MARCH 2023 | HydrocarbonProcessing.

com

NEW PATHWAYS TO ADVANCE

PETROCHEMICAL
TECHNOLOGY
Crude C4 alternatives for a successful
GRASSROOTS PETROCHEMICAL COMPLEX
DECARBONIZING CHEMICAL OPERATIONS
through efficiency enhancements

A novel route to
AROMATICS RECOVERY
 MARCH 2023 | Volume 102 Number 3
HydrocarbonProcessing.com

SPECIAL FOCUS: PETROCHEMICALS TECHNOLOGY COLUMNS

Crude C4 alternatives for a successful grassroots petrochemicals project Editorial Comment
J. Delgado, M. Khvastunkov, K. Marwan and A. Marri
Juggling the increasing global
An advanced extractive distillation process for aromatics recovery demand for thermoplastics vs.
F. M. Lee, M. Z. Y. Shen, C. Y. Chen, Y. H. Chen and K. C. R. Hsu reducing their environmental footprint:
Can this be accomplished?
Efficient and robust hydrogen peroxide propylene oxide (HPPO) process
C. Xia, M. Lin, B. Zhu, X. Peng, Y. Luo, W. Shu, H. Li and W. Wang
Executive Viewpoint
PROCESS OPTIMIZATION Drive the decarbonization of chemical
New state-of-the-art in sulfur recovery?—Part 3: Economic benefits plants through energy efficiency
H. Njuguna, J. Lewis and F. E. Jensen enhancements

HEAT TRANSFER
Practical application of expansion joints for heat exchangers DEPARTMENTS
B. N. Acharya, N. Pal, K. Daru and A. Panchal Innovations

ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY Sales Office

VOC reduction at Raffineria di Milazzo’s SRU complex—Part 1
S. Falzone, G. Licandro, F. Lagan, M. Tarantino, I. Arces, R. Grillo,
P. Chiantella and C. Albanese
WEB EXCLUSIVE
People
Design, operation and troubleshooting of sulfur-handling plants:
Challenges and practices
C. Bahubali

CARBON CAPTURE/CO2 MITIGATION

Control valves for carbon sequestration applications
J. Demonte and S. Grills

VALVES, PUMPS AND TURBOMACHINERY

The effect of viscosity on centrifugal pumps and
predicting performance for different fluids
A. Dominic

Liquid applications for ASME Section I service

R. Merriam and G. W. Fels

MAINTENANCE/RELIABILITY
A finite element method analysis revealing the structural behavior
of load bearing brackets
A. Kittur

PLANT DESIGN, ENGINEERING, CONSTRUCTION

AND COMMISSIONING
Optimizing the construction process through lean project management
A. Parmar and G. Shahani
www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com
P. O. Box 2608, Houston, Texas 77252-2608, USA
Phone: +1 (713) 529-4301 / Fax: +1 (713) 520-4433
Editors@HydrocarbonProcessing.com

SVP, Media/Publisher  Andy McDowell

VP, Content/Editor-in-Chief Lee Nichols

EDITORIAL
Managing Editor   Mike Rhodes
Associate Editor   Tyler Campbell

MAGAZINE PRODUCTION
SVP, Operations & Production   Sheryl Stone
Senior Production Manager   Angela Bathe Dietrich
Assistant Manager, Editorial Production   Melissa DeLucca

CIRCULATION
+1 (713) 520-4498 / Circulation@GulfEnergyInfo.com
Director, Circulation   Suzanne McGehee

SUBSCRIPTIONS
Subscription price (includes both print and digital versions): One year
$399, two years $679, three years $897. Airmail rate outside North
America $175 additional a year. Single copies $35, prepaid.

Hydrocarbon Processing’s Full Data Access subscription plan is priced at

$1,995. This plan provides full access to all information and data
Hydrocarbon Processing has to offer. It includes a print or digital version
of the magazine, as well as full access to all posted articles (current and
archived), process handbooks, the HPI Market Data book, Construction
Boxscore Database project updates and more.
Because Hydrocarbon Processing is edited specifically to be of greatest
value to people working in this specialized business, subscriptions are
restricted to those engaged in the hydrocarbon processing industry, or
service and supply company personnel connected thereto.

Hydrocarbon Processing is indexed by Applied Science & Technology

Index, by Chemical Abstracts and by Engineering Index Inc. Microfilm
copies available through University Microfilms, International, Ann Arbor,
Mich. The full text of Hydrocarbon Processing is also available in
electronic versions of the Business Periodicals Index.

DISTRIBUTION OF ARTICLES
For article reprints, please contact Cheryl Willis: Phone: 713-525-4633
/ Fax: 713-525-4615 / Email: cheryl.willis@gulfenergyinfo.com

Hydrocarbon Processing (ISSN 0018-8190) is published monthly by Gulf

Energy Information, 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1020, Houston, Texas 77046.

Copyright © 2023 by Gulf Energy Information. All rights

reserved. Permission is granted by the copyright owner to libraries and
others registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) to photocopy
any articles herein for the base fee of $3 per copy per page. Payment
should be sent directly to the CCC, 21 Congress St., Salem, Mass. 01970.
Copying for other than personal or internal reference use without express
permission is prohibited. Requests for special permission or bulk orders
should be addressed to the Editor. ISSN 0018-8190/01.

GULF ENERGY INFORMATION

President/CEO  John T. Royall
CFO  Catherine Watkins
Sr. Vice President, Media  Andy McDowell
Sr. Vice President, Operations & Production  Sheryl Stone
Vice President, Audience Development & Marketing  Roger Jordan
Vice President, Content  Lee Nichols

Publication Agreement Number 40034765 Printed in USA

Other Gulf Energy Information titles include: H2Tech, Gas Processing &
LNG™, World Oil, Pipeline & Gas Journal, Petroleum Economist©and
Underground Infrastructure.
 Juggling the increasing global demand for
thermoplastics vs. reducing their
environmental footprint: Can this be
accomplished?

LEE NICHOLS, Vice President, Content/Editor-in-Chief

If you were to review any forecast for global thermoplastics demand to 2050—high-density polyethylene
(PE), low-density PE, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride and polyethylene terephthalate, among others—
chances are that you will see a steady rise in consumption. For example, global thermoplastics demand is
forecast to increase from approximately 483 MMtpy in 2020 to nearly 399 MMtpy in 2030 and up to more
than 589 MMtpy by 2050, according to data from Statista.1

Regardless of outside forces calling for an end to the use and production of oil, gas and petrochemicals,
the fact remains that demand for plastics—especially from developing countries in Asia—will continue to
steadily increase over the next few decades. With this significant increase in plastics demand, how can
petrochemical producers juggle the need to satisfy global plastics product demands vs. adhering to more
stringent calls for decarbonization, increased energy efficiency and a reduction in environmental footprint?

In actuality, the work to decarbonize operations in the petrochemicals industry has been a road well-
traveled for some time. From novel processing technologies and capital investments to alternative energy
generation, petrochemical producers and technology licensors have been/are proactively investing in and
incorporating new pathways to limit their environmental footprint, increase energy efficiency, decarbonize
operations and create circular economies.

Examples include new processing technologies to recycle plastics, researching the use of electrification
(e.g., e-burners) to limit carbon emissions, investing in carbon capture technologies, increasing the
production of ammonia and methanol as a fuel for the mobility and marine sectors (processing routes
include the production of green ammonia through electrolysis to create a zero-carbon fuel), incorporating
renewable energy to power processing units and/or replacing fossil-fuel burners with hydrogen, and many
others.

Global petrochemicals projects breakdown. So, where is the petrochemicals industry heading
from a capital expenditures perspective? At the time of this publication, Gulf Energy Information’s Global
Energy Infrastructure (GEI) database was tracking more than 330 active petrochemical projects around the
world. These projects represent approximately $660 B in capital expenditures by 2030.

When broken down by region, most active projects are in Asia, followed by the Middle East. Both regions
are investing heavily in new petrochemicals capacity to satisfy increasing regional and global demand. A
breakdown in active petrochemicals market share by region is below:

Africa: 5%
Asia-Pacific: 50%
Canada: 1%
Western Europe: 5%
Eastern Europe: 6%
Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS): 8%
Central/South America: 1%
Middle East: 14%
U.S.: 10%.

When broken down by activity level, more than 40% of active projects globally are under construction,
followed by projects in the planning stage (31%) and proposed (28%).

Petrochemicals technologies focus to the future of the industry and the world. With the
stark increase in petrochemicals demand globally and the sizable capital investments being made,
petrochemical producers are finding new pathways to optimize operations. This trend has been a staple of
Hydrocarbon Processing's coverage for decades and is the primary focus of this month’s issue.

This issue will highlight some of the advancements in petrochemicals processing technologies and how
they are shaping the industry moving forward. This discussion is imperative as the world continues to
demand more thermoplastics balanced by the petrochemical industry’s job to satisfy that demand in the
safest, most efficient and sustainable way possible. HP

LITERATURE CITED

1. Statista.com, “Production forecast of thermoplastics worldwide from 2020 to 2050, by type,” Statista, 2023, online:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1192886/thermoplastics-production-volume-by-type-globally/
ENHANCED, PRECISE MEASUREMENT OF HIGH FLOWS

Globally, > 90 MMbpd of crude oil, natural gas and refined

hydrocarbons are produced, transported, stored and sold to end
users. With enormous transactions like these, any instrument
inaccuracy, even the most infinitesimal, can result in significant
shortfalls for the supplier or buyer. Promass Q (FIG. 1), a high-tech
Coriolis flowmeter line from Endress+Hauser, alleviates concerns
of inaccuracies with its four-tube technology, while measuring with
FIG. 1. An Endress+Hauser Promass Q minimal pressure loss over a wide range of flowrates.
Extension.
Promass Q recently welcomed new additions to its lineup. It is
available for larger pipes than ever before—up to 10-in. (DN 250)—for measuring flowrates up to 18,900
bbl/hr (bph) (2,400 tph), opening the door to additional applications in the oil and gas industry. These
include high-precision metering for custody transfer, fiscal metering, master metering as a reference
device for onsite verification, and more.

In addition to mass and volumetric flow, Promass Q also records process density and temperature. This
enables the incorporation of fluctuating process and ambient conditions into flow measurement, with
appropriate compensation, helping achieve tight error bands of ±0.05% for mass flow and ±0.2 kg/m3 for
density.

Compared to meters with two measuring tubes, four tubes reliably measure 25% greater flowrates,
enabling faster transactions in the oil and gas business. This can save operators money by reducing
standstill times while loading and unloading oil tankers, and by reducing port charges.

Additionally, four-tube technology reduces pressure loss while pumping and measuring due to the
increased cross-sectional flow area relative to line size. This provides further cost savings because
operators can use smaller pumps that consume less energy relative to overall volumetric output. The
lower pressure loss also alleviates harmful cavitation effects and gas break out, for example, in
exceptionally light hydrocarbons, such as liquefied petroleum gases (LPG), natural gas liquids (NGL),
condensates and other cryogenic fluids.

Promass Q flowmeters are available in stainless steel and IP66/67-rated materials, ensuring robust and
long-term operation, even in harsh conditions, such as offshore areas with high humidity and salt spray.
Promass Q is rated for process temperatures ranging from –321°F (–196°C) to 401°F (205°C), with the
low-end making Promass Q meters an ideal choice for measuring cryogenic fluids.
With SIL ratings in compliance with IEC 61508, Promass Q is also suitable for safety-related applications.
Its numerous hazardous area approvals (e.g., ATEX, IECEx, CSA) further expand its list of potential
applications. The Promass Q’s compact design relative to its flow measurement capacity enables
installation in confined spaces, such as on stationary or mobile skids for custody transfer.

Numerous test measurements have proven Endress+Hauser Coriolis flow measurement technology for
measuring viscous hydrocarbons, like heavy oils and bitumen, in addition to fluids with entrained gas. This
is particularly applicable to Promass Q meters. Testing highlights include:

Measuring accuracy of ±0.05% o.r., tested and confirmed in various external, accredited oil and gas
calibration facilities
Density measuring accuracy of ±0.2 kg/m3 (±0.0002 g/cm3), certified by H&D Fitzgerald/UK
Superior turndown and zero-point stability
Excellent measuring performance for liquids with microbubbles thanks to patented Multi-Frequency
Technology
Lowest pressure loss compared to conventional devices with the same line size
Exceptional repeatability of ±0.025% across the entire measuring range
Highest immunity to fluctuating process and ambient conditions, such as pressure, temperature and
vibration.

Proline 300/500 transmitters have been proven for years in the industry and are under constant
development for continual improvement, making them complementary to the enhanced Promass Q line of
sensors. Proline 300/500 transmitters provide a host of user-friendly capabilities, including a WLAN
webserver for wireless operation and configuration onsite, HistoROM programming for safe configuration
and device data storage, and Heartbeat Technology, making advanced instrument diagnostic, verification
and secondary process value data available for consumption by host systems.

By combining Promass Q flowmeters with Proline 300/500 transmitters, plant personnel gain
measurement reliability and assurance, in addition to diagnostic visibility, empowering them to optimize
operations and increase uptime.

For more information, go to Proline Promass Q flowmeters and Proline transmitters.

ENTERPRISE PLATFORM EMPOWERS PROCESS MANUFACTURERS WITH NEW

LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE
FIG. 2. With AI search engine
capabilities, eschbach’s Shiftconnector®
will now bring a new level of intelligence
to the plant floor.
performance.
Global software developer eschbach, the provider of
Shiftconnector® digital manufacturing software for process
manufacturing, has now made artificial intelligence (AI) an integral
component of its enterprise platform (FIG. 2). With AI search
engine capabilities, Shiftconnector will now bring a new level of
intelligence to the plant floor.
For nearly 20 yr, Shiftconnector’s software platform has been
enabling process industry manufacturers to enhance
communications among shift teams for effective shift handovers,
transparent team communications and increased asset
With the addition of AI’s Smart Search capabilities to the Shiftconnector platform, teams can now improve
plant performance by quickly finding solutions based on the history of documented tribal knowledge from
plant operations teams. Retrieving the most relevant information will accelerate operations and offer
capabilities to help teams recover from disruptions by immediately identifying appropriate fixes. Also,
captured knowledge can be managed to support workforce changes.

Large amounts of data flow through a plant operation and it can be costly to overall operations to find
solutions when similar processes happen regularly and downtimes occur. As different teams must
develop unified responses, act on unexpected events and maintain a cohesive workflow throughout
multiple shifts, natural language processing is essential.

For more information visit www.eschbach.com.

NEW CAPABILITIES OF BENTLEY iTWIN PLATFORM

Bentley Systems Inc. has significantly extended the scope and
interoperability of infrastructure data that engineering firms and
owner-operators can use to create and leverage digital twins in
design, construction and operations workflows.

The new iTwin Platform capabilities will power Bentley

FIG. 3. The iTwin Experience. Image
courtesy of Bentley Systems.
Infrastructure Cloud, a set of solutions that span the end-to-end
infrastructure lifecycle and value chain, encompassing
ProjectWise, SYNCHRO and AssetWise, unified and made
interoperable by Bentley’s infrastructure schemas.

The iTwin Experience (FIG. 3) is a new cloud product to empower owner-operator’s and their constituents’
insights into critical infrastructure by visualizing and navigating digital twins. It accelerates engineering
firms’ “digital integrator” initiatives to create and curate asset-specific digital twins, incorporating their
proprietary machine-learning, analytics and asset performance algorithms. iTwin Experience acts as a
“single pane of glass,” overlaying engineering technology (ET), operations technology (OT) and information
technology (IT) to enable users to visualize, query and analyze infrastructure digital twins in their full
context, at any level of granularity, at any scale, all geo-coordinated and fully searchable.

Additional iTwin products include:

iTwin Capture—for capturing, analyzing and sharing reality data—enables users to easily create
engineering-ready, high-resolution 3D models of infrastructure assets using drone video and survey
imagery from any digital camera, scanner or mobile mapping device. Infrastructure digital twins of
any existing assets can accordingly start with reality modeling, rather than requiring a BIM model.
iTwin Capture offers a high-fidelity and versatile means of capturing reality to serve as the digital
context for surveying, design, monitoring and inspection processes.
iTwin IoT—for acquiring and analyzing sensor data—enables users to seamlessly incorporate
Internet of Things (IoT) data created by sensors and condition monitoring devices. Infrastructure
IoT can be used effectively for real-time safety and risk monitoring in operations and construction
activities, including to measure and visualize environmental changes, structural movement or
deterioration for condition assessment, maintenance scheduling and to prompt precautionary
interventions. By securely incorporating real-time data at scale from among hundreds of sensor
types, iTwin IoT increases the value of engineering and geotechnical data.
Bentley is broadening its strategic priorities for iTwin, including adding “digital-twin native” advantages to
its infrastructure engineering applications. iTwin Experience is in early access; iTwin Capture and iTwin IoT
are available now. iTwin Experience incorporates capabilities from OpenCities Planner. iTwin Capture
incorporates capabilities from ContextCapture and Orbit 3DM. iTwin IoT incorporates capabilities from the
sensemetrics platform and Vista Data Vision. To find out more, visit www.bentley.com.

ALKALINE DETERGENT IDEAL FOR ENGINE AND TRANSMISSION REBUILDS

AND REPAIRS
Madison Chemical has introduced ULTRA-CLEAN US-159 (FIG. 4),
an alkaline detergent developed specifically for difficult cleaning
operations involving the removal of aged, oxidized, burned-on oil
and grease, including engine and transmission repair and rebuilds.
Intended for immersion, including agi-lift and ultrasonic equipment,
this special formulation cleans more thoroughly in less time, thus
increasing productivity. Its unique formula produces low-to-
moderate foam, maximizing ultrasonic cavitation. ULTRA-CLEAN
FIG. 4. Madison Chemical’s ULTRA-
US-159 is ideal for machinery rebuilding, including engines and
CLEAN US-159 is an alkaline detergent
developed specifically for difficult transmission, component cleaning during maintenance
cleaning operations involving the procedures, and more.
removal of aged, oxidized, burned-on oil
and grease.
Safe for use on ferrous alloys when used as directed, ULTRA-
CLEAN US-159 may etch or stain aluminum and zinc alloys,
therefore pretesting before use is recommended. Dilutions from 2%–10% by volume in water that is
120°F–160°F are typically effective. Heavier soils and/or ultrasonic applications may benefit from
operating at higher temperatures up to 190°F. Follow the cleaning step with a thorough ambient-to-warm
water rinse.

Madison Chemical is a chemical formulator that provides cleaning, sanitation, maintenance and surface
preparation products for the industrial maintenance, metalworking, pulp and paper, and transportation
industries, among others. For additional information visit www.madchem.com.

OBSERVABILITY PLATFORM TO HELP CHEMICAL AND ENERGY PRODUCERS

INCREASE UPTIME
ControlRooms has launched its AI-powered observability platform for chemical and energy producers, and
announced its selection and deployment by OCI N.V., a leading global producer and distributor of
hydrogen-based products. OCI is utilizing ControlRooms in its U.S. methanol and ammonia plants to
provide end-to-end observability of production. The ControlRooms platform enhances safety and
efficiency, resulting in reduced downtime, costs and emissions.

With ControlRooms, operators and engineers can improve troubleshooting and achieve true observability
of their operational data. ControlRooms uses advanced AI to shine a light on the trends that matter and
identify anomalies across plant systems. Unlike some other AI solutions, ControlRooms is quick to set up,
designed for operators, and is able to deliver value in minutes, not months.
Corporate IT often leverages cloud-based observability solutions to ensure performance and troubleshoot
potential issues across thousands of IT servers. However, operators and engineers of critical
infrastructure have not had access to this technology to date. By adapting proven observability and
monitoring methods from information technology for the operational technology (OT) sphere,
ControlRooms gives plant operators the ability to detect sooner, troubleshoot faster, and reach their
production goals of critical compounds, the company said.

ControlRooms is now available to use for free—users can upload unlimited data batches to be processed
within ControlRooms for free, forever. Companies can also sign up for ControlRooms' Pro and Enterprise
tiers where data from plants is streamed and monitored in real time to give plant operators and engineers
an active view of trends and anomalies within their systems.

To learn more and experience OT observability, visit controlrooms.ai. HP

 Drive the decarbonization of chemical plants
through energy efficiency enhancements
J. HOOPER, Senior Vice President, Electrification, Automation, Digitalization, Siemens Energy

Like all process industries, the chemical sector is under intense pressure to drastically reduce its carbon
footprint and reach net-zero emissions by 2050. While decarbonizing the process industries is critical to
resolving the energy trilemma—energy transition, security and affordability—achieving this will be no easy
task. Among all industrial sectors, the chemicals industry is the largest energy consumer. Additionally, at
923 MMtpy of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, it is third in direct carbon emissions (only the cement and

steel industries have a higher carbon footprint).1

In the medium to long term, transitioning from traditional fossil fuel-based energy sources in favor of
renewables and other low-carbon alternatives will be critical to meet emissions targets outlined by the
International Energy Agency (IEA) and other organizations. However, this shift cannot happen overnight. To
this end, operators must begin looking at what actions they can take to prepare their businesses for
success in a low-carbon future.

Enhancing the energy efficiency of existing assets via modernization has proven to be one of the fastest
ways to reduce a facility’s emissions profile incrementally. Modernization projects can have a positive
impact, with many delivering CO2 reductions at costs as low as €10/t–€30/t.

This article highlights some of the specific technologies and concepts the author’s company are seeing
with its customers deploying and discussing how the broader chemicals industry can benefit by embracing
a more collaborative engagement model regarding decarbonization.

Brownfield engine exchanges (BEXs). Power generation and heat production are typically among
the largest sources of emissions for chemical facilities that do not utilize grid electricity. This is
particularly the case for sites with power or cogeneration plants commissioned decades ago. BEX projects
focus on replacing obsolete equipment in these plants (e.g., gas turbines) to reduce emissions while
avoiding significant production disruptions.

In recent years, the author’s company has performed major BEXs for industrial customers worldwide. One
notable project commenced in a 2019 agreement with BASF to upgrade a combined-cycle (gas-fired)
power plant at a chemical production site in eastern Germany. The project aimed to reduce overall
emissions from the power plant and enable BASF to expand its onsite production capacities sustainably.
Another objective was to provide the basis for future integration with renewable energies.2

The project involved replacing a decades-old gas turbine on one power line with a more fuel-efficient unit:
in this case, the SGT-800 industrial gas turbine. This enabled BASF to increase the plant’s output from 45
MW to 52 MW. In addition, the existing generator in the plant was modernized. The author’s company also
installed a battery energy storage system for emergency power supply and to enable the black start of the
power plant without relying on external sources.

Together, the combination of the new gas turbine and refurbished generator, along with other facility
upgrades, resulted in a 10% increase in the efficiency of the power plant. This translated into lower fuel
costs per kilowatt-hour (kWhr) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions of approximately 16%. All
of this occurred without interrupting production at the plant—an open-heart surgery of sorts.

For many facilities, replacing aging gas turbines also opens additional opportunities for emissions
reductions by burning residual gases such as hydrogen (H2) in combination with natural gas (FIG. 1). The

SGT-800, for example, is already capable of burning fuel streams with up to 75 vol% H2. By 2030, the

author’s company intends to have gas turbines operating on 100% H2 fuel. This includes installed units,

designed to allow for future conversion to 100% H2 if/when it becomes available.

FIG. 1. H2 co-firing capabilities of Siemens Energy gas turbines.

Use of industrial heat pumps. Over the next three decades, industrial heat demand is projected to
grow by nearly 30% above its current level. Today, most heat generated for chemical production processes
is produced via natural gas-fired boilers, resistive heaters, or extracted from hot exhaust streams of gas or
steam turbines in combined heat and power plants.
While these equipment setups are proven and often highly efficient, modern heat pumps can sometimes
represent an even more efficient option—with coefficients of performance (COP) > 4. This means four
times as much heat energy is provided to the heat sink than the electricity consumed.

State-of-the-art industrial-scale heat pumps (FIG. 2) can achieve temperatures of up to 150°C with
pressure ranges of up to 5 bar. Temperatures as high as 300°C and pressure levels up to 85 bar are
possible when combined with steam compression. These capabilities are well within the range of many
batch processes’ heat demands. Real-world installations have demonstrated that even with steam
compression, which reduces efficiency, an overall COP of 3 can still be achieved.

FIG. 2. Today’s industrial-scale heat pumps can achieve temperatures of up to 150°C and pressure ranges of up to 5
bar.

By replacing traditional boilers with modern electrically driven heat pumps, the need to burn gas is
significantly reduced, resulting in a corresponding decrease in direct plant emissions. In some cases,
operational expenditure (OPEX) is also reduced because electricity can be purchased at a lower cost than
gas.

Electrification with hybrid drives. Generating the necessary horsepower for process compressors
can significantly reduce emissions and OPEX for a chemical facility. Selecting the type of machine to
perform this duty has historically been a choice between an electric motor- or a mechanical-drive solution,
such as a gas turbine. In certain cases, a compelling case can be made for combining one or more
mechanical drive components with an electric motor (or motor generator) into a single hybrid/dual-drive
train.
A hybrid/dual-drive provides added operational flexibility by allowing producers to use either grid electricity
or gas as an energy source for compression, whichever is more beneficial at the time. Many oil and gas
facilities already capitalize on this concept by installing two separate compression trains (one motor-
driven and one mechanically driven). A hybrid system serves the same purpose, often with a
corresponding reduction in capital expenditure (CAPEX) because the requirement for ancillary
infrastructures, such as foundations, piping, wiring, cabling, electrical systems and balance of plant, is
eliminated.

One example where a hybrid drive can be especially impactful in terms of emissions reductions is when
renewables make up a large part of the grid’s power generation mix. In such cases, the use of electric
motor-driven compression is attractive. However, the inherent intermittency and instability of the grid
means that some form of reliable backup is needed. Electricity costs during peak hours can also be
extremely high.

With a hybrid drive, an operator can use the electric motor to drive the compression train during off-peak
hours, presumably when the grid is stable and prices are low. If electrical power is unavailable or becomes
cost-prohibitive, the mechanical drive gas turbine installed on the opposite shaft end of the compressor
can be started up. In this way, plant operators can ensure that contractual obligations for production are
never in jeopardy.

The electric motor can be designed to dually work as a generator, which means that any extra energy from
the gas turbine after compression duties are met can produce electricity. The electricity can be used
onsite if needed, or it can be sold back to the grid.

In recent years, the author’s company has installed hybrid drives for oil and gas customers, including
upstream production sites, liquified natural gas (LNG) plants, pipeline stations and refineries. The concept
can also be applied to exothermic chemical processes that utilize steam turbines and hot gas expanders.

Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS). If boosting plant efficiency helps decrease a
facility's emissions, CCUS offers a way to avoid them altogether.

Much of the chemical industry’s carbon emissions stem from steam methane reforming (SMR), where
syngas (H2 and carbon monoxide) is produced from natural gas at high temperatures and 20 bar–30 bar

pressures. This is still the most widely used method of producing H2—gray H2—if the CO2 is released

directly into the atmosphere. However, the emissions can also be compressed and sequestered for
storage underground or reclaimed for further usage. H2 produced via this method is often referred to as

blue H2.

In certain areas, there may be opportunities to combine captured CO2 with zero-emissions green H2 to

produce climate-neutral eFuels, such as eMethanol or eAmmonia. However, because green H2 production

depends on low-cost renewable electricity, eFuel plants are only commercially viable in very select regions
where conditions are favorable.
The author’s company is involved in developing several such projects, such as a partnership with Sweden-
based Liquid Wind AB to develop an eMethanol plant in Sweden (FIG. 3). The plant will use an electrolyzer
powered by renewable energy to split water into green H2 and oxygen. The green H2 will be combined with

CO2 captured from the flue gas of a nearby biomass plant to yield carbon-neutral methanol.3

FIG. 3. Siemens Energy’s eMethanol plant, using an electrolyzer powered by renewable energy to split water into green
H2 and oxygen.

As much as 70,000 tpy of CO2 will be captured at the facility and combined with green H2. The plan is to

produce 50,000 tpy of carbon-neutral eMethanol. Methanol will replace hydrocarbon fuels in shipping
operations, preventing the emissions of approximately 100,000 tpy of CO2.4 As global demand for eFuels

and other feedstocks derived from CO2 increases, it is likely that similar opportunities for sector coupling

in the chemicals industry will emerge.

Forging strong partnerships. Successfully navigating the energy transition and achieving deep
decarbonization is not something any single company can achieve. Instead, it will require a long-term
vision and collaboration from many stakeholders across process industries.

In improving energy efficiency, the chemical industry can benefit from forming strategic partnerships with
suppliers and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) that fully utilize each respective party’s strengths.
Producers certainly possess the engineering and project management experience to drive successful
modernization projects; however, the expertise of technology providers is also needed to identify synergies
and optimize systems around any potential constraints.
The energy transition is the most effective investment program since the dawn of industrialization. Co-
creation is needed to achieve the best possible outcome. If governments, businesses and society work
together, energy transition represents a great opportunity. HP

LITERATURE CITED

1. International Energy Agency, “Direct CO2 emissions from primary chemical production in the net zero scenario, 2015-
2030,” October 2022, online: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/direct-co2-emissions-from-primary-
chemical-production-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2015-2030
2. Liquid Wind, “Making a power plant future fit - a tailor-made solution for BASF,” online: https://www.siemens-
energy.com/global/en/offerings/references/basf.html
3. Siemens Energy, “Siemens Energy partners with Liquid Wind to produce green fuel,” online:
https://www.liquidwind.se/news/siemensenergypartnerswithliquidwind
4. Liquid Wind, “CO2 secured for first eFuel facility,” online: https://www.liquidwind.se/news/ovikenergi

JENNIFER HOOPER is the SVP for Siemens Energy’s Electrification, Automation and
Digitalization group for the Transformation of Industry Business. She joined Siemens Energy
in 2020. Prior to this, Hooper held positions of increasing responsibility with TechnipFMC
(formerly FMC Technologies Inc.). She earned an MBA from the University of Saint Thomas
in Houston, Texas, U.S.
  | Special Focus
PETROCHEMICALS TECHNOLOGY
According to most industry forecasts, global
petrochemicals demand is expected to surge to 2050.
Developing economies in Asia will continue to be the
fastest-growing demand centers. The Asia-Pacific, Middle
East and U.S. regions will head the charge in building
new petrochemical capacity to satisfy regional and
global demand. This month’s Special Focus explores the
innovative technical approaches being applied in the
petrochemical industry.
 Crude C4 alternatives for a successful
grassroots petrochemicals project
J. DELGADO, M. KHVASTUNKOV, K. MARWAN and A. MARRI, Saudi Aramco, Dhahran, Saudi
Arabia

The disposition of the crude C4 stream from a steam cracker is a project configuration topic that deserves

some discussion. Depending on the business case supporting the project, this stream may be sold as
crude C4s into the market; processed into valuable components, including 1,3-butadiene, isobutylene and

normal butenes for further processing; or it may be fully or partially saturated, hydrogenated and recycled
back to the ethane cracker. Ultimately, economics and strategic goals will dictate which of these options,
or combination thereof, is to be incorporated as the basis of the project for an optimum configuration. This
decision should take place in the early project development stages to minimize the amount of rework. This
article discusses some of these options, compares recycle-cracking crude C4s vs. not recycle-cracking,

and highlights the expected impact on overall steam cracker process yields.
Crude C4’s value chain. Crude C4s are a byproduct of steam crackers, primarily ones that process
heavy feeds, such as naphtha. Steam crackers that process lighter feeds are lower in C4 yields (FIG. 1);

therefore, have a lesser need for crude C4 processing facilities. The feed to the steam cracker greatly

defines not just the steam cracker scope, but also the downstream scope necessary to handle the
volumes of C4+ coproducts that are produced.

FIG. 1. SC yields rations vs. feed type.

The composition of the crude C4 stream from a steam cracker contains several key components with

value-added potential. These are 1,3-butadiene, isobutylene, butene-1, c-2-butene and t-2-butene.
Extraction of these necessitates the addition of scope items that need to be considered in a project. FIG. 2
is indicative of a representative C4 value chain.
 FIG. 2. C4 value chain.

Economic motive. A major motive for recycling co-cracking is to take advantage of the lower C4 prices
and avoid logistic and marketing challenges involved in C4 derivatives selling. There are various

approaches in recycling butadiene (BD), which includes selective hydrogenation that targets BDs and full
hydrogenation that targets all C4 olefins—selective hydrogenation yields a higher level of propylene.

Depending on the project scope, operations can target the preferred yield (FIG. 3).

FIG. 3. Product yields for different approaches of C4 recovery.

As shown in FIG. 4, the capital investment for a total hydrogenation unit (THU) + BD + methyl tertiary-butyl
ether (MTBE) case is higher than that of the THU for the same plant capacity. However, the product value
of THU + BD + MTBE case potentially offsets the capital investment difference due to the higher value of
the extracted products. A net present value (NPV) assessment would need to be made for the specific
project location and market conditions.
 FIG. 4. Benchmark C4 hydrogenation methods.

Full hydrogenation and co-cracking of crude C4s. This is the simplest configuration using a
light naphtha feed. The full crude C4 stream is hydrogenated, and the effluent is recycled back to the

steam cracker (FIG. 5). The olefins, diolefins and acetylenes are fully saturated. Note: This option will
greatly impact the steam cracker unit (SCU) yields, and the SCU licensor needs be involved for this option
to be included in the design. One of the hydrogenation technology companies should be consulted
regarding this option, as well. This applies to any case where the hydrogenated C4s are recycled back to

the SCU. If recycled cracking is not preferred, the C4 co-product can could be sold as crude C4s. No 1,3-

butadiene nor any other value-added products are produced.

FIG. 5. Total hydrogenation of crude C4s.

This option would require a THU. Depending on the amount of acetylenes, diolefins and olefins, this unit
will require up to three hydrogenation reactors to ensure full hydrogenation of the targeted species. This
would be the only scope to handle the C4 stream in this case. However, if the C4s will be at least partially

sold as crude C4s, then the necessary export facilities will be needed to export into the market. A

cost/benefit analysis would be needed to compare both options. This analysis would examine differences
in scope and capital expenditure (CAPEX), steam cracker yield, cost of production and a NPV comparison
to determine whether the additional CAPEX for export facilities is justified.

Full extraction alternative. One alternative to the basic configuration with a light naphtha feed
results in decreased raffinate-3 material to be co-cracked in the steam cracker, which impacts the overall
yield basis from the steam cracker. This may be accomplished by adding an olefins conversion process
(OCP) technology and supporting units, such as a BD selective hydrogenation unit (BSHU) and a 1,3-
butadiene extraction unit (BDU). The olefins conversion technology makes use of metathesis and
isomerization reactions to produce additional propylene. This is accomplished by reacting ethylene with
C4 olefins. If propylene is profitable and ethylene is in excess supply, this is an attractive option. The

employment of a BSHU converts BD and acetylenes into butenes, which could then be fed to the OCP unit,
as well.

In the configuration shown in FIG. 6, the BSHU converts BD into butenes, which can then be sold as a
product stream for further processing.

FIG. 6. Selective C4 hydrogenation configuration.

There are many alternatives available in processing the crude C4 stream, such as using a skeletal

isomerization unit—which can convert normal butenes into isobutylene—in conjunction with a BDU and an
MTBE unit. The additional isobutylene from the skeletal isomerization unit can then then be converted into
MTBE to boost its production. Some of the isobutylene might also be used in the production of
polyisobutylene as a value-added product. However, the differences in scope and CAPEX, steam cracker
yield and differential NPV calculations must be analyzed to choose the optimum configuration that best
supports the business case.

The sample configuration shown in FIG. 7 is a typical layout that extracts 1,3-butadiene, converts
isobutylene into MTBE and fully saturates the olefins in the remaining raffinate-2 stream.
 FIG. 7. MTBE and BD extraction with a C4 hydrogenation con guration.

Takeaway. The C4 value chain con guration chosen for a new petrochemical complex greatly depends
on key project business case drivers, such as steam cracker feed slate, commercial and market
conditions, and product value-uplift potential. Several basic con gurations have been presented here
which can be used as a starting point in the support of future green eld petrochemical projects and the
objective of maximizing chemicals production. These basic layouts may be used for further con guration
evaluations and de nition to tailor- t the individual project’s business objectives and help in securing a
successful C4 component management system and positive economic return to the business. HP
 An advanced extractive distillation process
for aromatics recovery
F. M. LEE, M. Z. Y. SHEN and C. Y. CHEN, Shin-Chuang Technology Co. Ltd., Taiwan, Republic of
China; Y. H. CHEN, Cartell Chemical, London, England; and K. C. R. HSU, International Innotech
Inc., Katy, Texas

This article focuses on a novel extractive distillation (ED) process for recovering benzene, toluene and
xylene (BTX) aromatics from a full-boiling-range pyrolysis gasoline or reformate feedstock—a process that
has been commercially demonstrated and is ready for licensing or a JV. The process’s solvent
regeneration system, operated at low temperatures and pressures with no energy requirement, completely
prevents the accumulation of heavy hydrocarbons and polymeric sludge in the lean solvent, thus
maintaining a 99.9% purity with essentially no solid particles (not even the color bodies).

The modified ED column (EDC) can maintain benzene specifications of the EDC (overhead) raffinate and
simultaneously keep C8 naphthenes away from the EDC (bottom) extract to ensure mixed-xylenes product

purity and toluene product recovery. Through proprietary operational adjustments and an optimized tray
design, the modified EDC provides more stable and efficient operation in the upper two-liquid-phase
region. This ED technology is also suitable for revamping conventional liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) or ED
processes. Converting a conventional LLE process into the novel ED process can save 20%–30% in energy
and increase throughput by up to 20%.

The LLE process has dominated the hydrocarbon processing industry in purifying BTX from petroleum
streams for more 50 yr.1–3 However, the LLE process is complicated—typically including steps such as
LLE, extractive stripping (ES), raffinate washing and solvent recovery (SR), as well as being energy
intensive. An alternative process is ED, which was first developed in the late 1970s.4,5
The ED process has the following advantages over LLE:

Less major equipment and smaller plot plan

Lower energy consumption
No need to purge the light products in the recycle stream to the LLE column
Light products can be fed to the EDC (there is no requirement for a depentanizer for the reformate
feed)
Ability to handle a wider range of aromatic concentrations in the feed
More flexible than the LLE process
EDCs can operate like conventional distillation columns
Startup of the ED process takes only hours vs. days or weeks for the LLE process.

Conventional ED process. A conventional ED process for BTX aromatics recovery using sulfolane as
the extractive solvent is shown in FIG. 1. The hydrocarbon (HC) feed is fed to the EDC through Line 1. The
principal of ED is to significantly increase the relative volatility between the close-boiling aromatic and non-
aromatic compounds in the HC feed by introducing a polar compound selective solvent (via Line 2) into
the upper portion of the EDC. The solvent preferentially extracts the more polar compounds (mainly
aromatics) in the rising vapor mixtures, thus allowing fewer polar compounds (mainly non-aromatics) to
rise to the top of the EDC to produce the raffinate product through Line 3. The EDC bottom rich solvent
stream containing the solvent and aromatics is transferred directly to a solvent recovery column (SRC) via
Line 4. The aromatics are stripped by steam from the rich solvent stream in the SRC and withdrawn from
Line 5 as the extract product from the overhead of the SRC. The stripped lean solvent—exiting from the
bottom of the SRC—is recycled to the upper portion of the EDC, via Line 2. For solvent regeneration, a
small slipstream of the lean solvent from Line 2 is fed via Line 6 to a thermal solvent regenerator.
Additional details on the characteristics, design and operation of a conventional ED process have been
thoroughly discussed in literature.6–9
 FIG. 1. A conventional ED process.

Challenges of the conventional ED process. Despite the advantages over the LLE process, the ED
process, since its rst commercial practice more than 50 yr ago, has never been a signi cant competitor
against the LLE process for BTX aromatics recovery from pyrolysis gasoline or reformate. Although
numerous improvements have been made in recent years, the developers are still unable to solve some of
the basic challenges of the ED process for BTX aromatics recovery. The major challenges of a
conventional ED process, using sulfolane as the extractive solvent, are:

1. Preventing excessive accumulation of heavy HCs and polymeric sludge in the lean solvent.
Extractive solvent in both ED and LLE processes for aromatics recovery is internally circulated in the
process system in a closed loop. To remove heavy HCs and sludge from the lean solvent, the
conventional commercial LLE or ED process employs a thermal solvent regenerator. Only a small
slipstream of lean solvent (approximately 1%–2%) is withdrawn from the solvent loop and heated
with or without stripping steam in the regenerator to recover the solvent and any heavy components
with boiling points lower than that of the solvent. The basic concepts of this thermal solvent
regeneration scheme have been described in literature10,11 in relation to an LLE process for
aromatics recovery. This means that up to 99% of heavy HCs stay in the closed solvent loop as the
possible species to be dehydrogenated into active olefins/diolefins and then polymerized into
sludge and catalyzed under iron oxides/iron sulfides in the lean solvent. These catalytically active
iron oxides/iron sulfides are generated through corrosion of the carbon-steel process equipment at
high temperatures by acids in the lean solvent. These acids are produced through the oxidation of
the sulfolane solvent by air—most likely leaking through the SRC unit, which is operated under
negative pressure and high temperatures. Nearly all commercial ED processes for aromatics
recovery have adapted the thermal regeneration design from the LLE process. It should be noted
that approximately 67% of heavy HCs in the lean solvent in an LLE process are removed with the
raffinate stream in the LLE column. The thermal solvent regeneration design has been commercially
successful in keeping the relatively minor amounts of heavy HCs and sludge in the lean solvent at a
tolerable level for the LLE process. However, this thermal regenerator is unsuitable for ED
processes, since its lean solvent loop is loaded with approximately three times more heavy HCs and
sludge than in the LLE process, and these can only be removed by the thermal regenerator. This is a
potentially unwanted situation, since the presence of excessive heavy HCs and sludge in the lean
solvent not only significantly changes the solvent properties (selectivity and solvency), but also
plugs process equipment (such as pumps, valves, column internals and lines) to render the ED
process inoperable.
 2. Maintaining benzene specifications of the EDC (overhead) raffinate and keeping C8 naphthenes
away from the EDC (bottom) extract. A commonly acceptable benzene specification of an EDC
overhead raffinate stream is 1 vol% or less to be qualified for gasoline blending. Meanwhile, C8
naphthenes in the EDC bottom stream must be controlled at a certain level, since they form
minimum-boiling azeotropes with toluene, causing purity or recovery problems of toluene and
xylenes. Possible azeotropes of C8 naphthenes and toluene are listed in TABLE 1. With a
conventional EDC design and configuration for processing a full-range (C6–C8) pyrolysis gasoline or
reformate feed, it is very difficult to maintain benzene specifications of the EDC overhead raffinate
stream while keeping C8 naphthenes away from the EDC bottom extract stream.
3. Maintaining stable EDC operation in the upper two-liquid-phase region. Traditionally, it is believed
that the successful operation of an EDC requires a high concentration of solvent to avoid forming
two immiscible liquid phases within the column. When immiscibility occurs, the raffinate liquid
phase (second liquid phase) is considered to reduce the relative volatility of the key components to
be separated. In addition, when using the ED process with furfural as the solvent for C4 HC
separation, flooding was reported at a relatively low HC feed rate if an immiscible liquid phase was
allowed to separate on trays below the HC feed tray.12 Davies, et al.13 found that foaming occurred
in trays with a liquid composition near that of the one-liquid phase/two-liquid phase transition. While
sulfolane is a highly selective solvent for aromatics recovery, the solubility of paraffins and
naphthenes in sulfolane is quite low—therefore, the paraffin/naphthene-rich top section of an EDC
tends to operate under two liquid phases, even under a high solvent-to-HC feed ratio.

An advanced, proprietary ED processa for aromatics recovery. Recognizing the defects of

the conventional ED process for BTX aromatics recovery, one of the co-authors (F. M. Lee) has spent more
than 40 yr serving at major U.S. energy companies, as well as engineering and construction companies, to
develop technologies that not only eliminate or minimize the basic challenges of the ED process, but that
also further improve the process performance through commercial demonstrations.14–28 A schematic
diagram of this commercially ready ED processa is shown in FIG. 2, with the implemented proprietary
technologies shown in the yellow-shaded steps.
 FIG. 2. Schematic of the advanced, proprietary ED processa.

Proprietary solvent regeneration system (SRS). A different proprietary approach for removing any heavy
HCs, sludge and/or metal-oxide particles from the extractive solvent is implemented in FIG. 2.

As shown schematically in FIG. 2, the entire stream of lean solvent from the bottom of the SRC is fed
directly (via Line 18) to the proprietary SRS without cooling to conserve process energy. Any solid particles
—including polymeric sludge, metal oxides and sulfides—are removed. Nearly-solids-free (99.9% purity)
lean solvent is generated from the SRS unit and transferred through Line 12. Note: The SRS can remove
small particles with sizes in the nanometer range. Furthermore, the SRS is operated without any energy
consumption for heating or cooling. The SRS can be operated with automated operating and regenerating
cycles without risking hazardous exposure to the process fluids. The environmental costs for sludge
disposal are also substantially reduced.

Proprietary EDC overhead system (SEOS). The conventional EDC overhead system is replaced by the
proprietary SEOS, which is operated without energy consumption. Operations of the modified EDC are
adjusted accordingly to be more effective. These steps include:

1. Removing heavy non-aromatics—especially the C8 naphthenic compounds from the EDC bottom
stream—to increase the purity of mixed xylenes and the recovery of toluene to match those
produced from other LLE processes
2. Removing the dissolved heavy HCs from the lean solvent by feeding a slip solvent stream to the
SEOS
3. Controlling and recovering benzene from the raffinate product to maintain its quality as a gasoline
blendstock and thus increase the recovery of benzene in the aromatic products.

Two-liquid phases in the upper portion of the EDC. As previously mentioned, the non-aromatic
components in the feed mixture cause the formation of a second liquid phase in the upper portion of the
EDC due to their significantly lower solubility in the sulfolane solvent than the aromatic components. In a
distillation column with two-liquid phases, if not well mixed, the two-liquid phases tend to separate on
trays and cause poor separation efficiencies and unstable operations.
In the proprietary ED processa, the upper portion of the EDC is operated to significantly reduce the
formation of the second liquid phase as one way to improve the solvent performance toward that of the
single-liquid phase.

In addition, trays with a design to promote phase mixing are installed in the upper portion of the EDC,
causing the two-liquid phases to behave as homogeneous pseudo-single-liquid phases. The improved
agitation will minimize stagnant liquid holdup on the tray, while allowing proper vapor/liquid
disengagement from tray to tray.

Commercial demonstration of the proprietary ED processa for the recovery of BTX

aromatics from a full-boiling-range pyrolysis gasoline. According to the proprietary ED
process configuration presented in FIG. 2, an 8,000–10,000-bpd LLE plant was revamped into an ED plant
for recovering BTX aromatics from a full-boiling-range (C6–C8) pyrolysis gasoline. The HC feed—with a

composition shown in TABLE 2—was fed to the middle portion of the EDC via Line 11 at a flowrate of 56
m3/hr (approximately 8,000 bpd). Lean solvent—with a composition shown in TABLE 2—was fed to the
upper portion of the EDC, while a slipstream of the lean solvent was fed to the SEOS unit. The raffinate
stream from the top of the EDC was also introduced to the SEOS unit.

The upper portion of the modified EDC was designed and operated to reduce the detrimental effects of the
two-liquid phases by minimizing the formation of a second liquid phase and improving the tray design with
enhanced mixing capabilities. Controlling the C8 naphthene content in the bottom extract stream was the

primary focus of this modified EDC operation. The Extract Product (Line 17) section of TABLE 2 (extract
product) shows that the C8 naphthene content in the extract stream (Line 17) was 0.233 wt%; however, it

can be further reduced, if necessary, by delivering more benzene into the EDC overhead raffinate stream.
The excess benzene is then recovered by the SEOS unit and returned to the EDC.
 TABLE 2. Paraffins, oleflns, naphthenes and aromatics (PONA) analysis of key process streams of the proprietary ED process•
(total by group type and carbon number, In mass percent)

n-parafflns I-paraffins Oleflns Naphthenes Aromatics Oxygenates Total

HC feed (Line 11)
c, 0 0 0 0 0 0
C, 0 0 0 0 0 0
c, 0 0 0 0 0 0
c, 0 0 0 0 0 0

C. 0.283 0.199 0 1.533 0 2.015

c. 6.325 6.211 0 8.726 40.039 61.302
c, 1.176 1.255 0 3.108 16.728 22.268
c. 0.486 0.781 0 0.563 11.295 13.125
c. 0.114 0.467 0 0.446 0.022 1.048
c., 0 0.009 0 0 0.03 0.04
c. 0 0 0 0 0 0
c. 0.001 0 0 0 0.004 0.005
Cq 0.001 0 0 0 0 0.001
c,. 0.002 0 0 0 0 0.002
Total 8.388 8.922 0 14.376 68.119 99.805
Total heavies: 0
Unknowns: 0.195
Grand total: 100
lean solvent (Line 12)
c, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c. 0 0 0 0 0.017 0 0.017
c. 0 0 0 0 0.011 0 0.011
Sulfolane 0 0 0 0 99.886 0 99.886
c. 0 0 0 0 0.003 0 0.003
c. 0 0 0 0 0.008 0 0.008
c. 0 0.002 0 0 0 0 0.002
C ,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0.002 0 0 99.924 0 99.927
Total heavies: 0.058
Total unknowns: 0.015
Solvent phase l<>avlng the SEOS unit (Line 15)
c, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C. 0.025 0.017 0 0.284 0 0 0.327

c. 0.417 0.464 0 1.359 0.99 0 3.231
c, 0.052 0.056 0 0.312 0 0 0.42
c. 0.013 0.035 0 0.024 0.005 0 0.077
c. 0 0 0 0.012 0 0 0.012
Sulfolane 0 0 0 0 95.932 0 95.932
c. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0.507 0.572 0 1.993 96.927 0 99.999
Rallinate entering the SEOS unit (Line 13)
c, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c. 0.884 0.622 0 4.8 0 0 6.306
c. 19.582 19.228 0 27.374 2.596 0 68.779
c, 3.628 4.031 0 9.593 0.005 0 17.257
c. 1.526 2.193 0 1.664 0.082 0 5.464
c. 0.175 1.088 0 0.702 0.001 0 1.966
Sulfolane 0 0.003 0 0 0.06 0 0.064
c. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c. 0 0 0 0 0.011 0 0.011
c. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c,. 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0.001
The SEOS successfully serves two purposes:

1. Recovering excess benzene from the EDC raffinate stream to qualify it for gasoline blending (with
less than 1 vol% benzene). As shown in the Raffinate Entering the SEOS Unit (Line 13) section of
TABLE 2, the raffinate stream entering the SEOS contained 2.596 wt% benzene (Line 13), and the
raffinate stream leaving the SEOS contained only 0.831 wt% benzene (a 68% reduction) (Line 14).
2. Removing and recovering dissolved heavy HCs from the lean solvent. Line 12 of TABLE 3 shows
that circulating lean solvent entering the SEOS was already very clean (containing only 0.022 wt%
C9–C11 aromatics and 0.0732 wt% C­12+ heavy HCs), but that lean solvent leaving the SEOS was
even cleaner with essentially no detectable C9+ HCs.

Rich solvent (containing the extract and the solvent) was transferred from the bottom of the EDC to the
middle portion of the SRC for steam stripping to recover the extract product from the overhead of the SRC
(through Line 17). The Extract Product (Line 17) section of TABLE 2 shows that C8 naphthenes in the

extract stream (Line 17) were 0.233 wt%, but operation of the EDC could be adjusted to reduce it further, if
required.
Lean solvent exiting from the bottom of the SRC was passed through the heating coils of a water stripper
as the heat source. Then, the entire lean solvent stream was fed to the SRS to remove any detectable
sludges. As shown in the Lean Solvent (Line 12) section of TABLE 2, lean solvent leaving the SRS had a
99.9 wt% purity with only trace amounts of heavy HCs (0.0013 wt%). The solvent showed a transparent
straw color (FIG. 3), meaning that no heavy color bodies with nanometer particle sizes existed in the
solvent.

FIG. 3. SRS removal of nanometer or larger solid particles.

Takeaways. A proprietary ED processa has been commercially demonstrated for recovering BTX
aromatics from a full-boiling-range pyrolysis gasoline feedstock. This development summarizes the non-
interrupted research and development efforts of the past 40 yr. The successful commercial test
demonstrated:

This technology completely prevented the accumulation of heavy HCs and polymeric sludge in the
lean solvent to maintain a purity of 99.9% with essentially no solid particles (not even the color
bodies). The proprietary SRS is operated at low temperatures and pressures with no energy
requirement.
The new process maintained benzene specifications of the EDC (overhead) raffinate and
simultaneously kept C8 naphthenes away from the EDC (bottom) extract to ensure mixed-xylenes
product purity and toluene product recovery. In other words, the operation of the modified EDC can
be adjusted to meet any C8 naphthenes requirement in the extract stream, while still satisfying the
benzene requirement of the raffinate product.
 Through proprietary operational adjustments and an optimized tray design, this process maintained
stable EDC operation in the upper two-liquid-phase region.

It is conceivable that customers can easily adapt the proprietary SRS to replace the low-efficiency and
high-cost thermal solvent regenerator. The proprietary SRS comprises a low-cost, standalone unit that is
easy to operate. This system requires no energy to maintain the circulating lean solvent with a purity up to
99.9% and with only trace amounts of sludges for LLE or ED processes. The proprietary ED processa is
suitable for revamping conventional LLE or ED processes. Converting a conventional LLE process into the
proprietary ED processa can save 20%–30% in energy costs and increase throughput up to 20%. HP

NOTE
a Shin-Chuang Technology’s SCT Extractive Distillation process

LITERATURE CITED

1. Deal, C. H., H. D. Evans, E. D. Oliver and M. N. Papadopoulus, “Extraction of aromatics with sulfolane,” 5th World
Petroleum Congress, New York, New York, 1959.
2. Voetter, H. and W. C. G. Kosters, “Industrial experiences and new possibilities in the field of solvent extraction with
sulfolane,” Erdoel Kohle, 1966.
3. Broughton, D. B. and G. F. Asselin, “Production of high-purity aromatics by the Sofolane process,” 7th World Petroleum
Congress, Mexico City, Mexico, 1967.
4. Cines, M. R., “Extractive distillation,” U.S. Patent No. 4053369, October 11, 1977.
5. Lee, F. M. and D. M. Coombs, “Two-liquid-phase extractive distillation for aromatics recovery,” Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry Research, March 1987.
6. Atking, G. T. and C. M. Boyer, “Application of McCabe -Thiele Method to Extractive Distillation Calculations” Chemical
Engineering Progress, September 1949.
7. Chambers, J. M., “Extractive distillation—Design and applications,” Chemical Engineering Progress, September 1951.
8. Hachmuth, K. H., “Industrial viewpoints on separation processes—Part 3,” Chemical Engineering Progress, December
1952.
9. Butler, R. M. and J. A. Bichard, “Separation of aromatics from hydrocarbon streams,” U.S. Patent No. 3,114,783,
December 1963, online: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a4/47/d3/08a2e15dad100b/US3114783.pdf
10. Asselin, G. F., “Aromatic extraction with solvent recovery and regeneration,” U.S. Patent No. 4,048,062, September
1977.
11. Asselin, G. F., “Aromatic hydrocarbon separation via solvent extraction,” U.S. Patent No. 4,046,676, September 1977.
12. Happel, J., P. W. Cornell, D. Eastman, M. J. Fowle, C. A. Porter and A. H. Schutte, Transactions of the American
Institute of Chemcial Engineers, Vol. 42, 1946.
13. Davies, B., A. Zafar and K. E. Porter, “Distillation of systems containing two liquid phases,” AIChE Journal, January
1987.
14. Lee, F. M., “Extractive distillation for aromatics recovery,” U.S. Patent No. 9,221,729, December 2015,
online: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/62/1d/16/5f5ebad7a30fd4/US9221729.pdf
15. Lee, F. M., et al., “Methods for removing heavy hydrocarbons from extractive solvents,” U.S. Patent No. 8,680,358,
March 2014, online: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/56/01/86/ced545bf03f922/US8680358.pdf
16. Lee, F. M., et al., “Extraction process with novel solvent regeneration methods,” U.S. Patent No. 8,663,461, March
2014, online: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ff/bb/47/25cec0dff9360f/US8663461.pdf
17. Lee, F. M., et al., “Low-energy extractive distillation process for dehydration of aqueous ethanol,” U.S. Patent No.
8,172,987, May 2012,
online: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/77/51/ed/8b30b0e6c8460f/US8172987.pdf
18. Lee, F. M., et al., “Low-energy extractive distillation process for dehydration of aqueous ethanol,” U.S. Patent No.
8,002,953, August 2011,
online: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ca/02/de/96c0608e00825b/US8002953.pdf
19. Lee, F. M., et al., “Energy efficient and throughput enhancing extractive process for aromatic recovery,” U.S. Patent No.
7,879,225, February 2011,
online: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fa/19/dc/9865d2a7861549/US7879225.pdf
20. Lee, F. M., et al., “Extractive distillation processes using water-soluble extractive solvents,” U.S. Patent No. 7,871,514,
 January 2011, online: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/4b/da/bf/951d91cd87b436/US7871514.pdf

21. Lee, F. M., “Aromatic purification from petroleum streams,” U.S. Patent No. 6,781,026, August 2004,
online: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/52/5e/fd/b0dcf14cbf6c08/US6781026.pdf
22. Lee, F. M., et al., “Process of removing sulfur compounds from gasoline,” U.S. Patent No. 6,551,502, April 2003,
online: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/09/d6/35/96a12a84a78f87/WO2001059033A1.pdf
23. Lee, F., “Recent development of extractive distillation: A distillation alternative,” Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing
and Design,” Vol. 69, 2001.
24. Lee, F., “Extraction/distillation,” Encyclopedia of Separation Science, Summer 2000.
25. Lee, F., et al., “Extractive distillation for aromatics purification,” AIChE National Meeting, Houston, Texas, April 2001.
26. Lee, F., et al., “Extractive distillation: Separating close-boiling-point components,” Chemical Engineering, November
1998.
27. Lee, F., et al., “New extractive distillation process for aromatic recovery,” AIChE Spring National Meeting, Houston,
Texas, March 1995.
28. Lee, F., et al., “Two-liquid-phase extractive distillation for aromatics recovery,” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
Research, March 1987.

FU-MING LEE is the Senior Consultant at Shin Chuang Technology, pioneering in developing
ED technology developments. He has more than 40 yr of experience in the refining and
petrochemicals industries. Dr. Lee holds 68 U.S. patents (39 in ED) and has written 43
articles in technical publications (26 in ED). He earned BS and MS degrees, as well as a PhD,
in chemical engineering (fmlee1227@gmail.com).

MARK ZIH-YAO SHEN is a Senior Research Scientist at Shin Chuang Technology. His
experience includes the desulfurization of diesel. Dr. Shin earned BS and MS degrees, as well
as a PhD, in chemistry from National Chiayi University, Taiwan.

CHI-YAO CHEN is a Senior Research Scientist at Shin Chuang Technology, where he has
experience in developing advanced building and construction materials, along with
waterproof cement additives for concrete, using waste rubber tires and asphaltenes. Dr.
Chin earned BS and MS degrees, as well as a PhD, in applied chemistry from National
Chiayi University, Taiwan.

YIN-HSIEN CHEN is the Director of the Crackless Monomer Company and Cartell Chemical.
He is experienced in cyanoacrylate adhesive manufacturing, achieving a JV between French
Arkema group and Cartell Chemical Taiwan. He earned a BS degree in chemical and material
engineering from the University of Auckland, along with an MS degree in management from
Imperial College London.

KAO-CHIH “RICKY” HSU is the Founder and President of International Innotech Inc., based in
Houston, Texas. Previously, he worked for ExxonMobil for 18 yr. Hsu brings technologies and
software from North America and Europe to Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan and ASEAN
countries. He earned an MS degree in chemical engineering and an MS degree in computer
sciences from the University of Missouri at Rolla. (E-mail: ricky_hsu@msn.com)
 Efficient and robust hydrogen peroxide
propylene oxide (HPPO) process
C. XIA, M. LIN, B. ZHU, X. PENG, Y. LUO and W. SHU, Research Institute of Petroleum
Processing, SINOPEC, Beijing, China; and H. LI and W. WANG, Changling Petrochemical Co. Ltd.,
SINOPEC, Hunan Province, China

Propylene oxide (PO) is an important organic building block in industry and is used to manufacture
polyether polyols, unsaturated resins, nonionic surfactants and carbonates.1,2,3 In 2020, the global PO
market was more than 10 MMt—China's consumption was estimated at 3.5 MMt. However, more than 50%
of PO in China is still prepared by the classic chlorohydrin method, which produces serious environmental
pollution (with wastewater and waste residues of 40 t/t–80 t/t PO and 2 t /t PO, respectively) and
equipment corrosion problems due to the use of hazard chlorine (Cl2) and solid base as raw materials.4,5,6

Although co-oxidation processes (including PO/SM, PO/TBA and PO/CHP processes) eliminate the
generation of wastes, they still generally suffer from complex processing, high investment cost, restriction
by the co-product market and a stringent technology monopoly by international companies.7,8
Comparatively, the direct epoxidation of propylene with hydrogen peroxide (the authors’ company’s HPPO
process) catalyzed by TS-1 zeolite under mild conditions shows promising and positive advantages—with
high atomic efficiency and almost without hazardous waste formation—and is attracting attention in
various countries.9
However, this process is rather difficult at large scale due to the high reactivity of the PO product and the
poor mass diffusion property of epoxidation catalysts, causing serious byproduct formation and rapid
coke deposition inside confined zeolite micropores during HPPO processing, therefore limiting the
commercial application process. As a result, before 2010, only two international companies (BASF/Dow
and Evonik/Uhde) held this novel and efficient HPPO technology at industrial scale.

Consequently, to master this technology, the authors’ company began to develop its HPPO process and
corresponding catalysts on a small scale in 2000, and constructed the first Chinese 100,000-tpy industrial
HPPO unit at the Changling branch in 2014. This novel HPPO process features a long catalyst lifetime,
excellent catalytic performance and low material and energy cost,10 providing a green alternative pathway
to produce PO in China to meet strong downstream market demand while supporting environmental
protection and carbon neutralization. This article details the development evolution and characteristics of
the HPPO catalyst, fixed-bed reactor design, and novel process and combined technologies, while
demonstrating the technology’s advantages.

Overview of the HPPO process. In this industrial HPPO approach, two independent processes are
involved—a 150,000-tpy hydrogen peroxide (H2O2 ) (50% concentration in an aqueous solution) synthesis

process and a 100,000-tpy HPPO process—due to the short transport radius and explosion risk of the
aqueous H2O2 solution.11 H2O2 is generally synthesized from hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2) over Pd-

based catalysts via a conventional anthraquinone oxidation (AO) method within fixed-bed reactors.12

Six main systems are involved with the HPPO process: a propylene epoxidation system, a propylene
separation system, a propylene purification system, a PO separation system, a PO refining system, and a
methanol separation/purification system, as shown in FIG. 1. The propylene epoxidation system serves as

the heart of the HPPO process, in which propylene directly reacts with H2O2 to create PO under the effects

of framework Ti sites of TS-1 zeolite and methanol solvent at relative low temperatures (around 20°C–
50°C). After separation and purification, both methanol and propylene are reinjected into the propylene
epoxidation reactor, while PO is collected as a high value-added product. Additionally, the effluent is
removed from the bottom of the methanol distillation column and further treated by combined treatment
methods.

FIG. 1. A flow chart of the authors’ company’s HPPO process.

For more than 20 yr, the authors’ company has focused on catalyst development, as well as the small-
scale, pilot-scale, side-line and industrial demonstration tests of the HPPO process, as illustrated in FIG. 2.
From 2010–2012, to optimize reaction parameters and investigate the stability of the HPPO catalyst, a
1,000-tpy HPPO process pilot plant was constructed and evaluated at the company’s Changling Branch—
this pilot plant has run smoothly for more than 6,000 hr without any decrease in H2O2 conversion and PO

selectivity. Following this achievement, the first Chinese 100,000-tpy industrial HPPO industrial plant was
built and run successfully for first time at the end of 2014. After that, to meet the high PO product demand
dictated by the Chinese national standard published in 2015 (GB/T 14491-2015) and to improve process
efficiency, the HPPO technology was updated by intensifying the inhibition and distillation removal of low-
molecular side products, resulting in a final PO purity of > 99.97% and wide applications in many areas. In
April 2018, this device completed 72 hr of full load operation calibration, and the key parameters were
superior to design values and reference technologies.
 FIG. 2. The development evolution of the HPPO process.

In November 2018, the HPPO process passed its technical appraisal, meaning the successful
commercialization of the technology. In 2020, the first Chinese self-created 300,000-tpy HPPO technology
package was developed and approved. To date, four sets of 300,000-tpy commercial HPPO processes
have been licensed in China, while five HPPO technology transfers are under negotiation and will be
licensed in the near future. These units are anticipated to begin operations in 2024, promoting
environmentally-friendly and sustainable bulk PO production in China and, to some extent, globally. To
continue technological advantages, the second-generation HPPO technology at the authors’ company,
based on the catalyst design and reaction processing innovation, is under development with the goal of a
1,000-tpy pilot to be built at the end of 2023.

The HPPO catalyst. Catalyst plays a vital role in the industrial HPPO process—not unlike a chip within
a computer operating system—because high catalytic activity, PO selectivity and catalyst stability, and a
long running time are required to achieve optimum economic and operational benefits.13 However, both
H2O2 and PO product are highly reactive, so side reactions like H2O2 decomposition, deep oxidation, PO

ring opening and polymerization can easily occur within confined catalyst channels, decreasing catalytic
activity, selectivity and lifetime.14

To overcome these problems, researchers at the authors’ company have explored active component TS-1
zeolite synthesis and catalyst shaping technologies since 2000. It was determined that both high mass
transfer performance and inhibiting H2O2 decomposition are vital for promising HPPO performance.

Consequently, a novel surface silicon-rich hollow titanium silicate (SR-HTS) zeolite and the corresponding
shaped catalyst (referred to as the proprietary catalysta) with sufficient mechanical strength and catalytic
activity were initially developed, exhibiting improved mass diffusion and catalytic performance than
reference catalysts and, therefore, supporting the industrialization and smooth extended operation of the
integrated 100,000-tpy HPPO process.
Synthesis of SR-HTS zeolite as an active component. The classic TS-1 zeolite synthesized by
the EniChem method is a poor framework for Ti incorporation and mass diffusion property, leading to low
H2O2 utilization efficiency, high byproduct selectivity and fast coke deposition in the microporous

channels during the HPPO process.

To enhance the accessibility and intrinsic activity of active sites, SR-HTS zeolite was initially synthesized
by combining controlled hydrothermal crystallization and post synthesis methods developed by
researchers from the authors’ company.15,16 In the first step, surface silicon-rich TS-1 (SR-TS-1) zeolite
was prepared by slowing down the hydrolysis and crystallization rate of Si precursors in the presence of
organic template [tetrapropylammonium hydroxide (TPAOH)] at high temperatures under hydrothermal
conditions.

Then, the calcined SR-TS-1 was post treated through an in-situ dissolution-recrystallization process in the
presence of an aqueous TPAOH solution under hydrothermal conditions, thus with the formation of SR-
HTS zeolite. It is confirmed that abundant hollow cavities (intracrystalline mesopores and/or macropores)
are highly dispersed within SR-HTS zeolite particles, as shown in FIG. 3; therefore, the diffusion coefficient
of SR-HTS (9.41 ± 0.20 × 10-10 m2s-1) is far higher than that of SR-TS-1 zeolite (8.04 ± 0.16 × 10-10 m2s-1),
using rigid cyclohexane as a probe molecule.

FIG. 3. TEM images of SR-TS-1 and SR-HTS zeolites: (a, left) SR-TS-1 zeolite and (b, right) SR-HTS zeolite.

It has been confirmed that hollow cavities can significantly shorten the residence time within zeolite
particles and so favor the mass transfer of reactant and product molecules (FIG. 4). It is useful to restrict
the etherification and polymerization of PO to propylene glycol ether, propylene glycol and polymers, thus
concurrently improving PO selectivity and catalyst lifetime. In addition, much more tetrahedral framework
Ti species are generated by intensifying the condensation of Ti-OH and Si-OH groups during post
treatment. More importantly, the ratio of Ti and Si of bulk SR-HTS zeolite is higher than that of the zeolite’s
external surface, which means it reduces the direct contact of H2O2 molecules and the framework Ti

species, thus increasing H2O2 utilization efficiency. Consequently, SR-HTS shows far better catalytic
performance than TS-1 in both laboratory and industrial tests, as shown in FIG. 5. The SR-HTS zeolite
active component was commercially manufactured by using industrial 12-m3 autoclaves by the authors’
company. TABLE 1 shows the pore volume, surface area and self-diffusion coefficients for SR-TS-1 and
SR-HTS.

FIG. 4. The main epoxidation reaction and side reactions, including H2O2 decomposition, ring-opening and
polymerization of PO product in the HPPO process.
FIG. 5. Catalytic evaluation of SR-TS-1 and SR-HTS tablet catalysts in the HPPO process at the same conditions in small
scale, with a catalyst weight of 20 g in the micro-reactor, a reaction temperature of 35°C, and a propylene pressure of
2.0 MPa.

Manufacture of proprietary catalysta. The HPPO process is normally operated in a fixed-bed

reactor due to the strong exothermic properties of the propylene epoxidation reaction, with a reaction heat
of ~210 KJ/mol PO formation.17 Therefore, SR-HTS zeolite must be shaped by mixing with binders,
carriers and modification agents under the effect of mechanical force, with the generation of industrial
epoxidation catalyst, which is referred to as the proprietary catalysta (FIG. 6). This catalyst possesses
controllable morphology and size, excellent mechanical strength and good coke formation resistance. As
shown in FIG. 7, through a low-temperature nitrogen adsorption-desorption method, it is confirmed that
two hysteresis loops are in the P/P0 range of 0.45–0.8 and 0.8–1, respectively. These loops are attributed

to hollow cavities within zeolite particles and intercrystalline mesopores of 10 nm–30 nm in size,
respectively, suggesting excellent mass diffusion performance. Additionally, to inhibit the influence of
extra acidic centers from binders and carriers on PO selectivity, specific auxiliaries were added during
catalyst molding processing, thus only few weak acid and base sites, originated from tetrahedral
framework Ti centers, are discovered in the proprietary catalysta.

FIG. 6. An image of aggregated zeolite morphology and intercrystalline

mesopores of the proprietary catalysta at high magnification.

FIG. 7. Low-temperature N2 adsorption-desorption curves and pore size distribution (inserted image) of the proprietary
catalysta.
The HPPO reactor and process. The authors’ company’s HPPO process consists of catalyst
application and regeneration systems, an epoxidation reactor and corresponding controlling system, a
reaction operation process, separation and refining technologies, and safety, environmental protection and
energy-saving technologies.

The propylene epoxidation reactor and reaction engineering system play an ultra-important role in an
industrial plant—the heart of the entire industrial process. In principle, from the viewpoint of reaction
engineering, propylene epoxidation can be carried out in both a fixed-bed reactor and a slurry-bed reactor.
The advantages of a slurry-bed reactor are in the great flexibility of catalyst regeneration and high heat
removal efficiency; however, the PO selectivity is difficult to maintain at a high level due to the strong
backmixing effect and non-uniform residence time distribution of mixed flow operation.1,2,4

Therefore, it is optimal to carry out the HPPO reaction by using a fixed-bed reactor because plug flow
benefits from high catalyst activity and PO selectivity at the same time, owing to the low back-mixing
effect. The major challenges of a fixed-bed reactor involve quick heat removal, high reactants distribution
and intrinsic safety, as a high-concentration H2O2 solution is a dangerous chemical regent and sensitive to

temperature for fast decomposition and even explosion.

A novel domestic epoxidation reactor of a unique inner structure and feed controlling system was
developed and manufactured by the authors’ company. In this reactor, all reactants can be homogenously
mixed in a short time and uniformly injected into every reaction tube through a specific feed unit structure
under optimal flow parameters, avoiding the existence of hot spots in the reaction zone and reducing side
reactions. Conversely, the reaction heat can be quickly removed by a specific heat exchange system,
ensuring the propylene epoxidation reaction is precisely carried out at low temperature, and with low
energy cost and high safety.

Moreover, based on pilot-test experimental results, increasing the reaction pressure and solvent amount
enhances the reaction rate and PO selectivity due to the increase of propylene solubility in methanol—this
does cause high energy consumption on methanol solvent distillation separation and purification for
recycling. Due to an activation energy of propylene epoxidation that is less than the side reaction, rising
reaction temperature favors high H2O2 conversion but has a negative impact on PO selectivity.

Additionally, a short contact time of reactants and catalyst helps high PO selectivity when high H2O2

conversion must be maintained.

It is vital to flexibly alter the reaction parameters and catalyst feature, as the apparent performance of
catalyst is influenced by coking and pore blocking by large organic polymers. In the end, the optimized
reaction parameters and controlling methods were achieved via numerous experimental tests at pilot
scale by using the proprietary catalysta, a reaction temperature of 40°C–50°C, and a turnover frequency of
30.9 mmol.g-1h-1–32.2 mmol.g-1h-1.10

Other key practical factors, such as capital investment, machining feasibility and reactor bed pressure
drop were also considered and investigated. Consequently, a novel and advanced multi-tube, fixed-bed
reactor of 100,000-tpy PO production scale with optimized structure parameters to remove epoxidation
reaction heat rapidly by cool intermediates was developed and evaluated by the authors’ company to
ensure the intrinsic safety of the HPPO reactor during industrial processing.

Notably, in the interest of best industrial practices and in addition to catalytic performance, energy
consumption, safety and environmental protection issues of the process were also considered—they are
all closely correlated to the sustainability, technical economy and market competitiveness of this HPPO
process.

A novel comprehensive heat utilization technology was developed with high-energy cascade utilization
efficiency. For example, the distillation of methanol from water requires high energy consumption at high
temperatures, so the outlet evaporator (usually > 100°C) serves as the heat source to drive other low-
temperature unit operations, such as propylene separation and PO purification. To further enhance
process efficiency, the wastewater treatment system cooperates with the fluid catalytic cracking unit
(FCCU)—the most important part of a petroleum refinery—using chlorine-free effluent of high-chemical
oxygen demand (COD) value as the FCC process terminator.

Notably, these organic byproducts in wastewater (i.e., polyether polyol, propylene glycol, propylene glycol
ether) can be transformed into valuable chemical intermediates, such as ethylene and propylene, under the
thermal effects at high temperature. Conversely, these organic byproducts can also be converted to
methane via an anaerobic fermentation approach. Obviously, these waste effluents can not only be treated
easily and efficiently, but can also produce useful products, thus further improving the technical economy
of this process.

At the end of 2014, based on the reactor and processes mentioned here, the first set of Chinese
independently-developed 100,000-tpy HPPO industrial plant using the proprietary catalysta was built and
successfully operated for the first time by the authors’ company at Changling Branch in Yueyang, Human
province (FIG. 8).

FIG. 8. The first Chinese-created 100,000-tpy HPPO industrial demonstration unit began operations in 2014.
The plant boasts H2O2 conversion and PO selectivity of 97.6% and 97.8%, respectively, based on a 72-hr

continuous full-load calibration test in 2018—this exceeds the referenced HPPO processes and achieves
the initially designed goals. Additionally, compared to reference technologies, the propylene consumption
and energy cost of this process are also reduced by 2.1% and 11.9%, respectively, showing the desired
economic advantages as a result of the relatively high price of propylene and H2O2 in the market.

The general PO product purity is > 99.97% (and even higher to 99.99% when dictated by the market), which
is much greater than the China national standard of premium grade PO product (purity ≥ 99.95%, GB/T
14491-2015). The content of aldehydes and water impurities are < 0.003 wt% and < 0.015 wt%,
respectively, which are far lower than those of the national standard level, as shown in TABLE 2.

The final PO product has been used in many PO downstream areas, such as polyether polyols, surfactants,
oilfield demulsifiers and other products. In particular, when it is used in polyether polyols and the
polyurethane industry, the final products are colorless and present only a slight odor, making them more
popular. As shown in FIG. 9, to date, the proprietary catalysta in the 100,000-tpy HPPO unit has run
smoothly for > 38,000 hr while showing almost the same excellent catalytic performance as that of fresh
catalyst in the initial stage.

FIG. 9. The running characteristics of the industrial 100,000-tpy HPPO plant.

Although a variety of harsh reaction conditions have been experienced, there is no difference in texture
properties and Ti coordination between the fresh and used proprietary catalysta in accordance with
multiple characterization methods.

In August 2020, the first Chinese self-developed 300,000-tpy HPPO technology package, with several
process innovations, was developed by the authors’ company. Owing to the significant economic and
technological advantages of this scale, four sets of the 300,000-tpy HPPO process have been
commercially licensed; five additional HPPO technology transfers are predicted to be completed by the
end of 2023. To further optimize and update HPPO processes, the second-generation HPPO technology,
which involves both catalyst and process route sustainable innovations, is being designed—a pilot test at
1,000-tpy scale will be constructed and put into operation at the end of 2023.

Takeaways. To provide an efficient alternative PO synthesis method to overcome the drawbacks of a

traditional chlorohydrin route, the first Chinese self-developed 100,000-tpy HPPO integrated technology
has been developed by researchers at the authors’ company combining several innovations, including a
SR-HTS zeolite active component, a proprietary catalysta and corresponding shaping technology, an
epoxidation reactor and process design and safety investigation, a heat integration technology, and
wastewater treatment in collaboration with the re nery FCCU. This HPPO process exhibits superior
advantages in high catalytic performance, catalyst lifetime, raw material and energy consumption, product
purity, and economic and social bene ts.

Based on further comprehensive innovations, a 300,000-tpy HPPO technology package and the second

generation of the HPPO process have been developed—the 300,000-tpy HPPO technology has been
licensed to four commercial units, and will be licensed to more than three in the near future. HP

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was nancially supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program,
2006CB202508), China Petrochemical Corporation (SINOPEC Group 413108, 409085, 411058, 412091,
413023, 413025, 413068, 414046 and 419019).

NOTES
a Sinopec’s HPO-1 catalyst

LITERATURE CITED
1. Russo, V., R. Tesser, E. Santacesaria and M. Di Serio, “Chemical and technical aspects of propene oxide production
via hydrogen peroxide (HPPO process),” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2013.
2. Nijhuis, T. A., M. Makkee, J. A. Moulijn and B. M. Weckhuysen, “The production of propene oxide:  Catalytic processes
and recent developments,” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2006.
3. Blanco-Brieva, G., M. C. Capel-Sanchez, M. P. de Frutos, et al., “Direct synthesis of hydrogen peroxide without the use
of acids or halide promoters in dissolution,” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2008.
4. Baer, H., M. Bergamo, A. Forlin, et al., “Propylene oxide,” Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Wiley-VCH
Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2012.
5. Clerici, M. G., “The activity of titanium silicalite-1 (TS-1): Some considerations on its origin,” Kinetics and Catalysis,
July 2015.
6. E. Kertalli, E., L.S. van Rijnsoever, V. Paunovic and M. F. Neira D’Angelo, “Propylene epoxidation with hydrogen
peroxide in acidic conditions ” Chemical Engineering Science September 2016
 7. Buijink, J. K. F., J. J. M. van Vlaanderen, M. Crocker and F. G. M. Niele, “Propylene epoxidation over titanium-on-silica
catalyst—the heart of the SMPO process,” Catalysis Today, September 2004.
8. R. Martos Calvente, R., J. M. Campos-Martin and J. L. G. Fierro, “Effective homogeneous molybdenum catalyst for
linear terminal alkenes epoxidation with organic hydroperoxide,” Catalysis Communications, June 2002.
9. Ghanta, M., D. R. Fahey, D. H. Busch and B. Subramaniam, “Comparative economic and environmental assessments
of H2O2-based and tertiary butyl hydroperoxide-based propylene oxide technologies,” ACS Sustainable Chemistry &
Engineering, 2013.
10. Lin, M., C. Xia, B. Zhu, H. Li and X. Shu, “Green and efficient epoxidation of propylene with hydrogen peroxide (HPPO
process) catalyzed by hollow TS-1 zeolite: A 1.0 kt/a pilot-scale study,” Chemical Engineering Journal, July 2016.
11. Wang, T.-S., S.-H. Liu, Y.-C. Lin, Y.-C. Chen and C.-M. Shu, “Green process of propylene oxide reaction for thermal
hazard assessment by differential scanning calorimetry and simulation,” Chemical Engineering Technology, February
2015.
12. Lewis, R. J. and G. J. Hutchings, “Recent advances in the direct synthesis of H2O2,” ChemCatChem, October 2018.
13. Signorile., M., V. Crocellà, A. Damin, B. Rossi, C. Lamberti, F. Bonino and S. Bordiga, “Effect of Ti speciation on
catalytic performance of TS-1 in the hydrogen peroxide to propylene oxide reaction,” The Journal of Physical
Chemistry C, 2018.
14. Schmidt, F., M. Bernhard, H. Morell and M. Pascaly, “HPPO process technology: A novel route to propylene oxide
without coproducts,” Chimica Oggi, 2014.
15. Xia, C., B. Zhu, M. Lin, X. Peng, X. Shu and C. Shi, “Titanium silicalite molecular sieve and its synthesis,” U.S. Patent
9896343B2, 2018.
16. Xia, C., M. Lin, B. Zhu, et al., “A kind of titanium sieve molecular sieve and its synthetic method,” China Patent
104556111B, 2018.
17. F. Cavani, F. and J. Henrique Teles, “Sustainability in catalytic oxidation: An alternative approach or a structural
evolution?” ChemSusChem, 2009.

XIA CHANGJIU is a leader of zeolite synthesis and catalytic oxidation in the long-term research
department at Research Institute of Petroleum Processing (RIPP), SINOPEC. Dr. Xia has 10 yr of
experience developing HPPO processes and specific catalysts, from fundamental investigation to
industrial applications.

LIN MIN is a professor and principal investigator of HPPO processes and catalysts at RIPP, SINOPEC. Dr.
Lin has more than 20 yr of experience in zeolite-based catalyst synthesis and catalytic oxidation process
exploration at an industrial scale.

ZHU BIN is a professor at RIPP, SINOPEC. He has more than 20 yr of experience on HPPO processes and
catalyst development and technology licenses.

PENG XINXIN is a leader of zeolite synthesis and catalytic oxidation at RIPP, SINOPEC. Dr. Peng has 10 yr
of experience on zeolite synthesis and catalytic oxidation development.

LUO YIBIN is a professor at RIPP, SINOPEC. Dr. Luo has more than 30 yr of experience on zeolite synthesis
and industrial applications in both petroleum refining and chemical production.

LI HUA is a professor at Changling Petrochemical Co. Ltd., SINOPEC, Yueyang. Dr. Li has more than 30 yr
of experience on developing novel petroleum refining and chemical production processes.
WANG WEI is a senior engineer at Hunan Changling New Material Technology Co. Ltd. He has more than
20 yr of experience in HPPO process development from small test to industrial scale.

SHU XINGTIAN is a professor and a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering. He has more than 50
yr of experience on exploring novel zeolite-based catalysts for ef cient petroleum re ning and chemical
production processes.
New state-of-the-art in sulfur recovery?—Part
3: Economic benefits
H. NJUGUNA and J. LEWIS, Worley Comprimo, Brentford, England, UK; and F. E. JENSEN,
Topsoe, Lyngby, Denmark

Worley Comprimo and Topsoe have developed a new sulfur recovery processa that combines conventional
Claus technology from Comprimo with the proven wet gas sulfuric acid (WSA) process from Topsoe. In
this combined process, sulfuric acid is produced and recycled back to the Claus furnace to produce sulfur.
The combination of these two well-proven technologies results in a simple, reliable and energy-efficient
sulfur recovery processa.

The new sulfur recovery processa offers a complete solution to treat a variety of amine acid gas and sour
water stripper (SWS) offgas and can reach sulfur recovery efficiencies of 99.9% or more without a Beavon
sulfur removal (BSR) amine-based tail gas treatment unit (TGTU), which is the conventional setup and is
known to be expensive to install and operate at larger sulfur capacities.

In the previous two articles (Part 1 in December 2022 and Part 2 in January 2023) in this three-part series,
the new sulfur recovery processa was introduced as a solution for Claus tail gas treating and meeting ever
challenging emissions requirements. The chemistry and other technical aspects of the technology were
compared against a Claus unit with conventional BSR amine-based tail gas treating. The environmental
benefits were evaluated by comparing the carbon footprint of an SRU and BSR amine-based TGTU against
the new sulfur recovery processa configuration. Two cases studies (a refinery case study and a gas plant
case study) were evaluated, covering a wide range of acid gas.

Having proved the chemistry and environmental merits (Parts 1 and 2, respectively), this paper will
evaluate the economics of the technology. For operating expenditures (OPEX), the utility consumption and
production and the effect on the overall cost are evaluated, as are capital expenditures (CAPEX)
differences. Finally, the net present value of the two configurations will be compared.
In both cases, it was found that the new sulfur recovery processa represents more value due to savings in
the utility consumption and the production of HP/MP steam. Savings can also be found in CAPEX. A high-
level indication of the potential CAPEX savings of the new sulfur recovery processa can be discerned by
comparing the equipment count summarized in TABLE 6. Note: The equipment count of the Claus section
is the same for both options and is not included in TABLE 6. Only the equipment associated with the WSA
is shown in the table under the new sulfur recovery processa.
Apart from a reduction in equipment count of nine items, perhaps the most pertinent comparison is the
removal of the three columns (quench column, amine absorber and amine regenerator). This has some
benefits in reducing the plot area requirement in addition to CAPEX savings.

Refinery case. To quantify the CAPEX and OPEX savings, both configurations were considered in a case
study for a typical refinery application: a 270-tpd SRU with typical refinery feed streams of amine acid gas
and SWS offgas (TABLE 7). A sulfur recovery of 99.9% was required. An acidified MDEA was used for the
conventional design so the benefits of that over-generic MDEA were already accounted for. A Class 4
factored estimate was prepared on a U.S. Gulf Coast basis. Details of the project include:

Greenfield oil refinery SRU

Capacity: 270 tpd of molten sulfur
Feed: Amine acid gas and SWS gas
99.9% sulfur recovery efficiency
U.S. Gulf Coast basis
Inside battery limits (ISBL) (i.e., excluding utility units)
8,500 operation hr/yr
Operation staff not included (considered equal)
Sales of sulfur not included (same for both cases).

The cost estimate considered facilities only within the SRU (ISBL). Common factors were excluded (e.g.,
site preparation). The sulfur product value was also excluded as it was common for both configurations.
The results were striking and are detailed in TABLES 8 and 9, first covering utility
production/consumption (TABLE 8) and then monetized to give CAPEX and OPEX over 10 yr (TABLE 9).
The new sulfur recovery processa consumes more BFW and cooling water, but this is more than offset by
the reduction in use of electric power and natural gas (i.e, $3 MM/yr vs. $3.6 MM/yr for total
consumption). On the production side, the new sulfur recovery processa produces much more steam,
giving an overall production figure of $4.9 MM/yr vs. $3.3 MM/yr. The overall operating income for the new
sulfur recovery processa is just under $2 MM/yr, whereas the conventional design suffers an operating
income loss of $270,000/yr.

The operating income potential is heavily dependent on the value of HP steam. The new sulfur recovery
processa offers a distinct advantage in the value of HP steam due to its impact on the overall operating
income (FIG. 8). The operating income breaks even at a steam cost of $7.6/t with the new sulfur recovery
processa vs. $15.3/t with an SRU with BSR amine-based TGTU.

Fig. 8. New sulfur recovery processa refinery case study: HP steam value. 

Considering CAPEX, the new sulfur recovery processa configuration is $61.8 MM vs. $69.4 MM—with a
savings of 12% (and up to 30% using generic MDEA in the Claus + BSR amine configuration) and the
savings in OPEX, this provides a total savings of $31 MM over 10 yr.

Gas plant case. To provide a different economic perspective of the new sulfur recovery processa, a
1,330-tpd gas plant case in the Middle East with a lean acid gas feed (45% H2S) was evaluated (TABLE

10). The sulfur recovery required is 99.9% This type of acid gas would typically require fuel gas co-firing
with a conventional setup to ensure BTEX destruction temperatures are achieved. A hindered amine TGTU
is required to meet the required sulfur efficiency. Like the refinery case, the estimate is a Class 4 factored
estimate on a U.S. Gulf Coast basis. Details of the project include:

Greenfield gas plant SRU

Capacity: 1,330 tpd of molten sulfur
Feed: Amine acid gas
99.9% sulfur recovery efficiency
U.S. Gulf Coast basis
ISBL (i.e., excluding utility units)
8,500 operation hr/yr
Operation staff not included (considered equal)
Sales of sulfur not included (same for both cases).

The cost estimate considered facilities only within the SRU (ISBL). Common factors were excluded, as was
sulfur product value, as it is common for both configurations. The utility costs for the gas plant case are
based on typical costs in the Middle East region.

A comparison of the utility costs (TABLE 11) reveals savings that can be achieved with the new sulfur
recovery processa. The fuel gas consumption is drastically reduced and significantly more HP steam is
produced.
In the gas plant case, an operating income is not achievable in both configurations. This is attributed to the
consumption of fuel gas (FIG. 9). The new sulfur recovery processa requires less fuel gas and electric
power. Cooling water is unavailable; therefore, refrigeration is necessary to achieve the required cooling.
The total consumption costs are still favorable to the new sulfur recovery processa at $25.9 MM vs. $36.1
MM, with a savings of just under 40%. The higher production of HP/MP steam by the new sulfur recovery
processa is $4.6 MM/yr, which is significant.

Fig. 9. New sulfur recovery processa gas plant case study: Fuel gas value. 
Overall, the annual operating costs of the new sulfur recovery processa are $14 MM vs. $29 MM, which is
approximately half the cost.

The difference in fuel gas consumption is where the new sulfur recovery processa provides the most value
in the gas plant case. Fuel gas has a large impact on operating costs. With a conventional configuration,
fuel gas consumption increases with leaner acid gas feed. There is a boundary at which the costs of
consuming fuel gas are considered too high and an alternative solution could be considered, such as
utilizing an acid gas enrichment unit. This boundary is further extended if the new sulfur recovery processa
is implemented instead. The boundary line is dependent on the user and their valuation of fuel gas.

The operating costs in the gas plant case (TABLE 12) are not supplemented by HP steam to the same
extent as the refinery case. However, the new sulfur recovery processa offers a distinct advantage. The
operating income breaks even at a steam cost of $19.7/t with the new sulfur recovery processa vs. $46.5/t
with a conventional configuration. It should be noted that it is unlikely that the user would have such high
valuations of HP steam in a gas plant case.

Evaluating the CAPEX, the new sulfur recovery processa configuration is $422.7 MM vs. $427.6 MM,
indicating a small savings of $5 MM. The requirement of fuel gas co-firing in the new sulfur recovery
processa case when compared to SRU + BSR has the effect of increasing the size of the equipment and,
therefore, the CAPEX between the two cases is similar. The OPEX is where the main difference is found:
the new sulfur recovery processa gives a savings of $14.9 MM—when considering the costs over 10 yr, the
savings is $155 MM.

After considering CAPEX and OPEX costs, the net present value (NPV) was evaluated over 10 yr for both
the refinery case and gas plant case. Assuming a discount rate of 10% and excluding sulfur revenues, the
results are presented in TABLE 13.
Although the NPV is negative, the new sulfur recovery processa still represents a more valuable
proposition when compared to the Claus + Amine option. The refinery case provides a $22-MM advantage
to the new sulfur recovery processa and the advantage is greater in the gas plant case at $134 MM.

To evaluate the gas plant case study (1,330-tpd sulfur) and the refinery case study (270 tpd) with a
common metric, the NPV value per metric t of sulfur produced can be calculated (TABLE 14).

Takeaways. The new sulfur recovery processa is the most cost-effective per metric t of sulfur produced.
The difference in NPV per metric t of sulfur produced is $100,000 in both the refinery case and gas plant
case in favor of the new sulfur recovery processa when comparing the two configurations. Economic
features include:

10%–30% lower CAPEX compared to a Claus unit with amine-based TGTU in the refinery case.
Similar CAPEX compared to a Claus unit with an amine-based TGTU in the gas plant case. This is
due to typically lean acid gas feeds requiring fuel gas co-firing.
Utilizes significantly lower fuel gas and produces greater HP steam, leading to improved OPEX.
Significantly lower OPEX, leading to a more attractive NPV in both the gas plant case and refinery
case studies.
Provides greater investment value per metric t of sulfur produced.

This article (covering commercial aspects) concludes a series of three articles detailing the new sulfur
recovery processa. The December 2022 and January 2023 issues of Hydrocarbon Processing included
articles (Parts 1 and 2) covering technology and environmental aspects. HP

NOTES
a TopClaus®
 HESBON NJUGUNA is a Principal Process Engineer at Comprimo, part of the Worley group,
and has extensive experience working in the design of sulfur recovery plants constituting the
Claus process, SWS, amine regeneration and TGTUs throughout his 15-yr career with the
company. Njuguna has been heavily involved in the early development of the TopClaus®
technology. He graduated with an honors degree in chemical engineering from the University of
Nottingham in the UK and earned an MS degree in forensic engineering and science from Cranfield
University in the UK. Njuguna is a Chartered Engineer and Member of the Institute of Chemical Engineers
(MIChemE).

JON LEWIS leads UK Operations for Comprimo, part of the Worley group, after serving as
Global Director for gas processing. Lewis’s responsibilities span consultancy, project
delivery, client support and business development. He has extensive conceptual and
detailed engineering experience and has held various roles associated with gas processing
terminals, offshore platforms and refineries in his 29-yr career with the company, as well as managing the
London Process Department from 2004–2011. He graduated with an MS degree in advanced chemical
engineering from the University of Manchester (UMIST) in the UK, is a Chartered Engineer and Fellow of
the Institute of Chemical Engineers (FIChemE), and has published articles and presented at international
conferences.

After graduation as a chemical engineer, FRANDS E. JENSEN has worked for Topsoe since
1979 in various marketing and sales positions and has been dealing with most of the
technologies offered by Topsoe. Since 2003, Jensen has concentrated on the WSA, SNOX™
and TopClaus® technologies applied for sulfur removal from offgases as Senior Sales
Manager.
 Practical application of expansion joints for
heat exchangers
B. N. ACHARYA and N. PAL, Contributing Consultants, Mumbai, India; K. DARU, Air Products
and Chemicals Inc., Houston, Texas; and A. PANCHAL, PVA Systems, Mumbai, India

Expansion joints are used throughout industry for various purposes. One main purpose is to compensate
for relative movements in heat exchangers and piping caused by temperature differences in shell-and-tube
parts of the equipment or piping—without the use of expansion joints, it would be impossible to install
such equipment or piping in those service conditions. These expansion joints are also used to isolate
vibration or mechanical movements from rotating machines to stationary equipment or machines, and to
allow vertical movement of equipment connected to piping placed on load cells.

This article focuses on flanged and flued (thick) expansion joints used in a shell-and-tube heat exchanger
constructed to Boiler and Pressure Vessel (BPV) Code ASME Sec. VIII, Div. 1. The scope of Mandatory
Appendix 5 in ASME BPV Code states that the minimum thickness of a flanged and flued expansion joint
should be 3 mm; however, the higher thickness limit is left to interpretations. This article discusses a case
of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger that was constructed with an expansion joint made of a 60-mm thick
plate and an alternative expansion joint providing a cost-effective and reliable solution.

The thickness of the expansion joint and the con guration of its convolution (radii of inner and outer torus)
provide exibility (i.e., stiffness), which ultimately determines the number of convolutions for the joint to
withstand the load/s occurring due to differential thermal expansion between shell and tubes. FIG. 1
shows expansion joint convolution details and geometric proportions.

According to FIG. 1, it is common to provide expansion joint thickness equal to the adjoining shell
thickness. It is not required to keep the shell and expansion joint thicknesses the same, provided the
requirements of Para. 5-3(f) of Div. 1 are met.
FIG. 1. Expansion joint according to Figure 5-1(b) of Appendix 5, ASME Sec. VIII, Div. 1. ASME code nomenclature: t =
thickness of expansion joint exible element; Ra, Rb = inside radius of expansion joint straight ange, shell or outer
shell element; tf = uncorroded thickness of expansion joint straight ange. Non-ASME nomenclature for reference
only: ts = thickness of adjoining shell; Rsh = inner radius of adjoining shell; Lf = length of expansion joint ange.
The following reference is from ASME Sec. VIII-1:

Extended straight flanges between the inner torus and the shell and between both outer tori are
permissible. An outer shell element between the outer tori is permissible. Extended straight flanges
between the inner torus and the shell, between the outer tori and the outer shell element, and between
both outer tori that do not have an intermediate outer shell element with lengths in excess of 0.5 √ R ×
tf  satisfy all the requirements of UG-27, where:

R = inside radius of expansion joint straight flange at the point of consideration

= Ra or Rb

tf = uncorroded thickness of expansion joint straight flange.

From this information, it can be concluded that an expansion joint with a flange length ≤ 0.5 √ R × tf can

have a thickness less than the shell, provided all other requirements of Appendix 5 are met. The response
below from the ASME Code Committee to the authors’ inquiry further clarifies this point.

Standard designation: BPV Sec. VIII Div. 1

Edition/Addenda: 2015
Para./Fig./Table number: Mandatory Appendix 5
Subject description: Flanged and flued expansion joint thickness
Date issued: 05/31/2017
Record number: 17-577
Interpretation number: BPV VIII-1-17-27-R
Question(s) and Reply(ies): Question: For an expansion joint designed in accordance with Mandatory
Appendix 5, may the thickness of the flexible elements be different from either the shell attached to the
inner torus or a shell element attached between the outer torii, or both, provided the requirements of 5-3(f)
are met? Reply: Yes.

Considering this information, an expansion joint can be designed and constructed as per FIG. 2.
 FIG. 2. An expansion joint with a thickness less than the shell (nomenclature as per FIG. 1).

Based on FIG. 2, an expansion joint flange can be thinner from the end of the 1:3 taper provided by weld
built-up (or equivalent). A taper transition of 1:3 can be accommodated in the flange length (Lf), and the
remaining flange length can be of smaller thickness.

For example:

Shell ID: 1,200 mm; shell thickness: 30 mm

Radius of the expansion joint inner flange, Ra = 600 mm; expansion joint thickness, tf = 18 mm;
expansion joint flange length, Lf = 50 mm
Maximum permitted length, Lfmax = 0.5 √ R × tf = 0.5 √ 350 × 18 = 51.96 mm

Provided the length Lf < 51.96 mm, the flange thickness tf does not need to meet UG-27.

The thickness difference between the shell and expansion joint flanges is tsh – tf = 30 – 18 = 12 mm, and
the distance required to maintain the 1:3 weld built-up taper is 3 × (tsh – tf) = 12 × 3 = 36 mm, which can
be easily accommodated within the flange length without affecting the stiffness of the expansion joint.

However, in many practical cases, where the shell-side design pressure is higher and the shell thickness is
> 30 mm—certainly, this is not the maximum limit for the constructability of the expansion joint—the
expansion joint size (inner and outer torus radii and, accordingly, the overall dimensions) is expected to be
larger. Concurrently, the thickness of the expansion joint elements would also be heavier. This causes the
stiffness of the flexible element to decrease (since these properties are inversely proportional) and,
therefore, will require a larger number of convolutions to compensate for the same amount of differential
thermal expansion between shell and tube.

As the thickness increases, the spring rate decreases; so, to compensate for the same amount of
differential thermal expansion, the expansion joint will require an increased number of flexible elements
compared to one with a thinner-walled expansion joint.

It is preferred that the expansion joint is provided for operating load cases and should be avoided for upset
and maintenance conditions, whenever possible. For example, the tube-side steam-out condition is often
specified for evaluating the expansion joint requirements. For the tube-side steam-out condition, the tube
mean metal temperature is considered as the steam temperature, while the shell mean metal temperature
is considered as the ambient temperature—for most of the combination of shell-and-tube material, an
expansion joint will be required. If the shell is thicker, then the situation will deteriorate and require many
convolutions (discussed later in this article).

The authors were involved in a project in which the detailed engineering company provided a standard list
of load conditions, and the shell-side and tube-side steam-out conditions were part of those conditions. It
was surprising to note that most of the exchangers required expansion joints and, in most of those, three
to four sets of flexible elements became necessary. After consultation with the plant operations team, the
steam-out sequence was set so that steam will be simultaneously introduced on both the shell and tube
sides, ensuring the same mean metal temperature and resulting in essentially close to nil differential
thermal expansion. Based on this, the expansion joints were removed from most of the heat exchangers.

The authors also encountered a practical case where a heavy expansion joint was provided on a heat
exchanger with a 55-mm shell-side thickness. The expansion joint thickness was kept at 55 mm (like the
shell thickness) and designed in accordance with Mandatory Appendix 5, which required five sets of
flexible element convolutions consuming more than half of the shell length. FIG. 3 is a 3D representation
of a heat exchanger as per as-built dimensions—some of the external accessories are not shown for better
clarity. FIG. 4 shows a close-up view of the expansion joint.
FIG. 3. A 3D view of a heat exchanger.
 FIG. 4. A close-up view of the expansion bellow: the top and bottom
shell thicknesses are 55 mm; the expansion joint convolution minimum
thickness is 55 mm and the nominal thickness is 60 mm; the shell
inside diameter is 1,200 mm.

FIG. 3 illustrates a 55-mm thick expansion joint with five convolutions. The construction of the
convolutions required a starting plate thickness of 60 mm (considering a thinning allowance during
flanging) that is also in circular rings, leaving considerable material wastage from a rectangular plate. The
joint convolutions were fabricated by a flanging operation of 20 edges and two transition pieces.
Subsequently, post-forming normalizing heat treatment was performed on the formed convolutions. After
completion of the austenitizing heat treatment, the convolutions were welded together, followed by non-
destructive examination of 10 numbers of circumferential weld seams. This directly impacted the
fabrication cost of the exchanger. After analyzing similar types of exchangers operating in a plant at a
different location with nearly the same amount of differential thermal expansion, it was found that
exchangers with two convolutions of toroidal bellow are satisfactory.

A toroidal expansion joint is permitted as per Mandatory Appendix 26. Due to the tubular construction, it
can withstand high pressure with thinner walls. FIG. 5 shows the construction of the toroidal expansion
joint, illustrating the toroidal flexible element and collar (stub-end) on both sides to be welded to the shell.
 FIG. 5. The toroidal expansion joint.

None of the engineering publications above state what the shell thickness of a toroidal bellow should be
considered in lieu of a flanged and flued-type expansion joint. However, based on the authors’ engineering
experience and confirmed by the performance of similar heat exchangers in operating units, when the shell
is heavy—it is difficult to quantify the shell thickness limit, but as a general guide, for a shell thickness
heavier than 40 mm—the use of a toroidal expansion bellow in place of a flanged and flued expansion joint
should be evaluated. Toroidal expansion joints have been used on shell thicknesses up to 90 mm in some
cases and have been operating successfully.

Takeaway. When a flanged and flued (thick) expansion joint is used, it does not need to be as thick as
the shell, and its thickness can be less than the shell thickness, as explained.

However, when the shell is heavy (or heavier than 40 mm), a toroidal expansion joint will serve the same
purpose, providing safe and reliable performance and many other advantages, including cost and good
engineering practices. HP

B. N. ACHARYA has work experience in static equipment design with UHDE India Ltd. and
Reliance Industries Ltd., India. With more than 40 yr of experience in the design and
troubleshooting of heat exchangers and high-pressure reactors, he has been active in
executing greenfield, revamp and modernization projects. Acharya holds a BS degree in
mechanical engineering and an MS degree in thermal engineering from the Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore.

NITISH PAL has more than 40 yr of experience in the design, detailing and troubleshooting
of various process equipment in refining, petrochemical, fertilizer and pharmaceutical
plants. His expertise includes executing lump-sum turnkey projects and project
management, and he is a specialist for double-wall storage tanks and air-cooled heat
exchangers. Pal is a graduate in chemical engineering from Jadavpur University, India, and his work
experience includes Richardson and Cruddas, India, Toyo Engineering India Ltd. and Reliance Industries
Ltd.
 KUNTAK DARU is a Pressure Vessel Engineer with Air Products and Chemicals Inc. He
works in the mechanical equipment division of Air Products, supporting engineering and
design activities of AP projects worldwide from the company’s Houston, Texas location.
Prior to working with Air Products, Daru was a Technical Director in mechanical engineering
at Fluor Corp. He has more than 30 yr of experience in the design, engineering and specification of static
equipment in the refining, oil and gas, petrochemical and chemical industries. Daru has been published
more than 15 times in his field and holds a BS degree in mechanical engineering from SVNIT in Surat,
India. Daru is a Registered Professional Engineer in the states of Texas and Louisiana, U.S. The author can
be reached at Darukm@airproducts.com or Kuntak.Daru@Gmail.com.

ANILKUMAR PANCHAL has more than 15 yr of experience as a Mechanical Design Engineer,

including hands-on work experience in pharmaceutical solid and semi-solid product plants,
butyl rubber, gasification, ethane cracker, chlorinated PVC and various revamp projects. He
holds a BS degree in mechanical engineering and an MS degree in industrial process
equipment design. Panchal is a certi ed Chartered Engineer and Professional Engineer in India, and has
work experience at L&T Heavy Engineering, Bechtel India Ltd., Jacobs Engineering, Reliance Industries Ltd.
and KIPIC, Kuwait. The author can be reached at anil0208@gmail.com.
 VOC reduction at Raffineria di Milazzo’s SRU
complex—Part 1
S. FALZONE, G. LICANDRO, F. LAGAN, M. TARANTINO, I. ARCES and R. GRILLO, Raffineria di
Milazzo, Messina, Italy; and P. CHIANTELLA and C. ALBANESE, Eni, Rome, Italy

Based on new environmental regulations focusing on volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at the emissions
point of a refinery’s sulfur recovery unit (SRU), Raffineria di Milazzo—a JV between Eni and Kuwait
Petroleum Italia—carried out troubleshooting activities to identify and implement suitable actions to
minimize the concentration of VOCs at the emissions point of the SRU complex.

Many definitions of VOCs exist in scientific literature and technical references. In this article, VOCs refer to
the sum of the contributions of methane and non-methane VOCs (C1 and C1+). The technological

arrangement of Raffineria di Milazzo’s SRU complex ensures high sulfur recovery performance.

This article shares a troubleshooting case study (analysis and related solutions) as a support reference
when facing similar environmental topics.

Ra neria di Milazzo’s SRU complex. Raffineria di Milazzo’s sulfur complex arrangement consists
of three SRUs. Each SRU includes a Claus section (with two catalytic stages), a tail gas treatment section
[utilizing the Shell Offgas Treating (SCOT) process or a derivatives technology] and a final conversion
section (incinerators). The incinerators’ tail gas outlets are combined into a common stack.

Theoretical analyses, combined with analytical activities on each SRU section, enabled re nery personnel
to identify the key factors of VOCs present in the complex. Part 1 of this article details troubleshooting
pathways for reducing VOCs. This includes identifying inlet streams that have a relevant impact on VOC
content at the emissions point. The removal of VOCs from these streams has reduced VOC content by an
order of magnitude.

Part 2 of this article (to be published in the April issue) will provide the steps taken to reach this order of
magnitude reduction in VOCs (the VOC target achieved from these troubleshooting techniques was < 5
mg/Nm3).

Products from oil and gas processing (such as naphtha, gasoil and LPG) must be desulfurized to minimize
sulfur oxide (SOx) emissions from internal combustion engines. Different re nery processes (including
sweeting and hydrotreating, among others) have been developed to achieve more restrictive limits on

residual sulfur in refined products. The extracted sulfur from refined products must be recovered as
elemental sulfur. This is possible through the Claus process (and the tail gas treatment processes
associated with it), where 99.9% of the sulfur is retrieved in liquid form, which is then used in the chemical
industry (e.g., sulfuric acid production and the vulcanization of tires) or farming (especially as fertilizer).

The sulfur recovery process. The Claus process consists of partially combusting the hydrogen
sulfide (H2S)-rich gas stream (with one-third of the stoichiometric quantity of air) and then reacting the

resulting sulfur dioxide (SO2) and unburnt H2S in the presence of an activated alumina catalyst to produce

elemental sulfur. As shown in FIG. 1, the Claus unit consists of a reaction furnace, followed by a series of
converters and condensers, where:

The partial combustion and a part of the sulfur formation (2H2S + 2O2  -->  SO2 + S + 2H2O) occurs
in the primary reactor.
The main Claus reaction for sulfur formation (2H2S + SO2  -->  3S + 2H2O) takes place in the
different catalytic converters.
Liquid elementary sulfur is collected from the various condensers in a common pit.

FIG. 1. Simplified process flow diagram of an SRU (Claus process).1

Side reaction effects also occur that produce carbonyl sulfide (COS) and carbon disulfide (CS2), which can

create problems in the operations of Claus plants, since they cannot be easily converted to elemental
sulfur and carbon dioxide (CO2).1 The high water content and temperatures involved should be adequate

to hydrolyze both COS and CS2; however, these slow reactions are generally quenched in a waste heat

exchanger before completion—higher temperatures and longer residence times aid the hydrolysis of these
species. In split-flow plants, maximizing the bypass fraction (toward the absolute maximum of two-thirds)
will provide improvements in both residence time and temperature. The same effect can be obtained with
the use of oxygen enrichment technologies (e.g., with the OxyClaus process) or by reducing the feedrate to
the plant. However, it is possible to provide the first Claus catalytic converter with a layer of catalyst
[based on titanium dioxide (TiO2)] to maximize the hydrolysis of COS and CS2, as shown in the following

reactions:
 COS + H2O  -->  CO2 + H2S

CS2 + 2H2O  -->  CO2 + 2H2S

Since these hydrolysis reactions only occur to a sufficient degree at temperature above 315°C (600°F) and
the only catalyst bed that can be operated at such a high temperature is the first, this is, therefore, the only
chance to hydrolyze the COS and CS2.2

The SRU is characterized by its sulfur recovery efficiency, which is calculated as the fraction of sulfur in
the feed that is recovered as a liquid sulfur stream and routed to the sulfur collection pits.

The sulfur recovery efficiency of an SRU closely depends on the number of Claus reactors that are
operated in series in the SRU chain, as shown in TABLE 1. As illustrated in this table, the sulfur recovery
efficiency can reach 98% through the Claus process. To reach a higher sulfur recovery efficiency
(theoretically to 99.99%), a tail gas treatment unit (TGTU) or cleanup procedure must be associated with
the Claus process. Many processes for TGTUs have been developed to enhance the recovery of sulfur
compounds from natural gas and/or refinery sources. According to the principles applied, the most
frequently operated TGTU processes can be broadly divided into the following four categories:

Direct oxidation to sulfur (such as through a PROClaus or SUPERCLAUS process)

Continuation of the Claus reaction (such as through cold bed adsorption or through Clauspol,
Sulfreen or Maxisulf processes)
Reduction to H2S and then recovery of sulfur from it [utilizing the SCOT process, high Claus ratio
(HCR), FLEXSORB technology, reduction-absorption-recycle (RAR), a bacterial sulfate reduction
(BSR) process, the LO-CAT sulfur recovery solution, or the Mobil Oil Direct Oxidation Process
(MODOP)]
Oxidation to SO2 and then recovery of sulfur from it (using the Wellman-Lord or LabSorb processes).

In this article, the authors will focus on the SCOT process and its derivative HCR process, since these are
the only two technologies associated with the Claus units at the Raffineria di Milazzo.

As shown in FIG. 2, the concepts underlying the H2S scrubbing processes in the SCOT unit are:

Hydrogenation and hydrolysis of all sulfur compounds to H2S by passing them through a cobalt-
molybdenum catalyst at 300°C (600°F) with the addition of a reducing gas
Absorption of H2S by an amine solution (either a generic amine or a specialty amine)
Regeneration of the amine solution and the recycling of H2S to the upfront Claus reaction furnace.
 FIG. 2. Simplified process flow diagram of a tail-gas SCOT unit.1

The clean tail gas (outlet of the amine adsorber) reaches an incinerator section (as illustrated in FIGS. 1
and 2) where the residual H2S is converted to SO2 before the emissions point. The incinerator section can

be catalytic or thermal. In other words, the catalytic incinerator consists of a heater [to heat the clean tail
gas to the proper reaction temperature of 280°C–350°C (536°F–662°F)] and a fixed-bed reactor where H2S

is selectively oxidated into SO2. In a thermal incinerator, the tail gas is heated to a very high temperature [>

720°C (> 1,328°F)] in oxidant conditions (proper air excess) to guarantee a complete conversion of the
residual H2S to SO2.

Sulfur recovery at Ra neria di Milazzo. Three different SRUs are dedicated to sulfur recovery at
Raffineria di Milazzo. Each unit comprises a Claus section, a TGTU section and a final conversion section
(FIG. 3). Every Claus section has two catalytic Claus reactors. The TGTU sections utilize the SCOT process
(SRU1 and SRU2) and HCR (SRU3). The final conversion section includes catalytic incinerators for SRU2
and SRU3, along with a thermal incinerator for SRU1. FIGS. 4, 5 and 6 show the process flow diagrams of
SRU1, SRU2 and SRU3, respectively.

FIG. 3. Block diagram of Raffineria di Milazzo’s SRU complex.

FIG. 4. Process flow diagram of SRU1.

FIG. 5. Process flow diagram of SRU2.

 FIG. 6. Process flow diagram of SRU3.

The main differences between the three SRUs are:

1. Claus thermal section: In SRU1 and SRU2, only the once-through arrangement can be adopted. In
SRU2 and SRU3, the oxygen enrichment arrangement can be employed, while the split-flow
configuration can be used in SRU3.
2. Catalytic Claus preheating: In SRU1, a partial bypass of the first condenser ensures a proper inlet
temperature in the first Claus reactor. A steam heat exchanger is employed to warm up the stream
at the inlet of the second Claus reactor. In SRU2, two furnaces preheat the process stream for the
first and second Claus reactors. In SRU3, two steam heat exchangers are used to heat the process
stream before entering the Claus reactor inlet.
3. Reduction reactor preheating: Both the SRU1 and SRU2 tail gas streams are heated in a furnace
before the inlet of the TGTU reduction reactor. In SRU3, the tail gas heating is performed with a
steam heat exchanger.
4. TGTU H2S adsorbing column: In both TGTU1 and TGTU2, the H2S absorbers are a trayed column
with a head gas-liquid separator. TGTU3’s H2S adsorber is a packed-bed column without a head gas-
liquid separator (a demister was installed prior to the outlet of cleaned gas).
5. Final conversion section: SRU2 and SRU3 both contain a catalytic incinerator. In SRU1, a thermal
incinerator has been installed.

TROUBLESHOOTING ACTIVITIES
According to European Commission (EC) Directive 1999/13/EC (Solvent Emissions Directive), VOCs are
functionally defined as organic compounds having, at 293.15 K (20°C), a vapor pressure of 0.01 kPa or
more, or having a corresponding volatility under conditions of use.

The aim of this work is to identify the sources of VOCs at Raffineria di Milazzo and to minimize their
concentrations in the SRU complex’s stack to adhere to new environmental constraints (i.e., 20
mgCeq/Nm3).

However, it is important to specify that the design of each SRU plant aims to maximize the sulfur recovery
yield (see the “Sulfur recovery process” section in this article). In the design of the SRU complex,
minimizing the concentration of VOCs at the outlets of the SRUs was not considered. For this reason, a
preliminary theoretical analysis to identify all possible sources of VOCs was carried out, followed by
several analytical activities.

Theoretical considerations. The first step was to identify all possible sources of VOCs in the
refinery’s SRU complex. Analysis considerations included:

1. The contamination of feedstock: Acid gas to the SRUs comes from the amine regeneration section
and sour water stripping (SWS) offgas. A physiological absorption (especially in amine treating
units) and stripping of light hydrocarbons are inevitable. In the thermal reactor, if the VOCs are not
completely oxidated, a breakthrough occurs in the downstream sections of the SRUs.
2. The contamination of the hydrogen stream in TGTUs: A hydrogen stream is fed to the inlet of the
reduction reactor at the TGTUs. This stream guarantees a proper concentration of hydrogen (3
mol%–5 mol%) inside the reactor for all operative conditions (e.g., standard operations, startup
phases, shutdown phases). In TGTU3, this stream is high-purity hydrogen (> 99.5 mol%) and comes
from the refinery’s hydrogen network [the outlet of pressure swing adsorption (PSA) units].
Conversely, in TGTU1 and TGTU2, the hydrogen stream comes from the catalytic reforming unit.
This stream has a variable hydrogen concentration of 58%–82%, with light hydrocarbons (mainly
C1–C3) as the remainder. Therefore, this stream can be considered as a contributor of VOCs at the
inlet of the SRU complex.
3. Online preheating furnaces at the Claus section: In SRU2, the two furnaces are used for preheating
the gas before it enters the Claus catalytic reactors. The fuel employed is refinery fuel gas. These
furnaces work at stoichiometric conditions (to avoid excess air to the catalytic Claus reactors), so
fuel composition fluctuations could result in incomplete fuel combustion and a slip of VOCs.
4. Online preheating furnaces in the TGTU section: As described in the “Sulfur recovery at Raffineria di
Milazzo” section of this article, in TGTU1 and TGTU2, a furnace is used to heat the tail gas before it
reaches the reduction reactor inlet. The fuel employed here is refinery fuel gas. These furnaces work
at sub-stoichiometric conditions to avoid oxygen breakthrough in the reduction reactor. It is
important to ensure that no VOC slip occurs at the furnaces’ burners.
5. Online preheating furnaces at the final conversion section: In the final conversion section, a
furnace is used to heat the tail gas to a proper temperature for the catalytic incinerators (in SRU2
and SRU3) or to direct oxidation in the thermal incinerator (SRU1). These furnaces work in excess
air conditions, so a VOC slip should be unlikely. However, a combustion check must be conducted.
6. TGTU amine adsorber section: In TGTUs, an amine absorbing column is used to reduce the H2S
concentration in the tail gas before the final conversion section. The amine circuit (absorbers and
regeneration section) can suffer hydrocarbon contamination. During absorbing phases,
hydrocarbons can be transferred in the amine solution. If they are not stripped during the
regeneration phases, they are released in the absorption column and exit as a gas. Another
phenomenon that can occur in the amine absorption column is amine solution carryover. If, in the
gas outlet section, there is not efficient gas-liquid separation, the amine is transported by the gas to
the incinerator, where it decomposes into ammonia and light hydrocarbons (VOCs).
7. VOC generation reactions: All reaction sections must be analyzed to eliminate the possible
generation of VOCs due to chemical reactions.

Analytical troubleshooting activities. The theoretical analysis conducted identified the primary
possible sources of VOCs, which had to be investigated through a field measurement. The following is a
brief description of the analytical setup used, along with the troubleshooting steps.

Description of the analytical setup for the detection of VOCs. UNI EN 12619:2013 was used to measure
the concentration of VOCs (as total organic carbon) in the streams of Raffineria di Milazzo’s SRU complex.
This method determines the mass concentration of total gaseous organic carbon through a flame
ionization detector (FID). The measuring principle of the FID is summarized in FIG. 7.
 FIG. 7. Diagram of an FID.4

The hydrogen flame burns out of a metal nozzle, which simultaneously represents the negative electrode
of an ionization chamber. The positive counter-electrode is fixed above the flame. Direct voltage is applied
between the two electrodes. The ion current is measured as a voltage drop above the resistor. The
measuring gas is added to the burning gas shortly before entering the burner nozzle. The air required for
combustion flows in through a ring slot around the burner nozzle.

For stable measuring conditions, it is essential that all gases—combustion gas, combustion air and
measuring gas—are conducted into the flame in a constant volume flow. For this, all gas flows are
conducted via capillaries. Constant pressure before the capillaries ensures a constant flow. Sensitive
pressure regulators for gas combustion and air are used to achieve this fine-tuning. The measuring gas is
pumped past the capillary in the bypass in a high-volume flow. Pressure is kept constant by the
backpressure regulator so that a constant partial flow reaches the flame via the capillary. To avoid
condensation of the hydrocarbons to be measured, all instruments must be heated to 150°C–200°C
(65.5°F–93°F). Heating includes the particle filter and the measuring gas pump. In most cases, particularly
with cold exhaust gases, a heated sampling line is also used for measuring gas sampling to the measuring
instrument.

Hydrocarbon compounds are oxidized in the flame, with ions being formed as an intermediate product. In
a certain range of the accelerating voltage, the strength of the ionization current is in first approximation
directly proportional to the amount of carbon atoms of the burned substance. Therefore, an FID basically
responds to all hydrocarbons and measures their total sum. Corresponding to the number of carbon
atoms, larger molecules with many carbon atoms produce a higher signal than smaller molecules with a
small number of carbon atoms. Ionization energy does not only stem from the flame’s energy, but primarily
from the oxidation energy of the carbon. Accordingly, partially oxidized hydrocarbons provide a weak
detector signal, and completely oxidized hydrocarbons provide no signal at all (e.g., CO and CO2 are not

detected).5

The FID analyzer employed for this work was equipped with an oxidation catalyst to oxidate all
hydrocarbon species, excluding methane. In this way, it was possible to switch the gas sample to the
catalyst to also include a methane concentration measurement. It is worth noting that the H2S

concentration was not negligible in many of the analyzed streams. In these cases, an additional caustic
solution neutralization step was necessary to avoid possible instrumentation damage.

Analytical troubleshooting: Starting point. During troubleshooting, several VOC concentration

measurements were carried out through the analytical setup described above. First, a VOC concentration
was measured at the outlet of the SRUs and the stack to determine if some differences could be detected.
Second, the refinery’s SRU complex was divided into clusters, and the VOC concentrations were measured
at the inlet and outlet of the clusters to identify the possible VOC sources. For each source identified, a
proper action was implemented to minimize or eliminate the source.

FIG. 8. Concentration of VOCs at the outlet of the SRUs and the stack at the starting point.

FIG. 8 reports VOC concentration as mgCeq/Nm3 at the outlet of each final conversion section and at the
stack before starting troubleshooting activities. The measurement of the concentration of VOCs was
corrected to the reference condition of 3% O2, according to UNI EN 12619:2013. TABLE 2 summarizes the

configuration of the refinery’s SRU complex at this starting point.

Some considerations can be deducted from this starting point. These included the following:

The highest value of VOC concentration is at the outlet of SRU2: This was expected because,
theoretically, SRU2 had the largest number of possible VOC sources (see the “Theoretical
considerations” section).
The lowest value of VOC concentration is at the outlet of SRU1: The presence of a thermal
incinerator should ensure the removal of many VOCs. However, a relevant concentration of VOCs
was measured, so contamination sources had to be checked (see the “Theoretical considerations”
section of this article).
Although theoretically possible, VOC sources are lowest in SRU3: A relevant concentration value
was found at the outlet stream of the final conversion section.

Ultimately, the VOC concentration in any outlet stream of the SRUs does not reach the expected target of <
20 mgCeq/Nm3, and the VOC concentration at the stack is well above it.

Analytical troubleshooting Step 1: Contamination of the hydrogen stream in the TGTUs. In the
“Theoretical considerations” section, the contamination due to the hydrogen stream feed at the inlet of the
reduction reactor was highlighted. For TGTU1 and TGTU2, the hydrogen stream comes from the catalytic
reforming unit. The composition of this stream varies with the catalyst’s lifecycle (TABLE 3). In particular,
the hydrogen concentration decreases during the catalyst’s lifecycle, while the hydrocarbon concentration
increases. Consequently, the hydrogen stream to TGTU1 and TGTU2 must increase during the reforming
catalyst’s lifecycle to ensure a constant hydrogen concentration at the reduction reactor. The hydrogen
stream is a definite source of VOCs, but it also increases with the reforming catalyst’s lifecycle.
Considering the catalytic reforming hydrogen composition at the starting point and its rate to TGTU2 (15
kg/hr–20 kg/hr), it is easy to calculate the theoretical hydrocarbon contamination at SRU2 due to this
source: 12 kg/hr–16 kg/hr. Neither the reduction TGTU2 reactor nor the catalytic incinerator can guarantee
hydrocarbon oxidation. Therefore, most of the hydrocarbons entering with the hydrogen reduction stream
will reach the outlet of SRU2. Considering that the SRU2 outlet volumetric rate at the starting point was
10,000 Nm3/hr, it is easy to estimate the expected VOC concentration at the SRU2 outlet (Eq. 1):

XVOCs,SRU2 = (12/10,000) × 106 (mg/Nm3) ≈ 1,200 (mg/Nm3)          (1)

The order of magnitude obtained from the estimation through Eq. 1 is the same as the value measured
with the FID (FIG. 8). Consequently, a new system to feed a high-purity hydrogen stream (99.5% mol) was
built in place of the catalytic reforming hydrogen stream for SRU1 and SRU2. In this way, the refinery’s
SRUs employ a high-purity hydrogen reduction stream for the TGTUs. FIG. 9 shows the VOC concentration
after Step 1 was completed. This included:

A reduction in VOC concentration by an order of two magnitude at the SRU2 outlet stream. From the
theoretical consideration and calculation, the catalytic reforming hydrogen stream was identified as
the “main cause” for the VOC contamination in this unit.
Through these analytical results, the other possible sources for SRU2 have been excluded.
Regarding the first bullet point in the “theoretical considerations” section of this article, some
measurements were carried out at the Claus section, and no VOCs were detected at the outlet of the
thermal reactor—this is in accordance with literature.2 In addition, the burning of the furnaces (refer
to bullet points 3–5 in the “Theoretical considerations” section) has been verified, and no
hydrocarbon slip was found.
A reduction in the VOC concentration by an order of one magnitude at the SRU1 outlet stream. Also,
in this unit, the primary contributor of VOCs at the outlet stream was the catalytic reforming
hydrogen stream. As previously mentioned, the SRU1 final conversion unit comprises a thermal
incinerator where high temperatures [720°C–750°C (1,328°F–1,382°F)] are reached and oxidant
conditions (3% O2–9% O2) are present. A thermal incinerator produces a non-selective oxidation, so
it oxidates all the compounds that can take part in these reactions. However, the design of the
thermal incinerator was carried out to oxidate the H2S slip from TGTU1 and not for the elimination
of VOCs. Therefore, the complete elimination of VOCs did not occur. It was necessary to replace the
catalytic reforming hydrogen stream with a pure hydrogen stream in TGTU1 to reach an acceptable
reduction of VOCs in the unit’s outlet stream.
A reduction of one order of magnitude of the VOC concentration at the stack was achieved. However, it did
not represent an acceptable value (the target was < 20 mgCeq/Nm3). For this reason, further investigation

into SRU3 was necessary. Although this unit has the lowest number of theoretical VOC sources, its outlet
stream had the highest VOC concentration.

Takeaways. Troubleshooting was performed to reduce VOCs at Raffineria di Milazzo’s SRU complex’s
stack. A theoretical analysis to identify VOC sources in each SRU was conducted, and a series of
measurements at different SRU streams was carried out to detect the most relevant ones. This analysis
was carried out through a proper analytical setup based on FID.

Initially, the stack’s VOC concentration was 480 mgCeq/Nm3, with different contributions by each SRU. The

highest VOC concentration was detected at the SRU2 outlet stream (1,100 mgCeq/Nm3)—a hydrogen

stream from the catalytic reforming unit was fed to TGTU1’s and TGTU2’s reduction reactors. A relevant
VOC rate entered the system due to the low hydrogen purity of this stream (58 mol%–82 mol%). The
existing stream was replaced with a high-purity hydrogen stream (> 99.5 mol%), which led to a reduction in
VOC concentration by an order of magnitude of one at the outlet streams of SRU1 and SRU2 (< 5
mgCeq/Nm3 and < 10 mgCeq/Nm3, respectively), and, in turn, at the stack (40 mgCeq/Nm3).

Part 2 of this article will appear in the April issue of Hydrocarbon Processing. HP

LITERATURE CITED

1. Barthe, P., M. Chaugny, S. Roudier and L. D. Sancho, “Best available techniques (BAT) reference document for the
refining of mineral oil and gas,” European Commission, 2015, online:
https://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2019-11/REF_BREF_2015.pdf
2. Sames, J. A. and H. Paskall, Sulphur Recovery, Sulphur Experts, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, January 2003.
3. CONCAWE, “Refining BREF review—air emissions,” Brussels, Belgium, March 2009, online:
https://www.concawe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/rpt_09-4-2009-03262-01-e.pdf
4. Kaiser, R., Chromatographie der Gasphase, Bibliographisches Institut, Gotha, Germany, 1966
5. Ionel, I. and F. Popescu, Methods for Online Monitoring of Air Pollution Concentration, London, England, August 2010.
SALVATORE FALZONE is a Process Engineer at Raf neria di Milazzo.

GIANFRANCESCO LICANDRO is the Operations Manager at Raf neria di Milazzo.

FORTUNATO LAGAN is the Technical Director at Raf neria di Milazzo.

MARCELLO TARANTINO is the General Director at Raf neria di Milazzo

IGNAZIO ARCES is a Chief Executive Of cer and a Member of the Board at Raf neria di Milazzo.

ROBERTO GRILLIO is a Chief Executive Of cer and a Member of the Board at Raf neria di Milazzo.

PAOLO CHIANTELLA is the Operations Performance and Deputy Managing Director at Eni.

CLAUDIO ALBANESE is the Head of Industrial Technology and Licensing Management at Eni.
 Design, operation and troubleshooting of
sulfur-handling plants: Challenges and
practices
C. BAHUBALI, Wood India Engineering & Projects Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, India

The transportation of large quantities of liquid sulfur is costly and often impractical since it requires a
continuous supply of heat energy to maintain its liquid form. One of the most commonly accepted
industrial solutions is transporting the sulfur in solid form. This article highlights the challenges and best
practices of handling liquid and solid sulfur.

CHALLENGES WITH LIQUID SULFUR

More than 10 allotropes of sulfur have been established;1 however, only two or three allotropes are
considered by the industry for plant design purposes.

The stable form of sulfur is orthorhombic (α-sulfur). At 95.3°C, α-sulfur converts into monoclinic (β-sulfur),
which melts at 119.6°C and undergoes polymerization at 160°C,1 resulting in a steep increase in its
viscosity up to 93155cP.2

The optimum temperature for the transportation and handling of liquid sulfur is between 125°C and 155°C.
This is achieved by carefully maintaining jacketing steam/heat tracing/heating coil operating conditions.
Increases in the jacketing saturated steam pressure or temperature will increase the liquid sulfur
temperature; conversely, the low steam temperature will cause a delay in startup and the solidification of
the sulfur. FIG. 1 illustrates the critical physical properties of sulfur.
 FIG. 1. Graphical representation of sulfur properties.

Good engineering practices. Sulfur solidification occurs on the tank roof; therefore, sulfur acts as an
insulator and contributes to further cooling of the surfaces. As the temperature continues to fall, traces of
condensed water formed by the oxidation of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) will react with the solid sulfur and iron

in the tank walls, creating the ideal environment for the formation of iron oxide (Fe2O3) and iron sulfide

(FeS) that further accelerate corrosion. Therefore, temperature maintenance in the roof, shell and bulk is
extremely important for trouble-free operation.

Additionally, the requirement for protective coating on the inner surface can be reviewed. In molten sulfur
storage tanks, the roof and shell temperature should be > 125°C to prevent sulfur solidification, corrosion
and pyrophoric FeS formation. The temperature gradient between the wall and the center of the tank (bulk
liquid) may vary with respect to tank diameter. Careful computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis shall
be carried out as part of any design by the vendor.

TABLE 1 illustrates the critical points of good engineering practices of the sulfur handling industry.
Jacketing or heat load estimation. The proper supply of heat to sulfur piping and tanks is critical
for successful plant operation and product quality.

Sulfur piping heat loads must be estimated for cold startup conditions since normal consumption will be
less. During design, the remelt heat duty must be checked to minimize plant downtime.

The self-draining (ensuring the draining of liquid sulfur during shutdown or emergency shutdown and
maintenance without external force, e.g., such as sloped piping) facility of the plant will reduce the remelt
heat load requirement. The complete sulfur melting process would require approximately 145 kJ/kg.
Typically, the cold startup heat load will be the governing load and Eqs. 1 and 2 can be used for an initial
estimation of the low-pressure steam requirement. An additional margin should be considered for flanges,
spacers and pipe mountings.

Governing load (cold startup) = Heating the inner and outer pipes + radiation loss to atmosphere

Cold startup warming-up load (Cw) = [(Wi + Wo) × (T1 – T2) × Cpipe ] × L [H × t ]           (1)

where,
Wi = Weight of inner pipe, kg/m

Wo = Weight of outer pipe, kg/m

T1 = Steam temperature, °C

T2 = Average pipe temperature, °C

Cpipe = 0.114 kcal/kg

H = Latent heat of steam at final temperature, kcal/kg

t = Time of warming up of pipeline, hr
L = Total length, m

Radiation loss to atmosphere (CR) = [A × U × (T1 – T2) × E] / H × L          (2)

Governing load (kg/hr) = Cw + CR

where,
CR = Steam/condensate load, kg/hr.m

A = External area of pipe, m2

U = 14.6 kcal/m2°C
T1 = Steam temperature, °C
T2 = Lowest air temperature,

E = Insulation ef ciency [i.e., 75% = (0.75)]

H = Latent heat of steam, kcal/kg
L = total length, m
For liquid sulfur storage tank roof heating, the shell heating and coil load must be estimated properly to
maintain the optimum liquid sulfur temperature. The supplied heat should compensate the heat loss from
the roof, shell, ground and vapor. The CFD model of the liquid sulfur tank must be checked for detailed
heat loss estimation:

Heat load for liquid sulfur tank = sum of heat loss (dry shell + wetted wall + ground + heat loss to
vapor + roof)

It should be noted that the steam consumption during normal operation will be radiation loss; however,
steam will be consumed until the liquid sulfur reaches thermal equilibrium temperature with steam.
Therefore, the steam consumption during normal operation will be the sum of radiation loss and heat load
to achieve thermal equilibrium with liquid sulfur.

Jacketing steam pressure and temperature. The flashpoint of liquid sulfur can vary from 168°C–
188°C, depending on the purity of the sulfur. Impurities such as hydrocarbons present in the sulfur will
reduce the flashpoint. Pure sulfur will have a lower flashpoint of 188°C. Using the jacketed steam/heat
tracing system above this flashpoint will add additional risk. Optimum steam pressure should be made
available at the farthest user point since steam temperature depends on steam pressure.

During plant operation, it is often misunderstood that sulfur flow also ensures jacketing steam flow, as
well. However, this may be an incorrect interpretation—during normal operation, jacketing steam is not
required for liquid sulfur to flow, as insulation will conserve the energy in the jacketed pipe. Therefore,
frequent inspection of steam trap performance is always recommended, and it should be ensured that the
traps remove condensate and entrained air. Calculating the steam pressure loss in the jackets and jump-
over lines is more complex; rather than hydraulics-based pressure settings, a conservative approach will
help in better design.

The dryness of the steam should be maintained. Steam traps play a critical role in heating economics and
safety: steam traps to remove condensates should be standard for better heat transfer. Condensate
carryover into the molten sulfur tank will result in over-pressurization during snuffing or sealing operations.
Therefore, it is recommended to have steam with a little higher superheat than saturated temperature.
Transient analysis. When a valve is closed suddenly at the end of the pipeline and a pressure wave
propagates in the pipeline due to the momentum change, a phenomenon of hydraulic shock—often called
surge or hammering—occurs. This can result in noise, vibration and pipeline rupture. In general, the
hammer effect decreases with an increase of volume (i.e., with longer pipeline) and slightly decreases with
travel time, and is dependent on fluid compressibility. Higher compressibility will result in lower oscillation
amplitude.

To avoid surge pressure, the valve closure time for a fail close (FC) valve or emergency shutdown (ESD)
valves should be higher than the time taken by a transient pressure wave to travel back and forth along the
pipeline. Pressure wave travel time can be estimated by the formula given in Eq. 3:

t = 2L × C          (3)

where,
t = Wave travel time, sec
C = Speed of sound in liquid sulfur (1,300 m/sec at 119°C–1,390 m/sec at 155°C)
L = Length of the pipeline, m

When the pump trips or the upstream valve is closed, the fluid downstream will attempt to continue
flowing; this ultimately creates a vacuum and leads to pipe implosion and collapse. In such a scenario, the
pipeline/piping should be designed for full vacuum condition rather than providing air valves that may
result in sulfur solidification.

Subject to owner approval, ASME B31.3 allows a maximum surge pressure value of 33% above (no more
than 10 hr at any one time and no more than 100 hr/yr) the maximum allowable operating pressure.4
ASME B31.4 criteria for transient overpressure allows a maximum surge pressure of 10% above the
internal design pressure.5 This credit can be utilized during design and operation.

Relief design. Normally, relief valves are not used to protect the liquid sulfur system equipment; it is
preferred to use rupture discs. The relief system should be routed to a remelt pit or vessel, and the entire
relief system should be heat traced. A pool fire scenario is not considered, since solidification will occur
upon the release or leak of liquid sulfur to the atmosphere—normally, a liquid sulfur system will be
operated well below its flashpoint. A remelt pit or vessel should be sized for the maximum liquid sulfur
drain load (shutdown case or ESD case)/relief load (from rupture disc).

Handling the sulfur plug. During the process of solidification of liquid sulfur, monoclinic allotrope will
be changed to orthorhombic form, which will cause shrinkage in the solid form and form voids that are
subsequently lled with more liquid sulfur.
When sulfur is remelted, it requires more space to expand since liquid occupies more space than the same
mass of solid. If the solid sulfur is in a con ned space, then serious overpressure can cause pipe rupture/
leak. This is normally encountered in the plant during startup or a startup after an ESD. It is important to
ensure that all ESD valves and isolation valves are kept open before remelt operation begins.

It is noteworthy to mention here that heating in the middle of the plug should be avoided. Solid sulfur in
direct contact with a heat source will melt immediately and will not readily transfer the heat to the mass
since the thermal conductivity is very low. It is always better to avoid solidi cation by properly maintaining
the temperature of the jacketing steam/heat tracing system and ensuring complete drainage during
shutdown. For a steam jacketing steam system, plant operations should:

Maintain the optimum jacketing steam

Ensure steam traps are functional
Check for any air blind/steam lock issues with the steam trap
Ensure the condensate system/vessel is operating at optimum condition.

Fire and explosion hazard. Sulfur fires are uncommon in plant operations (TABLE 2). Degassed
sulfur will reduce the fire hazard potential. Proper sizing of the rim and center vents will ensure the
disposal of stripped H2S and will reduce H2S accumulation in the tank, thereby decreasing the risk of fire

and explosion. All of these vents should be heat traced to avoid any blockage.

Air inbreathing due to pump-out condition may expose pyrophoric scales to oxidizing atmosphere, which
may cause fire. TABLE 3 shows the fire risk potential of sulfur-handling plants.
The heat of combustion of sulfur is approximately 300 kJ/mol and the flame temperature will be > 1,000°C
with an explosion pressure of 7 bar, which will damage the integrity of structures, equipment and piping.
Additionally, the rate of increase in pressure is faster than the flame propagation speed.

A sulfur dust explosion begins with blast pressure, and the flame appears 0.1 sec–0.2 sec later.6 Under
normal temperature and pressure, the initial rate of flame propagation is 2 m/sec–3 m/sec. Due to burning
inflation, the pressure rises rapidly, which accelerates the flame front propagation speed up to 300 m/sec.
Furthermore, the secondary explosion happens during the sulfur dust explosion. Sulfur fire will generate a
large quantity of SO2, which is lethal.

Aspects to be considered in a firefighting system design are summarized in TABLE 3.

Static electricity hazard. As one of the best electric insulating liquids known (its conductivity at
115°C is 100 pico-Siemens/m) and with a high dielectric constant, sulfur can easily generate enough static
electricity to cause a spark ignition.7

Due to the poor conductivity of molten sulfur, static electricity will build up where free fall is allowed. An
extension of the inlet feed lines to the tank/vessel bottom must be considered to minimize free fall and
agitation. Wherever possible, the system should be designed for bottom filling rather than top filling (flash
filling).

The linear velocity in the pipe entering the tank should be kept below 1 m/sec or pipe ID in meters,
whichever is less, until the pipe inlet (slow start) is submerged to minimize static generation. It is believed
that a higher sweep air velocity (> 1 m/sec) at the surface of liquid sulfur will also generate static
electricity. Proper computational uid dynamic (CFD) analysis should be carried out during the design
phase.
As per NFPA 655,8 to avoid static electricity hazards, all sulfur lines, vessels and tanks shall be bonded and
grounded with resistance of less than 1.0 × 106 ohms to ground. Static resistant coatings and dust control
measures should also be considered as design tools. Providing static eliminators, static collectors, static
neutralizers (needle, tubes, brushes, strings, etc.) for conveyors, belts and optimum velocity should be
maintained.

Humidi cation limits static generation and affects product quality, as well. Spark promotors, such as the
accumulation of H2S on the vapor space, should be avoided by venting/diluting with inserts. Conveyor

belts should be inspected for slipping or jamming to reduce the chance of the generation of static
electricity and ensure proper lubrication, which helps the dissipation of static electricity but sometimes
results in pitting on bearing surfaces. Periodic inspection on conveyors improves the safety and availability
of the plant.

Presence o f H2S.The presence of sulfur dust in a H2S environment, such as tanks/ pit/vessels, along
with an air sweep/breath system will increase the risk of re and explosion.

Pyrophoric re hazard. Pyrophoric iron sulfide can form from the impurities of the molten sulfur
being stored.

Precaution should be exercised during maintenance/opening to the atmosphere. An incorrect temperature

of the tank roof or shell will cause a wet condition inside the tank/vessel, resulting in the formation of
more pyrophoric deposits and scales. Using a higher grade material (e.g., stainless steel) for an uncovered
liquid sulfur area will reduce the possibility of formation of pyrophoric scales; this does incur additional
cost.

Preventing an oxidizing atmosphere (nitrogen/inert blanketing) also reduces the pyrophoric fire risk. A
Low-Low level setting of the pit of a tank should be above the heating coil to prevent exposing the heating
coil to air, which will result in fire from pyrophoric iron sulfide.

Sulfur dust. The flammability range of sulfur dust is 30 g/m3–1,400 g/m3.9 The ignition temperatures
for a sulfur dust cloud and dust layer are 190°C and 220°C, respectively. A sulfur dust cloud has a low
minimum ignition energy of 15 mJ, which increases the dust explosion potential. The proper design and
installation of a dust suppression system, dust collectors and wet scrubbers, as well as practicing good
housekeeping procedures, will minimize the dust explosion potential.
Proper earthing and bonding of the conveying system and silos will reduce static electricity hazards.
Better design of the dust control and removal system and good housekeeping practices will limit the
extent of the classified area. It is always better to conduct dust dispersion analysis to identify the potential
equipment, buildings and structures that will accumulate the dispersed dusts.

Monitoring air quality on a continuous basis can provide better input for safe operation. The process of
identifying high attrition points and reviewing alternate methods to suppress dust generation should be
carried out as part of any design review. The identification of the sulfur dust deflagration hazard area
should be as per U.S. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 655.8

Detection. Sulfur fire can be detected visually by its yellow plume. Temperature transmitters placed in
the vapor space will alert the operator of the rate of temperature rise.

A 2°F/min–5°F/min rise is an indication of fire inside a confined space like a pit and tanks. Then, sealing
steam can be opened to prevent air ingress and further acceleration of the fire.

A temperature indicator shall be placed in the vapor space; an immersed temperature indicator will not
provide the surface temperature or vapor temperature. SO2 detectors placed inside the confined place can

indicate a sulfur fire, as SO2 is produced as a product of sulfur fire. Upon the detection of SO2, air flow

(sweep air) can be stopped to extinguish the fire inside the tank or pit.

Early warning signals. H2S detectors placed in the confined space will alert operations about any risk
of fire [an alarm set at 25% of LEL (i.e., 0.75 vol% at operating temperature)]. Sweep air flow monitors (flow
transmitters) will provide an early warning signal about the fire since low flow may be due to plugging or
positive pressure (due to fire) inside the tank or pit. It is wise to carefully monitor the sweep air flow, vapor
space temperature, SO2 detectors and H2S detectors to safeguard the assets from sulfur fire. Note: the

sealing steam or snuffing steam temperature should not exceed the flashpoint of the sulfur.

Hazardous area classification. Sulfur dust area classification should be carried out as per NFPA
655.8 All sources of release must be considered, including the duration of release during startup, normal
operation, shutdown, maintenance, regeneration and other operating scenarios.

Three basic grades of release are classified in TABLE 4. Continuous grade is defined as a release that is
continuous or expected to occur for long periods. Primary grade is defined as a release that can be
expected to occur periodically or occasionally during normal operation. Secondary grade is defined as a
release that is not expected to occur during normal operation and, if it does, is likely to do so only
infrequently and for short periods.
The relationship between the frequency or probability of leak and the classification of zone/division are
provided in TABLES 4–6.10,11,7

TABLE 5, which is based on rule of thumb on horizontal surfaces, can be used in hazardous area
classification. NFPA 655,8 Table A.4.4.2 offers guidance for area electrical classification, which is
summarized in TABLE 6.

The temperature class of the electrical components and instruments for the sulfur dust area should be
carefully analyzed. The auto ignition temperature (AIT) of sulfur dust is 220°C. As per International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 61241/60079, the maximum permitted surface temperature must be
reduced with respect to dust layer thickness. The maximum permissible surface temperature is
determined using the Eqs. 1 and 2; the lowest value of these equations should be used for engineering.

Tmax = 2/3(TAIT) = 146°C

Tmax = TAIT − 75 K = 145°C (5-mm thick sulfur dust layer)

During temperature rating, it should be noted that sulfur will become liquid above its melting point of
120°C. Therefore, the maximum surface temperature requirement for sulfur dust layers is not applicable.
However, the applicability of the temperature rating for sulfur dust prescribed by IEC 61241/60079, which
holds true for combustible dust, should be reviewed in detail.

Housekeeping. Housekeeping requirements are highlighted in NFPA 655. For safe solids-handling
plants, housekeeping plays a critical role in the prevention of dust explosion. Dust accumulation in remote
areas, on top of structures and in inaccessible areas must be removed periodically by suitable methods.
Scheduled and unscheduled housekeeping tools, intervals and threshold accumulation are outlined in
NFPA 6558 and NFPA 49911.

Waste management. A remelt pit should be designed to handle the dust collected through the dust
collection system, any spillages, off-spec product, etc., and recycle it back to the liquid sulfur system. Dust
scrubbers/wet scrubbers can be used to limit dust emissions to atmosphere during the liquid sulfur
granulation process. The industry-accepted sulfur dust emissions concentration is < 40 mg/m3.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and digital twins. As industry is transforming from automation to an
autonomous regime, AI-powered digital twins enable and improve the availability of the asset, optimize
process parameters and reduce downtime. However, the issue of data sovereignty maintains prime
strategic importance. With data being produced from simulations, design data, plant operations, vendor
data and a plethora of other sources, finding the right balance between internal control and external
access must be carefully defined. Interaction between digital twins in upstream units (sulfur recovery
units, sulfur storage units), utility units (DM water, cooling water, instrument air, etc.) and downstream
units (granulated sulfur storage, railcar loading units, ship loading units, etc.) must be carefully evaluated
and control/access defined and restricted.

AI enables operators to maximize the utilization of plant assets and develop better preventive
maintenance strategies to minimize plant downtime and improve plant availability. All day-to-day activities,
such as equipment monitoring, process variable monitoring, emissions control, personnel management,
maintenance plan development, spare management, product/raw material storage and movement, job
 safety analysis, work permit issuance, real-time data analysis, trend analysis, etc., can be carried out with
or without minimal human intervention.

Takeaway. The safe, efficient and economical transportation of liquid/molten sulfur presents unique
challenges that can be addressed by adopting good engineering practices, carrying out meticulous design
and engineering in line with guidance available in NFPA 655 and NFPA 499, and applying principles of IEC
61241/60079. HP

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author acknowledges the encouragement, support and guidance of Ramalingam Muralitharan, Senior
Manager – Process, Wood India Engineering & Projects Pvt. Ltd.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Meyer, B., “Elemental Sulfur,” Chemical Reviews, Vol. 76, No. 3, June 1976.
2. Kaye, G. W. C. and W. F. Higgins, “The thermal conductivity of solid and liquid sulphur,” Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London, Series A, Vol. 122, Iss. 790, 1929.
3. Gaines, H. and P. C. Wielatz, “Solving problems with bolt-on jackets,” Sulfur, No. 258, September–October 1998.
4. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B31.3, “Process piping,” 2020 Ed.
5. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B31.4, “Pipeline transportation system for liquids and
slurries,” 2016 Ed.
6. Yu, Y. and J. Fan, “Research on explosion characteristics of sulfur dust and risk control of the explosion,” Procedia
Engineering, Vol. 84, 2014.
7. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 77, “Recommended practice on static electricity,” 2019 Ed.
8. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 655, “Standard for prevention of sulfur fires and explosions,” 2017 Ed.
9. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 68, “Standard on explosion protection by deflagration venting,” 2018 Ed.
10. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 70, “National electrical code,” 2020 Ed.
11. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 499, “Recommended practice for the classification of combustible dusts
and of hazardous (classified) locations for electrical installations in chemical process areas,” 2021 Ed.

CHANDRAGUPTHAN BAHUBALI is a Chief Process Engineer at Wood India Engineering &

Projects Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, India (previously Amec Foster Wheeler India Pvt. Ltd.), and has
20 yr of post-graduate experience in oil and gas projects. He has also executed numerous
technically challenging complex projects for global energy giants. Bahubali holds an MS
degree in refining and petrochemical engineering from the University of Petroleum & Energy Studies and a
BS degree in chemical engineering from Madras University, India. He has successfully completed many
AIChE certificate courses in process safety, as well as many international certification courses and
training from Harvard and the London Business School. Bahubali has authored numerous papers on flow
assurance, gas hydrates, xed-bed reactors, retro t engineering and economics. The author can be
reached at c.bahubali@woodplc.com and b.chandragupthan@gmail.com.
 Control valves for carbon sequestration
applications
J. DEMONTE and S. GRILLS, Emerson, Marshalltown, Iowa

Greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction projects have become a focus for many nations around the world—
carbon capture technologies are a way to reduce the release of carbon into the atmosphere and help
contribute to meeting emissions targets. For example, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently
announced $3.7 B in funding to back projects that remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. This

program now opens the door to the use of taxpayer dollars to fund carbon capture projects that produce
fossil fuels through a process known as enhanced oil recovery (EOR).

One technique offering promise is geological carbon capture and storage (CCS), which captures CO2 from

a variety of sources and sequesters it deep underground. While conceptually easy to understand, the
logistics of handling CO2 for these applications is not so straightforward.

A changing environment. CO2 buildup in the atmosphere has been increasing rapidly, creating
dramatic changes in the Earth’s climate, including temperature extremes, glacial melt and weather events
(FIG. 1). Most of this CO2 (about 87%) comes from fossil fuels combustion, with the remaining produced

by industrial processes and land use changes.

 FIG. 1. Atmospheric CO2 has risen 47% since the industrial age and 11% since the year 2000. Source: Climate.gov.

Initial GHG reduction efforts have focused on methane, which is 22 times more potent than CO2. However,

as those efforts have progressed, the world has begun tackling the challenge of reducing CO2 emissions.

A host of carbon reduction technologies are being pursued, with many focusing on electri cation and
energy ef ciency to reduce fossil fuels consumption. Another promising method for immediate and
meaningful atmospheric CO2 reduction is carbon sequestration.

The carbon sequestration process. Carbon sequestration is a technique to capture CO2 and safely
store it in a location where it remains out of the atmosphere. Some carbon sequestration methods seek to
sequester CO2 using biological methods by encouraging plant and tree growth and by avoiding carbon

releases due to re or poor farm management. These efforts have had some success, but the potential
volume of CO2 elimination is rather limited.

Much more promising is geologic carbon sequestration, which seeks to capture and store CO2 in

underground porous rock formations. The worldwide potential for storage is enormous, with an estimated
3,000 gigatons of potential storage capacity in the U.S. alone. This injected CO2 can also be used as part

of EOR methods (FIG. 2), which use the CO2 to reduce the viscosity of hydrocarbons and drive them

towards existing wellheads.

 FIG. 2. CO2 can be captured from industrial processes and injected into the ground to enhance oil recovery in aging
elds. Source: USGS.gov.

The geologic carbon sequestration process is composed of three major tasks: CO2 capture, CO2

compression and CO2 injection. Energy ef ciency is a primary goal for any carbon sequestration project
since every watt of power used generates more CO2. Therefore, each of these processes must be

controlled tightly and ef ciently to minimize energy loss.

Carbon capture. Carbon sequestration starts with carbon capture, where CO2 is separated and
recovered. Historically, industrial CO2 separation has been performed using amine solvents to absorb CO2

from the gas stream, with heat and pressure reduction then used to separate the gas from the solvent.
This method remains the most common means of CO2 separation; however, other technologies such as

membrane, adsorption and a host of new experimental technologies are being pursued. Some of the
newer technologies are using electrolysis to ef ciently pull CO2 out of the air.

Amine separation remains the most widely used method for carbon capture, and control valves used in

these applications face signi cant challenges. These valves are subjected to high pressure drops and
outgassing conditions as the entrained CO2 separates from the amine solution while passing through the

valves (FIG. 3).

 FIG. 3. Angle body style valvesa with severe service trim have inherent
advantages for the outgassing applications found in CO2 separation
processes.

The amine solution used in this process tends to be corrosive, so valve internals must employ hardened
trim materials, as well as some type of severe service trim to minimize damage and lengthen maintenance
cycles. An environmental seal packing is required, and a diagnostic positioner is a wise addition to detect
and alarm, as the valve eventually develops the unavoidable trim damage that occurs in this very dif cult
service.

There is no international control valve sizing standard for outgassing applications; therefore, it is
important to partner with an experienced vendor to properly size and select these valves to avoid issues.

CO2 compression. Low-pressure CO2 is the usual product of the CO2 separation process, and it must
be compressed for ef cient transmission to injection sites. Centrifugal compressors are typically used to
boost low gas pressures to medium pressures, which then feed larger multi-stage compressors better
suited to pressurize the gas to a supercritical state for pipeline transport.
Centrifugal compressors are prone to a catastrophic condition known as “surge” at low flowrates. If flow is
not restored through the compressor immediately, the internals of the compressor can be destroyed in a
matter of seconds. To prevent this condition from occurring, anti-surge valves (FIG. 4) are installed
between the discharge and suction of the compressor, and they open very quickly to establish forward
flow the moment compressor surge is detected.

FIG. 4. An anti-surge control

valveb is a critical component of an
anti-surge control system. These
valves are large and must respond
extremely quickly to arrest surge
conditions.

These valves are typically very large and have specialized actuators and positioner components to provide
extremely fast and accurate response. The trims are specially designed to handle the very high pressure
drop and high ow conditions common in this service.

Large multi-stage centrifugal compressors increase the CO2 pressure above 1,200 psi (83 bar) to a

maximum of 2,800 psi (193 bar). At these pressures, CO2 becomes a compressible supercritical uid, with

a density like a liquid but viscosities similar to a gas (FIG. 5). These conditions allow for very ef cient
transport in pipelines but pose several challenges for control valve selection.
 FIG. 5. Above the critical point of 1,070 psi (74 bar) and 31°C (87°F), CO2 is no longer a liquid or a gas, but instead
becomes a compressible dense phase or supercritical fluid with the properties of both a liquid and a gas.

Supercritical or dense-phase CO2 does not behave as either a liquid or a gas, so the typical equations used

for mass flow and physical properties do not apply. This makes control valve sizing difficult, requiring
specialized knowledge and software to accurately predict the fluid properties and size the valve
components.

Dense-phase CO2 is also a very strong solvent that readily penetrates certain elastomers at these

pressures. When the pressure is released, these elastomer seals can literally blow apart in a process
called rapid gas decompression. Therefore, packing and body seal materials for dense-phase CO2

applications must be carefully considered to avoid this condition and provide extended life. Potential
solutions include changing valve plug seals with elastomeric backup rings to spring-loaded seal rings, or
using thermoplastic rather than elastomeric O-rings.
CO2 injection.The last part of the CO2 geologic sequestration process is injection. Potential injection
sites include abandoned aquifers, salt domes, or depleted gas and oil elds. CO2 can also be utilized for
EOR where very low viscosity dense-phase CO2 is injected around an active oil site. The CO2 readily enters

the hydrocarbon in the target zone, lowering its viscosity and increasing its volume to drive it toward
surface wells. EOR has the dual potential of sequestering CO2 while increasing oil production, so the

economics are very favorable. For this reason, the bulk of carbon sequestration injection projects were
initially focused in this area.

Recently, several very large-scale CO2 injection projects have been undertaken around the world to prove

the viability and economics of geologic carbon sequestration. Most of these projects are storing CO2 in

geologically stable injection zones thousands of feet below the Earth’s surface.

The injection pressures depend greatly upon the depth and type of geologic formation. Automated
injection valves can be subjected to thousands of pounds of pressure, high vibration and high noise, as
well as corrosive conditions created when trace amounts of water or hydrogen sulfide (H2S) remain in the

CO2. Body, trim and seal material selection are critical aspects of valve sizing and selection.

Supercritical dense-phase CO2 is also common in injection applications, so specialized valve sizing and

proper elastomer selection are required. Two-phase flow is often possible since high pressure drops and
the resulting cooling can cause dry ice to form inside the valve. These conditions may necessitate
carefully designed valve trims to stage pressure drops and pass solids without plugging.

Seek advice. When faced with the task of specifying automated valves for a carbon sequestration
project users should consult with a knowledgeable valve vendor experienced with these types of
applications. The wide range of potential conditions—as well as challenges associated with body and trim
material selection, elastomer seal problems and dif culties with sizing supercritical valve applications—
warrants careful consideration.

Fortunately, a host of control valve designs have proven track records of success in a wide range of CO2

applications. However, the best option for a particular service can only be obtained by careful study and

analysis of the operating conditions, as well as a solid understanding of the available valve design options.

With proper selection, control valves can perform well in these demanding applications, improving the
overall operation of the entire carbon sequestration process. HP

NOTES
a Fisher™ DST-G valve
b Fisher™ easy-e™ EWT control valve
JOE DEMONTE is the Director of Hydrocarbon Industries for Emerson, focused on Fisher
control valves. He has been with Emerson for more than 10 yr and is a subject matter expert
in compressor anti-surge applications. DeMonte earned Bch and MS degrees in biomedical
engineering from the University of Iowa.

SUZANNA GRILLS is a Sustainable Sales Engineer within Global Industry Sales at Emerson.
She earned a chemical engineering degree with an emphasis in environmental from the
University of Missouri-Columbia.
 The effect of viscosity on centrifugal pumps
and predicting performance for different
fluids
A. DOMINIC, ADNOC Refining, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Centrifugal pumps are used for a wide range of applications and services in the refining industry. In today’s
dynamic scenario, changes in pumped fluid characteristics are common, especially for transfer/loading
pumps. For the changing process fluid parameter, pump performance should be predicted to analyze the
suitability of the pumping system for the proposed service conditions. A pump originally in service for the
bulk loading of fuel oil was assessed for its suitability in use with higher viscosity vacuum residue. Using
the existing pump for a new product opened a new business opportunity without any major investment.
The original pump was installed in the early 1980s and has been in service since.

Centrifugal pump performance curves are provided by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for
specific fluids with characteristics like density and viscosity at a defined pumping temperature. Pumps are
performance tested using water, and the test data is utilized to predict the performance with the service
fluid. When handling viscous fluid, the performance of the pump will differ from the water performance—
this change will be more pronounced when handling fluids of higher viscosities. As the viscosity increases,
the hydraulic losses within the pump increase, leading to a reduction in the head, flow and efficiency, and
an increase in the power and NPSH3 (net positive suction head required resulting in a 3% loss of total
head at the first-stage impeller due to cavitation).

The effects of viscosity on performance are well explained in the ANSI/Hydraulic Institute Standard 9.6.7.1
The standard clearly explains how performance parameters like flow, head, efficiency and power can be
predicted with the viscous fluid when water performance values are known. The standard also captures
the process to be adopted for preliminary selection of a new pump for given head, rate of flow and
viscosity conditions.

Simply, viscosity is the property of a fluid indicating its resistance to flow when an external force acts on it.
The resistance also varies with the temperature. For pumps, the viscosity of the fluid handled at pumping
temperature is the important measurement. When considering viscosity, two terms—dynamic viscosity
and kinematic viscosity—are prevalent.
Dynamic viscosity (absolute viscosity) is a measure of the fluid’s resistance to shear. The SI unit is pascal-
second (Pa·s) and the centimeter/gram/sec (CGS) unit is poise (P); a commonly used unit is centipoise
(cP) (1 P = 100 cP) (Eq. 1):

1 Pa·s = 1 Ns/m2 = 1 Kg/(m/sec) = 103 cP          (Eq. 1)

Kinematic viscosity of the fluid is the ratio of dynamic viscosity to its density. The SI unit of kinematic
viscosity is m2/sec and the CGS unit is Stokes. The most commonly used unit for petroleum products is
centistokes (cSt) (Eq. 2):

1 m2/sec = 104 cSt           (Eq. 2)

Kinematic viscosity (cSt) = centipoise/grams per cc

The temperature of the pumped fluid also has an impact on the kinematic viscosity. For petroleum liquids,
the kinematic viscosity reduces with an increase in temperature.

For a centrifugal pump, the change in viscosity of the pumped fluid has an impact on the predicted
performance of the pump (FIG. 1). Each centrifugal pump has a head-to-flow performance curve rather
than a straight line. The curve is due to the varying losses in the pump at different flows. The losses are a
sum of disc friction, mechanical, leakage and hydraulic losses, among which disc friction is the major
component. Disc friction is directly influenced by the viscosity of the pumped media.

FIG. 1. ANSI/Hydraulic Institute Standard FIG. 9.6.7.3.1. Modification of pump characteristics when pumping viscous
liquids.

The maximum viscosity a centrifugal pump can handle is a bit subjective. Many references limit the use of
centrifugal pumps to a maximum of 330 cSt. The impeller geometry and pump size play a role on the
maximum viscosity that can be handled, also considering the torque and power limits of the pump shaft.
The negative impact on efficiency and head may make the use of a suitable positive displacement pump
beneficial to lifecycle cost. Depending on the pump size and geometry, centrifugal pumps’ viscosity limits
can vary from 25 cP–700 cP normally. Another major consideration is the effect on the system curve from
the increased viscosity. As the viscosity of the pumped fluid rises, more pipe friction will occur, and the
system resistance curve also rises. This must be considered along with the revised pump curve to ensure
suitability of the application.

Background. A pump’s performance should be predicted for a different service fluid (higher viscosity
hydrocarbon). Performance data is available for the originally selected hydrocarbon but the water test data
is unavailable. Utilizing the available instructions in HI Standard 9.6.7-2021, a reasonable estimate of
pump performance has been developed and is captured in this article. The HI Standard does not offer a
direct procedure for this extrapolation. However, the principles described for selecting a new pump for the
fluid and the conversion of water performance to fluid performance are utilized to arrive at the revised
performance.

This method is used to evaluate a pump used to transfer hydrocarbons from a tank to a ship; the loading
originally selected was to handle fuel oil at a maximum viscosity of 125 cSt for an application to handle
vacuum residue at 600 cSt. A new product with significantly different properties was required to be
transferred using the same pump and existing line up. The performance curve available for the original
125-cSt fluid and water test data is unavailable. The expected performance with the 600-cSt VR is
developed using the curves available for 125-cSt fuel oil.

The existing pump curve is taken as the starting point. Parameters are tabulated from the curve, as shown
in TABLE 1, for the originally rated fluid. The pump is used to transfer fuel oil with a viscosity of 125 cSt
and a specific gravity of 0.92 at 80°C.

Pump curve. The best efficiency point (BEP) flow is first identified from the curve as 1,700 m3/hr, then
the corresponding values of head and efficiencies from the curve are noted (FIG. 2). The values are also
tabulated for 0.6, 0.8 and 1.2 times the BEP flow.
 FIG. 2. The BEP flow is first identified and then the corresponding values of head and efficiencies from the curve are
noted.

The BEP point is taken as the starting point for sizing an equivalent water pump using HI instruction
9.6.7.4.6. This instruction is used for the preliminary selection of a pump for given head, flowrate and
viscosity conditions when the water performance is known. In the following case, the pump is already in
service and so the curve BEP flow is considered rather than the pump rated flow to arrive at the water BEP
conditions, as both are corresponding values. The BEP flow can be seen to be 1,700 m3/hr at a differential
head of 135 m. Viscosity and specific gravity at a pumping temperature of 80°C are 125 cSt and 0.92,
respectively. The approximate water BEP performance can be calculated with this data. Use the values to
calculate parameter B by applying Equation 10 of the HI Standard, shown here as Eq. 3:

(Eq. 3)

B = 2.8 x 1250.5/(1,7000.25 x 1350.125 ) = 2.64064

If 1.0 < B < 40, go to the next step. As the value of B is falling in range, continue to the next step of
calculating CQ and CH.

The flow correction factor (CQ) and head correction factor (CH) must be calculated for the water BEP flow

condition using Equation 4 of the HI Standard, shown here as Eq. 4:

CQ = CH = (2.71)A = 0.989221

A = -0.165 x (log102.64064)3.15           (Eq. 4)

Using this correction factor, calculate the water BEP flow and head (Eqs. 5 and 6):

Water BEP flow QW-BEP = Liq BEP flow/CQ = 1,700/0.989221 = 1,718.5 m3/hr        (Eq. 5)

Water BEP head HW-BEP = Liq BEP head/CH = 135/0.989221 = 136.47 m                (Eq. 6)

For sizing a brand new pump, the above values of water head and flow can be used to select a suitable
pump. As the effort here is to predict the performance of an existing pump, the following approach is
used. Calculate an efficiency correction factor using Equation 7 of the HI Standard, shown here as Eq. 7:

Cƞ = 2.64064^-(0.0547 x 2.64064^0.69) = 0.901406           (Eq. 7)

The correction factor for efficiency and flow remains the same for all flows. The CH varies with flow and

must be calculated for each case using Equation 6 of the HI Standard, shown here as Eq. 8:

Calculating for 80% of BEP (Eq. 8):

CH = 1 – (1– 0.98922)(0.8^0.75) = 0.991           (Eq. 8)

where,
Water head at 80 % = liquid head at 80% BEP/CH at 80% BEP = 144/0.991 = 145.325 m

Water flow at 80% = liquid flow at 80% BEP/CQ at 80% BEP = 1,360/0.98922 = 1,374.82 m3/hr.

The calculation is extended for other flows—namely 120%, 60%, 40% and 20% of the BEP flow. The
calculated correction factors are applied to the entire range of operations.

For this case, the water efficiencies were already available in the performance curve but not for the service
medium, so the same was used for the water case. If liquid corrected values are available in the curve, the
water efficiency can be calculated with the same approach (TABLE 2).
Now that the water performance of the pump is established with a combination of a 9.6.7.4.6 reverse
iteration of the process defined in 9.6.7.4.5, the pump performance for the new conditions can be
established applying 9.6.7.4.5 straight away. The conditions for the new proposed liquid and the water
performance of the pump are the starting point for this step, as shown in TABLE 3.

Parameter B is calculated, taking into consideration the water performance as per Equation 2 of the HI
Standard, shown here as Eq. 9:

B = 16.5 x (6000.5 x 136.50.0625)/(1,718.50.375 x 1,5000.25) = 5.4186           (Eq. 9)

The 1.0 < 5.4186 < 40 calculates CQ as per Eq. 4 of the HI Standard (shown here as Eq. 10) as valid for all

flows. Once CQ is known, the viscous flow can be calculated as Qvis = CQ x QW (Eq. 11):

3.15
CQ = (2.71)–0.165 x (log10 B)            (Eq. 10)

where:
3.15
CQ = (2.71)–0.165 x (log10 5.4186)  = 0.93982

Qvis = 0.93982 x 1,718.5 = 1,615.1 (Eq. 11)

At BEP flow, use the same value for CH. At other flows, calculate CH using Equation 6 of the HI Standard,

shown here as Eq. 12:

(Eq. 12)

Cƞ can be calculated with Equation 7 of the HI Standard (shown above as Eq. 7) and remains same for all

flows. The calculated values for the new conditions are tabulated in TABLE 4 using the derived water
performance values.

Note: The standard also gives charts for correction factors for different B values and can also be used in
place of the calculations. The predicted HQ curve vs. the original service is shown in FIG. 3.
 FIG. 3. Predicted HQ curve vs. original service.

Takeaway. Though the method may not predict the exact performance as in a performance test, it
provides a fairly accurate estimate and can be of great value. In an agile business intent on maximizing
revenue with minimum capital expenditure, a quick assessment of utilizing existing assets can be of
significance. The derived curve for the new conditions can be used to evaluate potential limitations in
pump discharge pressure, NPSH margin and prime mover limitation while handling the proposed fluid. The
values are comparable with a predicted curve sourced from the OEM and can assist in preliminary system
assessments with reasonable accuracy. Field observations of the available margins in the pumping
system would be used to evaluate the suitability of the pump for the revised case. HP

LITERATURE CITED

1. American National Standards Institute/Hydraulic Institute Standard 9.6.7, “ANSI/HI 9.6.7-Rotodynamic pumps
guideline for effects of liquid viscosity on performance,” 2021.

ARUN DOMINIC is a Mechanical Engineer with more than 25 yr of experience in rotating

equipment in refineries. His experience covers the entire lifecycle of assets from selection,
commissioning, maintenance, reliability and rerating. He now works as Team Leader of
rotating equipment engineering with ADNOC Refining in Abu Dhabi, UAE.
 Liquid applications for ASME Section I
service
R. MERRIAM and G. W. FELS, Curtiss-Wright, Brecksville, Ohio

Extensive guidance is available for relief protection of American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code (B&PVC) Section VIII process equipment for scores of applications, such as
run-away reactions, distillation and heat exchangers. Sources include ASME, American Petroleum Institute
(API) and the Design Institute for Emergency Relief Systems (DIERS), among others.

Vapor/steam relief protection from overpressure for fired boilers is covered thoroughly in ASME Section I.
However, there is little-to-no guidance for sub-cooled or saturated/flashing liquid relief protection for
ASME Section I fired boilers and associated equipment.

This article will discuss applications that require liquid or flashing liquid relief protection for ASME Section
I equipment, along with applicable code references and relief equipment used for such protection.
Applications discussed include economizers, low-quality steam generators and liquid overfill of steam
drums.

National Board “Redbook.” Relief equipment is certified for protection of ASME code equipment by
the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors (National Board). The National Board certifies
the device’s operation and capacity follow the performance requirements defined by the construction
code. All issued certifications are listed within the published NB-18 “Redbook”1 listing the applicable
ASME Code Section to which the device is certified. An example of a partial listing from NB-18 is shown in
FIG. 1.

Four main different types of relief equipment are available with ASME Section I certi cation and are
detailed in the following sections:

A dual-blowdown ring safety valve with V-designation certi ed for Section I

A single-blowdown ring safety valve with V-designation certi ed for Section I
A safety relief valve certi ed for liquid with a UV-designation extended to Section I
A pilot-operated safety relief valve dual-certi ed for steam and liquid with V-designation certi ed for
Section I.
A device’s listing details the manufacturer, model series, Code Section, NB capacity certification number,
test media, certified discharge coefficient, and ASME flow area certified according to the coefficient of
discharge method. Another certification method uses a slope or flow factor to determine the relieving
capacity.

RELIEF EQUIPMENT CERTIFIED FOR SECTION I APPLICATIONS

FIG. 1. A partial listing from NB-18 of the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors’ “Redbook.”1

Dual-blowdown ring safety valve (V-designator). The dual-blowdown ring safety valve marked
with V-designation is the workhorse for relief protection for ASME Section I fired boilers. Most code boilers
utilize these designs, and all but the smallest boilers typically use two or more dual-ring valves certified for
Section I. These valves are characterized by full lift at low overpressure (3% or 2 psi) and low blowdown
(4%–6%). With the dual-blowdown rings and stiffer spring rates used to achieve these strict requirements,
they typically demonstrate unstable operation when flowing liquid. These valves are only certified under
vapor/steam flowing conditions and are not expected to achieve full lift at 10% overpressure, as required
for liquid certification. These safety valves are typically suitable for backpressures of up to 20% for the
common open bonnet designs.

FIG. 2 illustrates a cutaway view of a dual-blowdown ring safety valve showing details of the upper and
lower blowdown rings. The two rings are required to simultaneously meet the 3% overpressure
requirement and the 4% blowdown requirement. These are suitable for steam/vapor operation but not
liquid operation.
 FIG. 2. A cutaway view of a dual-blowdown ring safety valve showing details of the upper and lower blowdown rings.

Single-ring safety valve (V-designator). A V-designated safety valve with a single-blowdown ring
is available in accordance with ASME Section I. This valve is typically for use with Section I economizer
applications and organic vaporizer service applications only. The capacity is certified for vapor/steam
relief at 3% overpressure; however, the blowdown requirement of 4% is not achieved. This valve design is
not intended for Section I boiler drum, superheater or reheater applications.

Dual-certified safety relief valve (UV-designator). UV-designated safety valves with dual
certification in accordance with ASME Section VIII service have a single-blowdown ring design, as shown
in FIG. 3. These valves are characterized by full lift at, or below, 10% overpressure for vapor or liquid
applications and a blowdown of 7% in vapor service. Valves may be certified for vapor flow, liquid flow or
dual media. While there is no direct certification for two-phase/flashing flow, a certified capacity can be
determined by guidance outlined by DIERS and API. The design of the huddling chamber for the dual-
certified valves results in stable operation for vapor, liquid and two-phase flowing conditions. The National
Board recently added ASME Section I certification for liquid flow at 10% overpressure. For conventional
safety relief valves with a UV-designator, the amount of variable superimposed and built-up backpressure
is allowed up to the allowable overpressure. For balanced bellows valves, the backpressure is limited by
their backpressure capacity curves, typically extending up to 50% or higher.
 FIG. 3. A cutaway view of a single-blowdown ring safety relief valve showing a single-blowdown ring and huddling
chamber.

Dual-certified pilot-operated safety relief valve (V-designator). Invoking ASME Code Case
2446 allows for a pilot-operated safety relief valve with a V-designation to be certified for dual steam and
liquid service. Vapor capacities are certified at 3% overpressure and liquid capacities are certified at 10%
overpressure. While there is no direct certification for two-phase/flashing flow, a certified capacity can be
determined by guidance outlined by DIERS and API.

LIQUID APPLICATIONS FOR ASME SECTION I SERVICE

Application: Economizers. Economizers for ASME Section I Boilers are heat exchangers that recover
heat generated from boilers and other fired equipment by preheating the boiler feedwater using the exiting
hot flue gases. From the Preamble of ASME Section I, “Superheaters, economizers, and other pressure
parts connected directly to the boiler without intervening valves shall be considered as parts of the boiler
proper, and their construction shall conform to Section I rules.” When located outside the limits of a
boiler’s external piping, an economizer (FIG. 4) is considered a fired pressure vessel.
 FIG. 4. Economizers for ASME Section I Boilers are heat exchangers
that recover heat generated from boilers and other fired equipment by
preheating the boiler feedwater using the exiting hot flue gases.

Economizers that can be partially or totally isolated from the boiler require one or more pressure relief
valves sized for the discharge of saturated steam flow at a calculated capacity (lb/hr) using the
economizer’s stamped duty (Btu/hr) divided by 1,000 (Btu/lb). If overpressure can occur within the
economizer due to liquid, the pressure relief valve(s) are also sized to limit the overpressure to no more
than 10% or 3 psi, whichever is greater.2

Partially or totally isolated economizers may be designed in accordance with rules from either ASME
Section VIII, Div. 1 requirements or ASME Section I requirements (see ASME Section I, Part PFE).2
Economizers constructed to ASME Section VIII shall have overpressure protection in accordance with
ASME Section XIII requirements with a UV-designation.

As ASME Code does not provide direct reference to overpressure protection for ASME Section I
economizers that can be partially or totally isolated, it is implied they are to follow ASME Section I
requirement.

The rules and requirements for economizers are summarized below:

If an economizer cannot be isolated from the steam drum, it should be included as part of the boiler
proper, as defined by ASME Section I.
If an economizer can be partially or totally isolated from the boiler, it should be protected in
accordance with ASME Section VIII rules if constructed to Section VIII specifications.

A discharge capacity (lb/hr) based on the economizer design duty (Btu/hr) divided by 1,000
(Btu/lb)
Liquid relief to ensure pressure does not exceed maximum allowable working pressure by
more than 10%
Protected by a dual-certified safety valve with UV-designation

If an economizer can be partially or totally isolated from the boiler, it should be protected in
accordance with ASME Section I rules if constructed to Section I specifications.
 A discharge capacity (lb/hr)based on economizer design duty (Btu/hr) divided by 1,000
(Btu/lb)
Liquid relief to ensure pressure does not exceed maximum allowable working pressure by
more than 10%
Protected by a steam-certified safety valve with V-designation
Protected by a liquid-certified safety valve with UV-designation
Protected by a dual-certified, pilot-operated valve with V-designation and invoking CC2446.

Application: Low-quality steam generators. A second application involving ASME Section I

equipment requiring liquid/two-phase relief is a low-quality steam generator (FIG. 5). The overpressure
failure case in this situation would be a blocked outlet evaluated at the design capacity and steam quality.

FIG. 5. A typical installation for a steam generator used in the oil and gas industry where low-quality steam (~65%) is
injected “down hole” to encourage oil production.

No ASME code reference has been identified for this application. Possible relief protections to consider
include:

A dual-certified pilot valve with V-designation

A vapor-certified safety valve with V-designation.

Note: In situations where the steam generator is designed to ASME Section VIII rules, protection may be
provided by a dual-certified safety relief valve with UV-designation.
Dual-certified pilot valves with V-designation are specifically authorized for protecting Section I boiler
economizers. The manufacturer must be consulted to determine if they would be approved for protecting
low-quality steam generators.

Safety valves certified for ASME Section I service are specifically designed for all vapor relief and may
experience stability issues if used to relieve two-phase mixtures like low-quality steam. Again, the
manufacturer must be consulted to determine if satisfactory performance/stability can be expected.

Application: Fired boiler steam drum. Liquid overfill of a fired boiler is one potentially applicable
relieving scenario, as illustrated in FIG. 6. ASME Section I PG-67 discusses relief protection requirements
for fired boilers and associated equipment. However, the only reference identified for relief protection
involving the boiler proper identifies a blocked outlet at design steam capacity of the boiler.

FIG. 6. Liquid overfill of a fired boiler is one potentially applicable relieving scenario.

ASME Section I boilers are typically protected by dual-blowdown ring safety valve(s) with V-designation.
As discussed earlier, these safety valves do not provide stable operation when relieving liquid due to the
design of the huddling chamber and stiffer spring. These dual-ring safety valves have no certified capacity
for liquid flow.

As ASME only calls for steam relief associated with the boiler proper and boiler safety valves are only
certified for steam/vapor flow, it is common for owner-operators to consider only the blocked outlet steam
rates. Dual-certified pilot valves with V-designation might be used to relieve credible liquid scenarios for
the boiler but are not certified to protect the boiler proper for the steam blocked outlet scenario. Many
safety relief valves in the market are certified for liquid flow in ASME Section VIII applications and are also
certified for Section I liquid applications with a V-designator. These can also be used to relieve the liquid
overpressure scenarios for ASME Section I boilers, but not for a steam blocked outlet case.

Takeaways. Four different designs of relief protection equipment have been discussed, detailing
characteristics and their applicability for liquid relief protection for ASME Section I applications.

Dual-blowdown ring safety valve (V-designator)

Steam relief for boiler proper

Not certified for liquid or two-phase flow

Single-blowdown ring safety valve (V-designator)

Steam relief for economizer and organic vaporizer

Not designed for the boiler proper
Not certified for liquid or two-phase flow

Dual-certified safety relief valve (UV-designator)

Liquid and dual certification available

Two-phase flow by DIERS and/or API methodologies
Several are also certified with UV-designation for liquid relief at 10% overpressure
Liquid relief for Section I economizers
Liquid and vapor relief for Section VIII economizers

Dual-certified pilot-operated safety relief valve (V-designator)

Certified for liquid and vapor relief for Section I economizer

Two-phase flow by DIERS and/or API methodologies
Not designed for the boiler proper.

The only liquid overpressure scenario called out in code for ASME Section I equipment is associated with
a boiler economizer that can be partially or totally isolated from the boiler proper. Economizers that can be
isolated require overpressure protection for steam flow (lb/hr) at their design duty (Btu/hr) divided by
1,000 (Btu/lb). Economizers designed following ASME Section I or ASME Section VIII that can experience
overpressure by liquid, require overpressure protection for liquid relief.

Section I economizers are protected at 3% accumulation for steam relief and 10% accumulation for liquid
relief. For vapor relief, a dual-ring safety valve, a single-ring safety valve, or a dual-certified pilot valve are
appropriate—all with a V-designation. For liquid relief, a liquid certified safety relief valve is required. This
could be a liquid or dual-certified safety relief valve with both V- and UV-designation or a dual-certified
pilot-operated safety relief valve with V-designation.

Section VIII economizers are protected at 10% accumulation for steam relief and liquid relief. A dual-
certified relief valve with UV-designation could be used for this application.

ASME Section I does not address overpressure protection for liquid relief associated with other
equipment/applications, such as low-quality steam generators or liquid overfill of steam drums.

Relief protection for a low-quality steam generator is not specifically defined. Facility owner-operators
should evaluate possible options for overpressure protection, including dual ASME Section I certified pilot
relief valves, a V-designated safety valve for an ASME Section I steam generator, or a UV-designated dual-
certified safety relief valve if the steam generator is designed to ASME Section VIII.

Liquid relief from boiler overfill is not usually considered a creditable scenario. It might be possible to
relieve the liquid case with a dual ASME Section I certified pilot relief valve, but the boiler steam blocked
outlet scenario must be relieved by a dual-blowdown ring safety valve with V-designation, as the pilot valve
is not certified for steam overpressure protection of the steam drum. A liquid- or dual-certified safety relief
valve with UV-designation also certified for liquid on Section I equipment may also provide liquid relief
protection for the boiler. HP

NOTES
a iPRSM®

LITERATURE CITED

1. National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors (National Board), “Redbook: NB-18 Pressure relief device
certification,” online: www.nationalboard.org
2. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), “Section I, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code: PG-67.2.1.6,”
July 2015.

RUSSELL B. MERRIAM is a Senior Principal Engineer for Farris Engineering Service and is
actively involved with pressure relief calculation studies, including contingency analysis,
calculations for distillation towers and other challenging calculations, audits of calculations,
and training on company proprietary softwarea. Merriam has been using and assisting in
program development for this softwarea since he started working for Farris Engineering Services in 2004.
He is an active participant in the DIERS Group, and worked in the petrochemical industry for more than 21
yr prior to joining Farris Engineering Services.

GEORGE W. FELS is a Senior Process Engineer for Farris Engineering Services and is
responsible for designing, sizing and selecting emergency pressure relief systems, as well
as software development. Fels has also taught courses in overpressure protection
management, and relief valve design and applications. HeGeorge holds BS and MS degrees
in chemical engineering from the University of Dayton and is an active member of the API Subcommittee
on Pressure-Relieving Systems (SCPRS).
 A finite element method analysis revealing
the structural behavior of load bearing
brackets
A. KITTUR, Saudi Aramco, Ras Tanura, Saudi Arabia

The hydrogen (H2) generation unit (HGU) manufactures H2 by steam reforming propane and butane. In the

final part of the HGU, the high-temperature shift conversion (HTSC) process takes place in HTSC reactors.
A schematic flow has been illustrated in FIG. 1.

FIG. 1. An HTSC reactor in a H2 plant.

The shift conversion combines carbon monoxide (CO) with excess steam to produce carbon dioxide
(CO2). More H2 and HTSC reduces the CO level in the reformed gas. In the reactor vessels discussed here,

the gas and steam ow over an iron and chromium catalyst with a design life of 4 yr. Plant operators had
observed an increase in the pressure drop trend for this reactor when the H2 plant was operating the
steam reformer at approximately 63% load. The pressure drop (ΔP) was approximately 1.3 psi, showing a

subtle rising trend, as shown in FIG. 2. However, in anticipation of achieving full production rates, the plant
operations team was unsure of the maximum ΔP that could be tolerated by these HTSC reactor vessels in
the event of full production rates.

FIG. 2. Pressure drop process trends.

Problem statement. The original equipment manufacturer’s (OEM’s) mechanical drawings of the
HTSC reactors identified that only the dead weight (structural loads + catalyst load) had been considered
for the strength of the internal ring, which is required to bear the overall load. The OEM’s calculations did
not consider the operating fluid loads and the associated additional load due to the pressure drop across
the vessel internals. The exact strength of the vessel internals—based on the maximum allowable ΔP—
was unknown. Based on the available mechanical, process and instrumentation data, the steady rise of the
ΔP across the reactor vessels would have a detrimental effect on the integrity of the internal structural
grid that supports the catalyst bed. The maximum allowable ΔP across the operating HTSC reactor
vessels is governed by the structural strength of the reactor’s internal grid. Mechanical calculations and
additional finite element analysis (FEA)-based stress simulations were required to establish the ultimate
strength of the HTSC reactor vessel internals corresponding to the maximum allowable ΔP across it.

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Finite element method (FEM) solid model. The reactor was modeled as a 90° 3D solid model
based on the cyclical symmetry shown in FIG. 3. This model enables accommodating the geometric
details for applying the appropriate loads and boundary conditions (i.e., only 25% of the vessel was
modeled). Symmetric boundary conditions were applied to the model cut faces.
 FIG. 3. Geometry of an FEM model.

In terms of the dimensions, two cases were constructed and analyzed. The dimensions in the first case
refer to the ΔP being based on a fully corroded thickness of the vessel’s internal structure since the
reactor vessel had already witnessed more than 20 yr in service. The corrosion allowance is 0.125 in. on
structures and 0.063 in. on vessel walls. These dimensions are referred to as MODEL-1: Hot & Corroded.
Based on the most recent shutdown inspection results, the last recorded thickness of the ellipsoidal head
revealed negligible corrosion for the previous 20+ yr of operating the HTSC reactors. Based on these
results, a second model was developed for the analysis. The dimensions in the second case referred to the
ΔP being based on an uncorroded thickness of the vessel’s internal structure due to the reactor vessel’s
higher recorded thickness on the ellipsoidal head. These dimensions are referred to as MODEL-2: Hot &
Uncorroded.

Internal loads. The catalyst weight, support beams and grids weight, operating liquid static head,
velocity head, ΔP, mechanical loading and temperature distribution, as shown in FIG. 4, were accounted
for while establishing the mechanical strength of the shell integral support structure.
 FIG. 4. Pressure temperature flow.

The tabulated summary in TABLE 1 depicts the calculated loads based on the multiple scenarios of
pressure drop across the reactor vessel.

Material properties. The material specifications are SA 387 Gr-11 Cl-2, as shown in TABLE 2.1 The
OEM has utilized the modulus of elasticity at design temperature (28.05E + 06 psi = 845°F). Alternatively,
the modulus of elasticity at maximum operating temperature can be selected rather than the design
temperature. This is because the temperature trends were known for the plant HTSC reactor vessel, which
has never exceeded 630°ׄF, including any process upsets. The OEM utilized yield strength at a design
temperature of 845°F (31,600 psi). Similarly, the yield strength at the maximum operating temperature can
be selected rather than the design temperature.
The four basic stress intensity limits were satisfied as follows:

1. The allowable value of Pm produced by internal design pressure and other specified mechanical
loads, excluding all secondary and peak stresses, shall be less than Sm.
2. The allowable value of PL produced by internal design pressure and other specified mechanical
loads, excluding all secondary and peak stresses, shall be less than 1.5Sm.
3. The allowable value of PL + Pb produced by design pressure and other specified mechanical loads,
but excluding all secondary and peak stresses, shall be less than 1.5kSm.
4. The allowable value of PL + Pb + Q produced by design pressure and other specified mechanical
loads, but excluding all secondary and peak stresses, shall be less 3.0kSm.

Results of the elastic stress analysis. An FEA based on linear, structural and elastic stress analysis
was completed using ANSYS2 code. The reactor’s internal structural components were evaluated primarily
for protection against plastic collapse. Although the operating pressure and temperature of the reactors
were steady, the ratcheting and fatigue failure modes were not considered due to the infrequent nature of
unit startup and shutdown cycles. An FEM with continuum elements provided the total stress distribution
for evaluation, and the simulated stresses were compared with stress limits that are defined in ASME
Section VIII Division 2,3 as shown in FIG. 5. This established the maximum load-bearing capacity of the
structure and, consequently, the maximum allowable pressure drop that the reactor can safely sustain.

FIG. 5. Stress simulation.

A ΔP 6-psi limit was established based solely on a fully corroded thickness of the vessel’s internal
structure because the reactor vessel has already witnessed more than 20 yr of service When the model
geometrical dimensions were changed based on the last recorded thickness of the ellipsoidal head (18 yr),
a ΔP of 10-psi limit was established. The interesting aspect of the stress simulation results established
that the corner welds of the T-bracket that were welded to the internal ellipsoidal surface of the head
always remained overstressed regardless of the increase in the operating fluid loads and the associated
additional load due to ΔP across the vessel internals. This was especially true for the lowest weld on the
vertical plate of the T-bracket assembly.

keaway.
Ta Based on the stress analysis results, the lowest weld on the vertical plate of the T-bracket
assembly was found to be normally overstressed, as shown in FIG. 6. The equipment inspection records
were verified from the past internal inspections completed during the plant shutdown. This location’s
minor weld cracks were observed and repaired. Although this conclusion was not the objective of this
analysis, it clearly explained the presence of minor indications on the weld, as noted in the inspection
unit’s reports that followed the plant shutdown internal inspections.

FIG. 6. Characteristic weld geometry.

An interesting structural behavior of this characteristic weld between the ellipsoidal surface and planar
bracket creates an undesirable stress riser. The magnitude of the induced stress at this location was
found to have a relation with the applied loads in the following manner:

The magnitude of this induced stress did not exceed the allowable stress limit simply based on the
applied dead weight loading (structural loads + catalyst load). The operating fluid dynamic loads
and the additional associated load did not exceed the stress limit due to ΔP across the vessel
internals.
The magnitude of this induced stress was found to exceed the allowable stress limit, particularly
based on the applied internal pressure of the reactor vessel. This behavior was observed even at a
normal operating pressure level.

The above peculiar stress behavior was mainly due to the hoop/radial deformation of the ellipsoidal head
in the outward direction due to the internal pressure, inducing a local primary stress beyond its acceptable
limits. One way this feature could be avoided in future designs would be to design the T-brackets to be
welded on the internal cylindrical surface of the shell instead of the ellipsoidal surface. This would have
required major modifications to the reactor vessel and was deemed infeasible at this stage. For the
continued mechanical integrity of the reactor vessel, a more rigorous inspection schedule and advanced
techniques were adopted for future operations to address and mitigate the anticipated surface flaws in
this characteristic weld geometry. HP
LITERATURE CITED

1. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code ASME Sec-II, Material Properties
2. ANSYS Theory & Application Guide.
3. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code ASME Sec-VIII, Pressure Vessels.

ASLAM KITTUR is a mechanical engineer with expertise in troubleshooting integrity issues

related to refinery static equipment. Kittur is the Static Equipment Engineer for the Technical
Services Division of Saudi Aramco, and has more than 23 yr of experience in the energy
industry (upstream, offshore and downstream), specializing in performing stress analysis to
understand the complex failure mechanisms of critical equipment. He focuses on establishing root
causes for repetitive failures and developing solutions to ensure a reliable design for all operating
conditions. Kittur earned an MS degree in solid mechanics and employs FEM-based structural and thermal
simulations often required for a Level-III API-579 Fitness-For-Service Evaluation. Before joining Saudi
Aramco, he served in a similar role in Canadian oil sands facilities for 10 yr.
 Optimizing the construction process through
lean project management
A. PARMAR, MilliporeSigma, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany; and G. SHAHANI,
Shure-Line Construction, Kenton, Delaware

Lean project management leans towards a business philosophy that brings value to the customer as
opposed to conventional project management, which is focused on a product or project. In the
conventional approach, the focus is on balancing cost, schedule and quality without compromising safety.
By contrast, the key elements of lean project management are identifying and eliminating waste, improving
quality, and minimizing defects and inventory. At its core, lean project management is directed at utilizing
human resources to the fullest, optimize scheduling and focusing on the technical aspects such as
avoiding the over-specification of equipment, instrumentation and piping.

This article will describe the principles of lean project management, which is becoming increasingly
critical in today’s business environment. Project development is becoming more challenging due to a very
dynamic external environment. In the last 2 yr, COVID, inflation and supply chain issues have only
exacerbated these trends—a recent article1 published in the June 2022 issue of Hydrocarbon Processing
described the impact of inflation on construction and outlined some steps that can be taken to address
this issue.

Various tools and methodologies, including value engineering, value stream mapping and workflow
management, will be discussed in this article.

Quality in manufacturing and service. To refresh, Total Quality Management, Six Sigma and Lean
were widely adopted in the 1980s to improve the quality of manufactured goods and services in the U.S.2
This approach was based on gearing the entire organization’s focus on the product or service that is
important to the customer, eliminating defects in the product or service by using statistics (Six Sigma) and
applying quality control to minimize inventory. These techniques, work processes and tools have been
widely adopted in the manufacturing and service industries to improve quality, reduce costs and drive
customer satisfaction.
In project development and execution, these concepts are equally important to deliver success. Projects
are custom engineered, site specific and do not present opportunities for standardization on a large scale:
typically common individual components like valves, instruments, heat exchangers and pumps can be
standardized; however, the overall project cannot easily be standardized due to variations in customer
needs, site conditions and local codes. Each project is unique in its scope. There is a large unmet need to
deliver consistent results in accordance with the customer needs in a timely fashion. Typically, customers
value one or more of the following attributes: high quality, low lifecycle cost, fast schedule, low
environmental impact, project flexibility, quality communication and/or documentation. Safety is usually
required by almost all customers. It is important to understand what is important to the customer and then
design the project—including work processes, timing, cost sensitivity, engineering, design, equipment and
construction—in a way that exceeds customer expectations.

Lean and agile project management. The principles of lean production are clearly described in
literature.3 These key principles include:

1. Specify value for the customer. Success may be defined as a combination of the following: high
quality, low lifecycle cost, fast schedule, low environmental impact, project flexibility,
communication and/or documentation. The key is to understand what the customer needs and then
deliver that product or service. Low cost is not always the best choice. Some customers may value
an accelerated schedule and are willing to pay extra so they can quickly generate revenue and
profits upon accomplishment of the project.
2. Identify the value stream. It is critical to identify what each customer values. Some customers value
low cost, while others may value a fast schedule or a higher quality and level of documentation. One
size does not fit all. For example, 3D modeling—when used in the design phase—not only saves time
and labor but provides the customer a good visual appreciation of the final project. To get an in-
depth understanding of the value, it is important to engage all stakeholders, including the owner,
engineers, subcontractors and equipment suppliers. Once the customer’s values are truly
understood, it is important to sketch out the value stream in a map and communicate that with all
stakeholders for review and agreement. Next, internal and external work processes must be
identified to deliver the required value to the customer. It is essential to consider labor, equipment
and materials factors.
3. Create value by eliminating waste. Any activity that does not add value is regarded as waste.
Examples of waste include:

Defects: It is essential to start with high-quality components that meet or exceed

specifications. This applies to purchased materials and equipment. Sub-standard materials
are sometimes available at a lower cost; however, cheap materials compromise the quality of
the end product and necessitate rework. It is essential to eliminate waste and defects while
ensuring quality is not compromised. During the construction phase, a check by the client (or
the client’s appointed inspector) on the qualifications of the labor utilized helps gain
confidence. Frequent site visits, field reviews and quality checks are required to ensure there
are no surprises during the startup phase. It is important to check and understand—especially
at the initial phase of the project and as the project progresses—for any issues, concerns or
showstoppers. As the project progress towards the final phase of construction, it tends to
become more expensive and cause more delays. It is better to catch things as early as
possible. Tracking a planned vs. actual S-curve (cost or labor hours vs. time)— when more
time and resources are spent in the initial phase (e.g., design and engineering)—pays off with
a smooth construction and startup (FIG. 1). Design and engineering are on paper and utilizing
 a 3D modeling program helps mitigate changes. For example, if enough head room to remove
a gearbox agitator is not considered during the design phase, it becomes an expensive fix in
the construction phase.
Waiting: Scheduling materials and equipment delivery on a just-in-time basis reduces
inventory and improves cash flow by minimizing spoilage and storage costs. However, this
principle may have to be relaxed in the post-COVID environment due to stretched supply
chains. Ideally, routine communication on equipment delivery times, along with updating the
schedule in real-time helps.
Talent underutilization: If scheduling is not done efficiently, expensive human resources are
underutilized and deployed to low-grade tasks. For example, it is expensive to have a trained
engineer doing the work of an expeditor or draftsman.
Excess processing: If a specification requires a tolerance of +/- 0.01 in., there is no value in
exceeding that specification by an order of magnitude. It is important to focus on the big
picture and not focus excessively on a small part. That does not bring value. However, quality
requirements and specifications should be followed.
Motion: Every site visit should be carefully planned. Labor should have the right materials and
tools to carry out the required task efficiently. Extra trips to the job site should be avoided—
they are a waste of time and money. This can be planned and navigated cautiously, especially
if a team of skilled workers are deployed in multiple projects to maximize labor utilization.
Transport: Unnecessary movement of equipment and materials to a job site or warehouse is
expensive and can result in damage to the components. Therefore, this has become an
important consideration in lean philosophy, as well.

There are countless other examples of waste in a large complex project. Once the mindset of lean is
established and culture set with the entire team and stakeholders, the internal work processes will
minimize waste.

FIG. 1. S-curve on a project’s lifecycle.

KEY ELEMENTS
The following are key elements for a successful project.

Value from a customer’s point of view. Depending on its complexity, a project’s magnitude of
scope and the intended value creation for the company over time undergoes an initial financial modeling
and review to ensure it delivers a return on investment (ROI). This is one of the most important factors that
generates value for the company. However, once a project is nancially approved, various indicators such
as actual vs. committed spend, and cost and time tracking, among others, come into play. They should be
monitored and controlled throughout the full course of the project. The controlling function should include
time, cost, risk and change management. Usually, some contingencies are factored in to allow for
unknowns and uncertainties. Unjusti ed overspending is always undesirable. Overspending exponentially
increases the time it takes in for a project to reach an ROI. It is essential to proactively ensure a project is
executed in a cost-conscious manner, including internal resources and the resulting spending. Cost
consciousness is a mindset. The following are key considerations throughout any project’s lifecycle:

Utilization of human resources in a project’s lifecycle. A project spans various phases, such as
initiation, planning, design, engineering, procurement, construction and startup/commissioning.
Depending on the size of the project, numerous avenues can ensure that the right number of
resources are allocated. The size of the project team should be considered, especially with the
expectation that team members contribute value during meetings and onsite. A longer decision-
making process results in more frequent meetings and wasted time. The same goes for meetings
with external parties, which often have associated costs, as well. These costs are mostly built into
their proposal. The clearer the scope in the early stages of the project, the less the waste in
clarification meetings with various parties. This requires qualified and experienced project team
members. Design and scope clarity are important. Any ambiguity in this part of the project will result
in additional contractor contingencies, which will fall on the client. Executing activity-based tasks
should be effective and efficient. An adequate and effective project organization is required. The
roles and sizes of organizations vary for each project. Typically, project coordinators, project
managers, project controllers, construction managers, and startup and commissioning engineers all
play key roles. Supporting departments such as environmental, health and safety (EHS) and
purchasing should also contribute by adding value rather than introducing more bureaucracy.
Technical aspects such as the specification of equipment, instrumentation, piping and systems. A
cautious approach should be taken during the design and engineering phases of the project. At
times, specifications may be out of date, and they should be updated to the latest standards to
avoid any later surprises. Depending on the project methodology—such as turnkey, design and build,
or design, bid and build—it is important to ensure the controlling functions are engrained into the
project cycle. The reliability, energy savings, energy recovery and sustainability aspects of
equipment and other hardware used in the project should be considered. The selection of materials
is also important. Not only does each project have a lifecycle, but the facility will operate for
decades after commissioning; therefore, due diligence is required to optimize the lifecycle of the
facility so it remains valuable. Unless an efficient controlling and review system is in place, it is easy
to overdesign a facility without realizing the cost impact until the end of the project. The selection of
equipment during the bidding process is also important. At times, prices are inflated due to the
supply and demand gap, which remains volatile.
Waiting, transportation and inventory. During the construction phase, timing is critical. Waiting for
materials to arrive onsite will cause idling labor crews. In addition, improperly planning for labor
resources will cause delays even when materials are available. It is also important to keep track of
construction materials and supplies so that they do not run low. These tend to be items such as
welding consumables, gaskets and specified hardware such as studs, nuts and bolts. Bulk
purchases with some contingencies can be beneficial.
Value engineering. Value engineering should be engrained in most aspects of project development.
This helps projects consistently achieve low cycle costs without sacrificing quality and safety. A few
examples of value engineering include finding more economical alternative materials, optimizing
piping routes and energy optimization pathways incorporated in the design, such as in terms of
energy recovery, and more efficient and sustainable equipment for operations.
Value stream mapping. A value stream map should be created for project management steps. This
ensures the process stays lean and adds value. The project management process influences the
 delivery of the project, as well as its cost and timeliness. A lean project management ensures all
components add value from the initiation stage through completion.
 Kanban workflow management. Kanban is a lean tool that helps visualize project management
work steps. When this methodology is deployed in project management, it helps improve activity-
based workflows and efficiency, as well as aids in identifying and reducing waste. A Kanban board
is used along with various tools such as cards and sticky notes. Not every project may require
Kanban, and the approach should be reviewed by the project manager.

Pull system. The concept of pull vs. push comes from lean manufacturing, where each process step is
broken down into discreet steps and then a pull or push is applied to get the best efficiency gains. Push is
a traditional way where all the activities and communication are pushed to the next stage. An efficient
push without friction depends on how seamless the processes are.

In pull assignments, the reverse happens. It may not be possible or difficult to deploy a pull assignment in
a project’s lifecycle, but it may be possible within intermediate steps at various stages of a project,
depending on the project’s complexity. Pull assignments are a communication concept. The pull workflow
system enables a project team member to pull in a task when they are ready and when old tasks are
completed. This prevents the team from feeling overloaded with a tasks list when pushed. For example,
during the construction phase of a complex piping system, a pipefitter pulls information (e.g., isometric
drawings) from a pull scheduler or a project coordinator for the job and the required materials from a
material coordinator that are needed ahead of accomplishing the current task. A series of such activities
reduces stress/friction in the workflow and the overall project lifecycle.

Communication and teamwork. An effective communication channel is required for successful

project management. Periodic meetings and decisions made during those meetings should be recorded
for future reference. A common platform or infrastructure related to document management should be
deployed where all such information is easily accessible. This could be transmittals to different parties,
and requests for proposals and drawings, among others.

Continuous improvement and lessons learned. There is always something new to learn from
each project. Many companies conduct an end-of-project evaluation to understand what could have been
done differently to achieve better results. The project manager should conduct a critique exercise, which
includes brainstorming on issues faced during the project’s execution and documenting learnings. For
example, could leaner project management during a phase in the project save time and money? These
learnings should be recorded for future projects. A mindset of continuous improvement should be instilled
in every project team member. This will ultimately lead to documenting best practices in project
management. In addition, it would be wise to include other parties such as contractors, vendors and
suppliers involved in the project. The key elements of continuous improvement include:

Effective resource utilization

Value engineering (strive to do things correctly the first time)
Define values in performance metrics
Plan/do/check/act on sub-activities
Adopt principles of Lean Six Sigma
Use the pull system when possible
Keep it simple; always keep the customer in mind
 Keep a library of lessons learned during all project phases and document at the project’s
completion. This document should be available to all the project managers for consideration in
future projects.

Tools for lean project management. Several tools have been developed for Lean and Six Sigma.
Many of these tools and techniques were conceived and developed for manufacturing and business
processes, and can be applied to project management and construction (FIG. 2). The two primary ones
are the Deming Cycle and Lean Six Sigma.

FIG. 2. A process skid assembled at the co-author’s fabrication shop

using the principles of lean project management.

Deming Cycle. The Deming Cycle is a model of continuous quality improvement that consists of a logical
sequence of four key phases: plan, do, check and act (PDCA). This is a cyclical process that can be applied
for several different projects. However, this approach takes time to implement and may be unsuitable for
emergency situations.

Lean Six Sigma. Lean Six Sigma is a lean management tool to identify problems in workflow. This tool
comprises steps like the Deming Cycle, but it also has useful methods of analysis, including the following:

Define the project scope and plan goals

Determine how success will be measured in the project
Explore new ways to improve the project’s process
 Develop a fool-proof project plan
Implement the project plan.

These techniques have a similar logical framework; the success of these techniques is predicated by the
fact that you get what you measure. Additional tools include flowcharts, run charts, Pareto charts, check
sheets, cause-and-effect diagrams, opportunity flow diagrams and process control charts. Keep a critical
balance here, and not overdo visuals that bring uncertain value.

Takeaways. Lean project management has become increasingly critical in today’s business
environment. The COVID pandemic, inflation and supply chain issues require project management to adapt
to the current business environment. Lean project management can be used to make project managers
more dynamic, efficient and flexible. The key is to bring value to the customer by eliminating waste,
improving quality, and minimizing defects and inventory. As projects progress, from initiation, planning,
planning, procurement, construction and so on, making avoidable changes adds to the time and cost;
hence, the initial phase of a project is supercritical. At its core, lean project management is a mindset, and
the culture should be cultivated and maintained whether it is in the initial design phase or during
construction. It is also directed at utilizing human resources to the fullest and avoiding over-specification
of equipment and construction materials. Various tools and methodologies (e.g., value engineering, value
stream mapping, workflow management) have been developed to implement lean project management.
Lean project management adds value to the customer and helps engineering and construction companies
become successful. HP

LITERATURE CITED

1. Rentschler, C., A. Parmar and G. Shahani, “Inflation and supply chain issues in construction,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
June 2022.
2. Parmar, A., A. Lloyd and G. Shahani, “A recipe for quality,” Hydrocarbon Engineering, December 2020.
3. Womack, J. P. and D. T. Jones, Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation, Simon & Schuster,
New York, New York, 2003.

ASHIM PARMAR is the Head of Project Engineering at MilliporeSigma, an af liate of Merck KGaA,
Darmstadt, Germany. He has 28 yr of experience in project management, operations and maintenance,
reliability and green eld startups. His primary responsibility is leading projects from the conceptual phase
to successful completion. Parmar is focused on continuous improvement and passionate about the
Internet of Things, machine-learning and automation with a value-added approach. He previously worked
for Eastman Chemicals, International Flavors and Fragrances, Symrise Asia Paci c, Novartis and P zer
Pharmaceuticals.

GOUTAM SHAHANI is a Sales and Marketing Consultant at Shure-Line Construction. He also teaches
business and mathematics at area colleges. Shahani has 40 yr of experience in industrial marketing,
business development and asset management at companies such as Air Products, Linde and Shure-Line
Construction. Shahani earned BS and MS degrees in chemical engineering, as well as an MBA.
ADVERTISING SALES OFFICES

2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1020, Houston, TX 77046 USA

HydrocarbonProcessing.com

Andy McDowell, Senior Vice President, Media / Publisher

Phone/Fax: +1 (713) 586-9378
Andy.McDowell@GulfEnergyInfo.com

NORTH AMERICA

Midwest/Central U.S.
Josh Mayer
+1 (972) 816-6745
Josh.Mayer@GulfEnergyInfo.com

Western U.S., British Colombia

Rick Ayer
+1 (949) 366-9089
Rick.Ayer@GulfEnergyInfo.com

Northeast U.S., Eastern Canada

Merrie Lynch
+1 (617) 594-4943
Merrie.Lynch@GulfEnergyInfo.com

OUTSIDE NORTH AMERICA

Africa
Dele Olaoye
+1 (713) 240-4447
Africa@GulfEnergyInfo.com

Brazil
Evan Sponagle
Phone: +55 (21) 2512-2741
Mobile: +55 (21) 99925-3398
Evan.Sponagle@GulfEnergyInfo.com
China, Hong Kong
TOPCO
China@GulfEnergyInfo.com

Western Europe
Hamilton Pearman
+33 608 310 575
Hamilton.Pearman@GulfEnergyInfo.com

India
Manav Kanwar
+91 (22) 2837 7070
India@GulfEnergyInfo.com

Italy, Greece & Turkey

Filippo Silvera
Office: +39 02 2846716
Mobile: +39 392 4431741
Filippo.Silvera@GulfEnergyInfo.com

Japan
Yoshinori Ikeda
+81 (3) 3661-6138
Japan@GulfEnergyInfo.com

Korea
YB Jeon
+82 (2) 755-3774
Korea@GulfEnergyInfo.com

Russia, FSU
Lilia Fedotova
+7 (495) 628-10-33
Russia@GulfEnergyInfo.com

UK, Scandinavia, Ireland, Middle East

Brenda Homewood
+44 (0) 1622 297123
Brenda.Homewood@GulfEnergyInfo.com

CORPORATE, FULL ACCESS SUBSCRIPTION AND CLASSIFIED

SALES

Ed Bramwell 
+44 (0)20 3793 9705
Ed.Bramwell@GulfEnergyInfo.com