Reactions Page 1 sur 8

Log off or Change user (SARA DAVIS)

Subscribe to HP magazine!

Advanced search
Reader service request
HPInformer: the new blog from Hydrocarbon Processing

Letters to the editor from our January 2009 issue: The climate change debate rages on

April 2008
Full contents

Distillation column relief loads—Part 1

Compare conventional calculation methodology with dynamic simulation

P. L. Nezami, Jacobs Engineering, Houston, Texas

Comments? Write:
editorial@HydrocarbonProcessing.com

Estimating the relief rates for distillation columns is by far the most complex relief load calculation.
The dynamic nature of distillation columns and compositional changes along the column height
make it very difficult to accurately establish relief loads for various contingencies. Additionally, the
inability of regular (steady-state) process simulation software to predict column behavior in a
nonsteady-state condition forces design engineers to create analytical methods that by nature are
conservative. This could result not only in oversized relief valves but also in unnecessarily large
and costly flare systems, which in turn can jeopardize project viability.

The enormous differences between distillation systems, such as column controls, types of
condensers and reboilers, heating and cooling media, pumparounds and side reboilers, etc., make
it impossible to create a universal method for all distillation columns. The suggested techniques
are at best a series of general guidelines and criteria, set forth to provide directions to evaluate
each individual case.

Common methods. The two most prevalent shortcut techniques, which may or may not be
conservative and generally used to estimate order of magnitude relief rates, are:

Flash drum approach. This could be used to estimate the relief rate in a loss of
cooling/condensing scenario. In this method, the feed stream is flashed at relieving pressure with
additional heat input equal to the reboiler duty.

Gross overhead vapor. This is usually used to establish a basis for the flare and flare header
design at early stages in the projects, and it is the simplest way to roughly estimate relief loads.
Although this method seems to be conservative for most cases, it has been argued that it could
result in undersized relief valves.1

For better results, one must analyze relief scenarios in detail on a case-by-case basis. The most
comprehensive conventional method is to estimate relief loads based on mass and energy
imbalance (accumulation) in an upset condition. The bases and assumptions for this method are:

1. At relieving conditions, feeds, products and reflux compositions, as well as top-tray liquid and
bottoms compositions, are unchanged.

2. The column trays are at vapor/liquid equilibrium at relief pressure.

3. Except for the feeds, all streams leaving and entering the column are at vapor/liquid

http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/default.asp?Page=14&S=S&PUB=22&ISS=... 20/01/2009
Reactions Page 2 sur 8

equilibrium at relieving pressure.

4. Vapors may not be accumulated in the column (after the column reaches the relief pressure)
and must leave the system via a relief valve. Liquids could accumulate in the system by the rise or
fall of liquid levels.

5. Liquids can absorb heat whether they leave or stay in the system.

6. Credit may be taken for product sensible heat absorption when the feed enters the column
below its bubble point at the relieving pressure.

7. The energy imbalance resulting from an upset is converted to mass (vapor) using top-tray
liquid latent heat of vaporization.

8. The vapor distillate control valve, if applicable, stays at its position. Credit may be taken for
vapor distillate unless its path is blocked.

9. The vapor portions of the feed streams, flashed adiabatically at relief pressure, directly
contributes to the relief rate.

10. Credit may be taken for reboiler temperature pinch, if light materials do not reach the column
bottom.

11. Any safety margin used in the actual design must be considered in the relief rate calculations.

12. The properties of the vaporized top-tray liquid at bubble point and relief pressure are used to
size the relief valve.

The relief rate can be defined as:

W = WR + W F – WV – WC – WH (1)

where: W = Relief rate

WR = Reboiler and side reboiler load contributions

WF = Feed vapor phase contributions

WV = Vapor distillate credit

WC = Condenser and pumparound credits

WH = Liquids enthalpy imbalance.

Dynamic simulation. Nevertheless, the best available technique for distillation column relief rate
calculation is dynamic simulation. Dynamic models use a set of mass and energy conservation
equations that account for changes occurring over time. Unlike steady-state simulation, these
equations include an additional accumulation term that is differentiated with respect to time. The
accumulation rate of mass is:

Mass flow into system – Mass flow out of system (2)

And the accumulation rate of total energy is:

Flow of total energy into system – Flow of total energy out

of system + Heat added to system across the boundary + Heat
generated by reaction – Work done by system on surroundings (3)

http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/default.asp?Page=14&S=S&PUB=22&ISS=... 20/01/2009
Reactions Page 3 sur 8

The inclusion of the accumulation term in the mass and energy conservation equations allows the
dynamic model to rigorously calculate composition changes at each stage and to modify
vapor/liquid equilibrium over time. It also allows integrations of column flowrates, pressures and
temperatures with respect to time. The results lead to a much more accurate relief rate.

Case study. A comparison between the results of the conventional method with those of the
dynamic simulation for a typical distillation column in a loss of condenser scenario will be
presented. Fig. 1 shows the flow diagram of the distillation column system under evaluation.

Fig. 1 Flow diagram for the distillation system.

In a loss of condenser scenario, the reflux drum liquid level drops causing the level control valve
to close. Reflux continues at a constant rate until the drum runs dry. The feed continues at a
constant rate since its pressure, upstream of the control valve, is higher than the relief pressure.
With no liquid distillate product, the only place for light materials in the feed is the column bottoms;
hence, no credit could be taken for reboiler temperature pinch. On flow control, the steam control
valve opens wide and the reboiler chest pressure equalizes with the steam header pressure (a
zero pressure drop is assumed across the control valve). Clean reboiler duty is used for both
calculations.

Conventional method. Table 1 is the summary of the stream properties and column parameters
at normal and upset conditions. Stream properties in upset conditions were obtained by
performing the following flash calculations on the basis of normal stream compositions:

Feed—adiabatic flash at relief pressure

Vapor distillate—dew-point flash at relief pressure

Liquid distillate—bubble-point flash at relief pressure

Decant water—bubble-point flash at relief pressure

Bottoms product—bubble-point flash at relief pressure.

http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/default.asp?Page=14&S=S&PUB=22&ISS=... 20/01/2009
Reactions Page 4 sur 8

Based on the calculation results listed in Table 1:

WR = 403,980 lb/hr

WF = 0 lb/hr

The vapor distillate pressure control valve at its normal position (normal Cv) can pass 9,128 lb/hr
of the column overhead vapor at relieving pressure.

WV = 9,128 lb/hr

WC = 0 lb/hr

WH = 179,992 lb/hr

The relief rate would be the sum of the above calculated values:

http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/default.asp?Page=14&S=S&PUB=22&ISS=... 20/01/2009
Reactions Page 5 sur 8

W = 214,860 lb/hr

Dynamic simulation. A dynamic model was developed for the column. Fig. 2 shows the
simulation flow diagram for it. The following parameters were set to generate the initial values of
dynamic simulation variables:

The reboiler UA was set to clean UA value for a zero fouling factor on both sides.

The reboiler chest pressure was adjusted to obtain normal reboiler duty. This emulates
pressure drop across the steam control valve at steady-state conditions.

The reflux drum and column bottom sump dimensions were set to actual values to simulate
liquid level variations in a dynamic mode.

The condenser was set to constant medium temperature mode.

Fig. 2 Dynamic simulation flowsheet.

The initial setting of dynamic parameters, such as reflux drum and column bottom sump
dimensions, reboiler heating medium temperature, column tray hydraulics, etc., are part of the
required data in steady-state simulation. The parameter values will be carried over to the dynamic
simulation as initial variable values when the steady-state simulation is exported to the dynamic
model

In the dynamic model, the condenser failure was initiated after 10 min. of normal (steady-state)
run. At the same time, the reboiler heating medium temperature was set to the steam header
temperature to simulate a zero pressure drop across the steam control valve. The simulation was
run for two hours, and the results were captured and recorded (Figs. 3–8).

http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/default.asp?Page=14&S=S&PUB=22&ISS=... 20/01/2009
Reactions Page 6 sur 8

Fig. 3 Column overhead pressure for simulated run.

Fig. 4 Simulated stream flowrates.

Fig. 5 Temperature variations during the simulation.

Fig. 6 Reflux drum and bottom sump liquid levels

during simulation.

http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/default.asp?Page=14&S=S&PUB=22&ISS=... 20/01/2009
Reactions Page 7 sur 8

Fig. 7 Condenser and reboiler duties for dynamic

model.

Fig. 8 Column relief rates for simulation.

Here are some highlights of the simulation results:

The overhead pressure starts to rise right after the upset was introduced. It peaks at 165
psig 12 min. later.

Liquid distillate stops 5 min. after the condenser fails (this interval depends on the level
controller parameters: proportional gain, integral time, derivative time, process variable and
output ranges). The 5-min. duration, in this example, is based on the simulation's PID
controller default parameters.

Reflux continues for another 25 min. at normal flow rate, then practically stops. This is
when the reflux drum dries out.

The relief valve starts relieving 5 min. after the upset, exactly when liquid distillate
completely stops.

The relief rate peaks at about 161,200 lb/hr 12 min. after the upset and keeps at almost a
steady rate for 16 min.. Then it drops for about 7 min. to 8 min. and reaches a new steady
rate of about 122,000 lb/hr very close to the normal liquid distillate rate.

The overhead temperature starts to increase at upset and, after about 6 min. to 8 min., it
reaches a temporary stable condition. It stays steady so long as the relief rate is at its peak.
As the relief rate drops, the overhead temperature rises again to its new maximum and
stays constant through the rest of the simulation time.

The vapor distillate rate increases to double the normal flowrate immediately after the
upset. Its mass flowrate keeps rising slowly due to the change of overhead molecular
weight and reaches its maximum value at the end of the simulation time. The vapor
distillate rate is very comparable to the one calculated in the conventional method.

Reboiler duty spikes to its maximum, right when the upset is initiated. It drops immediately
and keeps flat through the 25 min. of maximum relief rate; then it drops again, this time, to
its minimum steady level.

The column reaches a new steady-state condition approximately 30 min. after the upset
with a constant relief rate of 122,000 lb/hr.

The simulation results are based on hysteresis (opening and closing curves) of a typical relief
valve in compressible fluid service. The relief valve hysteresis is presented in Fig. 9.

http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/default.asp?Page=14&S=S&PUB=22&ISS=... 20/01/2009
Reactions Page 8 sur 8

Fig. 9 Relief valve hysteresis

The major advantage of dynamic simulation, over the conventional method, is the accuracy of
calculated relief rates. The ability of the dynamic model to integrate simulation variables over time
and to rigorously calculate various column parameters would result in much more realistic relief
load values.

Another advantage is engineering man-hours and project schedule time savings. Given that the
conventional method requires a separate detailed analysis for each relief case, dynamic
simulation can save a great deal of engineering time, since a single dynamic model can be used
for all various relief scenarios. The third advantage of a dynamic model is that, for a great majority
of the cases, the relief loads calculated by dynamic simulation are smaller than the ones
calculated by using the conventional method. This could result in a considerable cost saving,
particularly in cases where there are limitations in the flare system capacities.

In the example, the difference is greater than 33%, which could even be higher (up to 41%) if,
instead of a single large relief valve, two smaller ones were used. With multiple relief valves, the
allowable accumulation pressure would increase to 116% of the design pressure and the
combined relief loads would peak at 152,600 lb/hr. At the end it is worth mentioning that, if the
conventional method relief loads are smaller than the ones calculated by dynamic simulation, one
can be certain that the conventional method results would lead to an undersized relief valve. HP

LITERATURE CITED

1 Bradford, M. and D. G. Durrett, "Avoiding common mistakes in sizing distillation safety valves," Chemical Engineering, July 9,

1984.

The author
Piruz Latifi Nezami is a process engineering section manager with Jacobs
Engineering in Houston, Texas. He holds a BS degree in chemical engineering
from Sharif University of Technology in Tehran, Iran, and has more than thirty
years of experience in the design and engineering of chemical, petrochemical and
refining projects.

Return to top

Copyright © 2009 Hydrocarbon Processing

Copyright © 2009 Gulf Publishing Company

http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/default.asp?Page=14&S=S&PUB=22&ISS=... 20/01/2009