Capstone Final Report

UNIVERSITI TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND GREEN TECHNOLOGY
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING (HONS) PETROCHEMICAL

ENGINEERING
UGPA 4104 CAPSTONE PROJECT
TITLE:
SEPARATION OF ACID GASES FROM BIOGAS PRODUCED

BY PALM OIL MILL EFFLUENT (POME)
GROUP MEMBERS:
NAME ID NO.
Jegadish a/l Padmanabhan 1501005
Ong Chong Leh 1203338
Eddie Kong Chak Sng 1301318
Tan Ser Jie 1300366
Leow Chia Leong 1205254
SUPERVISOR : Dr. Lau Lee Chung
MODERATORS : Ir Dr.Eow John Son & Ir. Ong Yih Min
DATE OF SUBMISSION : 19th April 2018

ABSTRACT
This group assigned capstone project is intended to propose a theoretically

based design process of plant entitled “Removal of Acid Gas from Biogas” via
chemical absorption of DEA. DEA, secondary amines are very reactive and can
effectively remove a high volume of H2S and CO2 gas containing in biogas due to a
high reaction rate. Three crucial equipment incorporated in the amine treatment of
biogas process to obtain methane as end product are absorber, separator, and
regenerator respectively. The outcome of this project are production of 98.14%
methane after 95.87% of carbon dioxide and 100% of hydrogen sulphide is removed.
The production of methane is 1192722.43 MMbtu annually with the annual net profit
of US$ 4.131 million after the reduction of income tax. The total capital investment is
US$ 15.107 million while the return on investment is 27.34% with the payback period
of nearly 4 years.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES viii
CHAPTER
1 LITERATURE REVIEW AND PROJECT CONCEPTION 1

1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Market Survey and Site Study 4
1.3 Process Selection 11
2 PROCESS SYNTHESIS OF PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM (PFD)

19
2.1 Process Database 19
2.2 Process Synthesis Approaches and Heuristics 21
2.3 Preliminary Process Screening 23
2.4 Development of Base Case Flowsheet and Plant Layout 25
3 MATERIAL AND ENERGY BALANCES 30

3.1 Material Balances 30
3.2 Energy Balances 34
3.3 Simulation using Aspen Hysys for Selected
Chemical Process 47
iii
4 PROCESS INTEGRATION, OPTIMIZATION AND
WASTE TREATMENT 68
4.1 Heat Exchanger Network Design to Achieve Maximum
Heat Recovery 68
4.2 Optimization using Linear Programming Method 69
4.3 Design of Waste Gas Treatment 75
5 EQUIPMENT SIZING AND COST ESTIMATION 77

5.1 Absorber Column (ABS-01) 77
5.2 Distillation Column (REGEN-01) 82
5.3 Separator (FD-01) 85
5.4 Heat Exchanger (L-R Exchanger-01) 87
5.5 Pump (Pump-01) 89
5.6 Condenser 91
5.7 Reboiler 94
6 PROCESS CONTROL AND SAFETY 96

6.1 Control Systems 96
6.2 Piping and Instrumentation Diagram 98
6.3 HAZOP Study 99
7 EQUIPMENT MECHANICAL DESIGN 103

7.1 Absorber Column (ABS-01) 103
7.2 Separator (FD-01) 105
7.3 Distillation Column (REGEN-01) 107
7.4 Heat Exchanger (L-R Exchanger-01) 109
iv
8 PROFITABILITY ANALYSIS 111
8.1 General Statement 111
8.2 Grass Root Capital 112
8.3 Total Capital Investment Cost 113
8.4 Price of Components per ton Methane 115
8.5 Manufacturing Expenses 118
8.6 Contribution of Different Costs to the Total Cost
of Methane Production 120
8.7 Cost-Volume-Profit 121
8.8 Payback Period or Return of Investment (ROI) 122
9 CONCLUSION 124
REFERENCES 125
v
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE PAGE
1.1 Estimated Biomethane Production from POME based

on the CPO Production of Malaysia in 2011 7
1.2 Type of Solvents that can be used in Chemical Absorption 12
1.3 Comparison of Acid Gas Removal Methods 13
1.4 Adsorbent Type and Operating Method 14
2.1 (a) Absorber (ABS-01) 19
2.1 (b) Flash Separator (FD-01) 20
2.1 (c) Regeneration column (REGEN-01) 20
3.1 Constant A, B, C and D for Different Chemical species
under Ideal Gas State 34
3.2 Heat of Formation for Different Chemical Species 35
4.1 Cost of Raw Material 69
4.2 Selling Price of the Product 69
4.3 Water Cost. 69
4.4 Electricity Cost. 70
4.5 Total Utilities Cost. 70
4.6 Paid for Labours. 70
4.7 Profit estimation for Plant using excel solver before
optimization. 71
4.8 Profit estimation for Plant using excel solver after

optimization. 72
4.9 Sensitivity Report for the Plant. 59
5.1 Summary of Specifications for ABS-01. 79

5.2 Factors for Various Trays 80
5.3 Summary of Specifications for FD-01. 85
5.4 Summary of Specifications for L-R Exchanger-01 88
vi
5.5 Summary of Specifications for COND. 92
5.6 Cost Summary for all Equipment 95

6.1 The PID Icons used in this process 97
6.2 HAZOP study features 99
8.1 Grass Root Capital 112
8.2 Total Capital Investment Cost (CTCI). 113
8.3 Factor F1 and F2 114
8.4 Raw Material Cost 115
8.5 Catalyst market price 115
8.6 Solvent Cost 115
8.7 Sales Revenue/Sales Income 115
8.8 Price of product per one ton of Methane 116
8.9 Water Cost. 116
8.10 Electricity Cost. 116
8.11 Total Utilities Cost. 116
8.12 Paid for Labours. 117
8.13 Summary for Manufacturing Expenses 118
8.14 Contribution of different costs to the total cost of
Methane production 120
8.15 Contribution of Different Cost in Production of
Methane at Different Running Capacity. 121
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
1.1 Biogas Formation Process Flow 2

1.2 World oil and fat production in 1990 and 2011 4
1.3 Number of operating palm oil mills in Malaysia from 1999
to 2011 5
1.4 Number of mills producing biogas 5
1.5 Estimated POME generation based on the CPO production
in Malaysia 6
1.6 Planned increase in renewable energy capacity (MW)
in Malaysia (2011-2015) 7
1.7 Regions highlighted for palm oil tree cultivation (brown area) and
Production Company (green area) in Miri 8
2.1 Industrial model of the first filter. 23
2.2 Industrial model of the second filter. 23
2.3 The lateral view of the filtration system & the sectional view
of the filtration system 24
2.4 BFD of Acid Gas Removal from Biogas 25
3.1 Aspen Hysys Flowsheet 47
3.2 Composition of Inlet Stream 48
3.3 Conditions of Biogas Stream 48
3.4 Design of ABS-01 49
3.5 Conditions of ABS-01 49
3.6 Conditions of Rich Amine Stream 50
3.7 Design of VLV-01 50
3.8 Conditions of VLV-01 51
3.9 Conditions of To Separator Stream 51
3.10 Design of FD-01 52
3.11 Conditions of FD-01 52
viii
3.12 Conditions of Light Gases Stream 53
3.13 Conditions of To Exchanger Stream 53
3.14 Design of L-R Exchanger-01 54
3.15 Conditions of L-R Exchanger-01 54
3.16 Conditions of Regen Feed Stream 55
3.17 Design of REGEN-01 55
3.18 Conditions of REGEN-01 56
3.19 Condenser and Reboiler Parameters 56
3.20 Conditions of Acid Gases Stream 57
3.21 Conditions of Regen Bottoms 57
3.22 Conditions of To Tank Stream 58
3.23 Design of MAKEUP-01 58
3.24 Conditions of Water Makeup Stream 59
3.25 Conditions of DEA Makeup Stream 59
3.26 Conditions of To Pump Stream 60
3.27 Design of Pump-01 60
3.28 Parameters of Pump-01 61
3.29 Conditions of Pump-01 61
3.30 Conditions of To Cooler Stream 62
3.31 Design of Cooler-01 62
3.32 Parameters of Cooler-01 63
3.33 Conditions of Cooler-01 63
3.34 Conditions of To Recycle Stream 64
3.35 Design of RCY-01 64
3.36 Conditions of Lean Amine Stream 65
3.37 Summary of Process Parameters 66
3.38 Summary of Compositions 67
4.1 Simplified schema of CSS technology for long
term storage of compressed CO2 75
4.2 Iron-Redox Regenerable System 76
5.1 Flooding correlation for sieve, valve and bubble cap trays 78
7.1 Engineering Drawing of ABS-01. 103
7.2 Engineering Drawing of FD-01. 105
ix
7.3 Engineering Drawing of REGEN-01. 107
7.4 Engineering Drawing of L-R Exchanger-01. 109
8.1 Cost-Volume Profit Chart 121
x
CHAPTER 1
LITERATURE REVIEW AND PROJECT CONCEPTION
1.1 Introduction
Biogas is the composed gas that produced by Palm Oil Mill Effluent through
anaerobic process. Biogas is 20% lighter than air and it has ignition temperature
between 650°C to 750°C. The colourless gas burns with a clear blue flame and it is
odourless. Bulk amount of biogas which is methane gas can combust with oxygen easily
makes it a potential fuel. This fuel can be used in various applications such as cooking
fuel, industrial burner fuel, generates electricity by gas engines (coverts fuel energy into
electric energy) and the compressed biogas can power motor vehicles through
combustion.
As mentioned earlier, biogas is formed through anaerobic process where the

decomposition of POME by bacteria or microorganisms occur without the presence of
oxygen. The decomposition process which well known as digestion starts with bacterial
hydrolysis and followed by acidogenesis phase, acetogenesis phase and
methanogenesis phase. This process flow well described by Figure 1.1 below.
1
Figure 1.1: Biogas Formation Process Flow (Rahayu, et al., 2015)
Hydrolysis phase is where the water reacts with long-chain organic polymers
such as fats, polysaccharides and protein to produce soluble shorter-chain polymers like
long-chain fatty acid, sugars and amino acids. Meanwhile, microorganisms will
produce cellulose, amylase, lipase and protease through this hydrolysis process. In
short, hydrolysis process is to breakdown longer chains organic polymers into shorter
chains of organic polymers.
After hydrolysis, acidification will takes place in acidogenesis phase where the
anaerobic oxidizers consume the sugars, long-chain fatty acids, and amino acids created
during hydrolysis process as substrates. This step is the fastest step in order to convert
complex organic matter into lactate, ethanol, propionate, butyrate, and volatile fatty
acids (VFAs), which the methanogenic microorganisms use as substrates. In this phase,
bacteria respond to high hydrogen concentration to produce the organic acids.
In the acetogenesis phase, conversion of fatty acids and alcohol into acetate,
carbon dioxide and hydrogen will occur by hydrogen-producing acetogenic bacteria.
2
The acetogens grow slowly and depend on a low partial pressure of hydrogen for
acetogenic degradation to yield energy.
In the final methanogenesis phase, the biogas produced by two routes which are
fermentation of acetic acid and hydrogenophilic methanogens. The chemical reaction
for the first route is
CH3COOH CH4 + CO2 OR
CH3COOH + 4H2 2CH4 + 2H2O
The chemical route for the second route is

4H2 + CO2 2CH4 + 2H2O
From the chemical reaction above we can know that only key substrates which are
acetate, H2, CO2, methanol, and formate. Based on stoichiometric relations, experts
estimate that about 70% of methane is produced from acetate, while the remaining 30%
is produced from H2 and CO2.
When POME decomposes by bacteria in the absence of oxygen (Anaerobic

Process) biogas will form naturally. Typical biogas will contain 62.5% of methane
(CH4), 37% of carbon dioxide (CO2), 1,500-3,000 vppm of hydrogen sulphide (H2S)
and other impurities. (Sarawak Energy, 2018). If this gases releases to environment it
may cause unwanted impact on global climate. For example, methane gas is 21 times
more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Thus, biogas capturing through
biogas plant is important in order to save the environment. Furthermore, the waste can
be turned into useful energy by generating electricity and many more. Biogas has
heating value of 22,000 kJ/m3. Meanwhile, the heating value (average caloric value) of
methane is 36.3 MJ/m3 at standard conditions. This corresponds to 10.888 kWh of
energy per 1 m3 of methane (Sarawak Energy, 2018).
The objective in this project is to separate the acid gases from the biogas
produced by POME. This is important to obtain clean methane gas to use in stated
applications as above. To achieve the objective, several separation process were chosen
and discussed in following subtopics.
3
1.2 Market Survey and Site Study
Palm oil is an edible oil which has the highest global demand and accounted for
the largest percentage of oil and fats production in world in 2011. Based on Figure 1.2
below, the production of palm oil surpass soybean oil from 13% in 1990 to 28% of total
oil and fats production in 2011 (MPOC, 2011). This is due to the oil palm has higher
annual oil yield per hectare compared to other oilseeds crops such as sunflower,
soybean, rapeseed and it has a relatively lower price compared to other major vegetable
oils (Basiron, 2007).
Figure 1.2: World oil and fat production in 1990 and 2011 (MPOC, 2011).
Therefore, the worldwide palm oil industry is expected to grow substantially to

fulfill the increasing global demand. With the increasing of global demand of palm oil,
Malaysia has developed its palm oil industry and become the second largest palm oil
producer in the world beside than Indonesia. In five years time, Malaysia had expanded
the palm oil plantation area by 12.86% from 5.00 million hectares in 2011 tp 5.64
million hectares in 2015 (MPOB, 2012). While the number of palm oil mills in
Malaysia increasing vigorously from 334 mills in 1999 to total of 426 mills actively
producing 24.97 million tonnes of crude palm oil per year in 2011 and Malaysia’s palm
oil export control over 46% of world exports and 37% of world palm oil production in
2011 (MPOC, 2011).
4
Figure 1.3 below shows the increasing of palm oil mills from 1999 to 2011 in
Malaysia.
Figure 1.3: Number of operating palm oil mills in Malaysia from 1999 to 2011
(MPOB, 2012).
Figure 1.4 below shows that there are total 39 mills in Malaysia which are
invloved in producing biogas in year 2011. Both Perak and Sabah have eight mills
respectively while seven mills are located in Pahang then followed by five mills in
Johor and four mills in Negeri Sembilan. There were three mills in Sarawak and one
each in Kedah, Melaka, Selangor and Terengganu (Abas et al., 2011).
Figure 1.4: Number of mills producing biogas (Abas et al., 2011)
5
Figure 1.5 below shows the estimation of palm oil mill effluent (POME)
generated based on the crude palm oil (CPO) production in Malaysia (MPOB, 2010).
Figure 1.5: Estimated POME generation based on the CPO production in

Malaysia (MPOB, 2010).
Biogas has been treated as an unregulated waste product with very little value.
But it can be used to create at least two renewable energy products, electricity and
biomethane, both of them have an economic value. Electricity is different from all other
commodities in that it cannot be stored. Electricity is generated on demand, when it is
needed. Thus the capacity of the system is as important as the quantity of electricity
that is generated.
Table 1.1 below shows that more than 500k tonnes of methane could be
produced if all the POME are treated anaerobically. This amount of methane gas
generated is equivalent to about 800 million liters of diesel in terms of calorific value
and the estimated potential energy generated from the methane is 3.2 million MWh of
electricity, equivalent to 400 MW of the potential power based on a gas engine power
plant with 40% efficiency (Chin et al., 2013).
6
Table 1.1: Estimated Biomethane Production from POME based on the CPO
Production of Malaysia in 2011 (MPOB, 2010).
A typical household in Malaysia consumed an average of 4387 kWh electricity

per year. Hence, the estimated amount of power generated using POME derived biogas
is expected to be able to support about 700,000 households in Malaysia in 2011 (Mahlia
and Chan, 2011). In addition, these POME-biogas power plants can potentially
facilitate Malaysia to achieve the target of Tenth Malaysian Plan (2011–2015) to install
985 MW or 5.5% share of renewable energy in the national energy mix by 2015 as
shown in Figure 1.6 below.
Figure 1.6: Planned increase in renewable energy capacity (MW) in Malaysia (2011-
2015) (EPU, 2011)
7
1.2.1 Our Plantation Site Study:
Geographically, Sarawak is selected as the ideal land for the plantation of palm oil tree
given its undeveloped broad land space, specifically, in a few regions (red points
highlighted within the brown area) in Miri as shown in Figure 4 below:
Figure 1.7: Regions highlighted for palm oil tree cultivation (brown area) and
Production Company (green area) in Miri
The established production company (highlighted in the green region) is also centered
based in Miri with more accessible line of operation and convenient transportation back
and forth the processing mill and palm oil tree site. Our mills are invested in the latest
technology for the treatment of Palm Oil Mill Effluents (POME). A tertiary treatment
plant will be constructed and commissioned. The treatment plant has the capability to
reduce the Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Total Suspended Solids levels of the
mill’s final discharge to meet the stipulated requirements set by the Sarawak
Department of Energy (<20mg/L BOD and <100mg/L TSS). In order to reduce green-
house gas emissions, various technologies available for methane capture are currently
being evaluated, with a view of utilizing the captured gas for energy
generation. Methane (CH4) is one of the major green-house gases produced in the
anaerobic treatment of POME (TPB, 2018).
8
1.2.1.1 Good Agricultural Practices:
Since the beginning, Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) have been embedded into all
facets of our plantation operations. Over the past two decades, conventional agriculture
exemplified by the Green Revolution, has given way to sustainable agriculture. The
Third National Agricultural Policy, 1998-2010 provided the basis for initiatives in
sustainable agriculture. As climate change becomes an increasingly important issue,
sustainable agriculture can contribute to both climate mitigation and adaptation. The
Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) adopted and implemented by Tradewinds
Pplantation Berhad ensures the sustainability of its plantation operations. The key
elements of GAP addresses many areas, such as land and water management, zero
burning replanting techniques, integrated pest management, palm oil mill effluent
(POME) treatment system, biodiversity and quality assurance. Our palm oil mills have
been equipped with a Continuous Emission Monitoring System to comply with the
Environmental Quality (Clean Air) Regulations 1978.
1.2.1.2 Land Management:

Land is carefully prepared to support the growth of new palms, when the old ones are
felled for replanting. During this stage, we plant legume cover crops to fix atmospheric
nitrogen in the soil, reducing soil erosion and improving water retention. This will
improve soil properties, increase the soil’s biological activity and suppress the growth
of weeds.
The company also avoids planting of oil palm on very steep slope of above 25 degrees
gradient, to minimize erosion.
1.2.1.3 Effective Water Management:

We ensure a good drainage system at our plantations, especially in peat and coastal
areas with high rainfall, to better manage and remove excess water from the estates.
Plantations in areas with low rainfall, such as inland or hilly areas, are protected from
water loss by the construction of terraces, digging of silt pits between terraces to
minimize run-offs, including covering the ground with palm fronds and legume cover
crops on the terrace fringes.
9
1.2.1.4 Integrated Pest Management:
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is the combined use of ecological, cultural,
physical, biological and chemical methods to control pests and diseases in our estates.
Our IPM techniques reduce our use of chemical pesticides and their associated
environmental and food chain impacts. We use natural micro-organisms to control
nettle caterpillar and bagworm infestation, planting thick ground cover to control
rhinoceros beetle damage to young replants, complete removal and shredding of
Ganoderma infected palms to control basal stem rot. We also plant beneficial plants
such as the Turnera subulata which act as hosts for attracting insects that help control
the population of damaging pests in our plantations. The emphasis on high standards of
palm sanitation, ablation and good water table control in peat will be the integral
component of IPM against Tirathaba and Termite outbreak.
1.2.1.5 Zero Burning and Composting Initiative:

Zero burning is the practice of felling and shredding old oil palm trees and leaving the
shredded materials to decompose naturally. This approach is better that the traditional
slash and burn technique as it improves soil quality, allows for immediate replanting of
trees and is not dependent on weather conditions. This will also reduce associated
carbon emissions and mitigates the risk of uncontrolled forest fires.
1.2.1.6 Environmental Conservation:

River buffer zones have been created at our plantations to preserve the ecosystem and
provide sustainable development. At our plantations, we have also established a culture
where no open burning is allowed. This creates a harmonious balance with nature and
the ecosystem. This technique has many benefits as it allows the complete return of
organic matter to the soil. This helps to preserve, restore and improve soil chemicals,
as well as improving the fertility and physical properties of the soil (TPB, 2018).
10
1.3 Process Selection
The main side products that are required to be removed from the conversion of POME
to biogas are carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulphide (H2S).
1.3.1 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Removal
CO2 is one of the main components in biogas as biogas normally has CO 2

concentration ranging from 35% to 45% (Rasi, 2009). CO2 is a heavy gas without colour
and odour. It has to be removed from biogas as the presence of CO2 in biogas can reduce
the content of biogas especially methane (CH4) which lead to reduction of heating
power of biogas (Herout et al., 2011). There are 5 different techniques that can be used
to increase the power density of biogas by removing CO2 which is water scrub, chemical
absorption, pressure swing adsorption (PSA), membrane and cryogenic separation
(Swedish Gas Technology Centre, 2012).
1.3.1(a) Water Scrub
CO2 has higher solubility in water as compared to CH4, so water scrubber is

used to remove CO2 from biogas (Grande, 2011). Normally, this process has high
operating pressure as CO2 tend to have higher solubility in higher pressure which
eventually lead to higher separation efficiency (Nozic, 2006). This method is especially
efficient in countries with cold weather as CO2 has higher solubility in water with low
temperature (Grande, 2011). Pressurize biogas is usually fed into the scrubber from the
bottom of the column and co-current water is sprayed from top of the column and
usually some material will be added into the column to increase the surface area in order
to promote more CO2 absorption. The water that absorbed CO2 is then send to a
regeneration column where the CO2 is released by applying lower pressure or higher
temperature (Grande, 2011).
11
1.3.1(b) Chemical Absorption
Similar like water scrubbing, chemical solvent can be used to absorb CO 2 in

biogas. The solvent selection needs to be done carefully as some high energy is required
for some chemicals (Grande, 2011). Solvents that are generally used aqueous solution
of amines or aqueous solution of alkaline salts as shown as Table 1.2 below.
Table 1.2: Type of Solvents that can be used in Chemical Absorption (Kapdi et
al., 2004).
Type of Solvents Example
Aqueous solution of amines Mono-ethanolamine, di-ethanolamine and
tri-ethanolamine.
Aqueous solution of alkaline salts Sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide and
calcium hydroxide.
The process is similar with water scrubbing. Biogas is firstly fed into a column
where the biogas will be flushed with the solvents and CO2 will be absorbed by the
solvent; then, the solvent is sent to regeneration column where the CO 2 is released by
heating the solvent (Grande, 2011). Chemical absorption involves formation of forming
and breaking chemical bonds between the solvent and CO2 (Kapdi et al., 2004). Amine
scrubbing is the most economical upgrading process especially for plants with high
flow rates ( Grande and Rodrigues, 2007). Other than that, no further offgas treatment
in plant is needed to reduce methane emission as compared to PSA method (Vienna
Unibersity of Technology, 2012). Amine scrubbing method is having the lowest
methane slip percentage while requiring lowest energy demand as compared to other
methods as shown in the Table 1.3 below.
12
Table 1.3: Comparison of acid gas removal methods (Vienna University of
Technology,2012).
Parameter Water Amine PSA Membrane
Scrubbing Scrubbing Technology
Typical methane content
recovered (vol%) 95.00 - 99.00 >99.00 95.00 - 95.00 -
99.00 99.00
Methane recovery (%) 98.00 99.96 98.00 80.00 -
99.50
Methane slip (%) 2.00 0.04 2.00 0.5 - 20.00
Typical delivery pressure
(bar) 4-8 0 4-7 4-7
Electric energy demand
(kWh/m3 biomethane) 0.46 0.27 0.46 0.25 - 0.43
1.3.1(c) Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA)
PSA can be used to remove CO2 to upgrade biogas in both smaller and larger
scale plant with biogas flowrate ranging from 10 m3/hour to 100 m3/hour (Grande,
2011). This method uses pressure changes to selectively adsorb and desorb target gas
component in mixture (Augelletti et al., 2016). Firstly, biogas is compressed to a
pressure between 4 to 10 bars and then fed to a column where the biogas will be in
contact with adsorbent. CO2 will be adsorbed by the adsorbent which is normally
porous solid with high surface area to maximize the efficiency (Grande, 2011). PSA
can be operated in 2 different modes depending on the adsorbent used and the difference
is shown in the Table 1.4 below.
13
Table 1.4: Adsorbent Type and Operating Method (Santos et al., 2011).
Type of Adsorbent Example
Adsorbents with stronger adsorption Activated carbon, zeolite 13X, silica gel,
loadings of CO2. and metal organic framework.
(Equilibrium-based adsorbents)
Adsorbents with similar adsorption Carbon molecular sieves, clinoptilolites,
loadings of CO2 and CH4. titanosilicates, DDR zeolites, and
(Kinetic adsorbents) SAPO-34.
For kinetic adsorbents, the diffusion rate of CO2 of are normally controlled by
tightening the micropores size. The longer the time, the more the CO2 is retained which
lead to kinetic separation (Santos et al., 2011). PSA is widely used in industrial scale
gas separation process due to its simplicity, safety, compactness of equipment, low
energy requirements and low capacity investment cost. However, part of the methane
gas will be lost with the off-gas in PSA method as this method has low methane
recovery. 85 to 90% of methane can be recovered by using PSA but off-gas with 15 to
20% methane will be produced (Augelletti et al., 2016). Other than that, additional cost
is needed to build a pre-treatment plant to remove water and hydrogen sulfide contents
in the biogas as these 2 components can irreversibly harm the adsorbent materials
(Vienna University of Technology, 2012).
1.3.1.1(d) Membrane
CO2 is separated from biogas by permeating through the porous structure of
membrane. Different type of membrane can be used, and the most commonly used
membranes are hollow fibres made of different polymers (Grande, 2011). To obtain
high purity CH4, membrane with high permeability should be used; however, high
operating pressure up to 40 bars must be applied (Kapdi et al., 2004).
14
1.3.1(e) Cryogenic Separation
Cryogenic separation uses fractional condensations and distillations at low

temperature and this method allows the recovered methane which is in liquid form to
be transported conveniently (Kapdi et al., 2004). Cryogenic separation operates at low
temperature of -100 oC and a high operating pressure of 40 bars. Therefore, a linear
series of compressors and heat exchangers/coolers need to be used to maintain the
operating requirement (Zhao et al., 2010). Two of the biggest problems of using
cryogenic separation is high capital investment costs and high operating costs as many
equipment and energy are needed in order to maintain the low operating temperature
and high operating pressure (Zhao et al., 2010).
1.3.2 Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) Removal
Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) is a main impurity component that can be found in

raw biogas. Due to its acidic characteristic, high concentration H2S (>100ppm) in
biogas can cause corrosion to plant equipment (Magomnang and Villanueva, 2014).
Removal of H2S is especially essential if biogas is needed to be used as fuel as it will
corrode the mechanical part of the engine (Zhao et al., 2010). Besides, burning of biogas
will produce sulphur dioxide which is a type of hazardous gas (Magomnang and
Villanueba, 2014). H2S can be removed via 6 different methods which is water
scrub/chemical absorption, iron sponge method, membrane, biological filter and
adsorption on activated carbon (Ryckebosch et al., 2011).
1.3.2(a) Water Scrub/ Chemical Absorption
Water scrub can be used for H2S removal and the process method is similar with
CO2 removal. However, this process is not preferable if it’s only used to remove H2S
as high amount of water is needed to remove small amount of H2S (Kapdi et al., 2004).
Chemical such as NaOH can be added into water to increase the H 2S absorption
efficiency but the end products (sodium sulphide and sodium hydrosulphide) in water
cannot be regenerated and it is hard to dispose (Kapdi et al., 2004).
15
Chemical absorption is preferable as compared to water scrub as H 2S absorption
is effective in iron salt solutions like iron chloride solution. Furthermore, the reaction
will yield iron trichloride (FeCl3) which is insoluble precipitates, so the removal of the
end product is easier (Kapdi, et al., 2004). This method is having low electricity
requirement and it is effective (Ryckebosch, Drouillon and Vervaeren, 2011).
1.3.2(b) Iron Sponge Method
H2S reacts well with chemical such as iron oxide (Fe2O3) and iron hydroxide
(Fe(OH)3) to form iron sulphide as shown in the equations below (Ryckebosch et al.,
2011).
Fe2O3 + 3H2S → Fe2S3 + 3H2O --- Reaction between iron oxide and H2S
2Fe(OH)3 + 3H2S → Fe2S3 + 6H2O --- Reaction between iron hydroxide and H2S
Wood chips impregnated with iron oxide is used as reaction bed that can be
referred as “iron sponge” to create large surface-to-volume ratio to maximize the
reactions (Ryckebosch et al., 2011). This method is having advantages of low capital
investment cost, simple and high H2S removal efficiency up to more than 99%. But iron
sponge is sensitive to water and it has high operation cost as the iron sponge surface
will be reducing throughout the process. Besides, can be toxic (Ryckebosch et al, 2011).
1.3.2(c) Membrane
Biogas can be upgraded by permeating through membrane so H2S and CH4 can
be separated by the micropores. However, membrane selection has to be done carefully
as the material used should be chemically stable and resistant to H2S so that there will
not be any problem occur during the process. Besides, the material should be having
high heat and pressure resistance as high operating pressure and temperature in this
process has to be used (Vrbová and Ciahotny, 2017). This method can have H 2S
removal up to 98% and CO2 removal can be done with this method too; however, this
method requires high operating cost and the maintenance is complex (Ryckebosch et
al., 2011).
16
1.3.2(d) Biological Filter
4 to 6% of oxygen is added into biogas before feeding into a filter bed that is
filled with plastic carrier, the H2S is then oxidized by the bacteria (Ryckebosch et al.,
2011). At the temperature of 35oC, H2S is promoted to sulphur by oxidation and the
sulphur produced will be retained in the liquid of the filter (Ryckebosch et al., 2011).
Biological filter is widely used for the removal of H 2S as it also needs low operation
costs and it is environmental friendly (Biological filter is widely used for the removal
of H2S as it is economical and environmental friendly (Ryckebosch et al., 2011; Zhao
et al., 2010). The disadvantages of this method are nutrients are required to cultivate
the bacteria; besides, small amount of oxygen and nitrogen will be left in the treated
biogas (Zhao et al., 2010).
1.3.2(e) Adsorption on Activated Carbon
Under the operating pressure ranging from 7 to 8 bars and the operating
temperature from 50 to 70oC, activated carbon impregnated with potassium iodide can
react with H2S to form sulphur and water as shown in the equation below (Zhao et al.,
2010)
2H2S + O2 → 2S + 2H2O
The biogas is mixed with 4 to 6% of oxygen before entering the column and the
operating temperature is achieved by using the heat generated during compression
(Ryckebosch et al., 2011). The activated carbon can be sent to regenerate or replace
once it is saturated (Zhao et al., 2010). This method has high removal efficiency and
purification rate while it only need low operating temperature while it can handle biogas
in high capacity. However, it requires high capital investment cost and operation cost,
and small amount of biogas will be lost throughout the process. Furthermore, the
regeneration of activated carbon requires high temperature up to 450 oC and temperature
up to 850oC is needed to remove the residue (Ryckebosch et al., 2011).
17
1.3.3 Process Selection
Chemical absorption with diethanolamine (DEA) is selected as the chemical

reaction is strongly selective thus result in low amount of methane absorbed in the
solvent which eventually lead to high methane recovery and very low methane losses
(Vienna University of Technology, 2012). The process can be operated under
atmospheric pressure while the operating temperature for amine scrubbing is relatively
high which the range from 37.78 to 204.44 oC across the plants as the process
principally uses temperature as variable to desorb acid gases from the solvent (Shimekit
and Mukhtar, 2012).
18
CHAPTER 2
PROCESS SYNTHESIS OF PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM (PFD)
2.1 Process Database
The complete system comprises an absorber column, flash tank (separator), and
a regenerating (distillation) column. The absorption process is operated counter-
currently (liquid flows downward, gas flows upward) where the gas enters the column
from below (untreated biogas) and leaves at the top (methane), while liquid enters from
the top (lean amine) and flows in opposite direction and exits from the bottom (rich
amine). The composition and process parameter such as operating temperature and
pressure as well as flow rate are listed accordingly down in Table 2.1 (a) Absorber, (b)
Separator, and (c) Regenerator below.
Design Basis of the 3 major components/crucial equipment:

Table 2.1 (a) Absorber (ABS-01)
19
Absorber is operating ideally at a set temperature of as low as 168°F and
pressure as high as 525psi to minimize stage requirements or absorbent flow rate to
lower the equipment volume required to accommodate the gas flow
(Separationprocesses.com, 2010). Internal diameter is 1.50m and height of the column
is 12.19m. Operation is continuous.
Table 2.1 (b) Flash Separator (FD-01)
Internal diameter of the separator column is 1.50m and its height is 5.539m. Operation
is continuous.
Table 2.1 (c) Regeneration column (REGEN-01)
Internal diameter of the regeneration column is 1.50m and its height is 5.5379m.
Operation is continuous.
20
2.2 Process Synthesis Approaches and Heuristic
Process design heuristics can be known as engineering rule of thumb. It is an

important statement about the size or performance of the equipment that used in the
industry and save unnecessary steps for further calculation. These statements are
subject to varying degrees of qualification. However, some rules like value of
equipment or cost estimation should be provided so that the computer-aided results can
be evaluated quickly.
Study process heuristics is to understand the importance of selecting reaction

paths that do not involve toxic or hazardous chemical. Existence of toxic chemical can
be reduced by decreasing the residence time and prevent storage of these chemically in
a large volume. The chemical process flow sheet can be distributed well and removed
the inert species. Then high selectivity of the product can be achieved.
Heuristic 1: Select raw materials and chemical reactions to avoid or reduce, the
handling and storage of hazardous and toxic chemicals.
In the production of biogas, the raw material we used is palm oil mill effluent
(POME). Biogas are produced after anaerobic digestion of POME which mainly
consists of methane, hydrogen sulphide, carbon dioxide and other flue gases. The
storage device we used is spherical pressure vessel made by carbon steel, where the
pressure are controlled in 525psi and the temperature is 111°F. To prevent corrosion of
the tank components and to ensure safe operation, biogas must first be cleaned by
minimizing the H2S and CO2 concentration as low as possible. The product is stored
and transport in accordance with all applicable laws. Storage facilities must be
adequately fitted with safety devices such as rupture disks and pressure relief valves.
All electrical equipment in storage and/or handling areas should be installed in
accordance with applicable requirements of the Department of Occupational Safety and
Health Malaysia. (DOSH) In short, the methane gas must be well-guarded under
controlled condition, along with helps of material safety data sheet (MSDS) to minimize
accidents
21
Heuristic 2: Use an excess of one chemical reactant in a reaction operation to
completely consume a second valuable, toxic, or hazardous chemical reactant
(based on MSDSs).
Biogas mainly consists of methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide and

other flue gases. As we know, high concentration of carbon dioxide and hydrogen
sulphide are very toxic and corrosive. Hence, we use diethanolamine to dilute and
remove sour gas and carbon dioxide from biogas in gas treating process. In the absorber,
the down-flowing amine solution absorbs H2S and CO2 from the up-flowing sour gas
to produce a sweetened gas stream as a product and an amine rich solution in the
absorbed acid gases.
Heuristic 11: Separate vapor mixtures using partial condensation, cryogenic

distillation, absorption, adsorption, and membrane separation.
One of the challenges of the production are to separate the acid gases from the
methane gas. When the biogas pass through the absorption column, it removes gaseous
pollutants such as hydrogen sulphide and carbon dioxide. When the stream is fed into
the tower and passes through the column, nozzle on the top of the column sprays down
diethanolamine and make contact with the biogas. The contaminated liquid drains down
through the column to the bottom of the tower. And the wastewater collected on the
bottom of the column contains high concentration of the carbon dioxide and hydrogen
sulphide. The gas stream flew upwards to the top and exits the column.
22
2.3 Preliminary Process Screening
In this case, a biogas filtration system which consists of two filters connected by carbon
steel piping is used (Figure 2.1 to 2.3).
Figure 2.1: Industrial model of the first filter. Figure 2.2: Industrial model of the second
filter.
The first filter is known as sieve filter. It consists of several sieves in stainless
superposed on each other. Inside the each sieve, rust is inserted. When the biogas
produced by digester, enters the top of the filter, it is dispersed in the rust which is in
the superimposed sieves. This filter helps to eliminate some H2S thanks to the absorbing
power of rust to avoid saturation of KOH solution by this gas. Consequently, the biogas
is obtained without corrosive elements. Thereafter the biogas enters in the second filter
for the final purification.
23
Figure 2.3: The lateral view of the filtration system & the sectional view of the filtration
system
1: Pipe of raw biogas; 2: Depressant; 3: Sieve; 4: Reducer 100 to 5; 5: Connecting pipe;

6: Reducer 14 to 4; 7: Pipe of purified biogas; 8: Reducer 8 to 4; 9: Column of bubbler;
10: Solution KOH; 11: Porous cone; 12: Closure of bubbler.
The second filter is called a bubbler in KOH solution. It consists of a Poly Vinyl
Chloride (PVC) column occupied below by a conical base with holes. The column and
base are immersed in the solution KOH. The biogas coming out from the first filter
enters the column and spell in the conical base producing the bubbles dissolved in the
KOH solution. This filter then helps to remove some of the CO2. Finally, a filtrated
biogas with high methane concentration and with lesser of CO 2 and H2S is produced
(Elasri et al., 2015).
24
2.4 Development of Base Case Flowsheet and Plant Layout
BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM (BFD):
Biogas from
POME
Absorber
CH4
Column
Rich Amine
(H2S, CO2, CH4, DEA, H2O)
Separator Light Gases (HC,

Column H2O)
H2S, CO2, DEA

Lean Amine
Regenerator Acid Gases

Column (H2S, CO2)
DEA
Makeup Water Makeup

Tank DEA Makeup
Figure 2.4: BFD of Acid Gas Removal from Biogas
25
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM (PFD):
26
Process Description:
Absorption refers to the dissolving of CO2 and H2S molecules into a liquid
solution such as aqueous amine. The complete system comprises an absorber column,
flash tank (separator), regenerating (distillation) column, shell and tube heat exchanger,
pump and cooler. Under continuous operational conditions, the biogas is introduced at
the bottom of the absorber column as small bubbles, passing through the DEA solution
flowing downwards to the flash separator.
The absorption process is operated counter-currently (liquid flows downward,
gas flows upward) where the gas enters the column from below (untreated biogas) and
leaves at the top (methane), while liquid enters from the top (lean amine) and flows in
opposite direction and exits from the bottom (rich amine). The biogas which is in
contact with the DEA solvent, typically contains a reagent that selectively reacts with
CO2 and H2S. The contact occurs in traditional liquid-gas contactor (absorber), in
which CO2 and H2S transfers from gas phase into liquid phase. In the flash tank, the
vapor and liquid is separated. The purpose is to prevent foam formation in regenerating
column, which occurs during condensation when released gas agglomerates at the
liquid surface to form large bubbles. If large foam layer is present, it can occupy a large
amount of the vessel space, decreasing the space available for liquid collection or
gravity settling (Spe.org, 2018).
So, light gases such as hydrocarbon and water vapor are flashed out from its
outlet, whereas, CO2 and H2S-loaded rich amine solution is fed into regenerator vessel
where it is heated to liberate gaseous CO2 and H2S. In the regenerator column, hot
vapors of rich amine liquid are cooled and allowed to drip back, whilst the reboiler boil
the amine liquid from the bottom of the column to generate vapors which are returned
to the column to drive the distillation separation. The lean amine solution is then
circulated back to the absorber with its temperature being lowered down by cooler to
meet absorber operating temperature.
The heat exchanger or the rich/lean amine exchanger is shell-and-tube type. It
allows the heat transfer between two fluids without them having to mix together or
come into direct contact. The purpose is to reduce the reboiler duty by recovering some
of the sensible heat from the lean amine (flowing through the shell) to the corrosive
rich amine flowing through the tube (Jack, 2009). The makeup tank is to maintain the
27
concentration of DEA at mass composition of water to DEA at ratio of 0.93:0.07. Once
the acidic gas is efficiently and economically removed, the treated biogas with high
methane content flowing out the absorber outlet can be used for power generation,
cogeneration, and heating application.
PLANT LAYOUT:
Plant Layout (Top View)

As illustrated in the plant layout, the major equipment as seen located in the production
site, the blue cylindrical shape is the absorption column; red cylindrical shape is the
separator, and the green one is the regeneration column.
28
Plant Layout (Front View)
Plant Layout (Side View)
29
CHAPTER 3
MATERIAL AND ENERGY BALANCES
3.1 Material Balances
Three assumptions were made in the material balances below which is:
1. No DEA is loss (In Aspen Hysys simulation, DEA is losses and the loss
concentration maintain by DEA Makeup stream)
2. Basic input is 62000 kg/hr.
3. No reaction is occur
3.1.1 Material Balances for Absorber (ABS-01)
Initial flow is starts from biogas reactor to the Absorber column (ABS-01) at
flow rate of 6600 kg/hr. The flow composed with 62.5 % of Methane gas, 37.2% of
Carbon dioxide and 3000 ppm of hydrogen sulphide (Sarawak Energy, 2018). Another
input at 55400 kg/hr is flows to ABS-01 which is lean amine contains 7% of
diethanolamine (DEA) and 93 % of water. Mass transfer occur at ABS-01 where 98 %
methane with 2 % of water is separated from the acid gas and exit at top of column
while rich amine exit at the bottom. Rich amine flow composition calculated as below:
30
Overall Balance:
Biogas (B) + Lean Amine (LA) = Methane (M) + Rich Amine (RA)
6600 + 55400 = 2600 + RA
RA = 59400 kg/hr.
CO2 Balance:
6600(0.372) = 59400(CO2,RA)
CO2,RA = 0.0413
H2S Balance:
6600(0.003) = 59400(H2SRA)
H2SRA = 3.33 x 10-4
CH4 Balance:
6600(0.625) = 2600(0.98) + 59400(CH4,RA)
CH4,RA = 0.0265
H2O Balance:
55400(0.93) = 2600(0.02) = 59400(H2ORA)
H2ORA = 0.866
31
3.1.2 Material Balances for Separator (FD-01)
The rich amine flow stream from the ABS-01 is then flows to the separator
tower (FD-01) to remove any hydrocarbons from the stream. This is important to avoid
foaming in separating towers. The flow enter the FD-01 at 59400 kg/hr and light
hydrocarbons are separated at 4 kg/hr. At the bottom of FD-01 a stream exit to the
Regen-01 with calculated compositions as below.
Overall Balance:
59400 = 4 + R
R = 59396 kg/hr.
H2S Balance:
59400(3.33 x 10-4) = 4(0.02) + 59396(H2SR)
H2SR = 3.317 x 10-4
CO2 Balance:
59400(0.0413) = 4(0.02) + 59396(CO2,R)
CO2,R = 0.0413
H2O Balance:
59400(0.866) = 4(0.01) = 59396(H2OR)
H2OR = 0.866
32
CH4 Balance:
59400(0.0265) = 4(0.95) + 59396(CH4,R)
CH4,R = 0.0265.
3.1.3 Material Balances for Regenerator (REGEN-01)
The flow stream from FD-01 then enters the regenerator tower (REGEN-01)
with flow rate of 59396 kg/hr. REGEN-01 is operates to recover the DEA from any
contaminants and recycled back to the ABS-01 as lean amine. At the top of REGEN-
01, acid gases are remove from the rich amine and exit at 4000 kg/hr. The compositions
of acid gases are calculated as below.
H2S Balance:
59396(3.317 x 10-4) = 4000(H2SAG)
H2SAG = 4.925 x 10-3
CO2 Balance:
59396(0.0413) = 4000(CO2,AG)
CO2,AG = 0.613
H2O Balance:
59396(0.866) = 55396(0.93) + 4000(H2OAG)
H2OAG = -0.02
CH4 Balance:
59396(0.0265) = 4000(CH4,AG)
CH4,AG = 0.39.
33
3.2 Energy Balances
The energy in the plant system can be measured as heat content which is also known as
enthalpy (H) as the pressure in the plant is constant so the equation below is used:
ΔH = mCpΔT
ΔH = heat of reaction
m = molar flow rate
Cp = heat capacity
ΔT= change of temperature
The total heat energy in a stream, Q is the combination of heat of reaction, ΔH and heat
of formation, ΔHfo as shown in the equation below:
Q = ΔH + ΔHfo
The heat capacities of different chemical species at different range of temperature can
be determined by using the equation below:
Cp/R = A+BT+CT2+DT-2
R = 8.3145 J K-1 mol-1

T = temperature in Kelvin
Table 3.1: Constant A, B, C and D for Different Chemical species under Ideal
Gas State
Chemical Species A B C D
Methane 1.702 9.081 x 10-3 -2.164 x 10-6 0
Carbon Dioxide 5.457 1.045 x 10-3 0 -1.157 x 105
Hydrogen Sulfide 3.931 1.490 x 10-3 0 -0.232 x 105
Water (g) 3.470 1.450 x 10-3 0 0.121 x 105
Water (l) 8.712 1.25 x 10-3 -1.80 x 10-7 0
Heat of formation is the change of enthalpy of a chemical under the constant
temperature of 298K. The heat of formation of the chemical species is shown below:
34
Table 3.2: Heat of Formation for Different Chemical Species
Chemical Species Heat of Formation, ΔHfo (kJ/mol)
Methane -74.520
Carbon Dioxide -393.509
Hydrogen Sulfide -20.630
Water (g) -241.830
Water (l) -285.830
Diethanolamine (DEA) -491.200
Unit change is applied in the calculation below and the conversion is shown below:
Unit used in Simulation Unit used in Calculation
1 MMSCFD 49,804.5 mol/hr
1 MMBtu/hr 1,055,055,852.62 J/hr
3.2.1 Biogas Stream (310.928K)
Heat Capacity at
Chemical Species Molar flow rate (mol/hr)
310.928K (J/mol.K)
Methane 186,766.940 35.886
Carbon Dioxide 49,804.517 38.121
Hydrogen Sulfide 12,451.129 34.541
ΔH = [(186,766.940 x 35.886) + (49,804.517 x 38.121) + (12,451.129 x 34.541)] x

(310.928 - 298)
= 116,752,649.7 J/hr ≈ 0.111 MMBtu/hr
ΔHfo = (186,766.940 x -74,520) + (49,804.517 x -393,509) + (12,451.129 x -20,630)

= -3.377 x 1010 J/hr ≈ -32.011 MMBtu/hr
Q = ΔH + ΔHfo
= 0.111 MMBtu/hr + (-32.011 MMBtu/hr)
= -31.900 MMBtu/hr
35
The change of enthalpy in the Biogas Stream is -31.90 MMBtu/hr which is close
to the value of the simulation result of -32.09 MMBtu/hr. The small difference between
the result can be caused by the small differences in constants used or the amount of
decimal places used.
3.2.2 Methane Stream (316.539K)
Heat Capacity at
316.539K (J/mol.K)
Methane 185,554.863 36.248
Water (g) 614.358 33.672
ΔH = 37,860,718.96 J/hr ≈ 0.036 MMBtu/hr

ΔHfo = -1.398 x 1010 J/hr ≈ -13.247 MMBtu/hr
Q = 0.036 MMBtu/hr + (-13.247 MMBtu/hr)

= -13.211 MMBtu/hr
3.2.3 Rich Amine Stream (336.372K)
Heat Capacity at
336.372K (J/mol.K)
DEA 157,954.573 137.000
Methane 1,185.845 37.513
Water (l) 2,149,225.741 75.763
ΔH = 7,174,700,938 J/hr ≈ 6.800 MMBtu/hr


= -668.255 MMBtu/hr
36
3.2.4 Light Hydrocarbon Stream (336.872K)
Heat Capacity at
336.872K (J/mol.K)
Methane 1,065.084 37.545
Carbon Dioxide 33.693 39.822
Hydrogen Sulfide 16.730 35.158
Water (g) 54.518 33.799
ΔH = 21,880.575 J/hr ≈ 2.074 x 10-5 MMBtu/hr

ΔHfo = -108,556,578.3 J/hr ≈ -0.103 MMBtu/hr
Q = 2.074 x 10-5 MMBtu/hr + (-0.103 MMBtu/hr)

= -0.103 MMBtu/hr
3.2.5 Acid Gas Stream (316.428K)
Heat Capacity at
316.428K (J/mol.K)
Methane 155.510 36.241
Water (g) 2,416.878 33.671
ΔH = 49,798,195.31 J/hr ≈ 0.047 MMBtu/hr


= -19.315 MMBtu/hr
37
3.2.6 Regen Bottoms Stream (404.650K)
Heat Capacity at
404.650K (J/mol.K)
DEA 157,923.346 137.000
Water (l) 2,146,374.234 76.396
ΔH = 1.980 x 1010 J/hr ≈ 18.766 MMBtu/hr


= -636.586 MMBtu/hr
3.2.7 Stream To Pump (377.428K)
Heat Capacity at
377.428K (J/mol.K)
DEA 157,923.346 137.000
Water (l) 2,146,604.78 76.145
ΔH = 1.470 x 1010 J/hr ≈ 13.937 MMBtu/hr


= -641.477 MMBtu/hr
38
3.2.8 Stream To Exchanger (336.872K)
Heat Capacity at
336.872K (J/mol.K)
DEA 158,125.303 137.000
Methane 237.069 37.545
Water (l) 2,149,271.362 75.767
ΔH = 7,268,206,613 J/hr ≈ 6.889 MMBtu/hr


= -668.271 MMBtu/hr
3.2.9 Purge Stream (377.428K)
Heat Capacity at
377.428K (J/mol.K)
DEA 209.279 137.000
ΔH = 2,277,297.900 J/hr ≈ 0.002 MMBtu/hr

ΔHfo = -103,886,095.600 J/hr ≈ -0.098 MMBtu/hr

= -0.095 MMBtu/hr
39
3.2.10 Water Makeup Stream (377.428K)
Heat Capacity at
377.428K (J/mol.K)
Water (l) 246.981 76.145
ΔH = 18,806.368 J/hr ≈ 1.782 x 10-5 MMBtu/hr

ΔHfo = -70,594,579.23 J/hr ≈ -0.067 MMBtu/hr
Q = 1.782 x 10-5 MMBtu/hr + (-0.067 MMBtu/hr)

= -0.067 MMBtu/hr
3.2.11 Stream To Cooler (377.928K)
Heat Capacity at
Molar flow rate (mol/hr)
Chemical Species 377.928K (J/mol.K)
DEA 157,923.346 137.000
Water (l) 2,146,604.78 76.150
ΔH = 1.480 x 1010 J/hr ≈ 14.026 MMBtu/hr


= -641.388 MMBtu/hr
40
3.2.12 Lean Amine Stream (316.483K)
Heat Capacity at
316.483K (J/mol.K)
DEA 158,162.159 137.000
Water (l) 2,149,850.887 75.575
ΔH = 3,404,176,221 J/hr ≈ 3.227 MMBtu/hr


= -653.179 MMBtu/hr
3.2.13 Regen Feed Stream (366.483K)
Heat Capacity at
366.483K (J/mol.K)
DEA 158,125.303 137.000
Methane 237.069 39.406
Water (l) 2,149,271.362 76.044
ΔH = 1.285 x 1010 J/hr ≈ 12.181 MMBtu/hr


= -662.890 MMBtu/hr
41
3.2.14 Stream To Separator (336.872K)
Heat Capacity at
336.872K (J/mol.K)
DEA 157,954.573 137.000
Methane 1,185.845 37.545
Water (l) 2,149,225.741 75.767
ΔH = 7,268,587,936 J/hr ≈ 6.889 MMBtu/hr


= -668.166 MMBtu/hr
3.2.15 Saturated Steam Stream (420.817K)
Heat Capacity at
420.817K (J/mol.K)
Water (g) 469,307.804 34.492
ΔH = 1,988,083,580 J/hr ≈ 1.842 MMBtu/hr


= -105.728 MMBtu/hr
42
3.2.16 Saturated Condensate Stream (420.817K)
Heat Capacity at
420.817K (J/mol.K)
Water (l) 469,307.804 76.544
ΔH = 4,411,917,822 J/hr ≈ 4.176 MMBtu/hr


= -122.966 MMBtu/hr
3.2.17 Stream To Tank (377.428K)
Heat Capacity at
377.428K (J/mol.K)
DEA 157,923.346 137.000
Water (l) 2,146,374.234 76.145
ΔH = 1.470 x 1010 J/hr ≈ 13.936 MMBtu/hr


= -641.416 MMBtu/hr
43
3.2.18 Stream To Recycle (316.483K)
Heat Capacity at
316.483K (J/mol.K)
DEA 157,923.346 137.000
Water (l) 2,146,604.78 75.575
ΔH = 3,399,036,179 J/hr ≈ 3.222 MMBtu/hr


= -652.192 MMBtu/hr
3.2.19 Energy Balance for Reboiler
QREB = Qsaturated steam - Qsteam condensate

= -105.728 MMBtu/hr - (-122.966 MMBtu/hr)
= 17.238 MMBtu/hr
44
3.2.20 Energy Balance for Regenerator
QCOND = QRegen Feed + QREB - QAcid Gas - QRegen Bottoms

= -662.890 + 17.238 - (-19.315) - (-636.685)
= 10.348 MMBtu/hr
45
3.2.21 Energy Balance for Pump
WPUMP1 = QTo Cooler - QTo Pump

= -641.388 - (-641.477)
= 0.089 MMBtu/hr
3.2.22 Energy Balance for Cooler
QCOOL1 = QTo Cooler - QTo Recycle

= -641.388 - (-652.192)
= `10.804 MMBtu/hr
46
3.3 Simulation using Aspen Hysys for Selected Chemical Process
Figure 3.1 below shows the flowsheet of Aspen Hysys for separation of acid gases from biogas produced by POME.
Figure 3.1: Aspen Hysys Flowsheet
47
Methodology of Aspen Hysys:
Simulations in Aspen Hysys starts at selecting Peng-Robinson EOS with a component list
provided is used for the simulation. Peng-Robinson EOS is one of the most enhanced model in
Aspen HYSYS. With a large applicability range in term of T and P, special treatments for some
key components and also provides the largest binary interaction parameter database. The
simulation build up by connecting all the streams with equipments such as ABS-01, FD-01, L-
R-Exchanger-01, REGEN-01, Makeup-01, Pump-01 and Cooler-01 to complete the flowsheet.
All the design parameters and conditions of equipment and material streams used in this aspen
hysys were shown following Figure 3.2 to Figure 3.36.
Figure 3.2: Composition of Inlet Stream
Figure 3.3: Conditions of Biogas Stream

48
Figure 3.4: Design of ABS-01
Figure 3.5: Conditions of ABS-01
49
Figure 3.6: Conditions of Rich Amine Stream
Figure 3.7: Design of VLV-01
50
Figure 3.8: Conditions of VLV-01
Figure 3.9: Conditions of To Separator Stream
51
Figure 3.10: Design of FD-01
Figure 3.11: Conditions of FD-01
52
Figure 3.12: Conditions of Light Gases Stream
Figure 3.13: Conditions of To Exchanger Stream
53
Figure 3.14: Design of L-R Exchanger-01
Figure 3.15: Conditions of L-R Exchanger-01
54
Figure 3.16: Conditions of Regen Feed Stream
Figure 3.17: Design of REGEN-01
55
Figure 3.18: Conditions of REGEN-01
Figure 3.19: Condenser and Reboiler Parameter
56
Figure 3.20: Conditions of Acid Gases Stream
Figure 3.21: Conditions of Regen Bottoms
57
Figure 3.22: Conditions of To Tank Stream
Figure 3.23: Design of MAKEP-01
58
Figure 3.24: Conditions of Water Makeup Stream
Figure 3.25: Conditions of DEA Makeup Stream
59
Figure 3.26: Conditions of To Pump Stream
Figure 3.27: Design of Pump-01
60
Figure 3.28: Parameters of Pump-01
Figure 3.29: Conditions of Pump-01
61
Figure 3.30: Conditions of To Cooler Stream
Figure 3.31: Design of Cooler-01
62
Figure 3.32: Parameters of Cooler-01
Figure 3.33: Conditions of Cooler-01
63
Figure 3.34: Conditions of To Recycle Stream
Figure 3.35: Design of RCY-01
64
Figure 3.36: Conditions of Lean Amine Stream
65
Summary of Simulation Results:
Figure 3.37 below summarises the parameters such as vapour fraction, temperature, pressure, molar flow, mass flow, liquid volume flow and heat
flow for each streams in Aspen Hysys Simulation.
Figure 3.37: Summary of Process Parameters
66
Figure 3.38 summarises all compositions of all material streams developed in Aspen Simulation Hysys.
Figure 3.38: Summary of Compositions
67
CHAPTER 4
PROCESS INTEGRATION, OPTIMIZATION AND WASTE TREATMENT
4.1 Heat Exchanger Network Design to Achieve Maximum Heat Recovery
To achieve maximum heat recovery in order to minimize the energy usage, a heat
exchanger was added into the plant. The heat exchanger is used to handle the heat duty of 4.1
MMBtu/hr. The heat exchanger is placed in between the Stream to Exchanger (cold stream in),
Regen Feed Stream (cold stream out), Regen Bottom Stream (hot stream in) and Stream to
Tank (hot stream out). The reason of the placement of heat exchanger is due to the higher
temperature of Regen Bottom Stream at the temperature of 131.5 oC is needed to be reduced to
at least 112.8oC before feeding into the makeup tank. On the other hand, the stream to feed into
the regenerator is required to heat up from 75.5oC to 93.3oC before feeding into the regenerator.
Therefore, the excess heat from the Regen Bottom Stream is used to heat up the Stream to
Exchanger.
Although the regenerated stream is cooled down after going through the heat exchanger,
the temperature is still too high for the stream to feed into the absorber. So, a cooler is added
to remove the excess heat from the stream until it reach 43.3 oC. The heat duty for the cooler is
13.246 MMBtu/hr in order to reduce the stream temperature by 70.3 oC.
68
4.2 Optimization using Linear Programming Method
4.2.1 Optimization in Microsoft Excel Solver
4.2.1.1 Cost of Raw Material

Table 4.1: Cost of Raw Material.
Component kg/hr ton/year RM/ton RM/year
Biogas 6590.69 57 734.51 9.375 541 261.03

Total: 541 261.03
* Biogas price obtained from Mel, et al., 2015.
4.2.1.2 Selling Price of the Product

Table 4.2: Selling Price of the Product.
Component MCFD MMBtu/day MMBtu/year RM/MMbtu RM/year
Methane 3188 3267.73 1192722.43 28.05 33 455 864.16
Total: 33 455 864.16
* Methane price obtained from Hafidz Mapar, 2017.
4.2.1.3 Utilities Costs

 According to water tariff (Kuching Water Board, 2018), the purchase price of industrial
water for more than 25 m3/month is RM1.06/ m3
Table 4.3: Water Cost.

Types of Utilities Usage (m3/month) Cost (RM/year)
Water 150000 1 908 000

Total: 1 908 000
69
 According to Sarawak Energy (2018), the tariff for electricity is RM 0.245/kWh.
Table 4.4: Electricity Cost.

Types of Average Usage Industrial Charge Cost (US$/year)
Utilities (kWh) (RM/kWh)
Electricity 187.57 0.245 397 048
Total: 397 048
Table 4.5: Total Utilities Cost.
Utilities RM/year
Water 1 908 000
Electricity 397 048
Total Utilities Cost (US$) 2 305 048
4.2.1.4 Total Labour Costs

Table 4.6: Paid for Labours.
Labour Average Salary per Quantity Total (RM/year)
month (RM/month)
Manager 4000 1 48 000
Engineer 3300 4 158 400
Supervisor 2500 2 60 000
Technician 1500 6 108 000
Operators 1000 20 240 000
Total: 614 400
70
Using Excel Solver
Table 4.7: Profit estimation for Plant using excel solver before optimization.
ORIGINAL
TOTAL
Raw Material: Biogas
Cost of Raw Material (RM/year): 541261.03 541261.03
Products: Methane
Selling Price of the Products 33455864.16 33455864.16
(RM/year):
Utilities: Electricity Water

Cost of Utilities (RM/year): 397048 1 908 000 2305048
Labour: Manager Engineer Supervisor Technician Operators

Quantities: 1 4 2 6 20
Paid for Labour (RM/year): 48000 158400 60000 108000 240000 614400
Available Usage Balance

Funding (RM/year): 4000000 3460709.03 539291
Profit (RM/year): 29995155.13
71
Table 4.8: Profit estimation for Plant using excel solver after optimization.
OPTIMISED
TOTAL
Raw Material: Biogas
Cost of Raw Material (RM/year): 541261.03 541261.03
Products: Methane
Selling Price of the Products 33455864.16 33455864.16
(RM/year):
Utilities: Electricity Water

Cost of Utilities (RM/year): 397048 1 908 000 2305048
Labour: Manager Engineer Supervisor Technician Operators

Quantities: 1 4 2 6 20
Paid for Labour (RM/year): 48000 158400 60000 108000 240000 614400
Available Usage Balance

Funding (RM/year): 4000000 4000000 0
Profit (RM/year): 29455864.16
72
Table 4.9: Sensitivity Report for the Plant.
Variable Cells
Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable
Cell Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease
$B$13 Raw Materials Raw Materials 4000000 0 1 1E+30 0
$B$14 Utilities Raw Materials 0 0 1 0 1E+30
$B$15 Labours Raw Materials 0 0 1 0 1E+30
Constraints
Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable
Cell Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease
$E$8 1. Funding Available 4000000 -1 0 4000000 29455864.16
$E$9 2. Methane Selling Available 33455864.16 0 0 29455864.16 1E+30
4.2.2 Optimization in Aspen HYSYS

Process optimization is the process of using the operating conditions that can maximize the
efficiency of a system. In this project, process optimization is carried out by trial and error
method. Process optimization in this project involves determining the best property method for
absorption column (ABS-01) and distillation column (REGEN-01) that can yield the higher
conversions and selectivity of methane. The selection process is also guided by the following
factors which are process species and compositions, pressure and temperature ranges, system
phases involved, nature of fluids and lastly, availability of data (Edwards, 2008).
There are several property thermodynamic models that can be used in ASPEN HYSYS
simulations such as IDEAL, SRK, NRTL and PENG-ROBINSON thermodynamic models.
The IDEAL model is used for systems that are composed of ideal liquid and ideal gas. An ideal
gas law is PV = NRT with fugacity of 1 (Hussain, n.d.).
The Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) model gives better results than Peng-Robinson.
However, SRK cannot be used for non-ideal chemicals such as acid, alcohol or other
components. Examples of SRK model application includes Air Separation, Atmospheric Crude
Towers, Reservoir Systems and Hydrate Inhibition. SRK can also represent vacuum conditions
and heavy components, as well as handling light components and high pressured systems
(Yuanxi Zhao, 2016).
73
The Non-Random-Two-Liquid (NRTL) equation is an extension of the Wilson
Equation. The NRTL methods uses statistical mechanics and liquid cell theory in order to
represent liquid structures. NRTL model can be used for applications involving Vapour-Liquid
Extraction, Liquid-Liquid Extraction and Vapour-Liquid-Liquid Extraction. NRTL model is
commonly used in chemical systems involving non-ideal chemicals (Yuanxi Zhao, 2016).
The Peng-Robinson (PR) model is ideal for VLE calculations and calculating liquid
densities in hydrocarbon systems. (Yuanxi Zhao, 2016). The feed for the acid gases separation
is considered ideal mixture of methane, oxygen and air. Methane is primarily characterized as
a CH3. Hence a model of Peng-Robinson Equation of State (EOS) is used to model the
thermodynamics of acid gases separation for both steady state and dynamics operations. For
dynamics modeling of acid gases separation, the Peng-Robinson Equation of state was known
to simulate acid gases separation faster than the real time.
74
4.3 Design of Waste Gas Treatment Process
As a measure against global warming and reducing the emission of greenhouse gas,
there is an increasing demand for the development of technology for the recovery of CO2 from
process plant, and such development is underway around the world, especially for thermal
power plants, which produce large amounts of CO2 emissions. This technology is called CCS
(Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage) as shown in Figure 4.1 below. At such, the liberated
gaseous CO2 from the regeneration column is collected, dried, compressed and transported to
a storage reservoir in deep underground or in the ocean, or may also be used in some other
application such as EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery) which involves the injection of compressed
CO2 into an oil reservoir to help thin heavier kinds of oil so that they flow more freely (R.
Duda, 2010).
Figure 4.1: Simplified schema of CSS technology for long term storage of compressed CO2
(CHIYODA CORPORATION, 2017)
Another cost-effective hydrogen sulphide treatment strategy for commercial landfill

gas recovery is to convert H2S into an elemental sulphur by-product. The employed method is
called Iron-Redox Regenerable System, which is shown in Figure 4.2 below. The produced by-
product, Sulfur is non-hazardous and can be disposed of safely with bio-solids, as a fertilizer
or in a landfill.
75
Figure 4.2: Iron-Redox Regenerable System
Process description of how hydrogen sulfide is converted to elemental sulfur:

(1) Raw gas is “scrubbed” with catalyst solution, sulfur is formed, and treated gas exits column.
(2) Catalyst is regenerated using air, and then returned to scrubber.
(3) Sulfur is finally separated from catalyst (Heguy and Bogner, 2017).
76
CHAPTER 5
EQUIPMENT SIZING AND COST ESTIMATION
5.1 Absorber Column (ABS-01).
5.1.1 Sizing of ABS-01.

Material: Stainless Steel 316
24 inch of Tray spacing was selected for the tray column. The tray tower diameter can be
calculated based on the equation number 19.11, page 505 from Product and Process Design
Principles (Seider et al., 2004).
1
  2
 
side diameter, DT   4G 
  A  
  fU f  1  d   G 
  AT  
While Uf calculate for the equation above by using equation of:

1
   G  2
U f  C  L 
 G  where, C = CSB x FST x FF x FHA
The calculation starts with formula of Flow Ratio Parameter (FLG), and flooding correlation
curve.
77
Figure 5.1: Flooding correlation for sieve, valve and bubble cap trays.
Parameters that obtained from Aspen Hysys Simulation Properties;

Liquid flow rate, L = 33.89 lb/s;
Density of liquid flow rate, ρL = 64.12 lb/ft 3;
Gas flow rate, G = 4.04 lb/s;
Density of gas flow rate, ρG = 0.006495 lb/ft 3;
Surface tension, σ = 61.45 dyne/cm.
𝐿 𝜌𝐺 0.5 33.89 0.006495 0.5
𝐹𝐿𝐺 = (𝐺 ) ∗ ( 𝜌𝐿 ) = ( 4.04 ) ∗ ( ) = 0.08
64.12
From the flooding correlation curve, CSB value at 0.08 and 24 inch tray spacing is 0.35 ft/s.
The surface tension factor, FST   20
0.20
= (61.45 / 20) = 1.252
Value of Foaming factor, FF is 1 for non-foaming system and value of hole-area factor, FHA is
1 for valve type tray. Hence;
C = CSB x FST x FF x FHA = 0.35 x 1.252 x 1 x 1 = 0.4382.
𝜌𝐿 − 𝜌𝐺 0.5 64.12 − 0.006495 0.5
𝑈𝑓 = 𝐶( ) = 0.4382 ∗ ( ) = 43.54
𝜌𝐺 0.006495
𝐴𝑑 (𝐹𝐿𝐺−0.1) (0.08−0.1)
= 0.1 + = 0.1 + = 0.098 ;
𝐴𝑡 9 9
Flooding percentage, f = 80% = 0.8.
4𝐺 4∗4.04
𝐷𝑡 = [ 𝐴𝑑 ]0.5 = [ ]0.5 = 5.02 ft = 5.1 ft = 1.5 m.
(𝑓∗𝑈𝑓)𝜋(1− )∗𝜌𝐺 (0.8∗43.54)𝜋(1−0.098)(0.006495)
𝐴𝑡
Tangent to tangent height, h = 24 inch or 2 ft tray spacing with 20 stages = 40 ft = 13 m.

78
By referring to equation 22.61 from Product and Process Design Principles (2004), page 575,
internal design gauge pressure, Pd (psi):
Pd = exp(0.60608+ 0.91615 (ln Po) + 0.0015655(ln (Po)2
=exp(0.60608+ 0.91615 (ln 539.4) + 0.0015655( ln (539.4)) 2
Pd = 620.8 psi
wall thickness, tP (in):
𝑃𝑑 𝐷𝑖
𝑡𝑝 =
2 𝑆𝐸 − 1.2 𝑃𝑑
= (620.8 × 59.06) / ((2×15000× 0.85) -1.2(620.8)
= 1.48 inch = 1.5 inch.
weight, W (Ib):
W= π (Di + tS) (H + 0.8 Di) tS 𝜌 , ρ = 0.289 lb/in2 for 316 Stainless Steel.
= π (59.06 in + 1.5 in) (511.8 + 0.8(59.06)) (1.5 in) (0.289 lb/in2)
= 46107.75 lb.
Table 5.1: Summary of Specifications for ABS-01.

Specification Dimension
Diameter, D 1.5 m
TT Height, H 12.19 m
Thickness, tP 0.0381 m
Weight, W 46107.75 lb
79
5.1.2 Cost Estimation of ABS-01.
Cv is calculated based on vertical tower equation 22.57 from Product and Process Design
Principles (2004), page 575:
Cv = exp {7.2756+ 0.18255 [ln W] + 0.02297 [ln (W)] 2 }
Cv = $ 145054.85
CPL is calculated based on equation 22.56 from Product and Process Design Principles (2004),
page 574:
Vertical vessel for 3 ft< Di < 24 ft and 27 ft< L < 170ft:
CPL = 300.9 (Di) 0.63316 (L) 0.80161
= 300.9 (5.1) 0.63316 (40) 0.80161
= $ 16242.57
The purchase cost of the trays installed in a vertical tower is calculated based on the equation
22.66 from (pg 577) in Product and Process Design Principles (2004).
Where:
CT= NT FNT FTT FTM CBT
Here, the base cost, CBT is for sieve trays at a CE cost index of 500 is calculated from the
equation 22.67, page 577 from Product and Process Design Principles (2004) where the inside
diameter of the tower is in feet and the equation is valid for 2 ft to 16 ft.
CBT= 468 exp (0.1739 Di)
=468 exp (0.1739 (5.1))
=$ 1136.10
The factor for number of trays, FNT is calculated from the equation 22.68, page 577 from
Product and Process Design Principles (2004).
FNT= 2.25/ (1.0414 NT) where NT is the number of trays.
=2.25/ (1.0414 20)
=0.9996
The factor for different types of trays, FTT is as shown as Table 5.2 below (Seider et al., 2004):
Table 5.2: Factors for Various Trays

Tray Type FTT
Sieve 1.0
Valve 1.18
Bubble cap 1.87
80
The material factor, which depends on column diameter in feet, corrects for the material
construction (Seider et al., 2004).
Material Construction FTM

Carbon steel 1.0
303 Stainless steel 1.189 + 0.0577 Di
316 Stainless steel 1.401 + 0.0724 Di
Carpenter 20CB-3 1.525 + 0.0788 Di
Monel 2.306 + 0.1120 Di
Since stainless steel (316) is the material selection for the absorber column,
FTM = 1.401 + 0.0724 (5.1)
= $ 1.77024
By referring to the equation 22.66,
= (20) (0.9996) (1.18) (1.77024) (1136.1)
= $ 47444.62
The f.o.b purchase cost, CP includes an allowance for platforms, ladders and nominal number
of nozzles and manholes (Seider et al., 2004). The equation 22.52 from Product and Process
Design Principles (2004), page 574 is shown as below:
FM = 2.1 for stainless steel 316 from table 22.26 (page 576) from Product and Process Design
Principles (2004).
Cp = FM CV + CPL
= (2.1)( $ 145054.85) + $ 16242.57
= $ 320857.76
The total purchase cost for of the absorber column, Cp is
$ 320857.76+ $ 47444.62 = $ 368302.3
81
5.2 Distillation Column (REGEN-01).
5.2.1 Sizing of REGEN-01.

Sizing for Empty Tower
Volumetric flow rate = 258.6 USGPM = 58.734 m3/hr,
Diameter, D = 1.5 m =59.055 in = 4.9213 ft
Residence time= 10 minutes
Operating pressure, Po = 65.0 psi
1hr
The volume of separator, V = (58.734m 3 / hr ) 10 min 
60 min
= 9.789 m3
2
D
V = r h =    h
2
2
V 9.789m3
Height of separator, h = 2
= 2
D  1.5m 
   
2  2 
= 5.539 m = 218.071 in = 18.173 ft
By using equation 22.61 from Product and Process Design Principles (2004), page 575, internal
design gauge pressure, Pd (psi):
Pd = exp{0.60608 + 0.91615[ln (Po)] + 0.0015655[ln (Po)]2}

= exp{0.60608 + 0.91615[ln (65.0)] + 0.0015655[ln (65.0)] 2}
= exp (0.60608 + 3.8244 + 0.0273)
= 86.296 psi
By using equation 22.60 from Product and Process Design Principles (2004), page 575, wall
thickness, tP (in):
𝑃𝑑 𝐷𝑖
𝑡𝑝 = => S = 15,000 psi ; E = 1.0
2 𝑆𝐸−1.2 𝑃𝑑
(86.296)(59.055)
= = 0.1704 in
2(15,000)(1.0)  1.2(86.296)
82
Wall thickness is chose to be 0.25 in as it is the minimum thickness.
By using equation 22.59 from Product and Process Design Principles (2004), page 575,
weight, W can be determined:
W=𝜋(𝐷𝑖 + 𝑡𝑠 )(𝐿 + 0.8𝐷𝑖 )(𝑡𝑠 𝜌) => Density of carbon steel, ρ = 0.284 lb/in3
=  (59.055 in  0.25 in )218.071 in  0.8(59.055 in) (0.25 in  0.284 lb/in 3 )

= 3,509.630 lb
5.2.2 Cost Estimation of REGEN-01.

By using equation 22.57 from Product and Process Design Principles (2004), page 575, the
f.o.b. cost of an empty tower is calculated:
Cv = exp {7.2756+ 0.18255 [ln W] + 0.02297 [ln (W)] 2 }
= exp {7.2756+ 0.18255 [ln 3,509.630] + 0.02297 [ln (3,509.630)]2 }
= exp (7.2756 + 1.4902 + 1.5307)
= $ 29,628.74
By using equation 22.56 from Product and Process Design Principles (2004), page 574, added
cost, CPL is calculated:
CPL = 361.8 (Di) 0.73960 (L) 0.70684
= 361.8 (4.9213) 0.73960 (18.173) 0.70684
= $ 9,131.54
The f.o.b purchase cost for empty tower, is Calculated using equation 22.52 from Product and
Process Design Principles (2004), page 574
FM = 1.7 for stainless steel 304 from table 22.26 (page 576) from Product and Process Design
Principles (2004).
CP = FMCV+ CPL
= 1.7($ 29,628.74) + $ 9,131.54

= $ 59,500.40
83
Costing for Plates
By using equation 22.67 from Product and Process Design Principles (2004), page 574,the base
cost, CBT, is for sieve trays is calculated.
CBT = 468exp(0.1739Di)
= 468exp[0.1739(4.9213)]
= $ 1,101.34
factor for number of trays, FNT is calculated while the number of tray is 18.
FNT= 2.25/ (1.0414 NT) => NT = number of trays.

=2.25/ (1.041418)
=1.084
For sieve tray, the type of tray factor, FTT is 1.0 as given in page 577, Product and Process
Design Principles (2004).
For stainless steel, the type of tray material, FTM is calculated using the equation as given in
page 577, Product and Process Design Principles (2004).
FTM = 1.401 + 0.0724 Di

= 1.401 + 0.0724(4.9213)
= 1.757
The f.o.b purchase cost of trays, is Calculated using equation 22.66 from Product and Process
Design Principles (2004), page 577

= (18)(1.084)(1.0)(1.757)($ 1,101.34)
= $ 37,756.78
Total Costing For Regenerator
CT = $ 59,500.40 + $ 37,756.78
= $ 97257.18
84
5.3 Separator (FD-01).
5.3.1 Sizing of FD-01.

Volumetric flow rate = 258.6 USGPM = 58.734 m3/hr,
Diameter, D = 1.5 m =59.055 in = 4.9213 ft
Residence time= 10 minutes
1hr
The volume of separator, V = (58.734m 3 / hr ) 10 min 
60 min
= 9.789 m3
2
D
V = r 2 h =    h
2
V 9.789m3
Height of separator, h = 2
= 2
D  1.5m 
   
2  2 
= 5.539 m = 218.071 in
Wall thickness, ts=0.25 in

weight, W can be determined:
W=𝜋(𝐷𝑖 + 𝑡𝑠 )(𝐿 + 0.8𝐷𝑖 )(𝑡𝑠 𝜌) => Density of carbon steel, ρ = 0.284 lb/in3
=  (59.055 in  0.25 in )218.071 in  0.8(59.055 in) (0.25 in  0.284 lb/in 3 )
= 3,509.630 lb
Table 5.3: Summary of Specifications for FD-01.
Volume, V 9.789 m3
Diameter, D 1.5 m
Height, H 5.539 m
Thickness, tP 0.00635 m
Weight, W 3,509.630 lb
85
5.3.2 Cost Estimation of FD-01.
Based on equation 22.57 from Product and Process Design Principles (2004), page 575
Cv = exp {8.9552 - 0.2330[ln W] + 0.04333[ln (W)]2}
= exp {8.9552 - 0.2330 [ln 3,509.630] + 0.04333 [ln (3,509.630)]2}
= exp (8.9552 - 1.9020 + 2.8875)
= $ 20,758.27
The added cost, CPL, for the platforms and ladders for the separator is calculated using
equation 22.55 from Product and Process Design Principles (2004), page 575 is shown as
below:
0.20294
CPL= 2,005( Di )
= 2,005 (4.9213 ft)0.20294
= $ 2,770.54
The f.o.b purchase cost, is calculated using equation 22.52 from Product and Process Design
Principles (2004), page 574
FM = 1.7 for stainless steel 304 from table 22.26 (page 576) from Product and Process
Design Principles (2004).
CP = FMCV+ CPL
= 1.7($ 20,758.27) + $ 2,770.54

=$ 38,059
86
5.4 Heat Exchanger (L-R Exchanger-01).
5.4.1 Sizing of L-R Exchanger-01.

From the simulation, the heat duty of heat exchanger, Q HE is 4,100,000 Btu/hr. The diameter
and area of the heat exchanger can be determined by using the equation below:
Q = A× U × ∆TLM
Where:
A = Area (m2)
U= Overall heat transfer coefficient
∆TLM = Mean temperature driving force
Di = Internal diameter
L = Length of the tube
Mean temperature driving force ∆TLM is calculated,
T1 = Th,in - Tc,in
= 268.7 oF - 167.9 oF
= 100.8 oF
T2 = Th,out - Tc,out
= 235.1 oF - 200.00 oF
= 35.1 oF
T1  T2 100.8 o F - 35.1 o F
∆TLM = =
T  100.8 o F 
ln( 1 ) ln  
T2 o
 35.1 F 
= 62.279 oF
By assuming the overall heat transfer coefficient, U = 150 Btu/ ft 2.hr. ℉.
Q
The required heat transfer area, A =
(U  TLM )
4,100,000
=
(150  62.279)
=438.885 ft2 = 40.774 m2

By assuming the tube length, L = 20 ft = 6.096 m,
87
Di= A/( L × 𝜋 )
= (438.885)/ (20 × 𝜋)
=6.985 ft = 2.129 m
Table 5.4: Summary of Specifications for L-R Exchanger-01.
Area, A 40.774 m2
Diameter, D 2.129 m
Length, L 6.096 m
5.4.2 Cost Estimation of L-R Exchanger-01.

A floating head shell-and tube heat exchanger was used in this process.
Based on equation 22.39 in Product and Process Design Principles (2004), page 571, the base
cost, CB for floating head is given:
CB =exp{11.667 - 0.8709 [ln A] + 0.09005 [ln A]2}

= exp {11.667 - 0.8709 [ln 438.885] + 0.09005 [ln 438.885]2}
= exp (11.667 - 5.2988 + 3.3335)
= $ 16,345.37
The material factor, FM for different combination of material is calculated using equation
22.44 in Product and Process Design Principles (2004), page 571. Since the material for
both shell and tube is stainless steel, the value of a and b are 2.70 and 0.07 respectively.
FM= a + (A/100)b
= 2.70 + (438.885 /100)0.07
= 3.809
The pressure factor, Fp, is based on the shell side pressure, P (psig) and given by the equation
22.45 which applicable to the pressure range from 100 to 2,000 psig. The shell side pressure
88
P is selected as 100 psig as the operating pressure in the heat exchanger is between 38 to 70
psig.
Fp = 0.9803 + 0.018[P/100] + 0.0017[P/100]2
= 0.9803 + 0.018[100 /100] + 0.0017[100 /100]2
=1
The factor FLis a tube-length correction based on the tube length (20ft) and thus FL= 1.
The f.o.b purchase cost for the shell-and-tube heat exchanger is calculated by using the
equation 22.43, page 571 from Product and Process Design Principles (2004).
CP = FPFMFLCB
= (1) (3.809) (1) (16,345.37)
= $ 62,259.51
5.5 Pump (Pump-01).
5.5.1 Sizing of Pump-01.

Volumetric flow rate, Q = 237.7 gpm
Pressure increase across the pump = 524.7 psi - 33.0 psi = 491.7 psi = 70,804.8 ft/lb3
Pump head, H = Pressure increase/ fluid density
= 70,804.8/62.788
= 1,127.680 ft
size factor (S) is calculated:
S = Q(H)0.5
= (237.7)(1,127.680)0.5
= 7,982.191
89
5.5.2 Cost Estimation of Pump-01.
base pump purchase cost is calculated:
CB = exp{9.7171 - 0.6019[ln(S)] + 0.0519[ln(S)]2}

= exp{9.7171 - 0.6019[ln (7,982.191)] + 0.0519[ln (7,982.191)]2}
= exp (9.7171 - 5.4081 + 4.1899)
= $ 4,909.37
From Table 22.20 in Product and Process Design Principles (2004), page 561, radial centrifugal
pump with 2+ stages and 3600 shaft rpm is chose due to the high pump head value. The type
factor, FT is 8.90
From Table 22.21 in Product and Process Design Principles (2004), page 562, stainless steel is
chosen as material due to the relatively high discharge pressure, material factor (F M) is 2.00.
The f.o.b. purchase cost is calculated by using equation 22.15 in Product and Process Design
CP = FTFMCB
= (8.90)(2.00)(4909.37)
= $ 87,386.79
Costing for pump motor

Power consumption, PC = 0.2415 MMBtu/hr = 94.913 Hp
base motor purchase cost is calculated:
CB = exp{5.8259 + 0.13141[ln(PC)] + 0.053255[ln(PC)]2 + 0.028628[ln(PC)]3 -

0.0035549[ln(PC)]4}
=exp{5.8259 + 0.13141[ln(94.913)] + 0.053255[ln(94.913)] 2 + 0.028628[ln(94.913)]3 -
0.0035549[ln(94.913)]4}
=exp(5.8259 + 0.5983 + 1.1039 + 2.7019 - 1.5276)
= $ 6,017.34
90
From Table 22.20 in Product and Process Design Principles (2004), page 561, totally enclosed
and fan cooled pump with 3,600 rpm is chosen to avoid possible hazard due to chemical
exposure. The type factor, FT is 1.4
The f.o.b. purchase cost is calculated by using equation 22.20 in Product and Process Design
CP = FTCB
= (1.4)(6,017.34)
= $ 8,424.28
The total f.o.b. purchase for pump and motor is

CP = $62,259.51 + $8,424.28 = $ 70,683.79
5.6 Condenser.
5.6.1 Sizing of Condenser.

From the simulation, the heat duty of condenser, QCOND is 2,689,000 Btu/hr. The diameter and
area of the heat exchanger can be determined by using the equation below:
Q = A× U × ∆TLM
Where:
A = Area (m2)
U= Overall heat transfer coefficient
∆TLM = Mean temperature driving force
Di = Internal diameter
L = Length of the tube
Mean temperature driving force ∆TLM is calculated,
∆TLM = 90.0 oF
91
By assuming the overall heat transfer coefficient, U = 150 Btu/ ft 2.hr. ℉.
Q
The required heat transfer area, A =
(U  TLM )
2,689,000
=
(150  90.0)
=199.185 ft2 = 18.505 m2
By assuming the tube length, L = 20 ft = 6.096 m,

Di= A/( L × 𝜋 )
= (199.185)/ (20 × 𝜋)
=3.170 ft = 0.966 m
Table 5.4: Summary of Specifications for COND.
Area, A 18.505 m2
Diameter, D 0.966 m
Length, L 6.096 m
5.6.2 Cost Estimation of Condenser.

A floating head shell-and tube heat exchanger was used in this process.
Based on equation 22.39 in Product and Process Design Principles (2004), page 571, the base
cost, CB for floating head is given:
CB =exp{11.667 - 0.8709 [ln A] + 0.09005 [ln A]2}

= exp {11.667 - 0.8709 [ln 199.185] + 0.09005 [ln 199.185]2}
= exp (11.667 - 4.611 + 2.524)
= $ 14,472.42
92
The material factor, FM for different combination of material is calculated using equation
22.44 in Product and Process Design Principles (2004), page 571. Since the material for
both shell and tube is stainless steel, the value of a and b are 2.70 and 0.07 respectively.
FM= a + (A/100)b
= 2.70 + (199.185 /100)0.07
= 3.749
The pressure factor, Fp, is based on the shell side pressure, P (psig) and given by the equation
22.45 which applicable to the pressure range from 100 to 2,000 psig. The shell side pressure
P is selected as 100 psig as the operating pressure in the heat exchanger is between 38 to 70
psig.
Fp = 0.9803 + 0.018[P/100] + 0.0017[P/100]2
= 0.9803 + 0.018[100 /100] + 0.0017[100 /100]2
=1
The factor FLis a tube-length correction based on the tube length (20ft) and thus FL= 1.
The f.o.b purchase cost for the shell-and-tube heat exchanger is calculated by using the
equation 22.43, page 571 from Product and Process Design Principles (2004).
CP = FPFMFLCB
= (1) (3.749) (1) (14,472.42)

= $ 54,257.10
93
5.7 Reboiler.
5.7.1 Sizing of Reboiler.

QREB = 17,000,000 Btu/hr
base cost of reboiler CB, is calculated
CB= exp{0.32325 + 0.766 ln [Q]}
= exp{0.32325 + 0.766 [ln 17,000,000]}
= $ 477,429.85
P = 64.70 psi
The pressure factor, FP is calculated
FP = 0.986 – 0.0035 [P/500] + 0.0175 [P/500]2
= 0.986 – 0.0035 [64.70 /500] + 0.0175 [64.70 /500]2

= 0.9858
5.7.2 Cost Estimation of Reboiler.
By referring to table 22.26 (page 576) from Product and Process Design Principles (2004),
material factor for stainless steel, FM is 1.7.
The f.o.b purchase cost is determined by equation 22.50 from page 573 in Product and
Process Design Principles (2004).
Cp= FPFMCB
= (0.9858) (1.7) (477,429.85)

= $ 800,105,59
94
Table 5.6: Cost Summary of all Equipment
Equipment Estimated Cost (USD$)
Absorber 368,302.3
Distillation Column (Empty Tower) 97257.18
Separator 38,059.00
Heater Exchanger (L-R Exchanger-01) 62,259.51
Pump (Pump-01) 70,683.79
Condenser 54,257.10
Reboiler 800,105,59
95
CHAPTER 6
PROCESS CONTROL AND SAFETY
6.1 Control Systems
P&ID is a very common term used in the world of process industries. A process
engineer in a manufacturing plant need to create new and/or modify the already existing P&ID
to the as-is plant modifications. A P&ID shows all piping, including the “physical sequence
of branches, reducers, valves, equipment, instrumentation and control interlocks.” A P&ID is
used to operate the process system, since it shows the piping of the process flow along with the
installed equipment and instrumentation. P & IDs play a key role in maintaining and modifying
the process they describe, because it is important to demonstrate the physical sequence of
equipment and systems, including how these systems connect. In terms of processing facilities,
a P&ID is a visual representation of key piping and instrument details, control and shutdown
schemes, safety and regulatory requirements, and basic start-up and operational information.
As defined in the PIC001: Piping and Instrumentation Diagram Documentation Criteria by
Process Industry Practice (PIP) - a consortium of process industry owners and engineering
construction contractors who serve the industry (Pontius, 2013).
Items to Include In a P&ID

The following list outlines the items that typically are found in a P&ID:
 Instrumentation and designations
 Mechanical equipment with names and numbers
 All valves and their identifications
 Process piping, sizes, and identification
96
 Vents, drains, special fittings, sampling lines, reducers, increasers, and swaggers
 Permanent start-up and flush lines
 Flow directions
 Interconnections references
 Control inputs and outputs, interlocks
 Interfaces for class changes
 Computer control system
 Identification of components and subsystems delivered by the process
Table 6.1: The PID Icons used in this process
97
6.2 Piping and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID)
98
6.3 HAZOP Study
HAZOP is defined as Hazard and Operability study which is a systematic examination

of a planned or current process or operation in order to recognize and evaluate problems that
may be associated with the undertaking. For instance, excessive exposure of chemicals can
potentially harm or bring risks to personnel or equipment in plant or even disturb the plant
operation. The HAZOP provides detailed study by using qualitative technique which is based
on guide-words and also it is performed by a multi- disciplinary team.
HAZOP study is usually performed during the preliminary design stage, so that design
can be changed accordingly before being constructed. Every completed design is required to
perform HAZOP. HAZOP is carried out as a final test/ final checking when the design of the
system is completed. Besides that, HAZOP study have also to be carried out on current
operation to determine the necessary modifications that should be implemented in order to
minimize risk and operability problems to zero in a plant.
There are two main features of HAZOP study such as system and materials.
Table 6.2: HAZOP study features

System Material
Subsystems such as equipment, vessels, pipelines Effects in the plant: the changes of the
and valves. chemical conditions
Modes of operations: Normal operation, Start- up Hazardous conditions: Energy source
mode, shutdown mode, maintenance mode exposed, changes in material hazard
characteristics, exposure limits of
chemicals
Trigger events: Equipment and instruments Plant modifications: changes of process
failure, human failure design, limitation of the operation of the
system, control system.
Emergency environment event: Instrument
disturbance.
99
Project: Biogas production Page 1
Node Description: Reactors including absorption column, regenerator, heat exchanger, Date: 31 March 2018
pipelines and valve.
Guideword Deviation Cause Consequence Recommendation Action
Flooding of
Shut down the process and evacuate the area.
absorption
High flow in column.
Level Replace with new valve or pipelines.
High absorption Mass transfer Level controller
controller fault
column between solute
Install level control system to monitor the
and solvent is
flowrate and make adjustments accordingly.
affected.
May cause Pressure Shut down the process and evacuate the area.
High pressure Water failure pipelines to controller.
High in absorption in condenser rupture. Install pressure controller along with the alarm
column Regular system to make sure pressure is always in safe
maintenance. limit.
Temperature of Shut down the process and evacuate the area.
Low flow of High temperature
process fluid
Low cooling water in Pipe blockage alarm.
remains Perform regular checking on pipelines and make
heat exchanger
constant sure do not have blockage.
100
Check equipment
and pipeline Perform cleaning of the heat exchanger tubes.
setting regularly.
Failure of inlet
High flow of Temperature of
cooling water Install low
cooling water in process fluid Install a temperature regulator which will
valve to close temperature alarm
heat exchanger decrease automatically regulate the temperature when
High
needed.
Failure of Install high
More pressure Bursting of
process fluid pressure alarm
on tube side tube Install an alarm system which will sound
valve
vigorously when it has exceeded threshold level.
Regular
Leakage of
Contamination equipment
tube and Contamination Perform regular checking on pipelines and make
Low in heat checking and
cooling water of process fluid sure do not have leakage.
exchanger maintenance.
goes in
Replace with new tube.
Incorrect Equipment Shut down the process and evacuate the area.
Low desired Less
Low equipment checking and
products selectivity.
setting maintenance. Perform equipment checking.
101
Less desired
product yield. Run respective simulation, and adjust the
Less profit. equipment setting to maximize the efficiency of
product yield.
Blockage in Equipment
Less cost
reactor inlet checking and Perform equipment checking on pipelines and
Low effective.
stream. maintenance. make sure do not have blockage.
regenerated More hydrogen
Low
diethanolamine sulphide
Incorrect Check equipment Replace new pipelines and valve.
(DEA) contain in
equipment and pipeline
biogas.
setting. regularly Perform cleaning on regenerator after a long
period.
102
CHAPTER 7
EQUIPMENT MECHANICAL DESIGN
7.1 Absorber Column (ABS-01).

7.1.1 Detailed Engineering drawing of Absorber Column (ABS-01).
Figure 7.1: Engineering Drawing of ABS-01.

103
7.1.2 Specifications of ABS-01.
ABSORPTION COLUMN
Identification: Item Absorption Column Date: 5th April 2018

Item No. ABS-01
No. Required 1
Function: To absorb the acid gases from the methane gas by using Diethanol Amine
(DEA) as solvent.
Operation: Continuous
Stream handled Biogas Lean Amine Rich Amine Methane

Total Mass Flow,
6590.70 55338.27 59284.52 2616.32
kg/hr
Components Mole Fraction
Methane 0.6263 - 0.0001 0.9814
Carbon Dioxide 0.3707 0.0004 0.0379 0.0153
Hydrogen Sulphide 0.0030 - 0.0003 -
Water - 0.9311 0.8958 0.0033
Diethanol Amine - 0.0685 0.0659 -
Design Temperature (oF) 168

Design Pressure (psi) 525
Design Data:
Temperature : 348.71 K
Operating Pressure : 3619.75 kPa
TT Height : 12.19 m
Diameter : 1.50 m
Wall thickness : 0.0381 m
Material of construction : Stainless Steel 316
Estimated Cost : $ 368302.3
Nozzle schedule
N-1 8” (D) Bottom Inlet
N-2 12” (D) Top Inlet
N-3 8” (D) Top Outlet
N-4 12” (D) Bottom Outlet
MW 19” (D) Man Way
104
7.2 Separator (FD-01).
7.2.1 Detailed Engineering drawing of FD-01.
Figure 7.2: Engineering Drawing of FD-01.
105
7.2.2 Specifications of FD-01.
SEPARATOR COLUMN
Identification: Item Separator Column Date: 5th April 2018

Item No. FD-01
No. Required 1
Function: To remove light hydrocarbons from the Rich Amine.
Stream handled To Separator Light HC To exchanger
Total Mass Flow, kg/hr 59284.52 4.31 59284.52

Methane 0.0001 0.4739 -
Carbon Dioxide 0.0379 0.4459 0.0379
Hydrogen Sulphide 0.0003 0.0034 0.0003
Water 0.8958 0.0769 0.8959
Diethanol Amine 0.0659 - 0.0659

Design Data:
TT Height : 5.539 m
Diameter : 1.50 m
Estimated Cost : $ 38,059.60
Nozzle schedule
106
7.3 Distillation Column (REGEN-01).
7.3.1 Detailed Engineering drawing of REGEN-01.
Figure 7.3: Engineering Drawing of REGEN-01.
107
7.3.2 Specifications of REGEN-01.
DISTILLATION COLUMN
Identification: Item Distillation Column Date: 5th April 2018

Item No. REGEN-01
No. Required 1
Function: To regenerate Diethanol Amine (DEA) solvent and recycle back to the system.
Stream handled Regen Feed Regen Bottoms Acid Gases
Total Mass Flow, kg/hr 59284.52 55247.55 4041.05

Methane - - -
Carbon Dioxide 0.0379 0.0004 0.9541
Hydrogen Sulphide 0.0003 - 0.0086
Water 0.8959 0.9310 0.0373
Diethanol Amine 0.0659 0.0686 -

Design Data:
TT Height : 5.5379 m
Diameter : 1.50 m
Estimated Cost : $ 97257.18
Nozzle schedule
108
7.4 Heat Exchanger (L-R Exchanger-01).
7.4.1 Detailed Engineering drawing of L-R Exchanger-01.
Figure 7.4: Engineering Drawing of L-R Exchanger-01.
109
7.4.2 Specifications of L-R Exchanger-01.
1-2 SHELL AND TUBE HEAT EXCHANGER
Identification: Date: 5 th April 2018

Item: 1-2 Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger
Item No. L-R Exchanger-01.
No required: 1
Purposes: To pre-heat the regen feed from 168 to 200 oF and cool down the regen bottom
feed from 269 to 235 oF.
Type: Horizontal [AEU Heat Exchanger - TEMA Designation]

1-2 Floating Head
Shell - 1 pass
Tube - 2 pass
Pitch type : Square pitch

Joint efficiency shell : 1
Joint efficiency covers : 1
Operating pressure : 100 psig
Pressure drop : 5 psig.
Tube side
Fluid handle : Regen Feed
Flow rate : 59284.52 kg/hr.
Pressure : 100 psig
Temperature : 168 to 200 oF
Tube material : Stainless steel 304
Shell side
Fluid handled : To tank
Flow rate : 55247.55 kg/hr.
Pressure : 100 psig
Temperature : 269 to 235 oF
Shell material : Stainless steel 304
Insulation: 2 inch, rock cork or equivalent, weatherproof

Tolerances: Tubular Exchanger Manufactures Association (TEMA) standards
Comments and drawings: Location and sizes of inlets and outlets are shown on drawing
110
CHAPTER 8
PROFITABILITY ANALYSIS
8.1 General Statement
 For this analysis, straight-line depreciation is assumed.
 The corporate income tax is assumed as 24% of gross profit.
 The Chemical Engineering Plant Cost (CE) index for 2018 is 567.5.
 Working hours are 8760 hours per year which equivalent to 365 days.
 The production capacity of methane is 1192722.43 MMbtu/year.
111
8.2 Grass Root Capital
Table 8.1: Grass Root Capital
Estimated Cost Bare Module Bare Module Cost

Equipment Cost
(USD$'Million) Factor, FBM (USD$'Million)
Major Equipment
Absorber 0.368 4.16 1.531
Distillation Column 0.952 4.16 3.960
Separator 0.038 4.16 0.158
Total Bare Module Cost
5.649
of Major Equipment
Auxiliary Equipment
Heater Exchanger (L-R
0.062 3.170 0.197
Exchanger-01)
Pump (Pump-01) 0.071 3.300 0.234
Cooler 0.054 2.170 0.117
0.548
of Auxiliary Equipment

CTBM = 6.197
(CE: 500)
CTBM = 7.034
(CE: 567.5)
Contingency and Fee 0.18 CTBM = 1.266
Total Module Cost CTMC = 8.300
Auxiliary Facilities 0.30 CTMC = 2.490
Grass-Roots Capital GRC = 10.790
112
8.3 Total Capital Investment Cost
Table 8.2: Total Capital Investment Cost (CTCI).

Cost
Specification Range
(US$'million)
DIRECT COST
Onsite
(A)
Purchased Equipment Installation 30% GRC 3.237

Instrumentation and Control (installed) 15% GRC 1.619
Piping (installed) 40% GRC 4.316
Electrical and Material (installed) 8% GRC 0.863
Total A 10.035
Offsite
(B)
Building 10% GRC 1.079

Yard Improvements 1% GRC 0.108
Service Facilities 5% GRC 0.540
Land 2% GRC 0.216
Total B 1.943
INDIRECT COST
Indirect Matters
(C)
Engineering and Supervision 8% GRC 0.863

Construction Expenses 9% GRC 0.971
Contractor's Fee 2% GRC 0.216
Contingency 10% GRC 1.079
Total C 3.129
GRAND TOTAL A+B+C 15.107
113
Calculation of total fixed capital investment, CFCI
The total fixed capital investment is calculated according to Order-of-Magnitude Estimate
(Based on the Method of Hill, 1956), (Product and Process Design Principles, pg 553)
Step 1: Calculate CDPI
CDPI = (1 + F1 + F2)CTBM
Where the factors F1 and F2 are
Table 8.3: Factor F1 and F2
F1
Outdoor Construction 0.15
Mixed indoor and outdoor construction 0.40
Indoor construction 0.80
F2
Minor additions to existing facilities 0.10
Major additions to existing facilities 0.30
Grass-roots plant 0.80
CDPI = (1+0.15+0.8)($7,034,000)
= $ 13716300
Total fixed capital investment, CFCI

CFCI = 1.5CDPI
= 1.5($13716300)
= $ 20574450
114
8.4 Price of components per ton Methane
8.4.1 Raw Materials
Table 8.4: Raw Material Cost

Component kg/hr ton/year US$/ton US$/year
Biogas 6590.69 57 734.51 2.438 140727.868

Total: 140727.868
8.4.2 Solvent
Table 8.5: Catalyst market price

Solvent US$/ton
DEA 1400
Table 8.6: Solvent Cost

Catalyst ton/ US$/year USD/MMbtu
year Methane
DEA 60.00 84,000 0.07
Total 84,000 0.07
8.4.3 Products
Table 8.7: Sales Revenue/Sales Income

Component MCFD MMBtu/day MMBtu/year US$/MMbtu US$/year
Methane 3188 3267.73 1192722.43 7.29 8,694,946.52
Total: 8,694,946.52
115
Table 8.8: Price of product per one ton of Methane
Product US$/MMbtu
Methane 7.29
Total 7.29
8.4.4 Utilities
 According to water tariff (Kuching Water Board, 2018), the purchase price of industrial
water for more than >25 m3/month is RM1.06/ m3 ≈ US$ 0.28/ m3
Table 8.9: Water Cost.

Types of Utilities Usage Cost (US$/year)
(m3/month)
Water 150000 496080
Total: 496080
Table 8.10: Electricity Cost.

Types of Average Usage Industrial Charge Cost (US$/year)
Utilities (kWh) (US$/kWh)
Electricity 187.57 0.245 103232.48
Total: 103232.48
Table 8.11: Total Utilities Cost.
Utilities US$/year
Water 496080
Electricity 103232.48
Total Utilities Cost (US$) 599312.48
116
8.4.5 Operating Labor
Table 8.12: Paid for Labours.
Labour Average Salary per Quantity Total (US$/year)
month (US$/month)
Manager 1040 1 12480
Engineer 858 4 41184
Supervisor 650 2 15600
Technician 390 6 28080
Operators 260 20 62400
Total: 159744
117
8.5 Manufacturing Expenses
Table 8.13: Summary for Manufacturing Expenses
Specification Cost (US$ million /year)
Manufacturing Expenses
Direct
Raw Material
Biogas 0.141
Solvent
DEA 0.084
Utilities
Cooling water 0.496
Electricity 0.103
Maintenance and repairs (2% FCI) 0.411
Operating Labors 0.160
Supervisory and clerical labor (10% of operating
0.016
labor)
Laboratory charges (10% of operating labour) 0.016
Total, ADME 1.427
Indirect
Local taxes (1% of FCI) 0.206
Insurance (0.4% of FCI) 0.082
Plant Overhead (5% of Raw material) 0.007
Total, AIME 0.295
Total manufacturing expenses, AME

Depreciation, ABD (6% of FCI) 1.234 1.234
Cost of Manufacture, COM 2.956
118
General Expenses
Administrative Cost (2% of sales) 0.174
Distribution & Selling Expenses (1% of sales) 0.087
Research and development (0.5% of Sales) 0.043
Total, GE 0.304
Total Production Cost, TPC COM+GE 3.260
Total Expenses, ATE (AIME + ABD + AGE) 1.833
Sales Revenue
Methane 8.695
Total Sales Income, ASI 8.695
Annual Gross Earnings / Profit 5.435

Income taxes (24% of Annual Gross Earnings) 1.304
Net Annual Profit after taxes 4.131
*The annual net profit after taxes also equivalent to USD$ 4,131,000 per year
119
8.6 Contribution of different costs to the total cost of Methane production
Table 8.14: Contribution of different costs to the total cost of Methane production
Contribution of different costs to the total cost of methane production
No. Items US$/MMbtu US$/MMbtu %

Methane Methane
1. Raw Material Cost 0.12 - 4.40
2. Utilities Cost 1.01 - 37.00
3. Solvent Cost 0.07 - 2.56
Total Variable Cost: - 1.20 -
4. Manufacturing Expenses 1.28 - 46.89
5. Finance & Other Expenses 0.25 - 9.16
Total Fixed Cost: - 1.53 -
Methane Production Cost: 2.73 100%
*Production of Methane = 1192722.43 MMbtu/year
Annual Total Variable Cost = US$ 1.20/MMbtu x 1192722.43 MMbtu/year

= US$ 1431266.92/year ≈ US$ 1.431 million/year
Annual Total Fixed Cost = US$ 1.53/MMbtu x 1192722.43 MMbtu/year
= US$ 1824865.32/year ≈ US$ 1.825 million/year
120
8.7 Cost-Volume-Profit
Table 8.15: Contribution of Different Cost in Production of Methane at Different Running Capacity.
Running Capacity (%) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Production Volume (million MMbtu) 0 0.119 0.238 0.358 0.477 0.596 0.715 0.834 0.954 1.073 1.192
(Methane)
Sales Revenue (US$ million) 0 0.870 1.739 2.609 3.478 4.348 5.217 6.087 6.956 7.826 8.695
Variable Cost (US$ million) 0 0.143 0.286 0.429 0.572 0.716 0.859 1.002 1.145 1.288 1.431
Fixed Cost (US$ million) 1.825 1.825 1.825 1.825 1.825 1.825 1.825 1.825 1.825 1.825 1.825
Total Cost (US$ million) 1.825 1.968 2.111 2.254 2.397 2.541 2.684 2.827 2.970 3.113 3.256
Profit/Loss (US$ million) -1.825 -1.098 -0.372 0.355 1.081 1.807 2.533 3.260 3.986 4.713 5.439
Contribution Margin = Sales - Variable Cost

= US$ 8.695 million - US$ 1.431 million = US$ 7.264 million
Cost Volume Profit Chart Figure 8.1: Cost-Volume Profit Chart

10
Cost (US$ million)
8
The breakeven point is approximately at 25.12% running capacity
6 Sales Revenue
4 Variable Cost
with US$ 2.184 million.
2 Fixed Cost 121
0 Total Cost
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Running Capacity (%)
8.8 Payback Period or Return of Investment (ROI)
The payback period (PBP), return on investment (ROI), venture profit (VP) and annualized
cost (CA) are calculated by using the equations from Product and Process Design Principles
(2004), page 616.
Return on Investment (ROI)

ROI is the annual interest rate made by the profits on the original investment. ROI could
provide a snapshot view of the profitability of the plant. The equation is shown below:
(1 − 𝑡)(𝑆 − 𝐶)
𝑅𝑂𝐼 =
𝐶𝑇𝐶𝐼
Where:
t = income tax rate, 40%
S= Annual Sales Revenue
C=Annual Production Cost
CTCI=Total Capital Investment
S= US$ 8.695 million

C= US$ 3.260 million
CTCI= US$ 15.107 million
(1  0.24)(8.695  3.260)
ROI = x 100%
15.107
= 27.34%
Payback Period (PBP)

Payback period is the time required for the annual earnings to equal the original investment. It
is also known as payout time, payout period, payoff period and cash recovery period. The
equation is shown as below:
Total Investment Capital
Pay Back Period =
Net Profit After Tax × Total Production Methane in ton
122
15.107
4.131
= 3.66 years ≈ 4 years
Venture Profit (VP)
Venture profit (VP) is an approximate measure of the profitability of a potential process or

product that does take into account the size of the project. It is used often for preliminary
estimates when comparing alternative flow sheets during the process synthesis stage of process
design. The equation is shown as below:
𝑉𝑃 = (1 − 𝑡)(𝑆 − 𝐶 ) − 𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑛 (𝐶𝑇𝐶𝐼 )
Where
imin= reasonable return on investment, 0.20
VP = (1-0.24)(8.695-3.260)- (0.20)(15.107)
= US$ 1.109 million
Annualized Cost (AC)
Annualized cost is a measure of economic goodness, which does not involve sales revenues for
products and is also used for preliminary estimates when comparing alternative flow sheets
during process synthesis. The equation is shown as below:
𝐴𝐶 = 𝐶𝐴 = 𝐶 + 𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑛 (𝐶𝑇𝐶𝐼 )
AC = 3.260 + 0.20(15.107)
= US$ 6.281 million
123
CONCLUSION
Chemical absorption by using DEA as solvent is used to remove acid gases from the
biogas in order to produce pure methane. The annual methane production is 1192722.43
MMbtu. By using ASPEN Hysys, the purity of the methane produced is as high as 98.14% with
the carbon dioxide removal rate of 95.87% and hydrogen sulphide removal rate of 100%.
The fixed capital investment (CFCI) is US $ 2.057 million, while the total capital
investment (CTCI) is US$ 15.107 million. The annual sales revenue is US$ 8.695 million and
the annual production cost is US$ 3.260 million. After the deduction of income tax of 24%,
the net profit is US$ 4.131 million per year. To breakeven at US$ 2.184 million, the running
capacity need to be at least 25.12%. The return on investment (ROI) is 27.34% which lead to
the payback period (PBP) of approximately 4 years.
124
REFERENCES
Augelletti, R., Conti, M. and Annesini, M.C., 2016. Pressure swing adsorption for biogas
upgrading. A new process configuration for the separation of biomethane and carbon dioxide.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, pp. 1390-1398.
Chin, M., Poh, P., Tey, B., Chan, E. and Chin, K. (2013). Biogas from palm oil mill effluent
(POME): Opportunities and challenges from Malaysia's perspective. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 26, pp.717-726.
CHIYODA CORPORATION. (2017). CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) from Flue Gas｜
CHIYODA CORPORATION. [online] Available at:
https://www.chiyodacorp.com/en/service/environment/ccs/ [Accessed 18 Mar. 2018].
Edwards, J.E., 2008. Process Modelling Selection of Thermodynamic Methods. [online]

Available at:
<http://www.chemstations.com/content/documents/Technical_Articles/thermo.pdf>
[Accessed 21 March 2018]
EPU, (2011). Economic planning unit. Prime minister's department. Tenth Malaysia Plan
2011–2015, Putrajaya, p. 302–3.
Grande, C.A. and Rodrigues, A.E., 2007. Layered Vacuum Pressure-Swing Adsorption for
Biogas Upgrading. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 46, pp. 7844-7848.
Grande, C.A., 2011. Biogas Upgrading by Pressure Swing Adsorption. In: M.A., dos Santos
Bernardes, eds. Biofuel’s Engineering Process Technology. Rijeka: InTech.
125
Hafidz Mapar, 2017. Gas Malaysia raises natural gas prices. [online] Available at: <
https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2017/07/14/gas-malaysia-raises-natural-
gas-prices/> [Accessed 21 March 2018]
Heguy, D. and Bogner, J. (2017). Cost-Effective Hydrogen Sulfide Treatment Strategies |
Merichem Company. [online] Merichem.com. Available at:
http://www.merichem.com/company/overview/technical-lit/tech-papers/municipal-landfills
[Accessed 18 Mar. 2018].
Herout, M., Malatak, J., Kucera, L. and Dlabaja, T., 2011. Biogas composition depending on
the type of plant biomass used. Research in Agricultural Engineering, 57, pp. 137-143.
Hussain, Y.A., n.d. Thermodynamic Models & Physical Properties. [online] Available at:
<http://www.just.edu.jo/~yahussain/files/Thermodynamic%20Models.pdf> [Accessed 21
March 2018]
Jack, J. (2009). Rich/Lean Amine Exchanger | Oil & Gas Process Engineering. [online]
Oilngasprocess.com. Available at: http://www.oilngasprocess.com/gas-production-
facility/acid-gas-treating/design-procedures-for-amine-system/richlean-amine-
exchanger.html [Accessed 18 Mar. 2018].
Jmaterenvironsci.com. (2015). Proposition of biogas filtration system. [online] Available at:

https://www.jmaterenvironsci.com/Document/vol6/vol6_N10/332-JMES-1672-2015-
Elasri.pdf [Accessed 18 Mar. 2018].
Kapdi, S.S., Vijay, V.K., Rajesh, S.K. and Prasad, R., 2005. Biogas scrubbing, compression
and storage: perspective and prospectus in Indian context. Renewable Energy, 30, pp. 1195-
1202.
Kuching Water Board, 2018. Water Rates. [online] Available at: <
http://www.kwb.gov.my/page-0-171-79-Water-Rates.html> [Accessed 21 March 2018]
126
Magomnang, A.S.M. and Villanueva, E.P., 2014. Removal of Hydrogen Sulfide from Biogas
using Dry Desulfurization Systems. In: International Conference on Agricultural,
Environmental and Biological Sciences. Thailand, 24-25 April 2014. Phuket, Thailand:
International Institute of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering. Available at:
<http://iicbe.org/upload/3607C414016.pdf> [Accessed 28 January 2018].
Mahlia, T. and Chan, P. (2011). Life cycle cost analysis of fuel cell based cogeneration system
for residential application in Malaysia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(1),
pp.416-426.
Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB), (2009). Palm Oil Plantation Area Statistics. [online]
Available at: http://bepi.mpob.gov.my/index.php/en/statistics/area.html [Accessed 28 January
2018].
Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB), (2010). Annual production of oil palm products: 1975–
2010. [Online]. Available
at: http://econ.mpob.gov.my/economy/annual/stat2010/PDF_STAT_10/PRODUCTION/Prod
uction3.2.pdf [Accessed 02 April 2018].
Mel, M., Yong, A.S.H., Avicenna, Ihsan, S.I. and Setyobudi, R.H., 2015. Simulation Study for
Economic Analysis of Biogas Production from Agricultural Biomass. Energy Procedia, 65, pp.
204-214.
MPOC. Malaysia Palm Oil Council, (2011). Annual Report 2011- The natural colours of
health. [online] Available at: http://mpoc.org.my/pubs_view.aspx?id=e488b7d8-4d94-4462-
9443-e9dbd3d2441d [Accessed 28 January 2018].
Nozic, M., 2006. Removal of carbon dioxide from biogas. Lund, Sweden: Department of
Chemical Engineering, Lund University.
Pontius, N. (2013). What is Piping and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID). [online] Asset Tag
& UID Label Blog. Available at: https://www.camcode.com/asset-tags/what-is-p-id/
[Accessed 18 Mar. 2018].
127
R. Duda, J. (2010). Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery. [online] Available at:
https://www.netl.doe.gov/file%20library/research/oil-gas/CO2_EOR_Primer.pdf [Accessed
18 Mar. 2018].
Rasi, S., 2009. Biogas Composition and Upgrading to Biomethane. Jyväskylä studies in
biological and environmental science, 202.
Rahayu, A.S., Karsiwulan, D., Yuwono, H., Trisnawati, I., Mulyasari, S., Rahardjo, S.,
Hokermin, S. and Paramita, V., 2015. POME to Biogas. [e-book] Available at: <http://winrock-
indo.org/4732.html> [Accessed 26 January 2018]
Ryckebosch, E., Drouillon, M., and Vervaeren, H.,2011. Techniques for transformation of
biogas to biomethane. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35, pp. 1633-1645.
Sarawak Energy, 2018. Palm Oil Mill Effluent. [online] Available at:
<http://www.sarawakenergy.com.my/index.php/r-d/biomass-energy/palm-oil-mill-effluent>
[Accessed 26 January 2018]
Sarawak Energy, 2018. Commercial Pricing & Tariff. [online] Available at:
<http://www.sarawakenergy.com.my/index.php/customers/commercial-pricing-tariff>
[Accessed 21 March 2018]
Santos, M.P.S., Grande, C.A. and Rodrigues, A.E., 2011. Pressure Swing Adsorption for
Biogas Upgrading. Effect of Recycling Streams in Pressure Swing Adsorption Design.
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 50, pp. 974-985.
Separationprocesses.com. (2010). Gas Absorption Operations. [online] Available at:
http://www.separationprocesses.com/Absorption/GA_Chp03-1.htm [Accessed 18 Mar. 2018].
Shimekit, B. and Mukhtar, Hilmi., 2012. Natural Gas Purification Technologies - Major
Advances for CO2 Separation and Future Directions. In: H.A. Al-Megren, eds. 2012. Advances
in Natural Gas Technology. Croatia: Intech. pp. 235 - 270.
128
Spe.org. (2018). Webinar Highlights Effects of Foam in Separators. [online] Available at:
https://www.spe.org/en/print-article/?art=353 [Accessed 18 Mar. 2018].
Swedish Gas Technology Centre Ltd, 2012. Basic Data on Biogas. [pdf] Sweden: SGC.
Available at: <http://www.sgc.se/ckfinder/userfiles/files/BasicDataonBiogas2012.pdf>
[Accessed 27 January 2018].
Vienna University of Technology, 2012. Biogas to Biomethane Technology Review. [pdf]

Vienna, Austria: Vienna University of Technology. Available at:
<https://www.aile.asso.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/wp3-1-
1_technologyreview_english.pdf>
Vrbová, V. and Ciahotny, K., 2017. Upgrading biogas to biomethane using membrane
separation. Energy & Fuels, pp. 1-28.
Y. Basiron, (2007). Palm Oil Production Through Sustainable Plantations. European Journal
of Lipid Science and Technology, 109, pp. 289-295.
Zhao, Q., Leonhardt, E., MacConnell, C., Frear, C., and Chen, S., 2010. Purification
Technologies for Biogas Generated by Anaerobic Digestion. CSANR Research Report, 9, pp.
1-24.
129

Capstone Final Report

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Capstone Final Report

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

UNIVERSITI TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND GREEN TECHNOLOGY

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING (HONS) PETROCHEMICAL

UGPA 4104 CAPSTONE PROJECT

SEPARATION OF ACID GASES FROM BIOGAS PRODUCED

SUPERVISOR : Dr. Lau Lee Chung

MODERATORS : Ir Dr.Eow John Son & Ir. Ong Yih Min

DATE OF SUBMISSION : 19th April 2018

This group assigned capstone project is intended to propose a theoretically

1 LITERATURE REVIEW AND PROJECT CONCEPTION 1

2 PROCESS SYNTHESIS OF PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM (PFD)

3 MATERIAL AND ENERGY BALANCES 30

5 EQUIPMENT SIZING AND COST ESTIMATION 77

6 PROCESS CONTROL AND SAFETY 96

7 EQUIPMENT MECHANICAL DESIGN 103

TABLE TITLE PAGE

1.1 Estimated Biomethane Production from POME based

4.8 Profit estimation for Plant using excel solver after

4.9 Sensitivity Report for the Plant. 59

5.1 Summary of Specifications for ABS-01. 79

5.6 Cost Summary for all Equipment 95

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

1.1 Biogas Formation Process Flow 2

LITERATURE REVIEW AND PROJECT CONCEPTION

As mentioned earlier, biogas is formed through anaerobic process where the

The chemical route for the second route is

When POME decomposes by bacteria in the absence of oxygen (Anaerobic

Therefore, the worldwide palm oil industry is expected to grow substantially to

Figure 1.4: Number of mills producing biogas (Abas et al., 2011)

Figure 1.5: Estimated POME generation based on the CPO production in

A typical household in Malaysia consumed an average of 4387 kWh electricity

1.2.1.2 Land Management:

1.2.1.3 Effective Water Management:

1.2.1.5 Zero Burning and Composting Initiative:

1.2.1.6 Environmental Conservation:

1.3.1 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Removal

CO2 is one of the main components in biogas as biogas normally has CO 2

1.3.1(a) Water Scrub

CO2 has higher solubility in water as compared to CH4, so water scrubber is

Similar like water scrubbing, chemical solvent can be used to absorb CO 2 in

1.3.1(c) Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA)

Cryogenic separation uses fractional condensations and distillations at low

1.3.2 Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) Removal

Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) is a main impurity component that can be found in

1.3.2(a) Water Scrub/ Chemical Absorption

1.3.2(b) Iron Sponge Method

1.3.2(e) Adsorption on Activated Carbon

Chemical absorption with diethanolamine (DEA) is selected as the chemical

PROCESS SYNTHESIS OF PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM (PFD)

2.1 Process Database

Design Basis of the 3 major components/crucial equipment:

Table 2.1 (b) Flash Separator (FD-01)

Table 2.1 (c) Regeneration column (REGEN-01)

Process design heuristics can be known as engineering rule of thumb. It is an

Study process heuristics is to understand the importance of selecting reaction

Biogas mainly consists of methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide and

Heuristic 11: Separate vapor mixtures using partial condensation, cryogenic

1: Pipe of raw biogas; 2: Depressant; 3: Sieve; 4: Reducer 100 to 5; 5: Connecting pipe;

BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM (BFD):

Separator Light Gases (HC,

H2S, CO2, DEA

Regenerator Acid Gases

Makeup Water Makeup

Figure 2.4: BFD of Acid Gas Removal from Biogas