STRUCTURED PACKING IN

TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL DEHYDRATION SERVICE

James A. Kean
Harry M. Turner
Brian C. Price

ARCO Oil and Gas Company

Laurance Reid Gas Conditioning Conference

March 4-6, 1991

Norman, Oklahoma
STRUCTURED PACKING IN TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL DEHYDRATION
SERVICE

Introduction

Natural gas dehydration is an essential element of virtually all gas processing

facilities. Although from a capital and energy standpoint dehydration is often a
minor part of the total plant, proper dehydration is essential to the operation of
the facility as a whole. On offshore platforms the dehydration unit is often the
largest single processing unit and strongly impacts weight and layout
requirements.

Triethylene glycol (TEG) absorption has been the workhorse of the industry being
utilized in applications ranging from small field units to large-scale, low dew point
units. Traditionally, the glycol absorber contains 6-12 trays to accomplish the
water absorption. Bubble-cap trays are utilized due to the extremely low liquid
rates inherent in this process. Designs based on data developed over the last
four decades have produced reliable and flexible facilities for moderate dew point
requirements.

Recent facilities have pushed the dew point depression needs beyond the
traditional applications. Facilities with water dew points of -40F and below
require more contact stages and extra care in design to ensure proper
operation. Also increasing energy values have prompted the further optimization
of this process.

One option to the trayed TEG contactor is the use of structured packing. Before
1986, this packing had not been used in TEG dehydration and had not been
utilized in applications with extremely low liquid loadings. However, the potential
of a shorter contactor and a dramatic reduction in contactor diameter
interested many operators. In 1985, ARCO Oil and Gas Company conducted pilot
scale testing of structured packing. Subsequently, we have successfully utilized
this packing in several applications worldwide.
Structured Packing

Structured packing was developed as an alternative to random packing to

permit improved control of mass transfer by the use of a fixed orientation of
transfer surfaces. Figure 1 shows an example packing. The material is essentially
a series of closely spaced corrugated sheet metal plates stacked vertically on
edge with corrugations at a 45 degree angle from horizontal. Flow passages
direct the gas and liquid flows counter current to each other. Packing sections
are usually less than 12 in. high and are stacked so the corrugations run at 90
degree orientation from the layers above and below.

Structured packing is manufactured and sold by several vendors in the United

States and Europe. Packings are generally of the same geometry but each
vendor has a different type of surface. treatment to enhance vapor-liquid
contact. The packing comes in different surface areas per unit volume and
selection is a function of process conditions and contactor diameter. Structured
packing has been used in a variety of fractionator applications but only recently
has seen use in TEG dehydration.

Based on sizing from packing vendors the packing provides roughly twice the
throughput of bubble-cap trays for dehydration. Additionally, the expected
height of an equilibrium stage (HETP) results in up to 40% reduction in contactor
height.

Pilot Testing

Due to the lack of data on structured packing in TEG service, ARCO Oil and Gas
Company initiated a test facility for this application in 1985. The pilot plant was
constructed at ARCO's Block 31 facility near Crane, Texas to measure efficiency
and capacity of various structured packings.

The test program covered two different dehydration applications. The first was
a low dew point application using 17ft. of packing and gas-stripped glycol
(99.95 wt%) to achieve a gas outlet water content of 0.1 Ib/MMSCF. The
second series of tests used 75, 94.5 and 108 in. of packing and 99-99.4 wt%
TEG to simulate operation of a typical offshore TEG dehydration system
requiring 7 Ib/MMSCF pipeline specification. The purpose of the offshore test
program was to verify that structured packing would perform well at reduced
bed heights, which would permit design of offshore TEG contactors to fit
between decks while meeting pipeline water content specifications.
Process Description

An existing TEG dehydration system at Block 31 was modified to include the

following key elements: (1) A 14.312 in. ID contactor designed for easy removal
and replacement of structured packing as shown in Figure 2; (2) an absolute
coalescing filter separator to measure glycol carryover and; (3) a 4-in. ID x 6-ft.
14-in. tall stripping column packed with 5/8 in. Pall Rings enabling 99.98% TEG
with only 3.5 SCF stripping gas/gal. TEG circulated. Gas temperature was
controlled by a water cooler. Pilot plant site elevation was 3000 ft., 13.2 psia.
1.5 gpm of TEG was stripped and pumped to the contactor where the flow was
split depending on the desired TEG contact test rate. The TEG contactor was
designed to hold up to 17 ft of structured packing and was equipped with inlet
vapor distributor and a drip tube type liquid distributor with 12 drip points. A
trough type liquid distributor was also tested for comparative performance. A
process diagram of this facility is shown in Figure 3.

Test Procedures

1. A gas rate was selected and performance data was taken at varying
TEG rates before a new gas rate was tested. In some cases not all
process conditions were tested when it was obvious the packing was not
able to meet performance requirements. Also, data was not taken where
it appeared equilibrium had been achieved or turndown was not in
question. Water injection assured inlet gas saturation as well as visible
inspection of water dumped from the inlet separator. Figure 4 shows the
water content data used for dew point evaluations. Gas flow rates to the
contactor were varied from Fs = 0.5 to 3 ( where Fs = Vs and the
square root of pg; Vs = superficial velocity and pg = gas density).

2. Flood point was determined at a TEG rate of 0.7 gpm/ft2. Flood point
data was determined by raising the gas flow at 0.7 gpm/ft2 TEG until
contactor pressure drop started increasing without limit. Each type
packing had a characteristic flood point with the exception of
Koch/Sulzer plastic atop Flexipac II which had excessive carryover at Fs
= 3.9 where testing was stopped. Gas flow during flood testing was
metered with a 2.75 in. orifice in a 4.026 in. meter run with a 100-in.
range meter.
3. Aging tests were conducted to determine if efficiency changed with time.
All packing had been solvent washed prior to shipping so the effects of
manufacturers preservative compounds on wettability were hopefully
eliminated.

4. In most cases, three dry gas samples and three corresponding lean TEG
samples were taken for each process condition. One rich TEG sample was
taken at the end of each process condition.

5. Carryover was gauged from two 6-in. sch. 160 boots extending from
the bottom of the Absolute Separator.

6. Low dew point test conditions were 650 psig and 80 - 90F. TEG
circulation rates were 0.3, 0.5 and 0.7 gpm/ft2. Offshore test conditions
were 1050-1100 psig (Nutter), 600 psig (Koch) and 90-110F. TEG
circulation rates were 0.33, 0.67 and 1 gpm/ft2.

Test data measurements were made with the following major equipment:

1. Outlet water content was measured with a Lockwood-McLorie analyzer

having a 74 ml sample loop volume. The 74 ml sample loop allowed good
resolution down to 0.03 Ibs. H20/MMSCF without risk of sample column
breakthrough.

2. Lean and rich TEG was measured with a Mitsubishi CA-10 portable
moisture meter. (Carl Fisher method)

3. TEG flow rate was metered with a Max Machinery flow meter, 0-2 gpm range, with
factory tested accuracy better than + 0.001 gpm.

4. Gas flow was measured with a Daniel meter tube (4.026 in. ID) and
senior fitting along with a Barton meter having a 100 in. range.

5. Contactor pressure drop was measured with a Barton meter having a

50-in. range for the first five packings tested and a 100-in. range for the final
six.
Results

♦ Efficiency

Eleven structured packings were tested for efficiency at low dew point. Typical
results are summarized in Tables 1-3 and Figures 5-10. Data analysis was
aided by a computer program developed by ARCO for McCabe-Thiele
theoretical tray calculations. Efficiency varied considerably among the packings
tested, ranging, for example, from 3.7 to 5.5 ft. per theoretical stage at Fs = 3
and 0.3 gpm/ft2. Another measure of efficiency can be seen in Figures 8-10
where one can compare the circulation ratio required for a given dew point
depression. Notice two of the more efficient packings appear to be
approaching equilibrium at 7 gal. TEG/lb. H2O. Five of the eleven were capable
of meeting the target outlet dew point specification of 0.1 Ib/MMSCF.

Offshore test results are summarized in Figures 11-14. The HETP exhibited at the
reduced bed heights tested was very similar to the low dew point 17-ft. bed
height test results verifying that structured packing will perform well at bed
heights as low as 6 ft. These tests also showed that HETP is also pressure
dependent, with HETP increasing with pressure. This is attributed to lower gas
diffusivity due to higher gas density and also increased liquid surface tension at
higher pressure.

HETP generally increased with higher liquid rates. However, as the circulation
rate was increased fewer theoretical trays were required because the
increased concentration gradient of water between the gas and liquid phases in
the contactor offsets the need for vapor liquid contact. In addition, HETP was
generally lower with increased gas velocity. High gas rates spread more liquid
across the structured packing surface and cause more liquid hold-up and
residence time. Both spreading and hold-up facilitate better mass transfer.

♦ Capacity

Nine of the eleven packings were tested for capacity at 0.7 gpm/ft2. Flow was
increased in small increments above Fs = 3 allowing the contactor differential
pressure to stabilize before proceeding to the next higher rate. When the
differential would no longer stabilize the flood point was reached. Flood point
results are summarized in Table 4. In general, packings with higher capacity
had lower efficiency. All but one of the packings
demonstrated operating capacities of Fs = 3greater
or with a comfortable
margin from flood.

♦ Entrainment

The five most efficient packings were also tested for carryover at Fs = 3 and
0.7 gpm/ft2. Entrained TEG was collected in an absolute coalescing filter
separator down stream of the contactor. The top four in carryover ranged
from 0.16 to 0.35 gal/MMSCF. The test contactor had no internals to reduce
entrainment so most of the carryover could be eliminated with an internal vane
unit. Carryover was also found to be a function of distributor height above the
packing. With drip tubes 6 in. above the packing there was a five fold increase in
carryover vs. drip tubes resting on the packing. The further drops have to fall,
the more they are exposed to shearing and the more likely they are to reach
terminal velocity causing greater splashing on impact into smaller more
entrainable droplets.

♦ Turndown

Referring to the dew point depression data in Tables 1-3, lower outlet water
content was achieved at 3:1 turndown in gas rate from Fs = 3. Conversely, at
constant gas rates, a reduction in glycol circulation led to increased outlet water
content as expected. However, at a circulation ratio of only 1 gal. TEG/lb H2O
removed, the five most efficient packings achieved an outlet water dew point of
0.1 Ib/MMSCF or less. Offshore testing demonstrated a 5:1 turndown of gas
rate from Fs = 2.5 also led to reduced outlet water content at the lower gas
rate. Recent testing at our Wilburton Oklahoma facility where structured packing
is installed demonstrated that even higher turndown in gas rates are possible.
When gas flow was reduced by a ratio of 12.5:1 from Fs = 3, outlet water
content rose from 1.4 Ib/MMSCF to only 1.8 Ib/MMSCF.

Design Comparison

Contactor Sizing

Bubble cap contactors have been designed based on a C factor, where:

Gm = mass velocity, lb/(hr-ft2)
C = empirical factor
ρl (- ρg)
Gm = C and the square root of pg
pg = gas density, Ib/ft3

pl = liquid density, Ib/ft

3
A design C factor of 650 is typically used and contactors have been pushed to
an equivalent C factor of 800 in many applications.

Structured packing contactors are usually sized based on an Fs, where:

Fs = Vs and the square root of pg

Pilot testing has shown that an Fs of 3 is a reasonable value to use for sizing
which represents loading of about 75-80% of flood. This equates to an
equivalent C factor of about 1300 for this application.

Packing Heights

Bubble cap contactors are generally sized with a tray efficiency of 25%
(although some people have used 33%). For most moderate dew point
applications this results in using 6-8 trays in the contactor. For low dew point
applications this results in 12-16 actual trays required. Test results show that
for structured packing, the HETP's vary from about 3 ft for moderate dew point
applications to 6 ft for low dew point applications. Outlet dew points of 7 lb.
H2O/MMSCF can be achieved with only 8 ft. of packing. Low dew points require
twice that amount. See Figure 15 for a comparison of trayed vs. structured
packing contactors with the same design conditions.

Cost Comparison

Table 6 and Figure 15 provide a detailed comparison of trayed vs. structured

packing contactors in the same service. Use of structured packing in this
application results in a 30% cost reduction, 49% weight reduction and a 28%
height reduction.

Field Applications

Table 5 contains performance data for several dehydration trains at

ARCO-operated facilities where structured packing is installed. During 1991 five
more installations are
scheduled to start up with capacities ranging from 60 to 110 MMSCFD. Most
of these are offshore.

Conclusions/Recommendations

1. Structured packing has been tested and shown to be superior to trayed columns
providing roughly twice the capacity and up to 50% greater efficiency.
The combination of high gas capacity and reduced HETP in comparison
with trayed contactors makes the application of structured packing
desirable for both new contactor designs and existing trayed contactor
capacity upgrades.

2. Packings from each of the three packing vendors performed well and have useful
application in dehydration service. Test results indicate a design point of
Fs = 3 for the more efficient packings. For moderate dew point
requirements, like 7 Ib./MMSCF? a higher capacity packing could be used
with design rates up to Fs =3.5.

3. A vane-type mist eliminator with 3-4 in. mesh pad face should be used
when utilizing structured packing in TEG contactors. This will minimize
carryover under normal operating conditions. The design gas velocity in a
tower using structured packing is approximately twice the normal design
velocity in a trayed contactor with a wire mesh mist eliminator. Glycol
carryover is likely if a wire mesh mist eliminator is used in conjunction with
structured packing.

4. A high efficiency drip point distributor should be used with structured packing in
glycol dehydration service. The flow pattern exhibited by the drip point
distributor is far superior to the pattern exhibited by either a notched
trough distributor or a spray nozzle distributor. The number of drip
points should be equal in all quadrants of the distributor with the
peripheral drip points positioned no more than 2 in. from the vessel wall.
A typical drip point layout utilized is a 4 in. x 4 in. matrix, with the points
nearest the wall oriented to accomplish the best possible distribution in
that region. It is also imperative to install the distributor on a horizontal
plane as close to the structured packing as possible in order to ensure
proper liquid distribution and minimize carryover. The distributor should
also be designed with vapor space adequate to function at a gas velocity
of Fs = 3. This
 requirement should be specified to the distributor manufacturer to avoid
liquid maldistribution at high gas velocity.

5. At low gas rates the packing efficiency decreases because of a gas bypassing
effect, with even 1-5% gas bypass significantly effecting structured
packing efficiency. The bypassing is caused by low liquid holdup, leading to
insufficient contacting between the gas and liquid, since there is less liquid
surface available for gas contact. However, in dehydration service, the
number of theoretical contact stages required tends to decrease with
increasing glycol flow rate. This offsets efficiency loss and provides liberal
turndown.

6. Turndown has been remarkable with this type packing. Field tests down to 12:1
have shown that dehydration specifications are still met No lower
capacity limit has yet been determined.

7. HETP's are a function of dew point depression (approach to equilibrium) as well

as tower loading and operating pressure.

8. In general, packing with higher surface area will achieve higher efficiency but have
lower capacity.

References:

1. Kunesh, J. G.; Lahm, L.L.; and Yanagi, T., "Liquid Distribution Studies in
Packed Beds" presented at AlChE Meeting, Chicago, November 1985.

2. Bravo, J. L.; Rocha, J. A.; and Fair, J. R., "Mass Transfer in Gauze Packing,"
Hydrocarbon Processing, January 1985, pp. 91-95.

3. Perry, David; Nutter, Dale E.; and Hale, Andy, "Liquid Distribution for
Optimum Packing Performance," Chemical Engineering Progress, January
1990, pp. 30-35.

4. Bonilla, J. A.; Shieh, J.; and Wang, P., "High Performance Packing in Gas
Treating," presented at AlChE Meeting, Denver, August 1988.

5. Spiegel, L., "Applications of Structured Packings in the Process Industries,"

presented at AlChE Meeting, Chicago, November 1990.

6. Stoter, F.; Olujic, Z.; and de Graauw, J., "Measurement and Modeling of
Liquid Distribution in Structured Packings," presented at AlChE Meeting,
Chicago, November 1990.
 TABLE 1

Glitsch Gempak 3A

Dew point depression (F)

TEG rate
Fs 0.3 0.5 0.7

1 136.1 137.2 138.1

2 133.7 137.9 135.1
3 126.7 138.7 133.6

Circulation ratio (gal. TEG/lb.H2O)

TEG rate
Fs 0.3 0.5 0.7

1 4.04 6.74 9.17

2 2.02 3.18 4.59
3 0.98 1.68 2.69

Theoretical trays
TEG rate
Fs 0.3 0.5 0.7

1 2.77 2.23 1.99

2 3.15 2.92 2.69
3 4.6 3.82 2.94

HETP (ft.)
TEG rate
Fs 0.3 0.5 0.7
1 6.13 7.61 8.53
2 5.4 5.81 6.33
3 3.7 4.44 5.79
 TABLE 2

Koch Flexipac II

Dew point depression (F)

TEG rate
Fs 0.3 0.5 0.7

1 133.3 140.2 144

2 110.3 123.6 129
3 93.9 111.4 124

Circulation ratio (gal. TEG/lb.H

2O)

TEG rate
Fs 0.3 0.5 0.7

1 3.62 6.38 7.68

2 1.52 2.68 3.52
3 0.97 1.6 2.22

Theoretical trays
TEG rate
Fs 0.3 0.5 0.7
1 2.75 2.52 2.43
2 2.89 2.69 2.56
3 3.12 2.86 2.84

HETP (ft.)

TEG rate
Fs 0.3 0.5 0.7

1 6.18 6.75 7
2 5.89 6.31 6.64
3 5.45 5.94 5.99
 TABLE 3

Nutter B1-200

Dew point depression (F)

TEG rate
Fs 0.3
0.5 0.7

1 135 137
2 123.4 133.2
3 128.9 135.5 132.6

Circulation ratio (gal. TEG/lb.H

2O)

TEG rate
Fs 0.3
0.5 0.7

1 4.03 6.72
2 2.02 3.36
3 1.35 2.11 2.93

Theoretical trays
TEG rate
Fs 0.3
0.5 0.7

1 2.72 2.26
2 2.92 2.85
3 3.81 3.29 2.87

HETP (ft )
TEG rate
Fs 0.3
0.5 0.7

1 6.25 7.52
2 5.84 5.96
3 4.46 5.21 5.94
 TABLE 4
PACKING CAPACITY *

Packing Flood Fs / Last Stable Fs

1. Koch Flexipac II 3.98/3.82

2. Koch Flexipac II + Plastic 3.90/3.90

3. Glitsch Gempak 3A 3.50/3.34

4. Koch/Sulzer Gauze, 1/2 in. 3.63/3.50

5. Koch Metpak III 2.28/2.16

6. Koch Flexipac 1X 3.59/3.43

7. Nutter B1-200 3.34/3.18

8. Glitsch Gempak 2A 3.82/3.66

9. Koch WDS 3.34/3.18