Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers in Energy

ISSN 2095-1701

ISSN 2095-1698(Online)

CN 11-6017/TK

Postal Subscription Code 80-972

2018 Impact Factor: 1.701

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Energy    2019, Vol. 13 Issue (2) : 317-324    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-019-0622-2
RESEARCH ARTICLE
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
 Download: PDF(446 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
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.
Keywords acid gas      diethanolamine      methyldiethanolamine      carbon dioxide capturing      HYSYS simulation     
Corresponding Author(s): Samah Zaki NAJI   
Online First Date: 29 April 2019    Issue Date: 04 July 2019
 Cite this article:   
Samah Zaki NAJI,Ammar Ali ABD. Sensitivity analysis of using diethanolamine instead of methyldiethanolamine solution for GASCO’S Habshan acid gases removal plant[J]. Front. Energy, 2019, 13(2): 317-324.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/EN/10.1007/s11708-019-0622-2
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/EN/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  Comparison of various alkanolamines solvent [6–8]
Fig.1  Process flow sketch of natural gas sweeting by absorption
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  Comparison of design results and real plant data
Fig.2  Sour feed gas against acid gas contents and reboiler
Fig.3  Lean amine temperature effect
Fig.4  Effect of absorber pressure
Fig.5  Plant capacity
Fig.6  Effect of diethanolamineconc
Fig.7  Regen temperature effect
Fig.8  Regen temperature with vapor percent of CO2 and total vapor
Fig.9  Adding/removing plates to absorber effect
Fig.10  Effect of adding/removing stages for regeneration column
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