Sunteți pe pagina 1din 8

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 61 (2008) 116123

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering


j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / p e t r o l

Characterization and modeling of a crude oil desalting plant by a statistically designed approach
K. Mahdi a, R. Gheshlaghi b, G. Zahedi c,, A. Lohi d
a

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Kuwait, Safat 13060, Kuwait Department of Chemical Engineering, Ferdowsi University, Mashhad, Iran Simulation and Articial Intelligence Research Center, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran d Department of Chemical Engineering, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria St., Toronto, ON, Canada M5B 2K3
b c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Oil produced in most of oil elds is accompanied by water and dissolved salts, mainly NaCl, which can cause considerable operational problem. Therefore, desalting and dehydration plants are often installed in crude oil production units to remove water soluble salts from an oil stream. This paper investigates experimentally the effect of ve parameters (demulsifying agent concentration, temperature, wash water dilution ratio, settling time and mixing time with wash water) on performance of the desalting/dehydration process. The performance was evaluated by calculating the Salt Removal Efciency (SRE) and the Water Removal Efciency (WRE) based on the ve process parameters. In order to investigate the effect of these parameters on desalting/dehydration efciencies a 26 1 fractional factorial design with ve other experiments at the center of the design for analysis of variance was applied. Based on the statistical analysis, SRE was expressed by a model for the whole range of variables while WRE was expressed with two models, each is valid in a part of variable domains. The models were satisfactorily evaluated with plant experimental data. For the SRE, the optimum values of demulsifying agent concentration, temperature, wash water dilution ratio, settling time and mixing time with wash water were fond to be 15 ppm, 77 C, 10%, 3 min and 9 min respectively. As a result the optimum value of 93.28% salt removal efciency was found. This value was 94.80% and 89.57% for water removal proposed models. 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 12 April 2007 Accepted 25 May 2008 Keywords: factorial design desalting/dehydration process crude oil treatment

1. Introduction Desalting/dehydration facilities are often installed in crude oil production in order to minimize the occurrence of water in oil emulsions. The main objectives of installing desalting plants are: maintaining production rate in a eld, decreasing the ow of salt content to renery distillation feed- stocks, reducing corrosion caused by inorganic salts and minimizing energy required for pumping and transportation (Bartley, 1982). The desalting process involves six major steps: separation by gravity settling, chemical injection, heating, addition of less salty water (dilution), mixing and electrical coalescing. Gravity separation refers to the primary free settling of water and is related to the residence time that takes place in both settling tanks and desalting vessels. The gravitational residence time is governed by the Stokes' law: v 2r 2 g 9 1

From Eq. (1) it is clear that gravitational separation can be intensied by maximizing size of a drop (chemical injection, electrical
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 831 4274535; fax: +98 831 4274542. E-mail addresses: khaled.mahdi@gmail.com (K. Mahdi), gheshlagi@yahoo.com (R. Gheshlaghi), grzahedi@razi.ac.ir (G. Zahedi), aloha@ryerso.ca (A. Lohi). 0920-4105/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2008.05.006

coalescing), maximizing density difference between two phases and minimizing viscosity of oil phase (heating, dilution). Several studies have been done to analyze and study the affecting parameters on SRE and WRE (Burris, 1978; Bartley, 1982; Anon, 1983; Agar, 2000; AlOtaibi, 2004; Al-Otaibi et al., 2005). These studies denote that the effect of process variables is very complicated. Conducting experiments to evaluate and study the effect of parameters on a real plant is costly and time consuming. Specially, the governing laws usually prohibit changing parameters in a real plant and normally it is difcult due to operational limitations. Application of Fractional Factorial Design (FFD), which allows multiple factors to be investigated at the same time, can address these problems (Box et al., 1978). Factorial design enables identication of interactions between factors more accurately and allows the effects of one factor that has to be anticipated at several levels of factors studied. Compared to changing one factor at a time and keeping other factors constant, factorial design reduces the number of experimental runs required (Montgomery, 2001; Murat, 2002; Tansel and Pascual, 2004; Witchakorn and Tharapong, 2005). Consequently, time and considerable cost of experimentation can be saved. Experimental design is a collection of mathematical and statistical techniques useful for developing, improving and optimizing the processes and can be used to evaluate the relative signicance of

K. Mahdi et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 61 (2008) 116123

117

Fig. 1. Schematic of crude oil desalting/dehydration plant.

several affecting factors even in the presence of complex interactions. The main objective of experimental design is to determine the optimum operational conditions of the system or to determine a region that satises the operating specications. Design of experiments is the most efcient approach for organizing experimental work. Design of experiments selects a diverse and representative set of experiments in which all factors are independent of each other despite being varied simultaneously. The result shows the importance of all factors and their interactions. These models can be summarized as informative contour plots highlighting the optimum combination of factor settings. Design of experiments is used for three primary objectives: Screening: Which factors are most inuential and over what range? Optimization: how can we nd the optimum settings taking into account conicting demands of different responses? Robustness testing: once the optimum is found, can we guarantee robustness close to that point or do we need to change specications to achieve robustness? (Annadurai et al., 2002). Experimental design reduce the number of experimental runs required to determine the effect of changing one process variables compared to changing one factor at a time. The efciency of experimental design increases as the number of process variables increase. Another benet of design of experiments is that allows effect of one variable to be investigated at several levels of other factors (Myers and Montgomery, 2002). The application of experimental statistical design techniques in desalting process development can result in improved product yields, reduced process variability, closer conrmation of the output response to nominal and target requirements, and reduced development time and overall costs (Chen et al., 2003). This article investigates effects of demulsifying agent concentration, temperature, wash water dilution ratio and settling time and mixing time with wash water for desalting/dehydration plant efciencies using

statistic experimental design approach. To the best of our knowledge, this technique has not yet been applied for this process. In the present study, rst a brief description of plant is presented. Next, method of experimentation and experimental devices are summarized. Third part of the study discusses experimental design and approaches for obtaining models with validation of results. Finally, optimization and optimum values of the parameters are described. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Operating plant Fig. 1 represents the process ow diagram of a typical desalting/ dehydration plant. At point No. 1, an emulsion comprising water and oil ows to a wet tank. Such a common emulsion may contain up to 25% water cut. As per design, a typical desalting/dehydration plant would meet acceptable crude oil specications; that is, water and salt of the crude must be reduced to 0.10% Vol and 5.0 Pounds per Thousand Barrels (PTB), respectively. To remove such large quantities
Table 1 Characteristics and specication of crude oil samples Property Specic gravity(60/60) Reid vap. pressure(Psia) Pour point (F) Average API gravity at 60 F Viscosity, Cs (70 F) 100 F 130 F 160 F Average sulfur content (wt.%) Asphaltenes Value 0.864 10.5 b 30 31.7 17.4 10.5 6.79 4.8 2.7 2.23

118 Table 2 Analysis of used brackish water Property Specic gravity(60/60) Total dissolved solids, ppm Maximum oxygen content, ppm Conductivity, micromohs/CC Ca, ppm Mg, ppm Iron, ppm Na, ppm Cl, ppm SO4, ppm HCO3, ppm F, ppm NO3, ppm NO2, ppm SPO4, ppm H2S, ppm Cl2 NaCl, ppm SiO2, ppm Carbonate as CO3, ppm NaOH, ppm CACO3 ppm

K. Mahdi et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 61 (2008) 116123 Table 4 Coded parameters used in statistical analysis with their levels Value 1.009 8900 8 12,714 801 450 0.25 1926 4045 1500 285 2.5 13.2 6 10 6665 30 289 Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 A: X1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 B: X2 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 C: X3 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 D: X4 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 E: X5 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 SRE 38 60 70.83 72.92 74.12 64.71 82 86 46 58 72.92 77.08 78.82 67.06 82 91.7 52 68 77.08 77.08 81.18 76.47 88 91 52 66 79.17 79.17 83.53 72.94 86 92.1 95 95.73 97.31 96.1 95.76

of water from the oil stream, a two-stage desalting system is used. At point No. 2, the emulsion leaves the wet tank, where the primary water separation takes place. At this point, emulsier is injected into the stream before pumping through the feed pumps. After settling for a period of several hours, formation water or stream 13, ows out of the system to a wastewater treatment plant or is disposed off to a disposal pit. Point No. 3 shows emulsion ow from the wet tank to a heat exchanger, where heat is recovered from the treated crude product stream (stream No. 10). The emulsion then ows to a water bath indirect heater, raising its temperature (point No. 4). Water recycled from second stage vessel (stream No. 5) is injected into the emulsion ow coming out of the heater. In this system, recycling water from second stage to rst stage, aims at minimizing freshwater consumption where a counter current ow is employed such that the dispersed brine in the crude is contacted with freshwater streams each time. At the mixing valve (No. 6), an induced shearing force agitates recycled water and emulsion. A simple globe valve carries out the operation of a mixing valve where an operator would set the differential pressure across the valve to be as high as possible, ensuring better mixing of the two uids. Stream No. 7 leaves the mixing valve to enter the rst stage desalter vessel. Inside the rst stage vessel, the emulsion is exposed to a high voltage electrostatic eld. The application of the electrostatic eld causes coalescence of the dispersed water phase, and thereby due to gravity, the enlarged water droplets will fall and collect at the bottom of the vessel. Efuent water from the rst stage, stream No. 11, leaves the system to a wastewater treatment plant or the disposal pit. This efuent water contains various impurities and salts that are removed from the water-in-oil emulsion. Treatment of the emulsion is further enhanced in the second stagedesalting vessel. Stream No. 8 ows through a mixing valve at the entrance of the second stage vessel. The emulsion that has residual salt water is further mixed with fresh water (stream No. 9). The differential pressure across the mixing valve is usually maintained around 15 psia.

Then partially treated emulsion is introduced near the bottom of the second stage and, once more, travels upward through the electrical voltage grids. Also at this stage, larger size water droplets are formed due to high voltage electrostatic eld and are further separated by gravity. The separated water is collected at the bottom of the vessel and is recycled to the rst stage desalter (stream 5), while the treated crude ows from the top of the vessel (stream No. 10). The latter stream (treated) continues to pass through an analyzer (stream No.12). If the treated crude is within the specication, a signal is sent to the diverting valve to open the dry tank, otherwise the ow is directed back to the wet tank. 2.2. Experimental routine Kuwait Oil Company (KOC) supplied crude oil, collected from the Kuwaiti oil well. The characteristics of this crude oil are illustrated in

Table 5 ANOVA test for selected factorial model Source Model A B C E AC BC ABC Curvature Residual Lack of t Pure error Cor total Sum of squares 5384.62 100.04 2214.78 1974.75 309.76 220.08 137.28 427.93 2234.91 143.57 140.71 2.85 7763.10 df 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28 24 4 36 Mean square 769.23 100.04 2214.78 1974.75 309.76 220.08 137.28 427.93 2234.91 5.13 5.86 0.71 F-value 150.02 19.51 431.95 385.14 60.41 42.92 26.77 83.46 435.88 8.22 Prob N F b 0.0001 0.0001 b 0.0001 b 0.0001 b 0.0001 b 0.0001 b 0.0001 b 0.0001 b 0.0001 0.0267 Signicant Note Signicant

Table 3 Applied levels of independent variables in the FFD Variable Parameter Applied levels (low) X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 Temperature (C) Settling time (min) Mixing time (min) Demulsifying agent concentration (ppm) Wash water dilution ratio (%) 55 1 1 1 1 + (high) 77 3 9 15 10

Signicant

K. Mahdi et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 61 (2008) 116123

119

Table 1. Dilution water used in the experiments was collected from eld operation in KOC. Table 2 gives the characteristics of the freshwater used in the experiments. The chemical used as a demulsier in the experiment is under the trade name Servo CC 3408 supplied by Servo Delden BV (Netherlands). In carrying out the experiments, crude oil samples were rst analyzed for salt result (S/R) in PTB and water cut (W/C) in volume percent. Details of the laboratory's instruments and experiments are given elsewhere (Al-Otaibi, 2004). Firstly, freshwater was added, followed by the addition of demulsier. The mixture was then heated in a water bath heater. The heated mixture was then mixed and poured into a 100mL centrifuge tube and rotated at speed of 1000 rpm. The nal step in completing one cycle was to collect the top crude volume in the centrifuge tube and to test it for S/R and W/C. The top volume was taken because in the real operation process, the treated crude, after mixing and heating comes out from the top of the desalting vessel. In a real process, an emulsion that was introduced into the system was subjected to freshwater injection followed by chemical dosage. The mixture, emulsion, freshwater, and chemical were then heated to a certain temperature and then mixed together. The resulting blend was sent to a settling tank where water and salt are to be drained off. At the nal stage of the process, dry or treated crude oil samples were tested and analyzed for S/R and W/C. In each cycle of the experiment, a sample of crude oil to be tested was taken in a sample tube or graduated cylinder of about 100 mL. Then both freshwater and chemical demulsier were added according to previously set ranges. Crude oil, freshwater, and chemical were next heated and then mixed for a certain time (min). Then, the mixture was taken to a centrifuge where it was rotated for settling purposes. From the top of the centrifuge tube, a

Fig. 2. Normal probability plot for SRE.

Table 6 Comparison of model prediction with plant experimental data for SRE Standard order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Actual value 38.00 60.00 70.83 72.92 74.12 64.71 82.00 86.00 46.00 58.00 72.92 77.08 78.82 67.06 82.00 91.70 52.00 68.00 77.08 77.08 81.18 76.47 88.00 91.00 52.00 66.00 79.17 79.17 83.53 72.94 86.00 92.10 95.00 95.73 97.31 96.10 95.76 Predicted value 43.84 59.94 71.94 73.40 76.25 67.23 81.44 87.04 43.84 59.94 71.94 73.40 76.25 67.23 81.44 87.04 50.06 66.16 78.16 79.63 82.48 73.45 87.66 93.26 50.06 66.16 78.16 79.63 82.48 73.45 87.66 93.26 95.98 95.98 95.98 95.98 95.98

certain volume of dry crude was withdrawn by a micro milliliter syringe and then transferred to a test beaker. The S/R test was conducted on a partial volume of that dry crude (about 10 mL), and then 50 mL was transferred to a centrifuge for W/C test. The performance of the desalting/dehydration process was evaluated by calculating the SRE and WRE. These efciencies were obtained from correlations using the collected experimental data. These efciencies are therefore expected to depend on the demulsifying agent concentration, temperature, wash water dilution ratio, settling time and mixing time. The SRE (SRE) was calculated from Eq. (2), whereas WRE (WRE) was calculated from Eq. (3), respectively: SRE 1 Zout Zin 2

WRE 1

Xout Xin

where Zout is the outlet salt result (PTB); Zin is the inlet salt result (PTB); Xout is the outlet water cut (%); and Xin is the inlet water cut (%). Calculations of the salinity and water cut efciencies at different experimental conditions were evaluated to determine the effect of the various parameters on the performance of the desalting/dehydration process. The objective of next section is to illustrate a way for minimum experimentation based on experimental design methods to investigate correlations, which will be able to estimate SRE and WRE depending on process parameters. 2.3. Experimental design The statistical analysis of the results was performed with Design Expert version 6.0.4 statistical software (Stat- Ease Inc. Minneapolis, MN). The Fractional Factorial Design FFD was used to investigate factors that had a signicant effect on the SRE and WRE. The advantage of FFD is that it allows testing additional factors without increasing the number of experimental runs (Gheshlaghi et al., 2005). Proper analysis will identify the insignicant factors and will keep them away from design. In this study, the Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA) combined with F-test has been used to evaluate nonsignicant terms (p 0.05). The predictor variables were expressed in

120

K. Mahdi et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 61 (2008) 116123 Table 9 Prediction of Eq. (6) and experimental plant data for WRE Standard order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Actual value 18.75 37.50 9.68 61.29 33.33 53.33 37.5 77.5 31.25 56.25 35.48 64.25 53.33 66.67 50 87.5 38.75 53.13 61.29 70.97 34.67 66.67 87.5 87.5 43.75 68.75 74.19 74.19 63.33 73.33 93.75 93.75 21.88 28.57 28.21 15.63 14.29 Predicted value 23.95 39.06 14.6 58.22 31.29 55.85 39.78 73.96 31.75 56.31 31.84 66.02 48.54 63.66 47.58 91.2 34.91 51.1 60.61 67.19 42.25 67.89 85.79 82.92 42.71 68.34 77.86 74.99 59.5 75.69 93.6 100.17 21.72 21.72 21.72 21.72 21.72

Fig. 3. Residual versus predicted response for SRE.

the terms of coded variables. The relations between the coded variable xi and its natural variable Xi is dened as: xi Xi Xi;high Xi;low =2 Xi;high Xi;low =2 4

Mixing time, demulsifying agent concentration, temperature, wash water dilution ratio and settling time were assessed for experimental design. The range and the levels of the variables are given in Table 3. A 25 fractional factorial design with ve replicates at center point for analysis of variance was carried out. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Fractional factorial design The quantitative statistical analysis for effects of the factors on WRE and SRE was performed in this section. The factorial experiTable 7 Domain division for obtaining WRE Factors First part Low X3 X4 1 1 High 5 8 Second part Low 5 8 High 9 15

mental design and experimental results for SRE are summarized in Table 4. Based on the experimental values statistical testing was carried out using Fisher statistical test. The regression model obtained gives SRE as a function of different variables as: SRE 73:25 1:77x1 8:32x2 7:86x3 3:11x5 2:62x1 x3 2:07x2 x3 3:66x1 x2 x3 5

Table 8 ANOVA test for obtaining WRE at rst domain Source Model A B C D E AE BC BE ABE ABCD Curvature Residual Lack of t Pure error Cor total Sum of squares 14275.93 3321.74 2338.43 2115.59 1255.13 3040.25 647.19 140.83 511.76 726.66 178.37 5723.83 534.25 352.89 181.36 20534.01 df 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25 21 4 36 Mean square 1427.59 3321.74 2338.43 2115.59 1255.13 3040.25 647.19 140.83 511.76 726.66 178.37 5723.83 21.37 16.80 45.34 F-value 66.80 155.44 109.43 99.00 58.73 142.27 30.29 6.59 23.95 34.00 8.35 267.85 0.37 Prob N F b 0.0001 0.0001 b 0.0001 b 0.0001 b 0.0001 b 0.0001 b 0.0001 0.0166 b 0.0001 b 0.0001 0.0079 b 0.0001 0.9414 Note Signicant

The model contains four linear and three interaction terms plus one block term. According to Eq. (5), all terms have positive effects except the interactions between temperature-mixing time (x1 and x3) and interaction between settling time-mixing time (x2 and x3). It is interesting that demulsing agent concentration does not have strong effect on SRE. The advantage of the model can be checked by several

Table 10 ANOVA test for WRE at the second part of X3 and X4 domain Source Model B C E AC BC ABE Curvature Residual Lack of t Pure error Cor total Sum of squares 8954.97 1878.23 4870.85 1210.57 278.48 379.36 337.48 6093.78 1636.2 1392.38 243.82 16684.9 df 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 29 25 4 36 Mean square 1492.49 1878.23 4870.85 1210.57 278.48 379.36 337.48 6093.78 56.42 55.7 60.96 F-value 26.45 33.29 86.33 21.46 4.94 6.72 5.98 108.01 0.91 Prob N F b 0.0001 b 0.0001 b 0.0001 b 0.0001 0.0343 0.0148 0.0208 b 0.0001 0.6191 Note Signicant

Signicant Not signicant

Signicant Not signicant

K. Mahdi et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 61 (2008) 116123

121

Fig. 5. Response surface for SRE in two cases.

Fig. 4. Normal probability plot and Studentised residual for WRE based on Eq. (7).

criteria. The t of the model was expressed by the coefcient of determination, R2, which was found 0.9672, emphasis that 96.72% of the variability in the response can be obtained by the model. This means the model does not explain only 3.28% of the total variation. The value of adjusted determination coefcient is 0.9675, which also is high to advocate for high signicance of the model. Excellent correlation between independent variables is indicated by high value of correlation coefcient (R = 0.9740).

The corresponding ANOVA is tabulated in Table 5. Statistical testing of the model has been done by Fisher's statistical test for analysis of variance. The F-value in this table is the ratio of mean square error due to regression to the mean square of the real error. If a model is a good predictor of the experimental data, consequently the calculated Fvalue should be as big as possible. The model F-value of 150.02 implies the model is signicant. There is only a 0.01% chance that F-value this large could occur due to noise. Adequate precision measures the signal to noise ratio. A ratio greater than 4 is desirable. For our proposed model, the ratio is 46.687, which indicate an adequate signal, and so forth the model can be used to navigate the design space. p-value less than 0.05 indicate model terms that are signicant at the probability level of 95%. In this case, x1, x2, x3, x4, x1x3, x2 x3 and x1 x2 x3 are signicant model terms. Values greater than 0.1, indicate that the model terms are not signicant. The curvature F-value of 435.88 implies that there is signicant curvature (measured by difference between the range of center points and the average of the fractional design) in the design space. There is 0.01% chance that a curvature Fvalue with a large value could occur due to the noise. The F-value of 8.22 indicates that the t is signicant. The SRE predicted by the model with the corresponding observed value are given in Table 6. Comparing the model prediction and the

Table 11 Optimum values of desalting/dehydration process for WRE and SRE Model Optimum temperature (C) 77 77 55 Optimum settling time (min) 3 3 3 Optimum mixing time (min) 9 9 1 Optimum demulsifying agent concentration (ppm) 15 5.0001 1 Optimum wash water dilution ratio (%) 10 10 10

SRE(Eq. (5)) WRE(Eq. (6)) WRE(Eq. (7))

122

K. Mahdi et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 61 (2008) 116123

Constant variance assumption at different levels were checked at Fig. 3 by plotting the studentized residual vs. predicted response as obtained from the model. A constant variance was observed through the response range. The same methodlogy and analysis used for evaluating the SRE was applied for the WRE prediction. The study reveals that the predicted results using the model for the whole range is not satisfactory for WRE. To overcome this drawback the prementioned levels at Table 3 for X3 and X4 were divided into two sections to explain WRE. Table 7 shows this analysis. Table 8 represents ANOVA test for rst section. Reffering to Table 8, WRE equation for rst part of the domain in terms of coded factors is expressed by the following equation: WRE 58:1 10:19x1 8:55x2 8:13x3 6:25x4 9:75x5 4:5x1 x5 2:1x2 x3 4x2 x5 4:77x1 x2 x5 2:36x1 x2 x3 x5

In Eq. (6) all linear terms and more concentration terms appear. The equation indicates at lower levels of X3 and X4, interaction between parameters is very high. This can be a reason for the failure of our earlier attempt in expressing the WRE with one equation for whole range of variables. The model is able to predict the efciency as shown in Table 9. The same analysis have been adopted for second range of X3 and X4. ANOVA analysis for this part of study is tabulated in Table 10. The corresponding model is expressed as below: WRE 59:68 7:66x2 12:34x3 6:15x5 2:95x1 x3 3:44x2 x3 3:25x1 x2 x5 7

Comparing to Eq. (7) to Eq. (5) one can notice that the temperature linear effect is not signicant in WRE calculation at higher levels of X3 and X4. Normal probablity chart and studentised residual for this model has been shown in Fig. 4 (a) and (b).

Fig. 6. Response surface for WRE based on Eq. (6).

experimental values shows that there is an excellent agreement between the model and experimental data. The normal error distribution was conrmed by plotting the normal probablity plot of the student residual for the model (Fig. 2).

Fig. 7. Response surface for WRE based on Eq. (7).

K. Mahdi et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 61 (2008) 116123

123

In this study a full scale optimization for process and variables was required. The obtained models were optimized using Matlab programming language. The optimal values of the process parameters were rst obtained in coded units and then converted to uncoded units by Eq. (4). The optimum values of the process variables for the maximum removal efciency are shown in Table 11. (Fig. 5) displays the reponse of SRE as a function of two selected process variables (this means effect of other 3 variables has been considered constant). The WRE, based on two proposed models, have been illustrated in (Figs. 6 and 7). 4. Conclusions This article explains studies made on the effect of demulsifying agent concentration, temperature, wash water dilution ratio, settling/ mixing time with wash water on desalting/dehydration process efciency. In order to investigate correlations for SRE and WRE with minimum experimentation FFD were carried out. In this case, minimum experimentation was performed to obtain the correlations that led to minimum cost and time of experimentation. A 25 FFD with ve other experiments at the center of the design for analysis of variance was conducted. A single model for the whole range of variables expressed the SRE, while the WRE was expressed with two models, in two different ranges. The models were successfully tested and all conrmed with experimental data. By implementing optimization routines, optimum values of variables to maximize WRE and SRE were determined. Nomenclature v Stock's velocity, m/s r droplet radius, m density difference between two phase,kg/m3 g gravity acceleration, m/s2 uid viscosity, Kg/m s p probability efciency Z salinity X water cut, % Xi independent variable real value Xi o variable value at the center point Xi step change value A,B, C, D, E signicant model constants xi coded variable Subscripts and superscripts SRE salt removal efciency WRE water removal efciency in input out outlet

References
Agar, 2000. Agar's solution to desalting systems. Agar group. http://www.agarcorp.com, ApptNote3.htm System 3. Al-Otaibi, M., 2004. Modelling and optimizing of crude oil desalting process. Ph.D. Thesis, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, England. Al-Otaibi, M., Elkamel, A., Nassehi, V., Abdul-Wahab, S.A., 2005. A computational intelligence based approach for the analysis and optimization of a crude oil desalting and dehydration process. Energy & Fuels 19 (6), 25262534. Annadurai, G., Juang, R.S., Lee, D.J., 2002. Factorial design analysis for adsorption of dye on activated carbon beads incorporated with calcium alginate. Adv. Environ. Res. 6 (2), 191198. Anon, A., 1983. Static mixer improves desalting efciency. Oil Gas J. 81 (42), 128129. Bartley, D., 1982. Heavy crude stocks pose desalting problems. Oil Gas J. 80 (5), 117124. Box, G., Hunter, W., Hunter, J., 1978. Statistics for Experiments: An Introduction to Design, Data Analysis, and Model Building. John Wiley & Sons. Burris, D.R., 1978. How to design an efcient desalting system. World Oil 186 (7), 150156. Chen, J.P., Kim, S.L., Ting, Y.P., 2003. Optimization of membrane physical and chemical cleaning by a statistically designed approach. Journal of Membrane Science. 219 (12), 2745. Gheshlaghi, R., Scharer, J.M., Moo-Young, M., Douglas, P.L., 2005. Medium optimization for hen egg white lysozyme production by recombinant Aspergillus niger using statistical methods. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 90 (6), 754760. Montgomery, D.C., 2001. Design and analysis of experiments. Wiley, New York. Murat, E., 2002. Response surface methodological approach for inclusion of peruorocarbon in actinohordin fermentation medium. Process Biochem. 38 (5), 667773. Myers, R.H., Montgomery, D.C., 2002. Response Surface Methodology, 2nd edition. Wiley, New York. Tansel, B., Pascual, B., 2004. Factorial evaluation of operational variables of a DAF process to improve PHC removal efciency. Desalination 169 (1), 110. Witchakorn, C., Tharapong, V., 2005. Kinetic study of used vegetable oil to liquid fuels over sulfated zirconia. Energy & Fuels 19 (5), 17831789.