16
|
July - August 2020
|
www
.
machinerylubrication.com
WATER REMOVAL
e results are captured below:
(continued)
• AN (Acid Number): ere was no
significant impact on the AN of
the turbine oil from running the
vacuum dehydrator. It fluctuated
from 0.07 to 0.08 mg KOH/gm
from the start to the end of the
purification process.
• RPVOT: e new oil had a higher
RPVOT value than the used oil
as usual. ere was no significant
change of RPVOT for the turbine
oil at the beginning and end of
the purification process by the
vacuum dehydrator.
Figure 3. Effect of vacuum dehydrator on oil AN
A n e x p er i me nt a l t r i a l
was conducted on a Saudi
Aramco gas turbine that had
unacceptable levels of water
contamination in its lube oil.
e purpose of the trial was
to test the effectiveness of water
removal from lube oil using
vacuum dehydration.
Looking at the results, the
vacuum dehydrator was effective
in removing all forms of water
contamination from lube oil.
Within 60 hours of operation, it
was possible to reduce the water
content from 1250 ppm to 100
ppm, which is way below the
250 ppm saturation point of
the turbine oil used in this gas
turbine.
e water removal rate is rela-
tively slow once the concentration
drops below saturation point and
therefore it is economical to stop
the vacuum dehydrator after
achieving water contamination
below the saturation point. e
vacuum dehydrator does not
degrade lube oil during the puri-
fication process and there was no
significant impact noticed on the
AN and RPVOT of the oil.
ML
Figure 4. Effect of vacuum dehydrator on RPVOT.
Figure 5. Vacuum dehydrator (Hy-Pro Filtration. Used with permission)
