LNG Projects: Overview of Inlet Separation Facilities

Content

Introduction

Process Overview

Overview: Slug Catcher

Overpressure Protection: HIPPS

Inlet Pressure Control

Min DT based on Depressurisation

Protection for Exchanger tube rupture

Conclusion
Introduction: Inlet Separation Facilities

 Primary gas/ liquid separation of incoming fluid coming to the

facilities through pipeline

 Typically a high pressure unit

 Slug storage capacity in Slug Catcher

 Gas pressure reduction for feeding to downstream Acid Gas

Removal Unit (AGRU) before going to LNG trains

 Liquid pressure reduction and separation of liquid into hydrocarbon

(condensate) and aqueous phases.

 Hydrocarbon liquid (condensate) is fed to Condensate Stabilisation

unit. Stabilised condensate sent to condensate tanks for export

 Aqueous phase fed to MEG Recovery Unit

Flow Diagram: Separation
From Stabiliser
O/H Compressor
Gas
Gas to AGRU
Heater

HIPPS
Pressure Feed Gas
Letdown Separator

Liquid
Filter To Stabiliser O/H
Slug Compressor
Catcher Liquid
Heater HC Liq to
B/L LNG Condensate
Facilities Stabilisation
Pressure 3 Phase
Letdown Separator Aq. Phase to
MEG Recovery
Feed
Pipeline
Flow Diagram: Condensate Stabilisation

To Feed Gas
From 3 Separator
Phase
Separator

Flash Gas
Compressor
HC Liquid from
Stabiliser
Separator
Column

Reboiler
Stabiliser
Feed Drum To Condensate
Storage Tank

Air Cooler
Slug Catcher: Introduction

What is a Slug Catcher?

 Slug Catcher is a large separator located at the end of the two-phase
feed pipeline
 It is intended to separate the gas and liquid phases. Can be of 2
phase or 3 phase type
 It provides temporary storage volume for liquid slugs that can come
in through the pipeline so that the downstream processing is not
disturbed.

How are slugs formed?

 Slugs can form due to terrain effects: liquid collects at the low points
in the pipeline and blocks the gas flow. The pressure in the blocked
gas rises until it blows the accumulated liquid out as a slug.
 Ramping up of flow rate in the pipeline can cause slugs.
 Pigging can cause very large liquid slugs as the entire liquid
inventory of the line is swept ahead of the pig.
Slug Catcher Design

 Types of Slug Catcher construction: 2 main types

 Vessel Type
 Multiple Pipe (finger) type

 Vessel type is used for smaller storage volumes, or where

there is limited plot space

 For large slug volumes multiple pipe type is preferred; more

economic to construct and transport

 Depending on the required volume, multiple pipe slug catchers

can take up very large plot area
Multiple Pipe Slug Catcher: (sketch from
DEP)
Multiple Pipe Slug Catcher sketch (sketch
from DEP)
Multiple Pipe Slug Catcher Design

 Multiple pipe slug catchers will normally be made of pipeline material

(B31.8)
 Lower thickness, and hence cost advantage over high pressure
vessel design
 Easier to transport, fingers can be transported loose and welded and
assembled in site
 Manifold nature of multiple pipe slug catcher makes possible the later
addition of additional capacity by laying more parallel pipes
 Flow splitter at the inlet to feed the 2 phase stream to the inlet header
to uniformly distribute the flow to the bottles/ fingers
 The first part of the fingers up to the gas riser is for separation. Liquid
drops out due to lower velocity
 The remaining part of the fingers is intended for liquid storage
Slug Catcher: Design considerations

 Maximum slug volume is estimated based on flow assurance

analysis
 The slug catcher hold up volume between the high and low liquid
levels should be able to accommodate the maximum slug volume
expected
 Liquid outlet header is normally at least same diameter as fingers
 Risk of blockage of liquid outlet header by sludge/ sand. Liquid outlet
from the manifold should not be from the bottom
 Cleaning/ Flushing nozzles and manholes provided on the manifolds/
fingers
 Gas flows out on pressure control
 Liquid flows out on level control. Can be cascaded with flow control.
 Large operating range for liquid control valves, more than one valve
may be required
Overpressure protection: HIPPS

 Sections with different Design Pressures across the unit

 Safeguarding provisions to be engineered for protecting the lower

design pressure systems from higher pressure upstream systems

 Safeguarding can be by mechanical devices like relief valves or

instrumented protective functions or a combination of the two

 The first point of break in Design Pressure between the upstream

pipeline and the downstream section can be with a HIPPS valve

 HIPPS: High Integrity Pressure Protection System. It is a SIL 3

Instrumented Protective Function (IPF)
Overpressure Protection: HIPPS
600#
Section 3
Section 2
1500# To Flare
Section 1
2500# Gas to
AGRU
PC
PZ

Gas Heater
PZ
Feed Gas
ESD Letdown
Separator
valve Station

HIPPS
Slug Catcher
B/L LNG
Facilities

Feed Pipeline
Overpressure Protection: HIPPS

 No relief load to flare

 Fast closing valve. Can be with pneumatic or hydraulic actuator

 Rigorous maintenance required

 Standby (n + 1 sparing) required for full stroke testing (requirement

for SIL 3)

 Limitation on maximum size available, so parallel runs may be

required

 Trip set point of HIPPS valve is set by pipeline operating flexibility

requirements; verified by dynamic simulation

 Closing time of HIPPS valve: vendor information is taken for closing

times; adequacy of closing times confirmed by dynamic simulation
Inlet Pressure Control: Case Study

FEED Configuration

 Two 100% PCVs (one working + one standby) for letting down
pressure

 Two ESD valves provided in series upstream of the letdown

station

 ESD valves will close and shut down flow in case of high
pressure downstream of the letdown station (2 out of 3 voting)
Pressure letdown: FEED Configuration

FEED Configuration

1500# 600#
2oo3
PC
PCV-B
PZ
FC

750mm
UZV -1 UZV -2
PCV-A
FC
Inlet Pressure Control

Concerns with FEED Configuration

 If the inlet system was operating close to the HIPPS set point and the
PCV failed open, the design pressure of the downstream system
would be exceeded resulting in severe safety and asset risk. The
overpressure system was assessed as requiring SIL3 rating.

 Pressure rise in this system can be much faster compared to the

upstream (pipeline) system due to lower system volumes and due to
large volume of high pressure gas upstream. So fast acting valve will
be required. Fast acting valves at the required size (750 mm) and
design pressure (1500#) would be considered a technical novelty.

 Size of the PCV at the required Design Pressure rating was outside
the experience range of the supplier

 This failure mode would also result in the capacity of the wet gas
flare being exceeded, unless multiple, parallel PCV runs were
installed each sized to limit the flow to within the flare capacity.
Parallel PCV runs would also reduce the PCV size to that which is in
proven service
Alternative Solutions

Base Case:

 Install a 2nd HIPPS: Parallel fast acting HIPPS valves ensuring

a SIL3 rating (n + 1 sparing for full stroke testing)

 Option not accepted by client based on their experience which

indicate that HIPPS are less reliable than a conventional flare
system and require high levels of maintenance. A flare system
design for full gas flow would be an inherently safe design.
Base Case: 2nd HIPPS

1500# 600#
UZV-1A UZV-2A 2oo3
PCV-B PC
FC PZ

UZV-1B UZV-2B

PCV-A
FC
UZV-1C UZV-2C
HIPPS
Other alternatives considered

 Atmospheric Vent

 Increase Wet Gas Flare Capacity

 Increase number of PCV runs

 Utilise Dry Flare

 Increase system design pressure to inlet of AGRU

 Reduce maximum inlet pressure

Accepted Way Forward

Accepted Solution:
 Increase Wet Gas Flare Capacity for relief from Feed Gas
Separator relief valve on block discharge (e.g. Fail Closure of
outlet ESD valve

 Provide multiple (parallel) PCV runs.

 Each PCV to be sized such that flow through one PCV will
match the increased Wet Gas Flare capacity.

 This would also reduce the size of the PCVs to a size which is
in proven service
Inlet Pressure Control: PCV sizing

 Capacity (Cv) of individual pressure control valves is set by the Fail

Open Case: the flow through a failed open control valve that can be
handled by the Wet Gas Flare.

 The pressure upstream of the control valve is set by the HIPPS trip
set point. Pressure downstream of the control valve is the PSV set
pressure + accumulation + line losses.

 The total calculated (required) Cv is set by the peak flow at operating

conditions and the pressure drop across the control valves.

 The total available pressure drop can be adjusted between the line
losses and control valve pressure drop. Thus the number of PCV
runs can be optimised
Inlet Pressure Control: No. of PCV runs

 A higher pressure drop across the valves will mean a smaller

required Cv and thus less number of PCV runs

 But the downside to this is that additional pressure drop will

have to be saved on the line losses, which will lead to larger
line sizes

 Because of the criticality of the control valve sizing process,

the vendors were involved in the optimisation phase for giving
feedback and recommendation regarding control valve
performance.

 Vendor feedback was also taken for determining the cost of the
options and working out the optimised solution
Min DT (based on Depressurisation)

 Fluid cools when depressurised. Minimum metal temperatures are

determined based on depressurisation calculations.
 KBR guideline for Blowdown and Minimum Design Temperature
says:
 “The minimum design temperature should normally be assumed to be
coincident with full design pressure. This would allow for the possibility of
operators repressurising cold equipment immediately after blowdown”
 “For repressurising, the source of the pressurising gas should be warm to
avoid low isenthalpic flash temperatures occurring below the minimum
design temperature of the vessel being pressurised”
 Repressurisation is done using 2” or 3” bypass globe valves around
isolation valves
 It may be necessary to use high pressure pipeline gas for the
repressurisaton. Due to Joule Thompson effect, there would be very
cold gas downstream of the globe valve, potentially much below the
normally considered lower limit of LTCS (-46oC)
Minimum Design Temperature

 Consider the example of repressurising the Gorgon Slug Catcher after

depressurisation. The feed gas will be used to repressurise the slug
catcher. If the pipeline is at a pressure of 140 bara, then while
repressurising, the temperature of the cold gas can go as low as
about -100oC

 However as the pressure in the slug catcher starts rising the

pressurising gas temperature will start rising

 The initial amount of cold gas has a very small mass compared to the
slug catcher metal mass and cannot significantly lower the metal
temperature. There could be localised cold spots like inlet piping and
nozzles, but this is allowed by the code

 Operation below Minimum Design Temperature is allowed by code

(ASME B31.3), at coincident reduced stress/ pressure

 Same approach applied to pipeline sections designed to ASME B31.8

Repressuring with bypass globe valves
Repressurisation and MDMT

 ASME code allows operation at below MDMT provided the coincident

pressure is also lower (lower than the Design Pressure)

 The margin below MDMT that is acceptable is a function of the

pressure in the equipment

 Curves are available to calculate temperature reductions at stress

ratios less than one (stress ratio is typically the ratio of the reduced
pressure divided by the full design pressure of the pipe spec).

 If the minimum temperature that the piping can see is lower than the
Minimum Design Temperature, this would be indicated in the Line
List as Flex Low temperature at coincident lower pressure
Reduction in Min Design Metal Temp
(Graph from ASME B31.3)
Case Study: Exchanger tube rupture
protection

 Gas and Liquid Heaters are Shell & Tube exchangers. High
differential pressure between shell and tube sides

 Tube side is high pressure (process) side, design pressure of

160 barg

 During FEED stage, the design pressure of the shell side was
46 barg

 If the 10/13th rule was to be followed, the design pressure of

the shell side should be 123.1 barg

 Tube rupture would result in overpressure of the shell side

 Relief Valves would be required on the shell side to protect

against overpressure from tube rupture.
Case Study: Exchanger tube rupture
protection

 Need for dynamic analysis for tube rupture scenario was

identified. Expected solution was fast acting Buckling Pin type
relief valves on the shell side
 This was expected to be the economic option: lower design
pressure of shell and connected piping up to isolation valve
 Dynamic Analysis was done to ascertain the number of
buckling pin relief valves required and the response time
 Dynamic analysis concluded that one or two buckling pin relief
valves will protect the shell, response time needed was 2 msec
 For such fast response, the relief valves would need to be
directly mounted on the shell relief nozzle
 Layout considerations precluded the use of buckling pin type
relief valves as they could not be close coupled to the shell
Case Study: Exchanger tube rupture
protection

 Other alternatives were explored:

 Alternative 1: Using Bursting Discs
 Alternative 2: Increasing the shell side design pressure as per the
10/13th rule
 Alternative 1: Bursting Disc Solution
 Reliability and downtime: bursting disc can fail due to fatigue; risk
of unscheduled plant shutdown.
 Needs to be combined with some design pressure increase
 Needs to be close coupled with the exchanger
 Results in pocket in the flare system
 Spare with isolation valve required to change bursting disc
without plant shutdown
 This option was not accepted
Case Study: Exchanger tube rupture
protection

 Alternative 2: Increasing design pressure of shell side as per

10/13th rule.

 No dynamic simulation required

 The connecting piping design pressure was also increased up

to first isolation valve to 123.1 barg (900#)

 Confirmed that required larger (higher pressure) valving can be

accommodated in layout

 This was the accepted solution. During the EPC phase, the
shell side design pressure was increased to 10/13th of the tube
side design pressure (123.1barg).
Case Study: Exchanger tube rupture
protection
THANK YOU