International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE)

ISSN: 2278-3075, Volume-8 Issue-9, July 2019

Process Simulation and Optimization of

Natural Gas Dehydration Process using Aspen
Hysys
Ahmed Al Shehhi, M.J. Varghese, Lakkim Rao, Santosh Walke

 including the hydrocarbon dew point control is to maintain the

Abstract: Natural Gas is More Efficient than Other Forms of water content specification, to prevent the corrosion and to
Fossil Fuel. Natural gas produces more energy than any of the separate the heavy hydrocarbons and to prevent the formation
fossil fuels. Although the primary use of natural gas is as a fuel, it
is also a source of hydrocarbons for petrochemical feedstocks and
of hydrate and to avoid the condensation if the water and
a major source of elemental sulfur, an important industrial heavy hydrocarbon in the gas transport pipeline (K.Abdulla,
chemical. The process simulation and optimization of natural gas 2015). For the dehydration is three main methods as
dehydration process including mono ethylene glycol (MEG) adsorption and absorption by using glycol solvent and the
injection and its regeneration process is studied in this research condensation by ricing the dew point temperature of the
work. This study also carried out the operation parameters and
hydrocarbon and the water. Also, there are supersonic method
optimization. The simulation is carried out using Aspen-HYSYS.
The effect of replacement MEG by DEG and influence of and membrane method for the natural gas dehydration
replacement of Chiller by a turbo expander refrigeration process. the current simulation study curried out using
technique on the DPCU operation was studied. The result HYSYS v8.6 and aimed To study the influence of the
obtained for optimum parameters like inlet pressure and operating conditions on Natural Gas Dehydration Process
temperature of the LTS are studied and comparing chiller and (S.M.Walke, 2012; Walke, 2012; Son, H., Kim, Y., Park, S.,
expander to maximize NGL are presented. The study recommends
to use the expander instead of the chiller. The the economic
Binns, M. and Kim, 2018). To analyze the results after
evaluation of the proposed modification is presented in this study. replacement MEG by DEG in Natural Gas Dehydration
Index Terms: Diethylene glycol, Gas dehydration, Low Process (RS Al Ziedi, 2018; Sakheta, A. and Zahid, 2018),
temperature separator, Monoethylene glycol, Simulation. evaluate the influence of replacement the Chiller by a turbo
expander refrigeration technique on the DPCU operation(TK,
I. INTRODUCTION I., RK2, A., FH, K. and IM, 2017) and to maximize the natural
The natural gas is the most efficient fossil fuel, that offering gas liquid production (Abu Bakar, W. and Ali, 2010; Basafa,
much benefit instead of using the coal and oil (Mokhatab, S., M. and Pourafshari Chenar, 2014; Nemati Rouzbahani, A.,
Poe, W. and Mak, 2019). The natural gas produced from Bahmani, M., Shariati, J., Tohidian, T. and Rahimpour,
underground revisor and contain huge quantity of light 2014).
hydrocarbon as methane and contain small amount of the
heavy hydrocarbon like pentane and hexane C6+ and II. PROCESS DESCRIPTION
containing non hydrocarbon as water, nitrogen and hydrogen Within the process package, the gas is treated to remove the
sulfide (Rahimpour, 2013; Wang, X. and Economides, 2013; water and heavy hydrocarbons to meet the sales gas water dew
Bahadori, 2014). And one of the main purposes of natural gas point and hydrocarbon dew point specifications (Abu Bakar,
treatment is to improve the purity of the gas and to separate W. and Ali, 2010; Basafa, M. and Pourafshari Chenar, 2014;
the heavy hydrocarbon from the light hydrocarbon and to Nemati Rouzbahani, A., Bahmani, M., Shariati, J., Tohidian,
remove the contained water vapor (Farag, H., Ezzat, M., T. and Rahimpour, 2014; Bhran, 2015; Felicia, R. &
Amer, H. and Nashed, 2011; Kong, Z., Mahmoud, A., Liu, S. Evbuomwan, 2015; Sayed, 2017). The gas stream entering the
and Sunarso, 2018; Shoaib, A., Bhran, A., Awad, M., process package is routed to the Inlet Knock out Drum to
El-Sayed, N. and Fathy, 2018). The water is big problem in remove liquid that condensed in the upstream Inlet Cooler.
the oil and gas industry it can accelerate the corrosion and for The separated liquid is sent to the Inlet Separator for
the natural gar the water can reduce the heating value of the recovery. The gas stream is then passed through the
natural gas and the main problem water causes the hydrate Gas/Liquid Heat Exchanger tube side followed by the
formation. So the dehydration process is must be included in Gas/Gas Heat Exchanger tube side to cool down initially by
gas processing. And the main purpose for the dehydration cold process liquid and gas streams, respectively, from the
Low Temperature Separator (LTS).
Revised Manuscript Received on July 05, 2019 Lean MEG is injected onto the tube sheets of the
Ahmed Al Shehhi, MIE Department, College of Engineering, National exchangers within the process package to inhibit hydrate and
University of Science and Technology, Muscat ,Oman. ice formation at locations where pressure and temperature
M.J.Varghese, Caledonian Center for Creativity and Innovation,
National University of Science and Technology, Muscat, Oman. conditions are within the predicted hydrate/ice formation
Lakkim Rao, MIE Department, College of Engineering, National region.
University of Science and Technology, Muscat ,Oman.
Santosh Walke, MIE Department, College of Engineering, National
University of Science and Technology, Muscat ,Oman.
..

Retrieval Number I7622078919/19©BEIESP Published By:

DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.I7622.078919 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
644 & Sciences Publication
 Process Simulation and Optimization of Natural Gas Dehydration Process using Aspen Hysys

Figure 1: Simulation of MEG Plant

These locations are the Gas/Liquid Heat Exchanger tube while the separated rich MEG flows to the MRU for water
side inlet, the Gas/Gas Heat Exchanger tube side, and the inlet gas stream temperature is 30 ℃ and the pressure is 4000
Chiller tube side inlet to Pass One and tube side inlet to Pass kpa and molar flow 3984 kgmole/h equivalent to 80
Two. Lean MEG is supplied from the MEG Regeneration MMSCFD as shown in Table 2:
Unit (MRU). The gas is cooled further against propane in the Table 2: Feed Conditions
Chiller to achieve the temperature required for gas
dehydration and hydrocarbon dew pointing (Wang, X. and Temperature C 30
Economides, 2013). The cold propane is supplied from the Pressure kPa 4000
Propane Refrigeration Unit (PRU).
Molar Flow kgmole/h 3984.56
7
Table 1: Feed composition
Mass Flow kg/h 76540.1
Component Fraction 3
Comp Mole Frac (Methane) 0.858 Liquid Volume m3/h 225.077
Flow 8
Comp Mole Frac (Ethane) 0.0516
Composition is mainly methane with other components are
Comp Mole Frac (Propane) 0.0219 shown in the table below including the H2O and the C7+ as it
Comp Mole Frac (i-Butane) 0.0059 shown in Table 1.
Comp Mole Frac (n-Butane) 0.0072 Lean MEG is pumped from the MRU and injected into
various heat exchangers within the gas dehydration process
Comp Mole Frac (i-Pentane) 0.0045 where it suppresses the hydrate formation temperature and
Comp Mole Frac (n-Pentane) 0.0039 allows the gas to be chilled without hydrate formation or
Comp Mole Frac (n-Hexane) 0.0007 freezing. Rich MEG is collected in the boot of the
Comp Mole Frac (Nitrogen) 0.0364 Condensate/Glycol Separator within the dehydration unit and
is returned to the MRU, which is designed to remove water,
Comp Mole Frac (H2O) 0.0002 small amounts of hydrocarbons and minor amounts of solids
Comp Mole Frac (EGlycol) 0 contaminants from the Rich MEG.
Comp Mole Frac (CO2) 0.0089 The Rich MEG is first heated in the Glycol Reflux Condenser
Comp Mole Frac (c7+*) Tube Bundle and the Glycol/Glycol Exchanger before passing
0.0008
to the Glycol Flash Separator to separate the entrained light
hydrocarbons.
The cooled gas exiting the Chiller is passed to the LTS
The flashed gas is sent to the LP flare. The MEG is then
which performs final separation of liquid from the gas stream.
routed to the Glycol Still Column. The Rich MEG flows
The dew pointed gas from the LTS then flows through the
downwards through the Glycol Still Column packing and into
Gas/Gas Heat Exchanger shell side where it is heated through
the Glycol Regenerator for bulk water removal. The Glycol
exchange with the cold upstream gas on the tube side before
Regenerator temperature is maintained by circulating hot oil
being sent to the Sales Gas Compressors (SGCs) for
through its tube bundle. The heat vaporizes water from the
compression to the export gas pipeline pressure. As it shown
MEG, thereby enabling the glycol-water separation and
in fig1. Meanwhile, the separated liquid in the LTS flows to
regenerating the MEG. The vaporized water continues
the Gas/Liquid Heat Exchanger to remove heat from the
through the overhead Reflux Condenser and is sent directly to
upstream process. It is then sent to a Condensate/Glycol
the Flare. The Reflux Condenser condenses some water and
Heater to be heated by hot oil, in order to improve the liquids
MEG, reducing MEG losses.
separation performance between condensate and MEG in the
The Lean MEG from the
Condensate/Glycol Separator. Separated condensate from the
Glycol Regenerator
Condensate/Glycol Separator is sent to the CSU for treatment

Retrieval Number I7622078919/19©BEIESP Published By:

DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.I7622.078919 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
645 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE)
ISSN: 2278-3075, Volume-8 Issue-9, July 2019

overflows to the MEG outlet and is then cooled in the US Dollar per year as extra from changing the pressure of the
Glycol/Glycol Exchanger, through heat exchange with the inlet fluid from 35 bar to 51 bar. And here fig 3 shows the
Rich MEG, before it is sent to the Glycol Surge Drum. And influence of pressure of the inlet fluid changing on the
the MEG injection stream quantity and temperature and flow quantity of the natural gas liquid NGL by Expander
rate are shown the Table 3 technology. Different pressure forces was applied to find the
Table 3: MEG Injection Stream optimum pressure to maximize the Natural gas liquid
production NGL and the simulation results show the optimum
inlet pressure is 9800 kpa which equals to 98 bar to produce
Temperature C 50 1195 bbl./d of NGL while with low pressure as set on 3500
Pressure kPa 4495 kpa or 35 bar 478 bbl./d with difference of 717 bbl./d and
according to oil price in may 2019 as we assume the oil price
is 65 US Dollar it will be exported and the profit will increase
Molar Flow kgmole/h 40.17004
as extra 1398150 US Dollar per month. And for more
accuracy will be 17022476.25 US Dollar per year as extra
Mass Flow kg/h 2458.294 from changing the pressure of the inlet fluid from 35 bar to 98
bar. But with pressure 8200 kpa 82 bar the natural gas liquid
production was 1160 bbl./d which 35bbl./d less and 1600 kpa
Liquid Volume Flow m3/h 2.214724 less 16 bar less which is safest and will lead to select
equipment with pressure design less than that will be used for
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 98 bar which will be cheaper in the price and more safe to run
the processing plant with lower pressure.
1. Optimum inlet pressure to maximize NGL.

The result from this simulation applied on two technique

which is dehydration and hydrocarbon dew point by using
chiller which exchange the temperature with external
refrigerant stream, and the second technique is by using
expander to expand the pressure which will lead to drop the
temperature. Here the variables were applied on different inlet
pressure to find and maximize the natural gas liquid NGL
production by increasing and reducing the inlet fluid
temperature. And it was for both technique with chiller
technique and expander technique. As the variables change
was applied by linking Excel to aspen HYSYS as it was
discussed in the previous chapter. Here in fig 2 it shows the Figure 3: NGL vs Inlet pressure with expander
influence of pressure of the inlet fluid changing on the
quantity of the natural gas liquid NGL by chiller technology. And as comparison between the two techniques as it shown in
fig 4:

Figure 4: Expander vs Chiller to produce NGL

Figure 2: NGL vs Inlet Pressure from the simulation result it shows the optimum inlet pressure
for the chiller technique is 51 bar with natural gas liquid
Different pressure forces was applied to find the optimum production is 750 bbl./d and for the expander technique is 82
pressure to maximize the Natural gas liquid production NGL bar with natural gas liquid production 1160 bbl./d the
and the simulation results show the optimum inlet pressure is difference is 410 bbl./d as if we assume the bbl. price 65 US
5100 kpa which equals to 51 bar to produce 750 bbl./d of dollars it will be extra 799500 US dollar per month and
NGL while with low pressure as set on 3500 kpa or 35 bar 644 9733912.5 US Dollar per
bbl./d with difference of 106 bbl./d and according to oil price year. From changing
in may 2019 as we assume the oil price is 65 US Dollar it will between the optimum inlet
be exported and the profit will increase as extra 206700 US pressure from Chiller to
Dollar per month. And for more accuracy will be 2516572.5

Retrieval Number I7622078919/19©BEIESP Published By:

DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.I7622.078919 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
646 & Sciences Publication
 Process Simulation and Optimization of Natural Gas Dehydration Process using Aspen Hysys

expander. While for same pressure of the optimum inlet

pressure to chiller applied to expander 51 bar for expander
produce 834 bbl./d the difference is 84 bbl./d that will be
163800 US dollar per month and 1994265 US dollars per
year. The votes go to use expander technique.

2. Glycol regenerator temperature.

The result from this simulation applied on two solvent for

moisture absorption and anti-freezing. Mono ethylene glycol
MEG and Diethylene glycol DEG. And that was aimed to
evaluate the glycol losses and the purity versus the regenerator
temperate. As the regenerator working to heat up the glycol to Figure 7: DEG losses vs glycol regenerator temp
evaporate the water content and the hydrocarbon content from
the glycol to make it is lean glycol to recycled and reused The simulation result shows the DEG losses when the
within the process. And the result shows the mono ethylene regenerator temperature is 111℃ the losses is 6.5 litter per
glycol losses in fig 5: day and the lowest losses is 4.5 litter when the glycol
regenerator temperature is 156℃. The difference only two
litter. And the simulation shows when the glycol regenerator
temperature is 156℃. The losses are 8.3 litter and the
suggestion are to stick with 120℃ to avoid the huge energy
consumption.
Fig 8 shows the MEG purities versus the glycol regenerator
temperature. And as comparison between the two solvent
losses as it shown in fig 9:

Figure 5: Regenerator Temperature vs Glycol MEG

losses
The results shows the MEG solvent losses on 100℃, 24 litter
per day and on 120℃ the losses is 34 Litter per day which is
acceptable and the results shows that when the regenerator
temperature increased the losses is increasing and on the
temperature of the regenerator 130 ℃ the losses rich to 103
litter per day and according the outlet composition 120℃ Figure 8: DEG Purities
perfect operating temperature for the regenerator and fig 6
shows the MEG purities versus the glycol regenerator
temperature.

Figure 9: (MEG vs DEG) losses vs glycol regenerator

temp
The compression between the losses of the Mono ethylene
glycol MEG and diethylene glycol DEG shows the losses of
Figure 6: MEG Purities
Here fig 7 shows the influence of the variance glycol the MEG is much more than the DEG. It shows on 110℃ for
regenerator temperature of the Diethylene glycol DEG. the MEG the losses are 28 litter while for same temperature
for the DEG the losses are
6.5 litter. And for 120℃ for
the MEG the losses are 34.5
litter while for same

Retrieval Number I7622078919/19©BEIESP Published By:

DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.I7622.078919 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
647 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE)
ISSN: 2278-3075, Volume-8 Issue-9, July 2019

temperature for the DEG the losses are 6.2 litter. The Methane and ethane in the condensate stream is 0.33 m3/h and
suggestion and the vote is to use the DEG instead of using the the recycle gas stream shows same 0.33m3/h. and when the
MEG. temperature of the LTS is -10℃ the condensate stream has
4.65 m3/h equals to 702 bbl./d and the quantity of the light
3. Low Temperature Separator temperature. hydrocarbon Methane and ethane in the condensate stream is
The simulation was aimed to study the influence of LTS 0.75 m3/h and the recycle gas stream shows 0.67m3/h. and
temperature on the export gas and the glycol condensate when the temperature of the LTS is -20℃ the condensate
separator. The results show the quantity of heavy hydrocarbon stream has 7.5 m3/h equals to 1132 bbl./d and the quantity of
C6+ in the export gas and the quantity of light hydrocarbon C1 the light hydrocarbon Methane and ethane in the condensate
& C2 in the condensate stream that going to condensate stream is 1.46 m3/h and the recycle gas stream shows 1.24
stabilizer unit. The influence of LTS temperature on the m3/h. which mean is very high quantity of the recycle gas and
export gas contaminated of the heavy hydro carbon as it methane and ethane.
shown in fig 10. The result shows when the temperature of the 4. Feed versus the export
LTS is 0℃ the heavy hydrocarbon C6+ is 0.057% and when The results show the Feed stream versus the export gas stream
the LTS temperature is -10℃ the heavy hydrocarbon is and the quantity of butane and pentane and water that has been
0.029% almost the half and when the temperature of the LTS separated by the simulation as it shows in fig 12 and Table 4:
is -20℃ the heavy hydrocarbon C6+ is 0.014%. while the
-10℃ is really shows perfect results comparing with energy
consumption. And here the results shows LTS temperature vs
glycol condensate separator outlet streams and quantity of
light hydrocarbon in the condensate stream and the recycle
gas stream as it shown in fig 11:

Figure 12: Feed Vs Export

Figure 10: LTS temp vs C6+ in export gas

Table 4: Feed vs Export
Mole Fraction
Component
Feed Export
Comp Mole Frac (Methane) 0.858 0.867476
Comp Mole Frac (Ethane) 0.0516 0.051242
Comp Mole Frac (Propane) 0.0219 0.020499

Comp Mole Frac (Butane) 0.0131 0.010447

Comp Mole Frac (Pentane) 0.0084 0.004354

Comp Mole Frac (n-Hexane) 0.0007 0.000146

Comp Mole Frac (Nitrogen) 0.0364 0.036889
Comp Mole Frac (H2O) 0.0002 0.000003
Figure 11: LTS temperature vs glycol condensate Comp Mole Frac (EGlycol) 0 0
separator outlet streams
Comp Mole Frac (CO2) 0.0089 0.008901
The results shows reducing the temperature of the LTS causes Comp Mole Frac (c7+*) 0.0008 0.000043
increasing of the NGL in condensate stream but also it
increase the quantity of light hydrocarbon in the condensate The results shows that the butane in the feed was 0.0131 mole
stream which will lead to very unsterilized condensate which fraction and in the export stream is 0.01044 mole fractions
will be in the recycle gas again to reprocessed and also it and the pentane in the feed was 0.0084 mole fractions and in
shows the recycle gas stream of the glycol condensate the export stream is 0.004354 mole fraction which is almost
separator get more gas to be recycled through recycle gas the half and the n-hexane in
compressor. The results show when the temperature of the the feed stream was 0.0007
LTS is -1℃ the condensate stream has 2.41 m3/h equals to and in the export stream is
363.8 bbl./d and the quantity of the light hydrocarbon 0.000146 mole fraction

Retrieval Number I7622078919/19©BEIESP Published By:

DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.I7622.078919 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
648 & Sciences Publication
 Process Simulation and Optimization of Natural Gas Dehydration Process using Aspen Hysys

almost 80% separated. And the water from 0.0002 mole 8. S. W. K.Abdulla, “Simulation of Pumps by Aspen Plus,” Int. J. Eng.
Sci. Innov. Technol., vol. 4, no. 3, 2015.
fraction in the feed stream to 0.000003 mole fraction in the
9. T. A. and S. Walke, “Simulation of Process Equipment by using
export stream. And the C7+ component contained in the feed Hysys,” Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl., vol. 1, no. 1, 2012.
was 0.0008 and in the export stream is 0.000043 almost 95% 10. [10] V. S. S. S.M.Walke, “Experimental Study on Comparison of
separated. Rising Velocity of Bubbles and Light Weight Particles in the Bubble
According to Aspen process economic analyzer the cost Column,” Int. J. Chem. Eng. Appl., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 15–25, 2012.
11. J. Son, H., Kim, Y., Park, S., Binns, M. and Kim, “Simulation and
shown in the result is based on 2013 third quarter. And it modeling of MEG (Monoethylene Glycol) regeneration for the
shows that the expander has more cost to purchase and install estimation of energy and MEG losses.,” Energy, vol. 157, pp. 10–18,
than that for the chiller but the chiller will need external 2018.
refrigerant as propane compressor and that has another cost to 12. S. W. RS Al Ziedi, “Design and Simulation of Hydrogen Peroxide
Plant,” J. Adv. Civ. Eng., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 32–36, 2018.
spend for purchasing and maintenance while the expander has 13. U. Sakheta, A. and Zahid, “Process simulation of dehydration unit for
only its own and it will generate more profit from the the comparative analysis of natural gas processing and carbon capture
increasing the NGL production. application,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des., vol. 137, pp. 75–88, 2018.
14. K. TK, I., RK2, A., FH, K. and IM, “The Impact of Stripping Gas Flow
Rate on Triethylene Glycol Losses from Glycol Regeneration Unit:
CONCLUSION. Simulation Study.,” J. Chem. Eng. Process Technol., vol. 8, no. 13,
2017.
This study carried to study the influence of the operating 15. R. Abu Bakar, W. and Ali, Natural Gas. 2010.
conditions on Natural Gas Dehydration Process. The results 16. M. Basafa, M. and Pourafshari Chenar, “Modeling, Simulation, and
Economic Assessment of Membrane-Based Gas Dehydration System
after replacement MEG by DEG are analysed and critical and Comparison with Other Natural Gas Dehydration Processes,” Sep.
evaluation of the influence of replacement the Chiller by a Sci. Technol., vol. 49, no. 16, pp. 2465–2477, 2014.
turbo expander refrigeration technique on the DPCU 17. M. Nemati Rouzbahani, A., Bahmani, M., Shariati, J., Tohidian, T. and
operation is studied for maximization of the NGL production. Rahimpour, “Simulation, optimization, and sensitivity analysis of a
natural gas dehydration unit,” J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng., vol. 21, pp.
The optimum inlet pressure obtained of refrigeration process
159–169, 2014.
was 51 bar and for the Expander it was 82 bar. The MEG 18. A. Sayed, “Integrated process development for an optimum gas
losses was 34 litter per day when the regenerator temperature processing plant,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des., vol. 124, no. 10, pp.
is 120℃, while the DEG losses was very less as 6.1 when the 114–123, 2017.
regenerator temperature is 120℃ and the suggestions to use 19. A. Bhran, “Maximization of natural gas liquids production from an
existing gas plant,” Egypt. J. Pet., vol. 253, no. 9, pp. 333–341, 2015.
DEG instead of MEG to avoid the huge losses. For 20. B. Felicia, R. & Evbuomwan, “Optimization Of Natural Gas
maximizing the natural gas liquid the chiller was produce 750 Dehydration Using Triethylene Glycol (Teg).,” J. Multidiscip. Eng.
bbl./d while the expander process produces 1160 bbl./d with Sci. Technol., vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 2776–2779, 2015.
optimum inlet pressure. The study suggest to use expander to
get more profit, and also the best option is to use the turbo
expander to recover the waste energy from the export gas
compressors. The study carried to find the influence of LTS
temperature on the naturel gas liquid which shows that the
reducing the temperature of the LTS causes increase in the
NGL in condensate stream but also it increase the quantity of
light hydrocarbon in the condensate stream which will lead to
very unsterilized condensate which will be in the recycle gas
again to reprocessed and also it shows the recycle gas stream
of the glycol condensate separator get more gas to be recycled
through recycle gas compressor.

REFERENCES

1. J. Mokhatab, S., Poe, W. and Mak, Process Modeling and Simulation

of Gas Processing Plants Handbook of Natural Gas Transmission and
Processing. 2019.
2. R. Rahimpour, “Improvement of natural gas dehydration performance
by optimization of operating conditions: A case study in Sarkhun gas
processing plant.,” Nat. Gas Sci. Eng., vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 118–126,
2013.
3. A. Bahadori, Natural gas processing. Amsterdam: GPP: Gulf
Professional Publ./Elsevier, 2014.
4. M. Wang, X. and Economides, Advanced Natural Gas Engineering.
Burlington: Elsevier Science, 2013.
5. A. Farag, H., Ezzat, M., Amer, H. and Nashed, “Natural gas
dehydration by desiccant materials,” Alexandria Eng. J., vol. 50, no. 4,
pp. 431–439, 2011.
6. T. Shoaib, A., Bhran, A., Awad, M., El-Sayed, N. and Fathy,
“Optimum operating conditions for improving natural gas dew point
and condensate throughput.,” J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng., vol. 49, pp.
324–330, 2018.
7. J. Kong, Z., Mahmoud, A., Liu, S. and Sunarso, “Revamping existing
glycol technologies in natural gas dehydration to improve the purity
and absorption efficiency: Available methods and recent
developments.,” J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng., vol. 56, p. .486-503, 2018.

Retrieval Number I7622078919/19©BEIESP Published By:

DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.I7622.078919 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
649 & Sciences Publication