CA2704551A1 - Method and means for controlling an electrolysis cell - Google Patents
Method and means for controlling an electrolysis cell Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CA2704551A1 CA2704551A1 CA2704551A CA2704551A CA2704551A1 CA 2704551 A1 CA2704551 A1 CA 2704551A1 CA 2704551 A CA2704551 A CA 2704551A CA 2704551 A CA2704551 A CA 2704551A CA 2704551 A1 CA2704551 A1 CA 2704551A1
- Authority
- CA
- Canada
- Prior art keywords
- accordance
- process variable
- future
- prediction
- control
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Granted
Links
Classifications
-
- C—CHEMISTRY; METALLURGY
- C25—ELECTROLYTIC OR ELECTROPHORETIC PROCESSES; APPARATUS THEREFOR
- C25C—PROCESSES FOR THE ELECTROLYTIC PRODUCTION, RECOVERY OR REFINING OF METALS; APPARATUS THEREFOR
- C25C3/00—Electrolytic production, recovery or refining of metals by electrolysis of melts
- C25C3/06—Electrolytic production, recovery or refining of metals by electrolysis of melts of aluminium
- C25C3/20—Automatic control or regulation of cells
Landscapes
- Chemical & Material Sciences (AREA)
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Chemical Kinetics & Catalysis (AREA)
- Electrochemistry (AREA)
- Materials Engineering (AREA)
- Metallurgy (AREA)
- Organic Chemistry (AREA)
- Electrolytic Production Of Metals (AREA)
- Feedback Control In General (AREA)
Abstract
Method and means for controlling an electrolysis cell for aluminium production by process control inputs, comprising means for measurement of one or more process variable(-s) where the measured value(-s) is led to an estimator. The estimator can be of the Kalman filter type, and estimates the current value of one or more process variable(-s) followed by prediction of the value of said process variable(-s) and/or other process variable(-s). The predicted value(-s) is used to calculate future input control scenario by means of a calculator. The prediction of the process variable(-s) is performed in accordance with a non -linear dynamic model being an integrated part of a process controller.
Description
Method and means for controlling an electrolysis cell The present invention relates to a method and means for controlling an electrolysis cell for production of aluminium. The invention applies a non-linear model predictive control system (NMPC), where a model of the process is applied to predict the future behaviour of the process. Further, an estimator function is applied to produce estimates of process data in present time, based upon historical data.
The benefits of the presented invention are that one is able to control the electrolysis cell such that the process variations are reduced. By that on is able to operate the electrolysis cell closer to operational targets and process limits, and to achieve lower emission to the surroundings combined with stable and more efficient production.
The application of NMPC for controlling industrial processes is for instance known from the oil refinery industry, where this type of control has been widely applied.
However, a search conducted by the applicant did not reveal applications of non-linear MPC (NMPC) in the metallurgical industry. We recognize from (F.J.Stevens McFadden, JOM, February 2006) that it is mentioned linear MPC as an alternative to the investigated control scheme in controlling the non-alumina electrolyte variables in aluminium electrolysis cells based on a model identified from input-output data. An important difference between MPC and NMPC is that MPC uses a linear model, while NMPC
uses a non-linear model. From a theoretical point of view, using a non-linear model changes the control problem from a convex QP (quadratic program) to a non-convex Non-Linear Program (NLP), which the solution of is much more difficult to obtain. When solving a non-convex NLP there is no guarantee that the global optimum can be found. This implies that the tuning of NMPC controllers may be very difficult, particularly for the case where there is model discrepancies.
EP 0211 924 discloses a method of controlling the alumina feed to reduction cells for producing aluminium. There is employed an adaptive control with parameter estimation and controller calculation based upon the separation theorem. As a process model there is used a linear model having two inputs and one output.
US patent 4,814,050 is representative for the state of the art linear controller that includes the use of an estimator that employs two sets of equations, namely, a time update algorithm that contains a dynamic model of the alumina mass balance of the cell and provides estimates of alumina concentration, and a measurement algorithm that uses a process feedback variable from the cell to modify the alumina estimate.
Controlling the alumina reducing process is challenging due to non-linear process characteristics, coupled mass and energy balance and few measurements.
While the control of A1203 is considered `solved', the discussions in the literature in the last ten to fifteen years have been concerned about the control of the bath temperature and A/F3 control. Common for these contributions is that the A/F3 addition is calculated as a function of deviation from target acidity and/or target bath temperature.
It is well known in the aluminium community that both A/F3 additions and the bath temperature have an influence on the acidity due to variation in side ledge thickness. The relationship between the bath temperature and the acidity is referred to as bath temperature-acidity correlation, or simply the correlation line.
In accordance with the present invention one (mathematical) model represents a theoretical representation of the Aluminium Electrolysis Cell. The modeling methodology in the present invention is based on First Principle. This means that the model describing the process is based on fundamental understanding of the physics that describe heat and mass transfer relations and basic physical property relations. Modeling by First Principle usually takes the form of non-linear differential equations, and hence results in a non-linear model. By using theory from chemistry and thermodynamics (First Principle), the mass and energy balance of the cell is described in such a manner that the time behavior of a chosen set of process variables and the relationship between them can be determined (or estimated). The chosen set of process variable modeled is typical the side ledge thickness, mass of liquid bath and metal, concentration and mass of A/F3, concentration and mass of A/203, mass of sludge, bath temperature, cathode temperature, various heat flows, bath and metal height and pseudo resistance, to mention the most important ones.
The model represents an idealized framework, and will to a certain degree deviate from the physical process due to model uncertainty. In order to make the model work in a non-ideal framework, estimation techniques known as Kalmanfiltering is used.
Kalman filter state estimation is as such known from instance US patent 6757579.
The benefits of the presented invention are that one is able to control the electrolysis cell such that the process variations are reduced. By that on is able to operate the electrolysis cell closer to operational targets and process limits, and to achieve lower emission to the surroundings combined with stable and more efficient production.
The application of NMPC for controlling industrial processes is for instance known from the oil refinery industry, where this type of control has been widely applied.
However, a search conducted by the applicant did not reveal applications of non-linear MPC (NMPC) in the metallurgical industry. We recognize from (F.J.Stevens McFadden, JOM, February 2006) that it is mentioned linear MPC as an alternative to the investigated control scheme in controlling the non-alumina electrolyte variables in aluminium electrolysis cells based on a model identified from input-output data. An important difference between MPC and NMPC is that MPC uses a linear model, while NMPC
uses a non-linear model. From a theoretical point of view, using a non-linear model changes the control problem from a convex QP (quadratic program) to a non-convex Non-Linear Program (NLP), which the solution of is much more difficult to obtain. When solving a non-convex NLP there is no guarantee that the global optimum can be found. This implies that the tuning of NMPC controllers may be very difficult, particularly for the case where there is model discrepancies.
EP 0211 924 discloses a method of controlling the alumina feed to reduction cells for producing aluminium. There is employed an adaptive control with parameter estimation and controller calculation based upon the separation theorem. As a process model there is used a linear model having two inputs and one output.
US patent 4,814,050 is representative for the state of the art linear controller that includes the use of an estimator that employs two sets of equations, namely, a time update algorithm that contains a dynamic model of the alumina mass balance of the cell and provides estimates of alumina concentration, and a measurement algorithm that uses a process feedback variable from the cell to modify the alumina estimate.
Controlling the alumina reducing process is challenging due to non-linear process characteristics, coupled mass and energy balance and few measurements.
While the control of A1203 is considered `solved', the discussions in the literature in the last ten to fifteen years have been concerned about the control of the bath temperature and A/F3 control. Common for these contributions is that the A/F3 addition is calculated as a function of deviation from target acidity and/or target bath temperature.
It is well known in the aluminium community that both A/F3 additions and the bath temperature have an influence on the acidity due to variation in side ledge thickness. The relationship between the bath temperature and the acidity is referred to as bath temperature-acidity correlation, or simply the correlation line.
In accordance with the present invention one (mathematical) model represents a theoretical representation of the Aluminium Electrolysis Cell. The modeling methodology in the present invention is based on First Principle. This means that the model describing the process is based on fundamental understanding of the physics that describe heat and mass transfer relations and basic physical property relations. Modeling by First Principle usually takes the form of non-linear differential equations, and hence results in a non-linear model. By using theory from chemistry and thermodynamics (First Principle), the mass and energy balance of the cell is described in such a manner that the time behavior of a chosen set of process variables and the relationship between them can be determined (or estimated). The chosen set of process variable modeled is typical the side ledge thickness, mass of liquid bath and metal, concentration and mass of A/F3, concentration and mass of A/203, mass of sludge, bath temperature, cathode temperature, various heat flows, bath and metal height and pseudo resistance, to mention the most important ones.
The model represents an idealized framework, and will to a certain degree deviate from the physical process due to model uncertainty. In order to make the model work in a non-ideal framework, estimation techniques known as Kalmanfiltering is used.
Kalman filter state estimation is as such known from instance US patent 6757579.
Kalman filter state estimation for the aluminium reduction cells is known from "Estimation of states in aluminium reduction cells applying extended kalman filtering algorithms together with a nonlinear dynamic model and discrete measurements"
T.Saksvikronning, K.Vee, E.Gran (Light Metals 1976, pp. 275-286) By using Kalmanfiltering techniques, the model uncertainty is adjusted for based on the information available in the measurements of process variables (a sub-set of all the process variables) and the process inputs. The measurements are typically the pseudo resistance, bath temperature, cathode temperature, liquid bath and metal height and the concentration of A/F3 The process inputs are typically the line current, added masses, anode movements and events (anode effect, metal tap, liquid bath tap/addition, anode change).
Based on the information available via the inputs and measurements, the outcome of the model adjustment is a more accurate estimation of the chosen set of process variables at the given time instance.
In accordance with the invention hardly measurable and non-measurable process variables can be estimated and predicted and used in a controller, making it possible to achieve better control of mass and energy balance of the aluminium electrolysis cell.
The abovementioned advantages and further advantages can be obtained by the invention as defined in claim 1-15.
The invention shall be further described by examples and figures where:
Fig. 1 discloses a sketch of the main features of an alumina reduction cell (Prebake) Fig. 2 discloses prior art controlling of an electrolysis cell (anode beam adjustments for control of energy input, addition of A/F3 and addition of A/203, Fig. 3 discloses a NMPC controller Fig. 4 discloses one estimate of current Control Variables Fig. 5 is a diagram disclosing calculated future optimal input scenario (u) Fig 6 is a diagram disclosing a computed new estimate of Control Variables based upon new measurements and inputs Fig. 7 discloses a diagram representing the calculated new future optimal input scenario (U)=
The Hall-Heroult process for aluminium production.
The Hall-Heroult process, named after its inventors, is the most used method by which aluminium is produced industrially today. Liquid aluminium is produced by the electrolytic reduction of alumina (A1203) dissolved in an electrolyte, referred to as bath, which mainly consists of cryolite (Na3AIF6). A sketch of the alumina reduction cell is shown in Figure 1.
In the alumina reduction cell, hereafter referred to as the cell, one (Soderberg) or several (Prebake) carbon anodes are dipped into the bath. The alumina is consumed electrochemically at the anode.
As can be seen from Equation (1), the carbon anode is consumed during the process (theoretically 333 kg C/t Al).
IA1203+3NaF+3C-4A1F3+3CO2+3Na++3e (1) The lower part of the cell, the cathode, consists of a steel shell lined with refractory and thermal insulation. A pool of liquid aluminium is formed on top of the carbon bottom. The cathode, in the electrochemically sense, is the interface between the liquid aluminium and the bath, described by A/F3+3Na++3e-Al +3NaF (2) and the total cell reaction becomes 1A1203+4C-->Al +3CO2 (3) Pure bath (Na3AIF6) has a melting point of 1011 C. To lower the melting point, the liquidus temperature, aluminium fluoride (AIF3) and calcium fluoride (CaF2), to mention the most important ones, are added to the bath. The bath composition in a cell may typically be 6-13 [wt%] AIF3, 4-6 [wt%] CaF2, and 2-4 [wt%] A1203. Lowering the liquidus temperature makes it possible to operate the cell at a lower bath temperature, but at the expense of reduced solubility of A1203 in the bath, demanding good A1203 control. It should be mentioned that if the concentration of A1203 gets too low (less than approx. 1.8 wt%), the cell enters a state called anode effect. During anode effect, the cell voltage increases from the normal 4-4.5V up to 20-50V. Anode effect is a highly unwanted state, not only because it represents a waste of energy and a disturbance of the energy balance, but also 5 because greenhouse gases (CF4 and C2F6) are produced at the anode. Very often the anode effect requires a manual intervention of an operator.
The bath temperature during normal cell operation is between 940 C and 970 C.
The bath is not consumed during the electrolytic process, but some is lost, mainly during vaporization. The vapour mainly consists of NaAIF4. In addition some bath is lost by entrainment of small droplets, and water present in the alumina feed reacts to form HF. In order to protect the environment the gas is collected and cleaned in a gas scrubbing system. More than 98% of the A/F3 is recovered in the scrubbing system and recycled back to the cells. In addition the content of sodium oxide (Na20) and calcium fluoride (Ca2F) in the fed A1203 neutralize AIF3 . The neutralized amount is also a function of the penetration of sodium into the cathode, and hence the cell age. As an example a 170 kA
cell emits about 60 equivalent kg A/F3 pr. 24 hours, and uses approximately 2500 kg A/203 pr. 24 hours. The amount of A/F3 due to neutralization for a 170 kA cell is between 0 and kg per 24 hour (dependent of cell age). However, since most of the A/F3 is recycled, 20 the real consumption of A/F3 is very small compared to the consumption of A1203.
At the sidewalls of the cathode there is a frozen layer, called side ledge, which protects the carbon sidewall from erosion. The composition of the side ledge is mainly pure Na3A/F6 with some CaF2 . The thickness of the side ledge is a function of the heat flow through the sides, which is a function of the difference in bath temperature and liquidus temperature. Since it is assumed that the side ledge composition is mainly Na3AIF6, this means that the total mass of cryolite in the bath varies, while the masses of A/F3 and A1203 do not vary with the side ledge thickness. Further, since the concentration of an additive is the mass of the additive divided by the total mass of bath, the variation in the side ledge thickness introduces variation in the concentrations. Hence, the changes in the concentrations introduce changes in the liquidus temperature, which introduces changes in the superheat, affecting the side ledge thickness.
The challenge is thereby to ensure stable cell operations resulting in a stable protective side ledge, while minimizing energy input and maximizing production.
T.Saksvikronning, K.Vee, E.Gran (Light Metals 1976, pp. 275-286) By using Kalmanfiltering techniques, the model uncertainty is adjusted for based on the information available in the measurements of process variables (a sub-set of all the process variables) and the process inputs. The measurements are typically the pseudo resistance, bath temperature, cathode temperature, liquid bath and metal height and the concentration of A/F3 The process inputs are typically the line current, added masses, anode movements and events (anode effect, metal tap, liquid bath tap/addition, anode change).
Based on the information available via the inputs and measurements, the outcome of the model adjustment is a more accurate estimation of the chosen set of process variables at the given time instance.
In accordance with the invention hardly measurable and non-measurable process variables can be estimated and predicted and used in a controller, making it possible to achieve better control of mass and energy balance of the aluminium electrolysis cell.
The abovementioned advantages and further advantages can be obtained by the invention as defined in claim 1-15.
The invention shall be further described by examples and figures where:
Fig. 1 discloses a sketch of the main features of an alumina reduction cell (Prebake) Fig. 2 discloses prior art controlling of an electrolysis cell (anode beam adjustments for control of energy input, addition of A/F3 and addition of A/203, Fig. 3 discloses a NMPC controller Fig. 4 discloses one estimate of current Control Variables Fig. 5 is a diagram disclosing calculated future optimal input scenario (u) Fig 6 is a diagram disclosing a computed new estimate of Control Variables based upon new measurements and inputs Fig. 7 discloses a diagram representing the calculated new future optimal input scenario (U)=
The Hall-Heroult process for aluminium production.
The Hall-Heroult process, named after its inventors, is the most used method by which aluminium is produced industrially today. Liquid aluminium is produced by the electrolytic reduction of alumina (A1203) dissolved in an electrolyte, referred to as bath, which mainly consists of cryolite (Na3AIF6). A sketch of the alumina reduction cell is shown in Figure 1.
In the alumina reduction cell, hereafter referred to as the cell, one (Soderberg) or several (Prebake) carbon anodes are dipped into the bath. The alumina is consumed electrochemically at the anode.
As can be seen from Equation (1), the carbon anode is consumed during the process (theoretically 333 kg C/t Al).
IA1203+3NaF+3C-4A1F3+3CO2+3Na++3e (1) The lower part of the cell, the cathode, consists of a steel shell lined with refractory and thermal insulation. A pool of liquid aluminium is formed on top of the carbon bottom. The cathode, in the electrochemically sense, is the interface between the liquid aluminium and the bath, described by A/F3+3Na++3e-Al +3NaF (2) and the total cell reaction becomes 1A1203+4C-->Al +3CO2 (3) Pure bath (Na3AIF6) has a melting point of 1011 C. To lower the melting point, the liquidus temperature, aluminium fluoride (AIF3) and calcium fluoride (CaF2), to mention the most important ones, are added to the bath. The bath composition in a cell may typically be 6-13 [wt%] AIF3, 4-6 [wt%] CaF2, and 2-4 [wt%] A1203. Lowering the liquidus temperature makes it possible to operate the cell at a lower bath temperature, but at the expense of reduced solubility of A1203 in the bath, demanding good A1203 control. It should be mentioned that if the concentration of A1203 gets too low (less than approx. 1.8 wt%), the cell enters a state called anode effect. During anode effect, the cell voltage increases from the normal 4-4.5V up to 20-50V. Anode effect is a highly unwanted state, not only because it represents a waste of energy and a disturbance of the energy balance, but also 5 because greenhouse gases (CF4 and C2F6) are produced at the anode. Very often the anode effect requires a manual intervention of an operator.
The bath temperature during normal cell operation is between 940 C and 970 C.
The bath is not consumed during the electrolytic process, but some is lost, mainly during vaporization. The vapour mainly consists of NaAIF4. In addition some bath is lost by entrainment of small droplets, and water present in the alumina feed reacts to form HF. In order to protect the environment the gas is collected and cleaned in a gas scrubbing system. More than 98% of the A/F3 is recovered in the scrubbing system and recycled back to the cells. In addition the content of sodium oxide (Na20) and calcium fluoride (Ca2F) in the fed A1203 neutralize AIF3 . The neutralized amount is also a function of the penetration of sodium into the cathode, and hence the cell age. As an example a 170 kA
cell emits about 60 equivalent kg A/F3 pr. 24 hours, and uses approximately 2500 kg A/203 pr. 24 hours. The amount of A/F3 due to neutralization for a 170 kA cell is between 0 and kg per 24 hour (dependent of cell age). However, since most of the A/F3 is recycled, 20 the real consumption of A/F3 is very small compared to the consumption of A1203.
At the sidewalls of the cathode there is a frozen layer, called side ledge, which protects the carbon sidewall from erosion. The composition of the side ledge is mainly pure Na3A/F6 with some CaF2 . The thickness of the side ledge is a function of the heat flow through the sides, which is a function of the difference in bath temperature and liquidus temperature. Since it is assumed that the side ledge composition is mainly Na3AIF6, this means that the total mass of cryolite in the bath varies, while the masses of A/F3 and A1203 do not vary with the side ledge thickness. Further, since the concentration of an additive is the mass of the additive divided by the total mass of bath, the variation in the side ledge thickness introduces variation in the concentrations. Hence, the changes in the concentrations introduce changes in the liquidus temperature, which introduces changes in the superheat, affecting the side ledge thickness.
The challenge is thereby to ensure stable cell operations resulting in a stable protective side ledge, while minimizing energy input and maximizing production.
Given reasonable operational targets, it is an established operational practice that minimizing the process variations around target values results in good process operations in the sense of minimum pollution to the environment, maximum production and minimum expenditure. Used in the context of the alumina reduction cell the focus should be on achieving low anode effect frequency, good gas scrubbing efficiency and low deviation from target when it comes to alumina concentration, bath temperature and acidity. If the control of the alumina concentration is reasonably good, one has to focus on the bath temperature control and the AIF3 control.
An increase in the bath temperature results in a lower acidity and an increase in the bath conductivity. According to previous studies in the open literature the variation in acidity is dominated by the variation in the bath temperature.
"Prior art" in process control of Aluminium Electrolysis Cell To control the electrolysis cells there are two main hardware architectures, namely centralized or decentralised architectures. In the centralized architecture the process control input is calculated by a centralized computer and distributed to local controlling devices on each aluminium electrolysis cell. In the decentralized architectures a decentralized computer, usually located close to the aluminium electrolysis cell, calculates the process control input.
In controlling an electrolysis cell, there are, up till now, typically three main controlled variables: bath temperature, concentration of AIF3 and concentration of A1203, and three control inputs: anode beam adjustments (controlling energy input), addition of A/F3 and addition of A1203 (see figure 2) The dynamics in reducing the mass of AIF3 is slow (assumed no added soda), and the control of the concentration of AIF3 has to deal with slow responses when changing the AIF3 concentration.
The dynamics in the mass of A1203 is fast, and the control of the concentration of A1203 has to deal with quick responses. The control of the concentration of A1203 is usually considered as an isolated problem.
The bath temperature is usually measured manually once a day or at least once a week.
In some technologies, the bath temperature is possible to measure automatically. The concentration of AIF3 (acidity) is typically measured manually once or twice a week, while the concentration of A1203 is not normally measured at all, only in conjunction with experiments.
The only continuous measurements is the bath pseudo resistance Rb defined as Rb = Ucerr I Uext [ ~l (4) Rb is used as an input for the anode beam adjustment, and acts as a control variable in conjunction with the energy input to the cell.
Because the energy balance and the mass balance are coupled through the side ledge, the control of a cell must be considered as a non-linear multivariable control problem.
Although the control problem is a non-linear multivariable control problem, it is commonly solved as if it should be a linear non-multivariable problem. I.e. using linear, single loop controllers (i.e. one controller controls one process variable), typically one controller for alumina control, one for AIF3 control and one for energy/bath temperature control.
The measurements act as input to the controllers; the alumina controller typically uses the pseudo resistance measurement; the A/F3-controller uses a combination of A/F3 and bath temperature measurements. The output from an A/F3-controller could typically be cl(Tb-TbRef + c2(AIF3- AIF3ref, where c1 and c2 is technology specific constants.
Some technologies also use the bath temperature measurement to adjust the energy input (voltage) applied to the cell.
Typically these linear single loop controllers do not "co-operate" (not a multivariable control scheme), although some technologies do use a slight coupling between control and energy/bath temperature control. Also these linear controllers are bounded by a lot of heuristic and rules.
Additional measurements, although commonly not used in automatic control, is the measurement of bath height, metal height and the mass of tapped metal.
The present invention process control of Aluminium Electrolysis Cell:
By Non-linear Model Predictive Control (NMPC) we understand the use of a non-linear dynamical model, state estimation (process variable estimation) and the solution of an online constrained non-linear optimisation problem to calculate the control inputs to the physical process. See also Fig. 3.
Figure 3 illustrates the building blocks in the invention. The block labelled "Process" is meant to illustrate the physical process - one instance of the aluminium electrolysis cell.
To the "Process" one is able to apply process control inputs (mass and energy) and measure some process outputs. The measurement could only be done up to a certain level of accuracy. The level of inaccuracy is described as "Measurement Noise". The block labelled "Estimator" contains a mathematical model of the "Process". The "Process"
is described by using "First Principle" modelling techniques, and results in several process parameters and process variables that are used in the estimation of the current value of the said variables. Also the model contains partial differential equations (PDE), which capture the time derivative of a selected sub-set of the process variables.
This sub-set is called process states.
Since knowledge regard the process states and variables can be seen as simplified versions of the real truth, the discrepancy could be seen as uncertainty -here labelled "State Noise". Further the value of the process control inputs and the value of the measurements is also led as inputs to the "Estimator". Based on the knowledge of the process control inputs and measurements, the purpose of the "Estimator" is to calculate an estimate of the current process variables (process states, estimated parameters and measurements). Further, the estimated measurements are compared to the physical measurements, and the deviation is used to adjust the model such that the deviation is minimized. This technique is referred to as a Kalmanfilter estimation technique.
The estimated measurements, states and parameters are the output form the "Estimator", and serves as an input to the non-linear model predictive control (NMPC) block. The "NMPC" block uses a sub set of the estimated process variables (CV), usually in conjunction with some reference values and constraints, to calculate the optimal future process control input senario (MV) in order to move the process from the current working point (given by the estimate), to the working point given by the reference values. The optimal future process control input senario would typically be within a finite future time frame. Since the strategy is operating in the discrete time frame, the optimal future process control input senario would be calculated each time step (say each 5th minute), based up on updated process variable estimates, which also are available each time step.
However only the first value of the future process control input scenario is put onto the physical process. The optimal control input scenario is found by solving an optimisation criterion by minimizing it with respect to predicted process variables, among others. The predictions stem from using the non-linear dynamic model to predict the future values of the process variables. The optimiser used is an optimiser that is able to solve non-linear constrained problems (typically SQP). The non-linear process model in the "NMPC" block is in this embodiment of the invention the same as the non-linear model in the "Estimator"
block.
In the description of this invention we will use the following terms:
Definition 1:
1. Estimation: By estimation we understand that the value under consideration, the estimate, represent the said value at current time. Further the estimate is produced by the use of a mathematical model where the said value is adjusted based on historical data (measurements and/or process inputs) up till current time.
2. Prediction: By prediction we understand that the value under consideration, the predicted value(s), represents the future said value(s) ahead in. time.
Further the prediction is produced by the use of a mathematical model.
To describe this invention we define the following: Definition 2:
1. Process parameters: Process characteristics that do not vary with time (dimensions, enthalpy etc) 2. Process variables: Process characteristics that vary with time (bath temperature, alumina concentration, side ledge thickness etc.) 3. Process states: A subset of process variables that can be described with differential equations (bath temperature, side ledge thickness etc.) 4. Calculated variables: A subset of process variables, which is calculated from other process variables and/or integrated process states. For example the alumina concentration is the ratio between the mass of alumina in the bath and the mass of bath.
5. Measurements: Physically measurements of a subset of process variables.
6. Process inputs: Something (here: energy and mass) that can be fed to the physical process by the means of moving the process from one state to another state in a finite time.
We will also combine the content from Definition 1 and 2 to talk about estimated and predicted process variables, estimated and predicted states, estimated and predicted calculated variables and estimated and predicted measurements.
In NMPC a non-linear model of the aluminium electrolysis process is introduced. The (non-linear) model has two important purposes - one is to estimate the current value of important process variables and measurements of the process, the second is to be used to predict the future values of the process variables and measurements (see figure 7, to 5 be further explained later).
In this proposed NMPC of an Aluminium Electrolysis Cell a dynamic mathematical model of the electrolysis process is used to estimate important process variables.
The process variables could be variables that are not measured at all (side ledge thickness, mass of 10 bath and metal, mass of A/F3, mass of A1203, concentration of A1203) and process variables that are infrequently measured (concentration of A/F3, bath height, metal height and bath temperature). Common for the process variables modelled is that estimates of the process variables are available almost continuously (for example each 5th minute).
While the measurements as described above in "Prior art" are, at the best, used as input to some single loop linear controller, all the measurements are used in NMPC
to drive the estimated process variables such that better estimates of the process variable can be calculated. The technique used is found in the literature as Kalmanfiltering, including the linear Kalmanfilter, Augmented Kalmanfilter, Extended Kalmanfilter, Augmented Extended Kalmanfilter, the Sigmapoint/Unscented Kalmanfilter and Ensamble Kalmanfilter.
Another approach is to use Moving Horizon Estimation (MHE), since the delayed measurements are then effectively handled. For example the results of the measurement of the acidity usually is available some hours after the actual measurement took place. By using MHE
the measurement is placed on the right place in the time window and hence contribute to a more correct current estimate.
It is important to realize that time varying estimates are available also between the infrequent measurements.
The NMPC uses the estimate from the estimator described above as a starting point (where we are). By comparing the estimate with selected set points (where we want to go) on a given set of process variables, the NMPC controller calculates the future control path in an optimal manner by the use of the model. The 'future' could be the next 24 hours. The first optimal control is then applied to the physical process. This scheme is then repeated each nth minute (n to be determined) (see Fig. 7).
An increase in the bath temperature results in a lower acidity and an increase in the bath conductivity. According to previous studies in the open literature the variation in acidity is dominated by the variation in the bath temperature.
"Prior art" in process control of Aluminium Electrolysis Cell To control the electrolysis cells there are two main hardware architectures, namely centralized or decentralised architectures. In the centralized architecture the process control input is calculated by a centralized computer and distributed to local controlling devices on each aluminium electrolysis cell. In the decentralized architectures a decentralized computer, usually located close to the aluminium electrolysis cell, calculates the process control input.
In controlling an electrolysis cell, there are, up till now, typically three main controlled variables: bath temperature, concentration of AIF3 and concentration of A1203, and three control inputs: anode beam adjustments (controlling energy input), addition of A/F3 and addition of A1203 (see figure 2) The dynamics in reducing the mass of AIF3 is slow (assumed no added soda), and the control of the concentration of AIF3 has to deal with slow responses when changing the AIF3 concentration.
The dynamics in the mass of A1203 is fast, and the control of the concentration of A1203 has to deal with quick responses. The control of the concentration of A1203 is usually considered as an isolated problem.
The bath temperature is usually measured manually once a day or at least once a week.
In some technologies, the bath temperature is possible to measure automatically. The concentration of AIF3 (acidity) is typically measured manually once or twice a week, while the concentration of A1203 is not normally measured at all, only in conjunction with experiments.
The only continuous measurements is the bath pseudo resistance Rb defined as Rb = Ucerr I Uext [ ~l (4) Rb is used as an input for the anode beam adjustment, and acts as a control variable in conjunction with the energy input to the cell.
Because the energy balance and the mass balance are coupled through the side ledge, the control of a cell must be considered as a non-linear multivariable control problem.
Although the control problem is a non-linear multivariable control problem, it is commonly solved as if it should be a linear non-multivariable problem. I.e. using linear, single loop controllers (i.e. one controller controls one process variable), typically one controller for alumina control, one for AIF3 control and one for energy/bath temperature control.
The measurements act as input to the controllers; the alumina controller typically uses the pseudo resistance measurement; the A/F3-controller uses a combination of A/F3 and bath temperature measurements. The output from an A/F3-controller could typically be cl(Tb-TbRef + c2(AIF3- AIF3ref, where c1 and c2 is technology specific constants.
Some technologies also use the bath temperature measurement to adjust the energy input (voltage) applied to the cell.
Typically these linear single loop controllers do not "co-operate" (not a multivariable control scheme), although some technologies do use a slight coupling between control and energy/bath temperature control. Also these linear controllers are bounded by a lot of heuristic and rules.
Additional measurements, although commonly not used in automatic control, is the measurement of bath height, metal height and the mass of tapped metal.
The present invention process control of Aluminium Electrolysis Cell:
By Non-linear Model Predictive Control (NMPC) we understand the use of a non-linear dynamical model, state estimation (process variable estimation) and the solution of an online constrained non-linear optimisation problem to calculate the control inputs to the physical process. See also Fig. 3.
Figure 3 illustrates the building blocks in the invention. The block labelled "Process" is meant to illustrate the physical process - one instance of the aluminium electrolysis cell.
To the "Process" one is able to apply process control inputs (mass and energy) and measure some process outputs. The measurement could only be done up to a certain level of accuracy. The level of inaccuracy is described as "Measurement Noise". The block labelled "Estimator" contains a mathematical model of the "Process". The "Process"
is described by using "First Principle" modelling techniques, and results in several process parameters and process variables that are used in the estimation of the current value of the said variables. Also the model contains partial differential equations (PDE), which capture the time derivative of a selected sub-set of the process variables.
This sub-set is called process states.
Since knowledge regard the process states and variables can be seen as simplified versions of the real truth, the discrepancy could be seen as uncertainty -here labelled "State Noise". Further the value of the process control inputs and the value of the measurements is also led as inputs to the "Estimator". Based on the knowledge of the process control inputs and measurements, the purpose of the "Estimator" is to calculate an estimate of the current process variables (process states, estimated parameters and measurements). Further, the estimated measurements are compared to the physical measurements, and the deviation is used to adjust the model such that the deviation is minimized. This technique is referred to as a Kalmanfilter estimation technique.
The estimated measurements, states and parameters are the output form the "Estimator", and serves as an input to the non-linear model predictive control (NMPC) block. The "NMPC" block uses a sub set of the estimated process variables (CV), usually in conjunction with some reference values and constraints, to calculate the optimal future process control input senario (MV) in order to move the process from the current working point (given by the estimate), to the working point given by the reference values. The optimal future process control input senario would typically be within a finite future time frame. Since the strategy is operating in the discrete time frame, the optimal future process control input senario would be calculated each time step (say each 5th minute), based up on updated process variable estimates, which also are available each time step.
However only the first value of the future process control input scenario is put onto the physical process. The optimal control input scenario is found by solving an optimisation criterion by minimizing it with respect to predicted process variables, among others. The predictions stem from using the non-linear dynamic model to predict the future values of the process variables. The optimiser used is an optimiser that is able to solve non-linear constrained problems (typically SQP). The non-linear process model in the "NMPC" block is in this embodiment of the invention the same as the non-linear model in the "Estimator"
block.
In the description of this invention we will use the following terms:
Definition 1:
1. Estimation: By estimation we understand that the value under consideration, the estimate, represent the said value at current time. Further the estimate is produced by the use of a mathematical model where the said value is adjusted based on historical data (measurements and/or process inputs) up till current time.
2. Prediction: By prediction we understand that the value under consideration, the predicted value(s), represents the future said value(s) ahead in. time.
Further the prediction is produced by the use of a mathematical model.
To describe this invention we define the following: Definition 2:
1. Process parameters: Process characteristics that do not vary with time (dimensions, enthalpy etc) 2. Process variables: Process characteristics that vary with time (bath temperature, alumina concentration, side ledge thickness etc.) 3. Process states: A subset of process variables that can be described with differential equations (bath temperature, side ledge thickness etc.) 4. Calculated variables: A subset of process variables, which is calculated from other process variables and/or integrated process states. For example the alumina concentration is the ratio between the mass of alumina in the bath and the mass of bath.
5. Measurements: Physically measurements of a subset of process variables.
6. Process inputs: Something (here: energy and mass) that can be fed to the physical process by the means of moving the process from one state to another state in a finite time.
We will also combine the content from Definition 1 and 2 to talk about estimated and predicted process variables, estimated and predicted states, estimated and predicted calculated variables and estimated and predicted measurements.
In NMPC a non-linear model of the aluminium electrolysis process is introduced. The (non-linear) model has two important purposes - one is to estimate the current value of important process variables and measurements of the process, the second is to be used to predict the future values of the process variables and measurements (see figure 7, to 5 be further explained later).
In this proposed NMPC of an Aluminium Electrolysis Cell a dynamic mathematical model of the electrolysis process is used to estimate important process variables.
The process variables could be variables that are not measured at all (side ledge thickness, mass of 10 bath and metal, mass of A/F3, mass of A1203, concentration of A1203) and process variables that are infrequently measured (concentration of A/F3, bath height, metal height and bath temperature). Common for the process variables modelled is that estimates of the process variables are available almost continuously (for example each 5th minute).
While the measurements as described above in "Prior art" are, at the best, used as input to some single loop linear controller, all the measurements are used in NMPC
to drive the estimated process variables such that better estimates of the process variable can be calculated. The technique used is found in the literature as Kalmanfiltering, including the linear Kalmanfilter, Augmented Kalmanfilter, Extended Kalmanfilter, Augmented Extended Kalmanfilter, the Sigmapoint/Unscented Kalmanfilter and Ensamble Kalmanfilter.
Another approach is to use Moving Horizon Estimation (MHE), since the delayed measurements are then effectively handled. For example the results of the measurement of the acidity usually is available some hours after the actual measurement took place. By using MHE
the measurement is placed on the right place in the time window and hence contribute to a more correct current estimate.
It is important to realize that time varying estimates are available also between the infrequent measurements.
The NMPC uses the estimate from the estimator described above as a starting point (where we are). By comparing the estimate with selected set points (where we want to go) on a given set of process variables, the NMPC controller calculates the future control path in an optimal manner by the use of the model. The 'future' could be the next 24 hours. The first optimal control is then applied to the physical process. This scheme is then repeated each nth minute (n to be determined) (see Fig. 7).
A major difference from "Prior Art" is that the input to the controller is entirely based on estimated values, and not measured values directly. Further the controller utilizes the non-linearity of the process, the coupling between the process variables, and the process dynamics together with process and controller constraints, and finds an optimal process control input, which is put onto the physical process. Also, in this embodiment of the invention the use of the NMPC is to directly calculate the process control inputs, and not some set points to secondary control loops or systems In one embodiment of the present invention the model used has 9 estimated process states, 7 measurements, 3 main and 10 additional process control inputs and some estimated process parameters. Further there is defined some calculated process variables.
The estimated process states are the side ledge thickness, bath temperature, mass of dissolved alumina in the bath, mass of dissolved aluminium fluoride in the bath, metal mass, the distance between the lower anode surface and the cathode, cathode temperature, mass of alumina sludge and mass of cryolite in the cell.
The measurements are the pseudo resistance, line current, bath temperature, concentration of aluminium fluoride, metal height, bath height and cathode rod temperature.
The main 3 process control inputs are the addition of alumina and aluminium fluoride and the anode movement. The additional 10 process control inputs are information about the discrete events anode change, tap of metal, addition/removal of bath, crust covering, covering crust by alumina, addition of soda, crust brake, anode effect and anode problems.
The parameter estimated could be any, one or several, of the parameters needed to describe an aluminium electrolysis cell, but in present embodiment of the invention only the heat loss through the is estimated. The other parameters are considered known and constant.
The most important calculated variables are mass of bath, alumina concentration, acidity, pseudo resistance, liquidus temperature, super-heat and anode-cathode distance.
The estimated process states are the side ledge thickness, bath temperature, mass of dissolved alumina in the bath, mass of dissolved aluminium fluoride in the bath, metal mass, the distance between the lower anode surface and the cathode, cathode temperature, mass of alumina sludge and mass of cryolite in the cell.
The measurements are the pseudo resistance, line current, bath temperature, concentration of aluminium fluoride, metal height, bath height and cathode rod temperature.
The main 3 process control inputs are the addition of alumina and aluminium fluoride and the anode movement. The additional 10 process control inputs are information about the discrete events anode change, tap of metal, addition/removal of bath, crust covering, covering crust by alumina, addition of soda, crust brake, anode effect and anode problems.
The parameter estimated could be any, one or several, of the parameters needed to describe an aluminium electrolysis cell, but in present embodiment of the invention only the heat loss through the is estimated. The other parameters are considered known and constant.
The most important calculated variables are mass of bath, alumina concentration, acidity, pseudo resistance, liquidus temperature, super-heat and anode-cathode distance.
In the Kalmanfilter context the uncertainty related to the estimated process states and measurements is assumed Gaussian and additive. The uncertainty in the control inputs is assumed Gaussian and relative.
The NMPC controller:
The NMPC controller is used to control the Aluminium Electrolysis Cell and the aim is to control the energy and mass balance. Since there are three process inputs available (addition of alumina, addition of aluminium fluoride and anode movement) one can only expect to control three process variables to a desired value (set point). In the NMPC
framework the process input is termed manipulated variables (MV).
One of the challenges is then to select those three process variables that allow one to best control the mass and energy balance. In this embodiment of present invention the following three process variables are chosen: alumina concentration, bath temperature and side ledge thickness. These process variables are referred to as controlled variables or CVs, and is a sub set of all the process variables. Further the three process variables referred is associated with a reference (or a desired) value.
In addition to these process variables, the mass of fluoride in the bath, the anode-cathode distance (ACD) and the superheat is also included in the CV, but without reference values. They are however assumed having a value between some determined minimum and maximum limits (see Table 3). Also it is important to note that the pseudo resistance has no dedicated reference value in this embodiment of the invention. The NMPC
is allowed to use the resistance value necessary to maintain the energy balance.
The idea behind the selection of these process variables as CVs is that once the alumina concentration, the bath temperature and the side ledge thickness are determined the superheat is determined. When the superheat is determined, the liquidus temperature is determined and by that the mass of fluoride. Further the ACD is included in the CV in order to have the possibility to constrain the ACD because of safety related issues. For example it is considered as a serious safety concern if the anodes should leave the bath (high ACD).
The output from the Kalmanfilter as previously described is the best estimate of the current state of the process variables, and is used by the NMPC to define a starting point for the calculations to come. The NMPC calculates an optimal future process input scenario U(tk), U(tk+1), ...,U(tk+Nu) in order to achieve the set point for the CVs within a chosen future discrete time of length N (prediction horizon). Here tk is the present time (now) and tk+,, ..., tk+Nu is the forward discrete time in the control horizon. Nu is the length of a control horizon, where Nu <= N. The interval tk to tk+N forms the prediction window.
However, only the first calculated process input U(tk) from the optimal future process input scenario is put into effect on the physical process itself. This scheme is then repeated for example each 5th minute.
Since the process variables and measurements cannot be measured in advance or ahead in time, a model of the process is used to predict the future time behavior of the physical process. The prediction model used in this invention is the same model as the model used in the estimator previously described, but now without the possibility to update the state estimates from measurements.
In order to achieve the optimal future input sequence (U) a criterion to be minimized is defined. The criterion or Cost Function, J, to be minimized by the optimizer within the NMPC can in general be any function, but is usually like J = f (Z' Zref, W, U, DU, Constraints) (5) where Z is the future prediction of the controlled variables (CV), Zref is the desired values or reference values of Z, U is the future process input scenario, AU is the difference between the present and the previous process input scenario and W is some weight matrices or functions used to penalize combinations of Z, Zref , U and/or DU
(see below for further explanation). By the term Constraints it should be understood methods for constraint handling if some constraints are violated.
In an embodiment of this invention the criterion to be minimized is defined as Y= 2 - Z, )T Q(Z - Z,)+ )+ 2 AUT SAU + Constraints (6) In Equation (6) T means the transpose. The vector Z is composed of the future prediction of the controlled variables (CV). Z-Zfef means the deviation. The vector U is the future input scenario of all manipulated variables (MV), while AU is the difference between the present and the previous input scenario.
The NMPC controller:
The NMPC controller is used to control the Aluminium Electrolysis Cell and the aim is to control the energy and mass balance. Since there are three process inputs available (addition of alumina, addition of aluminium fluoride and anode movement) one can only expect to control three process variables to a desired value (set point). In the NMPC
framework the process input is termed manipulated variables (MV).
One of the challenges is then to select those three process variables that allow one to best control the mass and energy balance. In this embodiment of present invention the following three process variables are chosen: alumina concentration, bath temperature and side ledge thickness. These process variables are referred to as controlled variables or CVs, and is a sub set of all the process variables. Further the three process variables referred is associated with a reference (or a desired) value.
In addition to these process variables, the mass of fluoride in the bath, the anode-cathode distance (ACD) and the superheat is also included in the CV, but without reference values. They are however assumed having a value between some determined minimum and maximum limits (see Table 3). Also it is important to note that the pseudo resistance has no dedicated reference value in this embodiment of the invention. The NMPC
is allowed to use the resistance value necessary to maintain the energy balance.
The idea behind the selection of these process variables as CVs is that once the alumina concentration, the bath temperature and the side ledge thickness are determined the superheat is determined. When the superheat is determined, the liquidus temperature is determined and by that the mass of fluoride. Further the ACD is included in the CV in order to have the possibility to constrain the ACD because of safety related issues. For example it is considered as a serious safety concern if the anodes should leave the bath (high ACD).
The output from the Kalmanfilter as previously described is the best estimate of the current state of the process variables, and is used by the NMPC to define a starting point for the calculations to come. The NMPC calculates an optimal future process input scenario U(tk), U(tk+1), ...,U(tk+Nu) in order to achieve the set point for the CVs within a chosen future discrete time of length N (prediction horizon). Here tk is the present time (now) and tk+,, ..., tk+Nu is the forward discrete time in the control horizon. Nu is the length of a control horizon, where Nu <= N. The interval tk to tk+N forms the prediction window.
However, only the first calculated process input U(tk) from the optimal future process input scenario is put into effect on the physical process itself. This scheme is then repeated for example each 5th minute.
Since the process variables and measurements cannot be measured in advance or ahead in time, a model of the process is used to predict the future time behavior of the physical process. The prediction model used in this invention is the same model as the model used in the estimator previously described, but now without the possibility to update the state estimates from measurements.
In order to achieve the optimal future input sequence (U) a criterion to be minimized is defined. The criterion or Cost Function, J, to be minimized by the optimizer within the NMPC can in general be any function, but is usually like J = f (Z' Zref, W, U, DU, Constraints) (5) where Z is the future prediction of the controlled variables (CV), Zref is the desired values or reference values of Z, U is the future process input scenario, AU is the difference between the present and the previous process input scenario and W is some weight matrices or functions used to penalize combinations of Z, Zref , U and/or DU
(see below for further explanation). By the term Constraints it should be understood methods for constraint handling if some constraints are violated.
In an embodiment of this invention the criterion to be minimized is defined as Y= 2 - Z, )T Q(Z - Z,)+ )+ 2 AUT SAU + Constraints (6) In Equation (6) T means the transpose. The vector Z is composed of the future prediction of the controlled variables (CV). Z-Zfef means the deviation. The vector U is the future input scenario of all manipulated variables (MV), while AU is the difference between the present and the previous input scenario.
The Q and S in Equation (6) are all positive semi-definite and diagonal matrices, i.e.
contains only positive or zero weights. Related to Equation (5), Q and S can bee seen as incorporated in W.
The purpose of the weight matrix Q is to control the behavior of the NMPC
controller.
Obviously increasing the weights in Q will increase the importance of controlling the CV to its set point and therefore reduce the set point deviation. By choosing different weights for the different CVs, one controls the priority between them. In this process the most important one is to achieve the desired alumina concentration, then the bath temperature and finally the side ledge thickness. This is reflected in the Q matrix with a large value in Q related to the alumina concentration, lower on the bath temperature and lowest on the side ledge thickness (see Table 3).
The term S in Equation (6) controls the cost of the use of the process inputs.
Increasing the weights in S will suppress the use of the MV and relax the use of it. For example, with reference to Table 2 below, it is cheap to use alumina, a bit more costly to use anode movement and very expensive to use aluminium fluoride to achieve the desired set points.
One challenge with NMPC is that if the prediction horizon is long, the computational load may become very high, and one is not guarantied that an optimal solution is available when needed. In order to drastically reduce the computational load, one can parameterize the points where the CV is evaluated against the reference values and also parameterize the process input scenario. The latter is referred to as input blocking.
In this embodiment of the invention there is used a prediction horizon of 12 hours. With 5 minutes sample interval and three MVs, on could have had 144 x 3=432 MV-values to be calculated for the prediction horizon. By saying that the input value could only change at selected sample numbers in the prediction horizon and are considered constant (blocked) in between, the size of the optimization problem is drastically reduced. This technique is known as `input blocking'. See also Table 1 for further reference. In this invention the problem is reduced from calculating 432 MV-values to calculating 13 for the selected prediction horizon.
The following table shows the future sampling times when a new control value is calculated. The control values are held constant (blocked) between these sampling times.
Control values are not calculated each sample in the future (input blocking) due to high computational load, but the result is a good approximation.
Table 1: Input blocking - selected samples No Input Type Selected samples (sample numbers of 143) 1 Alumina feed Feedback 0, 4, 10, 24, 48, 96 2 Aluminium fluoride feed Feedback 0, 72 3 Anode movement for MPC Feedback 0, 12, 24, 48, 96 5 In this embodiment of the invention the points where the CV is evaluated against the reference are freely selected (see Table 4). The parameterization of the input scenario may be selected individually for each MV (see Figure 7).
Further one has the possibility to put a limit on Z,U and AU. In equation (6) the 10 "Constraints" is the handling when states and/or inputs violate maximum or minimum values.
The pseudo code for the algorithm becomes Repeat: (typical each 5th minute) Estimate the current process variables based on updated measurements and control inputs.
Extract the CV from the estimate (figure 5).
Calculate optimal future process input scenario U(tk,tk+,,...tk+õ) according to the criteria J' Apply only U(tk) to the physical process k=k+1 End repeat The algorithm is also illustrated in figure 4 to 7.
Figure 4 illustrates that in the time tk (now) a new updated estimate of the CV's is available. The updated estimate of the CV's is a subset of the estimate of the process variables. The estimate of the process variables is the output available from the estimator (Kalmanfilter). Zfef illustrates the set point for the CV. MV illustrates the manipulated variables as defined earlier.
Figure 7 illustrates that in the time tk (now) the future optimal process control input scenario is calculated for the prediction window defined. Only U(tk), the first process input combination for the optimal process control input scenario, is put onto the physical process. The current estimate of the process variables forms the starting point used in the prediction of the future time behavior of the process. The predicted CV is an extracted subset of the predicted time behavior of the process variables as given by the prediction model. Also the figure illustrates the control horizon and the prediction horizon. The control horizon could be smaller or equal to the prediction horizon. The control horizon stems from the cases when using input blocking. In such a case when the control horizon is smaller than the prediction horizon, it is assumed that the future optimal process control input value in the interval tk+Nu+1 to tk+N is equal to U(tk+NU ).
Figure 6 illustrates that in the time tk (now) a new updated and corrected estimate of the CV's is available based on new measurements and inputs.
Figure 7. illustrates that in the time tk (now) a new future optimal input sequence is calculated for the prediction window defined based on the new updated CV. Only U(tk), the first process input combination for the optimal future input sequence, is put onto the physical process. The updated predicted CV is an extracted subset of the predicted time behavior of the process variables as given by the prediction model. The dotted lines are the one from the last sample. Then repeat from Fig. 6.
The following table shows the tuning of the parameters related to the MV's in the optimization criterion:
Table 2: Parametertuning related to the MV's No Input Type UMin uMax duMax S
1 Alumina feed Feedback 0 12 1.5 0.1 2 Aluminium fluoride feed Feedback 0 1.36 1.36 1800 3 Anode movement for MPC Feedback -20 20 8 20 The following table shows the tuning of the parameters related to the CV's in the optimization criterion:
Table 3: Parametertuning related to the CV's No Variable name Zmin Zmax Q Setpoint 1 Alumina concentration 2.3 4.5 250 3.0 2 Bath temperature 952 970 10 958.0 3 Side ledge thickness 20 160 0.4 100.0 4 Mass of fluoride 500 1600 0 N/A
Anode-cathode distance 0.02 0.04 0 N/A
6 Super heat 3.0 15.0 0 N/A
The chosen prediction horizon is typically 12 hours long. This has proven to give good 5 results both on simulator and during online tests. This horizon is long enough that most variables have settled at the end of it.
The different controlled variables have different settling times, and are thus tuned differently in the prediction horizon. The controller is tuned such that the added alumina mainly controls alumina concentration, anode movement mainly controls the temperature and the addition of aluminium fluoride mainly controls the side ledge thickness. However, interactions and coupling between the variables are taken into account despite this tuning The following table shows which sampling times the value of each output variable (CV) are taken into account in the optimization criterion.
Table 4: Parameterizing of the CV's No Variable name Active samples 1 Alumina concentration, 3:6:144 2 Bath temperature 24:6:144 3 Side ledge thickness 48:6:144 4 Mass of fluoride 12:6:144 5 Anode-cathode distance, 12:6:144 6 Super heat 12:6:144 Here 3:6:144 means that the 1th value selected is sample nr 3, then each 6th up till sample nr 144 (12 hours). The idea behind the parameterization is that the CV is not changing faster than that the process dynamics is captured within the parameterization.
By this, a selection of the sampling times is used and hence reduces the application's memory usage.
It should be understood that the above mentioned embodiment is non exhaustive.
Other estimated process states, measurements, periods, intervals, main control inputs, additional control inputs, estimated process parameters and calculated process variables than those mentioned can be realized in accordance with the present invention.
This may be realized by new methods of measurement, or by more sophisticated ways of modeling the cell's behavior.
For instance, new types of measurements such as heat loss from the top, chisel bath contact, automatic measurements of bath temperature and automatic bath and metal height measurements can be applied to improve the performance of the estimator and hence the performance of the controller.
Even heat loss through the side could be applied as an active control input by means of heat exchangers linked to energy recovery.
Further, some activities in the future can be modeled and compensated for. By for instance modeling the anode change and metal tap the impact on the process can be predicted in the prediction horizon, and hence be compensated for.
Further, the controller can be integrated in both decentralized and centralized control system architectures where said computer will have a software program dedicated to each pot or electrolysis cell due to the individual character of said cells.
The NMPC could be used to control the complete plant when dynamic current load is an issue.
The set point could be optimized such that the whole plant (all cells) could be operated in an optimum manner to lower the power consumption in defined periods during the day.
contains only positive or zero weights. Related to Equation (5), Q and S can bee seen as incorporated in W.
The purpose of the weight matrix Q is to control the behavior of the NMPC
controller.
Obviously increasing the weights in Q will increase the importance of controlling the CV to its set point and therefore reduce the set point deviation. By choosing different weights for the different CVs, one controls the priority between them. In this process the most important one is to achieve the desired alumina concentration, then the bath temperature and finally the side ledge thickness. This is reflected in the Q matrix with a large value in Q related to the alumina concentration, lower on the bath temperature and lowest on the side ledge thickness (see Table 3).
The term S in Equation (6) controls the cost of the use of the process inputs.
Increasing the weights in S will suppress the use of the MV and relax the use of it. For example, with reference to Table 2 below, it is cheap to use alumina, a bit more costly to use anode movement and very expensive to use aluminium fluoride to achieve the desired set points.
One challenge with NMPC is that if the prediction horizon is long, the computational load may become very high, and one is not guarantied that an optimal solution is available when needed. In order to drastically reduce the computational load, one can parameterize the points where the CV is evaluated against the reference values and also parameterize the process input scenario. The latter is referred to as input blocking.
In this embodiment of the invention there is used a prediction horizon of 12 hours. With 5 minutes sample interval and three MVs, on could have had 144 x 3=432 MV-values to be calculated for the prediction horizon. By saying that the input value could only change at selected sample numbers in the prediction horizon and are considered constant (blocked) in between, the size of the optimization problem is drastically reduced. This technique is known as `input blocking'. See also Table 1 for further reference. In this invention the problem is reduced from calculating 432 MV-values to calculating 13 for the selected prediction horizon.
The following table shows the future sampling times when a new control value is calculated. The control values are held constant (blocked) between these sampling times.
Control values are not calculated each sample in the future (input blocking) due to high computational load, but the result is a good approximation.
Table 1: Input blocking - selected samples No Input Type Selected samples (sample numbers of 143) 1 Alumina feed Feedback 0, 4, 10, 24, 48, 96 2 Aluminium fluoride feed Feedback 0, 72 3 Anode movement for MPC Feedback 0, 12, 24, 48, 96 5 In this embodiment of the invention the points where the CV is evaluated against the reference are freely selected (see Table 4). The parameterization of the input scenario may be selected individually for each MV (see Figure 7).
Further one has the possibility to put a limit on Z,U and AU. In equation (6) the 10 "Constraints" is the handling when states and/or inputs violate maximum or minimum values.
The pseudo code for the algorithm becomes Repeat: (typical each 5th minute) Estimate the current process variables based on updated measurements and control inputs.
Extract the CV from the estimate (figure 5).
Calculate optimal future process input scenario U(tk,tk+,,...tk+õ) according to the criteria J' Apply only U(tk) to the physical process k=k+1 End repeat The algorithm is also illustrated in figure 4 to 7.
Figure 4 illustrates that in the time tk (now) a new updated estimate of the CV's is available. The updated estimate of the CV's is a subset of the estimate of the process variables. The estimate of the process variables is the output available from the estimator (Kalmanfilter). Zfef illustrates the set point for the CV. MV illustrates the manipulated variables as defined earlier.
Figure 7 illustrates that in the time tk (now) the future optimal process control input scenario is calculated for the prediction window defined. Only U(tk), the first process input combination for the optimal process control input scenario, is put onto the physical process. The current estimate of the process variables forms the starting point used in the prediction of the future time behavior of the process. The predicted CV is an extracted subset of the predicted time behavior of the process variables as given by the prediction model. Also the figure illustrates the control horizon and the prediction horizon. The control horizon could be smaller or equal to the prediction horizon. The control horizon stems from the cases when using input blocking. In such a case when the control horizon is smaller than the prediction horizon, it is assumed that the future optimal process control input value in the interval tk+Nu+1 to tk+N is equal to U(tk+NU ).
Figure 6 illustrates that in the time tk (now) a new updated and corrected estimate of the CV's is available based on new measurements and inputs.
Figure 7. illustrates that in the time tk (now) a new future optimal input sequence is calculated for the prediction window defined based on the new updated CV. Only U(tk), the first process input combination for the optimal future input sequence, is put onto the physical process. The updated predicted CV is an extracted subset of the predicted time behavior of the process variables as given by the prediction model. The dotted lines are the one from the last sample. Then repeat from Fig. 6.
The following table shows the tuning of the parameters related to the MV's in the optimization criterion:
Table 2: Parametertuning related to the MV's No Input Type UMin uMax duMax S
1 Alumina feed Feedback 0 12 1.5 0.1 2 Aluminium fluoride feed Feedback 0 1.36 1.36 1800 3 Anode movement for MPC Feedback -20 20 8 20 The following table shows the tuning of the parameters related to the CV's in the optimization criterion:
Table 3: Parametertuning related to the CV's No Variable name Zmin Zmax Q Setpoint 1 Alumina concentration 2.3 4.5 250 3.0 2 Bath temperature 952 970 10 958.0 3 Side ledge thickness 20 160 0.4 100.0 4 Mass of fluoride 500 1600 0 N/A
Anode-cathode distance 0.02 0.04 0 N/A
6 Super heat 3.0 15.0 0 N/A
The chosen prediction horizon is typically 12 hours long. This has proven to give good 5 results both on simulator and during online tests. This horizon is long enough that most variables have settled at the end of it.
The different controlled variables have different settling times, and are thus tuned differently in the prediction horizon. The controller is tuned such that the added alumina mainly controls alumina concentration, anode movement mainly controls the temperature and the addition of aluminium fluoride mainly controls the side ledge thickness. However, interactions and coupling between the variables are taken into account despite this tuning The following table shows which sampling times the value of each output variable (CV) are taken into account in the optimization criterion.
Table 4: Parameterizing of the CV's No Variable name Active samples 1 Alumina concentration, 3:6:144 2 Bath temperature 24:6:144 3 Side ledge thickness 48:6:144 4 Mass of fluoride 12:6:144 5 Anode-cathode distance, 12:6:144 6 Super heat 12:6:144 Here 3:6:144 means that the 1th value selected is sample nr 3, then each 6th up till sample nr 144 (12 hours). The idea behind the parameterization is that the CV is not changing faster than that the process dynamics is captured within the parameterization.
By this, a selection of the sampling times is used and hence reduces the application's memory usage.
It should be understood that the above mentioned embodiment is non exhaustive.
Other estimated process states, measurements, periods, intervals, main control inputs, additional control inputs, estimated process parameters and calculated process variables than those mentioned can be realized in accordance with the present invention.
This may be realized by new methods of measurement, or by more sophisticated ways of modeling the cell's behavior.
For instance, new types of measurements such as heat loss from the top, chisel bath contact, automatic measurements of bath temperature and automatic bath and metal height measurements can be applied to improve the performance of the estimator and hence the performance of the controller.
Even heat loss through the side could be applied as an active control input by means of heat exchangers linked to energy recovery.
Further, some activities in the future can be modeled and compensated for. By for instance modeling the anode change and metal tap the impact on the process can be predicted in the prediction horizon, and hence be compensated for.
Further, the controller can be integrated in both decentralized and centralized control system architectures where said computer will have a software program dedicated to each pot or electrolysis cell due to the individual character of said cells.
The NMPC could be used to control the complete plant when dynamic current load is an issue.
The set point could be optimized such that the whole plant (all cells) could be operated in an optimum manner to lower the power consumption in defined periods during the day.
Claims (16)
1. A method of controlling an electrolysis cell for aluminium production by process control inputs, comprising measurement of one or more process variable(-s) where the measured value(-s) is led to an estimator for estimation of the current value of one or more process variable(-s) followed by prediction of the value of said process variable(-s) and/or other process variable(-s) in the future, where said predicted value(-s) is used in the calculation of future control input scenarios, characterised in that the prediction of the process variable(-s) is performed in accordance with a non -linear dynamic model.
2. A method in accordance with claim 1, characterised in that a process control input is directed to the cell at time intervals where the period T is;
0<T<.infin..
0<T<.infin..
3. A method in accordance with claim 1, characterised in that the calculation of future control input scenarios is performed at time intervals where the period T is; 0<T<.infin..
4. A method in accordance with claim 1, characterised in that the calculation of future control input scenarios i s performed in accordance with the following cost function equation J;
J= f(Z, Z ref, W, U, .DELTA.U, Constraints) where;
Z is the future prediction of the controlled variables (CV), Z ref is the desired values or reference values of Z, U is the future process input scenario, .DELTA.U is the difference between the present and the previous process input scenario, W is some weight matrices or functions used to penalize combinations of Z, Z ref , U and/or .DELTA.U, and the term Constraints relates to methods for constraint handling if some constraints are violated.
J= f(Z, Z ref, W, U, .DELTA.U, Constraints) where;
Z is the future prediction of the controlled variables (CV), Z ref is the desired values or reference values of Z, U is the future process input scenario, .DELTA.U is the difference between the present and the previous process input scenario, W is some weight matrices or functions used to penalize combinations of Z, Z ref , U and/or .DELTA.U, and the term Constraints relates to methods for constraint handling if some constraints are violated.
5. A method in accordance with claim 1, characterised in that the calculation of future control input scenarios i s performed in accordance with the following cost function equation J';
J'= 1/2(Z - Z ref) T Q(Z - Z ref )+ 1/2 .DELTA.U T S.DELTA.U + Constraints where; T is the transpose, Z is a vector composed of the future prediction of the controlled variables (CV), Z-Z ref means the deviation, U is a vector related to the future input scenario of all manipulated variables (MV), .DELTA.U is the difference between the present and the previous input scenario, Q and S are all positive semi-definite and diagonal matrices, i.e.
contains only positive or zero weights.
J'= 1/2(Z - Z ref) T Q(Z - Z ref )+ 1/2 .DELTA.U T S.DELTA.U + Constraints where; T is the transpose, Z is a vector composed of the future prediction of the controlled variables (CV), Z-Z ref means the deviation, U is a vector related to the future input scenario of all manipulated variables (MV), .DELTA.U is the difference between the present and the previous input scenario, Q and S are all positive semi-definite and diagonal matrices, i.e.
contains only positive or zero weights.
6. A method in accordance with claim 1, characterised in that the model compares the estimated current value(-s) of process variable(-s) with selected set points on a given set of process variables.
7. A method in accordance with claim 1, characterised in that the estimation is performed by Kalman filtering techniques.
8. A method in accordance with claim 1, characterised in that the estimation is performed by moving horizon principles.
9. A method in accordance with claim 1, characterised in that the process variable is alumina concentration.
10. A method in accordance with claim 1, characterised in that the process variable is bath temperature.
11. A method in accordance with claim 1, characterised in that the process variable is side ledge thickness.
12. Means for controlling an electrolysis cell for aluminium production by process control inputs, comprising means for measurement of one or more process variable(-s) where the measured value(-s) is led to an estimator for estimation of the current value of one or more process variable(-s) followed by prediction of the value of said process variable(-s) and/or other process variable(-s), where said predicted value(-s) is used to calculate future input control scenario by means of a calculator, characterised in that the prediction of the process variable(-s) is performed in accordance with a non -linear dynamic model.
13. Means in accordance with claim 12, characterised in that the estimator is a Kalman filter.
14. Means in accordance with claim 12, characterised in that the process controlling means is an integrated part of a local pot controller.
15. Means in accordance with claim 12, characterised in that the process controlling means is an integrated part of a central controller.
16. Means in accordance with claim 15, characterised in that the process controlling means has software dedicated to each individual pot (cell).
Applications Claiming Priority (3)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| NO20075933 | 2007-11-19 | ||
| NO20075933A NO328080B1 (en) | 2007-11-19 | 2007-11-19 | Method and apparatus for controlling an electrolysis cell |
| PCT/NO2008/000402 WO2009067019A1 (en) | 2007-11-19 | 2008-11-12 | Method and means for controlling an electrolysis cell |
Publications (2)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CA2704551A1 true CA2704551A1 (en) | 2009-05-28 |
| CA2704551C CA2704551C (en) | 2016-08-23 |
Family
ID=40667707
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA2704551A Active CA2704551C (en) | 2007-11-19 | 2008-11-12 | Method and means for controlling an electrolysis cell |
Country Status (11)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| EP (1) | EP2212751B1 (en) |
| CN (1) | CN101868765B (en) |
| AR (1) | AR069355A1 (en) |
| AU (1) | AU2008326931B2 (en) |
| BR (1) | BRPI0820426A2 (en) |
| CA (1) | CA2704551C (en) |
| EA (1) | EA018248B1 (en) |
| NO (1) | NO328080B1 (en) |
| NZ (1) | NZ585470A (en) |
| WO (1) | WO2009067019A1 (en) |
| ZA (1) | ZA201003134B (en) |
Families Citing this family (11)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IT1401233B1 (en) * | 2010-07-14 | 2013-07-12 | Danieli Automation Spa | DEVICE FOR DETECTION OF LEVEL IN A CASTING EQUIPMENT AND ITS RELEVANT DETECTION PROCEDURE. |
| US9121104B2 (en) | 2011-01-31 | 2015-09-01 | Alcoa Inc. | Systems and methods for determining alumina properties |
| US20130024179A1 (en) * | 2011-07-22 | 2013-01-24 | General Electric Company | Model-based approach for personalized equipment degradation forecasting |
| GB201602613D0 (en) * | 2016-02-15 | 2016-03-30 | Dubai Aluminium Pjsc And Newsouth Innovations Pty Ltd | Method for estimating dynamic state variables in an electrolytic cell suitable for the Hall-Héroult electrolysis process |
| CA3033192C (en) * | 2016-08-12 | 2023-06-06 | Boston Electrometallurgical Corporation | Leak free current collector assemblage for metallurgical vessel and methods of manufacture |
| US9996074B2 (en) | 2016-09-21 | 2018-06-12 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and predictive modeling method for smelting process control based on multi-source information with heterogeneous relatedness |
| NO20181482A1 (en) * | 2018-11-20 | 2020-05-21 | Norsk Hydro As | Method and system for controlling suction of off-gases from electrolysis cells |
| WO2020190271A1 (en) * | 2019-03-16 | 2020-09-24 | General Electric Company | System and method for controlling of smelting pot line |
| CN112239873B (en) * | 2019-07-19 | 2021-10-01 | 郑州轻冶科技股份有限公司 | Aluminum electrolysis process parameter optimization method and aluminum electrolysis cell set |
| CN114123238B (en) * | 2021-11-12 | 2023-09-22 | 国网江苏省电力有限公司营销服务中心 | Kalman filtering control method for electrolytic aluminum load to participate in frequency modulation of power system |
| EP4198655A1 (en) * | 2021-12-16 | 2023-06-21 | Abb Schweiz Ag | Establishing or improving a simulation model of an electrolyzer plant |
Family Cites Families (8)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NO166821C (en) | 1985-02-21 | 1991-09-04 | Aardal & Sunndal Verk As | PROCEDURE FOR CONTROL OF THE ALUMINUM OXYDE SUPPLY TO ELECTRIC OVERS FOR ALUMINUM MANUFACTURING. |
| US4814050A (en) | 1986-10-06 | 1989-03-21 | Aluminum Company Of America | Estimation and control of alumina concentration in hall cells |
| CA2230564A1 (en) * | 1995-09-01 | 1997-03-13 | Auckland Uniservices Limited | Measurement of alumina in reduction pots |
| FR2749858B1 (en) * | 1996-06-17 | 1998-07-24 | Pechiney Aluminium | METHOD FOR REGULATING THE ALUMINUM CONTENT OF THE BATH OF ELECTROLYSIS TANKS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ALUMINUM |
| CA2230882C (en) * | 1997-03-14 | 2004-08-17 | Dubai Aluminium Company Limited | Intelligent control of aluminium reduction cells using predictive and pattern recognition techniques |
| US6757579B1 (en) | 2001-09-13 | 2004-06-29 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Kalman filter state estimation for a manufacturing system |
| US7272454B2 (en) * | 2003-06-05 | 2007-09-18 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Multiple-input/multiple-output control blocks with non-linear predictive capabilities |
| US20070225835A1 (en) * | 2006-03-23 | 2007-09-27 | Yucai Zhu | Computer method and apparatus for adaptive model predictive control |
-
2007
- 2007-11-19 NO NO20075933A patent/NO328080B1/en unknown
-
2008
- 2008-11-12 WO PCT/NO2008/000402 patent/WO2009067019A1/en active Application Filing
- 2008-11-12 BR BRPI0820426-8A patent/BRPI0820426A2/en not_active Application Discontinuation
- 2008-11-12 NZ NZ585470A patent/NZ585470A/en unknown
- 2008-11-12 CN CN200880116702.9A patent/CN101868765B/en active Active
- 2008-11-12 AU AU2008326931A patent/AU2008326931B2/en active Active
- 2008-11-12 EA EA201000833A patent/EA018248B1/en not_active IP Right Cessation
- 2008-11-12 EP EP08852151.3A patent/EP2212751B1/en active Active
- 2008-11-12 CA CA2704551A patent/CA2704551C/en active Active
- 2008-11-18 AR ARP080105014 patent/AR069355A1/en active IP Right Grant
-
2010
- 2010-05-04 ZA ZA2010/03134A patent/ZA201003134B/en unknown
Also Published As
| Publication number | Publication date |
|---|---|
| EP2212751A4 (en) | 2013-01-23 |
| CN101868765A (en) | 2010-10-20 |
| AR069355A1 (en) | 2010-01-13 |
| WO2009067019A1 (en) | 2009-05-28 |
| CN101868765B (en) | 2014-07-09 |
| NZ585470A (en) | 2012-05-25 |
| AU2008326931A1 (en) | 2009-05-28 |
| EA018248B1 (en) | 2013-06-28 |
| EA201000833A1 (en) | 2010-12-30 |
| NO328080B1 (en) | 2009-11-30 |
| BRPI0820426A2 (en) | 2015-05-19 |
| NO20075933L (en) | 2009-05-20 |
| ZA201003134B (en) | 2011-04-28 |
| CA2704551C (en) | 2016-08-23 |
| EP2212751B1 (en) | 2018-07-04 |
| EP2212751A1 (en) | 2010-08-04 |
| AU2008326931B2 (en) | 2013-01-10 |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| CA2704551C (en) | Method and means for controlling an electrolysis cell | |
| Kadam et al. | Dynamic optimization in the presence of uncertainty: From off-line nominal solution to measurement-based implementation | |
| US7378009B2 (en) | Method of controlling an aluminum cell with variable alumina dissolution rate | |
| CN114047722A (en) | MPC-based path tracking control method for adaptive attitude correction | |
| Minzu et al. | Systematic Procedure for Optimal Controller Implementation Using Metaheuristic Algorithms. | |
| Gusberti et al. | Modeling the mass and energy balance of different aluminium smelting cell technologies | |
| Potocnik et al. | History of computer control of Aluminum reduction cells | |
| Kolås et al. | A nonlinear model based control strategy for the aluminium electrolysis process | |
| Biedler | Modeling of an aluminum reduction cell for the development of a state estimator | |
| Shi et al. | Advanced model-based estimation and control of alumina concentration in an aluminum reduction cell | |
| Meghlaoui et al. | Predictive control of aluminum electrolytic cells using neural networks | |
| Drengstig et al. | On the AlF/sub 3/and temperature control of an aluminum electrolysis cell | |
| WO2012176211A1 (en) | A computer implemented interactive system for facilitating aluminium smelting analysis and optimization | |
| CA3115415A1 (en) | Method and system for controlling suction of off-gases from electrolysis cells | |
| Shi et al. | A new control strategy for the aluminum reduction process using economic model predictive control | |
| Antille et al. | Hall-Heroult cell simulator: A tool for the operation and process control | |
| Chen et al. | Anode effect prediction based on collaborative two-dimensional forecast model in aluminum electrolysis production. | |
| Wolf et al. | Rigorous solution vs. fast update: Acceptable computational delay in NMPC | |
| Gran | A multivariable control in aluminum reduction cells | |
| CN111462830A (en) | State observation method based on electrolytic aluminum process model | |
| Hartwich et al. | Adaptive control vector parameterization for nonlinear model‐predictive control | |
| Shyamal et al. | Optimization-based online decision support tool for electric arc furnace operation | |
| Manolescu et al. | Estimation of net carbon consumption in aluminum electrolysis using multivariate analysis | |
| Leite | Estimation with low measurement frequency | |
| Pepe | Model Predictive Control aimed at energy efficiency improvement in process industries |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| EEER | Examination request |
Effective date: 20130702 |