Simulation of The Scrubber Section of A Fluid Coker: Jasna Jankovic

SIMULATION OF THE SCRUBBER SECTION OF A FLUID COKER
by
Jasna Jankovic
B.A.Sc, University of Belgrade, Yugoslavia, 1996
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

April, 2005
lasna Jankovic, 2005

Abstract
HYSYS.Plant Version 3.0.1 in steady-state mode was used to simulate the Scrubber
Section of a Syncrude Canada Ltd.'s Fluid Coker, a plant for oil sand bitumen upgrading. In this
scrubber, hot vapours from the Fluid Coker are contacted counter-currently with cooler oils to
remove heavy components. The objective was to develop a reliable simulation model, which
would describe the plant operation as closely as possible, and to use this model to investigate
possible process improvements, by changing process and design parameters.
Plant data was used to define the composition, flow rate, temperature and pressure of all
inlet streams, as well as parameters for all unit operation blocks. Additional data was provided to
evaluate the reliability of the simulation model. The Scrubber Section was simulated using a
number of unit operation blocks and process streams. The HYSYS Peng-Robinson property
package was utilized. Heavy hydrocarbon mixtures were defined using pseudo-components
derived from input laboratory assays data: boiling curves, density and viscosity. An investigation
on presence of liquid phase in the vapour streams and heavy components in the Scrubber
Overhead was undertaken, and its suggestions taken into account during the simulation. When
the whole flowsheet was set up and a converged solution obtained, the HYSYS optimizer tool
was used to determine unknown parameters in the system, such as tray and section efficiencies in
the sheds and the packed section of the Scrubber, respectively, and fractions of vapour and liquid
that reach equilibrium above the scrubber pool. An objective function was defined to quantify
the extent of matching of model predictions with the plant data. The unknown parameters were
varied to minimize the objective function. The set of parameters that resulted in the smallest
deviation from the plant data was chosen and fixed as the "Base Case". Results of the simulation
match the plant data very well (within 3.2% of the plant data).
Eleven case studies were carried out in which different operating parameters and design
changes were simulated to study their effects on predicted process performance: ATB Flow Rate,
HGO Wash Flow Rate, HGO Underwash Flow Rate, HGO Wash Temperature, HGO Underwash
In and Out of Service, Number of Trays in the Sheds, Number of Grid Sections, Simulation of
the Conditions from Start of Run to End of Run, Water Instead of HGO Underwash, Saturated
Steam Instead of HGO Underwash and Overhead Recycle Cut Point Changes.
Based on the results of the case studies the suggestions for further process improvements
were made, as well as recommendations for additional investigations.
ii
Table of Contents
Abstract ii
Table of Contents iii

List of Tables vi
List of Figures ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii
Chapter 1 - Introduction 1
1.1. Oil Sand Processing Background 2
1.2. Fluid Coker 3
1.3. Scrubber Section 5
1.4. Project Objective 7
Chapter 2 - Process Simulator HYSYS Plant 8
2.1. Introduction to HYSYS - Literature Review 8
2.2. HYSYS Simulation Basis 10
2.3. Property Package and Flash Calculation 11
2.4. Operation Units and Logical Operations 14
Chapter 3 - Scrubber Section Simulation Model 16
3.1. Introduction 16
3.2. Simulation Structure Set Up 17
3.2.1. Property Package 17
3.2.2. Oil Characterization 17
3.2.3. Core Blocks and Simulation Components 17
3.2.4. Simulation Flowsheet 20
3.2.5. Input Plant Data 23
3.3. Optimizer Tool and the Base Case 26
Chapter 4 - Presence of Liquid Phase in the Vapour Streams 30
4.2. Droplet Size Estimation 31
iii
4.3. Trajectory of the Liquid Droplets 32
Chapter 5 - Presence of Heavy Components in the Scrubber Overhead 37
5.2. Liquid Entrainment in the Shed Section 38
5.3. Packed Section 40
5.4. Conclusion 46
Chapter 6 - Case Studies: Results and Discussion 47
6.2. Case Studies 49
I. ATB Flow Rate 49
II. HGO Wash Flow Rate 57
III. HGO Underwash Flow Rate 65
IV. HGO Wash Temperature 73
V. HGO Underwash In and Out of Service 81
VI. Number of Trays in the Sheds 90
VII. Number of Grid Sections 98
VIII. Simulation of the Conditions from Start of Run to End of Run 106
IX. Water Instead of HGO Underwash 114
X. Saturated Steam Instead of HGO Underwash... 123
XI. Overhead Recycle Cut Point Changes 132
Chapter 7- Summary of Proposed Process Performance Improvements.. 140

7.1. Overhead Product Quality 140
7.2. Overhead Production Rate 142
7.3. Fouling in the Koch Grid 143
Chapter 8 - Conclusions and Recommendations 145
8.1. Conclusions 145
8.2. Recommendations 148
Glossary of Terms 150
References 152
Appendix I - Peng-Robinson Equation of State 156
Appendix II - Flash Block Calculation 159
iv
Appendix III - Scrubber Section Streams Data 170
Cyclone Product 170
ATB Assay 175
HGO Assay 177
Scrubber Overhead 179
Appendix IV - Cyclone Liquid Droplets Trajectory 184
V
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Stream input data - information obtained from Syncrude Canada Ltd 24
Table 3.2 Input data and information for operation units obtained from Syncrude Canada Ltd..25
Table 3.3 Base Case parameter values and deviation from the plant data 28
Table 3.4 Determined unknown parameters (primary variables) 29
Table 4.1 Parameter values used in Equation (4.1) 32
Table 5.1 Parameter values for calculation the flow and capacity parameter for Figure 5.1 40
Table 5.2 Packed tower rating data calculated by Koch-Glitsch KG-Tower software. 43
Table 5.3 Parameter values for calculation the flow and capacity parameter for Figure 5.3 45
Table 1-1 Effect of ATB flow rate on Scrubber parameters 52
Table 1-2 Effect of ATB flow rate on Scrubber Overhead properties 53
Table 1-3 Effect of ATB flow rate on Scrubber Bottom properties 54
Table II-l Effect of HGO Wash flow rate on Scrubber parameters 60
Table II-2 Effect of HGO Wash flow rate on Scrubber Overhead properties 61
Table II-3 Effect of HGO Wash flow rate on Scrubber Bottom properties 62
Table III-l Effect of HGO Underwash flow rate on Scrubber parameters 68
Table III-2 Effect of HGO Underwash flow rate on Scrubber Overhead properties 69
Table III-5 Effect of HGO Underwash flow rate on Scrubber Bottom properties 70
Table IV-1 Effect of HGO Wash temperature rate on Scrubber parameters 76
Table IV-2 Effect of HGO Wash temperature on Scrubber Overhead properties 77
Table IV-3 Effect of HGO Wash temperature on Scrubber Bottom properties 78
Table V-l Effect of HGO Underwash service rate on Scrubber parameters 85
Table V-2 Effect of HGO Underwash service on Scrubber Overhead properties 86
Table V-3 Effect of HGO Underwash service on Scrubber Bottom properties 87
Table VI-1 Effect of number of Sheds trays on Scrubber parameters 93
Table VI-2 Effect of number of Sheds trays on Scrubber Overhead properties 94
Table VI-3 Effect of number of Sheds trays on Scrubber Bottom properties 95
Table VII-1 Effect of number of Grid sections on Scrubber parameters 101
Table VII-2 Effect of number of Grid sections on Scrubber Overhead properties...._ 102
Table VII-3 Effect of number of Grid sections on Scrubber Bottom properties 103
Table VIII-1 Effect of pressure drop in the Grid and absolute pressure in the Scrubber on
Scrubber parameters 109
vi
Scrubber Overhead properties 110
Scrubber Bottom properties Ill
Table IX-1 Effect of water instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber parameters 118
Table IX-2 Effect of water instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Overhead properties 119
Table IX-3 Effect of water instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Bottom properties 120
Table X-l Effect of saturated steam instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber parameters 127
Table X-2 Effect of saturated steam instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Overhead
properties 128
Table X-3 Effect of sat. steam instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Bottom properties.. ..129
Table XI-1 ATB flow rate effect on Overhead TBP distillation curve 134
Table XI-2 Effect of ATB flow rate on Scrubber parameters 135
Table XI-3 HGO Wash flow rate effect on Overhead TBP distillation curve 136
Table XI-4 Effect of HGO Wash flow rate on Scrubber parameters 137
Table XI-5 HGO Underwash flow rate effect on Overhead TBP distillation curve 138
Table XI-6 Effect of HGO Underwash flow rate on Scrubber parameters 139
Table AH.l Parameters for the flash block system components 163
Table AII.2 PR EOS parameters for pure substances 164
Table AII.3 Interaction parameters for Hydrogen-Methane-Ethane system 164
Table AIII.l Composition of hypothetical cyclone stream 171
Table AIII.2 Composition of Light Ends fraction of cyclone stream 171
Table AIII.3 CGO assay; Method: ASTM 2887 with HTSB enhancement 172
Table AIII.4 CGO TBP data; Method: TBP calculated by HYSYS 172
Table AIII.5 OTSB Assay; Method: ASTM 2887 & SCFE-composite data 173
Table AIII.6 OTSB TBP data; Method: TBP calculated by HYSYS 173
Table AIII.7 Cyclone Product TBP data; Method: TBP calculated by HYSYS 174
Table AIII.8 Cyclone Product composition 174
Table AIII.9 ATB assay; Method: ASTM 2887 with HTSD enhancement 176
Table AIII.l0 ATB TBP data; Method: TBP data calculated by HYSYS 176
Table AIII.l 1 ATB composition calculated by HYSYS 176
Table AIII.12 HGO assay; Method: ASTM 2887 with HTSB enhancement 178
Table AIII.13 HGO TBP data; Method: TBP calculated by HYSYS 178
vii
Table AIII.14 HGO composition (HYSYS) 178
Table AIIL15 Scrubber Overhead fractions 180
Table AIII.16 Sour Gas composition 180
Table AIIL17 CGO Assay; Method: SIM Dist 181
Table AIIL18 CGO TBP data; Method: TBP calculated by HYSYS 181
Table AIII.19 Naphtha Assay; Method: SIM Dist 182
Table AIII.20 Naphtha TBP data; Method: TBP calculated by HYSYS 182
Table AIII.21 "Plant" Scrubber Overhead TBP data; Method: TBP calculated by HYSYS.. ..183
Table AIII.22 "Plant" Scrubber Overhead composition and fraction distribution 183
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Schematic of oil sand processing 3

Figure 1.2 Schematic of a Fluid Coker 4
Figure 1.3 Schematic of the Scrubber Section of the Fluid Coker 5
Figure 3.1 Core blocks chosen to represent the Scrubber Section of the Fluid Coker 19
Figure 3.2 Simulation flowsheet of the Scrubber Section 22
Figure 4.1 Trajectory of a liquid droplet carried with Cyclone Product jet 35
Figure 5.1 Flooding correlation for columns with cross-flow plates 39
Figure 5.2 Design pressure drop chart for Koch Flexigrid Type 2 structured packing 42
Figure 5.3 Generalized flooding-pressure drop correlation of Eckert and Leva, modified by
Strigle 44
Figure 1-1 Effect of ATB flow rate on temperatures along the Scrubber 50
Figure 1-2 Effect of ATB flow rate on temperature profile along the Scrubber 50
Figure 1-3 Effect of ATB flow rate on mass flow rate of Scrubber Overhead and
Bottom 51
Figure 1-4 Effect of ATB flow rate on mass flow rate of other streams 51
Figure 1-5 Effect of ATB flow rate on Scrubber Overhead TBP curve 53
Figure 1-6 Effect of ATB flow rate on Scrubber Bottom TBP curve 54
Figure 1-7 Effect of ATB flow rate on Scrubber Overhead composition 55
Figure 1-8 Effect of ATB flow rate on Scrubber Bottom composition 55
Figure II-l Effect of HGO Wash flow rate on temperatures along the Scrubber 57
Figure II-2 Effect of HGO Wash flow rate on temperature profile along the Scrubber 57
Figure II-3 Effect of HGO Wash flow rate on mass flow rate of Scrubber Overhead and
Bottom 59
Figure II-4 Effect of HGO Wash flow rate on mass flow rate of other streams 59
Figure II-5 Effect of HGO Wash flow rate on Scrubber Overhead TBP curve 61
Figure II-6 Effect of HGO Wash flow rate on Scrubber Bottom TBP curve 62
Figure II-7 Effect of HGO Wash flow rate on Scrubber Overhead composition 63
Figure II-8 Effect of HGO Wash flow rate on Scrubber Bottom composition 63
Figure III-l Effect of HGO Underwash flow rate on temperatures along the Scrubber 65
Figure III-2 Effect of HGO Underwash flow rate on temperature profile along the Scrubber....65
Figure III-3 Effect of HGO Underwash flow rate on mass flow rate of Scrubber Overhead and
Bottom 67
Figure III-4 Effect of HGO Underwash flow rate on mass flow rate of other streams 67
Figure III-5 Effect of HGO Underwash flow rate on Scrubber Overhead TBP curve 69
Figure III-6 Effect of HGO Underwash flow rate on Scrubber Bottom TBP curve 70
Figure III-7 Effect of HGO Underwash flow rate on Scrubber Overhead composition 71
Figure III-8 Effect of HGO Underwash flow rate on Scrubber Bottom composition 71
Figure TV-1 Effect of HGO Wash temperature on temperatures along the Scrubber 73
Figure IV-2 Effect of HGO Wash temperature on temperature profile along the Scrubber 73
Figure TV-3 Effect of HGO Wash temperature on mass flow rate of Scrubber Overhead and
Bottom 75
Figure IV-4 Effect of HGO Wash temperature on mass flow rate of other streams 75
Figure IV-5 Effect of HGO Wash temperature on Scrubber Overhead TBP curve 77
Figure IV-6 Effect of HGO Wash temperature on Scrubber Bottom TBP curve 78
Figure IV-7 Effect of HGO Wash temperature on Scrubber Overhead composition 79
Figure IV-8 Effect of HGO Wash temperature on Scrubber Bottom composition 79
Figure V-l Effect of HGO Underwash service on temperatures along the Scrubber 82
Figure V-2 Effect of HGO Underwash service on temperature profile along the Scrubber 82
Figure V-3 Effect of HGO Underwash service on mass flow rate of Scrubber Overhead and
Bottom 84
Figure V-4 Effect of HGO Underwash service on mass flow rate of other streams 84
Figure V-5 Effect of HGO Underwash service on Scrubber Overhead TBP curve 86
Figure V-6 Effect of HGO Underwash service on Scrubber Bottom TBP curve 87
Figure V-7 Effect of HGO Underwash service on Scrubber Overhead composition 88
Figure V-8 Effect of HGO Underwash service on Scrubber Bottom composition 88
Figure VI-1 Effect of number of Sheds trays on temperatures along the Scrubber 91
Figure VI-2 Effect of number of Sheds trays on temperature profile along the Scrubber 91
Figure VI-3 Effect of number of Sheds trays on mass flow rate of Scrubber Overhead and
Bottom 92
Figure VI-4 Effect of number of Sheds trays on mass flow rate of other streams 93
Figure VI-5 Effect of number of Sheds trays on Scrubber Overhead TBP curve 94
Figure VI-6 Effect of number of Sheds trays on Scrubber Bottom TBP curve 95
Figure VI-7 Effect of number of Sheds trays on Scrubber Overhead composition 96
Figure VI-8 Effect of number of Sheds trays on Scrubber Bottom composition 96
Figure VII-1 Effect of number of Grid sections on temperatures along the Scrubber 98
Figure VII-2 Effect of number of Grid sections on temperature profile along the Scrubber 98
Figure VII-3 Effect of number of Grid sections on mass flow rate of Scrubber Overhead and
Bottom 100
Figure VII-4 Effect of number of Grid sections on mass flow rate of other streams 100
Figure VII-5 Effect of number of Grid sections on Scrubber Overhead TBP curve 102
Figure VII-6 Effect of number of Grid sections on Scrubber Bottom TBP curve 103
Figure VII-7 Effect of number of Grid sections on Scrubber Overhead composition 104
Figure VII-8 Effect of number of Grid sections on Scrubber Bottom composition 104
Figure VIII-1 Effect of pressure drop in Grid and absolute pressure in the Scrubber on
temperatures along the Scrubber 107
Figure VIII-2 Effect of pressure drop in Grid and absolute pressure in the Scrubber on
temperature profile along the Scrubber 107
Figure VIII-3 Effect of pressure drop in Grid and absolute pressure in the Scrubber on mass
flow rate of Scrubber Overhead and Bottom 108
Figure VIII-4 Effect of pressure drop in Grid and absolute pressure in the Scrubber on mass
flow rate of other streams 108
Figure VIII-5 Effect of pressure drop in the Grid and absolute pressure in the Scrubber on
Scrubber Overhead TBP curve 110
Scrubber Bottom TBP curve Ill
Scrubber Overhead composition 112
Scrubber Bottom composition 112
Figure IX-1 Effect of water instead of HGO Underwash on temperatures along the
Scrubber 115
Figure IX-2 Effect of water instead of HGO Underwash on temperature profile along the
Scrubber 115
Figure IX-3 Effect of water instead of HGO Underwash on mass flow rate of Scrubber
Overhead and Bottom 117
Figure IX-4 Effect of water instead of HGO Underwash on mass flow rate of other streams...! 17
xi
Figure IX-5 Effect of water instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Overhead TBP curve. ..119
Figure IX-6 Effect of water instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Bottom TBP curve 120
Figure IX-7 Effect of water instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Overhead composition. 121
Figure IX-8 Effect of water instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Bottom composition... 121
Figure X-l Effect of saturated steam instead of HGO Underwash on temperatures along the
Scrubber 124
Figure X-2 Effect of saturated steam instead of HGO Underwash on temperature profile along
the Scrubber 124
Figure X-3 Effect of saturated steam instead of HGO Underwash on mass flow rate of Scrubber
Overhead and Bottom 126
Figure X-4 Effect of saturated steam instead of HGO Underwash on mass flow rate of other
streams 126
Figure X-5 Effect of sat. steam instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Overhead TBP
curve 128
Figure X-6 Effect of sat. steam instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Bottom TBP
curve 129
Figure X-7 Effect of saturated steam instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Overhead
composition 130
Figure X-8 Effect of saturated steam instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Bottom
composition 130
Figure XI-1 ATB flow rate effect on Overhead TBP distillation curve 134
Figure XI-2 HGO Wash flow rate effect on Overhead TBP distillation curve 136
Figure XI-3 HGO Underwash flow rate effect on Overhead TBP distillation curve 138
Figure AII.l Schematic of the flash block 159
Figure AIII.l Cyclone Product TBP curve 174
Figure AIII.2 Cyclone Product molecular weight distribution curve 174
Figure AIII.3 Cyclone Product density distribution curve 174
Figure AIII.4 ATB TBP curve 176
Figure AIII.5 HGO TBP curve 178
Figure AIII.6 "Plant" Scrubber Overhead TBP curve 183
Figure AIII.7 "Plant" Scrubber Overhead molecular weight distribution curve 183
Figure AIII.8 "Plant" Scrubber Overhead density distribution curve 183
Figure AIV.l Trajectory of a liquid droplet carried with the Cyclone Product jet 188
xii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Paul Watkinson and Dr. Dusko Posarac, my
supervisors, for their support and guidance throughout the duration of my work.
Special thanks to Dr. Iftikhar Huq from Syncrude Canada Ltd. for his help and valuable
suggestions during this project.
Financial support provided by Syncrude Canada Ltd. and NSERC is gratefully

acknowledged.
I would like to dedicate this thesis to my family, my husband Bosko and my children, for
their patience, great support and encouragement, which gave me the strength over these years.
Xlll
Chapter I - Introduction
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Today's world industry, economy and politics are greatly dependent on the fossil fuel
energy availability. In 2004, 40% of world energy consumed is oil, 20% gas, 20% coal and the
remaining 20% is hydro-electric power, biomass and renewable energy [1]. Energy demand is
expected to increase over the next period until 2025 at an average of 2% per year. Fossil fuels
dominate the global energy demand, with up to 90% of the total demand. OPEC Oil Outlook to
2025 reports that the volume of oil demand will increase from 77 million barrels per day in 2002
to 115 million barrels per day in 2025 [2]. Some sources estimate that at this rate of consumption
the current recoverable reserves of oil will be spent in about 50 years [3,4].
The estimates of the world ultimately recoverable reserves (URR) given by the US
Geological Survey (USGS) are about 3.3 trillion barrels [5]. These reserves include a huge
amount of Canadian oil sands as well, making Canada the second-largest holder of reserves after
Saudi Arabia.
Total recoverable oil reserves in Alberta are estimated at over 334 billion barrels, with the
oil sand production of 964,000 barrels per day and conventional crude oil production of 629,000
barrels per day in 2003, [5]. Syncrude Canada Ltd. and Suncor Inc., located in the Northern
Alberta, produce crude oil from oil sand, which is about 18% of total crude oil production in
Canada.
Cost of the oil production from oil sand is still high, comparing to the conventional crude oil
production. Oil sand recovering and processing improvements lead to the decrease of the cost per
barrel of oil, as well as increase in the ability to recover and process more of oil sand. Since the
reserves of conventional fossil fuels are in decline, and having in mind huge reserves of oil sand,
this could have a significant positive impact on current fossil fuel energy situation.
Syncrude Canada Ltd., as one of the largest producers of sweet crude oil and other products
recovered from oil sand, has been improving the processes for recovering and upgrading oil sand
bitumen over many years. Continuous research and plant development led by Syncrude Canada
Ltd. include also use of modern means of computer process simulation in business planning,
plant design and process optimization. The majority of their bitumen upgrading stages has been
simulated so far. In this project, HYSYS.Plant Version 3.0.1 process simulator was used to
1
Chapter I Introduction
simulate the Scrubber Section of a Syncrude Canada Ltd.'s Fluid Coker, a plant for upgrading
the bitumen that originates from the oil sand. General oil sand processing, as well as Fluid Coker
and detailed Scrubber Section operation are described in Sections 1.1-1.3.
1.1. Oil Sand Processing Background
Oil sands are deposits composed of sand, bitumen, mineral rich clays and water. Bitumen is
a very thick, viscous product of the oil sand. In order to be transportable by pipeline and usable
by conventional refineries it must be upgraded to synthetic crude oil or diluted with lighter
hydrocarbons [6, 7].
Oil sand processing starts with digging the oil sand by mining shovels and transporting by
trucks to crushing stations, where it is broken down to chunks about 45 cm. After that, the ore is
fed to rotating drums for further reducing the size to 5 cm. At this point, warm water is added to
the oil sand to create slurry. The slurry is pumped through a pipeline to the extraction unit. The
mixing during the slurry transport from the mine to the plant begins the separation process and
recovers over 90% of the bitumen. The resulting bitumen froth is separated from the water and
sand in froth settlers, where a hydrocarbon solvent is added to separate the remaining solids,
water and heavy asphaltenes. The clean, diluted bitumen is low in contaminants and with
relatively low viscosity is easily transported by pipeline to upgrading process.
The upgrading process of the diluted bitumen starts with Diluent Recovery Unit. This is an
atmospheric distillation column, which serves to separate diluent naphtha (used as a solvent in
bitumen cleaning process), to remove light components and to produce Atmospheric Topped
Bitumen (ATB) as feedstock for the Fluid Cokers, LC-Finer and Vacuum Distillation Unit.
The Vacuum Distillation Unit processes about 55% of ATB. It removes light and heavy gas oils
which are then sent directly to hydro treat ers. The residual - Vacuum Topped Bitumen (VTB) is
blended with the other 45% of ATB and then sent to the LC-Finer and Fluid Cokers for further
processing.
Bitumens have low H/C ratios, which can be raised by either adding hydrogen or removing
carbon. LC-Fining is a catalytic process in which hydrogen is added to increase the hydrogen to
carbon ratio in the feed hydrocarbon material, and light gas oil (LGO) is produced. The
unreacted residue from the LC-Finer is sent to a Fluid Coker for further cracking. ATB, VTB and
2
LC-Finer residue are fed to the Fluid Coker. The coking process removes part of the carbon
content of the feedstock by thermal cracking of long hydrocarbon chains in bitumen. The product
vapours from the Coker and LC-finer are combined together and fractionated into Naphtha, Light
and Heavy Gas Oil (Combined Gas Oil, CGO). Further treatment (hydrotreatment to remove
heavy metals, sulphur and nitrogen) and blending of different products result in Sweet Blend
crude oil, a 100% sweet, light, low-sulphur crude that is shipped by pipeline to refineries and
mostly used for production of gasoline and diesel fuel [7, 8, 9,10]. A partial schematic of oil sand
processing is shown in Figure 1.1, where the bitumen feed is taken to include ATB, VTB and
LC-Finer residuum.
Figure 1.1 Schematic of oil sand processing [11]
1.2. Fluid Coker
Hot ATB, VTB and LC-Finer residuum are fed continuously to the Fluid Coker unit where
the feed is thermally cracked or broken down into lighter products (Figure 1.2). VTB and
residuum feed are sprayed into a fluidized bed of coke particles positioned in the middle part of
the reactor. Coking reactions occur on the surface of the particles at temperature of 510-530C.
Liquid that remains on the coke after the coking reactions is stripped off by steam in the Fluid
Coker Stripper Section, located in the bottom part of the reactor. The coke is sent to the Burner,
3
where the coke is partially burned and recycled to the Coker to supply heat needed for the coking
reaction. Excess coke is removed and stored for potential future use. In the Coker, the lighter
products of cracking reactions (vapour) rise from fluidized zone through cyclones where coke
particulates and most of the liquid droplets are removed. Product from the cyclone then enters
the upper part of the Fluid Coker - the Scrubber Section [12].
In this project the Scrubber Section of a Syncrude Canada Ltd.'s Fluid Coker has been
simulated. Therefore, this section will be described in more detail in the next section.
Figure 1.2 Schematic of a Fluid Coker
4
1.3. Scrubber Section
The Scrubber Section of a Syncrude Canada Ltd.'s Fluid Coker is approximately 17 m high
and 9 m diameter section positioned at the top part of the Fluid Coker. The Scrubber Section
itself consists of three main parts: the Scrubber Pool at the bottom, six sets of Sheds in the
middle part and the Koch Grid - ten layers of Koch Flexigrid Type 2 structured packing at the
top [13]. The purpose of the Scrubber Section is to remove ("scrub") heavy components from the
hot rising vapour from the Coker cyclones, by contacting the lower temperature falling
hydrocarbon liquids. The main product of the Fluid Coker is Scrubber Overhead, a mainly
vapour product with the boiling range between -250 and 690C. Its characteristics are given in
Appendix III. This product exits from the top of the Scrubber Section and enters the Fractionator
where four fractions are separated: Sour Gas, Butane, Naphtha and a Combined Gas Oil (CGO),
consisting of Light Gas Oil (LGO) and Heavy Gas Oil (HGO). As mentioned in Section 1.1,
after the hydrotreatment, Naphtha and CGO are used for blending into Sweet Blend crude. A
schematic of the Scrubber Section of the Coker is shown in Figure 1.3.
Figure 1.3 Schematic of the Scrubber Section of the Fluid Coker
5
The primary feed to the Scrubber Section, named Cyclone Product, comes out of the six
cyclone snouts, positioned at the bottom part of the Scrubber, at a velocity of 76 m/s and a
temperature of 540C. The Cyclone Product is mainly vapour, but it is suspected that it contains
some liquid and even solid particles of heavy hydrocarbons with boiling temperatures of over
1000C. Due to the cyclone nozzles position and orientation, the vapour is expected to cause a
swirling effect in the 1.5 m high section between the Scrubber Pool and the first row of Sheds. It
exchanges heat and mass with the down-flowing liquid. This still hot rising vapour passes
through six trays of Sheds, being contacted by colder liquids from the upper part of the Scrubber
and ATB feed. ATB enters the Scrubber above the Sheds at 325C and serves to scrub the heavy
fractions and particulates from the rising vapour.
Vapour further rises through the Koch Grid. Both below and above the Koch Grid, Heavy
Gas Oil (HGO) enters the Scrubber also at 325C. This HGO stream is one part of the Scrubber
Overhead product, which is recycled from the downstream Fractionator, to help scrub heavy
components from the vapour. It keeps the grid wet and controls the temperature in order to
reduce fouling of the grid.
Fouling can occur in processing equipment, particularly at temperatures above 400C, and
where liquids are stagnant. Heavy components partially volatilize, crack and "coke", building
layers of deposits from both liquid and gas phases [14]. These deposits affect cyclone snouts and
the Koch Grid the most, causing increases in pressure drop and decreases in process
performance. For that reason, it is very important to reduce fouling, either by keeping the
temperature low enough or by reducing stagnant zones which contain heavy liquid fractions.
Scrubber Overhead vapour from the top of the Koch Grid exits the Scrubber at 390-400C.
As already mentioned in this section, this product is sent to the Fractionator and separated into
Sour Gas, Butane, Naphtha and CGO (LGO and HGO) used for further treatment and blending,
while one part of the HGO is recycled to the Scrubber Section.
Liquid containing heavy fractions from HGO, ATB and Cyclone Product passes downward
through the Koch Grid and the Sheds, scrubbing the rising vapour, and collects in the Scrubber
Pool. Mixing of the Scrubber Pool Liquid by high pressure saturated steam -Agitation Steam -
keeps all particulates suspended. This liquid, which is pumped from the pool, is split in two
streams: one that joins the VTB feed for the Coker and the other that is cooled by the Scrubber
6
Chapter I Introduction
Pool Liquid Cooler (SPL Cooler) and recycled to the Scrubber Pool in order to keep its
temperature below 400C and reduce fouling.
1.4. Project Objective
The Scrubber Section of the Coker involves complex mixtures of hydrocarbons with a wide
boiling range; three phases - vapour, liquid and even solid; possible liquid entrainment in the
vapour phase; multistage processes; fouling reactions etc. The whole process is not fully
understood. The product quality and the system performance depend on process parameters,
choice and properties of inlet streams and design of the units. A HYSYS process simulation of
the Scrubber Section can help increase understanding, leading to process improvements.
An attempt to simulate the Scrubber Section of the Syncrude Canada Ltd.'s Fluid Coker was
by M . Williston as a Bachelor's Thesis project at UBC in 2002 [8]. This work, although
successful in matching some plant data, showed some uncertainties. Not too much attention was
paid to composition of the product stream, which is a crucial parameter for successful plant
simulation. Also, some sections of the Scrubber were not represented in enough detail, which
caused relatively high deviations from the plant data ( within 10%).
In this project, a more detailed and realistic model of the Scrubber Section of Syncrude
Canada Ltd.'s Fluid Coker was developed. The objective of the project was to develop a reliable
simulation model for the Scrubber Section and to use this model to investigate possible process
improvements, by changing process and design parameters. The model was utilized for different
case studies with the goal to investigate the effects of parameter and design changes on process
performance and gain better understanding of process behavior.
7
Chapter 2 - Process Simulator HYSYS Plant
Chapter 2 - Process Simulator H Y S Y S Plant
2.1. Introduction to HYSYS - Literature Review
In order to remain competitive in the market and to meet government regulations, the
process industries must improve and optimize their operations, making them more efficient,
profitable, safe and reliable. Improvements to the process have to be undertaken throughout the
plant lifecycle, quickly and without risky and costly on-site design changes. Process simulators
are very efficient tools in improving design, evaluation of different operation changes,
monitoring of equipment performance, optimizing the process and production planning.
Process simulators have been widely used in the oil and gas, and petroleum refining
industries for more than 30 years. Refinery unit operations are very specific, and most of the
commercial process simulators are not efficient enough to model the whole process as an
integrated system. However, some of the process simulators, such as Aspen Plus and Aspen
RefSYS by Aspen Technology, Inc., HYSYS by Hyprotech, Ltd., and Pro/II by Simulation
Sciences, Inc., are improved and adapted for use in petroleum process simulations [15].
In this project, the HYSYS process simulator was used. HYSYS is powerful engineering
simulation software. It contains a variety of built-in property packages, a data base with
experimental data for more than 1500 components and 16000 fitted binaries, a wide range of
estimation methods for components not included in the data-base, and a regression package [16].
It also offers the ability for the user to include a specific property calculation, set of experimental
data or coefficients, in order to improve accuracy for a specific simulation system. HYSYS has
built-in routines to solve a wide range of specialized unit operations: separation operations,
columns, heat transfer equipment, reactors, piping equipment (tees, mixers, valves), rotating
equipment, solid separation operations, electrolyte operations, logical operations (adjuster,
recycle, controller) [17]. HYSYS can be used in both steady state and dynamic modeling
environment. Steady state simulations can be switched to dynamic mode by specifying additional
engineering details, including pressure-flow relationships and equipment dimensions.
Aspects of the HYSYS process simulator application in industry and research are various:
process design (synthesis of new designs, analysis of current designs, process optimization),
process operation (monitoring, control, data collection, operator training) and process
8
Chapter 2 -Process Simulator HYSYS Plant
management (production planning and scheduling, quality control), as well as application in

order to obtain more data on a process and understand the process behaviour. Following are
some examples of HYSYS applications:
At a Chevron Canada gas plant both steady-state and dynamic HYSYS simulation were
applied to investigate a modified Claus sulphur recovery plant. The aim of the study was to
determine the effect of three different control schemes on the efficiency of the plant [18].
At a HOVENSA LLC refinery, a model for the optimization of the deisopentanizer tower
was developed with the HYSYS process simulator, using averaged process and lab data. The
average deviation from main plant parameters (temperature profile, compositions) was around
7% [19].
Lars et al. [20] report application of the HYSYS simulator to model the glycol regeneration
processes after natural gas dehydration by absorption in triethylene glycol.
Soave et al. [21] investigated the options for saving energy in industrial distillation towers
by preheating the feed (or one part of the feed) with the heat recovered from the bottom product.
The HYSYS process simulator is used to determine the optimum split ratio of the feed and feed
tray, showing the economical impact of the proposed solution.
In steady state and dynamic modeling of the xylene distillation column from the Mizushima
Oil Refinery [22], temperature profile, flow rates and other parameters showed average deviation
from the plant data of less than 10%.
Process simulators used for petroleum process simulation (Aspen Plus, HYSYS, Pro/II),
commonly use pseudo-components for petroleum mixture characterization. However, highly
predictive and reliable models require accurate presentation of the phase-equilibrium behavior
and hence more detailed defining of the streams composition. Analytical techniques such as
chromatography, mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy give
information that could be used in calculation of fluid properties. The application of these
techniques leads to more detailed, but much larger process models. There are still not available
algorithms for these kinds of models. Briesen et al. [23] have tried to apply this new approach to
a refinery process simulation using continuous mixture representation instead of the commonly
used pseudo-component approach. This continuous mixture approach assumes that the number of
chemical species present in a petroleum mixture is so large that it can be considered a continuous
9
rather than a discrete distribution. The authors developed a new solution strategy for this
problem and applied it to a 9-stage distillation column and tested for different feed mixtures. All
tests showed better accuracy and efficiency for the proposed method compared to the
conventional pseudo-component approach.
Today, many companies are reported [24] to implement process simulation to improve
process efficiency, optimize existing operation or to assist in business planning. Petro-Canada,
Lurgi Oel-Gas-Chemie, Syncrude Canada Ltd, NOVA Chemicals, Akzo-Nobel and Alkon are
some of the names mentioned [24].
2.2. HYSYS Simulation Basis
In order to solve equations representing material and energy balances, the stream
connections and the relations representing the equipment functions within a simulation
flowsheet, HYSYS performs sequential modular process simulation [24]. In the sequential
modular method, the process is represented by a collection of modules. A module is a model of
an individual element in a flowsheet that can be isolated from the flowsheet and interpreted
separately. Unit sequences (modules) are solved sequentially, iteratively, one by one until the
convergence is met. HYSYS uses subroutines to model these process units, but in contrast to
other simulators, it has the ability to perform calculation in both directions (forward and reverse).
Also, reported by [25], HYSYS immediately interpret the commands, as they are entered, which
makes the response of the program fast.
The following steps are used to set up a new simulation model:
Selecting a component list from HYSYS data base for known components included
in the modelled system;
Defining an appropriate property package (Equation of State (EOS) or Activity

model);
Supplying data (laboratory assays and bulk properties) for defining the pseudo-
components if complex mixtures are involved;
Installing the reaction components and formulating reactions, if they occur;
10
Defining the streams by providing their compositions, flow rates and two property
variables (usually temperature and pressure). Automatic Flash calculation for all
other properties of the streams, physical and transport (liquid density, vapour
density, viscosity, thermal conductivity, surface tension, etc.), is done by HYSYS
using property package with its physical and transport functions;
Installing the operation units and defining needed parameters;
Connecting the elements (streams and operation units);
Based on Vapour-Liquid Equilibrium (VLE), mass and energy balance and relations
representing equipment operations, HYSYS performs calculations needed for model solution and
convergence.
2.3. Property Package and Flash Calculation
In the simulation process, one of the most important steps is the choice of the
thermodynamic property package. It enables calculation of many stream properties: physical and
transport properties, PVT relationships, VLE calculations, number of phases, phase composition,
and hence affects the accuracy of material and energy balances. The choice of the property
package depends on the chemical nature of the system (hydrocarbons, electrolytes, sour water,
etc.), conditions (T, P), and parameter availability.
For oil, gas and petrochemical systems, the Peng-Robinson EOS is one of recommended
property packages. It contains enhanced binary interaction parameters for all hydrocarbon-
hydrocarbon and hydrocarbon - nonhydrocarbon pairs available in the HYSYS library [16]. The
Peng-Robinson EOS is presented below:
P =^ - -
a
(2.1)
V-b V(V + b) + b(V-b)
Here a and b represent deviation from ideal behaviour. Term a represents the strength of
attraction between two molecules (interaction force), and b is proportional to the size of the
11
molecules. These parameters can be determined from critical values P and T , and the acentric
c c
factor co for pure substances. Peng-Robinson EOS is presented in more detail in Appendix I.
Based on the Peng-Robinson EOS the following properties can be calculated: the
compressibility factor Z, molar volume, enthalpy, entropy, heat capacity, fugacity coefficient,
fugacity of a phase, etc. In HYSYS, the compressibility factor is calculated as the root of the
following equation, where the smallest root corresponds to the liquid phase and the largest for
the vapour phase.
Z -(\-B)Z
3 2
+Z(A-3B -2B)-(AB-B -B )
2 2 3
=0
R 2 T 2
RT
Molar volume for the liquid or vapour phase can be calculated from:
ZRT
v = (2.3)
Phase equilibrium computations for heavy hydrocarbon mixtures are difficult because of the
complexity of the mixtures and lack of experimental data. Critical temperature T , pressure P
c c
and acentric factor co of each component, needed for EOS calculations, are not available for all
components present in complex hydrocarbon mixtures. They have to be estimated from
measured properties for boiling point fractions: specific gravity, viscosity, molecular weight and
distillation curve. Numerous relationships can be used for these purposes [26]. These correlations
for critical properties and acentric factor and correlations for physical and transport properties -
viscosity, density, thermal conductivity, surface tension, etc. - are automatically selected by
HYSYS based on the system under study. In the present simulation, the Lee-Kesler correlations
for T , P , acentric factor and molecular weight are used [16, 26]. Twu's model for viscosity
c c
determination is chosen for heavy hydrocarbon mixture [16, 26]. Katz-Firoozabadi correlations
were used for density and boiling points calculation, because they are accurate for hydrocarbons
12
up to C45 [16, 26]. The Missenar and Reidel method is used for thermal conductivity calculation
[16, 27] and for surface tension a modified equation of Brock and Bird is used [16, 28].
The equations of the selected property package, and the physical and transport property
functions are used for the flash calculations to determine all thermodynamic, physical and
transport properties of a stream. Based on degrees of freedom concepts HYSYS determines when
and what type of flash calculation on stream it can perform. If stream composition and two
property variables are known (temperature and/or pressure, and vapour fraction, enthalpy or
entropy) the stream is thermodynamically defined. These properties are either specified by the
user or calculated by an operation. Depending on known stream property variables, HYSYS
automatically performs the flash calculations: T-P, T-VF, T-S, T-H, P-VF, P-S or P-H. [16].
Flash calculation is based on system tendency to reach thermodynamic equilibrium. Vapour-

liquid equilibrium ratio for a component i is given by the following equation:
K. = A = i - (2.4)
where y>\ and x, are mole fractions of component i in vapour and liquid phases, and O", and O',
are the fugacity coefficients for the component i in the vapour and liquid phases.
Fugacity coefficients can be calculated from a general thermodynamic equation:
P rp
/?-r-ln<D, = [(\>i-R)-dp
0 P
v.=() T (2.5)
dV
where the molar volume v and the derivative can be calculated using EOS.
dn t
As a starting point, the composition and molar volume of each phase must be estimated.
EOS equation is used to improve the values during iteration. The equilibrium ratio, K for each
13
component is calculated and compared to assumed phase composition. Further iteration leads to
the convergence of the solution [29].
2.4. Operation Units and Logical Operations
Unit operations are represented by models, or sets of equations, which include the mass and
energy balance, equilibrium and kinetic relations, and specific unit operation functions. The
interconnections between the units are represented by material and energy flows. The model
equations require physical property data, e.g., density, enthalpy or volume. These properties are
calculated by the property package. The property equations are solved iteratively each time a unit
operation model is evaluated. This approach is used in almost all steady state and dynamic
simulation systems [30]. Appendix II shows the procedure of manually solving of a simple flash
block containing a ternary mixture and the comparison with the HYSYS solution for the same
problem. Even such a simple system of equations, with only three pure components, takes a long
time to solve manually, while HYSYS needs less than a second to obtain the solution, which is in
good agreement with the manually calculated one (the average difference in the vapour and
liquid composition is about 4.5%).
The most complex operation units that HYSYS simulates are multi-stage mass transfer
towers (columns) [17]. Columns consist of a series of equilibrium or non-equilibrium flash
stages. For each feed stream, location, composition, flow rate and two property variables (T, P,
S, H or vapour fraction) have to be known. To determine pressure and temperature drop along
the column HYSYS uses simple linear interpolation between specified bottom and top values.
The driving force for any distillation is a favorable vapour-liquid equilibrium. Reliable VLE
relationships are essential for distillation column design and for most other operations involving
liquid-vapour phase contacting.
The Flash calculation within the column follows several steps:
For a first stage, the entire component flow (liquid and vapour) and the enthalpy of
the external feed are added to the components flows and the enthalpy of the internal
streams entering the stage;
14
Chapter 2 Process Simulator HYSYS Plant
HYSYS performs the Flash calculation of the combined mixtures based on the total
enthalpy at the pressure of the stage. This calculation gives the conditions and
composition of the vapour and liquid phases leaving the stage.
Further, the next stage is solved in the same way, until all stages are solved.
Trays of the column are considered ideal, if efficiency is not specified by the user. If
specified by the user, even if the efficiency is one hundred percent, the trays are considered to be
real [17]. Fractional efficiency less than unity is equivalent to by-passing of a part of the up-
going stream around the stage or the whole column.
Calculations for other equipment, such as mixers, tees, coolers, heaters, etc. are based
mostly on mass and energy balances, and are much easier to solve.
In addition to the above mentioned units, HYSYS uses sets of several logical operations that
enable better control and functioning of the whole flowsheet. In this project one adjuster and
several recycles were used.
An adjuster varies the value of one independent variable in a stream or operation, to meet
the required value (specified by the user) in another stream or operation. Trial-and-error
technique is used.
Recycles are used whenever downstream material mixes with upstream material. The
calculation around the recycle starts with the assumption of the unknown parameter. HYSYS
then compares the assumed value in the stream to the calculated value of the opposite stream. If
different, HYSYS generates a new assumption and repeats calculations until assumed and
calculated values are close within the specified tolerance [17].
15
Chapter 3 - Scrubber Section Simulation Model
3.1. Introduction
A steady-state computer simulation of the Scrubber Section of Syncrude Canada Ltd.'s Fluid
Coker was developed, in order to predict effects of process and design variables changes on the
Scrubber Section performance. The HYSYS.Plant Version 3.0.1 process simulator was used.
Data from Syncrude Canada Ltd. was used to define the composition, flow rate, temperature and
pressure of all inlet streams, as well as to provide parameters for all unit operation blocks.
The Scrubber Section was simulated using a number of unit operation blocks and process
streams. The operation blocks used to model the Scrubber were selected through consideration of
the actual process, which is described in Section 1.3. The Koch Grid, which consisted often
layers of structured packing, is modeled as a packed absorption column; the Shed section with
six sets of sheds is modeled as a six-tray absorption column; the Scrubber Pool is modeled as a
stirred tank; the space between the Shed section and the Scrubber Pool, where down flowing
liquids from the Sheds and the rising product from the cyclones get in contact and are assumed to
partially exchange mass and energy, is modeled as a flash block with two by-passes for the liquid
and vapour fractions that do not reach the equilibrium. Mixers, splitters, coolers, pumps and
adjusters are added to represent all stream and mass and heat transfer connections.
When the whole system was set up, the HYSYS optimizer tool was used to determine
unknown parameters in the system: the Koch Grid overall efficiency, the Sheds tray efficiency,
and split ratios in the splitters around the flash block. These parameters were varied to minimize
a suitable objective function, defined to quantify the extent of matching of model predictions
with plant data. The set of parameters that minimized the deviation of predicted values from
plant data was designated the "Base Case".
Based on this "Base Case" different case studies were performed with the goal to investigate
the effects of parameter and design changes on process performance.
16
3.2. Simulation Structure Set Up
3.2.1. Property Package
As a starting point for the simulation, a property package was chosen. The Peng-Robinson
equation of state, which is one of the usual choices for vapour-liquid equilibrium calculations for
hydrocarbon systems, was adopted in this work.
3.2.2. Oil Characterization
Hydrocarbon streams associated with the Scrubber are complex mixtures of huge numbers
of components. The composition of these mixtures, especially the heavy fractions, is impossible
to know since not all compounds are identified. Molecules can contain from 1 to more that 130
carbon atoms. Although HYSYS has a database for more than 1500 pure component properties,
only hydrocarbons up to C30 are available [16].
In this simulation, only the light components, Ci to C 4 are characterized individually. A l l

heavier fractions are characterized based on laboratory assays (boiling curves, densities and
viscosities). Based on this input HYSYS forms "working curves" for TBP, molecular weight,
density and viscosity.
In order to obtain discrete components these fractions were divided into 20

pseudocomponents by "cutting" the assay distillation curve into 20 cuts (a higher number means
higher accuracy, but also longer calculation time during the simulation runs). HYSYS
automatically calculates NBP, molecular weight, density and viscosity of these components
based on the correlations mentioned in Chapter 2.
3.2.3. Core Blocks and Simulation Components
As described above, in order to simulate the Scrubber Section, it is broken down into four
core operation blocks, a set of external and internal streams, and additional auxiliary units
(splitters, mixers, adjusters, recycle streams). The core blocks are presented in Figure 3.1.
17
Core operation blocks:
1. The K o c h Grid is modeled as a packed absorption column, with the same height (1.8 m),
diameter (9 m) and the type o f packing (Koch Flexigrid Type 2) as in the plant. The
number o f sections i n the 10-layer grid was set to be 2. This is the minimum number o f
sections that allows for different pressures at the bottom and the top stage (to account for
the pressure drop present in the plant). In counterflow packed columns, the vapour phase
experiences a pressure drop due to the small free cross-section space and the presence o f
liquid that decreases available space for the gas flow. A t the start o f run (SOR) o f the
Syncrude Canada Ltd.'s Fluid Coker the pressure in the Scrubber was 117.21 kPa and
pressure at the top o f the K o c h G r i d was 117.14 kPa. During operation, fouling o f the
grid and the cyclone exit nozzles occurs due to the coke formation, causing an increase i n
pressure drop. In order to maintain sufficient production o f the Overhead, pressure in the
Scrubber was raised gradually by the operators. A t the end o f run ( E O R ) , it was typically
186.16 kPa, and the pressure at the top o f the K o c h G r i d was 185.53 kPa. For the Base
Case, start-of-run ( S O R ) conditions were used, and pressure effects from S O R to E O R
were simulated i n Case Study VIII, Chapter 6.
2. The Shed section consists o f six sets o f sheds, which are about 1-m wide and with 1.2-m
horizontal spacing between them. Sloped from the both sides i n the direction o f liquid
flow, and with serrated weirs, the sheds improve the distribution o f liquid that showers
downwards. Gas passes through the same openings, contacting the liquid. H Y S Y S has
several basic column templates which can be used, none o f which reflect the Shed section
geometry exactly. The Shed section was therefore simulated as an absorption column o f
six trays (one for each set o f sheds). Although there was a concern that a tray column can
simulate the Sheds sufficiently well (in the Sheds, there is no bubbling o f gas through the
liquid layer as in the tray column, and the contact efficiency is much smaller), this
appeared to be the closest representation. Additional parameters were specified to
represent the real column as close as possible. The number o f trays specified in the tray
column corresponds to the number o f shed sets i n the Shed section. The dimensions o f
the column and weirs were specified, as well.
3. The Scrubber Pool, where heavy liquids from the Scrubber are collected and
continuously mixed by Agitation steam, is modeled as a mixing tank.
18
4. The space between the Sheds and the Scrubber Pool is assumed to have significant
exchange of mass and heat between the rising vapour and the down-flowing liquid. The
vapour exits from the cyclone nozzles at a high velocity (76 m/s) and at a small angle to
the horizontal. The tangential direction of snouts of the nozzles causes swirling of the
exiting vapour, allowing it to spend enough time within this space to get in contact with
the liquid. This space is represented as a flash block. In a flash block, H Y S Y S performs
flash calculation, assuming vapour-liquid equilibrium. Since the vapour and the liquid
may not reach equilibrium between the Sheds and the Scrubber Pool, by-passes for both
streams are included in the model for this section, to account for the part of the streams
that do not reach equilibrium. Two splitters around the flash block are used to divide the
main vapour (rising vapour from the cyclones and the Scrubber Pool) and liquid stream
(Shed Liquid ) into the fraction that goes directly to the flash block, and the part that by-
passes it. In this way, a non-equilibrium stage of the process was accounted for.
Figure 3.1 Core blocks chosen to represent the Scrubber Section of the Fluid Coker
19
External streams, such as Cyclone Product, A T B feed, H G O Wash and Underwash, and
Agitation Steam are input streams, while stream that goes back to the Coker and the Scrubber
Overhead, as the main product, are the outlet streams. Internal streams leading to and from each
unit represent rising vapours and falling liquids.
Three splitters were incorporated into model. Beside two splitters around the flash block,
mentioned above, an additional splitter was included into the flowsheet. The Scrubber Pool
Liquid (Scrubber Bottom) splits to a Scrubber Pool Recycle (that is cooled and recycled back to
the Scrubber Pool to keep the pool temperature around 375C) and a stream that goes directly
back to the Coker.
Mixers are included when combining streams from different sources.
A n adjuster is used to control the Scrubber Pool temperature (keep it constant at 375C) by
changing the SPL cooler duty. Recycles are included whenever downstream material mixes with
upstream material.
3.2.4. Simulation Flowsheet
The simulation flowsheet of the Scrubber Section is shown in Figure 3.2. As a primary
feed, Cyclone Product from the top part of the Coker enters the Scrubber Section above the
Scrubber Pool. H Y S Y S calculation suggests that this stream contains a small amount of liquid (3
wt.%). This is explained in Chapter 4. Cyclone Product is mixed with the vapour from the
Scrubber Pool (Tank Vapour) in the space between the Scrubber Pool and the Sheds. This
mixture is named Upgoing Stream. As mentioned in point 4 in Section 3.2.3, one part of this
mixture (Upgoing Stream (to flash)), which accounts for the part that reach equilibrium with the
falling liquid from the Sheds (Shed Liquid), enters the Flash Block. The small amount of liquid
present in the Cyclone Product fraction of this mixture is removed and one hundred percent
vapour mixture leaves the Flash Block and enters the bottom of the Sheds. The other part of the
Upgoing Stream by-passes the Flash Block going directly to the bottom of the Sheds. This
stream still contains liquid. It is mixed with the vapour product from the Flash Block and enters
the bottom of the Sheds, as a stream named Vapour to Sheds. This stream, although called
vapour stream, contains about 2 wt.% of liquid phase. This stream rises from the bottom of the
20
Sheds through the six trays, contacting the falling liquids from the top of the Sheds - A T B feed
(enters above the very top Shed set) and mixture of HGO Underwash (enters under the Grid) and
Grid Liquid. The resulting Shed Vapour, leaves the top of the Sheds and enters the bottom of the
Grid. The contact along the Koch Grid between the rising Shed Vapour and falling liquid HGO
Wash that enters above the Koch Grid (top section of the Koch Grid in the simulation), results in
the final vapour product of the Scrubber and the Fluid Coker, the Scrubber Overhead, which
leaves the top of the Koch Grid.
All liquids containing heavy components are collected in the Scrubber Pool. Agitation
steam enters as a side stream to the Scrubber Pool. The Scrubber Pool Liquid exits the pool and
splits into two fractions, one that goes back to the Fluid Coker, and the other, Scrubber Pool
Liquid Recycle (SPL Recycle), which is cooled by Scrubber Pool Liquid Cooler (SPL Cooler)
and recycled to the Scrubber Pool. A n adjuster is used to control the temperature of the SPL
Recycle (by adjusting the cooling duty of the SPL Cooler) in order to keep the temperature of the
Scrubber Pool at 375C.
21
Chapter 3 Scrubber Section Simulation Model
Scrubber Overhead
Temperature 383 2 C
Pressure 16.95 P9
M a i s Flow 7.787O0S kg/h
Scrubber 2.74S*0Q5 mVh
Actual Votoroe Flow
Overhead
MotocUarWaigM 70.77
Mass Density 2.834 kgAn3
GrtdUquM
Temperature 395.0 C
Pressure 17.00 p**g

Mass Flow 2.179e+O05 kgm
Actual Volume Flow - 304.7 nvVTi
HGO
(underwash)
H G O (ondorwash)
ShedVapour Temperature 325.0 C
Temperature 404.9 C Pressure 200.0 psig
Pressure 17 00 psig Mass Flow S.247e*O04 kgm
Mass Ftow 8 705o'005 kg/h Actual Volume Ftow 66 26 m3m
Actual Votume Flow 2.773e00S m3m
ATB
Temperature 325.0 C
Pressure 17.00
Actual Voluma Ftow 363.5
Mass Ftow 3.019tt*O05 kg*
Shed Liquid
Temperature 473.4 c-
Pressure 17.00 ps<g Vapour to Sheds

Mass Flow 3.613o*OQS kg* Temperature 514.0 C
Actual Voluma Ftow 490.5 Pressure 17.00 psig
Mass Ftow 6.S96**005 kgm
Actual Volume Ftow 3.1SOe*M rrvVh
Cyctorw Product
Temperature 539.9 C
Pressure 17.00 Pg
Mass Ftow S.470e*OOS kg/ti
L l q lids 2.846e*O05 raJ/H
Actual Votume Ftow
to
So jbber '
"A Light
Ends
Agnation
Steam
AgfUfon Steam
Temperature 185.0 C
Scrubb.Pooi liquid'
Pressure . 150.0 psig
Temperature 375.0 C
Mass Ftow 2,04U*004 kgm
Pressure 17.00 psig
Actual Voluma Ftow 23.47 m3fh
Mass Ftow 6 4370*005 kgm
Actual Volume Ftow 789.0 HVWl
Molecular Weight 6370
Mass Den iffy 815 9 kgAn3
Viscosay 0 5665 CP
Hot Scr.Recyde
Actual Volume Flow 459.2 mim
Mass Flow' 3.746fl*O05 kgm
Actual Volume Ftow
Figure 3.2 Simulationflowsheetof the Scrubber Section
22
3.2.5. Input Plant Data
Plant data obtained from Syncrude Canada Ltd. was used as inputs i n the simulation system.
Flow rates, temperatures, densities, viscosities and distillation data (or composition) o f the
following streams were provided:
- C y c l o n e Product - Cyclone Product is the product o f the coking zone o f the Fluid
Coker and the vapour feed to the Scrubber Section. Mostly, this stream contains
vapour phase when it exits from the cyclone nozzles, but small amounts o f liquid and
even solids are also present. The composition o f this stream was defined i n the 1980's
when the Coker was run i n "once through" mode (no recycles or additional input
streams were used during the operation). It contained water, light ends, C G O (Coker
Gas O i l ) fraction and O T S B fraction (OTSB-Once Through Scrubber Bottom, a
mixture o f heavy fractions, some o f which boil above 1000C). The characterization o f
the Cyclone Product is explained in detail in [31]. The weight percents o f these four
fractions, as w e l l as composition o f light ends, laboratory assays for C G O and O T S B ,
and the Cyclone Product T B P data, composition by boiling fractions, molecular
weight and density distribution generated by H Y S Y S are shown in Appendix III. C G O
is characterized using A S T M D2887 method, applicable for fractions up to 538C, and
for higher boiling components the H i g h Temperature Simulated Distillation ( H T S D )
enhancement, a method that extends A S T M D2887 to 760C is used. For the O T S B
assay, as an enhancement for A S T M D2887 method, the Supercritical Fluid Extraction
method ( S C F E ) was used for fractions above 524C [32].
- A T B - Atmospheric Topped Bitumen is a product o f atmospheric distillation o f
bitumen, with 50 wt.% that boils above 560C. The experimental assay is collected by
Syncrude Canada Ltd. using A S T M D2887 method with H T S D enhancement for high
boiling components. Distillation assay used as input and the T B P data, composition by
boiling fractions, molecular weight and density distribution calculated by H Y S Y S are
shown in Appendix III.
- H G O - Heavy Gas O i l , which is one part o f the Overhead product after fractionation
(343-524C fraction), is recycled and serves to scrub heavy fractions and particulates
from rising vapour in the Scrubber. It is injected both above ( H G O Wash) and below
23
Chapter 3 -Scrubber Section Simulation Model
(HGO Underwash) the Koch Grid. Experimental assay is also collected using ASTM
D2887 method with HTSD enhancement. This assay and the TBP data, composition
by boiling fractions, molecular weight and density distribution given by HYSYS are
shown in Appendix III.
-Agitation steam - 185C saturated steam that serves to mix the Scrubber Bottom
Liquid in the Scrubber Pool and keep particulates suspended.
Note that flow rate and composition of the Scrubber Overhead, as a product stream, are not
part of the input plant data; these are to be calculated in the simulation and values compared to
the plant data.
Input data is shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Stream input data - information obtained from Syncrude Canada Ltd:
Name Flow Boiling curve Density at 15C Viscosity, cP Temp. Pressure

kg/m 3
at 20C/at 30(fC C psig (kPa)
HGO Wash 24 kbpd b
A S T M D2887/HTSD 987 1737/ 15 325 200(1380)
HGO Underwash lOkbpd A S T M D2887/HTSD 987 1737/ 15 325 200(1380)
ATB 55 kbpd A S T M D2887/HTSD 1024 214016/3 325 17(117.21)
Overhead/ATB ratio 2.51 kg/kg
Cyclone Product 150 kg/s 540 17(117.21)
Water 10wt%
Light Ends 12wt% Known composition
CGO 61 wt% A S T M D2887/HTSD
OTSB 17 wt% A S T M D2887/SCFE
Agitation Steam 6 kg/s 185 150(1035)
Split SPL Rec.rTo Coker 0
60%:40%
a) A S T M 2887-simulated distillation method applicable to all petroleum products boiling below 538C.
HTSD-High Temperature Simulated Distillation extends A S T M D2887 to 760C boiling points.
SCFE-Supercritical Fluid Extraction method, new method capable of analyzing high molecular weight residue
fractions.
b) 1 kbpd = 158.9 m /day
3
c) Volume flow ratio
HYSYS does not have an option for input HTSD or SCFE assay data, and the fractions
above 538C were inserted as ASTM D2778 data. Since ASTM D2778 method is applicable to
petroleum fractions boiling below 538C, HYSYS extrapolates the boiling point curve beyond
538C. This extrapolation may cause inaccurate stream property estimation. An investigation on
accuracy of the Scrubber Section model using this extrapolation method, given in [8], reports
that the model matches the plant data within 10%, and the method was accepted.
24
Beside the stream characteristics, dimensions, position, types, temperatures and pressures
were available for the following operation units: Koch Grid, Sheds, Cyclone exit tube snouts,
SPL cooler.
Data is presented in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Input data and information for operation units obtained from Syncrude Canada Ltd. a,b
Unit Parameter Value

Type of packing Koch Flexigrid 2
Number of layers 10
Koch Grid Height, ft 6
Diameter, ft 30
Top pressure, psig 16.99 (SOR)-26.91 (EOR)
Bottom pressure, psiq 17 (SOR)-27 (EOR)
Number of trays 6
Sheds Pressure, psig 17 (SOR)-27 (EOR)
Delta P, psi 0
Delta P, psi 0
Scmfober Pool
Temperature, C 375
Cvclone snout Exit velocity of aas. ft/s 250
SPR Pumn Delta P. psi 333
a) SOR-start of ran; EOR-end of run

b) 1 psig = 6.8948 kPa; 1 ft = 0.3048 m
Based on these parameters the streams and operation units within the simulation flowsheet
were defined.
Several unknown parameters remained to be determined:
Tray efficiencies in the Sheds
Section efficiencies in the Koch Grid
Split ratio in two splitters (for vapour and liquid) that surround the flash block.
In order to determine the unknown parameters, the HYSYS optimizer tool was used.
Changing the values for these parameters, the best fit of the simulation model to the real plant
data was obtained. This is explained in Section 3.3.
The presence of liquid phase in vapours along the Scrubber Section and heavy fractions
(above 524C) in the Scrubber Overhead product are additional issues that had to be addressed.
They are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.
25
3.3. Optimizer Tool and the Base Case
When the flowsheet was set up and a converged solution was obtained, the HYSYS
optimizer tool was used to find the operating parameters that best match the plant data. HYSYS
has several modes of Optimizer. The "Original Optimizer" was used in this simulation. The
procedure is based on the "Complex" method of Box [33], the Downhill Simplex algorithm of
Press et al. [34] and Box algorithm of Kuester and Mize [35]. The procedure can be found in
[17]. In order to use the optimizer tool, primary variables (varied variables) and objective
function had to be defined.
Primary variables are values manipulated in order to minimize or maximize the objective
function. The definition of the objective function is very important for obtaining a reliable
simulation model. In this work, the objective function was defined based on the purpose of the
simulation - to match the following important plant parameters:
-Temperatures (Overhead temperature was taken to be the most important)
-Flow rates (Scrubber Overhead and To Coker)
-Scrubber Overhead composition (especially 524C+ fractions).
All these parameters were included in the objective function. Normalized values
(normalized deviation of the parameters from the plant data), based on the following equation,
were used:
X=ABS (1-Xmodel/Xplant) (3.1)
where X represents the temperature, flow rate or mole fraction of 524C+ components.
Weight factors in the objective function were chosen based on the estimate of the
importance of each parameter. Temperature of the Scrubber Overhead, as the main product of the
Fluid Coker, and its composition (especially presence of heavy fractions) had to be matched the
best. While for other parameters included in the objective function the weight factors were
chosen to be 1, for these two parameters several options were tried (100, 50, 10 and 1). The
optimizer tool was run for each case in order to find the optimal solution. Deviations of the
26
parameters listed in Table 3.3 were summed for each case, and the sums were compared. Weight
factors 100 and 50 when applied to temperature and fraction boiling over 524C of the Scrubber
Overhead gave too high deviations for all other parameters, while a weight factor of unity for all
parameters could not match any of the plant data very well. The sums of deviations for all these
three options (weight factors 100, 50 and 1) were much higher compared to the case where
weight factors were chosen to be 10 for the above two key parameters. As a result, the following
objective function was finally defined:
OF = lO-T(Ovhd) + T(Grid Bottom) + T(Shed Top) + T(Shed Bottom) +

(3.2)
+Flow Ratio(OvhoVATB) + SPL Flow(To Coker) + 10-Mol. Fraction 524C (Ovhd) +
where all parameters are normalized functions as shown by Equation (3.1).
In the present study, the primary variables were unknown process parameters mentioned in
Section 3.2.4: Shed trays efficiency, Grid sections efficiency and split ratio in the two splitters
around the flash block.
Values for the above parameters were to be determined in order to obtain the process model that
matches the plant data as closely as possible. Different efficiencies for each of six trays in the
Sheds and two sections in the Koch Grid, together with split ratios in two splitters resulted in ten
primary variables. This large number of varied variables resulted in excessive running time of
the optimizer without obtaining the optimum solution. The number of varied variables was
decreased to four by assuming that all six trays in the Sheds have the same efficiency, and both
sections in the Koch Grid have the same efficiency. The remaining four parameter values were
changed simultaneously, from 0 to 1. When the optimum set of parameters and good matching
with the plant data was obtained, values for split ratios in the two splitters and the Sheds trays
efficiency were fixed, and efficiencies for the two Koch Grid sections were assumed different
and changed simultaneously from 0 to 1. With efficiency of 0.55 for the top section and 1 for the
bottom section, the optimizer tool yielded an even smaller value for the objective function, and a
better match with the plant data. Hence, the overall efficiency of the Koch Grid was taken to be
the average of the two, 0.78. Further, obtained efficiencies for the Koch Grid sections (0.55 and
1) were fixed along with the two split ratios, and efficiencies for the six trays of the Sheds were
27
varied simultaneously. Since the optimizer tool could not find a lower value for the objective
function, the previous solution with the same efficiencies for the six trays was accepted.
Additionally, as will be explained in Chapter 4, the efficiencies for the heaviest components had
to be decreased (to 10" ) to match the Scrubber Overhead content of heavy fractions (524C+) to
10
plant data.
In this way the Base Case was designated. The parameter values and deviations from the
plant data are shown in Table 3.3, while values for primary variables (unknown parameters)
determined by using the optimizer tool are in Table 3.4. The values for primary variables were
fixed for further simulation. The Base Case model matches the plant data well, with the average
parameter deviation from the plant data of 1.4% and the highest deviation in Overhead 524C+
fraction of 3.2%. This Base Case was further used as a starting point for all case studies.
Table 3.3 Base Case parameter values and deviation from the plant data
Type of Parameter Plant Model Dev.(%)

T(Ovhd) (C) 390 393 0.8
T(Grid Bottom) (C) 395 395 0.0
T(Shed Top) (C) 407 405 0.5
T(Shed Bottom) (C) 470 473 0.6
T(Scrubber Pool) (C) 375 375 0.0
Ratio Overhead/ATB Mass Flows 2.50 2.57 2.8
Act. Vol. Flow(To Coker) (kbarrel/day) 50 49 2.0
Act. Vol. Flow( SPL Rec) (kbarrel/day) 74 73 1.4
Overhead 524C- mole fraction 0.94 0.91 3.2
S u m of deviations: 11.3
In Table 3.3 all model values are results of HYSYS calculation, except the Scrubber Pool
temperature, which is adjusted to be 375C.
It should be noted that the objective function is not unique - other terms could be included
and different weight factors incorporated. The justification of this objective function is that it
captures key features of the Scrubber system operation, and with the chosen weight factors gives
acceptable deviations from the plant data. Such a low deviation from the plant data gives more
confidence in using the defined process model for different case studies, and higher reliability of
obtained results of the case studies.
28
Table 3.4 Determined unknown parameters (primary variables)
Primary Variables Value

Shed Trays Efficiency 0.53 a
Koch Grid Overall Efficiency 0.78 a
Splitter TEE-102 (Upgoing Vapours):

Vol. flow fraction to Flash Block 0.41
Splitter TEE-103 (Scrubber Liquid):
Vol. flow fraction to Flash Block 0.58
a) In addition to these efficiencies, very low efficiencies for heavy components (524C+ fraction) in the Sheds and
the Grid were applied.
29
Chapter 4 Presence of Liquid Phase in the Vapour Streams
Chapter 4 - Presence of Liquid Phase in the Vapour Streams
4.1. Introduction
When the Cyclone Product assay (as given in Appendix III) was used for the Cyclone
Product stream definition for the simulation, previous HYSYS calculations [8] suggested that
under the given conditions (pressure, temperature and stream composition) this vapour stream
contained a small amount of liquid phase. This was confirmed also in this work. As a
consequence, almost all "vapour" streams in the current simulation contain some amount of
liquid phase: Cyclone Product (3 wt.%), vapour that goes to the Sheds (2 wt.%), vapour from the
Sheds to the Grid (19 wt.%) and even Scrubber Overhead (8 wt.%).
The reason for this is the presence of heavy components in the Cyclone Product. This stream
which is generated in the Fluid Coker contains very heavy fractions, some of which boil above
1000C. It contains some liquids and even solids. The Cyclone Product passes through six
cyclones in parallel where most of these liquids and solids are removed. The Cyclone Product is
expected to be vapour under the given conditions, but as HYSYS simulation and Syncrude
Canada Ltd.'s sources suggest [13, 14], there is some liquid phase present. Note that HYSYS
calculations are based only on the provided assay data and equilibrium calculations. HYSYS has
no ability to recognize liquid entrainment.
An investigation of the fouling process within the cyclones in Syncrude Canada Ltd.'s Fluid
Coker (Nelms [14]) suggested that approximately 40% of the source of the foulant is from the
entrainment of the liquid (other 60% is from condensation of vapour). This entrainment occurs
because some liquid droplets of the feed sprayed into the fluidized bed of coke particles do not
come in contact with coke particles and are carried upwards with the vapour. Some of the
droplets fall back to the bed, but the rest are carried all the way to the cyclones. Although most
of the liquid and solid particles should be removed by the cyclones, some remain within the
cyclone as foulant, and some are carried out of the cyclone with the vapour jet. This stream is the
Cyclone Product.
For the HYSYS simulation it was necessary to determine whether droplets that are carried
with the Cyclone Product vapour jet reach the bottom of the Sheds and enter the Sheds with the
rising vapour, or fell down into the Scrubber Pool. Both cases depend on the liquid droplets
30
Chapter 4 -Presence of Liquid Phase in the Vapour Streams
trajectory when exit the cyclone nozzle, as well as possibility that these droplets are being
washed by the falling liquid from the Sheds. In the case when all liquid droplets reach the Sheds,
the model would allow the original Cyclone Product with the fraction of liquid phase to reach the
Sheds and join the up-going stream along the Scrubber. Since the liquid phase contains heavy
components, this would affect the composition and properties of the Overhead product. In the
case when all liquid droplets end up in the Scrubber Pool, a flash block would be required to
separate heavy liquid components from the rising Cyclone Product vapour and send them to the
Scrubber Pool. The third option is that only one part of the Cyclone Product containing liquid
phase enters the Shed section, and the other part enters the flash block.
4.2. Droplet Size Estimation
In the plant cyclones, coke solids from the bed and extra scouring coke enter the cyclones
along with droplets. The discussion below ignores these solids and considers only vapour and
liquid. In order to determine the behavior of the liquid droplets, the size of the droplets that
cannot be removed by the cyclones and are carried upwards was calculated first, based on the
equation for cyclone cut point given in [36]:
(4.1)
where D h is theoretical particle size removed by the cyclone, p is viscosity of the gas
pt g
(Cyclone Product vapour phase), B = D /4 where D is the cyclone diameter. N is effective

c c c s
number of spiral paths taken by the gas within the cyclone, determined graphically based on the
exit velocity from the cyclone, vo=76 m/s. Vj=74 m/s is the velocity at the inlet of the cyclone,
n
calculated based on the volume flow rate (80.6 m /s) and the cyclone inlet cross-section (d=0.48
3
m), p is the density of the Cyclone Product liquid phase and p is the density of the Cyclone
p g
Product gas phase.
All values used in Equation (4.1) are listed in Table 4.1.
31
Table 4.1 Parameter values used in Equation (4.1)
Parameter Value Parameter Value

a
3.1 M O ' kg/ms
5
N for vo=76 m/s
s 5.8
D c
1.702 m PP 3 759.32 kg/m 3
B = D /4
c c 0.43 Pg a
1.8298 kg/m 3
a) Note: These values are calculated by HYSYS
As stated above, Equation (4.1) ignores the effects of bed coke and of scouring coke which
is added to the vapours upstream of the cyclone entrance. Based on this calculation appears that
liquid droplets that are smaller than 11 um are carried with the vapour jet, if they have not been
impacted by scouring coke. Larger droplets are removed by the cyclone.
4.3. Trajectory of the Liquid Droplets
The trajectory of the liquid droplets carried with the Cyclone Product jet was then
considered. Although the cyclone snouts are positioned at a small angle to the horizontal, the
stream can be considered as a nearly horizontal jet above the Scrubber Pool. The surrounding
vapour velocity (9.8 m) was estimated based on the total volume flow rate of the Scrubber Pool
vapour and the Cyclone Product, and cross-section area of the column.
Longitudinal distribution of velocity, v/, for the droplets was calculated based on equations
for a turbulent free jet, given in [37]. A turbulent jet is a free jet with the Reynolds number
greater than 2000. In the case of the Cyclone Product, the Reynolds number is calculated to be
24-10 . The equation is applicable for the air jet into the surrounding air. Density gradient
5
between the jet fluid and surrounding fluid has effect on the spread of the jet. Since Cyclone
Product vapour, as jet fluid, has similar density as the surrounding vapour, as in the original case
with air, this equation was used without change for the system under study:
v,=v -K n for 1 < < 100 or 4.06 <X< 58m
(4.2)
K = 6.2 for v =10 to 50 mis
0
32
In this equation vo is the exit velocity of the jet, 76 m/s, X is the horizontal distance from the exit
of the nozzle and Do is the nozzle diameter, 0.58 m.
Equation (4.2) is applicable for the distances from the nozzle 7 < X/Do < 100, which is in the
present case 4.06 < X < 58 m from the nozzle. However, the Scrubber has a diameter of 9 m and
the nozzle snout is close to the wall. From the exit of the nozzle up to 4 m, a linear change of
velocity was assumed. After equation derivation, integration in time and values input, the
following two equations for the horizontal distance change in time were obtained:
X(0 = ^ - ( l - e " 2 1 4
') for distance 0 < X < 4 m (4.3)
X(t) = y/16.5 + 547.3(f - 0.0665) for distance 4 <X < 58m (4.4)
Detailed equation derivation is shown in Appendix IV.
Vertical distribution of velocity can be calculated from the vertical force balance (weight of
the droplet against drag force) and the terminal velocity of the droplet:
mg-F =m
D (4.5)
dt
In this equation g is gravitational acceleration, m is mass of the droplet, and F is drag force:
D
F =C ^p v X^d )
D D g
2
p (4.6)
Velocity v=v - v is the slip velocity between the droplet (particle) and surrounding gas, d
p g p
is the droplet (particle) diameter, and Co is drag coefficient. For the spherical particles it can be
calculated from:
33
24 24
C D = = ^ (4.7)
Re p -v-d
g p
Terminal velocity can be calculated from Equations (4.5), (4.6) and (4.7) when = 0.
dt
In this investigation, the surrounding gas was considered to be the vapour that originates
from the Scrubber Pool in combination with the Cyclone Product vapour. Properties of this
combined vapour were used for the calculations.
If the droplet of 11 um diameter was moving through a stagnant gas, the terminal velocity
would be VTO=0.0016 m/s for the system under the study. From Equations (4.5), (4.6) and (4.7),
integrating the velocity in time, the vertical distance from the nozzle would be (Y is set up to be
directed downwards):
y (00 = v r o . f + ^ exp(^--0-1 (4.8)

g v.ro
However, droplets are not moving through a stagnant gas. The surrounding gas, as
mentioned above, a combination of the Cyclone Product vapour and the Scrubber Pool vapour, is
moving upward. The velocity of these vapours is calculated based on the total volume flow and
the scrubber cross-section, and its value is 9.8 m/s. This velocity is included in Equations (4.5),
(4.6) and (4.7) through the slip velocity. The terminal velocity is also affected by the velocity of
the surrounding gas, and is not same as the terminal velocity in the stagnant gas:
V
T = V
T O - V S (4.9)
where v is the terminal velocity in the flowing surrounding gas, v = 9.8 m/s is the velocity of
T g
the surrounding gas and VTO is the terminal velocity in the stagnant gas.
34
Chapter 4 - Presence of Liquid Phase in the Vapour Streams
From Equations (4.5), (4.6) and (4.7), and taking slip velocity into account, the vertical
distance from the nozzle as a function of time would be:
Y(t) = Y (t)-v -t
0 g (4.10)
Detailed derivation is presented in Appendix IV. Integrating both horizontal and vertical
velocity in time, the horizontal and vertical distances were obtained. Simply inserting the time in
Equations (4.3), (4.4) and (4.10), the trajectory of the droplets within the space above the
Scrubber Pool has been estimated. The calculation has been done for the largest droplet diameter
present in the jet (11-10" m), assuming that all others would be carried even further. The
6
trajectory is presented in Figure 4.1.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9o 10
CO
Horizontal distance from the nozzle- x, m
Figure 4.1 Trajectory of a liquid droplet carried with the Cyclone Product jet
Maximum possible distance of the nozzle snout from the Scrubber wall is presented. The actual distance is much
smaller (data was not available)
As mentioned above, in this calculation horizontal injection has been assumed, although the
snouts are positioned at an angle. Also, because of the tangential direction, the six snouts affect
35
each other's jet trajectory, resulting in probably more spiral and upward directed moving of the
vapour jet.
This calculation suggests that droplets not removed in the cyclone are carried up with the
vapour and reach the Sheds. Some portion is probably washed down by the liquid falling from
the Sheds or hit the wall and condenses.
Based on these considerations, the simulation structure of the Scrubber Section was set up to
allow one part of the liquid phase of the Cyclone Product to reach the Sheds directly via a by-
pass. The remainder is passed through a flash block to account for the fraction that is being
washed down by the Shed liquid or hit the wall and falls back to the Scrubber Pool.
36
Chapter 5 -Presence of Heavy Components in the Scrubber Overhead
Chapter 5 - Presence of Heavy Components in the Scrubber

Overhead
5.1. Introduction
Syncrude Canada Ltd.'s data (Appendix III) shows that Scrubber Overhead contains some
fractions boiling over 700C. In the initial version of the simulation model, such heavy fractions
did not appear in the calculated Scrubber Overhead. The maximum NBP was around 540C,
because of equilibrium conditions and tray efficiency. The presence of heavy components in the
plant scrubber overhead was therefore attributed to non-equilibrium conditions.
Several options were considered for change to the simulation model in order to simulate
non-equilibrium conditions and account for high boiling fractions in the Overhead:
1. By-passing liquid from the Sheds directly to the Overhead;
2. By-passing liquid from the Sheds to the Grid bottom;
3. Decreasing the Shed tray efficiency of the 524C+ components;
4. Decreasing the Koch Grid section efficiency of the 524C+ components;
5. Decreasing both the Shed tray and Koch Grid sections efficiency of 524C+ components.
The optimizer tool was used with the first two options to attempt to match the plant data. In
addition to the varied parameters used previously, the by-pass fraction of the Shed Liquid was
used. For the last three options, all parameters were left unchanged, except that the 524C+
components efficiency was decreased from the average tray efficiency of 0.53 in the Sheds
and/or 0.78 in the Grid to essentially zero (10" ). For all these cases the sum of deviations from
10
plant parameters were compared.
Options 1 and 5 showed the lowest deviations from the plant data, while all others could not
match the plant data, especially the Overhead composition, well enough. Between the two
successful options, Option 5 with the low component efficiency in both the Sheds and the Koch
Grid was chosen for implementation in the simulation, because it showed better match to the
plant data.
37
An investigation of the possible real physical cause for the presence of heavy components in
the overhead was undertaken to justify the hypothesis on low heavy components efficiency. The
methods for estimation of conditions in the Sheds and the Koch Grid are shown in the following
sections. The investigation suggests that possible causes for appearance of heavy components in
the Overhead product is liquid entrainment that occurs in the Sheds and the very high gas flow
rate in the packed section (Koch Grid), which also causes some liquid entrainment and excessive
pressure drop. Both conditions lead to decreased column efficiency. The most affected are the
heavy boiling fractions because of their low volatility under the given conditions. Remaining in
the form of liquid, they are the species that can be entrained in the vapour phase.
5.2. Liquid Entrainment in the Shed Section
The Shed section and the liquid and gas distribution are described briefly in Section 3.2.3.
The description suggests that the Shed section may be considered as a counterflow plate column
(in counterflow plate columns, liquid and gas utilize the same openings for flow), similar to a
baffle plate column [38].
In plate columns, when a gas passes through a liquid, it generates fine liquid droplets. In
cross-flow plate columns (sieve, valve or bubble plates) that happens even at very low gas loads
(bubble regime) due to the bursting of bubbles [29]. In counterflow columns (shed or baffle
column), high gas flow rate can also generate liquid droplets. If the terminal velocity of the
droplets is lower than the gas velocity, they will be entrained in the gas stream. Under very high
gas load and velocity, even large droplets can be thrown upwards. Some of the droplets (larger
ones) fall back to the liquid stream, but the smaller ones can reach the upper tray. In this way
liquid of lower volatility may reach a tray with higher volatility liquid and even some very heavy
components could possibly reach the overhead products. When a column runs under a very high
gas loading and low liquid loading, the conditions could result in excessive liquid entrainment in
the vapour and the downward flow of liquid is destroyed. This is referred to as "entrainment
flooding". Entrainment can cause lowered tray efficiency and even different component
efficiency [38].
In the Shed column, the difference in the gas and liquid volume flow rate is of several orders
of magnitude (vapour volume flow rates measure in hundred thousands of m /h, and liquid
3
volume flow rates in hundreds of m /h), suggesting that extensive liquid entrainment may be
3
38
present. To assess this, an estimation of entrainment conditions was done based on the chart
given in Figure 5.1 [38]. The abscissa term L/G(P /P[)g
05
is called the flow parameter and the
ordinate term CSB is called the capacity parameter.
Figure 5.1 Flooding correlation for columns with cross-flow plates [38]
All the values for the liquid and the vapour entering the Shed column are calculated by
HYSYS and given below, in Table 5.1. In this table U N F is the gas velocity through the net area
(for counterflow plates, net area is the same as column area). This velocity is calculated based on
actual volumetric flow of the gas (3.110 m/h) and cross section area of the column (63.58 m ).
PL is the liquid density, pG is the gas density, cr is the liquid surface tension, L is the liquid
loading (mass flow sum of liquid that comes from the Koch Grid, HGO Underwash and ATB
feed) and G is the gas loading (Vapour to Sheds).
39
Table 5.1 Parameter values for calculation the flow and capacity parameter for Figure 5.1
UNF 1.35 m/s a 13.895 dyn/cm
PL 706.1 kg/m 3
L 158 kg/s
PG 2.64 kg/m 3
G 183 kg/s
The calculated value for the flow parameter F L G is 0.052, and for the capacity parameter, CSB
is 0.087. Figure 5.1 shows that for the flow parameter 0.052, and tray spacing 762 mm, which is
the case in the Shed column, entrainment flooding would occur at the CSB value of-0.12. The
calculated value of 0.087 shows that the Shed column is not within the flooding regime, but at
72% of flooding conditions. This suggests that at the given conditions within the Shed column, a
significant entrainment could be present. This entrainment contains not only the liquid carried by
Cyclone Product vapour, but also some additional liquid from the Shed column itself. Column
efficiency is decreased, especially for the heavy fractions because of their low volatility, possibly
allowing them to reach the top of the column.
5.3. Packed Section
In packed columns, the vapour-liquid contacting takes place in continuous beds of solid
packing elements rather than on discrete individual plates. The vapour enters the column below
the bottom bed and flows upward through the column. The liquid enters at the top through the
liquid distributor and flows downward through the packing counter-currently to the rising
vapour. Packed beds may be divided into two categories: Those containing packing elements that
are placed in the column in a random arrangement, usually by dumping; and those containing
carefully installed elements designed specifically to fit the column dimensions. The former
elements are called random, or dumped, packing. The latter are called ordered, or structured,
packing. In Syncrude Canada Ltd.'s Scrubber, Koch Flexigrid Type 2 structured packing is used.
It is designed to have maximum capacity, limited liquid holdup and minimum pressure drop.
40
A countercurrent flow of the gas and liquid phases over a high surface area packing should
provide highly efficient mass transfer and separation. However, the efficiency decreases if the
liquid flow is not uniform through the bed. Ideally, all the surfaces should be wetted by the liquid
and liquid flow through the bed should be uniform [38].
Within a packed column, if a gas flows counter-currently to liquid flow, pressure drop is a
consequence of flow through the series of small openings in the bed. For low liquid flows
pressure drop is proportional approximately to the square of the gas velocity [38]. As the gas
flow rate increases, the liquid is only partially enabled to flow downwards, and tends to remain
trapped in the void space of the packing. Consequently, space available for the gas flow is
reduced, causing increase in pressure drop. Further increase in gas flow rate may lead to a point
when the liquid cannot flow any more. This situation is called flooding and is analogous to
entrainment flooding in a plate column. At this point pressure drop radically increases with a
small change in gas flow rate. Flooding conditions affect the mass-transfer efficiency of the
column [39].
In order to justify the hypothesis of low Koch Grid efficiency for heavy components, given
in Section 5.1, conditions within the Koch Grid were determined. One of the indicators for the
flooding conditions, or near-flooding conditions, is increased pressure drop within the column. In
the present study, two methods were used to calculate the design pressure drop for the type of
packing used in the Koch Grid at the present conditions. The results were compared with the
pressure drop obtained by using generalized flooding-pressure drop correlation of Eckert and
Leva, modified by Strigle [38] and the pressure drop in the real plant at the start of run (before
any fouling has occurred ), which was 0.99 mbar.
Two design methods for calculating the pressure drop within the Koch Flexigrid Type 2
structured packing are, as follows:
1) Koch Glitsch chart for the Koch Flexigrid Type 2 structured packing, shown in Figure
5.2: Based on superficial factor for gas, F , and liquid loading, a design pressure drop can be
s
determined [40]:
41
F , m/s (kg/m )
s
3 1
0.5 0.6 0,8 I
FLEXIORID 2
1 _ liquid U M J I J
JbpCwieBosae
O.S gpm, m V h
J
171
0:6 sa
14?
122
0;5 & sa
73
0.4
10 m
24
s 12
03 0 tt
S ( S m Aif-Walaf, AiflUwil
Tower: M B a m a W
0.2
<1
0.1 ^
;
0.08 <
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.4 0 5 0 A 0.8 I 2
F . ft/s (lb/ft )'*

s
3
Figure 5.2 Design pressure drop chart for Koch Flexigrid Type 2 structured packing
[40]
For the given parameters for gas and liquid phase entering the Koch Grid: gas density (Shed
Vapour), po = 3.14 kg/m and gas velocity through the net area (Shed Vapour), UG= 1.17 m/s the
3
superficial factor is calculated to be F =2.07 m/s-(kg/m ) ( vertical dashed line on the chart).
s
3 0,5
This value along with the liquid loading:
150m //? 3
m /h 3
L = Vol. Flow rate/Cross sec. area =

P - = 2.28 (steep dashed line on the chart)
65.58m' m
gives on the chart a very low value for the pressure drop of around 0.12 mbar/m ( arrow on the
chart) what is 0.22 mbar for the total height of the column (1.8 m). This value is, actually, out of
42
Chapter 5 - Presence of Heavy Components in the Scrubber Overhead
the range of the chart. For the given conditions the design pressure drop is estimated to be 0.22
mbar, what is much smaller than the plant value of 0.99 mbar.
2) A similar result is obtained using KG-Tower, software offered by Koch Glitsch [40],
which can calculate the design pressure drop for the given conditions and specific packing type.
Pressure drop calculated with this software was 0.157 mbar/m, which is 0.286 mbar along the
column. The result is shown in Table 5.2. There is a warning from the software that given
parameters are out of the range of applicability of the method.
Table 5.2 Packed tower rating data calculated by Koch-Glitsch KG-Tower software [40]
ZONE 1
DESCRIPTION Packed Colum
BED NUMBER
LOADINGS
Vapor Rate Scale Factor 1.00
Vapor Rate kg/hr 870500
Vapor Density kg/m3 3.1400
Vapor Volume m3/s 77.01
Vapor Viscosity CP 0.0010
Liquid Rate Scale Factor 1.00
Liquid Rate kg/hr 126100
Liquid Density kg/m3 840.00
Liquid Volume m3/h 150.12
Surface Tension dyne/cm 14.69
Liquid Viscosity CP 0.565
System Factor 1.00
Packing Type FLEXIGRID

2 SS
METAL
Tower Diameter mm 9141.00

Tower Area m2 65.63
Fs rn/s(kg/m3) U5
/
2.08
Cv m/s 0.07
Liquid Loading m3/h/m2 2.29
Pressure Drop mbar/m <0.5 O.fiJ-
Calculated Capacity % 34
Constant L/V
WARNINGS: 1,
WARNINGS: 1. The capacity rating is extrapolated for given physical properties. Please contact KOCH-GLITSCH.,
43
Chapter 5 - Presence of Heavy Components in the Scrubber Overhead
As was mentioned above, flooding conditions will affect the pressure drop in the
column. The generalized flooding-pressure drop correlation of Eckert and Leva, modified by
Strigle [38], shown in Figure 5.3, enables prediction of pressure drop and flooding conditions
in packed columns based on liquid and gas .loading and characteristics, as well as packing
parameters.
Figure 5.3 Generalized flooding-pressure drop correlation of Eckert and Leva, modified by
Strigle [38]
The ordinate term is the capacity parameter:
i0.50
PG
/rV 005
(5.1)
PG
44
For the gas and liquid entering the Koch Grid, with the parameters given in Table 5.3 and
packing factor for Koch Flexigrid Type 2 structured packing F = 4 ft" , the calculated value for
p
1
the capacity parameter is Cs= 0.52.
Table 5.3 Parameter values for calculation the flow and capacity parameter for Figure 5.3
u t
1.17 m/s V 16.53 cS
PL 840.6 kg/m 3
L 35 kg/s
PG 3.14 kg/m 3
G 241 kg/s
In Table 5.3 U is Shed Vapour superficial velocity through the net area, po is Shed Vapour
t
density, p is liquid density (HGO Wash), v is kinematic viscosity of the liquid, L is liquid
L
loading (mass flow sum of liquid that comes from the Koch Grid and ATB feed) and G is gas
loading.
The abscissa term is the same flow parameter used for plate columns, but applied for liquid
and gas entering the Koch Grid. Using liquid and gas loading from Table 5.3, the calculated
value for the flow parameter is FLG= 0.0088. From the values for capacity and flow parameter
and Figure 5.3, the pressure drop in the packed column is determined to be around 0.06 in H 0/ft 2
or 0.4 in H 2 O (or 0.99 mbar) for the total length of the column. This pressure drop corresponds to
the pressure drop in the plant (0.99 mbar).
Since, based on the generalized flooding-pressure drop correlation of Eckert and Leva,
pressure drop of 1.5 in H20/ft represents the flooding condition, from Figure 5.3 it can be
concluded that the Koch Grid column is not close to this range. However, the difference between
first two calculations (Koch Glitsch for the design purpose) and the last one shows that very high
flow rate of the gas definitely has an effect on the pressure drop along the Koch Grid and must
be taken into account. Consideration at the beginning of the Section 5.2 suggests that high
volume flow rate of the gas compared to the liquid, causes high liquid holdup and pressure drop,
45
and the efficiency of the column may be lowered. The above presented calculations for the
pressure drop showed that the real pressure drop along the Koch Grid is higher than the design
value, suggesting that liquid holdup and hence partial entrainment may be present in the Koch
Grid (bubbling of the gas through the liquid may cause some liquid entrainment, lowering the
efficiency for heavy fractions). Based on this conclusion, the hypothesis for low efficiency for
heavy fractions was accepted with more confidence.
5.4. Conclusion
Calculations based on conditions in both columns indicate that column efficiencies may be
lowered, either due to the liquid entrainment within the Shed column, or due to the very high gas
loading and increased liquid holdup within the Koch Grid. Since simply decreasing overall
column efficiencies could not provide satisfactory matching with the plant data, the option with
decreased heavy component efficiency in both Shed and Koch Grid column was applied. As
mentioned before, the efficiency for heavy fractions (524C+, 40 out of 120 components) was
radically decreased (to 10" ), which resulted in the presence of high boiling fractions in the
10
Overhead. The Base Case matched the plant data sufficiently well to perform different case
studies, which are presented in the following chapter.
46
Chapter 6 - Case Studies: Results and Discussion
6.1. Introduction
Once the Base Case is set up, different design and parameter changes can be applied and
their effect on process performance investigated.
Eleven case studies have been performed where following parameters have been changed:
I. ATB Flow Rate - gradual change of ATB actual volume flow rate from original 55
kbarrel/day to 80 kbarrel/day.
II. HGO Wash Flow Rate - change of HGO Wash flow rate from 24 kbarrel/day in the
Base Case to 30 and 40 kbarrel/day.
III. HGO Underwash Flow Rate - change of HGO Underwash flow rate from 0 to 10
(Base Case) and 20 kbarrel/day.
IV. HGO Wash Temperature - change of HGO Wash temperature from 250 to 350C
(Base Case 325C).
V. HGO Underwash In and Out of Service - investigates the effect of Grid

Underwash function on Scrubber parameters. Considers four options:
1. HGO Underwash is in service - flow rate of HGO Underwash is 10 kbarrel/day;
2. HGO Underwash is out of service and Overhead temperature is not controlled.
3. HGO Underwash is out of service and Overhead temperature is controlled by HGO

Wash flow rate.
4. HGO Underwash is out of service and Overhead temperature is controlled by ATB

feed flow rate.
VI. Number of Trays in the Sheds - change the number from 2 to 10 (Base Case - 6
trays).
47
VII. Number of Grid Sections - change the number from 2 to 10 (Base Case - 2
sections).
VIII. Simulation of Conditions from Start of Run to End of Run - investigates effect of
condition changes from Start of Run to End of Run of the Fluid Coker.
IX. Water Instead of HGO Underwash (T=30-40C) - how much flow is required to
decrease Grid entrance temperature by 10-20C (keep the temperature of the Overhead
and the Scrubber Pool the same).
X. Saturated Steam Instead of HGO Underwash) - how much flow is required to

drop Grid entrance temperature by 10-20C (keep the temperature of the Overhead and
the Scrubber Pool the same).
XI. Recycle Cut Point Changes - drop Recycle cut point (RCP) by 15, 30 and 45C on
the CGO (Overhead) SimDist:
Related to the 95% cut point.
Options to drop RCP:
Increase fresh ATB flow rate;
Increase top of Grid Wash flow rate;
Increase bottom of Grid Wash flow rate.
Simulation Output
For each case, actual volume and mass flow rates, and densities of all vapour and liquid
streams in the Scrubber, the temperature profile up the Scrubber from the Scrubber Pool to the
Overhead stream have been determined. Also, Scrubber Overhead and Bottom properties,
including composition, average molecular weight, fraction distribution and SimDist curve were
calculated. Some additional information is also included in the results.
For each case study, all results are organized in tables and charts in the same way.
Numbering of the tables and charts is adapted to this organization. Roman numerals represent the
numeral of the case study, and Arabic numerals the number of the table or figures. Following is a
list of tables and figures that can be found for every case:
48
Table 1: Process parameters changes-effect of particular parameter change (ATB flow rate,
HGO Wash flow rate...);

Tables 2 and 3: Scrubber Overhead and Scrubber Bottom properties, TBP distillation
temperatures and fraction distribution data for some specific cases;
Figures 1 and 2: Temperature change and profile along the Scrubber-effect of parameters
change;
Figures 3 and 4: Mass flow rate changes for process streams;
Figures 5 and 6 Scrubber Overhead and Scrubber Pool Liquid distillation curves;
Figures 7 and 8: Scrubber Overhead and Scrubber Bottom composition comparison (mole
fractions).
Every case consists of main observations of the changes as a consequence of parameter change,
followed by discussion.
6.2. Case Studies
I. ATB Flow Rate
Atmospheric Topped Bitumen (ATB) flow rate has been changed from original 55
kbarrel/day to 80 kbarrel/day, with a step of 5 kbarrel/day, and effect on Scrubber parameters,
Scrubber Overhead and Scrubber Pool Liquid flow rates, composition and properties have been
investigated. In this case, the Scrubber Pool temperature was not kept constant, in order to see
the effect of ATB flow rate change. Instead, the cooling duty of SPL cooler was kept the same.
Observations:
By increasing ATB flow rate from 55 to 80 kbarrel/day:
Temperature profile:
- A l l temperatures along the Scrubber decrease by 17-26C. Only Scrubber Pool

temperature increases by 23C (Table 1-1, Figures 1-1 and 1-2)
49
55 kbarrel/day ATB
60 kbarrel/day ATB
4 65 kbarrel/day ATB
70 kbarrel/day ATB
75 kbarrel/day ATB
80 kbarrel/day ATB
- Grid Top
- Grid Bottom
- Shed Top
- Shed Bottom
- Scrubber Fbol
10 20 30 40 50
50 60 70 80 90
Position, feet from bottom of scr. pool
ATB Flow Fate, kbarrel/day
(1 barrel=0.0049684 m3/h)
Figure 1-1 Effect of ATB flow rate Figure 1-2 Effect of ATB flow rate on
on temperatures along the Scrubber temperature profile along the Scrubber
Overhead properties:
-Actual volume and mass flow rate of the Scrubber Overhead drop by 3% and 7%,
respectively, based on Base Case (Table 1-1, Figure 1-3).
-Density decreases from 2.83 to 2.72 kg/m (Table 1-1).
-Average molecular weight drops from 71 to 62 (Table 1-2).
-Composition shows lower presence of 400C+ fractions (Table 1-2, Figures 1-5 and I-
7).
Scrubber Bottom properties:
-Actual volume and mass flow rate increase by 75% and 71% (Table 1-1).
- Density drops from 816 to 796 kg/m (Table 1-1).

3
-Average molecular weight changes from 637 to 594 (Table 1-3).
50
-Composition shows much higher presence of middle fractions (400-500C), while
heavy fractions are diluted (Table 1-3, Figures 1-6 and 1-8).
Other.
-Sheds Vapour and Grid Liquid volume and mass flow decrease, while Liquid from the
Sheds actual volume and mass flow increase (Figure 1-4).
Figure 1-3 Effect of ATB flow rate on Figure 1-4 Effect of ATB flow rate on
mass flow rate of Scrubber Overhead mass flow rate of other streams
and Bottom
51
Table 1-1 Effect of ATB flow rate on Scrubber parameters
AJBRowRie ATB\fclirre RowRie

Posftkn ft rrffh 273 298 323 348 373 397
fronthe kbarrel/da/ 55 eo 65 70 75 80
pod bcttcm (Base Case) % % % % %
KrhQidTcp 43 Tcp Sags T e r r p H f t ) 393 390 -0.7 388 -1.4 385 -22 382 -29 376 4.3
KxhGidEtt 38 ECBonSags Terrp B f t ) 395 392 -0.8 389 -1.6 385 -24 382 ^32 376 4.9
SnedsTcp 34 TcpSagsTerrpBtft) 405 402 -0.8 398 -1.6 395 -24 392 ^2 383 4.8
S-BdsBA 22 BatariSagsTa-rpHft) 473 467 -1.4 461 -26 457 ^5 453 4.3 447 -56
Sditrja-Rrl 0 BJk Liqjd Terrperalre f t ) 375 382 1.8 387 32 391 4.3 394 51 398 62
Row Rates& Densities

SmiJberOatHad AdLEl VJirre Rcw(rrf/h) 274,787 273272 -0.6 271,620 -12 269,930 -1.8 268209 -24 266,026 -32
MassRcwfkgti) 778,651 770,080 -1.1 760233 -24 749,638 3.7 738449 -52 723279 -7.1
MassDaBty^rrf) 2S 282 -06 280 -12 278 -20 275 -28 272 4.1
SoiitiRxlUojd Adual\LnBHcw(rrfyh) 78 90EJ 14.7 1,024 298 1,147 453 1271 61.1 1,386 755
MassRow(l<gri) l
64372c 729293 133 817,363 27.0 907,871 41.0 999,796 553 1,103,082 71.4
l\tettnsity(l^rr?) 816 806 -12 798 -21 792 -29 786 -36 796 -24
OsfEad/AlB MassRowFaio 25E 234 -93 21; -172 1.SE -242 1.8C -30.3 1.65 -331
QidUc)jd A i d Mtiurre Rcw(rr?/h) 30: 296 -30 287 -58 279 -8.5 270 -11.2 26C -14.5
MassRowfkJh) 217,831 211,767 -28 206219 -53 200,755 -7.9 195,376 -103 183,811 -133
MBsDarstyfkg'rri) 714.97 71644 02 71824 Q5 7202C Q7 72229 1.0 724.99 1.4
3T6d\^xr AdLEl Vtiure Row(rr?/ri) 277,32 275,780 -0.6 274,07E -1.2 272,336 -1.8 270,551 -2 263281 -33
MassRcw(l^h) 870,45c 855787 -1.7 840,392 -35 824,337 -53 807,76E -72 783,02 -97
^[irsty(te|'rrr) an 310 -1.1 307 -23 306 <16 299 4.9 293 6.7
SBdu'cud AdLel\/tiuTeRcw(rr?/ri) 497 532 132 627.66 263 694 397 760 529 819 64.9
IVteRcw(kgh) l
361,32 407,740 128 454,777 259 502,535 391 549994 522 598,614 64.3
M3EsD3Taty(ko/rr?) 724.7E 724.94 Q0 724.56 QO 724.31 -Q1 724.06 -Q1 724.53 QO
ToCtter Aiel UiLrre Rcw(rr?/h) 33C 378 14.7 42c 298 479 453 531 61.1 579 755
MassRcw(t0h) 269,07? 304,846 133 341,656 27.0 379490 41.0 417,915 553 431,03E 71.4
^Dratyfl^rrr) 8158: 803.17 -12 79334 -21 791.82 -29 78642 ^ 6 79542 -24
AUIiud irtcrrrdjcn
N^pCLTtDSBJS Ta-rperakreft) 514 511 -0.6 506 -12 505 -1.7 503 -22 501 -26
LpgdngSreari Terrpadueft) 534 534 -01 533 -Q1 533 -02 533 -03 533 -Q3
SBCfe SagsBlidaTy Q53 Q53 Q0 Q53 QO Q53 QO Q53 QO Q53 QO
HfacfiQid SageBlidercy Q75 Q75 00 075 QO Q75 QO 075 QO Q75 QO
SR-Cder DJy(MvBuri) 44.32 44.32 QO 44.32 QO 44.32 QO 44.32 QO 7543 702
52
Table 1-2 Effect of ATB flow rate on Scrubber Overhead properties
ATB Flow Rate (kbarrel/d) 55 (Basic) 80 Cut Point [%] 55 80
Temperature [C] 393 376 TBP [C] TBP [C]

Pressure [psig] 16.99 16.99 0 -253 -253
Molecular Weight 70.77 61.50 1 -237 -240
Mass Density [kg/m3] 2.83 2.49 2 -207 -211
Act. Volume Flow [m3/h] 282,483 273,389 3.5 -167 -174
Mass Enthalpy [kj/kg] -2924 -3279 5 -136 -143
Mass Entropy [kJ/kg-C] 5.30 5.48 7.5 -102 -107
Mass Heat Capacity [kJ/kg-C] 2.74 2.66 10 -85 -92
Vapor Phase Fraction ( Mass Basis) 0.93 0.92 12.5 -51 -62
Specific Heat [kJ/kgmole-C] 193.80 163.43 15 -34 -45
Std. Gas Flow [STD_m3/h] 260,141 255,072 17.5 -3 -8
Watson K 11.38 11.43 20 266 206
Liq. Mass Density (Std. Cond) [kg/m3] 930.01 921.05 25 310 298
Molar Volume [m3/kgmole] 24.98 24.65 30 336 324
Mass Heat of Vap. [kj/kg] 2825 2843 35 354 341
40 373 363
Fraction Distribution Data 45 391 377
Volume fraction 50 405 391
C4-(<177C) 0.060 0.066 55 420 405
LGO (177-343C) 0.259 0.287 60 439 419
HGO (343-524C) 0.580 0.553 65 442 436
524+ (>524C) 0.101 0.094 70 459 441
75 471 448
80 486 466
85 496 484
90 525 523
92.5 537 532
95 550 546
96.5 556 556
98 616 617
99 744 753
100 871 888
100
10 -
0 J , , , , , , , , ,
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Temperature, C
Figure 1-5 Effect of ATB flow rate on Scrubber Overhead TBP curve
53
Table 1-3 Effect of ATB flow rate on Scrubber Bottom properties
ATB Flow Rate (kbld) 55 (Basic) 80 Cut Point [%] 55 80

Temperature [C] 375 398 T B P [ C]
U
T B P [C]
Pressure [psig] 17.00 17.00 0 412 387
Molecular Weight 637.04 594.06 1 441 421
Mass Density [kg/m3] 815.85 796.42 2 466 440
Act. Volume Flow [m3/h] 812 1,426 3.5 490 463
Mass Enthalpy [kJ/kg] -1329 -1325 5 504 466
Mass Entropy [kJ/kg-C] 3.39 3.38 7.5 514 483
Mass Heat Capacity [kJ/kg-C] 2.89 2.92 10 517 487
Vapor Phase Fraction ( Mass Basis) 0.00 0.00 12.5 520 491
Specific Heat [kJ/kgmole-C] 1843.61 1731.85 15 525 496
Std. Gas Flow [STD_m3/h] 23,893 43,904 17.5 548 512
Watson K 11.41 11.44 20 556 514
Kinematic Viscosity [cSt] 0.69 0.74 25 564 519
Mass Heat of Vap. [kJ/kg] 1309 1532 40 630 590
Surface Tension [dyne/cm] 15.47 14.74 45 635 597
Thermal Conductivity [W/m-K] 0.13 0.13 50 682 628
Viscosity [cP] 0.57 0.59 55 684 635
0.78 0.75 60 693 682
C4-(<177C) 0.000 0.000 75 750 742
LGO (177-343C) 0.000 0.000 80 760 750
HGO (343-524C) 0.089 0.196 85 807 761
524+ (>524C) 0.911 0.804 90 852 816
92.5 892 854
95 917 897
96.5 964 940
98 1031 965
99 1047 1002
100 1055 1041
100
1100
Temperature, C
Figure 1-6 Effect of ATB flow rate on Scrubber Bottom TBP curve
3
0.50 1
m 55 kbarrel/day ATB : Light Ends:20%; Water: 65% ;
100> fraction: 15%
B 80 kbarrel/day ATB : Light ends: 21%; Water: 65% ;

100> fraction: 14%
200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000>
Components' Boiling Temperatures Range, C
Figure 1-7 Effect of ATB flow rate on Scrubber Overhead composition
55 kbarrel/day ATB : Light Ends: 0% ; Water: 1%;

100> fraction: 99%
ru 80 kbarrel/day ATB : Light ends: 0% ; Water: 1% ;
100> fraction: 99%
0.10
0.00
200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000>
Figure 1-8 Effect of ATB flow rate on Scrubber Bottom composition
55
Discussion:
ATB is a low temperature stream (325C) and its higher flow rate into the system lowers
all temperatures along the Scrubber (except Scrubber Pool temperature, which will be
explained later). ATB flow rate increase causes less evaporation and consequently smaller
amount of vapours, and more liquids. Only lighter fractions are able to evaporate, decreasing
the density and average molecular weight of the Overhead. Fractions below 400C show
higher presence in the Overhead, which can be seen in fraction distribution data, TBP curve
and composition. Presence of the LGO fractions is higher, of the HGO is lower, but in total,
CGO (LGO plus HGO) fraction does not change.
Middle fractions (400-500C) end up in the Scrubber Bottom diluting heavy fractions
and also decreasing its density and molecular weight. These fractions are present in higher
amount in the Scrubber Bottom (see fraction distribution data, TBP curve and composition).
Scrubber Pool temperature rises because in this case SPL Cooler duty is kept constant.
More and more liquid passes through the cooler, recycling to the Scrubber Pool. With the
constant cooler duty, cooler is not able to sufficiently cool down all this liquid, causing the
rise in the Scrubber Pool temperature.
56
I I . HGO Wash Flow Rate
Flow rate of Heavy Gas Oil (HGO) Wash, a stream that enters at the top of the Grid, has
been changed from 24 kbarrel/day in the Base Case to 30 and 40 kbarrel/day. Effect on Scrubber
parameters - temperatures and streams flow rates and densities, as well as Scrubber Overhead
and Scrubber Pool Liquid composition and properties have been studied.
Observations:
By increasing HGO Wash flow rate from 24 to 40 kbarrel/day:
- A l l temperatures along the Scrubber drop by 5-7C. Shed Bottom temperature

decreases by 18C (Table II-1, Figures II-1 and II-2)
480 - 24 kbarrel/day
500 HGO
- - - 30 kbarrel/day
480 460 HGO
- 40 kbarrel/day
HGO
460
440
- Grid Top
of 440 - Grid Bottom
- Shed Top 420
Shed Bottom
| 420
- Scrubber Bool
400
A
400
=8=
380
380
360 360
20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50
HGO Flow Rate, kbarrel/day Position, feet from bottom of s c r . pool
(1 bar re 1=0.0049684 m3/h)
Figure II-l Effect of HGO Wash flow Figure II-2 Effect of HGO Wash flow
rate on temperatures along the Scrubber rate on temperature profile along the
Scrubber
57
-Actual volume of the Scrubber Overhead drop by 0.6% and mass flow rate increases by
2.4%. (Table II-l, Figure II-3).
-Density increases from 2.83 to 2.92 kg/m (Table II-l).

3
-Average molecular weight increases from 71 to 72 (Table II-2).
-Composition shows higher presence of 300-500C fractions that originate from HGO
(Table II-2, Figures II-5 and 11-7).
-Actual volume and mass flow rate increase by 27% and 24% (Table II-l).
- Density drops from 816 to 797 kg/m (Table II-l).

3
-Average molecular weight changes from 637 to 596 (Table II-3).
-Composition shows higher presence of 400-600C fractions that also originate from
HGO (Table II-3, Figures II-6 and II-8).
Other.
-Sheds Vapour volume and mass flow slightly increase, while Grid Liquid and Liquid
from the Sheds actual volume and mass flow significantly increase (Figure II-4).
58
900
800
850
800
750
700
650
- Grid Liquid
600
- Shed Vapor
550
- S h e d Liquid
500
700
450
400
350
300 -I
250
200
150
100
600
20 30 40
20 30 40
HGO Flow Rate, kbarrel/day
(1 barrel=0.0049684m3/h)
(1 barrel=0.0049684m3/h)
Figure II-3 Effect of HGO Wash flow Figure II-4 Effect of HGO Wash flow rate
rate on mass flow rate of Scrubber on mass flow rate of other streams
Overhead and Bottom
59
Table II-l Effect of HGO Wash flow rate on Scrubber parameters

HGO Wash Flow Rate HGO Wash Volume Flow Rate
Position ' ft m3/h 119 149 199
from the kbarrel/day 24 30 40
pool bottom (Base Case) % %
Koch Grid Top 43 Top Stage Temp Est (C) 393 390 -0.7 386 -1.9
Koch Grid Bot. 38 Bottom Stage Temp Est (C) 395 393 -0.5 389 -1.6
Sheds Top 34 Top Stage Temp Est (C) 405 404 -0.3 400 -1.1
Sheds Bot. 22 Bottom Stage Temp Est (C) 473 466 -1.5 456 -3.7
Scrubber Pool 0 Bulk Liquid Temperature (C) 375 375 0.0 375 0.0
Flow Rates& Densities

Scrubber Overhead Actual Volume Flow (m /h) 3
274,787 274,291 -0.2 273,178 -0.6
Mass Flow (kg/h) 778,651 788,004 1.2 797,485 2.4
Mass Density (kg/m ) 3
2.83 2.87 1.4 2.92 3.0
Scrubb.Pool Liquid Actual Volume Flow (m /h) 3
789 859 8.9 1,001 26.8
Mass Flow (kg/h) 643,728 695,136 8.0 797,839 23.9
Mass Density (kg/m )
3
816 809 -0.9 797 -2.3
Overhead / ATB Mass Flow Ratio 2.58 2.61 1.2 2.64 2.4
Grid Liquid Actual Volume Flow (m /h) 3
305 347 13.9 425 39.5
Mass Flow (kg/h) 217,861 247,811 13.7 303,893 39.5
3
714.97 713.83 -0.2 715.03 0.0
Shed Vapor Actual Volume Flow (m /h) 3
277,329 277,648 0.1 277,899 0.2
Mass Flow (kg/h) 870,450 878,893 1.0 892,151 2.5
3
3.14 3.17 0.9 3.21 2.3
Shed Liquid Actual Volume Flow (m /h) 3
497 546 9.9 639.68 28.8
Mass Flow (kg/h) 361,323 394,390 9.2 459,545 27.2
3
724.76 722.61 -0.3 718.40 -0.9
To Coker Actual Volume Flow (m /h) 3
330 359 8.9 418 26.8
Mass Flow (kg/h) 269,078 290,567 8.0 333,497 23.9
3
815.85 808.87 -0.9 797.16 -2.3

Additional information
Vapour to Sheds Temperature (C) 514 511 -0.7 505 -1.8
Upgoing Stream Temperature (C) 534 534 -0.1 533 -0.2
Sheds Stage Efficiency 0.53 0.53 0.0 0.53 0.0
Koch Grid Stage Efficiency 0.75 0.75 0.0 0.75 0.0
SPL Coler Duty (MMBtu/h) 44.72 45.75 2.3 48.25 7.9
60
Table II-2 Effect of HGO Wash flow rate on Scrubber Overhead properties
HGO Wash Flow Rate (kbarrel/day) 24 (Basic) 40 Cut Point [%] 24 40
Temperature [ C] 393 386 TBP[C] TBP[C]

Pressure [psig] 16.99 16.99 0 -253 -253
Mass Density [kg/m3] 2.83 2.92 2 -207 -206
Act. Volume Row [m3/h] 282,860 281,203 3.5 -167 -166
Mass Enthalpy [kJ/kg] -2924 -2909 5 -136 -134
Vapor Phase Fraction (Mass Basis) 0.93 0.91 12.5 -51 -49
Std. Gas Flow [STD_m3/h] 260,141 262,526 17.5 -3 2
Watson K 11.38 11.33 20 266 274
40 373 366
C4-(<177 C) 0.060 0.052 55 420 407
LGO (177-343 C) 0.259 0.269 60 439 420
HGO (343-524 C) 0.580 0.584 65 442 440
524+ (>524 C) 0.101 0.096 70 459 444
75 471 465
80 486 477
85 496 491
90 525 524
92.5 537 532
95 550 546
96.5 556 555
98 616 600
99 744 733
100 871 863
100
90
80
70-I
24 kbarrel/day HGO
60 40 kbarrel/day HGO
a 50
40
30
20
10
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Temperature, C
Figure II-5 Effect of HGO Wash flow rate on Scrubber Overhead TBP curve
61
Table II-3 Effect of HGO Wash flow rate on Scrubber Bottom properties
HGO Wash Flow Rate (kbarrel/day) 24 (Basic) 40 Cut Point [%] 24 40

Temperature [C] 375 375 T B P [ C]
U
T B P [ C]
U
Pressure [psig] 17.00 17.00 0 412 343

Mass Density [kg/m3] 815.85 797.16 2 466 438
Act. Volume Flow [m3/h] 812 1,030 3.5 490 460
Mass Enthalpy [kJ/kg] -1329 -1322 5 504 467
Vapor Phase Fraction ( Mass Basis) 0.00 0.00 12.5 520 495
Watson K 11.41 11.43 20 556 515
Viscosity [cP] 0.57 0.57 55 684 634
60 693 681
C4-(<177C) 0.000 0.000 75 750 741
LGO (177-343C) 0.000 0.000 80 760 750
HGO (343-524C) 0.089 0.193 85 807 761
524+(>524C) 0.911 0.807 90 852 817
92.5 892 861
95 917 898
96.5 964 945
98 1031 993
99 1047 1021
100 1055 1048
1100
Temperature, C
Figure II-6 Effect of HGO Wash flow rate on Scrubber Bottom TBP curve
62
0.50 24 kbarrel/day HGO : Light Ends: 20%; Water: 65% ;
100> fraction: 15%
rj 40 kbarrel/day HGO : Light Ends: 20%; Water: 64% ;
100> fraction: 16%
200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000>

C o m p o n e n t s ' Boiling T e m p e r a t u r e s Range, C
Figure H-7 Effect of HGO Wash flow rate on Scrubber Overhead composition
24 kbarrel/day HGO : Light Ends: 0% ; Water: 1%;

100> fraction: 99%
B 40 kbarrel/day HGO : Light Ends: 0% ; Water: 1%;
100> fraction: 99%
200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000>

Figure II-8 Effect of HGO Wash flow rate on Scrubber Bottom composition
63
Discussion:
HGO Wash is also a low temperature stream (325C) and with its higher flow rate, all
temperatures in the Scrubber decrease. The drop is less significant than in the case with ATB
because total flow rate change is lower. As HGO Wash increases, less evaporation occurs in the
system, less vapours and more liquids are produced. The reason that the flow rate of the vapours
is slightly higher is that some middle fractions from HGO end up in the vapour. The major
increase in the liquid flow rate is in Shed Bottom (Figure II-4), which also causes better cooling
of rising vapour, and therefore much lower temperature of the Shed Bottom than in the Base
Case.
Overhead mass production rate is slightly higher. Opposite to the Case Study I, Overhead
density and average molecular weight increase. Also, composition shows higher presence of
middle fractions (300-500C) (CGO). Although most of the middle fractions should end up in the
Scrubber Bottom, increased amount appears in the Overhead as well. These fractions originate
mostly from HGO and since higher amount of HGO is present in the system, they show up both
in the Overhead and Bottom.
Scrubber Bottom also has lower density and average molecular weight, and higher presence
of these middle fractions, which originate from HGO.
64
III. HGO Underwash Flow Rate
Heavy Gas Oil (HGO) Underwash enters the Scrubber under the Grid with the flow rate of
10 kbarrel/day. Change in flow rate from 0 to 10 and 20 kbarrel/day has been simulated and
effect on Scrubber parameters and stream properties have been followed.
Observations:
By increasing HGO Underwash flow rate from 0 to 20 kbarrel/day:
- A l l temperatures along the Scrubber drop between 8-12C. Shed Bottom

temperature decreases by 35C (Table III-1, Figures III-l and III-2)
500 500
- 0 kbarrel/day HGO
10 kbarrel/day HGO
480
480 j
- 20 kbarrel/day HGO
460
- Grid Top
- Grid Bottom
- 440 - Shed Top
- Shed Bottom
- Scrubber Pool
= 420
400
380
360
10 20 360
HGO Flow Rate, kbarrel/day 0 10 20 30 40 50
(1 barrel=0.0049684m3/h) Position, feet from bottom of scr. pool
Figure I I M Effect of HGO Underwash Figure III-2 Effect of HGO Underwash

flow rate on temperatures along the flow rate on temperature profile along
Scrubber the Scrubber
-Volume flow rate of the Scrubber Overhead drops by 0.3% and mass flow rate
increases by 4.4%. (Table III-1, Figure III-3).
65
-Density increases from 2.76 to 2.89 kg/m (Table III-l).

3
-Average molecular weight increases from 69 to 71 (Table III-2).
-Composition shows higher presence of 300-500C fractions that originatefromHGO

(Table III-2, Figures III-5 and III-7).
-Actual volume and mass flow rate increase by 30% and 26%, respectively (Table III-
1).
- Density drops from 828 to 803 kg/m (Table III-l).

3
-Average molecular weight changes from 664 to 610 (Table III-3).
-Composition shows higher presence of 400-600C fractions that also originate from
HGO (Table III-3, Figures III-6 and III-8).
Other.
-Grid Liquid volume and mass flow slightly decrease, while Shed Liquid flow rates
significantly increase. Sheds Vapour actual volume flow slightly decreases, and mass
flow increases (Figure III-4).
66
Chapter 6 Case Studies: Results and Discussion
800 900
850
800
750 -)
700
700 .C
650
-Grid Liquid
- Overhead 600 4
- Scrubber Bottom aT -Shed Vapor
550
ra -Shed Liquid
500
i
o 450
400
600 1
350
300
250
200
150
500
100
10 20
0 10 20
(1 barrel=0.0049684 m3/h) HGO Flow Rate, kbarrel/day
(1 barrel=0.0049684 m3/h)
Figure III-3 Effect of HGO Underwash Figure III-4 Effect of HGO Underwash
flow rate on mass flow rate of Scrubber flow rate on mass flow rate of other
Overhead and Bottom streams
67
Table III-l Effect of HGO Underwash flow rate on Scrubber parameters
HGO Uderw. Flow Rate HGO Underwash Flow Rate

Position ft m3/h 50 0 50 99
from the kbarrel/day 10 0 10 20
pool bottom (Base Case) % % %
Koch Grid Top 43 Top Stage Temp Est (C) 393 397 0.9 393 0.0 389 -1.2
Koch Grid Bot. 38 Bottom Stage Temp Est (C) 395 400 1.3 395 0.0 389 -1.6
Sheds Top 34 Top Stage Temp Est (C) 405 410 1.4 405 0.0 398 -1.6
Sheds Bot. 22 Bottom Stage Temp Est (C) 473 495 4.6 473 0.0 460 -2.8
Scrubber Pool 0 Bulk Liquid Temperature (C) 375 375 0.0 375 0.0 375 0.0

Scrubber Overhead Actual Volume Flow (m /h)
3
274,787 274,718 0.0 274,787 0.0 273,909 -0.3
Mass Flow (kg/h) 778,651 757,412 -2.7 778,651 0.0 790,657 1.5
3
2.83 2.76 -2.7 2.83 0.0 2.89
1.9
Scrubb.Pool Liquid Actual Volume Flow (m /h)
3
789 688 -12.9 789 0.0 921 16.8
Mass Flow (kg/h) 643,728 569,357 -11.6 643,728 0.0 739,959 14.9
3
816 828 1.5 816 0.0 803 -1.6
Overhead / ATB Mass Flow Ratio 2.58 2.51 -2.7 2.58 0.0 2.62 1.5
Grid Liquid Actual Volume Flow (m /h)
3
305 314 3.2 305 0.0 296 -2.7
Mass Flow (kg/h) 217,861 224,963 3.3 217,861 0.0 212,704 -2.4
3
714.97 715.50 0.1 714.97 0.0 717.71 0.4
Shed Vapor Actual Volume Flow (m /h)
3
277,329 277,339 0.0 277,329 0.0 276,366 -0.3
Mass Flow (kg/h) 870,450 856,313 -1.6 870,450 0.0 877,301 0.8
3
3.14 3.09 -1.6 3.14 0.0 3.17 1.1
Shed Liquid Actual Volume Flow (m /h)
3
497 440 -11.4 496.80 0.0 587 18.1
Mass Flow (kg/h) 361,323 316,491 -12.4 361,323 0.0 423,013 17.1
3
724.76 718.94 -0.8 724.76 0.0 720.99 -0.5
To Coker Actual Volume Flow (m /h)
3
330 287 -12.9 330 0.0 385 16.8
Mass Flow (kg/h) 269,078 237,991 -11.6 269,078 0.0 309,303 14.9
3
815.85 828.00 1.5 815.85 0.0 803.04 -1.6
Vapour to Sheds Temperature (C) 514 521 1.3 514 0.0 508 -1.2
Upgoing Stream Temperature (C) 534 535 0.1 534 0.0 534 -0.1
Sheds Stage Efficiency 0.53 0.53 0.0 0.53 0.0 0.53 0.0
Koch Grid Stage Efficiency 0.75 0.75 0.0 0.75 0.0 0.75 0.0
SPL Coler Duty (MMBtu/h) 44.72 47.35 5.9 44.72 0.0 46.13 3.2
68
Table III-2 Effect of HGO Underwash flow rate on Scrubber Overhead properties
HGO Underw. Flow Rate (kbarrel/day) 0 10 20 Cut Point [%] 0 10 20
Temperature [ C]
U
397 393 389 Cut Point [%] TBP [C] TBP [ C]
U
TBP ["C]
Pressure [psig] 16.99 16.99 16.99 0 -253 -253 -253
Molecular Weight 69.39 70.77 71.44 1 -238 -237 -237
Mass Density [kg/m3] 2.76 2.83 2.89 2 -208 -207 -206
Act. Volume Flow [m3/h] 274,718 274,787 281,956 3.5 -170 -167 -166
Mass Enthalpy [kJ/kg] -2961 -2924 -2913 5 -138 -136 -135
Mass Entropy [kJ/kg-C] 5.40 5.30 5.21 7.5 -103 -102 -101
Mass Heat Capacity [kJ/kg-C] 2.75 2.74 2.72 10 -88 -85 -82
Vapor Phase Fraction ( Mass Basis) 0.94 0.93 0.92 12.5 -55 -51 -50
Specific Heat [kJ/kgmole-C] 191.12 193.80 194.29 15 -43 -34 -26
Std. Gas Flow [STD_m3/h] 258,103 260,141 261,669 17.5 -4 -3 -1
Watson K 11.42 11.38 11.34 20 255 266 271
Liq. Mass Density (Std. Cond) [kg/m3] 922.13 930.01 936.54 25 309 310 310
Molar Volume [m3/kgmole] 25.17 24.98 24.75 30 336 336 336
Mass Heat of Vap. [kJ/kg] 2848 2825 2809 35 353 354 352
40 374 373 367
Fraction Distribution Data 45 392 391 385
Volume fraction 50 406 405 402
C4-(<177C) 0.060 0.060 0.055 55 420 420 417
LGO (177-343C) 0.260 0.259 0.266 60 440 439 423
HGO (343-524C) 0.571 0.580 0.581 65 446 442 441
524+ (>524C) 0.109 0.101 0.099 70 465 459 448
75 482 471 466
80 491 486 482
85 514 496 493
90 526 525 524
92.5 539 537 535
95 552 550 548
96.5 556 556 556
98 632 616 608
99 754 744 737
100 879 871 866
10 \
0 -I r , , , , . 1 1 1 1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Temperature, C
Figure III-5 Effect of HGO Underwash flow rate on Scrubber Overhead TBP curve
69
Table III-3 Effect of HGO Underwash flow rate on Scrubber Bottom properties
HGO Underw. Flow Rate (kbarrel/day) 0 10 20 Cut Point [%] 0 10 20

Temperature [C] 375 375 375 TBP [C] TBP [C] TBP [C]
Pressure [psig] 17.00 17.00 17.00 0 427 412 402
Molecular Weight 663.75 637.04 609.86 1 464 441 435
Mass Density [kg/m3] 828.00 815.85 803.04 2 492 466 459
Act. Volume Flow [m3/h] 708 119,107 139,097 3.5 514 490 482
Mass Enthalpy [kJ/kg] -1333 -1329 -1324 5 520 504 486
Mass Entropy [kJ/kg-C] 3.39 3.39 3.39 7.5 527 514 493
Mass Heat Capacity [kJ/kg-C] 2.88 2.89 2.91 10 555 517 504
Vapor Phase Fraction ( Mass Basis) 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.5 556 520 513
Specific Heat [kJ/kgmole-C] 1911.25 1843.61 1774.01 15 560 525 515
Std. Gas Flow [STD_m3/h] 20,282 23,893 28,688 17.5 577 548 517
Watson K 11.39 11.41 11.43 20 592 556 520
Kinematic Viscosity [cSt] 0.69 0.69 0.70 25 599 564 526
Surface Tension [dyne/cm] 15.92 15.47 15.02 45 683 635 625
Thermal Conductivity [W/m-K] 0.14 0.13 0.13 50 685 682 634
Viscosity [cP] 0.58 0.57 0.56 55 693 684 681
60 704 693 684
C4-(<177C) 0.000 0.000 0.000 75 755 750 747
LGO (177-343C) 0.000 0.000 0.000 80 764 760 754
HGO (343-524C) 0.045 0.089 0.153 85 815 807 772
524+ (>524C) 0.955 0.911 0.847 90 884 852 820
92.5 898 892 884
95 949 917 903
96.5 965 964 957
98 1037 1031 1023
99 1049 1047 1037
100 1057 1055 1052
100
1100
Temperature, C
Figure III-6 Effect of HGO Underwash flow rate on Scrubber Bottom TBP curve
70
0 kbarrel/day HGO Underwash: Light Ends: 20% ; Water: 65%;

100> fraction: 15%

100> fraction: 15%

100> fraction: 15%
200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000>

Figure III-7 Effect of HGO Underwash flow rate on Scrubber Overhead composition
0 kbarrel/day HGO Underw ash: Light Ends: 0% ;

Water: 1%; 100> fraction: 99%
10 kbarrel/day HGO Underwash: Light Ends: 0%

20 kbarrel/day HGO Underwash: Light Ends: 0%

200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000>

C o m p o n e n t s ' Boiling Temperatures Range, C
Figure III-8 Effect of HGO Underwash flow rate on Scrubber Bottom composition
71
Discussion:
HGO Underwash has the same composition and temperature as HGO Wash; the only
difference is the amount and the position where the stream enters the Scrubber. Hence, in this
case study, all effect and trends are similar to the Case Study II.
Again, with higher flow rate of this low temperature stream, less evaporation occurs in the
system, less vapour and more liquid are produced. Increase of Shed Liquid flow rate is the same
as for the previous case, but cooling ability is higher, because this liquid has lower temperature
(HGO Underwash enters the Scrubber at lower point and it is still cold enough when reach the
Scrubber Bottom). That is the reason why Shed Bottom temperature is decreased much more
than in the previous case (35C, comparing to 18C).
Overhead mass production rate slightly increase. Its density and average molecular weight
increase, and composition shows higher presence of middle fractions (300-500C). The reason is
explained in the previous case.
Scrubber Bottom also has lower density and average molecular weight, and higher presence
of these middle fractions, which originate from HGO.
72
IV. HGO Wash Temperature
In this case study the effect of HGO Wash temperature on Scrubber parameters has been
studied. Temperature has been gradually changed from 250C to 350C (in the Base Case HGO
Wash temperature is 325C).
Observations:
By changing HGO Wash temperature from 250 to 350C:
- A l l temperatures along the Scrubber increase. Shed Top temperature does not
change very much, while most significant change of about 13C is in the case of
Shed Bottom. By using colder HGO Wash (250C) the Overhead temperature is
lowered by 7C, comparing to the Base Case, while Grid Bottom temperature is
still high (Table IV-1, Figures IV-1 and IV-2).
Figure IV-1 Effect of HGO Wash Figure IV-2 Effect of HGO Wash
temperature on temperatures along the temperature on temperature profile along
73
- B y increasing HGO Wash temperature actual volume of the Scrubber Overhead rises
by 2.5% and mass flow rate increases by 4.2%. (Table IV-1, Figure IV-3).
-Density increases from 2.80 to 2.84 kg/m (Table IV-1).

3
-Average molecular weight increases from 69 to 71 (Table IV-2).
-Composition shows higher presence of 500-600C fractions (Table IV-2, Figures IV-5
andIV-7).
-Actual volume and mass flow rate drop by 12% and 11% (Table IV-1).
- Density changes from 807 to 817 kg/m (Table IV-1).

3
-Average molecular weight changes from 619 to 642 (Table IV-3).
-Composition shows lower presence of fractions up to 600C, while heavier fractions

are more concentrated (Table IV-3, Figures IV-6 and IV-8).
Other:
- A l l three streams (Grid and Shed Liquid, and Shed Vapour) volume and mass flow
decrease, but in the case of liquids the change is more radical (Figure IV-4).
74
800 1,000
950
2 780 900
850
760
800
740 750
- Grid Liquid
700
- Shed Vapor
720
650 -
- S h e d Liquid
600
700
550
680 500
450
660 400 -
350
640 A
300
620
250 0-
350 200
250 275 300 325
250 275 300 325 350
HGO Wash T e m p e r a t u r e , C
HGO Wash T e m p e r a t u r e , C
Figure IV-3 Effect of HGO Wash Figure IV-4 Effect of HGO Wash
temperature on mass flow rate of Scrubber temperature on mass flow rate of other
75
Table IV-1 Effect of HGO Wash temperature rate on Scrubber parameters
Position ft HGO Wash Temperaure

from the Temperatures C 250 300 325 350
pool bottom % (Base Case) % %
Koch Grid Top 43 Top Stage Temp Est (C) 386 391 1.3 393 1.9 396 2.6
Koch Grid Bot. 38 Bottom Stage Temp Est (C) 392 394 . 0.7 395 0.9 396 1.1
Sheds Top 34 Top Stage Temp Est (C) 403 405 0.3 405 0.4 405 0.5
Sheds Bot. 22 Bottom Stage Temp Est (C) 464 470 1.4 473 2.1 477 2.9
Flow RatesS Densities

3
269,827 273,227 1.3 274,787 1.8 276,497 2.5
Mass Flow (kg/h) 754,323 772,077 2.4 778,651 3.2 786,167 4.2
3
2.80 2.83 1.1 2.83 1.4 2.84 1.7
3
870 812 -6.6 789 -9.3 767 -11.9
Mass Flow (kg/h) 701,660 659,624 -6.0 643,728 -8.3 626,246 -10.7
3
807 812 0.7 816 1.2 817 1.3
Overhead / ATB Mass Flow Ratio 2.50 2.56 2.4 2.58 3.2 2.60 4.2
3
360 322 -10.6 305 -15.4 289 -19.9
Mass Flow (kg/h) 255,809 229,561 -10.3 217,861 -14.8 206,915 -19.1
3
710.21 712.98 0.4 714.97 0.7 717.02 1.0
3
277,834 277,633 -0.1 277,329 -0.2 277,138 -0.3
Mass Flow (kg/h) 884,067 875,577 -1.0 870,450 -1.5 867,023 -1.9
3
3.18 3.15 -0.9 3.14 -1.4 3.13 -1.7
3
553 513.94 -7.1 497 -10.2 484 -12.5
Mass Flow (kg/h) 399,580 372,207 -6.9 361,323 -9.6 350,719 -12.2
3
722.23 724.22 0.3 724.76 0.3 724.78 0.4
3
364 339 -6.6 381 4.8 320 -11.9
Mass Flow (kg/h) 293,294 275,723 -6.0 269,078 -8.3 261,771 -10.7
3
806.53 812.15 0.7 815.85 1.2 816.90 1.3
Vapour to Sheds Temperature (C) 510 513 0.6 514 0.9 515 1.1
Upgoing Stream Temperature (C) 534 534 0.1 534 0.1 534 0.1
SPL Coler Duty (MMBtu/h) 44.73 43.35 -3.1 44.72 0.0 42.60 -4.8
76
Table IV-2 Effect of HGO Wash temperature on Scrubber Overhead properties

HGO Wash Temperature (C) 250 325 (Basic) 350 Cut Point [%] 250 325 350
Temperature [C] 386 393 396 TBP fC] T B P [C] T B P [C]

Pressure [psig] 16.99 16.99 16.99 0 -253 -253 -253
Mass Density [kg/m3] 2.80 2.83 2.84 2 -209 -207 -206
Vapor Phase Fraction ( Mass Basis) 0.91 0.93 0.93 12.5 -55 -51 -50
Std. G a s Flow [STD_m3/h] 258,922 260,141 260,513 17.5 -5 -3 -1
Watson K 11.39 11.38 11.37 20 252 266 270
40 365 373 376
C4-(<177C) 0.054 0.060 0.057 55 409 420 420
L G O (177-343C) 0.277 0.259 0.261 60 423 439 440
H G O (343-524C) 0.569 0.580 0.581 65 440 442 443
524+(>524C) 0.101 0.101 0.101 70 448 459 463
75 466 471 474
80 483 486 488
85 494 496 496
90 525 525 525
92.5 536 537 538
95 549 550 551
96.5 556 556 556
98 618 616 617
99 730 744 743
100 878 871 869
100
90 -I
80
HGO T=250C
70 HGO T=325C
HGO T=350C
60
<jj 50
> 40
30
20 \
10
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Temperature, C
Figure IV-5 Effect of HGO Wash temperature on Scrubber Overhead TBP curve
77
Table IV-3 Effect of HGO Wash temperature on Scrubber Bottom properties

HGO Wash Temperature (C) 250 325 (Basic) 350 Cut Point [%] 250 325 350
Temperature [C] 375 375 375 T B P [C] T B P ["C] T B P ["C]

Pressure [psig] 17.00 17.00 17.00 0 406 412 415
Mass Density [kg/m3] 806.53 815.85 816.90 2 464 466 482
Act. Volume Flow [m3/h] 870 812 767 3.5 483 490 494
M a s s Enthalpy [kJ/kg] -1325 -1329 -1321 5 489 504 512
Vapor P h a s e Fraction ( M a s s Basis) 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.5 515 520 524
Std. G a s Flow [STD_m3/h] 26,780 23,893 23,033 17.5 519 548 555
Watson K 11.43 11.41 11.40 20 522 556 556
Liq. M a s s Density (Std. Cond) [kg/m3] 1031.82 1038.96 1041.23 30 561 592 597
M a s s Heat of Vap. [kJ/kg] 1425 1309 1667 40 603 630 632
Viscosity [cP] 0.56 0.57 0.55 55 682 684 686
1425 1309 1667 60 686 693 695
Volume fraction Volume fraction 70 739 743 745
C4-(<177C) 0.000 0.000 0.000 75 749 750 751
LGO(177-343C) 0.000 0.000 0.000 80 756 760 761
H G O (343-524C) 0.129 0.089 0.076 85 800 807 809
524+ (>524C) 0.871 0.911 0.924 90 821 852 856
92.5 887 892 893
95 905 917 937
96.5 963 964 964
98 1026 1031 1032
99 1046 1047 1047
100 1054 1055 1055
100
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

Temperature, C
Figure IV-6 Effect of HGO Wash temperature on Scrubber Bottom TBP curve
78
0.50 HGO T=250C: Light Ends: 20%; Water: 65% ;

100> fraction: 15%
HGO T=325C: Light Ends: 20%; Water: 65%
0.40 100> fraction: 15%
HGOT=350C: Light Ends: 20%; Water: 65%
100> fraction: 15%
(A
c 0.30
o
o
s
4-
a>
o 0.20
S
11
0.10
0.00
200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000>
Components' Boiling T e m p e r a t u r e s R a n g e , C
Figure IV-7 Effect o f H G O Wash temperature on Scrubber Overhead composition
0.50 HGO T= 250C: Light Ends: 0% ; Water: 1%;

100> fraction: 99%
HGO T=325C: Light Ends: 0% ; Water: 1 %;
0.40 100> fraction: 99%
HGO T=350C: Light Ends: 0% ; Water: 1%;
100> fraction: 99%
c 0.30
o
u
2
<+-
ffi
o 0.20
S
_ tri
0.10
0.00
200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000>
Components' Boiling T e m p e r a t u r e s R a n g e , C
Figure IV-8 Effect o f H G O Wash temperature on Scrubber Bottom composition
79
Discussion:
By increasing HGO Wash temperature from 250 to 350C, all the temperatures in the
Scrubber are higher. The major changes are at Shed Bottom and Grid Top position. Higher
temperature causes more evaporation and higher amount of vapour, and less liquid. Smaller
amount of Shed Liquid gets in contact with hot vapour from the cyclones, causing significant
increase in Shed Bottom temperature. At the Grid Top position, higher flow rate of hot vapour
get in contact with unchanged flow rate but hotter HGO Wash, resulting in higher temperature of
the Grid Top.
Although higher temperature produces more vapour, it could be noticed that Shed Vapour
flow rate drops a little bit. The explanation could be that less liquid comes to the Sheds from the
Grid, resulting in smaller total amount of evaporated liquid.
Density and average molecular weight of the Overhead are higher, while composition,
fraction distribution data and TBP curves show lower presence of heavier fractions (500C+) in
the Overhead.
Most heavy fractions end up in the Scrubber Bottom, which can be seen from the increased
density, molecular weight and presence of heavy fractions in the Bottom.
80
V. HGO Underwash In and Out of Service
This study investigates the effect o f Grid Underwash function on Scrubber parameters and
properties o f Scrubber Overhead and Scrubber Bottom (Scrubber Pool Liquid). Four options
have been investigated:
1. H G O Underwash is i n service - flow rate o f H G O Underwash is 10 kbarrel/day;
2. H G O Underwash is out o f service and Overhead temperature is not controlled.
3. H G O Underwash is out o f service and Overhead temperature is controlled by H G O Wash
flow rate - i n order to maintain the overhead temperature constant (around 393C), H G O
Wash actual volume flow rate should be increased by 37.5% (from 24 kb/day to 33
kb/day).
4. H G O Underwash is out o f service and Overhead temperature is controlled by A T B feed
flow rate - increase o f A T B actual volume flow b y 14.5% (from 55 kb/day to 63 kb/day)
is able to keep the overhead temperature constant.
Observations:
Temperature profile
- H G O Underwash off, uncontrolled: A l l temperatures increase by 4-5C, only Shed
Bottom temperature is 22C higher.
- H G O Underwash off, controlled by H G O Wash: Overhead temperature is kept the
same (393C), while all others are increased b y 4-5C, compared to Base Case;
- H G O Underwash o f f controlled by A T B : This case has almost the same effect as
when H G O Underwash is i n service. There is only a small change in all observed
temperatures (Table V - l , Figures V - l and V - 2 ) .
81
Figure V - l Effect of H G O Underwash Figure V - 2 Effect of H G O Underwash
service on temperatures along the Scrubber service on temperature profile along the
Scrubber
Note: Lines that connect data points do not
present trend lines. They are shown to help
comparison between different cases.
HGO Underwash off, uncontrolled:
-Actual volume flow of the Scrubber Overhead changes insignificantly and mass flow rate
drops by 3%, comparing to the case when H G O Underwash is in service (Table V - l ,
Figure V-3).
-Density changes from 2.83 to 2.76 kg/m (Table V - l ) .

3
-Average molecular weight drops from 71 to 69 (Table V-2).
-Composition shows lower presence of 300-500C fractions that originate from H G O

(Table V-2, Figures V-5 and V-7).
82
H G O Underwash off, controlled by H G O Wash:
-There is no significant change in any of Scrubber Overhead properties, compared to Base
Case.
H G O Underwash off, controlled by A T B :
-Actual volume and mass flow rate drops by 0.7 and 3.9%, respectively.
-Density changes from 2.83 to 2.74 kg/m . 3
-Average molecular weight drops from 71 to 69 (Table V-2).
-Composition shows slightly lower presence of 300-500C fractions that originate from
HGO (Table V-2, Figures V-5 and V-7).
H G O Underwash off, uncontrolled:
-Actual volume and mass flow rate drop by 13% and 12% (Table V - l ) .
- Density increases from 816 to 828 kg/m (Table V - l ) .

3
-Average molecular weight changes from 637 to 663 (Table V-3).
-Composition shows lower presence of 400-600C fraction that originates from H G O
(Table V-3, Figures V-6 and V-8).
-Again, for all Scrubber Bottom properties there are just minor changes, comparing to the
case when H G O Underwash is in service.
H G O Underwash off, controlled by A T B :
-Actual volume and mass flow rate increase by 7.5% and 8% (Table V - l ) .
- Density increases from 816 to 821 kg/m (Table V - l ) .

3
-Average molecular weight changes from 637 to 645 (Table V-3).
-Composition shows lower presence of 500-600C fraction that originates from HGO, but
slightly higher presence of 6 0 0 C fractions (Table V-3, Figures V-6 and V-8).
+
83
Other.
HGO Underwash off, uncontrolled:
-Grid Liquid volume and mass flow slightly increase; Shed Vapour mass flow decreases a
little, and Shed Liquid volume and mass flow significantly decrease.
- G r i d Liquid volume and mass flow rate radically increase, Shed Vapour does not change
much, and Shed Liquid flow rate decreases a little.
HGO Underwash off, controlled by A T B :
-Grid Liquid and Shed vapour flow rate show a minor drop, while Shed Liquid flow rate
increases by 5% (Figure V-4).
Figure V-3 Effect of H G O Underwash Figure V-4 Effect of H G O Underwash
service on mass flow rate of Scrubber service on mass flow rate of other
Note: Lines that connect data points do not present trend lines. They are shown to help
84
Table V-l Effect of H G O Underwash service on Scrubber parameters
HGO Underwash HGO Underwash

Position ft ON OFF OFF OFF
from the (Base Case) Uncontrolled Contr. by HGO Contr. by ATB
pool bottom 1 2 % 3 % 4 %
Koch Grid Top 43 Top Stage Temp Est (C) 393 397 0.9 393 0.0 393 0.0
Koch Grid Bot. 38 Bottom Stage Temp Est (C) 395 400 1.3 399 0.9 396 0.3
Sheds Top 34 Top Stage Temp Est (C) 405 410 1.4 410 1.2 406 0.3
Scrubber Pool 0 Bulk Liquid Temperature (C) 375 375 0.0 375 0.0 372 -0.7
Note 1: When in service H G O Underwash flow rate is 10,000 barrel/day
Note 2: To keep the Overhead T constant, H G O Wash should be increased from 24 to 33 kbpd, and A T B from 55 to 63 kbpd.
3
274,787 274,718 0.0 274,692 0.0 272,863 -0.7
Mass Flow (kg/h) 778,651 757,412 -2.7 778,344 0.0 748,181 -3.9
3
2.83 2.76 -2.7 2.83 0.0 2.74 -3.2
Scrubb.Pool Liquid Actual Volume Flow (m /h) 789 688 -12.9 771 -2.3 848 7.5
Mass Flow (kg/h) 643,728 569,357 -11.6 631,095 -2.0 696,159 8.1
3
816 828 1.5 818 0.3 821 0.6
Overhead / A T B Mass Flow Ratio 2.58 2.51 -2.7 2.58 0.0 2.16 -16.2
Grid Liquid Actual Volume Flow (m Ih) 305 314 3.2 378 24.1 297 -2.4
Mass Flow (kg/h) 217,861 224,963 3.3 268,867 23.4 212,905 -2.3
3
714.97 715.50 0.1 710.86 -0.6 715.94 0.1
Shed Vapor Actual Volume Flow (m Ih) 277,329 277,339 0.0 278,645 0.5 275,476 -0.7
Mass Flow (kg/h) 870,450 856,313 -1.6 873,944 0.4 835,027 -4.1
3
3.14 3.09 -1.6 3.14 -0.1 3.03 -3.4
Shed Liquid Actual Volume Flow (m Ih) 497 440 -11.4 488.15 -1.7 520 4.7
Mass Flow (kg/h) 361,323 316,491 -12.4 353,507 -2.2 378,953 4.9
3
724.76 718.94 -0.8 724.18 -0.1 728.33 0.5
3
330 287 -12.9 322 -2.3 354 7.5
Mass Flow (kg/h) 269,078 237,991 -11.6 263,798 -2.0 290,994 8.1
J
815.85 828.00 1.5 818.40 0.3 821.10 0.6
S P L Coler Duty (MMBtu/h) 44.72 47.35 5.9 45.64 2.0 56.04 25.3
85
Table V-2 Effect of HGO Underwash service on Scrubber Overhead properties

HGO OFF HGO OFF HGO OFF HGO OFF HGO OFF HGO OFF
HGO ON Cut Point [%] HGO ON
(uncontr.) (contr. by HGO) (contr. by ATB) (uncontr.) (contr. by HGO) (contr. by ATB)
Temperature f t ] 393 397 393 393 TBP f C] TBP fC] TBP [C] TBP f t ]
Pressure [psig] 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 0 -253 -253 -253 -253
Molecular Weight 70.77 69.39 70.78 68.61 1 -237 -238 -237 -239
Mass Density [kg/m3] 2.83 2.76 2.83 2.74 2 -207 -208 -207 -209
Act. Volume Flow [m3/h] 282,860 282,789 282,762 280,880 3.5 -167 -170 -167 -171
Mass Enthalpy [kj/kg] -2924 -2961 -2924 -2996 5 -136 -138 -136 -140
Mass Entropy [kJ/kg-C] 5.30 5.40 5.30 5.40 7.5 -102 -103 -102 -104
Mass Heat Capacity [kJ/kg-C] 2.74 2.75 2.74 2.74 10 -85 -88 -85 -89
Vapor Phase Fraction (Mass Basis) 0.93 0.94 0.92 0.93 12.5 -51 -55 -51 -56
Specific Heat [kJ/kgmole-C] 193.80 191.12 193.98 188.17 15 -34 -43 -34 -43
Std. Gas Flow [STDjn3/h] 260,141 258,103 260,017 257,826 17.5 -3 -4 -3 -5
Walson K 11.38 11.42 11.38 11.42 20 266 255 266 248
Liq. Mass Density (Std. Cond) [kg/m3] 930.01 922.13 929.28 922.13 25 310 309 310 309
Molar Volume [m3/kgmole] 24.98 25.17 24.98 25.02 30 336 336 336 335
Mass Heal ofVap. [kJ/kg] 2825 2848 2826 2748 35 354 353 354 351
40 373 374 374 367
Fraction Distribution Data 45 391 392 391 389
Volume fraction 50 405 406 406 405
C4-(<177C) 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.055 55 420 420 420 420
LGO (177-343C) 0.259 0.260 0.259 0.268 60 439 440 439 439
HGO(343-524C) 0.580 0.571 0.580 0.575 65 442 446 443 443
524+(>524C) 0.101 0.109 0.101 0.101 70 459 465 461 459
75 471 482 473 474
80 486 491 487 487
85 496 514 496 496
90 525 526 525 525
92.5 537 539 537 538
95 550 552 550 551
96.5 556 556 556 556
98 616 632 617 623
99 744 754 784 752
100 871 879 871 880
10 -
O -
I , , , , , . 1 1 1
O 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
T e m p e r a t u r e , C
Figure V-5 Effect of HGO Underwash service on Scrubber Overhead TBP curve
86
Table V-3 Effect of HGO Underwash service on Scrubber Bottom properties

HGO OFF HGO OFF HGO OFF HGO OFF HGO OFF HGO OFF
HGO ON Cut Point [%] HGO ON
(uncontr.) (contr. by HGO) (contr. by ATB) (uncontr.) (contr. by HGO) (contr. by ATB)
Temperature fC] 375 375 375 375 TBP [C] TBP ["C] TBP ["C] TBP f C]
Pressure [psig] 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 0 412 427 414 412
Molecular Weight 637.04 663.75 641.74 645.71 1 441 464 450 441
Mass Density [kg/m3] 815.85 828.00 818.40 821.10 2 466 492 482 469
Act. Volume Flow [m3/h] 812 708 794 873 3.5 490 514 494 493
Mass Enthalpy [kJ/kg] 1329 1333 1330 -1337 5 504 520 512 512
Mass Entropy [kJ/kg-C] 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.38 7.5 514 527 515 515
Mass Heat Capacity [W/kg-C] 2.89 2.88 2.89 2.88 10 517 555 519 519
Vapor Phase Fraction (Mass Basis) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.5 520 556 524 524
Specific Heat [kJ/kgmole-C] 1843.61 1911.25 1854.96 1861.72 15 525 560 543 552
Std. Gas Flow[STD_m3/h] 23,893 20,282 23,252 25,492 17.5 548 577 555 556
Watson K 11.41 11.39 11.40 11.41 20 556 592 556 558
Kinematic Viscosity [cSt] 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.71 25 564 599 588 591
Mass Heat of Vap. [kJ/kg] 1309 1704 1657 1647 40 630 680 632 633
Surface Tension [dyne/cm] 15.47 15.92 15.57 15.71 45 635 683 671 680
Thermal Conductivity [W/m-K] 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 50 682 685 683 683
Viscosity [cP] 0.57 0.58 0.57 0.58 55 684 693 685 687
60 693 704 695 696
C4-(<177C) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75 750 755 751 752
LGO(177-343C) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 80 760 764 760 761
HGO (343-524C) 0.089 0.045 0.077 0.075 85 807 815 809 809
524+(>524C) 0.911 0.955 0.923 0.925 90 852 884 854 853
92.5 892 898 893 893
95 917 949 932 926
96.5 964 965 964 964
98 1031 1037 1032 1031
99 1047 1049 1047 1046
100 1055 1057 1055 1054
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

Temperature, C
Figure V-6 Effect of HGO Underwash service on Scrubber Bottom TBP curve
87
HGO ON: Light Ends: 20%; Water: 65% ; 100> fraction: 15%
HGO OFF-uncontrolled: Light Ends: 20%; Water: 65% ; 100>
1
fraction: 15%
O HGO OFF-controlled by HGO Wash: Light Ends: 20%; Water
65% ; 100> fraction: 15%
0 HGO OFF-controlled by ATB: Light Ends: 21%; Water: 65% ;
100> fraction: 14%
200-300 300-400 400-500

1
500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000>
Figure V-7 Effect o f H G O Underwash service on Scrubber Overhead composition
HGO ON: Light Ends: 0% ; Water; 1%; 100>

fraction: 99%
HGO OFF-uncontrolled: Light Ends: 0% ;
HGO OFF-controlled by HGO Wash: Light
Ends: 0% ; Water: 1%; 100> fraction: 99%
HGO OFF-controlled by ATB: Light Ends: 0%
200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000>

Figure V-8 Effect o f H G O Underwash service on Scrubber Bottom composition
8S
Discussion:
As was mentioned before, HGO Underwash is a cold stream that enters the Scrubber at
325C, cooling down hot vapour from the Sheds. If Underwash were out of service, this vapour
would still be hot, causing higher temperature in the whole system, more evaporation and
consequently lower flow rate of the Shed Liquid and Scrubber Bottom. Lower flow rate of Shed
Liquid causes such high jump in temperature for the Shed Bottom, because it is not enough to
cool down the hot vapour from cyclones. The significant drop in Bottom flow rate is also due to
the overall mass balance (less mass "in" since HGO Underwash is out of service). Although
more evaporation occurs, vapour in the Scrubber show slightly lower mass flow rates. The
reason is lower total mass "in".
In this case, Scrubber Overhead contains less middle fractions that originate from HGO,
lower density and molecular weight. Scrubber Bottom also has less middle fractions, heavy
fractions are concentrated, and density and molecular weight are higher.
If Overhead temperature were controlled by HGO Wash flow rate (same composition and
almost same amount as HGO Underwash), all other temperatures would be increased by several
degrees. Total flow rate of Overhead and Scrubber Bottom would be almost the same as for the
Base Case. The same is true for Overhead and Bottom properties and composition. The
difference is in distribution of internal vapour and liquid streams, caused by different entrance
position of HGO Wash and Underwash.
ATB flow rate seems to provide better control over the whole temperature profile. ATB has
higher cooling (heating) capacity than HGO. It also doesn't have any significant effect on vapour
and liquid flow rates and properties, since the temperature and position of this stream is similar
to HGO Underwash. Both Scrubber Overhead and Bottom contain a little bit more heavy
fractions in this case, because ATB is a heavier feedstock than HGO.
89
VI. Number of Trays in the Sheds
Originally, number of trays in the Shed column was six. In this case study this number has
been changed from 2 to 10, with a step of 2. Trays efficiency has been kept the same - 53%.
The parameters are compared to the original case where the Sheds has 6 rows.
Observations:
By changing the number of Sheds' trays from 2 to 10:
-Grid Top temperature drops from 400C to 392C;
-Grid Bottom temperature decreases up to 6 trays in Sheds, but after that increases to
401C and remains the same;
-Shed Top temperature decreases also up to 6 trays in Sheds, and then remains the
same;
-Shed Bottom temperature increases gradually (Table VI-1, Figures VI-1 and VI-2).
90
Figure VI-1 Effect of number of Sheds Figure VI-2 Effect of number of Sheds
trays on temperatures along the Scrubber trays on temperature profile along the
Scrubber
- A s the number of trays increases, actual volume flow of the Scrubber Overhead first
rises (up to 6 trays in the Sheds) and then remains almost the same, while mass flow
rate decreases gradually by 7%. (Table VI-1, Figure VI-3).
-Density changes from 2.84 to 2.70 kg/m (Table VI-1).

3
-Average molecular weight drops from 72 to 67 (Table VI-2).
-Composition shows higher and higher presence of fractions up to 500C fractions, and
lower presence of heavier fractions (Table VI-2, Figures VI-5 and VI-7).
-Both actual volume and mass flow rate increase approximately by 21-22% (Table VI-
91
- Density drops from 822 to 802 kg/m (Table VI-1).
3
-Average molecular weight changes from 649 to 634 (Table VI-3).
-Composition shows higher presence of 500-600C fraction, while both lighter and
heavier fractions are less included (Table VI-3, Figures VI-6 and VI-8).
Other.
-Both volume and mass flow rate of Grid Liquid increase up to 6 trays in Sheds, and
start to drop with higher number of trays.
-Shed Vapour volume flow decreases up to 6 trays, then increases and stays more or
less the same. Mass flow rate increases up to 6 trays, after what stars to drop.
-Both volume and mass flow rate of Shed Liquid increase (Figure VI-4).
800
750
700
650
- Grid Liquid
Overhead 600 - Shed Vapor
- Scrubber Bottom
550 - Shed Liquid
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
4 6 l 10 4 6 8
Number of Sheds' trays Number of Sheds' trays
Figure VI-3 Effect of number of Figure VI-4 Effect of number of Sheds

Sheds trays on mass flow rate of trays on mass flow rate of other streams
Scrubber Overhead and Bottom
92
Table VI-1 Effect of number of Sheds trays on Scrubber parameters
Position ft Number of Sheds' trays

from the 6 2 4 6 8 10
pool bottom Base Case % % % % %
Koch Grid Top 43 Top Stage Temp Est 393 400 1.8 394 0.3 393 0.0 392 -0.2 392 -0.3
Koch Grid Bot. 38 Bottom Stage Temp Est 395 409 3.6 397 0.5 395 0.0 401 1.5 401 1.6
Sheds Top 34 Top Stage Temp Est 405 417 3.0 407 0.4 405 0.0 406 0.2 405 0.1
Sheds Bot. 22 Bottom Stage Temp Est 473 466 -1.5 472 -0.4 473 0.0 492 4.0 494 4.3
Scrubber Pool 0 Bulk Liquid Temperature 375 375 0.0 375 0.0 375 0.0 375 0.0 375 0.0

Scrubber Overhead Actual Volume Flow (m /h) 3
274,787 279,507 1.7 275,568 0.3 274,787 0.0 275,284 0.2 275,149 0.1
Mass Flow (kg/h) 778,651 794,406 2.0 782,235 0.5 778,651 0.0 746,571 -4.1 741,836 -4.7
3
2.83 2.84 0.3 2.84 0.2 2.83 0.0 2.71 -4.3 2.70 -4.9
789 738 -6.5 778 -1.3 789 0.0 895 13.5 912 15.6
Mass Flow (kg/h) 643,728 606,279 -5.8 635,952 -1.2 643,728 0.0 720,241 11.9 731,830 13.7
3
816 822 0.7 817 0.1 816 0.0 804 -1.4 802 -1.6
Overhead/ATB Mass Flow Ratio 2.58 2.63 2.0 2.59 0.5 2.58 0.0 2.47 -4.1 2.46 -4.7
Grid Liquid Actual Volume Flow(m /h) 3
305 193 -36.7 293 -3.8 305 0.0 217 -28.7 211 -30.7
Mass Flow (kg/h) 217,861 139,382 -36.0 209,570 -3.8 217,861 0.0 153,354 -29.6 149,067 -31.6
714.97 722.93 1.1 714.94 0.0 714.97 0.0 705.88 -1.3 705.56 -1.3
277,329 282,557 1.9 278,195 0.3 277,329 0.0 279,033 0.6 278,954 0.6
Mass Flow (kg/h) 870,450 807,726 -7.2 865,746 -0.5 870,450 0.0 773,865 -11.1 764,843 -12.1
3
3.14 2.86 -8.9 3.11 -0.8 3.14 0.0 2.77 11.6 2.74 -12.6
497 445 -10.4 487.08 -2.0 497 0.0 601 21.0 612 23.2
Mass Flow (kg/h) 361,323 329,675 -8.8 354,643 -1.8 361,323 0.0 411,200 13.8 420,275 16.3
3
724.76 740.33 2.1 728.11 0.5 724.76 0.0 683.68 -5.7 677.97 -6.5
To Coker Actual Volume Flow(m /h) 3
330 308 -6.5 325 -1.3 381 15.6 374 13.5 378 14.6
Mass Flow (kg/h) 269,078 253,425 -5.8 265,828 -1.2 269,078 0.0 301,061 11.9 305,905 13.7
3
815.85 821.88 0.7 817.03 0.1 815.85 0.0 804.45 -1.4 802.40 -1.6
Vapour to Sheds Temperature (C) 514 514 0.1 514 0.0 514 0.0 517 0.6 517 0.5
Upgoing Stream Temperature (C) 534 534 0.0 534 0.0 534 0.0 534 0.0 534 0.0
Sheds Stage Efficiency 0.53 0.53 0.0 0.53 0.0 0.53 0.0 0.53 0.0 0.53 0.0
Koch Grid Stage Efficiency 0.75 0.75 0.0 0.75 0.0 0.75 0.0 0.75 0.0 0.75 0.0
SPLColer Duty (MMBtu/h) 44.72 36.69 -18.0 42.74 -4.4 44.72 0.0 68.10 52.3 70.85 58.4
93
Table VI-2 Effect of number of Sheds trays on Scrubber Overhead properties

Number of Sheds' trays 2 6 10 Cut Point [%] 2 6 10
Temperature fC] 400 393 392 TBP fC] TBP f C] TBP [C]
Pressure [psig] 16.99 16.99 16.99 0 -253 -253 -253
Mass Density [kg/m3] 2.84 2.83 2.70 2 -206 -207 -208
Phase Fraction ( Mass Basis) 0.95 0.93 0.99 12.5 -49 -51 -53
Std. Gas Flow [STD_m3/h] 260,892 260,141 259,068 17.5 2 -3 -3
Watson K 11.37 11.38 11.38 20 274 266 260
40 377 373 367
C4-(<177C) 0.052 0.060 0.058 55 420 420 419
LGO(177-343C) 0.264 0.259 0.264 60 440 439 437
HGO (343-524C) 0.576 0.580 0.591 65 445 442 441
524+(>524C) 0.108 0.101 0.087 70 465 459 453
75 482 471 467
80 490 486 484
85 513 496 494
90 526 525 520
92.5 539 537 527
95 552 550 548
96.5 556 556 556
98 615 616 599
99 741 744 735
100 866 871 872
10 \
Ot , , , , , , r , , 1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Temperature, C
Figure VI-5 Effect of number of Sheds trays on Scrubber Overhead TBP curve
94
Table VI-3 Effect of number of Sheds trays on Scrubber Bottom properties

Temperature fC] 375 375 375 TBP [C] TBP [C] TBP [C]
Pressure [psig] 17 17 17 0 411 412 412
Molecular Weight 649 637 634 1 440 441 441
Mass Density [kg/m3] 822 816 811 2 466 466 480
Mass Enthalpy [kj/kg] -1331 -1329 -1326 5 512 504 512
Phase Fraction ( Mass Basis) 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.5 542 520 522
Watson K 11.39 11.41 11.43 20 563 556 547
Mass Heat of Vap. [kj/kg] 1656 1309 1654 40 634 630 626
Viscosity [cP] 0.57 0.57 0.53 55 690 684 684
60 699 693 691
C4-(<177C) 0.000 0.000 0.000 75 753 750 749
LGO(177-343C) 0.000 0.000 0.000 80 762 760 758
HGO (343-524C) 0.064 0.089 0.091 85 812 807 804
524+(>524C) 0.936 0.911 0.909 90 880 852 822
92.5 895 892 889
95 941 917 907
96.5 964 964 963
98 1034 1031 1028
99 1048 1047 1046
100 1056 1055 1055
100
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

Temperature, C
Figure VI-6 Effect of number of Sheds trays on Scrubber Bottom TBP curve
95
2 Sheds' trays: Light Ends: 20%; Water: 64% ;

100> fraction: 16%
100> fraction: 15%
100> fraction: 15%
200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000>

Figure VI-7 Effect of number of Sheds trays on Scrubber Overhead composition
2 Sheds' trays: Light Ends: 0% ; Water: 1%;

100> fraction: 99%
100> fraction: 99%
100> fraction: 99%
0.00 -i
200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000>
Figure VI-8 Effect of number of Sheds trays on Scrubber Bottom composition
96
Discussion:
Increasing the number of trays up to 6 in the Sheds column means better separation ability -
better contact between vapour and liquid, removal of heavy fractions from the vapour and lighter
fractions from the liquid. That is why Shed Vapour mass first increases - it is losing small
amounts of heavy fractions (condensation), but is probably getting higher amounts of lighter
fractions (evaporation). This vapour is being quenched with HGO Wash stream, producing more
liquids, and less Overhead product. But the composition of Shed Vapour definitely affects the
properties of the Overhead: its density and average molecular weight decrease, and composition
shows higher presence of middle fractions, but lower of heavier fractions.
Grid Liquid amount is increased as a consequence of higher Shed Vapour amount.
Shed Liquid is losing lighter fractions and getting heavier, and its mass flow rate increases
as well. Since in this stage, the evaporation of lighter fractions is dominant, due to the heat of
evaporation, the temperatures along the Scrubber drop. Only Shed Bottom temperature increases
radically. Liquid in the Sheds has to pass more contacting stages to reach the bottom, contacting
hot vapours. When it reaches the bottom, its temperature is raised significantly.
Better separation removes heavy fractions from the Overhead and directs them to the
Bottom. That can be seen from the properties and compositions of Scrubber Overhead and
Bottom.
Further increasing the number of trays, from 6 to 8 or 10, changes the situation. The results
suggest that most of the light fractions have already been evaporated from the liquids, but not all
heavier fractions have been condensed from the vapours. Vapours lose heavy components, losing
mass flow rate (Shed Vapour), while liquids gain mass. Since the evaporation is decreased,
temperature in the system does not drop any more - at some positions temperature even starts to
rise.
97
VII. Number of Grid Sections
As was mentioned in the introductory description of Core operation blocks, the Koch Grid is
simulated as a packed column with 2 packing sections, with the same diameter and height as the
plant packed section. The overall efficiency is determined to be 78%. In this case study the
number of section has been changed from 2 to 5 and 10, with no change of efficiency and the
effect on Scrubber parameters and stream properties have been studied.
Observations:
- B y changing the number of Grid sections from 2 to 5, only Shed Bottom

temperature increases by 13C, while all other temperatures remain almost the
same. Further increasing the number of sections has no significant effect on
temperature change along the reactor. (Table VII-1, Figures VII-1 and VII-2).
500 500
- 2 Grid sections
480
-o - - 5 Grid sections
-10 Grid sections

460
- Grid Top
- Grid Bottom
440
- Shed Top
- Shed Bottom
420 A - Scrubber Pool
400
380
360 360
4 6 8 10 10 20 30 40 50
Number of Grid sections Position, feet from bottom of scr. pool
Figure VII-1 Effect of number of Grid Figure VII-2 Effect of number of Grid
sections on temperatures along the sections on temperature profile along the
Scrubber Scrubber
98
- B y increasing the number of Grid sections from 2 to 5 actual volume flow of the
Scrubber Overhead drops by 0.2% and mass flow rate increases by 2%. (Table VII-1,
Figure VII-3).
-Density increases from 2.83 to 2.89 kg/m (Table VII-1).

3
-Average molecular weight increases from 71 to 72 (Table VII-2).
-Composition shows slightly lower presence of fractions up to 500C, and higher

presence of heavier fractions (Table VII-2, Figures VII-5 and VII-7).
-Further increasing the number of sections from 5 to 10 has no significant effect on any
of the properties.
- B y changing the number of Grid sections from 2 to 5 actual volume and mass flow rate
drop by 8% and 7%, respectively (Table VII-1).
- Density drops from 816 to 822 kg/m (Table VII-1).

3
-Average molecular weight changes from 637 to 650 (Table VII-3).
-Composition shows lower presence of components boiling up to 600C, while heavier

fractions are more concentrated (Table VII-3, Figures VII-6 and VII-8).
-Change in number of Grid sections from 5 to 10 has no effect on Bottom properties.
Other.
-While changing Grid section number from 2 to 5, volume and mass flow of all three
streams (Grid and Shed Liquid, and Shed Vapour) decrease by 15%, 1% and 8%,
respectively. Further change in number of sections has no effect. (Figure VII-4).
99
Figure VII-3 Effect of number of Grid Figure VII-4 Effect of number of Grid
sections on mass flow rate of Scrubber sections on mass flow rate of other
100
Table VII-1 Effect of number of Grid sections on Scrubber parameters
Position ft Base Case Number of Grid sections

from the 2 5 10
pool bottom % %
Koch Grid Top 43 Top Stage Temp Est 393 393 -0.1 393 -0.1
Koch Grid Bot. 38 Bottom Stage Temp Est 395 397 0.6 397 0.6
Sheds Top 34 Top Stage Temp Est 405 406 0.2 406 0.2
Sheds Bot. 22 Bottom Stage Temp Est 473 486 2.7 486 2.6
Scrubber Pool 0 Bulk Liquid Temperature 375 375 0.0 375 0.0
Note: Overall Grid section efficiency is 0.75

3
274,787 274,318 -0.2 274,318 -0.2
Mass Flow (kg/h) 778,651 793,996 2.0 793,567 1.9
3
2.83 2.89 2.1 2.89 2.1
3
789 725 -8.2 726 -8.0
Mass Flow (kg/h) 643,728 595,823 -7.4 596,652 -7.3
3
816 822 0.8 822 0.8
Overhead / A T B Mass Flow Ratio 2.58 2.63 2.0 2.631.9

3
305 259 -15.0 259 -14.8
Mass Flow (kg/h) 217,861 185,180 -15.0 185,481 -14.9
3
714.97 714.77 0.0 714.82 0.0
3
277,329 276,845 -0.2 276,852 -0.2
Mass Flow (kg/h) 870,450 860,927 -1.1 860,709 -1.1
3
3.14 3.11 -0.9 3.11 -0.9
3
497 461 -7.1 461.72 -7.1
Mass Flow (kg/h) 361,323 332,768 -7.9 333,193 -7.8
3
724.76 718.81 -0.8 719.11 -0.8
3
330 303 -8.2 303 -8.0
Mass Flow (kg/h) 269,078 249,054 -7.4 249,400 -7.3
J
815.85 822.17 0.8 822.05 0.8

Vapour to Sheds Temperature (C) 514 517 0.7 517 0.6
Upgoing Stream Temperature (C) 534 534 0.0 534 0.0
Sheds Stage Efficiency 0.53 0.53 0.0 0.53 0.0
Koch Grid Stage Efficiency 0.75 0.75 0.0 0.75 0.0
SPL Coler Duty (MMBtu/h) 44.72 45.46 1.7 45.38 1.5
101
Table VII-2 Effect of number of Grid sections on Scrubber Overhead properties

Number of Grid sections 2 5 10 Cut Point [%] 2 5 10
Temperature [C] 393 393 393 T B P [C] T B P [C] TBP fC]

Pressure [psig] 16.99 16.99 16.99 0 -253 -252 -252
Mass Density [kg/m3] 2.83 2.89 2.89 2 -206 -200 -200
Mass Enthalpy [kj/kg] -2924 -2895 -2896 5 -134 -133 -132
Phase Fraction ( Mass Basis) 0.93 0.90 0.90 12.5 -49 -48 -47
Watson K 11.38 11.37 11.37 20 274 279 277
40 377 380 382
C4-(<177C) 0.060 0.050 0.050 55 420 422 423
LGO(177-343C) 0.259 0.250 0.250 60 440 442 444
H G O (343-524C) 0.580 0.579 0.579 65 445 454 454
524+ (>524C) 0.101 0.121 0.121 70 465 475 474
75 482 484 484
80 490 506 508
85 513 515 518
90 526 532 534
92.5 539 542 545
95 552 558 558
96.5 556 571 571
98 615 623 623
99 741 746 746
100 866 866 867
10 1
0 1 , , , , , , , ^_ , 1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Temperature, C
Figure VII-5 Effect of number of Grid sections on Scrubber Overhead TBP curve
102
Table VII-3 Effect of number of Grid sections on Scrubber Bottom properties

Temperature ["C] 375 375 375 TBP [C] TBP [C] TBP pC]
Pressure [psig] 17.00 17.00 17.00 0 412 419 419
Mass Density [kg/m3] 815.85 822.17 822.05 2 466 474 474
Mass Enthalpy [kJ/kg] -1329 -1331 -1331 5 504 511 510
Phase Fraction ( Mass Basis) 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.5 520 532 532
Watson K 11.41 11.40 11.40 20 556 583 581
Viscosity [cP] 0.57 0.57 0.57 55 684 692 690
0.78 0.79 0.79 60 693 696 696
70 743 747 746
C4-(<177C) 0.000 0.000 0.000 75 750 754 753
LGO(177-343C) 0.000 0.000 0.000 80 760 765 765
HGO (343-524C) 0.089 0.056 0.056 85 807 809 809
524+(>524C) 0.911 0.944 0.944 90 852 855 854
92.5 892 895 893
95 917 919 917
96.5 964 989 989
98 1031 1032 1032
99 1047 1048 1048
100 1055 1056 1056
100
1100
Temperature, C
Figure VII-6 Effect of number of Grid sections on Scrubber Bottom TBP curve
103
0.50
2 Grid Sections: Light Ends: 20%; Water: 65% ;
100> fraction: 15%
5 Grid Sections: Light Ends:20%; Water: 65% ;
0.40 100> fraction: 15%
10 Grid Sections: Light Ends:20%; Water: 65% ;
100> fraction: 15%
V)
c
o 0.30
o
2
50.20
2
TO ID
0.10
0.00
200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000=
Figure VII-7 Effect of number of Grid sections on Scrubber Overhead composition
2 Grid Sections: Light Ends: 0% ; Water: 1%;

100> fraction: 99%
5 Grid Sections: Light Ends: 0% ; Water: 1%;
100> fraction: 99%
O 10 Grid Sections: Light Ends: 0% ; Water: 1%
100> fraction: 99%
200-300 300-400
In
400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000>
Figure VII-8 Effect of number of Grid sections on Scrubber Bottom composition
104
Discussion:
When the number of Grid sections increases from 2 to 5 that means better contact between
rising vapour through the Grid and falling liquid, mainly HGO Wash. Fraction 500-600C from
HGO evaporates and ends up in vapour. Mass flow rate, density and average molecular weight of
Overhead rises, and composition shows higher presence of these heavier fractions.
Liquids in the Scrubber contain less middle fractions; Heavy fractions are more
concentrated, causing higher density and average molecular weight of the Scrubber Bottom.
Mass flow rate of all liquids along the Scrubber decreases. Lower mass flow rate of the Grid
Liquid causes lower flow rate of the Shed Vapour. Also, less liquid contacts the hot vapours
from the cyclones, and the Shed bottom temperature rises. Except Shed bottom temperature, all
temperatures along the Scrubber do not change significantly.
Further increasing the number of Grid sections beyond five has no effect on Scrubber
parameters or stream properties.
105
VIII. Simulation of the Conditions from Start of Run to End of Run
In this case study, the effect of the conditions (absolute pressure and the pressure drop) at
the start of run (SOR) and the end of run (EOR) of the Fluid Coker, explained in Section 3.2.3
have been investigated. At the SOR the pressure in the Scrubber is set to be 17 psig (117.21
kPa), and pressure drop along the grid 0.4 in of water (0.07 kPa). As the fouling of the grid and
the cyclone nozzles due to the coke formation occurs, the pressure drop increases. In order to
maintain sufficient production of the Overhead, pressure in the Scrubber is raised gradually from
17 psig (117.21 kPa) at the SOR to 27 psig (186.16 kPa ) at the EOR. Pressure drop increases
from 0.4 in of water to 2.5 in of water (0.36 kPa). This change in pressure drop results from
changes in hydrodynamics at the two pressures considered. Fouling itself is not directly
accounted for. Accordingly, the pressure at the top of the grid changes from 16.6 psig (117.14
kPa) to 26.9 psig (185.53 kPa) . Note that Overhead production rate is not constant.
a
The effect of change in absolute pressure in the Scrubber and pressure drop in the Grid has
been simulated and effects on Scrubber temperature profile, Scrubber Overhead and Scrubber
Pool Liquid flow rates, composition and properties have been investigated.
Observations:
Temperature profde:
- A s the pressure drop increases, all temperatures along the Scrubber slightly increase
(a few degrees). Only Sheds bottom temperature drops for 6C (Table VIII-1,
Figures VIII-1 andVIII-2).
a
) In this case study, units for the pressures and pressure drops are adapted to the commonly
used units in the plant. For conversion: 1 psig = 6.8948 kPa
106
-- -Pdrop0.4in;
Abs. P=17psig
*Pdrop=0.81 in;
480
Abs. P=19psig
--Pdrop=1.23in;
Abs P=21 psig
460
- Grid Top Pdrop=1.65in;
- Grid Bottom
Abs P=23 psig
440 Pdrop2.07in;
e - Shed Top
Abs.P=25
3
- Shed Bottom Pdrop2.5in;
1
8. - Scrubber Pool Abs.P=27
420
380
0.00 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.50

17 19 21 23 25 27
Top scale: P r e s s u r e d r o p in Grid, in. of water 10 20 30 40 50
Bottom s c a l e : Absolute p r e s s u r e in the Position, feet from bottom of scr. pool
S c r u b b e r , psig
Figure VIII-1 Effect of pressure drop in Figure VIII-2 Effect of pressure drop in
the Grid and absolute pressure in the Grid and absolute pressure in the
Scrubber on temperatures along the Scrubber on temperature profde along
-Actual volume and mass flow rate of the Scrubber Overhead decrease gradually by
24% and 4.4%, respectively, based on the SOR case (Table VIII-1, Figure VIII-3).
-Density increases from 2.83 to 3.58 kg/m (Table VIII-1). 3
-Average molecular weight drops from 71 to 63 (Table VIII-2).
-Composition shows lower presence of 400C + fractions (Table VIII-2, Figures VIII-5
and VIII-7).
-Actual volume and mass flow rate increase by 15% and 13% (Table VIII-1).
107
- Density drops from 816 to 802 kg/m (Table VIII-1).
3
-Average molecular weight changes from 637 to 610 (Table VIII-3).
-Composition shows higher presence of middle fractions (400-600C) (Table VIII-3,

Figures VIII-6 and VIII-8).
Other.
-Sheds Vapour and Grid Liquid mass flow decrease, while Liquid from the Sheds actual
volume and mass flow increase (Figure VIII-4).
Figure V I I I - 3 Effect of pressure drop Figure V I I I - 4 Effect of pressure drop

in the Grid and absolute pressure in the in Grid and absolute pressure in the
Scrubber on mass flow rate of the Scrubber on mass flow rate of other
Scrubber Overhead and Bottom streams
108
v Chapter 6 - Case Studies: Results and Discussion
Scrubber parameters
KxhGid BED Case FtesureorcpintreKxhGrid

Top Fressuie (psig) 1699 1857 2096 2294 2493 26.91
ftfiftkn ft BaoTiFtBssue (psig) 17 19 21 23 25 27
FtessureDop( in of water) 040 081 1.23 1.65 207 250
pod uottcrri FreasureDcpfpa) 0.014 0029 % 0.044 % Q06 % Q075 % Q09 %
KxtiGidTcp 43 Tqp Sags Tsip Est (t) 393 394 02 394 02 395 0.5 395 Q5 395 Q5
Hb+iQidEtt. 38 BrJt0Ti9ar^Termaft) 395 395 Q1 396 Q2 396 Q3 397 Q4 397 04
STedsTqp 34 Tqp Stags Torp Est CQ 405 405 QO 403 02 406 Q3 406 Q3 407 Q4
STSOSBI 22 EdtDrnSageTerrp Est CQ 473 471 0.4 470 -0.7 459 -1.0 468 -12 467 -1.4
Soxtba-Pod 0 BJk Liqud Terperatije ft) 375 375 QO 375 QO 375 0.0 375 Q0 375 QO
HojvFaes& Densities
A i d VflirreRa/vtrrfTh) 274,787 255259 -60
SoUtja-aetead 213,570 -11.4 23Q4C -161 218600 -2Q4 207,931 -24.3
M3ssRow(kgh) 778,651 771,718 -0.9 764,769 -1.8 757,6 -27 750,931 -36 744,287 AA
^te^tyfkc/rr ) 3
28! 293 55 314 10.8 3Z 160 344 212 353 263
Ad^VfluTCRcwfrrf/h) 78E 813 30 836 59 85E 89 882 11.8 906 14.6
SQttbPod Uqj'd
IVassHcw(kgfri) 64372c 66Q619 26 676,903 52 698,319 7.7 703,53: 102 725,577 127
IvassfinatyWrrT) 816 813 -0.4 810 -0.7 807 -1.1 80E -1.4 802 -1.7
CvBtead/ATB fVtesflcwFaio 25 255 -0.9 25; -1.8 251 -27 249 -36 247 4.4
QidUqJd AdijalVtiLrreRo(rrf/h) 3D: 303 -04 302 -0.9 301 -1.1 300 -1.4 300 -1.7
lvB5sRcw(kgh) 217,831 216233 -Q7 214,747 -1.4 213606 -20 212,529 -24 211,580, -29
Nte irBity(kg'rr )
r 3
714.97 71282 -Q3 710.83 -Q6 70915 -08 707.54 -1.0 7031C -1.2
SnedVfepcr AJi^\<tiLneRcw(rr /h) 3
277,32 26Q753 -60 243,023 -11.3 232,791 -161 22Q921 21Q16E -242
M3ssRcw(kgti) 87Q45C 851,S -1.0 863,457 -20 84519C -29 837,399 -38 829,807 A.7
314 331 53 347 10.5 363 157 379 20.8 39E 258
3-BrJUQjd Adu=l\fluTBRo/v(rr?/h) 497 51C 27 521.83 50 533 7.4 54E 97 567 120
M3ssRow(kg4i) 361,323 33904 22 376,88: 4.3 384,44E 64 391,949 85 399316 1Q5
KteD&^flg'rr?) 724.7E 72363 -02 72224 -Q3 72Q6E -06 71907 -08 717.46 -1.0
ToOter A u^\^LrreRcw(rr 7h)
+ 3
33C 34C 30 3* 59 359 89 369 11.8 37E 14.6
fVB3sRcw(kgh) 26907t 276,139 26 282,946 52 28Q820 7.7 293,607 1Q2 308291 127
8158E 81279 -Q4 80998 -Q7 807.2c -1.1 804.63 -1.4 80211 -1.7
AcUtiorol irfarnation
\*por to Shads Ta-rp=ratLre(C) 514 513 -02 512 -Q3 512 -05 511 -Q6 510 -Q7
IpgaraSjBam TerparalrefC) 534 534 -Q1 533 02 533 -02 533 -03 532 -Q3
Sheds SageEffidary Q53 Q53 QO Q53 QO Q53 0.0 Q53 QO Q53 QO
KrfiGid Stage Efiidaxy Q75 Q75 QO Q75 QO Q75 QO Q75 QO Q75 QO
SFLOda- rOfy(MvButi) 44.72 4565 21 4681 4.7 4812 7.6 4941 1Q5 5072 134
109
Scrubber Overhead properties
Pressure drop in the Grid, in. water 0.4 2.5 Gut Point [%] 0.4 2.5
Pressure in the Scrubber, psig 17 27 17 27
Temperature [ C] U
393 395 TBP["C] TBP["C]
Pressure [psig] 16.99 26.91 0 -253 -253
Mass Density [kg/m 3] 2.83 3.27 2 -207 -209
Act. Volume Flow [m3/h] 274,787 207,839 3.5 -167 -171
Mass Enthalpy [kj/kg] -2924 -3179 5 -136 -140
Vapour Phase Fraction ( Mass Basis) 0.93 0.91 12.5 -51 -57
Std. Gas Flow [STD_m3/h] 260,141 255,492 17.5 -3 -6
Watson K 11.38 11.43 20 266 244
40 373 365
C4-(<177 C) 0.060 0.067 55 420 407
LGO (173-743 C) 0.259 0.268 60 439 421
HGO (343-524 C) 0.580 0.564 65 442 440
524+ (>524 C) 0.101 0.100 70 459 447
75 471 466
80 486 482
85 496 493
90 525 525
92.5 537 536
95 550 549
96.5 556 555
98 616 615
99 744 743
100 871 869
100
90
80
70
Pdrop 0.4 in; Abs. P=17 psig
60 Pdrop 2.5 in; Abs. P=27 psig
50
5 40
30
20
10
0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Temperature, C
Scrubber Overhead TBP curve
110
Scrubber Bottom properties
P r e s s u r e d r o p in t h e G r i d , in. w a t e r 0.4 2.5 Cut Point [%] 0.4 2.5
P r e s s u r e in t h e S c r u b b e r , p s i g 17 27 17 27
Temperature [ C] U
375 375 TBP [C] TBP [ C]U
Pressure [psig] 17.00 27.00 0 412 389

Mass Density [kg/m3] 815.85 802.11 2 466 452
Act. Volume Flow [m3/h] 789 905 3.5 490 466
Mass Enthalpy [kj/kg] -1329 -1324 5 504 485
Phase Fraction ( Mass Basis) 0.00 0.00 12.5 520 513
Watson K 11.41 11.44 20 556 520
Viscosity [cP] 0.57 0.55 55 684 681
0.78 0.76 60 693 685
C4-(<177C) 0.000 0.000 75 750 745
LGO (177-343C) 0.000 0.000 80 760 754
HGO (343-524C) 0.089 0.152 85 807 787
524+ (>524C) 0.911 0.848 90 852 821
92.5 892 885
95 917 904
96.5 964 959
98 1031 1023
99 1047 1038
100 1055 1053
100
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

T e r n p e r a t u r e , C
Scrubber Bottom TBP curve
111
Pdrop 0.4 in; Abs. P=17 psig: Light Ends: 20%;

Water: 65% ; 100> fraction: 15%
200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000>

Scrubber Overhead composition
Pdrop 0.4 in; Abs. P=17 psig: Light Ends: 0%

U Pdrop 2.5 in; Abd. P=27 psig: Light Ends: 0% ;

200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000>
Scrubber Bottom composition
112
Discussion:
In this case study, all changes are caused by increase in absolute pressure in the Scrubber,
not by pressure drop along the Grid.
As the higher pressure is applied in the whole Scrubber, less evaporation occurs both in the
tray column (Sheds) and the Koch Grid. Due to the less heat of evaporation spent, the
temperatures in the whole system slightly increase. Less vapour and more liquid are produced.
Accumulation of the liquid occurs mostly in the bottom of the Sheds, cooling the rising vapour
more effectively. That is the reason why only Shed bottom temperature drops by 6C.
Gas volume is very responsive to pressure and the raise in Scrubber Overhead density is due
to the increase in pressure, not to the change in composition. Table VIII-2 shows that the average
molecular weight of the Overhead is lower at the EOR than at the SOR, what would lead to drop
of density. In this case the pressure effect on density is dominant.
Figure VIII-7 shows that at higher pressures in the Scrubber, less heavy components (above
400C NBP) are present in the Overhead. Their ability to evaporate is reduced.
Decrease in liquid's densities is due to the fact that as the pressure increases, less heavy
(above 400C NBP) components evaporate and go to the Overhead, and more fractions under
500C are present in the liquid. Heavy fractions are still present in the liquid in the same amount,
but their percentage in the total liquid is lower, because of the presence of these lighter fractions.
This is shown in Figure VIII-8. Also, the average molecular weight of the Scrubber Pool Liquid
is lower, due to the same reason (Table VIII-3).
113
IX. Water Instead of HGO Underwash
HGO Underwash stream enters the Scrubber under the Grid and serves to help HGO Wash
stream to scrub particulates and heavy components from rising vapour as well as to cool it down
in order to prevent fouling of the Grid.
In this case study water at 40C is used instead of HGO Underwash. The goal is to decrease
Grid entrance (Grid Bottom) temperature by 10-20C, in order to reduce fouling in the Grid. If
Scrubber Overhead temperature was not controlled while water is applied, it would be possible
to achieve a significant drop in Grid entrance temperature, but in that case the Overhead
temperature gets too low. For that reason Overhead temperature has to be controlled either by
HGO Wash flow rate, or ATB flow rate. Both cases are considered.
If water flow rate is 700 barrel/day (~4600kg/h), the temperature profile remains similar to
the original case with the HGO Underwash, without control. Higher water flow rate (2.5
kbarrel/day = -17000 kg/h), controlled by HGO or ATB flow rate, decreases Grid entrance
temperature by 5 and 7C, respectively, keeping the Overhead temperature constant. In order to
control the Overhead temperature, ATB actual flow rate should be deceased by 2.6% (from 55
kbarrel/day to 52.5 kbarrel/day) and HGO Wash actual flow rate by 54% (from 24 kbarrel/day to
11 kbarrel/day). These three cases are summarized below.
Observations:
-With 700 barrel/day of water instead of HGO Underwash, without any control of
Overhead temperature, Scrubber temperature profile remains almost the same as in
the original case. Shed Bottom temperature increases by 10C.
-2.5 kbarrel/day of water is able to decrease Grid Bottom temperature by 5C, if the
Overhead temperature is controlled by ATB flow rate. Shed Top temperature is
also several degrees lower and Shed Bottom temperature is 11 degrees higher.
- 2.5 kbarrel/day of water, with the HGO control, shows better ability to decrease
Grid entrance temperature, while keeping the Overhead temperature constant
(Table IX-1, Figures IX-1 and IX-2).
114
500 500 0 kbarrel/day

water, 10
kbarrel/day HGO
0.7 kbarrel/day
480 480
w ater,
uncontrolled
2.5 kbarrel/day
460 460 w ater, controlled!
by ATB
2.5 kbarrel/day
- Grid Top 440 w ater, controlled
440 A
- Grid Bottom by HGO wash
- Shed Top
420 - Shed Bottom 420 4
- Scrubber Pool
400 400
380 380
360 360
2 3 10 20 30 40
Cases: 1: Base case- 0 kbarrel/day water (10 Position, feet from bottom of scr. pool
kbarrel/day HGO); 2: 0.07 kbarrel/day water
unontr.; 3:2.5 kbarrel/day water contr. by ATB; 4:
2.5 kbarrel/day water contr. by HGO wash
Figure IX-1 Effect of water instead of HGO Figure IX-2 Effect of water instead of HGO
Underwash on temperatures along the Underwash on temperature profile along the
Scrubber Scrubber

-In three cases (700 barrel/day of water, uncontrolled, 2.5 kbarrel/day of water,
controlled by HGO and 2.5 kbarrel/day of water, controlled by ATB, actual volume of
the Scrubber Overhead increases by 1.6, 6.5 and 5.6% and mass flow rate decreases by
3.5, 3.9 and 10.4%, respectively. (Table IX-1, Figure IX-3).
-Density changes from 2.83 to 2.69, 2.56 and 2.40 kg/m (Table IX-1). 3
115
-Average molecular weight decreases from 71 to 67, 64 and 60 (Table IX-2).
- A l l three cases show lower presence of middle fractions (300-500C), but higher
content of both lighter and heavier fractions (Table IX-2, Figures IX-5 and IX-7).
-700 barrel/day of water, uncontrolled, 2.5 kbarrel/day of water, controlled by HGO and
2.5 kbarrel/day of water, controlled by ATB cases make actual volume of Scrubber
Bottom to drop by 8.6, 26.5 and 13.9%, respectively. Mass flow rate drops by 7.8, 26
and 13% (Table IX-1).
- Density changes from 816 to 823, 822 and 824 kg/m (Table IX-1).
3
-Average molecular weight changes from 637 to 654, 655, 664 (Table LX-3).

are more concentrated (Table LX-3, Figures IX-6 and IX-8).
Other.
-Grid Liquid volume and mass flow rate slightly increase for first two cases, while for
the last one both radically drop.
-Shed Vapour and Shed Liquid mass flow rate drop for all three cases, compared to
original one (Figure IX-4).
116
780 900
760 850
740 800
720 \
750
700
- Overhead 700 -I
680 -I
660 -I - Scrubber Bottom 650
640 600 -
- Grid Liquid
620 550 - - Shed Vapor
600 -I 500 - S h e d Liquid
580 450
560 400
540
520
500
480
460
440
420
1
C a s e s : 1: Base c a s e - 0 kbarrel/day water (10
C a s e s : 1: Base c a s e - 0 kbarrel/day water (10
unontr.; 3: 2.5 kbarrel/day water contr. by A T B ; 4:
unontr.; 3: 2.5 kbarrel/day water contr. by ATB; 4:
2.5 kbarrel/day water contr. by HGO w a s h
2.5 kbarrel/day water contr. by HGO w a s h
Figure IX-3 Effect of water instead of HGO Figure IX-4 Effect of water instead of
Underwash on mass flow rate of Scrubber HGO Underwash on mass flow rate of
Overhead and Bottom other streams
117
Table IX-1 Effect of water instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber parameters
Water Flow Rate Water flow rate (instead of HGO Underwash) (barrel/day)
m3/h 0 3 12 12
Position ft kbarrel/day 0 (10 kbl/day HGO) 0.70 2.50 2.50
from the (Base Case) Uncontrolled Controlled by ATB Controlled by HGO
pool bottom Case: 1 2 % 3 % 4 %
Koch Grid Top 43 Top Stage Temp Est (C) 393 393 0.0 389 -1.1 390 -0.8
Koch Grid Bot. 38 Bottom Stage Temp Est (C) 395 396 0.3 390 -1.2 387 -2.1
Sheds Top 34 Top Stage Temp Est (C) 405 406 0.3 401 -1.0 395 -2.4

Scrubber Overhead Actual Volume Flow (rrfVh) 274,787 279,116 1.6 292,649 6.5 290,197 5.6
Mass Flow (kg/h) 778,651 751,648 -3.5 748,329 -3.9 697,520 -10.4
Mass Density (kg/m)3
2.83 2.69 -5.0 2.56 -9.8 2.40 -15.2
Scrubb.Pool Liquid Actual Volume Flow (m/h)
3
789 721 -8.6 580 -26.5 679 -13.9
Mass Flow (kg/h) 643,728 593,311 -7.8 476,648 -26.0 559,999 -13.0
816 823 0.9 822 0.8 824 1.0
Overhead / ATB Mass Flow Ratio 2.58 2.49 -3.5 3.15 22.2 2.31 -10.4
Grid Liquid Actual Volume Flow (m/h)
3
305 309 1.3 318 4.2 202 -33.7
Mass Flow (kg/h) 217,861 220,857 1.4 227,254 4.3 146,778 -32.6
714.97 715.70 0.1 715.74 0.1 726.36 1.6
Shed Vapor Actual Volume Flow (m/h)
3
277,329 281,729 1.6 295,180 6.4 290,634 4.8
Mass Flow (kg/h) 870,450 846,437 -2.8 849,522 -2.4 798,526 -8.3
3.14 3.00 -4.3 2.88 -8.3 2.75 -12.5
Shed Liquid Actual Volume Flow (m/h)
3
497 455 -8.4 384.31 -22.6 423 -14.9
Mass Flow (kg/h) 361,323 329,985 -8.7 277,213 -23.3 308,849 -14.5
724.76 725.14 0.1 721.32 -0.5 730.15 0.7
To Coker Actual Volume Flow (m/h) 330 301 -8.6 242 -26.5 284 -13.9
Mass Flow (kg/h) 269,078 248,004 -7.8 199,239 -26.0 234,080 -13.0
815.85 822.97 0.9 822.45 0.8 824.18 1.0
SPL Coler Duty (MMBtu/h) 44.72 44.26 -1.0 42.74 -4.4 39.06 -12.7
118
Table IX-2 Effect of water instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Overhead properties
Water flow rate Basic 0.7 kbpd H 0
2 2.5 kbpd H 0
2 2.5 kbpd H 0
2 Cut Point [%] Basic 0.7 kbpd HjO
(10 kbpd HGO Wash) Uncontrolled Controlled by ATBControlled by HGO (10 kbpd HGO Wash) Uncontrolled
Temperature fC] 393 393 389 390 TBP fC]
Pressure [psig] 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 0 -253 -253
Molecular Weight 70.77 67.47 63.58 60.07 1 -237 239
Mass Density [kg/m3] 2.83 2.70 2.56 2.40 2 207 -209
Act. Volume Flow [m3/h] 282,860 287,383 301,246 298,723 3.5 -167 171
Mass Enthalpy [kJ/kg] 2924 3056 -3265 -3414 5 136 140
Mass Entropy [kJ/kg-C] 5.30 5.44 5.56 5.75 7.5 -102 -104
Mass Heat Capacity [kJ/kg-C] 2.74 2.74 272 2.73 10 85 90
Vapor Phase Fraction (Mass Basis) 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.94 12.5 51 -56
Specific Heat [kJ/kgmole-C] 193.80 184.96 173.16 164.05 15 34 43
Std. Gas Flow [STD_m3/h] 260,141 263,719 278,271 274,537 17.5 -3 -5
Watson K 11.38 11.42 11.44 11.51 20 266 248
Liq. Mass Density (Std. Cond) [kg/m3] 930.01 922.31 921.94 907.94 25 310 309
Molar Volume [m3/kgmole] 24.98 25.03 24.87 24.99 30 336 335
1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 40 373 367
C4-(<177C) 0.060 0.055 0.073 0.074 55 420 420
LGO (177-343C) 0.259 0.268 0.263 0.264 60 439 439
HGO(343-524C) 0.580 0.569 0.558 0.554 65 442 444
524+(>524C) 0.101 0.107 0.107 0.108 70 459 465
75 471 481
80 486 489
85 496 512
90 525 526
92.5 537 539
95 550 552
96.5 556 556
98 616 630
99 744 755
100 871 882
100
90
80
O kbarrel/day water,
10 kbarrel/day HGO
70
0.7 kbarrel/day w ater,
uncontrolled
60
-2.5 kbarrel/day water,
| 50 controlled by ATB
O 2.5 kbarrel/day w ater,

> 40 controlled by HGO
wash
30 \
20
10 \
0 -I , , , , , , , 1
O 100 200 300 400 500 600 ' 700 800 900 1000
Temperature, C
Figure IX-5 Effect of water instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Overhead TBP curve
119
Table IX-3 Effect of water instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Bottom properties
Water flow rate Basic 0.7 kbpd H 0
2 2.5 kbpd H 02 2.5 kbpd HjO Cut Point Basic 0.7 kbpd H 0 2500 kbpd H 0
2 2 2500 kbpd H 0 2
(10kbpd Uncontrolled Controlled Controlled [%] (10 kbpd Uncontrolled Controlled Controlled
HGO Wash) by ATB by HGO HGO Wash) by ATB by HGO
Temperature f C] 375 375 375 375 TBPfC] TBP[C] TBPfC] TBPfC]
Pressure [psig] 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 0 412 420 425 423
Mass Density [kg/m3] 815.85 822.97 822.45 824.18 2 466 485 487 486
Act. Volume Flow[m3/h] 812 741 597 699 3.5 490 509 512 512
Mass Enthalpy [kJ/kg] -1329 -1330 -1330 -1326 5 504 514 514 514
Mass Heat Capacity [kJ/kg-C] 2.89 2.89 2.89 2.89 10 517 525 524 542
Specific Heal [kJ/kgmole-C] 1843.61 1887.95 1890.50 1920.13 15 525 556 556 558
Std. Gas Flow [STD_m3/h] 23,893 21,417 17,210 19,926 17.5 548 559 558 563
Watson K 11.41 11.40 11.40 11.41 20 556 564 564 591
Molar Volume [m3/kgmole] 0.78 0.79 ,. 0.80 0.81 35 605 630 630 632
Surface Tension [dyne/cm] 15.47 15.72 15.72 1572 45 635 681 681 683
Viscosity [cP] 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.57 55 684 691 691 693
Volume fractior 65 706 740 740 742
C4-(<177C) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 70 743 746 749 748
LGO(177-343C) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75 750 753 754 755
HGO(343-524C) 0.089 0.049 0.057 0.048 80 760 763 764 764
524+(>524C) 0.911 0.951 0.943 0.952 85 807 813 815 815
90 852 881 883 884
92.5 892 896 898 898
95 917 944 953 950
96.5 964 964 965 965
98 1031 1035 1040 1037
99 1047 1048 1050 1049
100 1055 1056 1060 1057
100
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

Figure IX-6 Effect of water instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Bottom TBP curve
120
0 kbarrel/day water, 10 kbarrel/day HGO: Light Ends: 20% ;

0.7 kbarrel/day water, uncontrolled: Light Ends: 19% ;
2.5 kbarrel/day water, controlled by ATB: Light Ends: 19% ;
0 2.5 kbarrel/day water, controlled by HGO: Light Ends: 19%
200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000>

C o m p o n e n t s ' Boiling Temperatures Range, C
Figure IX-7 Effect of water instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Overhead composition
0 kbarrel//day water, 10 kbarrel/day HGO:

Light Ends: 0% ; Water: 1%; 100> fraction:
99%
0.7 kbarrel/day water, uncontrolled: Light
Ends: 0% ; Water: 1%; 100> fraction: 99%
2.5 kbarrel/day water, controlled by ATB:

Light Ends: 0% ; Water: 1%; 100> fraction:
99%
0 2.5 kbarrel/day water, controlled by HGO
wash: Light Ends: 0% ; Water: 1%; 100>
fraction: 99%
rrrg] m
200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000>
Figure IX-8 Effect of water instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Bottom composition
121
Discussion:
When water at 40C is applied instead of HGO Underwash, without any control of the
Overhead temperature, 700 barrel/day is enough to achieve the same temperature profile as
10,000 barrel/day HGO. The temperature of the water is much lower than 325C for HGO.
Overhead mass flow is lower due to the lower total mass "in". Its density and average molecular
weight is decreased because most of the water ends up in the Overhead, and some middle
fractions that originate from HGO are not present there any more.
Scrubber Bottom mass flow rate significantly decreases, because of lower total mass flow
"in", and missing HGO fraction that would be present in the Bottom if HGO Underwash was in
service. This also causes more concentrated heavier fractions, and consequently higher density
and average molecular weight of the Bottom.
With controlled Overhead temperature, either by HGO or ATB flow rate, effects are similar
with the case without control. The difference is that, actually, total mass flow "in" is much lower
than in the first case, because along with applying 2.5 kbarrel/day of water, ATB has to be
decreased by 2.5 kbarrel/day, and HGO by 13 kbarrel/day, in order to keep the Overhead
temperature the same. That affects the flow rates of Overhead and Bottom, decreasing both
radically. However, the volumetric production rate of LGO and HGO is improved.
When ATB flow rate is decreased for the control, it mostly affects Scrubber Bottom flow
rate (decreases by 26%), because ATB is a heavier stream and most of its components end up in
the Bottom. HGO is lighter, and its flow rate affects both Overhead (decreases by 10%) and
Bottom (decreases by 13%).
122
X. Saturated Steam Instead of HGO Underwash
In this case study saturated steam at 150 psig (1035 kPa) is used instead of HGO
Underwash. The goal is the same as in the previous case study - to decrease Grid entrance
temperature, while keeping the Overhead temperature the same. Mass flow of the steam has been
set from 0 kg/h (when 10000 barrel/day HGO was used-approximately 49000 kg/h) to 22000
kg/h. An additional case is considered - where saturated steam mass flow rate is the same as in
the previous case study, where only 700 barrel/day (4627 kg/h) of water is used.
If saturated steam flow rate was 7000 kg/h, the temperature profile would remain similar to
the original case with HGO Underwash, without control. Higher flow rate of 22000 kg/h,
controlled by HGO or ATB flow rate, decreases Grid entrance temperature by 4C and 9C,
respectively, keeping the Overhead temperature constant. In order to control the Overhead
temperature ATB actual flow rate should be decreased by 4.5% (from 55 to 52 kbarrel/day), and
HGO Wash by 65% (from 24 to 8.3 kbarrel/day). All effects are similar to the previous case,
with water used instead of HGO Underwash.
In the case where same mass flow rate of saturated steam is used as water in the previous
case, all effects are very similar. Temperatures along the Scrubber are slightly higher (1-2C),
Overhead volume and mass flow rate a little bit higher, and Scrubber Bottom volume and mass
flow rate slightly lower. Properties of both Overhead and Scrubber Bottom are almost the same
for two cases.
Observations:
o 7000 kg/h of saturated steam instead of HGO Underwash, without any control of
Overhead temperature, makes the Scrubber temperature profile to remain almost
the same as in the original case. Only Shed Bottom temperature increases by 9C.
o 22000 kg/h of saturated steam decreases Grid Bottom temperature by 4C, if the
Overhead temperature is controlled by ATB flow rate. Shed Top temperature is
also several degrees lower and Shed Bottom temperature is 15C higher.
123
o 22000 kg/h of saturated steam, with the HGO control, is able to decrease Grid
entrance temperature by 9C, while keeping the Overhead temperature at 390C
(Table X - l , Figures X - l and X-2).
Figure X-l Effect of saturated steam instead Figure X-2 Effect of saturated steam
of HGO Underwash on temperatures along instead of HGO Underwash on
the Scrubber temperature profile along the Scrubber

-In the first three cases (7000 kg/h of saturated steam, uncontrolled, 22000 kg/h of
saturated steam, controlled by HGO and 22000 kg/h saturated steam, controlled by
124
ATB) actual volume of the Scrubber Overhead increases by 2.6, 9.3 and 8.2 and mass
flow rate decreases by 3.3, 2.9 and 10.7%, respectively (Table X - l , Figure X-3).
-Density changes from 2.83 to 2.67, 2.52 and 2.34 kg/m (Table X-l).
3
-Average molecular weight decreases from 71 to 67, 64 and 60 (Table X-2).
-Composition shows lower presence of middle fractions (300-500C), but higher content
of both lighter and heavier fractions (Table X-2, Figures X-5 and X-7).
-In 7000 kg/h of saturated steam, uncontrolled, 22000 kg/h of saturated steam,
controlled by HGO, 22000 kg/h saturated steam, controlled by ATB, both actual
volume and mass flow rate of Scrubber Bottom drops by around 7, 35 and 16%,
respectively(Table X-l).
- Density changes from 816 to 822, 827 and 827 kg/m (Table X-l).
3
-Average molecular weight changes from 637 to 652, 664, 670 (Table X-3).

are more concentrated (Table X-3, Figures X-6 and X-8).
Other:
-Grid Liquid volume and mass flow rate slightly increase for first two cases, while for
the third one both radically drop and for the last one slightly drop.
-Shed Vapour volume flow rate increases, while mass flow rate decreases.
-Both Shed Liquid volume and mass flow rate significantly drop (Figure X-4).
125
2 3 4 2 3 4
C a s e s : 1: 0 kg/h s t e a m , 10 kbarrel/day HGO; 2: C a s e s : 1:0 kg/h s t e a m , 10 kbarrel/day HGO; 2:
7000 kg/h s t e a m , uncontrolled; 3:22000 kg/h 7000 kg/h s t e a m , uncontrolled; 3: 22000 kg/h
s t e a m , controlled by A T B ; 4:22000 kg/h s t e a m , s t e a m , controlled by A T B ; 4:22000 kg/h s t e a m ,
controlled by HGO w a s h ; 5:4627 kg/h s t e a m , controlled by HGO w a s h ; 5: 4627 kg/h s t e a m ,
uncontrolled P r e s s u r e drop in Grid, in. of water uncontrolled
Figure X-3 Effect of saturated steam instead Figure X-4 Effect of saturated steam
of HGO Underwash on mass flow rate of instead of HGO Underwash on mass
Scrubber Overhead and Bottom flow rate of other streams
126
Table X-l Effect of saturated steam instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber parameters
Saturated Steam Flow Rate Saturated steam flow rate instead of HGO Underwash
Position ft kg/h 0 (10 kbl/day HGO) 7000 22000 22000 4627
from the Base Case Uncontrolled Controlled by ATB Controlled by HGO Same as water
pool bottom Case: 1 2 % 3 % 4 % 5 %
Koch Grid Top 43 Top Stage Temp Est (C) 393 392 -0.2 389 -1.0 390 -0.7 394 0.2
Koch Grid Bot. 38 Bottom Stage Temp Est (C) 395 395 0.0 391 -1.1 386 -2.4 397 0.5
Sheds Top 34 Top Stage Temp Est (C) 405 405 0.1 401 -0.9 394 -2.7 407 0.5
Sheds Bot. 22 Bottom Stage Temp Est (C) 473 482 1.7 497 5.0 486 2.7 486 2.6
Scrubber Pool 0 Bulk Liquid Temperature (C) 375 375 0.0 375 0.0 375 0.0 375 0.0
Scrubber Overhead Actual Volume Flow (m/h) 3

274,787 281,987 2.6 300,449 9.3 297,419 8.2 279,618 1.8
Mass Flow (kg/h) 778,651 752,644 3.3 755,865 -2.9 695,494 -10.7 754,755 -3.1
2.83 2.67 -5.8 2.52 -11.2 2.34 -17.5 2.70 -4.7
Scrubb.Pool Liquid Actual Volume Flow (m/h) 3
789 727 -7.9 510 -35.3 661 -16.2 713 -9.6
Mass Flow (kg/h) 643,728 597,497 -7.2 422,224 -34.4 546,779 -15.1 587,558 -8.7
816 822 0.8 827 1.4 827 1.4 824 1.0
Overhead / ATB Mass Flow Ratio 2.58 2.49 -3.3 3.48 35.0 2.30 -10.7 2.50 -3.1
Grid Liquid Actual Volume Flow (m/h) 3
305 307 0.6 324 6.3 189 -38.1 310 1.8
Mass Flow (kg/h) 217,861 219,461 0.7 232,176 6.6 137,495 -36.9 221,960 1.9
714.97 715.98 0.1 716.77 0.3 729.26 2.0 715.73 0.1
Shed Vapor Actual Volume Flow (m/h) 3
277,329 284,611 2.6 303,004 9.3 297,520 7.3 282,240 1.8
Mass Flow (kg/h) 870,450 846,044 2.8 861,981 -1.0 800,297 -8.1 850,652 -2.3
3.14 2.97 -5.3 2.84 -9.4 2.69 -14.3 3.01 -4.0
Shed Liquid Actual Volume Flow (m/h) 3
497 458 -7.8 349.92 -29.6 411 -17.3 450 -9.3
Mass Flow (kg/h) 361,323 332,365 -8.0 249,529 -30.9 300,237 -16.9 326,195 -9.7
724.76 725.57 0.1 713.11 -1.6 730.43 0.8 724.23 -0.1
To Coker Actual Volume Flow (m/h) 3
330 304 -7.9 213 -35.3 276 -16.2 298 -9.6
Mass Flow (kg/h) 269,078 249,754 -7.2 176,490 -34.4 228,554 -15.1 245,599 -8.7
815.85 822.01 0.8 827.32 1.4 826.99 1.4 824.18 1.0
Vapour to Sheds Temperature (C) 514 517 0.6 522 1.6 520 1.1 518 0.9
Upgoing Stream Temperature (C) 534 534 0.1 535 0.1 535 0.1 535 0.1
Sheds Stage Efficiency 0.53 0.53 0.0 0.53 0.0 0.53 0.0 0.53 0.0
Koch Grid Stage Efficiency 0.75 0.75 0.0 0.75 0.0 0.75 0.0 0.75 0.0
SPLColer Duly (MMBtu/h) 4472 43.82 -2.0 26.03 -41.8 39.74 -11.1 44.81 0.2
127
Table X-2 Effect of saturated steam instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Overhead properties
Water flow rate Basic 7000 kg/h Steam 22000 kg/h Steam 22000 kg/h Steam Cut Point Basic 7000 kg/h Steam 22000 kg/h Steam 22000 kg/h Steam
(10 kbpd Uncontrolled Controlled Controlled [%] (10 kbpd Uncontrolled Controlled Controlled
Temperature ft] 393 392 389 390 TBP [C] TBP ft]
Pressure [psig] 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 0 -253 -253 -253 253
Molecular Weight 70.77 66.72 62.60 58.50 1 -237 -239 -239 242
Mass Density [kg/m3] 2.83 2.67 2.52 2.34 2 -207 -209 -210 -215
Act. Volume Flow [m3/h] 282,860 290,271 309,276 306,156 3.5 167 -171 -172 179
Mass Enthalpy [kJ/kg] -2924 3095 -3326 -3510 5 -136 140 141 -149
Mass Entropy [kJ/kg-C] 5.30 5.46 5.60 5.82 7.5 -102 104 -105 112
Mass Heat Capacity [kJ/kg-C] 2.74 2.74 2.72 2.73 10 -85 90 91 96
Vapor Phase Fraction (Mass Basis) 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.95 12.5 -51 57 -59 73
Specific Heat [kJ/kgmole-CJ 182.60 170.32 159.56 164.05 15 34 42 44 48
Std. Gas Flow[STD_m3/h] 266,718 285,477 281,095 274,537 17.5 -3 -5 -6 29
Watson K 11.38 11.42 11.44 11.53 20 266 246 237 3
Mass HeatofVap. [kJ/kg] 2825 2868 2950 2960 35 354 351 351 340
1.05 1.05 1.05 1.06 40 373 367 366 364
C4-(<177C) 0.060 0.059 0.075 0.093 55 420 420 420 420
LGO(177-343C) 0.259 0.266 0.259 0.262 60 439 439 439 438
HGO (343-524C) 0.580 0.568 0.557 0.529 65 442 443 444 444
524+(>524C) 0.101 0.107 0.110 0.116 70 459 464 465 464
75 471 480 482 482
80 486 489 491 490
85 496 512 513 515
90 525 526 527 527
92.5 537 539 541 542
95 550 552 553 555
96.5 556 556 557 563
98 616 630 640 655
99 744 755 767 782
100 871 882 889 909
HGO
7000 kg/h water,uncontrolled
22000 kg/h water, controlled

by A T B
22000 kg/h water, controlled

by HGO
//
' .
O 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Temperature, C
Figure X-5 Effect of sat.steam instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Overhead TBP curve
128
Table X-3 Effect of sat. steam instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Bottom properties
Water flow rate Basic 7000 kg/h Steam 22000 kg/h Steam 22000 kg/h Steam Cut Point Basic 7000 kg/h Steam 22000 kg/h Steam 22000 kg/h Steam
(10 kbpd Uncontrolled Controlled Controlled [%] (10 kbpd Uncontrolled Controlled Controlled
Temperature fC] 375 375 375 375 TBPfC] TBP fC] TBPfC] TBPfC)
Pressure [psig] 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 0 412 419 433 425
Mass Density [kg/m3] 815.85 822.01 827.32 826.99 2 466 484 495 488
Act. Volume Flow [m3/h] 812 748 525 681 3.5 490 501 515 512
Mass Enthalpy [kJ/kg] 1329 1330 1332 1330 5 504 513 520 515
Mass Heat Capacity [kJ/kg-C) 2.89 2.89 2.88 2.88 10 517 523 555 555
Std. Gas Flow [STD_m3/h] 23,893 21,659 15,018 19,293 15 525 556 560 561
Watson K 11.41 11.40 11.39 11.41 17.5 548 557 569 590
Molar Volume [m3/kg mole) 0.78 0.79 0.80 0.81 30 592 603 626 628
Surface Tension [dyne/cm] 15.47 15.69 15.91 15.85 40 630 634 680 681
Viscosity [cP] 0.57 0.57 0.59 0.58 50 682 684 685 687
55 684 690 694 695
C4-(<177C) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 70 743 746 749 749
LGO(177-343C) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75 750 753 756 756
HGO (343-524C) 0.089 0.064 0.037 0.045 80 760 762 790 765
524+(>524C) 0.911 0.936 0.963 0.955 85 807 812 818 816
90 852 881 887 886
92.5 892 895 902 899
95 917 943 962 953
96.5 964 964 987 965
98 1031 1035 1043 1039
99 1047 1048 1053 1049
100 1055 1056 1062 1057
1100
Figure X-6 Effect of sat. steam instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Bottom TBP curve
129
0 kg/h water, 10 kbarrel/day HGO: Light Ends: 20%; Water:

65% ; 100> fraction: 15%
7000 kg/h water, uncontrolled: Light Ends: 20%; Water: 67% ;

100> fraction: 14%
22000 kg/h water, controlled by ATB: Light Ends: 19%; Water

69% ; 100> fraction: 12%
0 22000 kg/h water, controlled by HGO w a s h : Light Ends: 19%;

Water: 70% ; 100> fraction: 11%
200-300 300-400 400-500

1
500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900
900-1000 1000>
Figure X-7 Effect of saturated steam instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Overhead
composition
0 kg/h water, 10 kbarrel/day HGO: Light
Ends: 0%; Water: 1% ; 100> fraction: 99%
7000 kg/h water, uncontrolled: Light Ends:

0%; Water: 1% ; 100> fraction: 99%
22000 kg/h water, controlled by ATB: Light

Ends: 0%; Water: 1% ; 100> fraction: 99%
0 22000 kg/h water, controlled by HGO wash:

Light Ends: 0%; Water: 1% ; 100> fraction:
99%
1 , wrrm , mrm
200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000>
Figure X-8 Effect of saturated steam instead of HGO Underwash on Scrubber Bottom
composition
130
Discussion:
Since all the effects are very similar to the Case Study IX where water was used instead of
HGO Underwash, also all explanations are very similar. When saturated steam at 185C is
applied instead of HGO Underwash, without any control of the Overhead temperature, 7000 kg/h
is enough to achieve the same temperature profile as 10,000 barrel/day HGO (approximately
49000 kg/h). The temperature of the steam is low comparing to 325C for HGO, and it has
higher cooling (heating) capacity.
Again, Overhead mass flow is lower due to the lower total mass "in". Its density and
average molecular weight drop because Overhead contains most of the water from the steam, and
doesn't contain middlefractionsthat originate from HGO any more.
Scrubber Bottom mass flow rate significantly decreases, because of lower total mass flow
"in", and missing HGO fraction that would be present in the Bottom if HGO Underwash was in
service. This also causes more concentrated heavier fractions, and consequently higher density
and average molecular weight of the Bottom.
With controlled Overhead temperature, either by HGO or ATB flow rate, total mass flow
"in" is much lower than in the first case, because in order to keep the Overhead temperature
constant, ATB flow rate has to be 3 kbarrel/day lower, and HGO 16 kbarrel/day lower. That
again affects the flow rates of Overhead and Bottom, decreasing it radically. However, in the
case with ATB control, the overall volumetric production rate of HGO is improved.
When ATB flow rate is decreased for the control, it mostly affects Scrubber Bottom flow
rate (decreases by 34%), because ATB is heavier stream and most of its components end up in
the Bottom. HGO is lighter, and its flow rate affects both Overhead (decreases by 10%) and
Bottom (decreases by 15%).
131
XI. Overhead Recycle Cut Point Changes
Scrubber Overhead is the final product of the Scrubber (and Fluid Coker). It contains
significant amount of heavy fractions, with NBP above 524C, which are not desirable. This
study investigates ways to reduce the presence of these fractions. In other words, to decrease the
95% cut point on the Overhead distillation curve.
The specific objective was to investigate required increase in:
ATB feed,
HGO Wash and
HGO Underwash
flow rates sufficient to drop the recycle cut point on the Overhead product distillation curve by
15C, 30C and 45C (related to the 95% cut point).
Observations and discussion:
It was found in this case study that even with radical increases in ATB, HGO Wash or HGO
Underwash flow rate, the cut point was not decreased more than 10C.
The reason for that is very low efficiency (10" ) for high boiling components (524C+) that
10
was used in the Base Case in order to match the Overhead composition. This low efficiency
means that these components, actually, by-pass directly to the Scrubber Overhead, without
getting in contact with down-flowing liquids (ATB or HGO). Hence, ATB or HGO flow rate
does not have any effect on high boiling end of the distillation curve.
Theoretically, this was related to the liquid entrainment in the vapour. As already mentioned
in Chapter 4 and 5, the vapour has very high volume flow rate comparing to liquid (hundred
thousand's comparing to hundred's), and its velocity is very high (-10 m/s). Some liquid
droplets are being carried up with vapour and finally end up in the Overhead. Tray and
component efficiency is decreased. Even with increase of liquid streams (HGO or ATB) flow
rate, more vapour is produced, and the ratio vapour/liquid doesn't change much. Entrainment is
still present, resulting in still very low efficiency for heavy fractions and their presence in the
Overhead. That reflects on the Overhead distillation curve, especially on the high temperature
end.
132
The results (process parameters and Overhead TBP distillation curves) for all three cases are
shown below. Temperature profiles, flow rate and composition charts are not presented, because
they all correspond to ATB, HGO Wash and HGO Underwash Flow Rate studies.
ATB feed flow rate:
By increasing ATB volume flow rate by 82%, the recycle cut point on Overhead distillation
curve is lowered just by 5C (Table XI-1 and Figure XI-1). It has effect on lower cut points
(middle fractions), but not so much on this higher boiling fractions.
With ATB higher flow rates, temperatures along the Scrubber get too low, what could affect
separation and other process parameters (Table XI-2).
HGO Wash flow rate:
By increasing HGO Wash flow rate by 320%, 95% recycle cut point is decreased by 8C
(Table XI-3, Figure XI-2). Scrubber temperatures are again very low (Table XI-4). HGO Wash
seems to have better ability to decrease distillation cut point than ATB, since increase of 15
kbarrel/day in flow rate can decrease cut point in the same extent as 25 kbarrel/day increase of
ATB flow rate. The reason is probably that ATB contains more heavy components, and by
increasing their content in the Scrubber, it is harder to reduce the cut point.
HGO Underwash flow rate:
If HGO Underwash volume flow rate is increased ten times from original case (10
kbarrel/day to 100 kbarrel/day), 95% distillation cut point is reduced only by 10C (Table XI-5,
Figure XI-3). Temperatures and all other properties are affected by this increase (Table XI-2).
Increase of 20 kbarrel/day in HGO Underwash flow rate has similar effect as 15 kbarrel/day
of HGO Wash and 25 kbarrel/day of ATB. HGO Underwash has the same composition as HGO
Wash, and its smaller influence on cut point is due to the position of its inlet (smaller cooling
effect on the Overhead).
133
Table XI-1 ATB flow rate effect on Overhead TBP distillation curve
ATB Flow Rate (kbarrel/day)
Cut Point [%] 55 80 100

TBP fC] TBP ["C] TBP fC]
0 -253 -253 -253
1 -237 -240 -243
2 -207 -211 -216
3.5 -167 -174 -181
5 -136 -143 -151
7.5 -102 -107 -114
10 -85 -92 -97
12.5 -51 -62 -76
15 -34 -45 -50
17.5 -3 -8 -42
20 266 206 -5
25 310 298 282
30 336 324 310
35 354 341 335
40 373 363 349
45 391 377 364
50 405 391 377
55 420 405 391
60 439 419 403
65 442 436 407
70 459 441 420
75 471 448 440
80 486 466 445
85 496 489 480
90 525 523 517
92.5 537 532 531
5M 1 r
i4(. '545
"96.5 556 556 555
98 616 617 648
99 744 753 780
100 871 888 911
134
Table XI-2 Effect of ATB flow rate on Scrubber parameters
ATB Flow Rate

Position ft m3/h 273 397 497
from the kbarrel/day 55 80 100
pool bottom (Base Case) % %
Koch Grid Top 43 Top Stage Temp Est (C) 393 376 -4.3 364 -7.4
Koch Grid Bot. 38 Bottom Stage Temp Est (C) 395 376 -4.9 362 -8.3
Sheds Top 34 Top Stage Temp Est (C) 405 386 -4.8 372 -8.1
Sheds Bot. 22 Bottom Stage Temp Est (C) 473 447 -5.6 436 -7.9
Scrubber Pool 0 Bulk Liquid Temperature (C) 375 398 6.2 371 -0.9

Scrubber Overhead Actual Volume Flow (m /h) J
274,787 266,026 -3.2 257,200 -6.4

Mass Flow (kg/h) 778,651 723,279 -7.1 663,909 -14.7
Mass Density (kq/m ) 3
2.83 2.72 -4.1 2.58 -8.9
789 1,385 75.5 1,997 153.1

Mass Flow (kg/h) 643,728 1,103,082 71.4 1,575,214 144.7
Mass Density (kq/m )
3
816 796 -2.4 789 -3.3

Overhead / A T B Mass Flow Ratio 2.58 1.65 -36.1 1.15 -55.4
305 260 -14.5 227 -25.4

Mass Flow (kg/h) 217,861 188,811 -13.3 167,283 -23.2
3
714.97 724.99 1.4 736.24 3.0

Shed Vapor Actual Volume Flow (m /h) J
277,329 268,281 -3.3 258,944 -6.6

Mass Flow (kg/h) 870,450 786,029 -9.7 705,130 -19.0
3
3.14 2.93 -6.7 2.72 -13.2
497 819 64.9 1,115 124.4

Mass Flow (kg/h) 361,323 593,614 64.3 810,640 124.4
3
724.76 724.56 0.0 727.01 0.3

To Coker Actual Volume Flow (m /h) J
330 579 75.5 835 153.1
Mass Flow (kg/h) 269,078 461,088 71.4 658,440 144.7
3
815.85 796.42 -2.4 788.78 -3.3
Vapour to Sheds Temperature (C) 514 501 -2.6 492 -4.3

Upqoinq Stream Temperature (C) 534 533 -0.3 532 -0.5
Sheds Staqe Efficiency 0.53 0.53 0.0 0.53 0.0
Koch Grid Staqe Efficiency 0.75 0.75 0.0 0.75 0.0
S P L Coler Duty (MMBtu/h) 44.32 75.43 70.2 102.31 130.9
135
Table XI-3 HGO Wash flow rate effect on Overhead TBP distillation curve
HGO Wash Flow Rate (kbarrel/day)
Cut Point [%] 24 40 60 80 100

TBP [C] TBP ["C] TBP ["CJ TBP [C] TBP ["C]
0 -253 -253 -253 -253 -253
1 -237 -237 -237 -237 -238
2 -207 -206 -206 -206 -208
3.5 -167 -166 -166 -167 -170
5 -136 -134 -134 -135 -138
7.5 -102 -101 -101 -102 -103
10 -85 -81 -81 -84 -89
12.5 -51 -49 -49 -51 -55
15 -34 -22 -22 -31 -43
17.5 -3 2 2 -1 -4
20 266 274 274 268 254
25 310 311 310 308 300
30 336 336 333 324 322
35 354 352 349 342 336
40 373 366 364 357 349
45 391 382 377 366 363
50 405 397 391 378 371
55 420 407 404 392 378
60 439 420 407 405 391
65 442 440 420 407 400
70 459 444 440 420 406
75 471 465 443 440 420
80 486 477 465 443 440
85 496 491 485 480 475
90 525 524 521 517 496
92.5 537 532 527 527 526
550 546 543 543 5|2
96*5 556 555 555 "554 553
98 616 600 601 596 598
99 744 733 731 730 736
100 871 863 861 864 874
24 kbarrel/day HGO Wash

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Figure XI-2 HGO Wash flow rate effect on Overhead TBP distillation curve
136
Table XI-4 Effect of HGO Wash flow rate on Scrubber parameters
HGO Wash Flow Rate

Position ft m3/h 119 199 298 397 497
from the kbarrel/day 24 40 60 80 100
pool bottom (Base Case) % % %
Koch Grid Top 43 Top Stage Temp Est (C) 393 386 -1.9 376 -4.3 368.5 -6.3 359 -8.6
Koch Grid Bot. 38 Bottom Stage Temp Est (C) 395 389 -1.6 380 -3.9 371.2 -6.0 361 -8.6
Sheds Top 34 Top Stage Temp Est (C) 405 400 -1.1 393 -3.0 384.5 -5.0 374 -7.6
Sheds Bot. 22 Bottom Stage Temp Est (C) 473 456 -3.7 441 -6.9 430.6 -9.0 420 -11.4
Scrubber Pool 0 Bulk Liquid Temperature (C) 375 375 0.0 375 0.0 375.0 0.0 375 0.0

Scrubber Overhead Actual Volume Flow (m'Vh) 274,787 273,178 -0.6 270,319 -1.6 267410.3 -2.7 263,442 -4.1
Mass Flow (kg/h) 778,651 797,485 2.4 798,630 2.6 787391.8 1.1 762,774 -2.0
3
2.83 2.92 3.0 2.95 4.3 2.9 3.9 2.90 2.2
3
789 1,001 26.8 1,352 71.4 1723.4 118.4 2,251 185.3
Mass Flow (kg/h) 643,728 797,839 23.9 1,053,191 63.6 1323490.9 105.6 1,709,377 165.5
3
816 797 -2.3 779 -4.5 768.0 -5.9 759 -6.9
Overhead / A I B Mass Flow Ratio 2.58 2.64 2.4 2.65 2.6 2.6 1.1 2.53 -2.0
3
305 425 39.5 588 93.0 739.7 142.8 928 204.5
Mass Flow (kg/h) 217,861 303,893 39.5 425,029 95.1 541125.0 148.4 688,636 216.1
3
714.97 715.03 0.0 722.87 1.1 731.5 2.3 742.07 3.8
J
277,329 277,899 0.2 277,562 0.1 276478.3 -0.3 273,949 -1.2
Mass Flow (kg/h) 870,450 892,151 2.5 906,554 4.1 910060.9 4.6 895,642 2.9
3
3.14 3.21 2.3 3.27 4.1 3.3 4.9 3.27 4.2
3
497 639.68 28.8 860 73.1 1064.9 114.3 1,325.36 166.8
Mass Flow (kg/h) 361,323 459,545 27.2 613,054 69.7 758496.6 109.9 947,845 162.3
3
724.76 718.40 -0.9 712.77 -1.7 712.3 -1.7 715.16 -1.3
J
330 418 26.8 565 71.4 720.4 118.4 941 185.3
Mass Flow (kg/h) 269,078 333,497 23.9 440,234 63.6 553219.2 105.6 714,520 165.5
3
815.85 797.16 -2.3 778.82 -4.5 768.0 -5.9 759.29 -6.9

Vapour to Sheds Temperature (C) 514 505 -1.8 494 -4.0 485.4 -5.6 477 -7.2
Upgoing Stream Temperature (C) 534 533 -0.2 532 -0.5 530.2 -0.7 528 -1.1
Sheds Stage Efficiency 0.53 0.53 0.0 0.53 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.53 0.0
Koch Grid Stage Efficiency 0.75 0.75 0.0 0.75 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.75 0.0
S P L Coler Duty (MMBtu/h) 44.72 48.25 7.9 56.03 25.3 62.2 39.0 67.02 49.9
137
Table XI-5 HGO Underwash flow rate effect on Overhead TBP distillation curve
H G O U n d e r w a s h F l o w Rate (kbarrel/day)
Cut Point [%] 0 10 20 50 100

Cut Point [%] TBP [C] TBP [C] TBP ["C] TBP f C ] TBP f C ]
0 -253 -253 -253 -253 -253
1 -238 -237 -237 -237 -239
2 -208 -207 -206 -206 -209
3.5 -170 -167 -166 -166 -171
5 -138 -136 -135 -134 -139
7.5 -103 -102 -101 -101 -104
10 -88 -85 -82 -82 -89
12.5 -55 -51 -50 -50 -56
15 -43 -34 -26 -24 -43
17.5 -4 -3 -1 0 -5
20 255 266 271 272 249
25 309 310 310 309 296
30 336 336 336 330 320
35 353 354 352 349 335
40 374 373 367 363 345
45 392 391 385 377 355
50 406 405 402 391 364
55 420 420 417 397 377
60 440 439 423 406 381
65 446 442 441 420 392
70 465 459 448 440 405
75 482 471 466 442 420
80 491 486 482 465 451
85 514 496 493 473 460
90 526 525 524 521 490
92.5 539 537 535 527 526
95 552 550 H I B i ^ g 8 543 542
96.5 556 556 556 555 553
98 632 616 608 601 597
99 754 744 737 731 736
100 879 871 866 862 875
10
O-l , , , , , , , , , 1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Figure XI-3 HGO Underwash flow rate effect on Overhead TBP distillation curve
138
Table XI-6 Effect of HGO Underwash flow rate on Scrubber parameters
HGO Uderw. Flow Rate HGO Underwash Flow Rate

Position ft m3/h 50 0 50 99 248 497
from the kbarrel/day 10 0 10 20 50 100
pool bottom (Base Case) % % % % %
Koch Grid Top 43 Top Stage Temp Est f C ) 393 397 0.9 393 0.0 389 -1.2 375 -4.6 356 -9.6
Koch Grid Bot. 38 Bottom Stage Temp Est (C) 395 400 1.3 395 0.0 389 -1.6 371 -6.0 349 -11.6
Sheds Top 34 Top Stage Temp Est (C) 405 410 1.4 405 0.0 398 -1.6 381 -5.9 357 -11.8
Sheds Bot. 22 Bottom Stage Temp Est (C) 473 495 4.6 473 0.0 460 -2.8 437 -7.6 412 -12.9
Scrubber Pool 0 Bulk Liquid Temperature (C) 375 375 0.0 375 0.0 375 0.0 375 0.0 375 0.0

Actual Volume Flow (m /h) 274,787 273,909 -0.3 269,959 -1.8 262,182 -4.6
3
Scrubber Overhead 274,787 274,718 0.0 0.0
Mass Flow (kg/h) 778,651 757,412 -2.7 778,651 0.0 790,657 1.5 795,252 2.1 755,852 -2.9
2.83 2.76 -2.7 2.83 0.0 2.89 1.9 2.95 4.0 2.88 1.7
Scrubb.Pool Liquid Actual Volume Flow (nvVh) 789 688 -12.9 789 0.0 921 16.8 1,422 80.2 2,555 223.8
Mass Flow (kg/h) 643,728 569,357 -11.6 643,728 0.0 739,959 14.9 1,103,587 71.4 1,931,997 200.1
816 828 1.5 816 0.0 803 -1.6 776 -4.9 756 -7.3
Overhead/ATB Mass Flow Ratio 2.58 2.51 -2.7 2.58 0.0 2.62 1.5 2.63 2.1 2.50 -2.9

305 314 3.2 305 0.0 296 -2.7 268 -12.0 232 -23.9
Mass Flow (kg/h) 217,861 224,963 3.3 217,861 0.0 212,704 -2.4 195,892 -10.1 174,124 -20.1
714.97 715.50 0.1 714.97 0.0 717.71 0.4 730.60 2.2 750.76 5.0
277,329 277,339 0.0 277,329 0.0 276,366 -0.3 272,185 -1.9 263,741 -4.9
Mass Flow (kg/h) 870,450 856313 -1.6 870,450 0.0 877,301 0.8 865,084 -0.6 803,916 -7.6
3.14 3.09 -1.6 3.14 0.0 3.17 1.1 3.18 1.3 3.05 -2.9
497 440 -11.4 496.80 0.0 587 18.1 898.84 80.9 1,456 193.1
Mass Flow (kg/h) 361,323 316,491 -12.4 361,323 0.0 423,013 17.1 641,101 77.4 1,047,135 189.8
Mass Density (kq/m ) 3
724.76 718.94 -0.8 724.76 0.0 720.99 -0.5 713.25 -1.6 719.23 -0.8
To Coker Actual Volume Flow (m Ih) 330 287 -12.9 330 0.0 385 16.8 594 80.2 1,068 223.8
Mass Flow (kg/h) 269,078 237,991 -11.6 269,078 0.0 309,303 14.9 461,299 71.4 807,575 200.1
815.85 828.00 1.5 815.85 0.0 803.04 -1.6 776.05 -4.9 756.30 -7.3
Vapour to Sheds Temperature (C) 514 521 1.3 514 0.0 508 -1.2 491 -4.4 473 -8.0
Upgoing Stream Temperature (C) 534 535 0.1 534 0.0 534 -0.1 531 -0.5 527 -1.3
Sheds Stage Efficiency 0.53 0.53 0.0 0.53 0.0 0.53 0.0 0.53 0.0 0.53 0.0
Koch Grid Stage Efficiency 0.75 0.75 0.0 0.75 0.0 0.75 0.0 0.75 0.0 0.75 0.0
SPLColer Duty(MMBtu/h) 44.72 47.35 5.9 44.72 0.0 46.13 3.2 55.62 24.4 64.12 43.4
139
Chapter 7 Summary of Proposed Process Performance Improvements
Chapter 7 - Summary of Proposed Process Performance

Improvements
Results and conclusions from the case studies, as well as investigations regarding liquid
entrainment and low column efficiencies, suggest several things that could be done to improve
Scrubber Section performance in terms of:
1. Better Overhead Product quality
2. Higher productivity
3. Reduced fouling in the Koch Grid
7.1. Overhead Product Quality
The final product of the Fluid Coker is the Overhead Product. After exiting the top of the
Scrubber Section of the Coker it enters the fractionator where it is separated into four streams:
Sour Gas, Butane, Naphtha and Combined Gas Oil (CGO), a mixture of LGO and HGO. The
composition, TBP curve, molecular weight and density distribution for the Overhead Product is
presented in Appendix III. The most valuable products are Naphtha and CGO, which undergo
hydrotreating and mixing into Sweet Blend, the upgraded product. Overhead Product also
contains about 10 vol.% of heavy fractions boiling above 524C, which are not desirable. These
fractions make up the dead load in the downstream equipment and cause fouling, and they are
not desirable in the final product.
Chapters 4 and 5 show how these fractions possibly end up in the Overhead Product. First,
very high gas velocity exiting from the cyclones causes some liquid droplets (that mostly contain
these heavy fractions) to be thrown upward and reach the Sheds. Very low liquid loading in the
Sheds is presumably not able to wash them down, neither along the Sheds nor in the space below
the Sheds. Liquid entrainment that is suspected to be present in the Sheds causes lower column
efficiency, which affects heavy components the most. Even more, additional liquid is entrained
in the vapour along the column. The liquid reaches the Koch Grid, where high gas velocity
carries droplets upwards. The Koch Grid is rather efficient in terms of gas-liquid contact, and a
140
Chapter 7-Summary of Proposed Process Performance Improvements
great part of these droplets should be washed down. But, since the Koch Grid operates at too
high a gas loading, which is even out of the design ranges (based on HYSYS calculation), part of
the liquid still remains entrained and finally reaches the Overhead Products, affecting its quality.
Several options could solve this problem:
1. Decrease the feeding rate into the middle part of the Fluid Coker: This would decrease
the Cyclone Product flow rate, causing lower gas velocity through the cyclone nozzles and
less injected liquid droplets. Also, lower gas loading along the Sheds would decrease liquid
entrainment and the amount of the liquid that reach the Koch Grid. Lower gas loading within
the Koch Grid would allow operating within the design range and significantly increase the
efficiency of the column.
The negative effect of this option is decreased total production, but the quality of the product
would be improved.
2. Increase ATB, HGO Wash and Underwash flow rates: The last case study (XI) showed
that even a drastic increase in ATB, HGO Wash and Underwash flow rates did not remove
heavy fractions from the Overhead Product (decrease Overhead Product 95% recycle cut
point). The reason that HYSYS simulation showed such result was the arbitrary decreased
efficiency assumed for heavy fractions in both the Shed column and the Koch Grid in order
to match the Overhead composition. However, in reality, by increasing liquid loading in the
columns, efficiency of the columns should increase, increasing the ability to wash down the
entrained liquid droplets. This would lead to the lower Overhead cut point, meaning
improved quality. In this project, it was not possible to calculate this effect, since it was not
known how much the efficiency improves with ATB or HGO flow rate. In order to do that,
several plant tests should be done to check the change in Overhead composition with the
ATB or HGO flow rates. In that way, it would be possible to estimate the efficiency of the
columns and investigate the Overhead cut point change. Also, results in Case Studies II and
III showed that higher HGO flow rate improved CGO content of the Overhead.
The negative effect of higher ATB or HGO flow rate could be a decrease in the temperatures
along the Scrubber, causing poorer separation within the system. Also, HGO is a valuable
product and its increased consumption should be optimized.
141
3. Improve Shed efficiency: It was mentioned in Section 5.2 that liquid entrainment in the
Sheds could result in the presence of heavy fractions in the Overhead Product. Increasing the
number of Shed trays improves separation, but still does not solve the entrainment issue.
Efficiency could be improved only by replacing the current type of trays. This type has rather
a large gap between two sheds (1.2 m), while sheds themselves are 0.9 m wide, which allows
high gas flow without significant contact with the liquid. Trays that would enable better
contact between the vapour and liquid could help improve the efficiency. However, this
involves high investment and interruption of the process, and still would not be effective
enough without decreased gas loading.
7.2. Overhead Production Rate
Overhead Product is the main product of the Fluid Coker. Increasing the production rate is
often in conflict with improved quality of the product. The case studies showed that increasing
H G O flow rate or temperature does not have any significant advantage in terms of increasing the
production rate. Similarly, there is no advantage to increasing the number o f Sheds over 6 trays,
and changing the number of K o c h Grid sections. The same is with using water or saturated steam
instead of H G O Undarwash.
There is an option that could improve the production rate, but still not significantly affect the
quality:
1. Increase ATB flow rate: Although the Case Study I showed that A T B flow rate does not
improve the Overhead production rate, it lowers the temperatures along the Scrubber,
potentially reducing the fouling. To overcome the pressure drop due to the fouling within the
cyclones and the K o c h Grid, higher pressures are applied in the whole system. Case Study
VIII shows that higher pressure radically decreases the production rate. In that sense, by
reducing the fouling, increasing A T B flow rate could help increasing the production rate.
Also, as was mentioned before, increased A T B flow rate would increase liquid loading in the
Shed column, improving the efficiency. Optimum should be found, as too high A T B flow
rate could decrease temperatures along the Scrubber too much and affect the separation
efficiency.
142
7.3. Fouling in the Koch Grid
As was already mentioned, at temperatures around 380C and higher, coke formation occurs
due to the cracking reactions of heavy hydrocarbons. Typically, for the 524C+ fraction, coke
formation starts in about four hours at 390C, and two hours at 400C. For the gas oil fractions
coking reactions are somewhat slower [41]. These reactions occur everywhere in the system, but
the cyclone nozzles and the Koch Grid are affected the most. In the former, deposits form by
physical condensation. In the Koch Grid, layers of deposits which build over time, decrease the
void space and cause fouling of the grid. High temperature and presence of heavy fractions
enhance this process. Hence, in order to reduce fouling, the temperature along the Koch Grid
should be kept below 400C and the presence of heavy fractions should be reduced as much as
possible. The following options could help with this issue:
1. Increase A T B flow rate: Higher A T B flow rate radically decrease the temperatures along
the Scrubber, which should reduce the fouling within the Koch Grid. Also, higher liquid flow
rate decreases the liquid entrainment, and hence appearance of heavy fractions in the grid
which are known to increase the fouling. Although Case Study I shows that higher A T B flow
rate decreases the Overhead production rate, it is already explained in Section 7.2 that by
reducing the fouling, it could actually improve the production rate. The option investigated in
Case Study V , without use of HGO Underwash and with temperature controlled by increased
A T B , is also acceptable, since good temperature control can be achieved, with saving HGO
product and not really affecting the production. The optimal flow rate of A T B has to be
estimated, based on further investigation on fouling process and its dependence on
temperature and liquid loading in the system.
2. Using water or saturated steam instead of H G O Underwash: The Koch Grid bottom
temperature can be decreased using water at 40C or saturated steam at 150 psig (10.2 atm)
in place of H G O Underwash. As was mentioned in Section 7.2, about 17000 kg/h of water at
40C with 54% lower H G O Wash volume flow rate reduces Koch Grid bottom temperature
by 8C, while about 22000 kg/h of saturated steam at 150 psig (10.2 atm), with 65% lower
HGO Wash volume flow rate reduces it by 9C. This also improves the Overhead production
rate. Since lower liquid loading is present in the system than in the case when H G O
143
Unredwash is used, higher liquid entrainment is expected. This could possibly affect the
fouling rate; however, the effect is probably weak compared to the effect of temperature.
144
Chapter 8 - Conclusions and Recommendations
8.1. Conclusions
H Y S Y S process simulation o f the Scrubber Section o f the Fluid Coker gave insights into the
process behaviour and improved understanding o f the whole process. Case studies showed trends
and quantitative outcomes o f some process and design changes, which can suggest possible
options for process improvement. Based on the results from Chapter 6 and considerations from
Chapters 4, 5 and 7, some general and case-specific conclusions can be derived.
General conclusions:
H Y S Y S process simulator is able to effectively represent the Scrubber Section o f the Fluid
Coker. Results o f the simulation match the plant data very well (within 3.2% o f the plant
data), once separation efficiencies near zero were assigned to the heaviest fractions.
Calculations i n Chapter 4 suggest that liquid entrainment may be present i n the system.
Entrainment o f heavy species into the vapours decreases the efficiency o f the Shed section
radically.
Consideration i n Chapter 5 suggests that the K o c h Grid operates out o f the designed
conditions. Too high gas loading and too low liquid flow rate result i n increased pressure
drop and lower efficiency. Additional liquid entrainment is also possible within this
section.
Changing gas (lowering) and liquid (increasing) loading so that the Shed section is further
from the entrainment flooding and the K o c h G r i d is within the design range o f operating
conditions could help improving the efficiency o f these two sections, decreasing liquid
entrainment in the vapour, and improving Overhead product characteristics.
The developed simulation can be used for additional case studies and process
modifications.
145
Specific conclusions derived from case studies:
Increasing ATB flow rate has the positive effect of decreasing temperatures in the Grid and
the Shed, which should reduce fouling due to the coke formation; it has no positive effect
on the production rate of the desired product (Overhead), although the mass production
rate decreases only 7%, and the desired CGO ( LGO plus HGO) fraction remains the same.
Higher flow rate of ATB is not able to reduce 95% cut point on Overhead distillation curve
significantly. An extreme increase in flow rate lowered the cut point only 5C.
Increasing HGO Wash and Underwash flow rate has no significant effect on decreasing
temperature of the Grid and on production rate. Increase of 16 kbarrel/day (79000 kg/h) of
HGO Wash or 10 kbarrel/day (48000 kg/h) of HGO Underwash produces only additional
11000 kg/h and 7000 kg/h of HGO, respectively. That means that more HGO is spent than
produced. Neither of the two streams is able to reduce 95% cut point on Overhead
distillation curve significantly, but they have stronger effect than ATB on cut point. HGO
Wash shows the best results in this sense.
Change in HGO Wash temperature has a mild effect on temperature profile. Increase in
temperature slightly increases the Overhead production rate, and composition shows higher
presence of middle fractions (LGO and HGO).
If HGO Underwash is out of service, the temperatures along the Scrubber increase too
much (close to 400C), and could increase fouling. That is why ATB or HGO control of
the Overhead and overall temperatures is necessary. Increasing HGO Wash flow rate
cannot decrease Grid bottom temperature enough, while keeping Overhead temperature at
393C. All other properties of Overhead remain the same as when Underwash is in service.
ATB flow rate changes provide a good mechanism to control all the temperatures along the
Scrubber. As ATB rate increases Overhead production rate drops slightly and composition
shows increased presence of LGO fractions, and decreased in HGO fractions.
Decreasing the number of Shed trays from 6 to 2 increases system temperature and has
slightly increasing effect on Overhead mass and volume flow rate. Content of HGO
fractions in the Overhead is lower. Increasing in number of trays above 6 changes the
situation: the Grid Bottom temperature rises, the Overhead volume flow rate remains
almost the same, and the content of LGO and HGO fractions in the Overhead is improved.
146
Increasing the number of Grid sections from 2 to 10 does not have a significant effect on
temperature profile along the Scrubber. Only Shed Bottom temperature changes
noticeably. Scrubber Overhead production rate remains almost the same. Content of middle
fractions (LGO and HGO fractions) in the Overhead drops, while heavy fractions are
present in a higher amount, what is not desirable.
Absolute pressure in the system definitely has a significant effect on Scrubber

performance. As pressure increases, temperatures slightly increase, but Overhead
production rate radically drops. Overhead contains more light fractions, while the HGO
fraction is much lower.
4600 kg/h (0.7 kbarrel/day) of water (40C) used instead of 49000 kg/h (10 kbarrel/day) of
HGO Underwash is able to control all the temperatures along the Scrubber. Only the Shed
Bottom temperature increases. Overhead volume production is increased, but mass flow
rate is lower due to the lower density. Water content of Overhead is increased from 65
mole % to 68 mole %. Overhead contains more LGO fractions and less HGO fractions. If
water was to be used to lower the Grid Bottom temperature, either ATB or HGO Wash had
to be used to control the Overhead temperature. HGO showed better ability in temperature
control, but resulted in lower content of HGO fraction in Overhead. Overhead volume
production rate was increased, but mass flow rate was not. Both options with ATB or HGO
control show higher overall volumetric HGO and LGO production.
With 7000 kg/h of saturated steam instead of 49000 kg/h of HGO Underwash, without any
control of Overhead temperature, the Scrubber temperature profile remains almost the
same as in the original case. Only Shed Bottom temperature increases. The content of
water in Overhead is slightly higher, as well as presence of LGO fractions. Overhead
volume production is increased slightly, but mass flow is not. To decrease Grid Bottom
temperature using saturated steam, ATB or HGO flow rate, the temperature of the
Overhead must be controlled. Again HGO showed better ability for control. Overhead
volume production rate was improved, but mass flow rate dropped. The composition
showed lower presence of CGO fraction. Case with ATB control showed improved overall
HGO volumetric production.
The recycle cut point on Overhead distillation curve could be lowered by increasing ATB
feed flow rate or HGO flow rate. But, the last case study (XI) showed that even a drastic
147
increase in flow rates does not have any significant effect on 95% recycle cut point. It has
more effect on lower cut points. The reason for such simulation result is explained in point
2, in Section 7.2. Too high flow rates of these three streams could decrease the
temperatures along the Scrubber, which could affect separation and other process
parameters. Among three options, HGO Wash stream showed the best ability to decrease
the Overhead 95 % cut point.
8.2. Recommendations
The conclusions and recommendations in this chapter are based on the results of the Case
Studies performed within this project, as well as investigation on liquid entrainment and low
column efficiency issues. Although some of the trends and process behaviour considered in this
project are confirmed by plant tests, one must be careful in applying these changes. Process
simulation is often able to satisfactory model real processes, but it usually includes some
approximations, estimations and user's judgement. Also, it is usually not possible to include all
aspects of the problem.
Therefore, additional investigations, especially on fouling and liquid entrainment issue,

should be undertaken, as well as plant tests to confirm the results of the studies.
The fouling process definitely affects the performance of the Fluid Coker. In order to
investigate fouling within the Koch Grid section it is necessary to determine all the parameters
that have effect on the fouling and how they influence the fouling process. The HYSYS process
simulator can help in this investigation to obtain better understanding of some parameters and
outcomes correlations.
Assuming that data for plant parameters change over time (pressure drop within the Koch
Grid, streams' flow rates, pressures and temperatures, and Scrubber Overhead composition) are
available, simulating the process changes over time and comparing with the plant results can
give the insight to the fouling process. HYSYS has the option of changing characteristics of the
packing type within the packed column, including the packing factor, Fp and height of packing
equivalent to one theoretical plate, HETP. These characteristics would change along with the
change in void fraction of the packing that accompanies fouling. If simulating the change of
148
these characteristics can produce the results that match the plant data, better perspective of
fouling could be achieved.
This project and another source (Nelms, [14]) suggest that liquid entrainment may be
present within the Fluid Coker, and be the reason for low Sheds and Koch Grid efficiency and
fouling. Based on conclusions from this project, the recommendation for further investigation
would be to do several plant tests to decrease gradually gas loading within the Fluid Coker and to
record the Overhead product characteristics (composition and content of liquid fraction). The
same should be simulated by HYSYS and by changing the column efficiency it should be tried to
match the plant results. Presumably, with the gas loading low enough no liquid entrainment
should occur. In this way, some additional conclusions could be derived, and existence of liquid
entrainment confirmed or denied.
In general, although expensive and time consuming, some more plant tests should be done,
in order to evaluate simulation results and confirm the conclusions derived from them.
149
Glossary of Terms
Glossary of Terms
ASTM 2887 Simulated distillation method applicable to all petroleum products boiling
below 538C;
^rpg Atmospheric Topped Bitumen, a product of atmospheric distillation of
bitumen, with 50 wt% that boils above 560C;
CGO Coker Gas Oil fraction (220-570C fraction);
CGO Combined Gas Oil
EOR End of Run of the plant
EOS Equation of State
HGO Heavy Gas Oil, one part of the Overhead product after fractionation (343-
524C fraction) that is recycled and serves to scrub heavy fractions and
particulates from rising vapour in the Scrubber;
HTSD High Temperature Simulated Distillation, which extends ASTM D2887 to

760C boiling points
LGO Light Gas Oil
NBP Normal Boiling Point
OTSB Once Through Scrubber Bottom, mixture of heavy fractions of Cyclone

Product, boiling temperature up to 1090C
PR EOS Peng-Robinson Equation of State
PVT Pressure-Volume-Temperature
RCP Recycle Cut Point
SCFE Supercritical Fluid Extraction method, new method capable of analyzing high
molecular weight residue fractions
SCO Sweet Crude Oil
SOR Start of Run of the plant
150
Glossary of Terms
SPL Scrubber Pool Liquid
SPR Scrubber Pool Recycle
TBP True Boiling Point
VLE Vapour-Liquid Equilibrium
VTB Vacuum Topped Bitumen, a product of vacuum distillation of bitumen, with 50

wt% that boils above 630C
151
References
References
1. Web site: http://www.intnet.mu/iels/index.htm, date of access Feb 26, 2005.
2. "Oil outlook to 2025", OPEC Review Paper 2004.
3. Web site: http://www2.chappaqua.kl2.nv.us/hgfaculty/rooddo/chapter 21.htm, date of

access Feb 26, 2005.
4. Web site: http://www.users.on.net/~rmc/01sorry.htm, date of access Feb 26, 2005.
5. North American Oil Reserves Brochure, Alberta Energy, 2004.
6. Web site: http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/osd/docs/osgenbrf.pdf, date of access Feb 26,

2005.
7. Web site: http://www.syncrude.com, date of access Feb 26, 2005.
8. Williston, M., "Process Model of Scrubber Section of Syncrude's Fluid Cokers", B.A.Sc.
Thesis, Dept. of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of British Columbia,
2002.
9. Web site: http://www.westernoilsands.com, date of access Feb 26, 2005.
10. Web site: http://www.mining-techiiology.com/proiects/sviicrude, date of access Feb 26,

2005.
11. Alberta oil web site: http://collections.ic.gc.ca/oil/process, date of access Feb 26, 2005.
12. Gray, M . R., "Upgrading petroleum residues and heavy oils", Marcel Dekker, Inc., New
York, 1994.
13. Huq, I., Van Zanden, S., communication from Syncrude Canada Ltd., 2003-2004.
14. Nelms, C. R., "Fluid Coker Reactor Cyclone Fouling - A summary report for Syncrude
Canada Ltd. and other participants", 1999.
15. Westphalen, D., Shethna, H., Aspen Technology, Inc., "Refinery wide simulation",
Hydrocarbon Engineering, March 2004.
152
References
16. Brar, S., Brenner, S., Gierer, C , Strashok, C , Jamil, A., Nguyen, N . , Chau, A.,
Sachedina, M . , Hugo, L., Lowe, C , Hanson, K., Hyprotech, Ltd., HYSYS 3.0
Documentation, Simulation Basis, 2002.
17. Ettienne, T., A., Brenner, S., Gierer, C., Strashok, C., Jamil, A., Nguyen, N., Chau, A.,
Sachedina, M . , Hugo, L., Lowe, C , Hanson, K., Hyprotech, Ltd., HYSYS 3.0
Documentation, Operation Guide, 2002.
18. Brent, Y., Baker, J., Monnery, W., Svrcek, W., "Dynamic simulation for controllability
of Chevron Canada Resources' Kaybob South #3 Gas Plant sulfur recovery unit",
LRGCC Conference Proceedings, 2002, 52 , 239-258.
nd
19. Loe, B., Pults J., "Implementing and Sustaining Process Optimization Improvements on a
Deisopentanizer Tower, HOVENSA LLC", Presented at the AIChE Spring Meeting,
April 25, Houston, Texas, 2001.
20. Lars, E., Tyvand Selst, E., Stavanger, K., "Process Simulation of Glycol Regeneration",
for presentation at GPA Europe's meeting in Bergen, 2002.
21. Soave, G., Feliu, J.A., "Saving energy in distillation towers by feed splitting", Applied
Thermal Engineering, 2002, Volume 22, Issue 8, Pages 889-896.
22. Sabharwal, A., " A Hybrid Approach Applied to an Industrial Distillation Column that
Compares Physical and Neutral Network Modeling Techniques", Masters Thesis,
Department of Chemical Engineering, Calgary, Alberta, 1997.
23. Briesen, H., Marquardt, W., Prozesstechnik, L., "New approach to refinery process
simulation with adaptive composition representation", AIChE Journal, 2004, Volume 50,
Issue 3, Pages 633-645.
24. Web site: www.aspentech.com, date of access Jan, 2005.
25. Seider, W.D., Seader, J.D., Lewin, D.R, "Process Design Principles", John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 1999.
26. Pedersen, K.S., Thomanssen, P., Fredenslund, A., "Thermodynamics of Petroleum

Mixtures Containing Heavy Hydrocarbons", Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., 1984,
Vol. 23, No. 1.
153
References
27. Reid, R.C., PrausnitzJ.M., Poling, B.E., "The Properties of Gases & Liquids", McGraw-
Hill, Inc., 1987.
28. Reid, R.C., Prausnitz, J.M., Sherwood, T.K., "The Properties of Gases and Liquids",
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1977.
29. Stichlmair, J. G., Fair, J. R., "Distillation. Principles and Practices", Wiley-VCH, New
York, 1998.
30. Eich-Soellner, E., Lory, P., Burr, P., Kroner, A., "Stationary and Dynamic Flowsheeting
in the Chemical Engineering Industry", AMS Subject Classifications: 65C20, 65H10,
65L05, 65M20, 80A99, 1991.
31. Mangat, M . , "Process Model of Heavy Component Partial Condensation", B.A.Sc.

Thesis, Dept. of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of British Columbia,
2001.
32. Chung, K. H., Xu, C , Hu Y., Wang, R., "Supercritical fluid extraction reveals resid
properties", Oil and Gas Journal, Jan 20, 1997.
33. Box, M.J., " A New Method of Constrained Optimization and a Comparison with Other
Methods", Computer J., 1965, 8, 42-45.
34. Press, W. H., Flannery, B. P., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., "Numerical Recepies
in C", Cambridge University Press, 1988.
35. Kuester, J. L. and Mize, J.H., "Optimization Techniques with FORTRAN", McGraw-Hill
Book Co., 1973.
36. Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook, Publisher New York; Montreal: McGraw-Hill,
Edition 7 , Chapter 17-Gas-solids separation, 1997.
th
Edition 7th, Chapter 6- Fluid and particle dynamics, 1997.
Edition 7th, Chapter 14-Gas-liquid contacting systems, 1997.
39. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1993.
40. Web site: http://www.koch-glitsch.com , date of access Aug., 2004.
154
References
41. Yue, C , Watkinson A. P., Lucas, J. P., Chung, K. H., "Incipient coke formation during
heating of heavy hydrocarbons", Fuel, 2004, 83, 1651-1658.
42. Brar, S., Channey, J., Khoshkberchi, M . , Zhao, E., Hyprotech, Ltd., HYSYS 3.0
Documentation, Reference Guide, COM Thermo, 2002.
Appendix I
Appendix I - Peng-Robinson Equation of State
The Peng-Robinson EOS is presented below:
p-^L. 2 <,.
V-b V(V + b) + b(V-b)
where a and b represent deviation from ideal behaviour. Term a represents the strength of
attraction between two molecules (interaction force), and b is proportional to the size of the
molecules. These parameters can be determined from critical values P and T , and the acentric
c c
factor co for pure substances [42].
For a pure component:
a = aa c
a = 0.45724^--^-
c (1-2)
b = 0.077480^-
a represents temperature dependence of parameter a .
^ = l + K(\-T )
r
05
(I_ 3)
K = 0.37464 +1.5422G7 - 0.26992ET2
K-binary interaction coefficient
co-acentric factor
In this form, the Peng-Robinson EOS can be applied to a pure component. To apply it to a
mixture, mixing rules are needed for a and b terms. Mixing rules states how parameters a
and b for the mixture depend on composition.
156
Appendix I
a = t t (x,x a )
l t J v (1-4)
i=i y=i
where a is a measure of the strength of attraction between a molecule i and a molecule j.

{]
i=i
^ ; = ( i - ^ ) ( i - C j
) a-7)
.- -0 4 5 7 2
*'^ (1-8)
= 0.37464 +1.54226&>,. - 0.26992<y , 2

a, < 0.49 (1-10)
Several mixing rules could be applied to the temperature dependent binary interaction
parameter, ,jj. These mixing rules are mostly based on empirical equations and are suitable for
some EOS and systems, but not for other. Some of them are:
^ l - ^ + ^ r +q r 2
and (1-31)
157
Appendix I
^=l-A B T ii+ v + ^L (I _42)
where Ay, By and C are asymmetric binary interaction parameters. Values fora , a ~,
y u b, K
{
A ,
y By and C y can be calculated or found in tables. H Y S Y S has a library with binary
interaction parameters for more than 16000 binaries. If the system contains pseudo-
components, H Y S Y S provides a wide selection of the estimation methods for all needed
parameters - T , P , co, K , etc. Methods for estimating the interaction binaries between pseudo-
c c
components and library components are also available.
158
Appendix II
Appendix II - Flash Block Calculation
Appendix II shows the procedure of manual solving a simple flash block containing a ternary
mixture and the comparison with the HYSYS solution for the same system. The schematic of
the flash block is presented in Figure AII.l. The mixture enters the flash block with the
starting composition and is separated into the vapour that is richer in the low boiling, volatile,
components and the liquid. As the vapour is removed continuously, the original mixture gets
poorer in the light, more volatile components. The liquid that leaves the flash drum becomes
richer in the heavy, less volatile components.
V
(yi,y2,y3,-,y c)
n
F
(Zi,Z ,Z3,...,Znc)
2
L
(Xi,X ,X ,...,X )
2 3 n c
t
Q
Figure AII.l Schematic of the flash block
This single-stage equilibrium separation is described by the following equations:
Material balance:
At a specified temperature and pressure within the flash block, one mole of starting mixture
with the composition z\, z , 2 z , ( where nc is number of components) separates into L
nc
moles of liquid with the composition xi, X2, z , and V moles of vapour with the
nc
composition y u y ,y
2 n c .
Overall mole balance on this system is:
159
Appendix II
L + V =1 (II-l)
And the component mole balance is:
z, = x,L + yV
t = XiL + y. (1 - L) = x. (l-V) + yy 0 = 1,2 ,...,nc) (II-2)
Energy balance:
FhF
+Q = Vh v
+ LhL
(II-3)
where h is the molar enthalpy of the feed, vapour or liquid, and Q is the heat that has to be
added to the system in order to evaporate one part of the liquid.
Thermodynamic requirement:
Flash calculation is based on system tendency to reach thermodynamic equilibrium.

Vapour-liquid equilibrium ratio for a component i is given by the following equation:
(II-4)
where O", and O', are the fugacity coefficients for the component i in the vapour and liquid
phases.
Combining Equations (II-2) and (II-4), two sets of equations can be obtained.
First set contains Xj :
X: = (II-5)
160
Appendix II
Since Xj must sum to unity:
nc nc g
^ - ^ L + Kfl-L)' 1 (
"- 6 )
Another set contains y;
y =
' o-'lV (II
" 7)
nc nc J g
^'-^o-^V' 1 (I,
- 8)
To determine the composition of the vapour and the liquid leaving the flash block, K; values
should be known for each component at given conditions. Kj can be calculated from fugacity
coefficients <I>j and d>; using an equation of state. However, Oj and j depend on Xj and y;,
and iterative method has to be applied.
In the following example, the Peng-Robinson EOS (PR EOS) will be used. It is presented in
the Appendix I, along with the mixing rules applied.
Fugacity coefficients for components in the mixture can be calculated from a general
thermodynamic equation:
P rp
R T lncp,. = f(v -R)-dp

f (II-9a)
o P
dV
v . = (ill.) .. (H-9b)
161
Appendix II
dV
where the molar volume for the liquid or vapour phase, v and the derivative can be
dn ;
calculated using EOS, actually from:
. ZRT
v= (IMO)
Compressibility factor Z describes the real behaviour of pure fluids and can be expressed
based on one of the EOS, in this example Peng-Robinson EOS and equation:
Z = ^ 1 (_!!)
v-b RT(v(v + b) + b(v-b))
Another way of presenting Equation (11-11) is in the form of a cubic equation, Equation (II-
13a).
Equation of state for mixtures are derived from EOS for the pure components by using
concentration-dependent coefficients.
Substituting Equation (11-11) into Equation (II-9a) gives expression for calculating the
fugacity coefficient for each component:
O; , , . _ A
2
lL j ji
x a
b | l n [ Z + (1 + V2)7J
(11-12)
ln^. = - J - ( Z - l ) - l n ( Z - 5 ) -
t
b K
' v
' 242B Z + (1 - J2)B
The compressibility factor of the mixture is calculated from PR EOS as the root of the
following equation, where the smallest root corresponds to the liquid phase and the largest for
the vapour phase.
Z - ( 1 - 5 ) Z +Z(A-3B
3 2 2
-2B)-(AB-B2
-5 ) = 0
3
(II-13a)
162
Appendix II
aP
RT2 2
(II-13b)
B= (II-13c)
RT
Parameters a and b are calculated from the parameters for the pure components and
mixing rules presented in Appendix I by Equations (1-5) to ( 1-15).
Example:
A 1000 mole/h of liquid mixture containing 5 mole % Hydrogen, 70 mole % of Methane and
25 mole % of Ethane enters a flash block at the constant temperature of 200 K and pressure of
75 bar. In this example the composition of the outgoing vapour and liquid stream will be
calculated, as well as flow rate of the two streams.
Composition and the parameters for the three components are given in Table AII.l [38].
Table AII.l Parameters for the flash block system components [38]
Hydrogen (1) Methane (2) Ethane (3)

Liquid 0.050 0.70 0.25
Critical temperature (K) 43.6 190.63 305.43
Critical pressure (bar) 20.47 46.17 48.84
Acentric factor co 0.00 0.01 0.099

ky factor ki2= -0.0222 k 2 3 = -0.0078 ki3= -0.1667
Parameters a, a and b for the pure substances are calculated from Equations (1-2) and (I-
3) in Appendix I, and presented in Table AII.2:
163
Appendix II
Table AII.2 PR EOS parameters for pure substances

Substance Pc Tc CO a a; bi
Hydrogen (1) 2.05E+06 43.6 0 0.327 9.61 E+03 1.38E-02
Methane (2) 4.62E+06 190.63 0.01 0.981 2.44E+05 2.67E-02
Ethane (3) 4.88E+06 305.43 0.099 1.210 7.31 E+05 4.05E-02
Interaction parameters a-rare calculated in somewhat simpler way then presented in
Appendix I, Equation (1-6). The equation used for their calculation is Equation (11-14) and
the values for the present system are given in Table AII.3.
a =^(l-k )
g u (IM4)
Table AII.3 Interaction parameters for Hydrogen-Methane-Ethane system
Substance
Hydrogen (1) a= 9.61 E+03 a = 12 4.95E+04 13= 9.78E+04
Methane (2) a =
2J 4.95E+04 a = 22 2.44E+05 Q23= 4.26E+05
Ethane (3) 031= 9.78E+04 a = 32 4.26E+05 Q33= 7.31 E+05
Based on the mixture composition, parameters a, b, A and B for the mixture can be
calculated from Equations (1-4), (1-5), (II-13b) and (II-13c), respectively, and used in PR
EOS.
Procedure
I iteration:
1. As a starting point the composition of the outgoing liquid stream is assumed:
xi= 0.050; x = 0.70; x = 0.25

2 3
2. Mixing rules ( Eq. (1-4) and (1-5)) are applied:
a= W l l + W l 2 + W l 3 + W , + +W 2 3 +W 3 , + ( I M 5 )
"^3"^2^32 "^3"^'3^33
164
Appendix II
fl=3.2-10 Pa m /kmol5 6 2
b= +xb +xb
2 z 3 3 (11-16)
b=2.95-10" m /mol 2 3
3. Calculated a and b values are used to calculate A and B parameters, as well as Z for
the mixture from Equations (II-13a), (II-13b) and (II-13c). The cubic Equation (II-
13a) has three solutions. The lowest value corresponds to the compressibility factor
of the liquid phase. Calculated value is Z= 0.28.
4. Calculated value for Z incorporated in Equation (11-12) for the three components
(hydrogen, methane and ethane) gives the fugacity coefficients of these components
in the liquid phase:
ti = 6.68
ti =0.61
ti = 0.07
5. To estimate vapour composition Kj should be calculated from the following equation:
K =^-t (H-17)
Ideal behaviour of the vapour will be assumed, and hence ti -1
From this assumption, K values for each component in the mixture are calculated:
K = 6.68
y
K2 = 0.61
K3 = 0.07
6. Vapour composition can be further estimated:
165
Appendix II
y =K,x, =6.68-0.05 = 0.334

x
y =K x
2 2 2 =0.61-0.70 = 0.427
y =K x
3 3 3 =0.07-0.25 = 0.018
7. Since the sum of thefractionsshould be equal to unity, in this way the result can be
checked:
y\ + ^ 2 + ^ 3 =0.334 + 0.427 + 0.018 = 0.779
The result is not 1, what means that the first assumption for the liquid composition is not
correct.
8. Correction of the vapour composition will be made:
0-334 n
y = = 0.42
0.779
x1
= - n
4 2 7
y, = 0.55
2
0.779
, , = * 1 - 0.023
3
0.779
Based on this composition as a new guess, steps 1 to 7 is repeated, but this time for the
vapour mixture. Equation (II-13a) is used to improve the values during iterations.
II iteration:
1. As a starting point the composition of the outgoing vapour stream is assumed:
x,= 0.42;x = 0.55; x = 0.023

2 3
2. Mixing rules (Eq. (1-4) and (1-5)) are applied:
0=1.11-10 Pa m /kmol s 6 2
b=2.14-10" m /mol 2 3
3. Calculated a and b values are used to calculate A and B parameters, as well as Z for
the mixture from Equations (II-13a), (II-13b) and (II-13c). The cubic Equation (II-
13a) has three solutions. The highest value corresponds to the compressibility factor
of the vapour phase. Calculated value is Z= 0.83.
166
Appendix II
4. Calculated value for Z incorporated in Equation (11-12) for the three components
(hydrogen, methane and ethane) gives the fugacity coefficients of these components
in the vapour phase:
=1.23
f = 0.62
2
<t>\ = 0.32
5. To estimate new liquid composition Kj should be calculated from the following

equation:
<f>i
K values for each component in the mixture are calculated:
' 1.23
0.62
K,=1
0.32
3
= 0.22
6. Liquid composition can be further estimated:
JC, =y IK, x =0.42/5.43 = 0.077

x =y /K
2 2 2 =0.55/0.98 = 0.56
X i = y IK, = 0.023/0.22 = 0.10
}
7. Since the sum of the fractions should be equal to unity, in this way the result can be
checked:
x, +x +x, =0.077 + 0.56 + 0.10 = 0.738

2
The result is not 1, what means that the assumption for the vapour composition is not
correct.
8. Correction of the liquid composition is made:
167
Appendix II
x, = - = n0.10
in
0 7 7
0.738
1
y, =
0 5 6
if,
=ft 0.76
2
0.738
3
0.738
This liquid composition is used as a new guess and steps 1 to 7 are repeated.
The iterations are repeated until the final solution is obtained.
Solution
Equilibrium constants values:
K = 6.367
x
K = 0.936
2
K, =0.158
Composition of the vapour phase:
jy, =0.312
y = 0.647
2
y, = 0.041
Composition of the liquid phase:
x, = 0.049
x =0.691
2
JC = 0.260
3
From Equation (II-5) the fraction of the starting mixture that leaves the flash block as
liquid is:
L=0.9962
The flow rate of the liquid outgoing stream is 996.2 mol/h.
The vapour stream fraction is:
V=0.0038
168
Appendix II
The flow rate of the vapour outgoing stream is 3.8 mol/h.
Comparison with the HYSYS calculation
The same system is simulated in HYSYS process simulator. The results are as follows:
Composition of the vapour phase:
y = 0.294
x
y = 0.659
2
y = 0.047
3
Composition of the liquid phase:
x, = 0.049
x = 0.701
2
x = 0.250
3
The flow rate of the liquid outgoing stream is 997.53 mol/h.
The flow rate of the vapour outgoing stream is 2.466 mol/h.
HYSYS results show the average deviation in the vapour and liquid composition of about
4.5% from the calculated ones, 0.1 % deviation in molar flow rate of the liquid phase, and 35%>
deviation in molar flow rate of the vapour phase. HYSYS needs less than one second to go
through the same procedure. The advantage of process simulators such as HYSYS is that they
can calculate operations much complicated than a flash block, and even more they can
simulate the whole processes.
169
Appendix III
Appendix III - Scrubber Section Streams Data
Cyclone Product
Composition of this stream was defined in the 1980's when the coker was run in "once
through" mode. It contains water, light ends, CGO (Coker Gas Oil) fraction and OTSB
fraction (OTSB-Once Through Scrubber Bottom, mixture of heavy fractions of cyclone
vapour).
Weight percents of all four fractions are shown in Table AIII. 1.
Composition of Light Ends is given in Table AIII.2.
CGO fraction is characterized using ASTM D2887 method with HTSD enhancement, and its
assay is presented in Table AIII.3. Table AIII.4 shows TBP data calculated by HYSYS.
OTSB is the heaviest fraction in Cyclone Product, which contains components boiling above
730C. As an enhancement to ASTM D2887 method, for the fractions above 524C SCFE
technique was used. This method is capable of analyzing high molecular weight residue
fractions. OTSB boiling curve was generated as a composite curve from ASTM and SCFE
data. This is explained in details in M . Mangat thesis [5].
Composite data for OTSB is given in Table AIII.5. TBP data for OTSB, calculated by HYSYS
are given in Table AIII.6.
For the purpose of the simulation, Cyclone Product stream is formed as a mixture of above
mentioned four streams: water, light ends, CGO and OTSB. Cyclone Product molar
composition is given in Table AIII.8, TBP data and TBP curve calculated by HYSYS in Table
AIII.7 and Figure AIII.l, molecular weight distribution in Figure AIII.2 and density
distribution in Figure AIII. 3.
170
Appendix III
Table AIII.l Composition of hypothetical cyclone stream
Fraction wt%
Water 19
Light Ends 10
CGO 54
OTSB 15
Table AIII.2 Composition of Light Ends fraction of cyclone stream
wt fraction
Light Ends components
(of Light Ends)
Hydrogen 0.01
H2S 0.06
Methane 0.21
Ethane 0.16
Ethylene 0.08
Propane 0.12
Propylene 0.13
Butadiene 0.02
Butenes 0.12
i-Butane 0.01
n-Butane 0.06
171
Appendix III
Table AIII.3 CGO assay Table AIII.4 CGO TBP data

Method: ASTM 2887 with HTSB Method: TBP calculated by
enhancement HYSYS.
ASTM D2887 Vol % TBP (C)

wt% NBP ( C)
U
0 229
0 221 1 237
5 266 2 248
10 287 3.5 263
15 304 5 275
20 319 7.5 288
25 333 10 297
30 345 12.5 306
35 357 15 314
40 368 17.5 322
45 380 20 329
50 391 25 342
55 403 30 354
60 414 35 366
65 426 40 378
70 438 45 390
75 450 50 402
80 464 55 414
85 479 60 426
90 496 65 438
95 521 70 450
100 572 75 462
80 474
85 487
90 501
92.5 511
95 523
96.5 531
98 541
99 541
100 541
172
Appendix
Table AIII.5 OTSB Assay Table AIII.6 OTSB TBP data

Method: ASTM 2887 & SCFE- Method: TBP calculated by
composite data HYSYS
ASTM SCFE COMPOSITE
Boil Temp MT't Boil Temp 13oi Temp ASTM SCFE
y. Boil (C) SBotl (C) KBoil (Q TBP (C) TBP (C)
vol %
0 315.7 0 523.3 0 3157
318.7 0 341 523
i 318.7 1 523.5 0.5
327.4 2 523.7 1 327.4 1 345 524
2
3.5 343.7 3.5 524.0 1.75 343.7 2 355 524
5 360.7 5 524.3 2.5 360.7 3.5 374 524
7.5 3838 7.5 524.8 3.75 383.8 394 524
5
10 4007 10 525 6 5 400.7
7.5 419 525
12.5 413 6 12:5 526.0 6.25 413.6
10 436 526
15 423 7 15 526.3 7.5 423.7
17.5 526.8 8.75 432.0 12.5 448 526
17.5 432 0
20 43S0 20 527.3 10 439.0 15 458 526
25 45C 5 25 528.4 12.5 450.5 17.5 466 527
30 45S6 30 533.6 15 459.6 20 472 527
35 468 7 35 539.2 17.5 468.7
25 483 528
40 477 1 40 549.6 20 477.1
30 492 534
45 484 7 45 566.3 22.5 484.7
50 583.4 25 492.1 35 501 539
50 492 1
55 499 3 55 597.6 27.5 499.3 40 509 550
60 506:3 60 639.1 30 506.3 45 517 566
65 512.9 65 695.7 32.5 5119 50 525 583
70 518.5 70 759.0 35 518.5
55 532 598
75 5215 75 825.8 37.5 522.5
60 540 639
80 526.0 80 892.9 40 526.0
42.5 529 2 65 544 696
85 529.2 85 957.1
90 532.4 90 1015.1 45 5324 70 547 759
92.5 534.0 92.5 1040.9 46.25 534 0 75 ^52 826
95 535.7 95 1063.9 47.5 535.7 80 553 893
96.5 536.8 96.5 1076.2 48.25 536.8
85 555 957
98 5379 98 1086.1 49 537.9
90 558 1015
99 538 6 99 1089.1 49.5 538.6
50 539.4 92.5 558 1041
100 539 4 100 1092.2
50.5 523.5 95 560 1064
51 523 7 96.5 561 1076
51.75 524 0 98 562 1086
52.5 524.3 1089
99 562
53.75 524.8
100 563 1092
55 525 6
56.25 526 0
57.5 526 3
58.75 526 8
60 527.3
62.5 528 4
65 533.6
67.5 539 2
70 549 6
72.5 566.3
75 583 4
775 597 6
80 639.1
825 695 7
85 759.0
87 5 825 8
90 892.9
925 957.1
95 1015 1
96.25 1040S
97 5 1063 9
98 25 1076 2
99 1086 1
99.5 1089.1
100 1092 2
Appendix III
Table AIII.7 Cyclone Product TBP data

Method: TBP calculated by HYSYS
Vol % TBP [ C]
U
0 -253
1 -247
2 -223
3.5 -192
5 -165
7.5 -128
10 -104
12.5 -93
15 -72 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
17.5 -50
Temperature, C
20 -43
25 6 Figure AIII.l Cyclone Product TBP curve
30 289
35 318
40 340
45 361
50 380
55 399
60 420
65 439
70 456
75 466
80 493
85 517
90 540
92.5 546
95 565
300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
96.5 708
Molecular weight
98 928
99 981 Figure A I I L 2 Cyclone Product molecular weight
100 1028 distribution curve
Table AIII.8 Cyclone Product composition
Boiling range, "C Mole fractions Mass fractions

<=100 0.8921 0.3042
100-200 0.0000 0.0000
200-300 0.0162 0.0599
300-400 0.0395 0.2021
400-500 0.0353 0.2543
500-600 0.0144 0.1345
600-700 0.0005 0.0057
700-800 0.0005 0.0075
800-900 0.0004 0.0064
900-1000 0.0005 0.0107
1000> 0.0006 0.0148
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Liquid Density, kg/m 3
Figure AIII.3 Cyclone Product density

distribution curve
174
Appendix III
ATB Assay
ATB experimental assay is collected by Syncrude Canada Ltd. using ASTM D2887
method for fractions up to 538C, and HTSD enhancement for higher boiling
components. This assay is shown in Table AIII.9. Distillation assay was used as input and
TBP and composition were calculated by HYSYS. They are presented in Table AIII.10,
Figure AIII.4 and Table AIII.l 1, respectively.
175
Appendix III
Table AIII.9 ATB assay Table AIII.10 ATB TBP data

Method: ASTM 2887 with HTSD Method: TBP data
enhancement calculated by HYSYS
ASTM D2887 Vol % TBP ("C)
wt% NBP (C) 0 316
0 262 1 326
1 277.5 2 347
2 296.5 3.5 368
3 308.5 5 384
4 318 7.5 405
5 327.5 10 422
6 336 12.5 437
7 343.5 15 451
8 350.5 17.5 464
9 357 20 475
10 363 25 497
11 369.5 30 519
12 375.5 35 544
13 381 40 569
14 387 45 594
15 392.5 50 618
16 397.5 55 640
17 403 60 662
18 407.5 65 683
19 412.5 70 702
20 417 75 722
21 421.5 80 744
22 426 85 776
23 430.5 90 804
24 435 92.5 838
25 439 95 884
26 444 96.5 922
27 448.5 98 962
28 453.5 99 987
29 458.5 100 1009
30 463.5
31 468.5
32 473.5
33 478.5
34 483.5
35 488.5
36 494
37 499
38 504
39 509
40 514.5
41 519.5
42 524.5
43 530
44 535
45 540
46 545 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
47 550 Temperature, C
48 555
49
50
560
564.5
Figure AIII.4 ATB TBP curve
51 569
52
53
573.5
578
Table AIII.l 1 ATB composition
54 583 calculated by HYSYS
55 587.5 Boiling range, C Mole fractions
56 591
57 595 <=100 0.000
58 599.5 100-200 0.000
59 604 200-300 0.000
61 613 300-400 0.109
62 617.5 400-500 0.258
63 622 500-600 0.238
64 627
600-700 0.212
65 631.5
700-800 0.105
66 636
67 640.5 800-900 0.061
68 645.5 900-1000 0.010
69 651 1000> 0.007 176
70 655.5
Appendix III
HGO Assay
Experimental assay is also collected using ASTM D2887 method with HTSD
enhancement. Assay is presented in Table AIII.l2, TBP data calculated by HYSYS in
Table AIII.l3 and Figure AIII.5 and the composition calculated by HYSYS in Table
AIII.l 4.
177
Appendix III
Table AIII.12 HGO Table AIII.12 cont. Table AIIL13 HGO TBP
assay data
Method: ASTM 2887 Method: TBP calculated
with HTSB enhanc. by HYSYS
ASTM D2887 70 469 Vol % TBP ( C)
U
wt% NBP (C) 71 471.5 0 281

0 263.5 72 473.5 1 289
1 275 73 476 2 302
2 289.5 74 478.5 3.5 317
3 298.5 75 481 5 327
4 305.5 76 483.5 7.5 339
5 310.5 77 486 10 348
6 315.5 78 488.5 12.5 357
7 320 79 491.5 15 365
8 324.5 80 494.5 17.5 372
9 328.5 81 497 20 378
10 332 82 500 25 390
11 336 83 503 30 402
12 339.5 84 506 35 413
13 342.5 85 509.5 40 424
14 86 513 45 435
345.5
87 517 50 445
15 348.5
88 520.5 55 455
16 351.5
17 89 525 60 465
354
90 529.5 65 475
18 357
91 535 70 486
19 359.9
92 540.5 75 498
20 362
93 547 80 510
21 364.5
94 555 85 526
22 367
95 564.5 90 544
23 369.5
96 576 92.5 567
24 372
97 591.5 95 603
25 374.5
98 615.5 96.5 643
26 377
99 680.5 98 719
27 379
100 750 99 763
28 381.5
100 797
29 384
30 386
31 388.5
32 390.5
33 393
34 395
35 397
36 399.5
37 401.5
38 403.5
39 405.5
40 408
41 410
42 412
43 414
44 416
45 418
46 419.5 400 600 1000
Temperature, C
47 421.5
48 423.5 Figure AIII.5 HGO TBP curve
49 425.5
50 427.5
51
52
429.5
431
Table AIII.14 HGO composition (HYSYS)
53 433 Boiling range, C Mole fractions
54 435
55 437 <=100 0.000
56 439 100-200 0.000
57 441 200-300 0.027
58 443 300-400 0.334
59 445
60 447
400-500 0.493
61 449 500-600 0.113
62 451 600-700 0.022
63 453.5 700-800 0.008
64 455.5
800-900 0.004
65 457.5
66 460 900-1000 0.000
67 462 1000> 0.000 178
68 464.5
69 467
Appendix III
Scrubber Overhead
Scrubber Overhead is the final product of the Fluid Coker. As a vapour stream, Scrubber
Overhead exits from the top of the Scrubber Section of a Fluid Coker and enters the
fractionator where four fractions are separated: Sour Gas, Butane, Naphtha and Combined
Gas Oil (CGO), consisted of Light Gas Oil (LGO) and Heavy Gas Oil (HGO).
Composition and Simulated Distillation Data were provided by Syncrude Canada Ltd.
Weight fractions of all four streams are given in Table AIII.l 5. Composition of Sour Gas is
given in Table AIII.l 6. Composition and distillation data for Scrubber Overhead itself were
not available. In order to define real plant Scrubber Overhead and be able to compare its
characteristics with the simulated Scrubber Overhead, four fractions mentioned above were
simulated as four streams and mixed together. The resulting stream was assumed to have
the characteristics of the plant Scrubber Overhead. Simulated Distillation Data for Naphtha
and CGO fractions, obtained from Syncrude Canada Ltd., were entered in the simulation
model as assays and based on that HYSYS calculated TBP distillation curves. TBP
distillation data calculated by HYSYS for Naphtha and CGO are shown in Table AIII.17
and AIII.l8, respectively. The resulting mixture, "plant" Scrubber Overhead, TBP data and
TBP curve, calculated by HYSYS, are shown in Table AIII.l9 and Figure AIII.6, boiling
range composition and fraction distribution in Table AIII.20, molecular weight distribution
in Figure AIII.7 and density distribution in Figure AIII.8.
179
Appendix III
Table AIII.15 Scrubber Overhead fractions Table AIII.16 Sour Gas composition
Fraction wt%
Sour Gas 12 Component Mole Fractions
Butane 5 Hydrogen 0.113
Naphtha 22 H20 0.029
CGO 61 H2S 0.138
Methane 0.317
Ethane 0.133
Ethylene 0.062
Propane 0.086
Propene 0.061
1-Butene 0.001
Biacetylene 0.001
i-Butane 0.004
n-Butane 0.010
i-Pentane 0.000
n-Pentane 0.001
13-Butadiene 0.002
cis2-Butene 0.002
tr2-Butene 0.011
CO 0.007
C02 0.021
180
Appendix III
Table AIII.17 CGO Assay Table AIII.17 Cont Table AIII.18 CGO
Method: SIM Dist TBP data
Method: TBP calculated by
HYSYS
SIM Dist 51 416 Vol % TBP (C)
wt % NBP [ C]
U
52 419 0 220
0 198 53 421 1 241
1 225 54 423 2 266
2 255 55 425 3.5 276
3 257 56 428 5 286
4 264 57 430 7.5 298
5 270 58 433 10 310
6 275 59 435 12.5 321
7 280 60 438 15 330
8 285 61 440 17.5 339
9 290 20 347
62 443
10 294 25 362
63 445
11 298 30 377
64 448 35 391
12 302 65 450 40 405
13 306 66 453 45 417
14 310 67 456 50 429
15 314 68 458 55 441
16 318 69 461 60 453
17 321 70 464 65 466
18 325 71 466 70 478
19 328 72 469 75 492
20 332 73 471 80 502
21 335 74 474 85 520
22 338 75 90 542
477
23 342 92.5 564
76 480
24 345 95 594
77 482
25 348 96.5 628
78 485
26 351 98 683
79 487
27 354 99 716
80 491 100 735
28 357
81 493
29 360
82 497
30 363
83 500
31 366
84 503
32 369
85 507
33 371
34 374 86 510
35 87 514
377
36 380 88 518
37 383 89 523
38 386 90 527
39 388 91 533
40 391 92 539
41 393 93 545
42 396 94 554
43 399 95 564
45 401 96 578
46 404 97 597
47 407
48 409
49 411
50 414
181
Appendix III
Table AIII. 19 Naphtha Assay Table AIII.20 Naphtha TBP data

Method: SIM Dist Method: TBP calculated by HYSYS
SIM Dist Vol % TBP (C)

wt % NBP [C] 0 -62
1 -30 1 -42
2 -17
2 -7
3.5 -8
3 -3
5 0
5 1
7.5 15
10 34
10 30
15 47 12.5 40
20 67 15 47
25 80 17.5 53
30 93 20 62
35 106 25 77
40 116 30 88
45 127 35 97
50 140 40 107
55 151 45 118
50 131
60 165
55 144
65 176
60 158
70 190
65 171
75 201
70 184
80 212 75 196
85 223 80 207
90 235 85 217
95 251 90 229
97 259 92.5 235
98 265 95 243
99 276 96.5 250
98 258
99 264
100 264
Appendix III
Table AIII.21 "Plant" Scrubber
Overhead TBP data
Method: TBP calculated by HYSYS
Vol % TBP ( C)
U
0 -253
1 -216
2 -178
3.5 -170
5 -154
7.5 -116
10 -94
12.5 -84
15 -60
17.5 -47 Temperature, C
20 -41
25 -1 Figure AIII.6 "Plant" Scrubber Overhead TBP curve
30 11
35 84
40 130
45 188
50 237
55 298
60 339
65 371
70 400
75 426
80 450
85 476
90 500
92.5 518
95 540
96.5 568
98 614
660 100 200 300 400 500 600
99
100 691 Molecular Weight
Table AIII.22 "Plant" Scrubber Overhead Figure AIII.7 "Plant" Scrubber Overhead
composition and fraction distribution molecular weight distribution curve
Boiling range, C Mole fractions Mass fractions

<=100 0.681 0.239
100-200 0.087 0.100
200-300 0.052 0.088
300-400 0.082 0.204
400-500 0.069 0.235
500-600 0.025 0.106
600-700 0.004 0.020
700-800 0.001 0.008
800-900 0.000 0.000
900-1000 0.000 0.000
1000> 0.000 0.000
Vol. fraction
C4-(<177C) 0.070 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
LGO (177-343C) 0.250 Liquid Density, kg/m
HGO(343-524C) 0.579
524+(>524C) 0.101
Figure AIII.8 "Plant" Scrubber Overhead density
distribution curve
183
Appendix IV
Appendix IV - Cyclone Liquid Droplets Trajectory
The vapour and the liquid droplets of the Cyclone Product come out of the cyclone snouts at
velocity VQ^SO ft/s=76.1 m/s, and could be considered as a nearly horizontal jet above the
Scrubber Pool. The surrounding vapour velocity (9.8 m/s) was estimated based on the total
volume flow rate for Scrubber Pool vapour and Cyclone Product and cross section area of the
column.
Longitudinal and vertical distribution of velocity for a droplet and distance from the nozzle can
be calculated. Basic information for the calculation is given below:
p = 0.11423 lb/ft = 1.7145 kg/m is density of the Cyclone Product vapour phase*
g
3 3
u.g = 3.11 10" cP = 3.11 10 kg/ms is viscosity of the Cyclone Product vapour phase*
2 5
pi = 759.32 kg/m is density of the Cyclone Product liquid phase - liquid droplet*
3
ai = 6.357-10" lbf/ft is surface tension of the Cyclone Product liquid phase - liquid droplet*
4
D =0.58 m is nozzle diameter

0
d =1.081-10" m is droplet diameter; the whole calculation is done using this diameter, calculated
p
5
based on the cyclone cut point
*) Note: These values are calculated by HYSYS based on the assay data for the Cyclone Product
Longitudinal distribution of velocity (vi) for the droplets was calculated based on equations for
a turbulent free jet. A turbulent jet is a free jet with Reynolds number greater than 2000. In the
case of Cyclone Product, Reynolds number is:
R = ' '
e
D V Pg
= 24-10 5
(TV-5)
The equation is applicable for the air jet into the surrounding air. Density gradient between the
jet fluid and surrounding fluid has effect on the spread of the jet. Since Cyclone Product vapour,
184
Appendix IV
as jet fluid, has similar density as the surrounding vapour, as in the original case with air, this
equation was used without change for the system under study:
v, =v -K
n for 7< <100 or 4.06<X<58m
A, A>
(IV-2)
AT = 6.2 for v = 10 to 50 m/s

0
where:
vj is longitudinal distribution of velocity along the center line of the jet
vo = 76.1 m/s is exit velocity of the jet
X is the horizontal distance from the exit of the nozzle
Do = 0.58 m is the nozzle diameter
This equation applies for the distance between 4.06 and 58 m from the nozzle. After inserting the
values, the equation for velocity distribution within this distance is:
v , ( ^ W < 5 s = ^ | ^ far 4.06<X<58m (IV-3)
At position X=4.06 m, the velocity would be vi = 67.4 m/s
From the exit of the nozzle up to 4.06 m, linear change of velocity was assumed, changing from
76.1 m/s to 67.4 m/s. Hence, the linear equation for velocity distribution within the distance from
0 to 4.06 m would be:
",Wo<,<,=v-2.14^ for 0<X<4.06m (IV-4)
Since v, = , after integration of both Equations (IV-3) and (IV-4) in time and values input,
dt
following two equations for horizontal distance change in time were obtained:
185
Appendix IV
X(t) = ^(l-e- ') 2U

for distance 0 < X < 4.06m (IV-5)
2.14
X(t) = ^16.5 +547.3(^-0.0665) for distance 4.06 <X< 58m (IV-6)
Vertical distribution of velocity (v ) can be calculated from the vertical force balance (weight
v
of the droplet against the drag force) and the terminal velocity of the droplet:
mg-F =m^ D (IV-7)

dt
In this equation g is gravitational acceleration, m is droplet mass, and F D is a drag force:
F =C {\p v ){^d )
D D g v
2
p (IV-8)
Velocity in this equation is relative velocity between droplet (particle) and surrounding gas,
v =v - v , dp is droplet (particle) diameter, and Co is drag coefficient. For the spherical particles
v p g
it can be calculated from:
24 24 u
c
- = i r =
( I V
- 9 )
R e
p- -p g
v
v
d
dv
Terminal velocity can be calculatedfromEquations (IV-7), (IV-8) and (IV-9) when- = 0:
dt
dv
mg-2>n/u d v = - ^ = 0 g p v m (IV-10)
Since m- p, -V - p, -(^mi ) is the mass of the spherical liquid droplet, Equation (IV-10) for
p
3
p
droplet terminal velocity becomes:
mg Prd -g 2
p
(IV-11)
57tp d g p 18//,
If the droplet was moving through a stagnant gas, terminal velocity would be VTO=0.0016 m/s for
the system under study, and from Equations (IV-7), (IV-8) and (IV-9):
186
Appendix IV
dy^
mg-3xjU d v g p v =m (IV-12)
dt
dv v
g ^ - =g - ^ =g (IV-13)
dt m To V y
T0 J
Integrating velocity in time from t=0 to t:
v (0 = v- l-exp(^-0 (IV-14)
v
ro
dY
Since v = -f-, using Equation (IV-14) and integrating vertical distance Y in time from t=0 to t,
v
dt
the following Equation for vertical distance change in time can be obtained:
Y 't) = v -t +
0 T0 ^ exp(^--0-1 (IV-15)
g V
T0 J
where Yo represents vertical distance from the nozzle exit if the surrounding fluid is stagnant.
Note: Y is directed downwards.
However, droplets are not moving through a stagnant gas. In this investigation, the surrounding
gas was considered to be the vapour that originates from Scrubber Pool in combinations with
Cyclone Product vapour. Properties of this combined vapour were used for the calculations. The
velocity of these vapours is calculated based on the total volume flow and Scrubber cross-
section, and its value is 9.8 m/s. This velocity is included in Equations (IV-7), (IV-8) and (IV-9)
through the slip velocity. The new terminal velocity also includes slip velocity:
V
T = T0V
~ g V
(IV-16)
where v is the terminal velocity in the flowing surrounding gas, v = 9.8 m/s is velocity of the
T g
surrounding gas, VTO is the terminal velocity in the stagnant gas.
From Equations (IV-7), (IV-8) and (IV-9), the same Equation (IV-14) is derived for change of
vertical velocity in time:
v (0 = v l-exp(^-0 (IV-17)
v
ro
:
187
Appendix IV
But, the real droplet velocity is influenced by the flowing velocity of the surrounding gas, and its
value is:
(IV-18)
V
VB/(0 = V (0-V^
V
and hence:
8
(t) = v l - e x p ( - (IV-19)
vreal T t ) v
dY
Again, v , - , using Equation 19 and integrating vertical distance Y in time from t=0 to t,
vrea
dt
the following Equation for vertical distance change in time can be obtained:
Y(t) = Y (t)-v-t 0
(IV-20)
Trajectory of a liquid droplet within the space above the Scrubber Pool was calculated from
Equations (IV-5, 6, 15 and 20) inserting the time. The calculation was done for the largest
droplet diameter present in the jet (1.08M0" m), assuming that all others would be carried even
5
further.
The trajectory is presented the Figure AIV. 1.
0)
N
N
O
c
0)
E
o
L.
0)
o
c
ro
_</>
5

o
r
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Horizontal distance from the nozzle- x, m
Figure AIV.l Trajectory of a liquid droplet carried with the Cyclone Product jet
188

Simulation of The Scrubber Section of A Fluid Coker: Jasna Jankovic

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Simulation of The Scrubber Section of A Fluid Coker: Jasna Jankovic

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SIMULATION OF THE SCRUBBER SECTION OF A FLUID COKER

B.A.Sc, University of Belgrade, Yugoslavia, 1996

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

lasna Jankovic, 2005

Table of Contents iii

Chapter 7- Summary of Proposed Process Performance Improvements.. 140

Glossary of Terms 150

Appendix II - Flash Block Calculation 159

Figure 1.1 Schematic of oil sand processing 3

Financial support provided by Syncrude Canada Ltd. and NSERC is gratefully

1.1. Oil Sand Processing Background

Figure 1.1 Schematic of oil sand processing [11]

1.2. Fluid Coker

Figure 1.2 Schematic of a Fluid Coker

1.3. Scrubber Section

Figure 1.3 Schematic of the Scrubber Section of the Fluid Coker

1.4. Project Objective

Chapter 2 - Process Simulator H Y S Y S Plant

2.1. Introduction to HYSYS - Literature Review

management (production planning and scheduling, quality control), as well as application in

2.2. HYSYS Simulation Basis

The following steps are used to set up a new simulation model:

Defining an appropriate property package (Equation of State (EOS) or Activity

Installing the reaction components and formulating reactions, if they occur;

Installing the operation units and defining needed parameters;

Connecting the elements (streams and operation units);

2.3. Property Package and Flash Calculation

Flash calculation is based on system tendency to reach thermodynamic equilibrium. Vapour-

Fugacity coefficients can be calculated from a general thermodynamic equation:

2.4. Operation Units and Logical Operations

The Flash calculation within the column follows several steps:

Chapter 3 - Scrubber Section Simulation Model

3.2. Simulation Structure Set Up

3.2.1. Property Package

3.2.2. Oil Characterization

In this simulation, only the light components, Ci to C 4 are characterized individually. A l l

In order to obtain discrete components these fractions were divided into 20

3.2.3. Core Blocks and Simulation Components

Core operation blocks:

Case, start-of-run ( S O R ) conditions were used, and pressure effects from S O R to E O R

were simulated i n Case Study VIII, Chapter 6.

appeared to be the closest representation. Additional parameters were specified to

the column and weirs were specified, as well.

continuously mixed by Agitation steam, is modeled as a mixing tank.

Mixers are included when combining streams from different sources.

3.2.4. Simulation Flowsheet

leaves the top of the Koch Grid.

Scrubber Pool at 375C.

Mass Density 2.834 kgAn3

Pressure 17.00 p**g

Actual Volume Flow - 304.7 nvVTi

ShedVapour Temperature 325.0 C

Temperature 404.9 C Pressure 200.0 psig

Pressure 17 00 psig Mass Flow S.247e*O04 kgm

Mass Ftow 8 705o'005 kg/h Actual Volume Ftow 66 26 m3m

Actual Votume Flow 2.773e00S m3m

Pressure 17.00 ps<g Vapour to Sheds

Mass Ftow 6.S96**005 kgm

Actual Volume Ftow 3.1SOe*M rrvVh

Actual Volume Ftow 789.0 HVWl

Molecular Weight 6370