11/27/2019 Estimation of relief load and realistic relieving temperature for heavy-end fractionating columns

COPYING AND DISTRIBUTING ARE PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER

August 2019 (/magazine/2019/august-2019)

PROCESS CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION (/MAGAZINE/2019/AUGUST-
2019#PROCESS-CONTROL-AND-INSTRUMENTATION)

Estimation of relief load and

realistic relieving temperature
for heavy-end fractionating
columns
Relief calculation is one of the most discussed aspects of chemical engineering design.
Saha, J. (/authors/f/ uor-daniel-india-pvt-ltd/saha-j), Fluor Daniel India Pvt. Ltd.; Chaudhuri, S. (/authors/b/bechtel-india-pvt-
ltd/chaudhuri-s), Bechtel India Pvt Ltd.; Groenendijk, S. (/authors/f/ uor/groenendijk-s), Fluor
Relief calculation is one of the most discussed aspects of chemical engineering design. Licensors,
contractors, industry literature and the American Petroleum Institute (API) specify the broad
boundaries of “dos” and “don’ts” for relief system analysis and sizing. Still, much is left for
engineering judgement to de ne the optimum safe design. This article examines the purview of relief
load estimation and a realistic relieving temperature calculation method for distillation columns
handling heavier cuts in a re nery.

(/media/10042/chaudhuri- g-01.jpg)
FIG. 1. Schematic representation of hydrotreated gasoil product fractionation.
The conventional approach of tower relief load calculation, especially for grassroots units, is to
balance the unbalanced heat across the tower during an upset scenario. Although the unbalanced
heat method has its limitations, it is one of the most trusted methods for relief load estimation for a
distillation column. One of the basic assumptions for the method is an unlimited supply of liquid to the
top tray, and the liquid is considered to vaporize from the top tray during a relieving scenario. This
results in a conservative (high) relief load owing to the low latent heat of vaporization of top-tray
liquid.

https://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/magazine/2019/august-2019/process-control-and-instrumentation/estimation-of-relief-load-and-realistic-r… 1/8
11/27/2019 Estimation of relief load and realistic relieving temperature for heavy-end fractionating columns

However, it is important to recognize that top-tray liquid is lighter and demonstrates a lower relieving
temperature, risking incorrect material selection and design of the column overhead, relief valve and
downstream system, in many cases. The e ect on relieving temperature is more pronounced in a
column that has a wide range of boiling temperatures between the top and bottom trays. The total
inventory of the system, including the diameter of the column and the number of side draws and side
strippers, is also critical in the scenario in question. If the reboiling/stripping is continued for a relief
scenario, then the likelihood of column overheads being exposed to higher boiling uids during that
relief scenario is more realistic for a small-diameter column with no or a limited number of side draws,
rendering the design overhead system vulnerable to high temperature exposure.

(/media/10043/chaudhuri- g-02.jpg)
FIG. 2. Fractionator normal operating temperature pro le.
The case study presented here demonstrates the di erence of steady-state relieving temperatures
calculated by the unbalanced heat method (UBH) and a simulation method, and its impact on design
temperatures of column overhead system and relief valve laterals for a hydrotreated heavy gasoil
fractionating column.

Overpressure protection of hydro-treated gasoil fractionation

system
A heavy gasoil fractionating column (FIG. 1) is downstream of a heavy gasoil hydrotreating reactor
and its high- and medium-pressure separators. The hydrotreated gasoil is rst stripped to remove
hydrogen sul de (H2S) and light gases in a stripper. The stripped gasoil is further fractionated in the
fractionator column to produce the hydro nished gasoil from the bottom of the tower. The feed from
the stripper bottom to the fractionator is rst heated in the feed/e uent exchanger, followed by the
red tube feed heater. The hot feed is fractionated in the tower with the assistance of live steam
injection. A part of the overhead stream is taken out as naphtha product after condensation, and the
other part is fed as re ux to the top tray of the tower.

A diesel side draw from the tower is further steam stripped in a side stripper, and the product diesel is
taken out from the bottom of the side stripper. The vapor from the side stripper is returned to the
fractionator. The column heat is removed by overhead condensation and re ux cooling.

Relief scenarios analysis

Upon careful analysis of all probable causes of overpressure, the following credible overpressure
scenarios are identi ed as signi cant for the system:

Total power failure

Partial power failure
Re ux failure
https://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/magazine/2019/august-2019/process-control-and-instrumentation/estimation-of-relief-load-and-realistic-r… 2/8
11/27/2019 Estimation of relief load and realistic relieving temperature for heavy-end fractionating columns

Abnormal heat input from red heater

External re
Column over lling
Steam valve failure in open position.

(/media/10130/chaudhuri_table1.jpg)
As per steady-state relief calculation, re ux failure (due to partial power loss to the re ux pump or
re ux valve failure) is the governing case for relief valve sizing—i.e., results in the highest relief load.
Additionally, this case also de nes the governing relieving temperature for the unit are header
design.

Governing scenario: Tower re ux failure

Boundary conditions and probable impacts on the system on loss of re ux are listed in TABLE 1.

To further explain the impact, the liquid draw from the re ux drum is partially blocked, which
eventually oods the condenser and ultimately results in a blocked outlet scenario for the tower.

For impact (A), the peak (initial) relief load is bigger, but the initial temperature is much lower as the
lighter liquid vaporizes from the top trays. However, for both cases the nal relief temperature, when
liquid on the trays has vaporized and after the condenser is ooded, is the same.

Relief load calculation methods

Various calculation methods are proposed in the following subsections.

(/media/10044/chaudhuri- g-03.jpg)
FIG. 3. Steady-state simulation results.
Unbalanced heat (UBH) method. Considering an unlimited supply of liquid at the top tray, latent
heat was calculated for the top tray liquid composition, and the relieving temperature was the bubble
point temperature of the top-tray liquid. Since the top tray contained the minimum boiling liquid, this
resulted in a conservative high relief load but a lower relieving temperature. The relief load calculated
for the governing scenario of this case study in the UBH method was 23,700 kg/hr, with a relief
temperature of 165°C (329°F).

https://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/magazine/2019/august-2019/process-control-and-instrumentation/estimation-of-relief-load-and-realistic-r… 3/8
11/27/2019 Estimation of relief load and realistic relieving temperature for heavy-end fractionating columns

The limitation of this method was the prediction of an accurate relieving temperature. The liquid in the
trays below the top tray are progressively heavier, and the bottom tray liquid has the heaviest liquid in
the column, as shown in the temperature pro le in FIG. 2. In case of re ux failure, the top trays
became dry after a certain time and the liquid began to vaporize from the feed tray, resulting in a
higher relief temperature than that of the top-tray liquid. This e ect was much more pronounced in
small- to medium-sized towers where the top trays dried out quickly as the re ux failed, as observed
for this case study.

Steady-state simulation method. The case study results demonstrate that the concern of inaccurate
relieving temperature can be adequately addressed by using a steady-state simulation method, which
was used to simulate loss of re ux.

(/media/10132/chaudhuri_table2.jpg)
For columns having only re ux cooling and no side pumparound heat removal, the failure of top re ux
leads to a total cooling loss to the column, and the overhead section of the column is exposed to the
feed vapor temperature. To simulate this, a ash drum was modeled, and the feed tray was
considered as the top tray. In case of loss of re ux, all trays above the feed tray became dry after
some time, which is the basis for the assumption here. In this example, there was also no diesel side
draw, as there was no liquid in the draw-o tray (FIG. 2) and no vapor return from the diesel side
stripper. However, the stripping steam supply to the diesel side stripper continued, returned to the
column and was relieved through relief valve, along with the feed vapor. The ash drum was modeled
at relief pressure (FIG. 3) with the normal fractionator feed and the stripping steam supply to the
fractionator as another feed. The stripping e ect below the feed tray was ignored. The net vapor from
the ash drum was mixed with diesel side stripper stripping steam, and this total ow was to be
relieved through the relief valve.

(/media/10045/chaudhuri- g-04.jpg)
FIG. 4. Comparison of UBH and steady-state simulation method results.
The calculated relief load was 21,000 kg/hr with a relief temperature of 349°C (660°F). The relief
load was 12% lower than the UBH method, but the variation in relieving temperature is signi cant, as
shown in TABLE 2.

Following the UBH method results, the column overhead system, relief valve and its downstream
piping design temperature and/or piping stress calculation cut-o was 165°C (329°F) if no other
design consideration prevailed, which is the case; whereas per the steady-state simulation approach,
the relief and/or design temperature should be 349°C (660°F). The impact on the system design
temperature pro le speci c to the case study is demonstrated in FIG. 4.
https://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/magazine/2019/august-2019/process-control-and-instrumentation/estimation-of-relief-load-and-realistic-r… 4/8
11/27/2019 Estimation of relief load and realistic relieving temperature for heavy-end fractionating columns

The logical next step: Dynamic simulation method

Dynamic simulation is a tool that has been proven to provide realistic results with respect to the time-
dependent variations in relief load. As a natural progression from a simple steady-state simulation, the
problem was simulated with a dynamic module.a Using a simple dynamic model to simulate the relief
behavior during re ux failure, a similar trend of a high relief rate with lower relieving temperature at
the initial point followed by a lower relief rate with a higher relieving temperature were demonstrated.

(/media/10046/chaudhuri- g-05.jpg)
FIG. 5. Simple dynamic model.a
For simplifying the dynamic model (FIG. 5), the following approaches were taken: the gasoil
fractionator and diesel side stripper were simulated as per front-end design speci cation, pump
curves were not modeled, control loops were simpli ed, piping holdups were not considered and
static head e ects were ignored. To simulate re ux failure, a dummy valve upstream of the condenser
was introduced to model a ooded condenser. A valve in the side draw from the main column was
introduced to close it after re ux failure. Once the dynamic model could sustain in steady state, re ux
and side draw were stopped by placing the controllers into manual mode and the setting to zero
opening. Next, the condenser inlet valve was set to zero, giving rise to overpressure under the re ux
failure scenario.

The dynamic model data logger (FIG. 6) showed an initial high relieving point (A) of 26,100 kg/hr
when the PSV pops open, but an associated temperature of 291°C (559°F) was signi cantly higher
than the bubble point of the steady-state top-tray boiling liquid at relieving condition. While this point
was not the same as the UBH method point, the initial expectation of high relief load was established.
A relieving point (B) was observed, and the results were extremely close to the steady-state
simulation model—i.e., a relief rate of 21,300 kg/hr with a relieving temperature of 345°C (653°F).
With an in nite supply of liquid from upstream, the dynamic relief rate becomes steady at point (C):
17,200 kg/hr with a relieving temperature of 356°C (673°F).

Dynamic simulation is a useful tool to validate steady-state simulation results and trends, but the
system speci cation and volume de nition must be accurate for the time frame to be realistic for a
relieving scenario, which is often unrealistic in front-end design.

Takeaway
A conventional method like UBH provides a conservative relief load for columns, but it does not
account the compositional changes on the trays toward the bottom of the tower and, therefore,
a ects the computation of correct relief temperature.

For columns handling heavy hydrocarbon components with a wide range of boiling components, the
column operating temperature pro le is quite varied from overhead vapor to bottom product, due to
the compositional changes from the top to the bottom of the tower. This results in a gradual increase
in relief temperature of the components descending from the top to the bottom of the tower, the
bottom-tray liquid being the heaviest in the column. The case study demonstrated such an example.
https://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/magazine/2019/august-2019/process-control-and-instrumentation/estimation-of-relief-load-and-realistic-r… 5/8
11/27/2019 Estimation of relief load and realistic relieving temperature for heavy-end fractionating columns

(/media/10047/chaudhuri- g-06.jpg)
FIG. 6. Dynamic simulation output, re ux failure.
Here, the di erence in relief temperature calculated using UBH and steady-state simulation methods
was approximately 180°C.

For columns handling lighter petroleum cuts, this e ect might not be very pronounced, since the
di erence in bubble point temperature for light and heavy cuts is not so signi cant.

Therefore, for columns handling heavier petroleum cuts, especially small- to medium-sized towers, the
demonstrated simulation method can be recommended for correct prediction of relief and/or design
temperature on a case-to-case basis with stakeholders buy-in. The temperature excursion limit of the
a ected piping and equipment material can also be exploited in view of the economic impact weighed
against the low likelihood of pressure-relieving valve (PSV) relieving during plant design life.

An operator’s intervention time is also one of the deciding parameters. For very-large-diameter
towers, time is particularly important as the time required to dry out all trays above the feed section
is signi cant (e.g., more than 10 min–30 min, which is the globally acceptable time range for operator
intervention). In that case, an intermediate tray vapor temperature can be selected as the relieving
factor, as well as column overhead design temperature.

For laterals and are header sizing in columns with heavier components (heavy gasoil, etc.), the UBH
method gives a conservative relief load, provided that reboiling or stripping media is continued for the
governing relieving scenario. For are header hydraulics, the UBH provides a conservative approach;
for xing the design temperature of the are header, the simulation-based method is better suited.
Lateral and are header design temperature must also consider the ambient temperature loss to
avoid overdesign.

The observations were validated in a dynamic simulation environment establishing the variation of
relieving temperature to be a real scenario. For dynamic results to replace the steady-state results for
engineering design, several parameters must be accurately de ned, including a real-time model with
realistic system and piping volumes, realistic control loops and control valves, realistic rotary
equipment behaviors at overpressure scenario and the depletion of upstream uid supply. However, as
this article has shown, the UBH method combined with the steady-state simulation method requires
fewer details and less e ort, and still leads to a comprehensive and sturdy heavy-ends column relief
system design. HP

NOTE
a Aspen Hysys

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

https://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/magazine/2019/august-2019/process-control-and-instrumentation/estimation-of-relief-load-and-realistic-r… 6/8
11/27/2019 Estimation of relief load and realistic relieving temperature for heavy-end fractionating columns

The conclusions presented in this article are solely those of the authors and cannot be ascribed to
Fluor Corp. and/or any of its subsidiaries.

The Authors
Saha, J. (/authors/f/ uor-daniel-india-pvt-ltd/saha-j) - Fluor Daniel India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon,
India
Jhuma Saha has 14 yr of process engineering experience in petroleum re ning and
chemicals frontend engineering and detailed design. Prior to joining to Fluor New
Delhi, she worked with Foster Wheeler India and Linde. Ms. Saha holds an MS
(/authors/f/ uor- degree in chemical engineering from Jadavpur University in India.
daniel-india-
pvt-ltd/saha-j)

Chaudhuri, S. (/authors/b/bechtel-india-pvt-ltd/chaudhuri-s) - Bechtel India Pvt Ltd.,

Gurgaon, India
Sushree Chaudhuri is a Process Engineer with Bechtel India. She has more than 18
yr of experience in petroleum re ning, petrochemicals, o shore oil and gas, are
systems, and front end and detailed design. Prior to joining Bechtel, India she has
(/authors/b/bechtel-worked with Fluor, Gurgaon and Foster Wheler. She holds BS degrees in chemistry
india-pvt- and chemical engineering from the University of Calcutta.
ltd/chaudhuri-
s)

Groenendijk, S. (/authors/f/ uor/groenendijk-s) - Fluor, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Sander Groenendijk has 19 yr of experience in oil, gas and chemicals front-end
engineering and detailed design and is a subject matter expert in process
simulation, hydraulics and safety and relief systems. He holds an MS degree and a
PhD in chemical engineering from the University of Amsterdam.
(/authors/f/ uor/groenendijk-
s)

Related Articles
Process engineering, optimization and advanced process control (/magazine/2019/november-
2019/special-focus-instrumentation-and-automation/process-engineering-optimization-and-
advanced-process-control)
Innovations (/magazine/2019/october-2019/trends-resources/innovations)
Cybersecurity: Crucial defenses for critical infrastructures (/magazine/2019/october-
2019/columns/cybersecurity-crucial-defenses-for-critical-infrastructures)

Associations: Integrated vs. non-integrated safety systems: Does it really matter?

(/magazine/2019/october-2019/columns/associations-integrated-vs-non-integrated-safety-
systems-does-it-really-matter)
Securing industrial systems in a digital world (/magazine/2019/october-
2019/cybersecurity/securing-industrial-systems-in-a-digital-world)
Energy savings opportunities in uni ning, CCR and benzene removal units
(/magazine/2019/october-2019/sustainability/energy-savings-opportunities-in-uni ning-ccr-and-
benzene-removal-units)

https://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/magazine/2019/august-2019/process-control-and-instrumentation/estimation-of-relief-load-and-realistic-r… 7/8
11/27/2019 Estimation of relief load and realistic relieving temperature for heavy-end fractionating columns

From the Archive

Six considerations for turbomachinery control upgrades (/magazine/2018/august-2018/special-
focus- uid- ow-and-rotating-equipment/six-considerations-for-turbomachinery-control-upgrades)
Viewpoint: “Intelligizing” the re nery for business sustainability (/magazine/2016/june-
2016/columns/viewpoint-intelligizing-the-re nery-for-business-sustainability)
Business Trends: Global petrochemical overview—Part 1 (/magazine/2016/april-2016/trends-
and-resources/business-trends-global-petrochemical-overview-part-1)

Maximize petrochemicals in the FCCU to boost re nery margins, improve gasoline pool quality
(/magazine/2016/february-2016/special-report-clean-fuels-and-the-environment/maximize-
petrochemicals-in-the-fccu-to-boost-re nery-margins-improve-gasoline-pool-quality)
Business Trends: Clean fuels—a global shift to a low-sulfur world (/magazine/2016/february-
2016/trends-and-resources/business-trends-clean-fuels-a-global-shift-to-a-low-sulfur-world)
Top seven causes for lost ole n production (/magazine/2015/april-2015/special-report-
petrochemical-developments/top-seven-causes-for-lost-ole n-production)

Comments

Type your comment here Add Comment

https://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/magazine/2019/august-2019/process-control-and-instrumentation/estimation-of-relief-load-and-realistic-r… 8/8