| Literature DB >> 24883365 |
Amin Daryasafar1, Arash Ahadi1, Riyaz Kharrat1.
Abstract
Steam distillation as one of the important mechanisms has a great role in oil recovery in thermal methods and so it is important to simulate this process experimentally and theoretically. In this work, the simulation of steam distillation is performed on sixteen sets of crude oil data found in the literature. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as artificial neural network (ANN) and also adaptive neurofuzzy interference system (ANFIS) are used in this study as effective methods to simulate the distillate recoveries of these sets of data. Thirteen sets of data were used to train the models and three sets were used to test the models. The developed models are highly compatible with respect to input oil properties and can predict the distillate yield with minimum entry. For showing the performance of the proposed models, simulation of steam distillation is also done using modified Peng-Robinson equation of state. Comparison between the calculated distillates by ANFIS and neural network models and also equation of state-based method indicates that the errors of the ANFIS model for training data and test data sets are lower than those of other methods.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24883365 PMCID: PMC4032774 DOI: 10.1155/2014/246589
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Crude oil properties and experimental results of steam distillation recovery for different oil fieldsa.
| Number | Field | Experimental results of steam distillation yields for | Crude oil properties | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | API | Kinematic viscosity at 37.8°C | Characterization factor | ||
| 1 | South Belridge | 0.031 | 0.046 | 0.06 | 0.069 | 0.075 | 0.1 | 0.119 | 0.13 | 12.4 | 0.4085 | 9.7 |
| 2 | Winkleman Dome | 0.089 | 0.111 | 0.125 | 0.136 | 0.142 | 0.17 | 0.182 | 0.195 | 14.9 | 0.0488 | 9.6 |
| 3 | White Castle | 0.07 | 0.095 | 0.11 | 0.122 | 0.137 | 0.185 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 16 | 0.0308 | 9.7 |
| 4 | Edison | 0.092 | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.151 | 0.164 | 0.19 | 0.198 | 0.209 | 16.1 | 0.0397 | 9.7 |
| 5 | Red Bank | 0.128 | 0.162 | 0.18 | 0.195 | 0.205 | 0.231 | 0.241 | 0.25 | 17.1 | 0.03 | 9.9 |
| 6 | Slocum | 0.032 | 0.08 | 0.097 | 0.11 | 0.122 | 0.172 | 0.195 | 0.2 | 18.8 | 0.0395 | 10.0 |
| 7 | Hidden Dome | 0.119 | 0.148 | 0.169 | 0.19 | 0.205 | 0.25 | 0.28 | 0.295 | 20.7 | 0.0086 | 10.1 |
| 8 | Toborg | 0.196 | 0.239 | 0.267 | 0.285 | 0.3 | 0.339 | 0.349 | 0.36 | 22.2 | 0.0036 | 10.1 |
| 9 | Brea | 0.21 | 0.24 | 0.265 | 0.283 | 0.296 | 0.33 | 0.34 | 0.354 | 23.5 | 0.0039 | 10.0 |
| 10 | Shannon | 0.14 | 0.192 | 0.22 | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.307 | 0.328 | 0.331 | 24.7 | 0.0032 | 10.2 |
| 11 | Robinson | 0.128 | 0.176 | 0.208 | 0.228 | 0.245 | 0.295 | 0.312 | 0.32 | 26 | 0.0029 | 10.3 |
| 12 | El Dorado | 0.345 | 0.4 | 0.43 | 0.441 | 0.45 | 0.47 | 0.475 | 0.48 | 32.5 | 0.0005 | 10.1 |
| 13 | Shiells Canyon | 0.378 | 0.438 | 0.47 | 0.49 | 0.508 | 0.541 | 0.558 | 0.57 | 33 | 0.0006 | 10.2 |
| 14 | Teapot Dome | 0.24 | 0.32 | 0.36 | 0.396 | 0.425 | 0.503 | 0.534 | 0.57 | 34.5 | 0.0006 | 10.4 |
| 15 | Rock Creek | 0.295 | 0.36 | 0.4 | 0.412 | 0.42 | 0.447 | 0.465 | 0.48 | 38.2 | 0.0005 | 10.4 |
| 16 | Plum Bush | 0.28 | 0.338 | 0.36 | 0.38 | 0.4 | 0.46 | 0.489 | 0.53 | 39.9 | 0.0006 | 10.5 |
aWu and Elder, 1983 [10].
Trial and error calculations for selecting the most suitable ANN.
| Number of neurons in the hidden layer | Training data (RMSE) | Test data (RMSE) |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 0.0122 | 0.0316 |
| 7 | 0.0126 | 0.03 |
| 9 | 0.0125 | 0.0302 |
| 11 | 0.0121 | 0.0314 |
| 15 | 0.0115 | 0.0312 |
| 18 | 0.0118 | 0.0311 |
| 20 | 0.0116 | 0.0297 |
| 21 | 0.0119 | 0.0298 |
| 23 | 0.0129 | 0.0317 |
| 24 | 0.0141 | 0.0319 |
| 25 | 0.0132 | 0.0312 |
Figure 1The structure of ANFIS model for steam distillation recovery estimation.
Figure 2The relation between ANN predictions and actual experimental data.
Figure 3Performance of ANN for test data.
Figure 4The generalized π-shaped membership functions of four input variables.
Figure 5Performance of ANFIS for training data.
Figure 6Performance of ANFIS for test data.
Average relative error between simulated results by EOS and experimental data.
| Field | ARE% |
|---|---|
| South Belridge | 19.77 |
| Winkleman Dome | 19.87 |
| White Castle | 30.84 |
| Edison | 14.29 |
| Red Bank | 11.38 |
| Slocum | 9.26 |
| Hidden Dome | 2.81 |
| Toborg | 8.58 |
| Brea | 9.9 |
| Shannon | 11.67 |
| Robinson | 28.03 |
| El Dorado | 42.56 |
| Shiells Canyon | 13.76 |
| Teapot Dome | 9.24 |
| Rock Creek | 45.89 |
| Plum Bush | 33.46 |
Average relative error (%) between simulated results obtained by different methods and experimental data.
| Method | Training data | Test data |
|---|---|---|
| ANFIS | 2.01 | 6.12 |
| ANN | 4.63 | 6.27 |
| EOS | 18.62 | 10.2 |