Master Opp Gave

Simulation of TEG dehydration plants
Bjørn Kobberrød Husby
Master of Energy and Environmental Engineering

Submission date: June 2014
Supervisor: Even Solbraa, EPT
Co-supervisor: Audun Røsjorde, Statoil
Eivind Johannesen, Statoil
Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Department of Energy and Process Engineering
Preface
This report concludes the work carried out over the last semester at “Energy and Environment,
Energy – and Process Engineering” at Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). The
thesis was done in collaboration with Statoil Rotvoll. Statoil provided field data from Gullfaks A which
has been used as a comparison for the simulation results. The report is a continuation of a project
thesis with the same title, written autumn 2013.
I would first and foremost like to thank my supervisor Even Solbraa who gave me the opportunity to
write a thesis on the subject of natural gas processing. His guidance and support throughout the
semester is highly appreciated.
I would also like to thank my co-supervisors Audun Røsjorde and Eivind Johannesen for valuable
feedback during the work. Additionally, I would like to thank Eleni Panteli at Statoil for appreciated
guidance. In closing, I would like to thank Erik Solheim who provided field data from Gullfaks A and
answered all my questions regarding the data.
Bjørn Kobberrød Husby
Trondheim, 11.6.2014
Abstract
The purpose of natural gas dehydration is to prevent condensation of water in production units and
transport pipelines. Liquid water can cause severe problems such as corrosion and hydrate
formation. The aim of this thesis is to evaluate various models used for simulation of triethylene
glycol (TEG) dehydration plants by comparing simulation calculations to experimental and field data.
Three different simulation tools are included in the evaluation: Pro/II (V9.1), Hysys (V8.3) and
ProMax (V3.2). In Pro/II, the glycol package is applied for the simulations. Four different fluid
packages are included in Hysys: Glycol Package (GP), Peng-Robinson (PR) and two versions of the
Cubic-Plus-Association-model (CPA) developed at Technical University of Denmark (DTU, V3.8) and
Statoil (NeqSim). Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) and PR are included in ProMax.
Statoil provided field data from Gullfaks A (March 2012) as a comparison for the simulation
calculations. The dehydration unit on Gullfaks A utilizes an absorption process which consists of a
contactor, a regenerator with condenser and reboiler, and a separate stripping column. TEG is used
as absorbent. Relevant experimental data is also gathered and compared with the calculations done
by the simulation tools. The thesis focuses on parameters relevant for gas dehydration: wet gas
water content, dry gas water dew point, rich TEG composition, reboiler duty, lean TEG purity and TEG
loss.
Hysys CPA NeqSim proved to be the best suited fluid package for dehydration of natural gas using
TEG as an absorbent. This fluid package provided results in good agreement with both experimental
and field data for all relevant parameters. ProMax SRK and ProMax PR also provided accurate results,
and only minor deviations were found such as a slightly high lean TEG purity. Both packages are well
suited for dehydration of natural gas, and the simulations showed no significant difference between
the two packages.
Heating of TEG was shown to count for roughly 65 % of the calculated reboiler duty. Other heat
consumptions were primarily related to evaporation of water (25 %). Pro/II and Hysys CPA DTU
provided low reboiler duties. This was related to low calculated heat capacities of TEG. This was the
only serious flaw discovered in Pro/II, making it better suited than both Hysys GP and Hysys PR,
which provided inaccurate results for respectively wet gas water content and dry gas water dew
point.
The wet gas water content calculated by Hysys GP was 9 – 14 % lower than the field data. This was
expected due to low calculated water content in methane. The low water content in wet gas in Hysys
GP had a slight influence on the dry gas water dew point, reducing it by roughly 4 %. For the
composition and flow rate of lean TEG given in the field data, the calculated dry gas water dew point
was shown to be primarily dependent on the calculated water content in the vapor phase in
equilibrium with TEG. Hysys CPA DTU provided consistently very low water dew points, while Hysys
PR calculated values higher than both experimental and field data.
Gases are soluble in TEG. This thesis studied the solubility of methane, ethane and CO2 in rich TEG.
Hysys GP calculated the lowest solubility of these components in rich TEG and the largest solubility in
binary simulations with TEG. These opposing results were shown to be related to the water content
in rich TEG which decreased the solubility of especially methane and ethane significantly. No data
I
were available as a comparison. However, considering the relatively low water content in rich TEG,
the decrease was too large.
The lean TEG purity from the reboiler was shown to be primarily dependent on the state of
equilibrium between TEG and water. Hysys CPA DTU calculated a higher amount of water in the
liquid phase, leading to lower purity from both reboiler and stripping column compared to the other
fluid packages. The purity from the stripping column was lower than the measured value. In addition,
Hysys CPA DTU calculated low circulation rate of TEG due to low TEG density. Consequently, Hysys
CPA DTU was evaluated as the least suited fluid package for dehydration of natural gas of those
included in this thesis.
II
Sammendrag
Formålet med tørking av naturgass er å forhindre kondensering av vann i produksjonsenheter og
under transport. Vann i væskeform kan medføre alvorlige problemer som korrosjon og
hydratdannelse. Målet med denne oppgaven er å evaluere ulike modeller som brukes til simulering
av triethylene glykol (TEG) tørkeanlegg ved å sammenligne beregningene gjort av verktøyene med
eksperimentell data og feltdata.
Oppgaven inkluderer tre ulike simuleringsverktøy: Pro/II (V9.1), Hysys (V8.3) og ProMax (V3.2).
Glykolpakken er anvendt i Pro/II. Fire ulike fluidpakker er inkludert i Hysys: Glykolpakken (GP), Peng-
Robinson (PR) og to ulike versjoner av Cubic-Plus-Association-model (CPA) utviklet av henholdsvis
Danmarks Tekniske Universitet (DTU, V3.8) og Statoil (NeqSim). To fluidpakker er inkludert i ProMax:
Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) og PR.
Feltdata fra Gullfaks A (mars 2012) blir brukt som sammenligningsgrunnlag for beregningene gjort av
fluidpakkene. Tørkeenheten på Gullfaks A benytter en absorpsjonsprosess som består av en
kontaktor, en regenerator med kondenser og glykol koker, og en separat strippekolonne. TEG er
benyttet som absorbent. Relevant eksperimentell data er også samlet inn og sammenlignet med
beregningene gjort av fluidpakkene. Oppgaven fokuserer på parametere som er relevante for et
tørkeanlegg: vanninnhold våtgass, duggpunkt vann i tørrgass, komposisjon av vannrik TEG, effekt
glykol koker, renhet TEG og TEG tap.
Hysys CPA NeqSim viste seg å være den best egnede fluidpakken for tørking av naturgass med TEG
som absorbent. Fluidpakken beregnet resultater som stemte godt overens med både eksperimentell
data og feltdata for alle relevante parametere. ProMax SRK og ProMax PR beregnet også resultater
som var i samsvar med relevant data, og kun små avvik ble funnet (noe høy renhet TEG). Begge
fluidpakker er velegnet for tørking av naturgass og simuleringene viste ingen betydelig forskjell
mellom de to pakkene.
Oppvarming av TEG ble kalkulert til å stå for 65 % av den totale effekten på glykol kokeren. Det
resterende varmebehovet var primært knyttet til fordamping av vann (25 %). Pro/II og Hysys CPA
DTU kalkulerte lav effekt på glykol kokeren. Dette var relatert til lav beregnet varmekapasitet for
TEG. Dette var det eneste store avviket funnet i Pro/II, og fluidpakken er derfor bedre egnet enn
både Hysys GP og Hysys PR som beregnet unøyaktig vanninnhold i henholdsvis våtgass og tørrgass.
Det beregnede vanninnholdet i våtgass i Hysys GP var 9 – 14 % lavere enn verdien kalkulert fra
feltdata. Dette var forventet da Hysys GP kalkulerte for lavt vanninnhold i metan. Det lave
vanninnholdet ble estimert til å redusere duggpunktet for vann i tørrgass med 4 %. For en tørkeenhet
med renhet og strømningsrate TEG slik som oppgitt i feltdata, ble det vist at duggpunktet var
primært avhengig av den kalkulerte vannmengden i gassfase i likevekt med TEG. Hysys CPA DTU
beregnet konsekvent lave duggpunkt, mens Hysys PR kalkulerte høyere verdier enn både
eksperimentell data og feltdata.
Gasser er løselige i TEG. Denne oppgaven fokuserte på løseligheten av metan, etan og CO2 i vannrik
TEG. Hysys GP beregnet lavt innhold av disse komponentene i vannrik TEG, men den høyeste
løseligheten i binære simuleringer. Disse motstridende resultatene ble vist å være relatert til
vanninnhold. Vann i vannrik TEG minket løseligheten av spesielt metan og etan betraktelig. Det var
III
ingen data tilgjengelig for sammenligning, men påvirkningen er for stor med tanke på det lave
vanninnholdet i vannrik TEG.
Renheten av TEG fra glykol kokeren ble vist å være primært avhengig av likevektstilstanden mellom
TEG og vann. Hysys CPA DTU beregnet en høyere vannmengde i væskefasen enn de andre
fluidpakkene. Dette førte til en lavere renhet av TEG fra både glykol koker og strippekolonne.
Renheten fra strippekolonnen var lavere enn den målte verdien i feltdata. Hysys CPA DTU beregnet i
tillegg lavere sirkuleringsrate av TEG som følge av lav tetthet. Hysys CPA DTU ble derfor evaluert som
den minst egnede fluidpakken for tørking av naturgass av de som er inkludert i denne oppgaven.
IV
Table of Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... I
Sammendrag .......................................................................................................................................... III
List of figures .......................................................................................................................................... IX
List of tables ......................................................................................................................................... XIII
Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................................... XIV
Nomenclature........................................................................................................................................ XV
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Natural gas in Norway ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Thesis specification.................................................................................................................. 2
1.3. Report structure ...................................................................................................................... 2
2. Gas Dehydration ............................................................................................................................. 3
2.1. Operational problems due to liquid water .............................................................................. 3
2.2. Absorption ............................................................................................................................... 4
2.3. Glycols ..................................................................................................................................... 5
3. Description of a dehydration unit................................................................................................... 6
3.1. Inlet cooler............................................................................................................................... 6
3.2. Inlet scrubber .......................................................................................................................... 7
3.3. Contactor ................................................................................................................................. 7
3.3.1. Column internals ............................................................................................................. 7
3.4. Flash valve ............................................................................................................................... 8
3.5. Flash separator ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.6. Filter......................................................................................................................................... 9
3.7. Heat exchangers ...................................................................................................................... 9
3.8. Regenerator ............................................................................................................................. 9
3.8.1. Reboiler ........................................................................................................................... 9
3.8.2. Still column ...................................................................................................................... 9
3.9. Glycol pump............................................................................................................................. 9
4. Enhanced dehydration.................................................................................................................. 11
4.1. Stripping gas .......................................................................................................................... 11
4.2. Drizo™ process ...................................................................................................................... 11
4.3. Vacuum distillation ................................................................................................................ 12
4.4. Coldfinger .............................................................................................................................. 12
5. Review of design methods for gas dehydration by absorption in TEG......................................... 13
5.1. Lean TEG purity ..................................................................................................................... 13
V
5.2. TEG circulation rate ............................................................................................................... 14
5.3. Tray efficiency, number of trays............................................................................................ 14
5.4. Stripping gas .......................................................................................................................... 16
5.5. Equation of states.................................................................................................................. 16
5.5.1. van der Waals (VDW) .................................................................................................... 17
5.5.2. Redlich-Kwong (RK) ....................................................................................................... 18
5.5.3. Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK)........................................................................................... 18
5.5.4. Mixing rules ................................................................................................................... 18
5.5.5. Peng-Robinson (PR) ....................................................................................................... 19
5.5.6. Cubic-Plus-Association (CPA) ......................................................................................... 20
5.5.7. Twu-Sim-Tassone (TST).................................................................................................. 21
5.6. MESH ..................................................................................................................................... 23
5.6.1. Material balance ............................................................................................................ 23
5.6.2. Heat ............................................................................................................................... 24
5.6.3. Equilibrium .................................................................................................................... 26
5.6.4. Summation .................................................................................................................... 27
6. Simulation programs .................................................................................................................... 28
6.1. Hysys ...................................................................................................................................... 28
6.1.1. Thermodynamics ........................................................................................................... 28
6.1.2. Unit operation calculations ........................................................................................... 29
6.1.3. Input parameters ........................................................................................................... 29
6.1.4. Hysys recommendation ................................................................................................. 30
6.2. CERE ThermoSystem ............................................................................................................. 30
6.3. NeqSim .................................................................................................................................. 31
6.4. Pro/II ...................................................................................................................................... 31
6.4.1. Thermodynamics ........................................................................................................... 31
6.4.4. Pro/II recommendation ................................................................................................. 33
6.5. ProMax .................................................................................................................................. 33
6.5.1. Thermodynamics ........................................................................................................... 33
6.5.4. ProMax recommendation ............................................................................................. 34
VI
7. Collection of data.......................................................................................................................... 35
7.1. Experimental data ................................................................................................................. 35
7.1.1. Water in methane ......................................................................................................... 35
7.1.2. Density ........................................................................................................................... 36
7.1.3. Activity coefficient ......................................................................................................... 37
7.1.4. Solubility in TEG ............................................................................................................. 37
7.1.5. Heat capacity ................................................................................................................. 40
7.1.6. Enthalpy of vaporization................................................................................................ 40
7.1.7. TEG-water VLE ............................................................................................................... 41
7.1.8. TEG in methane ............................................................................................................. 42
7.2. Field data ............................................................................................................................... 43
7.3. Selection of system/data ....................................................................................................... 47
7.3.1. Wet gas .......................................................................................................................... 47
7.3.2. Columns ......................................................................................................................... 49
7.3.3. Heat exchangers/flash drum ......................................................................................... 49
7.3.4. Regenerator ................................................................................................................... 50
7.3.5. Stripping column and TEG circulation loop ................................................................... 52
8. Results........................................................................................................................................... 55
8.1. Comparison with experimental data ..................................................................................... 55
8.1.1. Water in methane ......................................................................................................... 55
8.1.2. Density ........................................................................................................................... 56
8.1.3. Activity coefficient of water .......................................................................................... 58
8.1.4. Solubility of gases in TEG ............................................................................................... 59
8.1.5. Reboiler ......................................................................................................................... 63
8.1.6. TEG-water ...................................................................................................................... 65
8.1.7. TEG in methane ............................................................................................................. 68
8.2. Comparison with field data ................................................................................................... 70
8.2.1. Wet gas water content .................................................................................................. 72
8.2.2. Dry gas rate.................................................................................................................... 72
8.2.3. Lean TEG purity into contactor...................................................................................... 73
8.2.4. TEG circulation rate ....................................................................................................... 74
8.2.5. Dry gas water dew point ............................................................................................... 75
8.2.6. Rich TEG composition .................................................................................................... 76
8.2.7. Flash gas rate ................................................................................................................. 77
VII
8.2.8. Vapor from regenerator ................................................................................................ 77
8.2.9. TEG loss.......................................................................................................................... 78
8.2.10. Reboiler duty ................................................................................................................. 79
8.2.11. Lean TEG purity from reboiler and stripping column .................................................... 87
8.3. Cases ...................................................................................................................................... 89
8.3.1. Case 1: Reduced water flow .......................................................................................... 90
8.3.2. Case 2: Solubility in TEG Hysys GP ................................................................................. 91
8.3.3. Case 3: ppmv as a function of wet gas water content .................................................. 95
8.3.4. Case 4: ppmv as a function of lean TEG purity .............................................................. 96
8.3.5. Case 5: ppmv as a function of lean TEG flow rate ......................................................... 97
8.3.6. Case 6: ppmv as a function of number of stages in contactor ...................................... 98
8.3.7. Case 7: Variation in wet gas temperature ................................................................... 100
8.3.8. Case 8: Lean TEG purity as a function of stripping gas rate ........................................ 101
8.3.9. Case 9: Lean TEG purity as function of number of stages in stripping column ........... 102
8.4. Step out ............................................................................................................................... 104
8.4.1. Simulation with reduced gas feed ............................................................................... 104
8.5. Evaluation of simulation tools ............................................................................................. 109
9. Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 111
10. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 115
11. Bibliography............................................................................................................................. 117
12. Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 121
A. Flow sheet inlet cooler, separator and contactor ................................................................... 121
B. Flow sheet TEG circulation ...................................................................................................... 122
C. Simulation model in Hysys ...................................................................................................... 123
D. Simulation model in Pro/II....................................................................................................... 124
E. Simulation model in ProMax ................................................................................................... 125
F. Field data: Main reading.......................................................................................................... 126
G. Field data: TEG measurements ............................................................................................... 129
H. Field data: Dry gas composition .............................................................................................. 130
I. Field data: TEG loss.................................................................................................................. 131
J. Wet gas water calculation sample 7........................................................................................ 132
K. Wet gas water calculation sample 9........................................................................................ 133
VIII
List of figures
Figure 2.1: A typical processing plant for natural gas (Sørensen, 2013). ................................................ 3
Figure 3.1: A typical glycol absorption unit. ............................................................................................ 6
Figure 3.2: Typical structured packing (Sulzer, 2013). ............................................................................ 7
Figure 3.3: One type of random packing (jhsealing, 2013). .................................................................... 8
Figure 4.1: Regenerator with a separate stripping column................................................................... 11
Figure 5.1: Equilibrium water dew point as a function of contactor temperature at various lean TEG
concentrations in wt% (Campbell, 2004). ............................................................................................. 13
Figure 5.2: Water removal as a function of TEG (99 wt%) circulation rate for several theoretical stages
(N) (Campbell, 2004). ............................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 5.3: Definition of Murphree tray efficiency (Øi, 2003). .............................................................. 15
Figure 5.4: Lean TEG wt% as a function of stripping gas rate at various temperatures and number of
theoretical stages (N) for a separate stripping column (Campbell, 2004). ........................................... 16
Figure 6.1: Print screen from Hysys showing the default setup for the thermodynamic system of the
glycol property package. ....................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 6.2: Print screen from Hysys showing the default setup for the thermodynamic system of the
Peng-Robinson property package. ........................................................................................................ 29
Figure 6.3: Typical column environment in Hysys for a regenerator with a condenser, reboiler and
stripping gas from a separate stripping column.................................................................................... 30
Figure 6.4: Print screen from CERE ThermoSystem showing the package created (“Gullfaks”) with the
components and model chosen. ........................................................................................................... 31
Figure 6.5: Print screen from Pro/II showing the default set up for the thermodynamic system. ....... 32
Figure 7.1: Experimental data for the mole fraction of water in methane at 37.8 °C and the pressure
range 15 – 207 bar................................................................................................................................. 36
Figure 7.2: Experimental data (Kleinrahm, et al., 1988) for density of methane at 30 °C and the
pressure range 7 – 77 bar...................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 7.3: Experimental data for the density of TEG at atmospheric pressure and temperatures 15 –
85 °C. ..................................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 7.4: Experimental data (Herskowitz & Gottlieb, 1984) for the activity coefficient of water in
equilibrium with TEG at 24.45 °C and atmospheric pressure. .............................................................. 37
Figure 7.5: Experimental data (Jou, et al., 1987) for the mole fraction of methane in the liquid phase
in equilibrium with TEG at 25 °C. .......................................................................................................... 38
Figure 7.6: Experimental data (Jou, et al., 1987) for the mole fraction of ethane in the liquid phase in
equilibrium with TEG at 25 °C. .............................................................................................................. 38
Figure 7.7: Experimental data (Jou, et al., 1987) for the mole fraction of CO2 in the liquid phase in
equilibrium with TEG at 25 °C. .............................................................................................................. 39
Figure 7.8: Experimental data (Takashi, et al., 1984) for the mole fraction of CO2 in the liquid phase in
equilibrium with aqueous (3.5 wt% water) TEG at 23.89 °C and 25 – 53 bar. ...................................... 39
Figure 7.9: Experimental data (Takashi, et al., 1984) for the mole fraction of CO2 in pure TEG and TEG
with 3.5 wt% and 7 wt% water at 23.89 °C and 25.16 bar. ................................................................... 39
Figure 7.10: Experimental data (Stephens & Tamplin, 1979) for heat capacity of TEG at atmospheric
pressure and temperatures 0 – 220 °C.................................................................................................. 40
Figure 7.11: Experimental data (Liley, 1984) for the heat capacity of saturated water at temperatures
0 – 227 °C............................................................................................................................................... 40
IX
Figure 7.12: Experimental data (Keenan, et al., 1969) for the enthalpy of vaporization of saturated
liquid at temperatures 100 – 220 °C. .................................................................................................... 41
Figure 7.13: Experimental data (Mostafazadeh, et al., 2009) for the mole fraction of TEG in vapor
phase in equilibrium with water at 85 kPa............................................................................................ 41
Figure 7.14: Experimental data (Mostafazadeh, et al., 2009) for the mole fraction of water in the
liquid phase in equilibrium with water at 85 kPa. ................................................................................. 42
Figure 7.15: Experimental data (Jerinic, et al., 2008) for the mole fraction of TEG in the vapor phase in
equilibrium with methane at 25 °C. ...................................................................................................... 42
Figure 7.16: A simplified process flow diagram showing the dehydration unit on Gullfaks A.............. 43
Figure 7.17: Print screen from the simulation model in Pro/II showing the inlet cooler (24-HA05), inlet
scrubber (24-VG03), contactor (24-VB02) and glycol pump (24-PB01). ............................................... 48
Figure 7.18: Print screen from ProMax showing the inlet cooler (24-HA05), the saturator (“SAT-Nat
gas”) and the scrubber (24-VG03). ........................................................................................................ 49
Figure 7.19: Print screen from Hysys showing the flash drum (24-VD04), glycol/glycol heat exchangers
(24-HE02 and 24-HE03), the glycol cooler (24-HE04) and the regenerator (24-VE05). ........................ 50
Figure 7.20: Print screen from the main window in Hysys for the regenerator with reboiler and
condenser. ............................................................................................................................................. 51
Figure 7.21: Print screen from Pro/II showing the stripping column (24-VE06) and the TEG surge drum
(24-VL02). .............................................................................................................................................. 52
Figure 7.22: Print screen from ProMax showing the make-up unit (“MKUP”). .................................... 53
Figure 7.23: Print screen from Hysys showing the set-up before completion of the TEG circulation
loop........................................................................................................................................................ 53
Figure 8.1: Calculated mole fraction of water in methane at 37.8 °C for all fluid packages compared to
experimental values. ............................................................................................................................. 55
Figure 8.2: Mole fraction water in methane for the pressure range 40 – 60 bar at 37.8 °C................. 56
Figure 8.3: Density of TEG at atmospheric pressure and at temperatures 15 – 85 °C.......................... 56
Figure 8.4: Density of methane at 30 °C for 8 – 77 bar. ........................................................................ 57
Figure 8.5: Density of methane at 30 °C for 50 – 58 bar. ...................................................................... 57
Figure 8.6: Calculated activity coefficient of water in equilibrium with TEG compared to experimental
data........................................................................................................................................................ 58
Figure 8.7: Mole fraction methane in the liquid phase in equilibrium with TEG at 25 °C and 1 – 200
bar. ........................................................................................................................................................ 59
Figure 8.8: Mole fraction methane in the liquid phase in equilibrium with TEG at 25 °C and 20 – 80
bar. ........................................................................................................................................................ 59
Figure 8.9: Mole fraction ethane in the liquid phase in equilibrium with TEG at 25 °C and 1 – 200 bar.
............................................................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 8.10: Mole fraction ethane in the liquid phase in equilibrium with TEG at 25 °C and 1 – 8 bar.60
Figure 8.11: Mole fraction CO2 in the liquid phase in equilibrium with TEG at 25 °C and 5 – 200 bar . 61
Figure 8.12: Mole fraction CO2 in aqueous TEG at 23.89 °C and 25.16 bar with increasing water
content. ................................................................................................................................................. 62
Figure 8.13: Mole fraction of CO2 in liquid phase at 23.89 °C and 1 – 60 bar. ...................................... 62
Figure 8.14: Heat capacity of TEG at atmospheric pressure and temperatures 0 – 220 °C. ................. 63
Figure 8.15: Heat capacity of saturated water at temperatures 0 – 220 °C. ........................................ 64
Figure 8.16: Specific enthalpy of vaporization of TEG at atmospheric pressure compared to
experimental data from (Kirk, et al., 2004). .......................................................................................... 64
X
Figure 8.17: Enthalpy of vaporization of saturated water for the temperature range 100 – 220 °C. .. 65
Figure 8.18: Mole fraction of TEG in the vapor phase in equilibrium with water at 85 kPa. ................ 66
Figure 8.19: Mole fraction of TEG in the vapor phase in equilibrium with water at 85 kPa. ................ 66
Figure 8.20: Mole fraction of water in the liquid phase in equilibrium with TEG at 85 kPa. ................ 67
Figure 8.21: Mole fraction of water in liquid phase at 85 kPa and temperatures 140 – 150 °C. .......... 67
Figure 8.22: Mole fraction of water in the liquid phase at 85 kPa and temperatures 200 – 210 °C..... 68
Figure 8.23: Mole fraction of TEG in methane at 25 °C......................................................................... 69
Figure 8.24: Wet gas water content compared to the calculated value from field data. ..................... 72
Figure 8.25: Flow rate of dry gas in m3/hr compared to field data. ...................................................... 73
Figure 8.26: Purity of lean TEG routed into the contactor. ................................................................... 73
Figure 8.27: Mass rate of lean TEG routed into the contactor ............................................................. 74
Figure 8.28: TEG circulation rate in liters TEG/kg water absorbed. ...................................................... 75
Figure 8.29: Dry gas water dew point compared to field data. ............................................................ 75
Figure 8.30: Mole fraction of non-TEG/water components in rich TEG leaving the contactor. ........... 76
Figure 8.31: Flash gas rate. .................................................................................................................... 77
Figure 8.32: Mass rate of vapor from the regenerator split into water, methane and other
components........................................................................................................................................... 78
Figure 8.33: Mass rate of TEG in dry gas and vapor from regenerator. ................................................ 78
Figure 8.34: Calculated reboiler duty compared to the field data. ....................................................... 79
Figure 8.35: Print screen from a section of the text report generated in Pro/II showing the liquid rates
in the regenerator. ................................................................................................................................ 80
Figure 8.36: Mass rate of water routed into the reboiler. .................................................................... 81
Figure 8.37: Calculated temperature for the liquid mixture routed into the reboiler. ......................... 82
Figure 8.38: Mass rate of TEG routed into the regenerator and the reboiler. ..................................... 83
Figure 8.39: Flow rate of TEG in reflux from the condenser into the still column. ............................... 83
Figure 8.40: Flow rate of TEG from stripping column routed into the regenerator. ............................ 84
Figure 8.41: Mass rate of evaporated water and TEG from the reboiler. ............................................. 84
Figure 8.42: Calculated reboiler duties from the reboiler study. .......................................................... 86
Figure 8.43: Lean TEG purity from reboiler. .......................................................................................... 87
Figure 8.44: Lean TEG purity from reboiler and stripping column. ....................................................... 87
Figure 8.45: Print screen from Hysys showing the set-up used for the cases related to the contactor.
............................................................................................................................................................... 89
Figure 8.46: Print screen from ProMax showing the set-up used for cases related to the stripping
column. .................................................................................................................................................. 90
Figure 8.47: Dry gas water dew point calculated from saturated wet gas and gas with reduced water
content. ................................................................................................................................................. 90
Figure 8.48: Mole fraction of methane in rich TEG for a gas feed with normal composition and pure
methane provided by Hysys GP............................................................................................................. 92
Figure 8.49: Mole fraction of non-TEG/water components in rich TEG with saturated gas into
contactor and gas with no water provided by Hysys GP. ...................................................................... 92
Figure 8.50: Mole fraction of non-TEG/water components in rich TEG with saturated gas into
contactor and gas with no water provided by ProMax SRK. ................................................................. 93
Figure 8.51: Mole fraction of methane in rich TEG as a function of the water content in wet gas into
the contactor. ........................................................................................................................................ 94
XI
Figure 8.52: Mole fraction of ethane in rich TEG as a function of the water content in wet gas into the
contactor. .............................................................................................................................................. 94
Figure 8.53: Mole fraction of CO2 in rich TEG as a function of the water content in wet gas into the
contactor. .............................................................................................................................................. 95
Figure 8.54: Dry gas water dew point as a function of water content in wet gas into the contactor. . 96
Figure 8.55: Dry gas water dew point as a function of the purity in lean TEG routed into the contactor.
............................................................................................................................................................... 97
Figure 8.56: Dry gas water dew point as a function of lean TEG flow rate. .......................................... 97
Figure 8.57: Lean TEG flow rate required to produce a dry gas water dew point of 25 ppmv. ............ 98
Figure 8.58: Dry gas water dew point as a function of number of stages in the contactor. ................. 99
Figure 8.59: Wet gas water content at various temperatures. ........................................................... 100
Figure 8.60: Dry gas water dew point as a function of temperature of wet gas routed into the
contactor. ............................................................................................................................................ 101
Figure 8.61: Lean TEG purity from stripping column as a function of stripping gas rate. ................... 102
Figure 8.62: Lean TEG purity from stripping column as a function of number of stages in the stripping
column. ................................................................................................................................................ 103
Figure 8.63: Wet gas water content calculated by the fluid packages with the dry gas flow rate
provided in sample 9 compared to sample 7. ..................................................................................... 106
Figure 8.64: Dry gas water dew point provided by the fluid packages from sample 9. ...................... 107
Figure 8.65: Lean TEG purity from reboiler and stripping column. ..................................................... 107
XII
List of tables
Table 1.1: Natural gas transport specifications (Gassco, 2011). ............................................................. 1
Table 2.1: Physical properties of triethylene glycol (TEG) (Company, 2013). ......................................... 5
Table 7.1: Presentation of collected experimental data relevant for TEG dehydration. ...................... 35
Table 7.2: Experimental data for enthalpy of vaporization of TEG (Kirk, et al., 2004) at atmospheric
pressure. ................................................................................................................................................ 41
Table 7.3: Composition of dry gas from contactor................................................................................ 44
Table 7.4: Selected data related to the contactor. ............................................................................... 44
Table 7.5: Measured and calculated values for lean – and rich TEG. ................................................... 45
Table 7.6: Calculated values for water content in respectively lean TEG, rich TEG and wet gas. ........ 45
Table 7.7: Selected data related to the glycol/glycol heat exchangers and the flash drum. ................ 46
Table 7.8: Selected data related to the regenerator, stripping gas and lean TEG. ............................... 46
Table 7.9: A selected dataset from TEG loss data on Gullfaks A. .......................................................... 46
Table 8.1: Most important parameters held constant during simulations. .......................................... 70
Table 8.2: Results from Pro/II, Hysys GP and Hysys PR compared to the values from the field data. . 70
Table 8.3: Results from Hysys CPA DTU, Hysys CPA NeqSim, ProMax SRK and ProMax PR compared to
the values from the field data. .............................................................................................................. 71
Table 8.4: Results from the calculations made for the rate of water and TEG into the reboiler in Pro/II.
............................................................................................................................................................... 81
Table 8.5: Calculated heating and vaporization duties of TEG and water in the reboiler. ................... 85
Table 8.6: Percentage reduction in wet gas water content and corresponding reduction in water dew
point. ..................................................................................................................................................... 91
Table 8.7: Number of stages provided by each fluid package to achieve a dry gas water dew point as
close to 25 ppmv as possible. ................................................................................................................ 99
Table 8.8: Exact number of stages in stripping column to produce 99.76 wt% TEG. ......................... 103
Table 8.9: Results from main simulation when the number of stages in the contactor and stripping
column is equal to the numbers found in Table 8.7 and Table 8.8. .................................................... 104
Table 8.10: Most important parameters held constant during simulation in sample 9 compared to
sample 7. ............................................................................................................................................. 104
Table 8.11: Results for Pro/II, Hysys GP and Hysys PR for sample 9 compared to field data. ............ 105
Table 8.12: Results for Hysys CPA DTU, Hysys CPA NeqSim, ProMax SRK and ProMax PR for sample 9
compared to field data. ....................................................................................................................... 105
Table 8.13: Summary of main deviations found in each fluid package............................................... 109
XIII
Abbreviations
API - American Petroleum Institute
CERE - Center for Energy Resources Engineering
CO2 - Carbon dioxide
COM - Component Object Model
COS - Carbonyl sulphide
COSTALD - Corresponding States Liquid Density
CPA - Cubic-Plus-Association
DEG - Diethylene glycol
DTU - Danmarks Tekniske Universitet (Techinical University of Denmark)
EOS - Equation of state
H2O - Water
HBT - Hankinson-Brobst-Thomson
HETP - Height Equivalent to Theoretical Plate
hs - Hard sphere
HTU - Height of a Transfer Unit
HX - Heat Exchanger
LK - Lee Kesler
LNG - Liquefied Natural Gas
MCM - Moisture Control and Measurement Ltd
MEG - Mono ethylene glycol
mole% - Percent per mole
MSm3 - Million standard cubic meter
NeS - Non-Equilibrium Simulator
NeqSim - Non-Equilibrium Simulator
NGL - Natural Gas Liquids
NRTL - Non-Random Two-Liquid model
NTS - Number of Theoretical Stages
NTU - Number of Transfer Units
OH - Hydroxyl
perc - Percentage
ppmv - Parts per million volume
PR - Peng-Robinson
reb - Reboiler
RK - Redlich-Kwong
SAFT - Statistical Associating Fluid Theory
seg - Segment
SRK - Soave-Redlich-Kwong
SRKM - Soave-Redlich-Kwong Modified Panagiotopoulos-Reid
TEG - Triethylene glycol
TREG - Tetraethylene glycol
TST - Twu-Sim-Tassone
vap - Vaporize
VDW - van der Waals
VLE - Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium
wt% - Percentage per weight
XIV
Nomenclature
Symbol Description Unit
Cubic equation of state alpha function -
, Cubic equation of state parameters -
, Reduced equation of state parameters -
NRTL binary interaction parameter -
E
A Excess Helmholtz energy J
Covolume parameter -
, Interaction parameters -
Constant -
Constant -
Heat capacity at constant pressure J/kg∙K
Heat capacity at constant volume J/kg∙K
d Diameter m
Association strength -
E Efficiency -
EM Murphree tray efficiency -
Evap Vaporization efficiency -
Eeq Equilibrium efficiency -
Radial distribution factor -
G Gibbs energy J
NRTL binary interaction parameter -
H Packing height m
h Specific enthalpy J/kg
Constant characteristic for each substance -
Equilibrium constant for component -
, Binary interaction parameters -
L, M, N Parameters in the alpha function -
Reduced density -
m Mass kg
N, n Number of stages in a column -
NAV Avogadro’s number -
P Pressure Pa, atm, bar, barg
Pc Critical pressure Pa, atm, bar, barg
Q Duty W
q Specific heat J/kg
R Gas constant kJ/kg∙K
̅ Universal gas constant kJ/kmol∙K
Reduced liquid volume at zero pressure -
T Temperature °C, K
Tc Critical temperature °C, K
TR Reduced temperature °C, K
Binary interaction parameter -
Specific internal energy J/kg
3
V Volume m
3
Specific volume m /kg
w Specific work J/kg
Acentric factor -
Mole fraction of component in vapor -
Mole fraction of component in liquid -
Fraction of molecules not bonded at site A -
Activity coefficient -
Z Compressibility factor -
Fugacity coefficient -
Association strength -
XV
1. Introduction
1.1.Natural gas in Norway

Today, Norway produces more natural gas than oil when measured in oil equivalents. Norway is the
sixth largest gas producer and the third largest gas exporter in the world. In 2012, Norway exported
natural gas equivalent to almost ten times its own electricity production when measured in energy
(Alveberg & Melberg, 2013).
The majority of exported gas is delivered through the Norwegian gas transport system which is an
offshore pipeline network with connections Europe. The network also connects major gas fields in
the North Sea and transports gas from different fields to processing plants ashore. In total, the
pipelines almost reach a length of 8000 km (Gassco, 2013).
Before transportation, natural gas has to be processed to reduce or remove unwanted components
such as water, mercury, H2S and CO2. These contaminants have various impacts on the
transportation. Water vapor is probably the most common impurity in natural gas today (Guo, 2005).
Water combined with CO2 and H2S will increase the corrosion rate dramatically (Kohl & Nielsen,
1997). Also, at low temperature and high pressure, hydrates can form if liquid water is present. This
thesis will focus on dehydration of natural gas.
Natural gas in reservoirs will contain various quantities of water. Liquid water is relatively easy to
separate, but removal of water vapor requires more complex processing. The temperature in export
pipelines will eventually reach the seabed temperature which is typically close to 0 °C. In order to
avoid condensation of water, the dew point temperature needs to be lower than any temperature
during transportation and/or shut in (transportation stop). To reach a sufficiently low water dew
point it is not adequate with separation of liquid water. It is necessary to remove some of the water
vapor in the natural gas (Campbell, 2004).
The Norwegian gas transport system has its own transport specification to protect the pipelines and
secure a predictable delivery of natural gas to Europe. The main goal of these transport specifications
is to maintain a single phase pipe flow both under transportation and shut in. Natural gas
specifications for gas transported on the Norwegian continental shelf can be seen in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1: Natural gas transport specifications (Gassco, 2011).

Designation Unit Specification
Max. operating pressure barg 210
Min. operating pressure barg 112
Max. operating temperature °C 60
Min. operating temperature °C -10
Max. cricondenbar pressure barg 105

Max. cricondentherm temperature °C 40
Max. water dew point (at 69 barg) °C -18
Max. carbon dioxide mole% 2
Max. hydrogen sulphide and COS ppmv 2
Max. O2 ppmv 2
Max. daily average methanol content ppmv 2.5
Max. peak methanol content ppmv 20
3
Max. daily average glycol content liters/Msm 8
1
The most relevant requirement for dehydration of natural gas is the water dew point. A value in parts
per million by volume (ppmv) is used in this thesis for simplicity.
1.2.Thesis specification
The most popular process simulator software used for dehydration of natural gas is Hysys, ProMax
and Pro/II. The accuracy of these simulator software are however uncertain. The aim of this thesis is
to evaluate the mathematical models used for TEG dehydration plants and to compare simulation
data with experimental and field data.
The following tasks are to be considered:
1. Review of thermodynamic models used in simulation of TEG dehydration processes

2. Verify the CPA-EOS model in NeqSim for calculation of TEG phase equilibrium
3. Collection of equilibrium and field data relevant to TEG dehydration
4. Evaluation of commercial simulation tools (Hysys, Pro/II, ProMax) and NeqSim used for TEG
dehydration simulation
1.3.Report structure
The thesis starts with a short introduction to gas dehydration (chapter 2). In chapter 3, a typical
dehydration unit is described. Chapter 4 describes four different systems used for enhanced
dehydration. Chapter 5 is a review of design methods for gas dehydration. It also includes a
presentation of equation of states relevant for fluid packages included in this thesis. Next, in chapter
6, the various simulation tools are presented. Collected experimental and field data are presented in
chapter 7. The results provided by the fluid packages are compared to the experimental data and
field data in chapter 8. The chapter also includes results from several studies conducted in order to
illuminate deviations found in the comparisons. The chapter ends with an evaluation of the fluid
packages. Chapter 9 is discussion. The conclusion is presented in chapter 10. The thesis ends with
bibliography (chapter 11) and appendices (chapter 12).
2
2. Gas Dehydration
A gas processing plant consists of several stages such as condensate and water removal, acid gas
removal, dehydration and mercury removal. The gas is processed partly because of unwanted
components (e.g. water, mercury and H2S) that can cause corrosion and hydrate formation, and
partly because of sales specifications such as heating value and Wobbe index. A typical flow sheet for
a gas processing plant is shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: A typical processing plant for natural gas (Sørensen, 2013).
The dehydration unit is always placed after the acid gas removal unit if the latter is present. An acid
gas removal unit utilizes a mixture that typically consists of water and an amine. The sweet gas is
therefore saturated with water when leaving the acid gas removal unit.
After removing liquid water in a separator or scrubber (first stage in Figure 2.1) water vapor has to be
removed to meet water dew point gas transport requirements (Table 1.1). There are several ways to
reduce the amount of water vapor in natural gas. In deep NGL extraction and liquefaction of natural
gas (LNG), dehydration by adsorption is often the best solution. For an outlet dew point requirement
above -40 °C glycol dehydration is generally preferred (Campbell, 2004).
2.1.Operational problems due to liquid water

Dehydration is a process that removes water from a liquid and/or gas. The main reason for removing
water vapor in natural gas is to prevent condensation of water under high pressure and/or low
temperature. There are mainly three problems due to free water in natural gas pipelines (Guo, 2005):
 Hydrates: Liquid water and light gas compounds can form hydrates which may plug pipes or
downstream equipment.
 Corrosion: Natural gas containing acid gases (mainly carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide)
is corrosive if liquid water is present.
 Slug flow: Liquid water can cause slugging which reduces the flow efficiency and damages
downstream equipment.
If liquid water and gas molecules smaller than n-butane are present hydrates may form (Manning &
Thompson, 1991). Unlike corrosion, scale – and wax formation, hydrate plugs can form within
minutes, blocking a pipeline entirely (Kidnay, et al., 2001). Hydrates are ice-like structures where the
3
water molecules form a regular crystalline structure which is held together by hydrogen-bonding.
These cage-like structures are stabilized by light natural gas-compounds such as methane, ethane,
carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulphide (H2S) (Rojey, 1997). The common feature of the
stabilizing compounds is their size; they all fit perfectly into the structure’s “cage”. Hydrates can form
at higher temperatures than ice.
For hydrates to form, liquid water must be present. Hydrate formation also increases with pressure
and low temperatures, both being a characteristic of natural gas pipelines. Therefore, in order to
avoid hydrates, formation of liquid water must be prevented. Hydrate formation causes a range of
operating problems, the most severe one being partial or complete blocking of pipes and
downstream equipment. Other problems are fouling and plugging of heat exchangers, erosion of
expanders and other important processing equipment (Rojey, 1997).
An alternative to dehydration is to add inhibitors. Inhibition is the process of adding a chemical to the
condensed water such that hydrates cannot form. Dehydration is generally preferred, when possible,
because it removes water from the natural gas and therefore also many problems connected to
liquid water (Campbell, 2004). Inhibitors are used when separation and/or dehydration is difficult
such as in subsea pipelines from wellhead to platform. The inhibitor lowers the temperature and
pressure at which hydrates can form.
Hydrogen sulfide is a highly toxic gas that, in the presence of water, forms a weak corrosive acid.
Carbon dioxide is a non-toxic, non-flammable gas. Similar to hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide forms a
weak acid when liquid water is present (Kidnay, et al., 2001). There are limitations for both acid gases
(Table 1.1).
Slug is a large quantity of gas or liquid. In a two phase pipeline, gas and liquid is not always evenly
distributed in the pipeline. This unevenness is caused by several factors such as terrain elevations
and difference in gas and liquid velocity. Slugs can flood and damage downstream equipment. For
two-phase pipe flows, huge slug catchers are utilized to stabilize the flow and protect inlet facilities
(Al-Safran, 2009).
2.2.Absorption
The dehydration unit is one of the main features in a processing plant. Here, water vapor is
separated from the gas using one or more dehydration method. The most commonly used method is
the absorption process (Campbell, 2004). Absorption is a process where a gas (or liquid) is contained
within a liquid solvent to remove specific compounds. However, if extreme dryness is needed (water
dew point below -40 °C), this method is not adequate. This thesis will only highlight dehydration by
absorption. Absorption can be either physical or chemical.
In physical absorption, mass is transferred from one phase to another (e.g. from vapor to liquid
phase). Glycols are examples of polar solvents that strongly attract water. Even though this attraction
is extremely strong, no chemical reaction takes place (Kidnay, et al., 2001).
In chemical absorption a chemical reaction between the solvent and the gas takes place. The gas is
first physically absorbed into the solvent where it reacts with the solvent (Kidnay, et al., 2001). There
are two different chemical absorptions: reversible and irreversible (Kohl & Nielsen, 1997)
4
As mentioned above, the absorption of water vapor into a solvent is a physical absorption. The basis
for this type of gas dehydration is the solvent. The solvent should have the following properties
(Kidnay, et al., 2001):
 Strong affinity to water and low affinity for hydrocarbons

 Low volatility
 Low cost
 Low viscosity
 Low tendency to form foams or emulsions
 Low potential for corrosion
 Large difference in boiling point compared to water
2.3.Glycols
Glycols, also known as diols, are a common name for dihydric alcohol with two hydroxyl (OH) groups.
Glycols have a high affinity for water and are widely used in gas processing. There are mainly four
glycols used for gas dehydration: diethylene glycol (DEG), triethylene glycol (TEG), tetraethylene
glycol (TREG) and propylene glycol (Campbell, 2004); (Guo, 2005). Monoethylene glycol (MEG) is
commonly used as an inhibitor for multiphase well streams due to its low viscosity and regeneration
characteristic. TEG is the most used glycol for gas dehydration because it gives the best combination
of dew point depression, operating cost and reliability (Guo, 2005). Roughly 95% of all glycol
dehydration units for natural gas streams use TEG as an absorbent (Mostafazadeh, et al., 2009). This
thesis will focus on gas dehydration by TEG as an absorbent.
Triethylene glycol (TEG) is a well-known component used for a variety of purposes. It is a colorless
odorless liquid with two OH-groups. These OH-bounds have a strong affinity for water-molecules and
will “steal” water vapor out of the natural gas. TEG has a boiling point (287.8°C) at atmospheric
pressure that is much higher than water (100 °C). This difference is utilized when water is separated
by increasing the temperature in a regenerator (water is “boiled off”). The physical properties of TEG
are listed in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Physical properties of triethylene glycol (TEG) (Company, 2013).

Property Unit Value
Molecular formula C6H14O4
Molecular weight kg/kmol 150.17
Boiling point at 1 atm °C 287.8
Critical temperature °C 440.0
Critical pressure kPa 3313.3
Vapor pressure at 20 °C kPa <0.001
Onset of initial decomposition °C 240
3
Density at 25 °C kg/m 1120.0
Freezing point °C -4.3
Viscosity at 20 °C mPs 49.0
Solubility in water at 20 °C wt% 100.0
Solubility of water in TEG at 20 °C wt% 100.0
5
3. Description of a dehydration unit
In order to meet transport specifications for rich gas, several processing steps are required (Figure
2.1). As previously mentioned, an acid gas removal unit saturates the gas with water. When utilized,
the operating temperature and pressure of this unit “controls” the amount of water vapor in the gas
into the dehydration unit. A typical dehydration unit using TEG can be seen in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1: A typical glycol absorption unit.
An absorption unit can be divided into two main components; a contactor where the natural gas is
dehydrated by glycols, and a regenerator where the water is separated from the glycol. The unit
consists of several other components such as coolers, heat exchangers, scrubbers, pumps and filters
(Figure 3.1). In dehydration, rich glycol/gas refers to a mixture that is rich in water. Similar, a lean
glycol/gas refers to a mixture that is lean in water.
Saturated gas (rich in water) is first, if necessary, cooled down to the desired contactor temperature
(typically 30 °C) in the inlet cooler. Condensed water and heavy hydrocarbons are separate in a
scrubber before the rich gas enters the bottom of the glycol contactor. Lean glycol enters at the top
and flows countercurrent to the gas. Dry gas leaves at the top for further processing/compression.
Rich glycol is routed from the bottom of the contactor. The pressure is reduced in a flash valve before
the rich solvent is heated by a reflux condenser in the regenerator. The heated rich solvent is then
routed into a flash drum where flash gas is separated. The rich glycol is then filtered, heated by the
lean glycol leaving the surge tank and routed into the regenerator. The reboiler keeps the
temperature of the liquid phase at typically 204 °C. Here, the water is vaporized (e.g. glycol purified)
and vented off. If stripping gas is utilized, it can be fed directly into the reboiler. Lean glycol is then
cooled in the glycol/glycol heat exchanger before the pressure is increased to the operating
contactor pressure. It is cooled further in a glycol cooler before entering the top of the contactor.
3.1.Inlet cooler
The temperature is reduced in order to increase the efficiency of the dehydration process and to
minimize the necessary water that the solvent has to absorb. Cooling will condense some of the
water vapor, which is separated before entering the contactor.
6
3.2.Inlet scrubber
The inlet scrubber protects the contactor by separating liquid water and other entrained liquids such
as heavy hydrocarbons. Liquid hydrocarbons can increase the glycols tendency to foam and might
also contaminate the glycol, both reducing the dehydration efficiency (Kidnay, et al., 2001). When
liquid water is separated in the inlet scrubber, it reduces the amount of water that has to be
removed in the contactor. This process of cooling and separating is the cheapest form of dehydration
when water, air or another cold process stream is utilized as a cooling medium. Decreasing the
temperature and separating condensate reduces the volume of the contactor and the amount of
glycol needed (Campbell, 2004).
3.3.Contactor
In the contactor, the absorption of water vapor into glycol takes place. Wet gas enters at the bottom
of the column, while lean glycol is routed into the top. The glycol has a slightly higher temperature
than the gas. This is necessary because cooling of the gas will lead to condensation of water, which
can cause hydrate formation (Kohl & Nielsen, 1997). By gravity force, the glycol flows downwards,
while the natural gas flows the opposite way, leaving at the top of the column as dry gas. Rich glycol
is taken out at the bottom of the contactor.
3.3.1. Column internals

The main function of the contactor is to promote sufficiently contact area between the gas phase
and the liquid glycol (Kohl & Nielsen, 1997). Trays (usually bubble cap) or packing (usually structured)
is used to increase the contact area (Campbell, 2004).
Figure 3.2: Typical structured packing (Sulzer, 2013).
Three types of trays are used in contactors: bubble cap, valve or sieve trays. Until the mid-1980s, the
majority of contactors had bubble cap trays. Since then, most of the dehydration units have been
installed with structured packing due to its high gas handling capacity (Campbell, 2004). Random
packing is also used in some small diameter contactors (less than 0.6 m), but structured packing is
preferred in most cases due to its higher capacity and better turndown1 (Campbell, 2004).
3.3.1.1. Trays
In a contactor with bubble cap trays, glycol mixture flows down from the downcomer2 on the
previous tray and crosses the flooded surface which is filled with bubble caps. These caps distribute
rich gas in the glycol solution which provides good contact between glycol and gas. With an
appropriate flow rate, the vapor-liquid mixture will approach equilibrium on each tray. Liquid flow
rates must be high enough to prevent vapor from rising through the downcomer and low enough to
1
Minimum flow rate at which the equipment still operates properly
2
A conduit where the glycol flows to the tray below
7
approach equilibrium. Similar, vapor flow rates must be such that no liquid is carried up to the next
tray (carry-over) or down to the previous one (weeping). Because of this cross flow/up flow
configuration, the cross-sectional area has to be large in order to approach vapor-liquid equilibrium
on each tray. This increases the diameter of the column, which for high pressure systems (such as a
contactor) results in a substantially increase in weight because of increased wall diameter. A column
with 50 % less diameter can be used for packed internals (Kidnay, et al., 2001).
3.3.1.2. Packing
Instead of dividing the gas stream through multiple caps, packing increases the liquid-gas contact
area by forcing the glycol stream to form a liquid film on high surface area components (Kohl &
Nielsen, 1997). A packed column has either structured or random packing. For random packing
(Figure 3.3), a variety of shapes and materials are offered. The column is simply filled with these
components which have a big surface area to weight ratio. Structured packing (Figure 3.2) is a bundle
of “metal sheets” that promotes mixing of glycol and gas. Both types of packing are exposed to
fouling in “dirty” systems. Fouling causes “channeling”3 in random packing and increased pressure
drop in structured packing (Kidnay, et al., 2001).
Figure 3.3: One type of random packing (jhsealing, 2013).
As a rule of thumps, trays work better with a high liquid to gas ratio while packed columns are ideal
at low ratios. Column internals are a small fraction of the total column cost. Other factors (turndown
ratio, gas handling capacity, weight etc.) are of higher importance when choosing column type.
Structured packing is preferred offshore because of less weight and volume (lack of available space),
and because its tolerance for small column motion (Kidnay, et al., 2001).
3.4.Flash valve
The rich glycol leaving the bottom of the contactor is depressurized in a flash valve. The pressure
drop depends on the pressure difference between the contactor and the regenerator. The reduction
in pressure will lead to a vaporizing of water and/or hydrocarbons that have been carried over from
the contactor.
3.5.Flash separator
The flash tank separates waste gas which has been evaporated over the flash valve. This is either a
two – or three phase flash tank. A three phase tank is recommended if there is a chance for
hydrocarbon carry-over from the contactor (Campbell, 2004). The separated waste gas is sometimes
used as fuel gas for the reboiler.
3
Glycol flows in certain paths in the contactor, leading to poor absorption.
8
3.6.Filter
A full flow filtration of the rich glycol entering the heat exchanger is recommended. Aromatic4
hydrocarbons are often present in the rich TEG flow, and it is desirable to use a filter that avoids
loading of such components. The absorption levels for aromatics are high, and vary from 5 – 10 % for
benzene and up to 20 – 30 % for ethylbenzene and xylene (Campbell, 2004).
3.7.Heat exchangers
Because the contactor and regenerator have a temperature difference of approximately 170 °C, it is
necessary to control the temperature of the fluids. The relatively cold rich glycol from the flash
separator is heat-exchanged with the hot lean glycol from the regenerator. This minimizes the heat
loss in the process (Kidnay, et al., 2001). Plate-type heat exchangers are usually preferred, especially
for offshore units, because they are compact, light and cheap. Although being suitable, plate
exchangers are exposed to fouling. It is therefore essential that the rich glycol from the contactor is
clean and filtered (Campbell, 2004).
3.8.Regenerator
The regenerator unit usually consists of two main components: reboiler and still column. If stripping
gas is utilized, a stripping column might also be necessary. The stripping gas can also be added
directly into the reboiler (Figure 3.1). The operational temperature of the reboiler depends on which
glycol is used. The maximum temperature recommended for TEG at atmospheric pressure is 204 °C
(Kidnay, et al., 2001). Above this temperature, TEG will start to degrade.
3.8.1. Reboiler
The reboiler heats the rich glycol solution and vaporizes absorbed water. Waste gas from the flash
tank is sometimes used as fuel gas in a direct fired reboiler (Kidnay, et al., 2001). Other alternatives
are utilization of hot process streams such as steam or hot oil. An electric heater might also be used.
The majority of TEG reboilers maintain the bath temperature as close to 204 °C as possible. This has
proven to be the best compromise between decomposition and lean TEG concentration (Campbell,
2004). As a result of this, it is necessary to maintain the heat transfer temperature above 204°C. This
will lead to some TEG decomposition near the heat transfer area. In order to keep this local
decomposition ratio as low as possible, the heat flux rate should be kept below a certain value
(Campbell, 2004).
3.8.2. Still column

Hot rising vapor mixture rises through the still column which is either trayed or packed. The rich
glycol stream is often utilized in a condensing coil at the top of the still column in order to condense
the glycol in the rising vapor mixture (reflux). This purifies the vapor leaving the still column and
reduces glycol loss. The typically reflux ratio range is 0.1 to 0.2 (Campbell, 2004). In other words, 10 –
20 % of the vapor is condensed. The mixture leaving the still column is primarily water and stripping
gas (if applicable). Cooling water might also be used in the condenser, but the rich glycol stream is
often preferred because of its simplicity and energy efficiency (Campbell, 2004).
3.9.Glycol pump
Because the pressure in the regenerator is lower than in the contactor, a pump is needed to circulate
the glycol. Glycol pumps are either electrically driven, gas, or gas-glycol powered. A gas-glycol
4
A hydrocarbon molecule with alternating single and double bonds forming a ring structure.
9
powered pump is called a Kimray-pump and utilizes the rich glycol pressure after the contactor
combined with a supplement of the natural gas stream (Campbell, 2004).
10
4. Enhanced dehydration
The dryness of the natural gas is primarily dependent on the purity of lean TEG. At 204 °C, the typical
maximum lean TEG concentration at sea level for a regeneration unit is 98.5 wt% (Campbell, 2004). If
the mixture does not contain any oxygen (i.e. air leakage), it is possible to operate the reboiler very
close to 204 °C without noticeable decomposition. In order to get a higher purity, the water vapor
pressure in the regenerator has to be reduced. This reduces the boiling point of water, resulting in
enhanced vaporization. Four different techniques are commonly used in order to get a higher glycol
concentration (Kidnay, et al., 2001); (Kohl & Nielsen, 1997).
4.1.Stripping gas
A stripping gas is an inert gas that is noncondensing at the operational temperature and pressure. A
small stream of natural gas is commonly used. The gas is added either in a separate column between
the reboiler and the surge tank (Figure 4.1), or directly into the reboiler (Figure 3.1). The stripping gas
dilutes the vapor (i.e. lowers the water vapor pressure), causing more water to vaporize from the
TEG solution. A concentration of 99.5 wt% can be obtained by direct injection and a value as high as
99.9 wt% can be achieved by using a separate stripping column (Kohl & Nielsen, 1997). A regenerator
with a separate stripping column can be seen in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1: Regenerator with a separate stripping column.
The use of stripping gas is the most common way to achieve enhanced dehydration because of its
simplicity. The need for extra equipment is low, especially if the stripping gas is fed into the reboiler.
Consequently, stripping gas is the most used method for extending operating capacity (Arnold &
Stewart, 1999). Stripping gas which is directly fed into the reboiler has an advantage of stirring the
glycol, resulting in a lower local decomposition near the heating surface (Kohl & Nielsen, 1997).
4.2.Drizo™ process
In this patented process, a volatile liquid hydrocarbon is injected into the glycol regeneration system.
The hydrocarbons are vaporized before entering the stripping column where it acts as a stripping gas
for the lean glycol mixture leaving the regenerator. The vapor-mixture from the stripper is routed
through the reboiler and the still column. The vapor mixture leaving the still column is condensed
before entering a three phase separator. Here, liquid water is separated and discarded, off-gas
removed and liquid hydrocarbons regenerated and recycled. The Drizo™ process has the advantage
of regenerating the stripping gas (Kohl & Nielsen, 1997).
11
4.3.Vacuum distillation
If a vacuum pump is added to the system, the total pressure, and therefore also the water vapor
pressure, is reduced. In vacuum distillation, the lean glycol solution from a standard regenerator at
atmospheric pressure is routed through a throttling valve, heated and fed into a vacuum drum. The
mixed vapor is pumped back to the regenerator, while lean glycol is recycled (Kohl & Nielsen, 1997).
It is also possible to reduce the pressure in the regenerator. This reduces the need for an extra
separation drum, but there is a risk of air leakage into the system. This leads to drastic reductions in
the glycol regeneration (Bråthen, 2008). Glycol purity up to 99.9 wt% has been reported by using
vacuum distillation (Kidnay, et al., 2001)
4.4.Coldfinger
Another way to reduce the partial pressure is called the Coldfinger process. In this process, the lean
glycol from the regenerator is routed to a separate vessel which is half filled with liquid. A cooling coil
is placed in the vapor-space above the solution. The cooling coil condenses a mixture which is rich in
water. A trough is placed underneath the cooling coil and gathers the liquid. This reduces the water
vapor pressure and therefore increases the vaporization of liquid water in the glycol solution (Kohl &
Nielsen, 1997).
12
5. Review of design methods for gas dehydration by absorption in TEG
The amount of water removal in the contactor depends on three factors (Campbell, 2004):
 Lean TEG purity

 TEG circulation rate
 Numbers of stages in the contactor
Up to a certain point, an increase in any of these factors will lead to a higher water removal. A TEG-
contactor is practically isothermal. The glycol circulation rate is small compared to wet gas, which
controls the temperature in the contactor. The heat of absorption and heat transfer is rarely more
than 1 – 2 °C for pressures above 10 bar. The effect of pressure on TEG-water equilibrium is small
and negligible up to 138 bar. This effect is therefore neglected when calculating TEG-water
equilibrium in contactors (Campbell, 2004).
5.1.Lean TEG purity

If equilibrium is assumed at the top tray of the contactor, the purity of lean TEG controls the dry gas
water dew point (Figure 5.1). The water in the vapor phase is in equilibrium with lean TEG leaving the
top tray. However, the retention time on each tray is too short to reach equilibrium, so other factors
influence the water removal as well. 98.5 wt% is the maximum lean TEG-concentration that is
possible to obtain (dashed line in Figure 5.1) without use of enhanced dehydration-methods. Values
up to 99.1 wt% have been reported in systems where hydrocarbons in the wet gas has acted as
stripping gas and/or in plants at high altitudes (regeneration at lower pressure) (Campbell, 2004).
Figure 5.1: Equilibrium water dew point as a function of contactor temperature at various lean TEG
concentrations in wt% (Campbell, 2004).
Since equilibrium is not reached at the top tray, the water dew point is higher than the value given by
Figure 5.1, typically 5 – 10 °C higher (Campbell, 2004). Thus, if the requirement for water dew point is
-18 °C, it might be necessary to obtain a TEG purity corresponding to -28 °C. The necessary “extra”
purity depends on glycol circulation rate and contactor size.
13
5.2.TEG circulation rate
As a result of non-equilibrium conditions on the upper tray, actual water removal depends on two
additional parameters: circulation rate and number of theoretical stages (Figure 5.2).
Figure 5.2: Water removal as a function of TEG (99 wt%) circulation rate for several theoretical stages (N)
(Campbell, 2004).
An increase in either circulation rate or number of theoretical stages will lead to a higher water
removal fraction (Campbell, 2004). Most processing plants use a value of 15 – 40 liters TEG/kg H2O
absorbed. This has proven to be a good optimization between circulation rate and contactor size
(Campbell, 2004).
5.3.Tray efficiency, number of trays

The overall tray efficiency is defined as:
(5.1)
The Murphree tray efficiency is defined as (Øi, 2003):
(5.2)
Where:
= the mole fraction in the gas from tray N
= the mole fraction in the gas from tray below
= equilibrium mole fraction in the gas on tray N based on tray liquid composition
14
Figure 5.3: Definition of Murphree tray efficiency (Øi, 2003).
The vaporization model uses K-values in its definition of tray efficiency.
(5.3)
Where:
= effective equilibrium K-value on tray N
= equilibrium K-value on tray N based on tray liquid composition
The equilibrium efficiency uses the same variables ( and ) in its definition.
(5.4)
For packed columns, equilibrium stages are difficult to use because of the continuous mass transfer.
Equilibrium stages are converted to packing heights using either Height of a Transfer Unit (HTU) or
Height Equivalent to a Theoretical Plate (HETP). Both depend on mass rates, densities and packing
type. 0.8 meter is usually applicable for HTU. HETP ranges from 1.6 – 2.0 meter (Campbell, 2004).
HTU is multiplied by the Number of Transfer Units (NTU) to find the necessary packing height.
(5.5)
NTU is defined as
∫ (5.6)
Where:
= concentration of water in the bottom of the contactor
= concentration of water at the top of the contactor
15
= equilibrium water concentration
HETP is multiplied with the Number of Theoretical Stages (NTS) to find the packing height.
(5.7)
NTS is equal to N in the efficiency definitions previously mentioned (equation 5.2 – 5.4). The mass
transfer in packed columns is continuous. However, despite being the poorest method, the
HETP/NTS approach is most common (Campbell, 2004).
5.4.Stripping gas
When stripping gas is utilized, the lean TEG purity depends on the temperature, number of
theoretical stages and stripping gas rate.
Figure 5.4: Lean TEG wt% as a function of stripping gas rate at various temperatures and number of
theoretical stages (N) for a separate stripping column (Campbell, 2004).
An increase in required lean TEG wt% increases the amount of necessary stripping gas. The purity of
the lean TEG routed from the reboiler also has a major impact on the required stripping gas as shown
by the different reboiler temperatures in Figure 5.4.
5.5.Equation of states
An equation of state (EOS) relates the specific volume of a single phase fluid to temperature and
pressure (Moran & Shapiro, 2006). The dimensionless ratio is called the compressibility factor and
given as
(5.8)
is a constant for the particular gas with a molecular weight of .
̅
(5.9)
16
̅ is known as the universal gas constant and is defined as
̅ ⁄ (5.10)
The compressibility factor approaches unity as the pressure tends to zero at a fixed temperature. In
general, a gas with a small pressure relative to the critical pressure ( ), the compressibility factor is
approximately unity (Moran & Shapiro, 2006). At such states, equation 5.8 equals to
(5.11)
Equation 5.11 is the ideal gas equation of state. It was first stated by Émile Clapeyron in 1834. All
gases approach ideal gas behavior when the pressure decreases or the molar volume approaches
infinity. Ideal gas behavior adheres to several microscopic idealizations (Moran & Shapiro, 2006):
 Random molecular motion

 The volume of the molecules is negligible compared to the empty space between them
 No intermolecular forces
An ideal solution is a solution with thermodynamic properties similar to those of ideal gases, with the
significant difference that intermolecular forces in liquids are strong and cannot be neglected.
Instead, the forces between molecules are assumed to be equally strong. This usually requires that
the molecular species are equal in size and have similar chemical properties.
5.5.1. van der Waals (VDW)

The ideal gas EOS fails for heavy gases, and for gases with strong intermolecular forces (e.g. water
vapor). The ideal gas equation is therefore not suited for dehydration of natural gas. In 1873, van der
Waals suggested an improvement to the ideal gas EOS known as the van der Waals equation (VDW).
(5.12)
The second term includes an “attraction parameter” ( ) which accounts for the cohesive forces5 in
the gas. The constant is intended to take into account the finite volume the gas molecules occupy.
The parameters of van der Waals equation are found from the critical pressure and critical
temperature.
(5.13)
(5.14)
Although the equation was an improvement to the ideal gas equation, it is explicit in temperature.
5
Cohesive forces are the intermolecular forces (such as those from hydrogen bonding) which causes a
tendency for liquids to resist separation
17
5.5.2. Redlich-Kwong (RK)
The Redlich-Kwong (RK) equation from 1949 is based on VDW (equation 5.12). Its aim was to
improve the representation of real fluids by modifying the second term in VDW (Rojey, 1997).
(5.15)
Where is a function of the reduced temperature (
(5.16)
√
and are, similar to VDW, related to the critical temperature and pressure
(5.17)
(5.18)
5.5.3. Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK)

In 1972, Soave proposed an improvement to RK (equation 5.15), known as the Soave-Redlich-Kwong
(SRK). Its EOS is identical to RK (Soave, 1972):
(5.19)
Its improvement lies in the definition of :
(5.20)
Where:
( √ ) (5.21)
(5.22)
is the acentric factor given by
(5.23)
and are identical to equation 5.17 and 5.18 respectively. SRK is limited to non-polar
components, and is inaccurate for light gases such as hydrogen (Invensys, 1996). Nevertheless, it is
one of the most used EOS in industry today (Sørensen, 2013); (Christensen, 2009).
5.5.4. Mixing rules

For a multi component systems, the same equations of state are applicable, only with a modification
for the variables and . These modifications are called mixing rules, and the original is the van der
Waals mixing rule.
18
∑∑ (5.24)
∑ (5.25)
Here, is the mole fraction of component or . “The binary interaction parameter is introduced
into the mixing rule to correct the geometric mean rule of parameter in equation of state”
(Invensys, 1996).
( ) (5.26)
The van der Waals mixing rule can be used to represent vapor-liquid equilibrium for non-polar or
slightly polar systems. Several mixing rules are developed to accommodate polar components. A
modified EOS version called the Soave-Redlich-Kwong Modified Panagiotopoulos-Reid (SRKM)
defines, for a multicomponent system, the term in equation 5.24 as:
( ) {( ) ( ) } (5.27)
This definition includes four interaction parameters , , and . Its EOS is RK (equation 5.15).
5.5.5. Peng-Robinson (PR)

The Peng-Robinson (PR) equation of state was introduced in 1976 to give “improved liquid densities
values as well as accurate vapor pressures and equilibrium ratios” (Peng & Robinson, 1976).
(5.28)
The values of and at the critical temperature are the following:
(5.29)
(5.30)
At other temperatures than the critical and are defined as:
(5.31)
(5.32)
Where is, similar to equation 5.21, given as
(5.33)
is a constant which is characteristic of each substance:
19
(5.34)
Where is the acentric factor (equation 5.23). The mixing rules are the original VDW (equation 5.24,
5.25 and 5.26).
5.5.6. Cubic-Plus-Association (CPA)

The Cubic-Plus-Association EOS was introduced in 1996. It combines the SRK EOS, for the physical
part, with a chemical (association) part (Kontogeorgis, et al., 1996).
∑ (5.35)
Where the physical term is equal to SRK (equation 5.19) and the association term (last term) is taken
from Statistical Associating Fluid Theory (SAFT) (Huang & Radosz, 1990). Thus, the CPA EOS is equal
to the SRK EOS for non-associating substances. is defined as the fraction of molecules not
bonded at site A.
∑ (5.36)
is the association strength and given as
(5.37)
Where
= Radial distribution factor6 for the segment
= Association energy of interaction between cites A and B
= Parameter in the association term of CPA
is the covolume parameter and given as
(5.38)
Where is Avogadro’s constant. The radial distribution factor for the segment, , can be
approximated by the radial distribution factor of a hard sphere7 (hs).
(5.39)
Where is the reduced density, defined as
(5.40)
6
Describes how density varies with distance from a reference particle
7
Hard spheres are impenetrable particles that cannot overlap in space
20
5.5.7. Twu-Sim-Tassone (TST)
The Twu-Sim-Tassone (TST) equation of state was presented in 2001. It was presented to “allow
better prediction of liquid densities for heavy hydrocarbons and polar components” (Twu, et al.,
2001). The TST EOS is a two parameter cubic EOS.
(5.41)
The values of and at the critical temperature are the following:
(5.42)
(5.43)
For temperatures other than the critical temperature, is, similar to SRK, a function of the
temperature:
(5.44)
The alpha function ( ) is a function of the reduced temperature. Here, the Twu alpha correlation is
used
(5.45)
L, M and N are parameters that are unique for each component. The values of these parameters for
hydrocarbons up to n-decane, H2S, N2, CO2, water and TEG are given in (Twu, et al., 2001). For non-
library components, the generalized alpha function is a function of two variables: reduced
temperature and acentric factor. Contrary to SRK, it is a linear function of the acentric factor at a
constant reduced temperature. This is claimed to give a more accurate prediction when extrapolating
the alpha function for heavy hydrocarbons (Twu, et al., 2001).
The zero-pressure mixing rules for the TST EOS mixture are:
[ ( ( ))] (5.46)
Where:
= equation of state and parameters which are evaluated from the van der Waals
mixing rule (equation 5.24 and equation 5.25)
= excess Helmholtz energy8 at zero pressure
= excess Helmholtz energy of the van der Waals fluid at zero pressure
8
Helmholtz energy measures the potential work obtainable from a closed thermodynamic system at a constant
temperature
21
and are the reduced EOS parameters and defined as
(5.47)
(5.48)
is a constant and defined as
( ) (5.49)
Where
= reduced liquid volume at zero pressure
The excess Helmholtz energy is just slightly pressure-dependent. Therefore, the excess Helmholtz
energy of the van der Waals fluid at zero pressure is approximately the excess Helmholtz energy at
infinite pressure.
( ∑ ) (5.50)
Where is a constant, defined as
( ) (5.51)
This assumption allows a smoothly transition to the conventional van der Waal’s one fluid-mixing
rule.
∑∑ ( ) (5.52)
∑∑ [ ] (5.53)
A general multi-component equation is used for the liquid activity model to account for deviations
from an ideal mixture.
∑
∑ (5.54)
∑
Where:
22
= Gibbs energy9
= binary interaction parameter
is a function of temperature and . and are both Non-random two-liquid (NRTL) binary
interaction parameters.
(5.55)
(5.56)
5.6.MESH
When simulating a process, each component in the system must be described by an element. There
may be several inlet and outlets with different processing streams entering and leaving this element.
In simulation programs, the element represents several equations called MESH-equations. Each
capital letter is given by a category of calculations.
 M: Material balance
 E: Phase Equilibrium
 S: Summation
 H: Heat
Which equations are used depends on variable input. The variables are: temperature, pressure, mole
fraction, mass flow and heat flow. In a contactor/regenerator simulation, MESH-equations are
calculated for each stage in addition to the condenser and reboiler (if applicable). The solution of the
following set of equations forms the basis of the methods developed for solving elements in
processing simulation programs (Al-Juhani, 2007). Each parameter in the MESH-equation is
presented in this chapter. The emphasis has been on properties which are relevant for simulation of
dehydration units.
5.6.1. Material balance

The material balance ensures conservation of mass which states that mass can neither be created
nor destroyed.
(5.57)
In a steady state system, the accumulation equals to zero. In a non-chemical-reacting system, the
consumption and generation also equals zero, giving the material balance for a steady state, physical
process (Al-Juhani, 2007):
(5.58)
The mass rate into a steady state system is equal to the mass rate out of the system.
9
Gibbs energy is a thermodynamic potential that measures the potential work obtainable from a system at
constant pressure and temperature
23
5.6.2. Heat
The total energy of a thermodynamic system is described by enthalpy. Specific enthalpy is defined as
(Moran & Shapiro, 2006)
(5.59)
Where is the internal specific energy and defined as:
(5.60)
is the heat supplied per mass to the element by the surroundings. is the work per mass done by
the element on the surroundings. For an adiabatic heater at steady state with zero specific work, no
change in kinetic or potential energy and one inlet and outlet, the heating duty can be expresses as
̇ (5.61)
Where ̇ is the mass rate and is the specific enthalpy of the inlet (1) and outlet (2) stream. Two
properties which are strongly related to internal energy are specific heats. They are particularly
useful for calculations of ideal gases. The specific heats, or specific heat capacities, are defined for
pure, compressible substances as
( ) (5.62)
( ) (5.63)
Where the subscripts, and , denotes the variables which are held constant during differentiation.
The properties are called specific heats because, under certain special conditions, they relate the
temperature change of a system to the heat added (Moran & Shapiro, 2006).
The specific volume ( ) and the specific internal energy ( ) of a liquid varies only gradually as
pressure changes at fixed temperatures. For small pressure changes, the following approximations
are reasonable.
(5.64)
(5.65)
Here, denotes the property at saturated liquid state. Using these approximations into equation
5.59 leads to the following expression:
(5.66)
This can also be expressed as
(5.67)
24
Where denotes the saturation pressure at the given temperature. It the second term in
equation 5.67 is small, the specific enthalpy can be approximated by the saturation value.
(5.68)
This approximation is widely used when the only data available is for saturated states.
For any gas whose equation of state is given as equation 5.11 (an ideal gas), the internal energy ( ) is
a function of temperature only.
(5.69)
With the definition of enthalpy (equation 5.59), and the ideal equation of state (equation 5.11), the
enthalpy of an ideal gas is also a function of temperature only.
(5.70)
The specification given by equation 5.11, 5.69 and 5.70 is the ideal gas model. In reality, the specific
internal energy and enthalpy of a gas depends on two independent properties. For an ideal gas, the
specific heat capacities are also a function of temperature only. Equation 5.63 now becomes
(5.71)
This can also be expressed as
∫ (5.72)
Hence, the difference in enthalpy of an ideal gas can be calculated from the specific heat capacity
and the difference in temperature. For an adiabatic heater with no phase transformation and the
properties mentioned above equation 5.61, the required duty can be estimated by combining
equation 5.61 and 5.72.
̇ ̇ ∫ (5.73)
Consequently, assuming an ideal gas and/or an ideal solution, the required duty of a heater with no
phase transformation can be estimated from the mass rate, heat capacity and temperature.
Some heaters (e.g. reboiler) also evaporate some of the mixture. The enthalpy of vaporization is
defined as the amount of energy required to complete the liquid-phase transformation at a given
temperature (Garai, 2009). In terms of specific enthalpy, it is defined as
(5.74)
25
Where
= specific enthalpy of vaporization
= specific enthalpy of saturated gas
= specific enthalpy of saturated liquid
The enthalpy of vaporization is also known as the (latent) heat of vaporization. The value decreases
with increasing temperature. The required duty to evaporate a mixture is
̇ (5.75)
Here, ̇ is the mass rate of evaporated mixture. Hence, the duty of a heater that both heats and
vaporize a mixture can be estimated by adding and .
(5.76)
This simplification will be used in the reboiler study in chapter 8.2.10.
5.6.3. Equilibrium
Consider a vessel with several components and two phases: liquid and vapor. Given enough time, a
multiphase system with one or more components will reach equilibrium between the individual
components in the different phases. The equilibrium depends on the composition, pressure and
temperature. Any change in one or more of these properties will lead to a condensation or
vaporization (Kidnay, et al., 2001). Below the critical pressure, an equilibrium ratio can be defined for
each component (Rojey, 1997).
(5.77)
Where:
= mole fraction of component in the vapor phase
= mole fraction of component in liquid phase
Several models have been developed to describe systems in vapor/liquid equilibrium. Rault’s law
applies for low to moderate pressures and is only valid for systems containing species that are
chemically similar (Smith, et al., 2005). It adheres to two major assumptions:
 The vapor phase is an ideal gas

 The liquid phase is an ideal solution
Rault’s law is defined as
(5.78)
Where:
= Vapor pressure of pure species at the temperature of the system
26
The product on the left hand side of Rault’s law is the partial pressure of the species . Rault’s law
states that the vapor pressure of a solvent above a solution is equal to the vapor pressure of the pure
solvent scaled by the mole fraction.
A modified version of Rault’s law was introduced in order to account for non-ideal mixtures. Two
parameters were introduced to account for deviations from assumptions made for Rault’s law. The
first parameter, the fugacity coefficient ,is a correction for non-ideal gases. The second parameter,
the activity coefficient ,is a correction for interactions in the liquid phase between molecules. The
modified Rault’s law is defined as
(5.79)
When is low, the fugacity coefficient is close to unity. At low pressures, we can therefore assume
(5.80)
The activity coefficient at low pressures can therefore be approximated as
(5.81)
The definition allows easy calculation of activity coefficients from experimental low-pressure VLE
data. This simplification will be used to find the activity coefficient of water in chapter 8.1.3.
5.6.4. Summation
The summation rule states that the sum of all mole fractions equals one:
∑ (5.82)
In multiphase systems, there is a summation equation for each phase.
27
6. Simulation programs
Three different simulation programs were used: Hysys, Pro/II and ProMax. All programs are well-
known in the gas processing industry, with Hysys and ProMax being the most prevalent.
6.1.Hysys
Aspen Hysys is a well-known simulation program used by a variety of engineering companies. It is
made by Aspen Technologies (AspenTech) and described as “a comprehensive process modeling
system used by the world’s leading oil and gas producers, refineries, and engineering companies to
optimize process design and operations” (AspenTech, 2013). The 8.3 version was used in this thesis.
6.1.1. Thermodynamics
Hysys requires a selection of a fluid package as a first step in the simulation. Hysys provides a
selection of pre-customized packages. Among these packages are PR, SRK and also a “glycol property
package” which is customized for glycol dehydration processes using TEG. The package is based on
the TST EOS (chapter 5.5.5). It contains “the necessary binary interaction parameters for components
commonly encountered in natural gas dehydration process. The property package is tuned to
represent accurately, the phase behavior of these components, especially that for the TEG-water
binary system.” (AspenTech, 2005)
When choosing the glycol package, a variety of options are available for calculating vapor – and liquid
enthalpy, density, surface tension etc. The default setup for the glycol property package can be seen
in Figure 6.1.
Figure 6.1: Print screen from Hysys showing the default setup for the thermodynamic system of the glycol
property package.
The glycol package is claimed to predict (AspenTech, 2005):
 Activity coefficients for the TEG-water mixture within the average absolute deviation of 2 %
 Dew point temperatures within an average error of +/- 1 °C
 Water content of natural gas within the average absolute deviation of 1 %
The glycol package is applicable for a contactor within the range 15 – 50 °C and 10 – 100 atm, and a
regenerator within the range 202 – 206 °C and 0 – 1.2 atm (AspenTech, 2005). The default standard
conditions used by Hysys are 101.325 kPa (1 atm) and 60 °F (15.56 °C). The standard temperature
was changed to 15.0 °C for this thesis. This is the standard temperature in the field data.
28
Peng-Robinson was also included in Hysys due to recommendation from AspenTech. The fluid
package is described as “… ideal for VLE calculations as well as calculating liquid densities for
hydrocarbon systems”. The default setup for PR can be seen in Figure 6.2
Figure 6.2: Print screen from Hysys showing the default setup for the thermodynamic system of the Peng-
Robinson property package.
In addition to the pre-customized packages, Hysys also provides an option called CAPE-OPEN. CAPE-
OPEN allows the user to develop own thermodynamic packages which can be linked to Hysys. This
option has been used for the CPA EOS, both the DTU and NeqSim version.
6.1.2. Unit operation calculations

A unit such as a flash drum, heat exchanger or column needs minimum one input and output. In a
simulation of a dehydration unit, steady state is always assumed. This, together with the assumption
of no chemical reactions in the system, leads to the simple material balance equation 5.41 for every
unit.
A flash drum separates liquid and gas. The amount of gas vented off depends on the temperature,
pressure and composition of the input streams. The flash drum assumes enough retention time to
reach equilibrium. In a column with several trays, given that the efficiency is 100 %, Hysys will
assume equilibrium between liquid and gas for each component on each stage. For a contactor, an
increase in number of stages will give increased water absorption.
Several units require an “energy flow”. This includes all heat exchangers with only one input and
output, reboiler, condenser, pumps and flash drums which operates at temperature different from
the input streams. The heat is either added or subtracted from the unit.
6.1.3. Input parameters

One of the main parameters for a column is “number of stages”. The minimum number of stages is
one. Stage efficiency is a parameter which can be specified both overall and for each component.
Other main inputs are pressure loss, size of columns and type of internals. It is also possible to use
different fluid packages for different stages. Hysys provides several methods for solving columns. The
default solver is called “HYSIM inside-out” and is described as a “general purpose solution method.
Good for most problems.” (AspenTech, 2005)
A regenerator with a condenser and reboiler needs two specifications in order to converge. This can
be vapor rate from the condenser, temperature in the stream leaving the reboiler, how lean TEG the
regenerator should provide, reflux ratio in the condenser and so forth. All columns in Hysys have a
29
feature called “column environment”. The column environment for a regenerator is shown in Figure
6.3.
Figure 6.3: Typical column environment in Hysys for a regenerator with a condenser, reboiler and stripping
gas from a separate stripping column.
A standard regenerator consists of three components in the column environment: column,

condenser and reboiler. Hysys allows the user to specify size, heat loss, pressure drop etc. for each
component individually. An advantage with the column environment is the possibility for a further
analysis of the reboiler and condenser performance by investigating condenser reflux and “boilup”
(vapor from the reboiler).
6.1.4. Hysys recommendation

Hysys recommends the glycol package for simulation of a dehydration unit using TEG.
6.2.CERE ThermoSystem
The CPA-version developed at DTU was linked to Hysys using the CAPE-OPEN feature. DTU has
developed a tool named CERE ThermoSystem. CERE is short for “Center for Energy Resources
Engineering”. V3.8 was used in this thesis. In this program, it is possible to create a specified package.
A package containing the relevant components was created, and “Soave-Redlich-Kwong +
Association equation of state (CPA)” was chosen as the model. The other options were PR and SRK.
After creating the package, a new file was opened in Hysys. The “COMThermo” option was chosen
under “Fluid Packages”. Then, CAPE-OPEN 1.0 was chosen for both vapor and liquid “Model Phase”.
The appropriate package was chosen under CERE ThermoSystem. Next, the setup was finished by
choosing “Finish Setup…” under “Extended PropPkg Setup…”. A print screen from CERE
ThermoSystem can be seen in Figure 6.4.
30
Figure 6.4: Print screen from CERE ThermoSystem showing the package created (“Gullfaks”) with the
components and model chosen.
6.3.NeqSim
NeqSim (Non-Equilibrium Simulator) was developed by Even Solbraa at the Department of
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, NTNU. NeqSim is described as a “dynamic process simulator
specially designed to handle non-equilibrium situations” (Solbraa, 2001). It was linked to Hysys using
CAPE-OPEN. A fluid with the necessary components was created in NeqSim Web (Solbraa, 2014).
Next, the “COMThermo” option was chosen under “Fluid Packages”. “CAPE-OPEN 1.1” was chosen
for both vapor and liquid “Model Phase”. Then, the fluid created in NeqSim Web was chosen. The
option named “Extended PropPkg Setup…” was chosen, followed by “Finish Setup…”. Finally, the box
named “Perform Order Phases after flash” was checked.
6.4.Pro/II
Pro/II is a computer simulation system for process engineering developed by Invensys. It is “a steady-
state simulator enabling improved process design and operational analysis. It is designed to perform
rigorous heat and material balance calculations for a wide range of chemical processes” (Invensys,
2013). The 9.1 version was used in this thesis.
Pro/II requires the user to select one or more “property calculation systems”. The most commonly
methods used are the usual EOS such as Peng-Robinson (PR) and SRK. Pro/II also offers “special
packages” where the glycol package is of interest for dehydration of natural gas. It is applicable for
TEG only.
The glycol package uses the SRKM EOS to calculate phase equilibria for glycol dehydration systems.
The package uses a set of SRKM binary interaction data and alpha parameters especially for systems
containing glycols. Other thermodynamic properties such as enthalpy, entropy and vapor density are
also calculated by SRKM. For calculation of liquid density, the package uses the API method, which is
“applicable to most hydrocarbon systems, provided that the reduced temperature is less than 1.0”
(Invensys, 1996). A print screen of the default options for the thermodynamic systems can be seen in
Figure 6.5.
31
Figure 6.5: Print screen from Pro/II showing the default set up for the thermodynamic system.
When choosing the package, the user has to choose whether or not the package should calculate one
or two liquid phases. Single fluid phase is the default option. The recommended range for use of the
glycol package is 80 – 400 °F (26.7 – 204.4°C) and 0 – 2000 psia (0 – 136 atm) (Invensys, 1996). As a
default, the standard conditions in Pro/II are 0 °C and 101.33 kPa. The user is allowed to modify these
conditions, and the standard temperature was therefore changed to 15.0 °C for this thesis.

Similar to Hysys, each simulation unit in Pro/II follows the MESH-equations from chapter 5.6. A unit
which needs either heat added or subtracted does not require an “energy stream. The units will
calculate the required duty if necessary. The assumption of equilibrium between phases in the flash
drum and columns are similar to Hysys (chapter 6.1.2).

Pro/II provides the user a variety of different inputs for columns. One of the main differences is that
a column has to have at least two stages in order to converge, compared to only one necessary stage
in Hysys.
Pro/II also provides several methods for solving columns. The default solver is called “inside-out”.
This method is claimed to solve a large number of distillation applications efficiently and quickly. It is
recommended for most hydrocarbon systems. One disadvantage of “Inside-out” is that only one
liquid phase is permitted within the column. If a two phase liquid possibility is chosen for the
package, this method is not sufficient (Invensys, 1996).
Similar to Hysys, the user is allowed to choose between different internals: trays, random packing
and structured packing. In addition, it is possible to choose between, for instance, varieties of
structured packing types. When choosing a certain type, the user has to specify HETP or packing
height and column diameter. The packing also has to be specified by supplier and exact model.
Pro/II provides three different stage efficiencies: Murphree -, equilibrium – and vaporization
efficiency (chapter 5.3). Similar to Hysys, it is possible to provide each stage with a specified
efficiency and also define efficiencies for different components.
Similar to Hysys, a regenerator with a reboiler and condenser needs two specifications to converge.
The user also has to provide an estimate for rate of either bottoms – or top product. Pro/II does not
32
provide a feature like “column environment”, but still provides a variety of inputs and options. The
user is allowed to specify three different reboiler-types: kettle and thermosiphon with or without
baffles. The default type, kettle, models the reboiler as an equilibrium stage with a heat duty. All
equilibrium vapor from the reboiler is returned to the stage above. The liquid is extracted as the
column bottom product (Invensys, 1996).
6.4.4. Pro/II recommendation

Pro/II recommends the glycol package for simulation of a dehydration unit using TEG.
6.5.ProMax
ProMax is a developed by Bran Research and Engineering, Inc .and was released in 2005 as a
continuance of two previous simulator tools: PROSIM and TSWEET. It is describes as “a powerful and
versatile process simulation software package” (Bryan Research & Engineering, 2014). The simulation
tool is integrated with Microsoft Visio, Excel and Word. The version used in this thesis was 3.2.
ProMax also requires the user to choose a fluid package before running a simulation. The user can
choose from many predefined packages, and also customize an own package. ProMax does not
provide a fluid package customized for glycol dehydration processes, but offers a variety of packages
suitable for different processes. Among these packages are SRK and PR.
Both SRK and PR “… can model light and heavy hydrocarbon systems, including systems that form a
separate aqueous liquid phase or hydrates. Systems containing glycols, water Propylene Carbonate,
DEPG, and oils can be modeled.” (BRE-Group, 2012). The fluid packages are basically recommended
for similar processes, with the exception of nearly pure CO2-systems, where PR is recommended. PR
is also claimed to predict more accurate hydrocarbon dew points. If methanol is present in the
simulation, ProMax recommends using either “SRK Polar” or “PR polar”.
The default choice for “liquid density method” is COSTALD (HBT). This equation permits “accurate
prediction of compressed densities of a wide variety of liquid and mixtures in the general range 50 to
600 K and pressures from saturation to 68.950 kPa” (Thomson, et al., 1982). The other options are
the relevant equation of state and “Rackett”.
As a default, the standard conditions in ProMax are 60 °F (15.56 °C) and 101.33 kPa. The standard
temperature was therefore changed to 15.0 °C for this thesis.

The MESH-equations are also applicable for the units in ProMax. Similar to Hysys, an “energy stream”
is necessary for units where the output pressure is larger than the inlet pressure or the output
temperature is different. The assumption of equilibrium between phases in the flash drum and
columns are similar to Hysys and Pro/II.

Similar to Pro/II, ProMax offers very detailed specifications of columns. The default column type is
“Equilibrium” and “should be used for most applications.” (BRE-Group, 2012). This column type is
claimed to allow the liquid type to be determined to be polar or non-polar based on the composition.
Then, the correct thermodynamic model is used for each stage based on this provision.
33
The column internals can be specified to be trays, structured packing or random packing. The exact
packing type can also be added. Both Murphree – and thermal efficiency are available for each stage
in the columns. The Murphree efficiency can be either “vapor”, “light liquid” or “heavy liquid”.
“Vapor” efficiency is recommended for columns where the vapor flow is significantly larger than the
liquid phase (e.g. contactors). The efficiency must be specified for each component.
ProMax offers a variety of pre-built regenerators. The relevant regenerator is with both condenser
and reboiler. Similar to Hysys, all streams in the regenerator are available. The regenerator in ProMax
also needs two specifications to solve. Several specifications can be added to the still column and/or
reboiler/condenser.
6.5.4. ProMax recommendation

For a glycol dehydration process, both SRK and PR are recommended fluid packages.
34
7. Collection of data
Experimental data relevant for TEG dehydration has been collected. The data is presented in this
chapter.
7.1.Experimental data
A summary of the gathered experimental data can be seen in Table 7.1. The table also includes a
short explanation of the parameter’s influence on simulation of dehydration units.
Table 7.1: Presentation of collected experimental data relevant for TEG dehydration.
Description Component Influence Reference
Content in methane Water Wet gas water content (Olds, et al., 1942), (Sharma, 1969)
TEG TEG loss dry gas (Jerinic, et al., 2008)
Density Methane Dry gas mass rate (Kleinrahm, et al., 1988)
Stripping gas mass rate
TEG TEG circulation rate (Afzal, et al., 2009), (Begum, et al., 2013)
Activity coefficient Water Dry gas water dew point (Herskowitz & Gottlieb, 1984)
Solubility in TEG Methane Rich TEG composition (Jou, et al., 1987)
Ethane Rich TEG composition (Jou, et al., 1987)
CO2 Rich TEG composition (Jou, et al., 1987)
Solubility in aq. TEG CO2 Rich TEG composition (Takashi, et al., 1984)
Heat capacity TEG Reboiler duty (Stephens & Tamplin, 1979)

Water Reboiler duty (Liley, 1984)
Enthalpy of vaporization TEG Reboiler duty (Kirk, et al., 2004)
Water Reboiler duty (Keenan, et al., 1969)
TEG-water VLE TEG, water TEG loss regenerator (Mostafazadeh, et al., 2009)
Lean TEG purity
Experimental data for TEG-water VLE at temperatures relevant for the reboiler is not available (Arya,
et al., 2014).
7.1.1. Water in methane

The water content in natural gas depends on the composition. The natural gas produced at Gullfaks A
consists of primarily methane. The water content in methane is therefore of major importance.
There exist several sets of experimental data for water content in methane. A literature review
(Mohammadi, et al., 2004) provides a list of 17 different sets of data. The experimental data
collected was chosen due to the temperature (37.8 °C), which is close to the operating temperature
of the contactor (roughly 30 °C), and the pressure range: 14 – 207 bar (Olds, et al., 1942) and 15 –
139 bar (Sharma, 1969).
35
0.006
Mole fraction water in methane

0.005
0.004
0.003
Exp. data (Olds, 1942)
0.002
Exp. data (Sharma, 1969)
0.001
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Pressure [bar]
Figure 7.1: Experimental data for the mole fraction of water in methane at 37.8 °C and the pressure range 15
– 207 bar.
7.1.2. Density
Gas feed streams are typically measured in volume flow rate. In order to calculate a correct mass
rate, the density has to be accurate. The density of methane is of particular importance due to large
content in natural gas. There exist several sets of data for density of methane. The experimental data
chosen claims to have a precision of “+/- 0.01 % or +/-0.001 kg/m3, whichever is greater” (Kleinrahm,
et al., 1988). Experimental data for density of methane at 30 °C and the pressure range 7 – 77 bar can
be seen in Figure 7.2.
60
Density methane [kg/m3]
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80
Pressure [bar]
Figure 7.2: Experimental data (Kleinrahm, et al., 1988) for density of methane at 30 °C and the pressure
range 7 – 77 bar.
The circulation rate of lean TEG is usually also measured in volume flow rate. Consequently, the
density of TEG is vital to calculate a correct mass rate. Experimental values for density of TEG at
atmospheric pressure are plotted in Figure 7.3 as a function of temperature. The data was chosen on
the basis of the measured temperature of the lean TEG routed into the contactor (43.6 °C). The data
provided by (Begum, et al., 2013) is claimed to be within 0.06 % of seven different literature values.
The data provided by (Afzal, et al., 2009) are in good agreement with this dataset.
36
1140
1130
TEG density [kg/m3]

1120
1110
1100
Exp. data (Begum, 2013)
1090
Exp. data (Afzal, 2009)
1080
1070
1060
10 30 50 70 90
Temperature [°C]
Figure 7.3: Experimental data for the density of TEG at atmospheric pressure and temperatures 15 – 85 °C.
7.1.3. Activity coefficient

Several studies have been conducted for the activity coefficient of water in equilibrium with TEG.
Activity coefficients are provided at 24.45 °C and 59.45 °C in (Herskowitz & Gottlieb, 1984). The
activity coefficient is also provided at infinite dilution in (Parrish, et al., 1986) at 300 – 378 K.
Experimental values for the activity coefficient of water in equilibrium with TEG at 24.45 °C and
atmospheric pressure from (Herskowitz & Gottlieb, 1984) can be seen in Figure 7.4.
1
Activity coefficient water
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Mole fraction water
Figure 7.4: Experimental data (Herskowitz & Gottlieb, 1984) for the activity coefficient of water in
equilibrium with TEG at 24.45 °C and atmospheric pressure.
7.1.4. Solubility in TEG

Gases are soluble in TEG. Although the rich TEG will mainly consist of TEG and water, some amount
of hydrocarbons and acid gases are expected in the rich TEG leaving the contactor. This thesis
focuses on the solubility of methane, ethane and CO2. The available data is limited (Afzal, et al.,
2012). Experimental data for the mole fraction of methane, ethane and CO2 in TEG at 25 – 125 °C and
pressure up to 20 MPa is presented by (Jou, et al., 1987). The experimental data shown for the
solubility of methane in TEG in Figure 7.5 is claimed to agree within 5 percent with the values
provided by (Porter & Reid, 1950).
37
250
200
Pressure [bar]
150
100
50
0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Mole fraction methane
Figure 7.5: Experimental data (Jou, et al., 1987) for the mole fraction of methane in the liquid phase in
equilibrium with TEG at 25 °C.
Only one set of data was found for the solubility of ethane in TEG. The experimental data can be seen
in Figure 7.6.
250
200
Pressure [bar]
150
100
50
0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Mole fraction ethane
Figure 7.6: Experimental data (Jou, et al., 1987) for the mole fraction of ethane in the liquid phase in
equilibrium with TEG at 25 °C.
There exists much more data for the solubility of CO2 in TEG. The data from (Jou, et al., 1987) is
chosen due to several measurements at a relevant temperature (25 °C). The data is claimed to be in
good agreement with the data provided by (Takashi, et al., 1984) except for high pressures. The data
is also in good agreement with (Union Carbide Corporation, 1967) and (Dow Chemical Company,
1962) at lower temperatures (25 °C and 50 °C).
38
250
200
Pressure [bar]
150
100
50
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Mole fraction CO2
Figure 7.7: Experimental data (Jou, et al., 1987) for the mole fraction of CO2 in the liquid phase in equilibrium
with TEG at 25 °C.
Rich TEG also consists of water. This will affect the solubility in TEG. No data were found for solubility
of methane and ethane in aqueous TEG, but some data do exist for CO2. Experimental data for CO2 in
aqueous TEG (0 – 7 wt% water) is presented by (Takashi, et al., 1984) for temperatures 75 – 120 °F
(23.89 – 48.89 °C) and pressures 25 – 53 bar. The measured mole fractions of CO2 are claimed to be
within 2 % uncertainty. No data were available for comparison (Takashi, et al., 1984). The data for
TEG with 3.5 wt% water at 23.89 °C can be seen for pressures 25 – 53 bar in Figure 7.8.
60
50
Pressure [bar]
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Mole fraction CO2
Figure 7.8: Experimental data (Takashi, et al., 1984) for the mole fraction of CO2 in the liquid phase in
equilibrium with aqueous (3.5 wt% water) TEG at 23.89 °C and 25 – 53 bar.
Experimental data (Takashi, et al., 1984) for the mole fraction of CO2 in TEG with respectively 0, 3.5
and 7 wt% water at 23.89 °C and 25.16 bar can be seen in Figure 7.9.
0.25
Mole fraction CO2
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Weight fraction water in TEG
Figure 7.9: Experimental data (Takashi, et al., 1984) for the mole fraction of CO2 in pure TEG and TEG with 3.5
wt% and 7 wt% water at 23.89 °C and 25.16 bar.
39
7.1.5. Heat capacity
In chapter 5.6.2 it was shown that the duty of a heater is strongly related to the heat capacity of the
mixture. The reboiler heats the mixture routed into the regenerator. The mixture consists of
primarily water and TEG. Accurate heat capacities of these components are therefore important for
the calculation of reboiler duty. Experimental data for the heat capacity of TEG is provided by
(Stephens & Tamplin, 1979). Five separate scans were done in order to test the reproducibility of the
data points. These test provided points which differed no more than 0.1 – 0.3 %. The experimental
data can be seen in Figure 7.10.
3.0
Heat capacity [kJ/kg K]
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Temperature [°C]
Figure 7.10: Experimental data (Stephens & Tamplin, 1979) for heat capacity of TEG at atmospheric pressure
and temperatures 0 – 220 °C.
The heat capacity for saturated water from (Liley, 1984) can be seen in Figure 7.11. The data is cited
by many thermodynamic pieces, including (Moran & Shapiro, 2006).
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
0 50 100 150 200 250
Temperature [°C]
Figure 7.11: Experimental data (Liley, 1984) for the heat capacity of saturated water at temperatures 0 – 227
°C.
7.1.6. Enthalpy of vaporization

The main function of the reboiler is to purify the mixture by boiling off water. Heat of vaporization
for saturated liquid water is collected from (Keenan, et al., 1969) and plotted in Figure 7.12 as a
function of temperature.
40
2 400
Enthalpy of vaporization [kJ/kg]

2 300
2 200
2 100
2 000
1 900
1 800
1 700
80 130 180 230
Temperature [°C]
Figure 7.12: Experimental data (Keenan, et al., 1969) for the enthalpy of vaporization of saturated liquid at
temperatures 100 – 220 °C.
The reboiler also vaporizes some TEG. No data were found for the enthalpy of vaporization of TEG at
different temperatures (pressurized). Experimental data for the enthalpy of vaporization of TEG at
atmospheric pressure can be seen in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2: Experimental data for enthalpy of vaporization of TEG (Kirk, et al., 2004) at atmospheric pressure.
Component Enthalpy of vaporization
kJ/kmol kJ/kg
TEG 61.04 406.47
7.1.7. TEG-water VLE

Experimental data from (Mostafazadeh, et al., 2009) for TEG-water VLE was collected at 85 kPa and
the temperature range 98.4 – 148.1 °C. The accuracy was claimed to be +/- 0.1 % of TEG. The mole
fraction of TEG in the vapor phase can be seen in Figure 7.13.
0.025
Mole fraction TEG in vapor
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Temperature [°C]
Figure 7.13: Experimental data (Mostafazadeh, et al., 2009) for the mole fraction of TEG in vapor phase in
equilibrium with water at 85 kPa.
Experimental data from (Mostafazadeh, et al., 2009) for the mole fraction of water in the liquid
phase is plotted as a function of temperature in Figure 7.14.
41
1.0
Mole fraction water in liquid

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Temperature [°C]
Figure 7.14: Experimental data (Mostafazadeh, et al., 2009) for the mole fraction of water in the liquid phase
in equilibrium with water at 85 kPa.
7.1.8. TEG in methane

Due to a very low vapor pressure, the amount of TEG in the dry gas is extremely low compared to the
circulation rate. Still, as mentioned previously, TEG in dry gas causes problems in downstream
equipment. Due to low vapor pressure, the mole fraction of TEG in methane is difficult to measure
accurately. Only one set of data is available. The paper (Jerinic, et al., 2008) presents measured mole
fractions of TEG in methane at 25 °C and 43.6 °C and pressures up to 9 MPa. The relative uncertainty
of the experimental data is claimed to amount to less than +/- 12 %. The dataset at 25 °C is presented
in Figure 7.15.
6.0E-07
Mole fraction TEG in vapor phase
5.0E-07
4.0E-07
3.0E-07
2.0E-07
1.0E-07
0.0E+00
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pressure [bar]
Figure 7.15: Experimental data (Jerinic, et al., 2008) for the mole fraction of TEG in the vapor phase in
equilibrium with methane at 25 °C.
42
7.2.Field data
Statoil provided field data as a comparison with the simulation calculations. The data is collected at
Gullfaks A in March 2012. Currently there are two dehydration units operating simultaneously. The
newest unit is studied in this thesis (system 24). A simplified flow diagram of this unit can be seen in
Figure 7.16. Each element has its own tag. A complete description of the dehydration plant can be
seen in appendix A and B.
Figure 7.16: A simplified process flow diagram showing the dehydration unit on Gullfaks A.
Wet natural gas is cooled in 25-HA05 before condensate and liquid water is separated in the inlet
scrubber 24-VG03. Saturated natural gas enters at the bottom of the contactor 24-VB02 while lean
TEG flows counter current with the gas, absorbing water as it flows downwards on the structured
packing. Dry natural gas leaves at the top of the contactor while rich TEG is routed into the
regeneration loop.
Rich TEG is depressurized in the valve 24LV335. The, rich TEG is used as a cooling fluid for the reflux
condenser 24-HE05 in the still column. The cooling of the vapor mixture decreases the amount of
TEG leaving the still column by keeping the temperature slightly above the boiling point of water.
Rich TEG is then routed into the first glycol/glycol heat exchanger 24-HE02, increasing the
temperature, before being routed through the flash drum 24-VD04. The liquid stream is then routed
through three different filters: 24-CB05, 24-CB04 and 24-CB03. The filtered stream is routed into the
second glycol/glycol heat exchanger 24-HE03 before entering the still column 24-VE05. The reboiler
24-VC01 heats the mixture and vaporizes a mixture rich on water. This mixture rises to the top of the
column where the reflux condenser (24-HE05) condenses heavy components (primarily TEG).
Lean TEG is routed from the reboiler and into the stripping column 24-VE06 where it enters at the
top. Stripping gas is preheated in the reboiler before entering the stripping column. Stripping gas and
vaporized water is routed from the stripping column into the still column. The vapor mixture is
43
vented of in the still column together with water vapor. Lean TEG enters the surge drum 24-VL02
which keeps the flow rate of glycol constant.
Lean glycol is routed from the surge drum through a pump (24-PA02) which increases the pressure
slightly. The lean TEG is then heated in the second (24-HE03) – and first (24-HE02) glycol/glycol heat
exchanger before being further cooled in the glycol cooler 24-HE04. The lean TEG is then pressurized
by the glycol pump 24-PB01 to the appropriate pressure and finally routed into the contactor 24-
VB02.
The field data includes nine sets of measurements (appendix F – I). Statoil has chosen one sample
(sample 7) as the most reliable one. This thesis will primarily use this sample as a comparison for the
simulation models. The main values will be presented in this chapter. The composition of the dry gas
from the contactor is shown in Table 7.3
Table 7.3: Composition of dry gas from contactor

Component mole%
Methane 83.88
Ethane 8.07
Propane 3.54
n-butane 0.84
i-butane 0.54
n-pentane 0.19
i-pentane 0.21
C6+ 0.28
N2 1.03
CO2 1.42
There are no measurements for heavy hydrocarbons. These are given as C6+10 in Table 7.3. The test
data from Gullfaks A provides pressure and temperature for a variety of streams. All measurement-
devices have an individual tag. A selected set of readings related to the contactor 24-VB02 are
presented in Table 7.4.
Table 7.4: Selected data related to the contactor.

Description Tag Unit Reading
Temperature wet gas before scrubber 24-TIC312 PV °C 30.4
Temperature dry gas exiting contactor 24-TI328 °C 30.0
Pressure wet gas into contactor 24-PIT323A barg 51.2
3
Flow rate dry gas after contactor 24-FIT329C MSm /d 11.23
3
24-FIT329 m /hr 8223.0
Dew point MCM measurement - °C -54.0
- ppmv 25.0
- °C at 51,2 barg -18.0
3
Calculated dry gas water content - kg/MSm 19.0
3
Flow rate lean TEG into contactor 24-FIT385 m /hr 6.1
Temperature lean TEG into contactor 24-TIT384 PV °C 43.6
Temperature rich TEG from contactor 24-TI350 °C 28.8
10
C6 refers to the number of carbon atoms in the nucleus
44
The pressure and temperature is controlled by the wet gas entering the contactor (51.2 barg and
30.4 °C). The flow rate of lean TEG is 6.1 m3/hr at 43.6 °C and 51.2 barg. The dew point
measurements are from a MCM (Moisture Control and Measurement Ltd) water dew point unit. The
plant’s dew point metering unit gave equal results regardless of water content in dry gas. The results
from this unit were therefore discarded. The value for the water content in the dry gas in Table 7.4 is
calculated from the dew point measurement (25 ppmv) by using a moisture calculator (Shawmeters,
2013).
The composition in Table 7.3 is for dry natural gas. There are no measurements for water content in
wet gas into the contactor. However, the field data provides values the composition of lean – and
rich TEG. These values are shown in Table 7.5.
Table 7.5: Measured and calculated values for lean – and rich TEG.
Lean Rich
vol% wt% vol% wt%
1
Water 0.27* 0.240 5.55* 4.96
2
TEG 99.73 99.76 94.45 95.04
*: Measured value
1: Calculated values for water are based on an assumption of binary mixture (TEG and water) and densities of
3 3
1000kg/m and 1124 kg/m for water and TEG respectively
2: Values for TEG are calculated by assuming a binary mixture (TEG and water)
The only measured values in Table 7.5 are vol% water. The other values are calculated by using
densities and/or assuming a binary mixture (neglecting other components than TEG and water).
Using the values in Table 7.4 and Table 7.5, the water content in wet gas can be calculated. The
assumptions in this calculation and the reason for the choice made are the following:
 100 wt% TEG in lean TEG with density of 1114 kg/m3 (from field data) to calculate mass rate
lean TEG from volume flow
 99.76 wt% TEG in lean TEG (from Table 7.5) to calculate mass rate of TEG into the contactor
 Zero TEG loss in contactor to calculate mass rate of TEG in rich TEG
 4.96 wt% water in rich TEG (from Table 7.5) to calculate rich TEG flow and water content
The assumptions are discussed in detail in chapter 9. The calculation can be seen in appendix J. The
results are presented in Table 7.6.
Table 7.6: Calculated values for water content in respectively lean TEG, rich TEG and wet gas.
Description Unit Value
Lean TEG flow rate kg/hr 6795.4
Water in lean TEG kg/hr 16.3
Rich TEG flow rate kg/hr 7133.5

Water in rich TEG kg/hr 354.4
Water content wet gas kg/hr 347
3
kg/MSm 741.6*
*: This value will be used as a comparison for the simulation results
Selected data related to the glycol/glycol heat exchangers and the flash drum can be seen in Table
7.7.
45
Table 7.7: Selected data related to the glycol/glycol heat exchangers and the flash drum.
Temperature rich TEG out of reflux condenser 24-TI353 °C 37.5
Pressure rich TEG after reflux condenser 24-PI354 barg 4.5
Pressure rich TEG before 1. glycol/glycol HX 24-PI366 barg 2.5
Pressure rich TEG after 1. glycol/glycol HX 24-PI369 barg 1.9
Temperature rich TEG after 1. glycol/glycol HX 24-TI355 °C 64.5
Temperature in flash drum 24-TI406 °C 62.0
Pressure in flash drum 24-PIT402 PV barg 3.9
Temperature rich TEG before 2. glycol/glycol HX 24-TI368 °C 64.0
Temperature rich TEG after 2. glycol/glycol HX 24-TI370 °C 139.0
The pressure and temperature in the flash drum is 3.9 barg and 62 °C. The temperature of the rich
TEG routed into the still column is equal to the temperature after the second glycol/glycol heat
exchanger: 139 °C.
Selected data related to the regenerator, stripping gas and the lean TEG stream can be seen in Table
7.8
Table 7.8: Selected data related to the regenerator, stripping gas and lean TEG.
Temperature in reboiler 24-TT388 C PV °C 206.60
Pressure in reboiler 24-PIT393 barg 0.23
Reboiler duty - kW 571.00*
Temperature of steam 24-TI352 °C 100.00
3
Flow rate of stripping gas 24-FI386 Sm /hr 91.20
Pressure of stripping gas 24-PI414 barg 0.35
Temperature lean TEG before 2. glycol/glycol HX 24-TI373 °C 185.00
Temperature lean TEG after 2. glycol/glycol HX 24-TI374 °C 116.00
Temperature lean TEG before glycol cooler 24-TI376 °C 77.00
Pressure lean TEG before glycol cooler 24-PI377 barg 4.40
*: Reboiler duty is calculated by adding each reboiler element’s duty
The pressure and temperature in the reboiler is 0.23 barg and 206.6 °C. The temperature of the
steam after the reflux condenser is 100 °C. The stripping gas rate is 91.2 Sm3/hr.
Although TEG has a very low vapor pressure (Table 1.1) some TEG will be lost during the circulation
loop. This rate is very small, and the major implications are not related to the TEG loss itself, but the
impact TEG has on downstream equipment. At Kårstø, an onshore gas processing plant in Norway,
the small amount of TEG in dry gas from the Åsgard field causes problems in the adsorption unit at
the processing plant. During the test at Gullfaks A, TEG loss was measured by monitoring the level in
the surge drum. A selection of data from this test can be seen in Table 7.9
Table 7.9: A selected dataset from TEG loss data on Gullfaks A.

3
Dataset Duration Liter Liter/day Liter/Msm Kg/hr
13 08:00 52.75 158.25 14.0 6.5*
3
*: Value is calculated by assuming a TEG density of 982 kg/m (density at surge drum conditions)
46
The data in Table 7.9 is a selected set from a total of 13 tests. The data is presented in its entirety in
Appendix I. The TEG loss (14 liters/MSm3) is above the maximum limit given for content in dry gas in
Table 2.1. It should be emphasized that the TEG loss in Table 7.9 is the total loss; a summation of TEG
in dry gas, flash gas, vapor from regenerator and leakages. A TEG-loss of 6.5 kg/hr is under one
thousandth of the total circulation rate. As mentioned above, it is not the loss itself which is critical,
but the influence TEG has on downstream equipment.
7.3.Selection of system/data
The dehydration process on Gullfaks A was duplicated in the simulation programs. Because of the
complexity of the unit, certain assumptions had to be made. The main object of this thesis is to
compare the results from the simulation tools with experimental data and field data. Although
several heat exchangers and pumps were utilized, the main focus was on the contactor, regenerator
and stripping column. Heat exchangers and pumps were utilized in order to obtain the temperature
and/or pressure given in the field data. These units were not analyzed. Filters were decided to not be
included in the simulation models due to lack of data for particles or heavy components in the
natural gas. The pressure drop over the filters was added to the heat exchangers.
Some values are duplicated in the field data. There are also different values for some of the data
presented. Below follows a description of the data chosen and arguments for the choice made. The
simulation models for Hysys, Pro/II and ProMax can be seen in appendix C, D and E.
7.3.1. Wet gas

In Pro/II, the default option of only one liquid phase was chosen when selecting the glycol package.
No such selection had to be made in Hysys or ProMax. The main component of the feed gas is
methane (83.88 mole%). There are no measurements for hydrocarbons heavier than pentane. These
are given as C6+ in Table 7.3. Therefore, in the simulations, C6+ is simulated as pure n-hexane. The
composition given in Table 7.3 is for dry gas leaving the contactor. A feed gas with this composition is
used in the simulations.
There are no measurements for wet gas rate. This problem was solved by using the adjust tool,
controller tool and solver in Hysys, Pro/II and ProMax respectively. These units vary the flow rate of
wet natural gas until the dry gas rate is equal to the measured value in Table 7.4 (11.23 MSm3/day).
In both ProMax and Hysys, the result achieved with default error tolerance was within the desired
deviation. In Pro/II, the default tolerance of the adjust tool provided a dry gas rate of 11.24
MSm3/day. The absolute tolerance was therefore changed to 1.0 in order to obtain an accurate flow.
A print screen from Pro/II showing the dry gas controller (“GAS_CONTR_CN”) together with the inlet
cooler, inlet scrubber and contactor can be seen in Figure 7.17.
47
Figure 7.17: Print screen from the simulation model in Pro/II showing the inlet cooler (24-HA05), inlet
scrubber (24-VG03), contactor (24-VB02) and glycol pump (24-PB01).
There are two different streams from the feed in Figure 7.17: feed gas (“NATURALGAS”) and water
(“WATER_TO_SAT”). These streams are mixed at 63 °C and 51.2 barg and routed into the gas cooler.
These values are from the design specifications which can be seen in the flow diagram in appendix A.
The inlet cooler decreases the temperature of the wet gas down to 30.4 °C. The water rate is such
that the following scrubber separates some amount of water. This separated water rate should be
very small to eliminate loss of other components. However, a problem occurred in Pro/II for water
rates slightly above the saturation point: The inlet scrubber did not separate the liquid phase. When
the water rate was increased to a high value (1000 kg/hr), the scrubber would function as normal.
Then, the value could be decreased to a suitable rate, and the scrubber would still separate the liquid
phase. However, in order to avoid this “bug”, the “WATER_TO_SAT”-stream was held at 1000 kg/hr
in Pro/II during the simulations.
Mixing gas feed and water is normal procedure when saturating a gas in a simulation tool. An
identical approach was conducted in Hysys, but without the problems mentioned above. The value of
the water in wet gas was held at a rate slightly above saturation point.
ProMax offers a unit called “saturator” which was utilized. The saturator was implemented between
the heat exchanger 24-HA05 and the separator 24-VG03, saturating the inlet gas at 30.4 °C and 51.2
barg (Figure 7.18). Alternatively, the gas feed at 63 °C could be saturated, but this would lead to a
higher amount of separated water in the inlet scrubber and thus higher loss of other components.
The gas which leaves the top of the scrubber (“Wet gas to cont” in Figure 7.18) is saturated with
water and routed into the contactor. The “saturator” is shown in Figure 7.18.
48
Figure 7.18: Print screen from ProMax showing the inlet cooler (24-HA05), the saturator (“SAT-Nat gas”) and
the scrubber (24-VG03).
When building the flow sheet, a binary lean TEG flow of water and TEG at 99.76 wt% TEG was routed
into the top of the contactor (“Temp Lean TEG” in Figure 7.23). The mass rate was modified until the
volume flow rate was equal to 6.1 m3/hr. This was done in order to act as a temporary lean TEG
stream before the circulation loop was completed.
7.3.2. Columns
In Hysys, both the contactor and stripping column were simulated by using an “absorber column sub-
flow sheet”. The column internals were chosen to be “packed”. The number of stages was set to
three based on recommendations from supervisor. Both the pressure in the top and bottom stage
was set to 51.2 barg and 0.23 barg for the contactor and stripping column respectively. Other than
these specifications, the default parameters were used: zero pressure drop, 100 % stage efficiency
and solving method “HYSIM inside-out”.
In Pro/II, the contactor and stripping column was simulated by using a distillation column and
choosing neither reboiler nor condenser. The number of stages was set to three. The top tray
pressure was set to 51.2 barg and 0.23 barg for the contactor and stripping column respectively. The
estimation for the product rate of the contactor was set to 390000 kg/hr for the top product (dry
gas) on the basis of the gas feed mass rate. The estimation for top product of the stripping column
was set to 100 kg/hr based on the stripping gas rate and the expected vaporized water rate. This
value was modified to 200 kg/hr due to a higher calculated rate of vapor than expected. Other than
these specifications, the default values were used such as the “Inside-Out” solver with only one liquid
phase, zero pressure drop and 100 % stage efficiency. The column internals were not chosen as this
requires input of specific packing, a parameter that was unknown.
In ProMax, a “distill” distillation column was utilized for both the contactor and stripping column. The
number of stages was set to three, and the default flash type chosen (VLE). The pressure was set
equal to 51.2 barg and 0.23 barg for the contactor and stripping column respectively. The pressure
drop was set to zero. All other default options were used such as “Equilibrium” column type, “VLE”
flash type, “Vapor” efficiency phase and so forth.
7.3.3. Heat exchangers/flash drum

A print screen from Hysys which includes the glycol/glycol heat exchangers, the flash drum and the
regenerator can be seen in Figure 7.19.
49
Figure 7.19: Print screen from Hysys showing the flash drum (24-VD04), glycol/glycol heat exchangers (24-
HE02 and 24-HE03), the glycol cooler (24-HE04) and the regenerator (24-VE05).
After being depressurized to 4.9 barg, the rich TEG stream is physically routed through the reflux
condenser in the still column. This was not attempted in the simulations. The rich TEG is instead
routed through a simple heat exchanger (24-HE05 in Figure 7.19). The duty of this heat exchanger
(“Q-Reflux”) is set to equal the condenser duty (“Q-condenser”) in the reboiler. In Hysys, this was
achieved by using a spreadsheet (“SPRDSHT-Reflux”). In Pro/II, the “DEFINE” tool was used, while in
ProMax a “simple specifier” was utilized. The first glycol/glycol heat exchanger is set to heat the rich
TEG to 64.5 °C while the flash drum was set to operate at 62 °C in order to represent the value in
Table 7.7.
Hysys and ProMax requires that a flash drum has an energy stream (“Q-Flash” in Figure 7.19) to
operate at temperatures different from the inlet streams. In Pro/II this is not required; the user can
simply specify the operating temperature of the flash drum. Flash gas is vented off, while the liquid is
routed into the second glycol/glycol heat exchanger (24-HE03). This heat exchanger is specified to
heat the rich TEG stream to 139 °C, which is equal to the measured temperature before the
regenerator in Table 7.7. “Lean TEG from surge drum” was set to a binary mixture of 7000 kg/hr at
99.76 wt% TEG at 190 °C in order to act as a lean TEG substitute before the circulation loop was
completed.
7.3.4. Regenerator
7.3.4.1. Hysys
For the regenerator, the “distillation column sub-flowsheet” was chosen. When choosing this option
the user is required to specify certain parameters in a five step “installation” process. For the first
step, the regenerator requires one inlet stream, minimum two outlet streams and an energy stream
for both the condenser and reboiler. On Gullfaks A, there are two streams into the still column: rich
TEG and top product from stripping column. These two input streams were chosen to be at the
second last stage in the column (i.e.: the one before the reboiler). The default choice for this is the
center stage. For the condenser, the “full reflux” option was chosen, meaning that all the condensed
liquid is sent back to the top of the still column. The number of stages was set to three. This number
does not include the reboiler and condenser, making the total number of stages in the column five.
50
The second step offers the user to choose how the circulation in the column should be. The default
option was chosen: “once-through”. The reboiler was set to a “regular Hysys reboiler”. The next step
requires the user to define the pressure in the condenser and reboiler. The reboiler pressure was set
equal to the measured value in Table 7.8 (0.23 barg). The pressure in the condenser and still column
were not given in the field data. The pressure in the condenser was set to 0.20 barg which is equal to
the design pressure in the flow diagram (appendix B).The pressure drop was automatically divided
between the first and second stage in the still column. In the last two steps, Hysys allows the user to
estimate the temperature for the reboiler, condenser and top stage and a vapor – or reflux ratio. No
estimates were given.
Two constants have to be chosen in order for the regenerator to solve. These two constants were
chosen to be the temperature after the condenser (100 °C) and the temperature after the reboiler
(206.6 °C). It should be mentioned that the reboiler temperature is outside the recommended range
in chapter 6.1.1 (202 – 206 °C). The temperature was chosen on basis of the measured value (Table
7.8). The duty in the condenser and reboiler is calculated by the simulators. A “recycle” unit was
added to the stream from the stripping column into the regenerator (“RCY-str gas” in Figure 7.19).
The main window for the regenerator can be seen in Figure 7.20.
Figure 7.20: Print screen from the main window in Hysys for the regenerator with reboiler and condenser.
7.3.4.2. Pro/II
A “distillation” column with a condenser and reboiler was chosen as the regenerator. Number of
stages was set to five. This includes the reboiler and condenser. Similar to Hysys, the column needs
minimum one input and two output streams. The input streams were routed into the column on the
fourth stage (last stage before the reboiler). Pro/II requires an input for the top tray pressure or a
manual input for each stage. The latter option was chosen and the pressure profile, which was
automatically generated in Hysys, used for the regenerator. The simulator also requires an estimate
for one of the product streams. This estimation was set to 350 kg/hr for the top product. The value
was based on the water content in wet natural gas.
51
“Inside-out” was chosen as the solver for the column. Only one liquid phase was permitted. Under
“Performance specifications” the user has to give two specifications for the column to converge.
Similar to Hysys, these values were chosen to be the temperature of the condenser (100 °C) and
reboiler (206.6 °C). The reboiler temperature is also outside the recommended range of
temperatures in Pro/II (26.7 – 204.4 °C). Other values than those mentioned above were chosen by
default, such as zero pressure drop, kettle reboiler, internals and so forth.
7.3.4.3. ProMax
For the regenerator in ProMax, a distillation column with partial condenser and reboiler (“Destill PC,
R”) was utilized. The number of stages chosen was three, making the total number of stages equal to
five (condenser and reboiler included). The default flash type was selected: “VLE”. Next, the
temperature of the vapor from the condenser was set equal to 100 °C, while the temperature of the
liquid product from the reboiler was set to 206.6 °C. The pressure drop in the condenser was set to
0.03 bar, making the condenser pressure 0.20 barg. The pressure drop was not automatically
distributed over several stages, such as in Hysys. No action was taken to alter this. Finally, rich TEG
was routed into the last stage in the still column together with vapor from the stripping column.
7.3.5. Stripping column and TEG circulation loop

A print screen from Pro/II showing the stripping column and TEG surge drum can be seen in Figure
7.21.
Figure 7.21: Print screen from Pro/II showing the stripping column (24-VE06) and the TEG surge drum (24-
VL02).
The composition of the stripping gas was not given in the field data. A stripping gas of pure methane
was therefore chosen. The rate of stripping gas was set to 91.2 Sm3/hr (1 atm, 15 °C). The pressure
was set to 0.35 barg. All of these specifications are according to the field data (Table 7.8). The
temperature was chosen from the design specifications (appendix B): 25 °C. In the actual process, the
stripping gas is heated in the reboiler. This was not attempted in the simulators. Instead a simple
heat exchanger (“E_STRGAS” in Figure 7.21) was utilized to heat the stripping gas to 80 °C. This
temperature was also chosen on the basis of the design specifications. After the stripping column,
the lean TEG is routed into the TEG surge drum. Here, a simple flash drum is used in all simulation
tools.
52
In order to keep the TEG circulation rate constant, a make-up stream of TEG is necessary. In Hysys, a
spreadsheet was utilized to calculate the mass rate of the make-up stream (“MAKE-UP-TEG” in Figure
7.21). This was done by adding the amount of TEG in the dry gas stream, the flash gas and the top
product of the regenerator. The result was set to equal the mass rate of the make-up stream. In
Pro/II, two units had to be used for the same procedure. A calculator (“TEGLOSS”) calculates the TEG
loss, and a controller (“MAKEUP_CONTR”) sets the mass rate of the make-up stream to be equal to
the result of the calculator.
ProMax offers a “Make-Up” unit which was utilized. The unit offers a variety of options, due to two
inlets and two outlets. A solution similar to Pro/II and Hysys was chosen. The “Lean TEG to surge”-
stream in Figure 7.22 was set to equal the entire stream routed into the make-up block (“Lean TEG
from str col”) plus TEG in dry gas, flash gas and vapor from regenerator. The make-up unit is shown
in Figure 7.22.
Figure 7.22: Print screen from ProMax showing the make-up unit (“MKUP”).
Next, the liquid stream from 24-VL02, “Lean TEG to 24-PA02”, was routed into the pump 24-PA02
which increases the pressure to 4.2 barg. Then, the stream from 24-PA02 was routed into 24-HE03
instead of the temporary substitute used earlier. The lean TEG stream from 24-HE02 was routed
through the glycol cooler 24-HE04. This cooler was set to lower the temperature of the lean TEG to
40 °C. This value was chosen due to the choice of letting the glycol pump 24-PB01 control both the
pressure and the temperature of the lean TEG routed into the contactor. Therefore, the stream
routed into the pump had to be some degrees lower than the output (43.6 °C) to avoid efficiencies
above 100 %. The flow-sheet in Hysys one step before completion of the TEG circulation loop is
shown in Figure 7.23.
Figure 7.23: Print screen from Hysys showing the set-up before completion of the TEG circulation loop.
53
Next, the composition of the temporary lean TEG stream (“Temp Lean TEG” in Figure 7.23) to
contactor was manually set equal to the stream after the pump 24-PB01 (“HP Lean TEG”). Then, the
mass rate of the temporary lean TEG stream was varied until the volume flow of “HP Lean TEG” was
equal to 6.1 m3/hr. Then, a recycle unit (“RCY-TEG” in Figure 7.23) was added in Hysys and ProMax,
and the circulation loop completed by routing the stream “Lean TEG into cont” into the contactor. In
Pro/II, the stream was simply routed into the contactor without any circulation unit. The accuracy of
the recycle unit is not 100 %. Therefore, the lean TEG stream into the contactor was not exactly 6.1
m3/hr, but always kept within +/- 0.005 m3/hr (+/- 0.08 % deviation).
54
8. Results
The results from the simulations are presented in this chapter. Generally, the fluid packages
calculated results fairly similar to each other. In some cases, the results are therefore presented
several times at different ranges in order to separate the results. The emphasis has been on
deviations from field data/experimental data and/or other fluid packages.
A comparison with the experimental data in chapter 7.1 is first conducted. Then, the results from the
simulations described in chapter 7.3 are compared to the field data. Deviations between these two
comparisons are studied in chapter 8.3 together with the degree of influence of selected parameters:
wet gas water content, lean TEG purity and flow rate, number of stages in columns and flow rate of
stripping gas.
8.1.Comparison with experimental data

Here, results from the fluid packages are compared to the experimental data presented in chapter
7.1. In Hysys and Pro/II, the “Case study” tool was utilized in order to provide results over a large
range of temperatures or pressures. In ProMax, the integration with excel was used. The simulations
were typically conducted with steps of 1, 2 or 5 units depending on the range of interest.
8.1.1. Water in methane

A simulation was done to study the water content in methane. A stream of methane was saturated
with water and routed into a flash drum where the temperature was set to 37.8 °C. The pressure of
the system was then increased from 5 bar up to 200 bar. The mole fraction of water in the vapor
phase provided by each fluid package can be seen in Figure 8.1. The values are compared to the
experimental data shown in Figure 7.1.
0.006
0.005 (Olds, 1942) +/- 10%

Mole fraction water
(Sharma, 1969) +/- 10%

0.004
Pro/II
0.003 Hysys GP
Hysys PR
0.002
Hysys CPA DTU
0.001 Hysys CPA NeqSim
0 ProMax SRK
0 50 100 150 200 250 ProMax PR
Pressure [bar]
Figure 8.1: Calculated mole fraction of water in methane at 37.8 °C for all fluid packages compared to
experimental values.
All results are in good agreement with the experimental data at 5 bar. Between 5 and 100 bar, the
calculate values are low compared to the experimental value. All fluid packages provide a value
which is roughly within 10 % deviation over the whole pressure range except for Hysys GP which
calculates especially low water content. This deviation increases with pressure (43 % at 207 bar). The
55
operating pressure of the scrubber (24-VG03) is 51.2 barg (approximately 52.3 bar). The results from
a portion of the pressure range (40 – 60 bar) in Figure 8.1 is therefore shown again in Figure 8.2.
0.0020
(Olds, 1942) +/- 10%
0.0019
Mole fraction water
0.0018 (Sharma, 1969) +/- 10%
0.0017 Pro/II
0.0016 Hysys GP
0.0015 Hysys PR
0.0014 Hysys CPA DTU
0.0012
ProMax SRK
40 45 50 55
Pressure [bar] ProMax PR
Figure 8.2: Mole fraction water in methane for the pressure range 40 – 60 bar at 37.8 °C.
At 55 bar, a value close to the operating pressure of the contactor, Hysys GP provides a water
content which is 18 % lower than the measured value and 14 % lower than ProMax PR (which
calculates the highest water content). This deviation is expected to lead to smaller water content in
wet gas provided by Hysys GP. Other fluid packages are expected to provide a fairly equal value, but
still lower than the actual water content. Among these packages, Hysys CPA DTU is expected to
calculate the lowest value.
8.1.2. Density
In Figure 8.3, all fluid packages are compared with the experimental data for density of TEG given in
Figure 7.3.
1150
1140 (Begum, 2013) +/- 1%
1130
TEG density [kg/m3]
(Afzal, 2009) +/- 1%

1120
Pro/II
1110
1100 Hysys GP
1090 Hysys PR
1080
1070 Hysys CPA DTU
1060 Hysys CPA NeqSim
1050 ProMax SRK
10 30 50 70 90
ProMax PR
Temperature [°C]
Figure 8.3: Density of TEG at atmospheric pressure and at temperatures 15 – 85 °C.
All fluid packages except CPA DTU calculate a density which is within 1 % deviation of the
experimental data over the whole temperature range. ProMax SRK/PR provide a density which is
exactly within this deviation at 15 °C (higher) and 85 °C (lower). Hysys CPA DTU provides a density
56
which is approximately 3 % lower than the experimental value at 43.6 °C, which is the temperature of
the lean TEG at Gullfaks A. A correspondingly lower value of lean TEG mass rate flow is therefore
expected. The other fluid packages are expected to provide a mass rate of lean TEG which is very
similar.
The density of methane is also of importance due to the composition of stripping gas (100 %
methane in the simulation) and the large quantity of methane in the natural gas feed. The data from
all fluid packages are compared with the experimental data from Figure 7.2 in Figure 8.4.
60
(Kleinrahm, 1987) +/- 5%
50
Pro/II
Density [kg/m3]
40
Hysys GP
30 Hysys PR
20 Hysys CPA DTU
10 Hysys CPA NeqSim
0 ProMax SRK
0 20 40 60 80 ProMax PR
Pressure [bar]
Figure 8.4: Density of methane at 30 °C for 8 – 77 bar.
All values provided by the fluid packages are within 5 % deviation from the experimental data over
the whole pressure range. The deviations generally increase with pressure. The flow rate of dry gas
and stripping gas is given at standard conditions (1 atm). At 8 bar, the deviation is less than 1 % for all
fluid packages. Given that this accuracy continues down to atmospheric pressure it is expected that
all fluid packages will provide an almost equal mass rate of dry gas and stripping gas. The contactor
operates at 51.2 barg. The calculated density from Figure 8.4 at the pressure range 50 – 58 bar is
therefore shown again in Figure 8.5.
42
41 (Kleinrahm, 1987) +/- 5%
40
Density [kg/m3]
Pro/II
39
38 Hysys GP
37 Hysys PR
36
Hysys CPA DTU
35
34 Hysys CPA NeqSim
33 ProMax SRK
50 52 54 56 58 ProMax PR
Pressure [bar]
Figure 8.5: Density of methane at 30 °C for 50 – 58 bar.
57
Hysys GP provides density of methane which is 3.2 % higher than the experimental data at the
contactor pressure (51.2 barg). Hence, Hysys GP is anticipated to provide lower volumetric flow rate
of dry gas, while Pro/II is expected to calculate a slightly high value. As opposed to the majority of the
simulations, the results provided by ProMax SRK and ProMax PR in Figure 8.4 differ. ProMax PR
provides a slightly high density (1 %), while ProMax SRK calculates a very accurate value.
8.1.3. Activity coefficient of water

The activity coefficient was calculated for each fluid package. First, the saturation pressure of water
at 24.45 °C was calculated by setting a stream of pure water to 0 % vapor at 24.45 °C. Then, a very
small amount of nitrogen (0.1 mole %) was added to a stream of water and TEG in order to vaporize
some of the mixture. The stream was routed into a flash drum which was set to operate at 24.45 °C
and atmospheric pressure. Next, the mole fraction of water was varied from 100 % down to 1 %. The
activity coefficient was calculated from equation 5.81 and plotted together with the experimental
values from Figure 7.4. The results can be seen in Figure 8.6.
1.4
1.2 (Herskowitz, 1984) +/- 10 %

Activity coefficient of water
1.0 Pro/II
Hysys GP
0.8
Hysys PR
0.6 Hysys CPA DTU

ProMax SRK
0.2
ProMax PR
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Mole fraction of water in liquid phase
Figure 8.6: Calculated activity coefficient of water in equilibrium with TEG compared to experimental data.
The activity coefficient reflects the water content in the vapor phase: A high activity coefficient
implies high water content (large in equation 5.81) assuming an equal saturation pressure. The
activity coefficient at low mole fractions of water in the liquid phase is especially interesting due to
the conditions at the top of the contactor (very low water content). The experimental data only
ranges down to 0.2 mole fraction water in liquid phase. Still, the trend in Figure 8.6 suggests an
activity coefficient slightly above 0.6 at infinite dilution.
Hysys PR calculates a very large activity coefficient over the whole range. The activity coefficient is
largest at 0.8 mole fractions of water in the liquid phase due to a constant calculated water content
in vapor phase ( ) from 1 down to 0.8 mole fractions. Such high water contents are not relevant for
a dehydration unit. Hysys CPA DTU calculates a very low activity coefficient below 0.4 mole fraction
of water. Given that the results in Figure 8.6 also holds for the contactor pressure (51.2 barg), it is
expected that Hysys PR will provide a water dew point higher than the actual value. Pro/II is expected
to provide a dew point which is slightly higher than Hysys CPA NeqSim, followed by ProMax SRK/PR
58
and Hysys GP. Hysys CPA DTU is expected to calculate a very low value. These assumptions are
subjected to an equal purity of lean TEG into the contactor.
8.1.4. Solubility of gases in TEG

Equilibrium simulations were conducted to study the solubility of methane, ethane and CO2 in TEG. A
stream of TEG was saturated with methane, ethane or CO2 and routed into a flash drum operating at
25 °C. The, the pressure was increased from 1 – 200 bar. The amount of gas dissolved in the liquid
stream leaving the flash was measured. The results were compared with the experimental values
from chapter 7.1.4. The results for methane can be seen in Figure 8.7.
200
180
160 (Jou, 1987) +/- 10%
140 Pro/II
Pressure [bar]
120 Hysys GP
100
Hysys PR
80
60 Hysys CPA DTU
40 Hysys CPA NeqSim
20
ProMax SRK
0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 ProMax PR
Figure 8.7: Mole fraction methane in the liquid phase in equilibrium with TEG at 25 °C and 1 – 200 bar.
Ignoring the experimental value at 48 bar, all fluid packages except Hysys PR provide a solubility of
methane in TEG which is fairly equal and within 10 % deviation from the experimental data. Hysys GP
calculates the largest solubility over the whole pressure range. The experimental value at 48 bar does
not follow the trend of the other values. The point is of particular interest because it is close to
partial pressure of methane (43.9 bar) which is simply the mole fraction in the gas (Table 7.3)
multiplied with the pressure (roughly 52.3 bar). The calculated solubility for methane in TEG from
Figure 8.7 can be seen again in Figure 8.8 for the pressure range 20 – 80 bar.
80
70 (Jou, 1987) +/- 10%

Pro/II
Pressure [bar]
60
Hysys GP
50
Hysys PR
40
Hysys CPA DTU
30 Hysys CPA NeqSim
20 ProMax SRK
0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
ProMax PR
Figure 8.8: Mole fraction methane in the liquid phase in equilibrium with TEG at 25 °C and 20 – 80 bar.
59
Hysys PR provides a solubility which is lower than the experimental value. This value is 10 % lower
than the experimental data at 48 bar. All fluid packages are expected to calculate a fairly equal
content of methane in rich TEG except Hysys GP (slightly higher) and Hysys PR (lower). The
experimental value at 48 bar deviates from the trend given by the other values. The experimental
data was claimed to be within 5 % of the values from (Porter & Reid, 1950). None of the fluid
packages are within this accuracy.
The solubility of ethane in TEG at 25 °C and different pressures can be seen in Figure 8.9.
200
(Jou, 1987) +/- 10%
150 Pro/II
Pressure [bar]
Hysys GP
100
Hysys PR
Hysys CPA DTU
50
Hysys CPA NeqSim
ProMax SRK
0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 ProMax PR
Most fluid packages calculate a solubility of ethane in pure TEG which is within 10 % deviation from
the experimental values over the whole pressure range. Pro/II and Hysys PR provide a lower
solubility. ProMax PR also provides a slightly low value at high pressure. The partial pressure of
ethane in the gas is 4.2 bar. The calculated solubility of ethane from Figure 8.9 is shown for the
pressure range 1 – 8 bar in Figure 8.10.
8
7 (Jou, 1987) +/- 10%
6 Pro/II
Pressure [bar]
5 Hysys GP
4 Hysys PR
3 Hysys CPA DTU
2 Hysys CPA NeqSim
1 ProMax SRK
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 ProMax PR
60
Hysys PR calculates a solubility of ethane in TEG which is approximately 25 % lower than the
experimental value at 3 bar. Pro/II provides a value which is 30 % lower. Hence, the amount of
ethane in the rich TEG leaving the contactor is expected to be lower in Hysys PR and Pro/II. Hysys GP
is expected to provide the highest amount of ethane in rich TEG.
Similar to methane and ethane, the calculated amount of CO2 in TEG is shown in Figure 8.11 together
with the experimental values from Figure 7.7.
200
(Jou, 1987) +/- 10%

150
Pro/II
Pressure [bar]
Hysys GP
100 Hysys PR
Hysys CPA DTU
50 Hysys CPA NeqSim
ProMax SRK
0 ProMax PR
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Mole fraction CO2
Figure 8.11: Mole fraction CO2 in the liquid phase in equilibrium with TEG at 25 °C and 5 – 200 bar
The solubility of CO2 in TEG is much higher than methane and ethane. Pro/II was unable to provide
solubility of CO2 in TEG at pressures above the critical pressure (73.8 bar). The highest pressure in the
dehydration unit is 51.2 barg. Hence, the properties of CO2 above this pressure are not relevant for
this thesis. Again, Hysys GP calculates the highest solubility. This is also the solubility closest to the
experimental value. ProMax SRK/PR also provide a solubility which is within 10 % deviation from the
experimental value over the whole pressure range. The pressure of interest is very low (0.74 bar) due
to the low mole fraction of CO2 in the natural gas. There are no experimental data for pressures
below 4 bar.
The water content in rich TEG will affect the solubility gases. As mentioned in chapter 7.1, no data
were found for solubility of methane and ethane in TEG. The mole fraction of CO2 in TEG with
increasing water content is presented in Figure 8.12 together with the experimental data from Figure
7.9.
61
0.25
0.20 (Takahashi, 1984) +/- 10 %

Mole fraction CO2
Pro/II
0.15
Hysys GP
Hysys PR
0.10
Hysys CPA DTU
Hysys SRK
0.00
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 Hysys PR
Weight fraction water in TEG
Figure 8.12: Mole fraction CO2 in aqueous TEG at 23.89 °C and 25.16 bar with increasing water content.
The mole fraction of CO2 decreases linearly with increasing water content in TEG. None of the fluid
packages provide a very good estimate for this decrease. The only fluid package which is within 10 %
deviation from the three experimental data points is Pro/II. The mole fraction of CO2 decreases most
with increasing water content in Hysys GP. Hysys GP calculates the highest mole fraction of CO2 in
pure TEG, but the lowest value for TEG with 7 wt% water. Contradictory, Hysys PR provide very low
solubility of CO2 in pure TEG, and very high values for aqueous TEG with large water content. The
water content in rich TEG is roughly 5 wt% according to the field data (Table 7.5). Due to the low
vapor pressure of CO2 (0.74 bar) in the gas feed, it is interesting to see how the solubility of TEG with
3.5 wt% water varies with pressure.
60
50 (Takahashi, 1984) +/- 10 %
40 Pro/II
Pressure [bar]
Hysys GP
30
Hysys PR
20 Hysys CPA DTU
Hysys CPA NeqSim
10
ProMax SRK
0
ProMax PR
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Mole fraction CO2 in liquid
Figure 8.13: Mole fraction of CO2 in liquid phase at 23.89 °C and 1 – 60 bar.
All fluid packages except Hysys GP, Hysys CPA DTU and Pro/II provide a mole fraction of CO2 which is
within 10 % deviation from the experimental data. Pro/II provides a more accurate solubility at 25
bar. There are no data points for low pressure. Therefore, at 0.74 bar, it is impossible to determine
the correct mole fraction of CO2. It is expected that all fluid packages except Hysys GP and Hysys CPA
62
DTU will provide a similar mole fraction of CO2 in rich TEG. Hysys GP and Hysys CPA DTU are expected
to provide a slightly low value.
8.1.5. Reboiler
The majority of the mass rate into the regenerator is TEG and water. The reboiler heats the mixture
to the operating temperature and evaporates both water and TEG. Due to small amount of non-
TEG/water components going into the reboiler, the reboiler study is limited to heating and
vaporization of TEG and water.
8.1.5.1. Heat capacity

The heat capacity of TEG at ambient pressure and temperatures from 0 °C up to 240 °C was
calculated by each fluid package and plotted in Figure 8.14. Hysys Lee Kesler is also included due to
recommendation from AspenTech. The calculated values are compared to the experimental data
from Figure 7.10.
3.3
3.1 (Stephens, 1979) +/- 10%
Heat capcity [kJ/kg K]
2.9 Pro/II
2.7 Hysys GP
2.5 Hysys GP Lee Kesler
2.3 Hysys PR
2.1 Hysys CPA DTU
1.7 ProMax SRK
0 50 100 150 200 250
ProMax PR
Temperature [°C)
Figure 8.14: Heat capacity of TEG at atmospheric pressure and temperatures 0 – 220 °C.
Figure 8.14 shows a large difference in calculated heat capacity. The only fluid packages which
provide a heat capacity fairly equal (within 5 % deviation) to the experimental values over the whole
temperature range is ProMax SRK/PR and Hysys CPA NeqSim. Other fluid packages are either too low
(Pro/II and Hysys CPA DTU) or high (Hysys GP/PR/Lee Kesler) at the temperature range in interest
(139 – 206.6 °C). At 0 °C, Hysys GP calculates a heat capacity of TEG which is 50 % higher than the
experimental value.
The rich TEG stream routed into the regenerator is roughly 95 wt% TEG. The deviations in Figure 8.14
are therefore expected to affect the calculated duty of the reboiler. Pro/II is expected to provide the
lowest reboiler duty, followed by Hysys CPA DTU.
The remaining 5 wt% of the rich TEG is mainly water. A simple case was carried out to provide the
calculated heat capacity of each fluid package. A stream of pure water was set to 0 % vapor and then
varied between 0 – 230 °C. The saturation pressure was calculated together with the corresponding
heat capacity. The result from each fluid package can be seen in Figure 8.15. The results are
compared to the experimental data from Figure 7.11.
63
5.0
(Liley, 1984) +/- 5%
4.8
Pro/II
4.6
Hysys GP
4.4
4.2 Hysys GP Lee Kesler
4.0 Hysys PR
3.8 Hysys CPA DTU

3.4 ProMax SRK
0 50 100 150 200 250
ProMax PR
Temperature [°C]
Figure 8.15: Heat capacity of saturated water at temperatures 0 – 220 °C.
At low temperatures, both Pro/II (higher) and Hysys CPA NeqSim/DTU (lower) deviates from the
experimental data. Due to the relatively high inlet temperature of the rich TEG routed into the
regenerator (139 °C), this will not affect the reboiler duty. At the temperature range in interest (139
– 206.6 °C), all fluid packages except for Hysys PR calculate a heat capacity roughly within 5 %
deviation from the experimental data. The most accurate heat capacity is provided by Hysys GP Lee
Kesler. Hysys PR provides a value which is 5 % higher at 139 °C and 10 % higher at 206.6 °C. Due to
the small rate of water compared to TEG; these deviations are not expected to affect the reboiler
duty significantly.
8.1.5.2. Enthalpy of vaporization

In Hysys, the enthalpy of vaporization is available under “properties”. It is not available in Pro/II and
ProMax. Therefore, in Pro/II and ProMax, a stream of 100 % TEG at atmospheric pressure was set at
0 % vapor and routed into a simple heat exchanger. The heat exchanger is set to vaporize the stream
with zero pressure drop at the saturation temperature. Then, the calculated specific duty of the heat
exchanger will be the enthalpy of vaporization at that given pressure and temperature. The results of
these simulations and the gathered enthalpy of vaporization can be seen in Figure 8.16.
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
-
Figure 8.16: Specific enthalpy of vaporization of TEG at atmospheric pressure compared to experimental data
from (Kirk, et al., 2004).
64
Hysys GP Lee Kesler provides the lowest value in Figure 8.16 (329 kJ/kg). This is 19 % lower than the
experimental data (406 kJ/kg). Hysys PR also provides a low value (342 kJ/kg) followed by Hysys CPA
DTU (373 kJ/kg). The other fluid packages calculated a value close to the experimental data. Given an
equal evaporating rate of TEG from the reboiler, a low value in Figure 8.16 is expected to contribute
to a low reboiler duty. The vapor pressure of TEG is very low. Still, at 206.6 °C, the vaporization of
TEG is expected to be noticeable considering the high mass rate of TEG into the reboiler.
A similar procedure was conducted to provide the enthalpy of vaporization of water. A simple stream
of 100 % water was set to 0 % vapor at temperatures from 0 to 225 °C. The saturating pressure was
calculated by each fluid package. In Hysys, the temperature of the stream was simply varied and the
enthalpy of vaporization gathered over the whole temperature range. In ProMax and Pro/II, a stream
of pure water and 0 % vapor was routed into a simple heat exchanger which was set to vaporize the
stream at the current temperature and pressure. This was done over the whole temperature range in
Figure 8.17.
2 400
2 300 (Keenan, 1969) +/- 1%

Pro/II
2 200
Hysys GP
2 100
Hysys GP Lee Kesler
2 000
Hysys PR
1 900
Hysys CPA DTU
1 800 Hysys CPA NeqSim
1 700 ProMax SRK
100 120 140 160 180 200 220
ProMax PR
Temperature [°C]
Figure 8.17: Enthalpy of vaporization of saturated water for the temperature range 100 – 220 °C.
All fluid packages provide an enthalpy of vaporization of water which is within 1 % deviation from the
experimental data. Hysys GP Lee Kesler provides the best estimate over the whole temperature
range. Hysys CPA DTU and Hysys CPA NeqSim provided identical results (slightly low). The difference
between fluid packages in Figure 8.17 is so small that it is expected to have no considerable effect on
the difference in calculated reboiler duty.
8.1.6. TEG-water
A simulation with TEG and water was conducted in order to compare each fluid package with the
experimental data presented in chapter 8.1.6. A single stream of TEG and water at 85 kPa was routed
into a flash drum. Then, the temperature was increased from 99 °C up to 210 °C. There are no
experimental data above 148 °C. At low temperatures, the water content in the feed was set large
enough to create a vapor phase. The amount of TEG was increased for high temperatures in order to
ensure a liquid phase. By doing so, the amount of water and TEG in both the liquid and vapor phase
could be measured simultaneously. The results from this simulation are presented below. The mole
fraction of TEG in the vapor phase can be seen in Figure 8.18.
65
0.20
0.18
0.16 (Mostafazadeh, 2009)

0.14 Pro/II
0.12
Hysys GP
0.10
Hysys PR
0.08
0.06 Hysys CPA DTU
0.02 ProMax SRK
0.00
ProMax PR
90 110 130 150 170 190 210
Temperature [°C]
Figure 8.18: Mole fraction of TEG in the vapor phase in equilibrium with water at 85 kPa.
At temperatures above 150 °C, both Hysys PR and Hysys CPA DTU calculate a higher mole fraction of
TEG in the vapor phase. There are no experimental data at temperatures above 148 °C. Hence, it is
not possible to tell what the correct value is. Given that the trend in Figure 8.18 also applies for the
reboiler pressure (0.23 barg), it is expected that Hysys CPA DTU and Hysys PR will provide a higher
vaporization rate of TEG than the other fluid packages. This value is expected to be roughly 35 %
higher (Hysys PR) and 45 % higher (Hysys CPA DTU) than Hysys GP, which provides the lowest mole
fraction of TEG in the vapor phase. The other fluid packages are expected to calculate a fairly similar
TEG vaporization rate.
The temperature of the product from the regenerator is held constant at 100 °C. The results from
Figure 8.18 are presented again in Figure 8.19 at the temperature range 95 – 120 °C.
0.0020
(Mostafazadeh, 2009)
0.0015
Pro/II
Hysys GP
0.0010
Hysys PR
Hysys CPA DTU
0.0005
Hysys CPA NeqSim
ProMax SRK
0.0000
95 100 105 110 115 120 ProMax PR
Temperature [°C]
Figure 8.19: Mole fraction of TEG in the vapor phase in equilibrium with water at 85 kPa.
At 100 °C, all fluid packages except Hysys PR calculates a mole fraction of TEG in the vapor phase
which is in good agreement with the experimental values. Hysys PR calculates a mole fraction which
is roughly three times higher than the experimental data. Given that this trend also applies for the
66
condenser pressure (0.20 barg), it is expected that Hysys PR will calculated higher TEG loss from the
regenerator.
The mole fraction of water in the liquid phase at 85 kPa and the temperature range 95 – 210 °C is
shown for all fluid packages in Figure 8.20. The values are compared to the experimental data from
Figure 7.14.
1.0
0.9
0.8 (Mostafazadeh, 2009)

0.7 Pro/II
0.6
Hysys GP
0.5
Hysys PR
0.4
0.3 Hysys CPA DTU
0.1 ProMax SRK
0.0
ProMax PR
90 110 130 150 170 190 210
Temperature [°C]
Figure 8.20: Mole fraction of water in the liquid phase in equilibrium with TEG at 85 kPa.
Hysys PR provides a smaller amount of water in the liquid phase than the measured value up to 130
°C. The other fluid packages provide a value in acceptable agreement with the experimental data at
temperatures below 140 °C. The low value for Hysys PR in Figure 8.20 is expected to result in higher
TEG content (due to low water content) in the liquid reflux from the condenser (which operates at
100 °C).
The temperature of rich TEG routed into the reboiler is 139 °C. The temperature of the liquid stream
routed into the reboiler is not known, but assumed to be slightly above 139 °C. The values from
Figure 8.20 are shown again in Figure 8.21 for the temperature range 140 – 150 °C.
0.35
(Mostafazadeh, 2009)
0.30
Pro/II
0.25 Hysys GP
0.20 Hysys PR
Hysys CPA DTU
0.15
Hysys CPA NeqSim
0.10
ProMax SRK
140 142 144 146 148 150
Temperature [°C] ProMax PR
Figure 8.21: Mole fraction of water in liquid phase at 85 kPa and temperatures 140 – 150 °C.
67
All fluid packages provide a larger mole fraction of water in the liquid phase at the temperature
range 140 – 150 °C than the experimental value. Hysys CPA DTU provides the highest value, followed
by Pro/II. Hysys PR calculates the lowest mole fraction of water, and also the value which is closest to
the experimental data. Given that the temperature of the liquid stream routed into the reboiler is
equal, Hysys CPA DTU is expected to calculate the highest amount of water into the reboiler. Hysys
PR is expected to provide the lowest amount of water. A large amount of water will lead to increased
reboiler duty.
As mentioned in chapter 7.1, there are no VLE data for TEG-water at high temperatures. Still, a
comparison of the fluid packages at such temperatures is necessary to explain the composition of
lean TEG from the reboiler. The calculated mole fraction of water in the liquid phase at 85 kPa and
the temperature range 200 – 210 °C is shown for each fluid package in Figure 8.22.
0.10
0.09 Pro/II
0.08 Hysys GP
0.07 Hysys PR
0.06 Hysys CPA DTU

ProMax SRK
0.04
200 202 204 206 208 210 ProMax PR
Temperature [°C]
Figure 8.22: Mole fraction of water in the liquid phase at 85 kPa and temperatures 200 – 210 °C.
Hysys CPA DTU provides the highest mole fraction of water in the liquid phase at high temperatures,
followed by Pro/II, Hysys CPA NeqSim, Hysys GP/PR and ProMax SRK/PR. A high mole fraction of
water obviously leads to a lower mole fraction TEG. The amount of non-TEG/water components in
the reboiler is very low. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the amount of water in the liquid
phase is only dependent on VLE for TEG-water. Given that the trend in Figure 8.20 also holds for the
reboiler pressure (0.23 barg), the lean TEG wt% from the reboiler calculated by each fluid package is
expected to reflect the results in Figure 8.22. Hence, Hysys CPA DTU is expected to provide the
lowest purity of lean TEG from the reboiler, and ProMax SRK/PR the highest.
8.1.7. TEG in methane

A stream of methane was saturated with TEG at 25 °C and routed into a flash drum. The pressure was
then varied from 10 – 90 bar and the mole fraction in the vapor phase measured. The results can be
seen in Figure 8.23.
68
5.E-07
Mole fraction TEG in vapor phase
(Jerinic, 2008) +/- 50 %
4.E-07
Pro/II
3.E-07 Hysys GP
2.E-07 Hysys PR
Hysys CPA DTU
1.E-07
Hysys CPA NeqSim
0.E+00 ProMax SRK

0 20 40 60 80 100 ProMax PR
Pressure [bar]
Figure 8.23: Mole fraction of TEG in methane at 25 °C.
All fluid packages provide an amount of TEG in the vapor phase which is smaller than the
experimental value. The experimental values in Figure 8.23 have a larger margin of error (+/- 12 %)
than the other values presented in chapter 7.1. Still, the deviations in Figure 2.1 are much higher
than this margin. A low value in Figure 8.23 is expected to result in a low TEG loss from the contactor.
Hysys CPA NeqSim and ProMax SRK/PR provide a value which is particularly low over the whole
range. The contactor operates at 52.3 bar. Pro/II and Hysys CPA DTU are predicted to calculate the
highest TEG loss, but still considerably lower than the actual value. Hysys CPA NeqSim is expected to
calculate the lowest TEG loss from the contactor.
69
8.2.Comparison with field data
Here, results from the simulation described in chapter 7.3 are compared to the field data presented
in 7.2.
When comparing simulation data with field data, certain values have to be held constant. These
values were mentioned in chapter 7.3. An overview of the most important parameters held constant
during the simulations is shown in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1: Most important parameters held constant during simulations.

Description Unit Value
Number of stages in contactor and stripping column - 3
Total number of stages in regenerator - 5*
Wet gas temperature °C 30.4
Contactor pressure barg 51.2
3
Flow rate dry gas MSm /day 11.23
3
Flow rate lean TEG m /hr 6.1
Flash drum temperature °C 62.0
Flash drum pressure barg 3.9
Temperature rich TEG into regenerator °C 139.0

Temperature top product regenerator °C 100.0
Condenser pressure barg 0.20
Reboiler temperature °C 206.6
Reboiler pressure barg 0.23
Stripping column pressure barg 0.23
3
Flow rate stripping gas Sm /hr 91.2
3 3
Flow rate stripping gas Sm /m TEG 15.0
Temperature stripping gas into stripping column °C 80.0
Surge drum temperature °C 190.4
*: Reboiler and condenser are included in this number
The most important parameters calculated by the fluid packages are presented in Table 8.2 (Pro/II,
Hysys GP and Hysys PR) and Table 8.3 (Hysys CPA DTU, Hysys CPA NeqSim, ProMax SRK and ProMax
PR) together with the corresponding values from the field data (appendix F, G and I).
Table 8.2: Results from Pro/II, Hysys GP and Hysys PR compared to the values from the field data.
Description Unit Field data Pro/II Hysys GP Hysys PR
Water content wet gas kg/hr 347* 357 315 366
3
Water content wet gas kg/Msm 742* 761 672 782
3
Flow rate dry gas m /hr 8223 8489 8092 8215
Flow rate dry gas kg/hr - 389610 389622 389633
Dew point dry gas ppmv 25.0 28.5 18.1 33.0

3
Water content dry gas kg/MSm 19.0 21.8 13.8 25.1
Flow rate lean TEG into contactor kg/hr - 6751 6790 6790
Water in rich TEG kg/hr 354.4* 365.0 320.8 367.5
TEG circulation rate** liters/kg H2O 18.0 17.5 19.7 17.2
Temperature rich TEG °C 29 31 31 31

Rich TEG after contactor wt% - 93.7 94.9 94.3
Rich TEG binary after contactor wt% 95.0 94.9 95.5 94.9
Flash gas rate kg/hr - 51 18 29
70
Reboiler duty kW 571 431 545 535
Flow rate from reboiler kg/hr - 6903 6930 6962
Lean TEG from reboiler wt% - 98.67 98.87 98.86
Lean TEG before contactor wt% 99.76 99.71 99.81 99.80

3
TEG loss liters/MSm 14.0 2.7 1.4 3.0
Stripping gas rate kg/hr - 61.88 61.88 61.88
*: Calculated from measured values for vol% water in lean – and rich TEG (Table 7.5)
**: Liters TEG/kg water absorbed
Table 8.3: Results from Hysys CPA DTU, Hysys CPA NeqSim, ProMax SRK and ProMax PR compared to the
values from the field data.
Field Hysys Hysys ProMax ProMax
Description Unit data CPA DTU CPA NeS SRK PR
Water content wet gas kg/hr 347* 349 355 361 364
3
Water content wet gas kg/Msm 742* 746 759 771 777
3
Flow rate dry gas m /hr 8223 8386 8452 8438 8279
Flow rate dry gas kg/hr - 389576 389567 389610 389612
Dew point dry gas ppmv 25.0 17.5 22.6 18.8 19.4
3
Water content dry gas kg/MSm 19.0 13.4 17.2 14.3 14.8
Flow rate lean TEG into contactor kg/hr - 6549 6749 6757 6754
Water in rich TEG kg/hr 354.4* 369.1 361.9 366.0 368.5
TEG circulation rate** liters/kg H2O 18.0 17.1 17.4 17.0 16.9
Temperature rich TEG °C 29 31 31 31 31

Rich TEG after contactor wt% - 93.4 93.6 93.8 93.8
Rich TEG binary after contactor wt% 95.0 94.6 94.9 94.9 94.8
Flash gas rate kg/hr - 48 54 51 49
Reboiler duty kW 571 448 505 524 527

Flow rate from reboiler kg/hr - 6739 6898 6891 6888
Lean TEG from reboiler wt% - 98.48 98.81 98.95 98.95
Reboiler duty kW 571 448 505 524 527
Lean TEG before contactor wt% 99.76 99.60 99.78 99.83 99.83
3
TEG loss liters/MSm 14.0 2.8 0.7 1.1 1.2
Stripping gas rate kg/hr - 61.88 61.88 61.88 61.88
Selected values in Table 8.3 and Table 8.4 are analyzed and described in detail in the following
chapters. Including, but not limited to: wet gas water content, dew point dry gas, rich TEG
composition, reboiler duty, lean TEG purity and TEG loss. The internal streams of the columns where
not analyzed.
71
8.2.1. Wet gas water content
The water content in wet gas is given for each fluid package in Figure 8.24.
800
Water in wet gas [kg/Msm3]

780
760
740
720
700
680
660
640
620
600
Figure 8.24: Wet gas water content compared to the calculated value from field data.
All fluid packages provide a water content in wet gas which is fairly equal, from 746 kg/MSm3 (Hysys
CPA DTU) up to 782 kg/MSm3 (Hysys PR). The only exception is Hysys GP which calculates a value of
672 kg/MSm3. This was predicted in chapter 8.1.1 (Figure 8.1) where Hysys GP provided lower water
content in methane. Hysys CPA DTU provides the value (746 kg/MSm3) which is closest to the
calculated value from Table 7.6 (742 kg/MSm3).
All fluid packages except for Hysys GP calculate wet gas water content higher than the actual value.
This was not predicted in chapter 8.1.1 where all fluid packages calculated water content in methane
lower than the experimental value. Hysys GP provides a value 9 % lower than the field data. In
chapter 8.1.1, Hysys GP provided a value which was 18 % lower than the experimental data at 55 bar.
The reason for this discrepancy is not known, but might be related to influence of other components.
It should be stressed that the value from the field data in Figure 8.24 is not measured, but calculated
from the water content in dry gas and in lean – and rich TEG.
The correlation between the values provided by the fluid packages in Figure 8.1 and Figure 8.24 is
very strong. Hysys GP calculates a value which is 14 % lower than ProMax PR, exactly the value which
was predicted. The only deviation is Hysys PR which calculates the highest water content as opposed
to ProMax PR which was the prediction in chapter 8.1.1. The reason for this is not known, though not
unexpected due to the affect the other components in the feed gas (Table 7.3) has on the water
content.
A smaller calculated water content will affect the whole downstream process, especially the dry gas
water dew point, rich TEG composition and reboiler duty. A lower dry gas dew point and reboiler
duty is expected as a result of the lower water content provided by Hysys GP.
8.2.2. Dry gas rate

In the simulation, the dry gas rate is set to be equal to 11.23 MSm3/day. In Table 8.2 and Table 8.3,
the mass rate of the dry gas flow is given for each fluid package. The deviation between the highest
mass flow (Hysys PR) and the lowest (Hysys CPA DTU) is below 0.02 %. This small difference was
predicted in Figure 8.4 where all fluid packages provided densities of methane in good agreement
72
with the experimental data at low pressures. The dry gas flow in m3/hr (at 51.2 barg) can be seen in
Figure 8.25.
8 600
Dry gas flow rate [m3/hr]

8 500
8 400
8 300
8 200
8 100
8 000
7 900
7 800
3
Figure 8.25: Flow rate of dry gas in m /hr compared to field data.
The flow rate of dry gas varies from 8092 m3/hr (Hysys GP) up to 8489 m3/hr (Pro/II). In Figure 8.5 it
was shown that Pro/II calculated the lowest density of methane, while Hysys GP calculated the
highest value at the operating pressure of the contactor (51.2 barg). This corresponds well with the
values in Figure 8.25. The fluid package which provides a result closest to the field data is Hysys PR.
Hysys PR provided a density which was roughly 2 % higher than the experimental value at the
contactor pressure. Figure 8.25 also shows a slight deviation between ProMax SRK and ProMax PR.
This was also predicted in chapter 7.1.2 where the two packages provided different density of
methane.
The temperature of the dry gas is 30.0 °C according to the field data (Table 7.4). All fluid packages
calculated a temperature higher than this (typically 31.5 °C). This deviation affects the volume flow. A
higher temperature leads to a higher value. Densities of other components will affect the volume
flow as well.
8.2.3. Lean TEG purity into contactor

The lean TEG wt% into the contactor is measured by a lab-analysis (Table 7.5). In the simulations, the
lean TEG wt% is calculated by each fluid package. The results are given in Figure 8.26.
99.90
99.85
99.80
99.75
wt% TEG
99.70
99.65
99.60
99.55
99.50
99.45
Figure 8.26: Purity of lean TEG routed into the contactor.

73
All fluid packages calculate a lean TEG wt% into the contactor which is higher than the measured
value (99.76 wt%) except Hysys CPA DTU and Pro/II. The lean TEG wt% is calculated by the stripping
column. The stripping column and the calculated values will be analyzed in 8.2.11. A low purity of
TEG is expected to result in larger water content in dry gas leaving the contactor. Hysys CPA DTU
calculates a lean TEG purity which is especially low.
8.2.4. TEG circulation rate

The TEG circulation rate is given in m3/hr in the field data. The mass rate of lean TEG into the
contactor will be primarily dependent on the TEG density at the current temperature (43.6 °C) and
pressure (51.2 barg). Both parameters are controlled by the pump (24-PB01). The mass rate of lean
TEG routed into the contactor provided by each fluid package can be seen in Figure 8.27. The value
for the field data is gathered from Table 7.6.
6850
6800
Lean TEG [kg/hrr]
6750
6700
6650
6600
6550
6500
6450
6400
Figure 8.27: Mass rate of lean TEG routed into the contactor
The mass rate of lean TEG is almost equal, and in good agreement with the field data (6795 kg/hr),
for all fluid packages except for Hysys CPA DTU which provides a value roughly 3.5 % lower than the
field data. This was expected from chapter 8.1.2 where Hysys CPA DTU calculated 3 % lower density
of TEG at 43.6 °C. All fluid packages provide a wt% of lean TEG above 99.50 wt% (Figure 8.26). The
remaining 0.5 wt% is mainly water which has a density not very different from TEG. Other
components can therefore be neglected considering the difference in mass rate flow. The low mass
rate in Hysys CPA DTU is expected to contribute to lower water removal (i.e. higher dry gas water
dew point). It should be stressed that the value for the field data is calculated from measurements
for water content (Table 7.6). The circulation rate of TEG can be seen again in Figure 8.28 in liters
TEG/kg water absorbed.
74
20.0
TEG circulation [liters/kg H2O]

19.5
19.0
18.5
18.0
17.5
17.0
16.5
16.0
15.5
15.0
Figure 8.28: TEG circulation rate in liters TEG/kg water absorbed.
All fluid packages provide a lower circulation rate than the value calculated from the field data (18.0)
except for Hysys GP (19.7). The large value provided by Hysys GP is due to lower amount of water
absorbed in TEG, which is a result of lower wet gas water content. The circulation rate is in the lower
region (15 – 40) mentioned in chapter 5.2, implying that a small reduction in TEG circulation rate will
have a relatively large effect on the dry gas water dew point.
8.2.5. Dry gas water dew point

The calculated water dew point of the dry gas can be seen in Figure 8.29.
35
30
Dew point [ppmv]
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 8.29: Dry gas water dew point compared to field data.
The water dew point calculated by each fluid package varies from 17.5 ppmv (Hysys CPA DTU) up to
33.0 ppmv (Hysys PR). Most fluid packages provide a value which is lower than the measured value
(25 ppmv) except Pro/II and Hysys PR. All simulations were done with 3 stages in the contactor with
100 % efficiency. Figure 8.29 suggests that the water dew point is not calculated directly from the
water content in wet gas (Figure 8.24) where Hysys GP calculated lower water content in wet gas.
Most results in Figure 8.29 correspond well with Figure 8.26 (a high purity in lean TEG leads to a low
water dew point) except for Hysys CPA DTU and Hysys PR. The wt% TEG provided by Hysys PR (99.80
75
wt%) was very similar to Hysys GP (99.81 wt%). The mass rate of lean TEG is also very similar (Figure
8.27). Still, Hysys PR calculates a water dew point which is 83 % higher than Hysys GP. Hysys GP
provided smaller water content in wet gas (Figure 8.24) and lower activity coefficient at low mole
fractions of water (Figure 8.6). Both will probably contribute to a lowering of the dew point, but the
degree of influence for each parameter is not known.
From Figure 8.26 (lean TEG purity) and Figure 8.27 (TEG circulation rate) Hysys CPA DTU was
expected to calculate a water dew point higher than the others. Figure 8.29 shows just the opposite:
Hysys CPA DTU calculates the lowest water dew point. This deviation is probably related to the
amount of water in the vapor phase in equilibrium with TEG as shown by the water activity
coefficient in Figure 8.6.
The calculated activity coefficient of water in Figure 8.6 could explain why Hysys CPA DTU calculates
the lowest purity of lean TEG, lowest TEG circulation rate and simultaneously the lowest water dew
point: the calculated content in the vapor phase of water in equilibrium with TEG is too low. The
influence of wet gas water content, VLE for TEG-water and lean TEG purity is studied further in
chapter 8.3.
8.2.6. Rich TEG composition

All gases in Table 7.3 are soluble in TEG. The amount of non-TEG/water components in the TEG
leaving the contactor can be seen in Figure 8.30.
0.020
0.018
Mole fraction in rich TEG
0.016
Pro/II
0.014
0.012 Hysys GP
0.010 Hysys PR
0.008
Hysys CPA DTU
0.006
0.002 ProMax SRK
0.000 ProMax PR
Figure 8.30: Mole fraction of non-TEG/water components in rich TEG leaving the contactor.
There are no data for the amount of non-TEG/water components in the rich TEG. Similar to the
equilibrium simulations in chapter 8.1.4, the emphasis will be on the solubility of methane, ethane
and CO2. Hysys GP calculates the lowest mole fraction of methane in rich TEG, followed by Hysys PR.
Hysys CPA DTU provides a slightly lower mole fraction than the other fluid packages. The binary
simulation in chapter 8.1.4 suggests that the correct solubility is somewhere between the values
provided by Hysys PR and ProMax SRK/PR. The amount of ethane in rich TEG provided by Hysys GP is
very low compared to the other values. Hysys PR and Pro/II also provide a low content of ethane. The
amount of CO2 is fairly similar for all fluid packages except for Hysys GP and Hysys CPA DTU which
calculate a low mole fraction.
76
The results in Figure 8.30 are relatively close to the findings in chapter 8.1.4 except for Hysys GP
which was predicted to provide the highest amount of methane and ethane in rich TEG. This is
completely opposite of the results in Figure 8.30, where Hysys GP provides the lowest amount of
these components. Other components will certainly affect the solubility. Still, it is expected that the
results from the binary simulations will be reflected in the rich TEG composition.
The amount of ethane in rich TEG was predicted to be low for Hysys PR and Pro/II (Figure 8.10). The
results from Figure 8.30 confirm this prediction, although Hysys PR calculates the lowest solubility. In
the binary simulation, Pro/II calculated the lowest solubility. The amount of CO2 in rich TEG is
according to the predictions from the aqueous simulations for all fluid packages where Hysys CPA
DTU and Hysys GP was expected to provide slightly lower amount of CO2.
The opposing results for methane and ethane suggest that other components have a large impact on
the solubility, especially for Hysys GP. This topic will be studied further in chapter 8.3.2.
8.2.7. Flash gas rate

There are no measurements for the flash gas rate in the field data. The calculated flash gas rate can
be seen in Figure 8.31.
60
Flash gas rate [kg/hr]
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 8.31: Flash gas rate.
The flash drum operates at a temperature of 62 °C and 3.9 barg. The flash drum separates most of
the methane, ethane and propane in rich TEG. The flash gas rate provided by each fluid package is in
agreement with the amount of light hydrocarbons in Figure 8.30. Hysys GP calculates a flash gas rate
which is roughly one third of the other fluid packages (except Hysys PR). For Hysys PR this value is
slightly above 50 % of the other results (except Hysys GP). Due to lack of field data, the flash gas will
not be studied further in this thesis.
8.2.8. Vapor from regenerator

The vapor coming from the regenerator consists of mainly water and methane (stripping gas). Most
of the non-TEG/water components in the rich TEG routed into the regenerator are also vented off.
The calculated mass rate of water, methane and other components can be seen in Figure 8.32.
77
500
450
Mass rate [kg/hr]

400
350
300
250
200 Other
150
100 Methane
50
0 Water
Figure 8.32: Mass rate of vapor from the regenerator split into water, methane and other components.
The total mass rate of vapor vented off in the regenerator differs from 457 kg/hr (Hysys CPA NeqSim)
down to 398 kg/hr (Hysys GP) which is a value lower than the other fluid packages. The low value
provided by Hysys GP is a result of the lower water content in rich TEG. The amount of methane in
the vapor is very similar. This is expected due to an equal mass rate of stripping gas (Table 8.2 and
Table 8.3) and the fact that the majority of methane in rich TEG is flashed off in the flash drum. The
amount of other components correlates well with the amount of C3+ hydrocarbons in the rich TEG
(Figure 8.30): Hysys CPA DTU/NeqSim providing the highest amount and Hysys PR the lowest.
8.2.9. TEG loss

Although the mole fraction of TEG in vapor is very small at low temperatures, some TEG will be lost in
the dry gas, flash gas and vapor from regenerator. The loss from the flash drum is, however, so small
(roughly 0.001 kg/hr) that it can be neglected. The mass rate of TEG in the dry gas and in the vapor
from the regenerator can be seen in Figure 8.33 in liters/MSm3 dry gas. The values are calculated
from the mass rate by assuming a density of 1116 kg/m3 and 1061 kg/m3. Both values are taken from
the experimental values in Figure 7.3.
3.5
3.0
TEG loss [liter/MSm3]
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0 From regenerator
0.5 Dry gas
-
Figure 8.33: Mass rate of TEG in dry gas and vapor from regenerator.
78
Hysys CPA NeqSim provides the lowest TEG loss (0.6 liters/MSm3), while Hysys PR calculates the
highest value (3.0 liters/MSm3). All fluid packages provide a TEG loss much lower than the measured
value in Table 7.9 (14.0 liters/MSm3). Due to leakages, the loss will be higher than the combined TEG
flow in dry gas, flash gas and vapor from regenerator.
Hysys CPA DTU and Pro/II provide a TEG loss from the contactor which is higher than the other fluid
packages. This was predicted in chapter 8.1.7 where it was shown that Pro/II and Hysys CPA DTU
calculate a higher amount of TEG in methane. Still, these values were still considerably lower
(roughly 40 %) than the experimental data, implying that the TEG loss in the dry gas in Figure 8.33 is
too low for all fluid packages. The measured TEG loss (14.0 liters/MSm3) also suggests this. Hysys CPA
NeqSim provides the lowest TEG loss in dry gas, as predicted from the binary simulation.
Hysys PR provide a TEG loss in the regenerator which is roughly ten times higher than the other fluid
packages. A higher TEG loss for Hysys PR was predicted in chapter 8.1.6 (Figure 8.19), but the
difference is even higher than expected. The reason for this deviation is not known, but might be
related to the effect of other components on VLE for TEG/water.
8.2.10. Reboiler duty

Lee Kesler (LK) is included for Hysys in the reboiler study due to recommendation from AspenTech.
This was done by changing the vapor – and liquid enthalpy in Figure 6.1 from “Property package EOS”
to “Lee Kesler”. The reboiler heats both the mixture in the regenerator and the stripping gas. The
duty of the heat exchanger which heats the stripping gas (“E-STRGAS” in Figure 7.21) is included in
the reboiler duties in Figure 8.34.
600
500
Reboiler duty [kW]
400
300
200
100
-
Figure 8.34: Calculated reboiler duty compared to the field data.
All fluid packages provide a duty which is lower than the measured value. This is expected due to
zero heat loss in the simulations. Hysys CPA DTU and Pro/II calculates a reboiler duty which is
significantly lower than the other fluid packages. This corresponds with the predictions from Figure
8.14 where both fluid packages provided a lower heat capacity of TEG than the experimental value.
Due to lower water content in rich TEG (Table 8.2), Hysys GP was anticipated to provide a lower
reboiler duty. Contradictory, in Figure 8.34, Hysys GP provides the highest reboiler duty (545 kW).
79
This is probably due to high heat capacities of TEG as shown in Figure 8.14. The reboiler is a complex
unit, and must be analyzed further in order to explain the results in Figure 8.34.
The calculated duty is a result of mainly four things:
 Heating water
 Heating TEG
 Evaporating water
 Evaporating TEG
In chapter 5.6.2, it was shown that, for an ideal gas/solution, the duty of a heater at steady state can
be estimated from the mass rate, heat capacity, temperature and the enthalpy of vaporization of the
inlet stream. If both the mass rate of water and TEG into the reboiler and the mass rate of vaporized
water and TEG are known, it is possible to study the reboiler duty in detail by assuming several
simplifications:
 Binary ideal solution of TEG and water into the reboiler

 The heat capacity of the liquid water equals the heat capacity of saturated water
 The enthalpy of vaporization of water equals the enthalpy of vaporization of saturated water
 The vaporized mixture is vaporized at the reboiler temperature
Using these assumptions allows a calculated estimation of the reboiler duty using the equations
presented in chapter 5.6.2. The assumptions are discussed in chapter 9. In Hysys and ProMax,
properties of all streams going into or from a reboiler and condenser are available similarly to the
other streams in the flow sheet. In Pro/II, these streams are not as easily accessible and the available
data is scarce compared to ProMax and Hysys.
Pro/II offers the user to “generate a text report”. In this report, the mass rate of liquid from the last
stage in the still column (tray 4) into the reboiler (tray 5) is available. The text report also shows,
among other properties, the molecular weight of the liquid mixture. This section of the text report
can be seen in Figure 8.35.
Figure 8.35: Print screen from a section of the text report generated in Pro/II showing the liquid rates in the
regenerator.
The data in Figure 8.35 was used to find the amount of TEG and water going into the reboiler in
Pro/II. In order to do so, the mixture was assumed to be binary (TEG and water). Then, the mole
80
fraction of TEG and water going into the reboiler can be found by using the molecular weight given in
Figure 8.35 (111.398 kg/kmol) together with the two following equations.
(8.1)
(8.2)
Here, is the mole fraction of TEG and is the mole fraction of water. The mass fraction
can easily be found from the mole fractions using the molecular weights for TEG (150.17 kg/kmol)
and water (18.016 kg/kmol) together with the molecular weight of the mixture. Then, the mass rate
of TEG and water can be found by using the flow rate from tray 4 in Figure 8.35 (7336 kg/hr). The
results can be seen in Table 8.4.
Table 8.4: Results from the calculations made for the rate of water and TEG into the reboiler in Pro/II.
Mole fraction Mass fraction Mass rate [kg/hr]
Water 0.293 0.0474 348.1
TEG 0.707 0.9526 6987.9
Total 1 1 7336.0
The mass rate of water into the reboiler from Table 8.4 is plotted together with the gathered values
from Hysys and ProMax in Figure 8.36.
360
350
Water rate [kg/hr]
340
330
320
310
300
290
Figure 8.36: Mass rate of water routed into the reboiler.
Hysys CPA DTU calculates the highest mass rate of water into the reboiler (354 kg/hr), followed by
Pro/II (348 kg/hr). Hysys CPA NeqSim and ProMax SRK/PR all provide values close to 330 kg/hr, while
Hysys GP/GP Lee Kesler calculates a slightly lower value. Hysys PR provides the lowest value (317
kg/hr). In chapter 8.1.6 it was predicted, from the binary TEG/water simulations, that Hysys CPA DTU
would calculate the largest mass rate of water into the reboiler and Hysys PR the lowest. This is in
accordance with the results in Figure 8.36. It should also be mentioned that all fluid packages
provided higher water content in the liquid phase than the experimental values, implying that the
values in Figure 8.36 are too high.
81
Although some predictions were correct, there is no direct correlation between Figure 8.36 and
Figure 8.21. For instance, ProMax SRK/PR were expected to calculate lower water rate than both
Hysys CPA NeqSim and Hysys GP/GP Lee Kesler. This could imply that other components affect VLE of
TEG-water and/or that the temperature of the liquid streams into the reboiler could be different.
Due to the low mass rate of other components than TEG and water into the reboiler (below 2 kg/hr
for all fluid packages), the influence of these components are assumed to be negligible. The
calculated temperature of the liquid stream routed into the reboiler can be seen in Figure 8.37.
151
150
149
Temperature [°C]
148
147
146
145
144
143
142
141
Figure 8.37: Calculated temperature for the liquid mixture routed into the reboiler.
The rich TEG enters the regenerator at 139 °C and flows down in the still column into the reboiler. It
is heated by the vapor from the reboiler and stripping column. The calculated temperature of the
liquid mixture varies a lot considering the equal inlet temperature (139 °C). Hysys CPA DTU provides
the highest temperature (150 °C), while Hysys PR and ProMax SRK/PR calculate the lowest
temperature (144.5 °C). An increased temperature will result in a lowering of the water content. This
difference in temperature explains some of the deviations between the binary results and the
simulation. For instance, the slightly high water content provided by ProMax SRK/PR is due to the
low temperature of the liquid mixture. Still, the water content provided by Hysys GP is small when
both temperature and the binary results in Figure 8.21 are taken into account. The small amount
provided by Hysys GP is likely to be a result of the low water content in rich TEG.
Although most of the TEG routed into the reboiler comes from the rich TEG stream, TEG is also
vaporized in both the stripping column and reboiler and routed back into the still column. Some TEG
is also routed back from the condenser. The mass rate of TEG in rich TEG flow and TEG routed into
the reboiler is shown for all fluid packages in Figure 8.38.
82
7200
7100
Mass rate TEG [kg/hr]

7000
6900
6800
6700
6600
6500 Into regenerator
6400
6300 Into reboiler
6200
Figure 8.38: Mass rate of TEG routed into the regenerator and the reboiler.
The mass rate of TEG into the regenerator is very similar for all fluid packages with the exception of
Hysys CPA DTU (3.1 % lower than Hysys CPA NeqSim). This deviation is, as mentioned in chapter
7.1.2, a result of the low TEG density in Figure 8.3. All fluid packages provide an almost equal mass
rate of TEG into the reboiler except for Hysys PR (high) and Hysys CPA DTU (low). The value provided
by Hysys CPA DTU is a result of the low mass rate of rich TEG into the regenerator. It should be
emphasized that the difference is smaller (1.6 % compared to Hysys CPA NeqSim) than the difference
in TEG-rate into the regenerator. This implies a larger rate of TEG from the stripping column, the
reflux condenser and/or from the reboiler. The large increase of TEG-rate for Hysys PR suggests the
same thing.
Similar to the reflux from the reboiler, the condenser reflux stream is not available in Pro/II. The
approach for finding the TEG flow was identical to the procedure used to find the reflux from the
reboiler. The molecular weight found in the text report shown in Figure 8.35 (19.501 kg/kmol) was
used together with the assumption of a binary mixture (TEG and water) and the flow rate (19.49
kg/hr). The amount of TEG in the reflux from the condenser can be seen in Figure 8.39.
18
Flow rate TEG [kg/hr]
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Figure 8.39: Flow rate of TEG in reflux from the condenser into the still column.
Hysys PR provides a much higher value than the other fluid packages. This was expected from Figure
8.20 which showed that Hysys PR calculates lower mole fraction of water (i.e. higher mole fraction of
83
TEG) in the liquid phase at 100 °C. The mass rate of TEG routed from the stripping column can be
seen in Figure 8.40.
140
Flow rate TEG [kg/hr]

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure 8.40: Flow rate of TEG from stripping column routed into the regenerator.
Both Hysys PR and Hysys CPA DTU provide a higher value of TEG than the other fluid packages. This is
in good agreement with the results from the binary VLE-studies in chapter 8.1.6 where it was shown
in Figure 8.18 that Hysys PR and Hysys CPA DTU calculate a much higher amount of TEG in the vapor
phase at high temperatures. The combined amount of additional TEG from the stripping column and
reflux condenser is much smaller than the difference in Figure 8.38. Logically, the remaining
additional mass rate is expected to come from the reboiler.
The main function of the reboiler is to evaporate water. Some TEG will also be evaporated. The mass
rate of evaporated TEG in Pro/II was calculated by subtracting the mass rate of TEG in lean TEG
routed from the reboiler from the mass rate of TEG routed into the reboiler in Table 8.4. An identical
procedure was conducted for the mass rate of water. Both values are shown together with gathered
mass rates from the other fluid packages in Figure 8.41.
300
250
Mass rate [kg/hr]
200
150
100 Water
50 TEG
Figure 8.41: Mass rate of evaporated water and TEG from the reboiler.
84
The mass rate of evaporated water ranges from 238 kg/hr (Hysys PR) up to 259 kg/hr (ProMax PR).
The difference in water rate in Figure 8.41 is small compared to the variations in Figure 8.36, where
Pro/II and Hysys CPA DTU provided a much higher water rate into the contactor than the other fluid
packages. This implies that the purity of lean TEG provided by Pro/II and Hysys CPA DTU will be lower
than the other fluid packages (due to higher water content in the liquid phase from the reboiler).
These predictions are similar to those made in chapter 8.1.6, where it was shown that Hysys CPA DTU
and Pro/II calculate a higher mole fraction of water in the liquid phase for a binary system of TEG and
water at equilibrium. The lean TEG purity is studied in chapter 8.2.11.
The mass rate of evaporated TEG ranges from 157 kg/hr (Hysys GP) up to 240 kg/hr (Hysys CPA DTU).
Hysys PR also provide a high rate of evaporated TEG (215 kg/hr). This is in agreement with the
expectations from chapter 8.1.6 (Figure 8.18) where it was shown that both Hysys CPA DTU and
Hysys PR calculate a much higher mole fraction of TEG in the vapor phase than the other fluid
packages. The mole fractions were 35 % higher (Hysys PR) and 45 % higher (Hysys CPA DTU) than
Hysys GP, which provided the lowest value. The mass rates in Figure 8.41 are even higher compared
to Hysys GP: 37 % (Hysys PR) and 53 % (Hysys CPA DTU).
The collected data presented in this chapter allows a detailed analysis of the reboiler duty. The
reboiler heats the mixture from the temperature in Figure 8.37 up to the operating temperature
(206.6 °C) of the reboiler. The heat capacity of water was gathered for saturated water at steps of 1
°C from Figure 8.15 for the whole range. The heat capacity of TEG was gathered at 0.23 barg for steps
of 1 °C over the whole temperature range. The summation of these heat capacities multiplied by the
water content (Figure 8.36) and TEG content (Figure 8.38) respectively, will be an estimation of the
duty necessary to heat the mixture. Then, the rate of evaporated water and TEG (Figure 8.41) was
multiplied by the enthalpy of vaporization at 206.6 °C for saturated water and TEG respectively. The
results can be seen for all fluid packages in Table 8.5.
Table 8.5: Calculated heating and vaporization duties of TEG and water in the reboiler.
Hysys Hysys
Hysys Hysys Hysys CPA CPA ProMax ProMax
Unit Pro/II GP GP LK PR DTU NeS SRK PR
Water into reb. kg/hr 348 325 326 317 354 332 330 331
Heating duty kW 25 25 24 26 24 24 26 26
Perc. of tot 6% 5% 5% 5% 6% 5% 5% 5%
TEG into reb. kg/hr 6993 7008 7008 7098 6876 6988 6981 6983
Heating duty kW 246 361 348 358 252 315 331 330
Perc. of tot 57 % 67 % 67 % 67 % 58 % 65 % 64 % 64 %
Vap. water rate kg/hr 257 247 247 238 252 250 257 259
Vap. water duty kW 140 134 132 128 131 130 141 141
Perc. of tot 32 % 25 % 25 % 24 % 30 % 27 % 27 % 27 %
Vap. TEG rate kg/hr 181 157 158 215 240 173 166 167
Vap. TEG duty kW 22 17 14 20 25 19 20 21
Perc. of tot 5% 3% 3% 4% 6% 4% 4% 4%
Total duty calc. kW 433 536 518 533 431 487 517 518
Actual duty kW 431 543 541 535 448 505 524 527
Perc. deviation 1% -1 % -4 % 0% -4 % -3 % -1 % -2 %
85
It should be emphasized that the values in Table 8.5 are calculated. When compared to the actual
duty in Figure 8.34, the deviation ranges from -4.4 % (Hysys GP Lee Kesler) up to 0.6 % (Pro/II). A
certain deviation was expected due to all the assumptions made in the analysis. The deviations are
reasonable and therefore not studied further.
The variations in calculated heating duty of water are very small and ranges from 24 kW up to 26 kW.
This accounts for 5 - 6 % of the total duty. As expected from chapter 8.1.5.1, Hysys GP provides the
highest duty for heating TEG, followed by Hysys PR. Pro/II and Hysys CPA DTU calculate a very low
duty for heating TEG. This is due to the low heat capacities shown in Figure 8.14. For most fluid
packages, heating TEG accounts for 64 – 67 % of the total duty, except for in Pro/II and Hysys CPA
DTU where the duties are 57 % and 58 % of the total duty, respectively.
The duty needed to evaporate water ranges from 128 kW (Hysys PR) up to 141 kW (ProMax SRK/PR).
In Figure 8.17 it was shown that all fluid packages calculated an enthalpy of vaporization which is
within 1 % deviation of the experimental data. The variations in calculated duty are, as expected, in
accordance with the rate of evaporated water in Figure 8.41 where Hysys PR provided the smallest
rate and ProMax PR the highest.
The difference in duty necessary to evaporate TEG is a result of both the difference in enthalpy of
vaporization and vaporized flow rate of TEG. Hysys GP Lee Kesler provides the lowest duty (14 kW) as
expected from the low calculated value for enthalpy of vaporization of TEG in Figure 8.16. Hysys CPA
DTU provides the highest duty (25 kW). This was not predicted in Figure 8.16 where Hysys CPA
provided a low enthalpy of vaporization of TEG. The elevated duty is a result of the high mass rate of
evaporated TEG in Figure 8.41.
The calculated heating duties from Table 8.5 are presented again in Figure 8.42.
600
Calculated reboiler duty [kW]
500
400
300 Vaporizing TEG

200 Vaporizing water
100 Heating TEG
0 Heating water
Figure 8.42: Calculated reboiler duties from the reboiler study.
The difference in reboiler duty provided at the beginning of this chapter (Figure 8.34) is primarily a
result of the difference in duty needed to heat TEG (Figure 8.42). Here, Pro/II and Hysys CPA DTU
provides a low value due to low heat capacities of TEG (Figure 8.14). Even though the variations in
duty needed to evaporate TEG is large, these deviations are small compared to the total duty. The
86
duty needed to heat water is also very small compared to the total duty (5 – 6 %). The duty needed
to vaporize water does not differ significantly due to equal enthalpy of vaporization of water.
8.2.11. Lean TEG purity from reboiler and stripping column

The calculated purity of lean TEG from the reboiler is shown in Figure 8.43.
99.00
wt% TEG in lean TEG
98.90
98.80
98.70
98.60
98.50
98.40
98.30
98.20
Figure 8.43: Lean TEG purity from reboiler.
There are no measurements for the lean TEG purity from the reboiler. ProMax SRK/PR calculates the
highest purity of TEG followed by Hysys GP/PR, Hysys CPA NeqSim, Pro/II and Hysys CPA DTU
(lowest). These results correspond well with Figure 8.22, where the exact same order was found for a
binary system at 206.6 °C and 85 kPa. The mass rate of non-TEG/water components into the reboiler
are so low (below 2 kg/hr) that they can be neglected. The composition of the liquid product from
the reboiler is therefore primarily dependent on VLE for TEG-water.
The lean TEG purity from the stripping column is equal to the values in Figure 8.26. In Figure 8.44,
these results are shown again together with the values in Figure 8.43.
100.00
99.80
wt% TEG in lean TEG
99.60
99.40
99.20
99.00
98.80 Lean TEG from reboiler
98.60
98.40 Lean TEG from stripping
98.20 column
98.00
Figure 8.44: Lean TEG purity from reboiler and stripping column.
87
The measured lean TEG purity from the stripping column is 99.76 wt%. The stripping gas increases
the TEG purity. This increase is roughly the same for all fluid packages, resulting in a tendency equal
to that from the reboiler: Hysys CPA DTU providing the lowest purity and ProMax SRK/PR the highest.
This is fair considering that the mass rate of stripping gas is equal for all fluid packages (Table 8.2 and
Table 8.3). The increase is largest for fluid packages with low purity from the reboiler (Hysys CPA
DTU) and slightly smaller for those with high purity (ProMax PR). This is probably related to the trend
seen in Figure 5.4; it requires much more stripping gas to increase the purity from 99.6 – 99.8 wt%
than from 99.0 – 99.2 wt%.
88
8.3.Cases
The majority of the results in chapter 8.2 were in good agreement with the predictions from chapter
8.1. Still, some results could not be explained by the findings in chapter 8.1. The following topics are
therefore studied here:
 Influence of we gas water content on dry gas water dew point (Case 1 and Case 3)
 Effect of other components on the solubility of methane, ethane and CO2 in rich TEG (Case 2)
Additionally, it is interesting to see how the three factors mentioned in chapter 5 affects the dew
point:
 Lean TEG purity (Case 4)

 TEG circulation rate (Case 5
 Number of stages in contactor (Case 6)
It is also of interest to see how the wet gas water content varies with temperature (Case 7) and how
this affects the dry gas water dew point. Next, a study of how the dew point is influenced by lean TEG
purity (Case 8) is conducted. Finally, the number of stages in the stripping column is varied (Case 9)
to see how this affects the lean TEG purity. The liquid product from the regenerator is not influenced
by the number of stages in the still column, but calculated from the operating pressure and
temperature in the reboiler. The regenerator is therefore not studied in this chapter.
In order to evaluate how the parameters affect the results, several studies were conducted. In order
to efficiently measure the influence of each parameter, most simulations were done holding the
other parameters constant. The system used for studies involving the contactor can be seen in Figure
8.45.
Figure 8.45: Print screen from Hysys showing the set-up used for the cases related to the contactor.
89
An identical system was used in Pro/II and ProMax. Instead of having the absorbent (TEG) circulating
through the whole system, the composition and flow rate of the lean TEG is held constant. The heat
exchanger “E-TEG” controls the temperature of the lean TEG routed into the contactor.
Similar to the Figure 8.45, a controlled system was used in order to study the influence of stripping
gas rate and number of stages in the stripping column. The lean TEG-stream is held constant (with
different values collected from Table 8.2 and Table 8.3 for each fluid package). An identical system
was used in Pro/II and Hysys. In Hysys, the simulation was run four times with four different streams
(one for each fluid package) for the lean TEG routed into the stripping column.
Figure 8.46: Print screen from ProMax showing the set-up used for cases related to the stripping column.
8.3.1. Case 1: Reduced water flow

Due to lower calculated water content in wet gas calculated by Hysys GP, it is interesting to conduct
a simulation with reduced water content. The water stream mixed with natural gas was reduced to a
“Hysys GP-saturated”-value (672 kg/MSm3). No other parameters in the simulation were changed. In
this particular case, a flow sheet which includes the whole dehydration unit (Appendix C – E) was
used. The lean TEG purity was still calculated by the simulation, but was not influenced by the
reduction in wet gas water content. The dry gas water dew point calculated by each fluid package
35
Dry gas water dew point [ppmv]
30
25
20
15
10 Saturated
5
Reduced flow
0
Figure 8.47: Dry gas water dew point calculated from saturated wet gas and gas with reduced water content.
90
As expected, all fluid packages (except Hysys GP) provide lower water dew points as a result of the
reduced water into the contactor. The percentage decrease in wet gas water content and the
corresponding decrease in dry gas water dew point can be seen in Table 8.6.
Table 8.6: Percentage reduction in wet gas water content and corresponding reduction in water dew point.
Hysys CPA Hysys CPA ProMax ProMax
Pro/II Hysys GP Hysys PR DTU NeqSim SRK PR
Wet gas water
reduction* 11.8 % 0.00 % 14.1 % 10.0 % 11.5 % 12.9 % 13.6 %
Dew point
reduction* 5.1 % 0.00 % 8.6 % 3.6 % 5.7 % 5.8 % 7.6 %
*Compared to saturated wet gas
The reduction in water dew point is less than the reduction in water content. This verifies the
hypothesis in chapter 8.2.5, where it was assumed that the dry gas water dew point is not a direct
result of the wet gas water content. For all fluid packages except for Hysys PR and Hysys CPA DTU, a
reduction in wet gas water content leads to a reduction in dry gas water dew point which is roughly
half this value when measured in percentage. In Hysys PR, the wet gas water content has a bigger
influence on the dry gas water dew point. For Hysys CPA DTU, the reduction in wet gas water content
has a small effect on the dew point.
In chapter 8.2.5 it was shown that Hysys PR calculated a dry gas water dew point which was 83 %
higher than Hysys GP even though the lean TEG purity was almost equal. The difference was
anticipated to be caused by both high water content in vapor for Hysys PR (Figure 8.6) and the lower
water content in wet gas for Hysys GP (Figure 8.24). With equal wet gas water content (Figure 8.47),
Hysys PR still provides a dry gas water dew point (30 ppmv) which is 67 % higher than Hysys GP. The
water content in wet gas seems to have a small influence on the dew point compared to VLE of
TEG/water. These characteristics are studied further in chapter 8.3.3.
8.3.2. Case 2: Solubility in TEG Hysys GP

Hysys GP provided the largest solubility of methane and ethane in TEG in the binary simulations and
the smallest amount of these gases in rich TEG in the main simulation. The reason for this
discrepancy is studied in this chapter. First, a simulation with a gas feed of pure methane was
conducted to see how the other components in Table 7.3 affect the solubility of methane in TEG. The
full-size dehydration unit (Appendix C – E) was used for this particular study. The natural gas feed
was set equal to the mass rate of methane calculated by Hysys GP in the main simulation (266307
kg/hr). This was done to ensure that the amount of methane is equal in both simulations. The
adjuster for the dry gas was turned off. No other parameters were changed. The results can be seen
in Figure 8.48.
91
0.008
0.007

0.006
0.005
Regular composition
0.004
100% methane
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.000
Figure 8.48: Mole fraction of methane in rich TEG for a gas feed with normal composition and pure methane
provided by Hysys GP.
A certain increase in methane in rich TEG is expected as a result of the homogenous gas feed. The
increase in mole fraction in Figure 8.48 is no higher than this expected value. Studying Figure 8.30, a
value above 0.017 is expected for the mole fraction in rich TEG. We can therefore conclude that the
other components in Table 7.3 do not have an abnormal effect on the solubility of methane in TEG
for Hysys GP. The solubility of methane must be affected by another parameter.
A simulation with zero water in the gas feed into the contactor was conducted to see how water in
gas affects the solubility of methane, ethane and CO2. The system shown in Figure 8.45 was used for
this study. The “lean TEG”-stream was held at 99.76 wt% TEG and 6.1 m3/hr. “Water in Lean TEG”
was set to zero. The dry gas flow rate is controlled at 11.23 MSm3/day with the composition given in
Table 7.3. Then, the water stream mixed with the natural gas (“Water to sat”) was removed and the
simulation started. The calculated mole fraction of non-TEG/water components in the rich TEG from
Hysys GP can be seen in Figure 8.49. The figure also shows the mole fraction from the main
simulation (where the wet gas is saturated with water).
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
Saturated
0.01 No water
0.00
Figure 8.49: Mole fraction of non-TEG/water components in rich TEG with saturated gas into contactor and
gas with no water provided by Hysys GP.
The mole fraction of all gases in TEG approaches the values expected from the results in chapter
8.1.3 when there is no water in the gas feed. The solubility decreases rapidly when the gas feed is
92
saturated with water, implying that the water has a large impact on the solubility. The decrease is
especially large for methane (73 %), ethane (83 %), propane (63 %) and n-hexane (99 %). The mole
fraction of the other components decreases roughly 50 % compared to the simulation with no water.
A certain decrease is expected due to a higher solubility of gases in TEG compared to water. The
mole fraction of gases in TEG also decreases due to the increase of water in rich TEG.
Identical simulations were conducted in the other fluid packages as a comparison. The results from
ProMax SRK can be seen in Figure 8.50. The other fluid packages provided roughly equal results in
terms of difference in rich TEG composition. ProMax SRK was chosen due to very accurate results in
the previous simulations.
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
Saturated
0.005 No water
0.000
Figure 8.50: Mole fraction of non-TEG/water components in rich TEG with saturated gas into contactor and
gas with no water provided by ProMax SRK.
The amount of gases dissolved in rich TEG reduces slightly for the simulation with a saturated gas
feed in ProMax SRK. This decrease of methane (18%) and ethane (23 %) is much smaller than in
Figure 8.49. The decrease is still noticeable, but considering the low solubility in water and the mole
fraction of water in rich TEG for a saturated flow (roughly 0.30), the value is reasonable.
Another simulation was conducted to see how the solubility of methane, ethane and CO2 in TEG is
affected by the water content in wet gas. A flow sheet with the set-up shown in Figure 8.45 was used
in this simulation. The lean TEG flow rate was set to 6775 kg/hr with a TEG wt% of 99.76. The natural
gas feed was set equal to 390000 kg/hr (corresponding to 11.24 Msm3/day) in order to keep the
amount of hydrocarbons constant. Then, the water mixed with the natural gas feed was increased
from zero up to 800 kg/MSm3. The methane, ethane and CO2 content in rich TEG were measured. It is
expected that the mole fraction of especially methane and ethane decrease rapidly with increased
water content in Hysys GP. The mole fraction of methane in rich TEG can be seen as a function of the
water content in wet gas for all fluid packages in Figure 8.51.
93
0.025

0.020 Pro/II
Hysys GP
0.015
Hysys PR
0.010
Hysys CPA DTU
0.000 ProMax SRK

0 200 400 600 800 ProMax PR
Water in wet gas [kg/MSm3]
Figure 8.51: Mole fraction of methane in rich TEG as a function of the water content in wet gas into the
contactor.
As expected from Figure 8.49, the amount of methane in rich TEG decreases rapidly with increased
water content in Hysys GP. The results provided by Hysys GP in Figure 8.51 shows why the fluid
package calculated the highest solubility of methane in the binary simulation (chapter 8.1.4), and the
lowest value in rich TEG (chapter 8.2.6). Other fluid packages, except for Hysys PR, calculate a very
similar solubility of methane across the whole range. The low value calculated by Hysys PR can be
explained by the results in 8.1.3, where it was shown that Hysys PR calculates a lower mole fraction
of methane in TEG than the other fluid packages. The lines in Figure 8.51 levels off at a certain point
before 800 kg/MSm3 is reached. This is the point where the wet gas is saturated with water, and the
inlet scrubber separates the additional water added (resulting in constant water content in wet gas).
The low wet gas water content in Hysys GP is shown by the early saturation point.
The mole fraction of ethane in rich TEG as a function of water content in wet gas can be seen in
Figure 8.52.
0.008
0.007
0.006 Pro/II
0.005 Hysys GP
0.004 Hysys PR
0.003 Hysys CPA DTU
0.001
ProMax SRK
0
0 200 400 600 800 ProMax PR
Figure 8.52: Mole fraction of ethane in rich TEG as a function of the water content in wet gas into the
contactor.
Similar to Figure 8.51, the mole fraction provided by Hysys GP in Figure 8.52 decreases very fast with
increased wet gas water content. Hysys PR and Pro/II also provide a mole fraction of ethane which is
94
lower than the other fluid packages. This deviation was expected from Figure 8.9, which showed that
Hysys PR and Pro/II calculate a low solubility of ethane in TEG compared to the experimental values.
The values in Figure 8.52 also explain why Hysys PR provided the lowest solubility in the main
simulation instead of Pro/II: the solubility declines more rapidly with increased water content. Pro/II
is the only fluid package which does not level off at high water rates (due to a saturated wet gas).
This is a result of the problem mentioned in chapter 7.3.1: the inlet scrubber in Pro/II does not seem
to separate the liquid phase when the rate is very small compared to the wet gas.
In chapter 8.1.4, it was shown that the solubility of CO2 in aqueous TEG decreased most for Hysys GP.
The mole fraction of CO2 was also measured during the simulation to see if this also applies for the
CO2-content in rich TEG. The results can be seen in Figure 8.53.
0.0055
0.0050 Pro/II
Mole fraction CO2
0.0045
Hysys GP
0.0040
Hysys PR
0.0035
Hysys CPA DTU
0.0030
Hysys CPA NeqSim
0.0025
0.0020 ProMax SRK
0 200 400 600 800 ProMax PR
Figure 8.53: Mole fraction of CO2 in rich TEG as a function of the water content in wet gas into the contactor.
The mole fraction of CO2 in Figure 8.53 declines more rapidly for Hysys GP than the other fluid
packages. This is in accordance with Figure 8.12. Hysys PR and Hysys CPA DTU provided almost equal
results in the binary simulation (Figure 8.11), but very different results in the main simulation. The
reason for this deviation can be seen in Figure 8.53: The mole fraction of CO2 decreases more rapidly
with increased water content in Hysys CPA DTU.
The solubility of methane, ethane and CO2 provided by Hysys GP is very dependent on the amount of
water in rich TEG. The amount of especially methane and ethane decreases very rapidly with
increased water content. No experimental data were found for the solubility of methane and ethane
in aqueous TEG. Hence, it is not possible to determine what the correct solubility is. Still, the
decrease in solubility for Hysys GP is much larger than what is expected.
8.3.3. Case 3: ppmv as a function of wet gas water content

The dry gas water dew point was also measured during the simulations in chapter 8.3.2 to see how it
is affected by the wet gas water content. In chapter 8.3.1 it was shown that the wet gas water
content has a different impact on the dry gas water dew point. A certain reduction in wet gas water
content had a relatively large impact on the dew point in Hysys PR and a small effect in Hysys CPA
DTU. Hence, it is expected that the dew point provided by Hysys PR will increase more rapidly than
Hysys CPA DTU with increasing wet gas water content.
95
40

35
30 Pro/II
25 Hysys GP
20 Hysys PR
15 Hysys CPA DTU
10 Hysys CPA NeqSim
5 ProMax SRK
0 ProMax PR
0 200 400 600 800
Wet gas water content [kg/MSm3]
Figure 8.54: Dry gas water dew point as a function of water content in wet gas into the contactor.
The increase in dry gas water dew point is very small compared to the large increase in wet gas water
content. The dry gas water dew point provided by Hysys PR is higher over the whole range. The dry
gas water dew point provided by Hysys CPA DTU is very low. Among the other fluid packages, Pro/II
calculates a water dew point which is slightly higher than the rest. The influence on dew point caused
by low water content in wet gas in Hysys GP can clearly be seen in Figure 8.54. The line levels off
earlier than the other fluid packages, resulting in slightly lower dew point than what would be
expected with “normal” saturated wet gas water content. This decrease is 0.9 ppmv given a linear
increase from the saturation point up to the wet gas water content calculated from field data (742
kg/MSm3).
The water dew points in Figure 8.54 are in accordance with the water content in the vapor phase as
shown by the activity coefficient in Figure 8.6. Here, Hysys CPA DTU calculated a low value and Hysys
PR a high value. Even though the water content in wet gas affects the dew point, the water content
in the vapor phase in equilibrium with TEG is the parameter which primarily “controls” the dry gas
water dew point for the flow rates given in the field data. This is in accordance with the results in
chapter 8.3.1 where it was shown that Hysys PR still provides much higher dew point than Hysys GP
(67 %) even with a very similar lean TEG purity and identical water content in wet gas.
All fluid packages except for Hysys GP, Hysys PR and Hysys CPA DTU provide a water dew point which
is roughly within 2 ppmv of the measured value (25 ppmv) for a saturated wet gas. Hysys GP provide
a water dew point of 20.5 ppmv. This value would be slightly higher (21.4 ppmv) with “normal” water
content in wet gas.
8.3.4. Case 4: ppmv as a function of lean TEG purity

A simulation was conducted to study the influence purity of lean TEG has on the water dew point.
The set-up shown in Figure 8.45 was used for this simulation. The adjust tool was activated to control
the dry gas rate to 11.23 MSm3/day and the inlet gas saturated. The “Lean TEG” flow was set to 100
% TEG at 6775 kg/hr in order to have an equal mass rate of TEG. Then, the “water in lean TEG”
stream was increased from 0 up to 50 kg/hr (corresponding to 99.27 wt% TEG) and the mole fraction
of water in dry gas gathered. The results are presented in Figure 8.55 together with the measured
water dew point (25 ppmv) from the field data.
96
70

60 Field data
50 Pro/II
40 Hysys GP
30 Hysys PR
20 Hysys CPA DTU
10 Hysys CPA NeqSim
0 ProMax SRK
100.00% 99.80% 99.60% 99.40% 99.20%
ProMax PR
wt% TEG in lean TEG
Figure 8.55: Dry gas water dew point as a function of the purity in lean TEG routed into the contactor.
Hysys PR provide the highest dew point over the whole range. Hysys CPA DTU provides the lowest
dew point. This is in accordance with the calculated water content in the vapor phase as shown by
the activity coefficient in Figure 8.6. Again, there is a great similarity between the activity coefficients
in Figure 8.6 and the calculated values in Figure 8.55.
Hysys PR “requires” a very pure lean TEG (99.94 wt%) in order to achieve the measured dew point.
Hysys CPA DTU, on the other hand, provides 25 ppmv at 99.35 wt%. The other fluid packages ranges
from 99.59 wt% (ProMax SRK/PR) up to 99.78 wt% (Pro/II). Figure 8.55 also shows how Hysys CPA
DTU both can provide the lowest water dew point (17.5 ppmv) with the lowest purity of lean TEG
(99.60 wt%).
8.3.5. Case 5: ppmv as a function of lean TEG flow rate

The lean TEG flow rate was varied in order to see how this affects the water dew point in dry gas. The
set-up shown in Figure 8.45 was used for this simulation. The adjust tool controls the dry gas flow
rate at 11.23 MSm3/day. The gas feed was saturated with water, and the composition of the lean TEG
set to 99.76 wt% TEG at 6.1 m3/hr. “Water in Lean TEG” was set to zero. Then, the lean TEG flow rate
was increases from 3000 kg/hr up to 10000 kg/hr. The results are presented in Figure 8.56.
125
Field data
100
Pro/II
75 Hysys GP
50 Hysys PR
Hysys CPA DTU
25
Hysys CPA NeqSim
- ProMax SRK
2 4 6 8 10 ProMax PR
Lean TEG flow rate [m3/hr]
Figure 8.56: Dry gas water dew point as a function of lean TEG flow rate.
97
The dew point provided by Hysys PR is high over the whole range in Figure 8.56, especially at low
flow rates. The value provided by Hysys CPA DTU is low over the whole range, while Hysys GP
provides a relatively low dew point for a small flow rate of lean TEG. However, Hysys GP calculates
dew points very close to the other fluid packages (except Hysys PR and Hysys CPA DTU) at high lean
TEG flow rates. This is probably due to low water content in wet gas which has larger influence on
the dew point for a low flow rate of lean TEG (large water to TEG ratio). Again, Pro/II is slightly above
the value provided by Hysys CPA NeqSim and ProMax SRK/PR. The lean TEG flow rate required to
produce a dry gas water dew point equal to the measured value (25 ppmv) is shown in Figure 8.57.
9
Lean TEG flow rate [m3/hr]
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Figure 8.57: Lean TEG flow rate required to produce a dry gas water dew point of 25 ppmv.
The variation in required lean TEG flow rate in Figure 8.57 is significant. Hysys CPA DTU calculates the
lowest rate (3.8 m3/hr) which is 37 % below the value provided in the field data (6.1 m3/hr). Hysys PR
calculates the highest rate (8.5 m3/hr) which is 39 % higher than the measured value. In Figure 8.54 it
was shown that the water dew point is strongly related to the water content in the vapor phase as
shown by the calculated activity coefficient in Figure 8.6. This is in agreement with the results in
Figure 8.57. Hysys PR calculates too high water dew points as a result of too high calculated water
content in the vapor phase. Hysys CPA DTU calculates low values as a result of low water content in
the vapor phase.
8.3.6. Case 6: ppmv as a function of number of stages in contactor

A simulation was conducted in order to see how the dry gas water dew point is affected by the
number of stages in the contactor. A simulation with a setup equal to Figure 8.45 was used. The
adjust tool was set to control the dry gas rate to 11.23 MSm3/day and the inlet gas (composition
from Table 7.3) was saturated. The composition and flow rate of the lean TEG was set equal to the
measured value: 99.76 wt% and 6.1 m3/hr. Then, the number of stages was varied from 2 – 5. 10
stages were also included to see how low dew points each fluid package would provide. The results
98
90

80 Field data
70
Pro/II
60
50 Hysys GP
40 Hysys PR
30
Hysys CPA DTU
20
Hysys CPA NeqSim
10
0 ProMax SRK
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ProMax PR
Number of stages in contactor
Figure 8.58: Dry gas water dew point as a function of number of stages in the contactor.
Again, the fluid packages which differ most from the others are Hysys CPA DTU and Hysys PR. Hysys
CPA DTU calculates a lower dry gas water dew point, while Hysys PR provides a value higher than the
others. The values at 10 stages are primarily dependent on VLE for TEG-water, and in agreement with
the calculated water content in vapor phase as shown by the activity coefficients in Figure 8.6. At two
stages, the calculated results are more dependent on the water content in the rich TEG leaving the
contactor. This explains why Hysys GP calculates a lower value than Hysys CPA NeqSim and ProMax
SRK/PR at few stages; the rich TEG in Hysys GP has lower water content than the other fluid packages
due to low water content in wet gas.
Three different parameters have been varied to see how the dry gas water dew point is affected. The
three cases all showed that VLE of TEG/water is the parameter which primarily “controls” the water
dew point at reasonable flow rates. However, the influence of the wet gas water content increases
with a decrease in number of stages or reduced lean TEG flow rate.
Figure 8.58 was used to find the exact number of stages needed to achieve a dry gas water dew point
equal to the measured value provided in the field data (25 ppmv). In order to do so, the efficiency on
the first stage (top stage) was varied from 5 % up to 100 %. In Hysys, the overall efficiency was
selected (overall for the stage, not the column). In ProMax, “vapor efficiency” was selected for water
specifically. In Pro/II, a low efficiency gave inconsistent results. Therefore, the result with 3 stages
(100 % efficiency) was accepted as a good estimate. The adjust tool controlled the dry gas at 11.23
MSm3/day. The lean TEG composition was held at 99.76 wt% TEG at 6.1 m3/hr. The “water in Lean
TEG” was set to zero and the feed gas saturated with water. The results can be seen in Table 8.7.
Table 8.7: Number of stages provided by each fluid package to achieve a dry gas water dew point as close to
25 ppmv as possible.
Number of
stages* 3.0 2.80 3.80 2.40 2.95 2.95 2.95
Water dew
point 25.26 25.21 24.75 25.52 25.35 24.68 25.09
*: The efficiency is 100 % for all stages except for the top stage
99
Although the efficiency was varied with 5 percent steps, the calculated water dew points still differ
compared to the measured value (25 ppmv). ProMax SRK provides the lowest water dew point (24.68
ppmv) and Hysys CPA DTU the highest (25.52 ppmv). This is 1.3 % lower and 2.1 % higher than the
measured value respectively. All fluid packages require roughly 3 stages in the contactor to reach 25
ppmv except for Hysys GP (2.80), Hysys PR (3.80) and Hysys CPA DTU (2.40). These results are in
agreement with those found in Figure 8.54 where it was shown that all fluid packages except for
Hysys GP, Hysys PR and Hysys CPA DTU provide a water dew point very close to the measured value
with 3 stages in the contactor. The values in Table 8.7 will be used in chapter 8.4.
8.3.7. Case 7: Variation in wet gas temperature

An increase in feed gas temperature will increase the water content in wet gas. A simulation was
conducted to see how the water content in both wet gas and dry gas is affected by the feed gas
temperature. The dry gas rate was held at 11.23 MSm3/day. The lean TEG rate was set to 6.1 m3/hr
with a purity of 99.76 wt%. The water rate mixed with the gas feed was set to 1000 kg/hr to ensure a
saturated flow at all temperatures. The calculated wet gas water content for the temperature range
20 – 40 °C can be seen in Figure 8.59.
1400
1200
Pro/II
1000
Hysys GP
800 Hysys PR
Hysys CPA DTU
600
Hysys CPA NeqSim
400 ProMax SRK
ProMax PR
200
20 25 30 35 40
Feed gas temperature [°C]
Figure 8.59: Wet gas water content at various temperatures.
Hysys GP provides smaller water content over the whole temperature range (20 – 40 °C). This is a
result of the lower water content in methane as shown in Figure 8.1. Among the other fluid
packages, Hysys CPA DTU/NeqSim and Pro/II provide a slightly lower value than Hysys PR and
ProMax SRK/PR at high temperatures. The dry gas water dew point was also measured with the
increasing gas feed temperature. The result can be seen in Figure 8.60.
100
160

140
120 Pro/II
100 Hysys GP
80 Hysy PR
60 Hysys CPA DTU
40 Hysys CPA NeqSim
20 ProMax SRK
0 ProMax PR
20 25 30 35 40
Wet gas temperature [°C]
Figure 8.60: Dry gas water dew point as a function of temperature of wet gas routed into the contactor.
Hysys PR provides the highest water dew point over the whole range. Hysys CPA DTU calculates the
lowest rate. Again, this is in accordance with the activity coefficients in Figure 8.6. Hysys GP provides
a water dew point very similar to Pro/II and Hysys CPA NeqSim below 27 °C, and a lower dew point
from this temperature and up to 40 °C. The deviation increases with temperature. Hysys CPA NeqSim
and ProMax SRK/PR provide an almost identical dew point over the whole range.
This lower dew points provided by Hysys GP at high temperatures is probably similar to the trend in
chapter 8.3.5 and 8.3.6 where it was shown that Hysys GP calculates a lower dew point when the
number of stages is few or the lean TEG flow rate is low. Here, at high temperatures, the wet gas
water content is high. Similar to Figure 8.56, the water to TEG ratio is large, and the dry gas water
content is more dependent on the water content in rich TEG.
8.3.8. Case 8: Lean TEG purity as a function of stripping gas rate

In chapter 8.2.11 it was shown that the increase in lean TEG purity in the stripping column is roughly
equal for all fluid packages. A simulation was conducted to see how the stripping gas rate affects the
purity of TEG. The simulation was done with the set-up shown in Figure 8.46. The lean TEG stream
from the reboiler was set equal to the mass rate from Table 8.2 and Table 8.3 at the operating
temperature (206.6 °C) and pressure (0.23 barg) of the reboiler. The purity was also gathered from
these tables and used as the weight fraction of TEG. The remaining mass was assumed to be water.
The number of stages in the stripping column was three (100 % efficiency) for all fluid packages.
Then, the stripping gas was increased from 2 kg/hr up to 120 kg/hr. The results can be seen in Figure
8.61.
101
99.90%
99.70% Field data

Pro/II
99.50%
wt% TEG
Hysys GP
99.30% Hysys PR
99.10% Hysys CPA DTU

Hysys CPA NeqSim
98.90%
ProMax SRK
98.70% ProMax PR
0 10 20 30
Stripping gas rate [Sm3/m3 TEG]
Figure 8.61: Lean TEG purity from stripping column as a function of stripping gas rate.
Hysys CPA DTU provides the least pure TEG regardless of the stripping gas rate in Figure 8.61. Pro/II
also provides lower purity of lean TEG than the other fluid packages. This is reasonable considering
that an equal mass rate of stripping gas was shown to have a fairly similar influence on the lean TEG
purity (Figure 8.44). A difference similar to Figure 8.44 is therefore to be expected. The values in
Figure 8.61 are in accordance with the amount of water in the liquid phase in Figure 8.22, where
Hysys CPA provided the highest value followed by Pro/II. ProMax SRK/PR provided the lowest value.
The stripping gas rate from the main simulation (91.2 Sm3/hr) is equal to 15.0 Sm3/m3 TEG. Hysys CPA
NeqSim is closest to this value (14.0 Sm3/m3 TEG).
8.3.9. Case 9: Lean TEG purity as function of number of stages in stripping column
The stripping column controls the lean TEG purity going into the contactor. A simulation was done in
order to see how number of stages in the stripping column affects the lean TEG purity. The
simulation was done with the mass rate and purity of lean TEG provided by each fluid package in
Table 8.2 and Table 8.3. Similar to chapter 8.3.8, the mixture was assumed to be binary. The stripping
gas rate was set to 91.2 Sm3/hr. Then, the number of stages was set to the following numbers: 1
(Hysys), 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10. For Hysys CPA DTU, 6, 7, 8 and 9 was also included due to low TEG purity.
The results can be seen in Figure 8.62 compared to the measured lean TEG purity from the field data
(99.76 wt%).
102
100.00%
99.90%
99.80% Field data
99.70% Pro/II
wt% TEG
99.60% Hysys GP
99.50% Hysys PR
99.40% Hysys CPA DTU
99.30% Hysys CPA NeqSim
99.20%
ProMax SRK
99.10%
ProMax PR
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Number of stages in stripping column
Figure 8.62: Lean TEG purity from stripping column as a function of number of stages in the stripping column.
The exact number of stages needed to achieve a lean TEG purity of 99.76 wt% lies between 2 and 3
for all fluid packages except for Pro/II and Hysys CPA DTU which requires 3 – 4 and 6 – 7 stages,
respectively. The resemblance between Figure 8.61 and Figure 8.62 is strong: Low purities for Hysys
CPA DTU and Pro/II, high purities for ProMax SRK/PR. This is also in accordance with the amount of
water in the liquid phase for a binary system of TEG and water in Figure 8.22.
Figure 8.62 was used to find the exact number of stages needed to achieve 99.76 wt% purity. In
order to do so, the efficiency on the last stage was varied from 5% up to 100%. In Hysys, the overall
efficiency was selected (overall for the stage, not the column). In ProMax and Pro/II, the “vapor
efficiency” was selected for the whole stage (Pro/II) and for water specifically (ProMax). The results
can be seen in Table 8.8.
Table 8.8: Exact number of stages in stripping column to produce 99.76 wt% TEG.
Number of
stages* 3.80 2.45 2.60 6.95 2.80 2.10 2.10
*: The efficiency is 100 % for all stages except for the last stage
ProMax SRK/PR requires the lowest number of stages to achieve 99.76 wt% TEG (2.10), followed by
Hysys GP, Hysys PR, Hysys CPA NeqSim, Pro/II and Hysys CPA DTU (6.95). The high number provided
by Hysys CPA DTU is a result of the high water content in the liquid phase as shown in Figure 8.22.
Hysys CPA DTU either requires a very high stripping gas rate (26.6 Sm3/m3 TEG) or almost 7 stages in
the stripping column to achieve the measured purity (99.76 wt%).
Several parameters gave been varied to see how this affects the dry gas water dew point, solubility
of gases in TEG, wet gas water content and purity of lean TEG. The exact number of stages in the
contactor and stripping column has been found in order to “match” the values for measured dry gas
water dew point and lean TEG purity. These numbers will be used for the step out in chapter 8.4.
103
8.4.Step out
The whole simulation (sample 7) was run again using the results from Table 8.7 and Table 8.8 for the
number of stages in the stripping column and contactor respectively. The calculated purity of lean
TEG and dry gas water dew point can be seen in Table 8.8.
Table 8.9: Results from main simulation when the number of stages in the contactor and stripping column is
equal to the numbers found in Table 8.7 and Table 8.8.
Lean TEG
purity [%] 99.760 99.758 99.762 99.760 99.760 99.759 99.760
Water dew
point [ppmv] 25.85 24.90 23.88 25.29 25.01 24.03 24.32
The TEG purity varies from 99.758 wt% (Hysys GP) up to 99.762 wt% (Hysys PR). This is a very small
deviation. The dry gas water dew point varies from 23.88 ppmv (Hysys PR) to 25.85 ppmv (Pro/II).
Hysys PR provides both the highest purity and lowest dew point. However, ProMax SRK also provides
a low dew point (24.03 ppmv) although the purity is slightly low (99.759 %). Considering that the dew
points in Table 8.7 were not exactly 25.0 ppmv, the variations in Table 8.9 are reasonable.
8.4.1. Simulation with reduced gas feed

In chapter 8.3.6 and 8.3.9, the exact number of stages was found in both the contactor and the
stripping column to achieve the measured values in the field data. Using these numbers for another
set of data in appendix E, will provide an estimate of how robust each fluid package is. Sample 9 was
chosen due to available measurement of accurate dew point. The most important parameters held
constant are shown in Table 8.10 together with the values for sample 7.
Table 8.10: Most important parameters held constant during simulation in sample 9 compared to sample 7.
Description Unit Sample 9 Sample 7
Number of stages in contactor and stripping column - Individually 3
Total number of stages in regenerator - 5* 5*
Wet gas temperature °C 30.5 30.4
Contactor pressure barg 50.3 51.2
3
Flow rate dry gas MSm /day 6.9 11.23
3
Flow rate lean TEG m /hr 6.1 6.1
Flash drum temperature °C 64.0 62.0
Flash drum pressure barg 3.9 3.9
Temperature rich TEG into regenerator °C 139.0 139.0

Temperature top product regenerator °C 95.0 100
Temperature in reboiler °C 204.9 206.6
Pressure in condenser barg 0.01 0.20
Pressure in reboiler barg 0.01 0.23
Pressure stripping column barg 0.01 0.23
3
Flow rate stripping gas Sm /hr 96.0 92.0
3 3
Flow rate stripping gas Sm / m TEG 15.7 15.0
Temperature stripping gas into stripping column °C 80.0 80.0
Temperature TEG surge drum °C 188.4 190.4
*: Reboiler and condenser are included in this number
104
The pressure and temperature of the wet gas is very similar to sample 7. The dry gas flow rate is
reduced considerably (6.9 MSm3/day). The lean TEG flow rate remains unchanged and the operating
temperature and pressure of the reboiler is slightly reduced: 204.9 °C at 0.01 barg. The stripping gas
is increased to 96 Sm3/hr.
A simulation was done with the parameters in Table 8.10 and with the number of stages found in
Table 8.7 and Table 8.8. The results can be seen in Table 8.11 and Table 8.12.
Table 8.11: Results for Pro/II, Hysys GP and Hysys PR for sample 9 compared to field data.
Description Unit Field data Pro/II Hysys GP Hysys PR
Water content in wet gas kg/hr 231 223 198 229
3
Water content in wet gas kg/MSm 802 777 688 798
3
Flow rate dry gas m /hr 5210 5321 5082 5157
Flow rate dry gas kg/hr - 239369 239388 239401
Dew point dry gas ppmv 24.0 12.4 13.8 12.0

3
Water content dry gas kg/MSm 18.3 9.5 10.5 9.1
Flow rate lean TEG into contactor kg/hr - 6751 6787 6786
Water in rich TEG kg/hr 236.5* 229.9 204.9 236.4
TEG circulation rate** liters/kg H2O 27.0 27.4 31.3 26.8
Rich TEG after contactor wt% - 95.47 % 96.32 % 96.06 %

Water in rich TEG kg/hr 237 230 205 236
Flash gas rate kg/hr - 49 23 29
Flow rate from reboiler kg/hr - 6910 6924 6960
Lean TEG from reboiler wt% - 98.90 % 99.06 % 99.06 %

Lean TEG before contactor wt% 99.84 % 99.85 % 99.84 % 99.85 %
3
TEG loss liters/MSm 14.0 3.0 1.5 3.4
Stripping gas rate kg/hr - 65.14 65.14 65.14
Table 8.12: Results for Hysys CPA DTU, Hysys CPA NeqSim, ProMax SRK and ProMax PR for sample 9
compared to field data.
Field Hysys Hysys ProMax ProMax
Description Unit data CPA DTU CPA NeS SRK PR
Water content in wet gas kg/hr 231 219 223 226 228
Water content in wet gas kg/Msm3 803 762 775 787 793
3
Flow rate dry gas m /hr 5210 5262 5303 5294 5196
Flow rate dry gas kg/hr - 239342 239333 239375 239377
Dew point dry gas ppmv 24.0 11.4 12.5 12.5 12.7
3
Water content dry gas kg/MSm 18.3 8.7 9.5 9.5 9.6
Flow rate lean TEG into contactor kg/hr - 6552 6747 6743 6754
Water in rich TEG Kg/hr 236.5* 225.0 230.0 234.1 235.7
TEG circulation rate** Liters/kg H2O 27.0 27.1 27.5 27.1 26.9
Rich TEG after contactor wt% - 95.26 % 95.21 % 95.64 % 95.62 %

Water in rich TEG kg/hr 237 225 230 234 236
Flash gas rate kg/hr - 50 54 49 47
Flow rate from reboiler - 6770 6896 6883 6883
Lean TEG from reboiler wt% - 98.74 % 99.01 % 99.13 % 99.13 %
Reboiler duty kW 485 358 424 439 441

Lean TEG before contactor wt% 99.84 % 99.86 % 99.85 % 99.84 % 99.84 %
105
3
TEG loss liters/MSm 14.0 3.3 0.9 1.4 1.4
Stripping gas rate kg/hr - 65.14 65.14 65.14 65.14
The simulations confirmed several findings in chapter 8.2:
 Low wet gas water content provided by Hysys GP

 Variation in dry gas volume flow rate in accordance with density methane (Figure 8.5)
 Equal mass rate of dry gas
 Low lean TEG mass rate provided by Hysys CPA DTU
 Low flash gas rate provided by Pro/II and Hysys GP
 Low reboiler duty provided by Pro/II and Hysys CPA DTU
 Lean TEG purity from reboiler in accordance with binary simulations (Figure 8.22)
 Especially low TEG loss in Hysys CPA NeqSim
 Equal mass rate of stripping gas
Selected parameters are studied further: wet gas water content, dry gas water dew point and lean
TEG purity.
The wet gas water content was calculated from the field data using the exact same procedure as in
the main simulation. The calculations can be seen in appendix K. A higher value is expected due to a
slight increase in temperature (0.1 °C) and reduction in pressure (0.9 bar). The calculated value is
shown in Figure 8.63 together with the water content in wet gas from Figure 8.24 (Sample 7).
850
800
750
700
Sample 9
650 Sample 7
600
Figure 8.63: Wet gas water content calculated by the fluid packages with the dry gas flow rate provided in
sample 9 compared to sample 7.
The wet gas water content increases slightly for sample 9 compared to sample 7 for all fluid
packages. Hysys GP still provides a value much lower (688 kg/MSm3) than the other fluid packages.
This value is 14 % lower than the value calculated from the field data (803 kg/MSm3). This is much
closer to the value expected from the binary simulation in Figure 8.2 where Hysys GP provided water
content in methane which was 18 % lower than the experimental value at 55 bar. The water content
106
calculated from sample 9 is considerably higher (802 kg/MSm3) than the water content from sample
7 (742 kg/MSm3). The calculations are done by using the exact same procedure. The reason for this
large increase is not known.
The lean TEG circulation rate remains unchanged compared to sample 7, while the stripping gas rate
is slightly higher. Consequently, it is expected that the fluid packages will provide very low dry gas
water dew points due to the reduction in gas feed rate (leading to a reduction in water content). The
dry gas water dew points can be seen in Figure 8.64.
30
25
20
15
10
Figure 8.64: Dry gas water dew point provided by the fluid packages from sample 9.
All fluid packages provide dew points much lower than the measured value (24 ppmv). The dew
points ranges from 11.4 ppmv (Hysys CPA DTU) up to 13.8 ppmv (Hysys GP). The variation is much
smaller than in Figure 8.24, where the number of stages was three for both the contactor and
stripping column. A smaller variation was expected due to the different number of stages used in the
contactor. The measured dew point is only 1 ppmv lower than in sample 9. This is unexpected due to
the large difference in water into the contactor (due to difference in wet gas rate).
The lean TEG purity from both the reboiler and stripping column is shown in Figure 8.65.
100.0 %
99.8 %
99.6 %
99.4 %
wt% TEG
99.2 %
99.0 %
98.8 %
98.6 % From reboiler
98.4 %
98.2 % From stripping column
98.0 %
Figure 8.65: Lean TEG purity from reboiler and stripping column.
107
The trend in purity from the reboiler correlates well with the main simulation (Figure 8.61): Hysys
CPA DTU provides the lowest purity (98.74 wt%), while ProMax PR/SRK provide the highest (99.13
wt%). Again, this is in accordance with the results for the binary simulation (TEG and water) in Figure
8.22. The purity from the stripping column is almost equal and varies from 99.84 wt% (Hysys GP,
ProMax SRK/PR) up to 99.86 wt%. The measured value provided in the field data is 99.84 wt%. This is
in good agreement with all fluid packages.
All fluid packages provide a value equal to or higher than the measurement. This is expected due to
the procedure which was used to find the exact number of stages in chapter 8.3.9: taking the mass
rate of lean TEG together with the weight fraction TEG and assuming a binary mixture. This will lead
to slightly higher water content than the actual rate. Hence, the exact number of stages in Table 8.8
is larger than necessary.
The simulation with sample 9 confirmed several of the findings in chapter 8.2. It also suggests that
the wet gas water content in sample 7 might be too low or that the procedure used to find the
content is slightly inaccurate.
108
8.5.Evaluation of simulation tools
As mentioned previously, this thesis has focused on deviations from experimental data and field
data. The emphasis has been on wet gas water content, dry gas water dew point, rich TEG
composition, reboiler duty, lean TEG purity and TEG loss. The fluid packages are evaluated on basis of
the results provided for these parameters together with the results from the comparison with
experimental data. A summary of the main deviations found for each fluid package is presented in
Table 8.13.
Table 8.13: Summary of main deviations found in each fluid package.

Evaluation Fluid Package Main deviations
Well suited Hysys CPA NeqSim Very low TEG loss in dry gas
ProMax SRK Slightly high lean TEG purity, slightly low dry gas water dew point
ProMax PR Slightly high lean TEG purity, slightly low dry gas water dew point
Certain flaws Pro/II Low reboiler duty, slightly low lean TEG purity
Hysys PR High dry gas water dew point, low solubility of ethane in TEG
Hysys GP Low wet gas water content, water decreases solubility of
methane and ethane in TEG significantly
Several flaws Hysys CPA DTU Low dry gas water dew point
Low circulation rate of TEG
Low reboiler duty
Low purity of lean TEG
Hysys CPA NeqSim provided results very similar to ProMax SRK/PR. The calculations were in good
agreement with both experimental and field data for the majority of the simulations. The only big
deviation found in Hysys CPA NeqSim was an especially low TEG loss in dry gas as a result of low TEG
content in methane. It should be stressed that all fluid packages provided low values. Hysys CPA
NeqSim proved to be the best suited fluid package for dehydration of natural gas using TEG as an
absorbent.
ProMax SRK and ProMax PR provided good results for all the simulations in this thesis. Certain minor
flaws were discovered (low TEG loss in dry gas and slightly high purity of TEG), but these were trivial
compared to the serious flaws discovered in some of the other fluid packages. ProMax SRK provided
slightly better calculations for certain parameters (methane density, solubility of ethane and CO2 in
TEG) making it marginally better than ProMax PR.
Only one fluid package was tested in Pro/II: the glycol package. Pro/II generally provided results in
good agreement with both experimental and field data. However, the calculated reboiler duty is too
low due to low heat capacity of TEG. Also, the lean TEG purity was shown to be slightly low.
The low dew point provided by Hysys PR is a result of too high water content in the vapor phase in
equilibrium with TEG. Hysys PR provided low content of ethane in rich TEG due to low solubility. Also,
the calculated amount of TEG in the vapor phase at 100 °C was too high, leading to high TEG loss
from the regenerator.
Hysys GP provided water content in wet gas which was lower than the actual rate (9 – 14 %). This
affects the whole circulation system of TEG, and also the dry gas water dew point (decreases 4 %).
This, together with the abnormal impact water has on solubility in TEG, is the biggest deviation in
109
Hysys GP. The fluid package is designed for dehydration units with glycol as an absorbent. It is
therefore surprising that the fluid package cannot calculate accurate water content in natural gas.
Also, the deviation is considerably larger than the claimed accuracy in chapter 6.1.1 (+/- 1 %). The
heat capacity of TEG is also too high, especially at low temperatures. Except for the dry gas dew
point, Peng-Robinson provided overall better results than the glycol package in Hysys.
As a result of recommendations from AspenTech, Lee Kesler was also included for the calculation of
reboiler duty. The calculated heat capacity of TEG is closer to the experimental data, but still high for
the temperature of interest in the reboiler. The calculated heat capacity and enthalpy of vaporization
of water is very close to the experimental values, but the enthalpy of vaporization of TEG is too low.
Lee Kesler is better suited than the default option (EOS) in Hysys GP for calculating reboiler duties,
but still not a good option compared to Hysys CPA NeqSim and ProMax SRK/PR.
Hysys CPA DTU was the fluid package that provided results which differed most from the gathered
experimental and field data. The calculated water dew point is too low. This, together with several
other deviations such as low reboiler duty, low TEG purity and low TEG circulation rate, makes Hysys
CPA DTU the least suited fluid package of those included in this thesis.
It should be emphasized that the fluid packages are evaluated on basis of results from this thesis
only. Another dehydration unit with other parameters could provide results very different from what
is presented here. Still, the fluid packages should provide results in good agreement with the
experimental data presented to accurately simulate a dehydration unit.
Also, all fluid packages included in this thesis are generally well suited for dehydration of natural gas.
A random fluid package, which is not suitable for dehydration, would probably calculate results far
worse than any of the fluid packages above.
110
9. Discussion
The results are discussed in detail in chapter 8. In this chapter, certain assumptions and
simplifications are discussed together with deviations found in chapter 8.
In Pro/II, the water rate mixed with the gas feed had to be held at a much higher rate than the
calculated water content in wet gas in order for the inlet scrubber to separate the liquid phase. This
led to a higher loss of other components which were dissolved in the water. The loss was measured
to be below 1 kg/hr when all components were summarized. This value is negligible compared to the
gas feed rate (approximately 390000 kg/hr) and concluded to not affect the results.
All fluid packages provided water content in methane which was lower than the experimental data.
In the main simulation (sample 7), all fluid packages except Hysys GP provided higher water content
in wet gas than the calculated value from the field data. When the exact same procedure was
followed to find the wet gas water content in sample 9, the value was considerably higher (803
kg/MSm3) than in sample 7 (742 kg/MSm3). A slight increase was expected due to elevated
temperature and reduced pressure. Still, the increase is much higher than expected. In sample 9, all
fluid packages provided lower wet gas water content (Figure 8.63) than the value calculated from the
field data. The difference between this calculated water content and the results from the simulations
are more in agreement with the expectations from the binary simulation with water in methane
(Figure 8.1).
The water content is also affected by other components than methane. The content of heavier
hydrocarbons is simply given as C6+ in the field data. In the simulations, this was assumed to be pure
hexane. The heavy hydrocarbons will affect the wet gas water content, but the rate of influence is
unknown.
The experimental data for water content in methane represents two independent sets which are in
good agreement at pressures relevant for this particularly unit. The water content for Gullfaks A is
calculated by using the values for vol% water in both lean and rich TEG flow in the field data,
together with several assumptions (listed in chapter 7.2). This might lead to inaccurate water
content.
The purity of the lean TEG routed into the contactor is, according to the field data, 99.76 wt% for
sample 7. The purity is based on a lab-analysis which showed that the lean TEG has 0.27 vol% water
at atmospheric pressure (the sample is depressurized before it is measured). By accounting for the
difference in density of water (1000 kg/m3) and TEG (1124 kg/m3) at standard conditions, the wt%
water in lean TEG is calculated. Wt% TEG is simply calculated by assuming a binary mixture. Lean TEG
will also consist of other components. By assuming a binary mixture, these components are
neglected. The amount of non-water/TEG components are, however, very low due to low solubility
of gases in TEG and water at standard conditions.
The lean TEG flow rate is calculated from the volume flow (6.1 m3/hr) by assuming a density of 1114
kg/m3. The density is taken from the field data (“Glycol density at pump conditions” in appendix G).
In the field data, the circulation rate is also given in kg/hr. This value (6684 kg/hr) is equal to a
circulation rate of 6.0 m3/hr and a density of 1114 kg/m3. 6.1 m3/hr was chosen to be the most
reliable value considering that it is provided in the “main reading”-part of the data (appendix F). It
111
should be stressed that a 0.1 m3/hr reduction (1.7 % reduction compared to 6.1 m3/hr) would also
influence the dry gas water dew point, lean TEG purity, reboiler duty and so forth.
Another approach for calculating the lean TEG flow rate would be to assume an incompressible flow
and to use the experimental data at atmospheric pressure. This would result in a density of 1105.4
kg/m3 and a mass rate of lean TEG (6743 kg/hr) lower than the value used in the calculations. Hence,
using the incompressible density (or 6.0 m3/hr) would lead to lower wet gas water content.
The mass rate of TEG in rich TEG is found by assuming zero TEG loss in the dry gas. The TEG loss in
the contactor is very small. Assuming that the dry natural gas meets the criteria in Table 1.1, the TEG
in dry gas is below 8 liters/MSm3. 11.23 MSm3/day will give a maximum loss of approximately 90
liters/day. This is equal to 3.75 liters/hr or 4.2 kg/hr using a conservative density of 1120 kg/m 3. 4.2
kg/hr accounts for 0.06 % of the TEG routed into the contactor. The assumption of zero TEG loss is
therefore reasonable. The measured total TEG loss is given as 6.5 kg/hr in the field data. This TEG loss
is roughly 50 % higher than 4.2 kg/hr. Still, this loss includes TEG in vapor from regenerator and flash
gas, leakages, degradation and so forth. The TEG loss in dry gas will only be a portion of the total loss.
The wt% water in rich TEG is calculated by the exact same procedure as in lean TEG. This value (4.97
wt%) was used together with the mass rate of TEG to find the water rate in rich TEG. Again, the
assumption of a binary mixture will lead to a slight deviation from the correct value.
The water content in wet gas is also given in the field data. This value (19.04 kg/MSm3) is calculated
from the dry gas water dew point by using a moisture calculator (Shawmeters, 2013). The accuracy of
the dew point meter and the calculator is not known.
Although several assumptions were made in the calculations, all of them are reasonable and should
not lead to a large deviance. All the samples in the field data had individually lab analysis. Still, a
small error in measured water content in rich TEG in sample 7 (+/- 0.3 wt%) will lead to a large
difference in wet gas water content (+/- 6.5 %).
It is not possible to determine the correct water content in the gas without an accurate
measurement. The difference between sample 7 and sample 9 suggests that the measurements for
water content in rich – and lean TEG might be inaccurate or that some of the assumptions in the
calculation are poor. In order to evaluate the wet gas water content calculated by the fluid packages,
the simulation must be done with a complete composition of wet gas which also includes the water
content. Still, it is fair to conclude that Hysys GP calculates too low wet gas water content.
ProMax PR and Hysys PR are based on the same EOS. Still, the results differed a lot. ProMax SRK and
ProMax PR provided results very similar to each other, implying that the thermodynamics used by
each fluid package has a greater influence on the results than the EOS used. The parameters used by
each fluid package are not analyzed in this thesis.
The number of stages chosen for the main simulation was 3 for both the contactor, still column and
stripping column. This number was chosen as a result of recommendations from supervisors. The
calculated dew point is strongly influenced by the number of stages in the contactor. Hysys PR
consistently provided high dew points while Hysys CPD DTU provided low values. The number of
stages in the contactor can be easily “tuned” in order to account for this deviation. For instance, a
112
simulation with 4 stages in the contactor for Hysys PR would provide dew points in much better
agreement with the measured value.
3 stages were simply chosen as a value, not because it was the “correct” number. Still, in Figure 8.54
it was shown that a contactor with 3 stages, with the measured value for lean TEG composition and
flow rate, provided dew points very close to the measured value for all fluid packages except for
Hysys PR (high) and Hysys CPA DTU (low). In Figure 8.6, Hysys PR and Hysys CPA DTU calculated an
activity coefficient which was higher and lower, respectively, than the experimental values. All other
fluid packages provided values in good agreement with the experimental data. Consequently, 3
stages is probably a good estimation for this particular contactor.
The reboiler study was conducted in order to roughly identify the distribution of necessary heat
needed for the reboiler. The study was done with several assumptions. First, the liquid mixture
routed into the reboiler was assumed to be binary (TEG and water). The mass rate of non-TEG/water
components was below 2 kg/hr for all parameters. The assumption is therefore reasonable.
Next, the heat capacity of water was assumed to be the heat capacity of saturated water. In chapter
5.6.2, it was shown that the enthalpy of a liquid can be estimated by the enthalpy at saturated state
as long as the pressure is low. This was also the case for the enthalpy of vaporization, which could be
estimated by the enthalpy of vaporization at saturated state as long as the pressure was low. In the
same chapter, it was also shown that for an ideal gas and/or ideal solution the enthalpy at low
pressure is a function of temperature and heat capacity only. The reboiler pressure is relatively low
(0.23 barg) and all the assumptions are therefore considered to be fair.
Finally, all water is assumed to be vaporized at 206.6 °C. Due to a lower enthalpy of vaporization at
high temperatures (Figure 8.17); the actual duty is probably higher than what was calculated in Table
8.5. This might be related to why all calculated duties (except Pro/II) were lower than the actual
value. Due to very small deviations in enthalpy of vaporization of water, this would have an equal
impact on the distribution in Figure 8.42, making the duty necessary to vaporize water slightly higher
for all fluid packages. In addition, the heating of stripping gas was not included in the reboiler study,
resulting in a slightly lower total duty. The duty of this unit was calculated to be roughly 2.2 kW. This
value is small compared to the total duty.
All fluid packages provided TEG loss much lower than the actual rate. The relatively high measured
TEG loss is probably due to leakages and degradations, which the simulation tools do not include in
the calculations. Considering the relatively high reboiler temperature (206.6 °C), the rate of
degradation could be significant. Still, the TEG loss from the contactor provided by the fluid packages
was lower than expected. Although the available experimental data for methane in TEG had a large
uncertainty, the results from the simulation tools showed that all fluid packages calculated too low
values for this property.
Additionally, it should be mentioned that the make-up stream in all fluid packages was 100 % TEG.
This purifies the lean TEG routed from the surge drum. The enhanced purification depends on the
mass rate of the make-up stream which is calculated from the TEG loss. Hence, the purification is
different from one fluid package to another. Hysys PR provides the largest TEG loss in sample 7: 1.53
kg/hr. The purification will therefore be largest in Hysys PR. The mass rate of TEG in the stream
routed from the stripping column is 6775.3 kg/hr. Hence, the enhanced purity is below 0.0001 wt%
and entirely negligible.
113
The fluid packages have been compared to both experimental and field data. Both comparisons have
been used as a basis for the evaluation. It should be stressed that the field data might be affected by
parameters which are difficult to account for in simulations. This might be channeling in packing due
to clogging, liquid carry-over in columns and scrubbers, heat loss, degradation of absorbent and so
forth. Therefore, the field data comes with a certain uncertainty. Most of the experimental data
presented have a very small uncertainty, and is probably better suited to use as a comparison. Still,
the results from chapter 8.2 (field data) were mostly in good agreement with the comparison in
chapter 8.1 (experimental data). A dehydration unit is a complex system, and it is vital that the fluid
packages can manage multiphase system with several components. Combining the two comparisons
allows a thorough evaluation of the fluid packages.
Several properties have been compared in this thesis. Certain parameters are naturally very
important for dehydration of natural gas (wet gas water content, dry gas water dew point), while
others have less influence on the system (TEG loss from regenerator). For instance, if the fluid
packages were utilized to calculate the TEG circulation rate needed to dehydrate the gas to 25 ppmv
with a lean TEG purity of 99.76 % (Figure 8.56), the results would differ from 3.8 m3/hr (Hysys CPA
DTU) up to 8.5 m3/hr (Hysys PR). This is 37 % lower and 39 % higher than the actual rate (6.1 m3/hr).
This would influence the whole regenerating process (necessary reboiler duty, necessary stripping
gas). On the other hand, a slightly higher TEG loss from the regenerator (Hysys PR) would not
influence the system significantly. Consequently, an accurate dry gas water dew point is more
important than correct TEG loss from the regenerator.
114
10. Conclusion
Three different simulation tools have been included in this thesis: Pro/II (Glycol package), Hysys and
ProMax. In Hysys, the Glycol Package (GP) and Peng-Robinson (PR) were included together with two
different versions of Cubic-Plus-Association (CPA): CPA DTU (V3.8) and CPA NeqSim. The CPA-models
are developed at Technical University of Denmark (DTU) and Statoil (NeqSim). In ProMax, both
Soave-Redlich Kwong (SRK) and PR were included.
Field data from the dehydration unit on Gullfaks A was provided by Statoil, allowing a comparison
with the results from the simulation tools. The unit consists of a contactor and regenerator with a
separate stripping column. Triethylene glycol (TEG) is used as an absorbent on the purpose of
lowering the water content in the natural gas before it is sent into the gas transport network.
Relevant experimental data has also been collected and compared with results provided by the fluid
packages. This, together with the comparison with field data from Gullfaks A, was used as a basis for
an evaluation of the fluid packages. The emphasis has been on deviations between results from the
fluid packages and experimental data/field data.
Hysys CPA DTU provided the lowest purity of TEG into the contactor. This was expected to result in a
higher dry gas water dew point. However, for the composition and flow rate of lean TEG given in the
field data, the calculated dry gas water dew point was shown to be primarily dependent on the
calculated water content in the vapor phase in equilibrium with TEG. Hence, Hysys CPA DTU, which
provided very low values for this parameter, calculated the lowest dew point even though the purity
of lean TEG was low. Hysys PR provided consistently high dew points due to low calculated water
content in the vapor phase in equilibrium with TEG.
The water content in wet gas was also shown to affect the dry gas water dew point in the
simulations. The influence is, however, small at the circulation rate provided in the field data. Hysys
GP provided water content in wet gas which was considerably lower than the field data (9 – 14 %).
This was expected due to low calculated amount of water in methane. The low water content in wet
gas led to a slightly lower (3.8 %) dew point.
For the binary simulations, Hysys GP calculated the highest solubility of methane, ethane and CO2 in
TEG. The solubility was in good agreement with the experimental data. Contradictory, Hysys GP
provided very low amount of these components in rich TEG. This was shown to be related to an
abnormal influence of water. A small water rate in rich TEG decreased the solubility of especially
methane and ethane considerably. No experimental data were found for the solubility of methane
and ethane in aqueous TEG. Still, the decrease was very large compared to the other fluid packages,
and much higher than expected considering the relatively low water content in rich TEG.
A reboiler study was conducted to illuminate the distribution of necessary duties to heat and
evaporate the mixture in the reboiler. The study suggests that heating of TEG counts for roughly 65 %
of the reboiler duty. Evaporating water counts for approximately 25 %, while the restoring 10 % is
due to heating of water and vaporizing of TEG. Both Pro/II and Hysys CPA DTU provided low reboiler
duties. This was shown to be a result of low calculated heat capacities of TEG compared to
experimental data. Lee Kesler was shown to be better suited than the EOS in Hysys GP for calculating
reboiler duties, but still less suitable than Hysys CPA NeqSim and ProMax SRK/PR.
115
All fluid packages provided very low TEG content in dry gas. Hysys CPA NeqSim provided the lowest
value. This was expected due to low calculated content of TEG in methane. All fluid packages
calculated values below the experimental data, and none are therefore recommended for calculating
the mass flow of TEG in dry gas.
The calculated lean TEG purity was shown to be primarily dependent on VLE data for TEG and water
at the operating pressure and temperature of the reboiler. Hysys CPA DTU provided a low purity due
to high calculated water content in the liquid phase in equilibrium with TEG. The other fluid packages
provided purities which were in acceptable agreement with the field data.
Hysys CPA NeqSim was evaluated as the best equipped fluid package for dehydration of natural gas
using TEG as an absorbent. Hysys CPA NeqSim provided slightly more accurate results than ProMax
SRK and ProMax PR, which also proved to be well suited for gas dehydration. Pro/II provided results
which were generally in good agreement with both experimental and field data, except for low
reboiler duty and slightly low purity of lean TEG. Due to the low wet gas water content provided by
Hysys GP and the high dew points in Hysys PR, these packages are less suited than the glycol package
in Pro/II. Hysys CPA DTU was the fluid package which provided most serious deviations: low water
dew points, low TEG purity, low reboiler duty and low circulation rate of TEG due to low density.
Hysys CPA was therefore evaluated as the least suited fluid package for dehydration of gas of those
included in this thesis.
116
11. Bibliography
Afzal, W. et al., 2012. Experimental study and phase equilibrium modeling of systems containing acid
gas and glycol. Fluid Phase Equilibria, Volume 318, pp. 40-50.
Afzal, W., Mohammadi, A. H. & Richon, D., 2009. Volumetric Properties of Mono-, Di-, Tri-, and
Polyethylene Glycol Aqueous Solutions from (273.15 to 363.15) K: Experimental Measurements and
Correlations. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data, Volume 54, pp. 1254-1261.
Al-Juhani, A. A., 2007. King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals. [Online]
Available at: http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/CHE/aljuhani/New_Folder/Material%20%20balance.pdf
[Accessed 20 10 2013].
Al-Safran, E., 2009. Investigation and prediction of slug frequency in gas/liquid horizontal pipe flow.
Journald of Petroleum Science and Engineering, Volume 69, pp. 143-155.
Alveberg, L.-J. & Melberg, E. V., 2013. Fakta 2013. Oslo: Olje - og energidepartementet.
Arnold, K. & Stewart, M., 1999. Surface Production Operations, Volume 2. Oxford: Gulf Professional
Publishing.
Arya, A., Maribo-Mogensen, B., Tsivintzelis, I. & Kontogeorgis, G., 2014. Process Design of Industrial
Triethylene Glycol Processes using the Cubic-Plus-Association (CPA) Equation of State, Copenhagen:
Technical University of Denmark.
AspenTech, 2005. Simulation Basis, Cambridge: Aspen Technology Inc. .
AspenTech, 2013. Hysys. [Online]

Available at: www.aspentech.com/hysys/
[Accessed 13 10 2013].
Begum, S. K. et al., 2013. Volumetric, viscosimetric and surface properties of aqueous solutions of
triethylene glycol, tetraethylene glycol, and tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether. Journal of Molecular
Liquids, Volume 177, pp. 11-18.
BRE-Group, L., 2012. ProMax Help, s.l.: Bryan Research & Engineering, Inc..
Bryan Research & Engineering, I., 2014. ProMax. [Online]

Available at: http://www.bre.com/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx
[Accessed 27 Mars 2014].
Bråthen, A., 2008. Development of Processes for Natural Gas Drying, Trondheim: Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Department of Energy and Process Engineering.
Campbell, J. M., 2004. Gas Conditioning and Processing: The Equipment Modules. Oklahoma: John M.
Campbell & Co..
Christensen, D. L., 2009. Gas dehydration - Thermodynamic simulation of the water/glycol mixture,
Esbjerg: Aalborg University Esbjerg.
117
Company, D. C., 2013. Triethylene Glycol. [Online]
Available at:
http://msdssearch.dow.com/PublishedLiteratureDOWCOM/dh_004d/0901b8038004d042.pdf
[Accessed 2 10 2013].
Dow Chemical Company, 1962. Gas Conditioning Fact Book. 1st ed. s.l.:Dow Chemical Company.
Garai, J., 2009. Physical model for vaporization. Fluid Phase Equilibria, Volume 283, pp. 89-92.
Gassco, 2011. Terms and conditions for transport of gas in Gassled, Oslo: Gassco.
Gassco, 2013. Norsk gass. [Online]

Available at: http://www.gassco.no/wps/wcm/connect/Gassco-NO/Gassco/Home/norsk-gass/
[Accessed 2 10 2013].
Guo, B. G., 2005. Natural Gas Engineering Handbook. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.
Herskowitz, M. & Gottlieb, M., 1984. Vapor-liquid equilibrium in aqueous solutions of various glycols
and polyethylene glycols. 1. Triethylene glycol. Jorunal of Chemical and Engineering Data, Volume 29,
pp. 173-175.
Huang, S. H. & Radosz, M., 1990. Equation of State for Small, Large, Polydisperse, and Associating
Molecules. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, Volume 29, pp. 2284-2294.
Invensys, 1996. Pro/II Reference Manual, Brea: Invensys.
Invensys, 2013. Pro/II Comprehensive Process Simulation. [Online]

Available at: (http://iom.invensys.com/en/pages/SimSci_processengsuite_proii.aspx
[Accessed 18 11 2013].
Jerinic, A., Schmidt, J., Fischer, K. & Friedel, L., 2008. Measurement of the triethylene glycol solubility
in supercritical methane at pressures up to 9MPa. Fluid Phase Equilibria, Volume 264, pp. 253 - 258.
jhsealing, 2013. High-Efficiency Metal Random Packing. [Online]

Available at: http://www.jhsealing.com/pro-kind-detail.asp?pid=101
[Accessed 2 11 2013].
Jou, F.-Y., Deshmukh, R. D., Otoo, F. D. & Mather, A. E., 1987. Vapor-liquid equilibria for acid gases
and lower alkenes in triethylene glycol. Fluid Phase Equilibria, Volume 26, pp. 121-140.
Keenan, J. H., Keyes, F. G., Hill, P. G. & Moore, J. G., 1969. Steam tables: Thermodynamic Properties of
Water Including Vapor, Liquid and Solid Phases. New York: Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, John.
Kidnay, A., Parrish, W. & McCartney, D., 2001. Fundamentals of Natural Gas Processing. Boca Raton:
Taylor & Francis.
Kirk, R. E., Othmer, D. F., Kroschwitz, J. I. & Arza, S., 2004. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical
Technology. 5th ed. Chicago: John Wiley And Sons Inc..
118
Kleinrahm, R., Duschek, W., Wagner, W. & Jaeschke, M., 1988. Measurement and correlation of the
(pressure, density, temperature) relation of methane in the temperature range from 273.15 K to
323.15 K at pressures up to 8 MPa. Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics, Volume 20, pp. 621-631.
Kohl, A. L. & Nielsen, R., 1997. Gas Purification. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.
Kontogeorgis, G. M., Voutsas, E. C., Yakoumis, I. V. & Tassios, E. P., 1996. An Equation of State for
Associating Fluids. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, Volume 35, pp. 4310-4318.
Liley, P. E., 1984. Steam Tables in SI units, West Lafayette: Purdue University.
Manning, F. S. & Thompson, R. E., 1991. Oilfield Processing of Petroleum. Tulsa: PennWell Publishing
Company.
Mohammadi, A. H., Chapoy, A., Richon, D. & Tohidi, B., 2004. Experimental Measurement and
Thermodynamic Modeling of Water Content in Methane and Ethane Systems. Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry, Volume 43, pp. 7148-7162.
Moran, M. J. & Shapiro, H. N., 2006. Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics. West Sussex:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd..
Mostafazadeh, A. K., Rahimpour, M. R. & Shariati, A., 2009. Vapor - Liquid Equilibria of Water +
Triethylene Glycol (TEG) and Water + TEG + Toulene at 85 kPa. J. Chem. Eng. Data, Volume 54, pp.
876-881.
Olds, R. H., Sage, B. H. & Lacey, W. N., 1942. Phase Equilibria in Hydrocarbon Systems.Composition of
the Dew-Point Gas of the Methane-Water System. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 34(10), pp.
1223-1227.
Parrish, W. R., Won, K. W. & Baltau, M. E., 1986. Phase behavior of the triethylene glycol-water
system and dehydration/regeneration design for extremely low dew point requirements. San Antonio,
Proceedings of the 65th Annual GPA.
Peng, D.-Y. & Robinson, D. B., 1976. A New Two-Constant Equation of State. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Fundamentals, 15(1), pp. 59-64.
Porter, J. A. & Reid, L. S., 1950. Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium Data on The System Natural Gas-Water-
Triethylene Glycol at Various Temperatures and Pressures. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 2(8), pp.
235-240.
Rojey, A., 1997. Natural Gas - Production Processing Transport. Paris: Institut Francais du Pétrole
Publications, Edition Technip.
Sharma, S. C., 1969. Equilibrium water content of gaseous mixtures, Oklahoma: The University of
Oklahoma.
Shawmeters, 2013. Moisture calculator. [Online]

Available at: http://www.shawmeters.com/moisture_calculator.html
[Accessed 30 April 2014].
119
Smith, J. M., Van Ness, H. C. & Abbot, M. M., 2005. Introduction to Chemical Engineering
Thermodynamics. 7th ed. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education.
Soave, G., 1972. Equilibrium constants from a modified Redkh-Kwong equation of state. Chimical
Engineering Science, Volume 27, pp. 1197-1203.
Solbraa, E., 2001. NeqSim. [Online]

Available at: http://folk.ntnu.no/solbraa/neqsim/NeqSim.htm
[Accessed 16 May 2014].
Solbraa, E., 2014. NeqSimServer3. [Online]

Available at: http://129.241.62.72:8080/NeqSimServer3/
[Accessed 21 February 2014].
Stephens, M. A. & Tamplin, W. S., 1979. Saturated Liquid Specific Heats of Ethylene Glycol
Homologues. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data, 24(2), pp. 81-82.
Sulzer, 2013. Gauze Packing. [Online]

Available at: http://www.sulzer.com/en/Products-and-Services/Separation-Technology/Structured-
Packings/Gauze-Packings-BX-CY-BXPlus-AYPlus-DC-Hyperfil-and-Multifil
[Accessed 2 11 2013].
Sørensen, T. V., 2013. Natural gas dehydration, Tromsø: University of Tromsø.
Takashi, S., Sond, K. Y. & Kobayashi, R., 1984. Experimental Vapor-Liquid Equilibria in the C02-
Diethylene Glycol-H,O and C02-Triethylene Glycol-H2O Systems at Feasible Absorption Temperatures
and Pressures. Journal of Chemical Engineering Data, Volume 29, pp. 23-28.
Thomson, G. H., Brobst, K. R. & Hankinson, R. W., 1982. An Improved Correlation for Densities of
Compressed Liquids and Liquid Mixture. AIChe Journal, 28(4), pp. 671-676.
Twu, C. H., Sim, W. D. & Tassone, V., 2001. A versatile liquid activity model for SRK, PR and a new
cubic equation-of-state TST. Fluid Phase Equilibria, Volume 194-197, pp. 385-339.
Union Carbide Corporation, 1967. Gas Treating Chemicals. 1st ed. s.l.:Union Carbide Corporation.
Øi, L. E., 2003. Estimation of tray efficiency in dehydration absorbers. Chmical Engineering and
Processing: Process Intensification, 42(11), pp. 867-878.
120
12. Appendices
A. Flow sheet inlet cooler, separator and contactor
121
B. Flow sheet TEG circulation
122
C. Simulation model in Hysys
123
D. Simulation model in Pro/II
124
E. Simulation model in ProMax
125
F. Field data: Main reading
Loggeskjema M35 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Avles Avlesnin Avlesni Avlesni Avlesni Avlesni Avlesni Avlesni Avlesni Avlesni
ning g ng ng ng ng ng ng ng ng
Tag nr. Dato: Dato: Dato: Dato: Dato: Dato: Dato: Dato: Dato:1
Description Units
Instrument 26/2 Dato: 9/3 9/3 9/3 10/3 10/3 11/3 11/3 11/3 2/3
Tid:
13:0 Tid: Tid: Tid: Tid: Tid: Tid: Tid: Tid:14:
0 08:40 Tid: 21:30 08:20 19:15 9:45 13:15 20:15 00
Kontrollrom
Scrubber
Temperatur 24-TIC312
°C 29.6 30.4 29.7 29.5 29.6 29.5 30.4 30.4 30.5 30.5
before skrubber PV
Temperatur 24-TIC312
°C 14 16 24 30 30 32 34 34 19 19
before skrubber OUT
24-LIC316-
Level in scrubber mm 414 407 411 410 410 414 410 407 411 412
PV
24-LIC316-
Level in scrubber % 3 1 3 21 22 26 24 23 2 4
OUT
Kontaktor
MSm3/
Flowrate gas 24-FIT329C 6.8 7.8 9.9 10.9 10.7 11.4 11.2 11.2 6.9 6.9
d
Flowrate gas m3/hr 24-FIT329 4800 5849 7283 7938 8015 8503 8220 8223 5207 5210
Pressure into
barg 24-PIT323A 51.0 49.7 50.2 50.3 50.2 50.3 51.2 51.2 50.3 50.3
contactor
Dew point dry gas °C 24-AT327 -9.0 -9.7 -9.0 -8.7 -9.3 -8.3 -8.7 -9.3 -11.8 -16.0
24-LIT335
Level in contactor mm 582 588 581 558 546 432 427 437 446 437
PV
Level control 24-LIC335
% 77 79 77 77 77 78 77 78 78 79
valve Out
Level control 24-LIC339-
mm 515 492 491 514 498 516 531 520 489 482
valve Skimmer PV
Regenerering
Flowrate glycol m3/hr 24-FIT385 6.05 6.042 6.1 6.1 6.09 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1
Pressure after
barg 24-PIT378 3.9 4.13 4.1 4.14 4.15 4.2 4.15 4.1 4.2 3.9
glycol cooler
Pressure in
barg 24-PIT393 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.01
reboiler
LP torch barg 24-PT041 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.00
24-PIT402
Pressure in Flash barg 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.93 3.93 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.95 3.9
PV
24-PIT402
Pressure in Flash barg 30 30 29 30 30 29 31 31 32 32
Out
24-PDIT
Væskeutskiller bar 11.4 16.1 24.4 26.9 25.6 29.6 29.2 29.6 14.7 14.6
043
Væskeutskiller °C 24-TIT313 30 30.4 30.3 30.5 30.3 30.3 29.9 29.9 30.2 30.3
Heating element 24-TIC388
°C 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204
reboiler A SP
°C 204.3 204 203.7 203.8 203.7 203.8 203.8 204 203.8 203.3
reboiler A PV
% 74 73 87 95 91 95 94 93 76 79
reboiler A Out
°C 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218
reboiler C SP
°C 212.8 212.7 213.1 214.4 213.8 214.2 213.8 214.1 213.1 212.6
reboiler C PV
% 74 73 87 95 91 95 94 93 76 79
reboiler C Out
Heating element 24-TT388 A 214+I3
°C 212.7 212.6 213.5 214.1 214 214.1 213.9 213.3 212.4
reboiler PV 6,1
126
Temperature in 24-TT388 C
°C 205.8 206 206.8 206.6 206.7 207.7 206.3 206.6 206.1 204.9
reboiler PV
Temperature in 24-TIT396
°C 191.6 187.4 189.4 185.4 190.4 188.4 190.4 190.4 190.4 188.4
glycol surge drum PV
Temperature 24-TIC411
°C 43.9 41.7 43.2 43.1 43.2 43.7 43.7 43.7 44.2 44.2
after glycol cooler PV
Temperature 24-TIC411
% 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
after glycol cooler OUT
Temperature lean
24-TIT384
glycol before °C 43.6 41.5 43.2 42.9 43.3 43.4 43.7 43.6 44.2 43.9
PV
contactor
24-LIT390
Level in Reboiler mm 1394 1398 1441 1492 1444 1449 1443 1442 1443 1449
PV
Level in glycol 24-LIT395
mm 533.7 512 437 469.4 568 577 561 557 546.6 526
surge drum PV
24-LIC404
Level in flash mm 1150 1142 1144 1151 1145 958 964 965 953.3 963
PV
24-LIC404
Level in flash % 65 64 65 64 64 74 77 79 67 68
Out
Level in skimmer 24-LIT408
mm 550 605 517 541 500 504 569 569 569 578
flash PV
Dry TEG 99.48 - 99.74 99.76 99.76 99.76 99.79 99.76 99.80 99.84
Wet TEG 96.70 - 99.56 95.23 95.31 94.99 95.03 95.04 96.64 96.63
- -
Dewpoint MCM measurement 54C/25 54/24P
ppmv PMV
-18 at
-18 at
Dewpoint MCM measurement recalc. 51,2ba
50,3bar
http://www.shawmeters.com/moisture_cal rg/19k
g/18kg
culator.html g/MSm
/MSm3
3
Reboiler duty
(*based on PFD
note 19, duty of kW - 454 448 534 583 559 583 577 571 467 485
307kW per
element)
Felt
Kontaktor
Temperature dry
gas exiting °C 24-TI328 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
contactor
Temperature lean
glycol entering °C 24-TW331
contactor
Temperature in
°C 24-TI333 24.0 24.0 24.5 30.0 28.2 29.5 29.9 29.9 30.0 29.8
contactor liquid
Regenerering
%
Flowrate of
av120 24-FI386 - 76 74 72 74 74 76 76 77 80
stripping gas
m3/hr
Pressure of
barg 24-PI414 0.90 0.39 0.35 0.40 0.39 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.37 0.18
stripping gas
Pressure before
barg 24-PI354 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.9 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5
preheater
Pressure before
barg 24-PI366 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.4 3.3 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.0
glycol/glycol HX
Pressure after
barg 24-PI369 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.6
glycol/glycol HX
Pressure lean
before barg 24-PI372 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.26 0.05
glycol/glycol HX
Pressure lean
after glycol/glycol barg 24-PI375 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.2 3.9
HX
Pressure before
barg 24-PI377 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.2
glycol cooler
127
Temperature
glycol after °C 24-TI350 27.5 27.5 28.5 28.9 28.5 28 29 28.8 28.5 28.5
contactor
Temperature of
°C 24-TI352 102 121 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 95
steam
Temperature out
of reflux °C 24-TI353 36.0 29.0 38.2 37.5 37.5 37.8 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.8
condenser
Temperature
°C 24-TI355 62.5 49.0 66.0 62.2 64.0 64.5 64.2 64.5 65.5 65.0
after preheater
Temperature
before °C 24-TI368 60 57 65 62 63.5 63 63 64 65 65
glycol/glycol HX
Temperature
after glycol/glycol °C 24-TI370 139 138 141 134 139 140 139 139 140 139
HX
Temperature lean
HX
Temperature lean
HX
Temperature
before glycol °C 24-TI376 74 71 78 77.5 77 77 77 77 77 77
cooler
Temperature in
°C 24-TI406 59 53 53 58 62 61 62 62 64 64
flash
Level glass
cm 24-LG391 110 110 107 108 108 108 108
reboiler
Level glass surge
cm 24-LG397 76 91 92 91 89 87 81
tank
Level glass
cm 24-LG407 81 81 64 63 69 61 61
Flashtank
Level glass
Skimmer in cm 24-LG410 32 27 26 23 24 24 23
flashtank
128
G. Field data: TEG measurements
129
H. Field data: Dry gas composition
130
I. Field data: TEG loss
131
J. Wet gas water calculation sample 7
The water content in wet gas is calculated from measurements for vol% water in both lean and rich
TEG together with several assumptions. The assumptions are discussed in chapter 9. The calculation
is shown here. The volume flow rate for lean TEG is provided in the field data: 6.1 m3/hr. Assuming a
density of 1114 kg/m3, we find the following mass rate of lean TEG:
̇ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ (A.1)
The water content in lean TEG is given as 0.24 wt%. Assuming a binary mixture (TEG and water), the
mass rate of pure TEG is
̇ ⁄ ⁄ (A.2)
The mass rate of water in lean TEG is
̇ ⁄ ⁄ (A.3)
The wt% water is given as 4.97 wt% in rich TEG. Assuming no TEG loss in the dry gas, the rich TEG
flow can be calculated by assuming a binary mixture (TEG and water).
⁄
̇ ⁄ (A.4)
The water content in rich TEG is
̇ ⁄ ⁄ (A.5)
The water content in dry gas is calculated from the measured dew point using a moisture calculator
(Shawmeters, 2013). The water content in dry gas provided in the field data is 19.04 kg/MSm3. In
mass rate per hour this is
⁄
̇ ⁄ ⁄ (A.6)
⁄
Finally, the water content in wet gas can be calculated from ̇ , ̇ and ̇ .
̇ ̇ ̇ ̇ (A.7)
̇ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ (A.8)
This is equal to
⁄
̇ ⁄ ⁄ (A.9)
⁄
K. Wet gas water calculation sample 9
The procedure used to calculate the wet gas water content for sample 9 was identical to the one
shown in appendix J. The mass rate of lean TEG is unchanged (6795.4 kg/hr) while the water content
in lean TEG is given as 0.16 wt%. The wt% water is given as 3.37 wt% in rich TEG. Using these values
into equation A.1, A.2 and A.3, results in water content in rich TEG equal to
̇ ⁄ ⁄ (A.10)
The water content in dry gas provided in the field data is 18.27 kg/MSm3. In mass rate per hour this is
⁄
̇ ⁄ ⁄ (A.11)
⁄
Finally, the water content in wet gas can be calculated from ̇ , ̇ and ̇
using equation A.7.
̇ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ (A.12)
This is equal to
⁄
̇ ⁄ ⁄ (A.13)
⁄

Master Opp Gave

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master Opp Gave

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Simulation of TEG dehydration plants

Bjørn Kobberrød Husby

Master of Energy and Environmental Engineering

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Bjørn Kobberrød Husby

1.1.Natural gas in Norway

Table 1.1: Natural gas transport specifications (Gassco, 2011).

Max. cricondenbar pressure barg 105

The following tasks are to be considered:

1. Review of thermodynamic models used in simulation of TEG dehydration processes

2.1.Operational problems due to liquid water

 Strong affinity to water and low affinity for hydrocarbons

Table 2.1: Physical properties of triethylene glycol (TEG) (Company, 2013).

Figure 3.1: A typical glycol absorption unit.

3.3.1. Column internals

Figure 3.2: Typical structured packing (Sulzer, 2013).

Figure 3.3: One type of random packing (jhsealing, 2013).

3.8.2. Still column

Figure 4.1: Regenerator with a separate stripping column.

 Lean TEG purity

5.1.Lean TEG purity

5.3.Tray efficiency, number of trays

The Murphree tray efficiency is defined as (Øi, 2003):

= the mole fraction in the gas from tray N

= the mole fraction in the gas from tray below

The vaporization model uses K-values in its definition of tray efficiency.

= effective equilibrium K-value on tray N

= equilibrium K-value on tray N based on tray liquid composition

= concentration of water in the bottom of the contactor

= concentration of water at the top of the contactor

is a constant for the particular gas with a molecular weight of .

 Random molecular motion

5.5.1. van der Waals (VDW)

Where is a function of the reduced temperature (

5.5.3. Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK)

Its improvement lies in the definition of :

is the acentric factor given by

5.5.4. Mixing rules

5.5.5. Peng-Robinson (PR)

The values of and at the critical temperature are the following:

At other temperatures than the critical and are defined as:

is a constant which is characteristic of each substance:

5.5.6. Cubic-Plus-Association (CPA)

is the association strength and given as

= Radial distribution factor6 for the segment

= Association energy of interaction between cites A and B

= Parameter in the association term of CPA

is the covolume parameter and given as

Where is the reduced density, defined as

The values of and at the critical temperature are the following:

= excess Helmholtz energy8 at zero pressure

is a constant and defined as

= reduced liquid volume at zero pressure

Where is a constant, defined as

= binary interaction parameter

5.6.1. Material balance

Where is the internal specific energy and defined as:

This can also be expressed as

This can also be expressed as

= specific enthalpy of vaporization

= specific enthalpy of saturated gas

= specific enthalpy of saturated liquid

This simplification will be used in the reboiler study in chapter 8.2.10.

= mole fraction of component in the vapor phase