Please wait a minute...
Frontiers in Energy

ISSN 2095-1701

ISSN 2095-1698(Online)

CN 11-6017/TK

邮发代号 80-972

2019 Impact Factor: 2.657

Frontiers in Energy  2019, Vol. 13 Issue (2): 317-324   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-019-0622-2
  本期目录
GASCO’S Habshan酸气脱除装置采用二乙醇胺替代甲基二乙醇胺溶液的敏感性分析
NAJI Samah Zaki1(), Ali ABD Ammar2
1. 科廷大学化学工程系,珀斯 6102,澳大利亚; 克尔巴拉大学石油部工程系,伊拉克
2. 科廷大学化学工程系,珀斯 6102,澳大利亚; 卡西姆绿色大学水资源工程学院,伊拉克
Sensitivity analysis of using diethanolamine instead of methyldiethanolamine solution for GASCO’S Habshan acid gases removal plant
Samah Zaki NAJI1(), Ammar Ali ABD2
1. Chemical Engineering Department, Curtin University, Perth, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia; Petroleum Department Engineering, Kerbala University, Iraq
2. Chemical Engineering Department, Curtin University, Perth, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia; Water Resources Engineering College, Al-Qasim Green University, Iraq
 全文: PDF(446 KB)   HTML
摘要:

天然气脱酸工艺主要是脱除二氧化碳(CO 2)和硫化氢(H2S)。高能量需求和操作限制使得胺吸收过程对任何条件变化都很敏感。本文采用HYSYS稳态模拟方法,合理预测了二乙醇胺(DEA)溶剂对天然气中CO2和H 2 S的脱除量。产品规格取自使用甲基二乙醇胺(MDEA)溶剂的实际工厂(Gasco's Habshan),而本模拟在相同操作条件下使用DEA。首先,用实际装置的数据对模拟进行了验证。结果表明,与工厂数据相比,该方法能准确预测二氧化碳的脱除量,对硫化氢含量的预测也在可接受范围内。进行了参数分析,以考察所有可能影响酸气脱除装置性能的参数。从脱酸后气体中CO 2 和H2S含量以及再沸器负荷等方面考察了操作参数的影响。

Abstract

Sweeting natural gas processes are mainly focused on removing carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S). The high-energy requirements and operational limitations make amine absorption process sensitive to any change in conditions. This paper presented a steady-state simulation using Hysys to reasonably predict removal amounts of carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide from natural gas with the diethanolamine (DEA) solvent. The product specifications are taken from the real plant (GASCO’S Habshan) which uses the methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) solvent, while this simulation uses DEA under the same operation conditions. First, the simulation validation has been checked with the data of the real plant. The results show accurate prediction for CO2 slippage and accepted agreement for H2S content compared with the data of the plant. A parametric analysis has been performed to test all possible parameters that affect the performance of the acid gases removal plant. The effects of operational parameters are examined in terms of carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide contents in clean gas and reboiler duty.

Key wordsacid gas    diethanolamine    methyldiethanolamine    carbon dioxide capturing    HYSYS simulation
收稿日期: 2018-10-03      出版日期: 2019-07-04
通讯作者: NAJI Samah Zaki     E-mail: s.alrashid@postgrad.curtin.edu.au
Corresponding Author(s): Samah Zaki NAJI   
 引用本文:   
NAJI Samah Zaki, Ali ABD Ammar. GASCO’S Habshan酸气脱除装置采用二乙醇胺替代甲基二乙醇胺溶液的敏感性分析[J]. Frontiers in Energy, 2019, 13(2): 317-324.
Samah Zaki NAJI, Ammar Ali ABD. Sensitivity analysis of using diethanolamine instead of methyldiethanolamine solution for GASCO’S Habshan acid gases removal plant. Front. Energy, 2019, 13(2): 317-324.
 链接本文:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/CN/10.1007/s11708-019-0622-2
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/CN/Y2019/V13/I2/317
Solvent MEA DGA DEA MDEA
Temperature/°C 32–140 32–140 32–135 30–140
Acid gas/amine 0.29–0.51 0.29–0.51 0.36–0.81 0.41–0.56
Solution conc./(mass%) 10–40 30–80 12–55 38–55
Capturing efficiency 90 85 80 Bulk removal only
Reaction heat for CO2/(kJ?kg–1) 1925 1730 1525 1400
Tab.1  
Fig.1  
Parameters Simulation data with DEA Plant data with MDEA
Feed gas temperature/°C 50 35–55
Feed gas pressure/kPa 6050 6050
CO2 content/(kmol?h–1) 1133 1133
H2S content/(kmol?h–1) 170 170.1
Acid gas pressure/bar 2.25 2.25
Acid gas temperature/°C 57 57
CO2 content/(kmol?h–1) 452.3 456.6
H2S content/(kmol?h–1) 145.3 169
Total flowrate/(kmol?h–1) 687 686.65
Sweet gas pressure/kPa 6650 6650
Sweet gas temperature/°C 57 57
CO2 content/(kmol?h–1) 666.101 675.8
H2S content/ppm 65.8 21
Total flowrate/(kmol?h–1) 29870 29835
Tab.2  
Fig.2  
Fig.3  
Fig.4  
Fig.5  
Fig.6  
Fig.7  
Fig.8  
Fig.9  
Fig.10  
1 Y M Kurle, S Wang, Q Xu. Dynamic simulation of LNG loading, BOG generation, and BOG recovery at LNG exporting terminals. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 2017, 97: 47–58
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.11.006
2 Y Seo, S Park, H Kang, Y H Ahn, D Lim, S J Kim, J Lee, J Y Lee, T Ahn, Y Seo, H Lee. Isostructural and cage-specific replacement occurring in sII hydrate with external CO2/N2 gas and its implications for natural gas production and CO2 storage. Applied Energy, 2016, 178: 579–586
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.072
3 A K Gupta, S Ibrahim, A Al Shoaibi. Advances in sulfur chemistry for treatment of acid gases. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2016, 54: 65–92
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2015.11.001
4 F Chu, L Yang, X Du, Y Yang. Mass transfer and energy consumption for CO2 absorption by ammonia solution in bubble column. Applied Energy, 2017(190): 1068–1080
5 H Li, J Yan, P E Campana. Feasibility of integrating solar energy into a power plant with amine-based chemical absorption for CO2 capture. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2012, 9: 272–280
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.04.005
6 A Kohl, R Nielsen. Gas Purification. Boston: Gulf Professional Publishing, 1997
7 M Mofarahi, Y Khojasteh, H Khaledi, A Farahnak. Design of CO2 absorption plant for recovery of CO2 from flue gases of gas turbine. Energy, 2008, 33(8): 1311–1319
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2008.02.013
8 M Stewart, K Arnold. Gas Sweetening and Processing Field Manual. Boston: Gulf Professional Publishing, 2011
9 T E Rufford, S Smart, G C Y Watson, B F Graham, J Boxall, J C Diniz da Costa, E F May. The removal of CO2 and N2 from natural gas: a review of conventional and emerging process technologies. Journal of Petroleum Science Engineering, 2012, 94 –95: 123–154
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2012.06.016
10 D Aaron, C Tsouris. Separation of CO2 from flue gas: a review. Separation Science and Technology, 2005, 40(1–3): 321–348
https://doi.org/10.1081/SS-200042244
11 F Diab, E Provost, N Laloue, P Alix, W Fürst. Effect of the incorporation of speciation data in the modeling of CO2-DEA-H2O system. Fluid Phase Equilibria, 2013, 353: 22–30
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2013.05.029
12 R L Kent, B Eisenberg. Better data for amine treating. Hydrocarbon Processing, 1976, 55(2): 87–90
13 S Mokhatab, W A Poe. Chapter 7–Natural gas sweetening. In: Handbook of Natural Gas Transmission and Processing. 2nd ed. Boston: Gulf Professional Publishing, 2012, 253–290
14 P J G Huttenhuis, N J Agrawal, J A Hogendoorn, G F Versteeg. Gas solubility of H2S and CO2 in aqueous solutions of N-methyldiethanolamine. Journal of Petroleum Science Engineering, 2007, 55(1–2): 122–134
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2006.04.018
15 E Blanchon Le Bouhelec-Tribouillois, P Mougin, A Barreau, I Brunella, D Le Roux, R Solimando. Simultaneous solubilities of CO2 and H2S in diethanolamine aqueous solution. Oil & Gas Science and Technology, 2008, 63(3): 363–372
https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst:2008014
16 L E Øi. Aspen HYSYS simulation of CO2 removal by amine absorption from a gas based power plant. SIMS2007 Conference, Gøteborg, 2007,
17 L Addington, C Ness. An evaluation of general “Rules of Thumb” in amine sweetening unit design and operation. In: 89th Annual Convention of the Gas Processors Association, Austin, Texas, USA, 2010
18 S S Warudkar, K R Cox, M S Wong, G J Hirasaki. Influence of stripper operating parameters on the performance of amine absorption systems for post-combustion carbon capture: part I. high pressure strippers. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2013, 16: 342–350
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.01.050
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed