A comparison of separation methods for Green Oil in ethylene ...

HYDROCARBON ASIA, JAN/FEB 2007 47

TECHNOLOGY

JAN/FEB 2007

Incorporating Natural Gas Asia

Official Magazine for :

REPRINT

MICA (P) 288/09/2006 • PPS 1064/4/2006 • ISSN 0217-1112 • Published by AP Energy Business Publications Pte Ltd 63 Robinson Road, #02-16 Afro-Asia Building, Singapore 068894. Printed by KHL Printing Co Pte Ltdhttp://www.safan.com

Official Publication for : Heat Exchange Engineering Asia Conference & Exhibition & HTRI Workshop 2007 (6-9 March 2007) • 3rd PetroMin/Hydrocarbon Asia RAMS & SafetyConference (19-20 April 2007) • LNG/GTL Tech Asia Summit 2007 (TBA) • 4th Hydrocarbon Asia Bottom Line Improvement Conference (TBA) • 3rd NDT/Corrosion ManagementAsia (TBA) • 3rd PetroMin Underwater Technology Conference & Exhibition (TBA) • Campus to Corporate Conference (June 2007) • Semi Subs/ FloatersAsia Conference (June 2007) • 5th PetroMin Deepwater & Subsea Conference & Exhibition (29-30 October 2007) • Decomm Asia Conference (Nov 2007) (TBA – To be advise)

Serving Asia and the Middle East since 1990

Back End C2 Hydrogenationfor EthyleneProduction

Back End C2 Hydrogenationfor EthyleneProduction

Dr. S.Kurukchi, S

enior Technology Specialist -

Shaw Stone & Webster, Houston, Texas and

Dr. Thomas H. W

ines, Senior Marketing

Manager - Fuels & Chemicals Group,

Pall Corporation

Greenoil in

EthyleneProduction With permission from Publisher of Hydrocarbon Asia - Website : www.safan.com48 HYDROCARBON ASIA, JAN/FEB 2007

A comparison of separationmethods for Green Oil inethylene productionGreen oil is an oligomer formed in all C2, C3 and C4 hydrogenation reactors ofethylene plants and other petrochemical production facilities. Green oil is a mixtureof C4 to C20 unsaturated and reactive components with about 90% aliphatic dienesand 10% olefins plus paraffins. In the C2 acetylene hydrogenation reactor whereacetylene is hydrogenated to ethylene and ethane, the most commonly used catalystis palladium (Pd) on Alumina (Al2O3) support. Green oil polymer is formed by sidereactions of the hydrogenation reaction itself, and it cannot be totally avoided.The polymer formation starts by dimerization of acetylene with hydrogen tobutadiene followed by oligomerization with successive addition of acetylenemolecules to a base chain molecule adsorbed to the Pd surface.

The low molecular weight fraction of thegreen oil vaporizes into the gas stream,while part of the heavier fraction depositsin the pores of the catalyst. The rest of the

heavier fraction is carried away with the gas as finedroplets mostly < 5 micron size with concentrationsof green oil in the gas in the order of 100 ppmv to1,000 ppmv depending on the operating temperature,age of the catalyst, CO content, H2/acetylene ratio,etc.

The gas leaving the hydrogenation reactor is cooled,and more green oil condenses into fine droplets,which deposit on the downstream heat exchangers,dehydrator beds, and on the ethylene fractionatorinternals. These depositing droplets are polymericand cause fouling of the equipment, thus potentiallyleading to expensive unplanned shutdowns to cleanup the deposited green oil.

Fuel gas used for the regeneration of thedehydrators strips out the deposited green oil on themolecular sieves; the fuel gas thus becomescontaminated with the green oil. This contaminatedfuel gas then potentially causes fouling of the

furnace’s low NOx burner nozzles leading to lowerfurnace efficiency and more frequent and costlyburner tip cleaning.

Different industrially used methods for theseparation of green oil from the hydrogenationreactor gaseous effluent stream were evaluatedincluding:• Washing of the wet gas stream from the reactor

with a liquid ethylene stream in a stripping tower,• Impaction of the wet gas through a packed bed,• Separation by a mesh pad in a knock-out drum,• Use of a high efficiency liquid-gas coalescer with

specially formulated and designed filter media -the Pall liquid /gas coalescer.

Of the separation options investigated, the Pallhigh efficiency liquid/gas coalescer was found to bethe most cost effective option that achieves a suitableand optimized degree of green oil removal from theethylene-ethane stream.

IntroductionIn petrochemical steam crackers, acetylenes


(acetylene, methyl acetylene) are contaminants inthe ethylene and propylene products. Theseacetylenes cannot be separated from the ethyleneand propylene products by fractionation because oftheir close volatility to ethylene and propylene; thus,acetylenes are typically removed by selectivehydrogenation to olefins or non-selective hydrogenationto paraffins.

Focusing on removing acetylene to meet the typicalethylene specification of less than 1 ppmv, theacetylene hydrogenation reactor is placed eitherwithin the cracked gas (CG) compression train (frontend hydrogenation) or downstream between theback end deethanizer and the ethylene fractionator

(back end hydrogenation). The most used catalystfor acetylene hydrogenation is Pd on Al2O3, which isselective to hydrogenation of acetylene to ethyleneand not to ethane, even at a high partial pressure of H2.

Front End Hydrogenation In the ethylene compression train and downstream

of the cracked gas (CG) drier, a front end deethanizer(DC2) is used in plants cracking gaseous feedstocks,or a front end depropanizer (DC3) is used in plantscracking liquid feedstocks. The overhead of the DC2or the DC3 containing the light components of the CGis sent to the gas phase acetylene hydrogenation unit(C2 Hydrog), as shown in figure (1) and figure (2).

Back End HydrogenationThe acetylene hydrogenation unit treats the

overhead of the back end DC2, which contains ethane,ethylene, and some 0.5-2.5% acetylene. In thisconfiguration, H2 has to be added, as all the H2present in the CG would have been removed in thechilling train and the demethanizer (DC1) upstreamof the reflux drum (DC2), as presented in figure (3).

Green Oil formationGreen oil polymer is formed by side reactions of

the hydrogenation of acetylene to ethylene andethane over the Pd catalyst. It occurs due to thedimerization of acetylene to butadiene followed byoligomerization with successive addition of acetyleneto a chain of molecules adsorbed on the Pd surface.The green oil is a mixture mainly comprised of C4-

Fig 1. Front End Hydrogenation Unit

Fig 2. C2 Hydrogenation Reactors Fig 3. Back End C2 Hydrogenation

Greenoil in


C20 reactive oligomers of varying composition, withboiling point (B.P.) range from 120 to 400°C. Theheavier fraction stays adsorbed on the catalyst porescausing eventual loss of the catalyst activity andthus requires regeneration by steaming out thedeposited green oil. The light end components of thegreen oil remain in the gas phase, part of whichcondenses into fine droplets in the gas stream as itcools leaving the reactor. These fine droplets causefouling of the downstream equipment.

Green oil formation is decreased by the use ofsilver promoted Pd catalyst on Al2O3, which helpsterminate the chain growth at the butadiene stage.Thus, instead of the formation of heavier diolefinoligomers, the light butadiene simply exits with thegas. This new catalyst generally reduces theformation of green oil to a third or half the amountformed with the non promoted catalysts. Theconcentration of the green oil in the gas leaving thehydrogenation reactor is in the order of 100 ppm-1000 ppm depending on the operating temperature,age of the catalyst, CO content of the gas, H2/acetylene ratio, etc. The droplet size of the green oilcondensing in the gas stream downstream of thereactor is mostly less than 5 micron in size. Aerosolsformed from the condensation mechanism areknown to have small drop size distributions in therange of a few microns1.

The amount of green oil formed is primarily afunction of the concentration of acetylene beingconverted and the temperature resulting from thatconversion. Hence, the rate of formation of green oilis higher in the lead bed. Green oil formationdecreases with increased partial pressure of H2, whichis the main reason that much less green oil is formedin front end hydrogenation units compared to backend hydrogenation units. Typically, in back endhydrogenation reactors, 10-20% of the acetylene isconverted to C4 and heavier green oil.

Process related problems caused by GreenOil

Ethylene plants are expected to operate for a periodof 5-7 years between turnarounds. Hence, a sparebed is provided to allow the plant to continueoperating when one of the beds is fouled. The fouledbed is taken out of operation, and the spare bed is putinto operation. The green oil is then drained and the

fouled bed is regenerated and put on standby mode.The green oil droplets carried out with the

hydrogenated gas from the reactor deposit and causefouling of the downstream heat exchangers,dehydrator beds, and ethylene fractionator internals,thus eventually requiring expensive unplannedshutdowns to clean up the deposited green oil.

Also, fuel gas used for the regeneration of thedehydrators, strips out the deposited green oil onthe molecular sieves, contaminating the fuel gaswith the green oil. The contaminated gas causesfouling of the furnace’s low NOx burner nozzles,which leads to lower furnace efficiency and morefrequent and costly burner tip cleaning.

Removal of Green Oil from gasesMany methods have been adopted to remove green

oil from the hydrogenated ethylene/ethane streamincluding:

Wash Tower: The wet gas stream from the reactoris contacted and washed counter - currently witha liquid ethylene stream from the ethylenefractionator in the green oil wash tower (Figure 4).The contaminated ethylene liquid from the bottomof the wash tower is then recycled back to the DC2tower. This method is effective in removing thegreen oil, but expensive as it adds a recycle streamthat is typically 5 % of the net stream, thus reducingthe capacity of the fractionation system.

Fig 4. Green Oil Tower Unit


Packed Bed: The green oil droplets in the gas streamimpact against the packing (pellets or beads) surfacebecause of their inertia. After a number of dropletsare caught on the packing surface, they agglomerateand tend to drain along the packing surface. Thecollection efficiency is a function of superficial bedvelocity, droplet size, bed packing particle size, thetortuosity of the gas flow path through the bed andother system conditions such as the liquid and vaporproperties. The number of turns or tortuosity of gasstream path through the bed is a function of the bedlength and the packing size.

Analysis of the packed bed2 performance showsincreasing droplet removal efficiency when thepacking size is decreased, but this is at the expenseof an increased pressure drop. The efficiency can

also be improved by increasing the gas velocitythrough the bed up until a maximum threshold.Well designed beds can achieve 80-90% green oilremoval, and are rated at 99% removal of drops > 1micron size. However, the packed bed separator(Figure 5) is sensitive to reductions in the flow rate tobelow design conditions (increased turn down ratio)as the mechanism of separation is inertial impaction,which is a function of gas velocity. Therefore, atreduced flow rates, the efficiency of the packed bedseparator will be adversely affected.

Mesh Pad: A coarse bed of fiber material that isconfigured in a vertical flow knock out vessel is usedand has a reasonable removal efficiency of 95 % fordrops > 5µm. For smaller drops, the removalefficiency is greatly reduced. The overall green oilseparation is in the range of 70 – 80 %. The mesh pad(Figure 6) also operates on the mechanism ofinertial impaction to separate out the aerosol drops.Therefore it is also subject to the limitations ofreduced flow rates to below design conditionsand cannot tolerate a high turn down ratio withoutsignificant loss of performance.

High Efficiency Liquid / Gas (L/G) Coalescer:Specially formulated and designed filter mediacoalescer, as demonstrated by the Pall L/G Coalescer(Figure 7), is used to capture very small aerosols

and combine them intol a r g e , m o r e e a s i l yseparated drops. Highefficiency L/G coalescershave achieved 98-99%total green oil removaland are rated at 99.98%removal of drops > 0.3µm3-5. Here, the removalmechanism is based ondiffusion or Brownianmotion of the aerosoldrops in the coalescermedia. This mechanismallows for excellentseparation even at lowerthan design flow rates,there fore the h ighefficiency liquid / gascoalescers can overcomehigh turn down ratios.

Fig 5. Packed Bed Treating Unit

Fig 6. KO Drum with Mesh Pad UnitFigure 7. Pall SepraSolTM HighEfficiency Liquid / Gas Coalescer

Greenoil in


amine and glycol contactors, molecular sieve beds,and hydrotreater catalyst beds. This has largely beenthe result of traditional separation approachesincluding knock out vessels, centrifugal separators,mesh pads or vane separators not meeting the enduser’s requirements for aerosol reduction. The

primary rational for the use of high efficiencycoalescers is that aerosol contaminants are in the submicron and low micron size range3.

Another benefit of the liquid/gas coalescer is thatthis type of separation device can be operated atsignificantly lower flow rates than the initial designflow rate, which means that it has a high turn downratio. This is due to the fact that the separationmechanisms are based primarily on diffusion anddirect interception unlike vane separators and meshpads that rely heavily on inertial separationprinciples. This allows the high efficiency liquid/gas coalescer systems a greater degree of flexibility,and they can operate at peak performance even forreduced flow rates that can occur during commonlyencountered partial plant shutdowns and upsetconditions. Generally, the high efficiency liquid/gascoalescers are used for inlet aerosol concentrations ofless than 1,000 ppmw (0.1 %) and are placeddownstream of other bulk removal separators as thefinal stage. Outlet concentrations for these highefficiency liquid / gas coalescers are as low as 0.003ppmw3-5.

High efficiency liquid/gas coalescers are generallyconstructed from glass fibers since this materialallows for a fine porous structure with fiberdiameters of a few microns. The small pore size isneeded to achieve greater capture and separation

Units Wash Tower* Packed Bed* KO Drum* Pall Coalescer

Vessel Diameter mm 2000 2000 1700 700

Vessel Length mm 9000 3500 2500 3500

Number of Trays 10 NA NA 4 SepraSolTM Plus Coalescers

Packed Height mm NA 2000 NA NA

Wash Ethylene Rate Ton/h 5 NA NA NA

∆ P Across Unit kg/cm2 0.1 0.5 0.01 0.2

Green Oil % 100% 99% of drops 95% of drops 99.98% of dropsDroplet Removal > 1.0 µm > 5.0 µm > 0.3 µm

Overall Green Oil % 99-100 80-90 70-80 98-99Removal Range

* Based on experience of Stone & Webster

Comparison of the Green Oil RemovalUnits

For an ethylene-ethane vapor stream of 100 tons/hrat a pressure of 20 kg/cm2a, the following tablecompares the units used for green oil removal inacetylene hydrogenation systems.

From this comparison we see that the wash towerprovides the highest degree of green oil separationremoving 100 % of any sized drops and will alsoremove some green oil in the vapor form. However,it also has a high operating cost (5 % ethylene recyclestream) and requires the largest capital investmentfor the tower. Therefore, the best separation optionwas found to be the high efficiency liquid / gascoalescer system as it had a removal efficiency of99.98 % for aerosols > 0.3 µm and had a modestcapital investment with low operating costs. Thisseparation option also maintains its high level ofremoval efficiency even at flow rates lower thandesign because the coalescer’s capture mechanismis based on diffusion. Lower overall green oilseparations of 98-99% can be explained by thepresence of some green oil in the vapor state that thecoalescer is not designed to remove. A more in depthdiscussion of the technology offered by PallCorporation for high efficiency liquid/ gas coalescersis given below.

High Efficiency Liquid / Gas CoalescerTechnology

The separation of liquid aerosol contaminationwith high performance liquid/gas coalescercartridge systems has found widespread acceptancein refinery and gas plants in recent years for anumber of applications6-8, including protectionof compressors, turbo equipment, burner nozzles,


of these fine aerosols. The use of a innovative surfacetreatment9 on high performance vertical liquid/gascoalescer cartridge systems has been proven toenhance performance significantly by allowinghigher flow rates or smaller housing diameterscompared to untreated coalescers.

A Pall vertical high efficiency liquid/gas coalescersystem is depicted in Figure 7. The inlet gas withliquid aerosol contamination first enters at the bottomof the housing into a first stage knock out section.Here any slugs or larger size droplets (approximately> 300 µm) are removed by gravitational settling. Thegas then travels upward through a tube sheet andflows radially from the inside of the cartridgesthrough the coalescer medium to the annulus. Theinlet aerosol distribution is in the size range of 0.1 µm– 300 µm, and after passing through the coalescermedium, it is transformed to enlarged coalesceddroplets in the size range of 0.5 - 2.2 mm.

The advantage of flowing from the inside to outsideof the coalescer cartridge is that the gas velocity canbe more easily adjusted in the annulus by selectingthe optimum housing diameter to prevent re-entrainment of coalesced droplets. As the gas leavesthe coalescer cartridge and travels upward in theannulus it contributes to the total flow, therebyincreasing the annular velocity. The annular velocityis modeled as a linear function with vertical distance;the annular velocity is zero at thebottom of the cartridge andincreases to a maximum value atthe top of the cartridge.

Four steps have been identifiedwith the mechanism of theformation and removal of dropletsin the coalescer medium:1) Capture2) Coalescing3) Release4) Drainage

The formation of the largecoalesced drops first involves thecapture of the small aerosoldroplets onto the fibers of thecoalescer medium. The capture ofthe small aerosol droplets is due

to diffusion or Brownian motion that causes thedroplets to have a random motion that leads toimpacting the fibers in the coalescer media. Theactual coalescing or merging of the fine dropletstakes place on the fibers and especially at fiberintersections. The coalesced droplets are thenreleased from the fiber due to the drag force of thegas flow exceeding the adsorption energy. Thisprocess is repeated through the depth of the coalescermedium until the coalescing process is completedand the largest possible stable droplet size is achieved.

During the coalescing stages, the growing dropletsare also draining downward inside the media packdue to the force of gravity. The application of thenovel surface treatment allows the release anddrainage process to proceed at a faster rate, which inturn frees up more coalescing sites on the fibers andallows the coalescer to process higher inlet liquidaerosol concentrations than an untreated coalescermedium. The surface treatment greatly enhancesthis drainage, and as a direct consequence of thetreatment, the coalesced droplets are shielded fromthe upward gas flow in the annulus for most of thelength of the coalescer cartridge.

The coalesced droplets are first exposed to theannular gas flow when they appear on the externalface of the coalescer medium pack at the bottomthird of the coalescer cartridge (See Figure 8a). Once

the coalesced droplets are releasedto the annular space they aresubject to the force of the upwardflowing gas. The trajectory of thecoalesced droplets is modeled ona force balance between gravitysettling and the drag force createdby the gas flow past the droplets.This analysis leads to the calculationof a critical annular velocity for re-entrainment.

Due to the surface treatment,there are minimal coalesceddroplets present in the annulusabove the drainage point at thebottom third of the coalescercartridge. For a coalescer cartridgethat is not specially surface treated,the coalesced liquids are present

Figure 8a and 8b. Effect of Surface Treatmenton Annular Velocity

Greenoil in


throughout the length of the coalescer in the annulusspace, and the critical annular velocity for re-entrainment is given for the top of the element (SeeFigure 8b). For the treated coalescer, it is allowableto have annular velocities greater than the criticalvalue for re-entrainment in the portion of the annulusspace where there are no liquids present. Thisallows the maximum annular velocity at the top ofthe coalescer cartridge to be about three times thecritical re-entrainment value needed at the verticalposition of the lower one third of thecartridge height where liquids arepresent.

Therefore, the maximum annularvelocity at the top of the coalescercartridge is found to be about three timesgreater than the value for an untreatedcoalescer. The annulus area is determinedusing the maximum allowable annularvelocity and designed to be of sufficientsize to prevent re-entrainment and assmall as possible to minimize the housingdiameter.

Liquid/Gas Coalescer Construction -Surface Treatment

The liquid/gas coalescer is constructed of aninner rigid stainless steel core around which isplaced the active pleated glass fiber coalescermedium. Using layers of increasing pore size tapersthe pore structure in the coalescer medium. Theinlet gas first encounters the smallest pores followedby increasing pore size with penetration distance toallow for more space as the coalesced dropletsgrow. The pleated coalescer medium is supportedby a mesh structure to provide mechanical strength,followed by a coarse outer wrap that serves as adrainage zone. The entire coalescer cartridge istreated with an aqueous fluorocarbon emulsionthat penetrates through the depth of the glass fibercoalescer medium and drainage layers leaving athin fluorocarbon coating on all of the surfaces. Theresult is that the surface energy of the coalescermedium is lowered sufficiently to prevent mostliquids from wetting out the coalescer fibers.

This treatment effectively creates a coalescermedium that is both hydrophobic (water repellent)and oleophobic (oil repellent). This effect can be

characterized through use of contact anglemeasurements. In Figure 9, a droplet is placed ona surface treated glass fiber and an untreated glassfiber. The degree to which the droplet is spread out,or the fiber wetted, is measured by the contactangle of the liquid with the solid. For drops that arenot strongly adsorbed to the solid surface, thecontact angle is greater than 90 degrees while theuntreated wetted surface has a contact angleapproaching zero degrees. Another way to

demonstrate this effect is to dip a section of thecoalescer medium into a test liquid and compare it toan untreated coalescer section. The treated coalescermedium quickly sheds the liquid, while the untreatedcoalescer medium absorbs the liquid and acts as asponge.

The amount that the liquid aerosols wet out thecoalescer fibers has remarkable effects on coalescerperformance. One such effect is capillary floodingwhich is illustrated in Figure 10. Liquid aerosolsentering an idealized cylindrical pore made fromuntreated coalescer medium result in the liquidsforming a continuous layer along the walls of thecapillary. As more liquids enter the pore, the liquidscoating the pore walls build up and eventually blockthe pore completely. The gas pressure then rises inthe pore and ultimately causes the drop to be ejectedfrom the pore in such a manner that the drop isatomized into a number of smaller droplets. Thesedroplets are smaller than the largest drop sizepossible by coalescence, and are re-entrained bythe annular flow. A surface treated coalescer porebehaves quite differently, and the liquids do notwet the capillary walls due to the weak interactionbetween the liquid aerosols and the surface treated

Figure 9. Contact Angle of Treated and Untreated Coalescer Medium


pore walls. The drops instead tend to coalesce witheach other throughout the length of the pore, andwhen they leave the coalescer medium are at thelargest possible size by coalescence. The large dropsthen settle by gravity and are not re-entrained. Itshould be noted that, in the case of the treatedcoalescer pore, the walls of the pore do not becomewetted out, and the capillary cross section is neverblocked so that atomization does not occur.

Another effect of the surface treatment is that itprovides the coalescer with anti-fouling abilities.Most of the solids in the gas are associated with theliquid aerosol droplets. The ability of the surfacetreated coalescer to repel these droplets and not wetout also prevents solid contaminants from adheringto the coalescer fibers. This allows the coalescer toprovide an extended service life over non treatedcoalescers. A typical field service life encounteredfor the surface treated coalescer is from 12-24 monthswhile traditional coalescers without surfacetreatment have been found, in specific cases, to lastfrom 2 – 6 months.

The surface treatment also allows the coalescer tooperate with less hold up volume of liquids, as theytend to drain quickly due to the low attraction

between the coalescer fibers andthe liquid drops formed. Theresult is that a less obstructedpathway is created for the gaspassing through the coalescer, andconsequently a lower overallpressure drop is experienced ascompared to untreated coalescers.

The primary effect of the surfacetreatment is to enhance drainageof the coalesced liquids. Thisresults in improved capabilityto handle higher inlet liquidconcentrations, higher annularvelocities and a lower pressuredrop. High Efficiency Liquid /Gas Coalescers also operate onthe separation mechanism ofdiffusion that allows them totolerate high turn down ratios

(greatly reduced flow rates from design conditions).

ConclusionsSeveral different technologies were evaluated for

green oil removal from the hydrogenated crackedgas in ethylene plants including: ethylene washtower, packed bed, knock-out drum with mesh pad,and high efficiency liquid / gas coalescer. Based onthis comparison, the wash tower provided the highestdegree of green oil separation with 99-100 % overallgreen oil removal, but also at the highest operationcost (ethylene wash steam rate is about 5% of theethylene product rate) and required the largest capitalinvestment for the tower. The packed bed requireda lower capital investment and operating cost, butprovided a lower separation quality with an overallgreen oil removal of 80-90 %. The knock out drumwith mesh pad also offered a lower cost solution, butthis option provided the poorest separation of only70-80% overall green oil removal. The best separationoption based on low operating cost and the smallestsized vessel, was the high efficiency liquid / gascoalescer system as it had a removal efficiency of99.98 % for aerosols > 0.3 µm and an overall green oilremoval of 98-99 %. High efficiency liquid / gascoalescers also have the advantage over othertechnologies of being able to tolerate high turn downratios due to their diffusion based separationmechanism.

Figure 10. Effect of Surface Treatment on Media Velocity

Greenoil in


An in depth discussion of the technology offeredby Pall Corporation for high efficiency liquid/ gascoalescers was presented. Advances in coalescertechnology were discussed including details of thecoalescing mechanism and how a chemical surfacetreatment can be used to enhance the coalescerseparation ability.

References1 Perry, R. H, Green, D. W. and Maloney, J.O., (eds.)

Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook, 6th

edition, Sec. 18-55, 1984.

2 Jackson, S., and Calvert, S., “Entrained ParticleCollection in Packed Beds, “AIChE Journal,November, 1966.

3 Brown, R. L., Wines, T. H., “Recent Developmentsin Liquid/ Gas Separation Technology,” Presentedat the Laurence Reid Gas Conditioning Conference,Norman Oklahoma, February 28, 1994.

4 Williamson, K., Tousi, S., and Hashemi, R., “Recent Developments in Performance Rating ofGas / Liquid Coalescers,” Presented at the FirstAnnual Meeting of the American Filtration Society,Ocean City, Maryland, March 21-25, 1988.

Hydrocarbon Asia thanks Dr S. Kurukchi and Dr Thomas Wines for contributing this paper.

S. Kurukchi is Senior Technology Specialist for Shaw Stone & Webster, Houston, Texas. Hehas extensive process engineering experience in separation processes, acid gas and contaminantremoval systems, fractionation and fractionation towers. He has authored many patents andpapers.

Dr. Kurukchi hold a B.Sc. in Chemical Engineering from London University-UK; and a Ph.D.in Distillation from Loughborough University-UK.

Thomas H. Wines, Ph.D. is a Senior Marketing Manager for the Fuels & Chemicals Groupat Pall Corporation (25 Harbor Park Dr., Port Washington, NY 11050, Phone: 516-801-9453;Fax: 516-484-0364). His work history at Pall Corporation includes positions as Senior StaffEngineer, Staff Engineer, and Senior Test Engineer in the Scientific and Laboratory ServicesDepartment. His experience includes over eighteen years of global filtration trouble shooting inthe refinery, gas processing, and chemical industries. He is a specialist in the fields of liquid –gas and liquid – liquid coalescing and has over 35 professional society publications and

presentations. He holds a B.S. in Chemistry from Fordham University, an M.S. in Chemical Engineering fromColumbia University and a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering at Columbia University. He is a member of theAmerican Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) and the American Chemical Society (ACS).

5 Murphy, W. L., “Practical In-Service SimulationTests for Rating of High Efficiency AerosolCoalescing Performance,” PEDD-FSR-101a, PallCorporation Equipment Development, November1984.

6 Pauley, C. R., Hashemi, R., and Caothien, S., “Analysis of Foaming Mechanisms in AminePlants,” Presented at the American Institute ofChemical Engineers Summer Meeting, DenverColorado, August 22-24, 1988.

7 Schlotthauer, M. and Hashemi, R., “GasConditioning: A Key to Success in TurbineCombustion Systems Using Landfill Gas Fuel,”Presented at the 14th Annual Landfill Gas SymposiumGRCDA / SWANA, San Diego, California, March27, 1991.

8 Pauley, C. R., Langston, D. G., Betts, F.,“Redesigned Filters Solve Foaming, Amine LossProblems at Louisiana Gas Plant,” Oil & GasJournal, February 4, 1991.

9 Wines, T. H., “Improve Liquid/Gas CoalescerPerformance,” Hydrocarbon Processing, January,2000.

HA

Date post:	07-Feb-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hoangdung
View:	216 times
Download:	2 times

A comparison of separation methods for Green Oil in ethylene ...

Documents