Guidance sheet technical report

Word count:
Up to a maximum of 5,000 words.

Objective:
To demonstrate a depth of theoretical and practical knowledge of chemical engineering and its underlying principles.
Your technical report should demonstrate that your chemical engineering knowledge and understanding is of a high
standard, showing how you make effective use of chemical engineering science and principles in creating designs
and solving problems. This should be done through an ordered and critical description of aspects of chemical
engineering practice where you have made a significant contribution.
You may submit as your technical evidence one of the following:
1. a report written specifically for the application, which addresses the objectives of the technical report;
2. a pre-existing technical report, accompanied by a narrative which details how the report demonstrates
that your knowledge and understanding is at the required academic level;
3. a collection of published academic papers along a common theme, accompanied by a narrative which
details how the papers demonstrate that your knowledge and understanding is at the required

academic level.

You should state on the reports title page which option you have chosen and identify the narrative if it is required.

Cover sheet:
Please complete the document Cover sheet: technical report or academic papers to assist assessment, and use as an
aid in structuring your report. The cover sheet must include a signed confirmation from someone familiar with your
work, that the report is a true demonstration of your knowledge and understanding of chemical engineering.

Guidance:
The purpose of a technical report is to provide evidence that your knowledge and understanding is of the minimum
required level for a Chartered Member (MIChemE).
Your technical report should:
1. be a substantive work of your choice that is sufficiently complex to challenge your chemical engineering
capabilities;

2. be an original work on which you have made a significant contribution;

3. be focused on provision of evidence of your knowledge and understanding of the principles that
underpin your chemical engineering competence;
4. aim to provide evidence and confidence that your overall chemical engineering knowledge is at the
minimum required level for assessment as a Chartered Chemical Engineer;

5. include key calculations, engineering drawings, flow sheets, diagrams and appropriate references;
6. show objectives, problems or development aims addressed by the selected project;
7. include analytical and quantitative processes used in reaching and evaluating a specified solution;
8. be concise, not exceeding the guidance on word count;
9. clearly reference any material which is copied into the report, you should show the application of such
material to demonstrate your knowledge of chemical engineering principles, and their application, at
the required advanced level.
Your report is not:
10. a review of your training, employment and experience;
11. a report on your managerial or organisational competency and experience.

Important guidance notes:

IChemEs review process is such that you will be assessed by chemical engineering professionals; Chartered
Members and Fellows of IChemE who volunteer their time to uphold the standards and support professional
development of members.
Please submit your report in the best and most complete format possible. This will help IChemE to use the valuable
time of our volunteer assessors effectively and to obtain a decision on your application as soon as possible.

ensure that the information contained in the report is sufficient to demonstrate that your chemical
engineering knowledge and understanding meets the minimum required level for Chartered Member;
please complete and submit the Cover sheet: technical report or academic papers to refer the assessors to
the relevant information within your report and as an aid to structure;
if your technical report:

includes papers which were not wholly authored by you, or

if you are referencing group activity,

please include a narrative which details precisely what your contribution to the submitted work was,
referencing the relevant sections, and clarifying what was undertaken by others;

practical and common sense solutions are a useful contribution but must be supported by science or
appropriate theory the report must demonstrate a level above catalogue engineering;
acronyms and sector or company specific terms must be defined, either within the document if it is written
for IChemE assessment, or with use of a glossary;
the use of imported or adopted information, standards or guides must be clearly referenced as such;
your report must be in English. IChemE is sympathetic to minor errors where English is not your first
language, however, please ask someone to review your report, or use spell check software carefully to
ensure your meaning is always clear;

do not submit a report in excess of 20% more than the stated word count;

ensure that you will remember the work in your report well enough to discuss at interview.

Focus your report on:

Avoid:

technical content

description

personal involvement

observation

explanation

discussion

analysis

opinion

evaluation

commercial detail

1130_!5

www.icheme.org

Cover sheet: technical report

or academic papers
Please complete and submit with your technical report or academic papers at the time of
application in order to assist IChemE with assessment.
Complete the page reference column to refer the assessors to the corresponding elements
in your work and supporting document(s). Where possible, please use this structure as a
template.
nb: You must also refer to the relevant IChemE guidance document on writing a technical report.
Family name: ............................................................................................................................................
Given name: ............................................................................................................................................
Affiliation (company/university or other organisation): .................................
Membership no.: ......................................................................................................................................
Title of work: ............................................................................................................................................
You may submit as your technical evidence one of the following please tick the appropriate box below:
1.
a report written specifically for the application, which addresses the objectives of the technical
report;
2.

a pre-existing technical report, accompanied by a narrative which details how the report
demonstrates that your knowledge and understanding is at the required academic level;

3.

a collection of published academic papers along a common theme, accompanied by a

narrative which details how the papers demonstrate that your knowledge and understanding
is at the required academic level.

You should state on the reports title page which option you have chosen and identify the narrative if it is required.

ADVANCING
CHEMICAL
ENGINEERING
WORLDWIDE

1. Introduction

Page reference(s)

Provide a clear introduction to the activity, giving an explanation of the methodologies used and/or
background information.
2. Main content
Required elements
nb: Outputs from computer programmes used during the described work should not be included without
explanation of the chemical engineering principles and equations used within those programmes.

Objectives or problems addressed by your work.

Evidence of your knowledge and understanding of chemical engineering principles as applied in the
described work.
nb: Not all of the principles below need to be included, but are listed as examples which may be used. A range of
applications of chemical engineering should be included from this list:

Conservation laws for mass and energy

Fluid flow
Heat and mass transfer
Thermodynamics of chemical and power systems
Reactor design
Analysis of process systems
Safety and environmental aspects
Other (please specify)
Analytical and quantitative processes used in reaching and evaluating the described solution.
Key calculations, to include:
How the basis of the calculation was selected and validated
How the calculation inputs were selected and validated
Relevant equations
3. Summary
Provide a summary and discussion of results
Provide conclusion(s)
4. Attestation
Please sign as the author:

Signature:
Job title:
This report is a true account of my professional activities:
Date:
5. Confirmation
Please also obtain the signature of someone familiar with your work at the time of activity and ideally a chemical
engineer:

Family name:

Given Name:

Title:

Job title:
Affiliation (company/university or other organisation):
Relation to applicant:
Email:
To the best of my knowledge, this is a true account of the applicants activities
Signature:
Date:
6. Appendices
Provide inputs to computations and adequate explanation of background or supporting theory to worksheets or
programmes.

Flowsheets, for example, process flow diagram (PFD), process and instrumentation diagrams (P&ID)
Engineering drawings
Diagrams
References to published texts, standards or papers which were used during the work described
Safety and environmental aspects
Other (please specify):

www.icheme.org

Chartered Member (MIChemE)

Review process for technical report
Check that you need to submit a technical report at

www.getchartered.org

Read the relevant guidance document

Complete your technical report, ensuring it meets the requirements outlined in the
guidance, and submit along with your Competence and Commitment report* to apply for
Chartered Member

IChemE will acknowledge receipt of your application

Technical report assessment

(including referral back to you if
clarification or revision is required)

Competence and Commitment

report assessment (including
referral back to you if clarification
or revision is required)

IChemE will contact your referees in writing for a reference

Technical interview (usually held on

same day)

Professional review interview

(usually held on same day)

If required, you may be invited to a second interview on one or both elements

IChemE will review your application in full and inform you of the outcome the following week

* See Review process for competence and commitment (C&C) report for further details

0620_12

ADVANCING
CHEMICAL
ENGINEERING
WORLDWIDE

Cover sheet: technical report

or academic papers
Please complete and submit with your technical report or academic papers at the time of
application in order to assist IChemE with assessment.
Complete the page reference column to refer the assessors to the corresponding elements
in your work and supporting document(s). Where possible, please use this structure as a
template.
nb: You must also refer to the relevant IChemE guidance document on writing a technical report.
Family name: ............................................................................................................................................
Given name: ............................................................................................................................................
Affiliation (company/university or other organisation): .................................
Membership no.: ......................................................................................................................................
Title of work: ............................................................................................................................................
You may submit as your technical evidence one of the following please tick the appropriate box below:
1.
a report written specifically for the application, which addresses the objectives of the technical
report;
2.

a pre-existing technical report, accompanied by a narrative which details how the report
demonstrates that your knowledge and understanding is at the required academic level;

3.

a collection of published academic papers along a common theme, accompanied by a

narrative which details how the papers demonstrate that your knowledge and understanding
is at the required academic level.

You should state on the reports title page which option you have chosen and identify the narrative if it is required.

ADVANCING
CHEMICAL
ENGINEERING
WORLDWIDE

1. Introduction

Page reference(s)

Provide a clear introduction to the activity, giving an explanation of the methodologies used and/or
background information.
2. Main content
Required elements
nb: Outputs from computer programmes used during the described work should not be included without
explanation of the chemical engineering principles and equations used within those programmes.

Objectives or problems addressed by your work.

Evidence of your knowledge and understanding of chemical engineering principles as applied in the
described work.
nb: Not all of the principles below need to be included, but are listed as examples which may be used. A range of
applications of chemical engineering should be included from this list:

Conservation laws for mass and energy

Fluid flow
Heat and mass transfer
Thermodynamics of chemical and power systems
Reactor design
Analysis of process systems
Safety and environmental aspects
Other (please specify)
Analytical and quantitative processes used in reaching and evaluating the described solution.
Key calculations, to include:
How the basis of the calculation was selected and validated
How the calculation inputs were selected and validated
Relevant equations
3. Summary
Provide a summary and discussion of results
Provide conclusion(s)
4. Attestation
Please sign as the author:

Signature:
Job title:
This report is a true account of my professional activities:
Date:
5. Confirmation
Please also obtain the signature of someone familiar with your work at the time of activity and ideally a chemical
engineer:

Family name:

Given Name:

Title:

Job title:
Affiliation (company/university or other organisation):
Relation to applicant:
Email:
To the best of my knowledge, this is a true account of the applicants activities
Signature:
Date:
6. Appendices
Provide inputs to computations and adequate explanation of background or supporting theory to worksheets or
programmes.

Flowsheets, for example, process flow diagram (PFD), process and instrumentation diagrams (P&ID)
Engineering drawings
Diagrams
References to published texts, standards or papers which were used during the work described
Safety and environmental aspects
Other (please specify):

www.icheme.org

Get Chartered knowledge and understanding

Demonstrating knowledge and

understanding
The purpose of a technical report is to assess your knowledge and understanding against the high standard
expected of a Chartered Member (MIChemE).
When you submit a technical report for review you are providing an illustrative sample of your underpinning
knowledge and understanding of chemical engineering principles through the specific context of your chosen
project (addressing an objective, problem or development aim).
The subject of the report is left open for you to choose. You do not have to undertake a new piece of work for the
purpose of your technical report. Typically it will be based on a chemical engineering project you have completed
recently, as you will be required to expand on the detail and context of the report at interview.
You must ensure that the report includes an explanation of the chemical engineering principles you have applied
and is not simply a commentary or description of the work completed.
If you have been advised through the self diagnosis tool or by an IChemE staff member to focus your technical
report on further learning or on design, please read the guidance specific to the relevant report type.

Further information
The criteria IChemE refers to when assessing an individuals knowledge and understanding against the
level required for a Chartered Member are those used to characterise a degree for accreditation to Masters
level, where we look for attainment of knowledge and understanding against defined standards. IChemEs
expectations for delivering this standard are set out in our accreditation guide.

0618_12

Get Chartered knowledge and understanding

Guidance
The required level
IChemE upholds a minimum level of knowledge and understanding required for qualification as a Chartered
Member (MIChemE).
As well as core chemical engineering knowledge, this includes:

an advanced breadth and depth of chemical engineering knowledge and its application; and
a sufficient capability to aggregate learning into a complex open ended project (such as design or
research work).

The main areas of knowledge and understanding IChemE looks for when assessing an individual, or accrediting a
degree against the standard required for a Chartered Chemical Engineer, are:

underpinning maths and science;

core chemical engineering;

engineering practice;

design practice;

wider aspects eg sustainability, process safety, transferable skills, awareness of commercial

implications;

major design and/or research work;

advanced depth and breadth of chemical engineering.

IChemE does not publish a definitive guide of the precise knowledge and understanding required because the
content of degree programmes and/or an individual engineers learning experience will differ and yet may attain
outcomes of an equally and acceptably high standard.

Check
Please use the online self diagnosis tool www.getchartered.org/selfdiagnosis to check what to provide
as evidence of your chemical engineering knowledge and understanding in support of an application to get
chartered and read any suggested further guidance or information.
If further clarification is required, a chargeable preliminary appraisal service is available.

Preliminary career appraisal

As an alternative or addition to the self diagnosis tool, IChemE offers a preliminary appraisal service, for which an
administration fee is charged.
The following information is required:

any academic qualifications including non-chemical engineering degree(s):

degree title(s);

university or college name(s);

start and end dates of study (MM/YY MM/YY);

design/research project(s) details if relevant;

relevant work-based training;

work experience;

current employment.

IChemE then checks:

all accredited and recognised degree programmes;

case history of degree programmes of which we have previous knowledge;

Get Chartered knowledge and understanding

and reviews:

knowledge and understanding achieved against defined learning outcome standards.

It may be helpful to know that because national education systems vary across the world, our appraisal is not
based on:

degree title;

number of years studied;

country of study;

method of learning.

Following this preliminary appraisal we will confirm whether any additional learning is advised, what evidence to
submit in support of your application (eg a technical report), or whether we have sufficient existing evidence.
If the preliminary appraisal indicates a need for further learning in one or more specific areas, we will advise on
how to address the gap(s). This may be:

a recommendation of relevant formal learning modules; or

approximate guidance on a particular area and duration of work experience you would yet need to gain
in a chemical, biochemical or process engineering environment.

Please note that a career appraisal will only determine your application requirements and is not an application in
itself. If you are able, we therefore strongly recommend that you follow the guidance provided through the self
diagnosis tool.
Find out how to request a career appraisal www.icheme.org/careerappraisal

Providing evidence
You will need to submit evidence that your chemical engineering knowledge and understanding meet the
minimum level for a Chartered Chemical Engineer, as indicated in the self diagnosis. The main ways in which we
will ask you to provide evidence are as follows:
1.

relevant degree certificate(s);

2.

course transcript(s);

3.

technical report;

4.

technical report focused on demonstrating the ability to integrate knowledge into design or similar complex
project eg research;

5.

technical report focused on demonstrating further learning in industry;

6.

a combination of two or more aspects.

A technical report would be a piece of written work, normally based on a project completed in industry. Academic
faculty can present a collection of relevant academic papers. Further guidance is provided on the requirements
for each report type.
You are strongly advised to use the self diagnosis tool to determine what specific evidence is required according
to your individual circumstances.

Assessment
If a technical report is required this should be submitted as part of a full application (including evidence of
professional experience www.GetChartered.org/professional_experience), except in the case of a technical
report focused on further learning in industry. A technical report focused on further learning should be submitted
for review and interview during your early career and before a full application to get chartered.

0618_12

www.icheme.org

Revamp of Saturated Gas

Concentration Unit (SGCU)

ADVANCING
CHEMICAL
ENGINEERING
WORLDWIDE

Example A
Technical Report

Contents
1.

Definitions .................................................................................................................................... 4

2.

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5

3.

Setup ............................................................................................................................................. 6

4.

The process in SGCU ................................................................................................................... 7

5.

The problem ................................................................................................................................. 9

6.

My involvement ......................................................................................................................... 10

7.

Analysis of the problem ............................................................................................................. 10

7.1. Operating Pressure........................................................................................................... 10
7.2.

8.

9.

Equipment constraints in the low pressure operation mode ........................................ 11

Solution to the problem of low LPG recovery ........................................................................... 12

8.1. Operating Pressure........................................................................................................... 12
8.2.

Column Performance ....................................................................................................... 14

8.3.

Exchanger Performance .................................................................................................. 20

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 21
9.1. Equipment Performance.................................................................................................. 21
9.2.

LPG Recovery ................................................................................................................... 21

9.3.

Commissioning.................................................................................................................. 21

9.4.

Economics.......................................................................................................................... 22

2 of 33

Example A
Technical Report
Attachments:
1.

Feed composition to SGCU

2.

Summary of streams for LP operating case

3.

Summary of streams for HP operating case

4.

Product Specifications

5.

Economic Evaluation

3 of 33

Example A
Technical Report

1. Definitions
ATU

Amine Treating Unit

CDU

Crude Distillation Unit a part of the Crude and Vacuum Distillation

Unit

CFC

Clean Fuels Complex

DHDS

Diesel Hydrodesulphurisation

FEED

Front-End Engineering Design

HP

High Pressure operation

HT

Hydrotreater

H&MB

Heat and Material Balance

ISBL

Inside Battery Limit

KBPSD

Kilo (Thousands of) Barrels Per Stream Day

LCO

Light Cycle oil

LP

Low Pressure operation

LPG

Liquefied Petroleum Gas

MMTPA

Mega (Millions of) Metric Tonnes Per Annum

P&ID

Piping and Instrumentation Diagram

PFD

Process Flow Diagram

SGCU

Saturate Gas Concentration Unit

VDU

Vacuum Distillation Unit a part of the Crude and Vacuum Distillation

Unit

VGO

Vacuum Gas Oil

4 of 33

Example A
Technical Report

2. Introduction
Over the last few years, the price of the crude oil has escalated manifolds. One of the
main reasons for this price rise is the increased demand of distillates from the
developing countries like China, India and Brazil, which is mainly spurned by the
great strides made by these countries economically.
In order to meet this ever increasing demand of distillates in the world, a number of
refineries are being built around the world. In one of these new refineries, there are
two crude columns. The crude distillation units produce many distillate cuts, which
are mainly blended into various products. The overhead from the atmospheric
distillation column is condensed in a partial condenser. The uncondensed vapor is
either routed to the fuel gas header or to the flare header. A part of this condensate is
routed back to the crude column as reflux, while the rest of it is further processed in
the Saturated Gas Concentration Unit (SGCU). This condensate is the unstabilised
naphtha, which is containing dissolved LPG fraction. In the proposed refinery, there
are two Saturate Gas Concentration Units, Unit 3 and 4 (SGCU 3 & 4), catering to
the two crude columns.
One of the main requirements of the SGCU is to extract this valuable liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG). The LPG has a very high commercial value in many countries.
For example, in India, LPG is imported regularly to meet the domestic demand and
any increased production of LPG is highly profitable. The LPG demand in India
during the 2006-07 has been estimated at 10.57 million tons, whereas the indigenous
availability during this period is 8.64 million tones. The shortfall of 1.93 million
tones will have to be imported. It is also expected that the demand for LPG will
increase by approximately 4.5% during the 2007-08 to 11.05 million tones. The cost
of LPG in the international market is US$467 / ton. LPG is sold at a subsidized price
to the domestic consumers in India. The LPG is sold to Indian consumers in a 14.5
kg cylinder. The cost of each cylinder is US$ 6.55 (US$ 452/ton) and this selling
cost includes the processing and retail marketing costs also. It is estimated that
Indian nationalized oil firms are loosing US$3.4 for the sale of each 14.5 kg cylinder,
while the government is providing a subsidy of US$0.50 per cylinder. It can easily
be seen from the above figures that if LPG is imported into India, the shortfall in
price for the imported LPG would be much higher.
For the present design of the new refinery, the LPG yield from the SGCU 3 & 4 is as
low as 86.95 mole %. In view of the great commercial advantage, the task was to
improve this recovery to >90 mole%.
5 of 33

Example A
Technical Report

3. Setup
The Saturated Gas Concentration Units 3 and 4 (SGCU 3 & 4), has been designed as
a modified repeat design based on SGCU 1 & 2 of an existing refinery belonging to
the same owners. The new SGCUs were envisaged to process about 10% higher
throughput.
In the new refinery there is a Clean Fuels Complex (CFC) having diesel
hydrodesulphurization units (DHDS 1 & 2) and a LCO hydrocracker. This complex
produces low sulfur diesel and other distillates which are sold in the international
market at a premium. The light ends from this complex are needed to be further
processed in a Light Ends Recovery Unit (LERU). The modified repeat design of the
SGCU 3 & 4 has been made to accommodate these additional loads from the CFC wild naphtha from DHDS 1, 2 and LCO Hydrocraker. This inclusion has eliminated
the need for a new Light Ends Recovery Unit (LERU).
A simple schematic of the SGCU feed scheme is given below (kindly refer to fig 1).
The SGCU 1 & 2 of the existing refinery does not have the streams from the CFC.
The operating pressure of the HP receiver for the existing unit (SGCU 1 & 2) is 14.4
kg/cm2g. However, in order to accommodate for the new streams from CFC, which
are operating at a lower pressure of 9 kg/cm2g, in the SGCU 3 & 4, the overall
operating pressure of the whole unit has to be decreased. The operating pressure of
the HP receiver is considerably decreased to 8.1 kg/cm2g. The feed composition to
the system is given in Attachment 1.
101

WILD NAPHTHA
FROM CDU

103

104

WILD NAPHTHA
FROM VGO HTU
110

WILD NAPHTHA
FROM DHDS 1
WILD NAPHTHA
FROM DHDS 2

107

WILD NAPHTHA
FROM LCO HC

102

OFF-GAS FROM
VGO HTU

FEED PREPARATION

108

309

Rich Oil from

145 Primary
Absorber (C02)

111

106

CLEAN FUELS COMPLEX

Overhead vapour
from
Stripper
(C05)

112

CW
C05
OVHD
Receiver
(V12)

117

161

305

C05 Ovhd
Condenser

HP Cooler

OFF-GAS FROM
DHDS 1
OFF-GAS FROM
DHDS 2 HTU
OFF-GAS FROM
LCO HC

CLEAN FUELS COMPLEX

6 of 33

Example A
Technical Report

4. The process in SGCU

The feed streams from various upstream units are mixed together and the resultant 2
phase stream is then cooled in the HP cooler (S01 A/B). The cooled stream is
separated in the HP separator (V01). The vapour phase from V01 is then fed to the
Primary Absorber, C02. C02 is having valve trays as internals. A naphtha stream
from the stabiliser, C06, is used as the lean oil for absorption. In C02, the heavy ends
are absorbed by the lean oil. The rich oil from the bottom of the C02 is routed to V01
via the HP cooler, S01 A/B.
The overhead from the C02 is fed to a Sponge Absorber, C03. In the sponge
absorber, which is a packed column, external lean oil (stream # 182) from the crude
column is fed as the absorbing oil. This lean oil is actually circulating diesel oil. The
heat from the hot lean oil is given to the rich oil (coming from the bottom of C03) in
Lean oil Rich oil exchanger, S03. The rich oil is then routed back to the crude unit.
The lean oil is partially cooled in the exchanger S03, and is further cooled in air
cooler A01 & trim cooler S04.
The unabsorbed gas from the top of the Sponge Absorber is routed to the ATU,
where H2S is removed from this gas by amine absorption. It is finally routed to the
fuel gas system of the refinery. Any LPG which slips through the C02 & C03 will be
lost into the fuel gas system.
A simple schematic of the system is given below in fig 2.

7 of 33

Example A
Technical Report

Feed
Preparation

142

307

S14
304

309
3
2
3

S01 A/B

161

203
A02

C
0
2

V01

CO2:- PRIMARY ABSORBER

CO3:- SPONGE ABSORBER
C05:- STRIPPER
C06:- STABILIZER

310

CW
301

Fuel Gas to ATU

182

C
0
3

233

S13
Condensate

CW

204

MP Steam
CW

209

S08 A/B

313

145

S03

P03 A/B

Naphtha to
OSBL

181

180

CW

Lean oil
from CDU

S04
C
0
5

C
0
6

231

S06

P05 A/B
312

P06 A/B

S09/S10

170
S12
CW

122

302

S11

229
303
S05

S15

CIRCULATING
DIESEL TO CDU

202

P01 A/B

CW
212

225
187

210

HOT DIESEL FROM

CDU
LPG

Rich oil to
CDU

8 of 33

Fig 2, SGCU Process Schematic

Example A
Technical Report
The liquid stream (unstabilised naphtha) from the bottom of V01 (stream 122) is
pumped to a Stripper (C05). This stream is heated against the hot outlet stream in
Stripper Feed/Bottoms Exchanger, S05 and further against the stabiliser bottom
stream in S15.
The purpose of the stripper (C05) is to strip off the absorbed light vapours in stream
122. The heat requirement for this column is provided by a steam heated reboiler,
S06. The vapour is routed back to the feed preparation section and passing through
the HP cooler is routed to the V01 (kindly refer to fig 1).
The naphtha from the bottom of the Stripper (C05) is then passed through Stripper
Feed/Bottoms Exchanger, S05 (where it provides heat to the inlet stream to C05) and
routed to a Stabilizer, C06. The C06 is a distillation column where LPG faction is
separated from the stabilised naphtha faction. The overhead from this column is
passed through a total condenser. A part of this condensate is fed to the column as
reflux while the other part is taken out as a LPG product.
The detailed stream summary of this section is given in Attachment 1. The process
schematic is shown in fig 2.
The product properties are listed in Attachment 4.

5. The problem
The C3 & C4 brought in with the feed streams to SGCU are either routed to the LPG
faction (stream 212), or to naphtha from C06 bottom (stream 312), or with the rich
oil going to the crude column (stream 187) or with the fuel gas going to the ATU
(stream 142).
The desired routing of the C3 & C4 content is to LPG faction (stream 212). However,
if it is routed with the rich oil (stream 187) and sent back to the crude column, then
also it is recoverable from the crude unit.
However, when the C3 & C4 content is routed to the ATU then it is lost to the fuel
gas system. Also, when it is routed with the naphtha then also it is lost to the naphtha
stream.
The C3 & C4 content of the various feed streams (including that carried in with the
lean oil) is 789.35 kg-moles/hr. The C3 & C4 which is recovered from this content
(with streams 187, 212, 316) is 686.05 kg-moles. Hence, the recovery is only 86.92
mole%. Due to introduction of the CFC vapour streams at a lower operating
9 of 33

Example A
Technical Report
pressure, and resultant lower operating pressure in the overall unit, the LPG recovery
is way below the desired recovery of 90 vol.%. Hence, the refinery will be loosing a
substantial amount of money in a costly product.

6. My involvement
I was involved in the process of accommodating the new CFC loads within the
existing framework. I was given the additional task to evaluate the system and make
a study to provide a solution to improve the LPG yield from the system. While doing
the study, I have extensively used the process simulator ProII to evaluate the
process conditions and feasibility of making changes. I have also used the
programmes HTRI Xchanger Suite, and KG towers to evaluate the exchanger
performances as well as the column performances in the changed operating
conditions.

7. Analysis of the problem

7.1.

Operating Pressure
In the existing refinery, the recovery is above 90 vol. %. An obvious difference between the
existing refinery and the new refinery was the addition of the liquid wild naphtha streams
(stream nos. 102,107,110) and the vapour streams (stream nos. 106,111,112) from the CFC.
This has resulted in a lower operating pressure of the feed section V01 and hence C02 &
C03. In the existing refinery, the operating pressure of the V01 is 14.4 kg/cm2g while that in
the new refinery it is only 8.1 kg/cm2g.
Obviously, V01 is one of the critical sections of the whole recovery process because higher
the operating pressure of V01, more the LPG faction will dissolve in the liquid phase and
more will be routed to C05 & C06. In the existing refinery the mole% of LPG carried away
with the vapour phase (stream 121) is 11.3 mole%. However, in the new design this loading
is 20.8 mole%. When this relatively excess amount of LPG goes into the vapour phase, the
extraction possibility of this faction in the absorbers decreases appreciably.
I started my analysis from this point. I could easily see that the best solution for this problem
is to increase the operating pressure of the system. Since, most of the procured equipment
for the new refinery has been copied from the existing refinery (to save fabrication time) the
design pressures of these equipment are quite high. Hence, my first task was to arrive at new
operating pressures within the framework of the existing design pressures.

10 of 33

Example A
Technical Report
7.2.

Equipment constraints in the low pressure operation mode

In addition to the design pressures, another crucial area for this revamp study was the
available heat transfer area of the exchangers. During the design of the low pressure
operation, it was seen that the heat transfer area for the S01 A/B was limited. This again was
because the S01 A/B was a repeat design from the existing refinery. The overall process
flow through S01 A/B in the existing refinery is 303,100 kg/hr. This has now increased to
400,686 kg/hr (stream 117), which is a net 32% increased flow by weight. Now, in addition
to this increase, the new streams from the CFC were also to be accommodated. It was seen
that if this stream is added to stream 117, then due to the high vapour flow the overall heat
transfer coefficient was low and vibration problems were expected in the S01A. Hence, the
stream was added to a cooler stream after S01A (before S01B) (kindly refer to fig1).
The vapour load from V01 was very high. In the existing refinery, the flow is 8,746 kg/hr
while that in the new design is 23,188 kg/hr. This 2.65 times increase in the vapour load in
C02 & C03 was checked against the old columns. The new valve trays in C02 were
designed to handle the new increased loads. C03 is a packed tower and with increasing
vapour load the performance of the tower was acceptable.
The liquid stream from the V01 in the old design was 294,200 kg/hr. In the new design, this
flow is 399,988 kg/hr. This increased load obviously affected the tray design of the C05 &
C06. For C05, the tray vendor proposed a new type of valve trays which would be able to
handle the increased liquid load within the existing diameter of the tower.
However, for the C06, the trays were found to be limited in the capacity. It was decided that
high capacity Superfrac trays from Koch Glitz would be used, instead of conventional
valve trays to handle increased loads.
The pumps were checked against the existing refinery. It was found that new pumps will be
required for P01 A/B, P03A/B and P05 A/B. Only P02 A/B may be repeated from the
existing design. The pumps P02 A/B, P04 A/B will require new impellers in the existing
casing. (Kindly refer to fig 2 for details.)

11 of 33

Example A
Technical Report

8. Solution to the problem of low LPG recovery

8.1.

Operating Pressure
The LPG recovery of appx. 87mole % is not acceptable to the client. However, the plant can
be started up with the design scenario (in low pressure operation mode) but recovery is to be
increased for continuous operation.
As I found out through a number of simulations, the basic tool to improve the LPG recovery
was in increasing the operating pressure of the whole system. As the unit was designed as
per the design pressures of the existing refinery, there was limited scope to increase the
operating pressure if other constraints were tackled well.
Now, the most optimum operating pressure would be governed by V01 pressure. The design
pressure of V01 is 16.5 kg/cm2g. As per ASME Section VIII, Div 1 and API 520
requirement, the highest operating pressure for V01 can be 14.85 kg/cm2g. This is assuming
a 10% margin between operating and design pressure.
Hence, in order to achieve this higher operating pressure, the first part of the problem was to
bring in the feedstocks at higher pressures. The liquid streams may easily be provided at a
higher pressure if the pumps were suitably rated. I have checked that a couple of the
procured pumps may be limiting in providing the higher discharge pressure. But, this can
easily be achieved by changing the impellers of the pumps within the existing casing. Also, I
found out that a booster pump would be required for the CFC liquid streams.
The off-gas from the VGO hydrotreater can be provided at a higher pressure as the high
pressure separator inside VGO hydrotreater unit (from where this off-gas is routed) is
operating at a pressure of 18.6 kg/cm2a.
The only problem is to bring in the CFC gases at higher pressure. I proposed that a
compressor need to be procured and provided ISBL the SGCU. It would be a common
compressor for both the SGCU (SGCU 3 & 4).
The discharge pressure for this compressor was decided to be 16.2 kg/cm2a. This was
assuming a suction pressure of 9.8 kg/cm2a. After, considering appropriate pressure drops in
the system, the operating pressure of the V01 was found to be 15.2 kg/cm2a. The revised
feed system would be:

12 of 33

Example A
Technical Report
101

WILD NAPHTHA
FROM CDU

103

104

WILD NAPHTHA
FROM VGO HTU
110

WILD NAPHTHA
FROM DHDS 1
WILD NAPHTHA
FROM DHDS 2

FEED PREPARATION

CFC Off Gas

Compressor

107

WILD NAPHTHA
FROM LCO HC

108A

102
309

OFF-GAS FROM
VGO HTU

111

Rich Oil from

145 Primary
Absorber (C02)

106

CLEAN FUELS COMPLEX

Overhead vapour
from
Stripper
(C05)

112

CW
C05
OVHD
Receiver
(V12)

117

161

305

OFF-GAS FROM
DHDS 1
OFF-GAS FROM
DHDS 2 HTU
OFF-GAS FROM
LCO HC

CLEAN FUELS COMPLEX

C05 Ovhd
Condenser

HP Cooler
S01 A/B
121

CW

To Primary
Absorber

307
301
HP RECEIVER
V01

302

To Stripper

Fig 3, Feed Schematic in HP operation

I estimated using ProII simulation that due to higher operating pressure of the V01, the
vapour load decreased from 23,188 kg/hr to 17,300 kg/hr. Most importantly, the LPG
content of the V01 vapour was 181.9 kg-mole/hr, which decreased to 107.9 kg-mole/hr in
the high pressure operation mode.
The operating pressures of the various columns in the LP operation vis--vis HP operation is
summarised below. This higher operating pressure meant that the actual vapour load in the
columns was lesser and the columns operated better hydraulically. Of course, this increase
in the operating pressure in the HP operating case could be achieved because the unit was a
repeat unit and had enough margins the design pressure.

13 of 33

Example A
Technical Report
Columns

Design Pressure

Operating Pressure

Operating Pressure

(LP operation)

(HP operation)

8.2.

Kg/cm g

Kg/cm a

Kg/cm2a

C02

16.5

8.75/9.05

14.8/15.1

C03

16.3

8.5/8.6

14.6/14.7

C05

17.7

16.1/16.4

16.5/16.8

C06

15.0

10.5/10.8

13.0/13.3

Column Performance

8.2.1. Primary Absorber (C02)

Primary absorber tray loadings for LP operation is given below.
NET
TRAY

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

TEMP

PRESSURE

DEG C
54.8
56.5
56.6
56.2
55.1
52.6
53.5
53.9
53.9
52.9
49.8

KG/CM2
8.75
8.78
8.81
8.84
8.87
8.9
8.93
8.96
8.99
9.02
9.05

LIQUID

812.7
830.3
834.9
836.4
605.5
855.2
861.8
866.6
870.9
875.8

FLOW
VAPOR

RATES
FEED

KG-MOL/HR
684.0L
990.1
1007.7
1012.3
1013.8
1014.7 231.8P
1032.5
1039.2
1044
1048.2
1053.2 1068.0V
0.1W

HEATER
PRODUC
T

DUTIES
M*KCAL/H
R

861.4V

231.8P
-0.1843

890.7L

The operation at higher pressure level is given below

NET
TRAY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

TEMP
DEG C
60.8
63.3
63.7
63.4
62
58.4
59.2
59.7
59.9
59.2

PRESSURE
KG/CM2
14.8
14.83
14.86
14.89
14.92
14.95
14.98
15.01
15.04
15.07

LIQUID
852.1
879.9
887.7
890.5
649.3
915.1
922.2
927.1
932.4
940.7

FLOW

RATES

VAPOR
FEED
KG-MOL/HR
684.0L
955.1
982.8
990.6
993.5
994.9 242.7P
1018.1
1025.1
1030.1
1035.4
14 of 33

HEATER
PRODUC
T

DUTIES
M*KCAL/HR

787.0V

242.7P
-0.241

Example A
Technical Report
11

55.6

15.1

1043.6

1073.5V
0.4L
0.5W

971.4L

As can be expected the pumparound cooling duty for C02 has increased for the HP case 9as
compared to the LP operating case. The net vapour product from C02 has come down
(stream 141), which would in turn decrease the load in C03.
8.2.2. Sponge Absorber (C03)
The sponge absorber is a packed column. It has been formulated in the calculation as a 3
tray column. The summary of loads for low pressure operation is as follows:
NET
TRAY

1
2
3

TEMP

PRESSURE

DEG C
52.4
58
61.8

KG/CM2

FLOW

LIQUID

8.5
8.55
8.6

RATES

VAPOR

FEED

KG-MOL/HR
191.2L
818.3
833.9 861.4V

238.1
253.7

HEATER
PRODUC
T

DUTIES
M*KCAL/H
R

771.4V
281.2L

The summary of loads for high pressure operation is as follows:

TRAY

1
2
3

TEMP

PRESSURE

DEG C
50.9
56.3
62.5

KG/CM2
14.6
14.65
14.7

----------

NET

FLOW

LIQUID
KGMOL/HR
244
257.4

VAPOR

FEED

RATES
PRODUC
T

191.2L

693.7V

787.0V

284.5L

746.5
759.9

HEATER
DUTIES
M*KCAL/H
R

The summary of the column flows for the LP operation is given below
FEED AND PRODUCT STREAMS LP Operation
TYPE

STREAM

PHASE

FEED
FEED
PROD
PROD

182
310
143
313

LIQUID
VAPOR
VAPOR
LIQUID

FROM
TRAY

TO
TRAY
1
3

LIQUID
FRAC
1
0

1
3

FLOW
RATES
KG-MOL/HR
191.19
861.38
771.41
281.15

HEAT
RATES
M*KCAL/HR
0.7346
2.7552
2.1055
1.3842

The summary of the column flows for the HP operation is given below
TYPE

STREAM

PHASE

FEED
FEED
PROD
PROD

182
310
143
313

LIQUID
VAPOR
VAPOR
LIQUID

FROM
TRAY

TO
TRAY
1
3

LIQUID
FRAC
1
0

1
3
15 of 33

FLOW
RATES
KG-MOL/HR
191.19
786.96
693.66
284.49

HEAT
RATES
M*KCAL/HR
0.744
2.317
1.665
1.396

Example A
Technical Report
8.2.3. Stripper (C05)
The stripper is a column with valve trays. The column internals has been designed for the
LP operation case. However, for the HP operation case, the liquid flows are much higher.
The summary of tray loads for low pressure operation is as follows:
Rigorous
COLUM
N

TRAY

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17R

Column

321_C05,

SGCU

Stripper

NET

FLOW

SUMMARY

TEMP

PRESSURE

LIQUID

DEG C

KG/CM2

KG-MOL/HR

109.5
110
110.2
110.5
110.9
111.5
112.4
113.5
114.8
116.3
117.9
119.6
121.5
124.3
129.6
141.1
168.3

16.1
16.12
16.14
16.16
16.17
16.19
16.21
16.23
16.25
16.27
16.29
16.31
16.33
16.34
16.36
16.38
16.4

VAPOR

4541.6
4575
4594
4613.6
4640
4678.2
4732.7
4806.3
4897.9
5001.4
5107.6
5209.7
5310
5418.7
5545.1
5651.1
2022.7

RATES

HEATER

FEED

PRODUC
T

4437.6
L

993.4V

DUTIES
M*KCAL/H
R

913.2
946.6
965.6
985.1
1011.6
1049.8
1104.3
1177.9
1269.5
1372.9
1479.2
1581.3
1681.6
1790.3
1916.6
3628.4L

16.0269

The summary of tray loads for high pressure operation is as follows:

COLUM
N

SUMMARY
NET

TRAY

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

TEMP

PRESSURE

DEG C
92.7
93.3
93.7
94.1
94.7
95.5
96.6
98.3
100.3
102.5
104.9

KG/CM2
16.5
16.52
16.54
16.56
16.58
16.59
16.61
16.63
16.65
16.67
16.69

FLOW

LIQUID

4886.6
4909.5
4933.5
4967
5017.6
5093.2
5200.6
5339.7
5500
5662.8

VAPOR
KGMOL/HR
4845.9
1154.2
1194.9
1217.8
1241.7
1275.3
1325.9
1401.4
1508.9
1648
1808.3

16 of 33

RATES

HEATER

FEED

PRODUC
T

4715.3L

1481.6V

DUTIES
M*KCAL/H
R

Example A
Technical Report
12
13
14
15
16

107.2
109.9
113.9
121
135.4
166.8

17R

16.71
16.73
16.74
16.76
16.78
16.8

5813.8
5951.6
6086.8
6222.6
6289.3
2597.5

1971.1
2122.1
2259.8
2395
2530.9
3691.7L

20.0952

Although the pressure level of the HP operation for the Stripper is not much higher than the
LP operation case, but the higher pressure in V01 has resulted in higher liquid loads in this
column.
8.2.4. Stabilizer (C06)
The stabilizer is a column with valve trays. However, in view of the heavy loads, the
internal trays have been changed to proprietary trays from Koch Glitsch called the
Superfrac trays. These trays are used where the vapour and the liquid loads are
appreciably high.
The column summary in LP operation is given below:
Rigorous
COLUM
N

Column

321_C06,

Stabiliser

SGCU

SUMMARY

TRAY

TEMP

PRESSURE

LIQUID

DEG
1C

KG/CM2

NET

FLOW

VAPOR

FEED

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

47
66.2
71.9
75.3
77.9
80.6
83.8
87.5
91.4
95
98.2
100.8
102.9
104.9
107.2
110.9
119.5

9.6
10.5
10.51
10.52
10.53
10.54
10.55
10.56
10.57
10.58
10.59
10.6
10.61
10.62
10.63
10.64
10.65

KG-MOL/HR
2299.8
2488
2487
2467.4
2430.5
2380.9
2325.8
2274.6
2234.3
2206.1
2186.7
2170.7
2152.2
2122.5
2059.7
1897.4
1527.5

2978.8
3167
3166
3146.5
3109.5
3059.9
3004.8
2953.7
2913.4
2885.2
2865.7
2849.7
2831.2
2801.6
2738.7
2576.4

18
19
20
21
22
23

140.4
142.3
143.8
145.2
146.5
147.7

10.65
10.66
10.67
10.68
10.69
10.7

4808
4889.1
4952.5
5004.8
5051.5
5096.3

1859.3
1858.6
1939.8
2003.1
2055.4
2102.2

17 of 33

RATES
PRODUC
T

679.1L

347.2V
3281.2
L

HEATER
DUTIES
M*KCAL/H
R
-13.0539

Example A
Technical Report
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

149
150.3
151.6
153.1
154.9
157.4
162.1
172.3
181.3
197.1

32S
33R

10.71
10.72
10.73
10.74
10.75
10.76
10.77
10.78
10.79
10.8

5140.9
5186
5231
5274.5
5312.9
5336.4
5316.8
5202.8
5262
3111

2146.9
2191.5
2236.6
2281.6
2325.1
2363.5
2387
2367.4
102.4
2151

2949.54L
16.1217

FEED AND PRODUCT STREAMS

TYPE

STREAM

PHASE

FEED
FEED
PROD
PROD
PROD

170V
170L

VAPOR
LIQUID
LIQUID
WATER
LIQUID

210
316
225

OTHER

PRODUC
T

STREAMS

TYPE

STREAM

PHASE

NET
TOTAL

209
203

FROM
TRAY

LIQUID
VAPOR

TO
TRAY
17
18

LIQUID
FRAC
0
1

1
1
32

FLOW
RATES
KG-MOL/HR
347.19
3281.23
679.1
2949.5

FROM
TRAY
1
2

TO
TRAY

LIQUID
FRAC

FLOW
RATES
KG-MOL/HR
2299.86
2978.89

HEAT
RATES
M*KCAL/HR
3.585
26.539
1.0413
0
32.1505

HEAT RATES
M*KCAL/HR
3.5267
17.6218

The column summary in HP operation is given below:

Rigorous Column 321_C06, SGCU Stabiliser
COLUM
N
SUMMARY
NET
TRAY

FLOW

TEMP

PRESSURE

LIQUID

DEG C

KG-MOL/HR
2632.6
3038.7
3037.3
3016.4
2974
2915
2848.2

1C
2
3
4
5
6
7

47
73.7
79.9
83.8
86.7
89.6
92.9

KG/CM2
12.1
13
13.01
13.02
13.03
13.04
13.05

8
9

96.7
100.7

13.06
13.07

VAPOR

2784.6
2733.7
18 of 33

RATES
FEED

HEATER
PRODUC
T

726.5L
3359.1
3765.2
3763.8
3742.9
3700.5
3641.6
3574.7
3511.1

DUTIES
M*KCAL/H
R
-14.9108

Example A
Technical Report
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

104.6
108
110.9
113.4
115.6
118.2
122.3
131.4

13.08
13.09
13.1
13.11
13.12
13.13
13.14
13.15

2697.6
2672.6
2652.1
2628.1
2588.5
2503.5
2292.2
1850.4

3460.2
3424.1
3399.1
3378.6
3354.7
3315
3230
3018.7

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32S
33R

151.7
153.9
155.6
157.1
158.5
159.8
161
162.2
163.5
164.9
166.7
169.4
174.3
184.9
194.1
208.7

13.15
13.16
13.17
13.18
13.19
13.2
13.21
13.22
13.23
13.24
13.25
13.26
13.27
13.28
13.29
13.3

5105.3
5202.4
5279.6
5342.9
5397.5
5447.2
5494.2
5539.4
5582.6
5622.7
5655.7
5670.8
5638.7
5515.8
6029.6
3579.5

2141.5
2140.1
2237.1
2314.4
2377.7
2432.3
2482
2529
2574.2
2617.4
2657.4
2690.5
2705.6
2673.4
100.5
2450.1

FEED AND
PRODUCT
STREAM

PHASE

FEED
FEED
PROD
PROD

170V
170L
210
316

VAPOR
LIQUID
LIQUID
WATER

FROM
TRAY
17
18
1
1

225

LIQUID

32

OTHER

PRODUCT

STREAMS

TYPE

STREAM

PHASE

FRO
M

LIQUID
VAPOR

TRAY
1
2

NET
TOTAL

2965.2L
17.311

STREAMS

TYPE

PROD

435.4V
3256.3
L

209
203

TO
TRAY
0
1
726.51
0
2965.2
2

LIQUID
FRAC
435.44
3256.29
1.1042

FLOW
RATES
KG-MOL/HR
4.7184
28.9406

HEAT
RATES
M*KCAL/HR

FLOW
RATES

HEAT
RATES
M*KCAL/H
R
4.0013
20.0164

34.9549

TO

LIQUID

TRAY

FRAC

KG-MOL/HR
2632.7
3359.3

The reboiler duty in the HP case is higher as expected. The reboiler has been checked
and is found to be adequate for the higher load. The vapour load in the rectifying section
is also higher. The liquid load is higher in the overall column. The tray supplier was
contacted and they have confirmed that the Superfrac trays can accommodate such
19 of 33

Example A
Technical Report
changes in the loads.
8.3.

Exchanger Performance
While performing the study, I found that a few of the exchangers were limiting and hence
did not allow any manipulation.

8.3.1. High Pressure Cooler (S01 A/B)

The high pressure cooler is a 2 shell shell & tube heat exchangers connected in series. The
cooling water side also in a series configuration and the cooling water flow is countercurrent
to the process flow. The exchanger is a repeat design from the existing refinery. When the
CFC gas was to be introduced, it was found that due to the high vapour load there was
extensive vibration problem. Hence, the vapour was added after the 1st exchanger. Also, this
stream was at a low temperature of 39oC and hence the bypass was possible. But, after the
introduction of the compressor, this compressed gas will come in at around 73oC (stream
108A). I proposed that this gas should be introduced upstream both the exchangers. I found
that there was no vibration problem because the compressed gas was having lesser actual
volume. The main limitation which I found for this arrangement was that the cooling water
return from the exchanger S01 A was quite high. The maximum return temperature is 49oC.
When I analysed the high temperature, I could see that the main contributor to this was the
overhead gas from the stripper (stream 309). In order to decrease this load, I aimed at
decreasing the temperature of the feed to C05 (stream 126). I analysed that I could achieve
this decrease by increasing the load on the reboiler S06 and in return decreasing the duty of
S15.
8.3.2. Stripper reboiler Exchanger (S06)
In order to decrease the load from S15, (which decreased the overhead temperature from
C05, which in turn brought down the load in S01A/B, decreasing the cooling water return
temperature to 49oC,) I utilised the available area of the reboiler to the maximum. I moved
the required heat input for operation of the column, from that carried with the inlet stream to
the reboiler. I increased the duty for the reboiler to 20.1 MMKcal/hr from 16.03
MMKcal/hr. After all the changes, I could decrease the stripper overhead temperature from
C05 to 92oC from 109oC. The heat required for S06 is provided by MP Steam.
8.3.3. Stripper overhead condenser (S14)
A small cooler, S14 and V12 is available to decrease the load on V01 and S01 A/B. I have
tried to maximise the load through S14. However, the S14 exchanger is a small exchanger
with 109 m2 of effective heat transfer area (compared to 1546 m2 for S01 A/B). Within the
20 of 33

Example A
Technical Report
limits of the exchanger, I have maximised the process flow through the exchanger to 18220
kg/hr from 16220 kg/hr. With increasing the flow further, I found that there were vibration
problems in the shell side (process side).
8.3.4. Stabilizer reboilers (S09/S10)
The heat required for S09/S10 is provided by hot diesel stream from the crude unit. The
S09/S10 heat transfer area was another limiting factor. I used HTRI calculation to get the
maximum possible duty from these reboilers. The S09 / S10 are parallel heat exchangers.
The duty required by the column C06 was to be provided by either S09/S10 or had to be
carried along with the feed, which was preheated by S05. I distributed the heat between S05
and S09/S10 after finding the limiting duty for S09/S10.
It was a challenging job to distribute the overall heat load in the system so that I could
utilise the maximum available area of the various exchangers and perform the desired
function.

9. Conclusion
9.1.

Equipment Performance
I could successfully rerate the unit for the higher operating pressure. All the exchangers
were checked for predicted performance (using HTRI program) and they were found to be
adequate for the HP operation. The separators were also checked. Since, the operating
pressures were higher; the separator diameters did not cause concern, as expected. The
alarm set points of the liquid levels in the separators were re-checked and some of them
were changed.
After checking the predicted column performance, I could confirm that the HP operation
would work within the purchased equipment.

9.2.

LPG Recovery
After the re-rating of the unit, the LPG recovery improved to 92.9 mole%, which was higher
than the desired recovery. The brief stream summaries of the feeds and the product are given
in Attachment 2 for the LP operating case & Attachment 3 for the HP operating case.

9.3.

Commissioning
The plant will be commissioned in the LP operating case. However, the plant shall be
designed in a fashion that the operation will be switched over to the HP operating case
21 of 33

Example A
Technical Report
without any lengthy downtime.
9.4.

Economics
For the high pressure operation case, 38550.8 kg/hr of LPG is recovered as against 36536.7
kg/hr for the LP operating case. This means that by increasing the operating pressure, there
was an increased recovery of 2014.1 kg/hr (kindly refer to Attachment 6 for details).
Now, LPG is priced at US$ 467/ton in the international market. The compressor is expected
to be a small compressor with 750 kWh motor. The electricity cost is expected to be US$ 58
per hour (at an estimated cost of Rs.3.5 / kWh of electricity consumed). Hence, there is an
increased recovery of US$ 890.59 / hour.
It is considered that there will be 8000 operating hours per year (a service factor of 91%).
Hence, the excess money made due to the higher operating case would amount to US$ 7.06
million per year.
Now, it is estimated that the installation of the compressor would cost US$ 4 million. I have
assumed that the associated additional equipment would cost another US$ 750,000. An
additional US$ 250,000 may be assumed for the engineering and piping. Hence, I could
show that after the re-rating of the unit for higher operating case, the payback is expected to
be less than 1 year.

22 of 33

Example A
Technical Report

Feed Composition

Attachment 1

Stream Name
Phase
Total Stream
Rate
Std. Liq. Rate
Temperature
Pressure
Molecular Weight
Mole Fraction Liquid
Sp. Gravity
Vapor
Rate

Molecular Weight
Liquid
Rate

Molecular Weight
Total Molar Comp. Rates
H2O
AIR
H2
NH3
H2S
METHANE
ETHANE
PROPANE
PROPENE
IBUTANE
BUTANE
1BUTENE
IPENTANE
PENTANE

KG-MOL/HR
KG/HR
M3/HR
C
KG/CM2

101
Liquid

102
Liquid

103
Mixed

104
Liquid

106
Mixed

107
Liquid

108
Mixed

110
Liquid

111
Mixed

112
Mixed

113
Liquid

2,052.8
200,947
288.2
51
12.02
97.89
1.000
0.7

277.4
18,174
29.5
39
14.02
65.52

245.0
6,931
15.9
54
11.03
28.29
0.011
0.4

165.5
15,329
22.5
73
17.23
92.60
1.000
0.7

257.2
5,839
14.1
40
10.03
22.71
0.012
0.4

368.7
33,935
49.3
39
14.02
92.03
1.000
0.7

539.8
13,640
31.4
39
9.88
25.27
0.015
0.4

160.9
13,225
19.8
39
14.02
82.20
1.000
0.7

153.6
4,277
9.1
40
10.03
27.84
0.008
0.5

129.1
3,523
8.2
40
10.03
27.29
0.037
0.4

807.0
65,334
98.6
39
14.02
80.96
1.000
0.7

152.41
4,171
386.1
27.37

124.34
3,152
316.6
25.35

1.000
0.6

KG-MOL/HR
KG/HR
M3/HR

KG-MOL/HR
KG/HR
M3/HR

242.26
6,664
583.0
27.51

254.13
5,536
655.5
21.78

531.95
12,922
1378.9
24.29

2,052.8
200,947
301.4
97.89

277.4
18,174
30.8
65.52

2.8
268
0.4
96.15

165.5
15,329
24.4
92.60

3.0
303
0.4
100.37

368.7
33,935
50.8
92.03

7.9
717
1.1
90.82

160.9
13,225
20.5
82.20

1.2
106
0.2
87.43

4.7
370
0.6
78.39

807.0
65,334
102.0
80.96

4.45
5.64
0.79
0.00
21.75
1.41
26.45
120.75
0.00
43.65
180.42
0.00
108.90
181.34

0.36
0.00
1.37
0.02
1.41
1.37
5.91
42.52
0.00
47.05
47.65
0.00
34.68
21.38

2.06
0.00
76.73
0.01
20.80
24.59
48.60
24.17
0.00
23.88
12.04
0.00
5.82
3.75

0.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
1.14
0.00
29.44
28.92

1.57
0.00
89.30
0.00
42.39
45.34
38.30
23.36
0.00
3.65
7.82
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.42
0.00
0.99
0.00
20.90
3.29
14.13
27.88
0.00
9.90
29.76
0.00
0.00
0.00

3.48
0.00
187.99
0.03
77.03
72.01
62.66
72.78
0.00
24.33
23.86
0.00
4.35
2.03

0.19
0.00
0.44
0.00
11.36
0.88
3.84
21.36
0.00
16.96
18.47
0.00
9.52
4.63

1.04
0.00
45.33
0.00
32.58
15.50
14.14
25.29
0.00
8.92
7.09
0.00
1.58
0.62

0.87
0.00
53.35
0.03
2.06
11.17
10.22
24.14
0.00
11.76
8.94
0.00
2.77
1.41

0.96
0.00
2.80
0.02
33.67
5.54
23.88
91.76
0.00
73.91
95.88
0.00
44.20
26.01

KG-MOL/HR

23 of 33

Example A
Technical Report
C6+

1357.24

73.66

2.60

104.82

5.43

261.47

9.30

73.23

101
Liquid

103
Mixed

104
Liquid

106
Mixed

107
Liquid

108
Mixed

110
Liquid

111
Mixed

112
Mixed

408.37

117
Mixed

121
Vapor

143
Vapor

180
Liquid

187
Mixed

212
Liquid

301
Mixed

312
Liquid

2,053

277

245

166

257

369

540

161

154

129

4,812

876

771

191

281

679

5,502

200,947
51
12.02

18,174
39
14.02

6,931
54
11.03

15,329
73
17.23

5,839
40
10.03

33,935
39
14.02

13,640
39
9.88

13,225
39
14.02

4,277
40
10.03

3,523
40
10.03

400,686
62
10.21

23,188
39
9.10

16,563
52
7.73

43,000
268
11.00

49,001
148
6.45

36,399
42
16.82

423,255
39
9.10

2,265
243,14
7
41
10.24

H2O
AIR

4.45
5.64

0.36
0.00

2.06
0.00

0.78
0.00

1.57
0.00

0.42
0.00

3.48
0.00

0.19
0.00

1.04
0.00

0.87
0.00

13.86
6.94

6.97
5.43

7.21
5.57

0.51
0.01

0.61
0.09

0.00
0.00

18.21
6.98

0.00
0.00

H2

0.79

1.37

76.73

0.00

89.30

0.99

187.99

0.44

45.33

53.35

89.86

266.33

267.67

0.00

0.64

0.00

277.90

0.00

0.00

0.02

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.07

0.05

0.05

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.10

0.00

21.75
1.41
26.45
120.75
0.00
43.65
180.42
0.00
108.90
181.34
1357.24

1.41
1.37
5.91
42.52
0.00
47.05
47.65
0.00
34.68
21.38
73.66
137.2
3

20.80
24.59
48.60
24.17
0.00
23.88
12.04
0.00
5.82
3.75
2.60

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
1.14
0.00
29.44
28.92
104.82

42.39
45.34
38.30
23.36
0.00
3.65
7.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.43

20.90
3.29
14.13
27.88
0.00
9.90
29.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
261.47

11.36
0.88
3.84
21.36
0.00
16.96
18.47
0.00
9.52
4.63
73.23

32.58
15.50
14.14
25.29
0.00
8.92
7.09
0.00
1.58
0.62
1.54

2.06
11.17
10.22
24.14
0.00
11.76
8.94
0.00
2.77
1.41
2.34

265.59
55.10
243.08
457.88
0.00
217.97
403.25
0.00
258.08
326.78
2473.49

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.03
0.20
0.00
0.19
0.40
189.77

11.68
1.38
7.79
11.72
0.00
1.06
1.82
0.00
12.37
14.37
217.63

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.44
17.94
0.00
170.05
223.68
1851.4

34.83

67.53

56.79

41.30

44.84

1079.10

82.91

0.29

14.60

1.20
0.00
0.86
220.71
0.00
160.14
290.60
0.00
5.08
0.34
0.14
671.4
5

361.40
127.80
318.24
562.54
0.00
256.20
450.39
0.00
272.47
340.10
2509.79

1.58

136.38
98.98
145.71
120.42
0.00
26.24
35.25
0.00
9.81
9.51
14.88
181.9
1

140.38
102.17
152.94
77.11
0.00
2.60
3.20
0.00
5.41
4.07
3.00

60.09

77.03
72.01
62.66
72.78
0.00
24.33
23.86
0.00
4.35
2.03
9.30
120.9
7

1269.13

20.39

Temperature
Pressure
Total Molar
Comp. Rates

KG-MOL/HR

102
Liquid

2.34

Attachment 2

Summary of streams for LP operating case

Stream No.
Phase
Total Stream
Rate

1.54

KG/HR
C
KG/CM2
KG-MOL/HR

NH3
H2S
METHANE
ETHANE
PROPANE
PROPENE
IBUTANE
BUTANE
1BUTENE
IPENTANE
PENTANE
C6+
LPG content
LPG in with feed
LPG with Lean oil
Total LPG in
LPG out

344.81
kg-mole/hr
Stream 180

789.00
0.29
789.29

212
143
312
187

671.45
82.91
20.39
14.60

(With streams 101+102+103+104+107+108+110)

LPG
recoveredout

212
187

24 of 33

671.45
14.60
686.05

kg-mole/hr
kg-mole/hr
kg-mole/hr

Example A
Technical Report
789.35
Stream No
Phase
Total Stream
Rate
Temperature
Pressure
Total Molar Comp.
Rates
H2O
AIR
H2
NH3

86.92%

% LPG recovered
126
Liquid

145
Liquid

161
Vapor

170
Liquid

182
Liquid

202
Mixed

203
Vapor

204
Liquid

209
Liquid

4,622
399,988
110
19.95

891
81,321
50
9.05

993
47,044
109
16.10

3,629
352,958
168
16.40

191
43,000
44
9.20

3,629
352,958
148
11.00

2,979
159,674
66
10.50

2,979
159,674
47
9.70

6.81
1.55

1.15
0.28

6.81
1.55

0.00
0.00

0.51
0.01

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

11.57

1.96

11.57

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

KGMOL/HR
KG/HR
C
KG/CM2

225

229
Liquid

231
Liquid

233
Liquid

302
Liquid

303
Liquid

2,300
123,275
47
17.12

2,949
316,559
181
10.79

2,949
316,559
123
10.49

684
73,412
123
10.49

684
73,412
43
10.09

4,622
399,988
40
20.65

4,622
399,988
57
20.25

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

6.81
1.55

6.81
1.55

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

11.57

11.57

Liquid

KG-MOL/HR

0.05

0.01

0.05

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.05

H2S
METHANE
ETHANE
PROPANE
PROPENE
IBUTANE
BUTANE
1BUTENE
IPENTANE
PENTANE
C6+

225.02
28.82
172.53
442.12
0.00
229.96
415.14
0.00
262.66
330.59
2494.92

42.71
4.67
31.66
76.11
0.00
32.42
47.46
0.00
46.00
61.18
545.11

1.20
0.00
0.86
220.72
0.00
163.32
313.96
0.00
226.47
291.56
2410.48

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.03
0.20
0.00
0.19
0.40
189.77

1.20
0.00
0.86
220.72
0.00
163.32
313.96
0.00
226.47
291.56
2410.48

5.25
0.00
3.79
968.21
0.00
702.48
1274.77
0.00
22.29
1.51
0.63

5.25
0.00
3.79
968.21
0.00
702.48
1274.77
0.00
22.29
1.51
0.63

4.05
0.00
2.93
747.50
0.00
542.32
984.14
0.00
17.21
1.16
0.48

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
3.18
23.36
0.00
221.39
291.21
2410.34

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
3.18
23.36
0.00
221.39
291.21
2410.34

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.74
5.42
0.00
51.34
67.53
558.97

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.74
5.42
0.00
51.34
67.53
558.97

225.02
28.82
172.53
442.12
0.00
229.96
415.14
0.00
262.66
330.59
2494.92

225.02
28.82
172.53
442.12
0.00
229.96
415.14
0.00
262.66
330.59
2494.92

LPG content

1087.22

155.99

223.84
28.82
171.67
221.45
0.00
66.66
101.21
0.00
36.21
39.05
84.49
389.3
2

698.00

0.29

698.00

2945.47

2945.47

2273.96

26.55

26.55

6.16

6.16

1087.22

1087.22

25 of 33

Example A
Technical Report

Stream No
Phase
Total Stream
Rate

308
Vapor

309
Vapor

310
Vapor

313
Mixed

343
16,220
109
16.10

1,068
30,474
39
9.05

651
30,824
109
16.10

861
22,565
55
8.60

281
49,001
62
6.80

H2O
AIR

2.35
0.53

8.45
5.92

4.46
1.02

7.30
5.64

0.61
0.09

H2

3.99

270.26

7.58

268.31

0.64

Temperature
Pressure
Total Molar Comp.
Rates

NH3
H2S
METHANE
ETHANE
PROPANE
PROPENE
IBUTANE
BUTANE
1BUTENE
IPENTANE
PENTANE
C6+
LPG content

304
Vapor

0.02

0.07

0.03

0.06

0.00

77.18
9.94
59.19
76.35
0.00
22.98
34.90
0.00
12.48
13.46
29.13
134.23

194.76
108.22
192.40
164.87
0.00
35.32
46.86
0.00
12.25
11.69
17.00
247.05

146.66
18.89
112.48
145.10
0.00
43.68
66.32
0.00
23.72
25.59
55.36
255.09

152.06
103.55
160.73
88.76
0.00
3.64
4.82
0.00
17.59
18.04
30.86
97.22

11.68
1.38
7.79
11.72
0.00
1.06
1.82
0.00
12.37
14.37
217.63
14.60

26 of 33

Example A
Technical Report

Attachment 3
Summary of streams for HP operating case
Stream No.
Phase
Total Stream
Rate
Temperature
Pressure
Total Molar Comp.
Rates
H2O
AIR
H2
NH3
H2S
METHANE
ETHANE
PROPANE
PROPENE
IBUTANE
BUTANE
1BUTENE
IPENTANE

KG-MOL/HR
KG/HR
C
KG/CM2

102
Mixed

103
Mixed

104
Liquid

106
Mixed

107
Liquid

108A
Vapor

110
Liquid

111
Mixed

112
Mixed

117
Mixed

121
Vapor

143
Vapor

180
Liquid

187A
Mixed

212
Liquid

301
Mixed

2053
200947
51
16.5

277
18174
39
16.5

245
6931
54
16.5

166
15329
73
17.23

514
11679
40
10.03

369
33935
39
16.5

532
12912
73
15.944

161
13225
39
16.5

307
8555
40
10.03

258
7045
40
10.03

5824
429617
65
15.944

755
17301
39
15.2

694
13104
49
8.43

191
43000
268
11

285
48358
150
12.55

727
38556
42
11.8

5936
436131
39
15.3

4.45
5.64
0.79
0.00
21.75
1.41
26.45
120.75
0.00
43.65
180.42
0.00
108.90

0.36
0.00
1.37
0.02
1.41
1.37
5.91
42.52
0.00
47.05
47.65
0.00
34.68

2.06
0.00
76.73
0.01
20.80
24.59
48.60
24.17
0.00
23.88
12.04
0.00
5.82

0.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
1.14
0.00
29.44

3.13
0.00
178.61
0.00
84.79
90.68
76.60
46.71
0.00
7.30
15.64
0.00
0.00

0.42
0.00
0.99
0.00
20.90
3.29
14.13
27.88
0.00
9.90
29.76
0.00
0.00

3.47
0.00
187.96
0.03
76.63
71.94
62.43
71.97
0.00
23.68
23.02
0.00
4.01

0.19
0.00
0.44
0.00
11.36
0.88
3.84
21.36
0.00
16.96
18.47
0.00
9.52

2.08
0.00
90.67
0.00
65.16
31.01
28.27
50.58
0.00
17.84
14.19
0.00
3.15

1.75
0.00
106.70
0.06
4.12
22.33
20.45
48.28
0.00
23.52
17.89
0.00
5.55

18.17
8.49
289.92
0.14
534.77
153.48
453.42
620.84
0.00
241.72
422.16
0.00
267.81

3.58
5.28
264.78
0.05
125.02
95.34
134.74
76.37
0.00
13.61
17.95
0.00
5.17

4.07
5.50
267.08
0.05
130.44
100.97
146.90
33.83
0.00
0.38
1.26
0.00
1.43

0.51
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.03
0.20
0.00
0.19

0.67
0.16
1.21
0.01
21.19
2.52
13.97
10.19
0.00
0.34
1.67
0.00
10.61

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.27
0.00
0.52
264.70
0.00
162.11
292.01
0.00
5.35

18.45
8.52
289.97
0.14
551.88
154.06
464.35
644.00
0.00
250.79
437.52
0.00
275.11

181.34

21.38

3.75

28.92

0.00

0.00

1.83

4.63

1.24

2.82

333.89

4.99

1.00

0.40

11.63

0.45

342.13

2.60
245.04
60.09

104.82
165.54
1.58

10.86
514.31
69.66

261.47
368.72
67.53

4.83
531.81
118.67

73.23
160.88
56.79

3.07
307.25
82.60

4.67
258.13
89.68

2479.02
5823.83
1284.72

7.81
754.68
107.93

0.85
693.76
35.48

189.77
191.19
0.29

210.33
284.50
12.20

0.16
726.56
718.82

2498.71
5935.65
1332.32

KG-MOL/HR

PENTANE
C6+
Total
LPG content
LPG in with feed
LPG with Lean Oil
LPG in
LPG out

101
Liquid

1357.24
73.66
2052.79
277.39
344.81
137.23
Kg-mole/hr
Stream 180
212
143
312
187

786.70
0.29
786.99
718.82
35.48
20.53
12.20
787.03

(With streams 101+102+103+104+107+108A+110)

LPG recovered

% LPG recovered
27 of 33

212
187
Total

718.82
12.20
731.02
92.89%

Example A
Technical Report
Stream No.
Phase
Total Stream
Rate
Temperature
Pressure
Total Molar Comp.
Rates
H2O
AIR
H2
NH3
H2S
METHANE
ETHANE
PROPANE
PROPENE
IBUTANE
BUTANE
1BUTENE
IPENTANE
PENTANE
C6+

KGMOL/HR
KG/HR
C
KG/CM2
KGMOL/HR

126
Mixed

145
Liquid

161
Mixed

170
Liquid

182
Liquid

202
Mixed

203
Vapor

204
Liquid

209
Liquid

225
Liquid

229
Liquid

231
Liquid

233
Liquid

302A
Liquid

303
Liquid

5173
418694
92
18.40

971
83810
56
15.10

1482
62573
92
16.50

3692
356114
167
16.80

191
43000
44
9.20

3692
356114
161
13.65

3359
178264
74
13.00

3359
178264
47
12.20

2633
139708
47
12.10

2965
317559
194
13.29

2965
317559
135
12.99

684
73254
135
12.99

684
73254
47
19.17

5173
418694
40
29.85

5173
418694
40
18.70

7.37
3.24
25.18
0.10
426.87
58.72
329.61
567.63
0.00
237.18
419.58
0.00
269.95

1.23
0.55
3.79
0.02
80.26
8.36
58.79
97.52
0.00
25.50
35.62
0.00
49.29

7.37
3.24
25.18
0.10
425.58
58.72
329.08
302.87
0.00
71.47
104.47
0.00
36.90

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.27
0.00
0.52
264.71
0.00
165.70
315.09
0.00
233.04

0.51
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.03
0.20
0.00
0.19

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.27
0.00
0.52
264.71
0.00
165.70
315.09
0.00
233.04

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.87
0.00
2.39
1223.86
0.00
749.53
1350.10
0.00
24.75

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.87
0.00
2.39
1223.86
0.00
749.53
1350.10
0.00
24.75

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.60
0.00
1.87
959.16
0.00
587.42
1058.09
0.00
19.40

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
3.59
23.09
0.00
227.69

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
3.59
23.09
0.00
227.69

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.83
5.33
0.00
52.52

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.83
5.33
0.00
52.52

7.37
3.24
25.18
0.10
426.87
58.72
329.61
567.63
0.00
237.18
419.58
0.00
269.95

7.37
3.24
25.18
0.10
426.87
58.72
329.61
567.63
0.00
237.18
419.58
0.00
269.95

337.15

64.54

38.79

298.34

0.40

298.34

2.07

2.07

1.62

297.90

297.90

68.72

68.72

337.15

337.15

2490.91

545.98

77.85

2413.04

189.77

2413.04

0.72

0.72

0.56

2412.88

2412.88

556.60

556.60

2490.91

2490.91

28 of 33

Example A
Technical Report

Stream No.
Phase
Total Stream
Rate
Temperature
Pressure
Total Molar Comp.
Rates
H2O
AIR
H2
NH3
H2S
METHANE
ETHANE
PROPANE
PROPENE
IBUTANE
BUTANE
1BUTENE
IPENTANE
PENTANE
C6+

304
Mixed

306
Mixed

431
18220
92
16.50

320
11716
45
16.25

112
6504
45
16.25

1075
29017
39
15.20

1050
44353
92
16.50

787
18461
61
14.70

285
48358
63
12.90

2.15
0.94
7.33
0.03
123.92
17.10
95.82
88.19
0.00
20.81
30.42
0.00
10.74

1.87
0.91
7.29
0.03
106.87
16.52
84.93
65.11
0.00
11.75
15.08
0.00
3.45

0.27
0.04
0.04
0.00
17.05
0.58
10.89
23.09
0.00
9.06
15.34
0.00
7.29

5.46
6.19
272.07
0.07
231.89
111.86
219.67
141.48
0.00
25.36
33.02
0.00
8.62

5.23
2.30
17.85
0.07
301.66
41.62
233.26
214.68
0.00
50.66
74.05
0.00
26.15

4.23
5.64
268.28
0.06
151.63
103.49
160.87
43.96
0.00
0.69
2.73
0.00
11.85

0.67
0.16
1.21
0.01
21.19
2.52
13.97
10.19
0.00
0.34
1.67
0.00
10.61

11.30

3.06

8.24

8.04

27.50

12.22

11.63

22.67

2.98

19.69

10.79

55.18

21.41

210.33

29 of 33

307
Mixed

308
Mixed

309
Mixed

310
Vapor

313
Mixed

Example A
Technical Report

Attachment 4
Product Specifications
1) Off Gas ex Sat Gas Unit (Stream 143)
Quality

Required Quality

Quality

Achieved

LP Operation

HP Operation

C5+ Content

Target < 1.7% mole

0.39 mol%

0.35 mole%

C3 Content

Will be determined by the

10.75 mol%

5.11 mole%

LPG recovery

2) LPG ex Sat Gas Unit (Stream 212)

Quality

LPG Recovery from feed

LPG Vapour Pressure

@ 37.8oC (ASTM-1267)

Required Quality

Quality

Achieved

LP Operation

HP Operation

Target > 90%

89.2 mole%

92.9 mole%

520 kPa min

739 kPa

773 kPA

1050

kPa

max

(Target 800 kPa)

C5+ content

< 1% mol

0.82 mole%

0.82 mole%

H2S

1,200 ppm wt. max.

1056 ppm wt.

1054 ppm wt.

Quality

Achieved

LP Operation

HP Operation

3) Full Range Naphtha ex. Sat-Gas Unit (Stream 312)

Quality

Required Quality

C4- content

< 1% mol

0.9 mole%

0.9 mole%

D86 ASTM 95%

Resultant >155C, <180C

156.8oC

157oC

30 of 33

Example A
Technical Report
Economic evaluation

Attachment 5

LP operating case
Stream No.
Phase
Total Stream
Rate
Temperature
Pressure
Total Molar
Comp. Rates
H2O
AIR
H2
NH3
H2S
METHANE
ETHANE
PROPANE
PROPENE
IBUTANE
BUTANE
1BUTENE
IPENTANE
PENTANE
C6+
LPG content

101
Liquid
KG-MOL/HR
KG/HR
C
KG/CM2

102
Liquid

103
Mixed

104
Liquid

106
Mixed

107
Liquid

108
Mixed

110
Liquid

143
Vapor

180
Liquid

187
Mixed

212
Liquid

312
Liquid

2,053
200,947
51
12.02

277
18,174
39
14.02

245
6,931
54
11.03

166
15,329
73
17.23

257
5,839
40
10.03

369
33,935
39
14.02

540
13,640
39
9.88

161
13,225
39
14.02

771
16,563
52
7.73

191
43,000
268
11.00

281
49,001
148
6.45

679
36,399
42
16.82

2,265
243,147
41
10.24

4.45
5.64
0.79
0.00
21.75
1.41
26.45
120.75
0.00
43.65
180.42
0.00
108.90
181.34
1357.24

0.36
0.00
1.37
0.02
1.41
1.37
5.91
42.52
0.00
47.05
47.65
0.00
34.68
21.38
73.66

2.06
0.00
76.73
0.01
20.80
24.59
48.60
24.17
0.00
23.88
12.04
0.00
5.82
3.75
2.60

0.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
1.14
0.00
29.44
28.92
104.82

1.57
0.00
89.30
0.00
42.39
45.34
38.30
23.36
0.00
3.65
7.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.43

0.42
0.00
0.99
0.00
20.90
3.29
14.13
27.88
0.00
9.90
29.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
261.47

0.19
0.00
0.44
0.00
11.36
0.88
3.84
21.36
0.00
16.96
18.47
0.00
9.52
4.63
73.23

7.21
5.57
267.67
0.05
140.38
102.17
152.94
77.11
0.00
2.60
3.20
0.00
5.41
4.07
3.00

0.51
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.03
0.20
0.00
0.19
0.40
189.77

0.61
0.09
0.64
0.00
11.68
1.38
7.79
11.72
0.00
1.06
1.82
0.00
12.37
14.37
217.63

137.23
7364

60.09
3147

1.58
92

34.83
1693

67.53
3526

56.79
2995

82.91
3729

0.29
16

14.60
683

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.00
0.86
220.71
0.00
160.14
290.60
0.00
5.08
0.34
0.14
671.4
5
35854

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.44
17.94
0.00
170.05
223.68
1851.37

344.81
18309

3.48
0.00
187.99
0.03
77.03
72.01
62.66
72.78
0.00
24.33
23.86
0.00
4.35
2.03
9.30
120.9
7
5997

LPG out

212
187

35854.11
682.57
36536.67

KG-MOL/HR

KG-MOL/HR
kg/hr

Kg-mole/hr
LPG in with feed
(With streams
101+102+103+104+107+108+110)
LPG with Lean oil
Stream 180
Total LPG in
LPG out
212
143
312
187

kg/hr

789.00

41429.54

0.29
789.29
671.45
82.91
20.39
14.60

16
41445.54
35854
3729
1182
683
31 of 33

kg/hr
kg/hr
kg/hr

20.39
1182

Example A
Technical Report
789.35

41448.54

HP operating case
Stream Name
Phase
Total Stream
Rate

101
Liquid

102
Mixed

103
Mixed

104
Liquid

106
Mixed

107
Liquid

108A
Vapor

110
Liquid

143
Vapor

180
Liquid

187A
Mixed

212
Liquid

312
Liquid

2053
200947
51
16.5

277
18174
39
16.5

245
6931
54
16.5

166
15329
73
17.23

514
11679
40
10.03

369
33935
39
16.5

532
12912
73
15.9444

161
13225
39
16.5

694
13104
49
8.43

191
43000
268
11

285
48358
150
12.55

727
38556
42
11.8

2281
244304
42
12.7103

4.45
5.64
0.79
0.00
21.75
1.41
26.45
120.75
0.00
43.65
180.42
0.00
108.90

0.36
0.00
1.37
0.02
1.41
1.37
5.91
42.52
0.00
47.05
47.65
0.00
34.68

2.06
0.00
76.73
0.01
20.80
24.59
48.60
24.17
0.00
23.88
12.04
0.00
5.82

0.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
1.14
0.00
29.44

3.13
0.00
178.61
0.00
84.79
90.68
76.60
46.71
0.00
7.30
15.64
0.00
0.00

0.42
0.00
0.99
0.00
20.90
3.29
14.13
27.88
0.00
9.90
29.76
0.00
0.00

3.47
0.00
187.96
0.03
76.63
71.94
62.43
71.97
0.00
23.68
23.02
0.00
4.01

0.19
0.00
0.44
0.00
11.36
0.88
3.84
21.36
0.00
16.96
18.47
0.00
9.52

4.07
5.50
267.08
0.05
130.44
100.97
146.90
33.83
0.00
0.38
1.26
0.00
1.43

0.51
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.03
0.20
0.00
0.19

0.67
0.16
1.21
0.01
21.19
2.52
13.97
10.19
0.00
0.34
1.67
0.00
10.61

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.27
0.00
0.52
264.70
0.00
162.11
292.01
0.00
5.35

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
2.76
17.76
0.00
175.17

PENTANE

181.34

21.38

3.75

28.92

0.00

0.00

1.83

4.63

1.00

0.40

11.63

0.45

229.18

C6+
Total
LPG content

1357.24
2052.79
344.81
18308.57

73.66
277.39
137.23
7363.76

2.60
245.04
60.09
3146.84

104.82
165.54
1.58
91.65

10.86
514.31
69.66
3386.10

261.47
368.72
67.53
3526.44

4.83
531.81
118.67
5875.12

73.23
160.88
56.79
2994.91

0.85
693.76
35.48
1583.88

189.77
191.19
0.29
16.00

210.33
284.50
12.20
565.07

0.16
726.56
718.82
37985.70

1856.28
2281.16
20.53
1190.61

kg-mole/hr

kg/hr

212
143
312

786.70
0.29
786.99
718.82
35.48
20.53

41307.28
16.00
41323.28
37985.70
1583.88
1190.61

212
187
Total

kg/hr
37985.70
565.07
38550.77

187

12.20

565.07

Temperature
Pressure
Total Mol. Comp. Rates
H2O
AIR
H2
NH3
H2S
METHANE
ETHANE
PROPANE
PROPENE
IBUTANE
BUTANE
1BUTENE
IPENTANE

LPG in with feed

LPG with Lean Oil
LPG in
LPG out

KG-MOL/HR
KG/HR
C
KG/CM2
KG-MOL/HR

Kg-mole/hr
Kg/hr

Stream 180

LPG recovered

Extra LPG recovered than LP

32 of 33

2014.1
0

which @ US$467/ton is

940.58

US$/hr

Example A
Technical Report
787.03

41325.26

Cost

33 of 33

A Dynamic Simulation Study:

Dehydration Tanks TK-60A and TK-60B
Inter-tank Level Balancing Lines
Summary: The effectiveness of the intended tank balance lines was investigated by performing
simulations to determine the effect of upstream transients on the dehydration tank levels. A number of
upset operating cases were simulated at both 17% and 35% WC and maximum tank level variations
calculated. The results show that the current design is adequate when compared to operating with two extra
hypothetical oil and water balance lines.

1. INTRODUCTION

purposes

As part of an Onshore Crude Processing Facilities Project,

two new dehydration tanks (TK-60A and TK-60B) will be
installed. Each tank has a capacity of 28,000 bbl and will be
used to separate oil and water phases before further
downstream processing. Two 24 booster pump suction lines
(crude and water) are currently planned to be used for tank
level balancing. A separate 6 emulsion balance line and 20
vapour balance line have also been provided.
K g
dv g
= h F c
dt L
A p

(1)

dh
= Fo F
dt

(2)

At

4. MODELLING ROUTE
Dynamic tank level modelling was carried out using the high
fidelity hydraulic simulator TLNET, which is a component
of Energy Solutions Pipeline Studio V 3.0. The following
assumptions are made for the transient simulation:

Fig 1.Dehydration Tank Balance Lines

Tank internal pressures are the same (i.e. The gas

vapour balance line has not been modelled)

2. OBJECTIVE

Emulsion and water phases have not been modelled,

instead only one oil phase is assumed to be present within the
tank.

The objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness

and suitability of the current design under different dynamic
operating scenarios. In particular, the variation in tank levels
as a result of a lower offshore production rate (80,000 BPD)
in one of the two separate process trains will be examined.
3. GENERAL TANK LEVEL EQUATIONS
Well established physical models for a typical gravity flow
tank will form the basis for dynamic tank level modelling

Independent tank objects are not available within the

TLNET simulation environment, however it is possible to
model a tank by allocating one or more inlet and/or outlet
nozzles to a predefined tank. Therefore, in order to simulate
balancing lines, a number of outlet nozzles at different
elevations are implemented. A representation of the oil
balance line is shown below, a tank nozzle is depicted by a
blue object, flow sinks (pumps, nozzles, etc) are shown as
green objects.

Tank Level TK-60A

15.0

Emulsion

14.8

Tank60A_Oil_Outlet
14.6
14.4
14.2

Pipe0026
14.0
13.8

P-060A/B/D/E
13.6

Pipe0001
Pipe0027

13.4
13.2
13.0

Tank60B_Oil_Outlet

500

1000

1500

2000
2500
3000
Elapsed Time (seconds)

3500

4000

4500

5000

4500

5000

Fig. 2. Case A: TK-60A dynamic level variation

The same flowrate to the desalters is maintained at

all times.

TK-60B
Tank Level Variation

used.

A fixed simulation time-step of 0.05 seconds was

15.0

14.8

14.6

No hydraulic verification has been performed on the

inlet lines upstream of the dehydration tank, i.e. it is assumed
that the dynamic flowrates are achievable.

14.4

14.2

14.0

5. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT

13.8

13.6

The process flow scheme, as shown in the below figure, was

configured to represent the dehydration tank crude inlet
manifold. The two segregated production trains (A and B)
with crossover line valves closed is the normal expected
operating scenario. However, other scenarios, where the
crossover valves are open, have also been simulated.
TK-60A_Emulsion

13.4

6" Emulsion Balance Line

1000

1500

2000
2500
Elapsed Time (seconds)

3000

3500

4000

Fig. 3. Case A: TK-60B dynamic level variation

TK-60B_Emulsion
Tank60A_Oil_Outlet

Pipe0026

P-060A/B/D/
Pipe0001
Pipe0027

Supply0003

500

Tank60A_Inlet

Under these conditions, the maximum difference in level is

approximately 0.4m. Further tank level equalisation could be
achieved, by opening one of the crossover line valves and
reducing the set-point of one of the PCVs.

Tank60B_Oil_Outlet
Pipe0024

Pipe0025

Pipe0017

Blkv0003

Pipe0004

Pipe0019

Pipe0005

Regu0001

Pipe0020

Blkv0002

Tank60A_Water_Outlet

Pipe0018

Pipe0012

Pipe0029
Pipe0016
P-066A/B

Supply0004
Pipe0003
Pipe0030
Pipe0013

Blkv0001

Pipe0014

5.2 Case B Offshore Flow Disruption- Emulsion Balance

Line Operational-17% Water Cut

Tank60B_inlet

Pipe0015

Tank60B_Water_Outlet
Pipe0006

Pipe0023

Blkv0004

Pipe0007

Pipe0008

Regu0002

Pipe0021

This scenario follows the same operational pattern and

dynamic disruption as case A, however it is assumed that the
6 emulsion balance line is now in operation.
TK-60A

5.1 Case A Offshore Flow Disruption-Failure of Emulsion

Balance Line - 17% Water Cuts

Tank Level Variation

15.0
14.8
14.6
14.4
14.2

At steady state conditions, the total offshore rate 365,000

BPD is equally split between two segregated process trains.
At the start of the simulation the offshore rate to train A is cut
to only 80,000 BPD, train B maintains 182,500 BPD. The
initial tank level is 15m. Oil outlet nozzles have been set at
13m, and water outlet nozzles at 3m. The total dynamic
simulation run time is one hour and twenty minutes under
these condition. The results presented below do not include
the use of the 6 emulsion balance line.

14.0
13.8
13.6
13.4
13.2
13.0
0

1000

2000
3000
Elapsed Time (seconds)

4000

Fig. 4. Case A: TK-60A dynamic level variation

5000

Fig. 7. Case C: TK-60B dynamic level variation

TK-60B
Tank Level Variation
15.0

5.4 Case D Train A to Train B Crossover Valve Open 17% WC

14.8
14.6

14.4
14.2
14.0
13.8
13.6
13.4
13.2
0

1000

2000
3000
Elapsed Time (seconds)

4000

5000

Fig. 5. Case B: TK-60B dynamic level variation

During steady state conditions, the two production trains are

running with equal flowrates to both dehydration tanks. Both
of the crossover valves are closed and tank levels are equal at
15m. The transient scenario maintains the full offshore rate
(365,000 BPD), however 80,000 BPD is sent to train A
whilst train B receives the remaining 285,000 BPD. This is
simulated by fully opening one of the cross over valves (as
would be the case with an MOV) and throttling the PCV
upstream of dehydration tank A so that only 80,000 BPD is
allowed the pass through the valve.
TK-60A
Tank Level Variation
15.00

In this case it is observed that the maximum difference in

level is 0.3m. The expected flow rate through the 6 line is
approximately 80 m3/h.

14.99
14.98
14.97

14.96

5.3 Case C Offshore Flow Disruption- Two Additional

Balance Lines - 17% WC

14.95
14.94
14.93
14.92

This case follows the same operational scenario as A and B.

Two additional 24 balance lines have been provided at 12m
and 1m.
TK-60A

14.91
14.90
0

500

1000

1500

3500

4000

4500

5000

4500

5000

Fig. 7. Case D: TK-60A dynamic level variation

Tank Level Variation

15.0

TK-60B

14.8

Tank Level Variation

15.10

14.6

15.09

14.4

15.08

14.2
M

2000
2500
3000
Elapsed Time (seconds)

15.07

14.0

15.06
M

13.8
13.6

15.05
15.04

13.4

15.03

13.2

15.02

1000

2000
3000
Elapsed Time (seconds)

4000

5000

15.01
15.00
0

Fig. 6. Case C: TK-60A dynamic level variation

500

1000

1500

2000
2500
3000
Elapsed Time (seconds)

3500

4000

Fig. 8. Case D: TK-60B dynamic level variation

TK-60B
Tank Level Variation

5.4 Case E Train A to Train B Crossover Valve Open

Additional Balance Lines -17% Water Cut

15.0
14.8
14.6

The assumed scenario is the same as Case D, however two

additional balance lines at 12m and 1m have been included.
The results are shown below:

14.4
M

14.2
14.0
13.8
13.6
13.4
13.2
0

1000

2000
3000
Elapsed Time (seconds)

4000

5000

TK-60A

TK-60A

Tank Level Variation

Tank Level Variation

15.000

15.00

14.998

14.98

14.996

14.96
14.94

14.994

14.92
M

14.992

14.90

14.990
14.88
14.988

14.86

14.986

14.84

14.984

14.82

14.982

14.80
0

500

1000

1500

2000
2500
3000
Elapsed Time (seconds)

3500

4000

4500

5000

500

1000

1500

2000
2500
3000
Elapsed Time (seconds)

3500

4000

4500

5000

4500

5000

Fig. 11. Case F: TK-60A dynamic level variation

Fig. 9. Case E: TK-60A dynamic level variation

TK-60B

TK-60B

Tank Level Variation

Tank Level Variation

15.018

15.20
15.18

15.014

15.16

15.012

15.14

15.010

15.12
M

15.016

15.008

15.10
15.08

15.006

15.06

15.004

15.04
15.002
15.02
15.000

15.00
0

500

1000

1500

2000
2500
3000
Elapsed Time (seconds)

3500

4000

4500

5000

Fig. 10. Case E: TK-60B dynamic level variation

Tank levels equalize rapidly within 500 seconds with a slight
and insignificant offset.
5.5 Case F Train A to Train B Crossover Valve Open
35% Water Cut
This simulation scenario is based on 35% water cut or a total
offshore rate of approximately 467,000 BPD. It is expected
that this case represents the worst case conditions in terms of
tank level unbalancing. During transient conditions,
dehydration tank A receives 80,000 BPD, whilst tank B
receives 387,000 BPD. The flow re-routing is carried out in
by opening only one MOV and throttling the PCV on the
inlet of dehydration tank A.

500

1000

1500

2000
2500
3000
Elapsed Time (seconds)

3500

4000

Fig. 12. Case F: TK-60B dynamic level variation

As can be seen from the simulation results, the maximum
difference in tank level is 0.4m whilst operating under these
conditions. The dynamic simulation results show that the
level-flow cascade controller averaging these two levels
should still send the same signal to the existing flow
controllers thus allowing the desalter rate to be maintained.
5.6 Case G Train A to Train B Crossover Valve Open
Additional Balance Lines -35% Water Cut
The final case, simulates two 24 hypothetical balance lines
at 12m and 1m. The implemented dynamic disruption is the
same as case F.

TK-60A
Tank Level Variation
15.000

14.995

14.990

14.985

14.980

14.975

500

1000

1500

2000
2500
3000
Elapsed Time (seconds)

3500

4000

4500

5000

4500

5000

Fig. 13. Case G: TK-60A dynamic level variation

TK-60B
Tank Level Variation

15.025

15.020

15.015

15.010

15.005

15.000
0

500

1000

1500

2000
2500
3000
Elapsed Time (seconds)

3500

4000

Fig. 14. Case G: TK-60B dynamic level variation

6. CONCLUSIONS
The simulation results demonstrate that under certain and
non-frequent operating conditions a maximum tank level
imbalance of 0.4m may occur. The introduction of two extra
24 balance lines (intended for the oil and water phases) can
improve the situation. However, since the tank level
difference is not considered to be significant under the worst
case conditions, further consideration of additional lines or a
flow inlet balancing system is not required.

Design of a Fuel Gas Treatment

and Distribution System

ADVANCING
CHEMICAL
ENGINEERING
WORLDWIDE

CONTENTS

PAGE

ABBREVIATIONS

1.1

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.2

2.

SCOPE OF WORK AND BASE DATA

2.1 Scope of Work
2.2 Process Description
2.3 Base Data

2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2

3.

TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
3.1 Project Constraints
3.2 Project Approach

3.1
3.1
3.1

4.

DESIGN AND CALCULATIONS SUMMARY

4.1 Assessment of Fuel Gas Demand
4.2 Fuel Gas Simulation
4.3 Fuel Gas Heater Review
4.4 Fuel Gas Scrubber Review
4.5 Process Control
4.6 Process Safeguarding
4.7 Line Sizing

4.2
4.2
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.10

5.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions
5.2 Recommendations

5.12
5.12
5.12

6.

REFERENCES

6.13

APPENDICES

6.14

A1: FUEL GAS SYSTEM - PFD

6.14

A2 - FUEL GAS BALANCE

6.15

B1 - CALCULATION: Fuel Gas Scrubber

6.16

B2 - CALCULATION: Pressure Reduction Station

6.17

B3 - CALCULATION: Pressure Safety Valves

6.18

B4 - CALCULATION: Fuel Gas Lines

6.20

C1 - BLOWDOWN VOLUME

6.21

C2 - BLOWDOWN: DISPERSION

6.22

C3 - RADIATION: ISOPLETHS

6.23

ABBREVIATIONS
BDV
DP
EOS
HTC
ID
LFL
LHV
NB
OD
OP
PCV
PFD
PID
PSV
SP
SRK
TCV
UFL
WFL

Blowdown Valve
Design Pressure
Equation of State
Heat Transfer Coefficient
Inside Diameter
Lower Flammability Limits
Lower Heating Value
Nominal Bore
Outside Diameter
Operating Point
Pressure Control Valve
Process Flow Diagram
Proportional, Integral, Derivative Controllers
Pressure Safety Valve
Set Point
Soave-Redlich-Kwong
Temperature Control Valve
Upper Flammability Limits
Woodhill Frontier

1.1

1.

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the design of a fuel gas processing and distribution system for an onshore oil pumping
facility operated by XXX Petroleum Co.
The pumping station will be designed for a throughput of 60,000bbls of oil per day and includes processing
units such as; storage tanks for oil and water, pumps, water bath heaters, metering skid and other utilities
and services such as power generation, plant and instrument air, industrial water systems and drain systems.
Fuel gas is the primary fuel source for power generation and the water bath heaters and is imported by
pipeline from a nearby facility.
2.
2.1

SCOPE OF WORK AND BASE DATA

Scope of Work

The fuel gas will be required to be treated to ensure that the fuel gas specification requirements advised by
the heater and generator vendors is met, such that no power loss occurs due to fuel gas quality. The system
in designed for 2.5MMscfd gas.
The scope of work is to design the fuel gas treatment and distribution for the pumping station. This includes
review of fuel gas heater and scrubber, heat/material balance, line sizing and associated instruments, etc.
2.2

Process Description

A process flow diagram of the fuel gas system is given in Appendix A1. The incoming fuel gas will be
heated to 45oC in a heating coil in a water bath heater to prevent hydrate formation before pressure
reduction to the required distribution pressure.
After pressure reduction, water/hydrocarbon condensates are removed in a scrubber before the gas is heated
to about 15oC by a second heating coil in the same heater, prior to distribution. Separated liquids from the
scrubber will flow via level control to the produced water tank.
The water bath heater will be dual-fired by fuel gas. Diesel will be used for black-start, when fuel gas is not
available.
2.3

Base Data

The base data for the fuel gas system is summarised below.
2.3.1

Temperatures and Pressures

Fuel gas system design pressure (inlet system)

Fuel gas system design pressure (distribution)
Fuel gas system design temperature (inlet)
Fuel gas system design temperature (distribution)
Normal operating pressure (inlet system)
Normal operating pressure (distribution)
Minimum fuel gas temperature to users
Maximum fuel gas temperature to users

142 barg
6.9 barg
80 oC
100 oC
100 barg
5.7 barg
10 oC
50 oC

2.2

2.3.2

Fuel Gas Composition and Fluid Properties

The fuel gas is expected to be supplied to the users at 100barg and at 25oC with the following composition
listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Fuel Gas Composition
Component
N2
CO2
C1
C2
C3
i-C4
n-C4
i-C5
n-C5
C6+
Total

Mol %
0.37
1.06
89.64
3.52
2.77
0.68
1.24
0.42
0.07
0.23
100.00

Mass %
0.55
2.46
75.84
5.58
6.44
2.08
3.80
1.60
0.27
1.39
100.00

Table 2: Fuel Gas Properties

o

Property
Vapor fraction
Mass density
Molecular weight
HHV
LHV
Hydrate formation temp
HC dewpoint
Water dewpoint
Cp/Cv

@ 0.7 C
& 5.7barg

Unit
kg/m3
MMBtu/gal
MMBtu/gal
o
C
o
C
o

C
-

@ 25 C
& 100barg

0.997
5.75
18.96
15230
13770

1.00
97.22

-4.7

20.78

20.59

22.98

-8.4
1.30

24.6
1.79

2.3

3.
3.1

TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
Project Constraints

The client has provided existing facilities for use for the fuel gas system distribution. These are:

150lb rated fuel gas Scrubber 1.219m (ID) x 2.438m (H).

900lb rated fuel gas Indirect (Water Bath) Heater with 2 sets of heating coils (2 and 4 respectively).
Water at 93oC is the heating medium.

The supplied equipment/instruments are constraints in the process design and the system will be modified
to optimally utilize them. The system design capacity is 2.5MMscfd.
3.2

Project Approach

The following approach has been used to assess the fuel gas system requirements and develop an optimal
design.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Determine gas consumption of each user.

Determine overall fuel gas rate required - up to 2.5MMscfd gas available.
Perform fuel gas system simulation to obtain heat and material balance for system.
Capacity review of the heater - water bath heater with the process fluid heated up within coils.
Capacity review of the scrubber - 150lb rated to be capable of handling 2.5mmscfd of gas.
Review the process control - i.e. the scrubber pressure control and the heater temperature control.
Review the equipment process safeguards - pressure safety valves and blowdown valve.
Size associated lines in fuel gas system.

3.1
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

4.

DESIGN AND CALCULATIONS SUMMARY

4.1

Assessment of Fuel Gas Demand

The fuel gas consumers are as follows: 2 x Inlet Heaters; 6 x Export Heaters; 1 x Fuel Gas Heater; 3 x Gas
Generators. There are also 2 Bi-Fuel Generators which use diesel and can also use gas. The fuel gas
flowrate required per consumer is obtained as follows:
Heaters:

FG (mmscfd ) = ( Heater Duty (mmbtu / hr ) LHV (btu / sm 3 )

Eqn 4-1

Where,
Duty = 6.30, 5.67 and 1.0MMBtu/hr (for inlet, export and fuel gas heaters)
Efficiency = 69%
Generators:

FG (mmscfd ) = (Gen. Duty (mmbtu / hr ) LHV (btu / sm 3 )

and generator duty:

Eqn 4-2

Gen. Duty (mmbtu / hr ) = (Output (kW ) FuelConsumption 10 6 (btu / kW .hr ) Eqn 4-3
Where,
Output = 0.975 and 1.20kW (for the gas generator and bi-generator respectively)
Fuel consumption = 10,720 Btu/kW-hr
Efficiency = 95%
The bi-fuel generator runs primarily on diesel and is used for start-up and as backup generator. It can also
run on fuel gas.
Table 3: Flowrate for the individual heaters
Heaters

Heater Duty
(MMBtu//hr)

1
2

6.30
6.30

Heater Duty
(MMBtu//hr)
@69% LHV Eff.
9.13
9.13

3
4
5
6
7
8

5.67
5.67
5.67
5.67
5.67
5.67

1.00

FG LHV
(Btu/sm3)

FG Flowrate
(sm3/hr)

36214.67
36214.67

252.12
252.12

8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22

36214.67
36214.67
36214.67
36214.67
36214.67
36214.67

226.91
226.91
226.91
226.91
226.91
226.91

1.45

36214.67
Total

40.02
1905.71

FG Flowrate
mmscfd
0.21
0.21
0.43
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
1.15
0.03
1.62

% of Total
17.92

48.37

1.42

4.2
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

Table 4: Flowrate for the individual generators

Gas
Gen
1

Output
(MW)

Eff.
(%)

Heating
Value
(BTU/kg)

Heat Rate
(BTU/kW-hr)

FG
(kg/hr)

FG
(sm3/hr)

FG Flow
(mmscfd)

0.975

95%

45,153

10,720

244

302.95

0.2568
=generators

FG Design
(mmscfd)

% of
Total

0.2568
0.7703

32.29

Table 5: Balance Summary

Consumer
Inlet Heaters
Export Heaters
FG Heater
Gas Gen.

Unit Rate
(mmscfd)
0.21
0.19
0.03
0.26

No of
Units
2
6
1
3

Total
(mmscfd)
0.43
1.15
0.03
0.77
2.39

Prorated to
2.5mmscfd
0.45
1.21
0.04
0.81
2.50

Ratio
(%)
17.92
48.37
1.42
32.29
100.00

Figure 1: Summary

4.3
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

4.2

Fuel Gas Simulation

The process was simulated using Aspen HYSYS to obtain the heat and material balance. The SRK property
package was selected.
The Heat and Material is given in Appendix A2.
Figure 2: Aspen HYSYS Simulation PFD

4.4
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

4.2.1

Phase Envelope

The fuel gas composition has been used to generate a phase envelope in order to determine the dewpoint
conditions at the supply pressure of 5.5barg.
Figure 3: Hydrocarbon Envelope for Composition
Fuel Gas Envelope
120

100

Pressure (bar)

80

Bubble Pt.
Dew Pt.

60

Hydrate

40

20

0
-150 -140 -130 -120 -110 -100 -90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

10

20

30

40

Temp (oC)

The envelope indicates that at a fuel gas supply pressure of 5.5barg the dew point for the fluid is about
15oC. This is the minimum temperature the fuel gas is to be heated to by the water bath heater. The fuel gas
scrubber is installed before the heater to knock out any liquids resulting from the pressure drop thus
increasing the gas dew point.
4.3

Fuel Gas Heater Review

The heat and transport properties of the heater are obtained via simulation using the heater characteristics
from vendor data (Ref 1, Table 6).
Table 6: Data for Heaters

Duty (MMBtu/hr)
Efficiency (%)
Coil N.D (in)
Spec.
Schedule
2
Heating Surface (ft )
Coil Length (ft)
2
Overall HTC (Btu/hr-ft -F

Inlet Heaters
(2x100%)
6.30
69
4
A-106B
40
1431
40

Export Heaters
(6x100%)
5.67
69
4
A-106B
40
2456
40

Fuel Gas Heater

1.0
69
2
A-106B
160
18
29

4
A-106B
160
18
29

4.5
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

The fuel gas heater has two coils; the first for preheating the import gas and the second one for heating the
gas prior to distribution. A TCV is situated on the outlet of the second coil. The heater is a water bath type
with heating coils immersed in water at 93oC.
The gas is preheated to compensate for any heat loss from the pressure letdown. A reduction in the inlet
pressure from 100barg to 5.7barg results in the temperature falling from 25oC to -26.11oC.
The target for the heater is to preheat the fuel gas to 45oC in the first coil thus compensating for the heat
loss across the control valves. The hydrate formation temperature for the gas is -5oC.
The results of the simulation show that when the heater preheats the fuel gas to approximately 45oC the
temperature across the control valves drops to 0.7 oC. Thus the water bath heater is adequate for the process
requirement.
The heating effect of the second coil is limited to about 15oC by the use of a three-way TCV supplied with
the heater.
4.4

Fuel Gas Scrubber Review

Table 7 gives the design details of the client supplied scrubber.

Table 7: Fuel Gas Scrubber
Diameter, ID (m)
Length, s/s (m)
2
Surface Area (m )
3
Volume (m )
Operating Pressure (psig)
Design Pressure (psig)
o
Operating Temperature ( C)
Design Temperature (F)
Wall Thickness (in)
Corrosion Allowance (in)
Service
Insulation

1.219
2.438
19.0
3.32
83.0
100.0
0.7
212 max / -20MMDT
0.375
0.125
Sweet Service, (Oil, Gas, Water, Wax)
2 Fiberglass with 0.020 aluminum clad

Calculations (Appendix B1) show that the size of scrubber required for 2.5MMscfd fuel gas is 0.6m (ID) x
2.15m (H). The scrubber is also provided with a pressure safety valve and a blowdown valve which are
adequately sized. Thus the supplied scrubber is adequate for the project requirements.
4.5

Process Control

The letdown station consists of two pressure control valves in series. Refer to Fuel Gas System PFD
(Appendix A1). The detailed sizing for the control valves are in Appendix B. The outlet temperature of the
second PCV is 0.7oC. This is within acceptable limits of the fluids hydrate formation temperature of -4.7oC.
Table 8: Summary of Results
C v , valve flow coefficient
Valve Type
Valve Body Size (inch) *

PCV-1
1.51
Globe
1

PCV-2
8.33
Globe
1

* Size subject to vendor review

4.6
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

Figure 4: Pressure Letdown Station

Two control valves in series are required to reduce the import pressure of 100barg to 5.7barg based on the
sizing criteria for control valves and because of the large pressure differential required.
Apart from the pressure letdown station the outlet of the fuel gas coil is controlled to a minimum of 15oC by
a three-way TCV. The first coil inlet is uncontrolled. Both of the controls are traditional feed forward PID
controllers.
Figure 5: Temperature Control Valve

Heater

TC

Outlet Header

4.6

Inlet Header

Process Safeguarding

4.6.1 Depressurization
All process equipment operating above 7barg or containing at least 4m of butane or a more volatile liquid
under normal operating conditions shall need to be provided with remotely operated vapour
depressurisation valves (Ref. 4).
The BDV is also actuated automatically by a signal from the emergency shutdown system, initiated by fire
or gas detection. A restriction orifice is usually used in conjunction with a BDV to restrict flow.
The Scrubber is operated at 83 psig (5.7barg) and the pressure of the inlet stream is controlled by two
pressure control valves in series.
Under emergency conditions the fuel gas system (i.e., fuel gas inlet line, heater, PCVs and scrubber) can be
isolated. The fuel gas scrubber is blown down to atmosphere via a 2 ball valve (Ref. 13).
4.7
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

The scrubber operates at pressures below 7barg and would not ordinarily require depressurization; however
the blowdown of the vessel via the provided valve is examined.
The BDV and vent sizing has been based on the total inventory as a worst case. This is estimated to be
40Sm3 of gas (See Appendix C). Depressurisation calculations have been carried out for the design as it is
and also with the use of a restriction orifice.
Aspen HYSYS is used to determine the maximum vent rate obtainable and minimum temperatures. The
requirement is to blowdown this inventory to 2.86barg (50% of the operating pressure of 5.7barg) within
15mins. The depressurisation profiles are attached in Appendix C.
The minimum temperature obtained is -9.4C. The piping specification for ASME Class 150 (carbon steel)
pipework has a minimum operating temperature of -29C (Ref. 8). Thus carbon steel piping will be
adequate for depressurisation requirements.
4.6.2 Dispersion
Dispersion modelling has been carried out for the vented gases using PHAST. The vented gases comprise a
mixture of hydrocarbons which can form a potentially flammable mixture when mixed with air, i.e.,
between 5% and 15% methane in air; the lower and upper flammability limits (LFL and UFL). The
dispersion calculation determines the location of the vent.
PHAST is third-party consequence modelling software used to analyse hazards resulting from leaks and
emissions of fluids.
PHAST is used to determine the hazardous area around the vent, i.e., the horizontal and vertical distance
from the vent to the edge of the LFL gas cloud (Ref. 12). The scenarios for gas dispersion are given in
Table 9.
Table 9: Relief/Blowdown Scenarios Fuel Gas System
Case

Scenario

Flowrate (kg/s)

Pressure(barg)

Temp. C)

A1

Fuel Gas Scrubber fire case

0.341

8.34

107

A2

Fuel Gas Scrubber closed outlet

0.658

7.58

76.2

A3

Fuel Gas Scrubber control valve failure

0.636

5.73

0.7

A4

Fuel Gas Scrubber blowdown - without relief orifice

2.466

5.73

0.7

A5

Fuel Gas Scrubber blowdown - with relief orifice

0.026

5.73

0.7

Case A4 is the worst case scenario. Modelling was carried out under the worst case weather conditions
obtainable on site with the following results:
Table 10: Fuel Gas Venting Dispersion Distances from Vent Outlet (Case A4)
Horizontal distance to dispersion (m)

Vertical distance to dispersion (m)

100% LFL

50% LFL

100% LFL

50% LFL

1.77

4.66

+9.74

+13.37

1.82

4.49

+10.81

+15.17

2.41

6.11

+5.42

+7.29

2.94

7.07

+3.47

+4.56

4.8
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

Graphical output from the dispersion calculations are shown in Appendix C.

4.6.3 Radiation: Fuel Gas Vent
During venting there is a possibility that the vented gases could ignite with resultant damage to
personnel/equipment from radiation.
Ref. 4 specifies the allowable radiation levels as a function of time. Solar radiation of 0.9kW/m is assumed
for the location.
Table 11: Recommended Design Total Radiation
Permissible design level

Conditions

1.58 kW/m (500 Btu/h ft)

Location where personnel with appropriate clothing may be continuously exposed

4.73 kW/m (1500 Btu/h ft)

Areas where emergency actions lasting several minutes may be required by

personnel without shielding but with appropriate clothing

6.31 kW/m (2000 Btu/h ft)

Areas where emergency actions lasting up to one minute may be required by

personnel without shielding but with appropriate clothing

9.46 kW/m (3000 Btu/h ft)

Value at design flare release at any location to which people have access; exposure
should be limited to a few seconds, sufficient for escape

15.77 kW/m (5000 Btu/h ft)

Structures/areas where operators are not likely to be performing duties and where
shelter from radiant heat is available

The radiation levels from an ignited vent were modelled using FLARESIM - a third-party software used for
the design and rating of flare stacks.
The height of the vent will be determined based on the radiation level measured at grade being below
4.73kW/m in order to protect personnel. Case A4 is used as basis and the vent is a simple 4 NB
unimpeded pipe work vent stack venting to atmosphere.
Appendix C contains the radiation contour plots for Case A4. It was determined that a 10.25m high vent
would be required. The 4.73 kW/m, 6.31 kW/m and 15.7 kW/m radiation contours would sit at their
lowest point at approximately 0m, 3m and 7.5 m above grade, respectively. The flame length was
estimated to be approximately 23.65 m. The horizontal distances (i.e. the radii) to radiation levels of
4.73kW/m and 6.3kW/m were estimated to be approximately 17.1m and 10.2 m (at head height).
The distances to these radiation contours may affect personnel on location and thus the vent height may
need to be increased. The rate of decay of the radiation was also investigated with the following results.
Table 12: Radiation Decay (Case A4)
Time (sec)

Mass Flow (kg/s)

Volume Flow (m3/s)

2.466

Distance(m)
4.7 kW/m

6.3 kW/m

9.46 kW/m

1.921

16.8

9.7

1.711

1.497

13.4

10

1.202

1.168

9.75

15

0.805

0.9353

20
0.605
0.7536
Notes: The distances are the horizontal radii from the centre of the vent stack at head height (2 m above grade).

4.9
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

Table 12 shows that despite the fact that the initial distance to radiation level of 4.7kW/m and 6.3kW/m
are high, this configuration of the vent stack may still be acceptable because the intensity of the radiation
decreases rapidly. The radiation intensity around the vent stack decreases to within acceptable levels within
20 seconds because the vented flow is unrestricted.
Radiation modelling was also carried out for Case A2, Fuel Gas Scrubber closed outlet. It was determined
that the 4.73 kW/m, 6.31 kW/m and 15.7 kW/m radiation contours would sit at their lowest point at
approximately 2.2 m, 3.5 m and 9 m above grade, respectively. The flame length was estimated to be
approximately 12.6 m. This result was for the same vent stack of 10.5 m. On further investigation if the
stack height were to be reduced to 9m, the 4.73 kW/m, 6.31 kW/m and 15.7 kW/m radiation contours
would sit at their lowest point at approximately 1.4 m, 3 m and 6.3 m above grade, respectively.
However, the Case A2 vent radiation scenario is only applicable if the relief/vent piping is modified to
include a restriction orifice downstream the blowdown valve thus restricting its flow.
4.6.4 Over-Pressure Protection
In addition to the blowdown system there is a PSV on both the Fuel Gas Scrubber inlet line and the
scrubber itself, both are set at 100psig.
The over-pressure relief devices (PSVs) protecting the fuel gas system have been sized in accordance with
API RP 520 (Ref. 5) and API RP 521 (Ref.4) for the most severe individual relief condition. Table 13
identifies the applicable relief conditions considered for the sizing of the PSVs.
Table 13: PSV Relief Conditions
Case
1.

Closed / blocked outlet

2.

Control valve malfunction

3.

Excess heat input/vapour generation

4.

External fire

The relief valve has been selected in accordance with API Standard 526 (Ref. 6).
The operating pressure of the scrubber is 83psig (5.7bar). The PSVs are 3 x 4 and calculations are carried
out to determine the suitability of these safety valves for the process. The minimum size of PSV required is
1.5 x 3 thus the pre-installed PSVs are adequate. See Appendix B3 for detailed calculations.
4.7

Line Sizing

The sizing of lines for the project was done as per company practice and principles which were based on
engineering standards (Ref 8 and Ref 9). The equations and correlations used are as follows:

vd 2
Line velocities are estimated using: Q =
4

Eqn 4-4

Where:
Q = Flowrate (m3/s)
V = velocity (m/s)
D = inside pipe diameter (mm)
4.10
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

The pressure drop for liquid or gas lines are calculated using the Darcy formula:

P100 m =

w2 62530 f

d5

Eqn 4-5

Where:
P100m = Pressure drop (kPa/100m)
W = Mass flow (kg/hr)
= Density (kg/m3)
f = Moody friction factor
d = internal diameter
The Moody friction factor is a function of the Reynolds number and the surface roughness of the pipe. The
Moody diagram (Ref. 8) may be used to determine the friction factor once the Reynolds number is known:

Re =

dv

Eqn 4-6

Where:
Re = Reynolds number
= Density (kg/m3)
v = Velocity (m/s)
d = internal diameter (mm)
= Viscosity (cP)
Finally, erosional velocities are calculated as per Ref. 7: Ve =

m 0.5

Eqn 4-7

Where:
V e = Erosional velocity (ft/s)
C = Constant (100 for continuous flow)
m = Gas/Liquid density (lb/ft3)
The inlet line to the fuel gas system is 4, ASME CL 900. From calculations this size is adequate. The
inter-connecting lines within the process are also 4 (and ASME CL 150) and the distribution lines are 2
ASME CL 150 lines. The line sizing and calculations are given in Appendix B4.

4.11
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

5.
5.1

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

1. Fuel gas demand is expected to be 2.39MMscfd, which is within the design rate of 2.5MMscfd.
2. The supplied scrubber is adequate for project requirements.
3. The supplied heater is adequate for project requirements.
4. The minimum temperature on blowdown is -9.4oC which does not exceed the ASME CL 150 piping
specification.
5. Dispersion - the 50% LFL from the Fuel Gas Vent was estimated to be 7m horizontally. This is not
expected to pose a hazard to personnel or equipment so long as the fuel gas vent is higher than any
equipment within 7m of the vent.
6. Radiation - A Fuel Gas Vent of 10.25m high will expose personnel and equipment to radiation levels of
not more than 4.73kW/m. This radiation level has a radius of approximately 17.1 m and will last for
less than 20 seconds.
5.2

Recommendations

1.

A minimum Fuel Gas Vent height of 10.25m above grade is recommended.

2.

Modifying the vent piping downstream of the BDV to include a restriction orifice will mean that the
vent height can be reduced to 9 m.

5.12
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

6.

REFERENCES
1. Client Scope of Work and Vendor Data
2. Perrys Chemical Engineering Handbook, Vol. 1 & 2, 7th Ed.
3. Coulson and Richardsons Chemical Engineering, 5th Ed.
4. American Petroleum Institute: API RP 521: Guide for Pressure Relieving and Depressurising
Systems, 4th Ed, March 1997.
5. American Petroleum Institute: API RP 520: Sizing, Selection and Installation of Pressure
Relieving Devices, 7th Ed, January 2000.
6. American Petroleum Institute: API Standard 526: Flanged Steel Pressure Relief Valves, 5th Ed,
June 2002.
7. American Petroleum Institute: API RP 14: Design and Installation of Offshore Production
Platform Piping Systems, 5th Ed, Oct 1991.
8. GPSA: Engineering Data Book, 12th Ed. 2004.
9. Woodhill Frontier Engineering Standards
10. Masoneilan Control Valve Sizing Handbook, bulletin OZ1000, 2000
11. The Centre for Marine and Petroleum Technology (CMPT): A Guide to Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Offshore Installations, Publication 99/100.
12. Energy Institute: Model Code of Safe Practice Part 15: Area classification code for installations
handling flammable fluids, 3rd Edition, July 2005.
13. Fisher Vee Ball Rotary Valves, Doc. No. D350004X012/MS11-CD171/4-06

6.13
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

APPENDICES
A1: FUEL GAS SYSTEM - PFD

6.14
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

A2 - FUEL GAS BALANCE

Table 14: Heat and Mass Balance
1
STREAM
FLUID

NORMAL
VAPOUR

DESIGN
VAPOUR

NORMAL
VAPOUR

DESIGN
VAPOUR

NORMAL
MIXED

DESIGN
MIXED

2267
97.44
18.96
100.0
25

2370
97.44
18.96
100.0
25

2267
85.17
18.96
100.0
45.6

2370
85.55
18.96
100.0
44.8

2240
5.66
18.96
26.11
701.26
5.7
1.7

2341
5.68
18.96
28.3
701.51
5.7
0.7

VAPOUR FLOW (kg/hr)

VAPOUR DENSITY (kg/m3)
VAPOUR MW
LIQUID FLOW (kg/hr)
LIQUID DENSITY (kg/m3)
PRESSURE (barg)
TEMPERATURE (oC)
4

NORMAL
VAPOUR

DESIGN
VAPOUR

NORMAL
VAPOUR

DESIGN
VAPOUR

NORMAL
VAPOUR

DESIGN
VAPOUR

NORMAL
VAPOUR

DESIGN
VAPOUR

2240
5.66
18.79
0
701.26
5.7
1.7

2341
5.68
18.78
0.0
701.51
5.7
0.7

2240
4.63
18.79
5.7
58.8

2341
4.66
18.78
5.7
57.0

2240
5.38
18.79
5.7
15.0

2341
5.38
18.78
5.7
15.0

0
5.38
18.79
5.7
15.0

1552
5.38
18.78
5.7
15.0

NORMAL
VAPOUR

DESIGN
VAPOUR

NORMAL
VAPOUR

DESIGN
VAPOUR

1517
5.38
18.79
5.7
15.0

1585
5.38
18.78
5.7
15.0

1084
5.38
18.79
5.7
15.0

1132
5.38
18.78
5.7
15.0

12
NORMAL DESIGN
VAPOUR VAPOUR
723
5.38
18.79
5.7
15.0

13
NORMAL DESIGN
VAPOUR VAPOUR

756
5.38
18.78
5.7
15.0

0
5.38
18.79
5.7
15.0

592
5.38
18.78
5.7
15.0

10
NORMAL DESIGN
VAPOUR VAPOUR
401
5.38
18.79
5.7
15.0

420
5.38
18.78
5.7
15.0

14
NORMAL DESIGN
VAPOUR VAPOUR
32
5.38
18.79
5.7
15.0

33
5.38
18.78
5.7
15.0

11
NORMAL DESIGN
VAPOUR VAPOUR
723
5.38
18.79
5.7
15.0

756
5.38
18.78
5.7
15.0
15

NORMAL
MIXED

DESIGN
MIXED

0
1.25
99.16
25.73
707.51
0.0
-0.4

0
1.26
98.73
27.9
707.84
0.0
-1.5

6.15
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

B1 - CALCULATION: FUEL GAS SCRUBBER

Feed data under normal case and worst case (Fuel gas with heater failure) scenarios.
Value
Normal case

Worst case

Temperature (T)
Pressure (P)

Fluid Property
o

C
Kpa

Unit

0.70
673

-26.11
673

Liquid Density ( l )

kg/m

701.6

688.0

Vapor Density ( v )

kg/m

5.68

8.78

Mixed Density ( m )

kg/m

5.75

6.45

Liquid Mass Flow (F L )

kg/h

28.3

59.6

Vapor Mass Flow (F V )

kg/h

2341

2302

Inlet Mass Flow (F M )

kg/h

2370

2362

Liquid Volume Flow (Q L )

m/h

4.03E-02

8.65E-02

Vapor Volume Flow (Q V )

m/h

412.4

366.2

Using Stokes law, Ref 3: VV = K l

v

A=

0.5

Eqn. B1-1

QV
Q T
and Ll = l
VV
A

Eqn. B1-2, B1-3

Where:
VV =
K=

v =
A=

max allowable vap vel (m/s)

constant

l =

liquid density (kg/m)

T=

holdup time (mins)

Ll =

liquid depth (m)

QV =
Ql =

vap density (kg/m)

cross sectional area (m)
vap volumetric flowrate (m/s)
liquid volumetric flowrate (m/s)

For a vertical separator of height < 3 m,K = 0.037m/s, From (Eqns. 10 - 12), the following is calculated:
Unit

Normal case

Worst case

Vv
A
D
T

m/s
m2
mm
mins

0.41
0.28
597
10

0.33
0.31
631
10

Ll

2.38E-02

5.10E-02

Sketch

600mm
0.15 (Min)

0.4m Min (1)

D (1.0m Min) (2)

D/2 (0.6m Min) (3)

1=
2=
3=
4=

0.4
1
0.60
0.15

m
m
m
m

Tan-Tan =

2.15

Liquid Level
0.15m (Min) (4)

6.16
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

B2 - CALCULATION: PRESSURE REDUCTION STATION

The control valve sizing is carried out as per GPSA (Ref. 8) and (Ref. 10)
Gas lines:
The valve sizing equations used is: Cv =
where,

w
N 8 FP P1Y

T1Z
XM

Eqn. B2-1

q, fluid volumetric flowrate in m3/hr

w, fluid mass flowrate in kg/hr
N 8 , numerical constant = 94.8
F p , pipe geometry factor
P 1 , fluid inlet pressure in bara
P 2 , fluid outlet pressure in bara
M, fluid molecular weight
T, gas inlet temperature in K
Z, compressibility factor

Y, expansion factor is calculated by: Y = 1

X
3Fk X T

Eqn. B2-2

(Y should not be less than 0.67. Also X should not exceed FkXc for gas)
Where, Fk, ratio of spec. heats is calculated by: Y = 1

X
and X T = (P / P1 )
3Fk X T

Eqn. B2-3, B2-4

Two-phase flows:
The valve sizing equation used is: Cv =

where,

w
N 6 Fp

ff
p f f

fg
p g g Y 2

Eqn. B2-5

w, fluid mass flowrate in kg/hr

N 6 , numerical constant = 27.3
F p , pipe geometry factor
f f , weight fraction of liquid phase
f g , weight fraction of vapor phase
p f , pressure drop for liquid phase in bara
p g , pressure drop for vapor phase in bara
f specific weight (mass density) in kg/m3 (for liquid phase)
g specific weight (mass density) in kg/m3 (for vapor phase)

Actual pressure drops are used for Dpf and Dpg, but with individual limiting pressures:

p f = FL ( p1 FF pv ) and p g = Fk xT p1
2

Eqn. B2-6, B2-7

Summary of results:
Inlet temperature
Outlet temperature
Inlet pressure
Outlet pressure
CV
Valve type

oC
oC
barg
bar
-

PCV 1
44.84
9.33
100
19
1.51
Globe

PCV 2
9.33
0.70
19
5.73
8.33
Globe

6.17
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

B3 - CALCULATION: PRESSURE SAFETY VALVES

Design Data
Operating pressure
Design pressure
Relieving pressure set point
Operating temperature

Allowable over pressure

Relieving pressure
Relieving temperature

83.0
100
100
492.6

psig
psig
psig
R

5.7
6.9
6.9
0.50

Fire
21
121
8.3
684.8
107.3
225.1

Non-fire
10
110
7.6
629.2
76.4
169.5

%
psig
barg
R
C
F

barg
barg
barg
C

Relieving temperature: T1 = 1 Tn
Pn

Eqn. B3-1

Where:
P 1 = Relieving pressure
P n = Operating temperature
T n = Operating temperature
Closed Outlet Case: Relieving rate (vapour relief)
k +1

W
A=
CK d P1 K b K c

TZ
2 k 1
, where C = 520 k

M
k +1

W (relief load)
k (ratio of specific heats)
C (co-efficient)
Kd (co-efficient of discharge)
Kb (capacity correction factor)
Kc (rupture disc correction)
Z (compressibility)
M (molecular weight)
T (relieving temperature)
P1 (relieving pressure)
A (effective discharge area)

2,341
1.255
342.7
0.975
1.0
1.0
0.9906
19.0
629.2
124.5
0.711

kg/hr
R
psia
in

Eqn. B3-2, B3-3

5,161lb/hr

API RP 520 [3.6.2.1.1]

API RP 520 [3.6.2.1.1]
API RP 520 [3.6.2.1.1]

76.4C

Closed Outlet Case: Relieving rate (liquid relief)

A=

Q
38 K d K w K c K v

G
p1 p2

Q (flow rate)
Kd (co-efficient of discharge)
Kw (back pressure correction)
Kc (combination correction)
Kv (viscosity correction)
G (specific gravity)
p 1 (relieving pressure)
p 2 (back pressure)
A (preliminary discharge area)

Eqn. B3-4

28.3
0.65
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.702

kg/hr
-

110

psig

3.0
0.001

psig
in

6.3bbl/d
0.2USGPM
API RP 520 [3.8.1.2]
API RP 520 [3.8.1.2] - assuming P2 / P1 > 0.15
API RP 520 [3.8.1.2]
API RP 520 [3.8.1.2] - preliminary estimate
at flowing temperature
(assumed)

6.18
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

Re =

Q(2800 G )
A

Eqn. B3-5

(absolute viscosity)
A (effective discharge area)
Re (Reynold's Number)

0.555
0.11
1.95E+3

cP
in
-

Kv (viscosity correction)
A (effective discharge area)

0.941
0.001

in

0.712

in

0.712
H
150
1.5 x 3

in
Ref. 6
lb
Minimum size

at flowing temperature
from API Std 526 (standard orifice areas)
N Re adjusted value

Closed Outlet Case: PSV sizing

A (total discharge area)

(vapor + liquid relief)

PSV selection
A (maximum discharge area)
Relief orifice designation
Valve body rating
Valve body size

Note: the PSV was sized for other cases such as fire and control valve failure. The closed case was the
largest relief load.

6.19
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

B4 - CALCULATION: FUEL GAS LINES

The lines are numbered as per the PFD Figure 6
INPUT
Stream Number
Fluid
Pressure
Temperature
Molecular weight
Vapor Vol. Flow
Vapor Density
Vapor Mass Flow
Liquid Vol. Flow
Liquid Density
Mixture density
Liquid Mass Flow
Gas Viscosity
Liquid/Mixed Viscosity
Line SCH'D
Nominal diameter
Inside diameter
C
OUTPUT
Fluid Vel.
Erosional vel. (V e )

Unit

5/6

15

Vapor
10100
25.00
18.96
24.32
97.44
6.08
2370
0.015
120
4
3.62
92.05
100

Vapor
10100
45.00
18.96
27.61
85.85
5.36
2370
0.015
120
4
3.62
92.05
100

Mixed
674
0.70
18.96
412.29
5.68
0.35
2341
0.04
701.50
43.79
5.75
28.28
0.011
0.4302
40
4
4.03
102.26
100

Vapor
674
0.70
18.78
412.15
5.68
0.35
2341
0.011
40
4
4.03
102.26
100

Vapor
674
15.00
18.78
435.13
5.38
0.34
2341
0.010
40
4
4.03
102.26
100

Liquid
674
0.70
98.73
-

(m/s)

1.02

1.15

13.94

13.94

14.72

0.01

(ft/s)
(m/s)

40.55
12.36

43.20
13.17

166.97
50.89

167.93
51.19

172.55
52.59

5.98E+05
0.0195
21.18
0.01

1.90E+04
0.0256
0.14

7.70E+05
0.0175
17.11
0.09

7.94E+05
0.017
16.62
0.10

3.47E+0
2
0.031
59.05
5.54E-06

45.72
0.45-1.13

45.7-61
0.11-0.22

45.7-61
0.11-0.22

45.7-61
0.11-0.22

0.6-1.8
0.09

(kPa)
(C)
(m/h)
(kg/m)
(lb/ft3)
(kg/h)
(m/h)
(kg/m)
(lb/ft3)
(kg/m)
(kg/h)
(cP)
(cP)
(in)
(in)
(mm)

Reynolds no. (Re)

Moody fr. factor (f)
Resis. Co-efficient (K)
P

(bar/100m)

6.01E+05
0.0175
19.01
0.01

WFL Max velocity

WFL Max P

(m/s)
(bar/100m)

45.72
0.45-1.13

Note
1. The lines are selected such that they meet the criteria for P (bar/100m) and velocity. The companys
internal standard for is used.
2. The distribution lines are to be a piping minimum size of 2 (NB)

6.20
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

0.04
701.50
43.79
28.28
0.549
80
2
2.07
52.50

C1 - BLOWDOWN VOLUME
Section

OD

WT

in
1
2
3

Preheater Inlet
Preheater
Preheater Outlet

4
5
6
7

Scrubber Inlet
Scrubber
After heater
Heater Outlet

Vol
3

Pressure
barg

ID

in

in

Area
m

passes

ft

Total L
ft

2.375
2.375
4.5

0.344
0.344
0.531

1.687
1.687
3.438

0.0428
0.0428
0.0873

0.0014
0.0014
0.0060

150
18
20

4
-

150
72
20

45.72
21.95
6.09

4.5
4.5
4.5

0.237
0.237
0.237

4.026
48
4.026
4.026

0.1023
1.2192
0.1023
0.1023

0.0082
1.1675
0.0082
0.0082

5
8
18
150

4
-

5
8
72
150

1.52
2.44
21.95
45.72

Vol @ atm
3

@ 6.9 barg
m3

0.07
0.03
0.04

100
100
100

6.59
3.16
3.65

0.96
0.46
0.53

0.01
3.32
0.18
0.38

6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9

0.09
22.92
1.24
2.59

0.01
3.32
0.18
0.38

Sections 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
Total:
All Sections Total:

26.84
40.25

3.89
5.83

6.21
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

C2 - BLOWDOWN: DISPERSION
Figure 6: Dispersion Envelope Showing UFL and LFL (Upper and Lower Flammability Limits)

Figure 7: UFL and LFL Side View

6.22
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009

C3 - RADIATION: ISOPLETHS

Figure 8: Radiation Isopleths

Case A4: 10.5m stack,
2.466kg/s vent rate

Figure 9: Blowdown Pressure vs Time

Fuel Gas Inlet Separator Emergency Depressurisation - Pressure Profile
10

Pressure (bara)

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Time (seconds)

6.23
IChemE_Technical Report_August 2009