S P E C I A L

F O C U S

O N

HYDROPROCESSING OPTIONS

Pushing Plant Limits. Test Runs, Plant Expectations and Performance Confidence
By SCOTT W. GOLDEN, Process Consulting Services Inc., Houston, TX

eliable minimum-capitalinvestment revamps require pushing the plant to the limit of the existing equipment. While various small equipment design errors are tolerable at moderate equipment capacity, they are not when the unit is pushed.1,2 Process design for reliable low-cost revamps must focus on the following areas: Test-run: quantifying existing equipment performance Alternative flow schemes: maximizing existing equipment utilization Reliable revamps: detail equipment design. All phases of a revamp process design must be addressed to meet both the low cost and reliability objectives. 3,4 Shortcutting this process results in either higher investment costs due to unnecessary equipment modifications or unreliable revamp designs being installed because existing equipment problems were not identified. This article will address the importance of test-runs in the design of refinery revamps. FCC units are used to highlight the importance of the test-run in quantifying equipment performance. (Photo 1). A well-planned comprehensive test-run is the most important step in

any revamp, yet it is rarely performed. Often it is considered an unnecessary cost. Today, there is an overriding belief that ease-ofuse computer models can be used by inexperienced personnel; and that all data can be reconciled by the appropriate software algorithms. Unfortunately, refinery equipment may not operate per the model assumptions or the presumed original equipment design. Installed equipment performance must be measured. For instance, knowing that the FCC wet gas compressor is limiting the throughput or unit conversion is not the same as knowing what causes the limitation. Accurate operating Photo 1. Revamps Push Equipment Limits data is required to quantify existing equipment perforWhile management information mance and pinpoint specific causes of systems contain volumes of data, often equipment operating problems. this data is not complete or worse, it
March/April 1999

F O C U S

O N :

HYDROPROCESSING OPTIONS

may not be accurate. Pushing refinery unit operations to the major equipment limits requires a different approach to a revamp design. Reliable low-cost revamps must address the myriad of potential detail equipment design considerations that cause units not to perform. Revamp process design must quantify existing equipment performance and eliminate bottlenecks that prevent maximum equipment utilization. Ultimately, revamps must be both cost effective and reliable. Conventional Project Process Design A conventional project process design is executed by a series of activities that are often performed by different groups of individuals.5 First a heatand-material balance based on predetermined revamp objectives is completed. Existing equipment evaluation then follows. Generally, all this work is completed in the design office. If the calculated existing equipment capacity is insufficient, the equipment is replaced or paralleled. In this approach, the office-based calculation of the plant performance sets the future performance expectation. Engineering calculations are performed based on presumed equipment performance, vendor supplied estimates of performance, industry averages or the specific E&Cs design standards. Revamped process equipment performance is often a small difference between two large numbers (future requirements current capabilities). The conventional projects process design determines the future requirements based on the criteria previously mentioned. In meeting the revamp objective, equipment design assumptions often force unnecessary equipment modifications or underestimate existing equipment capacity. To prevent revamp failures, engineering and construction firms add in safety margins to the changes required. The safe2 WORLD REFINING

PRELIMINARY REVAMP PROCESS OBJECTIVE

REFINERY DEFINED OBJECTIVES

FIELD REVIEW

REFINERY STAFF + REVAMP ENGINEERS

COMPREHENSIVE TEST RUN

REFINERY STAFF + REVAMP ENGINEERS

TEST RUN DATA EVALUATION

REVAMP ENGINEERS

EXISTING EQUIPMENT REVIEW

REVAMP ENGINEER

DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE REVAMP FLOW SCHEME

REVAMP ENGINEER

FINAL OBJECTIVES

REFINERY STAFF + REVAMP ENGINEERS

DESIGN PACKAGE

REVAMP ENGINEERS

COST ESTIMATE & SCHEDULE

COST ESTIMATORS

Figure 1. Revamp Approach

ty margin required to adequately cover the errors in the conventional projects approach is often greater than the real changes required. Reliable RevampsMinimum Investment By contrast, revamp process design focuses on measuring the current equipment performance with a comprehensive well-planned and executed test run (Figure 1). Gathering specific test-run data and the subsequent analysis is the basis for an accurate bench-mark of current equipment performance. The term test-run has come to mean different things. How-

ever, in this era of computers and advanced process control equipment, a test-run generally means gathering data from the computer and sending it to the engineering contractors process designers. Our definition of test-run is an accurate set of composition, pressure and temperature data on all process streams that impact the unit heat and material balance including data needed to quantify the major process equipment performance. Generally, revamp requirements are an incremental change to current measured (not calculated) performance and not an average or presumed performance. The existing equipment
March/April 1999

F O C U S

O N : HYDROPROCESSING OPTIONS

Figure 2. Depropanizer Kettle Reboiler

performance must be quantified. This minimizes revamp errors and cost, as well as identifies equipment performance problems. Higher confidence in your current equipment performance allows the revamp engineer to push the equipment limits further.6 This minimizes investment for any given revamp objective. Test Runs-Why Are They Needed? An accurate bench-mark requires a plant test-run. Revamping requires a knowledge of the absolute magnitude of the equipment capabilities still unused. The standard information available to plant owners from process control systems and reports is trend data, which often is not adequate to identify deficiencies. Hidden offsets in trend data do not affect period-to-period operating performance comparisons. However, hidden offsets can have a dramatic impact on revamp analysis. The surest way to have a successful, low investment revamp is to carefully define your current operating
March/April 1999

basis. This approach is shown for several FCC product recovery revamps. Case study examples highlight the importance of test-run data when revamping for reliability and minimum investment cost. Performing a comprehensive test-run is a necessity. The time spent determining real plant limitations directly relates to the revamp capital cost. Test-run data simplify engineering calculations and help avoid calculation errors. Ease-of-use engineering software calculations do not necessarily represent reality. For instance, system hydraulic calculations involve equivalent lengths of pipe, friction factors, exchanger pressure drop algorithms, and oil physical and transport properties. In theory, a heat exchanger performance can be rigorously calculated by a computer program. However, the reality for many petroleum refinery exchanger services is that the actual fouling factor value controls the service heat transfer coefficient. It is the largest resistance to heat transfer. User input fouling factors are, at best,

estimates based on a similar service in another unit. Often the estimates used for design are so low, that they make the installed exchanger surface area unworkable. Additionally, calculated exchanger tube and shell-side pressure drop assumes the exchanger is clean. Fouling can dramatically increase exchanger pressure drop. Many FCC catalytic sections are being revamped to increase conversion and/or product selectivity. 7 These revamps make more C3-C12 boiling range products from the reactor. The additional lower boiling products must be fractionated in the gas plant columns. Figure 2 shows the depropanizer in the FCC gas plant. The overhead product from this column is processed in an ethylene plant C3 splitter to produce chemical grade propylene and propane for sales. The FCC depropanizer overhead product C 4 content is an important control parameter. The depropanizer column is reboiled with heat from the FCC main fractionator slurry pumparound. Increased reactor C3-C12 production always increases gas plant reboiler heat requirements. The proposed depropanizer heat and material balance, for the revamp, shows higher reboiler duty to meet the C3 recovery and overhead product C4 composition target. The conventional projects approach rigorously models the TEMA AKT kettle with one of the several commercially available shell-and-tube exchanger models. The exchanger equipment specialist uses the specific E&Cs design criteria for this service which is a total shell and tube-side fouling factor of 0.005 Ft2-hr-F/Btu. The rigorous exchanger model indicates the existing depropanizer reboiler will meet future duty requirements. This conclusion is based on assumed fouling factors and office-based calculations. However, the measured total fouling factor calculated with accurate field measured data averages 0.009. Based on the measured equipment perforWORLD REFINING 3

F O C U S

O N :

HYDROPROCESSING OPTIONS

Figure 3. Kettle Reboiler Flooding

mance, the exchanger is either undersurfaced or has high fouling. An exchangers performance one week after startup is not an indicator of average operation and should not be the basis for a revamp service exchanger rating. Data, Numbers and Test Runs The proper place to start a revamp, whatever the objective, is with a well planned and executed test-run of the operating unit. Test-run planning identifies specific data to be gathered so that equipment performance can be quantified. The specific data is identified on a flag sheet. Why perform a test run, when we have data from our control system? is the inevitable question that arises from management. This question is natural. After all, having spent what is most likely millions of dollars for an advanced management information system, management expects that the numbers from the system will be usable for any desired purpose. This question, while natural, arises from misconceptions about management information sys4 WORLD REFINING

tems and the numbers they report. Management information systems (MIS) gather numbers from plant instrumentation systems, store the numbers and manipulate the numbers into a variety of reports. At best, statistical methods may be used to fill in the missing numbers or to attempt to correct obvious errors. Using only the MIS (or plant information, PI) data to perform a revamp requires several assumptions for this approach to be successful. Three assumptions are of particular importance. First, that nearly all of the information coming in is correct. Second, that statistical methods will correctly identify the faulty data and fix it based on a relationship with the correct data. And last, that all the required data to quantify equipment performance has been gathered. These assumptions often fail. First, plant preventive maintenance to get instruments to read to a correct absolute reading is rarely done in a refinery.8 It is generally not necessary for day-today operations. Having a trend line on

a plot is the objective of the PI and this is how it is used by the experienced operators. These trend lines are great for showing if todays operation is better or worse than yesterdays, last weeks or the same month last year. Biases and offsets, built into the trend line for an entire time period, do not matter in making comparisons between time periods. In looking at absolute limits of equipment performance being pushed in a revamp, absolute values are critical. Second, advanced plant information systems all have means to reconcile plant data. Whatever the method, the assumption is that some of the data is incorrect and must be reconciled. Reconciled data simply means the incorrect numbers are calculated from some relationship. It may be a simple material balance (flow in=flow out) or the heat and material balance (HM&B). However, each increasing level of sophistication (material balance is less complex than the HM&B) must use more plant measured data. Again, the under-lying assumption of data reconciliation is that computer models can correct any piece of data given enough information. The need to reconcile the data is caused by numerous problems from instrument failures to incorrect instrument location in the field vs. the flow diagram. The test-run is a structured effort to gather comprehensive composition, temperature and pressure data around each major piece of equipment. 9 If data reconciliation is required, it is applied locally where it has a reasonable chance of working. Plant-wide data reconciliation is still only a dream. Third, often the data required to quantify equipment performance is not routinely gathered by the MIS systems. Returning to our FCC depropanizer shown in Figure 2, a properly planned and executed test-run must gather the required data to quantify the depropanizer reboiler performance.
March/April 1999

F O C U S

O N : HYDROPROCESSING OPTIONS

Rigorous heat exchanger models use the exchanger mechanical configuration and the process fluid physical and transport properties to rate the heat exchanger. Heat exchanger programs rate the exchanger based on user input fouling factors and process conditions. If the data is not accurate the exchanger rating will not be correct. While errors may not matter when a new plant is built and the exchanger is significantly over-surfaced, low cost revamps must fully utilize the existing equipment performance. When determining if a piece of equipment can be pushed, these data errors can lead to wrong conclusions. Computer Models Engineering computer models are useful tools, however, they are not a panacea. As an example, rigorous heat exchanger models require measured pressure and temperature data to be properly calibrated. The two major problems with rigorous heat exchanger models are the user-input (guessed) fouling factors and calculated pressure. The exchanger fouling factor must be calculated from plant flowrates and temperatures. Often the fouling factor is defined by the user based on an industry average, which is not accurate for the specific service. Additionally, the calculated tube-side pressure drop from the exchanger models are not correct unless it has been calibrated with field measured pressure drop. This is especially true for fouling services. FCC slurry pumparound is a high boiling condensed aromatics stream containing coke and catalyst fines. The coke and catalyst content vary depending on numerous factors. Catalyst and coke foul heat exchangers. The fouling tendency is unit specific. Numbers should never be taken as accurate data and the data must be complete. In our earlier example, a minimum-cost revamp objective would be to increase depropanizer reboiler serMarch/April 1999

REACTOR EFFLUENT

Figure 4. Slurry Pumparound Hydraulics

vice duty without having to replace the exchanger. Figure 3 shows the depropanizer kettle reboiler system with some relative equipment dimensions and the test-run measured pressure and temperature data. Kettle reboiler performance is affected by the shell and tube-side process flows. Data analysis and properly interpreting the measured data is important. The measured pressure drop from the column to the reboiler is 2 psi. The kettle reboiler baffle elevation difference is only 7'-6" to the reboiler vapor return. Distillation column kettle reboiler design requires the height of liquid in the bottom of the column equal to the pressure drop from the column to the reboiler. Assuming the feed to the reboiler has a density of 0.68, the measured column to reboiler pressure drop requires 7' of liquid static head to overcome the 2 psi pressure drop. The measured pressure drop implies the liquid level in the bottom of the column is near the vapor return nozzle. This affects both the reboiler and column performance. This problem

will limit the exchanger service duty and must be corrected or the exchanger service duty cannot be increased beyond current performance. Returning to the example shown in Figure 2, increasing FCC reactor conversion requires increased depropanizer reboiler duty. A conventional projects process design approach has concluded that the reboiler surface area is adequate for the revamp conditions. Figure 4 shows the relative location of the depropanizer reboiler in the slurry pumparound circuit and some hydraulic data. Increasing the depropanizer reboiler service duty by 20% requires increased slurry circulation rate to the exchanger. Increased slurry circulation rate will impact the pumparound system hydraulics. The existing hydraulic limitations will dictate whether higher slurry flowrates are possible. Test-run measured pressure drop and valve position data help quickly identify opportunities. Revamp process design uses this data in conjunction with the calculated exchanger fouling factor to determine
WORLD REFINING 5

F O C U S

O N :

HYDROPROCESSING OPTIONS

valve changes to increase the tube velocity and reduce fouling. Decreasing the number of tube passes is not a reliable solution. Whether pump modifications are feasible is situation specific. However, decreasing the number of tube passes aggravates an existing problem. Reliable minimum-cost revamp designs are not determined by rote application of rules. There is only one given in a revamp and that is there are no rules, only the specifics of the situation. Case StudiesUse Of Test Run Data In recent years, FCC unit converter section revamps have increased conversion through higher riser feed temperatures, higher catalyst/oil ratio, and improved converter section hardware and catalyst technology. These converter section revamps have affected major FCC product recovery equipment. A product recovery revamp to recover the lighter reactor products will need to evaluate the integrated main fractionator, wet gas compressor and gas plant performance. Three parts of the product recovery section that are significantly impacted are the slurry pumparound system, gas plant reboilers and main fractionator heat balance. These case studies will highlight examples where test-run data was used to minimize capital investment, identify under-performing equipment and implement reliable revamps in FCC product recovery section. Slurry Pumparound Steam Generators-Example Increasing conversion typically increases the slurry pumparound heat removal requirements. Figure 5 shows the four main fractionator pumparound heat removal systems. Figure 6 shows the slurry pumparound system. The slurry pumparound system removes riser superheat with two identical parallel steam generators (third is used as a spare)
March/April 1999

Figure 5. Main Fractionator Pumparounds

future performance. The following potential modifications will allow the slurry pumparound flowrate to be increased: Decrease tube side passes from 4 to 2 Increase slurry pumparound control valve size Pump impeller size or turbine speed Prior to determining the most cost-effective and reliable modification, the specific exchanger service must be considered. Previous operating history on the exchanger indicates a fouling rate that requires the exchanger be taken out of service after 12 months. FCC slurry pumparound service has relatively high fouling rates. Fouling service exchangers are affected by the process fluid, tube side velocity, fouling rate and fouling factor. These are related. Higher exchanger tube velocity lowers the fouling rate and the fouling factor. Conversely, lower tube velocity will increase the fouling rate. Industry standards state the velocity in this service should be 5-8 ft/sec, however, some refiners have operated at 13 ft/sec with minimal
6 WORLD REFINING

tube erosion. FCC exchanger designs (hydraulics permitting) using slurry pumparound should be operated at 8 ft/sec or higher to minimize the fouling rate and the fouling factor. Process flow sheet models and rigorous equipment evaluation programs are necessary tools for revamp process design. They should never be used without comprehensive plant test-run data. Rigorous exchanger models can be used to quantify tube velocity, fouling factors and exchanger surface to meet future conditions. In the depropanizer reboiler case, the conventional projects approach recommended decreasing the number of tube passes to eliminate the slurry pumparound hydraulic limitations. In fact, lowering tube velocity will increase the rate of fouling and reduce exchanger run length. The depropanizer reboiler measured fouling factor of 0.009 is above what can be tolerated if future service duty requirements are to be achieved. The only reliable modifications to the depropanizer reboiler system is pump and/or control

F O C U S

O N : HYDROPROCESSING OPTIONS

and the debutanizer reboiler. The total slurry pumparound system flowrate goes to the two steam generators with a portion of the steam generator outlet used to reboil the debutanizer. The remainder is by-passed around the debutanizer reboiler. A converter section revamp will have the following impact on the slurry pumparound system: Increase total slurry pumparound duty Increase the debutanizer reboiler duty-more gasoline and alky feed Slurry pumparound steam generators can produce 150-600 psig steam. The steam pressure is a function of refinery steam system balance and the investment cost. In this case steam is produced at 250 psig from two parallel kettle (TEMA AKT) steam generators. Typical industry total fouling factors for this service vary from Figure 6. Slurry Pumparound Exchangers 0.003-0.006. These fouling factors result in a service U-value between 75- The implications of the test-run mea- lated U-value is correct, lets use the 130 Btu/hr-ft2-F Applying this design sured data is important when deter- test-run data to check for consistency. . criteria to our system results in a cal- mining what equipment should be First, the steam and the boiler feed meter showed 88,000 lb/hr and culated steam generator surface area modified. Prior to assuming that the calcu- 92,000 lb/hr, respectively. Assuming a equal to twice that installed. The existing steam generator rating shows the steam generators under-surfaced, when they appear to be operating at much higher service U-values. Figure 7 is a schematic of the kettle steam generator. The boiler feed water rate, steam rate, and the specific test-run data collected is indicated. The measured temperatures and flowrates are used to model the steam generator. The calculated service Uvalue is 240 Btu/hr-ft2-F Therefore, . the exchanger was exceeding the design heat duty based on industry standard service U-values by almost 100%. The steam generator slurry pumparound inlet flow resulted in a tube velocity of 13 ft/sec. The exchangers had been operating for several years under these conditions. Every 12-18 months an exchanger is taken out of service for cleaning and the spare exchanger put in service. Figure 7. Slurry Steam Generator
March/April 1999 WORLD REFINING 7

F O C U S

O N :

HYDROPROCESSING OPTIONS

not follow design averages, it nonetheless is reality. Minimizing capital investment in this FCC would involve maintaining the high slurry steam generator tube velocity. Without accurate test-run data this conclusion would not be possible. If one wants rote design practices they should stick to grassroot projects and avoid the vagaries of revamps. Debutanizer Reboiler Debutanizer reboiler duty increases when the FCC unit conversion increases. The duty increase is a function of reactor yield shift and the debutanizer fractionation objectives of alky feed recovery, alky feed C5 olefin content, and gasoline Rvp. Generally, the debutanizer reboiler duty increases between 3070% when conversion is increased. Accurately measuring the debutanizer service U-value is important. Figure 8 shows the measured temperature and pressure data for the reboiler. The low tube-side pressure drop indicates low velocity (start-ofrun). Low velocity will increase the fouling rate and increase the average fouling factor over the exchanger run length. This exchanger has a history of severe fouling. Debutanizer reboiler (using slurry) fouling can be high on both the shell and tube-sides, although high shell-side fouling usually results from using 700F slurry. Table 1 shows the calculated debutanizer reboiler fouling factors for three different FCC units using slurry as reboiler heat. The numbers vary significantly. Variation is caused by slurry oil physical properties (API Gravity=-3.0 to 4.0), catalyst fines, coke fines, tube-side velocity and exchanger design. Revamping the converter section increases debutanizer reboiler duty significantly. Therefore, the slurry pumparound flowrate must be increased to meet higher reboiler duty. This debutanizer reboiler has a calculated fouling factor of 0.016. Rigorous
March/April 1999

Figure 8. Debutanizer Reboilers

reasonable blow-down of 2% the steam/water data are consistent. Based on the measured service U-value and theoretical calculations of shell and tube-side heat transfer coefficients a total fouling factor of 0.0005 is calculated. This is essentially a clean exchanger. Flowmeters can be wrong, although both the slurry and water/steam flows would all need to be in error. Comprehensive test-run data includes information to reconcile data errors. The test-run data included control valve pressure drop and % open. Control valve data can be used to identify major flowrate errors. Using both the boiler feed water and steam control valve pressure drop, % open,
Table 1. Debutanizer Reboiler (Fouling Factor) Unit # 1 2 3 Fouling Factor (Ft2-hr-F/Btu) 0.006 0.016 0.009

and valve Cv curve, the steam production was calculated at approximately 90,000 lb/hr. Additionally the exchanger tube-side calculated pressure drop based on the metered slurry pumparound flowrate was 24 psi. The measured pressure drop was 22 psi. Therefore, the metered slurry pumparound flowrate also appear to be correct. The test-run data and subsequent data shows high tube velocity results in very high service U-values. The high slurry tube velocity keeps the exchanger tubes clean. Revamping this system by adding an additional steam generator in parallel will require higher slurry pumparound flow rate, otherwise the existing exchanger tube velocity will decrease. Decreasing tube velocity to 8 ft/sec lowers the calculated service U-value clean to 200 Btu/hr-ft 2-F. A qualitative revamp consideration must be made to determine the impact of lower tube velocity on the existing exchanger fouling rate and the fouling factor. While operating at a tube velocity above 13 ft/sec does

WORLD REFINING

F O C U S

O N : HYDROPROCESSING OPTIONS

exchanger calculations indicate the tube velocity is approximately 4 ft/sec.10,11 Ultimately, the revamp engineer will have to make a decision about the relationship between fouling factor and tube velocity. Reducing the overall fouling factor from 0.016 (2 months operation) to 0.009 significantly affects the service U-value. It is possible to meet future reboiler duty for this service by increasing tube velocity and decreasing the average fouling factor to 0.009. Increasing slurry pumparound flowrate would increase the exchanger tube velocity, which will reduce the fouling factor. Minimumcost revamps require engineering decisions that are not part of any ease-ofuse computer model. Stripper (De-ethanizer Reboiler) Gas plant stripper columns remove C2 and H 2 S prior to feeding the Figure 9. Deethanizer (Stripper) Reboilers depropanizer or the debutanizer. The the above design assumptions are corto each reboiler reboiler duty largely tracks the % gasoline, and to a lesser extent, the alky 50% of the LCO pumparound total rect. Test-run measured temperature data should be used to identify oncecirculation rate flow to each reboiler feed production. Increasing gasoline The plant piping and column through and parallel reboiler operating production by 20% will increase the stripper reboiler duty by 20-35%. internal design will dictate whether performance. Evaluating the measured Large changes in alky feed production also increase the stripper duty. Figure 9 shows a stripper reboiler system using FCC main fractionator LCO pumparound (Figure 5) as reboiler heat. This is a relatively common gas plant/main fractionator heat integration scheme. Often, the stripper reboiler performance is limited by LCO pumparound heat availability or poor stripper reboiler draw/piping system design. Figure 10 shows the reboiler system and test-run measured stream temperatures. The unit is designed as a once-through reboiler system. The stripper column bottom tray liquid feeds two identical parallel reboilers. The following assumptions are made TEMPERATURE, F when this system was designed: 100% of bottom tray liquid feeds the two reboilers 50% of the bottom tray liquid flow Figure 10. Deethanizer Reboiler Temperatures
March/April 1999 WORLD REFINING 9

F O C U S

O N :

HYDROPROCESSING OPTIONS

TEMPERATURE, F

Figure 11. Reboiler Draw System

test-run temperatures shows that all the above assumptions are incorrect. A once-through thermosyphon reboiler is essentially one theoretical stage of fractionation. These reboilers are designed to take advantage of large temperature differences between the

bottom tray liquid and bottom product. Using a once-through reboiler maximizes LMTD. FCC, saturate gas and delayed coker strippers (de-ethanizers) all have 40-60F temperature differences between the bottom tray liquid and the column bottom prod-

ucts. If bottom tray liquid by-passes the reboiler, then the reboiler return temperature must be higher to meet the column bottom product C2 control objective. In this case (more often than not), a valve tray is used to draw liquid to the reboiler system. Active trays should never be used to draw liquid to a once-through reboiler because they will leak. Figure 11 represents the actual operation of this reboiler system. The bottom product temperature is 12F colder than the reboiler vapor return (measured at the column). This indicates that some of the bottom tray liquid leaks through the tray deck. The leakage rate can be estimated with a computer model. Replacing the active tray with a seal-welded collector tray will ensure all the liquid goes to the once-through reboiler. The reboiler design assumes equal process stream flows to both reboilers. Evaluating the measured temperatures shows the tube and shell-side process flows are not equal, although, the exact imbalance cannot be determined. The two reboiler outlet vapor stream temperatures vary by 5F and the LCO pumparound outlet temperatures are not equal. This reboiler system was designed improperly, resulting in under-utilized exchanger surface area. A revamp should consider opportunities to fully utilize existing equipment. FCC Main Fractionator Heat Balance Increasing reactor conversion shifts product yields from LCO and decant oil to gasoline and lighter product. Reducing the LCO and decant oil product yields, shifts the main fractionator heat balance. Figure 5 shows an FCC main fractionator pumparound system. When gasoline yield is increased, the reflux ratio in the gasoline/LCO fractionation section must be maintained. The top pumparound duty must be increased to maintain gasoline/LCO separation. Concurrently, the LCO
March/April 1999

Figure 12. Main Fractionator Gasoline/LCO Fractionation

10 WORLD REFINING

F O C U S

O N : HYDROPROCESSING OPTIONS

pumparound duty decreases because more column internal vapor must flow to the top pumparound. At the same time, the LCO pumparound duty decreases, the gas plant stripper reboiler duty increases. In this case, the LCO pumparound supplies the stripper reboiler heat, then the reactor conversion increase creates a fundamental main fractionator/gas plant heat integration system design problem. Minimumcost revamps must address the integrated system affects of shifting yields. Figures 12 and 13 show a potential revamp that addresses both the increased main fractionator top pumparound heat removal and the increased stripper reboiler duty requirements.12 Assuming the stripper reboiler design uses two parallel reboilers, then one can be converted to top Figure 13. Deethanizer Reboiler Revamp pumparound service. The feasibility of this will be unit specific, however, this rate, the flux limitation often prevents circulation rate increases LMTD but specific modification has been imple- taking advantage of the higher decreases the service U-value. Heat flux mented successfully. The top exchanger LMTD. Once the exchanger limitations result in no additional strippumparound draw temperature is typi- flux limit is reached, the service U- per reboiler duty. cally 325F vs. an LCO pumparound value decreases as the LMTD is Figures 12 and 13 modificadraw temperature of 440F Therefore, increased. Higher LCO pumparound tions address both the main fractiona. the top pumparound exchanger LMTD is less than the LCO pumparound exchanger. The use of series reboilers has advantages that are not apparent unless the reboiler system is thoroughly evaluated. Using top pumparound heat for one of the two parallel reboilers requires a thorough evaluation of the reboiler system. Thermosyphon service heat transfer coefficient is affected by both a heat flux limitation and the shell-side percent vaporization. The heat transfer coefficient drops when vaporization increases beyond 2530%. Stripper reboilers using one heat service (Figure 9) have a vaporization rate between 40-50%. Therefore, the inherent stripper reboiler service U-value is low due to high percent vaporization. Also, the heat flux in these services is limited to about 13,000-15,000 Btu/hr-ft2. Depending on the LCO pumparound circulation Photo 2. Maximize Equipment Utilization
March/April 1999 WORLD REFINING 11

F O C U S

O N :

HYDROPROCESSING OPTIONS

tor heat balance problem and an inherently poor reboiler system design. All of the bottom tray liquid is withdrawn with a seal-welded collector tray to ensure maximum top pumparound exchanger LMTD. The top pumparound reboiler supplies 4060% of the total stripper column reboiler duty. The top pumparound reboiler return feeds one side of the column bottom, which is partitioned with a baffle. The liquid from the top pumparound reboiler return-side of the baffle feeds the LCO pumparound reboiler. This series reboiler arrangement reduces vaporization to less than 30% in both reboilers, therefore the service U-values go up. The result is maximum service U-value and minimum exchanger surface area. An additional benefit is improved energy recovery. The main fractionator heat balance problem is corrected by increasing top pumparound duty and decreasing LCO pumparound duty for the stripper reboiler. Equipment Costs Test-run data and analysis are a vital part of the revamp process. Revamp process design quantifies equipment performance, identifies existing unit equipment bottlenecks and economically eliminates the bottleneck. 13 Understanding how the integrated system works and modifying the system maximizes use of existing equipment. Process design controls the majority of capital investment, not project execution and procurement. Project execution and procurement are important. Nevertheless, these functions change a small project (<2030 MM$) installed cost by only 1015%. However, process design determines what equipment must be modified. It is minimizing the pump, piping, heat exchanger and tower modifications that have the biggest impact on a revamp installed cost. (Photo 2). Revamp process design must focus on measuring existing equipment performance and conceptual aspects of cir-

cumventing the limitations. Test-runs are the starting point of a revamp, not theoretical calculations. s Acknowledgment Prepared for Presentation at the Process Optimization Conference Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas, 7-10 April 1997 References 1. Lieberman, N. P., and Lieberman, E.T., Design and Installation Pitfalls Appear in Vacuum Column Retrofit, Oil and Gas Journal, Aug. 21, 1991, pp. 75-79. 2. Lieberman, N.P and Lieberman, E. ., T., Inadequate Inspection Cause of Vacuum Tower Revamp Failure, Oil and Gas Journal, Dec. 14, 1992, pp. 33-35. 3. Bloch, H. P., How the Best Petrochemical Petrochemical Companies will Achieve Reliability, Hydrocarbon Processing, July 1996, pp. 83-86. 4. Golden, S. W., Revamping FCCsProcess and Reliability, Petroleum Technology Quarterly, Summer 1996, pp.85-93. 5. Golden, S. W., Minimize Capital Investment for Refinery Revamps, Hydrocarbon Processing, Jan. 1997, pp. 103-112. 6. Kowalczyk, D., and Golden, S. W., FCC OptimizationA Minimum

Capital Approach, Fuel Technology and Management, March/April 1996, pp.37-45. 7. Golden, S. W., Approaching the Revamp Project, Hydrocarbon Technology Quarterly, Autumn 1995, pp.47-55. 8. Sloley, A. W., Avoid Problems During Distillation Column Startup, Chemical Engineering Progress, July 1996, pp.30-39. 9. Golden, S. W., Temperature, Pressure Measurements Solve Column Operating Problems, Oil and Gas Journal, Dec. 25, 1995. 10.Sloley, A. W. and Martin, G. R., Effectively Design and Simulate Thermosyphon Reboiler Systems: Part 1,Hydrocarbon Processing, June 1995, pp.67-78. 11.Sloley, A. W. and Martin, G. R., Effectively Design and Simulate Thermosyphon Reboiler Systems: Part 2,Hydrocarbon Processing, July 1995, pp.101-110. 12.Golden, S.W., Sloley, A. W., and Fleming, P. B., Revamping FCC Unit MainFractionator Energy Systems,Hydrocarbon Processing, Nov. 1993, pp.43-50. 13.Golden, S. W., Schmidt, K. D., and Martin, G. R., Field Data, New Design Correct Faulty FCC Tower Revamp, Oil and Gas Journal, May 31,1993, pp.54-60.

The author Scott W. Golden is a chemical engineer with Process Consulting Services Inc., Houston, TX. His work includes field troubleshooting and applying fundamental chemical engineering skills to improve refinery profitability. The company provides revamp process design, optimization and troubleshooting to the refinery industry. Mr. Golden was previously a refinery process engineer and distillation system troubleshooter. He has a BS in chemical engineering from the University of Maine. He has authored and co-authored more than 75 technical papers concerning refinery unit troubleshooting, design and simulation.

Copyright Hart Publications 4545 Post Oak Place, Suite 210 Houston, TX 77027 713/993-9320