Chemiyl

Engife~nng
Processing
ELSEVIER Chemical Engineering and Processing, 34 (1995) 61-69

Conceptual design of the control configurations of distillation columns

J. Stichlmair
Lehrstuhl A fiir Verfahrenstechnik, Technische Universit& Miinchen, 80290 Miincherz, Germnny

Dedicated to Prof. Dy.-Ing. P.-M. Weinspach on the occasion of his 60th birthday

Abstract

This paper presentsdiagrams that allow the selectionof the best control configuration of a distillation column from a
knowledgeof the thermodynamicparametersreflux ratio, reboil ratio and distillate-to-bottomsratio. Thesenovel diagramsare
valid not only for binary but also for multicomponentdistillation. For the distillation of ideal binary mixtures, the diagramsare
modified in such a way that the best control configuration can be determinedjust from a knowledgeof the relative volatility of
the mixture, the compositionof the feed and the specificationsof the products.

Keywords: Conceptualdesign;Control configurations; Distillation columns;Thermodynamicparameters

1. Introduction column has been discarded to simplify the flow struc-

A large variety of different control configurations for
distillation columns has been developed (see, for exam-
ples, Ref. [l-3]). This variety has its origin partly in the
large number of different separation tasks performed by
distillation and partly in the complex structure of distil-
lation columns. There is much written in the literature
on the advantages and the disadvantages of various
configurations, but case studies predominate over theo-
retically founded guidelines. This paper is aimed at
assisting the engineer in selecting the best control
configuration for a given separation problem. Through
the concept of stream partitioning, design strategies for
control configurations that are particularly helpful in
conflicting situations are developed in a systematical
manner.
2. Flow structure in distillation columns
The schematic of a distillation column in depicted in
Fig. 1. It represents, in principle, a system of three
stream partitions that are interconnected. Figure
2 shows the basic flow structure with two vessels
and five streams in a more abstract manner. The
ture and to make the interconnections of the
three stream partitions clearer. The stream partitions
are
1. Partition of the feed F into overhead product d and
bottom product j. This partition is characterized
by the product ratio D/B or (D/q/( 1 -D/F) (since
B/F= l- D/F).
2. Partition of the condensate into reflux i and over-
head product 5,. This partition is characterized by
the reflux ratio R, = i/b.
3. Partition of the bottom liquid into boilup d and
bottom product B. Here, the parameter is the reboil
ratio R, = G/B.
The values of the three partition parameters are inter-
connected by the following relation (see, for example,
Ref. [4]):
R =@&k+ 1) -Cl -4
G 1 -d/F
Here, q denotes the caloric factor which represents
in a vapour/liquid mixture the fraction of liquid in
the feed. In the case of a boiling liquid feed, the caloric
factor is CJ= 1. In the case of a saturated vapour
feed, the caloric factor is q = 0. Equation (1) simplifies
to:
 J. Stichbmir / Clzett~ical Bigineeritlg and Processing 34 (1995) 61-69

r -------1 cooling
b/ii=1
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
4 D
reflux i distillate b

feed p

reboil 6
--“‘1

0.2

bottoms ti 0.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Fig. 1. Flow sheet of a single distillation column. The column con-
sists, in principle, of an interconnected system of three stream parti- distillateto feed ratio b/k --B
tions, i.e. feed partition into products, condensate partition at the top Fig. 3. Graphical plot of the relation bctwccn the partition parame-
and liquid partition at the bottom of the column. ters R,, R, and D/E according to Eq. (2) for a boiling liquid feed
(q = 1) and a saturated vapour feed (CJ= 0). This plot is suitable for
separating a pure overhead fraction.

b/f&l
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0

f 2.0

cc"
t
$ A::
2 0.6
%
13 0.4
Fig. 2. Basic flow structure of a distillation column from a control E
structure point of view. The column has been discarded in order to
make the interconnected flow structure clearer. 0.2

R,=&j(RL+l) for q=l
or
Ii/$
R,=- l-B,F(RG+l)
forq=O
Figure 3 shows the graph of Eq. (1). The ret+ ratio RL
is plotted versus the distillate-to-feed ratio D/F with the
reboil ratio RG. as a parame,ter. The values RL = 1,
R, = 1 and D/B = 1 (i.e. D/F = O-5), being of special
importance, are marked by bold lines. The solid
parameter lines refer to a boiling liquid feed, i.e. q = 1;
the dashed ones to a saturated vapour feed, i.e. q = 0.
This is the appropriate plot of Eq. (1) if a pure over-
head fraction has to be recovered from the feed.
0.1 -
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
bottomsto feed ratio i% --D
Fig. 4. Graphical plot of Eq. (2) for a boiling liquid feed (q = 1) and
a saturated vapour feed (4 = 0). This plot is more advantageous for
separating a pure bottom fraction,
For the recovery of a pure bottom fraction, the plot
of Fig. 4 is of greater meaning. Here, the reboil ratio
R, and the bottom fraction 6 are of prime interest.
Consequently, the reboil.ratio Ro is plotted versus the
bottom-to-feed ratio B/F. The course of the parameter
lines is identical in both diagrams. Just the lines for
liquid feed transfer into the lines for vapour feed and
vice versa. From a thermodynamic point of view, the
 J. Stichlmair 1 Chemical EngineeGg and Processing 34 (1995) 61-69 63

r----T r----l
b/B=1
i - 0 i -
10.0 0

8.0 FC
'% Fc
6.0 i i
--f-r+

c
--'I FC G‘-7
- 2 - ------
L
0
+2iidIb
0
FC

D-G configuration L-B configuration

r----l

i - b
FC
0.2
t
-IF+-

0.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
distillate to feed ratio b/k --o
Fig. 5. Range of applicability of the different control configurations
for the separation of a pure overhead fraction from a boiling liquid
feed. The various control configurations D-G, L-B, L-G and D-B
are depicted schematically in Fig. 6.
separation of a pure overhead fraction from a vapour
feed is identical with the separation of a pure bottom
fraction from a liquid feed and vice versa, see Figs. 8
and 9 or 7 and 10 below. This can easily be verified by
an upside down version of the McCabe-Thiele dia-
gram.
The three stream partitions are also interconnected
by individual streams. The distillate d is, for instance,
an element of both the partition of the feed and the
partition of the condensate. These interconnections of-
ten give rise to conflicting situations where not all the
requirements of the partition rules can be met. Many
problems encountered in distillation column control are
based on these stream interconnections.
1
6--7 Fc
B -52-
-!I!3
L-G configuration D-B configuration
Fig. 6. Schemes for the various basic control configurations. The
points of the directly controlled variables are externally set. The D-G
and the L-B configurations are superior to the L-G configuration.
The D-B configuration is not acceptable since it violates the rule that
one of the product streams must be left free.
trolled. Control of the larger stream with same accuracy
results in flow rates of 81-99 m3 h-’ and 1-19 m3 h-‘,
respectively. The more the flow rates differ, the more
important is direct control of the smaller stream. The
above considerations can be summarized in two rules
that have to be considered in each stream partition:
Rule 1: Only one partition stream must be directly
controlled. The other one must be left free (or ‘manipu-
lated by a level controller).
Rule 2: The directly manipulated stream should be the
smaller one and, in turn, the free stream should be the
larger one.

3. Rules for stream partition control
A very essential control task is the partition of a fluid
stream into two smaller streams. Even when the flow
rate of the feed stream is absolutely constant, it is not
possible to control each of the partition streams with
independent controllers. It is impossible to meet the
material balance by two independently acting flow rate
controllers. Only one of the partition streams must be
manipulated directly, the other one must be left free.
Preferably, the stream with the smaller flow rate is
manipulated. If, for instance, a 100 m3 h-l stream has
to be split into two streams of 90 m3 h-l and 10 m3 h-l,
a control system with + 10% accuracy keeps the
streams in the range of 89-91 m3 h-i and 9-l 1 m3 h-i,
respectively, when the smaller stream is directly con-
In those cases where not both of the rules can be met,
rule 1 takes precedence since it results from a material
balance that must never be violated. Rule 2, however,
results from a consideration of flow rate measurement
accuracy and flow rate fluctuations and, hence, is not as
strict as rule 1. If a well-tuned controller is used, a
control system works well even when the directly ma-
nipulated stream is larger than the free stream. A rule
of thumb states that the directly manipulated stream
can be up to five-times larger than the free stream [5].
However, this violation of rule 2 should only be made
in conflicting situations. When one stream is much
smaller than the other one, e.g. by a factor of 10 or
more, then rule 2 must not be violated.
The values of the partition parameters provide the
information as to which of the two partition streams is
64 J. Sticltbnair 1 Cltetnical
the smaller one. A value of the reflux ratio R, = 2 (i.e.
L/D = 2) expresses, for instance, that the flow rate of
the distillate d is much smaller than that of the reflux i
(i = 2@. Hence, the distillate flow rate 5 must be
directly controlled. At a value FL = 0.5, however, the
reflux i is the smaller stream (L = 0.5D) and must be
directly controlled. What is decisive for the control
configuration of any stream partition is the unequality
< 1 or > 1 of the relevant partition parameter.
4. Basic control configurations of distillation columns
For developing the optimal control configuration of
a distillation column, all partition parameters have to
be checked as to whether they are either larger than 1
or smaller than 1. As a result of this check, several
cases, represented by the shaded regions in Fig. 5, can
be distinguished. Just the recovery of a pure overhead
fraction from a boiling liquid feed is considered here.
The first case (upper left region in Fig. 5) is.charac-
terized by the conditions R, ? l,, R, < 1 and D/B < 1.
The condition R, > 1 (i.e. L/D > 1) demands direct
control of the distillate flow b because it is the smaller
stream (,i > 5). The reflux i is left free, or monitored
by a level control. The condition R, < 1 (i.e. d/j < 1)
demands, in turn, direct control of the reboil 6, since
d <i. The third condition, d/d, < 1, also requires
direct control of the distillate d. Hence, the distillate
stream b and the reboil stream d must be directly
controlled. This control scheme is referred to as the
D-G configuration in literature. Figure 6 shows the
schematics of all control, cotigurations. The D-G
configuration is a favourable one since one stream, D,
of the feed partition into products (external material
balance) and one stream, i, of the internal countercur-
rent flow (energy balance) are the directly controlled
variables.
The second case (lower right region in Fig. 5) is
characterized by the conditions R, 5 1, RG > 1 and
D/B > 1. The condition R, < 1 (i.e. L/D < 1) requires
direct control of the reflux flow i, since i is smaller
than d. The condition PG > 1 (i.e. g/i > 1) makes the
bottom product flow B the directly controlled stream
since d, is smaller than 6. The third condition, d/i > !,
also requires direct control of the bottom fraction B.
Hence, reflux i and bottom product i must be directly
controlled in this case. This control scheme is called the
L-B configuration. This configuration is as favourable
as the D-G configuration since external material bal-
ance and internal energy balance are decoupled as is
depicted in Fig. 6.
The third case is represented by the lower left region
in Fig. 5. The conditions are RL 5 1,. RG < 1 and D/
3 < 1. The condition R, < 1 (i.e. L/D < 1) makes the
reflux L the directly controlled variable. The second
Engineering utd Processittg 34 (1995) 61 -G9
condition, R, < 1 (j.e. 6/i < I), demands direct con-
trol of the reboil G. The third condition, i/j < 1, is
not relevant here since ncithcr D nor d, is a directly
controlled variable. The control structure of the third
case is called the L-G configuration. This configuration
is less favourable than the D-G and the L-G configu-
rations since none of the product streams is directly
controlled (see Fig. 6). Both streams of the internal
countercurrent flow (energy balance) are directly con-
trolled. The external material balance is indirectly con-
trolled via the energy balance. Material balance and
energy balance are not separated in this case. Perturba-
tions in the heating system affect, for instance, the flow
rates of the products. Hence, the L-G configuration
should be avoided whenever possible [6].
The fourth case (upper right region in Fig. 5) is
defined by the unequalities RL > 1, Rc,> ! and D/
B > 1. The first condition, XL > 1 (i.e. L/,D > I), de-
mands direct control of the distillate flow D, since it is
smaller than the reflux i. The second condition, A, > 1
(i.e. d/i > 1), for the same reason demands direct
control of the bottom fraction j. The third condition,
d/i > 1, is irrelevant since both product streams are
directly manipulated. However, simultaneous direct
control of both the overhead product D and the bottom
product j violates partition rule 1 since none of the two
streams, d and i, of the feed partition is left free (see
Fig. 6). Such a control configuration is, as a flow
control, not feasible. However, there is a chance to
realize such a D-B configuration not by flow but by
quality control (see, for example, Ref. [7]).
10.0
8.0
6.0
2.0
A::
0,6
0.4
0.2
0.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
distillate to feed ratio b/i = xFaYa ---t>
Fig. 7. Range of applicability of the various basic control configura-
tions in the case of a pure overhead fraction and a boiling liquid feed
(caloric factor 4 = 1). The dashed paramctcr lines arc valid for ideal
binary mixtures and an infinite number of stages (Le. minimum reflux
and reboil).
 J. Stichlmais / Chemical Engineering and Processing 34 (1995) 61-69 65

f%=i
10.0 10.0
8.0 8.0
6.0 6.0

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
.G
0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
distillate t0 feed I’atiO b/f = xF8 Y, --D bottoms to feed ratio 'B/k = xFbY,, --s
Fig. 8. Range of applicability of the various basic control configura- Fig. 9. Range of applicability of the various basic control configura-
tions in the case of a pure overhead fraction and a saturated vapour tions in the case of a pure bottom fraction and a boiling liquid feed
feed (caloric factor 4 = 0). (caloric factor 4 = 1).

The diagram in Fig. 5 is valid for a boiling liquid

feed. An analogous diagram can easily be developed for 10.0
a saturated vapour feed (see Fig. 8 below). All these 8.0
diagrams can be applied not only to binary mixtures 6.0
but also to multicomponent mixtures, to non-ideal or 4.0
even azeotropic mixtures and to a finite and infinite
numbers of stages. The only restriction is constant
molar overflow.

5. Range of application of the control configurations 0.6

0.4
The selection of adequate control configuration de-
pends, as has been demonstrated above, ,on the values
of the partition parameters RL, R, and D/B. However,
these values cannot be freely chosen, rather they are
determined by the thermodynamics of the distillation 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
process. The values of the partition parameters are the
result of the thermodynamic calculation of the distilla- bottoms to feed ratio b/k= x,,Y, --D
tion process. These values are known when it comes to Fig. 10. Range of applicability of the various basic control configura-
the design of the control configuration. tions in the case of a pure bottom fraction and a saturated vapour
The question arises which values of the partition feed (caloric factor CJ= 0).
parameters R,, R, and D/B are typically encountered
in what systems to be separated. This question cannot
be answered generally because the partition parameters concentration xFa) exist. Since the practical operation
depend in a very complex manner on the nature of the of distillation columns is only a little bit over operation
system, on the desired products and on the number of with minimum reflux and reboil, respectively, the results
equilibrium stages of the column. However, for ideal of the following considerations are relevant to practical
binary systems and an infinite number of stages (i.e. column operation.
minimum reflux ratio and minimum reboil ratio), sim- The distillate-to-feed ratio i/j follows from a mate-
ple relations between the partition parameters and the rial balance when a pure overhead product is with-
system properties (i.e. relative volatility a and feed drawn:
66 J. Sticldnznir 1 Chemical Engineering and Processing 34 (1995) 61-69
d/k = YaxFa with xDa = 1 and 0 < Y, < 1
Here, Y, denotes the yield or recovery of the low boiler
in the overhead product. For Ya < 1, some of the low
boiler leaves the column in the bottom fraction.
The minimum reflux ratio is calculated by [see, for
example, Ref. [S]):
1 V
L,in = (a - ’1)X,, = (g - ;;,X,,
for n 3 co and XDa = 1 (4)
This equation is valid for a boiling liquid
4 = 1. With Eq. (3) it follows that:
RLmin = (a _ I)b,p for n + co and &a = 1
The analogous relations for the withdrawal of a pure
bottom fraction are:
i/k = Y,..rFb with xBb = 1 and 0 < Y, < 1
Here, Y, denotes the recovery of the high boiler in the
bottoms fraction.
The minimum reboil ratio for a boiling liquid feed is
calculated by (see, for example, Ref. [S]):
u -1
-1
-1
&min =
1 1 + (a - 1)X,,
1I 1 = 1 -(l-
1
l/sl)X/1
for n 3 co and x~,, = 1 (7)
RGmin
= -I
Combining Eqs. (6) and (7) gives:
1 1
I-(l-l/r)/Y,.b/P-l
for n --f co and xBb = 1 (8)
Similar relations exist in both cases for a saturated
vapour feed. All these relations can be implicated in the
plot of Eq. (1). The resulting diagrams are presented in
Figs. 7-10. The parameter lines (X - l)/yi or (1 - lb)/
6 characterize the nature of the system to be separated
(relative volatility a) and the required yield Y of the
pure product i. In all diagrams the dashed parameter
lines are shown for the same values of relative volatility
g(. The concentration of the feed is included in the
abscissa according to Eqs. (3) and (6), respectively. The
regions of applicability of the various control configu-
rations, as developed in the previous section, are also
marked.
From Fig. 7 it follows, for instance, that the D-G
configuration should be applied to wide boiling systems
with relative volatiiities a > 2.5 and low concentrations
of feed (+ < 0.33) when a pure overhead fraction has
to be separated from a boiling liquid feed. In the case of
a saturated vapour feed (Fig. 8) the range of applica-
(39
10.0
8.0
6.0
A::
0.6
feed, i.e.
0.4
(5)
0.1 II 8.0..-
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
distillateto feed ratio I% --D-
(69 Fig. 11. Expanded range of applicability of the D-G configuration
for the separation of a pure ovcrhcnd fraction from a boiling liquid
feed. In the moderately and lightly shaded areas, the larger stream is
directly manipulated, requiring high accuracy mcasurcments and very
well tuned controllers.
tion of the D-G configuration is larger. The feed
concentration can be as high as .Q~ = 0.5 when the
relative volatility is larger than x = 3. For the separa-
tion of a pure bottom fraction from a liquid feed (Fig.
99, the D-G configuration can be applied if the volatil-
ity c! is higher than 4 provided high concentrations of
the high boiler b in the feed (x,+ > 0.66). For a va-
porous feed (Fig. 9)> the range of the feed concentra-
tion iS expanded to VaiUeS as low as .yFb= 0.5 for
relative volatilities 9 > 3.
The L-B configuration should also be applied to
wide boiling systems with high feed concentrations of
the low boiler (-uw > 0.5) and, consequently, low feed
concentrations +b of the high boiler (see Fig. 7). Here,
the range of application is larger for separating a pure
overhead product from a liquid feed than from a va-
pour feed (Fig. 8).
The application of the L-G configuration is re-
stricted in all four cases to intermediate feed concentra-
tions +a and -YFb, respectively, and to systems with
very high values of the relative volatility x > 4.5. Thus,
this control configuration, although often considered in
the literature as the standard configuration, has only a
very limited range of applicability to practical distilla-
tion problems. The restriction to very wide boiling
systems and the disadvantage of not decoupling the
external material balance and the internal enthalpy
balance leads to the recommendation not to apply the
L-G control configuration. As will be shown in the
next section, its range of applicability is also covered by
 J. Stichlmais 1 Cl?emical Engineering ad Processing 34 (1995) 61-69 61

10.0
8.0
6.0 6.
4.0

0.1 L “. I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
distillate to feed ratio b/k --D distillate to feed ratio b/k -0
Fig. 12. Range of applicability of the L-B configuration for the Fig. 13. Range of applicability of the L-G configuration for the
separation of a pure overhead fraction from a boiling liquid feed. separation of a pure overhead fraction from a boiling liquid feed.
This configuration is less advantageous than the D-G and the L-B
configurations since the material balance and the energy balance are
not separately controlled.
the expanded ranges of applicability of the D-G and
L-B configuration, respectively.

6. Expanded range of application of the control

configurations

Partition rule 2 that requires direct control of the

smaller partition stream is not a strict rule. A control
system also performs well when the directly controlled
stream is a little larger than the free stream. Hence, the f variable xF variable, pure b

range of applicability of the different control configura-

tions can be somewhat expanded. However, if the di-
rectly controlled stream is much larger than the free
one, the control system will fail at higher perturbations
of flow rates. The more the partition parameter deviates
from the critical value of 1, the more strictly must
partition rule 2 be obeyed.
The expanded range of applicability of all feasible
control configurations is presented in this section only
xF variable, pure b xF variable, pure b and pure fi (risky)
for the case of a boiling liquid feed from which a pure
overhead fraction has to be separated. Analogous dia- Fig. 14. Some modifications of the D-G control configuration. (A)
grams for a vapour feed and pure bottom fractions are Feed flow rate variable. (B) Feed composition variable and pure
easily developed. In the expanded regions of applicabil- overhead fraction must be recovered. (C) Feed composition variable
and pure bottom fraction must be recovered. (D) Feed composition
ity, the critical values of the partition parameters are variable and both pure overhead and pure bottom fraction must be
assumed to be <2 (moderately shaded area) and 64 recovered. This two-point quality control is very risky.
(lightly shaded area). High accuracy control instru-
ments have to be used in the expanded regions.
Figure 11 shows the ranges of applicability of the controlled and the smaller stream is left free, are mod-
D-G control configuration. In the heavily shaded re- erately or lightly shaded. This diagram shows that the
gion, the smaller stream is directly controlled. The D-G control configuration can be applied to systems
expanded regions, where the larger stream is directly with relative volatilities as low as v. = 1.4 (at xFa < 0.3)
68 J. Sticihai~ 1 Chemical
and with feed concentrations of the pure overhead or
bottom fraction as high as -xFa= 0.75 (at x > 6).
The range of applicability of the L-B control
configuration is shown in Fig. 12. It covers the region
of high feed concentrations of the pure overhead
product. Only very close boiling systems with relative
volatilities CI < 1.3 and intermediate feed concentrations
XFa are not capable of control by this configuration.
The expanded range of applicability of the L-G
configuration is plotted in Fig. 13. It mainly covers the
range Of small feed Concentrations .xF=and large r&tiVe
volatilities 01.Practically all of its range of applicability
is also covered by the D-G and the L-B configura-
tions. Whenever possible, these configurations should
be given precedence over the L-G configuration since
material balance and energy balance are not decoupled
in the L-G configuration.
The summary of the above considerations is that the
D-G configuration is the best control configuration for
low feed concentrations of the low boiling constituent
and, in turn, the L-B con&ration is the best one for
high feed concentrations of the low boiling constituent.
Both configurations cover all feed concentrations and
nearly all relative volatilities r. Only systems with very
low volatilities x < 1.3 are difficult to control by these
configurations.
7. Modifications of the basic control configurations
In the basic control configurations, the flow rates of
the control variables are set externally. Two conditions
have to be met for effective separation.
The first coqdition requires that the flow rate of the
pure product D and B, respectively, is smaller than the
amount of this component in the feed:
d -c hcFa or i < pxFb
If this condition is violated, other constituents of the
mixture are forced into the overhead and bottom
product, respectively, making the product off-specifica-
tion.
The second condition requires that the set point of
reflux ratio and reboil ratio, respectively, is higher than
the minimum values required for the desired separation.
RL > RLmin =f(XFi) or RG > &min =f(?cd
Minimum reflux as well as minimum reboil depend on
the state (XFi and 4) and the nature (2) of the feed.
In practical applications, both the flow rate and the
state of the feed may vary. Hence, the set points of the
controlled variables have to be adjusted continuously.
This is especially important in separations with a high
yield Y and with minimum energy input. Hence, the
basic control configurations presented in Fig. 6 have to
be modsed. Some modifications of the D-G cotigu-
Engineering nncl Processing 33 (1995) Gl -GP
ration are shown in Fig. 14. Further modifications have
been presented by various authors (see, for example,
Refs. [9- 121).
If only the flow rate of the feed varies, ratio control
instead of flow control has to be applied. However,
ratio control requires more flow rate measurements
than rate control. This makes ratio control more
difficult to implement and more failure sensitive. In Fig.
14(A), a feed forward loop is implemcntcd that reduces
the number of flow rate measurements. However, a lag
compensation is required for the forward loop.
If the feed composition Sr-.i varies significantly or if a
high yield of the pure component has to be maintained,
then temperature control replaces flow rate control of
the product [see Fig. 14(B) and (C)l. It is by this
temperature control loop that the condition of Eq. (9)
is met. If, for instance, the pure low boiler has to be
separated with high yield in the overhead fraction d,
the temperature controller adjusts the Aow rate of
overhead fraction automatically. Thus, no high boiler is
forced into the overhead product by too high a flow
rate of the distillate D. Such one-point quality con-
trollers are most widely used in industrial distillation
processes (see, for example, Refs. [7,13,14]).
Figure 14(D) shows the structure of a two-point
quality control. Here, the flow rate of the overhead
fraction as well as of the bottom fraction is manipu-
lated to maintain the tcmperaturcs in the rectifying and
the stripping section at proper values. Several authors
[ 11,131 report that such a control system works well if
the loops are carefully tuned and only PI controllers are
used. However, there is a high risk of severe control
interactions [ 15,161. The fundamental problem of such
a two-point quality control is the selection of thermody-
namically consistent values for the set points of the
temperature controllers. Otherwise, the temperature
controllers will act against each other, A common way
(9) to suppress such interactions is to tune one loop very
tightly and the other loop loose. However, the perfor-
mance of one control loop is sacrificed to a certain ex-
tent. Generally, two-point quality control is very risky
and, therefore, should be avoided whenever possible.
Nomenclature
(10) low-boiling substance
L high-boiling substance
j bottom fraction, kmol s-l
d overhead fraction, distillate, kmol s-I
I;- feed, kmol s-l
d reboil, kmol s-’
L reflux, km01 s- ’
n number of equilibrium stages of the column
PO vapour pressure, bar
4 caloric factor, q = I’,/@
 J. Stichlmair 1 Chemical Engineering and Processing 34 (1995) 61-69 69

RG reboil ratio, R, E d/k [7] S. Skogestad, Dynamics and control of distillation columns-a
RL reflux ratio, R, = i/d critical survey, Prep,. IFAC Symp. DYCORD, MD, 1992, pp.
l-25.
X mole fraction of liquid phase
[8] J. Stichlmair, Distillation and rectification, in Ullmann’s Ency-
Y mole fraction of vapour phase clopedia of In&trial Chemistry, VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, Wein-
Y yield, recovery heim, 1988, Vol. B3, pp. 4-l-4-94.
[9] M. Heckle, Destillationskolonnen, in J. Hengstenberg, B. Sturm
c( relative volatiiity, c( zpf/pE and 0. Winkler (eds.), IMessen, Steuetn und Regeln in de)
Chemisehen Technik, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1981, Band III, pp.
351-375.
[lo] S. Skogestad and M. Morari, Control configuration selection for
References distillation columns, AZChE J., 33 (1987) 1620-1635.
[ll] S. Skogestad, P. Lundstriim and E.W. Jacobsen, Selecting the
[l] F.G. Shinskey, Distillation Contra/, McGraw-Hill, New York, best distillation control configuration, AIChE J., 36 (1990) 753-
1977. 764.
[2] H.Z. Kister, Distillation Operation, McGraw-Hill, New York, [ 121 CC. Yu and W.L. Luyben, Robustness with respect to integral
1989. controllability, Ind. Eng. Chem., Prod. Res. Dee., 26 (1987)
[ 31 W.L. Luyben, Practical Distillation Control, Van Nostrand, New 1043-1045.
York, 1992. [13] G. Bogenstztter and K. Hengst, Regelung von Destillations-
[4] C.J. King, Separation Processes, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980. kolonnen, Chem.-Ing.-Tech., 31 (1959) 425-431.
[5] W. Sieber, Zur Auswahl von Regelsystemen bei Destillationskol- 1141 Z.-X. Zhu and A. Jutan, Stability robustness for decent-
onnen, Regelungstech. Pras. ProzeJ-Rechentech., (1970) 142- 148. ralized control systems, Cilem. Eng. Sci., 48 (1993) 2337-
[6] T.C. Wherry, J.R. Peebles, P.M. McNesse, P.O. Teter, R.E. 2343.
Worsham and R.M. Young, Process control, in R.H. Perry, [ 151 J.E. Rijnsdorp, Interaction in two-variable control systems for
D.W. Green and J.D. Maloney (eds.), Perry’s Chemical Engi- distillation columns. I, Automatica, 1 (1965) 15-28.
neers Haildbook, 6th edn., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1984, pp. [ 161 J.E. Rijnsdorp, Interaction in two-variable control systems for
22-115-22-118. distillation columns. II, Automatica, 1 (1965) 29-52.