Journal of Petroleum and Gas Engineering Vol. 3(6), pp.

99-113, November 2012

Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/JPGE
DOI: 10.5897/JPGE11.056
ISSN 2141-2677 2012 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Simulation, control and sensitivity analysis of crude oil

distillation unit
Akbar Mohammadi Doust, Farhad Shahraki and Jafar Sadeghi*
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran.
Accepted 23 April, 2012

Steady-state and dynamic simulation play important roles in investigation of refinery units. Therefore,
simulation can help this investigation and behavior assessment. In this paper, simulation was done by
commercial software. In fact, because of solving many state equations simultaneously and using
control theory, dynamic simulation has more significant impact than steady-state simulation. Flow,
pressure, temperature and level (FPTL) were controlled by Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID)
controllers in the unit. The case study is Kermanshah Refinery. The behavior of the FPTL controllers in
dynamic regime were observed after the changing of the crude oil feed flow rate by 3% for 5 h. ASTM
D86 boiling points (compositions) of two simulations were compared with experimental data. Finally,
system sensitivity to inputs variables was investigated in the MATLAB/SimulinkTM by transferring the
dynamic results. Transient responses to changes such as feed temperature, feed flow rates, steam flow
rates and the duties of the reboilers of columns in Gasoline unit were plotted. Among of all
disturbances, the system is more sensitive to changes in the feed temperature, the duties of the
reboilers of columns in gasoline unit and simultaneous combination of above changes.

Key words: Steady-state, dynamic, PID controller, ASTM D86, Sensitivity, MATLAB simulink, transition
responses.

INTRODUCTION

Today, distillation of crude oil is an important process in
almost all of the refineries. Simulation of the process and
analysis of the resulting data in both steady-state and
dynamic conditions are fundamental steps in decreasing
of the energy costs and controlling the quality of the oil
products. The dynamic simulation when adding some
Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controllers and
setting them to have desired responses, has more
significant impacts and challenges than steady-state
simulation in crude oil distillation units. A PID controller is
a controller that includes three elements (Araki, 2002).
PID control systems have exactly the same structure as
depicted in Figure 1, where the PID controller is used as
*Corresponding author. E-mail: jsadeghi@hamoon.usb.ac.ir.
Tel: +989155494265.
the compensator C(s). The transfer function of a PID
controller is:
1
C(s) = KP 1 + + D s
I s (1)
All the three elements are kept in action. Here, K P ,
I and D are positive parameters, which are
respectively referred to as proportional gain, integral time,
and derivative time, and as a whole, as PID parameters.
These parameters can be adjusted using some empirical
methods. One of them, which is an extension to Ziegler-
Nichols method and uses the ultimate gain and frequency
for adjustment of the parameters, is Tyreus-Luyben
method (Almudena, 2001).
100 J. Petroleum Gas Eng.
Figure 1. Conventional feedback control system.
Crude oil is a mixture of many thousands of
components varying from light hydrocarbons such as
methane, ethane, propane, etc., to very high molecular
weight components. The compositions of crude oil
depend also on the location of exploitation. In the present
work, the feed flow rate is 0.046 m3/s (25,000 bbl/day)
that is provided by the blending of Crude oils of Ahwaz
(60%), Naft-I-Shah (24%) and Maleh-Kuh (16%).
Therefore, the feed has very complex compositions. Also
the design and optimization of the oil fractionators are
very important and complex. In petroleum refining the
boiling point ranges are used instead of mass or mole
fractions. Four types of boiling point analysis are known:
ASTM D86, ASTM D1160, ASTM D158 and TBP (True
Boiling Point). Six streams of product were investigated
by ASTM D86 from initial boiling point (IBP) to final
boiling point (FBP). We studied the system behavior by
changing the feed flow rate in the dynamic conditions and
MATLAB/SimulinkTM. MATLAB software is very flexible
for this work, therefore, it was used.
The aims of this work are to investigate the results in
steady-state and dynamic simulations, FPTL control while
changing the crude oil feed flow rate and comparison of
ASTM D86 boiling points (compositions) in two
simulations with the correspondent experimental data. At
last, sensitivity analysis of crude oil distillation unit in the
MATLAB/SimulinkTM was done by transferring dynamic
files to it as the basis aim. Directions of transferring files
to sensitivity analysis were:
Steady state files Dynamic files
TM
MATLAB/Simulink
Physical-mathematical model of the distillation
column
In the problems of multiple-stage separation for systems
in which different phases and different components play a
part, we have to resort to the simultaneous or iterative
solution of hundreds of equations. This means that it is
necessary to specify a sufficient number of design
variables so that the number of unknown quantities
(output variables) is exactly the same as the number of
equations (independent variables). This number of
equation can be found and counted in a mathematical
model.
The usual method to mathematically model a distillation
process in refining columns is the theoretical stage
method. To find the number of the theoretical stages of
an existing column, the real number of stages might be
multiplied by column efficiency. For each theoretical
stage, the mass balance of individual components or
pseudo components, energy balance, and vapor-liquid
equilibrium equation can be written. The set of these
equations creates the mathematical model of a
theoretical stage. The mathematical model of a column is
composed with models of individual theoretical stages.
Finally, thermodynamic model Braun K10 BK10 was
used for the unit, because it is a model suitable for
mixtures of heavier hydrocarbons at pressures under 700
kPa and temperatures from 170 to 430C. The values of
K10 can then be obtained by the Braun convergence
pressure method using tabulated parameters for 70
hydrocarbons and light gases (Aspen Physical Property
System, 2009). At low pressures, the Braun K10 model is
strictly applicable to predict the properties of heavy
hydrocarbon systems. Using the Braun convergence
pressure method by the model at, given the normal
boiling point of a component, K value is calculated at
system temperature and 10 psia. The K10 value is then
corrected for pressure using pressure correction charts.
Using the modified Antoine equation one can find the K
values for any components that are not covered by the
charts at 10 psia and corrected to system conditions
using the pressure correction charts (Aspen Physical
Property System, 2009).
In existence of a large amount of acid gases or light
 Doust et al. 101

Liquid holdup on stage n can be calculated as:

Mn = L,n ( AT ,nhT ,n + AD,n hD,n )

(4)

In the steady-state space, the left side of Equation (3) is

equal zero:

0 = Ln +1 + Vn 1 + Fn Ln Vn S n
(5)

Dynamic component mass balance of stage n:

d(Mn xn, j )
= Ln+1xn+1, j +Vn1yn1, j + Fnzn, j Lnxn, j Vn yn, j Snxn, j
dt (6)

In the steady-state space, the left side of equation (6) is

equal zero (Lee et al., 1975):

0= Ln+1xn+1, j +Vn1yn1, j +Fz

n n, j Lnxn, j Vn yn, j Snxn, j
(7)

Figure 2. Scheme of a column stage.

Energy balance

Dynamic general energy balance of stage n:

hydrocarbons, the accuracy has encountered some

problems with this model. All three phase calculations
d(Mh
n n)
=Ln+1hn+1 +Vn1Hn1 +Fh
n f Lh
n n VH
n n Sh
n n +QM Qs Qloss
assume that the aqueous phase is pure H2O and that dt
H2O solubility in the hydrocarbon phase can be described (8)
using the kerosene solubility equation from the API data
book (Aspen Physical Property System, 2009). The changes in the specific enthalpy of the liquid phase
The above model was solved by commercial software are generally very small compared to the total enthalpy of
to select BK10 model in the software space. The the stage. This means that, normally, the energy balance
obtained model was solved by Newton numerical method can be reduced to an algebraic equation which is used as
that is: the basis to calculate the flow of vapor from the stage
which is made a steady-state space. Finally, the energy
f (Xn) balance is as follows (Lee et al., 1975):
X n +1 = X n '
f (Xn ) (2) 0 = Ln+1hn+1 +Vn1Hn1 +Fh
n f Lh
n n VH
n n Snhn +QM Qs Qloss
(9)
Mass balance
Vapor-liquid equilibrium
The following is a representative sketch of any of these
stages (Figure 2): Vapor-liquid equilibrium of component j for theoretical
stage n:
Dynamic general mass balance of stage n:
n ,j P n s, aj t
dM n y n ,j = xn, j
= L n + 1 + V n 1 + F n L n V n S n (3) Pn
dt n, j
(10)
102 J. Petroleum Gas Eng.

Table 1. The Mass flows of the atmospheric column products. Steady-state simulation

Product Mass flow (Kg/s) In this work, distillation unit of Kermanshah Refinery was
Naphtha 19.43 simulated. The three assays of crude oil were
Blending naphtha 0.25 characterized by the TBP (True Boiling Point) data, API
Kerosene 6.55 gravity and light components.
Atmosphere gas oil 6.38 The unit consists of 5 heat exchangers, 2 coolers, 2
Atmospheric residue 15.68 heaters, atmospheric column, debutanizer column,
splitter column, valves and pumps. The atmospheric
column as the main part of the unit had three side
strippers and two pumparounds. Important parameters
Table 2. The Mass flows of the debutanizer column products. for the pumparound specification are the drown off and
the return stages, mass flow rate and temperature drop.
Product Mass flow (Kg/s) For the side strippers, beside the product flow rate, the
To fuel 0.38 specification of the steam flow and parameters, the
To LPG unit 0.72
drown off and the return stages, and the number of
stripper stages were entered. The feed flow rate of 0.046
Bottom product 8.2
m3/s (25,000 bbl/day) of crude oil was preheated. Then, it
was entered to the 35th stage of the atmospheric column
with 38 theoretical stages. Temperature of the feed was
Table 3. The Mass flows of the splitter column products.
328.11C (622.6F). Products of the column are naphtha,
blending naphtha, kerosene, atmospheric gas oil and
Product Mass flow (Kg/s) atmospheric residue. Table 1 shows their mass flow
rates.
To flare 0.01
The product of kerosene, atmospheric gas oil and
To LSRG Merox 2.1 atmospheric residue played an important role in
HSRG to platforming 6.1 preheating of the feed, because they had high
temperatures, hence energy optimization was done.
To purify the naphtha, firstly it was cooled to 26.67C
(80C). Then the naphtha stream was entered to a two-
This equation is the equilibrium and in real state. If each phase separator and splitter. Fifty percent of the flow was
of vapor or liquid phase is ideal then n , j or n , j is unit, returned as the reflux stream and the other half was
preheated and entered to the debutanizer column. The
respectively. If both phases are ideal then n , j and n, j bottom product preheated the feed and entered to splitter
are unit. Therefore, the above equation is converted to column.
Raoults equation: Tables 2 and 3 show the mass flow rates of the
products (Tables 2 and 3). Also, Figure 3 illustrates the
steady-state simulation scheme of the above steps in
y n , j Pn = x n , j Pnsa, jt continuous forms.
(11)

Pressure Dynamic simulation

Pn = Pn + 1 + P After steady-state simulation to observation the effects of

(12)
2
V (13)
P = 0
K Before transferring the steady-state files, dynamic
Where V0 the volumetric flow is rate of live stream in
3 3 0.5
m /h and K is the proportionality constant in m /bar .h.
The value of K for each geometry is different and has
specific value which is chosen by software (Almudena,
2001; Lee et al., 1975).
changes the crude oil feed in the products of unit and
investigation of results in real processes, we exported the
stead-state simulation to dynamic simulation.
simulation requirements should be entered. In addition,
the pressure changers (valves, pumps, etc.) are
necessary and sensitive to exporting of steady-state
simulation to dynamic simulation by export dynamic
(pressure driven).
For example dynamic requirements of column are
column diameter, tray spacing, tray active area, weir
 Doust et al. 103

Figure 3. Steady-state simulation scheme of distillation unit; (a) preheating; (b) atmospheric distillation
column; (c) Gasoline unit (light and heavy).
104 J. Petroleum Gas Eng.
length, weir height, reflux drum length and diameter, and
sump length and diameter. A tray sizing tool can be
used to calculate the tray sizes based on flow conditions
in the column. Of course, all of dynamic simulation
requirements were provided by Research and
Development (R&D) Bureau of Kermanshah Refinery.
After entering data and exporting to dynamic simulation
in order to control the flow, pressure, temperature and
level of streams, especially all products than changing of
crude oil feed, controllers should be added in right places
in the dynamic space. Dynamic space provides a number
of different types of controllers. The PID Incr. model was
used for all controllers in the dynamic space. The
parameters of each controller (gain, integral time and
derivative time) were set to optimal values using the
assistance of the tuning tool and Tyreus-Luyben
method (Luyben, 2006; Juma and Tom, 2009). Figure
4 illustrates the dynamic simulation scheme of continuous
forms (Figure 4). Streams ID are corresponding to the
steady-state simulation scheme.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Distillation temperature ASTM D86
After changing the crude oil feed flow rate, ASTM D86 of
six streams ((52-1, light gasoline), (56-1, heavy columns in gasoline unit and simultaneous combination
gasoline), the feed of debutanizer column (V-106, DE),
blending naphtha, kerosene and atmospheric gas oil) in
three spaces of experimental, steady-state and dynamic
were compared. Experimental data were provided by
R&D Bureau of Kermanshah Refinery.
Figures 5 to 10 show a comparison between the
experimental ASTM D86 curves with the results of the
steady-state and the dynamic simulations. Curves of the
feed of debutanizer column (V-106, DE) and atmospheric
gas oil stream were in better agreement with the
experimental data than the other streams. Of course,
maximum difference of other streams was around 12C.
Totally, results of simulations were in good agreement
with the experimental data (Kermanshah Refinery, 2009).
2- Sensitivity analysis in the MATLAB simulink
The behaviors of the FPTL controllers in dynamic
simulation were observed by increasing the crude oil feed
flow rate (+3%). The FPTL were controlled by
conventional PID controllers. Set points were set based
on Kermanshah Refinery. Twenty-three controllers were
applied to control of FPTL of the unit. We tried to set the
controller parameters and solved of fluctuations by
different control methods to reach a new steady-state. To
set the controller parameters, Tyreus-Luyben method
was employed. At last, we investigated of dynamic results
by transferring the dynamic files to MATLAB/SimulinkTM
Figure 11. The first steady-state then system sensitivity
was observed by step changes. Input variables were:
1. Feed temperature (+10C).
2. Feed flow rates: Ahwaz (+1%), Maleh-Kuh (+1%),
Naft-I-Shah (+1%)
3. Steam flow rates: STEAM (interring to atmospheric
column, +20%), blending naphtha, steam (+50%),
kerosene steam (+30%), atmospheric gas oil (AGO)
steam (+30%).
4. The duty of Reboilers: debutanizer column (V-106-DE,
+3%), splitter column (V-108- SP, +3%).
5. Mixed of above changes simultaneously.
And outputs were: Stream flow rates: 46 (interring to V-
106-DE), blending naphtha, kerosene, atmospheric gas
oil (AGO), 39-1 (bottom of atmospheric column), 52-1
(light gasoline, up of V-108-SP column), 56-1 (heavy
gasoline, bottom of V-108-SP column), 47-1 (to LPG
unit).
Because we wanted to increase the products, increasing
of inputs were investigated. After performing above
changes, we observed that the major sensitivity was
related to feed temperature, the duties of the reboilers of
of above changes (Figures 12-16). Rest of input changes
was not significant to steady-state.
Conclusions
Steady-state and dynamic simulations performed a good
investigation into the process and discussing the
calculated results. Control of variables in dynamic
simulation as a flexible simulator like a pilot, was done
very well.
Steady-state and dynamic simulations were in
agreement with the experimental data. Any Increment of
crude oil feed flow rate, made a complex fluctuations in
the FPTL controllers that must be rejected by set of
controller parameters and different control methods.
Because the feed was a mixture of 3 crude oils and many
components, control of system was very complex. The
dynamic space demonstrated that temperature
controllers were faster and more sensitive than the other
controllers. Control of temperature can be replaced by
control of the product compositions. In this control
structure, small control errors in the FPTL controllers
were observed. Therefore, some limitations in dynamic
simulation were observed. Because of more flexibility of
changing the inputs, disturbances and easier handling of
graphs, dynamic files results transferred to
 Doust et al. 105

Figure 4. Dynamic simulation scheme of distillation unit; (a) preheating; (b) Atmospheric
distillation column; (c) Gasoline unit (light and heavy).
106 J. Petroleum Gas Eng.

280 350
Experimental
Experimental
260 Steady-state
Steady-state
Dynamic
300 Dynamic
Distillation temperature ASTM D86(F)

Distillation temperature ASTM D86(F)

240

220
250
200

180 200

160
150
140

120
100

100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Amount distillated(%) 50
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 5. Steady-state, dynamic and experimental ASTM D86 Amount distillated(%)
curves of 52-1 stream.
Figure 7. Steady-state, dynamic and experimental ASTM D86
curves of column feed (V-106, DE).
340
Experimental
320 Steady-state
440
Dynamic
Experimental
Distillation temperature ASTM D86(F)

300 420 Steady-state

Dynamic
Distillation temperature ASTM D86(F)

280 400

380
260

360
240
340
220
320
200
300

180
0 20 40 60 80 100 280
Amount distillated(%)
260
Figure 6. Steady-state, dynamic and experimental ASTM D86 0 20 40 60 80 100
curves of 56-1 stream. Amount distillated(%)

Figure 8. Steady-state, dynamic and experimental ASTM D86

curves of Blending Naphtha (B_NAPHTHA Stream).
TM
MATALB/Simulink . Figures 12 to 16 show that more
sensitive disturbances were feed temperature, the duties
of the reboilers of columns in gasoline unit and
simultaneous combination of above changes. Rest of ACKNOWLEDGMENT
input changes was not significant in transient responses.
Therefore, above variables play important roles in the The financial support provided by the Kermanshah Oil
design of distillation units. Refining Company is gratefully acknowledged.
 Doust et al. 107

600
Experimental
Steady-State
550
Dynamic

peratureASTMD86(F)
500

450
istillationtem

400

350
D

300

250
0 20 40 60 80 100
Amount distillated(%)

Figure 9. Steady-state, dynamic and experimental ASTM D86 curves of Kerosene.

750
Experimental
Steady-state
700
Dynamic
DistillationtemperatureASTMD86(F)

650

600

550

500

450

400
0 20 40 60 80 100
Amount distillated(%)

Figure 10. Steady-state, dynamic and experimental ASTM D86 curves of

atmospheric gas oil (AGO stream).

Figure 11. Scheme of Distillation unit in the MATLAB simulink with inputs and outputs.
108 J. Petroleum Gas Eng.

Stream("46")
BNaphtha Kerosene 6928
193.794 5279.22

5279.2 6927
193.7935

5279.18 6926

Stream("46") Flow (bbl/day)

BNaphtha Flow (bbl/day)

Kerosene Flow (bbl/day)

193.793
5279.16
6925

193.7925 5279.14
6924
5279.12
193.792
6923
5279.1

193.7915
5279.08 6922

193.791 5279.06 6921

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(h) Time(h) Time(h)

AGO
4737.9
Stream("52-1") 4 Stream("39")
x 10
1767.5 1.4403

4737.85 1.4402
1767

1.4401
AGO Flow (bbl/day)

Stream("52-1") Flow (bbl/day)

1766.5

Stream("39") Flow (bbl/day)

4737.8
1.44
1766
1.4399
4737.75
1765.5
1.4398

1765
4737.7 1.4397

1764.5 1.4396

4737.65
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1764 1.4395
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(h)
Time(h) Time(h)

Stream("56-1") Stream("47-1")
1970 1161

1969 1160

1968 1159
Stream("56-1") Flow (bbl/day)

Stream("47-1") Flow (bbl/day)

1967 1158

1966 1157

1965 1156

1964 1155

1963 1154

1962 1153
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(h) Time(h)

Figure 12. Steady-state curves of stream: 46, B_Naphtha, Kerosene, AGO, (39-1), (52-1), (56-1) and (47-1).
 Doust et al. 109

Stream("46") Kerosene AGO

6935 5281 4739.8

6930 4739.6

5280.5 4739.4
6925
Stream("46") Flow (bbl/day)
4739.2

Kerosene Flow (bbl/day)

AGO Flow(bbl/day)
6920
5280 4739

6915 4738.8

6910 5279.5 4738.6

4738.4
6905
5279 4738.2
6900
4738

6895 4737.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 5278.5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(h) Time(h)
Time(h)

BNaphtha 4 Stream("52-1")
193.83 x 10 Stream("39")
1.446 1780

193.825

1.444 1775
193.82

Stream("52-1") Flow (bbl/day)

BNaphtha Flow (bbl/day)

Stream("39") Flow(bbl/day)
193.815 1.442 1770

193.81
1.44 1765
193.805

193.8 1.438 1760

193.795
1.436 1755

193.79
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(h) 1750
1.434 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(h) Time(h)

Stream("56-1")
Stream("47-1")
2000
1180

1990
1170
Stream("56-1")Flow (bbl/day)

1980
Stream("47-1") Flow (bbl/day)

1160

1970

1150
1960

1140
1950

1130
1940

1930 1120
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(h) Time(h)

Figure 13. Curves of stream with change of feed temperature (+ 10C): 46, B_Naphtha, Kerosene, AGO, (39-1), (52-1), (56-1) and (47-1).
110 J. Petroleum Gas Eng.

Stream("46") BNaphtha
193.8 Kerosene
6935
5279.9

193.799
6930 5279.8

193.798
5279.7
6925
Stream("46") Flow (bbl/day)

BNaphtha Flow(bbl/day)
193.797

Kerosene Flow (bbl/day)

5279.6

6920 193.796
5279.5

193.795
6915 5279.4

193.794 5279.3
6910
193.793 5279.2
6905
193.792 5279.1

6900 193.791 5279

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(h) Time(h) Time(h)

AGO 4 Stream("39")
x 10
4738 1.446 Stream("52-1")
1800

4737.9 1.445 1790

4737.8 1780

Stream("39") Flow (bbl/day)

1.444

Stream("52-1") Flow (bbl/day)

AGO Flow (bbl/day)

4737.7 1770
1.443

1760
4737.6
1.442
1750
4737.5
1.441
1740
4737.4
1.44
1730

4737.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1.439 1720
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(h)
Time(h) Time(h)

Stream("56-1")
2060 Stream("47-1")
1200
2040
1150
2020
Stream("56-1") Flow (bbl/day)

1100
Stream("47-1") Flow (bbl/day)

2000

1980 1050

1960
1000

1940
950
1920
900
1900

1880 850

1860 800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(h) Time(h)

Figure 14. Curves of stream with change of Reboilesduty,V-106-DE (+ 3%): 46, B_Naphtha, Kerosene, AGO, 39, (52-1), (56-1) and (47-1).
 Doust et al. 111

Stream("46") BNaphtha
6928 193.794 Kerosene
5279.22

6927
193.7935 5279.2

6926
Stream("46") Flow (bbl/day)
5279.18

BNaphtha Flow (bbl/day)

193.793

Kerosene Flow(bbl/day)
6925 5279.16

193.7925
5279.14
6924

193.792 5279.12
6923
5279.1

6922 193.7915
5279.08

6921 193.791 5279.06

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(h) Time(h) Time(h)

4
Stream("52-1")
AGO x 10 Stream("39") 1800
4737.9 1.4403

1.4402 1750

4737.85

Stream("52-1") Flow (bbl/day)

1.4401 1700

Stream("39") Flow (bbl/day)

AGO Flow(bbl/day)

1.44
4737.8 1650

1.4399
1600
4737.75
1.4398
1550
1.4397
4737.7
1500
1.4396

4737.65 1.4395 1450

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(h) Time(h) Time(h)

Stream("56-1")
2300 Stream("47-1")
1161

2250 1160
Stream("56-1') Flow (bbl/day)

2200 1159
Stream("47-1") Flow(bbl/day)

1158
2150

1157
2100
1156

2050
1155

2000
1154

1950 1153
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(h) Time(h)

Figure 15. Curves of stream with change of Reboilesduty,V-108-SP (+ 3%): 46, B_Naphtha, Kerosene, AGO, 39 , (52-1), (56-1) and (47-1).
112 J. Petroleum Gas Eng.

Stream("46") BNaphtha
6928 193.83 Kerosene
5281.5
6926 193.825

6924
193.82 5281
Stream("46") Flow (bbl/day)

6922

BNaphtha Flow (bbl/day)

Kerosene Flow(bbl/day)
193.815
6920
5280.5

6918 193.81

6916 5280
193.805

6914
193.8
6912 5279.5
193.795
6910

6908 193.79 5279

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(h) Time(h) Time(h)

4 Stream("39")
x 10 Stream("52-1")
AGO 1.444 1800
4740
1.4435
1750
1.443
4739.5 1700

Stream("52-1") Flow (bbl/day)

Stream("39") Flow (bbl/day)
1.4425
1650
AGO Flow(bbl/day)

1.442
4739

1.4415 1600

4738.5 1.441
1550

1.4405
1500
4738 1.44
1450
1.4395

4737.5 1.439 1400

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(h) Time(h) Time(h)

Stream("56-1") Stream("47-1")
2350 1200

2300 1150

2250 1100
Stream("47-1") Flow (bbl/day)
Stream("56-1") Flow(bbl/day)

2200 1050

2150 1000

2100 950

2050 900

2000 850

1950 800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(h) Time(h)

Figure 16. Curves of stream with simultaneous combination of above changes: 46, B_Naphtha, Kerosene, AGO, 39, (52-1), (56-1) and (47-1).
 Doust et al. 113

Nomenclature
S n : molar side stream from stage n [ ]
AD , n o
: surface area of the downcomer [ ] : Temperature on stage n [ C ]
AT , n U: Manipulated value
: active surface area of the stage n [ ]
bbl: barrel Vn 1 : the molar vapor flow from stage n-1 [
C(s): Controller transfer function ]
D: Load or disturbance
E: Error signal
Vn : molar vapor flow flowing from stage n [ ]
Fn : molar feed flow onto stage n [ xn, j
] : molar fraction of component j in the liquid on
stage n
hn : molar enthalpy of the liquid on stage n [ ] x n + 1, j
: molar fraction of component j in the liquid
hn +1 current from stage n+1
: molar enthalpy of the liquid from stage n+1 [ ]
Y: Output value
H n : molar enthalpy of the vapor on stage n [ ] y n 1 , j
: molar fraction of component j in the vapor
H n1 : molar enthalpy of the vapor from stage n-1 [ current from stage n-1
]
yn, j
hf : molar fraction of component j in the vapor current
: molar enthalpy of feed [ ] from stage n
hT , n zn, j
: liquid height on the stage n [ ] : molar fraction of component j in the feed current
on stage n
hD , n
: liquid height on the downcomer [ ]
L ,n
K P : controller gain : liquid density at stage n

Ln +1 : the molar liquid that overflows onto stage n from D : Controller derivative time [s]
I : Controller integral time [s]
stage n+1 [ ]
Ln : molar liquid flowing from stage n [ ]
REFERENCES
M n : the liquid mole accumulated on stage n (liquid
Almudena RF (2001). Dynamic Modelling and Simulation with Ecosimpr
of an Ethanol Distillation Column in the Sugar Industry, Madrid, 1:
holdup on stage n) [ ] 150-200.
P(s): process transfer function Araki M (2002). Control systems, Robotics and Automation. Kyoto
University, Japan, 1: 235-376.
: pressure on stage n Aspen Physical Property System (2009). Physical property methods
and models. Aspen Technol. 1: 356-739.
Juma H, Tom P (2009). Steady-State and Dynamic Simulation of
QM : heat of mixing [ ] Crude Oil Distillation Using Aspen Plus and Aspen Dynamics. Pet.
Coal. J. 51(2): 100-109.
Qs : external heat source [ ]
Kermanshah Refinery (2009). Operating data of Distillation unit.
Lee BI, Kesler MG (1975). A generalized thermodynamic correlation
based on three Parameter corresponding states. AIChE. J. 21(3):
Qloss : heat losses [
] 510-527.
Luyben WL (2006). Distillation Design and Control Using Aspen
r: desired value Simulation. John Wiley & Sons. New York, 1: 10-283.
R&D: Research and Development