ENVIRONMENT/PROCESS TECHNOLOGY

I
I
I
I

I
I
I
1
I
1
j
I
I
l
l
I
'
i
!
l
Re-evaluate recycling options
for the Claus unit
This simulation-based study finds that significant sulfur
recovery capacity is attainable through recycling
S. NAGPAL and P. K. SEN, Engineers India Ltd., Gurgaon, India
W
hac are che effects of recycling sulfur dioxide (50
2
) on
the Claus sulfur recovery unit (SRU)? Environmental
laws restrict air emissions; thus, facility operators are
hard pressed to remove and recover sulfur-containing copi.pounds.
The authors explore recycling che SOrconraining process stream
for tail-gas treatment, including the Claus unit operation. This
case history provides several good operating examples to consider
when optimizing tail-gas treatment.
THE STUDY
A simulation-based evaluation of the effect of S0
2
recycle
on the Claus SRU is presented. A Gibbs-free energy minimiza-
tion-based model was used. Findings from this study shows that
significant capacity enhancement is possible, while simultane-
ously enhancing sulfur recovery to 99 .9%, in existing Claus 5RU
when applying tail-gas treatment with 50.2 recycle. Key scudy
criteria include:
Required update co Claus furnace and catalytic converter
operation
Impact of 50
2
recycle when processing acid-gas with low
H
2
S concentration is examined.
The st udy provides a quantitative index to the change for
Claus SRU operations when an 50
2
recycle is applied.
The process. 50
2
recycle on che Claus SRU is one possible
process option co optimize unit efficiency. This option treats Claus
tail-gas co convert all sulfur species into 50
2
, followed by concen-
tration of this stream, and recycle of the 50
2
to the Claus furnace.
Several SRU process modifications can improve sulfur recovery and
capacity enhancement. Claus 5RUs are ubiquitous in petroleum
refineries and are the preferred method to convert hydrogen sulfide
(H
2
S) in refinery gas streams to elemental sulfur (5).
Several tail-gas treatment process options for 50
2
concentration
have been developed. These include the sulfite, phosphate, amine
and physical solvent-based processes. We have earlier presented a
simulation-based comparison of several of these sulfur dioxide con-
centration processes.
1
All of these processes are capable of produc-
ing a concentrated 50
2
-gas scream suitable for recycle co the Claus
SRU furnace. These methods can achieve over 99% 50
2
capture for
recycle. The developers of these processes have outlined the main
advantages of the 50
2
recycle options. These include:
Total SRU sulfur recovery in excess of99.9o/o, with 50
2
in
treated gas below 200 ppmv
Troublesome petroleum refinery srreams such as the our-
water stripper (SWS) gases can be incinerated in the tail-gas
incinerator.
All sulfur species in the tail-gas are converted to 0
2
by
incineration in excess air.
5RU capacity can be increased as recycle of 50
2
, and bypas
ofSW5 and other low-concentration sour gases reduces inert gas
Aow through the 5RU.
High 5RU recoveries are possible even when processing acid-
gas with lower H
2
S concentration.
By elimination of the Claus front -end furnace and maxi-
mizing acid-gas bypass maximum sulfur recovery at
minimum cost is estimated.
In this study, an SRU proce s model was developed and vali-
dated with literature and operating data. It is used to evaluate
the impact of 5RU process modifications and 50
2
recycle on
the Claus SRU performance. Quantitative indicators have been
developed with changes that are likely to occur when applying the
so2 recycle option for Claus plant enhancement.
Claus SRU model. A Claus 5RU process model developed
with a commercial process simulator was used for this study.
1
An earlier paper gives a detailed discu ion of this model.
1
The
various components of the 5RU-the furnace, waste-heat boiler,
line-burner, catalytic converters, conden er and gas-ga heat
exchanger in the Claus unit, and the tail-ga furnace, and waste
heat boiler, were simulated with suitable reactor/heat exchanger
models available in the commercial process simulacor. The regen-
erative 50
2
removal/concentration unit (RSR) was not ri gorou ly
simulated for the present study. Instead, ir was simulated with a
splitter block allowing recycle of a fraction of the feed 0
2
to the
Claus furnace along with some water vapor to simulate typical
concentrated 50
2
gas produced by the 0
2
concentration unit
regenerator. Detailed RSR unit models developed on the same
platform were used to determine the splitter block parameters.
2
In this SRU model, the (i) Claus furnace, (ii) catalytic convert-
ers, and (iii) tail-gas furnace/incinerator were simulated with a
Gibbs free-energy minimization (FEM) model . Claus SRUs have
been successfully simulated using such Gibb -FEM models in the
past, and is the standard method adopted in various commercially
available Claus 5RU process simulators. The Gibbs-F M tech-
nique can allow accurate si mulation of multi -reaction ga phase
equilibria, and was first applied for Claus SR simulation in the
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2005 11 01
ENVIRONMENT/PROCESS TECHNOLOGY
early 1970s.3 A detailed description of the Gibbs-FEM technique
is given in mith and Van Ness.
4
The technique allows accurate simulation of the Claus reac-
tion furnace and catalvtic converters since both reactors operate
close ro thermodynam-ic equilibrium. The Claus furnace typically
operates at very high temperatures in the range of950-l ,400"C.
At these temperatures, most reactions attain equilibrium at short
residence times (typically ~ 1 ec). Conversely, the catalytic con-
,erters operate at much lower temperatures (200-400"C) but
appl y highly effective catalysts to drive the main Claus reacrionb
ro equi librium at hort residence times within 2-3 sees.
everal key rea tions do not reach thermodynamic equilibrium
in the rypical re idence times used in commercial Claus reactors.
Conversion of rhese reactions is modeled using estimated reac-
tion approach ro equi librium, or other rules-of-thumb based on
opeming experience. co and cs2 hydrolysis in the catalytic
converters, and NH
3
destruction and H
2
formation in the furnace
are examples of reactions that do not attain equilibrium.
The accuracy of the RU model was tested for a variety of feed
acid-gases with different impurities such as C0
2
, NH3, hydrocar-
bons and warer. The model provided good results for total sulfur
recovery, ulfur recovery in the furnace and catalytic stages, tail-gas
compo ition, and hear recovery in the various hear exchangers.
Impact of 50
2
recycle. The impact of installing a tail-gas
treatment unit (TGTU), which allows recycle of concentrated
S0
2
to the laus furnace, on SRU capacity enhancement was
studied. Simulations were conducted for an SRU comprising a .
furnace, waste-heat boiler, a line-burner, two (or one) catalytic
com'erters, condensers, and a gas-gas hear exchanger in the Claus
unit, and a tail-gas furnace, wasteheat boiler and regenerative so2
removal (RSR) unit in the TGTU. Fig. 1 shows a process flow
diagram of the RU-TGTU; this is a typical Claus SRU configu-
ration. A line-burner combusring a slip-stream' of the acid-gas
tream to reheat the feed gas to the first catalytic stage was used.
The gas-gas exchanger rehears the gas to the second catalytic stage.
The first catalytic stage exit temperature is set at 315"CC by adjust-
ing acid-gas flow to the line burner. The second catalytic stage exit
temperature is kept 5"C above sulfur dew point by adjusting the
feed-ga temperature to the converter. The furnace waste-heat-
boiler and three condenser temperatures are set to 31 0C, 195C,
190"C and 130" . respectively.
We will discuss four cases to illustrate the effect of 0
2
recycle.
Two feed sour-gas streams were considered: (i) an acid-gas stream,
and (ii) gas from an WS. The base case capacirywas taken at 100
tpd feedS (acid-gas+ WS gas). A two-zone Claus furnace was
simul ated usi ng two furnace stages. This allows evaluating a split-
flow acid-gas feed to the furnace. Partial feed of acid-gas to first zone
of furnace (with complete ai r feed} allows high-flame temperatures
in the fir t zone r mainrain a stable flame and for NH
3
/hydrocar-
bon destruction. The TGTU was assumed capable of reducing S0
2
concentration in the treated gas to 200 ppmv. Table 1 summarizes
the feed gas compo ition details, and Table 2 lists a summary of the
imularion results. The option evaluated were:
Base case: o
2
recycle, Claus SRU with two catalytic
stages, SWS gas fed to Claus furnace.
Case 1:
2
recycle co laus furnace while also feeding the
WS gas co the laus furnace.
Case 2: 0
2
recycle to Claus furnace while feeding the SWS
gas to the tail-gas furnace/incinerator.
Case 3: ase 2 without second catalytic stage.
102 \ OCTOBER 2005 HYDROCARBON PROCESSING
Base case. In the base case, no S0
2
recycle, Claus SRU with
nvo catalytic stages, SWS gas to Claus furnace are applied. Fig. 1
shows the base case without the TGTU. Simulation results for this
SRU configuration allowed 92.5% total sulfur recovery (nor opti-
mized). Various details of the simulation are listed in Table 2.,
Case 1. In Case 1, S0
2
recycle to Claus furnace, and feed of SWS
gas to rhe Claus furnace are used. Adding an SRU-TGTU, compris-
ing a furnace/incinerator, a tail-gas waste-heat-boiler, an so2 concen-
tration unit allows simulation of recycle of all residual sulfur species
as a concentrated S0
2
gas to rhe Claus main furnace. Fig. 1 show
this SRU-TGTU configuration. Comparing the simulation results
wirh the base case, we find that now total sulfur recovery has increased
to 99.9%. The main furnace exit temperature drops 109"C, from
1,344"C to 1,235"C. This could lead to NH
3
destruction problems
irt the furnace. However, this can be addressed by partial bypass of
acid-gas from the front to the middle of rhe furnace. For example, a
30% bypass allows temperatures in excess of 1 ,350"C in the furnace
front-end allowing SWS gas H
3
destruction.
The gas flow in the furnace drops about 5% from 560 kmol/hr
(base case) to 530 kmollhr, while the flow in the first catalytic stage
drops from 540 kmollhr to 505 kmol/hr. Recycle of7.38 tpd of
sulfur from the TGTU reduces air flow to the furnace required to
maintain the 2:1 H
2
S:S0
2
ratio. Result: Lower gas flows through
the main Claus unit; rhus, a small capaciry enhancement i po -
sible. Recycling S0
2
can also increase H
2
concentration in the
feed gas to the first catalytic stage from 4.9% to 5.8%. A drop
in the first convertet feed temperature from 271 "C to 257"C is
required to maintain the 315"C exit temperature.
Case 2. In this case, 0
2
recycle to Claus furnace while feed-
ing the SW gas ro the rail-gas furnace/incineraror is applied.
The presence of an incinerator in the TGTU means that "dirty"
gases such as the NHrcontaining W gas can be incinerated
here instead of the Claus main furnace. This option can signifi-
cantly increase capacity of the RU depending on the volume of
the "dirty" gases. In this case, the SW gas was fed to the rail-gas
furnace; acid-gas flow increased by 35% over the base case lead-
ing to an overall (acid-gas + SWS gas) sulfur feed of 131 tpd (as
compared to 100 tpd for the base case and Case 1).
Simulation results for this case again allowed a total sulfur
recovery of99.9%. In spite of the increased acid-gas feed, the net
gas flow co the main furnace and first catalytic stage drop to 520
kmollhr and 480 kmol/hr, respectively. Higher acid-gas feed can
be processed in the furnace and converters without decreasing the
gas residence time in these reactors. Thi is possible due ro bypass
of the WS gasd to the tail-gas furnace, recycle of concentrated
S0
2
, and reduced air feed. The S0
2
recycle increases from 7.38
rpd in Case 1 to 19.5 rpd here.
The main furnace exit temperature drops f u ~ t h e r to 1,11 0C
resulting from rhe reduced fraction of acid-gas com busted, and higher
S0
2
recycle. H
2
S concentration in the feed gas to the first catalytic
stage increases further to 7.57%. Mainrenance of first converter exit
temperature at 315C would require dropping the feed tempera-
ture to below the sulfur dew point. Thus, the first converrer is now
operated at a feed temperature of253C and an exit temperature of
330C. The second converter temperature also increases by about 5"C
as a result of higher acid-gas concentrations and sulfur dew point.
Case 3. In this example, Case 2 with a single catalytic converter
is evaluated. Removal of the second catalytic stage from the process
in Case 2 can enhance capacity. In this case, the feed sulfur was
raised to 143 TPD by increasing acid-gas flow by 48.5% over the
base case. Simulation results for this case allowed an rota! sulfur
~
'
'
I

'
TABLE 1. Composition and flows of
feed acid-gas and SWS gas to the SRU
Composition, % Acid gas SWS gas
H
2
0 4.00 41.30
H
2
S 84.20 33.96
CH4
1.20 0.00
Hz
0.08 0.00
NH
3
0.00 24.73
C0
2
9.20 0.00
Ethane 0.60 0.00
Propane 0.40 0.00
n-Butane 0.32 0.00
Total flow, kmol/hr 137.40 42.74
kg/hr 4,699.54 992.67
recovery of99.9%. The gas flow to the main
furnace is unchanged at 520 kmol!hr, and
that in the first catalytic stage drops margin-
ally to 470 kmol/hr, as compared to Case 2.
This ensures adequacy of furnace and con-
verters from hydraulic, and reaction-rime
perspective. The 50
2
recycled increases to
33.12 tpd from 19.5 rpd in Case 2.
The Claus fUrnace exit temperature drops
to 932C. The minimum flame temperature
required for stable combustion in the fUrnace is known to be 926oC.5
Thus, more 50
2
recycle would require a feed stream pre-heat and/or
partial acid-gas bypass. H
2
S concentration in the feed gas to the first
catalytic srage increases to 10%. The single catalytic converter is now
operated at a feed temperature of255C and an ex.it temperature of
350C to ensure operations above the sulfUr dew point.
Kinetic model simulation of catalytic converters.
A separate kinetic model for the catalytic converters was used
co check the results of the Gibbs-FEM equilibrium model. The
model considered kinetics of the main Claus reaction, and chose
of the COS and C5
2
hydrolysis reactions. The Claus reaction
kinerics were those reponed by Tong et al.,
6
while the COS and
CS
2
hydrolysis reactions were from Tong et aU A constant bed
depth of I m and bed cross-section area of 12m
2
was used for all
cases, resulting in a space velocity of 1,008 scmh/m
3
of catalyst
bed for the base case, and increasing mean-gas residence rimes
in rhe catalytic converters as S0
2
recycle is increased. Since the
converter feed gas H
2
S concentration increases from the base case
co Case 3, the reaction rate increases and net conversion calcu-
lated by the kinetic model increases. The kinetic model results
were in agreement with the Gibbs-FEM model, and indicate that
a converter designed to achieve equilibrium conversion for the
base case will allow similar or bener approach to equilibrium in
Cases 1, 2 and 3.
Options. The cases discussed above show that the 99.9% total
SRU recoveries and significant capacity enhancement can be
achieved by applying a TGTU to allow S0
2
recycle co the Claus
unit. In these cases, capacity enhancement resulted primarily from
rwo factors: I) SWS gas bypass co the TGTU furnace, and 2) S0
2
recycle. In general, feed oflow-concentration H
2
S streams, and/or
partial feed of main acid-gas stream to the tail-gas incinerator will
ENVIRONMENT/PROCESS TECHNOLOGY
result in capacity gains. Recycle of the recovered 50
2
results in
these changes in 5RU operation:
Reduced furnace temperatures, as fraction of acid-gas com-
busted to so2 is reduced
Higher furnace sulfur yield, in spire of the reduced furnace
temperatures due to the higher acid-gas concentrations
Enhanced capacity due to reduced inert gas flows
Higher acid-gas concentration in the catalytic rages, which
leads co
Higher temperature risee and higher exit temperarures in the
catalytic stages
Lower catalytic stage feed gas hearing requirement
Reduced Claus furnace waste-hear-boiler steam generation
Increased tail-gas furnace steam generation.
The higher SRU capacity also requires a larger TGTU. The
TGTU feed gas flows increases from 606 kmol/hr in Case I,
to 800 kmollhr in Case 2, to 840 kmol!hr in Case 3. The S0
2
recovered and recycled increases from 7.38 tpd in a e 1, co 19.5
tpd in Case 2, to 33. 12 tpd in Case 3. The increased feed gas 50
2
concentration co the TGTU will allow higher recovery efficiencie
in the TGTU resulting in high total sulfur recoveries. The Case 3
recycled so2 represents as much as 23% of the tOtal sulfur fed to
the RU-TGTU system. The increased 0
2
recycle load for Case
2 and 3 lead ro significant TGTU solvenr regeneration energy
requirement for these cases, as shown in Table 2. This energy
requirement reduces the net heat export from the R by abour
25%, and the specific heat outpur (kg steam/kg sulfur) by almost
50%. Heat of combustion offuel gas used in the tail-gas furnace
has been included in estimation of the specific heat output.
Acid-gas H
2
S concentration variation. Feed acid-gases
ro Claus SRU plants can have H
2
5 concentrations in the range
of 10-95%. Low H
2
S concentrations can drop furnace tempera-
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2005 1103
ENVIRONMENT/PROCESS TECHNOLOGY
TABLE 2. SRU capacity enhancement with 502 recycle
Case
Base
2 2
2 3
2 1
TABLE 3. Variation in SRU gas flow
with feed acid-gas concentration
Relative flows
with S0
2
without S0
2
Claus furnace Claus furnace Tail-gas furnace Tail-gas furnace
No. of catalytic stages

Total sulfur
H
2
S in acid
gas,% recycle recycte
Acidgas, tpd S
SWS gas, tpd 5
Air fed to Claus furnace, tpd
Acid-gas to line burner, %
Furnace temperature, oc
Zone 1
Zone 2
Claus furnace sulfur yield, %
Gas flow, kmollh
Claus furnace
Converter-1
TGTU (pre-quench)
Converter-1
100
88.85
11.15
262
6
1,458
1,344
62.8
560
540
100
88.85
11 .15
231
4.5
1,357
1,235
68
530
505
615
131 143
90 1.0 1.5
119.85 131.85
80 1.0 1.5
11.15 11 .15
70 1.0 1.6
208 179
60 1.1 1.7
3 2.8
40 1.2 2.0
1,110 932
70 73
520 520
480 470
800 840
Inlet H
2
S cone., %
Inlet temperature/sulfur dew pt., C
Exit temperature/sulfur dew pt., C
4.9
2711249
315/289
5.8
2571245
3151295
7.6
255/245
10
2551246
decrea es, the Claus furnace temperature
decreases. At feed acid-gas H
2
S concentra-
tion below 60%, split-flow of acid-gas to
Zones 1 and 2 of Claus furnace was required
to maintain Zone 1 temperature above the
levels required for a stable flame. The drop
in furnace temperatures is due to both the
lower H
2
S concentration as well as the
increasing 0
2
recycle load to the furnace.
Thus, 50
2
recycle will result in larger rem-
perature drops in the furnace than would
330/300 350/306
be encountered for conventional straight-
Converter-2
Inlet H
2
S cone., % 2.2 2.2 2.5
Exit temperature/sulfur dew pt., oc 2681263 269.5/264.5 276/271
through, or split-flow configuration . The
Hz$ concentration in the gas fed co the first
catalytic stage increases slightly as feed acid-
gas cohcentration decreases. This along with
the fotentiaJ for higher COS/C
2
forma-
tion in the Claus furnace necessitates first
catalytic stage operation at 20-30C higher
50
1
cone., in TGTU absorber, % 2.2 4.3 7
99.6 50
1
recovery in TGTU, % 98.9 99.5

Recycled S, tpd 7.38 19.5 33.12
Net sulfur recovery, % 92.5 99.9 99.9 99.9
Heat duties, MMkCal/hr
Claus furnace WHB
Condensers
Tail-gas furnace WHB
TGTU 50
2
regenerator
Net specific heat exported,
kg steam/kg sulfur recovered
-6.23
-1.74
-1.91
4.1
-5.61
-1 .68
- 1.91
+0.84
3.0
-5.38
-1.75
-3.37
+2.25
2.5
mres, and lower sulfur yields in the furnace and catalytic convert-
ers. Typically, for feed acid-gases with H
2
S concentration below
50-55%, the feed gas and feed air pre-heat and various acid-gas
splir-Aow schemes are adopted.
5
A TGTU with 50
2
recycle can
also provide benefits for processing such low-concentration acid-
gas streams in the Claus SRU. We did a simulation study to exam-
ine the impact ofH
2
S concentration variation in a conventional
RU with nvo catalytic stages-with and without the TGTU. The
feed acid-gas cho en for the study had the same composition as
shown in Table 1, bur now with the total (Hz$ + C0
2
) concen-
tration held constant at 93.4%, and varying H
2
S concentration
from 40% to 90%. The aci d-gas stream sulfur foedrate was kept
constant at I 00 tpd for all cases. Thus, as acid-gas H
2
S concentra-
tion decrease , the rotal feed acid-gas flow increases to maintain
the sulfur feedrate, and C0
2
concentration increases. An SWS
gas stream with composition and flow shown in Table 1 was also
included in the study. This stream is fed to the TGTU furnace for
the cases where $0
2
recycle is considered, and is fed to the Claus
furnace when the TGTU is absent.
The study indicated that applying a TGTU with $0
2
recycle
will allow 99.9% sulfur recovery for all cases with acid-gas con-
centration down ro 40% H
2
S. As acid-gas H
2
S concentration
1041 OCTOBER 2005 HYDROCARBON PROCESSING
-4.85
-1.55
-5.02
+3.81
2.2
temperatures for the leaner feed acid-gases.
The variation in SRU molar gas flow
with varying feed acid-gas Hz$ concentra-
tion is shown in Table 3. The flows are rela-
tive to that for the 90% H
2
S in acid-gas, and
S0
2
recycle case. The data show that using a
TGTU with 50
2
recycle allows significant
reductions in the Claus SRU plant sizing,
with the reduction being higher at the lower acid-gas concentra-
tions. The increase in plant size as the feed acid-gas H
2
S concen-
tration decreases was estimated to be relatively modest when 50
2
recycle is applied.
Regenerative S0
2
removal processes allow high C0
2
rej ection/
slip in the TGTU. This will lead to a low C0
2
recycle ro the Ia us
furnace from the TGTU even when the SRU is fed acid-gases hav-
ing high C0
2
concentration. Typical C0
2
rejection for regenerative
50
2
recycle processes is 95-99%, while for MDEA based TGTUs
using H
2
S recycle, typical C0
2
rejection levels are 70- 80%
SRU without Claus furnace. RU operation without the
Claus furnace was examined with the model. Eliminating the
Claus furnace results in direct feed of about
2
/3 of the acid-gas to
the first catalytic stage, along with $0
2
produced by combu ting
and concentrating the balance V3 acid-gas in the TGTU. This
mode of operation potentially allows maximum capacity enhance-
ment for retrofitting of existing Claus SRUs.
8

9
When acid-gas of high concentration is to be processed, the
above mode of operation results in feed gas to the first catalytic
stage having very high H
2
S concentration. For an acid-gas of
I
I
I
I
I

composition shown in Table 1, the H
2
S concentration in feed to
first catalytic stage will be about 55%. For such a high-concentra-
tion gas, operation in a conventional adiabatic catalytic stage is
not feasible due to excessive heat generation. However, acid-gases
with low H
2
S concentration (20-50% H
2
S) could be processed in
this mode. Another problem for this mode of operation is the
direct feed of acid-gases containing hydrocarbons and other gas
impurities such as NH
3
and cyanides can cause catalyst-fouling
problems, and upset the converter feed H
2
S-S02 ratio.
Application potential. The advantages of$0
2
recycle based
Claus SRU tail-gas treatment are clearly significant. However,
adopting technology is dictated by process economics. The sub-
dew point, and direct H
2
S oxidation to sulfur, tail-gas treatment
technologies allow Claus sulfur recovery in the range 99.0-99.5%,
and rypically have lower capital and operating costs.
10
However, for
large-capacity plants where sulfur recovery efficiencies approaching
99.9+% is desired, the 50
2
recycle option is definitely worth con-
sideration, especially since this route can provide capacity addition.
The well-established SCOT type process applying H
2
recycle is
reported to have similar costs to the 50
2
recycle option 10, but does
not provide the capacity addition/ debotdenecking advantage of the
0
2
recycle route. Thus, for large-capacity SRU plantS required to
operate at recovery levels - 99.9% and/or seeking spare capacity, the
50
2
recycle route must be carefully considered. HP
NOTES
' Sometimes special burners operating under reducing conditions are added to
the Incinerator for NH
3
destruction without NO, formation.
b 2H
2
S + S02 = 35, + 2H20
c cos and cs2 hydrolysis of 50% and 30%, respectively, was assumed at this
temperature.
d The SWS gas represents about 25% of rhe roral (acid-gas + SWS gas) base
case flow.
d Bed temperature rise is 44C in base case and 95c in Case 3, while mean bed
temperatures increase from 293C to 30ZOC.
f Resulting from higher feeed gas C0
2
levels.
g Feed acid-gas to Claus furnace was split, 70% fed ro furnace Zone 1 along
with complete ai r and SWS gas (in cases base and l). Balance 30% fed into
furnace Zone 2.
LITERATURE CITED
1
Nagpal, ., and en, P. K., "Advanced Process Simulation Tools for Gas
Sweetening and Sulfur Recovery," Offihort World, 1(4), p. 39, 2004.
2
Nagpal, S. and K. Sen, "Selecting rhe Solvem for 50
2
Removal by
Absorption, " Chtmicai Enginuring, August 2003.
Bennerr, H. A. and A. Meisen, "Hydrogen Sulfide-Air Equilibria under Claus
Furnace Conditions," Canadian }o,rnal of Chtmical Enginuring, Vol. 51 ,
December 1973, p. 720.
4
Smith, J. M and H. . van ess, Introduction to Chtmical Engineering
Thmnodynamics, McGraw Hill , 3rd Eclirion, 1984.
5
Kohl, A, L. , and R. B. Nielsen, GtJJ Purification, Gulf Publishing Co.,
Houston, Texas, 1997.
"Tong, S., I. G. Dalla Lana, and K. T. Chuang, "Effecr of catalyst shape on the
hydrolysis of OS and Cs2 in a simulated Claus converter," Ind. Eng. Chan.
Res., Vol. 36, p. 4087, 1997.
7
Tong, S., I. G. Dalla Lana, and K. T. Chuang, "Kinetic Modeling of the
Hydrolysis of Carbon Disulfide Catalyzed by Either Titania or Alumina,"
Canadian}oumal of Chanica/ Enginuri11g, Vol. 73. October 1995. p. 220.
8
Eaglsson, S. T., N. Confuorro, B. Pedersen, "Labsorb: A regenerable wer
scrubbing process for controlling S0
2
emissions," Perrotech, January 200 l ,
New Delhi.
9
Hatcher, N. A., er al., "Integrating ansolv system technology inro your
sour gas treating/sulfur recovery plant," Laurence Rl=id Gas Conditioning
Conference, Norman, Oklahoma, March 1998.
10
Strickl and, J. F. , et al., "Assessment of Recovery Capabil iries and Cosrs ofTail-
gas Cleanup Processes." Report by KBR, Houston, and GTI. Chicago,
Illinois, Website: www.gasprocessors.com.
ENVIRONMENT/PROCESS TECHNOLOGY
SRU
TGTU
RSR
PFD
FEM
sws
tpd
scmh
NOMENCLATURE
Sulfur recovery unir
Tail-gas treating unit
Regenerative sulfur dioxide remol'al
Process flow diagram
Free energy minimization
Sour-water stripper
Tons per day
Standard cubic meters per hour
Soumitro Nagpal is manager (R&D), Engineers Jnd1a Ltd (Ell), R&D Center.
He graduated in chemical engineering from BITS, Pil an1, and subsequently obtained
an MS degree and a PhD in chemical engineenng from the University of Utah; his
research topic was bio-catalyzed oxi dation. Later. as a research assoc1ate at 1m penal
College and the University of London, he worked on development of fluidized-bed
bioreactors. Or. Nagpal has been with Ell since 1994. He has been involved in several
areas of process development including: gas-sweetening and sui ur recovery, SOr
capture technologies, coaVpetcoke gasification, syngas-generatJOn technologies
and alumina precipitation. Dr. Nagpal has developed and commemalized several
advanced process simulation and design tools (s. nagpal@eil.co.ln).
P. K. Sen is general manager and head, R&D Divis1on, Eng1neers India L1m1ted (Ell).
He has been with Ell for the last 25 years. His areas of ac 1V1t1es include technology
development for solids processing, sea nodules, solvent extraction, adsorpti on and
gas sweetening. Dr. Sen's current interests include alternative energy resources such
as fuel cells. He has published several papers in the above areas and holds a number
of patents. He was nominated as a UNIDO expert on process1ng of poly-metallic
nodules. Dr. Sen has served as an expert in several national committees such as
for sea nodules processing, TIFAC nomi nated commit ees and Ministry of Mines
nomi nated committees.
Now available from HYDROCARBON
PROCESSING'
The 2005 Refining Processes Wall Chart
Tht 2005 Rpni11g Prowus \'(/a{[ Chart is a flow chan of a
modern refinery showing a typical configuration with seven
representative processes (solvent deasphalting, delayed coking,
visbreaking, wee gas scrubbers, hydrogen generation, fluid
catalytic cracking, hydrocracking, alkylation and sulfur recovery)
in the style and.formar of the 2004 R.:fining l'roccss Handbook.
It will be mailed rolled and is 37.5'' wide by 24.25" tall , printed
on 70 lb. pape, suitable for mounting or framing. Single copies
are $44.95 ptus appropriate taxes and shipping and handling.
Multiple copies available at discount .
Order through our website www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com
or call our reprint department at 713-520-4426.
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2005 ,105