Anda di halaman 1dari 9

Calculating column relief loads

E
mergency relief in the process
industries aims to protect
equipment, the environment
and operating personnel from
abnormal conditions. Appropriate
estimation of relief loads under
extreme conditions is important for
the correct sizing of relief valves
and fare headers, and for the selec-
tion of disposal media. In addition,
during debottlenecking or revamp-
ing of process units, adding a new
relief valve and modifying the relief
system can be very costly and, in
terms of construction, diffcult to
implement.
Estimating accurate relief loads
for distillation columns under vari-
ous conditions is more complex
Conventional, steady-state and dynamic simulation techniques are compared in
a study of relief loads for failure modes applied to a distillation column
Haribabu CHittibabu, amudHa Valli and VinEEt KHanna Bechtel india PVE Ltd
dipanjan bHattaCHarya Bechtel Corporation
because of compositional changes
along the column height. The
conventional method of estimating
relief load (unbalanced heat
method) is normally conservative
and leads to bigger relief valves
and fare headers, but it is the
approach most widely practised.
With increasing computing speed
and software reliability, process
simulation is increasingly used as
an important tool for estimating
relief load and properties. Steady-
state simulation can also be used to
estimate the relief load within limi-
tations and can overcome some of
the assumptions envisaged in the
conventional method. Dynamic
simulation provides an alternative
method for determining relief load
under abnormal conditions.
This article considers different
methods for estimating relief load
for a distillation column a debu-
taniser in this case and discusses
the strengths and weaknesses of
each method. There are many emer-
gency cases that apply to a
distillation column, and estimation
of the maximum possible relief load
requires an understanding of plant
behaviour and identifcation of the
worst case.
Case study: a debutaniser
The debutaniser column separates
liquifed petroleum gas (LPG)
components from light naphtha.
www.digitalrening.com/article/1000487 PTQ Q2 2010 55
Refux
pump
Product
pump
Feed
pump
Reboiler
Steam
Condensate
CWS CWR
CWS CWR
To fare, R 135F
174 psia
391F
178 psia
391F
412F
P
set
= 214 psia
Of gas
Sour water
Bottom, naphtha product, B
615600 lb/hr, 391F
Distillate, sour LPG, D
58120 lb/hr, 104F
Feed, F
673700 lb/hr, 301F
196000 lb/hr
Debutaniser
Reflux
drum
LC
PC
FC
FC TC
LC
LC
FC
FC
PDC
Figure 1 Distillation column (debutaniser)
The overhead includes a
cooling water total
condenser, refux drum
and off-gas valve, which
is normally closed. The
debutaniser operates at
174 psia and relief is set
at 214 psia. The debutan-
iser bottom is heated by
a thermosyphon reboiler
utilising medium-pressure
steam. Figure 1 shows a
fow diagram of the debu-
taniser under evaluation.
Major relief conditions or
plant situations identifed
for the debutaniser are
loss of refux, loss of feed
and site-wide power
failure.
Conventional method
The conventional approach
is also known as the
unbalanced heat method,
where a mass and energy balance is
developed under relief conditions,
based on the scenario under consid-
eration, to determine if there is any
unbalanced or excess heat. The
unbalanced heat is divided by the
latent heat of vapourisation of the
top tray liquid to give the relief
load:
Relief load = Q
unbalanced (excess)
/
The conventional method for
determining the relief load of a
56 PTQ Q2 2010 www.digitalrening.com/article/1000487
column is available in various liter-
ature
1
and hence is not covered in
detail here.
There are several assumptions in
determining relief loads:
Feed, products, refux and top
tray liquid compositions are unal-
tered during the relief condition
Feed, product, refux and strip-
ping medium will continue at the
normal rate unless the hydraulics at
the relieving condition determine
otherwise
Enthalpy is balanced on the top
tray and all unbalanced heat will
reach and act upon the top tray
liquid
There is enough top tray liquid
available to generate vapour during
upset conditions.
To determine Q
unbalanced
, the frst
step is to develop a sketch around
the affected system (see Figure 2)
and perform a mass and energy
balance in line with the upset
condition:
R = Q
unbalanced (excess)
/
where
F = Debutaniser or column feed
rate at relief
h
F
= Specifc enthalpy of feed at
relief
B = Debutaniser or column
bottom rate at relief
h
B
= Specifc enthalpy of bottom at
relief
D = Debutaniser distillate rate at
relief
h
D
= Specifc enthalpy of distillate
at relief
Q
R
= Reboiler heat input at relief
Q
C
= Condenser duty at relief
(generally, the design duty can be
considered)
h
L
= Specifc enthalpy of top tray
liquid
= Latent heat of vapourisation
of top tray liquid
R = Relief load
Credit may be taken for reboiler
pinch. At relieving pressure, the
column temperature rises and the
reboiler temperature difference may
fall, leading to lower heat input to
the column. This is reboiler pinch.
2
Assume that the volume of the
sump is suffcient to maintain a
constant reboiler circulation rate
and to re-rate the reboiler to obtain
duty at relief condition. If there was
a signifcant reduction in the
reboiler duty at relief, the lighter
components would begin travelling
towards the bottom, causing the
duty to rise again. Many designers
re-rate the reboiler with feed
composition instead of bottoms
composition in these circumstances,
to maintain a more conservative/
realistic reboiler duty at relief.
loss of refux
Refux stops immediately
The refux drum and the
Top tray
Excess heat
R
F, h
F
D, h
D
B, h
B
Q
R
Q
C
Debutaniser
Reflux
drum
Figure 2 Distillation column: unbalanced heat envelope
Relief valve
opens
Reflux stops
Time, min
l00
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0
0 5 l0 l5 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
r
h
/
b
l

0
0
0
,
l

,
e
t
a
r

w
o
l
P
Peed
8ottoms
Pelief
Peflux
Overhead
from column
Distillate
Reflux drum fills
Figure 3 Loss of refux: fow vs time
Q
unbalanced
= F h
F
- B h
B
- D h
D
+ Q
R
- Q
C
- (F - B - D) h
L
column sump level, and fnally
reaches zero
The column overhead vapour
rate decreases, the refux drum level
drops, and the distillate rate
decreases to maintain the condenser
level and fnally becomes zero.
Therefore:
Site-wide power failure (SWpF)
All electrical equipment fails,
therefore the feed pump, the debu-
taniser bottom pumps and the
refux pumps stop
Assuming all cooling water
pumps are electrically driven, the
condensing duty is also immedi-
ately lost
Steam is assumed to fow contin-
uously to the reboiler. Therefore:
dynamic simulation of relief
conditions
Chemical plants and refneries are
never truly at a steady state and
this is the case during relief. The
transient behaviour of a column is
best studied by means of dynamic
simulation, which has gained in
importance since the 1990s and has
been used increasingly successfully
as the reliability of simulation soft-
ware has increased. The equations
for material, energy and composi-
tion balances include an additional
accumulation term, which is
differentiated with respect to time.
The inclusion of an accumulation
term enables the dynamic model to
rigorously calculate compositional
changes at each stage and to modify
vapour/liquid equilibrium over
time.
Unlike steady-state simulation,
dynamic simulation works within a
Pressure-Flow (P-F) network with
two basic equations: resistance and
volume balance. The resistance
equation defnes fow between pres-
sure hold-ups, and the volume
balance equation defnes material
balance at pressure hold-ups.
For the case under consideration,
the accuracy of dynamic simulation
58 PTQ Q2 2010 www.digitalrening.com/article/1000487
Time, min
l60
l70
l80
l90
200
2l0
220
230
240
250
l50
0 l0 l5 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 5
a
i
s
p

,
e
r
u
s
s
e
r
p

f
e
i
l
e
P
Pelief pressure
Pelief valve set pressure
Pelief valve accumulated
pressure
Peak pressure
Figure 4 Loss of refux: relief pressure vs time
Time, min
20
40
60
80
l00
l20
0
0 l0 l5 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 5
%

,
l
e
v
e
l

p
u
d
l
o
H
Peboiler sump
Peflux drum
Column sump
Reflux drum fills
Figure 5 Loss of refux: holdup level vs time
upset condition relief load, lb/hr temperature, F molecular weight
Loss of refux 124 980 164 49.28
Loss of feed 43 650 164 49.28
Site-wide power failure 342 796 164 49.28
relief load calculated by conventional method
loss of feed
Feed stops immediately
After some time, when the
column level drops, the bottom
product decreases to maintain the
table 1
O O
Q
unbalanced
= F h
F
- B h
B
- D h
D
+ Q
R
- Q
C
- (F - B - D) h
L
O
Q
unbalanced
= F h
F
- B h
B
- D h
D
+ Q
R
- Q
C
- (F - B - D) h
L
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O
Q
unbalanced
= F h
F
- B h
B
- D h
D
+ Q
R
- Q
C
- (F - B - D) h
L
O
condenser food, restricting the
overhead vapour path and pressu-
rising the column
The feed is pumped and suff-
cient head is available to maintain
the feed fow rate at relief
condition
Bottom product continues at the
same rate. Therefore:
provides extra inputs compared
with steady-state simulation:
Dimensions, especially volumes,
for all static equipment; column
bottom and refux drum levels are
set to normal to simulate hold-ups
A vendor curve for pressure fow
relationships for rotating equipment
Specifc conductance for control
valves (Cv value) for pressure fow
relationships, and an actuator mode
and rate for valve actuator
dynamics
Detailed exchanger thermal
design for calculation of pressure
drop and heat transfer coeffcient. If
detailed design is not available, a
resistance term for the pressure
fow relationship and overall UA
can be specifed
Actual tray information such as
diameter, fow path, distributor
details, weir length and height are
required for column hydraulic
performance
Controller for determining
control actions during transitions.
Credit is not taken for the control
action, which reduces the relief
load; for example, the column
bottom temperature controller
reduces the steam fow rate when
the column bottom temperature
rises at the relief condition.
loss of refux condition
The refux pump is stopped in fve
minutes (see Figure 3). The level in
the refux drum starts to increase
(see Figure 5). The overhead vapour
from the column continues to fow
through the condenser and fll the
refux drum. After 17 minutes, the
refux drum foods and the fow to
the condenser is blocked; the
column pressure starts to increase
(see Figure 4). When the column
reaches the set pressure, after
about 21 minutes, the relief valve
starts to open. Note that the
pressure did not reach the maxi-
mum accumulated pressure for
the given orifce area of the relief
valve.
Initially, the level in the column
bottom sump decreases as the
refux is stopped, and the bottoms
product level control valve closes to
maintain the column sump level.
The feed continues at a constant
rate, since its pressure upstream of
www.digitalrening.com/article/1000487 PTQ Q2 2010 59
Peed
8ottoms
Pelief
Peflux
Overhead
from column
Distillate
Relief valve
open
Relief valve
close
Relief flow
Feed stops
Time, min
l00
0
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0.0 5.0 l0.0 l5.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
r
h
/
b
l

0
0
0
l

,
e
t
a
r

w
o
l
P
Bottom & distillate
flow zero
Figure 7 Loss of feed: fow vs time
Time, min
l60
l70
l80
l90
200
2l0
220
230
240
250
l50
0.0 5.0 l0.0 l5.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
a
i
s
p

,
e
r
u
s
s
e
r
p

f
e
i
l
e
P
Pelief valve set pressure
Pelief pressure
Peak pressure
Pelif valve
accumulated pressure
Figure 8 Loss of feed: relief pressure vs time
Time, min
20
l0
30
40
50
60
70 l20
ll8
ll6
ll4
ll2
ll0
l08
l06
l04
l02
l00
0
0 l0 l5 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 5
t
h
g
i
e
w

r
a
l
u
c
e
l
o
M
Peboiler duty
Column sump
molecular weight
Pinched reboiler duty
D
u
t
y
,

8
T
U
/
h
r
Figure 6 Loss of refux: reboiler duty and molecular weight vs time
the control valve is higher than the
relief pressure.
Figure 6 shows the reboiler duty
and column sump molecular weight
during this relief condition. As soon
as the refux is stopped, the molecu-
lar weight in the column sump
increases, leading to an increase in
the boiling temperature of the
column bottoms, fnally resulting
in reduced reboiler duty.
After 17 minutes, when the path
for the overhead vapour was
blocked (condenser fooded), lighter
components started to fll the
column sump and reboiler duty
again started to increase. After 21
minutes, when the relief valve
started to open, reboiler duty
settled, based on the column sump
composition at relief condition.
loss of feed condition
The feed pump stops after fve
minutes (see Figure 7). After 10
minutes, the column sump level
drops (see Figure 9) and the bottom
fow is reduced to maintain the
column sump level. As the column
overhead vapour starts to decrease
(see Figure 7), the refux drum level
decreases and the distillate fow
reduces to maintain the refux drum
level. After 20 minutes, when distil-
late and bottoms stop completely,
only the vapour generated by the
reboiler is condensed by the
condenser. Figure 10 shows the
pinched reboiler duty, condenser
duty and column sump molecular
weight.
During loss of feed, the column
sump molecular weight increases,
resulting in reduced reboiler duty.
Since the top refux is maintained
at normal fow, the lighter compo-
nents start migrating towards the
bottom. The column profle starts
becoming lighter and the tempera-
ture profle starts lowering. This
also results in the lower molecular
weight of the column overhead
vapour. After about 11 minutes, the
condenser is not able to fully
condense the overhead vapour due
to its lower molecular weight,
resulting in a rise in column pres-
sure (see Figure 8). When the
column reaches the set pressure,
after about 23 minutes, the relief
valve starts to open. Note that the
60 PTQ Q2 2010 www.digitalrening.com/article/1000487
Time, min
20
40
60
80
l00
l20
0
0.0 5.0 l0.0 l5.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
%

,
l
e
v
e
l

p
u
d
l
o
H
Peflux drum
Column sump
Reboiler sump level drops
Column sump level drops
Peboiler sump
Figure 9 Loss of feed: holdup level vs time
Pinched reboiler duty
Condenser
duty
Time, min
l0
l05
l06
l07
l08
l09
ll0
lll
ll2
ll3
ll4
l04
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
0.0 5.0 l0.0 l5.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 40.0 35.0
r
h
/
8
T
U

,
y
t
u
D
Condenser duty
Column sump
molecular weight
Peboiler duty
Figure 10 Loss of feed: reboiler duty and molecular weight vs time
Peed
8ottoms
Pelief
Peflux
Overhead
from column
Distillate
Relief valve open
Site-wide power failure
Time, min
50
l00
l50
200
250
300
0
0.0 5.0 l0.0 l5.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
r
h
/
b
l

0
0
0
l

,
e
t
a
r

w
o
l
P
Figure 11 Site-wide power failure: fow vs time
pinched reboiler duty at this time is
higher because of the lower molec-
ular weight in the column sump.
After about 35 minutes, all non-
condensable or lighter components
exit the column, reboiler duty
reduces again to about 42% of
normal, and the column stabilises
at total refux mode.
Site-wide power failure condition
Assume that site-wide power fail-
ure occurs after fve minutes (see
Figure 11). During the power fail-
ure, the feed pump, column bottom
pump, refux pump and cooling
water pump stop, and their respec-
tive fows become zero immediately.
The column sump level increases
immediately as the tray inventories
are dumped to the bottom (see
Figure 13).
As the fows of feed, distillate,
bottoms and cooling water are cut,
the vapours generated by the
reboiler cause the column pressure
to increase (see Figure 12). After 11
minutes, the relief valve opens.
Initially, there is mass transfer
between the vapours from the
reboiler and the residual liquid on
the trays; progressively, as the trays
dry up, the temperature and molec-
ular weight of the overhead
(relieving) vapour increase. The
bottoms progressively become
heavier, resulting in a continuous
decrease in the reboiler duty (see
Figure 14). As the pinched reboiler
duty carries on decreasing, the
relief valve will eventually close.
During power failure, the relief
load is relatively low compared
with the loss of feed condition
because the pinched reboiler duty
is much less due to the high molec-
ular weight in the column. During
loss of feed, continuing refux
makes the column relatively lighter.
The time taken to pressure up the
column is much higher in the loss
of feed scenario because the
condenser is available, compared to
the loss of power condition,
where condensing duty was lost
immediately.
Summary
loss of refux condition
Figure 15 shows a comparison of
relief load values obtained for loss
www.digitalrening.com/article/1000487 PTQ Q2 2010 61
Time, min
20
40
60
80
l00
l20
0
5.0 0.0 l0.0 l5.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
%

,
l
e
v
e
l

p
u
d
l
o
H
Peflux drum
Column sump
Column sump
level increases
Peboiler sump
Figure 13 Site-wide power failure: hold-up level vs time
Time, min
l0
l02
l04
l06
l08
ll0
ll2
ll4
ll6
ll8
l20
l00
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
0.0 5.0 l0.0 l5.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
r
h
/
8
T
U

,
y
t
u
D
t
h
g
i
e
w

r
a
l
u
c
e
l
o
M
Peboiler duty
Condenser duty
Increasing column
sump molecular weight
Reboiler duty
decreases
Molecular weight
Figure 14 Site-wide power failure: reboiler duty and molecular weight vs time
Time, min
l60
l70
l80
l90
200
2l0
220
230
240
250
l50
0.0 5.0 l0.0 l5.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
a
i
s
p

,
e
r
u
s
s
e
r
p

f
e
i
l
e
P
Pelief valve set pressure
Pelief pressure
Peak pressure
Pelif valve
accumulated pressure
Figure 12 Site-wide power failure: relief pressure vs time
of refux. According to the conven-
tional method, the predicted relief
load is higher than the value
obtained by dynamic simulation. In
the conventional method, the
assumption is that all of the unbal-
anced heat will vapourise the top
tray liquid, which has a lower
specifc enthalpy. The molecular
weight and temperature are lower
for the top tray at bubble point and
relief pressure when compared to
dynamic simulation, which simu-
lates refux failure, resulting in a
higher temperature and molecular
weight.
In a dynamic simulation of loss of
refux, the column almost reaches a
new steady-state condition after 25
minutes. The rectifying section of
the column goes dry and only the
stripping section is involved in
mass transfer. This new steady state
can also be reasonably simulated
using a steady-state simulator (see
Steady-state simulation to obtain
relief load and properties).
There is a marginal difference in
the relief load obtained by steady-
state simulation and dynamic
simulation because, in steady-state
simulation, the column pressure has
been raised to an accumulation
pressure (set pressure +10% or
+16% based on the scenario),
whereas in dynamic simulation the
pressure safety valve starts opening
at its set pressure and the pressure
does not reach the maximum accu-
mulated pressure for the selected
orifce area. Note that the conven-
tional method and steady-state
simulation are not time dependent,
so the relief load appears constant
in comparison with the dynamic
simulation relief load.
loss of feed
Figure 16 shows a comparison of
relief load obtained for loss of feed.
The relief load calculated by the
conventional method is lower than
by dynamic simulation. In the
conventional method, the condenser
duty equals the design duty and
the cooling effect is predominant.
In dynamic simulation, the
condenser duty is not fxed and the
hold-up of the individual compo-
nents in the column determines the
behaviour of the condenser.
Initially, during loss of feed, the
reboiler duty decreases due to
pinch and the lighter components
subsequently travel to the bottoms
and the whole column profle
becomes lighter. Eventually, the
reboiler duty again starts to raise
due to the decrease in molecular
weight. This phenomenon cannot
be evaluated with the conventional
62 PTQ Q2 2010 www.digitalrening.com/article/1000487
Time, min
20
40
60
80
l00
l20
l40
0
0 5 l0 l5 20 25 30 35 45 40
r
h
/
b
l

0
0
0
l

,
d
a
o
l

f
e
i
l
e
P
Steady-state simulation
Dynamic simulation
Conventional method
Figure 15 Loss of refux: relief load vs time
Time, min
20
l0
30
40
50
60
80
70
90
l00
0
0 5 l0 l5 20 25 30 35 40
r
h
/
b
l

0
0
0
l

,
d
a
o
l

f
e
i
l
e
P
Dynamic
simulation
Conventional method
Figure 16 Loss of feed: relief load vs time
upset condition relief load, lb/hr temperature, F molecular weight
Loss of refux 90 800 310 62.5
Loss of feed 93 500 117 44.2
Site-wide power failure 29 250 290 76
relief load calculated by dynamic simulation
table 2
method, but validates the hypothe-
sis that, if the pinched duty is too
low, the designer should re-evalu-
ate the reboiler duty, assuming
lighter composition in the column
bottoms.
Site-wide power failure
Figure 17 shows a comparison of
relief load obtained for site-wide
power failure. In dynamic simula-
tion, the relief load obtained is
much lower than by the conven-
tional method. In reality, during
this condition, after the trays dry
up the column simply acts as a boil-
ing pot without mass transfer.
The reboiler duty continuously
decreases as the contents become
heavier with time. According to the
conventional approach, reboiler
duty and relief rate are calculated
at one instant, which is at the start
of the emergency (not at the start of
relief). This results in a conservative
estimate. The effect of hold-up
volumes and time taken to pressu-
rise is normally ignored.
The conventional method is the
most conservative and requires less
effort during design. Steady-state
simulation to determine the relief
load has limited applicability. For
grassroots designs, the conventional
method may be the most appropri-
ate, as detailed design and/or
complete vendor information may
not be available at the time of the
relief systems design. It also helps
to build in inherent design margins
for any possible future expansion/
debottlenecking operation, and to
minimise changes during the late
stages of the project due to any
unforeseen design development.
Dynamic simulation models the
system rigorously and tends to
provide more accurate results,
taking into account actual system
dynamics and confguration. It tries
to emulate plant behaviour, which
usually results in lower relief loads.
Dynamic simulation also provides
relief loads based on time, which
can be further analysed for optimis-
ing the relief systems design.
Dynamic simulation can be particu-
larly useful in unit revamps, to
limit the capital cost involved in
relief system modifcations.
Steady-state simulation to obtain
relief load and properties
Simulate the distillation column
into three sections: column, column
overhead system and reboiler
system
The column can also be simulated
as a reboiled column (column with
a reboiler) with theoretical stages
and normal operating pressure
Defne a refux stream and
feed it to the top tray
Defne the feed stream and
assign an appropriate feed location.
Give a normal pressure drop across
the column
Fix the normal reboiler duty to
the energy stream and normal boil-
up ratio (as a specifcation)
Converge the column
The column overhead system
includes a pressure safety valve
(PSV), cooling water condenser and
refux drum
64 PTQ Q2 2010 www.digitalrening.com/article/1000487
Time, min
50
l00
l50
200
300
250
350
400
0
0 5 l0 l5 20 25 30 35 40
r
h
/
b
l

0
0
0
l

,
d
a
o
l

f
e
i
l
e
P
Dynamic simulation
Conventional method
Figure 17 Site-wide power failure: relief load vs time
Refux
pump
CWS
Refux
Recycle
Internal energy duty = external reboiler duty
Set
To condenser
To relief
CWR
Steam
To external
reboiler
Total liquid from
column bottom stage
(internal stream)
Condensate
Of gas
Sour water
Distillate
Bottom
Twinned
column bottom
Feed
Internal
energy
stream
Debutaniser
Reflux
drum
External
reboiler
Figure 18 Distillation column steady-state simulation relief condition
Split the overhead vapour
from the column to relief and to
condenser, and set the relief
fow rate to zero
Simulate the condenser as a
shell and tube exchanger with cool-
ing water on the tube side and
overhead vapour totally condensed.
Simulate the refux drum, refux
pump, distillate product and refux
The refux from the refux
pump should be same as the
defned refux stream to the top
tray, so connect them through a
recycle block
The reboiler system should be
simulated as a separate shell and
tube heat exchanger (external
reboiler) in order to study reboiler
pinch at relieving conditions
Create an internal stream of
the total liquid from the bottom
stage in the column. The internal
stream minus the column bottoms
is the feed to the external reboiler,
so split the internal stream to the
external reboiler and twinned
column bottoms. Set the column
bottoms fow rate to the twinned
column bottoms stream
Specify the normal UA to the
external reboiler
Specify the hot side of the
external reboiler. For the case under
consideration, the hot-side inlet is
steam at its saturation condition
and the hot-side outlet is total
condensate
Increase the column pressure to
relief pressure (PSV set pressure +
allowable accumulation). Since the
bottom pressure is higher (relief
pressure + normal P), the bubble
point of the column bottom
increases. The temperature differ-
ence across the external reboiler
reduces, leading to lower external
reboiler duty (pinch). The calcu-
lated duty of the external reboiler
should be equal to the energy
stream attached to the column
(internal energy stream). Iterate the
column internal energy stream so
that it matches the external reboiler
duty. Even though the LMTD tends
to increase in the condenser, many
designers tend to restrict the maxi-
mum condenser duty to design
duty due to uncertainties in the
calculation. For this exercise, the
condenser duty is limited to the
design duty only.
Now the column is at relieving
pressure, giving an idea of the
reduced reboiler duty and the
amount of overhead vapour. The
next step is to simulate the cause of
overpressure to the maximum
convergence of the column. For loss
of refux, increase the fow to
relief, so that fow to the condenser
is reduced and, ultimately, the fow
to the refux is reduced.
Simultaneously reduce the distillate
fow step-wise as the refux pump
is stopped. At the same time, keep
iterating the column internal energy
stream so that it matches the exter-
nal reboiler duty. Ultimately, when
the refux and distillate are zero, all
the overhead vapour from the
column is the relieving fow.
The above methodology can also
be extended to other emergencies,
www.digitalrening.com/article/1000487 PTQ Q2 2010 65
where it is expected that the reliev-
ing scenario could approach the
steady-state condition.
references
1 Sengupta M, Staats F Y, A new approach to
relief valve load calculations, May 1978.
2 Rahimi Mofrad S, Tower pressure relief
calculation, Hydrocarbon Processing, Sep 2008.
Haribabu Chittibabu is an Engineering
Specialist in the Advanced Simulation and
Analysis group at Bechtel India. He has a
bachelors degree in chemical engineering
from University of Madras and a masters in
petroleum refning and petrochemicals from
Anna University, India.
Email: hchittib@bechtel.com
amudha Valli is an Engineering Specialist in
the Advanced Simulation and Analysis group
at Bechtel, India. She has a bachelors degree
in chemical engineering from Coimbatore
Institute of Technology, India, and a masters
in chemical engineering from Anna University,
India. Email: an@bechtel.com
Vineet Khanna is Project Engineering Manager
with Bechtel India. He has a bachelors degree in
chemical engineering from the Indian Institute
of Technology, Delhi, India.
Email: vkhanna@bechtel.com
dipanjan bhattacharya is an Engineering
Specialist in the Advanced Simulation and
Analysis group at Bechtel, Houston. He has
a bachelors degree in chemical engineering
from Jadavpur University, India, and masters
in chemical engineering from University of
Oklahoma. Email: dbhatta1@bechtel.com

linKS
more articles from the following
category:
process modelling & Simulation

Anda mungkin juga menyukai