presentation
TRANSCRIPT
MODELING CARBON DIOXIDE GAS ABSORBER UNIT FOR SWEETENING OF NATURAL GAS
USING METHYL DIETHANOL AMINE
BY
OKOROMA, JUSTICE(B.TECH, CHEMICAL/PETROCHEMICAL ENGINEERING)
RIVERS STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY.2012
1
Highlights of Presentation
1. INTRODUCTION
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
3. MODEL DEVELOPMENTS
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6. REFERENCES
2
INTRODUCTION Carbon dioxide (CO2) is considered to be the largest contributor to
global warming problem. CO2 removal from industrial streams is needed to control greenhouse gas emissions for environment protection.
The presence of tiny amounts of CO2 can act as poison in catalytic processes such as ethylene polymerization. CO2 also results to severe corrosion damage on the production facilities and pipelines, and icing in natural gas liquids (NGL) production and transportation.
Thus, the removal of CO2 from gas streams is a very important operation for natural gas processing, oil refining and petrochemical processes.
AIM:The aim of this project is to develop and simulate a mathematical model of an absorber for the removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) from natural gas using Methyl Diethanol Amine (MDEA).
3
Introduction (continued)
OBJECTIVES: Develop a mathematical model that will predict the variation of CO2
concentration, variation of gas (CO2) and MDEA temperatures across the absorber.
Solve the resulting model equations numerically by developing algorithm and program using MATLAB; validate models results using plant data.
Perform a simulation of the absorber using the models developed to determine the effect of the process variables on the absorber, thus predict the performance of the absorber.
SCOPE: Methyl Dimethyl Amine (MDEA) is used as the absorbent. Packed column is considered as the gas absorber.
4
LITERATURE REVIEW The most useful concept of the process of absorption is given by the
two-film theory due to Whitman (Richardson et al, 2002).
The separated pure CO2 is further compressed and injected into an aquifer, accounting for an annual amount of 2 million tons of CO2 (Jimmy Xiao et al, 2000).
The Pitzer model has recently been applied for the physical and chemical modeling of aqueous systems of CO2 and alkanolamines (Li and Mather, 1997).
Kaewschian et al. (2001) used a similar approach based upon the electrolyte-UNIQUAC model (Sander et al., 1986) to predict the solubility of CO2 and H2S in aqueous solution of MEA and MDEA.
The first attempt to treat absorption equilibria in a thermodynamically rigorous manner was made by Edwards et al (1975).
5
Literature Review (continued)
Process Description: A simplified flow diagram of a typical CO2 removal unit using MDEA is
shown below. Sweet Gas
Lean Amine solvent
Absorber
Rich Amine Solvent
Sour Gas
Regenerator
Lean Amine
Carbon dixode
Schematic of the CO2 Absorber and MDEA Regenerator (Richardson et al, 2002).
6
MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Model Assumptions: Only CO2 and MDEA are transferred across the interface Steady state conditions are applied.
To illustrate the mass and heat transfers in differential section of the Absorber, letβs consider an elemental packed height or differential section of the absorber, with its associated inflow and outflow streams, shown here.
7
Model Development (continued)
Models of Mass transfer rates: For CO2:
NCO2.a .dz = KGa (yCO2 - yCO2,e) dz = - G .dyCO2
ππ¦πΆπ2ππ§ = β πΎπΊπ(π¦πΆπ2 β π¦πΆπ2,π)πΊ (3.1) For MDEA:
πππ·πΈπ΄ πβππ§ = πΎπΏ,ππ·πΈπ΄πΰ΅«πππ·πΈπ΄ β πππ·πΈπ΄,πΰ΅―ππ§ = βπΊβππππ·πΈπ΄ ππππ·πΈπ΄ππ§ = β πΎπΏ,ππ·πΈπ΄π(πππ·πΈπ΄ β πππ·πΈπ΄,π)πΊ (3.2)
8
Model Development (continued)
Energy (Enthalpy) Balance:
απ»πππ‘ π‘ππππ ππππππ‘π ππππ πππ π‘π ππππ’ππ πβππ πα = ࡬πΌπππ’π‘ πππ‘π ππ πππ‘βππππ¦ΰ΅° β ࡬ππ’π‘ππ’π‘ πππ‘πππ πππ‘βππππ¦ΰ΅°
Β± απ»πππ‘ π‘ππππ ππππππ’π ππ ππ¦πππ π π‘ππππ πππα αΊ3.3α» Model for Gas Phase:
Model for Liquid Phase:
ππ‘πΏππ§ = βπΊπαΊπ‘πΊ β π‘πΏα»πΏπΆπΏ + αΊπΆππΆπ2αΊπ‘πΊ β π‘πα»+ π»ππα»ΰ΅£ οΏ½βπΎπΊπ(π¦πΆπ2 β π¦πΆπ2,πࡧπΏπΆπΏ
+ αΊπΆπππ·πΈπ΄αΊπ‘πΊβ π‘πα»+ π»πα»ΰ΅£ οΏ½βπΎπΏ,ππ·πΈπ΄πΰ΅«πππ·πΈπ΄ β πππ·πΈπ΄,π࡯ࡧπΏπΆπΏ (3.11)
ππ‘πΊππ§ = ββπΊπ(π‘πΊβ π‘πΏ)πΊΘπΆππ΅+πΆππΆπ2π¦πΆπ2+πΆπππ·πΈπ΄πππ·πΈπ΄Θ (3.8)
9
Process Parameters and Operating conditions:
Property Inlet Outlet Gas Temperature (K) 313.67 325.11 Liquid (MDEA) Temperature (K) 313.40 316.33 CO2 mole fraction (mol/mol%) 0.0167 0.00000
Table 3.1: Main properties of Absorber column feedstock and products (NAOC OB/OB Gas Plant data)
Table 3.2: Mass and Heat Transfer coefficients; parameters of gas and liquid phases and Absorption column operation conditions
Parameter Symbol Value Unit Reference Height of column π§ 20 m Plant data Specific interfacial surface area
π 416 m2/m3 Plant data
Gas β film transfer coefficient in terms of mole fraction
πΎπΊ 0.000096 kmol/m2s Karl A. H., 2003
Liquid β film transfer coefficient in terms of mole fraction
πΎπΏ,ππ·πΈπ΄ 0.000051 kmol/m2s Karl A. H., 2003
Molar gas flux or gas phase molar velocity
πΊ 0.0148 kmol/m2s Tontiwachwuthikul, et al (1992)
Equilibrium (interface) mole fraction of CO2 in gas phase
π¦πΆπ2,π 0.191 unitless Plant data
10
Process Parameters and Operating conditions (contβd)
Parameter Symbol Value Unit Reference Equilibrium (interface) mole fraction of MDEA in gas phase
πππ·πΈπ΄,π 0.325 unitless Plant data
Heat transfer coefficient of gas phase
βπΊ 0.01 KJ/m2sK Karl A. H., 2003
Enthalpy of gas phase π»πΊ 19000 KJ/kmolK Karl A. H., 2003 Enthalpy of liquid phase π»πΏ 26000 KJ/kmolK Karl A. H., 2003 Specific heat of CO2 πΆππΆπ2 37.13 KJ/kmolK Karl A. H., 2003 Specific heat of MDEA πΆπππ·πΈπ΄
49.982 KJ/kmolK Tontiwachwuthikul, et al
(1992) Specific heat of gas πΆππ΅ 37.13 KJ/kmolK Tontiwachwuthikul, et al
(1992) Specific heat of liquid πΆπΏ 49.982 KJ/kmolK Karl A. H., 2003 Heat of reaction β include heat of solution for CO2
π»ππ 3.9 x 105 KJ/kmolK Tontiwachwuthikul, et al (1992)
Heat of vapourization of MDEA
π»π 2.6 x 104 KJ/kmolK Tontiwachwuthikul, et al (1992)
Reference temperature π‘π 298 K Karl A. H., 2003 Molar liquid flux πΏ 0.0095 kmol/m2s Tontiwachwuthikul, et al
(1992)
11
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS1. Variation of CO2 concentration through absorption column height :
0 5 10 15 20 250
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
Absorption column height, Z (m)
CO2
Conc
entr
ation
, yCO
2 (m
ol/m
ol%
)
12
Results and Discussions (continued)
2. Variation of temperature of liquid (Methyl diethanol Amine -MDEA) across the absorption column height :
0 5 10 15 20 25309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
Absorption column height, Z (m)
Liqu
id T
empe
ratu
re, K
(oC)
13
Results and Discussions (continued)
3. Variation of temperature of gas through absorption column height :
0 5 10 15 20 25308
310
312
314
316
318
320
322
324
326
Absorption column height, Z (m)
Gas
Tem
pera
ture
, Tg
(oC)
14
Results and Discussions (continued)
4. Variation of CO2 concentration through absorption column height at different MDEA weight %:
0 5 10 15 20 250
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
MDEA = 55%
MDEA = 50%
MDEA = 45%
MDEA = 38.22%
Absorption column height, Z (m)
CO2
Conc
entr
ation
, yCO
2 (m
ol/m
ol%
)
15
Results and Discussions (continued)
5. Variation of CO2 concentration through absorption column height at different MDEA weight % (3D Surface Plot for visualization):
16
02
46
810
1214
1618
20
00.0020.0040.0060.0080.01
0.0120.0140.0160.018
MDEA = 55%
MDEA = 50%
MDEA = 45%
MDEA = 38.22%
Absorption column height, Z (m)
CO2
Conc
entr
ation
, yCO
2 (m
ol/m
ol%
)
Results and Discussions (continued)
6. Effect of MDEA concentration on the outlet CO2 concentration :
35 40 45 50 55 600
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
MDEA Concentration (wt %)
Out
let C
O2
con
cent
ratio
n, y
A (m
ol/m
ol%
)
17
Results and Discussions (continued)
7. Variation of CO2 concentration through absorption column height at different Gas Flow Rate :
0 5 10 15 20 250
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
G = 80,000 std.m3/hr
G = 120,000 std.m3/hr
G = 160,000 std.m3/hr
G = 200,000 std.m3/hr
Absorption column height, Z (m)
CO2
Conc
entr
ation
, yCO
2 (m
ol/m
ol%
)
18
Results and Discussions (continued)
8. Variation of CO2 concentration through absorption column height at different Gas Flow Rate (3D Surface Plot) :
02
46
810
1214
1618
20
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
G = 80,000 std.m3/hr
G = 160,000 std.m3/hr
Absorption column height, Z (m)
CO2
Conc
entr
ation
, yCO
2 (m
ol/m
ol%
)
19
Results and Discussions (continued)
9. Variation of CO2 concentration through absorption column height at different Gas Flow Rate :
0 5 10 15 20 250
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
MDEA = 55%
MDEA = 50%
MDEA = 45%
MDEA = 38.22%
Absorption column height, z(m)
CO2
conc
entr
ation
, yA
(mol
/mol
%)
20
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSTable 4.1: Comparison between Plant and Predicted Process Parameters
Process Parameter Model Prediction
Plant Data % Deviation
CO2 concentration 0.00000 0.00000 0.00 Gas Outlet temperature (K) 324.32 325.11 0.24 Liquid MDEA Outlet temperature (K)
312.00 313.40 0.44
CONCLUSION: Good agreements were found between the plant data and the model
predictions, since the values derived from model predictions showed little or no deviations from the plant data.
MDEA weight % of 45 is preferable for optimal absorption. It is also economical too as additional MDEA concentration would have a cost implication on the absorption facility operation.
21
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS: Future research work should focus on the regeneration section of the
absorption plant.
More plant data should be obtained from companies like Total E&P and SPDC that operate CO2 Absorption to allow a comparative study to be made.
Future research works should also take into cognizance the CO2
dependence on residence time of the absorption process. The effect of a higher or lower time interval spent by natural gas and MDEA in the absorber would provide further breakthrough on efficient or optimal plant operations.
22
REFERENCESβ’ Edwards, T.J., Newman, J. and Prausnitz, J.M. (1975), Thermodynamics of
Aqueous Solutions Containing Volatile Weak Electrolytes, AIChE J., 21:248259.
β’ Jimmy Xiao, Chih-Wei Li, Meng-Hui Li, (2000) Kinetics of absorption of carbon dioxide into aqueous solutions of 2-amino-2-methyl-1-
propanol+monoethanolamine, Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 55, pp. 161-175.
β’ Karl A. H. (2003) Modelling and experimental study of CO2 absorption in a membrane contactor, Thesis β NUST, pg.102.
β’ Kaewsichan,.L. ,Al-Bofersen, O., Yesavage, V.F. . Sami Selim, M. (2001), Predictions of the solubility of acid gases in monoethanolamine (MEA) and methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) solutions using the electrolyte- Uniquac model, Fluid Phase Equilibria, 183, 159-171.
β’ Li, Y. G., and Mather, A. E. (1997) Correlation and prediction of the solubility of CO2 and H2S in aqueous solutions of methyldiethanolamine. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 36, 2760-2765.
23
REFERENCES
β’ NAOC OB/OB Gas Plant Data (2006) Agip KCO Training Special Project, OJT Technical Workbook β Obiafu/Obrikom Gas Plant.
β’ Richardson, J.F , Harker J. H., Backhurst J. R. (2002) Coulson & Richardsonβs Chemical Engineering: Particle Technology and
Separation Process, Vol.2, 5th ed., Elsevier, New Delhi, India.
β’ Sander G., Carey, T., Rochelle, G., (1986) A model of acid gasabsorption/stripping using methyldiethanolamiene with added acid. Gas separation and purification, 5, 95-109.
β’ Tontiwachwuthikul, P.; Meisen, A.; Lim, J. (1992) CO2 absorption by NaOH, Monoethanolamine and 2-Amino-2-Methyl-1-Propanol in a packed column, Chemical Engineering science, 47 (2), 381β 390.
24
THANKS FOR LISTENING&
GOD BLESS
25