Robust Control of An Industrial Distillation Column

Diss. ETH No.
10666
Robust Control of an
Industrial High-Purity
Distillation Column
A dissertation submitted to the

SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ZURICH
for the degree of

Doctor of Technical Sciences
presented by
HANS-EUGEN MUSCH
Dipl. Chem.-Ing. ETH
born June 19, 1965
citizen of Germany
accepted on the recommendation of

Prof. M. Steiner, examiner
Prof. Dr. D. W. T. Rippin, co-examiner
1994
3
To my grandparents
4
5
Acknowledgments
This Ph. D. thesis was written during my years as a research and educa-
tional assistant of the Measurement and Control Laboratory at the
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) at Zurich. I would like to
take this opportunity to thank the numerous persons who have
supported this project.
First of all I express my gratitude to Prof. M. Steiner. He arranged this
project and helped to overcome many difficulties with the industrial
environment. Many thanks are also due to him and to Prof. D. W. T.
Rippin for the critical examination of this thesis, which essentially
improved its clarity.
The numerous discussions with my colleagues and their uncountable
suggestions gave rise to important contributions to this work. In this
context, E. Baumann, U. Christen, and S. Menzi must be specially
mentioned.
Last but not least I should emphasize the support of B. Rohrbach. She
never lost her patience with my never ending questions concerning the
English language. Without her willingness to correct the manuscript,
the choice of the English language for this thesis would have been
impossible.
6
7
Content
Abstract ......................................................................................... 15
Kurzfassung .................................................................................. 17
1 Introduction ......................................................................... 19
1.1 “Modern Control: Why Don’t We Use It?” ............................. 19

1.2 Scope and significance of this thesis ...................................... 21
1.2.1 Distillation as a unit operation example .................... 21
1.2.2 Earlier research ........................................................... 21
1.2.3 Robust control and nonlinear plants........................... 22
1.2.4 Contributions of this thesis ......................................... 22
1.3 Structure of the dissertation .................................................. 23
1.4 References ............................................................................... 26
2 The Distillation Process —

An Industrial Example ....................................................... 29
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................ 29

2.2 Column design and operation ................................................ 29
2.3 Steady-state behavior ............................................................. 32
2.4 Composition dynamics ............................................................ 35
2.5 Control objectives and configurations ................................... 37
2.5.1 The 5x5 control problem .............................................. 39
2.5.2 Control design steps..................................................... 40
2.6 Tray temperatures as controlled outputs .............................. 42
Pressure-compensated temperatures 42
8
2.6.2 Temperature measurement placement ...................... 44

2.7 References .............................................................................. 45
3 A Rigorous Dynamic Model of

Distillation Columns .......................................................... 47
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................ 47

3.2 Conventions ............................................................................ 48
3.3 The objective of modelling ..................................................... 48
3.4 Simplifying assumptions ....................................................... 48
3.5 Balance equations .................................................................. 51
3.5.1 Material balances ........................................................ 51
3.5.2 Energy balance equations ........................................... 52
3.6 Fluid dynamics ....................................................................... 55
3.6.1 Liquid flow rates ......................................................... 55
3.6.2 Pressure drop............................................................... 57
3.7 Phase equilibrium .................................................................. 59
3.7.1 Vapor phase composition ........................................... 59
3.7.2 Boiling points............................................................... 60
3.8 Volumetric properties ............................................................ 60
3.8.1 PVT relations .............................................................. 61
3.8.2 Density ......................................................................... 61
3.9 Enthalpies .............................................................................. 62
3.10 Numerical solution ................................................................ 63
The dependent variables and the equation system 63
3.10.2 Formal representation of the DAE ............................. 66
3.10.3 The index ..................................................................... 66
3.10.4 Solution methods and software .................................. 67
3.11 Notation ................................................................................ 71
3.12 References ............................................................................ 74
9
4 Linear Models ...................................................................... 77
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................ 77

4.2 How to linearize the rigorous model? .................................... 78
4.2.1 The state, input, and output vectors .......................... 78
4.2.2 Handling of the algebraic equation system ................ 80
4.3 Linearization of a simplified nonlinear model ...................... 80
4.3.1 The simplified model ................................................... 80
4.3.2 Analytical linearization ............................................... 84
4.4 Linearization of the rigorous model ....................................... 86
4.4.1 Model modifications .................................................... 86
4.4.2 Numerical linearization............................................... 88
4.5 Comparison of the linear models ........................................... 89
4.5.1 Open loop simulations ................................................ 89
4.5.2 Singular values ............................................................ 92
4.6 Order reduction ....................................................................... 94
4.7 Summary ................................................................................. 96
4.8 Appendix: Model coefficients .................................................. 97
4.9 Notation ................................................................................... 101
4.9.1 Matrices and Vectors .................................................. 101
4.9.2 Scalar values ................................................................ 102
4.10 References .............................................................................. 103
5 A Structured Uncertainty Model ..................................... 105
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................ 105

5.2 Limits of uncertainty models ................................................. 106
5.3 Input uncertainty ................................................................... 107
5.4 Model uncertainty ................................................................... 110
5.4.1 Column nonlinearity ................................................... 110
5.4.2 Unmodelled dynamics.................................................. 117
10
5.5 Measurement uncertainty ..................................................... 118

5.6 Specification of the controller performance .......................... 119
5.7 Summary ................................................................................ 120
5.8 References .............................................................................. 122
6 μ-Optimal Controller Design ........................................... 123
6.1 Introduction ............................................................................ 123

6.2 The structured singular value ............................................... 124
6.2.1 Representation of structured uncertainties............... 124
6.2.2 Definition of the structured singular value ............... 126
6.2.3 Robustness of stability and performance ................... 128
6.3 The design model ................................................................... 130
6.4 Controller design with μ-synthesis ....................................... 133
6.4.1 Synthesis algorithms .................................................. 134
6.4.2 Applying the DK-Iteration.......................................... 137
6.4.3 Applying the μK-Iteration........................................... 137
6.5 Design of controllers with fixed structure ............................ 148
6.5.1 Diagonal PI(D) control structures ............................. 149
6.5.2 PI(D) control structures with two-way decoupling.... 156
6.5.3 PID control structures with one-way decoupling ...... 162
6.6 Summary ................................................................................ 165
6.7 References .............................................................................. 167
7 Controller Design for

Unstructured Uncertainty —
A Comparison ...................................................................... 171
7.1 Introduction ............................................................................ 171

7.2 Diagonal PI-control ................................................................ 172
7.2.1 The BLT method.......................................................... 172
11
7.2.2 Sequential loop closing ................................................ 174

7.2.3 Optimized robust diagonal PI-control......................... 176
7.3 PI-control with decoupling ..................................................... 178
7.4 H∞ optimal design ................................................................... 184
7.5 Summary ................................................................................. 189
7.6 References ............................................................................... 189
8 Feedforward Controller Design ....................................... 191
8.1 Introduction ............................................................................ 191

8.2 The design problem ................................................................ 192
8.2.1 The design objective ..................................................... 192
8.2.2 One-step or two-step design?....................................... 192
8.3 H∞-minimization ..................................................................... 194
8.4 Optimization approach ........................................................... 198
8.5 Summary ................................................................................. 201
8.6 References ............................................................................... 202
9 Practical Experiences ........................................................ 205
9.1 Introduction ............................................................................ 205

9.2 Controller implementation ..................................................... 206
9.3 Composition estimators .......................................................... 209
9.4 Controller performance .......................................................... 210
9.5 Economic aspects .................................................................... 216
9.6 Summary ................................................................................. 216
10 Conclusions and
Recommendations ............................................................... 219
10.1 Introduction .......................................................................... 219

12
10.2 Controller synthesis ............................................................. 220

10.3 State-space or PID control? ................................................. 221
10.4 How many temperature measurements? ............................ 222
10.5 Column models ..................................................................... 223
10.6 Recommendations ................................................................ 223
10.6.1 Academic research ...................................................... 223
10.6.2 Decentralized control systems .................................... 224
10.6.3 Cooperation industry—university .............................. 225
Curriculum vitae .................................................................. 227

13
Symbols
δ Uncertainty scalar value

Δ Uncertainty matrix or deviation from nominal operating point
θ Parameter vector
κ Condition number, κ = σ max ⁄ σ min
λ Eigenvalue
μ Structured singular value
ρ Spectral radius
σ Singular value
B Bottom product stream (mol/s)
D Distillate stream (mol/s) or diagonal scaling matrix
d Disturbance signals
e Control error
F Feed flow rate (mol/s)
Fl Lower fractional transformation
G(s) Transfer function
G u → y Transfer function from control signals u to output signals y
I Identity matrix
K(s) Controller
L0 Reflux (mol/s)
M Joint weighted plant and controller, M ( P, K ) = F l ( P, K )
P Weighted plant
p Pressure (N/m2)
14
r Reference signals
Se(s) Sensitivity function at e, S e ( s ) = [ I + G ( s )K ( s ) ] –1
Su(s) Sensitivity function at u, S u ( s ) = [ I + K ( s )G ( s ) ] – 1
T Temperature (°C)
T r → y Transfer function from reference signals to output signals
u Control signals
V51 Boilup (mol/s)
W(s) Diagonal matrix of weighting transfer functions
w(s) Weighting transfer function
xD Top product composition (mol/mol)
xB Bottom product composition (mol/mol)
xF Feed composition (mol/mol)
y Output signals
15
Abstract
It is well known that high-purity distillation columns are difficult to

control due to their ill-conditioned and strongly nonlinear behavior.
Usually distillation columns are operated within a wide range of feed
compositions and flow rates, which makes a control design even more
difficult. Nevertheless, a tight control of both product compositions is
necessary to guarantee the smallest possible energy consumption, as
well as high and uniform product qualities.
This thesis discusses a new approach for the dual composition control
design, which takes the entire operating range of a distillation column
into account. With the example of an industrial binary distillation
column, a structured uncertainty model is developed which describes
quite well the nonlinear column dynamics with several simultaneous
model uncertainties. This uncertainty model forms the basis for feed-
back controller designs by μ-synthesis or μ-optimization. The resulting
controllers are distinguished by a high controller performance and high
robustness guaranteed for the entire operating range. This method
enables the synthesis of state-space controllers as well as the μ-optimal
tuning of advanced PID control structures.
The already satisfactory compensation of feed flow disturbances can be

improved even further by use of feedforward control. Even for the design
of the feedforward controllers the basic ideas of the feedback controller
design can be employed. A simultaneous feedforward controller design
for two column models representing the extreme column loads yields
outstanding results. Similar to the feedback controller design, a design
of state-space controllers by H ∞ -minimization or an optimal tuning of
simple feedforward control structures by parameter optimization is
possible.
Control engineers working in an industrial environment are conscious

of the high effort needed for the implementation of state-space control-
16
lers in a distributed control system. Therefore a controller design based

on PID or advanced PID control structures is of high relevance for the
industrial practice. Usually, the performance of these PID control struc-
tures is expected to lag significantly behind the performance of high-
order state-space controllers. However, comparing the performances of
the state-space controllers with those of the advanced PID controllers,
merely slight advantages of the state-space controllers are detected.
This surprising result, achieved with an unconventional tuning of the
PID control structures, allows the simple implementation of advanced
PID control structures in a decentralized control system without a
significant loss of controller performance.
The good robustness properties and the high performance of the control
schemes are confirmed by the implementation of an advanced PID
control scheme on a real industrial distillation column. An estimation of
the economic benefits made by this project much more than justifies the
effort expended.
17
Kurzfassung
Bekanntermaßen sind Rektifikationskolonnen mit hohen Produktrein-

heiten wegen ihres schlecht konditionierten und stark nichtlinearen
Verhaltens schwierig zu regeln. Häufig werden sie in einem weiten
Bereich unterschiedlicher Zulaufkonzentrationen und -mengen
betrieben, was den Entwurf von Regelungen zusätzlich erschwert.
Dennoch ist eine gute Regelung beider Produktkonzentrationen
notwendig, um einerseits einen möglichst kleinen Energieverbrauch
und andererseits hohe und einheitliche Produktqualitäten sicher-
zustellen.
Diese Arbeit beschreibt einen neuen Ansatz für den Entwurf von
Konzentrationsregelungen, der den gesamten Arbeitsbereich einer
Rektifikationskolonne berücksichtigt. Am Beispiel einer industriellen
binären Rektifikationskolonne wird ein strukturiertes Unsicherheits-
modell entwickelt, welches das nichtlineare dynamische Verhalten der
Rektifikationskolonne durch mehrere Modell-Unsicherheiten gut
beschreibt. Dieses Unsicherheitsmodell bildet die Basis für den
Entwurf von Reglern mittels μ-Synthese oder μ-Optimierung. Die resul-
tierenden Regler zeichnen sich durch eine – über den gesamten
Betriebsbereich garantierte – hohe Regelqualität bei sehr grosser
Robustheit aus. Dieses Vorgehen erlaubt sowohl den Entwurf von
Zustandsregelungen als auch die Berechnung μ-optimaler Einstel-
lungen für erweiterte PID-Regelstrukturen.
Die bereits zufriedenstellende Unterdrückung von Störungen der

Zulaufmenge wird durch den Einsatz einer Störgrößenaufschaltung
noch verbessert. Auch für ihren Entwurf können ähnliche Konzepte
verwendet werden. Ein Entwurf von Störgrössenaufschaltungen, bei
dem gleichzeitig zwei Modelle der Rektifikationskolonne berücksichtigt
werden, welche die extremen Kolonnenbelastungen wiedergeben, führt
zu hervorragenden Ergebnissen. Vergleichbar mit dem Regelungs-
entwurf können sowohl Störgrössenaufschaltungen mit der Struktur
18
von Zustandsregelungen (durch Minimierung der H ∞ -Norm) als auch

Störgrößenaufschaltungen mit einfacher Struktur (durch Parameter-
optimierung im Zeitbereich) berechnet werden.
In der industriellen Praxis tätige Regelungstechniker sind sich der
Schwierigkeiten, die mit der Realisierung von Zustandsregelungen auf
dezentralen Prozeßleitsystemen verbunden sind, sicherlich bewußt.
Daher ist der Regelungsentwurf auf der Grundlage von PID- oder erwei-
terten PID-Regelstrukturen von hoher praktischer Relevanz. Meist
bleibt die mit solchen Strukturen erzielbare Regelgüte hinter der von
Zustandsregelungen deutlich zurück. In dieser Arbeit werden die
entworfenen Zustandsregelungen und die optimal eingestellten fortge-
schrittenen PID-Regelstrukturen verglichen. Dabei zeigt sich, daß auch
mit einfachen Regelstrukturen, die entsprechenden unkonventionellen
Regler-Einstellungen vorausgesetzt, eine Regelqualität erzielt wird, die
der von Zustandsregelungen nahekommt. Dieses überraschende
Resultat erlaubt die einfache Implementierung von erweiterten PID-
Regelstrukturen in dezentralen Prozeßleitsystemen ohne wesentlichen
Verlust an Regelgüte.
Die Erprobung eines Regelungsentwurfs auf der Grundlage fort-
geschrittener PID-Strukturen an der industriellen Rektifikations-
kolonne bestätigt die große Robustheit und die hohe Regelgüte in der
Praxis. Dabei zeigt eine Abschätzung der Wirtschaftlichkeit, daß der bei
einem solchen Projekt notwendige Aufwand mehr als gerechtfertigt ist.
1.1 “Modern Control: Why Don’t We Use It?” 19
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 “Modern Control: Why Don’t We Use It?”

“Modern Control: Why Don’t We Use It?” is the title of a paper written
by R. K. Pearson in 1984 [1.4]. In the first section of that paper Pearson
states: “Advanced control systems utilizing multivariable strategies
based on process models can outperform traditional designs in broad
classes of application. Yet, in spite of market forces demanding better
process performance and ample evidence showing that the improve-
ments can be achieved, the gap between theory and practice in the
industrial sector is not narrowing appreciably.”
Ten years later the situation has not changed. The modern control theo-
ries provide the process control engineer with increasingly sophisticated
tools for a robust, model-based controller design. The advantages of
these controllers over the PID control structures which are usually
tuned on-line, have been shown in numerous publications. Neverthe-
less, more than 90% of all control loops in the process industry use PID
control, while only a few applications of the modern control theories can
be reported [1.10]. Therefore the mismatch between theory and practice
is still evident. Some of the reasons for this situation are discussed
below.
20 1 Introduction
Distributed Control Systems
For a control engineer in the process industry, process control in the first
place is a hardware problem. His perspective is the installation and
configuration of a Distributed Control System (DCS) [1.1]. Even the
modern DCS are often limited to PID and advanced PID control. For the
DCS, an implementation of modern state space controllers requires
either the coupling with an external computer or the programming of
software modules. Both ways are troublesome and expensive. The
university research pays little attention to this situation. The design of
robust controllers with fixed structures (e.g., PID control structures) is
a largely unexplored field.
Dynamic Models
Linear dynamic models are the foundation of a modern, robust

controller design. However, no general dynamic models are available for
unit operations. For each plant linear dynamic models must be devel-
oped, based on either linearization of nonlinear models or on system
identification methods. Both ways are often expensive and very time-
consuming ([1.5], [1.6]). Furthermore, most plants in the process
industry show a strongly nonlinear dynamic behavior, which is unsatis-
factorily described by a single linear model.
Economic benefits
The economic benefits of improved control tend to be significantly

underestimated. A benchmark study by ICI “indicated that the effective
use of improved process control technology could add more than one
third to the worldwide ICI Group’s profits” [1.1]. Another study shows
smaller, but still massive benefits [1.2].
Of course it is not necessary to replace all PID-controllers by modern

advanced control structures. Most control problems in the process
industry are handled well with simple PID control. However, strongly
nonlinear or/and ill-conditioned plants require advanced control tech-
niques for a high controller performance.
1.2 Scope and significance of this thesis 21
1.2 Scope and significance of this thesis
1.2.1 Distillation as a unit operation example
Distillation is one of the most widely used unit operations in the process
industry. In the simplest case, a distillation column separates a feed of
two components into a top product stream (with a high fraction of the
low-boiling component) and a bottom product stream (with a high frac-
tion of the high-boiling component). In an industrial setting, the feed
flow rate and the feed composition may vary within a wide range of oper-
ating conditions.
This separation consumes a huge amount of energy. A minimization of

the energy consumption and an economic optimal operation usually
require (1) a tight control of both product compositions (dual composi-
tion control) and (2) often small fractions of impurities in the product
streams (high purity distillation). However, the strongly nonlinear and
ill-conditioned behavior makes high-purity distillation columns difficult
to control. Therefore high-purity distillation columns have become an
interesting test case for robust control design methods.
1.2.2 Earlier research
Without any doubt the distillation process is the most studied unit oper-
ation in terms of control. Skogestad estimates that new papers in this
field appear at a rate of at least 50 each year [1.7]. It is practically
impossible to give a review of all these publications. The interested
reader is advised to consult the reviews of Tolliver and Waggoner [1.8],
Waller [1.9], MacAvoy and Wang [1.3], and the recent review of
Skogestad [1.7].
If we focus our interest on the design of linear, time-invariant control-

lers, we must state that all the well-known model-based and robust
control design methods (LQG/LTR, H∞, Normalized Coprime Factoriza-
tion, μ-synthesis, etc.) have been applied to distillation columns.
However, all these publications discuss the controller design for just one
operating point. The problem designing a robust controller which maxi-
22 1 Introduction
mizes the controller performance for the entire operating range has not
been addressed as yet.
1.2.3 Robust control and nonlinear plants
The well-known robust control design methods like H∞ -minimization or

LQG/LTR are based on the assumption of an unstructured, frequency
dependent uncertainty at one location in the plant. Such an unstruc-
tured uncertainty may be a multiplicative uncertainty at plant input or
output, or an additive uncertainty.
A controller design for the entire operating range of a distillation

column using one of these well-known methods has two inherent prob-
lems:
• Due to the high nonlinearities an estimation of unstructured

uncertainty bounds will lead to very large bounds, prohibiting
any acceptable controller design.
• A controller design using any arbitrary, smaller uncertainty
bound guarantees robust performance (RP) and robust stability
(RS) for the actual operating point, but not for the entire oper-
ating range.
1.2.4 Contributions of this thesis
This thesis presents a new approach for the composition control design
of a binary distillation column (Figure 1.1). The design concept is based
on a structured uncertainty model which describes the column dynamics
for the entire operating range quite well. The resulting controller
designs using μ-synthesis (for state-space controller) or μ-optimization
(for controllers with fixed structure), respectively, lead to results which
guarantee robust performance and robust stability for the entire oper-
ating range of the distillation column. Special emphasis is placed on the
optimal tuning of easy-to-realize PID-control structures. It will be
shown that extraordinary controller performance can be achieved even
with these relatively simple controller structures.
1.3 Structure of the dissertation 23
Standard approaches Improved approach
Uncertainty model
Linear model for a
describing column dynamics
single operating point
for entire operating range
Robust control design μ-synthesis

H∞, LQG/LTR, ........ μ-optimization
Weak point: Advantage:
RS & RP at other RS & RP guaranteed

operating points for whole operating range
Figure 1.1: Robust control design approaches
1.3 Structure of the dissertation

A robust, model-based controller design for a distillation column
consists of several steps. A typical course is illustrated in Figure 1.2.
The results and methods of each step influence all the following steps.
The consideration of just one of these design steps, disengaged from all
others, neglects the conceptional coherence. Therefore all of the design
steps are discussed within this thesis. The sequence orients itself to the
natural course of the controller design.
24 1 Introduction
Nonlinear Model
Linear Models
Uncertainty structure
Parameter
Controller synthesis
adaptations
Nonlinear simulations
Tests on plant
Implementation in DCS
Figure 1.2: Steps of a model based controller design
The following chapter consists of three parts: The first part describes
the design and operating data of the distillation column, followed by an
overview of the steady-state and dynamic column behavior. The second
part discusses the control objectives and control configuration for this
column, while the third part describes the use of pressure-compensated
temperatures as controlled outputs.
Rigorous nonlinear dynamic models are the basis for simulation studies
and for linearization. They are discussed in Chapter 3.
1.3 Structure of the dissertation 25
The main subject of Chapter 4 is the derivation of linear models. Two

different methods are presented which lead to linear models which
neglect and include flow dynamics, respectively.
A structured uncertainty model which describes the nonlinear behavior
of the distillation column for the entire operating range is developed in
Chapter 5.
Based on that structured uncertainty model, controllers can be designed
within the framework of the structured singular values. In the first part
of Chapter 6 the theoretical background of the structured singular value
μ is summarized. While the second part of that chapter presents the μ-
optimal design of state-space controllers, the third part is dedicated to
the μ-optimal design of PID control structures. Simulation studies
confirm the theoretical results.
In Chapter 7 the results of the μ-optimal controller design are compared
with results obtained by more common design methods, based on an
unstructured uncertainty description.
Usually the feed flow rate is a measured disturbance input to a distilla-
tion column. Therefore, feedforward control can significantly improve
the compensation of feed flow disturbances, which is discussed in
Chapter 8.
A controller design should yield a satisfactory control quality not only in
dynamic simulations but also in the real plant. The results of the prac-
tical implementation are presented in Chapter 9.
The conclusions and the recommendation for further research in
Chapter 10 complete this thesis.
The literature references and, if necessary, the special notations are
given at the end of each chapter.
26 1 Introduction
1.4 References
[1.1] Brisk, M.L.: “Process Control: Theories and Profits,” Preprints of
the 12th World Congress of the International Federation of Auto-
matic Control, Sydney, July 18-23, 7, 241-250 (1993)
[1.2] Marlin, T. E., J. D. Perkins, G. W. Barton, and M. L. Brisk: “Ben-

efits from process control: results of a joint industry−university
study,” J. Proc. Cont., 1, 68-83 (1991)
[1.3] McAvoy, T. J. and Y. H. Wang, “Survey of Recent Distillation

Control Results,” ISA Transactions, 25, 1, 5-21 (1986)
[1.4] Pearson, R. K.: “Modern Control: Why Don’t We Use It?,” InTech,
34, 47-49 (1984)
[1.5] Schuler, H., F. Algöwer, and E. D. Gilles: “Chemical Process

Control: Present Status and Future Needs ⎯ The View from Eu-
ropean Industry,” Proceedings of the Fourth International Con-
ference on Chemical Process Control, South Padre Island, Texas,
February 17-22, 29-52 (1991)
[1.6] Schuler, H.: “Was behindert den praktischen Einsatz moderner

regelungstechnischer Methoden in der Prozess-Industrie,” atp,
34, 3, 116-123 (1992)
[1.7] Skogestad, S.: “Dynamics and Control of Distillation Columns –

a Critical Survey,” Preprints of the 3rd IFAC Symposium on Dy-
namics and Control of Chemical Reactors, Distillation Columns
and Batch Processes, April 26-29, College Park, Maryland, 1-25
(1992)
[1.8] Tolliver, T. L. and R. C. Waggoner: “Distillation Column Control;

a Review and Perspective from the CPI,” Advances in Instrumen-
tation, 35, 1, 83-106 (1980)
[1.9] Waller, K. V.: “University Research on Dual Composition Con-

trol of Distillation: A Review”, Chemical Process Control 2, Sea
Island, Georgia, January 18-23, 395-412 (1981)
1.4 References 27
[1.10] Yamamoto, S. and I. Hashimoto: “Present Status And Future

Needs: The View from Japanese Industry,” Proceedings of the
Fourth International Conference on Chemical Process Control,
South Padre Island, Texas, February 17-22, 1-28 (1991)
28 1 Introduction
2.1 Introduction 29
Chapter 2
The Distillation Process —

An Industrial Example
2.1 Introduction
A distillation column is not just any mass-produced article such as a
toaster or a washing-machine. Each distillation column is a unique
process unit, specially designed for the separation of a particular
substance mixture. Nevertheless, the thermodynamic principles and
basic dynamics are always the same. Therefore it is possible to demon-
strate ideas for the controller design by the example of one column
without extensive loss of generality.
First in this chapter, the design and operating data of the industrial
distillation column are outlined, followed by a brief description of the
composition dynamics. The further two sections outline the control
objectives, the control structures, and the use of tray temperatures as
controlled outputs. The literature references terminate the chapter.
2.2 Column design and operation

The distillation column described in this thesis is an industrial binary
distillation column. A synopsis of the most important data for this distil-
30 2 The Distillation Process — An Industrial Example
lation column is given in Table 2.1. The distillation column (Fig. 2.1) is
equipped with 50 sieve trays, a total condenser, and a steam-heated
reboiler. The subcooled feed F enters the column on tray 20 (counted
from the top) and for the greater part consists of a mixture of two
substances. Because of the small fraction of impurities, these are
neglected and the distillation column is considered to be a binary distil-
lation column. The desired product compositions are 0.99 mol/mol (low
boiling component) for the top product D and 0.015 mol/mol for the
bottom product B. As these product purities are relatively high, this
distillation column can be classified as a “high purity distillation
column.”
Table 2.1: Steady-state data
Column data
No. of trays 50
Column diameter (m) 0.8
Feed tray 20
Murphree tray efficiency ≈0.4
Relative volatility α 1.61
Operating data
Top composition xD (mol/mol) 0.99
Bottom composition xB (mol/mol) 0.015
Feed composition xF (mol/mol) 0.7-0.9
Feed flow rate F (mol/min) 20-46
Top pressure (mbar) 60
Nominal operating point

Feed composition (mol/mol) 0.8
Feed flow rate (mol/min) 33
Reflux L0 (mol/min) 65
Boilup V51 (mol/min) 104
2.2 Column design and operation 31
Vacuum
VT Condenser
Top product (Distillate)

1
2 D, xD
3 Reflux accumulator
4 L0
Reflux
Feed
20
F, xF
47
48
49
50
Boilup
V51
Reboiler
B, xB
Bottom product
Figure 2.1: The industrial distillation column

Feed disturbances
The distillation column is connected in series following two other distil-

lation columns, which operate in parallel. The bottom product streams
of these two columns are buffered by a tank and fed into the column
considered here. The level of the buffer tank is measured periodically
(typical period: 2 hours) and the feed of the column is set to keep the
tank level within specified bounds. Therefore, the feed flow is varied not
continuously but stepwise. In contrast to that, the variations of the feed
composition are always smooth. Even a shutdown of one of the other two
columns cannot cause a sudden increase of the buffer tank’s composi-
tion.
Top pressure control
The boiling points of the entering substances are high at standard atmo-
spheric pressure. Because of a thermal decomposition of the light
component at higher temperatures, the column is operated under
vacuum. Correspondingly, the cooling water flow rate for the condenser
is kept constant and the top pressure is controlled by a vacuum pump.
Top level control
The reflux accumulator level is controlled by overflow. Hence the top

product flow rate D is not available as a manipulated variable for a
composition control system.
2.3 Steady-state behavior

Let us assume a composition control scheme with integrating behavior,
e.g., one PI controller which controls the top composition by manipu-
lating the reflux and one which controls the bottom composition by
manipulating the boilup. Then, in steady-state, the product composi-
tions are kept perfectly at their set-points, and an S-shaped composition
profile is developed within the distillation column. Figure 2.2 shows the
simulated composition profiles for different feed flow rates and compo-
2.3 Steady-state behavior 33
10
20
xF = 0.7 mol/mol
No.
TrayNo.
xF = 0.8 mol/mol
Tray
xF = 0.9 mol/mol
30 F = 20 mol/min
F = 33 mol/min
F = 46 mol/min
40
50
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Composition
Composition (mol/mol)
Figure 2.2: Simulated composition profiles for the industrial distillation column
sitions. While these steady-state profiles are nearly independent of the

feed flow rate, they depend essentially on the feed composition. This has
a high significance for a controller design: If we want to keep the product
compositions close to their setpoints, we must allow profile variations in
the middle of the column. Consequently, we cannot control any composi-
tion in the middle of the column.
The internal flow rates can be illustrated in a similar manner. Figure

2.3 shows the simulated liquid and vapor flow rates for the nominal
operating point. As previously mentioned, the reflux as well as the feed
are subcooled, i.e. they enter the column at a temperature below the
boiling point. A fraction of the vapor flow is condensed at the trays
where these two streams are fed into the distillation column. The two
Liquid flow
10
Vapor flow
20
Tray No.
Figure 2.3: Simulated vapor and liquid

flow rates at nominal operating point
30
40
50
60 80 100 120
Flow rate (mol/min)
2.4 Composition dynamics 35
discontinuities of the vapor flow profile at trays 1/2 and 20/21 result
therefrom. The reason for the slopes of the two profiles within the strip-
ping and rectifying section of the column is the different heat of evapo-
ration of the two substances.
2.4 Composition dynamics

The composition dynamics within a distillation column is effectively
described by movements and shape alterations of the composition
profile. In order to illustrate this, let us control the reboiler level of the
distillation column by the bottom product flow rate B, and let us keep
the reboiler heat duty constant. The simulated step responses of the
composition profile to a 5% increase and a 5% decrease of the reflux flow
rate are shown by Figure 2.4. An increase of the reflux (Fig. 2.4 a) raises
the fraction of the light component in the column bottom. Consequently,
the composition profile of the light component moves towards the
column bottom, degrading the bottom product composition from 1.5% to
more than 30% impurity. The opposite effect is observed for a decrease
of the reflux flow rate (Fig. 2.4 b): The composition profile moves
towards the column top, which improves the bottom product composi-
tion and debases the top product composition.
These plots illustrate two important properties of the composition

dynamics:
• Column nonlinearity: The product compositions are a nonlinear

function of the reflux, boilup, and the feed condition: A 5%-
increase of the reflux flow rate improves the top product compo-
sition by 0.007 mol/mol, but a 5% decrease degrades it by more
than 0.2 mol/mol.
• Strong interactions: A change of reflux or boilup alters both

product compositions.
0 0
10 10
t
20 20
t = 20 h
Tray No.
Tray No.
t=0h
Δt= 30 min
30 30
Δt= 30 min
t=0h
40 40
t
t = 20 h
50 50
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Composition
Composition (mol/mol) Composition
a) b)
Figure 2.4: Simulated composition profiles (light component) for a step change of
the reflux. Reboiler heat duty, feed flow rate and composition are kept at their
nominal values (see Table 2.1)
a) L0=1.05*L0,nom b) L0=0.95*L0,nom
2.5 Control objectives and configurations 37
The interaction between both product compositions and reflux and

boilup has a severe consequence for the composition dynamics, usually
called
• Ill-conditioned behavior.
This is best explained by another two examples. If we like to increase

both product purities simultaneously, we have to increase reflux and
boilup by an exact quantity, for example the reflux by +26.5% and the
boilup by +19% (Figure 2.5 a). This keeps the composition profile’s posi-
tion constant, but it slowly intensifies the S-shape of profile. However a
slightly smaller step size for the reflux completely alters the dynamic
behavior (Fig. 2.5 b): The purity of the top product decreases, the purity
of the bottom product increases, and the dynamic response is much
faster. Therefore an exact direction of the input vector [ L, V ] T is
required in order to achieve a simultaneous increase of both product
purities. Consequently, even a small uncertainty of the input vector
[ L, V ] T may lead to undesired results. High condition numbers
σ max { G ( jω ) }
κ = ----------------------------------
- (2.1)
σ min { G ( jω ) }
of the plant model G indicate such a behavior.
2.5 Control objectives and configurations

The control of distillation columns has three objectives [2.2]:
• Control of the material balance (inventory control)
• Product quality control
• Satisfaction of constraints
The first objective includes the control of the vapor holdup (top pres-
sure), the reflux accumulator level, and the reboiler level. Generally,
these control objectives are easily achieved by simple PI controllers.
0 0
10 10
Δt = 4h
t
20 Δt = 10h 20
t
Tray No.
Tray No.
t = 40 h
30 30 t=0h
t
t = 40 h
t=0h
40 40
Composition
Composition
0 Time (h) 40 0 Time (h) 40
50 50
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Composition
Composition (mol/mol) Composition
a) b)
Figure 2.5: Simulated composition profiles (light component) for a step change of
the reflux and the reboiler heat duty. The feed is kept at nominal condition (see
Table 2.1).
a) L0=1.265*L0,nom b) L0=1.260*L0,nom
V51=1.19*V51,nom V51=1.19*V51,nom
The second objective is the most important objective. It is strongly

related to the economic and ecological optimal operation of a distillation
column. Tight control of both product qualities minimizes the energy
consumption and the amount of products being off the specifications. It
is not a simple task to keep both product compositions close to their
setpoints, especially in the presence of disturbances such as variations
of feed flow rate and feed composition. Tight composition control
requires sophisticated control schemes. Their design is the main topic of
this thesis.
Reflux, boilup, and pressure drop are allowed to vary within a

predefined range. Any operation of a distillation column outside of this
range may cause insufficient separation or even damage of the column.
Each control system must handle such constraints to enable safe opera-
tion. This topic is well discussed by Buckley et al. [2.2] and Shinskey
[2.4].
2.5.1 The 5×5 control problem
A simple distillation column, such as the industrial example discussed

here, presents a control problem with the five control objectives
• Top composition
• Bottom composition
• Reflux accumulator level
• Reboiler level
• Top pressure
and the five manipulated variables
• Reflux
• Boilup (indirectly controlled by reboiler duty)
• Top product flow rate
• Bottom product flow rate
• Cooling water flow rate (or vapor flow rate to vacuum)
This problem is often called the 5×5 control problem. As mentioned

above, the top pressure is controlled by a vacuum pump and the reflux
Controlled outputs Manipulated inputs
3×3 control problem

Top product xD Reflux L
Bottom product xB Boilup V (Reboiler duty Q)
Reboiler level MB Bottom product flow rate B
Condenser level MD Top product flow rate D

Top pressure p Overhead vapor VT
(Cooling water flow rate,
vacuum pump)
5×5 control problem
Figure 2.6: The distillation control problems
accumulator level by overflow. Thus the 5x5 control problem is reduced

to a 3×3 control problem. These relations are illustrated in Figure 2.6.
2.5.2 Control design steps
In principle, the design of a MIMO controller for the 5×5 or in this case
the 3×3 control problem does not cause any particular difficulties.
However, the failure of just one actuator or sensor disables all control
loops. Due to the high sensitivity of MIMO controllers to sensor or actu-
ator failure, the inventory control and the composition control usually
are independently designed, thus improving the robustness of the
control system and simplifying the controller design. The corresponding
design approach consists of three steps [2.5]:
1. Choosing the control configuration
In a first step the two manipulated variables for the composition control
are to be chosen. This choice names the control configuration. For
example, if the top composition xD is controlled by reflux L and the
bottom composition xB is controlled by boilup V, the control configura-
tion is called L,V control configuration. After the choice of the manipu-
lated variables for composition control, the remaining three
manipulated variables are available for level and pressure control.
The choice of the control configuration is often based on configuration

selection methods such as Relative Gain Array (RGA), Niederlinski
Index, or Singular Value Decomposition (SVD). The application of these
indices may lead to very different results (see [2.1], [2.6]), and the reli-
ability seems to be low. One reason for the limited reliability may be the
neglect of inventory control: Yang et. al. [2.9] point to the substantial
influence of inventory control on the composition control dynamics.
Most indices for control configuration selection are based on steady-
state gains. Consequently, perfect inventory control is assumed and
dynamic effects due to the interaction of inventory and composition
control are neglected.
The most common control configuration in the chemical industry is the

L,V configuration [2.7]. This control structure is rather independent of
inventory control dynamics [2.9] and has shown good results within an
experimental comparison of different control structures [2.8].
2. Inventory control design
In general, tight inventory control can be achieved with three simple PI

controllers. Some distillation columns show an inverse response of the
reboiler level to an increase of boilup. In this case, tight level control
with boilup as manipulated variable may be difficult.
3. Composition control design
A 2×2 controller for composition control is to be designed as a third step

of the design. This step is discussed in chapters 5-8.
2.6 Tray temperatures as controlled outputs

On-line composition analyzers are frequently used to determine product
compositions. However, their investment and maintenance costs are
prohibitive for distillation columns below a certain size. Provided that
substances with a boiling point difference of at least 10 °C are separated
and that the product purity specifications are not extremely stringent,
pressure-compensated temperatures may substitute composition
measurements ([2.2], [2.4]).
2.6.1 Pressure-compensated temperatures
For binary mixtures a definite correlation exists between boiling

temperature, pressure, and composition
T = f ( p, x ) (2.1)
This correlation is illustrated in Figure 2.7 for the two components

entering the industrial distillation column. A substitution of the compo-
sition measurements by temperature measurements requires a compen-
sation for the effect of pressure variations.
If the pressure variations are small, the temperature measurement can

be compensated by a linear function. The nominal pressure and compo-
sition are denoted by the index N.
∂T
T Compensated = T + ------ ( p – pN ) (2.2)
∂p N
In case of larger pressure variations, a second-order term has to be

supplied:
2
∂T 1 ∂
T Compensated = T + ------ ( p – p N ) + --- 2 T ( p – pN ) 2 (2.3)
∂p N
2∂p
N
2.6 Tray temperatures as controlled outputs 43
Figure 2.7: Boiling points of the two-component-mixture

Estimation of tray composition
It is possible to infer the tray composition directly. By regression of

{x, T, p} data, the coefficients of a simple polynomial expression can be
calculated. An example is given by
x = θ 1 + θ 2 ( T + T Corr ) + θ 3 p + θ 4 p 2 (2.4)
Such an equation in terms of the absolute temperature and pressure is

simpler to implement in a distributed control system than an equation
in terms of deviations from reference values
x = θ1 + θ2 ( T – TN ) + θ3 ( p – pN ) + θ4 ( p – pN )2 (2.5)
One problem of the tray composition estimate is a potential bias of the

temperature measurements. Practical experience has shown that a bias
of up to 2 °C is to be expected due to heat transport phenomena. In (2.4)
the bias is corrected by the parameter T Corr . In practice, however, this
correction is difficult to estimate. In principle, it would be possible to
include cross terms such as θTp in the regression model. However,
errors in the absolute temperature may lead to incorrect numerical
values of these cross terms. Therefore, in the regression model, cross
terms should be avoided.
Pressure compensation as well as the estimation of tray composition are

easily implemented in a process control system. Without a pressure
compensation, it is impossible to use tray temperatures in a vacuum
column as controlled variables and expensive composition analyzers are
necessary. For temperature measurements close to the column top, a
linear compensation is usually sufficient. For trays close to the column
bottom, we have to expect higher pressure variations, and a compensa-
tion with a second-order polynomial is recommended.
2.6.2 Temperature measurement placement
The sensitivity of the tray temperatures near the ends of the column to
changes of the product compositions is very small. To make the temper-
2.7 References 45
ature measurement sensitive enough, it has to be located at some

distance from the column ends. Figure 2.2 shows simulated steady-state
composition profiles for the industrial distillation column. These
profiles illustrate the fact that the effect of a change of operating condi-
tions increases with growing distance from the column ends. On the
other hand, a deterioration of the correlation between product composi-
tion and tray temperature results from an increasing distance from the
column ends. A compromise between correlation with product composi-
tion and sensitivity must thus be found. Kister discusses the most
important rules and tools in [2.3].
In the case of the industrial distillation column, the temperatures on

trays 10 and 44 are chosen as controlled outputs. Additionally, the
temperature on tray 24 is measured. Since tray 24 is close to the feed
tray, it is expected to be sensitive to any change of feed composition and,
dynamically, to the feed flow rate.
2.7 References
[2.1] Ariburnu, D., C. Ozge, and T. Gurkan: “Selection of the Best
Control Configuration for an Industrial Distillation Column,”
Preprints of 3rd IFAC Symposium on Dynamics and Control of
Chemical Reactors, Distillation Columns and Batch Processes,
April 26-29, 1992, College Park, MD, 387-392 (1992)
[2.2] Buckley, P. S., W. L. Luyben, and J. P. Shunta: Design of Distil-

lation Column Control Systems, Instrument Society of America,
Research Triangle Park, NC (1985)
[2.3] Kister, H. Z., Distillation Operation, McGraw-Hill, New York

(1990)
[2.4] Shinskey, F. G., Distillation control for productivity and energy

conservation, 2. ed., McGraw Hill, New York (1984)
[2.5] Skogestad, S., and M. Morari: “Control Configuration Selection

for Distillation Control,” AIChE J., 33, 10, 1620-1635 (1987)
[2.6] Skogestad, S., P. Lundström, and E. W. Jacobsen: “Selecting the

Best Distillation Control Configuration,” AIChE J., 36, 5, 753-
764 (1990)
[2.7] Skogestad, S.: “Dynamics and Control of Distillation Columns ⎯

A Critical Survey,” 3rd IFAC Symposium on Dynamics and Con-
trol of Chemical Reactors, Distillation Columns and Batch Pro-
cesses, April 26-29, 1992, College Park, MD, 1-25 (1992)
[2.8] Waller, K. V., D. H. Finnerman, P. M. Sandelin, K. E. Häggblom,

and S. E. Gustafsson, “An Experimental Comparison of Four
Control Structures for Two-Point Control of Distillation,” Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res., 27, 624-630 (1988)
[2.9] Yang, D. R., D. E. Seborg, and D. A. Mellichamp: “The Influence

of Inventory Control Dynamics on Distillation Composition Con-
trol,” Preprints of the 12th World Congress of the International
Federation of Automatic Control, Sydney, 18-23 July 1993, 1, 71-
76 (1993)
3.1 Introduction 47
Chapter 3
A Rigorous Dynamic Model of

Distillation Columns
3.1 Introduction
The rigorous dynamic process simulation has become an accepted and
widespread tool in process and even more so in controller design [3.11].
Increasing competition and environmental protection provisions
require an optimization of process and control structures, which can be
obtained only by a substantial knowledge of process dynamics. At the
same time, dynamic experiments on a running plant are less and less
desired. Rigorous dynamic modelling and simulation can replace such
expensive and time-consuming measurements. This has special signifi-
cance for high-purity distillation columns. Due to their long time
constants and varying feed flow rates and feed compositions, reproduc-
ible operating conditions are difficult to guarantee. Therefore, new
controllers are usually tested thoroughly by dynamic simulation for the
full operating range of the distillation column. The rigorous models of
distillation columns used for that purpose match the reality to a large
extent [3.17].
In this chapter, a rigorous dynamic model for distillation columns is

discussed. This model is used in all nonlinear dynamic simulations
48 3 A Rigorous Dynamic Model of Distillation Columns
within this thesis. In a special section, the numerical treatment of the

resulting system of algebraic-differential equations is outlined. The
modelling and control fields use very different notations. Therefore the
notation used within this chapter is explained in section 3.11.
3.2 Conventions
Figure 3.1 shows a schematic representation of a distillation column
equipped with nt trays. The column top (condenser and reflux accumu-
lator) is denoted by the index 0, the trays with the indices 1, 2, … nt, and
the column bottom (including the reboiler) with the index nt+1. To
simplify the formal mathematical description the reflux stream R is
designated as liquid flow (L0).
The feed of the industrial distillation column, as described in Chapter 2,

is in liquid phase and subcooled. The top pressure is controlled by a
vacuum pump and the condenser is operated with a constant cooling
water flow rate. Flash calculations for the feed stream as well as
dynamic models for the top pressure of the column are therefore not
considered here. For other applications, the model presented is easily
extended with appropriate model equations.
3.3 The objective of modelling

The control or process engineer is interested in the dynamic behavior of
various important process variables (e.g., tray temperatures, product
compositions) as a function of the time-varying column inputs. The
objective of a dynamic model is an approximation of the real process
input/output behavior by a system of differential and algebraic equa-
tions. These model equations are based on material and energy balances
as well as on thermodynamic and fluid dynamic correlations.
3.4 Simplifying assumptions

Within a distillation column many different physical phenomena occur.
Although it would be possible to include models for the fluid streams on
3.4 Simplifying assumptions 49
Condenser
0
Q0
…………… Reflux accumulator

…………
R D
1 (=L0)
2
3
Sl,4
4
Vj
Fj j
Lj
Fnt-2
nt-2 Sv,nt-1
nt-1
nt Vnt+1
………… Qnt+1
…… Reboiler
nt+1
Figure 3.1: Distillation column

the trays, for the dead time caused by the transport time of vapor flow
from one tray to the next one above, or for the heat exchange with the
environment, the resulting model would be of very high order. As
mentioned earlier, the aim of modelling the distillation column
dynamics is a sufficient description of the real macroscopic behavior.
This means that we are interested primarily in the dynamics of tray
compositions, temperatures, and pressures etc. rather than in the fluid
streams on the trays. Experience shows that no substantial improve-
ment can be achieved with models including effects with more micro-
scopic characteristics. Hence the following assumptions are usually
introduced in order to achieve a compromise between model accuracy
and order ([3.3], [3.13], [3.17]):
• The holdup of the vapor phase is negligible compared to the
holdup of the liquid phase.
• Liquid phase and vapor phase are each well mixed on all trays,
i.e., the composition of the liquid and of the vapor phase are inde-
pendent of the position on the tray.
• The residence time of the liquid in the downcomer is neglected.
• The variation of the liquid enthalpy on a tray can be neglected on
all trays. (This assumption is not applicable to the evaporator.)
In the literature so far, uniform liquid flows and constant holdups for all
trays have often been assumed (equimolar overflow). This assumption
is problematic because it implies a neglect of flow dynamics. Essential
dynamic effects may remain unmodelled, e.g., a non-minimum phase
behavior (inverse response) of the reboiler level and the tray composi-
tions in the lower section of the column to an increase in reboiler heat
supply.
3.5 Balance equations 51
3.5 Balance equations
3.5.1 Material balances
The differential equations describing the dynamics of the holdup for

each component on a tray are derived from a material balance for each
component. The balance border is the single tray with its ingoing and
outgoing streams (Figure 3.2).
Lj-2
xk,j-2
. .
Vj-1
. . . ..
.
. .. .
yk,j-1
. .. . Sl,j-1
. . .
.
. . . j-1 Lj-1 xk,j-1
. ..
xk,j-1
Vj
.
yk,j . .. . ..
Fj . . .. . Sl,j
. . .
xF,k,j j
.. . .
.. . .
xk,j
Lj .
xk,j Sv,j+1
yk,j+1
. Vj+1
. .. . . .
.
. .. . yk,j+1
. . .
. . .
.
. . .
. .
j+1
Lj+1
xk,j+1
Vj+2
yk,j+2
Figure 3.2: Balance border for the material balances
Material balance for component k on tray j (k=1, …, nc; j=1, …, nt)
dn k, j d ( n j x k, j )
- = F j x F, k, j + L j – 1 x k, j – 1 – ( L j + S l, j )x k, j
-------------- = -----------------------
dt dt (3.1)
+ ( V j + 1 – S v, j + 1 )y k, j + 1 – V j y k, j
In the same way, the balance equations for the column top and the
column bottom are formulated:
Material balance for component k in condenser (k=1, …, nc)
dn k, 0 d ( n 0 x k, 0 )
- = ( V 1 – S v, 1 )y k, 1 – ( L 0 + D )x k, 0
- = -------------------------
-------------- (3.2)
dt dt
Material balance for component k in the evaporator (k=1, …, nc)
Usually the liquid phases in the column bottom and the reboiler are
mixed either by natural convection or by a pump. Assuming perfect
mixing we obtain
dn k, nt + 1 d ( n nt + 1 x k, nt + 1 )
------------------------- = ---------------------------------------------
-
dt dt (3.3)
= L nt x k, nt – Bx k, nt + 1 – V nt + 1 y k, nt + 1
The total holdup on tray j equals the sum of the holdups of the indi-
vidual substances:
nc
nj = ∑ n k, j (3.4)
k=1
3.5.2 Energy balance equations
The vapor flows within a distillation column are calculated by an energy

balance. The balance border is the same to the border in Figure 3.2,
which was used for the material balance equations.
Energy balance for tray j:
d
------ ( n j h' j ) = F j h' F, j + L j – 1 h' j – 1 + ( V j + 1 – S v, j + 1 )h'' j + 1
dt (3.5)
– ( S l, j + L j )h' j – V j h'' j
For the left-hand side of this equation the following holds

3.5 Balance equations 53
d dn dh'
------ ( n j h' j ) = h' j ---------j + n j ----------j (3.6)
dt dt dt
If in (3.6) we substitute the expression for the differential term dn j ⁄ dt

according to
dn
---------j = F j + L j – 1 + V j + 1 – S v, j + 1 – S l, j – L j – V j (3.7)
dt
the following energy balance equation holds
dh' j
n j ---------- = [ F j ( h' F, j – h' j ) + L j – 1 ( h' j – 1 – h' j )
dt (3.8)
+ ( V j + 1 – S v, j + 1 ) ( h'' j + 1 – h' j ) – V j ( h'' j – h' j )]
Usually, the assumption n j ( dh' j ⁄ dt ) ≈ 0 is permissible, except for cases

with large temperature variations on the trays, a large heat of mixing,
or a large tray holdup. With this assumption we can rewrite equation
(3.8) as an algebraic expression for the vapor flow rate V j
1
V j = -------------------- [ F j ( h' F, j – h' j ) + L j – 1 ( h' j – 1 – h' j )
h'' j – h' j (3.9)
+ ( V j + 1 – S v, j + 1 ) ( h'' j + 1 – h' j )]
A similar balance equation is formed for the evaporator. Because of the

large inventory, the derivative n j ( dh' j ⁄ dt ) cannot be neglected. Since
an increase in vapor flow causes an increase in bottom pressure and
consequently an increase of boiling temperature in the evaporator, the
vapor flow follows any change in reboiler heat supply with a time lag.
Hajdu et al. [3.9] present a model for this vapor flow lag. We can imagine
that an energy stream Q supplied to the evaporator is subdivided into
two fractions: One part causes an evaporation of liquid, the other
increases the bottom temperature. Written as a differential equation we
obtain the energy balance equation
ΔQ = ΔH v, nt + 1 ΔV nt + 1
dΔT nt + 1 (3.10)
+ n nt + 1 ν' nt + 1 ρ' nt + 1 c' p, nt + 1 ------------------------
dt
To achieve a first-order differential equation in ΔVnt+1, the differential

term dΔTnt+1/dt has to be substituted by a differential term in ΔVnt+1.
The increase of the pressure drop due to a changing vapor flow rate
(assuming a constant total holdup on the tray) can be estimated with
∂Δp j
Δ ( Δp j ) = ⎛ ----------------⎞ ΔV j + 1 (3.11)
⎝ ∂V j + 1⎠
nj
Hence the pressure change in the evaporator can be approximated for a

distillation column with nt trays by
∂Δp j
Δ ( p nt + 1 ) = nt ⎛ ----------------⎞ ΔV nt + 1 (3.12)
⎝ ∂V j + 1⎠
nj
The increase in boiling point temperature caused by the increase in

bottom pressure can be calculated according to
∂T nt + 1
ΔT nt + 1 = ⎛ -------------------⎞ Δ ( p nt + 1 ) (3.13)
⎝ ∂p nt + 1 ⎠
x k, nt + 1
Substituting (3.13) in equation (3.10), the following differential equa-

tion is obtained:
ΔQ – ΔH v, nt + 1 ΔV nt + 1 =
∂T nt + 1 ∂Δp j dΔV nt + 1 (3.14)
n nt + 1 ν' nt + 1 ρ' nt + 1 c' p, nt + 1 ⎛ -------------------⎞ nt ⎛ ----------------⎞ ------------------------
⎝ ∂p nt + 1 ⎠ ⎝ ∂V j + 1⎠ dt
Therefore, the vapor flow lag at an increase in reboiler heat supply can
be described by the first-order lag
3.6 Fluid dynamics 55
dQ lag 1
--------------- = ----------- ( Q – Q lag ) (3.15)
dt T lag
with the time constant
∂T nt + 1 ∂Δp j
n nt + 1 ν' nt + 1 ρ' nt + 1 c' p, nt + 1 ⎛ -------------------⎞ nt ⎛ ----------------⎞
⎝ ∂p nt + 1 ⎠ ⎝ ∂V j + 1⎠
T lag = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (3.16)
ΔH v, nt + 1
If we substitute the total bottom holdup balance equation in the energy

balance equation
dn nt + 1
h' nt + 1 -------------------- = L nt h' nt + Q lag – Bh' nt + 1 – V nt + 1 h'' nt + 1 (3.17)
dt
the following equation holds:
Energy balance for the evaporator
L nt ( h' nt – h' nt + 1 ) + Q lag

V nt + 1 = -----------------------------------------------------------------
- (3.18)
h'' nt + 1 – h' nt + 1
The parameters ( ∂T nt + 1 ) ⁄ ( ∂p nt + 1 ) and ( ∂Δp j ) ⁄ ( ∂V j + 1 ) can be eval-

uated numerically or analytically from the appropriate equations (see
sections 3.6.2 and 3.7.2)
3.6 Fluid dynamics

In the previous sections, the equations describing composition and total
holdup dynamics, as well as the vapor flow rates have been derived.
Here the calculation of the liquid flow rates and of the pressure drop is
discussed.
3.6.1 Liquid flow rates

The volumetric liquid flow rate over the weir on tray j can be calculated
according to the Francis weir formula ([3.16], [3.10]):
2 3/2
L V, j = μ 2g --- b W h LW ,j
(3.19)
3
For sharp-edged weirs μ ≈ 0.64 holds. Perfect mixing on the trays,

including the liquid in the downcomers, is assumed. Nevertheless, if we
calculate the effective liquid head h LW, j above the weir edge, we have
to take the liquid phase fraction εj and the liquid volume in the down-
comer into account (Figure 3.3). The liquid level in the downpipe is the
sum of the liquid head on the tray and of the hydrostatic level due to the
pressure drop according to
pj – pj – 1
Hydrostatic liquid level in downcomer = ----------------------- (3.20)
ρ' j g
The liquid head h L, j of the pure liquid on a tray (without a vapor phase
fraction) is equal to the total liquid volume on the tray n j ν' j minus the
pj-1
pj
h LW, j
---------------
εj pj – pj – 1
-----------------------
h L, j ρ' j g
----------
hW εj hL,j
L V, j
AA AB
Figure 3.3: Liquid levels on a tray

3.6 Fluid dynamics 57
liquid volume in the downcomer due to pressure drop

A B ( p j – p j – 1 ) ⁄ ( ρ' j g ) , both divided by the total area A A + A B :
pj – pj – 1
n j ν' j – ----------------------- A B
ρ' j g
h L, j = ------------------------------------------------
- (3.21)
AA + AB
For the application of the Francis weir formula, we have to evaluate the
liquid level of the pure liquid (liquid without vapor phase fraction). For
that purpose, first the height of the two-phase layer is to be evaluated
and second the liquid phase fraction εj must be taken into account. The
effective liquid level becomes
pj – pj – 1
n j ν' j – ----------------------- A B
h L, j ρ' j g
h L, W, j = ⎛ ---------- – h W⎞ ε j = ------------------------------------------------
- – εj hW (3.22)
⎝ ε ⎠ A + A
j A B
Substituting (3.22) into the Francis weir formula (3.19), we obtain the
volumetric liquid flow rate of the two-phase mixture. The flow rate from
tray j in molal units is calculated by:
pj – pj – 1 3/2
⎛ n ν' – ---------------------- - AB ⎞
2 ⎜ j j ρ' j g ⎟
μ 2g --- b W ⎜ ------------------------------------------------- – ε j h W⎟
3 ⎜ AA + AB ⎟
⎝ ⎠
L j = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (3.23)
ν' j
In many industrial distillation columns, calming zones exist in front of

the weir. For this case, ε j = 1 holds at the weir edge. Otherwise, we have
to estimate the liquid phase fraction on the trays. The Stichlmair corre-
lation is well suited for that purpose [3.18].
3.6.2 Pressure drop
A vapor flow through a tray in a distillation column suffers a pressure

drop. Its amount depends on the vapor flow rate, the tray holdup, and
the geometry of the tray. Usually, the pressure drop is assumed to

consist of three different parts ([3.7], [3.12]):
• Dry pressure drop occurring at the flow through the tray without
liquid ( Δp tr, j )
• Hydrostatic pressure drop due to liquid head and liquid density

(Δp L, j )
• Pressure drop by bubble-forming due to surface tension of liquid

(Δp σ, i )
The pressure drop by bubble-forming usually is insignificant and can be

neglected.
Dry pressure drop
With sufficient accuracy, the dry pressure drop can be approximated by

the following well-known expression:
ρ'' j ⎛ V V, j + 1⎞ 2
Δp tr, j = ξ ( Re ) ------- ------------------- (3.24)
2 ⎝ A0 ⎠
The orifice coefficient ξ ( Re ) either can be evaluated by measurement

on comparable trays, or it can be estimated with experimentally verified
correlations. During the simulations, the following correlation for sieve
trays is used [3.19]:
A 2 s –1.27 ρ'' j ⎛ V V, j + 1⎞ 2
Δp tr, j = ⎛ 1 – -------0 ⎞ + 0.21 ⎛ ------⎞ ------- ------------------- (3.25)
⎝ A A⎠ ⎝ d 0⎠ 2 ⎝ A0 ⎠
Hydrostatic pressure drop
The hydrostatic pressure drop results from the liquid head and the
liquid density. We have to take the liquid volume in the downcomer into
account (see 3.6.1).
3.7 Phase equilibrium 59
pj – pj – 1
n j ν' j – ----------------------- A B
ρ' j g
Δp L, j = ------------------------------------------------- ρ' j g (3.26)
AA + AB
The total pressure drop consists of the sum of the two parts dry pressure
drop and hydrostatic pressure drop:
Δp j = p j + 1 – p j = Δp tr, j + Δp L, j (3.27)
3.7 Phase equilibrium

All equations we have discussed in the previous sections are explicitly
or implicitly interrelated with the vapor phase composition. In this
section, the most important correlations concerning the vapor phase
compositions and boiling points are presented.
3.7.1 Vapor phase composition

The liquid on each tray and in the evaporator is at boiling-point. Phase
equilibrium thus can be assumed. At moderate pressures up to some few
bar, the concentration of a substance in the vapor flow leaving tray j can
be obtained according to
γ k, j p k0, j
y kEquilibrium
,j = -------------------- x k, j = K k, j x k, j (3.28)
pj
If the substance mixture exhibits ideal behavior, the activity coefficient

γ becomes one, and the vapor phase compositions are equal to the ratios
of the partial pressures of the substances and the absolute pressure on
the tray.
0
The vapor pressures of the pure substances p k can be calculated with a
high level of accuracy by the Antoine equation (3.29). The parameters A,
B, and C are listed in many tables of substance properties (e.g., [3.5]).
0 B
log [ p k ] = A – ------------- (3.29)
-
T+C
The calculation of the liquid phase activity coefficients γ k, j can be

effected by one of the well known correlations (Wilson, NRTL,
UNIQUAC etc.).
Murphree tray efficiency
In a distillation column only little contact time exists on each tray for
the mass transfer between liquid and vapor phase. Therefore no perfect
phase equilibrium can be achieved, and the tray efficiency will deviate
from the unit value. This effect can be modelled by the Murphree tray
efficiency for the vapor phase.
y k, j – y k, j + 1
η = ------------------------------------------------- (3.30)
y kEquilibrium
,j – y k, j + 1
3.7.2 Boiling points
The vapor phase composition according to (3.28) is a function of the tray

temperature Tj. At boiling point, the sum of the vapor phase mole frac-
tions calculated becomes one. Hence for a tray j, the following boiling
point equation holds:
nc nc
∑ ykEquilibrium
,j = ∑ Kk, j ( Tj, pj, xk, j )xk, j = 1 (3.31)
k=1 k=1
The Murphree tray efficiency is not considered for the boiling point
calculation, because it relates to the mass transfer between vapor and
liquid phase rather than to the equilibrium composition.
3.8 Volumetric properties

The fluid dynamic models discussed are interrelated with the molar
volumes of the vapor phase and of the liquid phase, and with the corre-
sponding densities. Their calculation is the subject of this section.
3.8 Volumetric properties 61
3.8.1 PVT relations

The molar volumes of the liquid phase ν' j or the vapor phase ν'' j depends
on the pressure pj, the temperature Tj, and the actual compositions xk,j
or yk,j. A great number of different equations of state has been developed
to describe this behavior. They are extremely well documented ([3.5],
[3.6]), and a discussion of their properties is not repeated here.
The PVT behavior is described here by the Soave-Redlich-Kwong equa-
tion (SRK equation, [3.15], [3.6]) with the Peneloux correction. This
correction improves the estimate of the molar volumes of the liquid
phase, which is overrated by 10-15% using the SRK equation.
If measurement data of the PVT behavior of the pure substances exist
and their mixing behavior is nearly ideal, a different possibility has
shown good results for the liquid phase:
We can correlate the molar volumes measured with the temperature by
a polynomial regression. The molar volume ν' j of the substance mixture
can be approximated as a weighted sum of the individual molar
volumes:
nc
ν' j = ∑ xk, j ν'k, j (3.32)

k=1
3.8.2 Density
The densities of liquid and vapor phase can be computed from the molar
volume, the molar mass, and the mole fractions.
nc
∑ x k, j M k
Liquid phase density: ρ' j = -----------------------------
k=1 - (3.33)
ν' j
nc
∑ y k, j M k
Vapor phase density: ρ'' j = -----------------------------
k=1 - (3.34)
ν'' j
3.9 Enthalpies
The quantity not discussed so far is the enthalpy of a substance mixture
in liquid or vapor phase. The enthalpy of a real fluid is estimated by the
real
sum of an ideal part and the value of a departure function Δh T, P
describing the deviation of the enthalpy from the enthalpy of the ideal
gas state:
∫
0 id real
h = h + c p dT + Δh T, P (3.35)
T0
The ideal part can be calculated by summing the ideal parts for each
component:
T
⎛ T
nc
⎞
∫ c pid dT = ∑ x k ∫ c pid, k dT⎟
⎜ (3.36)
⎜ ⎟
T0 k=1 ⎝ T ⎠
0
id
The ideal heat capacities c p are often approximated by a third-order
polynomial for each component:
c pid, k = A k + B k T + C k T 2 + D k T 3 (3.37)
The parameters for equation (3.37) are listed in many tables of

substance properties, or they can be estimated with very high accuracy
by Joback’s method ([3.15], p. 154-156).
real
The real part Δh T, P describes the departure of a mixture from the ideal
behavior. It can be evaluated using one of the well-known equations of
state, e.g., the SRK equation ([3.15], [3.6]).
If measurement data for the heat capacities and for the heat of vapor-
ization are available, a simple solution is possible in a manner similar
to that mentioned in section 3.8.1:
3.10 Numerical solution 63
T
⎛
nc j
⎞
Liquid phase enthalpy: h' j = ∑ x k, j ∫ c p, j, k dT⎟ + h 0
⎜ (3.38)
⎜ ⎟
k=1 ⎝ T ⎠
0
T
nc
⎛ j ⎞
Vapor phase enthalpy: h'' j = ∑ y k, j ∫ c p, j, k dT + ΔH v, j, k⎟ + h 0 (3.39)
⎜
⎜ ⎟
k=1 ⎝ T ⎠
0
3.10 Numerical solution

The complete rigorous dynamic model for distillation columns, as intro-
duced above, consists of a system of differential and algebraic equations
(DAE). The complexity of the model is illustrated by Figure 3.4. It illus-
trates the interconnection of the model equations for three adjoining
trays. The solution of the differential equations obviously depends on
the solution of the algebraic equation system. Therefore an efficient
numerical integration using standard integration methods is not
possible. This requires special adapted integration algorithms, as
outlined in section 3.10.4.
3.10.1 The dependent variables and the equation system
As a first step for the numerical treatment, we have to decide which

variables should form the vector of the dependent variables. This vector
of dependent variables must at any time completely describe the state
of a distillation column and should be of minimum size to avoid exces-
sive computation times.
The vapor phase composition is an illustrative example for the complete

description of the distillation’s state: If we know the tray composition,
the tray temperature, and the tray pressure, then the vapor phase
composition in equilibrium is easily calculated by an explicit algebraic
equation. Consequently, it is not necessary to insert the vapor phase
composition into the vector of the dependent variables.
64
×
Δpj-2 h’j-2-h’j-1
pj-1
×
y*k,j-1 yk,j-1
h’’j-1-h’j-1
Murphree / Vj-1
BP Tj-1 States
dn
k, j – 1
----------------
dt - Eq. of state
xk,j-1
nk,j-1 nk,j-1
∫ ∑nk,j-1 nj-1 Lj-1
Flow dynamics
h’’j-h’j-1
×
×
Δpj-1 h’j-1-h’j
pj
×
×
y*k,j yk,j
Murphree h’’j-h’j / Vj
BP Tj States
dn
k, j Eq. of state
----------
dt xk,j
nk,j nk,j
∫ nj Lj
∑nk,j
nc Flow dynamics
h’’j+1-h’j
×
h’j-h’j+1
×
Δpj
pj+1
×
×
y*k,j+1 yk,j+1
h’’j+1-h’j+1
Murphree / Vj+1
BP Tj+1 States
dn
k, j + 1
-----------------
dt - Eq. of state
xk,j+1
nk,j+1 nk,j+1
∫ ∑nk,j+1 nj+1 Lj+1
Flow dynamics
Figure 3.4: Model structure for three adjoining trays

Δpj+1 h’’j+2-h’j+1
×
pj+2
×
Vj+2
3 A Rigorous Dynamic Model of Distillation Columns
As one vector which satisfies the requirements of a complete description

and of minimum order, the following vector is proposed (as a modifica-
tion of the vector proposed by Holland & Liapis [3.10]):
y = [QKond, D, n1,0, …, nnc,0, T0, p0, L0,

{Vj, n1,j, …, nnc,j, (Sl,j), (Sv,j), Tj, pj, Lj}j=1, 2, …, nt
Qlag, Q, Vnt+1, n1,nt+1, …, nnc,nt+1,
B, Tnt+1, pnt+1,
States of the control system]T
( ): Value is inserted only if it physically exists
The Jacobian matrix of the equation system (as described below) corre-
sponding to these dependent variables has a numerically advantageous
block diagonal dominant structure.
For the calculation of these dependent variables y, the following equa-

tions are to be solved
Differential equations
nc material balance equations (3.1)
Algebraic equations
1 equation for vapor flow rate (3.9)
1 equation for liquid flow rate (3.23)
1 equation for boiling point (3.31)
1 equation for pressure drop (3.27)
Total: nc +4 equations per tray
and in addition the equations for the evaporator, the condenser, and the
control system. Considering industrial distillation columns which are
often equipped with more than 50 trays, the resulting algebraic differ-
ential equations amount to several hundred equations. The model for
the industrial binary distillation equipped with 50 trays gives an
impression of these numbers: It consists of a system of 107 differential
and 210 algebraic equations.
3.10.2 Formal representation of the DAE
We can formally represent the entire dynamic model by the semi-

explicit equation system
dn
------- = f ( t, n ( t ), z ( t ) ) n ( t0 ) = n0 (3.40a)
dt
0 = g ( t, n ( t ), z ( t ) ) z ( t0 ) = z0 (3.40b)
The vector n consists of all tray holdups (for all components), while the
vector z contains all other dependent variables. A different but equiva-
lent formal representation is the implicit form:
F ( t, y ( t ), y' ( t ) ) = 0 y ( t0 ) = y0 (3.41)
Here the vector y contains all the dependent variables. A simulation of

the dynamic behavior requires a simultaneous solution of the whole
equation system.
3.10.3 The index
The index of a set of differential-algebraic equations (DAE) character-

izes the integration problem. The higher the index, the more difficult is
a solution of the DAE. The differential index is the most common defini-
tion:
The differential index m of the system F ( t, y ( t ), y' ( t ) ) = 0 is the min-

imal number m such that the system of F ( t, y ( t ), y' ( t ) ) = 0 and of the
analytical differentiations
d ( F ( t, y ( t ), y' ( t ) ) ) d m ( F ( t, y ( t ), y' ( t ) ) )
------------------------------------------------ = 0, …, ---------------------------------------------------
m
- = 0
dt dt
can be transformed by algebraic manipulations into an explicit ordinary

differential system [3.8].
Consequently, a system of ordinary differential equation has an index of

m=0.
3.10.4 Solution methods and software
The first general method for the numerical solution of semi-explicit

DAE with index 1 was proposed by C. W Gear in 1971 [3.4] and was soon
extended to the solution of implicit index 1 problems. The method is
based on a special class of the linear multistep methods entitled the
backward differentiation formulas, which are standard algorithms for
the integration of stiff systems. The most important convergence results
may be found in [3.1]. In theory, it is possible to solve problems of higher
indices with the backward differentiation formulas. However, the neces-
sary software is not available as yet. The apparently very frequently
used integrators DASSL and LSODI are based on Gear’s method. These
methods are distinguished for their effectiveness in solving continuous
problems. However, the computational effort grows significantly for
systems with discontinuities arising, for example, during the simulation
of the response to several feed flow or feed composition step changes. For
such cases, the one-step methods find more and more interest [3.11].
The one-step methods are extensions of the well-known Runge-Kutta,

Rosenbrock, or extrapolation methods. An extensive discussion of the
properties of these methods is found in [3.8]. However, the development
of the integrators (RADAU5, LIMEX) is in an early stage, and no imple-
mentations are found in any of the widespread Fortran libraries.
For the simulation studies the DASSL integrator, as implemented in the

NAG Fortran Library is used with good success. The differential-alge-
braic equations (DAE) are solved in an implicit manner according to
(3.41).
The calculation sequence
During the integration, the right-hand sides of the differential and alge-
braic equations repeatedly have to be evaluated for a given vector y of
the dependent variables and for a given time t. The algebraic equations,
and often the differential equations as well are solved in an implicit
manner. The equation errors, which have to be supplied to the integra-
tion, are the difference between the right-hand sides of the equations
(that means the calculated vapor flow rates, liquid flow rates, etc.) and
the corresponding values within the vector y.
A correct calculation sequence evaluating these terms is stringent: If,

for example, we calculate the right-hand side of the boiling point equa-
tion (3.31), we must know the vapor phase composition. Therefore we
first have to calculate the vapor phase composition and subsequently
the error of the boiling point equation. If this basic idea is applied to the
whole model, the calculation sequence illustrated in Figure 3.5 results.
The vector y, which is supplied by the integration routine (Step a),

contains the component holdups in liquid phase, the tray temperatures,
tray pressures, as well as liquid and vapor flow rates. With the data
supplied, all vapor phase compositions in equilibrium can be calculated
(Step b). In a next step (Step c), using the distribution coefficients K k, j
obtained in the previous step, the errors of the boiling point equations
are calculated. Since all the feed data are known, its enthalpy, molar
volumes and densities are computed in step d. The vapor phase compo-
sitions deviate from the equilibrium compositions. Applying the
Murphree tray efficiency, the effective vapor phase compositions are
computed (Step e). Since for the computation of the effective vapor
phase composition for a tray the effective vapor phase composition of the
next lower tray must be known, the computation starts at the column
bottom, assuming η = 1 for the reboiler. Now all necessary data are
known to calculate the enthapies, molar volumes, and densities for all
trays, the condenser and the evaporator (Step f). In step g, the energy
balance equations for the trays are applied, and the differences between
the resulting vapor flow rates and the flow rates supplied by the inte-
gration routine are calculated. In step h, the same is done for the evap-
orator. Similarly to the error of the vapor flow rates, the errors of the
liquid flow rates and the tray pressures are computed in steps i and j.
Using the flow rates and compositions calculated in the previous steps
rather than the data supplied by the integration routine, the differential
terms (left-hand sides) of the equations describing the vapor flow lag
(Step k) and the holdup of the substances in liquid phase (Step l) are
calculated. In a last step (Step m), all differential terms, the errors
a) Vector of dependent variables y
Vapor phase composition for evaporator and trays

b)
(Equation (3.28))
Error for boiling point at evaporator and trays

c) 1 – ∑ K k, j x k, j
k
Calculation of the thermodynamic states

d) h', ν', ν'', ρ', ρ''
for the feed
Murphree tray efficiency for trays nt, nt-1, …, 1

e) y k, j = η ( y kEquilibrium – y k, j + 1 ) + y k, j + 1
,j
Calculation of the thermodynamic states

f) h' j, h'' j, ν' j, ν'' j, ρ' j, ρ'' j
for condenser, all trays, and evaporator
Error for vapor flows

g) F j ( h' F, j – h' j ) + L j – 1 ( h' j – 1 – h' j ) + ( V j + 1 – S v, j + 1 ) ( h'' j + 1 – h' j )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- – V j
h'' j – h' j
Figure 3.5: Calculation sequence

Explanation: see text
Error for vapor flow leaving evaporator

h) L nt ( h' nt – h' nt + 1 ) + Q lag
- – V nt + 1
------------------------------------------------------------------
h'' nt + 1 – h' nt + 1
Error for liquid streams

pj – pj – 1 3/2
⎛ n ν' – ---------------------- - AB ⎞
i) 2 ⎜ j j ρ' j g ⎟ 1
- – ε j h W⎟ ------ – L j
μ 2g --- b W ⎜ -------------------------------------------------
3 ⎜ AA + AB ⎟ ν' j
⎝ ⎠
Error for pressure drop

j) p j + 1 – p j – Δp j
(Equation (3.27))
Differential equation for vapor flow lag

k)
(Equation (3.15))
Differential equations for holdup of substances

l)
(Equations (3.1), (3.2) and (3.3))
m) Vector of differentials and errors
Figure 3.5 continued

3.11 Notation 71
between supplied and calculated flow rates and pressures, and the
errors of the boiling point equations are combined in one vector and
supplied back to the integration routine.
3.11 Notation
A0 [m2] Hole area in tray
AA [m2] Tray area without downcomer area
AB [m2] Downcomer area
bW [m] Length of weir
c pid [J/mol·K] Ideal gas heat capacity
cp,l [J/kg·K] Liquid heat capacity
d0 [m] Diameter of holes of sieve tray
Fj [mol/s] Feed flow rate to tray j
h [J/mol] Molar enthalpy
h' j [J/mol] Molar enthalpy of liquid phase
h'' j [J/mol] Molar enthalpy of vapor phase
hL [m] Liquid level above upper edge of weir
hW [m] Weir height
ΔHv,k,j [J/mol] Heat of evaporation of component k on tray j
ΔHv,j [J/mol] Heat of evaporation of liquid on tray j
Kk,j [mol/mol] Distribution coefficient for comp. k on tray j
Lj [mol/s] Liquid flow leaving tray j
LV,j [m3/s] Volumetric flow from tray j
Mk [g/mol] Molar mass of component k
nt [–] Number of trays in column
nj [mol] Total holdup on tray j

nk,j [mol] Holdup of substance k on tray j
nc [–] Number of components
pj [N/m2] Pressure on tray j
Δpj [N/m2] Pressure drop over tray j
p k0 [N/m2] Steam pressure of pure component k
P [N/m2] Pressure
Q [J/s] Heat supply to evaporator
Qlag [J/s] “active” heat supply
s [m] Thickness of sieve tray
Sl,j [mol/s] Side product flow rate from tray j,
liquid phase
Sv,j [mol/s] Side product flow rate from tray j,
vapor phase
t [s] Time
T [K] Temperature
Tj [K] Temperature on tray j
Vj [mol/s] Vapor stream from tray j
VV,j [m3/s] Volumetric vapor stream from tray j
xk,j [mol/mol] Liquid phase mole fraction of
component k on tray j
xF,k,j [mol/mol] Mole fraction of component k
in feed to tray j
yk,j [mol/mol] Vapor phase mole fraction of
component k above tray j
γk [–] Liquid phase activity coefficient
of component k
3.11 Notation 73
εj [m3/m3] Liquid phase fraction on tray j

η [mol/mol] Murphree tray efficiency for vapor phase
ν [m3/mol] Molar volume
ν' j [m3/mol] Molar volume of liquid phase on tray j
ν'' j [m3/mol] Molar volume of vapor phase on tray j
ξ [–] Orifice coefficient
ρ' j [kg/m3] Liquid density on tray j
ρ'' j [kg/m3] Vapor density on tray j
3.12 References
[3.1] Brenan, K. E., S. L. Campbell, and L. R. Petzold, Numerical so-
lution of initial-value problems in differential-algebraic equa-
tions, North-Holland, New York (1989)
[3.2] Byrne, G. D., P. R. Ponzi, Differential-Algebraic Systems, Their

Application and Solution, Comp. Chem. Eng., 12, 5, 377-382
(1988)
[3.3] Gani, R., C. A. Ruiz, and I. T. Cameron: “A Generalized Model for

Distillation Columns,” Comp. Chem. Eng., 10, 3, 181-198 (1986)
[3.4] Gear, C. W.: “Simultaneous Numerical Solution of Differential-

Algebraic Equations,” IEEE Trans. on Circuit Theory, CT-18, 1,
89-95 (1971)
[3.5] Gmehling, J. and U. Onken: “Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium Data

Collection,” 1, Part 1, XI-XXII, DECHEMA, Frankfurt (1977)
[3.6] Gmehling, J. and B. Kolbe: Thermodynamik, Georg Thieme Ver-

lag, Stuttgart (1988)
[3.7] Grassmann, P. and F. Widmer, Einführung in die thermische

Verfahrenstechnik, 2nd ed., de Gruyter, Berlin (1974)
[3.8] Hairer, E. and G. Wanner: Solving Ordinary Differential Equa-

tions II ⎯ Stiff and Differential-Algebraic Problems, Springer
Verlag, Berlin (1991)
[3.9] Hajdu, H., A. Borus, and P. Földes: “Vapor Flow Lag in Distilla-
tion Columns,” Chem. Eng. Sc., 33, 1-8 (1978)
[3.10] Holland, C. D. and A. I. Liapis, Computer Methods for Solving

Dynamic Separation Problems, Chapter 8, McGraw-Hill, New
York (1983)
3.12 References 75
[3.11] Marquardt, W.: “Dynamic Process Simulation — Recent

Progress and Future Challenges,” Fourth International Confer-
ence on Chemical Process Control, South Padre Island, Texas
(1991)
[3.12] McCabe, W. L., J. C. Smith, and P. Harriott: Unit Operations of

Chemical Engineering, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York (1985)
[3.13] Najim, K. (Editor): Process Modeling and Control in Chemical

Engineering, Marcel Dekker, New York (1989), Chapter III, 145-
211, S. Domenech, L. Pibouleau, “Distillation”
[3.14] Petzold, L.: “Differential/Algebraic Equations are not ODE,”

SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput, 3, 3, 367-384 (1982)
[3.15] Reid, R. C., J. M. Prausnitz, and B. E. Poling: The Properties of

Gases and Liquids, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York (1988)
[3.16] Retzbach, B.: “Mathematische Modelle von Destillationskolon-

nen zur Synthese von Regelungskonzepten,” Fortschritt-Berichte
VDI, Reihe 8: Mess-, Steuerungs- und Regelungstechnik, Nr. 126,
VDI Verlag (1986)
[3.17] Rovaglio, M., E. Ranzi, G. Biardi, and T. Faravelli: “Rigorous Dy-

namics and Control of Continuous Distillation Systems — Simu-
lation and Experimental Results,” Comp. Chem. Eng., 14, 8, 871-
887 (1990)
[3.18] Stichlmair, J.: Grundlagen der Dimensionierung des Gas/Flüs-

sigkeit-Kontaktapparates Bodenkolonne, Verlag Chemie, Wein-
heim (1978)
[3.19] Weiss, S. et. al.: Verfahrenstechnische Berechnungsmethoden,

Teil 2: “Thermisches Trennen”, VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, Wein-
heim (1986)
4.1 Introduction 77
Chapter 4
Linear Models
4.1 Introduction
Robust controllers are designed on the basis of linear process models.
Therefore the elaboration of linear dynamic models for the distillation
column is a central part of control system synthesis. These models
should describe the dynamic behavior of the process within a wide
frequency range. They can be obtained in two ways:
• System identification
• Linearization of a nonlinear model
It is a big advantage of the system identification that it avoids a compli-

cated and expensive nonlinear model. Nevertheless, this approach has
some severe drawbacks, for example:
• The time-constants of the composition dynamics are large. A

recording of input/output data for the real plant is very time-
consuming.
• Due to the high sensitivity of distillation columns to changes of
the internal flow rates, even for small magnitudes of the input
variation (e.g., 5% of the steady-state value) the response may far
exceed the linear region.
78 4 Linear Models
• Each experiment causes undesired disturbances of the product

qualities.
• It is practically impossible to obtain models for the entire oper-
ating range of the distillation column
These disadvantages and some other fundamental problems of the iden-

tification itself (see Jacobsen et al. [4.5]) lead to a strong recommenda-
tion of the second method (Skogestad, [4.12]) that means the
linearization of nonlinear column models.
Two linear models are evaluated within this chapter, which are based
on the linearization of different nonlinear column models. The first
linear model is obtained by an analytical linearization of a simplified
nonlinear model neglecting flow dynamics. The other model is obtained
by a numerical linearization of the rigorous model presented in Chapter
3. In further sections the accuracy of these linear models and the role of
the flow dynamics are discussed. Different mathematically order reduc-
tion methods are compared at the end of this chapter. The notation is
listed in section 4.9 on page 101, the literature references are collected
in section 4.10.
4.2 How to linearize the rigorous model?
4.2.1 The state, input, and output vectors
The complete rigorous dynamic model as discussed in Chapter 3

consists of a high-order system of coupled differential and algebraic
equations (DAE). A linearization of this large system would be possible
in principle. However, the resulting linear state-space model would be of
the same order as the DAE. Such a high order causes high computation
times for a controller design or even for a model reduction. Conse-
quently, a compromise between model order and accuracy must be
sought. This means we have to decide, which dependent variables are
very important for the composition dynamics and should be included in
the state vector x of the linear model. Most important, of course, are the
tray compositions themselves. Because flow dynamics have a high influ-
4.2 How to linearize the rigorous model? 79
ence on the composition dynamics in the high-frequency range, the tray

holdup is a candidate as well. Assuming a perfect level control of the
reboiler and the reflux accumulator, it is not necessary to include their
holdup. The corresponding candidates for the state vector of the linear
model are
dx 0
dx 1
dx 0
…
dx 1 x =
x = or dx 51 (4.1)
… n
dx 51 dn 1
…
dn 50
The dynamics of the distillation column are stimulated by the manipu-

lated variables (reflux L0 and boilup V51) and the several disturbance
sources. Most important disturbances are variations of the feed compo-
sition xF and the feed flow rate F. Other disturbances such as variations
of the reflux temperature or the feed temperature have significantly less
influence and can be neglected for the composition control design. Hence
we define the input vector according to
dx F
d = dF
(4.2)
u dL 0
dV 51
The output vector y follows directly from the temperature measure-

ments. It represents the deviations of the pressure compensated temper-
atures on tray 10, 44, and 24:
80 4 Linear Models
dT P 10
y = dT P 44 (4.3)
dT P 24
4.2.2 Handling of the algebraic equation system
The algebraic equation system of the rigorous column model defines

dependent variables such as tray pressures, vapor flows, and liquid
flows, which are not included in the state vector x of the linear model.
Nevertheless the algebraic equation system represents algebraic
constraints for the composition and holdup dynamics. These equations
can be handled in two ways:
• elimination by idealizing assumptions, or

• numerical solution during linearization
The first method allows an analytical linearization of the resulting

model. This has the advantage that merely one steady-state data set
must be supplied, which can be calculated by one of the common flow-
sheeting programs (e.g., PROCESSTM, ASPEN PLUSTM). In contrast to
that, the second method requires a numerical linearization of the
rigorous model, which is discussed in section 4.4.
4.3 Linearization of a simplified nonlinear model
4.3.1 The simplified model
In this section we will derive a simplified nonlinear column model

neglecting the holdup and thus the flow dynamics. For that purpose
idealizing assumptions are formulated which allow to dispense with all
flow dynamics and with most of the energy balance equations. However,
the subcooling of reflux and feed have a significant influence on the
internal flow rates (see section 2.3) and are explicitly taken into
account.
4.3 Linearization of a simplified nonlinear model 81
Idealizing assumptions
The algebraic constraints of the rigorous model and the holdup

dynamics can be eliminated by the following idealizing assumptions:
• constant pressure drop

• constant and equal enthalpies on all trays
• constant total holdup on all trays (equimolar overflow)
Of course, all these assumptions do not agree with the real conditions.
The first assumption means a neglect of the correlation between tray
pressures, holdups, and boilup rates. The second assumption implies
uniform vapor flows within the stripping section and within the recti-
fying section of the column. The assumption of a constant tray holdup
contains a neglect of flow dynamics. The error in the high frequency
range introduced by that is discussed in section 4.5.
It has to be emphasized here that these assumptions concern only the

simplified nonlinear model as a basis for an analytical linearization.
The steady-state operating points must be calculated using a model,
which includes the energy balance equations, as well as the flow
dynamic models.
The composition dynamics
For a column separating a binary mixture, it is sufficient to formulate

the material balance equation for the light component of the substance
mixture. If we assume constant total holdup, the following material
balance equation holds for the tray j:
dn
---------j = L j – 1 + V j + 1 + F j – L j – V j = 0 (4.4)
dt
Similar balances are obtained for the reboiler and the condenser. Substi-
tuting these balance equations in the material balances (3.1)-(3.3), we
obtain the following differential equations describing the composition
dynamics:
82 4 Linear Models
Condenser
dx 0 1
--------- = ------ V 1 ( y 1 – x 0 ) (4.5)
dt n0
Trays (Feed is liquid phase, j = 1…50)
dx 1
--------j = ----- [ L j – 1 ( x j – 1 – x j ) + V j + 1 ( y j + 1 – x j )
dt nj (4.6)
– V j ( y j – x j ) + F j ( x F, j – x j ) ]
Evaporator
dx 51 1
----------- = -------- [ L 50 ( x 50 – x 51 ) – V 51 ( y 51 – x 51 ) ] (4.7)
dt n 51
Effect of subcooled reflux and feed
Feed and reflux of the distillation column are subcooled. A portion of the
vapor flow is condensed at the trays where these two streams enter the
column. The effect of an additional condensation of the vapor stream
caused by increasing the flow rates of these streams must be considered
to avoid large model errors. The two energy balance equations for the
reflux tray (tray 1) and for the feed tray (tray 20) become part of the
nonlinear model:
0 = L 0 h' 0 – L 1 h' 1 + V 2 h'' 2 – V 1 h'' 1 (4.8)
0 = L 19 h' 19 – L 20 h' 20 + V 21 h'' 21 – V 20 h'' 20 + Fh' F (4.9)
Tray temperatures as model outputs
The model outputs are the deviations of the pressure compensated tray
temperatures. These temperatures are correlated with the tray compo-
sition by the boiling point equation
∑ ( yk* ) – 1 = 0 (4.10)
k=1
Consequently the boiling point equation for tray 10, 44, and 24 are part
of the simplified column model.
The vapor phase composition
The differential equations for the composition dynamics are in terms of

the vapor phase composition yj, too. Usually, the tray efficiency is
smaller than one and the vapor phase compositions deviate from the
equilibrium compositions. As described in Chapter 3, this can be
modelled by the Murphree tray efficiency η
y j = ( 1 – η )y j + 1 + ηy * j (4.11)
Primarily the vapor phase composition in equilibrium y * j is a function

of the liquid phase composition x j . For example, if we assume a constant
relative volatility α j on tray j, the vapor phase composition in equilib-
rium is calculated by
αj xj
y * j = --------------------------------- (4.12)
1 + ( α j – 1 )x j
To simplify the analytical linearization, it is convenient to substitute the

vapor phase composition y j by a correlation exclusive in terms of the
equilibrium compositions y * . Then the calculation of the derivatives
∂ ( … ) ⁄ ∂x for each these terms cause no particular problem.
Such an equation in terms of the equilibrium compositions y * is derived

by subsequent substitutions of the vapor phase compositions in (4.11)
from the evaporator up to actual tray. For example (η=1 assumed for the
reboiler)
y 50 = ( 1 – η )y * 51 + ηy * 50 (4.13)
84 4 Linear Models
y 49 = ( 1 – η )y 50 + ηy * 49
(4.14)
= ( 1 – η ) 2 y * 51 + η ( 1 – η )y * 50 + ηy * 49
y 48 = ( 1 – η )y 49 + ηy * 48
(4.15)
= ( 1 – η ) 3 y * 51 + η ( 1 – η ) 2 y * 50 + η ( 1 – η )y * 49 + ηy * 48
For a binary distillation column with nt trays the following generalized

formula (with vapor/liquid equilibrium (η=1) in the evaporator) is
obtained:
y j = ( 1 – η ) nt + 1 – j y * nt + 1
nt + 1 – j
(4.16)
+ ∑ η ( 1 – η ) nt + 1 – j – n y * nt + 1 – n
n=1
This equation demonstrates the strong influence on the composition of

the trays below the actual one, presuming the tray efficiency η is
substantially smaller than one.
4.3.2 Analytical linearization
Let us formally represent the simplified nonlinear model as the vector

functions f and g:
dx̃ ( t )
--------------- = f [ x̃ ( t ), ũ ( t ), d˜ ( t ) ] (4.17a)
dt
ỹ ( t ) = g [ x̃ ( t ) ] (4.17b)
Then the matrices A, B, and C of the linear state space model
dx = Ax + B d (4.18a)
------
dt u
y = Cx (4.18b)
are evaluated as partial derivatives of the vector functions f and g at a

steady-state operating point (OP). The OP is calculated either solving
the equation system of the complete rigorous model for steady state, or
using a steady-state flowsheeting program. The following relations hold
for the partial derivatives:
∂f ∂f ∂f 0
-------0- -------0- … ----------
-
∂x 0 ∂x 1 ∂x 51
∂f ∂f
∂f -------1- -------1- … …
A = ------ = ∂x 0 ∂x 1 (4.19)
∂x̃ OP
… … …
∂f 51 ∂f 51
--------- … … ----------
-
∂x 0 ∂x 51 OP
∂f ∂f ∂f ∂f 0
--------0- ------0- --------0- -----------
-
∂x F ∂F ∂L 0 ∂V 51
∂f ∂f ∂f ∂f 1
∂f --------1- ------1- --------1- -----------
-
B = ----------
- = ∂x F ∂F ∂L 0 ∂V 51 (4.20)
˜
∂ d … … … …
ũ
OP ∂f 51 ∂f 51 ∂f 51 ∂f 51
--------- --------- --------- -----------
-
∂x F ∂F ∂L 0 ∂V 51 OP
∂g 1 ∂g 1 ∂g 1
-------- -------- … ----------
-
∂x 0 ∂x 1 ∂x 51
∂g ∂g ∂g 2
C = ∂-----
g
- = -------2- -------2- … ----------
- (4.21)
∂x̃ OP ∂x 0 ∂x 1 ∂x 51
∂g 3 ∂g 3 ∂g 3
-------- -------- … ----------
-
∂x 0 ∂x 1 ∂x 51 OP
86 4 Linear Models
Combining the idealizing assumptions, we can conclude that a deviation

of reflux L0 or boilup V51 causes the same deviation of the liquid flow
and vapor flow rates within the whole column:
dL j = dL 0
(4.22)
dV j = dV 51
The resulting coefficients of the matrices A, B, and C are listed in the

appendix of this chapter (page 97). Although important interactions in
the column model are suppressed by the idealizing assumptions it turns
out that this model coincides within acceptable bounds with the
rigorous nonlinear model. This aspect is discussed in detail in section
4.5 below.
4.4 Linearization of the rigorous model

In this section the linearization of the rigorous dynamic column model
is discussed. This model includes the dynamics of the tray holdups and
thus flow dynamics. Hence it describes the high-frequency dynamics
much better than the simplified nonlinear model (section 4.3.1).
4.4.1 Model modifications
The desired outputs of the linear model are the deviations of pressure
compensated tray temperatures, which are functions of the tray compo-
sitions, but not of a component’s holdups. Therefore the material bal-
ance equations (3.1)-(3.3) are replaced by the following, equivalent
differential equations:
Condenser
dx 0 1
--------- = ------ V 1 ( y 1 – x 0 ) (4.23)
dt n0
4.4 Linearization of the rigorous model 87
Tray holdups:
dn
---------j = L j – 1 – L j + V j + 1 – V j + F j (4.24)
dt
Tray composition (Feed is liquid phase, j = 1…50)
dx j 1
-------- = ----- [ L j – 1 ( x j – 1 – x j ) + V j + 1 ( y j + 1 – x j )
dt nj (4.25)
– V j ( y j – x j ) + F j ( x F, j – x j ) ]
Evaporator
dx 51 1
----------- = -------- [ L 50 ( x 50 – x 51 ) – V 51 ( y 51 – x 51 ) ] (4.26)
dt n 51
The second modification of the rigorous model follows from the assump-
tion of a perfect level control in the reflux accumulator and in the evap-
orator. This assumption is justified by the fact that the level control
loops for the condenser and the evaporator can be tuned much faster
than the composition control loops. With perfect level control and there-
fore constant holdup for the reflux accumulator and the evaporator, the
top and bottom product streams are calculated according to
D = V1 – L0 (4.27)
and
B = L 50 – V 51 (4.28)
The whole equation system consists of the differential equations

describing the composition dynamics for the light component (4.5)-(4.7)
and the holdup dynamics (4.24), and the algebraic equations for the
pressure drop (3.27), the vapor flows (3.9), liquid flows (3.23), and the
boiling points (3.31). These algebraic equation form an equation system
whose solution is a constraint for the differential equations. All these
equations can be comprised by the following vector equations:
88 4 Linear Models
dx̃ ( t ) = f [ x̃ ( t ), ñ ( t ), ũ ( t ), z̃ ( t ), ṽ ( x̃, ñ, ũ, z̃ ) ] (4.29a)

---------------
dt
dñ ( t )
--------------- = l [ x̃ ( t ), ñ ( t ), ũ ( t ), z̃ ( t ), ṽ ( x̃, ñ, ũ, z̃ ) ] (4.29b)
dt
y ( t ) = g [ x̃ ( t ) ] (4.29c)
0 = k [ ṽ ( x̃, ñ, ũ, z̃ ) ] (4.29d)
The vector ṽ ( x̃, ñ, ũ, z̃ ) represents the solution of the algebraic equa-
tion system k and consists of the tray pressures, the vapor flow rates,
the liquid flow rates, and the boiling points.
4.4.2 Numerical linearization
The matrices of the linear state space model including flow dynamics
d
------ x = A x + B d (4.30a)
dt n n u
y = Cx (4.30b)
can be numerically evaluated column by column using a finite difference

approach. After solution of the whole equation system for a steady-state
operating point (OP), each composition or tray holdup can be varied by
a small increment, the algebraic equation system k can be solved, and
each column of the state dynamic matrix A can be calculated according
to
⎛ dx dx ⎞
⎜ ------- – ------- ⎟
⎝ dt x + Δx dt OP⎠
j j
-----------------------------------------------------
Δx j
a i=1…102, j + 1 = for j = 0…51 (4.31a)
⎛ dn ⎞
⎜ ------- – dn ------- ⎟
⎝ dt x + Δx dt OP⎠
j j
------------------------------------------------------
Δx j
4.5 Comparison of the linear models 89
⎛ dx ⎞
⎜ ------- – dx ------- ⎟
⎝ dt n + Δn dt OP⎠
j j
------------------------------------------------------
Δn j
a i=1…102, j + 52 = for j = 1…50 (4.31b)
⎛ dn dn ⎞
⎜ ------- – ------- ⎟
⎝ dt n + Δn dt OP⎠
j j
-------------------------------------------------------
Δn j
In a similar manner the input matrix B can be evaluated.
4.5 Comparison of the linear models
4.5.1 Open loop simulations
Most important for the control design is a good representation of the

dynamic behavior in the mid-frequency range. The steady-state
behavior as well as the high-frequency behavior are less important.
Some idea of a linear model’s quality is obtained by a simple qualitative
comparison of the various models. Nevertheless, a definitive judgement
requires a comparison of control designs based on the different models.
A simple method to compare the two linear models with the complete
rigorous model is the simulation of step responses to the model inputs
(reflux L0, boilup V51, feed composition xF, and feed flow rate F). These
are shown by the Figures 4.1- 4.4. During the nonlinear simulations, the
bottom level was controlled by the bottom product flow rate B. Except
for the denoted input, all other column inputs are kept constant at their
steady-state values. The changes of flow rates and feed composition are
very small to maintain the column close to the steady-state and to avoid
large nonlinearities.
The coincidence of the step responses with the rigorous nonlinear model
is acceptable for both linear models. However, the linear model obtained
by a linearization of the rigorous model is distinguished by a somewhat
better representation of the low-frequency gains.
90 4 Linear Models
Tray 10 Tray 44
0 0
-0.05 -0.2
Temp. dev. (K)
Temp. dev. (K)

-0.1 -0.4
-0.15 -0.6
-0.2 -0.8
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (h) Time (h)
Tray 24
0 0
-0.1 -0.2
Nonlinear model
Temp. dev. (K)
-0.2 -0.4
Anal. linearized model
-0.3 -0.6
Num. linearized model
-0.4 -0.8
-0.5 -1
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (h)
Figure 4.1: Step response to a 0.3 mol/min (0.46%) increase in reflux
Tray 10 Tray 44
0.2 0.5
0.4
0.15
Temp. dev. (K)
Temp. dev. (K)
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.05
0.1
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (h) Time (h)
Tray 24
0.5 0
0.4 -0.2
Nonlinear model
Temp. dev. (K)
0.3 -0.4
0.2 -0.6
0.1 -0.8
0 -1
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (h)
Figure 4.2: Step response to a 0.3 mol/min (0.29%) increase in boilup
Tray 10 Tray 44
0 0.1
-0.02
0
Temp. dev. (K)
Temp. dev. (K)

-0.04
-0.1
-0.06
-0.2
-0.08
-0.1 -0.3
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (h) Time (h)
Tray 24
0 0
-0.05 -0.2
Nonlinear model
Temp. dev. (K)
-0.1 -0.4
-0.15 -0.6
-0.2 -0.8
-0.25 -1
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (h)
Figure 4.3: Step response to a 0.005 mol/mol increase in feed composition
Tray 10 Tray 44
0
-0.02 -0.1
Temp. dev. (K)
Temp. dev. (K)
-0.04 -0.2
-0.06 -0.3
-0.08 -0.4
-0.1 -0.5
-0.12 -0.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (h) Time (h)
Tray 24
0 0
-0.2
-0.1 Nonlinear model
Temp. dev. (K)
-0.4
-0.2 Anal. linearized model
-0.6
-0.3 Num. linearized model
-0.8
-0.4 -1
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (h)
Figure 4.4: Step response to a 0.3 mol/min (0.91%) increase in feed flow rate
92 4 Linear Models
Surprising is the high coincidence for the analytically linearized model

as well. Apparently the influence of the algebraic constraints on the
composition dynamics is substantially smaller than the interactions
within the composition dynamics themselves.
4.5.2 Singular values
An important difference between the two linear models is the high

frequency behavior due to unmodelled and modelled flow dynamics,
respectively. Best suited for a comparison are the singular values of the
transfer functions G d → y ( jω ) and G u → y ( jω ) , shown in Figure 4.5.
3 Disturbance inputs
10
Magnitude
0
10
-3
10
-6
10 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
3 Control inputs
10
0
Magnitude
10
-3
10
-6
10 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
Figure 4.5: Singular values of the linear models
Upper plots: G d → y ( jω ) , lower plots: G u → y ( jω )
Solid lines: Analytically linearized model
Dashed lines: Numerically linearized model
Both models show the typical course of the singular values for a high
purity distillation column. In the low frequency range, the maximum
and minimum singular values of the transfer functions G u → y ( jω ) are
very different and the condition numbers
σ max { G u → y ( jω ) }
κ ( jω ) = ----------------------------------------------
- (4.32)
σ min { G u → y ( jω ) }
are high. With increasing frequency, the maximum and minimum

singular values approach and the corresponding condition number
decreases, but never falls below 20. This is illustrated in more detail by
Figure 4.6 for the transfer functions from the control inputs to the pres-
sure compensated temperatures on tray 10 and 44. The large condition
numbers indicate a high sensitivity of the column outputs to the direc-
tion of the control inputs u. Consequently, the performance of a control
system can be very sensitive to uncertainty at the control inputs.
Significant for the numerically linearized model is the double as big

condition number in the low-frequency range and the completely
different course in the high-frequency range. These differences of the
high-frequency range between the models can be explained from the
structure of the nonlinear models they are calculated from:
As mentioned above the analytical model neglects the flow dynamics.

Thus the high frequency behavior is determined only by the first-order
equations of the composition dynamics. Therefore, the singular values
in the higher frequency domain (above 0.1 rad/min) are dominated by a
negative slope of one magnitude per decade.
The numerically linearized model takes the flow dynamics into account.
Thus, considering the reflux as column input, additional lags for the
composition dynamics are introduced, and for the minimum singular
value a negative slope of several magnitudes per decade for the
frequency range above 1 rad/min results therefrom. The effect of the
flow dynamics considering the boilup as the column input is different:
An increase of the boilup increases the vapor fraction on the tray, which
94 4 Linear Models
3 Singular values
10
Magnitude
0
10
-3
10
-6
10 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
3 Condition number
10
Magnitude
2
10
1
10
0
10 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
Figure 4.6: Upper plot: Singular values of the transfer function from the control
inputs u to the tray temperature T10 and T44
Lower plot: Condition number κ of the same transfer function
Solid lines: Analytically linearized model
Dashes lines: Numerically linearized model
causes higher liquid flow rates leaving the trays. Because the composi-
tion of the light component is higher in the upper part of the column,
more of the light component is transported down, and the expected
decrease of the light component’s composition is retarded in the
frequency range between 0.2 and 1 rad/min.
4.6 Order reduction

The orders of the linear models developed above are 52 for the analytical
model and 102 for the numerically evaluated model. During modern
4.6 Order reduction 95
robust control synthesis procedures such as H∞ or μ-synthesis, the order

of the model is enlarged by frequency-dependent weights for the model
inputs and outputs. Since the computation time for the controller design
strongly depends on the model order, order reduction is of utmost impor-
tance. Many methods exist to approximate the state-space representa-
tion of a linear system with a lower-order state-space approximation
[4.13]. Most of the mathematical methods which are available in
MATLABTM or MATRIXXTM toolboxes are based on computing the
Hankel Norm singular values and subsequent removing of states corre-
sponding to relatively small Hankel Norm singular values. Jacobsen et
al. [4.5] compared the following four methods, with a reduction of a
column model of 82 states to 2 states. These methods are implemented
in one of the MATLABTM toolboxes:
I Balanced Truncated Approximation [4.7] (Robust Control Tool-

box [4.2] and μ-Tools [4.1])
II Balanced Truncated Approximation without balanced minimal

realization [4.9] (Schur method, in Robust Control Toolbox)
III Hankel Norm Approximation [4.3] (μ-Tools [4.1])
IV Optimal Hankel Norm Approximation without balancing [4.8]

(Robust Control Toolbox)
Jacobsen et al. conclude that the methods II and IV gave significantly

better models than the other two methods. These results have to be
considered carefully: It is not necessary to reduce the column models to
such an extremely low order. Models of an order 10-15 are absolutely
suitable for control synthesis and show a very good coincidence with the
full-order linear model.
As an example, a numerically evaluated linear model of order 102 was

reduced to an order 10 using each of the four methods mentioned above.
All step responses to the different inputs and calculated with the
different reduced-order models have shown a perfect coincidence with
the full-order linear model. This fact is supported by the singular-value
96 4 Linear Models
3
10
0
10
Magnitude
Full order model

Full order model
-3
10 Methods I + II
Methods I+II
Method III
Method III
Method IV
Method IV
-6
10 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
Figure 4.7: Singular value plots of the transfer functions G u → y ( jω ) of the

full order model and the different reduced order models
plots of the models. Figure 4.7 shows that all reduced order models
approximate the low and medium frequency behaviors up to 1 rad/min
very well. However, in the high frequency range the singular values are
best approximated by the models derived with a Balanced Truncated
Approximation (Method I or II).
4.7 Summary
This chapter presented two methods to obtain linear models for the
industrial distillation column. The first model is derived by an analyt-
ical linearization of a simplified nonlinear model neglecting flow
dynamics and most of the energy balance equations. The second linear
4.8 Appendix: Model coefficients 97
model is obtained by a numerical linearization of the complete rigorous

model. Both linear models exhibit an acceptable approximation of the
process dynamics. The singular value plots indicate a high coincidence
of the linear models in the mid-frequency range, but significant differ-
ences in the low and high-frequency range. Comparing step responses
with those of the rigorous nonlinear model, a slightly better representa-
tion of the column dynamics by the numerically evaluated model is
demonstrated. The relatively high order of the linear model (52 for the
analytically, and 102 for the numerically linearized models) can be
reduced essentially by one of the well known order reduction methods.
All tested methods yielded a nearly perfect approximation of the linear
model of order 102 up to a frequency of 1 rad/min by a model of order 10.
4.8 Appendix: Model coefficients

For all coefficients the following holds:
∂ *
kj = y (4.33)
∂ xj j
Analytically differentiating the equation (4.12), the actual numerical

values of k j may be calculated.
A-Matrix
Condenser (k=1…50)
∂f –V
a 1, 1 = -------0- = ---------1- (4.34)
∂x 0 n0
∂f 0 η ( 1 – η ) k – 1 V 1 k k
a 1, k + 1 = --------- = --------------------------------------------- (4.35)
∂x k n0
∂f 0 ( 1 – η ) 50 V 1 k 51
a 1, 52 = ----------
- = -------------------------------------
- (4.36)
∂x 51 n0
98 4 Linear Models
Trays (j=1…50, k = j…50)
∂f j Lj – 1
a j + 1, j = -------------- = -----------
- (4.37)
∂x j – 1 nj
∂f – ( L j + V j + 1 – V j + V j ηk j + F j )
a j + 1, j + 1 = -------j = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (4.38)
∂x j nj
∂f ( V j + 1 – ( 1 – η )V j )
a j + 1, k + 1 = --------j- = η ( 1 – η ) k – j – 1 k k ----------------------------------------------- (4.39)
∂x k nj
∂f j ( V j + 1 – ( 1 – η )V j )
- = ( 1 – η ) 50 – j k k -----------------------------------------------
a j + 1, 52 = ---------- (4.40)
∂x 51 nj
Evaporator
∂f 51 L 50
a 52, 51 = ----------
- = -------- (4.41)
∂x 50 n 51
∂f 51 – ( B + V 51 k 51 )
a 52, 52 = ----------
- = ------------------------------------ (4.42)
∂x 51 n 51
B-Matrix
We have to consider the portion of the vapor flow which is condensed by

an increase of the feed flow rate because of the subcooled feed. For the
decrease of the vapor flow in the rectifying section of the distillation
column
h' 20 – h' F
dV = – ⎛ --------------------------⎞ dF (4.43)
⎝ h'' 20 – h' 20⎠
The liquid flow rate in the stripping section of the column is increased
by the same amount.
4.8 Appendix: Model coefficients 99
Condenser
∂f
b 1, 1 = --------0- = 0 (4.44)
∂x F
∂f h' 20 – h' F y 1 – x 0
b 1, 2 = ------0- = – ⎛ --------------------------⎞ ----------------- (4.45)
∂F ⎝ h'' 20 – h' 20⎠ n 0
Rectifying section (j = 1 … 19)
∂f
b j + 1, 1 = --------j- = 0 (4.46)
∂x F
∂f h' 20 – h' F y j + 1 – y j
b j + 1, 2 = ------j = – ⎛ --------------------------⎞ ----------------------- (4.47)
∂F ⎝ h'' 20 – h' 20⎠ nj
Feed tray (20)
∂f 20 F 20
b 21, 1 = --------- = -------- (4.48)
∂x F n 20
h' 20 – h' F
x F – x 20 + -------------------------- ( y 20 – x 20 )
∂f 20 h'' 20 – h' 20
b 21, 2 = --------- = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (4.49)
∂F n 20
Stripping section (j = 21 … 51)
∂f
b j + 1, 1 = --------j- = 0 (4.50)
∂x F
∂f h' 20 – h' F ⎞ x j – 1 – x j
b j + 1, 2 = ------j = ⎛ 1 + -------------------------- ---------------------- (4.51)
∂F ⎝ h'' 20 – h' 20⎠ nj
If the reflux is subcooled, the vapor stream in the column is condensed

partially at the first tray. The liquid stream leaving the first tray and all
100 4 Linear Models
trays below is thereby increased by the same amount. From (4.8) we

obtain
h' 1 – h' 0
dV 1 = – ⎛ ----------------------⎞ dL 0 (4.52)
⎝ h'' 1 – h' 1⎠
h' 1 – h' 0 ⎞
dL 1 = ⎛ 1 + ---------------------
- dL (4.53)
⎝ h'' – h' ⎠ 0 1 1
With (4.52) and (4.53) there follows for the elements of the B matrix:
Condenser
h' 1 – h' 0
- ( x – y1 )
---------------------
∂f 0 h'' 1 – h' 1 0
b 1, 3 = ------- = --------------------------------------------- (4.54)
∂L n0
∂f y1 – x0
b 1, 4 = ------0- = ----------------
- (4.55)
∂V n0
Tray 1
h' 1 – h' 0
x 0 – x 1 + ( y 1 – x 1 ) ----------------------
∂f h'' 1 – h' 1
b 2, 3 = ------1- = --------------------------------------------------------------------
- (4.56)
∂L n1
∂f y2 – y1
b 2, 4 = ------1- = ----------------
- (4.57)
∂V n1
Trays (j = 2 … 50)
∂f xj – 1 – xj h' 1 – h' 0 ⎞
b j + 1, 3 = ------j = ---------------------- ⎛ 1 + ---------------------
- (4.58)
∂L nj ⎝ h'' 1 – h' 1⎠
∂f yj + 1 – yj
b j + 1, 4 = -------j = ----------------------
- (4.59)
∂V nj
4.9 Notation 101
Evaporator
∂f 51 x 50 – x 51 ⎛ h' 1 – h' 0 ⎞
b 52, 3 = --------- = ---------------------- 1 + ---------------------
- (4.60)
∂L n 51 ⎝ h'' 1 – h' 1⎠
∂f 51 – ( y 51 – x 51 )
b 52, 4 = --------- = ------------------------------ (4.61)
∂V n 51
C-Matrix
The coefficients of the measurement output matrix are numerically

evaluated by solving the boiling point equation for small increments in
tray composition.
4.9 Notation
4.9.1 Matrices and Vectors
A State dynamic matrix

B Control input matrix
C Measurement output matrix
G Transfer function matrix
G u → y Transfer function matrix from
control signals u to output signals y
n Vector of holdup deviations from operating point (OP)
n = [ dn 1, dn 2, …, dn 50 ] T
ñ Vector of holdups
ñ = [ n 1, n 2, …, n 50 ] T
u Vector of the manipulated variables (L0, V51) deviations
u = [ dL 0, dV 51 ] T
ũ Vector of column inputs
ũ = [ L 0, V 51 ] T
102 4 Linear Models
x Vector of composition deviations from OP

x = [ dx 0, dx 1, …, dx 50, dx 51 ] T
x̃ Vector of tray compositions
x̃ = [ x 0, x 1, …, x 51 ] T
y Vector of the deviations of the pressure-comp. temperatures
y = [ dT P , dT P , dT P ] T
10 44 24
ỹ Vector of pressure compensated tray temperatures
ỹ = [ T P , T P , T P ] T
10 44 24
d Vector of the disturbance input deviations from OP
z = [ dx F, dF ] T
d˜ Vector of disturbance inputs
z̃ = [ x F, F ] T
4.9.2 Scalar values
B [mol/s] Bottom product flow rate

D [mol/s] Top product flow rate
F [mol/s] Feed flow rate
h' j [J/mol] Molar enthalpy of liquid phase on tray j
h'' j [J/mol] Molar enthalpy of vapor phase on tray j
L0 [mol/s] Reflux
Lj [mol/s] Rate of liquid flow leaving tray j
nj [mol] Holdup on tray j
nt [–] Number of trays in column
T [K] Temperature
TPj [K] Pressure compensated temperature
V [mol/s] Boilup
Vj [mol/s] Rate of vapor flow leaving tray j
4.10 References 103
xj [mol/mol] Liquid phase composition on tray j
xB [mol/mol] Composition in column bottom
xF [mol/mol] Feed composition
yj [mol/mol] Vapor phase composition on tray j
y k* [mol/mol] Equilibrium vapor phase composition on tray j
α [–] Relative volatility
η [–] Murphree tray efficiency
σ [–] Singular value
κ [–] Condition number
4.10 References
[4.1] Balas, G. J., J. C. Doyle, K. Glover, A. Packard, and R. Smith: μ-
Analysis and Synthesis Toolbox (μ-Tools), The MathWorks, Inc.,
Natick, MA (1991)
[4.2] Chiang, R. Y., and M. G. Safonov: Robust Control Toolbox, The

Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MA (1988)
[4.3] Glover, K.: “All optimal Hankel-norm approximations of linear

multivariable systems and their L∞ error bounds,” Int. J. Con-
trol, 36, 1115-1193 (1984)
[4.4] Häggblom, K. E.: “Modeling of Flow Dynamics for Control of Dis-

tillation Columns,” Proc. 1991 American Control Conference,
Boston, USA (1991)
[4.5] Jacobsen, E. W., P. Lundström, and S. Skogestad: “Modelling

and Identification for Robust Control of Ill-Conditioned Plants —
a Distillation Case Study,” Proc. 1991 American Control Confer-
ence, Boston, USA (1991)
104 4 Linear Models
[4.6] Kapoor, N., and T. J. McAvoy: “An Analytical Approach to Ap-

proximate Dynamic Modeling of Distillation Towers,” IFAC Con-
trol of Distillation Columns and Chemical Reactors,
Bournemouth, UK (1986)
[4.7] Moore, B.C.: “Principal Component Analysis in Linear Systems:

Controllability, Observability and Model Reduction,” IEEE
Trans. Automatic Control, 32, 115-122 (1981)
[4.8] Safonov, M.G., R. Y. Chiang, and D. J. N. Limebeer: “Hankel

Model Reduction without Balancing — A Descriptor Approach,”
Proc. IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, Los Angeles, CA, Dec.
9-11 (1987)
[4.9] Safonov, M. G. and R.Y. Chiang: “Schur Balanced Model Reduc-

tion,” Proc. American Control Conference, Atlanta, GA, June 15-
17 (1988)
[4.10] Skogestad, S. and M. Morari: “The Dominant Time Constant for

Distillation Columns,” Comp. Chem. Eng., 11, 6, 607-617 (1987)
[4.11] Skogestad, S. and M. Morari: “Understanding the Dynamic Be-

havior of Distillation Columns,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 27, 1848-
1862 (1988)
[4.12] Skogestad, S.: “Dynamics and Control of Distillation Columns —

A Critical Survey,” 3rd IFAC Symp. on Dynamics and Control of
Chemical Reactors, Distillation Columns, and Batch Processes,
April 26-29, College Park, MD, USA (1992)
[4.13] Troch, I., P. C. Müller, and K.-H. Fasol: “Modellreduktion für

Simulation und Reglerentwurf,” at, 40, 2, 45-53 (1992)
5.1 Introduction 105
Chapter 5
A Structured Uncertainty Model
5.1 Introduction
Each linear or nonlinear dynamic model can only approximately
describe the behavior of a real distillation column. While a nonlinear
model may be valid for a wide range of operating conditions, the error of
a linear model rapidly increases with the distance from its steady-state
design point due to process nonlinearity. Since stochastic effects influ-
ence the process behavior as well, the error of a linear model compared
to the real process can never be exactly determined. Lacking an exact
error description, the error between the process model and the process
itself is modelled as a single frequency-dependent uncertainty bound
(unstructured uncertainty) or as several frequency-dependent uncer-
tainty bounds (structured uncertainties).
Typical sources of uncertainty for a distillation column are measure-

ment errors, limited actuator speed, unmodelled high-frequency
dynamics, and process nonlinearity. All these sources of uncertainty
occur simultaneously and can be classified into three different groups:
• Uncertainty of the manipulated variables (input uncertainties)

• Model uncertainty due to process nonlinearity and unmodelled
high-frequency dynamics
106 5 A Structured Uncertainty Model
• Uncertainty of the temperature measurements (output uncer-

tainties)
This grouping corresponds to the principle that uncertainty should be
modelled where it physically occurs.
In this chapter an uncertainty model for the industrial distillation

column is developed. The complete uncertainty model covers not only a
single operating point but the entire operating range of the column. It is
the basis for the analysis and synthesis of controllers using the struc-
tured singular value μ.
5.2 Limits of uncertainty models

Before we start to model the uncertainty in the frequency domain, we
must be conscious of its limits: An uncertain model in the frequency
domain is a model, which is time-invariant, but uncertain in its coeffi-
cients.
This statement is best explained by an example: Let us model a ±10%

uncertainty at the input of any plant and design a controller which
guarantees closed-loop stability and a certain performance for all plants
within the specified bounds. Then the stability and performance proper-
ties of the controller are not guaranteed for a time-varying plant, that
means e.g. for variations of the input error between -10% and +10%.
Consequently, using uncertainty models in the frequency domain, the
excitation of the controller by the time-variation of the plant is not taken
into account. If time-varying uncertainties are assumed, nonlinear
simulations must be used for a validation of the robustness properties.
However, the experience shows that for most cases uncertainty descrip-
tions with frequency dependent and hence time-invariant uncertainty
bounds are sufficient.
This holds especially for our distillation column: The main disturbances
are step changes of the feed flow rate. Each step change alters the
steady state operating point and defines a new linear model describing
the dynamic behavior up to the next step change. Each of these linear
5.3 Input uncertainty 107
models is one of the models within the set of all models. This set is
defined by the specified uncertainty bounds.
5.3 Input uncertainty

The actual values of the manipulated variables reflux and boilup will
never match exactly the values requested by the control system. The
error between the setpoints for the boilup or the reflux and the true
streams will be frequency dependent. The main causes are
• static and dynamic measurement errors of reflux and
reboiler duty
• changing heat of evaporation due to pressure and
temperature variations
• reboiler lags
• actuator lags
• effects of sampling
The bounds for the relative errors of the column inputs u can be
modelled by a multiplicative uncertainty description with the
frequency-dependent error bound w u for the reflux L and the error
L
bound w u V for the boilup V. These bounds are combined in the diagonal
matrix W u . As illustrated in Figure 5.1 the following uncertainty model
holds:
ũ ( jω ) = { I + Δ u ( jω )W u ( jω ) }u ( jω ) (5.1)
Wu Δu
u ũ
Figure 5.1: Multiplicative uncertainty description for column input

with
Δ u ( jω ) ∞
≤1 (5.2)
w u ( jω ) 0
W u ( jω ) = L
(5.3)
0 w u ( jω )
V
The frequency-dependent complex matrix Δ u ( jω ) is limited in magni-

tude. It shapes only the spatial direction of the error and is chosen to be
the worst case during μ-analysis (see Chapter 6). Therefore the phase
behavior of the individual uncertainty bounds w u i is not significant.
They should be chosen to be stable and minimum phase.
If we assume that the reflux and the boilup errors are independent, the
matrix Δ u ( jω ) becomes a diagonal matrix with two single perturbations
δ yielding the following uncertainty model:
⎧ ⎫
⎪ δ u ( jω ) 0 ⎪
ũ ( jω ) = ⎨ I + L
W u ( jω ) ⎬u ( jω ) (5.4)
⎪ 0 δ u ( jω ) ⎪
⎩ V
⎭
with
δ u ( jω ) ≤1 (5.5)
i ∞
Both models have been used for μ-synthesis with very similar results.
For two reasons, the model (5.1) is preferred in this study:
• The number of uncertainty blocks (Δj or δi) is reduced by one

compared to (5.4). This simplifies the μ-synthesis.
• Any change in reflux may cause a change of the vapor flow rate
within the column and vice versa. The interactions due to flow
dynamics and to the energy balance are to be considered here.
5.3 Input uncertainty 109
Shaping the input error bounds
It has been shown by Skogestad et al. [5.4] that the controlled system’s
performance for a high purity distillation column is very sensitive to
errors in the manipulated variables. For controller design or analysis
the error bounds W u should be estimated as exactly as possible. This
holds especially for the low-frequency range, where the condition
number of the column models is high. Otherwise potential controller
performance is given away in case of an overestimation.
In the lower-frequency range the errors of the manipulated variables at

the plant input are strongly dominated by flow measurement errors and
parameter variations. As an example for a parameter variation we
consider the heat of evaporation in the reboiler. The boilup is controlled
indirectly by steam flow rate. Therefore a change in heat of evaporation
will cause an error in vapor flow rate leaving the reboiler.
Skogestad and Morari [5.4] assume a conservative 20% error in steady

state, which is fairly high. If all flow measurements are carefully cali-
brated the error bounds should be less. An error bound of 10% for the
lower frequency range is assumed to be large enough.
The effects of reboiler lags, actuator lags, dynamic measurement errors,

and sampling time concern the higher frequency range. The errors
caused by these uncertainty sources increase with the frequency and
easily exceed more than 100% of the nominal value for frequencies
above 0.5-1 rad/min.
The steady-state error, together with the high-frequency error, is well

approximated by the first order lead/lag transfer function
1 + s ⁄ ωN
G ( s ) = K ------------------------ with ω N < ω D (5.6)
1 + s ⁄ ωD
The gain K represents the steady-state error. The cut-off frequencies are
typically chosen according to ω D > 10ω N .
5.4 Model uncertainty
5.4.1 Column nonlinearity
The highly nonlinear behavior of distillation columns is observed at

varying operating points (varying feed flow rate and feed composition)
and at transients during disturbance rejection. If we consider the simpli-
fied composition dynamics (without feed or side-product stream) of a
tray (see (4.6))
dx j
n j ⎛ --------⎞ = L j – 1 ( x j – 1 – x j ) + V j + 1 ( y j + 1 – x j ) – V j ( y j – x j ) (5.7)
⎝ dt ⎠
we recognize that the composition dynamics and thus the nonlinear

behavior depend on
• the varying internal flow rates (L and V), and

• the composition profile within the distillation column (repre-
sented by the liquid and vapor phase compositions)
Effect of varying operating points
Any control system for a distillation column must exhibit large gains in
the low-frequency range to achieve small control errors at steady-state.
Therefore, at steady-state both product compositions (or the tempera-
tures on trays 10 and 44) can be kept at their setpoints. Thus transients
have no significant influence in the low-frequency range and the
internal vapor and liquid flow rates as well as the composition profile
within a column become a function of feed flow rate and composition
only.
However, the dynamic behavior of a distillation column depends

substantially on the actual composition profile and on the actual
internal vapor and liquid flow rates. Normally the operating range of a
distillation column can be bounded with a maximum and a minimum
feed flow rate and composition. If we consider the whole operating range
defined in this way, we can observe the largest internal flow rates for the
5.4 Model uncertainty 111
smallest feed composition and largest feed flow rate and, vice versa,
smallest internal flow rates for the largest feed composition and
smallest feed flow rates. The composition profiles for these two steady
states bound the domain of all steady state composition profiles (see
Figure 2.2).
Hence we can conclude that the low-frequency behavior of a binary high-

purity distillation column is bounded by the models for maximum and
minimum column load. As a basis for further discussion the following
three linear models are introduced:
Model N column at nominal load
Model I column at maximum feed flow rate and

minimum feed composition (increased load)
Model R column at minimum feed flow rate and

maximum feed composition (reduced load)
The feed data of the different models are listed in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Operating conditions for design purposes
Operating point Feed flow rate Feed composition

(mol/min) (mol/mol)
OP-N 33 0.8
OP-I 46 0.7
OP-R 20 0.9
The simplest way to represent the column nonlinearity due to varying

operating points would be by a multiplicative output uncertainty. If we
assume that the uncertainty for each model output is independent of the
actual value of the other two model outputs, the following form for the
output uncertainty holds (Figure 5.2):
δy 0 0
1
Wy 0 δy 0
2
0 0 δy
3
y ỹ
Figure 5.2: Multiplicative uncertainty at output
⎧ δ y ( jω ) 0 0 ⎫
⎪ 1 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
ỹ ( jω ) = ⎨ I + 0 δ y ( jω ) 0 W y ( jω ) ⎬y ( jω ) (5.8)
⎪ 2
⎪
⎪ 0 0 δ y ( jω ) ⎪
⎩ 3 ⎭
with
δy ≤1
i ∞
and
y ( jω ) = G N ( jω ) d ( jω )
u ( jω )
The transfer matrix Wy is a diagonal matrix with the uncertainty

bounds for each output ( w y , w y , w y ) on the main diagonal. An upper
1 2 3
bound for these uncertainties can be obtained by a calculation of the
standardized errors ΔG I ( jω ) and ΔG R ( jω ) for each channel u i → y j or
d i → y j of the models G I ( jω ) and G R ( jω ) , respectively:
ΔG I ( jω ) = [ G I ( jω ) – G N ( jω ) ]G N
– 1 ( jω ) (5.9)
ΔG R ( jω ) = [ G R ( jω ) – G N ( jω ) ]G N
– 1 ( jω ) (5.10)
The upper bound for the uncertainty weights w y is the maximum of all
j
standardized errors for the output y j .
In earlier papers it has already been recognized that column nonlin-

earity is not well represented by simple multiplicative uncertainty
bounds at model output (McDonald [5.2]). This fact is confirmed by the
uncertainty bounds for the two numerically evaluated linear models GI
and GR which include the flow dynamics (Figure 5.3). The multiplicative
output uncertainty exceeds 80% (for G u → y ) in the low-frequency range.
It is significantly smaller in the medium frequency range, but increases
sharply for frequencies above 0.1 rad/min, where the flow dynamics
influence the dynamic behavior. An uncertainty description with such a
high multiplicative uncertainty in the low-frequency range is prohibi-
tive for any control design.
Fortunately the errors are highly correlated: The variation of the

steady-state operating points causes a simultaneous increase or
decrease of the singular values of the transfer functions from the control
signals u (L and V) to the model outputs y (T10, T44, T24). This is illus-
trated by the Nyquist plots for the individual channels u i → y j (Figure
5.4). It clearly shows that the variation of the column load causes a
simultaneous increase or decrease of the open-loop gains in the low-
frequency domain. Thus we can assume that the dynamic behavior of
the distillation column must lie “somewhere between OP-I and OP-R.”
This can be represented by a linear combination of the two column
models G I ( jω ) and G R ( jω ) (Figure 5.5)
G I ( jω ) + G R ( jω ) G I ( jω ) – G R ( jω )
- + δ G ( jω ) --------------------------------------------
G ( jω ) = ------------------------------------------- (5.11)
2 2
with
δG ∞
≤1 δ G ∈ C or δ G ∈ R
Standardized error
Standardized errorofofT-10,
T10,OP-I
GI(s) Standardized error
T44,OP-I
GI(s)
1 1
0.5 0.5
Magnitude
Magnitude
0 0
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-1 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min) Frequency (rad/min)
Standardized error T24,OP-I
GI(s) Legend
1 1
xF
0.5 0.5
Magnitude
F
0 0
L
-0.5 -0.5
V
-1 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-1 -5 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
Standardized error
Standardized error ofofT-10,
T10,OP-R
GR(s) Standardized errorofofT-44,
Standardized error T44,OP-R
GR(s)
1 1
0.5 0.5
Magnitude
Magnitude
0 0
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-1 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Standardized
Standardized error T24,OP-R
errorofofT-24, GR(s) Legend
Legend
1 1
x
xFF
Magnitude
0.5 0.5
FF
0 0
LL
-0.5 -0.5
VV
-1 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-1 -5 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
Figure 5.3: Standardized model errors at operating points OP-I and OP-R
T ( jω )
G L →L-T10
10
GV → T ( jω )
V-T10
10
0 0
-100 -100
0 200 0 200
T ( jω )
G L →L-T44
44
GV → T ( jω )
V-T44
44
0 0
-400 -300
0 700 0 600
T ( jω )
G L →L-T24
24
GV → T ( jω )
V-T24
24
0 0
-250 -250
0 500 0 500
Figure 5.4: Nyquist plots for different column loads ⎯

solid lines: Model N;
dash-dotted lines: Model I;
dashed lines: Model R;
×: ω = 1×10-3 rad/min;
o: ω = 1×10-4 rad/min
d
GI 1/2
+ +
+
δG I3
+ y
–
GR 1/2
u
Figure 5.5: Uncertainty model due to nonlinearity in the low-frequency range
The uncertainty parameter δ G may be either complex or real. If we

define it to be complex we allow a phase shift for all models between G R
and G I , that means the points of all models in the defined set in the
Nyquist plots and for a fixed frequency are not required to be on a
straight line.
In this way we generate a plant which covers the properties of the distil-
lation column at low and at high feed compositions, and at different feed
flow rates without introducing additional conservatism. It is impossible
to model such a behavior with an unstructured uncertainty description!
Effect of transients
While an appropriate uncertainty model for different operating points

requires a highly structured uncertainty description, the effect of tran-
sients is rather unstructured: During disturbance rejection, the compo-
sitions on tray 10, tray 44, and tray 24 as well as the product
compositions will deviate from their steady-state values, caused by a
movement of the composition profile toward one column end. Due to the
nonlinear vapor/liquid equilibrium, the singular values of the transfer
functions G u → y may change in different directions, e.g., towards higher
j
singular values of G u → T and lower singular values of G u → T .
10 44
Due to the high controller performance in the low-frequency range, tran-

sients do not affect the low-frequency range. However, they cause nonlin-
earity in the middle and higher frequency range, which can be described
with a multiplicative uncertainty description as in equation (5.8). The
uncertainty weights w y are chosen to have large singular values in the
i
higher-frequency range and low singular values in the low-frequency
range. It is not possible to calculate these uncertainty bounds exactly.
Each disturbance input will cause a variation of the operating point, but
the magnitude of the deviation from a steady-state operating point
cannot be predicted. The selection of appropriate transfer functions is
discussed in Chapter 6.
5.4.2 Unmodelled dynamics
It has been shown in Chapter 2 that flow dynamics affect the high-
frequency behavior of distillation columns. If linear models which
neglect the flow dynamics are used for control design, an appropriate
uncertainty model is necessary.
Most authors treat the effect of flow dynamics in the same way as the
effect of an input time delay τ with 0 < τ < 1 minute ([5.1], [5.3], [5.4],
[5.5]). The corresponding input uncertainty is often modelled with a
multiplicative uncertainty, using a first order Padé approximation for
the uncertainty bound ([5.4], [5.5]):
1 – τs -----
τs 2
e ≅ ---------------
– (5.12)
τs
1 + -----
2
This uncertainty can be combined with the other input uncertainties

(Chapter 5.3). Lundström et al. [5.1] point to the fact that some combi-
nations of gain uncertainty and time delay uncertainty are not repre-
sented using simple uncertainty weights. They developed new and more
complicated uncertainty bounds, which cover the whole domain of
combined gain uncertainty and time delay uncertainty. However, the
control design studies in this research (Chapter 6) show very good
results using simple first-order weights for the input uncertainty
description.
Model uncertainty due to flow dynamics could be represented by a multi-

plicative output uncertainty, as well. This approach has the disadvan-
tage that the uncertainty bounds can no longer be approximated by time
delays.
5.5 Measurement uncertainty

An additional source of uncertainty are the temperature measurements.
The dynamic behavior of a temperature sensor is well approximated by
a first-order lag:
KT
G T ( s ) = ------------------- (5.13)
1 + sT T
The time constant T T of this transfer function depends on the tempera-

ture measurement position. While the time constant will usually be
clearly below 1 minute if the sensor is placed in the liquid phase, we have
to expect time constants up to 10 minutes if it is placed in the vapor
phase. In the case of the industrial distillation column under investiga-
tion, a position in the liquid phase cannot be guaranteed because of the
small head on the plates. Therefore we have to consider time constants
up to 10 minutes for the control design.
The gain K T of the sensor model G T depends on the sensor calibration

and on the heat loss to the environment. The sensor can easily be cali-
brated with high accuracy. However, the dynamic effects of the heat loss
due to variations of the environment temperature are difficult to esti-
mate. They concern mainly the low-frequency range and cause a slow
bias variation of the temperature measurements. This effect is compa-
rable to variations of the setpoints for the control system. The stability
of the control system is not affected if large bias variations are avoided.
They would lead to product compositions which are very distinct from
those at the design operating points. A good thermal isolation of the
temperature sensors is thus recommendable.
Because the μ-analysis and μ-synthesis guarantees the performance for

the worst case, it is proposed to include the model for the temperature
5.6 Specification of the controller performance 119
sensors with a gain K T = 1 and a time constant T T = 10 min into the

column model. Thereby further uncertainty blocks can be avoided. It
will be easily recognized later, that shorter time constants TT will not
endanger the closed-loop system’s stability due to the large output
uncertainties w y specified for the controller design in the upper
i
frequency range.
5.6 Specification of the controller performance

The uncertainty model discussed above is structured. A controller
design or a robust performance analysis requires the framework of the
structured singular value μ, which expects the disturbance inputs d
(feed composition, flow rate), the reference inputs r, and the control
error to be in a H ∞ -norm bounded set. This is illustrated by the
frequency shaped plant in Figure 5.6.
We(s)
d e
Wd(s) GΔ(s)
r
K(s)
+ - T24
T10,T44
Figure 5.6: Performance specification for the uncertain plant
The uncertain plant G Δ ( jω ) describes the nonlinear behavior of the

distillation column. The performance objective is defined as making the
weighted control error e to be in the set
sup W e ( jω )e ( jω ) 2
≤1 ∀ω ∈ R + (5.14)
d ≤1
r 2
The following H ∞ bound is equivalent to this specification:
T ( jω ) ≤1 (5.15)
d →p
r ∞
W e ( s ) is a (usually diagonal) matrix of transfer functions which shapes

the maximum allowed amplitude of the transfer function from [ d, r ] T to
e. If W e is large in a certain frequency range, only a small control error
is allowed there.
The matrix W d ( s ) shapes the frequency content of the disturbances and

setpoint changes. In the case of our distillation column, variations of the
feed composition and feed flow rate will affect the medium and lower
frequency range. First order lags shape the frequency content of these
two disturbances quite well. Because measurement noise enters the
control loop at the same position as the reference inputs, the corre-
sponding weights are chosen to be constant. The weighting functions
chosen are discussed in the following chapter.
5.7 Summary
The complete uncertainty model is shown in Figure 5.7. It consists of the
input uncertainty (5.1), the model uncertainties (5.8) and (5.11), and the
performance specifications. Simple dynamic models of the temperature
sensors are included in the column models. This relatively complex
uncertainty model has the advantage that the entire operating range of
the distillation column is covered. The large conservatism of an unstruc-
tured uncertainty description is avoided. Therefore, with design proce-
dures based on the μ-synthesis or μ-optimization, we can expect high
controller performance for the entire operating range.
5.7 Summary
p
We ηo δy 0 0
1 ηi
Wy 0 δy 0
2
0 0 δy
1/2 3
ρi
GI +
ρo + ξ
o ξi + +
d Wu Δu δGΙ
+ - + +
Wd e +
1/2
r + K GR
– ~u
T24
T10, T44
Figure 5.7: Complete uncertainty model

121
The input uncertainty bounds w u i are easily shaped. Only a few reflec-
tions are necessary about the steady-state error and the frequency
where a 100% error is to be expected. However, the output uncertainties
w y j are more difficult to shape. During the controller design procedure it
is often necessary to adjust them iteratively until nonlinear simulations
show a satisfactory closed-loop dynamics. This problem is discussed
further in Chapter 6.
5.8 References
[5.1] Lundström, P., S. Skogestad, and Z.-Q. Wang: “Uncertainty
Weight Selection for H-Infinity and Mu-Control Methods,” Proc.
30th Conference on Decision and Control, Brighton, U. K. (1991)
[5.2] McDonald, K. A.: “Characterization of Distillation Nonlinearity

for Control System Design and Analysis,” The Shell Process Con-
trol Workshop, ed. D. M. Prett and M. Morari, Butterworth, Bos-
ton, 279-290 (1987)
[5.3] Postlethwaite, I., J.-L. Lin and D.-W. Gu: “Robust Control of a
High Purity Distillation Column Using μ-K Iteration,” Proc. 30th
Conference on Decision and Control, Brighton, U. K (1991)
[5.4] Skogestad, S., M. Morari, and J. C. Doyle: “Robust Control of Ill-
Conditioned Plants: High-Purity Distillation,” IEEE Trans. Auto-
matic Control, 33, 12, 1092-1105 (1988)
[5.5] Skogestad, S., and P. Lundström: “Mu-Optimal LV-Control of

Distillation Columns,” Comp. Chem. Eng., 14, 4/5, 401-413 (1990)
Chapter 6
μ-Optimal Controller Design
6.1 Introduction
While the synthesis and analysis of controllers using the structured
singular value μ (SSV) has attracted considerable attention among aero-
space and electrical engineers (e.g., [6.8], [6.9]), it has been less
commonly considered by process control engineers. One reason for that
might be the lack of adequate structured uncertainty models for chem-
ical processes. The uncertainty model discussed in the previous chapter
forms a suitable basis for a μ-optimal controller design. Since this uncer-
tainty model covers the dynamic behavior of the industrial distillation
column for the entire operating range, the resulting controllers guar-
antee stability and performance for all operating points.
This chapter presents the results of a μ-optimal controller design for the
LV control structure of the distillation column. After a summary of the
most useful aspects of the SSV, the design of state-space controllers by
μ-synthesis is demonstrated. Because the implementation of state-space
controllers in a distributed control system is a troublesome project, the
design of controllers with fixed and easy-to-implement structures (PID
control structures) is considered in a special section. A comparison of the
controller’s performances in the time-domain terminates this chapter.
124 6 μ-Optimal Controller Design
6.2 The structured singular value

The uncertainty model approximating the nonlinear dynamic behavior
of the industrial distillation column (see Chapter 5) includes several
simultaneous uncertainty blocks ( δ i, Δ j ), thus representing a structured
uncertainty model. Most of the well-known robust control design
methods (e.g., H∞, LQG/LTR) are based on unstructured uncertainty
descriptions. The application of these methods on such uncertainty
models often introduces unnecessary conservatism in controller design,
because these methods combine all the uncertainties in one large, fully
occupied uncertainty block. Thus the special structure of the uncertain-
ties is neglected. This conservatism can be avoided by the use of the
structured singular value μ, which was introduced in 1982 by J. C. Doyle
([6.5], [6.6]).
The structured singular value μ so far has seldom been discussed in

textbooks. Therefore the most important facts about μ are summarized
within the following three sections. The discussion is restricted to
complex uncertainty blocks. Results for mixed real/complex uncertain-
ties can be found in [6.15]. The references [6.4], [6.12], and [6.14] contain
additional informations.
6.2.1 Representation of structured uncertainties

The definition of the structured singular value presumes that the uncer-
tainty model for a plant is rearranged into a special form, as shown in
Figure 6.1. The plant P consists of the process models and the weighting
functions. It has three sets of inputs and outputs:
The first set of inputs and outputs is highly important. Within the
uncertainty model, this set represent the output and input signals of the
uncertainty blocks. In our case the inputs to the uncertainty blocks are
the signals ρ o, ξ o and η o . The corresponding outputs are the signals
ρ i, ξ i , and η i .
The second set of inputs consists of all external signals (disturbances d,

reference inputs r), while the third set of inputs consists of all manipu-
lated inputs u. The corresponding set of outputs contains the outputs p,
6.2 The structured singular value 125
ρi Δ ρo
ξi = z Uncertainties v = ξo
ηi ηo
d P p
r Plant
u y
K
Controller
Figure 6.1: Standard representation of an uncertain plant.

The definition of the vectors z and v is related to Figure 5.7
subject to any performance measure (e.g., the weighted control error),

and the measured plant outputs y, respectively.
If the uncertainty model is structured (i.e., it contains more than one

uncertainty block) the matrix Δ is a block diagonal matrix with all
uncertainty blocks on the main diagonal. In case of the uncertainty
model for the distillation column considered in this thesis, the following
block structure holds:
Δ = diag ( Δ u, δ G I 3, δ y , δ y , δ y Δ u ∈ C 2 × 2, δ G ∈ C, δ y ∈ C )
1 2 3 i
or, alternatively,
Δ = diag ( Δ u, δ G I 3, δ y , δ y , δ y Δ u ∈ C 2 × 2, δ G ∈ R, δ y ∈ C ) (6.1)
1 2 3 i
with Δj ∞
≤ 1, δ j ∞
≤1
For an unstructured uncertainty model, the matrix Δ is a fully occupied

matrix without predefined structure.
The rearrangement of an uncertainty model into the standard form is

always possible. The MATLABTM μ-Analysis and Synthesis Toolbox
[6.1] as well as the Robust Control Toolbox [6.3] provide efficient tools
for that purpose.
6.2.2 Definition of the structured singular value

Let X be the set of all Δ matrices with a given, fixed block-diagonal
structure:
⎧ m × mj ⎫
X = ⎨ diag ( δ 1 I r , …, δ s I r , Δ 1, …, Δ f ) δ i ∈ C, Δ j ∈ C j ⎬ (6.2)
⎩ 1 s
⎭
The structured singular value [6.7] of the Matrix M ∈ C m × m with

m = ∑ r i + ∑ m j (Fig. 6.2) is defined by
⎧ 1
⎪ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
⎪ min { σ max ( Δ ) ( det ( I + MΔ )=0 ) }
⎪
μΔ ( M ) = ⎨ Δ ∈ X (6.3)
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0 if no ( Δ ∈ X ) solves det ( I + MΔ )=0
⎩
Hence 1 ⁄ μ ( M ) is the size of the smallest matrix Δ which moves a pole

of the system shown in Figure 6.2 onto the imaginary axis. In the case
of a nominally stable system M, 1 ⁄ μ ( M ) is the size of the smallest
destabilizing matrix Δ . In case of a nominally unstable system M,
M
Figure 6.2: M-Δ feedback connection
however, μ ( M ) is not defined, and the numerical results are

misleading.
Some important properties of μ [6.7]

Let D be the set of diagonal scaling matrices:
D = { diag D 1 , …, D S, d S + 1 I m , …, d S + F I m
1 F
(6.4)
ri × ri
Di ∈ C , D i =D i* > 0, d S + j ∈ R , d S + j > 0 }
and let U be the set of block-diagonal unitary matrices
⎧ k ×k ⎫
U = ⎨ diag ( U 1, U 2, …, U n ) U i ∈ C i i, U i* U i =I k ⎬ (6.5)
⎩ i
⎭
With these definitions the following properties of μ hold:
ρ ( M ) ≤ μ ( M ) ≤ σ max ( M ) (6.6)
μ ( DMD –1 ) = μ ( M ) (6.7)
max ρ ( UM ) ≤ μ ( M ) ≤ inf σ max ( DMD – 1 ) (6.8)

U∈U D∈D
Property (6.6) reflects the advantage of the structured singular value μ:

In the presence of structured uncertainty, usually the inequality holds.
Therefore, μ is smaller than the maximum singular value.
The invariance of μ to diagonal scaling is indicated by property (6.7),
which is essential for the approximate calculation of the structured
singular values as well as for the DK-iteration for μ-synthesis.
No direct way has been found yet to calculate μ exactly. All algorithms
for the numerical computation calculate upper and lower bounds
according to property (6.8).
Both bounds represent an optimization problem. The optimization
problem for the upper bound is convex. For simple block structures with
2S + F ≤ 3 the upper bound is guaranteed to be equal to μ Δ ( M ) .
The optimization problem for the lower bound is not convex and its
calculation may converge to local maxima. Nevertheless numerical
experience indicates that usually the difference between upper and
lower bounds is within 5%, and almost always within 15% ([6.12],
[6.14]).
6.2.3 Robustness of stability and performance
Before we start to discuss robust stability and performance within the

framework of the structured singular value, we have to join the plant P
and the known controller K of the standard configuration in order to
close the control loop (Fig. 6.3). This is easily done by a linear fractional
transformation [6.13]:
M ( P, K ) = F l ( P, K ) = P 11 + P 12 K ( I – P 22 K ) – 1 P 12 (6.9)
The resulting plant M has two sets of inputs and outputs:
z
v M 11 M 12
= d (6.10)
p M 21 M 22
r
Δ
z v
d
r
M(P,K) p
Figure 6.3: Representation of uncertain control system with controller K and plant
P combined into the system M
The input sets are (1) the outputs from the uncertainty block Δ , and (2)
the disturbance and reference inputs. The outputs, in turn, are the
inputs to the uncertainty block Δ and the set of performance measures
p.
Theorem 6.1: Robust stability

Let BX be the set of all block diagonal matrices with a particular struc-
ture and with infinity-norm-bounded submatrices:
BX = { diag ( δ 1 I r , …, δ s I r , Δ 1, …, Δ f )
1 s
mj × mj ⎫ (6.11)
δ i ∈ C, Δ j ∈ C , δ i ∞ ≤ 1, Δ j ∞ ≤ 1 ⎬
⎭
The system shown in Figure 6.3 remains stable for all Δ ∈ BX if and
only if
sup μ Δ ( M 11 ) < 1 (6.12)

ω
Proof: see [6.6]
Theorem 6.1 allows the stability analysis of control systems with struc-
tured uncertainties. If we plot the upper and lower bounds of μ ( M 11 )
for enough frequency points in the frequency range of interest and find
that the maximum value of μ is smaller than one, the control system is
stable for the uncertainties specified with the assumption δ i ∞ ≤ 1 ,
Δ j ∞ ≤ 1 . If μ ( M ) exceeds one for any frequency, the control system is
not guaranteed to be stable. However, for smaller uncertainties with
δ i ∞ ≤ 1 ⁄ ( sup μ Δ ) and Δ j ∞ ≤ 1 ⁄ ( sup μ Δ ) stability is guaranteed.
ω ω
Theorem 6.2: Robust performance

The performance of the control system is robustly achieved if and only if
sup μ ˜ ( M ) < 1 with Δ = diag [ Δ, Δ P ] (6.13)

ω Δ
Proof: see [6.6]

For the application of theorem 6.2 we have to add one uncertainty block
Δ P to the uncertainty structure Δ (Fig. 6.4). Imagine that the perform-
ance specification of the control system is met for all allowed distur-
bance matrices Δ in the set BX. In this case the output p is bounded by
p ∞ ≤ 1 for all inputs [ d T, r T ] T with [ d T, r T ] T ∞ ≤ 1 . If we close the
loop from p to [ d T, r T ] T by introduction of the block Δ P with Δ P ∞
≤ 1,
the system will be stable. But if any block Δ P with Δ P ∞
≤ 1 destabilizes
the loop p → [ d T, r T ] T , the specified performance cannot be achieved
for all possible plants within the specified set. Therefore, in the frame-
work of the SSV, the robust performance problem is handled like a sta-
bility problem. A test for robust performance will be similar to a test for
robust stability. Because the test for robust performance includes robust
stability, it usually will be sufficient.
Δ 0
z v
0 ΔP
d
r
M(P,K) p
Figure 6.4: The robust performance setup for the SSV-framework
6.3 The design model

The design of μ-optimal controllers for the industrial distillation column
is based on the uncertainty model developed in Chapter 5 (see Figure
5.7 on page 121). For this model, the weighting functions for the
6.3 The design model 131
• input uncertainties,
• output uncertainties,
• reference inputs, disturbance inputs, and
• controller performance
are to be selected.
All weighting functions are chosen as diagonal matrices:
W d ( s ) = diag [ w x ( s ), w F ( s ), w r ( s ), w r ( s ) ] (6.14)
F 10 44
W u ( s ) = diag [ w u ( s ), w u ( s ) ] (6.15)
L V
W y ( s ) = diag [ w y ( s ), w y ( s ), w y ( s ) ] (6.16)
10 44 24
W e ( s ) = diag [ w e ( s ), w e ( s ) ] (6.17)
10 44
The selection of the weighting functions is primarily done on the basis

of physical considerations:
Feed disturbances: The variations of the feed composition and the feed
flow rate will affect the lower frequency range. The frequency contents
of these disturbances are modelled by first-order lags. Typical weights
chosen here for the control design are
1
w x ( s ) = K x ---------------------- with K x = 0.1 mol/mol, T x = 180 min (6.18)
F1 + T
F
F x s F F
1
w F ( s ) = K F ------------------- with K F = 6 mol/min, T F = 120 min (6.19)
1 + TF s
Reference inputs: The reference inputs r can be used to model setpoint

changes as well as measurement noise. They are chosen as constant
weights, representing setpoint changes and measurement noise of
±0.2 °C:
w r ( s ) = w r ( s ) = 0.2 (6.20)
10 44
Input uncertainties: An uncertainty of 10% is assumed for both manip-

ulated variables within a wide frequency range. For higher frequencies
the uncertainty is expected to be much higher. An uncertainty of more
than 100% is assumed for ω > 0.5 rad/minute:
1 + 20s
w u ( s ) = w u ( s ) = 0.1 ----------------------- (6.21)
L V 1 + 0.02s
Output uncertainties: The resolution of the temperature measurements

is limited. The maximum deviation of the pressure-compensated
temperatures from their setpoints is usually significantly smaller than
1 °C. A measurement error for ΔT of 10% seems to be reasonable. In the
higher frequency range the output uncertainty is affected by model
mismatch. An assumption of a 100% error for ω ≈ 1 ⁄ 16 rad/minute has
shown good results in controller design. Adjusting of this 100% cross-
over is one of the possibilities to influence the high-frequency behavior
of the resulting controller. Typical uncertainty weights are
1 + 167s
w y ( s ) = w y ( s ) = w y ( s ) = 0.1 ----------------------- (6.22)
10 44 24 1 + 1.67s
Performance weights: The performance weights “punish” the control

error in the frequency domain. These weights have been selected as
first-order lags with a large steady-state gain, which forces nearly inte-
grating behavior of the controller. The cut-off frequency of these weights
is a matter of optimization: If the frequency is too high, robust perfor-
mance cannot be achieved. On the other hand a cut-off frequency speci-
fication significantly lower than the maximum attainable frequency
may lead to an unsatisfactory controller design. This holds especially for
the μK-iteration which is discussed later. A typical performance specifi-
cation, which allows a 0.01 °C steady-state offset, is given by
1
w e ( s ) = w e ( s ) = 100 --------------------------- (6.23)
10 44 1 + 27800s
6.4 Controller design with μ-synthesis 133
All weights above are illustrated by Figure 6.5
Uncertainty weights Input and performance weights

2 2
10 10
we
wF
Magnitude
Magnitude
1 0
10 10 wr
wy
0 wu -2 wx
10 10 F
-1 -4
10 -4 -2 0 2
10 -6 -4 -2 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Figure 6.5: Weights for μ-synthesis
6.4 Controller design with μ-synthesis

The objective of the μ-synthesis is the calculation of a stabilizing
controller K without restriction on the controller order and its structure,
which minimizes the SSV for all frequencies:
K = arg inf μ ˜ ( M ( P, K ) ) (6.24)

K stabilizing Δ ∞
As it is not possible to calculate the SSV exactly, the design task (6.24)
is usually approximated by the upper bound for μ (6.8)
K = arg inf inf σ max ( DM ( P, K )D – 1 ) ∞

(6.25)
K stabilizing D ∈ D
The aim of the μ-synthesis is perfectly reached, if the maximum value of

μ ˜ for the closed-loop system (Figure 6.4) is below one.
Δ
6.4.1 Synthesis algorithms
The μ-synthesis is not a trivial task. Yet no algorithms have been devel-
oped which allow a one-step solution of the μ-synthesis problem (6.24).
The known algorithms require the repeated calculation of an H ∞
problem, alternating with a scaling of the plant. These algorithms
cannot guarantee convergence of the iteration.
DK-Iteration
The synthesis problem (6.25) is a simultaneous optimization problem of
the frequency-dependent scaling matrices D and the controller K.
Because no direct solutions exist, Doyle [6.7] proposes an iterative
approach: If we keep the diagonal scaling matrices D constant, the mini-
mization of inf σ max ( DMD –1 ) ∞ forms the convex H ∞ problem
D∈D
K = arg inf DF l ( P, K )D – 1 ∞ (6.26)

K
If we fix the controller K, equation (6.26) represents a convex optimiza-

tion problem for the diagonal scaling matrices D. These scaling matrices
are optimized by a μ-analysis of the closed-loop system:
μ ˜ [ F l ( P, K ) ] ≈ inf σ max ( DMD –1 ) (6.27)

Δ
D∈D
The frequency-dependent scaling matrices D are approximated with

˜ ( s ) . Alternating the H controller
stable, rational transfer functions D ∞
synthesis and the optimal scaling, convergence is achieved for most μ-
synthesis problems after several iterations. The iteration procedure is
illustrated in Figure 6.6. The DK-iteration is finished either if the solu-
tion does not show any further improvement or if μ < 1 . However,
convergence cannot be guaranteed: Both of the single optimization prob-
lems are convex, but not the overall optimization problem (6.25). The
optimized scaling matrices D are an optimal solution for the local opti-
mization problem (6.27), but they are not optimal for the global optimi-
zation problem (6.25). Therefore, the DK-iteration may converge to local
minima.
K 0 = arg inf F l ( P, K ) ∞
K
μ ˜ [ F l ( P, K 0 ) ] = inf σ max ( DMD – 1 )

Δ D∈D
˜ (s)
Fit D(s) with stable, min. phase transfer functions D
˜ ( s )F ( P, K )D̃ –1 ( s )
K 1 = arg inf D l ∞
K
μ ˜ [ F l ( P, K 1 ) ] = inf σ max ( DMD –1 )

Δ D∈D
.............
Figure 6.6: DK-Iteration
μK-Iteration
A new algorithm for μ-synthesis has been proposed by Lin et al. [6.11].
Instead of fitting the scaling matrices D, this algorithm is based on a fit
of the frequency-dependent SSV with a stable rational transfer func-
tion. At each iteration step, the plant is premultiplied with a diagonal
matrix of the μ-approximating transfer function. Thus the peaks of μ
within the frequency range of interest are punished, and the algorithm
tries to flatten the μ-curve. The convergence of this algorithm is not
proved. The authors present “a reasoned argument for believing that
the sequence will converge” [6.11]. A scheme of the μK-algorithm is
K 0 = arg inf F l ( P, K ) ∞
K
μ ( jω ) = μ ˜ [ F l ( P, K 0 ) ]
Δ
μ ( jω ) , μ̃ 0 ( s ) stable, miminum phase

Fit μ̃ 0 ( jω ) ≈ -----------------------
μ ( jω ) ∞
K 1 = arg inf μ̃ 0 ( s )F l ( P, K ) ∞
K
μ ( jω ) = μ ˜ [ F l ( P, K 1 ) ]
Δ
μ ( jω )
Fit μ̃ 1 ( jω ) ≈ -----------------------
μ ( jω ) ∞
K 2 = arg inf μ̃ 1 ( s )μ̃ 0 ( s )F l ( P, K ) ∞

K
..........
Figure 6.7: μK-Iteration
given in Figure 6.7. This iteration scheme has certain disadvantages: It

usually converges more slowly than the DK-iteration, and the conver-
gence properties are strongly dependent on the fit of the μ-curve. Even
if convergence is achieved, μ is not minimized for all frequencies.
6.4.2 Applying the DK-Iteration
The application of the DK-iteration to our design problem was not

successful because convergence of the algorithm is not attainable. Most
likely, the main problem is the fit of the fully occupied 2×2 or 3×3
(including or excluding the measurement of T24, respectively) block of
the D-scaling matrices. This block results from the repeated scalar
uncertainty block δ G I . If we fit each position of this block with a scalar,
stable, and minimum-phase transfer function, a minimum-phase
behavior for the resulting MIMO system is guaranteed. However,
unnecessary conservatism is introduced thereby, since a minimum
phase behavior is only required for the MIMO system, but not for the
single scalar transfer functions. This problem remains to be solved.
6.4.3 Applying the μK-Iteration
The application of the μK-Iteration does yield convergence. However, it

is necessary to slightly modify the algorithm. The premultiplication of
the μ-curve-fitting transfer function μ i ( s ) increases the order of the
design model at each iteration step. This easily leads to models with
more than 200 states. Unacceptable calculation times and numerical
problems result therefrom. This problem is avoided by an order reduc-
tion step after the augmentation of the plant and before the H ∞ design.
The order reduction method utilized is a balanced truncated realization
[6.1].
Experiences
A typical course of the iteration is shown by Figure 6.8. In the frequency

range where the performance specification μ ˜ ( jω ) < 1 is not achieved,
Δ
the upper bound of the SSV is forced down at each iteration step. After
six steps, the solution is reached for which no further improvement is
possible. If we look at the frequency range between 10 –2 and 10 –1 rad/
min, we discover that the first controller exhibits much better robust
performance than the final design. This results from the “flattening”
1.5
Structured singular value (RP)
3
4
5
1
6
0.5
0 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
Figure 6.8: Convergence of the μK-Iteration
behavior of the μK-Iteration, which leads to any solution of the design

task, but not necessarily to the optimal one.
This behavior of the iteration scheme may lead to strange results. Even
if the robust performance criterion is achieved, the simulation of the
closed-loop behavior may exhibit an insufficiently damped oscillation. It
has to be emphasized here that such an oscillation is consistent with the
performance specification. This performance of the closed-loop system is
specified in the frequency-domain rather than in the time-domain!
Slightly increasing the performance requirement or the uncertainty
specifications usually removes this problem.
Another problem of the μK-iteration is the small convergence area: The
performance specification W e ( s ) (see (6.17)) has to be close to the
maximum achievable performance, otherwise the iteration does not
converge. As a last drawback the long computation times have to be
mentioned. The CPU time for a design usually exceeds 2h on a SUN

SPARC 2 workstation!
Analytically or numerically linearized models?
In chapter 4 two different types of linear models have been developed.

The main differences between these model types consist of the low
frequency gains and the representation of flow dynamics. In the case of
the analytically linearized models, the relative uncertainty in the low
frequency range due to variation of the steady-state operating points is
essentially smaller (see Chapter 5).
For both types of models, state-space controllers have been designed. In

order to achieve an acceptable controller design (oscillation free) with
analytically linearized models, the low-frequency gains of the distur-
bance weights (6.18) and (6.19) must be approximately doubled. With
respect to the higher frequency range the fact of unmodelled flow
dynamics does not dominate the shape of the output uncertainty
weights w y for the tray temperature T10 and T44. Both weights may be
kept equal for both types of linear models. However, the uncertainty
weight for the temperature measurement in the middle of the column
T24 has to be increased for the analytically linearized models due to the
unmodelled flow dynamics. In accordance with these adaptations of the
weighting functions, the resulting state-space controllers yield nearly
identical closed-loop behavior with a small advantage from using the
numerically linearized models.
Complex or real uncertainty block δ G
Within the structured uncertainty models, the uncertainty δ G may be

chosen as a complex or real uncertainty. The choice as a real uncertainty
reduces the uncertainty for the entire frequency range. However, the
resulting closed-loop behavior exhibits insufficiently damped oscilla-
tions. To avoid this problem, the performance weights and the distur-
bance weights must be increased. The state-space controller designed
with the modified weights are not superior to the design obtained with
a complex uncertainty block δ G .
μK-Iteration results for three temperature measurements
The input vector of the controller may consist either of the pressure-
compensated tray temperatures T10 and T44, or of all three tempera-
tures. The temperature T24 is close to the feed tray and its response to
feed flow disturbances is faster than that of the other two temperatures.
Therefore, an improved controller design should result from this addi-
tional temperature measurement.
Several synthesis attempts have shown that it is possible to increase the

performance specification by circa 30% up to
1
w e = 100 --------------------------- (6.28)
i 1 + 20580s
After the convergence of the μK-Iteration, the final controllers were

reduced to an order 20 using a balanced truncated realization of the
control system [6.1]. The μ-plot for the reduced-order controller (Figure
6.9) using the uncertainty, input, and performance weights (6.14)–(6.23)
demonstrate the excellent robustness properties of this controller.
1
Structured singular value
RP
Figure 6.9: Robust performance
and stability for the μ-optimal
0.5 RS state-space controller (controller
inputs: T10, T44, T24)
0 -5 -3 -1 1
10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
An analysis of the nominal closed-loop system (with plant model GN) is

shown in Figure 6.10 and Figure 6.11. The singular values of the
transfer function from the reference signals r to the controlled outputs
(Fig. 6.10 a) y indicate a good set-point tracking for the frequency range
1
Tr → y 1
Td → y
10 10
Magnitude
Magnitude
0 0
10 10
-1 -1
10 10
-2 -2
10 -5 -3 -1 1
10 -5 -3 -1 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
a) b)
Figure 6.10: Singular values for the nominal closed-loop system with the μ-optimal
state-space controller (controller inputs: T10, T44, T24)
a) Transfer function from reference signals to controlled output signals
b) Transfer functions from disturbance signals to controlled output signals
Dash-dotted line: T F → y , solid line: T x → y
F
1
10
0
10
Magnitude
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
Figure 6.11: Singular values of the sensitivity function at u for the nominal closed-
loop system with the μ-optimal state-space controller (controller inputs: T10,
T44, T24)
of interest. The singular values of the individual transfer functions from

the two disturbance inputs to the controlled outputs (Fig. 6.10 b) show
a maximum of the sensitivity to these disturbances in the mid-
frequency range. While in the high-frequency range the sensitivity is
smaller due to the low-pass characteristics of the plant, the large
controller gains cause an effective compensation in the low-frequency
range. The plot of the sensitivity at u (Fig. 6.11)
S u ( s ) = [ I + K ( s )G ( s ) ] –1 (6.29)
confirms the good robustness properties in the common unstructured

uncertainty representation. The maximum value (≈1.6) guarantees a
stability phase margin of at least 35° [6.4].
The simulation of step responses using the rigorous dynamic model

described in Chapter 3 demonstrates the closed-loop behavior in the
time-domain. Two disturbances are simulated: An increase of the feed
composition from 0.8 to 0.9 mol/mol, and an increase in the feed flow by
3.6 mol/min. Figure 6.12 shows the top and product impurities as well
as the control errors for these disturbances and for maximum and
minimum feed flow rates. To estimate the sensitivity to errors in the
manipulated variables, a 10% error of the controller outputs ΔL and ΔV
for the same test bench has been simulated. The results are represented
by the thin lines in Figure 6.12. The steady-state offsets of the product
compositions are caused by controlling pressure-compensated tempera-
tures on trays 10 and 44 instead of the product compositions.
The simulation results confirm the good robustness properties, espe-

cially the low sensitivity to errors in the manipulated variables. At both
operating points, the overshoot of the control error is small.
For the compensation of the first disturbance — an increase in feed

composition — reflux and boilup must be reduced. The second distur-
bance is an increase in feed flow rate, which has to be compensated by
an increase in reflux and boilup (see Figure 6.13). The large difference
between reflux and boilup even at steady-state has various reasons.
First, the reflux and feed are subcooled and a partial condensation of the
Ft=0=20 mol/min
F(t=0)=20 mol/min Ft=0=46 mol/min
F(t=0)=46 mol/min
0.020 0.020
(mol/mol)
(mol/mol)
0.015 0.015
Composition
Composition
Composition
Composition
0.010 0.010
Top composition Top composition

Bottom composition Bottom composition
0.005 0.005
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time (h)
[h] Time [h]
(h)
Ft=0=20 mol/min
F(t=0)=46 mol/min
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
(K)
Temperature (K)
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
0.0 0.0
-0.2 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4
Control error T-10 Control error T-10
-0.6 -0.6
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time (h)
[h] Time [h]
(h)
Figure 6.12: Simulation results with μ-optimal state space controller (controller
inputs: T10, T44, T24) for an increase in feed composition (0.8 → 0.9 mol/mol)
at t=0 h and an increase of feed flow rate (+ 3.6 mol/min) at t=20 h
Upper plots: Product composition
Lower plots: Control error
L, V equal to controller output
ΔL with +10% error, ΔV with –10% error
Ft=0=20 mol/min
F(t=0)=46 mol/min
70
140
60
(mol/min)
(mol/min)
Flow rate [mol/min]
Flow rate [mol/min]

120
50
Boilup
Boilup
Reflux
100
40 Reflux
Flow
Flow
30 80
20 60
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time
Time (h)
[h] Time
Time (h)
[h]
Figure 6.13: Simulation results with μ-optimal state-space controller (controller in-
puts: T10, T44, T24) for an increase in feed composition (0.8 → 0.9 mol/mol) at
t=0 h and an increase of feed flow rate (+ 3.6 mol/min) at t=20 h
vapor flow thus increases the liquid flow rates below the corresponding
trays. Second, the major part of the feed leaves the column as top
product.
If we compare the plots for the minimum and maximum feed flow rate,
we recognize an essentially slower rejection of the feed composition
disturbance at the maximum feed flow rate. A distinct improvement of
the performance at maximum feed flow rate is not possible using a
linear time-invariant feedback controller. Higher controller gains would
improve the disturbance compensation at this operating point, but
simultaneously destabilize the control loop at the minimum feed flow
rate. A closer look at these figures demonstrates that especially at high
feed flow rates the controller response is more sluggish for changes in
feed composition but not for disturbances in the feed flow rate. This fact
is explained by the course of the manipulated variables in Figure 6.13.
An increase in feed composition at minimum feed flow rate forces the
controller to reduce the reflux and the boilup by ≈11 mol/min, while at
maximum feed flow both flow rates have to be reduced by ≈30 mol/min!
Since in practice a step change of feed composition is improbable, the
rejection of feed flow variations has much higher significance.
μK-Iteration results for two temperature measurements
When only the pressure-compensated temperature on trays 10 and 44

are used as the controller inputs, it becomes extraordinarily difficult to
achieve convergence of the μK-Iteration and an oscillation-free closed-
loop dynamics. For design purpose, the same weights as in the previous
design for all three temperature measurements have been used.
The final controller was reduced to order 20 by a balanced truncated

realization of the control system [6.1]. The μ-plots of the reduced order
controller (Figure 6.14) shows worse robustness properties of this
controller in the higher frequency range (compared to the controller
with three measured temperatures as input), only just matching the
robustness and stability criteria.
RP
and stability for the μ-optimal
0.5 RS state-space controller (controller
inputs: T10, T44)
0 -5 -3 -1 1
10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
An analysis of the sensitivity functions (Figure 6.15) exhibits a small

maximum sensitivity at the control error e, but an evidently reduced
Sensitivity at e
1
10
0
10
Magnitude
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
1
Sensitivity at u
10
0
10
Magnitude
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
Figure 6.15: Singular values of the sensitivity functions at e (upper plot) and at u
(lower plot) for the nominal closed-loop system with the μ-optimal state-space
controller (controller inputs: T10, T44)
stability margin at u. This illustrates the direct relationship between

the SSV and the common unstructured robustness measures.
Nevertheless the simulation results in Figure 6.16 demonstrate a high
controller performance, paired with a larger sensitivity to input errors.
If we compare the controllers with 3 temperatures and 2 temperatures
as input, we must state that the “control qualities” in the time-domain
are very similar. As mentioned before, the intuition of a control engineer
is to expect a better performance for more measurements due to a faster
state-estimation. This is obviously not the case! It will be possible to give
an explanation for this result in the further course of this chapter.
Ft=0=20 mol/min
F(t=0)=46 mol/min
0.020 0.020
(mol/mol)
(mol/mol)
0.015 0.015
Composition
Composition
Composition
Composition
0.010 0.010

0.005 0.005
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time (h)
[h] Time (h)
[h]
Figure 6.16: Simulation results with μ-optimal state-space controller (controller

inputs: T10, T44) for an increase in feed composition (0.8 → 0.9 mol/mol) at t=0
h and an increase of feed flow rate (+ 3.6 mol/min) at t=20 h
6.5 Design of controllers with fixed structure

In the process industry PID or advanced PID control structures are very
common. Therefore, the implementation of a controller design and its
acceptance are substantially improved if the design is based on PID
control structures. The corresponding design objective is the μ-optimal
tuning of simple control elements (such as PID controllers, first-order
lags) within a fixed control structure:
K = arg inf μ ˜ (M) (6.30)

K stabilizing Δ ∞
K with fixed structure
The solution of this design objective is extremely difficult. Because no

synthesis methods exist, (6.30) must be solved by a parameter optimiza-
tion approach. During this optimization the SSV has to be calculated
repeatedly for a number of frequency points. However, the maximum of
the SSV may be very sensitive to the number of frequency points calcu-
lated. In order to simplify the numerical treatment, the design objective
can be approximated by a summation of the cube of the SSV for all k
frequency points:
k
θ = arg inf
θ
∑ μΔ3˜ { Fl [ P, K ( θ ) ] } (6.31)
i=1
Summing the cube, large values of the SSV have much more weight and
the design objective becomes closer to (6.30).
The calculation of the SSV presumes nominally stable control loops.

Within μ-synthesis, the controllers are calculated by solving an H ∞
problem, which always guarantees nominal stability. However, during a
parameter optimization, nominally unstable control loops may be gener-
ated. Therefore, the design objective (6.31) must be supplemented with
the boundary condition for nominal stability:
Re [ λ max ( F l { G i, K } ) ] < 0 (6.32)

6.5 Design of controllers with fixed structure 149
A second boundary condition is the robust stability criterion, which

should be fulfilled for the final parametrized controller:
μ Δ { F l [ P, K ( θ ) ] } ∞
<1 (6.33)
This constrained parameter optimization problem is solved by sequen-

tial quadratic programming [6.10].
In contrast to the μ-synthesis methods, this approach has shown a high

reliability, at the price of even higher computation times. However, the
excellent results justify the effort.
6.5.1 Diagonal PI(D) control structures

The diagonal PI(D) control structure (Figure 6.17) is the simplest and
most frequently used composition control structure for distillation
columns. Due to the high interaction between the two control loops, this
structure is difficult to tune, and the response to setpoint changes or
disturbances is known to be very sluggish.
–
r10 L Distillation T10
PID1
+ Column
with
r44 V inventory T44
PID2
+ control
–
Figure 6.17: Diagonal PID control structure
The design model

The design model for this optimization is the same uncertainty model as
that used for the μ-synthesis, excluding the temperature measurement
on tray 24. The weighting functions are the same transfer functions as
discussed in section 6.3.
Results for PI control

The matrix transfer function of the diagonal PI control structure is
given by
1 + TI 1 s
KR 1 --------------------- 0
L(s) = TI 1 s e 10 ( s )
(6.34)
V(s) 1 + TI 2 s e 44 ( s )
0 KR 2 ---------------------
TI 2 s
Table 6.1 summarizes the results of the parameter optimization for the
analytically and numerically linearized column models, as well as for a
complex and mixed real/complex μ-analysis.
A comparison of the different optimization results shows quite similar

parameters for a complex μ-analysis and a mixed real/complex μ-anal-
ysis. However, a significant difference exists between the numerically
and the analytically linearized models: Using the analytically linearized
models, the time constants TI 1 are much smaller and the corresponding
low-frequency gains are much higher. The reason for that are the
smaller low-frequency gains of these linear models. An underestimation
of low-frequency uncertainty results therefrom. Simulations with these
controller designs show a faster, but insufficiently damped closed-loop
behavior. Of course, with an increase in the output uncertainty of the
Table 6.1: Results for the diagonal PI control structure
Model lineari- μ-analysis KR1 TI1 KR2 TI2

zation (mol/min/°C) (min) (mol/min/°C) (min)
Complex –14.09 137 2.49 34
Numerical
Mixed R/C –11.27 141 3.15 52
Complex –11.52 49 6.92 56
Analytical
Mixed R/C –14.58 60 6.36 41
design model, the design can be improved. This leads to results compa-
rable to those obtained with the numerically linearized models. These
experiences corresponds to those of the μ-synthesis.
Consequently, the design with the analytical linearized models is not

further discussed. Due to the extremely large computation times using
mixed real/complex μ-analysis and the very similar optimized tuning,
the further discussion will focus on the optimization with complex μ-
analysis and numerically linearized models.
The upper bounds for robust stability and performance (numerically

linearized models, complex μ-analysis) using the diagonal PI control
structure are shown in Figure 6.18. While stability is guaranteed for the
specified uncertainties and for the entire frequency range, the perfor-
mance specification is not met in the lower frequency range. However,
robust performance is achieved within the upper frequency range.
1.5 RP Figure 6.18: Robust performance

and stability for diagonal PI
1
control
0.5 RS
0 -5 -3 -1 1
10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
The transfer functions from the reference and disturbance inputs to the
temperature measurements for the nominal closed-loop systems (Figure
6.19) shows a high condition number for the tracking behavior within
the most important frequency range. This means a high sensitivity of
the tracking behavior to the direction of the reference inputs.
Tr → y Td → y
1 1
10 10
0 0
Magnitude
Magnitude
10 10
-1 -1
10 10
-2 -2
10 -5 -3 -1
10 -5 -3 -1 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
a) b)
Figure 6.19: Singular values for the nominal closed-loop with
diagonal PI-controller
a) Transfer function from reference to output signals
b) Transfer functions from disturbance to output signals
F
These conclusions are confirmed by the results of the nonlinear simula-

tions (Figure 6.20). They demonstrate the sluggish disturbance rejec-
tion of the optimally tuned diagonal PI control. However, as expected
from the robust performance plot, the maximum control error is suffi-
ciently small. Another positive result is the small sensitivity to input
uncertainty.
Results for PID control

The use of real PID control instead of PI control gives additional degrees
of freedom for the controller design. Since true differential behavior is
not realizable, the parameters for PID controllers with a first order lag
in series are optimized (real PID controllers). The following transfer
function for the controllers holds:
Ft=0=20 mol/min
F(t=0)=46 mol/min
0.020 0.020
(mol/mol)
(mol/mol)
0.015 0.015
Composition
Composition
Composition
Composition
0.010 0.010

0.005 0.005
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time (h)
Time [h] Time [h]
(h)
F(t=0)=20 mol/min
Ft=0=20 mol/min F(t=0)=46 mol/min
Ft=0=46 mol/min
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
(K)
Temperature (K)
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
0.0 0.0
-0.2 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time [h]
(h) Time [h]
(h)
Figure 6.20: Simulation results with diagonal PI control for an increase in feed
composition (0.8 → 0.9 mol/mol) at t=0 h and an increase of feed flow rate
(+ 3.6 mol/min) at t=20 h
L ( s ) = G K1 0 e 10 ( s )
(6.35)
V(s) 0 G K2 e 44 ( s )
with
1 + TI i s + TI i TD i s 2
G Ki ( s ) = KR i ---------------------------------------------------- (6.36)
TI i s ( 1 + sTL i )
The optimal tuning results show unacceptably large controller gains in

the high-frequency range. A high amplification of the measurement
noise can be avoided by various methods:
• “Punishment” of high frequency controller output by

additional weighting functions
• Limitation of high frequency gains by additional

boundary conditions
In order to keep the uncertainty model invariant, the differential

behavior of the controller was limited by a minimum bound of 2 min for
the time constants TL of the first-order lags. The resulting tuning
constants are given in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2: Results for the diagonal real PID control structure
Controller KR TI TD TL
mol/min/°C (min) (min) (min)
PID 1 –15.97 101 7.41 2.00
PID 2 4.40 39.0 15.2 7.16
Results achieved with numerically linearized model and complex μ-analysis
The μ-plots (Figure 6.21) for the diagonal PID control structure show an
improvement of the robust performance. However, the design objective
of robust performance
Structured Singular Value
1.5
RP
1 and stability for diagonal real
PID control
0.5 RS
0 -5 -3 -1 1
10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
μ ˜ { F l [ P, K ( θ ) ] } <1 (6.37)
Δ ∞
is by far not reached. The simulation results in Figure 6.22 illustrate the
same sluggish behavior as was obtained with the PI controllers. The im-
provement is a slight reduction of the settling time.
An analysis of the controller’s singular values shows large high-
frequency gains despite a limitation of the minimum filter time constant
TL (Figure 6.23). This makes a first-order filter for the reference inputs
2
10
Magnitude
10
0 Figure 6.23: Singular values of the
diagonal PID controller
-2
10 -5 -3 -1 1
10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
necessary. A reduction of these high-frequency controller gains would be

Ft=0=20 mol/min
F(t=0)=46 mol/min
0.020 0.020
(mol/mol)
(mol/mol)
0.015 0.015
Composition
Composition
Composition
Composition
0.010 0.010

0.005 0.005
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time (h)
Time [h] Time [h]
Time (h)
Figure 6.22: Simulation results with diagonal PID control for an increase in feed
possible. However, decreasing high-frequency limits annihilate the

improvements achieved over the diagonal PI control structure.
Summarizing the results for the diagonal PI(D) control structure, we
can conclude that this control structure is absolutely not suited for a
high performance.
6.5.2 PI(D) control structures with two-way decoupling

The major disadvantage of the diagonal PI(D) control structures is the
neglect of the interactions between the two control loops. These interac-
tions can be partially cancelled by use of decoupling techniques.
A simple controller structure with decoupling is shown in Figure 6.24.
r10 –
L T10
PID1
+ Distillation
C2 Column
with
C1 inventory
r44 control T44
V
PID2
+
–
Figure 6.24: PID control structure with static decoupling
The decoupling elements can be static (static decoupling) or dynamic

(dynamic decoupling).
The tuning of the decoupling control structure for a distillation column

is difficult. Often decouplers are based on an inversion of the plant’s
transfer function G ( s ) . The resulting closed-loop behavior is very
sensitive to input uncertainty and decoupler errors. Summarizing the
research results, Skogestad in [6.17] concludes that (two-way) decou-
plers should never be used for high-purity distillation columns with the
LV-configuration. On the other hand one-way decoupling seems to be
less sensitive to input uncertainty and should be preferred [6.18].
Results for static two-way decoupling
The simplest decoupling structure is static decoupling. Here the two

decoupling elements C 1 and C 2 are constant factors. The results for this
structure are obtained with the same weighting functions and with the
same uncertainty model as used for the diagonal PI(D) control struc-
ture.
Table 6.3 summarizes the μ-optimal parameters for PI and real PID
Table 6.3: μ-optimal parameters for PI(D) control with
static decoupling
Controller or KR TI TD TL C
decoupler No. (mol/min/°C) (min) (min) (min) (–)
1 –5.21 22.8 – – –0.0240
2 3.71 46.8 – – 1.11
1 –13.1 51.6 7.83 8.43 –0.217
2 4.56 62.1 5.11 3.07 1.03
control with static decoupling. The high-frequency gains of the PID

controller are small enough that no boundary conditions concerning this
criterion were necessary.
The results for the decouplers are somewhat surprising. They indicate
that the optimal decoupling is very close to a one-way decoupling! Let us
examine this control structure in detail:
The decoupler parameter C 2 is close to one. Therefore any variation of

the output of the top composition controller causes a simultaneous
increase or decrease of reflux and boilup by almost the same magnitude.
Thus this controller shapes the composition profile within the column by
an adaptation of the separation.
The other decoupler parameter C 1 is small. Consequently the output of

the bottom composition controller has a small effect on the reflux. This
controller moves the composition profile within the column.
In light of this interpretation, the limited advantage of an additional

temperature measurement in the middle of the distillation column is
easily explained. Since no setpoint is available for such a temperature
measurement, an improved feedback may be calculated neither for the
composition profile nor for the composition profile’s position.
This special behavior of the control system has its significant advan-
tages for the closed-loop behavior. The μ-plots in Figure 6.25 demon-

1 1
RP
RP
0.5 RS 0.5 RS
0 -5 -3 -1 1
0 -5 -3 -1 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Figure 6.25: Robust performance and stability for PI control (left) and
real PID control (right) with static decoupling
strate the superior robust performance of the decoupling control

structures. While the optimal tuning for PI control shows a peak of the
robust performance plot within the medium frequency range, the PID
control structure shows nearly flat and significant smaller structured
singular values. Using a decoupling control structure, the additional
degrees of freedom in the controller design allow a significantly better
controller performance, especially in the important mid-frequency
range. Because of the better performance using PID controllers, the
further discussion focuses on that control structure.
The singular value plots of the loop transfers from the reference and
disturbance signals to the output signals (Figure 6.26) illustrate the
better controller performance as well. The condition numbers of T r → y
are much smaller than those of the diagonal PI(D) control structure, and
the tracking behavior is significantly improved.
The simulation results (Figure 6.27) confirm the fundamentally

improved controller performance. The sluggish behavior has vanished,
and the maximum control errors are comparable to those obtained with
Tr → y Td → y
1 1
10 10
Magnitude
Magnitude
0 0
10 10
-1 -1
10 10
-2 -2
10 -5 -3 -1
10 -5 -3 -1 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
a) b)
Figure 6.26: Singular values for the nominal closed-loop system for PID control
with static decoupling
a) Transfer function from reference to output signals
b) Transfer functions from disturbance to output signals
F
the diagonal PI(D) control structures. While the sensitivity to input

uncertainty has increased, it is still small.
PID Control with dynamic decoupling

Using lead-lag transfer functions for the decoupler elements C 1 and C 2
1 + TDs
C i ( s ) = KC --------------------- (6.38)
1 + TLs
a dynamic decoupling structure is realized. The additional degrees of

freedom allow a further improvement of the control design. The
resulting optimal tuning constants are listed in Table 6.4.
The simulation results exhibits a performance which is insignificantly
worse than that of the μ-optimal state-space controllers (Figure 6.28).
However, the more difficult initialization of a control structure with
dynamic decoupling in a distributed control system is a disadvantage.
Ft=0=20 mol/min
F(t=0)=46 mol/min
0.020 0.020
(mol/mol)
(mol/mol)
0.015 0.015
Composition
Composition
Composition
Composition
0.010 0.010

0.005 0.005
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
(h)
Time [h] Time (h)
[h]
Figure 6.27: Simulation results for PID control with static decoupling for an in-
crease in feed composition (0.8 → 0.9 mol/mol) at t=0 h and an increase of feed
flow rate (+ 3.6 mol/min) at t=20 h
L, V equal controller output
Table 6.4: μ-optimal parameters for PID control with

dynamic decoupling
Controller KR KC TI TD TL
(mol/min/°C) (–) (min) (min) (min)
PID 1 –22.2 – 80.2 19.6 44.8
PID 2 5.68 – 59.4 12.6 24.7
C1 – –0.138 – 117 7.42
C2 – 1.07 – 53.0 71.43

Ft=0=20 mol/min
F(t=0)=46 mol/min
0.020 0.020
(mol/mol)
(mol/mol)
0.015 0.015
Composition
Composition
Composition
Composition
0.010 0.010

0.005 0.005
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time
Time (h)
[h] Time (h)
Time [h]
Figure 6.28: Simulation results for PID control with dynamic decoupling for an in-
crease in feed composition (0.8 → 0.9 mol/mol) at t=0 h and an increase of feed
flow rate (+ 3.6 mol/min) at t=20 h
6.5.3 PID control structures with one-way decoupling
The results for two-way decoupling have shown optimal results for
decoupling structures which are close to one-way decoupling. In this
section the optimal tuning results for one-way decoupling are discussed.
This control structure is particularly easy to implement in a distributed
control system and simple to initialize. In order to keep the decoupler as
simple as possible, the discussion is limited to static one-way decou-
pling.
Two different decoupler structures are possible if we set either C 1 or C 2

of the control structure shown in Figure 6.24 to zero. While the results
Table 6.5: μ-optimal parameters for PID control with

static one-way decoupling
Controller or KR TI TD TL C
decoupler No. (mol/min/°C) (min) (min) (min) (–)
1 –10.5 45.7 2.18 5.01 0
2 5.35 67.4 13.4 13.9 1.05
1
RP
Figure 6.29: Robust performance and

0.5 RS stability for real PID-control with
one-way decoupling
0 -5 -3 -1 1
10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
for the two-way decoupling lead us to expect a good performance for the
first case ( C 1 = 0 ), no inference is possible for the second case ( C 2 = 0 ).
In fact, the optimization results show insufficient performance for the
second case ( C 2 = 0 ). Therefore a reversal of the decoupling control
structure with shaping of the composition profile by the bottom compo-
sition controller and moving the composition profiles position by the top
composition controller does not lead to results comparable to those
obtained with the other decoupling structure.
The tuning parameters for the controller with C 1 = 0 can be found in

Table 6.5. The corresponding μ-curves (Figure 6.29) let us expect a
Ft=0=20 mol/min
F(t=0)=46 mol/min
0.020 0.020
(mol/mol)
(mol/mol)
0.015 0.015
Composition
Composition
Composition
Composition
0.010 0.010

0.005 0.005
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time [h]
(h) Time [h]
(h)
Figure 6.30: Simulation results for PID control with static one-way decoupling for
an increase in feed composition (0.8 → 0.9 mol/mol) at t=0 h and an increase
of feed flow rate (+ 3.6 mol/min) at t=20 h
performance somewhere between that of the PI control with static two-

way decoupling and that of the real PID control with static decoupling.
The simulation results in Figure 6.30 support this interpretation.
Therefore this controller represents a structure which is simple and
easily implemented in a distributed control system, distinguished by a
sufficiently high controller performance.
6.6 Summary 165
6.6 Summary
The comparison of the state-space controllers obtained by μ-synthesis
with PID control structures obtained by μ-optimization leads to
surprising results. The frequently heard opinion that state-space
controllers are much superior to PID control structures apparently is
not true for this distillation column. The PID control structures with
decoupling exhibit nearly the same performance as that achieved with
state-space controller of a higher order, provided that the PID control
structures are optimally tuned. The visual results of the μ-curves and
simulation plots shall be supported by numerical measures. For
purposes of comparison, the integral square of the control errors
t=40h
ISE = ∫ [ e 10
2 ( t ) + e 2 ( t ) ]dt ,
44 (6.39)
0
and the integral of the time-multiplied absolute control errors
t=40h
ITAE = ∫ [ e 10 ( t ) + e 44 ( t ) ] t dt (6.40)
0
have been calculated and summed up for both operating points and all
controllers. While ISE punishes especially large control errors, the ITAE
performance measure has a higher importance for the process industry
because it punishes any undesirably sluggish disturbance rejection.
Both criteria, relative to the result for the state-space controller using 3
temperature measurements, can be found in Table 6.6. The last two
columns in this table state the maximum absolute value of the SSV (RP)
and the value of the optimization criterion
f(θ) = ∑ μΔ˜ { Fl [ P, K ( θ ) ] }
3
(6.41)
i=1
Table 6.6: Comparison of controllers in time-domain
Control structure Relative Relative Max. μ ˜ Relative

Δ
ISE ITAE ∑ μ Δ3˜ ( jω )
State-space controller,
1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
3 temp. measurements
0.82 1.05 1.04 1.54
Diagonal PI control 3.13 2.89 2.14 9.03
Diagonal PID control 2.08 1.87 1.53 3.98
PI control with static two-
2.42 1.74 1.13 1.55
way decoupling
PID control with static
1.44 1.23 0.91 1.19
two-way decoupling
PID control with dynamic
1.18 1.12 0.88 1.12
two-way decoupling
PID control with static
1.99 1.51 0.97 1.34
one-way decoup. (C1=0)
relative to the value for the state-space controller using 3 temperature

measurements. The high correlation of the ITAE and the optimization
criterion are obvious. The single exception is the state-space controller
using 2 temperature measurements, which may be caused by the
convergence problems mentioned before.
This table effectively illustrates the high performance achieved with
simple and easily realized PID-control structures. The μ-optimization
approach has proved to be an efficient tool for the optimal design of
controllers with fixed structure.
6.7 References 167
6.7 References

Analysis and Synthesis Toolbox, MUSYN Inc., Minneapolis MN,
and The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA (1991)
[6.2] Balas, G. J., A. K. Packard, and J. T. Harduvel: “Application of μ-

Synthesis Techniques to Momentum Management and Attitude
Control of the Space Station,” Proc. 1991 AIAA Guidance, Navi-
gation and Control Conference, New Orleans, LA (1991)
[6.3] Chiang, R. Y., M. G. Safonov: Robust Control Toolbox User’s

Guide, The Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA (1992)
[6.4] Dailey, R. L.: “Lecture Notes for the Workshop on H∞ and μ

Methods for Robust Control,” IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control, Brighton (1991)
[6.5] Doyle, J. C.: “Analysis of Feedback Systems with Structured

Uncertainties,” IEE Proc., 129, Pt. D., No. 6, 242-250 (1982)
[6.6] Doyle, J. C.: “Performance and Robustness Analysis for Struc-

tured Uncertainty,” Proc. of the 21st Conference on Decision and
Control, (1982)
[6.7] Doyle, J. C.: “Structured Uncertainty in Control System Design,”

Proc. of the 24th Conference on Decision and Control, Ft. Lauder-
dale, FL (1985)
[6.8] Doyle, J., K. Lenz, and A. Packard: “Design Examples Using μ-

Synthesis: Space Shuttle Lateral Axis FCS During Reentry,”
NATO ASI Series F: Computer and Systems Science, 34, 128-154
(1987)
[6.9] Enns, D. F.: “Rocket Stabilization as a Structured Singular

Value Synthesis Design Example,” Control Systems, 11, 4, 67-73
(1991)
[6.10] Grace, A.: Optimization Toolbox — User’s Guide, The Math-

Works, Inc., Natick, MA (1990)
[6.11] Lin, J.-L., I. Postlethwaite, and D.-W. Gu: “μ-K Iteration: A New
Algorithm for μ-synthesis,” Automatica, 29, 219-224 (1993)
[6.12] Maciejowski, J. M.: Multivariable Feedback Design, Addison-

Wesley Publishing Company, Wokingham, England (1989)
[6.13] McFarlane, D. C., and K. Glover: “Robust Controller Design

Using Normalized Coprime Factor Plant Descriptions,” Lecture
Notes in Control and Informations Science, 138, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin (1990)
[6.14] Packard, A., J. Doyle, and G. Balas: “Linear Multivariable

Robust Control With a μ Perspective,” Trans. of the ASME, 115,
426-438 (1993)
[6.15] Packard, A., and J. Doyle: “The Complex Structured Singular

Value,” Automatica, 29 1, 71-109 (1993)
[6.16] Shinskey, F. G., “Distillation control for Productivity and Energy

Conservation,” 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 194-203 (1984)
[6.17] Skogestad, S.: “Dynamics and Control of Distillation Columns –

A Critical Survey,” Preprints of the 3rd IFAC Symposium on
Dynamics and Control of Chemical Reactors, Distillation Col-
umn and Batch Processes, April 26-29, 1992, College Park, MD,
1-25 (1992)
6.7 References 169
[6.18] Skogestad, S., and M. Morari: “Implications of Large RGA Ele-

ments on Control Performance,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 26, 2323-
2330 (1987)
[6.19] Skogestad, S., and P. Lundström: “MU-Optimal LV-Control of

Distillation Column,” Comp. Chem. Eng., 14, 4/5, 401-413 (1990)
Chapter 7
Controller Design for

Unstructured Uncertainty —
A Comparison
7.1 Introduction
A controller design for the entire operating range of the distillation
column (see Chapter 6) requires a structured uncertainty model incor-
porating two linear models, and a huge computational effort. Naturally,
the question arises what controller performance and robustness proper-
ties can be achieved if we use simpler design methods, based on just one
plant model for the nominal operating point (Model GN) and classical
design methods or simple unstructured uncertainty bounds.
A few of these simpler methods are discussed in this chapter. They are
applied in a straightforward manner, and the design results are not
guaranteed to represent the optimum achievable controller perfor-
mance. However, the results give an impression of the limits and
inherent problems of the application of design methods based on simpler
uncertainty concepts, and they allow a comparison with the μ-optimal
results presented in the previous chapter. The weighting functions of
172 7 Controller Design for Unstructured Uncertainty — A Comparison
the structured uncertainty model used for the μ-analysis are the same
as those used in the previous chapter.
7.2 Diagonal PI-control

A diagonal PI-control scheme seems to be most frequently used in
conventionally controlled distillation columns. Usually these PI control-
lers are tuned on-line. Due to the large time constants of the composi-
tion dynamics, we cannot expect this on-line tuning approach to lead to
a controller performance close to the optimum. The attempt to use
tuning rules such as Ziegler-Nichols for the individual SISO loops often
results in an unstable MIMO closed-loop system, because these tuning
rules do not take the interaction between the two control loops into
account.
While the following two simple and model based tuning methods make
use of the classical design methods, they try to pay attention to the loop
interactions. Both methods lead to a nominally stable controller design.
However, sufficient stability margins for the closed-loop system at all
possible operating points cannot be guaranteed.
7.2.1 The BLT method
The Biggest Log Modulus Tuning was proposed by Luyben in 1986

([7.5], [7.6]). This method is a multivariable extension of the classical
Nyquist stability criterion. The closed-loop system (Tr→y) with a square
nominal model G ( s ) = G u → y ( s ) and a diagonal PI control law K(s) is
given by
y ( s ) = [ I + G ( s )K ( s ) ] – 1 G ( s )K ( s )r ( s ) (7.1)
The characteristic equation of the multivariable system is the scalar

equation
det ( I + G ( s )K ( s ) ) = 0 (7.2)
7.2 Diagonal PI-control 173
If we plot (7.2) as a function of frequency, the number of right half-plane

zeros of the closed-loop characteristic equation are determined. In order
to make this multivariable plot like the SISO scalar Nyquist plot,
Luyben introduces a new function W(s):
W ( s ) = – 1 + det ( I + G ( s )K ( s ) ) (7.3)
The closer this function approaches the (-1,0) point in the Nyquist plot,
the closer the MIMO system is to closed-loop instability. The design
objective is defined as
W ( jω )
L lm = 20 log ------------------------- ≤ 2p ∀ω ∈ R + (7.4)
-
1 + W ( jω )
where p is the number of inputs/outputs of G(s). The proposed tuning

procedure starts with independent Ziegler-Nichols settings for PI-
controllers of the individual control loops. In a second step these settings
are detuned by a factor F
K ZN
K i = -------------i TI i = F TI ZN (7.5)
F i
in order to achieve the design objective (7.4).
Results of the BLT tuning
The tuning results for the nominal model G N ( s ) of the distillation

process are listed in Table 7.1. A detuning factor F of 3.82 was necessary
to achieve the design objective (7.4). The proportional gain KR of the top
composition controller is too large for satisfactory setpoint tracking and
Table 7.1: Tuning constants with BLT-method
Controller KR TI
(mol/min/°C) (min)
PI 1 –47.1 95.2
PI 2 6.74 171.8
measurement noise attenuation. A plot of the structured singular

values (with the same uncertainty and performance weights as used in
the previous chapter) illustrates the insufficient robust stability and
robust performance of this composition control design (Fig. 7.1).
However, any further detuning would reduce the low and high-
frequency gains of the bottom composition controller to an absolutely
insufficient level.
3
RP
2
Figure 7.1: μ-plots for a diagonal
PI-control law tuned with BLT-
1 method
RS
0 -5 -3 -1 1
10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
7.2.2 Sequential loop closing
The idea of the sequential loop closing was introduced by Mayne ([7.8],
[7.9]). First, a SISO controller is designed for one pair of input and
output variables. When this design has been completed, the corre-
sponding control loop is closed and the next pair of input and output
variables is chosen. Thus the interaction between the control loops is
taken into account. This design procedure is illustrated in Figure 7.2.
It is an advantage of this method that each single loop can be designed

using classical methods. However, this method has some severe draw-
backs: First, the selection of the first one or two input/output pairs may
have a deleterious effect on the behavior of the remaining loops [7.7].
There exists little help for this sequence problem. Second, this method
cannot guarantee robustness for the entire operating range. Especially
if the plant G(s) is not diagonal dominant, that means the condition
G3(s) G2(s) G1(s)
–
u1 y1
K 1 (s)
–
u2 y2
K 2 (s)
u3 G(s) y3
.....
.....
Figure 7.2: Sequential loop closing
G ii ( jω ) > G ij ( jω ) ∀ω ∈ R + (7.6)
is not satisfied, we have to expect robustness problems.
Design Results
The sequential loop closing idea has been applied to the composition
control problem represented by the nominal model G N ( s ) . For each
SISO loop, a phase margin of at least 60 degrees and for both controllers
a maximum high frequency gain of 18 mol/min/°C has been required.
The results of both possible design sequences and with a minimal inte-
gral absolute error (IAE) for the rejection of feed composition and feed
flow disturbances (with respect to the linear model) are summarized in
Table 7.2.
An analysis of the robustness to unstructured peturbations shows

maximum values for the sensitivities of Se=2.6, and Su=2.1 for the
Table 7.2: Results of the sequential loop closing
Design sequence KR 1 TI 1 KR 2 TI 2
(mol/min/ (min) (mol/min/ (min)
°C) °C)
Top → Bottom –18.0 101.9 10.09 55.8
Bottom → Top –18.0 52.6 8.78 214.5
Top → Bottom design sequence, and of Se=2.4 and Su=1.9 for the
sequence Bottom → Top. These stability margins are insufficient. The
results of the analysis using the structured uncertainty model are illus-
trated by the μ-plots in Figure 7.3. Both controller designs can neither
guarantee robust performance nor robust stability.

3 3
RP
2 2
RP
1 1
RS RS
0 -5 -3 -1 1
0 -5 -3 -1 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
a) b)
Figure 7.3: μ-plots for the sequential loop closing designs
a) Top → Bottom design sequence
b) Bottom → Top design sequence
7.2.3 Optimized robust diagonal PI-control
The objective of this controller design is a maximization of the distur-

bance rejection capabilities with the boundary conditions of sufficient
stability margins. As a measure of the disturbance rejection capabilities
the IAE as defined by
T End
IAE = ∫ [ e 10 ( t ) + e 44 ( t ) ]dt (7.7)

0
is a suitable measure. It is calculated for step responses to feed compo-

sition and feed flow rate of the closed-loop system. If we tune both PI-
controllers in order to minimize the IAE-criterion, the robustness prop-
erties of the closed-loop system form boundary conditions for the
minimum achievable IAE. Stability bounds in terms of the sensitivity at
the plant input and output are well established. If we require a phase
margin of at least 35 degrees (which is relatively small), the following
sensitivity bounds hold
S e ( jω ) = [ I + G ( jω )K ( jω ) ] – 1 < 1.7 ∀ω ∈ R + (7.8)
S u ( jω ) = [ I + K ( jω )G ( jω ) ] –1 < 1.7 ∀ω ∈ R + (7.9)
The optimal parameters which minimize the IAE criterion are found
either by trial and error or by a constrained parameter optimization.
Results
The results for this design approach are given in Table 7.3. The corre-
sponding μ-plots (Fig. 7.4) illustrate the improved robust stability prop-
erties compared to the previous two methods. While design guarantees
robust stability, the robust performance is substantially worse than the
Table 7.3: Tuning constants with optimizing method
Controller KR TI
(mol/min/°C) (min)
PI 1 –5.10 600.0
PI 2 4.92 86.2
Structured singular value 8
6
RP Figure 7.4: μ-plots for diagonal
4 PI-controller designed by op-
timizing method
2
RS
0 -5 -3 -1 1
10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
μ-optimal design of a diagonal PI-controller design (see Figure 6.18,

page 151). An analysis of the controller behavior in the time domain
(Figure 7.5) shows extremely sluggish disturbance rejections.
7.3 PI-control with decoupling

The basic idea of decoupling is a reduction of the loop interactions. If we
increase the diagonal dominance of the system, the design task takes on
more the characteristics of a multiloop SISO design problem. However,
as emphasized already in the previous chapter, a reduction of the loop
interactions does not automatically imply better control. Due to an
increased sensitivity to model and input errors, the maximum perfor-
mance of a controller exhibiting sufficient stability margins may be
strongly reduced even compared to that of a diagonal PI controller.
In the simplest case, as discussed in this section, the plant behavior is
altered by a pre- or postmultiplied constant “compensating” or “decou-
pling” matrix. Different approaches for the selection of these interaction
reducing matrices are proposed:
Davison [7.3] recommends a steady-state decoupling of the process. For
the “decoupled” process G * ( s ) holds
7.3 PI-control with decoupling 179
Ft=0=20 mol/min
F(t=0)=46 mol/min
0.020 0.020
(mol/mol)
(mol/mol)
0.015 0.015
Composition
Composition
Composition
Composition
0.010 0.010
0.005 0.005
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
[h]
Time (h) Time (h)
[h]
Figure 7.5: Simulation results with diagonal PI controller (designed by optimiz-
ing method) for an increase in feed composition (0.8 → 0.9 mol/mol) at t=0 h
and an increase of feed flow rate (+ 3.6 mol/min) at t=20 h
G * u → y ( s ) = G u → y ( s )G –1 u → y ( 0 )
or (7.10)
G * u → y ( s ) = G – 1 u → y ( 0 )G u → y ( s )
With a state space representation of the process, the decoupling matrix

is calculated according to
G – 1 u → y ( 0 ) = ( CA –1 B ) –1 (7.11)
The choice of a premultiplication or postmultiplication of this interac-

tion reducing matrix is another degree of freedom for the controller
design.
Mayne [7.9] proposes a reduction of the high-frequency interactions of
the plant. The corresponding decoupling matrix is calculated by
G – 1 u → y ( j∞ ) = ( CB ) – 1 (7.12)
As before, the choice of a pre- or postcompensation has to be decided

during the controller design.
Ryskamp [7.11] suggests a decoupling scheme which is based on the
idea of a composition profile control: The difference in the temperature
deviations should be used to set the reflux ratio, and the sum of the two
temperature deviations should be used to set the reboiler heat duty. This
scheme is called “implicit decoupling.”
Another interesting approach, based on a singular value decomposition
(SVD) of the process at steady state, is presented by Brambilla et al.
[7.1]. Let the SVD of the steady-state transfer matrix of the process
G u → y ( 0 ) be
G u → y ( 0 ) = UΣV T , (7.13)
where U and V are unitary matrices and Σ is a diagonal matrix

containing the singular values Σ = diag ( σ 1, σ 2 ) . A plant-inverting
compensator Dˆ (at plant input) according to this SVD is the matrix
ˆ = VΣ –1 U T
D (7.14)
In order to avoid a high sensitivity to input errors due to the perfect

decoupling at steady state, Brambilla et al. [7.1] introduce a matrix F
F = αI + ( 1 – α )Σ (7.15)
˜ as
and define a new compensation matrix D
˜ = VFΣ – 1 U T
D (7.16)
The single parameter α with α = 0…1 allows a continuous shift

between a plant-inverting compensator ( α = 1 ) and a compensator
which does not remove the effect of the directionality of the process
( α = 0 ). The tuning parameter α has to be chosen on the basis of (1) the
magnitude of the assumed errors in the model, (2) the sensitivity of the
process to the model errors (Relative Gain Analysis of D ˜ ), and (3) the
required performance in terms of reduction of interactions and direc-
tionality (Relative Gain Analysis of G u– 1→ y ( 0 )D̃ ).
Design results
The four proposed compensation matrices are summarized in Table 7.4.

In order to calculate “optimal” controllers, the optimization approach
described in section 7.2.3 has been applied to the different compensated
plants. However, it was not possible to achieve any acceptable control-
lers using the proposed compensation matrices, except for the SVD-
based compensator. This SVD-based compensator is distinguished by
almost the same one-way decoupling structure as we obtained as a
result of the μ-optimal decoupling (see Chapter 6).
Table 7.4: Compensator matrices
Type of compensator Position of com- Compensator

pensator matrix
Decoupling at Plant input or – 0.636 0.168

ω = 0 plant output – 0.728 0.195
Decoupling at Plant input or 0.380 – 0.295

ω = ∞ plant output 0.875 – 0.193
Implicit decoupling Plant output –1 –1

–1 1
SVD-based compen- 0.901 0.082

Plant input
sation ( α = 0.8 ) 0.955 0.391
The parameters of the IAE-optimal PI controllers (with respect to an

additional boundary condition for the proportional gains KR i < 18 mol/
RP
1
RS Figure 7.6: μ-plots for SVD-based

compensation with optimally
0.5
tuned diagonal PI control.
0 -5 -3 -1 1
10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
min/°C) are given in Table 7.5. The μ-plots for this controller design
Table 7.5: Optimal PI tuning constants for plant with

SVD-based compensation
Controller KR TI
(mol/min/°C) (min)
PI 1 –18.0 47.4
PI 2 18.0 116.0
(Figure 7.6) demonstrate good robust performance and robust stability.

However, the simulation results (Figure 7.7) show an insufficiently
damped oscillation at higher frequencies for the minimum feed flow
rate. The damping of these oscillations is significantly better for a +10%
error in the change of the reflux L and a –10% error in the change of
boilup V. These unwanted oscillations are allowed by the performance

specification in the frequency domain! They require a detuning of the
controllers’ proportional gains which on the other hand, reduces the
controller performance.
Ft=0=20 mol/min
F(t=0)=46 mol/min
0.020 0.020
(mol/mol)
(mol/mol)
0.015 0.015
Composition
Composition
Composition
Composition
0.010 0.010

0.005 0.005
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time [h]
Time (h) Time [h]
Time (h)
Figure 7.7: Simulation results with SVD based compensator and diagonal PI con-
trol for an increase in feed composition (0.8 → 0.9 mol/mol) at t=0 h and an
increase of feed flow rate (+ 3.6 mol/min) at t=20 h
7.4 H∞ optimal design

The H∞-norm minimizing design ([7.2], [7.4], [7.7], [7.10]) of multivari-
able controllers have proved to be a powerful method for robust, model-
based controllers.
H∞ Design specification
The closed-loop system with the plant G(s) and the controller K(s),
augmented with the weighting functions W d ( s ) , W e ( s ) , W u ( s ) , and
W y ( s ) is outlined in Figure 7.8. This scheme is often called S/KS/T-
weighting scheme. The matrix W d ( s ) is a diagonal matrix of transfer
functions and represents the frequency content of the feed composition,
feed flow rate, and reference input signals. The selection of these input
weights is discussed in section 6.3. The same weighting functions are
applied here.
We(s) ze(s)
Wu(s) zu(s)
Wy(s) zy(s)
d(s)
Wd(s) G(s)
r(s) K(s) y(s)
+ e(s) u(s)
–
Figure 7.8: Augmented closed-loop system with weighting functions

for the H∞ design
H∞ optimal design 185
All other weighting functions are chosen as diagonal frequency-depen-

dent weights because the performance and robustness properties are
equal for all channels:
W e ( s ) = diag [ w e ( s ), w e ( s ) ] (7.17)
W u ( s ) = diag [ w u ( s ), w u ( s ) ] (7.18)
W y ( s ) = diag [ w y ( s ), w y ( s ) ] (7.19)
The performance of the closed-loop system is specified in terms of the

sensitivity function by the weighting function W e ( s ) . A first-order lag
with a static gain of 100 has been specified to achieve a nearly inte-
grating behavior.
The bandwidth of the closed-loop system is limited by the weighting

function W y ( s ) , which punishes the transfer function T [ d T, r T ] T → y
from the disturbance and reference signals to the plant outputs. A first-
order lead-lag transfer function is suitable for this task.
A weighting of the plant inputs allows a frequency-dependent limitation

of the control energy and helps to achieve sufficient stability margins for
the sensitivity function at u. As done with W y ( s ) , a first-order lead-lag
transfer function has been selected.
The poles and zeros of the weighting functions were adjusted until the
sensitivity functions at e and at u of the closed-loop system had attained
approximately the same peak values as the μ-optimal controller design
(with 2 temperature measurements), a high performance, and
T ( jω ) ≈1 (7.20)
d →z
r ∞
were achieved. The best weighting functions are given by
1
w e ( s ) = 100 ------------------------ (7.21)
1 + 9520s
1 + 520s
w u ( s ) = 0.5 --------------------- (7.22)
1 + 13s
1 + 1500s
w y ( s ) = 0.1 ------------------------ (7.23)
1 + 1.5s
Design results
Despite the fact that the singular values of sensitivity functions for the
H∞- design (Figure 7.10) and for the μ-synthesis (Figure 6.15) are nearly
identical, the μ-analysis shows significant differences. The μ-plots of the
H∞ design (Figure 7.9) show much higher peak values in the low and
mid-frequency ranges. The simulation results (Figure 7.11) allow a
conclusion with respect to the larger structured singular values: The
sensitivity of the closed-loop performance to errors in the manipulated
variables is large. A reduction of this sensitivity to plant input errors
was not possible using the common S/KS/T weighting scheme.
1.5
1 RP
Figure 7.9: μ-plots for H∞ op-
RS timal controller
0.5
0 -5 -3 -1 1
10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
H∞ optimal design 187
1
Sensitivity at e
10
0
10
Magnitude
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
1
Sensitivity at u
10
0
10
Magnitude
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/min)
Figure 7.10: Singular values of the sensitivity functions at e (upper plot) and at u
(lower plot) for the nominal closed-loop system with the H∞ controller
Ft=0=20 mol/min
F(t=0)=46 mol/min
0.020 0.020
(mol/mol)
(mol/mol)
0.015 0.015
Composition
Composition
Composition
Composition
0.010 0.010

0.005 0.005
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time [h]
(h) Time
Time (h)
[h]
Figure 7.11: Simulation results with the H∞-controller for an increase in feed
7.5 Summary 189
7.5 Summary
The application of design methods for unstructured uncertainty to the
composition (or temperature) control problem shows that it is extraordi-
narily difficult to obtain performances which are comparable to those of
the μ-optimal controllers. Despite the high effort for a robust tuning of
the PI-control structures, it was not possible to achieve any satisfactory
result.
Better results were obtained using the H ∞ -minimization approach. The

resulting state-space controller guarantees stability for the entire oper-
ating range and the singular values of the sensitivity functions (Se, Su)
are nearly identical to those of the μ-optimal state-space controller.
Nevertheless, the high sensitivity to input uncertainty demonstrates
the limits of simple unstructured uncertainty bounds. Even a robust
controller design based on an unstructured uncertainty model tends to
be very sensitive to input uncertainty at operating points different from
the design point. The advantages of a μ-optimal controller design as
presented in Chapter 6 are obvious.
7.6 References
[7.1] Brambilla, A., and L. D’Elia: “Multivariable Controller for Distil-
lation Column in the Presence of Strong Directionality and Mod-
el Errors,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 31, 536-543 (1992)
[7.2] Dailey, R. L.: “Lecture Notes for the Workshop on H∞ and μ Meth-
ods for Robust Control,” 1991 IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control, Brighton, December 9-10 (1991)
[7.3] Davison, E. J.: “Multivariable tuning regulators: The feedfor-

ward and robust control of general servomechanism problems,”
IEEE Trans. Aut. Control, AC-21, 35-47 (1976)
[7.4] Glover, K., and J. C. Doyle: “A State Space Approach to H∞ Opti-

mal Control,” Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences,
135, 179-218, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1989)
[7.5] Luyben, W. L.: “Simple Method for Tuning SISO Controllers in

Multivariable Systems,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., 25,
654-660 (1986)
[7.6] Luyben, W. L.: Process Modeling, Simulation, and Control for

Chemical Engineers, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York (1990)
[7.7] Maciejowski, J. M.: Multivariable Feedback Design, Addison-

Wesley Publishing Company, Wokingham (1989)
[7.8] Mayne, D. Q.: “The design of linear multivariable systems,” Au-

tomatica, 9, 201-207 (1973)
[7.9] Mayne, D. Q.: “Sequential design of linear multivariable sys-

tems,” Proc. IEE., 126, 6, 568-572 (1979)
[7.10] Raisch, J., L. Lang, und E.-D. Gilles: “H∞-Reglerentwurf für

Zwei- und Dreistoffdestillationsprozesse”, at, 41, 6, 215-224
(1993)
[7.11] Ryskamp, C. J.: “Explicit vs. implicit decoupling in distillation

control,” Chemical Process Control II, American Institute of
Chemical Engineers, New York, 361-375 (1982)
Chapter 8
Feedforward Controller Design
8.1 Introduction
It is a drawback of feedback control that a corrective action necessitates
a deviation of the controlled variables from their setpoints. This disad-
vantage can be overcome by the use of feedforward control. A major and
probably the most frequent disturbance of a distillation column is a
change in the feed flow rate. Because the feed flow rate is always
measured, it can be used as a controller input. An appropriately
designed feedforward controller takes most of the necessary corrective
action before the product compositions and the controlled tray tempera-
tures change. However, because of model errors and other unmeasured
disturbances a feedforward controller alone will never be able to yield
perfect control so that feedback control will still be needed.
Within this chapter, the design of linear time-invariant feedforward
controllers for our distillation column is discussed. The proposed design
methods take into account the wide operating range of the distillation
column and the unmeasured feed composition.
192 8 Feedforward Controller Design
8.2 The design problem
8.2.1 The design objective
The objective of feedforward control is a reduction of the control error in

presence of feed flow rate disturbances. The main problem is the
nonlinear behavior of distillation columns. The perfect control action for
a rejection of a feed flow disturbance depends on the actual and
measured feed flow rate and the unmeasured feed composition. A
controller design for one operating point may be unsatisfactory at any
others. Consequently, it is impossible to design a perfect linear time-
invariant feedforward controller for the entire operating range of a
distillation column. Hence the design objective is a feedforward
controller which improves the compensation of feed flow disturbances
for the largest possible part of the operating range, but never makes it
worse.
A perfect solution of this design objective would be an enormous task.

Fortunately, the ideas discussed in Chapter 5 lead to very good results:
If we design the feedforward controller simultaneously for the models
G R ( s ) (representing minimum feed flow rate and maximum feed
composition) and G I ( s ) (representing maximum feed flow rate and
minimum feed composition), we obtain a design which improves the
compensation of feed flow disturbances for the entire operating range.
8.2.2 One-step or two-step design?
The design of feedforward controllers is feasible either in a one-step

design, simultaneously with the feedback controller, or as a second step
for the closed-loop system (Fig. 8.1) [8.3]. The design of a feedforward
controller for the open-loop system is not recommended because the
feedback controller shifts the poles and, consequently, affects the
dynamics of the system.
A μ-optimal one-step design using the uncertainty structure presented

in chapter 5 is tempting. For that purpose, the uncertainty structure is
slightly modified by the additional input to the controller, i.e., the
8.2 The design problem 193
a) One-step design Δ
xF
F
P p
r
wF(s) KF(s)
K(s)
b) Two-step design
Δ
Step 1: Feedback design
d p
r P
K(s)
Δ
Step 2: Feedforward design
F
r P* p
wF(s) KF(s)
+
+
K(s)
Figure 8.1: Design of feedforward controllers

a) Simultaneous design with feedback controller
b) Design as a second step for the closed loop system. The weighted plant P*
may be a simpler uncertainty structure than the plant P.
weighted feed flow signal. However, this approach has certain draw-
backs:
• Convergence is unattainable using the μK-Iteration in our case

• Using the μ-optimization approach, the one-step design needs
significantly more computation time than the two-step design.
(The computing cost is proportional to {number of parameters}k
with k>2.)
• For acceptable results, the weighting function for the feed flow
signals must be modified: Small improvements in the compensa-
tion of feed flow disturbances cause a dominance of the reference
and the feed composition inputs with regard to the performance
specification. Very small gains in the feedforward part result
therefrom.
Consequently, the discussion is focused on the design of feedforward

controllers for the closed-loop system, i.e., as a second design step. Since
feedforward control does not affect any stability properties of the closed-
loop system, the design is relatively simple. It is discussed by means of
two examples.
8.3 H∞-minimization
The H∞-minimization [8.4] is well suited for a feedforward controller
design. Before we use the numerical tools available (e.g., [8.1], [8.2]), we
have to build up a closed-loop plant with a previously designed feedback
controller K(s). As an example, the μ-optimal state-space controller
using all 3 temperature measurements is selected (see section 6.4.3). If
we wish to improve the compensation of feed flow disturbances for the
plant models G R ( s ) as well as for G I ( s ) , we have to close the feedback
loops for both models separately, define the desired performance, and
limit the high-frequency output of the feedforward controller K F ( s ) .
The design plant is outlined in Figure 8.2.
The performance weight W e ( s ) is a diagonal matrix of the transfer

functions w e ( s )
H∞-minimization 195
zu
Wu ( s )
F
GR ( s )
u
–
+
K (s)
F uF + ze
KF ( s )
We ( s )
F
GI ( s )
u
+ –
K (s)
+
Figure 8.2: The augmented plant for a design of the feedforward

controller KF(s) by H∞-minimization
W e ( s ) = diag [ w e ( s ), w e ( s ), w e ( s ), w e ( s ) ] (8.1)
It demands the same performance for both column models and both
controlled temperatures. The transfer function w e ( s ) is chosen as a
first-order lag with a high static gain. The pole of w e ( s ) is adjusted
until T F → z ∞ ≈ 1 is achieved. The final transfer function becomes
1
w e ( s ) = 100 ------------------------ (8.2)
1 + 2380s
If we do not specify any high-frequency limits of the feedforward

controller output, we obtain a controller with large high-frequency
gains. This is undesirable because measurement noise and short-time
feed flow fluctuations cause unnecessarily, large control actions. Using
a diagonal transfer function matrix W u ( s ) for the feedforward
controller output u F according to
W u ( s ) = diag [ w u ( s ), w u ( s ) ] (8.3)
F F
with the lead-lag transfer function
1 + 104s
w u ( s ) = 0.5 --------------------- (8.4)
F 1 + 2.5s
a controller behavior similar to a first order lag is obtained. The singular

values of the controller and the transfer functions from the disturbance
inputs to the control error (for the nominal model) are shown by Figure
8.3. If we compare Figure 8.3 b with Figure 6.10 b, we recognize the
significant improvement of the feed flow disturbance compensation
(dash-dotted lines).
1
KF 1
Td → y
10 10
Magnitude
0 0
Magnitude
10 10
-1 -1
10 10
-2 -2
10 -5 -3 -1 1
10 -5 -3 -1 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
a) b)
Figure 8.3: a) Singular values of the feedforward controller
b) Singular values of the transfer function from the disturbance inputs d to the
controlled output signals y for the nominal model GN with feedforward and
feedback control. Solid line: T x → y , dash-dotted line: T F → y
F
Nonlinear simulations confirm these expectations (Figure 8.4). In the

interest of consistency, the same disturbances are simulated as in all
previous chapters. Of course, the response to the step changes in the
feed composition remains identical to the one shown in Figure 6.12.
H∞-minimization 197
Ft=0=20 mol/min
F(t=0)=46 mol/min
0.020 0.020
(mol/mol)
(mol/mol)
0.015 0.015
Composition
Composition
Composition
Composition
0.010 0.010

0.005 0.005
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time [h]
(h) Time [h]
(h)
Ft=0=20 mol/min
F(t=0)=46 mol/min
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
Temperature(K)
Temperature(K)
Temperature
Temperature
0.0 0.0
-0.2 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time [h]
(h) Time [h]
(h)
Figure 8.4: Simulation results with μ-optimal state space controller (controller in-
puts: T10, T44, T24) and feedforward controller for an increase in feed composi-
tion (0.8 → 0.9 mol/mol) at t=0 h and an increase of feed flow rate (+ 3.6 mol/
min) at t=20 h
However, the maximum control error during the compensation of the

feed flow disturbance is approximately halved, and for the maximum
feed flow rate it is reduced even more.
8.4 Optimization approach

The implementation of state-space controllers in a distributed control
system is difficult. Of course, this holds for feedforward controllers as
well. Most desirable are feedforward controllers with a simple and
easily implementable structure.
The singular values of the H∞ norm-minimizing state-space controller

suggest a feedforward controller structure with a first-order lag and
different gains for the outputs to the reflux L and the boilup V:
KR L 1
KF ( s ) = ---------------- (8.5)
KR V 1 + Ts
The parameters of this simple control structure are computed by a

constraint parameter optimization [8.5]. The objective may be of
different kind: One possibility is the minimization of the H∞ norm of the
transfer function T F → z for the plant shown in Figure 8.2. This design
objective has certain disadvantages, however:
• Due to the few degrees of freedom resulting from using this

simple controller structure, it is not possible to obtain a
controller which is close to design specifications for a wide
frequency range.
• The H∞-norm minimizing parameters strongly depend on the

allowed maximum for γ , with γ = T F → z ∞ . If we allow γ > 5
controller designs with large enough gains ( KR L , KR V ) are
obtained. But for a performance specification allowing γ ≈ 1 , we
attain small controller gains and the improvement of the distur-
bance compensation is insufficient
8.4 Optimization approach 199
Most of the feed flow disturbances entering this distillation column are
step changes. Consequently, we are able to define an appropriate design
objective in the time domain. It is the minimum absolute control error
for a step change in the feed flow rate. The design objective becomes
[ T, KR L, KR V ] = arg inf E (8.6)

[ T, KR L, KR V ]
with
Te
E = ∫ { e10R ( t ) + e 44 ( t ) + e 10 ( t ) + e 44 ( t ) }dt .
R I I
(8.7)
0
The performance measure E is calculated for a step response to the

plant input F, employing the plant illustrated by Figure 8.5.
F
GR ( s )
u
– e 10
R
+
K (s) e 44
R
F uF +
KF ( s )
F
GI ( s )
u
+ – e 10
I
K (s) e 44
+ I
Figure 8.5: Plant structure for the optimization of

feedforward controller parameters
If we select the μ-optimal PID-controller with one-way decoupling as the

feedback controller K (see section 6.5.3), and limit the time constant T
by a lower bound of 5 minutes, the following simple optimal feedforward

controller results:
1
K F ( s ) = 1.5 -------------------- (8.8)
2.6 1 + 5.0s
The singular values of the feedforward controller are shown in Figure

8.6 a. In Figure 8.6 b we find the singular values of the transfer func-
tions T d → y for nominal closed loop system with this feedforward
controller. It demonstrates the low sensitivity of the feedback and feed-
forward controlled distillation column to variations of the feed flow rate.
1
KF 1
Td → y
10 10
Magnitude
Magnitude
0 0
10 10
-1 -1
10 10
-2 -2
10 -5 -3 -1 1
10 -5 -3 -1 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
a) b)
Figure 8.6: a) Singular values of the feedforward controller with fixed structure
b) Singular values of the transfer functions for the nominal closed loop system
from the disturbances inputs d to the controlled output signals y (Feedback
and feedforward control). Solid line: T x → y , dash-dotted line: T F → y
F
The simulation results (Figure 8.7) demonstrate that the maximum

deviation of the product compositions for a step change of the feed flow
rate is very small. A comparison with the simulation results for the
same feedback controller but without feedforward control in Figure 6.30
confirms the substantial improvements by this simple feedforward
controller.
8.5 Summary 201
Ft=0=20 mol/min
F(t=0)=46 mol/min
0.020 0.020
(mol/mol)
(mol/mol)
0.015 0.015
Composition
Composition
Composition
0.010 Composition 0.010

0.005 0.005
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time (h)
Time [h] Time [h]
(h)
Figure 8.7: Simulation results with μ-optimal PID controller with one-way decou-
pling and a simple feedforward controller for an increase in feed composition
(0.8 → 0.9 mol/mol) at t=0 h and an increase of feed flow rate (+ 3.6 mol/min)
at t=20 h
8.5 Summary
The compensation of feed flow disturbances can be improved by using
feedforward controllers. H∞-norm minimization and the minimization of
the control errors in the time domain (for feedforward controllers with
fixed structure) are efficient design methods. Frequency domain as well
as time-domain results demonstrate the pleasing improvements which
are obtained even by a feedforward controller of order one. A comparison
of the ISE and ITAE criteria (see section 6.6) in Table 8.1 demonstrates
improvements up to 50%! As mentioned previously, the maximum struc-

tured singular value μ is not a good performance measure if we include
the feedforward control in the structured uncertainty model.
Table 8.1: Comparison of controllers in time-domain
Control structure Relative Relative Max μ ˜

Δ
ISE ITAE
1.0 1.0 0.85
3 temp. measurements 0.63 0.51 0.86
and feed forward control
PID control with static one-way
1.99 1.51 0.97
decoupling (C 1=0)
PID control with static one-way
decoupling (C 1=0) and simple 1.13 0.87 1.05
feedforward control
8.6 References

Analysis and Synthesis Toolbox, MUSYN Inc., Minneapolis MN,
and The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA (1991)
[8.2] Chiang, R. Y., and M. G. Safonov: Robust Control Toolbox — Us-

er’s Guide, The MathWorks, Inc., Cochituate Place, Natick, MA
(1992)
[8.3] Christen, U., M. F. Weilenmann, and H. P. Geering: “Design of

H2 and H∞ Controllers with Two Degrees of Freedom,” Proc. of
the 1994 American Control Conference, Baltimore, MA (1994)
8.6 References 203
[8.4] Glover, K., and J. C. Doyle: “A State Space Approach to H∞ Opti-

mal Control,” Lecture Notes in Control and Information Science,
135, 179-218, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1989)
[8.5] Grace, A.: Optimization Toolbox — User’s Guide, The Math-

works, Inc., Natick, MA (1990)
Chapter 9
Practical Experiences
9.1 Introduction
In simulations the performance of controllers is tested in a sterile envi-
ronment. Lacking measurement noise, operator actions, and varying
environmental conditions, the results of these simulations represent a
well established basis for a comparison of different controller designs.
However, only the implementation of a controller in the real plant
proves its performance. While in the literature a great number of design
methods has been proposed and the resulting controllers have been
tested by simulations, only very few results of an implementation at a
real industrial distillation column have been reported.
This chapter complements the simulation results presented in previous
chapters with the results of a controller implementation in the distrib-
uted control system (DCS) which is coupled with this distillation
column. The first section describes the implementation including the
handling of constraints. Further sections discuss the use of pressure
compensated temperatures, the controller performance observed, and
economic aspects. A short summary concludes the chapter.
206 9 Practical Experiences
9.2 Controller implementation

In the research field the objective of any control design is a high
controller performance. A control design implemented in an industrial
environment must consider many additional aspects. A few of them are
listed below.
Simple implementation: As mentioned previously, state-space control-

lers are difficult to implement in a DCS. Therefore the control scheme
should be based on fixed low order structures, e.g. on PID control or on
advanced PID control structures.
Robustness: The control design must guarantee stability for the entire
operating range of the column, including time variations due to corro-
sion of trays, transmitter drifts, etc.
Easy to initialize: The switch from manual to automatic control must be

simple and easy to understand. Operators often are semiskilled
workmen who cannot and should not be expected to have an engineering
background. A complex initialization procedure of a control scheme
unnecessarily increases the risk of errors and requires an intensive
operator training.
Handling of constraints: Constraints are necessary to prevent the

column from flooding, weeping, overpressure, overtemperature, etc.
Often it is sufficient to limit reflux and reboiler heat duty.
Performance: Despite the requirements listed above, the performance of

the control scheme should still be high.
Comparing the different control schemes proposed within this thesis,

the PID control structure with one-way decoupling including the simple
feedforward controller evolves as the best compromise among all these
requirements. The control scheme is simple to initialize1, robust to plant
1. Initialization of the control scheme (see Figure 9.1): First, the output of the top
composition controller in manual mode is adjusted to achieve rR ≅ Lactual. Then the
top composition controller is switched to automatic mode. Second, the output of the
bottom composition controller in manual mode is adjusted to achieve rQ ≅ Qactual.
After that the controller is switched to automatic mode.
9.2 Controller implementation 207
uncertainty, it allows a simple handling of constraints, and it exhibits a

high performance in simulations.
This control scheme has been implemented in the DCS installed at the
plant considered here (i.e., an Eckardt PLS 80E). The controller inputs
are estimated tray compositions x̂ i , which for the operators have proved
to be easier to understand than pressure compensated temperatures.
The proportional gains of the controllers are easily converted for these
controller inputs.
A scheme of the implementation is shown in Fig. 9.1. The handling of

constraints is realized by using the anti-windup facility of the standard
PID controller blocks within the DCS. The following ideas have been
realized:
• If the setpoint for the reflux controller r R becomes smaller than

its minimum limit R min , the top composition is allowed to rise
above the setpoint (⇒ top composition purer than required), and
the top composition controller must be prevented from windup.
• If the setpoint for the reflux controller r R exceeds its maximum
limit R max , the top composition is allowed to decrease (⇒ top
composition less pure than required), and the top composition
controller again must be prevented from windup. However, if at
all possible, this case should be avoided.
• Equivalent constraints hold for the bottom composition
controller.
This policy establishes individual constraints for the top composition

control loop as well as for the bottom composition control loop. Since we
have to include the feedforward control and the one-way decoupling, the
outputs of the composition controllers are limited by the following four
signals entering the anti-windup facility of the PID controllers:
R FB1, max = R max – R FF (9.1)
R FB1, min = R min – R FF (9.2)

208
T 10
θ 1 + θ 2 ( T + T Corr ) x̂ 10 R FB1
PID 1 rR
% Valve
+ θ3 p +
PID R
R FB1, max
R max – R FF R
p0 9 p̂ 10
R FB1, min
p 0 + ------ ( p 51 – p 0 )
50 Composition R min – R FF KQ/R
estimation
Composition Q FB1
p 51
43 p̂ 44
estimation
p 0 + ------ ( p 51 – p 0 ) Feedback
50 controllers Decoupling
with
constraints
Θ 1 + Θ 2 ( T + T Corr ) x̂ 44 Q FB2 rQ
T 44 PID 2 + % Valve
+ Θ3 p + Θ4 p2 PID Q
Q FB2, max
Q max – Q FF – Q FB1 Q
Q FB2, min
Q min – Q FF – Q FB1
F R FF
Figure 9.1: Controller
LAG
implementation
Q FF
KQF/RF
Feedforward
controller
9 Practical Experiences
9.3 Composition estimators 209
Q FB2, max = Q max – Q FF – Q FB1 (9.3)
Q FB2, min = Q min – Q FF – Q FB1 (9.4)
These individual constraints make unnecessary the configuration of

variable structure control in the DCS. However, the maximum
constraint of the reflux may lead to a top product quality significantly
below the product specification, which is much more undesirable than a
deterioration of the bottom product quality. Fortunately, simulation as
well as practical experiences have shown that the reboiler heat duty
exceeds its maximum limit Q max first. In this case, the behavior of the
control scheme is identical to that of a single composition control scheme
with reboiler heat duty set at maximum Q max and top composition
controlled by reflux flow rate.
If the reflux as well as the reboiler heat duty reach their minimum
constraints, both products become purer than desired.
9.3 Composition estimators

While the implementation of the controllers did not cause any particular
problems, the correct parametrization of the composition estimators
was very troublesome. In a first step the parameters of the estimators
were calculated by regression of {Tpx} data (see Chapter 2). However,
the correlation of the estimated compositions on tray 10 and 44 with the
product compositions analyzed once a day proved to be unsatisfactory.
Hence operating data were recorded for two weeks. Since the feed
composition was almost constant, it was possible to compare these
measurement data with tray compositions calculated by steady-state
simulations. Minimizing the errors between the estimated and the
calculated tray compositions, a correction of the estimated tray pres-
sures by 20% was necessary to correct the estimates. Since pressure
sensors on tray 10 and 44 are not installed, the pressures on these trays
are calculated by a linear interpolation between top pressure and
bottom pressure (see Fig. 9.1). The error in the pressure compensation
might have been caused by this interpolation. Other error sources could
have been incorrect {Tpx} data or pressure measurements. Once the
parameters of the estimators had been adjusted, these simple estima-
tors worked fairly satisfactorily. Nevertheless, the compensation of the
pressure variations’ influence on the tray temperatures is the limiting
factor for the overall performance of the control scheme. This will be
shown in more detail in the following section.
Of course, the effort for the parametrization of the estimators is fairly

high and the performance of the control scheme is limited by them. In
view of these two points, the installation of on-line gas chromatographs
could be preferable. However, in our case the light component polymer-
izes at temperatures exceeding a certain level. Since polymerization
plugs a gas chromatograph in a short time, the use of pressure compen-
sated temperatures or estimated tray compositions as controller inputs
is indispensable.
9.4 Controller performance

The controller performance observed matched the simulation results
quite well. Figures 9.2 and 9.3 depict the recorded deviations of the esti-
mated tray compositions from their setpoints in the presence of several
feed flow disturbances and at two different feed flow rates.
The large measurement noise of the estimated tray compositions is

caused by the noisy pressure readings in the column bottom. Using a
first-order low-pass element in series with the bottom pressure
measurement, the noise could be significantly reduced. Unfortunately,
at the time of the installation of the control scheme, the capacity of the
DCS was exhausted. Even for the configuration of this simple element,
there was no space left. As soon as new capacity is available, the bottom
pressure measurement will be filtered.
During the recording of these operating data, the setpoints were kept
constant. In Figure 9.2 the feed flow rate was increased by 40 l/h in four
steps. The feed flow rate at t=0 h was 260 l/h (49 mol/min), while the feed
composition was approximately 0.85 mol/mol. Although the feed flow
9.4 Controller performance 211
Feed
20
flow rate (l/h)
Deviation of
10
-10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (h)
Tray 10
Deviation of compensated
Deviation of estimated
5
composition (mol-%)
-0.5
temperature (°C)
0
0.5
-5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (h)
Tray 44 Deviation of compensated

6
composition (mol-%)
temperature (°C)
-0.5
0.5
-6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (h)
Figure 9.3: Recorded operating data with installed PID control scheme including
one-way decoupling and feedforward control.
Top: Deviation of feed flow rate from 170 l/h (32 mol/min)
Middle: Deviations of estimated tray composition and of pressure
compensated temperature from setpoint on tray 10
Bottom: Deviations of estimated tray composition and of pressure
compensated temperature on tray 44
Feed
40
flow rate (l/h)
Deviation of
20
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (h)
Tray 10
5
composition (mol-%)
-0.5
temperature (°C)
0
0.5
-5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (h)
Tray 44
6
composition (mol-%)
temperature (°C)
-0.5
0.5
-6
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (h)
Figure 9.2: Recorded operating data with installed PID control scheme including
one-way decoupling and feedforward control.
Top: Deviation of feed flow rate from 260 l/h (49 mol/min)
Middle: Deviations of estimated tray composition and of pressure
compensated temperature from setpoint on tray 10
Bottom: Deviations of estimated tray composition and of pressure
compensated temperature on tray 44
rate was out of the design range, the reflux and boilup remained within
the range covered by the controller design. In Figure 9.3, the feed flow
rate at t=0 h was 170 l/h (32 mol/min) and it was increased only once by
10 l/h.
The control errors in presence of these feed flow disturbances remain
extraordinary small. In fact, it is almost impossible to separate the
control error from the measurement noise and the effect of all other
unknown disturbances. This proves the high performance of this simple
advanced PID control scheme.
The advantages of the controller implementation are demonstrated best
by a comparison of the product compositions analyzed once a day before
and after the installation. At the beginning of this project, top and
bottom composition were controlled manually. The results are shown on
the left-hand sides of Figure 9.4 and 9.5. Obviously, the average product
compositions are found far from their setpoints, and the variations of
the product compositions are very large.
The right-hand sides of Figure 9.4 and 9.5 show the analysis results
beginning after the adjustment of the composition estimators. Clearly,
the variations of the product compositions are much smaller and the
average product compositions are close to the desired results. However,
despite the high performance of the control scheme as illustrated by
Figure 9.2 and 9.3, significant variations of the product compositions
can still be detected. Please remember that pressure measurements of
tray 10 and 44 are lacking. Therefore the influence of the large pressure
variations (bottom pressure: 120-190 mbar) to the tray temperatures
cannot be perfectly compensated and an adjustment of the controller
setpoints depending on the feed flow rate is necessary. Since the results
presented are achieved with almost constant setpoints, the results will
improve even further as the operators gain more extensive experience
with the setpoints.
Manual operation Controlled

0.3 0.3
Top composition (mol/mol)
Top composition (mol/mol)

0.25 0.25
0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
0 35 70 0 22 44
Days Days

0.25 0.25
Bottom composition (mol/mol)
Bottom composition (mol/mol)
0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
0 35 70 0 22 44
Days Days
Figure 9.4: Analysis data of top and bottom product

Top: Top composition 1-xD
Bottom: Bottom composition xB
Dashed line: Average composition

0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
Relative frequency
Relative frequency
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Top composition (mol/mol) Top composition (mol/mol)

0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
Relative frequency
Relative frequency
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Bottom composition (mol/mol) Bottom composition (mol/mol)
Figure 9.5: Histograms of analyzed product qualities

Top: Top composition 1-xD
Bottom: Bottom composition xB
9.5 Economic aspects

The management decision for or against the installation of a control
system depends primarily on the economic feasibility and to some
degree on ecological improvements. In our case the installation of the
control scheme yields the following most important improvements:
• More uniform product qualities

⇒ Less overpurification necessary
⇒ Energy savings (which is an ecological advantage, too)
• Reduced mean of light component in bottom
⇒ More top product with a market value of > 250000 $/a
• Increased maximum column load
⇒ The installation of an additional column can be avoided
These pay-offs are complemented by side effects, for example a deeper

understanding of column dynamics by the operating staff, which as a
consequence achieved a better operation of other columns in the same
plant.
These financial benefits must be weighed against the investment costs.

Hardware and software expenses exclusively for this project total
approximately 50000 $. It is not unreasonable to estimate the necessary
engineering effort for a similar project to be less than half a man year.
Therefore the economic benefits are on a very positive side.
9.6 Summary
The results of the implementation of the PID control structure with one-
way decoupling and feedforward control on the real plant confirm the
high performance of this simple control scheme indicated by simula-
tions. The main problem of the implementation was, except for over-
coming high psychological resistances, the correct parametrization of
the composition estimators. A solution of this problem never would have
been possible without an extensive comparison of simulation and oper-
ating data. Nevertheless, the use of pressure compensated tempera-
9.6 Summary 217
tures or estimated tray compositions remains the limiting factor of the

overall performance of the implemented control scheme. The economic
advantages achieved by this simple control scheme exceed the financial
effort by far.
Chapter 10
Conclusions and
Recommendations
10.1 Introduction
This thesis treats all the necessary steps for a composition control
design for an industrial binary distillation column. Each of these steps
produced new insights into various aspects of the control design. Since
a chronological discussion of these steps would lead to a thematic confu-
sion, they are summarized in the four sections
• Controller synthesis
• State-space or PID control?
• How many temperature measurements?
• Column models
This thesis does not presume to present a final solution to all distillation
control problems. The ideas presented come up against many gaps in
research, limits of distributed control systems, and problems of cooper-
ation between industry and university. In the last section the most
important aspects of these topics are discussed.
220 10 Conclusions and Recommendations
10.2 Controller synthesis
This thesis discusses the design of robust controllers for the dual compo-
sition control problem of an industrial binary distillation column. Distil-
lation columns are usually operated over a wide range of feed
compositions and feed flow rates. Consequently, a controller must guar-
antee stability and a high performance not only at a single operating
point, but for the entire operating range of the distillation column.
The common robust controller design methods are based on unstruc-

tured uncertainty models, for example a multiplicative uncertainty at
plant output. An estimate of the corresponding uncertainty bounds has
shown that these bounds are too large to allow any controller design.
Nevertheless a solution of the design problem is possible. It is based on

a structured uncertainty model which to a large extent avoids the unnec-
essary conservatism of an unstructured uncertainty description. This
model treats the nonlinear column behavior as several simultaneous
uncertainties and quite well describes the column dynamics for all oper-
ating points within the predefined operating range.
Utilizing this uncertainty model, a feedback controller synthesis

requires the framework of the structured singular value μ. The appro-
priate design methods are the μK-Iteration for the synthesis of state-
space controllers and a constraint parameter optimization for the
synthesis of controllers with fixed structure. These methods lead to
feedback controllers which are distinguished by a high controller perfor-
mance and guaranteed stability within the entire operating range,
paired with a low sensitivity to errors in the manipulated variables.
A drawback of this design approach is the high effort for uncertainty

modelling and computation of the controllers. In principle, comparable
results could be obtained and the computational effort could be signifi-
cantly reduced by using design methods based on arbitrary small
unstructured uncertainty bounds. However, it has been shown that
these common design methods are not well suited for ill-conditioned
plants such as high-purity distillation columns.
10.3 State-space or PID control? 221
The ideas of the feedback controller synthesis can be extended to the

feedforward control design. A simultaneous controller design for the
closed-loop models at maximum and minimum column load using H ∞ -
minimization (for state-space feedforward controllers) or optimization
in the time-domain (for feedforward controllers with fixed structure)
yield controllers, which greatly improve the compensation of feed flow
disturbances.
The theoretical and simulation results are confirmed by the results of

the practical implementation of a simple PID control structure with one-
way decoupling and a simple feedforward control scheme. The very
satisfactory controller performance achieved without any expensive on-
line composition analyzers leads to high economic and ecologic benefits
which justify the effort of the control design and implementation.
10.3 State-space or PID control?
A comparison of the different state-space controllers with optimally

tuned advanced PID control structures has demonstrated an unex-
pected result:
• The performance of μ-optimally tuned advanced PID control

structures is only insignificantly worse than the performance of
high-order state-space controllers
This statement is of great significance for industrial practice. It holds

for the feedback as well as for the feedforward control design. The imple-
mentation of advanced PID control structures in a distributed control
system requires much less effort than that of state-space controllers and
increases the acceptance of the control design by the operators. It must
be emphasized, however, that the high performance of the PID control
structure is achieved with unconventional controller settings.
The optimal tuning of PID control structures with decoupling for this
distillation column caused an additional insight. The optimal controller
performance is achieved with an implicit decoupling scheme where in
essence
• the bottom composition is controlled by moving the composition

profile, and
• the top composition is controlled by intensifying or weakening
the S-form of the composition profile.
Since the position and shape of the composition profile at steady-state

depends essentially on the actual and unmeasured feed composition, it
is difficult to make any inference from a composition or temperature
measurement in the column middle to the manipulated variables.
Very similar considerations hold for the relative performance of the

state-space controllers. For the same reason, the estimation of the
composition profile by the inherent observer has no advantages. The
better performance results only from the higher degree of freedom in the
controller design, which allows a higher performance in the low- and
mid-frequency range without destabilizing the closed loop system in the
high-frequency range.
10.4 How many temperature measurements?
A comparison of a control design including a temperature measurement

in the middle of the column with a design excluding this measurement
leads to the following statement
• Additional temperature or composition measurements in the

middle of the distillation column have no significant influence
on the maximum controller performance.
The reason for the very limited advantage of additional temperature

measurements for the control design is their unknown setpoint, which
depends on the actual, unmeasured feed composition. The high perfor-
mance of the control design can be achieved with just two pressure-
compensated temperatures or two estimated tray compositions.
Dispensing with additional measurements reduces the installation
costs of the control system and increases its economic viability. However,
if regression models are used to estimate the product compositions
10.5 Column models 223
based on temperature and flow measurements, additional temperature

measurements are of great advantage.
10.5 Column models
All results of this thesis are based directly or indirectly on models of the
distillation column. Especially the model-based adjustment of the
composition estimators clearly proved that such process models are
absolutely necessary. However, the control design may be based on
linear models that include or exclude flow dynamics.
Within the structured uncertainty model, a multiplicative uncertainty

is included for each measured tray temperature, whose uncertainty
bounds exceed 100% for frequencies above 1/16 rad/min. Since the flow
dynamics affect the high-frequency range, the following statement is
justified:
• Including or excluding flow dynamics in the linear models

is insignificant for the controller design.
This has an impact on the design effort. If a controller design can be

based on an analytical linearization of a simple model for the composi-
tion dynamics at particular steady states, a rigorous dynamic model is
not absolutely necessary. The steady states of a column may be calcu-
lated with common flowsheeting programs such as ASPEN PLUSTM or
PROCESSTM and the controllers designed can be tested using a simpli-
fied nonlinear model without flow dynamics.
10.6 Recommendations
10.6.1 Academic research
Multicomponent distillation: The results of this thesis are based on the

example of a single binary distillation column. While the adaptation of
these results to other binary columns is expected to be straightforward,
the uncertainty modelling of multicomponent distillation columns

needs additional research.
μ-synthesis: The robustness analysis of controllers using the structured
singular value μ has shown to be a reliable and outstanding tool.
However, the convergence properties of the corresponding algorithms
for μ-synthesis (DK-iteration, μK-iteration) are insufficient. More
robust algorithms are absolutely necessary.
Decentralized control: Generally, the design of robust controllers with
simple structures is at an early stage of development. In the case of this
distillation column, it was relatively easy to propose potential control
structures and to solve the design objective with a constrained param-
eter optimization (μ-optimization). However, dealing with many more
control loops simultaneously, the problem of the loop pairing is still not
solved. For example, the high performance of the controllers in this
thesis has been obtained using the LV control configuration. Since
common methods for control structure selection (single loop pairing of
controlled variables and manipulated inputs) try to minimize the inter-
actions between the individual control loops, certainly these methods
favor other control configurations. Therefore methods for the selection
of control structures are necessary, which include simple multivariable
control schemes. Similar arguments hold for the controller tuning. The
current methods for the tuning of multiloop SISO control schemes are
known to be either very conservative or else to lack robustness. Better
methods would be very desirable.
10.6.2 Decentralized control systems
Today a control engineer in the research field is familiar with modern

and flexible software tools such as MATLABTM or MATRIXXTM. His
first contact with a decentralized control system (DCS), even with a
modern one, arouses feelings of working in the analog computing era.
The replacement of the old consoles with a computer seems to be the
only idea for the development of the DCS. The inherent possibilities for
a faster, more flexible, and simplified controller implementation are not
exhausted yet.
10.6 Recommendations 225
10.6.3 Cooperation industry—university
Often the industry complains of the inadequate cooperation between

university and industry. Some typical problems of such a cooperation
were encountered during the course of this project. The main problem is
the divergence between the interest of the partners in the project.
University researchers are interested in deeper insights into basic prob-
lems and their solution, while the process industry wants a rapid solu-
tion of the actual problem. Additionally the contact persons in industry
are chronically overworked with everyday problems, thus unable to
spend enough time to concern themselves with such a project. This leads
to an insufficient flow of communication. Consequently, both partners
speak different languages: the university researcher does not under-
stand the industrial needs, while the industrial counterpart does not
understand the mathematical methods. Therefore it is of high impor-
tance that
• the aims and responsibilities of both partners in the project are
spelled as clearly as possible
• at least one control engineer of the industrial partner actively
follows the progress of the project
If these two points could be kept in mind, many problems between
industry and university could be avoided.
227
Curriculum vitae
Name Hans-Eugen Musch

Date of birth June 19, 1965
Place of birth Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany
Nationality German
1971-1975 Primary school

1975-1984 Humanistic gymnasium Kolleg St. Sebastian
at Stegen near Freiburg
1984 Abitur
1984-1985 Military service
1985-1989 Chemical engineering studies at the ETH Zurich

1989 Masters degree in Chemical Engineering (“Diplom”)
Since 1990 Research assistant at the Measurement
and Control Laboratory, ETH Zurich

Robust Control of An Industrial Distillation Column

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Robust Control of An Industrial Distillation Column

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Diss. ETH No.

A dissertation submitted to the

for the degree of

accepted on the recommendation of

1.1 “Modern Control: Why Don’t We Use It?” ............................. 19

2 The Distillation Process —

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................ 29

2.6.2 Temperature measurement placement ...................... 44

3 A Rigorous Dynamic Model of

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................ 47

4 Linear Models ...................................................................... 77

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................ 77

5 A Structured Uncertainty Model ..................................... 105

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................ 105

5.5 Measurement uncertainty ..................................................... 118

6 μ-Optimal Controller Design ........................................... 123

6.1 Introduction ............................................................................ 123

7 Controller Design for

7.1 Introduction ............................................................................ 171

7.2.2 Sequential loop closing ................................................ 174

8 Feedforward Controller Design ....................................... 191

8.1 Introduction ............................................................................ 191

9 Practical Experiences ........................................................ 205

9.1 Introduction ............................................................................ 205

10.1 Introduction .......................................................................... 219

10.2 Controller synthesis ............................................................. 220

Curriculum vitae .................................................................. 227

δ Uncertainty scalar value

It is well known that high-purity distillation columns are difficult to

The already satisfactory compensation of feed flow disturbances can be

Control engineers working in an industrial environment are conscious

lers in a distributed control system. Therefore a controller design based

Bekanntermaßen sind Rektifikationskolonnen mit hohen Produktrein-

Die bereits zufriedenstellende Unterdrückung von Störungen der

von Zustandsregelungen (durch Minimierung der H ∞ -Norm) als auch

1.1 “Modern Control: Why Don’t We Use It?”

Distributed Control Systems

Linear dynamic models are the foundation of a modern, robust

The economic benefits of improved control tend to be significantly

Of course it is not necessary to replace all PID-controllers by modern

1.2 Scope and significance of this thesis

1.2.1 Distillation as a unit operation example

This separation consumes a huge amount of energy. A minimization of

1.2.2 Earlier research

If we focus our interest on the design of linear, time-invariant control-

1.2.3 Robust control and nonlinear plants

The well-known robust control design methods like H∞ -minimization or

A controller design for the entire operating range of a distillation

• Due to the high nonlinearities an estimation of unstructured

1.2.4 Contributions of this thesis

Standard approaches Improved approach

Robust control design μ-synthesis

Weak point: Advantage:

RS & RP at other RS & RP guaranteed

Figure 1.1: Robust control design approaches

1.3 Structure of the dissertation

Figure 1.2: Steps of a model based controller design

The main subject of Chapter 4 is the derivation of linear models. Two

[1.2] Marlin, T. E., J. D. Perkins, G. W. Barton, and M. L. Brisk: “Ben-

[1.3] McAvoy, T. J. and Y. H. Wang, “Survey of Recent Distillation

[1.5] Schuler, H., F. Algöwer, and E. D. Gilles: “Chemical Process

[1.6] Schuler, H.: “Was behindert den praktischen Einsatz moderner

[1.7] Skogestad, S.: “Dynamics and Control of Distillation Columns –