‘Ii=-@

SOCIETY OF PETROIWM ENGINEERS OF AIME

6200 North Central Expressway ‘=R SPE 1951
Dallas, Texas 7’5206

THIS IS A PREPRINT --- SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

Influence of Salt Dosage and Hardness

On Series Softener Performance

By

B. W. Bradley, Shell Development Co., Houston, Tex.

@ Copyright 1967
Ameriean Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for the 42nd Annual Fall Meeting of the society of Petroleum Engineers of
ADzE, to be held in Houston, Tex., Oct. 1-4, 1%7. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of
not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presenked. Publication elsewhere after publication
in the JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY or the SOCIETY OF PETROUIXIMENGINEERS JOURNAL is usually grsnted
upon request to the Editor of the appropriate journal provided agreement to give proper credit is made.

Discussion of this paper is invited. Three copies of any discussion should be sent to the
Society of Petrolaum Engineers office. Such discussion may be presented at the above meeting and,
with the paper, may be considerei$for publication in one of the two SPE magazines.

ARSTRACT
.—
Laboratory and field experiments revealed
that series sodium ion exchangers could pro-
duce softer water more consistently than
conventional one-stage softeners. The amount
of regeneration salt and calcium-magnesium
contamination in the salt affect the quantity
and quality [hardness] of the softened water.
Regardless of regeneration variables, low
hardness of the product water made regenera-
tton with less salt possible and reduced costs
by about 50 percent.
INTRODUCTION
During the summer of 1963 Shell Oil Co.
adde? a second stage of water softeners to a
commercial steam flood pro~ect. These addi-
tional softeners were added to produce softer
water than possible with single-stage 8often-
ing. Improved water quality was predicted
from laboratory and field test data. The
purpose of the tests described in this Fepoti
was to determine the influence of brine dosage
and hardness on the quality of the softened
water.
manifold. All polishing softeners received
water from this manifold. Each primary and
secondary softener train regenerated independ-
ently of the other trains. Abnormal performan(
of any primary softener influenced the feed-
water to all polishing softeners and affected
their product. Table 1 summarizes the
characteristics of the series softening plant.
The size of the polisher was selected.
rather arbitrarily. It was based on the resin
manufacturer’s report that 6ervice flow rate
could be increased from 2 to 10 gal/min/cu ft
[7 to 35 gal./min/sqft for the polishers in
this case] with a capacity loss of less than 5
percent.l Although there was no intention of
using the polisher to increase softener capacil
this data establisher permissible flow rates
for the polisher.
RAW WATER
Table 2 presents a water analysis typical
of the raw water supply to this pb.nt during
the test period.
TEST PROCEDURE

EQUIPMENT All tests were cond.uctecl

on softener trail
; .1. Regeneration of trains 2 and 3 were spot
The softeners and piping arrangement used checketicluringthe testing period. Any abnorm
during the test period are shown in Fig. 1. operation in any train negatetithe test per-
The primary softeners producetiinto a comnon formance evaluation of train 1. Table 3
presents the regeneration characteristics
References and il lustratior at
s end of

.
employed during the tests. Figures 2A through
2F illustrate water flow during each step of
the softener cycle.
~ drops from 0.335 to 0.165 cents/bbl, or 50.8
~e
> Hardness L&&age
step was monitored automatically [with manual
verification] to determine raw water hardness
and breakthrough. Dmnediately after break-
through, another monitored regeneration was
initiated manually. Resin capacity for each
particular regeneration was calculated from
the raw water hardness, gallons softened and
resin volume. SeC(lopY b
Auy failure to f@low this exact procedure feature of a single-stage, unattended water
disturbed the hardness equilibrium between
water and resin, and produced erroneous results.high hardness salt would cau~e Lncreased hard-
These data were discarded. Such interruptions
were unavoidable in,a commercial plant.
A total o? 30 cycles was monitored; 12
of these were thought to have occurred at
equilibrium conditions. Eight additional cycles Adjustment for such an increased hardness
produced results under ~ossibly questionable
conditions. Eowever, these data were used in
analyzing the equilibrium data as an aid in
establishing performance trends. ~ee i.tf t
TEST RESULT’S
Resin Capacity
Fig. ~ Illustrates the effect of brine
hardness and salt dosage on resin capacity.
The striking result is the wide range in brine
hardness from a single sea salt supply. A
change from the minimum to meximum brine
hardness caused a loss in softening capacity
of at least.10 percent for each dosage level.
Furthermore, this range of salt hardness,
if unnoticed, could cause heater scale problems
after normal.softening. For example, consider a
one-stage softener plant regenerated by metered
volume throughput. Furthermore, assume this
volume was set for low hardness brine, say less
than 500 ppm as CaC03. An inczease in brine
hardness to 5,000 ppm would result in about 10
percent loss in resin capacity. Or, in more
dramatic terms> about 10 percent of the water
passed to the heaters would be harder than
anticipated.
Fig. 4, which was prepared from data in
Fig. 3, illustrates the relationship between
both br:ne hardness and salt dosage on salt
efficiency. For a given salt dosage, Increasing
brine hardness caused a loss in x’esincapacity
and an increase in salt requirements per unit
of hardness removed. Fig. 5 presents these data
..
function of brine hardness end salt dosage. A
66 percent reduction in salt dosage [15 to 5 lbsj
cu ft] provides about 50 percent reduction in
salt cost [at 500 ppm brine hardness the cost
> percent].
.—
Primary softeners
F.lg.6 presents the effect of brine hardness
and salt dosage on total hardness leakage from
the primary softener.+As expected from litera-
ture data, the leakage increases with decreased
salt dosage.2 i s,? CWf “b
These data illustrate a second undesirable
softener. Delivery of an individual load of
ness leakage from a one-stage softener. In
fact, the high hardness leakage when regenerat-
ing a one-stage softener with 5 or 10 lb of
salt per cu ft of resin would require expensive
chelation to avoid excessive heater tube scale.
leakage would be difficult to make in an auto-
matic treating plant. Wide fluctuations between
hardness content of individual salt deliveries
would complicate the problem further.
Polishing softeners
Fig. 7 presents the total hardness leakage
from the polishing scfteners as a function of
brine hardness and salt dojage. Note the small
variation in hardness leakage. These hardness
levels were not measurable by the standard
technique.3 More precise methods were necessary
to make these measurements.4 )5 me to the verY
low hardness of the product, series softened
water becsme known as supersoft water.
The values in Fig. 7 were obtained at
random times during the cycle. As long as each
train was regenerated on exhaustion of the
primary softener, no excessive hartiess was
removed by the polishers, and they were able to
produce water of low hardness leakage through-
out the cycle, as opposed to hardness break-
through which is typical of a one-stage
softener.
CONCLUSIONS
From these data the following conclusions
have been drawn.
10 Resin capacity is influenced by brine
hardness. In the case studied the range in
brine hardness was about 5,000 pm = =C03. A
10-percent loss in resin capacity was observed
between min~~ ~d m=~~ brine hSZ’~eSSO
 2. Eeducing the salt dosage level from
15 to 5 lb of salt per cu ft of resin in the
primary softener results in Increased hardness
leakage from the primary softeners. Fortu-
nately, hardness level of series-softened water
is lower than watel’softened by one-stage
softeners, and is not affected materially by
salt dosage or hardness.
3. The low level of water hardness pro-
duced by series softeners, at several levels
of salt dosage, made it possible in this case
to reduce salt consumption by 66 percent and
salt costs by almost 50 percent.
REFEIVINCES
2. Amberlite IR-120 Engineering Notes, Sodium
Cycle Operation, Rohm and l-hasCo.
3. Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater, American F’ubli(~alt
Association, Inc. llth Ed., Prepared and
published Jointly by APHA, AwwA, and WPCF.,
132-137. - - - ‘
4. Banerjee, D. K., Budke, C. C. and Miller,
F. D.: “SpectrophotometricDetermination
of Traces of Calcium in Sodium”, Anal. Chem
[19611 ~, 418-321.
5. Mann, C. K. and Yoe, J. H.: “Spectrophoto-
metric Determination of Magnesium with 1-
Azo-2-Hydroxy-3-[2,k-Dimethylcarboxanilido
- Napkthalene- l-[2-Hydroxybenzene]”,Aual.
Chem. Acts
—— 16, 155-160.

1. Amberlite IR-120 Technical Notes, Rohm and

Haas Co. [March, 1960].

Resin capacity of primzry softener 1 was established

.
after monitoring each entire regeneration to determine
the ex:~ct salt concentration, brine hardness, brine
doscge and brine flow rate employed for each run.
~rine hardnes is the calcium and magnesium content of
the sodium chlorite brine expressed w p~m CaCG)3; brine
dosage is expressed as pounds of sodium chloride salt
per cubic foot of resin.
Table 1
SERIES SOFTENING WATER PL4NT CHARACTERISTICS

Primary Polisher

Diameter - Ft 5.5 3.0

Resin Volume - Ft3 72 25
Resin Bed Area - Ft2 23,8 7.1
Resin Depth - lr,. 36.2 42,2

Flow Rate
Maximum - gpm 238 238
- gpm/ft2 10 33.5
Normal - gpm 160 160
- gpmlftz 6.7 22.5

Salt Dosage Levels - lb/ft3 15 43

\
10 29
5 14

Resin Permutit Q Amberlite IR-120

 Table 2
TYPICAL ANALYSIS OF k4W WATER TO SERIES SOFTENERS

Constituent Pm

HC03 171
c1 85
so~ 355

Ca 99
Fig 19
Na 139

Si02 15
TDS 883

02 0.0
pH 8.2

Table 3
SERIES SOFTENER REGENERATION CHARACTERISTICS

Salt Dosage Level’to Primary Softener

5 lb/ft3 10 lb/ft3 15 lb/ft=

Brine concentration - %(a)

Polisher 25 17-23 17-23
Primary Approx. 10 Approx. 10 Approx. 10

Brine Contact Time - Minutea 9-14 20-30 20-30

Brine Flow Rate - gpm/ft3

Polisher ------------ 0.22 - O.B(b) -----------
Paimary ------------ 0.22 - 0.46(b) ----------

(a) All brine was made with supersoft water.

(b) Brine flow rates were lower at reduced salt dosage levels because
smaller amounts of brine were pumped slower to maintain brine-resin
contact time as near the resin manufacturer’s recommended 20 minutes
as possible.
 RAW
WATER

PRIMARY +
SOFTENERS

1
POLISHING
SOFTENERS
TO
HEJ13TERS

Fig. 1 - Schematic Piping Diagram of Series

Softeners

‘RM’m;;:
,,p(’’j’’ww
fl, SOFTENING ~
Wi!iE
BACKWASHING
SUPER SOFT WATER

— ~
..
r.
-.. ..—
. “:1-- ..1:= — -1..
ROTAMETERS

-DILUTION WATER SUPE;S:FT

4 BRINE
c, BRINING b% BRINE DISPLACEMENT

‘r

&
TO WASTE
PRIMARY
II

RINSE

in
m
~ , SECONDARY

of a Series
TO WASTE
RINSE

Sodium Ion=
 BRINE HARDNESS IN ppm AS Co C03

Fig. 3 - Effect of Brine Hardness and Salt Dosage

On Resin Capacity

‘BRINE HARDNESS

lbsNaC1/ftOF RESIN

“0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 c

lbsP.JaCl/kgHARDNESS REMOVED

Fig. 4 - Resin Exchange Capacity as a Function of

 NO C1/ft30F RESIN
lbs NOCi/ft;~F RESIN

10 ————— 5

x
5
/’
)

I I I I
I 1000 2000 3000 4000 5

sRINa HA RDNEss Iti mm As coco3

“1
Fig. 5 - Effect of Brine Hardness and Salt Dosage ~
a-
I .n
on Water Softening Costs d-””
?
g
0 I I I

0 2000 4000
BRINE HARDNESS IN PPITIASCOC03

Fig. 6 - Effect of Brine Hardness and Salt Dosage

on Hardness Leakage from Primary Beds

8
r
w
a 0.61 0 ❑
x
*O
~e 00
0.4
0 e 0
0 ● II
0
D SALT OOSAGE IN lbS/ft30FRESlN
0.2 POLISHER PRIMARY
o 43 15
● :2 1:
❑ ..
I I 1 I I I t * I I
00 1000 2000 3.000 40W

BRINE HARDNESS IN ppIIIAS COC03

Fig. 7 - Effect of Brine Hardness and Salt Dosage

on Hardness Leakage from Polishers