Reducing Energy Consumption by Monitoring Controller

Performance

George Buckbee, P.E.

Keywords: Controller Monitoring, KPI, Energy Savings, Controller Performance,

metrics

ABSTRACT

Surprisingly, most plants have significant opportunity to improve controller performance. In

North America, a typical process plant has 20% to 30% of control loops running in manual,
largely due to control performance issues. As many as 40% of control loops are oscillating,
which leads to considerable energy losses. Over the past five years, the use of control
performance monitoring has become the prevalent method to identify and resolve control
performance problems. This paper illustrates some specific techniques, such as oscillation
detection, interaction analysis, and automated process modeling, which lead to improvements in
energy consumption, as well as production and quality increases.

This paper illustrates three examples of energy reduction through the use of controller
performance monitoring. Each example shows the baseline conditions, the identification of
saving opportunities, corrective actions, and the resulting energy savings.

INTRODUCTION

Controller Performance Monitoring (CPM) is the process of analyzing real-time data from
process control systems to evaluate performance. Analysis can provide insights into the behavior
of instrumentation, controller tuning, control valves, and of the process itself. CPM has become
possible due to the impact of two important technologies: open real-time communications using
the OPC standard, and increasingly powerful computing technology. This combination has
allowed for sophisticated real-time analysis of every control loop in a facility.

CPM systems have highlighted the rather large opportunity that exists to improve performance in
process plants. In North America, it is typical to see as much of 30% of control loops running in
MANUAL. Control loops are typically placed in manual by the operator when there is some sort
of problem with the controller, the instrument, or the valve. As such, a loop in MANUAL can
generally be thought of as a symptom, representing a wide range of underlying controller
performance problems.

Typically, the CPM system will gather the following data in real-time:
• Process Variable (PV)
 • Setpoint (SP)
• Controller Output (OP)
• Controller Mode (MODE)
In many plants, this data is already available on process data historians, which can simplify and
streamline data acquisition using the OPC-HDA standard.

Once the raw data is captured, analysis can begin. This may involve a variety of techniques,
including:
• Raw Statistical Analysis
• Fourier Transforms for Oscillation Analysis
• Pattern Recognition
• Diagnostics
• Expert System Rules

The results of the analysis are specific diagnostics and advice for controller performance
improvement.

CPM can be applied to achieve a wide array of process results, including production increases,
energy reductions, and quality improvements. However, this paper will focus on reduced energy
consumption. The paper illustrates three examples of energy reduction through the use of
controller performance monitoring. Each example shows the baseline conditions, the
identification of saving opportunities, corrective actions, and the resulting energy savings.

INDICATORS OF ENERGY SAVINGS OPPORTUNITY

There are many ways to measure controller performance. In fact, over 80 individual metrics are
possible for each control loop. These range from the relatively simple:
• Minimum Value of PV
• Maximum Value of PV
• Standard Deviation
• % of Time in MANUAL

To the fairly complex:

• Oscillation wave shape
• Oscillation Significance
• Degree of Instrument “Spiking”
• Interaction & Correlation Analysis

These metrics may be used individually or in combination to identify energy savings

opportunities. There are generally two ways to save energy with process control loops.

First, we must recognize that all control loops themselves consume energy. Most commonly,
pneumatic control valves consume compressed air to open and close to respond to process
conditions. As it turns out, compressed air is a very expensive form of energy, as it is generated
by electrically-powered air compressors. The amount of air consumed varies widely, primarily
dependent of valve size and the extent of valve movement. As a ballpark estimate, you can
assume a typical 2-inch valve will consume about $500 worth of compressed air in a year.

Second, and more importantly, some control loops measure and/or control the energy
consumption in a process. Measuring the performance of these control loops can lead directly to
identifying energy savings. The case studies each show different aspects of performance that can
indicate energy savings.

CASE #1 – EXCESSIVE VALVE TRAVEL

Measuring the extent of valve travel is a very quick and easy way to identify control problems. If
you measure each small control movement, and totalize those movements over a day, you will
have a general idea of just how hard a control valve is working. There’s an old adage about
control valves: “How much should a control valve move? Answer: Just enough to get the job
done.”

In most cases, when a valve moves several thousand percent per day, it is an indication that
something is wrong. Control Performance Monitoring tools can easily totalize the valve travel.
Table 1 shows a list of control loops, and the totalized valve travel.

Table 1. Control Loops, Sorted by Valve Travel

To investigate, we’ll first take a look at a trend of the number-one valve on that list, as shown in
Figure 1. This valve shows 13,820% valve travel per day. It becomes immediately apparent that
the excessive valve travel is caused by the rapid movement of the loop’s setpoint. This loop is
the inner loop of a cascade scheme, and the tuning of the outer control loop is simply too
aggressive.

This is a 2.5” control valve. 13,820% per day is 138 strokes per day. Resolving the controller
tuning problem will typically keep the valve movement to less than 2,000% per day (20 strokes).
So net, we are saving almost 120 strokes per day. The reduced valve travel saves on valve
maintenance, and also saves roughly $100 per year in the energy cost for compressed air.
 Figure 1. Drill-Down to PV, SP, OP Trend

The savings in electrical energy is certainly measurable, but not necessarily significant, on the
scale of a large process plant. The reduced maintenance cost, and reduced risk of reliability
incidents is less measurable, but certainly much larger.

CASE #2 – THE SOURCE OF OSCILLATION

To find larger energy savings, it is better to look at oscillatory problems in large energy
consumers. Oscillations are very common in process plants, yet notoriously difficult to solve for
root cause. Large energy consumers, such as reactors, dryers, and distillation columns can lose a
substantial fraction of their efficiency when they are oscillating.

In this case study, a distillation column at a petrochemical facility was oscillating with a period
of approximately 2 hours per cycle. The problem was made worse when the Multivariable
Predictive Controller (MPC) was turned on.

The key to solving an oscillation problem is to identify other loops that are cycling at the same
period. The modern approach is to apply a “Fast Fourier Transform”, or FFT, to the data from
all loops in the plant, then to sort by the period of oscillation. A CPM system will perform the
FFT analysis on a going basis. Table 2 shows an example of such a report. The circled items in
this table are loops with oscillations ranging from 1.9 to 2.4 min/cycle.

Keep in mind that all offending control loops, including the root cause, will be cycling at the
very same period. With a little process knowledge, finding the root cause can be very
straightforward. Usually, it is the furthest up-stream loop that cycles at the same frequency. In
this case, the root cause was quickly determined to be a pressure controller on the distillation
column.
 Table 2. Control Loops, Sorted by period of Oscillation

Figure 2 shows the results of this work. The pressure controller was re-tuned, and the column
was able to return to operation under its MPC controller.

Figure 2. Distillation Column Pressure Control Improvement

With this improvement, the column steam consumption dropped almost immediately. The net
result or tuning this single control loop was energy savings in excess of $500,000 per year.
CASE #3 – FINDING THE ROOT CAUSE OF INTERACTIONS

Quite often, process upsets originate far upstream. In fact, the original source of a process upset
can be several buildings away, separated by hundreds of yards, and hours of processing time.
Until recently, tracing these problems back to their source has been a difficult and time-
consuming process. However, inexpensive computing power has opened doors for new types of
process interaction analysis.

In this example, a plastics manufacturer in Alabama was using waste hydrogen as a fuel source.
They noticed upsets occurring in the hydrogen pressure. Not knowing where to look for the
source of the upset, the engineer turned to a “Process Interaction Map”, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Process Interaction Map Shows Extent & Timing of Interactions

The Process Interaction Map shows the extent and timing of interactions between parts of the
plant. It is based upon a massive cross-correlation analysis of the entire plant. A strong
interaction is shown by strong colors, such as the red and blue on this chart. Red indicates a
strong positive correlation, and blue indicates a strong negative correlation.

The real key to reading this chart, however, is the left-right scale, which indicates time: Lagging
or Leading. A root cause, by definition, will appear as a strong color, on the “leading” side of the
chart: the right-hand side.

When the engineer looked for interactions with his Hydrogen pressure controller, he found
something very unusual: a single root strong interaction coming from far upstream. This
interaction is shown in Figure 4. To his surprise, the analysis indicated that the problem was
coming from a cooling tower temperature controller, nearly half a mile away.

Figure 4. Process Interaction Map Pinpoints Cooling Tower Temperature Loop

As it turns out, the cooling tower temperature was upset due to the control strategy design on the
dual cooling tower fans. As the control engineer said: "Once we used our new software to
analyze loop interactions, we realized that a simple on/off control for an upstream fan was
causing a temperature spike carrying through to our hydrogen compressor. By re-tuning our fan
control loop, we were able to tighten our control limits and reduce the impact downstream. We
recognized that because we had such large control limits before in the hydrogen compressor, we
were not maximizing our hydrogen recovery. By tightening this upstream control and optimizing
the hydrogen process we are able to save over $1 million per year in energy consumption."

The net result, over $1 million per year in energy savings, was quickly captured. Figure 5 shows
a before and after image of the process performance. In addition to the energy savings, operators
are pleased with the increased stability of the plant overall.
 Figure 5. Hydrogen Pressure Before and After Cooling Tower Fix

CONCLUSIONS
Energy savings can be readily achieved using control performance monitoring tools. A variety
of techniques can be used to save energy from controls themselves, from the elimination of
oscillatory upsets, or from the identification of root-cause of process upsets.

A typical implementation will result in energy savings that can range from a few hundred dollars
per control loop up to millions of dollars for a single plant. A conservative range of energy
savings expectations is between 0.5% and 2% of total energy costs.

Finally, it is important to note that most of the energy savings can be captured relatively quickly.
CPM tools reduce the time required to analyze and solve the problems. Each of the cases in this
paper resulted in immediate savings after only a few hours of work.

Biography

George Buckbee is a Senior Member of ISA., and is currently V.P. of Product Development at
ExperTune. An experienced instructor, George has over 20 years of practical experience
improving process performance in a wide array of process industries, including Oil &Gas, Pulp
& Paper, Pharmaceuticals, and Consumer Products. George holds a B.S. in Chemical
Engineering from Washington University, and an M.S. in Chemical Engineering from the
University of California, Santa Barbara.