Gain Scheduling Control Design For Shell Heavy Oil

International Journal of Energy and Environmental Research
Vol.3, No.1, pp.13-28, March 2015

Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
GAIN SCHEDULING CONTROL DESIGN FOR SHELL HEAVY OIL
FRACTIONATOR COLUMN
Araromi, Dauda Olurotimi1 and Sulayman, Aminah Abolore2

Department of Chemical Engineering,
Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria
.
ABSTRACT: Multivariable system is usually characterized with loop interactions which

normally have deteriorating effect on closed loop performance. Thus, there is need to decouple
the system for efficient performance of the multivariable feedback system. In this work, dynamic
and static compensators were used to remove loop interactions. Inverse of the steady state
gain was used as static compensator while dynamic compensator elements were obtained using
feedforward design technique. These were applied to design feedback control system for Shell
Heavy Oil Fractionator (SHOF) using Proportional integral (PI) control settings. PI
controllers for the plant were tuned using Ziegler-Nichols, Tyreus-Luyben and PID modules
built in MATLAB for different plant parameters. The closed loop system was implemented
based on gain scheduling strategy. Good control performance was achieved using settling time,
rise time and overshoot as performance metrics for the control strategy.
KEYWORDS: Compensators, Shell heavy oil Fractionator (SHOF), PI controller,

multivariable system, gain scheduling
INTRODUCTION
Distillation is one of separation techniques used in chemical process industries to achieve

separation of mixture of two or more components based on differences in their boiling points.
It is a separation process which has received significant attention for better integration in
chemical plants. Distillation is the principal separation method used in oil refinery to obtain
different petroleum products at various boiling ranges from crude oil. Crude distillation unit is
used to separate crude oil into different products depending on the difference of boiling
temperature. These products can be gases, naphtha, kerosene, diesel, gasoline and other heavy
products which can be recovered either as a final product or feedstock to other unit in the plant
refinery for further processing. It is highly energy intensive process unit and represents one of
the most important accesses for energy integration in a refinery (Mohammed et al., 2007).
Thus, efficient performance of the unit is required to minimize energy usage. One of the ways
to achieve this is by having the plant under automatic control.
Control is needed for most of industrial chemical processes because of transient process
behavior that occurs during start-ups and shut downs, unusual process disturbance and in order
to ensure that a process operates at a desired operating condition, safely and efficiently
(Luyben, 1996). However, like many industrial processes, distillation is associated with high
non-linearity, time-varying dynamic behavior, unpredictable parameter deviations, parameters
uncertainties and external disturbances (Nguyen, 2009). In addition, the column is associated
with loop interactions during operation because it is a multivariable system in which most of
13
ISSN 2055-0197(Print), ISSN 2055-0200(Online)

Vol.3, No.1, pp.13-28, March 2015
the variables are required to be maintained close to their optimum operating values for efficient
performance during plant operation. These make the control of the column a challenging task.
Process control is about making the process output to behave in the desired way by
manipulating the process input in an automatic way. Proportional Integral Derivative (PID)
controller is the most widely employed feedback controller types in industries (Vilanova, 2008,
Goncalves et al., 2008). This is due to its simplicity (only three parameters to adjust),
robustness to uncertainties and performance characteristics and it is used to improve the quality
the products while optimizing the utility consumption (Seborg et al., 2004). The simplicity and
performance characteristics of PI/PID controller make it easier to understand than most of the
advanced controllers (Vilanova, 2008).
Many researchers have applied different advanced control techniques in the control of
distillation column. Among them is distributed model predictive controller (MPC) using Nash
– optimization technique proposed by Li et al., (2005), in order to reduce the computational
complexity while maintaining the satisfactory performance of the plant. Also, Julian et al.,
(2008) used simplified MPC on the SHOF model to obtain tracking performance and stability
characteristics. Michael, (2003) used squared MPC for constraint handling performance and
controlling the system. However, advanced controllers are complex, cumbersome with
enormous computational burden and require significant effort and skill to tune and also difficult
to implement (Zhang et al., 2007, Wahab et al., 2007). In addition, there are some limitations
in terms of stability and robustness (Yela, 2009) with high maintenance cost, lack of flexibility
and associated complexity (Hugo, 2000).
PID controller consists of proportional, integral and derivative terms and due to this, it is called
three –mode control scheme. PID controller parameters (Kp, KI and KD) can be tuned to control
a system so as to meet a specific process requirement. These parameters can be adjusted using
some empirical methods like Ziegler-Nichols method, cohen and cohoon method, Tyreus-
Luyben (Doust et al., 2012). Also, the response of the controller can be described in terms of
the responsiveness of the controller to an error, the degree to which the controller overshoots
the set point and the degree of system oscillation.
However, PI/PID controller mostly employed for single –input single – output (SISO) process
but due to their wide control scope and greater accuracy, multivariable PI/PID control methods
that takes loop interactions into consideration have received significant attention (Zhang et al.,
2007). Furthermore, multivariable process is usually encountered with destabilization of the
system due to loop interactions while adjusting the controller parameters (loop interaction) of
one loop that affects the performance other loops in which decoupling techniques are used to
remove these coupling effects. Wahab et al., (2007) analyzed multivariable PI/PID control
schemes for wastewater systems and showed that they are suitable for MIMO control loops
that experience interactions. Also, Zhang et al., (2007) used a backstepping-based
decentralized PI/PID control scheme for the SHOF problem to reduce loop interaction.
PID controller can only perform satisfactorily for nominal plant however, when the plant is
perturbed, the closed loop may have poor response in term of performance and stability because
of change in plant parameters. One of the ways to circumvent these problems is through the
use of gain scheduling protocol. Gain scheduling controller which ia also called an open-loop
adaptive control system is designed to achieve effective controller performance by changing
14

Vol.3, No.1, pp.13-28, March 2015
the parameters of the controller to eliminate the effect of parameter variations (Landau et al.,
2011). Krishna et al., (2012) used a gain scheduling controller to design and simulate a ball
and beam system, the performance metrics used showed that gain scheduling controller is faster
than the normal PID controller.
METHODOLOGY
Distillation column or fractionators are widely used equipment in petrochemical industries

or refineries for initially separation of the crude fractions to different product draws by
cooling down the mixed-phase oil feed and also require an intensive energy for their
operation (Lee et al., 2011). In Shell Heavy Oil Fractionator (SHOF), heavy oil split into
several streams which are further processed downstream. Fractions of this oil are divided to
different products before leaving the fractionator with the aid of reflux flows that enhance the
separation procedure. The reflux flow helps to control the top product composition while the
heat input is used to control the bottom product composition (Zhang et al., 2007). It has three
product draws and three side circulating loops as shown in Figure 1. The three circulating loops
eliminate heat to achieve the desired product separation. The heat requirement of the system
varies, because the streams are reboiled in other parts of the plant. It has three heat exchangers
in these loops which are used to recover energy from the recycling streams since vaporization
of the feed stream consumes much energy (Morari et al., 2002).
Also, the bottom reflux loop contains an enthalpy controller that regulates heat removal in the
loop by adjusting the steam production. This heat duty is a manipulated variable that helps in
controlling the column and the heat duties behaves as the disturbances to the entire column (Li
et al., 2005). Furthermore, the product specifications for the top and side draw streams are
determined by economics and operating requirements and none for the bottom draw but
operating constraint on the temperature in the lower part of the column is present (Micheal,
2003; Li et al., 2005).
Figure 1: Shell’s Heavy oil fractionator (Shead et al., 2007)

Shell presented a process model in 1987, ‘SHOF model’, to serve as a standard performance
test for new control techniques (Prett and Morari, 1988). The process model generally has
seven measured outputs, three outputs and two input disturbances as shown in Table 1(Shead
et al., 2007). The plant is designed to handle some gain uncertainties and disturbances
associated with the plant as shown in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively and to handle the
following constraints:
a. – 0.5< u1, u2 and u3 < 0.5.
15

Vol.3, No.1, pp.13-28, March 2015
b. |Δu1|, |Δu2|, |Δu3| < 0.05
c. – 0.5< y1< 0.5, y7 > -0.5
d. Sampling time > 1 min.
Input TD (u1) SD (u2) BRD (u3) URD (d1) IRD (d2)

Output
TEP (y1) 4.05𝑒 −27𝑠 1.77𝑒 −28𝑠 5.88𝑒 −27𝑠 1.20𝑒 −27𝑠 1.44𝑒 −27𝑠
50𝑠 + 1 60𝑠 + 1 50𝑠 + 1 45𝑠 + 1 40𝑠 + 1
SEP (y2) 5.39𝑒 −18𝑠 5.72𝑒 −14𝑠 6.90𝑒 −15𝑠 1.52𝑒 −15𝑠 1.83𝑒 −15𝑠
50𝑠 + 1 60𝑠 + 1 40𝑠 + 1 25𝑠 + 1 20𝑠 + 1
TT (y3) 3.66𝑒 −2𝑠 1.65𝑒 −20𝑠 5.53𝑒 −2𝑠 1.16 1.27
9𝑠 + 1 30𝑠 + 1 40𝑠 + 1 11𝑠 + 1 6𝑠 + 1
URT (y4) 5.92𝑒 −11𝑠 2.54𝑒 −12𝑠 8.10𝑒 −2𝑠 1.73 1.79
12𝑠 + 1 27𝑠 + 1 40𝑠 + 1 5𝑠 + 1 19𝑠 + 1
SDT (y5) 4.13𝑒 −5𝑠 2.38𝑒 −7𝑠 6.23𝑒 −2𝑠 1.31 1.26
8𝑠 + 1 19𝑠 + 1 10𝑠 + 1 2𝑠 + 1 22𝑠 + 1
IRT (y6) 4.06𝑒 −8𝑠 4.18𝑒 −4𝑠 6.53𝑒 −1𝑠 1.19 1.17
13𝑠 + 1 33𝑠 + 1 9𝑠 + 1 19𝑠 + 1 24𝑠 + 1
BRT (y7) 4.38𝑒 −20𝑠 4.42𝑒 −22𝑠 7.2 1.14 1.26
33𝑠 + 1 44𝑠 + 1 19𝑠 + 1 27𝑠 + 1 32𝑠 + 1
Table 1: Model showing the SHOF control problem
Input TD (u1) SD (u2) BRD (u3) URD (d1) IRD (d2)

Output
TEP (y1) 4.05 + 2.11𝜀1 1.77 + 0.39𝜀2 5.88 + 0.59𝜀3 1.2 + 0.12𝜀4 1.44 + 0.16𝜀5
SEP (y2) 5.39 + 3.29𝜀1 5.72 + 0.57𝜀2 6.90 + 0.89𝜀3 1.52 + 0.13𝜀4 1.83 + 0.13𝜀5
TT (y3) 3.66 + 2.29𝜀1 1.65 + 0.35𝜀2 5.53 + 0.67𝜀3 1.16 + 0.08𝜀4 1.27 + 0.08𝜀5
URT (y4) 5.92 + 2.34𝜀1 2.54 + 0.24𝜀2 8.10 + 0.32𝜀3 1.73 + 0.02𝜀4 1.79 + 0.04𝜀5
SDT (y5) 4.13 + 1.71𝜀1 2.38 + 0.93𝜀2 6.23 + 0.30𝜀3 1.31 + 0.03𝜀4 1.26 + 0.02𝜀5
IRT (y6) 4.06 + 2.39𝜀1 4.18 + 0.35𝜀2 6.53 + 0.72𝜀3 1.19 + 0.08𝜀4 1.17 + 0.01𝜀5
BRT (y7) 4.38 + 3.11𝜀1 4.42 + 0.73𝜀2 7.2 + 1.33𝜀3 1.14 + 0.18𝜀4 1.26 + 0.18𝜀5
Table 2: Structure of the variations incorporated in the mode
d1 d2 ε1 ε2 ε3 ε4 ε5
Case I 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
Case II -0.5 -0.5 -1 -1 -1 1 1
Case III -0.5 -0.5 1 -1 1 1 1
Case IV 0.5 -0.5 1 1 1 1 1
Case V -0.5 -0.5 -1 1 0 0 0
Table 3: Cases of disturbances and gain uncertainties
where TEP = Top End Composition (Kmol/hr)
SEP = Side end Composition (Kmol/hr)
16

Vol.3, No.1, pp.13-28, March 2015
TT= Top Temperature (F); URT =Upper Reflux Temperature (F)
SDT= Side Draw Temperature (F); IRT=Intermediate Reflux Temperature (F)
BRT = Bottom Reflux Temperature (F); TD = Top Draw; SD = Side Draw
BRD = Bottom Reflux Duty; URD = Upper Reflux Duty
d = disturbance ε = gain variation
This work is limited to the three manipulated variables (u1, u2 and u3) that have direct influence
on the Top End point Composition (y1), Side End Point Composition (y2) and the Bottom
Reflux Temperature (y7) which is in accordance with the product specifications (Jusagemal et
al., 2011) which resulted in three manipulate input – three controlled output system as shown
in Equation 1.
4.05𝑒 −27𝑠 1.77𝑒 −28𝑠 5.88𝑒 −27𝑠

50𝑠+1 60𝑠+1 50𝑠+1
5.39𝑒 −18𝑠 5.72𝑒 −14𝑠 6.90𝑒 −15𝑠
𝐺𝑝 = (1)
50𝑠+1 60𝑠+1 40𝑠+1
4.38𝑒 −20𝑠 4.42𝑒 −22𝑠 7.2
[ 33𝑠+1 44𝑠+1 19𝑠+1 ]
The block diagram of a multivariable (3 manipulated input – 3 controlled output) system in
shown in Figure 2.
r1 – y1
G11
Gc1
+ + G12 +
+
G13 +
G21
r2 + y2
+
– +
Gc2 G22
+
+ +
G23
+
G31 +
+ +
G32
r3 y3
–
Gc3 G33
+
Figure 2: Block diagram of a multivariable (3 input – 3 output) system

Steady state Relative Gain Array (RGA) was used to determine the best input manipulative –
out controller pairing. This was calculated as:
λ11 λ12 λ13
Λ = [λ21 λ22 λ23 ] (2)
λ31 λ32 λ33
17

Vol.3, No.1, pp.13-28, March 2015
where λij = relative gain which relates the ith controlled variable with jth manipulated variable.
𝜕𝑦
( 𝑖⁄𝜕𝑢 )
𝑗 𝑢 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛 𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝 𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛
λij ≜ 𝜕𝑦 = 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝 𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛 (3)
( 𝑖⁄𝜕𝑢 )
𝑗 𝑦
where u= input, y= output

A decoupling technique was designed to compensate for interactions in a process and reduce
control loop interactions. Decoupling techniques considered are dynamic decoupling and static
decoupling. The block diagram of a decoupler plant is shown in Figure 3.
r1 y1
Gc1 G11
– D21
G12
D31
G13
D21 G21
r2 y2
Gc2 G22
G23
D32
G31
G32
D13
r3 y3
Gc3 G33
D23
Figure 3: Block diagram of plant with decoupler

In dynamic decoupling design, a compensator matrix was found such that the resulting plant
will have zero off-diagonal elements.
Dynamic Decoupler was calculated using Chau (2001) decoupler relations as:
𝐶1 𝐺11 𝐺12 𝐺13 𝐺𝑐1 0 0 𝑅1 − 𝐶1

[𝐶2 ] = [𝐺21 𝐺22 𝐺23 ] [ 0 𝐺𝑐2 0 ] [𝑅2 − 𝐶2 ] (4)
𝐶3 𝐺31 𝐺32 𝐺33 0 0 𝐺𝑐3 𝑅3 − 𝐶3
However, in a system with interactions, off diagonal matrix of process transfer matrix are not
zero, we therefore need to manipulate the system so that it can be decoupled, we introduced
decoupling function and the manipulated variables such that:
18

Vol.3, No.1, pp.13-28, March 2015
𝑀1 𝑑11 𝑑12 𝑑13 𝐺𝑐1 0 0 𝑅1 − 𝐶1
[𝑀2 ] = [𝑑21 𝑑22 𝑑23 ] [ 0 𝐺𝑐2 0 ] [𝑅2 − 𝐶2 ] (5)
𝑀3 𝑑31 𝑑32 𝑑33 0 0 𝐺𝑐3 𝑅3 − 𝐶3
And the system equation is:

𝐶1 𝐺11 𝐺12 𝐺13 𝑑11 𝑑12 𝑑13 𝐺𝑐1 0 0 𝑅1 − 𝐶1 𝑅1 − 𝐶1
[𝐶2 ] = [𝐺21 𝐺22 𝐺23 ] [𝑑21 𝑑22 𝑑23 ] [ 0 𝐺𝑐2 0 ] [𝑅2 − 𝐶2 ] = 𝑮𝒅𝑮𝒄 [𝑅2 − 𝐶2 ] (6)
𝐶3 𝐺31 𝐺32 𝐺33 𝑑31 𝑑32 𝑑33 0 0 𝐺𝑐3 𝑅3 − 𝐶3 𝑅3 − 𝐶3
In order to decouple this, 𝑮𝒅𝑮𝒄 should be a diagonal matrix. Hence,
𝑮𝟎 = 𝑮𝒅𝑮𝒄 (7)
𝐶1 𝑅1
Hence, C will be [𝐶2 ] = [𝐼 + 𝐺0 ]−1 𝐺0 [𝑅2 ] (8)
𝐶3 𝑅3
In order to find D, it is required that matrix GD be diagonal since 𝑮𝒄 is diagonal, therefore
Gd=H
i.e.
𝐻1 0 0 𝐺11 𝐺12 𝐺13 𝑑11 𝑑12 𝑑13
[0 𝐻2 0 ] = [𝐺21 𝐺22 𝐺23 ] [𝑑21 𝑑22 𝑑23 ] (9)
0 0 𝐻3 𝐺31 𝐺32 𝐺33 𝑑31 𝑑32 𝑑33
Where G is the process transfer matrix

H is the decoupled plant which should be a diagonal matrix and
d is the compensator which serves as the dynamic decoupler
With little algebraic manipulation, the followings are arrived at:
𝐷11 = 𝐷22 = 𝐷33 = 1
(𝐺 𝐺 )−(𝐺 𝐺 )
𝐷12 = (𝐺13 𝐺32 )−(𝐺12 𝐺33 ) (10)
11 33 13 31
(𝐺12 𝐺23 )−(𝐺13 𝐺22 )
𝐷13 = (𝐺 (11)
11 𝐺22 )−(𝐺12 𝐺21 )
(𝐺23 𝐺31 )−(𝐺21 𝐺33 )
𝐷21 = (𝐺 (12)
33 𝐺22 )−(𝐺23 𝐺32 )
(𝐺13 𝐺21 )−(𝐺23 𝐺11 )
𝐷23 = (𝐺 (13)
11 𝐺22 )−(𝐺12 𝐺21 )
(𝐺22 𝐺31 )−(𝐺21 𝐺32 )
𝐷31 = (𝐺 (14)
32 𝐺23 )−(𝐺22 𝐺33 )
(𝐺11 𝐺32 )−(𝐺12 𝐺31 )
𝐷32 = (𝐺 (15)
13 𝐺31 )−(𝐺11 𝐺33 )
Static Decoupling technique
For static decoupling technique, inverse of process gain array was used for decoupling (D).
i. e. 𝐷 = 𝑖𝑛𝑣(𝑲) (16)
where K= process gain
PI/PID controller Design

The control technique for a PI controller is given as:
𝐾𝑝
𝑢(𝑠) = 𝐾𝑝 + 𝜏 𝑠 (17)
𝐼
where 𝐾𝑝 = process gain
𝜏𝐼 = time constant
19

Vol.3, No.1, pp.13-28, March 2015
PI- controller was tuned using Ziegler-Nichols, Tyreus-Luyben and MATLAB tuning methods.
Ziegler-Nichols and Tyreus-Luyben settings are shown in Table 4 while MATLAB pidtuning
algorithm for tuning PID controllers is an automatic tuning method which chooses a crossover
frequency based on the plant dynamics and designs for a target phase margin of 60oC. pidtune
tunes the parameters of the controller for robustness and response time performance of the
system. For multi-input multi-output (MIMO) system, Pidtune designs the controller for each
linear model which then returns an array for PID controllers (The Mathwork Inc., 2012). PID
tuning helps to attain the closed loop stability of the plant which makes the system to be
bounded for bounded inputs. It also helps the closed loop system to track set point and suppress
disturbances as fast as possible. Tuning PID also allows loop design to have enough phase and
gain margins which allows modeling errors in the dynamics of the system.
Tuning method Kc τI
Ziegler-Nichols 0.455Kcu Pu/1.2

Tyreus-Luyben Kcu/3.2 2.2Pu
Table 4: Tunings considered for the PI Controller parameter
Gain Scheduling
Gain scheduling is a form of advanced feedback control system in which the feedback gains
are adjusted with their feedforward compensation (Krishna et al., 2012). It is an approach that
can be used to measure the gain and then changes or schedule the controller to compensate for
changes in the process gain (Astrom and Wittenmark, 2008). Hence, it is a very useful
technique in reducing the effect of parameter variation and to compensate for known
nonlinearity in a process (Liptak, 2006). Figure 4 shows configuration of gain scheduling
system.
The controller parameter changes quickly in response to change in the process. The best
controller parameters for each case in the system were determined as a function of gain
scheduling variable. These parameters are shown in Table 5. In this work, an interval is defined
around each gain scheduling value in the parameter table. As the gains scheduling variable
changes from one interval to another, the controller parameters are changed, a set of controller
and decoupler were developed for each set of process gains. The controllers and decouplers
were scheduled which change with change in process gains (ε1 ε2 ε3) of the plant.
Controller
parameters
Gain Schedule
Operating
condition
Common Common
signal Output
signal
Controller Process
Figure 4: Block diagram of the gain scheduling controller
20

Vol.3, No.1, pp.13-28, March 2015
Cases Loop 1 Loop 2 Loop 3

(ε1 ε2 ε3)
Kp τI Kp τI Kp τI
(0 0 0) 0.139 0.00381 0.291 0.00616 0.0657 0.0117
(-1 -1 -1) 0.290 0.00796 0.323 0.00684 0.0806 0.0144
(1 -1 1) 0.0912 0.00251 0.323 0.00684 0.0555 0.0099
(1 1 1) 0.0912 0.00251 0.264 0.0056 0.0555 0.0099
(-1 1 0) 0.290 0.00796 0.264 0.0056 0.0657 0.0117
Table 5: Optimum values for Kp and τI in the three loops
RESULTS/DISCUSSION
Relative gain array (RGA) of the plant was computed as:
2.0757 − 0.7289 − 0.3468

𝑅𝐺𝐴 = [ 3.4242 0.9343 − 3.3585] (18)
−4.4999 0.7946 4.7053
Elements (1,1) and (3,3) which are greater than one indicates that there is strong loop
interaction between the loop corresponding to each of these elements and other loops. Also,
element (2,2) which is very close to one indicates that there is no much interaction of other
loops on loop 2. Figure 5 and 6 show the open loop responses when the dynamic and static
decouplers are respectively used to decouple the system. Effects of interactions on each loop
were reduced to zero for both decouplers which means that both are able to decouple the plant.
Table 6 shows the settling times for main loops and interacting loops of both decouplers. Except
the interaction loop (side draw-reflux temperature) with settling time 604secs which is
unnecessarily high, dynamic decoupler is faster in removing the interactions as indicated by
low settling times of the interaction loop responses recorded for it when compared to those
recorded for static decoupler. However, the dynamic decoupler slows down the main loop
response as indicated by the large values of settling times recorded for them.
Step Response
Top draw Side draw Reflux duty
2
1.5
Top end comp
0.5
0
10
8
Side end comp
6
Amplitude
4
Reflux temperature
-2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time (seconds)
21

Vol.3, No.1, pp.13-28, March 2015
Figure 5: Dynamic Decoupler of plant
Step Response
Top draw Side draw Reflux temperature
1.5
Top end comp
0.5
0
1
Side end comp
0.5
Amplitude
-0.5
4
3
Reflux Temperature
-1
-2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (seconds)
Figure 6: Static Decoupler of plant
Settling time for Dynamic Settling time for Static Decoupler

Decoupler(sec) (sec)
Top draw Side Reflux duty Top Side draw Reflux
draw draw duty
Top end 201 259 327 185 399 399
composition
Side end 216 595 249 376 283 286
composition
Reflux 178 604 101 270 176 151
temperature
Table 6: Settling time of decoupler system
A PI controller was designed for a dynamic decoupled plant and tuned using Ziegler-Nichols,
Tyreus-Luyben and MATLAB pidtune. The result of the closed loop response of the system is
shown in Figure 7. The response of the closed loop system for a dynamic decoupled plant in
top end composition output shown in Figure 7a shows that Tyreus-Luyben gave sluggish
response as it is unable to reach 0.5set point in time 1000sec but Ziegler-Nichols and MATLAB
pidtune showed damped response and were able to reach the 1000 set point with Ziegler-
Nichols gave a settling time of 461sec while MATLAB pidtune gave a settling time of 364sec.
Response of the closed loop system for a dynamic decoupled plant in side end composition
output shown in Figure 7b shows that Ziegler-Nichols and MATLAB pidtune shows
underdamped as indicated with the presence of overshoot, however, settling time of Ziegler-
Nichols gave 366sec and MATLAB pidtune shows 522 sec. Response of the closed loop system
for the dynamic decoupled plant in bottom reflux temperature output is shown in Figure 7c,
22

Vol.3, No.1, pp.13-28, March 2015
response of the closed loop system with Ziegler-Nichols, Tyreus-Luyben and MATLAB tuning
gave underdamped response as indicated with the presence of overshoot, however, MATLAB
pidtune gave a fastest response with settling time of 408sec. MATLAB pidtune gave the fastest
settling time in the three outputs.
0.6 0.7 0.7

Tyreus-Luyben
pidtune
0.6 Ziegler-Nichols
0.5 0.6
0.5
0.4 0.5
Bottom Reflux Temperature

Side End Composition
Top end composition
0.4
0.3 0.4
0.3
0.2 0.3
0.2
0.1 0.2
0.1
0 0.1
0
-0.1 -0.1 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (sec) Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 7: Closed loop response of the PI controller for a dynamic decoupler with different
tuning
The PI controller was designed for a static decoupled plant and was tuned using Tyreus-
Luyben, Ziegler-Nichols and MATLAB pidtune. The response of the closed loop system is
shown in Figure 8. Response of the closed loop system for top end composition output is shown
in Figure 8a, controller setting with the three tuning methods show sluggish response and were
unable to reach the 0.5setpoint at 1000sec, however, Tyreus-Luyben shows the slowest
response with settling time 1750sec which shows that set-point was not achieved within the
stipulated 1000sec. Closed loop response of the side end composition output is shown in Figure
8b, controller settings for Ziegler-Nichols and MATLAB tune show damped response and were
able to reach the 0.5setpoint within 1000sec, however, MATLAB tuning method shows a faster
response at settling time of 447sec than Ziegler-Nichols which has the settling time of 569sec.
Response of the closed loop system with MATLAB pidtune gave the fastest settling time and
best controller performance in the three outputs. Hence, response of the closed loop system
with MATLAB pidtune is for a static decoupled plant is compared with response from a
dynamic decoupled plant and the result is shown in Figure 9.
23

Vol.3, No.1, pp.13-28, March 2015
0.6 0.6 0.7

Tyreus Luyben
MATLAB pidtune
Ziegler Nichols
0.5 0.5 0.6
0.4 0.4 0.5
Bottom Reflux Temperature

Top end composition
0.3 0.3 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.3
0.1 0.1 0.2
0 0 0.1
-0.1 -0.1 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
time (sec) time (sec) time (sec)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 8: Closed loop response of a static decoupled plant with different tuning methods.
0.6 0.7 0.7

response with dynamic decoupler
response with static decoupler
0.6
0.5 0.6
0.5
0.4 0.5
Top end composition
Reflux Temperature
0.4
0.3 0.4
0.3
0.2 0.3
0.2
0.1 0.2
0.1
0 0.1
0
-0.1 -0.1 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time Time Time
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 9: Closed loop response of PI controller
Figure 9 shows the comparison of closed loop response of the dynamic decoupled plant under
PI control with static decoupled under PI control at 0.5 step change in set point. The response
of the closed loop system for both controllers in top end composition output is shown in Figure
9a, both decouplers gave overdamped response with static decoupler showing more
overdamped response as indicated by sluggish response. The response of the closed loop
system in respect of side end composition is shown in Figure 9b, the response of both
24

Vol.3, No.1, pp.13-28, March 2015
decouplers gave underdamped response as indicated by presence of overshoot. No overshoot
is observed in response of the closed loop system in bottom reflux temperature output (Figure
9c). Thus, it can be said that both controllers are able to track set points with the controller
settings. The set point tracking for both decouplers is shown in Figure 10.
0.5 0.6 0.6
dynamic decoupler
static decoupler
0.5 0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
Side end composition 0.3
Top end composition
Reflux temperature
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1 0.1
0.1
0
0
0
-0.1
-0.1 -0.1
-0.2
-0.2 -0.3 -0.2

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Time Time Time
Figure 10: Set point tracking of both decouplers

In Figure 10, a step change of [0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 ] both decouplers track set point,
however, in all the three loops, dynamic decoupler is faster in tracking set point than the static
decoupler before proceeding to the next step. It can thus be said that closed loop system with
dynamic decoupler is faster in tracking set point than closed loop system with static decoupler.
However, in order to improve the controller performance, gain scheduling is used for robust
controller performance when there are variations. The gain scheduling controllers was
simulated at different points and for different cases of variations using Table 5 and the results
is shown in Tables 7, 8 and 9.
Gain scheduling controller PI controller

Loop 1
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
Rise Time 207.64 87.02 401.47 261.16 80.00 207.64 435.84 60.68 76.92 411.16
Settling 364.00 467.4 758.33 496.28 495.24 364.0 1.08e+3 2.42e+3 1.20e+3 1.09e+3
Time
Overshoot 0 14.49 0 0 23.40 0 6.38 60.64 21.56 6.44
Table 7: Performance metrics of gain scheduling controller with PI controller in Top end composition
output (Loop 1)
25

Vol.3, No.1, pp.13-28, March 2015
The performance metrics of gain scheduling controller and PI controller on loop 1 (top end
composition/top draw) shows that the results for the nominal plant (case 1) does not change
after the plant is being scheduled which shows that there is no parameter variation in the
nominal plant. The settling time for the conventional PI controller on loop 1 is higher than the
gain scheduling controller where the nominal case has the lowest settling time. Furthermore,
the gain scheduling controller has less overshoot compared to the conventional PI controller
where only the nominal plant does not have overshoot. Cases 2 and 3 have lower rise time for
the conventional PI controller which is vice-versa for the gain scheduled plant. This is due to
variation in the process. It can thus be said a gain scheduled controller was able to use parameter
adjustment mechanism to reduce the variation in the process. This performance metrics was
considered for the side end composition loop as shown in Table 7.
Gain scheduling controller PI controller

Loop 2 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
Rise Time 70.98 80.60 62.64 74.08 100.51 70.98 256.99 71.3856 55.73 272.94
Settling 522.52 320.31 508.45 566.81 359.03 522.52 836.97 2.67e+3 1.60e+3 863.62
Time
Overshoot 20.98 7.84 22.26 27.09 7.06 20.98 6.02 66.25 59.25 4.45
Table 8: Performance metrics of gain scheduling controller with PI controller in side end composition
output (Loop 2)
The result from Table 8 shows that the rise time, settling time and overshoot for a gain
scheduled controller is lesser than the conventional PI controller except in nominal case 1
which there is no difference. However, cases 2, 3 and 5 have lower settling time than the
nominal plant (case 1) for the gain scheduled plant which shows that case 2 has the lowest
settling time. Also, case 3 has a lower rise time than the nominal case for the gain scheduled
plant. It can thus be concluded that a gain scheduled controller gave a more effective
performance than a PI controller.
Loop 3 Gain scheduling controller PI controller

Case1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
Rise Time 200.0 94.97 43.85 220.08 88.80 200.0 31.34 287.58 258.48 25.87
Settling 408.1 219.7 520.68 433.73 202.24 408.1 1.08e+3 2.40e+03 1.36e+03 1.0971e+3
Time
Overshoot 0 0.17 0 5.6e-4 0.30 0 46.37 26.7146 13.14 40.80
Table 9: Performance metrics of gain scheduling controller with PI controller in Bottom Reflux
Temperature output (Loop 3)
Table 9 shows the performance metrics for loop 3 (Bottom Reflux Temperature/Bottom Reflux
Duty) and the result shows that the plant has a lower settling time and overshoot for a gain
26

Vol.3, No.1, pp.13-28, March 2015
scheduled plant. However, case 5 has the lowest settling time while case 2 has the highest rise
time. It can thus be concluded that gain scheduled controller is more effective than a PI
controller.
IMPLICATION TO RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
The study has shown that for a multivariable system where there is coupling effect, dynamic
and static decoupling techniques are methods which can be used to remove these coupling
effects. A Proportional Integral controller is able to control the plant, however, parameter
variations in the process is controlled using gain scheduling controller. The performance
metrics (settling time, rise time and overshoot) show a more effective controller performance
for a gain scheduling controller than a PI/PID Controller.
CONCLUSION
Relative Gain Array was used to check for the level of interaction which is significant in the
plant. Dynamic and static decouplers were used to remove these coupling effects, however,
dynamic decoupler decouples faster but slow in open loop response for the nominal plant but
they were sluggish for different variations in the process. A Proportional Integral (PI)
controller was used in controlling the decoupled plant with Tyreus-Luyben settings, Ziegler-
Nichols settings and MATLAB pidtune, the result shows that closed loop response a dynamic
decoupled track set point faster than the closed loop response of the static decoupled plant.
Also, MATLAB pidtune showed a better controller performance than Ziegler-Nichols and
Tyreus-Luyben settings.
There were slow responses for the controllers in different cases of gain variations incorporated
in the plant which shows the need for gain scheduling for robust controller performance. Gain
scheduling was able to cater for parameter variations in the process and also shows a faster rise
time and lower settling time with little overshoot. This can thus be said that gain scheduling is
more efficient than a conventional PI/PID controller.
FUTURE RESEARCH
Gain scheduling mechanism uses an adjustment mechanism that is pre-computed offline but
no feedback is provided to compensate for incorrect schedules, therefore, a direct adaptive
controller is recommended for further research.
REFERENCES
Chau, P.C. (2011), Chemical Process Control – A First Course with MATLAB accessed from
http://courses.ucsd.edu on January 13, 2013.
Doust, A.M., Shahraki, F., and Sadghi J. (2012), Simulation, control and sensitivity analysis of
crude oil distillation unit, J. Petroleum Gas Eng. vol. 3(6), pp. 99 – 113.
Goncalves E.N., Palhares, R.M., Takahashi, R.H.C. (2008), A Novel approach for H2/H∞ robust
PID synthesis for uncertain systems.
Hugo, A., (2000), Limitation of Model Predictive Controllers, Hydrocarbon Proceeding (79),
pp. 83-88.
27

Vol.3, No.1, pp.13-28, March 2015
Jusagemal A. E. L., Setiawan, I. and Setiyono, B., (2011), Analisis dan Simulasi Shell Heavy
Oil Fractionator (SHOF) Menggunakan metode Kontrol PID, TRANSMISI, 13(4), pp.
114 – 120.
Krishna B., Gangopadhyay, S., and George, J. (2012), Design and Simulation of Gain
Scheduling PID Controller for Ball and Beam System, Proceedings of International
Conference on Systems, Signal Processing and Electronics Engineering, pp. 199- 203
Landau, I.D., Lozano, R., M’Saad, M., and Karimi A. (2011), Adaptive Control: Algorithms,
Analysis and Applications, Communication and Control Engineering, Second Edition,
London, pp. 10-11.
Lee, Q.H., Liew, W.H., Aziz, N. and Ahmad Z., (2011), Nonlinear Process Modelling of
“Shell” Heavy Oil Fractionator using Neural Network, Journal of Applied Sciences,
v.11(12). Pp. 2114 – 2124.
Li, S., Zhang Y. and Zhu, Q., (2005), Nash – Optimization enhanced distributed model
predictive control applied to the Shell benchmark problem. Journal of Information
Sciences, v.170, pp. 329 – 349.
Luyben, W.L (1996), Process Modeling, Simulation and Control for Chemical Engineers,
Second Ed. pp. 15-19.
Micheal, A. and Boudreau, P.E. (2003), Squared Model Predictive Controller Performance on
the Shell Standard Control Problem, Paper presented at The Instrumentation, System and
Automation Society – ISA Expo.
Mohammad, M.S., Fashad, S. and Mohammad, K (2007), Retrofit of Crude Distillation Unit
using Process Simulation and Process Integration, Proceeding of European Congress of
Chemical Engineering (ECCE-6), Copenhagen, pp. 1 – 9
Morari, M., Lee, J.H. and Garcia, C.E. (2002), Model Predictive Control, accessed from
www.kasr.elf.stuba.sk/predmety/pmr/Ucebnice%20MPC%20 on January, 13, 2013.
Nguyen, H.T., (2009), Design and Implementation of Embedded Adaptive Controller using
ARM processor. Master’s Thesis, San Jose state University, SJSU Scholar works paper
3991.
Seborg, D. E, Edgar, T.F and Mellichamp, D.A (2004), Process Dynamics and Control, Second
Ed. U.S.A.
Shead, L.R.E., Anastassakis, C.G. and Rossiter, J.A. (2007), Steady-state Operability of
Multivariable Non-square Systems: Application to Model Predictive Control (MPC) of
the Shell Heavy Oil Fractionator (SHOF), Proceedings of the 15th Mediterranean
Conference on Control & Automation, Greece, July 27 -29.
The Mathworks, Inc. (2012), Genetic algorithms, Users Guide.
Vilanova, R., (2008), IMC based Robust PID design: Tuning guidelines and automatic tuning,
Journal of Process Control, 18, 61 – 70.
Wahab, N.A., Katebi, M.R. and Balderud, J. (2007), Multivariable PID Control Design for
Wastewater Systems, Proceedings of the 15th Mediterranean Conference on Control &
Automation , Athens – Greece.
Yela, S., (2009), Framework for Operability Assessment of Production Facilities: An
Application to a primary unit of a Crude Oil Refinery. Masters Thesis, Louisiana State
University.
Zhang, Y., Li, S. and Zhu, Q. (2007), Backstepping-enhanced Decentralised PID control for
MIMO Processes with an Experimental Study. IET Control Theory Applications, 1(3),
pp. 704 – 712.
28

Gain Scheduling Control Design For Shell Heavy Oil

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gain Scheduling Control Design For Shell Heavy Oil

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gain Scheduling Control Design For Shell Heavy Oil

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Energy and Environmental Research

Vol.3, No.1, pp.13-28, March 2015

Araromi, Dauda Olurotimi1 and Sulayman, Aminah Abolore2

ABSTRACT: Multivariable system is usually characterized with loop interactions which

KEYWORDS: Compensators, Shell heavy oil Fractionator (SHOF), PI controller,

Distillation is one of separation techniques used in chemical process industries to achieve

ISSN 2055-0197(Print), ISSN 2055-0200(Online)

ISSN 2055-0197(Print), ISSN 2055-0200(Online)

Distillation column or fractionators are widely used equipment in petrochemical industries

Figure 1: Shell’s Heavy oil fractionator (Shead et al., 2007)

ISSN 2055-0197(Print), ISSN 2055-0200(Online)

Input TD (u1) SD (u2) BRD (u3) URD (d1) IRD (d2)

Input TD (u1) SD (u2) BRD (u3) URD (d1) IRD (d2)

Table 2: Structure of the variations incorporated in the mode

ISSN 2055-0197(Print), ISSN 2055-0200(Online)

4.05𝑒 −27𝑠 1.77𝑒 −28𝑠 5.88𝑒 −27𝑠

Figure 2: Block diagram of a multivariable (3 input – 3 output) system

ISSN 2055-0197(Print), ISSN 2055-0200(Online)

where u= input, y= output

Figure 3: Block diagram of plant with decoupler

𝐶1 𝐺11 𝐺12 𝐺13 𝐺𝑐1 0 0 𝑅1 − 𝐶1

ISSN 2055-0197(Print), ISSN 2055-0200(Online)

And the system equation is:

Where G is the process transfer matrix

PI/PID controller Design

ISSN 2055-0197(Print), ISSN 2055-0200(Online)

Ziegler-Nichols 0.455Kcu Pu/1.2

Table 4: Tunings considered for the PI Controller parameter

Figure 4: Block diagram of the gain scheduling controller

ISSN 2055-0197(Print), ISSN 2055-0200(Online)

Cases Loop 1 Loop 2 Loop 3

Relative gain array (RGA) of the plant was computed as:

2.0757 − 0.7289 − 0.3468

ISSN 2055-0197(Print), ISSN 2055-0200(Online)

Figure 6: Static Decoupler of plant

Settling time for Dynamic Settling time for Static Decoupler

ISSN 2055-0197(Print), ISSN 2055-0200(Online)

0.6 0.7 0.7

Bottom Reflux Temperature

(a) (b) (c)

ISSN 2055-0197(Print), ISSN 2055-0200(Online)

0.6 0.6 0.7

0.4 0.4 0.5

Bottom Reflux Temperature

0.3 0.3 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.3

0.1 0.1 0.2

0.6 0.7 0.7

(a) (b) (c)

ISSN 2055-0197(Print), ISSN 2055-0200(Online)

-0.2 -0.3 -0.2

Figure 10: Set point tracking of both decouplers

Gain scheduling controller PI controller

Overshoot 0 14.49 0 0 23.40 0 6.38 60.64 21.56 6.44

ISSN 2055-0197(Print), ISSN 2055-0200(Online)

Gain scheduling controller PI controller

Loop 3 Gain scheduling controller PI controller

ISSN 2055-0197(Print), ISSN 2055-0200(Online)

IMPLICATION TO RESEARCH AND PRACTICE