International Journal of Systems Control (Vol.1-2010/Iss.

1)
Minh et al. / Model Predictive Control of ... / pp. 4-12

Model Predictive Control of a Condensate

Distillation Column
Vu Trieu Minh*. Wan Mansor Wan Muhamad**

* Department of Mechanical Engineering,

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 31750 Tronoh, Malaysia
tel/fax: +605-368-7203 / +605-365-6461
e-mail: vutrieuminh@petronas.com.my

** Institute of Product Design and Manufacturing,

Universiti Kuala Lumpur, 50250 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
tel/fax: +605-368-7203 / +605-365-6461
e-mail: drwmansor@iprom.jinkl.edu.my

Submitted: 10/12/2009
Accepted: 12/01/2010
Appeared:10/02/2010
HyperSciences.Publisher

Abstract— This paper develops a mathematical model and simulation for a condensate distillation
column based on the dynamic continuity and nonlinearity of the mass and the energy. The linear-reduced
order model is used as a regulator of model predictive control (MPC) to verify the ability of a
conventional MPC controller that satisfies the output specifications subject to the input and output
constraints. A modified MPC controller with zone regions instead of setpoints as a new control objective
function for the controlled outputs has been investigated for improving the control performance of this
ill-conditioned process.
Keywords: Distillate purity/impurity; Composition control; Model predictive control; Ill-conditioned
process; Zone regions; Robust control.

♠
1. INTRODUCTION
Distillation is the most popular and important separation
method in the petroleum industries for purification of final
products. Distillation columns are made up of several
components, each of which is used either to transfer heat
energy or enhance mass transfer. A typical distillation
column contains a vertical column where trays or plates are
used to enhance the component separations, a reboiler to
provide heat for the necessary vaporization from the bottom
of the column and a condenser to cool and condense the
vapor from the top of the column, a reflux drum to hold the
condensed vapor so that liquid reflux can be recycled back
from the top of the column.
Most of distillation control systems, either conventional or
advanced, assume that the column operates at a constant
pressure. Pressure fluctuations make the control more
difficult and reduce the performance. The L-V structure,
which is called the energy balance structure, can be
considered as the standard control structure for a dual
composition control distillation.
♠ feedback control by using the open-loop optimization. The
The authors would like to acknowledge Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
and Universiti Kuala Lumpur for their necessary and valuable supports.
The goals of this paper are twofold: firstly, to present a
theoretical calculation procedure of a condensate column for
simulation and analysis as an initial step for a project
feasibility study, and secondly, for the controller design: a
linear reduced order such that it best reflects the dynamics of
the distillation process is derived and used as a regulator for a
MPC controller. A modified MPC controller with zone
regions is studied to increase the ability of the controller to
deal with the model uncertainty for an ill conditioned
process.
An L-V configuration or the energy balance method is
selected as the control structure for the distillation column. In
this control structure the liquid flow rate L and the vapor flow
rate V are the control inputs. The objective is to maintain the
specification of the product concentration outputs xB and xD
despite disturbance in the feed flow F and the feed
concentration xF as shown in Fig. 1.
The MPC has been selected for controlling the distillation
column since MPC has been originally developed to meet the
specialized control needs of petroleum refineries (Qin, J. and
Badgwell, T. (1997)). MPC combines the best of both open-
loop and closed loop control methods. It generates an online
basic ideas involved in MPC design are: predict future plant
response using a process model and minimize a finite horizon

Copyright © 2010 HyperSciences_Publisher. All rights reserved 4 www.hypersciences.org

 International Journal of Systems Control (Vol.1-2010/Iss.1)
Minh et al. / Model Predictive Control of ... / pp. 4-12

objective function comprising a sum of the future predicted Process.However, this will fail to achieve a steady state offset
errors and the control moves. of the controlled outputs. This problem is investigated in this
paper.
Condenser
2. PROCESS MODELLING AND SIMULATION
Reflux Drum

Input u1 Distillate Flow D The distillation column in this paper is a part of a petroleum
project to build a condensate processing plant to raise the
Reflux Rate L Output xD
Feed Flow F utility value of condensate. The nominal capacity of the plant
is 130,000 tons of raw condensate per year based on 24
operating hours per day and 350 working days per year. The
Boilup Rate V
quality of the output products is the purity of the distillate, xD,
Input u2 higher/equal than 98% and the impurity of the bottoms, xB,
Bottom Flow B less/equal than 2%. The feed stock data and its compositions
Output xB are based on the reference of PetroVietnam Gas Company,
Reboiler
(1999).

Fig. 1. Distillation Flowsheet. The feed stock can be considered as a pseudo binary mixture
of Ligas (iso-butane, n-butane and propane) and Naphthas
A real plant usually has to work within certain input and (iso-pentane, n-pentane, and higher components). The
output limitations. And the MPC controller is very well column is designed with 14 trays. The model is simplified by
suited to handle online of these constraints. Fig. 2 illustrates lumping some components together (pseudocomponents) and
the geometry of the MPC constrained optimum. modelling the column dynamics on these pseudocomponents
only as referred to in Kehlen, H. and Ratzsch, M. (1987).
Unconstrained Optimum
The vapor boilup V generated by the heat input to the reboiler
∆u (k + 1) Ji Q − BcB (t B − t F )
J i +1 is calculated as in Franks, R. (1972): V = B ,
λ
Constrained where QB: heat input; B: flow rate of bottom product; cB:
Optimum specific heat capacity; tF: inlet temperature; tB: outlet
temperature; λ : the latent heat or the heat of vaporization.
The latent heat at any temperature is described in term of the
latent heat at the normal boiling point as shown in Nelson,
∆u (k ) T
Feasible Region
W. (1982): λ = γλB , where λ : latent heat at absolute
TB
Receding horizon
prediction temperature T; λB : latent heat at absolute normal boiling
point TB, γ : correction factor obtained from the empirical
Fig. 2. MPC for the unconstrained and the constrained chart.

Once the process is ill-conditioned, i.e. it has a large Some major design parameters to determine the liquid holdup
process condition number (defined as the ratio between the on trays, column base and reflux drum are calculated mainly
maximum and the minimum singular value of the gain based on the references of Joshi, M. (1979), McCabe, W. and
matrix). It is difficult to control because the process gain is Smith J. (1976) and Wuithier, P. (1972): Velocity of vapor
strongly dependent on the input direction. For this reason, ρ − ρG
conventional MPC controllers cannot provide an adequate phase arising in the column: ωn = C L (m / s ) , where
ρG
performance with set point tracking and disturbance rejection
as mentioned in Qin J. and Badgwell T. (1997). The ρ L : density of liquid phase; ρG : density of vapor phase; C :
traditional method for controlling an ill-conditioned process correction factor depending flow rates of two-phase flows.
with the same number of manipulated inputs as controlled
outputs is to delete one or more controlled variables from the The actual velocity ω is normally selected that
control objective as referred in Grosdidier P. et al. (1988). ω = (0.80 − 0.85)ωn for paraffin vapor.
Multi-variable nonlinear MPC of an ill-conditioned
distillation column can also be solved by Jonas B. W. and The diameter of the column is calculated with the formula:
Jari M. B. (2005) using the quasi-ARMAX model with fuzzy
4Vm
logic. Minh V.T and Nitin A. (2005) also proposed some Dk = (m) , where Vm : the mean flow of vapor in
soften constraints to improve the robustness of Model 3600πω
Predictive Control for Ill-Conditioned Distillation the column.

5
 International Journal of Systems Control (Vol.1-2010/Iss.1)
Minh et al. / Model Predictive Control of ... / pp. 4-12

The holdup in the column base,

π H NB Dk2 dB Mxɺn = V ( yn −1 − yn ) + L( xn +1 − xn ) + VF ( yF − yn ) (4)
MB = (kmole) , where H NB : normal
4 ( MW ) B
For trays below the feed flow (n=f):
liquid level in the column base; ( MW ) B : molar weight of the
bottom product; d B : density of the bottom product. Mxɺn = V ( yn −1 − yn ) + L( xn +1 − xn ) + LF ( xF − xn ) (5)

0.95π hT Dk2 dT For trays n (n=2 to f-1):

The holdup on each tray, M = (kmole) ,
4 ( MW )T
where hT : average depth of clear liquid on a tray; ( MW )T : Mxɺn = V ( yn −1 − yn ) + ( L + LF )( xn +1 − xn ) (6)
molar weight of the liquid holdup on a tray; dT : the mean
For the reboiler (n=1):
density of the liquid holdup on a tray.
M B xɺ1 = ( L + LF ) x2 − Vy1 − Bx1 (7)
5( L f + V f )
The holdup in the reflux drum, M D = (kmole) ,
60 Although the model is simplified, the representation of the
where L f : the reflux flow rate; V f : the distillate flow rate. distillation system is still nonlinear due to the vapor-liquid
equilibrium relationship between yn and xn as shown in
The rate of accumulation of material (mass or energy) in a equation (1).
system is equal to the amount entered and generated, less the
amount leaving and consumed within the system. The model The process simulation is done using Matlab Simulink as
is simplified under assumptions as in Stephanopoulos, G. shown in Fig. 3. The dynamic model is represented by a set
(1984): of 16 nonlinear differential equations: x1 = xB : liquid
concentration in bottom; x2: liquid concentration in the 1st
• Constant relative volatility throughout the column and tray, x3: liquid concentration in the 2nd tray; … ; x15: liquid
the vapor-liquid equilibrium relation can be expressed concentration in the 14th tray; and x16 = xD : liquid
by: concentration in the distillate.

α xn If there are no disturbance in operating condition as shown in

yn = (1)
1 + (α − 1) xn Fig. 4, the system is to reach the steady state such that the
purity of the distillate product xD = 0.9654 and the impurity
where xn : liquid composition on nth stage; yn : vapor of the bottoms product xB = 0.0375 . The system is not to
composition on nth stage; α : relative volatility achieve the operational objective of the product quality
( xB ≥ 98% and xD ≤ 2% ). Hence the use of MPC controller
• The overhead vapor is totally condensed will take the system from these steady state outputs to the
desired output targets.
• The liquid holdups on each tray, the condenser, and the
reboiler are constant and perfectly mixed Since the feed stream depends on the upstream processes.
The changes of the feed stream can be considered as the
• The holdup of vapor is negligible throughout the system disturbances including the changing in the feed flow rates and
the feed compositions. Simulations with these disturbances
• The molar flow rates of the vapor and liquid through the indicate that the quality of the output products gets worse if
stripping and the rectifying sections are constant the disturbances exceed some certain ranges as shown in
Table 1.
Under these assumptions, the dynamic model can be
expressed by the following equations: Table 1 Product Quality Depending on the Changing of the
Feed Rates
For the condenser (n=N+2): Purity of the Impurity of the
Distillate Product Bottoms Product
M D xɺn = (V + VF ) yn −1 − Lxn − Dxn (2) xD (%) xB (%)
Normal Feed
96.54 3.75
For trays n (n=f+2 to N+1): Rate
Reduced Feed
90.23 0.66
Mxɺn = (V + VF )( yn −1 − yn ) + L( xn +1 − xn ) (3) Rate by 10%
Increased Feed
97.30 11.66
For trays above the feed flow (n=f+1): Rate by 10%

6
 International Journal of Systems Control (Vol.1-2010/Iss.1)
Minh et al. / Model Predictive Control of ... / pp. 4-12

3. LINEARIZATIONOF THE CONTROL MODEL

CONDENSER & REFLUX DRUM
In1 Out1
In order to obtain the linear control model for a nonlinear
In1 Out1
In2 Out2 system, it is assumed that the variables deviate only slightly
Tray14
In1 Out1 from some operating conditions as mentioned in Katsuhiko
In2 Out2 LPG Purity
Tray1 O. (1982), then nonlinear equation can be expanded into a
3 Out1
In1
In2 Out2
0
Taylor’s series. If the variation xn − xn is small, it may
OUTPUT 1
neglect the higher-order terms in xn − xn . Linearization of the
Tray12
In1 Out1
RECTIFYING SECTION In2 Out2
Tray11 control model leads to a 16th order linear model in the state
In1 Out1
In2 Out2 space form:
Tray10
In1 Out1
In2 Out2
Tray 9 zɺ (t ) = Az (t ) + Bu (t )
In1
In2
Out1 y (t ) = Cz (t )
11.3343 In3 Out2 (8)
Tray 8
FEED RATE F
where:
IN
 x1 (t ) − x1 Steady State 
In1
Out1
In2
4.6903 In3 Out2
Tray 7
 x (t ) − x   L(t ) − LSteady State 
z(t ) = 
2 Steady State 
, u(t ) = 
2
In1 Out1
  ,
⋮ V (t ) − VSteady State 
In2 Out2
Tray 6
  
 x16 (t ) − x16 Steady State 
In1 Out1
In2 Out2
Tray 5
 x1 (t ) − x1 Steady State 
In1 Out1
STRIPPING SECTION In2 Out2
Tray 4 y(t ) =  
In1
In2
Out1
Out2 Gasoline Impurity  x16 (t ) − x16 Steady State 
Tray 3
In1 Out1 0 The matrix A elements (n for each stage):
In2 Out2
Tray2 OUTPUT 2
In1
In2
Out1
Out2 Reboiler: for tray n=1,
Tray 1
Out1
( K1V + B) ( L + LF )
In1
Out2

COLUMN BASE & REBOILER a1,1 = − , a1,2 =

MB MB
Fig. 3. Model Simulation with Matlab
Stripping Section: for tray 1÷6 or for n=2÷7,

( K n −1V ) ( K V + L + LF )
an , n −1 = , an.n = − n ,
M M
1
( L + LF )
xD an , n +1 =
0.9 M
0.8
Feeding Section: for tray 7÷8 or for n=8,
0.7

0.6
( K 7V ) ( K V + L + LF ) (L )
a8,7 = , a8.8 = − 8 , a8,9 =
0.5 M M M
0.4
for n=9,
0.3

0.2
( K 8V ) (K V + L) (L)
a9,8 = , a9.9 = − 9 , a9,10 =
0.1 M M M
xB
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time
Rectifying Section: for tray 7÷14 or for n=10÷15,

( K n −1 (V + VF )) ( K (V + VF ) + L )
Fig. 4. The Steady State Values of Concentration xn an , n −1 = , an.n = − n ,
M M
(L)
an , n +1 =
M

7
 International Journal of Systems Control (Vol.1-2010/Iss.1)
Minh et al. / Model Predictive Control of ... / pp. 4-12

Condenser: for n=16,  xD  1  0.0042 −0.0062  L 

x  =    (10)
 B  1 + 1.9588s  −0.0052 0.0072  V 
( K15 (V + VF )) ( L + D)
a16,15 = , a16,16 = − .
MD MD or in space-state discrete form:
 0.6002 0  1 0 
where K n is the linearized Vapor-Liquid x(k + 1) =   x(k ) +   u (k )
 0 0.6002  0 1 
Equilibria (VLE) constant: (11)
 1.7184 −2.5431
y (k ) =   x(k )
dyn α 5.68  −2.1276 2.9533 
Kn = = =
dxn (1 + (α − 1) xn ) 2
(1 + 4.68 xn ) 2
The distillation transfer function in equation (10) has a
The matrix B elements: condition number of 68. The great condition number of the
transfer function implies both controlling xD and xB
for n=1, independently is difficult. There is a strong interaction
between the two outputs. And such model is called as ill-
( x2 ) (y ) conditioned distillation column as referred to in Morari, M.
b1,1 = L, b1,2 = − 1 V , and Zafiriou, E. (1989).
MB MB

The model linearization of this distillation column is referred

for tray n=2÷15,
to in Minh V.T and Majdi A. (2009). The online linearization
of the nonlinear MPC is referred to in Minh V.T and Nitin A.
( xn +1 − xn ) ( y − yn −1 )
bn,1 = L, bn,2 = − n V, (2006). It is assumed that the variation and the errors
M M resulting from the linearization is small and can be ignored
since the difference between the outputs of the original
for n=16, nonlinear and the linearized models is small.

( x16 ) (y ) 4. CONVENTIONAL CONSTRAINED MPC

b16,1 = − L, b16,2 15 V .
MD MD
MPC is also known as Receding Horizon Control or Moving
The output matrix C: Horizon Control. It is an optimization-based technique to
generate online feedback optimal control to linear or
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 nonlinear systems subject to constraints. The feedback
C= control is obtained by solving online a sequence of open-loop
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
optimal control problems. Calculations for the MPC
controller in this paper are referred to in Fernando, A. (2000),
Sato, T. (2009) and Wang, A. and Wang., H. (2008).
The full-order linear model which represents a two inputs –
two outputs in equation (8) can be expressed as a reduced
A real plant has to work within several physical restrictions,
order linear model as in Papadouratis, A., et al. (1989) and
especially in petroleum industry. The constraints on the
Skogestad, S. and Morari, M. (1987):
inputs and outputs can be grouped together into a single
matrix inequality as:
 xD  1 L
x  = G (0)   (9)
 B  1+τ cs V  ∆umin ≤ ∆u (k + i ) ≤ ∆umax , i = 0, ... , m − 1
umin ≤ u (k + i ) ≤ umax , i = 0, ... , m − 1 (12)
where G (0) is the steady state gain: G (0) = −CA−1 B , τ c is ymin ≤ yˆ(k + i / k ) ≤ ymax , i = 1, ... , p
the time constant:
It is important that the controller satisfies these constraints.
MI M (1 − xD ) xD M B (1 − xB ) xB Through some standard matrix algebra, these constraints can
τc = + D + where M I : the
I s ln S Is Is be defined together in the form of a single inequality. Then
total holdup of liquid inside the column; I s : the “impurity the constraint set in equation (12) can be represented in terms
of the following inequality:
sum”; and S : the separation factor.
Π∆u + ϒ ≥ 0 (13)
As the result of calculation, the reduced-order linear model of
this plant is a first order system with a time constant of
1.9588 hours:

8
 International Journal of Systems Control (Vol.1-2010/Iss.1)
Minh et al. / Model Predictive Control of ... / pp. 4-12

Processes usually operate with the desired target values or the −1% ≤ ∆u (k ) ≤ +1% of u(k) at steady state or
output setpoints. In some operations, the desired setpoint
values might change over time. Therefore, the target tracking
-0.0739 ≤ ∆u1 (k ) ≤ +0.0739 (m3 / h) and
is an important part of any controller design. The objective
function for the target tracking is to determine the feasible
steady-state outputs to which the regulator converges, that 0.0647 ≤ u2 (k ) ≤ 0.0647 (m3 / h) .
minimize their deviation from the desired target values.
Target tracking can be formulated as an optimization MPC The output constraints:
problem that uses the quadratic objective function to
minimize the deviation of the steady-state outputs and inputs
98% ≤ y1 (k ) ≤ 100% and 0% ≤ y2 (k ) ≤ 2% .
from the desired target values:

 Tuning of the MPC Parameters.

N y −1
( yt + k|t − r)' Q( yt + k |t − r ) 
min  J (U , x(t )) = ∑  
U ≜{u1 ,...,ut +Nu −1 }
+∆ut + k R∆ut +k
'
 k =0    (14) Though there are theories about choosing prediction and
weighting matrices to guarantee certain stability and
subject to: robustness properties, most of the tuning of these parameters
are usually done by iteration and simulation. The parameters
that need to be tuned are:
yt+k|t ∈[ymin, ymax] for k =0,1,…Ny -1;
T: Sampling time,
ut+k|t ∈[umin, umax] and ∆ut+k|t ∈[∆umin, ∆umax]
N u , N y : Control and prediction horizons,
for k =0,1,…Nu -1,

Q and R: Penalty matrices.

ut + k = 0 and ∆ut + k = 0 for k ≥ Nu

In this paper, the sampling time has been chosen as

with N u , N y are the control and prediction horizons
and the update space state:
xt |t = x(t ), xt + k +1|t = Axt + k |t + But + k , yt + k |t = Cxt + k |t
where yt + k |t and r are the predicted outputs and the output
setpoints, respectively. Q and R are penalty matrices. In the
target tracking MPC regulator, the steady-state outputs of the
process will be equal to the target setpoints if there is no
constraint and disturbance. The formulation (14) is the one
the authors consider for the remainder of this paper to verify
the ability of a MPC for this ill-condition process.
Defining the Constraints.
Assuming the plant is working with an ideal steady state feed
rate, then the model can be tested on the following constraints
imposed on the inputs and outputs:
T = 1.0 second. This is the sampling time used for the MPC
controller. In general, a long prediction horizon results a
better performance of the control system while a short control
makes the system more robust to uncertainties such as
parameter variations (Sirish, L. et al. (2001)). After several
iterations, the final values chosen as the prediction horizon
2 0 
N y = N u = 5 , the penalty matrices are chosen as Q =  
0 2
1 0 
and R =  .
0 1 
The choice of these parameters allows the controller to track
the referenced output steps r1 and r2 with less than 0.12%
overshoot, and the settling time of less than 30 seconds.
There is no final steady state error and no input/output
constraint violations.
MPC Controller Tracking Performance.

The amplitude constraints:
−100% ≤ u (k ) ≤ +100% of the steady state or
0 ≤ u1 (k ) ≤ 14.7832 (m / h) and
0 ≤ u2 (k ) ≤ 12.9354 (m3 / h) .
Fig. 5 shows the tracking performance of the MPC controller
with the setpoint trajectory changes.
The MPC controller allows a tracking performance to step
3 trajectories changed within the output targets with less than
0.08% overshoot, no final tracking offset errors in the
outputs.

The rate constraints:

9
 International Journal of Systems Control (Vol.1-2010/Iss.1)
Minh et al. / Model Predictive Control of ... / pp. 4-12

In the modified MPC, the control objective function in

equation (14) is performed by the following quadratic
N y −1

program: min J = ∑ {∈ k
T
Q ∈k +∆ukT R∆uk } .
∈k , ∆uk
k =0

When the output yk falls outside the zone region, ∈k

becomes non-zero. In this case, the control objective in the
regulator changes from a zone region to a setpoint.

When the output yk falls inside the zone region, ∈k becomes

zero, the output specifications are relaxed slightly. The
probability that the process will meet all of its constraints
Fig. 5. Tracking Performance of the Designed Controller increases.

5. MODIFIED MPC WITH ZONE REGION Compared to traditional methods for controlling ill-
conditioned processes which are to delete some of the
controlled variables, this modified MPC only changes some
Ill-conditioned process is difficult to control. The traditional setpoints into zones so that all controlled outputs remain in
method for controlling the ill-condition process is to delete the control objective.
some controlled variables from the objective function. This is
because that if some output setpoints are deleted, the system Output Step Disturbance Rejection
becomes looser and the probability that the MPC controller
can find a solution will increase (Qin, J. and Badgwell, T
The difference between the model and the actual plant can
(1997)) and Grosdidier, P. et al. (1998)). However, if the
cause the steady-state offset errors or the closed loop
outputs jump out of the designed regions, the controller is not
instability. In Fig. 6, the system is initially at the steady state
able to push them back since their constraints have been
and a step disturbance of 0.5 enters the output variable y1.
deleted.
The conventional MPC system becomes unstable because of
the plant-model mismatch. While with the zone region, the
In this paper, a new method for handling the ill-conditioned disturbance does not cause the outputs deviate from its zone
process has been considered – soft constraints for the outputs limits. No control action is taken because none of the control
once they jump out of the desired regions: As long as the objectives has been violated and the system remains stable
outputs still lie inside the designed regions, no control action
is taken but when the outputs violate the designed regions,
the control objective in the MPC regulator will activate the
soft constraints and push them back to the desired regions.

The modified MPC algorithm is applied to an ill-conditioned

distillation column to demonstrate the improvements in the
control performance by the zone regions. A zone region is
defined by the minimum and maximum values of a desired
range. The minimum value is the lower limit of the zone
region, ylow, and the maximum value is the upper limit of the
zone region, yhigh.

The rules used to implement zone regions in the linear MPC

algorithm are similar to the rules used to implement soft
constraints. The difference between the output measurements
and zone limits is defined by a slack variable ∈ . Whenever
Fig. 6. Plant-Model Mismatch with Step Disturbance
the measurement is outside the zone, ∈ is positive, but when
the measurement is inside the zone, ∈ is equal to zero.

Then, the slack variable is defined as:

∈= y − yhigh for y > yhigh , ∈= ylow − y for y < ylow , ∈= 0 for
ylow ≤ y ≤ yhigh
Output Noise Disturbance Rejection
Most measured output variables have sensor noises which
can cause the system to lose its stability. If the outputs are
changed into a zone region, the system remains stable with

10
 International Journal of Systems Control (Vol.1-2010/Iss.1)
Minh et al. / Model Predictive Control of ... / pp. 4-12
In reality many disturbances are unknown in terms of their
structure and effect on the controlled variables. The modified
MPC shows a better robust performance with respect to the
noise disturbances. It is observed that only the outputs of the
conventional MPC controller violate the desired region once
the sensor noises are increased.
Fig. 7. Plant-Model Mismatch with Sensor Noise
6. CONCLUSION
A new procedure to build up a mathematical model and
simulation for a condensate distillation column based on the
energy balance (L-V) structure has been introduced. The
mathematical modeling simulation is accomplished over
three phases: the basic nonlinear model, the full order
linearized model and the reduced order linear model. Results
from the simulations and analysis are helpful for initial steps
of a petroleum project feasibility study and design.
The reduced order linear model is used as a regulator for a
MPC to verify the ability of a conventional MPC controller
that satisfies the output specifications subject to the
constraints. A modified MPC with zone regions has shown its
ability to reject disturbances and maintain closed loop
stability. Compare to the traditional method that deletes some
controlled variables from the controlled objective, the
modified MPC with output regions shows its superiority
because it always maintains penalty on any output violation.
Once the outputs violated the desired regions, the MPC
regulator with output regions will rapidly push the violated
outputs back to the desired regions, reject disturbances and
maintain the closed loop stability.
Even though the example shows that the modified MPC is
successful in controlling ill-conditioned process, model
uncertainty and model-plant mismatch that affect the closed
loop stability for the MPC controller are still an open issue.
Further, the calculation of mathematical model building is
only based on the physical laws of the process. The real
system identifications include the experimental production
factors, parameters estimation and the system validation are
not mentioned in this paper.
11
REFERENCES
Fernando, A. (2000) Lecture Notes on Model Predictive
Control. 25th International Summer College, Pakistan,
pp. 1-70.
Franks, R. (1972) Modeling and Simulation in Chemical
Engineering. Wiley-Interscience, N.Y.
Grosdidier, P., Froisy, B. and Hammann, M. (1988) ‘The
IDCOM-M Controller’. IFAC Workshop on MPC,
Oxford, pp. 31-36.
Jonas B.W. and Jari M.B. (2005) ‘Multi-variable nonlinear
MPC of an ill-conditioned distillation column’ Journal
of Process Control, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 23-29.
Joshi, M. (1979) Process Equipment Design. New Delhi,
Macmillan Company of India.
Katsuhiko O. (1982) Model Control Engineering. Prentice-
Hall International.
Kehlen, H. and Ratzsch, M. (1987) ‘Complex
Multicomponent Distillation Calculations by Continuous
Thermodynamics’. Chem. Eng. Sci., pp. 221-232.
McCabe, W. and Smith J. (1976) Unit Operations of
Chemical Engineering. N.Y McGraw-Hill.
Minh, V.T and Majdi, A. (2009) ‘Modeling and Control
Simulation for a Petroleum Process’. Mathematical
Problems in Engineering. Article ID 404702, 14 pages.
Minh, V.T. and Nitin, A. (2006) ‘A Comparative Study on
Computational Schemes for Nonlinear Model Predictive
Control’. Asian Journal of Control, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp
324-331.
Minh V.T and Nitin A. (2005) ‘Robustness of Model
Predictive Control for Ill-Conditioned Distillation
Process’ Asia-Pacific Jour. of Chemical Engineering,
Vol 13, No. 3-4, pp. 311-316.
Morari, M. and Zafiriou, E. (1989) Robust Process Control.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Nelson, W. (1982) Petroleum Refinery Engineering.
Auckland McGraw-Hill.
Papadouratis, A., Doherty, M. and Douglas, M. (1989)
‘Approximate Dynamic Models for Chemical Process
Systems’. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., pp. 546-522.
PetroVietnam Gas Company, (1999) Condensate Processing
Plant Project – Process Description Document No.
82036-02BM-01. PetroVietnam, pp. 1-54.
Qin, J. and Badgwell, T. (1997) ‘An Overview of Industrial
Model Predictive Control Technology’. Fifth Inter. Con.
on Che. Pro. Control. Sym. Series 316, vol. 93, pp. 232-
256.
Sato, T. (2009) ‘Strongly Stable GPC-based PID Controller’
Int. Jour. of Adv. Mechatronic Systems, Vol. 1, No. 3,
pp. 183-193.
Sirish, L., Rohit, P. and Biao, H. (2001) ‘Multivariate
Controller Performance Analysis: Methods,
Applications, and Challenges’. CPC-6 Conference,
Tuscon, Arizona, pp. 1-34.
Skogestad, S. and Morari, M. (1987) ‘The Dominant Time
Constant for Distillation Columns’. Comp. Chem. Eng.,
pp. 607-617.
Stephanopoulos, G. (1984) Chemical Process Control.
Prentice Hall International.
Wang, A. and Wang., H. (2008) ‘A Generalized Time-
varying Output Feedback Controller for Non-linear
 International Journal of Systems Control (Vol.1-2010/Iss.1)
Minh et al. / Model Predictive Control of ... / pp. 4-12

Systems’ Int. Jour. of Advanced Mechatr. Systems, Vol.

1, No. 3, pp. 183-193.
Wuithier, P. (1972) Le Petrole Raffinage et Genie Chimique.
Paris Publications de l’Institut Francaise du Petrole.

AUTHORS PROFILE

Vu Trieu Minh is currently a senior lecturer

at Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS,
Malaysia. He obtained Ph.D of Mechatronics
from Asian Institute of Technology (AIT)
with specialization in Model Predictive
Control. He has previously worked in
Vietnam, Germany, Thailand and Malaysia.
He has authored over thirty research papers and books in the
field of advanced process control and automation. His current
research interests are Dynamical Systems, Model Based
Control Algorithms, Switching Hybrid Systems. He is a
member of IEEE.

Wan M. Wan Muhamad is currently an

Associate Professor at Institute of Product
Design and Manufacturing and Head of
Advanced Manufacturing Research Cluster,
Universiti Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He
obtained Ph D from University of Toledo,
Ohio, USA in the area of Manufacturing
Engineering. He has previously worked in
Universiti Sains Malaysia and Universiti Malaysia Pahang.
He has authored and co-authored over thirty research papers
in the field of manufacturing engineering. His current
research interests are Manufacturing Automation and Quality
Engineering. He is a senior member of SME.

12