J. Olayiwola, T. Udabor, N. Mohd Said, R. Lazar, M.Shahabudin, M.

Abou-Rayyah

Report 1: Model & Assumptions

6 UNIT 4 : CO2 SOLVENT RECOVERY COLUMN (LAZAR, ROUVIN) -- DATA PAGE

Unit Description The purpose of this absorption unit is to strip the CO2 from MDEA so as to recover the methyl diethanolamine (MDEA) solvent used in the previous absorption column (Unit 3) in order to recycle it back into that column. This essentially prevents wastage and reduces costs as well as ensures the CO2 removed in the previous column meets the required specification. Steam has been chosen as a suitable stripping solvent (Stewart and Lanning, 1994) to remove the MDEA via absorption. The amount of steam used in the inlet stream (Stream 9), as shown in Table 4.2, was determined by utilizing the Steam Rate Rule of 0.12 kg of Steam for every 1 litre of MDEA (Kohl and Nielsen, 1997). Due to the corrosive nature of MDEA, this column will utilize Ceramic Raschig Rings as packing. Operating Data

External Column Diameter (m) 1.37 Column Height (m) 2.70 Design pressure (bar) 1.10 Operating pressure (bar) 1.00 Position Top Bottom Design temperature (C) 108.1 111.83 Operating temperature 98.3 101.66 (C) Internal Number of Trays 3 Tray spacing (m) 0.5 Feed stages Stage 1 (counted from top) (Stream 8) Stage 3 (Stream 9) Packing type Ceramic Raschig Rings Packing diameter (mm) 50 Figure 6.1: Unit 4 Schematic Stream No. 8 9 10 37875 10588 Mass Flowrate (kg/hr) 351042 o 47.8 150.0 98.3 Temperature ( C) 1 4 1 Pressure (bar) 0 1 1 Vapor Fraction -4041000 -501090 -129490 Enthalpy (MJ/h) Component Weight Fractions 0.007 0.000 0.234 CO2 0.000 0.000 0.002 Ethylene 0.636 1.000 0.763 Water 0.357 0.000 0.001 MDEA Table 6.2: Stream Data 21 378330 101.7 1 0 -4412600 0.000 0.000 0.669 0.331 Table 6.1: Unit 4 Op. Data

Required Specification for Stream 10 Achieved Specification for Stream 10

99.5% of CO2 Removed from Stream 22 99.9% of CO3 Removed

Table 6.3: Unit 4 Specification

J. Olayiwola, T. Udabor, N. Mohd Said, R. Lazar, M.Shahabudin, M.Abou-Rayyah

Report 1: Model & Assumptions

Main Disturbances Table 6.4: Main Disturbances for Unit 4 Disturbance Inlet Liquid (CO2+MDEA/ Stream 8)Flowrate Cause - Malfunction in Unit 3. - MDEA solvent storage tank malfunction. - Faulty pump maintaining the flowrate of this stream from the storage tank. - Valve malfunction (i.e. it fails to open). - Fouling, which decreases flow area inside pipe. - Stream 9 Valve malfunction (i.e. it fails to open). - Fouling, which decreases flow area inside pipe. - Faulty pump maintaining the flowrate of steam into the column. Hazard Absorption Column Increased flowrate - Overflow of liquid due to increased liquid level. - Weeping - More MDEA would cause corrosion. Decreased flowrate - Flooding and thus release of corrosive MDEA Action Ratio Control Liquid Level Control Maintenance (prevents fouling and valve failure) High/ low level switch (HLS)/ (LLS) connected to a High/Low Level Alarm (HLA)/ (LLA) High pressure switch (HPS) and alarm (HPA) Pressure Safety Valve (PSV) Bursting disc Maintenance (prevents fouling and valve failure) Pressure Control Emergency fail close shutdown valve (ESDV) on feed line Ratio Control Bursting Disc

Inlet Gas (Steam/Stream 9) Flowrate

Increased flowrate - A pressure buildup will occur, which will eventually lead to the rupturing of the column, in turn leading to an MDEA leak. - Explosion of column. - Flooding occurs in column, releasing MDEA. Decreased flowrate -Weeping

Composition of CO2 (Stream 8)

Malfunction in Unit 3, leading to a decreased amount of MDEA in the stream, reducing the amount of CO2 as well. Malfunction in Unit 3

Required specification of CO2 product is not met due to change in the amount of MDEA coming into the column. MDEA Solvent Tank The storage tank overflows.

Inlet Liquid (Stream 24) Flow

Liquid Level Control Bursting Disc

J. Olayiwola, T. Udabor, N. Mohd Said, R. Lazar, M.Shahabudin, M.Abou-Rayyah

Report 1: Model & Assumptions

Configuration 1

Figure 6.2: Configuration 1

Loop Disturbance

Controlled Measured Variable Location Basic Process Control System

Manipulated Variable

Controller Type/Scheme

Inlet Liquid and Gas Flowrates (Streams 8 and 9) Inlet Gas Flowrate (Stream 9) Inlet Liquid Flowrate (Stream 8)

3 4

Absorption Column Ratio between Stream 8/9 Inlet Gas Flowrate Steam and (MDEA/Steam) (Stream 9) MDEA Column Pressure Tray 1 Inlet Gas Flowrate (Stream 9) Column Liquid Level Tray 3 Outlet Liquid Stream Flowrate (Stream 21)

PI/ Ratio Control/ Override Control P/Feedback

Inlet Liquid (Stream 24) Flowrate

Recycled Solvent Tank Tank Liquid Top 30% of Level Tank Safety Control Tray 1 Tray 3

Inlet Liquid Flowrate (Stream 24)

P/ Feedback

S1

Inlet Gas Flowrate (Stream Column Pressure 8) S2 Inlet Liquid Flowrate Column Liquid (Stream 9) Level Table 6.5: Control Configuration 1 Description

High Pressure Switch (HPS),Alarm (HPA) and ESDV, PSV, Bursting Disc High/ Low Level Switch (HLS)/ (LLS), Type 4 Alarms (HLA)/(LLA)

J. Olayiwola, T. Udabor, N. Mohd Said, R. Lazar, M.Shahabudin, M.Abou-Rayyah

Report 1: Model & Assumptions

Configuration 2

Figure 6.3: Configuration 2

Loop Disturbance

Controlled Measured Variable Location Basic Process Control System

Manipulated Variable

Controller Type/Scheme

Inlet Liquid and Gas Flowrates (Streams 8 and 9) Inlet Gas Flowrate (Stream 9) Inlet Liquid Flowrate (Stream 8)

Absorption Column Ratio between Stream 8/9 Inlet Gas Flowrate Steam and (MDEA/Steam) (Stream 9) MDEA Column Pressure Tray 1 Outlet Gas Stream Flowrate (Stream 10) Column Liquid Level Tray 3 Outlet Liquid Stream Flowrate (Stream 21)

PI/ Ratio Control PI/Feedback

P/Feedback

Inlet Liquid (Stream 24) Flowrate

Recycled Solvent Tank Tank Liquid Top 30% of Level Tank Safety Control Tray 1 Tray 3

Inlet Liquid Flowrate (Stream 24)

P/ Feedback

S1

Inlet Gas Flowrate (Stream Column Pressure 8) S2 Inlet Liquid Flowrate Column Liquid (Streams 9) Level Table 6.6: Control Configuration 2 Description

High Pressure Switch (HPS),Alarm (HPA) and ESDV, PSV, Bursting Disc High/ Low Level Switch (HLS)/ (LLS), Type 4 Alarms (HLA)/(LLA)

J. Olayiwola, T. Udabor, N. Mohd Said, R. Lazar, M.Shahabudin, M.Abou-Rayyah

Report 1: Model & Assumptions

Configuration 3

Figure 6.4: Configuration 3

Loop Disturbance

Controlled Measured Variable Location Basic Process Control System Absorption Column Ratio between Stream 8/9 Steam and (MDEA/Steam) MDEA Column Pressure Stream 9 (Steam) Column Pressure Tray 1

Manipulated Variable

Controller Type/Scheme

Inlet Liquid and Gas Flowrates (Streams 8 and 9) Inlet Gas Flowrate (Stream 9) Inlet Gas Flowrate (Stream 9) Inlet Liquid Flowrate (Stream 8) Inlet Liquid (Stream 24) Flowrate Inlet Gas Flowrate (Stream 8) Inlet Liquid Flowrate (Stream 9)

Inlet Gas Flowrate (Stream 9) Outlet Gas Stream Flowrate (Stream 10) Outlet Gas Stream Flowrate (Stream 10) Outlet Liquid Flowrate Inlet Liquid Flowrate (Stream 24)

PI/ Ratio Control Feedforward

PI/Feedback

Column Liquid Tray 3 Level Recycled Solvent Tank Tank Liquid Top 30% of Level Tank Safety Control Column Pressure Column Liquid Level Tray 1 Tray 3

P/Feedback

P/ Feedback

S1 S2

High Pressure Switch (HPS),Alarm (HPA) and ESDV, PSV, Bursting Disc High/ Low Level Switch (HLS)/ (LLS), Type 4 Alarms (HLA)/(LLA)

Table 6.7: Control Configuration 3 Description

J. Olayiwola, T. Udabor, N. Mohd Said, R. Lazar, M.Shahabudin, M.Abou-Rayyah

Report 1: Model & Assumptions

Discussion
First of all, it should be noted that temperature was not identified as a disturbance as it would not be considered a hazard since there is not heat input or heat output in the column (i.e. barring any chemical reactions between CO2 and MDEA). Of the disturbances identified, the inlet gas and liquid flowrates are the most hazardous as they could respectively cause weeping, flooding or rupturing in the column. The change in composition of the MDEA inlet stream is also a concern, as this would affect the amount of steam required in the inlet stream, since the column needs to meet its specification of 99.5% removal of CO2. Thus, these are the primary control objectives. Since all the control loops have a fast response, PI controllers have been utilized for most loops since they remove offsets and maintain a suitable response speed. A P (proportional) controller is used to control liquid levels as the liquid level can be kept in a safe range (i.e. it does not exceed a specified value). Configuration 1 comprises feedback, ratio and an override controls. The override control (i.e. in this case a High Selector Switch, to which the signal from the ratio control is also fed) is used to control column pressure by manipulating the inlet steam flowrate. Thus, the column pressure effectively overrides ratio control when it operates at a different pressure. The ratio control is used to manipulate the amount of steam (i.e. the wild stream) needed in order to compensate should there be a disturbance in the liquid inlet (CO2 and MDEA), while feedback controls are utilized to control the level of liquid in the column and storage tank. Configuration 2 simplifies the former by removing the override control (for pressure control); the pressure is now controlled using a feedback control to manipulate the outlet gas flowrate. Configuration 3 expands upon the former by implementing a feedforward-feedback in order to control the column pressure. The advantages and disadvantages of the proposed control structures can be seen in the following table: Table 6.8: Advantages and Disadvantages of Proposed Control Configurations Control Config. 1 Advantages 2 Better safety and operability: the HSS is an added safety measure Relatively simple to implement Control implementation is relatively straightforward and simple compared to the others. All disturbances would be adequately rejected. Quality Control: Composition of CO2 product stream would be controlled. Disadvantages Feedback loops respond to the disturbance only after it has been detected by the system; it is slow to respond. Feedback loops respond to the disturbance only after it has been detected by the system; it is slow to respond. Prone to coupling between loops 1, 2, and 3. Potential instability due to one tuning used for both valves on gas streams. Added complexity due to the addition of feedforward. Prone to coupling between loops 1, 2, and 3. Potential instability due to one tuning used for both valves on gas streams.

Faster disturbance rejection because of feedforward.

Recommendation: Considering the proposed configurations, utilizing Control Configuration 2 would be the most sensible option as it is the simplest (i.e. easy to implement in process modeling) as well ensures all the disturbances would be rejected. Thus, the column would be adequately controlled. Additionally, since the absorption process in the column is relatively quick, the use of feedback controls is acceptable. Also, the operating conditions of this process arent particularly dangerous, so a safer alternative, such as Configuration 1, is extraneous.