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:

Tel: +989155494265.

jsadeghi@hamoon.usb.ac.ir.

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 ZieglerNichols 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
TM
MATLAB/Simulink
Physical-mathematical
column

Dynamic files

model

of

the

distillation

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 )
dt

= Ln+1xn+1, j +Vn1yn1, j + Fnzn, j Lnxn, j Vn yn, j Snxn, j

(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
Figure 2. Scheme of a column stage.

(7)

Energy balance
Dynamic general energy balance of stage n:

hydrocarbons, the accuracy has encountered some

problems with this model. All three phase calculations
assume that the aqueous phase is pure H2O and that
H2O solubility in the hydrocarbon phase can be described
using the kerosene solubility equation from the API data
book (Aspen Physical Property System, 2009).
The above model was solved by commercial software
to select BK10 model in the software space. The
obtained model was solved by Newton numerical method
that is:

X n +1 = X n

f (Xn)
f

'

(Xn )

(2)

d(Mh
n n)
=Ln+1hn+1 +Vn1Hn1 +Fh
n f Lh
n n VH
n n Sh
n n +QM Qs Qloss
dt
(8)
The changes in the specific enthalpy of the liquid phase
are generally very small compared to the total enthalpy of
the stage. This means that, normally, the energy balance
can be reduced to an algebraic equation which is used as
the basis to calculate the flow of vapor from the stage
which is made a steady-state space. Finally, the energy
balance is as follows (Lee et al., 1975):

0 = Ln+1hn+1 +Vn1Hn1 +Fh

n f Lh
n n VH
n n Snhn +QM Qs Qloss
(9)

Mass balance
The following is a representative sketch of any of these
stages (Figure 2):

Vapor-liquid equilibrium
Vapor-liquid equilibrium of component j for theoretical
stage n:

Dynamic general mass balance of stage n:

dM
dt

= L n + 1 + V n 1 + F n L n V n S n (3)

n ,j

n ,j

P n s, aj t

Pn

n, j

xn,

(10)

102

J. Petroleum Gas Eng.

Table 1. The Mass flows of the atmospheric column products.

Product
Naphtha
Blending naphtha
Kerosene
Atmosphere gas oil
Atmospheric residue

Steady-state simulation

Mass flow (Kg/s)

19.43
0.25
6.55
6.38
15.68

Table 2. The Mass flows of the debutanizer column products.

Product
To fuel
To LPG unit
Bottom product

Mass flow (Kg/s)

0.38
0.72
8.2

Table 3. The Mass flows of the splitter column products.

Product
To flare
To LSRG Merox
HSRG to platforming

Mass flow (Kg/s)

0.01
2.1
6.1

This equation is the equilibrium and in real state. If each

of vapor or liquid phase is ideal then n , j or n , j is unit,
respectively. If both phases are ideal then n , j and

n, j

are unit. Therefore, the above equation is converted to

Raoults equation:

y n , j Pn = x n , j Pnsa, jt

(11)

Pressure

Dynamic simulation

Pn = Pn + 1 + P
V
P = 0
K

In this work, distillation unit of Kermanshah Refinery was

simulated. The three assays of crude oil were
characterized by the TBP (True Boiling Point) data, API
gravity and light components.
The unit consists of 5 heat exchangers, 2 coolers, 2
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
for the pumparound specification are the drown off and
the return stages, mass flow rate and temperature drop.
For the side strippers, beside the product flow rate, the
specification of the steam flow and parameters, the
drown off and the return stages, and the number of
stripper stages were entered. The feed flow rate of 0.046
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
328.11C (622.6F). Products of the column are naphtha,
blending naphtha, kerosene, atmospheric gas oil and
atmospheric residue. Table 1 shows their mass flow
rates.
The product of kerosene, atmospheric gas oil and
atmospheric residue played an important role in
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 twophase separator and splitter. Fifty percent of the flow was
returned as the reflux stream and the other half was
preheated and entered to the debutanizer column. The
bottom product preheated the feed and entered to splitter
column.
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
continuous forms.

(12)

(13)

V0 the volumetric flow is rate of live stream in

3
0.5
m /h and K is the proportionality constant in m /bar .h.
Where
3

The value of K for each geometry is different and has

specific value which is chosen by software (Almudena,
2001; Lee et al., 1975).

After steady-state simulation to observation the effects of

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.
Before transferring the steady-state files, dynamic
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.

Figure 3. Steady-state simulation scheme of distillation unit; (a) preheating; (b) atmospheric distillation
column; (c) Gasoline unit (light and heavy).

103

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.

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 V106-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).

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
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

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
columns in gasoline unit and simultaneous combination
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.

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

105

106

J. Petroleum Gas Eng.

350

280
Experimental
Steady-state
Dynamic

240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100

Experimental
Steady-state
Dynamic

300
Distillation temperature ASTM D86(F)

Distillation temperature ASTM D86(F)

260

250

200

150

100
0

20

40
60
Amount distillated(%)

80

100

50

20

Figure 5. Steady-state, dynamic and experimental ASTM D86

curves of 52-1 stream.

40
60
Amount distillated(%)

80

100

Figure 7. Steady-state, dynamic and experimental ASTM D86

curves of column feed (V-106, DE).
340
Experimental
Steady-state
Dynamic

440

300
280
260
240
220
200
180

Experimental
Steady-state
Dynamic

420
Distillation temperature ASTM D86(F)

Distillation temperature ASTM D86(F)

320

20

40
60
Amount distillated(%)

80

100

Figure 6. Steady-state, dynamic and experimental ASTM D86

curves of 56-1 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
input changes was not significant in transient responses.
Therefore, above variables play important roles in the
design of distillation units.

400
380
360
340
320
300
280
260

20

40
60
Amount distillated(%)

80

100

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

curves of Blending Naphtha (B_NAPHTHA Stream).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The financial support provided by the Kermanshah Oil
Refining Company is gratefully acknowledged.

Doust et al.

600
Experimental
Steady-State
Dynamic

D
istillationtem
peratureASTMD
86(F)

550

500

450

400

350

300

250

20

40
60
Amount distillated(%)

80

100

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

750
Experimental
Steady-state
Dynamic

DistillationtemperatureASTMD86(F)

700

650

600

550

500

450

400

20

40
60
Amount distillated(%)

80

100

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.

107

J. Petroleum Gas Eng.

BNaphtha

Stream("46")

Kerosene

193.794

6928

5279.22
5279.2

6927

5279.18

6926

193.793

193.7925

193.792

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

Kerosene Flow (bbl/day)

BNaphtha Flow (bbl/day)

193.7935

5279.16
5279.14
5279.12
5279.1

6925

6924

6923

193.7915

6922

5279.08
193.791
0

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

5279.06

40

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

6921
0

40

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

AGO
4737.9
4

Stream("52-1")
1.4403

1767.5

4737.75

4737.7

1.4401
1766.5

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

4737.8

1766

1765.5

1765

1764.5

4737.65

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

1764

40

10

15

Stream("56-1")

1.4399
1.4398
1.4397

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

40

1.4395

Stream("47-1")

1969

1160

1968

1159

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

1161

1966
1965
1964
1963
1962

1.44

1.4396

1970

1967

1158
1157
1156
1155
1154

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

40

Stream("39")

x 10

1.4402

1767
Stream("52-1") Flow (bbl/day)

AGO Flow (bbl/day)

4737.85

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

108

1153

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

40

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

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

40

40

Doust et al.

Stream("46")

Kerosene

6935

AGO

5281

4739.8
4739.6

6930

5280.5

4739.4

6920
6915
6910

4739.2
AGO Flow(bbl/day)

Kerosene Flow (bbl/day)

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

6925

5280

5279.5

4739
4738.8
4738.6
4738.4

6905
4738.2

5279
6900
6895

4738

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

5278.5

40

4737.8

BNaphtha
193.83

1.446

x 10

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

40

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

40

Stream("52-1")

Stream("39")

1780

193.825

1775

1.444

193.815
193.81
193.805
193.8

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

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

BNaphtha Flow (bbl/day)

193.82

1.442

1.44

1.438

193.795

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

1765

1760

1755

1.436
193.79

1770

40

1.434

1750
0

10

15

Stream("56-1")

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

40

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

Stream("47-1")

2000

1180

1990

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

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

1170

1980

1970

1960

1950

1150

1140

1130

1940

1930

1160

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

40

1120

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

40

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).

30

35

40

109

J. Petroleum Gas Eng.

BNaphtha

Stream("46")

Kerosene

193.8

6935

5279.9

193.799

5279.8

6930

6920

6915

6910

6905

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

193.796
193.795
193.794

5279.1

4737.9

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

4737.8
AGO Flow (bbl/day)

10

15

20
Time(h)

1.446

4737.7

4737.6

4737.5

4737.4

25

30

35

5279

40

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

1790

1.444

1780

1.443

1.442

1.441

1770
1760
1750
1740
1730

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

40

1720

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

Stream("47-1")
1200

2040
1150

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

2020
2000
1980
1960
1940
1920

1100
1050
1000
950
900

1900
850

1880
1860

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

40

40

Stream("52-1")

Stream("56-1")
2060

35

1800

1.445

1.439

40

Stream("39")

x 10

1.44

5279.3
5279.2

AGO

5279.4

193.792

4738

4737.3

5279.5

193.793

193.791

40

5279.6

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

6900

5279.7

193.797

Kerosene Flow (bbl/day)

6925

BNaphtha Flow(bbl/day)

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

193.798

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

110

800

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

40

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).

30

35

40

Doust et al.

BNaphtha

Stream("46")

193.794

6928

Kerosene
5279.22

193.7935

6925

6924

6923

5279.2
5279.18

193.793

Kerosene Flow(bbl/day)

6926

BNaphtha Flow (bbl/day)

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

6927

193.7925

193.792

5279.16
5279.14
5279.12
5279.1

193.7915

6922

5279.08

6921
0

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

193.791
0

40

10

15

AGO

25

30

35

5279.06

40

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

Stream("52-1")

Stream("39")

x 10

1.4403

4737.9

20
Time(h)

1800

1750

1.4402

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

4737.85

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

AGO Flow(bbl/day)

1.4401

4737.8

4737.75

1.44
1.4399
1.4398
1.4397

1700

1650

1600

1550

4737.7

1500

1.4396
4737.65

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

1.4395

40

1450
0

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

40

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

40

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

2300

2250

1160

2200

1159

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

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

1161

2150

2100

2050

2000

1950

1158
1157
1156
1155
1154

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

40

1153

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

40

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).

40

111

J. Petroleum Gas Eng.

BNaphtha

Stream("46")
6928

193.83

6926

193.825

Kerosene
5281.5

6924

5281

6920
6918
6916
6914

Kerosene Flow(bbl/day)

6922

BNaphtha Flow (bbl/day)

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

193.82
193.815
193.81
193.805

5280.5

5280

193.8
6912

5279.5

193.795

6910
6908

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

193.79

40

1.444

AGO

x 10

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

5279

40

10

Stream("39")

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

Stream("52-1")
1800

4740

1.4435

4739

4738.5

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

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

AGO Flow(bbl/day)

1750

1.443

4739.5

1.4425
1.442
1.4415
1.441
1.4405

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

1.439

40

10

Stream("56-1")

1600
1550
1500

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

40

1400

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

Stream("47-1")
1200

2300

1150

2250

1100

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

2350

2200
2150
2100
2050

1050
1000
950
900
850

2000
1950

1650

1450

1.4395
4737.5

1700

1.44

4738

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

112

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

40

800

10

15

20
Time(h)

25

30

35

40

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

35

40

40

Doust et al.

Nomenclature

AD , n

S n : molar side stream from stage n [

: surface area of the downcomer [

: active surface area of the stage n [

bbl: barrel
C(s): Controller transfer function
D: Load or disturbance
E: Error signal

Fn : molar feed flow onto stage n [

hn

: Temperature on stage n [ C ]
U: Manipulated value

Vn 1 : the molar vapor flow from stage n-1 [

Vn : molar vapor flow flowing from stage n [

H n : molar enthalpy of the vapor on stage n [

x n + 1, j

: molar fraction of component j in the liquid

current from stage n+1
Y: Output value

y n 1 , j

H n1 : molar enthalpy of the vapor from stage n-1 [

: molar fraction of component j in the vapor

current from stage n-1

yn, j

: molar fraction of component j in the vapor current

from stage n

hf

: molar enthalpy of feed [

hT , n

: liquid height on the stage n [

hD , n

: liquid height on the downcomer [

zn, j

: molar fraction of component j in the feed current

on stage n

]
]

L ,n

: liquid density at stage n

K P : controller gain
Ln +1 : the molar liquid that overflows onto stage n from

D : Controller derivative time [s]

stage n+1 [

I : Controller integral time [s]

Ln : molar liquid flowing from stage n [ ]

M n : the liquid mole accumulated on stage n (liquid

: pressure on stage n

QM : heat of mixing [

Qs : external heat source [

Qloss : heat losses [

]
r: desired value
R&D: Research and Development

: molar fraction of component j in the liquid on

stage n

: molar enthalpy of the liquid from stage n+1 [

holdup on stage n) [
]
P(s): process transfer function

xn, j

: molar enthalpy of the liquid on stage n [

hn +1

AT , n

113

REFERENCES
Almudena RF (2001). Dynamic Modelling and Simulation with Ecosimpr
of an Ethanol Distillation Column in the Sugar Industry, Madrid, 1:
150-200.
Araki M (2002). Control systems, Robotics and Automation. Kyoto
University, Japan, 1: 235-376.
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
Crude Oil Distillation Using Aspen Plus and Aspen Dynamics. Pet.
Coal. J. 51(2): 100-109.
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):
510-527.
Luyben WL (2006). Distillation Design and Control Using Aspen
Simulation. John Wiley & Sons. New York, 1: 10-283.