SOCAR

BAKI ALİ NEFT MƏKTƏBİ

MÜHƏNDİSLİK FAKÜLTƏSİ

İxtisas: 050618 – Kimya mühəndisliyi

Qrup: KM-19.1

BURAXILIŞ İŞİ

Mövzu: CO2 desorbsiya kolonunun layihələndirilməsi və optimallaşdırılması

Bakı – 2024
 STATE OIL COMPANY of AZERBAIJAN REPUBLIC

BAKU HIGHER OIL SCHOOL

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

Speciality: 050618 – Chemical Engineering

Group: KM 19.1

GRADUATION WORK

Title: Design and optimization of CO2 desorption column

Student: Elnura Aliyeva

Supervisor: Ruslan Abishov

Head of Department: Rima Guliyeva

Baku – 2024
 Declaration of Authorship

I, Elnura Aliyeva, confirm that this work submitted for assessment is my own and
is expressed in my words. Any uses made within it of the works of other authors in
any form (e.g. ideas, equations, figures, drawings, text, tables, other forms of data,
programs) are properly acknowledged and referenced at the point of their use. A
list of the references employed is included.

Signed on ____ of May

Signature ___________________

1
 Acknowledgment
I would like to thank all staff of Baku Higher Oil School for giving us such an opportunity to get
high-grade education.
I am grateful to my Supervisor, Mr. Ruslan Abishov at the Engineering Management
Department of SOCAR Downstream, for his guidance and help to accomplish this project. As a
supervisor he devoted his valuable time to discuss all problems which I have encountered during
the project. I highly appreciate his willingness to answer all my questions and guide me while
working on project.
I would like to express my gratitude to all professors and lecturers from Chemical Engineering
Department of Baku Higher Oil School who taught me fundamental principles of chemical
engineering.

2
Xülasə
Bu hesabat "Karbon Tutma" layihəsində amin regenerasiya sütununun dizaynını və analizini
təsvir edir və qazan yemi suyu deaeratoru olan kiçik bir avadanlığın dizaynını da əhatə edir.
Hesabatda layihənin məqsədləri, tələbləri və dizayn kriteriyaları ətraflı şəkildə izah edilir.
Hesabatda prosesin təsviri, material balansı, əsas və kiçik avadanlığın dizaynı, mexaniki dizayn,
təhlükəsizlik, davamlılıq, prosesə nəzarət və avadanlıq məlumat cədvəli təqdim edilir. Oxumağı
asanlaşdırmaq üçün sənəd məzmun və struktur baxımından səliqəli hazırlanmışdır. Məqalədə
kondensator və reboiler seçimi, qablaşdırılmış və nimçə sütunları, qabın hidravlikası və sütunun
mexaniki dizaynı kimi bir neçə dizayn amili hərtərəfli şəkildə araşdırılmışdır. Həmçinin işə
başlama və dayandırma prosedurları, HAZOP və davamlılıq təhlili ilə yanaşı, avadanlığın dəyəri
də detallı şəkildə təqdim olunur.

3
Executive Summary
This report illustrates the design and analysis of amine regeneration column in the “Carbon
Capture” project and also includes design of minor equipment which is boiler feed water
deaerator. In the report project aims, objectives and design requirements are covered. Process
description, material balance, major and minor equipment design, mechanical design, safety,
sustainability, process control, equipment datasheet are provided in the report. To make reading
easier, there is content and structure of document. The paper presents a thorough examination
of several design factors, including the choice of condenser and reboiler, packed vs tray
columns, tray hydraulics, and column mechanical design. Besides the start-up and shutdown
procedures, HAZOP, and sustainability analysis, equipment cost are detailed.

4
Content
1 Process Description............................................................................................ 10
2 Material Balance of Regenerator - Major Equipment..........................................11
3 Reboiler Selection.............................................................................................. 12
3.1 Natural Recirculation Reboiler....................................................................13
3.2 Thermosyphon Reboiler.............................................................................. 13
3.3 Kettle Reboiler............................................................................................ 14
4 Condenser Selection.......................................................................................... 14
5 Tray vs Packed Column....................................................................................... 14
5.1 Packed Column........................................................................................... 14
5.1.1 Cost of packing....................................................................................... 15
5.2 Tray Column Bubble Cap Application..........................................................16
5.2.1 Operation of Bubble Cap.........................................................................16
5.2.2 Comparison & Summary.........................................................................17
5.3 Tray Column Valve Application....................................................................17
5.3.1 Operation of Valve................................................................................... 17
5.4 Tray Column Sieve Application....................................................................18
5.4.1 Comparison & Summary.........................................................................18
5.5 Cost Analysis of Tray Variations..................................................................19
5.6 Comparison of Tray Column by Size Calculation.........................................20
5.7 Conclusion.................................................................................................. 22
6 Tray Specifications............................................................................................. 23
6.1 Theoretical Trays Number...........................................................................23
6.2 Actual Trays Number................................................................................... 23
7 Hydraulics of Tray............................................................................................... 24
7.1 Procedure of Design.................................................................................... 24
8 Assumptions and relevant data..........................................................................25
9 Calculation of Diameter of Regenerator.............................................................25
9.1 Top Diameter of Regenerator......................................................................25
9.2 Bottom Diameter of Regenerator................................................................26
9.3 Conclusion.................................................................................................. 27
10 Arrangement of Liquid Flow...........................................................................27
11 Provisional Design of Trayp............................................................................ 28
12 Entrainment................................................................................................... 30
13 Weeping......................................................................................................... 32
14 Pressure Drop in the Column and over the Plate............................................33
15 Downcomer Back-up...................................................................................... 34

5
16 Residence Time of Downcomer......................................................................36
17 Construction Materials................................................................................... 36
18 Overall Vessel................................................................................................. 39
18.1 Vessel Height.............................................................................................. 39
18.2 Column Dead Weight.................................................................................. 39
18.3 Design of Skirt – Vessel Support.................................................................40
18.4 Dead Weight Stress on Skirt.......................................................................41
18.5 Maximum Bending Moment........................................................................41
18.6 Bending Stress in Skirt................................................................................ 42
18.7 Seismic Load............................................................................................... 42
18.8 Skirt Strength............................................................................................. 42
18.9 Thickness and Head of Vessel.....................................................................42
19 Manway.......................................................................................................... 43
19.1 Manway of Column..................................................................................... 43
19.2 Manway of Tray........................................................................................... 43
20 Nozzles........................................................................................................... 44
21 Datasheet...................................................................................................... 44
22 Design of Reboiler.......................................................................................... 45
22.1 Estimation of Coefficient of Overall Heat Exchange....................................47
22.2 Internal velocity.......................................................................................... 48
22.3 Layout of Tube and Diameter of Bundle......................................................49
23 Design of Condenser...................................................................................... 50
24 Safety and Sustainability............................................................................... 50
24.1 Safety Review............................................................................................. 50
24.2 Environmental Review................................................................................ 51
24.3 HAZOP........................................................................................................ 51
25 Maintenance.................................................................................................. 52
25.1 Fouling........................................................................................................ 52
25.2 Cleaning..................................................................................................... 52
26 Column Functionality...................................................................................... 53
26.1 Start Up...................................................................................................... 53
26.2 Operation at Steady State..........................................................................53
26.3 Shut Down.................................................................................................. 54
27 Unit Operation Control................................................................................... 56
28 Cost of Equipment.......................................................................................... 57
29 Design of Deaerator – Minor Equipment.........................................................58
29.1 Datasheet of Deaerator............................................................................. 60

6
30 References..................................................................................................... 61
31 Appendix........................................................................................................ 63

List of figures
Figure 1.1: Process flow diagram of Carbon Capture process (made in Aspen Hysys)4
Figure 2.1: PFD of regenerator.................................................................................... 6
Figure 5.1.1.1: Cost of packing materials.................................................................10
Figure 5.1.1.2: Tray vs Packed MEA system..............................................................10
Figure 5.5.1: Tray cost analysis................................................................................. 14
Figure 5.5.2: Tray cost analysis................................................................................. 14
Figure 5.5.3: Cost of materials.................................................................................. 15
Figure 5.6.1: Sieve tray design................................................................................. 16
Figure 5.6.2: Tray design pass.................................................................................. 17
Figure 6.2.1: Efficiencies of tray............................................................................... 19
Figure 10.1: Diameter vs Flowrate............................................................................22
Figure 11.1: Relation between Ad/Ac % and lw/Dc...................................................23
Figure 11.2: Lh/Dc, theta vs Lw/Dc...........................................................................24
Figure 11.3: Ah/Ap vs lp/dh....................................................................................... 25
Figure 12.1: Relation between flow parameter and entrainment level.....................26
Figure 13.1: Dependence of K2 on hw+how.................................................................28
Figure 14.1: Orifice coefficient.................................................................................. 29
Figure 15.1: Downcomer back-up.............................................................................30
Figure 17.1: Metallurgical recommendations for MDEA............................................32
Figure 17.2: Stainless steel metallurgy.....................................................................33
Figure 18.3.1: Dimensions of supporting skirt..........................................................35
Figure 22.3.1: Pitch data........................................................................................... 44
Figure 27.1: PID of column....................................................................................... 51
Figure 29.1: Deaerator............................................................................................. 54

List of tables
Table 2.1: Material balance of regenerator.................................................................7
Table 5.6.1: Data from example............................................................................... 15
Table 5.6.2: Data for bubble cap estimation.............................................................17
Table 5.6.3: Results of calculations...........................................................................17
Table 6.1: Parameters of tray................................................................................... 18
Table 8.1: Made assumptions for design...................................................................20
Table 8.2: Data from material balance.....................................................................20
Table 10.1: Arrangement of flow...............................................................................22
Table 17.1: Properties of insulation...........................................................................32
Table 17.2: Summary of material choice..................................................................33
Table 18.3.1: Total measurements of vessel.............................................................36
Table 19.1.1: Data of column manway.....................................................................38
Table 19.2.1: Data of tray manway...........................................................................38
Table 20.1: Data about nozzle locations...................................................................39
Table 21.1: Datasheet of regenerator.......................................................................39
Table 22.1: Temperature data................................................................................... 40
Table 22.2: Enthalpy data......................................................................................... 41

7
Table 22.3: Tube property......................................................................................... 41
Table 22.1.1: Data to find heat transfer coefficient..................................................42
Table 22.3.1: Overall data........................................................................................ 44
Table 23.1: Temperature data for condenser............................................................45
Table 23.2: Overall data........................................................................................... 45
Table 24.3.1: HAZOP analysis................................................................................... 46
Table 26.2.1: Operation at steady state...................................................................48
Table 27.1: Controllers.............................................................................................. 51
Table 28.1: Purchased cost....................................................................................... 53
Table 29.1.1: Datasheet of deaerator.......................................................................55

8
1 Process Description

Figure 1.1: Process flow diagram of Carbon Capture process (made in Aspen Hysys)

Here, to remove carbon dioxide from fuel gas amine gas sweetening process is used. This
process can be carried out using amine solvents such as MEA, DEA. However, MDEA is utilized
in this process as MEA is corrosive, toxic and requires more energy to react with CO2. Coming
to DEA, the reaction rate of it with CO2 is slow and it is bad for reinforced PCC process itself.
Although the rate of reaction of MDEA with CO2 is low, it has become a significant amine as it
requires less energy, has high capacity and is stable [1].

CO2 consisted in 9.7 t/h fuel gas is absorbed by 42wt% MDEA and 2.50wt% PZ solvent at high
pressure (56 bar) and low temperature (40-50°C). Piperazine is utilized to alter selectivity of
CO2. When only MDEA is used recovery of CO2 is 30%, while adding PZ, it becomes 85%
Lean amine after absorbing CO2 became rich and exited the bottom of the absorber. By using
regenerator column (desorption column or stripper) at low pressure (2.3 bar) and high
temperature (127°C). In order to decrease the temperature inside the tower and consequently
prevent corrosion and alkanolamine degradation, the regenerator is operated at the lowest
pressure that is practicable [2]. As regeneration process operates at low pressure and high
temperature, the pressure of rich amine is decreased by valve and the temperature of it is
increased by decreasing temperature of the regenerated amine from stripper through heat
exchanger where rich amine is passing through tube side of the heat exchanger. Because of
rich amine being more corrosive in comparison with regenerated one (acid gas composition is
higher), it passes through tube side as tubes can be easily removed and cleaned [3]. The
exchanger is designed to recover part of the sensible heat, hence lowering the reboiler duty.

9
The regenerator tower receives an upward flow of stripping vapours due to the addition of heat
from the reboiler, which causes part of the solution to vaporize. This part of the solution then
condenses partially within the regenerator, providing heat for the endothermic acid gas
desorption reactions and heating the solution to the bottom temperature of the regenerator [2].

CO2 and water vapor separated from rich solution go upward from the top of the regenerator.
The gases cool and most of the water vapor condenses. To stop water loss from the system
and preserve the water balance of the unit, this condensate is collected and continuously
recycled back into the system. It is refluxed back to the regenerator's top to eliminate any
remaining residues of alkanolamine vapor from the overhead stream exiting the top of the
tower.

The solution which is exiting the bottom of the stripper consists of low loading CO2 (lean). The
lean solution is pumped to the top of the absorber after being cooled by heat exchange to
conclude solution circuit. However, to compensate the water and amine loss in the outlet of the
regenerator and in the inlet of the absorber, makeup streams are utilised in the process [4].

2 Material Balance of Regenerator - Major Equipment

Figure 2.1: PFD of regenerator

The mass conversion law and mass balance are related concepts. The usual form for
conversion of mass is as follows:

Input +Generation=Output + Accumulation+Consumptionm (Equation 2.1)

10
The above equation's generation and consumption terms are equal to zero for a steady state
process including a nonreactive species, and the accumulation term will equal zero for such a
process. As a result, the equation can be simplified to:

Input=Output (Equation 2.2)

The energy balance at steady state condition is as follows:

Q̇+ Ẇ =∆ Ḣ + ∆ Ė k +∆ E˙ p (Equation 2.3)

By considering system as adiabatic ¿), not accelerating (∆ Ė k =0 ), not rising or falling (∆ E˙ p=0)
and assuming that there are no moving parts/radiation/electrical currents at system boundary ¿,
the before mentioned equation can be simplified as follows:

Q̇=∆ Ḣ (Equation 2.4)

The enthalpies are calculated according to the heat capacity values which are estimated by
knowing regression coefficients for chemical compound:

∆ Ḣ =n∫ C p dT (Equation 2.5)

Overall mass and energy balance of column is tabulated below:

Table 2.1: Material balance of regenerator

Tail Gas + Regenerate

Unit CO2
MDEA + PZ d amine
Vapour
0,012 1 6,44E-06
Fraction
Temperature C 98,89 48,90 127,37
Pressure kPa 266 232.15 232.35
Molar Flow kgmole/h 4942 990.4 3568
Mass Flow kg/s 40 11.34 28.66
Liquid Volume
m3/h 144.4 51.28 102.8
Flow
Heat Flow kW -4.077*105 -9.16*104 -2.975*105

3 Reboiler Selection
Numerous reboiler designs are available that, depending on specific requirements, can be put
into practice [5]. Thermosyphon, forced circulation, natural circulation, and kettle reboilers are
the primary types that have been studied and taken into consideration. Every kind of reboiler's
delegation is categorized according to certain criteria, which are then assessed based on the
importance and priority of every crucial feature. The following broad standards are used to
choose reboilers [5]:

11
  Area required
 Heat transfer
 Fouling
 Capital cost
 Operating cost

3.1 Natural Recirculation Reboiler

Of all the reboilers found in industry, natural circulation reboilers are the most common. Two
differential systems, one via reboiler and the other recirculating reboiler, are built for this kind of
system and are depicted in the above figure.
The reboiler, where the system partially vaporizes the solution, receives all of the liquid at the
base of the regeneration column. With the bottom product entering the reboiler, the proportion
of un-vaporized solution is removed, and the residual vapour is fed back into the column. The
recirculating boiler functions a little differently in that it allows the liquid and vapour to circulate
based on the pressure differential, which is shown as the liquid static head pressure [5].
Here, all of the liquid from the bottom tray of the regeneration column is pushed into a forced
circulation reboiler, also referred to as a "pump through" reboiler. This process can happen as
many times as is economically feasible to maintain consistent vaporization rates inside the
stripper [5]. This specific configuration is employed in situations when operating pressures
beyond the capabilities of traditional systems, including natural recirculation.

The primary benefit of forced recirculation is that it can handle viscous and solid related
substances and has strict control over the rate of component circulation. On the other hand, its
operating costs are higher than those of natural circulation, which is more appropriate in some
situations [5].

3.2 Thermosyphon Reboiler

Thermosyphon heat exchangers can be vertical or horizontal in shape. The building
arrangement of the thermosyphon reboiler typically consists of a very simple design that
consists of a single tube pass shell heat exchanger [5]. The primary feature of this design is its
ability to transmit heat at relatively high surface area rates, which is made possible by its
straightforward construction and pipe requirements.

Because of its simple design, the thermosyphon can withstand a lot of potential fouling and has
strong control over its vaporization and circulation rates. The vertical configuration, which is
near the stripper, is typically constructed with extra column skirts, which complicates upkeep.
The horizontal type and the vertical type are identical in nature, but the horizontal type has a
lower skirt height because it requires less circulation head, or pressure. The horizontal type
thermosyphon's circulatory system design can be forced or natural [5].

12
3.3 Kettle Reboiler
The kettle reboiler's boiling method is applied in comparatively diverse ways in its construction.
Gravity forces liquid at the bottom of the column to flow into the boiler. Within the kettle design,
a weir is created to maintain the required liquid height. The aqueous phase completely envelops
the tube bundle. The fluid is pumped back into the column for more material removal as it
vaporizes [5].
The product, or un-vaporized solution, is fed in from the bottom. The kettle reboiler's method
makes it simple to operate; multiphase flow and circulation rate don't need to be integrated or
taken into account. The kettle reboiler just serves as an additional column tray where
vaporization control can be used. The kettle shape, which has higher construction costs than
other designs due to the vapour disengagement phenomena that occur as a subset, is
constructed; however, because the exterior skirt need is minimized, the overall cost is balanced
[5].

Given the operating parameters and nature of the operation, the most generally favoured
technique of heating is a kettle reboiler since it can manage high flow rates, is ideal for the
orientation, and is acceptable with the kind of solvent.

4 Condenser Selection
Partial condenser – partial liquefaction of vapor leaving the top of regeneration column. The
obtained liquid is returned back to the column while vapor is leaved as product.

Total condenser – vapor leaving the top of regeneration column is completely turned into liquid
part of which is returned to the column.

As temperature of amine solution is better controlled in partial condensation by

condensing only a portion of the water vapor, partial condenser is chosen for this
carbon capture process. In addition, the partial condensation requires less energy in
comparison with total one.

5 Tray vs Packed Column

5.1 Packed Column
Due to many uses and selectivity, industrial columns have historically been manufactured using
a tray assembly; nevertheless, packed columns provide additional benefits over tray columns.
In packed columns, three different forms of volume are commonly utilized: random packing,
structured packing, and grids. A design known as "random packing" makes use of assigned bits
of material that are arranged in a column without any clear pattern or order. Depending on the
required surface area, pressure drop, and operating circumstances, several packing types
apply. A material assembly that is wanted based on calculations that forecast and define a

13
certain geometry and required orientation of the packing structure is known as "structured
packing." These particular packaging styles are available in two configurations: sectioned beds
composed of corrugated sheets or knitted type (mesh) bedding. There are several kinds of
widely accessible packaging with distinct features including surface personality, crimps, and the
use of perforations.

Grids are an alternative to both random and systematic column packing. Traditionally, these
grids have been employed in systems with little pressure and vacuum operation.
The industry's packing process is clearly visible in low liquid loading applications like glycol
dehydration. Packing is superior to tray columns because it allows for intimate contact between
materials and has a significantly bigger surface area than packing.

5.1.1 Cost of packing

Figure 5.1.1.1: Cost of packing materials [5]

When comparing the cost of packing vs tray columns and taking into account the operating
circumstances, packing can be up to three times more expensive than tray columns.

14
 Figure 5.1.1.2: Tray vs Packed MEA system [6]

In summary, as compared to a tray column, the economic performance of the alternative

packing column for amine regeneration columns that strip carbon dioxide and hydrogen
sulphide is quite high, and this selection is insufficient. The usage of trays is still justifiable since
the specific circumstances don't call for any extra consideration for a significant increase in
surface area, as the following options go into additional detail about.

5.2 Tray Column Bubble Cap Application

A popular design in industry, the tray column can be used as an alternative to the packed
column depending on how the unit is being used. Depending on properties like substance
characteristics, viscosities, flow rates, densities, contact surface area, retention time, corrosivity,
and more, these columns can contain varying types of trays that can be engineered to provide
better operating conditions [5].

5.2.1 Operation of Bubble Cap

The weirs, downcomer sections, and bubble caps work together to maintain a particular liquid
level on the trays. With each tray, the liquid descends through the volume of the columns in an
alternate direction due to gravity and pressure. Through the bubble caps and orifices in the
trays, the gas rises and makes contact with the solvent and gas [5]. Due to the way a bubble
cap is made, it is a better option than sieves and valve trays since it is the only device that can
stop liquid from seeping through orifices meant for gas flow and is only meant for vapour
allowance. To avoid the phenomenon of weeping, the gas velocity parameters for the
construction of a sieve tray valve must be carefully developed and regulated [5]. In addition, the
bubble cap design has the best turn-down ratio dependability, averaging 9:1, compared to valve

15
tray and sieve ratios of 3:1 and 5:1 [5]. Due to low cost and high capacity, which outperforms
bubble caps under the same design conditions, valve and sieve trays are frequently used.

The "slot"—the precise spot where bubbling takes place—is the functioning site of the bubble
cap. One of the two available shapes—rectangular or trapezoidal—is what starts the bubbling
activity. It is shown that the rectangular capacity performs better at lower gas rates, whereas the
trapezoidal capacity has a higher capacity limit [6].

5.2.2 Comparison & Summary

While the bubble tray's capacity is more than that of a sieve or perforated tray, its efficiency is
still the same since its ideal working conditions are built into its design. When comparing bubble
trays to sieves and perforations, the entrainment is almost three times more [6]. The flexibility
status allows for good solution drainage from trays and is the highest of all tray options across
both high and low vapour and liquid rates [6]. With the exception of severe coking
circumstances, polymer forming, or significant fouling system generation, bubble cap
applications are still feasible. Its greatest feature is that it can continue to function at incredibly
low gas flow rates, yet because of the bubble cap's design, crying is not allowed [6].

Due to its significant cost increase, bubble caps are not recommended when good operability
conditions are present in the process. This is because using bubble caps would not be
necessary and would result in a loss of both economic and engineering performance [6].

5.3 Tray Column Valve Application

The retractable or liftable cap of the valves in the valve column trays moves in height in direct
proportion to the gas velocity and flow rate entering the orifice. Typically, the caps are situated
around 0.25 cm from the tray's base and climb to a maximum height of 0.81 cm [7]. A valve
tray's design is more intricate than that of a sieve tray substitute, but because of its wider holes
and thicker plates, which require less support from the column and hence reduce construction
costs, they often stay more affordable [7].

5.3.1 Operation of Valve

Valve trays are sometimes thought of as the middle ground between bubble caps and sieve
plates since they combine some of the advantages of both methods with certain drawbacks that
give unique features. While sieve trays are limited, they can have an inherit design to counteract
the loss of efficiency by having variable valve configurations that close and open at certain
strengths, similar to how bubble caps allow for better control and flexibility when gas flow rates
and velocities may be diverse [8]. The main drawback of both bubble caps and valves is that,
due to their elevated distance from the plate, which permits material to be captured and trapped
and significantly reduces efficiency, they perform poorly in heavily fouling circumstances.

16
Metal discs or metal strips are used in the design of the plate's valves. In some specific
situations, it may be feasible to build a cap that is realistic in completely sealing the valve from
liquid by engineering the valve to remain closed when gas limitations are insufficiently
controlled. The legs, which link the cap to the valve, regulate the vertical displacement of the
valve [8].

The liquid flowing over the bubble caps or perforations has little interaction with the gas flow
during operation, therefore when the gas velocity is significantly reduced for whatever reason,
the efficiency also significantly decreases [9]. Under these circumstances, it's even feasible that
the solution will cover the whole column area without coming into touch with any vapour at all.
There are currently no remedies available to remedy this phenomenon other than modifying the
operating environment [9]. If this does happen during operation for any reason, valve trays have
the option to include a particular design that consists of two different valve rate kinds, referred to
as "heavy" and "light." The particular valves will align themselves and start to close when the
process's vapour rate drops for whatever cause. The tray's heavy valves will close mostly ahead
of the light valves since it is intended for both heavy and light sites. This will enhance the
quantity of gas flowing over the light valve orifice and allow for liquid-gas contact, which is
necessary to maintain the process. The inherit design takes temperamental operating situations
into account and makes necessary adjustments to alleviate where feasible [9].

5.4 Tray Column Sieve Application

Because sieve trays have many fundamental mechanical features with bubble caps and valve
trays, their performance is comparable to both of these products [6]. Bubble caps and valves
are swapped out for sieves with perforations that may be oriented to suit the plate's distribution
instead of the two. Through the plate's apertures, the gas rises vertically into the liquid,
generating mixing and contact [8]. The sieve tray is regarded as one of the most affordable
designs when used alone. The main drawback of sieve trays is their extreme lack of selectivity,
which results in extremely low flexibility. Its mechanical inherent design cannot be developed to
account for weeping or flooding circumstances; therefore, system production is determined by
operational parameters (unlike bubble tray and valve which offer great selectivity and
contribution). Weeping will result from any low vapour rate, which will also lower overall
efficiency [6].

5.4.1 Comparison & Summary

Sieve trays are supposed to be used under extremely particular, non-variable circumstances.
The sieve tray's design, however, makes it useful in fouling situations because it's cleaner than
the alternative [8]. Unlike a bubble cap and valve, the movement through the perforations known
as bubbling enables any solids or pollutants to go down from each tray till the exit since there
are no higher obstacles from the plate [8]. Sieve trays are the superior option when the

17
operating range is suitable because they operate better and have a capacity that is 1.5–3 times
more than that of valve or bubble trays.

Reduced jetting action rates in sieve trays lead to foaming, and the average entrainment levels
from the plate's surface are one-third lower than those from bubble caps, which are roughly
equivalent to valves, for the same dimensions.

5.5 Cost Analysis of Tray Variations

Figures below demonstrate that the bubble variation tray type is the costliest, with a significantly
high variance. The valve orientation tray is the next most expensive tray type, and the sieve tray
is the least expensive form of regeneration column displayed. Stainless steel will be necessary
to guarantee long-term insurability of the regeneration unit's lifetime, as amine is a poisonous
chemical in the specific environment [8].

Figure 5.5.1: Tray cost analysis [10]

18
 Figure 5.5.2: Tray cost analysis [7]

Figure 5.5.3: Cost of materials [10]

5.6 Comparison of Tray Column by Size Calculation

To compare difference between sieve, valve and bubble cap trays, size of trays is calculated
according to the example data from Perry book.

Note: 80% flooding 600 mm tray spacing

Table 5.6.1: Data from example [10]

Parameter Value in SI unit

Flowrate of Vapor 123150.328 kg/h
Volumetric Flowrate of 2798.86 m3/h
Vapor

19
 Density of Vapor 44 kg/m3
Flowrate of Liquid 117480.424 kg/h
Volumetric Flowrate of 249.7 m3/h
Liquid
Density of Liquid 470.49 kg/m3

Sieve Tray

( )
0.5

( )
0.5
L ρG 117480.424 44
F LG = = =0.3
G ρL 123150.328 470.49

Figure 5.6.1: Sieve tray design [10]

C SB=0.079

( )( )
0.5
ρL −ρG
( )( )
0.2 0.5 0.2
σ 470.49−44 14
uG =C SB =0.079 =0.227 m/s
ρG 20 44 20

uG =80 % (flooding )∗0.227 m/ s=0.1816 m/s

√ √
3
Qv 2798.86 m /h
D= = =2.33 m
π π m
∗u ∗0.1816 ∗3600 s /h
4 g 4 s
Valve Tray

√ √
3 3 3 3
ρG m 44 m m ft
uG =Q v =2798.86 =898.98 =0.25 =8.83
ρ L− ρG hr 470.49−44 hr s s
Using figure below, diameter is found as follows:

Diameter =9.4 ft=2.865 m ( one pass ) , 7.6 ft=2.316 m(two pass)

20
 Figure 5.6.2: Tray design pass [10]

Bubble Cap

( )
( √ )
0.5 0.5
Wv 271500 Ib /h r
D=0.0956 =0.0956 =8.11ft =2.47 m
K × √ ρLρV Ib 3
4.2× 29.3 3 × 2.75 Ib /f t
ft
Table 5.6.2: Data for bubble cap estimation

Tray Spacing 18 24 30 <30

(inch)
K 3.4 4.2 4.7 5

Table 5.6.3: Results of calculations

Tray Diameter
Sieve 2.33 m
Valve 2.865 m (one pass); 2.316 m (two pass)
Bubble cap 2.47 m
5.7 Conclusion
The most popular and easiest to use in production is the sieve tray design. Sieve trays with weir
are the ideal methodology to be used, proving most suitable and beneficial economically,
mechanically, and operationally, since the specific design is relatively constant conditions
requiring little flexibility without extreme low or high vapour rates and no specific requirements
outside normal operability of regenerator column design.

21
6 Tray Specifications
The subsequent tray calculations identify the theoretical stages of a regenerator by applying
Perry's approach with a stripping factor [11].
Table 6.1: Parameters of tray

Parameter Value
Stripping Factor (S) [11] 1.4
X2 solute mole fraction in feed 0.225
X1 solute mole fraction in bottom 0.00245
X2° in equilibrium 0
X1° in equilibrium 0
A=1/S 0.714
Tray Efficiency [11] 50%
6.1 Theoretical Trays Number
Given the high effectiveness of steam stripping combined with material dilution in the liquid
feed, the number of steps in the equilibrium line may be calculated using the stripping factor.
This approach is mostly utilized for theoretical tray estimate, and when coupled with tray
efficiency, it offers a different approach from traditional methods. Please take note that this
method is limited to use in stripping procedures.

N theoretical =
ln
[ (1−A ) ( X 2− X 1 ° )
X 1− X 1° ] [
+ A ln
=
( 1−0.714 )( 0.225−0 )
0.00245−0
+0.714
]=9.79 ≈ 10
ln ( S ) ln ( 1.4 )
Since there are no impurities or other components in equilibrium, both X2° and X1° have a data
value of 0 due to the purity of the stripping steam.

6.2 Actual Trays Number

The actual tray amount is computed as follows, using a 50% efficiency design parameter and a
theoretical tray quantity of 10.

22
 Figure 6.2.1: Efficiencies of tray [10]

The design with the lowest efficiency is computed using the viscosity of 0.358 Cp, as shown in
the above image.
N theoretical 10
N actual = = =20
Efficiency 0.5

7 Hydraulics of Tray
7.1 Procedure of Design
The technique used in the design of the regenerator column adheres to a methodical process
that consists of phases that guarantee the correlation and synchronization of important factors,
needs, and foundations.
The following marginal recommendations provide an outline of the phases in the technique:
1. Max/min flowrates of liquid and vapor at the bottom and top of the column.
2. Properties of system must be estimated and gathered.
3. Spacing of plate must be selected.
4. Diameter of the column should be determined according to the calculation of top and
bottom diameters.
5. Across plate tray, flow arrangement of liquid must be classified.
6. Specifications, such as active area, downcomer area, hole area, height, hole size must
be provided.
7. Conditions of operation with the weeping rate must be checked.
8. Control pressure drop is satisfactory.
9. Downcomer backup must be checked.

23
 10. Assure that operability is correct.
11. Check satisfactory of entrainment value.
12. Finish design.

8 Assumptions and relevant data

Table 8.1: Made assumptions for design

Parameter Value
Space between plates 0.6 m
Flooding percentage 70%
Ratio of turn down 0.7
Diameter of hole 12 mm
Area of downcomer (Ad) 0.12 Ac
Thickness of plate 12 mm
Height of weir (hw) 50 mm
Unperforated strip (Ws) 50 mm

Table 8.2: Data from material balance

Top liquid flowrate (Ln) 9.2 kg/s

Top vapor flowrate (Vn) 12.4 kg/s
Bottom liquid flowrate (Lm) 5.6 kg/s
Bottom vapor flowrate (Vm) 1.3 kg/s
Density of liquid 956 kg/m3
Density of vapor 2 kg/m3
Surface tension 35 dyne/cm

9 Calculation of Diameter of Regenerator

The computation that follows just serves as the main basis for selecting the column's uniform
diameter by contrasting the upper and lower parameters and measurements. Following this
comparison comes the real design approach, which is detailed in great length, taking into
account all conceivable scenarios and reporting all computations and ideologies to the column's
design.

9.1 Top Diameter of Regenerator

Through the use of a correlation that characterizes the characteristics of a plate while
accounting for both the liquid and vapour limitations, we may compute the FLV (liquid-vapour
flow factor) to get a constant K1 that we can utilize to ascertain the velocities required under the
specific conditions [10].

24
 F LV =
12.4
9.2 √ 2
956
=0.06

According to C SB=0.12

√ ( )
0.2
956−2 35
u f =0.12 =2.93 m/s
2 20
The vapour rising through the sieve plates contacting the fluid is the upper limit velocity in this
case,shown as uf in the equation above.

In order to offer adequate operability of flooding situations that will avoid problems like weeping
from occurring, Sinnott recommends calculating the flooding vapour velocity design as 70% of
the upper limit vapour velocity uf.
u v =0.7∗2.93=2.05 m/ s

12.4 kg/ s 3
Qv = 3
=6.2 m /s
2 kg/m
3
6.2 m /s 2
An = =3.02 m
2.05 m/ s
The downcomer area was estimated to be 12% of the column cross-sectional area, or Ac.
According to Sinnott, this is a typical design criterion for tray columns.
Ad =0.12 Ac , A n= A c −0.12 ,thus Ac = A n /0.88
3.02 2
Ac = =3.43 m
0.88

Dcolumn =
√ 4∗3.43
π
=2 m

9.2 Bottom Diameter of Regenerator

The conditions at the base of the column are different, but the approach is the same as it was
above.

F LV =
1.3 2
5.6 956√=0.011

C SB=0.1

√ ( )
0.2
956−2 35
u f =0.1 =2.44 m/s
2 20
u v =0.7∗2.44=1.708 m/s

1.3 kg /s 3
Qv = 3
=0.65 m /s
2 kg /m

25
 3
0.65 m /s 2
An = =0.38 m
1.708 m/s
0.38 2
Ac = =0.43 m
0.88

Dcolumn =
√ 4∗0.43
π
=0.74 m

9.3 Conclusion
The top diameter of 2 meters is the fixed column design because it is the larger diameter and
will be used to design the regenerator column as a uniform diameter, which saves complications
and large capital costs. It is not logical to mechanically design for support at two diameters at
such a large difference, and designing for two diameters at such a large difference is very
expensive.

10 Arrangement of Liquid Flow

The volumetric flow rate of liquid is used to determine the flow type based on the mass
balance's liquid flow rate of 9.2 kg/s.
9.2 kg/ s 3
Ln volumetric = 3
=0.0096 m / s
956 kg /m

Figure 10.1: Diameter vs Flowrate [10]

Table 10.1: Arrangement of flow

Flowrate in m3/s Diameter in m Flow

26
 0.0096 2 Cross (Single Pass)

11 Provisional Design of Trayp

The tray characteristics, including flow rates, weeping, entrainment, and other requirements, are
set to support operability based on the column estimation, which yields a diameter per stripper
of D=2 m.
The calming zone (Wcz) of the tray and mechanical instruments like support beams and rings
will offset the perforated area Ap, thus it is important to calculate the perforated area while
taking design elements into account. Sinnott suggests that an unperforated strip Ws of 50 mm
should encircle the plate's edge for Dc 2 meters. This is to provide for as many soothing zones
as possible.
W cz=W s=50 mm
The equation below may be used to determine the mean length of the unperforated strip, often
known as the calming zone:
π θs
ls= ( D −ws )
360 c
Θs which is the angle relationship between chord’s length and height can be determined by
Figure 11.2. However, before this, lw/Dc is defined from Error: Reference source not found
knowing that Ad/Ac is equal to 12%.

Figure 11.1: Relation between Ad/Ac % and lw/Dc [10]

lw
=0.76
Dc

27
Besides finding θs=99°, from, Lh/Dc is determined (0.18).

Figure 11.2: Lh/Dc, theta vs Lw/Dc [10]

π 99 °
ls= ( 2−0.05 )=1.68 m
360

The unperforated strip area can be estimated as:

2
A s=l s∗w s=1.68∗0.05=0.084 m

The length of the calming zone is:

l cz =w s +l w =w s +0.76 Dc =0.05+0.76∗2=1.57 m

The area of the calming zone is:

2
Acz =l cz∗w cz =1.57∗0.05=0.0785 m

The total area which unperforated is:

2
Aunper =2(A ¿ ¿ s+ A cz )=2 ( 0.084+0.0785 )=0.325 m ¿

The area which is perforated is:

2
A p =A active −A unper =(A ¿ ¿ c−2 ¿ Ad )−A unper =3.43−2∗0.4116−0.325=2.6068−0.325=2.2818 m ¿

In the top diamter calculation section, it was calculated that Ac is equal to 3.43 m2 according to
which Ad is found:

2
Ad =0.12∗3.43=0.4116 m

28
To define perforations number per plate, it is needed to know the ratio of total holes area to the
single hole area.

Ah
N=
Ao

2
Ah =0.1 A a=0.1∗2.6068=0.26068 m

The single hole area is estimated according to the diameter of the hole which is assumed as 12
mm.

2
π∗d h π∗0.0122 −5 2
A0 = = =11.31∗10 m
4 4

0.26068
N= −5
=2304 holes
11.31∗10

To accept this value, lp/dh is checked according to the Figure 11.3.

Figure 11.3: Ah/Ap vs lp/dh [10]

Ah 0.26068
= =0.11
Ap 2.2818
It is gotten that lp/dh is 2.8 which between 2 and 4. It is also justified by lp being greater than
2.5dh.

29
12 Entrainment
Entrainment has a significant influence on the tower's operation and the manner in which the
liquid and vapor strip each other, making it a crucial design element. There are two primary
forms of entrainment: spray entrainment occurs at low liquid velocity, whereas froth entrainment
occurs at high liquid velocity.
 Flotation Entrainment
When the liquid velocity and flow rate increase to the point that the plate consistently
retains a large volume of liquid, a phenomenon known as flotation entrainment takes
place, which may result in severe flooding and backup levels. The high volume of liquid
starts to bubble and foam as the vapor velocity is then pressured through the sieve
plate's openings because the vapour is trapped in the liquid state and cannot effectively
flow throughout the tower as a result.
 Spray Entrainment
The opposite of flotation entrainment, spray entrainment happens when the liquid
velocity and flow rate are reduced, resulting in the liquid that is present on the plate at
any given moment forming collective puddles that basically block the flow from crossing
the sieve plate. When these thin layers of puddles land on the sieve plate, the vapour
that is about to be released via the holes comes into touch with the group pools and
spreads them out throughout the tray spacing.
Based on the percentage of flooding, it was assumed as 70%, and flow parameter (it was
estimated as 0.06) on the figure below, the level of entrainment (Ψ) is found as 0.027. As Ψ is
less than upper limit, which is considered to be 0.1 [10], is satisfactory.

30
 Figure 12.1: Relation between flow parameter and entrainment level [10]

13 Weeping
The term "weeping point" refers to the point at which liquid starts to seep through the plate's
orifices and leaking is excessive because the vapour velocity isn't strong enough to push liquid
away from the holes. Therefore, it is required to measure the vapour velocity to ensure that its
operating parameter is above the limit at which weeping is created in order to calculate the
weeping conditions.
According to Sinnott, velocity of vapor limit at weeping point is estimated as following:

K 2 −0.9(25.4−d h )
u v ( weeping )= Where,
ρ0.5
v

K2 is measure which depends on sum of crest height (how) and heigt of weir (hw) (assumed
value)

dh is hole diameter

ρv is density of vapor

The height of crest is defined by using equation below:

( )
2/ 3

( )
2 /3
L 6.44
h ow=750 n min =750 =20 mm
ρl x l w 956 × 1.52

31
In the reference book by Sinnott, it is recommended that minimum flowrate of liquid is found by
multiplying turndown ratio, which is assumed to be 0.7, to the top flowrate of liquid.

Ln min =0.7∗9.2=6.44 kg /s

lw
Coming to the weir length, it was mentioned before that =0.76. Therefore, l w =1.52 m.
Dc

Figure 13.1: Dependence of K2 on hw+how [10]

So, according to Figure 13.1 K 2=30.5 . When K2 is already known, it is time to determine
velocity of vapor limit at weeping point.

30.5−0.9∗(25.4−0.012)
u v weeping= =5.4 m/s
20.5

Due to the comparison of volumetric flow is distributed over the holed plate area (Ah), actual
minimum velocity of vapor is estimated. As Ah is the section where weeping occurs.

Qv 6.2 m 3/s
Uv actual= = =23.8 m/ s
A h 0.26068 m2

Since 23.8 m/s is greater than 5.4 m/s, it can be said that design is sustainable.

14 Pressure Drop in the Column and over the Plate

When it comes to operational efficiency, pressure drop is an important design element with a lot
of validity. The static head of liquid visible on the plate or tray and the vapour flow rate through
the plates (i.e., orifices) are the two primary factors that affect the variance of pressure
variations.
To get value of pressure drop, total head loss must be found by adding dry plate loss, height of
crest, height of weir and residual head.

32
Among thes heights, the uncalculated ones are dry plate drop and residual head. By using
liquid’s density ratio to vapor and velcoity of vapor through the orifice, the dry plate loss is
estimated.

( )( ) ( )( )
2 2
u ρv 23.78 2
h d=51 0 =51 =85.51 mm
c0 ρl 0.84 956

3
m
6.2
Qv s
u0 = = =23.78 m/s
A h 0.26068 m2

Figure 14.1: Orifice coefficient [10]

3 3
12.5 x 10 12.5 x 10
hr = = =13.07 mm
ρl 956

ht =h d +h w + how + hr=85.51+ 50+20+13.07=168.58 mm

∆ P=ρl∗g∗ht =950∗9.81∗0.16858=1.57 kPa

15 Downcomer Back-up

A marginal parameter known as the downcomer back design verifies the space between each
plate that comes before the previous one. To reduce this, make sure the tray spacing restriction
is adjusted to take into consideration the volume of liquid in the downcomer as well as the

33
height at which it froths below the plate above. Downcomer chocking and backup are the two
primary major events that result in liquid overflowing the downcomer route.

 The phenomenon known as "downcomer chocking" occurs when the entrained liquid,
induced by the vapour velocity, surpasses the point at which gravity stops the liquid from
trying to move down the column, resulting in streamway obstruction and chocking.
 The phenomenon known as downcomer backup is similar to chocking, although it results
from a slightly different design defect. Unlike chocking, where the vapour flow rate is
inconsequential, backup is predominantly caused by the liquid flow rate. Building up on
the penultimate plate and liquid stacking in the plate spacing cause liquid to flood and
ascend up the down passageways when the rate of liquid grows to the point where the
rate of flow in the downcomer is much less than the liquid flow rate prescribed.

Downcomer backup is measures as follows:

h b=hw +h ow + hdc +h t

Where,

hb is downcomer backup which is measured from surface of plate (mm)

hdc is head loss in the downcomer (mm)

Figure 15.1: Downcomer back-up [12]

All of the relevant variables—aside from the downcomer pressure backup—have already been
resolved in earlier sections. Since the flow resistance previously described in each of the two
scenarios causes constraints at the downcomer site, h dc is computed as a measure of clearance
area, flow density, and flow rate.
h dc=166∗¿

34
Am is the downcomer area, also it is called as clearance area under downcomer. This area is
equivalent to the area of downcomer apron which is defines as multiplication of bottom edge
height of the apron over the plate to weir length, A ap=hap ×l w .

According to Sinnott, hap should be positioned 5 – 10 mm below the height of the output weir.
hap=hw−5 mm=50−5=45 mm
Am =Aap=hap ×l w =0.045× 1.52=0.0684 m h dc=166∗¿
2

h b=ht + hw +h ow +h dc=168.58+ 50+20+3.28=238.86 mm

To ensure whether this hb value can be accepted or not, it is compared with maximum frothing
limit which mentioned in reference book by Sinnott.
1
hb ≤ ×( l t +hw )
2
Here, lt is plate spacing.
As hb ≤ 325 mm, it is okay to take hb as 238.86 mm.

16 Residence Time of Downcomer

According to (Sinnott 2009), there has to be enough residence time for the vapor in the liquid to
be stripped in the downcomer. In order to avoid significantly aerated liquids reducing stripping
performance, a residence duration of more than three seconds is advised.
Since the pressure preventing the gas from emerging from the liquid is what causes stripping
efficiency, the downcomer residence time can be computed using a correlation that measures
the downcomer pressure, density flow rate, and downcomer area to describe the amount of
vapour allowed to pass through the liquid.
ρl A d h b 956 × 0.4116 × 238.86∗10−3
t r= = =10.22 s
Lwd 9.2

17 Construction Materials
Methyl diethanolamine (MDEA) and Piperazine (PZ) is the solvent used in the amine process. It
was chosen for this purpose in the previous report after analysis and comparison to determine
which solvent would work best under the relevant circumstances. A rather rich and hot solvent
enters the regenerator column at the top and stays there throughout the operation. The
presence of acid gas, high temperatures (especially when it comes to heat transfer surface
corrosion), high velocity and flow rate, and other factors catalyse the corrosive severity, making
amine itself not particularly corrosive. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the corrosive
severity is high, which puts machinery and equipment at risk of corrosion [13].
Wet gas erosion is a common phenomenon that is noticed in industry and a major concern,
namely at the exit product sites of the acid gas, during the regeneration process of sweetening

35
as the product employs amine as a solvent carrier. Because of this, high concentrations of acid
gas can cause high rates of erosion on the column tops of the condenser, reboiler, and
regenerator. To mitigate this, observations show that keeping the gas flow rate between 7-9 m/s
can significantly reduce corrosion occurrence by reducing the possibility of accumulation [14].

F
Figure 17.1: Metallurgical recommendations for MDEA [15]

The following carbon steel and stainless-steel compositions have been assigned to distinct
regions of each unit's construction in an effort to minimize the unit's economic capital cost
margins. Naturally, building all equipment with stainless steel, including the shell, is highly
advised. However, this comes at a significant capital cost rise. Nonetheless, it is conceivable to
combine the areas for the subsequent procedure as indicated in the above table. It is
reasonable to employ materials that do not require corrosivity mitigation since exterior casings
and shells do not come into direct contact with the operational substance, specifically under
working circumstances. This considerably reduces the severity of corrosion.
Specifically in the regenerator feed and exit pipelines (TIAC), industrial lagging will be used to
minimize corrosion, fouling, and scaling incidents in the pipes. The lagging insulation that is
advised in hot temperatures is:
 Calcium Silicate
 Mineral Fibre – High Temperature
Table 17.1: Properties of insulation

Material Calcium Silicate

Density 200 kg/m3
Thermal Capacity 0.0625 W/mK
Thickness 0.075 m

The following figure provides a comparison of typical stainless steel qualities. Stainless
steel 304 will be used as construction material due to corrosion; however, carbon steel

36
can be used as a casing. It is highly recommended that regular inspections and quality
assessments be carried out to keep an eye on the carbon steel's conditions in case of
leaks or spills. [15]

Figure 17.2: Stainless steel metallurgy

The accompanying table shows that the equipment material selection that was assigned was a
calibration of stainless steel and carbon steel. This is justified by the need to save costs
wherever feasible by including the choice of carbon steel in areas free from threats or corrosive
behavior. Though stainless steel has poor high temperature behavior due to its high levels of
expansion, specific alloys may be constructed to support corrosion occurrence that can also be
malleable and readily fashioned into the essential equipment, if there is a great deal of worry.
As a result, the following material choice is suggested.

Table 17.2: Summary of material choice

Allowance of
Equipment Choice of material
corrosion in mm

Stripper flash drum Carbon steel 6

Demister Stainless steel

Stripper column Carbon steel

Trays 304 stainless steel 6

Nozzles 304 stainless steel

Kettle reboiler

Channel Carbon steel 6

Tubes Stainless steel

Condenser 6

Tubes 304L stainless steel

37
 Shell Carbon steel

18 Overall Vessel
18.1 Vessel Height

The height of regenerator (Hv) is sum of the doubled height of head (H head)and the height of
trays (Htray) which is determined by estimating the trays’ number (Ntray) and spacing area (Ltray).

H tray =N tray × Ltray =20 ×0.6=12 m

Therefore the regenerator’s total height is:

H tray +2 × H head =12+2× 0.39=12.78 m

18.2 Column Dead Weight

The following correlation may be used to determine the dead weight of the complete
construction based on the weight of the stainless steel column vessel, internal insulation, and
tray weight.
W ❑ vT=W i +W v + Pw + Lw =6.14+81+79.995+ 3.84=170.975 kN
−3
W v =C w × π × ρm × Dm × g ( H v +0.8 × Dc ) ×t ×1× 1 0
Here Cw is correlation factor regarding to manways, nozzles, internal supports and ρm is density
of stainless steel, 7999.5 kg/m3.
−3
Wv=1.15× π × 7999.5× 2× 9.81 ( 12.78+0.8 ×2 ) ×10 ×1 ×1 0 =81 kN
The weight of the liquid in the vessel may be determined by assuming a liquid volume of 10%.

( )
2

()
2
Dc 2
956 ×0.1 × × H v × π 956 × 0.1× ×12.78 × π
ρ L ×V L 2 2
Lw = = = =3.84 kN
1000 1000 1000
In this scenario, the weight of each stainless steel tray is determined by its volume compared to
its density of material; hence, the weight of the combined value of all the trays is the pressure
exerted within the vessel, which adds up to the total weight.

Pv = ( A c − A d ) × Pt =( 3.43−0.4116 ) × ( 1000
12
)=0.036 m
3

Pw =P v × ρm × N t =0.05 ×7999.5 ×20=7999.5 kg

By measuring the volume of thickness and density of the chosen material, we may compute the
contribution of insulting effects to the vessel's overall weight, taking into account the weight of
insulation that is necessary. By multiplying the insulation's total volume by its density, one may
get the weight of the insulation.

38
 W i =V i × ρi=3.07 ×200=614 kg

(( ) ( ) ) (( ) ( ) )=3.07 m
2 2
Dc +t i D 2+0.075
2
2
2
3
V i=π × H v × − c =π ×12.78 × −
2 2 2 2

18.3 Design of Skirt – Vessel Support

Depending on the necessary number of beams, support weight, and stress, many vessel
support techniques exist. The most typical forms of assistance include:
 Skirt
 Lug
 Leg
 Saddle
A skirt, which is an outer shell that is conical or cylindrical, is the most often used kind of
support for vertical vessels. There are three primary methods to attach the skirt to the vessel:
either by welding directly onto the vessel body or by creating a fillet or lap. [15]
In order to reduce stress, the supporting is made to evenly distribute the vessel's weight across
the load. Conical skirts are normally more expensive to fabricate than cylindrical support, and
most vessel situations consider them to be an overly complicated need. However, if the vessel
is tall, they offer superior support and greater strength capabilities. [15]
The skirt at the base of the column supports the shell, which makes up the skirt supporting
infrastructure. The required load is transmitted to the functions shown in the above diagram by
the bottom flange. The skirt body has openings to provide access, maintenance, and piping.
The following figure displays the skirt's usual measurements.

39
 Figure 18.3.1: Dimensions of supporting skirt

Given that the column's diameter is 2 meters, the vessel's total measurements are as follows:
Table 18.3.1: Total measurements of vessel

Measurement Value
Diameter of vessel 2m
Maximum weight 460 kN
Height of skirt (V) 1.18 m
Beam spacing (Y) 0.2 m
Width of skirt base (C) 1.77 m
Radius of skirt (E) 0.8 m
Inner radius of skirt (J) 0.45 m
Bolt spacing (G) 0.14 m
t2 12 mm
t1 10 mm
Diameter of bolt 24 mm
Holes of bolt 30 mm

40
18.4 Dead Weight Stress on Skirt
The real force placed on the vessel support rig may be determined by utilizing the vessel
weight, which is made of stainless steel and includes interior components like trays and
insulation, in order to ensure that the over skirt is adequate.

Wv ×1000 81 ×1000 N
σ weight = = =2.83
π × ( D¿ skirt ×1000+ t skirt ) ×t skirt π × ( 0.9× 1000+10 ) ×10 mm
2

18.5 Maximum Bending Moment

Maximum Bending Moment is also called as wind stress (M s) which can be gotten by assuming
dynamic wind pressure (Pw) 1280 N/m2 and height between tangent lines as 50 m [12].

Mean diameter, including insulation, is calculated as below:

−3
Deff =2+2∗(10+ 75 )∗10 =2.17 m

N
F w ( loading )=1280 2
∗2.17 m=2777.6 N /m
m

N
2777.6
m
M s=F w ∗H= × 502 m2=3472 kNm
2

18.6 Bending Stress in Skirt

347200∗1000 N
σ bending= =11
π mm
2
(2000+ 10 )∗12∗200
4

18.7 Seismic Load

A seismic coefficient of (C=0.8), weight, and skirt material thickness may be used to compute
the stresses resulting from seismic loads, such as vibrations, shutters, and earthquakes.

2 C× H×W
f sb = ×
3 π ׿ ¿

18.8 Skirt Strength

The strength of the skirt must then be tested to ensure that it is sustainable under these loads.
The two basic metrics of the skirt's strength are its compressive and tensile strengths, which
must be computed. Ensuring that the stress of the skirt remains well under the skirt strength
limit is crucial. The calculations consider a 0.7 weld efficiency, an 89 maximum allowable stress

41
and an 80° base angle for the conical skirt. Sinnott suggests a constant value for the young's
modulus (200000 N/mm2).

N
σ tensile max =Ss × E × SinѲ=89× 0.7 ×0.98=61 2
mm

σ compressive max =0.125 × Ey × ( t D )× sinθ=0.125 ×200000 × 2 ×1000

skirt 10
× 0.98=122.5
N
2
mm

N
σ tensile actual =σ bending −σ weight =11−2.83=8.17 2
mm

18.9 Thickness and Head of Vessel

Finding the necessary thickness under the applicable conditions is the first step towards
determining the head's height. As per Sinnott's [10] findings, the suggested joint efficiency and
knuckle radius of 0.7 and 0.135 may be used to calculate the torispherical correlation and find
the thickness, therefore collaborating to create an inherit safe design standard. According to
White [16], 6 mm is a fair compensation value since too big increases expense and too small
would damage the vessel. This is in consideration of temperatures that average 100 C° during
the amine sweetening stage in the regenerator column. The vessel will be the same thickness
all the way to the head.
0.885× Pi × Rc 0.885 ×253 × 1.5
t= +Ct = +6 mm=11mm
S × E−0.1× P i 103.421 ×0.7−0.1 ×0.253
Where,
S= stress at knuckle point, N/mm2
E= joint efficiency
Pi= safety pressure (10% above operating pressure), kPa
Rc= knuckle radius, mm
Ct= corrosion allowance, mm
Height of head
The vessel head height may be determined using the following correlation, which is tailored
particularly for torispherical heads, as per Cooper [17].
H head =0.1935 × Dc −0.455 × t=0.1935 ×2−0.455× 0.0011=0.39 m

19 Manway
19.1 Manway of Column
Manways are the means by which employees enter the column. They are made to let people
pass through in order to do maintenance and inspections. This is seen in a standard sieve plate

42
in the above illustration. According to Arnold [18], a minimum manway size of 18 inches (0.45
meters) should be installed on any vessel that has a diameter more than 36 inches or 0.9
meters. The manhole diameter will be developed to a 0.45 meter size since the planned stripper
column has a diameter of 2 meters [18]. It is also advised to include two 100mm holes for flange
inspection ports within the manway.
Table 19.1.1: Data of column manway

Diameter of manway 450 mm

Diameter of devit 300 mm
Flange 100 mm
Quantity of manway 6

19.2 Manway of Tray

Tray manways are a crucial component of column designs because they allow workers to enter
through the middle of the column.

Table 19.2.1: Data of tray manway

Length*Width 0.43*0.43 m2

Quantity of manway 18∗20 tray=360

20 Nozzles
Whether the nozzle is for a liquid or vapor, we must take into account the velocities at each site
in order to determine the proper nozzle size. We can determine the necessary area and, hence,
the diameter of the nozzle required in the column wall after a workable assumed value for the
vapour or liquid pipe velocity has been determined. The primary five nozzle locations—feed, top
reflux, column top vapour exit, bottom column liquid exit, and bottom reflux—have been
determined using the following computations.

( )
1 /2
4A
Dnozzle = ∗1000
π

L+V
A=
( ρ ¿ ¿ V + ρ L )∗v ¿

Table 20.1: Data about nozzle locations

Nozzle RICHIN SOURGAS Reflux LEANOUT Boilup

43
Velocity, m/s 4.5 25.5 2.5 4.5 14.5

Rate of flow, kg/s 40 11.34 4.65 28.66 4.42

Density, kg/m3 956 1.3 990 956 0.9

State liq vap liq liq vap

Area, m2 0.009 0.34 0.0019 0.0067 0.34

Diameter, mm 107 657.95 49.18 92.36 657.95

21 Datasheet
Table 21.1: Datasheet of regenerator

Capacity
Operational mode Continuous
Feed rate 144.9 t/h
Operating conditions
Pressure of feed 266.8 kPa
Temperature of feed 98.89°C
Pressure of top product 232.4 kPa
Temperature of top product 50°C
Pressure of bottom product 233.4 kPa
Temperature of bottom product 110°C
Heating mode Kettle Reboiler
Residence time 10.22 s
Pressure drop 1 kPa
Materials of Construction
Vessel internals 304 Stainless steel
Vessel shell Carbon steel
Vessel heads and closures Carbon steel
Insulation Fiberglass
Trays 304 Stainless steel
Reboiler shell Carbon steel
Reboiler tube 304 Stainless steel
Gaskets Carbon steel
Nozzles Carbon steel
Flanges Carbon steel
Vessel dimensions
Vessel dead weight 17 tonnes
Vessel head Ellipsoidal
Vessel orientation Vertical
Inner diameter 2m
Height 12 m

44
 Vessel wall thickness 11 mm
Corrosion allowance 6 mm
Head height 0.39 m
Reboiler
Reboiler type Kettle
Reboiler bundle diameter 479 mm
Reboiler length 8m
Reboiler inner pipe diameter 0.025 m
Reboiler pipe thickness 0.03 m
Reboiler number of tubes 113
Condenser
Condenser type Partial
Condenser bundle diameter 410 mm
Condenser diameter of shell 485 mm
Condenser number of tubes 81
Vessel internals
Tray thickness 12 mm
Tray spacing 0.6 m
Tray type Sieve
Tray number 20
Holes per tray 2304
Vessel support
Skirt support Conical
Skirt thickness 16 mm

22 Design of Reboiler
Table 22.1: Temperature data

Inlet temperature of lean amine 97°C

Outlet temperature of lean amine 127°C
Inlet temperature of steam 250°C
Outlet temperature of steam 185°C
The regime of flow is countercurrent because of its being more efficient as it permits the highest
LMTD [12].
As a value with constant flow rate and thermal characteristics, the log mean temperature
difference (LMTD) may be used to correctly reflect the temperature difference between the
exchanging heat streams.
∆T 2−¿ ∆ T ( 250−127 )−( 185−97 ) °
LMTD= 1
¿ =104.86 C ¿
ln
( )
∆T2
∆T1 (
ln
250−127
185−97 )
Since the total heat transfer coefficient is calculated when building any kind of heat exchanger,
to size the reboiler, a suitable value is first assumed in order to carry out the calculations and
supply the required data variables. Until the original assumed value is comparable to the result

45
of the computations, this procedure may need several iterations. The following value is
assumed in this instance:
2
U =1994 W /m K

Table 22.2: Enthalpy data

To reboiler Leanout Boilup

Enthalpy in kJ/kmol -290465 -238464 -292087,0683
Molar flowrate in kmol/h 1,39E+03 1,22E+03 1,69E+02

7 kJ 4
Q=− ( 1390∗ (−290465 )−1220∗(−238464 )−1690∗(−292087.0683 ) )=6.33∗10 =1.76∗10 kW
hr

By using equation below, the required heat transfer area is found:

7
Q 1.76∗10 W 2
A= = =84.17 m
U × LMTD 1994 W /m2 K ×104.86 C °

Table 22.3: Tube property

Thickness of tube 0.005 m

Length of tube 8m
Inner diameter of tube 0.025 m
Outer diameter of tube 0.03 m
The area of a single tube, which is determined using assumed values advised for certain design
requirements, may be used to determine the number of tubes [10]. Therefore, by dividing the
needed area based on expected values, the required total number of tubes may be computed
using the area of one tube.
A tube’s area:

( ( ) )(
Ao= π ×
do
1000
×l = π × ( 30× 10 m ) × 8 m )=0.75 m
−3 2

2
84.17 m
N tubes = 2
=112.23 ≈ 113 tubes
0.75 m

22.1 Estimation of Coefficient of Overall Heat Exchange

Table 22.1.1: Data to find heat transfer coefficient

Data Value
Density of solvent 965 kg/m3
Density of steam 2.363 kg/m3

46
 Flowrate of steam 5.5 kg/s
Viscosity of steam 1.44*10-3 kg/ms
Thermal conductivity of 0.74 W/mK
Heat capacity of steam 1.971 kJ/kgK
Saturation temperature at steam conditions 182°C
Factor of fouling 104 W/m2K
∆ T =T saturation −T inlet =182−175=7 C °

A correlation that includes the relevant factors that work together with the total energy
production to determine the overall heat transfer coefficient of the kettle reboiler is utilized. The
addition yields the total energy production, which is calculated as,
1 1 1 1
= + +
U hnb hc fouling

( ) ( )
2 1 −1 2 1 −1
ρ ×g 3 965 ∗9.81 2
h c=0.95 × λ × l 9
× N tubes =0.95∗0.74∗ 3
∗113 9 =4209.523 W /m K
µ S ×Ƭ −3
1.44∗10 ∗0.006126

Here, T is horizontal tube loading which is the ratio of total condensate flow to multiplication
tube length and number of tubes.

Ƭ=
Total condensate flow ( kgs ) =
Wc
=
5.5
=0.006126
Tube length ( m ) × Tubes per bundle L × N tubes 8× 113

"Pool boiling" describes the nature of the process of heating the liquid within the reboiler. This is
basically the behavior of having the heat source (pipework) submerged in a stagnant pool of
liquid. This data value exhibits many correlations, wherein:
−8 2.3 2.333 3.333 −8 2.3 2.333 3.333 2
h nb=1.167 ×10 × P c × ΔT ×Fp =1.167∗10 ∗22064 ∗7 ∗0.845 =6100.59 W /m K

0.17 1.2 0.17 1.2

F p=1.8 × Pr + 4 × Pr =1.8 ×0.0104 +4 ×0.0104 =0.845

P Pressure 230 kPa

Pr= = = =0.0104
Pc Critical Pressure 22064 kPa

We need to make sure that the amount of energy that the kettle reboiler can reasonably
produce falls within the design specifications in order to verify the operability of the existing
setup. This may be discovered by comparing our energy production to the critical heat flow,
which must not be exceeded. One finds the critical heat flow :
0.35 0.9 0.35 0.9 w
Q critical=367∗P c∗Pr ( 1−Pr ) =367 ×22064 ×0.0104 × ( 1−0.0104 ) =1622653.16 2
m

47
As 6100.59 < 1622653.16, the system is satisfying.
Now that all the parameters have been verified as good, the total heat transfer coefficient can
be computed. By summing up all of the heating coefficients, we can calculate the overall and
compare it to our original, presumptive value to see if there is a need for more iteration or if the
parameters are appropriate enough to support the kettle reboiler's efficiency for heating
regeneration.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
= + + = + + =0.000501
U hnb hc fouling 6100.59 4209.523 10000

2
U =1994 W /m K
After the design process yielded a final value through iteration, the calculated coefficient of heat
transfer was 1994 W/m2K, and the total transfer coefficient was determined to be 1994 W/m2K.
Based on the premises of the parameters used and the specified assumptions, this value is
demonstrated to be adequate.

22.2 Internal velocity

When the steam heating the liquid, which is a MDEA+PZ solution, is measured to determine the
maximum permitted velocity, which prevents excessive entrainment, the velocity should not be
more than

( )
0.5
ρL −ρV
( )
0.5
965−2.363 m
u v < 0.2 =0.2 =4.04
ρV 2.363 s
kg
5.5
Q̇ s
u v= = =3 m/ s
ρ V∗A o kg
2.363 3
∗0.75 m2
m
It can be stated that the dimensions of tube are appropriate based on the velocity comparison
between the maximum and operating at 3 m/s and 4.04 m/s.

22.3 Layout of Tube and Diameter of Bundle

Figure 22.3.1: Pitch data

48
Due to high turbulance and improved mixing of fluid, performance of heat transfer of triangular
pitch is better than square pitch [19].
K 1=0.249
n1=2.207

( )
1

( )
1
N tubes n1 113
Dbundle =d outer =0.03 2.207
=0.479 m=479 mm
K1 0.249
Consequently, it is determined that the total shell diameter needed for the reboiler, as
suggested by Sinnott [10], to have an extra 75 mm of clearance, as shown below, is:
Dshell =Dbundle +75 mm=554 mm
Table 22.3.1: Overall data

Specification Value
Overall coefficient of heat transfer, W/m2K 1994
Reboiler type Kettle
Tubes’ number 113
Diameter of bundle, mm 479
Diameter of shell, mm 554
Reboiler’s passes 2
Tube pitch triangular
Velocity through tubes, m/s 3
Max velocity, m/s 4.04
Pressure loss neglected

23 Design of Condenser
Table 23.1: Temperature data for condenser

Inlet temperature of sour gas 113°C

Outlet temperature of sour gas 48.9°C
Inlet temperature of cooling water 20°C
Outlet temperature of cooling water 60°C
Density of sour gas 2.001 kg/m3
Density of cooling water 998.3 kg/m3
Flowrate of cooling water 7.08 kg/s
Heat transfer rate 4.589*106
Fouling factor 5000 W/m2K

49
The steps are the same as in design of reboiler. Therefore, simply, the data obtained from
calculations is tabulated below:
Table 23.2: Overall data

Specification Value
LMTD 39.73
Overall coefficient of heat transfer, W/m2K 1922
Condenser type Partial
Tubes’ number 81
Diameter of bundle, mm 410.46 mm
Diameter of shell, mm 485.46 mm
Tube pitch triangular
Velocity through tubes, m/s 1 m/s
Max velocity, m/s 4.46 m/s
Pressure loss neglected

24 Safety and Sustainability

24.1 Safety Review
Three primary features are deemed to be the most valid and relevant severity when it comes to
classifying the major safety implementation of controls that need to be integrated into the
functioning of an amine stripper column.
 The gas leakage from the column at the cost of liquid loss. This should be automatically
adjusted for by making sure that the pipe and control valve systems are rated
appropriately to regulate the back pressurization of vapor [20].
 The gas return flow brought on by a drop in operating pressure. Installing shut-off valves
that prevent backflow or flow valves upstream of the feed line one may simply prevent
this. Personal protective equipment should be provided for any personnel in the area of
suspected locations of this occurrence [20].
 Other design parameters may get out of calibration if a rapid release of gas or vapour
occurs as a result of any operating problems. Because of this, relief valves for
pressurized vapours in closed containers or emergency discharge should be fitted where
they are needed [20].

24.2 Environmental Review

The main advantage of the process is to reduce the emission of CO2. There is a mitigation of
climate change by capturing CO2. However, stripping CO2 requires much energy which is not
beneficial. Also, usage of water during process is not environmentally friendly but regeneration

50
of MDEA+PZ solution saves water. Besides, the process includes chemicals which are harmful
to human health. So, handling of used chemicals must be appropriate in order not to impact on
environment. As CO2 is transported and stored in geological formation, long-term storage of
CO2 may cause to contamination of groundwater and induced seismicity.

24.3 HAZOP
Table 24.3.1: HAZOP analysis

Causes Consequences Action

Corrosion of material  Failure of equipment  Proper selection of
brought on by  Leakage material
improper material  Contamination of  Testing of corrosion
selection, which is not environment  Monitoring of corrosion
resistant to the  Increased cost of  Usage of protective
corrosive qualities of maintenance coatings
amines and the action
of CO2.

Degradation of amine  Formation of byproducts  Selection of suitable

in regenerator and which may accumulate in amines
reboiler at high column and reboiler  Optimization of
temperature with resulting in fouling, operating conditions
presence of CO2 corrosion and operational  CO2 concentration
processes control
 Low heat transfer
Solvent loss due to  Decrease in CO2 capture  Pipeline integrity
pipeline leakage efficiency management
 Increase in OPEX  Maintenance
 Leak detection systems

25 Maintenance
25.1 Fouling
The solvent or solution should not include any particles while the amine regenerator is
operating, and the amount of fouling should be kept to a minimum. Nevertheless, it is advised
that a candle filter be inserted into the regeneration amine cycle. Simply said, candle filters are

51
pressure filters used to polish solutions; they are often employed for low moisture cake filtration
[21].
Solid penetration can lead to solvent contamination as a result of maintenance and other
events. Vacco filters should be placed upstream of the polluted region if the solids are more
than 20 mg per 100 ml. An activated carbon filter should subsequently be used to reduce
hydrocarbons [21].

25.2 Cleaning
Since the internal components of the amine regenerator should be clean and there shouldn't be
much suspended particulates in the solvent, cleaning should only be done occasionally.
However, Lieberman [22] advises cleaning the tower as follows in case scaling or sediments
become a contaminant:
 To see if a contaminant dissolves in HCl, one must get a clean sample of the substance.
 A 1% corrosion inhibitor mixed with an HCL solution strength of 5–10% must be poured
into the tower, and a surfactant agent must be evenly diluted throughout the mixture.
 Move the combination up and down the column while keeping an eye on the acidity level
to prevent harm to the material grading equipment.
 After giving the tower a thorough rinse with water, empty it of any liquids.
 After adding low-concentration KOH circulation to the stripper again from the top, move
the liquid around before draining.
 Before assuming the column conditions, wash and completely rinse the tower with water.

26 Column Functionality
26.1 Start Up
After all of the pipelines and equipment used in the regenerator column have undergone
acceptable pre-commissioning and all of the valves have been verified to be operationally ready
for start-up, the stripper filing may commence. Since liquid is entering the tower at the same
time as the column is filled, the reboiler needs to be primed before the temperature approaches
operational level. As the column gradually heats up, the condenser above it should also start to
run at the same time as the reboiler, which may appear abnormally cooler. This is acceptable
because the overhead vapour will soon start to increase in both velocity and flow rate as the
partial pressure from the reboiler power input gradually increases.
Since there is no thermal resistance between the kettle reboiler shell and the heated inner tubes
from the steam, low liquid levels will cause a rapid rise in temperature. This is why reboiler
priming is necessary because the first step in starting the reboiler is to check for high liquid
levels within the shell by fully submerging the inner tubes. In order to attain a cautious steady
state functioning where it will operate continuously, the liquid must be carefully managed as it

52
fills the base of the column and heats up. Flow rates must be constantly checked, and pressure
and temperature must be balanced.
In the event that any unusual start-up processes fail and the temperature or pressure becomes
too high, the controller room should be the place where opening lines of pressure relief are
activated.
Ensure that the stripping process is initiated and that there is enough vaporized steam traveling
through the column and into the condenser by checking the overhead and bottom flow rate
grading quality. Every reflux loop need to be open, with efficiency getting close to maximum.
The reboiler can reach a stable state condition when the anticipated steam rates are passing
overhead and looping back into the column, meaning that further temperature increase is not
required.

26.2 Operation at Steady State

Table 26.2.1: Operation at steady state

Parameter of Process Operating action

Operating pressure inclination  Pressure/valve controllers malfunction

 Valve is hinged and jammed
 Failure of lines of outlet gas at top of
the column. Check for inadvertent
closed valves (if weather is cold,
freeze up)
Operating pressure declination  Pressure/valve controllers malfunction
 Verify the unhinged and stuck-open
valve control.
 Examine any blockages to the gas
lines that enter or leave the stripping
column.

Temperature inclination  Low flow rate of cooling

 Pipelines carrying cooling water
sustain damage.
 Damage to a temperature transmitter
or valve, poor performance, or drab
transmission signaling to control

53
 Reflux flow rate variation  Damage of levelling tranmsitter
 False action of a valve
 Incorrect operation of reboiler

Energy input temperament of the reboiler  Within heating steam, pressure is

fluctuated
 Flow controllers transmit wrong.
 The reboiler's supply of heated steam
is weakened

26.3 Shut Down

Notify all operators that there is a concern before starting the shutdown procedure.
Turn off the feed pumps and progressively open the overhead and bottom valves for a little
while longer, but don't close them completely, since the main goal is to eliminate any corrosive
materials before moving on to water. The MDEA+PZ flow will diminish when the feed valves
close, and the column will start to empty as the MDEA+PZ drains out the bottom. As a result,
the reboiler will lower its steam flow rate and begin to cool; but, because the rate of draining is
greater than the rate of cooling, the vaporized water from the top reflux will keep cycling.

When the bottom column is emptied of liquid and recycled back to the absorber for treatment
upon startup (since it will continue dissolving gases), the gas is extracted from the MDEA+PZ
solvent and no more solvent is being added.
By this point, the condenser will be decreasing and the reboiler will be completely closed,
allowing all water to return to the column and down the plates and permitting a pre-wash effect
to remove corrosive elements. In contrast to other plant parts, MDEA does not corrode at low
temperatures, thus cleaning is comparatively easy because it is only required at low caliber.
Furthermore, the need for an external washing supply will persist.
After the column levels have been determined to be empty, a fresh water supply will be aimed
into the top reflux nozzle. This should enable the water to pass down the column coherently for
a considerable amount of time, passing over plates and through holes to remove any residual
material that might otherwise cause fouling or corrosion. Following completion of the acceptable
washing duration, the column may be inspected via either manway, and the process can be
completely closed once all requirements are met.

54
27 Unit Operation Control

Figure 27.1: PID of column

Table 27.1: Controllers

Unit Rig Control Valve Action of Reason

Position controller
Regenerator TC (V-2) Temperature FC Reverse Control of
control of heating rate,
feed prevention of
regenerator
from
overheating
LC (V-1) Level control FC Reverse Mitigation of
of bottom of spills and

55
 column prevention of
regenerator
from overflow
Flash Drum LC (V-6) Level control FO Reverse Prevention of
of liquid
condensate overflow
PT (V-5) Pressure FO Reverse Prevention of
control inside backflow,
of flash drum damage to
vessel and
overpressure
Condenser TC (V-4) Temperature FO Direct Prevention of
control of top overheating,
stage vapor prevention of
boiling of
liquid in flush
drum, icrease
in rate of
cooling
Reboiler TC (V-3) Temperature FC Reverse Prevention of
control of reboiler and
reboiler regenerator’s
overheating,
control of
heating rate

28 Cost of Equipment
Based on the information in this design report, the following assumptions are taken into account
for determining the bare module cost of a regenerator column:
 Column height – 12.78 m
 Column diameter – 2 m
 Pressure – 230 kPa
 Column material – carbon steel
 Insulation material - ceramic
 Tray material – stainless steel
 Tray number - 20

56
According to the Gavin Towler reference book purchased equipment cost is found by using
equation given below:
n
C e =a+b S
Table 28.1: Purchased cost

Units for
S a b n cost in $
Equipment size, S
Condenser area, m2 60 28000 54 1,2 35348,1034
Reboiler area, m2 84 29000 400 0,9 50573,04
Regeneration Vessel kg 46891 11600 34 0,85 329217,913
column Trays m 2 130 440 1,8 83108,4496
Total cost in 2077308,05
2010

Total cost in 3111869,05

2023

The cost of the acquired equipment was determined by consulting Table 7.2 in Gavin Towler's
Chemical Engineering Design book and keeping in mind the size and type constants of the
necessary equipment. On one subtlety, though, Table 7.2 is predicated on 2010. In order to
calculate the equipment cost for the present year, the ratio of the chemical plant cost index
(CEPCI) in 2023 to that of 2010 was multiplied by the acquired cost. CEPCI was 5332.9 in 2010
and 798.3 in 2023 [23].

29 Design of Deaerator – Minor Equipment

The primary source of corrosion in boilers, feedlines, feedpumps, and hotwell tanks is oxygen.
The pH will be low, the water will likely be acidic, and the rate of corrosion will accelerate if
carbon dioxide is also present. Usually, the corrosion is of the pitting kind, meaning that
extensive penetration and perforation can happen quickly even if there may not be much metal
loss [24].
To remove oxygen from feed water, the equipment called as deaerator is used. Pressurized
deaerators are commonly engineered to function at a saturation temperature of 105°C, or 0.2
bar gauge. While some steam may still escape through a throttled vent, this loss will be far
lower than that of a vented feedtank [24].

In addition to oxygen, additional non-condensable gases will also need to be vented at the
same time. Thus, in addition to some steam, the deaerator will release other components of air,

57
mostly nitrogen. Consequently, more air must be rejected from the water than the standard
value of 2.3 grams of oxygen per 1,000 kg of water. In actuality, there are 5.9 grams of air per
1,000 kg of water at 80°C in atmospheric circumstances. In order to guarantee that the
necessary 2.3 grams of oxygen are released, a rejection of 5.9 grams of air per 1,000 kg of
water is required [24].

Figure 29.1: Deaerator

Consider that the steam rising above the water's surface combines with the air being expelled
from the water. The steam/air combination may only be 100°C in temperature, even if the
deaerator is working at 1.2 bar absolute.

Consequently, based on Dalton's Law:

The vapour pressure would be 1.2 bar an if the deaerator's vapour space were entirely filled
with steam. The partial pressure brought on by the steam is only 1.01325 bar a since the vapour
space is really 100°C.
The difference between these two values, or 1.2 – 1.01325 = 0.186 75 bar a, represents the
partial pressure brought on by air.
V air 0.18675
= =18.4 %
V steam 1.01325

100−18.4
V steam = =4.43 litre of steam per litre of air
18.4

ρair ( 100 ° C )=0.95 g/l

58
 ρ steam ( 100° C )=0.6 g/l

Therefore, to release 0.95 g of air, 0.6∗4.43=2.658 gof steam is needed.

2.658∗5.9
To release 5.9 g of air, =16.58 g of steam
0.946

So, total amount of mixture is to release 5.9 g of air is 5.9+16.58=22.48 g per capacity of
deaerator (1000 kg)

29.1 Datasheet of Deaerator

Table 29.1.1: Datasheet of deaerator

Properties
Feedwater from deaerator 142201 kg/h
Density 947 kg/m3
Volume flow 150.16 m3/h
Hold-up time 20 min
Volume required 50 m3
Freeboard 0.75
Total volume 66.67 m3
Max allowable volumetric 12.2 litre/s/m2
flow rate
Min allowable cross- 3.42 m2
sectional area
Dimensions
Diameter 3.05 m
Length 9.13 m
L/D 2.99
Cross sectional area 7.31 m2
Volumetric flow rate 5.7 litre/s/m2

59
30 References

[1] C. J. Yan, “Process intensification for post-combustion CO2 capture with

chemical absorption: A critical review,” AppliedEnergy, 2015.

[2] K. Kolmetz, “Natural Gas Sweetening Systems Selection, Sizing and

Troubleshooting.,” Handbook Of Process Equipment Design, 2012.

[3] K. E. Arnold, Gas Sweetening and Processing Field Manual, 2011.

[4] “Acid Gas Cleaning Using Amine Solvents,” AspenTech, 2019.

[5] F. Flores, Engineering Data Book, 2004.

[6] Coker, Ludwig's Applied Process Design for Chemical and Petrochemical Plants,
2010.

[7] Waalas, Chemical Process Equipment - Selection and Design, 1990.

[8] Richardson, “Particle Technology and Separation Processes,” Coulson and

Richardson's Chemical Engineering Volume 2 , 2002.

[9] Stewart, “Design of Gas-Handling Systems and Facilities,” Surface Production

Operations, Volume 2, 2014.

[10 R. K. T. Sinnott, Chemical Engineering Design - SI Edition (5th Edition).

]

[11 R. H. G. Perry, Perry’s Chemical Engineers Handbook. 7th Edition. , 1997.

]

[12 C. Richardson, “Mechanical Design of Process Equipment,” Coulson

] Richardson's Chemical Engineering Volume 6 4th Edition.

[13 Hartson, “Amine Unit Corrosion in Refineries (EFC 46). Woodhead Publishing,”
] 2007.

[14 Ropital, “Corrosion and Degradation of Metallic Materials,” Understanding of the

] Phenomena and Application in Petroleum and Process Industries, 2009.

[15 D. R. B. M. M. Moss, Pressure Vessel Design , 2013.

]

[16 R. A. White, “Materials Selection for Petroleum Refineries and Gathering

] Facilities,” 1998.

[17 J. R. P. W. R. F. J. R. W. S. M. Couper, Chemical Process Equipment - Selection and

] Design.

[18 Arnold, “Surface Production Operations - Design of Oil Handling Systems and
] Facilities, Volume 1 (3rd Edition).,” 2008.

60
[19 Y. Chengel, Heat transfer, 1997.
]

[20 “Global Process Sysems. Guideline for the Design of Amine unit.,” 2010.
]

[21 Harston, “Amine Unit Corrosion in Refineries (EFC 46),” 2007.

]

[22 Lieberman, Troubleshooting Process Operations (4th Edition).

]

[23 “Chemical Engineering, Economic Indicators,” 2023.

]

[24 “spiraxsarco,” [Online]. Available: https://www.spiraxsarco.com/learn-about-

] steam/the-boiler-house/pressurised-deaerators?sc_lang=en-GB. [Accessed 05
04 2024].

[25 S. Hall, Rules of Thumb for Chemical Engineers (5th Edition). , 2012.
]

61
31 Appendix
Reboiler Type Pros Cons
Kettle  Handles viscosity  High cost
greater than 0.5cP  Extra piping and
 One theoretical tray space
 Ease of maintenance  Fouls with dirty fluids
 Low skirt height
 Ease of control
 No limit on vapour
lead
Vertical Natural  Simple piping and  Accumulation of high
compact boiling point
 Good controllability components in feed
 Less cost than kettle line, temperature may
be higher than column
 No theoretical tray
 Fouls easier
 High skirt height
 Difficult to maintain
 Too high liquid level
could cause loss of
efficiency
Horizontal Natural  Lower skirt height  Extra space and
than vertical piping compared to
 Less cost than kettle vertical
 Ease of maintenance  Accumulation of
 Less pressure drop higher boiling point
than vertical (may be higher than
stripper temperature
 Fouls easier
 No theoretical tray
Vertical one-through  Simple piping and  High skirt height
compact  Difficult maintenance
 One theoretical tray  Moderate
 Less cost than kettle controllability
 Not easily fouled  No control of
circulation
Horizontal one-through  Lower skirt height  Moderate
than vertical controllability
 Simple piping and  No control of
compact circulation

62
  One theoretical tray  High skirt height
 Less pressure drop
than vertical
 Not easily fouled
 Longer tubes possible
Forced  Handles high viscous  Operational cost is
solids-containing higher than natural
liquids circulation
 One theoretical tray
 High transfer
coefficient
 Circulation controlled

63
64
 Cp=A+BT+CT2+DT3+ET4 (Cp – joule/(mol K), T – K)
Liquid Phase Gas Phase
Name A B C D E A B C D E

MDEA 105.151 1.3564 -3.3459E-03 3.4589E-06 0 -16.817 7.4349E-01 -5.5635E-04 2.1535E-07 -3.4622E-11

PZ -192.418 2.7211 -6.19E-03 5.1736E-06 0 -64.055 0.7917 -6.6296E-04 2.4423E-07 -3.0828E-11

H2O 92.053 -3.9953E-02 -2.1103E-04 5.3469E-07 0 33.933 -8.4186E-03 2.9906E-05 -1.7825E-08 3.6934E-12

CO2 -3981.02 52.511 -2.2708E-01 3.2866E-04 0 27.437 4.2315E-02 -1.9555E-05 3.9968E-09 -2.9872E-13

H2S 80.985 -1.2464E-01 -3.6053E-05 1.6942E-06 0 33.878 -1.1216E-02 5.2578E-05 -3.8397E-08 9.0281E-12

Methane -0.018 1.1982 -9.8722E-03 3.167E-05 0 34.942 -3.9957E-02 1.9184E-04 -1.5303E-07 3.9321E-11

Ethane 38.332 4.1006E-01 -2.3024E-03 5.9347E-06 0 28.146 4.3447E-02 1.8946E-04 -1.9082E-07 5.3349E-11

Propane 59.642 3.2831E-01 -1.5377E-03 3.6539E-06 0 28.277 1.16E-01 1.9597E-04 -2.3271E-07 6.8669E-11

i-Butane 71.791 4.8472E-01 -2.0519E-03 4.0634E-06 0 6.772 3.4147E-01 -1.0271E-04 -3.6849E-08 2.0429E-11

n-Butane 62.873 5.8913E-01 -2.3588E-03 4.2257E-06 0 20.056 2.8153E-01 -1.3143E-05 -9.4571E-08 3.4149E-11

65
66