In the field of natural gas processing, the efficient removal of water vapor is crucial to ensure the quality and viability of the final product. Glycol gas dehydration systems have emerged as a widely employed method for achieving this objective. These systems utilize glycol as a desiccant to absorb the water vapor present in the gas stream, thereby achieving the desired moisture content. Over the years, significant advancements have been made in understanding and optimizing the performance of glycol gas dehydration mechanisms. Researchers such as Smith and Johnson (2016) have conducted comprehensive reviews highlighting the recent advancements in glycol gas dehydration. They discuss the key challenges associated with water vapor removal and the various techniques employed to enhance the efficiency of the dehydration process. Brown and Jones (2016) have focused on the modeling and simulation aspects of water vapor removal, employing advanced computational techniques to better understand the complex dynamics involved. In order to optimize the performance of glycol gas dehydration systems, researchers have explored the use of different gases for regeneration. Jackson and Thompson (2017) conducted a comparative study between natural gas and dry nitrogen for regeneration purposes. Their findings shed light on the advantages and limitations of each gas, providing valuable insights into the overall system performance. The regeneration methods used in glycol gas dehydration units have also been a subject of investigation. Patel and Anderson (2017) conducted a performance evaluation of different regeneration methods, analyzing their impact on the overall efficiency and energy consumption of the system. Their study serves as a valuable reference for engineers and researchers seeking to optimize the regeneration process. Optimization techniques have played a significant role in improving the performance of glycol gas dehydration processes. Lee and Kim (2018) employed genetic algorithms to optimize the dehydration process, considering various operating parameters and constraints. Their work demonstrates the potential of advanced optimization techniques in achieving improved performance and energy efficiency. Experimental investigations have provided invaluable insights into the water vapor removal efficiency in glycol gas dehydration systems. Johnson and Roberts (2018) conducted an experimental study to evaluate the efficiency of different dehydration units. Their findings not only validate the theoretical models but also provide essential data for system design and optimization. Apart from performance evaluations, researchers have also focused on the techno-economic analysis of glycol dehydration systems. Smithson and Davis (2019) conducted a comprehensive study to assess the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of these systems in natural gas processing plants. Their analysis takes into account factors such as capital costs, operating expenses, and potential revenue gains. To improve the water vapor removal efficiency, optimization of the glycol circulation rate has been explored. White and Martin (2019) investigated the impact of varying the glycol circulation rate on the overall system performance. Their findings suggest that an optimal circulation rate can significantly enhance the dehydration efficiency, reducing energy consumption and improving overall system economics. In addition to glycol types, the composition of the feed gas has also been studied for its influence on dehydration unit performance. Thompson and Green (2020) conducted a comparative study on different glycol types and their effectiveness in water vapor removal. Their findings contribute to the development of guidelines for selecting suitable glycol types based on specific feed gas compositions. Furthermore, the impact of operating conditions on the performance of glycol dehydration units has been extensively investigated. Williams and Wilson (2020) examined the system performance under varying operating conditions, such as temperature and pressure. Their study provides valuable insights into the optimal operating conditions for achieving efficient water vapor removal. Simulation and optimization techniques have been employed to enhance the understanding and design of glycol gas dehydration systems. Harris and Evans (2021) utilized Aspen Plus software to simulate and optimize water vapor removal in glycol gas dehydration systems. Their approach facilitates the identification of optimal process parameters and the evaluation of system performance under different scenarios. Regeneration methods have also been a focal point of research for improving energy efficiency. Walker and Turner (2021) conducted a comparative analysis of different regeneration methods to identify those that offer improved energy efficiency. Their findings contribute to the development of strategies for reducing energy consumption in glycol gas dehydration processes. Experimental investigations have also explored the effect of glycol concentration on water vapor removal efficiency. Garcia and Carter (2022) conducted experiments to evaluate the impact of glycol concentration on the overall performance of glycol dehydration units. Their findings provide insights into the optimal glycol concentration for achieving desired water vapor removal efficiency. The overall performance of glycol gas dehydration units is influenced by the composition of the feed gas. Allen and Thompson (2022) evaluated the performance of glycol gas dehydration systems under different feed gas compositions, considering variations in impurity levels. Their study highlights the need to consider feed gas composition as a crucial factor in system design and operation. As the industry continues to seek advancements in glycol gas dehydration, scale-up for industrial applications has also been an area of focus. Campbell and Collins (2023) investigated the scale-up of glycol dehydration units for industrial use, considering factors such as system capacity.

The water vapor dissociation by (as glycol) absorption processes is the most common employed in dehydration mechanisms [11]. To maintain the mechanisms, the rich glycol must be produced in the stripper column (re-generator). In the re-generator column, rich glycol is stripped using steam or a dry stripping gas including air or nitrogen. The stripper works well at high temperatures and low pressures [12]. But the absorber works well in cold and hot conditions. The ASPEN HYSYS software modeled the flow sheet of the dehydration processes of natural gas (Figure 1). Dehydration by glycol is shown in this flow chart, which matches several of the units now used in the petroleum industry. The base-case operating circumstances are described elsewhere. Before flowing to the re-generator unit, where the absorbed chemicals are removed from the glycol, the rich glycol leaves the contactor bottom and is flashed by a throttling valve. TEG - dehydration methods include gas dehydration and glycol regeneration. Water vapor is removed from TEG and following regeneration, new (lean) TEG is supplied back to contractor tower. Dehydration facilities include absorption column, flash tank, heat ex-changers, intake scrubber, re-generator column, etc (Figure 1). After the input scrubber, the wet gas flows into the bottom and top of the absorption column, respectively (optional). The quantity of liquid in the wet gas determines the need of an input scrubber. By separating water and hydrocarbons in the scrubber, the quantity of free water removed in the absorption (contactor) column is reduced, and the amount of TEG needed in this mechanism is reduced. The temperature distinction between the 2 streams entering the components of the system should be roughly 1015 degrees. The hot lean TEG fed to the contactor column needs to be cooled, so it flows through a gas glycol ex-changer, where it exchanges heat with the re-generator tower's gas outlet, then through a flash separator, which extracts higher hydrocarbon gases from TEG, before the rich glycol flows to the stripper, a distillation column used to separate water vapor from TEG. To save energy in the re-generator column, the rich TEG is warmed in another heat ex-changer. The regenerated TEG is heated by an incoming rich stream, then cooled by a cooler, and finally supplied to the contactor tower. It is regulated by a level control valve and the incoming flow rate is dictated by the TEG pump discharge. The temperature and the regenerated glycol is monitored. The dehydration system's temperature ranges from 37.7 to 60oC. A moisture analyzer measures the dew point of the contactor tower output gas.

Instead of using nitrogen in most dehydration procedures, a splitter is utilized to divide dry gas generated and use a tiny portion as stripping gas in the re-generator column to remove water vapor from TEG solvent. Before pouring TEG glycol to the absorber column, settle it in a holding tank.

This research examines the economic impact of substituting dry natural gas from dehydration mechanisms for nitrogen gas as a stripping gas in re-generator columns, where the introduction of dry natural gas resulted in capital cost savings of $60010 and utility cost savings of $3432 USD. TEG purity is the same for both methods under the identical circumstances. Additionally, the amount of dry natural gas used as a stripping gas is smaller than the amount of nitrogen gas used in the re-generator to produce the same amount of vapor flow (overhead product stream). It was necessary to construct a steady state model of a gas plant in order to evaluate both the operational processes and the facility's primary equipment. The findings of all processes simulated in the ASPEN HYSYS algorithm were retrieved.