Process

Optimization
S. GANDHI, H. KORTNICKI and K. NANGIA,
Fluor Enterprises Inc., Aliso Viejo, California

RAM analysis for refinery process

design optimization
RAM refers to reliability, availability tors, assesses the intermediate tankage Availability block flow diagram.
and maintainability analysis. The RAM requirements, and provides an estimate The next step is to prepare an availabil-
model uses discrete event simulation of the expected overall refinery onstream ity block flow diagram (ABD), as shown
(DES) software and provides a quanti- factor (OSF). The objective is to estab- in FIG. 2. ABDs are pictorial represen-
tative assessment of the performance of lish a cost-effective design to maximize tations of the series and parallel steps
an industrial plant. This article discusses refinery production. needed to perform a given function.
the use of RAM analysis on petroleum The availability values for each stream
refinery projects to select an optimum Refinery block flow diagram. The (represented as hexagons) are shown as
process configuration and associated starting point for the RAM model is a percentage of the overall refinery pro-
storage requirements. the overall refinery block flow diagram duction. The process unit capacity val-
The RAM model for an overall re- (BFD). The diagram shows the major ues (represented as squares or blocks)
finery includes all major process units, process units in the refinery, proposed are shown as a percentage of the unit
intermediate storage tanks, interconnect unit design capacities, crude throughput, design capacity to the nominal operat-
routings, and operating logic defining product yields across each unit and the ing rate. The size and location of the
normal operation and actions upon pro- flowrates of the main process streams at intermediate tankage are also shown on
cess unit failures. The model calculates normal operation. FIG. 1 shows a simpli- ABDs. The tanks are typically bypassed
individual process unit onstream fac- fied schematic of an overall refinery BFD. for energy conservation, but are avail-

Light naphtha Isomerization Isomerate

unit Propane
Naphtha Naphtha
hydrotreating Heavy naphtha Reformate
unit Naphtha
reformer Propylene
unit
Naphtha Ultra-low-
Diesel Diesel Distillate Ultra-low-sulfur diesel sulfur diesel
Crude Crude/ hydrotreating
unit Propane
vacuum
distillation ATM gasoil n-Butane Butane Isobutane Gasoline
unit Hydrotreated isomerization
Vacuum gasoil Gasoil Gasoil gasoil Alkylation Alkylate
hydrotreating unit unit
unit
Propane
Vacuum
residue Propylene
Coker naphtha
Light coker gasoil Butane/butylene
Delayed Catalytic
coker unit Heavy coker gasoil cracking
Coke unit FCC gasoline

Amine regeneration Acid gas Natural gas Hydrogen

Hydrogen
units Sulfur Sulfur production unit
Acid gas recovery unit
Sour water
stripper units

FIG.1. Overall refinery block flow diagram (BFD).

Hydrocarbon Processing | JANUARY 2020 57

 Process Optimization

able for use during failure or mainte- TABLE 1 lists process reliability data for factors such as the level of trained main-
nance outages of the downstream unit. typical refinery process units based on tenance personnel onsite, the availability
historical industry data for similar units, of spare parts, etc.
Unit mechanical reliability data. augmented with information compiled Process unit failure frequency and
An important input to the RAM model by the authors’ company based on past restoration time are entered into the
is the mechanical reliability data for the projects. Reliability data is shown as a model to match the reliability factors. It
different process units. The reliability function of three different tier levels that is important to properly characterize unit
data determines the failure frequency are based on a refinery’s operating and downtime parameters since the shut-
and restoration times for these units. maintenance practices and account for down duration directly affects interme-
diate storage tank inventory levels. The
model incorporates proprietary data for
TABLE 1. Process unit mechanical reliability factors mean time between failure (MTBF) and
First-tier Mid-tier Lower-tier
mean time to restore (MTTR) specific
Process unit reliability, %1 reliability, %2 reliability, %3 to each unit type of refinery process unit
[crude distillation unit (CDU), coker,
Crude and vacuum distillation unit 98.5% 98.5% 98.5%
hydrotreater, etc.]. The MTTR consists
Delayed coker unit 98% 96% 96% of repair time and other restoration ac-
Naphtha hydrotreater 99.2% 98% 96.8% tivities, such as detection, preparation,
Distillate hydrotreater 99.2% 98% 96.8% drainage, cooldown and return to service.
The authors’ company database cate-
Fluidized catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) 98% 96% 94%
gorizes the MTTR into different groups,
Gasoil hydrotreater 98% 97% 96% such as short-term, medium-term, me-
Naphtha reformer unit 98.9% 98% 97.1% dium-long and long-term duration out-
Pentane isomerization unit 99.2% 98% 96% ages. For example, the following MTTR
may apply:
Alkylation unit 97% 95% 93%
• Short-term restoration MTTR,
Butane isomerization unit 99.2% 98% 96% 0 hr–18 hr
1
First-tier reliability reflects best operation and maintenance practices • Medium-term restoration MTTR,
2
Mid-tier reliability reflects average operation and maintenance practices
3
Lower-tier reliability reflects below-average operation and maintenance practices 24 hr–42 hr

Pentane
% Light isomerization %
Light naphtha unit
Naphtha naphtha
% SR % hydrotreating
naphtha unit Heavy
SR naphtha naphtha Naphtha
% Heavy reformer %
Coker naphtha unit
naphtha
SR diesel SR
% %
diesel
SR diesel Diesel
Coker % hydrotreating %
diesel unit
Low-sulfur diesel
Gasoil
% % SR % hydrotreating
gasoil unit
CDU/ Gasoil (AGO/ Coker Coker Propane
% VDU VGO/HVGO) naphtha diesel 100%
unit Coker %
% % Alkylation
% diesel unit Total
Coker % refinery
% % gasoil
Hydrotreated gasoil Alkylate products
Vacuum % %
resid %
Butane
Vacuum Coker Coker B-B isomerization
resid unit % Butanes
Coker B-B storage unit
%

I
FCC B-B
storage FCC gasoline
Hydrotreating FCC % %
unit unit FCC B-B
Propylene
%
Propane
%

FIG. 2. Availability block flow diagram (ABD).

58 JANUARY 2020 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 Process Optimization

• Medium-long-term restoration Description. The model uses discrete at full design capacity to
MTTR, 54 hr–64 hr event simulation software with program- empty intermediate tanks that
• Long-term restoration MTTR, ming language to permit the user to simu- have filled during the previous
120 hr–220 hr. late complex operating logic necessary to upset condition.
Depending upon unit
type, the failure frequency
for each of the above four
outage duration groups is RAM analysis has been used to finalize individual process unit
a fixed percentage of the design capacity, evaluate different train configurations, select
overall failure frequency
for the group. For example, the intermediate tankage requirements, and estimate the
the hydrotreater failure fre- overall refinery onstream factor for use in economic analysis.
quency for each outage du-
ration group may be:
• Short-term restoration
= 40% of total unit failure frequency respond to and recover from process unit To simulate the randomness associ-
• Medium-term restoration = failures, to address intermediate tankage ated with equipment failures and resto-
30% of total unit failure frequency reaching full or empty conditions, and to ration cycles, the model uses probability
• Medium-long-term restoration = evaluate different “what-if ” scenarios. distribution functions (PDFs) and Monte
20% of total unit failure frequency To determine the overall refinery on- Carlo techniques to sample the PDFs as
• Long-term restoration = stream factor (OSF), the model simulates the model moves through time to calcu-
10% of total unit failure frequency. the following expected scenarios: late the final products.
• The normal steady-state operating The capacity loss associated with pro-
Intermediate tankage. Tanks desig- condition under which all process cess unit failures is logged and accumulat-
nated for storing intermediate process units are operating at their nominal ed over an extended period (referred to as
fluids are entered into the RAM model rates, with the refinery producing “mission time”). Each mission is typically
and can have a significant impact on re- product streams at their nominal assumed to have a duration equal to 30 yr.
finery availability, particularly for failures production rates. The result is an estimated overall refinery
with short- and medium-term restora- • Upset conditions caused by OSF for one “mission.” Due to the ran-
tion times. Optimization requires select- failure of one or more process domness associated with unit failure and
ing the proper balance between tankage units, in which part or all of the restoration data, the model calculates the
volume and unit processing capacity. intermediate stream is rerouted OSF for multiple missions. The results
The service, number and capacity of to other process units or to from these multiple runs are statistically
the storage tanks are defined prior to the available intermediate tanks. analyzed to establish the mean OSF, along
RAM analysis. Some tanks may be exist- This permits the upstream process with the associated standard deviation.
ing tanks at the refinery, while others may units to continue operating.
be new tanks proposed as part of the proj- • Recovery conditions following Applications. The authors’ company
ect expansion. failure events or maintenance has applied RAM analysis on a variety of
activities in which some process projects, including petroleum refineries,
Support units. Support units such as units may be temporarily operating gas processing facilities, upgraders, gas-
the sulfur recovery, amine regeneration,
sour water stripping, hydrogen produc-
tion and utilities systems can also be in- 6
cluded in the RAM model. The design
capacity, as well as the number of trains 5
Frequency, % of total number of missions

for these support units, have impacts on

overall refinery availability. As the num- 4
ber of trains increases, availability of
the overall refinery improves; however, 3
capital costs for the support unit also
increase. Based on RAM analysis, an 2
optimum selection can be made. If the
reliability of support units is high com- 1
pared to the process units, the support
units can be excluded from the overall 0
97.98
98.03
98.08
98.14
98.19
98.25
98.30
98.36
98.41
98.47
98.52
98.57
98.63
98.68
98.74
98.79
98.85
98.90
98.96
99.01
99.06
99.12
99.17

RAM model.
Onstream factor, %
MODEL DESCRIPTION
FIG. 3. Onstream factor histogram.
AND APPLICATIONS
Hydrocarbon Processing | JANUARY 2020 59
 Process Optimization

The “% time idle” is due to a shutdown

TABLE 2. Impact of design capacities on overall refinery availability
Case Description Overall refinery availability 1,2
Base case All process unit design capacities with minimal 92.1%
margin between normal and design flow
Alternate Base case + increased process unit design 94.7%
case 1 capacities by about 3% for delayed coker,
gasoil hydrotreater, FCCU and alkylation
Alternate Alternate case 1 + increased process unit 95.9%
case 2 design capacities by about 3% for diesel
hydrotreater and reformer
1
Based on mid–tier mechanical reliability factors
2
Overall availability excludes planned activities
TABLE 3. Process unit utilization log
Process unit function Time operating, % Time failed, % Time idle, %
Crude and vacuum distillation 97.01% 1.3% 1.69%
Delayed coking 95.47% 3.71% 0.82%
Naphtha hydrotreating 97.17% 1.98% 0.85%
Diesel hydrotreating 97.95% 1.98% 0.07%
Gasoil hydrotreating 96.4% 2.8% 0.8%
Fluid catalytic cracking 95.85% 3.66% 0.49%
Naphtha reforming 97.58% 1.9% 0.52%
Pentane isomerization 97.74% 2.26% 0%
Butane isomerization 97.86% 2.14% 0%
Alkylation 94.58% 5.42% 0%
ification units and chemical complexes. between 90.1% and 93.9%, depending on
The analysis has been used to finalize the the design capacities selected.
process unit capacities, optimize tankage,
evaluate the impact of different process OSF. FIG. 3 is a composite plot of the OSF
configurations on the OSF, and provide vs. the percentage of the total number of
the required technical basis to support missions. The plot is used to calculate the
key project decisions. Subsets of the RAM mean and the standard deviation for the
model have also been used for turnaround OSF. For this specific example, the mean
planning to evaluate the availability of OSF is 98.6% with a standard deviation
portions of the refinery that are not in of +/– 0.2%.
turnaround mode. Some typical examples
from refinery projects are provided here. Process unit operating log. The RAM
model develops several operating logs in
Impact of unit design capacity. The Excel format to assist in the review of the
first example is from a RAM analysis con- results. TABLE 3 is an example of a snap-
ducted for a grassroots refinery project to shot of the process unit utilization log
evaluate the impact of increasing process generated by the model. The example is
unit design capacities on the overall refin- taken from a project on an existing re-
ery availability. TABLE 2 shows the overall finery that was being upgraded with the
refinery availability as a function of pro- addition of a new delayed coker unit and
cess unit design capacities. several other new process units.
For this specific refinery, the planned The process unit utilization log shows
activities, such as scheduled turnarounds the “% time operating” (same as unit on-
and catalyst change-outs, were estimat- stream factor) and accounts for unavail-
ed to reduce OSF by an additional 2%. ability due to “% time failed” and “% time
Therefore, the OSF for this refinery, af- idle.” The “% time failed” is due to failure
ter accounting for both unplanned and of that specific process unit and includes
planned shutdowns, was estimated to be the time to repair and restart the unit.
from a lack of feed from the upstream
unit, or due to the inability to route the
products to the downstream unit, or to
the intermediate tankage.
The process unit utilization log also re-
cords each downtime, including the time
to restore the unit. It also records the idle
times, which specific tank caused the pro-
cess unit to enter the idle state, and the du-
ration, for which the process unit was idle.
Tankage utilization log. The RAM
model also generates a tankage utiliza-
tion log that shows the average level of
each tank over the duration of the run.
The tankage log can be used to optimize
the allocation of the existing tanks or to
specify new tankage requirements.
Takeaway. The RAM model simulates
the overall refinery operation over an ex-
tended period of time. The authors’ com-
pany has applied the model on numerous
projects to optimize the overall refinery
process design during the engineering
phase of the project. The model has been
used to finalize the individual process unit
design capacities, evaluate different train
configurations, select the intermediate
tankage requirements, and estimate the
overall refinery OSF for use in economic
analyses of different design options.
SHAMIM A. GANDHI is a Process
Engineering Manager with Fluor
Enterprises Inc. He has more than
35 yr of experience in front-end
process engineering and process
design of petroleum refineries
and gas processing plants. He
holds an MS degree in chemical engineering from
the University of California at Berkeley and is a
registered Professional Engineer in California.
HARRY KORTNICKI is a Reliability/
Logistics Engineer with Fluor
Enterprises Inc. Mr. Kortnicki has
more than 42 yr of experience
in reliability, availability and
maintainability analysis, logistics
and mechanical engineering. He
holds a BS degree in mechanical engineering from the
University of Colorado and an MS degree in engineering
from the University of California at Los Angeles, and
is a registered Professional Engineer in California.
KRISH K. NANGIA is a Process
Technology Director/Senior Fellow
with Fluor Enterprises Inc. He has
more than 40 yr of experience
in petroleum refining, gas processing
and petrochemical projects.
Dr. Nangia holds a BS degree in
chemical engineering from Delhi University and a PhD
from McGill University. He is a registered PE in California.

60 JANUARY 2020 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com