Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter May 28, 2016

A Simulation of Claus Process Via Aspen Hysys for Sulfur Recovery

Walid Nabgan, Tuan Amran Tuan Abdullah, Bahador Nabgan, Adnan Ripin, Kamarizan Bin Kidam, Ibrahim Saeh and Kamal Moghadamian

Abstract

In refineries, due to the environmental pollutions, sulfur content in petroleum need be reduced. The incineration process is used for sulfur recovery system which is not friendly process to the environment and needs high temperature. This actual process exhaust high amount of SO2 from the incinerator stack to the environment. The Claus process is the best method to recover sulfur from acid gases that contain hydrogen sulfide. The particular reaction for sulfur removal from sour gas is hydrogen sulfide (H2S) sulfur dioxide (SO2) reformation (2H2S+O2=S2+2H2O). The aim of this study is to get a simulation that is suitable for the characterization of sulfur recovery units. The experimental design for this study was collected from a petroleum refinery located in Iran. This experimental relation supports us to gather with definite consistency that is normally not available online for such process. Aspen HYSYS v8.8 software was used to simulate the Claus process by reactors and component splitters. The result shows the complete conversion of sour gas to product. The simulation protects the environmental impact by SO2 emission. This behavior can be reproduced by this HYSYS design very well. It was found that the BURNAIR feed composition and molar flow is the only factors which can affect the hydrogen sulfide conversion. The sulfur mole fraction increased only in the range of 0.94 to 0.98 by increasing N2 from 0.7 to 0.9.

Funding statement: Funding: The authors acknowledge the financial support given for this work by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) under the Research University Grant Tier FRGS 4F478.

References

1. Ibrahim S, Gupta AK, Al Shoaibi A. Xylene and H2S destruction in high temperature flames under Claus condition. Appl. Energy 2015;154:352–60.10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.017Search in Google Scholar

2. Selim H, Gupta A, Sassi M. 2008. Acid gas composition effects on the reactor temperature in Claus reactor. 6th AIAA international energy conversion engineering conference (IECEC), Cleveland, OH.10.2514/6.2008-5797Search in Google Scholar

3. Song C. An overview of new approaches to deep desulfurization for ultra-clean gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel. Catal Today 2003;86(1–4):211–63.10.1016/S0920-5861(03)00412-7Search in Google Scholar

4. Álvarez-Ayuso E, Querol X, Tomás A. Environmental impact of a coal combustion-desulphurisation plant: Abatement capacity of desulphurisation process and environmental characterisation of combustion by-products. Chemosphere 2006;65(11):2009–17.10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.06.070Search in Google Scholar

5. Kurimura H, Rochelle GT, Sepehrnoori K. An expert system to select acid gas treating processes for natural gas processing plants. Gas Sep Purif 1993;7(3):151–8.10.1016/0950-4214(93)80004-GSearch in Google Scholar

6. Polasek JC, Bullin JA. Effect of sulfur recovery requirements on optimization of integrated sweetening, sulfur recovery, and tailgas cleanup units. The USA: Bryan Research & Engineering Inc., 1993:170–4.Search in Google Scholar

7. Khazini L, Fatehifar E, Kaynejad MA, Alizadeh R. 2009. Control of Claus unit tail gas in an oil refinery. Second International Conference on Environmental and Computer Science.10.1109/ICECS.2009.52Search in Google Scholar

8. Kim S, Kim H-T. Aspen simulation of CO2 absorption system with various amine solution. Prepr Pap Am Chem Soc Div Fuel Chem 2004;49:251.Search in Google Scholar

9. Muhammad A, GadelHak Y. Correlating the additional amine sweetening cost to acid gases load in natural gas using Aspen Hysys. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2014;17:119–30.10.1016/j.jngse.2014.01.008Search in Google Scholar

10. Ahmadi F. 2012. Assessing the performance of Aspen Plus and Promax for the simulation of CO2 capture plants, Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Regina.Search in Google Scholar

11. Shahsavand A, Garmroodi A. Simulation of Khangiran gas treating units for various cooling scenarios. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2010;2(6):277–83.10.1016/j.jngse.2010.08.006Search in Google Scholar

12. Alzueta MU, Bilbao R, Glarborg P. Inhibition and sensitization of fuel oxidation by SO2. Combust Flame 2001;127(4):2234–51.10.1016/S0010-2180(01)00325-XSearch in Google Scholar

13. Glarborg P, Kubel D, Dam-Johansen K, Chiang H-M, Bozzelli JW. Impact of SO2 and NO on CO Oxidation under Post-Flame Conditions. Int J Chem Kinet 1996;28(10):773–90.10.1002/(SICI)1097-4601(1996)28:10<773::AID-KIN8>3.0.CO;2-KSearch in Google Scholar

14. Manenti F, Papasidero D, Bozzano G, Ranzi E. Model-based optimization of sulfur recovery units. Comput Chem Eng 2014;66:244–51.10.1016/j.compchemeng.2014.01.019Search in Google Scholar

15. Balali-Mood M, Hefazi M. The pharmacology, toxicology, and medical treatment of sulphur mustard poisoning. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2005;19(3):297–315.10.1111/j.1472-8206.2005.00325.xSearch in Google Scholar

16. Kehe K, Szinicz L. Medical aspects of sulphur mustard poisoning. Toxicology 2005;214(3):198–209.10.1016/j.tox.2005.06.014Search in Google Scholar

17. Aliabad Z. Removal of CO2 and H2S using aqueous alkanolamine solusions. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 2009;3(1):50–9.Search in Google Scholar

18. Dyment J. Acid gas cleaning using DEPG physical solvents: validation with experimental and plant data. The USA: Aspen Technology Inc., 2015.Search in Google Scholar

19. Lurgi Company. www.lurgi.com. 2005. Reference document on best available techniques in the slaughterhouses and animal by-products Industries. European Commission.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2016-3-16
Revised: 2016-5-5
Accepted: 2016-3-5
Published Online: 2016-5-28
Published in Print: 2016-12-1

©2016 by De Gruyter