Reactions and Separations

Can We Believe the

Simulation Results?
Be careful of these key issues that may generate
differences between a distillation-tower
computer simulation and its actual performance.
Simulations do not always square with
nuts-and-bolts reality.

Henry Z. Kister,
Fluor Daniel

revious surveys (1, 2) collected case histories of tower malfunctions from the
open literature. Many reports described
simulations that did not reflect what a
tower was actually doing. Often, the problem was
with the simulation. Sometimes, the problem was
that the tower did something unexpected: the simulation was actually correct, based on the data fed to it.
Finally, there were instances where both mishaps
took place the simulation had some serious problems, but there were aspects of tower behavior that
were not fully understood initially and the simulation helped to explain.
This article focuses on instances where problems
were found in the simulation or where the simulation
was instrumental in identifying a previously misunderstood problem (see table).
The cases were extracted from surveys in Refs. 1
and 2 and have been updated with some recently reported cases. The original numbering for each case
has been retained, so that the reader may easily locate
the cases in the previously referred to articles.
The number of examples presented here is by no
means a large enough sample for performing a statistical analysis of the main problems in troubleshooting distillation simulations. Nonetheless,
the cases provide guidance on what to look for
when troubleshooting a distillation simulation
and what to watch out for when carrying out the
next simulation.

52

www.cepmagazine.org

October 2002

CEP

Three major findings

This survey revealed three major issues that require
attention in using simulations:
1. correctly predicting vapor/liquid equilibrium (VLE)
2. having the simulation match plant data
3. applying graphical techniques to troubleshoot
simulations.
These three issues are present in about two-thirds of
the reported cases. In about 20% of the remaining
cases, the process chemistry and hardware efficiency
did not match what was true in an actual tower. Other
items correctly modeling feeds, obtaining the true
vapor and liquid loads, reliably predicting the hydraulic
behavior, and finding and squelching bugs in the simulations were found to be problematic, but to a lesser
degree.
Problems with VLE data and predictions
Most case studies falling into this category involve
close-boiling components. The problems can be with two
chemicals of similar vapor pressure (e.g., hydrocarbons),
or due to a non-ideality that pushes the volatilities of a
pair close to a pinch. Correctly estimating non-idealities is
another trouble-spot when it comes to VLE predictions. A
third dilemma is characterizing heavy components in
crude-oil distillation. This is a key problem in simulating
refinery vacuum towers. Few reports were made regarding
other situations. It seems that VLE prediction for pairs of
components that have reasonably high volatilities, for example, methanol/ethanol, is not often troublesome.

Case
No.-Ref.

Type of
Column

102-3

Acetylene
solvent/water
stripper

Solvent losses were far greater than design. Unsuccessful

extrapolation of VLE data was one of the causes. Increasing
number of trays and raising reflux helped reduce losses.

129-4

Chemical
AMS (alpha
methylstyrene)phenol

Column pressure was lowered from 100 to 30 mm Hg to

improve separation, and valve trays were replaced by screen trays to
match the capacity. Separation did not improve. Extrapolating
VLE from 100 to 30 mm Hg gave optimistic expectations that
did not materialize.

118-5

Chemical
super
fractionator

A laboratory error gave incorrect VLE data based on which a tower

with 200 theoretical stages was built where over 300 stages
were required. With the 200 stages, product purity could not be
achieved. The plant was forced to rerun the purified material a
second time through the tower, effectively halving plant capacity.

140-6

Butadiene

1,2-butadiene is less volatile than 1,3-butadiene and leaves

mostly through the bottom, but a commercial simulator
predicted it would leave through the top. Problem was due to
incorrect critical constants used in the equation of state.

109-7

Trichloroethylene
(TCE)/carbon
tetrachloride
(CTC)

The concentration of TCE in CTC was higher than expected.

A total reflux test showed that separation near the column
bottom was worse than expected. Either VLE nonideality or
decomposition of chlorinated ethanes at the reboiler
temperature was the culprit.

123-8

Water/dichloromethane (DCM)

DCM concentration in the wastewater was

very low. Based on ideal behavior, the vapor vent to atmosphere
from the wastewater storage tank would have contained little
DCM. Measured DCM at the vent was 27 mole %.

137-9

N-heptane/
toluene
test system

Use of fractional-composition data from batch distillation

showed that the popular VLE choice for this system gave poorer
simulation of plant data than alternative VLE procedures.

Brief Description
Section 1. How Good Are Your VLE Predictions?

314,
315

VLE error leads to mismatch between plant data and

simulation, see Section 2.

122-2

A 2% difference in relative volatility in a low-relative-volatility

(1.1) system accounted for a difference of 50% in the tray
efficiency. The designers efficiency worked only with the
designers volatility; the operators efficiency worked only with
the operators volatility.

124-10

Ethylbenzene/
styrene

Identical column simulations using SIMSCI, HYSIM and ASPEN,

all employing Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) VLE, calculated
entirely different product purities. Reason was small differences
in the critical temperature and pressure and in the acentric
factor for styrene.

117-11

Refinery
vacuum

In five deep-cut towers, the design wash-oil flowrate was too small,
leading to drying, coking, high-pressure drop, loss in gas quality
and short runlength. The drying resulted from simulations that
underestimatedthe fraction of wash oil vaporized. In all cases,
inaccurate boiling point characterization of the heavy fractions
of the crude led to these underestimates.

130-12

Refinery
vacuum

Inaccurate TBP characterization of the heavy fractions of the

crude led to a wash-oil flowrate that was too small to prevent
coking in a deep-cut wash bed. Coke plugged the level bridle and
draw nozzle on the slop-wax collector tray. Unable to drain, slop
wax was re-entrained into the wash bed.

These findings pretty much match the authors experience. The largest VLE problems seen are with the distillation of close-boilers, whether due to their vapor pressures or
their non-idealities. Many problems have surfaced with
VLE predictions for non-ideal pairs. In petroleum refining,
characterization of the vacuum tower feed and bottom is the

most challenging job. On the other

hand, we have seen a comparatively
small number of problems in VLE
predictions of medium- and highvolatility ideal systems.

Matching plant data

A major problem appears to be
obtaining a reliable, consistent set of
plant data. It can be difficult to get
correct numbers from flowmeters and
proper data from laboratory analyses.
The data may need to be checked and
rechecked. The troubleshooters
prime tool is compiling mass, component and energy balances, and checking the results from laboratory analyses to catch the lying flowmeter.
A prime area where mismatches
between simulated values and plant
data have been reported is in chemical operations with two liquid phases. A close comparison of the temperature profile derived from a simulation with that measured in the
tower is an excellent tool for establishing the presence or absence of a
second liquid phase in a tower. For
instance, a simulation may not predict that two phases will be present,
while the measured temperatures
may show that there are, in fact,
two phases.
Another hurdle is in simulating
refinery vacuum towers. The most
troublesome prediction to make is
how much entrainment of liquid from
the flash zone reaches the slop-wax
draw and becomes part of the measured draw (overflash). This measurement is difficult, and is often established by a component balance.
When this value is not measured, or
measured incorrectly, a simulation
can yield an incorrect reflux rate,
which, when used in debottlenecking, can cause the wash bed to dry
and coke up.

Graphical techniques
Three key graphical techniques that can shed light on
what the columns and simulations are doing are the McCabe-Thiele and Hengstebeck diagrams, multicomponentdistillation composition profiles, and, in azeotropic systems, residue-curve maps. These methods permit visualiza-

CEP

October 2002

www.cepmagazine.org

53

Reactions and Separations

Case
No.-Ref.

Type of
Column

Brief Description
Section 2. Does Your Distillation Simulation Match Plant Data?
General

315-13

Aromatics

Diagnosis based on the initial simulation was control instability.

A simulation reality check against plant data exposed needs for
better energy-balance data, a low reflux test, VLE review for one
pair, and a surface-temperature survey. Once modified to
adequately reflect plant data, the simulation pointed to a problem
of unexpectedly low tray efficiency. The corrective action for a
forthcoming revamp became improving trays, not controls.

311-14, 16

Olefins
demethamizer

Two different simulation models matched plant data well.

Both suggested efficient packing in the lower sections. One model
suggested efficient, the other inefficient packings in the upper
sections. Plant logs of the temperature-reflux dependence proved
that the model predicting poor upper efficiency was correct. A
revamp based on this model succeeded; had the high efficiency
model been used, the revamp would not have met is goals.

312-15

Olefins
water
quench

A simulation based on a set of tower readings led to theories for

explaining liquid carryover from the top. A detailed test invalidated
the simulation and theories. A discrepancy between data and
simulation, initially attributed to an incorrect temperature
measurement, was proven in the tests to be due to error in flow
measurement. This completely changed the explanation for the
carryover.

314-16

Stabilizer

To develop a simulation for revamp, column was tested at high

and low reflux. Low reflux data matched the simulation well, high
reflux data matched poorly. A Hengstebeck diagram
explained the mismatch in terms of a VLE inaccuracy.

329-17

Refinery,
depentanizer

Basing a simulation on ASTM D86 gave optimistic tray efficiency

and a misleading simulation. Matching simulated-to-measured
bottom component analysis gave correct tray efficiency and good
simulation.
With Second Liquid Phase

1426-18

Chemical
solvent
dehydration by
azeotropic
distillation

Replacement of tower by a larger one caused instability, reduced

capacity and yielded high solvent losses. The reason was refluxing of
water in the cyclohexane entrainer. An undersized condensate line
caused condensate buildup in the condenser all the way to its
mid-point vent, from where it drained directly into the cyclohexane
side of the decanter. Matching simulated temperature profile to
plant data revealed excess water in the hydrocarbon reflux, pointing
to a decanter malfunction.

1279-18

Chemical
monomer
and
water
separation
from acid
15 ft I.D.

The column operated normally at close to maximum capacity until it

suddenly became unstable at high rates. Cause was a crack in the
decanter baffle plate that allowed water into the refluxed organic
phase. The reflux water generated second liquid phase and,
therefore, temperature instability on the trays. Matching simulated
temperature profile to plant data revealed excess water in the
organic reflux, pointing to a decanter malfunction.

Chemical
acid recovery
from organics,
packed tower

Acid recovery was poor due to a malfunctioning collector that

collected liquid from an internal condenser, splitting it into a heavyphase reflux and a light-phase acid product. The phase-separation
overflow weir in the collector was too tall, and was installed in an incorrect
location, and the product draw-nozzle was undersized. All led to
poor decanting. Once these were corrected, the tower operated normally.
Matching simulated temperature profile to plant data showed the
presence of two liquid phases where only one was expected,
pointing to a malfunction in split between the heavy-phase reflux
and light-phase acid product.

877 -18

54

www.cepmagazine.org

October 2002

CEP

tion of the simulation and allow the

engineer to use his or her judgment
in interpreting the results.
These diagrams are not drawn
from scratch when troubleshooting
simulations. They are simple plots of
the composition profiles generated
by the simulation. The methods for
plotting these diagrams for distillation troubleshooting are discussed
elsewhere (16, 26).

Incorrect or puzzling
chemistry
In chemical towers, reactions
such as decomposition, polymerization or hydrolysis are often unaccounted for in a simulation. Or,
sometimes, a component that is believed to be present in one chemical
form turns out to be in another. In either case, the resulting separation
will differ from what the computer
simulates. When dealing with unstable chemicals, such as some nitro
compounds, this can lead to exothermic decompositions and explosions.
There are also cases in which the
chemistry of a process is not well
understood. One of the best ways to
get a good simulation in these situations is to first run the chemicals
through a mini-plant, as recommended by Ruffert (27). In quite a
few cases of reactive systems in
which pilot work was carried out by
a client, undertaking a through engineering-based understanding of the
chemistry led to redesign of a process that would otherwise would not
have worked well into one that was
trouble-free.
Inefficient efficiency
estimates
The table reveals no clear trend
regarding estimating efficiency. The
author has found that in established
processes, such as the separation of
benzene from toluene, ethanol from
water or ethane from propane, estimating the efficiency is quite trouble-free for conventional trays and
packings. Problems arise when deviating from these. For instance, in a

first-of-a-kind process, efficiency prediction can be an issue.

This is tackled by running pilot
tests, if schedules permit and
the economics favor, or by
gross oversizing, if the column
costs are low or if the schedule
is tight. Likewise, efficiency
predictions run into trouble
when engineers are on the steep
portion of the learning curve for
a new device.

Feed entry
A correct representation of
the feed inlet is crucial if the
number of stages between the
feed and the first drawoff is
small, especially if it is only
one or two. One of the two
cases reported here happened in
a refinery vacuum tower in
which the first major product
exited the tower between 0.5
and 2 stages above the feed.
The other happened with
sponge oil returning to the
main fractionator in a refinery
catalytic-cracking unit immediately above a product draw.
The feed entry issue is not
unique to refining. It can be
more severe in chemical towers,
especially if some of the chemicals react in the vapor phase
and not in the liquid state. Entry
of the feed into the vapor space
may give completely different
results than entry onto the tray
or downcomer liquid.
Vapor and liquid loadings
Calculated vapor and liquid
loadings are the basis for all of
the hydraulic evaluations of
trays, packings and tower internals. Incorrect loadings mean
that tower-capacity estimates
will be incorrect.
Usually, the hydraulic evaluation of a section of tower is
based on the highest vapor and
liquid loadings in that section.
These are derived from the simulation. The cases in this sec-

Case
No.-Ref.

Type of
Column

Brief Description
Section 2. Does Your Distillation Simulation Match Plant Data? (Continued)
Refinery Vacuum Tower Wash Sections

218-19

Refinery
vacuum

The design wash-oil flow was too small, leading to coking of the
wash bed. This resulted from a single-tower simulation model
predicting low-wash dryout ratios. Segmenting the simulation
model into a number of flash units with recycles gave the correct
dryout ratio, requiring triple the previous wash rate. The revised
simulation model correctly predicted plant data.

318-20

Refinery
vacuum

Following replacement of trays by grid in the wash zone, the column

experienced chronic coking leading to high-pressure drop, reduced
gas oil yield, and high metals content of gas oil. The design allowed
for little vaporization in the wash bed. In reality, all the wash oil
supplied vaporized and the bed dried up. Problem solved by
redesigning the spray header for 34 times the original wash rate.

320-21

Refinery
vacuum

Wash-bed coked within 6 mo following replacement of low-efficiency

by high-efficiency packings. Asphaltene balance showed that
practically all the overflash was entrainment. The efficient packing
vaporized more wash liquid, causing unwetting and coking in the
lower packings.

313-16, 22

Olefins
C2 splitter

Addition of an interreboiler caused column design to approach a

pinch. Pinch was undetected by a simulation; the simulation
converged and worked well. Pinch detected by a McCabe-Thiele
diagram.

204-23

Refinery
debutanizer

The column feed was rich (72%) in butane. A few degrees of extra
preheat caused a large increase in feed vaporization, accompanied
by a large drop in stripping vapor rate. This increased butane in
bottom product. The problem was solved by controlling the flow of
steam to the preheater.

317-24

Refinery
alky Deisobutanizer,
8-ft I.D .,
valve trays

Isobutane in bottom was 34 times the design, and column capacity

was restricted. Excessive subcooling of feed overloaded the bottom
section. Also, a few trays above the feed had low liquid rates and
could have been blowing. Several other problems were identified.
Problem solved by adding a feed preheater, installing anti-jump
baffles in the lower trays, and adding picket-fence weirs to the
low-liquid-rate trays.

1559-5

Chemical

Feed to a two-column train fluctuated. Top purity of the first tower

was held constant, which concentrated the disturbances in the feed
to the second tower, destabilizing this tower. To overcome, a surge
drum was added with 5-7 days residence time. Heat losses from the
drum caused a 50F drop in feed temperature to the second column,
aggravating its reboiler limitation, which, in turn, necessitated a
reduction in reflux ratio and, therefore, a lower purity of the top
product.

210-16, 25

Chemical

A vapor-side product impurity content was 10% (vs. design value of 1%),
due to a non-forgiving concentration profile. Over the eight design stages
in the bottom bed, the concentration rose from 30% at the bottom to 50%
four stages below the side draw, then dipped to 1% at the side draw.
A miss by 12 stages would bring the concentration to 10%.

212-26

Azeotropic
column

Components A, B and C: Column separated a minimum-boiling AC

azeotrope from a heavy C. Small amounts of light-boiler B (lighter
than the azeotrope) escaped in the top product. Changes in the
reactor produced much more B in the feed. The light B was expected
to go up, but much of it ended up in the bottom. Reason was the
formation of a much lighter AB azeotrope that distilled up, leaving a
BC mix in the bottom.

Have You Used Graphical Techniques to Troubleshoot Simulations?

CEP

October 2002 www.cepmagazine.org

55

Reactions and Separations

Case
Type of
No.-Ref. Column

Brief Description

Section 2. Does Your Distillation Simulation Match Plant Data? (Continued)

Refinery Vacuum Tower Wash Sections
213-26

Chemicals
azeotropic
column

Components A, B and C: Light product B was separated from heavy

reactants A and C. With a feed rich in A and lean in B, pure B could
not be produced due to minimum-boiling A/C and A/B azeotropes,
the latter boiling 1C less than B. Problem solved by a column
concentrating B (with some A and C) at the top, bottom being an A/C
mix. C was added to the B concentrate en route to the next column,
where it drew the A to the bottom (as an A/C mix), leaving B at the top.

214-26

Freon -22
(R22)
Reflux column

Column separated a light HF/HCI/R22 mix from heavy HF recycle to

the reactor. Two simulations, identical except for initial value
differences of 0.15% HF, gave completely different results.
This difference shifted the column across a distillation boundary,
giving completely different end points.

220-27

Acetic acid/acetic
anhydride/C9
alkane

C9 bottoms separated from ternary azeotrope that formed two liquid

phases. Decanter acid/anhydride was distilled in second tower to
remove C9. Residue curve map showed that when the feed is low on
anhydride, there is no phase split in the decanter and the process
fails. Cure was diverting low-anhydride feeds away from the towers.

110-7

Absorption of HF
from HCl gas by
wash with
aqueous HCl

HF absorption was poor. HF escaping in the column overhead

destroyed the downstream glass plant. The cause was that most of
the "HF" in the feed was in the form of carbonyl fluoride. This
component was sparingly soluble in water, but hydrolyzed slowly
to HF.

141-28

Mini-plant
phenol and
reactant recovery,
3-tower train

Distillate from first two towers was all the phenol. Distillate from
thirdshould have been phenol-free reactant, but contained 1.5%
phenol,formed by a previously unknown cracking reaction of the
high boilers at the bottom. Solved by switching process sequence,
so that high boilers are removed in the second tower and reactant
separated from phenol in the third. Easy to switch in a mini-plant,
almost impossible once a full-scale plant is built.

112-17

O-Nitro-toluene
recovery

The residues were held at 150F and air admitted. A previously

unknown exotherm set in, causing an explosion.

134-30

Solvent/
residue batch
still, vacuum

Column separating the reaction solvent and separation solvent from

residue experienced excessive solvent losses to residue. Change in
the upstream reactor, and using the same solvent for both reaction
and separation, reduced feed inconsistencies, permitted semi-batch
operation, and reduced solvent losses.

135-31

Pharmaceutical,
batch distillation

Changing plant operation from a single to multiple distillation

process rendered the residue more thermally unstable. This led to
an unstable mixture in a reactor, which exothermically decomposed,
caught fire and exploded, injuring one person.

Section 4. Are Your Chemistry and/or Process Sequence Correct?

Section 5. How Good is Your Efficiency Estimate?

307-7

Desorption of
methanol,
acetone and
ammonia from
water, using air

Column failed to achieve design separation. Design efficiency was

predicted from air humidification and oxygen stripping studies in a
single-plate laboratory column. Wall and downpipe mass-transfer
enhanced efficiency in the lab column. This led to optimistic
efficiency predictions.

308-32

Isopropyl
alcohol/water
azeotropic
distillation using
benzene and IPE
entrainer

The 2-ft azeotropic distillation column using benzene and IPE

entrainer with metal-mesh packing achieved 12-in. HETP (height
equivalent of a theoretical plate). This was considerably higher than the
design HETP. Column HETP was scaled up from small-diameter columns
that had good and frequent liquid distribution and redistribution.

56

www.cepmagazine.org

October 2002

CEP

tion of the table show that a major

weakness is that subcooling of reflux
and feeds is not always properly allowed for in estimating the tower
loadings. Further, the presentation of
liquid and vapor in the simulation
output is not generally user-friendly,
and may often conceal higher vapor
and liquid loads under superheated or
subcooled conditions.

Trusting simulator hydraulic

predictions
The only amazing result in the
reported cases is that only two cases
involved problems with a simulations hydraulic predictions. Misleading hydraulic predictions from
simulators is one of the major trouble spots, together with VLE data
matching plant data and the need for
scouting out problems via graphical
techniques. This was stated in our
previous work (16). Case 514, for
example, is one of about a few dozen
that we have seen in which simulations gave optimistic capacity predictions with packings.
It is difficult to understand why
only two cases were reported here
(both by the author!). Many engineers regard it as a given that a significant number of the hydraulic
predictions from simulators are untrustworthy. Others, especially those
in high-tech companies, often prefer
using proprietary prediction methods to those cached in the simulations, and have little incentive to
take the simulators hydraulic
predictions seriously.
The most troublesome hydraulic
and efficiency predictions are for
packed towers. There have been problems with optimistic predictions made
by simulation software and by using a
vendors program. When it comes to
trays, jet and downcomer backupflooding predictions, at least some
methods in simulators are reasonable,
even good. Simulator predictions are
far less satisfying for downcomer
choke flooding, which normally limits
high-pressure and foaming systems,
as well as predicting tray efficiency.

Bugs in the simulator

Fortunately, this is not a major issue,
but it is encountered from time to time
especially when simulation vendors
come out with an upgraded version of
their programs. Always be on the lookout for bugs. A bug in a VLE method in
one simulator disappeared in the next
upgrade, but returned in the following
one. Corrective action calls for using an
independent means of verifying equilibrium values and verifying the simulated
mass, component and heat balances.

Case
No.-Ref.

Type of
Column

302-3

Acetylene
solvent/water
stripper

Some causes of excessive solvent losses were an incorrect efficiency

estimate and excessive entrainment. Performance was improved by
adding trays and mist-elimination pads under top section trays, and
raising reflux.

304-4

Refinery
vacuum

Tray efficiency was lower than expected. Column contained valve

trays and operated at low liquid loads and with wide variations in
vapor loads.

Brief Description

Section 5. How Good is Your Efficiency Estimate?(Continued)

Section 6. Incorrect Simulation of Feed Entry May Give Misleading Predictions

321-33

Refinery,
FCC main
fractionator,
several towers

Following replacement of trays by structured packings, LCO/spongeoil draw temperature dropped 60F, LCO product contained 5%
more gasoline, and the LCO stripper stopped stripping. Reason was
that the two trays between the sponge-oil return and the LCO draw
were eliminated. Gasoline-rich returned sponge-oil mixed with tower
liquid to form the LCO product. Problem minimized by minimizing
sponge oil. In one case, solution was returning sponge oil below the
LCO draw, generating a pumpdown.

Lessons learned
Examining these cases reveals
seven key items that require vigil and
attentiveness:
1. The major issues affecting the
Section 7. Have You Specified the Correct Vapor and Liquid Loadings?
validity of distillation simulations are
Olefins
After replacing trays by packing, column efficiency fell, incurring high
getting good VLE data, having the 316-34
demethanizer
ethylene losses. Gamma scans showed poor liquid distribution in the
simulation match plant data, and
upper two beds, flooding in the third, and poor vapor distribution
using graphical techniques to trouin the bottom bed. The design made no allowance for vapor
bleshoot simulations. Another key
condensation by the highly subcooled (70F) feeds. This overloaded
distributor capacities. Some improvement achieved by rerouting
issue is obtaining good hydraulic presome of the cold main feed to an upper bed.
dictions from the simulation.
Petrochemical
Tower flooded 510% below design because additional vapor and
2. Providing the correct chemistry 330-12
liquid traffic induced by 100F reflux subcooling was not accounted
and the correct tray or packing effifor in the internals design. Solved by using bubble-point reflux.
ciency is needed to ensure the validity
Refinery
The design vapor rate in the slurry section of a FCC fractionator did
of the tower simulation, but is less 306-23
fluid catalytic
not allow for vaporization that occurs when a bottom feed with
troublesome than the factors mencracker
300F superheat contacts column liquid. Column therefore
tioned above. Modeling feeds, prefractionator
prematurely flooded. Problem solved by injecting subcooled quench
liquid to desuperheat the feed. At a later stage, subcooled quench
dicting vapor and liquid loads, and
was replaced by a lighter liquid that vaporized, and premature
detecting and correcting simulation
flooding reoccurred.
bugs cause trouble in tower simulaSection 8. Simulator Hydraulic Predictions: To Trust or Not to Trust?
tions, but to a lesser extent.
3. VLE predictions from commer- 514-16
Refinery
2-in. Pall rings were replaced by 3-in. modern random packings.
vacuum
Expected capacity increase was 30% but only 17% materialized. Both
cial simulations are most troublethe
default and suppliers options in a commercial computer
some with close-boiling composimulation were optimistic, leading to the high expectation.
nents, non-ideal systems, or heavyHigh pressure
A commercial simulator gave optimistic prediction of packing
component
characterization
in 515-16
capacity because it allowed extrapolation of a good correlation well
crude-oil distillation. Predictions for
beyond its applicability limits.
components that have medium or
Section 9. Bug in Simulation
high relative volatilities and no
Specialty
Well-known commercial simulations with successful convergence
major non-idealities usually do not 326-35
chemical
and no error messages had erroneous energy balances on all three
cause a problem.
towers. Cause was a bug in the default convergence software. Repeat
4. The major hurdle in matching
with an alternative convergence procedure gave valid mass and energy
balances. Using the original simulation, all three reboilers would have
a simulation with plant data is obbeen grossly undersized and tower feed grossly mislocated.
taining a reliable, consistent set of
the plant data. Getting correct numbers from flowmeters and laboratory analyses is the major headache. Specific issues re5. The key graphical techniques invaluable for trouported here are situations when a second liquid phase is
bleshooting simulations are the McCabe-Thiele and Hengpresent, and when simulating the wash sections of refinstebeck diagrams, multicomponent-distillation compositionery vacuum towers.
profiles, and, in azeotropic systems, residue-curve maps.

CEP

October 2002 www.cepmagazine.org

57

Reactions and Separations

6. In chemical towers, problems can arise when reactions are not properly accounted for in the simulation
and/or when a component believed to be in one physical
form turns out to be in another.
7. Estimating tray and packing efficiencies is not a
major issue for established processes operating in conventional hardware. Most of the prediction issues arise when
CEP
simulating new systems or hardware.

Literature Cited
1. Kister, H. Z., Are Column Malfunctions Becoming Extinct or
Will they Persist in the 21st Century?, Trans. IChemE, 75, Part A,
p. 563 (Sept. 1997).
2. Kister, H. Z., Distillation Operation, McGraw-Hill, New York
(1990).
3. Martin, H. W., Scale-up Problems in a Solvent-Water Fractionator, Chem. Eng. Progress, 60 (10), p. 50 (Oct. 1964).
4. Guy, J. L., and J. A. Bonilla, Case History of a Retrayed Column:
Troubleshooting Techniques and Methods, paper presented at the
AIChE Spring National Meeting, New Orleans, LA (Mar. 29Apr. 2,
1992).
5. Sloley, A. W., et al., Why Towers Do Not Work, paper presented at
AIChE Spring National Meeting, Houston, TX (Mar. 2024, 1995).
6. Moura, C. A. D., and H. P. Carneivo, Common Difficulties in the
Use of Process Simulators, B. Tech. Petrobras, 34 (3/4), (Jul./Dec.
1991), quoted in R. Agrawal et al., Uncovering the Realities of
Simulation, Chem. Eng. Progress, 97 (5), p. 42, (May 2001).
7. Rose, L. M., Distillation Design in Practice, Elsevier, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands (1985).
8. Staggs, D. W., The Impact of Non-Ideal Vapor/Liquid Behavior on
Solvent Emissions, paper presented at AIChE Spring National
Meeting, Houston,TX (Mar. 2024, 1995).
9. Kalthod, V. G., et al., Distillation Column Performance Testing:
Continuous and Batch Approaches, in Preprints of the Topical
Conference on Separation Science and Technologies, Part I p. 225,
AIChE Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, CA (Nov. 1719, 1997).
10. Sadeq, J., et al., Anomalous Results from Process Simulations,
paper presented at AIChE Annual Meeting, Miami Beach, FL (Nov.
1995).
11. Golden, S. W., et al., Feed Characterization and Deepcut Vacuum
Columns: Simulation and Design, paper presented at AIChE Spring
National Meeting, Houston, TX (Mar. 2024, 1995).
12. Sloley, A.W., et al., Troubleshooting Practice in the Refinery,
paper presented at AIChE Spring National Meeting, Houston, TX
(Apr. 2001).
13. Kister, H. Z., et al., Does your Distillation Simulation Reflect the
Real World?, Hydrocarb. Proc., p. 103 (Aug. 1997).
14. Kister, H. Z., et al., Debottleneck and Performance of a Packed
Demethanizer, in Proceedings of the 4th Ethylene Producers Conference, New Orleans, LA, p. 283 (1992).
15. Kister, H. Z., et al., Troubleshooting a Water Quench Tower, in
Proceedings of the 7th Ethylene Producers Conference, Houston,
TX (1995).
16. Kister, H. Z., Troubleshooting Distillation Simulations, Chem
Eng Progress, 91 (6), p. 63 (June 1995).

58

www.cepmagazine.org

October 2002

CEP

HENRY Z. KISTER is director of fractionation technology at Fluor Daniel (One

Fluor Daniel Dr., Aliso Viejo, CA 92698; Phone: (949) 349-4679; Fax: (949)
349-2898; E-mail: henry.kister@fluor.com). He has over 25 years of
experience in design, troubleshooting, revamping, field consulting, control
and startup of fractionation processes and equipment. Previously, he was
Brown & Roots staff consultant on fractionation, and prior to that he
worked for ICI Australia and Fractionation Research Inc. (FRI). He is the
author of textbooks Distillation Design and Distillation Operation, as
well as over 60 published technical articles, and has taught the IChemEsponsored Practical Distillation Technology course 240 times. He
obtained his BE and ME degrees from the Univ. of New South Wales in
Australia. He is a Fellow of IChemE, a member of AIChE, and serves on the
FRI Technical Advisory and Design Practices committees.

17. Kister, H. Z., et al., Sensitivity Analysis is Key to Successful DC5

Simulation, Hydrocarb. Proc., p.124 (Oct. 1998).
18. Opong, S., and D. R. Short, Troubleshooting Columns Using
Steady State Models, in Distillation: Horizons for the New Millennium, in Topical Conference Preprints, AIChE Spring National
Meeting, Houston, TX, p. 129 (Mar. 1418,1999).
19. Golden, S. W., et al., Improved Flow Topology for Petroleum Refinery Crude Vacuum Distillation Simulation, 44th Canadian Chem.
Eng. Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada (Oct. 25, 1995).
20. Golden, S. W., et al., Refinery Vacuum Column Troubleshooting,
paper presented at AIChE Spring National Meeting, New Orleans,
LA (Mar. 31, 1993).
21. Golden, S. W., et al., Refinery Analytical Techniques Optimize
Unit Performance, Hydrocarb. Proc., p. 85 (Nov. 1995).
22. Kister, H. Z., et al., Problems and Solutions in Demethanizers with
Interreboilers, in Proceedings of the 8th Ethylene Producers Conference, New Orleans, LA (1996).
23. Lieberman, N. P., Troubleshooting Process Operations, 3rd ed.,
PennWell Books, Tulsa, OK (1991).
24. Sloley, A. W., and S. W. Golden, Analysis Key to Correcting
Debutanizer Design Flows, Oil & Gas J., p. 50 (Feb. 8, 1993).
25. Kister, H. Z., et al., Improve Vacuum-Tower Performance, Chem.
Eng. Progress, 92 (9), p. 36, (Sept. 1996).
26. Short, D. G. R., Using Residue Maps for Solving Separation Problems, paper presented at AIChE Spring National Meeting, Houston,
TX (Mar. 913, 1997).
27. Partin, L. R., Use Graphical Techniques to Improve Process Analysis, Chem. Eng. Progress, 89 (1), p. 43 (Jan. 1993).
28. Ruffert, D. I., The Significance of Experiments for the Design of
New Distillation Column Sequences, in Distillation 2001: Frontiers in a New Millennium, in Proceedings of the Topical Conferences, AIChE Spring National Meeting, Houston, TX, p. 133 (Apr.
2226, 2001).
29. Miscellaneous Case Histories, in Fire Protection Manual, Vol. 2,
C. H. Vervalin, ed., Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX, p. 29 (1981).
30. Williams, J. A., Optimize Distillation System Revamps, Chem.
Eng. Progress, 94 (3), p. 23 (Mar. 1998).
31. HSA Criticizes Hickson, The Chem. Engineer, p. 5 (Nov. 10,
1994).
32. APV DH-682, Distillation Handbook, 2d ed., APV, Chicago, IL
(no date of publication given).
33. Golden, S. W., Case Studies Reveal Common Design, Equipment Errors in Revamps, Oil & Gas J., p. 62, (Apr. 7, 1997 and Apr. 14, 1997).
34. Freeman, L., and J. D. Bowman, Use of Column Scanning to
Troubleshoot Demethanizer Operation, paper presented at AIChE
Spring National Meeting, Houston, TX (Mar. 31, 1993).
35. Le, N. D., et al., Doublecheck Your Process Simulations, Chem.
Eng. Progress, 96 (5), p. 51, (May 2000).