OPTIMIZATION OF A REFINERY CRUDE DISTILLATION UNIT IN THE CONTEXT OF TOTAL ENERGY REQUIREMENT

E. O. Okeke & A. A. Osakwe-Akofe NNPC R&D Division, Port Harcourt, Nigeria

APACT03, York, 28 30, April, 2003

INTRODUCTION
The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, has 4 refineries, in its downstream operations, The primary goal of this refiner is to achieve and maintain high gasoline production, Hence, the main objective of this study is to optimize gasoline production in all the refineries, The strategy being to first target the CDUs in these refineries. Maximizing the yield of gasoline and its intermediates will directly impact positively on total pool gasoline production,

PROGRAMME FOR MAXIMIZING GASOLINE PRODUCTION

Maximizing gasoline and its intermediates production from the refinries has been planned to be accomplished in phases, vizPhase I CDU 1 (the first refinerys CDU) Phase II CDU 2,3,4, 5 (the other 3 refineries), Phase III Catalytic plants - CRU, FCC & HF Alky

Phase I began with CDU 1 as a basis to ascertain plant suitability to process different crude oil.

CDU 1 FEED & MAIN COLUMN SUBSYSTEM

The CDU 1 of the first of these refineries, the object of our presentation, was installed in the 1960s to process naphthenic crude of API 40.3 at first and another of API 35.4 afterward, It has a main fractionator with 44 trays and 4 side strippers, and a stabilizer column.

CDU 1 DISTILLATES
The intermediate distillates are as in conventional CDUs, Unstabilized gasoline from the main fractionator is further processed in the stabilizer column, Straight run naphtha and other distillates from the main fractionator are routed further downstream for processing and upgrading, Stabilizer produces an intermediate gasoline as bottoms and LPG as overhead

CDU 1 MAIN DESIGN & HARDWARE FEATURES

Licensed by SHELL and designed as a conventional crude distillation unit, Crude oil characteristics and product requirements as applicable in establishing hardware design, Hardware performance evaluation, maintenance and upgrading of facility undertaken periodically.

MAIN FOCUS AREAS TO ACHIEVE MAXIMUM GASOLINE IN CDU 1

Main areas are: efficient operation of the CDU, review of configuration of CDU to determine opportunity for further increase in gasoline yield,

GENERALIZED STRUCTURE OF THE CDU 1

The CDU can be decomposed in stages as follows: Stage 1, the main fractionator producing feed for Stage 2 (i.e. the stabilizer) Achievement and sustenance of increase yield must be progressive from Stage 1 through Stage 2

METHODOLOGY STEADY STATE SIMULATION TO OPTIMIZATION

The main stages are as follows: Compare the crude assays for the two naphthenic crudes,
Configure, specification and steady state simulation of the CDU using HYSYS.Plant, Match HYSYS.Plant simulation results with original design requirements,

Carry out optimization of the CDU Results obtained showed good opportunity.

COMPARISION OF THE TWO CRUDES

Light ends BL LV% 0 0.02 0.24 0.36 0.75 1.01 0.77 0.16 0.72 2.47 0.12 6.62 TNP LV% 0 0 0.6 0.7 1.4 1.6 1.6 0.2 Crude properties Parameters Methan, C1 Ethane, C2 Propane, C3 iso-butane, n-butane iso-pentane n-pentane cyclopentane n-hexanes other C6 Benzene Total Heavy Ends Parameters Density, Kg/m3 API Gravity Barrel/Tonne Kinematic viscosity at 40 Kinematic viscosity at 60 Sulphur content (wt %) Pour Point C BL 847 35.4 7.426 3.34 2.24 0.14 12 TNP 823.6 40.3

3.418 0.06

6.1 ASTM D86 Properties

Parameters IBP 5 10 30 50 70 90 EBP

BL vac 400 404 418 439 463 503 564

TNP 363 391 393 406 421 438 460 482

Parameters IBP 5 10 30 50 70 90 EBP

BL 57 100 125 215 280

TNP 39 91 114 188 259 334 446 529

COMPARISION OF PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM ON THE TWO CRUDES

1.00E+06
Flow r ate s (k g pe r hour )

1.00E+02 Design 1.00E-02 Crude LPG Gasoline Kerosene LGO HGO AR HYSYS

1.00E-06
Products

INCREASING GASOLINE YIELD

For a given CDU, yield of gasoline derivatives depends on, Feed characteristics, Process requirements/operating conditions. From the above therefore, since feed is constant, optimizing gasoline yield will depend on process requirements/operating conditions.

FRONT-END CDU 1 EVALUATION FOR HYSYS IMPLEMENTATION

The evaluation of the CDU is as follows: Establish a reliable CDU configuration, determine process conditions using HYSYS and match these with the original plant design basis and requirements, Properly decompose the structure of the CDU and determine boundary conditions for optimization, Achieve a reliable process optimization in the context of total energy requirements.

OPTIMIZATION PARAMETERS
The parameters for optimization are derived from process/hardware environments, viz, The main fractionator and the stabilizer are linked together: stabilizer feed comes from the main fractionator, The other gasoline blending stock, SRN, a derivative from the main fractionator is routed for further processing, Four side strippers in the main fractionator, The stabilizer has a condenser and a reboiler

PLANT ARRANGEMENT FOR OPTIMIZATION

HEAT LOAD DISTRIBUTION

CDU has an integrated heat exchanger network for heat recovery which shares loads, viz, Q1,,Q7, where Q4 and Q5 are utilities, Heat loads in the network are assumed to be efficiently shared, Heat supplied through the crude charge and for the various steam stripping supplies are constant.

HYSYS FLOWSHETET CONFIGURATION Overall CDU

HYSYS FLOWSHEET CONFIGURATION Main Column Subsystem

MODELLING PROCEDURE
Stage-wise approach was adopted, viz, Evaluate CDU configuration and steady state simulation data to determine opportunity for optimization, Based on the structure of CDU process and hardware requirements, evolve an optimization algorithm and define boundary conditions to be solved by HYSYS.Plant, Define steady state parameters from HYSYS.Plant simulation as first level data, and referenced as base or design values, Optimize the overall gasoline yield in the context of total energy requirement.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR OPTIMIZING GASOLINE YIELD

We observed the following: The columns are linked in sequential arrangement, Possibility of enhanced recoveries of gasoline in the nearest distillates below and above SRG, ie SRK and LPG, and in the stabilizer overhead, To maintain high quality gasoline to meet base or design specification, the path to solution must be constrained, Problem is non-linear. Based on these conditions an algorithm was developed

THE ALGORITHM Heat Loads

Heat load differential at steady state
Qibase = Q1base + Q2base + + Q7base 1

Heat load at any level of optimization

Qiopt = Q1opt + Q2opt + + Q7opt 2 3

And the differential

Qdifferential = Qiopt - Qibase

THE ALGORITHM Gasoline Yields

Gasoline yield at steady state
yibase = y1base + y2base + + y7base 4

Gasoline yield at any level of optimization

yiopt = y1opt + y2opt + + y7opt 5

And the differential

ydifferential = yiopt + yibase 6

THE ALGORITHM Objective Function

Incorporating the various energy and gasoline costs, the resultant differential becomes, INB = y*differential - Q*differential 7 The objective function becomes Max [f(X1,X2,X3) = y*differential-Q*differential] 8 Where, y*differential & Q*differential are gasoline and energy costs, X1, main column naphtha stripper reboiler return temp, X2, main column kero stripper reboiler return temp, X3, stabilizer reboiler return temp, Subject to RON and RVP of gasoline being within base or design values.

HYSYS OPTMIZER
Primary variables (X1, X2, X3) are manipulated to maximize INB. Primary variables must have upper & lower limits, and these are used to normalize the primary variables, viz,
Xinorm = [(Xi Xilower)/(Xiupper Xilower)]. Where Xi = X1, X2, X3

Objective function as defined by INB, Constraints as defined for RON & RVP,

OPTIMIZATION BY SEQUENTIAL QUADRATIC PROGRAMMING

Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) was applied for solution. SQP minimizes a quadratic approximation of the Lagrangian function subject to linear approximations of the constraints. The second derivative matrix of the Lagrangian function is estimated automatically. A line search procedure utilizing the watchdog technique (Chamberlain & Powel) is used.

PROBLEM SOLUTION
Sequential quadratic programming was found to be ideal for solution, Solution was found for all cases studied, General increase in yield of stabilizer feed and SRN from the main column, Gasoline yield was increased by 8 %

BASE & OPTIMIZED VALUES

HYSYS Result Base Optimized Difference
NAPHTHA Side Stripper Reboiler Temperature, C, X1 KERO Side Stripper Reboiler Temperature, C, X2 STABILIZER Reboiler Temperature, C, X3 174 245 155 176 260 153.05 2 15 -1.95

STABLIZER Feed, m3/hr Straight Run NAPHTHA product, m3/hr, y1 GASOLINE, m3/hr, y2 Total Gasoline (Straight-run Naphtha+Gasoline)

45 63.57 41.3 104.87

47.97 64.27 44.24 108.51

2.97 0.7 2.94 3.64

TESTING ALGORITHM ROBUSTNESS & RELATIONSHIP OF KEY PARAMETERS

Some optimization test runs were done using same HYSYS.Plant to Test the robustness and reliability of the algorithm at achieving early convergence, Determine the variation of key parameters, that impact on the structure of the CDU and the interaction of the main fractionator and the stabilizer. These parameters are the naphtha stripper reboiler return temp, the kero stripper reboiler return temp, and the stabilizer gasoline.

VARIATION OF GASOLINE WITH NAPHTHA STRIPPER REBOILER RETURN TEMP

Naphtha stripper reboiler return Temperature C
184 182 180 178 176 174

.5 2

.8 8

.1 5

.4

.4 5

.7 2 44

43

43

44

44

44

Gasoline (m3/hr)

45

.0 2

VARIATION OF GASOLINE WITH KERO STRIPPER REBOILER RETRUN TEMP

Kero stripper reboiler return Temperature C
255 250 245 240 235

.5 2

.8 8

.1 5

.4

.4 5

.7 2 44

43

43

44

44

44

Gasoline (m3/hr)

45

.0 2

VARIATION OF GASOLINE WITH STABILIZER REBOILER RETRUN TEMP

Stabilizer reboiler return Temperature C
156 154 152 150 148 146

.5 2

.8 8

.1 5

.4

.4 5

.7 2 44

43

43

44

44

44

Gasoline (m3/hr)

45

.0 2

OBSERVATIONS FROM THE OPTIMIZATION

The optimization based on this algorithm achieves early convergence, As expected, the naphtha stripper (X1) and kero stripper reboiler (X2) temperatures have indirect impact on the stabilizer gasoline, while the stabilizer reboiler (X3) temperature has a direct impact on the same gasoline yield, The 3 parameters X1, X2 & X3 are manipulated as appropriate to optimize the gasoline produced.

CONCLUSION
Sequential quadratic programme technique ideal for solution, Solution of the algorithm is reliable, achieving early convergence in the cases studied, Objective of obtaining increased gasoline yield in the context of reduced energy requirement achieved, Since the configuration of the refinery CDUs are similar, this algorithm can be applied to optimize the CDU 2,3,4,5 in the other 3 refineries