Benefits of Having Side Water-Draw in a Condensate Stabilizer

Column Part 1

This tip will investigate the benefits of having a water-draw in a condensate

stabilizer. It will use a commercial simulation software to simulate the performance
of an operating stabilizer. In order to take into account the non-ideality of water, the
tip will perform three-phase (vapor, liquid hydrocarbon, and aqueous phases)
calculations on the trays with excessive water rates. Specifically, it will study the
impact of feed water rate in the raw condensate stream on the reboiler and
condenser duties. It will also study water removal by water-draw pan, and the
optimum location of water-draw tray in the column. For a case study the tip will
determine the optimum location of water-Draw tray by maximizing water removal
from water-draw tray and minimizing the reboiler and condenser duties.

If the vapor liquid equilibrium conditions in the distillation tower allow the water
entering the column with the feed to leave in either the bottom product or in the
overhead distillate product, then no special provisions are needed to remove the
water from the fractionator. A key exception here is the probability of free water
accompanying the feed stream due a malfunctioning upstream three-phase feed
separator. If the distillate product is a liquid and the water condenses along with
the distillate and reux streams then the overhead accumulator can be configured
as a three-phase separator. A more difcult situation exists if the water condenses
within the tower because the overhead temperature is too cool and the bottoms
temperature is too hot to allow the water to leave in the product streams. The most
common example of this condition is found in the condensate stabilizer.

Liquid water build-up can reduce capacity and, depending on the uid composition,
promote corrosion. Eventually the water build-up will cause the tower to ood and a
major disruption in tower operation results as the water leaves the column. Once
the water has left the column, operation will return to normal until the cycle repeats
and the water build-up once again produces a ooding condition. The time
between cycles can be anywhere from hours to weeks depending on the amount of
water entering the stabilizer.

One solution to the water build-up condition is to provide a water draw pan on the
trays where liquid water is expected to condense. Figure 1 [1] is an example of a
water draw for a tray-distillation column. The water draw pan is not sized to
provide a good separation between water and hydrocarbon liquid so the uid
leaving the column is routed to an adequately sized liquid-liquid separator where
the water is removed for further processing and the hydrocarbon liquid is routed
back to the distillation column [2].
Figure 1. Water Draw Tray Arrangement [1]

Case Study

Table 1 presents the compositions (mol %) of a raw condensate mixture studied.

This table also presents the required heavy end properties (Molecular Weight,
Specific Gravity, and Volume Average Boiling Point) and the conditions of the feed
stream.
Figure 2 presents a simplified process flow diagram for the case study. The tip
utilized the front mixer to vary the feed water rate for the simulation purpose only.
The use of the heat exchanger (HEX) will lower the reboiler and condenser duties.
Table 2 presents the stabilizer column specifications. Note the difference between
water draw from within the column and water drain from the V-4 reflux drum.
Figure 2. A simplified stabilizer column with side water-draw

Based on the information in Tables 1 and 2, and the process flow diagram of
Figure 2, the tip performed simulation using the Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK)
equation of state [3] in ProMax [4] software.
Simulation Results:

Figure 3 present the simulation results for the base case without side water-draw.
The total water rate on the x-axis represents the sum of water rates in the vapor,
light liquid (mostly hydrocarbons), and heavy liquid (mostly water) phases at any
given tray in the column. The feed water range is from 940 to 1500 lbmole/d (427
to 1500 kmol/d). If the feed water is less than 940 lbmole (427 kmol/d) no heavy
liquid (aqueous) phase is formed inside the column and water side draw rate will
be zero. Figure 3 indicates if the feed water rate increases above 1200 lbmole/d
(545 kmol/d), the maximum total water rate location shifts from tray 11 down to 18.
In an actual plant a free water knockout drum (three-phase separator) ahead of the
stabilizer removes the excess water to minimize the heating requirement. The feed
water rate above 1200 lbmole/d (545 kmol/d) to the stabilizer column is unrealistic
and shown here only for demonstration purposes.

In addition to the base case, the tip simulated two cases with the side water-draw
located at tray number 7 or 8. Table 3 presents the summary of simulation results
for the base case and the two cases with side water-draw. For the base case
without the water draw, at higher feed water rate some of the water leaves with
stabilized condensate (C5+).
Figure 3. Total water molar rate profile in the stabilizer column without side water-
draw as a function water rate in the feed
Figure 4a indicates that the presence of side water-draw at tray 7 shifts the
maximum total water rate from tray 10 (Figure 3) to 6 for lower feed water rates
and from tray 18 (Figure 3) to 10 for higher feed water rates, respectively. Figures
4a and 4b also indicate that the side water-draw at tray 7 removes water effectively
for low feed water rates. As shown in Table 3, at higher feed water rate, the
reboiler and condenser duties decrease considerably compared to the base case.
Table 3 also indicates that the HEX (feed-bottoms exchanger) duty remains the
same for all three cases because there was no material change in its flows and
temperatures.

Figure 4a. Total water molar rate profile in the stabilizer column with side water-
draw at tray 7 as a function water rate in the feed (full range)
Figure 4b. Total water molar rate profile in the stabilizer column with side water-
draw at tray 7 as a function water rate in the feed (lower range)

In order to maximize water removal for higher feed water rate, the tip moved the
side water-draw from tray 7 to 8. Table 3 clearly indicates that water-draw at tray 7
give higher water recovery percent for lower feed water rates up to 1200 lbmole/d
(545 kmol/d) and water-draw at tray 8 give higher water recovery for higher feed
water rate. Figure 5 presents the total water flow rate profile within the column with
side water-draw at tray 8 as a function of feed water rate. This figure demonstrates
the effectiveness of the side water-draw.
Figure 5. Total water molar rate profile in the stabilizer column with side water-draw
at tray 8 as a function water rate in the feed (higher range)

Figure 6 presents the water recovery percent of the feed water as a function of the
feed water rate for the three cases considered. For the base case without the side
water-draw some of the excess water leaves the column with the C5+ stream. For
this case, the excess feed water rate also increases the reboiler and condenser
duties. These increases are indicative of the increased internal vapor traffic
necessary to carry the water vapor out of the tower.

Like Figures 7 and 8, Figure 6 also shows the effectiveness of side water-draw and
the impact of side water-draw location.
Figure 6. Water recovery (%) as a function of the feed water rate
Figure 7. Reboiler duty as a function of the feed water rate
Figure 8. Condenser duty as a function of the feed water rate

Conclusions:

The simulation results for the three case studies demonstrated the effectiveness of
side water-draw and the importance of water draw location in the column. Based
on the results obtained, this tip presents the following observations.

1. Commercial simulators using special convergence algorithms and

thermodynamic packages are able to predict the presence of two liquid
phases within distillation columns. The calculations are difcult to converge
and it is difcult to predict the exact location of the liquid water phase.
Therefore, it is advisable to install liquid water draw trays in two or three
locations around the tray predicted by the simulator.
2. Install properly sized free water knockout (three phase separator) separator
to minimize the feed water rate to the stabilizer column. This assures
easier/less troublesome operation with lower utility (reboiler and condenser
duties) cost.
3. Side water-draw removes water/aqueous phase effectively and reduces the
reboiler duty and condenser duty.
4. The optimum location of the side-draw depends on the feed water rate.
 5. This tip determined the optimum location of water-draw try by maximizing
liquid water removal and minimizing the reboiler and condenser duties.
6. The side water-draw has no impact on the heat exchanger upstream of the
stabilizer column.
7. As shown In Table 3, the topmost condenser duties for the three cases are
14.67, 9.00 and 8.49 MMBtu/hr (4.3, 2.64, and 2.49 MW),
respectively. Since fundamentally at a fixed overhead product
rate, condenser pressure and temperature the water vapor content is
fixed. Thus a greater total overhead flow is needed to transport water as
vapor out of the column to be condensed into the reflux drum and
removed. Greater total overhead means larger condenser duty. It also
requires a commensurately larger reboiler duty. With a lot of water entering
the tower the condenser and reboiler might not be big enough to do the job.

Part 2 (follow-up of this tip) will investigate the variation of water partial pressure
along the column and the changes in operating variables.

To learn more about similar cases and how to minimize operational problems, we
suggest attending our G4 (Gas Conditioning and Processing), G5 (Advanced
Applications in Gas Processing), P81 (CO2 Surface Facilities), and PF4 (Oil
Production and Processing Facilities), courses.

PetroSkills offers consulting expertise on this subject and many others. For more
information about these services, visit our website at
http://petroskills.com/consulting, or email us at consulting@PetroSkills.com.

By: Dr. Mahmood Moshfeghian

Reference:

1. Campbell, J.M., Gas Conditioning and Processing, Volume 2: The

Equipment Modules, 9th Edition, 2nd Printing, Editors Hubbard, R. and
SnowMcGregor, K., Campbell Petroleum Series, Norman, Oklahoma,
2014.
2. Lieberman, N. P. ; Troubleshooting Process Operation 13, Oil and Gas
Journal, p. 100 102, Feb 16, 1981.
3. Soave, G., Chem. Eng. Sci. 27, 1197-1203, 1972.
4. ProMax 3.2, Bryan Research and Engineering, Inc, Bryan, Texas, 2016.