Calculating column relief loads

Conventional, steady-state and dynamic simulation techniques are compared in

a study of relief loads for failure modes applied to a distillation column
Haribabu Chittibabu, Amudha Valli and Vineet Khanna Bechtel india PVE Ltd
Dipanjan Bhattacharya Bechtel Corporation

mergency relief in the process

industries aims to protect
equipment, the environment
and operating personnel from
abnormal conditions. Appropriate
estimation of relief loads under
extreme conditions is important for
the correct sizing of relief valves
and flare headers, and for the selection of disposal media. In addition,
during debottlenecking or revamping of process units, adding a new
relief valve and modifying the relief
system can be very costly and, in
terms of construction, difficult to
implement.
Estimating accurate relief loads
for distillation columns under various conditions is more complex

because of compositional changes

along the column height. The
conventional method of estimating
relief
load
(unbalanced
heat
method) is normally conservative
and leads to bigger relief valves
and flare headers, but it is the
approach most widely practised.
With increasing computing speed
and software reliability, process
simulation is increasingly used as
an important tool for estimating
relief load and properties. Steadystate simulation can also be used to
estimate the relief load within limitations and can overcome some of
the assumptions envisaged in the
conventional method. Dynamic
simulation provides an alternative

method for determining relief load

under abnormal conditions.
This article considers different
methods for estimating relief load
for a distillation column a debutaniser in this case and discusses
the strengths and weaknesses of
each method. There are many emergency cases that apply to a
distillation column, and estimation
of the maximum possible relief load
requires an understanding of plant
behaviour and identification of the
worst case.

Case study: a debutaniser

The debutaniser column separates

liquified petroleum gas (LPG)
components from light naphtha.

PDC

To flare, R

PC

135F
174 psia

Pset = 214 psia

Off gas
CWS

CWR

FC
LC
LC

Debutaniser

196000 lb/hr

Reflux
pump

Feed, F
673700 lb/hr, 301F

TC

Feed
pump

FC

Reflux
drum

Sour water
Distillate, sour LPG, D

FC

58120 lb/hr, 104F

Reboiler

LC

412F

Steam
Condensate

391F
FC

391F
178 psia
Product
pump

CWS

CWR

Bottom, naphtha product, B

615600 lb/hr, 391F

Figure 1 Distillation column (debutaniser)

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000487

PTQ Q2 2010 55

The overhead includes a

cooling
water
total
condenser, reflux drum
and off-gas valve, which
is normally closed. The
debutaniser operates at
174 psia and relief is set
at 214 psia. The debutaniser bottom is heated by
a thermosyphon reboiler
utilising medium-pressure
steam. Figure 1 shows a
flow diagram of the debutaniser under evaluation.
Major relief conditions or
plant situations identified
for the debutaniser are
loss of reflux, loss of feed
and
site-wide
power
failure.

QC

Reflux
drum

Top tray
Excess heat

D, hD

F, hF

Debutaniser

Qunbalanced = F hF - B hB - D hD + QR - QC - (F - B - D) hL
R = Qunbalanced (excess) /

QR

B, hB

Conventional method

The conventional approach Figure 2 Distillation column: unbalanced heat envelope

is also known as the
unbalanced heat method,
column is available in various literwhere a mass and energy balance is ature1 and hence is not covered in
developed under relief conditions, detail here.
based on the scenario under considThere are several assumptions in
eration, to determine if there is any determining relief loads:
unbalanced or excess heat. The Feed, products, reflux and top
unbalanced heat is divided by the tray liquid compositions are unallatent heat of vapourisation of the tered during the relief condition
top tray liquid to give the relief Feed, product, reflux and stripload:
ping medium will continue at the
normal rate unless the hydraulics at
Relief load = Qunbalanced (excess) /
the relieving condition determine
otherwise
The conventional method for Enthalpy is balanced on the top
determining the relief load of a tray and all unbalanced heat will



&LOWRATELBHR






&EED
"OTTOMS
2EFLUX
$ISTILLATE
2ELIEF
/VERHEAD
FROMCOLUMN

Relief valve
opens

Reflux stops



Reflux drum fills










reach and act upon the top tray

liquid
There is enough top tray liquid
available to generate vapour during
upset conditions.
To determine Qunbalanced, the first
step is to develop a sketch around
the affected system (see Figure 2)
and perform a mass and energy
balance in line with the upset
condition:







4IMEMIN











where
F = Debutaniser or column feed
rate at relief
hF = Specific enthalpy of feed at
relief
B = Debutaniser
or
column
bottom rate at relief
hB = Specific enthalpy of bottom at
relief
D = Debutaniser distillate rate at
relief
hD = Specific enthalpy of distillate
at relief
QR = Reboiler heat input at relief
QC = Condenser duty at relief
(generally, the design duty can be
considered)
hL = Specific enthalpy of top tray
liquid
= Latent heat of vapourisation
of top tray liquid
R = Relief load
Credit may be taken for reboiler
pinch. At relieving pressure, the
column temperature rises and the
reboiler temperature difference may
fall, leading to lower heat input to
the column. This is reboiler pinch.2
Assume that the volume of the
sump is sufficient to maintain a
constant reboiler circulation rate
and to re-rate the reboiler to obtain
duty at relief condition. If there was
a significant reduction in the
reboiler duty at relief, the lighter
components would begin travelling
towards the bottom, causing the
duty to rise again. Many designers
re-rate the reboiler with feed
composition instead of bottoms
composition in these circumstances,
to maintain a more conservative/
realistic reboiler duty at relief.

Loss of reflux

Figure 3 Loss of reflux: flow vs time

56 PTQ Q2 2010

Reflux stops immediately

The reflux drum and

the

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000487

column sump level, and finally

reaches zero
The column overhead vapour
rate decreases, the reflux drum level
drops, and the distillate rate
decreases to maintain the condenser
level and finally becomes zero.
Therefore:
OO O
O O O




Peak pressure



2ELIEFPRESSUREPSIA





Qunbalanced = F hF - B hB - D hD + QR - QC - (F - B - D) hL



2ELIEFPRESSURE
2ELIEFVALVESETPRESSURE
2ELIEFVALVEACCUMULATED
PRESSURE




Site-wide power failure (SWPF)














4IMEMIN











Figure 4 Loss of reflux: relief pressure vs time



Reflux drum fills

All electrical equipment fails,

therefore the feed pump, the debutaniser bottom pumps and the
reflux pumps stop
Assuming
all cooling water
pumps are electrically driven, the
condensing duty is also immediately lost
Steam is assumed to flow continuously to the reboiler. Therefore:
O O



OO

Qunbalanced = F hF - B hB - D hD + QR - QC - (F - B - D) hL
(OLDUPLEVEL



Dynamic simulation of relief

conditions





2EBOILERSUMP
2EFLUXDRUM
#OLUMNSUMP
















4IMEMIN











Figure 5 Loss of reflux: holdup level vs time

condenser flood, restricting the

O
O
O
overhead vapour path and pressu- Q
=
F
h
B
h
D
h
+
Q
Q
(F
B
D)
hL
unbalanced
F
B
D
R
C
rising the column
The feed is pumped and sufficient head is available to maintain Loss of feed
the feed flow rate at relief Feed stops immediately
condition
After
some time, when the
Bottom product continues at the
column level drops, the bottom
same rate. Therefore:
product decreases to maintain the
Relief load calculated by conventional method
Upset condition Relief load, lb/hr Temperature, F Molecular weight
Loss of reflux
124 980
164
49.28
Loss of feed
43 650
164
49.28
Site-wide power failure
342 796
164
49.28

Table 1

58 PTQ Q2 2010

Chemical plants and refineries are

never truly at a steady state and
this is the case during relief. The
transient behaviour of a column is
best studied by means of dynamic
simulation, which has gained in
importance since the 1990s and has
been used increasingly successfully
as the reliability of simulation software has increased. The equations
for material, energy and composition balances include an additional
accumulation term, which is
differentiated with respect to time.
The inclusion of an accumulation
term enables the dynamic model to
rigorously calculate compositional
changes at each stage and to modify
vapour/liquid equilibrium over
time.
Unlike steady-state simulation,
dynamic simulation works within a
Pressure-Flow (P-F) network with
two basic equations: resistance and
volume balance. The resistance
equation defines flow between pressure hold-ups, and the volume
balance equation defines material
balance at pressure hold-ups.
For the case under consideration,
the accuracy of dynamic simulation

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000487



www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000487



Pinched reboiler duty












-OLECULARWEIGHT

$UTY"45HR









2EBOILERDUTY
#OLUMNSUMP
MOLECULARWEIGHT


















4IMEMIN













Figure 6 Loss of reflux: reboiler duty and molecular weight vs time


&EED
"OTTOMS
2EFLUX
$ISTILLATE
2ELIEF
/VERHEAD
FROMCOLUMN




Feed stops



Relief valve
open



Relief valve
close

Bottom & distillate

flow zero




Relief flow


Loss of reflux condition











4IMEMIN









Figure 7 Loss of feed: flow vs time





Peak pressure


2ELIEFPRESSUREPSIA

The reflux pump is stopped in five

minutes (see Figure 3). The level in
the reflux drum starts to increase
(see Figure 5). The overhead vapour
from the column continues to flow
through the condenser and fill the
reflux drum. After 17 minutes, the
reflux drum floods and the flow to
the condenser is blocked; the
column pressure starts to increase
(see Figure 4). When the column
reaches the set pressure, after
about 21 minutes, the relief valve
starts to open. Note that the
pressure did not reach the maximum accumulated pressure for
the given orifice area of the relief
valve.
Initially, the level in the column
bottom sump decreases as the
reflux is stopped, and the bottoms
product level control valve closes to
maintain the column sump level.
The feed continues at a constant
rate, since its pressure upstream of





&LOWRATE LBHR

provides extra inputs compared

with steady-state simulation:
Dimensions, especially volumes,
for all static equipment; column
bottom and reflux drum levels are
set to normal to simulate hold-ups
A vendor curve for pressure flow
relationships for rotating equipment
Specific conductance for control
valves (Cv value) for pressure flow
relationships, and an actuator mode
and rate for valve actuator
dynamics
Detailed
exchanger
thermal
design for calculation of pressure
drop and heat transfer coefficient. If
detailed design is not available, a
resistance term for the pressure
flow relationship and overall UA
can be specified
Actual tray information such as
diameter, flow path, distributor
details, weir length and height are
required for column hydraulic
performance
Controller
for
determining
control actions during transitions.
Credit is not taken for the control
action, which reduces the relief
load; for example, the column
bottom
temperature
controller
reduces the steam flow rate when
the column bottom temperature
rises at the relief condition.





2ELIEFVALVESETPRESSURE
2ELIEFPRESSURE
2ELIFVALVE
ACCUMULATEDPRESSURE













4IMEMIN









Figure 8 Loss of feed: relief pressure vs time

PTQ Q2 2010 59



Reboiler sump level drops



(OLDUPLEVEL



Column sump level drops

2EBOILERSUMP
2EFLUXDRUM
#OLUMNSUMP

















4IMEMIN









Figure 9 Loss of feed: holdup level vs time




2EBOILERDUTY
#ONDENSERDUTY
#OLUMNSUMP
MOLECULARWEIGHT



$UTY"45HR

Pinched reboiler duty













Condenser
duty





























4IMEMIN

Figure 10 Loss of feed: reboiler duty and molecular weight vs time


&EED
"OTTOMS
2EFLUX
$ISTILLATE
2ELIEF
/VERHEAD
FROMCOLUMN



&LOWRATE  LBHR

Site-wide power failure





Relief valve open















4IMEMIN

Figure 11 Site-wide power failure: flow vs time

60 PTQ Q2 2010









the control valve is higher than the

relief pressure.
Figure 6 shows the reboiler duty
and column sump molecular weight
during this relief condition. As soon
as the reflux is stopped, the molecular weight in the column sump
increases, leading to an increase in
the boiling temperature of the
column bottoms, finally resulting
in reduced reboiler duty.
After 17 minutes, when the path
for the overhead vapour was
blocked (condenser flooded), lighter
components started to fill the
column sump and reboiler duty
again started to increase. After 21
minutes, when the relief valve
started to open, reboiler duty
settled, based on the column sump
composition at relief condition.

Loss of feed condition

The feed pump stops after five

minutes (see Figure 7). After 10
minutes, the column sump level
drops (see Figure 9) and the bottom
flow is reduced to maintain the
column sump level. As the column
overhead vapour starts to decrease
(see Figure 7), the reflux drum level
decreases and the distillate flow
reduces to maintain the reflux drum
level. After 20 minutes, when distillate and bottoms stop completely,
only the vapour generated by the
reboiler is condensed by the
condenser. Figure 10 shows the
pinched reboiler duty, condenser
duty and column sump molecular
weight.
During loss of feed, the column
sump molecular weight increases,
resulting in reduced reboiler duty.
Since the top reflux is maintained
at normal flow, the lighter components start migrating towards the
bottom. The column profile starts
becoming lighter and the temperature profile starts lowering. This
also results in the lower molecular
weight of the column overhead
vapour. After about 11 minutes, the
condenser is not able to fully
condense the overhead vapour due
to its lower molecular weight,
resulting in a rise in column pressure (see Figure 8). When the
column reaches the set pressure,
after about 23 minutes, the relief
valve starts to open. Note that the

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000487

pinched reboiler duty at this time is

higher because of the lower molecular weight in the column sump.
After about 35 minutes, all noncondensable or lighter components
exit the column, reboiler duty
reduces again to about 42% of
normal, and the column stabilises
at total reflux mode.





2ELIEFPRESSUREPSIA

Site-wide power failure condition

Summary
Loss of reflux condition

Figure 15 shows a comparison of

relief load values obtained for loss

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000487





2ELIEFVALVESETPRESSURE
2ELIEFPRESSURE
2ELIFVALVE
ACCUMULATEDPRESSURE













4IMEMIN









Figure 12 Site-wide power failure: relief pressure vs time





Column sump
level increases

(OLDUPLEVEL







2EBOILERSUMP
2EFLUXDRUM
#OLUMNSUMP













4IMEMIN









Figure 13 Site-wide power failure: hold-up level vs time




-OLECULARWEIGHT
2EBOILERDUTY
#ONDENSERDUTY



Increasing column
sump molecular weight

















Reboiler duty
decreases







-OLECULARWEIGHT



$UTY"45HR

Assume that site-wide power failure occurs after five minutes (see
Figure 11). During the power failure, the feed pump, column bottom
pump, reflux pump and cooling
water pump stop, and their respective flows become zero immediately.
The column sump level increases
immediately as the tray inventories
are dumped to the bottom (see
Figure 13).
As the flows of feed, distillate,
bottoms and cooling water are cut,
the vapours generated by the
reboiler cause the column pressure
to increase (see Figure 12). After 11
minutes, the relief valve opens.
Initially, there is mass transfer
between the vapours from the
reboiler and the residual liquid on
the trays; progressively, as the trays
dry up, the temperature and molecular weight of the overhead
(relieving) vapour increase. The
bottoms
progressively
become
heavier, resulting in a continuous
decrease in the reboiler duty (see
Figure 14). As the pinched reboiler
duty carries on decreasing, the
relief valve will eventually close.
During power failure, the relief
load is relatively low compared
with the loss of feed condition
because the pinched reboiler duty
is much less due to the high molecular weight in the column. During
loss of feed, continuing reflux
makes the column relatively lighter.
The time taken to pressure up the
column is much higher in the loss
of feed scenario because the
condenser is available, compared to
the loss of power condition,
where condensing duty was lost
immediately.

Peak pressure











4IMEMIN










Figure 14 Site-wide power failure: reboiler duty and molecular weight vs time

PTQ Q2 2010 61



Conventional method


2ELIEFLOAD  LBHR





Steady-state simulation




Dynamic simulation











4IMEMIN









Figure 15 Loss of reflux: relief load vs time

Relief load calculated by dynamic simulation

Upset condition Relief load, lb/hr Temperature, F Molecular weight
Loss of reflux
90 800
310
62.5
Loss of feed
93 500
117
44.2
Site-wide power failure
29 250
290
76

Table 2

of reflux. According to the conventional method, the predicted relief

load is higher than the value
obtained by dynamic simulation. In
the conventional method, the

assumption is that all of the unbalanced heat will vapourise the top
tray liquid, which has a lower
specific enthalpy. The molecular
weight and temperature are lower





2ELIEFLOAD  LBHR





Conventional method




Dynamic
simulation










Figure 16 Loss of feed: relief load vs time

62 PTQ Q2 2010


4IMEMIN









for the top tray at bubble point and

relief pressure when compared to
dynamic simulation, which simulates reflux failure, resulting in a
higher temperature and molecular
weight.
In a dynamic simulation of loss of
reflux, the column almost reaches a
new steady-state condition after 25
minutes. The rectifying section of
the column goes dry and only the
stripping section is involved in
mass transfer. This new steady state
can also be reasonably simulated
using a steady-state simulator (see
Steady-state simulation to obtain
relief load and properties).
There is a marginal difference in
the relief load obtained by steadystate simulation and dynamic
simulation because, in steady-state
simulation, the column pressure has
been raised to an accumulation
pressure (set pressure +10% or
+16% based on the scenario),
whereas in dynamic simulation the
pressure safety valve starts opening
at its set pressure and the pressure
does not reach the maximum accumulated pressure for the selected
orifice area. Note that the conventional method and steady-state
simulation are not time dependent,
so the relief load appears constant
in comparison with the dynamic
simulation relief load.

Loss of feed

Figure 16 shows a comparison of

relief load obtained for loss of feed.
The relief load calculated by the
conventional method is lower than
by dynamic simulation. In the
conventional method, the condenser
duty equals the design duty and
the cooling effect is predominant.
In
dynamic
simulation,
the
condenser duty is not fixed and the
hold-up of the individual components in the column determines the
behaviour
of
the
condenser.
Initially, during loss of feed, the
reboiler duty decreases due to
pinch and the lighter components
subsequently travel to the bottoms
and the whole column profile
becomes lighter. Eventually, the
reboiler duty again starts to raise
due to the decrease in molecular
weight. This phenomenon cannot
be evaluated with the conventional

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000487




Conventional method

2ELIEFLOAD  LBHR











Dynamic simulation






4IMEMIN









Figure 17 Site-wide power failure: relief load vs time

method, but validates the hypothesis that, if the pinched duty is too
low, the designer should re-evaluate the reboiler duty, assuming
lighter composition in the column
bottoms.

much lower than by the conventional method. In reality, during

this condition, after the trays dry
up the column simply acts as a boiling pot without mass transfer.
The reboiler duty continuously
decreases as the contents become
heavier with time. According to the
conventional approach, reboiler
duty and relief rate are calculated
at one instant, which is at the start
of the emergency (not at the start of

Site-wide power failure

Figure 17 shows a comparison of

relief load obtained for site-wide
power failure. In dynamic simulation, the relief load obtained is

Steady-state simulation to obtain

relief load and properties

To relief

Debutaniser

Off gas

To condenser
CWS

Feed

CWR

Reflux
drum

Recycle

Reflux

Sour water

Total liquid from

column bottom stage
(internal stream)

Reflux
pump

Distillate

Internal
energy
stream

Bottom
Set
Twinned
column bottom

To external
reboiler
Internal energy duty = external reboiler duty

Steam

External
reboiler
Condensate

Figure 18 Distillation column steady-state simulation relief condition

64 PTQ Q2 2010

relief). This results in a conservative

estimate. The effect of hold-up
volumes and time taken to pressurise is normally ignored.
The conventional method is the
most conservative and requires less
effort during design. Steady-state
simulation to determine the relief
load has limited applicability. For
grassroots designs, the conventional
method may be the most appropriate, as detailed design and/or
complete vendor information may
not be available at the time of the
relief systems design. It also helps
to build in inherent design margins
for any possible future expansion/
debottlenecking operation, and to
minimise changes during the late
stages of the project due to any
unforeseen design development.
Dynamic simulation models the
system rigorously and tends to
provide more accurate results,
taking into account actual system
dynamics and configuration. It tries
to emulate plant behaviour, which
usually results in lower relief loads.
Dynamic simulation also provides
relief loads based on time, which
can be further analysed for optimising the relief systems design.
Dynamic simulation can be particularly useful in unit revamps, to
limit the capital cost involved in
relief system modifications.

Simulate the distillation column

into three sections: column, column
overhead system and reboiler
system
The column can also be simulated
as a reboiled column (column with
a reboiler) with theoretical stages
and normal operating pressure
Define a reflux stream and
feed it to the top tray
Define the feed stream and
assign an appropriate feed location.
Give a normal pressure drop across
the column
Fix the normal reboiler duty to
the energy stream and normal boilup ratio (as a specification)
Converge the column
The column overhead system
includes a pressure safety valve
(PSV), cooling water condenser and
reflux drum

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000487

 Split the overhead vapour

from the column to relief and to
condenser, and set the relief
flow rate to zero
Simulate the condenser as a
shell and tube exchanger with cooling water on the tube side and
overhead vapour totally condensed.
Simulate the reflux drum, reflux
pump, distillate product and reflux
The reflux from the reflux
pump should be same as the
defined reflux stream to the top
tray, so connect them through a
recycle block
The reboiler system should be
simulated as a separate shell and
tube heat exchanger (external
reboiler) in order to study reboiler
pinch at relieving conditions
Create an internal stream of
the total liquid from the bottom
stage in the column. The internal
stream minus the column bottoms
is the feed to the external reboiler,
so split the internal stream to the
external reboiler and twinned
column bottoms. Set the column
bottoms flow rate to the twinned
column bottoms stream
Specify the normal UA to the
external reboiler
Specify the hot side of the
external reboiler. For the case under
consideration, the hot-side inlet is
steam at its saturation condition
and the hot-side outlet is total
condensate
Increase the column pressure to
relief pressure (PSV set pressure +
allowable accumulation). Since the
bottom pressure is higher (relief

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000487

pressure + normal P), the bubble

point of the column bottom
increases. The temperature difference across the external reboiler
reduces, leading to lower external
reboiler duty (pinch). The calculated duty of the external reboiler
should be equal to the energy
stream attached to the column
(internal energy stream). Iterate the
column internal energy stream so
that it matches the external reboiler
duty. Even though the LMTD tends
to increase in the condenser, many
designers tend to restrict the maximum condenser duty to design
duty due to uncertainties in the
calculation. For this exercise, the
condenser duty is limited to the
design duty only.
Now the column is at relieving
pressure, giving an idea of the
reduced reboiler duty and the
amount of overhead vapour. The
next step is to simulate the cause of
overpressure to the maximum
convergence of the column. For loss
of reflux, increase the flow to
relief, so that flow to the condenser
is reduced and, ultimately, the flow
to
the
reflux
is
reduced.
Simultaneously reduce the distillate
flow step-wise as the reflux pump
is stopped. At the same time, keep
iterating the column internal energy
stream so that it matches the external reboiler duty. Ultimately, when
the reflux and distillate are zero, all
the overhead vapour from the
column is the relieving flow.
The above methodology can also
be extended to other emergencies,

where it is expected that the relieving scenario could approach the

steady-state condition.
References
1 Sengupta M, Staats F Y, A new approach to
relief valve load calculations, May 1978.
2 Rahimi Mofrad S, Tower pressure relief
calculation, Hydrocarbon Processing, Sep 2008.
Haribabu Chittibabu is an Engineering
Specialist in the Advanced Simulation and
Analysis group at Bechtel India. He has a
bachelors degree in chemical engineering
from University of Madras and a masters in
petroleum refining and petrochemicals from
Anna University, India.
Email: hchittib@bechtel.com
Amudha Valli is an Engineering Specialist in
the Advanced Simulation and Analysis group
at Bechtel, India. She has a bachelors degree
in chemical engineering from Coimbatore
Institute of Technology, India, and a masters
in chemical engineering from Anna University,
India. Email: an@bechtel.com
Vineet Khanna is Project Engineering Manager
with Bechtel India. He has a bachelors degree in
chemical engineering from the Indian Institute
of Technology, Delhi, India.
Email: vkhanna@bechtel.com
Dipanjan Bhattacharya is an Engineering
Specialist in the Advanced Simulation and
Analysis group at Bechtel, Houston. He has
a bachelors degree in chemical engineering
from Jadavpur University, India, and masters
in chemical engineering from University of
Oklahoma. Email: dbhatta1@bechtel.com

Links
More articles from the following
category:
Process Modelling & Simulation

PTQ Q2 2010 65