Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 2259 2276

www.elsevier.com/locate/compchemeng

Planning and scheduling models for refinery operations

J.M. Pinto a,*, M. Joly a, L.F.L. Moro a,b
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, Uni6ersity of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo SP, 05508 -900, Brazil
b
PETROBRAS, Petroleo Brasileiro S/A, Brazil

Abstract

The main objective of this work is to discuss planning and scheduling applications for refinery operations. Firstly, the
development of a nonlinear planning model for refinery production is presented. The model is able to represent a general refinery
topology and allows the implementation of nonlinear process models as well as blending relations. Considering the market
limitations for each oil derivative usually supplied by the refinery, the optimization model is able to define new operating points,
thus increasing the production of more valuable products, while satisfying all specification constraints. Real-world applications are
developed for the planning of diesel production in the RPBC refinery in Cubatao (SP, Brazil) among others. The optimization
results were compared to the current situation, where no computer algorithm is used and the stream allocation is made based on
experience, with the aid of manual calculations. The new operating point represents an increase of several million dollars in annual
profitability. The second part of the work addresses scheduling problems in oil refineries that are formulated as mixed integer
optimization models and rely on both continuous and discrete time representations. The problem of crude oil inventory
management that involves the optimal operation of crude oil unloading from pipelines, transfer to storage tanks and the charging
schedule for each crude oil distillation unit will be discussed. Furthermore, the paper will consider the development and solution
of optimization models for short-term scheduling of a set of operations that includes: product receiving from processing units,
storage and inventory management in intermediate tanks, blending in order to attend oil specifications and demands, and
transport sequencing in oil pipelines. Important real-world examples on refinery production and distribution are reported: the
diesel distribution problem at RPBC refinery and the production problems related to the fuel oil/asphalt and LPG areas of the
REVAP refinery in Sao Jose dos Campos (SP, Brazil), which produces approximately 80% of the national consumption. 2000
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Refinery operations; Scheduling applications; Oil refinery

1. Introduction variables but simply consider current operational

The 1980s were characterized by the emergence of
international markets and the development of global
competition. The chemical processing industry had to
go through severe restructuring in order to compete
successfully in this new scenario. Better economic per-
formance has been achieved with a more efficient plant
operation.
The implementation of advanced control systems in
oil refineries has allowed significant productivity gains
in the plant units. The resulting savings have created
interest for more complex automation systems that
explicitly take into account production objectives. Unit
optimizers determine optimal values of the process
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jompinto@usp.br (J.M. Pinto).
conditions.
The optimization of the production units does not
achieve the global economic optimization of the plant.
Usually the objectives of the individual units are confl-
icting and thus contribute to a sub-optimal and many
times infeasible overall operation. The lack of computa-
tional technology for production scheduling is the main
obstacle for the integration of production objectives
and process operations. A more efficient approach
would have to incorporate current and future con-
straints in the synthesis of production schedules, trans-
late short term production objectives in operating
conditions to the processing units, supply an analysis
tool for the effect of economical disturbances in the
performance of the production system within a horizon,
and provide mechanisms to account for commercial as
well as technological uncertainties.

0098-1354/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0098-1354(00)00571-8
2260 J.M. Pinto et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 22592276
According to SIPP (1997) that identified the major
needs for tools in production planning and scheduling
in oil refineries, the traditional approach for operations
planning makes use of linear models for generating a
feasible plan in a monthly horizon and relies on man-
ual/spreadsheet calculations. This process, despite re-
quiring time and effort from the scheduler, simply
generates a feasible solution that does not fully exploit
solutions which are economically more attractive, not
even for sub-areas of the refinery where gains would
clearly improve the operation. The main objective of
SIPP (Integrated System for Production Planning),
which is now in the final stage of development, is to
make the solution generated by a Linear Programming
planning model practicable. Since the operational con-
straints are not present in the LP model, the main goal
is to implement a solution, which violates as little as
possible and it is still similar to the LP solution. Ac-
cording to Magalhaes, Moro, Smania, Hassimotto,
Pinto and Abadia (1998) important results were already
achieved, which are as follows:
Centralized information. SIPP is the single platform
that is required for the production scheduler. It is no
longer necessary to connect to several computers to
get a complete view of the current status both of the
refinery and in all the remaining refining plants in
order to develop a new schedule.
Increase of the scheduling horizon. Since the system
allows access to future projections (demands, oil
extraction, tanker arrivals, etc.), the scheduler has
the opportunity of working with longer horizons.
This horizon was normally restricted to three days
and currently has been raised to 7 days.
What-if analysis. With the implementation of the
system it will be possible to react more quickly to
unexpected situations through cause and effect
analysis.
Knowledge preser6ation. This may be considered the
most important aspect brought by the system that
resulted in a better understanding of the scheduling
problem.
The main benefits of the system will be perceived
from the implementation of models and algorithms that
will support the production scheduler. Among these,
the goal is to develop and implement mathematical
programming models based on mixed integer optimiza-
tion algorithms.
The objective of this paper is to describe the ap-
proach taken in the development of optimization mod-
els for production planning and scheduling for oil
refineries. The plant is divided into sub-systems, which
although coupled, allow the development of representa-
tion of the main scheduling activities within relevant
time horizons. The final objective is to develop strate-
gies for incorporating these models in an automated
planning and scheduling system that generates short
term schedules that consider time-dependent conditions
integrated to the global refining scheme.
This paper is organized as follows: first, an overview
of planning and scheduling activities in oil refineries is
introduced. Developments of representations for non-
linear planning models are discussed, followed by the
optimization work in refinery scheduling with applica-
tions in crude oil management and scheduling, produc-
tion and distribution of oil products, such as diesel, fuel
oil/asphalt and LPG. In particular, the mathematical
model for production and distribution of oil dervatives
is presented. Finally, conclusions are drawn and current
as well as future developments are presented.
2. Overview of planning and scheduling in oil refineries
The potential benefits of optimization for process
operations in oil refineries have long been observed,
with applications of linear programming in crude
blending and product pooling (Symonds, 1955). Oil
refineries are increasingly concerned with improving the
planning of their operations. The major factor, among
others, is the dynamic nature of the economic environ-
ment. Companies must assess the potential impact of
important changes such as demands for final product
specifications, prices, and crude oil compositions or
even be capable to explore immediate market opportu-
nities (Magalhaes et al., 1998). Coxhead (1994) iden-
tifies several applications of planning models in the
refining and oil industry, including: crude selection,
crude allocation for multi-refinery situations, partner-
ship models for negotiating raw material supply and
operations planning.
The availability of LP-based commercial software for
refinery production planning, such as RPMS (Refinery
and Petrochemical Modeling System Bonner &
Moore, 1979) and PIMS (Process Industry Modeling
System Bechtel, 1993) has allowed the development
of general production plans of the whole refinery,
which can interpreted as general trends. As pointed out
by Pelham and Pharris (1996), the planning technology
can be considered well developed and relevant progress
should not be expected. The major advances in this
area will be based on model refinement, notably
through the use of nonlinear programming, as recently
in Picaseno-Gamiz (1989) and Moro, Zanin and Pinto
(1998).
Bodington (1992) also mentions the lack of system-
atic methodologies for handling nonlinear blending re-
lations. Despite that, progress in nonlinear
programming in the nineties (Viswanathan & Gross-
mann, 1990; Porn, Harjunkoski & Westerlund, 1999)
allowed that many authors, such as Ramage (1998),
refer to nonlinear programming (NLP, MINLP) as a
necessary tool for the refineries of the 21st-century. The
 J.M. Pinto et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 22592276
pooling problem is studied by Fieldhouse (1993), who
solves simultaneously the mass balance equations and
quality relations with successive linear approximation.
On the other hand, commercial tools for production
scheduling are few and these do not allow a rigorous
representation of plant particularities (Rigby, Lasdon &
Waren, 1995; Moro et al., 1998). For that reason,
refineries are developing in-house tools strongly based
on simulation (Steinschorn & Hofferl, 1997; Magalhaes
et al., 1998) in order to obtain essential information for
a given system (Moro & Pinto, 1998). In the literature
there are specific applications based on mathematical
programming, such as crude oil unloading and gasoline
blending (Bodington, 1992; Rigby et al., 1995; Lee,
Pinto, Grossmann & Park, 1996; Shah, 1996). The lack
of rigorous models for refinery scheduling is also dis-
cussed by Ballintjin (1993), who compares continuous
and mixed-integer linear formulations and points out to
the low applicability of models based only on continu-
ous variables.
More generally, the scheduling literature presents
very few optimization based formulations for the
scheduling of continuous multiproduct plants, as op-
posed to the large amount of work in batch plants
(Reklaitis, 1992; Pinto & Grossmann, 1998). Nowa-
days, due to need for moving towards flexible plants,
which must promptly respond to market requirements,
continuous processing has received more attention (Ier-
apetritou & Floudas, 1998). Examples of planning and
scheduling of continuous multiproduct plants are pre-
sented for the single stage (Sahinidis & Grossmann,
1991) and multistage case (Pinto & Grossmann, 1994).
It has also been recognized that the integration of
new technologies for process operations is an essential
profitability factor and that it can only be achieved
through appropriate planning (Cutler & Ayala, 1993;
Macchietto, 1993). According to a recent survey of
hydrocarbon processing companies, it is pointed out by
management that among the main areas for integration
there are: sales and planning, planning and operations
Fig. 1. Typical process unit.
2261
management and planning and distribution (Bodington,
1995). The importance of on-line integration of plan-
ning, scheduling and control is pointed out by Boding-
ton and Shobrys (1996) and Steinschorn and Hofferl
(1997). Mansfield, Maphet, Bain, Bosler and Kennedy
(1993) discuss the issue of integration of process con-
trol, optimization and planning activities in gasoline
blending.
3. Planning models
The work focus on the development of nonlinear
planning models for refinery production. Planning ac-
tivities involve optimization of raw material supply,
processing and subsequent commercialization of final
products over one or several time periods.
Moro et al. (1998) developed a nonlinear planning
model for refinery production that is able to represent a
general refinery topology. The model relies on a general
representation for refinery process units in which non-
linear equations are considered. The unit models are
composed of blending relations and process equations.
Also, the unit variables must satisfy bound constraints,
which consist of product specifications, maximum and
minimum unit feed flowrates and limits on operating
variables. Fig. 1 shows the representation of a typical
unit. The model of a typical unit u is represented by the
following equations:
Feed flowrate:
Qu,F = % % Qu%,s,u (1)
u%  Uu s  Su %,u
Feed properties:
Pu,F, j = fj (Qu%,s,u, Pu%,s, j ) u% Uu, sSu%,u, jJs (2)
Total flowrate of each product stream:
Qu,s = f(Qu,F, Pu,F, j, Vu ) jJF, sSU (3)
Unit product stream properties:
Pu,s, j = fj (Pu,F, j, Vu ) jJs, sSU (4)
Product stream flowrates (splitter):
Qu,s = % Qu,s,u% sSU (5)
u%  Us,u
Eqs. (1) and (2) represent the mixing of the feed
streams. These are defined by the sets Uu and Su%,u
which denote the units u% whose destination is u and the
streams leaving unit u whose destination is unit u,
respectively. The properties of the resulting feed stream
are nonlinear functions of the entering feed streams as
well as each property jJs, where Js is the set of
properties relevant to stream s.
The process model is defined in Eqs. (3) and (4),
which relate the product flowrate and properties to the
2262 J.M. Pinto et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 22592276

Fig. 2. Schematic representation of the RPBC diesel production plant.

flowrate and properties of the feed stream as well as to operation cost of each unit, yielding:
the operating variables. In general, the process model
may be a simple yield relation or a complex system of
Pr= % CpuQu,p % CFuQu,F


equations based on conservation principles and consti- u  Up u  UF
tutive relations.
Usually, mass balances and yield expressions are used % Cru + % C6u,oVu,o Qu,F
n (6)
uU o  Vu
to determine product flow rates; energy balances are
not included in the model. The mass balance in a unit The revenue from products is defined over all prod-
may not satisfied due to material losses and to the ucts generated in the units in Up, which is the set of
possible existence of streams that are not modeled, in units that generate finished products. The feed costs are
the event that they are irrelevant to the model in also defined over the set of units that are fed by
question. Yield expressions are based on a standard external streams, Uf. The cost of operation per unit feed
value, which is determined over average values ob- stream in each processing unit depends (linearly) on the
tained from plant data. The effect of the feed properties operating variables of all units (U).
as well as those of the operating variables is applied A real-world application was developed for the plan-
over the standard yield, in the form of gains, also ning of diesel production in the RPBC refinery in
determined experimentally. Most of the physical prop- Cubatao (SP, Brazil), as illustrated in Fig. 2. The
erties are calculated from mixing indexes, which are refinery has as main objective the production of diesel
based on correlations. Likewise, the effect of the feed fuel with different specifications and demands shown in
and operating variables in the properties of the product
streams is computed through gains. Table 1
Note that the operating variables are defined as Diesel specifications
continuous. Nevertheless, if a given unit runs under
Property Diesel
different operating modes (campaigns), these could be
represented by discrete variables. An additional Regular Metropolitan Maritime
difficulty in this case is that the resulting planning
model would be a (nonconvex) MINLP. Density 0.82/0.88 0.82/0.88 0.82/0.88
In (5), since each product streams may have multiple (min/max)
Flash point (min) 60.0
destinations, a simple balance is imposed in each of
(C)
these streams. These are either sent to the final product ASTM 50% 245.0/310.0 245.0/310.0 245.0/310.0
pool or sent to another processing unit. Additionally, (min/max) (C)
operational bound constraints are imposed on the ASTM 85% 370.0 360.0 370.0
flowrates due to market limitations as well as on the (max) (C)
Cetane number 40.0 42.0 40.0
properties because of product specifications.
(min)
The objective is to maximize the profit (Pr) of the Sulfur content 0.5 0.3 1.0
refinery, defined as the sales revenue, the sum of feed (max) (% wt.)
costs and the total operating cost, which is the sum of
 J.M. Pinto et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 22592276
Table 2
Main results for the diesel production problem
Diesel Current operation
Regular Metropolitan
Total flow rate (m3/d) 4878 5500
Properties
Density 0.880 0.880
Flash Point (oC) 66.8 61.8
ASTM 50% (oC) 291.0 282.2
ASTM 85% (oC) 369.7 357.0
Cetane number 41.9 42.0
Sulfur content (% wt.) 0.29 0.20
Table 1. These are as follows: Metropolitan diesel (low
sulphur levels), regular diesel and maritime diesel (high
flashing point). The process includes crude distillation
units, vacuum distillation units, fluid catalytic cracking
unit, coking unit, hydrotreating unit and diesel pools.
The processing units operate in steady state and pro-
duce a variety of intermediate streams, with different
properties, that can be blended to generate the desired
kinds of diesel fuel.
The modeling system GAMS (Brooke, Kendrick &
Meeraus, 1992) was used to implement the optimization
model, which contains 233 variables, 199 equations and
620 non-linear non-zeroes and was solved with
CONOPT, based on a feasible path generalized reduced
gradient method. The optimization results were com-
pared to the current situation, where no computer
algorithm is used and the stream allocation is made
based on experience, with the aid of manual calcula-
tions. Considering the market limitations for each kind
of diesel oil usually supplied by the refinery, the opti-
mization algorithm was able to define a new point of
operation, increasing the production of more valuable
oil, while satisfying all specification limits. A summary
of the main results in shown in Table 2. For example,
the refinery produces approximately 5500 m3/d of
metropolitan diesel, while the market could absorb up
to 7000 m3/d. Since this is the most valuable diesel, it is
clear that there is room to increase the refinery profit.
The refinery also produces 3500 m3/d of maritime
diesel, a low-valued product, while the minimum rate
due to commercial agreements is 3000 m3/d. This situa-
tion arises because this kind of diesel is relatively easy
to produce, since it has less restrictive specifications.
This new operating point represents an increase in
profitability of approximately US$ 6 000 000 per year.
Currently an application is under development for
the overall production planning at the REVAP refinery
based on the generalized model representation. Several
processing units are modeled, such as atmospheric dis-
tillation, vacuum distillation, fluid catalytic cracking,
hydrotreating and deasphalting.
2263
Optimal
Maritime Regular Metropolitan Maritime
3500 3877 7000 2999
0.860 0.871 0.880 0.869
79.5 88.0 60.5 70.0
270.3 292.9 283.0 267.0
354.1 370.0 360.0 350.2
40.5 41.9 42.0 40.3
0.38 0.45 0.20 0.21
4. Scheduling in oil refineries
As previously mentioned, the work has focused on
the development of optimization models and solution
methods for refinery sub-systems. This is mainly due to
the complexity of scheduling operations, which are
translated into large-scale combinatorial problems (NP-
Complete, at least), and limitations in computing tech-
nology. One of the major issues has been on time
representation. Parallel research has been conducted on
both discrete and continuous time models. Another
important aspect that is under investigation concerns
compatibility between planning and scheduling models.
We address scheduling problems in oil refineries,
which are formulated as mixed integer optimization
models and rely on both continuous and discrete time
representations. Although in general continuous time
formulations provide substantial reductions on the
combinatorial feature of a model, the use of a discrete
time representation may still be attractive since:
Resource constraints under discrete time representa-
tion are much easier to handle. For instance, inven-
tory constraints in continuous time are inherently
nonlinear (and nonconvex) due to the bilinear terms
involving flowrates and time intervals. In order to
avoid the solution of non-convex models, lineariza-
tion techniques are frequently used. Consequently,
the performance of the solution method may deterio-
rate due to a significant increase in the integrality
gap of the linearized models. This fact (observed in
Section 4.1, for instance) is undesirable, mainly in
the case of complex industrial processes where a
feasible schedule is often imperative.
If the execution times involved in the problem are of
the same order of magnitude, the size of the resulting
discrete model is less dependent on the scheduling
horizon and can be solved in reasonable time.
Discrete time models provide in general tight formu-
lations, which means that they present a relatively
low integrality gap (Xueya & Sargent, 1996).
2264 J.M. Pinto et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 22592276
Therefore, in light of the above arguments, Sections 4.2
and 4.3 will be founded in discrete representation.
The problem of crude oil inventory management
(Section 4.1) involves the optimal operation of crude oil
unloading from pipelines, transfer to storage tanks and
the charging schedule for each crude oil distillation unit
is formulated and solved with a continuous time repre-
sentation. Furthermore, the paper will consider the
development and solution of optimization models for
short-term scheduling of a set of operations that in-
cludes: product receiving from processing units, storage
and inventory management in intermediate tanks,
blending in order to attend oil specifications and de-
mands, and transport sequencing in oil pipelines. The
mathematical formulation for such a problem is pre-
sented. Important real-world examples on refinery pro-
duction and distribution are reported. The diesel
pooling and distribution problem at the RPBC refinery
is solved (Section 4.2). Production problems related to
the fuel oil/asphalt (Section 4.3) and LPG (Section 4.4)
areas of the REVAP refinery in Sao Jose dos Campos
(SP, Brazil), which produces approximately 80% of all
fuel oil consumed in Brazil, are also reported. In the
LPG problem, an optimization model that is an exten-
sion of the generalized planning model is proposed.
4.1. Crude oil scheduling
This work addresses the problem of crude oil inven-
tory management of a real world refinery that receives
several types of crude oil, which are delivered by an oil
pipeline (Moro & Pinto, 1998). The system consists of a
crude oil pipeline, a series of storage tanks and distilla-
tion units. As in Lee et al. (1996) and Shah (1996), the
problem involves transfers from the pipeline to the
crude tanks, internal transfers among tanks and charges
to the crude distillation units. The processing time of
the tasks involved may vary from few minutes to
several hours.
Typically, an oil refinery receives its crude oil
through a pipeline, which is linked to a docking station,
Fig. 3. Refinery crude system.
where oil tankers unload. The unloading schedule of
these oil tankers is usually defined at corporate level
and cannot be easily changed. Thus, for a given
scheduling horizon, the number, type, start and end
times of the oil parcels are known a priori. In the
pipeline, adjacent crude oil types share an interface,
which has to be properly handled. If these adjacent
batches of oil (known as parcels) present significantly
different properties, it becomes necessary to take into
account this mixing that always occur within the
pipeline, which causes the degradation of part of the
higher quality oil. Therefore it is necessary to send this
mixed oil either to storage together with the oil of lower
quality or to a tank assigned to receive such mixtures.
This operation is called interface separation and the
volume of this interface is defined based on prior
experience.
In the refinery the crude oil is stored in cylindrical
floating-roof tanks, with a total capacity in the range of
tens of thousands cubic meters, which is usually suffi-
cient for a few days of refinery operation. Floating roof
tanks provide much smaller loss of volatile petroleum
components than the usual fixed roof tanks; on the
other hand they demand a minimum product volume of
about 20% of total capacity so to avoid damaging the
floating device. The crude oil must be stored in these
tanks for a certain amount of time until it can be
processed in the distillation units. There is a minimum
amount of time to allow the separation of the brine that
forms an emulsion with the oil. Thus it is not possible
to feed the distillation units directly from the pipeline,
even if an intermediate tank is used. It is possible to
transfer oil among tanks, although such operations are
seldom performed, since they are lengthy and it is
usually simpler to blend two or more tanks while
feeding the distillation units.
If the oil quality in a given tank and the distillation
unit operating conditions are not compatible, it is nec-
essary to process it simultaneously with the oil from
another tank. This situation may arise if a certain crude
oil is too heavy, in which case there will not be enough
product in the distillation tower top section to produce
a proper amount of internal reflux, or if the crude is too
light, which may cause difficulties in pressure control.
As a rule, these properties are known a priori by the
refiner and can be correlated to the petroleum origin.
On the other hand, it is mandatory that the distillation
units be fed with an oil flow rate as close as possible to
a target value, defined at the corporate planning level,
to maximize production and, consequently, profit. It is
imperative that oil feeds such units continuously, be-
cause a shutdown is a very costly and undesirable
operation.
In this work we analyze the problem of generating an
optimal schedule for crude oil operations for a refinery
petroleum system described in Fig. 3, which includes
 J.M. Pinto et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 22592276 2265

Fig. 4. Oil parcel scheduling.

receiving oil from pipeline, transferring oil among of ten different types of crude oil in seven crude storage
tanks, waiting for the brine to be separated, and feeding tanks and a distillation capacity of 200 000 barrels per
the distillation units. These decisions are taken with the day. We study an example derived from the actual
objective of maximizing the operating profit by maxi- refinery situation. The total time horizon spans 112 h,
mizing production while minimizing the number of during which four completely defined oil parcels have
tanks used. to be received from pipeline. Six oil tanks are available,
Firstly, a discrete time mixed integer optimization all of them with the same capacity, but with different
model is proposed for the generation of a plan for amounts and qualities of oil in the beginning of the
refinery crude oil management. However, this model time horizon. We consider three different kinds of oil,
has computational limitations since it results in an Bonito, Marlin and RGN. The distillation unit has a
unnecessary increase of the number of 0 1 variables, as target feed flow rate of 1500 m3/h during the entire time
in Kondili, Pantelides and Sargent (1993). This fact horizon.
makes the model solution unattainable for a relevant The distribution of the oil parcels during the time
scheduling horizon, which is at least of 3 4 days. horizon is shown in Fig. 4, which also shows the
To circumvent this difficulty, we develop an alternate sub-periods and the number of time slots defined for
model with variable length time slots, which represent each one of them. More detailed information on the oil
crude oil receiving operations as well as periods be- parcels can be found in Table 3.
tween two receiving tasks (Moro & Pinto, 1998). The Table 4 describes the oil tank initial conditions. All
system generated by this model is capable of creating a tanks are considered to be adequately prepared to feed
short-term schedule, with a horizon of approximately 1 the distillation unit, i.e. settling has already taken place.
week that takes into account volume and quality con- The tanks have the same dimensions and their capacity
straints as well as operational rules. These rules involve,
among others, minimum time for crude utilization, due Table 3
to brine settling. There are also operational constraints Oil parcel scheduling
such as the one that imposes that just one tank receives
at the same time but several can feed the columns Oil parcel Volume of Start time End time Composition
oil (m3) (h) (h)
simultaneously and the requirement that a tank cannot
receive and send oil at the same time. Inputs to the 1 60 000 8 20 100%
problem are the crude arrival schedule, which describes Bonito
the volumes and qualities of the crude oils to be re- 2 50 000 48 58 100%
ceived in the refinery within the desired horizon; the Marlin
3 1000 58 58.2 100%
crude demands and the current levels and qualities of Marlin
crude oil in the storage tanks. A critical decision con- 4 60 000 100 112 100% RGN
cerns the calculation of crude properties for blended
streams. These properties are normally represented by
indexes, which are linear on a volumetric basis. Never- Table 4
theless, indexes are nonlinear functions of the proper- Initial conditions of oil tanks
ties. Based on this information, a schedule is generated, Tank Volume (m3) Composition
which describes the main decisions such as: feed strat-
egy from the storage tanks to the distillation units as 01 40 000 50% Bonito, 50% Marlin
well as internal transfers among tanks along the 02 50 000 100% Marlin
scheduling horizon. 03 15 000 70% Bonito, 30% RGN
04 50 000 100% Marlin
A real-world application is developed for the 05 20 000 60% Bonito, 40% RGN
scheduling of crude oil in the REVAP refinery in Sao 06 15 000 60% Bonito, 30% Marlin, 10%RGN
Jose dos Campos (SP, Brazil) that receives in the order
2266 J.M. Pinto et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 22592276

Fig. 5. Receiving and sending operations during time horizon.

is 80 000 m3 while the minimum operating volume is
13 000 m3. The minimum settling time is defined as 24 h
and this is the minimum time necessary for brine sepa-
ration after a tank receives oil from pipeline.
The problem so defined, with 19 time slots, four oil
parcels, six tanks and three kinds of oil, generates an
MILP problem with 912 discrete variables and 5599
equations, which was solved using OSL (IBM, 1991),
embedded in the GAMS software (Brooke et al., 1992).
The problem solution can be seen in Fig. 5. It is clear
that the constraints of minimum settling time and the
demand that the distillation unit always be fed are
honored.
If the fixed time slot duration approach were used in
this same problem, we would be forced to define a slot
duration of 15 min, which would generate a MILP
problem with 21504 binary variables. The solution of
such a problem is far beyond the capabilities of current
mixed integer optimization technology.
4.2. Production and distribution
A typical oil refinery produces several streams, whose
major specifications are based on their physical and/or
chemical properties such as flash point, composition of
key components, density and/or viscosity, among oth-
ers. These streams are usually blended in order to
satisfy final product specifications and further sent to
consumer markets, in agreement with the foreseen ne-
cessities throughout the scheduling horizon. The refin-
ery model addressed in this work assumes the existence
of several processing units, which generate several
streams that are differentiated only by the composition
of their key elements, (e.g. sulfur and lead content).
After processing, these streams are stored in intermedi-
ate tanks and further sent through oil pipelines as final
product or mixed with others aiming to produce a
desired blend. The system is shown in Fig. 6, which
includes charging pipelines from U crude distillation
units (CDUs) to storage area, I storage tanks (where
I= 2U) and J oil pipelines that may transport P grades
of products, as well as all their interconnections. The
processing in the CDUs, which operate continuously
during the scheduling horizon, is sent by charging
pipelines in such mode that each pipeline transports
only one kind of product, denoted primary product, to
the storage area where there are two dedicated tanks.
Each tank stores only one kind of product and due to
operational reasons it is not allowed that storage tanks
load and unload simultaneously; therefore, when one
tank unloads the stream from CDU must be directed to
the other one.
All properties of the stored hydrocarbon are the
same as those obtained in the CDU, and thus known.
The distribution of the primary products is done by J
oil pipelines that transport these pure products or their
blends, both denoted final products, in order to achieve
the specification relative to the composition of key-
components. Mixed-integer constraints are proposed
that take into account transitions among products in oil
pipelines. Each oil pipeline supplies only one consumer
market where there is a demand known a priori, along
the scheduling horizon, for different grades of final
Fig. 6. General scheme of scheduling problem.
 J.M. Pinto et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 22592276 2267

Table 5 6. all products have the same (constant) density and

Nomenclature
their blends constitute an ideal solution;
Indices and sets 7. changeover times are neglected.
i =1, , I tanks; j =1, ..., J pipelines; p (or n)= 1 ,..., P A remark should be made on assumption (4), whose
products; k= 1, ..., K key-comp.; t= 1, , T time; u= 1,...,U main objective is to reduce computational time. Al-
CDUs though this assumption could be in principle relaxed,
Binary 6ariables since transition costs would tend to penalize solutions
XWi,t : denotes if tank i is loading at time t; DDi,j,t : denotes if with many changeovers, it would incur in a much larger
tank i feeds oil pipeline j at time t; XDIj,p,t /XDFj,p,t : denotes if combinatorial problem. Nevertheless, it is recognized
there was the start/end of transport of product p by oil
pipeline j at time t; DOj,p,t : denotes if oil pipeline j transports
that the global optimal solution may be affected in
product p at time t; TRANj,p,n : denotes if there was transition cases that inventory levels are high (it would be neces-
from product p to n in oil pipeline j during the horizon; sary to unload more than once along the horizon)
TRANSj,p,n : auxiliary variable for transition modeling and/or storage is expensive (higher operating costs).
Continuous 6ariables Note that the values of flowrate bounds in Table 5
FVSi,t : volumetric flowrate from CDU to tank i at time t; VSi,t : should be specified in agreement with the time span
volume of tank i at time t; FSBi,j,t : volumetric flowrate from adopted.
tank i to oil pipeline j at time t; FOj,p,t : volumetric flowrate of
product p in oil pipeline j at time t; TDIj,p /TDFj,p : initial/final
transport time of product p in oil pipeline j
Maximize:
Profit= sales revenue raw material cost pumping
Parameters
costinventory cost transition cost.
PRp : revenue per unit volume of final product p; CRMi : cost per
unit volume of raw material in tank i; CPi : pumping cost from J P T
tank i to any oil pipeline j per flow unit; CINVi : inventory cost Profit= % % % (PRp FOj,p,t )
of tank i per unit volume and time; CHANGEp,n : transition j=1 p=1 t=1
cost between final products p and n (p to n); I J T
FVSMAXi /FVSMINi : max/min volumetric flowrate from CDU % % % [(CRMi + CPi ) FSBi, j,t ]
to tank i; VSMAXi /VSMINi : capacity bounds of tank i; i=1 j=1 t=1
VSZEROi : initial volume of tank i; DMj,p : volumetric demand I T
of product p by oil pipeline j; FSBMAXi,j /FSBMINi,j : % % (CINVi VSi,t )
max/min volumetric flowrate from tank i to oil pipeline j; i=1 t=1
FOMAXj /FOMINj : max/min volumetric flowrate in oil pipeline J P N
j; ESi,k : composition of key-element k in tank i; Cp,k : % % % (TRANj,p,n CHANGEp,n ) (7)
specification of product p in key-element k; NTRANj : total j=1 p=1 n=1
number of transitions in oil pipeline j; NTj,p : 01 parameter
that denotes the existence of demand for p in oil pipeline j Subject to:
1. Material balance constraints
Volumetric balances are developed in (8a) and vol-
products that are discerned only by the composition of umes of all storage tanks are bounded in (8b).
the key-elements.
t

VSi,t = VSZEROi + % FVSi,t % (FSBi, j,t )
J
n
t=1 j=1
4.2.1. Mathematical formulation i= 1,, I t= 1, , T (8a)
The model is based on a uniform discretization of
time and relies on the following assumptions: VSMINi 5 VSi,t 5 VSMAXi
1. each oil pipeline j can be simultaneously fed by one
or more storage tanks, aiming to generate on line i= 1, , I; t= 1, , T (8b)
the oil blends with correct key-composition;
Constraint (9a) enforces the global balance for the
2. each storage tank i feeds at most NCi oil pipelines
blending streams, while in (9b) the key-component bal-
simultaneously and connects with any oil pipeline j;
ances are done, whose specifications are exactly im-
3. the oil mixing properties are calculated by a
posed or may also be stated as lower/upper bounds.
weighted relation based on the properties of the
original streams; P I

4. the expedition of final products by any oil pipeline % (FOj,p,t )= % (FSBi, j,t )
p=1 i=1
occurs only once throughout the scheduling horizon
(i.e. in a single batch); j =1, , J; t= 1, , T (9a)
5. material losses due to undesirable mixing that oc- p I
curs within the oil pipeline when there is a transport % (Cp,k FOj,p,t )= % (FSBi, j,t ESi,k )
P=1 i=1
changeover of two final products incurs on a transi-
tion cost, which is sequence dependent; j= 1, , J; k= 1, , K; t= 1, , T (9b)
2268 J.M. Pinto et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 22592276

2. Demand constraints pipelines) must satisfy upper and lower flow bounds
The plant must also satisfy the foreseen demands in due to pumping limitations, as stated by constraints
each market. In (10), demand must be exactly met, but (12a2c).
may also be enforced as a lower/upper bound.
FVSMINi XWi,t 5 FVSi,t 5 FVSMAXi XWi,t
T
DMj,p = % (FOj,p,t ) j = 1, , J; p = 1, , P i= 1, , I; t= 1, , T (12a)
t=1
(10) FSBMINi, j DDi, j,t 5 FSBi, j,t 5 FSBMAXi, j DDi, j,t
3. Operating rules i= 1, , I; j= 1, , J; t= 1, , T (12b)
Constraints (11a b) state that it is not allowed that
storage tanks load and unload simultaneously and im- FOMINj DOj,p,t 5 FOj,p,t 5 FOMAXj DOj,p,t
pose that tank i feeds at most NCi oil pipelines at every j= 1, , J; p= 1, , P; t=1, , T (12c)
time.
5. Transition relations
XWi,t + XWi + 1,t = 1 i =1,3,5, ; t =1,, T
Constraint (13a) imposes that if oil pipeline j trans-
(11a)
ports product n later than product p, it is possible that
J
there is a transition from product p to n (denoted by
NCi XWi,t + % (DDi, j,t ) 5 NCi
j=1
TRANSj,p,n = 1). This is a necessary, but not sufficient
condition. Otherwise, constraint (13c) sets TRANSj,p,n
i = 1, , I; t= 1, , T (11b)
to zero if product n is transported earlier than product
Expedition of final product p by oil pipeline j occurs at p. Note that TRANSj,p,n indicates only the potential
most once during the scheduling horizon (i.e. a single transition from p to n, but this transition may not take
batch). If this process begins, it must finish before the place even when TRANSj,p,n = 1. Consider the case that
end of the period, as in (11c). Moreover, in (11d) the oil pipeline j transports products A, B and C in this
start time must precede its end. order. From (13a): TRANSj,A,B = TRANSj,A,C =
T T TRANSj,B,C = 1. However, it is clear that are only
% (XDIj,p,t )5 1 and % (XDIj,p,t XDFj,p,t ) =0 transitions from A to B and from B to C.
t=1 t=1
TRANSj,p,n ] (TDIj,n TDIj,p )/(T)
j= 1, J; p=1, , P (11c)
T T n" p; p=1, , P; j =1, , J (13a)
% (t XDIj,p,t )= TDIj,p 5TDFj,p = % (t XDFj,p,t )
t=1 t=1 TRANSj,p,n = 0 n= p; j= 1, , J (13b)
j= 1, J; p=1, , P (11d) T (TRANSj,p,n )5 (TDIj,n TDIj,p )
Product p is sent by oil pipeline j only between TDIj,p j= 1, , J; p= 1, , P; n= 1, , N (13c)
and TDFj,p as in (11e).
t Note that P= N. Constraints (13df) impose that a
DOj,p,t = % (XDIj,p,t XDFj,p,t ) transition from product p to n (n, n" p) and vice-
t=1 versa occurs at most once. The sum of all binary
j =1, , J; p=1, , P; t = 1, , T (11e) variables TRANj,p,n, which truly denote the occurrence
of transition from product p to n in oil pipeline j, must
It is not allowed that storage tank i(i ) unloads to oil match the total number of transitions, NTRANj, as in
pipeline j at time t if this oil pipeline must not transport (13h).
products in this moment as stated by constraint (11f).
P ! P
NTRANj = max 0, % (NTj,p ) 1
"
DDi, j,t 5 % (DOj,p,t ) p=1
p=1

i = 1, , I; j =1, , J; t =1, , T (11f) where the first argument of the max operator accounts
for the case that no product is sent through oil pipeline
Additionally, in (11g) each oil pipeline at each time t j during the scheduling horizon and the second argu-
can transport at most one final product. ment denotes that the number of transitions depends on
P the number of products sent. In the previous case of A,
% (DOj,p,t )51 j =1, , J; t =1,, T (11g) B and C sent through pipeline j, we have p (NTj,p )=3
p=1
and therefore NTRANj = 2, i.e. two transitions occur.
4. Flowrate constraints NTj,p is a 01 parameter that is activated by the
All streams (from CDUs to storage tanks, from modeling if there is demand of product p in market fed
storage tanks to oil pipelines and those within the oil by j.
 J.M. Pinto et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 22592276 2269

TRANj,p,n 5TRANSj,p,n should be obtained by proper dilution since no rigorous

j = 1, , J; p=1,, P; n= 1, , N (13d)
N
% (TRANj,p,n )51 j= 1, , J; p =1, , P
n=1
(13e)
P was used in order to implement the optimization model
% (TRANj,p,n )51 j= 1, , J; n =1, , N
p=1
(13f )
P N
% % (TRANj,p,n )= NTRANj j= 1, , J (13g)
p=1 n=1
4.2.2. Real-world application
A real-world example is presented that is based on
Moro et al. (1998) (see Section 3), who studied the
diesel production planning problem at the PETRO-
BRAS RPBC refinery in Cubatao (SP, Brazil). The
system includes three CDUs, six storage tanks and
three oil pipelines and was solved for a scheduling
horizon of one day, at every hour. The plant produces
three diesel grades: metropolitan (p = 1), regular (p= 2)
and maritime diesel (p =3) as shown in Table 6. It is
assumed that the relevant properties are the sulfur
content (k= 1) and the cetane number (k = 2). The
remaining properties are not changed when different
oils are mixed. Since metropolitan is the most valuable
diesel and adding the fact that its demand can be
accepted as unlimited, its distribution must be maxi-
mized in order to increase the refinery profitability. This
problem works with lower and upper limits for the
specification of two key-components in question and
also allows flexibility to determine the metropolitan
diesel demand, which has a lower bound of 5000 m3/d.
It is also assumed that regular diesel specification
control related to the composition of key-elements is
done in CDU2. The metropolitan diesel storage tanks
may feed at most two oil pipelines simultaneously and
the remaining ones only one pipeline.
The modeling system GAMS (Brooke et al., 1992)
and its solution method. The branch and bound code
OSL (IBM, 1991) was utilized to solve this MILP
model, which contains 2252 continuous variables, 1278
01 variables and 3065 constraints. In order to reduce
the computational expense, the relative optimality crite-
rion was set to a non-zero value and valid constraints
were included in the model to reduce the size of the
search tree providing significant timesaving. The model
solution provides, at each time of the scheduling hori-
zon, flowrates of all streams as well as the schedule for
tank loading and unloading, all information for the
mixing process, volumes in all tanks and operation
schedule for oil pipelines. The optimal schedule for this
real-world distribution problem is shown in Fig. 7.
4.3. Fuel oil/asphalt production
Although some authors such as Rigby et al. (1995)
mention that in general the optimization of fuel oil area
does not provide fruitful gains in terms of refinery
profitability, this may not always be the case. For
instance, for the REVAP refinery this area is singular
since (Magalhaes et al., 1998):
there are significant storage limitations in the fuel oil
area;
the Brazilian oil sector is under a gradual end of 43
year-old monopoly of the PETROBRAS (started in
1992), fact mentioned by Hartveld (1996) as respon-

Fig. 7. Optimal operation schedule for the diesel example.

 2270

Table 6
System information for the diesel example

Storage tank Key-cp.1 S (% weight) Kep-cp.2 cetane n. Storage limits Unload limits (m3/h) Invent cost ($/vol.t) Pump cost ($/vol.t)
(m3)
i = 1/i= 2 0.3/0.3 42.0/42.0 200030 000 30500 0.10/0.10 0.20/0.20
i = 3/i= 4 $ 0.6/0.4 $ 40.3/39.0 200030 000 40500 0.12/0.12 0.18/0.18
i= 5/i=6 1.0/1.0 40.0/40.0 200030 000 40500 0.11/0.11 0.16/0.16
Primary products Key-comp.1 S Key.comp.2 (cetane Prod. Rate Vol. cost ($/vol.) Oil pipeline Flowrate bounds
(% weight) n.) (m3/h) (m3/h)
a=1 (from 0.3/0.3 42.0/42.0 250300 0.60 j =1 50400
u=1)
a=2 (from $0.6/0.4 $ 40.3/39.0 220250 0.40 j=2 50400
u=2)
a=3 (from 1.0/1.0 40.0/40.0 180200 0.05 j =3 50250
u=3)
Diesel Sulfur (% wt.) Cetane number Sale pr. ($/vol.) Demand (103 m3) in Transition cost between final products p/n
specifications j =1/2/3 (p to n) ($)
p= 1 50.30 ]42 0.90 ]5.0/1.0/0.0
p= 2 50.50 ]40 0.50 4.0/1.0/1.0 1/2 1/3 2/1 2/3 3/1 3/2
p=3 51.00 ]40 0.10 0.0/1.5/2.0 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.9 1.9
J.M. Pinto et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 22592276
 J.M. Pinto et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 22592276
Fig. 8. Schematic representation of the plant.
sible for the new extraordinary business opportuni-
ties in Brazil. More specifically, fuel oil monopoly
was recently broken (May, 1999);
a substantial amount of the plant production is
dispatched by oil pipelines, which operate intense
flux among refineries of the state of Sao Paulo;
the plant is responsible for approximately 80% of all
fuel oil consumed in Brazil.
In this context, the present work considers the short-
term scheduling of fuel oil and asphalt production with
operations management, which include mixing, storage
and distribution. A set of final products is diluted and
sent to intermediate storage tanks, and may undergo
further eventual corrections in dilution rates previous to
its distribution to the consumer market, whose demand
is determined from refinery planning. The objective is
the development of an optimization model which is able
to define the production schedule of a real world prob-
lem at the PETROBRAS REVAP Refinery, located in
Sao Jose dos Campos (SP, Brazil). The resulting model
produces an optimal policy of production and inven-
tory control throughout the scheduling horizon regard-
ing the foreseen product demands under operational
restrictions, with the objective of minimizing the costs
involved in this portion of the plant.
Fig. 8 illustrates the system configuration which in-
cludes one deasphalting unit (UDASF), one cracking
unit (UFCC), two storage tanks for diluents, 15 storage
tanks for final products, four charging terminals and
two oil pipelines as well as all their interconnections.
During the scheduling horizon, asphaltic residue
(RASF) is produced in the UDASF, as bottom
product, and further diluted on-line with at least one of
the following diluents: decanted oil (OCC) and light
cycle oil (LCO), with the purpose of producing four
grades of fuel oil (FO1, FO2, FO3 and FO4), or with
another diluent, heavy gasoil (HG) aiming to produce
two asphalt specifications (CAP 07 and CAP 20).
Moreover, the plant produces two grades of ultra-vis-
cous oil (UVO1 and UVO2) which must contain only
2271
pure LCO from UFCC as diluent. The UDASF pro-
duction must also satisfy a minimal demand of pure
RASF to the refinery oil-header (roh). The major spe-
cification of all final products is the viscosity range,
which has to be adjusted by proper dilution with avail-
able diluents. The OCC and the HG streams are totally
utilized to supply the plant necessities; the HG stream is
directed to storage in tank TK-42221 and the OCC
stream from UFCC is directly utilized for RASF dilu-
tion or directed to storage in TK-42208 (which contains
LCO and OCC mixed) once is not permitted that two
operations occurs simultaneously. Unlike the above
described, the LCO stream must be directed to the
plant only when necessary, i.e. when is desired to
charge the storage tank TK-42208 or when UVO1 (or
UVO2) must be produced. In this case, to assert that
pure LCO is being utilized to dilute RASF, the TK-
42208 level must increase at a proper rate while pure
LCO flows in the dilution line (see Fig. 8). A priori, the
last procedure may be also used to produce fuel oil, but
it is not employed indeed.
There is no pre-assignment of final products to tanks,
with the exception of asphalt and UVO although this
should occur whenever possible, in agreement with Fig.
7. Sometimes it is necessary, in order to meet demand,
to temporarily store products in tanks originally dedi-
cated to other oil grades, due to storage limitation.
The presence of residual product in the tank, prior to
the transfer, requires viscosity adjustment by addition
of diluents or pure RASF directly to the tank and
homogenization steps. This strategy of allocating the
production temporarily in a tank is often applied to
optimize the tank farm utilization as a function of the
foreseen demand and existing inventory, however it is
undesirable once it implies on additional process steps,
such as homogenization and viscosity analysis. The
storage tanks cannot be charged and discharged simul-
taneously, with the exception of HG storage tank,
which is continually charged. The distribution of a
given product, by oil pipeline or trucks, requires that
2272 J.M. Pinto et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 22592276

relations to compute material loss generated by the

undesirable mixing among products transported in the
oil pipelines. Although the number of 01 variables
remains unchanged, the linearization causes an increase
in the model size; nevertheless it has the advantage of
Fig. 9. Plant production throughout the scheduling horizon (06:00 h providing a lower bound to the objective function.
start time).
The most important operating variables of the prob-
lem are the order of plant production, flowrate values
two tanks that contain it are connected to the same
of all streams, as well as the distribution schedule. The
line, with exception of tanks TK-44108 and TK-43307,
solvers DICOPT+ + (Viswanathan & Grossmann,
which operate individually. Hence, there is the option
1990) and OSL (IBM, 1991) embedded in the modeling
of replacing the supplier tank in case of problems
system GAMS (Brooke et al., 1992) were used to
during the discharge operation, as for example the
implement the MIP optimization models for a schedul-
urgent necessity of receiving material in one of tanks.
ing horizon of 3 days discretized in 2 h intervals. In
The distribution of UVO/Asphalt is only performed by
order to reduce the CPU time, the relative optimality
trucks, from 06:00 to 18:00 h and the distribution of all
criterion was set to a non-zero value and valid con-
FOs is only done by oil pipelines; one is utilized essen-
straints were tested to reduce the size of the search tree
tially to the transport of FO1 and FO4 to Sao Paulo
providing significant timesaving. The computational
and another is utilized to transport FO1, FO2 and FO3
performances of the both MIP models are evaluated
to nearby cities. Set-up times can be neglected.
and compared according to algorithmic structures and
The problem is first modeled as a non-convex mixed-
modeling features. The smaller model (MINLP) has
integer non-linear programming (MINLP), which has
2629 continuous variables, 1584 01 variables and 4630
the inconvenience that no global solution is guaranteed
constraints and its computational results are graphi-
by conventional MINLP algorithms, although this
cally presented in Figs. 911.
difficulty is partially circumvented by the augmented
penalty version of the outer-approximation method. A
rigorous mixed-integer linear (MILP) model derived 4.4. LPG scheduling
from the previous non-linear one is obtained, which
may theoretically be solved to global optimality (Pinto Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is basically a mix of
& Joly, 2000). The MILP also incorporates transition hydrocarbons with three and four carbon atoms. This

Fig. 10. Flowrates in oil pipelines (m3/h).

Fig. 11. Volume ( 10 3 m3) of several tanks as function of time (06:00 h start time).
 J.M. Pinto et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 22592276
Fig. 12. Refinery LPG system.
product may be used as domestic fuel for cooking and
heating and it is also an important source of petro-
chemical intermediate products, such as propene and
iso-butane.
In a typical refinery, the catalytic cracking process is
the major producer of LPG and approximately a quar-
ter of its load is transformed in three and four carbon-
atom hydrocarbons. Additional amounts are produced
by crude distillation, delayed coking, etc. The fact that
LPG can be liquefied at low pressures allows the stor-
age of large amounts in spherical tanks, known simply
as spheres.
In the refinery studied, the LPG raw material stream
is fed to a distillation column, which separates it into a
stream rich in hydrocarbons with three carbon atoms
and another rich in four carbon atom hydrocarbons.
This column can operate in two different modes: nor-
mal mode that produces propane for use as domestic
fuel (bottled gas or LPG), and special mode, which
employs a high internal reflux ratio, that produces
propane for petrochemical purposes. This petrochemi-
cal propane is a very profitable product and its produc-
tion is usually maximized. When in this high-purity
mode of operation, the column capacity is limited and
cannot process the entire LPG stream, which implies
that part of it must be bypassed straight to storage.
The storage farm comprises eight spheres capable of
handling LPG or propane (high pressure and low den-
sity) and four spheres suitable for butane storage (low
pressure and higher density). The butane produced can
also be marketed as bottled gas, or injected in the
gasoline pool or, more frequently, fed to the MTBE
unit. This unit produces the methyl-terc-butyl-ether, a
gasoline additive. It is also possible to feed stored LPG
or propane to the separation column, an operation
known as reprocessing. The overall scheme of the LPG
processing area is shown in Fig. 12.
The main scheduling difficulties in this system arise
from the fact that most LPG and LPG by-products are
2273
shipped from the refinery through a pipeline. Due to
that, large quantities of each product must be available
when pipeline pumping starts, since small amounts
cannot be shipped in this way. In general the refinery
operates by almost reaching its storage capacity and
then ships most of the product, ending up with a very
small amount. On the other hand, the local market
demands LPG more or less continuously.
The problem is how to make use of the processing
resources, raw material and storage room so that the
product delivery schedules and quantities are honored.
The objective function asks for the maximization of
product deliveries and the available inventory of inter-
mediate propane while the number of spheres used is
minimized.
The optimization model relies on a mixed integer
linear programming (MILP) formulation (Pinto &
Moro, 2000). Two main decisions concerning this for-
mulation are the representation of the time domain and
the model structure itself, which involves the definition
of continuous and discrete variables as well as their
relationships.
In the MILP formulation, time horizon is divided in
a fixed number of time slots of unknown duration. For
some of these time slots the initial or final time instant
is previously known due to decisions that must happen
at that time instant. The other time slots are entirely
free but for the fact that they must be subsequent and
there must not be overlaps among them. These last are
known as soft time slots, whose duration is defined by
the optimization algorithm. The first ones are known as
hard time slots. The schedule of the inputs must be
taken into account when defining the time slots to be
used. Any operation whose precise time is known in
advance defines a hard time slot. On the other hand,
the time between two hard time slots may be divided
into a number of soft time slots, whose duration will
be set by the optimization algorithm.
2274 J.M. Pinto et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 22592276
The model assumes the existence of several process-
ing units, producing a variety of intermediate streams,
with different properties, that can be blended to consti-
tute the desired products. The basic aspects of this
formulation were described by Moro et al. (1998) for
the planning problem, in which the time domain is not
taken into account. In this work we extend that formu-
lation for the scheduling problem, where decisions must
be sequenced and time is an important issue. On the
other hand, in the present formulation aspects related
to product qualities were not investigated (the problem
remains linear).
We define a unit as a processing element that trans-
forms a feed into several products. The distribution and
properties of these products are related to the feed flow
rate and properties and the unit operating variables. A
product can be the feed of another unit and the feed of
any unit is the mix of every stream sent to it.
There are two classes of units in the formulation: the
processing units and the storage units. The processing
units continuously transform the feed into one or more
products, so that the steady-state material balance
around them is always satisfied. On the other hand, the
storage units merely store products for later usage. In
this case, the material balance must include the non-sta-
tionary accumulation term. The processing units
defined for the LPG scheduling problem are as follows:
Feed unit: it is used simply to mix all the external
streams and distribute the resulting mixture to down-
stream units. It produces only one stream, a mix of
C3 and C4 (C3C4) that can be distributed between
the distillation column and the bypass unit.
Distillation column: since the column can operate in
two different modes we created two units to repre-
sent it and added constraints to assure that only one
may operate during a given time slot. The unit used
to represent the high-purity propane operation mode
produces special propane (C3i) and butane (C4). The
other unit produces standard grade propane (C3n)
and butane. In both cases the C3 stream can be sent
to the spheres or to the bypass unit, while the C4
stream can be directed only to storage.
MTBE unit: process a C4 stream producing MTBE
and raffinate. The MTBE stream is directed to the
corresponding product pool unit, while raffinate
must be stored in a LPG or butane sphere.
Spheres: these units have the capability to store
product and so are considered storage units. The
LPG spheres can send streams to LPG and C3
product pools and to the distillation column to be
reprocessed. The butane spheres can feed the LPG
and butane product pools and the MTBE unit.
Product Pools: these units represent the product
consumers and are modeled simply as a sink.
Bypass: represents the pipe that is used to bypass the
distillation column and send product direct to the
LPG spheres.
The desired product delivery schedule is an input to the
optimization algorithm and the LPG production flow
rate is also known in advance. During the total time
horizon propane, LPG and butane must be produced,
sampled, analyzed and delivered. Furthermore the tank
farm must be adequately managed, so that the maxi-
mum and minimum volumes are honored.
We built an example closely related to the actual
refinery situation. The total time horizon spans 58 h,
during which propane, LPG and butane ought to be
produced, sampled, analyzed and delivered to cus-
tomers. Furthermore the tank farm, comprising eight
LPG and propane spheres as well as four butane
spheres must be adequately managed. The objective is
to maximize product delivery as well as the inventory of
petrochemical propane.
The LPG production pattern and the desired product
deliveries are known in advance as well as the desired
feed rate to MTBE unit. In this case, total amount of
3550 m3 of LPG must be delivered between 26 and 34
h. Also, a total volume of 1100 m3 of petrochemical
propane must be delivered between 54 and 58 h, while
2000 m3 of butane must be sent to customers between
50 and 54 h. The LPG production flowrate is 137 m3/h
and remains the same along the horizon. Moreover,
MTBE desired flowrate must be reduced from 14 to 13
m3/h at time 31 h.
According to these definitions, a total of ten variable-
size time slots were defined, most of which were consid-
ered hard time-slots, i.e. with known duration. The
modeling system GAMS version 2.50 (Brooke et al.,
1992) was used to implement the optimization model,
which contains 774 discrete variables and 3807 equa-
tions and was solved with OSL solver. The results
clearly show that the presented optimization system is
capable of deriving an adequate schedule for the LPG
production decisions. The optimal schedule is shown in
Fig. 13.
5. Conclusions
Applications in planning and scheduling for refinery
operations have been addressed in this paper. It has
been shown that these problems can be efficiently for-
mulated as large-scale MIP optimization models. Dis-
crete and continuous time representation approaches
for handling the highly combinatorial issues of these
representations were tested. Continuous time models
were found to avoid the difficulty originated by the
relevant differences in processing time of the several
operations involved, as in the case of crude receipt-
scheduling problem. Nevertheless, optimal results were
obtained in reasonable time through discretization of
scheduling horizon for important areas of the refinery.
 J.M. Pinto et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 22592276
Fig. 13. Optimal LPG schedule.
Real-world refinery problems were presented and
solved. The MILP models can be solved with the LP
based branch and bound method while the generalized
reduced gradient method was satisfactory for NLP
ones. The solution of the MINLP non-convex model
presented for the fuel oil production problem can in
principle be accomplished with the augmented penalty
version of the outer-approximation method imple-
mented in DICOPT + +. The computational require-
ments of all solution methods proposed are reasonable.
However, it is computationally infeasible to obtain
global optimal solutions due to the highly combinato-
rial features of the MIP formulations.
In fact, the understanding of these real-world plan-
ning/scheduling problems constitute the most difficult
step for obtaining optimal solutions, since several oper-
ational features of the plant are closely related to the
process experts, a fact that represents an additional
difficulty to the modeler task. Many times, this is
responsible for divergences between the modeler and
the user. Suri, Diehl, Treville and Tomsicek (1995)
mention this fact as one of the major challenges in
Operations Research in the last 15 years since the
scientific community frequently see the industrial prob-
lems as solved as soon as a paper is published. On the
other hand, the dynamic nature of the Petrochemical
2275
Industry requires continuous work in order to allow the
necessary enhancements related to the computer aided
scheduling tools.
Other important areas of the refinery are currently
under investigation, such as the distillation units and
the FCC area, which operate under different cam-
paigns. The problems of crude oil distribution among
the refineries as well as the management of common oil
pipelines are also fundamental for the efficient opera-
tion of an oil company. More generally, important
issues remain to be investigated, such as integration of
logistics, planning and scheduling, as well as more
efficient modeling and solution techniques.
References
Ballintjin, K. (1993). Optimization in refinery scheduling: modeling
and solution. In T. A. Ciriani, & R. C. Leachman, Optimization in
industry, vol. 3 (pp. 191 199). New York: Wiley.
Bechtel (1993). PIMS (Process Industry Modeling System) Users
manual. Version 6.0. Houston, TX: Bechtel Corp.
Bodington, C. E. (1992). Inventory management in blending opti-
mization: use of nonlinear optimization for gasoline blend plan-
ning and scheduling. In ORSA/TIMS National Meeting, San
Francisco (CA).
Bodington, C. E. (1995). Planning, scheduling, and control integration
in the process industries. New York: McGraw Hill.
2276 J.M. Pinto et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 22592276
Bodington, C. E, & Shobrys, D. E. (1996). Optimize the supply chain.
Hydrocarbon Processing, 75 (9), 5560.
Bonner & Moore (1979). RPMS (Refinery and Petrochemical Model-
ing System): a system description. Houston, NY: Bonner and
Moore Management Science.
Brooke, A., Kendrick, D., & Meeraus, A. (1992). GAMS a users
guide (release 2.25). San Francisco, CA: The Scientific Press.
Coxhead, R. E. (1994). Integrated planning and scheduling systems
for the refining industry. In T. A. Ciriani, & R. C. Leachman,
Optimization in industry, vol. 2 (pp. 185199). New York: Wiley.
Cutler, C. R., & Ayala, J. S. (1993). Integrating off-line schedulers
with real time optimizers. In AIChE National Spring Meeting,
paper 40a, Houston, TX.
Fieldhouse, M. (1993). The pooling problem. In T. A. Ciriani, & R.
C. Leachman, Optimization in industry, vol. 3 (pp. 223230). New
York: Wiley.
Hartveld, M. (1996). The chemical industry, by country Brazil.
Hydrocarbon Processing, 75 (9), 118118.
IBM (1991). IBM-OSL guide and reference (release 2). Kingston, NY.
Ierapetritou, M. G., & Floudas, C. A. (1998). Effective continuous-
time formulation for short-term scheduling. 2. Continuous and
semicontinuous processes. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Re-
search, 37, 4360 4374.
Kondili, E., Pantelides, C. C., & Sargent, R. W. H. (1993). A general
algorithm for scheduling batch operations. Computers & Chemical
Engineering, 17, 211 227.
Lee, H., Pinto, J. M., Grossmann, I. E., & Park, S. (1996). Mixed-in-
teger linear programming model for refinery short-term schedul-
ing of crude oil unloading with inventory management. Industrial
& Engineering Chemistry Research, 35, 16301641.
Macchietto, S. (1993). Bridging the gap integration of design,
operations scheduling and control. In D. W. T. Rippin, J. C.
Hale, & J. F. Davis, Foundations of computer aided process
operations (pp. 207 230). Austin, TX: CACHE.
Magalhaes, M. V. O., Moro, L. F. L., Smania, P., Hassimotto, M.
K., Pinto, J. M., & Abadia, G. J. (1998). SIPP A solution for
refinery scheduling. 1998 NPRA Computer Conference, National
Petroleum Refiners Association, November 1618, San Antonio,
TX.
Mansfield, K. W., Maphet, J. G., Bain, M. L., Bosler, W. H., &
Kennedy, J. P. (1993). Gasoline blending with an integrated on line
optimization, scheduling and control system. Paper 40b. AIChE
National Spring Meeting, Houston, TX.
Moro, L. F. L, Zanin, A. C., & Pinto, J. M. (1998). A planning
model for refinery diesel production. Computers & Chemical Engi-
neering, 22 (Suppl), S1039S1042.
Moro, L. F. L., & Pinto, J. M. (1998). A mixed-integer model for
short-term crude oil scheduling. In AIChE Annual National Meet-
ing, paper 241c. Miami Beach, FL.
Pelham, R., & Pharris, C. (1996). Refinery operation and control: a
future vision. Hydrocarbon Processing, 75 (7), 8994.
Picaseno-Gamiz, J. (1989). A systematic approach for scheduling pro-
duction in continuous processing systems. Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
Pinto, J. M., & Grossmann, I. E. (1994). Optimal cyclic scheduling of
multistage continuous multiproduct plants. Computers & Chemi-
cal Engineering, 18 (9), 797 816.
Pinto, J. M., & Grossmann, I. E. (1998). Assignment and sequencing
models for the scheduling of chemical processes. Annals of Opera-
tions Research, 81, 433 466.
Pinto, J. M., & Moro, L. F. L. (2000). A mixed-integer model for
LPG scheduling. Accepted at the European Symposium on Com-
puter Aided Process Engineering-ESCAPE-10, Florence, Italy.
Pinto, J. M., & Joly, M. (2000). Mixed-integer programming tech-
niques for the scheduling of fuel oil and asphalt production. Ac-
cepted at the European Symposium on Computer Aided Process
Engineering-ESCAPE-10, Florence, Italy.
Porn, R., Harjunkoski, I., & Westerlund, T. (1999). Convexification
of different classes of non-convex MINLP problems. Computers &
Chemical Engineering, 23, 439 448.
Ramage, M. P. (1998) The petroleum industry of the 21st Century. In
Foundations of computer aided process operations-FOCAPO 98,
Snowmass, CO.
Reklaitis, G.V. (1992). O6er6iew of scheduling and planning of batch
process operations. NATO Advanced Study Institute Batch
Process Systems Engineering, Antalya, Turkey.
Rigby, B., Lasdon, L. S., & Waren, A. D. (1995). The evolution of
Texacos blending systems: from OMEGA to StarBlend. Inter-
faces, 25 (5), 64 83.
Sahinidis, N. V., & Grossmann, I. E. (1991). MINLP model for cyclic
multiproduct scheduling on continuous parallel lines. Computers
& Chemical Engineering, 15, 85 103.
Shah, N. (1996). Mathematical programming techniques for crude oil
scheduling. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 20 (Suppl.),
S1227 S1232.
SIPP (1997). Scheduling REVAP Production scheduling system.
System specification. V. 3.0, Petrobras Petroleo Brasileiro S/A,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Steinschorn, D., & Hofferl, F. (1997). Refinery scheduling using
mixed integer LP and dynamic recursion. In NPRA Computer
conference, New Orleans, LA.
Suri, R., Diehl, G. W. W., Treville, S., & Tomsicek, M. J. (1995).
From CAN-Q to MPX: evolution of queuing software for manu-
facturing. Interfaces, 25 (5), 128 150.
Symonds, G. H. (1955). Linear programming: the solution of refinery
problems. New York: Esso Standard Oil Company.
Viswanathan, J., & Grossmann, I. E. (1990). A combined penalty
function and outer approximation method for MINLP optimiza-
tion. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 14 (7), 769 782.
Xueya, Z., & Sargent, R. W. H. (1996). The optimal operation of
mixed production facilities. Computers & Chemical Engineering,
20 (6/7), 897 904.