completed by Fluor of all the case histories related to malfunctions in refinery towers that have been document- ed over the last 50 years. Altogether, 400 case histories were found in the literature. The first phase identified the most com- mon root causes of problems in refinery fractionators (towers), but did not exam- ine the troublespots in each specific ser- vice. This phase yielded general guidelines for trouble-free design, but did not address issues related to each specific fractionator. In the second phase, case histories of tower malfunctions are analysed specifi- cally for each of the major refinery frac- tionators. Each case history teaches a lesson. Together, these lessons are the best tool for understanding the potential trou- blespots in each service, and for drawing guidelines for trouble-free design of each service. I have previously described the Fluor survey methodology in Distillation Opera- tion (McGraw-Hill, New York,1990). All the case histories used as a basis for the survey were extracted from the published literature. There were 900 total cases, of which 400 were for refinery towers. In about one quarter of these, the specific service was not stated or the service was one that did not have enough cases reported on to permit detailed analysis. This left about 300 cases for the main refinery fractionators, and these form the basis for the current analysis. As with other Fluor surveys, certain ground rules were applied to limit the scope. Only specific incidents were included. For exam- ple, a statement such as leakage from chimney trays in refinery vacuum tow- ers can be reduced by seal-welding does not constitute a case history. On the other hand, a statement such as one vacuum tower experienced severe chimney tray leakage at low-rate operation. Seal weld- ing tray sections reduced leakage to acceptable levels does. Also, incidents of corrosion and foul- ing were included only if a feature unique to the column design, operation, or con- trol contributed to their occurrence. For instance, an incident where the wrong corrosion inhibitor or antifoulant was applied does not qualify as a case history in this survey. A case where fouling was caused by insufficient liquid flow, maldis- tribution, or poor process control, does. Finally, optimisation case studies (where capacity was raised or pressure drop lowered by replacing trays by pack- ings) are outside of the scope of the sur- vey. The objective of the current survey is to identify the issues that make towers fall short of achieving these design capacities. There is some overlap in the tabulation of cases for each fractionator. For instance, a coked chimney tray case study will be listed once under coking and another time under intermediate draws. This means that adding the individual malfunctions may yield a number greater than the number of malfunctions report- ed for the service. Table 1 lists the main fractionators surveyed and the concise number of cases reported for each service. It clearly shows that the vacuum tower is by far the most troublesome refinery ser- vice, which is where the survey begins. Vacuum tower malfunctions The 86 case histories reported for the vac- uum tower is almost double the number reported for the atmospheric crude tower, which is the next most troublesome refin- ery tower. When a vacuum tower per- forms poorly, valuable distillate is lost to the resid, and poor distillate quality poi- sons FCC catalyst. The wash section of the fractionator is the most critical sec- tion and also one where most of the mal- Trouble-free design of refinery fractionators A review of factors most frequently the cause of distillation towers falling short of design objectives. Analysis of case histories provides guidelines for identifying potential troublespots in the most important fractionators Henry Z Kister Fluor Corporation MAS S TRANS FER: DI S TI LLATI ON PTQ AUTUMN 2003 www. e p t q . c o m 109 Number of cases 1. Vacuum towers 86 2. Atmospheric crude fractionators 45 3. Debutanisers 37 4. FCC main fractionators 33 5. Deethanisers 23 6. Depropanisers, C 3 /C 4 splitters 22 7. Alky main fractionators/isostrippers 17 8. Coker main fractionators 15 9. Naphtha splitters 11 10. Deisobutanisers 8 11. Amine towers 8 Table 1 Fractionator malfunctions Figure 1 Uplifted packing in wash section of a vacuum tower No. Description Cases 1 Damage 27 2 Coking 21 3 Intermediate draws 17 4 Misleading measurements 10 5 Plugging 9 Installation mishaps 9 Abnormal operation (startup, shutdown, commissioning) 9 8 Maldistribution 6 Weeping 6 10 Condenser 4 Table 2 Top causes of vacuum tower malfunctions functions were reported. The wash sec- tion of the vacuum tower is therefore the most troublesome tower section in the refinery (Figure 1, on previous page). Table 2 shows the common malfunc- tions reported in vacuum towers. With 27 case histories, damage tops the list. Most of this damage can be readily prevented. Table 3 shows the most common causes. Foremost are water-induced pressure surges, which account for one third of the reported damage incidents. In three of the nine cases reported, the source of water was poor draining of stripping steam lines. In another three, pockets of water lying in the piping of spare pumps entered the hot tower when these pumps were connected to the hot tower. A lesson in this case is that many, pos- sibly most, vacuum tower damage inci- dents can be prevented by design and operating procedures that adequately drain the tower steam lines in wet towers, and that positively prevent water from spare pump piping from entering the tower. A joint designer/refiner hazop should focus on these troublespots. The next source of damage in Table 3, insufficient mechanical strength, is also readily preventable. It should be recog- nised (as can be readily seen from Table 2), that damage is a major issue in a vacuum tower, and that heavy duty internals design should be used. Although the heavy duty design would not be able to withstand a major pressure surge, it would weather the smaller pressure surges. Some good heavy duty design practices have been described by Shieveler [Shieveler G H, Use heavy-duty trays for severe services; Chem Eng Progr, Aug 1995]. Special attention should be paid to grid installation and tightening. In two of the five cases, poorly fastened grids disinte- grated in service. Through-bolting has been far more effective than J-bolting for keeping grid together, and should be rou- tinely specified. Spray distributors and their headers are prone to damage (Table 3). Again, this damage can be easily prevented by sound design, good installation, and thorough inspection and testing. Water testing spray nozzles and headers can readily detect damage (Figure 2). Header damage can be prevented by using standard flanges and gaskets and properly allowing for thermal expansion in the header design. Damage due to high base level con- tributed three out of the 27 damage case histories. This again is an issue that can be at least alleviated by good level monitor- ing, alarms, and well-designed trip sys- tems. Another three damage-related case-histories were caused by packing fires. This type of damage is more difficult to prevent due to the difficulty of clean- ing the packings, especially when coked. Nonetheless, much progress has been reported in developing preventive mea- sures, and is discussed in two excellent papers by Bouck and Markeloff [Bouck D S, Vacuum Tower Packing Fires; API Operat- ing Practices Symposium, 27 April 1999. Markeloff R, Packing fires; FRI Technical Advi- sory Committee, San Antonio, Texas, Nov 2001]. Coking of the wash section (Figure 3) is a close second in Table 2 with 21 reported case studies. Table 4 gives a breakdown of the causes. Excess stages and vaporisation occur in wash beds that are either too tall or contain packings that are too efficient. In either case, the additional stages inten- sify the vaporisation of the wash oil, leav- ing little liquid to reach and wet the lower sections of the bed. These lower sections of the bed dry and coke. Poor modelling and simulation is another cause of coking. Golden et al stress that the heavy ends of the crude must be correctly characterised in the simulation and that the feed entry to the tower must be modelled by a series of flash steps that correctly represent the physical sequence of steps between the PTQ AUTUMN 2003 110 MAS S TRANS FER: DI S TI LLATI ON No. Description Cases 1 Water-induced pressure surges 9 2 Insufficient mechanical strength 5 3 Broken nozzles or headers of spray distributors 4 4 High bottom liquid level 3 Packing fires 3 Table 3 Causes of damage in vacuum fractionators Figure 2 Broken, non-standard flange in the spray header supplying wash oil to the wash bed of a vacuum tower Figure 3 Coking of fouling resistant grid in the wash section of a vacuum tower heater outlet and flash zone [Golden S W, Vacuum Tower Troubleshooting; AIChE Spring Meeting, 1994]. When these principles are overlooked, the simulation underestimates wash oil vaporisation, leading to the drying up and coking reported in four cases. In three other reported coking inci- dents, it was stated that the wash flowrate was insufficient but no specific reason was given. It is likely that in those cases too, either the number of stages was excessive, or the modelling/simulation were poor, or both. In three other cases, coking was produced by either a mislead- ingly low coil outlet temperature signal that caused excessive firing, or a faulty level measurement on the overflash chimney tray that caused entrainment into the wash bed. Three cases were reported where maldistribution of vapour or liquid led to coking. Intermediate draw malfunctions is a close third of the most common vacuum tower malfunctions, with 17 reported case histories (Table 5). Foremost is leak- age from total draw chimney trays. Leak- age of the HVGO chimney tray represents good distillate degraded into resid with no beneficial effects whatsoever, as leak- ing liquid poorly distributes in the wash bed and does little washing. Leakage of LVGO into the HVGO section lowers the HVGO boiling point and can reduce heat transfer, even limiting vacuum on the tower. This leakage needs to be avoided with totally seal-welded chimney trays. Special techniques, as recommended by Lieber- man, are effective and need to be incor- porated to avoid tray buckling due to thermal expansion [Lieberman N P, Process Design for ReliableOperation, 2nd ed; Gulf Pub- lishing, Houston, Texas, 1988]. Level measurement on chimney trays has been troublesome in three reported cases. This may lead to overflow or entrainment. While overflow is equiva- lent to leakage, entrainment from the overflash chimney tray can induce cok- ing. Leaking trapout trays were reported to be troublesome in three cases. With trapout trays being used only in tray tow- ers, this issue is experienced mainly in vacuum lube towers that have trays and not packing. The remaining case histories describe coking and excessive hydraulic gradients. With 10 case histories, misleading mea- surements are in the 4th spot in Table 2. Three of these 10 are the troublesome chimney tray level measurements previ- ously mentioned. Other troublesome cases have been reported with short coil outlet thermocouples (two cases), ambi- ent changes affecting vacuum measure- ments with ordinary gauges (two cases), bottom level, heater fuel flow rate, and reflux to a packed bed distributor. The lessons from these case histories to instru- ment specifications are self-explanatory. With nine case histories, plugging (as distinct from coking) is in the 5th spot in Table 2. Of the nine cases, five were plug- ging of spray headers. One case was reported of plugged packing, plugged quench pipe, plugged instrument line and plugged ejector. In two cases, the plugging was by corrosion products. Mea- sures found effective for alleviating plug- ging in the wash spray headers, which is one of the most common troublespots, are to provide good wash oil filtration and to specify an all-stainless-steel wash oil PTQ AUTUMN 2003 111 MAS S TRANS FER: DI S TI LLATI ON No. Description Cases 1 Excess stages and vaporisation 4 Poor modelling and simulation 4 3 Insufficient wash, reason not reported 3 Misleading measurement 3 Liquid, vapour maldistribution 3 Not reported 4 Table 4 Causes of coking in vacuum fractionators line downstream of the wash oil filter. Sharing the 5th spot in Table 2 is installa- tion mishaps. Three case histories were associated with spray header installation, and another three with grid or packing assembly. Other cases describe problems with tower out-of-roundness, using car- bon steel bolts where stainless steel was specified and poor installation of strip- ping trays. Also sharing the 5th spot in Table 2 is abnormal operation incidents. Five of these describe incidents during startup where a pocket of water entered the hot tower and created a pressure surge. Poor blinding/unblinding contributed two case histories, one case is related to pressur- ing/depressuring and one to flushing. Maldistribution problems, other than those attributed to coking, plugging or damage, are in the 8th spot in Table 2 with a surprisingly low number of case histories (six). Of the reported six, four were vapour maldistribution, three of these originating in the flash zone and one in the previously mentioned tray chimney. The other two cases reported liquid maldistribution problems. Fluors experience has been that maldistribution, especially of vapour from the flash zone, has been far more troublesome than sug- gested by the low spot of this item in Table 2. Vapour horn design and good distribu- tion of liquid to the wash bed are central for achieving trouble-free performance of the wash bed. An expert hydraulic analy- sis, often with the aid of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is essential. Improv- ing the vapour horn design has eliminat- ed operating problems and improved the performance of several vacuum towers. A surprisingly high number of case histories place tray weeping in the equal 8th spot in Table 2. This is not an issue with most vacuum towers that are all packed, but appears to be a major issue with the trayed vacuum towers, mostly in lube service. In two of these, leakage at a draw tray made it impossible to draw sufficient product. In two others, weep- age at pumparound trays starved the pump and reduced heat transfer. In two more, poor separation between side-cuts resulted. Blanking valves, using high turndown valves, and in the case of the side cuts, drawing from seal-welded chimney trays, was the solution. Condenser issues complete Table 2. Condenser problems raise pressure in the tower and thus reduce distillate recovery. Two of the four cases reported dealt with excess lights, one with ejector plugging, and one with flash equilibrium at the pre- condenser. Crude tower malfunctions The three most common atmospheric crude tower malfunctions (Table 6) are plugging, intermediate draw malfunc- tions and damage. There were nine plugging incidents reported in atmospheric crude towers: Four in the wash section or gasoil pumparound, three in the top section or top pumparound, and two in the strip- ping section. No cases of plugging were reported in the middle of the tower. In the wash section, the most common cause of plugging was entrainment from the flash zone or from the vapour overhead of a preflash drum. In the top of the tower, the plugging was by scale and corrosion prod- ucts, corrosion inhibitors, and salting out. Five of the nine incidents resulted in plugged trays, two in plugged downcom- ers. In one case, a packed bed plugged, in another, a liquid distributor to the pack- ing plugged. The large number of intermediate draw incidents is well in line with Fluors expe- rience: chimney trays and downcomer trapouts make or break fractionators. Of the nine, seven took place with down- comer trapouts, two with chimney trays. Four of these involved choking or restric- tion in the outlet liquid line, while in two others, leakage at the drawoff restricted the recovery of a side cut. Four of the nine damage incidents reported were due to water-induced pres- sure surges. Two of these were caused by undrained stripping steam lines, one by a water pocket in a spare pump, and one by plugged drainholes in the bottom seal pan. One case of damage resulted from exposing column internals to cold water and air premature upon shutdown, another from a packing fire at the turnaround. The cause of damage in the other three cases was not reported. Seven abnormal operation (startup/ shutdown/commissioning) incidents were reported. Four of these resulted in four of the damage incidents listed, one led to an explosion, another to a fire and one to a chemical release. Three of the pressure surges listed in Table 6 under Damage resulted from poor dehydration during startup or pump switchover. Poor blinding and unblinding led to one reported case of explosion and another of chemicals release. The next four entries in Table 6 are well below the top four, and have three to four reported malfunctions. Four installa- tion mishaps were reported, all involving trays or chimney trays. Leaks of a pumparound exchanger, a pump seal, and resid to atmosphere were the three reported leak cases. Controlling liquid flow to the wash section has been a spe- cial challenge, contributing three more case histories. Trouble-free designs properly dis- entrain the vapour in the flash zone and preflash drum and properly desalt the crude in order to minimise plugging in the fractionator. Specifying fouling-resis- tant hardware in the wash zone and upper trays is good practice. Downcomer trapouts and chimney trays are the most important internals for ensuring trouble- free operation. They need to be designed and inspected carefully, not just left to PTQ AUTUMN 2003 112 MAS S TRANS FER: DI S TI LLATI ON No. Description Cases 1 Plugging 9 Abnormal operation 9 3 Liquid maldistribution to packing liquid 6 4 Intermediate draws 5 5 Water-induced pressure surges 4 6 Pressure control 3 Vapour maldistribution 3 Table 7 Top causes of FCC main fractionator malfunctions No. Description Cases 1 Control 10 2 Vapour cloud release 5 Installation Mishaps 5 4 Feed arrangement, tray towers 4 Reboiler draw arrangements 4 Table 8 Top causes of malfunctions in debutanisers, incl stabilisers and depentanisers No. Description Cases 1 Leaking total draw chimney trays 6 2 Level measurement on total draw chimney trays 3 Leaking trapout tray 3 4 Chimney tray coking 2 Excessive hydraulic gradients on chimney trays 2 6 Others 1 Table 5 Intermediate draw malfunctions in vacuum towers No. Description Cases 1 Plugging 9 Intermediate draws 9 Damage 9 4 Abnormal operations 7 5 Installation mishaps 4 6 Condenser Problems 3 Poor control of wash 3 Leaks 3 Table 6 Top causes of atmospheric crude tower malfunctions others, as these will make or break the fractionator. Prevention of water entry, by ensuring adequate drainage on stripping steam lines and eliminating dead pockets inside the tower, is central for damage prevention. Proper inspection of equipment is a must to prevent the installation mishaps. Proper control of the liquid flow rate to the wash section is the prime control consideration in the tower. Main column malfunctions There are some similarities with regard to FCC main fractionator malfunctions (Table 7) and atmospheric crude tower malfunctions, but there are also major differences. Two malfunctions top the list: plugging and abnormal operation incidents.There were nine plugging inci- dents reported in FCC main fractiona- tors. Of these, four were salting-out incidents that plugged trays near the top of the tower, and were overcome by online water washes. Three were inci- dents in which grid in the slurry section coked up due to vapour or liquid-maldis- tribution. One incident was plugging due to catalyst carryover into upper packed sections, and another was plugging of a line draining the main feed line, both during startup. There were also nine abnormal opera- tion (startup/shutdown/commissioning) incidents reported, two of which were previously described. These two inci- dents, plus two others, occurred during liquid circulation and dehydration. In three of these four, a pressure surge and major damage resulted, the other was the catalyst carryover. The remaining five incidents include poor unblinding caus- ing a toxic release; switching over oxygen and nitrogen purge gas causing explo- sions; trip failure on the reflux drum caus- ing liquid carryover and major compressor damage; a major leak due to the thermal shock while opening or clos- ing the valve in the tower inlet; and a startup pressure control problem resulting from steam condensation. Packings are used more frequently in FCC main fractionators than in atmo- spheric crude fractionators, so it comes as little surprise to find liquid maldistribu- tion to packings in a prominent spot in Table 7. Of the six reported incidents, two involved liquid maldistribution to the slurry pumparound section, the others to various fractionation sections. Intermedi- ate draws in FCC main fractionator have been troublesome in five reported case histories, more in chimney trays than in downcomer trapouts. Finally, four cases of water-induced pressure surges were reported, three of which led to major damage. Two other malfunctions are also shown in Table 7: Vapour maldistribution, all cases dealing with grid in the slurry sec- PTQ AUTUMN 2003 113 MAS S TRANS FER: DI S TI LLATI ON No. Description Cases 1 Reboiler draw and return arrangements 6 2 Excessive tower base level 4 Control 4 Component accumulation 4 Side draw arrangements 4 Table 9 Top causes of malfunctions in deethanisers (absorbers and strippers) No. Description Case 1 Reboiler draw and return arrangements 7 2 Tower flooding by excess base level 6 3 Vapour cloud release 5 Table 10 Top causes of malfunctions in C 3 / C 4 splitters and depropanisers (excl those in alky units) tion, and pressure control. Plugging and coking can be alleviated by providing ade- quate on-line wash facilities near the top of the fractionator, by using plugging- resistant trays there, and by preferring shed decks or disk and donut trays to grid in the wash section. Shed decks and disk and donut trays are far less sensitive to vapour or liquid maldistribution than grid, and therefore far less prone to cok- ing during upsets. Startups and shutdowns are major issues in FCC main fractionators, and a good design of these needs to hazop what can go wrong and take preventive mea- sures. Intermediate draws and liquid dis- tributors are the weakest links in the internals design, and need to be designed and inspected carefully, not just left to others. Finally, pressure controls as well as liquid flow control to the wash section are major considerations in these frac- tionators. Debutaniser malfunctions Due to similar functions, stabilisers and depentenisers have been lumped together with debutanisers. Over 70% of the cases, however, were contributed by debutanis- ers. Table 8 shows that the most common malfunctions experienced in debutanisers are widely different from those experi- enced in the vacuum, crude and FCC frac- tionators. Topping the list with 10 case histories is controls, an item that showed low down (if at all) on the main fraction- ator malfunctions list. Of the 10 cases, five reported difficulties with pressure and con- denser controls. In all five, a total con- denser was used with partial flooding of the condenser. In two of the five, the prob- lem was induced by presence of non-con- densables. Composition control or the assembly of a control system contributed the other control case histories. Vapour cloud release and installation mishaps share the second spot in Table 8. Three of the five case histories of vapour clouds ended in explosions, and one more in a fire. Some of these were accompanied by injuries and heavy damage. Line frac- ture (two incidents), poor blinding (two incidents), and freeze-ups in leaking valves (two incidents) were some of the contributing factors. Hazops of debutanis- ers should consider some of the lessons learned from previous vapour cloud releases to positively eliminate further accidents. With four case histories, poor feed arrangements closely follow, leading to a capacity bottleneck or an efficiency loss in the feed region. Also with four case histories are reboiler draw arrangements, including vapour entrainment choking the reboiler draw lines and liquid leaking from a trapout tray to a once-through thermosiphon reboiler, thus starving the reboiler. There is a distinct link between the feeds and reboiler draw arrangements. Both constitute points of transition, ie, where a stream enters or leaves the tower. These points of transition are some of the major troublespots in a tower. The lesson for debutanisers is that all points of transi- tion need to be critically examined for potential bottlenecks, both at the design (or debottleneck) and when trouble- shooting. Deethaniser malfunctions The strippers and absorbers are included in the deethaniser malfunctions. Topping the list (Table 9) with six case histories are reboiler draw and return arrangements. Three of the six cases report excessive pres- sure drop in the process inlet or outlet pipes of a kettle reboiler. The high-pressure drop either caused the tower base liquid level to rise above the reboiler return inlet, or back liquid up on the chimney tray feed- ing the reboiler to the top of the chimneys. Insufficient heat during coke drum switchover was reported in two cases, one of them due to weeping from the draw tray to a once-through thermosiphon reboiler. Four case histories were reported of base level exceeding the reboiler return. Two of these were due to high-pressure drop in the kettle piping (those previously men- tioned), the other two due to absence of or to poor level indication. As with debu- tanisers, control issues are also important in deethanisers, and account for four case histories. Also, with four case histories, component accumulation in deethanisers is a problem. Either ethane or water or both accumu- late and can lead to cycling, capacity bot- tlenecks, and in the case of water, also corrosion. Finally, choking of side draws with entrained gas bubbles has been a problem in four case histories. The lessons learned from this documen- tation are that the points of transition in deethanisers (the side draws as well as the region below the bottom tray, including the reboiler draw and return lines) require thorough design, review, and inspection, and must not just be left to others. Preven- tion of component accumulation and care- ful review of the control systems are also prime considerations that make the differ- ence between a troublesome and trouble- free deethaniser. Splitter malfunctions Malfunctions in C 3 /C 4 splitters also include depropanisers other than those in alky units, which are uniquely different (Table 10). Similar to deethanisers, reboiler draw and return arrangements lead the list with seven reported cases. Again, the main prob- lems have been excess pressure drop in inlet and outlet lines of a reboiler causing base liquid level to exceed the reboiler return inlet (two cases); leaking draw tray or pan causing liquid to bypass a once- through thermosiphon reboiler (two cases); a reboiler tube leak and slug flow at the reboiler outlet pipe. Slightly behind, with six case histories, is tower flooding by excess base level. Two of these resulted from the type of reboiler problems previously discussed. False level indica tions led to two others, and frothing or foaming at the tower base led to the remaining two. Clearly, the lessons learned are that troubleshooting and trouble-free debottlenecks of C 3 /C 4 splitters should focus on the reboiler piping and the bottom sump. Similar to debutanisers, depropanisers and C 3 /C 4 splitters have experienced a high number of vapour cloud releases, mostly due to line rupture (three cases), but also due to poor blinding or plugging/freeze ups of valves. Some major blasts resulted. The vapour cloud lessons described under debutanisers extend to depropanisers and C 3 /C 4 splitters. Other fractionators For other refinery fractionators, the num- ber of case studies reported was less than 20, a sample too small for a detailed anal- ysis. Nonetheless, some observations are significant and require more detail, includ- ing coker main fractionators, alky unit main fractionators/isostrippers, naphtha splitters, deisobutanisers and amine absorbers/regenerators. A total of 15 malfunction case histories of coker fractionators have been report- ed. Of the 15, seven described fouling by coking or carryover of coke, while five others described damage due to water- induced pressure surges. There is no doubt that coking and water-induced pressure surges are the major issues with these fractionators. A total of 17 malfunctions have been reported for alky unit main fractionators/isostrippers. Of these, four described plugging, mostly by scale or cor- rosion products; three described explo- sions, either due to vapour cloud release or due to HF carryover in the hydrocarbons and a violent reaction in a caustic bed downstream; and three others described accumulation of either ethane or water in the overhead system. A total of 11 naphtha splitter malfunc- tions have been reported. Four of these reported plugging, mainly by scale and cor- rosion products; three reported reboiler issues; two were a result of poor installa- tion; and two reported control problems. Control problems with other refinery fractionators have also been reported. For example, of the eight total deisobutaniser malfunctions that have been reported, six involved control problems. Five of these were temperature control issues that can be particularly troublesome with narrow- boiling mixtures. MAS S TRANS FER: DI S TI LLATI ON PTQ AUTUMN 2003 114 Eight case histories were specifically reported for refinery amine absorbers. Of these, six reported foaming, and three reported scale and corrosion products catalysing the foam and causing plugging. Seven other case histories of amine absorbers and/or regenerators were report- ed without stating whether they came from refineries or natural gas plants. Of these, foaming was the issue in five. There is no doubt that foaming, and to a lesser degree fouling with scale and and corro- sion products, is the prime issue in amine towers. Lessons learned The vacuum tower is by far the most trou- blesome refinery fractionator. Damage, wash bed coking, and intermediate draws are prime trouble spots. Water-induced pressure surges are the leading cause of damage. Most of the damage incidents in the vacuum towers are preventable. Hazoping the possibility of water entry, using heavy duty mechanical designs, inspecting, testing and correctly design- ing spray headers, paying attention to level measurement, and applying special designs and procedures to prevent pack- ing fires can drastically reduce damage incidents. Wash bed coking can be alleviated by using short beds of relatively inefficient packing by correctly simulating the wash zone and by avoiding insufficient wash. Intermediate draw malfunctions can be alleviated by seal-welding draw trays and water-testing them at the turnaround and by paying attention to reliable level mea- surement on these trays. Other measures that promote trouble-free operation are good instrument specifications, good fil- tration of the wash oil followed by stain- less steel piping downstream of the filters, and good distribution of vapour and of the wash oil to the wash bed. Plugging, intermediate draws, damage and abnormal operation incidents are the most troublesome malfunctions in atmo- spheric crude towers. Plugging is most common near the tower top, at the wash zone, or in the stripping section. Choking and leakage are the prime intermediate draw issues. Water-induced pressure surges are the most common cause of damage. Plugging problems can be allevi- ated by eliminating the source of fouling and/or by using plugging-resistant inter- nals. Downcomer trapouts and chimney trays need to be designed and inspected carefully, not just left to others. Prevention of water entry by proper draining of stripping steam lines and by sound dehydration procedures at startup is critical. Proper inspection of equip- ment and adequate control of liquid flowrate to the wash section are also important for promoting trouble-free operation. Plugging, abnormal operation issues, liquid maldistribution to packings and grid, intermediate draws and water- induced pressure surges are the key trou- ble spots in FCC main fractionators. The main causes of plugging in these fraction- ators are salting out near the top and cok- ing of grid beds in the slurry section. These can be alleviated by online water washes and by avoiding grid in the slurry section, respectively. Tower dehydration and liquid circulation are important start- up operations that can turn troublesome and lead to pressure surges or catalyst car- ryover into the less fouling-resistant regions. Control issues, especially pressure con- trols, are the primary source of problems in debutanisers. Vapour cloud releases have led to explosions and major damage in debutanisers. Installation mishaps, tower feed entry arrangements, and reboiler draw arrangements have also been major trouble spots. Critical review of the control system, especially the pres- sure/ condenser controls, learning from past vapour-cloud accidents, using hazops to minimise the possibility of vapour cloud releases, and sound design of feed entry piping and of tower base arrangements are the key for trouble-free debutanisers. In deethanisers, the points of transi- tion (the side draw arrangements and the region below the bottom tray, including the reboiler draw and return lines) are prime trouble spots and are key to trou- ble-free design and operation. Prevention of water and ethane accumulation in this tower is also important. Reboiler draw and return arrange- ments, and tower base level are the key to trouble-free depropanisers and C 3 /C 4 splitters. Depropanisers also are prone to vapour cloud releases, and lessons learned from past vapour cloud incidents should be incorporated in the design and operation of depropanisers and C 3 /C 4 splitters. Trouble-free operation of coker frac- tionators focuses on preventing coking and water-induced pressure surges; of alky main fractionators focuses on plug- ging, vapour cloud and component accu- mulation prevention; of deisobutanisers on composition control; and of amine absorbers and regenerators on foaming and plugging prevention. Henry Z Kister is a Fluor Corporation fellow and director of fractionation technology at Aliso Viejo, California, USA. He has over 25 years experience in design, control and startup of frationation processes and equipment. He obtained his BE and ME degrees from the University of New South Wales, Australia. PTQ AUTUIMN 2003 115 MAS S TRANS FER: DI S TI LLATI ON