1 / 24

Production optimization using simple control loops

SUBPRO. SUBSEA PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING. Production optimization using simple control loops. Dinesh Krishnamoorthy* and Sigurd Skogestad NTNU, Trondheim, Norway. * Also with Equinor (20%).

maryannj
Download Presentation

Production optimization using simple control loops

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SUBPRO SUBSEA PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING Production optimization using simple control loops Dinesh Krishnamoorthy* and Sigurd Skogestad NTNU, Trondheim, Norway *Alsowith Equinor (20%)

  2. SUBPRO: Center for research-basedinnovationon subsea production and processing. 2015 - 2023 • SUBPRO • Whydidwe start SUBPRO? • Improveacademic basis in selected subsea areas • Provide the basis for future industrial innovation • 43 PhD students/Postdocs in 8-year period • 12 completed PhD/postdoc projects • 16 ongoing PhD/Postdoc projects (as of April 2019) • 15 Plannednewprojects • 21 Professors from three NTNU departments • Chemical Engineering • Geoscience and Petroleum • Mechanical and Industrial Engineering • About 20 Master students everyyear • Annualbudget: 3.5 million Euro 7 Partners (2019):

  3. Project structure, 2015 – March 2019 • SUBPRO 5 RESEARCH AREAS 30 PROJECTS New safety and control philosophy for subsea systems * Subsea gate box Produced water quality and Injectivity* Membranes for gas dehydration * Dynamic simulation model library* Control for extending component life Adriaen Field development concepts* Influence of production and EOR chemicals on produced water quality Membrane testing for gas dehydration Modelling and* multivariable control of subsea processes Experimental validation of methods for optimizing remaining Useful Life Reliability and availa-bility assessment in subsea design* Otavio Multiphase booster models H2S and hydrate control Automatic control of subsea separation Production optimization under uncertainty Wax crystallization and inhibition* Condition based maintenancemodels* Dinesh FIELD ARCHITECTURE Prof. Sigbjørn Sangesland RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, MAINTENANCE AND SAFETY (RAMS) Prof. Mary Ann Lundteigen SEPARATION – FLUID CHARACTERIZATIONProf. Johan Sjöblom/Prof. Gisle Øye SEPARATION - PROCESS CONCEPTSProf. Hugo Jakobsen SYSTEM CONTROL Prof. Sigurd Skogestad Ass. Prof. Johannes Jäschke Methods for minimizing cost and risk in subsea field development Characterization of fluid particle breakup in turbulent flow Adaptive control of subsea processes Machine learning for production and process optimization Optimizing condition monitoring Sequential separation* Allyne Himanshu Mechanistic modeling of droplet breakage Estimation of un-measured variables* Production optimization 2 New PhDs late 2019 Safety 4.0 Demonstrating safety of novel subsea technologies Modeling of coalescence* Compact separation concepts Enhanced virtual flow metering 16 ongoingprojects * 12 completedprojects 2 associatedprojects Timur Petrobras Schlumberger Technip FMC «Didyoucopyour slides?»

  4. SUBPRO What are the challenges with Advanced Production optimization? • Technological limitations • Human aspects (probably the most important !)

  5. SUBPRO Human aspects • Corporate culture • Technical Competence • Talent and knowledgenumberonebarrier for adoptingadvanced technologies1 1Report from McKinsey & Company, Nov 2017

  6. SUBPRO Technological limitations • Complex systems – lack of good models • Large chunks of data are discarded • Numerical robustness and computational issues

  7. SUBPRO Maintenance Special report onProcess ControlSept 2006

  8. SUBPRO Currentneedsoftheindustry • Need simple toolsthat do not require: • Complexmodels • Heavy data pre-processing • Solvingcomputationally intensive problems online • Major overhaul of hardware or softwareinfrastructure • Frequentupdate and maintanence by expertengineers

  9. Supervisory control layer Alternativeimplementations: • Modelpredictive control (MPC) • Classicaladvanced control structures (PID, selectors, etc.) RTO

  10. Do wereallyneed real-time optimization? • Often not! • Weoftenknow or canguesstheactiveconstraints • Example: Assumeit’s optimal withmax. lightends in oilproduct (TVP). • No need to have a complexdynamicmodelwith energy balance and thermodynamics to findthe optimal cooling • Just use a PI-controller • CV = flash temperature • MV = cooling

  11. Active constraint control using PI-controller Optimizationwith PI-controller PI ysp = ymax maxy s.t.y≤ ymax u ≤ umax Example: Drive as fast as possible to Belo Horizonte (u=power, y=speed, ymax= 100 km/h) • Optimal solution has twoactiveconstraint regions: • y = ymax speed limit • u = umax maxpower • Note: Positive gain from MV (u) to CV (y) • Solvedwith PI-controller • ysp = ymax • Anti-windup: I-action is offwhenu=umax s.t. = subject to y = CV = controlled variable

  12. CV-MV switching Optimizationwith PI-controller The example: • Optimal operation: Switch between CV constraint and MV saturation • A simple PI-controller waspossiblebecausewefollowedthepairingrule: «Pair MV thatsaturateswith CV thatcan be given up»

  13. CV-CV switching • SUBPRO Simple feedback controllers + logics

  14. Switchingbetweenactiveconstraints 1. Output to Output (CV - CV) switching (SIMO) • Selector 2. Input to output (CV – MV) switching • Do nothingifwefollowthepairingrule: «Pair MV thatsaturateswith CV thatcan be given up» 3. Input to input (MV – MV) switching (MISO) • Split range control • OR: Controllers with different setpoint value • OR: Valveposition control (= midranging control) Weareworkingon providing systematicprocedures for the design of such control strategies

  15. The less obvious case: Unconstrained optimum • u: unconstrained MV • What to control? y=CV=? • Self-optimizing variable Jopt J uopt

  16. The ideal “self-optimizing” variable is the gradient, Ju c =  J/ u = Ju Keep gradient at zero for all disturbances (c = Ju=0) Unconstraineddegrees of freedom For Parallel units, optimal operationhappenswhen gradients areequal Ju<0 cost J uopt Ju<0 0 Ju Problem: Usually no measurement of gradient Ju=0 u

  17. Gas-lift optimization problem w_oil w_gas • Limited gas lift supply • Gas processingconstraint • Unconstrainedoperation • How to optimallyallocatethe gas lift using simple PI controllers? • That is: Have N gas lifts (MVs). Whatshouldwe control? w_glN w_gl1 w_gl3 w_gl2

  18. SUBPRO Gas lift performancecurves Marginal Gas-lift-to-oil ratio (mGOR)

  19. Case 1: Limited Gas Lift supply Gas-lift optimization problem w_oil w_gas CV:mGORN–mGOR1 CV:mGOR3–mGOR1 CV:mGOR2–mGOR1 SP: 0 SP: 0 SP: 0 SP: w_gl_max a a a a w_glN w_gl1 + w_gl3 w_gl2

  20. Case 2: Gas processingcontraint Gas-lift optimization problem w_oil w_gas CV:mGORN–mGOR1 CV:mGOR3–mGOR1 CV:mGOR2–mGOR1 SP: 0 SP: 0 SP: 0 CV:w_gas SP: w_gas_max a a a a w_glN w_gl1 w_gl3 w_gl2

  21. SUBPRO Gas lift performancecurves Marginal Gas-lift-to-oil ratio (mGOR)

  22. All 3 Cases combined Gas-lift optimization problem w_oil w_gas Marginal GL-oil-ratio Controllers SP: 0 SP: 0 SP: 0 Ctrl 1 min select Ctrl 2 w_glN w_gl1 w_gl3 w_gl2 Ctrl 3

  23. Results

  24. SUBPRO Conclusion SUBSEA PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING • Optimal operationusing simple controllerstructures • Logics to switchbetween different operating regions • Beneficial for brownfield and late-lifefields Thankyou !

More Related