Final Report - Group 7

The Petroleum Institute
Chemical Engineering Department
CHEG 490
Chemical Engineering Senior Design II
Spring 2017
Final Report
Sulfur Recovery Unit Design with Fuel Gas Enrichment
Group 7:
Ali Sultan Al Zaabi (6198)
Saif Mohammed (6062)
Jasem Al Nuaimi (6009)
Ebrahim Al Nuaimi (6399)
Date of Submission:
26/11/2016
Instructors:
Dr. C. S. Kannan
Project Supervisor:
Dr. Abhijeet Raj

Executive Summary
Sulfur recovery process importance increases as HSE regulations get stricter. It is necessary to
process H2S rather than incinerating it. However, demand of sulfur is decreasing. Due to that the
team was asked to reduce the cost of the sulfur recovery unit in Habshan by optimizing the fuel
consumption. In order to accomplish that, the team was required to design a whole sulfur
recovery unit (Claus process). This report presents the preliminary design steps of the Claus
process design. First, background information was collected from the literature. In addition, it
represents the development of the PFD based on the process mentioned in the literature. In
addition, it presents the simulation that was developed with its results. The simulation was used
to study the effects of key parameters on the economics of the plant. It showed that the fuel
consumption can be optimized and reduced by 1347 (m3/hr). This proved that the consumption
can be optimized by optimizing parameters that affect the temperature of the furnace. Moreover,
material and energy balance for every unit was done using the simulation including material
balance for the sulfur components. The report also mentions the HSE issues of producing sulfur
in a sulfur recovery unit. The process deals with toxic and flammable compounds like H2S, SO2
and CO. The design process for the equipment was carried to get dimensions and important data
that can be used to estimate the cost of the plant. Costing analysis was done showing that the
plant will have a 89 Million$ NPV, 22% ROR and 4 years for the total investment to be
recovered.
I
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1
Problem Definition.................................................................................................................................... 1
Literature Review.......................................................................................................................................... 1
Brief Claus Process Description ............................................................................................................... 2
Effects of Operating Parameters ............................................................................................................... 2
Alternative Techniques ............................................................................................................................. 3
Process Description....................................................................................................................................... 5
Fuel Gas .................................................................................................................................................... 7
Reactions in the Claus Process.................................................................................................................. 7
Block Flow Diagram ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Process Flow Diagram .................................................................................................................................. 9
Fired Preheater (H-101) .......................................................................................................................... 11
Reaction Furnace .................................................................................................................................... 11
WHB (E-101) .......................................................................................................................................... 11
Condenser (E-102, E-103, E-104 and E-104) ......................................................................................... 11
Catalytic Reactors (R-101, R-102 and R-103) ........................................................................................ 11
Specifications .............................................................................................................................................. 12
Compositions .......................................................................................................................................... 12
Flow Rates .............................................................................................................................................. 13
Temperatures........................................................................................................................................... 13
Other Specifications ................................................................................................................................ 13
Base Case Simulation ................................................................................................................................. 14
Stream Tables.......................................................................................................................................... 14
.................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 16
Optimization of Fuel Consumption......................................................................................................... 16
Effect of H2S/SO2 ratio on Sulfur Recovered ........................................................................................ 18
Effect of Air Temperature on Reaction Furnace Volume ....................................................................... 18
Mass & Energy Balance.............................................................................................................................. 19
Overall Mass Balance ............................................................................................................................. 19
Overall Sulfur Mass Balance .................................................................................................................. 20
II
Overall Energy Balance .......................................................................................................................... 20
HSE ............................................................................................................................................................. 21
High temperature .................................................................................................................................... 22
Hazardous gases ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Hydrogen sulfide ................................................................................................................................. 22
Sulfur dioxide...................................................................................................................................... 23
Carbon dioxide .................................................................................................................................... 23
Introduction .................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
P&ID development ..................................................................................................................................... 23
P&ID ........................................................................................................................................................... 25
Sizing ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
Aspen HYSYS sizing:................................................................................................................................... 1
Air Preheater ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Reaction Furnace ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Gas Reheaters (E-106,107,108) ................................................................................................................ 2
Catalytic Reactors (R-101, R-102, R-103)................................................................................................ 3
Steam Drums (V-101, V-102, V-103, V-104, V-105) .............................................................................. 3
Detailed manual sizing .................................................................................................................................. 3
Waste Heat Boiler Design (E-101) ........................................................................................................... 4
Sulfur Condenser (E-102) ......................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction .................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Equipment and Utility Summary.............................................................................................................. 15
Total costs of equipment and utilities ..................................................................................................... 19
Cost of Manufacturing (COM) ............................................................................................................ 19
Cash Flow Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 20
Monte Carlo Simulation .............................................................................................................................. 21
Plant Layout ................................................................................................................................................ 25
Flammable and Toxic Materials Present in SRU ............................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Hydrogen Sulfide .................................................................................................................................... 26
Sulphur Dioxide ...................................................................................................................................... 27
Carbon Dioxide ....................................................................................................................................... 27
Other Risk Considerations .......................................................................................................................... 28
III
Sulfur Fire Risk ....................................................................................................................................... 28
HAZOP Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 29
Claus Bed (R-101, R-102, And R-103): Catalytic Reactor ......................................................................... 29
SRU Waste Handling .................................................................................................................................. 35
Gaseous waste ......................................................................................................................................... 35
Liquid & Solid waste .............................................................................................................................. 35
Waste Treatment in SRU ........................................................................................................................ 36
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 36
References ................................................................................................................................................... 37
Appendix ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
Appendix 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 1
Unit Mass & Energy Balance.................................................................................................................... 1
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1 Sulfur Recovery Unit (Claus Process) Base Case Simulation........................................ 14

Figure 2 Sensitivity Analysis of H2S/SO2 ration on the Sulfur Recovery ................................... 18
Figure 3 Sensitivity Analysis of Air Temperature on Reaction Furnace’s Volume ..................... 19
Table 1 Fuel Consumption of Reaction Furnace (H-101) Analysis ............................................. 17

Table 2 Fuel Consumption analysis in Fired Preheaters ............................................................... 17
Table 3 Overall Mass Balance. ..................................................................................................... 19
Table 4 Overall Energy Balance. .................................................................................................. 21
IV
Introduction
One of the most significant gas desulfurizing processes and one that has become the
industry’s standard is the Claus process. Hydrogen sulfide is present in high quantities in
crude components and must be removed before the crude can be utilized. It is even in greater
quantities than ever due to the depths of the wells that the oil is being extracted from. The
Claus process purifies the hydrogen sulfide found and converts it to elemental sulfur.
Elemental sulfur has various uses, both in its elemental form and in its compound form when
it is converted. It is used in fertilization, pharmaceuticals, and pesticides and is a component
in numerous products. The Claus process is not as profitable as it used to be before. This is
due to two reasons: First, the environmental regulations have become stricter as to how the
disposal of certain chemicals is handled and how sulfur itself is handled, which in turn raises
the costs. Second, sulfurs demand is not as high as it used to be, while the supply is still ever
increasing. Economy challenges as well as costing is not of interest for the team for the time
being, but instead the focus is on the process itself, what happens during each stage of the
process, how much hydrogen sulfide is converted to elemental sulfur, HSE regulations and
finally mass and energy balances.
Problem Definition
The team is required to optimize fuel gas consumption in a sulfur recovery unit in Habshan
gas processing plants. A complete sulfur recovery unit (Claus Process) must be designed in
order to achieve the objectives of this project. The design will be based on data obtained from
Habshan sulfur recovery unit.
Literature Review
As stated by the problem statement, the objective of this design project is to optimize
the fuel gas consumed by sulfur recovery unit. This review will briefly look into the Claus
process description and discuss the challenges that face the Claus furnace. In addition, it will
compare the techniques that are used to increase the efficiency of the thermal stage process.
Lastly, it will discuss the studies done on the effect of varying important parameters of the
furnace.
1
Brief Claus Process Description
The literature provides a lot of Claus process description which is vital to know in order to
reach the projects’ objectives. According to [1], the Claus process consists of two steps, the
thermal step which is done at extremely high temperatures (900 degree Celsius and above)
and also recovers 60-70% of the elemental sulfur. The second step is the catalytic step, which
is done at around one-third of the thermal step’s temperature and also includes several stages
of its own: condensation, reheating and catalytic conversion. This catalytic step is repeated
two to three times to increase sulfur rate recovery. Any remaining sulfur, whether that be
H2S, SO2 or Sulfur vapor in the tail gas is then sent to a tail gas treatment unit to further
desulfurize it or an incinerator for it to be burned down. The Claus furnace is used in the
Claus thermal stage. Where Partial oxidation of H2S with air takes place in the Claus furnace.
This acid mixture is then given time to reach equilibrium after being passed on to a furnace
operating at up to 1400 degrees Celsius. The products from this step are: H2O, unreacted
H2S and SO2. As stated by [1], the furnace has two main roles; combustion of the acid gas
and destroying the contaminants in the acid gas to avoid poisoning the catalytic reactors.
Thus, understanding the effect of the operating parameters on the reaction furnace
temperature is essential
Effects of Operating Parameters

One of the operating parameters that was greatly studied is the concentration of H2S in the
acid gas (feed gas). [2] Studied the effect of changing the concentration of H2S in the acid
gas on the temperature of the reaction furnace. They found that as H2S content increases in
the acid gas, the furnace temperature will increase. The effect was studied by simulation and
modeling. More studies were done on this topic. [3] Investigated the effect of changing the
H2S content under different levels of oxygen enrichment. In like manner [3] found that the
sulfur recovery will increase to a maximum point and then it will start decrease after
exceeding a certain H2S content. Both studies showed agreement in their results. Also they
both agreed that higher temperature will give higher sulfur conversion.
It is known that in the industry the acid gas contains small quantities of N2, H2O, NH3 and
hydrocarbons. The effect of changing the concentration of these components on the
temperature of the reaction furnace was studied by [4]. The study was carried in order to find
the best temperature that gives that maximum sulfur conversion. Along with this study a
2
mathematical correlation was produced which predicts the optimum temperature for
maximizing the sulfur conversion. The correlation depends on the concentrations of the most
contributing components in the acid gas.
Moreover, the effect of changing the inlet temperature of the acid gas on the sulfur
conversion was also studied by [4]. Using simulations and modeling, it was determined that
increasing the temperature of the acid gas will increase the sulfur conversion. It was shown
that increasing inlet temperature by 10 ºC will increase sulfur conversion by 0.156%.
Alternative Techniques
According to [5] the most common problems in the Claus furnace is the poor flame stability
and the hydrocarbon destruction due to low reaction furnace temperature. However, this
problem can be resolved by different commercially viable techniques such as, fuel gas
spiking, air and acid gas preheating, direct fuel gas air preheating, oxygen enrichment and
acid gas enrichment.
One of the techniques used to improve overall efficiency of the sulfur recovery process is
acid gas enrichment. Acid gas enrichment is the process of increasing H2S content in the acid
gas [5]. According to [5], increasing the concentration of H2S will increase the quality of the
acid gas and reduce the flowrate of the gas which will reduce the size of the Sulfur Recovery
Unit. [6] Explained that the acid gas enrichment can be done by contacting the acid gas with a
second solvent. This also a costly process since it requires an entire absorption unit which
adds more cost to the whole process.
Referring to [6], Oxygen enrichment is widely used in the industry in order to increase output
capacity of the plant. The Oxygen is injected as either pure Oxygen or Oxygen rich air.
However, there are different levels of enrichment, Low-level, Medium-level and High level.
Each level of enrichment depends on the desired capacity increase of sulfur production. For
instance a high level enrichment can result in 150% increase in capacity. The problem is that
pure oxygen highly increases the cost of the process since it has to be produced by a separate
plant to be provided for the Claus furnace continuously.
3
Moreover [7] stated that using oxygen as oxidant will highly increase the temperature of the
furnace compared to when using Air only. It will also reduce exhaust volume and heat losses.
Although it might look like a simple method, but the temperature associated with oxygen
enrichment has to be monitored carefully to ensure it is in the refractory design temperature
limit. [7] Proposed that a double combustion process can be used to mitigate the high
temperature. However for double combustion, additional furnace and waste heat reboiler
must be used. This increases the capital cost of the process in addition to the cost of
producing pure oxygen.
The temperature increase by oxygen enrichment is explained by [8]. It says that air is mostly
composed of 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. So introducing air to the reaction furnace to
supply oxygen for the combustion of H2S will also introduce a large amount of nitrogen. In
addition it said that “When air is used as the oxygen source, approximately 5.6 moles of
nitrogen are introduced into the gas flow for every mole of H2 S that is burned”. The nitrogen
is a noble gas that cannot react, so the added mass of the nitrogen only lowers the flame
temperature in the reaction furnace. However reducing the composition of N2 in the air and
increasing oxygen by enrichment will greatly increase flame temperature. This method is best
used when the acid gas that is being processed has low concentration of H2S.
Another method for flame temperature improvement is the fuel spiking method. As clarified
by [9], it is done by injecting fuel gas (Natural gas) along with the acid gas stream. The fuel
gas will greatly increase the temperature in the reaction furnace. However, there will be
higher CS2 formation that might impact the plant performance due to higher hydrocarbon
content in the feed gas. For that reason, article [9] says that fuel gas spiking is only
recommended when the temperature of the furnace is close to the threshold temperature. This
is similar to the fuel gas enrichment process that is going to be applied in this project. The
only difference is that fuel spiking is only used when temperature get low. However, the fuel
gas enrichment is a continuous process.
Article [9] also mentioned another method; which is the direct fuel gas preheat burner. It says
that this method can improve the furnace temperature and it has been employed by some
plants. “In this system, a fuel gas stream is utilized to add energy directly to the furnace
system. However, instead of injecting the fuel gas directly into the furnace to be consumed in
the furnace flame, the fuel gas is pre-burned in a dedicated burner to directly heat the
combustion air stream [9]”. The advantage of this method over the fuel spiking method is that
4
there will not be significant CS2 formation since the gas is going to be burned in a separate
burner. However, the metallurgy of the air delivery piping limits the amount of preheat of the
air. Otherwise, the piping of the air should be constructed with metals that can withstand
higher temperature which means additional cost.
These efficiency improvement techniques can enhance the process quiet significantly.
However, this project does not have the permission to add new plants to the process or add
cost. Since the objectives are to reduce the cost of the process by optimization of fuel gas
used in the fuel gas enrichment process. So for that it was determined that fuel gas
enrichment technique is to be used by this project.
In conclusion, this review looked into the brief Claus process description and the methods to
improve its efficiency. It also reviewed studies done on the effect of operating parameters on
the reaction furnace temperature. It compared that results of these studies and showed the
similarities. It also compared the methods used for efficiency enhancement. However most of
the sources reviewed were mostly mentioning the same issues in the reaction furnace which is
poor temperature stability. Since fuel gas is used to increase the flame temperature, this
review was related to the scope of the team’s project which is optimization of fuel gas
consumption in the Sulfur Recovery Unit.
Process Description
The Claus process is a catalytic process which is used to convert H2S found with
hydrocarbons (sour gas and crude oil) into elemental sulfur. There are two basic types of this
process known as Straight-through and Split flow processes. The major difference between
the two processes is that in the straight-through process all of the acid gas goes into the
furnace. Whereas, in the split flow process a portion of the acid gas is reacted in the furnace
and the rest of it is fed to the catalytic reactors. The process selection depends entirely on the
quality of the acid gas. If the H2S content of the acid gas was higher than 50% the straight-
through process is eligible. However, if it was between 25-50 mol% H2S the split-flow
process will be more efficient. Since the acid gas processes in Habshan contains 50 mol% of
H2S, a straight through process is going to be designed in this project.
Initially in the straight-through process, the acid gas is mixed with fuel gas to increase the
flammability and flame temperature in the furnace. The resultant feed gas is then fed into the
burner followed by the furnace. A stoichiometric amount of Air for burning one third of H2S
5
is also added to the furnace using an air blower as oxygen is needed for combustion to take
place.
These reactions are allowed ample time to reach equilibrium and form their products. These
products are water, sulfur dioxide and the remainder of hydrogen sulfide which did not react
in the furnace because only 70% conversion of hydrogen sulfide can be achieved in the
reaction furnace. Some of the sulfur dioxide which is produced in the reaction furnace reacts
with the hydrogen sulfide to produce sulfur according to reactions 2 and 3.
These products are then fed into the waste heat boiler, also called waste heat recovery unit as
it cools the sulfur and recovers heat which is then produced into highly pressurized steam for
pre-heating the feed acid gas and the process gas entering the catalytic reactors. The steam is
generated from the waste heat boiler due to the heat exchange between the process gas and
water. It is usually generated at approximately 42 bar and the outlet temperature of the
process gas is approximately 315 °C. This process gas is then fed into a condenser to
furtherly cool it below the sulfur dew point in order to separate liquid sulfur from the process
gas. The process gas then leaves the sulfur condenser to be reheated to 350 C by a reheater
using the steam generated from the WHB. Then it enters the first catalytic reactor which is
used to convert more sulfur by hydrogen sulfide reaction with sulfur dioxide. The process gas
leaving the sulfur condenser has to be heated in order to keep the process gas temperature
above the sulfur dew point when it passes through the first catalytic reactor; the reason is the
condensation of sulfur leads to deactivation of the catalyst. Second condenser is used to cool
the process exiting the first catalytic reactor to condense the sulfur, followed by another
reheating process before entering second catalytic reactor. These processes are repeated in
one, two, or three additional catalytic stages. As the process of conversion and sulfur removal
proceed, the sulfur dew point lowered, thus operational temperature of catalytic reactors is
lowered respectively, leading to improvement in overall conversion. Temperatures in second
and third reactors are lowered to 390 – 430 F and 370 – 410 F respectively. The remaining
sulfur in the exhaust gas is either incinerated, in order to convert the sulfur compounds to
sulfur dioxide before discharging to the atmosphere, or furtherly treated in residual sulfur
removal separation process to minimize sulfur loss as a vapor in the exhaust gas and to
conserve energy. The straight-through process is used for gas streams with high hydrogen
sulfide content (above 50 mol% H2S), 94 to 95% conversion efficiency can be achieved
depending on the hydrogen sulfide concentration in the acid gas using the two catalytic
stages, more efficiency (up to 97%) can be obtained by third catalytic stage. Additional forth
6
catalytic stage can be used to increase the conversion by less than 1%; but it is not
economically recommended. One note to be mentioned, the conversion efficiencies does not
consider the loss of sulfur caused by the existence of carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide.
The last step in the claus process is processing the tail gas. There are two ways for processing
the tail gas. The first option is incinerating the tail gas using an incinerator unit. However, in
recent years environmental regulations are becoming stricter which impacts the possibility of
going for the incineration option. The second option is to treat the gas in a tail gas treatment
unit. The treatment is done by separating the H2S in the gas using amine and recycle it back
to the Sulfur Recovery Unit. However, this process will add more cost to the SRU than the
incineration process.
Fuel Gas
In this design the acid gas is enriched with fuel gas for several reasons. First, it increases the
flame temperature of the reaction furnace in order to maintain it above the minimum
temperature. Second, in case of H2S absence in the acid gas, the fuel gas is required in order
to keep the flame in the furnace alive. Finally, it is used to preheat the air before entering the
burner. Heating the air will result in a higher flame temperature in the furnace.
Reactions in the Claus Process
The following reactions are the basic reactions of the Claus process. Reaction (1) is the
combustion of sulfur
H2S + 1.5 O2 → SO2 + H2O (1)
2H2S + SO2 → 3/XSx + 2H2O (2)
Reaction (2) is actually available in two different variants:
a) 2H2S + SO2 → 3/2S2 + 2H2O : which takes place in the furnace and is responsible
for around 67% conversion of the sulfur ∆Hr = +47 kJ moL −1
b) 2H2S + SO2 → 3/8S8 + 2H2O : which takes place in the catalytic stage, as S8 is
mostly produced, which is an exothermic reaction unlike the S2 that is formed in
reaction (a) which is endothermic. Other allotropes of sulfur may be also present
but in fewer quantities. ∆Hr = −108 kJ moL −1
Overall
7
2H2S + O2 → 2S + 2H2O (3)
Side reactions: These side reactions also take place in the furnace and some of them
reduce sulfur recovery and produce unwanted components that end up as pollutants.
Combustion of Fuel Gas
CH4+2O2 → 2H2O + CO2 (4)
The fuel gas is assumed to be mostly composed of methane (99 mol% CH4)
The formation of hydrogen gas:

2 H2S → S2 + 2 H2 (ΔH > 0) (5)
CH4 + 2 H2O → CO2 + 4 H2 (6)
The formation of carbonyl sulfide:

H2S + CO2 → S=C=O + H2O (7)
The formation of carbon disulfide:
CH4 + 2 S2 → S=C=S + 2 H2S (8)
The products formed in reactions (7,8)(carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide) are then
processed in the catalytic stage alongside the main catalytic reaction(2b) to form
sulfur.
Block Flow Diagram

A block flow diagram was developed to illustrate the major process with the connections of
major streams and operations. Figure.1 below shows the Block Flow diagram of the process
that will be designed.
8
Figure.1 The Block Flow Diagram of the Claus process
Process Flow Diagram

The Block Flow Diagram shown above was developed into a process flow diagram to show
the major process in more details. Since we are in the preliminary design stage, the provided
Process Flow diagram is still preliminary showing brief details. However, a more detailed
PFD will be developed as the project work progresses. Figure X below shows the Process
Flow Diagram of the process.
9
10
Figure.2 shows the Process Flow Diagram of the Claus process
Fired Preheater (H-101)

Fired Preheaters serve the purpose of heating air in order to increase the flame temperature in
the reaction furnace. Fuel gas is used for the heating process. There are several types of
heaters used in the industry. The Radiant-convective heater type will be used for this project
since it is the most common one used in the industry.
Reaction Furnace
The reaction furnace serves an essential purpose in the Claus unit and its performance affects
the efficiency of the process as well as other equipment. It is simply a burner followed by a
refractory line combustion chamber. It is used to combust one-third of the acid-sour gas
mixture at very high temperatures. Ample time is given for equilibrium to take place.
WHB (E-101)
The waste heat reboiler and the reaction furnace are treated as one single unit. The WHB is a
shell and tube heat exchanger and its role is to recover the energy from the process gas reduce
by cooling it down from 1000 °C and above to approximately 300 °C using water that enters
at 90 °C . High pressure steam is generated in the shell side while the cooling takes place in
the tube side.
Condenser (E-102, E-103, E-104 and E-104)

Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger is widely used in the industry. It is used in both thermal and
catalytic stages in SRU. The function of heat exchanger is to cool and condense elemental
sulfur reacted and coming out of both stage’s reactors to produce low pressure steam and
improve conversion rate of subsequent reactor. In this project, Shell and Tube Heat
Exchanger will be used as Sulphur condenser.
Catalytic Reactors (R-101, R-102 and R-103)

The catalytic reactors undergo Claus process with the presence of the catalyst to boost the
Sulphur yield. In more details, more unreacted H2S react with SO2 formed from the
11
combustion Claus furnace to produce elemental Sulphur. In this design a catalytic packed bed
tubular reactor is to be used. The quality of the Claus Catalyst is critical for maximizing the
performance of the SRU. The catalyst used in this project is Alumina-based catalyst (Active
Alumina). Properties associated with this catalyst type often promotes longer service life,
ensure high recovery rate and enhance physical properties, making it the most common used
catalyst in the industry.
Specifications
Important conditions and parameters were specified in order to start the design process. The
tables below show the parameters specified for the inlet gases which are the Acid gas, Fuel
Gas and Air. Assuming there is no fluctuation in parameters, these specification are based on
the current operating data of Habshan 550 sulfur recovery unit.
Compositions
Inlet Air mole fraction
AR 0.0086
N2 0.7171
O2 0.1924
CO2 0.0004
H2O 0.0816
Table.1 Inlet Air molar compositions
Acid Gas mole fraction

A1 Benzene 0.000292
CH4 Methane 0.002823
C2H6 Ethane 0.00012
C3H8 Propane 0.000267
CO2 Carbondioxide 0.47498
A1C2H5 Ethylbenzene 0.00008
H2S Hydrogensulfide 0.519822
o-C8H10 o-Xylene 0.000087
N2 Nitrogen 0.001347
C6H5CH3 Toluene 0.000244
Table.2 Acid Gas Molar Fractions
12
Fuel Gas mole fraction
AR 0
C2H6 0.0213
C3H8 0.0005
CH4 0.947
CO 0
CO2 0.0078
COS 0
H2 0
H2S 0
N2 0.0234
O2 0
Table.3 Fuel Gas Molar Compositions
Flow Rates
Stream Flowrate (Nm3/hr)
Acid Gas 50000
Air 65000
Table.4 Specified Flow Rates of Air and Acid gas streams
Temperatures
Stream Temperature (C)
Acid Gas 230
Heated Air 325
Table.5 Specified Temperatures for Air and Acid gas streams
Other Specifications
1. The Reaction Furnace is to be maintained at a temperature above 1075 C in order to
destroy the hydrocarbons and aromatics.
2. The temperature of the process gas entering the catalytic reactors must be above the
sulfur dew point which is 150 C.
3. The purity of the recovered sulfur must be 99.9%.
13
Base Case Simulation
Using Aspen Hysys 9 with the sulsim software, a base case simulation for the process was
developed to check the preliminary feasibility of the project. In addition, the simulation was
also required to check whether reducing the amount of fuel consumed is possible. One thing
to note, is that there are some differences between the simulation and the PFD that was
developed. Also, a simulation for the fired heater to heat the air was developed to check the
fuel consumed to heat the air. This simulation was constructed based on the specification and
data that was obtained from Habshan 550 SRU.
Figure 1 Sulfur Recovery Unit (Claus Process) Base Case Simulation
Stream Tables
The following tables show the stream conditions and the main components in the streams.
The streams that contain Liquid Sulfur are presented separately in a table.
Air Fuel Gas Acid Gas 1 2 4 6 8 11

Vapour
Fraction 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Temperature 500 40 230 229.234 1076.167 300 135 180 249.368922
14
Pressure 0.6955 3.5 0.6894 0.68 0.6595 0.6295 0.5995 0.569499932 0.53949993
Mass Flow 76755.01 138.382 82698.60 82836.99 159594.8 159594.7 136817.9 136817.9029 136818.662
- - - - - - - - -
Heat Flow 2.8E+07 630844.1 404663481.8 4.1E+08 4.3E+08 6.2E+08 6.6E+08 655358099.7 655358104.
Mole Frac
(H2S) 0 0 0.52 0.52056 0.042471 0.045892 0.046895 0.046895204 0.00557325
Mole Frac
(COS) 0 0 0 0 0.004073 0.008115 0.008292 0.008292439 0.00453702
Mole Frac
(SO2) 0 0 0 0 0.027105 0.028671 0.029298 0.029297673 0.00644217
Mole Frac
(CS2) 0 0 0 0 0.002157 0.002281 0.002331 0.002331072 0.0020229
Sulfur
13 14 15 16 17 18 Tail Gas recovered
Vapour Fraction 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Temperature 135 220 235.2477 135 200 203.6335 134.9999939 134.9999939
Pressure 0.5095 0.4795 0.4495 0.4195 0.3895 0.3595 0.359499937 0.359499937
Mass Flow 126849.9 126850 126850.1 125319.1 125319.1 125319.2 124820.3962 34775.32656
- - - -
Heat Flow 6.8E+08 6.7E+08 -6.7E+08 -6.8E+08 6.7E+08 -6.7E+08 682552588.3 5257514.151
Mole Frac
(H2S) 0.005627 0.005627 0.004321 0.004327 0.004327 0.002137 0.002137993 0
Mole Frac
(COS) 0.00458 0.00458 0.000596 0.000597 0.000597 0.000491 0.00049166 0
Mole Frac
(SO2) 0.006504 0.006504 0.002894 0.002898 0.002898 0.001713 0.001713853 0
Mole Frac
(CS2) 0.002042 0.002042 0.001079 0.00108 0.00108 0.001044 0.001044066 0
15
Temperature 300 134.9999939 134.9999939 135 135
Pressure 0.6295 0.599499932 0.509499934 0.4195 0.3595
Molar Flow 0 710.3547878 310.9005708 47.7495 15.555
Mass Flow 0 22776.81533 9968.715645 1531.04 498.7555
Liquid Volume Flow 0 12.58387587 5.507577705 0.845878 0.275556
Heat Flow 0 3443517.021 1507122.111 231470.6 75404.45
Mole Frac (S liquid) 1 1 1 1 1
Sensitivity Analysis
Studies on the effect of some parameters on the economy of the plant were carried using
Aspen Hysys simulation shown previously. Most of the parameters like temperatures,
pressure and flow rate were studied. In this section of the report, only the most effective
parameters are discussed and explained.
Optimization of Fuel Consumption

The team was required to design a sulfur recovery unit with emphasis on fuel consumption
optimization. In this section, the optimization steps that were taken to reduce the amount of
fuel consumed in the process are explained.
16
First, the flow rate of fuel used for the reaction furnace was reduced while the temperature of
air entering the furnace was increased. This was studied using the case study function in the
Aspen Hysys software. The analysis of the data is shown in table 1:
Amount of Fuel Air Temperature (ᵒC) Furnace Temperature (ᵒC)

(m3/hr)
Initail Conditions 1773 325 1078
Optimized 200 500 1077
Conditions
Amount of Fuel 1773 – 200 = 1573 m3/hr (1088 kg/hr Saved)
Saved
Table 1 Fuel Consumption of Reaction Furnace (H-101) Analysis
Table 2, shows the amount of fuel gas saved in the reaction furnace. However, the air
temperature must be increased from 325 ᵒC to 500 ᵒC. The temperature is preheated as
describe in the process description using fired preheater. The fired preheater consumes fuel
gas, so the following table shows the change in the amount of fuel used to heat the air:
Amount of Fuel Air Temperature (ᵒC)

(m3/hr)
Initial Conditions 766 325
Final Conditions 1084 500
Difference in 992 – 766 = 226 m3/hr (156 kg/hr)
amount of Fuel
Table 2 Fuel Consumption analysis in Fired Preheaters
Total amount of fuel saved = 1088 kg/hr – 156 kg/hr = 932 kg/hr
This analysis shows that 932 kg/hr of fuel can be saved by increasing the temperature of air.
However, additional research should be carried on the possibilities of heating air to that
temperature. Moreover, this is only a preliminary optimization of fuel consumption. In the
future, more studies are going to be carried to maximize the fuel gas saving.
17
Effect of H2S/SO2 ratio on Sulfur Recovered
Effect of H2S/SO2 Ratio of WHB Outlet Stream

on Sulfur Recovery
35000
Sulfer Recovered (kg/hr)
34500
34000
33500
33000
32500
32000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
H2S/SO2 ratio
Figure 3 Sensitivity Analysis of H2S/SO2 ration on the Sulfur Recovery
Figure 2 shows that the ratio of H2S to SO2 in the waste heat boiler’s outlet stream greatly
affects the amount of sulfur recovered. In other words, it affects the conversion of H2S to
Sulfur. The maximum sulfur recovered is obtained when the H2S/SO2 ratio is equal to 1.6.
However, the ratio is controlled by the amount of air entering the reaction furnace. This will
surely affect the economy of the process since it is based on producing sulfur. In all cases that
ration should be controlled and kept at a constant of 1.6.
Effect of Air Temperature on Reaction Furnace Volume

While keeping other parameters and conditions constant, the temperature of air change was
studied. It was found that the temperature greatly affects the required volume of the reaction
furnace. As shown in figure 3, the required volume increases as temperature increases. So,
optimizing the temperature of air is advantageous for the economy of the project.
18
Effect of Air Temperature on Reaction Furnace's
Volume
92.5
Furnace Volume (m3)
92
91.5
91
90.5
90
89.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Air Temperature (ᵒC)
Figure 4 Sensitivity Analysis of Air Temperature on Reaction Furnace’s Volume
Studying all aspects of the effects of air temperature is essential to the project since it is
linked to the fuel consumption optimization, which is one of the main objectives of this
project.
Mass & Energy Balance

Per the data obtained from Habshan plant, the acid gas that will be fed to the sulfur recovery
unit (SRU) flows at approximately 2000 ton/day. The following tables show mass and energy
balance for every unit starting by the overall balance for the whole process.
Overall Mass Balance
In (kg/h) Out (kg/h)

Air 76,774.1 Tail Gas 124,840.9
Fuel Gas 138.9 Sulfur Recovered 34,774.2
Acid Gas 82,698.6 - -
19
Total 159,611.5 Total 159,615.2
Table 3 Overall Mass Balance.
Overall Sulfur Mass Balance

In this section, data show the percentage of sulfur recovered and the remaining (lost) sulfur in
the tail gas.
Sulfur (In) inlet stream (Acid Gas)
H2S: 1,115.4 kmol/hr * 32 kg/kmol = 35,692.3 kg/hr
Total sulfur (In): 35,692.3 kg/hr
Sulfur (Out) outlet stream (Tail Gas)
H2S: 9.3411 kmol/hr * 32 kg/kmol = 298.9 kg/hr
SO2: 7.6128 kmol/hr * 32 kg/kmol = 243.6 kg/hr
COS: 2.1583 kmol/hr * 32 kg/kmol = 69.1 kg/hr
CS2: 4.5899 kmol/hr * 32 kg/kmol = 146.9 kg/hr
Sx : 82.6 kg/hr
Total sulfur in outlet stream (Tail Gas): 841.1 kg/hr
Sulfur (Out) outlet stream (Sulfur recovered)
Amount of sulfur recovered: 34,770.1 kg/hr
Total sulfur (Out): 35,611.1 Kg/hr
Sulfur Conversion: (34,770.1/ 35,692.3) * 100 = 97.4%
Overall Energy Balance
In (KJ/h) Out (KJ/h)

Air -34,684,648.5 Q-2 37,142,970.8
20
Q-3 6,913,451.7 Q-4 21,682,107.3
Q-5 12,756,890.7 Q-6 15,718,409.8
Q-7 9,693,922.4 Tail Gas -682,613,904.9
Fuel Gas -630,844.0 Q-8 10,430,952.6
Acid Gas -398,436,351.2 Sulfur Recovered 5,257,344.8
- - Q-1 187,995,789.0
Total -404,387,579.0 Total -404,386,330.4
Table 4 Overall Energy Balance.
HSE
Due to the continuous increase of sulfur content in natural gas and crude oil and the strict
environmental guidelines and regulations from environmental agencies all around the world,
the Health, Safety and Environment is an extremely important topic to discuss when speaking
of a large-scale operation such as the Claus process.
As like any process in the engineering industry, there are certain basic regulations to follow
such as wearing PPE always, knowing how the facility is designed, knowing how the
emergency alarms sound like and where are they located and knowing the locations of all
emergency exits.
When speaking of Claus process, the two most important HSE issues would be:
High temperatures Hazardous gases (from most hazardous to least

hazardous)
High temperature issues in the Claus Hydrogen sulfide

process would mainly be in the thermal
stage as the catalytic stages don’t operate in Sulfur dioxide
temperatures as high as the furnace.
21
Carbon dioxide
High temperature
Due to the extremely high temperatures (1000-1300 degrees Celsius) involved in the thermal
stage of the Claus process, several safety measures should be followed. One of the safety
measures that should be followed is monitoring the temperature to make sure it is as constant
as possible with only slight fluctuations. If the temperature does fluctuate rapidly it can cause
stochiometric imbalances with the reaction. Even more importantly, is that temperature
should not be irregular and extremely outside of the range of the process. If it goes too high,
it can damage the equipment and even cause a disaster such as starting a fire or an explosion.
Hazardous gases
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide is a deadly poison that affects multiple organs of the body, with the nervous
and respiratory systems taking most of the effect. Hydrogen sulfides causes death rapidly at
concentrations higher than 1000ppm, bur even in low concentrations of less than 500ppm it is
still toxic and needs to be dealt with. One of the most problematic effects of hydrogen sulfide
inhalation is that it renders a human’s sense of smell useless. This happens at low
concentrations of 150-250ppm and with the sense of smell disappearing, the awareness to
danger is also rendered useless [1]. It is for this reason specifically, that it is extremely
important for gas detection systems to be availably installed in the workplace and personal
portable detection alarms to be carried around.
Besides being highly toxic, hydrogen sulfide is also an extremely flammable gas. Flammable
vapors may spread from hydrogen sulfide leakage. These vapors are an explosive hazard and
can be ignited by flames, smoking, sparks, heaters and static discharge by electrical
equipment. Before entering a confined area, the atmosphere must be checked with an
appropriate device and if any leakage is present the containers must be cooled off with water
from maximum distance and flow of gas must be stopped if possible [2].
22
Sulfur dioxide
Unlike H2S, Sulfur dioxide is not flammable, but it is both toxic and corrosive. In the Claus
process, sulfur dioxide is found both in the furnace after hydrogen sulfide has been burned
and in the tail gas. Its toxicity depends on the concentration of the leakage. Inhalation of
concentrations above 500ppm results in pulmonary edema and/or paralysis. 50-500ppm
concentrations are considered dangerous and life threatening. If breathing problems are
present, artificial respiration must be given, or oxygen is given if qualified medical personnel
is available [3]. Its release to the environment is extremely dangerous because at high
concentrations it can harm trees and plans by decreasing and stopping their growth. It can
also cause acid rain [4]. Due to strict regulations regarding SO2 emissions, all Claus process
plants have ways to deal with sulfur dioxide and that is the tail gas treatment. There are
several tail gas technology units but they deal with the sulfur dioxide in either one of two
ways [5]:
 SO2 is converted to a different product, such as sulfuric acid or ammonium thiosulfate

by going through one or more conversion steps.
 SO2 undergoes hydrogenation over a supported Co-Mo sulfide catalyst followed by
amine treatment to produce a recycle stream with hydrogen sulfide which then is
reused in the Claus process.
Carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide is the least toxic compound in the Claus process but at concentrations higher
than 1% are dangerous and at even higher concentrations it is an asphyxiant, which will
displace oxygen and cause suffocation [6].
Equipment Sizing & Detailed Desing

This paper is about the progress of the team’s design project. At this stage the design is in the
sizing and equipment design stage. Sizing is an essential step which will provide sufficient
data to be able to cost the whole plant. In addition to that, the development of the Pipe and
Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) for the plant is presented in this report.
P&ID development
The development of a P&ID diagram is a major step in the detailed design of an engineering
project. P&IDs are considered a more detailed development of the process flow diagram
(PFD) as it includes information about piping and fittings, hence, it is considered a picture of
23
how the plant is designed and operated. Initially, the pipe sizes have been determined on the
basis of the following correlation [1]:
di,opt = 0.664 G0.51 ρ-0.36
G= Maximum Mass flow rate, kg/s
Ρ= Maximum density, kg/m3
di (optimum)= optimum diameter (m)
Optimum diameter was found to be di= 0.46 m= 18 inches, however this is approximated to
20 inches since the closest standard pipe size is schedule 40, 20 in .
Although the process contains many corrosive fluids operated at high temperature, the
selected material of the pipes is Carbon Steel (CS). The reason behind that is that carbon steel
is cost efficient and very durable. Moreover, there are design techniques that can be used to
protect the steel from corrosion. However, the details of this matter cannot be discussed in
this report.
The following page shows the P&ID developed for the thermal stage of the sulfur recovery
plant.
24
P&ID
25
The PID shown above is a detailed PID for the thermal stage showing detailed control
systems f applied for the thermal stage. However, a general PID was developed for the whole
plant shown below.
Sizing
In this section of the report, the sizing of all equipment in the plant will be shown. This
process is essential to start the plant costing process. The sizing was done manually for some
equipment while other equipment was sized using Aspen HYSYS simulation.
Aspen HYSYS sizing:

Air Preheater
The air preheater sizing was obtained from aspen HYSYS and it is summarized in the
following figure:
1
Reaction Furnace
The reaction furnace is an empty chamber in which the desired Claus reactions happen. It is
assumed to be cylindrically shaped. The following table summarizes the sizing data of the
furnace:
Reaction Furnace
Diameter (m) 6.66
Length (m) 12.75
Volume (m2) 450
Material of construction Carbon
Steel/Stainless steel
(internals)
Gas Reheaters (E-106,107,108)

The reheaters are used to heat up the process gas before it enters the catalytic reactors. Each
reheater should heat the gas to slightly different temperatures. However, it is assumed that the
temperature effect on the sizing is negligible so the sizing for the three heat exchangers is the
identical.
E-106,107,108
TEMA Type BEM
Shell Diameter (mm) 2350
2
Tube Diameter (OD) (mm) 28.1
Tube Length (m) 2550
Number of tubes 950
Baffle type Vertical Single Segmental
Baffle cut 25%
Material of construction of shell and tube Carbon Steel
Catalytic Reactors (R-101, R-102, R-103)

The catalytic reactors are used to convert all the sulfuric compounds (SO2, H2S, COS and
CS2) to sulfur. The type of the reactor used in this process is the fixed bed reactor. The
volume was estimated based on the space velocity. The following table summarizes the
sizing data:
Reactor R-101 R-102 R-103

Catalyst Type Activated alumina oxide
Diameter (mm) 7000 7000 7000
Length (mm) 23500 23500 23500
Reactor Volumes (m3) 365 365 365
Catalyst bed volume (m3) 105 105 105
Material of construction CS/ 347 SS (internals)
Steam Drums (V-101, V-102, V-103, V-104, V-105)
Steam drum V-101 V-102 V-103 V-104 V-105

Diameter (mm) 3000 2500 2500 2500 2500
Length (mm) 9000 7600 7600 7600 7600
Material of construction CS/ 316 SS (internals)
Detailed manual sizing

In this section detailed calculation and designing procedure is presented and explained for
Waste heat boiler and condensers.
3
Waste Heat Boiler Design (E-101)
Main assumptions:
1- Steady State conditions.

2- No heat loss.
3- Reactions effect is neglected
The TEMA type which is chosen in our design is NXN carbon steel (CS) heat exchanger.
Properties Tube side Shell side

Water Processed Gas
Inlet temperature © 1079 115

outlet temperature 300 296.8877869
mean Temperature 689.5 205.9438935
specific heat (kJ/Kg C) 1.2105 5.12
Thermal Conductivity 7.83E-04 6.44E-01
(W/m C)
Density (Kg/m3) 0.8398 827.8
viscosity (cP) 4.71E-05 0.1187
Flowrates (kg/hr) 159000 161000
Flowrates (Kg/s) 44.16 44.7
Delta T © 779 181.8877869
Fouling 0.00015 0.0002
Material Conductivity 30 30
Table 1: Physical Properties
Step 1: Heat transfer coefficient calculations.
4
WHB design calculations is done using Kern’s Method [1], Calculations is done using excel
spread sheet in order to iterate values to optimize the design.
Tube-Side duty
Duty = (159000/3600) * 1.2105 * 779 = 41648 kW
Shell-Side duty
Duty = (161000/3600) * 5.12 * 181.8877869 = 41648 kW
Assumed Overall Coefficient
U= 75 W/m2*C
Log mean delta T
Equation 1: Mean temperature

difference
dT= (1079-296.89)-(300-115)/ln(1079-296.89/300-115)=414.18
R = (1079-300)/ (296.88-115) =4.28
S = (296.89-115)/ (1079-115) =0.19
Correction Factor (Ft)
5
From figure, correction factor (Ft) found to be 0.85
The Corrected mean delta T is calculated in order to find heat transfer area
dT = 0.85 * 414.18 = 352.06
Heat transfer area
A = (41648.3*1000)/ (75*352.06) = 1577.31 m2
Tube Dimensions
Tube layout
Outer Diameter OD (mm) 68.5
Inner Diameter ID (mm) 64.28
Thickness t (mm) 4.22
Pitch Pt (mm) 85.625
Clearance mm 56
Length m 9.5
Table 2: Tube Dimensions
 Pitch = 1.25 * OD = 1.25 * 68.5 = 85.625 mm

 Area of one tube is found π * (68.5/1000) * 9.5 = 2.043 m2
 Ntubes = 1577.31/2.043 = 772 tubes
 Npasses = 1
 Tube X area = (π/4) * (64.28/1000)2 = 0.00324 m2
 Area of bundle = Tube X area * number of tubes = 0.00324 * 772 = 2.50 m2
 Volumetric Flow rate = 44.16 * (1/827.8) = 52.59 m3/s
6
 Velocity = 52.59 / 2.5 = 21.0 m/s
Bundle Diameter
DB = 68.5 * (772/0.319) (1/2.142) = 2602.68 mm
Shell Diameter
Ds = DB + Clearance = 2602.68 + 56 = 2658.7 mm
Heat transfer coefficient
Using Re correlation, Reshell is found to be 64812.45913
 Retube = 2.41x107
Equation 3: Prandtl number
Using Pr correlation, Prshell is found to be 9.44E-01
Prtube = 7.27E-02
7
Equation 4: Nulset number
Using Nu correlation, Nutube is found to be 7.11*103
From
figure 2, heat
transfer factor
(jh) was found
to be 0.035
Figure 2: Heat transfer factor (jh)
Equation 5: Overall Heat transfer coefficient
8
Using the correlation shown above, Heat transfer coefficient values are found.
Utube = 8.67*101 W/m2*C
Ushell = 29451.6 W/m2*C
Uassumption = 75 W/m2*C
Using equation above, Overall Uactual is calculated to be 78.36 W/m2*C
% error = 4.48 % which is accepted.
Step 2: Pressure drop Calculations
Heat transfer factor (jh) was found to be 0.055
Retube = 2.41E+07
Equation 6: Pressure drop
Using above pressure drop correlation, pressure drop in tube- side was found to be 0.124
bar
And pressure drop in shell -side was found to be 0.00055 bar
Sulfur Condenser (E-102)

1- Assumption:
2- Steady state condition.
3- No heat loss.
4- Elemental Sulfur is completely condensed
Calculations are done to design heat exchanger used as condenser, The TEMA type
which is chosen in our design is NXN carbon steel (CS) heat exchanger. Sulfur condenser
9
design calculations is done using Kern’s Method [1], Calculations were done using excel
spread sheet in order to iterate values to optimize our design sizes.
Step 1: Heat transfer coefficient calculations.
Properties Table
Inlet processed gas mass flow rate (Kg/h) 159659.4
733
Vapour gas entring Temperature © 300
Cooling water Temperature 95
Condensation temperature 134.99
Cooling water upper limit temperature 105
Enthalpy of condensate (sulfur)(Kj/kg) 151.18
Enthalpy of vapour gas (Kj/kg) 3500
Condenser operation pressure (bar) 3.50E+00
Cooling water rise limit 1.00E+01
Assumed overall ceoficient (W/m2*C 7.95E+02
Temperature Correlation factor (Ft) 9.20E-01
Table 4: Physical Properties
Water is used to cool the inlet processed gas in the condenser with a temperature rise
limit of 10 C, condenser operating pressure is 3.5 bar. The Gas contains a large number of
hydrocarbon vapors and enters at temperature of 300 C.
Molecular Weight
Hydrogen (Kg/mole) 1.00794
Argon 39.948
Oxygen 31.9988
Nitrogen 28.0134
Methane 16.043
CO 28.011
CO2 44.01
Ethane 30.07
10
H2S 34.0809
COS 60.0751
SO2 64.066
CS2 76.139
H2O 18.01528
Average Molecular Weight 36.26757077
Table 5: Hydrocarbons Molecular weight
Duty Released from the gas =148519.677 kW
Cooling water flow = 3.55E+03 Kg/s
The assumed overall coefficient = 795 W/m2*C
Mean Temperature difference is calculated using
dT is with a correction factor of 0.92 is found to be 90 C
erence
The Mean temperature difference is used to calculate the trial area using
Apro = 2.08x103 m2.
The trial area is used to find the surface area of one tube (ignoring the tube sheet thickness);
the surface area of one tube is 0.735886663 m2.
Number of tubes is estimated to be 2.08E+03/0.735886663 = 2820 tubes
11
Tube Dimensions
Tube Outer Diameter (mm) 48
Tube Inner Diameter 43
Tube Length (m) 6
Note: Pitch Type Triangular
Table 6: tube Dimensions
Pitch (Pt) is found using 1.25 *OD, it is found to be 60 mm.
Bundle Diameter (Db) is calculated using
 Db was found to be = 3630.879825 mm.
Overall Heat transfer coefficient
 Assumed condensing coefficient is 1500 W/m2*C

 Tube- side temperature is 100 C
 Shell- side temperature is 217.9 C
 Wall temperature is 155.2 C
Using both temperatures, mean temperature condensate estimated to be
 (217.9 + 155.2)/2 = 186.4 C
Density of vapor gas in shell-side is 9.011 kg/m3
Density of water in tube -side at 95 C is 962 kg/m3
Tube total cross-sectional area is calculated by Estimated to be 1.02 m2
12
 Tube velocity 1.23 m/s
 Tube-side Coefficient (hi) calculated to be 7827.2 W/m2*C
 shell-side Coefficient (hc) calculated to be 1384.4 W/m2*C
Using the above correlation, the overall Heat transfer coefficient estimated to be 787.1 with
an error% calculated to be 0.9% which is accepted
Step 2: Pressure drop Calculations
Specifications
1- Pull-through floating head.

2- No close clearance.
3- Baffle Spacing = Shell diameter.
Shell- Pressure drop
Shell bundle clearance is found to be 95 mm using figure below
13
Figure 3: Bundle diameter
Figure:
 Shell inner diameter is 3725.8 mm

 Cross- flow area is 2.78 m2
 Mass flow rate based on inlet conditions (Gs) is 15.97 kg/s
 Equivalent diameter (de) estimated to be 86.9 mm
 Vapor viscosity is 0.008
 jf = 0.002 ( from figure 2 )
Using equation, the pressure drop of shell-side estimated to be 0.0859 kPa
Tube-Side pressure drop
 Viscosity of water is 0.6 mN s/m2

 jf is 0.0035 (from figure 2)
Equation 13: Tube-side Pressure drop
Using equation, the pressure drop of tube-side estimated to be 48.49 kPa. Pressure drop in
both sides is found to be within the allowable range and it is acceptable. With these results,
the condenser design is acceptable. These results apply to the other 3 condensers used in the
process since the temperatures they process are in the same range of the design temperature.
14
Costing Analysis
The costing process is an essential step of this preliminary design. It determines whether the
project design can be carried on or not. This report summarizes the cost analysis of the Sulfur
Recover Unit project. The total costs, cash flow diagram and Monte Carlo simulation were
determined using CAPCOST software.
Equipment and Utility Summary
After finalizing and optimizing all detailed equipment parameters and dimensions, a step was
taken to find the cost of all Equipment. Equipment and utility summary for all equipment in
tables 1 – 7.
Equipment R-101 R-102 R-103

Type Catalytic Reactor Catalytic Reactor Catalytic Reactor
Type of Catalyst Activated Alumina Activated Alumina Activated
Alumina
Number 1 1 1
Volume(m3) 360 360 360
Purchased Equipment 255,000 255,000 255,000
Cost ($/Equipment)
Bare Module Cost 1,330,000 1,500,000 1,330,000
($/Equipment)
Total Module Cost 1,500,000 1,570,000 1,500,000
($/Equipment)
Grass Roots Cost 2,090,000 2,090,000 2,090,000
($/Equipment)
Table 1: Catalytic Reactor Equipment and Utility Summary
Equipment Pyrolysis Furnace (H-102)

Type Furnace
Number 1
Heat Duty (MJ/h) 691,000
15
MOC Carbo n Steel
Pressure (barg) 3.5
Utility Use Natural Gas
Efficiency 0.9
Actual Usage (MJ/h) 7,596
Purchased Equipment Cost ($/Equipment) 14,600,000
Bare Module Cost ($/Equipment) 31,200,000
Total Module Cost ($/Equipment) 32,000,000
Grass Roots Cost ($/Equipment) 37,400,000
Annual Utility Cost ($/Equipment/year) 197,600
Table 2: Furnace Equipment and Utility Summary
Equipment Fired Heater (H-101)

Type Fired Heater
Number 1
MOC Carbon Steel
Pressure (barg) 3.5
Utility Use Fuel Gas
Efficiency 0.9
Purchased Equipment Cost ($/Equipment) 930,000
Bare Module Cost ($/Equipment) 1,980,000
Total Module Cost ($/Equipment) 2,100,000
Grass Roots Cost ($/Equipment) 2,340,000
Annual Utility Cost ($/Equipment/year) 1,067,000
Table 3: Fired Heater Equipment and Utility Summary
16
Equipment Waste Heat Boiler (E-101)
Type Heat exchanger
Number 1
MOC Carbon Steel
Pressure (barg) 42
Utility Use Cooling water
Efficiency -
Bare Module Cost ($/Equipment) 336,000
Total Module Cost ($/Equipment) 390,000
Grass Roots Cost ($/Equipment) 401,000
Table 4: Waste Heat Boiler Equipment and Utility Summary
Equipment Condensers (E-102, E103, E-104)

Type Heat exchanger
Number 3
MOC Carbo n Steel
Pressure (barg) 40
Utility Use Cooling water
Efficiency -
Table 5: Condensers Equipment and Utility Summary
17
Equipment Heaters (E-107, E108, E-109)
Type Heat exchanger
Number 3
Heat Duty (MJ/h) 0
MOC Carbo n Steel
Pressure (barg) 42
Utility Use High Pressure Steam
Efficiency -
Actual Usage (MJ/h) 0
Annual Utility Cost ($/Equipment/year) -
Table 6: Heaters Equipment and Utility Summary
Note: Heaters are using High Pressure Steam generated from the waste heat boiler and
condensers so its utility cost is set to be 0.
V-101 Horizontal 9 3 Carbon 42 $ $

Steel 47,600 1,007,000
V-102 Horizontal 7.6 2.5 Carbon 45 $ $
Steel 33,100 633,000
Steel 33,100 633,000
18
Steel 33,100 633,000
Steel 33,100 633,000
Table 7: Vessels Equipment and Utility Summary
Total costs of equipment and utilities

Total Bare module cost ($) 39,300,000
Total module cost ($) 34,400,000
Grass Roots Cost ($) 48,100,000
Total Annual Utility Cost ($) 2,040,000
Table 8: Total Costs of Equipment and Utility
Total costs of all equipment used in the project including grass roots cost and annual utility
cost are shown in table 8, Grass Roots cost (capital Investment) was found to be $ 48,100,000
Cost of Manufacturing (COM)
COM is very important to be considered, it has mainly four costs to be estimated. Cost of
Raw Materials, Operating labor, Waste treatment and Utility are the main costs shown in
table 9. Our product is Sulfur and its value is fluctuating, the value in current market is 147
$/ ton according to [1].
Material Name Classification Price Flowrate (kg/h) Revenue

($/kg) $
Sulfur Product $ 33000.00 30,000,000
(0.14)
19
In the table below, Regarding on Raw Materials which is acid gas only, it is provided within
the plant from gas sweetening facilities and so the cost of Raw Materials considered to be
zero. Using CAPCOM excel, Cost of Operating Labor was found to be $ 1,300,000 annually,
where the cost of Utilities on the other hand was found to be $ 2,039,600.
CRM (Raw Materials Costs) $ 0

CUT (Cost of Utilities) $ 2,039,600
CWT (Waste Treatment Costs) $ -
COL (Cost of Operating Labor) $ 1,300,000
Table 9: Final Costs of Manufacturing (COM)
Cash Flow Analysis

In this section, the cash flow diagram will be discussed and analyzed. Figure 1 below shows
the cash flow diagram generated by CAPCOST software for the 15 years SRU plant.
Cash Flow Diagram

100.0
80.0
Project Value (millions of dollars)
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
-20.0
-40.0
-60.0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Project Life (Years)
Figure 2 Cash Flow Diagram for the SRU plant
20
This cash flow analysis follow the discounted profitability criterion with a 5% rate and 5%
tax rate. The analysis shows that the project has a NPV of 89.3 million dollars. This value
indicates that the project is profitable. In addition to that, the payback period was estimated to
be 3.8 years. The minimum rate of return was set to be 10%. However, the analysis showed
that the project is able to get 22.5% rate of return which above the acceptable rate. These
values are summarize in table 10 below.
Net Present Value (millions) 89.29
Discounted Cash Flow Rate of Return 22.46%
Discounted Payback Period (years) 3.8
Table 50 Cash flow analysis values summary
Monte Carlo Simulation

Monte Carlo Simulation is a tool used to assess the profitability of a project in order to decide
to proceed with the project or not. For the SRU plant, several types of monte carlo simulation
were generated by CAPcost software.
1000
Cumulative Number of Data Points
750
500
250
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Net Present Value (millions of dollars)
Bins Upper Value # points/bin Cumulative
21
0 38.3 0 0
1 47.4 14 14
2 56.6 43 57
3 65.7 103 160
4 74.9 131 291
5 84.0 178 469
6 93.2 209 678
7 102.3 185 863
8 111.5 96 959
9 120.6 34 993
10 129.8 7 1000
Figure 3 NPV monte carlo simulation
Figure 2 shows the Monte Carlo simulation for the NPV data. The analysis shows that the
project’s lowest NPV possible is 38.3 million$ while it’s highest NPV is 129.8 million$.
Moreover, the median is found to be 52 million. Hence positive NPV means that the project
is very profitable and it can be accepted based on this data only. However, to make deeper
analysis the discounted cash flow rate of return (DCFROR) data was analyzed. The Monte
Carlo simulation generated is shown in figure 3 below.
1000
750
500
250
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
DCFROR
Figure 4 DCFROR data points
22
Bins Upper #/bin Cumulative
0 0.12 0 0
1 0.14 14 14
2 0.16 39 53
3 0.18 107 160
4 0.20 136 296
5 0.22 175 471
6 0.24 208 679
7 0.26 170 849
8 0.28 100 949
9 0.30 38 987
10 0.32 13 1000
This analysis shows that the lowest possible DCFROR is 12% which is above the minimum
acceptable ROR thus it adds more reasons to accept this alternative. Although this data shows
that the project is profitable, it is wise to consider one last type of Monte Carlo simulation,
which is the payback period. Figure 4 below shows the Monte Carlo simulation for the
discounted payback period of the project.
1000
750
500
250
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
DPBP (years)
Figure 5 Discounted Pay Back Period Monte Carlo
23
Bins Upper #/bin Cumulative
0 2.7 0 0
1 3.2 47 47
2 3.7 182 229
3 4.3 269 498
4 4.8 185 683
5 5.3 122 805
6 5.8 99 904
7 6.3 48 952
8 6.9 29 981
9 7.4 9 990
10 7.9 10 1000
Taking the discounted payback period is essential for the project to see whether the project
will pay off the investment during its lifetime. Apparently, from the data obtained from figure
4, the largest payback period is estimated to be 8 years. This means that in the worst case
scenario, the project will pay off its investment in a half of its life time which was stated to be
15 years.
Looking at the three Monte Carlo graphs, the project is found profitable and the risks are very
small due to several reasons. This is mainly explained by the fact that there is no raw material
cost. As mentioned previously in the report, the raw material which is acid gas, is obtained
from another unit in the same plant.
24
Plant Layout
HSE Considerations
As the international community continues to strive towards minimizing our impact on the
environment, the regulatory bodies have to impose higher minimum overall recovery
efficiencies from the SRU. Not only do the day-to-day SRU operations need to include
optimization and reliability to meet these recovery efficiencies, even guidelines during upset
conditions (including flaring) are becoming much more stringent. The bottom line is that the
SRU must be both reliable and able to achieve the minimum overall recovery efficiency
required on a day-to-day and long-term basis. Chemicals present a very substantial hazard
due to their potential to generate fires and explosions. The combustion of one gallon of
toluene can destroy an ordinary chemistry laboratory in minutes; persons present may be
killed. The potential consequences of fires and explosions in pilot plants and process plant
environments are even greater.
The three most common chemical plant accidents are fires, explosions and toxic releases, in
that order. Organic solvents are the most common source of fires and explosions in the
chemical industry.
However, in our scope we look in depth into hazardous gases in our SRU.
(from most hazardous to least hazardous)
25
1. Hydrogen sulfide
2. Sulfur dioxide
3. Carbon dioxide
Hydrogen Sulfide
Forms an explosive mixture with a concentration between 4.3 % and 46 % by volume. Auto-
ignition occurs at 500°F (260°C), which is a very low ignition temperature[5].
Limits of flammability in Air at room temperature and atmospheric pressure of

Hydrogen Sulfide [9].
Gas or Vapor LFL (percent- UFL (percent- Flash Point(FP)

volume %) volume %)
Hydrogen Sulfide 4.3 45 Flammable gas
Safe guard regarding Hydrogen Sulfide includes [4]:
1. “TWA” and “STEL” H2S limits
“Time weighted Average “ up to 10 ppm = no more than 8 hours/ day
“Short Term Exposure Limit” (STEL) up to 15 ppm = Max of 4 exposures / 8 hours.
2. Escape masks with H2S cartridges is to be provided for all personnel working on
exposed areas.
26
3. H2S detector to work at all times that continuously determines the presence of H2S
on air. The detection apparatus shall provide an alarm based upon TWA value limit
set for the apparatus.
4. Evacuation personnel equipment .
5. Evacuation means (exit ways, communicationpoints alarm system, etc.).
Sulphur Dioxide
Sulphur dioxide is product of burning material that contains Sulphur, In our case, of course
the combustion of fuel gas in the furnace, it can cause respiratory problems such as
bronchitis, and can irritate your nose, eye skin when in dirct contact,. It causes breathing
difficulties for people with lung and throat diseases. The effects are worse when you are
exercising[5].In 2008, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
reduced the short-term exposure limit to 0.25 parts per million(ppm)
(ppm). The OSHAPEL is currently set at 5 ppm (13 mg/m3) time-weighted average. has set
the IDLH at 100 ppm[7].In 2010, the EPA"revised the primary SO2 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards NAAQSby establishing a new one-hour standard at a level of 75 Parts per
billion(ppb) [8].
However, there are some tail gas technologies used to deal with Sulphur dioxide to follow[3]:
 SO2 is converted to a different product, such as sulfuric acid.

 SO2 undergoes hydrogenation over a supported Co-Mo sulfide catalyst followed by
amine treatment to produce a recycle stream with hydrogen sulfide which then is
reused in the Claus process.
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless and odorless gas. It is non-flammable and chemically
non-reactive (Sax and Lewis, 1989.)
Occupational CO2 exposure limits have been set in the United States at 0.5% (5000 ppm) for
an eight-hour period. In concentrations up to 1% (10,000 ppm), it will make some people feel
drowsy and give the lungs a stuffy feeling [1]. Concentrations of 7% to 10% (70,000 to
100,000 ppm) may cause suffocation, even in the presence of sufficient oxygen, manifesting
as dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few
minutes to an hour [2].
27
Other Risk Considerations
Sulfur Fire Risk
The best known ‘risk of accumulated’, the principle of Sulphur fire is when Oxygen
concentration is present in high concentration (Above 10%).on the other hand, At lower
concentrations of free oxygen in the process gas the Sulphur will be oxidized to SO2
generating extra heat of oxidation. A Sulphur fire can also lead to corrosion that is higher
than normally experienced.
The risk of a sulfur fire increases as soon as higher concentrations of oxygen enter the
system. This happens most often when the main burner is in the start-up phase and/or
operated with fuel gas, e.g. during heating up, hot standby or during taking the unit out of
operation, when the burner is operated not substoichiometrically, but with excess air[6]
28
HAZOP Analysis Claus Bed (R-101, R-102, And R-103): Catalytic Reactor.
The Section below provides a Hazard and Operability Analysis (HAZOP) which
has been carried on the Claus bed (Catalytic Reactor) as a major unit. Worst
case scenarios, relative consequences and action procedures are shown in table 1
below.
29
Note: The provided feed to first Catalytic reactor (R-101), stream 8 at 180 ºC average temperature, 0.57 bar-g, molar flow (in) of
approximately 4500 kgmole/h, molar flow (out) of 4450 kgmole/h.
Study Node Process Parameter Deviation Causes Consequences Action

o None o Plugged pipe. o No Reaction, o Unplug piping,
no feed to later Inspect.
reactors.
o Claus Bed o Flow
o Pressure o Reactor o Shutdown
Increase. rupture. process,
o Less evaluation area.
o Sulfur o Shut down
condensing in reactor, clean or
reactor, replaced fouled
o Temperature fouling catalyst.
Drop. catalyst.
o Shut down
reactor, clean or
o Sulfur replaced fouled
condensing in catalyst.
reactor,
fouling
30
catalyst.
o Pressure drop. o Insufficient o Inspect reactor,

o Flow o More sulfur piping for leaks.
conversion in
overall
o Temperature process. o Quench reactor.
increase.
o Runaway
o Claus Bed reaction.
o Major backup o Complete o Shut down
o Reverse downstream. system system, clean.
backup.
o Catalyst fouled. o Insufficient o Clean/replace

o None sulfur catalyst.
conversion in
o Reaction o Catalyst old, overall
needs replacing. process. o Replace catalyst.
31
o Insufficient
sulfur
conversion in
overall
process.
o Low pressure in o Insufficient o Inspect reactor,

o Less reactor. sulfur piping for leaks.
conversion in
o Partial catalyst overall o Clean/replace
fouling. process. catalyst.
o Insufficient
sulfur
conversion in
overall
process.
o Runaway o Quench reactor.

o More o Temperature reaction.
increase.
32
o Overcooling of o Sulfur o Shut down
o Less reactor. condensing in reactor, clean or
reactor. replace fouled
o Temperature o Less conversion catalyst.
due to partial
catalyst fouling. o Insufficient o Replace Catalyst
sulfur / Clean.
conversion in
overall
process.
o Claus Bed
o Insufficient o Runaway o Quench reactor.
o More reactor cooling. reaction.
o Reactor rupture. o Dangerous o Shut down

o None chemical process, evacuate
release. area.
33
o Minor leak in o Lower product o Inspect reactor,
o Less piping. yield. piping for leaks.
o Reactor o Pressure o Partial pipe o Reactor o Shut down

Wall o More clog. rupture. process, evacuate
area.
o Sulfur o Shut down

condensing in reactor, clean or
reactor, replace fouled
fouling catalyst.
catalyst.
Table 1: HAZOP on Claus Bed (Catalytic Reactor)
34
SRU Waste Handling
Gaseous waste
Sulfur oxides and hydrogen sulfide are part of the gaseous wastes which are released from
The Sulfur Recovery Unit in this project. Sulfur dioxide specifically, if released into the
environment, can combine with water and air to form sulfur acid which is one of the main
components of acid raid. On the other hand, hydrogen sulfide will break down in the air in a
few days so it is not as bad in terms of environment impact, but is much more severe in terms
of affecting the health of labor in the plant if exposure occurs. Usually, if inhaled on high
concentrations it will cause certain death since it is a lethal toxin.
Essentially, the Claus Process (or Claus units in other processes) is a pollution preventer
when it comes to gas waste in chemical engineering plants because it converts 95% and more
of sulfur content in acid gas into elemental sulfur. In other words, SRU are made in order to
avoid the flaring of H2S, making it a way of protecting the environment.
Liquid & Solid waste

Since the Claus reaction is a chemical equilibrium, sulfur production is subdued if sulfur
vapor is present in the gas. Therefore, sulfur condensers are used to condense the sulfur and
ensure continued conversion in the later stages. Accumulation of liquid sulfur has some risks.
The best-known risk is sulfur fire. If oxygen is present in high concentrations and an ignition
source exists, a sulfur fire can start. Other issues of accumulated liquid sulfur include
impeding the flow of the process gas which causes pressure drops and in turn forces lowering
of gas feed rates. When the sulfur then cannot be drained properly it will result in a pool of
liquid sulfur. When liquid sulfur is allowed to cool, it will solidify and removing the sulfur
from equipment is very difficult and time consuming.
There are two primary ways to deal with this type of waste:
1) Flush test: A method of detecting partial plugging of the lines, funnels and locks. If
this procedure is done consistently, partial sulfur blockage will be detected in a very
35
early stage before any sulfur accumulation can take place. This test flushes any partial
plugging found in the lines with a large flow.
2) Cleaning sulfur boots: Another reason for partial plugging would be accumulation of
solids in the sulfur boot at the outlet of the sulfur condenser. These solids can be
catalyst particles and sulfur concretes. The sulfur boots must be checked and cleaned
regularly otherwise the solids may end up in the bottom of the sulfur lock requiring
the lock to be cleaned as well, which is a much more difficult operation.
Waste Treatment in SRU
In this plant design the scope of the project was mainly on the production units (Thermal and
Catalytic Stages). Due to that, the Tail Gas Treatment Unit (TGTU) was not designed.
However, the TGTU is considered in this design. This is mainly because the discharged tail
gas of the SRU contains H2S and SO2 higher than what is stated by the environmental
regulations (500 ppm). Another reason is that the TGTU enhances efficiency and overall
conversion of H2S to Sulfur making it the best alternative for dealing with discharged gases.
Conclusion
This report presented the preliminary design of the sulfur recovery unit (claus process) using
fuel gas enrichment. The design’s objective is to optimize the amount of fuel gas consumed
in the process to reduce its cost. It is concluded from the sensitivity analysis carried in this
stage that optimization of fuel gas consumption is possible by 1347 m3/hr. The detailed
design for all equipment was carried to get dimensions and data required for cost estimation.
Costing analysis was done showing that the plant will have a 89 Million$ NPV, 22%
DCFROR and 3.8 years for the total investment to be recovered.
36
References
[1] M. Sassi and A. Gupta, "Sulfur Recovery from Acid Gas Using the Claus Process and
High Temperature Air Combustion (HiTAC) Technology", American Journal of
Environmental Sciences, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 502-511, 2008.
[2] Reza Rezazadeh, Sima Rezvantalab “Investigation of Inlet Gas Streams Effect on the
Modified Claus Reaction Furnace”. Advances in Chemical Engineering and Science, volume
3, pp 6-14, 2013.
[3] Asadi. S, Pakizeh. M, Pourafshari Chenar. M, Shanbedi. M, Amiri. A .

“Effect of H2S Concentration on the reactionfurnace temperature and sulphur recovery ”.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIED ENGINEERING RESEARCH, DINDIGUL ,
volume 1, No4, 2011.
[4] B. Zare Nezhad, N.Hosseinpour. “Evaluation of different alternatives for increasing the
reaction furnace temperature of Claus SRU by chemical equilibrium calculations”. Applied
Thermal Engineering, volume 28, pp 738-744, 2008.
[5] Mahin Rameshni, P.E. “Challenges with Thermal Combustion Stage in Sulphur Recovery
Designs”. Available Online:
http://www.worleyparsons.com/CSG/Hydrocarbons/SpecialtyCapabilities/Documents/Challe
nges_with_Thermal_Combustion_Stage_in_Sulphur_Recovery_Designs.pdf
[6] Xiaoping Tian , Dr. Andrew Richardson , Dr. Bernhard Schreiner. “Oxy-fuel combustion
in the Claus process and using CFD modelling in burner design optimization”. Available
Online:
https://content.lib.utah.edu/utils/getfile/collection/AFRC/id/14495/filename/14509.pdf
[7] Linde Process Plants, “Sulfur Process Technology.” Internet: http://www.linde-

engineering.com/internet.global.lindeengineering.global/en/images/Sulfur%20Process%20Te
chnology19_111155.pdf?v=1.0, [Accessed: 9-16-2016].
[8] N. Al Amoodi , H. Selim , A. K. Gupta , M. Sassi and A. Al Shoaibi. “Numerical

Simulations of the Thermal Stage in Claus Process: Equilibrium and Kinetic Investigation,”
AIAA Aerospace Sciences, Orlando, Florida, 2010.
37
[9] J. A. Sames and H.G. Paskall,"Sulphur Recovery," Sulphur experts,Western
Research,Elevencth Edition , 2008
[10] Mokhatab, S., & Poe, W. A. (2012). Handbook of natural gas transmission and
processing “Sulfure Recovery and handeling”. Gulf Professional Publishing.
[11] Monnery, W. D., Svrcek, W. Y., & Behie, L. A. (1993). Modelling the modified claus
process reaction furnace and the implications on plant design and recovery. The Canadian
Journal of Chemical Engineering, 71(5), 711-724.
[12] Charles L. Kimtantas and Martin A. Taylor.”Downsizing a Claus Sulphur Recovery

Unit.” Bechtel Hydrocarbon Technology Solutions. Inc, 2016, pp.1-30.
[13] "Managing hydrogen sulphide detection offshore", Hse.gov.uk, 2009. [Online].

Available: http://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/infosheets/is6-2009.htm. [Accessed: 25- Nov-
2016].
[14] http://www.praxair.co.in/-/media/praxairus/documents/sds/hydrogen/hydrogen-sulfide-
h2s-safety-data-sheet-sds-p4611.pdf?la=en
[15] https://isolab.ess.washington.edu/isolab/images/documents/msds_sds/sulfur_dioxide.pdf
[16] "Sulfur Dioxide Basics | Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Pollution | US EPA", Epa.gov. [Online].
Available: https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/sulfur-dioxide-basics#effects. [Accessed: 25-
Nov- 2016].
[17] The Aftermath of SO2 Breakthrough and Ways to Prevent and Mitigate It, 1st ed.
Colorado, 2016, pp. 1-3.
[18] http://www.praxair.com/-/media/documents/sds/carbon-dioxide/carbon-dioxide-
medipure-co2-safety-data-sheet-sds-p4574.pdf?la=en
[19] “Strategies for Creative Problem Solving”, H.S. Fogler and S.E. LeBlanc, Prentice-Hall
PTR, 1995.
38
“Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers”, Peters & Timmerhaus, McGraw-
Hill (4th edition, 1991).
[20] “Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes”, Beigler, Grossman

Westerberg Prentice-Hall PTR, 1998.
“Chemical Engineering Design”, R. Sinnott and G. Towler, Butterworths, 2010.
[21]“A Guide to Writing as an Engineer”, D. Beer and D. McMurrey, 1997.
“Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes”, Turton, Bailie, Whiting and
Shaeiwitz, Prentice-Hall PTR, 4th Edition, 2013.
[22] Coulson & Richardson, Chemical Engineering Design (fourth edition), Chemical
Engineering, Volume 6, Fourth edition, 2005, R. K. Sinnot
[23] "Exposure Limits for Carbon Dioxide Gas – CO2 Limits". InspectAPedia.com.
[24] Friedman, Daniel. Toxicity of Carbon Dioxide Gas Exposure, CO2 Poisoning
Symptoms, Carbon Dioxide Exposure Limits, and Links to Toxic Gas Testing Procedures.
InspectAPedia
[25] The Aftermath of SO2 Breakthrough and Ways to Prevent and Mitigate It, 1st ed.
Colorado, 2016, pp. 1-3.
[26] http://www.pogc.ir/portals/10/imeni/dastor/h2s%20PR90POGC002.pdf
[27] Sulfur dioxide, U.S. National Library of Medicine
[28]Ticheler-Treinstra E,van Warners A, van Grinsven,Kobussen S,”RISK OF

ACCUMULATED SULFUR IN SULFUR RECOVERY UNITS”, Jacobs Comprimo Sulfur
Solutions.
[29] "NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards".

[30] http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/
[31] Neil L. Book, Oliver C. Sitton, Douglas K. Ludlow, “INERTING OR

PURGING”,Department of Chemical Engineering,University of Missourli-Rolla.
39
Appendix
Appendix 1
Mass and Energy Balance for each unit in the process was obtained from the Hysys Simulation
and it is shown in the following tables:
Unit Mass & Energy Balance

 Unit Name: H-101
Mass Balance
Stream In (Kg/h) Stream Out (Kg/h)

1 8.28E+04 2 1.60E+05
Air 7.68E+04 - -
Total 159,610.0 Total 159,600.0
Table 5: H-101 Mass Balance.
Energy Balance
Stream In (KJ/h) Stream Out (KJ/h)

Air -34,684,648.5 2 -433,751,710.5
1 -399,067,195.0 - -
Total -433,751,710.5 Total -433,751,710.5

Table 6: H-101 Energy Balance.
Unit Name: E-101
Mass Balance
1
2 159,600.0 3 0
- - 4 159,600.0
Total 159,600.0 Total 159,600.0
Table 7: E-101 Mass Balance
Energy Balance

2 -433,751,710.0 3 0
- - Q-1 187,994,652.7
- - 4 -621,747,759.4
Total -433,751,710.0 Total -433,753,106.7
Table 8: E-101 Energy Balance.
 Unit Name: E-102
Mass Balance

4 159,600.0 5 2.28E+04
- - 6 1.37E+05
Total 159,600.0 Total 1.60E+05
Table 9: E-102 Mass Balance.
Energy Balance

4 -621,747,759.0 6 -662,334,154.6
- - Q-2 37,143,059.9
- - 5 3,443,335.3
Total -621,747,759.0 Total -621,747,759.4
Table 10: E-102Energy Balance.
 Unit Name: E-106
2
Mass Balance

6 136800 8 1.37E+05
Total 136800 Total 1.37E+05
Energy Balance

6 -662334155 8 -655420675.9
Q-3 6913478.754 - -
Total -655420676 Total -655420675.9
 Unit Name: R-101
Mass Balance

8 1.37E+05 11 1.37E+05
Total 1.37E+05 Total 1.37E+05
Table 13: R-101 Mass Balance.
Energy Balance

8 655420676 11 655420680.6
Total 655420676 Total 655420680.6
Table 14: R-101 Energy Balance.
 Unit name: E-103
3
Mass Balance

11 1.37E+05 S-9 9969
- - 13 1.27E+05
Energy Balance

11 -655420681 13 -678609866
- - Q-4 21682061.83
- - 7 1507123.479
Total -655420681 Total -655420681
Mass Balance

13 1.27E+05 14 1.27E+05
Energy Balance

13 -678609866 14 -665852921
Q-5 12756944.72 -
Total -665852921 Total -665852921
4
 Unit name: R-102
Mass Balance

14 1.27E+05 15 1.27E+05
Energy Balance

14 -665852921 15 -665852926
Total -665852921 Total -665852926
Mass Balance

15 1.27E+05 16 1.25E+05
- - 10 1531
Energy Balance

15 -665852926 16 -681802983
- - Q-6 15718540.12
- - 10 231516.5685
5
Total -665852926 Total -665852926
Mass Balance

16 1.25E+05 17 1.25E+05
Table 23: E-108 Mass Balance
Energy Balance

16 -681802983 17 -672109019
Q-7 9693963.079 - -
Total -672109019 Total -672109019
 Unit name: R-103
Mass Balance

17 1.25E+05 18 1.25E+05
Energy Balance

17 -672109019 18 -664389032
Total -672109019 Total -664389032
6
Mass Balance

18 1.25E+05 Tail Gas 1.25E+05
- - 12 498.5
Energy Balance

18 -672109031 Tail Gas -682615382
- - Q-8 10430987.21
- - 12 75363.28779
Total -672109031 Total -672109031
Unit name: M-10
 Mass Balance

3 0 Sulfur Recovered 3.48E+04
5 2.28E+04 - -
7 9969 - -
10 1531 - -
12 498.5 - -
Table 29: M-101 Mass Balance.

Final Report - Group 7

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report - Group 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Petroleum Institute

Chemical Engineering Department

Chemical Engineering Senior Design II

Sulfur Recovery Unit Design with Fuel Gas Enrichment

Ali Sultan Al Zaabi (6198)

Saif Mohammed (6062)

Jasem Al Nuaimi (6009)

Ebrahim Al Nuaimi (6399)

Dr. Abhijeet Raj

List of Tables and Figures

Figure 1 Sulfur Recovery Unit (Claus Process) Base Case Simulation........................................ 14

Table 1 Fuel Consumption of Reaction Furnace (H-101) Analysis ............................................. 17

Effects of Operating Parameters

Reactions in the Claus Process

H2S + 1.5 O2 → SO2 + H2O (1)

2H2S + SO2 → 3/XSx + 2H2O (2)

Reaction (2) is actually available in two different variants:

Combustion of Fuel Gas

CH4+2O2 → 2H2O + CO2 (4)

The formation of hydrogen gas:

The formation of carbonyl sulfide:

Block Flow Diagram

Process Flow Diagram

Fired Preheater (H-101)

Condenser (E-102, E-103, E-104 and E-104)

Catalytic Reactors (R-101, R-102 and R-103)

Acid Gas mole fraction

Figure 1 Sulfur Recovery Unit (Claus Process) Base Case Simulation

Air Fuel Gas Acid Gas 1 2 4 6 8 11

Optimization of Fuel Consumption

Amount of Fuel Air Temperature (ᵒC) Furnace Temperature (ᵒC)

Amount of Fuel Air Temperature (ᵒC)

Effect of H2S/SO2 Ratio of WHB Outlet Stream

Figure 3 Sensitivity Analysis of H2S/SO2 ration on the Sulfur Recovery

Effect of Air Temperature on Reaction Furnace Volume

Figure 4 Sensitivity Analysis of Air Temperature on Reaction Furnace’s Volume

Mass & Energy Balance

Overall Mass Balance

In (kg/h) Out (kg/h)

Table 3 Overall Mass Balance.

Overall Sulfur Mass Balance

Sulfur (In) inlet stream (Acid Gas)

H2S: 1,115.4 kmol/hr * 32 kg/kmol = 35,692.3 kg/hr

Total sulfur (In): 35,692.3 kg/hr

Sulfur (Out) outlet stream (Tail Gas)

H2S: 9.3411 kmol/hr * 32 kg/kmol = 298.9 kg/hr

SO2: 7.6128 kmol/hr * 32 kg/kmol = 243.6 kg/hr

COS: 2.1583 kmol/hr * 32 kg/kmol = 69.1 kg/hr

CS2: 4.5899 kmol/hr * 32 kg/kmol = 146.9 kg/hr

Total sulfur in outlet stream (Tail Gas): 841.1 kg/hr

Sulfur (Out) outlet stream (Sulfur recovered)

Amount of sulfur recovered: 34,770.1 kg/hr

Total sulfur (Out): 35,611.1 Kg/hr

Sulfur Conversion: (34,770.1/ 35,692.3) * 100 = 97.4%

Overall Energy Balance

In (KJ/h) Out (KJ/h)

Table 4 Overall Energy Balance.

High temperatures Hazardous gases (from most hazardous to least

High temperature issues in the Claus Hydrogen sulfide

 SO2 is converted to a different product, such as sulfuric acid or ammonium thiosulfate

Equipment Sizing & Detailed Desing

di,opt = 0.664 G0.51 ρ-0.36

G= Maximum Mass flow rate, kg/s

Ρ= Maximum density, kg/m3

A = (41648.31000)/ (75352.06) = 1577.31 m2

Utube = 8.67101 W/m2C