A

two-phase survey was recently

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