MASS TRANSFER: DISTILLATION

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

A
two-phase survey was recently refinery fractionators,
completed by Fluor of all the case and these form the
histories related to malfunctions in basis for the current
refinery towers that have been document- analysis.
ed over the last 50 years. Altogether, 400 As with other Fluor
case histories were found in the literature. surveys, certain
The first phase identified the most com- ground rules were
mon root causes of problems in refinery applied to limit the
fractionators (towers), but did not exam- scope. Only specific
ine the troublespots in each specific ser- incidents were
vice. This phase yielded general included. For exam-
guidelines for trouble-free design, but did ple, a statement such
not address issues related to each specific as “leakage from
fractionator. chimney trays in
In the second phase, case histories of refinery vacuum tow-
tower malfunctions are analysed specifi- ers can be reduced by
cally for each of the major refinery frac- seal-welding” does
tionators. Each case history teaches a not constitute a case Figure 1 Uplifted packing in wash section of a vacuum tower
lesson. Together, these lessons are the best history. On the other
tool for understanding the potential trou- hand, a statement such as “one vacuum It clearly shows that the vacuum tower is
blespots in each service, and for drawing tower experienced severe chimney tray by far the most troublesome refinery ser-
guidelines for trouble-free design of each leakage at low-rate operation. Seal weld- vice, which is where the survey begins.
service. ing tray sections reduced leakage to
I have previously described the Fluor acceptable levels” does. Vacuum tower malfunctions
survey methodology in Distillation Opera- Also, incidents of corrosion and foul- The 86 case histories reported for the vac-
tion (McGraw-Hill, New York,1990). All ing were included only if a feature unique uum tower is almost double the number
the case histories used as a basis for the to the column design, operation, or con- reported for the atmospheric crude tower,
survey were extracted from the published trol contributed to their occurrence. For which is the next most troublesome refin-
literature. There were 900 total cases, of instance, an incident where the wrong ery tower. When a vacuum tower per-
which 400 were for refinery towers. In corrosion inhibitor or antifoulant was forms poorly, valuable distillate is lost to
about one quarter of these, the specific applied does not qualify as a case history the resid, and poor distillate quality poi-
service was not stated or the service was in this survey. A case where fouling was sons FCC catalyst. The wash section of
one that did not have enough cases caused by insufficient liquid flow, maldis- the fractionator is the most critical sec-
reported on to permit detailed analysis. tribution, or poor process control, does. tion and also one where most of the mal-
This left about 300 cases for the main Finally, optimisation case studies
(where capacity was raised or pressure Top causes of vacuum tower
Fractionator malfunctions drop lowered by replacing trays by pack- malfunctions
ings) are outside of the scope of the sur-
Number of vey. The objective of the current survey is No. Description Cases
cases to identify the issues that make towers fall
1 Damage 27
1. Vacuum towers 86 short of achieving these design capacities.
2 Coking 21
2. Atmospheric crude fractionators 45 There is some overlap in the tabulation
3 Intermediate draws 17
3. Debutanisers 37 of cases for each fractionator. For 4 Misleading measurements 10
4. FCC main fractionators 33 instance, a coked chimney tray case study 5 Plugging 9
5. Deethanisers 23 will be listed once under “coking” and – Installation mishaps 9
6. Depropanisers, C3/C4 splitters 22 another time under “intermediate draws”. – Abnormal operation (startup,
7. Alky main fractionators/isostrippers 17 This means that adding the individual shutdown, commissioning) 9
8. Coker main fractionators 15 malfunctions may yield a number greater 8 Maldistribution 6
9. Naphtha splitters 11
than the number of malfunctions report- – Weeping 6
10. Deisobutanisers 8
ed for the service. Table 1 lists the main 10 Condenser 4
11. Amine towers 8
fractionators surveyed and the concise
Table 1 number of cases reported for each service. Table 2

109
P T Q AUTUMN 2003
w w w. e p t q . c o m
 MASS TRANSFER: DISTILLATION

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, Figure 2 Broken, non-standard flange in the spray header supplying wash oil to the
and that positively prevent water from wash bed of a vacuum tower
spare pump piping from entering the
tower. A joint designer/refiner “hazop” flanges and gaskets and properly allowing sory Committee, San Antonio, Texas, Nov
should focus on these troublespots. for thermal expansion in the header 2001].
The next source of damage in Table 3, design. Coking of the wash section (Figure 3) is
insufficient mechanical strength, is also Damage due to high base level con- a close second in Table 2 with 21 reported
readily preventable. It should be recog- tributed three out of the 27 damage case case studies. Table 4 gives a breakdown of
nised (as can be readily seen from Table 2), histories. This again is an issue that can be the causes. Excess stages and vaporisation
that damage is a major issue in a vacuum at least alleviated by good level monitor- occur in wash beds that are either too tall
tower, and that heavy duty internals ing, alarms, and well-designed trip sys- or contain packings that are too efficient.
design should be used. Although the tems. Another three damage-related In either case, the additional stages inten-
heavy duty design would not be able to case-histories were caused by packing sify the vaporisation of the wash oil, leav-
withstand a major pressure surge, it would fires. This type of damage is more difficult ing little liquid to reach and wet the lower
weather the smaller pressure surges. Some to prevent due to the difficulty of clean- sections of the bed. These lower sections
good heavy duty design practices have ing the packings, especially when coked. of the bed dry and coke. Poor modelling
been described by Shieveler [Shieveler G H, Nonetheless, much progress has been and simulation is another cause of coking.
Use heavy-duty trays for severe services; Chem reported in developing preventive mea- Golden et al stress that the heavy ends of
Eng Progr, Aug 1995]. sures, and is discussed in two excellent the crude must be correctly characterised
Special attention should be paid to grid papers by Bouck and Markeloff [Bouck D in the simulation and that the feed entry
installation and tightening. In two of the S, Vacuum Tower Packing Fires; API Operat- to the tower must be modelled by a series
five cases, poorly fastened grids disinte- ing Practices Symposium, 27 April 1999. of flash steps that correctly represent the
grated in service. Through-bolting has Markeloff R, Packing fires; FRI Technical Advi- physical sequence of steps between the
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

Causes of damage in vacuum

fractionators

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 Figure 3 Coking of fouling resistant grid in the wash section of a vacuum tower

110
P T Q AUTUMN 2003
 MASS TRANSFER: DISTILLATION
chimney tray that caused entrainment
Causes of coking in vacuum into the wash bed. Three cases were
fractionators reported where maldistribution of vapour
or liquid led to coking.
No. Description Cases Intermediate draw malfunctions is a
1 Excess stages and vaporisation 4 close third of the most common vacuum
– Poor modelling and simulation 4 tower malfunctions, with 17 reported
3 Insufficient wash, reason not case histories (Table 5). Foremost is leak-
reported 3 age from total draw chimney trays. Leak-
– Misleading measurement 3 age of the HVGO chimney tray represents
– Liquid, vapour maldistribution 3 good distillate degraded into resid with
Not reported 4 no beneficial effects whatsoever, as leak-
ing liquid poorly distributes in the wash
Table 4 bed and does little washing. Leakage of
LVGO into the HVGO section lowers the
heater outlet and flash zone [Golden S W, HVGO boiling point and can reduce heat
Vacuum Tower Troubleshooting; AIChE Spring transfer, even limiting vacuum on the
Meeting, 1994]. tower.
When these principles are overlooked, This leakage needs to be avoided with
the simulation underestimates wash oil totally seal-welded chimney trays. Special
vaporisation, leading to the drying up and techniques, as recommended by Lieber-
coking reported in four cases. man, are effective and need to be incor-
In three other reported coking inci- porated to avoid tray buckling due to
dents, it was stated that the wash flowrate thermal expansion [Lieberman N P, Process
was insufficient but no specific reason Design for Reliable Operation, 2nd ed; Gulf Pub-
was given. It is likely that in those cases lishing, Houston, Texas, 1988].
too, either the number of stages was Level measurement on chimney trays
excessive, or the modelling/simulation has been troublesome in three reported
were poor, or both. In three other cases, cases. This may lead to overflow or
coking was produced by either a mislead- entrainment. While overflow is equiva-
ingly low coil outlet temperature signal lent to leakage, entrainment from the
that caused excessive firing, or a faulty overflash chimney tray can induce cok-
level measurement on the overflash ing. Leaking trapout trays were reported
111
P T Q AUTUMN 2003
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
 MASS TRANSFER: DISTILLATION
fluid dynamics (CFD) is essential. Improv-
Intermediate draw malfunctions ing the vapour horn design has eliminat-
in vacuum towers ed operating problems and improved the
performance of several vacuum towers.
No. Description Cases A surprisingly high number of case
histories place tray weeping in the equal
1 Leaking total draw chimney trays 6 1
2 Level measurement on total draw 8th spot in Table 2. This is not an issue
with most vacuum towers that are all
chimney trays 3
– Leaking trapout tray 3 packed, but appears to be a major issue
4 Chimney tray coking 2 with the trayed vacuum towers, mostly
– Excessive hydraulic gradients on in lube service. In two of these, leakage
chimney trays 2 at a draw tray made it impossible to draw
6 Others 1 sufficient product. In two others, weep-
age at pumparound trays starved the
Table 5 pump and reduced heat transfer. In two
more, poor separation between side-cuts
line downstream of the wash oil filter. resulted. Blanking valves, using high
Sharing the 5th spot in Table 2 is installa- turndown valves, and in the case of the
tion mishaps. Three case histories were side cuts, drawing from seal-welded
associated with spray header installation, chimney trays, was the solution.
and another three with grid or packing Condenser issues complete Table 2.
assembly. Other cases describe problems Condenser problems raise pressure in the
with tower out-of-roundness, using car- tower and thus reduce distillate recovery.
bon steel bolts where stainless steel was Two of the four cases reported dealt with
specified and poor installation of strip- excess lights, one with ejector plugging,
ping trays. and one with flash equilibrium at the pre-
Also sharing the 5th spot in Table 2 is condenser.
abnormal operation incidents. Five of
these describe incidents during startup Crude tower malfunctions
where a pocket of water entered the hot The three most common atmospheric
tower and created a pressure surge. Poor crude tower malfunctions (Table 6) are
blinding/unblinding contributed two case plugging, intermediate draw malfunc-
histories, one case is related to pressur- tions and damage.
ing/depressuring and one to flushing. There were nine plugging incidents
Maldistribution problems, other than reported in atmospheric crude towers:
those attributed to coking, plugging or Four in the wash section or gasoil
damage, are in the 8th spot in Table 2 pumparound, three in the top section or
with a surprisingly low number of case top pumparound, and two in the strip-
histories (six). Of the reported six, four ping section. No cases of plugging were
were vapour maldistribution, three of reported in the middle of the tower. In the
these originating in the flash zone and wash section, the most common cause of
one in the previously mentioned tray plugging was entrainment from the flash
chimney. The other two cases reported zone or from the vapour overhead of a
liquid maldistribution problems. Fluor’s preflash drum. In the top of the tower, the
experience has been that maldistribution, plugging was by scale and corrosion prod-
especially of vapour from the flash zone, ucts, corrosion inhibitors, and salting out.
has been far more troublesome than sug- Five of the nine incidents resulted in
gested by the low spot of this item in plugged trays, two in plugged downcom-
Table 2. ers. In one case, a packed bed plugged, in
Vapour horn design and good distribu- another, a liquid distributor to the pack-
tion of liquid to the wash bed are central ing plugged.
for achieving trouble-free performance of The large number of intermediate draw
the wash bed. An expert hydraulic analy- incidents is well in line with Fluor’s expe-
sis, often with the aid of computational rience: chimney trays and downcomer
trapouts make or break fractionators. Of
Top causes of atmospheric crude the nine, seven took place with down-
tower malfunctions comer trapouts, two with chimney trays.
Four of these involved choking or restric-
tion in the outlet liquid line, while in two
No. Description Cases
others, leakage at the drawoff restricted
1 Plugging 9
the recovery of a side cut.
– Intermediate draws 9
Four of the nine damage incidents
– Damage 9
4 Abnormal operations 7 reported were due to water-induced pres-
5 Installation mishaps 4 sure surges. Two of these were caused by
6 Condenser Problems 3 undrained stripping steam lines, one by a
– Poor control of wash 3 water pocket in a spare pump, and one by
– Leaks 3 plugged drainholes in the bottom seal
pan. One case of damage resulted from
Table 6 exposing column internals to cold water
112
P T Q AUTUMN 2003
Top causes of FCC main
fractionator malfunctions
No. Description Cases
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
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
Top causes of malfunctions in
debutanisers, incl stabilisers and
depentanisers
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
C3/C4 splitters and depropanisers
(excl those in alky units)
No. Description Case
1 Reboiler draw and return
arrangements 7 tribution. One incident was plugging due
2 Tower flooding by excess
base level 6
3 Vapour cloud release 5 line draining the main feed line, both
Table 10
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
MASS TRANSFER: DISTILLATION
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-
to catalyst carryover into upper packed
sections, and another was plugging of a
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
113
P T Q AUTUMN 2003
Top causes of malfunctions in
deethanisers (absorbers and
strippers)
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
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-

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.
MASS TRANSFER: DISTILLATION
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 C3/C4 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
114
P T Q AUTUMN 2003
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 C3/C4 splitters should focus
on the reboiler piping and the bottom
sump.
Similar to debutanisers, depropanisers
and C3/C4 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
C3/C4 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.

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.
MASS TRANSFER: DISTILLATION
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 C3/C4
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 C3/C4
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.
115
P T Q AUTUIMN 2003