Energy-efcient vacuum systems

V
acuum technology is
used in petroleum refn-
eries to facilitate the
distillation of heavy ends at low
temperatures, to prevent coking
and degradation of products
and for other applications.
Currently, steam jet ejectors and
steam ejector-liquid ring
vacuum pump (LRVP) combi-
nations are the most common
methods for vacuum generation
in petroleum refneries.
Although steam jet ejectors are
very reliable, they are highly
ineffcient. Due to increasing
energy costs and environmental
concerns, it is essential to
reduce the energy required for
vacuum generation. Petroleum
refneries discard a lot of waste
heat to the environment, which
could be used to reduce energy
consumption for vacuum gener-
ation. There are publications
illustrating the merits and limi-
tations of vacuum generation
methods
1,3,4,6
and chilled/refrig-
erated water generation.
2

However, there is a need for an
integrated approach covering
all aspects of vacuum genera-
tion and its energy reduction
possibilities.
The main objective of this
Case analysis of the techniques available to reduce energy consumption in
vacuum systems reveals the potential for cost savings
C CHANDRA SEKHARA REDDY and S V NAIDU Andhra University
G P RANGAIAH National University of Singapore
www.digitalrening.com/article/1000789 PTQ Q2 2013 1
study is to analyse various
methods for developing ener-
gy-effcient vacuum generation
systems in petroleum refner-
ies. Three case studies are
presented to enhance under-
standing in the selection
process.
Vacuum generation in reneries
Steam ejectors and LRVPs are
generally used in petroleum
refneries. A review of various
vacuum generation equipment
capacities, operating ranges and
effciencies is available.
6
Steam
ejectors may have one or more
stages in series or a series-
parallel combination, with pre-
and/or interstage condensers,
depending on the level of
vacuum required and the utility
optimisation and operational
fexibility sought for various
plant loads. Steam ejectors are
highly reliable, and the availa-
bility of steam in petroleum
refneries makes ejectors the
natural choice. However, they
are highly ineffcient
6
(<10%),
mainly due to a lack of moving
parts to convert fuid velocity to
pressure effciently.
4

LRVP most commonly uses
water as a seal liquid since it
can be separated and reused
safely. They are generally more
expensive compared to steam
ejectors. However, they do not
require large heat exchangers
to condense the vapour at their
outlet, and the operating costs
of LRVPs are generally lower
than steam jet ejectors. For
better operating cost savings, a
steam ejectorLRVP combina-
tion is sometimes used to
replace the last one or two
stages of a multistage steam
ejector system.
Design principles and utility
requirements
This section presents useful
design principles and tools for
estimating the utility require-
ment for steam jet ejectors and
LRVP. Use of pre- and inter-
stage condensers can reduce
both capital and operating
costs for the vacuum system.
The vacuum produced is
limited by the temperature of
the cooling water; the colder
the temperature of the cooling
water, the lower the vacuum
produced.
Steam requirement for ejec-
tors can be estimated based on
the dry air equivalent (DAE) of
2 PTQ Q2 2013 www.digitalrening.com/article/1000789
LRVPs is dictated by the
temperature of seal water.
With normal cooling water
temperatures of ~30C, LRVPs
are used to replace steam ejec-
tors operating at suction
pressures >150 torr (usually the
last one or two stages of ejec-
tors for vacuum distillation
columns). Power required by a
LRVP can be estimated using
equation 8:
3
P =
Pa * V
s
* ln Pd
Pa
27 000 *
e
(8)
Chilled water generation
Chilled water can be generated
economically using absorption
heat pumps and mechanical
refrigeration. Absorption heat
pumps use waste heat (such as
low-pressure steam or a hot
process stream) rather than
mechanical/shaft energy for
operation. Lithium bromide
absorption pumps are
frequently used due to their
lower cost and application
range up to the freezing point
of water. Compared to
mechanical chillers, absorption
chillers have a low co-effcient
of performance (COP).
Nonetheless, their operating
costs can be substantially lower
because they use waste heat,
while vapour compression
chillers must be motor driven.
At lower electricity prices, a
mechanical chiller can be
attractive for chilled water
generation.
7
Optimisation of vacuum system
operating cost
A design strategy and proce-
dure for minimising the
operating cost of a multistage
steam jet ejector system is
discussed in this section and
suction gases (including air,
water vapour and other gases).
As per the HEI (Heat Exchange
Institute) procedure for calcu-
lating DAE
8
, water vapour in
the suction gases is considered
separately and all other gases
(including air) are treated as a
mixture, in accordance with
this mixtures molecular
weight. HEI has published
curves to convert suction gas
streams to DAE using molecu-
lar weight and temperature
entrainment ratios. Molecular
weight entrainment ratio
(MW
c
) is defned as the ratio of
the weight of suction gas to the
equivalent weight of air.
Temperature entrainment ratio
is defned as the ratio of the
weight of air (or water vapour)
at actual suction temperature
to the weight of air (or water
vapour) at 21.1C.
The following equations are
derived from HEI curves
8
for
temperature entrainment ratios
(TC
a
and TC
w
) and MW
c
. These
are convenient for use in
computer programs:
TC
a
= -4 * 10
-10
T
3
+ 3 * 10
-7
T
2
- 0.0005 T +
1.0131 (1)
TC
w
= -1 * 10
-13
T
4
- 7 * 10
-12
T
3
+ 8 * 10
-8
T
2
-
0.0006 T + 1.015 (2)
For M = 0 to 60, MW
c
= 1 * 10
-5
M
3
- 0.00013
M
2
+ 0.0642 M + 0.016 (3.1)
For M = 60 to 150, MW
c
= -2 * 10
-5
M
2
+ 0.0077
M + 0.9464 (3.2)
Water vapour and other
components in the suction gas
can be converted to DAE using
the correction factors from
equations 1, 2, 3.1, 3.2 and the
following equation:
DAE of suction W
OG

+
W
w

gas or vapour
=
TC
a
* MW
COG
TC
W
* MW
CWV
(4)
The amount of motive steam
required to compress (from
suction pressure to discharge
pressure) the unit DAE mass of
suction gas/vapour in a steam
ejector is defned as R
a
(kg of
motive steam/kg of DAE
equivalent of load gas). Values
of R
a
are available
4
as curves,
with suction pressure on the
abscissa and discharge pres-
sure on the ordinate. For rough
estimation of an ejectors steam
consumption, one can simply
use the following equation:
9
R
a
=

>
Pd
(0.434 -
1.338
+ 0.000475 Pa) - 0.187H
Pa Pa
(1.2 -
P
v
- 10.2)
20 (5)
Steam requirement for ejec-
tors can be estimated by
multiplying DAE and R
a

values.
For condenser calculations,
involving air and water
mixtures, the overall heat
transfer coeffcient, U W/
(m
2
K), can be estimated using
the following developed equa-
tions.
4
For a gas vapour
mixture with non-condensable
vapour mole percentage, NC,
from 1% to 50%:
U = 5.678 (220.0417 + 1.6919 ln(NC) -
2.67975 [ln(NC)]
2
- 1.5465 [ln(NC)]
3
) (6)
For a gas vapour mixture
with NC from 50% to 95%:
U = 5.678 (-245 896 + 233 845.3 ln(NC) -
83 300.5 [ln(NC)]
2
+ 13 183.62 [ln(NC)]
3

- 782.58 [ln(NC)]
4
) (7)
The suction pressure of
2 PTQ Q2 2013 www.digitalrening.com/article/1000789
illustrated with two case stud-
ies. There are several ways to
reduce the operating costs of a
vacuum system. Engineers
often fnd it diffcult to take
optimisation decisions as most
of the information is vendor
specifc. The present work
www.digitalrening.com/article/1000789 PTQ Q2 2013 3
illustrates the use of simple
techniques to optimise vacuum
system operating costs easily
and quickly. A design strategy
for optimising a new vacuum
system is presented in Figure 1.
Process simulators such as
Aspen Hysys can be used to
estimate a condensing temper-
ature at which the majority
(~90%) of vapour condenses, at
various stages of the vacuum
system.
Once a vacuum system
design is selected, optimum
discharge pressure and steam
Evaluate the type of gases
to be evacuated
Mostly non-condensable
gases?
Pre-condenser using
cooling water
Is cheap source of medium
pressure steam available?
Install multistage steam ejector
system with optimum design
Install pre-condenser using chilled
water (generated by mechanical or
single-stage absorption chiller)
Install two-stage steam ejector
and LRVP combination
No Yes
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Is condensing temperature
of vapour greater than
cooling water return
temperature?
Is cheap electric power or
waste LLP steam available?
Figure 1 Design strategy for a new vacuum system
consumption for each stage of
the multistage steam ejector
system (see Figure 2) can be
obtained by solving the follow-
ing optimisation problem; for
example, using the Solver tool
in Microsoft Excel. Defnitions
of parameters and variables in
this optimisation problem are
given in the nomenclature.
The following objective func-
tion is to minimise overall
steam consumption for the
multistage steam ejector
system:
Wv =
n
i

=1
Wv
i
=
n
i

=1
Pd
i

(0.434 -
1.338
+

Pa
i
Pa
i
0.000475 Pa
i
) - 0.187] (1.2 -
P
v
-10.2
)

20
(W
a
+
W
wi
) (9.1)

MW
CWV
The quantities in the above
equation are as follows.
Suction pressure for (i+1)th
stage:
Pa
i+1
= Pd
i
- Dp
i
(9.2)
Water vapour fow rate to
the inlet of (i+1)th stage:
Ww
i+1
= Ww
i
- 18 * Pv
i

29 * (Pa
i+1
- Pv
i
) (9.3)
Saturation pressure of water
vapour corresponding to the
vent temperature of the ith
stage condenser is a function of
the ith stage condenser vent
temperature:
Pv
i
= f(Tvo
i
) (9.4)
Vent temperature for the ith
stage condenser:

Tvo
i
= T
wco
+ TAP
i
(9.5)
Mole fraction of water
vapour at the ith stage
condenser inlet:
nw
i
=
Ww
i
+ Wv
i

/ [
Wa
+
Ww
i
+ Wv
i
]
(9.6)
18 29 18
Mole percent of non-conden-
sable gases at the ith stage
condenser:
NC
i
= (1 - nw
i
) * 100 (9.7)
Partial pressure of water
vapour at the ith stage
condenser inlet:
Ppw
i
= Pd
i
* nw
i
(9.8)
Saturation temperature of
water vapour corresponding to
its partial pressure at the ith
stage condenser inlet is a func-
tion of its partial pressure at
the ith stage condenser inlet:
Tv
i
= f(Ppw
i
) (9.9)
Log mean temperature differ-
ence for the ith stage
condenser:
4 PTQ Q2 2013 www.digitalrening.com/article/1000789
Process
gas/vapour
First stage inlet
gas/vapour
Steam injector Steam injector Steam injector
Water-oil
separation
tank
Water-oil
separation
tank
MP steam
Cooling water
supply
Slop oil pump
Sour water pump
First stage
condenser
Second stage
condenser
nth stage
condenser or
after condenser
WV
1
P
v
WV
2
P
v
Pa
1
Pa
2
Pa
n
Tv
1
Pd
1
Tvo
1
Tv
2
Pd
2
Tvo
2
Tv
n
Pd
n
Tvo
n
A
1
W
CW1
A
2
W
CW2
A
n
W
CWn
Ww
1
+ W
a
Ww
2
+ W
a
Ww
n
+ W
a
To fired
heater
Cooling
water
return
WV
n
P
v
Figure 2 Schematic of a multi-effect steam ejector system

LMTD
i
=
(Tv
i
- T
wco
) - (Tvo
i
- T
wc
)

ln
(Tv
i
- T
wco
)
(Tvo
i
- T
wc
) (9.10)
Overall heat transfer coeff-
cient for the ith stage
condenser, U, is given by equa-
tions 6 and 7.
Required area for the ith
stage condenser:
A
i
=
L
i
* (Ww
i
+ Wv
i
- Ww
i+1
) * 1000 (9.11)
U
i
* LMTD
i
* 3600
Cooling water required for
the ith stage condenser:

Wcw
i
=
L
i
* (Ww
i
+ Wv
i
- Ww
i+1
) * 0.239 (9.12)
(T
wc
- T
wco
)
Decision variables: Pd
i
for i=1,
2,... n-1
Bounds and constraints:
Pa
1
< Pd
i
< Pd
n
and Wv
i
> 0
Steam properties in equa-
tions 9.4 and 9.9 can be
calculated using the Excel
spreadsheet, freely available at
www.x-eng.com.
The above optimisation prob-
lem (Equation 9) is applicable
to systems involving air and
water only. It ignores vapour
superheat at the ejector inlet,
and vapour sub-cooling and
liquid sub-cooling in condenser
www.digitalrening.com/article/1000789 PTQ Q2 2013 5
system with different approach
temperatures are shown in
Table 1. The vent pressures
tally well with those given in
the reference,
4
with error in the
range +14% to -8%. For three-
and four-stage steam ejector
systems, steam fow rates esti-
mated by the above procedure
are greater by up to 25%,
whereas, for a two-stage steam
ejector system, the estimated
steam fow rate was lower by
~20% compared to the reported
values.
4
The main reason is the
difference in Ra values from
the reference graphs
4
and
Equation 9.1, used in the opti-
misation procedure. For
accurate estimation of steam
fow rates, one can use the
optimised vent pressures and
the reference graphs.
4
Cooling
water consumption shown in
Table 1 can be reduced further
with some increase in
condenser area by using a
series fow arrangement, where
water from the frst interstage
condenser fows through the
other interstage and
after-condensers.
For relatively higher suction
pressures (~40 torr), use of a
pre-condenser, with chilled
water cooling, can further
area calculations. Also, it
assumes simple LMTD without
any correction factor. Hence,
condenser area calculations are
approximate. However, the
optimisation problem in
Equation 9 is very useful to
arrive at a preliminary design
concept and/or to verify
vendors proposals. For large
systems involving other
vapours, the optimisation prob-
lem can be solved by including
simulation data from process
simulators such as Aspen
Hysys, Aspen Plus and Pro/II.
The following case study
(case study 1), based on the
details from the manual opti-
misation of a vacuum system
presented by Power,
4
illustrates
the effectiveness of the optimi-
sation procedure in Equation 9.
Load/suction gas: 45.36 kg/h
of air + 97.52 kg/h of water
vapour at suction pressure of
15 torr and suction tempera-
ture of 21.1C; discharge
pressure: 815 torr; motive
steam: 10.6 barg.
Cooling water supply and
return temperatures are 32.2C
and 37.8C. Solutions to the
optimisation problem, obtained
using Excels Solver, for a two-,
three- and four-stage ejector
4 PTQ Q2 2013 www.digitalrening.com/article/1000789
Figure 2 Schematic of a multi-effect steam ejector system
Approach Values from optimisation
temperature Utilities Inter-condensers Total
Number at 1st Cooling Vent Condenser heat
Inter- condenser, MP steam, water, temperature, inlet pressure, Inter- and after- transfer
Case Stages condensers C kg/h kg/h C mmHg condenser area, m
2
area, m
2
1A 2 1 11.1 878 97 254 43.3 134 23.78/5.27 29.0
1B 3 2 16.7 840 93 300 48.9/54.4 130/284.2 18.1/4.54/2.05 24.7
1C 3 2 11.1 726 82 261 43.3/48.9 106.5/253.6 21.64/4.96/2.31 28.9
10 3 2 5.6 647 74 407 37.8/48.9 88.9/254.6 31.24/4.61/2.3 38.2
1E 3 2 2.8 598 69 558 35/43.3 79.5/229.8 44.84/5.5/2.28 52.6
1F 4 3 5.6 584 68 423 37.8/40.6/48.9 78.4/138.6/263 31.2/7.3/2.5/1.5 42.5
1G 4 3 2.8 557 65 680 35/43.3/48.9 71.8/148/259.3 47.4/5.74/2.6/1.5 57.2
1H 4 3 1.7 539 63 948 33.9/41.7/48.9 68.4/141.3/255 63.2/6.25/2.6/1.5 73.5
Optimisation results for case study 1: a vacuum system involving air and water vapour mixture
Table 1
reduce the steam requirement
and the ejector systems capital
cost. This is illustrated by the
following case study (case
study 2), solved using the opti-
misation procedure in Equation
9. Different quantities of water
vapour and possible use of
chilled water are considered,
and the results are summarised
in Table 2.
Load gas (Cases 2A and 2B):
45.36 kg/h of air + 97.52 kg/h
of water vapour
Load gas (Cases 2C and 2D):
45.36 kg/h of air + 453.6 kg/h
of water vapour
Suction pressure and tempera-
ture: 40 torr and 33.3C
Motive steam: 10.6 barg
Cooling water supply and
return temperatures: 32.2C
and 37.8C
Chilled water supply and
return temperatures: 7C and
13C
Approach temperature at the
pre-condenser and frst-stage
condenser: 1.67C
Discharge pressure: 815 torr
Water vapour in the load gas
is increased by 365% for Cases
2C and 2D, compared to Cases
2A and 2B. No pre-condenser
(using chilled water) is used in
Cases 2A and 2C, whereas
pre-condenser, cooled with
chilled water, is used in Cases
2B and 2D. For all the cases,
inter-stage and after-condens-
ers use cooling water. From
Table 2, it can be seen that the
use of chilled water in the
pre-condenser reduced the
steam consumption by 28.5%
in Case 2B compared to Case
2A, and by 60.3% in Case 2D
compared to Case 2C. It also
reduced the total heat transfer
area for pre-, inter- and
after-condensers by 30.8% in
Case 2B compared to Case 2A,
and by 69.0% in Case 2D
compared to Case 2C. More
steam and system capital cost
reduction can be achieved by
using chilled water, if more
water vapour is present in the
load gas.
Case study 3
Case study 3 is the vacuum
system optimisation of a
vacuum distillation column in
an existing Asian refnery.
Vacuum required at the top of
the column is 35 torr, the
vacuum system suction fow
rate is 10 070 kg/hr and the
discharge pressure is 895 torr.
Suction gases contain 5641 kg/
hr of water vapour, 3730 kg/hr
of HC vapour (molecular
weight = 172) and 699 kg/hr of
non-condensable gases (molec-
ular weight = 29). Details of the
existing vacuum system with
four steam ejector stages are
6 PTQ Q2 2013 www.digitalrening.com/article/1000789
VDU overhead
vapour
10070 kg/hr
35.2 torr
80C
Steam injector
100% capacity
Water-oil
separation
tank
Water-oil
separation
tank
4 off
482 m
2
126 m
2
MP steam
4525 kg/hr
10.5 barg
230C
Cooling water
supply
1098833 kg/hr
5 barg
32C
14596 kg/hr
75 torr
38C
Slop oil pump
Sour water pump
First stage
condenser
Second stage
condenser
754 kg/hr
10.5 barg
230C
Steam injectors
(x2)
50% capacity
784.4 kg/hr
472.3 torr
47C
1538 kg/hr
915 torr
41C
170066 kg/hr
38C 45.6 m
2
Fourth stage
condenser
1400 kg/hr
10.5 barg
230C
Steam injectors
(x2)
50% capacity
1314 kg/hr
89 torr
38C
2714 kg/hr
191.3 torr
41C
374333 kg/hr
38C
1160 kg/hr
10.5 barg
230C
Steam injectors
(x2)
50% capacity
953.3 kg/hr
176.3 torr
44C
2113 kg/hr
491.3 torr
41C
283400 kg/hr
38C 46.4 m
2
Third stage
condenser
747.8 kg/hr
894.8 torr
50C
To fired
heater
Cooling
water
return
Figure 3 Existing vacuum system for a vacuum distillation column (base case case 3A)
shown in Figure 3. Note that
there are two ejectors in paral-
lel in each of stages 2, 3 and 4.
The following alternatives
are considered for retroftting
to minimise the operating costs
of the existing vacuum system
in the base case (Case 3A).
Cases 3B and 3C
Four-stage steam ejector system
with one pre-condenser (at the
inlet of the frst-stage steam
ejector), cooled by chilled
water. A single-stage absorp-
tion chiller is used in Case 3B
for generation of chilled water
using very low-pressure fash
steam at 1.5 barg and 130C. A
mechanical chiller, using R143a
refrigerant, is used for the
generation of chilled water in
Case 3C. COP of the chiller is
5.68. Details of Cases 3B and
3C are shown in Figure 4.
Case 3D
The frst two stages are steam
ejectors, and the last two stages
are replaced by one LRVP. The
modifed vacuum system is
shown in Figure 5.
Cases 3E and 3F
For a pre-condenser using
chilled water generated by a
single-stage absorption chiller
(Case 3E) and a mechanical
chiller (Case 3F), the frst two
stages are steam ejectors and
the last two stages are replaced
with one LRVP. This improved
system is shown in Figure 6.

Equipment costs
Capital costs of steam ejectors
are derived from an available
reference chart.
4
Costs for
condensers are estimated using
the Capcost program (based on
an Excel spreadsheet).
10
Fixed
costs for absorption, mechanical
chillers and LRVP are based on
vendor quotations. The installed
cost for a mechanical chiller and
LRVP were taken as twice the
purchase cost, whereas the
installed cost for an absorption
(single-stage-LiBr) chiller was
taken as 1.5 times the purchase
cost since the absorption chiller
is a packaged unit and involves
less expensive installation.
Costs for foul water treatment
are used from reference 5.
Utility costs assumed are: MP
steam = $32.14/ton; LLP steam
= $31.65/ton; cooling water =
$0.05/ton; and electric power =
www.digitalrening.com/article/1000789 PTQ Q2 2013 7 6 PTQ Q2 2013 www.digitalrening.com/article/1000789
Figure 3 Existing vacuum system for a vacuum distillation column (base case case 3A)
Chiller
VDU overhead
vapour
10070 kg/hr
35.2 torr
80C
Steam injectors
(x2)
50% capacity
Pre-condenser
Chilled water
return
13C
Water-oil
separation
tank
Water-oil
separation
tank
71333 kg/hr
292.6 m
2
120 m
2
1008 kg/hr
24.75 torr
14C
13C
MP steam
792 kg/hr
10.5 barg
230C
Cooling water
supply
5 barg
32C
Chilled water
supply
642833 kg/hr
5 barg
7C
Cooling water
return
1800 kg/hr
75 torr
38C
1400 m
2
Slop oil pump
Sour water pump
First stage
condenser
Second stage
condenser
705 kg/hr
10.5 barg
230C
Steam injectors
(x2)
50% capacity
769 kg/hr
472.3 torr
44C
1474 kg/hr
915 torr
41C
160300 kg/hr
38C 40 m
2
Fourth stage
condenser
1090 kg/hr
10.5 barg
230C
Steam injectors
(x2)
50% capacity
1272 kg/hr
69 torr
36C
2362 kg/hr
191.3 torr
41C
290900 kg/hr
38C
1048 kg/hr
10.5 barg
230C
Steam injectors
(x2)
50% capacity
945 kg/hr
176.3 torr
44C
1993 kg/hr
495 torr
41C
266100 kg/hr
38C 40 m
2
Third stage
condenser
748 kg/hr
894.8 torr
50C
To fired
heater
Cooling
water
return
Figure 4 Four-stage steam ejector system with one pre-condenser (at the inlet of rst-stage steam ejector), cooled by
chilled water (Cases 3B and 3C)
$0.15/KW. Payback period is
defned as:
Payback period =
Capital cost for new
case -
capital cost for base case
Operating cost for base
case -
(10) Operating cost for
base case
The results for all the cases
8 PTQ Q2 2013 www.digitalrening.com/article/1000789
VDU overhead
vapour
10070 kg/hr
35.2 torr
80C
Steam injector
100% capacity
Water-oil
separation
tank
Water-oil
separation
tank
4 off
482 m
2
125 m
2
MP steam
4525 kg/hr
10.5 barg
230C
Cooling water
supply
1128833 kg/hr
5 barg
32C
14595 kg/hr
75 torr
38C
Slop oil pump
Sour water pump
First stage
condenser
Second stage
condenser
1400 kg/hr
10.5 barg
230C
Steam injectors
(x2)
50% capacity
1314 kg/hr
89 torr
38C
2714 kg/hr
191.3 torr
41C
374333 kg/hr
38C
953.3 kg/hr
176.3 torr
44C
41C
174 kW
30000 kg/hr
32C
Seal water
cooler
733 kg/hr
894.8 torr
44C
To fired
heater
Cooling
water
return
M
Figure 5 Modied vacuum system with steam ejectors for the rst two stages and last two stages replaced with one
LRVP (Case 3D)
Figure 6 Improved vacuum system with a pre-condenser, rst two stages with steam ejector and last two stages
replaced by one LRVP (Cases 3E and 3F)
Chiller
VDU overhead
vapour
10070 kg/hr
35.2 torr
80C
Steam injectors
(x2)
50% capacity
Steam injectors
(x2)
50% capacity
Pre-condenser
Chilled water
return
13C
71333 kg/hr
292.6 m
2
120 m
2
1008 kg/hr
24.75 torr
14C
13C
MP steam
792 kg/hr
10.5 barg
230C
Cooling water
supply
Chilled water
supply
642833 kg/hr
5 barg
7C
Cooling water
return
1800 kg/hr
75 torr
38C
1400 m
2
First stage
condenser
Second stage
condenser
1090 kg/hr
10.5 barg
230C
1272 kg/hr
69 torr
36C
2362 kg/hr
191.3 torr
41C
290900 kg/hr
38C
Water-oil
separation
tank
Slop oil pump
Sour water pump
945 kg/hr
176.3 torr
44C
41C
174 kW
30000 kg/hr
32C
Seal water
cooler
733 kg/hr
894.8 torr
44C
To fired
heater
Cooling
water
return
M
266100 kg/hr
38C
www.digitalrening.com/article/1000789 PTQ Q2 2013 9
coolers and product coolers,
which can also be used to
generate low-pressure steam. If
MP steam cost is lower (~75%
compared to the base case, due
to credit from power genera-
tion at steam turbines), a
mechanical chiller will not be
economical. For this case, a
single-stage absorption chiller
(Case 3B) will be feasible
(payback ~3.3 years) only if the
low-pressure steam is available
at zero cost (see Table 3). The
option involving a pre-
condenser (cooled by chilled
water), frst two stages with a
steam ejector and the last two
stages replaced by one LRVP
(Cases 3F and 3E), is a very
attractive investment with a
payback period of 1.8 to three
years (with an incremental
capital cost of $1.75 million to
$3.25 million). Thus, replace-
ment of the last two stages of a
multi-stage steam ejector
system with one LRVP is
highly benefcial.
Conclusions
This article analysed the tech-
niques available to reduce the
energy consumption of vacuum
systems used in petroleum
refneries. Key requirements,
benefts and constraints for
implementation of these tech-
niques are highlighted, and
availability of waste low-pres-
sure steam or low electricity
prices.
Accurate estimation of a
vacuum systems suction load
for various plant operating
scenarios is diffcult. Hence,
considerable safety margin with
respect to suction load is often
allowed in the system design.
In this case study, the frst-stage
steam ejector is a single unit,
hence it is very diffcult to
reduce the steam consumption
if the operating suction gas load
is lower than the design rate.
However, for the case of a
steam ejector system with a
chilled water pre-condenser,
electrical power required for the
chiller can be reduced by capac-
ity control or by operating a
few chillers arranged in parallel
operation. Thus, operating cost
benefts can be further
increased. Availability of plot
space and maintenance costs
are the other critical issues for
installing a chiller. Installation
of a mechanical chiller and
LRVP may require modifcation
costs at a power intake
substation.
Waste LLP steam can be
recovered economically from
the steam condensate system.
Petroleum refneries often
discard a lot of waste heat
through furnace stacks, fn-fan
are presented in Table 5. For
the cases where operating costs
increased compared to the base
case, payback is shown as not
economical in this table.

Analysis of the results
Annual operating costs of a
vacuum system are very signif-
icant compared to the installed
costs. Hence, optimum vacuum
system confguration is essen-
tial to minimise operating
costs. Even for the optimum
design, the majority of the
operating cost arises from the
frst stage, which handles the
maximum fow rate of gases/
vapours. The only way to
reduce this cost is to condense
the vapours before they reach
the frst-stage ejector.
Depending on the suction pres-
sure of the frst stage, chilled
water may be required. For the
refnery case study, the
mechanical chiller option (Case
3C) has a payback period of
5.28 years, which will reduce to
2.25 years if the power cost is
lower at 75% compared to the
base case (see Table 3). If waste
low-pressure steam (~1.5 barg)
is available at zero cost, a
single-stage absorption chiller
(Case 3B) will have a payback
period of 2.45 years. Thus, the
benefts of pre-condensers
using chilled water depends on
8 PTQ Q2 2013 www.digitalrening.com/article/1000789
Values from optimisation
Utilities Pre-condenser Inter-condensers Total
Number of Chilled Cooling Vent Vent Vent heat
Inter-stage Pre- MP steam, water, water, pressure, Pre-condenser, temperature pressure, Inter- and after- transfer
Case Stages condensers condenser kg/h kg/h kg/h mmHg area, m
2
C mmHg condenser area, m
2
area, m
2
2A 4 3 No 351 0 44 581 NA NA 33.9/41.7/48.9 76.5/157.6/280.9 31.4/4/2/1.4 39
28 4 3 Yes 251 9011 25 346 36 11 33.9/41.7/48.1 110.6/203.4/329.6 10.97/2.4/1.5/1.2 27
2C 4 3 No 632 0 110 202 NA NA 33.9/41.7/48.1 55.9/119.1/226 150/6.9/2.4/1.35 161
20 4 3 Yes 251 42 901 25 346 36 34.70 33.9/41.7/48.1 110.6/203.4/329.6 10.97/1.9/1.2/1 50
Effect of pre-condenser with chilled water cooling on steam consumption in the multi-stage steam ejector system
(case study 2)
Table 2
10 PTQ Q2 2013 www.digitalrening.com/article/1000789
plant by considering site-spe-
cifc factors such as energy cost,
plot size, capital cost, acceptable
payback period, operational
reliability, maintenance and
safety issues.
Nomenclature
A
i
Area for the ith stage condenser,
m
2
Dp
i
Process gas-side pressure drop
across the condenser at the outlet of the
ith ejector, torr
ation, thus improving energy
effciency and also reducing
carbon emissions. The econom-
ics of such an optimisation vary
from one site to another as the
costs of steam, power and
extent of waste heat recovery
vary greatly. A detailed
economic study similar to the
one shown in the present study
can be conducted to decide the
best strategy for a particular
strategies for selection and
implementation of a suitable
method are outlined. It can be
concluded from the analysis
that use of chilled water at the
pre-condenser reduces the
energy costs of vacuum
systems. As refneries operate
many steam ejector vacuum
systems, considerable potential
exists for reducing energy
consumption for vacuum gener-
Details of the vacuum system Case 3A Case 3B Case 3C Case 3D Case 3E Case3F
Steam ejectors MP steam, ton/hr 7.814 3.635 3.635 5.9 1.882 1.882
Condenser area Total area, m
2
2145 1893 1893 2020 1813 1813
LRVP Power consumption, KW 0 0 0 174 174 174
Cooling water, ton/hr 0 0 0 30 30 30
Single-stage Cooling water, ton/hr 0 1126 0 0 1126 0
absorption chiller LLP steam, ton/hr 0 10.58 0 0 10.58 0
Power consumption (includes 0 160 0 0 160 0
power for chilled water pumps), KW
Mechanical chiller Power consumption, KW 0 0 1010 0 0 1010
Cooling water, ton/hr 0 0 618 0 0 618
Total utility requirements MP steam, ton/hr 7.814 3.635 3.635 5.9 1.882 1.882
LLP steam, ton/hr 0 10.58 0 0 10.58 0
Chilled water, ton/hr 0 642.8 642.8 0 642.8 642.8
Cooling water, ton/hr 1099 1197 689 1129 1227 719
Power requirement, KW 0 160 1010 174 334 1184
Savings at foul water stripper LP steam saved at foul water stripper, ton/hr 0 0.72 0.72 0.33 1.02 1.02
Power saved at foul water stripper, KW/hr 0 11.41 11.41 5.23 16.19 16.19
Cooling water saved at foul water stripper, ton/hr 0 2.56 2.56 1.17 3.64 3.64
Operating cost, million $/year Base case 2.68 4.48 2.44 2.29 4.13 2.10
Considering LLP steam for 2.68 1.54 2.44 2.29 1.20 2.10
absorption chiller is zero cost
Considering electric power cost is 2.68 4.43 2.11 2.23 4.03 1.71
75% of the cost considered
If MP steam cost is 75% of that previously due 2.13 4.22 2.18 1.87 4.00 1.96
to credit from power generation at steam turbines
If MP steam cost is 75% of that previously due 2.13 1.29 2.18 1.87 1.07 1.96
to credit from power generation at steam turbines
and LLP steam to absorption chiller is at zero cost
Capital cost, million $ Steam ejectors 0.371 0.159 0.159 0.330 0.118 0.118
Surface condensers 1.691 1.691 1.691 1.497 1.497 1.497
LRVP 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.692 0.692 0.692
Single-stage absorption chiller 0.000 3.000 0.000 0.000 3.000 0.000
Mechanical chiller 0.000 0.000 1.500 0.000 0.000 1.500
Total installation cost 2.062 4.850 3.350 2.519 5.307 3.807
Payback period Base case - Not 5.28 1.16 Not 2.98
economical economical
If LLP steam for absorption chiller is - 2.45 5.28 1.16 2.19 2.98
available at zero cost
If electricity cost is 75% of that - Not 2.25 1.01 Not 1.80
considered for the above cases economical economical
If MP steam cost is 75% of that - Not Not 1.75 Not 10.37
considered in the base case (due to economical economical economical
credit from power generation at steam turbines)
If MP steam cost is 75% of that - 3.30 Not 1.75 3.05 10.37
considered in base case and LLP economical
steam to absorption chiller is available at zero cost
Analysis of alternatives for the vacuum system of a vacuum distillation column in a petroleum renery
Table 3
10 PTQ Q2 2013 www.digitalrening.com/article/1000789 www.digitalrening.com/article/1000789 PTQ Q2 2013 11
P Power for LRVP, KW
Pa, Pd Suction and discharge pressures,
torr
R
a
Ratio of motive steam ow rate
to DAE ow rate of steam ejector suction
gas/vapour
T Temperature of suction gas/
vapour, C
TC
a
Temperature entrainment ratio
for air
TC
w
Temperature entrainment ratio
for water vapour
U Overall heat transfer coefcient
for the condenser, W/m
2
K
V
s
Suction volumetric ow for LRVP,
m
3
/h
W
OG
Flow rate of gases/vapours other
than water vapour, kg/hr
Ww Water vapour ow rate, kg/h
e Efciency of LRVP
References
1 Aliasso J, Choose the right vacuum
pump, Chemical Engineering, March
1999, www.graham-mfg.com/usr/pdf/
TechLibVacuum/ 222.PDF, accessed in Jan
2012.
2 ASHRAE Handbook, Refrigeration (I-
P) edition, American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, 2010.
3 Bannwarth H, Liquid Ring Vacuum
Pumps, Compressors and Systems, Wiley-
VCH Verlag GmbH & Co KGaA, Weinheim,
2005.
4 Power R B, Steam Jet Ejectors for the
Process Industries, 2nd ed, McGraw-Hill,
2005.
5 Prakash S, Rening Processes
Handbook, Gulf Professional Publishing,
2003.
6 Ryans J, Bays J, Run clean with dry
vacuum pumps, Chemical Engineering
Progress, 32-41, Oct 2001.
7 Reddy C C S, Rangaiah G P, Naidu S
V, Waste heat recovery methods and
technologies, Chemical Engineering, 28-
L
i
Latent heat of vapour in the ith
stage condenser, kJ/kg
LMTD
i
Logarithmic mean temperature
for the ith stage condenser, C
MW
CWV
Molecular weight entrainment
ratio for water vapour
n Number of ejector stages
NC
i
Mole percentage of non-
condensable gases in the ith stage
condenser inlet
nw
i
Mole fraction of water vapour in
the inlet of the ith stage condenser
Pa
i
, Pd
i
Suction and discharge gas
pressures for the ith stage ejector, torr
Ppw
i
Partial pressure of water vapour in
the ith stage condenser inlet, torr
P
v
Motive steam pressure, barg
Pv
i
Saturation pressure of water
corresponding to vent temperature of the
ith stage condenser, torr
TAP
i
Approach temperature for the ith
stage condenser vent ,C
Tv
i
Saturation temperature of water
vapour at the ith stage condenser inlet,
C
Tvo
i
Gas temperature at the ith stage
condenser vent, C
T
wc
, T
wco
Cooling water supply and return
temperatures, C
U
i
Overall heat transfer coefcient
for the ith stage condenser, W/m
2
K
Wa Air ow rate in load gas, kg/h
Wcw
i
Cooling water ow rate to the ith
stage condenser, kg/h
Wv
i
Steam ow rate for the ith stage
ejector, kg/h
Ww
i
Water vapour ow rate at the
inlet of the ith stage ejector, kg/h
General
M Molecular weight
MW
c
Molecular weight entrainment
ratio
MW
COG
Molecular weight entrainment
ratio for the gases other than water
vapour
NC Mole percentage of non-
condensable vapour/gas
Table 3
38, Jan 2013.
8 Standards for Steam Jet Vacuum
Systems, Heat Exchange Institute, 6th ed,
2007.
9 Trambouze B, Petroleum Rening,
Vol. 4, Materials and Equipment, Editions
Technip, Paris, 1999.
10 Turton R, Bailie R C, Whiting W B,
Shaeiwitz J A, Analysis, Synthesis, and
Design of Chemical Processes, 3rd ed,
New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 2009.
C Chandra Sekhara Reddy is the Lead
Process Design Engineer with Singapore
Rening Company and a PhD scholar
at Andhra University, Visakhapatnam,
India. He holds bachelors and masters
degrees in chemical engineering from
Andhra University and IIT Kanpur.
S V Naidu is a Professor in the
Department of Chemical Engineering
and Dean, Planning and Resource
Mobilisation with Andhra Universitys
College of Engineering. He holds
bachelor and doctoral degrees in
chemical engineering from Andhra
University, and a masters from R.E.C.,
Warangal.
G P Rangaiah is Professor and Deputy
Head in the Department of Chemical
& Biomolecular Engineering with the
National University of Singapore. He
holds bachelors, masters and doctoral
degrees in chemical engineering, from
Andhra University, IIT Kanpur and
Monash University, respectively.

LINKS
More articles from the following
categories:
Crude Vacuum Units
Energy Efciency/Energy
Management