Article

pubs.acs.org/IECR

Eective Solution Approach for Integrated Optimization Models of

Renery Production and Utility System
Hao Zhao, Gang Rong,* and Yiping Feng
State Key Laboratory of Industrial Control Technology, Institute of Cyber-Systems and Control, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou
310027, P.R. China
S Supporting Information
*

ABSTRACT: A typical renery consists of the production system and the utility system that are routinely optimized in a
hierarchical procedure. To meet the demand for higher prot and energy utilization, it is imperative to integrate the two systems
for renery-wide simultaneous optimization, although the integrated model results in a mixed-integer nonlinear programming
(MINLP) problem in which the bilinear terms for the correlation of the blending process and gas emission directly result in
inconsistency between solution quality and time. The main aim of this work is to propose a solution strategy based on heuristics
to decompose the integrated model of the two systems into a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) model and a nonlinear
programming (NLP) model which are then solved iteratively through variables transferring to further reduce the solution time.
The solution of the traditional sequential method is incorporated to generate better initial estimates for the decomposed model
to gain better solution quality and eciency. The proposed solution approach is compared with the basic sequential method and
the standard MINLP solvers. The results obtained in two scenarios of a case study from a real renery demonstrate the
eectiveness of the proposed decomposition strategy.
a exible utility system.13 Improved models of steam and gas
turbines were incorporated into an overall model for a utility
cogeneration system.14 Environmental costs15 and equipment
failures16 were considered, respectively, in operational optimization of the cogeneration system. The analysis of steam
power plant performance and retrot management were also
incorporated to improve the renery site operation.17 Moreover, the scheduling of a fuel gas system was also investigated to
improve energy eciency in a renery.18
Upon the above research, the traditional approach to the
renery-wide planning optimization of the production system
and the utility system follows a hierarchical approach. The
production system is optimized rst to obtain the optimal
allocation of products and process ows to gain ecient use of
raw material. Then, based on the production planning results,
the total energy demands of the processing plants are
calculated. Attaining the utility demands, the utility system is
optimized to operate the utility equipment to minimize the
total energy cost. Thus, the relationship of the production
systems and the utility system is separated in the traditional
method and can be described as rather master and slave than
united equally.19 The interaction between the two systems has
been neglected in the traditional optimization method. On one
hand, the utility system is superstructured, mainly consisting of
the steam network under dierent grades, and the utilities are
often shared by multicomplexes, which make it dicult to be
integrated into the whole system optimization for one complex.
Also, the interaction between the two systems is inconvenient

1. INTRODUCTION
Oil rening industries account for an important part of global
energy consumption, and the main part of the energy
consumption of oil rening is utility generation. A typical
renery consists of the production system aiming at producing
rening products to meet the market demand and the utility
system carrying out tasks in providing energy to the production
system.1 During the past decades, planning optimization on the
renery production system and the utility system planning has
been investigated intensively in plenty of research, respectively.
The typical renery production planning model was
presented,2,3 aiming at optimizing unit production and product
inventories. Nonlinear empirical models for the crude
distillation unit (CDU) and the uid catalytic cracking unit
(FCC)4,5 were developed, and a more mechanical CDU model
of fractionation index unit6 was proposed in formulating
optimization models of renery-wide planning. Multiple time
periods7 and decision inuence of energy and emission
management8 were also considered in a renery planning site.
The improvement was achieved in renery planning and
scheduling optimization, considering the more precise model
formulation of the distillation units based on the conventional
swing-cut modeling for choosing the best solution.9 A novel
technique was proposed using monotonic interpolation to
optimize both the recipes of the blended material and its
blending component distillation for petroleum fuels.10
Meanwhile, studies on the utility system have focused mainly
on the operational optimization, assuming the energy demands
are given or can be predicted. The classical operational
optimization model of the utility system of the renery has
been presented11 and proposed later,12 focusing on optimizing
the equipment operation. The method of thermodynamic
analysis and mathematical analysis was introduced in designing
2015 American Chemical Society

Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
9238

February 20, 2015

July 29, 2015
August 31, 2015
August 31, 2015
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00713
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 92389250

Article

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Figure 1. Interaction of material and energy in a typical renery ow diagram.

utility balance, and the utility system is optimized under given

demands.
Actually, in an oil renery, the renery production system
not only produces gasoline and diesel by consuming energy
from the utility system but also produces some byproducts.
Byproducts provide the utility system as fuel resources that can
be in the forms of fuel oil and fuel gas. Meanwhile, the utility

to dene in mathematical formulation and then neglected in the

traditional optimization method. On the other hand, due to the
low cost for energy in earlier ages, the economic benet of
energy system optimization is not that important as the
production system. This has led to an optimization situation
where the production system is optimized without considering
9239

DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00713
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 92389250

Article

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

ow and energy ow interaction and gives a denition of the

problem which species the nonlinearity of MINLP model
between the blending process of production system and fuel
consumption of boilers of the utility system. Section 3 presents
a mathematical formulation of the correlation model from
which the bilinear problem originates. Section 4 outlines the
proposed solution approach to the integrated model involving
the decomposition strategy for MINLP model and parameters
transferring strategy in solution iteration process. Finally, the
proposed solution strategy is implemented in two scenarios,
and the solution results are discussed compared with several
achieved solution methods.

system needs to provide consistent steam and electricity to all

production plants. Moreover, gas emission from the steam
generation process of boilers is also associated with the fuel
property that is closely related to the mixing process of fuel oil
and gas in the production system. Without taking those
interactions between the two systems into consideration, the
traditional hierarchical approach may result in a suboptimal
decision in a production system site or even infeasible results in
a utility system site.
In the current global market, the pressure for the
improvement of energy utilization eciency and more strict
environmental restrictions have united to force the enterprise
to enhance the existing optimization approach for the renerywide planning. Due to signicant interactions between the two
systems, it is imperative to consider the simultaneous
optimization of the two systems for the global optimal solution.
However, this simultaneous optimization problem leads to a
large-scale model and makes it an arduous task to solve when a
multiperiod planning horizon is taken into account.
Some pioneer research has been done on the aspect of
incorporating both systems on planning and operational
scheduling recently by developing integrated models. A specic
frame to integrate heat and power is proposed to get more
optimization space in batch and semicontinuous machining
processes.20 An MILP model was proposed to optimize the
material ow of a renery along with the steam power system
with the linear yield models of production and cogeneration
units.21 The resource task network (RTN) representation was
used in characterizing the relationship between manufacturing
system and utility system, and an integrated MILP model was
presented and solved.22 Though focusing on the plant site,
Zhang et al. developed a new approach to integrating the
operation condition of distillation and heat recovery eect in a
crude oil distillation unit.23 An integration scheme for process
plants and the utility system on the site-scale steam integration
was proposed to attain energy utilization eciency.24
Several previous research has been focusing on the bilinear
problem caused by the integration of process network with
multicomponent streams25 and the crude oil scheduling
problem for a particular MILNP model. 26,27 Also, a
mathematical decomposition approach was addressed28 and
proposed29 for integrating planning and scheduling optimization for the multisite and multiproduct plants. A two-step
MILP-NLP procedure has been incorporated to solve the
nonconvex MINLP model that is used for the crude-oil
operations problem.30 A nonconvex nonlinear mixed-integer
problem for process synthesis of renery production system
was decomposed into a two-stage stochastic programming
model and solved iteratively.31 In the former research, an
integrated model of the production system and the utility
system model was presented to achieve higher protable
product interest and save more energy costs.32 Due to the
model complexity, a preprocessing solution strategy is proposed
to attain better initial estimates for the integrated model.
Nevertheless, the nonconvexity and the bilinear relation in the
model still cause diculties in the solving process and make the
solution time suboptimal. To tackle this problem, a model
decomposition strategy and an iteration solution algorithm are
proposed and implemented in this work based on the preceding
progress.
The rest of this work is outlined as below. Section 2 provides
the process description of both the production system and the
utility system of a typical renery considering both material

2. PROBLEM STATEMENT
For a given renery, dierent material ow, multiutility ow,
and the complex interaction between them can be shown in
Figure 1. For the production system, whose owchart is mainly
outlined in the upper section of Figure 1, it not only produces
gasoline, diesel, and so on by consuming energy from the utility
system, but it also produces some byproducts. The crude oil is
divided into some straight-run fractions including light straightrun naphtha (LSR), heavy straight-run naphtha (HSR), raw
kerosene (RKER), light gas oil (LGO), atmospheric gas oil
(AGO), vacuum gas oil (VGO), and residues (RED) in the
crude distillation unit (CDU). The crude oil distillation unit
consists of the atmospheric distillation unit (ADU) for
separation of lighter components and the vacuum distillation
unit (VDU) for heavier components. Portions of AGO from
ADU is fed to VDU to produce VGO and RED. RED is
processed through the delayed coking unit (DCU) and then fed
to the uid catalytic cracker (FCC) with VGO and portions of
AGO to produce the cracked gasoline (CG), the crack gas oil
(CGO), and the FCC fuel oil (FOF). HSR is transferred to the
catalytic reforming unit (CRU) to produce reformer gasoline
(RG). RKER is sent to the hydro-desulfurization unit (HDS) to
produce nal product kerosene (KER) within quality
specication. The part of CGO is consumed by the hydrotreating unit (HT) to produce the diesel (DIE) and the HT
fuel oil (FOH). LSR and RG are then blended with MTBE for
90# gasoline production, whereas portions of HSR and CG are
blended with MTBE for 93# gasoline production in the
gasoline blender. Respectively, portions of LGO, AGO and the
part of DIE are blended as 10# diesel product, and the part of
CGO and the part of DIE are blended as 0# diesel product in
the diesel blender. The fuel gas (FG) and fuel oil (FO)
produced by dierent units as byproducts are collected
separately and can be used as the fuel resource of the utility
system. Fuel gas produced by the processing unit DCU, FCC,
HT, and CRU as a byproduct often contains a high content of
sulfur and cannot be directly used as a fuel resource. Portions of
fuel gas with high sulfur content (SFG) is required to be
processed in the gas desulfurization unit (DS) before it is
transferred to the gas tank as fuel gas with low-sulfur content
(LSFG). Some byproducts as fuel gas and fuel oil can provide
the utility system as fuel resources. The nal products include
two kinds of gasoline (90# gasoline and 93# gasoline), KER,
and two kinds of diesel (10# diesel and 0# diesel). The
gasoline blending process requires the octane number of 90#
and 93# gasoline products to be higher than 90 and 93,
respectively. On the other hand, the diesel blending for diesel
blending require the pour point of 10# and 0# diesel to be
lower than 10 and 0 C, respectively.
9240

DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00713
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 92389250

Article

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

system and the utility system in a typical renery is introduced

briey as below, and more elaboration is put on the correlation
of two systems from which the nonconvexity of the integrated
model originated.
3.1. Production Planning Model. In accordance with the
process description in section 2 regarding the process from the
crude oil purchase to nal product production, the
mathematical model is formulated as below.

Respectively, the utility system needs to provide consistent

steam and electricity causing operation cost and fuel material
costs to all production plants. It consists of ve boilers (Bl) and
six turbines (Tb). The boilers are supposed to consume fuel oil,
fuel gas, or natural gas (NG). Portions of the high-pressure
steam (HS) and the medium-pressure steam (MS) are
consumed by the turbines to generated electricity (EL),
which can be delivered to the power grid and consumed by
the production process and to produce the low-pressure steam
(LS) to meet the utility demand of production system. The part
of the steam is consumed by the production units depending
on the dierent requirement for steam pressure and quantity.
The steam valve is used to transfer the higher pressure steam to
lower pressure steam. In the case of the condition that the
steam demand exceeds the steam generation capacity, highpressure steam is allowed to be purchased from the outside
steam network. The remaining unused steam is condensed by
cooling water, then recycled to the deaerator, and nally reused
as boiler feedwater once the steam supply exceeds the
processing demands.
The system formulation of the nonlinear problem in this
research is illustrated in Figure 2. The intermediate products as

DPcup, t SCc , t DPclo, t

c CP , t

(1)

MIclo, t MIc , t MIcup, t

c CV , t

(2)

MIc , t = MIc , t 1 +

FPu , m , c , t

u UP m MU

FCu , m , c , t

u UP m MU

(3)

c CV , t

MIc , t = MIc , t 1 +

FPu , m , c , t SCc , t

c CP , t

u UBL m MU

(4)

c CIu , m

FCu , m , c , t =

FPu , m , c , t

u UBL , m MU , t

c COu , m

(5)

PIc , pFCu , m , c , t

c CIu , m

FPu , m , c , tPLc , p

c COu , m

u UBL , m MU , p P , t

c CIu , m

PIc , pFCu , m , c , t

(6)

FPu , m , c , tPUc , p

c COu , m

u UBL , m MU , p P , t

(7)

Eq 1 presents the demand constraints where DPc,t indicates

the market demand of product c of period t and SCc,t denes
the amount of commodities sold (nal product). Material
inventory balance for nal products including fuel gas and fuel
oil is illustrated in eqs 24 where FPu,m,c,t and FCu,m,c,t denote
the amount of commodities c produced and consumed,
respectively. MIc,t indicates the material inventory for
commodity c of period t. Eq 3 presents the inventory balance
for intermediate products that can be not only produced by
certain processing units but also consumed by other processing
units. Inventory balance for nal products is presented in eq 4
where the imported inventory from the production by the
blender and the exported inventory for sale are dened. eq 5
illustrates the material balance of the blending process for two
gasoline blenders (90# gasoline and 93# gasoline), kerosene
tank, two diesel blenders (10# diesel and 0# diesel), and fuel
oil blender. Eqs 6 and 7 dene the inequality constraints for
blending process, and several properties (p) (e.g., octane
number, pour point, sulfur content, and carbon content) of the
intermediate product are introduced. PLc,p and PUc,p represent
the lower and upper bound, respectively, for the blending
property requirement of the gasoline and diesel products. For
example, 90 and 93, for the octane number (p) of 90# gasoline
(c) and 93# gasoline (c) as PLc,p, while 10 and 0, for the pour
point (p) of 10# diesel (c) and 0# diesel (c) as PUc,p. PIc,p
represents the property p of intermediate product c.

Figure 2. Correlation problem of blending process with fuel

consumption.

the fuel oil and the fuel gas are produced by the processing
units as byproducts and then delivered from tanks to blenders.
The mixing process involves not only the material balance of
unit consumption and production but also the property balance
of certain content. The fuel mix, either from the oil blender (for
fuel oil blending) or from the gas tank (for fuel gas mixing), is
then fed into boilers in the utility systems as fuel resources to
generate steam. During the process of steam generation, the
amount of polluted gas emitted by the boiler is determined by
the certain property (e.g., sulfur content and carbon content) of
mixing fuel. The number of boilers is not limited to 2 (5 for the
example in this research). Thus, the calculation of fuel mixing
correlated with gas emission generates nonconvex bilinear
constraints of the integrated model.

3. MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION OF INTEGRATED

MODEL
In previous work, an integrated planning model of renery
production system and utility system has been formulated
including a production planning model and an operational
planning model of utility system model respectively as well as
the correlation model between the two systems.32 Due to space
restriction, the integrated planning model for the production

xu , m , t FUulo, t FFu , m , t xu , m , t FUuup, t

u UP , m MU , t
9241

(8)
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00713
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 92389250

Article

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

xu , m , t = yu , t

(9)

m MU

FUulo, t FUu , t FUuup, t

FFu , m , t = FUu , t

u UP , m MU , t

(10)

u UP , t
(11)

m MU

FFu , m , t =

calculated as piecewise linear functions of the maximum

amount of fuel c consumed by boiler u in piece q (XFBq,u,c,t)
and the maximum amount of steam generated (XSBq,u,c,t), 01
variable of piecewise segments (Aq,u,c,t), and the continuous 01
variable of boiler u (q,u,c,t) in eqs 14 and 15. The last two are
optimization variables in the function. Only one piece region
can be valid and only one fuel resource can be consumed by
each boiler in each period as expressed in eq 16. The value of
continuous variables q,u,c,t is restricted to vary from 0 to 1 in eq
17. Eq 19 indicates the energy balance constraints for boiler
where Hstm and Hwat suggest the enthalpy values of saturated
steam and water, respectively. Hc infers the enthalpy values of
fuel c, and u,c means the eciency of boiler u consuming fuel c.
The nonlinear relationship between the steam generation and
fuel consumption originates from the varying boiler eciency
u,c under dierent unit load. Figure 3 presents the relationship

u UP , t

FCu , m , c , t

u UP , m MU , t
(12)

c CIu , m

FPu , m , c , t = u , m , cFFu , m , t
u UP , m MU , c COu , m , t

(13)

Production models for processing units are dened in eqs

813 where FUu,t denotes the unit ow rate, FUlou,t and FUup
u,t
infer the lower and upper bound of unit capacity, and FFu,m,t
indicates the ow rate of unit u with operation mode m. xu,m,t is
a 01 variable that implies whether processing unit u is on with
operation m. yu,t is a 01 variable that not only suggests
whether processing unit u is on of period t but also limits xu,m,t,
which implies only one operation m of the processing unit
allowed. The ow rate of the processing unit on operation m is
limited by eq 8. Eq 9 restricts the operation condition for the
processing unit that implies only one operation m of the unit u
is allowed in each period t. eq 11 denes the throughput of
each processing unit as the sum of the throughputs under all
the operation modes. The throughput of the processing unit on
each operation mode is equal to the sum of material
consumption accordingly as expressed in eq 12. The product
yield u,m,c is given as xed parameters in eq 13 where the
material balance of unit output quantity FPu,m,c,t and unit
processing quantity FFu,m,t is expressed under a particular
operation mode.
3.2. Utility System Model. The operational planning
model of the utility system mainly consists of process models of
boilers and turbines and the balance constraints of steam
demand and supply, as shown in the following equations.
FBu , c , t =

(Aq , u , c , t XFBq 1, u , c , t

Figure 3. Piecewise approximation for nonlinear relationship of fuel

consumption and steam generation of boilers.

between the boiler steam ratio of the generation capacity and

the fuel ratio of the consumption capacity using the piecewise
linearization method where u,c is treated as constant in several
segments. It can be shown that boilers show a higher eciency
of fuel utilization in a superior region of the unit load.
The approximation method is also applied in quantifying
steam consumption with the electricity generation of turbines
in eqs 2025 where STCu,c,t and ETu,t represent the amount of
steam consumed and electricity generated by the turbine u in
period t, respectively.

+ q , u , c , t (XFBq , u , c , t XFBq 1, u , c , t ))

qQ

(14)

c CF , u UB , t

SBu , c , t =

(Aq , u , c , t XSBq 1, u , c , t

+ q , u , c , t (XSBq , u , c , t XSBq 1, u , c , t ))

qQ

(15)

c CS , u UB , t

Aq , u , c , t 1

qQ

u UB , t
(16)

q Q c CF

0 q , u , c , t Aq , u , c , t

c CF , u UB , q Q , t

Aq , u , c , t

ETu , t =

(21)

u UT , t

Bq,u ,t

(18)

u UT , t
(22)

qQ

FBu , c , t Hcu , c = (Hstm Hwat )SBu , c , t

c CF , u UB , t

(Bq , u , t XETq 1, u , t + q , u , t(XETq , u , t XETq 1, u , t ))

qQ

u UB , t

q Q c CF

(20)

u UT , c CS , t

(17)

yu , t =

(Bq , u , t XSTq 1, u , t + q , u , t(XSTq , u , t XSTq 1,u ,t ))

STCu , c , t =

STCu , c , t = FUu , t

(19)

0 q , u , t Bq , u , t

The piecewise linear approximation method is introduced to

express the nonlinear relationship between fuel consumption
and steam generation of boilers in eqs 1418. The amount of
fuel consumption FBu,c,t and steam generation SBu,c,t is

yu , t =

Bq,u ,t
qQ

9242

u UT , t

(23)

u UT , c CS , q Q , t

(24)

u UT , t
(25)
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00713
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 92389250

Article

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

The steam consumed STCu,c,t and the electricity generated
ETu,t are calculated as piecewise linear functions of the
maximum amount of steam c consumed by turbine u in piece
q XSTq,u,t and the maximum amount of electricity generated
XETq,u,t, 01 variable of piecewise segment Bq,c,t, and
continuous 01 variable of boiler u q,u,t in eqs 20 and 21.
Eqs 18 and 25 restrict the operation status of the utility
equipment as boilers and turbines, which implies only one fuel
in one region of piecewise segment is allowed to be fed to the
boiler u and only one region of piecewise segments is valid for
the turbine u. yu,t represents whether the boiler or turbine u is
on in the period t. STGu,c,t denotes the amount of steam
extracted by the turbine u of period t which is assumed equal to
the amount of steam consumption of the turbine in this
research.

SBu , c , t +

u UB

STGu , c , t +

u UT

EGu ,m,c ,t
u UP m

+ LSIc , t LSOc , t

EDu ,m,c ,t

ETu , t

STCu , c , t + EPc , t

u UT

c CS , m MU , t

EDu ,m,c ,t

c CE , t

u UP m

(27)

EPc , t EPUc , t

c CU , t

FPu , m , c , tPc , p
(32)

COc = CO2f (Pc , p)

c CF , p CP

(33)

SOc = SO2f (Pc , p)

c CF , p CP

(34)

XCu , c ,t = CO2f (Pc , p)FBu , c , t

c CF , u UB , t

(35)

XSu , c , t = SO2f (Pc , p)FBu , c , t

c CF , u UB , t

(36)

As provided in eqs 29 and 30, the amount of energy

consumption and generation of the production unit is dened
in terms of linear ratio to the unit throughput, the property of
input material, and the corresponding operation mode. u,m,c
and u,m,c are the coecient of utility consumed and generated
respectively by unit u on operation mode m. EDu,m,c,t and
EGu,m,c,t denote the amount of utility c consumed and generated
by the processing unit u, respectively. u,c,p and u,c,p indicate the
coecient of feed property p on the demand and generation
respectively of utility c of unit u. Eq 31 presents the material
balance of byproduct as fuel oil/gas produced by connecting
the fuel inventory from the preceding period MIc,t1, the total
quantities consumed by boilers FBu,c,t and sold to the market
SCc,t with the fuel inventory during the current period MIc,t, and
the quantities produced by the production system FPu,m,c,t and
purchased from the market PCc,t. The property balance of
blending fuel products as fuel oil and fuel gas is expressed as eq
32. The blending product property is also associated with the
conversion coecient CO2 and SO2 of the fuel resources in
terms of the linear relation expressed as eqs 33 and 34 where
COc and SOc are fuel emission factor of CO2 and SO2
respectively. f() is the linear function to calculate the molar
weight of the gas (e.g., SO2) from the corresponding fuel
property (e.g., sulfur content). The amount of CO2 emission
XCu,c,t and SO2 emission XSu,c,t of the boiler is dened in eqs 35
and 36, respectively, by associating fuel consumed FBu,c,t of the
boiler with fuel property. f() is the same linear function for Pc,p
in eqs 33 and 34.
The integrated objective is given by eq 37, aiming at
maximizing the total prot considering product sales revenue,
material purchase, inventory cost, production unit operation
cost, fuel purchase, utility purchase, maintenance cost of energy
equipment, operation cost of steam valve, and emission cost for
CO2 and SO2.

(26)

u UT

c COu , m

u UBL , m MU , p P , t

u UP m

EPc , t +

FCu , m , c , tPIc , p =

c CIu , m

(28)

Eqs 26 and 27 infer the steam demand constraints and the

electricity demand constraints, respectively where EPc,t denotes
the amount of utility purchased of period t. LSIc,t and LSOc,t
represent the ow rate of steam consumed and extracted,
respectively, by the letdown valve, and EGu,m,c,t infers the
amount of utility c produced of period t of unit u on operation
m. Eq 26 indicates that the steam generated by boilers SBu,c,t,
turbines STGu,c,t and the processing units EGu,m,c,t as well as
purchased externally EPc,t subtracting the steam consumption
by the turbines and the dierence between the steam imported
by steam valve LSIc,t from the higher grade and exported by the
valve LSOc,t to lower grade, should satisfy the sum of the steam
demand of processing units EDu,m,c,t. Eq 27 restricts that the
sum of the total electricity generated by turbines ETu,t and
purchased externally EPc,t should meet the total demand of
processing units. The utility purchase limit is presented in eq
28.
3.3. Correlation between Two Systems. As described
above, the production system and the utility system of renery
are not only interacted in the material ow as fuel gas/oil but
also in the energy aspect of utility consumption by processing
units and generation from boilers and turbines as well as gas
emission linking blending process to fuel burning in boilers.
The correlation model is formulated as follows.
EDu , m , c , t = u , m , cFFu , m , t + u , c , p Pc , p + CDu , m , c
c CU , p P , m MU , u UP , t

(29)

4. SOLUTION STRATEGY
The full-scale integrated model formulated above assembling
eqs 137 is indeed a large-scale MINLP problem, and the
nonconvexity comes from the bilinear relation in calculating the
mixing concentration associating the blending process with gas
emission in eq 32 and eqs 35 and 36. Thus, the use of the
decomposition method and solution strategy is required to
solve the problem eectively.
4.1. Model Decomposition. The bilinear constraints
cannot be solved in an MILP or NLP model. The reformulation

EGu , m , c , t = u , m , c FFu , m , t + u , c , pPc , p + CGu , m , c

c CU , p P , m MU , u UP , t
MIc , t +

(30)

FBu , c , t + SCc , t = MIc , t 1

u UU

u UBL m MU

FPu , m , c , t + PCc , t

c CF , t
(31)
9243

DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00713
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 92389250

Article

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Figure 4. Model decomposition strategy.

Figure 5. Proposed solution strategy for integrated model.

of the bilinear equations is introduced by some researchers26 to

get a relaxed LP model, and heuristics is suggested in solving
the decomposed MINLP model to reduce the solution time
when handling the crude oil scheduling problem.27 In this
work, the integrated MINLP model is decomposed into an
MILP model and an NLP model as illustrated in Figure 4, and
the heuristic method is incorporated in model reformulation.
Pfc,p is introduced to replace continues variable Pc,p and x Pc,p
as a parameter in eq 32 and eqs 35 and 36. Thus, the bilinear
relation is eliminated leading the MINLP problem to an MILP
problem. xf u,m,t, yf u,t, Afq,u,c,t and Bfq,u,t are introduced to replace
discrete 01 variables of xu,m,t, yu,t, Aq,u,c,t and Bq,u,t, respectively,
and x them as parameters. Therefore, the 01 variables are
eliminated, Pc,p remains unchanged as a continuous variable,
and the MINLP problem is transformed into an NLP problem.
The NLP model determines the blending property Pc,p

considering rigorous bilinear constraints expressed in eq 32,

whereas all of the discrete variables are xed as parameters with
value obtained from the MILP model. In the MILP model, the
blending property Pc,p remains the same as the value
determined by the NLP model, although the other variables
including the 01 transfer variables of xu,m,t, yu,t, Aq,u,c,t and
Bq,u,t are optimized.
The newly dened MILP model and NLP model are solved
by CPLEX solver and CONOPT solver, respectively, in GAMS
eectively. The initial estimate determination and value
reassignment of Pfc,p in the MILP model and yf u,t, Afq,u,c,t and
Bfq,u,t in the NLP model are illustrated in the next subsection.
4.2. Iteration Solution Strategy. Figure 5 presents the
owchart of the solution process based on heuristics, and the
solving procedure is given as follows.
9244

DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00713
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 92389250

Article

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

1. Generating initial estimate from the sequential optimization method. Based on the product quantity
demand, the production model assembling eqs 113 as
an MILP model is initially solved with the objective
maximizing the total prot for material production.
Gaining the material ow rates, operation mode on units
and product property of the production system, utility
demands that are classied as steam and electricity are
estimated according to eqs 29 and 30. The operational
utility system model assembling eqs 1428 as an MILP
model is then solved by CPLEX solver with the objective
minimizing the total operation cost. This hierarchical
approach helps generate a good starting point for the
NLP model in the next step.
2. Solving the integrated NLP model. The discrete 01
variables of xu,m,t, yu,t, Aq,u,c,t, and Bq,u,t determined by the
former solving procedure of the sequential approach
indicating the detailed operation condition for processing
units and energy equipment are sent to the corresponding parameters xf u,m,t, yf u,t, Afq,u,c,t and Bfq,u,t in the NLP
model, which is solved by CONOPT solver deriving the
continuous variable Pc,p.
3. Iteration condition 1.The iteration is terminated and
returns the result to the solution 1 if the relative
dierence between the objective values of the NLP
model and the former MILP model (the sequential
model in the beginning for the rst iteration and the
MILP model for following iterations) is smaller than an
appropriate tolerance, or the objective value is lower than
the former MILP model and the relative dierence
exceeds a certain tolerance. The former termination
condition indicates that a satisfactory nal solution has
been obtained, and the latter termination condition stops
the iteration result from worsening. Otherwise, the
procedure goes on.
4. Continuous variables transfer. The continuous variable
Pc,p determined in the NLP model from the former step
is assigned to the corresponding parameter Pfc,p in the
MILP model in the following step.
5. Solving the integrated MILP model. The MILP model is
solved by CPLEX solver by xing the value of parameter
Pfc,p newly assigned by the preceding step while having
the discrete variables of xu,m,t, yu,t, Aq,u,c,t, and Bq,u,t to vary.
6. Iteration condition 2. The iteration is terminated, and the
results are sent to solution 1 if the discrete variables of
xu,m,t, yu,t, Aq,u,c,t, and Bq,u,t determined by the MILP in the
former step maintains unchanged from the corresponding parameters xf u,m,t, yf u,t, Afq,u,c,t in the NLP model of
step 2 and the objective value obtained by the MILP
model is smaller than that of the NLP model in step 2.
Because if the solution obtained by the MILP model is
greater than the NLP model, it means a better value of
01 variables exist that are previously xed in the NLP
and might lead to a better solution for the NLP model.
Therefore, the corresponding parameters xf u,m,t, yf u,t,
Afq,u,c,t, and Bfq,u,t in the NLP model need to be updated
by the better value of the discrete variables xu,m,t, yu,t,
Aq,u,c,t , and Bq,u,t newly attained in the MILP model.
7. Discrete variables transfer. If the check of step 6 is not
satised, discrete variables xu,m,t, yu,t, Aq,u,c,t, and Bq,u,t
determined in the MILP model of step 5 are reassigned
to the corresponding parameters xf u,m,t, yf u,t, Afq,u,c,t, and
Bfq,u,t in the NLP model of step 2 for the next iteration.

8. Iteration condition 3. If the value of FPu,m,c,t in eq 32 from

the integrated model nally determined in the solution 1
is equal to the value of FPu,m,c,t in eq 5 attained from the
sequential model in step 1, or the objective value
obtained in the current loop is lower than or equal to the
objective value of the former loop from solution 1, the
procedure is terminated and returns to the nal solution.
9. Initial estimates assignment for the sequential model. If
the check in the previous step is not satised, the value of
FPu,m,c,t in solution 1 is sent to the corresponding
parameter FPf u,m,c,t to replace FPu,m,c,t in the sequential
model to make it xed in step 1. The other variables are
assigned as the starting point for the sequential model for
the model solving in the next iteration.

5. REMARKS
The modeling system GAMS version 24.133 is used to
implement the model. The system investigated in this research
is a real industrial case of a renery in China, which consists of
two systems including the production and utility system as
described in section 2. The planning horizon consists of 8
periods. Four operation modes are included in the CDU, three
in the FCC, HT, DCU, and CRU, and two in HDS and DS.
Product quality associated with energy consumption, unit yield
and blending product involves API, octane number, pour point,
sulfur content, and carbon content. The boilers are allowed to
consume either fuel gas, fuel oil, or natural gas in each period.
The production system is supposed to fulll given demands of
nal products in each period. The original MINLP model
consists of 5087 continuous variables, 904 discrete variables and
5095 constraints. The decomposed MILP model consists of
5087 continuous variables, 904 discrete variables, and 5105
constraints. The decomposed NLP model consists of 4185
continuous variables and 4919 constraints.
Two scenarios are developed to provide further investigation
on the eect of the problem solution. Scenario 1 and scenario 2
are presented on the condition that the capacity of energy
generation of the utility system is within and exceeds the
demand of the production system respectively in certain
periods because of varying multiperiods market demand as
shown in Figure 6 as the example of gas93.

Figure 6. Dierent demands situation of two scenarios (example of

gas93).
9245

DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00713
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 92389250

Article

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

presents a fast searching ability for a better solution. The

procedure takes 2 iterations to obtain the nal objective and
stops in iteration 3 when the condition 1 is met. Note that the
relative dierence in iteration condition 1 is calculated between
the objective value of the NLP model in current iteration and
the MILP model (initial estimate for the rst iteration) in
former iteration and the relative dierence tolerance in iteration
condition 1 is set as 1.00 1005.
Comparative results of solution eect of scenario 1 are
shown in Table 2.

To give a clearer illustration about the optimization results of

the proposed model, the traditional sequential optimization
method, the commonly used solver DICOPT (also applied in
previous work) for MINLP problem as well as the global
optimal solver BARON are applied to solve the problem and
compared with the proposed decomposition solution strategy
on the aspects of solution eciency and solution results.
Scenario 1. The market demand for all products from the
production system is assumed within the production capacity of
maximum energy generation of the utility system in this
example. The detailed computational results are supplemented
in the Supporting Information involving unit operation,
inventory decision, energy utilization as well as the gas
emission of scenario 1.
Figure 7 shows the comparative solving results of proposed
iterative approach compared with the other three methods.

Table 2. Solution Eect Comparison of Dierent Methods in

Scenario 1
methods

optimality
gap

sequential
MINLP-BARON

0%
15%

MINLP-DICOPT

5%

proposed
decomposition

0%

CPU time

objective

iteration
number

5 min
about 3 days
18 h
1 h and
34 min
45 min

6154185.3
6220366.2

---

6216366.2

--

6216170.3

The decomposed models of MILP model and NLP model in

the proposed approach are solved with CPLEX solver and
CONOPT solver, respectively. Because the CONOPT is a local
solver, it can not necessarily guarantee the global optimum as
BARON solver but can return a solution much faster than
BARON. It can be concluded that the proposed method can
achieve satisfactory solution results compared with DICOPT
solver while consuming much less time in searching a
considerably feasible solution. Note that although DICOPT
can handle nonconvexities, it does not necessarily obtain the
global optimum. Although the BARON is a global solver and
achieves a little higher objective than the proposed method, it is
not recommended for the original MINLP model due to the
long solution time of 3 days 18 h consumed. Comparative
results for the mixing amount of fuel oil and fuel gas in the
blending process are displayed in Figure 8 and Figure 9,
respectively.

Figure 7. Iteration objective values of proposed method compared

with sequential approach and standard MINLP solvers of scenario 1.

Purple and green dash lines represent the objective value of the
traditional sequential method and the former MINLP solver
DICOPT, respectively. It can be seen that the proposed
method reaches the nal results quickly within 3 iterations
gaining approximately the same value in prot compared with
the standard MINLP solver of DICOPT in GAMS. The
solution process of the proposed method stops in iteration 4
because the objective value of the proposed method is equal to
the result of the iteration 3 and the termination prevents the
deterioration trend. The solution results of proposed method in
iteration 2 have an apparent growth due to the obvious increase
in the initial estimate. This is because the blending streamow
FPu,m,c,t is updated in iteration 2 by the solution result of
proposed method in iteration 1, which helps the sequential
model generate a better initial starting point for the solution
procedure of the proposed model in iteration 2.
To show the solution eect for the inner loop of the
proposed method, the solution results of the inner loop from
iteration 3 in the outer loop are presented in Table 1 including
the objectives of the MILP and NLP models and iteration
condition. It can be noticed from Table 1 that the inner loop

Figure 8. Comparative results of mixing amount in fuel oil blender of

scenario 1.

Table 1. Example Results of Inner Iteration in Outer Iteration 3 of Scenario 1

iteration 1
iteration 2
iteration 3

NLP objective

MLP objective

relative dierence (condition 1)

initial estimate

condition 1

condition 2

6184470
6216165
6216170

6216085
6216170
\

1.32 1003
1.29 1005
0

6176294
\
\

no
no
yes

no
no
\

9246

DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00713
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 92389250

Article

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Figure 10 shows the comparative solving results of the

proposed iterative approach compared with the other three

Figure 9. Comparative results of mixing amount in fuel gas tank of

scenario 1.

It can be illustrated by Figures 8 and 9 that the mixing

decision of the proposed approach is relatively close to that of
the previous DICOPT method while attaining more stable ratio
in mixing quantity. Both the proposed solution and the
standard DICOPT solution derive more production of fuel oil
and fuel gas for supplying enough fuel resources to the utility
system compared with the traditional sequential method. This
is because that the fuel gas is the byproduct in the production
system and not treated as products to be sold as gasoline and
diesel. Then the production system model is solved upon the
products demand of gasoline and diesel as well as fuel oil not
taking the consumption of fuel oil and fuel gas from boilers in
the utility system for generating steam into account. As a result,
to maximize the total prot, the solution results of the
sequential method present less fuel oil and fuel gas production
while facing the situation when in the procedure of optimizing
the utility system, more fuel oil might need to be purchased
externally because of unmet fuel demand upon the short fuel
supply from the production system. However, the integrated
model for the production system and the utility system gives a
trade-o between the market demand of products and the fuel
production as demanded in the utility system on optimizing the
production of both byproduct as fuel gas and products for sale
as gasoline, diesel, and fuel oil.
It can be also veried from Table 3 that more fuel gas is
supplied to the utility system and less fuel oil is consumed in

Figure 10. Iteration objective values of proposed method compared

with sequential approach and standard MINLP solvers of scenario 2.

research methods. It can be seen that the proposed method

reaches the nal solution within 2 iterations, gaining respectably
higher value in prot compared with standard MINLP solver of
DICOPT in GAMS. The solution process of the proposed
method stops in iteration 3 and returns the nal result of
iteration 2 because the objective value of the proposed model in
iteration 3 starts to deteriorate compared with that of the
iteration 2.
It can be concluded from Table 4 that the procedure in the
inner loop of the proposed method takes three iterations for
convergence reaching the nal solution when the iteration
condition 2 is met. Note that the iteration condition 1 in
iteration 3 is not satised due to the unmet dierence between
the objective values of the NLP model and that of the MILP
model in iteration 2 until the condition 2 in iteration 3 is
satised when the MILP model obtains the same value.
Comparative results of solution eect of scenario 2 in are
shown in Table 5.
It can be concluded from Table 5 that the proposed method
can achieve higher solution results compared with DICOPT
solver while consuming much less time in searching a
satisfactory feasible solution. Still, it takes a considerably long
time for the BARON solver to achieve approximately equal
results with a gap of 15% to the global optimum. Comparative
results for the mixing amount of fuel oil and fuel gas in the
blending process are given in Figure 11 and Figure 12,
respectively.
In consistence with the results of scenario 1 in Table 3, it can
be seen from Table 6 that more fuel gas and less fuel oil are
consumed while more LS and EL are generated, and less MS is
produced in the proposed method compared with the
sequential method in scenario 2. Thus, the fuel gas produced
by the production system is largely utilized as a fuel resource, at
the same time less fuel oil is consumed in the utility system due
to its value for sale in the market.

Table 3. Comparison Results of Fuel and Utility

Consumption in Scenario 1
commodities/ton

fuel oil

fuel gas/NM3

MS

LS

EL/MW

sequential
proposed

98.7
82.3

35493.2
49033.4

412.6
378.5

1539.3
1552.2

77.3
81.4

the proposed method compared with the sequential method in

scenario 1. This is because the fuel gas is produced by the
production system and has more value as fuel resource in the
utility system than in the production system. Thus, more fuel
gas rather than fuel oil is produced to be sent to the utility
system. It can be also seen that more LS and EL are generated,
and less MS is produced in the utility system in the proposed
model than that of the sequential model due to the higher cost
of MS.
Scenario 2. The market demand for several products from
the production system is assumed to exceed the production
capacity of maximum energy generation in the utility system in
particular periods in this example as explained at the beginning
of this section. More computational results of scenario 2 for
material and energy distribution are given in the Supporting
Information.

6. CONCLUSIONS
In this work, a novel model solution strategy is proposed to
reduce the computational eort in obtaining better solution
results of a large-scale integrated model for the renery
production and utility systems. The original nonconvexity of
the integrated MINLP model is mainly caused by the bilinear
terms originated from the complex interaction of material and
energy ows between the renery production and utility
9247

DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00713
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 92389250

Article

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Table 4. Example Results of Inner Iteration in Outer Iteration 2 of Scenario 2
iteration 1
iteration 2
iteration 3

NLP objective

MLP objective

relative dierence (condition 1)

initial estimate

condition 1

condition 2

6839524
6892670
6893764

6890228
6893589
6893764

1.42 1003
3.54 1004
2.54 1005

6.83 1006
\
\

no
no
no

no
no
yes

be drawn from the results that the proposed strategy can not
only achieve satisfactory protable interest by deciding the
distribution of material and energy including the blending ratio
for the fuel resources but also reduce the computational eort
signicantly through the combined utilization of the solution of
the sequential model and the decomposed models.

Table 5. Solution Eect Comparison of Dierent Methods in

Scenario 2
methods

optimality
gap

sequential
MINLP-BARON

0%
15%

MINLP-DICOPT

5%

proposed
decomposition

0%

CPU time

objective

iteration
number

9 min
about 4 days
9h
3 h and
34 min
54 min

6806414.7
6901827.8

---

6871987.5

--

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

* Supporting Information
S

6893764.2

The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the

ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00713.
The detailed computational results involving unit
operation, inventory decision, energy utilization for
scenarios 1 and 2 are presented in the Supporting
Information (PDF)

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: grong@iipc.zju.edu.cn. Tel: 086-87953145.

Notes

The authors declare no competing nancial interest.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge nancial support from the
National High Technology R&D Program of China
(2013AA040701).

Figure 11. Comparative results of mixing amount in fuel oil blender of

scenario 2.

NOMENCLATURE

Sets

C = set of commodities
CC = subset of C of raw materials
CE = subset of C of electricity
CF = subset of C of fuel oil/fuel gas
CIu,m = set of feed material of operation m on unit u
COu,m = set of products of operation m on unit u
CP = subset of C of production product
CS = subset of C of high/medium/low pressure steam
CU = subset of C of utility (high/medium/low steam/
electricity)
CV = subset of C of inventorial commodities(production
product)
M = set of operation modes
MU = subset of operation mode on unit
Q = set of piecewise numbers of eciency curve for boilers
and turbines
U = units (processing unit/boilers/turbines)
UB = subset of U of boilers
UBL = subset of U of blending headers
UP = subset of U of processing units
UT = subset of U of turbines
UU = subset of U of utility equipment

Figure 12. Comparative results of mixing amount in fuel gas tank of

scenario 2.

Table 6. Comparison of fuel and utility consumption in

scenario 2
commodities/ton

fuel oil

fuel gas/NM3

MS

LS

EL/MW

sequential
proposed

111.5
91.9

37530.7
53723.4

467.1
422.1

1686.6
1693.4

86.0
89.9

system. In this approach, the integrated model is decomposed

into an NLP model and an MILP model, which are then solved
iteratively by variable values xing, relaxing, and transferring.
The MILP model solution of the traditional sequential method
is adopted as a heuristic method to gain a feasible solution for
the integrated model as a good starting point. The proposed
approach is investigated in an industrial example with two
scenarios and compared with several common solution
approaches for the optimization problem. The conclusion can

Indices

c = commodities
lo = lower bound
9248

DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00713
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 92389250

Article

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

m = operation mode
p = property
q = piecewise segment of eciency curve
stm = dierent pressure grade steam
t = time period
u = units (processing unit/boilers/turbines)
up = upper bound
wat = water
Variables

Aq,u,c,t = 01 variable of piecewise segment of boiler

Bq,u,t = 01 variable of piecewise segment of turbine
EDu,m,c,t = amount of utility c consumed of period t by unit u
on operation m
EGu,m,c,t = amount of utility c generated of period t by unit u
on operation m
EPc,t = amount of utility purchased of t
ETu,t = electricity generated by turbine u
FBu,c,t = fuel c consumed by boiler u
FCu,m,c,t = amount of commodities c consumed of period t of
unit u on operation m
FFu,m,t = ow rate of unit u of period t with operation mode
m
FPu,m,c,t = amount of commodities c produced of period t of
unit u on operation m
FUu,t = ow rate of unit u of period t
LSIc,t = letdown valve ow rate to steam c
LSOc,t = letdown valve ow rate out of steam c
MIc,t = material inventory of c of period t
Pc,p = property p of nal product c
PCc,t = commodities purchased of period t (crude oil, MTBE,
electricity)
Pr = overall prot
SBu,c,t = steam c generated by boiler u
SCc,t = commodities sold in period t (nal product)
STCu,c,t = steam c consumed by turbine u
STGu,c,t = steam c generated by turbine u
TC = total cost
xu,m,t = 01 variable that denote whether processing unit u is
on with operation m of t
XCu,c,t = CO2 emission of unit u of period t
XSu,c,t = SO2 emission of unit u of period t
yc,t = 01 variable that denote whether production unit or
the utility equipment u is on of t
q,u,c,t = continuous piecewise variable of boiler u in segment
q from 0 to 1
q,u,t = continuous piecewise variable of turbine u in segment
q from 0 to 1

Hc = enthalpy value of fuel c

Hstm = enthalpy value of saturated steam
Hwat = enthalpy value of water
ICc = inventory cost of commodity c
pfc,p = parameter corresponding to Pc,p
PIc,p = property p of intermediate product c
PLc,p = product property p constraints of material c
pric,t = price of material c of period t
PUc,p = product property p constraints of material c
Sec = emission cost coecient of SO2
SOc = SO2 emission factor of fuel c
T = time horizon
XETq,u,t = maximum amount of steam that can be extracted
from turbine u in q piece of period t
yf u,m,t = parameter corresponding to xyu,m,t
XFBq,u,c,t = maximum amount of fuel c that can be consumed
by boiler u in q piece of period t
XSBq,u,c,t = maximum amount of steam c that can be
generated by boiler u in q piece of period t
XSTq,u,t = maximum amount of steam that can be consumed
by turbine u in q piece of period t
yf u,t = parameter corresponding to yu,t
u,m,c = yield ratio of the material c of unit u on operation
mode m
u,m,c = coecient of utility consumed by unit u of operation
m
u,m,c = coecient of utility generated by unit u of operation
m
u = operation cost of production unit (increasing with the
throughput)
u,c,p = coecient of feed property p on the demand of utility
c of unit u
u,c,p = coecient of feed property p on the generation of
utility c of unit
u,c = eciency of boiler u consuming fuel c
CO2 = coecient of CO2 emission factor with the carbon
content of product
SO2 = coecient of SO2 emission factor with the sulfur
content of product

REFERENCES

(1) Al-Qahtani, K. Y.; Elkamel, A. Planning and integration of renery

and petrochemical operations; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, 2011.
(2) Moro, L.; Zanin, A.; Pinto, J. A planning model for refinery diesel
production. Comput. Chem. Eng. 1998, 22, S1039S1042.
(3) Neiro, S. M.; Pinto, J. M. Multiperiod optimization for
production planning of petroleum refineries. Chem. Eng. Commun.
2005, 192 (1), 6288.
(4) (a) Guerra, O. J.; Le Roux, G. A. Improvements in petroleum
refinery planning: 1. Formulation of process models. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 2011, 50 (23), 1340313418. (b) Guerra, O. J.; Le Roux, G. A.
Improvements in Petroleum Refinery Planning: 2. Case Studies. Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50 (23), 1341913426.
(5) Li, W.; Hui, C.-W.; Li, A. Integrating CDU, FCC and product
blending models into refinery planning. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2005, 29
(9), 20102028.
(6) Alattas, A. M.; Grossmann, I. E.; Palou-Rivera, I. Integration of
nonlinear crude distillation unit models in refinery planning
optimization. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50 (11), 68606870.
(7) Alattas, A. M.; Grossmann, I. E.; Palou-Rivera, I. Refinery
Production Planning: Multiperiod MINLP with Nonlinear CDU
Model. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51 (39), 1285212861.
(8) Alhajri, I.; Saif, Y.; Elkamel, A.; Almansoori, A. Overall Integration
of the Management of H2 and CO2 within Refinery Planning Using

Parameters

Afq,u,c,t = parameter corresponding to Aq,u,c,t

Bfq,u,t = parameter corresponding to Bq,u,t
CDu,m,c = the constant for utility material c demanded by
operation mode m of unit u
CGu,m,c = the constant for utility material c generated by
operation mode m of unit u
COc = CO2 emission factor of fuel c
Cec = emission cost coecient of CO2
delc = operation cost of letdown valve for steam c
DPc,t = market demand of product c of period t
Emcu = xed maintenance cost for either production unit and
utility equipment u when the operation is on
EPUt = electricity purchased limitation of period t
FPfq,m,c,t = parameter corresponding to FPu,m,c,t
9249

DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00713
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 92389250

Article

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Rigorous Process Models. Chem. Eng. Commun. 2013, 200 (1), 139
161.
(9) Menezes, B. C.; Kelly, J. D.; Grossmann, I. E. Improved swing-cut
modeling for planning and scheduling of oil-refinery distillation units.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52 (51), 1832418333.
(10) Kelly, J. D.; Menezes, B. C.; Grossmann, I. E. Distillation
Blending and Cutpoint Temperature Optimization Using Monotonic
Interpolation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53 (39), 1514615156.
(11) Iyer, R. R.; Grossmann, I. E. Optimal multiperiod operational
planning for utility systems. Comput. Chem. Eng. 1997, 21 (8), 787
800.
(12) Micheletto, S. R.; Carvalho, M. C.; Pinto, J. M. Operational
optimization of the utility system of an oil refinery. Comput. Chem.
Eng. 2008, 32 (1), 170185.
(13) Varbanov, P.; Doyle, S.; Smith, R. Modelling and optimization
of utility systems. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2004, 82 (5), 561578.
(14) Shang, Z.; Kokossis, A. A systematic approach to the synthesis
and design of flexible site utility systems. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2005, 60 (16),
44314451.
(15) Luo, X.; Zhang, B.; Chen, Y.; Mo, S. Operational planning
optimization of multiple interconnected steam power plants
considering environmental costs. Energy 2012, 37 (1), 549561.
(16) Luo, X.; Zhang, B.; Chen, Y.; Mo, S. Operational planning
optimization of steam power plants considering equipment failure in
petrochemical complex. Appl. Energy 2013, 112, 12471264.
(17) Chen, C.-L.; Lin, C.-Y.; Lee, J.-Y. Retrofit of Steam Power Plants
in a Petroleum Refinery. Applied Thermal Engineering 2013, 61, 716.
(18) Zhou, L.; Liao, Z.; Wang, J.; Jiang, B.; Yang, Y.; Du, W. Energy
configuration and operation optimization of refinery fuel gas networks.
Appl. Energy 2014, 139, 365.
(19) Adonyi, R.; Romero, J.; Puigjaner, L.; Friedler, F. Incorporating
heat integration in batch process scheduling. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2003,
23 (14), 17431762.
(20) Puigjaner, L. Extended modeling framework for heat and power
integration in batch and semi-continuous processes. Chem. Prod.
Process Model. 2007, 2 (3).10.2202/1934-2659.1096
(21) Zhang, B.; Hua, B. Effective MILP model for oil refinery-wide
production planning and better energy utilization. J. Cleaner Prod.
2007, 15 (5), 439448.
(22) Agha, M. H.; Thery, R.; Hetreux, G.; Hait, A.; Le Lann, J. M.
Integrated production and utility system approach for optimizing
industrial unit operations. Energy 2010, 35 (2), 611627.
(23) Zhang, N.; Smith, R.; Bulatov, I.; Klemes, J. J. Sustaining high
energy efficiency in existing processes with advanced process
integration technology. Appl. Energy 2013, 101, 2632.
(24) Zhang, B.; Luo, X.; Chen, X.; Chen, Q. Coupling process plants
and utility systems for site scale steam integration. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
2013, 52, 1462714636.
(25) Quesada, I.; Grossmann, I. E. Global optimization of bilinear
process networks with multicomponent flows. Comput. Chem. Eng.
1995, 19 (12), 12191242.
(26) Lee, H.; Pinto, J. M.; Grossmann, I. E.; Park, S. Mixed-integer
linear programming model for refinery short-term scheduling of crude
oil unloading with inventory management. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1996,
35 (5), 16301641.
(27) Wenkai, L.; Hui, C.-W.; Hua, B.; Tong, Z. Scheduling crude oil
unloading, storage, and processing. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2002, 41 (26),
67236734.
(28) Li, Z.; Ierapetritou, M. G. Production planning and scheduling
integration through augmented Lagrangian optimization. Comput.
Chem. Eng. 2010, 34 (6), 9961006.
(29) Shah, N. K.; Ierapetritou, M. G. Integrated production planning
and scheduling optimization of multisite, multiproduct process
industry. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2012, 37, 214226.
(30) Mouret, S.; Grossmann, I. E.; Pestiaux, P. A novel priority-slot
based continuous-time formulation for crude-oil scheduling problems.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2009, 48 (18), 85158528.

(31) Menezes, B. C.; Kelly, J. D.; Grossmannc, I. E. Phenomenological Decomposition Heuristic for Process Design Synthesis of OilRefinery Units. Comput.-Aided Chem. Eng. 2015, 37, 18771882.
(32) Zhao, H.; Rong, G.; Feng, Y. Multiperiod Planning Model for
Integrated Optimization of a Refinery Production and Utility System.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53 (41), 1610716122.
(33) Rosenthal, R. E. GAMSA UserS Guide; GAMS Development
Corporation: Washington, DC, 2004.

9250

DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00713
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 92389250