This article was downloaded by: [Institute of Chemical Technology]

On: 22 December 2014, At: 09:20

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Mathematical and Computer Modelling

of Dynamical Systems: Methods, Tools
and Applications in Engineering and
Related Sciences
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nmcm20

CO2 removal by absorption: challenges

in modelling
L.E. i

Department of Technology , Telemark University College , PO

Box 203, N-3901, Porsgrunn, Norway
Published online: 15 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: L.E. i (2010) CO2 removal by absorption: challenges in modelling,
Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems: Methods, Tools and Applications in
Engineering and Related Sciences, 16:6, 511-533, DOI: 10.1080/13873954.2010.491676
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13873954.2010.491676

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems

Vol. 16, No. 6, December 2010, 511533

CO2 removal by absorption: challenges in modelling

L.E. i*
Department of Technology, Telemark University College, PO Box 203, N-3901 Porsgrunn, Norway

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

(Received 4 September 2009; final version received 5 May 2010)

The traditional method for large-scale CO2 removal is by absorption in a mixture of an
amine and water. The tasks of modelling this process can be divided into descriptions of
absorption and reaction kinetics, gas/liquid equilibrium, gas and liquid flows and pressure
drop. Process simulation tools containing models for most of these tasks are commercially
available, and the calculated results can be used as a basis for equipment dimensioning and
economical optimization. A flowsheet calculation in the program Aspen HYSYS is used
as an example. Calculation convergence is important, especially the column convergence is
critical. For some simplified conditions, calculation of stage efficiencies can give a
satisfactory description of the absorption process. Computational fluid dynamics is an
efficient tool for calculating flow conditions, pressure drop and temperature profiles,
especially for one-fluid phase. An unsolved problem when using computational fluid
dynamics for gas/liquid processes is the description of the gas/liquid interfacial area. A
major challenge is to combine different models and calculation tools. An improved model
for a specific task must be available and possible to combine with other calculation tools to
be utilized by other programs. In an example, models for equilibrium and mass transfer
efficiency are used in a flowsheet calculation including CO2 absorption and desorption,
followed by economical optimization. The example illustrates some possibilities,
limitations and challenges.
Keywords: CO2; amine; absorption; simulation; modelling; efficiency

1. Introduction
CO2 has been removed from process streams at an industrial scale since about 1930. The most
important removal processes have been from natural gas and in the removal of CO2 from
industrial gases at high pressures for ammonia and methanol production. The main process is
absorption in a mixture of an amine and water. Other solvents like carbonate salt solutions have
also been used. An overview of processes can be found in Kohl and Nielsen [1].
CO2 removal from exhaust gases has received much interest because of the environmental need for reducing CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. Many processes for removal of
CO2 from power plants or other exhaust gases have been suggested. The emphasis here is
put on post-combustion absorption in an amine-based solvent. This is the most relevant
method for gas-based power plants in the near future. The technology is relatively mature
and can be utilized by existing plants with little modification. Absorption is traditionally
performed in a column with plates, random packing or structured packing; CO2-containing
gas flows upwards and the absorption liquid flows downwards. The absorbed CO2 is
regenerated in a desorption column, and the solvent is recirculated to the absorption
*Email: lars.oi@hit.no
ISSN 1387-3954 print/ISSN 1744-5051 online
2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13873954.2010.491676
http://www.informaworld.com

512

L.E. i
Purified gas
Product CO2
Condenser
Amine cooler
Desorber

CO2 absorber

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

Exhaust gas

Amine/amine exchanger

Reboiler

Figure 1.

A general CO2 absorption and desorption process.

column. A removal process consisting of absorption, desorption, heat exchangers and

auxiliary equipment is shown in Figure 1.
The main challenges in modelling the CO2 removal are in the absorption and desorption
processes. The absorption column is the largest and most expensive unit, and the most
important chemical reactions take place in this column. The main energy consumption is in
the reboiler connected to the desorption column. Equipment units like heat exchangers and
pumps in the CO2 removal process are little different from similar equipment in other
chemical processes.
In CO2 absorption and desorption, the modelling challenges can be divided into the
following tasks:

Absorption and reaction kinetics

Gas/liquid equilibrium
Gas and liquid flows
Pressure drop

Calculation methods for most of these tasks have been available for a long time.
Danckwerts and Sharma [2] wrote a review as early as in 1966. When computers were
introduced for chemical engineering calculations, computer programs were made to perform
these calculations. The calculations can also be extended to comprise tools for, for example,
mechanical equipment dimensioning, cost estimation and economical optimization.
Several commercial process simulation programs have included models especially for
the amine/water/CO2 system. Examples of such programs are Aspen HYSYS, Aspen
Plus, Pro/II and ProMax. These programs have built-in models especially for vapour/
liquid equilibrium and calculation tools especially for column solving. Some of them also
have kinetic models available. Most of the tasks in the list above can be handled in a process
simulation program.
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modelling can be used to calculate the flow phenomena in absorption and desorption columns. This can then be used to calculate liquid holdup, pressure drop and capacity. Fluent and CFX are examples of commercial CFD
programs. An optimistic aim for CFD modelling of absorption and desorption is to contribute
to a complete, detailed and quantitative description of the absorption/desorption process.

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems

513

This article first gives an overview of process simulation tools that have been used
for CO2 removal. Then some details of the chemistry, kinetics and equilibrium for the
process are presented. An overview of models describing the mechanisms of absorption combined with chemical reaction is presented. Traditional design methods for
calculating pressure drop, interfacial area and mass transfer are presented, followed by
similar calculation methods using CFD. The last part of this article discusses the
combination of different models. In an example, a flowsheet calculation is performed
which combines models for equilibrium and mass transfer efficiency with calculation
tools for column solving and cost optimization. This example illustrates some possibilities, limitations and challenges.
The models for solving specific tasks of the CO2 absorption process differ in accuracy,
complexity and robustness. The main purpose of this article is to give an overview and to
pinpoint areas where further modelling can lead to important improvements. A major
challenge is to combine different models and calculation tools.

2. Flowsheet calculation of CO2 removal using process simulation tools

2.1. Use of process simulation programs for absorption and desorption
Process simulation programs such as Aspen HYSYS, Aspen Plus, Pro/II and ProMax
have been used to calculate CO2 removal by absorption, mainly at steady-state conditions. The
main advantages of these process simulation programs are that a large number of models for
vapour/liquid equilibrium and also different calculation tools for unit operations are available.
Simulation of CO2 removal from flue gas in a monoethanol amine (MEA)/water system
has been performed by Desideri and Paolucci [3] and by Alie et al. [4]. Both have used the
simulation program Aspen Plus with the MEA property insert, which is based on the Chen/
Austgen electrolyte-non-random two-liquid (NRTL) equilibrium model [5,6]. Desideri and
Paolucci used a specified number of theoretical stages in the absorption and desorption
column. Tobiesen et al. [7] and Aroonwilas et al. [8] have made Fortran programs to perform
similar calculations. All of the above-mentioned references calculate steady-state solutions.
Kvamsdal et al. [9] have simulated the absorption part of the process dynamically (as a
function of time) using gPROMS as a modelling tool. At Telemark University College,
Matlab has also been used to model CO2 absorption and desorption dynamically [10].
An important feature of commercial process simulation programs is the available tools for
achieving convergence of the process flowsheet (containing unit operations and streams). The
early process simulation programs (Pro/II and Aspen Plus) were sequential modular and
had to be solved in a forward manner. A traditional way to calculate the flowsheet is to use
recycle convergence blocks to compare updated streams with earlier calculated streams. Some
simulation programs (like Aspen HYSYS) can calculate the flowsheet backwards, but
because of limitations especially in the column units, flowsheet convergence is normally
achieved as if the program was sequential modular. For flowsheet convergence, the programs
can make use of recycle blocks, nested or simultaneous calculation sequences and different
acceleration methods like Wegstein or dominant eigenvalue methods. Convergence of the
columns is particularly important and was the core technology in the early steady-state process
simulation programs. Because the CO2/amine/water system is highly non-ideal, the need for
efficient and robust column solvers is of major importance. Column solver methods available
in addition to the default Hysim Inside-Out method in the Aspen HYSYS program are

514

L.E. i

Recycle
RCY-1

MIX-100

Make
Q-Lean
up
cooler
water
Lean MEA recycle
Make
up MEA

Lean
cooler

Sweet gas

Rich MEA to rich/lean heat

exchanger

Lean
MEA

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

Lean MEA to lean

cooler

Rich
pump

Rich/lean
heat
exchanger
Q-Condenser
Rich MEA to
desorber
Q-Reboiler

Sour
gas
Absorber

Rich
MEA

Lean
pump
Q-Rich
pimp
Lean MEA to rich/lean heat exchanger

SPRDSHT-1

Figure 2.

CO2

Q-Lean pump

Desorber

Lean MEA
from
desorber

Aspen HYSYS flowsheet for a CO2 removal process (from i [11]).

Modified Hysim Inside-Out

Newton Raphson Inside-Out
Sparse Continuation Solver
Simultaneous Correction
OLI Solver
Fixed or adaptive damping factor

An Aspen HYSYS flowsheet from i [11] is shown in Figure 2. Specifications for the
calculation are given in Table 1. The Aspen HYSYS version 2004.2 was used with the Kent
Eisenberg equilibrium model [12], which is extended in Aspen HYSYS by Li and Shen [13].
If there are too many stages specified in the columns, they tend to diverge, which is
traditional for column stage calculations. It was found that the Modified Hysim Inside-Out
method with adaptive damping gives the best convergence [11].
The base case calculated a CO2 removal rate of 85% with a heat consumption of 3.67 MJ/
kg CO2. Figure 3 shows the calculated CO2 removal efficiency and heat consumption when
the amine circulation rate is varied in the Aspen HYSYS flowsheet calculation. The
calculation shows a minimum heat consumption at a certain circulation rate.
2.2.

Rigorous simulation in process simulation programs

Most of the column models in commercial process simulation programs are based on
equilibrium stages or stages with a stage efficiency. More rigorous column models, which
include kinetic expressions, are available. Some of these are able to calculate the concentration profiles of all the diffusing components through the liquid film near the gas/liquid
surface. This kind of approach is based on solving the differential equations describing the
diffusion and chemical kinetics in the liquid film. An approach for rigorous modelling with
resulting differential equations is presented in Section 5.5.

Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems

Specifications for base case CO2 removal.

40 C
1.1 bar (abs)
85,000 kmol/h
3.73 mol%
6.71 mol%
40 C
1.1 bar (abs)
120,000 kmol/ha
29 mass%a
5.5 mass%a
10
0.25
2 bar
104.5 Ca
6 (3 + 3)
1.0
0.3
120 C
2 bar
10 C

Inlet gas temperature

Inlet gas pressure
Inlet gas flow
CO2 in inlet gas
Water in inlet gas
Lean amine temperature
Lean amine pressure
Lean amine rate
MEA content in lean amine
CO2 in lean amine
Number of stages in absorber
Murphree efficiency in absorber
Rich amine pump pressure
Heated rich amine temperature
Number of stages in stripper
Murphree efficiency in stripper
Reflux ratio in stripper
Reboiler temperature
Lean amine pump pressure
Minimum delta T in heat exchange

90

4.2

85

80

3.8

75

Figure 3.
i [11]).

2.5

2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3
Circulation rate (1000 ton/h)

3.1

(*) Heat consumption (MJ/kg CO2)

Note: aIn first iteration.

(0) CO2 removal (%)

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

Table 1.

515

3.6
3.2

CO2 removal grade and heat consumption as a function of amine circulation rate (from

The program Aspen Plus has possibilities to include such calculations, contrary to, for
example, Aspen HYSYS. Al-Baghli et al. [14] have made a rate-based model for the design
of gas absorbers for the removal of CO2 and H2S using aqueous solutions of MEA and
diethanol amine (DEA). Freguia and Rochelle [15] used a Fortran subroutine integrated
into Aspen Plus to perform a rate-based calculation of CO2 absorption into MEA. Kucka
et al. [16] have used the Aspen Custom Modeler tool in Aspen Plus to model the liquid
film by dividing the film into a number of segments. The mentioned examples in Aspen
Plus have been performed at steady state.

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

516

L.E. i

2.3.

Difficulties and challenges using process simulation tools for CO2 absorption

Dynamic simulations are of interest for regulation, for start-up and shut-down analysis and
for evaluation of emergency situations. Most of the process simulation calculations of CO2
removal from atmospheric exhaust in the open literature are simplified processes at steady
state. The unit operation modules in the process simulation programs Aspen HYSYS,
Aspen Plus and Pro/II are traditionally based on the solving of algebraic equations for a
steady-state solution. All these programs have the possibility to calculate a flowsheet as a
function of time by performing time steps. There are many challenges met when trying to
extend steady-state simulations to dynamic conditions. Reducing computer time and
increasing calculation robustness are two challenges.
There are of course challenges to improve the different models in a process simulation
program. There is perhaps a more important challenge on how to combine the different
models. Because process simulation programs utilize many rigorous models, calculation
convergence can be a problem. Alie et al. [4] use a flowsheet decomposition approach,
dividing the calculation of the absorption column and desorption column, to overcome this
problem.
Detailed absorption kinetics models can be complex and can involve nonlinear equilibrium models and the solving of partial differential equations. It is doubtful whether such
calculations should be performed for each iteration when a flowsheet involving absorption
and desorption columns is calculated several times.
3. Chemistry of CO2 removal with amines
3.1. Primary, secondary and tertiary amines
A general amine has the formula NR1R2R3 where R1, R2 and R3 are organic groups or
hydrogen directly bonded to the central nitrogen atom. An amine with only one organic
group directly bonded to nitrogen is a primary amine, with two organic groups it is a
secondary amine and with three it is a tertiary amine. If an organic group contains an OH
group, the amine is called an alkanolamine. MEA (H2NC2H4OH) is a primary alkanolamine
often used for CO2 removal. DEA is a simple secondary amine and N-methyldiethanolamine
(MDEA), with R1 and R2 as C2H4OH-groups and R3 as a CH3-group, is probably the most
used tertiary amine for CO2 removal. When used as solvents, the amines are typically
2040 wt.% solutions in water.
3.2. Absorption of CO2 into amine solutions including chemical reactions
The absorption of CO2 into an amine solution with MEA can be described by the following
equations: Equation (1) describes the transfer of CO2 from gas to an aqueous liquid,
Equation (2) describes the reaction to a protonated amine ion (HMEA+) and a carbamate
ion, and bicarbonate HCO
3 formation according to Equation (3) is also occurring. (A
carbamate ion is a reaction product formed by CO2 and an amine, and if the amine is MEA,
the carbamate ion has the formula HN(C2H4OH)COO-.) In the case of other amines than
MEA, a reaction equivalent to Equation (3) can be more important than the reaction in
Equation (2).
CO2 g $ CO2 aq

(1)

CO2 2MEA $ HMEA Carbamate

(2)

Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems

517

CO2 MEA H2 O $ HMEA HCO

3

(3)

CO2 in an aqueous solution can be in the form of free (or molecular) CO2 or as
2
bicarbonate or carbonate ions (HCO
3 or CO3 ). When an amine is added, carbamate can
be formed according to Equation (2). The total concentration of CO2 (at a molar basis) is the
sum of all the concentrations of the different forms:

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

CCO2 ;TOT CCO2 CHCO3 CCO2

CCARBAMATE
3

(4)

The amine MEA can be in the form of free MEA, protonated MEA (HMEA+) or as a part
of a carbamate, The total concentration of MEA is the sum of the concentrations of the
different forms:
CMEA;TOT CMEA CHMEA CCARBAMATE

(5)

3.3. Reaction kinetics for MEA (and other primary and secondary amines) with CO2
The detailed reaction kinetics for the reaction between even simple amines and CO2 are quite
complicated. However, for the simple amines, for example MEA, the kinetics are now
regarded as well known. Overviews can be found in the review articles by Danckwerts
and Sharma [2] and Versteeg et al. [17]. The mass transfer kinetics of MEA absorption in
laboratory absorption equipment under controlled conditions can be explained by traditional
mass transfer models [17].
It has been known for a long time that the main reaction described by Equation (2) of
primary amines like MEA and CO2 is a second-order reaction under normal conditions:
rCO2 k2  CCO2  CMEA

(6)

In Equation (6), rCO2 is the reaction rate (in mole CO2 reacted per volume and time), k2 is
the reaction rate constant (which is temperature dependent) and CCO2 and CMEA are the
concentrations of free CO2 and MEA. Versteeg et al. [17] give temperature-dependent values
for the reaction rate constant. Caplow [18] gives a detailed description of the reaction
kinetics, introducing the so-called zwitterion mechanism. This has later been generally
accepted as the actual mechanism [17]. The mechanism is similar for simple primary and
secondary amines.

3.4.

Kinetics for MDEA (and other tertiary amines) and sterically hindered amines

MDEA is a tertiary amine and does not react with CO2 according to the carbamate formation
reaction in Equation (2). The absorption of CO2 is in this case instead followed by an acid/
base reaction as in Equation (3). The reaction is described in Blauwhoff et al. [19] and Rinker
et al. [20]. The mechanism is similar for many of the tertiary amines. Because tertiary amines
do not form carbamates, they normally have lower desorption energy compared to primary
amines.
Not all primary and secondary amines react with CO2 to form carbamate. Because of
bulky groups close to the nitrogen atom in the amine group, some primary and secondary

518

L.E. i

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

amines do not react with CO2 to form carbamates. These are so-called sterically hindered
amines. One example is 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP). The sterically hindered
amines perform in contact with water and CO2 in many ways like tertiary amines. The
idea of using sterically hindered amines is described by Sartori and Savage [21]. The solvent
KS-1 (which is based on sterically hindered amines) is used by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
in their commercial process for CO2 removal from flue gases. The KS-1 process is claimed to
have much lower energy consumption than an MEA-based process [22].
3.5. Reaction kinetics for mixtures of amines with CO2
Using mixtures of amines for CO2 removal is first described by Chakrawarty et al. [23]. One
idea is to combine the high reactivity of one amine (e.g. MEA) with the low desorption
energy of another amine (e.g. MDEA). The reaction kinetics can normally be described by
the kinetics of the single amines. The combination of reaction kinetics with mass transfer
will however be much more complicated in the case of mixed amines. The combination of
reaction kinetics, diffusion and equilibrium is treated in more detail in Section 5.
4. Equilibrium description of mixtures of water, CO2 and amines
4.1. Gas/liquid equilibrium
Equilibrium between the CO2 content in the gas and the concentration of free CO2 in the
liquid phase can be described by a Henrys constant (He), which is temperature dependent:
pCO2 He  CCO2

(7)

pCO2 is the partial pressure of CO2 and CCO2 is the concentration (on a molar basis) of free
CO2 in the liquid. Under atmospheric conditions, gas non-idealities are normally negligible,
and the ideal gas law is sufficient to describe the gas phase. An equation of state like Peng
Robinson [24] can also be used to take care of the minor gas non-idealities. In that case, the
partial pressure of CO2 is replaced by the fugacity of CO2.
A water/amine/CO2 mixture can be specified by the total concentrations of CO2 and
amine. The gas/liquid equilibrium can be expressed by the equilibrium between the partial
pressures of CO2 in the gas above a specified solution at a given temperature as indicated in
Equation (8):
pCO2 f CCO2 ;TOT ; CAMINE;TOT ; T

(8)

Experimental gas/liquid equilibrium data for amine systems are often measured as partial
pressures of CO2 in the gas above a specified solution, and the data will then be in the form of
Equation (8).
4.2. General chemical equilibrium models
Simple models which empirically fit measured data, for example, according to Equation (8)
are available. Such models will, however, not give any information about the actual
composition of the liquid.
Kent and Eisenberg [12] gave an equilibrium description based on literature values for
Henrys constants and equilibrium constants for the water/carbonate/bicarbonate system. The
water, carbonate and bicarbonate system is a widely studied and well-described system [2].

Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems

519

Then the equilibrium constants for the amine/carbamate equilibrium and the amine/protonated
amine (Equations (2) and (3)) were fitted to experimental data. A modified version of this
model, Li/Shen [13], is used by the simulation program Aspen HYSYS.

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

4.3.

Activity-based equations/electrolyte models

A more detailed description can be done by expressing the activities (or chemical potentials)
of all the ionic and molecular components as a function of liquid concentrations and
temperature. The Chen/Austgen model [6], for simple amine systems, is based on the general
electrolyte-NRTL model of Chen and Evans [5]. This model is available in the simulation
program Aspen Plus. This is a rigorous model and has a high complexity, many adjustable
parameters and high accuracy. Liu et al. [25] have adjusted the parameters for the MEA/
water system from the Chen/Austgen model to make the heat of vapourization to be more
accurate.
Li/Mather [26] is a similar model available in Aspen HYSYS, using an electrolyteMargules model. Aspen HYSYS is in principle not a program suitable for describing
electrolytic systems. It does not calculate the resulting concentrations of ionic species in the
solution. When the Li/Mather model is calculated in Aspen HYSYS, the result is the
concentrations of the constituting components of the solution (e.g. CCO2 TOT and CMEA,TOT).
The calculation based on ionic species is kept inside the subroutine containing the model.
Kaewsichan et al. [27] gave an overview over equilibrium models in amine systems and
also presented a model based on an electrolyte UNIversal-QUAsi-Chemical (UNIQUAC)
model. An extended UNIQUAC model has also been used to describe the CO2/amine system
at Technical University of Denmark [28]. The statistical associating fluid theory variable
range (SAFT-VR) [29] has been used by Imperial College [30] to model the equilibrium and
kinetics in amine/water/CO2 systems. This has been implemented in the program package
gPROMS. The use of such a molecular approach is especially interesting for modelling
kinetic and equilibrium properties for new solvents with limited available equilibrium data.
The accuracy of models for amine mixtures is often limited by the accuracy in the
available equilibrium data. Equilibrium models often have a trade-off between a complex
model with high accuracy and a simpler model with less accuracy. There is a challenge to
find equilibrium models that are simple, accurate and achieve convergence easily.
5. Models for absorption of CO2 followed by chemical reaction
5.1. Description of the absorption process followed by chemical reaction
A schematic overview of typical partial pressure and concentration profiles at a certain
column height in the absorber is given in Figure 4. The figure is based on the two-film
concept. Absorption of a gas is described by transport from the bulk gas to the liquid surface,
the assumption of gas/liquid equilibrium at the interface and then transport of absorbed gas
to the liquid bulk. After absorption, CO2 can either react directly in the liquid close to the
interface or be transported into the bulk liquid. In the bulk liquid, CO2 or other species can
react further, limited by either equilibrium or chemical kinetics.
The concentration of amine decreases from the bulk to the liquid film as shown in
Figure 4 because it reacts with CO2 mainly in the film. Amine also evaporates to some extent
to the gas phase. This is, however, not important for the CO2 absorption and reaction
mechanisms. The rate of amine evaporation is important for the study of amine emissions
from the absorption column and the possibility to reduce amine emissions to the atmosphere.

L.E. i
Concentration or partial pressure (mol/m3) or (Pa)

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

520
Gas bulk Gas film

Liquid film

Liquid bulk

PCO , Interface
2

PCO2

CCO2, Interface

CAmine

CCO2

Distance (m)

Figure 4. Typical concentration profiles in liquid film with absorption and chemical reaction,
assuming equilibrium between partial pressure and concentration of CO2 at interface.

5.2. Mass transfer models

Popular mass transfer models are the two-film theory by Lewis and Whitman [31] and the
penetration model and surface renewal model developed by Higbie [32] and Danckwerts
[33], respectively. The two-film model is based on the concept of thin gas and liquid films
with a constant thickness and transport rate based on molecular diffusion. This model results
in mass transfer proportional to diffusivity DCO2 . The penetration and the surface renewal
models are regarded to be more realistic models for the liquid film. They are based on the
idea of continuous transport of volume elements from the interface to the liquid bulk. The
difference between the models is that the penetration model assumes equal contact time for
the elements, whereas the surface renewal model assumes a contact time distribution. Both
of these models result in mass transfer proportional to the square root of the diffusivity. The
boundary layer theory has also been used to calculate mass transfer from basic laws of fluid
dynamics, mainly for simple geometries [34].
A mass transfer number for the liquid film, kL, can be defined by Equation (9). The gas/
liquid interfacial area per volume has symbol a, and the interface and bulk positions are
shown in Figure 4. RCO2 is used as the symbol for the absorption rate of CO2 per total
volume. The reaction rate rCO2 of CO2 in Equation (4) is per liquid volume. At steady-state
conditions, and assuming that the amount of unreacted CO2 is negligible compared to the
reacted CO2, the rate of reaction equals the rate of absorption for CO2:
RCO2 NCO2  a kL  a  CCO2 ;INTERFACE  CCO2 ;BULK :

(9)

The gas transport of CO2 to the interface is normally not rate-limiting [2]. The gas side
mass transfer can often be neglected or it can be described by a simple empirical correlation.
5.3. Simplified models for absorption followed by chemical reaction
These kinds of processes have been treated by, for example, Van Krevelen and Hoftijzer
[35]. They used an enhancement factor which is the ratio of the actual absorption rate divided

Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems

521

by the absorption rate by pure mass transfer. This can be expressed as the ratio between the
mass transfer number with and without reaction:
EENH

kL
kL;WITHOUT

(10)

REACTION

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

In the case where the rate expression can be assumed to be independent of the amine
concentration, the pseudo-first-order conditions occur. In that case, the rate expression
becomes [35]
p
RCO2 CCO2 ; INTERFACE  a  k2  DCO2  CMEA
(11)
where DCO2 is the molecular diffusivity of CO2 in the liquid. With this rate expression, it is
possible to calculate a Murphree efficiency for a tray or a packed section at the given flow
conditions. The Murphree efficiency for a tray or a packing section can be defined as shown
in Figure 5.
Aspen HYSYS has a model for calculating Murphree efficiencies in plate columns
based on a pseudo-first-order expression. This model is based on the work by Tomkej
et al. [36].
For the conditions in Table 1, Aspen HYSYS calculates a Murphree efficiency that
varies slightly from top to bottom with an average value of approximately 0.09. If a plate
distance of 0.6 m is assumed, this is equivalent to a Murphree efficiency of 0.15/m of
packing. The Murphree efficiency increases slightly with temperature.
There has been much work on calculation methods for enhancement factors and evaluations of the conditions for when to use approximate expressions. DeCoursey [37] developed

y
y*
Tray n
(or section n)

yn1
Tray n1

Figure 5. Definition of Murphree efficiency, EMURPHREE (y - yn-1)/(y* - yn-1), where y is mole

fraction (CO2) in the gas phase leaving tray (or section) n, and y* is in equilibrium with the liquid on
tray (or section) n.

522

L.E. i

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

an explicit approximate expression for the case of absorption followed by a second-order

irreversible reaction. Later, this was extended to reversible reactions [38], like CO2 absorption in an amine solution. Tobiesen and Svendsen [39] have calculated enhancement factors
for CO2 absorption into MEA for both simple models and a rigorous model and compared it
with pilot scale experiments. In a temperature range between 50 and 70 C, the deviation
using a pseudo-first-order approximation was in the order of magnitude area between 5%
and 50%. The deviation increased with CO2 concentration and temperature. For the case of
CO2 absorption into MEA solutions at atmospheric conditions, it is not clear under which
conditions the pseudo-first-order approximation is valid.
5.4.

Models for CO2 absorption into mixed amines

In the case of mixed amines, the combined reaction and mass transfer kinetics might be quite
complicated. One model is the shuttle mechanism from Astarita et al. [40], which tries to
model absorption into a mixture of a reactive amine (e.g. MEA) in small amounts and a less
reactive amine (e.g. MDEA) in larger amounts. The idea is that CO2 first reacts with MEA in
the film close to the surface and is transferred into the bulk liquid. In the bulk liquid, CO2 is
released from MEA and reacts with MDEA, so that the MEA can be shuttled back to the
liquid film. Hagewiesche et al. [41] have modelled absorption into blends of MEA and
MDEA. The absorption mechanism was shown to follow the shuttle mechanism proposed
by Astarita.
5.5.

Rigorous simulation

There have been several attempts to calculate the concentration profiles through the liquid
films based on available mass transfer and kinetic models. De Leye and Froment [42], AlBaghli et al. [14] and Kucka et al. [16] are examples. Equations (12) and (13) are from
DeCoursey [37] for the case of a second-order irreversible reaction between an absorbed
component (e.g. CO2) and a liquid component (e.g. MEA). Mass transfer is based on a
surface renewal model [33]. The equations represent a time-dependent material balance for
CO2 and MEA:
@ 2 CCO2 @CCO2
 k2  CCO2  CMEA 0

@x2
@t

(12)

@ 2 CMEA @CMEA
 2  k2  CCO2  CMEA 0:

@x2
@t

(13)

DCO2

DMEA

The boundary conditions are that for t 0 and x > 0 and for t > 0 and x 1, CCO2 and
CMEA are equal to the bulk concentrations; and for t > 0 and x 0, CCO2 is the interface
concentration and CMEA/x 0. The boundary condition that CMEA/x 0 at the interface
is based on no transport of amine into the gas [37]. The solution of these equations gives the
concentration profiles through the liquid film at a given time t. The accuracy is of course
limited to the accuracy of the data used and the assumptions taken.
Such models can be applied in steady-state flowsheet calculations if a contact time or
contact time distribution (as in the surface renewal model) is assumed. In that case, the flux
NCO2 at the gas/liquid interface is calculated by Equation (14) from the solution of the
differential equations. The average absorption rate per volume is then calculated as the mean
flux as shown by Equation (15):

Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems


NCO2 DCO2 

RCO2 N CO2

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

5.6.

@CCO2
@x

a
a

523


(14)
x0

Z
NCO2 dt:

(15)

Rigorous simulation of reversible reactions

For the case of reversible reactions, the description of the reactions becomes more complicated. One new equation is necessary for each relevant reaction product, the rate expression
in Equation (6) must be extended and the equilibrium must be taken into consideration. A
simple way to describe the equilibrium is to specify an equilibrium constant based on
concentrations.
There is a challenge to combine rigorous kinetic models with rigorous equilibrium
models. The most accurate equilibrium models are based on activities. A consistency
problem may occur if the kinetic expressions used are based on concentrations and the
equilibrium expressions are based on activities.
6. Pressure drop, interfacial area, mass transfer, gas and liquid distribution
in columns
6.1. Traditional design methods for random and structured packing
Design of packed columns is generally based on empirical correlations for liquid hold-up,
pressure drop, gas/liquid interfacial area and mass transfer. The resistance to absorption is
often divided into gas side and liquid side resistance. These methods are described in, for
example, Kohl and Nielsen [1].
Structured packing columns will probably be the primary choice in case of a large-scale
CO2 removal process from atmospheric exhaust. Structured packing is very efficient and
gives a very low pressure drop. Plate columns will probably not be practical for columns
with large diameters (more than 15 m). Large plates will need extensive mechanical support,
and horizontally flowing liquid will need very long flow paths for each plate. Random
packing will have lower investment than structured packing and might be an economical
alternative.
The gas flow (or gas capacity) in an absorption column is limited by pressure drop,
loading or flooding. The loading point can be defined as the point where mass transfer
efficiency drops significantly, and the flooding point can be defined as the condition of
restricted liquid downward flow leading to liquid filling of the column. To calculate flooding
(capacity) and pressure drop in random packing, empirical charts or equations as in
Sherwood et al. [43] and Eckert [44] are traditional methods. They are based on correlations
from dimensional analysis which are fitted to performance data. The empirical Onda [45]
and Bravo and Fair [46] correlations are standard methods to calculate mass transfer in
random packing. They have different correlations for calculating the gas side and liquid side
mass transfer.
Design methods for structured packing are based on the same type of correlations as
for random packing, for example Rocha et al. [47,48], Billet and Schultes [49] and De
Brito et al. [50]. Most of these methods are limited to the flow regime below the loading
point. Droplet formation (which occurs above the loading point), and its influence on

524

L.E. i

interfacial area and mass transfer, is difficult to predict. Review articles for mass transfer
in structured packing are written by Brunazzi et al. [51], Valluri et al. [52] and Wang
et al. [53].
The semi-empirical calculation methods for mass transfer are traditionally based on the
following calculation steps [51]:

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

liquid hold-up
gas/liquid interfacial area
mass transfer coefficient for gas side
mass transfer coefficient for liquid side

The deviation between the estimation methods is especially large for the calculated
effective interfacial area. This is an important parameter because the absorption rate is
normally proportional to this entity, for example as in Equation (11). There is a large
potential in improving the estimation methods for the effective interfacial area.
6.2. Non-empirical modelling of absorption in structured packing
In their review, Valluri et al. [52] have one section for non-empirical modelling of the
design parameters. They refer to Shetti and Cerro [54] as the first complete model of this
kind. One of their aims was to estimate design parameters in structured packing without
any adjustable parameters. An idea was to establish the equations for the fluid flow pattern
and mass transfer through the films and then solve the equations to achieve the design
parameters for heat and mass transfer. The equations to be solved are typically a set of
algebraic and differential equations. Another early presentation of a mechanistic model
for mass transfer in structured packing is by Nawrocki et al. [55]. Figure 6 is an illustration of
important factors in modelling flow in structured packings. The liquid flows downwards,
normally covering most of the solid surface area. The liquid velocity is largest close to
the gas/liquid interface area. The gas flows upwards in the space not occupied by solid and
liquid. The gas velocity is lowest close to the liquid (or solid) surface. In some models, it
is assumed that the liquid (and possibly also the gas) is perfectly mixed at certain mixing
points.
At Delft University, models for columns with structured packing have been studied.
Olujic et al. [56,57] distinguish between modelling at a geometric macro-level (channel

Liquid flow
Solid sheets
(possibly with
corrugation
and holes)
Solid surface

Mixing points

Figure 6.

Gas flow

Gas/liquid interfacial area

Illustration of important factors in modelling flow in structured packing.

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems

525

dimensions) and micro-level (film and surface texture dimensions). Models for film flow,
gas side mass transfer and liquid side mass transfer are suggested. Their prediction method
does not require packing specific constants. It is stated that a reliable prediction of the
effective interfacial area is the key to the success of a prediction method.
Shilkin and Kenig [58], from the University of Dortmund, have made a model for
structured packing columns giving a set of differential equations. The concept is based on
two phases which are totally mixed at regular intervals as indicated in Figure 6. The
equations are solved numerically. The results are the velocity profiles, the concentration
profiles and the temperature profiles through the column.
Iliuta and Larachi [59], at the Laval University in Quebec, have made a mechanistic
model for structured packing columns, calculating pressure drop, liquid hold-up and wetted
area. The model is based on a double-slit mechanistic approach. In a channel, the liquid film
flows downwards in one slit and the gas upwards in another slit. The resulting model gives
three coupled algebraic equations to be solved. The model requires no adjustable parameters.
Their work has been developed further into CFD modelling.
6.3. CFD modelling of separation columns with structured packing
A CFD program divides a fluid flow geometry into a grid of small volumes and then solves
the fundamental equations for mass, energy and momentum conservation for each volume.
Modelling of turbulence is an important part of a CFD program. Equations for chemical
kinetics and equilibrium can be included. Because a CFD simulation consists of a large
number of equations, CFD simulation consumes much computer memory and time. Fluent
and CFX are commercial CFD programs.
Valluri et al. [52] state that very few publications have been presented in the field of
using CFD for structured packings. Most of them are about catalytic reactors. However,
mass transfer both in gas and liquid in structured packing was also covered. Klker et al. [60]
have tried to integrate CFD and process simulation for reactive distillation in structured
packing.
Petre et al. [61], from the Laval group in Quebec, calculated dry pressure drop in
structured packing for large-scale absorption with 3D CFD. The CFD program Fluent
was used with the ReNormalized-Group (RNG) k-" turbulence model. Larachi et al. [62]
and Iliuta et al. [63] calculated the pressure drop for two-phase flow using CFD. The types of
structured packing studied were MellaPak, GemPak, Sulzer BX and Montz-Pak.
Raynal et al. [64] wrote an article called Liquid holdup and pressure drop determination
in structured packing with CFD simulations. Dry pressure drop was calculated in 3D CFD
using Fluent with the k-" turbulence model and the RNG k-" model. Hold-up was
calculated using a 2D laminar model. The calculations were compared with experiments
from an air/water system. Raynal et al. [65] have also written an article called Use of CFD
for CO2 absorbers optimum design: from local scale to large industrial scale.
CFD modelling of packed columns may be used for the calculation of total pressure drop
and for the modelling of different mechanisms resulting in pressure drop. This may be used for
predicting performance and for optimizing operation conditions. The information gained can
also be used for improving the packing. CFD is obviously suitable for simulating flow
distribution and calculating pressure drop in auxiliary column equipment like liquid and gas
distributors.
There seems to be no attempts in the literature to simulate an overall model for an
absorption process with CFD. A major challenge is how to model the gas/liquid interface.

526

L.E. i

7. Combination of models and calculation tools

7.1. User-defined components in process simulation tools

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

In process simulation programs, there are normally possibilities to include user-defined

components. In Pro/II, it is possible to write routines in Fortran that can be linked to Pro/
II. User-defined subroutines in Fortran can also be linked to Aspen Plus. In Aspen
HYSYS, new routines can be written in C++ or in Visual Basic. And in Aspen
HYSYS, it is possible to introduce Excel-like spreadsheets which can both import and
export data to other parts of the flowsheet calculation. An example where spreadsheets are
used in Aspen HYSYS is given in Section 7.4.
7.2.

Process simulation programs and Cape-Open

Process simulation programs are specialized in combining many types of components like
equilibrium models and calculation tools for columns and other unit operations. The
objective of the projects Cape-Open from 1997 to 1999 and Global Cape-Open from 1999
to 2001 was to define standard interfaces between the major components of a process
simulation program. The contributors to these projects were mainly vendors of major
process simulator programs and major chemical companies. One result of these programs
was a set of interface standards between process modelling components and programs. The
organization Cape-Open Laboratory Network (http://www.colan.org) is now maintaining
the Cape-Open interface standards.
7.3.

Cost estimation of CO2 removal from flue gas with amines

Most cost estimation work is performed within commercial companies and is not published.
Mariz [66] has given some background for cost estimation of an Econamine process
(MEA-based process from Fluor Daniel) for CO2 removal from flue gas. In the CO2
Capture Project (CCP), Choi et al. [67] performed a study with title: CO2 Removal from
Power Plant Flue Gas Cost Efficient Design and Integration Study.
The process simulation programs like Aspen Plus, Pro/II and Aspen HYSYS have
dimensioning and cost estimation tools that can cost estimate the equipment after the process
calculations.
In several student projects at Telemark University College, Aspen HYSYS has been
used for process simulation of a CO2 removal process followed by mechanical equipment
dimensioning, cost estimation of the installed equipment and estimation of energy cost as the
most important operating cost. This has normally been done by utilizing spreadsheets.
Parameter variation makes it possible to find the most economical temperatures, circulation
rates and column heights [68].
7.4. Example of combination of models and calculation tools for economical
optimization using HYSYS
A cost estimation of the base case in Figure 2 has been performed [69], using the Aspen
HYSYS version 7.0. The base case specifications from Table 1 were used, except for the
Murphree efficiency, which was set to 0.15 for 1 m of packing height. Equipment cost was
calculated using an open available cost estimator available on the internet by Peters et al.
[70]. Installed cost (for all the equipment) was calculated using a type- and cost-dependent
installation factor [69]. These dimensioning and cost estimation calculations were performed

527

in spreadsheets connected to the process simulation program. The installed cost of the
equipment was estimated to 160 mill. USD, and the energy cost for 10 years was estimated
to 370 mill. USD. The absolute value of the total estimate was not regarded as very accurate,
but it was expected to include most of the factors varying with size and capacity.
Different parameter values were then varied to find the optimum process parameters
[69]. Equipment cost change from base case to new conditions was calculated by multiplying with the capacity ratio raised to 0.65. Optimum parameters were found by performing
several simulations, and optimum was found at minimum net present value (installed cost
plus energy cost for 10 years with full operation). Figure 7 shows the net present (negative)
value as a function of minimum temperature difference with the optimum temperature
difference at 19 C. This value has high uncertainty, especially due to the uncertainty in
the cost connected to the heat exchanger. Other calculated optimums were 16 m of packing
height (each with Murphree efficiency 0.15) and 35 C in absorber inlet gas temperature. For
the inlet temperature optimization, the Murphree efficiency was specified to be temperature
dependent, varying linearly from 0.14 to 0.16 between 30 C and 50 C. These calculations
were performed with much trial and error, especially due to divergence problems in the
column calculations.
The optimization calculation using the Optimizer tool in Aspen HYSYS [69] was also
tried. A variable (here the temperature difference) was automatically varied in repeated
simulations to achieve the minimum criteria function (here the net present value). For the
case of minimum temperature difference, it was calculated to 17.7 C, close to the value of
19 C found in Figure 7 by specifying the parameter in each simulation. The figure shows a
flat minimum between 16 C and 21 C.
However, the Optimizer tool in Aspen HYSYS has some limitations, especially in
optimizing column parameters. The column height cannot be optimized by Optimizer,
because the number of column stages is an integer value. And the absorber inlet temperature
cannot be optimized using the Optimizer tool, because the Murphree efficiencies in the

590

Net present value (million USD)

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems

580
570
560
550
540
530
520
5

10

15

20

25

Delta T (C)

Figure 7. Net present (negative) value of CO2 removal plant as a function of minimum T in amine/
amine heat exchanger (from i et al. [69]).

528

L.E. i

column cannot be specified as temperature-dependent variables. It is an obvious challenge to

make such automatic optimizations possible. There are many challenges in making robust
models combining complex equilibrium models, kinetic models, column solving and optimization tools.

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

7.5.

When is the use of rigorous models doubtful?

There is in general a trade-off between complex and accurate models compared to simpler
and more robust models. The purpose of the calculation will of course influence on what is
most important. Calculation time is not a very important factor any longer. A more important
problem with a too rigorous model is when the model leads to divergence. Another drawback
with a too complicated model is that it can lead to confusion and make the model more
difficult to specify.
An example of an unnecessary complicated model is the use of differential equations (as
in Equations (12) and (13)) to calculate the absorption rate when the absorption is in the
pseudo-first-order regime and can be calculated by Equation (11). Trying to solve the
differential equations does not increase the accuracy and increases computing time and
divergence tendency.
When column calculations are in a flowsheet network, the columns are calculated several
times. In process simulation programs for steady-state calculations, the column solver
methods, for example the methods mentioned in Section 2.1, traditionally consist of only
algebraic equations. The columns are then modelled as stages representing each plate in a
plate column or a specified packing height in a packed column. More rigorous models
involving differential equations describing concentration and temperature profiles in both
axial and radial directions are also possible. However, a rigorous column model combined
with a complex description of the equilibrium and kinetics is doubtful if this leads to
flowsheet divergence. In the case of time-dependent simulation, the robustness of the models
is probably more important than the accuracy. It is important to find a good balance in each
flowsheet to obtain a fast, robust and accurate calculation.
For direct use in mass transfer calculations, rigorous fluid flow models like CFD are
probably too rigorous. Mass transfer models normally need parameters like mass transfer
numbers and effective gas/liquid interfacial area, and these are traditionally not calculated in
CFD calculations. More specific correlations for mass transfer numbers and interfacial area
are normally more relevant. But for the future, it is of course a challenge to combine CFD
with mass transfer calculations.

7.6. Validation of the flowsheet calculations containing different

models and calculation tools
A validation of the process flowsheet calculations against reality is difficult because there are
no plants in operation at large scale (1 mill. ton CO2/yr). Data from smaller plants are not
easily available. An article for validation of simulation codes against pilot plants for CO2
removal was presented in 2009 by Luo et al. [71]. Most programs (with different equilibrium
models) show reasonable results compared to pilot plant data. Aspen Plus gives slightly
higher heat of desorption results compared to other programs and pilot plant data.
Validation of flowsheet calculations can be done by comparing with other calculations.
The flowsheet calculation in Section 2.1 gives 85% CO2 removal with an energy consumption of 3.67 MJ/kg CO2 at base case conditions. When changing equilibrium model from

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems

529

Kent Eisenberg to Li/Mather in the Aspen HYSYS flowsheet calculation the CO2 removal
was reduced to 82% and the heat consumption was reduced to 3.4 MJ/kg CO2 [11]. There are
literature values for similar processes between 3.9 and 4.9 MJ/kg CO2 from Desideri and
Paolucci [3] and Alie et al. [4]. Most of these energy consumption values are calculated
using Aspen Plus with the Chen/Austgen model. In Liu et al. [25], it is claimed that the
original electrolytic NRTL model of Chen/Austgen tends to overpredict the heat consumption and suggests new parameter values to correct this.
Validation of cost estimation calculations is difficult because there are no exact cost
values. The cost estimates calculated in Section 7.4 are not claimed to be very accurate. The
investment cost estimate is, however, expected to include most of the cost factors that vary
with size and capacity. Because of this, the calculated optimum process values like 16 m
packing height, 35 C inlet temperature and 18 C in heat exchanger temperature difference
are assumed to be reasonable.
There are no calculated optimum values in the literature to compare with. There are,
however, typical values available in the literature. In the CO2 Capture Project [67], a total
absorber height of 28 m was used, where the packing height is only a part. This compares well
with our calculated optimum of 16 m packing height. In the same project, the gas to the absorber
was cooled to 47 C compared to our calculated optimum of 35 C. There is a high uncertainty in
the optimum value of this temperature. The gas cooling cost is very dependent on local
conditions. In the calculations, there is a high uncertainty in the temperature dependency of
the absorption efficiency. The CO2 Capture Project uses a minimum heat exchanger temperature
difference of 11 C. This is lower than our calculated optimum at 18 C. Tobiesen et al. [7] have
shown in process simulations that there is little energy to save by reducing this temperature
difference. This indicates that the optimum temperature difference is higher than 11 C. A main
aim with this work is to show the possibility to calculate such optimum process values.
8.

Summary

The tasks of modelling the CO2 removal process can be divided into descriptions of
absorption and reaction kinetics, gas/liquid equilibrium, gas and liquid flows and pressure
drop. Process simulation tools containing models for most of these tasks are commercially
available, and the calculated results can be used as a basis for equipment dimensioning and
economical optimization. A flowsheet calculation in the program Aspen HYSYS is used as
an example. Calculation convergence is important, especially the column convergence is
critical. For some simplified conditions, calculation of stage efficiencies can give a satisfactory description of the absorption process.
There is still a challenge to search for improved vapour/liquid equilibrium models. There
is need for improved accuracy, and the models should be robust and easy to use in
combination with kinetic models.
There is serious deviation between different estimation methods for mass transfer in
structured packing. The deviation is especially large for the different prediction methods for
effective gas/liquid interfacial area.
CFD is an efficient tool for calculating flow conditions, pressure drop and temperature
profiles, especially for one fluid phase. CFD is obviously suitable for simulating flow
distribution and for calculating pressure drop in auxiliary equipment like liquid and gas
distributors. It is a challenge to make more use of CFD for gas/liquid processes. An unsolved
problem is the description of the gas/liquid interfacial area, and especially combined with
absorption.

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

530

L.E. i

There is a traditional trade-off between complex and accurate models compared to

simpler and more robust models. Under some conditions, a non-rigorous model is accurately
enough. There is a challenge to find out under which conditions a simplified method is
satisfactory. In time-consuming calculations like optimization and time-dependent simulations, it can be advantageous to avoid complex models that may lead to divergence, for
example complex equilibrium models and models involving the solving of differential
equations. In such cases a more rigorous model can be used in a separate calculation.
A major challenge is the combination of different models and calculation tools. In the
case of process simulation programs, Cape-Open is an example of a standard interface for
introducing a new component into an existing program package. An improved model for a
specific task must be available and possible to combine with other calculation tools to be
utilized by other programs.
In an example, models for equilibrium and mass transfer efficiency are used in a
flowsheet calculation including CO2 absorption and desorption, followed by economical
optimization. The example illustrates some possibilities, limitations and challenges.
References
[1] A. Kohl and R. Nielsen, Gas Purification, 5th ed., Gulf Publications, Houston, 1997.
[2] P.V. Danckwerts and M.M. Sharma, The absorption of carbon dioxide into solutions of alkalis
and amines (with some notes on hydrogen sulphide and carbonyl sulphide), The Chemical
Engineer, October (1966), pp. 244280.
[3] U. Desideri and A. Paolucci, Performance modelling of a carbon dioxide removal system for
power plants, Energy Conversion Manage. 40 (1999), pp. 18991915.
[4] C. Alie, P. Backham, E. Croiset, and P.L. Douglas, Simulation of CO2 capture using MEA
scrubbing: a flowsheet decomposition method, Energy Conversion Manage. 46 (2005), pp.
475487.
[5] C. Chen and L.B. Evans, A local composition model for the excess Gibbs energy of aqueous
electrolyte systems, AICHE J. 32 (1986), pp. 444454.
[6] D.M. Austgen, G.T. Rochelle, X. Peng, and C. Chen, Model of vaporliquid equilibria for
aqueous acid gas-alkanolamine systems using the electrolyte-NRTL equation, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 28 (1989), pp. 10601073.
[7] F.A. Tobiesen, H.F. Svendsen, and K.A. Hoff, Desorber energy consumption amine based
absorption plants, Int. J. Green Energy 2 (2005), pp. 201215.
[8] A. Aroonwilas, A. Chakma, P. Tontiwachwuthikul, and A. Veawab, Mathematical modelling of
mass-transfer and hydrodynamics in CO2 absorbers packed with structured packings, Chem.
Eng. Sci. 58 (2003), pp. 40374053.
[9] H.M. Kvamsdal, J.P. Jacobsen, and K.A. Hoff, Dynamic modelling and simulation of a CO2
absorber column for post-combustion CO2 capture, Chem. Eng. Process: Process Intensification
48 (2009), pp. 135144.
[10] T. Greer, S.A. Jayarathna, M. Alic, M.C. Melaaen, and B. Lie, Dynamic model for removal of
carbon dioxide from a post combustion process with monoethanolamine, 6th Vienna Conference
on Mathematical Modelling (MATHMOD 09), Vienna, Austria, 2009.
[11] L.E. i, Aspen HYSYS simulation of CO2 removal by amine absorption from a gas based power
plant, The 48th Scandinavian Conference on Simulation and Modeling (SIMS 2007), Gteborg,
Sweden, 2007.
[12] R.L. Kent and B. Eisenberg, Better data for amine treating, Hydrocarbon Process. 76 (1976),
pp. 8790.
[13] M.H. Li and K.P. Shen, Calculation of equilibrium solubility of carbon dioxide in aqueous
mixtures of monoethanolamine with methyldiethanolamine, Fluid Phase Equilib. 85 (1993),
pp. 129140.
[14] N.A. Al-Baghli, S.A. Pruess, V.F. Yesavage, and M.S. Selim, A rate-based model for the design of
gas absorbers for the removal of CO2 and H2S using aqueous solutions of MEA and DEA, Fluid
Phase Equilib. 185 (2001), pp. 3143.

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems

531

[15] S. Freguia and G.T. Rochelle, Modelling of CO2 capture by aqueous monoethanolamine, AICHE
J. 49 (2003), pp. 16761686.
[16] L. Kucka, I. Mller, E.Y. Kenig, and A. Gorak, On the modelling and simulation of sour gas
absorption by aqueous amine solutions, Chem. Eng. Sci. 58 (2003), pp. 35713578.
[17] G.F. Versteeg, L.A.J. Van Dijck, and W.P.M. Van Swaaij, On the kinetics between CO2 and
alkanolamines both in aqueous and non-aqueous solutions: an overview, Chem. Eng. Comm.
144 (1996), pp. 113158.
[18] M. Caplow, Kinetics of carbamate formation and breakdown, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 90(24) (1968),
pp. 67956803.
[19] P.M.M. Blauwhoff, G.F. Versteeg, and P.M. Van Swaaij, A study on the reaction between CO2 and
alkanolamines in aqueous solutions, Chem. Eng. Sci. 39 (1984), pp. 207225.
[20] E.B. Rinker, H.A. Ashour, and O.C. Sandall, Kinetics and modelling of carbon dioxide absorption into aqueous solutions of N-methyldiethanolamine, Chem. Eng. Sci. 50 (1995), pp. 755768.
[21] G. Sartori and D.W. Savage, Sterically hindered amines for CO2 removal from gases, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Fund. 22 (1983), pp. 239249.
[22] T. Mimura, S. Shimojo, T. Suda, M. Iijma, and S. Mitsuoka, Research and development on energy
saving technology for flue gas carbon dioxide recovery and steam system in power plant, Energy
Conversion Manage. 36 (1995), pp. 397400.
[23] T. Chakravarty, U.K. Phukan, and R.H. Weiland, Reaction of acid gases with mixtures of amines,
Chem. Eng. Prog. 81 (1985), pp. 3236.
[24] D. Peng and D.B. Robinson, A new two-constant equation of state, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam.
15(1) (1976), pp. 5964.
[25] Y. Liu, L. Zhang, and S. Watanasiri, Representing vaporliquid equilibrium for an aqueous MEACO2 system using the electrolyte nonrandom-two-liquid model, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 38 (1999),
pp. 20802090.
[26] Y. Li and A.E. Mather, Correlation and prediction of the solubility of carbon dioxide in a mixed
alkanol solution, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 33 (1994), pp. 20062015.
[27] L. Kaewsichan, O. Al-Bofersen, V.F. Yesavage, and M. Sami Selim, Predictions of the solubility
of acid gases in monoethanolamine (MEA) and methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) solutions using
the electrolyte-UNIQUAC model, Fluid Phase Equilib. 183184 (2001), pp. 159171.
[28] L. Faramarzi, G.M. Kontogorgis, K. Thomsen, and E.H. Stenby, Extended UNIQUAC model for
thermodynamic modeling of CO2 absorption in aqueous alkanolamine solutions, Fluid Phase
Equilib. 282 (2009), pp. 121132.
[29] A. Gil-Villegas, A. Galindo, P.J. Whitehead, S.J. Mills, G. Jackson, and A.N. Burgess, Statistical
associating fluid theory for chain molecules with attractive potentials of variable range, J. Chem.
Phys. 106 (1997), pp. 41684186.
[30] N. Mac Dowell, A. Galindo, C.S. Adjiman, and G. Jackson, Modelling the phase behaviour of the
CO2+H2O+amine mixtures using transferable parameters with SAFT-VR, Presentation at AIChE
Annual Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee, 813 November 2009.
[31] W.K. Lewis and W.G. Whitman, Principles of gas absorption, Ind. Eng. Chem. 16 (1924), pp.
12151220.
[32] R. Higbie, The rate of absorption of a pure gas into a still liquid during short periods of exposure,
Trans. Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. 31 (1935), pp. 365383.
[33] P.V. Danckwerts, Significance of liquid-film coefficients in gas absorption, Ind. Eng. Chem. 43
(1951), pp. 14601467.
[34] W. Kays, M. Crawford, and B. Weigand, Convective heat and mass transfer, 4th ed.,
McGrawHill, Boston, 2005.
[35] D.W. Van Krevelen and P.J. Hoftijzer, Kinetics of gasliquid reactions. Part 1: general theory,
Rec. Trav. Chim. 67 (1948), pp. 563568.
[36] R.A. Tomkej, F.D. Otto, H.A. Rangwala, and B.R. Morrell, Tray design for selective absorption,
Gas Conditioning Conference, Norman, Oklahoma, 1987.
[37] W.J. DeCoursey, Absorption with chemical reaction: development of a new relation for the
Danckwerts model, Chem. Eng. Sci. 29 (1974), pp. 18671872.
[38] W.J. DeCoursey, Enhancement factors for gas absorption with reversible reaction, Chem. Eng.
Sci. 37 (1982), pp. 14831489.
[39] F.A. Tobiesen and H.F. Svendsen, Experimental validation of a rigorous absorber model for CO2
postcombustion capture, AICHE J. 53(4) (2007), pp. 846865.

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

532

L.E. i

[40] G. Astarita, D.W. Savage, and J.M. Longo, Promotion of CO2 mass transfer in carbonate
solutions, Chem. Eng. Sci. 36 (1981), pp. 581588.
[41] D.P. Hagewiesche, H.A. Ashour, H.A. Al-Ghawas, and O.C. Sandall, Absorption of carbon
dioxide into aqueous blends of monoethanolamine and N-methyldiethanolamine, Chem. Eng.
Sci. 50 (1995), pp. 10711079.
[42] L. De Leye and G.F. Froment, Rigorous simulation and design of columns for gas absorption and
chemical reaction I, Comput. Chem. Eng. 10(3) (1986), pp. 493504.
[43] T.K. Sherwood, G.H. Shipley, and F.A.L. Holloway, Flooding velocities in packed columns, Ind.
Eng. Chem. 30, No. 7 (1938), pp. 765769.
[44] J.S. Eckert, No mystery in packed-bed design, Oil Gas J. 68(34) (1970), pp. 5864.
[45] K. Onda, H. Takeuchi, and Y. Okumoto, Mass transfer coefficients between gas and liquid phases
in packed columns, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 1 (1968), pp. 5662.
[46] J. Bravo and J. Fair, Generalized correlation for mass transfer in packed distillation columns, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Proc. Des. Dev. 21 (1982), pp. 162170.
[47] J.A. Rocha, J.L. Bravo, and J.R. Fair, Distillation columns containing structured packings: a
comprehensive model for their performance. 1. Hydraulic models, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 32
(1993), pp. 641651.
[48] J.A. Rocha, J.L. Bravo, and J.R. Fair, Distillation columns containing structured packings: a
comprehensive model for their performance. 2. Mass-transfer model, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 35
(1996), pp. 16601667.
[49] R. Billet and M. Schultes, Prediction of mass transfer columns with dumped and arranged
packings, Trans. IChemE. 77 (1999), pp. 498504.
[50] M.H. De Brito, U. von Stockar, and P. Bomio, Predicting the liquid phase mass transfer
coefficient kL-for the Sulzer structured packing Mellapak, ICHEME Symp. Ser. 128 (1992),
pp. 137144.
[51] E. Brunazzi, A. Paglianti, and L. Petarca, Design of absorption columns equipped with structured
packings, La Chimica e lIndustria 78 (1996), pp. 459467.
[52] P. Valluri, O.K. Matar, A. Mendes, and G.F. Hewitt, Modelling hydrodynamics and mass transfer
in structured packings A review, Multiphase Sci. Tech. 14(4) (2002), pp. 303348.
[53] G.Q. Wang, X.G. Yuan, and K.T. Yu, Review of mass-transfer correlations for packed columns,
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 44 (2005), pp. 87158729.
[54] S. Shetti and R. Cerro, Fundamental liquid flow correlations for the computation of design
parameters for ordered packings, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 36 (1997), pp. 771783.
[55] P.A. Nawrocki, Z.P. Xu, and K.T. Chuang, Mass transfer in structured corrugated packing, Can.
J. Chem. Eng. 69 (1991), pp. 13361343.
[56] Z. Olujic, Development of a complete simulation model for prediction the hydraulic and separation performance of distillation columns equipped with structured packing, Chem. Biochem.
Eng. Q. 11, No. 1 (1997), pp. 3146.
[57] Z. Olujic, A.B. Kamerbeek, and J. de Graauw, A corrugation geometry based model for efficiency
of structured distillation packing, Chem. Eng. Process. 38 (1999), pp. 683695.
[58] A. Shilkin and E.Y. Kenig, A new approach to fluid separation modelling in the columns
equipped with structured packings, Chem. Eng. J. 110 (2005), pp. 87100.
[59] I. Iliuta and F. Larachi, Mechanistic model for structured-packing-containing columns: irrigated
pressure drop, liquid holdup, and packing fractional wetted area, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 40
(2001), pp. 51405146.
[60] M. Klker, E.Y. Kenig, and A. Grak, On the development of new column internals for reactive
separations via integration of CFD and process simulation, Catal. Today 7980 (2003), pp. 479485.
[61] C.F. Petre, F. Larachi, I. Iliuta, and B.P.A. Grandjean, Pressure drop through structured packings:
breakdown into the contributing mechanisms by CFD modelling, Chem. Eng. Sci. 58 (2003), pp.
163177.
[62] F. Larachi, C.F. Petre, I. Iliuta, and B. Grandjean, Tailoring the pressure drop of structured
packings through CFD simulations, Chem. Eng. Process. 42 (2003), pp. 535541.
[63] I. Iliuta, C.F. Petre, and F. Larachi, Hydrodynamic continuum model for two-phase flow
structured-packing-containing columns, Chem. Eng. Sci. 59 (2004), pp. 879888.
[64] L. Raynal, C. Boyer, and J. Ballaguet, Liquid holdup and pressure drop determination in
structured packing with CFD simulations, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 82 (2004), pp. 871879.
[65] L. Raynal, F.B. Rayana, and A. Royon-Lebeaud, Use of CFD for CO2 absorbers optimum design:
from local scale to large industrial scale, GHGT-9, Energy Procedia. 1 (2009), pp. 917924.

Downloaded by [Institute of Chemical Technology] at 09:20 22 December 2014

Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems

533

[66] C.L. Mariz, Carbon dioxide recovery: large scale design trends, J. Can. Petrol. Tech. 37(7)
(1998), pp. 4247.
[67] G.N. Choi, R. Chu, B. Degen, H. Wen, P.L. Richen, and D. Chinn, CO2 removal from power plant
flue gas cost efficient design and integration study, in CO2 Capture Project, Vol. 1, D.C.
Thomas, ed., Elsevier, Oxford, 2005, pp. 99116.
[68] T.G. Amundsen, C.H. Arntsen, E.A. Blaker, and A.M. Morland, Aspen HYSYS simulation and
cost estimation of CO2 removal, MSc Project, Telemark University College, Porsgrunn, Norway,
2007.
[69] L.E. i, E.A. Blaker, and N.H. Eldrup, Cost optimization of process parameters for CO2 removal
by absorption in MEA using aspen HYSYS, Poster Presentation at 5th Trondheim Conference on
CO2 Capture, Transport and Storage, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, 1617 June 2009.
[70] M.S. Peters, K.D. Timmerhaus, and R.E. West, Internet Estimator. Available at http://www.mhhe.
com/engcs/chemical/peters/data/ (Accessed 4 June 2008).
[71] X. Luo, J.N. Knudsen, D. de Montigny, T. Sanpasertparnich, R. Idem, D. Gelowitz, R. Notz, S.
Hoch, H. Hasse, E. Lemaire, P. Alix, F.A. Tobiesen, O. Juliussen, M. Kpcke, and H.F. Svendsen,
Comparison and validation of simulation codes against sixteen sets of data from four different
pilot plants, GHGT-9, Energy Procedia 1, 2009, pp. 12491256.