Vapour Disentrainment Trials Report: Richard Irons July 2009

Vapour Disentrainment Trials Report
Richard Irons
July 2009
Contents
Page
1 Executive Summary 3
2 Background 4
3 Type 1 – Simple Knock Out Pot 6
4 Type 2 – Axial Cyclone 7
5 Type 3 – Conventional Cyclone 10
6 Type 4 – Bottom Discharge Cyclone and External Disentrainment 13
7 Separator Design Summary 16
8 Water Sprays 17
9 Drain System 18
10 Separator Selection Flow Chart 19
11 Appendix attachments 20

2
1. Executive Summary
Energy efficiency, maintenance costs and safety are now receiving an increased focus. The
digestion process is one of the refineries main energy consuming processes. Most of the
vessels in digestion are pressure vessels and the statutory inspection rules around the
maintenance of these vessels are becoming more arduous. The nature of the process means
that these vessels can scale heavily during operation and historically the descale process has
involved man entry with extensive manual descale which tends to lead to an unacceptably high
injury rate.
Solutions were therefore sought to minimise scaling inside the vessel, the associated piping
and the shells of the downstream CRD heater shells to minimise energy losses, reduce the
vessel turn-around-time (TAT) and reduce the descale injury rate.
CFD modelling was used extensively to model various designs of separation devices. Several
of the designs where then constructed and installed in refinery situations to verify the modelling
and evaluate the performance of the equipment.
CFD modelling has been proven to accurately predict the separation performance of a
disentrainment vessel in a refinery duty, and therefore can be used to model separator solutions
with a good confidence level at minimal cost.
All the separation devices trialled perform acceptably and therefore there is now a complete
tool box of solutions that can be tailored to specific refinery problems and budgets.
In green field applications where there is no existing structural limitations external separation
devices can be designed. This simplifies the design of flash vessel internals making the vessel
more suitable for remote descale thereby minimising man entry requirements. By incorporating
this technology early into plant design it need not represent an increase in capital cost over a
more traditional design.
In brown field situations a solution can be tailored to the individual application and budget
depending on the sand content of the carry-over, the available space and design of the
surrounding pipework.
Even in applications where budgets are heavily constrained the installation of water sprays can
be used at minimal cost to minimise scale growth in piping and downstream equipment.
All the solutions will help to improve energy efficiency and reduce scaling leading to a reduction
in maintenance costs and an improvement in OH+S.

3
2 Background
There are several reasons to improve the quality of flash vapour; the individual refinery issue
will drive to the correct particular solution. The main reasons are :
a) The thermal performance of heaters – excessive carryover with the flash vapour will
lead to scaling of the vapour lines causing pressure losses, and scaling of the heater
shells further reducing heater thermal efficiency. High vapour velocities with carryover
sand particles can cause abrasion problems with heater tubes leading to leaking tubes
requiring more frequent re-tubes. Scaling in the heater shells also negatively impacts
on the maintenance work of re-tubing and statutory inspections leading to higher turn
around costs and longer outages.
b) To minimise flash vessel descale turn-around-time (TAT) – with careful design of the
separation device it is possible to remove the internal disentrainment from the flash
vessel completely. This reduces not only the volume of scale to be removed during the
vessel outage reducing the TAT but also reduces the requirement for vessel entry for
the descale crew minimising the exposure from falling scale and other confined space
issues. This consideration will most likely be mainly applied to new vessels/plants due
to the difficulty in engineering the additional separation vessels into existing building
footprints.
c) Poor condensate quality – excessive carryover will report with the heater condensate
which may limit the potential downstream uses of the condensate for hydrate washing
in Calcination or boiler feed water for the Powerhouse.
Generally moderate cleaning of the vapour to minimise vapour line and heater scaling can be
achieved at minimal expense. More improved cleaning will require the installation of a
separation device/vessel which may require more significant piping and structural
modifications. Separation, collection and routing of the contaminated liquid drain prior to the
heaters will also increase the cost and complexity of a retrofit solution. It is therefore important
for the refinery to understand their requirements and their budget before progressing to an
engineered solution, a rough decision flowchart has been include on page 18 to assist in this
process.
a. Thermal Performance
If improving the condensate quality is not important then the main reason to improve the flash
vapour quality will be to minimise scaling in the vapour lines and the heater shells, and any of
the four solutions detailed in this report would be appropriate. However the cost of each solution
progressively increases from Type 1 the cheapest, to Types 3 and 4 the most expensive, each
solution has its specific advantages and issues and these are tabulated in section 7 on page16.
The type of carryover to be removed is also an important consideration in selecting the type of
disentrainment device to be used. If the carryover has excessive quantities of sand then a
separation device with lower internal velocity (like a traditional cyclone design) may be required
to prevent excessive erosion.
b. External disentrainment
Most flash vessels are equipped with an internal disentrainment device. Typically older vessels
have a spiral vapour exit where the flash vapour exits the flash chamber through a small
doorway (to accelerate the vapour) into a spiral annulus where the intent is for carryover
droplets to impact on the outer wall. The carryover drains across the floor and back down into
the flash chamber. Later type vessels have a central cone discharge from the flash chamber to
accelerate the vapour with a “mushroom” plate above to impact the carryover droplets. Typically
the “mushroom” plate will have a serrated edge to collect the droplets into streams to minimise
re-entrainment. Again the carryover drains back into the flash chamber.
Both these types of internal disentrainment can scale heavily particularly as unit throughputs
have increased, increasing the volume of carryover liquor and slurry. Typically flash vessels
are taken offline every 12 to 18 months for statutory inspections at which time the scale is
removed. This may take anything from a few days to several weeks during which time the
vessel is bypassed and this generally represents an energy loss.

4
Typically the scale is removed manually by either high pressure water or impact tools. This is
very time consuming and expensive, and can lead to damage of the vessel shell from the impact
tools. Descalers have to work in tight confined spaces and there can be issues with falling scale
which must be minimised. In many cases “tool time” with impact tools is limited to prevent
repetitive strain injuries which also increases TAT and the man hour cost.
Replacing the internal separation devices with an external unit offers the option of changing out
the disentrainment device and descaling it remotely in a more controlled environment and this
can significantly reduce the vessel TAT and improve OH+S issues.
However installing a separate vessel to remove the carryover liquor and slurry will generally
require significant piping modifications and additional civil structures to support the new vessel
and this can be both expensive and impractical in a brown field application. In most applications
this type of solution will be too expensive to justify.
c. Condensate Quality Improvement

If a project requirement is to improve the quality of the condensate from the flash vapour heaters
then more careful consideration to the selection of the separation device and the routing of the
liquid drain must be considered, this will generally increase the scope of the modifications
required and the cost.

5
3. Type 1 – Simple Knock Out Pot
This type of disentrainment system relies on the turbulence in the piping causing the carryover
droplets to impact on the walls of the pipe and bends. A spray flow in excess of the de-
superheating requirement ensures that the pipe wall is wetted so that the carryover droplets
are washed from the pipe wall. The excess spray and carryover drains to the bottom of the
piping where it is removed at a simple pipe direction change like a branched “T” and dead-end
drain line.
This is a typical knock out pot drain set up on the blow off vapour to 35J at Pinjarra.
Blow off vapour enters from

the horizontal pipe on the
left. The vapour exits
vertically off to 35J.
The lower section of the

pipe is the “dead-end”
which drains the collected
carryover to a nearby sump.
The drain has a simple flap
valve at the bottom.

6
4. Type 2 – Axial Cyclone
The axial cyclone separator uses a spiral accelerator installed inside the vapour pipe to impart
spin to the vapour. The carryover droplets are spun to the outside of the pipe where they are
collected in an outer annulus and drained. The “cleaned” vapour then reports to the CRD
heaters. The diagram below shows CFD model output of the axial cyclone as installed on flash
tank 14 in Alumar digestion.
4.1 CFD Model Results
Design Parameters
 18 TPH
 Predicted dP = 0.4 kPa
 Predicted capture efficiency;
 10μm bauxite (wet walls) = 90%
 10μm droplets (wet walls) = 65%
 Measured capture efficiency;
 Particles = 90%
 Droplets = 70%
Particles enter linearly with the flow

and are spun in the spiral accelerator
to the outside of the pipe.
Particles remain on the pipe wall and

report to the side drain. The clean
vapour exits via the central pipe.
The model shows the particles entering with a linear velocity into the spiral accelerator and
being spun to the outside of the pipe, the typical velocity in the spiral section is around 45m/s.
The particles remain on the wall as the pipe section is increased. The increased diameter
reduces the particle velocity in the outer annulus and the floor slope ensures that the carryover
particles and excess water droplets report to the side drain. The cleaned vapour exits the
separator through a centre pipe which is the same diameter as the inlet pipe.
The high velocity in the spiral section can be an issue if there is too many sand particles in the
carryover as this can lead to an excessive wear rate. Holing out the spiral section during normal
operation would result in the vessel having to come off line to affect a repair resulting in a
production loss. The photograph on the following page shows the installation at Alumar.

7
4.2 Alumar Axial Cyclone
The performance of the Alumar cyclone is detailed in the report written by Carlos Cahete &
Steve van Lierop, the report is attached in the Appendix on page 20. In summary the first stage
CRD condensate conductivity dropped from 275S/cm to 81S/cm better than the design target
of 130S/cm. The cyclone reduced the overall CRD condensate conductivity from 250S/cm
to an average of about 184S/cm.

8
The photograph on the previous page shows the drain system on the Alumar axial separator.
It has a powered Alcoa type valve, with limit switch detection to permit remote timed operation.
The complexity of this type of valving can impact on availability. In the event of a valve failure
the water sprays upstream of the cyclone have to be switched off to prevent flooding back into
the separator. The following photograph of the spiral accelerator shows the result of having the
upstream sprays turned off for long periods. The downstream piping scale was similar.

9
5. Type 3 – Conventional Cyclone
Even though the axial cyclone experience at Alumar was promising there were concerns on
using this technology in the WA refineries due to the sand content of the vapour and the higher
vapour line velocities.
The diagram below shows the CFD modelling of the axial separator design for the 400NB (16”)
vapour outlet line from the Pinjarra 11# flash tank. Note that the predicted performance is better
than that for the Alumar design – because of the higher velocities but the additional
performance comes at the cost of increased pressure drop.
Design Parameters
 22.9 TPH
 Predicted dP = 1.5 kPa
 Predicted capture efficiency;
 10μm bauxite (wet walls) = 95%
 10μm droplets (wet walls) = 81%
Comments:
 dP and separation very good due to the
high internal velocity
 Design would only just fit into existing
piping
 Inlet velocity is 68 m/s! Erosion through
vane set likely to be very high.
 Sao Luis trial indicated that an inlet
velocity closer to 30 m/s would still give
acceptable performance & would give
lower dP and erosion
 Cyclone could be redesigned to use
larger feed pipe (e.g. 600 NB), but
would struggle to fit within the space
constraints at PJ.
At Pinjarra the higher internal velocities generated in the axial cyclone was likely to give an
unacceptably high wear rate in the vessel body leading to potential loss of containment. Any
loss of containment from holed a separator would be unacceptable from an OH+S perspective
and also from the energy and production losses incurred while repairs were affected – this
would have to be done with the flash tank out-of-service. The vapour separators are designed
without separate isolation or bypass valves to minimise valving/isolation issues and
maintenance costs. The high pressure drop was also unacceptable as this was additional to
the pressure loss across the existing internal disentrainment system.
To minimise the internal velocities, and therefore reduce any wear issues, and to minimise the
overall pressure drop a conventional cyclone was designed. CFD modelling was used to
optimise the design. The modelling results are shown on the following page.

10
 Designed as part of ETG
vapour quality project
 Simulations run for PJ FT11
(23 tph, ρ = 0.8 kg/m3)
 Cyclone with 1.6 m diameter
body and rectangular inlet
(no scroll)
 Inlet velocity = 20 m/s and
dP = 2.5 kPa
 Capture efficiency very good
(10um droplet capture close
to 100%)
 Dimensions and feed piping
refined to suit trial
installation at PJ –
scheduled for trial 2006.
The cyclone was installed on the 11# vapour line to the mill heaters such that if there were
issues with reliability or wear the cyclone could be isolated without impacting on the flash tank
availability.
The cyclone averaged a dp of 0.85kPa at 18T/h of vapour and 1.0kPa at 26T/h (inlet velocity
of 20m/s) – better than predicted by the CFD modelling.
The cleaned vapour from the cyclone was subsequently mixed with vapour from other units so
it was not possible to sample condensate from the cleaned stream. Isokinetic sampling from
the cyclone inlet was also not possible due to the design of the pipework and difficulty of
sampling a stream with very small carryover content. This meant fully assessing the cyclone
capture efficiency was not possible. However as the spray flow was metered samples were
taken of the cyclone drain/underflow. The average conductivity of the underflow was 990S/cm
indicating a good capture of carryover liquor droplets.
There was an anecdotal report that the vapour valves on the clean vapour side could still be
operated some time after a maintenance overhaul where previously these valves were made
in operable due to scaling after only a short time.
To manage the underflow drain the cyclone was fitted with two PLC controlled butterfly valves
and a water quench system. The double valving enabled the cyclone to be drained of collected
liquid/sand without passing steam. Similar to the Alumar experience the drain system was
problematic. There was some flashing across the valves which damaged the valve seats
leading to excessive wear of the seat and downstream piping. Damage to the shaft seal area

11
of the valve meant that the actuator reliability was poor and the unit was taken off line several
times to repair/replace valves and actuators.
At times when the unit was operated without the spray water there was scaling inside the vessel.
Maintaining the spray water flow minimised the internal scaling but there was significant wear
on the internal wear plates as expected. This proves that in applications where there is a high
sand content in the carryover wear liners are required to protect the vessel shell.
The main disadvantage with this type of cyclone installation was the exit of the clean vapour
from the top of the cyclone. In a normal CRD situation the heater inlets are below the flash tank
vapour outlets and therefore extensive piping would be required to redirect the clean vapour
back down to the heater inlets. To overcome this issue a cyclone was designed with the clean
vapour outlet at the bottom of the vessel – this design was later used on the Pinjarra Blow Off
Tank project.
Although both the Alumar axial cyclone and the Pinjarra top discharge cyclone successfully
removed carryover, both systems were still installed after the flash vessel internal
disentrainment systems. This had the problem of an energy penalty of multiple pressure drops
in series and not resolving the issues associated with vessel descale. Ideally the internal
disentrainment system would be removed and replaced with one specifically designed external
system.

12
6. Type 4 – Bottom Discharge Cyclone and External Disentrainment
Following the issues raised from the Gramercy explosion a vessel integrity audit at Pinjarra
highlighted issues with the blow off tanks. The project solution analysis determined that the
most suitable solution was to replace the existing tanks with new ones. This allowed for a
complete redesign of the tank and raised the possibility of fitting the new tank with an external
disentrainment system to minimise the issues with descaling and improve TAT. Separating the
flash vessel and the disentrainment designs meant that the disentrainment device could be
specifically designed to optimise pressure drop, carryover removal performance and ease of
descale (preferably remote descale).
The first designs for the external disentrainment were based around the latest design of
mushroom style internals as fitted to the Wagerup flash and blow off tanks but incorporating
them into a separate vessel flange mounted to the flash tank as shown below.
Separate external vessel for

disentrainment with mushroom
style separator, mounted to the
flash tank vapour outlet flange.
Flash tank with no internal

separation device.
The design was fine-tuned using CFD modelling to maximise the capture efficiency and
minimise the pressure drop.

13
The design above had a dp of 0.4kPa @ 18T/h of 1# (0.6kg/m 3) vapour and a capture efficiency
of 100% >50μm.
Several issues with this designed were highlighted during the design reviews. The main
concern was the support of the disentrainment vessel in a scaled situation where all the weight
would be supported on the roof of the flash tank. To install separate external support would
require an expansion joint in the interconnecting vapour pipe which would be subject to heavy
scaling and would therefore limit expansion movement. Other issues raised were around
drainage, ease of descale, and limited access to the flash tank outlet.
The work on this type of external disentrainment was carried out in parallel with the trials of the
Alumar Type 2 and Pinjarra Type 3 separators. At that time the possibility of using an as yet
untried bottom discharge cyclone design was proposed. Review of the building structure also
highlighted the possibility of replacing the existing blow off tanks with larger diameter vessels
and converting them from downflow to upflow. The larger vessel in an upflow configuration
could possibly provide sufficient separation of droplets such that no disentrainment device
would be required at all.
Designing a new vessel with no disentrainment device presented an unacceptable risk to the
project delivery outcomes as specified in the RfA so a design compromise was reached which
involved the design and fitting of a bottom discharge cyclone. The cyclone was to be fitted as
a spool piece such that, if operational data indicated it was not required, it could be removed
and be replaced by a pipe spool. An internal disentrainment system was also designed that
could be easily retro fitted if required.
As previously the design was optimised using CFD modelling. The resultant design was for a
unit with a 1.95kPa dp at 22T/h of 1# (0.6kg/m3) vapour and a capture efficiency of 99% of 1μm
water droplets, and 100% of 10μm bauxite particles.
The first new BOT was successfully commissioned on 9th January 2009. The combined CRD
flash condensate conductivity was around 120 to 140μS/cm with the liquor flow to the unit @
1000kL/h LDCH and all flash tanks online, acceptable but higher than expected. Further
investigation found that the high conductivity was due to carryover from the secondary flash
tank which was operating overlife (scaled), and a tube leak from an upstream heater.
The unit was put into a flash tank bypass on the 14th January and the CRD flash condensate
conductivity improved to around 75μS/cm once the secondary flash tank was out-of-circuit. This
figure was better than expected indicating that the disentrainment cyclone was working well. A
reconciliation of the cyclone drain and condensate conductivities indicated the CRD

14
condensate would be >400μS/cm during the flash tank bypass without the cyclone. This was
greater than the RfA design limit of 300μS/cm in flash tank bypass mode so a disentrainment
device was required and so cyclones were installed on all units.
With the system operating with all flash tanks online underflow samples were taken from the
cyclone to assess the captured material. Typically the conductivity of the underflow was around
12μS/cm and the solids content around 0.7gpl for a spray flow of 1kL/h. This indicates that
during normal operation the carryover from the new upflow flash tank is minimal and that the
cyclones are only required during flash tank bypass duty.
A sufficiently large solids sample was collected to analyse the size distribution. The data shows
that the cyclone is capable of capturing particles of <10μm which is consistent with the CFD
design.

15
7. Separator Design Summary.
Water Spray and/or Conventional cyclone Axial Cyclone Downflow cyclone BOT external chamber
Knock out Pot
For  Cheapest option -  High separation efficiency.  Good separation efficiency  High separation  Low pressure drop (when
can be installed at  Proven technology. with low pressure drop. efficiency. clean).
minimal cost and in  Moderate wear so internal  Proven technology.  Proven technology.  Low wear.
short time period. wear plates required.  Can be good fit into existing  Moderate wear so  Water spray installation
 Minor modifications  Moderate “surge capacity” – pipework if sufficient internal wear plates possible but positioning more
to existing volume = 8m3. elevation difference between required. difficult than other options
equipment required.  Can improve CRD flash tank and CRD system.  Relatively easy fit into due space limitation between
 Can possibly condensate quality if drain  Can improve CRD existing CRD vapour vessels.
achieve 50% of the is re-routed. condensate quality if drain is piping.  Good “surge capacity” -
scale reduction of  Could possibly be designed re-routed.  Moderate “surge volume = 11 m3.
the other separation to fully replace internal capacity” – volume =  Descale can be remotely
systems. disentrainment but not yet 9m3. done but still not easy.
 Can improve CRD proven for this.  Can improve CRD
condensate quality  Can be easily remotely condensate quality if
if drain is re-routed descaled. drain is re-routed.
but this can  Avoids height limitations of  Can be designed to
increase cost. axial cyclone design but top fully replace internal
 Requires no major discharge means this disentrainment.
re-work of structural design is taller than bottom  Can be easily
supports or discharge cyclone option. remotely descaled.
foundations.  Avoids height
limitations of axial
cyclone design.
Against  No advantage to  Complex geometry and  Potentially high erosion for in  Requires external  A departure from proven
flash tank TAT. pipework can make retro- applications with excessive support structure so technology.
 No improvement to fitting in brown field sand carryover like WA. can be expensive.  Poor separation efficiency
OH+S issues situations more difficult.  Longer length to diameter  Large crane required compared to cyclone and
associated with  Requires external support ratio can make installation in if remote descaling is axial separators.
descale. structure so can be some sites difficult due to required.  Support structure can be a
expensive. height constraints between problem due to high weight
 Higher pressure drop than the flash tank vapour outlets when scaled especially if
axial and downflow designs. and the CRD heater inlet. mounted on flash tank roof.
 Large crane required if  Limited “surge capacity” -  Large crane required if
remote descaling is volume = 3 m3 for 600 NB remote descaling is required.
required. inlet design
8. Water Sprays
In some cases much of the scale reduction benefit of installing external disentrainment can be
achieved by installing just the water spray, particularly if the vapour piping is convoluted
providing a lot of impingement surfaces.
For optimum performance it is important the correct type of spray nozzle is used. The spray
nozzle should be a “full cone” type with a 90º included spray angle. The spray should be
installed such that the nozzle is in the centre of the pipe spraying axially down the pipe. To
facilitate easy removal and replacement the spray nozzle should be screwed to the condensate
supply pipe which should be flange mounted to the vapour piping. This allows for easy spray
assembly removal even if the nozzle assembly is covered in scale. A typical installation
(Pinjarra BOT) is shown on detail 1 on drawing PJ076036 in the appendix. The drawing shows
the spray nozzle fitted to a 20mmNB XS pipe. The piping inside the vapour line is XS to ensure
the pipe doesn’t bend with the vapour velocity. In large vapour lines it may be necessary to
provide additional support to the pipe by bracing it with some flat bar.
In applications where the required spray flow is high and there is a limitation on the water supply
pressure the angle type full cone spray may have insufficient capacity, in these instances a
hollow cone type spray can be used.
The nozzle used in the Pinjarra BOT application is a Spraying Systems™ ½” GGA –SS 40.
This is a ½” full cone angle type nozzle, the spray angle at the nominal flow is around 90º over
a wide range of pressures, it has a large clear orifice so as not to be susceptible to blocking
with any sand present in the condensate supply.
Selection of the correct spray nozzle is critical, the photo below shows a “pig- tail” type spray
trialled in a digestion flash vapour application. This nozzle was in operation for 2 months and is
fully scaled. The main issue with this type of spray nozzle is the high surface area that is
presented to the “dirty” vapour during normal operation, this leads to a progressive build up of
scale which eventually restricts the water flow.
The photo below shows the recommended type of spray nozzle, in this case a Spraying
Systems™ ½” GGA type. It is more compact than the “pig tail” type which means it can be
inserted into the centre of a pipe to spray in the direction of flow through a smaller flange making
the installation and maintenance cheaper and easier.
Spray water design flow rate is approximately 2% of vapour flow by mass.
9. Drain Systems
Careful consideration must be given to the drain system for the removed carry over and excess
spray water. As the drain contains carried over green liquor and the temperature is cooling the
drain systems are susceptible to scaling.
The first important criteria to be considered is where will the drain liquor report to. If the drain
liquor returns to the liquor circuit this can simplify the system but will add dilution. This is the
system that was adopted by Pinjarra for the blow off tank disentrainment cyclones, where the
cyclones drain directly back to the blow off tanks with no in-line valving. The drain returns to a
point below the slurry level to ensure no vapour is vented up the drain line to the cyclone.
However the in the Pinjarra installation the tank and drain can be isolated for cleaning if required
without a production impact due to the spare blow off tank. The absence of inline valves makes
the system robust.
In the Pinjarra top discharge cyclone, and the Alumar axial cyclone, the separator drains do not
return to the liquor circuit, both systems discharge the collected carryover and condensate to a
waste water system. In both these installations drain valve reliability is an issue. Careful
attention to this valving is required during detail design to ensure the system is robust and can
be maintained without having to take the disentrainment device offline.

18
Separator Selection Flow Chart
10.

19
11. Appendix
Alumar Report on Axial Cyclone
Axial Ciclone.doc
Top Discharge Cyclone as installed on the Pinjarra Unit 4 Secondary Flash Tank
PJ060989.pdf
Bottom Discharge Cyclone as installed on the Pinjarra Blow Off Tanks
PJ076032.pdf
Spray Nozzle Configuration – Pinjarra Blow Off Tank project
PJ076306
Condensate Supply Typical Riser BOT arrangement R3.pdf

20

Vapour Disentrainment Trials Report: Richard Irons July 2009

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vapour Disentrainment Trials Report: Richard Irons July 2009

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vapour Disentrainment Trials Report