See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278329853

A Case Study on the Application of Aspen HYSYS

to Optimise the Performance of an Existing Gas
Sweetening Process ....

Conference Paper · April 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 978

2 authors, including:

Nasir Al Lagtah
Heriot-Watt University
24 PUBLICATIONS 329 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

reforming View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nasir Al Lagtah on 16 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Case Study on the Application of Aspen HYSYS to Optimise the
Performance of an Existing Gas Sweetening Process Plant
Paper number: 401072
Dr. Nasir Al Lagtah, Newcastle University, School of Chemical Engineering and Advanced
Materials, Singapore

Keywords: Fossil Fuel, Plant Operations, Process Design and Resource Recovery.

Abstract
Amine gas sweetening process is widely used to remove acid gases (H 2 S and CO 2 ) from natural
gas, which is an energy intensive process due to the large requirements of heating and cooling.
Reducing the process energy requirements by optimizing its operating parameters (amine
circulation rate, temperature, or pressure) is limited. However, process modifications can make a
considerable reduction in energy consumption and hence reducing the operating costs. This
research reviews the current operation of the case plant (Lekhwair plant, Oman) considering the
main operating parameters (lean amine circulation flow rate, temperature and concentration).
The simulation and sensitivity analysis are carried out using Aspen HYSYS v7.3. The current
process and the two proposed process modifications (side-draw and modified side-draw) are
simulated and discussed. A comparison between them and the current process showed that the
side-draw modification will save 50% of the current operating expenses with only around
£175,000 increase in the capital investment, and a penalty of 1.0 ppm of H 2 S concentration in
the sweet gas, which is still well below the pipeline gas specification.
1. Introduction
The natural gas is a prime source of energy generation that works as an industrial and domestic
fuel. To make the natural gas suitable for consumption, it is crucial to purify gases from all
contaminants that can affect its optimal energy capacity [1]. These contaminants can also cause
corrosion, freezing, plugging, erosion, health and environmental hazards [2]. The acid gases of
hydrogen sulphide (H 2 S) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) are impurities in natural gas that need to be
removed. The gas is considered sour if H 2 S content exceeds 5.7 mg m−3 of natural gas. The
process for removing H 2 S and CO 2 from a natural gas stream is referred to as gas sweetening
[3]. Due to obligatory requirements of emissions posed by environmental regulatory agencies,
the increase in fuel cost, and high quality demand, the gas sweetening process is considered as a
must in the natural gas treatment [4]. The most widely used gas sweetening method is amine gas
sweetening process, which is energy intensive especially for amine regeneration [5]. More than
50% of acid gas removal processes use aqueous solutions of alkanolamines. The tertiary amine
called MDEA (Methyldiethanolamine), which is the base amine used in this case study, has
several advantages over primary and secondary amines such as; lower vapour pressure, lower
heats of reaction, higher resistance to degradation, and less corrosion problems. Another
important advantage is the selectivity of H 2 S preferentially to CO 2 [6].
The waste acid gases from the process are normally incinerated or flared to the environment. In
the incinerator, H 2 S is converted to SO 2 . The flaring of sour gases not only means that natural

1
gas resources are wasted, but also results in the release of pollutants into the atmosphere. SO 2 ,
H 2 S and CO 2 are major contributors to global warming. Also, the environmental impacts of SO 2
include acid rain, accelerated corrosion of buildings and reduced visibility [7].
Lekhwair amine gas sweetening plant is a process used for acid gases removal. This plant is
located in Lekhwair field (Northwest of Oman) that is operated and developed by Petroleum
Development Oman (PDO) Company. The produced natural gas from oil wells in this field is
rich in H 2 S and CO 2 . The oil and water are separated and the gas goes to a pre-treatment process
before flowing to the amine gas sweetening plant. This plant was commissioned in 2012 to
remove H 2 S from the produced natural gas and is designed to reduce the H 2 S concentration of
the sour gas from 500 ppm (volume-based) to 5 ppm (volume-based) with an inlet gas flow rate
of 5.0 million standard cubic meter per day (MMSCMD) [8]. There is no maximum or minimum
limit for CO 2 in the outlet gas stream. Currently, the H 2 S concentration in the feed gas is 200
ppm, and in the treated sweet gas is around 0.04 ppm, which is acceptable. However, the flare of
waste gases is always above the target and there is a chance for an increase in acid gases due to
new wells being drilled and reservoir change [9]. Besides, as the plant is considered new, there is
a requirement to review the current plant operation and investigate any possible optimisation and
modification that can save energy and lead to reduce the flared waste gases without violating the
sweet gas specification.
Reduction of the operating costs and increasing the environment sustainability of the process are
two critical concerns in any oil and gas processing facility. This research considers firstly the
optimization of Lekhwair gas sweetening process to reduce the operating expenses taking into
consideration equipment limitations. The reduction of the energy consumption by optimizing the
operating parameters is limited and hence applying process modifications in the process can
make a considerable reduction in the energy requirement of the sweetening process. The second
part is reducing the waste gas flare by converting H 2 S into a valuable product (e.g. sulphur)
taking into consideration the conditions of the waste gas and the required modifications in the
process. A comparison between the different modifications is carried out in terms of operating
costs, capital costs and carbon footprint.
2. Methodology
Aspen HYSYS v7.3 is used to study, simulate and optimize Lekhwair amine gas sweetening
plant. DBR amine package is used rather than traditional amine package. DBR Amine Package is
a new package added to HYSYS v7.3 and is similar to the amine package, but is independently
coded and can be updated anytime. The selected as the thermodynamic model is the modified
Kent and Eisenberg model, which is used to calculate the vapour pressure of H 2 S and CO 2 above
amine solutions [10]. The simulation and optimization of PDO Lekhwair amine gas sweetening
plant is divided into two main parts. In the first part, the current operation is reviewed and the
most important operating parameters (MDEA circulation rate, concentration and inlet lean amine
temperature) are optimized taking into consideration the current equipment limitations. The
second part includes retrofitting and process modifications that need capital investments.
The existing gas sweetening process is considered as the base case (Case 1) and has been
simulated using Aspen HYSYS. The amine sweetening portion of Lekhwair field is an MDEA
absorption process of two parallel trains, each with a capacity of 2.5 million standard cubic meter

2
per day (MMSCMD). A 41 wt. % MDEA solution is circulated at a flow rate of 18.75 m3 hr−1 to
meet the gas outlet specification of maximum 5.0 ppm of H 2 S. The process main parameters
(e.g. MDEA solvent circulation rate, amine concentration, and the inlet lean amine temperature
to the absorber) will be reviewed and optimized.
2.1. Modifications to the existing process
To get lower outlet concentrations, more energy needs to be consumed, and hence, more
operating costs. To overcome the increase in energy consumption, two process modifications are
proposed to meet the required gas purity at lower energy costs. These two process modifications
are compared in terms of the outlet H 2 S concentration and the regeneration duties. For retrofit
and comparison purpose, the two modifications will be made to the base case (Case 1) without
any changes to the recommended parameters after process review.
2.1.1.Side draw from the stripper to the absorber
This side draw modification (named Case 2) is simulated using Aspen HYSYS and optimised
following a procedure summarized by a simple algorithm shown in Figure 1. The first variable
that needs to be optimized is the side draw flow rate. This variable is converted to a fraction of
the total gas inlet to the absorber, and will be called a side fraction. At selected circulation flow
rate and amine concentration, the side fraction is increased. Increasing the side fraction, and
hence the solvent flow rate drawn from the stripper column reduces the reboiler heating
requirement. The absorption performance is expected to decline due to the low lean solvent flow
rate entering the top section of the absorber. Moreover, the side draw is semi lean amine that has
acid gases unstripped in the regeneration column. Therefore, H 2 S and CO 2 concentrations in the
sweet gas are expected to increase. In this case, as the last step in the algorithm, the reboiler duty
needs to be adjusted to meet the outlet specification.
This modification can make a considerable reduction in the regeneration duties. However, it was
found that the MDEA concentration in the side draw is lower than that in the lean MDEA
solution, and hence these two streams enter the absorber at different concentrations. Although it
was found earlier that increasing or decreasing MDEA amine concentration around 40 wt. %
does not enhance the H 2 S removal efficiency, the concentration of 41 wt. % has to be maintained
in the system. Therefore, a modified side stream needs to be proposed and examined. This
further modification will be named Case 3.
2.1.2.Modified side draw (Case 3)
The MDEA concentration in the side stream can be controlled by evaporating water until
achieving 41 wt. % MDEA. The vaporization process can be simulated in HYSYS by using a
heater and a separator by a trial and error method to find the optimal heater outlet temperature. If
the concentration of MDEA is above 41 wt. %, it can be diluted by adding make-up water.
Another modification has been proposed to this process which is a heat integration opportunity
that can reduce the operating cost of the cooler in the side draw stream. The side draw from the
stripper is hot (ranging from 120 to 125°C at the current conditions), while the rich MDEA
solution is relatively cold (around 51°C). The rich MDEA stream is currently exchanging heat
with the lean MDEA stream coming from the stripper. Therefore, the stream can be split to
provide process cooling to both streams (lean amine and side draw). The optimisation algorithm

3
(Fig. 1) is followed with adding two more steps (highlighted in red); adjusting the MDEA
concentration by adjusting the heater outlet temperature, and heat integration possibility using
pinch analysis.
2.1.3.Sulphur Recovery
Currently, H 2 S from the stripper is sent directly to the acid gas incinerator and burnt and
converted to SO 2. Due to the severe effects of SO 2 to human health and environment, sulphur
recovery process is proposed to reduce the SO 2 emissions. This process needs to be constructed
and operated upstream of the incinerator. The remaining unconverted H 2 S and SO 2 gases will be
routed to the incinerator for final burning. The simulator Aspen HYSYS v7.3 is used for
simulating the sulphur recovery process. The conventional sulphur recovery process consists of a
furnace and waste heat boiler, reactors, heaters and condensers. As the acid gas is considered
lean (H 2 S ≤ 10 mol %), the modifications (bypass the furnace or oxygen enrichment) are
examined.
2.2. Profitability Estimation
The total capital investment is the sum of the fixed capital investment and the working capital.
The fixed capital investment of a chemical process plant includes the Inside Battery Limits
(ISBL), which is the purchase cost of the major equipment items required for the process; and
the other installation costs being estimated as factors of the equipment cost, the Outside Battery
Limit (OSBL) cost which will be assumed as 30% of ISBL. For a preliminary design, where only
the main equipment are considered, contingency and engineering charge will be assumed to be
25% of (ISBL+OSBL) costs. The fixed capital investment is the sum of ISBL, OSBL,
engineering and contingency. The working capital is the capital required to actually operate the
plant. A charge of 15% of the total capital investment will be considered for the working capital
cost [11]. Start-up cost of 10% of the fixed capital cost will be included in the investment of the
Sulphur Unit Recovery.
The accuracy of this type of estimation depends on the stage of the design and on the reliability
of the data available on equipment costs. The factorial method is a relatively accurate method for
capital cost estimation and it will be followed in this project. The preliminary purchased cost of
an equipment can be estimated using the following correlation [11]:
𝐶𝐶𝑒𝑒 = 𝑎𝑎 + 𝑏𝑏𝑆𝑆 𝑛𝑛 [Eq. 1]
Where 𝐶𝐶𝑒𝑒 = purchased equipment cost; 𝑆𝑆 = size parameter (varied units); 𝑎𝑎, 𝑏𝑏 = cost constants;
and 𝑛𝑛 = exponent for that type of equipment. The values for a, b, and n can be found in (Sinnott
and Tawler [11]. Note that the estimated costs of purchased equipment are based on Chemical
Engineering (CE) index (January 2006). To get the present costs, the following cost escalation
method [Eq. 2] is used to relate the present costs to past costs. The CE index for January 2006 is
478.6 and for preliminary September 2014 is 580.2.
Cost index in year A
Cost in year A = cost in year B × [Eq. 2]
Cost index in year B

4
 Figure 1: Algorithm of side stream optimization
Note: Steps highlighted in RED are extra steps for the modified side draw process (Case 3)

Increase side fraction

Adjust MDEA concentration in the lean amine by water make-up

in every split fraction

Adjusting MDEA concentration in the side draw by evaporating water or

adding water make-up in every split fraction

Examine stripper side draw stage

and absorber feed stage

Heat integration between side draw and

rich amine streams (pinch analysis)

Is H2S outlet in the sweet

END
gas meets the specification?

Adjust reboiler duty to

meet specification

As this case study is located in Oman, there are differences in currency exchange, costs of
shipping, local fabrication and construction. To capture these differences in the cost estimate, the
cost based on USGS will be multiplied by a Location Factor [11]. The location factor for Middle
East is 1.07. This factor is assumed the same for the year 2014.
The operating costs in this project include mainly utilities (fuels, electricity, steam, and cooling
water) which are the most significant variable operating costs, catalysts for sulphur recovery
process, and chemicals (MDEA amine and antifoam chemical). The annualized operating and
capital costs will be used to compare between the four cases.
The economic analysis of the proposed Sulphur Unit Recovery is evaluated using two simple
measures of economic performance and profitability; Pay-Back Time and Net Present Value
(NPV). For Pay-Back Time, the shorter the payback time is, the more attractive the project is.

5
One simple method of estimating the payback time is by dividing the total initial capital (fixed
capital plus working capital) by the average annual cash flow [11]:
total investment
Payback time = [Eq. 3]
average annula cash flow
Net Present Value (NPV) of a project is the sum of the present values of the future cash flows
[11]:
𝑛𝑛=𝑡𝑡
𝐶𝐶𝐹𝐹𝑛𝑛
NPV = � [Eq. 4]
(1 + 𝑖𝑖)𝑛𝑛
𝑛𝑛=1

Where 𝐶𝐶𝐹𝐹𝑛𝑛 = Cash flow in year n; 𝑡𝑡 = project life in years; and 𝑖𝑖 = interest rate.
2.3. Sustainability and carbon footprint calculation
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an environmental management technique that helps translate
life cycle thinking into a quantitative measure of environmental sustainability of processes or
activities from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution,
use, maintenance, and disposal or recycling on a life cycle basis [12]. In this dissertation, as the
raw materials, distribution, transportation and use stages are almost the same for the processes;
the processing stage is only considered for sustainability and carbon footprint calculation.
CCaLC 2.0 software is used for calculating the carbon footprint.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Process modifications
The simulation of the side draw (Case 2) is shown in Figure 2 (left-hand side). Following the
algorithm (Fig. 1), the side fraction was increased starting from 0.1. The maximum achieved
fraction is 0.7. Below this side fraction, the MDEA concentration in the lean amine stream was
below 41 wt. % and cannot be controlled by make-up water. Allowing more fluid withdrawn in
the side draw leads to decrease considerably the regeneration duties (reboiler and condenser).
However, more H 2 S is slipped to the sweet gas stream of the absorber. This is due to unstripped
acid gases in the side draw. Therefore, 0.7 side fraction is selected. At this fraction, there is a big
saving of around 1480 kW in the stripper reboiler requirement and around 1450 kW in the
cooling requirement. However, the H 2 S concentration in the sweet gas is around 1.0 ppm.
The next step in the algorithm (Fig. 1) is to examine the effect of side draw stage location in the
stripper and the side feed stage location in the absorber on the absorption of H 2 S, to select the
stages that give lower H 2 S concentration in the sweet gas. The examination showed that drawing
fluid from the upper stages in the stripper gives less H 2 S concentration in the sweet gas. It was
expected that the H 2 S concentration in the sweet gas stream of the absorption column increases
when the side draw stage location is approaching the inlet rich feed gas of the stripper. As the
difference is relatively minor, the initial stage # 9, which is in the middle, is selected. In the
absorber side, the same relationship was figured out until reaching stage # 15 where H 2 S
concentration starts to increase. The location of the side feed is preferred to be in the middle and
hence it is located at the actual stage # 13 in the absorber.

6
 Figure 2: HYSYS simulation of the two process modifications [Case 2 (left-hand side) & Case 3
(right-hand side)]

The HYSYS simulation of the modified side draw (Case 3) is shown in Figure 2 (right-hand
side). In this modified process, the side draw from the stripper is around 34 wt. % MDEA
concentration, so it has be maintained to about 38.5 wt. %. It is first heated by the heater to a
temperature where a portion of water is vaporized leaving the solution with the desired
concentration of MDEA. After trial and error, the temperature should be around 123.4°C. The
water vapour outlet of the flash separator is returned back to the stripper. This flash vessel can
also decrease the acid gases in the side draw. It was found that, in any side draw flow rate,
around 40 mole% of H 2 S and more than 60 mole% of CO 2 flow with the water vapour.
To apply the optimization algorithm (Fig. 1), the side fraction is first increased and the H 2 S
concentration and regeneration duties are recorded. The results showed that H 2 S concentration
increases with increasing the side draw flow rates due to the increased unstripped acid gases. The
heating requirement in the stripper decreases considerably. However, the cooling requirement
increases with increasing side draw fraction. This could be due to the water vapour return to the
column. The selected location of the water vapour return is between the side draw stage # 9 and
the stripper feed gas stage # 17. However, changing the location of the return did not make a big
saving or change in the sweet gas purity. Therefore, it was kept at the actual stage # 13. Again,
the maximum side fraction is 0.7. To select the best side fraction, two points are investigated in
terms of energy consumption and H 2 S concentration. At these two points, H 2 S concentration is
well within the accepted specification. At a side fraction of 0.2, the heating and cooling
requirements of the stripper are equal at 1930 kW. At 0.7, reboiler duty decreased by 1110 kW,
while the condenser increased by only around 578 kW and this increase was gradually. Taking
into account, the higher operating cost of the heating, a side fraction of 0.7 was selected.
For the step of heat integration, the side draw outlet temperature of the side draw pump is
125.8°C. It needs to be cooled to around 55°C which is the temperature of the stage # 13 in the

7
absorber where the side feed enters. A pinch analysis is required to set the process heat recovery
and to avoid any heat transfer across the pinch by inappropriate use of utilities. As described by
Smith [13], the heat exchanger network design for maximum energy recovery can be represented
by a grid diagram (pinch analysis). The pinch analysis shows that maximum recovery between
the hot side draw and the cold rich amine through a heat exchanger at a minimum approach
temperature of 10°C. The network is divided into above the pinch and below the pinch. Using
Problem Table [13] method and Sprint software, pinch temperature was found to be 56.25°C. To
satisfy the heating and cooling requirements, one process-to-process heat exchanger is required
with a maximum heat recovery of around 867.97 kW, minimum cold utility of 83.75 kW, and
minimum hot utility of 42.88 kW. For the last step in the algorithm, the H 2 S concentration is
well below the specification in the sweet gas, therefore no need to adjust the reboiler duty.
Table 1 gives an overall comparison between the three cases. It is apparent from this table that
Case 2 is the least harmful process to the environment with a carbon footprint of 424.93 kg CO 2 e
per 1.0 ppm H 2 S compared to more than 1000 kg CO 2 e per 1.0 ppm H 2 S in the other two
processes. This process can be considered as the most sustainable process among the three
processes. Even that the process modifications are mainly retrofit-based, the capital costs are
included as the modified processes require investing some additional units and equipment. As
can be seen from Table 1, Case 2 is consuming annual operating costs of around £0.116 MM
(50% saving compared to the base case) with an increase of annualized capital cost by only
8.4%. Overall, there is a total annualized saving of around £0.06 MM yr-1. The base plant (Case
1) already exists and the equipment have been already purchased. Therefore, in terms of payback
period of this modification, and assuming the energy saving as positive, the payback period is
about 1.5 years only. On the other hand, Case 3 needs to invest more capital expenses (total
annualized cost of approximately £0.2 MM yr-1 more than Case 2. Therefore, in addition to its
low gas emissions as seen in Table 1, the side draw modification (Case 2) for the current plant is
beneficial and recommended.
4. Conclusions
The new generated DBR amine package in Aspen HYSYS v7.3 showed its suitability for gas
sweetening process simulation and sensitivity analysis. The simulation results are almost
matching with the plant data. After a review of the current operation of the case plant and
considering the main operating parameters (lean solvent circulation flow rate, lean amine
temperature, and MDEA concentration), it was found that the circulation rate needs to be
increased to at least 40 m3 h−1 to avoid damaging the pump (temporary until the pump is replaced
with a smaller one), lean amine temperature to be kept unchanged at 51°C to avoid foaming in
the system, and the MDEA concentration to be decreased to the design specification of 38.5 wt.
%. The foaming and upset problems due to the hydrocarbons increase in the rich amine can be
minimized by changing the location of the current antifoam agent injection to be downstream of
carbon filters and commissioning the injection point in the stripper reflux. Mixtures of amines
can increase the efficiency of CO 2 removal, but H 2 S skip to the sweet gas increases. As the plant
has been designed to get rid of H 2 S from the natural gas, single MDEA amine is used. To save
some operating costs in the system, taking the advantage of the 5 ppm H 2 S concentration
allowance in the sweet gas, two modifications were proposed. An optimization procedure was

8
followed to achieve the maximum optimization and savings, and avoid the limitations. It was
found that the side draw modification can save 50% of the current operating expenses with only
around £175,000 increase in the capital investment, and a penalty of 1.0 ppm of H 2 S
concentration in the sweet gas which is still well below the pipeline gas specification.

Table 1: Comparison between the base case, the side draw case and the modified side draw case
Parameters Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Side fraction 0.0 0.7 0.7
Stripper intermediate side draw stage a -- 9 9
Absorber intermediate side feed stage a -- 13 13
H 2 S concentration is sweet gas 0.24 1.00 0.41
Utilities (kW)
Total Heating requirement 2170 690 2733b
Total Cooling requirement 1961 513 2508
Total Power requirement 147 176 136
Carbon footprint (kg CO 2 e/1 ppm H 2 S)
Steam c 0.00 0.00 499.28
Hot oil d 634.66 201.80 239.83
Cooling process e 402.77 105.37 515.12
Electricity f 98.35 117.76 90.99
Total 1135.79 424.93 1345.22
Profitability analysis
ISBL (£MM*) 0.937 1.016 1.166
OSBL (£MM) 0.281 0.305 0.350
Engineering (£MM) 0.061 0.066 0.076
Contingency (£MM) 0.244 0.264 0.303
Total Capital Fixed costs (£MM) 1.523 1.651 1.894
Working Cost (£MM) 0.228 0.248 0.284
Total Capital Investment (£MM) 1.751 1.898 2.179
Total Capital (September 2014) (£MM) 2.112 2.301 2.642
Annualized capital cost (£MM yr−1) 0.708 0.767 0.881
Total Operating Cost (£MM yr−1) 0.236 0.119 0.20
Total Annualized cost (£MM yr−1) 0.943 0.886 1.090
a Stages numbering from bottom up
b Most contribution to this duty is from the heater (E-101) in Fig 4 (around 1870 kW).
c Steam emits 0.26 kg CO e per kWh energy (CCaLC database)
2
d Hot oil emits 0.292 kg CO e per kWh energy (CCaLC database)
2
e Process cooling emits 0.21 kg CO e per kWh energy (CCaLC database).
2
f Electricity low voltage UK emits 0.67 kg CO e per kWh energy (CCaLC database)
2
* MM stands for Million

5. References

[1] Stewart, Arnold K. Gas Sweetening and Processing Field Manual. Waltham: Gulf
Publishing, 2011
[2] Haws R. Contaminants in Amine Gas Treating. Houston: CCR Technologies Inc., 2001
[3] Kohl, Riesenfeld. Gas Purification. 3rd ed., Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1985

9
 [4] Rezakazemi, et al., “CFD simulation of natural gas sweetening in a gas–liquid hollow-
fiber membrane contactor,” Chemical Engineering Journal, Volume168, NO. 3, 2011
[5] US EPA. Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates (EPA-453/R-95-017). Office
of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 1995
[6] McMahon D., “Navigating the technical minefield of gas processing options,” In: Joint
GPA/International Institute of Refrigeration (11R) conference, London, UK, 2004
[7] Smith S., TVA Ahead of the Pack in Pollution and Pollution Reduction.
http://blog.cleanenergy.org/2011/01/14/tva-ahead-of-the-pack-in-pollution-and-pollution-
reduction (Accessed 19/08/2013)
[8] PDO (Petroleum Development Oman). Plant Operating Manual. Oman, 2012
[9] Nibras, Nibras Monitoring Tool (Software). PDO Company, Oman, 2013
[10] Aspen Tech. Aspen HYSYS help section. Aspen Technology, Inc. Burlington, VT. 2011
[11] Sinnott, Towler G.P. Chemical Engineering Design: Principles, Practice and Economics
of Plant and Process Design. 5th ed. Elsevier. 2009
[12] Azapagic, Perdan S. (eds.) Sustainable Development in Practice: Case Studies for
Engineers and Scientists. 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell. Chichester, UK. 2011
[13] Smith R. Chemical process design and integration. Wiley & Sons. Chichester, UK. 2005

10

View publication stats