© 2011 Compressor C

Controls Corporation © 2011 Compressor C

Controls Corporation

Types of Compressor
Compressor Control
 100 MPa
(14,500 psia)
Discharge Pressure
Controls Corporation

10 MPa
(1,450 psia)
Positive Displacement Data from CAGI
Compressors

1 MPa
D
© 2011 Compressor C

(145 psia)
Dynamic Compressors

.1 MPa
(14,5 psia)
1 m3/h 10 m3/h 100 m3/h 1000 m3/h 10,000 m3/h 100,000 m3/h
(0.6 CFM) (6 CFM) (60 CFM) (600 CFM) (6,000 CFM) (60,000 CFM)

Flow (Approx Conversion)

Compressor Performance

Rc
Dynamic -
Variable Flow,
Constant
Pressure
Controls Corporation

Positive Displacement
- Variable Pressure,
C
Constant
t t Fl
Flow
© 2011 Compressor C

Q
 Constraint Control - Operating Envelope

Typical Performance Map

Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C

Maximizing The Compressor Operating

Envelope – Operating Limits
Prressure

Speed
p Limit ((Maximum))

Surge limit ? ?
Controls Corporation

Stonewall or
choke limit
© 2011 Compressor C

Speed Limit
(Minimum)

Flow
 Compressor Control
• Compressors are the control element for the
process, so good control is needed for good
product quality
• Compression
C i consumes h huge amountst off
energy so good control normally translates to
energy and cost saving
Controls Corporation

• Control objectives* include:

– Safety of personnel, process and machinery
– Precise control of the primary control variable for
process control (normally
p ( yp
pressure))
© 2011 Compressor C

– Operation within limits

– Operation in automatic mode with no, or minimal,
operator intervention
*All the above control objective points have both a price
tag, and a return on investment

Compression Systems
Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C
 Typical Motor Driven
Turbocompressor

Section 1 Section 2
out
PIC UIC Serial UIC
1A 1A network 1B
Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C

Cost Points – Product Quality by

Control of PPV

Section 1 Section 2
out
Serial
Controls Corporation

PIC UIC UIC

1A 1A 1A
network
© 2011 Compressor C

Control of Primary Process Variable via Performance, and helped by Recycle when required
 Cost Points – Tight Antisurge Control
with Minimized Recycle

Section 1 Section 2
out
Serial
Controls Corporation

PIC UIC UIC

1A 1A 1A
network
© 2011 Compressor C

Antisurge Control via Recycle , and helped by

Performance when required

Cost Points

Flare Control aided by Recycle

Section 1 Section 2
out
Serial
Controls Corporation

PIC UIC UIC

1A 1A 1A
network
© 2011 Compressor C
 Cost Points

Section 1 Section 2
out
Serial
Controls Corporation

PIC UIC UIC

1A 1A 1A
network
© 2011 Compressor C

System Limits via recycle and/or speed

Examples
Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C
 Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C Controllability Examples

Increase Performance Example

Pd
Controls Corporation

2
Shaft qr
power
© 2011 Compressor C

A leading oil company realized a 2% production increase after

CCC antisurge control allowed operation closer to the
Surge Limit Line
 Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C Energy Saving Example

The saving from this wet gas compressor installation:

First Section @ $ 174,008 per year + Second Section @ $ 167,049 per
year

Total = $ 341,057 per year

Energy Saving Example – Air

Compressor Networks
Original Controls
Advanced Control

Compressor Flow
Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C

User Flow
 Saudi Example

With the old DCS

antisurge system, the LP
compressor
p was
running with 20 to 30%
recycle most of the time,
now with CCC system
Controls Corporation

installed and
commissioned the valve
fully closed
© 2011 Compressor C

LP: Normal Condition Winter: 1376 BHP, Normal Condition Summer: 1438 BHP.
Assuming recycling is 20% in summer and 30% in winter, then Power Loss in Recycling (using 0.746 factor) = 261.
Considering the following formula: 261 * 365 * 24 * 0.95 * 0.23 / 3.75 = USD 133,218 / Year is the Energy Loss Value.

D
Developing
l i Algorithms
Al i h for
f
Compressor Control - a Urea Plant
Case Study
Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C
 Developing Control Solutions?
Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C

Developing Applications Functions

• Phase 1 – see the need

• Phase 2 – mathematical study
• Phase 3 – computer simulation
• Ph
Phase 4 – field
fi ld testing
t ti
Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C
 Different Inlet Conditions Means Different
Performance Maps

Press
Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C

Flow

Different Inlet Conditions Means Different

Performance Maps

Press
Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C

Flow
 Algorithm Issues
The problem with commonly used (OEM provided)
coordinate systems of the compressor map is that these coordinates are
NOT invariant to suction conditions as shown
Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C

Algorithm Issues
The surge limit thus becomes a surface rather
than a line
Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C

• For control purposes we want the SLL to be presented by a single curve for
a fixed geometry compressor

3
 Advanced Control - Developing
Invariant Coordinates
• The following variables are used to design and to characterize compressors
• Through dimensional analysis (or similitude) we can derive two sets of invariant coordinates

Fundamental variables Invariant coordinates

characterizing compressor
operation Set 1 Set 2
hr Rc
Dimensional analysis qr qr
Hp = f0(Q, ω, μ, ρ, a, d, α)
Controls Corporation

or Similitude Ne Ne
α α
J = f1(Q, ω, μ, ρ, a, d, α) jr jr
Re Re
where:
• Hp = Polytropic
P l t i head
h d
© 2011 Compressor C

where:
• J = Power • hr = Reduced head
• Q = Volumetric flow rate • qr = Reduced flow
• ω = Rotational speed • Ne = Equivalent speed
• μ = Viscosity • α = Guide vane angle
• ρ = Density • jr = Reduced power
• a = Local acoustic velocity • Re = Reynolds number
• d = Characteristic length • Rc = Pressure Ratio
• α = Inlet guide vane angle

Algorithm Issues
NOT invariant coordinates Invariant Coordinates
(hr, qr2)
(Hp, Qs)
Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C

where:
• Hp = Polytropic head
• Qs = Volumetric suction flow
• hr = Reduced head
• qr2 = Reduced flow squared
 Algorithm Issues
NOT invariant coordinates Invariant coordinates
(Rc, Qs) (Rc, qr2)
Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C

where:
• Rc = Pressure ratio
• Qs = Volumetric suction flow
• qr2 = Reduced flow squared

Urea Plant CO2 Compressors

Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C
© 2011 Compressor C
Controls Corporation © 2011 Compressor C
Controls Corporation

CO2 Installation Formats

CO2 Compressors
 CO2 Compressor Configuration

Speed Section 3 Section 4

Increasing
Gear
Section 1 Section 2
Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C

Adding Start-Up Vent Lines

Speed Section 3 Section 4

Increasing
Gear
Section 1 Section 2
Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C
 One Recycle Valve Case

Speed Section 3 Section 4

Increasing
Gear
Section 1 Section 2
Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C

Two Recycle Valve Case

Speed Section 3 Section 4

Increasing
Gear
Section 1 Section 2
Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C
 CCC Experience
• 1980s - retrofit of two valve installations in USA/Canada/Caribbean
– No great difficulty found
• 1990s - new single valve installations in India
– Flow element only on the third section
– train in manual speed
p control
– questionable valve sizing
– minimum budget allocated
– use of a single antisurge controller monitoring the third section
Controls Corporation

– the machine went into uncontrollable surge during surge testing

– opening the valve had no effect
– closing the valve seemed to take the machine out of surge
© 2011 Compressor C

One Recycle Valve Case

Speed Section 3 Section 4

Increasing
Gear
Section 1 Section 2
Controls Corporation

PT PT FT
1 2 1

UIC
1
© 2011 Compressor C
 Uncontrollable Surge - One Antisurge
Controller Monitoring 3rd Section
Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C

Why?
• CCC developed a High Fidelity Dynamic Simulation of
the installation using actual installation data and
Compressor Maker’s Curves
– stage mismatch was found - where the 1st section
could be in surge while the 4th in stonewall
– the valve on its own is not sufficient to prevent surge
during large upsets - using a larger valve did nothing
Controls Corporation

to improve the situation

© 2011 Compressor C
 What is the Solution?
• We found that using two valves, 4/3 and 2/1 would
eliminates the problem
• For existing installations the only method available to
have effective antisurge control was to incorporate
performance control with variable speed, and employ
heavy decoupling
• Note: if the machine is at full speed when a large
Controls Corporation

disturbance hits, then decoupling will not help

© 2011 Compressor C

Decoupling
Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C
 Interaction of Control Loops
Control

Measurement
Recycle Valve
Control

Antisurge
M
Measurement
t
Speed

Process Variable
Controls Corporation

SG
Compression
System

ST Driver Compressor
PIC
1
© 2011 Compressor C

UIC
2

Non-Integrated Performance and

Antisurge Loops

We are operating at point A

Rc Large disturbance occurs
The operating point rides the curve
to point B
The Performance controller is taking
B the operating point down in valve position
Controls Corporation

C A and thus down in flow - the tangent of

PIC-SP that trajectory is thus (shown)
That means that the operating point
must use a large control bias
t avoid
to id surge and
d then
th stabilize:
t bili
© 2011 Compressor C

Q
 Integration of Control Loops

SG

ST Driver Compressor
PIC
Controls Corporation

Peer-to-Peer
Serial Communication
UIC
2
© 2011 Compressor C

Integration/Decoupling of Antisurge
and Capacity Control
We are operating at point A
Large disturbance occurs
The operating point rides the curve
Rc to point B
This time we ‘decouple’ the action
of the performance controller
The antisurge controller tells the
B
Controls Corporation

performance controller to speed up

C A the compressor (or open the
PIC-SP Guide vanes or suction throttle valve)
The action of the performance
controller is increasing speed
((or opening
p g guide
g vanes or inlet valve))
© 2011 Compressor C

and increasing flow, and the resulting

Tangent is as follows (shown)
This results in a stabilization
action as shown
ΔPo
Ps The result is an action requiring
only a small margin of safety
 Next Problem Uncovered
Mechanical Governor
with Ratio from Throttle Valve to Extraction Valve

HP Section LP Section Compressor

V2
V1
Controls Corporation

Suction Process
© 2011 Compressor C

Bypass valve
Extraction
Steam Header

Adding Electronic Governor

Steam turbine

HP Section LP Section Compressor

SE
3x

V2
V1
SIC XIC FT PsT PdT
1 2 1 1 2
Controls Corporation

RSP
FT Suction UIC
Process
2
1
PT
2 PdT
3
© 2011 Compressor C

Extraction OUT
Steam Header PIC
1

Serial
network

Solving the Steam Bypass Problem

 Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C Full Control Solution

Comment from Chinese Customer

After Retrofit
From an article was published in a Chinese trade magazine,
"Automation In The Petrochemical Industry", Vol.5, 1998. The
author is the Director of Instrumentation of Chishui Natural Gas
Chemical Corp. p (CCC
( retrofitted the CO2 compressor
p trains in
June 96).
• When the system load is reduced and the compressor must
recycle, the CCC system can reduce the recycle flow to 3000
Controls Corporation

Standard Cubic Meters per Hour (SCMH) compared with manual

open loop control before the retrofit.
• There were many times the inlet flow of CO2 dropped below
14,000 SCMH due to a non-turbomachinery related process
reason, such as a problem at the CO2 removal section of
ammonia unit, where the CCC system respond quickly and thus
© 2011 Compressor C

avoided surge, and kept the compressor train on line. Before the
retrofit, the pneumatic system would definitely trip the machine
in such event, and in the worst case the machine would be
damaged due to surge.
 Comment from Chinese Customer After
Retrofit
With CCC TTC system, the direct energy saving was
calculated. It was 6.4 Million RMB (US$790,000) saving
per year at the same number of tons of urea produced
per year before the retrofit. All investment for the retrofit
including cost of equipment, freight cost, customs duty,
taxes, installation etc.,) was recovered less than 10
months.
Controls Corporation
© 2011 Compressor C

Comment from Chinese Customer

After Retrofit
Data from the Equipment Superintendent of Daqing Petrochemical
Company:
• They have been operating at full load for 18 months since the retrofit
• The compressor train never trips in the event of the process sudden
changes that would have tripped the unit before
• The start up of the turbine is simple and easy now, compared with
the old system
• The improved speed/extraction control by the CCC TTC system has
Controls Corporation

reduced overall steam consumption due to the elimination of

supplemental steam expansion through the steam let-down valve
(constant let-down was necessary with the old PGPL governing
system as the extraction control was poor). On average, the steam
consumption is 5 metric tons per hour less than before. The result
of saving was 2 million RMB (US$246,000) per year (the plant buys
© 2011 Compressor C

the steam from an outside CHP plant at 50 RMB per ton)

2010 Compressor
© 2011 Cont
Compressor trols
Controls
C Corporation © 2011 Compressor C
Controls Corporation
Corporation

Unique PC
Dedicated PC
Future Direction

Turbomachinery Controls Emulation

© 2011 Compressor C
Controls Corporation © 2011 Compressor C
Controls Corporation

Q&A
Compressor Performance Monitoring