Skip to main content

Process Controls in Petroleum Processing

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Petroleum Processing

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the control systems which support the refining processes. This is not a definitive work on control systems, but paints the applications of control systems in a modern refinery with a broad brush. The material in this chapter starts with a discussion of control system architecture and continues with detailed descriptions of the major types of parameters controlled: flow, temperature, pressure, level, and composition. Additional material is provided on specific, common control situations. There is a brief discussion of control theory and there are procedures provided for sizing control valves. Numerous references are available for further information.

Steven A. Treese is retired from Phillips 66.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A circuit generally includes all equipment between the discharge of a pump, compressor or vessel, and the next point downstream of which pressure is controlled. In most cases this latter point is a vessel.

References

Flow Measurement and Control

  • Alicat.com, Types of gas mass flow meters (2005). Accessed Jan 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • W. Chin, Magmeters: how they work and where to use them. Control Mag. 32–34 (Krohne America, 1990)

    Google Scholar 

  • W.S. Corcoran, J. Honeywell, Practical methods for measuring flows. Chem. Eng. Mag. 86–92 (Fluor Engineers and Constructors, Inc., 1975)

    Google Scholar 

  • DAC Electric, High voltage variable speed drives, www.dac-electric.com. Accessed 29 Jan 2014

  • J.W. Dolenc, Choose the right flow meter. Chem. Eng. Progress. 22–32 (Fisher-Rosemount, 1996)

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Ginesi (Bristol Babcock Inc.), G. Grebe (Cincinnati Test Systems), Flow meters: a performance review. Chem. Eng. Mag. 100–118 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Ginesi, Choices abound in flow measurement. Chem. Eng. Mag. 88–100 (Foxboro Co., 1991)

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Ginesi, A raft of flowmeters on tap. Chem. Eng. Mag. 146–155 (Foxboro, 1991)

    Google Scholar 

  • Greyline, Two technologies for flow measurement from outside a pipe, www.greyline.com. Accessed 27 Jan 2014

  • R.C. Hunt, Oscillatory flowmeters: an effective solution for flow measurement (MycroSENSOR Technologies, 2002), www.fluidicflowmeters.com. Accessed Jan 2014

  • Instrumart.com, Vortex shedding flow meters, www.instrumart.com. Accessed 27 Jan 2014

  • R. Kern, How to size flow meters. Chem. Eng. Mag. 161–168 (Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 1975)

    Google Scholar 

  • P.K. Khandelwal (Uhde India), V. Gupta (Sycom Consultants Consortium), Make the most of orifice meters. Chem. Eng. Progress 32–37 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  • M.D. Kyser, Positive displacement flow measurement. Control Mag. 40–42 (Badger Meter, 1990)

    Google Scholar 

  • G. Livelli, Selecting flowmeters to minimize energy costs. Chem. Eng. Prog. 34–39 (ABB, 2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • C.J. O’Brien, Flowmeter terms, types, & successful selection. InTech Mag. 30–33 (Moore Products, 1989)

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Peramanu, J.C. Wah, Improve material balance by using proper flowmeter corrections (Canadian Natural Resources, 2011), www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com. Accessed Jan 2014

  • Seekyouranswers.blogspot.com, Turbine flow meter (2013). Accessed Jan 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Siemens Moore Process Automation, Inc., Three element feed control system. Accessed 29 Jan 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Spirax Sarco, Types of steam flowmeters, Steam engineering tutorials, www.spiraxsarco.com. Accessed 29 Jan 2014

  • J. Taylor, Selecting the right flow meter for your hydronic system (Wood-Harbinger, 2013), www.woodharbinger.com. Accessed Jan 2014

  • P.C. Tung, M. Mikasinovic, Sizing orifices for flow of gases and vapors. Chem. Eng. Mag. 83–85 (Ontario Hydro, 1982)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikipedia, Mass flow meter. Accessed 27 Jan 2014

    Google Scholar 

Temperature Measurement and Control

  • R.H. Kennedy, Selecting temperature sensors. Chem. Eng. Mag. 54–71 (The Foxboro Co., 1983)

    Google Scholar 

  • J.G. Seebold, Tube skin thermocouples. Chem. Eng. Progress 57–59 (Chevron Corp., 1985)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikipedia, Resistance thermometer. Accessed 30 Jan 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikipedia, Thermocouple. Accessed 30 Jan 2014

    Google Scholar 

Pressure Measurement and Control

  • Ashcroft Inc., Pressure gauge installation, operation, and maintenance, www.ashcroft.com. (2002). Accessed Jan 2014.

  • R.E. Bicking, Fundamentals of pressure sensor technology. Sens. Mag. (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  • W.J. Demorest, Jr., Pressure measurement. Chem. Eng. 56–68 (Honeywell Inc., 1985)

    Google Scholar 

  • K. Hamza, Pressure Measurement, http://science-hamza.blogspot.com/ (Cairo, 2011). Accessed Jan 2014.

  • Instrumentationtoolbox.com, Strain gauge substitute (2011), www.instrumentationtoolbox.com. Accessed Jan 2014

  • B.G. Liptak, Pressure regulators. Chem. Eng. 69–76 (Bela G. Liptak Assoc., 1987)

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Repas (Machine Design), C. Dixon (Kavlico Corp.), ABCs of refrigeration pressure sensing (2008), machinedesign.com. Accessed Jan 2014

  • D.L. Roper, J.L. Ryans, Select the right vacuum gage. Chem. Eng. 125–144 (Tennesee Eastman Co., 1989)

    Google Scholar 

  • A.W. Sloley of The Distillation Group, Inc. Chem. Eng. Progr., (Jan 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • Winters instruments website, http://winters.com/. Accessed Jan 2014

Level Measurement and Control

  • D. Anderson, Match fit radars. Hydrocarb. Process. 104–109 (Vega Controls Ltd., 2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Control, What’s the best way to control an interface level when an emulsion tends to form between phases? Control 48–52 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Hagar, Avoid temperature differences when using external chambers. Control 71–73 (Syncrude Canada, 1995)

    Google Scholar 

  • E.A. Knight, J.R. Pugh, Properly select level-measurement devices for bulk solids. Chem Eng Progress 50–55 (Glasgow Caledonian University, 1996)

    Google Scholar 

  • B.G. Liptak, Level measurement with problem liquids. Chem Eng. 130–133 (Bela G. Liptak Assoc., 1993)

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Parker, Selecting a level device based on application needs. Chem. Process., Fluid Flow Annual 75–80 (Fisher-Rosemount, 1998)

    Google Scholar 

  • B.O. Paul, Seventeen level sensing methods. Chem. Proc. 63–72 (Editor, 1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • L.M. Wallace, Sighting in on level instruments. Chem. Eng. 95–104 (Fluor E&C, 1976)

    Google Scholar 

Composition Measurement and Control

  • Controls Wiki, Process control definitions and terminology (2013), https://controls.engin.umich.edu. Accessed Jan 2014

  • PAControl.com, Process control fundamentals (2006), www.PAControl.com (Excellent and clear). Accessed Jan 2014

  • F.G. Shinskey, Foxboro, Process Control Systems: Application, Design, and Tuning (McGraw Hill Publishing Company, New York, 1988)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikipedia, PID controller. Accessed 3 Feb 2014

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix 1: Control Valve Sizing

Appendix 1: Control Valve Sizing

Process Flow Coefficient (Cv) and Valve Sizing

Process flow coefficient CV is defined as the water flow in GPM through a given restriction for 1 psi pressure drop. These CVs can be determined by the following equations:

$$ {C}_{\mathrm{v}}={Q}_{\mathrm{L}}\sqrt{\frac{G_{\mathrm{L}}}{\Delta P}}\kern0.3em \mathrm{f}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\kern0.5em \mathrm{liquid} $$
(16)
$$ {C}_{\mathrm{v}}=\frac{Q_{\mathrm{s}}}{82}\sqrt{\frac{T}{\Delta P-{P}_2}}\kern0.3em \mathrm{f}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\kern0.5em \mathrm{steam} $$
(17)
$$ {C}_{\mathrm{v}}=\frac{Q_G}{1360}\sqrt{\frac{\mu_2ST}{\Delta P-{P}_2}}\kern0.3em \mathrm{f}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\kern0.5em \mathrm{gases} $$
(18)

where:

  • C v = flow coefficient

  • Q L = liquid flow in GPM at conditions

  • ΔP = pressure drop across valve, psi

  • G L = specific gravity of liquid at conditions

  • Q S = steam rate in lbs/h

  • P 2 = pressure downstream of valve psia

  • Q G = gas flow in SCFH (60 °F, 14.7 psia)

  • T = temperature of gas °R(°F + 460)

  • S = mol weight of gas divided by 29

  • μ 2 = compressibility factor at downstream conditions

The following are some special considerations that may have to be made in determining process CV values.

Pressure Drop

For compressible fluids the maximum usable pressure drop in equations (b) and (c) is the critical value. As a rule of thumb and for design purposes, this value is 50 % of the absolute upstream pressure. (The valve can take more than the critical pressure drop, but any pressure drop over the critical takes the form of exit losses.)

Flashing Liquids

In the absence of accurate information, it is recommended that for flashing service the valve body be specified as one nominal size larger than the valve port.

Two-Phase Flow

If two-phase flow exists upstream of the control valve, experience has shown that for fluids below their critical point, a sufficiently accurate process C V value can be arrived at by adding the process C V values for the gas and liquid portions of the stream. The calculation is based on the quantities of gas and liquid at upstream conditions. The valve body is specified to be one nominal size larger than the port to allow for expansion.

Valve Rangeability

The rangeability of a control valve is the ratio of the flow coefficient at the maximum flow rate to the flow coefficient at the minimum flow rate (R = C V Max/C V Min). Valve rangeability is actually a criterion which is used to judge whether a given valve will be in a controlling position throughout its required range of operation (neither wide open nor fully closed). In practice the selection of the actual valve to be installed is the responsibility of the instrument engineer. As the process engineer is usually the person responsible for the correct operation of the process itself; however, he must be satisfied that the item selected meets the control criteria required. He must therefore satisfy himself that the valve will control over the range of the process flow.

Control valves are usually limited to a rangeability of 10:1. If R is greater than 10:1, then a dual-valve installation should be considered in order to assure good control at the maximum and minimum flow conditions.

In some applications, particularly on compressor or blower suction, butterfly valves have been specified to be line size without considering that as a result the valve may operate almost closed for long periods of time. Under this condition, there have been cases of erosion resulting from this. It is recommended therefore that butterfly valves be sized so that they will not operate below 10 % open for any appreciable period of time and not arbitrarily be made line size.

Valve Flow Coefficient (Cv′)

In order to ensure that the valve is in a controlling position at the maximum flow rate, the valve C V′ is the maximum process C V value determined above, divided by 0.8. The reasons for using this factor are that:

  • It is not desirable to have the valve fully open at maximum flow since it is not then in a controlling position.

  • The valves supplied by a single manufacturer often vary as much as 10–20 % in C V.

  • Allowance must be made for pressure drop, flow rate, etc., values which differ from design.

Control Valve Sizing

Control valve sizes are determined by the manufacturers from the process data submitted to them. However, there are available some simple equations to give a good estimate of the required valve sizes to meet a process duty. Three of these are given below: Single-seated control valve sizes may be estimated by:

$$ S\left(\mathrm{inches}\right)={\left[\frac{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{alve}\;{C}_{\mathrm{V}}}{9}\right]}^{1/2} $$
(19)

Double-seated control valve sizes may be estimated by:

$$ S\left(\mathrm{inches}\right)={\left[\frac{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{alve}\;{C}_{\mathrm{V}}}{12}\right]}^{1/2} $$
(20)

Butterfly valve sizes may be estimated by:

$$ S\left(\mathrm{inches}\right)={\left[\frac{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{alve}\;{C}_{\mathrm{V}}}{20}\right]}^{1/2} $$
(21)

The constants (9, 12, or 20) in the denominators of these equations can vary as much as 25 % depending on the valve manufacturer.

A control valve should be no larger than the line size. A control valve size that is calculated to be greater than line size should be carefully checked together with the calculation used for determining line size. Usually, a control valve size should be one size smaller than line size.

Once the valve size is estimated and the valve C V known, then the percent opening of the valve at minimum flow and maximum flow can be obtained by dividing the respective process C V values conditions by the selected valve C V. This information is normally required to check the percent opening of a butterfly at minimum flow. It is not normally necessary to calculate it for any other type of valve.

Valve Action on Air Failure

In the analysis of the design and operation of any process or utility system, the question always arises on the action of control valves in the system on instrument air failure. Should the control valve fail open or closed is the judgment decision of the process engineer after evaluating all aspects of safety and damage in each event. For example, control valves on fired heater tube inlets should always fail open to prevent damage to the tubes through low or no flow through them when they are hot. On the other hand, control valves controlling fuel to the heaters should fail closed on air failure to avoid overheating of the heater during the air failure.

The failure action of the valve is established by introducing the motive air to either above the diaphragm for a failed open requirement or below the diaphragm for a failed shut situation. The air failure to the valve above the diaphragm allows the spring to pull up the plugs from the valve seats. Air failure to valves below the diaphragm forces the spring to seat the valves in the closed position. Failure of a valve in place or locked is also possible, but seldom used.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this entry

Cite this entry

Jones, D.S.J., Treese, S.A. (2014). Process Controls in Petroleum Processing. In: Treese, S., Jones, D., Pujado, P. (eds) Handbook of Petroleum Processing. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05545-9_16-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05545-9_16-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-05545-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EnergyReference Module Computer Science and Engineering

Publish with us

Policies and ethics