evaluation of high-efficiency gas-liquid contactors for

DOE/MC/28178-3989 (DE95000065)

Evaluation of High-Efficiency Gas-Liquid Contactors for Natural Gas Processing

Semi-Annual Report April - September 1994

November 1994

Work Performed Under Cooperative Agreement No.: DE-FC21-92MC28178

For U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy Morgantown Energy Technology Center Morgantown, West Virginia

By Institute of Gas Technology Des Plaines, Illinois

.£r.T3UTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS UNLIMITED

^%C^

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy.

Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, 175 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; prices available at (615) 576-8401.

Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161; phone orders accepted at (703) 487-4650.

DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document.

DOE/MC/28178-3989 (DE95000065)

Distribution Category UC-131

Evaluation of High-Efficiency Gas-Liquid Contactors for Natural Gas Processing

Semi-Annual Report April 1994 - September 1995

Work Performed Under Cooperative Agreement No.: DE-FC21-92MC28178

For U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Fossil Energy Morgantown Energy Technology Center

P.O. Box 880 Morgantown, West Virginia 26507-0880

By Institute of Gas Technology 1700 S. Mt. Prospect Road Des Plaines, Illinois 60018

November 1994

Technical Progress Report (4th Semi-Annual) Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC21-92MC28178

Reporting Period: 04/01/94-09/30/94

PROJECT OBJECTIVE

The objective of this proposed program is to ensure reliable supply of high-quality natural gas by

reducing the cost of treating subquality natural gas containing H20, C02, H2S and/or trace quantities of

other gaseous impurities by applying high-efficiency rotating and structured packing gas liquid contactors.

WORK TO BE PERFORMED THIS REPORTING PERIOD

♦ Connect and complete testing of computer data acquisition system.

♦ Complete processing of changes in the project work scope.

♦ Complete processing of subcontracts with Glitsch.

♦ Complete all negotiations and processing of agreements.

♦ Analysis of base case residence time.

♦ Continue viscosity studies on low pressure rotary contactor system.

♦ Begin surface tension studies on low pressure rotary contactor system.

WORK ACCOMPLISHED THIS REPORTING PERIOD

Task 1. National Environmental Policy Act This task was completed.

Contractor Reports Receipt Coordinator Page 2

Technical Progress Report (SemiAnnual) Agreement No. DE-FC21-92MC28178

Task 2. Field Experimental Site Selection

We have identified the following potential

Site: Location: Current Solvent: Gas Flow Rate: Temperature: Pressure:

Feed Gas Composition: CH4 C02

C2H6 C3+ N2

H2S H20

Others Clean Gas Spec:

C02 H2S H20

A Texas DEA 20 MMSCFD 100°F 965 psia

96.0% 1.2% 1.6%

0.3% saturated 0.9%

<2% <4ppm <7#/MMSCF

sites for conducting the structured packing field tests.

B South Texas Selexol® 40 MMSCFD 100°F 1,000 psig

85.7% 14.0% 0.1%

0.2% 50 to 75 ppm saturated

<2% <4ppm <7#/MMSCF

C West Texas Propylene Carbonate 180 to 220 MMSCFD 70tollO°F 750 psig (compressed up from 300 psig)

63% 36% 0.5%, 0.04% 0.8%, 60 ppm

<3.5% <6 ppm <7#/MMSCF

Using the above conditions, we have conducted simulations using ASPEN PLUS™. Results indicate that the same skid mounted unit can be used for all the plant conditions without any modifications. The suitability and availability of these locations for our test purposes is being assessed.

Task 3. Field Experimental Skid Unit Design And Preliminary Economic Evaluations

Figure 1 shows the design of a skid unit for field testing of both chemical and physical solvents in a high-efficiency liquid contactor gas sweetening plant. In evaluating potential sites for the structured packing test, the type of amine, the solution strength (weight % of amine), and the rich loading (moles acid/mole amine) are all important considerations. Because of these considerations, the structured packing vendors were told to evaluate an 8 inch column (size originally suggested by structured packing vendors to get scaleable results) for three cases:

• A high solution strength, high rich loading DEA/MDEA case. • A low solution strength, low rich loading MEA case. • A high liquid rate (GPM/SF), NFM case.

Koch Engineering's evaluation of these cases is summarized in Table 1.

Contractor Reports Receipt Coordinator Technical Progress Report (SemiAnnual) Page 3 Agreement No. DE-FC21-92MC28178

Table 1. KOCH ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF THREE CASES FOR AN 8 INCH STRUCTURED PACKING COLUMN

SE# 1 2

3

LIQUID RATE (GPM) 5.6

2.8

9.8

GAS RATE (MMSCF/D) 1.4

1.4

1.05

Koch has agreed to supply at no cost to the project, the packing, the packing supports, the liquid distributor (with drip tubes for turndown to 30 percent of the original rates), all installed in a Koch supplied spool-piece. Packing height required for an equivalent 20 tray column was estimated at 18' 5". Koch Engineering has begun fabrication of structured packing tower internals. Their contributions include structured packing internal arrangements, assembly of orifice plate distributor and assembly of the packing support grid. Koch anticipates delivering the hardware by the end of October.

The skid as shown above was designed for 10 gpm solvent rate. The skid is typical of industrial gas treating skids with an acid gas absorber which has as feed sour gas and clean (lean) solvent. The dirty (rich) solvent with dissolved acid gases is fed to a regeneration section where heat is applied (stripper


column) and the solvent is cleaned of the acid gas and returned to the absorber. The stripped acid gas at

the pressure of the stripper column requires disposal (flared if possible).

The skid has the flexibility to run either a chemical or physical solvent. If treatment is with a

chemical solvent, the skid will operate as mentioned above. If treatment is with a physical solvent, gas

will be flashed for regeneration from the rich solvent at the flash tank with heat added to the solvent in the

stripper column if needed. The flashed gas should contain an appreciable amount of hydrocarbons with

acid gas. This flashed gas will be combined with the stripped acid gas, if the stripper column is needed,

which will require disposal (flared if possible)

Required process connections to the existing facility are as follows:

• Tees (2) into the gas inlet line to the plant, with a throttling valve to provide pressure drop between

the two connections. The structured packing absorber will provide minimal pressure drop.

• Lines to main plant to send any hydrocarbons which condense in the liquid knockout tanks (absorber

pressure) and flash tank (flash pressure).

Approximate skid dimensions are 12 ft x 12 ft x 40 ft height.

Task 4. Project Review This task was inactive.

Task 5. Information Required for NEPA. Field Site

This task was inactive.

Task 6. Fluid Dynamic Studies

The following experimental program schedule was prepared and presented to Mr. Howard Meyer of GRI and Mr. Harold Shoemaker of DOE for their review on April 29th, 1994. This program is primarily concerned with determining the effects that changes in viscosity and surface tension will have on residence time over the packing. Any changes in residence time that are caused by varying viscosity and surface tension will provide insight into the gas-liquid contacting mechanism inside a packed rotor. From this information it is hoped to estimate the system's performance for the range of commercial solvents used in industry. Residence time data will also give insight to the potential of this system for selective acid gas removal applications.


Suggested Low Pressure Rotary Contactor Experimental! Program

Viscosity and Surface Tension

1. Water Only Base Case

A. Flood Determination Runs - Flood points determined during calibration runs for air/water.

B. Residence Time Runs - Use SCEM determined from calibration runs to approximate % flood below.

RPM GPM % Sheiwood Flood * or SCFM" 600 30 60

60 400 60 60

900 60 60 90 500 90 700 90 60

1200 90 60

Note: * 60 % Sherwood flood is approximate rotating contactor flood point. ** SCFM chosen to be considerably below flood point for ease of comparison with

viscosity and surface tension runs.

2. Viscosity Runs

A. Flood Determination Runs - Flood points determined for following five conditions of RPM and GPM by varying SCFM, for each of three viscosity solutions, 5,10,15 cp.

RPM GPM 600 30,60 900 60,90 1200 90

B. Residence Time Runs - Make runs under same conditions as 1-B.

3. Surface Tension Runs

A. Flood Determination Runs - Same as 2-A for each of three surface tension solutions, 40, 50, 60 dyne/cm.

B. Residence Time Runs - Make runs under same conditions as 1-B.

4. Combined Viscosity and Surface Tension Runs

A. Flood Determination Runs - Same as 2-A for three combined solutions. B. Residence Time Runs - Make runs under same conditions as 1-B.


The initial set of residence time experiments were conducted using only air and water at the

following conditions:

Rotor Speed, RPM

600 600 900 900 900 900 900

1200

Water Flow Rate, GPM

60 60 60 90 90 90 90 90

Air Flow Rate, SCFM

506 430 830 510 692 760 680 815

A three percent salt solution was used to trace the liquid flows at four locations in the rotating contactor. Figure 2 shows the position of four electrodes to measure the solution conductivity as a function of time. Electrode 1 is at the inlet to the solvent distributor located in the eye of the rotor, electrode 2 is at the outside surface of the spinning rotor, electrode 3 is at the casing wall, and electrode 4 is in the liquid outlet pipe.

ROTATING CONTACTOR

Figure 2. Placement of Electrodes in Low Pressure Rotating Contactor.

A small amount of salt solution is injected into the flowing water stream and the conductivity of

the solution as it passed each of the four electrodes is monitored. A computer mounted analog to digital

board converts the electrode voltages reading to a computer readable input. Labtech Notebook, a data


acquisition package, is then used to read the data and store it on the computer hard disc. For each run

there are four electrode traces are produced corresponding to each electrode location.

Voltages are recorded every l/10th of a second for each probe. The relevant time span for

recording this data is on the order of 20 seconds per trace test. Thus for the eight base case conditions

tested thus far some 6,400 voltages were recorded. The graphs of electrode tracer responses for all

air/water"base runs performed thus far appear in the Appendix A.

From the inlet and tip tracer outputs mean residence time across the rotor will be calculated by integrating the areas under the traces. The mean residence time can be estimated by the following integral expression:

t i = J tC(t)dt / J C(t)dt (1)

Where t i = time and c = concentration (taken to be proportional to voltage).

Another method for calculating residence time involves reading the time at the highest voltage reading for a particular tracer response curve and subtracting that time from a similar time from another tracer output. This 'peak to peak' method has been used in the past and gives results very similar to the integration method outlined above. Preliminary result using the peak to peak method for the air/water indicate that residence time is dependent on rotor speed and liquid flow, with little if any effect of gas rate. Figure 3 shows this information graphically.

Additional base case residence time experiments were conducted using air and water for the following conditions:

Rotor Speed, Water Flow Rate, Air Flow Rate, RPM GPM SCFM

900 60 650 1200 30 750 1200 60 750 1200 90 650

These base case runs were performed because analysis of previously collected data indicated that residence time in the rotating contactor is more sensitive to liquid flow rate and rotor speed than gas flow rate. Effects of gas flow variations will be important in determining the flood point changes during the viscosity and surface tension runs.



4

3.8

36

3.4

£3.2 •

2.8

2£

2.4

12

S06«CTM

♦ "—.

5»5CTM

'"""---.

--♦-60GPM

- * - 9 0 GPM

* 1 " "« 1

900 Ester Speed font)

Figure 3. Residence Time Using Peak To Peak Calculation Method.

Viscosity and Surface Tension

During the month of July' 94, the rotor tip probe was giving voltage peaks that appeared to come later than the wall probe which is downstream of the tip probe. This was probably caused by a reservoir effect because the tip probe, being installed horizontally, requires a reservoir to sit in to read a voltage. Since this reservoir was probably too large, it was replaced by a smaller reservoir. For this reason, selected water only base case residence time runs were repeated. These repeat runs plus additional water only base case runs are summarized with residence time calculated by the integration method (Equation 1) in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2. RESIDENCE TIME RUNS CLOSE TO FLOOD

RPM

1200 1200 1200 900 900 900 750 750 750 600 600

GPM

90 60 30 90 60 30 75 60 30 60 30

SCFM

668 714 768 645 669 714 628 653 666 464 659

RESIDENCE TIME (sec)

2.499 4.077 7.810 3.360 4.830 8.461 4.058 5.405 10.24 5.760 8.912


RPM

900 900 600 600 600

Table 3. RESIDENCE TIME RUNS BELOW FLOOD

GPM SCFM RESIDENCE TIME (sec)

60 30 75 60 60

617 623 507 367 399

4.828 8.110 4.910 5.930 6.071

Residence times in the above tables were calculated by subtracting the inlet probe mean residence time (electrode 1 in Figure 2) from the tip probe mean residence time (electrode 2 in Figure 2). A typical tracer response curve follows in Figure 4.

0

;t~—|—-»..,,.■_,.,,,,

10 15 20

TIME, s

-WetProbe -Tip Probe

25 30

RESIDENCE TIME TEST AT 900 rpm, 90 gpni, 645 SCFM

Figure 4. TYPICAL ELECTRODE VOLTAGE TRACE

A brief explanation of the points on Figure 4 is as follows:

1. Salt solution reaches rotor inlet probe. 2. Salt solution exits rotor (tip probe). 3. Increase in the width of the base of peaks from inlet probe to tip probe due to mixing effects in rotor.

Additional base case residence time runs were performed because from the analysis of data collected in the previous period, it appears that residence time in the rotating contactor is more sensitive to liquid flow rate and rotor speed than gas flow rate. The effects of liquid flow rate and rotor speed on residence time can be seen on Figure 5.



12 T

calO

H 8 H W I6

§4 CO

200 400 600 800 1000

ROTOR SPEED, rpm

1200 1400

♦ 30 GPM H 60 GPM A 75 GPM ® 90 GPM

Figure 5. EFFECT OF RPM AND GPM ON RESIDENCE TIME

The Figure 5 shows that residence time decreases with increased rotor speed and also that residence time decreases with increased liquid flow rate. This implies that rotor speed and liquid flow rate can effect selectivity. The effect of gas flow rate on residence time can be seen on Figure 6. In this Figure the effect of air rate on residence time is small and not significant although it appears that residence time decreases slightly with increasing gas rate. However, as previously mentioned, it is anticipated that effects due to of gas flow variations will be important in determining the flood point changes during the viscosity and surface tension runs.

Additional flooding determination runs were also routinely performed. A flood point test is run at a constant rotor speed (RPM) and liquid flow rate (GPM). The gas flow rate is slowly raised (from a starting point which gives a 5 to 10 inch H20 pressure drop across the rotor) while recording the pressure drop at each interval of SCFM. Pressure drop vs gas rate is graphed during the run on the lab's computer by the rotary contactor operator. The point where flooding begins (the flood point), is observed visually as the gas rate in which carryover increases and becomes excessive and graphically as the point of inflection on the pressure drop vs gas rate graph. Flooding point describes the upper limit of efficient contactor operation. Typical operation is 75 to 85 percent of flood. A typical flooding test curve follows in Figure 7.


« 7 j

H 5 O 4

§ 3" S 2-CO

1 0 200 300 400 500 600 700

AIRFLOWRATE, SCFM

♦ 600 rpra 60 gpm H 750 rpm 75 gpm A 900 ipm 90 gpm

Figure 6. EFFECT OF SCFM ON RESIDENCE TIME

■s .a

go

CO CO

S

30

25

20

15

1 0 -

5 -

0

Inflection Point

200 300 400 _l 1 1 1_

500 600 700 800

ATRFLOWRATE, SCFM

H 900 1000 1100

ELOODINGTEST AT 750 rpm, 45 gpm

Figure7. TYPICAL FLOOD TEST CURVE


From this figure the flood point appears to occur at approximately 820 SCFM, with a pressure

drop of approximately 19 inches of H2O, at 750 RPM and 45 GPM. Table 4 which follows is a list of all

flooding point runs with the approximate gas rate and pressure drop at the flood point.

Table 4. FLOODING DETERMINATION RUNS

RPM

1200 1200 1200 1050 1050 900 900 900 750 750 750 750 750 600 600 600 600

GPM

90 60 45 90 75 90 60 30 90 75 60 45 30 75 60 30 15

SCFM at Flood.

875 887 794.1 802.5 890 736 798 809 738 682 719 822.5 853 601 506 732 786.8

Pressure Drop at Flood (inches H?0) 22.81 21.5 18.6 20.1 20.8 20.5 12.25 16.4 21.1 20.1 19.5 18. 17.5 26.4 23.05 21.4 17.9

The flooding curves for all runs to date appear in the Appendix B. The results from these flooding determination runs are being used to see if the relationship

between water velocity as distributed in to the eye of the rotor and the rotor velocity itself have an effect on flooding and to determine the packing factor of the particular packing used during this project.

Residence time repeatability experiments are also being routinely conducted. Fifteen residence time runs were repeated for air/water, five of which were at the identical rotating contactor design condition of 900 rpm, 90 gpm, and at an air rate in the 630 - 660 SCFM range (slightly below flood). Results of these repeatability runs and all air/water residence time runs are tabulated in Table 5. Tracer response curves for these runs are given in Appendix C.


Table 5. RESIDENCE TIME RUNS FOR AIR/WATER

RUN#

121 57 58 69 92 96 122 109 129 130 61 60 106 59 104 105 110 103 62 123 102 63 133 134 119 64 128 116 127 126 108 107 132 66 125 67 131 111 68 120

RPM

600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

GPM

30 30 60 60 60 60 60 75 30 30 30 60 75 75 75 75 90 30 30 60 60 60 75 75 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 30 30 60 60 75 75 90 90

SCFM

582 659 464 439 367 399 457 507 662 666 666 653 675 628 436 509 558 623 714 749 617 669 609 603 654 645 637 631 631 628 513 420 754 768 685 714 516 505 668 650

Residence Time(secs)

8.31 8.91 5.76 5.41 5.93 6.07 5.55 4.91 8.605 8.45 10.24 5.40 3.99 4.05 4.36 4.43 3.89 8.11 8.46 4.53 4.82 4.83 3.94 3.88 3.29 3.36 3.32 3.35 3.32 3.36 3.50 3.46 7.44 7.81 4.01 4.07 3.35 3.47 2.49 2.87

All air/water residence time runs to date with the effects of liquid flow rate and rotor speed can be seen on the following Figure 8.


C J O T

i 8

a 6

o % 4 a CO

+ 200 400 600 800 1000

ROTOR SPEED, rpm 1200 1400

♦ 30 GPM ■ 60 GPM ▲ 7SGPM « 90 GPM Linear (75 GPM) Linear (30 GPM) Linear (60 GPM) Linear (90 GPM)

Figure 8. EFFECT OF RPM AND GPM ON RESIDENCE TIME

Results of the six experiments which were run at the same conditions are tabulated, with the percent deviation from the mean, in Table 6. The mean residence time of the six runs was 3.333 seconds. The standard deviation for these runs is 0.028048 sees or 0.84 % of the mean. Although the sample size is small (6 points) and ignoring the fluctuations in the SCFM, this implies a 95.45% probability that the "true residence time" lies between 3.28 and 3.39 seconds, assuming a Gaussian distribution of the data.

Table 6. RESIDENCE TIME FOR RUNS AT ROTARY CONTACTOR DESIGN CONDITIONS

RUN#

119 64

128 116 127 126

RPM

900 900 900 900 900 900

GPM

90 90 90 90 90 90

SCFM

654 645 637 631 631 628

Residence Time(secs)

3.29 3.36 3.32 3.35 3.32 3.36

% Deviation of Residence Time from Mean of 3.333

sees 1.29

-0.810 0.390

-0.510 0.390

-0.810

Surface Tension Surface tension runs using Triton CF-10 surfactant (0.001% concentration in water) were

suspended when it became apparent that although the temperature of the liquid used during the run was in the low to mid seventies °F (reported Cloud Point of CF-10 is 82°F.) some turbidity or precipitation of the surfactant had occurred. Surface tension measurements for CF-10 versus concentration are summarized in Table 7.


Table 7. SURFACE TENSION OF WATER AND CF-10 SURFACTANT

Tvoe and Concentration of Solution (a), 72 ° F Chicago Tap Water - used in Lab Experiments Standard - Deionized Water CF-10,1 weight % CF-10,0.1 weight % CF-10,0.01 weight % CF-10,0.001 weight %

Surface Tension - Dvne/cm 52.6 72.0 38.0 37.4 37.6 48.2

The surface tension of Chicago tap water, 52.6 dyne/cm due to its mineral content affects our plans to test the full range of surface tensions originally envisioned (70 - 40 dyne/cm). Options using mixtures of deionized water with city water are being explored.

Results of residence time (integration type) runs using 0.001 wt. % CF-10 (900 rpm, 30 gpm) are summarized in Table 8 with to similar runs using air/water only.

Table 8. RESIDENCE TIME COMPARISON FOR CF-10 AND AIR/WATER RUNS

RUN# 112 113 114 62 103

FLUIDS CF-10/AIR/H2O CF-10/ALR/H2O CF-10/AIR/H2O AIR/H20 AIR/H20

RPM 900 900 900 900 900

GPM 30 30 30 30 30

SCFM 631 627 782 714 623

Residence Time (sees) 7.98 8.34 8.42 8.46 8.11

No obvious patterns can be determined from this small residence time sample. However, there appears to be subtle differences between the shape of the tip probe response curves which may have implications in deterrnining surface tension effects.

Figure 9 shows that mean residence times are about the same with or without CF-10 at similar air rates as shown in Table 8, the relative onset of tracer peaks for (time difference between the start of the inlet probe, electrode # 1, response curve and the start of the tip probe, electrode # 2, response curve) is as much as 1 second less for the surfactant runs. Also, the slope or rise in voltage for the tip probe versus time for the surfactant runs is flatter than the air/water only runs. Some points; of particular interest are labeled as follows:

• A for water/air with surfactant (run #112)

• B for water/air only (run #103)

• C for water/air with surfactant

• D for water/air only


1.2 -J

1 ■

0.8 -

i0-6-

0.4 •

0.2 -

... .

1 i ft

i 1

1 1 1 t 1 1 ir. 1 l i l i 1 l'i 1 '• ' •• ! » ! » ' 1 * t 1 i l I \

0 < ^ A ^ ■ P <? B "•N

rtw" 5

•»» s>

D C

•'

■AX- '* i>. -

—Imlct Probe Wattr/AIr (Uovks AV|.)

- UktProbeWila/AIrWItkSiir&ctiBtCUovIiisAvs.)

•TlpProU Water/Air (UovbgAvg.)

-'npProUWattr/AIr Willi S(ir&ctiBt(UoviagAvg.)

20 25

Figure 9. SURFACE TENSION EFFECTS ON RESIDENCE TIME

These phenomena imply that decreased surface tension increases the dispersion or mixing in the rotary contactor. A more detailed analysis will be conducted as more surface tension data is collected.

A flooding determination run at 600 rpm and 60 gpm indicated that some minor foaming was occurring. Since foaming occurred at this low a surfactant concentration, 0.001 %, we do not plan on running higher concentrations of this surfactant unless an antifoam can be used.

Since the surface tension of Chicago tap water is 52.6 dyne/cm, a water deionizer was rented and installed in the rotary contactor lab. The deionizer rented from Culligan Industrial Systems has a 22,500 gallon capacity, a 12 gallon per minute rate, and an audio alarm when the beds are spent. The deionizer should make it possible to test surface tension effects through most of the original range of surface tensions originally envisioned (70 - 52.6 dyne/cm), without having to add surface tension additives (surfactants). Also, a du-Nouy tensiometer was purchased for use in the rotary contactor lab to allow surface tension measurements on a per run basis. The tensiometer uses a ring method to give readings within ± 0.05 dyne/cm.


Surface tension flooding and residence time runs using 100% deioiuzed water were then

performed the same conditions as previously run with Chicago tap water. Results showing a comparison

between the flood points for Chicago tap water (52.6 dyne/cm surface tension) and deionized water (70

dyne/cm surface tension) follows in Table 9.

Table 9. COMPARISON OF FLOODING POINT FOR CHICAGO TAP AND DEIONIZED WATER

RPM/GPM

600/30

600/60

750/30

750/45

750/60

750/75

900/30

900/60

900/90

1200/45

Tap Water, SCFM

718

553

811

757

819

718

684

793

798

703

733

680

761

Tap Water DP, psi

19.90

27.75

16.00

19.42

18.35

19.06

20.65

15.58

19.44

20.35

20.85

20.60

16.80

Deionized H20, SCFM

644

517

794

765

666

668

816

739

689

743

Deionized H20 DP, psi

20.00

26.45

18.52

17.9

19.1

21.68

16.22

18.28

20.98

18.07

% Difference in SCFM

10.3

6.51

2.10

-1.06

6.59

7.24

2.34

-2.90

7.39

1.99

6.00

-1.32

2.36

% Difference in DP, psi

0.50

4.68

-15.7

7.83

2.45

0.21

-4.99

-4.11

5.97

-3.09

-0.62

-1.84

-7.56

As can be seen from this table, no clear effect of surface tension difference (from 70 dyne/cm to 52.6 dyne/cm) on rotary contactor flood is apparent. Viscosity

The search for a viscosifier (additives to affect the viscosity of the solvent) continued when it was determined that the compound that we had intended to use Poly-Plus, a cellulose powder in liquid form, was found to lose viscosity over time during testing in a Brookfield viscometer. Shear force can be varied in a Brookfield viscometer and viscosity can be read at each shear setting. Poly-Plus and most viscosity enhancing agents are Non-Newtonian. This means that viscosity can change with shear force and in some cases shear duration. Another compound called Polyox, a water soluble resin, was considered. Although it is also Non-Newtonian, it is completely water soluble and testing thus far in the Brookfield viscometer show no effects of either viscosity degradation with time or with the degree of shear. A solution using


Polyox is being run in the rotating contactor to determine if the shear forces in the rotor will degrade this compound sufficiently to make it unusable for our purposes. A summary of our search for a viscosifier appears in Appendix D.

As previously stated, most viscosity enhancing agents are Non-Newtonian. This means that viscosity of the solution can change with shear force and in some cases shear duration. Therefore their suitability for use in a the rotary contactor needs to be determined. The most promising Non-Newtonian compound found thus far, Polyox, a water soluble resin, has shown no effects of either viscosity degradation with time or with the degree of shear, running for extended periods in a Brookfield viscometer. A Brookfield viscometer measures viscosity by applying a shear rate to the liquid and converting the drag (shear stress) caused by the fluid into a viscosity.

Shear stress (x) is related to viscosity by the following relation:

T=u/gc* du/dy, where

\i = viscosity

go = dimensional constant

du/dy = velocity gradient across the liquid film or shear rate

Estimates of the shear rates possible in the rotary contactor are many times greater than possible

in a Brookfield viscometer. The shear stress/viscosity relation indicates that if viscosity is varied in the

same ratio as shear rate (du/dy), the same shear stress (x) is developed. Therefore, multiplying the ratio of

shear rate between the rotary contactor and the Brookfield viscometer times the viscosity of fluid run in

the rotary contactor gives the equivalent viscosity for running in the Brookfield viscometer to create the

same effective shear stress present in the rotary contactor. Estimates of the rotary contactor shear rate at

900 RPM, 90 GPM were compared to the shear rate given in product literature for the Brookfield

viscometer. To represent a 20 centipoise solution in the rotary contactor a 2500 centipoise solution of

Polyox solution should be used in the Brookfield viscometer to impart equivalent shear stress to the fluid.

Results of that test follow in Figure 10.



>< 1500 CO

8 1000

500

0

■ ^ - »

20 40 60 80 TIME, minutes

100 120 140

Figure 10. BROOKFIELD SHEAR STRESS TEST OF POLYOX SOLUTION

These findings indicate that there will be some degradation of the Polyox in the rotary contactor. The estimated degradation 20% in two hours, should not appear to be a problem. The average residence time in the rotor is approximately 5 seconds. It takes on the order of 20 minutes for one pass of the liquid through the rotor where it would be subjected to approximately 5 seconds of shear degradation. From the initial slope of the curve of Figure 10, 5 seconds would result in approximately 0.02% degradation of the solutions viscosity per experiment.

Solutions of Polyox and deionized water were also run in the Brookfield viscometer to generate a relation between weight percent of Polyox in water versus viscosity.

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 WEIGHT % POLYOX

1.6 1.8

Figure 11. VISCOSITY VERSUS WEIGHT PERCENT POLYOX


From Figure 11, we anticipate that solutions of 0.2 to 1.5% Polyox should be sufficient to simulate the behavior of solvents such as MDEA, MEA, and NFM in a rotating gas-liquid contactor system.

Use of NFM in the Rotary Contactor

As simulated corrosion testing of materials which are wetted in the rotary contactor using various concentrations of NFM/H20 was complete. The purpose of this testing was to determine if NFM/water mixtures could be run in the rotary contactor without corrosion problems. Materials that would come in contact with the solution are Plexiglas (the material from which the vessel shell was fabricated), PVC (the piping material), and polyethylene (the material from which the storage vessels were fabricated).

The testing procedure involved weighing small samples of each material and immersing each in a bottle of known concentration of NFM solution. Periodically, samples were removed from the bottles, dried, weighed and returned to the bottles. The testing period varied from about 120 to 200 days.

Plots of weight gain or loss versus time for each material appear in Appendix E. Results indicate that both Plexiglas and PVC are vigorously attacked by 100 % NFM. Samples of each material subjected to solutions with increasing amounts of water show dramatic decreases in weight change, with solutions of 80 weight percent NFM / 20 weight percent water showing almost no variation during the entire period. Polyethylene showed very little change during the entire period with any NFM solution concentration.

Task 7. Mass-Transfer Coefficient Studies A reevaluation of this task's objectives was conducted prior to purchasing of this and other

related equipment. It was determined by the program sponsors and IGT that the program should be modified to better suite the needs of the gas industry developments. It was decided that the gas industries needs would be best served by evaluating high-efficiency structured packing gas liquid contactors for gas sweetening in field testing program. This technology has a wider potential application and a closer commercialization horizon.

Some quotes have been received thus far on the skid design conducted under Task 3 of this program. A package was prepared containing quotes from all the bidders including used and rental plants. A comparison summary with pros and cons of various options is given in Appendix F.

Task 8. Field Experimental Studies This task was inactive.

Task 9. Data Analysis and Reports A meeting was held on July 28th at IGT's Energy Development Center with Mr. Harold

Shoemaker of DOE to discuss project results and give a demonstration of rotating contactor operation and


data gathering. Presentations on this project were made to IGT's SMP Proposal Review Committee on September 15th. Another presentation on this project was made to IGT's SMI* Review Committee on September 29th. A presentation was given at IGT's Sustaining Membership Program Meeting on October 20th.

WORK TO BE PERFORMED NEXT PERIOD

♦ Complete viscosity studies on low pressure rotary contactor system.

♦ Complete surface tension studies on low pressure rotary contactor system. ♦ Conduct field testing of high-efficiency structured packing gas-liquid contactor.


This report was prepared by Institute of Gas Technology pursuant to U.S. Department of Energy -Agreement No. DE-FC21-92MC27391 and the Gas Research Institute Contract No. 5092-222-2459. However, neither IGT, the Department of Energy, nor GRI, nor any person acting on behalf of any of them.

a. Makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report may not infringe privately-owned rights, or

b. Assumes any liability with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report.

Reference to trade names or specific commercial products, commodities, or services in this report does not represent or constitute an endorsement, recommendation, or opinion of suitability by GRI or IGT of the specific commercial product, commodity, or service.

This is an interim report; hence, the data, conclusions, and calculations are preliminary and should not be construed as final.

APPENDDCA

Graphs of electrode tracer responses for air/water base runs

Residence Time Test Run 20 600 RPM, 60 GPM, 506 CFM (3% NaCl)

Time (sec)


1.6i

*

V

-0.2

•0.4

Ho

:••':•;■ Xf> 5 ' i \ \ ? ' ™ J , . ' ^ ¥ * x % so*"*1*****!™*" > '■'■ JW58W«v^ -.-.v. i ! - V " ■■ T " * ,S?K:,J*"P«"W"

^ ; ; \

**% V^-A^ l ( / l fAVIV1yAVAW^A'

"v\-.K 5V ■

An

. ^ V ? 5 y -yyy ^

\ Wi%4v%&*%\{vs{s -V CvV S *S%VYWW% VA?* XV %VM% WLSUMSWW %%SS vSliWWW • 1

'"■!""''; g $«?£&<# 4$p "$*$ W*$} 4 ;

% i , . . s ■wssSw> % . . - V V\^% . ?. \% SA S . v

^#^^»%>W«^F Time (sec)

Residence Time Test Run 22 900 RPM.60 GPM, 830 SCFM,(3% NaCl)

■a

-0.2

-0.4

y -* v., M ' ^ - \ ' ^ ' " - ,"," £ ,; * --' s ,-. - 5- *- v* "> * ?* -■*$*■' -"''" °-^ 5 yy -os ™-; *r :<% * * -;,' "v ~ ,$. ;->vy 5 y.:. y 3

y sy.y ^ v « ^ ^ w { v * ^ ; v sx.vXy.wy-w y<v<.v.yAV%^X'X y w v<%<.v.x.w \ ,v<.xX /.x^C^x X'X'yvy<«v%v~t.X<X<\y\«wf.ww.y v>«.y.v.sy»>*vv.y t.y.v<^<**Ay.x.x<. i -v t A*.<V.y«.wi>*< V A V V < W A V M ) W ^ M « W H

K * h <-i KA P <^ <X!-',Xv.-.''',;.X\

l l v i « : ^ i ,m s m y i i ^

-0.6 -t-" vl...>.'

€y,i?«l

< X.- hX ■!-.X£> 4 ^ 4 h\«%X YV"> -hX vtX""1-1 K < <<K-M|X^V h X -SiX\., K $>£XX K. <-.!•.X ^ "*?%• hx\X"Xv X*X i \ " S ^ S N ^ f e K W X ^ ' S ^ V ^ - K I - ^ ' K " 5

?;,HI

*'-.-.%■. ^ • • A 0 ^ y ™ ^ # * - y : ^ ..^Vs.,.. , IJ1<I Time (sec)

http://sx.vXy.wy-w

Residence Time Test Run 27 900 RPM, 90 GPM, 692 CFM, (6% NaCl)

1.3 iiiiiiini'.i'iii'i'i'iii'ili\il'ri'iiiiii.nit'iH)i..M.iiiiin.iiiiiiiiiiii •. "WS-XX *.\ X- s v <■ X- x " x - y ^ - i y v -y * v ..■■ •:■-y-y-yt^. - ^ r . ^ - " - ^ .

A $ - "> - , o vxIxiN" - § ; x., ^ „ ? \ - v s % , y- - -- J, ^ -

Ml l iMMiMVj " ' * " " " 'WM4iK< i l i hnMi l i l h» i ) i t r t t r tM im^^^

;i.--->- v5s ^ x

\^$$sf ^.x

--i ^-%**,- - -•>

v . y - ■•%..

x.X. ■■■■ ■■ ■■ ■■■$■■■

0.5

0.3

0.1

-0.1

V-

y:^y, *■$& yM-.AggfjMptij^ *H>)

f%$& M4V,AV& BnpUt.J^iV'l1

^ 4 pet, Mwfovg£$>Pflito) s $ l jJ '

l^M!Ml' ' ' ;M

l lMIIIMMYt^l 'yi ' l l t ( l l l l ) ' ))^Jx

M('l l l l i i t l ! l l l l l l

' ' 'l l l l

' '11

'l l l

'l lvM''

1'J

l' '

l l l l'l l' '

l'l l l lM I

'l l l

M

• * iwr

d> <X1 >> *£• *>> - * r*■■ ■■-rt ' Wf <fr\ <K M Js- li> *rt ■*' t*--&- *« OK 0\: i *4 f > \£> to T ''V> '' ?* |W <"*

_™ ^—^SZ :..a..,.:;" :., Z......B TD & <M.... A..;.rfr...,S....n(— r».„....<ij,.,,rx...,w„ t*....<a,v,w. at...'.& „ «3™*c •«$■: il*-

-0 3

Time (sec)

Residence Time Test Run 28 900 RPM, 90GPM, 760 CFM (6% NaCl)

Jy s- " "" :> v - ^V- *xt " - K,-,i, *

1.5

-0.5 J-

•• ' ' 'Ji.'.

JiJ s"1

4VV.

\ \ * s O " % s s s s i v. "" s \ i "-i \

\x , -Vvxl 4 \t*. v. -x- :;- s -. -y ys

y " \> - 5 .

■ y v y - y i .. S \ $ ? : ^ I > \.$> s s \

■J ,iii.ii..iim....ii.n..i..ii.iiii..iri.;i.i..i...ii.i....in i...-..iiiiiii.i.iiii..iMi.i.n.i.i...i.i..iiiii.i...ii.i...tii.m./iii...ii.ii.n..n...i.iin i.. a ■ i. i i\. i. i n 11 ■ ■ 11 ■ i i i i i i i i . i i i i j i i . i i i i . i i in . in i i i i i i i i i in . i l i....i.i * v'-'- ■• o % ■. s \\v V is - vi~-». * s •. x v. •. ■• «x - » -.-. o VJ x y/xx- y y \ y * ■■ - ■■ ■■ y % -. .> s ... . V.X XSX -V f ' \.'<'..' '• " • ' . ' - ' ■ >. . .-. « >. ^ - -.V. . . \ X- > v.

4pfttvM(>y< Avg,#mip»K]S**tO) 3 p%. Koy. Avg. {iwdfj>6H6) * 4 pin MoV> A8& &n(rf BJbfr)

jy*4 pen Mov- A-VS-<tip profe}--

<^ <». 1^ ^ l^ ^ ri ^ ^. ^ (^ <^ r^ ^ ^ ^. ^ ^ >^ ^ <\ P<i t\ ^ y\ ^ ^ ^{ >n t^- <>i s» '

Time (sec)

http://iiiiiii.iiiijii.iiii.iiin.iniiiiiiiiiin.il

Residence Time Test 900 RPM, 90 GPM, 680 CFM (6% NaCl)

2.00-t

1.50

1.00

^

*

0.50

0.00

-0.50

•■* Xx% \%

^ t y , y y i ^ v % l ; x # f e

y ? y

iC-iv+i-Xvh >vM*K

^iS^?S i^-

y y

■Siy s-yy. ■&ii*

>yy • V , * [ V

y^x*-. v •■.■■■•y yx. **■ ^vy \ y*. ™% •■ -

•■ •• ■. ^ y- -.-. •• ■■ i ^ y v v x ;JiX ^ . r ' v

"' " ^ ^ \vy>y-, - yiUx,

y

?!

Vi

w-^

y^vyl -■■•ix

, y -

\<y y-v

>ll

p y "iT-

y*-S s ts s

-■y

^

■••■'• r

■■

■"V

v'i ^ ■h h ft HAXvii t£Xvh-X\ K X-/Vft -1 K £*x\^vx"-$ ,-K'h ^vK-X^'K'X^r&K i\K K X +w h Xvh X y\ <$g y-

vy> , , y^W--'-i--'- -■" - - - - I , *; : - £ ----; A- - y-yyy , „ v y-.- y--" a

w.. i t >.» I " T 'm'niniii'ffMM'i'>I'I UIUIWIIIIHIWHIIHI|I|* i i iiiwn i f r jmr

f t i * * » 3 4 4 ? i « 4 i ?- * * -* to JMX u w « ** l&M it'it is v> n w ® w l» J9 20

4 p«CJif»Vv As^?. (prolj&out*^)

"^ per.-MoW^vg. (pf-obsintBt-} t[l

Time (sec)

L'V Signal (volts)

3

-+-', 'A '' , ' y / y ' '' /', '' , -yy,, y y/y'-,

Hi", ' ' , '' -y/Z' " &'/',

';?'; * '<»&*

yy. /

' y y y y/'y ' , ,

•iv-V

y f i * ,

''''Aff-

T. /, v'y/, y ' ' , ,y '/ 'y > ' , i " ' * y/y$ , y , ', , ' ' y s ' v y ' ' y, ' , /'? 'y* ? '■' i, ' ' ,', ' ' ' , ,''„■

.* '" y^ , , ' "/''

- 0 ' ,.' ' ' - 4i-, J ' ' '

' ' y . A'/ y '' , ' '''' %y"y'yi'' i.

„ ' /

"''/' ''. .?y" '

y, '"'?/','?', ''' ' , ',,y'' ',,, ' , '' ' ' '', ' y ,'',

' y'"y, -- '' ', ' '>,, ' ', ', ' - ' 'y 'Z'M,« ' '' , "-'C-y/'-m/',/'*""";/''"'- ''"'" -'

'/, '"'' '}"" ' ' ', ' // 'y'""' ' ?&,,''», t' ' , , ' ' '

y' . * sw ,"'''%, . ' '<.'/",

. , , ii-yy "%''}/',' '"' ' " , "

■&■,„**'&''4*.

:> > W'M-

>'>

-» s ^ "

&

^ y - d . -S--.-W

s f5 9 n

3 H

c s

O is g 00 o O

25 O

9* Signal (volts)

",'fW"'/% ■,■ ■■ '''Sff&f 'y '■

, '"A ""/i ''A^/'Ay 'A '/'/ - '"'"'"/' ,

"fty-A, "''' -< ' , '"A ' ','' ' 'A,A , "' "/';"/' y " „ ' y ',"'/$4*'f ' ',,y"AA?'A;"y y ', ',4,/' - '*"',* ,'"y,SyZ;"}"' 'l''/tyyyy?'''<,',/' -

. s f. Vs j- < *</ .yy v sy yyJjy . f s<y s yf

\ ;"' ' ''' ' "$W ' '', ''y'/yK yj-'f A '- ' - ""'*,,< ' ' y- / * "'-"

{' '' ,, '' ' '' ' , , A'''r 'y •'•,'," , "*,%'/A?' "A'Zt,- ♦ ' "'"y\ '/,,'A '

"■'<,' A' f''H , " ,

' y ' ' t'y ''y '" ' ' ' ■* / ' ' ' ' , . ' ' , ' ' .

A , *AA 'A 4'' v ' ' ," " ' ' \ /' ' y *'

"^L y^^i>:'Mm''r^m^^S' , ' y y--y-y- %?"

'■a" Ay,

i"

>t*%y'' ^y^yfW' A,

^y%y#f; '.I

'y:<^yy^--iW ,

a EL' n a n n

3 o H n

£ s w 00

o O

o O

2! 65 O

J •r j

f< *

» <£ *s 75 t>

s >c

' •> s •>

y '&. •a

' 3

' £ , <p

- « " o .

» o»

- s

,

" 4 -c 54

f i 4 43 s

■ t

j ' "

'"'/''' X Jx

^ti &

',' "'< " '%t'

■?* N « - .*' ' ' c w-

.' 1 ; * "-" 3

b-¥

p

Signal (volts)

o o o

y ;, I ; ■ ; I -, , t , : '/,',/,;',A '' '„„ ' ,£', y A;,4Ayf/"Z„ ' , * / V '',/, , '''y'ff'Zt?S' '

"Aft , , , ''{WW, ' '"P' ''

&?, ' 'AyA^'s'y''' ,",', />Vi ''

%jy " - '-'"^ . ;?$

'„ A>,

A,' ' ..'4. .''

' - & ■ ■

'{ , , ' 'A"/, ,„" .' "'' ';;,„ , " ' '' ,h ,

~~2~^^Pm—'' ' 'Ay --y ' ' 'A',',/,,','

y *&£', '"/W£% fyy%y^ , ^ ' ^ ^ y y ":',,'- A',,,4'«4}" ' y ? , y y : , y

y y y y - y y y \ /,, - - - -,

,"■■ "',',' '"''' ' A , ^ A " ' { ' ', „ , ' 'A' / , , , ' # s 'M£,s'-"" /* * * **

, .fj . tt,t s S'S<vy'' fSt* J * , '?, $ •*■ ^ _,X J-J- * * S ,* f * WS<Sr £ * * J - J - ff

*• J f 5* *** * "*shS* J- ' •* * " ■* • * *x^** * * * H V-- * * 'j?& ' ' " ' J- * -'"",/- '""fr-L'&i ' - '- ",;, -" -A ''y'"'f, ' ','Ayy-^i " f

""'}',,,',' ,/,y,y,~ , , A}/, -'" ',i,'y,/,', , - i "„v' ' y y , ,

"'',' ',' y \ ' „ „ ' ' " ' ' ' , '

*"" . J A "Si-Si* * * i'M* ' ** * r w J- //%,st J- ' , £ ;

, , , ' ' , ', ,' ' ,,',0^"", :¥,{,y ' -' - ; " , ''-''-A',,'"'tyy/'iyy,'"'"fy'/fi ,,,-

' frf/y'y " ' ' " / , '""'/, '^ Z ' " ' " ' , ' A '''""'"y ' , " ' , ' ' " ' '(,

sy ' J-J.J.-T * , J-J-S ' s / ' '*&//. ' *S<r '4*

• ' ",: , , *?¥*»,: ' *?",, '&'.- i v ; ' ' :':': „'. ' '"?'''"'':: ',' ' . ",'",'A'" ',',' ''

"Ay

yA'',

„ ' ,' 'y'.

' ;f'y. A' ':'/?'",

',y, V y/'„ ' ,""" ■ 'y 'A,' , ", ,f'/,

, '/''j,, /' y y ','',, ' ' "' AiA}',,'

,', ' ' y ',, 4AA '' ' ' ';my ,,'Ai', / '*$&*,/'.', yim '

. n-A,, ''%' '':„',Jy y".

:> 'H^Jt^/ii

%'M"w"f' &"%?&'& '*£ y; •< .-■<•■ *F' JP'sV?- f <S-,*3l'-2 *&

c ,s: 'fa

T, <& -it'?", &'%!?, y

w n SI n a n ft H 3'

K? V)

w s a o K) o

5 o

o

o

o 0\


y yyyyy

^ f * \ \ y , \ * * yyiy yy- - 5y,; -;y-\i

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6 -»•

£'\i%8&$

v v , ; -, yy^\*^yy ■ ^ . i

-y|y-;v*.-.'*s- y y y y .

,x ,.... „ , , x*- ^ ^, , x ,^ y,-. x,,,..,, ,--■■ , -^,-^ y y ?■- y y

-y> ^ s \5v. s xtt" , \ -^ > ' ^ v ' yy-.y y-- y^--^*-,, yy

- y J 1.- yyyyi- y

, % 4 .per. Mov,Avg,(Dufle!fpi^iifl+5) ""'i; '" '"""^ per, tew Am (v*tfl prefe) ******$ p(8fyMo*,!AVf. (ttpprobs) ™mvm

: v,4 (ftr> Uw+ &y,&:M® &<&<&

Time (sec)

U'V Signal (Volts)

y , >, ,<y i ' ',>,y,'

«*&£&> ^zs *&. -rsd- *& :

*y,£ySy.S1

V?-'yy*>;,<&yy4ty

/rr ■*B 3 ■»•■


1 T ^

o

^

?» —iffy MftV, Qfa Wtitytifa) '; " •. 4})w,Vt*V. Avg, oul}e{prafaei *to)

- -4 #c£Jvfoi AV£ ($£$tt$$ s ■■ ^ - 7 ~ ^ 4 i»er, Hoy. Av£' (inH'pt &<$":i -,

-0.4 -

-0.6

Time (Sec)

APPENDIX B

Flooding Runs

Table 1. ROTARY CONTACTOR FLOODING AT 750 rpm, 45 gpm

Rotor Speed, 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750

rpm Temperature. F 93 91 92 91 91 91 91 91 92 90 92 91 91 90 90 91 92 91 91

Inlet Pressure Inches H20

7.5 8.1 9.5 10.8 12.0 14.5 15.2 16.5 17.1 18.3 19.1 20.0 20.6 21.8 22.9 23.8 24.6 25.7 26.9

Gas Inlet Flow. CFM

381 423 481 535 585 692 728 783 818 826 834 884 904 933 960 984 1000 1030 1057

Gas Inlet Flow. SCFM

364.9 407.1 463.7 518.3 568.3 676.3 712.7 768.9 802.9 816.0 822.5 875.2 896.3 929.3 958.7 982.9 998.9 1033.4 1063.4

Delta P Inches H20

7.8 8.2 9.5 10.8 12.0 14.3 14.9 16.0 16.8 18.0 18.7 19.6 20.2 21.2 22.2 23.2 23.8 24.8 25.8

200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0 1000.0 1100.0 AIR FLOW RATE, SCFM

Figure 30. FLOODING TEST AT 1200 rpm, 45 gpm

B-l

Table 2. ROTARY CONTACTOR FLOODING AT 1050 gpm, 75 gpm

Rotor Speed, rpm 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050

Temperature 92 93 93 93 92 93 92 93 92 94 92 94 92 93 92 93

Inlet Pressure F Inches H20

11.7 12.4 13.4 15.3 16.1 17.4 17.9 19.0 19.7 20.2 21.2 22.0 22.7 24.2 25.1 26.C

Gas Inlet Flow, CFM

496 526 568 661 697 750 795 801 860 888 898 927 943 988 1020 1059

Gas Inlet Delta P Flow. SCFM nches H20

481 510 552 645 683 735 782 788 849 875 890 917 938 984 1020 1059

11.9 12.5 13.4 15.2 16.0 17.0 17.5 18.6 19.3 19.8 20.8 21.2 22.0 23.3 24.2 25.0

200 300 400 500 600 700 800

AIR FLOW RATE, SCFM




9.1

12.4 13.9

16.6 18.0 18.9 19.4 20.8 21.7 22.2 23.1 24.0 24.8 25.3 26.0 26.8 27.8

Gas Inlet Flow. CFM

434 482 529 562 603 647 693 716 722 724 734 772 809 836 861 860 877 895 918


419

515 550

637 685 710 716 719 732 770 811 838 867 864 884 902 929

Delta P Inches H20

9.4

12.6 13.9

16.6 18.0

. 18.6 19.2 20.6 21.4 21.9 22.7 23.6 24.2 24.7 25.5 26.2 27.0

30.0 -

O §j 25.0 -CO ID

J 20.0 -pS § 15.0-s g 10.0 -

S 5.0-P-,

n n -v.v i

200

□

I 400

Figure 32.

-

D

D a

i i \ i i i

600 800 1000

ATR FLOW RATE, SCFM

FLOODING TEST AT 600 rpm, 30 gpm

i i

1200

0-3

Rotor Speed, rpm Temperature. F 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600

91 90 90 89 89 90 89 89 89

■ 90 89 90 88 89 88 90 89 90 89


Inlet Pressure Gas Inlet Gas Inlet Delta P Rotor Speed, rpm Temperature. F Inches H2Q Flow. CFM Flow. SCFM Inches H2Q

1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

104 104 103 104 103 103 104 104 104 104 104 105 105 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 105 105 105 105 105

11.15 12.30 13.40 14.30 14.25 14.30 15.00 15.60 17.10 17.25 18.80 19.20 20.25 21.60 22.25 23.25 23.75 24.00 25.00 25.25 26.00 26.60 27.20 27.75 28.10

369 425 472 516 519 525 550 590 656 669 734 778 765 828 876 898 922 934 964 975 992 1022 1040 1054 1077

350 404 450 492 496 502 526 565 630 643 708 750 739 804 852 875 900 912 943 955 971 1002 1021 1036 1060

11.75 12.80 13.75 14.62 14.70 14.70 15.30 15.90 17.21 17.45 18.78 19.19 20.19 21.50 22.00 22.81 23.39 23.59 24.43 24.65 25.45 25.90 26.40 26.99 27.25

30 -i co

.1 25-O 2 0 1 s£ o Q 3 15 i 5 10 -C/3 C/3 a 5-P*

o J

0

am*? a n

H , D %

n ^ r i n n p

p ° D

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1

200 400 600 800 1000 AIR FLOW RATE, SCFM


i i

1200

B-+


Inlet Pressure Gas Inlet Gas Inlet Delta P Rotor Speed, rpm Temperature. F Inches PRO Flow. CFM Flow. SCFM Inches H2Q

1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

102 102 103 100 100 100 100 100 102 102 103 103 102 103 104 104 104 104 105 104 104 104 104

10.80 11.80 12.50 12.75 12.95 13.50 14.75 15.00 16.25 17.25 17.85 18.75 19.25 20.10 20.40 21.50 21.90 22.00 22.75 23.00 24.25 25.25 26.25

410 450 475 493 508 546 606 625 684 736 796 765 779 828 860 914 928 929 957 980 1011 1065 1085

389 428 452 472 487 524 583 602 658 710 767 739 755 802 833 887 902 903 930 955 988 1043 1065

10.80 11.80 12.50 12.75 12.95 13.50 14.75 15.00 16.25 17.25 17.85 18.75 19.25 20.10 20.40 21.50 21.90 22.00 22.75 23.00 24.25 25.25 26.25

O 30 1 3 25 S 2 5 " O

•S 20 -

§ 15-Q S io -vi 5 -

S 0

p ° ° □ P

200 400 600 800 1000

AIR FLOW RATE, SCFM Figure 34. FLOODING TEST AT 1200 rpm, 60 gpm

1200

B-£T


Rotor Speed. 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

rpm Temperature. F 105 103 103 104 104 105 105 105 106 107 107 107 107 108 107 108 108 108 108 108 108


9.00 9.65 10.00 10.13 10.40 10.90 10.63 12.41 13.25 14.25 14.60 15.85 16.00 16.65 17.50 18.20 18.20 18.60 19.30 20.40 21.00

Gas Inlet Flow. CFM

300 322 347 353 375 409 454 513 560 613 652 710 746 787 776 817 848 840 897 942 975


282 304 328 334 355 386 429 487 531 582 619 676 711 750 742 781 811 804 860 906 939

Delta P Inches H20

9.40 10.10 10.42 10.45 10.70 11.23 11.95 12.70 13.40 14.30 14.65 15.83 16.20 16.85 17.50 18.19 18.19 18.59 19.30 20.00 20.50

200 400 600 800

AIRFLOW RATE, SCFM

Figure 35. FLOODING TEST AT 1200 rpm, 30gpm

1000 1200

8i>


Inlet Pressure Rotor Speed, rpm Temperature. F Inches H2Q

900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900

104 104 102 104 104 104 104 105 105 105 104 105 105

9.4 10.5 11.2 12.8 14.3 15.0 15.0 16.5 17.5 18.3 19.4 20.5 21.2

25.0 -

O g 20.0 -co <D

-G O

•S„ 15.0 -PH

§ Q § 10-0 -CO CO

g 5.0-

n n -0

—

i

200

Figure 36.

3 p

p p

p

p p p

p

i i i i i i i i

400 600 800 1000 AIRFLOW RATE, SCFM

FLOODING TEST AT 900 rpm, 90 gpm

i i

1200

0-7

Gas Inlet Flow. CFM

425 450 488 548 596 610 621 664 704 740 715 761 755


401 426 464 521 569 583 594 636 676 712 691 736 731

Delta P Inches H2Q

9.4 10.5 11.2 12.8 14.3 15.0 15.0 16.5 17.5 18.3 19.4 20.5 21.2


Speed, rpm 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900

Temperature. F 104 105 105 106 106 107 108 108 107 106 107 107 107 107


8.2 11.2 12.2 13.0 14.8 15.4 16.4 17.4 17.9 19.4 19.7 21.2 22.0 22.5

Gas Inlet Flow. CFM

366 503 550 602 675 712 762 805 783 829 832 888 905 931


344 476 521 571 643 678 726 768 750 798 800 857 875 901

Delta P Inches H20

8.6 11.4 12.5 13.2 14.8 15.7 16.6 17.6 18.1 19.3 19.6 21.0 21.7 22.3

25.0 -

O a 2o.o-co

o •- 15.0 -P-, o rt Q § 10-0 -

CO CO s 5-°-PH

nn .

0

~ D D°

S P P

P P

P

„ P P P

P

l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

200 400 600 800 1000 AIR FLOW RATE, SCFM


i i

1200

&-0


Rotor Speed. 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900

rpm Temperature. F 104 104 104 104 105 105 104 104 103 103 104 104 104 105 104 105 104 103 103 104 104


6.35 7.10 7.18 8.00 9.65 9.90 9.80 10.20 10.80 10.70 11.00 11.50 12.30 12.30 13.40 14.20 15.30 16.20 16.60 17.70 18.40

Gas Inlet Flow. CFM

250 290 338 426 480 495 515 537 550 559 572 611 639 667 715 780 823 833 842 880 900


234 272 317 400 452 467 486 508 521 530 542 579 607 632 681 743 787 800 809 847 867

Delta P Inches H20

6.30 6.90 6.80-7.90 9.60 9.70 10.00 10.41 10.79 10.80 11.10 11.60 12.40 12.40 13.50 14.69 15.15 16.00 16.40 17.59 18.10

25.00 -I © cs HI J 20.00 -•6 .2 § 15.00 -Pi O g 10.00 -en | 5.00-PA

0.00 -0

p°

p

p D P p

i i i i i i i i i i

200 400 '600 800 1000

AIR FLOW RATE, SCFM


i i

1200


Inlet Pressure Rotor Speed, rpm Temperature. F Inches H2Q

600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600

104 102 102 103 103 103 103 103 102 102 102 103 102 102 104 104 103

14.3 15.0 17.5 19.9 19.8 19.2 19.2 19.0 18.9 20.9 22.8 24.2 24.3 25.0 25.9 27.2 28.1

30.00 -

O 25.00-

co

•§ 20.00 -.2 PS § 15.00 -

PRES

SURE

b b

o o

n on -V.\J\J n

0

i i

200

Figure 38.

o°

p

p

p p

1 1 1 1

400 600 800 1000

AIR FLOW RATE, SCFM FLOODING TEST AT 600 rpm, 60 gpm

i i

1200

Gas Inlet Flow. CFM

360 370 397 448 440 430 428 419 425 482 518 530 540 550 559 551 573


344 355 383 434 426 416 414 405 411 469 506 519 529 540 548 542 566

Delta P Inches H20

14.29 15.50 17.90 20.10 20.00 19.59 19.59 19.05 19.10 20.60 23.05 24.18 24.30 24.99 25.81 27.40 28.10

B-W


Rotor Speed rpm 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

Temperature. F 104 104 103 104 103 103 104 104 104 104 104 105 105 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 105 105 105 105 105


11.15 12.30 13.40 14.30 14.25 14.30 15.00 15.60 17.10 17.25 18.80 19.20 20.25 21.60 22.25 23.25 23.75 24.00 25.00 25.25 26.00 26.60 27.20 27.75 28.10

Gas Inlet Flow. CFM

369 425 472 516 519 525 550 590 656 669 734 778 765 828 876 898 922 934 964 975 992 1022 1040 1054 1077


350 404 450 492 496 502 526 565 630 643 708 750 739 804 852 875 900 912 943 955 971 1002 1021 1036 1060

Delta P Inches H20

11.75 12.80 13.75 14.62 14.70 14.70 15.30 15.90 17.21 17.45 18.78 19.19 20.19 21.50 22.00 22.81 23.39 23.59 24.43 24.65 25.45 25.90 26.40 26.99 27.25

C/J

- C O

Sf ^§ w ffi B CO CO

cu

J U

25

20

15

10

5

0 0

a m1

CO %

□ n' |CP aP n cP1

200 400 600 800 ATR FLOW RATE, SCFM

Figure 40. FLOODING TEST AT 1200 rpm, 30gpm

1000 1200


Rotor Speed 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750

rpm Temperature. F 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 106 106 106 106 106 106 104 104 104 104 105 105 105 105 105 106 107 107 107 107


8.30 14.00 15.70 15.70 16.70 16.70 18.50 18.50 19.30 20.50 21.50 22.20 22.20 23.10 23.10 24.00 24.80 11.20 10.50 17.25 18.80 19.70 20.65 21.70 22.30 23.30 24.00 24.70 25.80 27.10 28.00

Gas Inlet Flow. CFM

373 562 596 605 628 638 686 682 730 708 712 707 712 759 775 790 830 474 450 642 668 720 707 712 713 754 765 792 816 832 863


349 533 568 576 600 609 658 654 701 682 687 685 690 737 752 769 809 449 426 617 644 695 684 690 692 734 744 770 796 814 846

Delta P Inches H20

8.50 14.00 15.70 15.70 16.45 16.50 18.25 18.35 19.10 20.10 21.20 21.78 21.78 22.90 22.80 23.58 24.38 11.25 10.50 17.00 18.50 19.50 20.40 21.30 21.90 22.90 23.60 24.30 25.40 26.60 27.60

30 T

25 + Q 820 u ft 0 0 "§ m co c 1U

5

0 a,

i Q ■

CD n£> CD

cfi£ * n

200 400 600 800 1000


1200

0-IZ*


Rotor Speed, 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750

rpm Temperature. F 105 105 104 104 105 105 105 104 105 105 105 106 107 105 104 104 104 104 105 104 104 104 105 105 105 105 105


10.80 10.85 11.00 11.25 12.10 12.10 13.19 14.40 14.90 15.50 16.90 16.90 17.75 18.90 19.10 20.90 21.40 22.40 23.20 23.80 24.70 25.30 26.20 26.30 10.68 9.50 7.50

Gas Inlet Flow. CFM

486 489 490 492 519 527 563 606 614 643 668 688 703 746 745 762 766 796 836 863 862 873 900 912 478 445 347


459 462 464 466 492 499 535 578 586 614 640 658 673 718 719 739 743 774 813 842 843 855 882 894 451 419 325

Delta P Inches H20

10.81 10.90 11.00 11.21 12.10 12.10 13.20 14.40 14.80 15.37 16.78 16.78 17.40 18.62 19.50 20.50 21.05 21.95 22.80 23.40 23.99 24.61 25.38 25.90 10.70 9.50 7.45

C/i <U o

q % o pq ft

CO CO

S P*

30 -

25 -

20 -

15 -

10 -

5 -

0 -

0

-rxP

r ° * □

i i ' i i

200 400 600 800 1000


i i

1200

8-13


Rotor Speed, rpm 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600

Temperature, F 91 90 91 91 92 90 91 91 91 91 92 91 92 91


16.2 16.7 18.0 19.5 20.9 22.5 23.3 24.4 25.3 26.3 26.7 27.3 27.4 28.0

Gas Inlet Flow. CFM

467 476 491 520 545 562 586 580 575 535 599 618 634 654


458 468 484 514 540 561 585 580 576 537 601 622 637 660

Delta P Inches H20

16.4 16.8 18.0 19.6 20.9 22.4 23.2 24.3 25.2 26.2 26.4 26.9 27.3 27.7

30.0 -

0 25.0 -a •§ 20.0 -

1 1 5 ° ' B IO.O -CO CO

1 5.0-

n n -0

i i

200

Figure 43.

a □

n □

a rP

i i t i i i i i

400 600 800 1000

AIRFLOW RATE, SCFM FLOODING TEST AT 600 rpm, 75 gpm

i i

1200

0-14-


Speed, rpm 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750

Temperature, F 93 92 93 92 93 93 93 92 93 93 93 93 93 93 94 93 93


13.1 13.9 14.8 16.3 17.5 18.1 18.8 19.6 20.8 21.4 22.1 22.9 23.4 24.3 25.0 26.2 27.4

30.0 -

§25 .0 -Cfl <U

J20.0 -P-T §15.0 -O W gio.o -CO CO § 5 . 0 -P<

n n 0

D „ 9 „cP r, n cP

D rf» ° n

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

200 400 600 800 1000

AIR FLOW RATE, SCFM


1 1

1200

B^tST

Gas Inlet Flow, CFM

522 545 585 628 665 681 747 725 737 746 780 796 807 842 840 866 891

Gas Inlet Flow, SCFM

507 531 570 615 652 669 735 716 728 738 773 791 802 839 837 867 894

Delta P Inches H20

13.3 13.9 14.8 16.3 17.4 18.0 18.5 19.5 20.5 21.1 21.8 22.5 23.0 23.8 24.3 25.6 26.7


Rotor Speed, rpm 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750

Temperature. F 97 96 96 96 96 95 96 95 97 96 97 96 96 96 97 97


10.6 12.0 13.3 14.5 15.0 15.9 16.7 17.9 19.0 20.0 20.8 22.3 23.9 24.9 25.9 15.2

Gas Inlet Flow. CFM

568 638 686 756 782 829 838 872 925 970 988 1036 1096 1117 1155 793

'Gas Inlet Flow. SCFM

544 614 663 732 758 807 816 853 904 952 969 1022 1085 1109 1147 768

Delta P Inches H20

10.8 12.0 13.2 14.4 14.8 15.6 16.4 17.5 18.2 19.0 19.8 21.2 22.8 23.6 24.4 15.7

25.0 -]

O $ 20.0 -H H

CO

O

■- 15.0 -O PfJ Q W 10.0 -s CO CO

g 5.0-P-

n n -0

n □

a □ a

a □ a

□ □

n

i t i i i i i i i i

200 400 600 800 1000


a □

a

i i

1200

0-n

Table 17. ROTARY CONTACTOR FLOODING AT 1050 rpm, 88.9 gpm

Rotor Speed rpm 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050

Temperature, F 93 94 93 94 94 94 94 95 95 96 96 97 96 98 97 98 96


12.2 13.5 14.5 15.9 16.7 17.7 18.8 18.5 19.6 20.5 21.1 22.1 22.8 23.6 24.7 25.7 27.0

Gas Inlet Flow. CFM

507 563 608 662 696 775 748 746 808 817 843 892 910 930 964 1005 1025


491 546 592 646 680 759 734 731 793 803 829 878 899 917 955 996 1022

Delta P Inches H20

12.4 13.6 14.5 15.8 16.6 17.5 18.4 18.4 19.1 20.1 20.6 21.6 22.2 22.9 23.9 24.8 25.9

30 n

O £ 2 5 -co <D

.1 20" ft" g!5-

g 10 -CO CO

n -(

a □ n

a n

a D a

t i ' i i i i i i i

) 200 400 600 800 1000

AIR FLOW RATE, SCFM

Figure 46. FLOODING TEST AT 1050 rpm, 88.9 gpm

, I

1200

0-/7


Rotor Speed, rpm 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

Temperature, F 101 100 100 99 100 99 101 100 102 101 102 101 101 101 102 101 101 101 102 102 102


11.7 12.9 14.5 15.5 17.0 17.7 16.8 17.1 17.7 18.6 19.0 20.5 21.9 22.3 23.4 24.2 25.5 19.4 18.8 15.3 23.1

Gas Inlet Flow, CFM

463 532 632 682 788 757 786 790 753 806 820 910 960 977 1021 1050 1086 850 819 715 1014


441 510 608 659 762 735 759 764 727 781 794 886 938 955 999 1031 1070 825 793 686 991

Delta P Inches H20

11.8 12.9 14.3 15.4 16.6 17.4 16.7 16.9 17.4 18.2 18.6 20.0 21.2 21.7 22.5 23.4 24.2 19.0 18.4 16.0 22.2

25.0 -I O 9 « 20.0 -

c £ 15-° -q g 2 10.0 -

CO eo 5.0 -a P->

n n (

„ □ a

□ rn * "

a aO ' □ D □

□ D

1 ' ' ' l 1 i 1 1 1

) 200 400 ' 600 800 1000

ATR FLOW RATE, SCFM

FIGURE 47. FLOODING TEST AT 1200 rpm, 45 gpm

i i

1200


Inlet Pressure Gas Inlet Gas Inlet Rotor Speed, rpm Temperature, F Inches H20 Flow, CFM Flow, SCFM

600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600

103 102 103 102 103 102 102 103 102 103 102 103 102

10.7 11.3 12.4 13.4 14.6 15.5 16.0 17.8 18.7 19.4 20.4 21.4 22.2

583 619 659 690 727 786 760 807 813 851 881 918 941

553 589 627 659 696 755 731 778 787 823 856 892 918

25.0 -

§ 20.0 -

co (D

si o •~ 15.0 -

1 g 10.0 -

CO CO

3 5.0-

0.0 -

(

□ D

□ D

□ □

□ a

t t i i t i i i i i

) 200 400 ' 600 800 1000

AIR FLOW RATE, SCFM

FIGURE 48. FLOODING TEST AT 600 rpm, 15 gpm

i i

1200

Delta P Inches H20

10.8 11.4 12.4 13.3 14.5 15.4 16.7 17.2 17.9 19.0 19.8 20.7 21.4

8-11

l.H -

1.2 -

1 -

co

I* 0.8 ->

SIG

NA

L,

OS

0.4 -

0.2 J

0 -

-

-* . . " V . / * * . • ' . ' "

1

1

'

/ .'•'

h—^

« <

«\

Moving Avg (Tip Probe)

* * ' * » - ' *

» ^ ^ ^ \ . / ^ \M^ /vv^-*vvx ./V' /v^r'Vvf~^^

10 15 TIME, s

20 25 30

Figure 1. RESIDENCE TIME TEST RUN 57 AT 600 rpm, 30 gpm, 659 SCFM

l.z -

1 -

0.8 -

co

>

$ 0.6 -O t—i CO

0.4 -

0.2 -

0 -

- * * ' ' ' i

- / w V ^

1 :

V \

A

;

'

v s_

"., ;

V

• Moving Avg (Inlet Probe)

•

\

V.'i

^ , r ^ u r v ^ , A t '~ri~****~>«*^ 10 15

TIME, s

20 25 30


1.2 T

Moving Avg (Inlet Probe)


10 20 25 15

TIME, s


30

1.4

1.2

^

»0.8

53 0.6

0.4

0.2

Moving Avg (Input Probe) Moving Avg (Tip Probe)


*

H *

i.q -

1.2 -

1 -

SIG

NA

L, v

olt

s o

p

b\

be

0.4 -

0.2 -

0 -

[ 1 1 / 1 /

1 ^ A V A /

1 » •

• " ♦ ' * - .

1

•>

* t x

\ t

' « * »

10 15

TIME, s

20 25 30


1.4 T

•Moving Avg (Tip Probe) -Moving Avg (Inlet probe)

10 15

TIME, s

20 25 30


* ^ ^

2

© CO

• Moving Avg (Tip Probe) . Moving Avg (Inlet Probe)

10 15 20 25 TIME,s


30

1

1.4

1.2

1 -•

,» 0.8

V %

\ o ^ K 0.6

0.4

Moving Avg (Tip Probe) Moving Avg (inlet Probe)

0.2

0 0 10 15

TIME,s

20 25 30


1.4-

1.2 --

1 -

o % 0.8

w 0.6

0.4 -

0.2

10



15

TIME, s

20 25 30


1.4 T

1.2 +

1 +

o 0.8 ->

CO ^ | o . 6 +

0.4 +

0.2 +

■ Moving Avg (Inlet Probe) Moving Avg (Tip Probe)


1.2 T

0.8 +

'£

0.4 +

0.2

Moving Avg (Inlet Probe) Moving Avg (Tip Probe)

10 15

TIME, s

20 25 30


1.2 T

Moving Avg (Tip Probe) Moving Avg (Inlet Probe)


1.2 T

'\

1 --

0.8 --

o > $ 0.6

O CO

0.4 -

0.2 -


* .

m ^ ^ —

10 15

TIME, s

20 25 30

Figure 13. RESIDENCE TIME TEST RUN 92 AT 600 rpm, 60 gpm, 367 SFCM

1.2 T

1 +

0.8 +

& \

< ^ u

o >

4 § CO

0.6

0.4

0.2


10 20 25 15 TIME, s


30

1.2 T


-rui»^t.|» \~f-' *"'***

10 15

TIME, s

20 25 30


1.2 T

0

Moving Avg (Tip Probe) Moving Avg (Met Probe)

10 20 25

Figure

15

TIME, s

16. RESIDENCE TIME TEST RUN 103 AT 900 rpm, 30 gpm, 623 SCFM

30

1.2 T

1 +

0.8 +

2

5 t °6 + 0.4

0.2 +

0


10 15

TIME, s

20 25 30


1.2 T

0.8

£

< * a 0.4

0.2 +



10 15

TIME, S

20 25 30


1.2 T


Moving Avg (Met Probe)

10 15

TIME, s

20 25 30


1.2 T

1 --

0.8 --

o >

^ 0.4


0.2

A :

i— = ^

10 15

TIME.s

20 25 30


1.2

1 +

\

0.8

2 $ 0.6

t / j


0 10 15

TIME, s

20 25 30


1.4 T

10 15

TIME,s

-Moving Avg (Tip Probe)

-Moving Avg (Met Probe)

20 25 30


> ^ H

1 T

0.9

<*>

'o >

3" 1 O

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3 +

0.2

0.1 +

0



5 10 15 20 TIME, s


25 30

1.2

1 -

0.8 --

o >

g h-<

0.4 +

0.2 -



z a p .

10 15

TIME, s

~-J\ ** ^ ~ T V i

20 25 30


APPENDIX C

Graphs of electrode tracer responses for air/water base runs

s

i.z -

1 -

0.8 -C/J

>

SIGN

AL,

©

0.4 -

0.2 -

n -

-

.

^AJJ

\ \

;-^

'.

\

\

lA' *---.. ^ H 1 1


i ' "" "'

10 15

TIME, s

20 25 30


1.2

\

0.8 --

o > ^ °-6 O GO

0.4 -

0.2

J.J A ^

■ Moving Avg (Met Probe) • Moving Avg (Tip Probe)

10 15

TIME, s

20 25 30


1.2 T

0.8

o >

^ 0.6

CO

0.4 --

0.2

/'.•*

^4-4-M-10

• Moving Avg (Tip Probe) • Moving Avg (Met Probe)

i ,

* . « >

15

TIME, s

20 25 30


1.2

0.8 --

c* \

*

o > 5j'0.6

t—( CO

0.4

0.2 --

■Moving Avg (Met Probe) . Moving Avg (Tip Probe)

10 15

TIME, s

20 25 30


1.2

0.8

o >

4 °-6 • 5 CO

0.4

0.2



10 20 25 15 TIME, s


30

1.4

1.2

1 --

o 0.8 >

0.6

0.4

0.2 --

ML A^A-



10 15

TIME,s

20 25 30


1.2 T

1 --

0.8

^ 0.6

( * ) CO

< 0.4 --

0.2

• Moving Avg (Inlet Probe) Moving Avg (Tip Probe)

10 15

TIME, s

20 25 30


1.2 T

0.8 --

o >

rv 3 °-6

y O CO

0.4 --

0.2 --

0

• Moving Avg (Met Probe)

• Moving Avg (Tip Probe)

10 15

TIME, s

20 25 30


1.2 T

0.8

o >

d 0.6

0.4 --

0.2 --



-\—l-KI " T - ^ _ /*>»

10 15

TIMRs

20 25 30


1.2 T

>*wv7

"\

Z&H/L-A. 10 15

TIME, s



20 25 30

Figure 10. RESIDENCE TIME TEST RUN 129 AT750 rpm, 30 gpm, 662 SCFM

^

4

iy/wu. iAA^AA-. 10 15

TIMRs



20 25 30


1.2

0.8

S! 0.6 -

CO

0.4 +

0.2 --

. Moving Avg (Met Probe)

• Moving Avg (Tip Probe)

10 15

TIME,s

20 25 30


o >

f^ 3 °-6

Moving Avg (Met Probe


NA-A J L \ j ^ £ l w ^ f = » v -

10 15 20 25 30

TIME, s Figure 13. RESIDENCE TIME TEST RUN 132 AT 1200 rpm, 30M gpm, 754 SCFM

I

0 10

• Moving Avg (Tip Probe) • Moving Avg (Met Probe)

=P= 15

TIME, s

20 25 =-=,

30


APPENDIX D

A search for viscosifier

Search for a Fluid for Viscosity Effects Studies in Rotary Contactor

A search for the best additive for testing the viscosity effects on residence time and flood in

a rotating contactor focused on the following:

• Finding a fluid that has been tested in previous viscosity studies with favorable results.

• Finding a fluid that is convenient to use and greatly affects viscosity because large quantities of

water would become contaminated with salt and have to be disposed.

• Finding a non-hazardous material which could be disposed in the local sewer system.

• Finding a material which is non-corrosive to the Plexiglas and PVC components of the rotary

contactor system.

The first compound investigated was a bentonite (chemical formula, AI2O3 4SiC>2 H20)

drilling mud, packaged in powder form, and recommended by Glitsch Inc., the company who

supplied the rotating contactor. Glitsch had successfully tested viscosity effects in a packed tower

in their pilot plant with this material. This material could cause plugging in a rotary contactor

because of the small micron sized packing pores which would not be a problem for a packed

column which utilizes packing sizes measured in inches.

A mixture of the material with water was made and allowed to set overnight. The sample

showed some settling. Since this material is suspended in the water as small particles and some

settling occurred overnight, there was concern that this material could possibly cause plugging in

the rotating contactor packing.

Next we evaluated a cellulose type polymer powder manufactured by M-l Drilling Fluids

which has the following advantages:

• The polymer encapsulates water which means that it will not settle out as easily as bentonite.

• Small amounts greatly effect viscosity - 1/4 to 1/2 lbs. per barrel water (42 gallons) gives 15 cp.

• It is non-toxic so it can be disposed of in the sewer.

• It is not affected by salt.

The only disadvantage is that it is difficult to mix. Mixtures at 1/4 and 1/2 lbs. per barrel

were tested using a Model LVT Brookfield viscometer equipped with a UL adapter. This unit

provides very good accuracy (within 1 %) in the 0-20 centipoise (cp) viscosity range. Results

follow in Table 1.

D-t

Table 1. VISCOSITY READINGS FOR MIXTURES OF CELLULOSE POWDER/WATER .

Sample concentration 1/4 lb/42 gallons 1/2 lb/42 gallons Deionized water

Viscosity cp @ 25°C 1.20 1.24 1.14

Viscosity cp @ 100 ° F (38°C) 0.755 0.746 0.670

Since these viscosities are very close to water at the temperatures that the tests were run,

indications are that the sample was not properly mixed. The local distributor of the cellulose type

polymer powder was asked to run a sample in their lab to compare with ours. They measured

viscosities close to the advertised 15 cp. They, however, had mixed their sample in a blender for a

considerable time before taking the reading. Ours was mixed in a beaker, with hand stirring. It

was determined to be impractical to use this material since mixing 1000's of gallons is required.

Next we looked at a material very similar to the cellulose powder which is in liquid form

when purchased and is easily mixed. This polymer called Poly-Plus is a high molecular weight

anionic liquid polymer which has organic solvents to help keep it mixed. There were no problems

mixing samples of this material in water. Viscosities at 9 concentrations and 2 temperatures, as

shown in Table 2, were measured.

Table 2. VISCOSITY READINGS FOR MLXTURES OF POLY-PLUS/WATER

Concentration, oz/42 gallons

0.0 1/16 1/8 3/16 1/4 3/8 1/2 3/4 2 16

Viscosity, cp @, 20°C

1.2 2.4

3.83 5.35 6.99

10.65 13.52 18.26 48.6 689

Viscosity, cp @ 30°C

1.02 1.92

9.31

16.78

One potential problem with this material as outlined in the product literature which came with the

sample is that it is subject to shear degradation and will eventually lose its ability to viscosity.

During the above experiments some viscosity loss was noted over lime with the above

ambient (30°C) readings. Therefore this material is a time dependent Non-Newtonian fluid which

O-Z,

which makes it unsuitable for use in the rotary contactor which will subject any fluid to extremely

high shear forces.

From the apparent loss in viscosity of the samples of Poly-Plus run in the Brookfield

viscometer, which subjects samples to varying degrees of shear, it appears that the material is a

Thixotropic Type 2 Non-Newtonian fluid. This means that shear stress (or viscosity) changes with

the duration of shear. Thixotropic means that the structure breaks down over time and shear rate.

As the structure breaks down the shear stress (or viscosity) decreases.

Next we looked at a water soluble resin called Polyox manufactured by Union Carbide.

Polyox are high molecular weight (100,000 to 8,000,000) water soluble (ethylene oxide) polymer

compounds (common structure (OCH2CH2)n OH). The primary advantage of this material over the

others looked at so far is that it is completely soluble in water, not in a suspension. Union Carbide

sent two samples, a comparatively low molecular weight (300,000) Polyox WSP-N-750 and a high

molecular weight (4,000,000) Polyox WSP-301.

From the accompanying product literature it appears that the low molecular weight type

Polyox are not effected much by shear rate, Figure 1 or shear exposure, Figure 2, as shown in the

product literature.

Figure 1. SHEAR THINNING

Viscosity

Shear Rate

D-3

Figure 2. MECHANICAL SHEAR DURABILITY

Visc.retained

Shear Exposure

The low molecular weight water soluble "Polyox" resins appear to be the best alternative of the Non-Newtonian fluids that have been looked at. If the rotating contactor shear forces are in the range of the product literature shear forces shown on the charts (no dimensions are shown) then it appears viscosity losses will be minimal.

All Polyox resins will lose viscosity when subjected to high shear. This is because the shear forces break polymer bonds which lowers the molecular weight of the solution. In fact Polyox grades are catagorized not by measuring the molecular weight of a. batch, but by measuring the viscosity. Because of this, once the viscosity of Polyox decreases it will not build back. This means that as long as the change in the viscosity of the liquid measured entering and leaving the rotating contactor is small, it may be satisfactory for our program.

If Polyox is not useable because the shear forces are so severe in the rotating contactor that the material breaks down readily, Newtonian fluids may be the only alternative. The problem with Newtonian fluids is that the concentration needed is in the range of a 50 weight % solution when added to water.

Various sugars, alcohols, glycols, glycerol, etc. have been investigated and none of these give the properties needed without the addition of large quantities. Alcohols are good for lowering surface tension but not good for raising the viscosity. Sugars and glycerol appear to be good for "viscosity only" effects because at even a 50% solution with water, the surface tension of the

0-4-

solution is close to water. Table 3 show pertinent information for some potential Newtonian

additives.

Table 3. VISCOSITY AND SURFACE TENSION FOR SUGARS AND GLYCEROL

Sucrose

Glucose

Glycerol

Weight % 10 20 30 40 50

10 20 30 40 50 52

10 20 28 40 52 60 68

Viscosity, cp, @ 20°C 1.33 1.94 3.18 6.15 15.4

1.33 1.9

2.99 5.48

11.86 14.46

1.29 1.73 2.27 3.65 6.65

10.66 18.42

Surface Tension, dyne/cm @ 25 °C 72.5 73.0 73.4 74.1

75.7(55%)

Surface Tension @ 18°C 72.9 72.4 72.0

70.0(50%)

One of the advantages of using sugars is that they are non-toxic and can be disposed in the local

sewer system. Glycols, amines, and NFM are alternatives for the combined effects of surface

tension and viscosity although large concentrations are required and corrosion and disposal are a

problem

Background on Non-Newtonian Fluids

A brief review of the types of Non-Newtonian fluids follows. There are 3 classes of Non-

Newtonian fluids as explained in Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook, Fifth Edition, page 5-38.

These are:

1. Those whose properties are independent of time or duration of shear

2. Those whose properties are dependent upon the duration of shear

3. Those which exhibit many characteristics of a solid

0-5

APPENDIX E

Use of NFM in Rotary Contactor

12

10

8 -

z~ < CD

O 00 00

o ^

4

2

0

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

0 -♦—*-

20 40 60 80

100% NFM

100 120 140 160 180 200

♦ PLEXIGLAS 90% NFM

a PLEXIGLAS 100% NFM

TIME, DAYS

PLASTIC ROTARY CONTACTOR COMPATIBILITY WITH NFM

( f t

^

o H

25 T

20

15

10 -

5 --

• •

/

/ •

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

• /

•

— * -

-- •• -

■95% NFM

• 8 0 % NFM

- 5 0 % NFM

*. +

*

20 40 80 100 60

TIME DAYS

PLASTIC ROTARY CONTACTOR COMPATIBILITY OF PLEXIGLAS WITH NFM

120

V

\A -

10 -

8 -

£ 2 < 6 -0 D

4 -

2 -

0 -

»

♦

»

i

PVC COMPLETELY DISSOLVED IN 100 %NFM

1

♦ ♦

i i i l

♦

i i

♦ PVC 90% NFM

* PVC 100% NFM

♦

i i i

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 TIME, DAYS

140 160 180 200

PLASTIC ROTARY CONTACTOR COMPATIBILITY WITH NFM

o

u. -

10 -

8 -

6 -

4 -

2 -

0 -

^ ^ ■ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ' ~

^ - > *= :

~ " ~ . < * ■

..*-

ft

0 1 | " I * I • 1 » 1

20 40 60

TIME, DAYS

80 100

— •■-- A -

. . * . .

*

■ 95% NFM - 9 5 % NFM •80% NFM

120

PLASTIC ROTARY CONTACTOR COMPATIBILITY OF PVC WITH NFM

12 T

10 --

8 --

N°

<^ s

2 -

0 20 40 60

TIME DAYS

80

— ♦ 100% NFM — • - - 9 5 % NFM . . A- --80%NFM

• 50% NFM

100 120

PLASTIC ROTARY CONTACTOR COMPATIBILITY OF POLYETHYLENE WITH NFM

APPENDIX F

■sSfcTT

COST OF SKID - MOUNTED AMINE PLANT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

CONTRACTOR Grayco

Odessa, Texas

Western Gas Resources Midland, Texas

Gas Tech Engineering Tulsa, Oklahoma

Glitch Technology Parsippany, N. J.

Intrastate Corporation Orland Park, Illinois

Vanson Engineering Co Anaheim, California

Xytel Corporation Mount Prospect, Illinois

New

With computer interface

All Stainless Cost/lOgpm

$ 268,000

$ 359,000

$ 678,000

$ 696,000

$ 825,000

New

No computer interface

Some Stainless Cost/lOgpm

$ 238,000

$ 349,000

$ 639,000

Used


Some Stainless Cost/ lOgpm

$110,000

$ 115,000

Rental


Some Stainless Cost/lOgpm

/month

$6,500

$3,800

Comments

Notes

1. Why choose a 10-gpm plant? The reasons a 10-gpm plant was chosen are as follows:

a. One of the purposes of this unit is to collect data for scale-up. The minimum supplier recommended diameter for a structured packing column to get scalable is 8 inches. A 10-gpm plant efficiently matches up well with an 8-inch column and also allows for testing of different solvents.

b. Going with a larger unit would be economically prohibitive and would make transporting the unit from site to site very difficult

2. Computer Control? Computer control can have the following advantages:

a Data can be loaded directly into a spread sheet, which would speed data collection and reduce logging errors.

b. All control parameters can be observed, monitored, and controlled from one work station. From a safety point of view this would be important because an operator can quickly observe a problem and makecorrections.

c. A complete history of all temperatures, pressures, and flows of gases and liquids is continuously recorded.

3. Stainless steel vs. Carbon Steel? Using stainless steel can have the following advantages:

a. Little or no corrosion. b. No painting of piping and vessels is required to prevent rusting. c. No stress relieving is required carbon steel welds. d Acid gas and solvents do not attack stainless steel as is the case

with carbon steel.

f't,

Comments PROS

New Plant

1. In a new plant, the material within would not be corroded or damaged.

2.The new plant can be designed to IGT specs, which would allow us to expand the range of our tests and therefore have more flexibility.

3. Motors, pumps, heat exchangers, etc., would be new and therefore should be maintenance free.

Used Plant

1. The cost of a new plant is 50 to 100 % more than a used one.

Rental Plant

1. Renting a used plant might be more economically advantageous if the period of renting does not exceed the cost of buying a new one.

2.Most companies would apply aprox. 75% of the rental costs in rent toward the purchase price, if you decide to buy within a certain time frame.

CONS New Plant

1. A new 10 gpm plant minimum cost is $240 K, whereas a used 10-gpm plant minimum cost would be $110 K

Used Plant

1. More maintenance. 2.10 plus years old for the used plants

that were quoted. 3. Uncertainty of the strength of the - materials— such as vessels, motors,

pumps, etc. 4 Uncertainty of what materials were

run in these plants. 5. Possible modifications in these

plants would add $30 to $50 K to the final cost

Rental PI ant

1. Any physical changes made in the rental plant would have to be reverted to if s original condition upon return of the plant to the owner. This could add 30 - 50 K to the price of renting.

2.After the rental period is up the renter would not own anything.

f-3

evaluation of high-efficiency gas-liquid contactors for

Documents