PETROCHEMICAL DEVELOPMENTS be a eliae Distillation column relief loads— Part 1 Compare conventional calculation methodology with dynamic simulation P. L. NEZAMI, Jacobs Engineering, Houston, Texas ‘most complex relief load calculation. The dynamic nature of distillation columns and compositional changes along the column height make it very difficule 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 conserva- sive. 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 media, pumparounds and side reboilers, ete., make ic 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 ease E stimating the relief rates for distillation columns is by far the Common methods. The two most prevalent shortcut tech- niques, 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.! 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 elieving conditions, feeds, products and reflux con positions, as well as top-tray liquid and bottoms compositions, are unchanged. 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 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 adiabati- cally 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: Wa Wat We- Wy Wo- Wi ay where: Relief rate Wp Reboiler and side reboiler load contributions ‘ced vapor phase contributions = Vapor di ndenser and pumparound credits juids enthalpy imbalance. llate credit Wa= Dynamic simulation. Nevertheless, the best available tech- nique for distillation column relief rate calculation is dynamic simulation. Dynamic models use a set of mass and energy con: servation equations that account for changes occurring over time. Unlike steady-state simulation, these equations include an addi- tional accumulation term that is differentiated with respect to time. The accumulation rate of mass is: ‘Mass flow into system — Mass flow out of system ) And the accumulation rate of total energy is: Flow of toral energy into system — Flow of otal energy out ofsystem + Heat added to system across the boundary + Heat generated by reaction ~ Work done by system on surroundings (3) HOROCARBON ROCESING APR 2008 | 115PETROCHEMICAL DEVELOPMENTS 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 con- ntional methed 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 evalu Ina loss of condenser scenario, the reflux drum liquid level drops causing the level control valve to close, Reflux continues at constant rate until ehe drum runs dry. The feed continues at a constant rate since its pressure, upstream of the control valve, is hhigher than the relief pressure, With no liquid distillate product, the only place for light macerials in the feed is the colurnn bot- toms; hence, no credit could be taken for reboiler temperature pinch. On flow contro, the steam control valve opens wide and the reboiler chest pressure equalizes with the steam header pres- sure (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 normal stream compositions: + Feed: + Vapor distillate * Decant water—bubble- Wy = 403,980 lb/hr W,=0 lb/hr vapor a relieving pressure Wy= 9,128 Ib/he We= 0 lb/hr Wi, = 179,992 Ib/he The relief rate would be the sum of the above calculated values: W= 214,860 Ib/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 fora 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 co actual values co simulate liquid level variations in a dynamic mode. +The condenser was set ro constant medium temperature mode. The initial setting of dynamic parameters, such as reflux drum and column bottom sump dimensions, reboiler heating ‘TABLE 1. Stream properties and column parameters by performing the following flash calculations on the basis of Normal Upset 3136 sai adlbai ash at rele pesure as aa + Laqullidielare Bubbles ple lash at qeliet pesture chalets oe ae flash at relief pressure (Reteioes proaict Noma Uys * Bottoms product—bubble-point flash at relief pressure. __‘lowrate, br 262376 252,376 Based on the calculation results listed in Table 1 Temperature, °F 328.7 393.3 Enthapyotul ore 583 ‘por dtiate Normal Upset Fowate ahr 750 ae The vapor distillate pressure control valve at its normal posi- _Femperstre, °F 1174 1705 tion (normal Cy) can pass 9,128 Ib/hr of the column overhead Enthalpy, Btu =1%.9 at gu istate Normal Upset Fowate tir 120877 7 can ita TT nay Bt Sarr “16 Feamulaton ate ir a 15.798 Decant water Normal Upset oma ir 7 7 Tenpertue °F iin 8, nth Btu “ans “Eee Feamulaton ate he a 3B Column parameters Normal Upset ondeser yon Bae “S502 3 Reboler dy Btu 398 336 iss inbalnce ir 0 T5872 Enhalpy alae, lion Bahr 006 21377 Top igi ater eat, tb T24 Reif rat, he 214860 116 | APR 2008 ivoROcARBON PROCESSINGPETROCHEMICAL DEVELOPMENTS medium temperature, column tray hydraulics, ete., 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 medium temperature was set to the steam header temperature to simulate a zero pressure drop across the steam con ive. The simulation was run for ewo hours, and the results, aptured and recorded (Figs. 3-8). re some highlights of the simi overhead pressure starts to rs 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, tion results: after the upset was Psvi rot ‘Max allowable accumulation pressure is asad on 110% of design pressure — Max allowable accumulation pressure, 165 psig | 3 s (Overhead pressure, psig 60 Time, Continued Choose ABB as your Partner for Refinery Proc FTIR Solutions FTIR Analysis Solutions Addressing the Needs of the Modern Complex Refinery line & Diesel Blending @ Hydrou Downstream Petrochemicals The Best Servic Full Analyser Engineering and System Integration B startup, Commissioning and Lifetime Support ® Analytical Method Development and Calibration Modelling Services Bom Audit Services ‘Support, Validation and Performance Select 186 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RSa Saeame PETROCHEMICAL DEVELOPMENTS 40 0 $00 320 S20} —} #150] ii istiate 3 100 | eve a si ° Vapor istiate 3 80 30 ¥9 Time, min Simulated stream flowrates Teboler chest temp. Reboil Bottoms tmp. ‘Overhead temp, 0 30 60 90 12 Time, min, Se 5 Bottom sump Reflux drum Cr) ed Reboiler duty Time, min SEI 3 8 0 720 Time, FIGI!) Column relief rates for simulation + Reflux continues for another 25 min. at normal flow rate then practically stops. This is when the rel «The relief valve starts relieving 5 min. after the upset, exactly when liquid distillate completely stops. * The relief rate peaks at about 161,200 Ib/hr 12 min. after che 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 118 | APRIL2008 HYDROCARBON PROCESS rate of about 122,000 Ib/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 con- dition. It stays steady so long as the relief rate is at its peak. As the relief rate drops, the overhead tempera its new maximum and stays constant through the rest of the simulation time * The vapor distillate rate incteases 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 upse is initiated. Ie 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 approxi- mately 30 min. after the upset with a constant relief rate of 122,000 Ib/hr. he simulation results are based on hysteresis (opening and losing curves) of atypical relief valve in compressible fluid ser- vice. The relief valve hysteresis is presented in Fig. 9Pressure, psig The major advantay venti shod, is the accuracy of calculated relief rates. The ability of the dynamic model to integrate simulation variables of dynamic simulation, over the con: jous 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 SPECIALREPORT single dynamic model can be used forall 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 he conventional method results would lead to an undersized relief valve. 4P LITERATURE CITED Bradford, M. and D. G, Durrett ee eee ea Mee OER eee ee We re oe Oy Ren kama a Eee gC Mra Reco er tlr er re Plant Locator, a geographical listing of HPI plants; the Engineer/Constructor Directory Cre kemeontc tis amt TRG a S Oise RU STE eau cea) a Pest eae Ana Crs eect iee sone Cas sact ey HYDROCARBON PROCESSING