Investigate

Feature Report

Dynamic Modeling for

Steam System Control
Dynamic modeling fills in
the gaps of steady-state
modeling and provides a
more complete, reliable
and efficient analysis
Ali Bourji, David Ballow
and Martha Choroszy
WorleyParsons

ne of the most energy-intensive

utilities for many facilities in
the chemical process industries
(CPI) is the steam system. Traditionally, steam-use optimization has
centered on efficient heat transfer and
eliminating waste [1]. Further optimization can involve a broader look at
how steam supply and consumption
interact dynamically throughout a
large complex. This type of optimization often results in increased interconnectivity and interdependency.
Many CPI facilities have a central
steam-production area containing boilers and boiler feedwater treatment, as
well as additional steam generators
scattered throughout the facility (for
example in the petroleum refining
sector there are ethylene and catalytic
cracking units). If a facility is built
in several stages, as is often the case,
steam generating systems may be
separated by considerable distances.
Over these distances, the stability of
the integrated steam system could be
jeopardized by inappropriate control
strategies. How should one go about
setting up a control strategy and verifying that it is stable and appropriate
for a particular complex?
Steady-state modeling and steam
balances only show the endpoints of
system behavior. Dynamic modeling fills in the space between these

42

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTIGATIVE
QUESTIONS

Model
Plan

To understand a systems behavior, start by gathering as

much information as possible. Ask fundamental questions,
such as these:
1. What units are the big users?
2. What units are the big producers?
3. How does steam demand change for different operating
scenarios?
4. Are there any equipment limitations?
5. What is the nameplate capacity of each major system
component?
6. Are there limitations to achieving nameplate capacity?
7. Has the root cause of any limitation been determined?
8. In the case of commonly occurring upsets, do they have a
pattern or connected event?

endpoints providing a more complete

analysis. With potentially billions of
dollars in capital investment depending on a reliable supply of steam,
employing dynamic modeling during
the design development of integrated
systems is worth the extra effort. This
article breaks down the task of setting
up a control strategy into four basic
steps (Figure 1).

Implement
FIGURE 1. An
effective control
strategy can be broken down into four
stages

tive exercise may still prove valuable

for the complex. It is still necessary to
draw on the knowledge of experienced
operators who have run similar systems in the past. Supplementing their
knowledge and experience with the
appropriate process engineering and
modeling techniques will allow for sufficiently accurate system emulation.

Model
Investigate
In order to properly control any system, a thorough understanding of the
interactions within the system (the
system behavior) is essential. Understanding system behavior begins with
gathering as much information as possible about a given process or facility.
Ask some fundamental questions, such
as those outlined in the box above.
For an existing operational facility,
there is no better resource to answer
these questions than the senior operations staff. They have direct knowledge of how the system behaves in
realtime during real upsets under real
conditions. Defining these upsets will
become an essential input to dynamic
model development.
For new facilities, this investiga-

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM JUNE 2012

In the typical workflow of modern

process design, a steady-state model
is usually developed to facilitate
the creation of utility balances and
to study various operating cases.
A wide array of modeling software
has been developed [2] and is in use
within the CPI. When choosing the
platform for the steady-state model,
keep in mind the potential for running the model dynamically.
Steady-state modeling is essential,
but a plant will never truly achieve
steady state. To achieve a reliable and
stable steam supply throughout the
complex, the fully integrated steam
system must be analyzed in a dynamic state to understand the probable interactions between the system
components. Operating facilities are

Source
3

Source
3 out

Common
header 1

Source
1
Source
2 piping
Source
2

Source
3 pipe

Source 1
piping out

Source
1 piping

Source 2
piping out

Rate limiter 1
PV value
24.94 $
OP value 4.985e+004 lb/h

Master
PC

Rate limiter 1
Source
1 piping

Source
2
Rate limiter 2
Rate limiter 2
PV value
24.94 $
OP value 4.985e+004 lb/h

To
users
B

Rate limiter 3
Source
3 FC
Source
3

Common
header 1
Mix100

Common
header
out 2

User B
pipe

User B
FC
User B
User B Sink
B
pipe out FV

Source 3 FC
SP 50000 lb/h
PV 50000 lb/h
OP 50.00 %

Source 1
piping out

Source
1
Source Source 2
2 piping piping out

User A Sink
FV
A

To users A
Common
header
pipe 2
TEE-100

FIGURE 2. This example is used to demonstrate a steadystate model flowsheet (Pri used in the figures stands for
primary)

Master PC
SP 300.0 psig
PV 298.7 psig
OP 24.94 %
OP 24.94 %
OP 24.94 %

User A
FC
User A
pipe out

Total production

Common
header Mix-101
out 1

Combined
Pri source

Mix100

User A
pipe

Combined
Pri source

Source
3 pipe
Source
3 out

User A pipe out

Temperature
474.8 F
Pressure
297.6 psig
Mass flow
5.977e-004 lb/h
Total production
Temperature
475.0 F
Pressure
298.6 psig
Mass flow
1.497e-005 lb/h

To users A
Common
header
pipe 2
TEE-100
Common
header
out 2

User A
FC
User A
pipe out

Total production

Common
header Mix-101
out 1

Combined Phi source

Temperature
475.0 F
Pressure
298.7 psig
Mass flow
9.970e+004 lb/h

User B
pipe

To
users
B

User A
FV

Sink
A

User B FC
SP 5.000e+004 lb/h
PV 4.988e+004 lb/h
OP
24.84 %

User B
FC
User B
User B
pipe out FV

Sink
B

User B pipe out

Temperature
475.0 F
Pressure
298.5 psig
Mass flow
4.991e+004 lb/h

FIGURE 3. A flowsheet that is ready for dynamic mode is illustrated here

generally not able to risk a major

shutdown in order to test system responses to the upsets of interest. The
next best option is to model the system dynamically. The dynamic model
becomes a testing platform on which
control concepts can be proven and
adjusted if necessary [3].
Dynamic process simulations fill
the gap between different steadystate operating cases, showing a
more complete picture of system behavior. Using the knowledge gained
during the investigative process, a
model can be constructed that will be
useful for testing the system under
changing conditions.
Example. Suppose the system to be
modeled consisted of three sources and
two users of steam. The steady-state
model flowsheet may look like Figure
2. In this example system, two sources
of steam exist on one end of a main

User A
pipe

User A FC
SP 1.000e+005 lb/h
PV 9.973e+004 lb/h
OP
50.03 %

steam header, while a third source sits

close to the process user areas.
This same simulation flowsheet can
be adapted for dynamic evaluation by
adding some basic controls as shown
in Figure 3.
Using this source-sink model of a
steam distribution header, some of
the aspects of the system behavior
can be explored. The system may have
two design cases that result in different steam balances. The steady-state
model gives a snapshot of what is
happening when everything is stable.
Table 1 shows what these data may
look like.
Switching to a dynamic analysis
gives a more complete picture of the
system behavior in the time between
the two operating cases. At this point,
the previous consultation with operators who understand the system
comes into play. Using the knowledge

gained from the operators, the design

engineer must account for the time
factors involved in transitioning from
normal to alternate operation. For this
example, users in Area B are reducing
demand to reach the alternate operating mode. Through consultation with
the operators, it becomes clear that
this demand reduction normally takes
place over a 2-min period. Figure 4 is
a graph of what this may look like in a
dynamic simulation.
Starting from a steady state corresponding to normal operation, the
demand reduction begins at 120 seconds. The User B demand is ramped
steadily downward for the prescribed
two minutes. The source-steam flow
controllers initiate a corresponding reduction in steam production
to maintain the system balance.
This production decrease is typically
achieved through some type of master

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM JUNE 2012

43

TABLE 1. STEADY-STATE RESULTS FOR TWO OPERATING SCENARIOS

44

Normal operation

Alternate operation

Pressure
(psig)

Pressure
(psig)

Mass Flow
(lb/h)

Mass Flow
(lb/h)

Source 1

300.0

125,000

300.0

50,000

Source 2

300.0

75,000

300.0

50,000

Source 3

299.6

50,000

300.3

50,000

Total production

299.1

250,000

299.8

150,000

To users in A

298.0

100,000

298.7

100,000

To users in B

298.7

150,000

299.7

50,000

120,000
Source 1
Mass flow, lb/h

100,000
80,000
60,000

Source 2
Mass flow, lb/h

40,000
20,000

User B pipe out

Mass flow, lb/h

0
0

100

200

300
Time, s

400

500

600

FIGURE 4. The dynamic behavior of steam sources during transition, as discussed

in the example, is shown here

340
320
Pressure, psig

pressure controller. The master pressure controller senses the steam distribution-header pressure and drives
the steam producer to increase or
decrease production to maintain the
desired header pressure.
A major limiting factor in controlling
steam header pressure is the response
time of the steam generating source.
These sources respond very slowly due
to the mass of water and steel that
must absorb and release energy to affect a change in the system flow. This
thermal inertia can cause differing
response times on flow increases and
decreases at different capacities.
In this example, the Source 1 and
2 characteristics are such that their
response is limited to a rate of 10%
of total capacity per minute. Figure
5 shows a plot of the pressure at the
main sensing point for Sources 1
and 2.
Again starting from steady state
and introducing the disturbance at
120 seconds, the header pressure initially rises due to the slow response
time of Sources 1 and 2. The sluggish
nature of these steam sources also contributes to the overcompensation and
severe drop in header pressure. The
sources are eventually able to compensate for the change in steam demand,
but a large oscillation has been experienced in the interim. These types of
oscillations can cause process upsets
throughout a large facility. Note that
this example is for illustrative purposes only and some of this lag can be
attenuated with careful tuning.
A validation step is essential to verify the models ability to emulate the
system behavior. Typically, a model
review is performed involving key
personnel from engineering and operations departments. The information
gained during the investigative step
regarding common upset events is
particularly useful at this stage. Ideally, the model is put through a series
of known scenarios, and the resulting predicted response is compared
to the known response. Any required
fine tuning can be implemented, and
the model can be used for subsequent
analysis with a reasonable degree
of confidence. The model can also be
used to predict system behavior under
new conditions.

Name

Mass flow, lb/h

Feature Report

300
280

Combined Pri
source
pressure, psig

260
240
220
200
0

100

200

300
Time, s

400

500

600

FIGURE 5. This plot shows the dynamic response of main header pressure as
given in the example

Once validated, the model will provide valuable insight into system behavior and interactions. It is the high
degree of interconnectivity in facilities
that results in greater efficiencies, but
can lead to unexpected interactions. A
well-constructed dynamic model can
lead to the discovery of these interactions and will allow a facility time to
develop a plan for controlling the integrated system.
If the model is emulating an existing system, step testing can be used to
develop actual system behavior data.
Incremental changes of a tolerable

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM JUNE 2012

magnitude can be made during the operation of a facility. The magnitude of

the change need only be greater than
the noise band of the target dependent
variable. Proper planning and preparation is essential for this type of testing, since there is a risk of upsetting
an operating unit. All test parameters
must be documented and agreed upon
prior to testing.

Plan
Using the developed and validated
system model, a master control strategy can be developed. Using engineer-

MASTER CONTROL STRATEGY KEY CONSIDERATIONS

In assembling a preliminary control strategy for steam systems, the following key considerations should be included:
1. How will the header pressure be measured and maintained?
2. Is it better to maintain a set point target at one position in the complex header
system, or to maintain an average pressure based on multiple readings across
the header?
3. Should all boilers be fired symmetrically at the same load?
4. Should boilers be fired in groups with the same load selected for each boiler in
a group?
5. Are some boilers better left base loaded at a fixed firing rate?
6. Are there any waste streams being fired?
7. What constraints need to be incorporated into the control strategy?

ing judgment and insights gained

throughout the model development
and testing, a preliminary control
strategy is assembled. Some key considerations in such a strategy include
those shown in the box above.
The control strategy will likely be
a combination of traditional proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers and logic triggered actions.
Steam load shedding is an example
of logic triggered actions. Load shedding can be implemented if major

steam users need to be shed in order

to recover from an upset scenario.
The input of experienced operations
personnel is essential in developing
a ranking of the major steam users
that can be shed. This ranking will
allow the development of steam shed
actions resulting from steam-header
pressure loss [3].
Once the preliminary control strategy is established, it can be incorporated into the dynamic model. Confidence in the selected controls will

be gained by rerunning the previous

model cases using the tuned model
and planned control strategy. Perturbing this model using upsets from model
development will show the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the proposed
control scheme. Initial tuning parameters can be developed along with any
adjustments to sensing locations and
final control-element characteristics
(such as control valve sizes). The dynamic model can then be used to predict reactions to more severe upsets
that are not reasonable to attempt in
an operating unit.

Implement
Implementation of the control scheme
is the final step. All of the modeling,
checking and rechecking should result in confidence in the new mastercontrol scheme and provide useful
predictive data for implementation
in a new facility or for navigating an
existing facilitys management-of-

Need Tube Bundles or Heat Exchangers?

ude
s
Tube Bundleof any existing bundle to incl.
Duplication materials and performance
dimensions,
gers
Heat Exchan or replacement exchangers
w
ne
Design
ication.
for your appl

Coils

t or new.
Replacemen

1-800-339-7991
Available in stainless steel.

www.MultiThermCoils.com

Heat Transfer Fluids Industrial Coils HVAC Equipment

Circle 38 on p. 76 or go to adlinks.che.com/40268-38
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM JUNE 2012

45

Feature Report
either hazards or operability. This is
typically done within the framework
of an established plant or project
hazard-analysis procedure, such as
an MOC procedure or a hazard and
operability study (HAZOP).
Prior to activating the new control
scheme, all components, including the
software components, must be tested
to ensure proper functionality.

Edited by Dorothy Lozowski

change (MOC) procedures.

The planned scheme must first
be documented in all relevant engineering documents. Piping and
instrument diagrams, process flow
diagrams, control narratives and
instrument loop diagrams are examples of these documents. Once all
documentation is in place, a thorough review will take place to ensure nothing has been overlooked in

References
1. Jaber, David, McCoy, Gilbert A., and Hart,
Fred L., Follow these Best Practices in
Steam System Management, Chem. Eng.
Prog., December 2001.
2. Currie, Jonathan, and others, Steam Utility Systems are not Business as Usual for
Chemical Process Simulators, AIChE Archived Presentations, March 15, 2011.
3. Bourji, Ali, Ballow, David, and Choroszy,
Martha, Find Benefits in Automating
Boiler Systems, Hydrocarbon Proc., October 2011.

Authors

Ali Bourji is a senior technical director at WorleyParsons

(6330 West Loop South, Bellaire, TX 77401; Email: ali.
[email protected];
Phone: 713-407-5000). Bourji
received his B.S.Ch.E. and
M.S.Ch.E. from the University of Houston and his Ph.D.
from Lamar University. He
is a professional engineer
and a member of AIChE and
AFPM (formerly NPRA). Bourji is the author
of numerous publications and serves on the
Chemical Engineering Ph.D. Advisory Council
at Lamar University.

David Ballow is a principal

process engineer at WorleyParsons (6330 West Loop
South, Bellaire, TX 77401;
Phone: 713-407-5000) and is
a professional engineer. He
received a B.S.Ch.E. from
Louisiana Tech University
and is a member of AIChE.

Spencer_ACHEMA_Specials_Ad_7x4.875_051512:Layout 1

5/16/12

8:12 AM

In the process industry,

air and gas handling equipment must perform awlessly
under very tough requirements:
Corrosive, toxic and other gases
such as suldes, nitrogen, halogens,
acids, cyanides, hydrogen and ammonia
Temperatures to 1100 F (593 C)
Casing design pressures to 1000 psig (6895 kPa)
Inlet pressures to 500 psig (3447 kPa)
Differential pressures to 20 psig (138 kPa)
Volumes to 30000 icfm (50977 m 3/hr)
Leak-tight performance

The Spencer Turbine Company

600 Day Hill Road, Windsor, CT 06095 USA

Martha Choroszy is a chief

process engineer at WorleyParsons (6330 West Loop
South, Bellaire, TX 77401;
Phone: 713-407-5000). She
received a B.S.Ch.E. from
the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology and an M.B.A.
from Tulane University. She
is a licensed professional engineer in Texas and a member of AIChE and NFPA. She
is the author of numerous publications, a recipient of Tulanes Allen Vorholt Award and has
served as a Blue Ribbon Panel Member to define
the national agenda for the U.S. Core CombusPage
1
tion Research
Program.

Spencer applies more than 120 years of industry

technology leadership to engineer, design and
manufacture solutions for extreme air and gas
handling challenges. Our custom blowers and gas
boosters are unique and engineered for their target
application. We fabricate from special metals and
utilize corrosion-resistant coatings, restrictive shaft
sealing and leak-tight designs.
Only Spencer offers the process industry more choices,
more options and more experience in providing air
and gas handling equipment for hot, high-pressure
or corrosive gases.

800-232-4321

860-688-8361

Fax 860-688-0098

www.spencerturbine.com

Visit us at ACHEMA 2012 - Stand D81 in Hall 9.0 in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, June 18-22.
Circle 50 on p. 76 or go to adlinks.che.com/40268-50
46

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM JUNE 2012