The Distillation Group, Inc.

Troubleshooting Refinery Vacuum Towers

Presented at the
AIChE Spring National Meeting
22-26 April 2001
Copyright 2001 Andrew W. Sloley
All rights reserved.
Not to be uploaded to any other site without
written permission from the copyright holder.

Reprinted/distributed with permission.

Distributed by

The Distillation Group, Inc.

P.O. Box 10105
College Station, TX 77842-0105
USA
[1]-(979)-764-3975
[1]-(979)-764-1449 fax
info@distillationgroup.com
www.distillationgroup.com

P.O. Box 10105, College Station, TX 77842-0105 USA

info@distillationgroup.com

Phone 979-764-3975
Fax 979-764-1449

Troubleshooting Refinery Vacuum Towers

Andrew W. Sloley
The Distillation Group, Inc.
PO Box 10105
College Station, TX 77842-0105
USA
Presented at the
AIChE Spring National Meeting
Session: New Frontiers in Refinery Fractionator Operation
23-27 April 2001
Houston
Copyright Andrew W. Sloley
February 2001

Introduction
With crude price fluctuations often compressing refinery margins, stable and efficient vacuum
tower operation is more critical than ever to refinery profits. Many refineries run up to five years with
good vacuum tower yields. Others have consistent problems getting past an eighteen month run. Major
sources of lost profits include coking, high pressure drops, internal leaks, and loss of vacuum. Simple
tools, costing less than $200 each, used correctly can identify and track many common vacuum tower
problems. Systematic problem analysis coupled with standard stream analysis methods can identify
many others.
Knowing problems before a shutdown cuts maintenance costs. Unscheduled procurement and
work may cost as much as ten times (or more) than scheduled work[1]. Knowing what when and how
a problem starts is key to solving it. Reliable operation increases overall plant profits. Ineffective troubleshooting leads to failed fixes and continuing losses.
Four case studies are shown. The first looks at causes of a coking wash bed. The second examines internal leaks and their affect on heat removal. The third briefly shows an example of an external
leak and its impact on heat-transfer and yields. The fourth, a coked wash bed in a visbreaker vacuum
tower, illustrates that the problems are not limited to crude vacuum towers. They also occur in visbreakers, hydrocrackers, and other units.
Troubleshooting requires understanding how the process and the different equipment interact.
Troubleshooters must know more than just how equipment functions in isolation. They must understand how entire systems work and how different types of equipment interact. Simple, common problems should always be checked before attempting to use expensive, difficult to interpret, and time consuming high technology troubleshooting tools. Most unit problems are simple in cause and can be
identified with effective use of field technique. Rapid problem identification cuts costs and increases
profits.

Coked Wash Beds: A Continuing Problem

Coking wash zones have been the source of many vacuum unit shut downs. Some packed vacuum towers have five-year runs reliably. Others shut down for wash bed replacement every 18 months.
For one refiner (the first case study), the flash zone pressure increased from 27 mm to 36 mm over a
two year run.
A simple, low-cost manometer allows for wash zone monitoring. An absolute mercury manometer is accurate to within one-half mm of mercury pressure when used correctly[2]. A pressure survey immediately after startup sets a base-line performance for the vacuum tower. The unit engineer
should monitor the operation of the vacuum tower with periodic pressure surveys. If the pressure drop,
for the same distillate yield, increases by two mm of mercury or more across a packed bed, the has
coked.
With the low liquid rates in the vacuum columns wash zone, pressure drop increases in the
wash zone are nearly always caused by coking. A coked wash bed increases flash zone pressure, drops
distillate yield, and eventually leads to black HVGO product. Increased pressure drop across the wash
section increases residue entrainment. Increased carbon and metals from black oil loads the FCC catalyst, produces more FCC cracked gas, and drops FCC product quality.
Coked Wash Bed Shuts Unit Down
Problem History
The refiner replaced the existing wash oil spray header with a new one designed for lower flow
rate to increase gas oil yields. At startup, the gasoil yield rose and the pressure drop was the same as
before modifications. Unit operation for the first year seemed trouble-free. A pressure survey immediately after startup set a base-line performance for the vacuum tower (Figure 1). Over the second year,
the flash zone pressure rose from 18 mm of mercury to 27 mm of mercury (Figure 2). Cut point
dropped from 1052F (566C) to 1038F (559C). Distillate yield losses were costing approximately
$1,600,000 per year. After two years the unit was shut down for cleaning.
When the unit shut down, no replacement grid had been ordered. Upon entry, the grid was
found coked. The wash grid delivery time was going to be too long to wait to replace it. Rather than
replacing the grid, the wash zone grid was cleaned in place with a high-pressure water lance from the
top. Grid is manufactured in shallow layers approximately 2-5/8 inches (67 mm) thick (Figure 3). Each
grid layer is rotated from the layer below. A water lance cannot reach more than the top one, or perhaps two, layer(s).
Other equipment inspected during the turnaround included the overflash collector tray and the
wash oil distributor. No obvious damage was seen on either.
After restarting the unit with the water-lanced grid, the pressure drop was even worse than before! The pressure drop across the wash bed had increased from ten mm of mercury to 19 mm of mercury (Figure 4). Once exposed to oxygen, the coke had hardened and the water-lance debris blocked a
large part of the open area that had been available in the grid before the shutdown. Cutpoint dropped
again, to 1025F (552C).
Replacement grid was immediately ordered. As soon as the new grid was received, another
shutdown took place, the old grid removed and the new grid placed in the tower. If the pressure survey
results had been understood or believed, replacement grid could have been ordered well in advance. A
second shutdown would have been avoided. Avoiding the extra shutdown would have easily paid for
many $200 manometers and pressure surveys.

First Fix
After the unit restarted with the clean grid, the wash rate was returned to the previous rate.
Fully wet packing helps prevent coking. Many literature reports emphasize the importance of having
the correct wash oil rate to keep the packing wet. While lacking many important details and grossly
simplifying the process analysis, the conclusion that many units have insufficient wash oil is correct.
Computer models can predict wash oil rates if done correctly. Nevertheless, troubleshooting
starts in the field. Correct data must be gathered and interpreted first. Successful unit revamps and
effective troubleshooting start with field data, not theoretical calculations.
The unit seemed to work correctly for the first fourteen months, then pressure drop surveys
started showing that the flash zone pressure was rising. Over another fourteen months, the pressure
drop across the wash zone increased by six mm of mercury. The wash bed had coked again, with only a
small improvement in run length.
Equipment and the process do not exist separately. Equipment details count as much as process
details. Process limits come from equipment limits. Not only must the wash rate be correct, it must
also be distributed properly. Figure 5 shows a sketch of the type of spray header used. Spray nozzles on
a pipe header distribute the liquid over the packed bed. To develop a proper spray cone, a five psi (34
kPa) to 20 psi (138 kPa) pressure drop across the spray nozzle is required. Much below five psi (34
kPa), the spray cone does not develop. Above 20 psi (138 kPa) the spray starts to form smaller droplets
that entrain more easily.
A simple pressure gauge can check the operation of a spray header. Figure 6 shows the pressure
reading obtained by putting a gauge downstream of the wash oil control valve. The pressure gauge read
11 psi (76 kPa) at five feet above grade. This must be adjusted to the spray header elevation by:

Static Head =

feet of elevationdifference specific gravity of fluid at conditions

2.31

After adjusting for height, the spray header pressure drop is only one psi (seven kPa). When checking
the nozzle details, for the new flow rate the pressure drop should have been 35 psi (240 kPa). Something was wrong with the spray header.
At the second unit shutdown, the spray header was inspected and two things found. First, the
wrong size spray nozzles were on the header. The nozzles had approximately three times the capacity
they should have had. Second, many of the flange gaskets had been left out (Figure 7). Instead of
forming spray cones, the liquid was just pouring onto the packed bed in a series of solid, small diameter jets (Figure 8). Just enough liquid was getting onto the wash bed from condensing on the underside
of the HVGO collector, by entrainment from the flash zone, and spraying out of the flanges without
gaskets to coke up the bed.
The spray header nozzles were replaced with ones the correct size and gaskets were installed on
all flanges. After this shutdown, the unit has been working without coking the wash bed. Operation
has proved successful at the lower wash oil rate.
Revamp limited by vacuum tower heat removal
Problem History
A refiner completed a major revamp to increase capacity and run new, heavier crudes. After the
revamp, projected crude unit yields could not be obtained. The crude unit was limited by heater duty.
The oil could not get to the needed temperature. Theoretical analysis of the problem showed that the
crude preheat temperature was 40F (22C) colder than expected. As crude heat integration exchangers

often suffer from dramatically higher fouling than many engineering standards assume, the initial conclusion was that the crude preheat exchangers were fouling more than expected. Often, newer, heavier
crudes have high fouling factors. Heavier crudes also contribute to asphaltene precipitation when
mixed with lighter crudes. This can dramatically increase exchanger fouling.
Rather than accepting a preliminary conclusion, management insisted that a plant test and
data analysis be done to verify this before further detail engineering began on crude train modifications.
A plant test was run and data gathered. Reduced preheat to the atmospheric column has two
major affects. First the amount of AGO recovered drops. This decreases high-level AGO heat available
for preheat. Second, the lighter material gets into the LVGO, decreasing the LVGO temperature. Normally, LVGO rejects heat to cooling water and air, so this has minimal direct impact, as long as the
LVGO can handle the increased duty.
Decreased preheat duty from AGO rundown, reduces the crude tower operating temperature
even more. The decreased crude tower operating temperature then drops more AGO into the vacuum
tower feed (Figure 9).
Detailed test run data review and modeling showed that the HVGO was cooler than expected.
Reduced HVGO draw temperature has an even bigger impact than AGO rundown duty losses.
The HVGO draw temperature was 50F (28C) lower than expected. Figure 10 shows the basic
data around the vacuum unit. Drawing material balance envelopes around the vacuum tower and
checking the heat balance shows that 2,400 bpd (380 m3/day) of LVGO is being condensed but is not
being drawn as LVGO product (Figure 11). Instead, it comes out with the HVGO product. The reduced LVGO temperature was the major reason feed preheat to the crude unit could not be attained.
This was costing the refiner three million dollars a year.
Fixing the Vacuum Tower
Equipment and the process do not exist separately. Equipment details count as much as process
details. Process problems come from equipment limits. Many reasons cause LVGO to leak into HVGO:
the collector can leak, the draw nozzle can be too small[3], the collector can be damaged. In one notable case, an HVGO collector was damaged by using a jackhammer to remove coke from it.
Originally, the vacuum tower had bubble cap trays. Approximately 15 years ago most of the
bubble caps had been replaced with structured packing and grid. However, new collectors were not installed at that time. Three bubble cap trays were modified to act as collectors. Modifications were done
in the field to change the bubble cap trays to total draw trays. Figure 12 shows the modifications to the
draw tray sumps. A comparison with a regular collector tray sump is shown.
Rapid inspection shows a major problem. The sump is not fully sealed. At low pumparound
rates this may not matter, the height of liquid above the nozzle is enough to get the pumparound plus
product out the draw even though the sump is not sealed. As pumparound rates increase, the liquid
level in the sump rises until the sump overflows, spilling LVGO into the HVGO.
As a quick check, the HVGO pumparound rate increased to its maximum, and the LVGO
pumparound rate decreased. A dramatic increase was seen in HVGO draw temperature when LVGO
pumparound rate dropped slightly. For a temporary fix, HVGO rate was set to its maximum (it had the
same problem with liquid overflow as the LVGO collector) and LVGO return temperature minimized
to attempt to keep the LVGO pumparound rate as low as possible. This helped the unit most of the
time, but the plant still suffered from weekly upsets when the LVGO tray overflowed. Additionally, the
collector trays had very high pressure drops compared to properly designed collectors. The modified
bubble cap trays imposed an extra three mm of mercury pressure drop. For a packed vacuum column
this has a significant yield affect.

The solution to this problem was putting in correctly designed LVGO and HVGO collector
trays at the next turnaround. The new collectors solved most of the problems with preheat. Only minor
preheat train changes were needed. Preheat changes are very expensive because of the cost of piping
and plot plan problems. Tower internal solutions have no plot plan problems.
No complex computer models or high tech methods were required. Simple mass-balance and
heat-balance calculations were all that was needed to identify the vacuum tower problems. Review of
the drawings identified the exact cause. Quick field verification showed that the problem identified was
the real cause of the preheat loss.
Sudden Vacuum Loss Drops Yields
Problem Background
A refiner experienced a sudden loss of vacuum in a dry vacuum tower operating with an overhead pressure of 10 mm Hg. Overhead pressure had risen to 20 mm Hg. Substantial yield losses were
being incurred every day. Figure 13 shows the overall unit with a heat and material balance boundary.
Sources of Vacuum System Load
Figure 14 shows the major sources of unexpected vacuum system load. Vacuum system load
changes occur from either different (or additional) material entering the system or by hydrocarbon
cracking inside the system. This includes both intentional sources and environmental sources. Intentional sources are material added to the system with the full knowledge that the material will go to the
vacuum system. The major intentional sources are usually stripping steam added to the vacuum tower
boot and velocity steam added to the heater coils. Environmental sources are streams that the plant
attempts to minimize because they serve no useful purpose, but only consume vacuum system capacity: increasing capital requirements and operating costs.
Environmental sources include:
Vacuum unit feed changes caused by upstream (atmospheric tower) damage, often in the
stripping section.
Increased heater coking.
Improperly metered increases in velocity steam or stripping steam.
Heat exchanger leaks from heat integration circuits.
Vacuum tower coking.
Air leaks.
All of these areas can create problems rapidly from apparently small changes in equipment performance.
Vacuum Unit Feed Changes
Atmospheric stripping section damage is one of the most common sources of added vacuum
system load. Even small amounts of damage to the stripping section can add large amounts of light
material to the vacuum tower feed. This loads the vacuum ejectors, causing higher vacuum system
pressures. Higher vacuum system pressures reduce HVGO yield and increases residue yield. Profits are
lost.
Increased Heater Coking
Hydrocarbon cracking in the heater breaks forms coke plus cracked gas. Cracked gas may contain hydrogen sulfide, methane, ethane, ethylene, and other light compounds. Heater cracking rates
depends upon mass flux, heater temperature profile, heat flux profile, and heater history. Heater design

dramatically affects coking rates for the same conditions. A well designed, operated, and maintained
heater may have low cracking rates at the same conditions a poorly designed heater is inoperable.
Heater design and operation is critical to profitable vacuum unit operation.
Once coke is formed in heater tubes, additional cracking and coke formation is even easier.
Coke makes more coke. Coke formation makes cracked gas as well.
Improperly Metered Steam
Flow meter drift can add much additional steam to the vacuum heater or vacuum tower stripping section. Additional steam adds load to the ejectors. The higher ejector load drops the system pressure.
Heat Exchanger Leaks from Heat Integration Circuits
Heat exchange in the heavy vacuum gas oil (HVGO) and light vacuum gas oil (LVGO) circuits
condenses the vacuum tower product. Most units integrate much of the heat removal with crude preheat. A few integrate with steam generation or other units. In either case, leaks in the heat removal
exchangers leak from the heat removal utility into the vacuum process side.
Crude contains light material that loads up the vacuum system. Boiler feed water preheat leaks
or steam generator leaks adds water, and hence steam load, to the system. Both make the ejectors work
harder.
Vacuum Tower Coking
Vacuum tower cracking most often occurs in the boot, collector trays, or in the vacuum wash
zone. Rarer, but still possible, is cracking in the vacuum tower stripping section. Cracking in the collector tray liquid or in the wash zone results in a coked vacuum tower. In addition to the cracked gas load
increase, coked vacuum towers can produce black products and dramatically lower yields. Cracking in
the boot can coke up the tower draw and shut the unit down as well. Cracking of liquid in the boot is
the most common source of cracked gas in the vacuum tower. Quench addition to the boot can control
this rate and unload the vacuum system.
Noticeable changes in cracked gas rate from collector tray, wash zone, or stripping section
coking indicate critical problems in the vacuum tower. Coke formed by cracking in these areas builds
up inside the tower rapidly. Coked wash sections and collectors increase tower pressure drop, reduce
yields, and make black products. Cracking on the stripping section trays plugs the bottom of the tower.
Liquid entrainment from the stripping section increases. Proper equipment design and installation can
prevent problems.
Air Leaks
Loose flanges increase leaks into the system. Increased leakage increases the vacuum system
load. System pressure rises and yields drop.
Finding the Problem
Systematic approaches help troubleshooting. The root causes of most unit problems are simple,
even if they are difficult to find. Often, too much attention is paid to rare and difficult to find problems. Simple sources of problems are not checked thoroughly enough before they are eliminated from
future consideration. The attraction of working on something new, unique, or rare (i.e. exciting) lures
most engineers past the basics without sufficient consideration given to simple problems.

Good field technique, understanding of the process, and application of engineering fundamentals identifies the vast majority of problems. Troubleshooting should check the easiest, cheapest, most
likely, and quickest to find problems first.
Load on the first ejector in a steam jet vacuum system sets the suction pressure. Most refinery
and chemical plant vacuum systems are critical ejector systems: the ejector discharge pressure is more
than twice the ejector inlet pressure. Figure 15 shows a typical vacuum system ejector curve.
In troubleshooting any chemical process system, one of the first steps should be to draw a heat
and material balance boundary around the system and check how the entering and leaving streams
have changed. Figure 16 shows a three-stage ejector system, its heat and material balance boundary
and identifies the entering and exiting streams.
Drawing the heat and material balance around the vacuum tower plus the vacuum system
(Figure 17) clearly shows that if the total load going to the system has increased, the load change must
also show up in the streams leaving the system. The slop oil rate must change, the sour water rate must
change, or the vent gas rate must change. However, vacuum systems may be sensitive enough to load
changes that rate changes too small to easily see may still cause operating problems.
Direct Identification of the Leak
Checking the exiting streams showed a slop oil rate 75% higher than normal operation. Distillation tests showed that a large amount of naphtha, kerosene, and diesel was in the stream. If an upstream upset had damaged the atmospheric tower stripping section most of the additional light material would be diesel and a small amount of kerosene. The large amount of naphtha and kerosene clearly
indicated that crude was leaking into the vacuum tower.
The unit was dropped to a lower capacity and crude preheat exchangers isolated in groups,
then individually. After several days of testing, the leaking exchanger was isolated and the bundle
pulled for repair. After the bundle was pulled, the unit was restored to approximately 90% of capacity
at desired yields while repairs took place.
Coking in Refinery Main Fractionators
Thermally unstable oils and coking
Many refinery main fractionators process thermally unstable oils. Common services include:
1.
Atmospheric crude columns
2.
FCC main fractionators
3.
Gas oil crude columns
4.
Vacuum preflash columns
5.
Vacuum crude columns
6.
Delayed coker main fractionators
7.
Fluid coker main fractionators
8.
Visbreaker atmospheric columns
9.
Visbreaker vacuum columns
10.
Residue hydrocracker atmospheric columns
11.
Residue hydrocracker vacuum columns
While services differ between units and plants, the list has been sorted into a generally least severe to
generally most severe order.
Reliable operation with thermally unstable oils requires a great care with mechanical details.
Coking is a product of time, temperature, and thermal instability. Mechanical details that create small

liquid pockets or films with long residence times initiate coke formation. Once started, coking may
continue until major problems develop.
Grid versus Packing in Wash Services
Any type of packing can coke in wash zone service. No clear evidence exists on the superiority
of either grid or structured packing in this service. Vapor and liquid distributor design, fabrication, and
installation are so much more important that minor differences between grid and structured packing
can be ignored.
In general, grid will require a deeper bed than structured packing for the same de-entrainment
effectiveness. For a given degree of wash bed effectiveness, pressure drop across grid or structured
packing will be approximately equal. Grid has been used more often in this service because it has been
available for a longer time than structured packing.
Random packing should not be used in refinery main fractionator wash service. Random
packing inevitably has parts of the packing that hold liquid for long periods of time. Long residence
times increase the risk of coked beds. Figure 18 and Figure 19 show drawings of typical, modern random packings. Random packing fills a vessel randomly. Some packing will always lie with spots where
liquid can have long residence times. This is especially true in low liquid rate services. Wash zones are
low liquid rate services. Long residence times, high temperatures, and thermal instability of the oil lead
to coking.
In contrast, Figure 20 shows a drawing with elements of typical, modern structured packing.
The surface can drain freely. Coking tendency is reduced.
Wash Zone Liquid Rates
To keep terminology clear, we will use the following terms as shown in Figure 21:
Wash oil: the oil sent to the top of the wash bed to clean entrainment from the wash bed.
Overflash: the oil that comes from the bottom of the wash bed that is the residue of the
wash oil used.
Slop wax: the oil from the collector tray immediately below the wash bed. (This term
comes from old-time lubricant column operation and is not strictly applicable to fuels vacuum column operation. However, industry standard usage accepts its application to fuels
vacuum columns.)
Condensate: liquid condensed on the underside of the collector tray that falls (usually)
back into the flash zone.
The obvious question looking at Figure 21 is why do we make a distinction between overflash and slop
wax? Figure 21 is not complete. We have not considered entrainment. The purpose of the wash zone is
to remove entrainment from the feed. Entrained oil makes the products black. A very small amount of
entrainment can make a product D 8 color.
We normally consider entrainment a very small quantity. This is not always true. At very low
wash rates and high vapor velocities in the column, entrainment can reach a significant fraction of the
liquid on the collector tray. In some units, entrainment may be nearly 100% of the slop wax. Figure 22
expands the definitions from Figure 21 to include entrainment.
Obviously, with a functioning wash zone the entrainment never reaches the product above the
wash bed. Therefore, the slop wax liquid is:

Slop wax = Overflash + Entrainment

Measured slop wax is never equal to overflash.

Care must be taken with data interpretation to make sure that the overflash rate is determined
when deciding if a wash bed has liquid coming out the bottom of it. Common methods of determining
overflash rates include metals and asphaltene balances around the feed and slop wax. Other techniques
can be used as well. It is critical to avoid confusing slop wax rates with overflash.
Visbreaker Operation Limited by Coking
Visbreaker products are thermally unstable oils. At the high temperatures in wash zones they
readily coke. Extreme attention to mechanical design details must be included to eliminate dead spots
where coking can occur.
A refinery visbreaker had problems with high pressure drops and coked wash beds over a period of years. After several turnarounds, a thorough attempt to understand and solve the problem
started.
Current Operation
The main causes of poor quality HVGO products from refinery main fractionators are coked
wash beds, poor liquid distribution to the wash bed, and poor vapor distribution to the wash bed.
These causes are related. Poor distribution to a wash bed, of either vapor or liquid, leads to coking.
Coking partially blocks the wash bed. Vapor velocity increases due to the lower cross section
area open. The higher vapor velocities increase entrainment. Entrainment carries black oil from the
feed entry (flash zone) up to the HVGO product. Black HVGO results. This severely affects downstream operation and product quality. Your D8 color is typical for a coked wash zone.
Data showed a pressure drop of 28 mm Hg across the tower before shutting down (Figure 23).
This is a very high pressure drop for a normally operating vacuum tower. Unless collectors have exceptionally high pressure drops and the grid beds are very deep, a typical pressure drop in this service
would be 12-18 mm Hg across the tower. High pressure drops occur across coked beds.
The process operation was also checked. A commonly used number for grid or structured
packing wash zone liquid rates is 0.15 gpm/ft2 (0.367 m3/hr-m2) of tower cross-section area at the
minimum liquid wetting point. For wash zones, the minimum liquid wetting rate is found on the bottom of the bed. The rate the data shows is 0.097 gpm/ft2 (0.237 m3/hr-m2) of slop wax. The observed
rate was low and is a probable contributor to coking.
While incomplete, the available evidence supported the conclusion that the wash bed was
badly coked. Coked wash beds lead to poor product qualities.
Work Recommendations
The wash bed had to be replaced. Whatever caused the bed to coke in the first place had to be
identified and fixed. This is often a complex activity. The root cause of coking problems may not be
apparent. Many units have been fixed only to have coking occur again. Unit reliability and product
quality depends upon identifying and fixing the real problem.
Both grid and packing can coke. No clear evidence exists on the superiority of either grid or
structured packing in this service. Vapor and liquid distributor design, fabrication, and installation are
so much more important that any minor differences between grid and structured packing can be ignored. The mechanical support structure and collector design must also be reviewed to eliminate dead
spots where liquid can sit with a long residence time. Long residence times increase the risk of coked
towers.
The process was checked and modifications designed for the wash oil system.

Shutdown Observations and Repair

The unit was shut down. The wash bed and the collector tray were coked. The entire wash bed
was coked solid and large quantities of coke had accumulated on different parts of the collector. Modifications were made to the wash oil system, collector, and mechanical support structure. The unit was
restarted and has operated normally. No evidence of coking has yet been seen.
Conclusions
Many plants have very good experience and routinely run for five years without wash bed
coking. Others coke as often as every 18 months. Understanding the process and correct mechanical
design, fabrication, and installation is required for reliable wash zone operation. The hotter the operation and the less stable the oil, the more important every detail becomes. Standard design approaches
based on old-time, low-severity services fail to perform acceptably in severe services.
Simple instruments, correctly used, identify many refinery vacuum column problems rapidly
and at minimum cost. Absolute pressure manometers and heat and material balances are valuable, inexpensive tools. Accurate data and good field technique identifies problems better than back-office calculations and engineering standards books.
Systematic troubleshooting using basic engineering concepts with heat and material balance
envelopes identify and locate many other unit problems. Simple, common problems should always be
checked before attempting to use expensive, difficult to interpret, and time consuming high technology
troubleshooting tools. Most unit problems are simple in cause and can be identified with effective use
of field technique. Rapid problem identification cuts costs and increases profits.
Disclaimer
No performance, suitability for use, or lack of suitability for use for any given process service is
implied to any particular model or brand of packing by these comments. Figures used have been used
as illustrative of generic classes of equipment.

to Vacuum System

11
LVGO PA
12

lvgo
13

HVGO PA
14 hvgo
15
wash
16
feed
18

pressure, mmHg
vacuum residue
Figure 1
Pressure survey of tower at start of run

to Vacuum System

11
LVGO PA
12

lvgo
13

HVGO PA
14 hvgo
15
wash
25
feed
27

pressure, mmHg
vacuum residue
Figure 2
Pressure survey of coked tower

Figure 3
Typical grid used in many vacuum tower wash zones

to Vacuum System

11
LVGO PA
12

lvgo
13

HVGO PA
14 hvgo
15
wash
34
feed
36

pressure, mmHg
vacuum residue
Figure 4
Pressure survey of coked tower: after water lance cleaning

Figure 5
Typical wash zone spray distributor

to Vacuum System

LVGO PA
lvgo

HVGO PA
hvgo
15
wash

pressure, mmHg
elevation 32ft
(9.7m)
feed

vacuum residue
11
pressure, psia
elevation 5ft (1.5m)
Figure 6
Spray header pressure survey

missing gaskets and/or

loose flanges

missing gaskets and/or

loose flanges

missing gaskets and/or

loose flanges

Figure 7
Spray header with missing gaskets and loose flanges

spray with insufficient

pressure drop to
develop cone

spray with a properly

developed spray cone

Figure 8
Spray nozzle comparison: improper versus proper cone development

problem

decreased AGO preheat

lower heater feed

temperature

decreased AGO yield

lower heater outlet

temperature
Figure 9
AGO yield spiral

to Vacuum System

LVGO PA 54900 bpd

36.5 M btu/hr
411 F
lvgo 9100 bpd
HVGO PA 43700 bpd
49.1 M btu/hr
612 F
hvgo 14800 bpd
wash

feed

Figure 10
Vacuum tower yield and temperature data

to Vacuum System

LVGO PA 54900 bpd

36.5 M btu/hr
411 F
lvgo 9100 bpd
(lvgo 11500 bpd)
HVGO PA 43700 bpd
49.1 M btu/hr
612 F
hvgo 14800 bpd
(hvgo 12400 bpd)

wash

(calculated values)
feed

Figure 11
Vacuum tower heat and material balance check

original trays with sump

modified tray with sump

sump not sealed\can

overflow at high liquid
rates

collector tray sump

(vapor risers and bubble

caps not shown for
clarity)

Figure 12
Modified sumps when converting from a tray to a packed tower

Figure 13
Entire system heat-balance and material-balance envelope

Figure 14
Sources of vacuum system load

Suction pressure, mmHg

28
26

Maximum working discharge pressure: 125 mm Hg

Minimum motive steam pressure: 150 psig

24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
Water vapor equivalent load, mass/hr

Figure 15
Typical vacuum ejector operating curve, first stage of an ejector system

Vacuum System HMB Boundary

motive steam
vent gas

load from
Vacuum Tower

cooling water
cooling water

air leaks

slop oil
sour water

Figure 16
Vacuum system with heat and material balance boundary

Figure 17
High slop oil rate indicating a leaking crude preheat exchanger

Figure 18 [4]
Random packing with locations for liquid to have a long residence time

Figure 19 [5]
Random packing with locations for liquid to have a long residence time

Figure 20 [6]
Structured packing with few locations for liquid to have a long residence time

wash oil

Wash Bed
overflash
Slop Wax
Collector

slop wax

condensate
feed
Flash Zone

Figure 21
Flash zone terminology

wash oil

Wash Bed
overflash
Slop Wax
Collector

slop wax

condensate
entrainment
feed
Flash Zone

Figure 22
Flash zone terminology with entrainment included

to Vac uum Sys tem

1 0-14 mm Hg

lvgo PA

LVGO Bed
lvgo d raw

3200 m m diame ter

Fractio nation Bed

hvgo PA
HVGO Bed

hvgo dr aw (bla ck)

wash o il
(100 -130 m3 /h)

11600 m m diame ter

Wash Bed

slop wax
(25 m3 /h)
f eed

3 8-42 mm Hg
4300 m m diame ter

v isbreak er bott oms

Figure 23
Visbreaker operation before shutdown

References

[1] Sloley, A.W. Reducing the danger of maintenance exposure. Petroleum Technology Quarterly,1998
Spring: 59-65.
[2] Sloley, A.W. The simple things. Hydrocarbon Processing. 1999 August: 17.
[3] Sloley, A.W. Dont get drawn into distillation difficulties. Chemical Engineering Progress,1998 June:
63-78.
[4] From Strigle, R. F., Jr. and Porter, K. E. US Patent 4,303,599 Tower packing. 1 December 1981.
[5] From Nutter, D. E. US Patent 4,576,763 Packings for gas-liquid contact apparatus. 18 March
1986.
[6] From Chen, G.; Kitterman, B. L.; Axe, J. R. US Patent 4,604,247 Tower packing material and
method. 5 August 1986.