You are on page 1of 30

Aspen Plus

Rate-Based Model of the CO2 Capture Process by


Diglycolamine using Aspen Plus
Copyright (c) 2008-2014 by Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.

Aspen Plus, the aspen leaf logo and Plantelligence and Enterprise Optimization are trademarks or registered
trademarks of Aspen Technology, Inc., Bedford, MA.

All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies.

This software includes NIST Standard Reference Database 103b: NIST Thermodata Engine Version 7.1

This document is intended as a guide to using AspenTech's software. This documentation contains AspenTech
proprietary and confidential information and may not be disclosed, used, or copied without the prior consent of
AspenTech or as set forth in the applicable license agreement. Users are solely responsible fo r the proper use of
the software and the application of the results obtained.

Although AspenTech has tested the software and reviewed the documentation, the sole warranty for the software
may be found in the applicable license agreement between AspenTech and the user. ASPENTECH MAKES NO
WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THIS DOCUMENTATION,
ITS QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Aspen Technology, Inc.


20 Crosby Drive
Bedford, MA 01730
USA
Phone: (1) (781) 221-6400
Toll Free: (1) (888) 996-7100
URL: http://www.aspentech.com
Revision History
Version Description

V7.0 First version


V7.1 Re-verified simulation results using Aspen Plus V7.1
V7.1 CP1 Add N2 , O2 , CO and H2 to the model as Henry components
V7.2 Updated results for V7.2
V7.3 Update databank to PURE25.
Add the definition of acid gas loading and amine weight fraction
convention.
Use “Diglycolamine” (full name) to replace “DGA” (acronym) in the title
and in the first paragraph of the introduction because “DGA” is a
registered trademark of Huntsman corporation.
V7.3.2 Update the DGA-H2 O-CO2 thermodynamic model in this work.
Use ENRTL-RK method to replace ELECNRTL method. Use PC-SAFT EOS
to model vapor-phase fugacity coefficient for its ability at high pressure.
Update databank to PURE26.
Update the PC-SAFT parameters for DGA.
Update the NRTL interaction parameters between DGA and H 2 O, H2 O
and (DGAH+, HCO3 - ), H2 O and (DGAH+, DGACOO- ) and those between
H2 O and (DGAH+, HS- ).
Update the Henry’s constants of CO 2 and H2 S in H2 O and DGA.
Update DGAQFM, DHAQFM and CPAQ0 of DGAH+ and DGACOO- , update
CPAQ0 of HCO3 - , CO3 -2 , HS- and S-2 .
Update the interaction parameter VLQKIJ for the quadratic mixing rule
between DGA and H2 O, update the Clarke model parameter, VLCLK/1,
for (DGAH+, DGACOO- ), (DGAH+, HCO3 -) and (DGAH+, CO3 -2 ).
Update MUDIP for DGA, update the interaction parameters between
DGA and H2 O in the ASPEN liquid mixture viscosity model, MUKIJ and
MULIJ, update the Jones-Dole model parameters, IONMUB, for DGAH+
and DGACOO- .
Update figures for properties.
Calculate all chemical equilibrium constants from Gibbs free energy.
Update kinetics.
Update the flow sheet and simulation specifications.
Update the simulation results.
August Update Flowsheet to Kaiserslautern Pilot Plant.
2012
V8.0 Update databank to PURE27.
V8.2 Update databank to PURE28.
V8.6 Update databank to PURE32.
Update the simulation results.

Revision History 1
Version Description

V10.0 Update the GMENCC parameters between CO 2 and (DGAH+, DGACOO- ),


CO2 and (DGAH+, HCO3 - ), and those between CO 2 and (DGAH+, CO3 -2 )
to match the data of CO2 activity coefficient.
Update simulation results.

2 Revision History
Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................4

1 Components .........................................................................................................5

2 Physical Properties...............................................................................................6

3 Reactions ...........................................................................................................13

4 Simulation Approach ..........................................................................................16

5 Simulation Results .............................................................................................20

6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................25

References ............................................................................................................26

Contents 3
Introduction

This file describes an Aspen Plus rate-based model of the CO2 capture process
by Diglycolamine (DGA) from a gas mixture of N2, O2, CO2 and H2O. The
model consists of an absorber, a stripper and heat integration. As there
appear to be no public domain industrial or pilot plant data available for
aqueous DGA/CO2 separations, the feed conditions and column specifications
in the model were loosely based on a pilot plant study of CO 2 capture with
MEA performed at the University of Kaiserslautern[1]. The flows, feed
compositions, reboiler duty, and absorber and stripper packed heights were
adjusted so that the CO2 recovery was close to 80% using the HANLEY -STRUC
mass transfer correlations. These variables would need to be adjusted with
the choice of different mass transfer correlations.
Thermophysical property models and reaction kinetic models are based on our
recent work [2] and that of Pacheco et al. (2000) [3]. Transport property models
and model parameters have been validated against experimental data from
open literature. Transport property models and model parameters have been
validated against experimental data from open literature. Although the
simulation does not contain H 2S, physical property data for this component is
included in the properties section of this model should the user wish to model
processes which include H 2S.
The model is meant to be used as a guide for modeling the CO 2 capture
process with DGA. You may use it as a starting point for more sophisticated
models for process development, debottlenecking, and plant and equipment
design, among others.
The model presented here includes the following key modeling features:
 True species including ions
 Unsymmetric electrolyte NRTL activity coefficient model for liquid and PC-
SAFT equation of state for vapor
 Activity-based reaction kinetics
 Electrolyte transport property models
 Rate-based models for columns with structured packing

4 Introduction
1 Components

The following components represent the chemical species present in the


process:

Table 1. Components Used in the Model


ID Type Name Formula

DGA Conventional DIGLYCOLAMINE C4H11NO2-2


H2O Conventional WATER H2O
CO2 Conventional CARBON-DIOXIDE CO2
H2S Conventional HYDROGEN-SULFIDE H2S
CH4 Conventional METHANE CH4
H3O+ Conventional H3O+ H3O+
OH- Conventional OH- OH-
HCO3- Conventional HCO3- HCO3-
CO3-2 Conventional CO3-- CO3-2
HS- Conventional HS- HS-
S-2 Conventional S-- S-2
DGAH+ Conventional DGA+ C4H12NOO+
DGACOO- Conventional DGACOO- C5H10NOO3-
N2 Conventional NITROGEN N2
O2 Conventional OXYGEN O2
CO Conventional CARBON-MONOXIDE CO
H2 Conventional HYDROGEN H2

1 Components 5
2 Physical Properties

The unsymmetric electrolyte NRTL property method (ENRTL-RK) and PC-SAFT


equation of state are used to compute liquid and vapor properties,
respectively, in this rate-based DGA model. CO2, H2S, CH4, N2, O2, CO and H2
are selected as Henry-components (solutes) to which Henry’s law is applied.
Henry’s constants are specified for these components with water and DGA. In
reaction calculations, the activity coefficient basis for the Henry’s components
is chosen to be Aqueous. Therefore, in calculating the unsymmetric activity
coefficients (GAMUS) of the solutes, the infinite dilution activity coefficients
will be calculated based on infinite-dilution condition in pure water, instead of
in mixed solvents.
The Henry’s constant parameters of CO2, H2S and CH4 are obtained from the
literatures or regressed with the VLE data (See Table 2). The other Henry’s
constants are retrieved from the Aspen Databank.

Table 2. Henry’s constants


Solute Solvent Source

CO2 H2 O Yan and Chen (2010) [4]


H2 S H2 O Zhang and Chen (1011) [5]
CH4 H2 O Zhang and Chen (2011) [5]
CO2 DGA Zhang and Chen (2011) [2]
H2 S DGA Set to that of H2 S in H2 O
CH4 DGA Set to that of H2 S in H2 O

The PC-SAFT parameters of DGA are regressed from the vapor pressure data
[6, 7]
, liquid heat capacity data [6, 8] and liquid density data [6, 9, 10]. Those of
H2O are obtained from Gross and Sadowski (2002) [11], and those of the other
components are retrieved from the Aspen Databank.
The characteristic volume parameters of H2O for the Brelvi-O’Connell Model,
VLBROC, are obtained from Brelvi and O’Connell (1972) [12], those of CO2 are
obtained from Yan and Chen (2010) [4], those of CH4 are obtained from Zhang
and Chen (2011) [5], and those of DGA, H2S, N2, O2, CO and H2 are defaulted
to their critical volume in the Aspen Databank.
Unless specified otherwise, all molecule-molecule binary parameters and
electrolyte-electrolyte binary parameters are defaulted to zero. All molecule-
electrolyte binary parameters are defaulted to (8, -4), average values of the

6 2 Physical Properties
parameters as reported for the electrolyte NRTL model [13]
. The
nonrandomness factor is fixed at 0.2.
The NRTL interaction parameters between DGA and H 2O are determined from
the regression with binary VLE [14], excess enthalpy data [15] and heat capacity
data [8].
The interaction energy parameters between H2O and (DGAH+, HCO3-) and
those parameters between H 2O and (DGAH+, DGACOO-), GMENCC and
GMENCD, are regressed using the VLE data [16-21] and absorption heat data [22]
of of the DGA-H2O-CO2 system. Those between H2O and (DGAH +, HS-) are
regressed using the VLE data [16, 17, 19] of the DGA-H2O-H2S system.
The dielectric constants of nonaqueous solvents are calculated by the
following expression:

1 1
 T   A  B   (1)
T C 
The parameters A, B and C for DGA are 28.01, 9277.0 and 273.15, which are
derived from Aspen Databank.
The liquid molar volume model and transport property models have been
updated and model parameters regressed from literature experimental data.
Specifications of the transport property models include:
 For liquid molar volume, the Clarke model, called VAQCLK in Aspen Plus,
is used with option code of 1 to use the quadratic mixing rule for solvents.
The interaction parameter VLQKIJ for the quadratic mixing rule between
DGA and H2O is regressed against experimental data from Henni et al.
(2001)[9] and Valtz et al. (2004) [10]. The Clarke model parameter VLCLK/1

is also regressed for main electrolytes (DGAH+, HCO 3 ), (DGAH+,
2
DGACOO-) and (DGAH+, CO 3 ) against experimental data from Huntsman
Co.[14].
 For liquid viscosity, the Jones-Dole electrolyte correction model, called
MUL2JONS in Aspen Plus, is used with the mass fraction based ASPEN
liquid mixture viscosity model for the solvent. There are three models for
electrolyte correction and the DGA model always uses the Jones-Dole
correction model. The three option codes for MUL2JONS are set to 1
(mixture viscosity weighted by mass fraction), 1 (always use Jones and
Dole equation when the parameters are available), and 2 (ASPEN liquid
mixture viscosity model), respectively. The interaction parameters
between DGA and H 2O in the ASPEN liquid mixture viscosity model, MUKIJ
and MULIJ, are regressed against DGA-H2O viscosity experimental data
from Henni et al. (2001) [9]. The Jones-Dole model parameters, IONMUB,
for DGAH+ and DGACOO- are regressed against DGA-H2O-CO2 viscosity
2
data from Huntsman Co.[10]; that of CO 3 is regressed against K 2CO3-H2O
viscosity data from Pac et al. (1984) [23]; and that of HCO3- is regressed
against KHCO3-H2O viscosity data from Palaty (1992) [24].
 For liquid surface tension, the Onsager-Samaras model, called SIG2ONSG
in Aspen Plus, is used with its option codes being -9 (exponent in mixing
rule) and 1 (electrolyte system), respectively. No additional adjusted
parameters are used in the surface tension.

2 Physica l Prope rties 7


 For thermal conductivity, the Riedel electrolyte correction model, called
KL2RDL in Aspen Plus, is used.
 For binary diffusivity, the Nernst-Hartley model, called DL1NST in Aspen
Plus, is used with option code of 1 (mixture viscosity weighted by mass
fraction).
In addition to the updates with the above transport properties, the aqueous
phase Gibbs free energy and heat of formation at infinite dilution and 25°C
(DGAQFM and DHAQFM) and heat capacity at infinite dilution (CPAQ0) for
DGAH+ and DGACOO- are regressed with the VLE data [16-21] and absorption
heat data [22]. The CPAQ0 of HCO3-, CO3-2 and HS- are the average values of
heat capacity between 298 K and 473 K taken from Criss and Cobble (1968)
[25]
, and that of S -2 is calculated from the Criss-Cobble correlation [25] with the
entropy value from Wagman et al. (1982) [26].
The estimation results of various transport and thermal properties are
summarized in Figures 1-8. Note that acid gas loading is defined as the ratio
of the moles of apparent acid gas to the moles of apparent DGA. Apparent
means before reaction, so for example if 1 mole of DGA is added to 9 moles
of water, and then 0.3 moles of CO2 is added to this mixture at sufficient
pressure to dissolve all the CO2, then the CO2 loading is 0.3/1 = 0.3,
regardless of the forms of CO2 and DGA after reacting. Weight percent of DGA
is calculated without CO2, so in the above example, it is calculated from the
mixture of 1 mole DGA and 9 moles of water. Since DGA has a molecular
weight of 105.137 and water has a molecular weight of 18.015, this is
105.137/(105.137+9*18.015) = 0.39337 or about 39 wt% DGA.

1200
EST DGA 10w t%
EST DGA 20w t%
EST DGA 30w t%
1150 EST DGA 40w t%
3

1100
Density, kg/m

1050

1000

950

900
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
CO2 Loading, mol CO2/mol DGA

Figure 1. Liquid Density of DGA-CO2-H 2O at 298.15K

8 2 Physical Properties
0.1
EST DGA 10w t%
EST DGA 20w t%
EST DGA 30w t%
EST DGA 40w t%

Viscosity, PaS 0.01

0.001

0.0001
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
CO2 Loading, mol CO2/mol DGA

Figure 2. Liquid Viscosity of DGA-CO2-H2O at 298.15K

0.08

0.07

0.06
Surface Tension, N/m

0.05

0.04

0.03
EST DGA 10w t%
0.02 EST DGA 20w t%
EST DGA 40w t%
0.01
EST DGA 60w t%

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
CO2 Loading, mol CO2/mol DGA

Figure 3. Surface tension of DGA-CO2-H 2O at 298.15K

2 Physica l Prope rties 9


0.6

0.5

Thermal Conductivity, Watt/m-K 0.4

0.3

0.2
EST DGA 10w t%
EST DGA 20w t%
0.1
EST DGA 40w t%
EST DGA 60w t%
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
CO2 Loading, mol CO2/mol DGA

Figure 4. Liquid Thermal Conductivity of DGA-CO2-H2O at 298.15K

120

100
Heat Capacity, J/mol-K

80

60

EST DGA 10w t%


40
EST DGA 20w t%
EST DGA 40w t%
20
EST DGA 60w t%

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
CO2 Loading, mol CO2/mol DGA

Figure 5. Liquid Heat Capacity of DGA-CO2-H2O at 298.15K

10 2 Physical Properties
120
289K
333K
100

Heat of absorption, kJ/mol


389K
289K, EST
80
333K, EST
389K, EST
60

40

20

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

CO2 Loading, mole CO2/mole DGA

Figure 6. Heat of Solution of CO 2 in DGA- H2O at 298.15K, experimental data


from Christensen et al. (1986)[10]

1.E+04

311, Dingman
1.E+02 313, Al-Juaied
CO 2 pressure, kPa

313, Chen
333, Al-Juaied
333, Chen
1.E+00 353, Chen
355, Dingman
373, Martin
373, Chen
1.E-02
373, Xu
393, Xu
413, Xu
1.E-04
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

CO2 loading, mole CO2/mole DGA

Figure 7. CO2 Partial Pressure of DGA-CO2-H2O (DGA mass fraction = 0.40),


experimental data from Maddox et al. (1987)[4]

2 Physica l Prope rties 11


1.E+04

1.E+03

1.E+02
H 2S pressure, kPa
1.E+01
323K, Martin

1.E+00 373K, Martin

323K, Maddox
1.E-01 353K, Maddox

311K, Dingman
1.E-02
355K, Dingman
1.E-03
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

H2S Loading, mole H2S/DGA

Figure 8. H2S Partial Pressure of DGA-H 2S-H2O (DGA mass fraction = 0.60),
experimental data from Martin et al. (1978)[6]

12 2 Physical Properties
3 Reactions

DGA is a primary ethanolamine, as shown in Figure 9. It can associate with


H3O+ to form DGAH+ and can also react with CO2 to form carbamate
DGACOO-.

Figure 9. DGA Molecular Structure

The electrolyte solution chemistry has been modeled with a CHEMISTRY


model with CHEMISTRY ID = DGA. This CHEMISTRY ID is used as the global
electrolyte calculation option in the simulation by specifying it on the Global
sheet of the Properties | Specifications form. Chemical equilibrium is
assumed with all the ionic reactions in the CHEMISTRY DGA. In addition, a
REACTION model called DGA-REA has been created. In DGA-REA, all
reactions are assumed to be in chemical equilibrium except those of CO2 with
OH- and CO2 with DGA.

A. Chemistry ID: DGA


DGAH   H 2 O  DGA  H 3 O 
1 Equilibrium
2H 2 O  H 3 O   OH 
2 Equilibrium
CO 2  2H 2 O  H 3 O   HCO 3
3 Equilibrium
HCO 3  H 2 O  H 3 O   CO 32
4 Equilibrium
DGACOO   H 2 O  DGA  HCO 3
5 Equilibrium
H 2 O  H 2 S  HS   H 3 O 
6 Equilibrium
H 2 O  HS   S 2  H 3 O 
7 Equilibrium

B. Reaction ID: DGA-REA


DGAH   H 2 O  DGA  H 3 O 
1 Equilibrium

3 Reactions 13
2H 2 O  H 3 O   OH 
2 Equilibrium
HCO 3  H 2 O  H 3 O   CO 32
3 Equilibrium
CO 2  OH   HCO 3
4 Kinetic
HCO 3  CO 2  OH 
5 Kinetic
DGA  CO 2  H 2 O  DGACOO -  H 3 O 
6 Kinetic
DGACOO -  H 3 O   DGA  H 2 O  CO 2
7 Kinetic
H 2 O  H 2 S  HS   H 3 O 
8 Equilibrium
H 2 O  HS   S 2  H 3 O 
9 Equilibrium
The equilibrium constants for reactions 1-7 in DGA are calculated from the
standard Gibbs free energy change. DGAQFM, DHAQFM and CPAQ0 of DGAH +
and DGACOO-, which are used to calculate the standard DGAH+ and DGACOO-
Gibbs free energy, are determined in this work. The DGAQFM (or DGFORM),
DHAQFM (or DHFORM), and CPAQ0 (or CPIG) parameters of the other
components can be obtained from the databank of Aspen Plus.
The power law expressions are used for the rate-controlled reactions
(reactions 4-7 in DGA-REA) and the general power law expression is:

  E  1 1  N
r  k T T0  exp     xi  i  i
n a
(2)
 R  T T0  i 1
Where:
r = Rate of reaction;
k = Pre-exponential factor;
T = Absolute temperature;
T0 = Reference temperature;
n = Temperature exponent;
E = Activation energy;
R = Universal gas constant;
N = Number of components in the reaction;
xi = Mole fraction of component i;
γi = Activity coefficient of component i;
ai = The stoichiometric coefficient of components i in the reaction equation.
If T0 is not specified, the reduced power law expression is used:

E N
r  kT n exp   xi  i  i
a
(3)
 RT  i 1

14 3 Reactions
In this work, the reduced expression is used. In equation (3), the
concentration basis is mole gamma, the factor n is zero, k and E are given
in Table 3.
The kinetic parameters for reaction 4 are taken from the work of Pisent et al.
(1956) [27], and the kinetic parameters for reaction 5 are calculated by using
the kinetic parameters ofreaction 4 and the equilibrium constants of the
reversible reactions 4 and 5. The kinetic parameters of reaction 6 are derived
from the work of Pacheco et al. (2001) [3] and the kinetic parameters of
reaction 7 are calculated by using the kinetic parameters of reaction 6 and
the equilibrium constants of the reversible reactions 8 and 9.

Table 3. Parameters k and E in Equation (2)


Reaction No. k E (cal/mol)
4 1.33 e+17 13249
5 6.63 e+16 25656
6 5.98 e+18 15813
7 2.45 e+31 27279

3 Reactions 15
4 Simulation Approach

The flowsheet is based off of the pilot plant study by Notz, Mangalapally and
Hasse (2012)[1] for CO2 capture by aqueous MEA solutions. We have modified
the operating conditions in the paper to accommodate DGA. Table 4
represents the model’s operating conditions.
Simulation Flowsheet – The University of Kaiserslautern flowsheet [1] has
been modeled with the following simulation flowsheet in Aspen Plus, shown in
Figure 10.

Figure 10. Rate-Based DGA Simulation Flowsheet in Aspen Plus

Unit Operations - Major unit operations in this model have been represented
by Aspen Plus blocks as outlined in Table 4.

16 4 Simulation Approach
Table 4. Aspen Plus Unit Operation Blocks Used in the
Rate-Based DGA Model
Unit Aspen Plus Block Comments / Specifications
Operation

Absorber RadFrac 1. Calculation type: Rate-Based


2. 20 Stages
3. Top Pressure: .98369 bar
4. Reaction: Chemistry ID is DGA-REA for all
stages
5. Packing Type: FLEXIPAC® 250Y
6. Diameter: .125m
7. Packed Height: 10.42 m
8. Wash Section Height: .42m
9. Mass transfer coefficient method:
HanleyStruc (2010)[28]
10. Interfacial area method: HanleyStruc
(2010)[28]
11. Flooding method: Wallis [29]
12. Heat transfer coefficient method: Chilton
and Colburn
13. Film resistance options: Discrxn for liquid
film; Film for vapor film
14. Flow model: VPlug
15. Estimates: provide temperature at stages
1 and 20. These estimates are intended to
aid convergence.
Stripper RadFrac 1. Calculation type: Rate-Based
2. 20 Stages
3. Top Pressure: 1.999 bar
4. Reaction: Chemistry ID is DGA for
condenser and reboiler, DGA-REA for all other
stages
5. Packing Type: FLEXIPAC® 250Y
6. Diameter: .1m
7. Packed Height: 2.92 m
8. Mass transfer coefficient method:
HanleyStruc (2010)[28]
9. Interfacial area method: HanleyStruc
(2010)[28]
10: Flooding method: Wallis [29]
11. Heat transfer coefficient method: Chilton
and Colburn
12. Film resistance options: Discrxn for liquid
film; Film for vapor film
13. Flow model: VPlug
14. Estimates: provide temperature at stages
1, 2, 10, and 20. These estimates are
intended to aid convergence.

4 Simulation Approach 17
Unit Aspen Plus Block Comments / Specifications
Operation

HX1 HeatX 1. Calculation Type: Shortcut


2. Hot Inlet – Cold Outlet Temperature
Difference: 6 C
3. Cold Side Outlet Pressure: 2.4bar

HX2 Heater 1. Outlet Temperature: 55 C


2. Outlet Pressure: 2bar
3. Valid Phases: Liquid Only

HX3 Heater 1. Outlet Temperature: 44 C


2. Outlet Pressure: 1.01bar
3. Valid Phases: Vapor-Liquid

Pump Pump 1. Discharge Pressure: 2.4bar

FLEXIPAC® is a registered trademark of Koch-Glitsch, LP


Streams - Feeds to the absorber are FLUEGAS containing N 2, O2, CO2 and
H2O and LEANIN containing aqueous DGA solution. Feed conditions are
summarized in Table 5.

Table 5. Feed specifications


Stream ID FLUEGAS LEANIN
Substream: MIXED
Temperature: C 55 55
Pressure: bar 1 2
Total flow 72 kg/hr 498.77 kg/hr
Mass-Frac Mass-Frac
DGA 0 0.403
H2O 0.071 0.549
CO2 0.085 0.048
N2 0.743 0
O2 0.101 0
CO2 Loading n/a .29 mol CO2 /mol DGA

Balance Blocks – The water makeup stream flowrate was determined using
a standard balance block. The inlet stream was FLUEGAS and the water
makeup stream for the water balance. The outlet streams were GASOUT,
CO2OUT, and COND.
Because the amine can be lost in the stream COND in an ionized form,
makeup amine was calculated using a design specification block. The total
amine in COND was calculated using the WAPP property set for the total flow
of amine in all speciated forms. Amine was also lost through CO2OUT and
GASOUT.

18 4 Simulation Approach
Prop-Sets - A Prop-Set, XAPP, has been created to report apparent mole
fraction of H2O, CO2 and DGA in liquid streams to facilitate calculations of CO 2
loadings of the streams. The Prop-Set MLLOAD was implemented to display
the CO2 loading of the amine, defined as the ratio of the apparent mole
fractions of CO2 and DGA.

4 Simulation Approach 19
5 Simulation Results

The simulation was performed using Aspen Plus. Key simulation results are
presented in Table 6. The calculated absorber and stripper temperature
profiles are presented in Figures 11 and 12, respectively.

Table 6. Key Simulation Results


Variable Rate-Based DGA Model

CO2 mole fraction in GASOUT .01


CO2 Recovery 81%
Loading of RICHOUT, molCO2 /molDGA 0.341
Stripper Reboiler Duty 7.5 kW
Specific Energy Requirement of the Reboiler 5.443 MJ/kgCO2
Excluding Heat Losses
Makeup Water 2.338 kg/hr
Makeup DGA <0.001 kg/hr
Heat Recovery Exchanger Duty 22.6 kW

In this simulation the stripper operates at below 10% of predicted capacity.


The performance of public domain mass transfer correlations for predicting
column operation in this regime are untested.

20 5 Simulation Results
70

65

60

Temperature, C
55

50

45 Hanley&Chen, L

40 Hanley&Chen, V

35
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Packing height from top, m

Figure 11. The Absorber Temperature Profiles

115

113
Temperature, C

111

109

Hanley&Chen, L
107
Hanley&Chen, V

105
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Packing height from top, m

Figure 12. The Stripper Temperature Profiles

5 Simulation Results 21
0.40

CO2 loading, molCO2/mol amine


0.35

0.30

Hanley&Chen

0.25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Packing height from top, m

Figure 13. The Absorber CO 2 Liquid Loading Profile

0.40
CO2 loading, mol CO2/mol amine

0.35

0.30

Hanley&Chen

0.25
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Packing height from top, m

Figure 14. The Stripper CO 2 Liquid Loading Profile

22 5 Simulation Results
0.07

0.06

CO2 mass fraction

0.06

0.05
Hanley&Chen

0.05
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Packing height from top, m

Figure 15. The Absorber CO 2 Liquid Concentration Profile

0.065

0.06
CO2 mass fraction

0.055

0.05
Hanley&Chen

0.045
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Packing height from top, m

Figure 16. The Stripper CO 2 Liquid Concentration Profile

The Aspen Plus simulation yields an off-gas containing 1.0 mol% CO2 and a
CO2 product stream containing 98.3 mol% CO2 (Table 6). The model predicts
an 81% recovery of CO2.
The Hanleystruc (2010) correlation [28] is used to calculate the mass transfer
coefficient and interfacial area in the simulation. The Bravo (1985)

5 Simulation Results 23
correlation[30] is an alternative for the mass transfer calculation. The results
will be changed if the Bravo (1985) correlation is applied.

24 5 Simulation Results
6 Conclusions

The DGA model provides a rate-based rigorous simulation of the process. Key
features of this rigorous simulation include electrolyte thermodynamics and
solution chemistry, chemical equilibrium for the liquid phase reactions,
rigorous transport property modeling, rate-based multi-stage simulation with
Aspen Rate-Based Distillation which incorporates heat and mass transfer
correlations accounting for columns specifics and hydraulics.

6 Conc lusions 25
References

[1] R. Notz, H.P. Mangalapally, H. Hasse, “Post Combustion CO2 Capture by


Reactive Absorption: Pilot Plant Description and Results of Systematic Studies
with MEA.” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 6, 84-112 (2012)
[2] Y. Zhang, C. –C. Chen, “Modeling Acid Gas Solubilities in Aqueous
Solution of Diglycolamine with Electrolyte NRTL Model”, Fluid Phase Equilibria,
submitted for publication
[3] M.A. Pacheco, S. Kaganoi, G.T. Rochelle, “CO2 Absorption into Aqueous
Mixture of Diglycolamine and Methyldiethanolamine”, Chem. Eng. Sci., 55,
5125-5140 (2000)
[4] Y. –Z. Yan, C. –C. Chen, “Thermodynamic Modeling of CO2 Solubility in
Aqueous Solutions of NaCl and Na2SO4”, J. Supercrit. Fluids., 55, 622-633
(2010)
[5] Y. Zhang, C. –C. Chen, “Modeling Gas Solubilities in the Aqueous Solution
of Methyldiethanolamine”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 50, 6436-6446 (2011)
[6]W. V. Steele, R. D. Chirico, S. E., Knipmeyer, A. Nguyen, “Experimental
Results for DIPPR 1990-91 Projects on Phase Equilibria and Pure Component
Properties”, 1994
[7] D. M. VonNiederhausern, G. M. Wilson, N. F. Giles, J. Chem. Eng. Data, 51,
1990-1995 (2006)
[8] L. –F. Chiu, H. –F, Liu, M. –H. Li, J. Chem. Eng. Data, 44, 631-636 (1999)
[9] A. Henni, P. Tontiwachwuthikul, A. Chakma, A.E. Mather, “Volumetric
Properties and Viscosities for Aqueous Diglycolamine Solutions from 25 C to
70 C”, J. Chem. Eng. Data, 46, 56-62 (2001)
[10] A. Valtz, M. Teodorescu, I. Wichterle, D. Richon, “Liquid Densities and
Excess Molar Volumes for Water + Diethylene Glycolamine, and Water,
Methanol, Ethanol, 1- Propanol + Triethylene Glycol Binary Systems at
Atmospheric Pressure and Temperatures in the Range of 283.15 - 363.15 K”,
Fluid Phase Equilib., 215, 129-142 (2004)
[11] J. Gross, G. Sadowski, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 41, 5510-5515 (2002)
[12] S. W. Brelvi, J. P. O’Connell, “Corresponding States Correlations for
Liquid Compressiblity and Partial Molar Volumes of Gases at Infinite Dilution
in Liquids”, AIChE J. 18, 1239-1243 (1972)

26 References
[13] C. –C. Chen, L. B. Evans, “A Local Electrolyte Nonrandom Two-Liquid
Activity Coefficient Model”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 48, 7788-7797 (2009)
[14] Huntsman Co. Diglycolamine Agent, Technical Publication, 2005
[15] Jefferson Chemical Company, Gas Treating Data Book, Jefferson
Chemical Co., Houston, TX, 1989
[16] J. L. Martin, F. D. Otto, A. E. Mather, J. Chem. Eng. Data, 23, 163-164
(1978)
[17] J. C. Dingman, J. L. Jackson, T. Moore, J. A. Branson, “Equilibrium Data
fpr the H2S-CO2-Diglycolamine Agent-Water Systems”, in the 62 nd Annual
Gas Processors Association Convention, San Fransisco, CA, March, 1983
[18] Ai-Juaied, G. T. Rochelle, J. Chem. Eng. Data, 51, 708-717 (2006)
[19] R. N. Maddox, A. H. Bhairi, J. R. Diers, P. A. Thomas, “Equilibrium
Solubility of Carbon Dioxide or Hydrogen Sulfide in Aqueous Solutions of
Monoethanolamine, Diglycolamine, Diethanolamine and
Methyldiethanolamine”, GPA Research Report, RR-104, 1987
[20] X. Chen, F. Closmann, G. T. Rochelle, Energy Procedia, 4, 101-108
(2011)
[21] Q. Xu, G. T. Rochelle, Energy Procedia, 4, 117-124 (2011)
[22] S. P. Christensen, J. J. Christensen, R. M. Izatt, “Enthalpies of Solution
of CO2 in Aqueous Diglycolamine Solutions”, GPA research report, RR-85,
1985
[23] J.S. Pac, I.N. Maksimova, L.V. Glushenko, ”Viscosity of Alkali Salt
Solutions and Comparative Calculation Method”, J. Appl. Chem. USSR, 57,
846 (1984)
[24] Z. Palaty, “Viscosity of diluted aqueous K2CO3/KHCO3 solutions”, Collect.
Czech. Chem. Commun., 57, 1879 (1992)
[25] C. M. Criss, J. W. Cobble, “The Thermodynamic Properties of High
Temperature Aqueous Solutions. V. The Calculation of Ionic Heat Capacities
up to 200º. Entropies and Heat capacities above 200 º”, J. Amer. Chem. Soc.,
86, 5390-5393 (1964)
[26] D. D. Wagman, W. H. Evans, V. B. Parker, R. H. Schumm, I. Halow, S. M.
Bailey, K. L. Churney, R. L. Nuttall, “The NBS tables of chemical
thermodynamic properties – Selected values for inorganic and C1 and C2
organic substances in SI units”, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference
Data, 11 (Supplement No. 2), 1-392 (1982)
[27] B.R. Pinsent, L. Pearson, F.J.W. Roughton, “The Kinetics of Combination
of Carbon Dioxide with Hydroxide Ions”, Trans. Faraday Soc., 52, 1512-1520
(1956)
[28] B. Hanley and C.-C. Chen, “New Mass Transfer Correlations for Packed
Towers”, AIChE Journal, 58(1), 132-152 (2012)
[29] B. Hanley, "On Packed Column Hydraulics." AIChE Journal, 58(6), 1671-
682 (2012)

Re fere nces 27
[30] J.R. Fair and J.L. Bravo, “Prediction of Mass Transfer Efficiencies and
Pressure Drop for Structured Tower Packings in Vapor/Liquid Service.”
IChemE Symposium Series No. 104. 104:A183 (1987)

28 References