Improved conceptual process design avoids revamp scope growth

Tony Barletta and Gary R Martin Process Consulting Services Adrie Visser National Petroleum Reners of South Africa (PTY)

or grassroots design, defining project scope is a straightforward exercise. Grassroots projects can follow optimum execution procedures for engineering and construction. Office-based conceptual process design (CPD) works well because there is no existing unit to present unique challenges and obstacles. For a revamp, however, CPD demands a much more detailed attack, because most equipment with all its possibly hidden shortcomings already exists. The only foolproof way of carrying out CPD for a revamp is to first establish a performance base line of the existing unit. This entails making a comprehensive test run to gather actual field data on temperatures, pressures and flows. Original equipment drawings, P&IDs and control room data are not sufficient. Once realtime field data is obtained, it is used for calibrating computer simulations in the design office. All major cost bottlenecks are now identified and alternative process flow schemes are evaluated to determine the lowest cost. Finally, equipment lists and cost estimates are developed. Admittedly, all this takes time and costs money, but unless such work is thoroughly and carefully carried out at this point, scope can grow enormously during front-end process design (FEED) and detailed engineering (DE). This article presents data on a revamp undertaken for National Petroleum Refineries of South Africa (PTY), (NATREF, a joint venture of SASOL and Total Fina Elf) in which a study was begun to determine whether increasing crude capacity at its Sasolburg refinery was a sound investment. A NATREF multidisciplinary team coordinated engineering work with several contractors to carry through a staged process beginning with CPD, continuing through FEED and ending in DE.

Introduction
CPD is the most important activity in revamp design. Often, its significance is overlooked. As a result, minimum engineering effort is expended on it, with the expectations that the more detailed process design work can be performed during FEED or the beginning of DE. Consequently, many revamps start with superficial process work and little money assigned for CPD. Often looming behind these seemingly cost-effective CPD packages are scope growth and revamp cost escalation. CPD largely determines revamp costs and whether or not the results will meet yield, run length and reliability objectives.1,2,3,4 Failure to meet any one of these processing objectives can turn an otherwise profitable revamp into one that loses refiners millions of dollars due to poor performance or an unscheduled outage to correct revamp design flaws. When done properly, CPD will identify all significant process and equipment modifications, and scope growth will be minimal as engineering progresses. By todays standards, revamps are deemed successful if: throughput, yield and reliability objectives are achieved, and they are on schedule and under budget. Large overruns can wreck revamp economics. Volumes have been written about cost estimating, cost control, project management and scheduling. All of these are important activities that must be executed well for a successful revamp. However, if the CPD is poor quality or insufficient in detail, then no amount of cost estimating, cost control, project management and scheduling activities will prevent scope growth. This article presents guidelines for revamp CPD. If these guidelines are executed properly, they will minimise revamp scope growth. While the examples presented are specific to crude/vacuum units and the approach

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000227

March 2002 1

50-100% Order of magnitude estimate 20% Semi-detailed estimate 30-40% Preliminary estimate 10%

and thorough CPD is needed to satisfy the competing objectives.

Why is a different approach needed?

When a conventional office-based approach is applied to revamp design, it is common today for a major portion of the process engineering design to take place in the FEED stage. Only a superficial Feasibility Conceptual F.E.E.D. study amount of process design is design Detailed engineering performed during the CPD, resulting Start End in a cursory review of much of the equipment. Consequently, the revamp scope of work is poorly Figure 1 Stages of engineering defined. Conventional office-based used by NATREF, the techniques can be applied CPD focuses on scheduling and cost estimating, not on process design. But if scope is poorly to other refinery unit revamps. defined, the estimate will not be accurate even if it is expertly prepared with much detail. Revamp conceptual process design During CPD, all related revamp modifications Project schedules often demand fast-track revamp conceptual process design. Overall revamp dura- must be identified so a cost estimate can be tions can be as short as one year from beginning prepared. If the scope of work is well defined, to startup for fast-track revamps (typically under costs can be estimated with a reasonable degree $20 MM) or longer for larger investments. of accuracy. However, if the scope is incomplete, Whatever the case, CPD must be fast and efficient. the estimate will not capture all revamp costs. Poorly defined scope is the number one cause of There is no time for re-engineering. CPD costs must also be controlled. At the revamp cost escalation. It is the conceptual procconceptual design stage, the revamp has not yet ess design, not cost control or project received full funding (see Figure 1). If engineer- management activities, that defines the flow ing costs are excessive and the revamp does not scheme and therefore the revamp scope. For grassroots design, defining the scope is a get funded, money is wasted. However, there is some minimum amount of engineering that must straightforward exercise. Grassroots projects can be performed to sensibly direct the capital follow optimum project execution procedures for expenditure. Otherwise, all major scope-related engineering and construction. The office-based items may not be identified and the process flow CPD approach works well because there is no existing unit with its many challenges and obstascheme selected may not be minimum cost.5 Minimum CPD cost and sufficient engineering cles. However, project execution procedures that are always competing objectives during the work well with grassroots design must be altered conceptual design stage. The trend has been to for revamp design. Revamp CPD demands a reduce the cost of CPD by pushing essential proc- more detailed process design because most of ess engineering evaluations into FEED and DE. In the equipment exists. Revamps present many revamps, this has resulted in either scope unknowns, constraints and problems that are growth or scope rationalisation, where many common within an existing operating unit. The pieces of equipment were removed to control conceptual designer must maximise the use of costs. At this point, it may be well to ask if equip- existing equipment (or minimise new equipment can be removed to control costs without ment) to implement a cost-effective revamp. impairing the process scheme, and why the equip- Otherwise, revamp costs can be excessive and ment was specified in the first place. In corollary, jeopardise the chance for approval. Revamp if the process scheme will be impaired, how can conceptual designers must therefore understand removal be justified? A more intelligent, efficient existing unit performance and constraints in
Definite estimate

2 March 2002

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000227

detail and know how to circumvent them with practical, cost-effective flow scheme modifications. This requirement does not exist in grassroots CPD. While the conventional officebased approach works well for grassroots projects, rarely does it foster an intimate understanding of all factors affecting revamp success. Without this understanding, it is impossible to make good investment decisions. Refiners must recognise that CPD is where the process flow diagram (PFD) is set and equipment modifications are identified. The options for the engineering effort to influence costs are greater in the CPD stage than at any other time in the revamp. If the PFD that is developed during the conceptual process design is found to have flaws during FEED or DE, scope growth will almost always result. Once the PFD has been set, there is usually very little time available in the schedule to re-engineer the PFD. Scope rationalisation, value engineering or other similar exercises that are common today are frequently employed to lower costs resulting from a flawed process flow scheme and/or incomplete scope definition. But, value engineering participants often have little understanding of unit limitations that drive the process flow scheme selection; hence, the focus becomes the elimination of equipment. This simply is not an effective means of meeting reliability and operability6,7 requirements. In the revamp under discussion, prior to the CPD NATREF had done a crude/vacuum unit feasibility study based on a conventional approach using only office calculations. The

study recommended making minimum modifications to the PFD; equipment sizes were increased or new parallel equipment such as a new vacuum column and vacuum heater were to be installed to meet processing objectives. One consequence of maintaining the existing PFD was that a new parallel crude line from the charge pumps in the tank farm to the unit would be needed to meet the higher crude flow rate (see Figure 2). Increasing crude flow rate increases pressure drop if the existing process flow scheme is to be retained and the desalter operating pressure considered fixed. The new parallel charge line would be over 5000 ft long and the cost high. During CPD, it was essential that alternative process flow schemes be explored.

A different cpd approach: understanding unit performance

The complexities of revamp design demand a stronger emphasis on understanding the existing unit performance and constraints; otherwise, scope growth will be likely. Additionally, conceptual designers must also consider non-idealities like fouling and s These demands are not usually attainable with the office-based approach without excessive CPD cost and schedule impacts. The following guidelines, which supplement CPD activities, will minimise revamp scope growth: Perform comprehensive unit performance test run Evaluate unit hydraulics Evaluate heat integration, fired heaters and column internals.

New line Pressure, kg/cm2 25.5

0.3 Crude charge

23.5

Desalter
17.0

22.5

21.7

21.2

20.8

20.4

19.9

Figure 2 Crude hydraulics - parallel feed line

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000227

March 2002 3

Cold train heat (% design)

Pumparound Top Heavy naphtha No. 2 oil Total pumparound duty Diesel from hydrotreater Total cold train duty Test run duty, % design 43 107 112 68 70 69

Table 1

Following these guidelines requires that the conceptual process designers experience be matched to the specific unit being revamped.

Performance test runs

By definition, a revamp starts with an existing operating unit. Maximum reuse of existing equipment minimises new equipment and revamp costs.10 A conceptual design engineer must have an intimate understanding of the existing unit performance and bottlenecks to maximise the use of the existing equipment in the revamp flow scheme.11,1. However, the competing objectives of schedule and cost limit the time and money available to become intimately familiar with the existing unit operation during the conceptual stage. A performance test run is an effective method for developing an indepth understanding of the unit performance and bottlenecks while minimising the expenditure of time and money. The performance test run enables the conceptual design engineer to: Measure unit performance Quantify unit bottlenecks Quantify hydraulic system limitations Identify and quantify non-idealities such as heat exchanger fouling
Field measured pressure, kg/cm2

Identify damaged or under-performing equipment Generate a calibrated process simulation. The plant performance test run is the only method of evaluating the real unit performance and bottlenecks. To many people, a performance test is a casual exercise. Samples are drawn for laboratory analysis while the refinery process computer retrieves process data. Maybe a few control valve positions are noted in the field. The information is taken back to the office and a computer simulation is built. This is not a comprehensive performance test, and the results are usually misleading, leading to disastrous scope growth later in engineering. A performance test is a comprehensive test run that establishes a full pressure, temperature and composition profile of the unit. In addition to obtaining data from the process computer, pressures are measured locally for all hydraulic systems to establish baseline hydraulic performance criteria (see Figure 3). Temperatures are measured locally where remote indication does not exist. Control valve and battery limits pressures are measured. Bypasses that are partially open around control valves are noted. The test run does not end with the collection of fieldmeasured and computer system data. The data are then used to generate a heat and material balance, which is the basis for a baseline simulation. The simulation is calibrated with field-measured test run data. The simulation calibration will typically include: Distillation tower stage efficiencies Heat exchanger fouling factors Heat exchanger hydraulics allowances Fired heater radiant flux imbalances. Comprehensive performance test runs are rarely performed for refinery revamp CPD

21000 BPD Battery limits FC

48 Kerosene product

151

148

146

145

140

25% open

45 Kerosene product to treater

138

Figure 3 Baseline kerosene product hydraulic prole

4 March 2002

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000227

Desalters
Raw crude Flashed crude vapours

Flashed crude

Figure 4 Existing raw crude/desalter crude PFD

because the designers or project management do not see the value added. The conventional wisdom is that a simulation can be generated with information that is extracted from the asbuilt data sheets and drawings, original equipment specifications and limited plant data (office-based approach) and, therefore, test runs are deemed wasteful. This is a terrible misconception. Simulations that are built with the office-based approach rarely represent actual operating unit performance. It is ironic that more effort is not put into generating an accurate simulation, since the simulation is the main process tool that is used to evaluate process changes that will ultimately define the revamp scope and installed cost. True, conducting a performance test run will be more expensive and time consuming than an office-based conceptual process design approach that pushes the majority of meaningful process engineering into FEED and DE. However, planning and executing a comprehensive test run is the most cost-effective method of performing the minimum amount of conceptual process design required to fully define the revamp scope at the CPD stage.

Hydraulics
When crude/vacuum units are revamped to increase throughput, crude hydraulics are almost always a unit constraint. Capital expenditure necessary to overcome crude hydraulic

constraints can be a significant portion of the total revamp cost. However, crude hydraulics are rarely reviewed during the CPD at the level of detail necessary to identify all hydraulic-related scope of work changes. But sensible decisions about the revamp flow scheme cannot be made without understanding the impact of crude hydraulics. An office-based method of evaluating hydraulics consists of collecting the equipment as-built data sheets and piping isometrics and rigorously calculating the system pressure drop. While this approach may be very scientific, it is not practical because it consumes many manhours, is too expensive, takes too long for the CPD stage, and does not necessarily reflect actual unit hydraulics that are affected by fouling. These rigorous calculations are more appropriate for the DE stage, where a final check of all system design is warranted. A more efficient method of identifying hydraulic constraints during CPD can be accomplished by using field-measured performance test run data. One of the performance test run objectives is to develop a complete hydraulic profile of each circuit. Once hydraulic profiles are developed from the performance test run, the conceptual design engineer can scale the baseline hydraulic profile up or down to quickly and accurately evaluate revamp hydraulics.

Heat integration

In another completely different crude/vacuum

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000227

March 2002 5

Revamp cold train heat (MMBtu/hr)

Pumparound Top No. 1 oil Total pumparound duty Diesel from hydrotreater Total cold train duty Duty 71 40 111 50 161

Table 2

unit revamp, an objective was to increase the crude unit desalter operating temperature. Raw and desalted crude preheat trains are shown in Figure 4. Revamp modifications resulting from an office-based CPD approach are shown in Figure 5. Two desalted crude heat exchangers were re-piped from downstream of the desalter to upstream of the desalter. The piping costs were estimated and included in the overall revamp cost estimate. When a detailed hydraulic evaluation was performed during DE, it was discovered that relocating the two desalted heat exchangers upstream of the desalter would increase the front-end operating pressure above the design pressure of the first heat exchanger. At this stage of the project it was too late for re-engineering; the alloy exchangers would have to be replaced with exchangers designed for higher operating

pressure. Not only was the operating pressure at the front end above the design pressure of the first exchanger, it was also above the pressure that the piping flange rating would permit. Flanges and valves would have to be replaced as well. These changes resulted in a significant amount of scope growth. In this example, scope growth was incurred because the crude hydraulics were not properly evaluated in the CPD stage. The engineering company had chosen to use an office-based approach. When the conceptual designer was asked during the CPD if the crude hydraulics would be a problem when two exchangers were added to the raw crude preheat train, her response was no, but we will look at the hydraulics in the next stage of engineering. Had the conceptual designer used the performance test run data that were available to her, she would have quickly seen the flaw in the design (see Figure 6). It is especially important to consider crude unit hydraulics during the CPD stage. Crude units utilise a high level of heat integration between the crude/vacuum column products and pumparounds in the crude preheat train. This high level of heat integration tightly links the crude and vacuum columns heat balance and crude preheat train hydraulics. For example, modifications to one or more of the crude/

Relocated exchangers
Raw crude

Desalters

Flashed crude vapours

Flashed crude

Figure 5 Re-piped raw crude/desalter crude PFD

6 March 2002

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000227

pressure, PSIG 216 Raw crude 262 Near maximum 215 front-end pressure Flashed crude vapours 160 130 90 40 185 182 175 169

Desalters

Minimum desalter pressure to prevent vaporisation is 165 PSIG

120 50

Flashed crude

Figure 6 Field-measured raw crude/desalter crude pressures

vacuum pumparound systems may involve adding additional exchangers to satisfy revamp heat balance requirements. Adding additional exchangers to the preheat train affects crude hydraulics.

Fired heaters and distillation column internals

Fired heater and distillation column internals modifications can be significant revamp cost items. Major modifications in these areas can extend turnarounds and require special planning. Fired heater and distillation column internals must be evaluated in enough detail during CPD to identify modifications and define revamp scope. But sadly, fired heaters and column internals are often only reviewed with cursory calculations or rules of thumb during CPD. This approach can result in scope growth. Abbreviated or rule-of-thumb evaluations, such as use of average radiant heat flux or percentage of flood, can be very misleading and result in incorrect conclusions about fired heater or distillation column performance. Good field data and a detailed review of the specific equipment parameters that determine ultimate capacity are what is really needed to determine maximum heater or distillation column capacity. Fired heaters and distillation column internals pose a real challenge to the conceptual design engineer. Many times the conceptual design engineer does not have the equipment expertise

required to evaluate them in enough detail to determine equipment scope even though he may be proficient at modelling and developing heat and material balances. Yet, in an effort to minimise cost, equipment specialists may not get involved in CPD. Therefore, heater and column internals scope is often poorly defined.

Average radiant ux rate

Average radiant flux rate is the heat duty absorbed in the radiant section of a heater divided by the surface area of the radiant section tubes (see Figure 7). Average radiant flux rate rules-of-thumb are used in the refining industry to give only very general guidelines for heater capacity. Sometimes, conceptual designers do use average radiant flux guidelines to determine heater capacity during CPD. But when heaters operate with flux imbalances, using average radiant flux rate alone can lead to grossly incorrect conclusions about heater capacity. Average radiant flux guidelines assume even flux distribution in the radiant section. In reality, many heaters operate with flux imbalances that result in a difference in pass flow rates as high as 50% between radiant passes.13,14 Flux maldistribution is a function of firebox tube geometry, pass layout, burner operation, number of burners and burner location (see Figure 8). The vacuum heater in Figure 9 operated with average radiant flux rates of 9000 Btu/hr-ft2, within the guide-

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000227

March 2002 7

passes were coking while the upper passes were not. This demonstrates that average radiant flux rate is not a good indicator of heater coking potential or capacity. Peak film temperature and oil residence time, which determine vacuum Convection section heater coking and ultimate capacity, are better indicators of heater capacity. Oil mass velocity and flux distribution determine peak oil temperature. When heaters operate with large radiant section flux maldistribution, the difference in peak film temperature can be as high as 75F Radiant section between passes. This is why average radiant flux rate should not be used to make decisions concerning heater capacity. A tube-by-tube heater simulation calibrated with accurate fieldmeasured data is the only way peak oil film temperatures can be calculated when heaters Figure 7 Simplied heater sketch experience flux maldistribution. Three essential lines for vacuum heater operation. However, the items must occur to accurately calculate peak heater flux imbalances resulted in flux rates of film temperature in this situation: 13 000 Btu/hr-ft2 and 5000 Btu/hr-ft2 for the The conceptual designer must recognise that lower and upper passes, respectively! The lower the heater has flux maldistribution Accurate field data must be collected A rigorous heater model (tubeby-tube) must be calibrated with the Steam Steam field-measured data to simulate the Pass Pass Pass Pass flux imbalance. No. 4 No. 3 No. 1 No. 2 Often, the rigorous nature of the calculations necessary to properly Reduced crude Reduced crude evaluate fired heater capacity are viewed by project management as exercises more appropriate for the FEED and DE stages. This delays critical scope definition decisions until later stages of engineering, Pass Pass No. 1 No. 3 resulting in cost escalation.
Shield tubes Radiant tubes
Heater pass outlet Heater pass outlet

Crude column stripping trays

In most refineries, the performance of crude column stripping trays is critical. Low stripping tray efficiency or damaged trays increase the amount of light material in the crude column bottoms product. Light crude columns bottom product loads the vacuum ejectors, raising column operating pressure, and costs refiners millions of dollars. Replacing damaged or poorly designed stripping trays with properly designed trays almost always has an attractive

Pass No. 2

Pass No. 4

Coking

Figure 8 heater layout sketch

7 March 2002

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000227

payback, but can be a costly Relative flow rate revamp item. To hold to Temperature, F Pass No. 1 budget, the need must be Pass No. 2 identified during cpd. Pass No. 3 Failure to identify low-effiAtmospheric Vacuum unit Pass No. 4 ciency stripping tray operation column fired heater or damaged trays unfortu769 1.0 nately is a common oversight No. 1 Pass No. 1 during CPD. Yet, damaged or 800 No. 2 dislodged stripping trays can 1.5 Pass 768 be identified with precise field No. 2 No. 3 measurements using accurate 801 pressure gauges. An experi1.1 No. 4 Pass enced CPD engineer will No. 3 measure stripping tray pres1.4 sure drop during a Pass No. 4 performance test (see Figure 10). Damaged or dislodged stripping trays have little or Figure 9 Pass heat-ux maldistribution no pressure drop, while intact stripping trays have a pressure Pressure, PSIG drop of 0.06-0.12 psi per tray. Stripping trays have inherently low efficiencies. A well7 6 designed stripping tray will have an efficiency of 40%, Feed from while a poorly designed tray crude heater can have an efficiency of only dP = 0.5 PSI 20.5 10-25%. Poorly designed strip5 ping trays result in low 4 3 strip-out of light material from 2 the crude column bottoms 1 dP = 0.5 PSI 21.0 product. Crude column stripStripping steam ping trays operate with high liquid loads and low vapour loads. This combination demands a special design; otherwise, the trays will have low efficiencies. A welldesigned stripping tray is not an off-the-shelf item. Poorly designed stripping Reduced crude trays operating with low efficiencies often go unnoticed during CPD. Standard calcula- Figure 10 Stripping section pressure survey tions of percentage flood are sometimes the only calculations that conceptual able percentage flood. Since the problem with designers use to determine if a distillation tray is poorly designed stripping trays is weeping, not fit-for-purpose. But standard calculations of tray flooding, more rigorous calculations are needed percentage flood will not identify a poorly to identify poorly design stripping trays. If the designed stripping tray. In fact, stripping trays stripping trays are not evaluated in sufficient operating with low efficiency will have an accept- detail during CPD, the need for replacement can

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000227

March 2002 9

Furthermore, conceptual designs that are generated by designers who do not have experience with the type of unit being revamped often result in unstable, inoperable or unreliable designs. Most refinery units have qualities or characteristics that are specific to each process. Failure to consider these qualities can result in unproven or untried revamp solutions. Refiners should ask, Where have you successfully done this before and who can I talk to about it?

Stripping tray mechanical design

Distillation column internals are normally designed for stable steady-state operation. Failure to consider non-steady state operation, like startup, during conceptual process design can lead to scope growth. Not only must stripping trays be designed properly to achieve good efficiency, but well-designed stripping trays must also withstand start-up conditions during which they can be easily dislodged (see Figure 11).16,17 For that reason, stripping trays require a more robust mechanical design. Stripping trays should be constructed with shear clips and through bolts, and should typically be designed to withstand an uplift force equivalent to 2 psi. The cost of a mechanically robust stripping tray is approximately three to five times the cost of a standard stripping tray. If the conceptual designer is not familiar with crude unit startup procedures, a standard stripping tray may be specified with unfortunate results.

Figure 11 Damaged stripping trays

go unnoticed until FEED or detailed design stages an expensive oversight.

Conceptual designer experience

Revamp conceptual process design must be fast and efficient. The experience of the conceptual designer specific to the unit being revamped can make the difference between an efficient conceptual process design package that defines all of the revamp scope, and one that results in significant scope growth or even worse, does not achieve revamp objectives. In revamping a crude/vacuum unit, the conceptual designer must have extensive experience with crude/ vacuum units. In revamping an FCC unit, he must have extensive experience with FCCUs. While this is only common sense, it is often overlooked. Conventional approaches to CPD based on project management hierarchy view the CPD as simply another activity. People are assigned based on availability and the projected CPD completion on the Gantt chart, rather than necessary expertise. When the conceptual designer has extensive experience specific to the unit being revamped, he will know what roads to go down and what roads are dead ends. Knowing which revamp options to evaluate and which ones to discard saves both time and money. A minimum cost solution may require altering the process flow scheme to circumvent bottlenecks.15 This can be complex. Quickly knowing what alternate flow schemes to consider only comes with experience.

NATREFS crude/vacuum unit and FCCU product recovery CPDs

To return to the South African revamp, NATREFs objective was to increase crude processing capacity by over 22%; consequently, all refinery units required capital investment. Revamp scope of work and capital investment varied for each unit. However, the crude/vacuum and FCC product recovery units combined capital investment represented about 50% of overall refinery investment. Figure 12 shows the refinery block diagram. NATREF used a four-staged engineering approach for the refinery expansion. The four stages of engineering were: Feasibility study

10 March 2002

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000227

LSR MEROX

LSR Alkylate Reformate

C3s Premium gasoline

Blender
Regular gasoline

Sat. gas

FCC gasoline

Reformer

Kerosene

Kerosene MEROX Blender C4 ISOM Alky.

Kerosene

Jet fuel

Crude unit

Diesel AGO

Distillate hydro-treater

Crude oil LVGO

FCC Blender Vacuum MVGO unit HVGO Distillate hydro-cracker

Diesel

RCD

Fuel oil / asphalt

Figure 12 NATREF renery block diagram

CPD FEED DE. NATREF funded the refinery expansion and has already completed construction on several units. The revamped FCCU product recovery unit has started up, while the crude/vacuum unit work is being finished in early 2002. Even though the crude/vacuum and FCC product recovery unit revamps were more complicated than other refinery unit revamps, they experienced significantly less scope growth from the end of CPD to the definitive estimate. NATREF and Process Consulting Services used the CPD approach discussed in this article for the crude/vacuum and FCC product recovery units. The CPD for the other refinery units was done in a traditional manner, with thorough process design work conducted during FEED and DE, not within the CPD stage. In December 1998, NATREF kicked off the CPD with a comprehensive test run on the

crude/vacuum unit and FCCU product recovery unit. NATREFs CPD work scope included: Comprehensive performance test run Identification of all major cost bottlenecks Evaluation of process flow scheme alternatives to find the least-cost flow scheme Development of equipment lists and cost estimates. First, the performance test run gathered sufficient plant data to evaluate unit performance and identify limitations that would prevent additional crude processing capacity. During and immediately following the test run, it became clear that there were a number of major equipment limitations that would have to be circumvented in order to increase crude processing capacity. Maintaining the existing process flow scheme (see Figure 13) simply would not allow crude rate to be increased without high investment and poor energy utilisation. As test run data gathering must be comprehensive and should not rely solely on the

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000227

March 2002 11

zone pressure were all measured with an accurate absolute pressure manometer. Increasing vacuum unit feed rate would have increased transfer line pressure drop and Naphtha increased heater outlet pressure, which would reduce the HVGO product yield or require higher heater outlet temperaKerosene ture to maintain cutpoint. Crude NATREFs vacuum heater oil LVGO Diesel already operated with flame impingement and rapid tube MVGO Cold AGO coking; therefore, additional exchanger heater firing was not feasible. train HVGO This emphasises that identifying limitations cannot be done with computer system data alone. Desalter Once all performance test run measurements were Hot crude exchanger train completed, a calibrated base VTB case process flow sheet model was developed. Unit constraints Atmospheric Vacuum column column were clearly defined in the model; otherwise, it would not Figure 13 Existing NATRF crude/vacuum unit simplied PFD have been possible to efficiently evaluate practical flow scheme alternatives. Absolute pressure, mmHG Some of the major crude unit 24 constraints that needed to be circumvented to meet 113 50 NATREFs capacity objectives were: Vapourisation at the crude 418 heater pass inlet control valves Crude hydraulics and preheat train design pressure Desalter capacity Crude heater duty Crude column heat removal Crude column shell capacity Vacuum heater Vacuum column Vacuum heater duty Figure 14 NATREF tansfer line pressure survey Vacuum column shell capacity easy-to-get information such as process control Product cooling circuits. computer data, complete pressure and local A conceptual designer with extensive experitemperature surveys were performed throughout ence specific to the unit being revamped can the unit. Figure 14 shows some of the vacuum narrow down the flow scheme alternatives to a unit pressure measurements. Vacuum heater few practical options, but rote solutions are outlet pressure, transfer line pressure and flash common. As in NATREFs feasibility study,

12 March 2002

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000227

Naphtha

Crude oil

Naphtha Gas

Cold exchanger train

Kerosene LVGO Light diesel Heavy diesel Light diesel MVGO

Desalter Desalted crude exchanger train

AGO Pre-flash gas oil

HVGO

VTB

Pre-flash column

Atmospheric column

Pre-flash vacuum column

Vacuum column

Figure 15 Revamped NATREF crude/vacuum unit simplied PFD

paralleling or replacing equipment with larger pieces of equipment is almost never cost effective when there are major unit constraints. Finding the least-cost flow scheme requires extensive crude unit revamp experience. This is critical to cost control. Two major bottlenecks were the atmospheric and crude vacuum column diameters. Both columns had to be paralleled or replaced if the existing process flow scheme were maintained. The engineering company that performed the feasibility study had decided to parallel the vacuum heater and vacuum column. But revamps should maximise the use of existing or spare equipment to minimise cost. During the CPD, a survey of all idled equipment was done. NATREF was modifying the reduced crude desulphuriser (RCD) unit, and several pieces of its equipment were available for use in the crude/vacuum unit. The most significant was the RCD vacuum column, which could easily be modified for use in the crude unit. Practical flow scheme alternatives were stud-

ied, with the selected process flow scheme shown in Figure 15. The most cost-effective revamp used two preflash columns: an atmospheric preflash and a vacuum preflash. The atmospheric preflash column would eliminate vapourisation at the heater inlet, debottleneck crude hydraulics, reduce crude column overhead condensing duty, reduce loads in the crude column, allow for changes to the preheat train that would increase heat recovery, and require no new heaters. The vacuum preflash column would pre-flash atmospheric residue before the vacuum heater and use the idled RCD vacuum column. This enabled crude throughput to be increased without exceeding the vacuum heater, transfer line and vacuum column ultimate capacity. The vacuum heater would need to be revamped; however, no other heater changes would be needed. Identifying the right process flow scheme thus minimised revamp costs. Once the least-cost PFD was identified, equipment lists and cost estimates were completed. These were relatively straightforward activities.

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000227

March 2002 13

However, all significant scope items had to be identified; otherwise, the most highly skilled cost estimator in the world could not do the job properly. Total installed equipment costs (TIC) are many times equipment purchase price. CPD performance tests must therefore identify all bottlenecks and find the least-cost process flow scheme if estimators and schedulers are to do their jobs effectively.

Conclusions
The complexities of revamp conceptual process design demand a stronger emphasis on understanding existing unit performance and constraints, and more attention to detail than grassroots conceptual process design. For this reason, an office-based CPD approach that works well for grassroots design does not work well for revamp design. Since the CPD sets the revamp scope and will therefore largely determine revamp costs, well-executed conceptual process design results in minimum-cost revamps that achieve yield and run length objectives, and minimum scope growth during the revamp design life cycle. Properly executed revamp conceptual process design costs more than officebased conceptual process design. But, when the conceptual designers experience matches the unit being revamped, applying the guidelines put forth in this article will reduce the cost of FEED and DE. Scope definition has an enormous impact on the accuracy of the cost estimate. Total installed cost (installed, direct and indirect field costs, engineering, taxes, etc) is typically four to eight times the cost of equipment for refinery revamps. Therefore, failure to identify scope items can quickly lead to large scope growth and cost escalation between CPD and detailed design. CPD packages that minimise the process design effort solely to reduce up-front engineering costs may appear to be an appropriate utilisation of engineering funds. However, this almost always leads to higher overall engineering costs, revamp cost escalation and/or compromised revamp objectives.
References 1 Barletta T, Martin G R, Revamping Conceptual Process Design, PTQ, Winter 2001, 41-48. 2 Golden S W, Kowalczyk D, FCC Optimization A Minimum

Capital Approach, Fuel and Technology Management, March/April 1996, 37-45. 3 Barletta T, Smith M, Macfarlane C, Crude Unit Revamp Increases Diesel Yield, PTQ, Spring 2000, 45-51. See www. digitalrening.com/article/1000251 4 Hanson D W, Lieberman N P, Lieberman E T, De-entrainment and Washing of Flash Zone Vapors in Heavy Oil Fractionators, Hydrocarbon Processing, July 1999, 55-60. 5 Golden S W, Minimum Investment Revamps Achieving Attractive Economics, 1997 NPRA Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, Paper AM-97-58. 6 Golden S W, Revamping FCCs Process and Reliability, PTQ, Summer 1996, 85-93. 7 Martin G R, Luque E, Rodriguez R, Revamping Crude Unit Increases Reliability and Operability, Hydrocarbon Processing, June 2000, 45-56. 8 Barletta T, Revamping FCC Units: Debutanizer Reboiler Fouling Dont Treat the Symptoms, World Rening, Jan/Feb 2001, 2022. 9 Barletta T, Revamping Crude Units - Consider Heat Exchanger Fouling When Redesigning Heat Exchanger Networks, Hydrocarbon Processing, Feb 1998, 51-57. 10 Golden S W, Pushing Plant Limits: Test Runs, Plant Expectations, and Performance Condence, World Rening, March/April 1999, 75-91. 11 Golden S W, Fulton S, Low cost Methods to Improve FCCU Energy Efciency, PTQ, Summer 2000, 95-103. See www.digitalrening. com/article/1000249 12 Hartman E L, Hanson D W, Weber B, FCCU Main Fractionator Revamp for CARB Gasoline Production, Hydrocarbon Processing, Feb 1998, 44-49. 13 Martin G R, Heat-Flux Imbalances in Fired Heaters Cause Reliability Problems, Hydrocarbon Processing, May 1998, 103109. 14 Martin G R, Barletta T, Vacuum Unit Fired Heater Coking Avoid Unscheduled Shutdowns, PTQ, Spring 2001, 119-125. 15 Barletta T, Practical Considerations for Crude Unit Revamps, PTQ, Autumn 1998, 93-103. See www.digitalrening.com/ article/1000250 16 Martin G R, Barletta T, Revamping Crude Units Consider Startups to Improve Unit Reliability, World Rening, Jan/Feb 2000, 30-35. 17 Nigg J M, Sitton K D, Improve Reliability and Maintenance of FCC Main Fractionator Internals, AKZO Nobel Australian Seminar, 13-14 May 1999.

Links
More articles from: Process Consulting Services More articles from the following categories: Crude Vacuum Units Heavy Crudes

14 March 2002

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000227