Process Simulation and Optimization of Crude Oil Stabilization

Scheme Using Aspen-HYSYS Software

M. Edwin1, S. Abdulsalam2 and I. M. Muhammad3
1,2,3
Department of Chemical Engineering, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi-Nigeria,
P.M.B. 0248, Bauchi-Nigeria

Abstract In this time of energy crises, low production rate against the increasing demand of oil
and gas production regularly hampers both domestic and industrial operations. In addition, safety
hazards arising from explosion and increase in the cost of production due to pumping cavitation has
pose a great challenge on offshore Floating Production Storage and Off-loading (FPSO) terminals. In
view of the above, the design of a computer base model for the simulation and optimization of crude
oil stabilization scheme is highly desirable. Aspen HYSYS software (version 8.4) was used for the
simulation and optimization processes and the fluid package employed was Peng-Robinson.
Operational data used for the simulation was obtained from the aforementioned terminal. The model
was based on gas product and liquid product flows. The simulation was performed to optimize the
stabilization unit by manipulating various process variables, which was subject to a Reid vapor
pressure (RVP) of gasoline as the constraint. The process flow diagram of the system was
successfully developed. Furthermore, the optimizer tool of Aspen HYSYS was used to obtain the
optimum operating conditions of the process and Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP)
algorithm was employed. The results of the base and optimized cases were compared and analyzed.
Economic consideration showed an improvement of 31.11% (i.e. N 42 billion) in net profit for the
optimized case over the base case at optimal operating conditions. In addition, results showed that
the effects of optimum feed conditions (flow rate, temperature and pressure) were between the
ranges of of 6.0 e+03 to 8.0e+03 m3/h, 26 to 29oC, and 1.65 to 1.8 MPa respectively Therefore, it has
been shown that the developed Aspen HYSYS model of this research work can be used to represent,
simulate and optimize a crude oil stabilization system successfully.
Keywords Stabilization, Simulation, Optimization, RVP, Aspen HYSYS.

I. INTRODUCTION
The economical challenge of modern technologies and customers’ satisfaction claims for a
continuous optimization in every field of life. In chemical industry, products with precise quality
values have to be produced while specific costs have to be on a minimal level. To fulfill these
expectations, chemical process industries are renewed, redesigned, and rebuilt, i.e. modernized
continuously to have the ability to operate complex, highly interconnected plants that are profitable
and that meet quality, safety, environmental and other standards. Towards this goal, process
modeling, simulation and optimization tools are increasingly being used industrially besides of the
design process at every level of subsequent plant operations [11].
Crude oil contains complex mixtures which are very difficult to handle, meter, or transport. In
addition to the difficulty, it is also unsafe and uneconomical to ship or transport these mixtures to
refineries and gas plants for processing. However, environmental constraints exist for the safe and
acceptable handling of hydrocarbon fluids and disposal of produced salt water. It is therefore
necessary to process the produced fluids in the field to yield products that meet the specifications set
by the customer and is safe to handle [1].

DOI: 10.23883/IJRTER.2017.3230.MIIUW 324

 International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)
Volume 03, Issue 05; May - 2017 [ISSN: 2455-1457]

In order to maximize oil/gas production and increasing its market value, the oil and gas industry has
shown keen interest in the development and optimization of separation efficiency between oil-gas-
water in the crude stabilization process. Crude oil stabilization is a pre-treatment process which
involve the removal of light hydrocarbons along with hydrogen sulphide and also reduces the vapor
pressure. Dissolved gas in the crude oil must be removed to meet pipeline, storage or tanker Reid
Vapor Pressure (RVP) specification. The presence of the most volatile hydrocarbon increases the
RVP [5]. The impact of RVP is often referred to as the gasoline volatility. In this study, RVP has
been set as a criterion for off-spec conditions of the product - that is, a maximum of 83 kPa.
Process simulation software packages are extensively used nowadays to estimate the product
efficiency and enhance the performance of the system by optimizing operating parameters [12].
There have been few simulating software packages such as Aspen Plus, Aspen HYSYS and PRO/II
for use in the oil and gas industries. In this study, Aspen HYSYS has been chosen as the suitable
simulation software, in that it has vast importance for chemical engineers to simulate and optimize a
process, which differs from many of the alternative commercial simulators in two main respects.
First, it has the ability for interactively interpreting commands, as they are entered one at a time.
Second, uses subroutines to model the process units, it has a unique feature that information
propagates in both forward and reverse directions [2].
According to the information obtained from literature, some scientists and engineers have carried out
some researches related to the subject matter of this work. Reference [14] studied process simulation
and operating parameters optimization of minus pressure flash technology for crude stabilization
process. Reference [6] studied process simulation of crude oil stabilization: a case study of
Terengganu crude oil terminal. Reference [10] studied simulation and optimization of H2S expulsion
from crude oil with the use of equilibrium mode. Reference [8] studied process simulation and
assessment of a back-up condensate stabilization Unit. Reference [7] studied modelling and
optimization of fluid catalytic cracking unit using Hysys.
In this study, the model can provide an effective planning and operations tool. In view of the
potential gains suggested by the results, modelling and optimization using computer simulator can
bring new insight in the quest for a better crude oil stabilization system. In addition, it would
significantly enhance recovery of stabilized liquid and reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the
storage tanks and it would also be safe and economical to ship or transport the stabilized crude to
refineries and gas plants. Furthermore, cost of production would be reduced by minimizing process
system requirement due to pumping cavitation.

II. MATERIALS AND METHODS

A. Materials
The simulation software used in this study was Aspentech Hysys version 8.4 developed by Aspen
Technology, Incorporation, Crosby Drive Bedford, Massachusetts, U.S.A. The data used for this
study was obtained from Usan FPSO terminal. They include; detailed Process Flow Diagram of Usan
FPSO terminal of crude oil stabilization system, inlet feed operating parameters, comprehensive
crude oil compositions, equipment summary unit operation conditions and utilities.

B. Methods
The methods adopted in accomplishing this work, which was carried out to obtain the model, are
outlined as follows.

1. Model development and process simulation procedure - Operational data for the simulation and
optimization of the model were obtained from Usan Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading
(FPSO) terminal. The simulation was performed in Aspen HYSYS (version 8.4) simulation
environment. The components involved in the simulation process were characterized into pure and
pseudo component and were selected from the simulator data base. The pseudo components
(hentriacontanes to hexatriacontanes plus) which were not found in the data base of the component

@IJRTER-2017, All Rights Reserved 325

 International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)
Volume 03, Issue 05; May - 2017 [ISSN: 2455-1457]

library window, were created and added to the pure component as shown in Figure 1. Due to the
presence of polar and non-polar hydrocarbons, as well as a three-phase system, Peng-Robinson was
employed as the fluid package to predict the binary interaction and activity of the components in the
liquid and vapor phase as shown in Figure 2.
The feed stream was defined by entering the feed conditions (flow rate, temperature, pressure and
stream name) as shown in Figure 3. The streams were then connected to unit operations. The crude
stabilization facilities consist of two three-phase separators, a flash drum, three heaters, two
compressors, two valves, two mixers and a pump. After the input information and operating unit
model were set-up, the process steady state simulation was successfully executed by the simulator as
shown in Figure 4. The case was saved as “Base case” and a report was created.

Figure 1. Choosing system components from data bank

@IJRTER-2017, All Rights Reserved 326

 International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)
Volume 03, Issue 05; May - 2017 [ISSN: 2455-1457]

Figure 2. Selecting Peng-Robinson as the fluid Package

Figure 3. Schematic of feed stream conditions

@IJRTER-2017, All Rights Reserved 327

 International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)
Volume 03, Issue 05; May - 2017 [ISSN: 2455-1457]

Figure 4. Process flow diagram of the modeled crude oil stabilization scheme.

2. Process optimization - After the model of crude oil stabilization process had been simulated, its
optimization was carried out with the aid of the optimizer tool of the same Aspen HYSYS version
8.4 used for the model development and simulation, which was accessed upon the addition of the
“Optimizer Spreadsheet” unto the developed model. The low and high bound for the primary
(manipulated) variables were selected and set as shown in Figure 5. The criterion for the
optimization was to maximize net profit subjected to a Reid vapor pressure of 83 kPa as the
constraint as shown in Figure 6. The optimization equation is presented in equation (1). Sequential
quadratic programming was the optimizer algorithm employed due to its ability in handling linear
and non-linear algebraic functions as well as equality and inequality functions of constraint and
unconstraint optimization problems. The optimization was then executed. The case was saved as
“optimized case” and a report was created.
Net profit (N⁄yr) = (flowrate(i) × unit cost(j) ) — (utilities) (1)
where;
i denotes the gas and liquid product, j denotes the unit cost of the gas and liquid product and utilities
involves the steam, compression and pump cost respectively.

@IJRTER-2017, All Rights Reserved 328

 International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)
Volume 03, Issue 05; May - 2017 [ISSN: 2455-1457]

Figure 5. Setting up primary (manipulated) variables

Figure 6. Profit maximization and constraint window

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The summary of optimum results comparing the base and optimized cases of the model is presented
in Table 1.

@IJRTER-2017, All Rights Reserved 329

 International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)
Volume 03, Issue 05; May - 2017 [ISSN: 2455-1457]

Table 1. Summary of optimum results of the base and optimized cases

Difference
Parameters Base case Optimized case between base and
optimized cases
Fuel gas product flow 2.83 million 3.89 million 1.06 million
(m3/yr_gas)
Gasoline product flow 9.87 million 13.00 million 3.13 million
(bbl/yr)
Heater 1 heat flow (kJ/yr) 3.8 x 109 1.8 x 109 2.0 x 109
Heater 2 heat flow (kJ/yr) 4.0 x109 3.0 x 109 1.0 x 109
Heater 3 heat flow (kJ/yr) 3.3 x 109 2.3 x 109 1.0 x 109
Stage 2 Feed pressure (kPa) 680 680 0.00
Stage 3 Feed pressure (kPa) 338 324 14
RVP (kPa) 84.07 82.54 1.53
Net profit (N /yr) 135 billion 177 billion 42 billion

Table 1 presents summary of optimum results comparing the base and optimized cases of the model.
The optimized case showed improvements in production of 37.46% (i.e. 1.06 million m3/yr) fuel gas
product and 31.71% (i.e.3.13 million bbl/yr) gasoline product over the base case. These can be
attributed to decreased in heat flows of heaters 1, 2 and 3 from a high bound of 3.8 × 109, 4.0 × 109
and 3.3 × 109 kJ/yr to a low bound of 1.8 × 109, 3.0 × 109and 2.3 × 109 kJ/yr respectively. This
observation is in conformity with the findings of [4], who observed that increased heat supply breaks
emulsions and resulted into excessive vaporization and loss of liquid product. Hence, it is pertinent
to ensure that heat supplied at intervals does not exceed the high bound in order to ascertain good
performance output. It can also be seen that the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) decreased from a high
bound nof 84.07 kPa to a low bound of 82.54 kPa. These can be attributed to decrease in operating
pressure at the final stage. This implied that operating pressure and temperature of the final stage
dictates the vapor pressure of the liquid product, because at low operating pressure, the final stage
heavy gas component will flash out from the liquid [3]. The net profit showed tremendous
improvement from N 135 billion to N 177 billion, about 31.11% increase. The increased in the net
profit can be attributed to high production rate of the desired products and this observation is in
agreement with the finding of [7].

The effects of heaters 1, 2 and 3 heat flows on net profit is shown in Figures 7 – 9.

1.771E+11
1.770E+11
1.770E+11
Net profit (N/yr)

1.769E+11
1.769E+11
1.768E+11
1.768E+11
1.767E+11
1.767E+11
1.766E+11
0.00E+00 2.00E+09 4.00E+09 6.00E+09 8.00E+09
Heat flow (kJ/yr)
Figure 7. Effect of heater 1 heat flow on net profit

@IJRTER-2017, All Rights Reserved 330

 International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)
Volume 03, Issue 05; May - 2017 [ISSN: 2455-1457]

Figure 7 shows the effect of heat flow for heater 1 on net profit. It can be seen that the net profit
decreased from 176 994 855 496.79 to N176 661 516 403.04 as the heat flow increased from 7.63E
+07 to 2.90E +08 kJ/yr. Thus, in order to maintain an optimum net profit at the specified sales
specification of product RVP of 83 kPa, the heat flow should be kept at 7.63 E + 07 kJ/yr. This
implied that the decrease in the net profit was attributed to an increase in heat flow which reduced
the volume of the fuel gas and gasoline product flow and thus, the net profit. According to [13],
adding heat can cause a significant loss of the lower-boiling point hydrocarbons (light ends). This
causes “shrinkage” of the oil, or loss of volume of the output. As a result, will lead to reduction of
the net profit due to reduction in the output. Similarly, Figures 8 and 9 followed the same trend as
above.

1.7705E+11
Net profit (N/yr)

1.7700E+11

1.7695E+11

1.7690E+11

1.7685E+11

1.7680E+11
0.00E+00 2.00E+09 4.00E+09 6.00E+09 8.00E+09

Heat flow (kJ/yr)

Figure 8. Effect of heater 2 heat flow on net profit

1.7710E+11
Net profit (N/yr)

1.7705E+11
1.7700E+11
1.7695E+11
1.7690E+11
1.7685E+11
1.7680E+11
1.7675E+11
1.7670E+11
0.00E+00 2.00E+09 4.00E+09 6.00E+09 8.00E+09

Heat flow (kJ/yr)

Figure 9. Effect of heater 3 heat flow on net profit

The effects of feed conditions on the product Reid vapor pressure for the simulated crude oil
stabilization scheme is presented in Figures 10 – 12.

@IJRTER-2017, All Rights Reserved 331

 International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)
Volume 03, Issue 05; May - 2017 [ISSN: 2455-1457]

Figure 10. Effect of inlet feed temperature on product RVP

Figure 10 presents the effect of inlet feed temperature on product RVP. It can be seen that the
product RVP decreased from 90.13 to 51.33 kPa as the inlet feed temperature increased from 10 to
100oC. This implied that, increase in the inlet temperature caused more portion of the light
components to flash off from the crude and hence reduced the RVP of the product. Thus, the
optimum temperature that the crude stabilization plant can tolerate in order to achieve the specified
RVP (83 kPa) was between 26oC and 29oC. Hence, any temperature lower than 26oC or higher than
29oC would cause the stabilized crude to become off specification as it will require a higher heat
duty to attain the required temperature before entering the pressure vessel. This observation is in
agreement with the finding of [8] that RVP decreased as the feed temperature increased.

Figure 11. Effect of inlet molar flow rate on product RVP

Figure 11 shows the effect of feed molar flow rate on product RVP. It can be seen that the product
RVP increased from 78.95 to 82.89 kPa as the molar flow rate increased from 10 000 to 80 000
m3/h_gas. This implied that increase in the molar flowrate would require more heat to flash off the
volatile components. As a result, the RVP increased because of insufficient heat to maintain the RVP

@IJRTER-2017, All Rights Reserved 332

 International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)
Volume 03, Issue 05; May - 2017 [ISSN: 2455-1457]

of the product. Therefore, for an acceptable RVP of 83 kPa, the optimum molar flow rate that can be
processed by the crude stabilization plant was found to be in the range of 60 000 and 80 000
m3/h_gas. This observation is in conformity with the finding of [6] who observed that increase in
feed flow rate increased the product RVP.

Figure 12. Effect of inlet feed pressure on product RVP

Figure 12 presents the effect of inlet feed pressure on product RVP. It can be seen that the product
RVP decreased from 82.96 to 82.27 kPa as the inlet feed pressure increased from and 1000 to 9000
kPa. This implied that the high pressure drop in the pressure vessel led to high amount of volatile
component flashed off to the stabilization gas header. Thus, the stabilized crude contained traces of
light components which gave rise to lower RVP conducive for safe storage at atmospheric condition.
Therefore, the optimum inlet feed pressure that can meet the required product specification was
found to be in the range of 1 650 and 1 800 kPa. The above assertion is backed upon by the fact that,
at high feed pressure the feed tends to change to the liquid phase while in the three-phase separator,
the pressure should be as low as possible to flash-off the light ends [9].

IV. CONCLUSIONS
The process simulation and optimization of crude oil stabilization scheme of Usan FPSO terminal
has been successfully performed and developed. The optimized case showed improvements in
production of 1.06 million m3/yr fuel gas product and 3.13 million bbl/yr gasoline product over the
base case. Economic consideration showed an improvement of 31.11% (i.e. N 42 billion) in net
profit for the optimized case over the base case at optimal operating conditions. In addition, the
optimum feed flow rate, temperature and pressure were between the ranges of 6.0 e+03 to 8.0e+03
m3/h, 26 to 29oC, and 1.65 to 1.8 MPa respectively. Therefore, it has been shown that the developed
Aspen HYSYS model of this research work can be used to represent, simulate and optimize a crude
oil stabilization system successfully.

REFERENCES
[1] H. K. Abdel, Surface petroleum operations, Saudi publishing and distributing house, Jeddah, Pp. 220-223, 2012.
[2] G. L. Claudia, Refinery process modeling: A practical guide to steady state modeling of Petroleum Processes,
Athens Printing Company, Athens, 2001, Pp 11-12.
[3] J. J. Esparragoza, S. G. Iglesias and W. H. Michael, Hydrocarbon processing, U.S.A. Bryan research and
Engineering, Inc. 2013, Pp. 135-138.

@IJRTER-2017, All Rights Reserved 333

 International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)
Volume 03, Issue 05; May - 2017 [ISSN: 2455-1457]

[4] D. Kwardtzer, N. Humphrey and D. Godwin, Spherical process vessel, Journal of Oil and Gas, Vol. 7, issue 3,
pp 121–122, 2014.
[5] R. A. Meyer, Encyclopedia of physical science and technology, Academic press Inc., London, Pp. 519-528,
2013.
[6] F. D. Muhammad, Simulation of crude oil stabilization, B.Eng project, Chemical Engineering Department,
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia, 2013.
[7] Y. R. Olabode, A. E. Usman, and J. B. D. Muhammed,Modelling and Optimizationof Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit,
International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Development, vol. 2, issue 3, Pp. 1-9, 2012.
[8] N. Rahmanian, I. Bin and K. Nasrifar, Process Simulation and Assessment of a back-up
CondensateStabilizationUnit,Journalof Natural Gas Scienceand Engineering,Vol.26, Issue Pp. 730-736, 2015.
[9] W. Ronald, and N.Rousseau, Hand bookof separation processtechnology,Vol. 6,Pp.133-134, 2009.
[10] V. Reza, A. Hossein, and F. T. Farshad, Simulation and optimization of H 2S expulsion from crude oil with
theuse of equilibrium mode,International Conferenceon Chemistry and Chemical Process, Issue 10, 101-106, 2011.
[11] M. A. Stadtherr, Large-Scale Process Simulation and Optimization in a High Performance Computing Environment,
Boston, MA, 2015.
[12] Y. S. Tavan, A novel application of reactive absorption to break the CO 2– ethane azeotrope with low energy
requirement, Energy Conversion and Management. pp 407-417, 2011.
[13] G. Ulrich, P. Vasudevan, A Guide to Chemical Engineering Process Design and Economics, 2nd ed., John Wiley &
Sons, 2011.
[14] Y. Wang, L. Wang, J. Li, and J. Cao, Chemical Engineering Journal of oil and gas/ Shi You Yu Tian Ran Qi Hua
Gong, Vol.44, issue 2, Pp. 18-32, 2015.

@IJRTER-2017, All Rights Reserved 334