4.6 Article

Cutpoint Temperature Surrogate Modeling for Distillation Yields and Properties

期刊

INDUSTRIAL & ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY RESEARCH
卷 59, 期 41, 页码 18616-18628

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.0c02868

关键词

-

资金

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation -FAPESP [2017/03310-1, 2018/04942-4]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifi' co e Tecnologico (Brazilian National Council of Scientific and Technological Development) -CNPq [311868/20185]
  3. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel) -CAPES [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For high-performance operations in crude oil refinery processing, it is important to properly determine yields and properties of output streams from distillation units. To address such complex representation, we propose a cutpoint temperature-modeling framework using a coefficient setup MIQP (mixed-integer quadratic programming) technique to determine optimizable surrogate models to correlate independent X variables (crude oil compositions, temperatures, etc) to dependent Y variables (such as stream yields and properties of distillates). The X inputs are systematically generated by Latin hypercube sampling (LHS), and the experiments to obtain the synthetic Y outputs are simulated using the well-known conventional and improved swing-cut methods. By using these optimizable surrogate models (which are suitable to handle continuous data from the process) with measurement feedback (for adjustments and improvements), distillation outputs can be continuously updated when needed. The proposed approach successfully builds accurate surrogates for the distillation unit, which can be embedded into complex planning, scheduling, and control environments. Moreover, this MIQP surrogate identification technique may also be applied to other types of downstream process optimization problems such as reacting and blending unit operations, as well as other separating processes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据