The second approach is based on K itself, and two simple plus one industrial example of the use of the second approach are given in the earlier paper.25 The motivation for using the sensitivity matrix comes from the relative gain array,26 which is frequently used to detect process interactions using a static process gain model. In our design philosophy, an OSOF controller is analogous to a process gain matrix, and a sensitivity matrix is analogous to an RGA. Mathematically, the sensitivity matrix S is given by

S ) matrix[ij] ) matrix

[ ]
(Kij)R)R0 (Kij)R)Ri

(8)

To calculate the sensitivity matrix, one proceeds as follows. First, a base-case OSOF design problem is solved with the R matrix equal to R0 (e.g., an identity matrix). Then, the same problem is re-solved with each of the manipulated variables emphasized. First, all diagonal entries in the R matrix are multiplied by 100 except for the entry for the manipulated variable being emphasized (e.g., for the ith manipulated variable ui, R equals Ri in which Rkk ) 100R0kk, kk * i, and Rkk ) R0kk, kk ) i). Then, the OSOF design problem with Ri is solved. The sensitivity matrix is calculated as the ratio of the gains for ui from the base case divided into the gains when ui is emphasized. The terms in eq 8 give the gain of ui to yj during a transient in which the process is controlled using an optimal output propor-

4758 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 20, 2003

tional controller. The numerator gives the gain of the manipulated variable, ui, to a change in measurement yj for the case in which the full base-case optimal controller is bringing the system back to the origin. The denominator gives the same gain for the case in which control is achieved primarily using only ui because the other manipulated variables are heavily penalized. The ij ratio given by eq 8 is scale-independent, and its determination requires the solution of a number of OSOF design problems, one problem for the base case and one for each manipulated variable. The following interpretation of ij is proposed. If ij is close to 1.0, then the optimal gain between ui and yj remains the same regardless of whether the remaining manipulated variables are changing aggressively or moving very little because of the penalty on them. If ij 1.0, then one can interpret this result to mean that the manipulated variable under consideration does not interact with the other manipulated variables insofar as yj is concerned. Thus, pairing yj with ui would qualify for a multiloop control structure. If a manipulated variable has a negative value of ij, then its behavior switches sign depending on how aggressively the other manipulated variables are moving. Such a pairing should be avoided as interactions are likely to be high. Large or small values of ij also indicate large changes in the behavior of a manipulated variable, which, in turn, indicate that interactions are high. To use eq 8 for pairing a multiloop control system, one would choose pairings in which the corresponding element in the sensitivity matrix is close to 1 (i.e., between 0.2 and 5). For such pairings, the coupling between ui and yj should not change much regardless of whether other manipulated variables are moving. As a result, if a row of the sensitivity matrix does not contain any element in the recommended range, then the corresponding manipulated variables should not be included in the control structure design. If a column of the sensitivity matrix does not contain any element in the recommended range, then the corresponding measurement should not be included in the control structure design. This pairing rule is a heuristic because, at present, a theoretically based pairing rule has not been developed. A difference between the sensitivity matrix and the RGA is that the elements of the sensitivity matrix do not sum to 1.0 even for a square system. Using the OSOF controller and the sensitivity matrix, loop-pairing structures can be determined for decentralized control. Compared with the traditional RGA method, this approach has two major advantages: (1) process dynamics are included in the design as well as analysis of process interactions and (2) as discussed by Chen,12 process disturbances and setpoint changes can be handled directly. b. Plantwide Control Design Methodology. In this section, the optimal control-based plantwide control design methodology is described in detail. As discussed above, a hierarchical design procedure that contains four design stages is used. In this methodology, an OSOF controller is designed on the basis of a set of preselected measurements and a set of the manipulated variables that are available in a particular stage. Then, control structure candidates are determined using both mathematical analysis and engineering judgment. For each control structure candidate, a corresponding centralized controller or decentralized controller is automatically tuned, and process transients are generated on the basis of the linearized model so that a user can

Figure 1. Outline of the hierarchical design procedure.

compare the control performances of different plantwide architectures. In the remainder of this section, the hierarchical design procedure is presented, and then the details of the calculation are discussed. The flowsheet of the hierarchical design procedure is shown in Figure 1. The procedure vertically decomposes a plantwide control design problem into three subproblems, according to the priorities of the control objectives. The three subproblems are (1) controlling variables related principally to safety issues, (2) controlling variables related to production rate and product quality, and (3) controlling component balances and unit operations. The output of the current design stage including controllers is the input to the next stage. (1) Input. The input of the hierarchical design procedure includes the following information: (1) a state space linear time-invariant process model as described by eq 1; (2) process flowsheet and steady-state process data for state variables, manipulated variables, and measurements; (3) operating ranges of the measurements and manipulated variables, which are typically used in scaling the model; (4) control objectives, which are used to define controlled variables, involving the specifications of production rate, product quality, operating mode changes, etc.; (5) process constraints, which are also used to define controlled variables, involving both hard and soft constraints in the process operation (Hard constraints, e.g. safety related issues, cannot be violated at any time. Soft constraints can be violated over a short period of time. However, if the violation is not corrected, operating performance suffers. For example, a valve might have a constraint on how frequently it can move.) and (6) process insight and engineering judgment. (2) Stage 1. Stage 1 considers all variables associated with safe operation, e.g., liquid levels, variables with constraints, and variables that have a very slow response so that they respond in a manner that is similar to pure integrating variables. The major tasks of stage 1 design involve scaling the process model and identifying measurements for safety and other slow-responding variables that have to be controlled in the stage 2 design. Scaling is required, as the elements in the OSOF controller should be dimensionless and have values in a relatively small range to be compared with one another. The other task in stage 1 is to select a set of manipulated variables and a set of measurements to be used in the stage 2 design. In our methodology, only manipulated variables without frequency constraints on their movement are used in the stage 2 design, as the safety-related controlled variables can require a fast response. Determining which measurements to use is

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 20, 2003 4759

comparatively more difficult, and in our approach, it consists of three operations. First, a set of controlled variables is identified on the basis of control objectives and process constraints. For example, if the pressure in a gas loop has a high limit, this pressure is a controlled variable. Second, measurements are assigned to these controlled variables. In some cases, a controlled variable can be measured at different locations, e.g., the gas-loop pressure can be measured at any unit in the gas loop. Therefore, it is necessary to select the best location to measure the process variable using engineering judgment or some numerical tools. In other cases, there are high correlations among some of the measurements, and these correlations indicate that it is better not control these variables at the same time. Third, a numerical method based on an eigenvalue analysis of the state space model is proposed to identify unstable and slow-responding measurements. The reason for using the eigenvalue analysis is that the OSOF controller must stabilize the plant, and consequently, this requires that the positive, zero, and small eigenvalues in the state space model should be detected in the measurements. If the process is open-loop unstable, it is necessary to determine which measurements are best to detect the instability. The following steps are used in the eigenvalue analysis: (1) Calculate eigenvalues of the A matrix in the scaled model. Pick out the eigenvalues with positive, zero, and very small negative real parts. Positive eigenvalues indicate open-loop instability, and zero eigenvalues indicate integrators. Eigenvalues with very small negative real parts indicate a very sluggish open-loop response. (2) If the process has eigenvalues with positive real parts, each unit operation is checked. Zero eigenvalues are considered below. If a unit has eigenvalues with positive real parts, the instability is eliminated locally before a plantwide control structure is designed. The following approach can be used to suggest measurements that can be used to stabilize the system. Assume that A* corresponds to a dynamic model in which only the states in the unit change and the other states in the process are zero, i.e., they are at their steady-state values. A* is then diagonalized as A* ) VSV-1, where S is a diagonal matrix of the eigenvalues. Then eq 1 becomes equivalent to

) S + (V-1B)u y ) (CV)

(9)

where ) V -1x. Assume that the element Sjj has a positive real part; then j ) V -1(j,:)x is the linear combination of the original states that is unstable. The following steps are used to stabilize the unit: (a) The original state, say xi, which corresponds to the largest element in the jth row of V-1, contributes the most to the unstable mode. (b) The original measurement, say yk, which corresponds to the largest element in the jth column of CV, is most appropriate to detect the instability. (c) The original manipulated variable, say up, which corresponds to the largest element in the jth row of V-1B, is most appropriate to control the instability. By following these steps, in most cases, the instability caused by positive eigenvalues can be eliminated by a proportional-only controller between yk and up. It can be noted that this same approach can be used to suggest

measurements and manipulated variables that can be used to control slow-responding modes. (3) After the positive eigenvalues have been eliminated in each unit operation, determine whether any remaining eigenvalues with positive real parts exist. The remaining process instability would be caused by the interconnection of the unit operations in the process. The eigenvalue analysis method can again be applied to determine the best measurement using the updated process model, which would include controllers that stabilized the individual units. (4) Identify the integrators. The simplest way to identify them is to check the first-order process gain matrix, G1, using the Arkun and Downs approach.27 (5) Identify slow responding modes using the eigenvalue analysis. (3) Stage 2. The goal of the stage 2 design is to generate decentralized control structure candidates for the variables that are identified in stage 1. Typically a SISO loop is used to control a critical variable in a process. As a result, in the stage 2 design, a multiloop SISO control architecture is used to increase the reliability of the plantwide control system. The outputs of the approach include a set of feasible control structure candidates that are implemented in the state space model using proportional-only controllers. These controllers are incorporated into the model for use in later stages. Transients can be easily calculated to evaluate control structures. The calculations carried out in stages 2-4 are essentially the same. These calculations are discussed below after a discussion of the design stages. (4) Stage 3. The goal of the stage 3 design is to generate control structure candidates, which can be either centralized or decentralized, for the product rate and quality variables that are identified from the control objectives. If n control structure candidates are generated in the stage 1 design, the stage 3 design will be executed n times, with one of these control structures being implemented. In stage 3, the set points of loops closed in stage 2 can be used as manipulated variables. One important question in stage 3 design is how to determine whether a centralized or a decentralized control system should be implemented from the point of view of the process dynamics and interactions. This problem is simply attacked by using process simulation based on the linearized model. The following heuristics are proposed: (1) The transients produced by implementing a proportional-only diagonal control (when the OSOF controller contains only diagonal terms) indicate the performance of a totally decentralized control structure. (2) The transients produced by implementing a multivariable controller (when the OSOF controller is a full matrix) indicate the performance of a multivariable control structure. These two transients can be compared to estimate the benefit of using a multivariable control architecture. (5) Stage 4. The goal of the stage 4 design is to generate control structure candidates, which can be either centralized or decentralized, for maintaining component balances and controlling unit operations. Basically, users can employ either heuristics or the optimal control-based design method to solve the design problem. One question that is particularly important for the stage 4 design is how to determine the variables to be used to control component inventories. Control objectives and process constraints can provide hints for

4760 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 20, 2003

unit operation control, but normally, they provide no help in identifying uncontrolled chemical components. Generally, the inventory of a component in a chemical process has to be controlled unless the inventory is selfregulating or made self-regulating by closing other loops. A Downs drill table28 is used for checking component balances after a control structure has been designed. In the stage 4 design, a Downs drill table is made for each control structure candidate given by the stage 3 design to identify any uncontrolled chemical species. The measurements for these uncontrolled chemical components should also be determined. After the number of control loops for the remaining uncontrolled chemical inventories is identified, the same number of manipulated variables is consumed. Therefore, after the component balance loops are closed, the remaining degrees of freedom can be used for unit operation control or process optimization. (6) Output. At the end of the stage 4 design, a set of plantwide control structures is generated. They can be multiloop SISO control (with loop pairings) or multivariable control. Transients based on the linearized model and the OSOF controllers are available for evaluating control performance. Nonlinear simulation is strongly recommended for testing control structure candidates when a nonlinear process model is available. c. Details of OSOF Calculations for Stages 2-4. The various steps in each design stage are as follows. (1) Calculate an OSOF Controller. In this step, an OSOF controller is designed for the given manipulated variables and measurements. The OSOF controller can be a nonsquare system, and its formulation is given by eqs 1-3 and 5. Users are required to determine the design parameters, which are the weighting matrices to use in the objective function. The default values of the Q and R matrices are identity matrices, and the default value of gij is zero. Users also need to specify which numerical LQR design algorithm to use (the default method is Moerder and Calises method) and how to generate the initial guess of the OSOF controller (the default method is the random search method). (2) Calculate the Sensitivity Matrix. The calculation is performed exactly as described in section 5a above. If an OSOF controller generated in step 1 contains m manipulated variables, then an additional m OSOF calculations are required to generate the sensitivity matrix. In each of these calculations, only one of the manipulated variables is not heavily penalized. (3) Generate Decentralized Control Structures. In this step, decentralized control structures are generated using the OSOF controller, the sensitivity matrix, and engineering judgment. The following heuristics are applied in our approach: (1) Only pairings on elements with absolute values greater than 0.2 in the OSOF controller are considered. (2) Only pairings on the elements with values between 0.2 and 5 in the sensitivity matrix are considered. (3) The pairings accepted by heuristics 1 and 2 are screened by engineering judgment, and those that do not pass the screening are not considered in further stages. For example, one would not control a measurement with a manipulated variable that is located physically far from the measurement. (4) For Each Structure, Generate a Full OSOF Controller. When a user wants to evaluate the control performance of a multivariable controller, a full OSOF controller is designed for the given model. The controller

can be viewed as a simplest multivariable controller, and its performance can be compared with the performance of diagonal OSOF controllers designed in step 5 below. (5) For Each Structure, Generate a Diagonal OSOF Controller. When a multiloop SISO structure is preferred, a diagonal OSOF controller is designed for the given model. To avoid using the gijs in the calculation, an alternative method is developed to automatically tune the proportional-only controllers. The general idea is to generate a diagonal initial OSOF controller and keep it diagonal when updating it by solving the coupled design equations. We have developed an algorithm based on this idea that gives the same result as using the gijs but runs much faster. The detailed algorithm is given in Appendix B. (6) Simulate Using the State Space Model. After OSOF controllers are generated, they can be easily tested by simulating the linearized model. Standard MATLAB routines (i.e., initial and lsim) can efficiently simulate the closed-loop system, and transients for specific disturbance rejection and/or set-point tracking can be easily generated and compared. Judging from the transients, users can determine which control structures can be sent to the next design stage. (7) Update the State Space Model and the Remaining Degrees of Freedom. For each feasible control candidate, the closed-loop state space model is the process model for the next design stage. The set points of any loops closed in an earlier stage can be manipulated in a later stage. The hierarchical design procedure and the optimal control-based control structure design approach are the key techniques of our plantwide control design methodology. The next section discusses the application of the methodology to the vinyl acetate process. 6. Application of Plantwide Control Design Methodology to the Vinyl Acetate Process a. Overview. The vinyl acetate (VA) monomer process was first presented by Luyben and Tyreus as a test problem for process control technologies.29 A flow diagram of the process is shown in Figure 2. In the VA process, there are 10 basic unit operations, which include a vaporizer, a catalytic plug-flow reactor, a feed-effluent heat exchanger (FEHE), a separator, a gas compressor, an absorber, a carbon dioxide (CO2) removal system, a gas removal system, a tank for the liquid recycle stream, and an azeotropic distillation column with a decanter. The manipulated variables and measurements for the VA process are listed in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. There are seven chemical components in the VA process: Ethylene (C2H4), pure oxygen (O2), and acetic acid (HAc) are converted into the vinyl acetate (VAc) product, and water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are byproducts. An inert, ethane (C2H6), enters with the fresh C2H4 feed stream. The following reactions take place

C2H4 + CH3COOH + 1/2O2 f CH2dCHOCOCH3 + H2O (10) C2H4 + 3O2 f 2CO2 + 2H2O (11)

Readers are referred to section 2 in ref 29 for a detailed process description, including the reaction rate

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 20, 2003 4761

Figure 2. VAC process flow sheet. Table 3. Steady-State Values of Manipulated Variables
MV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 description fresh O2 feed fresh C2H4 feed fresh HAc feed vaporizer steam duty vaporizer vapor exit vaporizer heater duty reactor shell temp separator liquid exit separator preheater temp separator vapor exit compressor heater duty absorber liquid exit absorber circulation flow circulation cooler duty absorber scrub flow scrub cooler duty CO2 removal inlet purge FEHE bypass ratio column reflux column reboiler duty column condenser duty column organic exit column aqueous exit column bottom exit vaporizer liquid inlet steady state 0.523 43 0.835 22 0.790 03 21 877 18.728 9008.54 135.02 2.7544 36.001 16.1026 27 192 1.2137 15.1198 10 730 0.756 2018.43 6.5531 0.003 157 0.313 03 4.9849 67 179 60 367 0.8290 0.8361 2.1584 2.1924 range 0-2.268 0-7.56 0-4.536 0-1 433 400 0-50 0-15 000 110-150 0-4.536 0-80 0-30 0-50 000 0-4.536 0-50 0-30 000 0-7.560 0-5000 0-22.68 0-0.022 68 0-1 0-7.56 0-100 000 0-150 000 0-2.4 0-2.4 0-4.536 0-4.536 units kmol/min kmol/min kmol/min kcal/min kmol/min kcal/min C kmol/min C kmol/min kcal/min kmol/min kmol/min kcal/min kmol/min kcal/min kmol/min kmol/min kmol/min kcal/min kcal/min kmol/min kmol/min kmol/min kmol/min

expressions and the major aspects of each unit operation. The base operation considered here, in which the peak temperature in the reactor is below 162 C, is the same as that discussed in Chapter 11 of ref 28. A nonlinear dynamic model for the VA process was developed by Luyben and Tyreus in TMODS, which is a DuPont in-house process simulation software system.29 A heuristic-based plantwide control design methodology30 was applied to the VA process, and a decentralized plantwide control system was given in ref 28. The control system gives good control performance in dynamic simulation using the nonlinear process model.

Because TMODS is not accessible for public use, a firstprinciples dynamic model has been developed and made available and the code for the model can be downloaded from the Internet.31 In total, the model includes 246 states, 26 manipulated variables, and 43 measurements. This new VA model was originally written in MATLAB and then translated into the C language to speed up execution. The compiled version of the nonlinear VA model runs at approximately 80 times real time in both Windows and UNIX environments. At present, only one published decentralized plantwide control system for the VA process is available.28 Using the optimal control-based plantwide control design methodology, other feasible control structures can be developed. The sections below discuss the application of the methodology to the VA process. b. Development of a Linearized Model. A MIMO LTI state space model of the VA process is required, and the state space model is obtained by numerically calculating the first-order Taylor expansion coefficients of the nonlinear first-principles model. It is important that the linearized model {A, B, C, D} be obtained at an operating point that starts exactly at the steady state. Otherwise, some errors will be introduced into the state space model. A MATLAB nonlinear equation solver, fsolve(), is used to force all state derivatives to zero by manipulating the steady-state values of the states. For the VA process, the largest state derivative has a magnitude of 3 10-8 at steady state, which is considered sufficiently accurate. After the state space model is determined, the process gain matrix, including the derivative of any integrating variables, is calculated using Arkun and Downs method.27 c. Control Structure Design for the VA Process. The operating mode studied is the same as that presented in ref 29. According to the discussion in the

4762 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 20, 2003
Table 4. Measurements at Steady State
measurement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 description vaporizer pressure vaporizer level vaporizer temp heater exit temp reactor exit temp reactor exit flow rate FEHE cold exit temp FEHE hot exit temp separator level separator temp compressor exit temp absorber pressure absorber level circulation cooler exit temp scrub cooler exit temp gas recycle flow rate organic product flow rate decanter level (organic) decanter level (aqueous) decanter temp column bottom level tray 5 temp HAc tank level organic product composition (VAc, H2O, HAc) column bottom composition (VAc, H2O, HAc) gas recycle composition (O2, CO2, C2H4, C2H6, VAc, H2O, HAc) value 128 0.7 119.145 150 159.17 18.857 97.1 134 0.5 40 80 128 0.5 25 25 16.5359 0.829 0.5 0.5 45.845 0.5 110 0.5 0.949 786 0.049 862 0.000 352 0.000 010 0.093 440 0.906 550 0.055 664 0.007 304 0.681 208 0.249 191 0.001 597 0.000 894 0.004 142 0.075 000 0.006 273 0.585 110 0.214 038 0.001 373 0.008 558 0.109 648 units psia C C C kmol/min C C C C psia C C kmol/min kmol/min C C mol % mol % mol % mol % mol % mol % mol % mol % mol % mol % mol % mol % mol % mol % mol % mol % mol % mol % mol % mol %

reactor feed composition (O2, CO2, C2H4, C2H6, VAc, H2O, HAc)

Chapter 11 of ref 28, the ethylene (C2H4) and oxygen (O2) feed streams come from gas headers, and the acetic acid (HAc) feed stream is drawn from a supply tank. No frequency constraints are specified for flow-rate changes in the feed streams. The optimal control design methodology generates decentralized control structures for the controlled variables in the stage 2 design. Either decentralized controllers or multivariable controllers can be implemented in the stage 3 and 4 designs. Here, decentralized control structures are generated in the stage 3 and 4 designs so that a comparison with the architecture in Chapter 11 in ref 28 can be made. No assessment of the benefits of multivariable control is made here. Stage 1: Preparation. The major task in stage 1 is to properly scale the process model and identify the measurements for the safety and slow-responding variables. The measurements are determined according to the process gain matrix, an eigenvalue analysis, and engineering judgment: (1) Scale the state space model. The scale factors are as follows: States are scaled by their steady-state values, and manipulated variables are scaled by the ranges of allowable movement. For the measurements, pressures, temperatures, and levels are scaled by the ranges of allowable movement, which are 10 psia, the minimum value of 40 C or the steady-state tempera-

ture, and 50%, respectively. Molar compositions and mass flow rates are scaled by their steady-state values. (2) In each unit operation, identify and eliminate process instabilities associated with positive eigenvalues. Each unit in the process, as well as the overall process, should not have positive eigenvalues in its model. The VA process model does not have any positive eigenvalues. (3) Identify integrating variables. The simplest way to identify integrating variables is to check the firstorder process gain matrix, G1,27 calculated from the scaled model. This approach is based on singular value decomposition, and it involves determining the number of zero singular values. There are seven singular values that have values less than 1.0 10-8, indicating that there are seven integrators (0 eigenvalues) in the VA model. A column vector is generated by calculating the maximum absolute value of the elements in each row of G1, and the measurements with large elements in this vector are the integrators. In the VA model, the seven largest nonzero elements in this vector are 11.72, 5.60, 4.93, 2.47, 0.681, 0.555, and 0.312. It can be noted that the next largest element in the vector is 0.0416, which is about 8 times smaller than the seventh element. The measurements corresponding to the seven largest elements are the decanter organic phase, reboiler, absorber, vaporizer, separator, decanter aqueous phase, and HAc tank levels, respectively. These measurements are expected to indicate integrators because they are measurements of liquid levels. (4) Calculate eigenvalues of the scaled model. The 246 eigenvalues are sorted by their real parts, and those with positive, zero, or small negative real parts are analyzed in the stage 1 design. The nine eigenvalues with the smallest negative real parts are -5.4304 10-5, -2.3987 10-5, -6.7229 10-8, -5.517 10-10, -4.5862 10-11, -8.6798 10-17, -9.8002 10-20, 3.772 10-12,9 and 2.1411 10-10. Zero eigenvalues, which indicate integrators, are considered as those for which the absolute values of the real parts of their eigenvalues are less than 1 10-7. In the VA model, seven integrators are identified, in agreement with the analysis in step 2 above. Positive eigenvalues indicate open-loop instability, and in the VA model, there are no positive eigenvalues with real parts greater than 1 10-7. There are two very small negative eigenvalues (-5.4304 10-5 and -2.3987 10-5), and they indicate very slow process dynamics. The next smallest eigenvalues are about 16 times greater than the larger of these two eigenvalues. Because the two small eigenvalues act as approximate integrators, it is necessary to control these two slow modes. It should be noted that a decision as to which modes need to be controlled has to be made. If satisfactory dynamic performance is not achieved, then one can go back and control additional modes. Using the eigenvalue approach discussed above, the measurements that have large elements in the CV matrix, indicating that they contribute to these eigenmodes are the seven levels, the tray 5 temperature, and the bottom composition of VAc. Because the temperature measurement is more reliable than the analyzer measurement, it is selected to control the modes associated with the -5.4304 10-5 and -2.3987 10-5 eigenvalues. Controlling this temperature results in both of these slow modes being controlled. (5) Identify other safety variables (hard process

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 20, 2003 4763
Table 5. Controlled Variables for Stage 2 no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 measurement vaporizer level separator level absorber level organic phase level aqueous phase level column base level HAc tank level no. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 measurement tray 5 temp % O2 in reactor inlet stream vaporizer pressure absorber pressure heater exit temperature reactor exit temperature FEHE exit temperature Table 6. Options in the OSOF Controller Calculation option model algorithm algorithm for initial guess of K Q R gij X termination condition controller tuning value scaled Moerder and Calises method (basic) random guess identity matrix identity matrix 0 identity matrix trace(KT*K) < 10-4 diagonal proportional-only

constraints). Luyben and Tyreus gave five safety constraints in ref 29: (a) The oxygen composition must not exceed 8 mol % anywhere in the gas loop. Therefore, the O2 composition in the gas loop is a controlled variable. Because a continuous and reliable analyzer is installed at the inlet of the reactor, this analyzer is used for the O2 measurement. (b) The pressure in the gas loop must not exceed 140 psia. Therefore, the pressure in the gas loop is a controlled variable, and it is measured in two locations, the absorber pressure and the vaporizer pressure. Both measurements are controlled. (c) The peak reactor temperature must not exceed 200 C. Therefore, the peak reactor temperature is a controlled variable. Because no temperature sensor is installed inside the reactor, the reactor outlet temperature, which is close to the peak temperature, is used as the measurement. (d) The reactor inlet temperature must exceed 130 C. Because no temperature sensor is installed at the inlet of the reactor, the outlet temperature of the heater installed on the vaporizer outlet stream is used as the measurement for control. (e) The hot-side exit temperature from the FEHE, which is measured, must be greater than 130 C, and this temperature is controlled. (6) Summarize the identified controlled variables to be used in the stage 2 design. In the base operation, there is one choice for the controlled variables, and it is listed in Table 5. Stage 2: Decentralized Control Structure for Safety Variables. For the controlled variables determined in the stage 1 design, decentralized control structures are generated using all 26 manipulated variables. First, an OSOF controller is calculated by solving eqs 1-3 and 5, and then the sensitivity matrix is generated. Control structure candidates are determined by analyzing the OSOF controller, using the sensitivity matrix, and applying engineering judgment. Finally, proportional-only controllers are automatically tuned for each control structure candidate, and the closed-loop systems with good performance in tracking step set-point changes are retained for the stage 3 design. The options used in the OSOF controller are listed in Table 6. In the sensitivity matrix calculation, the weights used in the R matrix are either 1 or 100. The OSOF controller is a large matrix, 26 14, and a portion of it is given in Table 7 with elements whose absolute value is greater than 0.2 shown in boldface. There are several weak manipulated variables present in the overall K matrix, the absorber gas inlet cooler duty (MV11), the absorber circulation flow rate (MV 13), the absorber circulation cooler duty (MV 14), and the absorber scrub cooler duty (MV16). The sensitivity matrix corresponding to the part of K given in Table 7 is shown in Table 8 with acceptable values between 0.2

Table 7. Part of OSOF Controller in Stage 2 level vaporizer MV1 MV2 MV3 MV4 MV5 MV6 MV7 MV8 MV9 MV10 MV11 MV12 MV13 MV14 MV15 MV16 MV17 MV18 MV19 MV20 MV21 MV22 MV23 MV24 MV25 MV26 -0.047 0.449 0.268 -0.284 -0.087 0.175 -0.483 0.075 -0.084 -0.028 -0.130 0.170 -0.006 -0.085 -0.073 -0.033 -0.049 -0.417 0.049 0.133 -0.063 0.165 -0.012 0.219 0.041 0.651 separator -0.108 -0.310 0.277 0.317 -0.194 -0.102 0.853 -0.935 -0.172 -0.219 0.057 -0.016 0.003 0.035 -0.001 -0.004 0.083 0.725 -0.042 -0.173 -0.256 -0.501 -0.318 -0.450 -0.098 0.258 absorber -0.044 -0.061 0.507 0.013 -0.078 0.009 0.098 0.100 0.136 -0.079 0.064 -0.461 -0.147 0.042 0.617 0.026 0.013 0.087 -0.015 -0.039 -0.192 -0.122 -0.233 -0.050 0.023 -0.227 organic phase 0.545 0.529 -0.412 -0.209 0.523 -0.040 -1.565 0.495 -0.279 0.493 0.019 0.154 -0.002 -0.005 -0.116 -0.025 -0.112 -1.921 0.045 -0.269 0.923 0.574 -0.696 0.513 0.238 0.104 aqueous phase 0.083 0.092 -0.023 -0.042 0.096 -0.008 -0.257 0.146 -0.050 0.098 0.004 -0.015 -0.003 0.003 -0.011 -0.002 -0.018 -0.344 -0.003 0.114 0.266 0.275 0.138 -0.896 -0.026 0.029

and 5 shown in boldface. If the elements in the same positions of Tables 7 and 8 are both in boldface, the corresponding loop pairing is accepted from the dynamic control point of view. These loop pairings are listed in Table 9, from which hundreds of different pairing structures can be generated. In this case, the following engineering judgment is used to reduce the number. First, parings in which the measured and manipulated variables are physically far from one another are ruled out. Second, a pairing in which the measured and manipulated variables involve different phases, i.e., liquid and gas phases, are ruled out. Finally, judging from the purpose of the absorber scrub stream, it is not recommended that the absorber scrub stream be used to control a liquid level unless there is no other choice available. Nine feasible 14-by-14 multiloop structures result from applying the OSOF controller rules, sensitivity rules, and engineering judgment, and they are listed in Table 10. In each column of Table 10, the indexes of the manipulated variables are listed to show the pairing structures. From the differences among the nine control structure candidates, it can be observed that (1) either the vaporizer heat duty or the vaporizer liquid inlet stream can be used control the vaporizer level; (2) either the fresh HAc stream or the vaporizer liquid inlet stream can be used control the HAc tank level; and (3) either the C2H4 feed stream, the separator cooling jacket

4764 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 20, 2003
Table 8. Sensitivity Matrix in Stage 2 level vaporizer MV1 MV2 MV3 MV4 MV5 MV6 MV7 MV8 MV9 MV10 MV11 MV12 MV13 MV14 MV15 MV16 MV17 MV18 MV19 MV20 MV21 MV22 MV23 MV24 MV25 MV26 -9.803 -0.352 2.289 0.355 0.112 2.340 -0.260 -0.313 -0.548 -0.053 0.448 3.400 -0.134 0.219 -1.244 0.113 0.187 0.285 0.214 -2.203 0.427 -1.284 -0.064 8.408 0.325 1.04 separator -7.337 -0.220 -6.303 2.104 -0.284 -0.953 -0.816 2.604 0.509 0.785 -0.477 -0.172 -0.052 -0.394 0.010 0.019 0.107 0.259 0.179 0.293 -6.575 312.24 41.551 8.588 0.915 5.615 absorber -10.604 0.067 3.997 -0.016 -0.448 -0.129 0.201 -2.166 0.327 0.240 0.280 1.342 0.669 0.144 2.341 0.075 -0.173 -0.265 0.261 -0.571 5.339 -1.038 -1.538 -0.710 0.390 20.01 organic phase -5.348 0.535 -3.770 -0.175 -0.293 -0.049 -1.246 8.209 0.313 0.284 -0.253 1.049 -0.052 0.065 -257.47 0.214 -0.121 -1.048 0.230 0.169 3.222 0.670 0.653 -4.590 -4.252 0.374 aqueous phase -3.872 0.059 -0.366 -0.047 -0.153 -0.040 -0.501 5.912 0.264 0.179 -0.045 1.484 -1.198 -0.027 -0.275 0.021 -0.105 1.900 -0.016 -2.332 2.432 -2.920 3.049 0.841 -0.920 0.559 1 vaporizer level separator level absorber level organic phase level aqueous phase level column base level HAc tank level tray 5 temperature % O2 vaporizer pressure absorber pressure reactor input temperature reactor exit temperature FEHE exit temperature
a

Table 10. Possible Control Structures in Stage 2a candidate 2 4 8 12 23 24 25 3 21 1 5 9 6 7 19 3 4 8 12 23 24 25 3 21 1 5 10 6 7 19 4 4 8 12 23 24 25 26 21 1 5 2 6 7 19 5 4 8 12 23 24 25 26 21 1 5 9 6 7 19 6 4 8 12 23 24 25 26 21 1 5 10 6 7 19 7 26 8 12 23 24 25 3 21 1 5 2 6 7 19 8 26 8 12 23 24 25 3 21 1 5 9 6 7 19 9 26 8 12 23 24 25 3 21 1 5 10 6 7 19 4 8 12 23 24 25 3 21 1 5 2 6 7 19

Elements in bold are the same for all architectures.

Table 9. Accepted Pairings in Stage 2 (Based on Measurements in Table 5) 1 MV1 MV2 MV3 MV4 MV5 MV6 MV7 MV8 MV9 MV10 MV11 MV12 MV13 MV14 MV15 MV16 MV17 MV18 MV19 MV20 MV21 MV22 MV23 MV24 MV25 MV26 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 10 11 x x 12 13 x 14

temperature, or the separator gas outlet stream can be used control the absorber pressure. Fourteen proportional-only controllers, in which averaging level control32 is used for the seven integrating levels, are used. Averaging level control is used because there is no requirement for tight level control and the liquid capacities can help to filter out flow disturbances. The gains for the averaging level controls are set to (0.2 depending on the sign of the process gain. Using these values results in the exit flows changing by (10% for a (50% change in level. If the level approached a constraint, i.e., either 0 or 100%, then an override would be required. This override was not used in the simula-

tions. The remaining seven controllers are automatically tuned for each candidate. Fourteen step set-point changes, which correspond to the 14 loops, are applied to test the control structures. Transients of the 14 controlled variables are calculated for each set-point change for 6000 min. After the proportional-only controllers are tuned for each control structure, the structures with good transient performance are selected. The offset that results for each structure can also be used as a selection guide.12 Plantwide control systems that generate larger offsets in key variables are judged to be inferior to those that generate smaller offsets. Table 11 gives the tuning results for the candidate control structures. As an example of the transients produced, the responses of the 14 measurements for candidate 1 for a 1 C step set-point change in the reactor outlet stream temperature are shown in Figure 3. On the basis of the control system transients, the control structures candidates 4-6 are eliminated. Figure 4 shows the response of the control structure 4 to a 1 C step set-point change in the reactor outlet stream temperature. As can be seen, the response is more oscillatory than that in Figure 3, and it takes considerably longer to come to steady state. In structures 4-6, all liquid levels are controlled by downstream flow rates, and as a result, these structures violate Luybens snowball rule,28 which requires that a flow be controlled in a recycle path. Here, an examination of their transient performance leads to the elimination of these architectures. The remaining six architectures use the fresh HAC feed to control the level in the HAC tank. Control structures 2 and 8 are also eliminated because of their poor transient performance. Both of these structures use the separator preheater temperature to control the absorber pressure. Therefore, only four control structures (1, 3, 7, and 9) are culled out for stage 3 design. It should be pointed out that control structure 1 in Table 10 is essentially the same as Luyben and Tyreuss structure.29 They used the HAC feed to control the reboiler level, whereas we use the bottoms here for reboiler level control. Also, as pointed out by Chen et al.,31 the code used by Luyben and Tyreus had a feed tank into which the HAC feed flowed, but the tank was not shown in their process flow diagram. Stage 3: Control Structure for Production/ Quality Variables. After the stage 2 design is completed, production rate maintenance and product quality specification become the focus of the stage 3 design. According to the discussion in Chapter 11 in ref 28, there is no specific requirement for production rate and

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 20, 2003 4765

Figure 3. Transients for 1 C reactor outlet temperature set-point change for candidate 1. Table 11. Tuning Parameters in Stage 2 candidate 1 vaporizer level separator level absorber level organic phase level aqueous phase level column base level HAc tank level tray 5 temperature % O2 vaporizer pressure absorber pressure reactor input temperature reactor exit temperature FEHE exit temperature -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 0.2 5.2023 0.9303 -1.821 4.6683 0.7270 4.3812 0.2106 2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 0.2 1.2058 0.1367 -0.582 0.7368 2.8370 0.1565 0.7204 3 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 0.2 2.5935 0.1412 -3.437 1.4689 0.4318 1.8929 0.8439 4 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 1.1392 0.0994 -0.124 0.1291 0.4258 2.6810 0.4456 5 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 0.2775 0.1476 -1.082 0.7650 0.6493 0.6855 0.4675 6 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 0.7466 0.4532 -0.183 0.2022 0.4031 0.4025 0.2652 7 0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 0.2 2.9239 0.7698 -1.120 1.0105 0.9468 1.5940 0.1992 8 0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 0.2 0.9721 0.7515 -0.332 0.4607 0.6911 1.6873 0.6940 9 0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 0.2 2.5184 0.0822 -4.961 1.8497 0.3344 0.7442 0.5863

product quality. In this paper, however, two measurements for production and quality control are used, and the aim is to identify feasible manipulated variables for these two loops. The two measurements are (1) the organic-phase stream flow rate, which is also a manipulated variable used to control the organic phase level in the decanter, and (2) the mole fraction of vinyl acetate in the organic phase in the decanter. In the remainder of this section, feasible manipulated variables for these two measurements are identified for each of the four stage 2 control structure candidates, which are numbered 1, 3, 7 and 9 in Table 10. Because 14 loops are closed in the stage 2 design, the corresponding set points could be used for the stage 3 design. Here, these set points are simply held fixed. For candidate 1 in Table 10, the OSOF controller and the sensitivity matrix calculated for the production rate and product quality are given in Table 12. The separator vapor outlet stream (MV10), the organic reflux stream in the column (MV20), the column condenser duty (MV22), and the vaporizer liquid inlet stream (MV26) are strong manipulated variables for controlling the two

measurements. As Table 12 shows, they have gains and sensitivities in the desired ranges. The absorber scrub stream (MV15) and the purge stream (MV18) are not considered good candidates because their flow rates are comparatively small. If a decentralized control structure is designed, two of the four strong manipulated variables are available for the stage 4 design. The strong manipulated variables identified for each candidate are summarized in Table 13. Before the product loops are tuned, the component balances should be examined in stage 4 because these balances might reduce the number of manipulated variables that can be used in stage 3. Stage 4: Control Structure for Remaining Variables. The stage 4 design consists of two parts. First, a component balance analysis is carried out for each control structure candidate generated in the previous design process, and the measurements of the inventory of the uncontrolled chemical species are identified. Then, manipulated variables for the non-self-regulating inventories of chemical species are determined. Second, control loops for individual unit operations are identified using the remaining degrees of freedom. In the VA

4766 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 20, 2003

Figure 4. Transients for 1 C reactor outlet temperature set-point change for candidate 4. Table 12. OSOF Controller and Sensitivity Matrix in Stage 3 for Candidate 1 OSOF controller prod rate MV9 MV10 MV11 MV13 MV14 MV15 MV16 MV17 MV18 MV20 MV22 MV26 -0.077 -0.490 0.070 -0.003 0.040 0.242 0.007 0.049 0.622 -0.265 -0.741 0.880 prod quality -0.037 -1.245 0.195 0.006 0.114 -0.052 0.020 0.102 1.398 -0.811 -2.866 -0.330 sensitivity matrix prod rate 0.833 prod quality 0.994 Table 14. Downs Drill Table for Candidate 1
component category O2 CO2 C2H4 C2H6 VAc H2O HAc reactant product reactant inert product product reactant selfreg yes no yes no yes no yes why self-reg O2 feed-% O2 measurement % O2 in reactor feed

C2H4 feed-pressure absorber pressure col. exit-col. level tray 5 temperature

HAc feed-HAc level HAc tank level

0.733 1.133 1.589 1.054 0.541

1.060 0.994 0.994 0.992 1.005

Table 13. Strong Manipulated Variables for Each Candidate in Stage 3 candidate of stage 2 1 MV10 MV20 MV22 MV26 3 MV2 MV20 MV22 MV26 7 MV10 MV20 MV22 9 MV2 MV20 MV22

process, there are seven components, of which O2, C2H4, and HAc are reactants; C2H6 is an inert; and CO2, VAc, and H2O are products. The first control structure candidate generated in the stage 3 design is used to illustrate the component balance analysis. The Downs drill table for candidate 1 is shown in Table 14. The fourth column of Table 14 explains why a component is claimed to be self-regulating. If a component is selfregulating because of the closing of a control loop, the relevant control loops are given in this column. The fifth column indicates possible measurements for uncontrolled chemical inventories. For candidate 1, components CO2, C2H6, and H2O are left uncontrolled after the stage 3 design. The first two

components (CO2 and C2H6) are essentially in the gas phase. There are two analyzers in the gas loop, and either one of them can be used for measuring the inventories of CO2 and C2H6. In this paper, the analyzer installed on the gas recycle stream is selected. A manipulated variable for controlling the inventory of CO2, namely, the inlet stream to the CO2 removal unit (MV17), can be easily determined. The manipulated variable for controlling the inventory of component C2H6 has to be the purge stream (MV18) because that is the only place that the inert can leave the process. The last uncontrolled component, H2O, is essentially in the liquid phase. There are two analyzers in the liquid loop, and either one of them can be used for measuring the inventory of H2O. In this paper, the analyzer installed on the column bottoms flow is selected. None of the six remaining manipulated variables (MV9, MV11, MV13, MV14, MV15, and MV16) is capable of controlling the inventory of component H2O. On the basis of engineering judgment, the possible choices for manipulated variables for this loop are either the organic reflux stream flow rate (MV20) or the condenser duty (MV22). The condenser duty changes the reflux temperature, which, in turn, changes the effective reflux ratio. Therefore, for each candidate from the stage 3 design, there are two options for the component inventory control. In ref 28, the authors used the organic reflux stream to control the inventory of component H2O.

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 20, 2003 4767
Table 15. Final Plantwide Control Structures for the VAc Process candidate loop 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 controlled variable vap. level sep. level abs. level org. level aqu. level col. level HAc level tray 5 temp % O2 vap. pressure abs. pressure rct. in temp rct. out temp FEHE temp org. prod % VAc % CO2 % C2H6 % H2O sep. temp comp. temp circu. temp scrub temp decanter temp F1 MV4 MV8 MV12 MV23 MV24 MV25 MV3 MV21 MV1 MV5 MV2 MV6 MV7 MV19 MV10 MV26 MV17 MV18 MV20 MV9 MV11 MV14 MV16 MV22 F2 MV4 MV8 MV12 MV23 MV24 MV25 MV3 MV21 MV1 MV5 MV2 MV6 MV7 MV19 MV10 MV26 MV17 MV18 MV22 MV9 MV11 MV14 MV16 MV22 F3 F4 F5 MV26 MV8 MV12 MV23 MV24 MV25 MV3 MV21 MV1 MV5 MV2 MV6 MV7 MV19 MV10 MV26 MV17 MV18 MV20 MV9 MV11 MV14 MV16 MV22 F6 MV26 MV8 MV12 MV23 MV24 MV25 MV3 MV21 MV1 MV5 MV2 MV6 MV7 MV19 MV10 MV26 MV17 MV18 MV22 MV9 MV11 MV14 MV16 MV22 F7 MV26 MV8 MV12 MV23 MV24 MV25 MV3 MV21 MV1 MV5 MV10 MV6 MV7 MV19 MV2 MV26 MV17 MV18 MV20 MV9 MV11 MV14 MV16 MV22 F8 MV26 MV8 MV12 MV23 MV24 MV25 MV3 MV21 MV1 MV5 MV10 MV6 MV7 MV19 MV2 MV26 MV17 MV18 MV22 MV9 MV11 MV14 MV16 MV22

MV4 MV4 MV8 MV8 MV12 MV12 MV23 MV23 MV24 MV24 MV25 MV25 MV3 MV3 MV21 MV21 MV1 MV1 MV5 MV5 MV10 MV10 MV6 MV6 MV7 MV7 MV19 MV19 MV2 MV2 MV26 MV26 MV17 MV17 MV18 MV18 MV20 MV22 MV9 MV9 MV11 MV11 MV14 MV14 MV16 MV16 MV22 MV22 MV13 fixed MV15 fixed

Table 16. Tuning Parameters (K Values) for the Plantwide Control Structures cand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 % CO2 -0.0596 -0.1700 -0.0011 0.2417 -0.0052 -0.0104 -0.0510 -0.0067 % C2H6 -0.5602 -3.1846 -5.6689 -2.9407 -0.8234 -4.5609 -2.4592 -2.8848 % H2O -1.1121 -1.3736 -0.1314 -0.0562 -1.4794 -0.0738 -0.4289 -0.6598 sep. temp -0.2390 -0.7968 -0.2609 -0.0372 -1.3412 -1.0377 -0.2878 -0.4235 com. temp -3.1585 -3.4467 -1.5907 -0.8476 -2.3805 -8.1490 -1.9595 -1.1247 cir. temp -4.0579 -3.2713 -0.2731 -0.2268 -1.5870 -0.0057 -3.0894 -0.0538 scr. temp -1.0414 -1.1190 -0.0188 -0.0067 -0.6915 -1.2714 -0.0254 -0.7318 dec. temp -3.8617 -2.4035 -0.1943 -0.0826 -2.0785 -0.4138 -1.2575 -0.2278 % C2H4

2.4894 0.4047

0.1207 0.6149

So far, candidate 1 contains 19 loops (14 from the stage 2 design, 2 from the stage 3 design, and 3 from the stage 4 design), and the remaining 7 degrees of freedom can be used for unit operation control. On the basis of engineering judgment, the following five loops are closed: (1) the separator jacket temperature is used to control the separator temperature; (2) the compressor heat duty is used to control the absorber liquid inlet stream temperature; (3) the circulation cooler duty is used to control the absorber circulation stream temperature; (4) the scrub cooler duty is used to control the absorber scrub stream temperature; and (5) either the column condenser duty or the reflux stream is used to control the decanter temperature, with the decision being based on the control structure for percent H2O. The other two manipulated variables (the absorber circulation stream and the absorber scrub stream) are simply fixed. The same approach was applied to all four control structure candidates generated in the stage 3 design, and the final eight plantwide candidate structures are listed in Table 15. They are labeled Fi to distinguish them from the stage 2 candidates. Because the measurements and manipulated variables of the component inventory control loops are comparatively easy to determine, no optimal feedback gain matrices or sensitivity matrices are calculated. It should be pointed out that, in Luyben et al.,28 the production rate and product quality loops were not closed, and as a result, the loops 15 and 16 in Table 15

were not used. One of our objectives is to compare the results of our methodology with those in Luyben et al.28 To do so, the related manipulated variables for the product loops, i.e., MV10 and MV26 in candidate 1, should be simply fixed. These two MVs are fixed for four of the control structure candidates in Table 15, namely, F1, F2, F5, and F6. The other four architectures use MV2, the C2H4 feed stream, to control the organic product. In these architectures, it is necessary to manipulate the C2H4 feed stream to control the inventory of component C2H4, which is measured by either analyzer installed in the gas loop. Thus, for candidates F3, F4, F7, and F8, only MV 26 is fixed. Proportionalonly controllers are tuned for all tof he control structures listed in Table 15. For candidates F1, F2, F5, and F6, three component balance loops are closed, and for candidates F3, F4, F7 and F8, four component balance loops are automatically tuned. The control structures are tested by the step set-point changes for all of the loops, and the tuning parameters of each candidate are listed in Table 16. Transients lasting 1000 min resulting from a -1 C step set-point change in the reactor outlet stream temperature are shown in Figure 5 for candidate F1. Judging from the transients, candidates F3, F4, F7, and F8 are eliminated. Figure 6 gives the transients produced by candidate F3 to a -1 C step set-point change in the reactor outlet stream temperature. As can

4768 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 20, 2003

Figure 5. Transients for 1 C reactor outlet temperature set-point change for candidate F1.

be seen, several of the transients are highly oscillatory and take longer to die out than the responses in Figure 5. The first control structure, candidate F1, is exactly what Luyben et al. proposed in ref 28. The other three feasible control structures (F2, F5, and F6) are similar to candidate F1 in that most loops are the same. The eliminated structures, F3, F4, F7, and F8 in Table 15,

use the separator vapor outlet stream to control the gasloop pressure, which seems to be a reasonable pairing. However, the transient responses show that architectures with this loop respond poorly. A possible reason for the poor response is that the inventory of C2H4 in the gas loop has to be controlled using the C2H4 feed stream and this loop can have strong interactions with the absorber pressure loop. When a control structure is

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 20, 2003 4769

Figure 6. Transients for 1 C reactor outlet temperature set-point change for candidate F3.

finally tested, PI controllers and/or multivariable controllers need to be tuned and applied to the nonlinear process model, which is not included in this paper. 7. Summary and Conclusions This paper has presented a new approach to the design of plantwide control systems. The approach is

based on output optimal control, and it assumes that a linear dynamic process model is available. The approach also makes use of engineering judgment in eliminating and evaluating candidate architectures. The design of a plantwide architecture is split into four stages. In stage 1, the model is scaled, and unstable, integrating, and slow modes are identified. The elimination of instability is facilitated using an eigenvalue approach,

4770 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 20, 2003

and variables that need to be controlled in stage 2 are identified. The stage 2 design assumes that a multiloop SISO control structure is used. Several optimal control problems are solved to develop a sensitivity matrix, which is used to design the SISO architectures. Stage 3 involves the design of a control system for the production rate and product quality. This control system can be either a multiloop or multivariable system. Stage 4 involves the design of a control system for component inventories and unit operations. The stage 4 control system can be either multiloop or multivariable. From stage 2 to stage 4, transient responses are easily calculated, and they are used to compare candidate architectures to one another so that architectures with poor performance can be eliminated. The methodology is applied successfully to a model of a vinyl acetate process that has 26 manipulated variables and 43 measurements. Four decentralized plantwide designs are generated, and these designs are very close to one earlier design published by Luyben and co-workers.28 Although not discussed in this paper, one advantage of the approach presented here is that it can be used to assess the benefits of using a multivariable model predictive control system on a plant. The methodology presented is implemented in a user-friendly software package. This package makes use of the best currently available algorithms for solving output optimal control problems. This paper has presented a detailed discussion of the various algorithms used in the package. Appendix A Input a scaled state space model {A, B, C, D} weight matrices {Q, R, gij} initial autocorrelation of the states {X} design parameters {R} selection of one of the following LQR numerical algorithms: basic Moerder and Calises algorithm (eqs 4 and 5) (Default) alternative Moerder and Calises algorithm (eq 6) basic Toivonens algorithm (eqs 4 and 5) alternative Toivonens algorithm (eq 6) selection of one of the following methods of generating an initial stabilizing K: random selection (default) method minimization of the maximum eigenvalue of A BKC method Petkovski and Rakics method Procedure 1. If the model does not violate the even parityinterlacing property necessary condition, continue; else, terminate the program. 2. If C has full row rank, continue; else, terminate the program. 3. If R is positive definite, continue; else, terminate the program. 4. If CTQC is positive semidefinite, continue; else, terminate the program. 5. If ( QC,A) is not detectable and A is not stable, issue a warning message. 6. Generate an initial stabilizing K. If ( QC,A) is not detectable, use the random selection method; else, use Petkovski and Rakics method.

7. Calculate the OSOF controller K. If a feasible solution cannot be found to eq 4a or the solution is not unique, the alternative algorithm (eq 6) is used instead. Output the OSOF controller K the optimal cost J Appendix B The OSOF-based SISO loop tuning procedure is outlined as follows (using generic procedure language): Input a scaled state space model {A, B, C, D} weight matrices {Q, R, gij} initial autocorrelation of the states {X} design parameters {R} K0, a diagonal matrix taken as the initial guess of a stabilizing K Procedure n)1 While 1 AC ) A - B*Kn-1*C Calculate Pn-1 and Sn-1 using eq 4 Jn-1 ) trace(Pn-1*X) Let 0 equal the diagonal elements of Kn-1 From 0, solve the following optimization problem (Z*, *) min Z ) ||R*diag()*C*Sn-1*CT - B*Pn-1*Sn-1-*CT||F K ) diag(*)-Kn-1 While 1 Find a random number 0 < R < 1 such that Kn ) Kn-1 + R*K is stabilizing AC ) A - B*Kn*C Calculate Pn and Sn using eq 4 Jn ) trace(Pn*X) If Jn < Jn-1, then BREAK End While If (Jn - Jn-1) is very small, then BREAK n)n+1 End While Output the diagonal OSOF controller Kn Literature Cited
(1) Foss, A. Critique of Chemical Process Control Theory. AIChE J. 1973, 19, 209-214. (2) Buckley, P. S. Techniques of Process Control; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1964. (3) McAvoy, T. Synthesis of Plantwide Control Systems Using Optimization. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1999, 38, 2984-2994. (4) Downs, J.; Vogel, E. A Plant-Wide Industrial Process Control Problem. Comput. Chem. Eng. 1993, 17, 245-255. (5) Luyben, W. Practical Distillation Control; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, 1992. (6) McAvoy, T. Interaction Analysis; Monograph Series; Instrument Society of America: Research Triangle Park, NC, 1983. (7) Larsson, T.; Skogestad, S. Plantwide Control: Review and a New Design Procedure. Modell., Identif. Control 2000, 21, 0940. (8) Schnelle, P. Control of an Industrial Extruder Feed System. In Proceedings of the Texas A&M 44th Annual Symposium for the Process Industry; Texas A&M University: College Station, TX, 1989. (9) McAvoy, T.; Ye, N. Base Control for the Tennessee Eastman Problem. Comput Chem. Eng. 1994, 19, 383-413. (10) Lewis, F. Applied Optimal Control & Estimation; PrenticeHall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1992. (11) Levine, W.; Athans, M. On the Determination of the Optimal Constant Output Feedback Gain for Linear Multivariable Systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 1970, AC-15, 44-48.

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 42, No. 20, 2003 4771
(12) Chen, R. An Optimal Control Based Plantwide Control Design Methodology and Its Applications. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 2002. (13) Syrmos, V.; Abdallah, C.; Dorato, P.; Grigoriadis, K. Static Output FeedbacksA Survey. Automatica 1997, 33, 125-137. (14) Wei, K. Stabilization of a Linear Plant via a Stable Compensator Having No Real Unstable Zeros. Syst. Control Lett. 1990, 15, 259-264. (15) Makila, P.; Toivonen, H. Computational Methods for Parametric LQ ProblemssA Survey. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 1987, 32, 658-671. (16) Iwasaki, T.; Skelton, R. Linear Quadratic Suboptimal Control with Static Output Feedback. Syst. Control Lett. 1994, 23, 421-430. (17) Moerder, D.; Calise, A. Convergence of a Numerical Algorithm for Calculating Optimal Output Feedback Gains. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 1985, 30, 900-903. (18) Toivonen, H. A Globally Convergent Algorithm for the Optimal Constant Output Feedback Problem. Intl. J. Control 1985, 41, 1589. (19) Toivonen, H.; Makila, P. On Newtons Method for Solving Parametric Linear Quadratic Control Problems. Intl. J. Control 1987, 46, 897-911. (20) Sima, V. Algorithms for Linear-Quadratic Optimization; Marcel Dekker: New York, 1996. (21) Petkovski, D.; Rakic, M.. Calculation of Optimum Feedback Gains for Output-Constrained Regulators. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 1978, 23, 760. (22) Moore, B. Principal Component Analysis in Linear System: Controllability, Observability and Model Reduction. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 1981, 26, 17-32. (23) Benner, P.; Mehrmann, V.; Sima, V.; Van Huffel, S.; Varga, A. SLICOTsA Subroutine Library in Systems and Control Theory; NICONET Report 97-3; NICONET: Leuven, Belgium, 1997. (24) Varga, A. Model Reduction Software in the SLICOT Library. In SLICOT Manual; NICONET: Leuven, Belgium, 1999; Chapter 7. (25) Chen, R.; McAvoy, T. A New Approach to Defining a Dynamic Relative Gain. Control Eng. Pract. 2003, 11, 907-914. (26) Bristol, E. On a New Measure of Interaction for Multivariable Process Control. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 1966, AC-11, 133-134. (27) Arkun, Y.; Downs, J. A General Method to Calculate Input-Output Gains and the Relative Gain Array for Integrating Processes. Comput. Chem. Eng. 1990, 14, 1101-1110. (28) Luyben, W.; Tyreus, B.; Luyben, M. Plantwide Process Control; McGraw-Hill, New York, 1999. (29) Luyben, M.; Tyreus, B. An Industrial Design/Control Study for the Vinyl Acetate Monomer Process. Comput. Chem. Eng. 1998, 22, 867-877. (30) Luyben, M.; Tyreus, B.; Luyben, W. Plantwide Control Design Procedure. AIChE J. 1997, 43, 3161-3174. (31) Chen, R.; Dave, K.; McAvoy, T.; Luyben, M. A Nonlinear Dynamic Model of a Vinyl Acetate Process. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2003, 42, 4478-4487. (32) Marlin, T. Process Control: Designing Processes and Control Systems for Dynamic Performance; McGraw-Hill, New York, 1995.

Received for review March 4, 2003 Revised manuscript received June 4, 2003 Accepted July 25, 2003 IE030202E