Seminar Nasional Teknologi, Energi dan Mineral (SNTEM) 2024

Summary

This presentation covers the analysis of separator efficiency, focusing on the concept of 'resident time' for fluid separation based on density. The separator’s design, operational conditions, and efficiency are evaluated, with a detailed calculation of resident times for gas, light liquid, and heavy liquid. The findings indicate that the gas phase has a shorter resident time, leading to potential carryover of liquid into the gas phase. Solutions such as PES control and flow optimization are proposed to mitigate this issue, ensuring more effective separation. The study emphasizes the importance of terminal velocity and design adjustments in optimizing separator performance.

Takeaways

• 😀 The analysis focuses on the effectiveness of residence time in separators used for phase separation based on density.
• 😀 The main principles of separation discussed include Gravity Settling, Turbulent Flow, Baffle, and Extraction.
• 😀 The separation standards referenced in the script are based on API Standard 12J and GPIS (Gas Processing Suppliers Association).
• 😀 A critical parameter for separator performance is the 'Residence Time,' which measures how long fluids remain in the separator.
• 😀 The separator's design dimensions include a diameter of 1700 mm and a length of 4800 mm, with hold-up and volume of 16.225 m³ and 16.1684 m³ respectively.
• 😀 The separator operates under conditions of 402.2 PSIG pressure and 125°F, producing residence times of 1.51 seconds for gas, 2073 seconds for light liquid, and 240 seconds for heavy liquid.
• 😀 Terminal velocity for gas and liquid phases were calculated as 0.075 m/s and 0.05 m/s, respectively, with terminal velocity being higher than paper velocity, which supports phase separation.
• 😀 Short residence time for gas compared to liquid phases increases the risk of carryover, where liquid droplets may be carried with the gas phase.
• 😀 To mitigate carryover, control of pressure, flow rate, and system optimization are recommended to reduce liquid carryover in the gas phase.
• 😀 The separator design is deemed adequate based on terminal velocity, residence time, and the overall risk of carryover, with suggestions for pressure and flow optimization to enhance separation efficiency.

Q & A

What is the main focus of the analysis presented in the script?

The main focus is on the effectiveness of residence time in a separator, which is designed to separate fluids based on their density using principles like gravity settling, turbulence, and extraction.

What are the key design parameters of the separator discussed in the script?

The separator has a diameter of 1700 mm, a length of 4800 mm, and a total volume of 16.225 m³ (hold-up) and 16.1684 m³ (working volume).

What are the operational conditions of the separator during the analysis?

The separator operates at a pressure of 402.2 psig and a temperature of 125°F.

What is the residence time for the gas phase in the separator?

The residence time for the gas phase is 1.51 seconds.

How does the residence time for the light liquid and heavy liquid phases compare to the gas phase?

The residence time for the light liquid phase is 2073 seconds, and for the heavy liquid phase, it is 240 seconds, both of which are significantly longer than the gas phase residence time.

What are the terminal and paper velocities mentioned in the script, and how do they relate to the separator's efficiency?

The terminal velocity is 0.075 m/s, and the paper velocity is 0.05 m/s. Since the terminal velocity is higher than the paper velocity, it indicates that the separator can effectively separate the gas and liquid phases.

What risk is associated with the separator based on the residence time analysis?

The primary risk identified is carryover, where liquid droplets may be carried over into the gas phase due to the shorter residence time of the gas.

How can carryover be mitigated in the separator system?

Carryover can be reduced through better flow control, pressure adjustments, and optimization of flow rates.

What is the significance of the difference between terminal velocity and paper velocity in this separator's design?

The difference indicates that the separator's design is effective in separating the phases, as the higher terminal velocity suggests that heavier fluids (liquids) will settle more effectively, while the lower paper velocity indicates proper flow conditions for the gas phase.

What conclusions can be drawn about the separator's design and its effectiveness?

The separator's design appears to be adequate for efficient separation, with effective separation of gas and liquid phases. However, the risk of liquid carryover still exists, which can be minimized by optimizing flow rates and pressure conditions.