ARTICLE

pubs.acs.org/IECR

Integration of Nonlinear Crude Distillation Unit Models in Refinery

Planning Optimization
Abdulrahman M. Alattas, Ignacio E. Grossmann,*, and Ignasi Palou-Rivera

Chemical Engineering Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, United States
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439, United States
ABSTRACT: Production planning modeling is an essential tool in the operation and management of modern reneries. It has
traditionally relied on linear programming (LP) principles and methods for simple and robust planning models, such as the xedyield planning models and swing cuts planning models. However, these models fail to reect the true nonlinear nature of the
processing units. In this work, the fractionation index model (FI) is developed to add nonlinearity to the linear renery planning
models. The FI model is developed as a more accurate nonlinear model for the complex crude distillation unit (CDU) than the xed
yield or the swing cuts models. The resulting simple model optimizes the crude cuts quantities and temperature. It has the benets of
being crude independent, characteristics of the CDU, and readily calculated. An example of the FI CDU model is presented. The FIbased renery planning model is then developed and tested with a renery planning example. The results are compared to the
common xed yield and swing cuts models. The FI renery planning model predicted higher prot based on dierent crude
purchase decision. Despite an order of magnitude increase in the problem size, the FI planning model did not require signicantly
longer solution times.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Refinery Production Planning Models. Production
planning is a vital part of the modern process industry. It is used
for operational plans and decision making to achieve business
objectives through optimal production, distribution, sales, and
inventory management.1,2 It also sets the goals for the more
detailed scheduling plans for production and operation of the
processing facilities. Planning models and their use have covered
all types of process industries with its wide range of process types,
requirements, constraints, and markets.
One of the early users of production planning models is the
petroleum rening industry. Reneries have seen rising complexity in the processing units that allow processing a wide range of
crude oils (particularly the heavy ones) and producing various
product slates. The complexity and interdependence of the
dierent units makes production planning and optimization an
important practice in reneries all over the world.3,4
The renery planning models dier in the business objectives
and sites they serve and time periods they cover, giving rise to
dierent levels of model complexity and sizes. Renery product
life cycle requires this increased complexity from the single
period, long-term, crude-selection planning model to the multiperiod, short-term, crude-allocation-and-movement operation
planning model.5,6 Historically, the petroleum industry has used
mainly linear programming (LP) to address its planning and
optimization needs.7,8 LP has been the standard method for
production planning and the underlying method for most
commercial packages such as PIMS and RPMS.9,10 The available
commercial packages do not provide details of their methodology in the open literature, but their NLP implementation is
considered limited,2,7,11,12 although recently some commercial
packages have added more nonlinear capabilities.9,12 The LP
r 2011 American Chemical Society

approach simplies the inherent nonlinearity of the renery

processes. The simplicity, robustness, and convenience of this
approach are trade-os for true optimal and accurate solution to
the planning model. Several companies have attempted building
in-house NLP models, but reverted back to the LP-based
commercial packages due to the high maintenance of the NLP
model and diculties of convergence.13 Furthermore, successful
NLP models have been in many cases site-specic.8 There is also
growing demand for NLP planning models that will be a benchmark to the commercial package and provide a novel approach to
this established practice. The goal of this work is to develop a more
accurate renery planning model by concentrating initially on the
front end of the renery, the crude distillation unit (CDU).
The CDU is used to separate the feed crude into dierent cuts
suitable for the dierent renery processing units. The column is
much more complex than typical distillation columns. It processes a feed that is a very complex mixture, uses live steam, and
has multiple side products, side strippers, and condensers.
Historically, the CDUs were designed and modeled using
empirical correlations and past experience.14,15
Short cut methods are typically used in distillation columns
design and modeling, including the Fenske
Underwood
Gilliland method.16
18 However, this method cannot be applied
directly to the CDU due to the aforementioned complexity.19,20
Modern simulation packages can perform more rigorous calculations for the CDU, employing pseudocomponents.21 However,
these rigorous models cannot be readily incorporated into a planning
model because they are highly nonlinear, very computationally
Received: January 21, 2011
Accepted: April 5, 2011
Revised:
March 28, 2011
Published: April 05, 2011
6860

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie200151e | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 68606870

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

ARTICLE

Figure 3. Crude oil TBP curve with swing cuts illustration (based on
data from Watkins15).

stream l0 of the CDU (unit k) based on crude fs fed as stream l

(input stream STl,k,fs, output stream STl0 ,k,fs), as follows:
STl0 , k, fs ak, l, l0 , fs STl, k, fs

Figure 1. Typical CDU, feed, and products.

Figure 2. Crude oil TBP curve showing crude cuts (based on data from
Watkins15).

demanding, and often prone to failure of convergence. Therefore, suitable modeling techniques of the CDU should be
developed for the planning model that will be simple enough,
but accurate and robust for available optimization approaches.
In this article, we present the current linear methods used
to predict the yield of the CDU in the LP renery production
planning models: xed-yield and swing cuts models. We introduce the basis for the fractionation index (FI) model used for
distillation columns and CDUs. The proposed FI-based CDU
model is developed and demonstrated through an example
problem. We then integrate the proposed FI model into a typical
renery planning model, highlighting the new equations and
original linear equations used. We investigate the benets of this
nonlinear upgrade to the planning models, as compared to the
corresponding linear planning models using several case studies.
1.2. Existing CDU Models Used in Refinery Planning. For
the simplest LP planning, a fixed-yield approach is used to model
the CDU (Figure 1) and the process units in general. Linear
equations are used for yield prediction from the CDU. The
equations are a function of the feed to the unit multiplied by a
coefficient generated for each crude feed (Figure 2). Typically, a
coefficient ak,l,l0 ,fs is used to calculate the product yield of output

The coecient has dierent values for dierent operating

modes with the same crude feed. There are no parameters for
operating conditions as they are indirectly embedded into the
coecients.
Despite its historic popularity and simplicity, the xed yield
approach does not optimize the distillation cuts nor its
operating conditions. Therefore, the next development that
has tried to address this issue is the swing cuts approach.8 The
swing cut approach allows another level of optimization by
determining the dierent yields of crude cuts. This approach
also allows representation of the operation modes seen in
reneries, such as maximum naphtha or maximum distillate.
The model has the convenience of using most of the xed-yield
model and data, retaining the linear programming framework
and only requiring modest modications. This model, which
has been commercialized and successfully implemented in
most reneries, is found in many current renery planning
packages.9,10
The swing cut approach improves the CDU model by allowing
the exact cut to be optimized or ne tuned. A small fraction
of the yield around the cut location is allowed to change or
swing, changing the yields so as to improve the objective function.6,22
Besides allowing more optimization opportunity, the results
may represent dierent dened operating modes or a blend of
two modes.
The modication required to implement the swing cuts is
minimal. The yield equation includes two additional non-negative variables, bk,l0 ,fs,front and bk,l0 ,fs,back, representing the front and
back swing cuts for a crude cut or CDU product, l0 (Figure 3). A
constraint is dened by limiting the two adjacent swing cuts to a
predened size SwC. Equation 1 is replaced with eqs 2 and 3:
STl0 , k, fs ak, l, l0 , fs STl, k, fs bk, l0 , fs, f ront bk, l00 , fs, back
SwC bk, l0 , fs, f ront bk, l0 , fs, back

2
3

Despite the improvement of the swing cut model, the model

does not reect the nonlinearity of the process. Furthermore, it
6861

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie200151e |Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 68606870

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Figure 4. Component distribution ratios for a fractionation column

(reproduced from Geddes24).

ARTICLE

Figure 6. The crude cut point temperature relative to the initial and end
boiling temperatures of adjacent crude cuts.

Table 1. Venezuelan Crude Oil15

T (K)

vol % distilled

Figure 5. CDU representation for the FI model.

does not include parameters for the operating conditions.

Attempts to add nonlinear CDU models to the planning model
focused on tting CDU data for a large pool of crude oils, for example,
using polynomial regression.23,24

0
5

268.90
336.69

10

375.53

30

494.90

50

610.05

70

736.05

90

955.32

95

1063.76

100

1172.21

ow rate

89.72 bpd

sp gravity

0.87

API

31.60

2. THE NEW CDU FRACTIONATION-INDEX MODEL

2.1. Background. In a distillation unit, the distribution of a
component i in the top and bottom product streams, expressed as
molar fraction xtop,i and xbot,i, are related to the relative volatility
Rio of component i to reference component o for fractionation at
total reflux operation through the following equation:
xtop, i
xtop, o
Rnio
4
xbot, i
xbot, o

The opposite is true for the rectifying section. Geddes named the
slope of the line the fractionation index (FI). Its value is
aected by the choice of the reference component and temperature used in the calculations. He suggested that the fractionation
index extends the Fenske equation to real stages in distillation
columns. He also suggested using it in other calculation methods
used at the time, including Thiele
Geddes.

The equation uses the minimum number of stages, n, required

for the fractionation at total reux. This is one of the limiting
cases typically used in the design of distillation columns. Another
typical case is the equilibrium ash fractionation, which is
equivalent to a one-stage separation. Using both limiting cases,
Geddes25 plotted the component product composition ratio
versus the relative volatility on a logarithmic scale as seen in
Figure 4. The resulting plots were straight lines. Geddes noted
that the slope of the line is bounded by the two previous limiting
cases: that is, 1 for equilibrium ash and the minimum number of
stages for total reux fractionation. The straight line can have a
single slope or two slopes, changing the slope at the reference
component used for the relative volatility calculation. Geddes
observed that the resulting slope reects the fractionation power
of the column. A single slope means a balanced column with
equal fractionation power in its stripping and rectifying sections.
On the other hand, a line with two slopes means unequal
fractionation power in the column. The slope of the rectifying
section measures the fractionation power of the stripping section.

xtop, i
xtop, o
RFI
io
xbot, i
xbot, o

Gilbert et al.26 extended the use of FI to crude distillation units

(CDU). To avoid the empirical method used at the time, Gilbert
derived the equations to calculate the true boiling point (TBP)
properties of the CDU product streams using FI. He derived the
equation for the reference component, which is the component
at the cut point temperature of the desired crude cut and equal
distribution among the products. His method is valid in the
reverse direction as well, calculating FI from available TBP data.
Applying his method may require tting some crude-specic
parameter, but the results are valid for the column, and the results
showed good agreement with experimental values. The FI
parameter has proved to be a better approach for shortcut
calculation of the CDU than the typical Fenske
Underwood
equation. Jakob27 developed a correlation for the number of trays
and FI in the CDU. He noted that the ash zone of the CDU (the
6862

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie200151e |Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 68606870

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

ARTICLE

Table 2. CDU Product Flow Rates for the Dierent Runs

Using the FI Model
crude cuts

max N

max HN

max LD

max HD

GO

5850

5968

5936

5960

N
HN

35 383
1636

25 137
23 427

27 413
986

25 706
16 607

LD

15 713

4051

27 938

10 310

HD

6025

6025

2335

6025

BR

7372

7372

7372

7372

Table 3. CDU Fractionation Unit (Cut Point) Temperature

Results Using the FI Model
fractionation units (cuts)

max N

max HN

max LD

max HD

301

301

301

301

HN

417

386

386

386

LD

430

488

398

454

HD
BR

527
651

527
651

606
651

527
651

Figure 7. Complex renery conguration.

Table 4. Example Cases and Crude Oils Processed

case

crude processed

case1

crude3
crude4

case2

feed entry zone) required a separate correlation due to the lower

eciency. The use of the equation avoided the previous empirical
approach to simulating the CDU, but was simpler than rigorous
tray-by-tray calculations. Jakob suggested using the component
equilibrium constant K in the FI equation as an acceptable
simpler approximation for the relative volatility term R.
2.2. The Proposed CDU FI Model. The FI equation (eq 5)
provides a simple nonlinear method for calculating the composition of the product streams and the cut point temperatures in
the CDU without the expense of detailed energy, equilibrium,
or momentum calculations. The FI values can be generated
from the column test runs and updated frequently using the
feed and product streams analysis. They can be used with any
crude oil, even if it is not used in generating the FI values.
Therefore, The FI values are considered a characteristic of
the CDU and its configuration and temperature distribution.
The FI method has the advantage of using the familiar and
simple Fenske equation and can be used effectively to predict
the product TBP. Therefore, the FI method is a very suitable
candidate for the refinery planning model. It offers a more
accurate and crude-independent approach that is superior to
the existing linear approaches, but is less complicated than a
more detailed column modeling approach.
To use the FI method, we model the complex CDU as a series
of simple fractionation units, as seen in Figure 5, knowing the
feed crude oil assay and rate, FI values, and the temperature
ranges for the cuts. Each unit has top and bottom product
streams. The top product is fed to the next unit, except for the
last unit where it is the CDU overhead product. The bottom
product of each unit is withdrawn as one of the CDU product
streams. For each unit, we apply the overall and component
mass balance in addition to the FI equation for the equilibrium
calculations. The temperature used for the FI equation at every
unit is the cut point temperature of the unit product. The cut
point temperature is calculated but limited to a predened
range. The range represents the overlap or gap temperature of
adjacent crude cuts. This temperature range also denes the
range of distributed components seen in both top and bottom
products of the unit. Components lighter than this range go to

crude2
crude3
crude4

case3

crude1
crude2
crude3
crude4

the top product, while heavier components go to the bottom

products. This is similar to the light key/heavy key approach
used in the short cut calculation for distillation columns.
2.2.1. The Model Equations. The equations describing the
CDU FI model start with the mass balance equations. For each
fractionation unit (or cut) j and component i, the component in
the feed stream F is related to the units top and bottom products,
PD and PB, as follows:
Fj, i PSj, i PBj, i PDj, total xPD, j, i PBj, total xPB, j, i

The top product of each unit j is also the feed to next downstream
unit, j 1:
Fj 1, i PDj, i PDj, total xPD, j, i

A summation equation over all components i for each unit is also

used in the FI model:
X
X
Fj, i , PDj, total
PDj, i ,
Fj, total
i

PBj, total

PBj, i

The product distribution equations start with the lighter than the
light key components (LK) that are only seen in the top product
stream:
PDj, i Fj, i , PBj, i 0 i < LK j

Similarly, the heavier than heavy key components (HK) are only
seen in the bottom product stream:
PBj, i Fj, i , PDj, i 0 i > HK j
6863

10

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie200151e |Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 68606870

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

ARTICLE

Table 5. Renery Prots As Calculated from the Three

Planning Models ($1000/day)

Table 7. Product Flow Rates from the Three Models (1000s

bbl/day)

model

case1

case2

case3

case

FI

245

249

247

case1

SC
FY

195
51

195
62

191
59

product

case2

Table 6. Calculated Crude Oil Feed Rate (1000s bbl/day)

case

model

case1

case2

case3

crude1

SC

FI

FG

12.7

9.5

16.3

PG
RG

20.0
20.4

20.0
23.4

20.0
39.0

FO

29.5

48.4

25.7

HTR

19.0
15.9

FG

12.4

9.5

PG

20.0

20.0

20.0

RG

20.1

23.4

39.0

FO

32.1

48.5

26.2

HTR
FG

17.0
12.3

8.4

15.8

crude3

crude4

FY
SC

45.8
10.0

54.2
90.0

FI

28.4

71.6

PG

20.0

20.0

20.0

41.2

10.0

RG

19.9

20.3

38.7

52.0

26.6

FY

crude2

FY

48.8

case3

SC

10.0

10.0

80.0

FO

32.1

FI

59.5

30.5

10.0

HTR

17.4

FY

10.0

48.8

31.2

10.0

SC

10.0

10.0

10.0

70.0

FI

10.0

60.8

19.2

10.0

The distributed components are defined between the light key

and heavy key components of every unit. The FI equation from
Geddes (eq 5) is used for the distributed components.
The reference components have the composition ratio of 1
and a boiling point equal to the cut point temperature of
the fractionation unit or crude cut, Tj. This reduces the FI equation
to
xPD, j, i
RFI
11
j, io Tj
xPB, j, i
This equation is combined with the component mass balances
(eqs 6
8) to yield the equation for the component ow rate in the
bottom product stream:
PBj, i

Fi, j
LK j e i e HK j
PDj, total FI
Rj, io 1
PBj, total

12

Figure 8. Renery products rates from the three models for case2.

the cut point temperature (Tb,i > Tj), as follows:

PBj, i

Note that
R j, io

K j, i
PV i T j

K j, o
PV o T j

Jakob27 further simplied this equation by replacing the

relative volatility with the equilibrium constant, Kj,i, of the subject
component. The equation is applied to the distributed components. When using two FI values per fractionation unit, FIrj for
the rectifying section is applied to the distributed components
whose boiling temperature is lower than the cut point temperature used for that unit (Tb,i < Tj), as follows:
PBj, i

Fi, j
PDj, total FIrj
K 1
PBj, total j, i

LK j e i e HK j

13

Fi, j
LK j e i e HK j
PDj, total FIsj
K j, i 1
PBj, total

14

To check the relation between the boiling and cut point temperature, Tb,i and Tj, and select the appropriate term, the Heaviside step
function (eq 15) is used:
(
0, x < 0
Hx
15
1, x g 0
A continuous approximation of the above equation is
Hx 

1
1 e
2qx

16

The implementation of this Heaviside step function yields the

following formula for the exponent term in eqs 12
14:

Similarly, the FIsj for the stripping section is used for the
distributed components whose boiling temperature is greater than

FIrj
6864

1
4Tb, i
Tj

1e

FIsj

1

4Tb, i
Tj

1e

17

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie200151e |Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 68606870

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

ARTICLE

Table 8. Cut Point Temperature for the CDU As Calculated by the FI Model
crude cuts
temperature (K)

SRR-SRGO
628

SRGO-SRLD
552

Therefore, eqs 13 and 14 are replaced with the following equation:

PBj, i

Fj , i

PDj, total FIr 1 e4T ,

K
PBj, total j, i
j

b i

Tj

FIsj


1
1 e
4Tb, i
Tj

SRLD-SRN
462

case1

18
case2

PV i Tj
19
P
The vapor pressure PV of simple hydrocarbons is calculated
using Antoines equation:
!
!
PVBi
2:303
PV j, i exp
PVA i

Tj PVCi
273:15
Kj, i

For the pseudocomponents, a three-parameter corresponding

state equation28 is used for the vapor pressure calculations:
02

PV j, i Pci exp@4

5:963461
Trj, i 1:176391
Trj, i 1:5

5=Trj, i

0:5596071
Trj, i 3
1:1391
Trj, i 6
!
2
3

4:785221
Trj, i 0:4139991
Trj, i 1:5
5=Trj, i
i 4

0:8912391
Trj, i 3
4:986621
Trj, i 6

21
The cut point temperature for each cut is the middle point
between the initial boiling point of the subject cut, TIj, and the
end boiling point of the adjacent cut, TEj, as shown in Figure 6:
Tj

TEj TIj
2

22

The bounds for the cut point temperature are based on the
bounds of the initial and end boiling point temperatures of each
crude cut supplied from the crude assay.
The cut point temperature of any unit must be greater than the
temperature of the downstream unit:
Tj g Tj 1

23

For the vapor pressure calculation of the pseudocomponents, the

reduced temperature parameter, Trj,i, is calculated as follows:
Tj
24
Trj, i
Tcj
When using the FI model as a standalone optimization model,
the objective function employed for this article is maximizing one
of the product streams, j, as follows:
max PBj, total

25

2.2.2. Example. To test the FI model, we calculate the cut

point temperature and the product streams of a Venezuelan

run

crude1

crude2

crude3

crude4

FY

45.8

54.2

FI (FY feed)

45.8

54.2

SC

10.0

90.0

FI (SC feed)

The equilibrium constant K is calculated assuming ideal

behavior:

20

SRG-SRFG
301

Table 9. Crude Feed Results of the FY and SC Models Used in

the Direct Comparison with the FI Model
case

LK j e i e HK j

SRN-SRG
398

case3

10.0

90.0

FY
FI (FY feed)

48.8
48.8

41.2
41.2

10.0
10.0

SC

10.0

10.0

80.0

FI (SC feed)

10.0

10.0

80.0

FY

10.0

48.8

31.2

10.0

FI (FY feed)

10.0

48.8

31.2

10.0

SC

10.0

10.0

10.0

70.0

FI (SC feed)

10.0

10.0

10.0

70.0

crude oil seen in Table 1.15 The pseudocomponent profile of

this crude is generated using the ASPEN Plus crude characterization module.
The crude is fed to the CDU to produce six cuts, residue
(BR), heavy distillate (HD), light distillate (LD), heavy
naphtha (HN), naphtha (N), and gas overhead (GO). The
objective function of the model is dened as maximizing one
of the cuts. Therefore, several runs of the model are performed, each attempt maximizing one of the cuts. Table 2 lists
the owrates results for the CDU outlet streams for the four
runs performed in which the objective function in eq 25 was
maximized subject to the constraints in eqs 6
10 and 18
24.
The highlighted values in each row represent the maximum
attainable owrates of the row product, showing that the
model is suitable for the planning model.
The correct trend is also evident from the fractionation unit
(also the cut point) temperature results shown in Table 3. The
highlighted values correspond to the largest bottom product of
each fractionation unit and the objective of each run.
The model was implemented in GAMS, using CONOPT,
version 3.14S, as the solver. The model involves 562 equations
with 573 variables, and required 0.360 s of CPU time on a
2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo machine.
The results of the nonlinear FI-based CDU model suggest the
suitability of this simple nonlinear model for the renery planning model. Comparison of the FI model results to rigorous
calculations is discussed in a subsequent paper.

3. FI-BASED REFINERY PRODUCTION PLANNING

MODEL
The purpose of the FI calculation for the CDU is to use it as
the nonlinear model in renery production planning model. In
this article, a planning model with single-period time horizon is
developed to choose optimal crude oils to process in the renery.
The model is based on the renery conguration shown in
Figure 7,29,30 noting that more current reneries have more elaborate interconnections with the conversion and treatment units.
6865

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie200151e |Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 68606870

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

ARTICLE

Figure 9. Prot results of direct comparison of the FY and SC models with the FI model.

3.1. Problem Statement. In this configuration, the crude is

introduced into the crude distillation unit (CDU) for initial
fractionation. The products of the CDU units include the
overhead fuel gas, straight-run naphtha, straight-run gasoline,
straight-run distillate, straight-run gas oil, and the bottom
residue. Along with the CDU, the configuration of interest
includes naphtha reforming unit, catalytic cracking unit, and
hydrotreating unit. The product blending units combine
different intermediate product streams to produce the desired final products: premium gasoline, regular gasoline,
distillate, fuel oil, and treated residuum.
Each unit has a maximum feed capacity or minimum feed
requirement specied as part of the model. Along with the renery conguration, the product qualities are specied. Information on products demands and production targets is
also specied. The feedstock information includes the crude
oils available for purchase, their quantities, and assays. The
objective of the planning model is to determine the types,
quantities, and mixing strategies for the dierent crude oils
available for purchase so that the renery will meet the
objective of maximizing prot, while meeting specic demands over a specied time period.
3.2. LP Planning Model. The base planning model is an LP
model with linear equations. Except for the CDU, all of the
units represented in the model involve linear eq 1 for yield
prediction. The coefficients of these equations are based on
the crude oil fs and the process technology, where the product
stream l0 from unit k is a function of feed l as follows (note that
l 6 l0 ):

STl0 , k, fs ak, l, l0 , fs STl, k, fs

The capacity limitation or requirements of the dierent units

are expressed by the following inequality for unit k and the sum of
feed streams l:
X
STl, k, fs e capacityk
26
l

In addition to the processing units, the model includes splitters

and mixers. The splitter splits a single stream l into dierent

Table 10. Renery Products for the Direct Comparison

Cases of FY with FI and SC with FI
case
case1

case2

case3

product

FY

FI (FY feed)

SC

FI (SC feed)

FG

12.7

17.3

9.5

17.4

RG

20.4

38.8

23.4

41.5

PG

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

FO

29.5

22.8

48.4

22.7

HTR

19.0

2.7

FG
RG

12.4
20.1

17.1
38.3

9.5
23.4

17.4
41.6

PG

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

FO

32.1

25.3

48.5

22.8

HTR

17.0

1.2

FG

12.3

17.1

8.4

16.6

RG

19.9

37.9

20.3

39.8

PG

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

FO
HTR

32.1
17.4

25.5
1.3

52.0

25.0

streams (set of l0 ), as follows:

STl, sep, fs

X
l0

STl0 , sep, fs

27

The mixer equation combines the set of streams l into the

single stream l0 , as follows:
X
STl, mix, fs STl0 , mix, fs
28
l

A special type of mixers is the product blending unit. It uses the

same equation for the product quantities, but the resulting stream
is the product p, as follows:
X
STl0 , k, fs STp
29
l0

Properties of the product streams are calculated to ensure the

quality of nal products. These properties are calculated using
linear equations based on the actual values or indices of the
6866

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie200151e |Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 68606870

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

ARTICLE

Table 11. Model Statistics

case

model

number of variables

number of equations

CPU time (s)

case1

FY

143

130

6.7

SC

163

140

7.3

FI

1225

1204

7.3

FY

185

161

8.4

case2

case3

SC

215

176

9.0

FI

1808

1772

8.8

FY

231

194

9.8

SC
FI

271
2395

214
2342

10.3
10.8

properties. The equations below are for enforcing that the net
properties of type r for streams l0 meet the specied minimum
or maximum value of the property (as dened by PRr,p):
X
STp PR r, p e
Prr, l0 , k, fs STl0 , k, fs
30
l0 , k, fs
STp PR r, p g

X
l0 , k, fs

Prr, l0 , k, fs STl0 , k, fs

31

Other constraints include checking the availability of feedstock

FSTfs:
FSTfs e availabilityfs

32

The last element of the model is the prot, which is calculated

from the sales of the nal products after deducting the cost of the
feedstock and the operating costs of the units. The objective
function is as follows, where Cp, Ck, and Cfs are the price of
product p, the operating cost of unit k with feed l, and the cost of
feedstock fs, respectively:
prof it

X
X
X
X
Cp STp

Ck 
STl, k, fs

Cfs FSTfs
p
k
l, fs
fs

33
The linear equations used to model the CDU are either the xed
yield (FY) (eq 1) or the swing cut (SC) equations (eqs 2 and 3).
3.3. Proposed Modification to the Planning Model. The
proposed nonlinear upgrade to the LP planning model is to use
the FI model for the CDU in the base LP planning model. All of
the equations of the FI model are added to the LP planning
model to calculate the CDU yield. The FI model equations are
molar based (kmol/day), while the planning model equations are
volume based (bpd). Therefore, the molar density and specific
gravity from the crude assay are used to convert the molar flow
rate from the FI model and the volumetric flow rate of the
planning model equations, and vice versa.
3.4. Examples. To illustrate the use of the FI-based planning
model, the refinery configuration shown in Figure 7 is used as a
case study. Three cases are analyzed where the refinery is processing two, three, and four types of crude oils (Table 4), where
crude1 is the heaviest and crude4 is the lightest. The objective is to
select the crude oils and quantities that will maximize refinery
profit, while meeting the specified product demand and qualities.
The available crude oil assays are used to generate the pseudocomponents for use in the case studies. The summary of the
different crude oils used in the three cases is listed in Table A-12 in
the Appendix. The crude cuts to be produced from the CDU are

number of nonlinear variables

348

522

696

listed in Table A-13 in the Appendix. The products slate,

specifications, and additional problem specifications are listed in
Tables A-14
A-17 in the Appendix.
The FI model predicts the largest prot in all three cases, as
seen in Table 5. The SC model predicted prots are also much
better than the basic FY model.
In terms of crude oil feeds, the three models calculate dierent
proportions of the available crude oils (Table 6). However, FY
and FI preferred the middle crudes over the lightest or heaviest,
using the middle crude3 in all cases while increasing the use of the
similar but slightly lighter crude2 when introduced in case2 and
case3. However, the FI model consistently used less crude3 than
FY. SC, on the other hand, preferred the lightest crude, keeping
the rest at the minimum.
Consequently, products are produced at dierent rates, as seen in
Table 7. FI products include FG, PG, RG, and FO for all cases,
similar to the FY and SC products. However, the FY model products
also include some HTR. The FI model produced the most RG of the
three models, at the expense of FO. The SC model produced the
most FO and the least FG of the three models. Figure 8 is for case2
and is representative of the trends in all cases. The maximum prots
calculated by the FI model can be attributed to balancing the two
most valuable products (PG and RG), as well as the FO, leading to
higher sales and more balanced operating and crude costs.
Evidently, there is a benet from improving the CDU equations
beyond the simple FY model. The increase in prots is over 200%.
Moreover, the FI model with its nonlinear, process-specic (yet
simple) equations provided further increase in prots over the
linear SC model (over 20%). The more balanced products prole
with more of the valuable products of the FI model is further proof
of the benets of the nonlinear model equations when compared
to the linear estimations. The swing cuts used in these cases are
matched with the cuts overlaps used in the FI model (the
distributed components) for better comparisons. This swing cut
approach is more representative of the process than using a xed
size for the swing cuts6 or using variable sizes.8 Another unique
benet of the modeling approach of the FI model is the cut point
temperatures for the CDU, seen in Table 8. These values become
more important and relevant for renery operators in the shortrange, multiperiod models that feed the scheduling models.
As a direct comparison to the FI model, the crude oil feed
results from the FY and SC models are each used in the FI model.
Table 9 lists the crude oil quantities results of the FY and SC and
the corresponding values used in the FI runs for this comparison.
We notice from the results of the model that the FI model is again
calculating more protable operating scenarios than the FY and
SC models, as seen in Figure 9. Moreover, the trend seen in
Table 5 is again repeated here as the gap between the prot from
6867

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie200151e |Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 68606870

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

the FI and FY models is much larger than the gap between the FI
and SC results.
Table 10 shows the renery products for the direct comparison
case. Here, the FI model produces some HTR with the FY feed
results, unlike the results in Table 7. However, the FI model does
not produce any HTR with the SC feed results. The FI model in
both cases produces the most regular gasoline with either feed
results and balanced the other valuable products (PG and FO).
This shows the robustness of the FI model.
In terms of the impact on the model size and solution time, the
FI model is signicantly larger, but does not require substantial
increase in the solution time. The simplicity of the model is
maintained by using the Heaviside step function for the temperature criterion in eq 14, which avoids the use of disjunctive
and MINLP formulations, although it has the potential drawback
that it introduces nonconvexities. The models statistics are
shown in Table 11. All three models were implemented in
GAMS and used the CONOPT 3.14s solver for the FI model
and CPLEX 11.1.1 solver for the linear FY and SC models.
The FI model initialization scheme is based on using the middle
point between the maximum and minimum values of each variable.
Despite the increase in the problem size and that 30% of the
variables are nonlinear, the stability of the FI model in the renery
example is another advantage of using the FI CDU model.

4. CONCLUSION
In this work, we have proposed a nonlinear model for the renery
production planning operation. We reviewed the popular linear
models, including the simple xed yield model and the improved
swing cuts models. We proposed the fractionation index model
originally developed by Geddes and used it for modeling the crude
distillation unit. The reason for choosing the FI model is its
simplicity in representing the complex CDU into a series of simple
fractionation units modeled using a simple common equation of
component distribution. Moreover, the parameter required for this
key equation is characteristic of the CDU and is independent of the
crude used. The FI model calculates the cut point temperatures,
typical settings for the CDU not provided by the SC or FY models.
This further increases the appeal of FI model over more complex
fractionation calculations methods. The eectiveness of using the FI
equations in an optimization model was demonstrated in a CDU
example with the objective of maximizing one of the CDU products.
The model successfully met the objective of each run and provided
the cut point temperature settings.
For the renery planning model, the FI model uses as a basis the
LP models for the renery, but the CDU equations are replaced
with the FI equations. The eectiveness and benets of the FI
planning models were successfully demonstrated in three cases of
a typical renery processing two, three, and four crude oils. In every
case, the FI model obtained higher prots than the SC and FY
models based on dierent crude oil feeds and product rates.
Moreover, the FI model provided the cut point temperature
settings. Despite the nonlinearity and increased model size, the
FI model did not require signicantly longer solution times.
From the results and discussion of the work, the FI model
clearly shows the benet of improving the accuracy of the
equations for the process units in the renery planning models.
The initialization scheme helped to keep the model simple and
robust. This work provides incentive to use more complex
models for the CDU and examine their benets and impacts

ARTICLE

on the execution and results of nonlinear renery planning

models.

APPENDIX
Data and Results. Tables A-12
A-17 give data and results
relative to this study.

Table A-12. Summary of the Crude Oil Assays Used in the

Planning Model Examples31
crude oil

API

SG

crude1

32.4

0.8631

crude2

crude3

crude4

34.6

33.1

37

0.8518

0.8598

0.84

LV% distilled

TBP (K)

296.3

349.7

10
30

377
486.4

50

596.6

70

734

90

913.6

95

999.6

100

1085.5

267.7

5
10

324.1
353.1

30

450.9

50

554.5

70

671.6

90

847.1

95

926.3

100

1005.5

0
5

266.3
327.4

10

359.9

30

465.8

50

576.4

70

712.2

90

899.2

95

988.8

100
0

1078.4
258.4

315.7

10

345.7

30

445.1

50

548.2

70

669.4

90

836.1

95
100

910.3
984.9

Table A-13. Crude Cuts and Their Initial and End Boiling Points
crude cuts

6868

IBP (K)

EBP (K)

straight-run fuel gas (SRFG)

185

301

straight-run gasoline (SRG)

301

413

straight-run naphtha (SRN)

straight-run light distillate (SRLD)

386
417

466
591

straight-run gas oil (SRGO)

542

651

straight-run residue (SRR)

600

1057

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie200151e |Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 68606870

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

ARTICLE

Table A-14. Products Slate and Specications for the Planning Model Examples
product

specication type

spec

octane no.
vapor pressure

g90
e12.7

octane no.

g86

fuel gas (FG)

premium gasoline (PG)
regular gasoline (RG)

e12.7

vapor pressure
distillate (Dist)

e306

density

e0.5

sulfur content
fuel oil (FO)

e352

density

e3.5

sulfur content
hydrotreated residue (HTR)

Table A-15. Feedstock Specications and Cost for All Three

Cases
feedstock

min

max

cost

crude1

10

200

6.5

crude2

10

200

7.5

crude3
crude4

10
10

200
200

6.5
7.5

Table A-16. Product Demand Specications for All Three

Cases
products

min

PG
RG

10

max
20

Table A-17. Unit Capacities for All Three Cases

unit
CDU

capacity
100

reformer

20

CCU

30

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author

*E-mail: grossmann@cmu.edu.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A. Alattas acknowledges the generous support of the Abu
Dhabi National Oil Co. (ADNOC) for funding his Ph.D.
research and the nancial support by BP Rening Technology
for funding this research.
Nomenclature
Terms

SRFG = straight run fuel gas

SRG = straight run gasoline
SRN = straight run naphtha
SRLD = straight run light distillate

SRHD = straight run heavy distillate

SRBR = straight run bottom residuum
IBP = initial boiling point
EBP = end boiling point
FG = fuel gas/overhead product of the CDU
PG = premium gasoline
RG = regular gasoline
FO = fuel oil
HTR = hydrotreated residuum
Subscripts

i = component
j = crude cut
fs = crude oil
k = processing unit
l,l0 = renery streams, typically l is a feed to the unit and l0 is an
output stream
r = stream property
p = renery product stream
Variables

STl,k,fs = renery stream l, either as input or as output of unit k,

associated with crude fs
STp = renery product stream p
FSTfs = feedstock fs to the renery
Prr,l,k,fs = property of type r of stream l or l0 of unit k and crude fs
PRr,p = property r specication (maximum or minimum) for
product stream p
ak,l,l0 ,fs = yield coecient for output stream l0 for unit k, fed with
input stream l associated with crude fs
Cp = prices for product stream p
Ck = operating cost of unit k
Cfs = cost of feedstock fs
Fj,i = feed to the fractionation unit j of the FI model, of
component i
PDj,i = top product ow rate of component i from fractionation
unit j of the FI model
PBj,i = bottom product ow rate of component i from fractionation unit j of the FI model
Tj = temperature of the fractionation unit j and also cut j
xtop,i, xbot,i = component i composition in the top or bottom
product streams of an FI fractionation unit
FIj, FIrj, FIsj = fractionation index of unit j (FIr is the value for the
rectifying section, while FIs is the value for the
stripping section)
Tci, Tri = critical and reduced temperatures of component i
PVi = vapor pressure of component i
TIj, TEj = initial and end boiling point temperature values for
crude cut j
Kj,i = equilibrium constant of component i in fractionation unit
j (at Tj)
Rj,io = relative volatility of component i to reference component
o in fractionation unit j (at Tj)

REFERENCES
(1) Grossmann, I. E. Enterprise-wide Optimization: A New Frontier
in Process Systems Engineering. AIChE J. 2005, 51, 18461857.
(2) Kallarth, J. Planning and Scheduling in the Process Industry. In
Advanced Planning and Scheduling Solutions in Process Industry; Gunther,
H.-O., van Beek, P., Eds.; Springer: New York, 2003.
(3) Moro, L. F.; Zanin, A. C.; Pinto, J. M. A Planning Model for
Renery Diesel Production. Comput. Chem. Eng. 1998, 22, S1039S1042.
6869

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie200151e |Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 68606870

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

(4) Symonds, G. Linear Programming: The Solution of Renery Problems;
Esso Standard Oil Co.: New York, 1955.
(5) Coxhead, R. E. Integrated Planning and Scheduling Systems for
The Rening Industry. In Optimization in Industry 2: Mathematical
Programming and Modeling Techniques in Practice; Ciriani, T. A., Leachman,
R. C., Eds.; Wiley: New York, 1994; Vol. 2.
(6) Zhang, J.; Zhu, X.; Towler, G. A Simultaneous Optimization
Strategy for Overall Integration in Renery Planning. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 2001, 40, 26402653.
(7) Favennec, J. Renery Operation & Management; Editions Technip:
Paris, 2001.
(8) Li, W.; Hui, C.; Li, A. Integrating CDU, FCC and Product
Blending Models Into Renery Planning. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2005, 29,
20102028.
(9) Aspen PIMS System Reference (v7.2); Aspen Technology Inc.:
Burlington, MA, 2010.
(10) Sahdev, M.; Jain, K.; Srivastava, P. Petroleum Renery Planning and
Optimization Using Linear Programming; HYPERLINK http://www.cheresources.com/renery_planning_optimization.shtml, http://www.cheresources.com/renery_planning_optimization.shtml (accessed June 12,
2007).
(11) Parkash, S. Rening Processes Handbook; Gulf Professional Publishing [Elsevier]: Amsterdam, 2003.
(12) Buijssen, A. Solving Renery-Planning Problems. M.S. Thesis,
Tilburg University, Gouda, The Netherlands, 2008.
(13) Shobrys, D.; White, D. Planning, Scheduling and Control Systems, Why Can They Not Work Together. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2000,
24, 163173.
(14) Packie, J. Distillation Equipment in The Oil-Rening Industry.
AIChE Trans. 1941, 37, 5178.
(15) Watkins, R. Petroleum Rening Distillation, 2nd ed.; Gulf Publishing Co.: Houston, TX, 1979.
(16) Fenske, M. R. Fractionation of Straight-Run Pennsylvania Gasoline. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1932, 24, 482485.
(17) Gilliland, E. R. Multicomponent Rectication: Estimation of the
Number of Theoretical Plates as a Function of the Reux Ratio. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 1940, 32, 12201223.
(18) Underwood, A. J. V. Fractional Distillation of Multicomponent
Mixtures. Chem. Eng. Prog. 1948, 44, 603614.
(19) Suphanit, B. The Design of Complex Distillation Systems. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Manchester Institute of Science & Technology
(UMIST), Manchester, U.K., 1999.
(20) Gadalla, M.; Jobson, M.; Smith, R. Shortcut Models for Retrot
Design of Distillation Columns. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2003, 81, 971986.
(21) Rousseau, R. W., Ed. Handbook of Separation Process Technology;
Wiley & Sons: New York, 1987.
(22) Trierwiler, D.; Tan, R. Advances in Crude Oil LP Modeling.
Hydrocarbon Asia 2001, 11, 5258.
(23) Alhajri, I.; Elkamel, A.; Albahri, T.; Douglas, P. L. A Nonlinear
Programming Model for Renery Planning and Optimisation with
Rigorous Process Models and Product Quality Specications. Int. J.
Oil, Gas Coal Technol. 2008, 1, 283307.
(24) Lopez, D.-C.; Mahecha, C.-A.; Hoyos, L.-J.; Acevedo, L.; Villamizar,
J.-F. Optimization Model of A System of Crude Oil Distillation Units With
Heat Integration and Metamodeling. C.T.F Cienc., Tecnol. Futuro 2009,
3, 159173.
(25) Geddes, R. L. A General Index of Fractional Distillation Power
for Hydrocarbon Mixtures. AIChE J. 1958, 4, 389392.
(26) Gilbert, R.; Leather, J.; Ellis, J. The Application of the Geddes
Fractionation Index to The Crude Distillation Units. AIChE J. 1966,
12, 432437.
(27) Jakob, R. Estimates Number of Crude Trays. Hydrocarbon Process.
1971, 50, 149152.
(28) Twu, C. H.; Coon, J. E.; Cunningham, J. R. A Generalized Vapor
Pressure Equation for Heavy Hydrocarbon. Fluid Phase Equilib. 1994,
96, 1931.
(29) Aronofsky, J.; Dutton, J.; Tayyabkhan, M. Managerial Planning
with Linear Programming; Wiley & Sons: New York, 1978.

ARTICLE

(30) Kendrick, D.; Meeraus, A.; Suh, J. S. Oil Renery Modeling

with the GAMS language. Technical report; Center of Energy Studies,
University of Texas, Austin, TX, 1981.
(31) Strategic Petroleum Reserve Crude Oil Assay Manual, 3rd ed.; U.S.
Department of Energy (DoE): Washington, DC, 2008.
(32) Riazi, M. R. Characterization and Properties of Petroleum Fractions, 1st ed.; ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, 2005.

6870

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie200151e |Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 68606870