See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261674158

Simulation and feasibility analysis of

structured packing replacement in absorption
column of natural gas dehydration...

Article in Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering · May 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.jngse.2014.03.005

CITATIONS READS

6 524

5 authors, including:

Seyyed Mohammad Jokar M. R. Rahimpour

Shiraz University Shiraz University
20 PUBLICATIONS 218 CITATIONS 399 PUBLICATIONS 4,629 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hamed Abbasfard
University of Newcastle
14 PUBLICATIONS 47 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

synthesis of shape selective catalysts View project

Fluid and particle fluctuating velocity in liquid solid fluidized beds View project

All content following this page was uploaded by M. R. Rahimpour on 03 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 336e350

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jngse

Simulation and feasibility analysis of structured packing replacement

in absorption column of natural gas dehydration process: A case study
for Farashband gas processing plant, Iran
Seyyed Mohammad Jokar a, Hamid Reza Rahimpour b, Hossein Momeni a,
Mohammad Reza Rahimpour a, *, Hamed Abbasfard c
a
Chemical Engineering Department, School of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Shiraz University, Mollasadra Street, Shiraz 71345, Iran
b
Department of water Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
c
Department of Chemical Engineering, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman 7618891167, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Application of structured packing in separation processes like natural gas dehydration has been
Received 27 June 2013 increased since last few years. Replacement of the existing trayed column with that of structured packing
Received in revised form can enhance the capacity and performance of the natural gas dehydration process. In this work, the
28 February 2014
natural gas dehydration plant of Farashband gas processing plant has been simulated. The profile of
Accepted 3 March 2014
Available online
concentration, temperature and pressure in absorption column was obtained. A computer program,
prepared with Visual Basic, has been proposed to calculate the height equivalent to a theoretical plate
(HETP) of structured packing. The effect of some important parameters of inlet Tri-ethylene glycol (TEG)
Keywords:
Farashband gas processing plant
and natural gas on the performance of absorption column have been analyzed. Results show that revamp
Dehydration unit of trays with structured packing, can reduce outlet natural gas dew point and improve the positive effect
Replacing trays with structured packing of other parameters on the performance of dehydration unit. Moreover, the most significant factors
Cost evaluation affecting the HETP were investigated which were less than 15% effective. Finally, the cost of the modi-
fication project for the absorption column in the Farashband gas processing plant was calculated. The
cost is evaluated 202,909 $ in this case and replacing was found economically justifiable.
Ó 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction decreases the probability of equipment corrosion (Mokhatab and

1.1. The gas dehydration process
The presence of water vapor in natural gas can cause serious
problems such as hydrate formation or freezing (which results pipe
plugging), corrosion (especially in the presence of H2S and CO2) and
reduction of combustion efficiency (Rohani, 2009). Hydrate forma-
tion stems from the presence of water vapor in the gas mixture of
methane, ethane and propane which in turn contributes to many
problems in the process of gas production and is regarded as one the
most important limitations in the natural gas treatment and tran-
sition industry (Dendy Sloan). In the gas dehydration unit, separa-
tion of water from the gas stream via dew point adjustment not only
prevents the hydrate formation and pipeline blockage, but also
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ98 711 2303071; fax: þ98 711 6287294.
E-mail address: rahimpor@shirazu.ac.ir (M.R. Rahimpour).
Poe, 2006).
There are several methods for gas dehydration, including: ab-
sorption with solvent, adsorption, gas permeation with membrane
and gas refrigeration (Siming, 1999). Among these methods, ab-
sorption has been used on an industrial scale for many years
(Siming, 1999).
The glycols are effective liquid desiccants which are widely
utilized in the dehydration process as absorbent. Some benefits of
glycols usage are their high hygroscopic property, low vapor pres-
sure, high boiling point, and low solubility in natural gas
(Khosravanipour Mostafazadeh et al., 2009). The four types of
glycols that have been utilized for natural gas dehydration are
ethylene glycol (EG), diethylene glycol (DEG), triethylene glycol
(TEG), and tetra ethylene glycol (T4EG). The standard method for
the natural gas dehydration is the absorption of water using tri-
ethylene glycol (Khosravanipour Mostafazadeh et al., 2009).
The advantages of TEG compared to the other glycols are: 1)
Lower vapor pressure 2) Higher resistance to degradation 3) Lower
viscosity.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2014.03.005
1875-5100/Ó 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 S.M. Jokar et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 336e350
Glycol has been used for dehydration since the first of the 20th
century (Kohl and Nielsen, 1997; Wieninger, 1991; Pearce et al.,
1972; Paymooni et al., 2011; Smith, 1993) but, limited researches
have been conducted to improve absorber trays yields and inves-
tigate the equations of state to predict thermodynamic behavior of
water-glycol system (Scauzillo, 1961; Twu et al., 2005; Erik, 2003).
In 2009, Khosravanipour Mostafazadeh et al. (2009) investigated
Vapor-Liquid Equilibria of Water þ Triethylene Glycol (TEG) and
Water þ TEG þ Toluene at 85 kPa. In 1999, Koch-Glitsch studied
improvement of TEG and natural gas contact in packed towers
(Koch, 1999). Also, in 2011 Paymooni et al. (2011) investigated the
Enhancement in Triethylene Glycol (TEG) Purity via Hydrocarbon
Solvent Injection to a TEG þ Water System in a Batch Distillation
Column.
The absorption column of a natural gas dehydration unit has
been simulated by H. Pirzade and absorber charts were plotted
(Pirzadeh, 2003). The desorption system of the Farashband gas
processing plant dehydration unit was simulated by M. Jooshghani
in 2004 (Joshghani, 2004). Natural gas dehydration in packed
towers has been investigated by S. Khayami; he also studied the
influence of various factors on absorption rate (Khayami, 2004).
In recent years, most research has been done in response to the
environmental debate. Today prevention of light and volatile
compounds (benzene, toluene, Ethyl Benzene and xylene (BTEX))
emission is highly regarded (Break, 2000; Darwish, 2004). On the
other hand, from the economic viewpoint, glycol waste and hy-
drocarbon emission have been studied (Choi et al., 1992; Gupta,
1996; Grizzle, 1993).
1.2. Methods of reducing dew point of exhaust gas from the
absorption column
There are some methods for the TEG regeneration process to
achieve reduced water content specifications and/or BTEX emis-
sions, including: 1) Using stripping gas 2) Vacuum regeneration 3)
Regeneration using solvent 4) Cold finger method (Reid, 1975; Erik
and Tyvand, 2002) 5) Increasing the height of absorption column 6)
Replacing the tray column with packed bed column:
One way to reduce dew point of output gas leads from the ab-
sorption column is replacing existing contactors (tray) by con-
tactors with higher efficiency (Structured packing) which is the
subject of this paper and will be discussed afterward.
1.3. Structured packing
During the last two decades, the application of the structured
packing in mass transfer processes has been increasing (Wang
et al., 2006). The first generation of the structured packing was
manufactured from wire gauze. This type of packing was quite
expensive compared to random packing. It was mainly used in the
vacuum distillation where a large number of theoretical stages
were required combined with an extremely low pressure drop.
The development of sheet metal structured packing by Sulzer in
the late 1970’s revolutionized the packing industry. He made the
structured packing more affordable and it became competitive
with conventional internals (trays, random packing) (Erasmus,
2004).
The structured packing was made commercially available in the
1980’s. Its distinct performance advantages became clear very
quickly, which conduce to the modification of the mass transfer
market over the succeeding 10 years. It is now considered as the
most preferred packing for many applications.
In absorption processes, the best performance is usually ob-
tained by packing techniques involving low pressure drop, good
mass transfer efficiency, and high capacity. The important
337
properties of an efficient packing seem to be a high effective area,
good liquid distribution, good gas liquid mixing, low pressure drop,
and a structure composed of a material of small thickness (Kohl and
Nielsen, 1997).
The general tendency of chemical engineering is to achieve high
efficiency and capacity of separation units at a minimal possible
cost. A novel generation of column internals is introduced to
improve the mass transfer operation in this regard. The structured
packing is made of corrugated sheets which have gained wide
acceptance (Sperandio et al., 1965; Sakata and February 15, 1972;
Spiegel and Meier, 2003; Chen et al., 1982). The structured packing
has been widely applied for mass transfer processes, and its ap-
plications in separation process have been developed during the
past few years.
1.4. Replacing the tray column with the packed bed column
The Contactor is the most important mass transfer equipment in
TEG dehydration since its performance has crucial impact on
downstream processes. The typical contactor is equipped with in-
ternals like Vane Inlet Device (VID) for gas distribution, chimney
tray for collection of liquid, trays/packing for mass transfer and
demister to minimize TEG losses. Mass transfer in contactor can be
achieved by using bubble cap, valve trays, sieve trays or the
structured packing.
Usually, the column with the structured packing has shown
better performance than tray column (Baniadam et al., 2009).
Specific surface area of structured packing is between 100 and
750 m2/m3, and its void fraction is higher than 90% (Olujic et al.,
1999).
High capacity, high mass transfer surface area, high turn down
ratio, low pressure drop, and low liquid hold up are the advantages
of the structured packing in comparison with trays or a random
packing. Other benefits of the packed columns are shorter column
height, mechanical simplicity, ease of installation and ability to be
fabricated cost-effectively from corrosion-resistant materials,
including plastics, ceramics and other nonmetals.
One of the constraints on the selection of the structured
packing is the high cost per unit volume, which causes the capital
investment to be more than that of random packing or tray
(Rahimpour and Kashkooli, 2004). Moreover, sometimes trays are
easier to clean compared to packing. But, the column capacity
can increase at least 30e50% by replacing the existing tray col-
umns with structured packing columns. In earlier days, bubble
cap trays were commonly used in contactor. But in recent decade,
due to the proven performance of the structured packing, TEG
contactors are now designed or replaced with high capacity
structured packing.
1.5. Farashband gas processing plant
Farashband gas processing plant is one of the oldest and
important refineries in the southern part of Iran. It has been planted
to dehydrate the produced gas and stabilize the accompanied
condensate from Aghar and Dalan gas reservoirs. Every day around
1400 million standard cubic feet (MMscf) of gas is fed to this plant.
The gas field of Aghar contains sour gas and the gas field of Dalan
contains sweet gas. In summer, all of the gases from the Farashband
processing plant are injected into the oil wells for recovery
enhancement and in winter, the gas from Dalan (sweet gas) is used
for general consumption and the gas from Aghar (sour gas) is
injected to the oil wells. Also, the gas condensate of the gas pro-
cessing plant (about 15,000 barrels/day) is sent to the Taheri harbor
for exporting (Rahimpour and Jokar, 2012).
338 S.M. Jokar et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 336e350

2. Objectives Table 1
Operating conditions of the absorption tray column of dehydration unit.

The aim of this study is to investigate the utilization of the Streams Summer Winter
structured packing instead of existing trays in absorption column of Flow rate Temp. Pres. Flow rate Temp. ( C) Pres.
dehydration unit of Farashband gas processing plant. In this regard (kg/h) ( C) (bar) (kg/h) (bar)
the TEG dehydration unit of Farashband gas processing plant was
Input wet gas 248418 51 127.80 246749 33 127.48
simulated. Furthermore the effects of various parameters on an Input lean glycol 5540 60 127.48 5401 42 127.48
absorption column of the Farashband processing plant were Output dry gas 248105 53 126.86 246600 34 126.86
investigated and the conditions for the best performance of ab- Output rich glycol 5546 53 127.48 5546 34 127.48
sorption column are specified. Finally, the costs of replacing the
trays with structured packing are calculated. water from glycol. The rich glycol (99 wt%) leaving the surge drum
enters to a pump where its pressure is elevated to that of the ab-
sorption column. Glycol solution is heated after pumping, in a
3. Simulation of the dehydration unit of the Farashband gas
glycoleglycol heat exchanger and fed to the absorption column.
processing plant
There are some differences between the operating conditions and
feed characteristics in winter and summer. So, the dehydration
3.1. Process description
process is simulated in both summer and winter operating
conditions.
The Dehydration unit of the Farashband refinery contains six
thoroughly distinct units. The dew point of gas before the dehy-
dration unit is 5 C in summertime and 15 C in winter which 3.2. Simulation of conventional absorption column
should reach to 35 C after the unit.
Fig. 1 presents the schematic diagram of the dehydration unit of The operating conditions and feed compositions are presented
Farashband gas processing plant. Wet gas enters from the bottom of in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Also, the design parameters of
the absorption column with 127 bar g pressure and lean glycol desorption and absorption towers of the Farashband gas processing
enters from the top of the absorber. After passing demisters, a large plant are reported in Table 3.
amount of water content existing in the wet gas is absorbed in TEG The lack of a demister pad in steady state simulation causes to
solution. Dry gas exits from the top of the column. The existing use small separator at the entrance of the column as a demister pad.
absorber in the Farashband processing plant is a tray column. The tray efficiency is calculated by two methods: O0 Connell and
The rich glycol after preheating and flash separation enters a AICHE methods (O’Connell, 1946; AIChE, 1958). On the other hand,
glycoleglycol heat exchanger which is placed before the regener- Cohl and Nielson suggested the efficiency of 33% for valve trays in
ation unit. Then, it introduces into a high pressure filter for elimi- gas dehydration units (Kohl and Nielsen, 1997). The results of the
nating solid particles and run to the stripper (regenerator). The previous methods and the tray efficiency, which is calculated from
glycol stripper consists of a column and a reboiler. The output glycol experimental data are shown in Table 4.
from the reboiler with a temperature of 200 C and 99% glycol The efficiency which is calculated from experimental data (43%)
concentration goes to surge drum. The stripping gas is injected is used for simulation of absorption column.
from the bottom of the surge drum. This gas causes a relative For validation the simulation results were checked against the
pressure decrease in the gas phase and helps the separation of experimental data obtained from Farashband gas processing plant

Still Vent
Off-Gas

Stripping
Dry Natural Gas Gas Burner
Exhust
absorber

Inlet Reboiler
Separator
Moist Natural
Natural Gas Gas
Gas/Glycol Flash Gas to Surge
Vent, Fuel or Tank
Heat
Exchanger Stripping Gas

Lean
Glycol

Phase separator
Hydrocarbon Rich
Liquid to Tank Glycol Filter Glycol
Rich Glycol
Circulation
pump

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the dehydration unit of Farashband gas processing plant.
 S.M. Jokar et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 336e350 339

Table 2 Table 4
Feed composition of the absorption tray column of dehydration unit. Efficiency of absorption column trays by different methods
and the efficiency which had calculated by experimental data
Components Mass fraction (%) Components Mass fraction (%) of Farashband gas processing plant.
CO2 1.91 i-Pentane 0.28
Method Efficiency
N2 11.12 n-Pentane 0.24
H2O 0.07 n-Hexane 0.28 O’Connell 27%
Methane 80.26 n-Heptane 0.33 AICHE 65%
Ethane 2.58 Benzene 0.04 Kohl & Nielsen 33%
Propane 0.87 Toluene 0.05 Experimental data 43%
i-Butane 0.04 Ethyl benzene 1.00
n-Butane 0.48 o-Xylene 0.45

others which results from neglecting the superficial velocity of

and brought in Table 5. It is obvious that there is a good agreement
between the simulation results and plant data.
3.3. Simulation of packed bed absorption column
3.3.1. Structured packing
As can be seen in Fig. 2 the purpose of this work is the
replacement of existing trayed absorber with the structured pack-
ing column.
The structured packing selected for this simulation is MELLAPAK
250Y which is shown in Fig. 3. The corresponding properties of
MELLAPAK 250Y are tabulated in Table 6. In this table, the param-
eters b, h and s are base, height and leg of the triangular cross
section of the passing gas channel, respectively.
3.3.2. Calculation of HETP and number of transfer units (NTU)
In order to simulate the packed bed column, the NTU for
structured packing was calculated and then, ideal trays of 100%
efficiency equal to the measured NTU were used in the simulation.
HETP for normal operation of absorption column has been
determined by methods of: 1) SRP (Bravo et al., 1992; Rocha et al.,
1993, 1996) 2) Delft (Olujic et al., 1999; Olujic, 1997, 1999) 3) Gualito
et al. (1997) 4) Wang et al. (2006) and modified Delft for high
pressure. In addition to the above mentioned methods, the
manufacturer of MELLAPAK 250Y (SULZER company) has suggested
a pre-assumed value for HETP. The relevant HETP values versus
various F-factor for such packing are shown in Fig. 4, where F-factor
is the vapor load factor and calculated from Eq. (1).
 0:5
F ¼ ug r g
In this equation “F”, “ug” and “rg” are F-factor, gas velocity and gas
density, respectively.
As can be seen, below the flooding point (the point where the
HETP suddenly rises under each head pressure), the F-factor for
MELLAPAK 250Y is approximately 0.38 (Bennett and Pilling, 2003).
The results for HETP determined for plant absorption column by
mentioned methods and vendor proposed value are in Table 7. As
can be seen, the Wang et al. value shows an extreme deviation from
liquid phase in this model (Wang et al., 2006).
A computer program, prepared with Visual Basic, has been
developed to calculate the HETP of structured packing. The basis of
the calculation of this program is the modified Delft for a high
pressure method which has published with the authors of this
paper previously (Rahimpour et al., 2011). The code in visual basic
program which is used in this paper is added to the manuscript in
the Appendix section.
It should be noted that gas phase back mixing factor and gas to
liquid density ratio factor for the absorption column of Farashband
gas processing plant are 0.975 and 0.77, respectively. Due to the low
mass flux of liquid flow, the gas phase back mixing factor is negli-
gible while gas to liquid density ratio factor should be considered.
NTU can be calculated by following simple equation, knowing
HETP:
NTU ¼ L=HETP (2)
NTU ¼ 0:65  6=0:44z9 (3)
In Eq. (2), L is packing height, which is usually 50e70% of total
column height. Moreover, the height of packing is assumed as the
height of 6 trays (each 0.65).
3.3.3. Calculation of water dew point
In this work, an equation for calculating of water dew point on
the basis of TST EOS (Chorng et al., 2005) and especially applicable
for pressure, temperature and compositions of Farashband gas
processing plant has been derived. In order to derive this equation,
the corresponding water dew point was calculated in various water
(1)
content of gas and then, the equation was obtained through
interpolation of the resultant curve (Fig. 5).
The water dew point equation is as follows:
T ¼ 31:4  log C  71:776 (4)
Where T is Water dew point ( C) and C is water concentration in the
gas phase (ppm).
4. Results and discussion

Table 3 In this section, the results from the simulation of an absorption

Design parameters of desorption and absorption towers of the Farashband gas column of Farashband gas processing plant are represented and
processing. discussed. The results include 1) the comparison between the
Design parameters Desorption tower Absorption tower Table 5
Tower diameter (in) 36 96.06 The comparison between simulation results and experimental data of absorption
Tray type e Valve tray column.
Number of trays e 6
Properties Experimental Calculated Error
Tray space (m) 0.61 0.61
value value percent
Weir length (m) e 1.708
Weir height (m) e 0.051 Output gas, water concentration 65 ppm 68 ppm 4.6
Packing height (m) 4 e Output gas, water dew point 15C 14C 6.7
Packing size (in) 2 e Glycol concentration in LTEG stream 0.995 0.9946 0.04
Packing type Raschig Ring e Glycol concentration in RTEG stream 0.93 0.91 2.2
340 S.M. Jokar et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 336e350
Figure 2. Replacing tray column absorber with structured packing packed bed column.
structured packing and tray absorption column, 2) the sensitive
analysis of the packed bed absorption column, and 3) the effective
parameters on HETP.
4.1. The comparison of trayed and packed bed absorption columns
Figs. 6 and 7 show the comparison of gas and liquid concen-
tration of water in conventional trayed and structured packed bed
absorption columns.
Fig. 6 reveals that using the structured packing in the absorption
column can lower the amount of water in the gas phase. In case of
structured packing, the concentration of water in the gas phase
reaches its lower limit before the end of the column (3.3 m
approximately). This means that by using structured packing
Figure 3. A schematic of the MELLAPAK 250Y structured packing.
instead of trays the height of the absorption column could reduce
from 3.8 m to 3.3 m.
In Fig. 7, it seems that, in the first 1.5 m from the top of the
structured packing case, the water concentration has been
decreased while water has been actually absorbing. It is because of
simultaneous absorption of high density hydrocarbons at the top of
the column.
Fig. 8 shows the concentration profile of TEG along the height of
packed and trayed absorption column. It can be detectable struc-
tured packing can be used instead of trays to improve separation in
column. Because, trayed columns provide stepwise contact be-
tween the vapor and liquid phases packed columns provide
continuous contact of the vapor and liquid between the top and
bottom of the packed bed. Structured packing provides more sur-
face area and higher separation efficiency.
In Fig. 9, the concentration of TEG in liquid phase is decreasing
from the top to the bottom of the column. This trend becomes more
abrupt in the packing column because of more water absorption. In
fact, desorption of high density hydrocarbons coupling with ab-
sorption of water at the bottom of the column caused the TEG
concentration to be decreased dramatically.
4.2. Effective parameters on packed bed absorption column
performance
4.2.1. Effect of inlet TEG
Fig. 10 suggests that because of the lower mass flow rate of
liquid compared to that of gas, the temperature of inlet TEG does
not have a remarkable effect on the water content of outlet gas
leaving the column. The concentration of TEG in liquid phase has a
penetrating impression on the dew point of outlet gas.
Fig. 11 shows that the mass concentration of water in TEG and
that of the outlet gas represent a linear relation. The figure suggests
that the lower the water in the liquid phase to the column, the
lower the dew point could be achieved.
Fig. 12 shows the effect of mass flow rate of inlet TEG on the
outlet water content of gas. As can be seen in this figure, there is an
optimal point for inlet mass flow rate of TEG. The optimum point
approximately equals to the designed flow for a tray absorption
 S.M. Jokar et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 336e350 341

Table 6
MELLAPAK 250Y (structured packing) properties.

Properties Value

Surface area 250 m2/m3

Void fraction 0.97
Corrugation angle 45
b 0.0208 m
h 0.0120 m
s 0.01780 m

Figure 5. Water dew point calculations in various water content of gas.

for trayed column is 246750 kg/h. The mass fraction of H2O is

1.8  105 in this condition. As it is shown in this figure in packed
bed column we could reach to this mass fraction at 320000 kg/h. It
indicates that the increase of inlet gas mass flow rate up to 30%, in
case of using 3.8 m structured packing bed, can be acceptable.

4.3. Effective parameter on HETP

There are many parameters which have a direct effect on HETP

but, in this paper, the effect of temperature, mass flow rate of gas
and liquid phase have been investigated which are presented in
Figs. 16e18. The figures reveal the fact that almost these parameters
have less than 15% effect on HETP in a limited range of each
parameter.
Figure 4. HETP values versus various F-factor for MELLAPAK 250Y packing reported by
Sulzer company (Perry and Green, 1984).
5. Economic evaluation of replacing structured packings with
column of Farashband gas processing plant. So, in the case of trays
replacing packed bed instead of tray column the best choice for the
condition of inlet TEG is the previous designed flow with the least 5.1. Column internals
water content (Figs. 10 and 11).
Fig. 19 shows the structured packing and tray adsorption column
4.2.2. Effect of inlet gas internals.
Figs. 13e15 show the effects of inlet gas temperature, water and We should determine which of the column internals can be used
gas mass flow rate on the water content of outlet gas. again after the replacing and which should be removed or
Lowering the temperature of inlet gas causes a shift in ther-
modynamic equilibrium on one hand, and lowering the dew point
of outlet gas on the other hand (Fig. 13). However, it is not
economical and is not suggested.
The inlet mass flow rate of water to the absorption column has a
partial effect on the water content of outlet gas around the design
value (250 kg/h) (Fig. 14). Entering the excess water with inlet gas
can result from bad operation of demister pad or the increase of
inlet gas temperature. The effect of mass flow rate of inlet gas on
the outlet water content of the gas is shown in Fig. 15. It can be seen
increasing in flow rate of inlet gas causes increasing in dew point of
outlet gas. As it is shown in Table 1, the designed inlet gas flow rate

Table 7
Comparison of various models for calculating HETP.

Method HETP (m)

SRP 0.33
Delft 0.36
Gualito 0.34
Wang et al. 1.5
Vendor proposed value 0.38
Figure 6. Comparison of mass concentration of water in the gas phase in absorption
Modified Delft 0.44
column including packing and tray.
342 S.M. Jokar et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 336e350

Figure 7. Comparison of mass concentration of water in the liquid phase in absorption

Figure 9. Comparison of mass concentration of TEG in the liquid phase in absorption
column including packing and tray.
column including packing and tray.
purchased and installed. The following equipment is usable after
replacing:
1. Column diameter
1. Inlet demister 2. Height of packing
2. Outlet mist eliminator 3. Packing material
3. Gas distributor (Liquid collector or Chimney tray) 4. Year of production
5. Location of production
The mentioned equipment can be applied without modification 6. Transportation cost
if only the tower capacity doesn’t increase, otherwise they should
be amended.
Equipment that should be purchased and installed for struc- 5.2.1. Size factor
tured packing is: The increasing in equipment capacity increases the cost, but
usually decreases cost per mass of product.beneficial results can be
1. Liquid distributor obtained from a scaling factor by using the logarithmic relationship
2. Packing support grid as shown in Eq. (5). In this equation, “Cap”, “C”, “n”, “a” and “b” are
3. Bed limiter unit capacity, purchased cost, exponent, unit with the required
4. Wall wiper attribute and unit with base attribute respectively. According to this
equation, if the cost of a given unit at one capacity is known, the
cost of a similar unit with  times the capacity of the first is
5.2. 2Factors affecting the cost approximately (X)  n times the cost of the initial unit.
 n
The effective factors in the cost of the structured pacing column Ca Cap$a
¼ (5)
are: Cb Cap$b

Figure 8. Comparison of mass concentration of TEG in the gas phase in absorption

column including packing and tray. Fig. 10. Effect of temperature of inlet TEG on outlet water content of gas.
 S.M. Jokar et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 336e350 343

Fig. 13. Effect of temperature of inlet gas on outlet water content of gas.
Fig. 11. Effect of mass concentration of water in inlet TEG on outlet water content of
gas.
5.2.2. Cost index
The preceding equation indicates that a logelog plot of capacity Costs change over time. The most important factor in cost
versus equipment cost for a given type of equipment should be a changes is devaluation affected by inflation. The information con-
straight line with a slope equal to n. The application of the 0.6 rule tent of prices is related to different years. We have to convert these
of thumb for most purchased equipment is an oversimplification of prices to the prices of current year. The following equation is used
a valuable cost concept since the actual values of the cost capacity to update prices.
factor typically vary from less than 0.2 to greater than 1.0. Because
of this, the 0.6 factor should only be used in the absence of other
information. The value of “n” can be obtained from various re-
sources. The recommended value is 1 for the towers (Perry and C2 I
Green, 1984). ¼ 2 (7)
C1 I1
Smith suggested an exact value of 0.85 for “n” exclusively in
structured packing (Smith, 1995). Also, He suggested that the cost Which “I”, “C”, “1” and “2” are cost index, purchased cost, base time
of structured packing depends on the column diameter (D) and when cost is known and time when cost is desired. The Cost index
packing height (H) instead of capacity (Cap). So, he suggested the is a relative number compares the prices of each year with the other
following correlation (Smith, 1995): years. Our references for cost index are:

   1:6 1 Engineering news record construction cost index (published in

Cr Hr Dr the Engineering News-Record)
¼  (6)
Cb Hb Db 2 Marshal and swift index (published in Chemical Engineering)
3 Nelson- Farrar cost index (published in the Oil and Gas Journal)
In this equation “C”, “H”, “D” are Cost, Height of Structured packing 4 Chemical engineering cost index (published in Chemical
and column diameter respectively. Also the subscripts “r” and “b” Engineering)
refer to required unit and base unit. The cost of structured packing
for the Farashband processing plant is 127661 $, this is calculated
from Eq. (6).

Fig. 12. Effect of mass flow rate of inlet TEG on outlet water content of gas. Fig. 14. Effect of mass flow rate of water in inlet gas on outlet water content of gas.
344 S.M. Jokar et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 336e350
Fig. 15. Effect of mass flow rate of inlet gas on outlet water content of gas.
The comparison of the four mentioned references is shown in
Fig. 20. In this work the costs are up-to-dated toward these four
references and then the average is used.
5.2.3. Material factor
Packing material is the other factor which is important in the
cost of structured packing. For the other equipment the prices are
based on carbon steel, but for the structured packing it’s not
common. In this case using material factor is a proper option.
Table 8 shows material factor for structured packing made of
different materials.
5.2.4. Location factor
Production and installation costs of structured packing are
different all around the world. As indicated in Table 9 the location
factor for the Middle East is 0.84.
5.2.5. Transport factor
The other factor is transportation cost of the equipment.
Transportation cost is a function of the distance between the origin
and destination. Usually increasing in cost because of trans-
portation covers the decreasing in cost because of location. We can
Fig. 16. Effect of mass flow rate of inlet gas on HETP.
Fig. 17. Effect of temperature of inlet gas on HETP.
ignore the Transport and location factors in the Farashband pro-
cessing plant because they are approximately equal.
5.2.6. Installation cost
Installation cost is another factor which should be considered to
estimate the total cost of replacing trays with structured packing.
The installation cost is usually expressed as a factor of delivered-
equipment cost. The factor of 0.4 is used for replacing trays with
structured packing and the factor of 0.5 is applied for installation of
other devices (Suhendra and Ertel, 2006). Also the factor of 0.1 is
used for the cost of tray removing (Suhendra and Ertel, 2006).
The purchased and installation cost of the devices is presented
in Table 10. As it is seen in this table, the total cost is 202909 $.
5.3. Project earned value analysis
The results of cost evaluation with and without bank interest are
presented in Table 11.
The Life cycle of the unit and bank interest is considered 25
years and 6 percent respectively. The third column shows the
annual profit. The annual profits for four cases are investigated: 1-
increasing capacity 2- decreasing dew point 3- decreasing stripping
gas and 4-decreasing reboiler load. The last two cases result from
decreasing gas consumption. The fourth column shows the annual
cost of TEG consumption. In this column the negative values in two
first rows refer to increasing TEG consumption and consequently
Fig. 18. Effect of mass flow rate of inlet liquid on HETP.
 S.M. Jokar et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 336e350 345

Dry Gas Dry Gas

Tray Packing
column column

Mist Lean
Mist Eliminator
Eliminator Lean TEG
TEG
Tray No. 1 Liquid Distributor

Tray No. 2
Structured Packing

Chimney Tray No. 6

Packing Support Rich
Tray Rich
TEG TEG
Welded
Chimney Tray Welded
Mist Mist Eliminator
Eliminat
or Wet Gas

Wet
Insert Type Diffuser
Gas

Condensate Condensate

Fig. 19. Structured packing and tray adsorption column internals.

Table 9
Location factors for chemical plants of similar functions.

Location Factor (United States ¼ 1.0)

Australia 1.04
Austria 0.85
Belgium 0.70
Canada 1.14
Central Africa 1.51
Central America 1.20
Denmark 0.85
Finland 0.88
France 0.73
Germany 0.76
Greece 0.80
Imported element 0.80
Indigenous element 0.25
Ireland 0.70
Italy 0.79
Japan 1.46
Malaysia 0.42
Middle east 0.84
New Zealand 1.27
Fig. 20. Comparison of the four references for cost index.
Imported element 0.65
Indigenous element 0.44
increasing cost of TEG. The fifth column shows annual net profit
Norway 0.92
(sum of the values in column 3 and 4). Also, the last three columns Portugal 1.00
indicate the rate of return, payout time and total net profit South Africa 0.90
respectively. South America 1.36
Spain 0.83
Rate of return on investment is ordinarily expressed on an
Sweden 0.75
annual percentage basis. The yearly profit divided by the total initial Switzerland 0.94
investment necessary represents the fractional return, and this Turkey 0.80
fraction times 100 is the standard percent return on investment United Kingdom 0.76
(Smith, 1995). The negative values in the last column show the United States 1.00

discounted payback period is shorter than the expected lifetime of

the investment. Table 10
The purchased and installation cost of the devices.

Table 8 Column internals Purchased Installation Installed equipment

Material factor for structured packing made by different ma- cost (US $) cost (US $) cost (US $)
terials (Suhendra and Ertel, 2006).
Structured packing 127,661 63831 191,492
Material Material factor Liquid distributor 6485 2594 9079
Packing support grid 871 348 1218
Stainless steel 1.1e1.75
Bed limiter 339 136 476
Polypropylene 0.8e1.1
Wall wiper 460 184 644
PVC 0.5e0.9
Total 135,816 67093 202,909
346 S.M. Jokar et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 336e350

Table 11
Cost evaluation with and without bank interest.

Life cycle Annual profit Annual cost Annual net profit Rate of return (%) Payout time (year) Total net profit (US $)
of unit (year) (US $) of TEG consumption (from project) (US $)
With Without With Without With Without
(US $)
interest interest interest interest interest interest

Increasing capacity 25 58320 5627 52693 25.97 12.81 3.85 7.81 1,114,416 446,852
Decreasing dew point 25 54000 271 53729 26.48 12.89 3.78 7.76 1,140,316 451,050
Decreasing stripping gas 25 12410 þ1472 13892 6.48 3.39 14.62 29.47 144,391 30,772
Decreasing reboiler load 25 1241 þ552 1793 0.88 0.44 113.64 228.30 158.84 180,692

Fig. 21. Cash flow with time for the case (a) increasing capacity (b) decreasing dew point (c) decreasing stripping gas (d) decreasing reboiler load.

Fig. 21 (aed) shows cash flow with time for the four mentioned
cases for Farashband gas processing plant with and without bank
interest. The cases 1 and 2 have approximately the same cash flow
as shown before in Table 11.
Results show that if the entire goal is considered increasing
capacity and decreasing dew point the replacement of structured
packing instead of tray in absorption column of Farashband gas
processing plant is profitable.
process and lowering the dew point, but is not economical. The
water content of inlet gas has a negative effect on dew point and it
seems to be necessary to use a demister pad under a good condi-
tion. Increase of inlet gas mass flow rate up to 30% can be acceptable
in case of using 3.8 m structured packing bed. Also the replacing
was investigated in an economical point of view and the cost ob-
tains 202,909 $ for this case. Results show that if the entire goal is
considered increasing capacity and decreasing dew point, it is
worth to use structured packings instead of trays.

6. Conclusion
In this research, the effect of various parameters on the per-
formance of the dehydration unit of Farashband gas processing
plant were analyzed and compared. The replacement of tray with
structured packing in an absorption column not only chooses to
lower the dew point of outlet gas, but also improve the positive
effect of other parameters on the performance of dehydration unit
and is economically justifiable.
The TEG parameters, except for inlet concentration, have no
remarkable effect on the outlet gas water content. The inlet tem-
perature of gas has a significant effect on the performance of the
Appendix A
The proceeding visual basic code is applied for HETP calculation
based on the modified delft model (Rahimpour et al., 2011). The
proposed model was added in the steady state simulation software
and could be run by the software. This program designed to receive
operation variables, fluid intake and output data from the user. The
data of the structured packing is in the databank of the program
and the conditions of the streams report from simulation software
to the program automatically. The calculated HETP and NTU reports
to an Excel file. The NTU number can be estimated from the Eq. (2).
 S.M. Jokar et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 336e350 347

Visual Basic Code:

348 S.M. Jokar et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 336e350
 S.M. Jokar et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 336e350 349

References Bennett, K., Pilling, M., 2003. Efficiency Benefits of High Performance Structured
Packings Texas Technology Showcase 2003 Separation & Distillation Technology
Session. Sulzer Chemtech, Texas.
AIChE, 1958. Bubble-Tray Design Manual. AIChE Distillation Subcommittee of the
Bravo, J.L., Rocha, J.A., Fair, J.R., 1992. A comprehensive model for the performance
Research Committee, New York.
of columns containing structured packings. Inst. Chem. Eng. Symp. Ser. 128,
Baniadam, M., Fathi kalajahi, J., Rahimpour, M.R., 2009. Comparison of separation
A489.
performance of a structured packed column with a tray type column for H2S
and CO2. Oil Gas. Sci. TechnoldRev. IFP 64, 179.
350 S.M. Jokar et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 336e350
Break, A.M., 2000. Optimization of Process Parameters for Glycol Unit to Mitigate
the Emission of BTEX/VOCs, Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition
Conference. United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi.
Chen, G.K., Kitterman, L., Shieh, J.H., 1982. Development of a new generation of high
efficiency packing for mass transfer operations. Chem. Eng. Prog. 79, 48.
Choi, M.S., Spisak, C.D., Dodd Jr., J.A., 1992. Control of aromatic emissions from glycol
dehydrators. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington,
D.C.
Chorng, H., Twua, V., Wayne, D., Simb, S., 2005. Advanced equation of state method
for modeling TEGewater for glycol gas dehydration. J. Fluid Phase Equilib. 42,
228e229.
Darwish, N.A., 2004. Computer simulation of BTEX emission in natural gas dehy-
dration using PR and RKS equations of state with different predictive mixing
rules. Environ. Model. Softw. 19, 957e965.
Dendy Sloan E., Gas hydrate Tutorial. Center for Hydrate Research Colorado School
of Mines Golden. Colorado 80401 USA.
Erasmus, André Brink, 2004. Mass transfer in structured packing. PhD Thesis.
University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Erik, L., 2003. Estimation of tray efficiency in dehydration absorbers. J. Chem. Eng.
Process 42, 867e878.
Erik, L., Tyvand, S.E., 2002. Process Simulation of Glycol Regeneration. for Presen-
tation at GPA Europe’s Meeting, Bergen.
Grizzle, P.L., 1993. Hydrocarbon emission estimates and controls for natural gas
glycol dehydration units. In: SPE/EPA Exploration and Production Environ-
mental Conference. San Antonio, Texas.
Gualito, J.J., Cerino, F.J., Cardenas, J.C., Rocha, J.A., 1997. Design method for distilla-
tion columns filled with metallic, ceramic, or plastic structured packings. Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 36, 1747e1757.
Gupta, A., 1996. Reduction of glycol loss from gas dehydration unit at offshore
platform in Bombay offshore e a case study. In: Abu Dhabi International Pe-
troleum Exhibition and Conference. Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Joshghani, M., 2004. Ethylene Glycol Regeneration in the Dehydration Unit of Far-
ashband Refinery (PhD thesis). Shiraz University, Iran.
Khayami, S., 2004. Investigation of Natural Gas Dehydration Unit in Packed Columns
and Influence of Various Factors on Dehydration Rate (PhD thesis). Shiraz
University, Iran.
Khosravanipour Mostafazadeh, A., Rahimpour, M.R., Shariati, A., 2009. Vapor-liquid
equilibria of water þ TriethyleneGlycol (TEG) and water þ TEG þ toluene at
85 kPa. J. Chem. Eng. Data 54, 876e881.
Koch, G., 1999. Improving TEG Contactor Performance with Structured Packing,
Koch- Glitsch in Corporation.
Kohl, A.L., Nielsen, R.B., 1997. Gas Purification, fifth ed. Gulf Publishing, Houston-
Texas, USA.
Mokhatab, S., Poe, W.A., 2006. Handbook of Natural Gas Transmission and Pro-
cessing. Gulf Professional Publishing.
Olujic, Z., 1997. Development of a complete simulation model for predicting the
hydraulic and separation performance of distillation columns equipped with
structured packings. Chem. Biochem., Eng. 11, 31.
Olujic, Z., 1999. Effect of column diameter on pressure drop of a corrugated sheet
structured packing. Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 77 (Part A), 505.
Olujic, Z., Kamerbeek, A.B., Graauw, J., 1999. A corrugation geometry based model
for efficiency of structured distillation packing. Chem. Eng. Process. 38, 683e
695.
O’Connell, H.E., 1946. Plate efficiency of fractionating columns and absorbers. Trans.
Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. 42, 741.
View publication stats
Paymooni, Kh, Rahimpour, M.R., Raeissi, S., Abbasi, M., Saviz Baktash, M., 2011.
Enhancement in triethylene glycol (TEG) purity via hydrocarbon solvent in-
jection to a TEG þ water system in a batch distillation column. Energy Fuels 25,
5126e5137.
Pearce, R.L., Protz, J.E., Lyon, G.W., 1972. Dry gas to low dew points. Hydrocarb.
Process 51 (12), 79e81.
Perry, R.H., Green, D., 1984. Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, sixth ed.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Pirzadeh, H., 2003. Simulation of Dehydration Absorption Column (PhD thesis).
Iran.
Rahimpour, M.R., Jokar, S.M., 2012. Feasibility of flare gas reformation to practical
energy in Farashband gas refinery: no gas flaring. J. Hazard. Mater. 209e210,
204e217.
Rahimpour, M.R., Kashkooli, A.Z., 2004. Enhanced carbon dioxide removal by pro-
moted hot potassium carbonate in a split-flow absorber. Chem. Eng. Process 43,
857.
Rahimpour, M.R., Momeni, H., Paymooni, K., Kiani, A., 2011. A new model for the
calculation of height equivalent to theoretical plate in high pressure columns
equipped with structured packing for iC4/nC4 separation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
50, 6886e6897.
Reid, L.S., 1975. Coldfinger, an Exhauster for Removing Trace Quantities of Water
from Glycol solutions Used for Gas Dehydration. Ball-Reid Engineers, Inc.,
Oklahoma City.
Rocha, J.A., Bravo, J.L., Fair, J.R., 1993. Distillation columns containing structured
packings: a comprehensive model for their performance. 1. Hydraulic models.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 32, 641.
Rocha, J.A., Bravo, J.L., Fair, J.R., 1996. Distillation columns containing structured
packings: a comprehensive model for their performance. 2. Mass Transfer
model. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 35, 1660.
Rohani, S.S.M., 2009. Natural Gas Dehydration Using Silica Gel: Fabrication of
Dehydration Unit (M. Sc. thesis). Pahang University, Malaysia.
Sakata, M., February 15, 1972. Tests of 1000, 250 and 70 mm Diameter Columns
with Koch Sulzer packing. Technical report No. 22. Fractionation Res. Inc.
Scauzillo, F.R., 1961. Equilibrium ratios of water in the water-triethylene glycol-
natural gas system. J. Pet. Technol. 13 (7), 697e702.
Siming, Y., 1999. Summary of Today’s natural Gas dehydration methods. J. China
offshore oil Gas. (Eng.) 06.
Smith, R.S., 1993. Custom glycol units extend operating limits. In: Proceedings of the
Laurance Reid Gas Conditioning Conference, Norman, Oklahoma, pp. 101e114.
Smith, R., 1995. Chemical Process Design. Mc. Graw Hill, New York.
Sperandio, A., Richard, M., Huber, M., 1965. Eine neue packung fur die vakuum-
rektifikation. Chem. Ing. Tech. 3, 322.
Spiegel, L., Meier, W., 2003. Distillation column with structured packings in the next
decade. Trans. IChemE 81, 39.
Suhendra, W., Ertel, J., 2006. Integrated Improvement of Distillation Unit using
Multicriteria Decision Making Analysis. Doctorate Research. Brandenburgische
Technische Universität (BTU) eCottbus, Germany.
Twu, C.H.T.,V., Sim, W.D., Watanasiri, S., 2005. Advanced equation of state method
for modeling TEG-water for glycol gas dehydration. J. Fluid Phase Equilib. 213,
228e229.
Wang, G.Q., Yuan, X.G., Yu, K.T., 2006. A method for calculating effective interfacial
area of structured packed distillation columns under elevated pressures. Chem.
Eng. Process 45, 691e697.
Wieninger, P., 1991. Operating glycol dehydration systems. In: Proceedings of the
Laurance Reid Gas Conditioning Conference, pp. 23e59.