One of the basic truths and most helpful technical guidelines I had from Alf was: Pumps are

designed and made to pump liquids; compressors are designed and made to transport gas or vapor. Never, never mis-apply the two. That is why I always criticize the use of the term vacuum pump. This is an obvious misnomer and doesnt make engineering sense. For the same reason, one never should allow a compressor whether reciprocating, centrifugal, or screw type to be fed any liquid fluids mixed in with the gas stream. There are compressor types or designs that are specifically designed to handle a mixture of gas and liquid (such as liquid ring or some screw types); however, these are exceptions rather than the norm and I assume that this thread accepts that premise. The basic, general rule should hold: Never introduce liquids into gas compressors unless specifically advised by the manufacturer. The general, real-life situation where an engineer is called upon to compress a gas is one where the gas stream is usually wet i.e., it originates from a system where it is in equilibrium with a parent liquid and is, therefore, saturated with that liquid. This doesnt necessarily mean that the gas phase going to the compressor suction contains liquid particles or slugs. It just means that the gas stream is saturated. This is important to note and to stress that the quantity or quality of the liquid associated with that gas stream as it enters the compressor is often unknown or unproven. What I mean by this is that we experienced engineers often see to it that the gas stream to be compressed is subjected to Knock Out (KO) drums, vapor-liquid separators, or filter separators in order to ensure that all liquid particles (often less than a couple of microns) are separated from that gas entering the compressor. Sometimes this exercise and application is done well; sometimes it is done badly, not at all, or in a horrendous manner. This is what differentiates an experienced design from a best-effort basis type of design. I pause here to mention that I presume Im addressing experienced and knowledgeable engineers, like you Doug, and that we all understand the basics of phase equilibria. I have read asade abioduns comments and I feel that he is not differentiating between the water that is in the gas as a vapor phase and the water that exists as a LIQUID. The point here is that it is the liquid that poses a grave hazard to most compressors not the water vapor. Any condensable vapor is important to note when applying a multi-stage compressor because there is subsequent condensation of the condensable vapor portion in the downstream stages. This is why it is vital to have an accurate calculation of contained condensables identified as one compresses from stage to stage. Adequate and efficient vapor-liquid separators must be employed to protect each of the subsequent downstream stages of compression by removing all the condensables water, hydrocarbon, or any others. And now for the Alf Newton seminar on why liquids are not allowed to enter compressors: Liquids are, as most engineers will admit, classed as incompressible that is, they will not submit well to a reduction in the volume they occupy. As a result, if one tries to compress a liquid, it will be discovered all that happens is that a rapid and exponential increase in hydraulic pressure is produced almost immediately! In fact, if one ponders for a while, that is precisely the basis of Pascals Law and how powerful hydraulic presses operate using a liquid to impose tremendous forces on a piston and

cylinder combination. Basic Physics then tells us that if we try to impose a hydraulic force on a compressor cylinder without it being designed to adequately deal with it and relieve itself if need be, then we are in deep trouble. Always remember that a compressor such as a reciprocating type is directly connected to a power source such as an electric motor or turbine and will do everything within its design capability to transmit that same work force into the working fluid. It is merely a stupid machine in the hands of a supposedly intelligent human engineer. If it meets a resistance (such as inlet and discharge valves) that does not permit transmission or relief of that force, it will continue to exert itself until relief (or driver failure) is reached. Often, the resulting effect of a reciprocating compressor failing to compress an incompressible fluid such as water will result in a mechanical failure rather than a driver failure (such as a power disconnect or shutdown). What this mechanical failure turns out to be depends on the magnitude of the force(s) generated and the type of machine. You really dont want to be around the machine should this occur; the results are sometimes very catastrophic. I have been (and seen) to the sites of some really sad and bad failures. And all of these compressor failures could easily have been totally avoided! All that happened was that there was ignorance or disinterest in how a compressor works (or should work) and how to ensure that it (and the operators) are safely protected. I have personally extracted cast iron pistons from compressor cylinders that had valve pieces (nuts, bolts, and steel chunks) embedded into the piston face because the valves were shattered by liquid forces generated when the compressor was allowed to ingest liquid. The compressor in question was connected to so much horsepower that once the incident occurred, the machine continued to literally pound the pieces of valve(s) that fell into the cylinder for a time after the failure. This was not a bad event it was fortunate for the operators that this happened because all that was lost was the valves, the piston, and some bearings. Worse and more dangerous situations have occurred where the piston rods and the connecting rods have been bent beyond repair. One incident resulted in a connecting rod bending and rupturing such that it broke out of the cast iron crankcase! Bear in mind that almost all compressor crankcases are of cast iron the same material that make up grenades because it produces a shattered spray of shrapnel. Another case was one where a horizontal cylinder blew out its cover head plate. It was blown through a brick wall and out of a building. The worse one I have seen is where a cast iron crankshaft broke into pieces and totally ruptured the crankcase. That is why I never, ever allow cast iron crankshafts to be used on compressors. I know of many engineers that dont know that some manufacturers will furnish compressors with cast iron crankshafts. I always insist and demand forged steel crankshafts on compressors because of the above possibility. When you generate hydraulic forces, you must be prepared to confront the results and capable of controlling them. Nothing in the usual design of a gas compressor addresses this need. I can tell you from personal experience that what vicini has described is not accurate. The effects are much worse and instantly quicker than what is described. I am presently expediting the application of two, 1,000 hp, 3-stage, reciprocating natural gas compressors that will be installed next to two other, similar ones. The existing compressors had a bad and sad case of bad design engineering where the inlet, saturated

gas separator used a cheap and un-calibrated dP cell transmitter to control the liquid level. No visual level gage was employed on the separator (as well as on the other two separators) and operators were unable to calibrate the level transmitter or to detect the actual level of the liquid in the separator(s). The predictable event happened. Two cylinders underwent total suction valve ruptures and compressor cylinder damage. Were talking about million-dollar machines damaged due to a stupid design oversight or technical naivety. This is a clear case where design engineers failed to recognize what is a well-known field problem. I am finding more and more that todays young graduate engineers unfortunately lack the quality and the opportunity of having experienced and capable engineering mentors to guide them through the early years of their career and without this jump-start, they lack the ability to recognize what is an obvious engineering stumbling block. There is no practical or dependable way to see or detect liquid droplets or particles going into a compressor cylinder. There is only the tell-tale signs left AFTER the destructive effects have taken place. Therefore, my advice to young engineers is: simply dont go there! In other words, avoid this situation and design for NO liquids being able to enter the compressor. This involves efficient 2-phase separators, low superficial velocities, liquid level detection and control (complete with alarm and shut down points), good temperature control, and reliable drain valves and actuators. I am also finding the same topic taking a prominent role these days in what is considered a basic, industrial application: mechanical refrigeration cycles and systems. Adequate and efficient protection must be provided to the refrigeration compressor regardless of the type. A liquid is harmful to a compressor not only because it imposes hydraulic forces. It also imparts an effect of literally washing away any protective and lubricating effects of compressor oil. This has harmful effects on the rotors or impellers used on some dynamic or positive displacement machines. Internal bearings suffer due to the type of liquid contaminant entering the machine. Centrifugal machines suffer traumatic damage due to the impact forces imposed on their moving parts particularly the impellers. All of this reinforces the basics of the Alf Newton philosophy: compressors are not (and never were) designed to handle liquids! If one insists on introducing a 2-phase mixture into a gas compressor, one must do it either with total responsibility for the end results or with the blessings of the manufacturer. I prefer the latter its more logical, safer, and it makes for common engineering sense.