could readily be collected in the pri- mary absorber for recycle back to the HP receiver. No modifications to this vessel were deemed necessary. In this study, MySep Studio soft- ware provided a detailed perfor- mance analysis and good, practical guidance that resulted in an opti- mum retrofit strategy for the MFC condensate receiver and compres- sor K.O. drums. This achieved satis- factory separation efficiency. Table 6 summarises recommended new internals configurations. Figure 4 illustrates the MF condensate receiver, as an example of the retrofit internals devised to optimise system performance. Tables 7-9 summarise performance simulation results for the new internals configurations. It shows that the proposed retrofit designs eliminate significant liquid carry-over to compression stages. The ability of MySep Studio to accurately predict separator perfor- mance allows operators to antici- pate and prevent costly shutdowns. As part of a process, combining the digital twin with Petro-SIM tech- nology and MySep Engine models allows speedy examination of alter- native feedstocks or product slates to improve operations on an ongo- ing basis. MySep Studio is an established process engineering tool for the design, evaluation, and simula- tion of two- and three-phase sep- arators. Petro-SIM software offers system-wide process simulator and optimisation technology for asset design, performance optimisation, and digital twin surveillance. The combination of MySep Engine with Petro-SIM technology brings higher fidelity modelling to operational support engineers. These simula- tions accurately report the impact of liquid carry-over. Conclusion Refineries can avoid operational dis - ruption and reduce financial losses attributed to inadequate process separators. When process engineers have specialist modelling tools avail- able, they can quickly identify the best techno-economic solutions. From sandface to topside facilities, Petro-SIM digital twins enhanced with MySep modelling uncover the 1 B C D E F G H
0.12
150 μm threshold
Case A - inlet Case B - inlet Case C - inlet
Case A - outlet Case B - outlet Case C - outlet
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
500 750 Droplet size ( μm )
0
250
1000
1250
Figure 3 Droplet size distribution for inlet and gas outlet
Retrofitted designs
Separator
Internals
MF condensate
Vane type for inlet device and a vane pack vertical demisting device
receiver First-stage
Vane type inlet device a horizontal mesh agglomerator and a mesh pad
compressor KOD
demisting device
Second-stage
Vane type inlet device, a horizontal mesh agglomerator and a mesh pad
compressor KOD
demisting device
Table 6
of entrained liquid for both first and second stages would be damaging and compromise sustained com- pressor operation. Therefore, both K.O. drums required modifications. Finally, analysis demonstrates that liquid carry-over from the high-pres - sure (HP) receiver was modest and 3 4 5 6
stream for Cases B and C. The first- stage compressor K.O. drum cannot handle this higher mist load, which would result in the compressor receiving a serious excess of liquid. MySep Studio provides appropri- ate detailed analysis of the range of possibilities. It is clear that quantities 8 9 10 11 12
7
2
H
G
F
E
D
C
B
Figure 4 MF condensate receiver after retrofit
A
A
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
30 PTQQ 2 2022
www.digitalrefining.com
Powered by FlippingBook