Integrating Simulation in Optimal Synthesis and Design of Natural Gas Upstream Processing Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A natural gas upstream processing network consists of several main processing units. Many process configurations are available for selection, and the choice of technologies can be vast. There is no single technology or process configuration that is superior in all aspects. Thus, there is a need for a mathematical model that considers different flowsheet configurations and operating mode options and selects optimally among them. In this paper, a comprehensive design and operational mixed integer programming model is presented for superstructure optimization to optimally select the most cost-effective pathway in natural gas upstream processing networks. The key processing units of the considered processing network include stabilization, acid gas removal, dehydration, sulfur recovery, natural gas liquid (NGL) recovery, and NGL fractionation. The developed optimization model considers a superstructure with all available technologies for each processing step as well as mode of operation, such as variations in temperature and pressure which impacts the product yields. These units have been simulated using ASPEN Plus to determine the yields of different units for each design alternative under different operating modes. The bilinear terms in the resulting mixed integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) model are linearized based on either input or output streams, whichever are less in number. The model has been applied to design and operate optimally the natural gas upstream processing network. Two illustrative case studies are presented to show the applicability of the overall framework and formulated models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".