Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
(OP)
I have a problem in a project i am working in now (still in the engineering phase).
The purge line for the flare is from the discharge of a compressor. so the design was to place a restriction orifice to drop the pressure from 1500 psi to 20 psi. I calculated the bore diameter of the RO and it was found to be 4 mm. The temperature downstream of the RO will drop to -35 C. The process engineer said that hydrates will form so decided to inject methanol upstream of the RO to prevent hydrate formation. The problem is that the required methanol injection for hydrate prevention made the stream a 2 phase flow (gas +2% methanol). I cannot place a drain hole because the drain hole should not exceed 1/10 of the RO bore which will yield a a drain hole diameter of 0.4 mm which is not practical. Also if i used a standard drain hole of 2 mm the flow will increase dramatically (because the drain hole diameter will be 1/2 the bore diameter). I am concerned about the accumulation of the liquid (methanol) at the RO upstream face. Note that this is the only source of purge for the flare and if it got plugged a flare flashback might occur.
Any ideas?
The purge line for the flare is from the discharge of a compressor. so the design was to place a restriction orifice to drop the pressure from 1500 psi to 20 psi. I calculated the bore diameter of the RO and it was found to be 4 mm. The temperature downstream of the RO will drop to -35 C. The process engineer said that hydrates will form so decided to inject methanol upstream of the RO to prevent hydrate formation. The problem is that the required methanol injection for hydrate prevention made the stream a 2 phase flow (gas +2% methanol). I cannot place a drain hole because the drain hole should not exceed 1/10 of the RO bore which will yield a a drain hole diameter of 0.4 mm which is not practical. Also if i used a standard drain hole of 2 mm the flow will increase dramatically (because the drain hole diameter will be 1/2 the bore diameter). I am concerned about the accumulation of the liquid (methanol) at the RO upstream face. Note that this is the only source of purge for the flare and if it got plugged a flare flashback might occur.
Any ideas?





RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
and if you need to inject 2% molar fraction of methanol you have something more than 0.000..1% of water (supposing values are correct), that means that other problems (in addition to hydrate formation) are possible...
Anyway, you can install the RO horizontal (flow up->down), use a concave plate etc. etc. with a restriction orifice you are free to adopt a variant...
A difficult frequently underestimated is related with evaluation of RO area,
in case of doubts (supercritical, two phases etc.) better to calculate the speed of sound with a EOS or similar methods,
for two phases HEM model should give reasonable values,
you may find additional information in this thread
"http://www.cheresources.com/invision/topic/16336-s..."
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
Do you mean by concave orifice: that the bore will be concave, or the whole restriction orifice plate will be concave ? I only know the concave bores and I think methanol drainage will be unpredictable even with flow from top to bottom. If there exists a restriction orifice plate with a concave body the methanol drainage will be guaranteed. Regarding the calculation i think that if i calculate the bore using a single phase gas flow the error will not be that much(methanol is 2% by volume). My concern is that for the gas (with 2% methanol)chocked flow conditions the methanol droplets will reach sonic velocity and might influence the downstream piping. What do you think ?
Also is it normal to take the flare purge line from such location (compressor discharge) which yielded in all these problems?
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
but from a process point of view if there is a relatively large amount of water
(presuming it's in vapor state after compression) and this steam/water goes below 0 C (freezing point, without methanol addition) due to expansion, I would be more concerned about solving correctly phase equilibria...
Anyway, if you wish to purchase the RO sure the manufacturer can help with some specific design as well as materials suitable for your application...
About flare purge line, no, it's not usual but you may ask the reason to the process engineer who does the calc's, we can't help without detailed information...
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
Did you consider using compressor suction gas or plant N2 for purge purposes? It would help you get rid of all the problems mentioned in your OP.
Dejan IVANOVIC
Process Engineer, MSChE
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
I agree, presuming it's natural gas with that RO flow should be below 1000 Kg/h ,
may be they can consider alternatives...
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
Yes the flow is low 500 kg/hr and he calculated the RO downstream temperature using these conditions.
I am an instrumentation and control engineer not a process engineer but i also agree that MeOH injection isn't the best approach as i do not believe that continuous MeOH injection could be easily maintained as per the injection rate he calculated.
Also i am concerned about Meoh droplets exiting the RO at sonic velocity (might influence the downstream piping)
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
It is hard to believe that there are no better sources of fuel gas. What drives the compressors? Is there a fuel gas source on site? Nitrogen? What about the common suction header from where all compressors are fed?
Dejan IVANOVIC
Process Engineer, MSChE
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
I am just trying to solve the problem from an instrument perspective, so that i have a backup plan if he continued on insisting on the compressor discharge location.
Any ideas ?
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
In my opinion, everything is better than what has been proposed originally - continuous injection of MeOH in the flare header and a two-phase orifice. It is never going to work as intended.
Dejan IVANOVIC
Process Engineer, MSChE
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
1) Why are you taking such a huge pressure drop in one go? The noise from this will be horrendous - has anyone worked this out? If you're going down this route, which seems to be quite silly to me, then you need to do it in three or four steps minimum and allow some pipework between the stages so that you can get some ambient heat into the stages.
2) Why not use a proper pressure let down skid with small electric heater - basically a small fuel gas skid?
3) A 4mm RO is just ridiculous for constant flow - it will either fairly rapidly become an 8mm (or bigger) RO or get blocked with something very easily, especially during commissioning or maintenance.
40 You need to run this past a more experienced engineer who understands the practicality of life, not just that the calculation work out correctly.
This needs to go back to the concept, not trying to fix what was always a bad idea.
Good luck and let us know how you get on.
sorry for being so negative, but this looks like a triumph for spread sheet design over real life.
Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
casflo
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
Good luck.
Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
The other problem with 1500psig gas dropping to 20psig is the brittle fracture concern for the downstream piping - at -35degC, you cannot use A106B, it will have to be A333 Gr P6 or similar. The risk of loss of containment due to line rupture might give this process engineer the shivers ?
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
Is such an installation reliable (provided that the flow at valve fail open will not make the downstream pressure exceed the design limits of the flare knock out drum) ?
I know the control valve bore diameter will be small as well, but i also know that control valves can be used for two phase flow.
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
At -35degC, the other concern is with solid water ice forming on the inner pipe walls.
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
Otherwise the only problem I see is with these low temps and brittle failure, and noise.
Min permissible RO size is 3mm in my experience - if you want to use a bigger RO, you could use a 2 step letdown - cheaper would be 2 ROs' in series. Use a thick plate RO
Are you sure this process engineer is willing to inject MeOH 24/7 into this line just to generate a tiny purge gas stream - purge gas is a critical utility, and now a pump and tank are required to make this work also - so the safeguard required here is an FSLL on the purge gas 1500psig feed line, which will be an integral orifice and dp cell - these will be required to account for partial blockage of the RO set due to loss of MeOH or insufficient MeOH. What is the integral orifice size available to suit this purge gas rate?
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
This is why i am asking about a pressure control loop with a fail open control valve (provided that the flow at valve fail open will not make the downstream pressure exceed the design limits of the flare knock out drum)
What do you think about this solution ?
Is it something reliable ?
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
Controls are used only when there are varying process conditions and you need to stabilise it. Here there is nothing varying - we have a fixed purge demand, we have a fixed 1500psig upstream, and downstream pressure, though it may be varying, is always in excess of critical pressure, so downstream pressure has no effect on purge flow. ( Critical flow pressure for typical hydrocarbon gases is approx 50% of upstream ie. flare pressure has to be some 750-800psig before it starts to affect flow). If upstream pressure were to vary, an FIC loop would stabilise purge flow.
If the drain holes are too big in comparison to the orifice dia, agree with your concern.
How about a single ball valve for isolation and a globe valve set in position for this flow - once the flow is set, remove the globe valve handle and lock open the ball valve?
What about the piping materials on this system - good for -35degC?
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
I am very happy regarding your statement "How about a single ball valve for isolation and a globe valve set in position for this flow - once the flow is set, remove the globe valve handle and lock open the ball valve?" because i proposed that to the process engineer, but he refused with no specific reasons. using a locked globe valve acts the same as the RO (fixed demand), and will solve the liquid/methanol accumulation problem so the whole problem will be solved. The process engineer asked me weather there is a problem with the PCV or not instead of proposing other solutions.
Regarding the temperature, site work has not started yet so specifying the appropriate pipe material will not be a problem.
RE: Restriction Orifice with High DP and % of liquid upstream
You've got the extra methanol for this ? Has the process engineer calculated how much ?
If you 've got a design review / HAZOP with plant operations attending, they may complain - good luck.