SERVICE REPORT

Field Performance Test & Vibration Trouble Shooting,

UCP@A, VSP, White Tiger Platform

Customer: VSP Job #

Location: White Tiger Platform CT #: 28194
Contact: Nguyễn Văn Sang Serial #: C21-894
Ph: +84 (254) 3839871 Ext 2970 Equipment: LP/HP Comp

Service Representative: Arthit Phuttipongsit Date: 15-18 August22

Operating Condition of Unit at Start of Visit:

The unit already started and put in normal operation

Brief Description of End Results of Service Visit

Vibration testing was carried out &performance data was collected

Is this Project Complete? Yes / No If Not, Please Describe:

Final report concluded on this report

Service Recommendations/ Special Note:

See Recommendations Sections

Job Safety and Environmental Analysis (JSEA):

Client carried out JSEA/PTW Yes / No If Not, Please Advise JSEA

Stop Work Authority Issued Yes / No If Yes, Please Describe (Why, When & How
solved)

Parts Summary (Part used, Spare Parts recommendations):

N/A for this project

 CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION & WORK-SCOPE

2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

APPENDIX A:

VIBRATION ASSESSMENT REPORT

APPENDIX B:

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT

APPENDIX C:

PERFORMANCE CALCULATION FOR LPC & HPC

APPENDIX D:

PREDICTED/SIMULATED PERFORMANCE CURVES_25AUG2022

APPENDIX E:

GAS ANALYSIS RESULTS

APPENDIX F:

FLOW ELEMENT DATASHEET

1.0 INTRODUCTION & WORK SCOPES

1.1 The compressor train designated as UCP-A was recently overhauled and re-
commissioning. I was assigned to assist on vibration trouble shooting on high vibration
problem during loading the unit and also conduct the site performance test on the
compressor train

1.4 Mr. Arthit Phuttipongsit, D-R FSE departed from Thailand on 14 August 2022 and
traveled to VSO Hite Tiger Platform on 15 August 2022.

2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 The unit has started and put in normal service prior to my arrival on 15 August 2022,

2.2 The vibration testing was conducted on the unit during steady state, load variation test
transient shutdown and hot start up

2.3 The technical details on vibration and performance assessment have been concluded in
this report (See Appendixes)
 APPENDIX A:

VIBRATION ASSESSMENT REPORT

 VIBRATION ASSESSMENT ON UCP-A COMPRESSOR TRAINS

1.0 The vibration amplitudes measured on gas compressor set UCP-A during normal
operation after overhauled on 17 August 2022 at approximately 9242 rpm were
tabulated as follow.
Channel Location Direct 1X filter Gap.
pk-pk (m) Uncomp. (DC Voltages)
(m@degree) (Operation)
6YD_701Y LP Disc Brg 18.5 9.2@229 -10.4
6XD_701X LP Disc Brg 23.7 13.8@162 -10.2
7YD_702Y LP Suc Brg 9.3 5.1@133 -9.8
7XD_702X LP Suc Brg 15.0 9.4@77 -9.3
8YD_301Y HP Disc Brg 33.2 25.8@344 -9.8
8XD_301X HP Disc Brg 38.5 30.4@248 -9.4
9YD_302Y HP Suc Brg 22.1 15.7@17 -9.9
9XD_302X HP Suc Brg 23.5 15.7@286 -9.4

The data from the proximity transducers above, were evaluated against ISO 7919-
3 – Mechanical vibration of non-reciprocating machines – Measurements on rotating
shafts and evaluation criteria – Part 3: Coupled industrial machines. The shaft
relative vibration levels for this unit are fallen within Zone A, defined, as “The
vibration of newly commissioned machines would normally fall within this
zone.”
 HPC- CBF 833 HIGH VIBRATION DATA DISCUSSION
1.1 The vibration testing was carried out during steady state operation, load variation
test, transient shutdown test and hot start up till normal operation as depicted in
speed trend plot below.

Trip from High Vib

Steady state Load variation

Hot restart up

1.2 During steady state operation the vibration of the unit appear to be stable & flatten
out with the fundamental synchronous vibration response excited by imbalance
force. Some of the vibration characteristics would be dominant in synchronous
frequency (1X frequency same as rotative speed) , open & circular orbital motion
with forward precession, etc.

1X Frequency
1.3 During load variation test, there was evidence sub-synchronous vibration excited and
cause increase vibration level as sub-synched modulate on top of original unbalance
component as depicted below.

Sub-Synchronous vib

1X Frequency

1.4 The exact cause of sub-synchronous vibration is not known but it is unlikely to be
related with bearing fluid induce instability, it more likely to be related with the gas
instability. It is obvious this sub-synchronous vibration appears to be excited at the
same period when the ASV controlling at “Surge Controlled Line” during load
variation.

1.5 There was evidence that during the appearance of sub-synchronous vibration, the
vibration amplitude become unstable and then momentary lead to “Rub”, induce
rotor thermal bow, cause very high unbalance vibration (Due to rotor bow) and
tripped the unit. The shutdown data during trip appear in fundamental heavy
unbalance rotor coasting down pass thru 1st critical speed.

Unstable vib
appear

Rub induce more bow rotor till trip level 

appear similar to heavy unbalance rotor coasting
down

Rub induce Bow

 The sequences & mechanisms above can be simplified as these following orders:

Steady state operation with normal vibration level  process changed & caused
unstable sub-synchronous vibration which increase the level of vibration (Not as high
to trip level)  The increased vibration amplitude lead to light rub on the rotor and
lead temporary rotor thermal bow condition  Rotor bow cause unbalance rotor (1X
-Synchronous vibration)  Unbalance rotor get bigger orbital motion which tend to
rub more severe  Increase more 1X synchronous vibration up to trip level then unit
shutdown with characteristic of unbalance rotor.

1.6 During re-start up the unit (Right after trip for high vibration), the HP rotor vibration
appear to be return back to normal condition with very well balance passing through
1st critical speed with maximum vibration amplitude less than 30 microns.

Trip curve from High vibration

Re-startup curve with well balance rotor

1.7 During re-start up period at approximately 8000 rpm, there was sign of the rotor rub
and cause high vibration (Solely 1X Synchronous vibration). Operator slightly
reduced unit speed and wait till the rotor bow condition improve then ramped up the
unit till normal operation with no significant issue from sub-synchronous vibration.

Rub  Rotor unbalance change

 Note that, before this started up above it was noticed the sub-synchronous vibration
could have been triggered during the ASV controlling at “Surge controlled Line” and
then lead to Rub & cause high vibration. It was then agreed to reduce the “Controlled
Dead Band” from 5% down to 2% in at attempt to get the ASV to respond faster
when the operating approaching the surge-controlled line.

The recent start up seems to improve & reduce the severity from sub-synchronous
vibration during loading up the unit as per “Blue circle mark on plot above”.

1.8 the shaft centreline position for DE bearing appear slightly high position considering
given bearing clearance. This feature probably causes by light load on the bearing.
It may be possible the alignment of this bearing war set too low reference to the LP
TE bearing. However, there was no sign of sever high preload or severe mis
alignment concern.

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS (HPC – CBF 833)

1.9 With reference to ISO-7919-3 criteria, the units could be classified as normal &
acceptable for un-restricted long-term operation.

1.10 The subjected high vibration during loading the unit appear to be related with
period of ASV controlling at “Surge controlled line” and somehow this triggered the
sub-synchronous vibration and induced “Rub” and cause high vibration due to
temporary unbalance from rotor thermal bow. Note that the new overhauled unit
could be sensitive to rub condition as all the seal clearance still tight with minimum
clearance.

1.11 To minimize the impact of ASV trigger the sub-synchronous vibration & induce rub,
slightly increase the surge control line margin could be one of the options i.e., 10%
 12% to get ASV respond earlier/ prior to sub-synchronous vibration trigger up.
Alternative would be put the ASV in manual mode and let operator manually
loading the unit while monitor & manage the sub-synchronous vibration.
1,12 The alignment between the LP & HP rotor should be checked for the next available
opportunity (Watching for HPC: DE bearing set too low reference to LP rotor)

LPC- CBF 642 DATA DISCUSSION

1.13 The LP rotor appear to be well balance with maximum vibration amplitude less
than 20 microns passing through the 1St critical speed.

1.14 Most the vibration characteristics presented in fundamental synchronous rotor

response passing through 1St critical speed i.e., dominant in synchronous
frequency, opened & circular orbit, etc.
1.15 The shaft centreline plots for TE & NTE appear in typical movement of tilting pad
bearing design with quite well even static load sharing for both bearings.

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS (LPC – CBF 642)

1.15 With reference to ISO-7919-3 criteria, the units could be classified as normal &
acceptable for un-restricted long-term operation.
 APPENDIX B:

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT

1.0 FIELD PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

1.1 The test was conducted on UPC_A train on both LPC & HPC sections during
normal operation with anti-surge valves closed. The simplified process diagram
is depicted below.

1.2 The performance results are calculated based on “Recent Gas Analysis” (See
Appendix “Gas sample”) and assumes the gas properties during the testing
period are the same as provided gas analysis results.

1.3 As the current suction conditions of the unit are way off from the original design
which made the original performance maps inaccurate to be used as
Reference for performance evaluation. Therefore, a new “Prediction
performance maps were simulated/ re-generated (With the suction conditions
close to current operations) to be used as “Baseline reference” to evaluate the
performance of the unit.

The deviation of Machine Mach Number between the “Test condition” and
“Base line reference condition” are less than 5% for both sections, therefore
the “Similarity” during test conditions could be considered acceptable & valid.

1.4 It was assumed all instruments used for performance test were recently
calibrated and providing the accurate reading during the test. All the
performance test data was collected from Solar system via the CCR HMI
screen.

1.5 The “Flow” was calculated by flow element DP with the recent gas sample
analysis result and flow element datasheet information.

1.6 Performance calculations were done using the D-R proprietary Perform5
software, which is based on Lee-Kesler and Passat-Danner equation of states.
1.7 During my visit, there were questions from VSP personnel which requested to
document in the report. The detail of questions are discussed in “Performance
Discussion” Section:2

1.8 The process parameters collected for performance assessment on 16 August

2022 on both LPC & HPC are tabulated below
1.9 The performance evaluates against with non-dimensional performance curves
(Developed from “Predicted Performance Curves Operating Condition 25 Aug
22” at 105% speed) are depicted below
1.10 The performance results for both units for the recent test on 16 Aug 2022 are
depicted below

API-617 tolerance allows ± 4% tolerance or margin on the power guarantee.

Field testing conditions rarely comply with the strict tolerances, redundancies,
and accuracy that ASME PTC-10 test code calls for, therefore, for all field
testing, these tolerances will be increased. Dresser-Rand advises that for all
compressors that have been operating in the field for MORE than 60 days
since installation, revamp or a complete overhaul that these tolerances on the
design (or as tested) power to be ± 7 to 9%

The “Power” deviation of both units could consider meet & comply with
the tolerance above. The Head coefficient deviations appear to be
slightly high.

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT CONCLUSION

1.11 The “Power Deviation” for both sections (LPC & HPC) could be considered
meets the API 617 tolerance base on Field Test measurement & evaluation.

1.12 The accuracy of the field performance test highly dependents with the
accuracy of instrument use to collect the raw data (which rarely comply with
the strict tolerances, redundancies, and accuracy that ASME PTC-10 test code
requirement), Gas properties accuracy also influence on the accuracy of
performance calculation. Therefore, the field performance assessment should
be used as a measure of compressor relative performance (i.e., trending)
rather than a measure of absolute compressor performance
2.0 PERFORMANCE DISCUSSION

2.1 VSP: During “Hot day”, ASV - LP sections for all units (A-E) would be slightly
opened & can not be fully closed during normal operation.

Currently, during normal operation for LP-section already closes to the “Surge
controlled line” and during the “Hot day” where the air temperature rises, air
density drops down, the total air mass flow to engine reduces and the engine
power reduces. This would lead to compressor capacity reduces and comes
close to “Surge controlled line” region then ASV opens to maintain minimum flow
as its function.

2.2 As the current suction conditions on both LPC/HPC section are way off from
original designed condition, thus the original performance maps as well as the
surge line could possibly be significant changed and no longer represent the
actual performance of the units. Therefore, the new performance maps with new
suction conditions are required to be able to accurately evaluate the operation
envelop as well as to re-map the surge control system

VSP: As all the units have been put in operation NOT the same working hours
(i.e., UCP@A just recently overhauled and sister units have been operating for
years, etc), would it be good idea to get new performance maps that can
commonly use for all unit? (i.e., average suction conditions for all unit)

The suction conditions of compressor are subjected to be changed by several

reasons i.e., Temp & pressure drop across the piping system, Temp & pressure
drop across heat exchange, the degradation of compressor performance of early
 section, etc. The performance maps should be referred to new suction
conditions base on new equipment designs. i.e., original compressor
performance, original piping system loss, original design cooler system, new,
etc. All changes that develop along with time i.e., compressor performance
degradation, pressure drop increase, temp decrease, etc somehow should be
controlled in the certain& acceptable limit and action to be taken to recovery
such the system when the change had gone beyond the limit.

The current surge control system is also compensation for suction temperature
& pressure deviation. Therefore, slightly deviation of these will not significant
impact the surge control accuracy

2.3 VSP: Currently, the scrubber inlet demister and interstage cooling pressure
drop had increased from previous original operation. How these pressure loss
impact to compressor performance?

The system pressure drop influences the compressor capacity. Lower suction
pressure (Increase pressure drop across scrubber demister/ strainer at suction
side) and higher discharge pressure (Increase pressure loss on interstage
cooler) would decrease the compressor capacity.

2.4 VSP: What impact to the compressor performance if the suction temp or the gas
molecular weight has been changed from original design?

The suction temp inversely proportional to the gas density (Higher suction temp
 lower gas density & vice versa). The gas molecular weight proportional to the
gas density (Higher gas molecular weight  higher gas density and vice versa)
For the most common compressor application where the discharge pressure is
maintained constant,
 Lower gas density would need higher “Head” to maintain the same
discharge pressure (means inlet capacity decrease)
 Higher gas density would need less “Head” to maintain the same
discharge pressure (means inlet capacity increase)
.
2.5 VSP: Why the compressor unable to deliver the required discharge pressure
which still fall within the design operating envelop? (i.e., currently the units can
deliver 114 Bar discharge pressure and unable to deliver the 117 Bar discharge
pressure as require)

These can be varieties of reasons such as the performance of the compressor

degrades with times, higher pressure drop on both suction and discharge sides
of the piping system (cause lower flow at the required constant discharge
 pressure), lighter gas composition (lower MW) would need more speed to get
same discharge pressure but now the unit already max out the speed, etc

2.6 VSP: VSP had changed new type of valve positioner for ASV valves, do those
valve need any special procedure to calibrate them?

In general, if the flow path does not change (i.e. valve size, seat, actuator, etc)
then general calibration with the fast opening check should be good enough for
ASV function (Typically, for fast opening time should be less than 2 seconds)

2.7 VSP: VSP requested for Compressibility Factor (Z) for the current gas analysis.

Base on the provided recent gas sample result the Z factors for suction and
average for 1St and 2nd sections as depicted below
1St Section 2Nd Section
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Regarding to the issue of LPC operating point closes to surge control line which
sometimes drive the unit into recycle flow, below could be options
3.1.1 With reference to performance map, the curves typically fairly “Flat” at near
the surge zone and becomes much steeper at high flow approaching the
overload zone, therefore slightly change the “Head” near the surge point could
cause large change in compressor flow.

Suction pressure change influences more on compressor capacity than discharge

pressure change. For example, increase suction pressure from 896 KpaG to 996
KpaG would reduce the “Pressure Ratio from 4.17 (4162 KpaA/ 997 KpaA) to
3.76 (4162 KpaA/1107KpaA). The compressor discharge pressure would need to
be lower from 4061KpaG to 3647.7 KpaG to get same “Pressure Ratio” reduction
(4162 KpaA/997 KpaA  3748.7 KpaA/997 KpaA).

Therefore, improve the suction pressure loss from the piping system i.e.,
demister scrubber, strainer, interstage cooler (improve suction pressure of HPC),
etc would potentially improve the situation of LPC operating near surge control
line issue and discharge pressure low issue.

3.1.2 Alternatively, the surge control line margin could possibly reduce to
minimize recycle flow (i.e. from 10%  7%). If reduce the surge control line
margin, the surge verification test should be conducted to ensure the reduced
margin anti-surge system still respond satisfactory and sufficiently to protect the
surge event.

3.2 Updates the “Surge control map” in control system. Currently, the operation
conditions had been significantly changed from original design conditions i.e.,
change in gas properties, suction & discharge condition etc. Thus, the surge line
could also be changed and possibly lead to inaccurate on anti-surge protection
which configured/ referred to the original design.

Dresser-Rand Engineering would provide all required information to enable Solar

Turbine to implements/ update the new surge-controlled map in Solar control
system. Once the update implemented, it is recommended to conduct the surge
verification test to ensure the updated anti-surge-controlled system well function
to prevent & protect the machine from surge.

3.3 Contact Dresser-Rand Engineering to get new updated performance map to get
clear view on how the compressor perform base on current operation conditions
i.e. current gas properties, suction & discharge conditions, required flow, driver
power, etc. And if the compressor performance (Base on current operating
conditions) has small margin to the process demand then revamp compressor
could be considered to be long term solution.
 APPENDIX C:

PERFORMANCE CALCULATION FOR LPC & HPC

LPC_CBF 642A - Aug 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mole Weight: 21.486
Specific Gravity: 0.74182
Accentric Factor: 0.0377
Critical Volume (ft3/lb mole): 1.9011
Critical Pressure (psia): 662.198
Critical Temperature (deg. R): 406.028
---------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPRESSOR GAS PROPERTIES:
INLET ISENTROPIC OUTLET
Pressure (KPaA): 996.30 4160.97 4160.97
Temperature (Deg. C): 26.00 118.74 147.00
Reduced Pressure: 0.21822 0.91136 0.91136
Reduced Temperature: 1.32619 1.73733 1.86261
Density (Kg./M^3): 0.11272 0.03491 0.03790
Specific Volume (M^3/Kg): 8.87178 28.64312 26.38319
Compressibility, Z: 0.970066 0.957894 0.970002
Enthalpy (Btu/lb.): 215.153 293.996 324.620
Entropy (Btu/lb. deg.): 1.86172 1.86172 1.90363
Heat Capacity (Btu/lb deg): 0.49951 0.61108
Cp/Cv Heat Capacity Ratio: 1.27148 1.23780
Sonic Velocity (M./sec.): 370.63 436.52
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Flange Flow: 1178.08 Kg/min. 7967.40 IM3/Hr. 73.74 KNM3/hr.
@ 0 deg. C
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Impellers: 6
Diameter (inches): 19.55
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed (RPM): 9234. Barometric Pressure (PSIA): 14.500
---------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPRESSOR PERFORMANCE:
POLYTROPIC ISENTROPIC
Head (M-Kg/Kg): 19523.14 18698.92
Efficiency (%): 75.20 72.02
Power - Gas (KiloWatts): 4999. 4999.
Power - Brake (KiloWatts): 5099. 5099.
Exponent n ns: 1.3116 1.2196
Polytropic Work Factor f: 1.00166 1.00166
Delta Enthalpy (btu/lb.): 109.47 109.47
Q/N flange (icfm/rpm): 0.5078 0.5078
Volume Ratio V(in)/V(out): 2.9738 2.9738
Mu - Head Coeff.: 0.55358 0.53021
Work Input (Mu/eff.): 0.73615 0.73615
Machine Mach Number (Tip Speed): 0.635 0.635
Pressure Ratio (Pd/Ps): 4.1764 4.1764
Temperature Ratio (Td/Ts): 1.4045 1.3100
---------------------------------------------------------------------
12:56:55 08-29-2022
HPC_CBF 833 B_Test_Aug22
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mole Weight: 21.413
Specific Gravity: 0.73930
Accentric Factor: 0.0371
Critical Volume (ft3/lb mole): 1.8979
Critical Pressure (psia): 661.197
Critical Temperature (deg. R): 404.507
---------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPRESSOR GAS PROPERTIES:
INLET ISENTROPIC OUTLET
Pressure (KPaA): 4094.97 11836.64 11836.64
Temperature (Deg. C): 40.00 115.69 145.67
Reduced Pressure: 0.89826 2.59645 2.59645
Reduced Temperature: 1.39348 1.73028 1.86369
Density (Kg./M^3): 0.02659 0.01154 0.01289
Specific Volume (M^3/Kg): 37.60354 86.64943 77.59379
Compressibility, Z: 0.895572 0.904738 0.938004
Enthalpy (Btu/lb.): 213.186 268.656 304.944
Entropy (Btu/lb. deg.): 1.73772 1.73772 1.78766
Heat Capacity (Btu/lb deg): 0.57226 0.67233
Cp/Cv Heat Capacity Ratio: 1.38109 1.34102
Sonic Velocity (M./sec.): 368.23 447.98
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Flange Flow: 1070.53 Kg/min. 1708.14 IM3/Hr. 67.24 KNM3/hr.
@ 0 deg. C
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Impellers: 8
Diameter (inches): 15.70
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed (RPM): 9230. Barometric Pressure (PSIA): 14.500
---------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPRESSOR PERFORMANCE:
POLYTROPIC ISENTROPIC
Head (M-Kg/Kg): 13938.22 13155.69
Efficiency (%): 64.05 60.45
Power - Gas (KiloWatts): 3808. 3808.
Power - Brake (KiloWatts): 3884. 3884.
Exponent n ns: 1.4653 1.2715
Polytropic Work Factor f: 0.99448 0.99448
Delta Enthalpy (btu/lb.): 91.76 91.76
Q/N flange (icfm/rpm): 0.1089 0.1089
Volume Ratio V(in)/V(out): 2.0635 2.0635
Mu - Head Coeff.: 0.46004 0.43422
Work Input (Mu/eff.): 0.71828 0.71828
Machine Mach Number (Tip Speed): 0.497 0.497
Pressure Ratio (Pd/Ps): 2.8905 2.8905
Temperature Ratio (Td/Ts): 1.3374 1.2417
---------------------------------------------------------------------
12:57:59 08-29-2022
 APPENDIX D:

PREDICTED/SIMULATED PERFORMANCE
CURVES_25AUG2022
 Discharge Pressure Vs Standard Volume Flow Brake Power Vs Standard Volume Flow
5250 6500
5000
6000 9172
4750

Brake Power, kW@ Ps=896.30kPa

POWER=PWRcrv X Ps/896.30kPa
5500
4500
Discharge Pressure, kPa A

5000 8735
4250 4146.07
4000 4468.71
4500
3750 8298
4000
3500
3250 3500 7862

91
3000 3000

72
7425
87

74344.84
35

2750
74344.84

2500
82
98

78 6988
2500 62
74
25 2000
2250 69
88
2000 1500
37500

43750

50000

56250

62500

68750

75000

81250

87500

93750

100000

106250

112500

118750

37500

43750

50000

56250

62500

68750

75000

81250

87500

93750

100000

106250

112500

118750
Standard Volume Flow, sm³/hr Standard Volume Flow, sm³/hr
Polytropic Efficiency Vs Standard Volume Flow Polytropic Head Vs Standard Volume Flow
0.8175 230
0.8100 0.81 220
0.8025 210
0.7950 200
188.3
0.7875 190
Polytropic Head, kJ/kg
Polytropic Efficiency

0.7800 180
0.7725 170
0.7650 160
0.7575 150
6988

91
72
7425

0.7500 140

87
35
0.7425 130
7862

82
98

0.7350 120
8298
74344.84

74344.84

78
6

0.7275 110
2

74
25
8735

0.7200 100 69
88
9172

0.7125 90
37500

43750

50000

56250

62500

68750

75000

81250

87500

93750

100000

106250

112500

118750

37500

43750

50000

56250

62500

68750

75000

81250

87500

93750

100000

106250

112500

118750

Standard Volume Flow, sm³/hr Standard Volume Flow, sm³/hr

 Discharge Pressure Vs Standard Volume Flow Brake Power Vs Standard Volume Flow
14500 4750
9172
14000 4500
13500 4250

Brake Power, kW@ Ps=3994.72kPa

POWER=PWRcrv X Ps/3994.72kPa
13000 4000
12500 8735
Discharge Pressure, kPa A

3750
12000 11838.33
3500
11500 3282.96
3250 8298
11000
3000
10500
2750 7862
10000

91
72
2500
9500 87
35
9000 2250 7425
82
98
2000

66453.29
8500
66453.29

78
62 6988
8000 1750
74
25
7500 69 1500
88
7000 1250
31250

37500

43750

50000

56250

62500

68750

75000

81250

87500

93750

100000

106250

31250

37500

43750

50000

56250

62500

68750

75000

81250

87500

93750

100000

106250
Standard Volume Flow, sm³/hr Standard Volume Flow, sm³/hr
Polytropic Efficiency Vs Standard Volume Flow Polytropic Head Vs Standard Volume Flow
0.7000 165.00
0.6950 157.50

0.6900 0.69 150.00

0.6850 142.50
134.72
135.00
0.6800
Polytropic Head, kJ/kg
Polytropic Efficiency

127.50
0.6750
120.00
0.6700
112.50

91
0.6650

72
105.00

87
0.6600

3
97.50

5
82
0.6550 98
90.00
6988

78
0.6500 62
7425

82.50
66453.29

66453.29
7862

74
0.6450 25
8298

75.00
69
0.6400 88
8735

67.50
9172

0.6350 60.00
31250

37500

43750

50000

56250

62500

68750

75000

81250

87500

93750

100000

106250

31250

37500

43750

50000

56250

62500

68750

75000

81250

87500

93750

100000

106250

Standard Volume Flow, sm³/hr Standard Volume Flow, sm³/hr

 APPENDIX E:

GAS ANALYSIS RESULTS

 LP -Suction

Khí sau BT Khí sau BT

Khí vào CCP
1-V-211 1-V-251 1-V-251
No-1 No-2 No-3 No-4
No 9.5 9.2 9.0 9.0
o
C) 26.0 30.0 29.0 29.0
11/5/2022 11/5/2022 13/5/2022 13/5/2022
% Mole % Mole % Mole % Mole
1 N2 0.242 0.248 0.256 0.252
2 CO2 0.166 0.156 0.161 0.154
3 Methane 76.973 77.133 77.331 77.291
4 Ethane 11.651 11.519 11.232 11.513
5 Propane 6.864 6.985 6.802 6.898
6 I-Butane 1.274 1.326 1.281 1.260
7 N-Butnae 1.789 1.748 1.830 1.746
8 I-Pentane 0.354 0.340 0.375 0.323
9 N-Pentane 0.332 0.288 0.356 0.292
10 Hexanes 0.223 0.174 0.247 0.175
11 Heptanes 0.095 0.061 0.098 0.065
12 Octanes 0.021 0.012 0.019 0.015
13 Nonanes 0.010 0.007 0.009 0.010
14 Decanes 0.004 0.002 0.003 0.005
15 Undecanes 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001
16 Undecanes Plus 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
17 H2S(ppmv) (*) 20.0
18 H2O (g/m3)
19 Hg ( g/m3)
20 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000
0
21 C, 1 bar
21.1 Molar mas, g/mole 21.625 21.533 21.610 21.486
21.2 Gross heat content, KJ/mole 1149.092 1144.903 1148.244 1142.652
21.3 Gross heat content, MJ/kg 53.137 53.168 53.135 53.181
3
21.4 Gross heat content, MJ/m 48.791 48.611 48.755 48.515
21.5 Net heat content, KJ/mole 1043.146 1039.236 1042.354 1037.136
21.6 Net heat content, MJ/kg 48.237 48.261 48.235 48.270
3
21.7 Net heat content, MJ/m 44.293 44.125 44.259 44.035
21.8 Gas relative Density 0.749 0.746 0.749 0.744
3
21.9 Gas Density, kg/m 0.918 0.914 0.918 0.912
3
21.10 Wobbe Index, MJ/m 56.365 56.278 56.343 56.228

Báo cáo CCP-Q2-2022.xlsx Page 6

 HP-Suction

Khí sau Khí sau BT Khí sau Khí sau BT

No
1-AC-251 1-V-252 1-AC-252 1-V-253
No-5 No-6 No-7 No-8
39.0 114.5 114.5
o
C) 42.0 59.0 49.0
13/5/2022 13/5/2022 13/5/2022
% Mole % Mole % Mole % Mole
1 N2 0.000 0.254 0.239 0.260
2 CO2 0.000 0.172 0.167 0.152
3 Methane 0.000 77.763 76.956 77.556
4 Ethane 0.000 11.342 11.371 11.259
5 Propane 0.000 6.527 6.832 6.573
6 I-Butane 0.000 1.189 1.285 1.221
7 N-Butnae 0.000 1.668 1.831 1.726
8 I-Pentane 0.000 0.341 0.380 0.361
9 N-Pentane 0.000 0.331 0.366 0.351
10 Hexanes 0.000 0.244 0.292 0.279
11 Heptanes 0.000 0.120 0.168 0.163
12 Octanes 0.000 0.029 0.053 0.052
13 Nonanes 0.000 0.014 0.034 0.031
14 Decanes 0.000 0.005 0.020 0.015
15 Undecanes 0.000 0.001 0.006 0.002
16 Undecanes Plus 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
17 H2S(ppm)
18 H2O (g/m3)
19 Hg ( g/m3)
20 0.000 100.000 100.000 100.000
0
21 C, 1 bar
21.1 Molar mas, g/mole 0.000 21.446 21.820 21.616
21.2 Gross heat content, KJ/mole 0.000 1140.266 1158.263 1148.632
21.3 Gross heat content, MJ/kg 0.000 53.170 53.082 53.139
3
21.4 Gross heat content, MJ/m 0.000 48.413 49.185 48.772
21.5 Net heat content, KJ/mole 0.000 1034.914 1051.699 1042.714
21.6 Net heat content, MJ/kg 0.000 48.258 48.198 48.238
3
21.7 Net heat content, MJ/m 0.000 43.940 44.660 44.275
21.8 Gas relative Density 0.000 0.743 0.756 0.749
3
21.9 Gas Density, kg/m 0.000 0.911 0.927 0.918
3
21.10 Wobbe Index, MJ/m 0.000 56.164 56.563 56.355

Báo cáo CCP-Q2-2022.xlsx Page 7

 APPENDIX F:

FLOW ELEMENT DATASHEET