f

Dynamic Model of a Scrubber Using Aspen Plus

Dr. Gerald Gruber

Merck & Co., Inc.
Somerset, NJ

Paper presented at Aspen World 2004, Orlando, FL, October 10-15, 2004

Abstract

Scrubbing a dilute gas with a total recirculation of scrub liquor is a common operation.
Although this is a non steady-state operation, it may be simulated using a steady-state
simulator (Aspen Plus). The methodology is explained and a comparison is made
between the steady-state simulator results and the results from Aspen Dynamics.

An example of an actual situation is also presented.

1
A common method of operating absorption columns is to have a reservoir of liquid on
total recirculation to scrub the vapor. The scrub liquor exiting the bottom of the column is
recycled to the top of the column. There is no make-up scrub liquor entering the column,
nor is there a liquid purge of the spent scrub liquor. The process is depicted below, as
represented in the ASPEN flow diagram (ASPEN PLUS is a general purpose chemical
engineering simulation package from Aspen Technology).

VAPOUT

LIQIN

ABS

VAPIN

P-1
LIQOUT

R1

SUMP

MIXER

Figure 1

2
The process configuration depicted above is useful for absorption when the required
liquid flow is very small and/or the gas loading varies with time in an unpredictable
manner.

However, the flowsheet as shown in Figure 1 is not appropriate to run in Aspen Plus, as it
will not converge until the scrub liquor becomes saturated with the absorbed components.
At that point, there will be no further absorption and the VAPOUT stream will be the
same as the VAPIN stream. Since Aspen Plus is a steady-state simulator the steady state
solution will show no absorption since there is no input of scrubbing liquor. What must
be done is to take “snapshots” in time ( a steady state solution at an instant in time).

Using steady-state “snapshots” to model a dynamic process is not a new technique. It has
been used for many years, even before steady-state simulators were widely available.

Consider the valid Aspen flowsheet below.

LIQIN VAPOUT

ABS

LIQOUT
VAPIN

Figure 2

We are going to use the flowsheet in Figure 2 to model the process shown in figure 1. To
help visualize the transformation, let us assume that we are going to absorb methanol
from an inert gas stream (nitrogen) into water. The gas flow is 100 scfm containing 0.5 %
methanol and the sump volume is 100 gallons. On a steady state basis, about 1 gpm of
water is required, continuously, to remove the methanol in a 5 stage absorber, to the PPM
leve).

Instead of specifying a liquid flow of 1 gpm (stream LIQUIN), specify a flow of 100
gallons/hr (the sump holdup). Run the model (steady state). The results correspond to one
hour of operation (a time slice of one hour). If that time increment is too large, then the
gas flow rate may be decreased. Decreasing the gas flow rate to 1/10 of its value (10

3
scfm), then the results would correspond to a time slice of 0.1 hour. The liquid
composition would correspond to the sump concentration after 0.1 hour. To continue the
process, we would paste the stream composition results of LIQOUT into the input of the
feed stream LIQUIN. If we want to model 5 hours of operation at a time slice of 0.1 hour,
it would require 50 runs, each time pasting the outlet stream to the inlet stream, as well as
tabulating the intermediate results each time.

An alternative is to build a flowsheet as shown below.

DUPL

Figure 3
It is not too difficult to put multiple, identical scrubbers on a flowsheet, ten of them in
this example. A duplicator block is placed at the lower left of the ASPEN flowsheet so
that each scrubber sees the same gas flow and composition (a duplicator block simply
copies the input stream into each of the output streams). The liquid leaving scrubber N, is
introduced into scrubber N+1, so that now the flow sheet performs 10 time slices in a
single pass. This eliminates some of the pasting of output streams into input streams, but
each of the stream results must still be copied and pasted to a spreadsheet.

To make the analysis most convenient consider the flowsheet with recycle, similar to
Figure 1, but with some modifications.

4
 SPL

VAPOUT V1

LIQIN

ABS

V2

H1
LIQOUT HEATER

MUV

MU
VAPIN
MULT

Figure 4

The stream LIQOUT is recycled back to the top of the absorber. It first has to pass
through a block since it is not possible (in ASPEN) for an exit stream to be reintroduced
into the same block. The stream LIQOUT goes through, for example, an adiabatic heater
block (H1) which doesn’t change the stream but allows the recycle to be effected.
Additionally, a MULTIPLIER block is used to modify the vapor flow to the absorber
(MU). A MULTIPLIER block simply multiples the input stream by a constant factor. This
is how the size of the time slice is determined, by decreasing the vapor inflow by the
appropriate amount. Additionally, the vapor leaving the column goes through a split block
(SPL), showing a recycle to the absorber, which, in fact, is set to zero. The reason for
doing this will become apparent momentarily. In order to implement the procedure, the
convergence method has to be specified as DIRECT, instead of the default WEGSTEIN.
Using the DIRECT substitution method for convergence is the same as taking the output
of the TEAR stream and putting it into the input. Additionally, to access the composition
profile, on the CONVERGENCE/CONVERGENCE OPTIONS form, we have to specify
“all variables” as shown below. This is done so that for each iteration loop the flow rates
of the individual components can be tabulated.

5
Figure 5
Further, we should specify the stream VAPOUT as a “tear” stream. This is why the
flowsheet is constructed with a recycle vapor stream. We want its composition to show up
in the convergence trace. The flow rate of the vapor recycle stream is set to zero, but as
long as it appears to be in a recycle loop, the composition variables will be captured with
the convergence variables in the stream VAPOUT. The stream LIQOUT should also be
established as tear stream and initialized with a flow corresponding to the sump volume,
say 10 gpm, and initially, 100% water. Specify the number of iterations desired for
DIRECT SUBSTITUTION and run the simulation. It will not converge, but the TEAR
VARIABLES form will give the liquid and vapor flows for each iteration which
corresponds to the predetermine time slice.

6
Figure 6

These results may be plotted directly from ASPEN.

7
 METHANOL MOLE FLOWS

0.3
15 12.5

0.25
METHANOL IN LIQUID

METHANOL IN VENT
0.2
10

0.15
7.5

0.1
5

0.05
2.5
0

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141 151

TIME IN TENTHS OF AN HOUR

Figure 7
The methanol flow (proportional to concentration) levels off and approaches the steady
state value, which would correspond to saturating the liquid.

The concentration profile may be of interest. In order to get concentrations, the table
shown in Figure 6 is pasted to a spreadsheet and compositions calculated from the mole
flows. This was done and the graph below shows the results, as well as the results of
solving the same problem using Aspen Dynamics. The graph also shows profiles at two
different sump volumes.

8
Figure 8

Essentially, we get the same results using the technique described above in Aspen Plus
and the Aspen Dynamics calculation. There are slight differences which are due to having
slightly different holdups and different time steps. The main advantage is that Aspen Plus
is more readily accessible then Aspen Dynamics and is more widely used.

It is also possible to analyze absorbers with a continuous feed of scrubbing liquor and/or
a continuous purge, where it is desired to analyze the start-up period when there is an
initial sump volume, with recirculation to the top of the column.

9
Also, in the examples given above, the gas flow was constant, with a constant
composition. That is not a necessary restriction. The gas flow rate and or concentration
may be allowed to vary. If there is a step change in the gas flow rate or concentration, the
simulation must be stopped at that point, the profiles (as in Figure 6) are pasted to a
spreadsheet and the simulation is restarted with the changed parameters. This procedure
may be repeated any number of times.

Discussed below is an actual application where the gas concentration varies. A batch
reactor on a 24 hour cycle is emitting an amine that has a peak flow for about an hour, but
otherwise has a relatively small, almost constant, emission rate. The reactor is
continuously purged with nitrogen so that the total gas flow to the scrubber is constant.
The gas stream contains other organics, as well, and is ultimately introduced into a
thermal oxidation unit for destruction. The amine has to be captured before the gas is
introduced into the thermal oxidation unit in order to prevent the formation of nitrogen
oxides. The goal was to limit the amine concentration from the scrubber vent to 2000
ppm.

The initial analysis of the problem ignored the periodic step change in concentration and
only considered the worst case scenario, that of peak amine flow. Since the amine is only
slightly soluble in water an unacceptably large quantity of water was required. This was a
major cost issue since the waste liquor contained other contaminants and there was a very
large cost associated with the disposal of the waste liquor. An alternative was to add
sulfuric acid to the scrub liquor to neutralize the amine. This was very effective, in fact
almost quantitatively removing the amine to well below the target value and reducing by
an order of magnitude the volume of scrub liquor that had to be disposed of. However,
the use of sulfuric acid presented some other problems such the requirements for acid
unloading and storage facilities as well as monitoring requirements.

Subsequently, a more detailed analysis was performed, taking into account the transient
nature of the problem, using the methods outlined above. Qualitatively, what is
happening is that during the periods of peak emission, the column is operating as a
scrubber, removing the amine from the gas stream. The amine concentration in the
recirculating liquid increases during this phase of the operation. When the peak emission
of the amine from the reactor drops to the lower rate, the column is operating as a
stripper, removing the amine from the liquid phase and introducing back into the vapor
phase. Thus, the system is operating to smooth out the emission profile to the thermal
oxidation unit. The peak emissions are reduced and the low emissions are increased, as
shown below.

10
Figure 9

After about 3 cycles, the system reaches a periodic steady state. The net result is that the
scrub liquor never has to be replaced, and there is no waste liquor to dispose of.

11