Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Artificial intelligence approach for modeling petroleum refinery catalytic desulfurization process

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Frequently, petroleum refineries create a variety of fuels as well as a vast range of chemicals for diverse applications. One of the most frequent procedures for purifying petroleum products from unwanted sulfur species and reducing SO2 emissions is the hydrodesulfurization (HDS) process. However, HDS is still challenging since a variety of factors influence sulfur removal rates, including operating circumstances, feed compositions, catalyst activity, and so on. In actuality, reducing sulfur compounds comes at a high price, both environmentally and economically. In practice, it is necessary to forecast process yields and their implications for productivity, profitability, and environmental considerations. The study of such outcomes could serve as guidance for scholars and practitioners alike. Machine Learning (ML) algorithms have proven to be effective in solving various real-world problems in engineering and industrial fields, including the petroleum industry. This study presents a four-input support vector regression (SVR) model hybridized with a Bayesian optimization to predict three yields of the HDS process including outlet sulfur concentration, percentage of SO2 emission, and percentage of biphenyl. The proposed models are used to identify the best laboratory configuration for better optimization of the HDS process. The obtained modeling results reveal that the proposed models are competent with a high degree of accuracy. The correlation coefficients during the testing of the three models were 99.1, 99.2, and 98.8% while the average experimental errors RMSE and MRAE were 0.022 and 0.097, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. de Luna M, Daniel G, Samaniego ML, Ong DC, Wan M-W, Lu M-C (2018) Kinetics of sulfur removal in high shear mixing-assisted oxidative-adsorptive desulfurization of diesel. J Clean Prod 178:468–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ho C-H, Heo J-W, Chang M et al (2021) Regulatory measures significantly reduced air-pollutant concentrations in Seoul Korea. Atmos Pollut Res 12(7):101098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wang D, Ding R, Gong Y et al (2020) Feasibility of the Northern Sea Route for oil shipping from the economic and environmental perspective and its influence on China’s oil imports. Mar Policy 118:104006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ashraf WM, Uddin GM, Arafat SM, Krzywanski J, Xiaonan W (2021) Strategic-level performance enhancement of a 660 MWe supercritical power plant and emissions reduction by AI approach. Energy Convers Manag 250:114913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Muhammad Ashraf W, Moeen Uddin G, Muhammad Arafat S, Afghan S, Hassan Kamal A, Asim M, Haider Khan M, Waqas Rafique M, Naumann U, Niazi SG, Jamil H, Jamil A, Hayat N, Ahmad A, Changkai S, Bin Xiang L, Ahmad Chaudhary I, Krzywanski J (2020) Optimization of a 660 MWe supercritical power plant performance—a case of industry 40 in the data-driven operational management. Part 1. Thermal efficiency. Energies 13:5592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Muhammad Ashraf W, Moeen Uddin G, Hassan Kamal A, Haider Khan M, Khan AA, Afroze Ahmad H, Ahmed F, Hafeez N, Muhammad Zawar Sami R, Muhammad Arafat S, Gul Niazi S, Waqas Rafique M, Amjad A, Hussain J, Jamil H, Kathia MS, Krzywanski J (2020) Optimization of a 660 MWe supercritical power plant performance—a case of industry 4.0 in the data-driven operational management. Part 2. Power generation. Energies 13:5619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Saleh TA, Sulaiman KO, AL-Hammadi SA (2020) Effect of carbon on the hydrodesulfurization activity of MoCo catalysts supported on zeolite/active carbon hybrid supports. Appl Catal B: Environ 263:117661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ganiyu SA (2021) Mini review of hierarchical hybrid supports and synthesis strategies for hydrodesulfurization of recalcitrance organosulfur compounds. Chem Asian J. https://doi.org/10.1002/asia.202100185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Al-Jamimi HA, Saleh TA (2019) Transparent predictive modelling of catalytic hydrodesulfurization using an interval type-2 fuzzy logic. J Clean Prod 231:1079–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Al-Jamimi HA (2019) Prediction of sulfur content in desulfurization process using a fuzzy-logic based model. Solid State Phenom Trans Tech Publ 289:80–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Elmutasim O, Sajjad M, Singh N et al (2021) Combined DFT and microkinetic modeling study of SO2 hydrodesulfurization reaction on Ni5P4 catalyst. Appl Surf Sci 559:149872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shin H, Cho S (2006) Response modeling with support vector machines. Expert Syst Appl 30:746–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Otchere DA, Ganat TOA, Gholami R, Ridha S (2021) Application of supervised machine learning paradigms in the prediction of petroleum reservoir properties: comparative analysis of ANN and SVM models. J Pet Sci Eng 200:108182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Yang D, Hou N, Lu J, Ji D (2022) Novel leakage detection by ensemble 1DCNN-VAPSO-SVM in oil and gas pipeline systems. Appl Soft Comput 115:108212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Li K, Zhou G, Yang Y et al (2020) A novel prediction method for favorable reservoir of oil field based on grey wolf optimizer and twin support vector machine. J Pet Sci Eng 189:106952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Karaağaç MO, Ergün A, Ağbulut Ü et al (2021) Experimental analysis of CPV/T solar dryer with nano-enhanced PCM and prediction of drying parameters using ANN and SVM algorithms. Sol Energy 218:57–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Eseye AT, Zhang J, Zheng D (2018) Short-term photovoltaic solar power forecasting using a hybrid Wavelet-PSO-SVM model based on SCADA and Meteorological information. Renew energy 118:357–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nayak RK, Mishra D, Rath AK (2019) An optimized SVM-k-NN currency exchange forecasting model for Indian currency market. Neural Comput Appl 31:2995–3021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Xiao C, Xia W, Jiang J (2020) Stock price forecast based on combined model of ARI-MA-LS-SVM. Neural Comput Appl 32:5379–5388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sharma S, Raja L, Bhatnagar V et al (2022) Hybrid HOG-SVM encrypted face detection and recognition model. J Discret Math Sci Cryptogr. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720529.2021.2014141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yang L, Shami A (2020) On hyperparameter optimization of machine learning algorithms: theory and practice. Neurocomputing 415:295–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Weerts HJP, Mueller AC, Vanschoren J (2020) Importance of tuning hyperparameters of machine learning algorithms. arXiv Prepr arXiv200707588

  23. Gen M, Cheng R (2000) Genetic algorithms and engineering optimization. John Wiley & Sons

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD (1983) Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220:671–680

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Snoek J, Larochelle H, Adams RP (2012) Practical bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 2:2951–2959

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kennedy J, Eberhart RC (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on neural networks. pp 1942–1948

  27. Zaefferer M, Stork J, Friese M, et al (2014) Efficient global optimization for combinatorial problems. In: Proceedings of the 2014 annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation. pp 871–878

  28. Alade IO, Abd Rahman MA, Saleh TA (2019) Predicting the specific heat capacity of alumina/ethylene glycol nanofluids using support vector regression model optimized with Bayesian algorithm. Sol Energy 183:74–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Babu T, Singh T, Gupta D, Hameed S (2021) Colon cancer prediction on histological images using deep learning features and Bayesian optimized SVM. J Intell Fuzzy Syst. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-189850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Türkoğlu M (2021) Brain tumor detection using a combination of Bayesian optimization based SVM classifier and fine-tuned based deep features. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknol Derg. https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.963609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Law T, Shawe-Taylor J (2017) Practical Bayesian support vector regression for financial time series prediction and market condition change detection. Quant Financ 17:1403–1416

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Akoglu H (2018) User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish J Emerg Med 18:91–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA (2018) Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg 126:1763–1768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Vapnik V (2013) The nature of statistical learning theory. Springer science and business media

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Shawe-Taylor J, Bartlett PL, Williamson RC, Anthony M (1998) Structural risk minimization over data-dependent hierarchies. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 44:1926–1940

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector networks. Mach Learn 20:273–297. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022627411411

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Friedrichs F, Igel C (2005) Evolutionary tuning of multiple SVM parameters. Neurocomputing 64:107–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Victoria AH, Maragatham G (2021) Automatic tuning of hyperparameters using Bayesian optimization. Evol Syst 12:217–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Martinez-Cantin R, de Freitas N, Doucet A, Castellanos JA (2007) Active policy learning for robot planning and exploration under uncertainty. In: robotics: science and systems. pp 321–328

  40. Brochu E, Brochu T, De Freitas N (2010) A Bayesian interactive optimization approach to procedural animation design. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation. pp 103–112

  41. Bischl B, Richter J, Bossek J, et al (2017) mlrMBO: A modular framework for model-based optimization of expensive black-box functions. arXiv Prepr arXiv170303373

  42. Cawley GC, Talbot NLC (2004) Fast exact leave-one-out cross-validation of sparse least-squares support vector machines. Neural Netw 17:1467–1475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Al-Jamimi HA, BinMakhashen GM, Deb K, Saleh TA (2021) Multiobjective optimization and analysis of petroleum refinery catalytic processes: a review. Fuel 288:119678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.119678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Saleh TA, AL-Hammadi SA, AL-Amer AM (2019) Effect of boron on the efficiency of MoCo catalysts supported on alumina for the hydrodesulfurization of liquid fuels. Process Saf Environ Prot 121:165–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors would like to acknowledge the help and support provided by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM) through funding project number DF181023.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Institute, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, 31261, Saudi Arabia

    Hamdi A. Al-Jamimi & Galal M. BinMakhashen

  2. Chemistry Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, 31261, Saudi Arabia

    Tawfik A. Saleh

Authors
  1. Hamdi A. Al-Jamimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Galal M. BinMakhashen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tawfik A. Saleh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tawfik A. Saleh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Jamimi, H.A., BinMakhashen, G.M. & Saleh, T.A. Artificial intelligence approach for modeling petroleum refinery catalytic desulfurization process. Neural Comput & Applic 34, 17809–17820 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-022-07423-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-022-07423-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation