See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302590223

A Simulation of Claus Process Via Aspen Hysys

for Sulfur Recovery

Article in Chemical Product and Process Modeling · May 2016

DOI: 10.1515/cppm-2016-0019

CITATIONS READS

0 878

7 authors, including:

Walid Nabgan Tuan Amran Tuan Abdullah

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
22 PUBLICATIONS 77 CITATIONS 106 PUBLICATIONS 327 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bahador Nabgan Adnan Ripin

institute of future energy Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
18 PUBLICATIONS 63 CITATIONS 44 PUBLICATIONS 129 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Self-immobilized phosphotungstic acid containing membranes for electrochemical applications View

project

Oil Palm Waste Valorization for Bio-Syngas Recovery View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bahador Nabgan on 21 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


1 Walid Nabgan, Tuan Amran Tuan Abdullah*, Bahador Nabgan, Adnan Ripin,
Kamarizan Bin Kidam, Ibrahim Saeh and Kamal Moghadamian
5
A Simulation of Claus Process Via Aspen Hysys
for Sulfur Recovery
DOI 10.1515/cppm-2016-0019
10 Received March 16, 2016; revised May 5, 2016; accepted March 5,
2016
Abstract: In refineries, due to the environmental pollu-
tions, sulfur content in petroleum need be reduced. The
incineration process is used for sulfur recovery system
15
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 environ-
ment. The Claus process is the best method to recover
sulfur from acid gases that contain hydrogen sulfide. The
20
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
25
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
30
result shows the complete conversion of sour gas to pro-
duct. 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
35
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.
*Corresponding author: Tuan Amran Tuan Abdullah, Centre of
40 Hydrogen Energy, Institute of Future Energy, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia,
E-mail: tamran@cheme.utm.my
Walid Nabgan, Bahador Nabgan, Adnan Ripin, Centre of Hydrogen
Energy, Institute of Future Energy, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
45 Kamarizan Bin Kidam, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty
of Chemical and Energy Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Ibrahim Saeh, Department of Electrical Power Engineering, Faculty
of Electrical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310
Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
50 Kamal Moghadamian, Islamic Azad University of Mahshahr,
Mahshahr, Iran
Chem. Prod. Process Model. 2016; aop
1
5
Keywords: simulation, Claus process, aspen hysys, sulfur
Recovery 10
1 Introduction
Sour feedstock contain high amounts of impurities, such 15
as H2S, NH3, CO2, CS2, COS, C6H6 and C8H10, as well as
unwanted unburnable chemicals, such as N2 [1–3]. The
petroleum fractions which contains sulfur molecules
must be reduced due to environmental pollution [4].
Sulfur removing has become a serious issue in the che- 20
mical processing industry because of the lower limits of
sulfur content in gasoline, diesel and jet fuels that is
being promulgated by regulatory agencies [1]. It is
known that H2S in the environment causes health threats,
such as, irritation in the breathing system, skin and eyes. 25
H2S is the source of generating a numerous hazardous
chemical compounds such as SO2, H2SO3 and H2SO4,
therefore H2S removal is environmentally beneficial and
plays an important roles in the air pollution. Raw natural
gas is one of the main sources of H2S. Furthermore of the 30
main impurities that cause acid rain is SO2 [4].
Most of the refineries are using Claus unit for sulfur
recovery, particularly for refineries which produce sulfur
more than 10 tons a day [5, 6]. In refineries, the com-
pound of sulfur converts to H2S in hydrogenation pro- 35
cess. After that, H2S goes to sulfur recovery unit and in
this step commercial sulfur will produce. Claus process is
a widely used technology for recovering sulfur and
energy from acid gases. It is conventionally divided into
thermal and catalytic stages in order to achieve very high 40
conversion of acid gas [1].
Lurgi company in 1993 [7] mentioned that the Claus
process system with the capacity of 10 tons a day has
99.8 % efficiency. According to previous research done by
Khazini et al. [7], in Iranian petroleum and petrochemical 45
companies, incinerator is still in used which exhaust SO2
to the atmosphere for sulfur recovery units (see Figure 1).
Those refineries exhaust thousands of ppm pollution
every day due to conversion of sulfur compound to SO2.
The effectiveness of every Claus unit is determined by 50
the Claus unit’s reactor stages. For example the two reactor
Q1 2 W. Nabgan et al.: Simulation
1 1
5 5
10
stage has an efficiency of 90 %–96 %, or the three reactor
stage has an efficiency of 95 %–98 % (2005). Thus the
Claus process unit is unable to recover the total entered
sulfur. Since the complete sulfur is not possible to remove
15 from sour gas, it is clear that sour gas must be treated by
additional process. Therefore the purpose of this study is
to design and analyze the Claus process through Aspen
Hysys®. ASPEN uses mathematical models for prediction
of the process performance by an appropriate selection of
20 thermodynamic models and Assumed a design of a pro-
cess. This information can then be used in an iterative
fashion to optimize the design.
25
2 Process description
2.1 General description of the Claus
processes
30
Aspen Hysys v8.8 was used to design the process flow
sheet. This software offers a powerful thermodynamic
package called the “Amine package” which is a special
package designed for simulation of amine sweetening
35 units. The gas absorption process with a chemical reac-
tion using amine is recognized as the most cost effective
and has the best proven operability record [8]. This pack-
age includes experimental solubility and reaction kinetics
data over wide range of conditions [9]. Aspen Hysys has
40 its own amine property package which uses both equili-
brium and kinetic models, has the additional capability
of employing the so-called “Electrolyte Insert” thermody-
namic package which considers only the equilibrium
model for predicting the process performance [10, 11].
45 Incorporating this package in the simulation, generally,
reduce errors arising from using general thermodynamic
equations of state or activity models. It provides can
provide summarized and highly detailed estimated infor-
mation depending on the user’s requirements.
50 The task of Claus processes is to recover elemental
sulfur from hydrogen sulfide and, more generally, from
Figure 1: Process flow diagram
of Iranian claus unit [11].
10
byproduct gases originating from physical and chemical
gas and oil treatment units in refineries, natural gas
processing, and gasification plants. It consists of a ther-
mal reaction furnace, a waste heat boiler, and a series of
catalytic (Claus) reactors and condensers (see Figure 2). 15
The overall reaction characterizing the process is shown
in (reaction 1) [12, 13] but there are few more mechanism
might take place in the Claus process (reactions 2, 3
and 4) [14]. The oxidizing reaction (2) is exothermic and
without any thermodynamic restriction which molecule 20
of hydrogen sulfide reacts with oxygen and produces
sulfur dioxide and water. The remainder of the hydrogen
sulfide then reacts with the produced sulfur dioxide from
reaction (2) to produce elemental sulfur.
2H2 S + O2 ! S2 + 2H2 O (1)
25
H2 S + 32 O2 ! SO2 + H2 O (2)
2H2 S + SO2 ! 32 S2 + 2H2 O (3)
2H2 S + SO2 ! 83 S8 + 2H2 O (4) 30
The most important indicators of the process perfor-
mance is the molar ratio H2S/SO2 at the sour gas that
should be as close as possible to the value of 2 to get the
maximum conversion in sulfur [14, 2]. This index is a 35
controlled variable measured by means of an online ana-
lyzer and included in a feedback control where the inlet
air feed flow rate is the manipulated variable to close the
loop. This measure is particularly sensitive to several
process perturbations.
40
2.2 Description of the sour gas treatment
for sulfur recovery
45
The sour gas cleaning section is aimed at the removal of
the sulfur components from sour gases which is mainly
contains hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide. The pro-
duced sulfur then can be used in military as well as
medical purposes [15, 16]. The process flow diagram of 50
this section is reported in Figure 2. A first treatment for
 W. Nabgan et al.: Simulation 3

1 1

5 5

10 10

15 15

Figure 2: Flow diagram for Claus process unit by Aspen Hysys.

20 the reduction of sulfur component in the sour gas is
performed in the conversion reactor. The conversion reac-
tor normally used to support one particular reaction type.
For sulfur recovery unit, a conversion reactor will only
function properly with conversion reactions attached. As
25 is presented in Figure 2 and data in Table 1, the main
stream of acid gas (98 % H2S) goes to conversion reactor
at 21 °C, 273 kPa and 105 kgmole/h. The acid gas flow
controls the temperature and the flow rate of burner
stream, which receive the necessary amount of O2 and
30 N2 to burn the H2S as well as hydrocarbons in the con-
version reactor. Majority of sulfur (95 % wt.) converted
and goes to the Burnliq stream by the absorption in an
amine based solvent of Methyl diethanolamine (MDEA)
[17, 18]. The BurnVap stream still contains sulfur compo-
35 nents as H2S and SO2 which must be recovered.
The gaseous product from BurnVap stream flows to the 20
E1 cooler. In the E1 cooler, the gaseous cooled just below its
boiling point under 266.8 kPa pressure to make the X1
splitter feed to vapor and liquid. The objective of the item
splitter is to separate the sulfur ingredients from sour gas.
The pressure in the splitter is lower than the pressure 25
BurnVap stream which is 165.5 kPa, so when the feed inters
the splitter, it starts to boil. With a component splitter, a
material feed stream is separated into two component
streams based on the parameters and split fractions that
come from the conversion reactor. The lighter components 30
in the feed, rise on the splitter and goes to X1Vap stream.
The remaining liquid which consists primarily of the hea-
vier item in the feed moves down and goes the bottom
stream (sulfur component only). The X1 item splitter sepa-
rates the sulfur (S) only at 0.159 kmole/h flow. Table 1 35

Table 1: Gas composition.

Components BURNAIR HS FEED BurnLiq BurnVap XVap XLiq ClausVap XLiq XVap ClausVap XLiq XVap
40 H S . .  . .  .  . .  . 40

O .           
SO .  . . .  .  . .  .
HO . . . . .  .  . .  .
S . . . .        
N . . . . .  .  . .  .
45 45
S        .   . 
S        .   . 
S        .   . 
S       . .   . 
S       . .  . . 
S       . .  . . 
50  50
S       . .  . . 
 4 W. Nabgan et al.: Simulation

shows that the X1Vap stream still contains sulfur compo-

.
.

.

.

.

.

,.

.

,.
Sulfur
1 1
nents which must be decrease to the standard value.
The X1Vap stream reaches equilibrium at constant pres-

XLiq

.
.

.

.

.

.

,.

.

,.
sure and temperature. In general, every system seeks to
5 achieve a minimum of free energy. Therefore a Gibbs reac- 5

.
.

.

.

,.

.

−,.

−.

−,,.
XVap
tor is used for X1Vap feed. The mixed of X1Vap stream
which contain mixtures of gaseous components (H2S, SO2,
H2O and N2) transported into the RGibbs reactor (CLAUS 1)
reactor with steam and the chemical equilibrium calcula-

.
.

.

.

,.

.

−,.

.

−,,.
ClausVap
10 tion was performed in RGibbs reactor by an equilibrium 10
approach based on the Gibbs free energy minimization
method. More than 96 % of water is separated and flow to

.
.

.

.

.

.

−,.

−.

.
Clausdum
Calus1dum stream. This water contains less than 4 wt%
H2S, SO2 and N2 components which go to sour water treat-

.
.

.

.

,.

.

−,.

.

−,,.
EOut
15 ment plant. The rest of gases which contain small sulfur 15
molecules (S5, S6, S7 and S8) go to the Claus 1Vap stream
and inter the second splitter (X2).

.
.

.

.

.

.

,.

.

,.
XLiq
As same as X1 splitter, in the X2 stripper the heavy
items which are S2 to S8 molecules separated and go to
20 the X2Liq stream and then feed to the mixer (MIX-100). The 20

.
.

.

.

,.

.

−,.

.

−,,.
rest of the ingredients (N2, H2O, H2S and SO2) feed to the XVap

second Gibbs reactor (CLAUS2) to separate the water mole-

cule from the X2Vap stream. This water (Claus2dum) is as
.
.

.

.

,.

.

−,.

.

−,,.
ClausVap

same as Claus1dum stream, contains low amount of H2S

25 and SO2 molecules which go to sour water treatment unit. In 25
the Claus2Vap stream, still low amount (less than 1 %) of
.
.

.

.

.

.

−,.

−.

.
Clausdum

H2S, SO2, S6, S7, and S8 were mixed with the N2 and H2O.
Therefore the third stripper (X3) was employed to produce
XLiq

.
.

.

.

.

.

,.

.

,.
the small sulfur molecules. The X3Liq stream contains S2 to
30 S8 molecules go to the MIX-100 mixer and mix with X1Liq 30
and X2Liq streams.
.
.

.

.

,.

.

−,.

.

−,,.
XVap

3 Results and discussion

EOut

.
.

.

.

,.

.

−,.

.

−,,.

35 35
Operating data of the sour gas treatment process for
sulfur recovery is reported in Table 2. The ideal equation
.
.

.

.

,.

.

−,.

.

−,,.
BurnVap

model of state was used for the process design because it

could be a desirable approximation to the behavior of
40 many gases under many conditions. The purpose of this 40
.
.

.

.

.

.

,.

.

,,.
BurnLiq

process is separation of aqueous and gaseous phase of

sulfur from sour gas. It was found that the only factor
.
.

.

.

,.

.

−,.

.

−,,.
HSFEED

which can affect the hydrogen sulfide conversion is the

Table 2: Opration condition.

BURNAIR feed composition and molar flow.

45 45
.
.

.

.

,.

.

−.

−.

−,.
BURNAIR

3.1 Effect of N2 mole fraction in the BURNAIR

on sulfur production
[kJ/kgmole-C]
Std Ideal Liq Vol

Heat flow [kJ/h]

flow [m/h]
Molar enthalpy
[kJ/kgmole]
[kgmole/h]

Molar entropy
Temperature

[kg/h]
Pressure
[kPa]

50 Figure 3 shows the influence of nitrogen mole fraction in 50

flow

flow
Vapour

[C]

Molar

Mass

BURNAIR on sulfur production in the Burnliq stream under

 W. Nabgan et al.: Simulation 5

1 1.00 1.00 4 Conclusion 1

Sulfur mole fraction in the Burnliq

0.95 0.95 A simulation of a Claus process plant has been achieved

in this work. According to the previous studies, the sour
5 5
0.90 0.90 gas in sulfur recovery units in Iran released a huge
amount of sulfur, nitrogen, and unsaturated compounds
to the environment which are pollutants and cause envir-
0.85 0.85
onmental problems. Therefore the Claus process unit has
designed in this work for sulfur recovery via Aspen
10 0.80 0.80 10
HYSYS V8.8 software. The BURNAIR stream which con-
tains O2 and N2 found to be an important factor to con-
0.75 0.75 version the sour gas. By increasing the N2 to O2 ratio and
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 molar flow of BURNAIR, the conversion of sour gas
N2 mole fraction in the BURNAIR increased. It was found that more than 96 % of water is
15 15
separated before Calus1dum stream and contains 4 wt%
Figure 3: Effect of N2 mole fraction on sulfur production in Burnliq
stream. of H2S, SO2 and N2 components. The composition of H2S
further decreased after Claus2dum to 0.0015 (~0) which
the operating conditions given in Table 2. It is shown that means 100 % of sulfur removed from the sour gas at
the N2 mole fraction bellow 0.7 does not affect the sulfur 140.6 kgmole/h BURNAIR flow. The result illustrates
20 20
production, but by increasing N2 from 0.7 to 0.9, the sulfur that the only factor which can affect the conversion of
mole fraction increased from 0.94 to 0.98. By using the N2 H2S is the BURNAIR feed composition and molar flow.
alone in the BURNAIR, the sulfur will not produce in the Few modifications may be accomplished in future work
conversion reactor and it must mix with oxygen. with respect to improving the process design by increas-
ing the annual capacity of a Claus process units while
25 25
achieving the higher purities of separated sulfur compo-
3.2 Effect of BURNAIR molar flow rate nents and close to real practice.
on H2S conversion
Funding: Funding: The authors acknowledge the finan-
cial support given for this work by Universiti Teknologi
30
Figure 4 indicates that the H2S conversion strongly depends
Malaysia (UTM) under the Research University Grant Tier 30
on the molar ratio of the BURNAIR stream. In this step, the
FRGS 4F478.
operation condition was as it reported in Table 2. The com-
plete conversion of H2S was found at 140.6 kgmole/h
BURNAIR flow.
35
References 35

100 100 1. Ibrahim S, Gupta AK, Al Shoaibi A. Xylene and H2S destruction
in high temperature flames under Claus condition. Appl.
90 90
Energy 2015;154:352–60.
80 80
H2S Conversion (%)

2. Selim H, Gupta A, Sassi M. 2008. Acid gas composition effects

40 70 70 on the reactor temperature in Claus reactor. 6th AIAA interna- 40
60 60 tional energy conversion engineering conference (IECEC),
50 50 Cleveland, OH.
3. Song C. An overview of new approaches to deep desulfuriza-
40 40
tion for ultra-clean gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel. Catal
30 30 Today 2003;86(1–4):211–63.
45 20 20 4. Álvarez-Ayuso E, Querol X, Tomás A. Environmental impact 45
10 10 of a coal combustion-desulphurisation plant: Abatement
capacity of desulphurisation process and environmental
0 0
characterisation of combustion by-products.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Chemosphere 2006;65(11):2009–17.
BURNAIR molar flow (kgmole/h) 5. Kurimura H, Rochelle GT, Sepehrnoori K. An expert system to
50 select acid gas treating processes for natural gas processing 50
Figure 4: Effect of BURNAIR molar flow on H2S conversion. plants. Gas Sep Purif 1993;7(3):151–8.
 6 W. Nabgan et al.: Simulation

1 6. Polasek JC, Bullin JA. Effect of sulfur recovery requirements on
optimization of integrated sweetening, sulfur recovery, and
tailgas cleanup units. Bryan Research & Engineering Inc.,
Q2 1993:170–4.
7. Khazini L, Fatehifar E, Kaynejad MA, Alizadeh R. 2009. Control
5 of Claus unit tail gas in an oil refinery. Second International
Conference on Environmental and Computer Science.
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.
9. Muhammad A, GadelHak Y. Correlating the additional amine
10 sweetening cost to acid gases load in natural gas using Aspen
Hysys. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2014;17:119–30.
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.
11. Shahsavand A, Garmroodi A. Simulation of Khangiran gas
15
treating units for various cooling scenarios. J Nat Gas Sci Eng
2010;2(6):277–83.
12. Alzueta MU, Bilbao R, Glarborg P. Inhibition and sensitization
of fuel oxidation by SO2. Combust Flame 2001;127(4):2234–51.
13. Glarborg P, Kubel D, Dam-Johansen K, Chiang H-M, 1
Bozzelli JW. Impact of SO2 and NO on CO Oxidation
under Post-Flame Conditions. Int J Chem Kinet
1996;28(10):773–90.
14. Manenti F, Papasidero D, Bozzano G, Ranzi E. Model-based
optimization of sulfur recovery units. Comput Chem Eng 5
2014;66:244–51.
15. Balali-Mood M, Hefazi M. The pharmacology, toxicology, and
medical treatment of sulphur mustard poisoning. Fundam Clin
Pharmacol 2005;19(3):297–315.
16. Kehe K, Szinicz L. Medical aspects of sulphur mustard poi-
soning. Toxicology 2005;214(3):198–209. 10
17. Aliabad Z. Removal of CO2 and H2S using aqueous
alkanolamine solusions. World Acad Sci Eng Technol
2009;3(1):50–9.
18. Dyment J. Acid gas cleaning using DEPG physical solvents:
validation with experimental and plant data. Aspen Technology
15
Inc., 2015. Q3
19. Lurgi Company. www.lurgi.com. 2005. Reference document on Q4
best available techniques in the slaughterhouses and animal
by-products Industries. European Commission.

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40

45 45

50 50

View publication stats