FLUID FLOW
Reboiler and condenser
operating problems
Seemingly small details related to heat exchangers can have a negative impact on
distillation system heat input, cause tray flooding and affect overhead condenser
and column capacity. Case studies reported here illustrate some of the difficulties
Edward L Hartman and Tony Barletta
Process Consulting Services Inc
H
eat exchanger operating prob-
lems are frequently the cause of
distillation system limitations.
Unit process design, individual equip-
ment design and the interaction of heat
exchangers and other equipment are all
essential to proper unit operation. The
ability of a distillation system to move
heat to and from the process is directly
linked to the design and operation of
the reboiler and condenser, and various
aspects of this can be seen in the three
examples that follow.
Case study 1 discusses how the con-
figuration of a condensate pot pressure-
equalising line and condensate line
affected the heat input to the distilla-
tion system. The second study reviews
the interaction between the reboiler
vapour return and tray flooding. Final-
ly, Case study 3 examines how the loca-
tion and size of auxiliary pieces of
equipment, such as valves, affect over-
head condenser and column capacity.
Case study 1
CDU debutaniser
A large crude distillation unit (CDU)
was revamped to increase crude
throughput by 25%. Other revamp
goals were to improve preheat and
product recovery. A comprehensive unit
test run was performed to establish the
baseline unit performance and deter-
mine equipment limitations.
As with other areas of the CDU, the
debutaniser required significant modifi-
cations to achieve revamp objectives.
This column was essentially limited by
its reboiler and condenser system capac-
ity. The existing overhead condensing
system had an air-cooler followed by a
water cooler.
The column had two existing reboil-
ers to provide heat input. One reboiler
used gasoil as the heating medium,
while the other employed medium pres-
sure steam. Among other modifications,
a new reboiler designed for high-pres-
sure steam replaced the existing medi-
um-pressure steam reboiler. The
purpose was to boost the logarithmic-
Debutaniser
From
small
reboiler
LC TC
To small Steam
reboiler reboiler
Stabilised
naphtha
Figure 1 Revamped steam reboiler
mean-temperature-difference (LMTD)
between the heating medium and the
debutaniser bottoms, making it possible
to increase the reboiler heat duty and
column heat input. The new steam
reboiler was also fitted with a conden-
sate pot to stabilise tower operation.
The control philosophy for the
reboiler system consists of maintaining
the small gasoil reboiler at a constant
base-load duty by direct control of the
combined gasoil flow. The large steam
reboiler duty varies based on the tower
bottoms temperature, which controls
the steam rate. In this way, the steam to
the large reboiler responds to the pro-
cess heat demand, while the small
reboiler duty remains constant. Figure 1
illustrates the configuration of the
revamped steam reboiler.
The aim of the arrangement shown
in Figure 1 was to provide direct control
of the steam flow to the reboiler. The
steam control valve changes the steam
flow to the reboiler, which consequent-
ly changes the condensing pressure in
the reboiler. Varying the condensing
pressure equates to changing the con-
47
P T Q SUMMER 2003
w w w. e p t q . c o m
600 psig
steam
Pressure-
equalising
line
Condensate
pot
LC
Condensate
to flash drum
densing temperature, which affects the
heat transfer in the reboiler. This con-
trol scheme results in a fast response
time and stable operation. No conden-
sate level should build up in the
reboiler tubes. The condensate level
should be kept in the condensate pot,
preventing steam blow-by into the
condensate system.
However, not all of the details speci-
fied in the basic process design were
incorporated into the final equipment
design. Note that the pressure-equalis-
ing line (or balance line) from the top
of the condensate pot was tied to the
steam inlet line to the reboiler, down-
stream of the control valve. The pur-
pose of the balance line is to ensure
that any steam coming from the reboil-
er does not “vapour-blanket” the con-
densate pot. In normal operation, the
flow in the balance line should be close
to zero.
Experience shows that the most effec-
tive way to analyse an engineering
problem is to apply fundamental princi-
ples. In the case of fluid flow in a con-
duit or system in which no work is

P1
Z1
Debutaniser
reboiler
⌬Z
(tubesheet view)
Z2
Figure 2 Steam reboiler configuration and energy balance reference points
being performed, Bernoulli’s theorem
expresses the law of energy conserva-
tion as follows: “The total head (energy)
at any particular point in the system
above a common reference level is
equal to the sum of the elevation head,
pressure head and velocity head”.
Figure 2 details the steam reboiler
configuration and the reference points
for the energy balance. The pressure at
Reference Point 1 is the steam pressure.
Since there is essentially no flow in the
Pressure-equalising
line (after correction)
Level
build-up
Debutaniser Condensate
reboiler
Unstable
level LC
Figure 3 New steam reboiler system design details
FLUID FLOW
where
z = elevation above reference level,
600 psig feet
steam hL = line loss, feet of fluid
³pbundle = bundle pressure drop, feet of
fluid
Pressure- The equation shows that the eleva-
equalising tion head at Reference Point 1 must be
line
equal to the elevation at Reference
P2 Point 2 plus the friction losses between
the two points, which includes piping
Condensate line loss and bundle pressure drop. In
pot other words, a liquid head driving force
LC (³z) must build up to move condensate
between Points 1 and 2.
The difference in elevation between
Condensate the reboiler and the condensate pot
to flash drum normal liquid level was small because
the pot upper tangent line was higher
than the bottom of the reboiler. With
the balance line being tied to the steam
line, the friction losses included the
pressure drop of the steam condensing
balance line and the tie point is close to in the bundle. The net result was that
the reboiler inlet, a simplification that the condensate built up a liquid head
can be assumed is that the pressure at in the reboiler bundle, reducing the
the condensate pot (Reference Point 2) surface area available for steam conden-
is the same as the steam pressure (p2 = sation.
p1). Also, within the accuracy of a refin- This limited the heat duty achievable
ery engineering problem, the velocity at in the reboiler and consequently either
both reference points can be assumed to the feed rate to the debutaniser and/or
be the same. the reflux rate had to be cut back. A
Therefore, Bernoulli’s equation can higher steam flow will lead to higher
be simplified to: pressure drop, which leads to higher
z1 = z2 + hL + ³pbundle condensate backup in the bundle.
The correct tie point for the balance
line is the steam side of the reboiler
near the outlet. Since the steam is on
600 psig
steam the tube side, the outlet compartment
of the channel head would be the cor-
rect location. Fortunately in this case,
Pressure- there was an idle nozzle connected to
equalising
the channel head below the pass-parti-
line
tion plate.
A simple pipe run was constructed to
tie the pressure-equalising line to this
Condensate nozzle, making the pressure in the con-
pot pot
densate pot the same as the reboiler
LC outlet pressure on the steam side. Once
From medium the pressure in the condensate pot was
pressure equalised with the reboiler outlet pres-
steam reboiler sure, no condensate liquid level was
required to build up in the reboiler
bundle.
PC
To low
pressure The other detail that was overlooked
steam in the new steam reboiler system design
is illustrated in Figure 3. The conden-
sate pot outlet line discharges into a
flash drum to recover low-pressure
steam. The condensate pot level con-
trol valve is located near the conden-
LC
sate pot rather than near the flash
Steam drum. The portion of the outlet line
flash drum
To
downstream of the level control valve
condensate has two-phase flow due to the conden-
sate flashing at the lower pressure. This
results in excessively high velocities in
that part of the line. However, prior to
reaching the flash drum, the outlet line
48
P T Q SUMMER 2003
 FLUID FLOW

Extensive field testing was carried

out to find the cause of the flooding.
AC H2 Figure 4 shows the average flows, tem-
Modified claus 95% 97% peratures and pressures around the TRC
Thermal Converter #1 Converter #2 Converter #3 prior to the onset of flooding. In order
stage claus claus claus to gather additional information, the
column was deliberately pushed into
flooding by increasing the reflux and
boil-up. The data and trends indicated
H2S/SO2 AC that the tower started to flood at a
Hydrogenation
reflux rate close to 28 000bpd.
After analysing the test data, it was
Thermal Converter #1 Converter #2 Converter #3 W
stage claus claus claus re concluded that the trays were flooding
prematurely. The data also revealed that
different causes contributed to the
Air A tower’s poor performance. One of the
root problems was the seal pan arrange-
Converter #4 ment of the bottom tray with respect to
Hi-activity the secondary reboiler return, which
99.5% was poorly designed.
H S The TRC primary reboiler is a reboil-
A 2 AC
Direct oxidation 98.8% er-condenser that exchanges heat
against the XRC overhead condensing
Converter #3 C vapours. Under normal operating con-
Thermal Converter #1 Converter #2 selective
stage claus claus ditions, this reboiler provides 60% to
oxidation or
70% of the total reboiler duty. The sec-
ondary reboiler uses hot oil and acts as
Air Air a “swing” reboiler, providing the
remaining heat to satisfy the total pro-
cess heat demand.
Control of the TRC bottom purity is
via the reset of the hot oil flow con-
troller at the outlet of the secondary
reboiler. The flow reset is provided by
either a differential temperature con-
Figure 4 Toluene recovery column, showing average flows, temperatures and pressures troller measured between trays 67 and
before the onset of flooding 59, or by a direct temperature controller
on tray 67.
combines together with another con- mercial grade toluene or blended into The bottom tray, 81, was a four-pass
densate pot outlet line coming from a gasoline.
medium pressure steam reboiler. The The side-draw stream produces a
medium pressure condensate has also higher purity toluene than the over- Secondary
flashed after the control valve and it is head stream. It is normally routed to a reboiler return
nozzle 30" dia.
at a lower temperature than the high toluene disproportionation unit where Seal pans
pressure flashed condensate coming it is transalkylated to yield high purity
from the debutaniser reboiler. The mix- benzene and xylenes.
ing of these condensate streams at dif- The TRC bottoms are pumped to the
ferent temperatures leads to rapid xylene recovery column (XRC). The
condensation of flashed steam, which TRC had two reboilers, with one of
results in a “steam hammer” in the con- them being heat integrated with the
densate line. XRC. The heating medium for the TRC
The net result is that the debutaniser primary reboiler consists of the XRC
condensate pot level control is unstable overhead condensing vapours. The TRC
and the level still builds up into the secondary reboiler operates with hot oil Primary
reboiler return
reboiler. The maximum reboiler capaci- from a closed loop system. nozzles 36" dia. 12 5/8"
ty cannot be achieved due to less sur- The TRC operation was troublesome 15 1/2"
face area being available for steam from its initial startup. Flooding was #81
condensation. not unusual at feed rates higher than 24"
25 000bpd and was evidenced by high
Case study 2 pressure drop, temperature excursions 42"
Aromatics fractionator and products going off specification.
The toluene recovery column (TRC) in This limited the refinery’s ability to
the aromatics complex of a large refin- recover toluene. The TRC limitation
ery experienced flooding problems. The forced the operators to pull more
feed to the TRC is the bottom stream toluene in the reformate splitter over- 13'-6" I.D.
from the reformate splitter. The TRC head, which increased the extraction
splits the feed into three streams: over- unit operating costs. At times, the
head, side-draw and bottoms. The reformer charge rate was cut due to the Figure 5 TRC secondary reboiler with a
toluene overhead stream is used as com- TRC flooding problems. single return line

50
P T Q SUMMER 2003
 FLUID FLOW

T77 PDC
PC
122' Ring
T78
-1.0
124' TC
T79
219 LC
126' T80 8.3 1 33020
2 FC
T81
128' 10
11
DTC
130' FC
1128
57

132' 58 14.9 TRC

59 overhead
N3 N4 N5 PC FC
134' 7210
nozzles 25920
TRC
136' From reformate sidedraw
splitter
DTC Note: Toluene recovered as
80
overhead and sidedraw=99.5%
138'
BPD
FC 18.5
LC psig
140' Bottoms liquid level
°F
19720
XRC
Hot oil overhead FC
17772

To XRC

Figure 6 Scan lines of active areas adjacent to centre down-
comers of bottom six trays and bottom of tower
design with side and centre downcom-
ers and seal pans. The primary reboiler
has two return lines with the corre-
sponding tower nozzles located off-cen-
tre, between the side and centre seal
pans at a lower elevation. The sec-
ondary reboiler has a single return line
with the nozzle located at the tower
centreline directly underneath the cen-
tre seal pan (Figure 5).
The primary reboiler return nozzles
follow good design practices by intro-
ducing the vapour/liquid mixture paral-
lel to the edges of the seal pans.
However, the arrangement of the sec-
ondary reboiler return nozzle caused
the reboiler vapour to directly impinge
on the centre seal pan. This resulted in
the reboiler vapour return entraining
the liquid overflowing the centre seal
pan. This liquid entrainment to bottom
tray 81 reduced its capacity and con-
tributed to the premature flooding.
A column scan confirmed the prob-
lem with the secondary reboiler return
configuration. Figure 6 shows the scan
lines of the active areas adjacent to the
centre downcomers of the bottom six
trays and the bottom of the tower,
including the liquid level. The scan
lines in the space between the reboiler
return nozzles and the bottom tray do
not indicate a clear vapour space. In a
Figure 7 Process conditions at maximum reflux and boil-up rates
after revamp
tower functioning properly, clear
vapour exists in that area. This confirms
the entrainment of liquid overflowing
the centre seal pan to the bottom tray.
The other factors that contributed to
the column premature flooding were:
— The two-pass trays above the feed
(1–57) had geometrical and hydraulic
characteristics conducive to vapour
cross-flow channelling; this hydraulic
phenomenon occurs when vapour
flows preferentially through the valves
or perforations near the outlet weir of
the tray
— The four-pass trays below the feed
(58–81) had a reduced number of valves,
resulting in a high dry-tray pressure
drop
— The centre and off-centre downcom-
ers on all trays did not have anti-jump
baffles, which prevent the liquid enter-
ing a downcomer from flowing from
one pass to another without actually
entering the downcomer; this results in
loss of tray capacity.
During a planned turnaround, the
centre seal pan was revamped to pre-
vent the liquid overflowing the seal
pan from being entrained to the bot-
tom tray. Tray 81 was revamped to a
vapour distribution tray, while the
remaining 80 trays were upgraded to
high capacity trays.
The objective of the revamp was not
only to eliminate the premature flood-
ing but also to increase toluene recovery.
The column capacity after the revamp
was audited by testing at maximum
reflux and boil-up.
Figure 7 depicts the process condi-
tions at the maximum rates. The maxi-
mum reflux rate achieved was close to
33 000bpd, which is significantly higher
than the maximum reflux achieved
prior to the revamp. At these condi-
tions, the column was still operating
satisfactorily without flooding but the
pressure was starting to increase. This
test demonstrated that the column was
now limited by the overhead con-
denser’s heat removal capability. The
reboiler return arrangement and the
trays were no longer the constraint to
column capacity.
Case study 3
Submerged condenser
The depropaniser in the FCC unit of
another large refinery has a submerged
(or flooded) condenser, as depicted in
Figure 8. The depropaniser overhead
condensing configuration is also known
as the hot vapour bypass system. With
this design, the tower pressure is con-
trolled by varying the condenser surface
area exposed for condensation of the

52
P T Q SUMMER 2003

55%
open
249 psig
115°F
Reflux
drum
Depropaniser
CWR
CWS Condenser
HC 20%
open
Figure 8 Depropaniser with submerged or flooded condenser
column overhead vapour. This is
accomplished by changing the conden-
sate level in the condenser.
This method is used when there is no
net vapour product leaving the reflux
drum at normal operation. It is also
advantageous when the condensers are
large and/or require frequent cleaning
because the condensers can be located
at grade. The reflux drum is elevated
above the condenser to provide enough
net positive suction head (NPSH) to the
reflux and product pump.
The condensate leaving the flooded
part of the condenser must be sub-
cooled, meaning that at the condenser
outlet temperature the condensate pres-
sure is above the bubble point pressure.
This additional pressure above the bub-
ble point pressure is converted to eleva-
tion as the liquid is transferred to the
drum. On the other hand, as hot bypass
Overhead
vapour in
Subcooling
zone
Subcooled
liquid out
Figure 9 Surface area exposed to condensation and sub-cooling
FLUID FLOW
Vent
PC
Closed
220 psig
LC
96°F
C3's to
treater
Reflux
pump
vapour condenses in the reflux drum, it
establishes a thin layer of liquid at the
level interface which is hotter than the
bulk liquid pool in the drum. The inter-
face liquid is in equilibrium with the
vapour space.
If the liquid from the condenser is
not subcooled enough to absorb the
total latent heat of the hot vapour
bypass, vapours will start to accumu-
late in the reflux drum. This increases
the drum pressure, which in turn caus-
es the liquid level in the condenser to
back up. Higher liquid backup means
more condensate subcooling, allowing
a new equilibrium to be reached in the
drum.
Conversely, if too much subcooling
occurs at a constant hot vapour bypass
rate, the drum pressure starts to fall.
This causes the liquid level in the con-
denser to fall, reducing the subcooling
Condensing
zone
Two-phase
Liquid level
Liquid
54
P T Q SUMMER 2003
and allowing a new equilibrium to be
achieved in the drum. Therefore, as
long as the condenser is not surface
area limited, the system will adjust
itself by exposing more or less surface
area for condensation and subcooling
(Figure 9).
Column pressure control is per-
formed by the control valve on the hot
vapour bypass line. For example, if the
drum pressure falls, the pressure con-
troller opens the hot vapour control
valve. This raises the top liquid layer
temperature and consequently vapour
pressure in the drum. Therefore, the
liquid level in the condenser rises,
reducing the surface area exposed for
condensation and increasing the con-
densate subcooling. This lowers the
condensation rate and increases the
system pressure, which is the intended
end result.
On the other hand, if drum pressure
increases, the hot vapour bypass control
valve closes. This reduces the top liquid
layer temperature, which lowers the
drum vapour pressure.
As a result, the liquid level in the
condenser drops, reducing the conden-
sate subcooling. More surface area is
exposed for condensation, which
decreases the system pressure as intend-
ed. In summary, the surface area for
condensation varies according to the
hot vapour bypass pressure controller,
allowing the condenser to meet the
heat duty demand and maintain tower
pressure. The response of the pressure
control loop is highly non-linear.
When pressure must be increased,
the response is fast because the con-
densate can flow back from the drum
to the condenser without delay when
the hot vapour bypass opens. However,
when the hot vapour bypass closes to
reduce the pressure, the response is
slow. The vapour in the receiver must
be condensed to lower the pressure,
which then leads to a lower level in the
condenser.
The submerged condenser method
requires several key aspects to be
designed correctly in order to ensure a
trouble-free operation. The level in the
receiver should be held as steady as pos-
sible because it directly affects the con-
denser level. The liquid level interface
in the drum cannot be agitated. This
would cause the vapour pressure in the
drum to fluctuate erratically, affecting
the liquid level in the condenser and
consequently the system pressure.
Another key aspect is the hot vapour
bypass line and control valve sizing.
This should be based on the vapour
flow required for condensation in the
accumulator and the differential head
between the liquid level in the drum
and condenser. The amount of sub-
 FLUID FLOW

cooling required is also an important design point. Finally,

the correct location and configuration of the condensate
and vapour bypass piping, as well as provision for purging
non-condensable gases are also important for a successful
application of this overhead condenser configuration.
Originally, the undersized hot vapour bypass control in the
depropaniser in question led to poor tower pressure control.
The pressure differential between the reflux drum and the
condenser was relatively low (approximately 7psi). The hot
vapour bypass control valve must impose essentially the same
pressure drop (minus vapour line friction losses). However,
the control valve and line were undersized for the required
vapour flow and differential pressure. Therefore, the control
valve had to operate wide open, which led to a deficient drum
and tower pressure control.
To remedy the situation, a hand-operated control valve was
installed in the condensate line from the submerged con-
denser to the overhead receiver, as noted in Figure 7. The pur-
pose of this valve is to impose pressure drop between the
condenser and the reflux drum. This would give the under-
sized hot vapour bypass more driving force to operate in a
more stable range and improve the tower pressure control.
However, this brought about the unfortunate effect of
reducing the overhead condenser capacity. The additional
20psi of pressure drop in the line imposed by the hand oper-
ated control valve requires further subcooling of the con-
densate so that no flashing occurs in the reflux drum. In
order to achieve the additional subcooling, the liquid back-
up in the condenser increases, reducing the available surface
area for vapour condensation. For the same boil-up rate, the
tower pressure increases and the condenser duty capacity is
reduced.
At high column charge rates, the hot vapour bypass closes
in order to keep the reflux drum pressure at the set point. The
liquid level in the condenser rises up accordingly, until a
point is reached where there is not enough surface area to
condense the vapours and the tower starts to pressure up.
The seemingly simple solution to the undersized hot
vapour bypass system actually resulted in a column capacity
limitation. Unit charge rate and/or reaction selectivity
towards olefins was compromised due to this problem. The
correct solution would have been to increase the size of the
hot vapour bypass.

Edward L Hartman is a process engineer for Process Consulting

Services Inc, Houston, Texas. His work includes revamp design
and field trouble-shooting of
refinery processes, and he has written numerous
technical papers on refinery revamps and
troubleshooting. E-mail: shartman@revamps.com
Tony Barletta is a chemical engineer with Process Consulting
Services Inc. His primary responsibilities are conceptual process
design (CPD) and process design packages (PDP) for large capi-
tal revamps. CPD work involves heater and other major equip-
ment
modifications.

55
P T Q SUMMER 2003