Why is LPG C2 always unqualified?
Thread Content
Why is LPG C2 always unqualified? The bottom temperature of the reactor was also increased, and the amount of absorbent added was reduced – so why is it still not up to standard? Is dry gas C3C4 also Unqualified?
Talk about the metrics of each tower – you’ve said too little!
If your carbon dioxide levels are not up to standard, was non-condensable gas released from the top of the stabilizer tower’s reflux tank? If so, was it sent to the inlet of the compressor and then circulated back to the stabilization unit? You can directly discharge the non-condensable gas into the dry gas pipeline network
Be more specific; it’s best to upload screenshots of the operations so that a better analysis can be conducted
First, let me explain: high temperature and low pressure are favorable for dissociation, while low temperature and high pressure are favorable for absorption. The carbon2 level in the liquefied gas is not up to standard. Regarding your question, you mentioned the temperature at the bottom of the absorption tower – could it be that this temperature value is not appropriate? Also, is your gas flow unobstructed until water cooling begins? What is the operating pressure of your distillation column? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Could you tell me about your actual performance metrics? ? ? The carbon content in the dry gas is 3/4 below the required standard; this is due to a vicious cycle that has arisen during the operation process. According to the analysis of the operational procedures, reducing the amount of absorbent used will definitely result in the dry gas not meeting the standards. You should look for the causes at the source. It would be best to upload the operational parameters and actual footage of the operations, so that we can help analyze the situation.
Try raising the temperature at the top of the desorption tower further, for example to above 75.
The main approach is to increase the reflux ratio of the stripping tower slightly, control the temperature at the bottom of the tower at a higher level, and then vent the non-condensable gases from the top of the tower.
The fact that both the dry gas C3C4 and the liquefied gas C2 fail to meet the standards indicates that it is still an issue related to absorption and desorption, rather than just a problem with the stabilizer tower. Following the principle that high temperature and low pressure are favorable for desorption while low temperature and high pressure are favorable for absorption, the absorption and desorption effects were adjusted to re-establish equilibrium. If the pressure in the stabilizer tower can be controlled and there is not much non-condensable gas at the top of the tower, then a gas venting network is not necessary.
It must be a vicious cycle; I encountered this before when working on routine internal operations – things like this happen when the replacement of raw materials isn’t done in a timely manner