Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Aspen Plus, the aspen leaf logo and Plantelligence and Enterprise Optimization are trademarks or registered
trademarks of Aspen Technology, Inc., Bedford, MA.
All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies.
This software includes NIST Standard Reference Database 103b: NIST Thermodata Engine Version 7.1
This document is intended as a guide to using AspenTech's software. This documentation contains AspenTech
proprietary and confidential information and may not be disclosed, used, or copied without the prior consent of
AspenTech or as set forth in the applicable license agreement. Users are solely responsible fo r the proper use of
the software and the application of the results obtained.
Although AspenTech has tested the software and reviewed the documentation, the sole warranty for the software
may be found in the applicable license agreement between AspenTech and the user. ASPENTECH MAKES NO
WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THIS DOCUMENTATION,
ITS QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Revision History 1
Version Description
2 Revision History
Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................4
1 Components .........................................................................................................5
2 Physical Properties...............................................................................................6
3 Reactions ...........................................................................................................13
6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................25
References ............................................................................................................26
Contents 3
Introduction
This file describes an Aspen Plus rate-based model of the CO2 capture process
by Diglycolamine (DGA) from a gas mixture of N2, O2, CO2 and H2O. The
model consists of an absorber, a stripper and heat integration. As there
appear to be no public domain industrial or pilot plant data available for
aqueous DGA/CO2 separations, the feed conditions and column specifications
in the model were loosely based on a pilot plant study of CO 2 capture with
MEA performed at the University of Kaiserslautern[1]. The flows, feed
compositions, reboiler duty, and absorber and stripper packed heights were
adjusted so that the CO2 recovery was close to 80% using the HANLEY -STRUC
mass transfer correlations. These variables would need to be adjusted with
the choice of different mass transfer correlations.
Thermophysical property models and reaction kinetic models are based on our
recent work [2] and that of Pacheco et al. (2000) [3]. Transport property models
and model parameters have been validated against experimental data from
open literature. Transport property models and model parameters have been
validated against experimental data from open literature. Although the
simulation does not contain H 2S, physical property data for this component is
included in the properties section of this model should the user wish to model
processes which include H 2S.
The model is meant to be used as a guide for modeling the CO 2 capture
process with DGA. You may use it as a starting point for more sophisticated
models for process development, debottlenecking, and plant and equipment
design, among others.
The model presented here includes the following key modeling features:
True species including ions
Unsymmetric electrolyte NRTL activity coefficient model for liquid and PC-
SAFT equation of state for vapor
Activity-based reaction kinetics
Electrolyte transport property models
Rate-based models for columns with structured packing
4 Introduction
1 Components
1 Components 5
2 Physical Properties
The PC-SAFT parameters of DGA are regressed from the vapor pressure data
[6, 7]
, liquid heat capacity data [6, 8] and liquid density data [6, 9, 10]. Those of
H2O are obtained from Gross and Sadowski (2002) [11], and those of the other
components are retrieved from the Aspen Databank.
The characteristic volume parameters of H2O for the Brelvi-O’Connell Model,
VLBROC, are obtained from Brelvi and O’Connell (1972) [12], those of CO2 are
obtained from Yan and Chen (2010) [4], those of CH4 are obtained from Zhang
and Chen (2011) [5], and those of DGA, H2S, N2, O2, CO and H2 are defaulted
to their critical volume in the Aspen Databank.
Unless specified otherwise, all molecule-molecule binary parameters and
electrolyte-electrolyte binary parameters are defaulted to zero. All molecule-
electrolyte binary parameters are defaulted to (8, -4), average values of the
6 2 Physical Properties
parameters as reported for the electrolyte NRTL model [13]
. The
nonrandomness factor is fixed at 0.2.
The NRTL interaction parameters between DGA and H 2O are determined from
the regression with binary VLE [14], excess enthalpy data [15] and heat capacity
data [8].
The interaction energy parameters between H2O and (DGAH+, HCO3-) and
those parameters between H 2O and (DGAH+, DGACOO-), GMENCC and
GMENCD, are regressed using the VLE data [16-21] and absorption heat data [22]
of of the DGA-H2O-CO2 system. Those between H2O and (DGAH +, HS-) are
regressed using the VLE data [16, 17, 19] of the DGA-H2O-H2S system.
The dielectric constants of nonaqueous solvents are calculated by the
following expression:
1 1
T A B (1)
T C
The parameters A, B and C for DGA are 28.01, 9277.0 and 273.15, which are
derived from Aspen Databank.
The liquid molar volume model and transport property models have been
updated and model parameters regressed from literature experimental data.
Specifications of the transport property models include:
For liquid molar volume, the Clarke model, called VAQCLK in Aspen Plus,
is used with option code of 1 to use the quadratic mixing rule for solvents.
The interaction parameter VLQKIJ for the quadratic mixing rule between
DGA and H2O is regressed against experimental data from Henni et al.
(2001)[9] and Valtz et al. (2004) [10]. The Clarke model parameter VLCLK/1
is also regressed for main electrolytes (DGAH+, HCO 3 ), (DGAH+,
2
DGACOO-) and (DGAH+, CO 3 ) against experimental data from Huntsman
Co.[14].
For liquid viscosity, the Jones-Dole electrolyte correction model, called
MUL2JONS in Aspen Plus, is used with the mass fraction based ASPEN
liquid mixture viscosity model for the solvent. There are three models for
electrolyte correction and the DGA model always uses the Jones-Dole
correction model. The three option codes for MUL2JONS are set to 1
(mixture viscosity weighted by mass fraction), 1 (always use Jones and
Dole equation when the parameters are available), and 2 (ASPEN liquid
mixture viscosity model), respectively. The interaction parameters
between DGA and H 2O in the ASPEN liquid mixture viscosity model, MUKIJ
and MULIJ, are regressed against DGA-H2O viscosity experimental data
from Henni et al. (2001) [9]. The Jones-Dole model parameters, IONMUB,
for DGAH+ and DGACOO- are regressed against DGA-H2O-CO2 viscosity
2
data from Huntsman Co.[10]; that of CO 3 is regressed against K 2CO3-H2O
viscosity data from Pac et al. (1984) [23]; and that of HCO3- is regressed
against KHCO3-H2O viscosity data from Palaty (1992) [24].
For liquid surface tension, the Onsager-Samaras model, called SIG2ONSG
in Aspen Plus, is used with its option codes being -9 (exponent in mixing
rule) and 1 (electrolyte system), respectively. No additional adjusted
parameters are used in the surface tension.
1200
EST DGA 10w t%
EST DGA 20w t%
EST DGA 30w t%
1150 EST DGA 40w t%
3
1100
Density, kg/m
1050
1000
950
900
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
CO2 Loading, mol CO2/mol DGA
8 2 Physical Properties
0.1
EST DGA 10w t%
EST DGA 20w t%
EST DGA 30w t%
EST DGA 40w t%
0.001
0.0001
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
CO2 Loading, mol CO2/mol DGA
0.08
0.07
0.06
Surface Tension, N/m
0.05
0.04
0.03
EST DGA 10w t%
0.02 EST DGA 20w t%
EST DGA 40w t%
0.01
EST DGA 60w t%
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
CO2 Loading, mol CO2/mol DGA
0.5
0.3
0.2
EST DGA 10w t%
EST DGA 20w t%
0.1
EST DGA 40w t%
EST DGA 60w t%
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
CO2 Loading, mol CO2/mol DGA
120
100
Heat Capacity, J/mol-K
80
60
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
CO2 Loading, mol CO2/mol DGA
10 2 Physical Properties
120
289K
333K
100
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
1.E+04
311, Dingman
1.E+02 313, Al-Juaied
CO 2 pressure, kPa
313, Chen
333, Al-Juaied
333, Chen
1.E+00 353, Chen
355, Dingman
373, Martin
373, Chen
1.E-02
373, Xu
393, Xu
413, Xu
1.E-04
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
1.E+03
1.E+02
H 2S pressure, kPa
1.E+01
323K, Martin
323K, Maddox
1.E-01 353K, Maddox
311K, Dingman
1.E-02
355K, Dingman
1.E-03
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Figure 8. H2S Partial Pressure of DGA-H 2S-H2O (DGA mass fraction = 0.60),
experimental data from Martin et al. (1978)[6]
12 2 Physical Properties
3 Reactions
3 Reactions 13
2H 2 O H 3 O OH
2 Equilibrium
HCO 3 H 2 O H 3 O CO 32
3 Equilibrium
CO 2 OH HCO 3
4 Kinetic
HCO 3 CO 2 OH
5 Kinetic
DGA CO 2 H 2 O DGACOO - H 3 O
6 Kinetic
DGACOO - H 3 O DGA H 2 O CO 2
7 Kinetic
H 2 O H 2 S HS H 3 O
8 Equilibrium
H 2 O HS S 2 H 3 O
9 Equilibrium
The equilibrium constants for reactions 1-7 in DGA are calculated from the
standard Gibbs free energy change. DGAQFM, DHAQFM and CPAQ0 of DGAH +
and DGACOO-, which are used to calculate the standard DGAH+ and DGACOO-
Gibbs free energy, are determined in this work. The DGAQFM (or DGFORM),
DHAQFM (or DHFORM), and CPAQ0 (or CPIG) parameters of the other
components can be obtained from the databank of Aspen Plus.
The power law expressions are used for the rate-controlled reactions
(reactions 4-7 in DGA-REA) and the general power law expression is:
E 1 1 N
r k T T0 exp xi i i
n a
(2)
R T T0 i 1
Where:
r = Rate of reaction;
k = Pre-exponential factor;
T = Absolute temperature;
T0 = Reference temperature;
n = Temperature exponent;
E = Activation energy;
R = Universal gas constant;
N = Number of components in the reaction;
xi = Mole fraction of component i;
γi = Activity coefficient of component i;
ai = The stoichiometric coefficient of components i in the reaction equation.
If T0 is not specified, the reduced power law expression is used:
E N
r kT n exp xi i i
a
(3)
RT i 1
14 3 Reactions
In this work, the reduced expression is used. In equation (3), the
concentration basis is mole gamma, the factor n is zero, k and E are given
in Table 3.
The kinetic parameters for reaction 4 are taken from the work of Pisent et al.
(1956) [27], and the kinetic parameters for reaction 5 are calculated by using
the kinetic parameters ofreaction 4 and the equilibrium constants of the
reversible reactions 4 and 5. The kinetic parameters of reaction 6 are derived
from the work of Pacheco et al. (2001) [3] and the kinetic parameters of
reaction 7 are calculated by using the kinetic parameters of reaction 6 and
the equilibrium constants of the reversible reactions 8 and 9.
3 Reactions 15
4 Simulation Approach
The flowsheet is based off of the pilot plant study by Notz, Mangalapally and
Hasse (2012)[1] for CO2 capture by aqueous MEA solutions. We have modified
the operating conditions in the paper to accommodate DGA. Table 4
represents the model’s operating conditions.
Simulation Flowsheet – The University of Kaiserslautern flowsheet [1] has
been modeled with the following simulation flowsheet in Aspen Plus, shown in
Figure 10.
Unit Operations - Major unit operations in this model have been represented
by Aspen Plus blocks as outlined in Table 4.
16 4 Simulation Approach
Table 4. Aspen Plus Unit Operation Blocks Used in the
Rate-Based DGA Model
Unit Aspen Plus Block Comments / Specifications
Operation
4 Simulation Approach 17
Unit Aspen Plus Block Comments / Specifications
Operation
Balance Blocks – The water makeup stream flowrate was determined using
a standard balance block. The inlet stream was FLUEGAS and the water
makeup stream for the water balance. The outlet streams were GASOUT,
CO2OUT, and COND.
Because the amine can be lost in the stream COND in an ionized form,
makeup amine was calculated using a design specification block. The total
amine in COND was calculated using the WAPP property set for the total flow
of amine in all speciated forms. Amine was also lost through CO2OUT and
GASOUT.
18 4 Simulation Approach
Prop-Sets - A Prop-Set, XAPP, has been created to report apparent mole
fraction of H2O, CO2 and DGA in liquid streams to facilitate calculations of CO 2
loadings of the streams. The Prop-Set MLLOAD was implemented to display
the CO2 loading of the amine, defined as the ratio of the apparent mole
fractions of CO2 and DGA.
4 Simulation Approach 19
5 Simulation Results
The simulation was performed using Aspen Plus. Key simulation results are
presented in Table 6. The calculated absorber and stripper temperature
profiles are presented in Figures 11 and 12, respectively.
20 5 Simulation Results
70
65
60
Temperature, C
55
50
45 Hanley&Chen, L
40 Hanley&Chen, V
35
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
115
113
Temperature, C
111
109
Hanley&Chen, L
107
Hanley&Chen, V
105
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
5 Simulation Results 21
0.40
0.30
Hanley&Chen
0.25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0.40
CO2 loading, mol CO2/mol amine
0.35
0.30
Hanley&Chen
0.25
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
22 5 Simulation Results
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.05
Hanley&Chen
0.05
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0.065
0.06
CO2 mass fraction
0.055
0.05
Hanley&Chen
0.045
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
The Aspen Plus simulation yields an off-gas containing 1.0 mol% CO2 and a
CO2 product stream containing 98.3 mol% CO2 (Table 6). The model predicts
an 81% recovery of CO2.
The Hanleystruc (2010) correlation [28] is used to calculate the mass transfer
coefficient and interfacial area in the simulation. The Bravo (1985)
5 Simulation Results 23
correlation[30] is an alternative for the mass transfer calculation. The results
will be changed if the Bravo (1985) correlation is applied.
24 5 Simulation Results
6 Conclusions
The DGA model provides a rate-based rigorous simulation of the process. Key
features of this rigorous simulation include electrolyte thermodynamics and
solution chemistry, chemical equilibrium for the liquid phase reactions,
rigorous transport property modeling, rate-based multi-stage simulation with
Aspen Rate-Based Distillation which incorporates heat and mass transfer
correlations accounting for columns specifics and hydraulics.
6 Conc lusions 25
References
26 References
[13] C. –C. Chen, L. B. Evans, “A Local Electrolyte Nonrandom Two-Liquid
Activity Coefficient Model”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 48, 7788-7797 (2009)
[14] Huntsman Co. Diglycolamine Agent, Technical Publication, 2005
[15] Jefferson Chemical Company, Gas Treating Data Book, Jefferson
Chemical Co., Houston, TX, 1989
[16] J. L. Martin, F. D. Otto, A. E. Mather, J. Chem. Eng. Data, 23, 163-164
(1978)
[17] J. C. Dingman, J. L. Jackson, T. Moore, J. A. Branson, “Equilibrium Data
fpr the H2S-CO2-Diglycolamine Agent-Water Systems”, in the 62 nd Annual
Gas Processors Association Convention, San Fransisco, CA, March, 1983
[18] Ai-Juaied, G. T. Rochelle, J. Chem. Eng. Data, 51, 708-717 (2006)
[19] R. N. Maddox, A. H. Bhairi, J. R. Diers, P. A. Thomas, “Equilibrium
Solubility of Carbon Dioxide or Hydrogen Sulfide in Aqueous Solutions of
Monoethanolamine, Diglycolamine, Diethanolamine and
Methyldiethanolamine”, GPA Research Report, RR-104, 1987
[20] X. Chen, F. Closmann, G. T. Rochelle, Energy Procedia, 4, 101-108
(2011)
[21] Q. Xu, G. T. Rochelle, Energy Procedia, 4, 117-124 (2011)
[22] S. P. Christensen, J. J. Christensen, R. M. Izatt, “Enthalpies of Solution
of CO2 in Aqueous Diglycolamine Solutions”, GPA research report, RR-85,
1985
[23] J.S. Pac, I.N. Maksimova, L.V. Glushenko, ”Viscosity of Alkali Salt
Solutions and Comparative Calculation Method”, J. Appl. Chem. USSR, 57,
846 (1984)
[24] Z. Palaty, “Viscosity of diluted aqueous K2CO3/KHCO3 solutions”, Collect.
Czech. Chem. Commun., 57, 1879 (1992)
[25] C. M. Criss, J. W. Cobble, “The Thermodynamic Properties of High
Temperature Aqueous Solutions. V. The Calculation of Ionic Heat Capacities
up to 200º. Entropies and Heat capacities above 200 º”, J. Amer. Chem. Soc.,
86, 5390-5393 (1964)
[26] D. D. Wagman, W. H. Evans, V. B. Parker, R. H. Schumm, I. Halow, S. M.
Bailey, K. L. Churney, R. L. Nuttall, “The NBS tables of chemical
thermodynamic properties – Selected values for inorganic and C1 and C2
organic substances in SI units”, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference
Data, 11 (Supplement No. 2), 1-392 (1982)
[27] B.R. Pinsent, L. Pearson, F.J.W. Roughton, “The Kinetics of Combination
of Carbon Dioxide with Hydroxide Ions”, Trans. Faraday Soc., 52, 1512-1520
(1956)
[28] B. Hanley and C.-C. Chen, “New Mass Transfer Correlations for Packed
Towers”, AIChE Journal, 58(1), 132-152 (2012)
[29] B. Hanley, "On Packed Column Hydraulics." AIChE Journal, 58(6), 1671-
682 (2012)
Re fere nces 27
[30] J.R. Fair and J.L. Bravo, “Prediction of Mass Transfer Efficiencies and
Pressure Drop for Structured Tower Packings in Vapor/Liquid Service.”
IChemE Symposium Series No. 104. 104:A183 (1987)
28 References