Practical Process Control Part 30: Training Engineers

Myke King outlines how chemical engineers should be trained in practical process control and explains why these techniques can improve yield, reduce costs and boost plant performance

WHILE an engineer working with process control needs, of course, to understand the subject, a clear grasp of the process and its economic objectives is also essential.

The engineer needs to be able to identify improvement opportunities, quantify the potential profit improvement and convince others of the benefit. Such skills are within the remit of chemical engineering. To extend the role of a chemical engineer to include the application of process control requires relatively little additional knowledge. The problem is that most chemical engineers would not agree with this. Their exposure to the subject will usually have started as part of their university course. The process control module in such courses is usually laden with highly theoretical mathematical techniques that actively discourage most to specialise in the subject. However, pursuing it can be very rewarding. An effective control engineer can have an immediate impact on process performance. Those working in process design may have to wait years before their design is commissioned. The role of those working in process support is usually restricted to making recommendations that are implemented by others. The role of a control engineer is more akin the that of the process operator. 

Sadly, no longer with us, Francis "Greg" Shinskey (1931-2021) was a prolific publisher of practical process control texts. He summarised the role perfectly. “A proficient control engineer can squeeze more production out of limited plant equipment and contribute more to reducing operating costs than almost any other individual in the plant.” But experience confirms another (as yet unattributed) quotation – “A poorly trained engineer can really mess things up.” This “messing up” can be simply overlooking an opportunity to apply basic techniques that make a substantial improvement to the operating margin. Or it might be making process design decisions that result in the plant being inherently difficult to control.

Given that most chemical engineering graduates have not been taught the practical application of process control, industrial training is particularly important. But training is too often seen as an optional expense

Management commitment

Given that most chemical engineering graduates have not been taught the practical application of process control, industrial training is particularly important. But training, in general, is too often seen as an optional expense. When budgets are tight it is an easy target for cost reduction. Managers are often acutely aware of costs but less clear on the more difficult-to-quantify benefits. One would think that cost of employing an engineer, that is untrained and hence less effective, would be enough of an incentive to commit to training. In the UK, a typical starting salary for a chemical engineer is around £30,000 (US$40,000). Adding salary-related costs and an allowance for the additional supervisory load brings the total to roughly £1,250 per week. The cost of attending a training course is likely to be recouped within a month.

The return can be even more attractive if we consider the value, rather than the cost, of the engineer. Typically, improved control will deliver a profit improvement of around 1% of feed- stock cost. Implementing control improvements one week sooner would therefore be worth around 0.02%. To justify the training, the annual feedstock cost needs to exceed £25m. To put this into context, the cost of crude oil to a modestly sized refinery is around 100 times larger than this.