21st European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering ESCAPE 21

E.N. Pistikopoulos, M.C. Georgiadis and A.C. Kokossis (Editors)

2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Process Dynamic Optimization Using ROMeo

Flavio Manentia,1, Guido Buzzi-Ferrarisa, Sauro Pieruccia, Maurizio Rovagliob,
Harpreet Gulatib
a

Politecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Chimica, Materiali e Ingegneria Chimica

Giulio Natta, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, ITALY
b
Invensys Operations Management, 26561 Rancho Parkway South Lake Forest, 92630,
California, USA
1
Corresponding author. Phone: +39 02 2399 3273; E-mail: flavio.manenti@polimi.it

Abstract
The present research activity is aimed at demonstrating the feasibility of dynamic realtime optimization (D-RTO) on the industrial scale. Some well-established and fieldproven tools, such as ROMeo for real-time optimization (RTO) and DynSim for
dynamic simulation, are combined with very performing solvers for differential systems
(BzzMath library) and specific methods (multiple shooting) to obtain a full-integrated
solution for D-RTO. A steam-cracking furnace is selected as validation case: the
SPYRO-based dynamic simulation is developed using FORTRAN, C++, and
DynSim and it is integrated in ROMeo to perform the D-RTO. A quantitative
comparison between the traditional RTO and the D-RTO is also provided.
Keywords: Dynamic Optimization; ROMeo; DynSim; BzzMath; SPYRO.

1. Introduction
Process dynamic optimization is a challenging issue for many research groups of the
computer-aided process engineering community (Kadam et al., 2002; Tosukhowong et
al., 2004; Lang and Biegler, 2007; Manenti and Rovaglio, 2008; Dones et al., 2010)
with the need of finding at the same time efficient and robust solutions as well as of
ensuring its on-line feasibility for large-scale systems typical of process industry. In
addition, no well-established field-proven solutions are nowadays able to overcome the
traditionally strong inertia of process industries in implementing novel control and
optimization methodologies, apart from their relevant effectiveness and economical
benefits. From this perspective, it is not surprising that the process dynamic
optimization is still perceived as an academic concept rather than as an industrial one
and it seems to be far from a massive application by the field. The background above
summarizes the main reasons pushing us to exploit the best architecture and the
potential evolution of an existing, well-established, reliable, and widespread package
like ROMeo. This real-time optimizer is a commercial tool and field-proven in many
industrial applications such as oil refineries, gas plants or petrochemicals. The idea of
starting from ROMeo relies on the concept that, assembling and evolving a
commercial/reliable tools, will create an easier and more suitable transition to dynamic
real-time optimization applications (D-RTO) in the process industries.

2. Essentials of dynamic real-time optimization (D-RTO)

The D-RTO is similar in its mathematical formulation and time-scale to the nonlinear
model predictive control (NMPC), another optimization level of the so-called process

F. Manenti et al.
control hierarchy (Busch et al., 2007). They are based on the moving horizon
methodology (Rawlings, 2000) and lead to multidimensional, constrained, nonlinear
programming (NLP) problems based on convolution models, often requiring specific
optimizers and differential solvers (Manenti et al., 2009; Buzzi-Ferraris and Manenti,
2010a). Differences between D-RTO and NMPC problems and the solution strategies
are summarized in many papers (Biegler and Grossmann, 2004). Very performing
solvers and the use of parallel computing are also explained elsewhere (Manenti et al.,
2009; Buzzi-Ferraris and Manenti, 2010a). The multiple shooting technique belonging
to the family of simultaneous methods is adopted in the present research activity.

3. Software integration
The kernel of the present research activity is to combine three worlds to achieve an
integrated and reliable tool for the D-RTO:
DynSim (Invensys): powerful dynamic simulator for a wide set of processes.
ROMeo (Invensys): package for RTO. ROMeo provides a complex and wellestablished architecture for the process optimization.
BzzMath library (Politecnico di Milano): a comprehensive numerical library to
significantly speed-up calculations, especially to integrate large-scale differentialalgebraic systems (Buzzi-Ferraris, 2010).
to which it is necessary to add a fourth point to set up the selected study to check the
industrial feasibility of the D-RTO and to validate the newborn integrated tool:
SPYRO (Pyrotec-Technip): a well-established tool to simulate the coil of the
radiant section of the steam cracking furnaces of olefins plants.
ROMeo

DYNSIM

BZZMATH
...
LARGE-SCALE
ALGEBRAIC SYSTEMS

BZ

ZM

AT

ROBUST and
EFFICIENT
OPTIMIZERS

LI
B

RA

RY

ODE/DAE and
PDE/PDAE SYSTEMS

NUMERICAL
SOLVERS

Figure 1. Integration path to an effective solution for industrial D-RTO.

This is possible by exploiting features of the object-oriented programming and MS

Visual C++. Actually, as qualitatively reported in Figure 1, the differential and
differential algebraic solvers of the BzzMath library can be fully integrated and
synchronized in DynSim by replacing the default solvers so as to speed-up
computations and to ensure the online feasibility of D-RTO. Next, it is possible to
developed complex dynamic models in DynSim environment and solve them using
BzzMath solvers with superior performances. At last, rather than using the traditional
steady-state models implemented in ROMeo, a drag & drop technology has been
developed to move the dynamic models developed in DynSim (together with the
BzzMath solvers) into ROMeo and to use them as convolution models of a multiple
shooting structure to solve the D-RTO problem.

Process Dynamic Optimization Using ROMeo

4. Validation case: steam cracking furnace

There are different methodologies to crack heavy hydrocarbons to obtain light-ends (i.e.
fluid catalytic cracking, thermal cracking, hydrocracking). The validation case we
selected focuses on the steam cracking, which produces ethylene and, in general, olefins
from a feed of saturated hydrocarbons diluted with steam and then heated in a furnace.
Before entering the radiant region, the feed flowrate is preheated in a series of heat
exchangers placed in the convection region (see the qualitative scheme of Figure 2). In
the thermal furnace, the temperature is considerably high (>800C) and the residence
time is in the order of some milliseconds (Dente et al., 1992). Here, one of the most
important parameters to control and monitor the process performances is the coil outlet
temperature (COT), which is measured before exiting the thermal furnace and is strictly
related to the wall temperature. Therefore, the hot gas is quickly quenched in the
transfer line exchanger (TLE) in order to stop the reaction and to produce high-pressure
steam (about 100bar) as well. Assuming a fixed residence time, the outlet flowrate
composition depends on the feed composition, the hydrocarbon to steam ratio, and the
COT. The outlet flowrate is sent to the main fractionator and to the separation section
(Pierucci et al., 1996). Specifically, since the main goal of this paper is to check the
industrial feasibility of the D-RTO, a reduced portion of the furnace and of the control
scheme is considered for the sake of simplicity. In addition, the reactor efficiency
degradation is not considered in this work. Nonetheless, it is worth remarking that a
steam cracking furnace can usually run for a few months only at a time between decoking operations. The selected control system related to the radiant section is reported
in Figure 2. It consists of a direct-action temperature controller where the wall
temperature of the radiant section, and hence the COT, is the controlled variable and the
fuel fed to the burners is the manipulated variable. A higher fuel flowrate corresponds to
a higher COT value. A ratio controller manages the air flowrate insufflated into the
radiant section, in order to maintain the desired stoichiometric ratio. The optimal
setpoint is assigned by D-RTO. The higher the fuel flowrate, the higher the air flowrate.
Stack
Damper

COT
Feed

RADIANT SECTION

Breeching

Olefins
Convection
Section

PV

OUT

High
Pressure
Steam

Steam
Coil Outlet
Temperature
(COT)

FC
Transfer Line
Exchanger (TLE)
>800C
400C

Main
Factionator

Temperature
Controller

TC

PV

Fuel
PV
Flowrate Ratio
SP
Controller

OUT
Air

Radiant
Section
Burners / Air Blowers

Figure 2. Half plan slice of a thermal cracking furnace (left-hand side); radiant section and related
control scheme considered for the D-RTO: PV stays for Process Variable, OUT stays for
controller OUTput; and SP stays for Setpoint (right-hand side).

F. Manenti et al.

5. Numerical results
An all-in-one tool for SPYRO-based smart dynamic simulation and optimization of
olefins plants is developed to check the D-RTO feasibility on a steam-cracking furnace.
It has required a complex programming activity. A mixed-language approach (BuzziFerraris and Manenti, 2010b) was adopted to implement the SPYRO, completely
written in FORTRAN, a coil model into the C++ dynamic model developed for
simulating the radiant section of the thermal furnace. The very performing solver of
differential-algebraic systems from BzzMath library was implemented to obtain an
efficient and stable (in the following smart) solution of the SPYRO-based dynamic
simulation. The smart solution was implemented in DynSim to avail from the userfriendly interface and component, properties, and thermo database of such a commercial
dynamic simulation suite. At last, the smart dynamic simulation was fully integrated
and synchronized into ROMeo environment by means of the multiple shooting
method. This step was possible thanks to the structure of OPERA solver currently
included in ROMeo and to the peculiarities of BzzDae solver from BzzMath library.
A short selection of numerical results is reported in Figure 3. A severity change is
imposed by the higher propylene price (current worldwide market situation). The
traditional RTO approach presents a marked instability in driving the furnace from the
initial condition to the optimized one. Also, the convergence towards the new optimal
point is significantly slower than the D-RTO optimal path. Moreover, the variations in
the fuel flowrate supplied to the furnace are so high throughout the RTO severity
change that overcomes the physical upper bound of 7000kg/h. Consequently, the RTO
must unavoidably perform a two-steps severity change (Figures 3e-3f) by significantly
prolonging the process transient.
1.05

1.1

TRADITIONAL

4 SHOOTS

0.95

C3H6/C2H4

CH4/C3H6

0.9

0.8

0.7

TRADITIONAL
4 SHOOTS

0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75

16, 32 SHOOTS

0.7
0.6

0.65

16, 32 SHOOTS
0.5

0.6
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Time [min]

40

60

80

100

120

Time [min]

9000

9000

TRADITIONAL

TRADITIONAL
8000

8000

7000

FUEL FLOWRATE

FUEL FLOWRATE

20

4 SHOOTS
6000

5000

STARTING POINT

7000

4 SHOOTS
6000

5000

4000

4000

3000

3000

16, 32 SHOOTS
OPTIMUM
STARTING
POINT

16, 32 SHOOTS

OPTIMUM
2000
0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

2000
0.6

1.1

5000

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1.05

C3H6/C2H4 SEVERITY
4000

1-step traditional RTO

Traditional RTO

4500

3800

FUEL FLOWRATE

FUEL FLOWRATE

0.65

c d

CH4/C3H6 SEVERITY

2-step traditional RTO

4000

3500

3000

32-shoots D-RTO
2500

3600

3400

32-shoots D-RTO

3200

D-RTO off-spec time

RTO off-spec time

2000
0

50

100

150

200

TIME [min]

250

3000
0

300

50

100

150

200

TIME [min]

250

300

Figure 3.
CH4/C3H6 (a) and
C3H6/C2H4 (b)
severity changes;
convergence
comparison
between the RTO
and the D-RTO
for CH4/C3H6 (c)
and C3H6/C2H4 (d)
severity changes;
comparison
between the fuel
flowrate supplied
using the RTO and
the D-RTO (e, f).

Process Dynamic Optimization Using ROMeo

6. Conclusions
The present activity showed the industrial feasibility of the dynamic optimization (DRTO). Main benefits of D-RTO versus the traditional RTO have been discussed and
quantified, showing, for example, that D-RTO practically halves the off-spec during
process transients. Computational efforts required to solve the RTO and D-RTO are
practically comparable, by making even the D-RTO feasibility on the industrial scale.
Moreover, looking at the traditional inertia of process industries and oil refineries, no
visible changes to ROMeos user were introduced so as to preserve to current ROMeos
interface and to have an easy-to-use tool for the fast industrial application of D-RTO.

7. Disclaimer
ROMEO and DynSim are trademarks of Invensys Operations Management. SPYRO is a
registered product of Technip-Pyrotec, originally developed by Politecnico di Milano.

References
Biegler, L.T., & Grossmann, I.E., 2004, Retrospective on optimization. Computers & Chemical
Engineering 28(8), 1169-1192.
Busch, J., Oldenburg, J., Santos, M., Cruse, A., & Marquardt, W., 2007, Dynamic Predictive
Scheduling of Operational Strategies for Continuous Processes Using Mixed-logic Dynamic
Optimization. Computers & Chemical Engineering 31, 574-587.
Buzzi-Ferraris, G., & Manenti, F., 2010a, A Combination of Parallel Computing and ObjectOriented Programming to Improve Optimizer Robustness and Efficiency. Computer Aided
Chemical Engineering 28, 337-342.
Buzzi-Ferraris, G. (2010). BzzMath: Numerical library in C++. Politecnico di Milano,
http://chem.polimi.it/homes/gbuzzi.
Buzzi-Ferraris, G., & Manenti, F., 2010b, Fundamentals and Linear Algebra for the Chemical
Engineer: Solving Numerical Problems. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany.
Dente, M., Pierucci, S., Ranzi, E., & Bussani, G., 1992, New Improvements in Modeling Kinetic
Schemes for Hydrocarbon Pyrolysis Reactors. Chemical Engineering Science 47, 2629-2634.
Dones, I., Manenti, F., Preisig, H.A., & Buzzi-Ferraris, G., 2010, Nonlinear Model Predictive
Control: a Self-Adaptive Approach. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 49(10),
4782-4791.
Kadam, J.V., Schlegel, M., Marquardt, W., Tousain, R.L., van Hessem, D.H., van der Berg, J., et
al., 2002, A Two-level Strategy of Integrated Dynamic Optimization and Control of Industrial
Processes - a Case Study. ESCAPE-12, The Hague, The Netherlands, 511-516.
Lang, Y.D., & Biegler, L.T., 2007, A Software Environment for Simultaneous Dynamic
Optimization. Computers & Chemical Engineering 31, 931-942.
Manenti, F., & Rovaglio, M., 2008, Integrated multilevel optimization in large-scale
poly(ethylene terephthalate) plants. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 47(1), 92104.
Manenti, F., Dones, I., Buzzi-Ferraris, G., & Preisig, H.A., 2009, Efficient Numerical Solver for
Partially Structured Differential and Algebraic Equation Systems. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 48(22), 9979-9984.
Pierucci, S., Brandani, P., Ranzi, E., & Sogaro, A., 1996, An industrial application of an on-line
data reconciliation and optimization problem. Computers & Chemical Engineering 20, S1539S1544.
Rawlings, J.B., 2000, Tutorial Overview of Model Predictive Control. IEEE Control Systems
Magazine 20(3), 38-52.
Tosukhowong, T., Lee, J.M., Lee, J.H., & Lu, J., 2004, An Introduction to a Dynamic Plant-wide
Optimization Strategy for an Integrated Plant. Computers & Chemical Engineering 29(1), 199208.