Accurate prediction of tower relief

A comparison of conventional and dynamic simulation methods applied to a

project to debottleneck a deisobutaniser

HARRY Z HA, ABDULLA HARJI and JONATHAN WEBBER

Fluor Canada Ltd

R
efineries and upgraders are
often required to increase Non-condensable
throughput beyond their to flare
initial nameplate capacity. Existing
bottlenecks must be identified and
mitigated before the unit can Condensers PC
process more feed. With increased Flare
throughput, relief loads are recalcu- Accumulator
lated to ensure that the LC
corresponding process units are FC
PX
protected. When conventional
calculation methods are used, cases 72
arise where the newly calculated De-iC4
relief loads exceed the existing Reflux/
Feed-1 Product FC
capacity of pressure safety valves from 64 pump
(PSV) on columns, or the capacity alkylation Isobutane
reactors HH product
of the existing flare system. For a FC PI
debottlenecking project, adding Feed-2 33
PSVs or modifying an existing flare from OSBL
system can be costly and impracti-
cal due to constraints on available FC
downtime. Conventional methods 1
TC
for calculating relief loads are MP steam
generally conservative1 and lead to LC
over-sizing of the relief and flare Condensate
system. Dynamic simulation Re-boilers
provides an alternative method to
FC
better define the relief system and
improve understanding of what De-iC4
bottoms to
happens during relief.2 debutaniser
Dynamic simulation is rigorous
and can model many processes, Figure 1 System diagram of a deisobutaniser column
contributing to a reduction in relief
loads that the steady state-based the depletion of light components through condensation. Typically,
unbalanced heat method cannot. and estimates changes in heat of credits are not given to the control
The dynamic model simulates the vaporisation and temperature with valve responses on over-pressure
fluid inventory hold-up and time, which can lead to a partial protection in either conventional or
predicts the time before relief pres- loss of reboiler duty due to dynamic calculations. In cases to
sure is reached. This time before decreased log mean temperature consider favourable responses of
relief can be used to take credit for difference (LMTD) or depletion of control valves to reduce relief
operator intervention to prevent/ liquid inventory in the column loads, dynamic simulation has the
mitigate the relief load. Unlike the sump. advantage of simulating the
steady state based models, which Dynamic simulation can take response over the time of incident,
assume an unlimited amount of credit for the column overhead to ensure that any credits taken are
light components being relieved, condenser duty before the accumu- appropriate within that time frame.
the dynamic model accounts for lator floods, reducing the relief load Dynamic models also simulate

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000961 PTQ Q2 2014 1

 is controlled by the overhead liquid
product flow.
Non-condensable
to flare A dynamic simulation in Hysys
was set up based on the configura-
tion shown in Figure 1 and on the
Condensers latest information on existing equip-
PC
Flare ment, piping, and instrumentation
Accumulator (datasheets, P&IDs, mechanical
LC drawings, and isometric drawings
of piping). The dimensions of equip-
PX FC
ment and piping were input into the
72
simulation with the exact elevations.
De-iC4 Control valves were simulated with
Reflux/ reported volume flows and open-
Feed-1 Product FC
from 64 pump ings from the datasheet. PID
alkylation Isobutane controllers were used to compute
reactors HH product
FC PI the controller actions. Relief valves
Feed-2
are installed on the overhead line
33
from OSBL and a spreadsheet function was
used to calculate the required relief
FC area as a function of time. The PSV
1 sizing was based on the API
TC
MP steam Standard.2 In particular, baffled
thermosiphon reboilers were
Condensate installed with an imaginary column
Re-boilers flash zone and a sump to achieve
the designed boil-up ratio and circu-
lation (see Figure 2). The details of
Flash zone LC Sump this configuration were important in
calculating the detailed hydraulics
FC
between the column and the ther-
De-iC4 mosiphon reboilers. This allowed
bottoms to
debutaniser simulation of the circulation and
boil-up changes resulting from the
Figure 2 Dynamic simulation configuration of the deisobutaniser column loss of static head during column
relieving. Condensate levels in the
interactions among the processing Dynamic simulation model set-up reboilers were not simulated and the
units and provide a more realistic The deisobutaniser is one of several reboilers were assumed not to be
overall picture of the response in columns in the refinery alkylation flooded, allowing for a conservative
various relief scenarios. Dynamic unit that remove the light ends reboiler duty for relief load
simulation can also help identify from alkylates, to enhance the estimation.
potential design modifications to octane number of gasoline. As The dynamic model was then
reduce the relief load potential Figure 1 shows, the deisobutaniser tuned to match the performance of
which conventional methods has 72 trays; two feed streams enter steady state simulation for opera-
cannot address. the column at trays 64 and 33. The tional conditions (P/T), feed and
In this study, relief loads for an column is equipped with two product rate and quality, and the
existing deisobutaniser column baffled, once-through thermosiphon duties of reboilers and condensers.
have been calculated using both the reboilers at the bottom and In the evaluation of the load from
conventional unbalanced heat air-cooled condensers on the over- an individual relief device, no
method and dynamic simulations head. The heating medium for the favourable response was allowed
under various relief scenarios. As a reboilers is medium pressure steam by any control instrument that
result of debottlenecking, the feed (150 psig). would reduce the relief load
to the column was increased by The bottom tray temperature is according to API standard guide-
18%. Calculated relief loads from cascaded to the flow controller on lines. If the normal controller
both methods are compared to each the condensate from the reboilers. response could act to reduce the
other and against the existing PSV The column sump level is relief load, then the control valve is
capacity. The advantages of controlled by the alkylate product assumed to remain in its last posi-
dynamic simulations are flow from the column bottom. The tion before the upset.
pronounced when an existing column pressure rides on a push- Based on relief analysis using
column relief system is being pull pressure controller on the conventional methods, two relieving
rechecked for debottlenecking. accumulator. The accumulator level scenarios were identified as the

2 PTQ Q2 2014 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000961

potential governing relief cases for
the deisobutaniser: total power fail-
ure (TPF) and reflux failure (RF).
The assumptions for each scenario
are summarised as follows:
Total power failure (site-wide power
failure)
• Feed from the alkylation reactors
stops
• Feed from OSBL (mixed isobu-
tanes) stops
• Overhead product/reflux pump
stops
• Column bottom product contin-
ues on level and pressure as LC
fails in position
• Medium pressure steam to
reboiler, flow controls fail in posi-
tion (no credit taken)
• 25% of the normal duty is
assumed available for air cooling
condensers based on natural draft;
however, the duty of overhead
condensers is considered to be zero
once the accumulator is flooded
• PSV back pressure is assumed
40% of the PSV set pressure as per
preliminary hydraulic calculation of
the flare header
• PSV set pressure is 140 psig and
110% overpressure is used for PSV
sizing
• Liquid level in the accumulator is
at 70 vol% before the incident
(normal operation).
Reflux failure (reflux pumps fail)
• Feed from alkylation reactors
continues as normal
• Feed from OSBL (mixed isobu-
tanes) continues as normal
• Overhead product/reflux pump
stops
• Column bottom product contin-
ues on level and pressure as LC
fails in position
• Medium pressure steam to
reboiler, flow controls fail in posi-
tion (no credit taken)
• Air cooler fans are assumed avail-
able until the accumulator is flooded
(then the condenser will be lost)
• PSV back pressure is assumed
40% of the PSV set pressure
• PSV set pressure is 140 psig and
110% overpressure is used for PSV
sizing
• Liquid level in the accumulator is
at 70 vol% before the incident
(normal operation).
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000961
1000
900
Relief load, ×1000 lb/h
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 0
0 5
Figure 3 Total power failure relief loads by the unbalanced heat method and dynamic
simulation at 70% initial volume
The scenarios and actions were
set up in a scheduler in Hysys
dynamic simulation. Relief cases
were studied by running the sched-
uler over one hour’s running time
(until the relief load was reduced to
an approximately constant flow
rate). The results were recorded in
small steps (0.25 second) and
summarised in plots (discussed in
the following section).
Column relief loads
For comparison, the relief loads of
the deisobutaniser were also calcu-
lated based on conventional
methods for the selected cases.
Conventional methods for relief
load calculation are largely based
on steady state simulations. In
these methods, an accumulation
term is introduced to determine the
relief load based on heat and mate-
rial balance at a particular instant
during the relieving process. In this
study, the unbalanced heat (UBH)
method is referenced as the conven-
tional method.3 In this widely used
method, a heat and material
balance is produced at relief condi-
tions to determine whether there is
excess (unbalanced) heat. The accu-
mulation term (mass flow) is then
determined by dividing the excess
heat by the latent heat of vaporisa-
tion of the accumulated stream at
relief conditions. The reflux or the
top tray liquids at steady state are
usually taken as the accumulated
stream to obtain the physical
properties for relief load calcula-
tions. This approach simplifies
40
35
UBH load
PSV size required, in2
PSV Size-Dyn 30
Relief load-Dyn
25
20
15
10
5
10 15 20 25 30
Time, minutes
calculation of the relief load and is
designed to give conservative
results. The relief loads calculated
by the UBH method and dynamic
simulations are discussed below for
the total power failure and reflux
failure cases.
Total power failure case
Figure 3 shows the results of using
the conventional method and
dynamic simulation as a function of
time. The conventional method is
not time-dependent and the relief
load appears as a constant relief
load over time (a horizontal line in
Figure 3), while the dynamic simula-
tion develops the transient
behaviour of the system. In conven-
tional calculations, the latent heat of
reflux at dew point and relieving
pressure is employed and an endless
supply of vaporising components is
assumed. As expected, a conserva-
tive relief load was obtained by the
conventional UBH method with the
calculated load as high as 950 000
lb/h, which was significantly higher
than the peak relief load predicted
by dynamic simulations. According
to the dynamic simulations, relief
does not occur until 6.5 minutes
after the TPF event occurred after
the column overhead pressure
reached the PSV set pressure. The
peak relief load is reached approxi-
mately five minutes after the relief,
beyond which the relief load
decreases to below 100 000 lb/h
within 21 minutes. The calculated
relief area corresponding to the peak
relief is 30.6 in2 which requires a ‘T’
PTQ Q2 2014 3
 product pumps failure. The relief
450 40
PSV Size
load calculated by the UBH method
400 Relief load 35 remains high (757 000 lb/h), while
Relief load, ×1000 lb/h
the dynamic simulation predicted a

PSV size required, in2

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 0
0 5
Figure 4 Total power failure relief loads by dynamic simulation at 55% initial volume
and a ‘P’ sized API PSV, while the
relief load calculated by the UBH
method requires two ‘T’ sized PSVs.
However, the existing deisobutan-
iser only has one 8T10 API PSV (26
in2) on its overhead line.
Considering the challenges and
substantial costs to add an addi-
tional PSV and modifying flare
system, mitigations were investi-
gated by lowering the initial liquid
level at the overhead accumulator to
minimise the impact on the project.
The initial liquid level in the
overhead accumulator was a key
parameter for column relief calcula-
tion. In conventional methods, it is
common practice to assume the
overhead drum and condenser will
be flooded as a result of losing the
reflux and product pumps (unless
there is significant hold-up volume
allowing adequate operator inter-
vention time in the overhead
drum). In dynamic simulation, the
800
700
Relief load, ×1000lb/h
30
peak relief load of 562 000 lb/h 7.3
25 minutes after the pumps failed. The
required relief area for the relief
20
loads calculated by the UBH
15 method and dynamic simulation
are 40 in2 and 30.1 in2 respectively,
10
both exceeding the available area of
5 the existing PSV (26 in2). Compared
to the dynamic simulation of the
10 15 20 25 30 TPF case, the reflux pump failure
Time, minutes case has a similar peak relief load
but occurs three minutes later than
the TPF case. This is due to the
continuous feeds to the column and
pump failure scenario can be simu- the liquid on the trays being heated
lated and credit taken for the time up more slowly than in the TPF
it takes the overhead drum to flood. case. (The feed temperatures are
This time is related to the liquid lower than the temperature of the
level in the drum at the beginning liquid inside the column.)
of the relief scenario. The original However, the relief load decays
normal liquid in the accumulator much more slowly than in the TPF
was 70% by volume. An initial case after the peak; the relief load
liquid level of 55 vol% was studied was still significant at 200 000 lb/h
in dynamic simulation and the even after 60 minutes. The flatter
result is shown in Figure 4. With relief load profile is attributed to
the lowered liquid level in the more light components available
drum at the beginning of relief, the from continuous feeds under the
time to flood the accumulator is reflux pump failure case.
postponed by two minutes Similar mitigations to the TPF case
compared to the 70% initial level were also considered for the reflux
case. As a result, the peak relief pump failure case (see Figure 6). As
load was reduced to about 430 000 a result of reducing the initial liquid
lb/h. The corresponding required level in the overhead accumulator
relief area is 22.6 in2, and the exist- (from 70% to 55% by volume), the
ing ‘T’ sized PSV is now sufficient. column relief condition was delayed
by 2.3 minutes and the relief load
Reflux pump failure case was reduced to 462 000 lb/h which
Figure 5 shows the results of relief required a relief area of 24.8 in2. The
analysis for the case of reflux/ existing PSV (26 in2) will be able to
take the reduced peak relief loads.
35 Considering the challenges and risk
in modifying the existing relief and
UBH load 30 flare systems, the mitigation

PSV size required, in2

PSV Size-Dyn approach (lowering the initial liquid

600
Relief load-Dyn 25
level in the overhead from 70%
500
20 volume to 55%) is recommended to
400 minimise the impact on the debot-
15 tlenecking project.
300
10
200 Summary
100 5 Conventional methods for column
relief load calculation are typically
0 0
more conservative than in dynamic
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time, minutes
simulation due to the conservative
assumptions inherent in the calcu-
Figure 5 Reflux failure relief loads by unbalanced heat method and dynamic simulation lations. Conventional methods do
at 70% initial volume not account for the compositional

4 PTQ Q2 2014 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000961


500
450
Relief load, ×1000 lb/h
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 0
0 5
Figure 6 Reflux failure relief loads of dynamic simulation at 55% initial volume
changes on the trays and the
system volume’s contribution to the
transient availability of cooling and
heating. They also ignore the time,
temperature and pressure depend-
ency of heat input or heat removal
from the system. In the cases of
plant revamp or debottlenecking,
conservative relief loads from
conventional methods will likely
call for the addition of PSVs and/or
the modification of the existing
flare system, which adds substan-
tial cost and risk to the project.
Dynamic simulation simulates the
actual composition and inventory
changes inside the column and
accumulator and provides more
accurate predictions on relief loads.
Typically, the relief loads predicted
by dynamic simulation are less
than those calculated by conven-
tional methods. Depending on the
system, the reduction in calculated
relief loads can be significant (by
>50%). For plant revamp or debot-
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000961
35
PSV Size
Relief load 30
PSV size required, in2
25
20
15
10
5 2 API RP 520: Recommended Practice for the
10 15 20 25 30
Time, minutes
tlenecking projects, this reduction
in relief loads can result in signifi-
cant savings for the project.
This case study illustrated such an
example. Employing dynamic simu-
lation for an existing deisobutaniser
has reduced the calculated relief
loads by more than 35% for both
TPF and reflux pump failure cases,
compared to the conventional meth-
ods. This study also demonstrated
that the initial liquid level in the
overhead accumulator is a key
parameter in relief load calculation.
When the initial liquid level is set at
70% volume (as it is in current oper-
ation), the relief loads predicted by
dynamic simulation exceeded the
available capacity of the existing
PSV. Mitigation approaches were
studied by lowering the initial liquid
level in the overhead drum to 55%
volume. As a result, the relief loads
were further reduced by 26% and
18% for the TPF and reflux pump
failure cases, respectively. With the
recommended mitigation approach,
the new predicted relief loads are
within the capacity of the existing
PSV. Therefore, the risk and cost of
modifying the existing relief and
flare systems are minimised and
potentially avoided.
References
1 Chittibabu H, Valli A, Khanna V, Calculating
Column Relief Loads, PTQ, 55-65, Q2 2010.
Design and Installation of Pressure Relieving
Systems in Refineries, Part I (Sizing and
Selection, 2008) and Part II (Installation, 2003),
American Petroleum Institute, Washington D.C.
3 Sengupta M, Staats F Y, A new approach to
relief valve load calculations, 43rd Proceedings
of Refining Section of American Petroleum
Institute, Toronto, Canada, 1978.
Harry Z Ha is a Senior Process Engineer/
Specialist with Fluor Canada Ltd, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada. He holds a master’s degree
in environmental engineering from Hong
Kong University of Science and Technology
and a PhD in chemical engineering from the
University of Alberta.
Email: Harry.Ha@Fluor.com
Abdulla N Harji is an Executive Director of
Process Technology, at Fluor Canada. He holds
a BSc degree in chemical engineering from
Loughborough University, UK.
Jonathan Webber is a Process Engineer with
Fluor Canada. He holds a PhD in process control
from Dalhousie University and a master’s in
biotechnology from McGill University.
Links
More articles from: Fluor
More articles from the following
categories:
Mass Transfer & Separation
Pressure Drop Control
Process Modelling & Simulation
PTQ Q2 2014 5