引用本文:曾文平,王伟杰,王晓琴,蒲长胜,周文娟. 天然气中C6+组成不同定量方式对发热量计算结果的影响[J]. 石油与天然气化工, 2020, 49(4): 95-100.
【打印本页】   【HTML】   【下载PDF全文】   【查看/发表评论】  【EndNote】   【RefMan】   【BibTex】
←前一篇|后一篇→ 过刊浏览    高级检索
本文已被：浏览 1535次   下载 675次 本文二维码信息
码上扫一扫！
分享到： 微信 更多
字体:加大+|默认|缩小-
天然气中C6+组成不同定量方式对发热量计算结果的影响
曾文平1,2,王伟杰1,2,王晓琴1,2,蒲长胜1,2,周文娟3
1.中国石油西南油气田公司天然气研究院 ;2.中国石油天然气集团公司天然气质量控制和能量计量重点实验室 ;3.中华人民共和国黑河海关
摘要:
天然气的发热量是计算天然气能量的一项主要基础参数,其结果是否准确可靠对能量计量有着重要影响。采用气相色谱法分析天然气的组成,然后通过组成数据计算天然气的发热量是最常用的检测方法,而天然气中重烃组分含量(C6+组成)的准确分析又是影响发热量计算结果的重要因素。概述了分析C6+组成常用的几种定量方式,通过分析实际天然气样品,讨论比较了C6+组成不同定量方式对高位发热量的影响。结果 表明:随着天然气中C6+含量的增加,不同定量方式对计算发热量结果有明显影响,当天然气中C6+摩尔分数大于0.1%时,不同定量方式获得高位发热量的最大偏差可达0.24%。提出了针对重烃含量较高的天然气,选择C6+组成定量方式的建议,其结论对我国未来实施天然气能量计量具有参考意义。 
关键词:  天然气  气相色谱分析  C6+组成  高位发热量  戊烷架桥  外标法  偏差
DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1007-3426.2020.04.017
分类号:
基金项目:2018年四川省重大科技专项项目“天然气能量计量在线色谱仪应用开发及示范”(2018TZDX0008)
Effect of different quantitative methods of C6+ composition in natural gas on the result of the calorific value
Zeng Wenping1,2, Wang Weijie1,2, Wang Xiaoqin1,2, Pu Changsheng1,2, Zhou Wenjuan3
1. Research Institute of Natural Gas Technology, PetroChina Southwest Oil & Gasfield Company, Chengdu, Sichuan, China;2. Key Laboratory of Natural Gas Quality Control and Energy Measurement, PetroChina, Chengdu, Sichuan, China;3. Heihe Customs House, People's Republic of China, Heihe, Hei Longjiang, China
Abstract:
The calorific value of natural gas is one of the main basic parameters for calculating energy value, which directly affects the accuracy and reliability of energy measurement. At present, it is the most commonly used detection method to analyze the composition of natural gas by gas chromatography, and then calculate the calorific value of natural gas through the composition data, and the accurate analysis of heavy hydrocarbon component (C6+) is the key factor affecting the calculation results of calorific value. This paper summarizes several quantitative methods commonly used to analyze C6+ composition.By analyzing actual natural gas samples, the effects of different quantitative methods of C6+ composition on superior calorific value are discussed and compared. The results show that different quantitative methods have obvious influence on the calculation of calorific value with the increase of C6+ content in natural gas. When the C6+ content in natural gas is greater than 0.1%, the maximum deviation of superior calorific value obtained by different quantitative methods can reach 0.24%. A suggestion is put forward to choose the quantitative method of C6+ composition for natural gas with high heavy hydrocarbon content. The conclusion is of reference significance for the future implementation of natural gas energy measurement in China.
Key words:  natural gas  gas chromatographic analysis  C6+ composition  superior calorific value  pentane bridge  external standard method  deviation