Transcript hlu desalter optimization & strategic plan
VP - SPEC Technologies Inc.
INCREASING PLANT RELIABILITY & INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT USING CFD & CORROSION SIMULATION
Regan Pooran, P.Eng. VP-SPEC TECHNOLOGIES INC .
TOPICS OF DISCUSSION
Who VP-SPEC Technologies Inc. is?
Key Purpose, Process & Payoff for our discussion
Briefly review a real world case: Deterioration of an Amine System Regenerator
Conclusion
2
WHO ARE WE?
3
VP-SPEC TECHNOLOGIES INC BACKGROUND
•
We are a consulting company (based out of Oil Rich Alberta) specializing in Asset Management Systems – focusing mainly on the Process Industry.
•
Our customer base includes: Husky Energy, Suncor, Nalco/ Exxon, EnCana Energy, Enerplus Trust etc…
4
PURPOSE, PROCESS, PAYOFF
5
PURPOSE, PROCESS, PAYOFF
• •
Key Purpose:
To demonstrate how CFD (Fluent Inc., CFD Modeling ) & Corrosion Simulation (OLI Systems, Corrosion Analyzer) are applied synergistically to improve
Plant Reliability & Integrity Management
. • • •
Process:
Discuss how CFD & Corrosion Simulation were applied to confirm deterioration mechanisms in an Amine System Regenerator that has had multiple failures Open discussion – please interrupt if you have questions • •
Payoff:
An understanding of how CFD & Corrosion Simulation can be applied to improve your Plant’s Reliability & Integrity Management 6
THE TRADITIONAL & THE IMPROVED PERSPECTIVE FOR ASSET INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT
7
TRADITIONAL PERSPECTIVE
•
Traditionally plants have entirely relied on results from internal inspections, corrosion monitoring with coupons and probes, thickness measurements, and process constituent monitoring to assess equipment integrity and prevent equipment failures.
• -
These results, however, produce either coincidental or lagging indication of deterioration activity within equipment: Coincidental indicators (e.g. TM) provide information on deterioration activity at same time this activity is occurring. Lagging indicators (e.g. internal inspections) provides information on deterioration activity that trail behind this activity.
•
Further these results provide limited insights into the deterioration mechanism
8
AN IMPROVED PERSPECTIVE
• •
For systems that can incur significant economic and safety consequences, if failures happen, coincidental and lagging indications of deterioration activity are simply not sufficient. In these systems, predictive indications and parameter sensitivity studies of deterioration activity is additionally required for optimum equipment reliability and integrity management.
9
REVIEW OF PROBLEMS WITHIN AN AMINE SYSTEM
10
AMINE SYSTEMS
• •
Amine systems remove H 2 S and CO 2 from field gas or from effluent gas of various plant systems Equipment failures in amine systems can produce significant economic and safety consequences for an owner-user.
-
Thus, predicting deterioration activity and conducting sensitivity studies on high-risk equipment in these systems can be justified.
11
AMINE SYSTEM FLOW SCHEME
12
REVIEWED SAMPLE CASE
•
Specific real world sample case in review: Deterioration of an Amine Regenerator from Trays 20-15 (Upper Section)
13
DETERIORATION OF REGENERATOR TRAYS 20-15
1. Deterioration history of Amine Regenerator from Trays 20-15 is described as such:
•
Hole-through was experienced at Trays 20 & 15 level
•
Deterioration progressed from Tray 20 to 15 over time
• • -
Deterioration observed from inspection (in 2005):
In between trays (specifically at or slightly above vapor/ liquid interface level at each tray) On tray support in welded area In downcomer areas and circ seam
Deterioration was most significant in downcomer areas and circ seams
14
DETERIORATION OF REGENERATOR TRAYS 20-19 SECTION (ILLUSTRATION – W/ DESCRIPTION)
15
ACTUAL CAUSE ANALYSIS: REGENERATOR DETERIORATION
16
CS DETERIORATION RELATIONSHIP (Erosion - Scale Removal - Corrosive Fluid) Removes Mechanical Erosion Micro-Machines Away Attacks & Corrodes CS Metal Protective Iron Sulfide Scale Exposes Carbon Steel (CS) Metal To Corrosive Solution Total Deterioration CS Metal Loss = Erosion Rate + Corrosion Rate + Erosion Corrosion Interaction Synergy ( ≈50%)
17
REGENERATOR UPPER SECTION DETERIORATION
18
BUILDING THE CASE FOR DETERIORATION & FAILURE IN REGENERATOR
Discussion of following items will build case for identifying actual causes of deterioration & failures experienced at Trays 20 to 15 in Regenerator:
–
Temperature depression at Regenerator’s Overhead
–
Amine solution corrosiveness in Regenerator’s Upper Section
–
Droplet-impingement-erosion and particle-erosion of protective iron sulfide scale and CS metallurgy
19
120.00
115.00
110.00
105.00
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
80.00
DETERIORATION & FAILURE IN REGENERATOR (Temp Fluctuation) 101 C 97 C 103 C Date
• •
Regenerator OHD temp depressed mid-Oct 04 (maybe related to amine type conversion?) and increased mid-Oct 06 (maybe related to
amine reclamation?)
Thus, temperature at Trays 20 to 15 possibly depressed for 1 year prior to time deterioration was noted (2005 inspections)
20
120.00
115.00
110.00
105.00
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
80.00
DETERIORATION & FAILURE IN REGENERATOR (Temp Fluctuation) 101 C 97 C 103 C Date
• •
Temperature depression would increase H 2 S solubility and solid iron sulfide loadings in amine solution at Trays 20 to 15 level and make this solution more corrosive and erosive There was no available data that could be credibly used as a proxy for H 2 S loading variability in amine solution at Trays 20 to 15 level
21
DETERIORATION & FAILURE IN REGENERATOR (Solution Corrosiveness, T-15) CS CR w/ Scale at Regen (T-15) as a Function of H2S Conc & Temp Ref H2S (0.7 mol %) Ref Temp (121 C)
•
Carbon Steel CR (< 3 mpy, T-15) w/ scale present for up to 10X Ref H 2 S concentration (0.7 mole %) regardless of temp
22
DETERIORATION & FAILURE IN REGENERATOR (Solution Corrosiveness, T-15) CS CR w/o Scale at Regen (T-15) as a Function of H2S Conc & Temp Ref H2S (0.7 mol %) Ref H2S (0.7 mol %) Ref Temp (121 C) Ref Temp (121 C)
•
Carbon Steel CR (28 mpy, T-15) w/o scale present at 4X Ref H 2 S concentration (0.7 mole %) & lower temp (115 C)
DETERIORATION & FAILURE IN REGENERATOR (Solution Corrosiveness, T-15) CS CR w/o Scale at Regen (T-15) as a Function of H2S Conc & Temp Ref H2S (0.7 mol %) Ref H2S (0.7 mol %) Ref Temp (121 C) Ref Temp (121 C)
•
Comprehensive review into mechanisms responsible for
DETERIORATION & FAILURE IN REGENERATOR (CFD Evaluation)
CFD was executed:
–
to confirm if particle-erosion did contribute to deterioration of protective iron sulfide scale and erode CS metallurgy in downcomer areas
–
to confirm if droplet-impingement-erosion was a contributing factor in deterioration noted at vapor/ liquid interface between trays
25
DETERIORATION & FAILURE IN REGENERATOR (CFD Evaluation) Contours of velocity intensity at the downcomer walls Contours of particle-erosion rates at the downcomer walls (kg/m 3 .s)
26
DETERIORATION & FAILURE IN REGENERATOR (CFD Evaluation) Parameter Solids (Iron Sulfide) Concentration wt.% in Rich Amine CFD Max CS Erosion Rate Predictions (mpy) Case 1 1.0 % 13 Case 2 2.0 % 25
•
Max erosion rate in downcomer areas nearly double ( 13 → 25 mpy ) with increased solids loading (1.0 → 2.0%)
27
DETERIORATION & FAILURE IN REGENERATOR (Erosion-Corrosion Deterioration Rate)
• •
Tray H2S % Temp, C CS CR (mpy – w/ scale) CS CR (mpy - wo scale) Erosion Rate (mpy) Synergy (%) 20 (H) 15 (M) 3.7
0.7
105 121 2.2
1.0
35.2
11.5
13 6.5
50 50
Note 1: Total Metal Loss (at reference values) = CS CR (wo/ scale) + ER + Synergy
Note 2: CS Erosion Rate (mpy) based on 1% solids Total 1 Metal Loss Rate (mpy) 72.3
27 If protective scale is present, CR for CS low (< 3 mpy) for Trays 20-15, and erosion is not applicable If particle-erosion and droplet-impingement-erosion is a factor, protective scale is removed and there is erosion-corrosion synergy contribution to total metal loss
28
DETERIORATION & FAILURE IN REGENERATOR (Erosion-Corrosion Deterioration Rate) Tray 20 (H) 15 (M) H2S % 3.7
0.7
Temp, C CS CR (mpy – w/ scale) 105 121 2.2
1.0
CS CR (mpy - wo scale) 35.2
11.5
Erosion Rate (mpy) 13 6.5
Synergy (%) 50 50 Total 1 Metal Loss Rate (mpy) 72.3
27
• -
Total metal loss rate (mpy) increases up Regenerator due to lower temperatures, increase H 2 S concentrations, and higher iron sulfide loadings as one proceeds up Regenerator:
Lower temperatures enable more H 2 S to dissolve in liquid Higher H 2 S concentrations in liquid decrease pH and increases iron sulfide loadings The lower the pH of liquid, the more corrosive it is to exposed metal Higher the iron sulfide loadings, higher the erosion rate
29
CONCLUSION
30
CONCLUSION
•
In conclusion: Predictive indication and parametric sensitivity studies (using CFD & Corrosion Simulation) enabled us to significantly improve equipment reliability & integrity management by:
-
determining equipment deterioration sensitivity to key process parameters (i.e. H
2 S concentration increase, iron sulfide solids loading)
-
predicting locations and magnitude of maximum metal loss
-
proactively identifying operational parameter targets to minimize deterioration
31
Any Questions?
32