Meeting: Spring AIChE Meeting

Austin, TX – April 29th 2015

Distillation 2015 Paper 179d

Title: "Steps for Troubleshooting Amine Sweetening Plants"

Authors: Glenn Shiveler, Sulzer Chemtech USA Inc. – Tulsa, OK

Harold Wandke, Sulzer Chemtech USA Inc. – Tulsa, OK

Abstract:
Amine gas treating (also called “sweetening”) is a well-proven method for removing acid gases
from a gas stream, and is commonly used in natural gas plants, petrochemical plants, and refineries.
An amine unit typically consists of two towers—a contactor to allow the selected amine to remove the
acid gases, followed by another column that regenerates the amine using a reboiler or direct steam
injection, plus the associated heat exchangers.
The proper design and operation of the plant is critical to meet product quality and
environmental standards while minimizing operating costs to the plant. There are multiple potential
problems that can result in an underperforming amine sweetening plant, including inadequate
hydraulic capacity of the equipment, damaged equipment, non-optimal operating conditions, heat
stable salts, and poor amine quality. Determining the cause of a malfunctioning sweetening plant
can be difficult because the investigating engineer can either misdiagnose the root cause of the
problem, or fail to identify all of the contributing factors to the primary problem. Deductive reasoning
is a critical element in the review of the potential causes of the problem.
This paper presents a list of recommended steps for performing a thorough investigation of an
underperforming amine sweetening plant. The steps include collecting operating plant data to
eliminate unlikely causes and then focusing in on the probable causes based on the plant data. A
discussion of the role of thermal scan and gamma-scan data to diagnose hydraulic problems with the
mass transfer equipment is included. Finally, guidelines for key operational parameters for the safe
operation of tray hydraulics and packing capacity will be presented. This paper covers only gas/liquid
contacting.

Copyright by Sulzer Chemtech USA Inc. – Unpublished

AIChE shall not be responsible for statements or opinions contained in papers or printed in its publications.
Introduction

The sweetening of natural gas has been performed for many years by contacting the sour gas with an
aqueous amine solvent. The traditional gas sweetening process utilized by the natural gas
processing industry is depicted in Figure 1. The first step is to contact the sour gas with the lean
amine solvent in the amine absorber, where hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide are picked up by
the solvent by a reversible chemical reaction with the amine. The sweetened gas leaves the top of
the absorber and rich amine containing the absorbed hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide leaves the
bottom. Rich amine from the absorber passes through a flash separator, then through a cross
exchanger economizer in its path to the regenerator. Stripping of the hydrogen sulfide and carbon
dioxide is performed in the regenerator unit using a reboiler to provide enthalpy to reverse the
absorption reaction. The overhead gas is cooled by the condenser to return water reflux to the
regenerator. The remaining off-gas can be processed by a sulfur recovery unit or sent to a flare. The
lean amine stream produced at the bottom of the regenerator is passed through the cross exchanger,
filters and a trim cooler before the lean solvent is returned to the absorber. The two columns provide
a closed loop system that requires only an occasional addition of fresh amine to keep the amine
strength at an acceptable level.

Figure 1 – Natural Gas Sweetening Plant Process Flow Diagram

2|Pa g e “Steps for Troubleshooting Amine Sweetening Plants”

The performance of amine sweetening plants can be adversely affected by various problems. Some
problems relate to the amine solvent quality, which can be susceptible to foaming and contaminants.
Gas inlet composition and operating conditions of some plants drift from the design basis over the
course of time. As a result, it might not be obvious that a change in the reactant ratio that has
occurred. Some plant problems are due to operating conditions that exceeds the hydraulic capacity
of the mass transfer internals. Others are due to equipment damage. Plant operators often contact
process experts and equipment vendors to perform troubleshooting of plant operating problems. In
the troubleshooting process, there are several steps to the process of investigation for amine
sweetening plants required to understand the root cause for the performance problem.

First Step: Gathering Evidence

The first step in any troubleshooting investigation is to gather data and information from the operating
control room. Data is necessary to understand the facts about the problem, and for disclosure to
consultants. It is recommended to start the investigation with a review of the plant design basis by
comparing the current operating conditions to the original design basis or to a previous period of
acceptable plant operation. Prepare a data spreadsheet table that lists all of the available process
instrument readings for the current operation of the entire sweetening plant for side-by-side
comparison to the readings for acceptable operation of the process. Stream flow rates, compositions,
temperature and pressure are especially important. Providing the data for the original design basis
and previous good operation helps third party consultants to gain perspective and understand the
performance problem in its context.

Analysis of the data table will show some readings that differ slightly from expectation, while some
process variables might deviate significantly from expectation. An example of a data table is shown
in Figure 2 below. Usually, the process variables that show the greatest deviation from the
expectation from the design simulation provide the suspects for the focal point for the investigation.

3|Pa g e “Steps for Troubleshooting Amine Sweetening Plants”

Figure 2 – Example of Plant Operating Data Table

At times, the plant operators begin the investigation knowing the symptoms of the problem before
they fully understand the root cause. As such, there is risk that the investigating engineer might jump
to a premature conclusion about the suspected cause for the problem. Study of the operating data
table coupled with deductive reasoning is necessary to focus the investigation towards understanding
the root cause of the plant operating problem.

Second Step: Review Plant Operation with a Simulation

There are many process variables that can affect the performance of an amine sweetening plant.
Changes in the inlet gas or solvent composition could have occurred during the course of plant
operation since its original design. The reaction between the amine and the acid gases (H2S/CO2)
can affect the mass and energy balance for the amine absorber. It can be difficult to extrapolate the
differences observed in the process variables from those of acceptable plant operation based only on
the stream table from the original design basis. It is recommended that a process simulation study be
conducted to ascertain the expected flow rate, composition, temperature and pressure for the process
streams and equipment. It is necessary to have mass flow rates and physical properties from a
simulation for performing hydraulic calculations over the mass transfer units in order to properly
review the equipment capacity and pressure drop.

4|Pa g e “Steps for Troubleshooting Amine Sweetening Plants”

One problem is that plant operators might not have access to a process simulation package suitable
for review of an amine sweetening plant. Therefore, plant operators will contact third party
consultants and equipment vendors for technical support. Having the data spreadsheet from the data
gathering step will facilitate the communication process of the plant operating data with technical
consultants. Review whether the number of actual trays or packing height is suitable for meeting the
outlet hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide gas composition objectives is best achieved with a rate-
based simulation.

Third Step: Review Pressure Drop

The next step is to rate the mass transfer internals using the equipment vendor’s proprietary rating
program. The existing internals should be evaluated using the results of the simulations that were
performed in step two. Sulzer has its hydraulic calculations available on-line for its trays and
packings in a computer program called SulCOL.

A common symptom of a sweetening plant problem is high pressure drop over the mass transfer
vessel. Sometimes the amine absorber is observed to show higher pressure drop than predicted by
the hydraulic rating program. It is necessary to review the expected pressure drop for the mass
transfer equipment at the operating conditions using the hydraulic calculations of an equipment
supplier to diagnose hydraulic flooding. Amine absorbers and regenerators experience a normal
amount of foaming that is associated with absorption of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide gas and
the reaction of these with the amine. Pressure drop is can be 10% to 20% higher than the calculated
pressure drop due to normal foaming. If the actual pressure data exceeds the prediction by more
than 50%, it is a possible sign of hydraulic flooding in the mass transfer equipment.

It is necessary to calculate the pressure drop as a baseline for comparison to the plant operating data
and to review the plant operating data for any time-related trends for pressure drop. Sometimes there
are repeated cyclic changes in pressure drop, and operating room data can show cyclic waves or
saw-tooth patterns over regular time periods. If there is cyclic behavior for the absorber pressure
drop, it is necessary to observe the local maximum and minimum pressure drop during a cycle, and
the time period for the cycles. Snap shots of the control room pressure drop data should be provided
to process consultants.

Fourth Step: Review Equipment Capacity

Although it is common to evaluate the conditions at the inlet and outlet of each column, it is important
to review the column profile from the simulation. For the absorber, there is usually a stage or
segment that has peak temperature in the column profile. Review the mass transfer equipment
hydraulic calculations for the top and bottom inlet/out conditions, as well as review the hydraulic loads
for the peak temperature location in the column profile. Often times, the hydraulic conditions for the
5|Pa g e “Steps for Troubleshooting Amine Sweetening Plants”
flow rates and properties associated with the peak temperature has the highest pressure drop, and
the mass transfer devices could have the highest risk for hydraulic flooding.

In general, the dry pressure drop for trays should be below 0.6 mbar (1.5 inches H2O) for safe
operation. There is low to moderate risk for dry pressure drop between 0.6 to 0.8 mbar (1.5 to 2
inchesH2O), and a higher risk for dry pressure drop that exceeds 0.8 mbar (2 inches H2O) in amine
absorbers. Tray hydraulic calculations should consider a system factor of 0.75 for absorbers as a
baseline. The downcomer inlet velocity should below 0.11 m/s (0.35 ft/sec) for safe tray operation as
there is a risk for a downcomer inlet velocity limitation if it exceeds 0.12 m/s (0.4 ft/sec). Review the
downcomer head loss and downcomer stack-up to ensure that the values are within the equipment
vendor’s acceptable limits.

For packed absorbers, the packing pressure drop should not exceed 6 mbar/m (0.75 inches H2O/ft).
Review the capacity of the liquid distributor as shown on the distributor assembly drawings to confirm
it is suitable for the operating conditions. Review the velocity of the amine inlet pipe and the gas inlet
device to confirm whether it is within the limits for safe design. If there is reason to suspect liquid
maldistribution, then it is necessary review the installation and levelness of the liquid distributor
troughs, as well as the drip point density of the distributor.

Fifth Step: Review Amine Quality

Changes in the sweetening plant performance are sometimes due to changes in the amine quality
over the course of time. High pressure drop can be caused by poor solvent hygiene, and it is
necessary to review the plant operating log for amine strength, lean solvent quality and heat stable
salts (HSS). Amine strength is usually expressed in weight percent. Solvent quality is the residual
H2S/CO2 gas in the lean solvent produced by the regenerator. Local laboratories can perform tests
for amine strength and quality with reasonable accuracy. Testing of HSS should be performed by
qualified laboratories operated by the solvent vendors, who have experience in diagnosing various
amine plant problems due to specific contaminates.

There are various kinds of contaminants that can affect the amine solvent quality. Some
contaminants enter the plant through the gas pipeline and breakthrough the knock out drum. Gas
feed contaminants can include methanol, glycol, caustic, compressor lubrication oils, corrosion
inhibitors, drilling mud and other contaminants. Sometimes, pressure drop spikes observed in the
amine absorber occur after the scouring pig is used in the pipeline. A vital clue to a gas feed
contaminant can be proven by review of the pressure drop over the knock out drum prior to the
pressure drop observed in the amine absorber.

Sometimes HSS metal ions affect the performance of the amine solvent. Metal ions can include
sodium, calcium, chlorides and potassium. Other solvent contaminants can include chlorides, sulfate,
bicine, formate and acetate. Some plants can experience changing concentration levels for HSS
6|Pa g e “Steps for Troubleshooting Amine Sweetening Plants”
contaminants over the course of operation. In the case of proprietary mixed amine solvents, it is
necessary to review solvent contaminants with the solvent vendor to diagnose this issue.

Sixth Step: Thermal Imaging

Most amine absorbers are equipped with few temperature instruments. Having temperature
instruments only for the inlet/outlet streams is insufficient to gain perspective of the absorber
temperature profile.

Many amine absorber vessels are uninsulated. It is possible to use a thermal imaging pyrometer to
review the skin temperature of the absorber. The cost to rent or purchase a pyrometer is low
compared to the cost of a gamma-scan, so it is possible for plants to screen for potential temperature
related problems in the mid-section of the absorber by thermal imaging.

Data from the thermal imaging pyrometer can provide insight of the absorber temperature profile for
comparison to the simulation prediction, and also to locate the peak temperature position in the
absorber. Modern pyrometers can record the temperature data along a straight line, so it is possible
to obtain the operating temperature profile for the column to compare versus the simulation
prediction. Thermal images can reveal hot spots that can reveal the location in the absorber where
the reaction takes place between the amine and hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide. The hot spots
can reveal hydraulic disturbances or maldistribution involving the column internals.

Seventh Step: Gamma-Scan

If all else fails, hydraulic problems involving the mass transfer internals can be evaluated with a
gamma-scan. This test is similar to performing an X-ray through the vessel. The scan data shows
the location of metal internals and the presence of liquids. Often times the gamma-scan test is
conducted at two flow conditions for comparison: one test at stable operating conditions and one test
at suspected flooding or unstable conditions. For vessels equipped with trays, the gamma-scan
report can show which trays are highly loaded and whether any trays are hydraulically flooded or
damaged. For vessels equipped with packing, a grid gamma-scan report can show the liquid flow
profile, and whether the liquid is properly distributed or maldistributed through the packing.
Conducting the gamma-scan at two operating conditions provides a comparison that can show the
location where hydraulic flooding occurs in the column internals.

A gamma-scan test is a costly and time consuming consideration for the gas plant and should be
used as a last resort to investigate the column. It is recommended that the plant conduct a thermal
imaging study, and perform a reasonable study of the plant operation and amine quality study prior to
conducting the gamma-scan.

7|Pa g e “Steps for Troubleshooting Amine Sweetening Plants”

Eighth Step: Internal Inspection

It is possible that the gamma-scan in step seven might not adequately reveal a cause for the
operating problem. In the case of random or structured packing, it is possible that minor
maldistribution from the liquid distributor might not be noticed by a gamma-scan. Common causes for
liquid maldistribution can be an out-of-level liquid distributor, plugged distribution holes, and damaged
inlet pre-distributor pipes. In the case of trays, it is possible that a hydraulic anomaly for one tray
might not be adequately explained by the gamma-scan. Common causes for tray problems include
missing valves, corroded deck or downcomer panels, blockage inside of downcomers and
mechanical damage to tray parts. In some cases, there is no substitute for performing visual
inspection of the column internals to determine the cause of an absorber or regenerator operational
problem that is not conclusively identified by any of the previous investigation steps.

Notes About Foaming

There is a normal amount of foaming in amine absorbers that is due to the absorption of H2S/CO2
gas into the solvent and the exothermic reaction with amine. Normal foaming increases the gas-liquid
mass transfer area. There are absorbers that can exhibit signs of more severe foaming compared to
well behaved units. Severe foaming can have several causes:
1. High concentration of hydrocarbon components that forms a separate liquid phase.
2. Presence of lubrication oils in the solvent.
3. High concentration of HSS and amine degradation products.
4. Overly high dry tray pressure drop.
5. Particulates present in the solvent (drilling mud, corrosion products, and suspended solids).

There are several aspects about the nature of foaming. The solvent absorbs hydrogen sulfide and
carbon dioxide gas into the liquid followed by exothermic reaction with the amine that can produce
foaming. Operation of the absorber with a high peak temperature can be accompanied by severe
foaming.

Many plants conduct regularly scheduled foam tests on the lean amine solvent by bubbling nitrogen
gas in a flask, then record the time for foam bubbles to dissipate. Based on this test, sometimes plant
engineers make the claim that their solvent is non-foaming. This is a misleading conclusion, as the
nitrogen foaming test only measures the relative capability for the solvent to foam for one day with
inert gas compared to other times. However, this test can diagnose whether the presence of heavy
hydrocarbons or chemical contaminants are affecting the foaming capability of the solvent. At the
same time, this test might be unreliable in diagnosing foaming caused by HSS or amine degradation
components.

Many modern sweetening plants utilize anti-foam to control foaming in the amine absorber, although
some plants do not. A program for using anti-foam is developed through consultation with the anti-
8|Pa g e “Steps for Troubleshooting Amine Sweetening Plants”
foam vendor. There are two types of anti-foam programs: constant anti-foam injection via a metering
pump, and anti-foam addition in batches. In the case of batch addition of anti-foam, there is usually a
pressure drop threshold criteria that triggers the operators to inject the next anti-foam spike before the
absorber reaches it limit for pressure drop or foam over.

Anti-foam has a limited life-time in the recirculated amine solvent in the sweetening plant. In the case
of spike addition, the benefit for the anti-foam spike diminishes over the course of time because it is
slowly removed when the solvent is circulated through the activated carbon filter.

If there is a pattern of cyclic pressure drop observed over the absorber, there is a process dynamic
issue responsible for the cycles. The anti-foam program should be reviewed to control the changing
foaming conditions in the absorber.

Notes on the Absorber Energy Balance

The interaction between gas and liquid in the absorber results in the reaction between amine and H2S
and CO2. Modern rate-based simulation models for amine units consider a stepwise mass transfer
model that has a mass and energy balance over each segment as shown in Figure 3. Mass transfer
segments review the mass and energy inputs, and reviews the heat of reaction that develops a
temperature profile throughout the absorber. If there is sufficient liquid flow rate in the absorber, the
enthalpy from the reaction will be dissipated by the enthalpy of the liquid stream. Operation at a
lower liquid flow rate will elevate the peak temperature or the range of peak temperature in the mass
transfer section. If the peak temperature segment should exceed a critical threshold, this will cause
the water vapor pressure to increase to the point that it becomes a significant contributor to the vapor
volumetric flow rate. The peak temperature point in the stepwise model is usually accompanied by
the highest vapor volumetric flow rate in the absorber profile. It is possible that flooding can occur in
the middle of the absorber. Absorber operation at high peak temperatures in the region of 85o to
90oC (185o to 195oF) can exhibit abnormal foaming behavior.

For absorbers designed with physical solvents, the process designer considers the minimum L/G
ratio, and specifies the solvent circulation rate with a recommendation that includes a margin of
design safety factor. The text book method for determining the minimum L/G ratio is to plot the solute
composition for the equilibrium line and operating line on a stage diagram, and then adjust the
operating line slope until it intersects the equilibrium line. This text book graphical analysis works for
isothermal absorbers without considering any enthalpy associated with the solute. For amine
absorbers, however, it is necessary to consider the effect of the exothermic reaction of the solute with
the solvent and to review the resulting temperature profile in order to evaluate the minimum L/G ratio
for achieving the outlet gas objective. The review of the minimum L/G ratio for an amine plant
requires a sensitivity study using a qualified rate-based simulation package for the solvent.

9|Pa g e “Steps for Troubleshooting Amine Sweetening Plants”

Figure 3 – Mass and Energy Balance for Absorber Segment
Mass and Energy Balance Over Absorber
Sweet Gas
------------------------------
G OUT TG-OUT HG-OUT
Composition
Lean Amine
-----------------------
LLA TLA HLA
Composition

Liquid Gas
In Out

Mass and Energy

Balance Over Gas
Reaction
Segment --------------------
------------------------
G i T Gi H Gi CPG
Amine
Composition
H2S and CO2
Liquid H RX
------------------------
------------------------ H2S and CO2
L i T Li H Li CPL Diffusion into
Composition Liquid

Liquid Gas
Out In

Sour Gas
------------------------
GIN TG-IN HG-IN
Composition

Rich Amine
----------------------
LRA TRA HRA
Composition

In view of the risk for a hydraulic capacity limitation in the interior of the amine absorber, it is
necessary to evaluate the absorber with an accurate rate-based simulation program followed by
review with the equipment vendor’s hydraulic calculations. Most amine absorbers are equipped with
temperature instruments for the inlet and outlet steams, and these vessels usually lack temperature
instruments in the mid-section of the absorber where the peak temperature could occur.
Temperature data from a pyrometer can provide insight into the temperature profile over the absorber
to review the peak temperature and can confirm whether the actual temperature profile over the
absorber matches the prediction from the simulation model.

The location and width of the peak temperature zone in the absorber can be an indicator of the
adequacy of the solvent flow rate. Most well designed plants have a narrow peak temperature that
occupies up to two or three actual trays or up to 10% of the packing height. An absorber temperature
profile that extends over most of the mass transfer equipment exchange length is an indication of
inadequate amine circulation rate or inadequate contacting of the solvent with the gas. Figure 4
shows the temperature profiles from a rate-based simulation for different liquid/gas mass flow ratios.
The temperature profiles for high L/G ratios have a sharp peak temperature point and the peak
temperature is located near the lower 20% of the mass transfer equipment height. In contrast, the

10 | P a g e “Steps for Troubleshooting Amine Sweetening Plants”

temperature profiles for lower L/G ratios have a wider peak temperature zone and the peak
temperature point is located at higher elevations in the mass transfer equipment.

Figure 4 – Temperature Profile as Function of Liquid / Gas Mass Flow Rate

Notes on the Amine Regeneration Shortfall

In a healthy amine sweetening plant, it is possible to observe an incremental improvement in lean

amine quality when the reboiler duty is increased in the regenerator. Some plants observe a
limitation in the amount of residual hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide loading in the lean amine
quality when they operate at the maximum possible reboiler duty. There are four potential causes for
this shortfall of solvent regeneration:
1. Capacity limit for the regenerator mass transfer equipment.
2. Damaged trays or packing in the regenerator.
3. Leaky cross exchanger.
4. HSS problem with the amine solvent.

11 | P a g e “Steps for Troubleshooting Amine Sweetening Plants”

There are several avenues of investigation that can establish the root cause for solvent regeneration
problems when coupled with deductive reasoning.

A first step is to perform a process simulation over the regenerator; then perform the hydraulic
calculations. Next, review the pressure drop over the regenerator. If the pressure drop over the
regenerator trays is below expectation, it is evidence for damaged or missing trays. If there are
fluctuations observed over the regenerator with a higher pressure drop than expected, it is evidence
for a possible hydraulic capacity limit for the mass transfer equipment. Performing a gamma-scan
over the regenerator might confirm these two theories.

A leaky cross exchanger can be reviewed by taking lean amine samples upstream and downstream
of the cross exchanger. Also, a leaky cross exchanger problem might be observed following a
maintenance turnaround if cleaning was performed on the cross exchanger.

Amine regeneration shortfall due to HSS can be confirmed by sending lean amine samples to a
qualified laboratory to review the various HSS contaminants. Diagnosing HSS as the root cause is
usually confirmed when the three other causes for amine regeneration shortfall can be ruled out
during the investigation along with confirmation of HSS from the laboratory report.

Final Step: Establishing the Root Cause

Some suspected causes can be eliminated by use of deductive reasoning in the investigation.
Review of a comprehensive plant data table will identify which plant instruments and operating
variables deviate most when compared to good operation. Use of the investigative process using
plant data to review the mass transfer equipment hydraulics will focus on at least one clearly
identified cause for the operating problem.

It is possible that the investigation might reveal more than one contributing factor to the plant
performance problem. This is sometimes possible for old plants that are revamped to handle
significantly different new operating conditions. This can also be possible for plants that suffer from
HSS contamination of their solvent. Multiple causes for amine plant problems can be more
challenging to diagnose and sometimes require operating data at several operating conditions to
clearly identify the problem by thorough data analysis.

Troubleshooting Example 1

An amine absorber was designed for an off-shore platform based on an assumption for the inlet
CO2 composition from the exploratory gas well. The sweetening plant was designed by the
engineering firm using a proprietary formulated amine solvent. Three years later when the platform
was started-up at the well site, the operator found that the absorber was not meeting the CO2
12 | P a g e “Steps for Troubleshooting Amine Sweetening Plants”
specification. The initial investigation revealed that the inlet CO2 composition was approximately 5%
higher compared to the original design basis. Initially, the height of the structured packing was the
suspected cause for the platform’s absorber performance problem.

When the higher CO2 composition was reviewed in the sweetening plant simulations, the reported
outlet CO2 composition was still significantly higher compared to the simulation prediction performed
both by the process designer and by Sulzer. A more thorough investigation included the completion
of the plant operating data table similar to Figure-2. Afterwards, it was observed that the lean amine
temperature was approximately 10°C higher than the original design basis. When the simulation
considered the actual inlet amine temperature to the absorber, there was a reasonably good match
between the simulation and the platform reported operating data. This focused the investigation on
the performance of the lean amine trim cooler. It was determined that the root cause for the problem
was insufficient trim cooler duty to deliver lean amine at the design flow rate and inlet temperature to
the absorber.

Troubleshooting Example 2

An amine absorber located in Mexico was revamped from valve trays to MellapakPlus™ structured
packing in order to improve the selective absorption of H2S using MDEA solvent [1]. The first retrofit
was unsuccessful due to an undersized rich amine outlet nozzle. The absorber was observed to
have “hot spots” when the outside vessel temperature was reviewed with thermal images from a
pyrometer. The unit was also suspected to suffer gas maldistribution based on the thermal images,
so the second revamp included the addition of a vapor distributor chimney tray. The second revamp
was successful in providing good hydraulic operation of the packing, and the temperature profile was
a closer match to the prediction from the rate-based process simulation.

The plant had consulted an additive vendor, who recommended a program for batch addition of anti-
foam to control a cyclical pattern of foaming and pressure drop observed in the amine absorber.
However, the plant operators complained that there were some days when the unit achieved the
4ppm outlet H2S specification with a predictable amine circulation rate, and some days when the unit
had difficulty meeting the H2S specification with the maximum available amine circulation rate.

The performance of the regenerator was reviewed with a simulation sensitivity study for the heat duty
that showed erratic performance for the lean amine quality delivered at the maximum available heat
duty for the reboiler. There was a shift in the lean amine quality data from the simulation prediction
based on the regenerator duty. Review of the temperature profile from the thermal scans of the
absorber sometimes showed a reasonable match to the simulation prediction. But sometimes, the
absorber showed a broad and flat temperature profile above the 85°C maximum temperature
recommended by the solvent vendor. Review of the daily foam cell tests and review of the inlet
knock-out drum performance pressure drop data did not reveal any breakthrough of solvent
contaminants into the absorber. Review of the amine quality by at the solvent vendor’s laboratory

13 | P a g e “Steps for Troubleshooting Amine Sweetening Plants”

revealed the solvent experienced fluctuations in HSS that reduced the number of amine molecules
available for reaction with the H2S solute. The unit had historically operated with moderate to high
Na+ salt contaminations as the root cause for diminished performance of the solvent. The unit also
suffered from variable bicene, formate, acetate and chloride contaminant problems, which explained
the occasional daily problems in meeting the H2S specification as a contributing factor to the HSS
problem.

Troubleshooting Example 3

An amine absorber located in Russia was placed into service, and start-up was limited to a gas flow
rate ceiling that was approximately 60% of the design capacity due to severe foaming reported by the
plant operators [2]. Both Sulzer and the process designer performed a thorough review at the original
design basis at the plant reported operating conditions. Multiple reviews of the design basis and
operating conditions using different simulation packages failed to provide any explanation for the
reported problem. Review of the tray hydraulic calculations also failed to provide any explanation for
the reported heavy foaming problem. The plant consulted an additive vendor and initiated an anti-
foam injection program, which also failed to alleviate the observed heavy foaming problem.

The operating company was forced to take the sweetening plant off-line. Sulzer recommended that
inspection be performed on the absorber trays to confirm the tray weir and downcomer clearance
settings, and review of the mechanical condition of the trays. During inspection, the inspectors
observed different colors of pasty coatings at different tray elevations in the absorber. Samples were
submitted to a laboratory, which revealed the unit suffered from micron sized particulates that
matched the drilling mud used in one of the upstream production wells. The plant’s inlet knock-out
separator was not suitable for removal of the fine particulates found in the absorber. The sweetening
plant used a mixture of gas from several wells to increase the plant capacity, and they later installed
an improved filter particulate. After several months of operation, the troublesome gas well had
sufficiently expelled its drilling mud and the sweetening plant was able to operate at its full design
capacity. In this example, the heavy foaming problem could not be adequately addressed by
changing of any of the plant’s process control variables. The root cause could not be resolved until
the fine particulates were eventually eliminated from the gas well with the fine particulate drilling mud.

Troubleshooting Example 4

An amine absorber unit was revamped with high capacity tray in order to increase the gas handling
capacity of the sweetening plant. The maintenance turnaround included cleaning of all process
equipment in the entire plant. Following start-up, the absorber failed to provide the same removal of
H2S that was achieved prior to the turnaround. The plant checked operation at the same gas flow
rate achieved prior to the turnaround, again with the same shortfall in meeting the H2S specification.
The initial investigation focused on the new high capacity trays. Thorough review of the process
14 | P a g e “Steps for Troubleshooting Amine Sweetening Plants”
simulation and tray hydraulic calculations did not reveal any explanation for the shortfall in the
absorber performance.

The plant took lean amine samples from a sample port located immediately downstream from the
regenerator. The plant’s laboratory confirmed the regenerator was delivering the expected amine
quality. The solvent vendor’s laboratory confirmed the solvent was not affected by any HSS issue.
One operator took a lean amine sample from the surge tank, and noticed it had a slight different color.
Analysis of amine samples from the surge tank revealed different residual amine quality compared to
the samples taken downstream from the regenerator.

The turnaround had also included cleaning of the cross exchanger tubes using scrubbing brushes.
Those tubes were carbon steel, and it was suspected that some tubes might have been punctured
during the cleaning procedure coupled with corrosion. The plant ordered a replacement cross
exchanger. Inspection of the corroded cross exchanger confirmed the root cause was pin sized holes
in several of tubes that provided leakage from the rich amine stream that contaminated the lean
amine stream.

Troubleshooting Example 5

An amine absorber was equipped with valve trays. Several months after start-up, the absorber
removal efficiency suffered and the unit had difficulty meeting the CO2 and H2S removal objectives.
The plant responded by increasing the amine circulation rate to its maximum flow capacity. The unit
operated for several months, and then the plant operators noticed a gradual reduction in the absorber
removal efficiency. A gamma-scan was taken over the vessel that revealed that the bottom two trays
were displaced, and there was a difference in the scan lines for the five trays located above the gas
inlet compared to the other trays at higher elevation.

The plant decided to perform a revamp to improve the reliability of the absorber by installing random
packing. The plant did not remove the tray support rings or downcomer clamping bars located in the
interior of the packed section. The revamp was only partially successful in improving the absorber
performance.

During the turnaround, the plant inspected the trays prior to their demolition. The trays immediately
above the inlet gas had lost most of their valves. Trays at higher elevations were observed to have
fewer lost valves. Closer inspection of the tray deck revealed notches in the tray deck where valve
action of the valve legs fretted away at the carbon steel tray deck. The valves were 410S ferritic
stainless steel material. There is the potential risk for galvanic corrosion for contact of 410S with
carbon steel in the presence of aqueous electrolytes. There was a pattern for valve loss on the
second tray above gas inlet that strongly suggested that liquid cross flow from the downcomer to the
outer periphery of the deck was partially responsible for eroding the carbon steel tray decks.

15 | P a g e “Steps for Troubleshooting Amine Sweetening Plants”

The root cause for the problem was damage to the two bottom trays during a gas flow rate excursion.
The subsequent problem was continued damage to the trays that caused the loss of valves due to the
combination of gas flow direction and valve wear against the carbon steel tray decks. In this case,
the plant made the decision for a potentially risky revamp from trays to random packing. The
absorber could have been retrofitted with heavy-duty trays for the bottom two trays, and with
austenitic stainless steel valves for the upper section trays for a lower cost compared to the packing
revamp.

Conclusion

Writing of this paper is motivated by investigation problems when reported by plant operators.
Sometimes the plant does not adequately provide sufficient operating history for the trouble-shooting
analysis to conclusively determine the cause. Sometimes, there is a previous process simulation
performed on the plant when it operated under different operating conditions and plant personnel do
not have a rate-based simulation available to perform a simulation study for the current operating
conditions. There can be significant issues that affect the solvent reaction kinetics for the absorber
and it is difficult to extrapolate predictions for deviations of plant performance from a previous
simulation.

Revamps of existing amine sweetening plants can be complicated by pre-existing process problems.
The investigation of a problem with a revamped sweetening plant should include a thorough review of
all potential issues, including the operating solvent L/G ratio and solvent quality. A revamp that
considers the installation with higher capacity or higher efficiency mass transfer equipment could
potentially be compromised by contributing problems associated with HSS or solvent quality that go
undiagnosed during the revamp.

This paper has presented important steps for an engineering investigation to understand the root
cause of amine sweetening plant performance problems. The process requires a comprehensive
plant data table to place the operating problem in its context and to compare to conditions for
acceptable operation. Plant operators who can provide a plant operating data table will facilitate the
trouble-shooting analysis by third-party investigators. The investigation should include conducting a
process simulation study and hydraulic capacity and pressure drop calculations. The use of
deductive reasoning can remove unlikely suspects and focus the investigation on the factors behind
the root cause of the problem.

16 | P a g e “Steps for Troubleshooting Amine Sweetening Plants”

Literature References:
[1] “Retrofit of a H2S Selective Amine Absorber Using MellapakPlus Structured Packing”;
G.H. Shiveler, G.S. Solis, L.H.P. Gonzalez, M.L. Bueno; Y2005 Spring AIChE Meeting Atlanta; April
2005.

[2] “DEA Treater Revamp Targets Foaming”; Waldo de Villiers, William Green, Glenn Shiveler;
Y2009 AIChE Spring Meeting Tampa; paper 26f; April Y2009.

Biographical Information for Authors:

Glenn Shiveler has worked for nearly 30 years in the gas processing industry designing mass
transfer equipment. He now works as an applications specialist in the Sulzer office located in Tulsa,
Oklahoma. He has co-authored two previous papers presented at AIChE on trouble-shooting amine
plant operational problems. He is a chemical engineer who attended Rutgers University, and holds
membership in AIChE, ACS and ISA.

Harold Wandke holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in chemical engineering from Oklahoma State
University. His first 6 years of professional employment were spent designing, building, and
operating petroleum refining and petrochemical pilot plants. He has spent the last 21 years with
Sulzer Chemtech, where his duties have included mass transfer equipment and design (both process
and mechanical); project management; and plant commissioning and start-up. He is a registered
professional engineer in the state of Oklahoma.

17 | P a g e “Steps for Troubleshooting Amine Sweetening Plants”