Importance of testing for vacuum ejectors
in refinery service
Efforts should be made to identify and avoid errors in the specification, engineering,
and manufacturing of vacuum system equipment before they manifest at start-up
EDWARD HARTMAN and TONY BARLETTA Process Consulting Services, Inc.
LAURENT SOLLIEC and PETER TREFZER GEA Wiegand GmbH
V
acuum systems are critically
important to the performance
of refinery crude vacuum dis-
tillation units. Vacuum tower flash
zone pressure is a result of vacuum
system suction pressure plus pres-
sure drop through the overhead
vapour line and column internals.
To maximise recovery of gasoil
from vacuum residue, the flash zone
should operate at the lowest possible
pressure without exceeding tower
capacity. Unfortunately, many vac-
uum towers operate above their
design or expected pressure, result-
ing in lower vacuum gasoil yields
and reduced profitability.
Many papers and articles in the
technical literature discuss the per-
formance and troubleshooting of
vacuum ejector systems in refinery
service.1,2. This article focuses on
the importance of shop testing vac-
uum ejectors to ensure they meet
their design parameters of pressure
versus capacity and consequently
prevent significant economic losses
that can result from their under-
performance. An additional benefit
is the ejector performance curves
derived from actual testing are para-
mount to any future troubleshooting,
optimisation, and revamping of vac-
uum systems in operating units.
Crude unit vacuum systems
Multi-stage steam jet vacuum ejec-
tor systems are almost universally
used to produce vacuum in refin-
ery crude distillation units. They
are particularly well suited to the
large vapour volumetric rates pres-
ent and high compression ratios
normally required. The systems are
arranged in two to four stages, with
each stage consisting of an ejector
www.digitalrefining.com
40%
Vacuum resid yeild (LV% on crude)
39%
38%
37%
36%
35%
34%
33%
32%
31%
30%
20
Figure 1 Flash zone pressure impact on vacuum residue yield
and discharge surface condenser.
Depending on unit capacity and
desired flexibility, each stage may
have ejectors or surface condens-
ers in parallel. Steam works as the
motive fluid providing the energy
for compression. Load to each stage
consists of non-condensable gas,
condensable hydrocarbons vapour,
and water vapour. Surface con-
densers minimise the quantity of
condensable vapours and cool the
non-condensable gas mixture flow-
ing to the next ejector stage and leav-
ing the system. This reduction in
load results in smaller ejector size in
the intermediate and final stages, as
well as lower overall energy usage.
Discussed in further detail under
vacuum ejector fundamentals, ejec-
tor suction pressure is a function
of its load and performance curve,
as long as its discharge pressure
is below its maximum discharge
pressure (MDP). In a multi-stage
crude vacuum unit system, over-
all suction pressure is a function of
vapour overhead load from the vac-
Unit 1 Unit 2
22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Flash zone pressure, mmHg absolute
uum tower and first-stage ejector
performance curve. This holds true
provided the first-stage condenser,
as well as ejectors, condensers, and
interconnecting piping in subsequent
stages do not cause the first-stage
MDP to be exceeded.
In some cases, high vacuum sys-
tem suction pressure, and conse-
quently high tower pressure, is
caused by process loads pushing
the ejectors out on their curves.
However, Process Consulting
Services (PCS) has encountered sev-
eral instances of ejector design errors
leading to tower pressures up to 10
mmHgA above design right from
start-up. When vacuum system fails
to deliver from day one, system
performance can further degrade
rapidly with normal exchanger foul-
ing and the initial 10 mmHgA miss
can increase to 20 mmHgA or more
above design suction pressure.
The impact of flash zone pressure
on refinery profitability is mag-
nified in units processing heavy
crudes. Figure 1 shows vacuum res-
PTQ Q2 2022 01
 steam jet vacuum ejector that estab-
Motive nozzle Diffuser throat Diffuser lishes nomenclature and symbology
used throughout this article.
Discharge
Motive The basic operating principle of
steam
Pd a steam jet ejector is momentum
Pm, m m
m=mm + ms transfer. The motive nozzle converts
Suction chamber
P = Absolute pressure steam pressure energy into veloc-
Ps, m s
Suction load
m = Mass flow rate ity energy, resulting in a supersonic
velocity jet of steam that entrains
Figure 2 Steam jet vacuum ejector diagram the vapour and gas mixture from
the suction chamber. The resulting
idue yields for two different vac- a few months, additional uncertain- mixture of motive steam and suc-
uum columns over a range of flash ties can further complicate efforts tion load enters the diffuser where
zone pressures. Unit 1 runs a blend to narrow the root cause(s) of high velocity energy is converted back
of heavy Canadian crudes, while vacuum column operating pressure. to pressure. At the diffuser throat,
Unit 2 processes a blend of heavy These include, but are not limited a pressure discontinuity or shock
Venezuelan and light US crudes. to, condenser fouling, ejector motive wave occurs which is responsible for
As pressure increases from 20 to steam nozzle erosion, and tower an important property of steam jet
40 mmHgA, Unit 1 residue yield internals damage that increases sys- ejectors – suction pressure is inde-
increases by about 3 LV% on crude tem load. pendent of discharge pressure up
and Unit 2 residue yield increases Therefore, every effort should be to a certain limit, and is only influ-
by about 4 LV% on crude. For a made to identify and avoid errors enced by the amount of suction load.
crude capacity of 100 MBpd, this in the specification, engineering, Figure 3 presents the performance
corresponds to 3 and 4 MBpd of and manufacturing of vacuum sys- curve of a large first-stage ejector,
incremental vacuum residue, respec- tem equipment before they manifest showing the relationship between
tively. Considering a vacuum gas- themselves at start-up. In vacuum suction pressure and load.
oil to residue downgrade penalty surface condensers, undersized shell As mentioned above, suction pres-
of $15/Bbl, the higher flash zone nozzles, over-optimistic heat trans- sure is independent of discharge
pressure results in profit losses of fer coefficients, and vapour internal pressure only up to a certain point.
$16MM/yr and $21MM/yr. bypass are common problems. In When discharge pressure becomes
Troubleshooting and diagnosis of vacuum ejectors, motive steam noz- too high, the shock wave in the
crude vacuum systems underper- zle size and position are common ejector throat can become unstable,
formance can be difficult and time culprits. In addition to generating leading to ‘broken’ ejector operation
consuming. The process of determin- accurate performance curves, shop that produces high and sometimes
ing ejector loads in an operating unit testing vacuum ejectors provides a fluctuating suction pressure. When
is full of uncertainties. It requires unique and valuable opportunity to an ejector is operating in a broken
good field data, laboratory analy- prevent such problems. state, the suction pressure is unpre-
sis, and flow measurements that are dictable and depends on both suc-
often unavailable. Furthermore, it Steam jet vacuum ejector tion load and discharge pressure.
relies heavily on process simulation fundamentals The discharge pressure that breaks
models that are only as good as the Steam jet vacuum ejectors are essen- the ejector is known as maximum
simulation inputs. For units that tially compressors with no mov- discharge pressure, or MDP. MDP
have been in operation for more than ing parts. Figure 2 is a diagram of a is commonly represented as a sin-
gle number for a given ejector, but
it actually varies with suction load.
19 Figure 4 shows a combined plot of
suction pressure and MDP curves
Suction pressure (mmHg absolute)

18
17
16 versus suction load for an actual
15 first-stage ejector. Note that the axes
14
13 on this figure are reversed from the
12 typical pressure versus load capacity
11
10 curve, with X-axis indicating pres-
9 sure and Y-axis representing load.
8
7 This arrangement makes it easier
6 to combine the individual capacity
5
4 curves of a multi-stage system in the
3 same plot.
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000
Although ejectors can handle a
Equivalent water vapour load @ 70˚F (lb/hr)
wide variety of suction gasses with
varying temperature and molecular
Figure 3 Suction pressure vs load performance curve weight, ejector curves and ejector

02 PTQ Q2 2022 www.digitalrefining.com


Equivalent water vapour load @ 300˚F (lb/hr)
Figure 4 Suction pressure and MDP vs load performance curves
testing are based on the principle of
equivalent load. Any combination
of suction vapours can be converted
to equivalent water vapour (EWV)
or dry air equivalent (DAE) load
by simple corrections for molecu-
lar weight and temperature. Using
equivalent load makes it easy to con-
vert and plot any given suction load
onto the equivalent load curve to
check performance. Equivalent load
can also be represented at different
reference temperatures. This pro-
cess is described in detail in indus-
try standards.3,4 All loads discussed
herewith are on an EWV basis.
 
Ejector similitude and scaling
Ejectors are commonly defined by
the following three non-dimensional
parameters:
Compression ratio: Cr = Pd
PS
Expansion ratio: Er = Pm
Ps
Motive
steam
Separator
Figure 5 Test stand configuration
03 PTQ Q2 2022
make up those ratios and with the
15000
proper correction factors.
14000
13000 Test stand setup and limitations
12000
Previously referenced indus-
11000
10000 try standards cover many testing
9000 related topics in detail. The stand-
8000 ards are written to cover testing of
7000
ejectors for a wide range of services.
6000
5000 Ejectors designed for refinery vac-
4000 uum systems normally bring addi-
3000 tional challenges due to size and
2000
Suction MDP utilities consumption. Their testing
1000
0
should include a range of suction
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 loads, with suction pressure and
Pressure (mmHg absolute) MDP recorded at each load point.
Although formal testing guidelines
allow testing only three points, add-
ing additional test points is trivial
.
Entrainment ratio: ω = mm after going through the effort of set-
.
ms ting up the ejector on the test stand.
Depending on unit process design
Ejectors are scalable devices in and modes of operation, it may also
terms of both physical size and be advisable to check unusual loads
non-dimensional parameters. corresponding to expected process
Similitude laws allow ejectors to swings. Ejectors that may operate
be scaled by applying appropriate during periods of very low load
ratios to all critical geometric param- should be tested all the way down to
eters, including throat area, motive zero load to ensure suction pressure
steam nozzle throat area, and motive stability. In addition, the zero-load
steam nozzle distance to throat, suction and discharge pressures are
among others. A family of ejectors essential at start-up of the vacuum
sharing identical geometric ratios column for comparison with in-situ
also shares all combinations of Cr, measurements.
Er, and ω. The entrainment ratio Refinery ejectors are typically tested
ω is not exactly constant because with steam as load rather than air.
it is affected by friction through Figure 5 shows a representative test
the throat – an ejector with a larger stand setup. This test setup allows
throat always performs better than for control of motive steam pres-
a similar scaled down ejector with sure, suction load, and ejector dis-
a smaller throat. Therefore, for a charge pressure. Motive steam is let
defined ejector geometry, testing at down to the test pressure through
any set of fixed Cr, Er, and ω is valid, a pressure control valve. If the vac-
regardless of the absolute values that uum system design conditions spec-
ify superheated motive steam, then
superheat may be added by an elec-
Liquid ring vacuum tric superheater or motive steam pres-
pump or atmosphere sure can be adjusted to account for
Cooling
the lack of superheat.4 Suction load
TI PI PI water supply is metered by adjusting steam pres-
Air sure upstream of a Heat Exchange
Superheater Institute (HEI) nozzle under criti-
Direct contact
(optional) TI condenser cal flow. Ejector discharge is routed
PI to a direct contact condenser where
Load
steam Separator Cooling water motive and load steam are con-
Condensate HEI return
drain nozzle
densed by mixing with cooling water.
Condenser pressure is maintained
by a downstream vacuum produc-
Condensate drain ing equipment (liquid ring vacuum
pump) and it can be adjusted by an
air intake control valve.
www.digitalrefining.com
 Equation 1 can be used for motive
steam flow calculations, as well as
suction load flow calculations using
steam through an HEI nozzle under
critical flow. The unit conversion
factor U (see Table 1) combines the
nozzle flow coefficient and discharge
function at supercritical flow:
Table 1
m.steam,critical =U * Dn2 * √P * ρ [1]
Testing methods
Manufacturer’s test stands are lim-
ited in physical size, steam boiler
capacity, steam pressure, and cool-
ing water heat removal capability.
Given size limitations, most large
first-stage ejectors and many larger
second-stage ejectors do not physi-
cally fit in the existing test facilities.
Additionally, large ejectors that con-
sume thousands of pounds per hour
of motive steam or ejectors designed
for high pressure motive steam
may exceed test stand capabilities.
The ability to add superheat to the
motive steam can also pose a chal-
lenge. Therefore, test methods based
on model ejectors, scaled process
conditions or a combination thereof
may be required. General guidance
is to use the simplest test possible,
while resorting to rigorous scaling
factors and accurate empirical cor-
rection factors when needed.
A. Direct test
Testing is most straightforward
for small ejectors that fit on the test
stand and require motive and load
steam that are within steam gener-
ation capacity both in terms of flow
rate and pressure. In these cases,
motive steam is set at design, and
the measured suction pressures, dis-
charge pressures, and equivalent
loads can be plotted directly on the
final ejector curves without any cor-
rection factors. Due to its simplicity,
direct test is the preferred method
whenever possible.
B. Scale test
For ejectors that physically fit on
the test stand but that require more
motive steam flow or higher motive
steam pressure than available, the
actual ejector can be tested by scal-
ing the process conditions. Scaled
test results are then translated to the
final ejector curves by using Cr, Er,
www.digitalrefining.com
Values of unit conversion factor U
Unit conversion factor U ṁ Dn P ρ
867.9 lb/hr in psia lb/ft3
0.5804 kg/hr mm bar Kg/m3
Note: P and ρ are for the motive steam upstream of the nozzle.
and ω non-dimensional parameters.
C. Superheated or saturated steam
test
Ejector performance is based on
mass flow. For typical refinery levels
of superheat (100-300°F), the extra
energy due to superheat generally
has a negligible impact on ejector
performance. However, superheat
is important because of its effect
on motive steam density, which
changes the mass flow of steam
through the critical flow motive
nozzle. Steam with more super-
heat has lower density, so, for the
same pressure, mass flow of super-
heated steam through a fixed orifice
is less than it would be for saturated
steam. In terms of testing an ejector
designed for superheated steam,
options are:
If the test stand can supply superheated
steam For direct and model testing,
superheat the steam to achieve the
exact motive steam design pressure
and temperature. For scale testing,
superheat the steam such that both
expansion ratio Er and steam mass
flow rate scale correctly. The ratio
of superheated steam density to
saturated steam density should be
the same in both cases.
If the test stand cannot supply super-
heated steam For model testing, the
model’s motive steam nozzle throat
area can be reduced to account
for the higher density of the satu-
rated steam used on the test stand.
For direct or scale testing, motive
steam pressure can be adjusted to
get the correct motive mass flow.
Superheated steam has a lower den-
sity than saturated steam of the same
pressure, so density can be matched
by lowering test steam pressure
until motive flow rate at the lower
pressure matches the superheated
motive flow rate at design pressure.
This calculation is straightforward
with steam tables and Equation 1.
Adjusting steam pressure to
account for superheat impacts the
expansion ratio Er, such that the test
points Cr, Er, and ω are no longer
equal to those for the ejector curve
points. Correcting the test point for
the difference in Er requires adjust-
ing the entrainment ratio ω by an
empirical factor which, similarly to
the efficiency factor, is also based on
manufacturer’s experience.
D. Model test
Ejectors are scalable devices, so per-
formance of a geometrically scaled
ejector can be accurately ratioed up
to predict performance of the full-
size ejector. For large ejectors, it is
common practice for the manufac-
turer to use a scaled model of the
actual jet to optimise steam nozzle
position and complete the factory
performance tests.
Ejector efficiency is significantly
impacted by wall friction inside the
jet. As ejector size increases, ejector
throat area increases more quickly
than wall surface area, so that larger
ejectors are more efficient because
less energy is lost to wall friction.
Therefore, performance of a full-
size ejector always exceeds that of a
smaller scaled version of the same
ejector. In terms of ejector testing
and certification, this efficiency dif-
ference can be accounted for by an
empirical efficiency factor to produce
accurate ejector capacity curves, or
the curves can be used as tested and
the increased efficiency thought of as
‘bonus’ or ‘safety margin’. The tech-
nique explained in testing method
B (scaling of the process conditions)
can also be applied to a model ejec-
tor if required by the test stand
capabilities.
Crude vacuum unit ejectors testing
A revamp designed by PCS of a
major US Gulf Coast crude vacuum
unit illustrates the application of the
PTQ Q2 2022 04
 1st stage model test results and translation to full-size ejector illustrated above. This acceptance
testing allowed GEA to demonstrate
the expected design performance of
Model test results F
ull-size ejector results
m·s,test Pm,test Ps,test Pd,test m·s Pm Ps Pd each ejector, as well as to generate
lb/hr psia mmHgA mmHgA lb/hr psia mmHgA mmHgA accurate suction and MDP perfor-
89 194.4 11.1 90.0 9,634 194.4 11.1 90.0 mance curves. Overall vacuum sys-
tem performance and its impact on
Table 2 post-revamp unit operations will be
discussed in a future article.
3rd stage ejector scaled test results and translation to design conditions
Conclusion
Scaled test results Design test results Acceptance or shop testing of vac-
m·s,test Pm,test Ps,test Pd,test m·s Pm Ps Pd uum ejectors is used to generate an
lb/hr psia mmHgA mmHgA lb/hr psia mmHgA mmHgA accurate set of ejector performance
325 28.7 27.8 123.8 1,408 128.8 111.0 495.0
curves. More importantly, it pro-
vides an opportunity to prevent ejec-
Table 3 tor underperformance by identifying
and correcting design or manufac-
testing methods. Unit charge consists Therefore, the model ejector is fit- turing errors. Given the significant
of atmospheric residue from a blend ted with a motive nozzle throat area profit loss that can result from a
of heavy Venezuelan and light US sized to account for the higher den- ‘broken’ ejector in a crude vacuum
crudes. In order to maximise refinery sity of the saturated steam used on distillation unit, shop testing of new
profitability, one of the main revamp the test stand, such that the correct ejectors should be mandatory. This is
objectives is to improve heavy vac- motive steam mass rate is deliv- not a topic to cut corners on cost.
uum gasoil (HVGO) cutpoint to over ered. Test results from one of the
1050°F, thus minimising vacuum measuring points and its respective References
residue yield. Therefore, required translation to the full-sized ejector is 1 Lieberman N, Cardoso R, Troubleshoot
vacuum unit design conditions are exemplified in Table 2. operation of a steam ejector vacuum system,
stringent: heater outlet tempera- Hydrocarbon Processing, Feb 2016, 59-64.
ture in the 780°F range, stripping 3rd stage ejectors – scale test with 2 Cantley G, et al, Maximise VGO yield, PTQ
Revamps & Operations, 2005, 22-25.
steam rate in excess of 8.0 lb/bl of adjustment for steam superheat
3 Heat Exchange Institute, Inc., Standards for
residue and 30 mmHgA vacuum The third-stage ejectors physically
Steam Jet Vacuum Systems.
tower flash zone pressure. The four- fit in the test stand but their motive 4 German Standard DIN 28 430, Rules for the
stage existing vacuum system was steam rate exceeds test stand capac- Measurement of Steam Jet Vacuum Pumps
revamped with all new ejectors, as ity. Therefore, a scale test is per- and Steam Jet Compressors.
well as new first- and second-stage formed with a scale factor of 4 to
Edward Hartman is a process engineer with
intercondensers. 1 ratio. Again, the design motive Process Consulting Services Inc, in Houston,
steam conditions include super- TX, USA. He has 35 years of experience in
1st stage ejectors – model test with heat, which cannot be delivered on studies and design packages of refinery units,
adjustment for steam superheat the test stand. In order to achieve specialising in distillation equipment design.
The first-stage ejectors cannot be the same motive steam mass rate Tony Barletta is Vice President with Process
directly tested due to their sheer size, through the motive nozzle, a super- Consulting Services. Inc. He has over 34 years
requiring a model test. The model heat temperature correction factor of experience with refinery revamps and
ejector is scaled down based on the calculated from steam properties is process design for heavy oil units.
similitude laws, resulting in a scale applied to the motive pressure in Laurent Solliec is an R&D Manager at GEA
Wiegand GmbH, Germany. He specialises
factor of 100 to 1 ratio. As previ- conjunction with the scale factor.
in customer oriented solutions and ejector
ously mentioned, the model ejector As previously mentioned, adjust-
technology, and heads the test bench facility.
is less efficient than the actual ejec- ing steam pressure to account for He holds a PhD in fluid dynamics engineering.
tor due to wall friction effects. This superheat results in a different Peter Trefzer is Product Manager for vacuum
efficiency difference is accounted for expansion ratio Er between design systems and ejectors at GEA Wiegand. He
on the translation of each test point and test conditions, while the com- specialises in multi-stage ejector applications
to the full-sized ejector curves by an pression ratio Cr remains constant. and holds a degree in mechanical engineering.
empirical factor. Although the fric- Therefore, the entrainment ratio ω
tion correction factor is correlated to is adjusted by an empirical factor
Reynolds number, in practice GEA based on GEA’s experience. Test LINKS
relies on an extensive database of results from one of the third- stage More articles from: Process Consulting
test results, compiled over decades, test measuring points and its respec- Services
to determine this empirical factor. tive translation to the design condi-
More articles from the following
Design motive steam conditions tions is exemplified in Table 3.
categories:
include superheat, which can- All ejector elements in this system Crude and Vacuum Units
not be delivered on the test stand. were tested by one of the methods

05 PTQ Q2 2022 www.digitalrefining.com