Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.advisorFredheim, Arne Olavnb_NO
dc.contributor.advisorGjertsen, Lars Henriknb_NO
dc.contributor.authorBråthen, Audunnb_NO
dc.date.accessioned2014-12-19T11:44:30Z
dc.date.available2014-12-19T11:44:30Z
dc.date.created2010-09-04nb_NO
dc.date.issued2008nb_NO
dc.identifier348627nb_NO
dc.identifierntnudaim:4207nb_NO
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/233647
dc.description.abstractThis paper treats further development of the TEG injection process described in Bråthen (2007). An introduction to separation technology, conventional glycol regeneration and compact mixing is presented, as these are important parts of the alternative dehydration concept. Advantages, disadvantages and operational problems are pointed out, before the problems with the TEG injection process is described. Using hot stripping gas for regeneration of the TEG is one of the suggested improvements, but large glycol losses, large flow rates of stripping gas and oxidizing of glycol are found to be the consequences, thus making the alternative unfeasible. The only improvements used, are to use inline separators for the first separation stages and compact mixers for mixing of TEG and natural gas. A simulation model is developed using the simulation software HYSYS with the CPA EoS as fluid package. Both the absorption and the regeneration part of the process is modeled, and operational data from the Snøhvit LNG facility is used as reference. From simulations it is found that TEG injection requires about 50% more circulated TEG than conventional absorber dehydration to obtain the same water content in the dehydrated gas. The weight and volume of the absorption part of the process is however found to be considerably smaller than the operational process at the Kristin field in the Norwegian North Sea, thus partly compensating for the increased TEG circulation rate. Use of MEG and DEG instead of TEG for the injection concept is also simulated, but it is concluded that TEG is the best suited because of lower regeneration energy, lower absorbent loss and best dehydration performance for low to intermediate flow rates of stripping gas. MEG is found to be unsuited for dehydration because of very large losses of absorbent.nb_NO
dc.languageengnb_NO
dc.publisherInstitutt for energi- og prosessteknikknb_NO
dc.subjectntnudaimno_NO
dc.subjectMTING ingeniørvitenskap og IKTno_NO
dc.subjectEnergi- og prosessteknikkno_NO
dc.titleDevelopment of Processes for Natural Gas Drying: Further exploring the TEG Injection Conceptnb_NO
dc.typeMaster thesisnb_NO
dc.source.pagenumber124nb_NO
dc.contributor.departmentNorges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet, Fakultet for ingeniørvitenskap og teknologi, Institutt for energi- og prosessteknikknb_NO


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel