Chapter 18 • Guide to Revamping Process Units 137

crude unit fired heater, by improved heat exchange upstream of the preflash drum. I was
then faced with the choice to use as the design base case:
• The 162,600 lb/h vaporized as observed in the field.
• Or, the 184,600 lb/h vaporized as calculated from the computer simulation model.
The objective of the project was to increase the vaporization in the crude preflash drum to
about 200,000 lbs/h. Thus, the decision as to which base case vapor flow to use, the
observed in the field or that calculated from the computer simulation, would have a very
large effect on the design strategy I employed in selecting changes to the upstream crude
preheat exchanger train.

Design Basis
To be consistent with the observed operation, I selected the observed crude vaporization
rate as a basis for further design calculations. The difficulty then arose, as to how to use the
existing crude unit simulation model for design calculations, as the starting point for the
simulation was not consistent with the percent vaporization assumed as the basis for the
unit retrofit?
This example typifies the problem discussed in this chapter. That is, the inherent
inconsistency between observed versus simulation model predictions for:
• Crude unit product draw-off temperatures
• ASTM D-86 5%–95%, gaps and overlaps
• Pressure drops
• Exchanger enthalpy changes
The problem I describe, I have also encountered, not only for crude towers, but for:
• Alkylation units
• Coker fractionators
• Visbreaker fractionators
• Vacuum lube oil towers
• FCU fractionators
One conclusion that I can draw for certain is that to ignore the inconsistency bet-
ween observed data and simulation results will result in a design that does not reflect
reality.

Distillation Tower Modeling

The designer modeling a distillation tower must input two parameters:
• The number of theoretical trays.
• The Equation of State.
138 UNDERSTANDING PROCESS EQUIPMENT FOR OPERATORS AND ENGINEERS

These parameters are needed to determine the vapor-liquid traffic in the distillation tower
to achieve a given split between the components in the feed. The vapor-liquid traffic is a
function of the reflux rate, the pumparound duty, and the reboiler duty.
The number of theoretical stages is used to determine the number of actual fraction-
ation trays, or the height of packing, and hence the height of the distillation tower, based
on the tray efficiency, or for packing HETP (height of packing equivalent to a theoretical
separation plate or stage). The lower the tray efficiency, or the greater the HETP, the taller
the distillation tower.

Selection of Tray Efficiency

I have seen tray efficiency vary in distillation towers between 10% and 100%. In refinery
distillation towers, as opposed to pilot plant testing equipment, tray efficiency is mainly a
function of the mechanical condition of the trays. In particular:
• Tray deck levelness.
• Outlet weir levelness.
The larger the diameter of the tower, the more critical these level parameters become in
their effect on tray fractionation efficiency. Longer weirs, with low weir loadings (1–2 GPM
per inch), are more adversely affected in regards to tray efficiency by out-of-level weirs
compared to shorter weirs, with very high weir loadings (12–14 GPM per inch). But how
does the designer take the weir levelness into account when determining tray efficiency?
The designer could assume a reasonable out of levelness for the weir, but that is equivalent
to assuming the answer.
The same problem occurs for determining the effect of tray deck levelness on tray effi-
ciency. For perforated tray decks, such as valve, sieve, or grid trays, the trays are subject to
leakage. Localized leakage may occur when the pressure drop of the vapor flowing through
the tray openings (delta P dry) falls well below the weight of liquid on the tray (delta P wet).
Localized tray deck leakage will promote vapor-liquid channeling, poor vapor-liquid
contact, and impaired tray efficiency.
The larger the flow path length between the inlet downcomer and the outlet weir, the
more the out of levelness of a tray deck will reduce tray fractionation efficiency. The
designer can assume a reasonable degree of tray levelness and then assume a reasonable
tray efficiency, based upon the assumed tray levelness. But, assuming a degree of tray deck
levelness, the tray efficiency is also being assumed, and hence the number of trays, and
thus the height of the fractionator.
The use of a computer model gives the designer the false impression that the number of
trays in a distillation tower is being calculated with a degree of precision that does not cor-
respond to reality. The designer would do just as well, or even better, by estimating the num-
ber of trays for a particular application based on an existing prototype in a similar service
and of similar size, rather than expending time in computer modeling. This engineering
approach to distillation tower design assumes that there are existing prototypes to base
new designs upon. In my work, there are many prototypes for distillation service.
 Chapter 18 • Guide to Revamping Process Units 139

Equation of State
The first decision that the engineer makes in establishing a distillation tower simulation is
selection of the Equation of State from perhaps 25 choices. The Equation of State is used to
calculate the Relative Volatility of each component. The Relative Volatility is then used to
calculate:
• The reflux rate
• The reboiler duty
• The condenser duty
• Vapor-liquid flows
• The number of theoretical separation stages or trays
• The tower diameter
based on required degree of fractionation specified.
But, how does one know which Equation of State to select?
I have long experience on this subject. At one plant, a new propylene-propane splitter
was being designed to replace an existing tower that could not make the spec’s at the new,
higher design feed rates. This fact was supplemented by a computer model of the splitter,
which showed that the tower would be limited by operating at over 105% of jet flood, at the
required design feed rates and reflux ratio.
I found that the historic limit to the tower was not flooding, but reboiler duty. The
reboiler was limited by the steam condensate drainage rate. Diverting the condensate
to the sewer for demonstration allowed the new design feed rates to be achieved. The
reflux rate had previously been limited by the reboiler duty. The reboiler duty had, in turn,
been limited by the steam flow to the reboiler. The steam flow to the reboiler had been
limited by steam condensate back-up. The ultimate constraint was that the relatively short
300 steam condensate drain line had not been sized to allow part of the steam condensate to
flash to steam. It was just designed for hot water. A common piping error.
What was wrong with the computer model of the splitter? Nothing. Depending on the
Equation of State selected, the simulation could be used to predict that the existing splitter
tower was too small or that it was adequately sized for the new design rates. Selection of
low tray fractionation efficiency values reduced the theoretical capacity of the splitter even
further.
Incidentally, the new tower was constructed, in spite of my observations based on field
test work, because the computer modeling had implied that the existing tower was
too small.

Pressure Drop in Process Lines

The following discussion assumes mixed-phase, low viscosity, fluid flows. By low viscosity,
I assume less than 10–15 cSt. Most process streams are below this viscosity. Mixed phase
vapor-liquid flows will be maintained above 20–25 ft per second.
140 UNDERSTANDING PROCESS EQUIPMENT FOR OPERATORS AND ENGINEERS

To calculate a pressure drop using a computer correlation in refinery process piping

systems requires inputting the piping friction factor. The friction factor is derived from
the roughness factor. The roughness factor is assumed and is not measured. Thus, the cal-
culated piping losses, using pressure drops calculated by computer, are based on a guess
and are not actual precisely calculated values.
As an example of the problems introduced by the overreliance on computer-derived
piping pressure drops, I was recently involved in a project in a Kansas refinery to debottle-
neck a crude distillation unit. The capacity limit was the fractionator relief valve shown in
Fig. 18.2. As the crude rate increased, the pressure drop in the overhead vapor line also
increased until the pressure at the top of the fractionator approached within 5 psi of
the relief valve set-point pressure.
The observed delta P between the top of the fractionator and the inlet to the down-
stream air coolers, as shown in Fig. 18.2, was 16 psi based on the difference between
the two (PT1 minus PT2) pressure transmitter outputs recorded on the control room
consul.
The computer model of the overhead piping system calculated a Delta P for the 500 ft of
14 in. diameter pipe of 14.5 psi, which was in a reasonable agreement with the observed
pressure loss of 16 psi (see Fig. 18.2).

FIG. 18.2 Observed crude tower overhead piping pressure losses.

 Chapter 18 • Guide to Revamping Process Units 141

Using the following simplified equation:

DP ¼ 4=ID  ðDENÞ=62:3  ðV Þ2 =27:7 (18.1)

where:
• V ¼ velocity, ft/s
• ID ¼ pipe inner diameter, inches
• DP ¼ line loss per 100 equivalent feet, psi
• DEN ¼ mixed phase density, in pounds per cubic foot
I calculated a pressure loss for the 500 ft of 14 in. pipe, of 6 psi. I assumed that the piping
was clean. My calculated pressure drop (6 psi) was well below the observed (16 psi) pres-
sure drop. It was my theory that the assumption that the 14 in. piping was clean was
wrong. The line had been in service for many years and had never been cleaned as there
were no clean-out flanges at the elbows. Also, crude tower overhead vapor lines foul due
to:
• Accumulations of iron sulfide corrosion products.
• Amine chloride salt sublimation.
• Degraded olefinic light slop components in crude charge.
• Poorly dispersed filming amine.
My client was faced with a decision. My recommendation was to clean out the vapor line
during the forthcoming crude unit turnaround. This would require the costly addition of
four, 14 in. clean-out flanges. The alternate recommendation, based on the computer-
generated pressure drops, was to replace the existing 14 in. line with a new 18 in. line. Note
that pressure drop varies with pipe ID to the fifth power.
To discriminate between my calculated 6 psi DP and the computer calculated DP,
I made a field pressure measurement at P1 (see Fig. 18.2) of 35 psig. The field observed
pressure loss in the 100 ft of vertical piping was 1 psi. I then concluded that the 15 psi
pressure drop in the remaining 400 ft of horizontal piping was three times greater
than our calculated DP of 5 psi, due to fouling. Solid deposition would preferentially
accumulate in the long horizontal run of 14 in. pipe and not in the 100 ft of vertical
piping.
What was wrong with the 14.5 psi pressure drop calculated using the computer piping
model? Nothing. Depending upon the specified surface roughness factor selected for the
calculation of the friction factor, the model could predict a DP of 6 psi or 14.5 psi.
As the cost of replacing the existing 14 in. line with a new 18 in. line was prohibitive, the
refiner selected the more moderate cost option of the four new 14 in. line clean-out
flanges. The horizontal run of line was cleared of many buckets of a black sludge and then
hydro-blasted clean. On start-up, the overall line pressure drop fell to approximately
5 psig, and the relief valve no longer limited the crude charge rate, which was increased
by about 15%.