T

he benefits of process simulation software in a refinery are not always fully realised. This article describes studies that have used unique refinery simulation software to debottleneck and improve refinery profits. Examples include improvements for crude units, vacuum units, catalytic reformers and fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) units. In each case, a simulation was created using plant data. Using simulation results, plant tests were run to validate the methodology. After this, the refinery implemented the suggested results and achieved the expected benefits. All simulations were performed using the predecessor to KBCs Petro-SIM product, HYSYS refinery.

between the reactor unit operation and the column and separation of the effluent is a weakness. Without accounting for the effluent changes that can occur, column debottlenecking results are limited. Using a simulator such as Petro-SIM allows the incorporation of interaction between the reactor and rigorous separation systems, as well as other units within the refinery.

Optimisation of crude and vacuum units

The crude and vacuum units are the first process units in the refinery and produce feeds for the rest of the plant. With refinery profitability directly related to unit throughput, operation of these units at peak capacity is essential to produce desired product within specifications. Crude units are designed to separate crude oil into intermediate streams based on boiling range. Typically, the crude column has side draws that are fed to side strippers and then steam stripped. Steam stripping allows adjustment to the front end distillation of the side stripper product, and the ability to recover lighter boiling material from heavier products. Optimising the steam flow to each side stripper can maximise the production of the most valuable products from the unit. A refinery was operating its crude unit without side stream stripping. The refinery discontinued using steam in the strippers for several reasons, including overhead dew point considerations, the production of wet product entering the hydrotreater and column hydraulic limitations. To meet the product flash point, the refinery used hydrodesulfurisation units downstream of the crude unit. A process simulation of the unit evaluated the unit operation with and without steam injection into the side

Process simulation vs. the LP

A linear program (LP) is traditionally used to determine the direction of operation. However, there are restrictions in the results: Information input into an LP depends upon correct input vectors. LP vectors may not be able to take every interaction into account, or extrapolate for every situation. The LP is dependent upon defined constraints. The use of rigorous process models for the reactor and separation units can challenge assumed constraints and allow what if cases to be accurately evaluated. Simulation results can be implemented immediately in the plant and used to generate new vectors and constraint inputs for the LP for future planning.

Rigorous reactor model simulation vs. a black box

While traditional process simulation software has often been used to debottleneck columns, the interaction

Reprinted from HYDROCARBON ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 2005

strippers. The simulation was optimised to operate within the column constraints of condenser duty and flooding limits by reducing the bottoms steam rate. By increasing the recovery of middle distillates from the unit, additional kerosene could be recovered from the light gas oil (LGO), and both kerosene and LGO can be recovered from the heavy gas oil (HGO) stream by using steam in the side stream strippers. The first step to setting up the crude unit simulation was to validate the crude feed characterisation. The product stream production rates and analyses were combined in a simulation synthesis to recreate the crude feed. This synthesised feed was compared with the actual refinery crude slate using KBCs crude assay database. When a good fit between the two methods was found, the database was used for the simulations. The column simulation was then created, and tuned to match plant data. This simulation determined the unit process changes that were required to change product production rates and/or column heat removal when using stripping steam in the side steam strippers. Unit constraints were considered, as alternative operating modes were studied. The tests demonstrated that stripping could be safely and successfully implemented. It also confirmed the benefits predicted by simulation and identified any limitations and/or problems limiting the operation. Identical procedures were used to test steam stripping on LGO and HGO. The crude unit was brought to a stable operation without using stripping steam, and product samples were collected to define the base case. Steam was then introduced into each sidestripper. Unit product flows were not adjusted, so the effect of the steam stripping could be verified at fixed product production. The unit operation was stabilised again, and samples were caught.

Product flowrates were then adjusted to return the operation to its original product quality specifications, and final samples were taken after the operation had stabilised. As the changes were made to the unit, the operator adjusted the unit based on simulation results. Product laboratory data after the third step indicated that operating changes provided by the simulation accurately predicted the operation, validating both the accuracy of the simulation and the correctness of the changes. Steam was introduced to the stripper at a rate of 600 kg/h, with the LGO product rate fixed at 122 kL/h. The laboratory results (Figure 1) show the effect on the LGO front end distillation, with the lighter boiling range materials stripped from the LGO. In this case the steam rate was reduced to verify the effect on the LGO distillation after the third step. During the test, the temperature drop increased across the LGO stripper. Without stripping steam, the temperature drop averaged approximately 5 C, due to radiation and convection losses. When steam was added, the temperature drop increased to 12 C (Figure 2). This additional temperature drop requires the removal of approximately 507 000 kcal/h of heat from the LGO stream, achieved by vaporising 12.3 kL/h of the LGO, just over 10% of the product flow. This percentage of vaporisation was comparable with the simulation. Overall, the test run results showed that an additional 10 kL/h of kerosene could be produced by steam stripping the LGO. The LGO rate was reduced to maintain pour point, but the decrease was less than the kerosene increase. This opportunity was based on winter product pricing. The simulation showed that for summer mode operation, the refinery should still maintain the LGO stripping steam mode and use full range kerosene for blending into the LGO product. This will improve its cold flow properties and permit some HGO to be fractionated into the back of LGO. Similar results were achieved with the HGO stripper. The test started with a base stripping steam rate of 200 kg/h, and was increased to 700 kg/h for the test run. The stripping steam removed the light material from the HGO, allowing additional LGO to be produced from the unit. The shift in volume was approximately 2.6 kL/h from HGO to LGO.

Optimisation of the reformer

A refinery experienced a problem increasing the throughput in the fractionation system on their naphtha reformer product. The refinerys planning group asked KBC to review the unit operation and propose solutions to increase unit capacity. The refinery had a naphtha reformer with a debutaniser, splitting the reformate into a C4- stream that is routed to the saturates gas plant and the C5+ reformate stream, fed to the fractionation system. This produces benzene, toluene and xylene rich streams, and a heavy stream that goes to gasoline blending. A simulation model of the reformer and downstream fractionation system was developed and tuned to the refinery data. The intent was to increase unit capacity and maximise barrels of benzene and xylene products. KBC held discussions with the refinery staff and advanced process control (APC) group, as the model was being developed to ensure all constraints were included. The refinery was running at maximum reflux, reboiler and condenser

Figure 1. LGO distillation.

Figure 2. LGO steam stripper.

Reprinted from HYDROCARBON ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 2005

duties to obtain the highest purity of prodTable 1. Simulation results of the FCC unit ucts. The C6/C7 sulfolane unit, which was BASE Increase stripper Increase HPR and feed temperature stripper feed temperatures downstream of the BTX fractionation, had HPR additional capacity. KBC wanted to Temperature 45 C 45 C 55 C increase unit throughput, while matching Absorber minimum purity specs. and making use of Flood 64.5% 66.1% 73.7% the excess downstream process capacity. DC backup 42.4% 42.6% 43.9% A REF-SIM reformer model with the Sponge absorber detailed BTX separation train was built Dry gas rate 3103 NM3/h 3123 NM3/h 3124 NM3/h using process data. The reactor and C3 recovery 94.2% 94.2% 94.1% C3 = recovery 94.0% 93.9% 93.8% columns were tuned to match plant data. Stripper The tuned model was then used to review Feed rate 17 572 bpd 18 311 bpd 18 130 bpd the current operation of the unit. The simFeed temperature 54 C 65 C 65 C ulation evaluated column hydraulics, and Flood 72.4% 67.0% 65.2% determined flooding, condenser and Downcomer backup 41.1% 40.4% 40.2% reboiler limits, and the effect of throughput Overhead gas rate 4965 NM3/h 6267NM3/h 4965NM3/h on purities. Reboiler duty 3.1 MM Kcal/h 2.8 MM Kcal/h 2.7 MM Kcal/h The simulations indicated that reflux Stripper BTMS composition C2 0.03 mol% 0.03 mol% 0.02 mol% ratios on some columns could be lowered, thus charging a higher rate to the fractionation and improving yields. For the The main constraint was in the operation of the gas reformer, the simulation determined the optimum balance concentration unit. The stripper column was operating near for reactor octane improvement and capacity. This improvejet flooding in the bottom of the column. The simulation was ment yielded US$ 2 million/y. used to evaluate alternative operating modes for this set of The tuned simulation was used to generate new LP fractionation columns. vectors for three octane levels at the reformer. The conAnalysis indicated that increasing the feed temperature straints in the LP were also updated, providing more extento the stripper column could reduce the jet flooding in the sive and realistic results from the LP. bottom of the column. A simulation was used to evaluate As the benzene market value changed relative to options to increase the stripper feed temperature, taking gasoline, the operation was changed to reflect new ecointo account the interaction between the columns. nomics developed over time. This illustrates the value of The heat exchanger that cooled the combined feed to keeping the model up to date to reflect changing market the HPR could be bypassed to increase the temperature of conditions. the stream to the HPR. The simulation evaluated the effect of this change. Increasing the HPR inlet temperature would Optimisation of the FCC decrease the recovery of C3s and C4s from the unit. This FCC unit operating conditions can greatly influence FCC decrease would increase the amount of fuel gas produced capacity. An FCC process model predicts the effect of reacfrom the unit. The simulation indicated that both the HPR tor and regenerator operational changes on the FCC unit and stripper feed temperature could each be increased by yields; a separation system model predicts the effects on 10 C. These two temperature changes would reduce the individual equipment. An engineer can then determine or stripper flooding, creating additional unit capacity. The simchallenge FCC equipment constraints using a model. A ulation results are shown in Table 1. simulation can be used to examine operational changes A unit test was conducted to determine if the temperawithin the fractionator and gas plant to alleviate these contures changes would allow the FCCU charge rate to be straints. increased. The HPR exchanger was partially bypassed and A refinery that was operating its FCCU at 17 000 bpd the HPR temperature was increased by 10 C. The stripper wanted to increase the charge rate to 18 000 bpd. A simufeed temperature was slowly increased by 10 C and the lation model was constructed using process and laboratory stripper reboiler duty was slowly reduced. The unit was data to evaluate the unit yields and overall operating allowed to stabilise and small operating adjustments were changes required for the higher rate. Cases were evaluated made. Within 12 hours, the unit was stable and the gas based on the current unit limit, the stripper column in the concentration unit products were all on specification. The gas concentration unit. FCCU charge rate was increased by the desired In the FCCU gas concentration unit, the wet gas com1 000 bpd, and the unit was stabilised at the new operating pressor gas, primary absorber bottoms liquid, and stripper conditions. overhead gas are combined and cooled in heat The refinery was able to increase the FCCU charge rate exchangers. The exchanger effluent is routed to a high without any additional equipment investment. The primary pressure receiver (HPR). Gas from the HPR is fed to the absorber and stripper columns in the gas concentration unit bottom of the primary absorber, and the main column net were now operating just below flooding. Ultimately, there overhead liquid is fed to the top of the primary absorber. was a small decrease in the recovery of C3s and C4s after The liquid from the HPR is fed to the stripper column and the temperature change. The net benefit to the refinery was the stripper bottoms liquid product is further fractionated to approximately US$ 1.25 million/y. make a refinery grade propylene product, butane-butylene mix product and FCCU gasoline. The primary absorber is Conclusion used to increase the recovery of propane and heavier KBC has studied many refineries over the years, building hydrocarbons from the unit. The stripper controls the simulation models to test and quantify process unit amount of ethane and lighter hydrocarbons in the propychanges to improve operation and increase revenues. lene stream. Operating conditions are manipulated to maxThese case studies illustrate the economic improvements imise the recovery of C3s and C4s in the overall gas conthat can be obtained with simulation, managed test runs, centration area. and little or no capital investment. ______________________ Reprinted from HYDROCARBON ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 2005

THE NEW STANDARD IN REFINERY SIMULATION

Introducing KBCs Petro-SIM , the most comprehensive and rigorous refinery simulator in the world.
TM

When changing one variable affects a thousand others, how can you be certain youre making the right move? With KBCs Petro-SIM, complex refinery interactions are modeled seamlessly and accurately. Its as close as you can get to an entire refinery on a PC. Petro-SIM lets you simulate more easily and more confidently than ever before. We offer the best and most comprehensive list of reactor models available far more than competing software so you can truly model your entire refinery or any part of it. Petro-SIM features KBCs suite of Profimatics refinery reactor models and proven refinery flowsheet capabilities. Our integrated crude assay database, based on BP data, contains more than 400 internationally traded crude oils, and features regular updates and additions. Petro-SIM is a full-featured process simulator, including generalpurpose unit operations, an extensive component library, and a complete set of thermodynamics packages. Petro-SIM comes with a full suite of reporting and analysis tools, including integral spreadsheet unit operation, case study tool, optimizer and property

table generator. Our flowsheet architecture keeps track of fluid properties through conversion units, mixing points and recycles, all within an integral, object-oriented graphical user interface. Petro-SIM is expandable. Start with the crude and vacuum units, or one reactor and its separation system, or capture the most benefits with a complete, refinery-wide model, from crude to products.

For 25 years, KBC has been using rigorous, refinery-wide simulation to evaluate and quantify process improvement ideas as part of our profit improvement programs. Now, with Petro-SIM, you can access this proven technology to get the most out of your facility. Our commitment is to keep you and our technology cutting edge. For more information, visit kbcat.com.

We produce a full array of properties for every stream and let you look at any part of the refinery in greater detail.

BP is a registered trademark of BP p.l.c. Petro-SIM and is a trademark of KBC Advanced Technologies plc. Profimatics is a registered trademark of KBC Advanced Technologies plc.