W I L L I A M R.

OWENS
ROBERT N. M A D D O X

Short-cut
Absorber
Culculatr'ons
A bsorption is essentially a vapor pressure phenomenon.
The driving force is the difference between the
partial pressure of a constituent in the gas and the vapor
pressure due to the portion absorbed in the liquid ."
These were the words of Alois Kremser (9) that started
theoretical analysis of the absorption process in 1930.
Since then, many useful and helpful additions have been
made to the solution of absorption problems.
Absorption is a mass transfer operation, principally
occurring in one direction. I n the petroleum industry,
absorption describes a multicomponent separation with
countercurrent flow to increase concentration driving
forces. A gas stream rich in heavy components is fed
into the bottom of the absorber to rise through contacting
devices. I t is the in-gas, wet gas, or rich gas. A
sponge or absorbing oil is fed in the top. I t is the lean
oil. The two streams pass countercurrently and the gas
stream leaving the absorber is denoted the discharge gas,
lean gas, or dry gas; the oil leaving, the rich oil.
The design or evaluation of an absorber represents
time and capital investment. Thus, speed and accuracy
are plied against one another. The accuracy of solu-
tion, in turn, is a function of the accuracy of the data
supplied and the method of calculation.
Design calculations began with little data and easy to
use methods. Time brought improved equilibrium
and enthalpy data and led to more exact calculation
methods. The advent of the computer made possible
rigorous calculation methods; however, not everyone
has access to a computer and a program for such calcula-
tions. Need still exists for a simple hand method that
incorporates absorption calculations, heat balance
calculations, and a minimum number of assumptions
for a broad range of absorber operating conditions.
Such a method would find application in preliminary
designs, economic feasibility studies, initial profiles for
rigorous calculation, or even final designs in the absence
of exact methods. Figure 7. A simple absorber

14 INDUSTRIAL A N D E N G I N E E R I N G CHEMISTRY
 A simple hand method that incorporates absorption calculations,
heat balance calculations, and a minimum number of assumptions
for a broad range of absorber operating conditions

Background mole fraction vapor u/V

K = 3 -
(3)
Design variables. From an analysis of design mole fraction liquid l/L
variables (15) for an n-tray, C-component absorber with
where V and L are the total streams. By rearranging,
only two feeds, a designer is faced with
the equation yields
2C + 2n + 5 _I -_ - L
degrees of freedom-i.e., variables.
= A (4)
u VK
A unique absorber could then be described by specify- for each component on each tray. The ratio A has
ing become known as the absorption factor.
Pressure in each stage n When we rearrange Equation 1 for the top tray of an
Heat leak in each stage n absorber
Lean oil composition and pressure
Lean oil rate and temperature
C
2
+
v2 = Vl(A1 1) - lo (5)
then the liquid leaving tray 2 would be
In-gas composition and pressure C
In-gas rate and temperature 2 12 = ~ z A z= Ul(A1A2 + Az) - loA2 (6)
Number of stages 1 When Equations 2 and 4 are used to obtain the vapor
2C + 2n + 5 rising to a given tray and its equilibrium liquid alter-
If a desired recovery of a component is specified, then nately, the equation for the liquid leaving tray n is
that specification replaces one in the list above-for in-
stance, the lean oil flow rate. Basic absorber design
1, = Ui(AiAzA3. . . A n + AzAa. . . A n + . . . + A,) -
methods, rigorous and otherwise, begin with these speci- lo(A2. . .An + . + An)
5 .
(7)
fications. The convention presented by Edmister (3) defines
Algebraic development. If we consider the ith
stage with a vapor stream entering the bottom, a liquid
TA .
= AiAzAs. . A n (8)
stream entering the top, and a liquid and a vapor stream and
leaving, then material balance equation for each com- ZA = AiAz.. .An + AZA3.. . A , + . . . + A , (9)
ponent is (Figure 1) By use of these definitions, Equation 7 becomes
uz+1 + I t 4 = ut +4 (1) In = V l Z A - lO(ZA - T A ) (10)
The equation around the ith tray and the top of the Design information usually consists of both feed
column for a given component is streams rather than a feed and a product stream.
Applying an over-all component balance to Equation 10
yields
where: u1 = moles of component leaving in the dry gas
lo = moles of component entering the lean oil
When we define a theoretical stage to have the liquid
and vapor leaving in equilibrium, the equilibrium ratio where V I is the moles in the dry gas; vn+l the moles in
K becomes the wet gas; and lo the moles in lean oil.

VOL. 6 0 NO. 1 2 DECEMBER 1 9 6 8 15

 Literature survey. Solution of the mathematical
model for absorber calculations depends upon the
method of evaluating the absorption factor for each in-
dividual tray and component. The simplest method is
to assume the absorption factor is constant throughout
the column. A refinement of that method is to use an
“effective” absorption factor that will give the same
value as the rigorous solution. The most difficult
method is to evaluate each absorption factor on every
tray for all components. Rigorous solutions for multi-
component systems are difficult and time-consuming
and, without good thermodynamic data, unwarranted.
Significant contributions to the average absorption
factors methods were made by Kremser (Q), Brown and
Souders ( I ) , and Landes and Bell ( I O ) . The case for
“effective” absorption factors has been provided by
Horton and Franklin (7), Edmister (2-4), and Hull
and Raymond (8). Sujata (77) and Holland (6) have
presented tray-by-tray methods for computer solution
to supplement the Lewis-Matheson and Thiele-Geddes
methods for distillation.
I n 1930 Kremser ( 9 ) presented a mathematical
analysis of the relations of the oil absorption process.
T o simplify calculations, the assumption was made that
pressure, oil rate, gas rate, and temperature were con-
stant throughout the absorber. Kremser noted these
assumptions were not fulfilled with rich gas feed or high
pressure plants.
Using a material balance similar to Equation 7 and a
constant absorption factor, Kremser developed Equa-
tion 12 which is analogous to Equation l l :
Souders and Brown rearranged Equation 12 to the form
un+l - u1 - An+l - A
- (13)
un+l - U O An+l - 1
which made calculations more convenient when chang-
ing the composition of the lean oil. The left side of
Equation 13 is the ratio of the actual change in com-
position of the gas to the maximum change in composi-
tion were it in equilibrium with the lean oil.
The assumptions of this method were substantially
valid for moderate pressures and lean gases, hence little
absorption. Souders and Brown recommended that
with greater absorption, the equilibrium values should
be evaluated a t some intermediate temperature between
the top and bottom. This value combined with the oil
rate a t the top, L, and the gas flow a t the bottom, V ,
produced ultraconservative values for design work in
this range.
16 INDUSTRIAL AND E N G I N E E R I N G CHEMISTRY
Recently a method has been presented which in-
corporates the heat balance into the method of Kremser,
Souders, and Brown. Landes and Bell ( I O ) used the
Souders and Brown method and an estimated average
temperature to provide a first estimate of the average
absorption factor. The top tray temperature was
assumed and the dew point calculated filling the void
with lean oil. A heat balance was made around the top
tray using an assumed temperature for the second tray.
The same procedure was then followed for the second
tray. The assumed temperature for the third tray was
left unchecked. An over-all heat balance yielded the
temperature of the rich oil stream. After the tempera-
ture-tray profile had been plotted, the oil-vapor ratios
were calculated. The L / V of the top tray had been
found during the top tray analysis. The L / V ratio for
the bottom tray was calculated by assuming equal
shrinkage on all trays except the top. By use of plot-
estimated values for temperatures and L/V’s, the absorp-
tion factor for the key component was calculated for
each tray and graphically averaged for the second
iteration. Absorption factors for other components were
found by the ratio of equilibrium values and the absorp-
tion factor of‘the key component.
I n 1940 Horton and Franklin (7) presented two sepa-
rate methods to calculate absorber performance. The
primary method was based on evaluating the absorption
factor on each tray with temperature and vapor profiles
calculated by empiricisms.
These equations assume constant per cent absorption
on each stage and a temperature change proportional
to the vapor shrinkage. The authors acknowledged
that predicted material balances and stage temperatures
may differ from tray-by-tray results, but their use gave
results which agreed closely with over-all absorption
efficiency.
Horton and Franklin’s second method introduced the
effective absorption factor as the value which gave the
same results as the individual absorption factors. Con-
sidering the series expansion similar to Equation 10,
they concluded the effective absorption factor for light
components (small values of A ) corresponded to the
absorption factor at a position near the bottom and for
heavier components, to a position near the middle of the
tower. A table was presented as a guide to the selection
of effective factors.
 TABLE 1. LIST OF RUNS

Pressure, Oil, Oil Oil )mp, Gas temp, c3 Gas

Run Trays psia mw stripped F OF Recovery composition
1 8 500 200 Yes 100 100 0.70 Average
2 8 500 200 Yes 50 50 0.70 Average
3 8 500 200 Yes 0 0 0.70 Average
4 8 500 200 Yes 100 120 0.70 Average
5 8 500 200 Yes 120 100 0.70 Average
6 8 5 00 200 Yes 0 20 0.70 Average
7 8 500 200 Yes 20 0 0.70 Average
8 8 500 200 Yes 100 100 0.20 Average
9 8 500 200 Yes 0 0 0.20 Average
10 8 500 200 Yes 100 100 0.90 Average
11 8 500 200 Yes 0 0 0.90 Average
12 8 500 200 No 100 100 0.70 Average
13 8 500 200 No 0 0 0.70 Average
14 8 500 200 Yes 100 100 0.70 Rich
15 8 500 200 Yes 0 0 0.70 Rich
16 8 5 00 200 Yes 100 100 0.70 Lean
17 8 5 00 200 Yes 0 0 0.70 Lean
18 8 200 200 Yes 100 100 0.70 Average
19 8 200 200 Yes 0 0 0.70 Average
20 8 1000 200 Yes 100 100 0.70 Average
21 8 1000 200 Yes 0 0 0.70 Average
22 8 500 145 Yes 100 100 0.70 Average
23 8 500 145 Yes 0 0 0.70 Average
24 8 5 00 250 Yes 100 100 0.70 Average
25 8 500 250 Yes 0 0 0.70 Average
26 2 500 200 Yes 100 100 0.70 Average
27 2 500 200 Yes 0 0 0.70 Average
28 12 500 200 Yes 100 100 0.70 Average
29 12 500 200 Yes 0 0 0.70 Average
30 8 500 200 Yes 75 75 0.70 Average
31 8 500 200 Yes 20 20 0.70 Average
32 8 500 200 Yes 10 10 0.70 Average
33 8 500 200 Yes - 10 -10 0.70 Average
34 8 500 200 Yes -20 - 20 0.70 Average
35 3 500 200 Yes 100 100 0.70 Average
36 3 500 200 Yes 0 0 0.70 Average
37 4 500 200 Yes 100 100 0.70 Average
38 4 500 200 Yes 0 0 0.70 Average
39 5 500 200 Yes 100 100 0.70 Average
40 5 500 200 Yes 0 0 0.70 Average
41 8 500 145 Yes 0 0 0.70 Rich
42 8 500 145 Yes 0 20 0.70 Average
43 8 500 200 * 100 100 0.70 Average
44 8 500 145 * 0 0 0.70 Average
* Presaturated.

VOL. 6 0 NO. 1 2 DECEMBER 1 9 6 8 17

 I n 1943, Edmister ( 2 ) presented a short-cut method Hull and Raymond presented two methods for deter-
based on an exact solution for a two-tray absorber. mining terminal tray temperatures. The first method,
At that time Edmister presented a material balance applicable to absorbers with input-oil and gas-weight
equation ratio from 0.8 to 5.0, was based on the lean oil being the
principal heat balance quantity in the top section of the
column. For high-pressure absorbers where the oil-gas
ratio may be very small, a correlation ~ 7 a sdeveloped
defining A , as between the in-gas and the rich-oil temperatures.
I n each of the above cases, the remaining terminal
A,"+1 - A ,
- A 1 A z . . . A n AO.. . A , + + . . + A,
,
temperature was calculated from the over-all heat
-1 A1A2.. , A , Az.. .A, + + . . . + An + 1 balance. The column average temperature was corre-
lated as a difference from the average of the terminal
(17)
temperatures.
and A' as Hull and Raymond proposed a method of evaluating
A , and A', a term they denoted A,. The A , was in
terms of the fractional distance between the bottom
and average tower conditions while A' was in terms of
AzA8. . . A , AS.. .A, + + .. + A,
, the fractional distance between the bottom and top of
AlAz.. .A, +
Az.. .A, + .. . + A , + 1 (18) the column. By use of their arrangement of the ma-
terial balance equation, the fraction absorbed, F, of each
When the system was solved for a two-tray absorber, A ,
component is
and A' could be expressed as
- = = A,,+' - A ,
A, = VAz(A1 + 1) + 0.25 - 0.5 (19 )
Vni-1

un+1 - lo/A' A,"+' - 1

(24)
and
The methods discussed above have been short-cut or
approximate solutions to absorber calculations although
several are capable of exact solution. With the advent
I n 1957, Edmister ( 4 ) published a new form of the of high-speed computers tray-by-tray solutions became
material balance equation and new absorption factor more popular and feasible. Lewis and Matheson ( 7 7 )
functions as developed a rigorous multicomponent distillation cal-
01 = vn+l+A + lO$A (21)
culation scheme which could be modified to work on
absorbers. Thiele and Geddes (78) also developed a
with multicomponent distillation calculation method based
on the ratio of the liquid stream to the top product
'
A -
1
~

-ZA+1
= fraction not recovered (22) stream. Holland (6) adapted this method to a com-
puter solution for absorbers using the absorption factor
and approach.
An iterative tray-by-tray method was described by
T A
$A = 1 - ~

ZA +1 = lean oil fraction lost
They may be evaluated either rigorously by individual
tray absorption factors or approximately by effective
absorption factors based on the two-tray model as
defined by Equation 19.
Presenting the first short-cut method to incorporate
heat balance equations, Hull and Raymond (8) pointed
out that the key to over-all absorber heat balance was
establishing either the discharge gas or the rich oil
temperature. I n light hydrocarbon fractionators, the
problem is solved by dew- and bubble-point calculations.
I n absorbers this procedure is complicated by the
presence of components with widely varying boiling
points.
(23) Sujata (77) and programmed for computer application
by Spear (76). The Sujata method presents no new
equations, but rather applies the absorption factor tech-
nique combined with a simultaneous solution for the
AUTHORS William R. Owens is a graduate assistant and
Robert N . Maddox is Professor and Head of the School of
Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Oklahoma State
University, Stillwater, Okla. The authors thank the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Weyare for the NDEA
Traineeship which supported Mr. Owens during this work,
and the Oklahoma State Thiversity Computing Center for com-
puting time used.

18 INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY

 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
Problem Number
Figure 2. Terminal tray shrinkage

variables. Temperature and flow profiles are initially

assumed. Correct flow profiles are found for given
temperature profiles. Individual tray heat balances
validate assumed temperature profiles or adjust them as
necessary. The major iteration variable is temperature
based on heat balance. Spear checked results of his
program against experimental data for four industrial
absorbers. Temperatures, flow rates, and material
and heat balances agreed within limits of data error.
In 1959 Ravicz (74) presented a calculation method
which eliminated the ideal tray restriction and the con-
cept of an over-all column efficiency. This method,
utilizing the power of the computer, included nonideal
mass transfer calculations, enthalpy, equilibrium, and
physical correlations too tedious for hand calculations.

Development of N e w Calculation Procedure

Consideration of the variables involved in the calcula-
tion of multicomponent absorbers shows that the man
initiating a “grass roots” calculation faces two major
problems: (1) estimating a reasonable L / V profile for
the absorber and (2) estimating and checking a column
temperature profile. Previous authors have considered
the first of these problems in some detail in developing
short-cut calculation procedures. Few have under-
taken the second which is at least of equal importance.
Analysis of a large number of tray-by-tray computer
solutions for multicomponent absorbers showed an
amazing consistency in the fraction absorbed on the two
terminal trays in the column. For numbers of trays Tray
varying from three to twelve, approximately 80yo of the Figure 3. Typical temperatureprojle
total material absorbed is absorbed on the top tray and
the bottom tray of the column. This is illustrated in
Figure 2 for the 44 problems solved. There may be
considerable shift in the percentage absorption in either
the top tray or the bottom tray depending on operating
conditions, but the terminal fractional absorption, w , var-

VOL. 6 0 NO. 1 2 DECEMBER 1 9 6 8 19

ied from only 62 to 89% with the average for all runs be-
ing very close to the 80% level. This fact can be incor- TABLE Ill. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
porated into absorption calculations to provide a useful Kremser-Brown Calculation Method
and valuable extension and to give considerable im- Predicted Variable Remarks
provement in accuracy and reliability in comparison Methane recovery Average 1070 low
with tray-by-tray results. Ethane recovery Average 10% low
With 80% of the absorption occurring on the terminal Lean oil rate Average %yohigh
trays, the absorption factors through the tower should be Temperatures: Rich oil Specified from Sujata
easily represented in terms of three factors: (1) the results
Lean gas Specified from Sujata
absorption factor for the top tray, (2) the absorption results
factor for the bottom tray, and (3) the absorption factor Column average Does not apply
which represents the remaining n - 2 trays in the Edmister Calculation Method
column. I n terms of these three absorption factors, Methane recovery Average 1 . 4 % low
Equations 8 and 9 become Ethane recovery Average 3 . 0 % low
Lean oil rate Average 2 . 0 % high
Temperatures: Rich oil Average 1.72'F high
Lean gas Specified from Sujata
results
Column average Does not apply
Proposed Calculation Method
Methane recovery Average O.6yO low
T o properly evaluate the three absorption factors, Ethane recovery Average 1.0Yo low
temperatures of the top and bottom trays and an average Lean oil rate Average 0.4YG high
Temperatures: Rich oil Average 1.8'F high
temperature for the tower must be known. The tem- Lean gas Average 0.2'F high
perature of the top tray of the column can be estimated Column average Average 1.4'F high
by the following equation which is based on a heat
balance around the top tray.

Equation 29. A heat balance around the top tray then

checks the assumed value for T D O .
LPLO
Evaluation of the average absorption factor requires
the average L / V value for the column together with the
When we use Equation 27, a value for T,, is assumed
average temperature of the column. Tav,is calculated
and a dewrpoint calculation is run on V D G ,adding
from Equation 28
sufficient lean oil to the calculated composition to make
the sum of the mole fractions equal to unity. This T.4VE = TDG +
provides the composition of the liquid leaving the top
theoretical plate, and a material balance then provides
[cPDG(T?20 - TDQ) + (l - W)AHABSI
(28)
the composition of vapor leaving plate two: For the CPD, f CPOIL

first trial, the temperature of tray two is assumed equal Equation 28 represents a heat balance around the middle
to TDQ;for subsequent trials, Tz is calculated from n - 2 trays of the absorber. After TAvEhas been esti-

TABLE I I. COLUMN PARAMETERS

Column conditions 500 psia
8 trays
9 components
Oil
Gas Nan-
Camflonent Standard Rich Lean Stripped striflped Presaturated
Methane 89.01 86.01 92.75 0.000 0.000 0,150
Ethane 6.29 6.79 5 .OO 0.000 0.000 0.000
Propane 2.36 3.36 1.75 0.000 0.000 0.000
&Butane 0.49 1.49 0.25 0.000 0.005 0.000
n-Butane 0.68 1.18 0.25 0.000 0,005 0.000
i-Pentane 0.13 1.13 0.00 0.000 0.010 0.000
n-Pentane 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.000 0,010 0.000
Lean oil 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.000 0.970 0.850
Nitrogen 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000

20 I N D U S T R I A L A N D E N G I N E E R I N G CHEMISTRY
mated for the tower, Equation 29 analysis of the temperature profile from approximately
50 tray-by-tray solutions of multicomponent absorption
problems.
(TBTM -
n
TTOP) TTOP
2
TBTM
) (29)
The average L/V ratio is determined from Equation 30

is used to calculate Tz. The graphical justification for Ln - (vn+,- Vn)

(L/v)AVB =
Vn - 0.05s (30)
Equation 29 is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 is based on

TABLE IV. PREDICTED TEMPERATURES

Predicted dry Predicted column
gas temperature average temperature Predicted rich oil temperature
Run Sujata Proposed Sujata Proposed Sujata Proposed Edmister
1 103.73 104.27 106.31 108.13 105.26 106.70 108.05
2 58.14 59.12 61.61 63.78 61.04 63.41 63.82
3 18.18 18.64 18.07 20.13 21.86 23.61 20.07
4 103.87 103.96 113.01 114.22 106.80 107.77 133.70
5 122.84 123.40 120.35 121.17 123.33 124.21 121.24
6 18.97 18.76 32.23 36.03 28.28 31.31 34.96
7 32.60 32.74 21.76 21.92 31.45 30.86 21.37
8 107.48 108.31 103.43 104.79 106.09 107.63 105.56
9 15.44 13.38 9.64 9.39 12.06 12.21 . . .a
10 103.11 103.30 105.94 107.40 104.46 105.41 107.27
11 13.58 15.21 19.85 21.59 19.42 22.14 22.11
12 103.87 104.87 105.81 107.66 105.19 106.57 108.14
13 18.41 18.80 17.73 19.72 21.74 23.43 20.09
14 104.84 105.04 112.15 114.44 108.26 109.95 114.03
15 23,24 22.74 34.44 38.19 34.41 38.06 38.28
16 103.22 103.64 103.34 104.84 103.84 104.85 104.83
17 14.10 13.83 8.08 9.54 13.95 13.85 9.02
18 101.93 101.97 103.50 104.73 102.68 103.19 104.69
19 8.37 9.03 14.95 17.01 12.79 14.83 17.14
20 106.21 106.98 107.84 110.08 107.76 109.94 109.91
21 27.35 26.33 20.10 21.25 28.03 28.24 18.60
22 105.48 106.12 107.84 109.87 107.41 109.08 110.13
23 23.39 23.05 18.09 19.85 24.73 25.66 19.04
24 103.82 104.26 105.57 107.29 105.16 106.36 108.02
25 17.83 18.13 16.03 17.83 20.45 21.78 20.37
26 104.84 104.42 106.19 106.32 105.51 104.73 106.28
27 16.99 17.17 17.75 17.96 17.37 17.53 18.04
28 103.82 104.20 105.79 108.26 105.02 106.70 108.06
29 17.62 18.55 17.40 20.24 21.14 23.65 20.52
30 80.54 81.22 83.66 85.74 82.60 84.54 85.65
31 33.12 34.59 35.65 37.44 37,09 39.39 37.98
32 25.48 25.92 26.90 29.26 29.47 31.43 29.15
33 11.21 11.36 9.16 10.86 14.19 15.58 10.59
34 4.42 4.13 0.20 1.53 6.27 7.35 0.66
35 104.33 104.39 106.34 107.13 105.48 105.69 107.15
36 17.85 17.60 18.44 19.34 19.03 20.67 19.04
37 104.03 104.46 106.54 107.52 105.49 106.56 107.57
38 18.31 18.53 18.53 19.41 20.20 23.05 19.36
39 103.99 104.39 106.55 107.78 105.51 106.63 107.78
40 18.47 18.58 18.45 19.74 21 .oo 23.31 19.54
41 30.50 30.44 35.44 38.57 39.93 43.14 39.07
42 25.39 25.65 34.11 37.39 33.88 36.56 37.15
43 102.14 102.48 105.21 107.09 103.92 104.66 107.29
44 20.00 20.02 17.38 19.88 22.62 24.19 20.40
a D i d not converge.

VOL. 6 0 NO. 1 2 DECEMBER 1 9 6 8 21

Equation 30 is a modified material balance accounting
for gas shrinkage in the midsection of the column.
'The empirical 0.05 factor is based on comparison of
tray-by-tray results.
The bottom tray L / V ratio is determined from shrink-
age across the bottom tray of the tower. The tempera-
ture of the bottom tray is determined by heat balance
around the column. After the absorption factors have
been determined as outlined above, they are used to
evaluate Equations 25 and 26 and these factors are used
in Equation 11 to calculate absorption in the column.
Testing the Proposed Procedure
The short-cut calculations proposed here, together with
the Kremser-Brown analysis and Equations 8, 9, and 11

TABLE V. PREDICTED RECOVERIES

Predicted methane recovery Predicted ethane recovery
Kremser- Kremser-
Run Sujata Proposed Edmister Brown Sujata Proposed Edmister Brown
1 5.055 5,058 5.108 4.760 1.690 1.684 1.686 1.635
2 3.800 3.801 3.789 3.325 1.513 1.504 1.485 1.394
3 2,998 2.943 2.812 2.226 1.402 1.371 1.300 1.140
4 5,092 5.089 5.221 4.987 1,673 1.670 1.696 1.667
5 5.669 5.641 5.625 5.215 1.783 1.772 1.757 1.698
6 3.078 3.005 2.988 2.414 1.378 1.341 1.322 1.190
7 3.187 3.136 2.948 2,432 1.459 1.434 1.342 1.195
8 1.376 1.389 1.422 1.334 0,467 0.469 0.475 0.458
9 0.725 0,717 ... 0.607 0,358 0.355 ... 0.315
10 7.188 7,166 7.213 6.825 2.405 2.393 2.398 2.346
11 4.210 4.138 3.951 3.176 1.947 1.915 1.823 1.632
12 5.032 5.030 5.111 4.757 1.687 1.680 1.686 1.634
13 2.987 2.935 2.814 2,225 1.400 1.370 1.300 1.140
14 5.161 5.208 5.131 4.656 1.871 1.872 1.846 1.774
15 3.549 3,424 3.126 2.261 1.685 1.624 1.492 1.264
16 5.044 5.036 5,191 4.930 1.313 1.307 1.327 1.296
17 2,579 2.570 2.622 2,243 0,992 0.980 0,978 0.890
18 4.207 4.214 4.210 4.095 1.514 1.511 1.510 1.495
19 1.936 1.938 1.901 1.632 1.109 1.102 1.078 1.004
20 7.581 7.530 7.724 7.004 2.009 1.994 2.005 1.918
21 5.845 5,671 5.343 4.142 1.825 1.776 1.665 1.436
22 5.128 5,128 5,171 4.788 1.702 1.695 1.694 1.639
23 3.049 3.004 2.844 2,253 1,422 1.394 1.313 1.148
24 5.038 5.036 5.108 4.755 1.689 1,682 1.686 1.634
25 2.950 2.901 2.812 2.213 1.392 1.364 1.299 1.137
26 7.403 7,396 7.608 7.345 2.277 2.276 2.300 2.273
27 3.933 3.939 3.978 3.433 1.771 1.772 1.780 1.662
28 4.972 4.990 5.040 4.681 1.666 1.660 1.661 1.608
29 2.949 2.923 2.790 2.184 1.385 1.361 1.284 1.120
30 4.371 4.379 4.404 4,000 1.597 1.591 1.585 1.517
31 3.272 3.246 3.166 2.627 1.436 1.419 1.370 1.243
32 3,129 3.080 2.983 2.420 1.418 1.390 1.334 1.197
33 2.879 2.818 2.650 2.043 1,389 1.355 1.266 1.088
34 2,770 2.707 2.497 1.871 1.376 1.342 1.234 1.036
35 6.063 6.076 6.171 5.863 1.991 1.991 2.008 1.968
36 3.356 3.359 3.297 2.739 1.559 1.556 1.534 1.391
37 5.556 5.541 5.627 5.305 1.849 1.844 1.857 1.812
38 3.165 3.124 3.044 2.482 1.475 1.460 1.419 1.269
39 5.316 5.304 5.371 5.040 1.774 1.768 1.776 1.728
40 3.082 3,030 2.926 2.358 1.438 1.415 1.361 1.207
41 3.661 3.553 3.198 2.305 1.723 1.668 1.515 1.276
42 3.216 3.142 3.079 2.460 1,422 1.382 1.345 1.202
43 5.013 5.091 5.487 9.954 1.684 1.693 1.665 1.632
44 3.008 2.996 2.903 3,899 1.409 1.390 1.290 1.142
Q Did not converge.

22 I N D U S T R I A L A N D ENGINEERING C H E M I S T R Y
 TABLE V I . EQUILIBRIUM CONSTANT VALUES FOR T H E EQUATION
In K = A + BIT + C / T a+ D/Ta
Component A B C
-
D
200 psia
Methane 0.62936 41.67177 -222.35380 302.69330
Ethane 1 ,89355 27.73705 -254.60420 408.75500
Propane 1.41560 31 ,66986 -302.31800 442,47130
i-Butane 1.06618 37.21840 -363.29280 531 .47560
n-Butane 1.70875 28.09457 -337.54400 504.89700
i-Pentane 1.55110 26.85196 -345.38220 474.47930
n-Pentane 1.45431 28.93027 -365.60330 500.95320
200 mw oil 6.27465 - 65.07498 -174.09260 245 ,73240
Nitrogen - 4,32824 -15.77304 84.92576 -151.42850
500 psia
Methane 0.86989 26,59536 -149.53520 180.98960
Ethane 2.78127 1.13197 -122.21500 211.40340
Propane 2.67452 0.07913 -143.93070 205.87790
&Butane 2.10888 6.29061 -189.73140 241.37350
nButane 2.84696 - 3.14933 -166.11700 225.79970
i-Pentane 2.28437 3.43893 -217.79740 278.51110
n-Pentane 2.78643 - 3.21470 - 199.56500 257.36800
200 mw oil 6.81646 -34.68934 -508.67470 701.43180
Nitrogen -5.18179 - 15.63904 78.55727 -130.90850
Decane 12.66661 -164.81940 368.43090 -402.67520
250 mw oil -5.45264 - 12.38642 66.67615 -118.86150
1000 psia
Methane -0.60247 42.93807 -248.92420 375.15760
Ethane 1.98596 2.60610 -122.12060 235.75920
Propane 1.74780 1.27734 -124.64890 182.44810
&Butane 1.21320 7.51930 -169.46260 222.95100
n-Butane 1.71057 1.19572 -155.51380 212.94260
i-Pentane 1.11933 9.60301 -219.32000 296.40310
n-Pentane 1.78504 - 0.54964 -177.99260 227.70500
200 mw oil 19.15638 -276.73060 829.38210 -798.32900
Nitrogen - 6.65472 - 4.10338 22.03521 -39.18790

evaluated using the effective absorption factor proposed
by Edmister, was compared with the results of tray-by-
tray calculations for 44 sample problems. T h e tray-
by-tray calculation procedure was that of Sujata (77)
as programmed and tested by Spear (76).
Table I shows the complete list of problems run to
evaluate the proposed procedure. T h e number of
theoretical plates varied from two to 12, with eight
being used most frequently because most industrial
absorbers are designed with six to 10 theoretical trays.
Tower pressures ranged from 200 to 1000 psia, with 500
psia being used most often. Temperatures ranged from
-20” to 120°F. Key component recovery ranged
from 20 to 90%. I n most cases, absorption oil was
stripped, but both nonstripped and presaturated oils
were tested. Gas compositions were varied, with
arbitrarily assigned designators of lean, average, and
rich. The range of lean oil and rich gas compositions
used is shown in Table 11.
Results of these calculations are summarized in Table
111. Comparative results for key variables are shown
in Tables IV, V, a n d VIII. I n all calculations, the same
equilibrium and enthalpy data were used for all methods.
Equation coefficients for these properties are shown in
Tables V I and VII. Data for the curve fits were
taken from the 1957 edition of the NGSMA Engineering
Data Book (72).
Results from the Kremser-Brown calculation proce-
dures are the poorest of the short-cut procedures in-
vestigated. This is to be expected because of the assump-
tions necessary in making the calculations. Dry-gas and
rich-oil temperatures were provided from tray-by-tray
results on that problem. T h e average absorption
temperature was assumed to be the average of the four
terminal stream temperatures. The L / V ratio was
assumed to be the ratio of the lean oil to the rich gas.
The relatively large errors in component recovery and
lean oil rate indicate that the Kremser-Brown technique
should find major application in providing “first-guess”
information for one of the other calculating techniques.
Equations 8, 9, and 11 evaluated using the two-tray
effective factors presented by Edmister give, over-all,

VOL. 6 0 NO. 1 2 DECEMBER 1 9 6 8 23

good results. When this procedure was used, a linear
absorption profile was assumed in the column. Lean-oil
and rich-gas temperatures were specified. Since this
procedure does not include independent calculation of
terminal stream temperatures, one other stream tem-
perature had to be fixed. For the cases considered, the
dry-gas temperature was fixed from tray-by-tray results.
T h e rich-oil temperature could then be calculated from a
column heat balance.
The proposed method of calculation gave the closest
agreement with tray-by-tray results for component
recoveries, lean-oil rates, and temperatures of any of the
short-cut procedures investigated. Maximum devi-
ations from tray-by-tray results are small. Top and
bottom tray temperatures predicted by the short-cut
procedure are in excellent agreement with those from
tray-by-tray calculations over the full range of problems
studied.

TABLE V I I . ENTHALPY COEFFlCl ENTS

For the Equation HV = A + BT + CT2
Component A B C

200 psia
Methane 1293.00 636.43 24,000
Ethane 2808.80 1008.30 39.328
Propane 4344.10 1277.50 60.454
i-Butane 6590.80 1346.40 92.632
n-Butane 6590.80 1346.40 92.632
i-Pentane 8353.80 1541.10 116.350
n-Pentane 8353.80 1541.10 116.350
200 m w oil 28028.00 1311.70 561 ,760
500 psia
Methane 612.61 777.21 15.010
Ethane 594,36 1450.00 15.633
Propane 4928.90 573.48 136.510
i-Butane 7759.90 132.25 218.040
+Butane 7759.90 132.25 218.040
i-Pentane 9254.40 212.11 251.650
n-Pentane 9254,40 212.11 251.650
Decane 12873.00 1413.60 390.560
200 mw oil 16600.00 1985.20 549.190
250 mw oil 16600.00 1985.20 549.190
1000 psia
Methane 518.18 716.74 21.001
Ethane 528.86 1317.40 28.629
Propane 5615.70 170.98 166.830
i-Propane 8108.50 -190.91 234.360
+Butane 8108.50 -190.91 234.360
i-Pentane 10630.00 -525.51 297.240
n-Pentane 10630.00 -525.51 297.240
200 mw oil 37289.00 - 5889.70 11160.600

For the equation H L = A + BT + CT2

Component A B C
Methane 828.12 -812.57 257.710
Ethane - 1759.90 97.65 235,070
Propane -807.45 - 263.30 305,330
i-Butane -3040.00 587.75 279.520
n-Butane -3040.00 587.75 279.520
i-Pentane - 51 1 4 . 8 0 1327.20 261.530
n-Pentane - 5114.80 1327.20 261.530
Decane - 10001.00 2420.70 479.370
200 mw oil - 14782.00 3403.50 673.800
250 mw oil - 14782.00 3403.50 673.800

24 I N D U S T R I A L A N D E N G I N E E R I N G CHEMISTRY
 duction of the terminal fractional absorption constant
TABLE V I I I . PREDICTED LEAN O I L RATE w. Average results of the proposed method predicted all
Krernser- temperatures within 1.8”F. of Sujata calculation results
Run Suiata Probosed Edmister Brown and all component and oil rates within 1.0%. The
1 26.568 26.771 27.574 35,360 method is recommended for use in the space between
2 14.705 14.907 15.361 20.878 rough guesses and rigorous calculation for any simple
3 7.006 6.988 6.934 11.174 absorber. The time requirement, either by hand or
4 27.614 27.674 28.880 37.773 computer, will be only slightly greater than for other
5 32.018 31 ,972 32.392 40,227 methods with heat balance included.
6 8.606 8.643 8,868 12.717
7 8.036 7.860 7.607 12.863 Nom en clat ure
8 6.146 6.274 6.605 9.918 A = absorption factor defined as A = L / K V
9 0.317 0.265 . . .a 2.997 A, = effective absorption factor defined by Equation 17
A’ = absorption factor defined by Equation 18
10 38.679 38.737 39.707 50.661 c = number of components
11 11.137 11.056 11.075 15,879 C, = heat capacity of specified stream
12 26.710 26.914 27.610 35.328 F = component fraction absorbed
~ heat
A H A= ~ of absorption
13 6.996 6.985 6.944 11.170 K = component equilibrium constant defined by K = y / x
14 25.673 25.886 26.716 36.336 L = total liquid rate leaving a tray, moles
15 7.797 7.666 7.283 12.225 I = component liquid rate leaving a tray, moles
n = number of trays in the column
16 27.875 28.046 28.877 25.054 S = total wet gas shrinkage, moles
17 6.982 7.042 7.341 10.592 T = temperature
18 60.370 60.690 61.094 68.990 V = total vapor rate leaving a tray, moles
V = component vapor rate leaving a tray, moles
19 15.765 16.010 16.050 18,030 X = liquid mole fraction
20 16.783 16.873 18.101 28.156 Y = vapor mole fraction
21 4.533 4.389 4.436 11.312
22 27.259 27,487 28.200 35.650 Greek Symbols
23 7.195 7,192 6.987 11.396 KA = AiAzAs. .A, .
24 26.573 26.728 27,578 35.303 LIA = AiAzAa.. . A , + AzA3.. .A, f ... + A,
+A = fraction of any wet-gas component not recovered
25 6.785 6.768 6.958 11.074 $4 = fraction of any lean-oil component leaving in the dry gas
26 40.222 40,204 40.008 54.947. w = fraction of total gas absorption that occurs on the ter-
27 IO. 374 10.417 10,498 17.223 minal trays
28 26.021 26.353 27.343 34.756
Subscripts
29 6.766 6.916 6.942 10.944
30 20.042 20.280 20.938 27,490 AVE = column average
BTM = bottom tray
31 9.710 9.759 9.938 14.531 DG = discharge gas stream
32 8.311 8.330 8.384 12.771 i = tray reference
33 5.796 5.740 5.566 9.731 IG = in-gas stream
LO = lean-oil stream
34 4.670 4.597 4.274 8.430 n = total number of trays (last tray)
35 32.474 32.714 32.777 43.581 0 = reference for stream entering tray I
36 8.352 8.453 8.368 13.753 OIL = average of lean-oil and rich-oil streams
! RO = rich oil stream
37 29.543 29.781 30,070 39.521 TOP = top tray
38 7.660 7.640 7.580 12.469 1 = first tray
39 28.138 28.304 28.806 37.454 2 = second tray
40 7.350 7.302 7.223 11.601
BI BL IOG RAPHY
41 8.374 8.269 7.712 12.601
(1) Brown, G. G., and Souders, M., Jr., IND.ENC.CHEM.,24,519 (1932).
42 9.345 9.350 9.462 13.104 (2) Edmister, W. C., i b d , 35, 837 (1943).
43 30.815 31.200 30.863 35.123 (3) Edmister, W. C., ThePetroleum Engineer, 18, No. 13 (September 1947).
(4) Edmister, W. C., A.I.Ch.E. J., 3, No. 2, 165 (June 1957).
44 8.218 8.398 7,848 11.222 ( 5 ) Erbar, J. H., Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Okla., private communica-
tion.
a Did not converge. (6) Holland, C. D., “Multicomponent Distillation,” Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963.
(7) Horton, G., and Franklin, W. B., IND.ENO.CHEM.,92,1384 (1940).
(8) Hull, R. J., and Raymond, K., Oil B Gus J. (Nov. 9, 16,.23, and 30, Dec. 7, 14,
and 28, 1953).
(9) Kremser, Alois, Not. Petrol. News, 22, 48, (May 21, 1930).
(10) Landes, S. H., and Bell, F. W., Petrol. Refiner, 39, No. 6 , 201 (1960).
(11) Lewis, W. K., and Matheson, G. L., IND. ENC.CHEM.,24,494 (May 1932).
(12) Natural Gasoline Supply Men’s Association, “Engineering Data Book,” 7th
Conclusions ed., Tulsa, Okla., 1957.
The proposed method for making short-cut absorption (13) Nielsen, K.L., “Methods in Numerical Analysis,” Macmillan Co., 1964.
(14) Ravicz, A. E., “Non-Ideal Stage Multicomponent Absorber Calculations by
calculations provides design information closer to Automatic Digital Computer,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Mich. (1959).
rigorous calculation results than any other short-cut (15) Smith, B. D., “Design of Equilibrium Stage Process,” McGraw-Hill, 79 pp,
1963.
method tested. This method incorporates heat balances (16) Spear, R. R., “An Evaluation of the Sujata Absorption Calculation Method,”
and absorption factors with no empirical graphs or Master’s Thesis, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Okla., 1966.
(17) Sujata, A. D., Petrol. Refiner, 40 (12), 137 (December 1962).
charts. The only nonexplicit assumption is the intro- (18) Thiele, E. W., and Geddes, R. L., IND. ENO.CHEM.,25,289 (March 1933).

VOL. 6 0 NO. 1 2 D E C E M B E R 1968 25

 APPEND1 X
ABSORBER CALCU LATl ONS

To simplify understanding, an illustrative example will be
presented. Explanatory notes and comments will be inter-
spersed with the calculations.
The calculation procedure can be divided into five dis-
tinct areas:
Preliminary calculations
Absorption calculations
Terminal tray calculations
Heat balance calculations
Adjusting section
In order to carry out these short-cut calculations, the same
information must be known as is generally required for
other short-cut methods of calculation. The single excep-
tion to this is terminal-stream temperatures. Neither the
dry-gas nor the rich-oil temperature is required. Both are
independently calculated during the course of the calcula-
tion.
Problem Statement
An absorber operates at 300 psia and contains the equiva-
lent of eight theoretical trays. Lean oil (assumed to have
characteristics of octane) enters at G O O F and a fixed rate of
20 moles per 100 moles of rich gas. The rich gas enters at
70°F. The composition of the rich gas is shown in column
1 of the tabular calculations attached (Table IX). Calcu-
late the product stream compositions and temperatures.
Solution
Preliminary calculations. A. The first step in the solu-
tion is the assumption of the total moles of material ab-
sorbed in the tower. A good initial estimate is important
since the total shrinkage is the major iteration variable.
Solutions can be reached without estimates but will require
more iterations. Perhaps the best way is to perform a
simple Kremser-Brown type absorption calculation assum-
ing an average tower temperature of 90°F. For purposes
of this solution assume a total absorption of 9.6 moles/100
moles rich gas.
The second step is to assume a value for the percentage of
the total absorption that takes place on the two terminal
trays. This value can range from about 75y0to 90% with
80% being a good over-all average value. Now we must
estimate the ( L / V ) ratio for the tower.
( L / V ) = (lean oil +
shrinkage)/rich gas
20f96
( L / V ) = A = 0.296
100
I n the preliminary calculations, this will be assumed con-
stant across the tower.
B. We now must calculate the enthalpy and heat
capacity of the feed streams to the tower. These are
calculated as the mole fraction average of the individual
component values.
Rich gas enthalpy = Z(mo1es of component X component
enthalpy)
= Z: [(I) x ( 3 ) ] (referring to columns in
table of calculations)
= 637,200 Btu
I n like manner:
Rich-gas heat capacity = Z[(1) x (4)] = 1041 Btu/OF
Lean-oil enthalpy = 2 [ ( 2 ) X (5)] = 422,700 Btu
Lean-oil heat capacity = Z[(2) x (6)] = 2082 Btu/OF

TABLE IX. ABSORBER CALCULATIONS

(3) (4)
~
Gas at 70'F (5) (6)
( 7) (2) Liquid at 60°F (7) (8)
K Values
~

Wet gas, Lean oil, HV CP HL CP

Combonent moles moles Btu/mole Btu/mole, OF Btu/mole Btu/mole, O F 73'F 77'F
C1 80 0 5257 8.80 3524 18.69 9.5968 9.7309
CZ 10 0 9122 14.63 5104 25.42 1.6165 1.6713
c
3 10 0 12537 19.06 6080 29.12 0.5034 0.5281
CS 0 20 47838 70.77 21136 104.11 0.002215 0,002444

0.0308 0.0304 77.568 2,432 0,0894 2,361 1513 73.929

0.1831 0.1771 8.229 1.771 0.0563 1.487 3727 9.716
0.5880 0.5606 4.417 5.583 0,0970 2.562 6131 6.979
133.6 121 .I 0.149 19.851 ... 20.000 25550 0.149
90.363 29,637 0.2427 26.410
(77) ( 78) ( 79)
CP,VEXT HL @
, (23) (24)
Btubmole, Hv
73.04"F @ 77.0 F (20) (21) (22) Dry gas, Rich oil,
F Btu/mole Btulmole A TOP ABTM AAVE moles moles
8.82 5284 3849 0.0305 0.0308 0.0296 77.538 2.462
14,67 9167 5543 0,1808 0,1797 0.1726 8.216 1.784
19.11 2595 6583 0.5687 0.5464 0,5464 4.457 5,543
71.16 8053 22925 131.8 122.9 118.1 0,153 19.847
90.364 29,636

26 INDUSTRIAL A N D ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY

 C. Estimate the column temperatures, top, bottom, and A. Using the equilibrium constant values a t 73'F,
average. With the lean oil entering at GOOF and the rich calculate the liquid mole fraction for all components
gas a t 70°F, good estimates are: appearing in the dry gas, except for the lean oil. Numbers
in parentheses refer to column numbers in Table IX.
TDG = 73'F
T R O = 77'F
TAVE= 77'F
Again final results are not dependent upon the initial
The resulting composition is tabulated in column 13.
estimates, but covergence is hastened by good values.
B. The mole fraction of lean oil in equilibrium with the
dry gas is set a t the value required to make the sum of the
Absorption Section
mole fractions in the liquid equal to unity.
A. Equilibrium constant values must be determined for
each component a t various column temperatures. The x i e s n oil = 1.0 -
Z(13) = 1.0 - 0.2427
values shown in columns 7 and 8 were calculated from xieana i l = 0.7573
curve-fitted data from the NGPSA Engineering Data Book
(12). C. Determine the flow rate of liquid leaving the top
B. Absorption factors are calculated for each component. tray. The assumption is made that a negligible amount of
For the first iteration the L/V ratio is constant and AAVE= lean oil is vaporized into the dry gas stream.
ABTM because the rich-oil and column-average tempera- L1 = moles lean oil/mole fraction lean oil
tures were also assumed equal. The calculated values are
shown in columns 9 and 10. L1 = 20/0.7573 = 26.410 moles
C. Calculate the dry gas composition using Equations D. The component flow rates in the top tray liquid may
21-23 and 26 as shown below
be calculated by:
Equation 21
li = LiX, (14) = 26.410 x (13)
u1 = Un+l ZA
___1
1
+ + l o ( l - *) E. The heat of absorption released on the top tray can be
calculated because an estimate of the material absorbed
Equation 22 modified to fit the three tray model on the top tray is known.
- -1 AHTOP= 2[(11- lo) (AHi)] -
+1-
= 2[(14) (2)] X (15)
ZA AHTop = 24,800 Btu
AAVE- 1.0 F. The first step is to calculate the amount and com-
position of the vapor entering tray from tray two.
+ AAVE- ABTM- 1.0 u2 = u1 + 11 - lo
Equation 23 modified to fit the three-tray model (16) = (11) + (14) - (2)
G. Next, we calculate the heat capacity of Vz
I--- TA
ZA + 1 - 1.0 - (CPNEXT).
A A V-~ 1.0 CPNEXT = C,V, = 2[(17) x (16)]
CPNEXT = 974 Btu/"F
AAVE- ABTM - 1.0 H. Estimate the temperature on tray 2. The estimate
is based on a linear interpolation between terminal tem-
Equation 26 modified to fit the three-tray model peratures plus a correction factor as in Equation 29.
TA =A T O ~ A ~ & ~ ~ ~ ~
Tz = TTOP + T B T M -TTOP +
TTOP TBTM
The composition of the dry gas which results from these 2
calculations is shown in column 11 of the calculations table.
D. The rich-oil rate and composition are obtained from Tz + 8
= 73.0
77.0 - 73.0 + [77.0 - (77.0 73.0)j

Tz = 73.0 + 0.5 + 2.0

component and over-all material balances around the ab-
sorber. The rich oil is shown in column 12. The shrinkage
is calculated to be 9.637 moles. Tz = 75.5'F

Terminal (Top) Tray Evaluation I. Calculate a new estimate of the top tray temperature,
The initial temperatures should be improved for the next
TDG
from Equation 27 :
iteration. The top tray temperature is refined by combin-
ing pseudo-dew-point and heat-balance calculations.
This procedure is iterative, but experience and insight
TDG= TLO + AHTop - (CPNEXT)
CPLO
- Tz)
(TDG

should override where applicable.

The procedure consists of comparing an initial tempera-
ture with the value calculated using the initial value.
= 60 + 24,800 - (974)
2082
(73.0 - 75.5)

When the two values are the same, the top tray temperature = 60 + 13.08
has been found. = 73.08'F

VOL. 6 0 NO. 1 2 DECEMBER 1968 27

 APPEND I X (Continued)
Ordinarily, the calculation of TDGwill have to be repeated Implicit here is the assumption that the small change made
until the assumed and calculated values are in good agree- in total absorption will cause negligible change in the
ment. In this case, the two values are close enough to- operation of the top tray. If a major change were being
gether for an example, and we will proceed with further made in the total absorption, the top tray calculation outline
calculations using the average. earlier would have to be repeated to have an accurate value
for the top tray, L / V .
TDG= (73.0 + 73.08)/2 = 73.04'F Bottom tray
Heat Balance Section rich oil
A. Calculate the enthalpy of the dry gas stream at TDQ. (L/v)ET'w = rich gas - gas shrinkage across bottom tray

HVDG= 2[(11) X (18)] = 548,100 Btu 29.637

B. Calculate the enthalpy of the rich oil a t the assumed
(L'Y)ETM = 100.0 - [0.8(9.637) -
(26.410 - 20.0)]
temperature of 77.0'F. 29.637
- = -29'637 a 0.3003
HLRO = Z[(12) X (19)] = 511,000 Btu
100.0 - 1.3 98.7
Average value
C. Check the assumed rich oil temperature by an
over-all heat balance. rich oil - bottom tray shrinkage
(L/v)AvE = bottom tray vapor - shrinkage x 0.03
Entering Leaving
- 29.637 - 1.300
Lean oil 422,700 Rich oil 51 1,000 = 0.2885
Rich gas 637,200 Dry gas 548,100 98.7 - (9.637 X 0.05)
1,059,900' 1,059,100
Absorption Section
The assumed rich oil temperature is correct. If the heat With all three ( L / V ) values determined, calculations now
balance had been appreciably in error, a new value for revert to the absorption section. The individual absorption
TRo would have to be assumed, and calculations would factors are determined and the recovery calculations made
revert to part B of this heat balance section. as before.
D. Compute the dry-gas heat capacity a t 73.04'F. A. Calculate individual component absorption factors
for the top tray.
Cp,, = 2[(11) X (17)] = 900Btu/'F
E. Revise the total heat of absorption based upon
calculated amounts of absorption and heat of absorption B. Calculate individual component absorption factors
a t the top tray temperature. for the bottom tray.
AHTOT= Z[(1) - (ll)] x (15) = 40,700 Btu
F. Calculate the average column temperature from C. Calculate individual component absorption factors
Equation 28. using the average value of L / V .
CPDG(TRO- T D G ) (1 -
+ +
T A V E= TDG
CPD, + CPLO D. Calculate the dry-gas composition using the absorp-
The only new term in this equation is w . From examina- tion factors determined above and Equation 21.
tion of tray-to-tray results, approximately 80% of the total
absorption in the column occurs on the terminal trays of the 01 = U,+l(& 1 + l o (1 - = (23)
column, and only about 20y0 on internal trays. For
this reason, in the absence of specific information on the
)
column under consideration, w will have a value of 0.8. E. Determine the rich oil composition from component
material balances around the tower.
900 (77.0 - 73.04) + (1.0 - 0.8) 40,700
TAVE
= 73.04

= 76.99'F
+ 900 + 2082 1 Total dry gas = Z(23) = 90.364 moles
Total rich oil = Z(24) = 29.636 moles
Adjusting Section
Shrinkage = 100.0 - 90.364 = 9.636 moles
For the foregoing calculation, the assumed value of
shrinkage was 9.6 moles. The value calculated was 9.637 The estimated shrinkage (9.637 moles) and the calculated
moles. A new value should be assumed and the calcula- value (9.636 moles) are almost equal, indicating a solution
tions repeated to bring the assumption and final result into to the problem. The solution to this problem was aided
better agreement. Direct iteration will suffice. by fortuitous initial shrinkages and temperature assump-
A. Determine the L / V values a t the top tray, bottom tions. This sample problem presents only the calculational
tray, and the average L / V for the column. format of the proposed short-cut absorber calculation
Top tray method.
liquid leaving tray 1 Tray-by-tray results of the Sujata procedure programmed
(L/V)TOP = dry gas by Spear (76) predict the rich-oil temperature to be 76.3'F
and the dry-gas temperature to be 74.2'F. The dry-gas
26.410 composition was 77.562 moles methane, 8.231 ethane,
= ~ = 0.2923
90.363 4.545 propane, and 0.156 octane.

28 INDUSTRIAL A N D ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY