Distillation-

14 Column
Material-Balance
Control

14.1 MATHEMATICAL MODEL-OPEN LOOP

i n this chapter we will look at the relationship between level control in the
overhead condensate receiver and that in the column base for several different
column-control schemes. Since flows are commonly measured in pounds/unit
time, we will use these units instead of molar ones. Later, in Chapter 16, we
will look at individual level controls in more detail.
To illustrate mathematical modeling for column material-balance control,
let us first use the conventional column of Figure 14.1. The feed, tpF, is split
by the column into two parts: top product, wD, and bottom product, W E . It
is assumed that vent losses overhead are negligible. It is further assumed that
the heat-transfer dynamics of both the condenser and the reboiler are negligible;
this will be true for most columns. Let us start at the column base and work
up. For convenience the equations are written in Laplace transform notation.

Column Base, Including Reboiler

(14.1)

where
w l = liquid flow fiom first tray, Ibm/min
w p = vapor flow leaving column base, lbm/min

327
328 Dirtillation-ColumnMaterial-Balam Control

FIGURE 14.1
Distillation column material balance
14.1 Mathnnntiurl Moa2l-Open Loop 329

WB = bottom product flow, Ibm/min

WB = liquid inventory in column base, Ibm,
within the level transmitter span, (AH,),
5 = Laplace transform variable
Next:
(14.2)
where
pB = density, Ibm/ft3 of liquid in column base
AB = cross-sectional area of column base, fi?
H B = liquid level in base, feet
If the reboiler is heated by steam:

(14.3)
where
An = latent heat of steam, pcu/lbm
latent heat of process fluid,
= pcu/lbm, at column base
ws = steam flow, Ibm/min
Usually vapor flow changes are propagated up the column very rapidly.
Therefore, no great error is introduced by assuming that they appear instan-
taneously at the column top.

Feed Tray
The feed-tray material balance is usually written in terms of molar flows:
VR = F(1 - 4) + (14.4)
where
VR = vapor flow leaving feed tray, mol/min
F = feed flow, mol/min
Vs = vapor flow entering feed tray, mol/&
q = enthalpyfactor
-
- (Enthalpy of feed as vapor at dew point - Actual feed enthalpy)
Molar latent heat of vaporization of feed
-
- (LS - L R )
F
L R = liquid flow from top tray, mol/min
Ls = liquid flow from feed tray, mol/&
 Note that if the feed is a liquid at its boiling point, q = 1 and V, = V,.
If the feed is subcooled liquid, q is greater than 1 and V' is less than V,.
It is also true that:
V, + F + Lf+, = L f + V, (14.5)
From the definition of q above we can write:
Lf+l - Lf = -Fq (14.6)
In terms of weight units equation (14.6) becomes:

(14.7)

Note that:
wF = feed, Ibmlmin
wf = liquid flow from the feed tray, Ibmlmin
From equation (14.7):

(14.8)

Since (wf+J++,), (u+/q, and (wdLf)are constants, we can rewrite equation

(14.8) in Laplace transform notation:

(14.9)
or
wf(s) = k2wf+1(2)+ k3WF(I) + kdq(f) (14.10)
Usually k2 = 1, k3 = q, and k4 = w F , although the last may not be true
if the feed composition is radically different from feed-tray composition.
In going back to equation (14.4) and expressing it in weight units, we
obtain:
(14.11)

whence
14.1 Mathematrcal MoakL-Open Loop 331

or
Wr-l(s) = ~ w A J )+ k7~14s)- k d s ) (14.13)
Usually b6 = 1, k7 = 1 - q, and k8 = wF, although the last two may not
hold if feed composition is radically different from feed-tray composition.

Stripping-Section Liquid-Flow Dynamics

The transfer function between w 1 and wfis:

(14.14)

where G&) is the cumulative effect of the individual tray hydraulic lags, each
with a hydraulic lag, T~ (no inverse response assumed):

(14.15)

where
Ns = number of trays from the column
base to the feed tray

Enriching-Section Liquid-Flow Dynamics

(14.16)

where
wm = liquid flow (internal reflux)
from top tray, Ibm/min

(14.17)

where
NR = number of trays above the feed tray
a1 = N R T ~
Note that:
(14.18)
332 Dhill&m-Colirmn Mated-Baluna Control

where

K, = 1 CP
-k -((To
- - TR)
APT

wR = external reflux flow, Ibm/min

Overhead Material Balance

The vapor flow to the condenser is:

(14.19)

where
Am = latent heat of vaporization of process
fluid specific heat, pcu/lb
,c, = process fluid specific heat, pcu/lbm"C
-
To = average vapor temperature, "C
-
T R = average external reflux temperature, "C
wc = vapor flow to condenser, lbm/min
Note that if there is no subcooling, wc = wtP1.

Condensate Receiver Material Balance

fp,(S) - wD(S) - wR(S) = w~(~) (14.20)

S

where
wD = top-product flow rate, Ibm/min
WT = condensate receiver inventory, lbm
If the condensate receiver is a vertical, cylindrical vessel:
- - - HAS)
WAS) (14.21)
PAT
where
HT = height of liquid, feet, in receiver
pT = density of top product, lbm/ft3
AT = cross-sectionalarea of receiver, ftz
14.2 Control in the Direction of FIap 333

The preceding equations now can be combined into the signal flow dagram
of Figure 14.2. As can be seen, the feed flow, external reflux, steam flow, and
top- and bottom-product flows are all inputs. By providing the proper additional
connections, we can design any desired type of material-balance control.

Limitations of Preceding Analysis

There are three factors that limit the accuracy of the precedmg analysis.
The first of these relates to the phenomenon of inverse response discussed in
Chapter 13. It is characteristic of valve tray columns and some sieve tray columns
operating at low boilup rates. It exercises its most serious effect in those columns
where base level is controlled via steam flow. If the level becomes too high,
the level controller increases the steam flow. But this causes a momentary
increase in base level due to the extra liquid coming down the column (also
due to thennosyphon reboiler swell).Without proper design the level controller
can become very confused. This is discussed in detail in Chapter 16.
The second limiting factor is entrainment. Normally we assume that the
only way we get liquid overhead is by condensing vapor. But at high boilup
rates, entrainment may be severe enough to invalidate the simple material-
balance model we have developed.
The third factor is the simplified, steady-state treatment of the feed tray.
For purposes of this chapter, we do not believe this introduces a serious error.
Feed tray dynamics will be dealt with more rigorously in Chapter 18.

14.2 CONTROL IN THE DIRECTION OF FLOW

Let us look at a material-balance control scheme that is in the direction of
flow. Let feed rate be set by averaging level control of the feed tank, let
condensate receiver level set top-product flow, and let column base level set
bottom-product flow. We will assume that each level controller is cascaded to
the appropriate flow controller.

Overhead Level Control

The necessary additional equation (no subcooling) is:
1
x -
= ~T(.c)KmbrKdrrGdt(S) (14.22)
KwD
where
psi
Ke = distillate flow-meter gain,
lbm/min
- Note: linear flow meter
(WD)-
334 DirtiuatiOn-Column Mated-BalanU Control

FIGURE 14.2
Signal flow diagram for column material balance
14.2 G m ~inl the Direction of Flow 335

( I V ~ =) top-product
~ ~ flow-meter span, lbm/min
Kdrr= controller gain, psi/psi
G,(s) = controller dynamic gain
KdT = receiver level transmitter gain, psi/fi
Note that we have ignored the dynamics of level measurement and of the flow
control loop. For averaging level control, this introduces little error.
We can now prepare the partial signal flow diagram of Figure 14.3. From
this we can see by inspection that:
WD(4 -
- 1
(14.23)
IVd5)- IVR($) 1 + ~chrGchr(.T)Kdf
ATPTK~
= &d%l7-(5) (14.23a)
For pneumatic instruments:
12 psi
K& = (14.24)
(AHT) T
where ( A H T ) T is the level transmitter span, in feet, for a 3-15-psig output.
We can now define a characteristic time constant:
PTAT(AHT)T (14.25)
[THIT =
&~(wD xa,)

FIGURE 14.3
Signal flow diagram-condensate receiver
336 DiniUation-Colurnn Matffial-Balanu Cmttvl

If a proportional-only control system is used, equation (14.23)becomes:

(14.26)

whde for proportional-reset level control it becomes, as indicated in Chapter

16:
tpg(s) = TRs+1 (14.27)
pc(c(s)- fpR(s) rR[TH]Ts2 + rl?.s -k
1
where rR is the level controller reset time in minutes.
Usually it is desirable to have [rHITas small as convenient, say 2-5 minutes
(120-300 seconds), for best control of the associated column. This is large
enough to ensure that instrument and pneumatic transmission-line dynamics
will not be sigdcant. If we fix K,,, then we must achieve the desired [ 7 H ] T
by proper choice of A T or (AHT)=or both. Note that for best flow smoothing
to another process step, one may need a larger (rH)*,or even an additional
buffer or surge tank.
If a proportional-only controller is used, it is recommended that KAT = 2
be chosen.

Base Level Control

The necessary additional equation is:

(14.28)
where
psi
KnsB= bottom-product flow transmitter gain,
Ibm/min
= 12/(~~)~=;
(fpB)- = flow-meter span, Ibm/min
KdB = controller gain, psi/psi
KmhB= base-level transmitter gain, psi/fi
We can now prepare the partial signal flow diagram of Figure 14.4,fiom
which we can see that:
wB(s) -
- 1
(14.29)
fPl(4 - fp&) 1 + KC~BGC~B (s)Km/l~
PdBKngrB

KHBGHB(s)
= (14.29a)
By analogy with equation (14.25)we may define:

(14.30)

where (AHT),is the base-level transmitter span in feet for 3-15 psig output.
14.3 Control in Dire& Opposite to Flow 337

For proportional-only control, equation ( 14.29) becomes:

WB(4 -
- 1
(14.31)
Wl(4 - tp,(S) [THIBJ +1
while for proportional-reset control it is:
WB(S) -
- TR$ +1 (14.32)
tPl(S) - fpp(S) TR[TH]BS + TRS + 1
where T~ is the level controller reset time in minutes.
It is usually desirable for best control of the associated column to make
( T ~= ) 10-15
~ minutes, and if KdEis specified, then the proper time constant
is achieved by choice of ABor (AHT)B,or both. For proportional-only control,
KchB= 2 is recommended. Note that for best flow smoothing to another
process step, one may need a large ( T ~ ) or
~ even
, an additional surge or buffer
tank.
We can now prepare the overall closed-loop material-balance dagram of
Figure 14.5. Note that the two level controls are independent and noninteracting.
If we were to add reflux/feed and steam/feed ratio controls, this statement
would still be true.

14.3 CONTROL IN DIRECTION OPPOSITE TO FLOW

As an example let us choose the case of Figure 6.5 where top-product flow
is the demand flow, condensate receiver level sets steam flow, base level sets
feed flow, and both reflux and bottom-product flow are ratioed to top-product
flow. As before, level controllers are cascaded to flow controls with linear flow
meters.

FIGURE 14.4
Signal flow diagram-column base
338 DtitiUatMn-Column MaterialB&m Control

FIGURE 14.5
Signal flow diagram-material balance control in direction of flow
14.3 Control in Direction Opposite to Flow 339

Condensate Receiver Level Cascaded to Steam Flow Control

The necessary equation here is:
1
%(5) = -K c h T G & T ( 5 ) W 5 ) (14.33)
K?fj
where
K,qj =
steam-flow transmitter gain, PSI
Ibm/min
12/(w5),, where (w5)- = steam
flow meter span, lbm/min
Nore that we assume the flow control loop to be very fast compared with other
dynamics. Also, since we have a cascade system, the steam flow transmitter
should have a linear relationship between flow and transmitter output. If an
orifice flow meter is used, the AP transmitter should be followed by a square
root extractor.

Base Level Adjusts Feed Flow

(14.34)
where
psi
= feed flow-meter gain,
lbm/min
= 12/(%)max
( B J ~=) feed
~ ~ flow-meter span, lbm/min

Reflux Flow Ratioed to Distillate Flow

Let:
Q(5) = ~RDGRD(-T)fPD(5) (14.35)
Physical techniques for accomplishing this are discussed in reference 2.

Bottom-Product Flow Ratioed to Distillate Flow

(14.36)

Closed-Loop Signal-Flow Diagram

The closed-loop signal-flow diagram of Figure 14.6 may now be prepared.
To show the relationship between wD and wF more clearly, it is redrawn into
the form of Figure 14.7. This is a much more complex diagram than that of
340 Disdla&a-Column M a t d - B a l a w Control

FIGURE 14.6
Signal flow diagram-material balance control in direction opposite to flow
14.3 Control in Direction Opposite to F h 341
9
r
--
8
L
g
Lr,
0
C
a
0
e
g
2%
-m
gs
-
g3 sk
Figure 14.5. The functions Gm(s) and GBD(s)will have to be chosen with care
because of potential difficulties with stability. Also, these two functions must
be chosen with primary regard for material-balance control, not composition
control. This point of view is at variance with that sometimes expressed elsewhere
in the literature. Finally, it is probably apparent that conventional tuninjf
procedures are essentially useless for a system of this complexity; control functions
must be correctly preselected, and control-loop parameters calculated ahead of
plant operation.

14.4 MATERIAL-BALANCE CONTROL IN SIDESTREAM

DRAWOFF COLUMNS
Let us consider two cases: (1) vapor sidestream, and (2) liquid sidestream.
Feed is assumed to enter at its boiling point.

Vapor Sidestream
As an example let us consider a column such as that illustrated in Figure
7.1..This column has a small top-product purge, a small bottom-product purge,
and a side product that is most of the feed. Base level adjusts side draw and
reflux drum level sets reflux flow. Three flows are ratioed to feed: top product,
bottom product, and steam.
About the only new relationship we need is that which defines vapor flow
up the column above the point of side draw:
KubB
tp,(s) = -K h B G c h B ( w . B ( J )
K+ (14.37)
= sidestream flow, Ibm/min
where
psi
K+ = sidestream flow-meter gain,
Ibm/min
- 12
--
(tp,)max
and
fP&) - fP,w
= fPv(4 (14.38)
The steam flow is set by ratio to the feed flow:

(14.39)
and

(14.40)
14.5 Top and Bottom Level Control Com&u&ms 343

The two remaining ratio controls are defined as follows:

1
WB(S) = K#$FKR3GR3(5)- (14.41)
K?@
and
1
%(S) - K$F&&&)- WF(4 (14.42)
rc,,
The pertinent equations may now be assembled into the form of Figure 14.8.

Liquid Sidestream
In this case we will assume that the liquid side draw is taken from a point
above the feed tray. Then we define:

(14.43)

(14.45)

With the same control scheme in mind, we can prepare the signal flow
diagram of Figure 14.9.

14.5 TOP AND BOTM)M LEVEL CONTROL COMBINATIONS

Considerable controversy has existed on the question of whether to have
the condensate receiver level adjust the reflux flow or the top-product flow.
One well-known author argues strongly for the former. Controversy also exists
as to whether it is better to have column-base level control bottom-product
flow or the reboiler heating medium, usually steam. Another expert recommends
the second. It is probably apparent that we cannot follow both recommendations;
at least one of the two levels must control a drawoff flow.
There are many columns operating today with condensate receiver level
controlling reflux and base level controlling bottom-product flow. There are
other columns in which condensate receiver level adjusts top-product flow while
base level manipulates steam flow. How do we choose between them, assuming
that we cannot, for some reason, have both levels adjust drawoff flows?
It seems to us that it is largely a matter of convenience. In a superfiactionator,
for example, the reflux flow may be ten or more times greater than the top-
product flow. Inventory in the receiver may be regulated a little more readily
by manipulation of the large flow than of the small one. This does not mean
that level control via the small flow is either impossible or impractical. It does
344 Dutdhthn-Column Ma&riul-Balana Control

FIGURE 14.8
Material balance signal flow diagram-vapor sidestream drawoff
14.5 Top and Bottom Level Control Combinatwns 345

FIGURE 14.9
Material balance signal flow diagram-liquid sidestream drawoff
346 Dktdhtim-Column Materiul-Balance Control

mean that high- and low-level protection by means of overrides on reflux flow
would be needed. Thls is discussed in Chapters 9 and 16.
It is sometimes argued that where reflux flow is much greater than top-
product flow, one may control top composition more easily by adjusting top-
product flow than by adjusting reflux flow. Actually a little algebra will show
that there is not much difference, and that the differenceis against the argument
rather than in favor of it. If,for example, a change in feed rate or feed composition
changes overhead composition, there will be a certain change in reflux flow
and another change in top-product flow required to restore the top composition.
These two required changes are the same in the steady state regardless of which
variable is manipulated to control top composition. Composition control via
distillate (top product) has the disadvantage that no change in composition
takes place until the reflux flow changes. Since reflux is controlled by level, the
dynamics of the level control loop appear in the composition control loop.
This means, generally, that we cannot use averaging level control; we must
design for tight level control. For this reason we normally prefer to control
composition via reflux.
A similar line of reasoning may be followed at the base of the column, and
leads to the conclusion that we would normally prefer to control base composition
by manipulating boilup. Controhg base level by steam has another disadvantage
if a thermosyphon reboiler is used; interchange of inventory between column
base and reboiler sometimes leads to severe dynamic problems. This is discussed
in Chapters 4, 15, and 16.