6.5.1 Evaluation of Comparison for scenario H14
For equilibrium-based simulation in Aspen Plus and Aspen HYSYS the results were very similar. The average temperature for each EM-profile was higher for the simulations in Aspen Plus than the simulations in Aspen HYSYS. For scenario H14 the average temperature for EM=SF1 and EM=SF2 was 1.3°C higher in Aspen Plus. The temperature were 2.4°C, 2.6°C and 2.9°C for EM=Zhu, EM=Lin and EM=0.1 respectively. The rich loading is almost exactly the same for Aspen Plus and Aspen HYSYS, the small deviations are assumed to be because the removal grade is calculated with EM-factor of three decimals. If the removal grade was calculated to an accurate 90% for all EM-profiles the deviations between rich loading in Aspen Plus and Aspen HYSYS is assumed to be 0.0004, because this is the deviation between EM=Zhu (HYSYS) and EM=Lin (Plus) which both have an accurate removal grade of 90.00%.
Scenario H14 is one of the scenarios where rate-based couldn’t predict accurate removal grade. With highest predicted removal grade =88.82%, the rate-based model predicted rich loading of 0.4894, which is closer to performance data than equilibrium-based model, by 0.0030. The temperature on the other hand, deviates a lot from performance temperature.
For scenario H14 the best fit for temperature profile was EM=SF1 and EM=SF2 in HYSYS.
6.5.2 Evaluation of Comparison for scenario 2B5
For scenario 2B5 the temperature deviation between Aspen Plus and Aspen HYSYS less visible than for Scenario H14. For scenario 2B5 the average temperature for EM=SF1 was 0.07 °C higher in Aspen Plus. The temperature were 0,05°C, 0.2°C, 0.4°C and 1.1°C for EM=SF2, EM=Zhu, EM=Lin and EM=0.1 respectively. The rich loading is higher in Aspen Plus than in Aspen HYSYS. If the removal grade was calculated to an accurate 87.30% for all EM-profiles the deviations between rich loading in Aspen Plus and Aspen HYSYS is assumed to be 0.0250, because this is the deviation between EM
=SF1 (HYSYS) and EM =0.1 (Plus) which both have an accurate removal grade of 87.30%.
Scenario 2B5 is the other scenario where rate-based couldn’t predict accurate removal grade. With the highest predicted removal grade =86.14%, the rate-based model predicted rich loading of 0.4857, which is between equilibrium-based model in Aspen HYSYS and Aspen Plus, where Aspen Plus is closest to performance data (0.5000).
The temperature profile deviates a lot from performance temperature.
For scenario 2B5 the best fit for temperature profile was EM=Lin in Plus and HYSYS.
6.5.3 Evaluation of Comparison for scenario 6w
For scenario 6w the average temperature for EM=SF1, EM=SF2 and EM=Zhu was 0.06
°C higher in Aspen Plus. The temperature were 1.1°C higher in Aspen Plus for EM=0.1 and 0.06 °C lower in Aspen Plus for EM=Lin. If the removal grade had been calculated to an accurate 79.00% for all EM-profiles the deviations between rich loading in Aspen Plus and Aspen HYSYS is assumed to be 0.0007, because this is the deviation between EM=SF2 & EM =Lin (Plus) and EM =Lin & EM =0.1 (HYSYS) which have an removal grade of 79.04 and 79.03%.
For Scenario 6w the rate-based model was able to estimate removal grade to 79.04%
and rich loading to be 0.4870. From performance data the rich loading is 0.4600 which is between equilibrium-based (0.4418) and rate-based (0.4870), where Aspen HYSYS is closest to performance data. The temperature profile lays between the fitted EM -profiles and EM=0.1
For scenario 6w the best fit for temperature profile was EM=SF2 and EM=Lin in Plus.
6.5.4 Evaluation of Comparison for scenario Goal1
For scenario Goal1 the average temperature for EM=SF1, EM=SF2 and EM=Zhu was 1.9
°C higher in Aspen Plus. The temperature were 2.0°C and 2.1°C for EM=Lin and EM=0.1 respectively. If the removal grade had been calculated to an accurate 90.10%
for all EM-profiles the deviations between rich loading in Aspen Plus and Aspen HYSYS is assumed to be 0.0004, because this is the deviation between EM =Lin in Plus and HYSYS.
For Scenario Goal1 the rate-based model was able to estimate removal grade to 90.11%
and rich loading to be 0.4870. From performance data the rich loading is 0.5000, all models have very similar values for rich loading but Aspen HYSYS is closest to performance data, followed by equilibrium-based in Aspen Plus, and rate-based last.
The rate-base temperature profile lays is very close to EM=Lin (Plus).
For scenario Goal1 the best fit for temperature profile was EM=SF1, EM=SF2 and EM=Zhu in HYSYS.
6.5.5 Evaluation of Comparison for scenario F17
For scenario F17 the average temperature for each EM-profile was higher for the simulations in Aspen HYSYS than the simulations in Aspen Plus. The average temperature for EM=SF1 and EM=SF2 was 0.6°C higher in Aspen HYSYS. The temperature were 0.5°C, 0.4°C and 0.3°C for EM=Zhu, EM=Lin and EM=0.1 respectively. If the removal grade had been calculated to an accurate 83.50% for all EM -profiles the deviations between rich loading in Aspen Plus and Aspen HYSYS is assumed to be 0.0500, because this is the deviation between EM=SF2 (HYSYS) and EM=0.1 (Plus) which both have an accurate removal grade of 83.50%.
For Scenario F17 the rate-based model was able to estimate removal grade to 83.48%
and rich loading to be 0.4836. From performance data the rich loading is 0.4800. For this scenario Aspen Plus rate-based and equilibrium-based model is very similar and closest to performance data, while equilibrium-based in HYSYS is off by 0.0400. The rate-base temperature profile lays is very close to EM=Lin (HYSYS).
For scenario F17 the best fit for temperature profile was EM=SF1 and EM=SF2 in HYSYS.
By the results from these simulation it looks like there is very small deviations between the equilibrium-based model in Aspen Plus and Aspen HYSYS. The temperature profiles seem to have higher average temperatures in Aspen Plus, even though this is not accurate for all EM -profiles in all scenarios.
The overall best fit for temperature profile have been for equilibrium-based model in Aspen HYSYS, with EM-profiles EM=SF1, EM=SF2 and EM=Lin. Lin have had the best fit for scenario 2B5 and 6w, but like mentioned earlier, these scenarios have four sets of measurements. And if data set A had been removed the average line is assumed to fit EM=SF1 and EM=SF2.
The overall best fit for rich loading have been alternately equally good for equilibrium-based model in Aspen HYSYS and Aspen Plus.
When all factors are added up the best predictions for all parameters where achieved by equilibrium-based model in Aspen HYSYS.