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

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

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.

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

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

Value

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

0.864
10.5
b 30
31.7
17.4
10.5
6.79
4.8
2.7
2.23

118

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

Table 2
Analysis of used brackish water

Table 4
Coded parameters used in statistical analysis with their levels

Property

Value

Run

A: X1

B: X2

C: X3

D: X4

E: X5

SRE

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

1.009
8900
8
12,714
801
450
0.25
1926
4045
1500
285
2.5
13.2
6
10

6665
30

289

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

+
0
0
0
0
0

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+
0
0
0
0
0

+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+
0
0
0
0
0

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
0
0
0
0

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
0
0
0
0

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.

Table 3
Applied levels of independent variables in the FFD
Variable

Parameter

X1
X2
X3
X4
X5

Temperature (C)
Settling time (min)
Mixing time (min)
Demulsifying agent concentration (ppm)
Wash water dilution ratio (%)

Applied levels
(low)

+ (high)

55
1
1
1
1

77
3
9
15
10

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

Sum of squares

df

Mean square

F-value

Prob N F

Note

Model
A
B
C
E
AC
BC
ABC
Curvature
Residual
Lack of t
Pure error
Cor total

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

7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
28
24
4
36

769.23
100.04
2214.78
1974.75
309.76
220.08
137.28
427.93
2234.91
5.13
5.86
0.71

150.02
19.51
431.95
385.14
60.41
42.92
26.77
83.46
435.88

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

Signicant

8.22

0.0267

Signicant

Signicant

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

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

Table 6
Comparison of model prediction with plant experimental data for SRE
Standard order

Actual value

Predicted value

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

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

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

119

Fig. 2. Normal probability plot for SRE.

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

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

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

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.

Standard order

Actual value

Predicted value

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

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

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

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

SRE 73:25 1:77x1 8:32x2 7:86x3

3:11x5 2:62x1 x3 2:07x2 x3 3:66x1 x2 x3

First part

X3
X4

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:
5

Second part

Low

High

Low

High

1
1

5
8

5
8

9
15

Table 8
ANOVA test for obtaining WRE at rst domain
Source

Sum of squares

df

Mean square

F-value

Prob N F

Note

Model
A
B
C
D
E
AE
BC
BE
ABE
ABCD
Curvature
Residual
Lack of t
Pure error
Cor total

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

10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
21
4
36

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

66.80
155.44
109.43
99.00
58.73
142.27
30.29
6.59
23.95
34.00
8.35
267.85

b0.0001
0.0001
b0.0001
b0.0001
b0.0001
b0.0001
b0.0001
0.0166
b0.0001
b0.0001
0.0079
b0.0001

Signicant

0.37

0.9414

Signicant
Not 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

Sum of squares

df

Mean square

F-value

Prob N F

Note

Model
B
C
E
AC
BC
ABE
Curvature
Residual
Lack of t
Pure error
Cor total

8954.97
1878.23
4870.85
1210.57
278.48
379.36
337.48
6093.78
1636.2
1392.38
243.82
16684.9

6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
29
25
4
36

1492.49
1878.23
4870.85
1210.57
278.48
379.36
337.48
6093.78
56.42
55.7
60.96

26.45
33.29
86.33
21.46
4.94
6.72
5.98
108.01

b 0.0001
b 0.0001
b 0.0001
b 0.0001
0.0343
0.0148
0.0208
b 0.0001

Signicant

0.91

0.6191

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.

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

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).

Table 11
Optimum values of desalting/dehydration process for WRE and SRE
Model

Optimum
temperature
(C)

Optimum
settling time
(min)

Optimum
mixing time
(min)

Optimum demulsifying
agent concentration
(ppm)

Optimum wash water

dilution ratio
(%)

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

77
77
55

3
3
3

9
9
1

15
5.0001
1

10
10
10

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

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

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

123

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.