Computers and Chemical Engineering 33 (2009) 1187–1201

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Chemical Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compchemeng

Dynamic simulation for internally heat-integrated distillation columns (HIDiC)

for propylene–propane system
Tsung-Jen Ho a,1 , Chi-Tsung Huang b,∗ , Jhih-Ming Lin b , Liang-Sun Lee a,∗
a
Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, National Central University, Chung-li 32001, Taiwan
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, Tunghai University, Taichung 40704, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper reports a dynamic simulation study of the internally heat-integrated distillation column
Received 15 November 2007 (HIDiC) using equilibrium-based models. First, three different HIDiC structures, i.e. an ideal HIDiC, a HIDiC
Received in revised form 14 January 2009 with a pre-heater, and a HIDiC with a reboiler, are analyzed by control degrees of freedom (DOF). The
Accepted 21 January 2009
reboiler is considered to be a necessary part of the HIDiC from DOF analysis, thermodynamic analysis, and
Available online 31 January 2009
engineering judgment. Then, a heuristic HIDiC control configuration including a bottoms reboiler control
is proposed. A modular structured simulator for dynamic distillation columns using MESH equations is
Keywords:
developed. The simulator also considers: (1) variable column pressure on each tray of the rectifying sec-
Distillation
Heat integration
tion, (2) dynamic vapor holdup, and (3) dynamic energy balance. In addition, the SRK equation of state is
Variable column pressure employed for estimating thermodynamic properties. A typical medium-pressure HIDiC for separation of
Dynamic simulation with control propylene and propane explored by Olujic et al. [Olujic, Z., Sun, L., de Rijke, A., & Jansens, P. J. (2006). Con-
ceptual design of an internally heat-integrated propylene–propane splitter. Energy, 31, 3083] is adopted
as numerical examples for dynamic simulation studies.
© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Distillation is one of the most popular methods of separation
in chemical and petrochemical industries. However, this process is
also energy intensive in the process industries. In order to reduce
energy consumption of distillation columns, many new techniques
have been proposed since 1950s. One of the efficient ways of saving
energy is the internally heat-integrated distillation column (HIDiC).
The HIDiC can be considered as one kind of heat pump-assisted
distillation columns. Many authors have done several theoreti-
cal and experimental research studies since 1985. Nakaiwa et al.
(2003), recently, gave a detailed review about the relevant research
including thermodynamic analysis, practical process design and
operation, and also found that discussions on dynamic model-
ing seem to be relatively scarce. These authors pointed out that
experimental-based development of process configurations is very
expensive, and the development of HIDiC configurations based on
process models is thus highly desired. Huang, Nakaiwa, Akiya, Aso,
and Takamasu (1996) proposed the first HIDiC dynamic model-
ing using a simplified stage model assuming ideal vapor–liquid
equilibrium (VLE) relationship and a control configuration for a
∗ Corresponding authors. Fax: +886 4 2359 0009.
E-mail address: huangct@thu.edu.tw (C.-T. Huang).
1
Present address: Pilot Process and Applications of Chemical Engineering and
Technology Division, Industrial Technology Research Institute, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
HIDiC with a pre-heater. They have also done extensive simula-
tion studies, which include process dynamics, startup, and control
strategies (Nakaiwa et al., 2003). In addition, Huang et al. (1996)
proposed a HIDiC control scheme, in which the bottoms com-
position is controlled by the feed pre-heater. Furthermore, this
control scheme has been investigated by Huang and his colleagues
using different control algorithms including relative gain array
analysis, frequency domain analysis, closed-loop PI control, inter-
nal model control, nonlinear process model-based control, etc.
A more detailed review about these control studies can also be
found in the work of Nakaiwa et al. (2003). After that, Nakaiwa
et al. (2000) proposed a new intensified HIDiC configuration using
the same control structure. Naito et al. (2000) reported an exper-
imental study for the HIDiC, in which a trim condenser and a
trim reboiler are necessary for startup operation. Huang, Matsuda,
Takamatsu, and Nakaiwa (2006), recently, proposed a more rigorous
HIDiC model, which includes the consideration of vapor holdups
and pressure dynamics. They stated that the dynamics of pres-
sure distribution should be taken into account in the HIDiC control
system design. Controllability analysis for the HIDIC under such
control configuration including the influences of pressure distri-
bution, multivariable analysis, closed-loop control, etc. has also
been explored by Huang, Matsuda, Takamatsu, et al. (2006) and
Huang, Matsuda, Iwakabe, Takamatsu, and Nakaiwa (2006). More-
over, Huang, Wang, Iwakabe, Shan, and Zhu (2007) proposed a
temperature control scheme for the HIDiC with a pre-heater. The
main purpose of their study is using tray temperatures to infer

0098-1354/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2009.01.004
1188 T.-J. Ho et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 33 (2009) 1187–1201
the top and bottoms compositions instead of the on-line ana-
lyzer.
On the other hand, a conventional approach based on funda-
mental engineering principles for classic distillations and other
unit operations using explicit modular sequential method has also
been developed by Franks (1972), Grassi (1992), and others. Such
approach usually follows the process topology, solving each phys-
ical phenomenon in a structured sequence of steps. Since process
systems are normally represented as sets of interconnected unit
operations with controllers, many practicing engineers have used
it for a long time. The main advantage of such approach is that it
is more flexible to link with other unit operations or controllers. In
addition, Choe and Luyben (1987) pointed out that vapor holdup
and dynamic column pressure should be incorporated into the dis-
tillation models. Otherwise, it will lead to a poor prediction of
dynamic responses for higher pressure (say greater than 10 bars)
columns.
The study considers that the previous HIDiC model proposed by
Huang et al. (1996) or Huang, Matsuda, Takamatsu, et al. (2006)
seems possible to be modified. In order to explore the dynam-
ics and control for HIDiC systems, a dynamic simulator based on
the modular structure of Franks (1972) using FORTRAN language
has been developed in this study. Based on the equilibrium-based
models of Choe and Luyben (1987), the Soave–Redlich–Kwong
(SRK) equation of state (Soave, 1972) is employed. A HIDiC for
separation of propylene–propane, which was explored by Olujic,
Sun, de Rijke, and Jansens (2006), is adopted as numerical exam-
ples. In addition, a dynamic column pressure on each tray of the
rectifying section using the first-order transfer function is rec-
ommended. Furthermore, a heuristic control configuration from
practical instrumentation viewpoints for the HIDiC shown in Fig. 1
is proposed. Simulation based on the dynamic model without using
any advanced control algorithm (e.g. model-based control) in Fig. 1
is implemented in this study.
Fig. 1. The HIDiC control configuration proposed in this study.
2. Analysis of HIDiC configurations with control
The selection of an appropriate control configuration (or struc-
ture) is the most important decision when designing distillation
control systems. The control configuration implies which controlled
variables should be connected to which manipulated variables.
Once a plant has been specified, the control configuration design
normally requires knowledge of the control degrees of freedom
(DOF). For many practical problems, the control DOF is equal to the
number of independent material and energy streams that can be
manipulated in control loops. Luyben (1996) proposed an equation
to predict the control DOF for a broad class of chemical processes
as
DOF = Nvalves + Nsections + Ngas reactor − Nnonreactive levels (1)
For a conventional distillation column, there are six control
degrees of freedom (Luyben, Tyreus, & Luyben, 1999). Thus, six
control valves can be manipulated: feed flow, distillated flow rate,
bottoms flow rate, reflux flow rate, cooling flow rate, and heat-
ing medium flow rate. The controlled variables are two product
compositions (top and bottoms), throughput, column pressure, and
liquid levels in the reflux drum and column base. Normally, one of
these valves is used to set throughput. Two of the control degrees
of freedom must be consumed to control the two liquid levels. A
fourth degree of freedom is for column pressure control. Finally,
two remaining degrees of freedom are employed to control two
product compositions of the column.
Fig. 2 shows the DOF analysis for three HIDiC structures using
Luyben’s equation. They are: (a) ideal HIDiC, (b) HIDiC with a pre-
heater, and (c) HIDiC with a reboiler. The compressor, which is
equivalent to the control valve during the counting of DOF in Fig. 2,
is considered to be a manipulated variable. Except for the ideal
HIDiC, others have the same DOF as the classic distillation column,
i.e. DOF = 6. The proposed control configuration in Fig. 1, which is
equivalent to Fig. 2(c), has four control valves and one variable speed
controller (SC) to adjust the compressor. A feed valve, not shown in
Fig. 1, is usually used to set throughput. In addition, five controlled
variables for this configuration are: stripping base level, rectifying
base level, rectifying pressure, top product composition (yD ), and
bottoms product composition (xB ). As shown in Fig. 1, two valves
are utilized to control two base levels. It should be noted that the
base level of the stripping (or rectifying) should be controlled; oth-
erwise, the base may surge or empty. The bottoms composition (xB )
is controlled by the reboiler heat duty. At this point in the analy-
sis, a true control problem is encountered. Two control degrees of
freedom remain, and either the top product valve or the compres-
sor speed could be manipulated to control the rectifying pressure.
However, either of these two variables could also be manipulated to
control the top product composition (yD ). Thus, a conceptual con-
trol configuration employing a valve-position controller (VPC) for
the rectifying section of the HIDiC is proposed in Fig. 1. The tech-
nique of VPC was original developed by the industry before the
second energy crisis (Shinskey, 1978; Shinskey, 1996). For energy
saving, the compressor should operate at minimum speed needed
to satisfy the total load, which is variable. As shown in Fig. 1, the
top composition (yD ) is controlled by the top pressure, which is
controlled by adjusting the top product valve. The VPC minimizes
the compressor speed by keeping the valve mostly open for energy
saving, e.g. 90% open. In fact, the VPC scheme is a different type of
cascade control system. The primary control is the position of the
valve. The secondary control is the column pressure of the rectifying
section. It should be noted that the pressure of the rectifying sec-
tion would float up and down under such control scheme in Fig. 1. In
addition, the speed controller is recommended for the compressor
control in Fig. 1; other compressor control systems (Muhrer, Collura,
& Luyben, 1990) are also feasible. However, Shinskey (1996) con-
 T.-J. Ho et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 33 (2009) 1187–1201 1189

Fig. 2. Control degrees of freedom analysis for various HIDiC structures.

siders that the speed manipulation for compressor control is more Similarly, the total energy balance for System 2 is
effective and efficient for all.
Subsequently, there is a throttling valve between the bottom of H2 = WS2 + QReb (3)
the rectifying section (higher pressure) and the top of the strip- It should be noted that both QCond and QReb in the above equa-
ping section (lower pressure). The throttling valve here is used for tions are all positive quantities. Under the same conditions, i.e.
reducing pressure. In practice, it is more convenient to employ a H1 = H2 , Eqs. (2) and (3) are combined to form as
pressure regulator (PCV) as shown in Fig. 1. The pressure regulator
is a self-contained control loop requiring no external energy, which WS1 = (WS2 + QReb ) + QCond (4)
incorporates a sensor, a controller, and a valve into one device. The
It is obvious that the compressor shaft work of System 1 (WS1 )
PCV in Fig. 1 can reduce and regulate the downstream pressure of
is higher than the total energy required of System 2, which is
the pipeline. More details about the pressure regulator including
hardware and applications can be found in Liptak (1995). Further-
more, the top product, which is considered to be a saturated vapor,
can be used to preheat the feed or even an auxiliary reboiler, or it
can be used in other process heat integrations for energy saving
(Smith, 2005).
On the other hand, Fukushima, Kano, and Hasebe (2006)
recently have investigated several HIDiC structures including an
ideal HIDiC, a HIDiC with condenser and reboiler, a HIDiC with
preheating the feed by distillated vapor, and a HIDiC with con-
denser and preheating the feed by distillated vapor. Using the
Aspen simulator, they compare the energy efficiency, dynamics, and
controllability of these HIDiCs. Based on energy efficiency and con-
trollability, Fukushima et al. (2006) have recommended adopting
the structure in which the feed is preheated by distillated vapor
product, a condenser is used, and a reboiler is not used. Their HIDiC
structure is significantly different from the proposed HIDiC struc-
ture, in which a condenser is not recommended. Fig. 3(a) shows
the schematic HIDiC system of Fukushima et al. (2006); it is also
called System 1 in this study. Under the same separation condi-
tions (i.e. the feed, the distillate product, and the bottoms product
are the same), the top vapor product of the proposed HIDiC can
be used to heat an auxiliary reboiler and the feed. The proposed
HIDiC system, which is called System 2, is shown in Fig. 3(b). Now
let HFeed = F × hFeed , HTop = D × hTop , and HBot = B × hBot ;
where all h’s in Fig. 3 are specific enthalpies. From the first law
of thermodynamics, one has H = Q + Ws for open systems if the
kinetic energy and potential energy are negligible, where Ws is the
shaft work (Kyle, 1999, p. 29). Furthermore, the total energy balance
of System 1 from the first law perspective is
Fig. 3. Schematic diagrams of different HIDiC structures. (a) System 1 and (b) System
H1 = HTop + HBot − HFeed = WS1 − QCond (2)
2.
1190 T.-J. Ho et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 33 (2009) 1187–1201
Fig. 4. An equilibrium stage.
WS2 + QReb . It can also be interpreted as that a HIDiC with con-
denser needs bigger compressor and consumes more energy than
the proposed HIDiC without any condenser.
In addition, it is found in Fig. 2 that the ideal HIDiC has DOF = 5,
and others have DOF = 6. The ideal HIDiC configuration might have
difficulties in practical control, since it loses one DOF. Also, from
the first law of thermodynamics (i.e., H = Q + Ws ), the total energy
required (i.e., Q + Ws ) for Fig. 2(b) is the same as that of Fig. 2(c),
if they are operated under the same separation conditions. Huang,
Matsuda, Iwakabe, et al. (2006) have pointed out that a HIDiC with
a reboiler requires more steam flow rate (Q) than a HIDiC with a
pre-heater. It can also be interpreted as that a HIDiC with a reboiler
needs less compressor shaft work (Ws ) than one with a pre-heater.
Furthermore, to control of the bottoms composition (xB ) by adjust-
ing the feed pre-heater, which was recommended by Nakaiwa et
al. (2003), it might normally produce a very large undesired time-
delay owing to the tray hydraulic lag (Luyben & Luyben, 1997, p.
460; Luyben et al., 1999, p. 196). Accordingly, the HIDiC control
configuration shown in Fig. 1, which adjusts the reboiler duty to
maintain the bottoms composition, is adopted for simulation stud-
ies in this paper.
3. Modeling of the HIDiC with variable column pressure
The basic module for a HIDiC is a vapor–liquid equilibrium (VLE)
stage, as shown in Fig. 4. The assumptions for formulating such
model are: (1) each liquid (or vapor) phase is perfect mixing; (2)
heat of mixing is negligible; (3) temperature (or pressure) on each
stage is uniform; (4) the liquid and vapor streams leaving each stage
are in phase equilibrium; (5) the liquid flow rate on each stage is cal-
culated by Francis weir formula; (6) the heat loss between the HIDiC
column and the surrounding is negligible. Under the above assump-
tions, the fundamental equations for an equilibrium stage (stage j)
are dynamic MESH (mass balances, equilibriums, summations, and
heat balance) equations. Moreover, Choe and Luyben (1987) have
reported that neglecting vapor holdup gives a process time con-
stant about 50% less than the actual value on an ethylene-ethane
splitter operating at 30 atm. Thus, dynamic material balances of a
VLE stage as shown in Fig. 4, which include liquid holdup (MjL ) and
vapor holdup (MjV ), are considered in this study. The detailed equa-
tions for dynamic material and energy balances can be found in
Choe and Luyben (1987). In addition, the VLE calculation on each
stage is carried out by solving the SRK equation of state (Soave,
1972). A fast convergence technique recommended by King (1980)
is employed in this algorithm. The King’s convergence technique
(King, 1980), which is an algebraic iteration method without using
any derivative as in Newton’s method, is considered to be reliable
for VLE calculations using the SRK equation of state. Then, using the
modular structure of Franks (1972), a VLE stage modular (or called
subroutine) as shown in Fig. 4 is developed.
In addition, based on the basic control configuration shown in
Fig. 1, one can see that the output pressure of the compressor (Pout )
should “synchronize” with the base pressure of the rectifying sec-
tion, which is also influenced by the top valve. Thus, the effects of
variable pressure should be incorporated in the dynamics of the
rectifying section, since the HIDiC control scheme can cause large
changes in operating pressures. In order to simulate such phenom-
ena, a modular simulation diagram for the HIDiC system, as shown
in Fig. 5, is developed in this study. The modeling for the equilib-
rium stages of the rectifying or the stripping section is described in
the previous paragraph. Heat transfer between the corresponding
stages (Qj ) shown in Fig. 5 is calculated by
Qj = UA · Tj (5)
where A is the heat-transfer area; U is the overall heat-transfer coef-
ficient; Tj is temperature difference between the paired stages.
Also, UA in this study is assumed to be constant for all thermally
coupled stages.
Furthermore, the top portion of the HIDiC rectifying section is
considered as Fig. 6. The top pressure is manipulated by a control
valve using a pressure controller (PC). Assuming the temperature of
the top portion is the same as that of stage 1, one has the following
material balances:
dM1V
= V1 − VD (6)
dt
d(M1V yi,D )
= V1 yi,1 − VD yi,D for i = 1, 2, . . . , NC (7)
dt
where M1V is the vapor holdup of the top stage (stage 1); V1 is the
vapor flow rate from stage 1; VD is the vapor flow rate of the top
distillate, which is manipulated by the pressure controller (PC). It
should be noted that during the calculations of stage 1 the vapor
holdup is neglected, which is different from the previous equilib-
rium stage. Combing Eqs. (6) and (7), one has
dyi,D V1 (yi,1 − yi,D )
= for i = 1, 2, . . . , NC (8)
dt MV 1
Thus, both the top vapor composition (yi,D ) and M1V at each time
point can be calculated from Eqs. (6) and (8) using the 4th-order
Runge-Kutta method. Once M1V is obtained, the top pressure (P1 ) at
each time point can be calculated by
RT
P1 = zM1V (9)
VOL
where VOL is a constant vapor volume of the top portion. Moreover,
z and T are obtained during the equilibrium calculation of stage 1
using the SRK equation of state.
Since the top pressure is floating, the pressures on each stage of
the rectifying section may also vary. There are several ways to incor-
porate floating pressure in the classic distillation model. A more
complex and rigorous approach, which considers variable tray pres-
sure drop, is called “vapor hydraulic” model. This method, however,
requires more computer time for executing a software package.
Choe and Luyben (1987) gave a more detailed description about this
method. To avoid too complex computation for the variable column
pressure of a HIDiC, a simple technique using transfer functions is
proposed in this study.
 T.-J. Ho et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 33 (2009) 1187–1201
Fig. 5. Schematic representation of a HIDiC simulation diagram.
Normally, a constant pressure drop between two consecutive
stages (Pstg ), say Pstg = 0.006 bar, is considered for steady-state
design. Thus, if the top pressure of the rectifying section is P1 , the
base pressure of the rectifying section is P1 + Pstg × (N − 1), where
N is the number of rectifying stages. In this study, not only the
steady-state pressure drop per stage (Pstg ) is considered, but also
the pressure dynamics for each stage using the transfer function, as
shown in Fig. 5, is considered. Let X̂(s) represents the deviation vari-
able of the top pressure, and X̂(t) = P1 (t) − P1s . Where P1 (t) is the
real-time pressure of the top; P1s is the steady-state top pressure.
Similarly, let Ŷj (t) is the deviation variable of the jth-stage pressure,
and Ŷj (t) = Pj (t) − Pjs . Where Pj (t) is the real-time pressure of stage
j; Pjs is the steady-state pressure of stage j. The dynamic relation-
ship between the jth-stage pressure and the top pressure, i.e. Ŷj (s)
vs. X̂(s), can be represented by the first-order transfer function as
Ŷj (s) 1 1
= = (10)
X̂j (s) j s + 1 (j − 1) s + 1
where  is the time constant between two consecutive stages. It can
also say that the time constant between the top stage and stage j
is  j , and  j = (j − 1). Practically, the numerical value of  can nor-
mally be estimated from the column geometry. In this simulation
study,  = 0.1 min is chosen. Then, the dynamics of variable column
pressure on each stage of the rectifying section is incorporated with
1191
its steady-state pressure as
Pj (t) = Pjs + Ŷj (t) (11)
On the other hand, there is a pressure regulator (PCV) between
the bottom of the rectifying section and the top of the stripping
section, as shown in Figs. 1 and 5. The PCV can normally reduce
and regulate the downstream pressure of the pipeline, as men-
tioned before. As shown in Figs. 1 or 5, the downstream pressure
of the PCV is adjusted to be the same as the feed pressure, and the
feed flow rate normally is a large quantity. The pressure on the top
stage of the stripping section (i.e., b1 in Fig. 5), therefore, is con-
sidered to be the same as the feed pressure. Moreover, the heat
transfer between the corresponding stages in rectifying and strip-
ping sections, or the heat transfer from the reboiler can normally
change vapor flow rates in the column (Franks, 1972; Grassi, 1992;
Huang et al., 1996). In practice, if the reboiler duty (or other inter-
nal heat transfer) increases, the vapor flow rate will also increase,
and vice versa. Thus, the pressure drop (Pstg ) between consec-
utive stages will also change. Similarly, the vapor flow rate on
the top of the stripping section, as shown in Figs. 1 and 5, may
also change when the pressure elevation of the compressor varies
(Shinskey, 1996). Consequently, thePstg will also change. The rela-
tionship of the Pstg changes can normally be approximated as
(Pstg )2 = (Pstg )1 × (u2 /u1 )2 , where u1 and u2 are two different
1192 T.-J. Ho et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 33 (2009) 1187–1201

Table 1
Steady-state design specifications for the HIDiC.

Feed composition (propylene) 52 mol%

Top composition (propylene) 99.6 mol%
Bottom composition (propane) 96.5 mol%
Feed flow rate 112 t/h
Top flow rate 57.9 t/h
Bottoms flow rate 54.1 t/h
Feed pressure 11.2 bar
Feed temperature 300 K
Rectifying pressure 14.6 bar
Stripping pressure 11.2 bar
Rectifying stages 170
Stripping stages 61
Overall heat transfer coefficient (U) 1000 W/m2 K
Heat transfer area (A) 402 m2 /stage
Pressure drop (Pstg ) 6 mbar/stage
Rectifying section active area 12.82 m2
Stripping section active area 12.21 m2
Rectifying section weir height 0.05 m
Stripping section weir height 0.05 m
Rectifying section weir length 4.38 m
Stripping section weir length 4.21 m
Rectifying section column diameter 9.07 m
Stripping section column diameter 8.81 m
Reboiler duty 7.16 MW

tem, which was studied by Olujic et al. (2006), is adopted. Table 1

Fig. 6. The top portion of the HIDiC rectifying section.
vapor velocities (McCabe, Smith, & Harriott, 2005). However, Pstg
normally is quite small (say Pstg = 0.006 bar × 4, if u2 /u1 = 2) in
comparison with the column pressure (say 11.2 bar). Thus, except
for vacuum distillation, the changes of Pstg during the transients
are generally neglected in common distillation simulation (Franks,
1972; Grassi, 1992; Huang et al., 1996). Accordingly, the assumption
of constant stage pressure is considered for the stripping section,
and the uniform pressure drop between consecutive stages (i.e.,
Pstg = 0.006 bar) is chosen in this study.
Furthermore, the dynamics of the compressor is negligible,
which is attributed to very rapid response. The output temperature
of the compressor (Tout ), however, is calculated by
P (−1)/
out
Tout = Tin
Pin
where  is the polytropic coefficient. In this study, an ideal com-
pression is considered, and  = 1.4 is chosen. Moreover, in order to
“synchronize” with the base pressure of the rectifying section for
this simulation, the setpoint of the compressor controller should be
set by
Pout = P1 + Pstg × (N − 1)
In fact, Eq. (13) has not been used during simulation, since the
base pressure of the rectifying section, which is equivalent to Pout , is
already calculated by Eqs. (10) and (11). Fig. 5 shows the schematic
representation of basic simulation modules for a HIDiC column. The
dynamic simulation of the rectifying pressure in Fig. 5 is very similar
to the VPC pressure control system in Fig. 1, although it is not exact
resemblance.
4. Simulation for HIDiC control
Dual-composition control for a general distillation column,
which provides a tighter control over both top and bottoms product
purities, has been profitably implemented in process industries. In
this section, we are trying to use the proposed dynamic simulator
to explore the effectiveness of the dual-composition control in the
HIDiC using simple control strategies. A propylene–propane sys-
summarizes the main column specifications. Most of the parame-
ters in Table 1 follow those of Olujic et al. (2006); some of them,
such as equivalent column diameters, weir height, weir length, etc.,
are obtained from the engineering practice of tray sizing. Unlike
Olujic et al. (2006), in which an ideal HIDiC without reboiler is con-
sidered, this study recommends to add a reboiler at the bottom of
stripping section. Although an ideal HIDiC without reboiler may
reduce some equipment and energy costs, it will lose one DOF as
shown in Fig. 2(a), and the bottoms composition (xB ) may not be
easily maintained.
There are two proposed HIDiC simulation schemes, which are
all derived from Fig. 1, in this study. One uses an on-line analyzer to
cascade the top pressure as shown in Fig. 7, and named as CS1. The
other, shown in Fig. 8, uses a simple inferential scheme to control
the top product, and named as CS2. In both CS1 and CS2 cases, a
temperature controller is employed instead of an on-line analyzer
(12) controller for the bottoms composition. It should be noted that the
compressor controller (SC) is always “synchronized” to the top pres-
sure variation using the previous pressure simulation, and will not
be discussed in the later part of this work.
On the other hand, a practical proportional-integral-derivative
(PID) control algorithm dubbed as reset-feedback form shown in
Fig. 9 is chosen. The reset-feedback form of PID control algorithm
(13) provides a noise filter and avoids “derivative kick”. In addition, a
saturation function (between 0 and 1.0) with anti-reset-windup
compensation is considered. The saturation function, which corre-
sponds to an actuator, causes the output signal of the PID controller
in the normalized range of 0–1.0 (or 0–100%). Details of this PID con-
trol algorithm can be found elsewhere (Astrom & Hagglund, 1995;
Shinskey, 1996; Smith & Corripio, 2006). Since the reset-feedback
PID controller is employed in the dynamic simulation of this study,
the controlled variable (e.g. temperature) is converted into the nor-
malized signal of 0–1.0 based on the transmitter range before it
enters the controller. The signal, which varies in the normalized
range from 0 to 1.0, is an observable evidence of variation in the
physical variable through the transmitter range. Similarly, the con-
troller output signal, which varies in the range from 0 to 1.0, is
converted into physical variable (e.g. heat duty) by the control valve
and then influences the process. Table 2 summarizes transmitter
and valve ranges with controller tuning constants for the important
loops. Unlike other research works, such kind of dynamic simula-
 T.-J. Ho et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 33 (2009) 1187–1201 1193

Fig. 7. CS1 simulation scheme. Fig. 8. CS2 simulation scheme.

Table 2 tion using normalized signal and the reset-feedback controller is

Transmitter and valve ranges with controller settings. considered to be more realistic for a practical situation. In addition,
Variables name Maximum Normal Minimum
Smith and Corripio (2006) stated: “Reset windup protection is an
option that must be bought in analogy controllers. It is a standard
Top pressure (bar) 15.6 14.6 13.6
feature in any computer-based controller.”
Top temperature (K) 317.0 307.0 297.0
Bottoms temperature (K) 315.0 305.0 295.0
Reboiler duty (MW) 13.6 7.16 0.0
4.1. CS1 simulation
Top product (mol/min) 43,362.0 21681.0 0.0
Top composition (mole fraction) 1.0 0.996 0.9
First, a dual-composition control scheme for the HIDiC shown in
Controller settings KC (%/%)  I (min)  D (min) Fig. 7 using the previous simulator is implemented in this study. The
Top pressure control −0.1 5.0 –
temperature on stage 60 of the stripping section is selected to infer
Top temperature control 0.1 2.0 0.4 the bottoms composition. In fact, the vapor boilup in Fig. 7 affects all
Bottom temperature control 0.1 2.0 0.4 stripping section of the HIDiC quickly. Thus, any stage temperature
Composition control 10.0 1.0 0.25 in the stripping section could be selected as the controlled variable
without dynamic problem (Luyben & Luyben, 1997). Since propane

Fig. 9. The reset-feedback PID control loop.

1194 T.-J. Ho et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 33 (2009) 1187–1201
Fig. 10. Steady-state temperature profile of the HIDiC.
is almost the only component on stage 60, if one can maintain the
stage temperature at its bubble point, very little of the propylene
can go down to the bottoms. However, a composition controller (CC)
with on-line analyzer is required to manipulate the top pressure in
order to maintain the top composition. In addition, several mod-
ules (subroutines) including the equilibrium stage, PID controller,
and variable pressure system have been developed in this study. The
HIDiC simulator requires a master-calling program (main program)
to assemble these subroutines. The main program just assembles
the control system shown in Fig. 7 with the HIDiC modules shown in
Fig. 5. The master-calling program starts with the reboiler, and then
the bottoms with control, followed by calling the stages up to the
top of the column in a sequence of time point. All level controls and
PCV in Fig. 7 are assumed to be “prefect control”, i.e. their dynamics
are negligible. The reset-feedback PID controllers are employed for
these control loops, and PID controller settings, shown in Table 2,
are obtained by trial-and-error. In addition, the step size of 0.01 min
is chosen for the numerical integration of the complete simulation.
However, the sampling period of 6 min is chosen for the composi-
tion controller, since an on-line analyzer (e.g. gas chromatograph)
normally has a column retention time of 4 min when the sample
is injected. The composition control system in Fig. 7, actually, is a
sampled-data system with sampling period of 6 min.
The steady-state operating conditions of the HIDiC can, there-
fore, be obtained when the dynamic simulator was run under such
Fig. 11. Steady-state composition profile of the HIDiC.
Fig. 12. Steady-state vapor flow rate profile of the HIDiC.
control scheme for a long time period. Figs. 10–12 show the steady-
state temperature profile, composition profile, and vapor flow rate
profile of the HIDiC, respectively. The vapor flow rate profile shown
in Fig. 12 is very similar to that of Olujic et al. (2006), which was
obtained by the Aspen Plus. Upon reaching the steady state for the
simulation system, the simulation time is reset to zero, i.e. t = 0, and
the system is going to implement the dynamic testing. Since the
major disturbances of the HIDiC come from the feed, six kinds of
step change are introduced at t = 2000 min, respectively. They are:
(1) Feed flow +10%: the feed flow rate changes from 2601.73 to
2861.90 kmol/h.
(2) Feed flow −10%: the feed flow rate changes from 2601.73 to
2341.56 kmol/h.
(3) Feed propylene +10 mol%: the feed propylene changes from 0.52
to 0.62.
(4) Feed propylene −10 mol%: the feed propylene changes from
0.52 to 0.42.
(5) Feed temperature +10 K: the feed temperature changes from
300 to 310 K.
(6) Feed temperature −10 K: the feed temperature changes from
300 to 290 K.
The simulation results are shown in Figs. 13–15. Figs. 13 and 14
give respectively the more detailed responses for the feed flow rate
variation of +10% and −10%. Fig. 15 summarizes the other simula-
tion results. It can be found from these figures that the top product
can ultimately return to its setpoint when disturbances occurred.
Thus, one can say that there is no offset (or steady-state error) in
the top composition control. The bottoms product, for which a tem-
perature controller is employed, has an offset. However, the offset
is quite small and can therefore be negligible. If one needs a very
precise bottoms composition, it is not difficult to add a composi-
tion controller cascading the temperature controller. In addition,
the oscillation in these composition responses is considered to be
moderate, and it ensures that the CS1 control configuration for the
HIDiC is fairly well.
4.2. CS2 simulation
Several disadvantages of using on-line analyzer for composition
control were reported by the industry, namely it usually suffers
from large measurement delays, high investment, and high main-
tenance costs. Thus, controlling a temperature somewhere in the
column instead of an on-line analyzer, as shown in the stripping
section of Figs. 7 and 8, is normally employed. Moreover, Marlin
T.-J. Ho et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 33 (2009) 1187–1201 1195

Fig. 13. Response of feed flow +10% in CS1.

1196 T.-J. Ho et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 33 (2009) 1187–1201

Fig. 14. Response of feed flow −10% in CS1.

T.-J. Ho et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 33 (2009) 1187–1201 1197

Fig. 15. Response summarization for other tests in CS1.

1198 T.-J. Ho et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 33 (2009) 1187–1201

Fig. 16. Response of feed flow +10% in CS2.

T.-J. Ho et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 33 (2009) 1187–1201 1199

Fig. 17. Response of feed flow −10% in CS2.

1200 T.-J. Ho et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 33 (2009) 1187–1201

Fig. 18. Response summarization for other tests in CS2.

 T.-J. Ho et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 33 (2009) 1187–1201
(2000) has stated: “Far more distillation tower product composi-
tion controllers use tray temperature inference than use on-stream
analyzers.” However, to infer the top composition in the rectify-
ing section using a single temperature in this study might not
perform fairly well since the pressure is floating. Although more
complex inferential techniques (Mejdell & Skogestad, 1991; Baratti,
Bertucco, Da Rold, & Morbidelli, 1995; Yeh, Huang, & Huang, 2003)
can be used, these methods normally need a lot of experimental
data and time to develop. In this study, we are trying to employ a
simpler inferential technique to test the operability of the HIDiC. A
pressure-compensated temperature shown in Fig. 8 is chosen.
Normally, top composition (yD ) depends only on temperature
and pressure in a binary system:
yD = f (T, P)
Thus, changes in composition depend on changes in temperature
and pressure, i.e.
   
∂yD ∂yD
yD = P + T
∂P ∂T
T P
If one lets k1 = (∂yD /∂P)T and k2 = (∂yD /∂T )P . Values of k1 and
k2 can easily be estimated from dew-point calculations. In addi-
tion, if yD  0.0 in Eq. (15) is assumed, one has TPC = (−k1 /k2 )·P,
where P is the deviation between the measured pressure and its
steady-state value. Thus, the pressure-compensated temperature
signal (TPC ) in Fig. 8, which is equivalent to a composition signal,
can therefore be
T PC = Tmeas + T PC
where Tmeas is the measured temperature. Then, a PID controller
is used for the top temperature control in Fig. 8, and its setpoint
is the steady-state temperature of the top stage. The temperature
controller (TC) then cascades a pressure controller (PC). All level
controls and PCV in Fig. 8 are again assumed to be “perfect control”,
and their dynamics are negligible.
Similar to CS1, six kinds of step change are introduced at
t = 2000 min, respectively. Figs. 16–18 present some results of
the rigorous dynamic simulation to various disturbances using
−k1 /k2 = 3 K/bar. It is found from these figures that the bottoms
responses of CS2 are very similar to that of CS1. However, some
offset is found in the top composition responses. Fortunately, the
maximum deviation of theses offsets is only 0.79 mol% of propylene
composition. It may also conclude that CS2 can still work well, even
though no on-line analyzer is employed.
5. Conclusions
A dynamic simulation study of the HIDiC using classic control
strategies is developed in this study. From thermodynamic and DOF
analyses together with the engineering judgment, it looks that a
reboiler is necessary for the HIDiC in practice. A heuristic control
configuration from practical instrumentation viewpoints, includ-
ing VPC technique for the HIDiC with a reboiler, and furthermore, a
simulation technique for variable column pressures using transfer
functions are proposed. The control configuration has been checked
by the DOF analysis. The developed simulation algorithms includ-
ing the equilibrium stage, PID control loop, and variable column
pressures are considered to be more rigorous than those in the
literature (Huang et al., 1996; Huang, Matsuda, Takamatsu, et al.,
2006). In addition, the dynamic simulator can also obtain the valu-
able steady-state operating conditions of a HIDiC for process design.
1201
Moreover, dynamic simulation results for the propylene–propane
splitter have demonstrated that the proposed control configuration
can control the HIDiC very well under various disturbances.
Acknowledgement
This work is supported by the Industrial Technology Research
Institute, Taiwan under the grant D24200N410.
References
Astrom, K. J., & Hagglund, T. (1995). PID controllers: Theory, deign and tuning (2nd
ed.). Instrument Society of America.
Baratti, R., Bertucco, A., Da Rold, A., & Morbidelli, M. (1995). Development of a com-
position estimator for binary distillation columns. Application to a pilot plant.
(14) Chemical Engineering Science, 50, 1541.
Choe, Y.-S., & Luyben, W. L. (1987). Rigorous dynamic models of distillation columns.
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 26, 2158.
Fukushima, T., Kano, M., & Hasebe, S. (2006). Dynamics and control of heat integrated
distillation column (HIDiC). Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan, 39, 1096.
Franks, R. G. E. (1972). Modeling and simulation in chemical engineering. John Wiley
(15) & Sons, Inc.
Grassi, V. G. (1992). Rigorous modeling and conventional simulation. In W. L. Luyben
(Ed.), Practical distillation control (pp. 29–47). Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Huang, K., Nakaiwa, M., Akiya, T., Aso, K., & Takamasu, T. (1996). A numerical con-
sideration on dynamic modeling and control of ideal heat integrated distillation
columns. Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan, 29, 344.
Huang, K., Matsuda, K., Takamatsu, T., & Nakaiwa, M. (2006). The influences of pres-
sure distribution on an ideal heat-integrated distillation column (HIDiC). Journal
of Chemical Engineering of Japan, 39, 652.
Huang, K., Matsuda, K., Iwakabe, K., Takamatsu, T., & Nakaiwa, M. (2006). Choos-
ing more controllable configuration for an internally heat-integrated distillation
column. Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan, 39, 818.
Huang, K., Wang, S.-J., Iwakabe, K., Shan, L., & Zhu, Q. (2007). Temperature con-
(16)
trol of an ideal heat-integrated distillation column (HIDiC). Chemical Engineering
Science, 62, 6486.
King, C. J. (1980). Separation processes (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Kyle, B. G. (1999). Chemical and process thermodynamics (3rd ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Liptak, B. G. (1995). Instrument Engineers’ Handbook: Process Control (3rd ed.). Chilton
Book Co.
Luyben, W. L. (1996). Design and control degrees of freedom. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research, 35, 2204.
Luyben, W. L., & Luyben, M. L. (1997). Essentials of process control. McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Luyben, W. L., Tyreus, B. D., & Luyben, M. L. (1999). Plantwide process control. McGraw-
Hill Book Company.
Marlin, T. E. (2000). Process control: Designing processes and control systems for
dynamic performance (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Book Company.
McCabe, W. L., Smith, J. C., & Harriott, P. (2005). Unit operations of chemical engineering
(7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Mejdell, J., & Skogestad, S. (1991). Estimation of distillation compositions from mul-
tiple temperature measurements using partial least square regression. Industrial
& Engineering Chemistry Research, 30, 2543.
Muhrer, C. A., Collura, M. A., & Luyben, W. L. (1990). Control of vapor recompression
distillation columns. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 29, 59.
Naito, K., Nakaiwa, M., Huang, K., Endo, A., Aso, K., Nakanishi, T., et al. (2000). Oper-
ation of a bench-scale ideal heat integrated distillation column (HIDiC): An
experimental study. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 24, 495.
Nakaiwa, M., Huang, K., Naito, K., Endo, A., Owe, M., Akiya, T., et al. (2000). A new
configuration of ideal heat integrated distillation columns (HIDiC). Computers &
Chemical Engineering, 24, 239.
Nakaiwa, M., Huang, K., Endo, A., Ohmori, T., Akiya, T., & Takamatsu, T. (2003).
Internally heat-integrated distillation columns: a review. Chemical Engineering
Research & Design, 81, 162.
Olujic, Z., Sun, L., de Rijke, A., & Jansens, P. J. (2006). Conceptual design of an internally
heat integrated propylene–propane splitter. Energy, 31, 3083.
Shinskey, F. G. (1978). Energy conservation through control. Academic Press.
Shinskey, F. G. (1996). Process control system (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Smith, C. A., & Corripio, A. B. (2006). Principles and practice of automatic process control
(3rd ed.). John Willey & Sons, Inc.
Smith, R. (2005). Chemical process design and integration. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Soave, G. (1972). Equilibrium constants from a modified Redlich–Kwong equation of
state. Chemical Engineering Science, 27, 1197.
Yeh, T.-M., Huang, M.-C., & Huang, C.-T. (2003). Estimate of process compositions
and plantwide control from multiple secondary measurements using artificial
neural networks. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 27, 55.