GeweeOweas LOSS PREVENTION How to calculate purge gas volumes Simple equations estimate sweep gas quantities and cycles to remove vapor-space contaminants D. F. Schneider, Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., Houston reparation for startup or P shutdown involves purging contaminants from the process unit. Another important aspect of purging is the thorough removal of contaminants or hydrocarbons on equipment items taken out of service for maintenance. Several presented methods quickly estimate the sweep gas quantity and cycles that can perform an efficient, purge. Clean vapor space. Usually, a clean gas or vapor is used to flush vapor-space contaminants in routine plant operations. This purge/preparation step occurs fre- quently during startup, shutdown and maintenance activities. Com- monly used gases include nitrogen, natural gas, steam or process gas. Equipment or system size vastly affect the efficiency and purge type used. Three different purge meth- ods estimate the quantity of sweep gas and required eycles for efficient contaminant removal. Plug flow. ‘The simplest purging method is plug flow. The cleansing gas moves uniformly within the equipment and sweeps contami- nants from the system. In practice, plug flow is difficult to achieve. If Fig. 2. Number of cycles needed to purge contaminants. Fig. 1. Prossure cycles for contaminant removal. ‘BYDROCARBON PROCESSING / NOVEMBER 1993 89the equipment diameter is small, plug-flow sweeping may be adequate. Otherwise, another approach is war- ranted. On a cost-effective basis, plug-flow purging requires the smallest clean gas volume: Moug~P Ve MW/RT a Assume: 1. Ideal gas 2. Isothermal 3. Clean gas contains no contaminant. where M,1., = Mass of clean gas required . MW = Clean gas molecular weight P = Final pressure (absolute) R = Gas constant T = Final temperature (absolute) Ve = Equipment volume to be purged. Perfectly mixed. Another contaminant removal method is encouraged mixing, Instead of plug flow, purge gas mixes well within the equipment and the contaminant levels decrease over time. This method is often used for small vessels or pump maintenance work. However, as equipment size and complexity increases, purge gas maldistribution inhibits adequate contaminant removal. Standard back-mix reactor equations approximate this purge type: dYidt = ~(FIV_)Y (2) t= (Vp/F) (In Yo- In Y) (3) PV_ MW Mic =—Fap— (In ¥p -In ¥,) (4) Assume: 1. Ideal gas 2. Isothermal 3. Clean gas contains no contaminant 4. Perfect and instantaneous mixing of clean gas within the equipment volume. where F = Clean gas volumetric flowrate Mnig = Mass of clean gas required ¢ = Time to reach final concentration Y = Contaminant mole or volume fraction Yq = Initial contaminant mole or volume frac- tion Y, = Final contaminant mole or volume fraction Cyclic purge. For large or complex systems, cyclie purg- ing is frequently used. The system is pressurized to a cal- culated value with clean gas, then depressured. The pro- cess is repeated until the desired contaminant level ig achieved. While pressurizing, the gas is mixed within the equipment by diffusion and turbulence. While the unit depressurizes, low points, dead legs and other system connections may he blown down individually. Fig. 1 illus- trates general pressure cycles that equipment may be exposed to during purging. Contaminant concentrations can be found by: Pus } ae Yo ‘RT 2a) Nn =— = 1 5—- | % 6) (Pa Ve (re ° RT 90 HYDROCARBON PROCESSING / NOVEMBER 1993 (6) Pu Pia Pig } =| 2°52" ly, (7) (am Pas} * (% vs) Yor ¥, Ae Assume: 1. Ideal gas 2, Isothermal 3. Clean gas contains no contaminant. where ¢ = Number of purging cycles P = Absolute pressure 1 = Low pressure part of cycle h = High pressure part of eycle Y, = Contaminant mole or volume fraction at cycle i For the special case where the equipment is pressured to the same value and depressured to the same initial value each eycle: Ye (Pi )" Yp + Pa } ® Ve MW Mee = ES (Py -Pr) (20) RT where Mycj. = Mass of clean gas required Contaminant mole or volume fraction, at cycle i Fig, 2 graphically represents Eq. 9. This figure can quickly assess the number of cycles required to purge an equipment item, Common practice adds one more cyclo than would be predicted by theory to account for poor mix- ing and other real world effects. Always measure the purge gas contaminant concentration during depressuring to ensure adequate cleansing. . << neer for Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. He {had more than eight years of experience with “| Shell Oil Co. before joining Stone & Webster: Mr Schneider holds a BS degree in chemical engi- neering from the University of Missouri-Rolla and an MS degree in chemical engineering from Texas A&M University. He is also a registered professional engineer in Texas.