lp dec3 full report
TRANSCRIPT
8/8/2019 LP DeC3 Full Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lp-dec3-full-report 1/20
TITAN CHEMICALS CORP. BHD. (222357-P)
SHORT ASSIGNMENT:
STUDY OF LP DEPROPANIZER (2T-360)
TEE CHEE KEONG
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITI TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN
NOV 2010
8/8/2019 LP DeC3 Full Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lp-dec3-full-report 2/20
ii
Table of Contents
No. Content Page No.
TABLE OF CONTENTSii
LIST OF TABLESiii
LIST OF FIGURESiv
1.1
1.2
1.3
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
Objective
Study Period
Structure of Tower
1
1
1
2.1
2.2
2.3
SECTION 2: TOWER DETAIL
Process Flow Description
Flow Controller and Analyzer
Design Mole Balance
2
4
4
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
SECTION 3: RESULTS
Plant Loads
Total Feed In
Total Flow Out
Deviation
Reflux Ratio
Top≤ C3 Composition
Top C4+ Composition
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
SECTION 4: DISCUSSIONS 14
SECTION 5: CONCLUSION 16
8/8/2019 LP DeC3 Full Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lp-dec3-full-report 3/20
iii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE PAGE
1 Structure of the tower 3
8/8/2019 LP DeC3 Full Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lp-dec3-full-report 4/20
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
2.1 Process Flow Diagram 3
2.2 Flow Controller and Analyzer Diagram 5
2.3 Design Mole Balance Diagram (Case 1) 6
3.1.1 Graph of plant load before TA 7
3.1.2 Graph of plant load after TA 7
3.2.1 Graph of Total feed in before TA 8
3.2.2 Graph of Total feed in after TA 8
3.3.1 Graph of Total flow out before TA 9
3.3.2 Graph of Total flow out after TA 9
3.4.1 Graph of Deviation before TA 10
3.4.2 Graph of Deviation after TA 10
3.5.1 Graph of Reflux Ratio before TA 11
3.5.2 Graph of Reflux Ratio after TA 11
3.6.1 Graph of Top ≤C3% before TA 12
3.6.2 Graph of Top ≤C3% after TA 12
3.7.1 Graph of Top C4+% before TA 13
3.7.2 Graph of Top C4+% after TA 13
8/8/2019 LP DeC3 Full Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lp-dec3-full-report 5/20
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
LP depropanizer is a distillation column in cracker plant which separate C3 and C4. Therefore,
the incoming feed will be separated as a top vapor which is rich in C3, and a bottom liquid of
essentially C4 and heavier components. Partial reflux system where portion of C3 reflux back to
the tower to increase C3 composition in the top stream. The bottom stream is sent to debutanizer
to recover C4 from heavier components.
1.1 Objective
To compare the flow, reflux ratio and the performance of the LP depropanizer before and after
the turnaround project on October 2010.
1.2 Study Period
Before Turnaround – 24, 25, 26 August 2010
After Turnaround – 16, 17, 18 November 2010
1.3 Structure
Table 1: Structures of the tower
TrayAmount 67
Type Sieve type with 1 pass
Dimension 48.175m (Height) × 22.6m (Diameter)
InsulationCold Insulation from top to tray 28
Hot Insulation from tray 28 to bottom
1
8/8/2019 LP DeC3 Full Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lp-dec3-full-report 6/20
SECTION 2: TOWER DETAIL
2.1 Process Flow Description
(Refer to the Fig 2.1 process flow diagram)
1. Main liquid feed from the bottom of the HP depropanizer (2T-365) is cooled by cooling water
in LP depropanizer feed cooler (2E-368) and then enter the LP depropanizer at tray 21.
2. Another feed from the bottom of the propylene stripper (2T-530) enters the column at tray 10.
3. The operating temperature of the LP depropanizer column is controlled to be higher at the
bottom so that C3 or lighter components would vaporize up, and lower temperature at the
bottom so that C4 or heavier components would condense down. Therefore the C3 will go up
and exit as top vapor and C4 will go down and exit as bottom liquid.
4. The condensing duty for the column is provided by the LP depropanizer condenser (2E-359)
using 7°C propylene refrigerant, which totally condenses the overhead vapor into liquid.
5. The liquid is collected in the reflux drum (2V-366). Part of the liquid is pumped back the top
of the LP depropanizer as reflux, through the pumps (2P-360A/S) to reduce the C4 amount in
the top stream.
6. The remaining liquid is pumped forward to the C3 hydrogenation system via the C3
hydrogenation feed pumps (2P-361A/S). This liquid consists of mainly C3.
7. The reboil duty for the column is provided by the LP depropanizer reboiler (2E-360) using
133°C quench oil, which heat up part of the bottom stream into vapor and send back to the
bottom of the LP depropanizer.
8. The bottom liquid product is essentially C4 and heavier components. This stream is then
transferred to the debutanizer (2T-560).
2
8/8/2019 LP DeC3 Full Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lp-dec3-full-report 7/20
Step number: Referred to the process description
Fig 2.1: Process Flow Diagram
3
2T-360
LP DeC3
C4+ Liquid
To 2T-560
Debutanizer
BTM from
2T-530
C3 Vapor
2E-359
2P-360A/S
C3R
2V-366 To C3
Hydrogenation
2E-368
BTM from
2T-365
HP DeC3
CW
QO
2E-360A/S
8/8/2019 LP DeC3 Full Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lp-dec3-full-report 8/20
2.2 Flow Controller and Analyzer
(Refer to Fig 2.2 flow controller and analyzer diagram)
2.2.1 Flow Controllers
1. Flow controller (2FC-3701) regulates the flow of quench oil to the reboiler (2E-
360), reset by the temperature controller (2TC-3704), which used to maintain the
cut point temperature on tray 50.
2. Flow controller (2FC-5303) measures the flow rate of the reflux at the top.
3. Flow controller (2FC-3702) regulates the bottom flow from the LP depropanizer,
which is reset by the column bottom level controller (2LC-3702), to maintaincertain liquid level in the column.
4. Flow controller (2FC-3703) regulates the flow of reflux back to the top of the
column.
5. Flow controller (2FC-3704) regulates the flow to top C3 liquid flow to the C3
hydrogenation system, reset by the reflux drum level controller (LC-3705).
2.2.2 Analyzer
1. Analyzer (2AI-36021) checks on the composition of the main feed from 2T-365.
2. Analyzer (2AI-36012) checks on the top vapor composition.
3. Analyzer (2AI-36022) checks on the bottom liquid composition.
2.3 Design Mole Balance
(Refer to Fig 2.3 design mole balance diagram)
This is the mole balance calculated based on case 1 (fully naphtha feed) used to compare the
actual flow, reflux ratio and performance of the tower.
4
8/8/2019 LP DeC3 Full Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lp-dec3-full-report 9/20
Controllers: FC – Flow Controller
AI - Analyzer
Fig 2.2: Flow Controller and Analyzer Diagram
5
2T-360LP DeC
3
BTM from
2T-530
2FC-
53032AI-
36012
2FC-
3704
2FC-
3703
C3 Vapor
2E-359
2P-360A/S
C3R
2V-366 To C3
Hydrogenation
QO
2E-360A/S
2E-368
BTM from2T-365
HP DeC3
CW
2FC-
3604
2AI-
36021
C4+ Liquid
To 2T-560
Debutanizer
2FC-
3702
2AI-
36022
8/8/2019 LP DeC3 Full Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lp-dec3-full-report 10/20
QO
Fig 2.3: Design Mole Balance Diagram (Case 1)
6
2E-360A/S
Total: 158508 kg/h
Legends:
Total – Total molar flow rate
≤C3 – C3 and lighter componentsmolar flow rate
C4+ – C4 and heavier componentsmolar flow rate
Reflux Ratio = = 2.088
Yield (C3) = = 99.81%
Yield (C4) = = 99.51%
Total: 3154.27 kg/h
≤C3: 2264.39 kg/h
C4+: 889.89 kg/hBTM from
2T-530
To 2T-560
Debutanizer Total: 22335.54 kg/h
≤C3: 15.63 kg/h
C4+: 22319.92 kg/h
2E-368
BTM from
2T-365
HP DeC3
CW
Total: 27597.60 kg/h
≤C3: 6056.60 kg/h
C4+: 21541.00 kg/h
2T-360LP DeC
3
2E-359
2P-360A/S
To C3
Hydrogenation
C3R
2V-366
Total: 8416.37 kg/h
≤C3: 8305.36 kg/h
C4+: 111.01 kg/h
Total: 25990 kg/h
Total: 17573.63 kg/h
8/8/2019 LP DeC3 Full Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lp-dec3-full-report 11/20
SECTION 3: RESULTS
3.1 Plant Loads
Plant loads is the percentage of naphtha feed into the furnace decided by maximum naphtha feed based on 100% naphtha feed design.
Plant Load Before TA
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
8/24/2010
0:00:00
8/24/2010
12:00:00
8/25/2010
0:00:00
8/25/2010
12:00:00
8/26/2010
0:00:00
8/26/2010
12:00:00
8/27/2010
0:00:00
Time
P e r c e n t a g e %
plantload2
Plant Load After TA
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
11/16/201
0 0:00:00
11/16/201
0 12:00:00
11/17/201
0 0:00:00
11/17/201
0 12:00:00
11/18/201
0 0:00:00
11/18/201
0 12:00:00
11/19/201
0 0:00:00
Time
P e r c e n t a g e %
plantload2
Fig 3.1.1: Graph of plant load before TA Fig 3.1.2: Graph of plant load after TA
By comparing the two graphs above, obviously the plant load after the turnaround was much higher. This may be due to the change in
feed where feedstock used was naphtha and LPG before turnaround, and fully naphtha after turnaround.
The plant load is higher after turnaround because of 100% naphtha feed.
7
8/8/2019 LP DeC3 Full Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lp-dec3-full-report 12/20
3.2 Total Feed In
Total feed in is the summation of the flows of main feed from the bottom of 2T-365, and from the bottom of 2T-530
Total In = 2FC-3604 + 2FC-5303
Total In Before TA
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
8/24/2010
0:00:00
8/24/2010
12:00:00
8/25/2010
0:00:00
8/25/2010
12:00:00
8/26/2010
0:00:00
8/26/2010
12:00:00
8/27/2010
0:00:00
Time
F l o w
R a t e ( k g / h r )
Actual
Design
Total In After TA
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
11/16/201
0 0:00:00
11/16/201
0 12:00:00
11/17/201
0 0:00:00
11/17/201
0 12:00:00
11/18/201
0 0:00:00
11/18/201
0 12:00:00
11/19/201
0 0:00:00
Time
F l o w R a t e ( k g / h r )
Actual
Design
Fig 3.2.1: Graph of Total feed in before TA Fig 3.2.2: Graph of Total feed in after TA
By comparing the two graphs above, although the total amount of feed flow after the turnaround was fluctuating due to instability, but
the value is almost the same to the feed flow before turnaround.
The feed flow rate has not much different before and after turnaround.
8
8/8/2019 LP DeC3 Full Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lp-dec3-full-report 13/20
3.3 Total Flow Out
Total flow out is the summation of the top product that is going to C3 hydrogenation and the bottom liquid flow.
Total Flow Out = 2FC-3702 + 2FC-3704
Total Out Before TA
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
8/24/2010
0:00:00
8/24/2010
12:00:00
8/25/2010
0:00:00
8/25/2010
12:00:00
8/26/2010
0:00:00
8/26/2010
12:00:00
8/27/2010
0:00:00
Time
F l o w
R a t e ( k g / h r )
Actual
Design
Total Out After TA
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
11/16/201
0 0:00:00
11/16/201
0 12:00:00
11/17/201
0 0:00:00
11/17/201
0 12:00:00
11/18/201
0 0:00:00
11/18/201
0 12:00:00
11/19/201
0 0:00:00
Time
F l o w
R a t e ( k g / h r )
Actual
Design
Fig 3.3.1: Graph of Total flow out before TA Fig 3.3.2: Graph of Total flow out after TA
By comparing the two graphs above, although the total amount flow out from the tower after the turnaround was fluctuating due to
instability, but the value is almost the same to the total flow out before turnaround.
The amount of flow out from tower has not much different before and after turnaround.
9
8/8/2019 LP DeC3 Full Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lp-dec3-full-report 14/20
3.4 Deviation
Deviation is the difference between Total In and Total Out
Deviation = Total In - Total Out
Deviation Before TA
-15000
-10000
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
8/24/2010
0:00:00
8/24/2010
12:00:00
8/25/2010
0:00:00
8/25/2010
12:00:00
8/26/2010
0:00:00
8/26/2010
12:00:00
8/27/2010
0:00:00
Time
F l o w
R a t e ( k g / h r )
Actual
Deviation After TA
-15000
-10000
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
11/16/201
0 0:00:00
11/16/201
0 12:00:00
11/17/201
0 0:00:00
11/17/201
0 12:00:00
11/18/201
0 0:00:00
11/18/201
0 12:00:00
11/19/201
0 0:00:00
Time
F l o w
R a t e ( k g / h r )
Actual
Fig 3.4.1: Graph of Deviation before TA Fig 3.4.2: Graph of Deviation after TA
By comparing the two graphs above, although the amount of deviation after the turnaround was fluctuating due to instability, but the
value is almost the same to the amount of deviation before turnaround.
From the comparison, the amount of deviation has not much different before and after turnaround.
10
8/8/2019 LP DeC3 Full Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lp-dec3-full-report 15/20
3.5 Reflux Ratio
Reflux ratio is a ratio that the amount of top product reflux back to tower divided by the amount of top product sent to the next stage.
Reflux Ratio = 2FC-3703 / 2FC-3704
Reflux Ratio Before TA
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
8/24/2010
0:00:00
8/24/2010
12:00:00
8/25/2010
0:00:00
8/25/2010
12:00:00
8/26/2010
0:00:00
8/26/2010
12:00:00
8/27/2010
0:00:00
Time
R e f l u x R a t i o
Actual
Design
Reflux ratio After TA
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
11/16/2010
0:00:00
11/16/2010
12:00:00
11/17/2010
0:00:00
11/17/2010
12:00:00
11/18/2010
0:00:00
11/18/2010
12:00:00
11/19/2010
0:00:00
Time
R e f l u x R a t i o
Actual
Design
Fig 3.5.1: Graph of Reflux Ratio before TA Fig 3.5.2: Graph of Reflux Ratio after TA
By comparing the two graphs above, obviously the reflux ratio after the turnaround is lower than that before turnaround. This reflux
ratio can be controlled by the Boardman by controlling the amount of top product flowing to the C3 hydrogenation, higher reflux ratio
helps to get higher purity product.
Therefore, the reflux ratio is lower after the turnaround.
11
8/8/2019 LP DeC3 Full Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lp-dec3-full-report 16/20
3.6 Top ≤ C3 composition
Top ≤ C3 composition is the molar percentage of C3 and lighter components in the top stream
Top Composition (≤C3) Before TA
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
8/24/2010
0:00:00
8/24/2010
12:00:00
8/25/2010
0:00:00
8/25/2010
12:00:00
8/26/2010
0:00:00
8/26/2010
12:00:00
8/27/2010
0:00:00
Time
m o l %
Actual
Design
Top Composition (≤C3) After TA
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
11/16/201
0 0:00:00
11/16/201
0 12:00:00
11/17/201
0 0:00:00
11/17/201
0 12:00:00
11/18/201
0 0:00:00
11/18/201
0 12:00:00
11/19/201
0 0:00:00
Time
m o l %
Actual
Design
Fig 3.6.1: Graph of Top ≤C3% before TA Fig 3.6.2: Graph of Top ≤C3% after TA
By comparing the two graphs above, obviously the percentage of ≤ C3 in top stream became lower after turnaround. Besides, the C3
composition before turnaround not so fluctuate compares to after turnaround which is fluctuate within 70% to 90%.
The percentage of C3 in top stream is lower after the turnaround.
12
8/8/2019 LP DeC3 Full Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lp-dec3-full-report 17/20
3.7 Top C4+ Composition
Top C4+ composition is the molar percentage of C4 and heavier components in the top stream
Top C4+ Composition Before TA
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
8/24/2010
0:00:00
8/24/2010
12:00:00
8/25/2010
0:00:00
8/25/2010
12:00:00
8/26/2010
0:00:00
8/26/2010
12:00:00
8/27/2010
0:00:00
Time
m o l %
Actual
Design
Top C4+ Co mposition After TA
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
11/16/2010
0:00:00
11/16/2010
12:00:00
11/17/2010
0:00:00
11/17/2010
12:00:00
11/18/2010
0:00:00
11/18/2010
12:00:00
11/19/2010
0:00:00
Time
m o l %
Actual
Design
Fig 3.7.1: Graph of Top C4+% before TA Fig 3.7.2: Graph of Top C4+% after TA
By comparing the two graphs above, although the top C4+ molar percentage after the turnaround was fluctuating due to instability, but
the average value is almost the same to the top C4+ molar percentage before turnaround. Besides, the C3 composition before
turnaround not so fluctuate compares to after turnaround which is fluctuate within 70% to 90%.
The average top C4 + molar percentage has not much different before and after turnaround.
13
8/8/2019 LP DeC3 Full Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lp-dec3-full-report 18/20
SECTION 4: DISCUSSION
By comparing the actual flows to the design flows, most of the actual flows are closed to
the design flow, except for the Total In Flow. The Total In is about 3500 kg/h higher than the
design feed flow, due to the high flow of main feed from the bottom of HP depropanizer (2T-
365). For the reflux ratio, the actual reflux ratio is closed to the design one before turnaround but
lower to the design after turnaround. For the analyzer part, both the C3≤ and C4+ percentage in
the top stream showing under performance of tower if compared to the design.
From the comparison of Total In and Total Out flows, deviation keeps happening for the
tower no matter before or after turnaround which does not happen in the design condition. This
shows that certain amount of stream has been “missing” from the tower. This may be due to the
following reasons:
1. Sent for flaring or blowdown. However, this reason is not appropriate since the flaring
amount is only little when the plant is running in normal condition.
2. Inaccuracy of the flow indicator. This is reasonable to explain the missing of the flow.
Example like the inaccuracy of flow indicator for the main feed from 2T-365, this could
explain the increase of about 3500kg/h flow compared to the design value.
3. Accumulation in the tower. The product is kept in the tower to maintain the operation
parameter, causes the deviation to occur.
14
8/8/2019 LP DeC3 Full Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lp-dec3-full-report 19/20
Besides that, there are a few parameters founded that change after the turnaround:
1. The plant load has been increased. Plant load is the percentage of naphtha feed into the
plant compared to the amount of naphtha feed in the design (100%). This may be due to
the change in feed condition whereby naphtha was mixed with certain amount of LPG as
feed before turnaround, but used fully naphtha after turnaround. Therefore the plant load
used has been increased after turnaround.
2. The reflux ratio has been reduced. Reflux ratio is a ratio that the amount of top product
reflux back to tower divided by the amount of top product sent to the next stage. This
reflux ratio can be controlled by the Boardman by controlling the amount of top productflowing to the C3 hydrogenation, higher reflux ratio helps to get higher purity product.
3. The percentage of C3 in top stream has been reduced. This shows that the under
performance of the tower after the turnaround. This might be due to the decrease of reflux
ratio, or the change on the plant load.
15
8/8/2019 LP DeC3 Full Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lp-dec3-full-report 20/20
SECTION 5: CONCLUSION
In a conclusion, LP depropanizer (2T-360is under performance compare to the design value after
the turnaround. However, the cracker plant is not so stable at the investigation period. Therefore,
a further study should be performed once the cracker plant becomes more stable.
16