Gas

THREE PROCESS CONTROL STRATEGIES

Liquid & Slurry

Solid & Powder

YOU NEED TO KNOW
Steam & Water
Your Keys to Adaptable Sampling Strategies

The logic forming the basis of the old saying

“what you can’t measure, you can’t control”
has justified generations of increasingly
sophisticated process monitoring and control
technologies. As the requirements for
continually improved manufacturing
processes evolve, this trend will drive future
research, development, and implementation.
Process sampling – either automatic or
manual – will serve as the interface between
the process and a variety of key variables
measured in the lab. These lab measurements
comprise the input to three process control
strategies discussed below.
1. Closed-Loop Control
Closed-loop process control consists of three key elements: measurement of the process variable (PV), control of a manipulated
variable (MV) based on the difference between the PV and a target value or set point (SP), and a control element (typically a valve
with a positioner) to regulate the MV and minimize the difference between the PV and SP. In designing a control strategy, for
example, using steam flow to maintain a target process reactor temperature, the assumption is made that each of these elements
performs consistently. In the case of the control valve, it is assumed that the positioning of a steam flow valve is uniformly smooth
throughout the entire range of operation and that this valve does not stick in a single position independent of the controller
requirements. Similarly, measurement of the reactor temperature PV is assumed to be accurate (or at least consistent) over the
range of the controller and uniformly responsive.
However, it is not uncommon in real-world applications that the responsiveness of this PV measurement can change with time.
For instance, if solids present in a sample adhere to a thermocouple or resistance temperature detector (RTD) and accumulate on
the surface, the responsiveness of that temperature element slows over time, changing the process time constant for the overall
temperature control loop. Now as the temperature control loop becomes increasingly sluggish, the automatic controller will need
to be re-tuned by adjusting the gain (the “P” in a PI controller) to change the magnitude of the response and/or the response
frequency (the integral action, “I”).
In the case where the PV measurement is a lab analysis of a grab sample, the goal is the same as with the simple closed-loop
controller: reduce the difference between a process set point and a process variable. However, the application may be
considerably more complex than simply retuning the controller. With the introduction of longer and variable delays to acquire
process variable information, the performance of the feedback controller can deteriorate significantly, i.e., the conditions present
in the process at the moment the sample was taken are completely different from the current conditions of the process after
acquiring the new process variable, potentially increasing the chances that the operator will make a change in the manipulated
variable in the wrong direction. In the figure above, lab analysis follows the process variable reasonably well, however, the
operator can only see the lab reported PV values and from the operator’s perspective that value is increasing from “Lab_3” to
“Lab_4” which would normally require a corrective action to lower that value. In this case, the PV is already decreasing and no
corrective action on the manipulated variable is necessary.
The motivation for grab sampling and lab analysis can involve many considerations, but most commonly may be dictated by a
need for the measurement of a sample composition or a physical property, which is either too costly or impractical to be
implemented as an online installation. Sample composition, for instance, may be required to provide an accurate measurement of
several trace components. This will necessitate an analytical methodology such as chromatography, flow injection analysis, or
mass spectroscopy, any of which involves
both a significant capital investment as well
as long-term maintenance, making it
difficult to justify for a given process.
Properties such as non-Newtonian viscosity,
solids concentration, chemical oxygen
demand, and others almost always require a
laboratory-based analytical method or
some physical testing procedure. Moreover,
in many cases the customer may specify a
manual test procedure using an antiquated,
non-standard, or product-specific
laboratory test.
2. Engineering Process Control
In many cases where the lab analysis is
critical (perhaps as a product specification)
Engineering Process Control (EPC) – a
method of supervisory control in which the
process set points are remotely adjusted
from a higher-level controller down to any
number of local controllers – is used to
assure that the operator is involved in
making judgments regarding the credibility of the lab analysis result and whether or not this value is to be used. In these
applications, the results of lab tests on process grab samples are forwarded from the lab (via laboratory information management
system) to the plant operator who is responsible for judging the acceptability of that value as an input to adjust a control loop set
point. If, however, the grab sample analysis result is questionable, the operator may request a repeat sample to verify the result
prior to making any process changes. The EPC controller is similar to PI control, but it runs much slower, and, owing to the
importance of maintaining the stability of the process, the output of the EPC controller is generally bracketed with upper and
lower boundary limits. This assessment of the lab results by the plant operator would be required in either a batch process (to
maintain process trajectory) or a continuous process (to control process variability).
Given the necessity of controlling the process based upon a laboratory analysis, it is vital for the plant operator to know that the
sample itself has been collected using uniform procedures that will accurately reflect the process conditions. Key considerations
which would influence the determination of the value of a grab sample analysis to be used for process control would include:
Sampling Frequency and Production Rate
Even in the design phase of a manufacturing process which will require the addition of sample points, there is a need to make a
judgment regarding the frequency of sampling. Aside from defining the requirements for lab resources, a reasonably accurate
estimate of the sampling frequency would assure that the resulting rate of sampling would adequately reflect the actual
frequency of change in the process. If the process frequency is higher than the sampling frequency, the changes being measured
in the lab analysis would not accurately reflect the actual changes in the process. The determination of an adequate process
sampling rate is given by the Nyquist Sampling Theorem which states that the sampling rate should be, at least, double the
maximum process frequency, i.e., the process time constant. Sampling at a lower frequency results in an “aliasing” of the actual
process variation, creating a misrepresentation of the process fluctuations owing to insufficient sampling rate. For early stage
plant design the process frequency can be estimated from the anticipated range production rates.
As the plant product rate changes using the same equipment so does the residence time in the process. From the perspective of
the plant operator, if there is a significant increase in the target production rate the sampling rate may not be frequent enough to
adequately represent the changes in the process. Conversely, if the targeted production rate is significantly reduced, the
frequency of sampling and analysis may be unnecessarily high.

2
Operator Variability
Even if grab sampling is performed at an
adequate frequency, this does not assure
accurate sample analysis results. Depending
on the thoroughness of operator training in
the proper procedures for process sampling,
there may still be important differences in
operator-to-operator variability in sample
collection. The proper draining of sample
tubing to assure a fresh sample, storage of
the sample to minimize loss of volatiles, the
accurate reporting of sampling time, the
treatment of samples with adequate reagent
to stop a reaction, are sometimes serious
issues arising from operator-to-operator
variations in sampling procedures which can
alter the validity of a given sample analysis.
3. Statistical Process Control
Sampling of batch processes is another
means of determining process variability; however, the methodology is significantly distinct from closed-loop control. In batch
production applications, Statistical Process Control (SPC) requires an understanding of the process being monitored to allow for
the designation of an assignable cause to the detection of any variability. In the application of SPC the issue of the number of
samples to be tested is addressed by establishing an acceptable variability of upper and lower control limits. The tighter the
requirement for control, the larger the number of samples required. The resolution of the testing method includes operator-to-
operator variability, sample handling and so on in much the same way as for EPC.
Advances in both measurement technology and process control will continue to amaze in the near future. The prudent process
engineer will recognize that the appropriate implementation of even the most sophisticated instrumentation or control strategy
will still rely on a fundamental understanding of how changes in operating conditions of manufacturing processes will require
adaptable sampling strategies as well as reliable and verifiable sampling conditions. Consistency will be a key to process control
sampling. Accordingly, the need for improving the quality of process data to leverage the advancing capabilities of laboratory
analysis and the introduction of novel control techniques may well require the increased use of programmable, automatic-
samplers as well as detailed training of plant operators.

John V. Twork is a Senior Process Analytical Scientist with expertise in selection of appropriate instrumentation to
address control and measurement issues. His breadth of experience encompasses scientific, engineering,
operational, and organizational aspects of advanced instrumentation. John served as a subject matter expert
within industrial and academic environments and company-wide resource to address measurement applications
ranging from physical parameters to online composition analyzers. He is a consultant on next generation products
as well as developing innovative techniques to support and enhance current products.

sentry-equip.com
966 Blue Ribbon Circle North, Oconomowoc, WI 53066 U.S.A. | +1-262-567-7256 | sales@sentry-equip.com
© 2017 Sentry Equipment Corp

AL-WHT-00498-0 02-17