LNG Dynamic Hysys
LNG Dynamic Hysys
av
Innlevert dato:
Summary
In this project, a steady-state HYSYS model of the precooling section of a C3-MR process has been rebuilt from an earlier model and adapted to dynamic simulation. Dynamic simulations have been run using two different control setups. Both control setups were tested on two different simulation scenarios a disturbance in natural gas feed flow rate, and a disturbance in feed temperature. Different aspects of the simulation software and control setup have been discussed, and some problems with the dynamic simulation have been pointed out. Among the conclusions made are: HYSYSs basic heat exchanger model does not give very realistic results in dynamic simulation. The controller settings suggested by the HYSYS Dynamic Guide are somewhat aggressive for this model and tend to give oscillation. Cascade control on heat exchangers reduces oscillation.
Contents
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 2 Contents..................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4 2. Background ........................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Steady-state and dynamic process simulation.................................................................. 5 2.2 Brief description of the C3-MR process for LNG production ......................................... 6 3. The HYSYS model and how it was built ............................................................................ 8 3.1 Brief description of the HYSYS model............................................................................ 8 3.2 Procedure for building the model................................................................................... 10 4. Setting up the control structure of the model .................................................................. 15 4.1 Control general............................................................................................................ 15 4.2 Different types of process control a brief summary .................................................... 15 4.3 Control structure of the HYSYS model ......................................................................... 17 5. Simulation runs testing of model and control schemes ................................................ 19 5.1 Simulation scenarios ...................................................................................................... 19 5.2 Cascade flow control on vaporizers, constant-speed compressors (control scheme 1).. 20 5.3 Effect of omitting cascades - control scheme 2.............................................................. 30 6. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 39 6.1: About the model development, steady state and sizing ............................................... 39 6.2 Running the dynamic simulations, influence of control structure ................................. 41 6.3 Discussion of control structure....................................................................................... 43 7. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 45 7.1 About model building in HYSYS .................................................................................. 45 7.2 About running dynamic simulations .............................................................................. 45 7.3 About control structures used and control guidelines provided in the HYSYS documentation ...................................................................................................................... 45 7.4 Possible topics for further studies .................................................................................. 46 Literature ................................................................................................................................ 47 Attached files .......................................................................................................................... 47 APPENDIX A: Steady state stream data ............................................................................. 48 APPENDIX B: Flow sheets.................................................................................................... 50 APPENDIX C: Included as a separate file on CD C.1: Disturbance in feed flow, control scheme 1 (pages 1-30) C.2: Disturbance in feed temperature, control scheme 1 (pages 31-59) C.3: Disturbance in feed flow, control scheme 2 (pages 60-79) C.4 Disturbance in feed temperature, control scheme 2 (pages 80-99)
1. Introduction
This project deals with the development of a dynamic process model in Aspen HYSYS. The basis is a steady state model of the APCI C3-MR process for production of liquefied natural gas (LNG). The model was developed during a summer internship in 2006 at Norsk Hydros Oil & Energy Research Centre in Porsgrunn. The process that has been modelled is the pre cooling part of the C3-MR process for liquefaction of natural gas. In this part of the process, natural gas and the mixed refrigerant (MR) are both cooled to approximately - 40C in a propane cycle. The main aims for the project are the following: - To get a better understanding of dynamic process simulation software and of the task of building a dynamic model from a stationary model - To study how well Aspen HYSYS is suited for simulation of this type of process and to explore the pros and cons of the program as a dynamic process simulator - To explore different process control setups and evaluate how they work with respect to stabilizing of the process, thereby getting a better understanding of process control This is to be accomplished through building a dynamic model of the pre cooling part of the C3-MR process including necessary control loops, and running simulations in order to see how the model handles process upsets.
2. Background
2.1 Steady-state and dynamic process simulation
Modern computer technology has allowed engineers and researchers to study the behaviour of process plants without having to manipulate actual plants or building expensive pilot plants. Different computer software has been developed for this purpose, like Aspen, HYSYS, gPROMS, ChemCAD and more. Mathematics software like MATLAB can also be used for simulation purposes, but are typically not used for simulation of large processes. The programs are different in several ways user interface, what kind of user input is required, and what kinds of equation systems the program can solve. Some programs have predefined blocks resembling process units; other programs let the user define the blocks by giving equations and parameters. Combinations also exist, where one can choose between using the programs prebuilt units and defining the equations by oneself. The backbone of any simulation software is the solver algorithm it uses. To the computer, a simulation case is nothing more than a set of equations that have to be solved. For a steadystate simulation, the set consist of only algebraic equations. These can be solved sequentially, simultaneously or as a combination of these. For a dynamic simulation, the equations include both differential and algebraic equations. The differential equations can be ordinary (for lumped units) or partial (for distributed units like tubular reactors). The methods for solving ODEs and PDEs are different from program to program, some simulation programs can only handle ODEs (lumped systems) while others are constructed specially for good performance on PDE systems. The simulation program used for this project, Aspen HYSYS, is a block-oriented program where the user builds the process model from predefined blocks and supplies necessary parameters. HYSYS runs both steady-state and dynamic simulations and has built-in tools for dynamic initialization and equipment sizing. HYSYS does not handle distributed systems, but instead divides units into zones where each zone is calculated as a lumped unit. This applies to heat exchangers and tubular reactors (separators and tank reactors are treated as a single hold-up). HYSYS uses the implicit Euler method for solving the differential equations; the step size used by the solver is set by the user. Dynamic simulation of process plants is a complex task. A dynamic model must include all necessary unit operations (also some that may be neglected in steady-state simulation), all physical units have to be sized in a realistic way, consistent initial conditions need to be provided and the correct specifications have to be set on boundary streams. In addition, one needs a basic control structure to stabilize the model. Otherwise, small errors in the solver algorithm could easily build up and make the simulation drift away from the desired process conditions. If a steady-state model is available, as in this project, one will typically have a consistent set of initial conditions. Adding control valves or buffer tanks to the system will usually not lead to large changes in process conditions such as flows and temperatures. This means that adapting a stationary model to dynamic simulation does not necessarily change the process conditions much.
The fluid (the MR) on the shell side of the MCHE should be completely vaporized when it leaves the exchanger. Then it is compressed over three compressor stages between the stages it is cooled with water. After the last compressor and cooler it is fed to the first propane vaporizer again. The C3-MR process is described and discussed in more detail in [2] and [7]; the illustrations below also come from these papers.
In the real process (again, see [2]), the propane compressor is one single unit with three inlets, but as HYSYS does not allow multiple stage compressors, it has to be split into three separate compressors with stream mixers in between. It is possible to link compressors in HYSYS; that is, defining them to run at the same number of revolutions per minute (rpm) or with a constant rpm ratio. In real processes, one will often see that several compressors are mounted on the same shaft, for instance if they are run by the same engine. This scenario is allowed for in simulation by linking the compressors. However, this requires that one supplies information on how the efficiency of each compressor depends on speed. Therefore, this option has not been used in this model. When moving from steady state to dynamic simulation, one needs a basic control system to stabilize the process. The control structures used are described in a later chapter (chapter 4), together with a more general discussion of control of the loop. Figure 3.1 shows the HYSYS flow sheet. Blue lines indicate streams, green lines indicate control and measurement signals. The controllers shown here are the ones used in Control scheme 1 (see chapter 4.3). Natural gas enters through VLV-100 and mixed refrigerant through VLV-112.
Figure 3.1: Flow sheet of the process as modelled in HYSYS, with controllers included
Sizing of units
HYSYS has the capability of sizing process equipment automatically when switching from steady-state to dynamic simulation. When using the Dynamic Assistant straight ahead, this is
10
performed (if the units are not sized already). For valves, the automatic sizing requires that pressure drop, flow and valve opening are known. Typically one has defined a pressure drop and a flow from the steady-state model. Then one must decide what valve opening should correspond to these values. In this model, this value was set to 50% for all valves. When flow and pressure drop are known for the given valve opening, HYSYS can calculate the necessary constants for the valve, CV and Cg. The default method used by HYSYS is the Universal Gas Sizing method. For compressors, one does not need to supply geometrical sizing data, because the hold-up in the compressor is neglected in the calculations. A maximum compressor power is needed, though. In this model, all compressors have a maximum energy input such that the nominal value equals 90 % of the maximum available. This maximum input is defined through the control valve option belonging to the energy stream connected to the compressor (see figure 3.2). However, if a compressor is defined as variable-speed, one must supply performance curves for the compressor. If a surge controller is to be modelled, one must also supply a surge curve.
Figure 3.2: Specifying a maximum energy flow to a compressor As pipe sections are not included in this model (this is mainly for simplicity and because adding pipe sections would not add realism unless realistic pipe dimensions were known) the only remaining units for sizing were the heat exchangers. The sizing of heat exchangers was initially done by assuming an average heat transfer coefficient U1,5 kW/m2K based on heat transfer coefficients from the model made at Norsk Hydro in the summer of 2006 using TASC. The heat transfer area necessary would then be found from the temperatures and duty from the stationary model after the standard heat transfer equation (2.2): (2.2) Q = U A Tlm f t By assuming that tube diameter (inner and outer) and length were the same as in the original model, the necessary number N of tubes could be calculated. The total inner volume of the tubes then was easily calculated from V = r l N with inner tube radius r and tube length l. As suggested on page 16 of [3], the free shell volume was assumed to be equal to the total inner volume of the tubes, and the necessary shell diameter was calculated. The thermal conductivity was set to be equal to that used in the steady-state model (51.92 W/m K) and standard values were used for baffle spacing and baffle cut (the fraction of the cross-sectional
11
area covered by baffles). The exchanger layout was set as A-type front end heads, E-type shells and U-type rear end heads. This sizing procedure used with the detailed rating model gave far too short residence time for both shell and tubes in an order of magnitude of fractions of seconds, thus giving a model that gave very quick failures in the pressure-flow solver. Therefore, it was decided to use the basic rating model instead, and adjusting all volumes (shell and tubes) for each exchanger to give a residence time of 1 minute (for pure gas flow) or 5 minutes (for liquid or two-phase flow). To obtain these volumes while keeping the heat transfer area and sticking to the detailed model, the tube diameters would have to be increased significantly. This approach would lead to a loss of realism, just like the switch to the basic model does.
Figure 3.3: Specifying volumes in the basic heat exchanger model Whenever the volumetric flow rate changed throughout a unit, the larger value was used. This was supposed sufficient to make the model stable. The problem with simulation of large heat exchangers in HYSYS is discussed in section 6.1. Dimensions of the buffer tank and heat exchangers are shown in table 3.2a; pressure drop and CV for valves in table 3.2b. The rest of the steady-state stream data (these are also used as initial values for the dynamic simulations) are given in Appendix A. Notice that for the buffer tank V-100 a volume of 1000 m3 was assumed initially it should probably have been larger, see section 6.3. Table 3.2a: Volumes of heat exchangers (tubes and shells) and for V-100 Vessel (exchanger/tank) Shell volume (m3) Total tube volume (m3) E-101 1333 408 E-102 4521 367 E-103 11550 302 E-104 4525 766 E-105 23030 631 E-106 30480 395 V-100 1000 12
Table 3.2b: Pressure drops across valves at 50% open, values for CV Valve Pressure drop at 50% open Valve constant (CV)/104 (kPa) USGPM VLV-100 10.00 4.148 VLV-101 10.00 44.32 VLV-102 10.00 3.972 VLV-103 147.8 0.04649 VLV-104 372.6 0.05391 VLV-105 499.2 0.06004 VLV-106 147.8 0.1575 VLV-107 372.6 0.2747 VLV-108 499.2 0.1584 VLV-109 25.00 3.665 VLV-110 25.00 1.496 VLV-111 25.00 1.705 VLV-112 9.990 28.37 In addition to vessel volumes, pressure drops had to be specified for the steady state model. For the exchangers using water as coolant, pressure drops were specified as 5.00 kPa on the shell side and 10.00 kPa on the tube side. For the propane vaporizers, these values were set to 50.00 kPa (tube side) and 10.00 kPa (shell side). These values are in the same order of magnitude as those obtained using TASC. When changing the mode from steady state to dynamic, these specified values were replaced by k-values calculated from a relation like equation(2.1). When such a value is known, the pressure-flow solver can establish a relation between pressure drop and flow through the exchanger.
13
Figure 3.2: Larger view of HYSYS flow sheet with controllers included
14
15
after a disturbance has forced the output away from the desired value. This means that a feedback loop will always have a time lag.
Cascade control
Because of the problem mentioned above in feed forward control, one will typically combine a feed forward loop with a feed back loop. The feedback controller measures the output and gives a correction to the feed forward controller, typically as a new set point for the variable manipulated by the feed forward controller. This kind of control, where one controller supplies the set point to another controller, is called cascade control. The slave controller does not have to be feed forward. A widespread use of cascade control is in flow control, where a valve is supplied with a desired flow from another controller, and the valve uses a flow measurement in its outlet stream to manipulate the valve opening. When this is done instead of letting the first controller manipulate the valve opening directly, one removes the uncertainty that is caused by irregular behaviour in the valve. In this scheme, the slave is a feedback controller.
e(t )dt + K
16
should be fast or robust, and there are several methods of deciding these values. These can be based on a process model, practical testing or both. Examples of such methods are ZieglerNichols and SIMC. Further reading about PID controller tuning: [9] and [10].
Compressors
In HYSYS there are two main ways to control a compressor that has a feed at given conditions. The compressor can be specified as constant-speed, or as variable-speed. The first does not require any compressor data like efficiency curves, the latter does. Typically the curves will be on the form efficiency vs. head (or flow) for different speeds. When curves are supplied, one can use the compressor speed as a manipulated variable to obtain the desired outlet pressure. If one desires to use a constant-speed compressor, the simplest way to control the compressor is to control the outlet pressure by varying the energy input to the compressor. This is easiest done by using the compressors energy stream as the manipulated variable or OP for the controller, and using the control valve option for this energy stream (fig. 3.2). By doing
17
this, the compressor power is adjusted to give the desired discharge pressure. Fig. 4.1 illustrates how the controller is connected to the compressor and the discharge stream.
Heat exchangers
The variable to be kept constant for a heat exchanger is, as mentioned, the outlet temperature on the tube side (the natural gas/MR stream). There is one variable that could be manipulated for each exchanger, the opening of the choke valve one the propane feed to the exchanger. If using cascade control, the temperature controller can give a set point to a secondary controller that manipulates the valve (fig. 4.2, left). The valve can be used to control either liquid level in the shell, the propane pressure, or the propane flow. In this model, though, controlling the liquid level in heat exchangers will not be of any use, because the basic heat exchanger model does not take this level into account when calculating the heat transfer. If not using a cascade, the temperature controller will manipulate the valve directly (fig. 4.2, right). For this project, a simple approach was taken using the propane flow to the exchanger to control the exit temperature of natural gas /MR. Figure 4.2 shows this for the LP propane/MR heat exchanger, E-106. Notice that the TIC does not manipulate the valve directly, but instead gives a set point to the FIC. In
Figure 4.2: Control setup for heat exchanger (here: E-106). With cascade on the left, without on the right. In addition, to keep the buffer tank from running out of liquid propane, a level control valve was placed on the outlet side of the liquid tank. This control valve was tuned automatically by HYSYS when installed. The setup with cascades was called Control Scheme 1; the setup without cascades was called Control Scheme 2.
18
19
20
21
22
Fig. 5.3a: Pressure at outlet of K-101 (green), set point (red) and compressor power in % of max (blue)
23
Fig. 5.4: PV, SP (% liquid level) and OP (% valve opening) for LIC-102
24
Figure 5.5: PV, SP and OP for TIC-109 (MR after cooler). OP varies between 45% and 75%.
Figure 5.6: PV, SP and OP for PIC-104 (HP MR Compressor discharge pressure) 25
Figure 5.7: PV, SP and OP for FIC-100. Notice the slow response.
26
Figure 5.8a: PV, SP and OP for TIC-103. The output goes to saturation.
27
28
Figure 5.9b: PV, SP and OP for PIC-103 These figures show that the compressor capacity was not a problem in this scenario the compressor power never went to saturation.
29
Figure 5.10: PV, OP and SP for TIC-101 (temperature after propane cooler)
30
31
Figure 5.11c: PV, SP and OP for TIC-105 Figures 5.11a-c show that in fact, all the controllers show tendencies to oscillating behaviour, but the oscillations seem to be smaller for the last two. The exchangers E-104, E-105 and E106 are little affected by the disturbance, and the controllers on the MR streams from these exchangers do not show oscillation. Figure 5.12 illustrates this for E-104 (TIC-106).
32
Figure 5.13: PV, SP and OP for PIC-101 Figure 5.13 shows the discharge pressure in K-101; one can see that this compressor never needs to go to full power in order to maintain the correct pressure. However, the other compressors go to full power in some periods, as indicated by figure 5.14.
Figure 5.15: PV, SP and OP for LIC-102 In this simulation, the level control valve actually goes to 100% open and stays there, as seen on figure 5.15.
34
35
36
37
38
6. Discussion
6.1: About the model development, steady state and sizing
Building a steady state model of the process was fairly simple as it was a simplification of an already existing model. However, building the original model required quite much time. Main difficulties were to avoid over specifications in the propane loop. For natural gas and MR streams the modelling was fairly straight-forward by specifying the inlet conditions one could easily work through the process and adding only one new specification after each process unit (a temperature at cooler outlets, a pressure at compressor outlets) and adding other specifications to the unit operations (like pressure drops and compressor efficiencies for the latter, default values were provided by HYSYS). The propane loop modelling was somewhat more difficult as there was a risk of overspecifying some process units, especially when a tank and a new valve (V-102) were introduced after the cycle had been closed. All variables that were actually known were the natural gas/MR temperatures in and out of the propane vaporizers and the temperature levels of propane. All flows and pressures were unknown so an assumption had to be made to establish a pressure at some point. The choice fell on the outlet stream of the propane condenser, which was assumed to be saturated liquid at 10C this determined the pressure as well. The problem with this assumption was that the choking valves would make the propane stream flash so the feed to the vaporizers would not be 100 % liquid. To obtain 100% liquid after each valve, this would have to be specified explicitly for each stream in question this would lead to different pressures at stream splits with the current model layout. This would not be acceptable in dynamics where one will typically specify that all streams entering or leaving a tee or a mixer have the same pressure. (HYSYS recommends using the equalize all-setting for pressures in the mixer unit operation). Therefore it was accepted that the feed to the vaporizers contained vapour. To find the propane flow needed to obtain the desired temperatures in each NG/MR stream, one further assumption had to be made; the propane stream that left each exchanger was defined as being saturated vapour, i. e. no superheating. When changing to dynamics, this was assumed to be OK as long as the outlet nozzles on the shell side were placed on top only vapour should leave. Sizing was a fairly simple task for valves by using a standard pressure drop, a standard valve opening (50 %) and the actual flow in the steady state model, HYSYS could calculate the valve constant, CV, given the valve opening function (in this case, linear). The constants calculated seemed to work well in dynamic simulation. Also for the liquid tank the sizing procedure was simple the interface accepts that volume and orientation are specified, once these are given, it calculates diameter and length. The tank should have been larger, though see section 6.3. The heat exchanger sizing was a major challenge, because HYSYS does not support multipleshell heat exchangers. In the original stationary model, the heat exchangers were designed using TASC, which suggested exchangers with from 6 to 10 parallel shells. This was due to limitations in shell and tube diameters and lengths combined with limitation in fluid velocity 39
in the exchangers. TASC takes equipment vibration into account and will typically suggest using more parallel shells in order to reduce the flow through each. Using the TASC data combined with the detailed rating model would, if HYSYS could handle them properly, give very precise heat transfer and pressure drop data. However, with standard tube diameters (inner =16 mm and outer = 20 mm) and length (=6 m), and with a heat transfer area in the same order of magnitude as in the TASC design, the heat exchangers would get volumes that resulted in extremely short residence time (below 1 s). This can not be tolerated in dynamic simulations the simulation can become unstable, and it is totally unrealistic that a liquid stream has a residence time of t. e. 1 s in a large vessel. This was clearly seen when testing the model in dynamic mode balance equations for the heat exchangers would crash after a few iterations (when inspecting the equation summary view, the biggest errors in unconverged equations would be in the propane vaporizer equations, indicating that these were responsible for the crash). This is easy to understand when considering that the default step length in the integrator is 0.5 s, and the step length used in the simulations was 0.05 s. With the small residence time one could face a situation where an exchanger goes from empty to full in only one integrator step. The approach taken to this problem, using the basic model instead, reduces the realism in the model significantly. The reason is that the pressure drops and the product UA for the heat exchangers are calculated from simple relations (like equation 2.2 of chapter 3) with constants found from the steady state pressure and flow data, instead of being calculated from viscosity, velocity and tube diameter. Heat exchanger rating for dynamic simulations is clearly an area where HYSYS could be improved the same goes for the advanced rating methods in steady state. Another drawback of the heat exchanger model is that kettle-type exchangers (K-shell), with two outlets on the shell side, are not allowed for (with the exception of column reboilers). This means that in steady state mode, one has to model such a heat exchanger as an ordinary shell-and-tube exchanger, followed by a flash tank as mentioned in section 3.2. In dynamic mode, the exchanger can be modelled as a separator tank with a tube bundle, where the propane is in the separator and the natural gas/MR in the tubes. Neither of these is really close to the actual kettle-type exchanger. In the dynamic model used in this project, the problem is avoided because the exchangers are now meant to vaporize all propane that flows through them they have only a vapour outlet, no liquid outlet. One point of uncertainty will of course be the heat transfer coefficients that should be used. In this work they were based on an average of the ones obtained in the TASC design of exchangers, this is of course a simplification, but accurate data for heat transfer are difficult to obtain from general literature. Compressor rating was the least intuitive sizing task, as hardly any guidelines exist for this in the literature used. Specifying the efficiency of a compressor and supplying enough stream data for it to calculate outlet conditions and work is sufficient for simple simulations, but for more realistic rating compressor curves are needed. Such curves are usually available for real compressors, but finding realistic curves for a compressor where nothing is known except flow and pressure rise is difficult. A nice feature would be a kind of standard compressor curve selection, at least the HYSYS documentation should contain some guidelines for making approximate compressor curves when these are not known from a real process. Such guidelines exist for other process model parameters like pressure drop across valves and nozzles, PID controller tuning and separator/tank sizing. [5] / [6]
40
Steady state to dynamics, initialization Switching from steady state to dynamic was a relatively easy task once all units had been sized. HYSYS also has an initialization option that can be used, but as all variables are known when a converged steady-state model exists, this option was not used here. One feature that was useful was the Dynamic Assistant for finding possible specification problems. Some points should be noticed when it comes to initialization. When installing a PID controller in the model, the controller would sometimes initialize with a wrong value for the process variable (i. e. different from the actual value). If the controller was in auto mode when the integrator was started, this would lead to a kick in the manipulated variable in the moment the simulation started. This kick would cause deviations in the first minutes this can be seen on most of the figures in section 5.2 the process does not seem to be in completely steady state from the beginning. Another point was that hold-ups in heat exchangers were not initialized properly this may also be cause to some of the deviations occurring before any disturbances were introduced. In fact, these are more likely to be the cause of deviations as the controllers would correct wrongly initiated PV values in the first time step. If there is too little propane in the exchangers from the beginning, this will mean there is less heat transfer than necessary leading to a raise in the exit temperature on the tube side. This will, of course, lead to increased flow of propane to the exchangers, and the temperatures will reach the set point. It seems, though, as the hold-ups start at zero, meaning the exchangers are empty at start.
41
Control scheme 1
With the recommended PID settings, the flow controller FIC-100 could not handle the 50% reduction of the set point it gave an oscillating output signal. With a reduction in proportional gain, it tracked the set point nicely without oscillation, see figure 5.1b. For the temperature change, the controller seemed a bit too slow figure 5.7 shows that the flow did not reach the set point before the temperature returned to the nominal value. However, it did never drift off dramatically at most a few % off set point. The MR compressors and intercoolers were hardly influenced at all by the downstream disturbances, so fluctuations here were mainly due to noise coming from inaccuracies in the solver. Small pressure changes would occur, but not large enough to cause significant deviations. See figures 5.5 and 5.6. The biggest deviations from set point in fact occurred before the disturbance was introduced. The main control objective was, of course, to deliver the correct temperature on natural gas and MR to the main cryogenic heat exchanger. Figures 5.2a and 5.2b show that the set point was tracked satisfactory, in the first case, but with rather violent manipulations of the propane flow. In fact, the manipulated variable (the set point of the flow controller) was at both extremes (0 and 100%) during the simulation run. For the case of disturbance in feed temperature, the process was not able to deliver the desired outlet temperature at any time before the feed temperature returned to its nominal value. As shown in figures 5.8a-d, the flow controllers all were at 100% for long periods. The explanation is simple when the temperature is raised by 10C, this means the first exchanger has to increase its duty with more than 50% as the natural gas is to be cooled by 28C instead of 18C. This requires an equally large increase in the propane flow, and this can not be delivered even at 100% valve opening. Therefore a temperature offset will result, and the next exchanger also has to increase its duty. When the equipment is not capable of delivering enough propane, the result will be a too high temperature on the natural gas from E-103. The total cooling duty is determined by the number of moles of propane that is vaporized by natural gas and MR. When the flow out from V-100 is at its maximum, there is no possibility for further cooling. In addition, the compressor capacity will become a problem, because if the flow becomes too big, the compressors can not get the pressure to the desired level. Usually, the available compressor power is limiting how much LNG a plant can deliver.
Control Scheme 2
For most controllers/variables, the tendency was the same as with cascade control set point tracking was fine for the case with a step in feed rate, but for the case with disturbance in feed temperature, the process did not manage to keep the natural gas to the MCHE at the desired temperature. One difference was very clear there were oscillations on the temperature controllers, as shown on figures 5.14a-c. This indicates that the cascade controllers had a certain oscillation-damping effect, compare the figures with 5.8a-d. One reason for the oscillatory behaviour can be the fact that the TIC controller gains were too large. The inner controllers would take the edge off the oscillation because of the integral
42
action in these controllers. Without these inner loops, the TIC controller gains would have to be reduced in order to avoid oscillations.
Figure 6.1: Typical positioning of level control valve and buffer tank in cooling cycle As mentioned in 4.3, a detailed degree-of-freedom analysis was not carried out because of short time. Such an analysis would have shown that level control on the liquid tank would not be necessary if the rest of the levels were controlled. The total molar hold-up in the cycle must remain constant, so if the levels in the vaporizers and the condenser were kept constant, the level in V-100 would also remain constant. The simulations showed that an increase in the necessary cooling duty would become problematic because of saturation of manipulated variables. The simple control structure used here was not capable of handling the 10C increase in feed temperature the natural gas temperature did not return to set point before the feed temperature returned to its nominal 43
value. In order to obtain the desired temperatures all the time (if at all possible, given the compressor capacity), a more detailed control structure would be needed. Possible additions or changes could be: - Varying the amount of natural gas feed in order to not exceed the capacity of the propane loop. For instance, the valves before each heat exchanger could be set to control propane pressure or liquid hold-up in exchangers rather than natural gas temperature, and the natural gas flow could be adjusted in order to maintain the correct temperature from the last exchanger. Of course, there is a problem with this setup as well the fact that there are three exchangers between the flow valve and the stream that should be controlled, could lead to a large dead time. However, since the stream is gas, the flow velocity is rather fast and the dead time would be shorter than for a liquid stream. - But: if the propane pressure at each level is kept constant, one must still take into account the propane flow through each exchanger. The compressor power is limited, and both decreased inlet pressure and increased throughput will increase the required power. If one is to maintain the nominal pressure on the high-pressure side, the total propane flow is limited by compressor capacity. If a compressor curve is used, there will typically also be a certain volumetric flow rate over which the compressors efficiency drops significantly this is the case for real compressors. During all simulations, liquid was observed in the outlet streams from vaporizers from time to another. Since the propane outlet nozzles on the exchangers are placed on top (their elevation is set to 100%, meaning the top), this should not occur as long as a vapour phase is present. However, this seems to not be taken into account using the basic model the result was that liquid was present. To avoid this, it would be necessary to control one more variable for each heat exchanger for instance, the degree of superheating of the vaporized propane. In a real process, the liquid level in the vaporizers could also be controlled, because with a level below 100 %, only vapour would leave the exchanger. However, as HYSYSs basic model does not seem to take nozzle position into account, it would be of little use the vapour stream would still have to be superheated. A possible control layout that could both take care of outlet temperature on the tube side and avoid two-phase flow to compressors, could for instance be using the natural gas flow for temperature control, and controlling vapour fraction of the top stream by manipulating the propane flow to the exchanger. A more advanced approach could include feed forward control on levels in the propane vaporizers (and V-100 if the controller was not omitted). The required cooling duties for MR and natural gas determine how much propane is vaporizing. Therefore, measuring the temperature of the natural gas feed could be used to determine the amount of propane that should be fed to each exchanger for it in order to maintain the necessary liquid level. This would require use of the detailed heat exchanger model in HYSYS, because the simple model does not take liquid level into account when calculating heat exchanger duty.
44
7. Conclusions
7.1 About model building in HYSYS
- Building models in Aspen HYSYS, both steady-state and dynamic, is for most cases a rather intuitive process, and the program is flexible when it comes to complexity. The detail level in a model can range from very simple to very detailed. - A main flaw in the software is that heat exchanger models do not accept multiple shell exchangers, meaning that really large exchangers can not be modelled using the detailed rating model. They must instead be modelled by specifying volumes and UA, as well as kvalues (pressure drop-flow relation) the simplest possible approach. - Improvements that could be made, include the possibility of simulating heat exchangers with more than one outlet on the shell side (t. e. kettle boilers with both liquid and vapour outlets), and a heat exchanger model that takes into account the arrangement of tubes inside the shell (so that heat transfer in a vaporizer depends on the number of submerged tubes). All in all, the biggest problem in the project was to model the heat exchangers as realistic as wanted.
7.3 About control structures used and control guidelines provided in the HYSYS documentation
For pressure controllers, the recommended settings seemed to function well, the same for flow controllers when used as slaves in cascades. The temperature controller settings recommended seemed a bit too aggressive. The same was observed for the flow controller on the feed stream. However, for another process the suggested tuning parameters may work well a detailed study of the process would be required to find the best controller settings. The use of cascade control on the propane vaporizers seemed to have a general stabilizing effect, but did not contribute to significantly better set point tracking.
45
______________________________________
46
Literature
[1] Jensen, J. B.; Skogestad, S.: Optimal operation of a simple LNG process, Adchem 2006 [2] Newton, C. L.; Kinard, G. E.; Liu, Y. N.: C3-MR Processes for baseload liquefied natural gas. Liquefied Natural Gas VIII Volume 1, Sessions I & II, June 15-19 1986, Los Angeles, California [3] W. Luyben: Plantwide Dynamic Simulators in Chemical Processing and Control, Marcel Dekker Inc., 2002 [4] Skogestad, S., Postlethwaite, I.: Multivariable feedback control Analysis and design, 2. ed., John Wiley & sons, Inc, 2005 [5] HYSYS 2004.2 Operations Guide. AspenTech, 2005 (www.aspentech.com) [6] HYSYS 2004.2 Dynamic modelling guide. AspenTech, 2005 (www.aspentech.com) [7] Chatterjee, N.; Kinard, G. E.; Geist, J. M.: Maximizing production in propane precooledmixed refrigerant LNG Plants. Seventh international conference on Liquefied Natural Gas, May 15-19 1983, Jakarta, Indonesia [8] Jensen, J. B., Skogestad, S.: Optimal operation of simple cooling cycles [9] Seborg, Edgar, Mellichamp: Process Dynamics and Control, 2. ed., John Wiley & sons, Inc. 2004 [10] Skogestad, S.: Simple analytic rules for model reduction and PID controller tuning, Journal of Process Control (13) 2003
Attached files
On the CD delivered with the original report, the following files are included: HYSYS files (.hsc): C3-MR Process (the process model built at Norsk Hydro) Dyn init control scheme 1 (initial file for the two first simulations) Dyn init control scheme 2 (initial file for the two last simulations) TEST control scheme 2 RESULTS 1 control scheme 1 (disturbance in feed flow) RESULTS 2 control scheme 1 (disturbance in feed temperature) RESULTS 1 control scheme 2 (disturbance in feed flow) RESULTS 2 control scheme 2 (disturbance in feed temperature)
47
48
Table A continued
All stream names (numbers) refer to the HYSYS flow sheets. A flow sheet with stream numbers included is shown in figure B.3..
49
50
51
Figure B.3 Flow sheet with all stream numbers, and with controllers not shown. (For better picture quality one should see the HYSYS files)
52