A Dynamic Simulation Study:

Dehydration Tanks TK-60A and TK-60B

Inter-tank Level Balancing Lines

Summary: The effectiveness of the intended tank balance lines was investigated by performing
simulations to determine the effect of upstream transients on the dehydration tank levels. A number of
upset operating cases were simulated at both 17% and 35% WC and maximum tank level variations
calculated. The results show that the current design is adequate when compared to operating with two extra
hypothetical oil and water balance lines.

purposes
1. INTRODUCTION

As part of an Onshore Crude Processing Facilities Project,

two new dehydration tanks (TK-60A and TK-60B) will be
installed. Each tank has a capacity of 28,000 bbl and will be
used to separate oil and water phases before further
downstream processing. Two 24 booster pump suction lines
(crude and water) are currently planned to be used for tank
level balancing. A separate 6 emulsion balance line and 20
vapour balance line have also been provided.
dv g K g
= h F c (1)
dt L A p

dh
At = Fo F (2)
dt

4. MODELLING ROUTE
Dynamic tank level modelling was carried out using the high
fidelity hydraulic simulator TLNET, which is a component
of Energy Solutions Pipeline Studio V 3.0. The following
assumptions are made for the transient simulation:

Fig 1.Dehydration Tank Balance Lines Tank internal pressures are the same (i.e. The gas
vapour balance line has not been modelled)

2. OBJECTIVE Emulsion and water phases have not been modelled,

The objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness
and suitability of the current design under different dynamic
operating scenarios. In particular, the variation in tank levels
as a result of a lower offshore production rate (80,000 BPD)
in one of the two separate process trains will be examined.
3. GENERAL TANK LEVEL EQUATIONS
Well established physical models for a typical gravity flow
tank will form the basis for dynamic tank level modelling
instead only one oil phase is assumed to be present within the
tank.
Independent tank objects are not available within the
TLNET simulation environment, however it is possible to
model a tank by allocating one or more inlet and/or outlet
nozzles to a predefined tank. Therefore, in order to simulate
balancing lines, a number of outlet nozzles at different
elevations are implemented. A representation of the oil
balance line is shown below, a tank nozzle is depicted by a
blue object, flow sinks (pumps, nozzles, etc) are shown as
green objects.
 Tank Level TK-60A
15.0

Emulsion
14.8

Tank60A_Oil_Outlet
14.6

14.4

14.2
Pipe0026
14.0

M
13.8
P-060A/B/D/E
13.6
Pipe0001
Pipe0027
13.4

13.2

13.0

Tank60B_Oil_Outlet
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Elapsed Time (seconds)

Fig. 2. Case A: TK-60A dynamic level variation

The same flowrate to the desalters is maintained at
all times. TK-60B
Tank Level Variation

A fixed simulation time-step of 0.05 seconds was 15.0

used. 14.8

14.6
No hydraulic verification has been performed on the
inlet lines upstream of the dehydration tank, i.e. it is assumed 14.4

that the dynamic flowrates are achievable. 14.2

M

14.0

5. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT 13.8

13.6

The process flow scheme, as shown in the below figure, was

configured to represent the dehydration tank crude inlet 13.4

manifold. The two segregated production trains (A and B) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Elapsed Time (seconds)
3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
F
with crossover line valves closed is the normal expected
operating scenario. However, other scenarios, where the
crossover valves are open, have also been simulated. Fig. 3. Case A: TK-60B dynamic level variation

TK-60A_Emulsion TK-60B_Emulsion
Under these conditions, the maximum difference in level is
approximately 0.4m. Further tank level equalisation could be
Tank60A_Oil_Outlet

Pipe0026

achieved, by opening one of the crossover line valves and

6" Emulsion Balance Line

P-060A/B/D/
Pipe0001

reducing the set-point of one of the PCVs.

Pipe0027
Supply0003
Tank60A_Inlet

Tank60B_Oil_Outlet

Pipe0025 Blkv0003 Regu0001

Pipe0024 Pipe0004 Pipe0019 Pipe0005 Pipe0020

Blkv0002
Pipe0017 Pipe0018 Tank60A_Water_Outlet

Pipe0012

Pipe0029
5.2 Case B Offshore Flow Disruption- Emulsion Balance
Supply0004
Pipe0016

Pipe0003
Pipe0030
P-066A/B Line Operational-17% Water Cut
Blkv0001
Pipe0013 Pipe0014 Pipe0015 Tank60B_inlet

Tank60B_Water_Outlet

This scenario follows the same operational pattern and

Blkv0004 Regu0002
Pipe0006 Pipe0023 Pipe0007 Pipe0008 Pipe0021

dynamic disruption as case A, however it is assumed that the

6 emulsion balance line is now in operation.

5.1 Case A Offshore Flow Disruption-Failure of Emulsion TK-60A

Tank Level Variation
Balance Line - 17% Water Cuts 15.0
14.8
At steady state conditions, the total offshore rate 365,000 14.6
BPD is equally split between two segregated process trains. 14.4

At the start of the simulation the offshore rate to train A is cut 14.2
M

14.0
to only 80,000 BPD, train B maintains 182,500 BPD. The
13.8
initial tank level is 15m. Oil outlet nozzles have been set at
13.6
13m, and water outlet nozzles at 3m. The total dynamic 13.4
simulation run time is one hour and twenty minutes under 13.2
these condition. The results presented below do not include 13.0
the use of the 6 emulsion balance line. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Elapsed Time (seconds)

Fig. 4. Case A: TK-60A dynamic level variation

 TK-60B Fig. 7. Case C: TK-60B dynamic level variation
Tank Level Variation
15.0
14.8 5.4 Case D Train A to Train B Crossover Valve Open -
14.6 17% WC
14.4
14.2 During steady state conditions, the two production trains are
M

14.0 running with equal flowrates to both dehydration tanks. Both

13.8 of the crossover valves are closed and tank levels are equal at
13.6 15m. The transient scenario maintains the full offshore rate
13.4 (365,000 BPD), however 80,000 BPD is sent to train A
13.2 whilst train B receives the remaining 285,000 BPD. This is
0 1000 2000 3000
Elapsed Time (seconds)
4000 5000 simulated by fully opening one of the cross over valves (as
would be the case with an MOV) and throttling the PCV
upstream of dehydration tank A so that only 80,000 BPD is
Fig. 5. Case B: TK-60B dynamic level variation allowed the pass through the valve.
TK-60A
Tank Level Variation
15.00
In this case it is observed that the maximum difference in
14.99
level is 0.3m. The expected flow rate through the 6 line is
14.98
approximately 80 m3/h.
14.97

14.96
M

14.95
5.3 Case C Offshore Flow Disruption- Two Additional
14.94
Balance Lines - 17% WC
14.93

14.92
This case follows the same operational scenario as A and B.
14.91
Two additional 24 balance lines have been provided at 12m
14.90
and 1m. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Elapsed Time (seconds)

TK-60A Fig. 7. Case D: TK-60A dynamic level variation

Tank Level Variation
15.0
TK-60B
14.8 Tank Level Variation
15.10
14.6
15.09
14.4
15.08
14.2
M

15.07
14.0
15.06
13.8
15.05
M

13.6
15.04
13.4
15.03
13.2
15.02
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 15.01
Elapsed Time (seconds)
15.00

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Elapsed Time (seconds)
Fig. 6. Case C: TK-60A dynamic level variation
Fig. 8. Case D: TK-60B dynamic level variation
TK-60B
Tank Level Variation
15.0 5.4 Case E Train A to Train B Crossover Valve Open
14.8 Additional Balance Lines -17% Water Cut
14.6
14.4 The assumed scenario is the same as Case D, however two
14.2 additional balance lines at 12m and 1m have been included.
M

14.0 The results are shown below:

13.8
13.6
13.4
13.2

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Elapsed Time (seconds)
 TK-60A TK-60A
Tank Level Variation Tank Level Variation
15.000 15.00

14.998 14.98

14.996 14.96
14.94
14.994
14.92
14.992
M

M
14.90
14.990
14.88
14.988
14.86
14.986
14.84
14.984 14.82
14.982 14.80

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Elapsed Time (seconds) Elapsed Time (seconds)

Fig. 9. Case E: TK-60A dynamic level variation Fig. 11. Case F: TK-60A dynamic level variation

TK-60B TK-60B
Tank Level Variation
Tank Level Variation
15.018
15.20
15.016 15.18
15.014 15.16
15.012 15.14

15.010 15.12
M

15.008 15.10
15.08
15.006
15.06
15.004
15.04
15.002
15.02
15.000
15.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Elapsed Time (seconds) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Elapsed Time (seconds)

Fig. 10. Case E: TK-60B dynamic level variation
Tank levels equalize rapidly within 500 seconds with a slight
and insignificant offset.
5.5 Case F Train A to Train B Crossover Valve Open
35% Water Cut
This simulation scenario is based on 35% water cut or a total
offshore rate of approximately 467,000 BPD. It is expected
that this case represents the worst case conditions in terms of
tank level unbalancing. During transient conditions,
dehydration tank A receives 80,000 BPD, whilst tank B
receives 387,000 BPD. The flow re-routing is carried out in
by opening only one MOV and throttling the PCV on the
inlet of dehydration tank A.
Fig. 12. Case F: TK-60B dynamic level variation
As can be seen from the simulation results, the maximum
difference in tank level is 0.4m whilst operating under these
conditions. The dynamic simulation results show that the
level-flow cascade controller averaging these two levels
should still send the same signal to the existing flow
controllers thus allowing the desalter rate to be maintained.
5.6 Case G Train A to Train B Crossover Valve Open
Additional Balance Lines -35% Water Cut
The final case, simulates two 24 hypothetical balance lines
at 12m and 1m. The implemented dynamic disruption is the
same as case F.
 TK-60A
Tank Level Variation
15.000

14.995

14.990
M

14.985

14.980

14.975

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Elapsed Time (seconds)

Fig. 13. Case G: TK-60A dynamic level variation

TK-60B
Tank Level Variation

15.025

15.020

15.015
M

15.010

15.005

15.000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Elapsed Time (seconds)

Fig. 14. Case G: TK-60B dynamic level variation

6. CONCLUSIONS

The simulation results demonstrate that under certain and

non-frequent operating conditions a maximum tank level
imbalance of 0.4m may occur. The introduction of two extra
24 balance lines (intended for the oil and water phases) can
improve the situation. However, since the tank level
difference is not considered to be significant under the worst
case conditions, further consideration of additional lines or a
flow inlet balancing system is not required.