Contents

Translating an Existing Column Into PRO/II ..................... 1

Gravity Data .........................................................................2

Propane/Propylene Splitter ................................................. 4

Reboilers ..............................................................................5

Crude Column ...................................................................... 9

Vacuum Column.................................................................23

FCC Main Fractionator ......................................................28

Natural Gas Sweetening.....................................................40

Matching Plant Data ......................................................... 49

Troubleshooting .................................................................50

Appendix - Keyword Input Files - English UOM ..............51

Appendix - Keyword Input Files - Metric UOM ...............67

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook i

Translating an Existing Column Into PRO/II

TASK Figure 1(a) shows an existing column with a condenser and a kettle
reboiler. Assume that, under its typical operating conditions, the overall
efficiencies of the rectifying and stripping section trays are 80% and
50% respectively. Transform the stage numbers into the form that
PRO/II requires, and write the new numbering in Figure 1(b). If this
column was configured with a circulating thermosiphon reboiler,
instead of a kettle, how many theoretical stages would it have?

Figure 1: Stage
Efficiencies. Actual
trays (a) and PRO/II
Theoretical Trays (b)

SOLUTION The column configured with a kettle reboiler is equivalent to 19

theoretical stages, which are numbered from top to bottom:
The condenser, as always, is stage number 1.
There are 15*80% = 12 stages in the rectifying section.
There are 11*50% = 5.5 stages in the stripping section. This is
rounded down to 5, which is equivalent to assuming the trays are a
little less than 50% efficient.
The feed is introduced at the top of the stripping section, which is
stage number 14.
The kettle reboiler is simulated as a theoretical stage and thus is
stage 19.
If the column had a thermosiphon reboiler, the total number of trays
would be 20 because thermosiphon reboilers must be simulated as two
stages.

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 1

Gravity Data

TASK A crude column produces the product streams indicated in Table 1. The
laboratory analysis of the feed and product streams contains distillation
curves (not shown here) for the feed (up to 76%) and some of the
product streams. Unfortunately, the laboratory measurements do not
include distillation data for the bottom and heavy gas oil products, so
you cannot construct the feed stream from the product stream
distillations. Instead, you decide to extrapolate the feed distillation to
100%. The laboratory report does, however, include measurements of
the products' viscosity, pour point, gravity, and sulfur content. Some of
these measurements are tabulated in Table 1. Your task is to use the
product gravity data to generate a gravity curve for the feed stream. This
is a pencil-and-paper exercise; just fill in Table 2.

Table 1: Partial Laboratory Assay Data

Stream Volume % on Average Specific Average API Sulfur Wt %
Crude Gravity Gravity
Crude Feed 100 0.82797 39.4 0.27
Product Streams
Light Ends 8 0.62694 94.2 0
Light Naphtha 12.7 0.73430 61.2 0.0119
Heavy Naphtha 9.3 0.76735 52.9 0.0120
Kerosene 10.0 0.80352 44.6 0.0322
Diesel 7.2 0.83728 37.5 0.1416
Light Gas Oil 15.3 0.84985 35.0 0.28
Heavy Gas Oil 13.5 0.87184 30.8 0.34
Bottoms 24.0 0.91704 22.8 0.48

Table 2: Gravity Curve for Crude Feed

Volume % Distilled API or Specific Gravity

2 Gravity Data
SOLUTION Table 3 shows the results. Figure 2 shows the extrapolated crude feed
distillation curve together with the gravity data that you provide. People
commonly forget to enter the gravity at the mid-volume point of each
cut. This is necessary because the reported gravities are averages for
each product. The light ends make up the first 8% of the crude, so its
gravity value should be entered at its midpoint, 4%. The light naphtha
comprises the next 12.7% of the crude, so its gravity value should be
entered at 14.35% (= 8 + 12.7/2).

Table 3: Results
Volume % Distilled Specific Gravity API Gravity

4.0 0.62694 94.2

14.35 0.73430 61.2
25.35 0.76735 52.9
35 0.80352 44.6
43.6 0.83728 37.5
54.85 0.84985 35.0
69.25 0.87184 30.8
88.0 0.91704 22.8

Figure 2: Assay
Curve with Gravity
Data

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 3

Propane/Propylene Splitter

TASK You have been asked to use an existing column to split a feed stream into
two very pure streams. The column has 190 trays, which are equivalent
to 149 theoretical stages, including the condenser and reboiler, under the
anticipated operating conditions. The reboiler pressure is 17.2 bar (250
psia), the condenser pressure is 15.2 bar (220 psia), and the top tray
(stage number 2 in the simulation) pressure is 15.5 bar (225 psia). The
feed, summarized in Table 4, is introduced at tray 110.

Table 4: Feed Stream Data

Component kg-moles/hr lb-moles/hr

Ethane 0.14 0.3

Propylene 249.5 550.0
Propane 90.7 200.0
n-Butane 2.3 5.0
TOTAL 342.64 755.3

Thermal Condition 16.547 bar (240 psia) Bubble Point

Find the duties and reflux rate required to produce a bottom stream
whose mole fraction of propylene is 0.04 and whose overhead stream is a
saturated liquid containing 0.004 mole fraction propane. Run the
flowsheet twice: first using Peng-Robinson thermodynamics and then
Grayson Streed thermodynamics. Set the column's bubble point,
enthalpy balance, and equilibrium tolerances to 1e-5.

SOLUTION The results are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5: Results of Propane / Propylene Splitter
Thermodynamic System Condenser Duty Reflux rate/Feed rate
M kcal/hr MM Btu/hr mole ratio
Peng-Robinson (PR) -15.00 -59.59 13.12
Grayson-Streed (GS) -9.40 -37.32 8.23
Improved Grayson-Streed (IGS) -10.09 -40.07 8.89
Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) -14.25 -56.59 12.33

Notice the large difference between the PR and GS results. The section
that follows contains a discussion of this discrepancy. For comparison,
the table also includes results obtained using two other thermodynamic
systems. Details on the wide variety of thermodynamic methods
contained in PRO/II are discussed in the PRO/II Reference Manual.
4 Propane/PropyleneSplitter
Reboilers

TASK You are asked to perform some preliminary calculations for the design of
a stripper that removes H2S from the naphtha stream given in Table 6.
The column consists of 15 actual trays, which are equivalent to 8
theoretical stages.

Part A Consider designs using the following types of reboilers:

A single pass thermosiphon (use PRO/II's kettle option).
A circulating thermosiphon (use PRO/II's thermosiphon without
baffles option).

A diagram of the two configurations is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 : Naphtha
Stripper

The column has a 0.1379 bar (2 psi) pressure drop and the stripped
naphtha product has a bubble point of 132.2°C (270°F). Report the
largest vapor flowrate in each column; it has a strong effect on the choice
of column diameter.

The return stream from the circulating reboiler should be 70% liquid by
mass, a typical value for this type of service. Use the SRK
thermodynamic system.

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 5

 Table 6: Naphtha Feed Data
ASTM D86 Data Light Ends
LV% °C °F Component Mole %

3 32.2 90 H2S 0.029

5 51.7 125 IC4 0.70
10 90.6 195 NC4 2.15
30 121.1 250 IC5 0.86
50 137.8 280 NC5 3.58
70 154.4 310 Match to assay
90 198.9 390
95 214.4 418
98 221.1 430

Avg. density 0.76198 SPGR 29.2°API

3
Flowrate 172.2 m /hr 1083 bbl/hr
Temperature 112.8°C 235°F
Pressure 12.05 bar 15 psig

Part B Assume that your company has decided to use a circulating

thermosiphon reboiler on this column. Unfortunately, a co-worker, who
was unaware of PRO/II's built in thermosiphon models, performed the
tray sizing calculations using a kettle reboiler model. Based on his
calculations, he recommends 1676 mm (66 inch) bubble cap trays, but
you suspect that these trays are too small.

Use PRO/II's tray rating feature to determine if flooding is likely to

occur if the column is constructed with 1676 mm (66 inch) trays and a
circulating thermosiphon reboiler. For columns of this diameter, your
company's design standards require that the flooding factor be below 78
on all trays for safe operation.

SOLUTION

Part A Selected results are summarized in Tables 7 and 8.

Table 7: Results of Reboiler Problem (Metric)

Thermosiphon Type Bottoms Rate Reboiler Duty Maximum Actual
(kg-mol/hr) (M kcal/hr) Vapor Rate (m3/hr)
Single Pass (Kettle) 1067 1.73 1638
Circulating 1067 1.73 2295 = 2159+136

6 Reboilers
 Table 8: Results of Reboiler Problem (English)
Thermosiphon Type Bottoms Rate Reboiler Duty Maximum Actual
lb-mol/hr) (MM BTU/hr) Vapor Rate (ft3/hr)

Single Pass (Kettle) 2351 6.9 58

Circulating 2351 6.9 81 = 76.5 + 4.8

For simulation purposes the single pass thermosiphon is equivalent to a

kettle reboiler and should be modeled as such. A kettle reboiler adds one
theoretical stage to a PRO/II model so this column is equivalent to 9
theoretical stages.

The column with the circulating thermosiphon reboiler should have 10

theoretical stages. Recall that you simulate this type of thermosiphon as
two theoretical stages-one for the reboiler and one for the sump. Use the
PRO/II reboiler option thermosiphon without baffles.

This problem illustrates the importance of simulating reboilers properly.

Consider what would have happened if you designed your circulating-
thermosiphon-reboiler column using the kettle reboiler model. Your
maximum vapor traffic, and therefore your column cross-sectional area,
would have been underestimated by roughly 28% (=[81-58]/81). As a
result, flooding would be more likely to occur.

The traffic differs in the two columns because the single pass
thermosiphon reboiler behaves as a true equilibrium stage while the
circulating thermosiphon is only a fraction of an equilibrium stage. To
achieve the same separation with fewer theoretical trays, the
circulating-thermosiphon column must operate with more boilup.

Part B To check your coworker's design, enable the tray rating feature for trays
1 through 8 in both columns. Don't forget to select "cap" as the tray type.
Run the simulation and generate the output file. It will contain the results
shown in Figure 4.

The flooding factor (FF) for the column with the once-through
thermosiphon is indeed below 78 for every tray. This indicates a safe
design from a flooding standpoint.

Notice, however, that the tray rating results indicate that 66-inch trays are
unacceptable for the column with the circulating thermosiphon. Here the
flooding factor is dangerously high on the bottom tray (FF=97.7), where
vapor traffic is high. The results show that flooding is likely to occur if
this column is designed for a kettle reboiler but equipped with a
circulating thermosiphon. To determine a better size for the bottom tray,
you can enable PRO/II's tray sizing feature and re-run the column.

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 7

 Figure 4: Tray Rating
Results Once-Through Thermosiphon (Kettle)

Circulating Thermosiphon

8 Reboilers
Crude Column

TASK The flowsheet in Figure 5 shows a crude column labeled with theoretical
trays. The tables that follow contain plant measurements. Keep in mind
that measurements can be in error, especially flowrate measurements.
For this problem, you must calculate the duties (including furnace duty)
and product rates that enable the column to meet the specifications
shown in Table 15. For all runs, set the column's bubble point, enthalpy
balance, and equilibrium tolerances set at 0.0001.

You will build the simulation in several steps of increasing complexity.

This strategy makes it easier for you to correct mistakes and to identify
inaccurate plant measurements. Many difficulties in simulating crude
columns are apparent in simplified models of the column, where they are
relatively easy to troubleshoot. In contrast, troubleshooting a fully
configured column is difficult because the problem has more possible
causes, e.g., pumparounds and sidestrippers.

Feeds and Products

As indicated in Figure 5, the main column is equivalent to 19 theoretical
stages, and each sidestripper contains 2 theoretical stages. The crude feed
is heated in a furnace and introduced between stages 17 and 18. The feed
characterization in Table 10 is recent and believed to be accurate,
although the 80 and 100% points were obtained by hand extrapolation.

Figure 5: Crude
Column Flowsheet

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 9

 Stripping steam is introduced at the bottom of the main column and each
sidestripper. Table 10 shows the steam's measured rates and properties.
The measured product rates, shown in Table 11, may be in error due to
old flow meters.

Table 9: Crude Column Furnace Feed Data

TBP Data (760 mm Hg) Light Ends
LV% °C °F Component Liq Vol %
3 36.1 97.0 C2 0.1
5 65.0 149.0 C3 0.2
10 97.8 208.0 IC4 0.3
20 165.5 329.9 NC4 0.7
30 237.2 459.0 IC5 0.5
40 310.0 590.0 NC5 1.2
50 365.6 690.1 Total = 3%LV of assay
60 410.0 770.0
70 462.8 865.0
80 526.7 980.1
100 871.1 1600.0

Avg. density 0.88052 SPGR 29.2°API

Flowrate 795 std. liq. m3/hr 5000 bbl/hr
Temperature 232°C 450°F
Pressure 1.9785 bar 14.00 psig

Table 10: Stripping Steam Data

To Main Column 4536 kg/hr 10000 lb/hr
To Kerosene Stripper 1814 kg/hr 4000 lb/hr
To Diesel Stripper 2041 kg/hr 4500 lb/hr
To Gas Oil Stripper 681 kg/hr 1500 lb/hr
Total Steam 9072 kg/hr 20000 lb/hr
Temperature 315.56°C 600°F
Pressure 5.15 bar 60 psig

Table 11: Measured Product Rates

Decant 8750 kg/hr 19290 lb/hr
Naphtha 3
170 std m /hr 1069 bbl/hr
3
Kerosene 115 std m /hr 723 bbl/hr
3
Diesel 95 std m /hr 597 bbl/hr
Gas Oil (AGO) 150 std m3/hr 943 bbl/hr
Resid unknown

10 CrudeColumn
 Pressure Profile
Table 12 shows the measured pressures.

Table 12: Column Pressure

Condenser 1.379 bar 5.305 psig
TopTray (stage 2) 1.600 bar 8.51 psig
Flash Zone (stage 18) 1.875 bar 12.5 psig
Bottom Stage 1.910 bar 13.0 psig
Kerosene Sidestripper 1.826 bar 11.788 psig
Diesel Sidestripper 1.875 bar 12.5 psig
Gas Oil Sidestripper 1.930 bar 13.296 psig

Pumparound Measurements
Tables 13 and 14 show temperature and rate measurements taken for the
three pumparounds. The final three columns show heat capacities,
densities, and duties. The heat capacity and density values are only
approximate, they are standard values used by this particular refinery. Cp
typically ranges between 0.5 and 0.7 kcal/kg°C (Btu/lb°F) and the
density typically ranges between 700 and 1000 kg/m 3 (245 and 351
lb/bbl).
Alternatively, heat capacity and density values can be obtained from
PRO/II by simply running a preliminary simulation of the column. The
duties shown were obtained by using: Q=Cp*density*Rate* T. Since
pumparound rate measurements are commonly in error and Cp and
density are only approximate, these duty values are rough
approximations.

Table 13: Measured Pumparound Data (Metric)

Draw/Rtn Draw Return Rate Cp Density Dutyx106
Stage °C °C m3/hr kcal/kg °C kg/m3 kcal/hr
3/2 157 82 317 0.55 764 -10
12 / 11 281 191 205 0.65 831 -10
16 / 15 344 259 672 0.7 900 -36

Table 14: Measured Pumparound Data (English)

Draw/Rtn Draw Return Rate Cp Density Dutyx106
Stage °F °F ft3/hr BTU/lb °F lb/ft3 BTU/hr

3/2 315 180 1993.9 0.55 268 -39.68

12 / 11 538 376 1289.4 0.65 291 -39.68
16 / 15 651 498 4226.8 0.7 315 -142.86

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 11

 Operating Requirements
The column is designed to operate with an overflash of 3% (volumetric
internal liquid flow to the feed stage divided by the volumetric crude
feed rate = 0.03). Water coolant fixes the condenser temperature at
43.3°C (109.9°F). In addition to these operating constraints, the product
end-point specifications, given in Table 15, must be met.

Table 15: Operating Requirements

Overflash (volumetric) 0.03
Condenser Temperature 43.3°C 109.9°F
ASTM D86 95% POINT for Naphtha 171°C 339.8°F
ASTM D86 95% POINT for Kerosene 271°C 519.8°F
ASTM D86 95% POINT for Diesel 352°C 665.6°F
TBP 95% POINT for Gas Oil 475°C 887.0°F

Part A: Answer the following questions before building your simulation.

Preliminaries
1. What thermo-physical property prediction methods should you
select for this system? What level of damping should you select?
2. Which of PRO/II's column algorithms is the most suitable for
solving the column and its sidestrippers?
3. Of the four column initial estimate generators, which is the most
appropriate for this column?
4. You are required to calculate the furnace duty as a part of your
simulations. How can you do this without PRO/II creating a recycle
loop?
5. What specifications and variables should you use?
6. PRO/II ordinarily reports molar flowrates. How can you make
PRO/II report volumetric flowrates?

The pumparound duties on a crude column are typically similar in value

and decrease as the column is descended. Do the measured pumparound
data look reasonable?

12 CrudeColumn
 Part B
Simple Column

Build and converge the greatly simplified version of the crude column
shown in Figure 6. The purpose of this simulation is to correct any early
mistakes and to alert you to potential future problems. Omit all
pumparounds and sidestrippers, but don't forget to introduce the stripping
steam feeds to the main column. The absence of pumparounds means that
all of the condensing duty will be taken at the condenser. As already
discussed, you should simulate the furnace as a heater on the feed stage.

The variables should be the flash zone and condenser duties. The
specifications should be the Naphtha D86 95% point and the overflash. Fix
the side draw rates at the values in Table 11. Even though matching these
measured product rates is not the ultimate goal of this simulation, leave
them fixed for this first run. It is easier to converge a column with fixed
rates than specified composition. Instead of fixing the naphtha rate, specify
its D86 95% point. This specification makes it easy to correct a common
simulation problem: water condensing below the condenser. Should this
occur, simply increase the value of the specified 95% point to drive the
water overhead.

1. A common rule of thumb for crude columns is that up to 60% of the

total condensing duty can be transferred to the pumparounds. Do the
measured pumparound values violate this rule?

Figure 6: Simple
Column

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 13

 Part C: Add Side Strippers
Start from the previous run, and replace the side product draws with side strippers as shown
in Figure 7. Declare the kerosene, diesel, and AGO draw rates from the main column to be
variables, and enter the D86 and TBP specifications given in Table 15.

1. What should you use for the stripped product (KERO, DIESL, AGO) rate estimate?
2. How do the calculated product rates compare to the measured product rates?

Figure 7: Column
with Side Strippers

14 CrudeColumn
Part D: Add Start from the previous run and add tray coolers to the column as shown
Tray Coolers in Figure 8. The coolers approximate the pumparounds but are easier to
converge and analyze. Use the measured pumparound duties given in
Table 13 (Metric UOM) or Table 14 (English UOM).

1. Why did this simulation fail to converge? If it did not fail, check
your overflash specification; it should be on a volumetric basis.
What adjustments would you make to converge the column?
2. Re-run the column to determine the largest cooling duty that can be
taken at the AGO pumparound. Assume that the diesel and overhead
pumparound duties are approximately correct.

Figure 8: Tray
Coolers Approximate
Pumparound

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 15

 Part E: The results from the previous run indicate that the measured AGO
Corrected pumparound duty is grossly in error. Your simulation results convince
Pumparound your manager to have the pumparound flow meters repaired and
Duties
calibrated. The rate measurements in Tables 16 and 17 were performed
with the improved flow meters.

Table 16: Measured Pumparound Data (Metric)

Name Draw/Rtn Draw Return Rate Cp Density Dutyx106
Stage °C °C std m3/hr kcal/kg °C kg/m3 kcal/hr

Ovhd 3/2 156.5 81.5 380 0.55 764 -12

Diesel 12 / 11 280.9 190.9 250 0.65 831 -12.2
AGO 16 / 15 344.0 259.0 200 0.7 900 -10.2

Table 17: Measured Pumparound Data (English)

Name Draw/Rtn Draw Return Rate Cp Density Dutyx106
Stage °F °F bbl/hr BTU/lb °F lb/bbl BTU/hr
Ovhd 3/2 313.7 178.7 2390.1 0.55 268 -47.62
Diesel 12 / 11 537.6 375.6 1572.5 0.65 291 -48.41
AGO 16 / 15 651.2 498.2 1258.0 0.7 315 -40.48

These new pumparound rates produce duties that are consistent with our
rules of thumb. They are similar in value and decrease near the bottom of
the column. Furthermore, they sum to -34.4x10 6 kcal/hr (-136.51x106
Btu/hr) which is less than 50% of the total condensing duty.

1. What plant measurements could you use to further check the

pumparound duties?
2. Run and converge the column with these new duties.

Part F: Add In the previous simulation we concluded that the new pumparound
Pumparounds duties are reasonable. Now you can replace the tray coolers with
pumparounds.

1. You must provide two specifications for each pumparound (e.g.,

circulation rate, duty, return temperature, temperature drop). Which
should you use and why?
2. Run the simulation. Have the product rates changed significantly
from the model containing only the side strippers (Part C)?

16 CrudeColumn
If You Finish If time allows, try these problems.
Early
Increase Kerosene Yield
After studying the prices and demands of gasoline and jet fuel, your
refinery manager has decided to increase the kerosene yield and decrease
the naphtha yield during winter months. To accomplish the change, you
will transfer material from the back end of the naphtha to the front end of
the kerosene by lowering the naphtha D86 95%-point specification from
171°C to 165°C (340°F to 329°F). Unfortunately, adding light material
to the kerosene has the undesirable effect of decreasing its flash point. To
increase the flash point, you will have to sharpen up the kerosene front
end by increasing the kerosene stripping steam. The flash point is
acceptable when the D86 5% point is 186°C (366.8°F). Your job is to
determine the new product yields and the kerosene stripping steam rate.

Are Your Answers Really Correct?

The assay characterization method can be a large source of error in any
simulation involving petroleum components. In this run, you will check
the results of the previous run by increasing the number of petroleum
components. As previously mentioned, this should increase the accuracy
of your results. Define the following cutpoint set and re-run the problem.

Table 18: New Cutpoint Set "small cut"

Minimum Temperature for First Interval

50°F 10°C
Maximum Temperature for Interval Number of Pseudocomponents
in Interval

°F °C
300 150 15
400 200 20
500 260 4
540 280 8
640 335 4
690 365 10
870 465 8
910 490 8
1600 875 15

Estimating Product Rates

As you know, PRO/II requires rate estimates for all side streams, and
either the overhead or bottom stream. In this problem, you were
provided with measured, albeit inaccurate, rates that you used as initial
estimates in your simulations. In some design problems, it is possible
that you are not provided with product rate estimates. You must
determine rate estimates that allow PRO/II to converge the column.
How could you
Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 17
 estimate product rates for this column if you were not provided with
measured values?

SOLUTION
Thermodynamic methods: The Grayson Streed thermodynamic system is a
Part A:
Preliminaries good choice for crude columns as indicated in the Application Guide-
lines section of the on-line thermodynamic reference manual.

Algorithm: The Inside/Out (I/O) algorithm should always be your first

choice for hydrocarbon distillation, unless there is some reason it does
not apply to your system. Nothing about this column precludes its use,
so we select I/O for its general speed, insensitivity to initial estimates,
and ability to solve sidestrippers simultaneously with the main column.

You probably will not need to change the damping factor from its default
value. Recall that for I/O columns with sidestrippers, PRO/II
automatically changes the damping factor from 1.0 to 0.8. If time
permits, try rerunning the column with a higher damping factor, say 0.95.
Does this decrease the convergence time?

The Refinery model is the best initial estimate

Initial estimate generator:
generator to use. It was designed for complex, multi-draw columns and
works particularly well for columns with sidestrippers.

Furnace modeling: Simulate the furnace as a column stage with a heater.

The column model now contains 20 theoretical stages with the feed to
stage 18 and the steam to stage 20. By merging the two units, PRO/II
solves for the furnace duty as a part of the column calculations rather
than in recycle calculations.

Specifications and variables: The

final run will have five specifications and
five variables. The specifications should be the overflash and the four-
product end-points (e.g. D86 or TBP 95% points). The variables should
be the flash zone (furnace) and condenser duties and the kerosene,
diesel, and AGO side draw rates from the main column. The fixed
condenser temperature is entered as part of the condenser, so it is not
formally a specification. Note that by specifying the product end-points
PRO/II will calculate their flowrates. These rates will not agree with the
measured product rates. This is inevitable because plant measurements,
especially flowrate, are never perfectly accurate. For this flowsheet, we
are willing to tolerate mismatch in the product rates but not in their end-
points.

You can view volumetric flowrates in PRO/II

Volumetric flowrate reporting:
by adding a stream property table to the flowsheet.

18 CrudeColumn
 Pumparound duties: The
AGO pumparound duty is very high compared to
the other pumparounds. This probably means the AGO pumparound rate
measurement is inaccurate.

Part B: The calculated condenser duty in this run is approximately -75.3x10 6

Simple kcal/hr (-299x10 6 Btu/hr). In comparison, the sum of the measured
Column pumparound duties is approximately -57x106 kcal/hr (-226x106 Btu/hr).
The measured pumparound duties amount to 74% of the total condensing
duty, well in excess of the 60% rule. You should be quite suspicious of
the pumparound measurements. A high measurement for the AGO
pumparound rate would explain the problem.

Part C: Add In this run, PRO/II calculates the product rates to meet your end-point
Side Strippers specifications. The rates that you supply for the main column draws and
stripped products do not have to be extremely accurate because they are
only estimates. Using the measured product rates for both the main
column draw and the stripped product rates works well.

As shown in Tables 19 and 20, the calculated Kerosene and AGO

product rates differ significantly from their measured rates. The others
are probably within the margin of error of the flow measurements.
Fortunately, PRO/II was able to converge by using the less-than-perfect
measured product rates as initial estimates. The calculated product rates
will change slightly when the pumparounds are added to the column
model.

Table 19: Product Stream Rates for Column without Pumparounds (Metric)
Stream Measured Product Calculated Product Calculated Side
Rates Rates Draw Rates
Naphtha 170 std m3/hr 175 std m3/h
Kerosene 115 std m3/hr 99.0 std m3/hr 125 std m3/hr
Diesel 95 std m3/hr 87.0 std m3/hr 112 std m3/h
3 3
Gas Oil (AGO) 150 std m /hr 119 std m /hr 130 std m3/hr
Resid unknown 315 std m3/hr
Water Decant 8750 kg/hr 8801 kg/hr

Table 20: Product Stream Rates for Column without Pumparounds (English)
Stream Measured Product Calculated Product Calculated Side
Rates Rates Draw Rates

Naphtha 1096.3 bbl/hr 1102 bbl/hr

Kerosene 723.3 bbl/hr 622 bbl/hr 784 bbl/hr
Diesel 597.5 bbl/hr 547 bbl/hr 704 bbl/hr
Gas Oil (AGO) 943.5 bbl/hr 749 bbl/hr 816 bbl/hr
Resid unknown 1979 bbl/hr
Water Decant 19290 lb/hr 19404 lb/hr

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 19

 Part D: Add The simulation failed due to dry up of the tray above the AGO side
Tray Coolers cooler. If you double click on the unconverged column you can see that
the liquid rates are near zero on trays above the AGO side cooler. Dry up
is usually caused by excessive cooling duty, additional evidence that the
measured AGO pumparound rate is much too large. To eliminate the dry
up, you could guess a lower cooling duty and re-run the column.

Tip: An easier way to converge this column is to declare the AGO

cooler duty to be a variable, and specify a small liquid rate
from stage 14; a good value is 10 kg-mole/hr (22 lb-mol/hr).
PRO/II will decrease the AGO duty, which we know to be in
error, until the tray above it has this liquid flowrate.

The maximum allowed cooling duty occurs when the tray above the
cooler (pumparound return) almost dries up. Therefore, the technique
described in the above tip returns approximately the maximum cooling
duty. As the specified liquid rate approaches zero, the duty more closely
approximates the maximum. However, specifying very small liquid rates
can lead to convergence difficulties and does not significantly change the
calculated duty. Using a wash rate (liquid from stage 14) of 10 kg-mole/
hr (22 lb-mol/hr), the AGO cooler duty is -33.2x10 6 kcal/hr (-132x106
Btu/hr).

Part E: If these more accurate measurements were unavailable, you could check
Corrected the accuracy of the pumparound data by examining the preheat train
Pumparound measurements. Since the pumparounds preheat the crude, each duty
Duties
must match an enthalpy increase for the crude. Of course, the crude side
measurements can be in error, but they do provide a check.

Part F: Add Pumparounds are easiest to converge when their duty is calculated rather
Pumparounds than specified. The values of duty in this simulation are no more accurate
than the flowrate measurements, so there is no reason to prefer a duty
specification over a rate specification. Therefore, you should specify the
rate, which we now believe to be accurate, and the temperature drop. If
you wish the simulation to exactly match the measured pumparound
return temperature, then specify it instead of the temperature drop.

Table 21 shows that the calculated product rates have not changed
significantly from the run where all the condensing duty was taken at
the condenser.

20 CrudeColumn
 Table 21: Column Duties
Heater/Cooler Name Duty (x106 kcal/hr) Duty (x106 Btu/hr)
Condenser -37.74 -149.8
Overhead Pumparound -12.10 -48.03
Diesel Pumparound -12.08 -47.95
AGO Pumparound -10.21 -40.52
Flash Zone (Furnace) 79.02 313.2

Table 22: Stripped Product Stream Rates

Stream Measured Calculated (no Calculated
pumparounds) (with
pumparounds)
m3/hr bbl/hr m3/hr bbl/hr m3/hr bbl/hr

Naphtha 170 1069 175 1102 173 1090

Kerosene 115 723.3 99.0 622 97.4 612
Diesel 95 597.5 87.0 547 86.4 543
Gas Oil (AGO) 150 943.5 119 749 126 792
Resid 315 1979 312 1963
Water Decant 8750 kg/hr 19290 lb/hr 8801 kg/hr 19404 lb/hr 791 kg/hr 19382 lb/hr

If You Finish Increase Kerosene Yield

Early To simulate the increased jet mode, simply change the Naphtha D86
95% specification from 171 to 165°C (340 to 329°F). To enforce the
minimum Kerosene flash point, add another specification-variable pair.
Specify that the kerosene D86 5% point be 186°C (366.8°F) and declare
the steam rate to the kerosene side stripper as a variable. The results are
presented in Tables 23 and 24.

A more sophisticated simulation would involve using PRO/II'S

OPTIMIZER to determine the naphtha-kerosene split that maximizes the
column profit. This model would have to account for the monetary value
of each of the products, the cost of reboiling and condensing duties, and
the cost of steam.

Table 23: Stripped Product Stream Rates

Stream Standard Operation Increased JetMode

Kero steam 1814 kg/hr 4000 lb/hr 2443 kg/hr 5359 lb/hr
3 3
Naphtha 173 m /h 1090 bbl/hr 167 m /hr 1050 bbl/hr
Kerosene 97.4 m3/hr 613 bbl/hr 105 m3/hr 661 bbl/hr
3 3
Diesel 86.4 m /hr 544 bbl/hr 84.9 m /hr 534 bbl/hr
3 3
Gas Oil (AGO) 126 m /hr 792 bbl/hr 126 m /hr 795 bbl/hr
3 3
Resid 312 m /hr 1963 bbl/hr 312 m /hr 1962 bbl/hr

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 21

 Table 24: Duties
Heater/Cooler Standard Operation Increased JetMode
6 6 6
x10 kcal/hr x10 Btu/hr x10 kcal/hr x106 Btu/hr

Condenser -37.74 -149.8 -38.23 -151.7

Overhead -12.10 -48.03 -11.97 -47.50
Pumparound
Diesel Pumparound -12.08 -47.95 -12.09 -47.99
AGO Pumparound -10.21 -40.52 -10.21 -40.52
Flash Zone (Furnace) 79.02 313.2 79.07 313.4

Are Your Answers Really Correct?

As shown in Tables 25 and 26, the answers are not very well converged
with the default cutpoint set, especially the kerosene stripping steam
rate. The SMALL CUT cutpoint set was defined so that there are a
significant number of petroleum components in the "overlap" regions
(i.e. the temperature regions that define the separation of the products).
Note that the AGO-Resid product rates changed significantly because
the default cutpoint set uses 55.6°C (100°F) petroleum components. The
3.1°C (5°F) cuts used in the SMALL CUT cutpoint set more accurately
model the behavior around this split.

Table 25: Stripped Product Stream Rates for Different Cutpoint Sets
Stream Default cutpoint set "Small cuts" cutpointset

Kero Steam 2443 kg/hr 5359 lb/hr 880.8 kg/hr 1971 lb/hr
Naphtha 167 m3/hr 1050 bbl/hr 167.3 m3/hr 1052 bbl/hr
3 3
Kerosene 105 m /hr 661 bbl/hr 106.0 m /hr 669.5 bbl/hr
3 3
Diesel 84.9 m /hr 534 bbl/hr 86.19 m /hr 539.5 bbl/hr
3 3
Gas Oil (AGO 126 m /hr 795 bbl/hr 136.3 m /hr 858.5 bbl/hr
Resid 312 m3/hr 1962 bbl/hr 299.5 m3/hr 1882 bbl/hr

Table 26: Duties for Different Cutpoint Sets

Name x106 kcal/hr x106 Btu/hr x106 kcal/hr x106 Btu/hr

Condenser -38.23 -151.7 -38.35 -152.4

Overhead Pumparound -11.97 -47.50 -12.02 -47.69
Diesel Pumparound -12.09 -47.99 -12.15 -48.23
AGO Pumparound -10.21 -40.52 -10.27 -40.77
Flash Zone (Furnace) 79.07 313.4 82.07 325.4

Estimating Product Rates

There are many ways to estimate product flowrates when measured
values are unavailable. The real trick is in estimating values with a
minimal expenditure of your time. One method is to use PRO/II's
SHORTCUT COLUMN unit operation. This unit is not currently available in
PROVISION.
22 CrudeColumn
 For problems, such as this one, where you specify product end or initial
points, it is easy to generate product rate estimates from a quick
examination of the feed assay curve. As a rough approximation, you can
divide up the feed assay curve into the product cuts by using the
specified 5% and 95% points as the initial and end-points. Figure 9
illustrates the technique.

First print out the feed TBP curve from PROVISION by pressing the
button contained in the feed stream assay dialog box. Using a
straight edge and the end-point specifications, determine the percent
of the original feed that each product comprises.
Multiply these product percentages by the feed flowrate and you
have your estimates.

In reality, the separation is never this sharp; however, the I/O column
algorithm needs only rough estimates for these rates. You could work a
little harder to come up with better estimates, but try these first; the
additional effort may not be necessary.

PRO/II requires estimates for both the main column product streams and
for the side stripper product streams. It is usually satisfactory to assume
that the side stripper feed and product rates are equal. For example, the
calculations in Figure 9 indicate that roughly 103 m 3/hr (648 bbl/hr) of
diesel is contained in the crude feed. Use this value as the estimate for
both the main column diesel draw rate and for the stripped diesel product
rate.

Estimating the water decant flowrate is especially easy; it is well

approximated as the sum up the total steam fed to the column.

Figure 9: Product
Rate Estimates

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 23

 Vacuum Column

TASK The flowsheet in Figure 10 shows a simple process for a vacuum

column. The LVGO and HVGO draws are total draws, and some of the
hot HVGO is returned to the column as wash oil. The wash oil is drawn
off as slop wax and recycled to the furnace with the topped crude feed.

Figure 1 0: Vacuum
Column Flowsheet

Calculate the following quantities:

1. The duties for the two pumparounds.
2. The furnace duty and its outlet temperature.

Part A Answer the following questions before building your simulation:

1. What assay extrapolation method, thermodynamic method, column
algorithm, and initial estimate generator should you select for this
problem? What level of damping should you use?
2. If you selected the I/O column algorithm, how should you simulate
the LVGO total draw without violating the I/O algorithm's
requirement that all interstage flows be nonzero?
3. What is a good estimate for the total amount of non-condensables in
the problem? Hint: plant measurements indicate that the flash zone
temperature is approximately 385°C (725°F).
4. PRO/II requires you to provide flowrates for all sidestreams. What is
a good estimate for the flowrate for the LVGO flowrate?

24 CrudeColumn
 5. How should you simulate the furnace so that PRO/II does not create
a recycle loop? How can you calculate the furnace outlet
temperature?

Note: You must connect a water draw stream to the top stage of the
column even though all of the water exits the column in the
overhead vapor stream. PRO/II has no way of knowing this a
priori, so it requires you to provide an outlet for any water that
might condense at the top stage.

Part B An ASTM D1160 distillation at 2 mm Hg was run by the laboratory for

the topped crude feed. Table 27 reports this distillation, corrected to 760
mm Hg.

Table 27: Topped Crude Feed Data

D1160 Data (760 mmHg)

LV% DEGC DEGF

0 257 494.6
5 324 615.2
10 380 716.0
20 399 750.2
30 435 815.0
40 455 851.0
50 505 941.0
60 541 1005.8
70 596 1104.8

Density 0.9833 SPGR 12.403°API

Flowrate 99.4 std. m3/hr 625.2 bbl/hr
Temperature before 260°C 500°F
furnace
Pressure 11.4 bar 150.64 psig

Steam is introduced to the column feed and to the bottom stage. The
measured rates and thermal condition are given in Table 28.

Table 28: Vacuum Column Steam Feeds

To Column Feed 318 kg/hr 701.0 lb/hr
To Bottom Tray 681 kg/hr 1501.3 lb/hr
Temperature 288°C 550.4°F
Pressure 11.4 bar 150.64 psig

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 25

 The column is equivalent to 7 theoretical stages. The measured pressures
and pumparound rates are in Table 29.

Table 29: Column Operating Data

Top Stage Pressure 74 mm Hg
Flash zone (Stage 6) 98 mm Hg
Bottom Stage 112 mm Hg
LVGOPumparound 13.3 std. liq. m3/hr 83.7 bbl/hr
HVGOPumparound 66.3 std. liq. m3/hr 417.0 bbl/hr

Operate the column so that the specifications, listed in Table 30, are met.

Table 30: Desired Operating Conditions

Top StageTemperature 105°C 221°F
3
HVGORate 42.6 std. liq. m /hr 267.9 bbl/hr
3
Residue Rate 49.7 std. liq. m /hr 312.6 bbl/hr
Slop Wax Rate 3.5 std. liq. m 3/hr 22.0 bbl/hr

SOLUTION
Part A Try using both the
Assay Extrapolation, Thermodynamics, Algorithm, and IEG:
cubic spline and PDF methods to extrapolate the topped crude assay out
to 100%. The PDF produces an endpoint of about 825°C (1517°F), while
the cubic spline produces an endpoint of about 1000°C (1832°F). The
PDF result is low for all but the very lightest of crudes. The cubic spline
result falls within the 871-1093°C (1600-2000°F) guidelines, so we will
choose cubic spline for this problem.

The Low-Pressure Crude Systems section of the online Thermodynamics

Reference Manual indicates that the Grayson-Streed thermodynamic
system is a good choice. It also indicates that you should change the
enthalpy methods from Curl-Pitzer (CP) to Lee-Kesler (LK).

The I/O column algorithm and the Refining IEG are the most appropriate
for this column. Try running the simulation first without damping. If the
errors oscillate from iteration to iteration, try a damping factor between
0.6 and 0.8.

To simulate the LVGO total draw, simply

Simulating the LVGO Total Draw:
specify a very small (but nonzero) liquid flowrate from tray 2 to tray 3.
We specified a flowrate of 1.0 kg-mol/hr (2.2 lb-mol/hr) and declared the
LVGO flowrate as a variable.

Noncondensables: Use the correlation below (or see Table 8, on page 84 of

the course notes) to estimate the total non-condensable flowrate.

26 VacuumColumn
 0.788Fm + 2.72 [0.151 Fm]1/2+ 2.86Cm Fm (1)

where Cm = 0.15 exp [am(TC-385)] and am = ln(2)/14 = 0.0495.

Assume that the flash zone temperature is 385°C (725°F). At this

temperature the total flowrate is:
0.788*99.4 + 2.72*[0.151*99.4]1/2 + 2.86*0.15*99.4 = 131.5 kg/hr
= 289.9 lb/hr

Because the non-condensable stream contains contributions from several

sources, you should enter it as an independent feed stream, not as the
light ends portion of the topped crude assay.

A more automatic and less error prone way to determine the non-
condensable flowrate is to employ a CALCULATOR, as shown in Figure
11. The CALCULATOR uses the correlations in Table 8 on page 84 of the
course notes to set the non-condensables flowrate. The keyword input
file for this problem and the online help system have more information
on the calculator. Note that if you use the flash zone temperature in the
cracking correlation PRO/II will create a recycle loop because the flash
zone temperature is not known until after the column is calculated.

Figure 11: Vacuum OVHDVAP

Column Simulation
Flowsheet in PRO/II
WATER

1
LVGO
Calculate non-condensable
2
flowrate from correlation

CALC HVGO

NON_CONDENS 4

Calculate furnace
5
TOPPED_CR UDE outlet temperature
FEED
MIX SLOP_WAX
STEAM_1 6
FURNACE_OUT

FEED_REF

7 FD
STEAM_2

VAC

RESID

Product Rate Estimates: To estimate

the LVGO flowrate, assume that all of the
topped crude feed that doesn't exit in the HVGO and RESID streams exits
in the LVGO stream. This works out to 7.1 std. liq. m3/hr [= 99.4 -
42.6 - 49.7] (44.7 bbl/hr), which is a good enough estimate for the I/O
algorithm to converge.

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 27

 Furnace Calculations: To
prevent creating a recycle loop, you should model
the furnace as a column tray with a side heater. This adds one stage to the
column model. The furnace duty will now be calculated along with the
rest of the column variables.

The drawback to merging the furnace with the column is that the furnace
outlet stream no longer exists in the simulation. Although the feed tray
temperature will closely approximate the furnace outlet temperature, you
may want to know this value more accurately.

To calculate the furnace outlet temperature, use a FLASH drum as shown

in Figure 11. You can access the slop wax portion of the furnace feed by
using the column pseudostream utility. The stream (dashed line) labeled
SLOP WAX is a copy of the liquid stream from stage 5. As in the crude
column problem, use the define feature to pass the feed stage pressure
and heater duty to the flash drum.

Part B Table 31 contains a portion of the column summary from the output
report.

Table 31: Selected Results

LVGOPumparound Duty -2.93 x10 6 kJ/hr -2.77 x106 Btu/hr
HVGOPumparound Duty -22.3 x10 6 kJ/hr -21.1 x106 Btu/hr
Flash Zone (Furnace) Duty 41.7 x10 6 kJ/hr 39.5 x106 Btu/hr
FurnaceOutletTemperature 382°C 719°F
3
LVGOFlowrate 6.72 std. liq. m /hr 42.2 bbl/hr
Overhead Flowrate 1458 (1465*) kg/hr 3214 (3231*) lb/hr
Water Decant Flowrate 0 0
* This overhead flowrate would be calculated if you used a fixed flash zone temperature
of 385°C (725 °F) in the cracking correlation.

28 VacuumColumn
FCC Main Fractionator

TASK The flowsheet in Figure 12 shows an FCC main fractionator labeled with
actual trays. Develop a rigorous model for the column, and calculate the
condenser and quench duties, product rates, and compositions. Try to
match the measured plant data, especially for the LCO product stream.

As with the crude column problem, you will build the simulation model
in several steps of increasing complexity. For all runs, set the column's
bubble point, enthalpy balance, and equilibrium tolerances at 0.0001.

A small portion of the cool slurry is pumped into the bottom of the
column to control the bottom temperature to 362.8°C (685°F).
Unfortunately, this stream is not metered.

As shown in Figure 12, some of the unstripped light cycle oil is sent to
the gas plant, where it is used in the sponge absorber. This absorber
attempts to remove valuable light ends (primarily propylene and C4
hydrocarbons) from the primary absorber overhead before it is added to
the refinery fuel system.

Heavy cycle oil is drawn for a pumparound cooling circuit. However, no

net product is withdrawn from the column.

Figure 12: Main

Fractionator

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 29

 Feeds and Products
The reactor effluent is mixed with steam and enters the column at 524°C
(975°F). Due to the high temperature of this stream, it is impractical to
measure its composition. Fortunately, the product stream measurements
shown in Tables 32 and 33 are current and believed to be accurate. The
steam feeds are shown in Table 34. The lean and rich sponge oil streams
are not assayed; however, their flowrates and thermal conditions are
given in Table 35.

The stable gasoline and light products data were derived from the FCC
fractionation plant data, downstream from the main fractionator. For
notation, see Figure 12. The light ends recycled to the main fractionator
are those light ends picked up in the sponge absorber. They were derived
by subtracting the light ends in the sponge absorber off gas from the light
ends in the primary absorber gas.

Table 32: Gas Plant Measurements

Component Light Products Recycle Stable
Gasoline
kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr* lb/hr* LV %

CO 106.6 235 5.4 12 -

CO2 403.2 889 23.6 52 -
N2 748.4 1650 5.4 12 -
H2 184.2 406 52.3 5 -
C1 2482.1 5472 39.5 87 -
Ethylene 1977.2 4359 61.2 135 -
C2 377.4 832 81.6 180 -
Propylene 5468.5 12056 162.4 358 -
C3 2129.6 4695 22.2 49 -
IC4 4316.4 9516 14.5 32 -
1-butene 6221.5 13716 8.6 19 0.10
NC4 1403.4 3094 5.4 12 4.99
IC5 44.5 98 - - 2.64
1-pentene 106.6 235 - - 3.22
NC5 11.8 26 - - 1.79
* Pickup in sponge absorber

30 FCCMain Fractionator
 Table 33: Product Measurements
% Distilled Stable Gasoline D86 LCOD86 Slurry D1160 (760 mm)
Liq vol °C °F °C °F °C °F

IBP 21.1 70 214.4 418 307.2 585

5 38.9 102 252.8 487 367.2 693
10 52.2 126 262.8 505 378.3 713
30 85.5 186 281.6 539 404.4 760
50 118.3 245 298.3 569 428.3 803
70 158.3 317 318.3 605 470.5 879
80 - - - - 493.3* 920*
90 198.9 390 339.4 643 537.8* 1000*
95 212.2 414 351.7 665 - -
EP 223.9 435 362.7 685 648.0* 1200*
SPGR (°API) 0.76934 (54.6) 0.92605 (21.3) 1.0078 (8.9)
m3/hr (bbl/hr) 69.2 (435.4) 26.2 (164.8) 13.88 (87.33)
* Extrapolated values

Table 34: Steam Data

With reactor effluent 11113 kg/hr 24500 lb/hr
To LCOstripper 612.4 kg/hr 1350 lb/hr
Total Steam 11725 kg/hr 25850 lb/hr
Pressure (saturated) 11.355 bar 150 psig

Table 35: Sponge

Oil Lean Rich
3 3
Flowrate 11.13 m /hr 70.0 bbl/hr 11.50 m /hr 72.3 bbl/hr
Temperature 251.7°C 485°F 32.2°C 90°F
Pressure - - 9.632 bar 125 psig

Pumparound Measurements
Table 36 (Metric) and Table 37 (English) shows temperature, rate, and
gravity measurements taken for the three pumparounds. The final two
columns show heat capacities and duties. The heat capacity values are
only approximate, they are standard estimates used by this refinery. The
duties shown were calculated from the plant measurements
using: Q=Cp*Density*Rate* T. Since pumparound rate measurements
are commonly in error and Cp is only approximate, these duty values are
rough approximations.

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 31

 Table 36: Measured FCC Pumparound Data (Metric)
Name Draw Return Rate SPGR kg/m3 Cp Duty x 106
°C °C 3
m /hr kcal/kg °C kcal/hr

Upper 204.4 60.0 135.14 0.85241 841.6 .55 9.07

HCO 307.2 210.0 87.44 0.95802 955.7 .65 -5.29
Quench 362.7 226.7 135.14 1.0078 1007.1 .65 -12.10

Table 37: Measured FCC Pumparound Data (English)

Name Draw Return Rate SPGR lb/bbl Cp Duty x 106
°F °F ft3/hr BTU/lb °F BTU/hr

Upper 400 140 850 34.5 295 0.55 -36

HCO 585 410 550 16.2 335 0.65 -21
Quench 685 440 850 8.9 353 0.65 -48

Part A Answer the following questions before building your simulation.

Preliminaries
What thermodynamic system
Thermodynamics, Algorithm, and Initial Estimates:
should you use? What column algorithm and initial estimate generator
should you use? You have plant measured temperatures for the top tray,
condenser, and the lean sponge oil product. How can you use these to
help PRO/II converge the column?

Bottom Cooler: We will simulate the bottom of the column with a single
stage (below the feed stage) and a side cooler. Although the column
produces a subcooled product, PRO/II requires a vapor flow from each
stage. How can you ensure that a vapor stream exits the bottom stage?

Reactor Effluent: The

reactor effluent composition is unmeasured. How can
you determine its composition?

Rich Sponge Oil: The lean and rich sponge oil compositions are
unmeasured. How can you approximate the rich sponge oil feed to the
column?

Simulation Model: Convert the actual column to a model using theoretical

stages. As a rule of thumb, FCC main fractionator trays have overall
efficiencies of approximately 45-55% near the top of the column, 30-45%
in the middle of the column, and 20% in the quench zone.

Specifications and Variables: What specifications and variables should you

use?

32 FCCMain Fractionator
 Part B: Because it is easy to make mistakes in constructing the feed streams, you
Simplified will first run some simplified column models in order to find any feed
Models errors, when they are easy to correct.

RunB1 Figure 13 shows the main fractionator with the side stripper and all
pumparounds removed. By eliminating this equipment, we have
eliminated the main sources of convergence problems and user input
errors in refinery columns. To increase the chances of convergence, we
will start with the simplest specifications possible. For the first run,
specify the condenser temperature at 32.2°C (90°F) and vary the
condenser duty This specification is very easy to converge for two
reasons:
It ensures that three phases will be produced at the condenser.
The potential problem of water condensing in the column can be
easily eliminated by raising the condenser temperature specification.

Alternatively, you can specify the temperature on stage 2 or the D86

95% point of the unstabilized gasoline product. These specifications are
also quite easy to converge and have the indirect effect of setting the
overhead temperature.

Figure 1 3: Simulation
Model for Run B1

Although reflux rate specifications are in general quite easy to converge,

do not specify it for this simplified model. The reflux rate reported in
this problem was measured for a column containing pumparounds,
hence it is too low for this simplified column that takes all condensing
duty at the condenser. In fact, the minimum reflux rate for the simplified
column is about 198.73 m 3/hr (1250 bbl/hr), while the survey value is
21.46 m3/hr (135 bbl/hr). If you try to specify the survey reflux rate o n

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 33

 this column, convergence will fail because the bottom of the column
dries up.

Run and converge this column before proceeding.

RunB2 Now add the sidestripper and the bottom cooler to the model. Since we
want to meet end-point specifications on the gasoline and LCO, add the
appropriate D86 95%-point specifications and declare their draw rates
to be variables. Also add the bottom temperature specification and
declare the bottom cooler duty as a variable.

Run and converge this column before proceeding.

RunB3 In this run, you will check the validity of the pumparound
measurements, which are a common source of problems in refinery
column simulation. Add side coolers to each of the pumparound return
stages and set their duties to the values calculated in Table 36
(Metric)and Table 37 (English). Your flowsheet should now look like
the one in Figure 14.

Pumparound duties that are too high cause dryup on higher trays. Did
any of the trays dry up in this simulation? How does the presence of the
side coolers affect the reflux rate?

Figure 1 4: Simulation
Model for Runs B3
and B4

RunB4 By adding the side coolers to the column, the reflux rate is much lower and
we can now attempt to impose the reflux specification. Add this
specification and declare the quench pumparound duty to be a variable.

Run and converge this column before proceeding.

34 FCCMain Fractionator
Part C:
Final Models

RunC1 In this run, you will add the pumparound circulation to the model. The
final column model appears in Figure 15. You can complete the
pumparound simulation in two ways:

Keep the side coolers in place and add pumparounds without duties.
Remove the side coolers and add three pumparounds to the column.
Fix their rates and duties accordingly.
Both approaches are equivalent. If you have trouble converging this
model, try running the column after each pumparound is added. Start
with the top pumparound.

Figure 15: Final

Column Model

How do the results compare with the plant data. In particular do the
LCO, slurry, and gasoline streams match the measured results?

RunC2 As discussed in the solution, the results from Run B1 differ from the
plant data in the following notable ways:
The gasoline front end is lighter than the survey data. This is to be
expected because the column produces unstabilized gasoline, while
the survey data were measured for stabilized gasoline from the gas
plant.
The slurry gravity is lighter than the survey data.
The top tray temperature is lower than the survey data.

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 35

 The LCO yield is about 5% higher than the survey data.
The LCO front end is lighter than the survey data, indicating that
some heavy gasoline is present.

The LCO and the top temperature mismatches can be improved by

simply raising the top tray temperature to the observed value. This
decreases the LCO yield by causing some of the light components in the
LCO to be carried up the column where they are recovered with the
gasoline. You can increase the top tray temperature by either raising the
gasoline end-point specification or by replacing it with a column top tray
temperature specification. The later approach is more straightforward
because it allows you to exactly match the top tray temperature.
Abandoning the gasoline end-point specification is not a problem
because you expect some mismatch between the unstabilized and
stabilized gasoline products.

Replace the gasoline 95% specification with the top tray temperature
specification and re-run the simulation. Do the calculated results match
the survey data any better?

SOLUTION

Part A: Thermodynamics, Algorithm, and Initial Estimates: As

indicated in the online help
Preliminaries system, the Grayson-Streed thermodynamic system is a good choice.
The I/O column algorithm and the Refine initial estimate generator work
best for this type of problem. Measured tray temperatures are very
valuable information and you should enter them as estimates. Providing
reasonable temperature estimates almost always results in models that
converge faster and more reliably. It is good practice to supply a top
temperature estimate that is a little high. This prevents any condensation
of water in the column for the initial trial solutions.

Bottom Cooler: To ensure that a vapor stream exits the dummy (bottom)
stage, you can introduce a small amount of hydrogen to the bottom
stage. A feed stream of about 3 lb-moles/hr works well and does not
have a significant impact on the simulation results.

Reactor Effluent: To simulate the reactor effluent, perform a mass balance

around the flowsheet shown in Figure 12. The non-water portion of the
reactor effluent produces the LCO, Light products, Stable gasoline, and
Slurry product streams all of which are measured. As shown in Figure
14, the reactor effluent is constructed by mixing all of these product
streams plus the appropriate quantity of steam.

36 FCCMain Fractionator
 Rich Sponge Oil: The sponge absorber strips the very lightest components
from the LSO and replaces them with heavier material, primarily C2's
through C4's. For this reason, we can approximate the LSO as LCO,
which is just steam-stripped LSO, plus whatever was picked up in the
sponge absorber. Fortunately, you do have compositional data for the
LCO stream and for the sponge absorber pickup (the stream labeled

Since you know the rich SO rate [11.5 m3/hr (72.3 bbl/hr)] and the
recycle gas rate, you can calculate the amount of LCO to blend with the
light pickup. A simple way to do this is to use a splitter as shown in
Figure 14.
Just use the splitter specification LSOFEED + Recycle Gas = 11.5 m3/hr
(72.3 bbl/hr).

Note: Since the rich sponge oil stream is not actually a feed stream,
(it is a recycle stream that we approximate as a feed stream),
you should exclude it from the assay blending procedure so it
does not influence the cutpoint set.

Simulation Model: The column with theoretical stages is shown in Figure

15. Note that the total number of stages has been reduced rather
drastically from the PFD. Main fractionators are very similar to crude
towers, and fractionation is not particularly sharp. Model the
sidestripper with two stages and eliminate all stages between the
pumparounds' return and draw.

We have chosen to represent the quench zone with two stages, but some
users prefer to use one stage. Stage 15 has been added to simulate the
cooling of the slurry in the bottom of the column. A cooler on this stage
sets the bottom temperature to the desired level.

Specifications and Variables: Your choice

of specifications and variables
depends on what plant data you wish to match. For this column, you
should specify the condenser temperature, the gasoline and LCO end-
points (simulated as D86 95% specifications), the reflux rate and the
bottom temperature. We may change these later to improve the
matching. To meet these specifications, you should declare as variables,
the condenser, quench, and bottom cooler duties, and the gasoline and
LCO draw rates.

If the preliminary runs do not show any problems with the pumparound
measurements, we will set the pumparound circulation and duties at their
survey values. There is always a possibility of a pinch (dryup) in the
column from inaccurate cooling data, with the HCO side cooler usually
being the culprit.

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 37

 Part B: Selected results from the two models are shown in Table 38 (Metric)
Simplified and Table 39 (English).
Models
Table 38: Selected Results from Simplified Models (Metric)
RunB1 RunB2 RunB3 RunB4
Condenser (M kcal/hr) -41.7 -41.7 -15.9 -17.0
Reflux rate (m3/hr) 221.4 241 11.5 21.5
3
Wet gas rate (m /hr) 60.0 60.6 60.7 60.7
3
Gasoline rate (m /hr) 69.2 64.6 63.6 63.8
D86 95% (°C) 227 212 212 212
LCO rate (m3/hr) 26.2 24.9 25.8 25.7
D86 95% (°C) 352 352 352 352
3
Slurry rate (m /hr) 8.60 13.8 13.8 13.8

Table 39: Selected Results from Simplified Models (English)

RunB1 RunB2 RunB3 RunB4
Condenser (M Btu/hr) -165 -165 -62.7 -67.2
Reflux rate (bbl/hr) 1421 1535 71 135
Wet gas rate (bb/hr) 372 373 374 374
Gasoline rate (bbl/hr) 435 411 404 406
D86 95% (°F) 436 414 414 414
LCO rate (bbl/hr) 165 160 166 165
D86 95% (°F) 667 665 665 665
Slurry rate (bbl/hr) 61.9 87.7 87.5 87.4

Part C:
Final Runs
RunC1 Selected results from this run are shown below.

Figure 16: Column

Summary for Run C1

38 FCCMain Fractionator
 Table 40: Results for Run C1
Gasoline LCO Slurry
SPGR (API) 0.766 (55.6) 0.924 (21.7) 1.00 (9.6)
m3/hr (bbl/hr) 63.6 (405) 25.5 (163) 14.1 (89.4)

% distilled D86 °C °F D86 °C °F D1160 °C °F

5% 11 52 244 472 350 661
10% 32 79 258 498 368 694
30% 90 192 281 538 393 738
50% 124 254 299 570 421 788

Note the poor agreement between the calculated and measured gasoline
front ends. This is to be expected because the measured properties were
for the stabilized gasoline stream while the column product is unstabilized
gasoline. Using a D86 95% distilled specification for this stream results in
some inaccuracy in the model because of composition differences in the
simulated unstabilized gasoline and the actual stabilized gasoline.

The LCO and slurry properties and yields should be matched well in the
model. Note that the LCO yield is about 5% high, which is certainly
within the accuracy of the plant data. The pumparound details also show
some differences that can be related to inaccurate rates and differences in
the draw temperatures between the model and the plant. There is no
justification for making changes to the simulated pumparound data.

RunC2 Figure 17 and Table 41 show the results for this run. Naturally, the top
tray (stage 2) temperature exactly matches the survey data. In addition,
the yields for both the slurry and LCO more closely match the plant
yields. The D86 curves and gravity for these streams are also improved
from the previous simulation. Note that the D86 95% point for the
unstabilized gasoline increased by 4°F from the preliminary run.

Figure 17: Column

Summary for the
Final Run

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 39

 Table 41: Final Product Results
Unstablized Gasoline LCO Slurry
SPGR (API) 0.768 (55.2) 0.926 (21.3) 1.00 (9.6)1.00 (9.6)
m3/hr (bbl/hr) 65.2 (414) 24.0 (154) 14.2 (90)

% distilled D86 °C °F D86 °C °F D1160 °C °F

IBP -55 -69 205 400 164 327
5 11 52 252 486 335 634
10 33 81 261 502 349 659
30 91 194 279 535 366 689
50 126 257 294 561 383 721
70 165 328 309 589 400 751
90 202 396 328 622 427 801
95 215 419 337 638 440 824
EP 236 457 344 651 451 844

40 FCCMain Fractionator
Natural Gas Sweetening

TASK In this exercise, you will simulate a process that uses MEA to remove
H2S and CO2 from a natural gas stream. Figure 18 shows the flowsheet
along with the desired (or measured) operating conditions. The pressures
labeled bar are absolute bar. As previously mentioned on page 90, the
constraint that the rich amine contain 0.3 moles acid gas per mole MEA
is imposed to minimize corrosion. Table 42 describes the natural gas
stream. Makeup water and MEA is available at 1.5304 bar (7.5 psig) and
21.11°C (70°F).

Figure 18: Flowsheet

Showing Desired
Operating Conditions

Table 42: Sour Gas Feed

Component Mole %
CO2 1.37
H2S 1.71
Methane 88.37
Ethane 6.43
Propane 1.72
n-Butane 0.40

Flowrate 1.1185 x105 std m3/hr 3.95x106 std ft3/hr

Temperature 32.22°C 90°F
Pressure 17.216 bar abs 235 psig

Part A: Before running the problem, answer the following questions:

Preliminaries
1. What thermophysical property prediction methods should you
select for this system?
2. Which column solving algorithm(s) should you use?

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 41

 3. Which column initial estimate generator should you select?
4. For both columns, PRO/II requires you to estimate one of the
product rates. What are good estimates, and how can you get
PRO/II to automatically estimate the rates for you?
5. This flowsheet contains a recycle. What are good estimates for the
recycle rate, composition, temperature, and pressure? HINTS: It is
usually best to provide estimates for streams you know the most
about. Also, 15 wt% aqueous MEA is equivalent to 4.95 mole
percent MEA. You can determine the molar composition using the
flash hot key, on a 15 wt% MEA stream.
6. How can you impose the specification that the rich amine stream
contain 0.3 mole acid gas per mole of MEA?
7. This flowsheet will not converge unless the two-sided heat
exchanger is calculated after the absorber and the stripper. Why is
this true, and what can you do to ensure that calculations are carried
out in the correct order?
8. The flowsheet will not converge unless you provide an initial
estimate for the regenerator feed. What is a good estimate?
9. How can you calculate the makeup stream requirements?

Part B: Run Build the amine sweetening flowsheet and calculate the following
the Simulation quantities:

The sweet gas, acid gas, and lean amine compositions and flowrates.
The makeup rate of MEA and water
The absorber column temperature and flowrate profiles.

Estimate the lean amine composition as 15 weight percent MEA and 85

weight percent water.

Note: Tightenall column and loop convergence tolerances by an

order of magnitude.

Many natural gas contracts require the gas to contain no more than 2.3
grams H2S per 100 standard cubic meters (1 grains of H 2S per 100
standard cubic feet). To safely meet this specification, gas sweetening
units
are commonly designed to reduce the H2S content of the sale gas to 0.57
grams per 100 standard cubic meters (0.25 grains per 100 standard cubic
feet). Does the sweet gas meet this specification? Hint: Use a
CALCULATOR to compute the sweet gas composition in these units of
measure. There are 7000 grains per pound.

42 Natural Gas Sweetening

If You Although you entered an estimate of 15 weight percent MEA for the
Finish Early LEAN AMINE stream, at convergence the stream contained 14.8% MEA.
Similarly, an initial composition guess of 20 weight percent MEA
yields 19.68% MEA at convergence, and an initial guess of 10 weight
percent yields 9.92%. Based on these results, the following are
apparent:
The flowsheet has a solution for a variety of recycle compositions.
This is to be expected since the process can operate over a range of
recycle compositions. The composition of the recycle stream is a
design variable.
The converged recycle composition is not identical to its initial
guess. Again, this is no surprise. The separations in the process are
not perfect and the recycle stream will contain components other
than MEA and water. This dilutes the MEA from the initial guess
you supplied.

In this run, solve the flowsheet so that the lean amine stream contains
exactly 15 weight percent MEA (not 14.8). One strategy is to adjust your
initial guess for the lean amine stream composition and re-run the
problem until the converged composition is 15 weight % MEA.
Although this procedure works well for this particular process, it is in
general very time consuming, because it requires your constant attention.

A better strategy for this type of specification is to use a CALCULATOR

and a CONTROLLER to automatically make the composition adjustments
for you. The CONTROLLER specification is obvious: Mass fraction of MEA in
LEAN AMINE = 0.15. To meet this specification, you would like to vary
the LEAN AMINE stream composition. Unfortunately, the CONTROLLER
has no way to do this. The CALCULATOR utility, however, does have this
ability through its SRVSTR subroutine. Simply instruct the CALCULATOR
to store result R (1) for the MEA component flowrate in stream LEAN
AMINE and use the CONTROLLER to vary this value. The CONTROLLER
variable is now CALCULATOR result R(1).

Note: You will have to enter the flowsheet sequence with the
CALCULATOR and CONTROLLER preceding the absorber.

The value of R(1) must be initialized on the first call to the

CALCULATOR. On all other calls, the CONTROLLER will adjust R (1) and
the CALCULATOR should not change R (1). A convenient way to initialize
R (1) is with a statement like If (R (1).lt. 0) R(1) = 1 5 0 0 .

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 43

SOLUTION

Part A: Preliminaries
Thermo-physical property prediction method: The Amines package is designed for natural gas
sweetening using various amines.

Column algorithm selection: The components in this problem behave less ideally than simple
hydrocarbon systems but more ideally than multi- phase azeotropic problems. Therefore,
you may be unsure whether to choose CHEMDIST or Inside/Out (I/O). When in doubt, try
Inside/Out since it is faster and more forgiving of initial guesses than CHEMDIS. If I/O fails,
you can always switch to CHEMDIST.
For less-than-ideal systems, you can sometimes make I/O converge by
lowering the damping parameter. We were able to converge both columns
using either algorithm, but chose I/O for its very large speed advantage.

Note: The regenerator column does not converge unless the damping
factor is below 0.5. We used 0.4 and increased the number of
iterations to 30.

Again, the choice is not obvious. The

Initial Estimate Generator selection:
Simple IEG is faster, but the Chemical IEG is more reliable for highly
nonideal systems. We were able to converge both columns using either
IEG. We chose the Simple IEG with the I/O algorithm and the Chemical
IEG with the CHEMDIST column algorithm.

The purpose of this gas sweetening process is

Column Product Rate Estimates:
to separate the H2S and CO2 from the hydrocarbons in the sour gas. In a
perfect world, all of the hydrocarbons are recovered in the
SWEET_GAS product stream, all of the H2S and CO2 are recovered in the
ACID_GAS stream, and all of the MEA and water remains in the recycle.
These best-case scenario results often provide excellent initial estimates
for real-world processes. With this in mind, estimate the SWEET_GAS
flowrate to be that of the SOUR_GAS feed less the H 2S and CO2.
Estimate the ACID_GAS flowrate to be the flowrate of H2S and CO2 in the
SOUR_GAS.

You can use the flash hot key to determine the molar rates of these
components in the sour gas. You will have to do some arithmetic by
hand to determine the actual rate estimates. A more efficient approach is
to use the Define feature to automatically calculate the estimates. For
example: define the SWEET_GAS rate estimate to be the SOUR_GAS
flowrate of components methane through n-butane and define the
ACID_GAS rate to be the SOUR_GAS flowrate of components CO2 through
H2S.

44 Natural Gas Sweetening

 We chose to provide an estimate for the lean amine
Recycle Estimate:
stream because its temperature and pressure are known. You are told to
estimate its composition as 15 weight percent (4.95 mole percent) MEA
and 85 weight percent water. At convergence this stream will contain
small amounts of other components, particularly CO2.

The flowrate of MEA must be such that there is enough amine present to
remove essentially all of the H2S and CO2 from the sour gas. The
reaction stoichiometry indicates that you need at least 2 moles of amine
for each mole of acid gas absorbed. The composition constraint on the
rich amine stream, however, requires an excess MEA; the ratio of H2S
and CO2 to MEA in the rich amine must be 0.3. Assuming all of the H2S
and CO2 (153.7 kg-mol/hr [320.6 lb-mol/hr]) in the sour gas is picked
up in the rich amine stream, the lean amine should contain
approximately 153.7/0.3 = 512.34 kg-mol/hr (320.6/0.3 = 1068 lb-
mol/hr) of amine. Thus, a good estimate for the total lean amine
flowrate is 512.34 /0.0495 = 10350 kg-mol/hr (1068/0.0495 = 21589 lb-
mol/hr). This flowsheet converges for a very wide range of recycle rate
estimates-from 4500 to over 45000 kg-mol/hr (10000 to over 100000 lb-
mol/hr).

You can avoid all of this hand calculation by building the simple
flowsheet shown in Figure 19. The stream XS-AMINE contains 15 wt %
MEA and 85% water with a very large flowrate. The splitter
specification states that the LEAN AMINE flowrate should be calculated so
that the
molar rate of MEA in LEAN AMINE divided by the molar rate of CO2 and
H2S in SOUR_GAS is 3.333. This is the reciprocal of the acid gas pickup
specification (CO2 + H2S)/MEA = 0.3.

Figure 19: Flowsheet

to Estimate Lean- SOUR_GAS

Amine Flowrate
JUNK

XS-AMINE

LEAN_AMINE
AMINE_ESTI

Rich amine composition specification: You must

adjust the recycle rate estimate
until the composition of the rich amine stream satisfies the constraint.
This specification fixes the recycle rate. The simplest way to impose
this constraint is via a specification on the absorber column. The
specification will look like this: RICH_AMINE stream flowrate of H2S through
CO2 / RICH_AMINE stream flowrate of MEA = 0.3. The associated variable is
the flowrate of stream LEAN AMINE.

An alternative is to use a CONTROLLER to impose the same specification

and variable. This strategy is slower and less reliable for this problem.

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 45

 Calculation Sequence: If
the two-sided heat exchanger is calculated after the
absorber and before the regenerator, then hot-side feed will be
unknown. When PRO/II encounters a unit operation with an unknown
feed, it assumes that stream has zero flowrate. Thus, the hotside product
stream will have a zero flowrate and the feed to the absorber will be
almost zero. It will be slightly greater than zero because of the small
makeup of water and MEA. The absorber will fail to solve, and the
flowsheet will never recover.

To guarantee a correct calculation sequence, explicitly define one

yourself. We used: absorber, valve, regenerator, two-sided heat
exchanger.

This is quite easy with PRO/II's reference

Estimating the regenerator feed:
stream utility. It is identical in composition to the VALVE'S liquid
product, HXFEED, and has a temperature of 82.22°C (180°F). The
pressure is that of HXFEED less the pressure drop across the heat
exchanger.

Makeup Streams: Small amounts of MEA and water will be lost from the
process in the product streams. For true steady state operation, they must
be replenished at their net rate of loss. The best way to determine the
makeup rates is to calculate them exactly at every iteration. The makeup
rate of a component is the sum of its flowrates in product streams minus
the sum of its rate in feed streams. The CALCULATOR procedure shown in
Figure 20 calculates and stores the MEA makeup rate in result R(1) and
the water makeup rate in R(2).

The CALL SRVSTR line stores these calculated results for the component
flowrates of MEA and water in the stream labeled MAKEU. The SRVSTR
subroutine is a very powerful feature that allows the CALCULATOR to
build streams from calculated quantities.

The stream, MAKEUP, must be initialized in the flowsheet. The

temperature and pressure should be 21.11°C and 1.5304 bar (70°F and
7.5 psig). The component rates you supply do not matter since the
calculator will reset them at every iteration.

Figure 20:Makeup
Calculations

46 Natural Gas Sweetening

Part B: Run We modeled the process using the flowsheet shown in Figure 21. To
the Simulation simplify the flowsheet, we replaced the PUMP and trim cooler with a
single FLASH unit operation. If you desire more detailed information
about the operation of the PUMP and trim cooler, you could model them
separately.

Figure 21: Flowsheet

Used for PRO/II
Simulation ACID_GAS

1
SWEET_GAS

GRAIN_CAL

1 3

4
CALC_MAKEU
LEAN_AMINE
2 MAKEUP 5

REGENFEED
6
S1
3
7

8
E1
4
9

10

5
HC_PURGE_VAP HXFEED 11

ABSORBER
REGENERAT OR 12

RICH_AMINE

V1 REGEN_BTMS

The units FEED_CALC and FEED_CONTROL do not apply to this run.

Table 43 and Figure 22 show selected results for this simulation. The
makeup rates of MEA and water are 0.0143 and 31.3 kg-mol/hr
respectively (0.031 and 69.0 lb-mol/hr).

Table 43: Selected Results

Component Sweet Gas Lean Amine Acid Gas
(mole fraction) (mole fraction) (mole fraction)

CO2 8.01e-07 5.09e-03 0.408

H2S 3.76e-06 4.22e-04 0.509
Methane 0.908 0 4.85e-03
Ethane 0.0661 0 3.70e-04
Propane 0.0177 0 6.36e-05
n-Butane 4.11e-03 0 4.10e-05
MEA 2.88e-06 0.0492 3.23e-07
Water 3.68e-03 0.945 0.0778
Flowrate 4845 kg-mol/hr 16615 kg-mol/hr 167.6 kg-mol/hr
10107 lb-mol/hr 34655 lb-mol/hr 349.5 lb-mol/hr

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 47

 Figure 22:
Regenerator English UOM
Column Profile

Metric UOM

To determine the sweet gas composition in both grains/std ft 3 and in

grams/std m3, use the CALCULATOR procedure shown in Figure 23.

Figure 23: Calculator

Procedure for
Computing Sweet Gas
Composition

48 Natural Gas Sweetening

 At convergence, it reports that the SWEET_GAS stream contains 0.5717
grams H2S per 100 std m3 (0.2498 grains H2S per 100 std ft3.)

If You Finish Figure 24 shows the CONTROLLER procedure that we used to implement
Early the LEAN AMINE stream composition specification. The CALCULATOR
procedure is shown in Figure 25.

Figure 24: Controller to

Specify Lean
Amine Composition

Figure 25: Calculator

Procedure to
Manipulate
LEAN AMINE
Composition

The statement IF(R(1).LT.0)R(1)=P(1) prevents the CALCULATOR from

changing R(1) except at the first iteration. As you may know, PRO/II
initializes CALCULATOR variables to a very large negative number;
therefore the first time this CALCULATOR is called, R(1) is set to P(1). In
all other iterations, R(1)>0 so the CALCULATOR skips this operation and
uses the value that is passed to it by the CONTROLLER.

We explicitly defined the sequence to be "calculator, controller, absorber,

valve, regenerator, HX, makeup calculations, flash".

Don't be intimidated by the use of the CALCULATOR in implementing this

specification; its sole purpose is to adjust the stream component
flowrate: a task the CONTROLLER cannot perform by itself.

Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook 49

 Matching Plant Data

TASK You are trying to match measured plant data for a simple hydrocarbon
distillation column with one overhead and one bottom product. You
specify the reflux rate and bottom product rate at their measured values.
On convergence you observe that all 15 measured tray temperatures are
higher than the simulated tray temperatures. What can you do to better
match the tray temperatures?

SOLUTION Since all 15 calculated temperatures are in error in the same direction, it
is reasonable to assume that something is wrong in the simulation, not in
the temperature measurements. You need to do something that will
increase the simulated tray temperatures. The mismatch may be caused
by a faulty measurement on the bottom product rate. Using the same
logic in the previous problem, if the specified bottom product rate is too
high, the simulated temperature on every tray will be lower than the
actual values. Thus, you can better match the tray temperatures by
lowering the bottom product rate.

If you believe the bottom flowrate measurement, then you must think of
some operating parameter that can increase the tray temperatures
without changing the product rates. The logical choice is the column
pressure. If the column pressure measurements are too low, the
simulated tray temperatures will be too low. You may be able to
adequately match both the measured product flowrates and tray
temperatures by increasing the column pressure in the simulation.

As with many distillation troubleshooting problems, this one has more

than one possible solution. Knowledge of the process is the key to
reaching the best solution.

50 Natural Gas Sweetening

Troubleshooting

TASK1 You are trying to simulate a column, but PRO/II will not converge. Based
on what you have learned, list three possible causes to investigate.

SOLUTION 1 1. You provided improper specifications. This is the most common

reason that columns fail to converge.
2. Your specifications were good, but your initial estimates were too far
from the solution. Is the IEG method that you chose appropriate? It
is easy to select a different IEG and re-run the problem.
3. You selected the wrong solution algorithm. Maybe you selected the
I/O algorithm for a system that has nonideal thermodynamics.

TASK 2 You are simulating a hydrocarbon distillation column with one overhead
and one bottom product. You fix the reflux rate at the measured value,
but accidentally enter 181 instead of 118 for the overhead rate
specification. How will this mistake affect the tray temperatures.

SOLUTION 2 The temperatures will increase. By increasing the overhead rate, you
have transferred material from the front end of the bottoms to the back
end of the overhead stream. Both the overhead and bottom streams are
now heavier: the overhead because it contains additional heavy material,
and the bottoms because it has light material removed from it. This
increases the temperatures of both product streams. Since hydrocarbon
columns have monotonic temperature profiles, it follows that the
temperature on all of the trays increases when the overhead draw
increases.

As you can see, you did not need to perform a simulation to arrive at this
result. A little thought did the job.

50 Hydrocarbon Distillation Workbook Troubleshooting 51