Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1 of 6
http://www.amistco.com/spanish/tech105.htm
8/21/2014 3:38 PM
2 of 6
http://www.amistco.com/spanish/tech105.htm
system approaches the critical point. The main reason is that the interfacial tension decreases (approaches zero at the
critical point). Another reason is that the density difference (liquid-vapor) approaches zero.
The height of a vertical knockout drum is constrained by a number of factors. The following
design guidelines are typical:
1. The top of a horizontal mist eliminator should be at least
one-half vessel diameter from the exit nozzle (top or side
mounted). This reduces non-uniform flow through the pad
caused by a radial pressure gradient.
2. The bottom of a mist eliminator should be at least one vessel
diameter from the centerline of the inlet nozzle (side
mounted). One-half vessel diameter is used in some cases
(for light liquid loading) to satisfy space constraints. However,
if the inlet fluid is a flashing liquid, one vessel diameter is
essential for vapor/liquid disengaging.
3. The liquid level should be at least one-half vessel diameter
below the side inlet nozzle centerline in order to avoid
inducing entrainment.
4. If the vessel is to provide a liquid surge volume, the
appropriate height increment will be required. For preliminary designs and cost estimates,
the vessel aspect ratio (height/ diameter) may be estimated at 2.5 (for zero liquid holdup) or
3.0 (to allow for liquid holdup).
Knockout Drum Operating Flexibility
Knockout drum turn-down and surplus capacity (turn-up), result from the two-phase flow characteristics of the system.
The process conditions for most knockout drum and mist eliminator application occur just below the typical pipe flow
regime map. At a system load factor below approximately 0.5 ft/sec, the two-phase flow regime is counter-current for
the majority of the liquid. At a system load factor around 1.0 ft/sec, the two-phase flow regime becomes annular mist
flow (for low to moderate pressure systems). Between 0.5 and 1.0 ft/sec the entrainment load increases from slight to
100% entrainment.
Entrainment load increases considerably beyond a system load factor of 0.5 ft/sec. Therefore, many designers would
8/21/2014 3:38 PM
3 of 6
http://www.amistco.com/spanish/tech105.htm
consider this value to be the upper practical limit of vapor loading in a knockout drum. Since a knockout drum is designed
on the basis of 0.3 to 0.35 ft/sec system load factor, there is around 50% to 100% surplus capacity
Mist pad flooding typically occurs around 0.5 to 0.7 ft/sec. Therefore, the practical maximum capacity of the mist
pad/knockout drum combination is again approximately 0.5 ft/sec and the surplus capacity is about 50%.
8/21/2014 3:38 PM
4 of 6
http://www.amistco.com/spanish/tech105.htm
Vane units may be used in conjunction with a wire mesh pad such as for the coalescing knockout drum described earlier,
in which the vane unit is installed downstream of the wire mesh pad. The opposite configuration (vane unit upstream of
the wire mesh pad) may be used in a fouling service. The vane unit removes the solid particulates (and larger droplets),
whereas the wire mesh unit removes the small droplets.
In general, vane mist pads should be selected when high liquid rates or high particulate loading are expected. TEX-MESH
Technical Bulletin 104 discusses design and selection guidelines for vane mist eliminators.
8/21/2014 3:38 PM
5 of 6
http://www.amistco.com/spanish/tech105.htm
Operating Problems
If specified properly, a mist pad generally operates effectively and is essentially an inconspicuous component in a
process. However, problems are generally the result of fouling (plugging of the mist pad by solid particles). At start-up, if
the process equipment upstream of the mist pad is not flushed adequately, the mist pad is likely to collect the dirt, scale,
and other debris.
Furthermore, after the plant has operated for some time, solids can eventually plug the mist eliminator.
Mist pads are efficient collectors of solids as well as liquids. If solids are likely to reach the mist eliminator, a continuous
or intermittent wash system above the pad establishes counter-current wash flow throughout the pad. Spraying from
under the pad establishes heavy liquid loading at the bottom and a "dry" condition at the top of the pad. It is critical to
limit the total liquid loading (wash liquid plus entrainment) to about 1.0 gpm/ft2. If higher liquid loading is unavoidable, then
a corresponding decrease in vapor loading is required to avoid flooding.
Vane mist pads seldom fail because of fouling. Solids either pass through or are washed off by the coalesced liquid.
Relief panels have been installed in mist pads, but they often cause problems. When a mist pad becomes plugged, either
the excess pressure drop indicates the problem, or the tie wires or other mechanical supports fail, causing an upset in
the process. A fouled pad is difficult to clean, but it is sometimes done. Generally, a fouled pad is replaced with a new
one.
Non-uniform flow in a mist pad can cause local reentrainment or local inefficiency
If fouling is not present, non-uniform flow is caused by improper placement of nozzles, baffles, or blanking plates.
Since wire mesh mist eliminators typically are constructed from stainless steel wire 0.006 to 0.011 inch in diameter, if
corrosion failure is a problem, it will become obvious immediately. Correct material selection is essential.
8/21/2014 3:38 PM
6 of 6
http://www.amistco.com/spanish/tech105.htm
Electrostatic precipitators are often used to remove small droplets as well as particulates. They are much more costly
than knockout drum mist eliminators and significantly increase risk of explosion with combustible materials. For these
reasons, a mist eliminator is often used upstream of an electrostatic precipitator.
Conclusion
The purpose of an entrainment separator is to minimize the detrimental effect of entrained liquid in a vapor stream. Very
often, a knockout drum with a mist eliminator is the most cost effective method for entrainment control. Properly
designed, the unit will provide trouble-free performance for many years.
References
1. Capps, R.W., "Properly Specify Wire Mesh Mist Eliminators," Chemical Engineering Progress, December 1994,
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
pp. 49-55.
Souders, M. and G.G. Brown, "Design of Fractionating Columns," -Ind. -and Eng. Chem., 26:98 (1934).
Talavera, PG., "Selecting Gas/Liquid Separators," Hydrocarbon Processing, June 1990. pp. 81-84.
Watkins, R.N., "Sizing Separators and Accumulators," Hydrocarbon Processing, November 1967, pp. 253-256.
Capps, R.W., "Select the Optimum Pipe Size," Chemical Engineering, July 1995, pp. 128-132.
Brinks, J.A., Jr., WE Burggrabe, and L.E. Greenwell, "Mist Eliminators for Sulfuric Acid Plants," Chemical
Engineering Progress, November 1968, pp. 82-86.
Monat, J.P, K.J. McNulty, I.S. Michelson, OX Hansen, "Accurate Evaluation of Chevron Mist Eliminators,"
Chemical Engineering Progress, December 1986, pp. 32-39.
McNulty, K.J. J.P Monat, OX Hansen, "Performance of Commercial Chevron Mist Eliminators," Chemical
Engineering Progress," May 1987, pp. 48-55.
8/21/2014 3:38 PM