MASS TRANSFER: DISTILLATION

Debottlenecking coker
fractionators
Tradeoffs to be considered when high capacity trays or structured packing is
selected to meet the required capacity, product quality and yields, together with
ease of maintenance, in the delayed coker main fractionator and gas plant
Charlie Herron and Keith Whitt Shell Global Solutions
Greg Hall Shell Oil Products

he fractionation section (main

fractionator and gas plant) of a
delayed coker frequently limits
the units capacity. Low cost revamps
with high capacity column internals can
significantly debottleneck the unit
while avoiding the high cost of column
replacement. Coker fractionation sections are similar to fractionation sections of other refinery conversion units
such as fluid catalytic crackers (FCC)
and hydrocrackers (Figure 1) which also
typically consist of a main fractionator
and gas plant, although certain operating and design aspects, such as operating pressure, may differ from coker
fractionators.
The coker main fractionator separates
the unstabilised naphtha and heavier
products while the gas plant splits the
naphtha and lighter fractions into stabilised naphtha, C4s, C3s and dry gas
(C2s and lighter). On most units, the C3s
are produced as a combined C3/C4
stream or left in the dry gas.
Coker fractionation sections have two
major differences from other conversion
units: the main fractionator bottom
sump is normally used as a surge vessel
for the fresh pitch feed to the unit, and
the LPG yield is relatively low (compared to FCC LPG yields).

WGC

Using the main fractionator bottom

as a feed surge vessel results in the heaviest fractionation product (HGO) being a
side draw. The low LPG yield reduces the
economic incentive for high LPG recoveries. For this reason, coker gas plants
usually operate at lower pressures than
FCC gas plants and rarely use refrigeration systems to improve LPG recoveries.

Main fractionator
There are two main sections in the main
fractionator (Figure 2): the wash zone
and the fractionation zone. The lower
section of the column (below the HGO
draw tray) is the wash zone. The upper
section of the column is the fractionation zone used for separating the main
fractionator products.
The wash zone frequently has two different types of internals. Sometimes the
lower portion of this section is referred
to as the quench section and the upper
portion as the wash zone. In this discussion the entire section is referred to as
the wash zone. The wash zone has three
objectives:
To control the heavy tail" of the
HGO distillation
Minimise entrained coke fines in the
main fractionator products (mainly
HGO)

Sponge
absorber

Gas
scrubber

Wet gas

Dry gas

Main
fract.

Optimise product yield by setting

recycle cut point.
The design of the wash zone requires
tradeoffs between HGO product quality,
unit reliability, yields, and unit throughput. Designing the wash zone involves
two basic choices: wash oil rate and fractionation hardware.
High wash oil rates improve HGO
product quality by removing more of
the heavy tail and coke fines. High wash
oil rates also improve unit reliability by
reducing the likelihood of coking up the
wash zone internals. On the other hand,
high wash oil rates can reduce unit
capacity because the dirty wash oil from
the bottom of the wash zone ends up in
the heater charge. This dirty wash oil,
along with dirty quench oil from the
drum vapour return, combines to add a
recycle load on the heater charge. This
recycle loading is commonly expressed
as combined feed ratio (CFR), defined as:
CFR = (total heater charge rate) /(fresh
feed rate)
For example, 5% of combined dirty
wash oil plus dirty quench oil in the
heater charge would result in a CFR of
1.05. As CFR increases, total liquid product yield decreases due to higher coke
yield, and furnace loading increases.
The choice of fractionation hardware

Fractionation
zone

Lean
amine

LSO

HGO P/A
LGO

RSO
Absorber

LGO
Vapor
drum

HGO

Pitch

Rich
amine

Wash oil
Wash zone
Drum vapour
Heater

C3/C4s
Stripper

Heater
charge

Quench

Debutaniser

Dirty
quench
oil
(internal)

Drum

Naphtha

Figure 1 Typical coker fractionation section

Naphtha

Heater charge

Figure 2 Coker main fractionator

125
P T Q AUTUMN 2003

w w w. e p t q . c o m

HGO
Dirty wash oil
(internal)
Pitch (fresh feed)

MASS TRANSFER: DISTILLATION

0.7
Note that these curves must be
de-rated for foaming systems

0.6
Cfactor, ft/sec

involves tradeoffs between efficiency

and coking tendency. The most efficient
hardware has a higher coking tendency.
The most efficient hardware can achieve
the best HGO quality, but will require
higher wash oil rates to avoid coking.
Table 1 shows the strengths and
weaknesses of the various hardware
choices. For example, valve or sieve
trays are given a rating of 4 (best) for
efficiency and ease of inspection. However, they are given a rating of 1 (worst)
for required wetting rate, fouling resistance and capacity.
Fouling resistance and capacity are
usually the most important selection criteria, but other criteria may be more
important on some units. Grid packing
has the highest capacity, though its
capacity cannot always be fully utilised
because the wash oil is often fed via a
spray header which can become entrainment-limited before the grid reaches
maximum capacity.
There has been some controversy
about using shed trays in coker wash
zones. Some authors suggest that they
should not be used while others recommend them. The following guidelines
provide practical guidelines for their
use:
Below spray zones. Shed trays provide some additional heat and mass
transfer below spray zones. Even at low
wash rates, plant data shows meaningful
temperature drop across the shed trays.
Typical temperature drop is 11.5F per
1% (wash oil rate/fresh feed rate). This
temperature drop seems small, but is
roughly half the temperature drop
across the entire wash zone
Below packed beds. Shed trays can
be used below packed beds, but the
packing and its required wetting rate
should be designed assuming that shed
trays provide no stages of heat or mass
transfer. In addition, there must be a
collector tray that provides good vapour
distribution to the packed bed and proper liquid distribution to the shed trays
below
Shed tray damage. Tray damage incidents are typically caused by water in
the column sump. These incidents can

Structured
packing

0.5

Shell Calming Section/

HiFi trays

0.4
0.3
0.2

Conventional
trays
Spray regime
(typical of MF
wash zone)

0.1
0.0
0.001

Fourth regime
(typical of MF
fractionation zone)

0.01

0.1

Emulsion regime
(typical of gas
plant columns)
1.0

Flow parameter

Figure 3 Flow regimes and hardware capacities

cause damage to shed trays and to other

column internals in the wash section or
even extending into the fractionation
section above the wash section. Shed
trays should be designed with robust
mechanical support due to this risk. One
point of view is that because shed trays
are sometimes damaged they should be
removed when possible. Another point
of view is that in these incidents the
shed tray damage may help reduce damage to sections above. Clearly, the best
answer is to address root causes to eliminate the upsets themselves
De-entrainment. Shed trays provide a
small amount of de-entrainment of the
coke fines and heavy liquid in the feed.
The remainder of the column above
the wash zone serves to separate the
main fractionator products. Heat recovery is typically optimised by use of one
or more pumparounds. As with any
main fractionator, the pumparound
locations and duties are chosen to balance the objectives of separation sharpness, energy efficiency and column
vapour/liquid loadings in the various
sections of the fractionation zone.
The hardware choices for debottlenecking this section of the column are
normally high capacity trays and structured packing. Grid packing may also be
considered for the
Wash zone internals: selection criteria
HGO pumparound.
The capacity of a
given column interValve or
Grid
Grid Baffle Spray
nal can be expressed
sleeve tray packing tray tray
zone
as a function of two
Fouling resistance
1
2
3
4
4
fundamental vapour
Required wetting rate 1
2
2
4
4
and liquid loading
Efficiency
4
3
2
2
1
parameters: C-Factor,
Ease of inspection
4
1
4
4
3
which is a densityCost
3
1
3
3
4
corrected measure of
Capacity
1
4
2
3
3
vapour loading, and
1 = Worst, 4 = Best (based on authors experience with cokers
flow
parameter,
and other heavy oil processes)
which is a measure
Table 1
of the relative liquid

126
P T Q AUTUMN 2003

load to vapour load.

1/2
Flow parameter = QL/QV * (L/V)
(dimensionless)
1/2
C-Factor = Qv/AC * ((L-V)/V)
(ft/sec)
where
3
QL = liquid volumetric flow (ft /sec)
3
QV = vapour volumetric flow (ft /sec)
2
AC = column area (ft )
3
L = liquid density (lb/ft )
3
V = vapour density (lb/ft )
A low flow parameter indicates the
load in that section of the tower is
vapour dominated. A high flow parameter indicates the load is liquid dominated. Structured packing has a large
advantage over trays at low flow parameters, but at higher flow parameters high
capacity trays have the advantage.
In Figure 3 the structured packing
curve is roughly representative of
2
3
170m /m packing, which was chosen as
a good compromise between capacity and
efficiency for typical refining services.
The selection of proper internals for
the fractionation zone is more complex
than simply a capacity choice, however.
High capacity trays have several advantages over structured packing. High
capacity trays are typically about 50%
less expensive than structured packing
(with distributors included). High capacity trays are much more corrosion resistant than structured packing, as trays are
typically 0.08in thick while structured
packing is typically only 0.006in thick.
The top section of coker main fractionators often experience fouling and
corrosion due to ammonium chloride
salts, and structured packing can quickly corrode in this environment, resulting in loss of fractionation. Another
advantage of high capacity trays is that
the column is much easier to inspect
during subsequent turnarounds, as
removal of internal manways allows
access to maintenance and inspection

MASS TRANSFER: DISTILLATION

chosen since it is
less susceptible to
loss of capacity due
to foaming.
High capacity Structured
Grid
Trays have a
tray
packing
packing
higher liquid resiEfficiency
3
34
1
dence time, but
Ease of inspection
4
1
1
this is usually not
Cost
4
2
1
an issue since H2S
Capacity at low flow parameter 2
3
4
absorption is relaCapacity at high flow parameter 3
2
4
tively fast. The
Corrosion resistance
4
1
3
same issues on col1 = Worst, 4 = Best (Based on authors experience with cokers
umn
inspection
and other heavy oil processes)
and cost mentioned with main
Table 2
fractionators
are
personnel. With structured packing, the also applicable with gas plant columns.
maintenance and inspection process is
more costly and time-consuming since Revamps
the packing must be removed (and later The methodology for evaluating coker
reinstalled) to grant internal access. fractionation debottlenecking options is
Trays also tend to be less prone to similar to that used for other refinery
pyrophoric fires than structured pack- process units. Typical steps include:
ing, as the latter contains substantial Plant test runs
metal surface area where pyrophoric Rigorous process simulations
of
debottlenecking
material can accumulate unseen. Trays Evaluation
also tend to be more fouling resistant options.
Plant test runs provide a snapshot of
than structured packing and its distributors. Finally, trays are not as sensitive to current operations needed to develop a
being out-of-level as the high quality base case process simulation model.
trough distributors typically used with Plant operating and lab data are collected
while the unit is held at a steady operatstructured packing.
Table 2 summarises the advantages ing condition, usually at or near maxifor high capacity trays, structured pack- mum rate. Normally, a pressure gauge
survey and a hand-held pyrometer
ing, and grid packing.
Some coker main fractionators were survey are needed to manually collect
originally designed with partial HGO field data unavailable from plant
draw trays. Partial draw trays cannot instrumentation.
Equipment data sheets, piping and
provide good control of recycle rate (low
CFR) because the wash oil is an internal instrument diagrams, plot plans and
overflow that cannot be reliably con- economic data must also be collected.
trolled or metered. If low recycle rates Interviews with plant personnel also
are desired, these partial draw trays must provide valuable insights into existing
be replaced with total draw trays so that limits and potential solutions.
For rigorous process simulation, a rigthe wash oil can be pumped and
orous base case, integrated simulation of
metered.
the unit is developed with plant operat-

Fractionation zone internals: selection criteria

ing data and equipment data sheets.

Delta cases are then run as required to
investigate equipment loadings for possible new operating modes (described
later in further detail).
Evaluation
of
debottlenecking
options, for cases with a defined
throughput increase, involves detailed
evaluation of all relevant equipment
carried out at that defined rate. Equipment evaluation is carried out using
both design and actual operating experience learned from multiple units. Often,
however, the desire to minimise capital
costs results in a range of potential cases
being evaluated. This is done by evaluating what can be achieved by logical
step-change revisions on individual
equipment and then bundling those
scope items together, which result in the
highest incremental throughput per
incremental cost.
Figure 4 shows capacity curves for
various internals. It also shows the new
loadings for each section of a coker
main fractionator recently revamped
with Shell high capacity trays. The most
heavily loaded sections in the fractionation zone are the HGO pumparound
section and the section below the LGO
draw. The internals capable of meeting
the capacity requirements for these sections are high capacity trays, structured
packing, and grid packing (although
structured packing would be marginal
for the HGO pumparound section).
High capacity trays were chosen for
the entire fractionation zone since they
met the required capacity, were the
lower cost alternative and are easier to
inspect and maintain. The existing wash
zone had four grid trays and two valve
trays. The grid trays had adequate
capacity for the new rates and were
compatible with the desired recycle rate
(CFR=1.10), so they were reused in the
new design. The valve trays were

Gas plant columns

0.7

Grid packing
0.6

Cfactor, ft/sec

The choice of hardware for debottlenecking the distillation columns in the

gas plant is easy. High capacity trays are
the only good alternative, as structured
packing suffers from poor efficiency in
high pressure systems. The cause of the
low efficiency is not completely understood, but it is usually attributed to
back-mixing caused by the relatively
low difference between the liquid and
vapour phase densities.
High capacity trays are normally used
in the sponge absorber column. Structured packing is sometimes considered
since the difference between the liquid
and vapour phase densities is larger in
the sponge absorber than in the other
distillation columns.
Structured packing and high capacity
trays are frequently used in amine/gas
contacting columns. Packing is often

0.5
0.4

Shell Calming Section/

HiFi trays

Baffle tray
Structured
packing
Grid tray

Spray
nozzle

0.3
0.2

Conventional
trays
Wash zone

HGO P/A
Below LGO draw
Below top reflux

0.1
0.0
0.001

0.01

0.1
Flow parameter

Figure 4 Main fractionator revamp

128
P T Q AUTUMN 2003

Upper
P/A
1.0

MASS TRANSFER: DISTILLATION

0.7
0.6

Baffle tray

Cfactor, ft/sec

0.5

Structured
packing
0.4
Shell calming
section/
0.3
HiFi trays
0.2

MF
HGO P/A
Debutaniser
(not modified)

MF - below
top reflux
Absorber
(foaming service)

Mf wash zone

Amine scrubber
(foaming service)

0.1
0.0
0.001

0.01

0.1

1.0

Flow parameter

Figure 5 Main fractionator and gas plant revamp

Main fractionator
revisions
Shell Calming Section tray
Reflux

New Shell
Calming
Section
trays, LGO
draw tray
and all
distributors

Sponge oil return

LGO stripper vapor
LGO draw
HGO PA return
HGO stripper vapor

HGO totaldraw tray

(re-used)
Wash oil spray headers
(re-used)

Shell HiFi tray

HGO draw
Wash oil

New baffle trays

18" dia.
New bottoms
standpipe

Revamp B Example

Figure 6 Main fractionator modifications and Shell trays

Absorber
modifications

removed since they would not have adequate capacity or fouling resistance. The
existing HGO draw tray was a partial
draw tray. It was replaced with a new total
draw tray to improve recycle control.
Figure 5 has the same information for
a combined coker main fractionator and
gas plant revamped with Shell high
capacity trays and structured packing.
The most heavily loaded section in the
fractionation zone of the main Fractionator is the HGO pumparound section.
The internals capable of meeting the
capacity requirements for this section
are high capacity trays and grid packing.
High capacity trays were chosen for the
HGO pumparound section since they
met the required capacity and are easier
to inspect and maintain.
High capacity trays were also used in
the rest of the fractionation zone. The
existing wash zone had baffle trays with
a spray zone above. These internals had
more than adequate capacity for the new
rates. These internals were also compatible for the desired low recycle rate (CFR
below 1.05). The existing baffle trays
were damaged, so they were replaced
with an improved design that reduces
the coke buildup on top of the tray.
Key column loadings for the gas plant
towers associated with the combined
main fractionator and gas plant revamp
are also depicted in Figure 5. Note that
in this case the debutaniser column was
not heavily loaded; this is unusual, and
was the result of a decision to fuel C3s
instead of recovering them. The
absorber tower was retrayed with high
capacity trays. Structured packing was
chosen for the amine scrubber since
packing is less susceptible to loss of
capacity due to foaming.

Compressor interstage
drum modifications

Product gas amine

scrubber modifications

Install nozzle NEW2

for vapour outlet

New lean oil

distributor

Install nozzle NEW1

for vapour inlet

Replace demister mat

Install new narrow
trough distributor
for lean amine

New
2

New
1

7" dia.

Install new inlet

schoepentoeter
New Shell HiFi
trays at existing
tray elevations

New H-pipe
vapour feed
distributor

Replace random packing

with 3 new beds of 170
m2/m3 class structured
packing, with support
and hold-down grids

Install new
deentrainment
vane pack
(in horizontal
crossflow)

Install new collectors/

distributors (total of 2)
between beds
Install new double-ended
schoepentoeter at the
2 vapour inlet nozzles
7" dia.

Figure 7 Gas plant modifications

130
P T Q AUTUMN 2003

A four-drum coker was debottlenecked

to 170% of original design rates. The
existing heaters, coke drums, and fractionation system limited the rates to
about 125% of original design. The
debottlenecking project added an additional furnace and two additional coke
drums. The fractionation system was
debottlenecked using high capacity
trays and structured packing while still
using all of the original columns.
Several of the knockout vessels were
also modified by using vapour inlet distributors (including Schoepentoeters,
which are also known as Shell vane inlet
devices) and vane pack, which can handle higher vapour and liquid rates. This
also allowed all of the original knockout
vessels to be re-used. Selected modifications are illustrated in Figures 6 and 7.
The project was implemented during
a turnaround (February/March 2001).
From an evaluation of the monthly
average feed rate before and after the

Internals selection
The proper application of high capacity
internals can allow the main fractionator and gas plant coker fractionation
sections to be significantly debottlenecked without triggering the high costs
associated with column replacement.
Proper internals selection depends upon
weighing the relative importance of
parameters such as capacity, efficiency,
fouling resistance and total cycle costs
(installation plus future inspection,
maintenance, and replacement costs),
and the importance of these parameters
changes throughout the main fractionator and gas plant.
Accurate hardware design correlations
are crucial, but these should be used in
combination with actual operating experience and a practical assessment of the
existing column configuration to ensure
an optimal revamp.

200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Ap
M r-2
ay 00
J u -20 0
n 0
J u -20 0
Au l-2 00
g 0
Se -2 00
p - 000
O 20
c 0
No t-2 0
0
Dev-2 00
c- 000
J a 20
n 0
Fe -20 0
b 0
M -2 1
ar 00
Ap -20 1
M r-2 01
ay 00
Ju -20 1
n 0
Ju -20 1
Au l-2 01
g 00
Se -20 1
p- 0 1
O 20
c
N o t - 2 01
0
Dev-2 01
c- 0 0 1
Ja 20
n 0
Fe -2 1
b- 0 0
20 2
02

project, it can be demonstrated that the

revamp objective was met. Figure 8
shows the monthly average feed rate
before and after the project, demonstrating the significant increase in nameplate
capacity exceeding 160% after the
revamp. The new equipment allowed
the unit to be quickly brought up to the
new rate (feed was introduced to the
unit on 16 March).

Nameplate capacity, %

MASS TRANSFER: DISTILLATION

Figure 8 Coker daily average feed rate

Charlie Herron is a distillation specialist
for Shell Global Solutions, Texas, USA. He
has 19 years of refining and petrochemical
experience in various operations and
technical roles, and provides distillation
design/troubleshooting and process
modelling/analysis support to the
companys clients. He has a BSChE from
Rice University and an MSChE from the
University of Texas at Austin.
Email: charlie.herron@shell.com
Keith Whitt is also a distillation specialist
for Shell Global Solutions, with 13 years
refining and petrochemical experience,
now providing distillation design/

131
P T Q AUTUMN 2003

troubleshooting and process modelling/

analysis support to Shell clients. He has a
BSChE from Colorado School of Mines.
Email: keith.whitt@shell.com
Greg Hall is a senior staff engineer at the
Shell Deer Park Refinery, at Deer Park,
Texas. He has 14 years of experience with
Shell including refining operations,
technical, and project roles.
He is currently providing technical support
to the Shell Deer Park Refinery and
facilitating implementation of process
safety and refinery performance improvement initiatives. He obtained a BSChe and
MSChe from the University of Kentucky.