CHEE3004 : PROJECT 2

Design of Heat Exchanger Equipment

Robert O Malley
Faizzi Lokman
Lu Ran
Farah Liyana Zaini

43******
43******
********
43078770

Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 2
Process Concept Design of Heat Exchanger ........................................................................................... 3
Lean Amine Cooler ......................................................................................................................... 3
Lean-Rich Heat Exchanger ............................................................................................................. 4
Condenser ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Reboiler ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Thermal and Hydraulic Rating Design (Lean Amine Cooler) ................................................................ 7
Thermal Calculations with Brief Descriptions.................................................................................... 7
Energy Balances, Corrected LMTD, Overall Heat Transfer Coefficients and Heat Transfer Area 7
Initial Specifications ....................................................................................................................... 8
Calculation of Surface Area Required by Correlation .................................................................... 9
Verification ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Hydraulic Calculations...................................................................................................................... 10
Tube Side Pressure Drop............................................................................................................... 10
Shell Side Pressure Drop............................................................................................................... 11
Heat Exchanger Summary ................................................................................................................ 12
Sketches ............................................................................................................................................ 13
Discussion and Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 14
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 18
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 19
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... 20

Page |1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In this report, the acid removal gas system via amine and the energy requirement of each heat
exchanger in the system is discussed. Other than that, the heat duty and surface area of each heat
exchanger is calculated. However, the lean amine cooler is chosen is chosen for a more vigorous
calculation in Part B.
The preliminary report consists of the simple calculations of each heat exchanger. They are the lean
amine cooler, lean-rich heat exchanger, condenser and reboiler. From the simple calculation, the
surface area of each heat exchanger is determined. The surface area of lean amine cooler is
determined to be 94m2, whereas the lean rich heat exchanger needs 63.6 m2. Condenser, on the other
hand, is calculated to have a surface area of 16.9 m2 while the reboiler needs 167 m2.
For Part B, a more vigorous calculation is done on the lean amine cooler. The surface area heat
transfer is calculated to be 428m2. This value is compared to the one in Aspen ONE. Other than that,
the specifications on the lean amine cooler are also determined based on the pressure drop which is
extracted via hydraulic calculations. The pressure drop is calculated to be 1.76 psi on the tube side and
0.237 psi on the shell side.
Other than that, the discussion of the operating problems, new technologies, and recommendations are
also further discussed. The corrosion problem is one of the main concerns in the amine system. One of
the recommendations would require the use of stainless steel as the construction material. The change
in amine solvent from DEA to MDEA is also discussed, as the MDEA has further advantages such as
lesser heat of reaction than DEA. The effects of doubled sour gas flow rate on the system are also
discussed.

Page |2

Process Concept Design of Heat Exchanger

Lean Amine Cooler
Design Brief and Purpose
The purpose of this heat exchanger is to cool
the recycled lean amine to the acceptable
temperature of below 35C. The rich amine is
recovered in the solvent regenerator and the
lean amine is produced from the reboiler
bottom at a temperature of about 255C before
being fed into the Lean Amine Cooler.
Special Issues
Heat is lost due to the difference between the
enthalpy input ( ) and the heat duty
( ). The heat duty is found to be 9828151
kg/h. The heat exchange efficiency values at
99.45%. Hence, heat loss can be neglected.
The calculation for heat duty can be found in
Appendix A.1.
The overall heat exchange coefficient is to be
estimated by considering factors including the

conduction/convection resistances and fouling.

It was found that the fouling factors for the
Lean Oil and the jacket Water are 0.002
and 0.001
. A
detailed estimation is elaborated in later
sections.
Key Assumptions
Some of the key assumptions are the
temperature of water at 25C and 1atm is
selected as the coolant and the thinness of the
heat exchanger wall is which made the
conduction resistance is neglected. Other than
that, a heat transfer coefficient value of
170
(965.2858982
)
is used from a typical range of 140-200
. It is also assumed that the
operation is in steady state and the thermal
properties are uniform and constant.

Figure 1: Schematic Design of Lean Amine Cooler

Corrected Log Mean Temperature Difference

= 27.46704734 K 0.93 =

25.54435402 K93 ( L., McCabe, & C., 1993)

1 Shell and 2 Tube Heat Exchanger
Exchanger Type
Shell Side: 6.25% DEA
Fluid Placement
Tube Side: Jacket Water
Estimated Heat Transfer Area Required
94.11035213
Shell: Stainless Steel
Initial Specification for Material of
Tube:
Low Carbon Steel
Construction
Table 1: Other Properties of Lean Amine Cooler Heat Exchanger

Page |3

Lean-Rich Heat Exchanger

Design Brief and Purpose

change is also negligible in heat calculations

as there is only a small amount.

The purpose of this heat exchanger is to heat

up the rich amine feed to the regenerator,
while cooling down the regenerator bottoms.
This heat exchanger reduces the duty of the
reboiler in the regenerator column, and also
decreases the pump duty and water
requirements for the lean amine cooler.

The heat exchanger consists of 1 shell and 2

tube pass. Rich DEA goes at the tube side as it
has more acid gasses in the stream. Both Rich
and Lean Amine flows have sumps to avoid
the need for bypass valves.

Key
Assumptions, Type of
Instrumentation and Special Issues

Other than that, the overall heat transfer

coefficient is assumed to be 1000W/m2.C from
literature values. Other fluid properties can be
found
in
Appendix
A.2.

HEX,

It is assumed that the heat exchanger tube wall

is thin with negligible resistance. The phase

Figure 2: Schematic Design of Lean-Rich Heat Exchanger

Duty (kW)
Rich Amine Inlet Temperature (C)
Rich Amine Outlet Temperature (C)
Lean Amine Inlet Temperature (C)
Lean Amine outlet Temperature (C)
Corrected log mean temperature difference (C)
Rich Amine Inlet Flow rate (kg/hr)
Rich Amine Outlet Flow rate (kg/hr)
Lean Amine Inlet Flow rate (kg/hr)
Lean Amine outlet Flow rate (kg/hr)
Exchanger Type
Fluid Placement
Estimated overall Heat Transfer Coefficient
(W/m2.C)
Estimated required area of heat transfer (m2)
Initial specification for materials of construction

1649
60
93.3
124.2
90.9
25.92
47070
47070
43650
43650
Shell and Tube Heat exchanger
Rich Amine / Regenerator Feed tube side
1000

63.6
Tubes: Low carbon Stainless Steel eg.
2205 Duplex Stainless steel
Shell: Stainless Steel
Table 1: Other Properties of Lean-Rich Heat Exchanger

Page |4

Condenser
Design Purpose and Description
The function of condenser is to recover water
and small amount of amine that is vaporised in
the regenerator, aside from cooling the
overhead gases from the stripper. There are
two streams coming out of the condenser
which consist of the vapour stream and the
liquid stream. The liquid stream that is
composed of 99% water is returned to the
stripper. On the other hand, the acid gases end
up at the vapour stream and are vented or
incinerated.
Special Issues, Type of HEX, Fluid
Placement, and Material of Construction.
A simple counter-current 1-2 shell and tube
heat exchanger is used as the condenser. The
coolant chosen, the cooling water is placed at
the tube side of heat exchanger. Due to the
corrosive nature of the acid gases, the acid gas

is more suitable to be placed at the shell side

of heat exchanger. The material that is
appropriate for the condenser would be
stainless steel, as it is more corrosion-resistant.
Basic Control and Instrumentation
Basic control of the condenser includes a
pressure valve which could control the outlet
temperature of the stream and monitor the
physical condition due to fouling. There are
also temperature sensor, which is connected to
temperature transmitter and flow controller.
Key Assumptions
Includes no heat loss to the environment, the
amount of non-condensable in outlet liquid
stream and mass of liquid vaporised out of the
system are negligible.

Figure 3 : Schematic Design of Condenser

Components
Duty
Inlet Temperatures

Values
Notes/Justifications
904.34 kJ/s
15oC
*An assumption made
Steam
o
104 C
Acid Gas
40oC
*An assumption made
Outlet Temperatures
Steam
82oC
*Assumed as saturation
Acid Gases
temperatures
82oC
Reflux
o
53 C
LMTD
8.64 kg/s
At the tube-side of HEX.
Coolant Flowrate
Water
1.33 kg/s
Acid Gas Flowrate
To Condenser
0.95 kg/s
Acid Gas
0.38 kg/s
Reflux
1000
From Coulson-Richardson
U
2
16.89 m
A
Table 3: Other Properties of Condenser (Calculations in Appendix A.3)

Page |5

Reboiler
Design Purpose and Description
Reboilers are used to generate a flux of vapor
to be fed to a distillation tower; the vapor rises
up the tower contacting a downwards-flowing
liquid stream (Whalley, 1983). Proper reboiler
operation is vital for effective distillation. In a
typical classical distillation column, the entire
vapor driving the separation comes from the
reboiler. The reboiler receives a liquid stream
from the column bottom and may partially or
completely
vaporize
that
stream. Steam usually provides the heat
required for the vaporization (Perry, 1984)

Key Assumptions
Includes steady state system, steady flow, no
heat loss to the environment, negligible
pressure drop, and negligible temperature
change on the process.
Special Issues
The main problems for kettle reboiler are that
of ensuring proper disentailment of liquid from
the outgoing vapor and the problem of the
collection of scale and other solid materials in
the tube bundle region over long periods of
operation. (Whalley,1983).

Figure 4: Schematic Diagram of Reboiler

Duty (kW)

4864.8

Mean temperature differences (0C)

15.7544

Exchanger types

Kettle

Fluid placement

Tube Steam

Estimated overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2.0C)

1845.3 [3]

Estimate heat transfer area (m2)

167.3350

Initial specification of materials of construction

Shape Cylinder

Shell Liquid inlet

Volume 2 m3
Diameter 1.193 m
Material Stainless steel
Table 4: Other Properties of Reboiler(Fluid Properties and Calculations in Appendix A.4)

Page |6

Thermal and Hydraulic Rating Design (Lean Amine Cooler)

Thermal Calculations with Brief Descriptions
Energy Balances, Corrected LMTD, Overall Heat Transfer Coefficients and Heat Transfer Area
The total surface area required by the heat exchanger is calculated from the general energy balance.

The legend table for the above equation can be found in Appendix D. Before obtaining A, , and
are to be found. For initial design, a
value of 170
is selected from a range of typical
values from 140-200
.

The other two parameters can be evaluated by the temperature conditions following the assumptions in
previous sections (see Figure 1).

Figure 5: Temperature Conditions for the Lean Amine Cooler

To calculate ,

Where,

To evaluate

and

, Z and

are to be calculated to locate the corresponding value in Appendix B.1.

(3)
(4)

Page |7

As
, the correlated LMTD is calculated by using the equation , which is found to be
5.554 K. Hence, the surface area required can be determined by equation below.

(5)

Initial Specifications
The Shell and Head were chosen as AES because Diethanolamine (DEA) is a solid at room temperature and a
viscous liquid when mixed with water (see Appendix 2). Frequent mechanical cleaning is required by treating
the 6.25% DEA. There are two common options for the two ends, bonnet or channel for the front end and
fixed tube-sheet or floating head for the rear end. Bonnet heads are cheap and avoids leakage but more
difficult for maintenance compared to the channelled ones. A fixed tube-sheet shares the similar advantages of
the bonnet head but it also brings difficulties in cleaning. The other reason of this selection is the temperature
difference between the two inlet streams is a considerable value of
,
which is larger than the limit of 100 suggested by Dr. Serth (Serth, 2010). To mitigate the differential
thermal expansion between the tube and shell, an expansion joint is to be added. This cost would overwhelm
the savings by choosing the fixed tube-sheet type.
A 14 BWG tube size was selected to handle fouling fluids. Both the cooling water and the 6.25% DEA tend to
experience fouling. For non-fouling hydrocarbon services, in. 14 BWG is recommended by Dr. Serth
(Serth, 2010). By increasing the tube diameter, the fouling factor inside the tube can be brought down.
Square Pitch was evaluated to be suitable for this operation. There are 3 conventional layouts, triangular,
square and rotated square (see Appendix B.3). Triangular pitch is restricted by clean fluids; rotated square
gives higher heat transfer efficiency while raising the pressure drop demands (Serth, 2010).
Baffles were specified to minimise the surface area required and sealing strips was kept at the lowest possible
number for lower capital cost. Firstly, the baffle cut and spacing were set to be 20% and 8 in. Thus, from
Appendix B.4, a baffle thickness of 0.25 in. was corresponded. In addition, if the heat exchanger length is
equal to the tube length, the number of baffles required to be installed will be

approximately. On the

other hand, an assumption of minimum bundle bypass outside the tubes was made to make 1 pair/10 tuberows a selection from the typical range from 1 pair/4 tube-rows to 1 pair/10 tube-rows.
Steels were selected as the construction materials. For 0.625 to 1.5 in. tubing, low carbon steel, Admiralty,
copper, copper-nickel, stainless steel, Hastelloy, Inconel, or titanium can be good choices (Southwest Thermal
Technology, 2014). In terms of the shell side, stainless steel is commonly utilized (Serth, 2010).
The number of tubes was an estimated value from Appendix B.5. It depends on all the factors specified prior.
Dr. Serth provides the tube count table for estimation purposes. Shell side interior diameter and the TEMA
designation are required in this table (Serth, 2010).
Exchanger Type
Fluid Placement
Shell & Head Type

Tubes

1 Shell Pass and 2 Tube Pass Heat Exchanger

Shell Side: 6.25% DEA
Tube Side: Jacket Water
TEMA Designation: AES
Channelled Floating Head with 1 Pass Shell and
Backing Device
(see Appendix 6)
Outside Diameter (OD): 0.75 in.
Inside Diameter (ID): 0.584 in.
BWG: 14

Page |8

Square Pitch: 1 in.

Single Segmental Baffle (see Appendix 7)
Baffle Cut: 20%
Baffle Spacing: 8 in.
Baffle Thickness: 0.25 in.
One Pair per 10 Tube Rows
Sealing Strips
Shell: Stainless Steel
Initial Specification for Material of
Tube: Low Carbon Steel
Construction
918
Estimated Number Tubes
Table 5 Initial Specifications for the Lean Amine Cooler
Tubing Layout
Baffles

Calculation of Surface Area Required by Correlation

The overall heat transfer coefficient was evaluated by the following formula (Serth, 2010). The legend table
for Equation (6) is in Appendix D.
(

(6)
Following the assumption of thin wall in the earlier estimation, the formula is reduced (Serth, 2010).
(7)
Thus, ,
and

and

are to be found.

values can be obtained from Appendix B.8.

for Jacket Water and

for the Lean Oil.

and
were evaluated using the method prescribed by Incropera (Incropera, 2011). The basic idea of this
method is to follow the convection correlation table in Appendix 9. The reasoning logic is shown below.
(1) Geometry of a Forced Internal Convection
(2) Finding or Estimating the Dimensions and Specifications of the Model
(3) Calculation for the Prandtl number, Reynolds number
(4) Determination of the Nusselt number
(5) Obtaining the Convective Heat Transfer Coefficient
Notably, step 2 needs valid data and reasonable assumptions and is critical for accurate evaluation. The
assumptions made and a detailed worksheet of calculation is attached in Appendix B.10.
From this method, a more accurate overall heat transfer coefficient of 249.3284057
The calculated surface area was 428.6498481 .

was obtained.

Verification
The error between the calculated and the estimated error was calculated.

The result obtained was bigger than expectation. Even if 140

from the typical range of 140200
was taken, the estimated value will be raised to 134.4433601 . The error will be
brought down to 68.64% which is still a large deviation.

Page |9

The result suggested the systematic defects of the evaluation method. Firstly, most of the key data such as the
superficial velocity at the tube side and the viscosity correlation term (/wall)0.14, were assumed values. The
tube-side superficial velocity is supposed to be calculated from the mass flow rate of the cooling water and
accounted in the actual tubing cross-sectional area which is the difference between the overall cross-sectional
area and the shell-passing area. While in terms of viscosity correlation, if the difference between and wall is
large, it will contribute to a considerable impact on the Nusselt number estimation. Secondly, the method of
evaluation from Incropera is not suitable for this model. The large deviation itself is evidence. The other
approach using AspenOne gave a more accurate result (see Appendix 11). However, an investigation is to be
conducted to abstract the method of AspenOne.

Hydraulic Calculations
Tube Side Pressure Drop
The tube side pressure drop was calculated following the method in Serth (Serth, 2010), by summing the
pressure drops due to frictional losses, minor losses and nozzle losses.
(8)
The frictional losses tube side
(9)
The legends for the equations and the values of the variables for the calculations for tube side pressure drop
can be found in Appendix D and Appendix B.12.
From both of the equations above,

is found to be 1.091 psi.

To calculate minor losses, velocity heads are estimated, such that in turbulent flow:
(10)
Where
2.5.

is the velocity head and np is number of tube passes. As this design includes 2 tube passes,

This velocity head is used to estimate the minor losses with the equation

(11)

= 0.1234 psi
For Nozzle losses in turbulent flow regimes
(12)
Where Ns is the number of shell passes, and Gn is the mass flux through the nozzle.
psi.
Giving a total pressure loss for the tube side at

P a g e | 10

Shell Side Pressure Drop

Shell side pressure drop excluding nozzle losses was calculated using the Simplified Delaware method laid
out in Serth (Serth, 2010). This is given by the equation
(13)
This results in a pressure drop of
To include the nozzle pressure drop the same equation to calculate tube side nozzle loss was used, with the
mass flux reflecting the shell side,
is calculated.
psi.
Total loss shell side is then calculated.

Summing up :
Shell Side (psi)

Total Pressure drop

Tube Side (psi)

0.237
Table 6: Total Pressure Drop Across heat Exchanger

1.76

Refer to Appendix B.11 for calculation spreadsheet

P a g e | 11

Heat Exchanger Summary

Figure 6 Heat Exchanger Data Sheet in metric units

P a g e | 12

Sketches
Aspen was used to produce the sketches of the heat exchanger.

435
19 .0 5
25 .4 000

374.65 mm

435

Shell inside diameter

mm

939.8

Front head inside diameter

mm

939.8

Outer tube limit

mm

892.175

Tube number (calcs.)

870

Tube number (layout)

870

Tube length

mm

5080.

Tube O.D.

mm

19.05

Tube pit ch

mm

25.4

Tube pattern

90

Tube passes

Tie rod number

374.65 mm

Tie rod diameter

mm

12.7

Sealing strips (pairs)

Baffle type

Single segmental

Centre to outer baffle cut

mm

323.85

Shell Side Inlet Nozzle Inside Diameter

mm

254.508

Shell Side Outlet Nozzle Inside Diameter

mm

254.508

Centre to inner baffle cut

Impingement protection

None

Aspen Shell & Tube

Tube Layout

Design Codes
ASME Code Sec VIII Div 1
TEMA R - refinery service

Drawing Number

Customer Specifications
Revis ion

Date

Dwg.

App.

30/10/2014

Views on arrow A

6255 Overall

T2
407

317

4337

684

330

S1

684

T2

T1

684

S1

S2
407

S2

Pulling Length

1016

3048

4420

833

833

51

208

51

102

102

2 Bolts
Fixed

Ref
S1
S2
T1
T2

OD
273 mm
273 mm
273 mm
273 mm

Wall
9.3 mm
9.3 mm
9.3 mm
9.3 mm

Nozzle Data
Standard
150 ANSI Slip on
150 ANSI Slip on
150 ANSI Slip on
150 ANSI Slip on

Notes

Design Data
Design Pr essure
Design Temperature
Full Vacuum
Corrosion Allowance
Test Pressure
Number of Passes
Radiography
PWHT
Internal Volume

2 Bolts
Sliding

Units
bar
C

Shell
3.45
126.67

Channel
3.45
126.67

mm
bar

3.175

3.175

3.5849

0.639

208

722

684

T1

Aspen Shell & Tube Exc hanger

Setting Plan
Design Codes
ASME Section VIII Div. 1
TEMA R

AES 940 - 5080

Draw ing Number

Customer Specifications
Empty
7914 kg

Weight Summary
Flooded
12083 kg

Bundle
4854 kg

Revision

Date
30/10/2014

Dwg.

Chk.

App.

Figure 7: Sketches of the Heat Exchanger

P a g e | 13

Discussion and Analysis

1.
Natural gas contains H2S and C02 which are corrosive in the presence of water. Due to this factor and the
toxicity of H2S and the lack of heating value of C02, sales gas is required to be sweetened to contain no more
than a quarter grain H2S per 100 standard cubic feet (4 parts per million). The most widely used processes to
sweeten natural gas are those using the alkanolamines such as DEA and MEA. They are used as aqueous
solvents to selectively absorb H2S and C02 from sour natural gas streams. The amine is described as being
lean in acid gas as it enters the top of the absorber, and rich as it exits the bottom, loaded with acid gas.
The rich solvent is preheated before entering the stripper. The lean amine exiting from the reboiler is then
cooled in a shell and tube lean/rich heat exchanger with the rich solvent passed through the tubes before
entering the absorber, which would reduce the heat load on the reboiler. The tubes are usually made of
stainless steel. A recommended maximum velocity to minimize corrosion in the tubes is 3 or 3.5 feet/sec
(Kohl)
The overhead condenser, the reboiler tube bundle, and the upper third of the stripping column shell are all
susceptible to high corrosion rates, and may need to be manufactured out of stainless steel (Butwell, 1982).
Thermal degradation, which can contribute to corrosion, can be minimized by designing the reboiler to use a
low temperature heating medium such as low pressure steam.
A filtration scheme of mechanical and activated carbon filters is important in maintaining good solution
control. Mechanical filters such as, cartridge filters or precoat filters remove particulate material while call
filters remove chemical contaminants such as entrained hydrocarbons and surface-active compounds.
Locating the filters in the rich line upstream of the lean rich heat exchanger will protect both the heat
exchanger and the stripper from plugging, and reduce the erosion/corrosion rate in the heat exchanger. In
terms of safety for the workers who dismantle, inspect and clean out the filters, it is far more hazardous to
locate the filters in the rich line than in the lean line. In many plants, it is specifically for this safety reason that
the filters are placed in the lean line.
Corrosion is a problem experienced by many alkanolamine gas sweetening plants. When loaded with C02 and
H2S, aqueous amine solutions can become corrosive to carbon steel. Corrosion rates are increased by high
amine concentration, high acid gas loading, high temperatures, degradation products, and foaming. There are
certain areas of amine sweetening plants which are more susceptible to corrosion than others, and, as a result,
are often constructed of corrosion-resistant materials such as Type 304 stainless steel (Kohl). These areas
include, the lean/rich heat exchanger tube bundle, the reboiler tube bundle and the reflux condenser.
In terms of design, a number of measures can be taken to minimize corrosion. Solution velocities should not
exceed 3 or 3.5 ft/sec (Kohl). The rich solution should be on the tube side of the lean/rich heat exchanger, and
pressure should be maintained on the exchanger to prevent acid gases from flashing, creating an
erosion/corrosion cycle. A low temperature heating medium should be used in the reboiler, thereby preventing
accelerated corrosion rates and thermal degradation of the amine. All equipment should be stress relieved.
2
Amine gas treating is an energy consuming process because the amine absorbs the components at low
temperature and high pressure and then releases the components at high temperature and low pressure. The
main objective is to gain an optimum balance between capacity, energy and corrosion. Tranter has suitable
heat transfer equipment for all the duties involved in the main process such as rich/lean amine interchanger,
lean amine cooler, stripper reboiler and overhead condenser.

P a g e | 14

The main heat exchanger, often referred to as the rich/lean amine interchanger, has the task of preheating the
rich amine prior to it entering the stripper, thus reducing the reboiler workload, and also precooling the lean
amine prior to reentry into the absorber. The main heat exchanger requires good heat recovery; therefore the
thermal length of the heat exchanger is a key feature (refer Appendix C.2). Since the rich amine side often
creates fouling in the heat exchanger, it is important to allow a high pressure drop to keep the shear stress high
and thus minimize fouling tendencies. It is also important to choose a heat exchanger that is easy to open for
cleaning. A single pass gasketed plate heat exchanger with a tall plate will give a high shear stress if there is
pressure drop and facilitates easy maintenance. A single pass heat exchanger is also preferred as it is common
with partial vaporization on the rich amine side in this process.
In the stripper reboiler, the amine is heated to the requisite temperature for the acidic components to be
evaporated and to allow stripping of components from the amine. Accurate temperature control is required for
efficient stripper operation. An overview optimization of the heat exchanger can help reduce the reboiler duty
and thus reduce capital investment and the running costs of the amine plant.
There are other technology options for the reboiler aside from the shell and tube heat exchanger. One of them
is the shell and plate heat exchanger. By using a shell and plate heat exchanger as a reboiler, small
temperature difference is allowed between the hot and cold sides. This will prevent the amine from becoming
overheated and suffering degradation, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the amine plant.
Other equipment that can be optimized would be the condenser. In the condenser, condensate has to be
separated from the non-condensable acid gases. This is best achieved by using a separator vessel following the
heat exchanger. Separation can also be achieved in condensor itself by using a reflux condenser. However, the
main disadvantage of reflux condensers is the limited flooding velocity allowes. To achieve reflux in a
condenser, the maximum velocity of the gas where the condensate will be able to fall back into the column
against the counter current gas stream has to be known. The velocity in the condensers channels needs to
allow for condensate runback.
Looking at capital investment, weight and size, the best result is often to use shell and plate heat exchanger
followed by a separator vessel. This way the reflux is ensured and the total capital investment, size and weight
of the installation remains far lower compared to a conventional vertical shell and tube reflux condenser.
Another compact solution is to have a spiral reflux condenser integrated into the column. The wide, single
channel arrangement of the spiral heat exchanger easily allows for reflux of the condensate back into the
column. The capital expenses are higher when compared to a shell and plate heat exchanger in combination
with separator vessel, but the execution provides space saving and neat separation of condensate.
Selecting a fit purpose heat exchanger for the gas sweetening process will improve the performance of the
amine plant, reduce investment costs and overall costs of ownership. Efficiency can be increased with a
correctly selected plate heat exchanger, while maintenance costs and intervals can be reduced. Refineries
industries nowadays are starting to enjoy the advantage of shell and plate heat exchangers over shell and tube
heat exchangers.
3.
Comparison between MDEA and DEA
DEA is a secondary amine whereas MDEA is a tertiary amine. MDEA is a better option in removing H 2S as
it is highly selective towards H2S in preference to CO2 in a non-equilibrium situation. MDEA would react
with H2S as instantaneous as possible by proton transfer, but MDEA reacts quite slowly with CO 2. This

P a g e | 15

occurrence is due to the absence of hydrogen atom attached to the nitrogen atom in MDEA. Hence, the
reaction of CO2 with the amine can only occur as CO2 has reacted with water to form bicarbonate (Burr B.,
Lyddon L., n.d.).
DEA, on the other hand, is non-selective towards both H2S and CO2. Hence, these contaminants can be
removed from the feed stream.
Circulation Flow Rates
In order to remove most of H2S in the sour gas, high rate of DEA is needed. MDEA, on the other hand, needs
a lower circulation rate. This is because MDEA is more specifically targeted towards H 2S. Hence, MDEA
needs a higher contact time with CO2 for the reaction between the both of the substances to occur. The lower
circulation flow rates would then ensure that more CO2 would be absorbed from the sour gas stream.
MDEA also has higher solution concentration (35wt% compared to 28wt%) and higher loading than DEA
(0.45 mole/mole of pure MDEA compared to 0.07mole/mole of pure DEA).
Effects to the Heat Exchangers
Due to the lower amine circulation, many factors such as the temperature of feed coming into each heat
exchangers and the duty would change. The reflux ratio has also been lowered. Hence, the energy
requirements for the heat exchangers can be minimised. Other than that, smaller equipment sizing is required
to get the same product using DEA.
By using MDEA, the degradation of amine is lessened. Hence, the corrosion rate in these heat exchangers can
be reduced as well. Other than that, the heat duties of all of these exchangers can be decreased.
Below are the other effects to each of the heat exchangers.
Reboiler and Condenser
The amine reboiler and condenser duty would be lower due to the lower heat of reaction for both H2S and CO2
combination and lower amine circulation rate. The heat of reaction of DEA and H 2S and CO2 are 1290 kJ/kg
and 1700 kJ/kg respectively, whereas the heat of reaction of MDEA and H2S and CO2 are 1230 kJ/kg and
1420 kJ/kg respectively. The inlet temperature of the regenerator would also be reduced, as the heat of
reaction is lower, which affects the reboiler duty, as well.
Lean Rich Heat Exchanger and Lean Amine Cooler
The lean amine stream and the lean rich heat exchanger streams can be operated at a higher temperature as
MDEA has lesser risk of degradation. Hence, the reduction of temperature of these streams would not be as
significant as using DEA as the solvent. Again, the duties of these exchangers would decrease, aside from the
reduction of the energy consumption of the AGRU.
Other than that, lean amine cooler limitations in the summer are eliminated. Hence, the processing capacity in
warmer periods of the year is improved.
4.
Basically, the Acid Gas Removal Unit (AGRU) removes CO2 and H2S from the system to make sure that the
natural gass quality is not compromised. Other than that, it is important to get the sour gas out of the system
to decrease the risk of corrosion in pipeline and equipment.

P a g e | 16

However, as the concentration of the sour gas is doubled, certain changes would definitely happen to the
amine system. It is highly likely for less CO2 slippage to occur as higher proportion of CO2 would be
dissolving into the water. If the amine solvent flow rate is kept as constant, excess CO2 which dissolves into
the water would form carbonic acid by the hydroxylation reaction. The carbonic acid would then dissociate
slowly to bicarbonate, which is very acidic, hence increasing the corrosion risks of the solution.
Aside from that, as the concentration of CO2 increases, the CO2 recovered by the DEA would then increases
as well. This is due to the equilibrium shifts which are resulted by the increasing concentration of CO 2
(Nuchitprasittichai, 2012). Hence, the product of carbamate or bicarbonate ion would be higher, causing
higher loading of CO2. Higher amounts of CO2 would then enter the regeneration column. Therefore, higher
purge requirement for CO2 downstream from the condenser would be expected.
Higher concentration of CO2 would imply on the higher amount of non-condensables coming into the
condenser from the top stream of the stripper. This would affect the efficiency of the condenser, as it would
increase the heat transfer resistance from the amine to the cooling water. Hence, a larger heat transfer area
would be needed to achieve the same degree of separation. Other options available in order to achieve
maximum efficiency of the condenser would be to change the coolant flow rates and the inflow stream. As
this happens, a higher log mean temperature difference can be found; hence the resistance of heat transfer due
to the non-condensables would be less significant.
Other option would be increasing the amount of amine solvent in order to remove the CO 2 to its pleasurable
concentration in the sweetened gas. Hence, the extra DEA would definitely increase the energy required for
the separation of both CO2 and H2S from the sour gas. The energy required could be controlled by increasing
the stream flow rate through the reboiler. The energy requirement can also be decreased by using a high
pressure steam flow rate. The disadvantages to these options would again be the increasing risks of
degradation and corrosion of DEA.
Other effects due to the increasing concentration of CO2 would be the degradation products which are resulted
out of the promotion of irreversible side reactions between DEA and CO2.
Due to these corrosion and degradation problems, appropriate materials should be opted to design the heat
exchangers and other equipment. ASTM A199 is a good option to be made into the condenser tubes
(Thulukkanam, 2013). ASTM A199 is a seamless cold-draw intermediate alloy which consists of Cr-Mo
alloying element. This alloy is very resistant towards crevice corrosion, and the hydrogen attack.

P a g e | 17

CONCLUSION
From this report, it can be concluded that with lower surface area, the energy requirement would be lower for
each heat exchanger as well. Other than that, new technologies such as the use of shell and plate heat
exchanger should be utilised to gain a lower energy requirement, hence making the overall costs for the whole
plant to be lower. The common, and most important operating problem, which is the corrosion should also be
addressed. There are so many recommendations that are suggested in this report. One of them is the use of
stainless steel as the material construction.
The change of the amine solvent from DEA to MDEA is discussed, and it is concluded that the change of the
amine solvent would definitely bring more advantages than disadvantages. One of the advantages is the lower
heat of reaction, which would lower the heat duty in reboiler. Furthermore, the use of MDEA would definitely
increase the percentage of H2S absorbed due to its selectivity towards H2S. This would decrease the
composition of H2S in the sweetened gas.
The change of sour gas flow rate is also discussed. As the sour gas flow rate is doubled, the non-condensables
coming into the system increases as well. This would increase the heat transfer resistance. Hence, the energy
requirement would increase for all of the heat exchangers. Pumping in higher DEA flow rate is suggested to
ensure the amount of the H2S and CO2 in the sweetened gas is as low as possible. However, again, the energy
requirement is the main concern in this condition.

P a g e | 18

REFERENCES
Aroonsri Nuchitprasittichai, S. C. (2012). Sensitivity of amine-based CO2 capture cost: The influences of CO2
concentration in flue gas and utility cost fluctuations. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control .
Arthur Kohl, R. N. (1997). Gas Purification (5th ed.). Gulf Professional Publishing.
S. D. Daptardar, V. V. (1994). On degradation of chemical solvents for bulk removal of CO2.
Butwell,Kubek ad Sigmund, Alkanolamine Treating, Hydrocarbon Processing, March (1982)

Edwards, J. E., 2008. Design and Rating of Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers. [Online]
Available at: http://www.chemstations.com/content/documents/Technical_Articles/shell.pdf
[Accessed 26 10 2014].
Incropera, F. P., 2011. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer. Jefferson: John Wiley & Sons.
Kohl, Riesenfeld, Gas Purification 3rd edition, Gulf Publishing Co,Houston
L., W., McCabe, H. P. & C., S. J., 1993. Unit Operations in Chemical Engineering. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Higher
Education.
Thomas Cassirer, Tranter international AB, Swedeen sweet treat, Hydrocarbon Engineering (2012)
Thulukkanam, K. (2013). Heat Exchanger Design Handbook (second ed.). CRC Press.
Perry, Robert H. and Green, Don W. (1984). Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook (6th Edition ed.). McGrawHill.ISBN 0-07-049479-7.

Serth, R. W., 2010. Process Heat Transfer: Principles, Applications and Rules of Thumb. Oxford: Elsevier
Academic Press.
Southwest Thermal Technology, 2014. Heat Exchanger: Materials & Construction, Shell & Tube. [Online]
Availableat: http://www.shell-tube.com/Materials-and-Construction.html
[Accessed 26 10 2014].
Whalley, P. P. and Hewitt, G. F. (1983) Reboilers, Multiphase Science and Technology, Vol. 2, Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation, New York.

P a g e | 19

APPENDICES
Appendix A.1
Heat Duty Calculations

The heat exchange efficiency is obtained as

= 99.8492813%. The heat loss can be

neglected.

P a g e | 20

Appendix A.2
Stream

Flow
Rate
(kg/s)

Temperature
(K)

Specific
heat Cp
(kJ/kg.K)

Average
Cp

Change in
Temperature
(K)

Duty
Requirement
(kW)

3.5235

33.3

1534

4.085

33.3

1649

(kJ/kg.K)
Rich Amine
Inlet

13.075

333.15

3.409

Rich Amine
Outlet

13.075

366.45

3.638

Lean Amine
Inlet

12.125

397.35

4.164

Lean Amine
Outlet

12.125

364.05

4.006

P a g e | 21

Appendix A.3
Calculation of Heat Duty, Q
Table of Fluid Properties of Acid Gases Stream
Components

Inlet (To Condenser)

Outlet 1 (Acid Gas)

Outlet 2 (Reflux)

Mass Flow Rate (kg/hr)

4781

3428

1353

Mass Enthalpy (kJ/kg)

457.12

337.72

-1646.59

Qh = minHin - moutHout
= 3255628.08 kJ/hr
= 904.34 kJ/s
Calculation of LMTD

Where Tsat is saturation temperature of the vapour

T1 is the inlet coolant temperature
T2 is the outlet coolant temperature
is the log mean temperature difference
Components

Tsat

T1

T2

LMTD

Temperature (oC)

82

15

40

53

Calculations of Cooling Water Flowrate

Assuming: Qh = -Qc

Where is the mass flow rate of water

is the specific heat capacity of water
is the temperature difference
Q is the heat transferred

P a g e | 22

Components
(kg/s)

Values
8.64

(kJ/kg K)

4.187

(K)

25

Calculation of Area of Heat Transfer

Where U is the overall heat transfer coefficient

is the log mean temperature difference
Q is the heat transferred
A is the area of heat transfer
Area is known to be 16.89 m2 from the value of U = 1000 W/K

P a g e | 23

Appendix A.4
Fluid and system properties
Properties

Vapor stream

Liquid stream

Inlet reboiler

Sources

Enthalpy [kJ/h]

4741072.442

-35885197.09

-45453053.37

Aspen HYSYS

Enthalpy of
vaporization

50494.11952

45159.75428

44573.33232

Aspen HYSYS

Matlab code for area calculation.

%section A Reboiler
%calculate Q in kJ/h
%Q = enthalpy out - enthalpy in
Fin = 2210.302325; %kmol/h
Fvap = 357.7332022;
Fliq = 1852.569123;
Hin = -20564.17932; %kJ/kmol
Hvap = 13253.09592;
Hliq = -19370.50372;
Hvapin = 44573.33232; %kJ/kmol
Hvapvap = 50494.11952;
Hvapliq = 45159.75428;
Q1=(Fvap*(Hvap+Hvapvap)+Fliq*(Hliq+Hvapliq))-Fin*(Hin+Hvapin); %kJ/h
Q = Q1/3600 %kW
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%calculate LMTD.
%References : Week 8 tutorial Q2
Tsat = 124.2455976; %C saturation temp of lean amine
T1 = 140; % inlet temp of steam
LMTD = T1 - Tsat
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%calculate Heat transfer coefficient
U = 325*5.678 %W/m2C taken from [3]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%Calculate A
A = Q*1000/(U*LMTD) %m2

P a g e | 24

Appendix B.1

P a g e | 25

Appendix B.2

P a g e | 26

Appendix B.3

P a g e | 27

Appendix B.4

P a g e | 28

Appendix B.5

P a g e | 29

Appendix B.6

P a g e | 30

Appendix B.7

P a g e | 31

Appendix B.8

P a g e | 32

Appendix B.8

P a g e | 33

Appendix B.9

P a g e | 34

Appendix B.10
Detailed Worksheet of Calculation

p
(kg/m3)

1000

Pa s

0.00089

wa

k
(W/m.K)

Pr
Re
Nu
hi
W/m2.K

p
(kg/m3)
v (m/s)

To determine 'hi'
Cp
0.61141
4180
(J/kg.K)
5.83
20320.3653
130.118925

Di
(in.)

1011.85

(Pa.s)

0.001402

wa

To determine 'ho'
k
Cp
0.3604
3895
(W/m.K)
(J/kg.K)
0.254130923
15.15202553
186345.6862
855.3119088
303.4000117

To obtain 'U'

(W/m2.K)

200

v
(ft/s)

5363.230232

Pr
Re
Nu
ho
W/m2.K

Rdi
(K.m2/W)

Li
(in.)

0.584

0.001

Rdi
(F.ft2.h
/Btw)

0.000176114

Rdo
(K.m2/
W)

0.00
2

Rdo
(F.ft2.h/Btw)

0.000352227

249.3284057

P a g e | 35

Di
(in)

37

Do
(in.)

40

m(kg/h)

44195.22

Appendix B.10

Tha (C)
Thb (C)
Cph (J/kg.K)
mh (kg/s)
Hin (W)

T1 (K)

91.36
34.18
3895
12.27645
2734163

9.18

LMTD

11.436

Temperature Conditions
Tca (C)
25
Tcb (C)
30
Cpc (J/kg.K)
4180
mc (kg/s)
130.624028
Qduty (W)
2730042.19

99.85%

To determine LMTD
T2 (K)
61.36
27.46704734
To determine 'F'
0.07534659
0.93
To obtain 'UA'

UA (W/K)

106874.5832
To obtain 'A'

Calculated A (m2)
Error %

Estimated A (m2)

428.6498481
74.17%

P a g e | 36

110.7180613

Appendix B.10
Tables of Assumptions
Location
Tube Side

Parameter
Viscosity of Cooling Water (Pa.s)
Viscosity Correlation /wall
Conductivity of Cooling Water k
(W/m.K)
Heat Capacity of Cooling Water Cp
(J/kg.K)
Inside Diameter of the Tube Di (m)

Shell Side

Length of the Tube Li (m)

Superficial Velocity in the Tube side v
(m/s)
Prandtl number of the Cooling Water
Viscosity of 6.25%DEA (Pa.s)
Heat Capacity of 6.25%DEA Cp
(J/kg.K)
Conductivity of 6.25%DEA k
(W/m.K)
Viscosity Correlation /wall
Shell Diameters
IDfor Inside and OD for Outside

Superficial Velocity in the Shell side v

(m/s)

Prandtl number of the Cooling Water

Assumption
Water @ 1atm & 27.5 C
0.00089 Pa.s from NIST
1
Water @ 1atm & 27.5C
0.61141 W/m.K from NIST
Water @ 1atm & 27.5C
4180 J/kg.K from NIST
ID 0.584 in, 14 BWG for Fouling Fluids
(Serth, 2010)
200 inches
4 ft/s that is 1.2192 m/s
From the ange of 3-8 ft/s (Serth,2007)
Water @1atm & 27.5 (Incropera, 2011)
Means of the Inlet and Outlet Data from
Aspen HYSYS

1
ID: 37 inches
OD: 40 inches that is 1/5 times of the tube
length
From the range of 5-10 times (Edwards,
2008)
Calculated from the Mass Flow Rate of
44195.220295457 kg/h using the available
cross-sectional area of the shell
Data from Aspen HYSYS
Calculated from , k and Cp,
P
Formula from (Incropera, 2011)

P a g e | 37

Appendix B.11

Figure 1Hydraulic Calculation spreadsheet

P a g e | 38

Appendix B.12
Table For Tube-Side Losses and its Values
Notation

f
np
L
G
Di
s

Definition
Pressure drop due to friction
(psi)
Darcy friction factor
Number of tube passes
Tube length (ft)
mass flux (lbm/h.ft2)
Tube ID (ft)
Specific Gravity of fluid
Viscosity correction factor
(/wall)0.14

Value
*To be calculated
0.02911
2
16.67
6.07 X 105
0.04867
0.9965
1.078

Table for Shell-Side Losses and its Values

Notation

f
nb
ds
G
as
C
B
PT
de
s

Definition
Pressure drop due to friction
(psi)
friction factor
Number of baffles
Shell diameter (in.)
mass flux (lbm/h.ft2) = /as
Flow area across tube bundle
(ft2) = dsCB/(144PT)
Gap between tubing (in.)
Baffle Spacing (in.)
Tube Pitch (in.)
Equivalent diameter (in.)
Specific Gravity of fluid
Viscosity correction factor
(/wall)0.14

Value
?
0.1254
25
37
1.014 X 105
0.5139
0.25
8
1
1.645
0.9832
0.988

P a g e | 39

Appendix C.2

Figure: Typical relation between shear stress and fouling build up in a plate heat exchanger.

P a g e | 40

APPENDIX D
LEGEND TABLES FOR EQUATION
EQUATION (1)

Heat Duty of the Heat Exchanger

Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient
Surface Area Required
Correction Factor
Log Mean Temperature Difference (LMTD)

EQUATION (2)
EQUATION (6) & (7)
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient, also known as
The Outside Diameter of the Tube/Shell
The Inside Diameter of the Tube/Shell
Heat Convection Coefficient Inside the Tube/Shell
Heat Convection Coefficient Outside the Tube/Shell
Heat Conduction Coefficient Through the Wall
Fouling Factor Inside the Tube/Shell
Fouling Factor Outside the Tube/Shell

EQUATION (8), (9), (10), (11), (12)

Legend

f
np
L
G
Di
s

np
Ns
Gn

Definition
Pressure drop due to friction (psi)
Pressure drop due to minor losses (psi)
Pressure drop due to nozzle losses (psi)
Darcy friction factor
Number of tube passes
Tube length (ft)
mass flux (lbm/h.ft2)
Tube ID (ft)
Specific Gravity of fluid
Viscosity correction factor (/wall)0.14
Velocity head
Number of tube passes
Number of shell passes
Mass flux through the nozzle.

P a g e | 41

EQUATION (13)
Notation
f
nb
ds
G
as
C
B
PT
de
s

Definition
Pressure drop due to friction (psi)
friction factor
Number of baffles
Shell diameter (in.)
mass flux (lbm/h.ft2) = /as
Flow area across tube bundle (ft2) = dsCB/(144PT)
Gap between tubing (in.)
Baffle Spacing (in.)
Tube Pitch (in.)
Equivalent diameter (in.)
Specific Gravity of fluid
Viscosity correction factor (/wall)0.14
Pressure drop due to minor losses (psi)
Pressure drop due to nozzle losses (psi)

P a g e | 42