1.

Introduction
Process simulation is used to analyze single unit operations as well as their combination to complex
processes. The obtained mass and energy balances give insight into interdependencies of different
process steps. The simulation results are valuable for design, improvement, and optimization and
scale-up of processes. One of the main advantages of simulation is that it allows an engineer to
study the behavior of a system without building it. The results are accurate in general, compared
to analytical model. Simulation also helps to find un-expected phenomenon, behavior of the
process system. Our project was based on the simulation and profit optimization of the Kailashtila
II gas processing plant situated at Gopalganj, Sylhet by using Aspen HYSYS 6 simulation
software.

Natural gas is the most important indigenous source of energy that has been continuously produced
and consumed in significant quantities since 1970. About 75% of the commercial energy of the
country comes from the natural gas. Natural gas from Bangladesh is very pure, with about 95% to
99% methane and almost no sulphur.

The Kailastila gas field produces a high amount of condensate along with the gas. The main
product of this plant is NG and LPG. LPG is composed mainly of propane and butane, while
natural gas is composed of the lighter methane and ethane.

The plant consists of pressure reduction system and three phase flash separators to separate the
raw feed gas and water. After removal of water, the feed stream is sent to flash chamber and
distillation units to separate the natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas.

In this process simulation two distillation unit, six three phase separators, a pump and a compressor
were mainly used. All of the process specifications and feed stream conditions were taken from
various sources.

Optimization of production operations can be a major factor on increasing production rate and
reducing production cost in a variety of technical and economic aspects. For this reason, after the
process simulation, optimization was also done. The optimized simulation can help to develop the
performance of the plant and to compare against design specifications in order to identify the areas
for improvement. In this simulation project, little change was observed after optimization as the
design specification were quite efficient.

1
2. Project Definitions

2.1 Definition of the Project

The simulation and optimization of a natural gas processing plant using the Aspen-HYSYS process
simulator. The process gas was treated under different ways and equipment. After treating flue
gas, sales gas and LPG were obtained from different stages of the simulation.

2.2 Specification

2.2.1 Raw material specification

In the plant simulation the gas were drawn from three wells: Feed 1, Feed 2 and Feed 3. The feed
composition and flow rates were taken from the reference of the well head composition of the
‘Kailashtilla- Gas Processing plant’. The values are given below in Table 01.

Table 01: Composition and flow rates of raw materials are given below

Feed 1 Feed 2 Feed 3

Flowrate (kgmole/h) 1542 1534 1542
Composition (%)
Methane 94.57 94.13 94.57
Ethane 2.55 2.74 2.55
Propane 0.85 1.03 0.86
i-Butane 0.22 0.27 0.22
n-Butane 0.23 0.30 0.23
i-Pentane 0.14 0.14 0.14
n-Pentane 0.09 0.08 0.09
n-Hexane 0.18 0.13 0.18
n-Heptane 0.35 0.25 0.35
Octane 0.14 0.26 0.14
Nonane 0.08 0.11 0.08
Decane 0.04 0.02 0.04
C11 0.03 0.01 0.03
C12 0.03 0.00 0.03
C13 0.03 0.01 0.03
C14 0.07 0.01 0.07
H2O 0.05 0.06 0.05
Nitrogen 0.20 0.39 0.20
CO2 0.15 0.06 0.15

2
2.2.2 Product Specification

The specifications for the main product and byproduct are given with respect to the obtained value
from the simulation file. Here, the main product is the ‘sales gas’ which is obtained from the stream
45. The byproducts here are obtained as fuel gas from stream 18 and LPG from stream 47. The
specifications are given below for the products

Table 02: Specifications of sales gas (main product) from stream 45

Specifications Sales Gas ( Stream 45)

Temperature (˚C) 49
Pressure (kPa) 7651
Flowrate (kgmole/h) 4498
Composition (%)
Methane 96.6089
Ethane 2.6273
Propane 0.3166
i-Butane 0.0299
n-Butane 0.0199
i-Pentane 0.0034
n-Pentane 0.0013
n-Hexane 0.0004
n-Heptane 0.0002
Octane 0.0000
Nonane 0.0000
Decane 0.0000
C11 0.0000
C12 0.0000
C13 0.0000
C14 0.0000
H2O 0.0000
Nitrogen 0.2698
CO2 0.1223
H2S 0.0000

Table 03: Specifications of the fuel gas (byproduct) from stream 18

Specifications Fuel Gas ( Stream 18)

Temperature (˚C) 94.46
Pressure (kPa) 1210
Flowrate (kgmole/h) 21.03
Composition (%)
Methane 71.7845
Specifications Fuel Gas ( Stream 18)
Ethane 6.1014

3
 Specifications Composition (%)
Propane 4.7273
i-Butane 2.1686
n-Butane 2.8904
i-Pentane 2.8297
n-Pentane 2.1181
n-Hexane 4.0419
n-Heptane 2.1146
Octane 0.5949
Nonane 0.1815
Decane 0.0393
C11 0.0144
C12 0.0067
C13 0.0036
C14 0.0034
H2O 0.0912
Nitrogen 0.0815
CO2 0.2071
H2S 0.0000

Table 04: Specifications of the LPG (byproduct) from stream 47

Specifications LPG ( Stream 47)
Temperature (˚C) 127.4
Pressure (kPa) 3600
Flowrate (kgmole/h) 96.63
Composition (%)
Methane 0.0194
Ethane 1.2654
Propane 27.7090
i-Butane 9.4452
n-Butane 10.5492
i-Pentane 5.9169
n-Pentane 3.6218
n-Hexane 6.9089
n-Heptane 14.6735
Octane 8.4662
Nonane 4.2603
Decane 1.5858
C11 1.1132
C12 0.9562
C13 1.1156
C14 2.3924
H2O 0.0001
Nitrogen 0.0000
CO2 0.0009
H2S 0.0000

4
3. Process descriptions
3.1 Natural gas processing

In the gas processing simulation, the fluid package used was ‘Peng-Robinson’. Here at first, gas is
extracted from three wells as Feed 1, Feed 2 and Feed 3. These feed streams at flow rates of 1542
kgmole/h, 1534 kgmole/h and 1542 kgmole/h respectively were passed through three different
heat exchangers to increase the temperature of the feed. Then pressure was slightly reduced by
passing three feed through three different valves. Then they were passed through three different
three phase separator (V-100, V-101 and V- 102). In three phase separator the product came out
as vapor, light liquid and heavy liquid. The vapor product from the three phase separator were
mixed in a mixture and then cooled by a cooler E-103 from 29.61 ˚C to 0 ˚C. Then the cooled
stream was passed through a three phase separator where the vapor and light liquid product were
mixed in a mixture and was further cooled to -40 ˚C. The cooled stream 20 was then passed through
another three phase separator from the vapor and light liquid were again mixed with mixer and
then heated by heater from -40 to 29 ˚C. The heated stream was then split by using TEE-100 into
two separate streams 26 and 27. This two stream were passed through two different gas-gas heat
exchangers E-106 and E-107 respectively. Here both the streams were in the tube side and their
temperature decreased. The outlet cooled gas stream from E-106 was 30 and from E-107 was 31.
These two streams were mixed and then passed through the cold separator (V-105). The vapor and
liquid products of this cold separator were mixed in a mixer and then were passed through an
expander separator (V-106). Here, the liquid stream 37 was passed through the gas-gas heat
exchanger (E-107) and came out as stream 39 and the vapor stream 38 from V-106 was passed
through another heat exchanger (E-108) and came out as stream 40. The stream 39 from E-107
was put into a distillation column (T-101) from where the top stream 41 and bottom stream 46
were obtained. The vapor stream from the distillation column 41 was passed through a heat
exchanger E-108, here the product stream from the heat exchanger was then passed through a three
phase separator where the vapor and light liquid along with the stream 40 were mixed in a mixture
as stream 42. This stream was then passed through heat exchanger E-106 and then it was
compressed in a compressor K-100 from 3450 to 7651 kPa. The compressed gas was then fed to
the cooler and cooled from 82.44 to 49˚C and the final product obtained here as stream 45 is the
main product i.e. the sales gas.

5
The light liquid streams from the three different three phase separator V-100, V-101 and V-102
were mixed in mixture and then sent into a reboiled absorber (T-100). The vapor product, stream
18 is the byproduct fuel gas and the liquid product, stream 19 was cooled and then pumped. Then
it was mixed with the stream 46, the liquid product of T-101. The product from the mixture is
another byproduct LPG (stream 47).

3.2 Process simulation techniques

Since the flow diagram of a process consists of a number of process units with interconnections,
the mathematical representation of the system includes the following:

 Interconnection equations, which are the basic material and energy balance equations
 Model equations, which represent the model of individual unit operation or process such as
mixer, reactor, heat exchanger, distillation column, etc.
Three main techniques are available for simulating a process. These are the sequential modular
approach; the simultaneous-modular approach and the equation oriented approach.

3.2.1 Sequential Modular Approach

This method is the most commonly used technique in process simulation and is similar in principle
to the traditional method of hand calculation of unit operations. The computer program that
calculates the performance of a particular process is called a unit module. For each process unit in
the flow diagram, there is a unit module. Given the values of input stream composition and flow
rates, temperature, pressure, enthalpy and the equipment parameters, the unit module will calculate
the properties of its outlet streams. The output stream for a unit will become the input stream for a
downstream unit and the calculation proceeds as before until the process is completed.

A library of unit modules forms an important part of the simulation software. To solve the model
equations and interconnection equations, numerical methods should be used. A library of
numerical routines should be provided. These would normally consist of solution procedures for a
system of linear, non-linear and differential equations.

To perform unit computations and solve the continuity equations for mass and energy, physical
and thermodynamic property data is available through the banks and estimation routines.

6
 Numerical Unit Module Physical
Property Data
Routines Library
Bank

Thermo-
dynamic
Package
Input
Executive Program

Output

Solution

Optimization

Economic

Analysis

Figure 01: Components of a simulation program

The heart of the flowsheeting package is the executive program that controls the computation
sequence. Besides the above routines, there are input and output routines and possibly programs

7
for optimization and economic analysis. The basic components of a simulator are shown in Figure
01[1] .

The first step in any simulation is to generate a conceptual flow diagram of the process, showing
the models and interconnections. In the conceptual flow diagram, two streams combining are
normally represented as a mixer, and stream splitting is represented as a divider.

A general purpose sequential modular program has the following structural components:

 A store of physical and thermodynamic properties for pure chemical species and their
mixtures.
 A system working data based derived from the data obtained from the store as well as the
problem input.
 Individual module database derived from the working database.
 Modules or subroutines for individual process units, computational procedure' including
input/output for each module and internally iterated variables, if any.
 Flowsheet topology to be used by the system executive to order computation sequence. This
is usually defined by a "process matrix", which specifies standard unit modules for use in
simulation of a particular process along with identification numbers, positive for input
streams and negative for the output.
 Routines for recycle calculations and convergence analysis.
 Other mathematical service routines.
The flow diagram of a process for isopropyl acetate is shown in Figure 02. The process has four
units and eight process streams. Properties of feeds S1 and S2 must be specified as input. All other
streams are evaluated by simulation. The process has one recycle stream. The conversion level in
the reactor should be specified for the design problem and the reactor size is computed. For
performance calculations, the conversion is calculated from the reactor unit module.

8
 S7

Acid, S1 Mixer S3 Reactor S4 Separator S5 Separator

Alcohol, S2
S6 S8

Acetate Water

Figure 02: Conceptual flow diagram for the isopropyl acetate process

When recycle streams are present, then iterative calculations are necessary as the calculated value
for the recycle may differ from the initial estimation, for all units in the recycle loop. Iterations
continue until the stream properties converge to a stable value, within a preset tolerance. Referring
to Figure 02, the calculations will proceed as follows:

1. Given streams S1 and S2, guess stream S7.

2. Since all input streams are known, sequentially calculate the output streams S3, S4, S5, S6,
S7, obtaining a new estimate of stream S7.
3. If the two stream values for S7 are within a specified small tolerance, the calculations have
converged. Otherwise the executive program estimates another value of stream S7 and
repeats steps 2 and 3.
There are several advantages in the sequential modular approach.

 The flowsheet architecture is most easily understood as it closely follows the process flow
diagram.
 Existing individual unit modules may be readily incorporated.
 Building blocks may be added to or remove from the flowsheet at ease.
 Besides, unit modules can be used at two different levels; a simple unit subprogram that does
not entail detailed calculations, but performs simple mass and/or energy balances in the early
design stage and a more sophisticated unit module either in the final design stage or in the
simulation of an operating plant.
Infeasible path optimization algorithms have been effective with equation-solving or simultaneous
modular process simulators. Using these simulators, successive quadratic programming is applied

9
to large nonlinear programs. However, the algorithms are not directly applicable to commercial
simulators of the sequential modular type.

Biegler et al.[2] developed an infeasible path optimization (simultaneous simulation convergence

and optimization) algorithm, IPOSEQ, by applying the Wilson-Han-Powell method of successive
quadratic programming to an equally-constrained simulation in terms of both design and tear
variables, which can be easily be integrated with most commercial process simulators. From
limited calculations with a flash example, IPOSEQ seems to be competitive with Quadratic /
Linear Approximation Programming (Q/LAP) and far superior to direct search methods such as
CPX. The infeasible path algorithm is effective, robust and very easy for the engineer to use. The
main advantages of this algorithm are its easy interface with many sequential modular simulators
and its efficient performance because it optimizes and converges at the same time. Further
improvements and testing should lead to an algorithm that permits frequent and efficient
optimization studies with sequential modular simulators.

Pierucci et al.[3] have experimented the combination of a modular sequential approach, as a basic
technique for the solution of the process schemes, with an equation-oriented approach as
convergence promoter for the solution of the recycle problems successfully. The basic idea is to
define approximated, but evolutionary models associated to the rigorous ones adopted inside the
process scheme. The evolutionary aspect is given by a set of internal, adaptive parameters, which
are redefined after each iteration in order to fit the performance of the rigorous models. The
introduction of these new models adds a parallel simulation problem to the original one that is the
simulation of the same process scheme, where an evolutionary model describes each unit. The
solution is carried out according to an equation-oriented approach. The system of equations is
properly decomposed and, then~ solved by means of existing algorithms for the solution of
nonlinear equations systems. As the evolutionary models give an approximated image, yet
coincident with the corrected one at the convergence, the solution of the approximated scheme is
seen as the prediction of the iteration variables in the original scheme. As a consequence of the
equation-oriented nature of the convergence promoter, all benefits intrinsic to the approach are
present in the method; efficiency, stability and possibility of tearing both simulation and design
problems in the same manner. The proposed approach is satisfactorily reliable and efficient so that

10
the user can face process schemes, even when the presence of detailed models discourages the
adoption of the other convergence promoters.

Perkins J. D.[4] proposed a simple modification to sequential-modular flowsheeting programs

which greatly increases their power. The modification involves the incorporation of Broyden's
method to handle simultaneously those equations resulting from torn recycle streams, and those
resulting from design specifications. Examples have showed that the incorporation of design
variables and specifications involves only a small overhead when they are handled by the new
method. The new method compares favorably in efficiency with the more traditional approach
using control blocks, and also provides a facility for the identification of badly posed problems.

The sequential modular approach is not without its drawbacks. In a complex system consisting of
a number of recycle streams, establishing the hierarchy of calculation order or precedence ordering
and iterative solutions can be inefficient, unless some form of optimal sequencing is built into the
executive program. Many widely used modern simulators like DESIGN 2000 (Chemshare, Texas,
USA), PROCESS (Simulation Sciences, California, USA) and CONCEPT III (CAD Centre,
Cambridge, UK) use the sequential modular approach incorporating optimal sequencing methods
and efficient convergence promotion methods.

The major disadvantage of the sequential modular approach becomes apparent when it is used for
design rather than performance calculations. In design, there are constraints imposed on the stream
values and, therefore, model parameters have to be adjusted to meet the design specification. This
would normally involve iterated simulation and would become computationally inefficient for
large processes, with the number of iterations approaching 1000.

Harrison et al.[5] investigated aspects of the performance problem of sequential modular flowsheet
simulators on advanced computer architectures. Modes computational performance improvements
can be expected with increasing flowsheet problem complexity. Tests also revealed that for the
sequential modular flowsheet simulator utilized, a large proportion of the computation time was
spent in physical property calculations. For the simulator studied, the structure of the code
inefficiencies would appear to prevent taking advantage of supercomputer architecture in a
substantial way.

11
3.2.2 Simultaneous Modular Approach

The simultaneous modular approach is similar in principle to sequential modular. The steps
involve the following:

1. For the first iteration, make initial estimates of recycle stream values.
2. Solve the problem using the sequential modular approach.
3. Having obtained the first estimate of input and output values for each unit, construct a linear
relationship between them; i.e. linearize the model equations.
4. Since the interconnection equations are already linear, solve the whole system of model and
interconnection equations simultaneously using matrix methods to obtain a new set of inlet
stream values.
5. If two successive iterates of assumed stream values converge within a preset tolerance, the
simulation is complete. Otherwise, go back to step 2.
In the simultaneous modular approach, the calculation alternate between sequential modular and
solution of linear equations and, thus, the computation time is reduced.

Perhaps the greatest advantage of simultaneous modular approach is that it is easier to use for
design problems. For example, the feed streams can be left unset and design constraints on specific
intermediate or outlet streams can be imposed during the generation of linearized model equations.
Some packages like FLOWP ACK II (ICI) use the simultaneous modular approach, even though,
to the user, it would appear sequential modular.

Fonyo et al.[6] have developed a new flexible method for modeling multistage multi component
separation processes. The method is based on the simultaneous modular approach and can be
referred to as a quasilinear two-level modeling. The network is solved within each iteration as a
linear one, and after each network solution the split streams are updated modularly using nonlinear
submodels. The method is suited for modeling the most important separation processes with
arbitrary structure and permits to use different models for the subunits or processing units. The
main objective of the study was to demonstrate that the simultaneous modular approach could be
successfully applied for calculating any kind of multistage, multi component separation processes
with arbitrary structure. The illustrative examples proved the stable application of the method to
distillation with narrow and wide boiling mixtures as well as with non-ideal mixtures, especially

12
to absorption, extraction and interlinked distillation columns. The principal significance of the
proposed modular method is that it is competitive and quite flexible; besides, it can be used with
different types of models for subunits; e.g., the concept of equilibrium stage can be combined with
short-cut method. Another potentially useful feature of the method is that its technique is highly
system-engineering-oriented, since the adaptation of the simultaneous modular strategy renders to
use the same network solution package possible at different hierarchical levels for the computation
of processing units, chemical plants, chemical complexes, etc.

The simultaneous-modular approach for process flowsheeting and optimization is a promising

alternative to the conventional sequential-modular approach. Several recent studies, including
those by Perkins [4], Biegler and Hughes [2, 7] have demonstrated the promise of the simultaneous-
modular approach for' both flowsheeting and optimization problems. These studies, however, are
typically fairly limited in scope. For this study, Chen et al.[8] developed a general-purpose
simulator, SIMMOD, based on the simultaneous-modular approach, to provide a critical
evaluation of the simultaneous modular approach for simulation, controlled simulation and
optimization problems, and to provide a means of testing different computational strategies for
implementing the simultaneous-modular approach. They report the results of this study in a series
of papers. The first paper concentrates on the theory underlying the simultaneous-modular
approach, and also provides a brief outline of implementation SIMMOD. Three basic problem
formulations for the simultaneous-modular approach are described, as are a number of alternatives
for computing the required Jacobian matrix. Also, an algorithm for flowsheet partitioning and
tearing III connection with the simultaneous-modular approach is presented. SIMMOD uses a
problem formulation whose computational requirements are closely in, line with the usual
sequential-modular simulators. Thus the results of the numerical studies performed using
SIMMOD and detailed in subsequent papers can readily be applied in the implementation of the
simultaneous-modular approach in existing sequential-modular simulators. In the second paper,
the performance of the simultaneous-modular approach on five simulation problems, ranging in
complexity from very simple to moderately complex is studied. Numerical experiments comparing
different computational strategies for implementing the simultaneous-modular approach are also
performed. Full-block perturbation is found to be the most suitable technique for obtaining the
flowsheet level Jacobian. On process simulation problems the simultaneous-modular approach, as
implemented in SIMMOD, is found to be as reliable as the sequential-modular approach, and

13
competitive with or sometimes much better than the sequential-modular approach in terms of
computational efficiency. Results of studies on five benchmark problems show that, as
implemented in SIMMOD, the simultaneous-modular approach is not only as reliable as the
sequential-modular approach, but is computationally as efficient if not more so, especially on the
more complex problems. Numerical experiments using SIMMOD indicate that:

 A number of sequential-modular iterations should be performed in order to initialize the

problem.
 The basic watchdog technique is very effective.
 A good scaling procedure can improve the efficiency and reliability of the optimization
algorithm.
 In some situations the choice of design variables can have a significant effect on overall
efficiency.
 The use of simple thermodynamic models to approximate derivatives appears to be
attractive.
The simultaneous modular algorithm offers many of the advantages of an equation solving
procedure while using the existing sequential modular software. Mahalec et al.[9] presented
theoretical analysis and experimental results of various implementations of the simultaneous
modular algorithm. The split fraction model of a unit behavior (y = ax) is shown to have worse
convergence properties than Wegstein's algorithm in a sequential modular procedure. Indeed, it is
quite a fortuitous set of circumstances when such a model exhibits stable convergence behavior.
The difference split fraction model (dy=adx) is shown to be equivalent to be Wegstein's algorithm
for a flowsheet with a single recycle loop. On systems with multiple recycle loops, the model
exhibits better convergence than Wegstein's algorithm. The simultaneous modular algorithm can
also be implemented as a sparse quasi-Newton procedure to solve systems of non-linear equations.
Such implementation allows simultaneous solution of design specifications and flow sheet
balances. One or more sequential passes through a flowsheet obtain an initial estimate of the stream
variables. The system Jacobian matrix is approximated by the difference split fraction unit models.
Subsequent Jacobian matrices are obtained by a sparse update procedure. Convergence properties
of various implementations are demonstrated by examples.

14
Trevino-Lozano et al.[10] described a simultaneous-modular algorithm for flowsheet simulation
and optimization. Nonlinear reduced models are solved by sequential quadratic programming with
decomposition of the optimization problem to decision variable space. The simulator is
implemented in ASPEN PLUS. An example is discussed involving a plug-flow reactor with flash
drum, splitter and mixer.

3.2.3 Equation Oriented Approach

In process flowsheeting where design and optimization have to be performed in the same program,
because of linear and non-linear constraints imposed by the optimization problem, the modular
approach becomes too cumbersome to use and iterated simulations may lead to prohibitively long
computation times. To overcome this problem, the equation oriented or simultaneous algebraic
approach was developed. The basis is that a collection of non-linear algebraic and differential
equations, which are solved simultaneously for all the unknowns, can represent the entire process.
The equations consist of model equations, interconnection equations, design specifications and
physical property and thermodynamic correlations. In the case of even a medium-sized industrial
plant, the system may contain several thousand equations. By suitable decomposition techniques,
the equations can be solved in modules.

The advantages of the equation-oriented approach are that:

 It is the natural way to specify a problem since the design problem is by nature an
optimization problem and the engineer does not have any other criterion for specifying many
arbitrary variables
 It is easy to specify variables and constraints
 It can handle highly integrated systems since all equations are solved simultaneously.
Some disadvantages of the approach are that:

 It may be more difficult to handle highly non-linear and discontinuous relations required to
represent physical properties
 It does not take advantage of the large investment of industry in unit operation models based
on the sequential-modular method
 It may be difficult for the user to diagnose a problem
 The method requires good initial estimates of the variables.

15
The feasibility of using equation-oriented simulators for small steady state and dynamic problems
has been demonstrated successfully, but their implementation to large-scale problems is still
currently under development. Some equation oriented simulators at an advanced stage of
development are SPEEDUP (Imperial College, London), ASCEND (Carnegie-Mellon University,
USA), FLOWSIM (University of Connecticut, USA) and QUASILIN (CAD Centre).

Bogle et al.[11] compared numerical solution methods for the simultaneous solution of large sparse
sets of nonlinear algebraic equations arising from flow sheeting problems. The methods are tested
on a set of mathematical problems and on six simulations. Newton and quasi-Newton methods are
significantly improved by attending to particular details of implementations of sparse quasi-
Newton methods, in particular, a sparse-scale invariant method, are generally more efficient and
robust than discrete Newton methods, particularly when used on flow sheeting problems.

Fletcher et al.[12] presented a dynamic simulator DASP (dynamic analysis and simulation package).
It is a modularly organized, equation-oriented, process-dynamic simulator for, mainly, the study
of a plant's response to disturbances, determination of the optimum ranges and sensitivities of
process variables and parameters for controller design, startup and shutdown simulation, and
operation of batch and transient processes and has the following sections: executive, equation-
solving package, equation-generation package, model routine, input/output routines, event-
processing routines, and vapor-liquid equilibrium/enthalpy package.

16
3.3 Description of different impact on different parameters
3.3.1 Impact of changing feed (stream-1) pressure on molar flow of methane in sales gas
(stream-45)

4353
45-Molar flow of methane (kgmole/h)

4352

4351

4350

4349

4348

4347

4346

4345
10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000
1-Pressure (kPa)

Figure 03: Effect of change in pressure of feed (stream-1) on molar flow of methane in sales gas
(stream-45)

From Figure 03 it can be seen that molar flow rate of methane in sales gas increased with increasing
pressure of feed (stream-1) up to a certain pressure value then it became constant and change in
pressure had no impact on the flow rate. The maximum obtainable value of molar flow rate of
methane in stream-45 was found at a pressure of 35000kPa which was 4351.8 kgmole/h as
observed from the plot.

3.3.2 Impact of change in temperature of stream-4 on molar flow of methane in sales gas
(stream-45)

Stream-4 was obtained by heating feed stream-1 by heater E-100. This initial heating of feed stream
had effect on final product composition. By heating the feed stream-1 and hence increasing the
temperature of stream-4 the molar flow rate of methane in sales gas (stream-45) can be increased
which is evident from the Figure 04.

17
 4352
45-Molar flow of methane (kgmole/h)

4350

4348

4346

4344

4342

4340
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
4-Temperature(oC)

Figure 04: Impact of change in temperature of stream-4 on molar flow of methane in sales gas
(stream-45)

3.3.3 Impact of change in temperature of stream-6 in molar flow of byproduct fuel gas
(stream-18)

Stream-6 which was obtained by heating the feed stream-3 had significant effect on molar flow
rate of fuel gas (steam-18) which was rich in methane. From the Figure 05 it can be said that molar
flow rate of stream-18 can reach maximum at an optimum temperature which is -25oC.
45
40
18-Folar flow(kgmol/h)

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
6-Temperature(oC)

Figure 05: Impact of change in temperature of stream-6 in molar flow of byproduct fuel gas
(stream-18)

18
3.3.4 Impact of change of temperature of stream-4 on the molar flow of stream-water1

Stream-4 was found by heating feed stream-1 which was sent to a three phase separator to separate
water from the stream-4. Water can be separated effectively at lower temperature which is evident
from the Figure 06.

0.8

0.7
water1-Molar flow(kgmol/h)

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50
-0.1
4-Temperature(oC)

Figure 06: Impact of change of temperature of stream-4 on the molar flow of stream-water1

3.2.5 Impact of change of temperature of stream-16a on the molar flow of stream-16a3

2.5
16a3-Molar flow (kgmol/h)

1.5

0.5

0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
16-Temperature (oC)

Figure 07: Impact of change of temperature of stream-16a on the molar flow of stream-16a3

19
Stream-16a was obtained by heating stream-16 which was passed through a three phase separator
to dehydrate it. Stream-16a3 came out as heavy liquid which was actually water. Dehydration of
stream-16a is desirable to yield water free fuel product. Increase in the temperature of stream-16a
gave decreased amount of molar flow of stream-16a3 which is supported by Figure 07.

3.3.6 Impact of change of temperature of stream-20 on the molar flow of stream-23

Stream-20 was separated by a three phase separator where stream-23 was separated as heavy liquid
which contained mainly water. Decrease in the temperature of stream-20 resulted in increased
molar flow of stream-23 which is presented below in graphical form.

0.5
0.45
0.4
23-Molar flow (kgmol/h)

0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
20-Temperature(oC)

Figure 08: Impact of change of temperature of stream-20 on the molar flow of stream-23

3.3.7 Performance plots of reboiled absorber (T-100)

Performance plots of reboiled absorber indicate the change of various parameters, i.e., temperature,
pressure, composition etc. in different tray position inside the column. In the Figure 09, the change
of temperature in different tray positions are shown. Although a sharp increase is observed at first,
then the degree of increase became lower and the temperature of column reached its maximum
value in the reboiler which is depicted in the plot below.

20
 300

250
Temperature (oC)

200

150

100

50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Tray position from top

Figure 09: Plot of temperature vs. tray position from the top of reboiled absorber (T-100)

1245

1240

1235
Pressure(kPa)

1230

1225

1220

1215

1210

1205
1 3 5 7 9 11
Tray position from the top

Figure 10: Plot of pressure vs. tray position from the top of reboiled absorber (T-100)
From the Figure 10, the pressure increased in a linear fashion from the top of column to the bottom
up to plate number 10 and then constant pressure was maintained at the stage 11 which was a
constant pressure reboiler.

21
 0.50

0.40

Mole fraction 0.30

methane
0.20 ethane
n-hexane
0.10 n-heptane

0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

-0.10
Tray position from the top

Figure 11: Plot of composition vs. tray position from the top of reboiled absorber (T-100)
From Figure 11 it is seen that the mole fraction of methane was maximum at the top of the column
and that of n-heptane reached its maximum at the 8th stage from the top. The portion of ethane and
n-hexane was negligible throughout the column. The stream-18 from the top of absorber was fuel
gas which was rich in methane.

3.3.8 Performance plots of distillation column (T-101)

In the figures below trend of change of temperature, pressure and composition in different plates
(starting from the top) are shown. Here the tray number 0 represents condenser at the top of the
column and the reboiler is represented by 11th stage.

200

150
Temperatre(oC)

100

50

-50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Tray position from the top

Figure 12: Plot of temperature vs. tray position from the top of distillation column (T-101)

22
 3620

3600

3580

3560
Pressure(kPa)

3540

3520

3500

3480

3460

3440
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Tray position from the top

Figure 13: Plot of pressure vs. tray position from the top of distillation column (T-101)

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
Mole faction

methane
0.3 ethane
n-hexane
0.2
n-heptane

0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.1
Tray position from the top

Figure 14: Plot of composition vs. tray position from the top of distillation column (T-101)
As observed from Figure 12 and 13, the temperature and pressure increased gradually from the top
to bottom of the column. But pressure zeroth stage and 11th stage remained constant as they
represent constant pressure condenser and reboiler respectively. Figure 14 shows that the mole
fractions of methane and ethane was high the top but decreased in the lower plates whereas that of
n-hexane and n-heptane increased from top to bottom.

23
6. Engineering Specification
In the simulation stream-39 was fed to the distillation column T-101 with flowrate of 232.7
kgmole/h at -36.17 ˚C and 3450 kPa pressure. From the distillation column, stream-41 was
obtained as top product with flowrate of 155 kgmole/h at -47.55˚C and 3450 kPa and bottom
product was stream-46 with flowrate of 77.72 kgmole/h at 151.1˚C and 3600 KPa. Specifications
for the distillation column T-101 are provided below.

Table 05: Engineering Specification on Distillation Column

Specifications Values
Number of Trays 10
Vessel Parameters(Reboiler & Condenser)
1.Diameter(m) 1.193
2.Length(m) 1.789
3.Volme(m3) 2
4.Orientation Horizontal
5.Hold Up(m3) 1
Tray Specification
1.Internal type Sieve
2.Diameter(m) 1.5
3.Tray space(m) 0.55
4.Tray volume(m3) 0.9719
5.Weeping Factor 1
6.Hold Up(m3) 0.0836
7.Weeping Factor 1
Reflux Ratio 1
Vent Rate(Kgmole/h) 155
Reboiler type Partial reboiler
Condenser type Total condenser

24
7. List of Units
Table 06: list of units that are used in simulation
Name of Units Number

1.Heat Exchanger(E-100 to 110) 11

2.Phase Separator(V-100 to 107) 8

3.TEE(TEE-100) 1

4.Mixer(MX-100 to 107) 8

5.Pump(P-100) 1
6.Expander(K-100) 1

7.Reboiled Absorber(T-100) 1

8.Distillation Column(T-101) 1

9.Valve(VLV-100 to 102) 3

25
8. Optimization of Profit
8.1 Selected Variables for Optimization
Table 07: Table for selected variables with low bound and high bound

Stream Variable Low bound Current value High bound

29 Pressure (kPa) 3550 3600 3650

6 Temperature (˚C) 42 46 50

16a Temperature (˚C) 2 00 2

28 Temperature (˚C) 44 48 52

20 Temperature (˚C) -45 -40 -35

25 Temperature (˚C) 25 29 32

28 Temperature (˚C) 45 48 51

8.2 Profit Optimization

Selling price of LPG = 0.75 USD/L
Selling price of NG = 2.53 USD/L
Selling price of fuel gas = 1 USD/m3
Cost of heating or cooling duty = 0.128 USD/kWh
Cost of power consumed by pump or compressor = 0.128 USD/kWh

Table 08: Table for power consumption before optimization

Total power consumption

Unit Power consumed (KWh)
(KWh)

P-100 3.070816

K-100 3108.383 3111.453

26
Table 09: Table for heating or cooling before optimization

Unit Duty (KJ/h) Total duty (KWh)

E-100 275728.9701

E-101 174074.1396

E-102 275728.9701

E-103 7823408.065

E-104 13847554.86

E-105 21413959.18

E-109 1456990.521
16621.23432
E-110 6756280.935

T-100 1793614.762

T-101 1635375.976

T-101 4383727.192

E-100 275728.9701

E-101 174074.1396

E-102 275728.9701

Table 10: Table for production before optimization

Product Production

LPG ( stream 47) 14.7167 L

NG ( stream 45) 1396.772 L

Fuel gas ( stream 18) 50.87675 m3

27
8.2.1 Profit calculation before optimization
Total heating and duty cost = 16621.23432 × 0.128 = 2127.518 USD/h
Total power cost = 3111.453 × 0.128 = 398.265 USD/h
Total cost = 2127.518 + 398.265 = 2525.784 USD/h
Total revenue = ((14.7167 × .75) + (1396.772 × 2.53) + (50.87675 × 1)) USD/h
= 3544922 USD/h
Profit = Total revenue – Total cost = (3544922 - 2525.784) USD/h
= 3542396 USD/h

Table 11: Table for heating or cooling after optimization

Unit Duty (KJ/h) Total duty (KWh)

E-100 275729

E-101 174074.1

E-102 604546.9

E-103 8597612

E-104 11671854

E-105 20383058

E-109 1455353 16149.33

E-110 7430858

T-100 1759756

T-101 1595383

T-101 4189351

E-100 275729

E-101 174074.1

E-102 604546.9

28
Table 12: Table for power consumption after optimization

Total power consumption

Unit Power consumed (KWh)
(KWh)

P-100 2.998562
3153.214
K-100 3150.215

Table 13: Table for production after optimization

Product Production

LPG ( stream 47) 14.77275 L

NG ( stream 45) 1396.852 L

Fuel gas ( stream 18) 49.49339 m3

8.2.2 Profit calculation after optimization

Total heating and duty cost = 16149.33 × 0.128 = 2067.11 USD/h
Total power cost = 3153.214 × 0.128 = 403.611 USD/h
Total cost = 2470.725 USD/h
Total revenue = ((14.772 × .75) + (1396.852 × 2.53) + (49.4934 × 1)) USD/h
= 3545164 USD/h
Profit = Total revenue – Total cost = 3542693.588 USD/h
Increment of profit after optimization = (3542693.588 - 3542396.171) USD/h
= 297.417 USD/h

29
8.3 Comparison of conditions before and after optimization
Table 14: Table for comparison of conditions of stream 16a

Conditions Before After

Vapor fraction 0.99 0.99

Temperature (˚C) -1.58 0.00

Pressure (kPa) 10340.00 10340.00

Molar flow (kg-mole/h) 4579.97 4578.85

Mass flow (kg/h) 79938.01 79876.32

Table 15: Table for comparison of conditions of stream 45

Conditions Before After

Vapor fraction 1.00 1.00

Temperature (˚C) 49.00 49.00

Pressure (kPa) 7651.00 7651.00

Molar flow (kg-mole/h) 4498.47 4498.39

Mass flow (kg/h) 74623.57 74632.07

Table 16: Table for comparison of conditions of stream 47

Conditions Before After

Vapor fraction 0.00 0.00

Temperature (˚C) 126.83 127.42

Pressure (kPa) 3600.00 3600.00

Molar flow (kg-mole/h) 97.23 96.63

Mass flow (kg/h) 7688.37 7665.47

30
Table 17: Table for comparison of conditions of stream 29

Conditions Before After

Vapor fraction 0.00 0.00

Temperature (˚C) 45.63 48.82

Pressure (kPa) 3600.00 3600.00

Molar flow (kg-mole/h) 18.17 18.61

Mass flow (kg/h) 2417.96 2465.22

Table 18: Table for comparison of conditions of stream 6

Conditions Before After

Vapor fraction 0.99 0.99

Temperature (˚C) 49.60 46.00

Pressure (kPa) 18600.00 18600.00

Molar flow (kg-mole/h) 1542.25 1542.25

Mass flow (kg/h) 27744.13 27744.13

Table 19:Table for comparison of conditions of stream 23

Conditions Before After

Vapor fraction 0.00 0.00

Temperature (˚C) -36.02 -40.00

Pressure (kPa) 10340.00 10340.00

Molar flow (kg-mole/h) 0.38 0.43

Mass flow (kg/h) 6.89 7.88

31
Table 20: Table for comparison of composition of stream 45
Composition (%) Composition (%) after
Component
before optimization optimization
Methane 96.6089 96.6089

Ethane 2.6273 2.6273

Propane 0.3166 0.3166

i-Butane 0.0299 0.0299

n-Butane 0.0199 0.0199

i-Pentane 0.0034 0.0034

n-Pentane 0.0013 0.0013

n-Hexane 0.0004 0.0004

n-Heptane 0.0002 0.0002

Octane 0.0000 0.0000

Nonane 0.0000 0.0000

Decane 0.0000 0.0000

C11 0.0000 0.0000

C12 0.0000 0.0000

C13 0.0000 0.0000

C14 0.0000 0.0000

H2O 0.0000 0.0000

Nitrogen 0.2698 0.2698

CO2 0.1223 0.1223

H2S 0.0000 0.0000

32
Table 21: Table for comparison of composition of stream 18
Composition (%) Composition (%) after
Component
before optimization optimization
Methane 71.7819 71.7845

Ethane 6.1010 6.1014

Propane 4.7270 4.7273

i-Butane 2.1685 2.1686

n-Butane 2.8902 2.8904

i-Pentane 2.8295 2.8297

n-Pentane 2.1180 2.1181

n-Hexane 4.0439 4.0419

n-Heptane 2.1159 2.1146

Octane 0.5953 0.5949

Nonane 0.1816 0.1815

Decane 0.0393 0.0393

C11 0.0144 0.0144

C12 0.0067 0.0067

C13 0.0036 0.0036

C14 0.0034 0.0034

H2O 0.0000 0.0912

Nitrogen 0.0815 0.0815

CO2 0.2071 0.2071

33
Table 22: Table for comparison of composition of stream 47
Composition (%) Composition (%) after
Component
before optimization optimization
Methane 0.0192 0.0194

Ethane 1.2586 1.2654

Propane 27.7159 27.7090

i-Butane 9.4453 9.4452

n-Butane 10.5494 10.5492

i-Pentane 5.9170 5.9169

n-Pentane 3.6219 3.6218

n-Hexane 6.9086 6.9089

n-Heptane 14.6734 14.6735

Octane 8.4662 8.4662

Nonane 4.2603 4.2603

Decane 1.5858 1.5858

C11 1.1132 1.1132

C12 9.562 0.9562

C13 1.1156 1.1156

C14 2.3925 2.3924

H2O 0.0001 0.0001

Nitrogen 0.0000 0.0000

CO2 0.0009 0.0009

H2S 0.0000 0.0000

From the tables shown above, it can be seen that the new conditions are very close to the previous
ones as the conditions were taken quite accurately initially.

34
9. Conclusion
The simulation of the gas processing plant has been performed properly based on the optimized
design parameters with some modification in the process flow diagram using Aspen HYSYS.
Properties and conditions of different unit processes were optimized. Process was optimized to the
operating conditions that maximize the overall profit for the process. The yield and composition
of the product sales gas found in this process was reasonable. Experiments to determine effect of
one parameter were carried out keeping the other ones fixed based on the optimum operative
conditions. The study of the operating data using Aspen HYSYS would result in slightly different
outputs which might be differ from design value since this simulation did not consider some
constraints related to processing procedure of natural gas. Natural gas with its abundance and
relatively cheap prices has a clear advantage of becoming alternative fuel and will definitely
maintain its contribution of global energy demand. So, a framework for the design, synthesis and
analysis of a natural gas processing and production is of great importance in the field of chemical
engineering.

35
Reference

1. Raghu Raman, "Chemical Process Computation," 1985, Elsevier Applied Science

Publisher Ltd., London and Newyork.
2. Biegler, L. T. and R. R. Hughes, "Infeasible Path Optimization with Sequential Modular
Simulators", AIChE J., 28, 994 (1982).
3. Pierucci, S. J., E. M. Ranzi and G. E. Biardi, "Solution of Recycle Problems in a Sequential
Modular Approach", AIChE J., 28,820 (1982).
4. Perkins, J. D., "Efficient Solution of Design Problems Using a Sequential-Modular
Flowsheeting Program", Cornput. Chern. Eng., 3, 375 (1979).
5. Harrison, B. K., "Computational inefficiencies in Sequential Modular Flowsheeting",
Cornput. Chern. Eng., 1992, 16(7), 637-9 (Eng).
6. Fonyo, Z., Nishimura, H. and Yamashita, Y., "New Simultaneous Modular Method
for Calculating Multistage Multicomponent Separation Processes", AIChE J., 29,
538 (1983).
7. Biegler, L. T. and R. R. Hughes, "Approximation Programming of Chemical
Processes with QILAP", Chern. Eng. Prog., 77 (40, 76(1981).
8. Chen, H. S., and M. A. Stadtherr, "A Simultaneous-Modular Approach to Process
Flowsheeting and Optimization. I: Theory and Implementation", AIChE J., 31(11),
1843(1985).
9. Mahalec, Y., H. Kluzik and L. B. Evans, "Simultaneous Modular Algorithm for
Steady-State Flowsheet Simulation and Design" Cornput. Chern. Eng., 3, 373(1979).
10. Bogle, 1. D. L., Perkins, J. D., "Sparse Newton like methods in Equation-Oriented
Flowsheeting", Comput. Chern. Eng., 1988, 12(8), 791-805 (Eng).
11. Fletcher, J. P., Ogbonda, J. E., "A Modular Equation-Oriented Approach to Dynamic
Simulation of Chemical Processes", Comput. Chern. Eng., 1988, 12(5), 401-5 (Eng).

36