02638762/98/$10.00+0.

00
q Institution of Chemical Engineers
Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998

OPERATION AND CONTROL OF DIVIDING WALL

DISTILLATION COLUMNS
Part 1: Degrees of Freedom and Dynamic Simulation
M. I. ABDUL MUTALIB and R. SMITH (FELLOW)
Department of Process Integration, UMIST, Manchester, UK

T
he dividing wall distillation column has been known now for some 50 years. Despite its
potential to make major savings in energy and capital costs in distillation, it has not been
widely used in practice. One of the major fears in applying the technology is uncertainty
regarding the control and operation of the arrangement. This paper investigates theoretically
the operation and control of the dividing wall column. A degrees of freedom analysis was
performed to determine the number of control loops required. Possible control con gurations
were then investigated using Relative Gain Array Analysis and dynamic simulation. The
results of these theoretical studies indicate that simple control schemes are capable of
providing stable control.
Keywords: dividing wall distillation; thermal coupling; dynamic simulation; control; pilot plant

Rudd1 2 , Cerda and Westerberg1 3 , Spadoni and Stramigioli1 4 ,

INTRODUCTION
Distillation remains the most important method used in the
chemical industry for the separation of homogeneous
mixtures, with the amount of energy used in distillation
operations being considerable. Appropriate integration of
the distillation column with the overall process can result
in signi cant energy savings (Linnhoff et al.1 , Smith and
Linnhoff 2 ) but the scope for this is often limited. Other
options involve the use of complex distillation arrangements
such as the side-stripper, the side-recti er or the fully
thermally coupled (Petyluk) con guration. Such complex
arrangements can consume signi cantly less energy when
compared to a conventional arrangement. So far, the use
of complex arrangements has largely been limited to crude
oil distillation where the side stripper arrangement has been
used extensively.
The Petyluk con guration (Figure 1a) was initially
introduced some 50 years ago (Brugma3 ). Theoretical
studies on a stand alone basis (Petyluk et al.4 , Fidskowski
and Krolikowski5 , Glinos and Malone6 and Kaibel7 ) have
shown that it is capable of achieving typically 30% of
energy savings compared with a conventional sequence.
In addition, the Petyluk arrangement can also be achieved
by placing a vertical wall in the middle of the column
(Figure 1b), separating the feed from the side draw (Wright8 ,
Kaibel9 ). Thus an overall reduction in capital cost can be
expected through the elimination of a column shell, reboiler
and condenser when compared with a conventional arrange-
ment. Despite these advantages, industry has been reluctant
to use the Petyluk and dividing wall con gurations. This can
largely be attributed to the lack of established design
procedures and the fear of control problems.
The design of the Petyluk con guration has been studied by
many researchers (Stupin1 0 , Fonyo et al.1 1 , Tedder and
308
Nikolaides and Malone1 5 ). Recently, a design procedure
which allows for optimization of the column has been
proposed by Triantafyllou and Smith1 6 . By contrast, studies
on the operational and control aspects of the Petyluk
con guration have received little attention in the past.
Chavez et al.1 7 and Lin et al.1 8 reported multiple steady
state solutions for the Petyluk con guration. Using computer
simulation, they presented four different solutions at a
speci ed re ux which have different internal liquid and
vapour ows between the prefractionator and the main
column. As they reduced the re ux ratio to a value beyond
which no feasible solution existed, a unique solution was
found. This is the optimum combination of the internal
liquid and vapour ows which gives the minimum energy
requirement. Wolff et al.1 9 , 2 0 performed control studies
on the Petyluk con guration using a three point and four
point composition control. For the three point composition
control, they set up a control con guration which maintained
the composition of the three main products of the column.
Using one of the possible control schemes, they were able to
achieve satisfactory control performance, given feed ( ow-
rate and composition) and set point disturbances. For the
four point composition control, they used the internal liquid
split between the prefractionator and the main column to
control the impurity ratio in the side draw as an additional
control loop. They discovered that a problem can occur
within a range of the internal liquid splits whereby the
product speci cations cannot be achieved. A similar result
was observed when the vapour split was used in place of
the liquid split. Morud and Skogestaad2 1 later provided an
explanation for this using three dimensional plots display-
ing the variation of the reboiler duty and side draw
impurity ratio against changes in the internal liquid and
vapour splits.
 OPERATION AND CONTROL OF DIVIDING WALL DISTILLATION COLUMNS: PART 1
Figure 1. Fully thermally coupled columns. (a) Petyluk column; (b) Dividing wall column.
In this paper, the complexity of the dividing wall column
will rstly be assessed by performing degrees of freedom
analysis. The variables leading to the additional complexity
of the column, when compared to the more established
side draw column, will then be analysed to investigate the
impact on the operation and control of the column. Dynamic
simulation will also be used to investigate the controll-
ability of the column from a theoretical point of view. Part 2
of this paper will discuss pilot plant control studies on such
a column.
DEGREES OF FREEDOM ANALYSIS
22
A method developed by Howard for analysing the
degrees of freedom at unsteady state condition has been
used for the dividing wall column. The method is based
on the fact that the degrees of freedom for a system is equal
to the sum of degrees of freedom of all the units in the
system minus the sum of degrees of freedom for all
the interconnecting streams. This requires the system to be
torn apart into smaller units with inter-stream connec-
tions. When analysing the degrees of freedom for any of
the units, hold up is included to account for the unsteady
state. The way the method handles hold up is by treating
it as a quantity stream with the same variables as the
interconnecting stream, except that a hold up quantity is
used instead of owrate.
In a distillation column, the units consist of stages,
condenser and accumulator, reboiler and stream splitters
which are connected by interconnecting streams. Each of
the interconnecting streams has degrees of freedom equal
to NC + 2 where NC is the number of components present
in the stream. These variables consist of NC-1 concentration
variables, a rate or quantity variable and two other intensive
variables i.e. temperature and pressure.
A stage in a distillation column consists of four
interconnecting streams, a quantity stream for the hold-up
and a heat stream. Note that only the liquid hold-up is
accounted for while the vapour hold-up is neglected. Since
there are 5 streams present and each stream has NC + 2
variables, with a heat quantity term, Q, the number of
variables in the unit is 5NC + 11. The relationships among
the variables depends on the way in which the stage is
de ned. Suppose, the stage is considered to be a single
Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998
309
mixed pool with the liquid leaving having the same
properties as the liquid on the stage, the number of
relationships is equal to 3NC + 4. These relationships
consist of a total material balance, an energy balance,
NC-1 component balances, NC distribution relation-
ships between the vapour and liquid phase, i.e. vapour-
liquid equilibrium, NC-1 concentration identities for liquid
leaving and liquid on the stage, two temperature identi-
ties and two pressure identities for the vapour and liquid
leaving and liquid on the stage. Hence the degrees of
freedom for the unit are:
No. of DOF = No. of variables - No. of
relationships
= 5NC + 11 - 3NC - 4 = 2NC + 7
The degrees of freedom for a cascade of N stages can then
be easily determined by treating the cascade as a system.
Since a cascade of N stages are interconnected by 2N-2
streams, the degrees of freedom are:
cascade of N units= for N units - 2N - 2 streams
No. of DOF for Sum of DOF Sum of DOF
= N(2NC + 7)- 2(N - 1)(NC + 2)
= 3N + 2NC + 4
An extra degree of freedom has to be added to the above
due to the choice for number of stages in the cascade. Thus
the number of degrees of freedom for a cascade of N stages
are 3N + 2NC + 5.
In contrast to the conventional stage, the feed and side
draw stages are slightly different. This is due to the fact that
an extra stream is involved. For a feed stage, the number
of degrees of freedom is equal to the number of degrees of
freedom for a stage plus the number of degrees of freedom
for a stream, thus giving 3NC + 9. A side draw stage can
be represented by a stage connected to a splitter which
divides between the side draw ow (either a vapour or
liquid) and the ow to the next stage. Since stages can be
attached to the cascade of stages prior to the side draw stage
location, only the number of degrees of freedom for the
splitter needs to be counted. Using the same approach as
described for the conventional stage, with the exception that
310 ABDUL MUTALIB and SMITH

there is no hold up, the number of degrees of freedom for a

splitter unit is found to be NC + 5.
A condenser and accumulator unit consist of two ow
streams, a quantity stream and a heat stream. Note that
the liquid hold up is considered as the quantity stream.
The number of variables in the unit comes from the
three streams and a heat quantity term are 3NC + 7, while
the number of relationships between the variables is
2NC + 2, i.e. total material balance, a heat balance, NC-
1 component balances and NC-1 concentration, a pressure
and a temperature identities for liquid leaving the unit.
Therefore, the of degrees of freedom for this unit are
NC + 5.
The reboiler unit consists of 3 ow streams, a quantity
stream and a heat stream. Again, the liquid hold up is
considered as a quantity stream. The number of variables
in the unit which comes from the four streams and a heat
quantity term are 4NC + 9. However, the number of
relationships between the variables that can be derived for
the unit is 3NC + 4 thus giving the number of degrees of
freedom to be NC + 5 (which turns out to be the same as
the condenser unit). The relationships between the
variables that can be derived for the unit consist of a total
material balance, a heat balance, NC-1 components Figure 2. Layouts of the units in a dividing wall column.
balances, NC distribution relationships and NC-1 concen-
tration, two pressure and two temperature identities for
liquid and vapour leaving the unit. additional degrees of freedom which are the liquid and
Table 1 summarizes the degrees of freedom for each of vapour splits.
the units in a typical distillation column. In the implementation of the dividing wall column, it
The dividing wall column can be represented by the is impractical to manipulate the vapour split. Hence, the
Petyluk con guration as illustrated in Figure 2. The column vapour split will be left to occur naturally. Therefore, a
is divided into 6 sections, each containing a number of degree of freedom is lost here. Unlike the vapour split,
cascaded trays. There are three feed and three side-draw the liquid split can be easily manipulated using a simple
trays located between the sections with a partial reboiler device, thus leaving the option open to the designer. The
and total condenser at the top and bottom of the column. decision whether to employ it as a manipulated variable
Table 2 gives details of the analysis of the degrees of will be assessed later.
freedom for the dividing wall column. Based on the
analysis, the number of degrees of freedom for the column
is thus 3(NS(1) + NS(2) + NS(3) + NS(4) + NS(5)+
NS(6))+ NC + 35 where NS(i) is the number of stages in COLUMN CONFIG URATION
section `i . The design of the dividing wall column can be
After taking into account of the inherent relationships treated similar to the design of the Petyluk con guration
and the product speci cations, the number of degrees of (Triantafyllou2 3 ). However, there is one major difference
freedom for the column is NC + 10. Because the feed between the two columns. This results from the xed
composition, owrate and pressure are xed, the number of position of the dividing wall which prevents the manipula-
degrees of freedom left is 9. This means that only nine tion of the internal vapour split in the column. For the
variables can be manipulated or speci ed in order to fully Petyluk con guration, the vapour split was manipulated
control the system. The 9 variables involved are shown in most of the previous studies due to the separate shell
in Table 3. When comparing this to the more estab- arrangement.
lished side draw column, the dividing wall column has 2 A steady state rigorous simulation model for
the dividing wall column was developed using the ASPEN
PLUST M package. The ternary mixture used for the
Table 1. Degrees of freedom for various units in a distillation separation consists of methanol, iso-propanol and butanol.
column. The Wilson equation was used for the prediction of vapour
Unit Degrees of freedom
liquid equilibrium.
The con guration of the dividing wall column was
1. Single phase streams NC + 2 designed using the method proposed by Triantafyllou and
2. Ideal stage 2NC + 7 Smith1 6 , using the option for minimizing the number of
3. Cascade of N ideal stages 3N + 2NC + 5 stages. The feed to the column has an equimolar composi-
4. Feed stage 3NC + 9
5. Stream splitter (no hold up) NC + 5 tion and the products speci ed to be 98.5 mol percent. The
6. Total condenser/accumulator NC + 5 arrangement on the distribution of the number of stages at
7. Partial reboiler NC + 5 different sections inside the column, together with the
operating parameter, are given in Figure 3.

Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998

 OPERATION AND CONTROL OF DIVIDING WALL DISTILLATION COLUMNS: PART 1 311

Table 2. Degrees of freedom analysis for dividing wall column.

Units Degrees of Freedom

Top Column Section.

Condenser/accumulator. NC + 5
Re ux splitter. NC + 5
Cascade of stages (Section 1). 3NT(1) + 2NC + 5
Vapour feed stage. 3NC + 9
Liquid draw stage. NC + 5
Dividing Wall Section.
Prefractionator side.
Cascade of stages (Section 5). 3NT(5) + 2NC + 5
Feed stage 3NC + 9
Cascade of stages (Section 6). 3NT(6) + 2NC + 5
Main Side.
Cascade of stages (Section 2). 3NT(2) + 2NC + 5
Liquid draw stage. NC + 5
Cascade of stages (Section 3). 3NT(3) + 2NC + 5
Bottom Column Section.
Liquid feed stage. 3NC + 9
Vapour draw stage. NC + 5
Cascade of stages (Section 4). 3NT(4) + 2NC + 5
Partial reboiler. NC + 5
Total DOF 3(NT(1) + NT(2) + NT (3) + NT(4) + NT (5) + NT (6))+ 27NC + 87
Restriction from 26 interconnecting streams - 26NC + 52
Total column DOF 3(NT(1) + NT(2) + NT (3) + NT(4) + NT (5) + NT (6))+ NC + 35
Restriction from inherent relationships, design speci cations and uncontrolled variables.
Pressures on all stages, reboiler, condenser and re ux splitter. NT(1) + NT (2) + + NT (6) + 9
Heat leaks on all stages and splitters. NT(1) + NT (2) + + NT (6) + 7
Holdup on all stages. NT(1) + NT (2) + + NT (6) + 3
No. of plates at each section. 6
Feed (composition, owrate and pressure). NC + 1
Total DOF restricted 3(NT(1) + NT(2) + NT (3) + NT(4) + NT (5) + NT (6) + NC + 26
Degrees of freedom for the column 9

IMPAC T OF THE LIQUID SPLIT ON THE MIDDLE
PRODUCT COMPOSITION
In the practical implementation of the dividing wall
column, the liquid split can easily be manipulated. One way
of achieving this is by means of simple ow controller
installed externally on both liquid streams returning to
the top of each side of the dividing wall. A ratio controller
can be used to x or to vary the two ows according to a
speci ed ratio. However, if a xed ratio is desired, an
internal mechanism located at the top of the dividing
wall can serve to divide the ows to each side of the wall
according to the set ratio used. Manipulating the liquid split
at the top of the dividing wall is a way of manipulating
the re ux ratio on each side of the wall. Triantafyllou
and Smith1 6 presented a procedure to optimize the re ux
ratio in different parts of the column in the initial design.
Calculations were performed to nd the relation between
the liquid split and the composition of the light key
(methanol) as well as the middle key (iso-propanol) in
the middle product. To achieve this, the liquid split was
changed at different values while keeping the vapour
split constant at base case value, i.e. 1.29. Note that the
split is de ned as the ratio between the ow on the product

Table 3. Controlled and manipulated variables for dividing wall column.

Controlled variables Manipulated variables

1. Feed temperature Feed preheater duty

2. Column pressure Condenser cooling duty
3. Top product composition Re ux owrate
4. Middle product composition Distillate owrate
5. Bottom product composition Sidedraw owrate
6. Condenser/accumulator holdup Reboiler duty
7. Reboiler holdup Bottom product owrate
8. Light impurity in middle product Liquid split at top of dividing wall
9. Heavy impurity in middle product Vapour split at bottom of dividing wall

Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998

312 ABDUL MUTALIB and SMITH
Figure 3. The dividing wall column con guration and the base case
operating parameter.
side to the ow on the feed side of the dividing wall. The
feed composition, owrate and temperature as well as the
product owrates and reboiler duty were also kept constant.
Figure 4 (i) shows the variation of methanol composi-
tion in the middle product, while Figure 4 (ii) shows the
variation of iso-propanol composition in the middle product.
Both were subjected to variation in the liquid split. The
pattern of changes followed by the methanol composition
exhibits a minimum point as the liquid split is varied. The
signi cance of this observation is that simple PID control
cannot be applied to link these two variables to form a
control loop. At two different locations along the curve,
separated by the minimum point, the direction for the
control action is different. Since it is not possible for a
normal PID controller to recognize on which side of the
curve the current operation is located, and it is not also
possible for the controller to have a variable gain sign,
applying the controller in such a situation will lead to
failure.
Figure 4. Variation in middle product composition subject to changes in liquid split. (a) Methanol; (b) Iso-propanol.
Figure 5. Variation in middle product composition subject to changes in vapour split. (a) Iso-propanol; (b) Butanol.
The magnitude of changes for the methanol composi-
tion seems to be very small for most of the range used for
the variation in the liquid split. Therefore, controlling the
methanol concentration using the liquid split would require
a large action in order to correct a small deviation. In
addition, varying the liquid split also affects the iso-
propanol composition by a similar magnitude to the effect
on the methanol composition. If the iso-propanol composi-
tion is controlled by another manipulated variable such as
the side draw owrate, the two control loops are bound to
interact signi cantly.
IMPACT OF THE VAPOUR SPLIT ON THE MIDDLE
PRODUCT COMPOSITION
In the dividing wall column operation, manipulating
the vapour splits would be impractical. The vapour split
inside the column occurs naturally according to the pressure
drop relation across the internals at each side of the
dividing wall, which will be discussed later. Despite this,
calculations were made to determine the effect of chang-
ing the vapour split on the middle product composition.
The idea of doing this was to investigate whether xing the
dividing wall would lead to any major bene t being missed.
Figure 5 (i) shows the variation of butanol composition
in the middle product while Figure 5 (ii) shows the variation
of iso-propanol composition in the middle product. Both
were subjected to variation in the vapour split. This leads
to the same conclusions as for the liquid split.
From the analysis conducted for the liquid and vapour
splits, it is clear that maintaining the two splits constant
seems to be the preferred option. The same suggestion
can also be extended to the Petyluk column. However,
in doing so, the impurities and the main component
compositions in the middle product cannot be controlled
simultaneously.
Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998
 OPERATION AND CONTROL OF DIVIDING WALL DISTILLATION COLUMNS: PART 1
Figure 6. Generalized pressure drop correlation chart.
IMPACT OF THE LIQUID SPLIT ON THE
VAPOUR SPLIT
As mentioned earlier, the vapour divides to satisfy the
pressure drop equalization between the sections on each
side of the dividing wall. In the case where the number of
stages are equal at each side of the dividing wall, the vapour
split depends on the position of the dividing wall and the
liquid loading of the two sections at each side of the dividing
wall. The liquid loading of the two sections vary as the
liquid split is changed.
Before the impact of the liquid split on the vapour split
can be assessed, some form of relation must be established
between the changes in the liquid loading and the resulting
changes in the pressure drop across a packing height or
trays. In the present case, it was decided to demonstrate
the study using packing as the internals.
Figure 6 shows the Generalised Pressure Drop Correla-
tion chart which is typically used for determining the
pressure drop across a packed height for a given liquid and
vapour loading. When considering the changes in the
pressure drop with respect to the liquid loading, two regions
can be identi ed. In the rst region, which corresponds to
low liquid loading, the pressure drop hardly changes with
the liquid loading. In the second region, which corresponds
to high liquid loading, the pressure drop changes more
signi cantly with the liquid loading.
Based on the above observation, a number of conclusions
can be made. If the dividing wall column is operated within
the rst region, the liquid split changes should not affect
the vapour split. Therefore, operating within this region
should provide some exibility in changing the liquid split.
Conversely, if the column is operated within the second
region, the vapour split will vary as the liquid split changes,
thus offering no exibility during the operation of the
column. Following this, a correlation between the pressure
drop and the liquid and vapour loadings for a speci c
type of packing (Gempak 4A, GLITSCH2 4 ), applicable
within the rst region, was used to determine the rela-
tion between the position of the dividing wall (described
by the area ratio between the product side to the feed side
of the column) and the vapour split speci ed. For a given
cross sectional area of the column and the number of stages
on each side of the dividing wall and using the infor-
mation on liquid and vapour loading at each stage obtained
from rigorous simulation for a speci ed liquid and
vapour split, the area ratio required to satisfy the pres-
sure drop equalization criteria can be calculated. The
criteria can be based on either the total pressure drop
or the average pressure drop on both sides of the dividing
wall.
Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998
313
Figure 7. Area ratio and vapour split relationship for pressure drop
equalization between the two sides of the dividing wall. (Equal number
of stages at both sides).
Figure 7 shows the plot obtained, which demonstrates a
linear relation between the area ratio and the vapour split
required. More signi cantly, the area ratio was found to be
almost the same as the vapour split speci ed when equal
number of stages were used on each side of the dividing
wall. This indicates that in order to obtain the desired
vapour split, the position of the dividing wall can be set to
give the same area ratio as the required vapour split.
DESIGNING FOR THE LIQUID AND THE
VAPOUR SPLITS
Having given all the arguments which led to the
preference for operating the dividing wall column with a
constant liquid and vapour split, it is then important to
know how to design for the two splits. As it is always
desirable to operate the column as close as possible to the
optimal state, the sensitivity of the optimum location for
the two splits with regard to changes in the feed composition
and the product speci cations needs to be assessed.
IMPACT OF FEED COMPO SITION ON THE
OPTIMUM LIQUID AND VAPOUR SPLITS
Calculations were performed to determine the variation in
the liquid and vapour splits required to maintain lowest
energy consumption for changes in the feed composition.
Three different feed compositions within the allowable
range were tested and the value for the two splits that gave
minimum energy consumption were found for each case
using rigorous simulation. Note that the middle product
impurities were not included in the product speci cations
as it has already been decided not to control them using
the liquid and the vapour split. Table 4 presents the results
obtained from the analysis. The optimum values for the
liquid and vapour splits were found to be insensitive to
the variation in the feed composition.
IMPACT OF PRODUCT SPECIFICATION ON THE
OPTIMUM LIQUID AND VAPOUR SPLITS
Following the above, calculations were performed for
different product speci cations. Table 5 presents the results
314 ABDUL MUTALIB and SMITH
Table 4. Optimum liquid and vapour split for changes in feed composition.
Feed composition Optimum liquid split Optimum vapour split
Feed 1 3.80 1.16
(0.333, 0.334, 0.333)
Feed 2 3.80 1.16
(0.363, 0.334, 0.303)
Feed 3 3.90 1.16
(0.303, 0.364, 0.333)
Feed 4 3.75 1.15
(0.303, 0.334, 0.363)
obtained. The optimum values for the liquid and vapour
splits were found to vary as the product speci cations
changed. Figure 8 shows three sets of plots where the
difference in reboiler duty between the operation of the
column at a speci ed liquid or vapour split and operation at
the optimum splits are plotted against the speci ed liquid or
vapour split. The plots cover the location within the
optimum splits for three different product speci cations.
There are two plots for each product speci cation. For the
rst plot, the vapour split is kept constant at its optimum
value while allowing liquid split to vary. For the second
plot, the liquid split is kept constant at its optimum value
while allowing the vapour split to vary.
A comparison between the plots obtained for the different
product speci cations shows that the optimum location
tends to be more sensitive to the changes in liquid and
vapour splits as the product speci cations were increased.
This was shown by the extent of the at region within
the optimum location which tended to reduce slowly as
the product speci cations were increased. Hence, it is
important that the column is run close to the optimum
liquid and vapour splits for the higher product speci-
cations otherwise a high energy penalty will have to be
paid.
Figure 8. Plots of changes in reboiler duty requirement with different liquid and vapour splits.
Table 5. Optimum liquid and vapour split for changes in product
speci cation.
Product speci cation Optimum liquid split Optimum vapour split
98 mol percent 3.5 1.02
98.5 mol percent 3.8 1.16
99 mol percent 3.7 1.29
In the dividing wall column operation, the vapour split
is largely xed by the position of the dividing wall but
the liquid split has the exibility to be changed. However, as
discussed earlier, manipulating the liquid split can lead to
serious problem in the operation and control of the dividing
wall column. Therefore, it is better to x the liquid split.
Fixing the liquid and vapour split for a different feed
composition will not be a problem as the optimum value
for the liquid and the vapour split hardly change. However,
it is not so straightforward when the product speci cations
are allowed to vary. In this case, the above nding can be
used to help decision making. The obvious choice is to set
the liquid and vapour splits at the optimum values for the
highest product speci cations designed for the column. The
reason for this is because of the relative importance in
operating the column with liquid and vapour splits close
to the optimum values for higher product speci cations
compared with lower product speci cations. Even if the
column is operated to produce lower purity products,
the penalty in terms of the energy consumption when
operating the column with the optimum splits for the higher
product speci cations proves to be reasonably small. On the
other hand, if the column is operated with the optimum
liquid and vapour splits for lower product speci cations
and higher purity products are to be produced, the penalty
in the energy consumption can be extremely high and, in
certain cases, the higher product speci cations might not
Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998
 OPERATION AND CONTROL OF DIVIDING WALL DISTILLATION COLUMNS: PART 1 315

Table 6. Results from an example to illustrate the setting for the liquid and vapour splits for the dividing wall column operation.

Operating liquid Optimum liquid Energy penalty

Product speci cation and vapour splits and vapour splits (percent)

(0.98, 0.98, 0.98) 3.7 1.29 3.5 1.02 6.9

(0.99, 0.99, 0.99) 3.5 1.02 3.7 1.29 product specs. not achieved
with the operating splits

be achieved even running the column at total re ux. INTERACTION ANALYSIS

Table 6 illustrates the results from an example to explain
the above.
COMPO SITION CONTRO L OF THE DIVIDING
WALL COLUMN
In order to study the control behaviour of the divid-
ing wall column, a dynamic model was built using
SPEEDUP T M . Similar con gurations for the column as
modelled previously using the ASPEN PLUST M package
were used. The same feed and product speci cations were
employed. In line with the earlier suggestion, the liquid
and vapour split were maintained at the optimum values
obtained from the design method used (Triantafyllou and
Smith1 6 ). The assumption of no heat transfer across the
dividing wall was maintained and only decentralized control
was used.
The short cut dynamic model which is available in
SPEEDUP T M was used. Assumptions involved in using
the short cut model are perfect material balance, i.e. no
accumulation of material in the system, and constant molal
over ow. In addition, since the short cut model solves
stage equilibrium by lumping several stages together to
form a section within the column, constant relative
volatility within the section was assumed (but varied between
sections). The maximum number of stages that can be
lumped within a section must be kept within a reasonable
number in order to keep the model within an acceptable
accuracy for simulation purposes. The relative volatility
within each section was speci ed by taking the average
value obtained for the relevant stages from the rigorous
simulation done using ASPEN PLUST M .
Two control schemes that can be used for controlling
the dividing wall column were considered, i.e. L-S-V and
D-S-V (where L, S, D and V refer to manipulation of the
top re ux, side draw, distillate ows and vapour ow from
the reboiler respectively). These are shown in Figure 9.
Relative Gain Array Analysis (Bristol2 5 ) was used to
analyse the interaction as well as determining suitable
pairings between controlled and manipulated variables in
the two control schemes.
Basically, the RGA is a matrix which consists of
elements representing the steady state gain ratio between
the respective controlled and manipulated variables
when all other manipulated variables are constant, divi-
ded by the steady state gain ratio between the same
controlled and manipulated variables when all other
controlled variables are constant. This is represented by
the equation:
k ij = (y / m )
i j mi / (yi / mj )yj
where k ij is the relative gain between controlled variable yi
and manipulated variable mj . If k ij = 0 then yi does not
respond to mj and mj should not be used to control yi . If
k ij = 1 then yi only responds to mj and does not interact
with other manipulated variables. This is the preferred case.
If 0 <k ij <1.0 or 1 <k ij < then an interaction exists
because not only yi will respond to mj but other controlled
variables also. Finally, if k ij <0 then the interaction exists
between the related manipulated and controlled variables
is in an opposite direction and can cause instability. The
selection of the best control con guration, as well as the
pairings, is based on the arrangement which gives a RGA
with diagonal element values closest to unity, indicating
the least interaction.
The results from the RGA analysis are given in Table 7.
From the RGA analysis, the extent of interaction between
the separate control loops in the D-S-V con guration seems
to be lower than the traditional L-S-V con guration. In
terms of controlled and manipulated variable pairings, the
RGA seems to suggest that cross pairing should be adopted

Table 7. Results for the steady state gain array and the relative gain array.

Scheme Steady state gain array Relative gain array

2.433 - 0.274 - 2.659 11.736 - 10.057 - 0.679

L-S-V - 0.003 0.019 - 2.672 0.001 0.011 0.988
- 2.401 0.297 2.665 - 10.736 11.045 0.691
2.433 - 0.274 - 2.659 0.891 0.100 0.008
D-S-V - 0.003 0.019 - 2.672 0.001 0.007 0.992
0.014 0.014 0.001 0.107 0.892 0.001
Figure 9. Two composition control scheme for the dividing wall column.

Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998

316 ABDUL MUTALIB and SMITH

Figure 10 (i). Control run for scheme L-S-V with set point changes. (ii). Control run for scheme D-S-V with set point changes.

between the middle product and the bottom product control
loops. This means that the middle product composition
should be controlled by the vapour ow while the bottom
product composition should be controlled by the side draw
ow.
DYNAMIC SIMULATION
Dynamic simulation was then performed to observe
the behaviour of the two control schemes when subjected
to set point changes and feed disturbances as shown in

Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998

 OPERATION AND CONTROL OF DIVIDING WALL DISTILLATION COLUMNS: PART 1 317

Figure 11 (i). Control run for scheme L-S-V with feed disturbance. (ii) Control run for scheme D-S-V with feed disturbance.

Table 8. The controllers were tuned using the open loop
response curve method. Figure 10 (a) and (b) show the
response of the controllers in the two schemes when
subjected to set point changes. Both schemes were able to
produce a stable control response. Figure 11 (a) and (b)
show the response of the controllers in the two schemes
when subjected to feed disturbances. Again stable control
response was produced by both schemes.
Overall, the D-S-V scheme seemed to produce better
response compared with the traditional L-S-V scheme and

Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998

318 ABDUL MUTALIB and SMITH
Table 8. Set point changes and feed disturbances used.
Middle product composition
Set point changes IPA: 0.9850.988
Feed disturbances Combined feed composition and owrate
Composition: MeoH 0.333 to 0.363
IPA 0.334 to 0.284
BuoH 0.333 to 0.353
Flowrate: 1.081 to 1.190 kmol/hr
this is in agreement with the results derived from the RGA
analysis. More importantly, both schemes were able to
produce satisfactory control.
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, studies relating to aspects of the operation
and control of the dividing wall column have been
investigated. When compared to the side draw column,
the dividing wall column has a more complex nature, shown
through degrees of freedom analysis. This results from two
additional manipulated variables, the liquid and vapour
splits. However, it is impractical to manipulate the vapour
split, which is xed by the position of the dividing wall. On
the other hand, the liquid split can be easily varied but has
been found to have little bene t in comparison to the
complication that will be added to the operation and control
of the column. A linear PID controller cannot be used and
severe interactions would occur between the control loops,
particularly for controlling the composition of the middle
product and its impurities. In the region of high liquid and
vapour loading, varying the liquid split will also affect the
vapour split considerably and this even affects the operation
and control of the column further. Based on this account, it
was suggested that the column should be operated and
controlled with a constant liquid split in addition to the xed
vapour split. Having made the suggestion, the column can
then be operated and controlled in a similar manner as
the more established side draw column. Nevertheless, the
disadvantage of this proposal is that the impurities
composition in the middle product cannot be controlled.
The optimum location for the liquid and vapour splits
was found to be insensitive to the variation in the feed
composition but this is not so for the variation in the product
speci cation. From a sensitivity study, it was found that the
lower product speci cation has a atter optimum compared
with the higher product speci cations. Therefore, it was
concluded that the design for the liquid and the vapour split
should be based on the highest product speci cation when
the column is required to produce a range of product
compositions.
Two composition (three point) control scheme were
selected for demonstrating the control using simulation. The
column was subjected to changes in product speci -
cation and feed disturbances. Simulation results indicate
that stable control was achievable by both control schemes.
REFERENCES
1. Linhoff, B., Dunford, H and Smith, R., 1983, Chem Eng Sci, 38(8):
1175.
2. Smith, R. and Linhoff, B., 1988, Chem Eng Res Des, 66: 195.
3. Brugma, A. J., 1942, US Patent 2,295,256.
4. Petyluk, F. B, Platonov, V. M. and Slavinskii, D. M., 1965, Int Chem
Eng, 5(3): 561.
5. Fidkowski, Z. and Krolikowski, L., 1987, AIChE J, 33(4): 643.
6. Glinos, K. and Malone, M. F., 1988, Chem Eng Res Des, 66 (3): 229.
7. Kaibel, G., 1988, IChemE Symp Series No. 109: 43.
8. Wright, R. O., 1945, US Patent 2,471,134.
9. Kaibel, G., 1987, Chem Eng Technol, 10: 92.
10. Stupin, W. J., 1970, The separation of multicomponent mixtures
in thermally coupled distillation systems, PhD Diss (University of
Southern California).
11. Fonyo, Z., Szabo, J. and Foldes, P., 1974, Acta Chim, 82: 235.
12. Tedder, D. W. and Rudd, D. F., 1978, AIChE J, 24(2): 303.
13. Cerda, J. and Westerberg, W., 1981, Ind Eng Chem Proc Des Dev,
20(3): 546.
14. Spadoni, G. and Stramigioli, C., 1983, 3rd Int Cong Computers and
Chemical Engineering, Paris, No 27: 43.
15. Nikolaides, I. P. and Malone, M. F., 1987, Ind Eng Chem Res, 26(9):
1839.
16. Triantafyllou, C. and Smith, R., 1992, Trans IChemE, 70 (A2): 118.
17. Chavez, R., Seader, J. D. and Wayburn, T. L., 1986, Ind Eng Chem
Fundam, 25(4): 566576.
18. Lin, W. J., Seader, J. D. and Wayburn, T. L., 1987, AIChE J, 33:
886897.
19. Wolff, E. A., Skogestad, S. and Havre, K., 1993, AIChE Ann Meet,
St. Louis, paper 195a.
20. Wolff, E. A., Skogestad, S. and Havre, K., 1994, ESCAPE 4, Dublin,
IChemE Symp Series No 133: 111118.
21. Morud, J. and Skogestad, S., 1994, AIChE Ann Meet, San Francisco,
paper 131d.
22. Howard, G. M., 1967, Ind Eng Chem Fundam, 6(1): 86.
23. Triantafyllou, C., 1991, The design optimisation and integration of
dividing wall distillation columns, PhD Thesis (submitted to UMIST
Manchester).
24. GLITSCH, 1992, (Private Communication.)
25. Bristol, E. H., 1966, IEEE Trans Autom Control, AC-11: 133134.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their appreciation to the UK
Department of Energy, Energy Ef ciency Of ce, BP, Exxon, Glitch, ICI,
M. W. Kellogg, and Shell for nancial support of this project. The authors
would also like to express their gratitude to Dr Frigyes Lestak for his
contribution to the project.
ADDRESS
Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to
Professor R. Smith, Department of Process Integration, UMIST,
PO Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK.
The manuscript was received 4 August 1997 and accepted for publication
after revision 22 January 1998.
Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998