Computers and Chemical Engineering 29 (2005) 20102028

Integrating CDU, FCC and product blending models into renery planning
Wenkai Li a , Chi-Wai Hui a, , AnXue Li b
a

Chemical Engineering Department, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong, PR China b Daqing Rening & Chemical Company, PetroChina Company Limited, PR China Received 4 September 2003; received in revised form 23 June 2004; accepted 19 May 2005 Available online 11 July 2005

Abstract The accuracy of using linear models for crude distillation unit (CDU), uidize-bed catalytic cracker (FCC) and product blending in renery planning has been debated for decades. Inaccuracy caused by nonrigorous linear models may reduce the overall protability or sacrice product quality. On the other hand, using rigorous process models for renery planning imposes unnecessary complications on the problem because these models lengthen the solution time and often hide critical issues and parameters for prot improvements. To overcome these problems, this paper presents a renery planning model that utilizes simplied empirical nonlinear process models with considerations for crude characteristics, products yields and qualities, etc. The proposed model can be easily solved with much higher accuracy than a traditional linear model. This paper will present how the CDU, FCC and product blending models are formulated and applied to renery planning. Several case studies are used to illustrate the features of the renery-planning model proposed. 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Renery; Planning; CDU; FCC; Product blending

1. Introduction 1.1. Two types of CDU and FCC models Crude distillation unit (CDU) and uidize-bed catalytic cracking (FCC) are the major units in a renery. To model them, two types of models rigorous and empirical ones are commonly used. Rigorous models simulate a CDU as a general distillation column, taking into account phase equilibrium, heat and mass balances along the whole column. Results of a rigorous model include ow rates and compositions of all internal and external streams, and operating conditions such as tray temperatures and pressures. Considerable research has been carried out with the aim of developing and/or improving rigorous CDU models. For example, Cechetti et al. (1963) applied simultaneous modeling of the main column and side strippers using the method. Their

Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 2358 7137; fax: +852 2358 0054. E-mail address: kehui@ust.hk (C.-W. Hui).

algorithm may fail to converge when modeling a CDU. Hess et al. (1977) extended this approach and proposed a Multi method to increase the convergent speed and broaden the generality of the algorithm. Russell (1983) used a rather complicated inside-out class of methods to simulate CDU with good speed and wide specications variety. Lang et al. (1991) proposed an algorithm that integrated bubble-point (BP) and sum-rates (SR) methods and showed that their calculated values and the experimental data were in good agreement. In addition to these, some commercial software packages, such as Aspen Plus (Aspentech), PRO/II (SimSci-Esscor) and DESIGN IITM (ChemShare), have also been developed and are commonly used. These accurate simulation models are highly nonlinear due to the complexity of CDU. Empirical models use empirical correlations to establish material and energy balances for CDU. First proposed by Packie (1941), these models were further described in great detail by Watkins (1979). They are good for preliminary designs with sufcient plant data and/or experience from previous designs (Perry, Green, & Maloney, 1997). Because

0098-1354/$ see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2005.05.010

W. Li et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 29 (2005) 20102028

2011

of their simplicity, relatively easy application and adequate accuracy to reect actual conditions of a CDU, empirical models are suitable for overall optimization of a renery. Besides the CDU, FCC is another important unit that strongly inuences the protability of a renery. Many researchers have studied FCC models. Blanding (1953) developed a mathematical model based on a kinetic rate expression. Jacob, Gross, Voltz, and Weekman (1976) proposed a more rigorous model using the concept of lumping groupings. These kinetic models can be used to calculate the conversion of FCC from operation parameters such as reaction temperature, feed composition, catalyst/oil ratio, etc. However, a planning model incorporated with these models will be rather complicated and slow. Some correlations have been developed to obtain the yield of FCC from simple feed properties and known conversion. Nelson (1958) and Gary and Handwerk (2001) described different methods to obtain the yields of FCC products by predetermined charts and gures. These correlations are very useful for obtaining typical yields for preliminary studies and to determine the trends of product yields when changes are made in conversion levels (Gary & Handwerk, 2001). 1.2. Current approaches to renery planning Mathematical programming has been extensively studied and implemented for long-term plant-wide renery planning. Although accurate results of processing units can be obtained by using rigorous models, their complexity and the length of the solution time prevent them from being used commonly. Using rigorous models for planning might be an overkill (Barsamian, 2001). The inefciency of solution often hides critical issues and parameters (Hartmann, 2001). Some commercial software, such as Aspen PIMSTM (Aspentech), applied nonlinear recursion algorithm to handle nonlinearities or provided interface to an external rigorous simulator to renery planning. This could be a time-consuming procedure due to the long solution time of external simulator. Zhang, Zhu, and Towler (2001) took into account the effect of changes in feed properties and operation conditions, using a linear constraint with some parameters (e.g., the base yields of CDU fractions and the sizes of swing cuts) not directly available in most of the reneries. In Zhangs work, due to the inaccuracies arising from assuming xed volume/weight transfer ratios (the volume/weight percentage of a CDU fraction over the overall CDU feed) and linear models of CDU and FCC, the cutpoints of CDU and conversion of FCC may not be rigorously optimized. Results obtained in this way cannot guarantee that the properties of the nal renery products meet the required specications. Moro, Zanin, and Pinto (1998) and Pinto, Joly, and Moro (2000) proposed a nonlinear planning model that took into account the inuences of feed properties and operation parameters such as severity and temperature on unit operation cost and unit product yields. The overall accuracy of their planning model is limited due to the application of some simple linear unit models

Fig. 1. The ow diagram of xed yield structure representations approach.

such as FCC. Furthermore, the coefcients of highly nonlinear property calculation correlations and the inuences of operation condition on unit operation cost are not available in many reneries. Appropriate tradeoff between the accuracy and the solvability of process unit models remains an essential challenge in renery planning and these will be the main concern to be addressed in this paper. 1.2.1. Approaches to modeling CDU in renery planning To include product yields and properties of the crude oil distillation in a renery-planning model, approaches that are lately reported include xed yield structure representations model, mode or categorization model (Brooks et al., 1999) and the Swing Cut model (Zhang et al., 2001). In the xed yield structure representations model, distillation behavior is predetermined using the crude assay with an external distillation simulation program. The simulation program determines cuts at designated temperature, and then passes the resulting yield and property information to the LP planning model (Trierwiler & Tan, 2001). Fig. 1 illustrates the structure of this approach (simplied gure from Trierwiler & Tan, 2001). A noticeable drawback of this approach is that the cutpoints of distillates are predetermined therefore cannot guarantee the optimality of the cutpoint settings for CDU distillates. Some researchers (Trierwiler & Tan, 2001) applied a method called Adherent Recursion to optimize cutpoints. The results of LP planning model (new cutpoints) were sent back to simulation software to update the yields and properties. However, the long solution time of the simulation software running iteratively made it a time-consuming procedure to obtain the nal results. In actual plant operation, CDU operations are often dened into several operating modes, such as gasoline mode or diesel mode, according to the crude properties, process constraints and marketing strategies, etc. Each mode has a set of predetermined cutpoints based upon the experience from the previous production settings. Until now, quite a few of reneries are still using these operating modes for planning their operation due to the simplicity of this method. In the mode or categorization approach, the LP planning model selects one of the operation modes or the combinations of these modes to maximize the total prot. The challenge lies in how to blend these modes effectively. Brooks et al. (1999) applied a visual approach using some gures to obtain optimal plan by blending operating modes. They rst calculated the yields and properties of CDU fractions using rigorous CDU model. Then, taking into consideration the specications of the nal products, they used a spread-

2012

W. Li et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 29 (2005) 20102028

Fig. 2. Swing cuts of distillates.

sheet to blend CDU modes pair-wise in 1% steps. With the help of the spreadsheet, the procedure was performed visually using some gures. However, applying their approach is rather time-consuming and, only the yield of certain CDU fraction being maximized, the total prot maximization of a renery is still not guaranteed. Another widely used method is the swing cut modeling. Several swing cuts physically nonexistent are dened in the LP model. The denition of swing cut is illustrated in Fig. 2 (Zhang et al., 2001). In Fig. 2, gross overhead (GO) and heavy naphtha (HN) are the two distillates of a CDU. In order to give the LP model the exibility of adjusting the volume transfer ratios of GO and HN, two adjustable pseudo-cuts, shown as the two rectangles in Fig. 2, are added. The range of a swing cut is dened as a certain ratio on the crude feed bounded by a lower and upper limit. For example, segments BD dened the amount of a cut (say 5% of the overall crude fed) that can go to either GO or HN. The nal volume transfer ratio of GO is shown as segments AC. Similarly, after the apportionment of the HN swing cut, the nal volume transfer ratio of HN can be shown as segments CE. Hartmann (1999) used swing cut, called balancing cut in his paper, to address the problem of setting cutpoints of a CDU. The cutpoints were changed after the analysis of the marginal values of intermediate streams and units. Zhang et al. (2001) determined the optimal ow rates of CDU fractions on the basis of xed swing cuts. They xed the size of a swing cut to a certain proportion of the total feed whose value is not available directly from a renery. In general, two issues need to be considered in swing cut modeling: the sizes of swing cuts and the properties of the cut fractions. The size of a swing cut can either be expressed as certain volume transfer ratio on crude feed or as certain boiling temperature range. Some researchers estimate the size of a swing cut by experience. Zhang et al. (2001) used 5% and 7% volume transfer ratio on crude feed as the sizes of naphtha and kerosene swing cuts respectively. A typical 50 of boiling temperature range, can also be set to swing cuts (Trierwiler

& Tan, 2001). Modelers commonly use a rather wide swing cut sizes in their initial LP run, and shorten the swing cut sizes subsequently. This is a time-consuming procedure and also risks blocking an optimum cutpoint value out of consideration (Trierwiler & Tan, 2001). Since the accurate sizes of swing cuts are unknown, some researchers divide swing cuts into small segments in an attempt to improve modeling accuracy. Each segment is allowed to be blended with adjacent distillates individually. While this approach may improve accuracy, the size of the LP model grows signicantly. This approach also involves applying complex mixed integer programming to obtain reasonable results (Trierwiler & Tan, 2001). In this paper, an effective method is proposed (see Section 3) to determine the sizes of swing cuts. These sizes are obtained by using the WTRs of CDU fractions, which are calculated using the empirical procedure described by Watkins (1979) and ASTM boiling ranges for CDU fractions. Once the WTRs/swing cuts are determined, a planning model is then used to optimize cutpoints of CDU. The second issue is about the properties of swing cuts and fractions. Most of the research works of renery planning assumed that the properties of CDU fractions and the swing cut materials are constant across their temperature ranges. However, moving a swing cut to its adjacent lighter distillate will bring heavy ends to this lighter distillate. This will inuence the properties such as octane number, pour point of the lighter distillate, and the sulfur and cloud point that are sensitive to heavy ends. Similarly, moving a swing cut to its adjacent heavier distillate will bring light ends to this heavier distillate, which will inuence the octane number, pour point of the heavier distillate, especially properties such as viscosity and ash point that are sensitive to light ends. Besides being inuenced by swing cuts, distillate properties themselves are most often highly nonlinear, and this is the primary area where swing cut modeling fails to represent distillation behavior accurately (Trierwiler & Tan, 2001). To address these problems, regression models based upon crude properties will be used to calculate the octane numbers, pour points and API gravities of CDU distillates. Case studies are used to illustrate the importance of the properties calculation. In brief, the proposed renery planning model optimizes CDU cutpoints by integrating a set of predened operating modes into a modied swing cut method. The predened CDU modes are used to determine the sizes of swing cuts (expressed as weight transfer ratio ranges (WTR) which will be dened in Section 3). Beside CDU cutpoints, the properties of CDU fractions, which are usually ignored in conventional planning models, are calculated using the basic crude data. 1.2.2. Approaches to model FCC in renery planning Pinto et al. (2000) used a linear model of FCC. Due to the nonlinearity of FCC behavior, a linear model of FCC may give inaccurate yields and properties of FCC distillates. Fig. 3 (Decroocq, 1984) shows a typical FCC gasoline versus FCC conversion level curve. The nonlinearity of this gure, espe-

W. Li et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 29 (2005) 20102028

2013

Fig. 3. The yield of FCC gasoline vs. FCC conversion.

cially in high conversion area, is obvious. To accurately model FCC without introducing a too complex FCC model, a regression model based upon the work from Gary and Handwerk (2001) is applied in the proposed renery-planning model (Section 4). 2. Problem description An example shown in Fig. 4 is used to illustrate the proposed modeling techniques and solution methods. The ren-

ery process contains four main processing units: CDU, FCC, gasoline blending (GB) and diesel oil blending (DB). At rst, crude oil is separated into ve fractions by CDU, namely, gross overhead (GO), heavy naphtha (HN), light distillate (LD), heavy distillate (HD) and bottom residua (BR). Then CDU bottom residua enter FCC as a feed to produce C2C4, FCC gasoline, total gas oil (TGO) and coke. Part of TGO is recycled to become FCC feed. Note that for simplicity, vacuum distillation unit (VDU) was not included in the system. CDU gross overhead, CDU heavy naphtha, FCC gasoline and MTBE enter GB to produce two products: 90# gasoline and 93# gasoline. CDU light distillate and heavy distillate enter DB to produce another two products: 10# diesel oil and 0# diesel oil. C2C4 from FCC and TGO, which is not recycled, are sold as nal products. Coke is assumed to be burned in regenerator thus valueless. The prices (yuan/t) of raw materials and products are shown in Table 1. The capacities of CDU and FCC are both 400 t/day; the operation costs of CDU and FCC are 20 and 110 yuan/t, respectively. The market demand for each product is 200 t/day. The octane number of MTBE is 101. The blending requirement of gasoline blending is that the octane number of 90# and 93# gasoline products should be equal to or greater than 90 and 93, respectively. The blending requirement of diesel oil blending is that the pour point of 10# and 0# diesel oil should be equal to or smaller than 10 and 0 C, respectively. The objective of the problem is

Fig. 4. Basic conguration of a renery. Table 1 Price data (yuan/t) Raw material MTBE 3500 Crude oil 1400 Products FCC C2C4 2500 90# Gasoline 3215 93# Gasoline 3387 10# Deisel oil 3000 0#Deisel oil 2500 FCC TGO 1500

2014

W. Li et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 29 (2005) 20102028

to maximize the total prot of the renery by varying the cutpoints of the CDU and conversion level of the FCC by taking into account the property changes of the intermediate and nal products.

3. Determination of the CDU weight transfer ratio ranges (WTR) 3.1. Determination of the volume transfer ratios of CDU fractions The objective of this section is to describe the procedure of determining the ow rate range of each CDU fraction. The ability of a renery to meet all the specications and conditions of nal products is initially set by the CDU fractions (Brooks et al., 1999). Thus, the ow rates of CDU fractions are adjusted in a renery all the time to produce different quality and specication of products. However, these ow rates cannot be changed arbitrarily, they can only be changed in their specic ranges. CDU is used to separate crude oil by distillation into fractions according to boiling point. It is the rst major processing unit in the renery. Crude oil is a mixture of some 100,000 liquid chemical compounds, primarily hydrocarbons ranging from methane to extremely heavy hydrocarbon molecules with up to 80 carbon atoms. A CDU fraction is a mixture that usually dened in terms of its ASTM (American Society for Testing Materials) boiling range. ASTM boiling range (see Appendix A.1 for details) denes the general composition of the fraction and is usually one of the key specications for most distillates (Watkins, 1979). Different reneries have slightly different denitions of ASTM boiling ranges for CDU fractions. According to the denitions of Watkins (1979), gross overhead consists of light-ends through 250275 F ASTM end point; heavy naphtha consists of pentane through 400 F ASTM end point; light distillate has an ASTM boiling range of approximately 300600 F; heavy distillate has an ASTM boiling range of approximately 525675 F. All distillates heavier than heavy distillate are called bottom residua. Bottom residua have an ASTM end point over 1300 F. Fig. 5 shows the TBP curve of a crude oil. True boiling point (TBP) distillation (see Appendix A.1 for details) is used to analyze the component distribution of a material being tested. This method uses a distillation column with certain number of stages and reux so that the temperature on the curve represents the actual (true) boiling point of the hydrocarbon material present at the corresponding volume percentage (Watkins, 1979). The volumetric yield (also expressed as volume transfer ratio) of a CDU fraction can be obtained from the crude oil TBP curve and its boiling point. In Fig. 5, points A, B, C and D represent the cutpoints of GO, HN, LD and HD, respectively. Draw a dotted horizontal line through each point; then draw a dotted vertical line through the intersection of the dotted horizontal line and the crude oil TBP curve. The gap (such as segments EF,

Fig. 5. Determination of the volume transfer ratios of CDU fractions.

FG, GH and HI in Fig. 5) between two neighbor dotted vertical lines determines the volume transfer ratio of a CDU fraction. In Fig. 5, the volume transfer ratios of GO, HN, LD, HD and BR are 11.5, 4.0, 21.0, 11.5 and 52 (=100 48.0), respectively. 3.2. Determination of operation modes Since a CDU fraction is still a mixture of many hydrocarbons, it has a boiling range. To meet the demand for different specications of products from different customers or to maximize the total prot, the renery has to adjust the operation conditions to change the properties of CDU fractions; hence the boiling ranges of CDU fractions vary under different operation conditions. A typical ASTM boiling range of CDU fractions is listed in Table 2 (Watkins, 1979). The end points (EPs, the temperature at which a distillate is 100% vaporized) and initial boiling points (IBPs, the temperature at which a distillate begins to boil) of CDU fractions provided by Watkins (1979) are adopted in Table 2. The IBPs of HN and BR, which were not included in Watkins (1979), were estimated here (see Appendix A.2 for details). Note that
Table 2 ASTM boiling ranges of CDU fractions ( F) CDU fractions GO EP HN IBP EP LD IBP EP HD IBP EP BR IBP Boiling range 260275 270 325400 300375 550600 525575 675 635652

W. Li et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 29 (2005) 20102028 Table 3 TBP boiling ranges of CDU fractions ( F) CDU fractions GO EP HN IBP EP LD IBP EP HD IBP EP BR IBP Boiling range 276.5290.9 235.4 340.6418.4 257.3325.1 577.9631.1 488.6545.0 711.3 611.8630.6

2015

operation modes dened here are used for demonstrating the approach in this paper. Other sets of operation modes, such as the frequently used ve operation modes or the eight operation modes dened in Brooks et al. (1999), are categorized for other CDUs according to their design and operation conditions. In fact, the approach that we developed is independent of the number of operation modes. One can maximize the yield of only one product on any given operation (Watkins, 1979). Thus, a CDU can be at only one operation mode at one time. A renery can determine the operation of the CDU to be either at one of the operation modes or somewhere among these operation modes. 3.3. Determination of cutpoints Due to the limitation of stage number and reux ratio, the TBP boiling ranges of two adjacent CDU fractions always overlap. To specify the separation temperature being used in conventional distillation columns between two adjacent fractions, a cutpoint is used. It is dened as the mid-point of the TBP overlapping temperatures (TBP cutpoint = 0.5(EPL + IBPH ), where EPL is the EP of the light fraction and IBPH is the IBP of adjacent heavy fraction). The denition of TBP cutpoint between two fractions is shown in Fig. 6 (Watkins, 1979). The TBP cutpoint (point D) is the average temperature of the EP of light fraction (point A) and the IBP of heavy fraction (point B). With the TBP cutpoints among fractions determined, the corresponding volume transfer ratios of CDU fractions can then be obtained using the procedure described in Section 3.1. 3.4. Determination of volume transfer ratio range (VTR) In a renery, adjusting the cutpoints will change the volume transfer ratios (hence ow rates) and properties of CDU fractions that affect the overall economics of the renery. The cutpoints among CDU fractions can be calculated using the procedure proposed in Section 3.3. These cutpoints are then used to determine VTR. The maximum volume transfer ratio of a CDU fraction is called the upper limit of the VTR while

most of the reneries provide ASTM boiling ranges to dene CDU fractions, from which the boiling ranges can be adopted in Table 2. Although ASTM boiling ranges can be easily obtained and used conveniently for product identications, they cannot be used directly to estimate weight transfer ratios of CDU fractions. Thus, ASTM boiling ranges should be converted to TBP boiling ranges. The conversion method is described in Appendix A.4. Table 3 lists the converted TBP boiling ranges from the ASTM boiling ranges of Table 2. Table 3 provides rough TBP ranges of the CDU fractions. For instance, if GO is the preferable product, the EP of GO should be increased to its maximum value (290.9 F); if HN is the preferable product, then a smaller value (276.5 F) is assigned to the EP of GO. With this understanding, the TBP boiling ranges of three CDU operation modes can then be determined (Table 4). These operation modes are maximizing heavy naphtha (MN), maximizing light distillate (ML) and maximizing heavy distillate (MH). The number of operation modes dened above is relatively small and thus has a potential to reduce the size of a planning model. Note that the three
Table 4 TBP boiling ranges of CDU fractions in the three operation modes CDU fractions GO EP HN IBP EP LD IBP EP HD IBP EP BR IBP MN ( F) 276.5 235.4 418.4 325.1 631.1 545.0 711.3 611.8 ML ( F) 290.9 235.4 340.6 257.3 631.1 545.0 711.3 611.8 MH ( F) 290.9 235.4 340.6 257.3 577.9 488.6 711.3 630.6

Fig. 6. Denition of cutpoint between two fractions.

2016

W. Li et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 29 (2005) 20102028

Fig. 7. Denition of VTR.

the minimum value, the lower limit of the VTR. This procedure is illustrated in Fig. 7. For MN mode, using the data given in Table 4, the cutpoints of HN can be calculated (256 F for GO/HN and 372 F for HN/LD). Then the corresponding volume transfer ratio of HN is obtained 10.6% (=24.2 13.6%) as shown by segments CD. Similarly, cutpoints in ML mode (263 F for GO/HN and 299 F for HN/LD) can be calculated, the corresponding volume transfer ratio of HN is obtained 3.2% (=17.4 14.2%) as shown by segments AB. The cutpoints in the MH mode are the same as those in the ML mode in this case, thus the volume transfer ratio of HN in MH mode is the same. The upper limit of the VTR of HN is then 10.6% and the lower limit is 3.2%. Thus, the VTR of HN is (3.2% and 10.6%). In a renery, ow rates of CDU fractions are often based on weight. It is more convenient to express the ratios of CDU fractions as weight transfer ratios. The volume transfer ratio in crude oil TBP curve should then be converted to weight transfer ratio and the VTRs become WTRs. To perform this conversion, the API gravity (API gravity = 15.6 131.5, where d 15.6 is the specic density at 141.5/d15 .6 15.6 60 F) has to be used. This API gravity is usually included in a crude assay. As an illustration, the crude assay data from Watkins (1979) are used here to calculate the API gravity of crude oil and CDU fractions (see Appendix A.3 for details). For the example illustrated in Fig. 7, the corresponding WTR is (2.8% and 9.5%). The VTR/WTR focuses on the transfer ratio range of a fraction while the commonly used swing cut is a pseudo-cut that exists between two fractions. The sizes of swing cuts can be determined with the knowledge of VTR/WTR, and vice versa. For the example illustrated in Fig. 7, the size of the swing cut (if expressed as volume ratio on crude feed) between GO and HN is 0.6% (=14.2 13.6%) which is small and the size of the swing cut between HN and LD is 6.8% (=24.2 17.4%) which is rather large. The accurate sizes of swing cuts can thus be determined by the procedure proposed in this paper. For easy integration of the CDU model with the main planning model, VTR/WTR is used in this paper.

Fig. 8. Procedure for WTRs determination of CDU fractions.

3.5. WTR determination procedure The procedure described in Sections 3.13.4 for determining the WTR of CDU fractions is summarized in this section and illustrated in Fig. 8. The manual procedure described by Watkins (1979), the accuracy of which is tested by rigorous simulation in Appendix B.1, is used for computer calculation. The procedure uses ASTM boiling ranges of CDU fractions and crude assay data available in most reneries. The detailed procedure consists of four major steps as follows. Step 1. The determination of ASTM D86 boiling ranges and operation modes The ASTM boiling ranges of CDU fractions can be obtained from reneries, CDU designers or from literatures (e.g., Gary & Handwerk, 2001). These ASTM boiling ranges are used as the starting point of the procedure proposed here. The ASTM boiling ranges used in this paper are listed in Table 2. These ASTM boiling ranges are converted to TBP boiling ranges using the correlations developed by Watkins (1979) (see Appendix A.4 for details). Other correlations (Arnold, 1985) for ASTM to TBP boiling range conversion can also be used according to their accuracies for different crude oils. The converted TBP boiling ranges are listed in Table 3 and the TBP boiling ranges of the three operation modes are then determined and listed in Table 4. Step 2. Calculate the cutpoints for operation modes The cutpoints for operation modes are calculated using the method described in Section 3.3. For example, to calculate the

W. Li et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 29 (2005) 20102028 Table 5 Calculated cutpoints ( F) GO/HN MN ML MH 255.9 263.1 263.1 HN/LD 371.8 298.9 298.9 LD/HD 588.0 588.0 533.2 HD/BR 661.6 661.6 670.9

2017

Step 4. Determination of WTR After the weight transfer ratios corresponding to the operation modes obtained in Step 3, the maximum and minimum weight transfer ratios are selected from the modes for each CDU fraction. The maximum and minimum volume and weight transfer ratios are listed in the third and fourth columns of Table 6, respectively. For example, the number 11.73 in the fourth column is the maximum value of the three numbers (11.17, 11.72, 11.73) in the second last column; the number 11.17 in the fourth column is the minimum value of the three numbers (11.17, 11.72, 11.73) in the second last column. These maximum and minimum weight transfer ratios are then sent to the main planning model as WTRs to optimize the cutpoints of CDU fractions. It is assumed that the crude oil is Tia Juana Light and the crude assay data from Watkins (1979) are used in this paper. The calculated WTRs are also compared with results of rigorous simulation in Appendix B.2.

cutpoint between GO and HN in the MN mode, we know from Table 4 that EPL is 276.5 F and IBPH is 235.4 F, therefore the cutpoint of GO/HN is (276.5 + 235.4)0.5 = 255.9 F. The calculated cutpoints are listed in Table 5. Step 3. Calculate CDU fractions weight transfer ratios for the operation modes The crude oil TBP data and CDU fractions API data from crude assay are correlated to form the crude oil TBP equation and CDU fractions API equations (See Appendix A.3 for details). The calculated cutpoints for operation modes (Table 5) are then sent to crude oil TBP equation to calculate the volume transfer ratios of CDU fractions. For example, the cutpoint for GO/HN in the MN mode (255.9 F) is sent to crude oil TBP equation and then the volume transfer ratio of GO (13.61) in this mode can be obtained. The API gravity of each fraction is calculated by inserting its volume transfer ratio into its API gravity equation. Using this calculated API gravity, the volume transfer ratio of a CDU fraction is then converted to weight transfer ratio. The above procedure is performed for each operation mode to obtain the weight transfer ratios of CDU fractions in each mode. The calculated API gravities of CDU fractions are listed in the last column of Table 6. The calculated weight transfer ratios and volume transfer ratios for each operation mode are listed in the second last and the third last columns of Table 6, respectively.
Table 6 Calculated transfer ratios and WTRs VTR (vol.%) GO H L HN H L LD H L HD H L BR H L 14.23 13.61 WTR (wt.%) 11.73 11.17 MN ML MH MN ML MH MN ML MH MN ML MH MN ML MH vol.% 13.61 14.23 14.23 10.60 3.17 3.17 20.98 27.79 22.52 6.91 6.91 13.04 47.90 47.90 47.04 wt.% 11.17 11.72 11.73 9.46 2.79 2.79 20.04 26.21 21.03 6.88 6.87 12.89 52.45 52.40 51.56 API 67.2 66.1 66.1 51.0 53.5 53.5 39.0 41.1 42.9 32.0 32.0 33.2 17.3 17.3 17.1

4. Model for FCC fractions transfer ratios 4.1. Description of the procedure A procedure for the determination of FCC fractions weight transfer ratios (the weight percentage of a FCC fraction over the overall FCC feed) as a function of FCC conversion is proposed in this section. The major operating variables affecting the FCC conversion level are the cracking temperature, catalyst/oil ratio, space velocity, etc. The hand-calculation procedure described by Gary and Handwerk (2001) is implemented in our proposed procedure. The procedure is illustrated in Fig. 9. Firstly, we obtained FCC fractions yield correlations (when zeolite catalyst is used in FCC) from gures provided by Gary and Handwerk (2001) (see Appendix C for details). Then the feed properties, API gravity and Watson characterization factor were read. The lower limit and upper limit of FCC conversion are determined according to FCC operation conditions such as the regenerator coke burning ability. The conversion range used in this paper is (60% and 85%). This is followed up by a sequence of actions: Set the conversion level to its lower limit (60%), perform FCC material balance according to the procedure described by Gary and Handwerk (2001), and calculate the weight transfer ratios of FCC fractions. Next, there is the need to increase the conversion by a small value (2%) and calculate the weight transfer ratios corresponding to the current conversion level until the conversion level reaches its upper limit (85%). Finally, using the data obtained above, FCC fractions weight transfer ratios and FCC conversion level are correlated. An equation of each FCC fraction weight transfer ratio versus FCC conversion level is now obtained and can be used in renery-planning model to optimize the FCC conversion level. Table 7 lists the correlations for FCC fractions (the feed properties is assumed to be: Watson characteriza-

10.60 3.17

9.46 2.79

27.79 20.98

26.21 20.04

13.04 6.91

12.89 6.87

47.90 47.04

52.45 51.56

2018

W. Li et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 29 (2005) 20102028

the improvement of relevant technologies, the FCC model can be readily updated with higher accuracy. Further improvement for this procedure can be made by: Updating the gures provided by Gary and Handwerk (2001). It is pointed out (Magee, Maurice, & Mitchell, 1993) that as the improvement of catalysts and unit design, the yield data of FCC fractions will change and hence corresponding gures should be updated. Besides, the yield of gasoline versus conversion keeps increasing in the gure provided in Gary and Handwerk (2001). In reality, the yield of gasoline will decrease as the conversion increases to a certain value. It is assumed in this paper that the feed properties of FCC feed remain constant. However, the physical properties of the feed will change as the recycle stock or the CDU operation conditions change. This should be considered in future works.

5. Product blending Blending is a very important and complicated issue in renery planning. As a demonstration, two commonly used blending models are described in this section. However, the whole modeling concept is not limited to these two blending models, which can be replaced by other state-of-the-art models. 5.1. Blending rule Some quality indicators, such as octane number and freezing point, are used to prove whether or not the gasoline meets the quality specications. In the case of diesel oil, pour point, cetane number and viscosity, among others, are used as key quality indicators. In this paper, octane number (ON) and pour point (PP) are used as the quality index of gasoline and diesel oil, respectively. Gasoline blending In gasoline blending, the octane number of a blended product can be simply calculated using the following linear equations: Oi fi = Op fp fi = fp where Oi is the octane number of intermediate stream i, fi the ow rate of the intermediate stream i, Op the octane number of product p, and fp is the sum of fi . Diesel oil blending For diesel blending, diesel properties such as pour point cannot be calculated using a simple linear equation. Some correlations have been proposed for diesel oil blending. Reid and Allen (1951) used linear combination of pour

Fig. 9. Procedure for correlations of FCC fractions weight transfer ratios.

tion factor = 11.8, API = 19). In Table 7, WT represents the weight transfer ratio of C2C4 or FCC gasoline, etc. Conv represents the conversion level of FCC. For different feed properties of FCC, one can apply the same procedure described above to obtain the same type of correlations with different parameters. 4.2. Discussion of the procedure The discrepancy between the correlations obtained above and the gures provided by Gary and Handwerk (2001) is about 13%, which is within the accuracy of those gures. The procedure is much simpler and faster compared with a rigorous FCC model. The required input (API gravity and characterization factor of the feed) can also be easily obtained from reneries. The emphasis of the FCC model proposed in this paper was put on its solution speed and the effectiveness so that it can be integrated into the main planning model directly. Since the inputoutput relationship of FCC can be updated by some online learning methods or through
Table 7 Correlations for FCC fractions a0 C2C4 Gasoline TGO Coke 0.20624 0.44699 0.2922 0.05455 a1 0.00323 0.004367 0.00842 0.000816 a2 3.6E05 5.7E05 3.59E06 1.73E05 z 72.92857 72.92857 72.92857 72.92857

WT = a0 + a1 (conv z) + a2 (conv z)2 .

W. Li et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 29 (2005) 20102028 Table 8 Correlations of the properties of CDU fractions a0 GO HN LD HD 58.8138 49.9794 395.9257a 509.9056a a1 2.2372 1.8023 4.7582 3.0821 a2 0.0699 0.0641 0.0454 0.0261 z 6.4876 10.6140 26.3285 54.9158

2019

ON (or PP) = a0 + a1 (Mid WTR-z) + a2 (Mid WTR z)2 . a Pour points of LD and HD are converted to the Rankine degree.

point blending indexes of intermediate streams to predict product pour points. Hu and Burns (1970) proposed a nonlinear one-parameter pour point equation. Semwal and Varshney (1995) proposed an improved nonlinear correlation, which is used in this paper:
n B Tb = i=1

(Vi )A (Ti )B

where Tb is the pour point of product, Vi and Ti are volume fraction and pour point (in the Rankine degree, R) of intermediate stream i, respectively. Four sets of parameters A and B are given in different pour point ranges. The wide pour point range (from 21 to 51 C) is used in this paper. The corresponding values of A and B are 1.105 and 12.987, respectively. 5.2. Calculation of the properties of CDU fractions The octane numbers or pour points of CDU fractions will change as the cutpoints of CDU change. In our planning model, the octane numbers or pour points of CDU fractions are correlated to their mid-point weight transfer ratios. The relationship between mid-point volume transfer ratio (Mid VTR) and octane number/pour point are given by Watkins (1979). In this paper, mid-point weight transfer ratio (Mid WTR) is used instead of Mid VTR for consistence. The equations for relating mid-point weight transfer ratios and octane numbers/pour points from the crude assay data provided by Watkins (1979) are given in Table 8. In Table 8, the outputs of row GO and HN are octane numbers (ON) while the outputs of row LD and HD are pour points (PP).

Fig. 10. Flow diagram for solving the renery-planning model.

Read initial data, which include the data of unit capacities, unit operation costs, initial octane numbers and pour points and CDU WTRs. Integrate the CDU and FCC models with the main NLP planning model and solve the main model. Compare to the rigorous CDU and FCC models, the solution time of the two CDU and FCC models proposed here was reduced signicantly. In most of the cases tested in this study, the CPU time needed to solve the main planning model is 0.10.2 s.

7. Case studies Several case studies demonstrate the effectiveness of the CDU and FCC models proposed in this paper. The reneryplanning model is formulated in GAMS (Brooke, Kendrick, & Meeraus, 1992) on a 933 MHz Pentium III PC. The code MINOS5 in GAMS 2.25 is used for NLP. The planning model is described in Appendix D. The conguration of the cases studied here is illustrated in Fig. 4. The price data for these cases are listed in Table 1. The unit capacities, operation costs, market demands for products and blending requirements for blending units are described in Section 2. The inuences of different CDU cutpoint setting methods on total prot will be studied in Section 7.1 while the inuences of different FCC conversion level determination methods on total prot and FCC fractions weight transfer ratios will be studied in Section 7.2. Finally Section 7.3 studies the inuences of different methods of determining CDU fractions properties on total prot and the weight transfer ratios of CDU fractions.

6. Main ow diagram for solving the renery-planning model The main ow diagram for solving the renery-planning model is illustrated in Fig. 10. The whole procedure consists of the following steps: Call CDU WTR determination model to calculate the maximum and minimum weight transfer ratios of CDU fractions. Call FCC yield model to obtain equations of FCC fraction weight transfer ratio versus FCC conversion. These equations are used in the renery model.

2020

W. Li et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 29 (2005) 20102028

Table 9 Fixed CDU fractions weight transfer ratios in the three modes (%) GO MN ML MH 11.17 11.72 11.73 HN 9.46 2.79 2.79 LD 20.04 26.21 21.03 HD 6.88 6.87 12.89 BR 52.45 52.40 51.56

of raw materials and products, unit operation costs, and processing constraints, etc. The results of this case study are mainly consistent with those of Brooks et al. (1999) with total prot maximized and simpler procedure. 7.2. FCC conversion optimization The FCC severity (expressed as conversion level) is a very important parameter in a renery. Similar to the setting of the cutpoints, the optimal FCC conversion should also be decided according to the current situation. Two cases are studied in this section (The CDU fractions weight transfer ratios and properties can be varied and optimized). The FCC conversion is xed at 65.0% in the rst case while the FCC conversion level is calculated and optimized in the planning model in the second case. The results are listed in Table 11. It can be seen from the table that the total prot of the xed conversion level case decreased by 2.1% compared to the optimal conversion (73.4%) case. A renery should then adjust the FCC operation conditions, such as reaction temperature or catalyst/oil ratio, to change the conversion to the optimal value. 7.3. Physical properties calculation Most of the research works of renery planning still assumed that the properties of CDU fractions are constant. However, following the change of the cutpoints, the properties of fractions will also change. From Appendix B.3, it can be seen that the octane numbers of CDU fractions change several units in different situations. Table 12 lists the comparison of different calculation methods of properties (The CDU weight transfer ratios and FCC conversion level can be varied by the planning model). In the rst row, the octane numbers and pour points are calculated whenever the cutpoint settings are changed while the octane numbers and pour points are estimated and xed in the second and the third rows. After the planning model is solved (the rst row), the nal properties can be obtained. For example, it is found that the nal octane number of CDU gross overhead is 60.9. This value can be used in gasoline blending to calculate the yield of nal gasoline products. If the properties are estimated and

Table 10 Comparison of CDU cutpoint setting methods Modes Optimal MN ML MH Total prot (yuan) 551738 416808 548350 549487 CDU fractions weight transfer ratios (%) GO HN LD HD BR 11.17 11.17 11.72 11.73 2.79 9.46 2.79 2.79 26.21 20.04 26.21 21.03 8.27 6.88 6.87 12.89 51.56 52.45 52.40 51.56

7.1. CDU cutpoints determination Up to now, many reneries still use one of the operation modes, such as MN, ML or MH, as their CDU operation condition, whose cutpoint setting of CDU fractions is not optimal. Different cutpoint setting methods are compared here (The FCC conversion level and CDU fractions properties in these cases can be varied by the planning model). Firstly, a renery may x the weight transfer ratios of CDU fractions at either MN, ML or MH mode. (The xed weight transfer ratios of these modes are listed in Table 9.) The corresponding solution results are listed in the second to fourth rows of Table 10. The optimal solution (in which the weight transfer ratios of CDU fractions are optimized) obtained by solving the planning model proposed in this paper, is listed in the rst row. It can be seen that the optimal cutpoint setting is located somewhere among the operation modes. If the cutpoints setting is xed for MN, the prot will decrease by 24.5%. After the determination of CDU WTRs from the proposed procedure and the data obtained from reneries, the optimal cutpoint can be calculated by solving the planning model. A renery should not set the CDU cutpoints according to any of the operation modes arbitrarily. The optimal cutpoint should be obtained by solving the planning model with the consideration of factors such as current market prices
Table 11 Comparison of different FCC conversions FCC conversion Fixed (65.0%) Optimal (73.4%) Total prot (yuan) 540279 551738 Recycle ratio 0.5 0.404

FCC fractions weight transfer ratios (%) C2C4 Gasoline Heavy oil 18.3 20.8 40.9 44.9 35.9 28.8

Coke 4.9 5.5

Table 12 CDU fractions properties calculation Total prot (yuan) ON and PP changeable ON and PP estimated and xed ON and PP estimated and xed 551738 544421 581482 Octane numbers (ON) or pour points (PP) GO (ON) HN (ON) LD (PP) HD (PP) 60.9 50.0 82.0 46.7 65.0 65.0 51.2 40.0 40.0 9.7 5.0 5.0 Weight transfer ratios (%) GO HN LD HD 11.17 11.17 11.73 2.79 2.79 2.79 26.21 26.21 26.21 8.27 8.27 7.71 BR 51.56 51.56 51.56

W. Li et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 29 (2005) 20102028

2021

xed to certain values, for example, the octane numbers of GO and HN are xed to 50.0 and 65.0, respectively and the pour points of LD and HD to 40.0 and 5.0 C respectively, then the total prot may be underestimated (the second row) or overestimated (the third row) and the corresponding CDU cutpoint setting and product yields will also be inuenced. The reason is that the product quality in the second row was underestimated (The real octane number of 90# gasoline is 92.7) while the product quality in the third row was overestimated (The real octane number of 90# gasoline is 88.3). The renery may lose the potential of earning more money (the second row) or risk the products refused by customers (the third row). Thus, it is important to calculate the properties of CDU fractions using some correlations. 8. Conclusions In this paper, the optimal planning strategies of reneries are studied and a procedure for the CDU WTRs determination is proposed. A yield model is used for the determination of equations of FCC fractions weight transfer ratios versus FCC conversion level. With the CDU and FCC models integrated into the planning model, the CDU cutpoints and FCC conversion level can be optimized accurately. The properties of CDU fractions are calculated in the model to reect the inuence of CDU cutpoints changes that guarantee the quality of the nal products. Finally, several case studies are described and solved using the proposed planning model to illustrate the signicance of the CDU and FCC models and the calculation of CDU fractions properties. Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge nancial support from the Research Grant Council of Hong Kong (Grant No. HKUST6014/99P & DAG00/01.EG05), the National Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 79931000) and the Major State Basic Research Development Program (G2000026308). Appendix A A.1. Denition of ASTM and TBP curves True boiling point (TBP) is run in columns with 15 or more theoretical plates, which provides a very accurate component distribution for the material being tested. However, due to the large sample size and time requirement, TBP tests are generally only run on crude oil streams. The ASTM D86 test, which is the standardized method established by the American Society for Testing Materials, is a batch laboratory distillation involving approximately one equilibrium stage and no reux. ASTM D86 test is mainly applied for products and petroleum fractions such as CDU fractions. Typical TBP and ASTM

Fig. A1. TBP and ASTM curves for a CDU distillate.

curves of a CDU fraction are shown in Fig. A1. Points A and B in Fig. A1 are the initial boiling points (IBP) of TBP and ASTM curves of a CDU distillate, respectively. IBP is the temperature at which a distillate begins to boil. Points C and D in Fig. A1 are the end points (EP) of TBP and ASTM curves of a CDU distillate. EP is the temperature at which a distillate is 100% vaporized. Even though the ASTM tests are the simplest and most common distillations performed on petroleum fractions, they do not provide the type of information given in TBP distillations necessary for prediction of operating conditions or equipment design. Thus, the ASTM data of petroleum fractions need to be converted to TBP data using some correlations. A.2. Estimation of the IBPs of HN and BR The IBPs of HN are estimated in this paper with the consideration of the ASTM (5-95) Gap between GO and HN. The ASTM (5-95) Gap denes the relative degree of separation between adjacent fractions. It is determined by subtracting the 95 vol.% ASTM temperature of a fraction from the 5 vol.% ASTM temperature of the adjacent heavy fraction (Watkins, 1979). The ASTM (5-95) Gap between GO and HN recommended by Watkins (1979) is +20 to +30 F. The IBPs of BR are estimated using a trial-and-error method with the consideration of the TBP overlap between HD and BR. TBP overlap is determined by subtracting the TBP EP of a fraction from the TBP IBP of the adjacent heavy fraction (TBP overlap = EPL IBPH ). A TBP overlap of 80100 F between HD and BR is recommended by Watkins (1979). A.3. Correlations of crude oil TBP curve and API gravity The crude oil TBP data and CDU fractions API data from crude assay provided by Watkins (1979) are correlated using LSM to form the crude oil TBP equation (Eq. (A.1)) and CDU fractions API equations (Eqs. (A.2) and (A.3)). The volume transfer ratios of CDU fractions can be calculated by inserting cutpoints into Eq. (A.1). Eq. (A.2) is obtained after correlating the API gravity data of CDU fractions (except BR) from crude assay data. The API gravity of BR is corre-

2022

W. Li et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 29 (2005) 20102028

A.4. Conversion of ASTM boiling ranges to TBP boiling ranges The ASTM boiling ranges are converted to TBP boiling ranges using the correlation proposed by Watkins (1979). The gure for the relationships between ASTM and TBP initial and nal boiling points provided by Watkins (1979) are correlated in this paper to form Eqs. (A.4) and (A.5). The ASTM IBPs are converted to TBP IBPs using Eq. (A.4) while the ASTM EPs are converted to TBP EPs using Eq. (A.5):
4

TBP IBP =
Fig. A2. Denition of mid-point volume transfer ratio.
i=0

ai (ASTM IBP z)i

(A.4)

lated into Eq. (A.3). The API gravity of each fraction can be calculated by inserting the volume transfer ratio of each fraction into Eq. (A.2) or (A.3). Note that in Eq. (A.2), the API gravity is correlated to the mid-point volume transfer ratios. The denition of a mid-point volume transfer ratio is shown in Fig. A2. The mid-point volume transfer ratio of a CDU fraction is half of its volume transfer ratio plus the sum of the volume transfer ratios of fractions that are lighter than it. For example, in Fig. A2, D is the mid-point of segments AB, E is the mid-point of segments BC, then the mid-point volume transfer ratio of GO is shown by segments AD and the mid-point volume transfer ratio of HN is shown by segments AE (=AB + BE).
6

where TBP IBP is the calculated TBP IBP, ASTM IBP the ASTM IBP; a0 : 522.458, a1 : 1.1274, a2 : 8.27E05, a3 : 8.19E07, a4 : 3.336E09, z: 555.0
4

TBP EP =
i=0

ai (ASTM EP z)i

(A.5)

where TBP EP is the calculated TBP EP, ASTM EP the ASTM EP; a0 : 547.783, a1 : 1.06536, a2 : 8.53E06, a3 : 8.5E08, a4 : 1.41E09, z: 521.769.

Appendix B. Comparison with rigorous CDU simulation results Part of the manual method described by Watkins (1979) is transformed for computer calculation and applied for WTRs determination in this paper (described in Section 3.5). In this appendix, the accuracies of the Watkins method, the WTRs determination procedure and the fractions property calculation are tested by rigorous CDU simulation using Aspen Plus version 11.1 (Aspentech, 2001). The conguration of the CDU is the same as example 2.5 in Watkins (1979). The CDU has 29 stages in which the condenser is the rst stage. Crude oil was fed at stage 26. There exist three sidestrippers, which draw oils from the main column at stages 7, 15 and 21, respectively. Each sidestripper has four stages. The ow rates of the stripping steams of the main column and sidestrippers 13# are 12,000, 4292, 7250 and 4167 Ib/h, respectively. No pumparound exists in this example. The condenser and the bottom stage pressures are 27.8 and 38.5 psi, respectively. The furnace overash is 2.0 volume percent of crude feed. The crude feed has a ow rate of 100,000 bbl/day, a temperature 200 F and pressure 60 psi. The crude oil is Tia Juana Light and the crude assay data (including the TBP curve, light ends composition and the API gravity curve) from Watkins (1979) are used. The simulation is carried out with pseudocomponents spaced at 8 F in the range 100800 F and 10 F in the range 8001640 F.

VOL =
i=0

ai (TBP CP z)i

(A.1)

where VOL is the percent volume transfer ratios, TBP CP the TBP cutpoint temperature; a0 : 31.25, a1 : 0.09775, a2 : 3.22E06, a3 : 7.646E08, a4 : 1.1817E10, a5 : 2.28E14, a6 : 1.366E16, z: 444.25
8

API =
i=0

ai (Mid Vol z)i

(A.2)

where API is the API gravity of the CDU fraction (except BR), Mid Vol the Mid-volume transfer ratio of the CDU fraction; a0 : 35.4666, a1 : 0.476, a2 : 0.0034, a3 : 0.0005855, a4 : 0.0000291, a5 : 1.02E06, a6 : 3.7E08, a7 : 5.4E10, a8 : 1.6E11; z: 41.97
2

BR API =
i=0

ai (Vol z)i

(A.3)

where BR API is the Bottom residua API gravity, Vol the percent volume transfer ratio of BR; a0 : 15.552, a1 : 0.2932, a2 : 0.00199, z: 41.6875.

W. Li et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 29 (2005) 20102028 Table B1 Actual EP settings ( F) used in the CDU simulation GO Watkins example 2.5 MN ML MH 275 260 275 275 HN 380 400 330 330 LD 560 600 600 550 HD 740 740 740 740 Table B3 Weight transfer ratios of CDU fractions by Aspen Plus simulation Methods MN ASPEN This paper ML ASPEN This paper MH ASPEN This paper GO 9.87 11.17 12.04 11.72 12.05 11.73 HN 12.66 9.46 2.45 2.79 2.47 2.79 LD 16.97 20.04 25.47 26.21 21.43 21.03 HD 5.30 6.88 4.58 6.87 10.22 12.89

2023

BR 55.20 52.45 55.46 52.40 53.83 51.56

B.1. Comparison of the Watkins CDU calculation results The end point settings of CDU fractions used in the Aspen Plus simulation are listed in the rst row of Table B1. Note that the EP of HD is changed to 740 F because the EPs of heavy fractions (HD and BR) calculated by Aspen Plus are higher due to different property calculation methods used by Aspen Plus and Watkins. Table B2 shows the Aspen Plus simulation results and the results calculated by Watkins. In Table B2, it can be seen that the difference of the mass balance between the two methods is rather small. For heat balance, as one of the gures showing the accuracy, the calculated heat duty of the condenser by Watkins is 205.147 MMBTU/h while by Aspen Plus is 203.914 MMBTU/h, where the difference is 0.6%. The method by transforming the Watkins manual procedure to computer calculation is much faster than the Aspen Plus simulation. The CDU mass balance by the method described in Section 3.5 can be nished in 1 s while the Aspen Plus CDU simulation model needs around 30190 s to obtain the results. Another drawback of Aspen Plus CDU simulation model is its instability. We found that Aspen Plus CDU simulation model sometimes gives us signicantly different results even though we only reinitialize the calculation without any changes or we change the value of a parameter a bit. It thus brings oscillations into main planning model when incorporating Aspen Plus CDU simulation model into a commercial software such as Aspen PIMSTM (Aspentech). We conclude that the method described in Section 3.5 has higher accuracy than the traditional linear CDU models and better solution speed than a rigorous simulation model. B.2. Comparison of WTRs The Aspen Plus CDU simulation model is used to calculate the WTRs by setting the end points of CDU fractions at
Table B2 Results of CDU mass balance Methods Mass ow (Ib/h) ASPEN Watkins Mass ratio (%) ASPEN Watkins Difference (%) GO 142386 138802 11.26 10.98 2.48 HN 113245 116175 8.95 9.19 2.63

Table B4 WTRs of CDU fractions This paper GO H L HN H L LD H L HD H L BR H L 11.73 11.17 9.46 2.79 26.21 20.04 12.89 6.87 52.45 51.56 ASPEN 12.05 9.87 12.66 2.45 25.47 16.97 10.22 4.58 55.46 53.83

three operation modes (rows 24 in Table B1). The IBPs of CDU fractions are ignored for easy convergence. The weight transfer ratios of CDU fractions calculated by Aspen Plus CDU simulation model and method used in this paper are listed in Table B3. The calculated WTRs of CDU fractions are listed in Table B4. In Tables B3 and B4, it can be seen that the difference of the results between the two methods is rather small. The differences may originate from different correlations used for property calculation and CDU mass balance and other unknown parameters such as the Murphree efciencies of stages. In the Watkins manual calculation, some correlations were read from graphs, which may bring inaccuracies. For example, a curve for converting ASTM initial

LD 203083 208728 16.05 16.51 2.82

HD 123952 124958 9.80 9.88 0.85

BR 682363 675879 53.94 53.45 0.91

2024 Table B5 ONs of CDU fractions WTRs This paper GO H L HN H L 11.73 11.17 9.46 2.79 ASPEN 12.05 9.87 12.66 2.45

W. Li et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 29 (2005) 20102028 Table C2 Coefcients of C3 correlations ON This paper 60.2 60.9 42.2 45.9 ASPEN C3 60.0 62.7 42.4 43.6 2.759957 0.0558333 0.000574 70 a0 a1 a2 x Maximum absolute bias 0.06

boiling points to TBP initial boiling points (see Appendix A.4 for details) was used. With updated correlations, the accuracy of the calculation can be readily improved. B.3. Comparison of property calculation As the change of the weight transfer ratios of CDU fractions, the properties of CDU fractions will also change. Table B5 lists the calculated octane numbers of GO and HN corresponding to the maximal and minimal weight transfer ratios. Note that due to the nonlinearity of the property calculation, the maximal and minimal values of CDU fractions properties may not happen when the weight transfer ratios take their maximal or minimal values. It can be seen that the octane numbers of CDU fractions change several units in different situations. Assuming xed octane numbers of CDU fractions may not guarantee the quality of nal products and may obtain sub-optimal planning results. Similar results can be obtained for pour points calculation of CDU fractions.

WT% means the output is weight transfer ratio; VOL% means the output is volume transfer ratio and API means the output is API gravity. Columns x and y show the two input variables. In x, Conv is the FCC conversion level (in percentage); in y, K is the Watson characterization factor of FCC feed and API is the API gravity of FCC feed. Note that Fuel Gas, C3=, C4=, i-C4, and n-C4 in Table C1 are aggregated into one FCC fraction C2C4 (Fig. 4) in our planning model, TGO is the aggregate of HGO and LGO. Table C2 shows the correlated result of C3. The equation used 2 for Table C2 is Vol = a0 + a1 (conv x - ) + a2 (conv x -) , where Vol is the volume transfer ration of C3 and Conv is the conversion level of FCC. Appendix D. Denitions and mathematical formulations of the main planning model D.1. Denitions of indices and parameters

Appendix C. Correlations of FCC fractions weight transfer ratios Relevant gures provided by Gary and Handwerk (2001) are correlated using LSM for computer calculation (Tables C1 and C2). As the results in Table C1 show, the 2 i1 equation z = 3 )j1 should be i=1 j =1 aij (x x - ) (y y used to calculate the weight or volume transfer ratios of FCC fractions or the API gravity of FCC fractions. In column z,
Table C1 Coefcients of FCC fractions correlations z Coke Fuel Gas C3= C4= i-C4 n-C4 Gasoline HGO TGO Gasoline HGO WT% WT% VOL% VOL% VOL% VOL% VOL% API API API VOL% x Conv Conv Conv Conv Conv Conv Conv Conv Conv Conv Conv y K K API API API API K API API API K a11 4.58 4.714 5.793 8.515 5.956 2.2747 56.3968 8.7429 8.0929 6.2337 5.47656 a12 2.366 1.392 0.2659 0.0757 0.1091 0.064 6.7027 0.04592 0.078 0.00125 0.08523 a21 0.0644 0.05092 0.104 0.14736 0.0998 0.03557 0.63864 0.023367 0.0146 0.001804 0.26131

(a) Indices u different units in the renery, represents CDU and FCC p different types of products, represents 90#, 93# gasoline, 10#, 0# diesel oil, FCC C2C4 and FCC heavy oil, respectively s,ss different fractions from CDU, represents GO, HN, LD, HD and BR, respectively t different fractions from FCC, represents FCC C2C4, gasoline, HO and coke, respectively n coefcients of correlations (b) Sets U units in a renery P types of products

a22 0.02562 0.01424 0.0077 0.00117 0.001716 0.00077 0.28925 0.00013 0.000595 0.00044 0.0108

a31 0.000887 0.001166 0.001775 1.80E05 1.17E-05 5.30E05 0.00486 1.50E05 0.00019 0.000119 5.95E05

a32 0.00306 0.0042 3.00E05 1.40E05 1.10E05 1.00E05 0.016826 1.70E06 7.00E06 2.623E05 0.0002

x 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70.091 70.091 70.091 77.5

y 12.075 12.075 23 23 23 23 12.075 23 23 23 12.075

Maximum absolute bias 0.42 0.48 0.19 0.07 0.06 0.10 2.30 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.21

W. Li et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 29 (2005) 20102028

2025

S number of CDU fractions T number of FCC fractions VSSs,ss combinations when sequence order of ss less than that of s. The order of s increases from 1 to 5 as s changes from s1 to s5 (c) Parameters a denss,n coefcients for specic gravities of LD and HD a fccrtot,n coefcients for FCC fractions weight transfer ratios a props,n coefcients for octane numbers of GO and HN, pour points of LD and HD CAPACITYu the capacity of units C prodp the price of product p C raw the price of crude oil C MTBE the price of MTBE C untu operation cost of unit u ON MTBE, ON U21 octane numbers of MTBE and FCC gasoline, respectively DMmaxp maximum demand for product p (d) Variables CDUrtios weight transfer ratio of CDU fraction s Conv the conversion level of FCC Denss specic gravity of CDU fraction s. Only LD and HD are included Mid wts mid-point weight transfer ratio of CDU fraction s, BR not included MTBEP01 quantity of MTBE that attends the blending of 90# gasoline MTBEP02 quantity of MTBE that attends the blending of 93# gasoline Fcdu frts ow rate of CDU fraction s Ffcc frtt ow rate of FCC fraction t FCCrtiot weight transfer ratio of FCC fraction t Frecycle the recycle ratio of FCC Prop CDUs property of CDU fraction s. It represents octane number for GO and HN, represents pour point ( R) for LD and HD. BR not included prot total prot of the renery qprodp production rate of product p UNITu load of unit u U11P01 quantity of GO that attends the blending of 90# gasoline U11P02 quantity of GO that attends the blending of 93# gasoline U12P01 quantity of HN that attends the blending of 90# gasoline U12P02 quantity of HN that attends the blending of 93# gasoline U13P03 quantity of LD that attends the blending of 10# diesel oil U13P04 quantity of LD that attends the blending of 0# diesel oil U14P03 quantity of HD that attends the blending of 10# diesel oil

U14P04 quantity of HD that attends the blending of 0# diesel oil U21P01 quantity of FCC gasoline that attends the blending of 90# gasoline U21P02 quantity of FCC gasoline that attends the blending of 93# gasoline VPU13P03, VPU14P03 volume ow rates of LD and HD that attend the blending of 10# diesel oil VPU13P04, VPU14P04 volume ow rates of LD and HD that attend the blending of 0# diesel oil D.2. Mathematical formulations D.2.1. Objective function Total prot = money earned by selling products crude oil cost MTBE cost unit operation costs. maximize prot =
pP

qprodp C prodp UNITu=u1 C raw (MTBEP01 + MTBEP02)C MTBE

uU

UNITu C untu

(obj)

D.2.2. Constraints Material balance of units (i) The load of each unit should be less than its capacity: UNITu < CAPACITYu , u U (p1)

Material balance of CDU fractions (ii) The ow rates of gross overhead or heavy naphtha from CDU equal the sum of gross overhead or heavy naphtha that attends the blending of 90# and 93# gasoline. F cdu frts=s1 U11P01 U11P02 = 0 F cdu frts=s2 U12P01 U12P02 = 0 (p2 1) (p2 2)

(iii) The ow rates of light distillate or heavy distillate from CDU equal the sum of light distillate or heavy distillate that attends the blending of 10# and 0# diesel oil. F cdu frts=s3 U13P03 U13P04 = 0 F cdu frts=s4 U14P03 U14P04 = 0 (p2 3) (p2 4)

(iv) The weight transfer ratio of each CDU fraction should be greater than its lower limit and less than its upper limit. 0.1117 CDUrtios=s1 0.1173 0.0279 CDUrtios=s2 0.0946 (p3 1) (p3 2)

2026

W. Li et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 29 (2005) 20102028

0.2004 CDUrtios=s3 0.2621 0.0687 CDUrtios=s4 0.1289 0.5156 CDUrtios=s5 0.5245

(p3 3) (p3 4) (p3 5)

tively in row t of Table 7. Rows t1 to t4 represent the rst to fourth rows of Table 7. (ii) Calculate the ow rates of FCC fractions: F fcc frtt = UNITu=u2 FCCrtiot , (iii) Calculate the FCC feed ow rate: UNITu=u2 = F cdu frts=s5 + F recycle (iv) Calculate the ow rate of FCC recycle: F recycle F cdu frts=s5 0.5 F recycle F fcc frtt =t 3 (p11 1) (p11 2) (p10) t T (p9)

Note that the numbers 0.1117, 0.1173, etc., are CDU WTR limits calculated in CDU WTR determination model. When the ASTM boiling ranges of CDU fractions or crude assay change, the WTR determination model should be calculated again and the above numbers should be updated. (v) The sum of the weight transfer ratios of CDU fractions should be 1: CDUrtios = 1
s S

(p4)

(vi) Calculate the ow rate of CDU fractions: F cdu frts = UNITu=u1 CDUrtios , s S (p5)

0.5 is the upper limit of the recycle ratio used in this paper. (v) The FCC conversion level should be greater than its lower limit and less than its upper limit: 85 Conv 60 85 and 60 are respectively the upper limit and lower limit of FCC conversion level used in this paper. (vi) The ow rate of FCC gasoline equals the sum of FCC gasoline that attends 90# and 93# gasoline blending: F fcc frtt =t 2 U21P01 U21P02 = 0 Gasoline blending (i) Read the octane numbers of MTBE and FCC gasoline.ON U21 = 95, ON MTBE = 101Due to lack of data on FCC gasoline, the octane number of FCC gasoline is assumed to be xed at 95.0 in the three cases in Table 12. This octane number can be correlated with the feed of FCC using some correlations with data available. 101 is the octane number of MTBE. (ii) The linear combination of the octane numbers of gross overhead, heavy naphtha, FCC gasoline and MTBE that attend 90# gasoline blending should be equal to or greater than 90. Prop CDUs=s1 U11P01 + ON MTBE MTBEP01 + Prop CDUs=s2 U12P01 + ON U21 U21P01 90qprodp=p01 0 (p13) (p12)

(vii) Calculate the mid-point weight transfer ratios of CDU fractions: Mid wts = 100(
ss VSSs,ss

CDUrtioss + 0.5CDUrtios ), (p6)

s = s5, s S

(viii) Calculate the octane numbers of GO and HN; the pour points of LD and HD: Prop CDUs = a props,n=n0 + a props,n=n1 (Mid wts a props,n=n3 ) + a props,n=n2 (Mid wts a props,n=n3 )2 , s = s5, s S (p7)

When s equals s1 and s2, Prop CDUs represents the octane number of GO and HN. When s equals s3 and s4, Prop CDUs represents the pour point of LD and HD. a props,n=n0 , a props,n=n1 , a props,n=n2 and a props,n=n3 represent a0 , a1 , a2 and z in row s of Table 8. For example, when s equals s1 (GO), the values listed in the rst row of Table 8 should be assigned to a props=s1,n=n0 to a props=s1,n=n3 , respectively. Material balance of FCC fractions (i) Calculate the weight transfer ratios of FCC fractions: FCCrtiot = a fccrtot,n=n0 + a fccrtot,n=n1 (Conv a fccrtot,n=n3 )+a fccrtot,n=n2 ) (Conv a fccrtot,n=n3 ) , t T (p8)
2

The linear combination of the octane numbers of gross overhead, heavy naphtha, FCC gasoline and MTBE that attend 93# gasoline blending should be equal to or greater than 93: Prop CDUs=s1 U11P02 + ON MTBE MTBEP02 + Prop CDUs=s2 U12P02 + ON U21 U21P02 93qprodp=p02 0 (p14)

a fccrtot,n=n0 , a fccrtot,n=n1 , a fccrtot,n=n2 and a fccrtot,n=n3 represent a0 , a1 , a2 and z respec-

Diesel oil blending The nonlinear correlation proposed by Semwal and Varshney (1995) is used in this paper.

W. Li et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 29 (2005) 20102028 Table D1 Coefcients for specic gravities of LD and HD Fractions s3 (LD) s4 (HD) a denss,n=n0 0.8078 0.8818 a denss,n=n1 0.0033 0.0022 a denss,n=n2 1.824E5 1.407E5 a denss,n=n3 26.3285 54.9158

2027

Product quantity (i) The production rate of each product equals the sum of the streams that attend its blending: qprodp=p01 = U11P01 + MTBEP01 + U12P01 + U21P01 (p19)

(i) Calculate the specic gravities of LD and HD: Denss = a denss,n=n0 + a denss,n=n1 (Mid wts a denss,n=n3 ) + a denss,n=n2 (Mid wts a denss,n=n3 )2 , s = s3 s = s4 (p15) qprodp=p02 = U11P02 + MTBEP02 + U12P02 + U21P02 qprodp=p03 = U13P03 + U14P03 qprodp=p04 = U13P04 + U14P04 qprodp=p05 = F fcc frtt =t 3 F recycle qprodp=p06 = F fcc frtt =t 1 (p20) (p21) (p22) (p23) (p24)

The above correlations are obtained by correlating the specic gravity data from crude assay provided by Watkins (1979). The values of parameters used are listed in Table D1. (ii) Calculate the volume ow rates of LD and HD from their weight ow rates: U13P03 = VPU13P03 Denss=s3 U14P03 = VPU14P03 Denss=s4 U13P04 = VPU13P04 Denss=s3 U14P04 = VPU14P04 Denss=s4 (p16 1) (p16 2) (p16 3) (p16 4)

(ii) The production rate of each product sent to customers should be less than its market demand: qprodp DMmaxp (p25)

References
Arnold, V. E. (1985). Microcomputer program converts TBP, ASTM, EFV distillation curves. Oil & Gas Journal, 83(6), 5562. Aspen Technology. (2001). ASPEN PLUS, version 11.1. Cambridge, MA: Aspen Technology Inc. Barsamian, A. (2001). Fundamentals of Supply Chain Management for Rening. In IBC Asia Oil & Gas SCM Conference Proceedings. Blanding, F. H. (1953). Reaction rates in Catalytic Cracking of Petroleum. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry, 45(6), 11861197. Brooke, A., Kendrick, D., & Meeraus, A. (1992). GAMS A Users Guide (Release 2.25). San Francisco, CA: The Scientic Press. Brooks, R. W., et al. (1999). Choosing cutpoints to optimize product yields. Hydrocarbon Processing, 78(11), 5360. Cechetti, R. C., et al. (1963). Hydrocarbon Processing, 42(9), 159. Decroocq, D. (1984). Catalytic Cracking of Heavy Petroleum Fractions. Editions Technip. Gary, J. H., & Handwerk, G. E. (2001). Petroleum Rening Technology and Economics (4th ed.). Marcel Dekker. Hartmann, J. C. M. (1999). Interpreting LP outputs. Hydrocarbon Processing, 78(2), 6468. Hartmann, J. C. M. (2001). Determine the optimum crude intake levelA case history. Hydrocarbon Processing, 80(6), 7784. Hess, F. E., et al. (1977). Hydrocarbon Processing, 56(6), 181. Hu, J., & Burns, A. M. (1970). New method predicts cloud, four ash points of distillate blends. Hydrocarbon Processing, 49(11), 213216. Jacob, J. S., Gross, B., Voltz, S. E., & Weekman, V. W. (1976). A lumping and reaction scheme for catalytic cracking. AIChE Journal, 22(4), 701713. Lang, P., et al. (1991). Modelling of a crude distillation column. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 15(2), 133139. Magee, J. S., Maurice, M., & Mitchell, J. (1993). Fluid Catalytic Cracking: Science and Technology. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Nelson, W. L. (1958). Petroleum Renery Engineering (4th ed.). McGrawHill Book Co. Inc. Packie, J. W. (1941). Distillation equipment in the oil-rening industry. AIChE Transactions, 37, 5178.

(iii) The pour point of 10# diesel oil should be less than 10. The correlation proposed by Semwal and Varshney (1995) was rearranged to avoid possible overow of variables. Prop CDUs=s3 473.69 +
12.987

VPU13P031.105 VPU14P031.105 (p17)

Prop CDUs=s4 473.69

12.987

(VPU13P03 + VPU14P03)1.105
R)

In the above equation, 473.69 (in degrees Rankine, is the maximum pour point of 10# diesel oil. (iv) The pour point of 0# diesel oil should be less than 0: Prop CDUs=s3 491.69 +
12.987

VPU13P041.105 VPU14P041.105 (p18)

Prop CDUs=s4 491.69

12.987

(VPU13P04 + VPU14P04)1.105
R)

In the above equation, 491.69 (in degrees Rankine, is the maximum pour point of 0# diesel oil.

2028

W. Li et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 29 (2005) 20102028 Semwal, P. B., & Varshney, R. G. (1995). Predictions of pour, cloud and cold lter plugging point for future diesel fuels with application to diesel blending models. Fuel, 74(3), 437444. Trierwiler, D., & Tan, R. L. (2001). Advances in crude oil LP modelling. Hydrocarbon Asia, 8, 5258. Watkins, R. N. (1979). Petroleum Renery Distillation (2nd ed.). Houston: Gulf Publishing Co. Zhang, J., Zhu, X. X., & Towler, G. P. (2001). A level-by-level debottlenecking approach in renery operation. Industrial and Engineering Chemical Research, 40(6), 15281540.

Perry, R. H., Green, D. W., & Maloney, J. O. (1997). Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Pinto, J. M., Joly, M., & Moro, L. F. L. (2000). Planning and scheduling models for renery operations. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 24(910), 22592276. Reid, E. B., & Allen, H. L. (1951). Estimating pour points of petroleum dist. blends. Petroleum Rener, 30(5), 9395. Russell, R. A. (1983). A exible and reliable method solves singletower and crude-distillation-column problems. Chemical Engineering, 5359.