Process Engineering

and Optimization
N. LIEBERMAN, Vacuum Improvement
Consulting Engineering, Metairie, Louisiana; and
R. CARDOSO, Phillips 66, Westlake, Louisiana

Troubleshoot operation of a steam ejector

vacuum system
A crude vacuum unit operating properly generates high gasoil water and liquid hydrocarbons from all stages drain into a seal
yield vs. low-value vacuum residue. Moreover, gasoil in the resi- drum (not shown).
due can adversely affect downstream units. Stable pressure and The onset of summer and higher cooling water temperature
low pressure are important to achieving good operation, not only caused the vacuum tower pressure to be unstable. The noncon-
for recovering valuable products but also for avoiding swings that densable flowrate from the last stage was above the maximum
impair control systems and the meeting of product specifications. meter reading value. Noncondensable flowrate increased from
Steam ejectors are in widespread use in overhead vacuum baseline to maximum meter scale in five months. Tower pres-
systems. To achieve low vacuum levels, ejectors are arranged sure would change drastically from 10 mm Hg to approximate-
in two, three, four or more stages, with each stage comprising ly 30 mm Hg without an apparent reason. The possibility of an
a steam ejector and a surface condenser. The condenser con- unscheduled unit shutdown was high.
denses steam and hydrocarbon, and cools noncondensable gases
and steam to the next-stage ejectors. Components of this type of The importance of offgas analysis. At first, an air leak-
vacuum system require relatively low maintenance and are easy age was suspected to be the cause of the high offgas rate from
to put into operation. The alternative to a steam ejector is the far the fourth stage. An initial sample (shown in TABLE 1) revealed
more complex liquid seal ring compressor. the presence of nitrogen (N2 ) and oxygen (O2 ), although
Despite being a long-established way to produce vacuum,
multistage ejector condenser systems are intricate; problems
can arise from process operations, changing crude slates, steam Steam Steam Steam
quality, mechanical problems and fouling. Lack of understand-
ing of the operating principles makes it possible to view these J = 1, 2, 3
Steam Steam Steam
systems as a “black box.”
E = 1, 2, 3
Here, a case study is presented wherein the operation of a J = 4, 5, 6
“A train”
vacuum tower—one that otherwise would have needed to be E = 4, 5, 6
shut down—was corrected. It highlights the importance of un- To seal drum
derstanding the entire vacuum system, of field observation and
of the interpretation of operating vs. design data. Some basic First stage
To seal drum
concepts to help understand and troubleshoot a steam ejector Second stage Steam Steam Steam
Third stage J = 7, 8, 9
vacuum system are presented. Fourth stage “B train”
E = 7, 8, 9
Process gas

System background. The crude vacuum tower overhead To wet gas

system is composed of 12 steam ejectors and 12 condensers, as compressor
shown in FIG. 1. Each ejector has a dedicated surface condenser. To seal drum Sample
Equalization line

The first-stage ejectors are close-coupled to the vacuum Steam Steam Steam point
tower and work in parallel. They are directly connected to the J = 10, 11, 12
tower discharging to the three respective first-stage condensers. “C train”
E = 10, 11, 12
Each first-stage ejector/condenser was designed for one third
of the total design load. There are three trains, each compris-
ing second, third and fourth stages. The vapors from the three To seal drum
first-stage condensers combine in a common header before go-
FIG. 1. Vacuum tower overhead system.
ing to the second-stage ejectors (one in each train). Condensed
Hydrocarbon Processing | FEBRUARY 201659
 Process Engineering and Optimization

these were not in a 4:1 ratio (even accounting for the CO2 for- sequently generated in the ejector suction chamber pulls the
mation). The samples were taken in stainless steel cylinders, process load and the resulting mixture, still at supersonic veloc-
which could cause the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) to mask the ity, enters the diffuser. In its converging section, velocity is con-
presence of O2 in the offgas, as shown in Eq. 1: verted to pressure as the cross-sectional area decreases. Past the
throat, as vapor flows from sonic to subsonic, pressure is hugely
H2S + O2 → H2O + S0(s) (1)
increased and velocity drops to a subsonic level.1 This transition
Whenever exposure to H2S can take place (e.g., while per- from critical flow to subcritical flow is called the “sonic boost.”
forming a pressure survey or collecting samples), appropriate The ejector is designed to work in this critical mode of opera-
personal protection equipment is required. tion. In the diffuser-diverging section, velocity continues to be
The operator collected new offgas samples, using a plastic converted into pressure as the cross-sectional area increases,
syringe. Gas chromatography analyses did not indicate any even if the sonic boost is lost. This is called “velocity boost.”
considerable air leakage that could contribute to the high off- The steam nozzle throat is an orifice designed for critical
gas flowrate. Most of the detected N2 was calculated to come flow; therefore, steam pressure and temperature define the
from instrument purges. flowrate through the nozzle. The throat is designed to pass a
A common source of seal drum offgas is residual propane specific steam mass flow. Wet steam can limit the required steam
and butane, either from crude leaking into a vacuum tower flow through the nozzle, and accelerated droplets can erode the
pumparound stream, or from poor stripping of vacuum tower nozzle and/or the diffuser, leading to poor performance.
feed. However, the amount of olefins in the seal drum offgas The manufacturer will provide the performance curve that
indicated that the vapor load to the ejectors was almost exclu- indicates ejector inlet pressure as a function of ejector suction
sively due to thermal cracking (high furnace coil temperature gas mass load (as water equivalent in lb/hr). The same curve
and residence time in the bottom of the tower). also indicates the design motive steam conditions (temperature
While collecting the samples, another important fact was and pressure), cooling water supply temperature and the ejec-
noticed. Four feet of stainless steel tubing was used to connect tor’s maximum discharge pressure (MDP).
the syringe to the process pipe (FIG. 1 indicates sample point lo- Ejector suction pressure will follow the operating curve
cation). Between samples, offgas cooled in the stagnant tubing. (i.e., if gas load increases, then so does the suction pressure),
When the second sample was collected, steam condensate was and it should be, but is not always, independent of discharge
drawn into the syringe, which indicated that part of the high off- pressure until the MDP is reached. The ejector cannot oper-
gas rate was due to problems with the fourth-stage condensers ate properly above its MDP. The ejector will typically make a
not being able to efficiently condense ejector motive steam. surging sound. The ejector manufacturers term this improper
operation “being forced out of critical flow.” The steam and gas
The steam ejector, demystified. An ejector is really a com- flowing through the ejector is no longer dropping from sonic
pressor. It converts the enthalpy of motive steam to supersonic to subsonic velocity in the appropriate portion of the ejector’s
velocity through an adiabatic expansion. The low pressure con- diffuser. The compression ratio of the ejector will drop (for ex-
ample, from six-to-one to two-to-one). Performance will break,
TABLE 1. Gas chromatography analyses of offgas samples and the ejector suction pressure will increase sharply and may
Stainless steel Plastic syringe
be unstable. In general, all upstream ejector stages will subse-
Components cylinder analysis, %mol analysis, %mol quently break performance.
Methane 21 28.6
The system in this study was designed for cooling water at
88°F and process gas outlet at 96°F (8°F approach). These con-
Ethane/ethylene 9.5/1.3 14.8/1.8 ditions allow for a low design maximum discharge pressure of
Propane/propylene 6.7/2.9 10.5/4.5 67 mm Hg. However, as the bundle fouls and/or cooling wa-
Butanes/butenes 0.5/2.5 5.5/4.1 ter flowrate drops, the approach increases, and this results in a
much higher process gas outlet temperature of 108°F to 113°F.
Pentanes and heavier 3.3 2.9
When that happens, the vapor pressure of water becomes a ma-
N2 13.7 2.2 jor contributor to the operating pressure of the system, which
O2 1.3 0.5 will eventually lead to jet breakage in the first stage, as it exceeds
H 2S 31.5 21.3 its MDP of 67 mm Hg.
TABLE 2 shows the relationship between process gas out-
H2, CO and CO2 5.8 3.3
let temperature and the pressure contribution of water alone.
Note that, as the temperature increases, the margin to the MDP
TABLE 2. Outlet temperature vs. water saturation temperature shrinks, and any additional process load will throw the ejec-
Gas outlet temperature, °F Water partial pressure, mm Hg1 tors out of their stable operation curve. Typically, 5 mm Hg to
8 mm Hg is added to the condenser gas outlet pressure to es-
96 (design) 43.5
timate the ejector discharge pressure, which accounts for the
101 50.6 pressure drop across the tube bundle. This explains why the
106 58.7 condensers, even when in reasonable condition, would cause the
111 67.92 vacuum to break during the hot months of the year.
1
From steam table
The previously mentioned MDP is low for an ejector on the
2
Higher than MDP US Gulf Coast (USGC), where the temperature of cooling water
60FEBRUARY 2016 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 Process Engineering and Optimization

in the summer can exceed 90°F. Performance break is, therefore,
not an exception, but is almost unavoidable during hot, humid
days at a USGC refinery.
Ejectors and condensers are interactive. When evaluating
a vacuum system, condensers and ejectors are highly interdepen-
dent and should be analyzed altogether to pinpoint the source
of the malfunction. Ejector surging can be caused by excessive
discharge pressure—for example, by deteriorated performance
of a downstream condenser, or by an extra-system noncondens-
able load. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind some of the
most common factors that can impact condenser performance:
• Cooling water supply temperature and flowrate
• Noncondensable load
• Condensable load
• Fouling
• Drain leg (insufficient height or plugged).
The progressive loss of vacuum system overhead capac-
ity largely appears to be a function of fouling, especially in the
first-stage condenser. Measured shell side ∆P was 6 mm Hg to
plugged. A new bundle was installed, and the system then per-
formed far better.
Details for vacuum system condensers. Proprietary de-
signs attempt to minimize shell-side pressure drop, eliminate
the potential for tubes blanketing by noncondensable gases,
achieve proper separation from condensate and offgases, and
provide extra cooling for noncondensable load to the next stage.
An interesting feature present in some condenser designs is
the air baffle. The air or vapor baffle extends along the length
of the shell and fits snugly against it. Leaf seals (FIG. 3 in red)
are used to prevent leakage around the air baffle. That way, the
upstream ejector discharge stream goes through the bundle be-
35 1,000
Fourth-stage discharge pressure Fourth-stage C-train
Offgas flowrate out of service
850
30
700

Offgas rate, Mscfd

8 mm Hg, in agreement with what is expected for the first-stage Pressure, psig
condensers. This may indicate that the loss of heat transfer ef- 25 550
ficiency is on the water side, rather than on the process side. A
cooling water survey using an ultrasonic flowmeter indicated a 400
reduction of 25% in water flow compared to design rates for the 20
first-stage condensers. This reduction, in addition to high cool- 250
ing water supply temperature and the low design MDP, resulted
in poor performance and erratic operation during the summer.
15 100
The last stage of the vacuum system in FIG. 1 flows to the suc- 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
tion drum of a wet gas compressor, through about 1,000 ft of Days
4-in. piping. This line, in spite of its length, was adequately sized
FIG. 2. High offgas load and high discharge pressure for the fourth
for the normal cracked gas flow that is reasonably dry. Flowrate
stage of compression.
had been increasing, and the high offgas rate was above the me-
ter range (> 900 Mscfd). FIG. 2 shows trends in the offgas flow-
rate. As discussed previously, major air leakage was ruled out
based on low N2 content.
The cooling water outlet temperature from the fourth-stage
condenser on the C-train (E-12 in FIG. 1) was too high (above
160°F), which would cause hardness deposits in the tubes.
Cooling water flowrate was only 10% of design value.
The fourth-stage condenser on the C-train was performing
poorly, and most of the upstream ejector (Ejector J-12) discharge
stream was exiting the condenser with minimum condensation
taking place. The high gas rate was building backpressure in the
long line to the wet gas compressor suction, ultimately exceeding
the MDP for the fourth-stage ejectors (FIG. 2), causing the whole
vacuum system to underperform and the vacuum tower to oper-
ate above design pressure.
The C-train fourth-stage condenser and ejector were taken
out of service. Immediately, the pressure in the discharge of the
fourth stage decreased from approximately 32 psig to 18 psig.
The offgas flowrate dropped from above range (> 900 Mscfd)
to approximately 450 Mscfd. Note: In FIG. 1, there is an equal-
ization line connecting the suction side of all fourth-stage ejec-
tors. The equalization line allowed us to isolate the previously
mentioned fourth stage and replace the bundle while still using
the second and third stage in the C-train.
The condenser’s U-tube bundle was found to be severely
FIG. 3. Condenser scheme showing air baffle and leaf seals.
fouled. Approximately 10% of the U-bends were completely
Hydrocarbon Processing | FEBRUARY 201661
 Process Engineering and Optimization
fore leaving the condenser vapor outlet nozzle. Without the air
baffle, the inlet stream would short-cut the condenser, going
directly to the condenser vapor outlet nozzle and overloading
the downstream ejector.
The air baffle is located directly above the gas outlet nozzle
(FIG. 3 and FIG. 4). A temperature survey of the entire length of
the shell side directly below the air baffle location revealed that
at least five out of 12 condensers had problems related to the
mechanical integrity of the leaf seals. Seal problems can be gen-
erated by poor installation of the bundle into the shell (bend-
ing the air baffle), corrosion due to wrong metallurgy of the
air baffle, leaf seals being too narrow, and not providing proper
sealing against the exchanger shell.2
The leak around the air baffle increases the load to be han-
dled by the downstream ejector, and it can eventually compro-
mise the performance of the entire vacuum system:
• Hot gas leakage can occur, indirectly increasing the
saturated condensable loading
• The overall higher gas rate exiting the condenser may
be higher than the downstream ejector capacity at the
condenser original design pressure
• Condenser pressure will increase, and this can be higher
than the MDP of the upstream ejector.
For the case described here, although the leak by itself was
not responsible for performance issues, it was a contributing
factor. Observing the leaf seal deficiency helps to develop the
scope for the next outage. The leaf seal should be a flexible
grade of 316 stainless steel (SS)—never brass or bronze.
FIG. 4. Temperature readings indicating leak around air baffle.
FIG. 5. Thermal scan indicating flooded condenser.
62FEBRUARY 2016 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
The barometric leg (drain from condenser to seal drum) is
another common problem. Height must be sufficient to avoid
flooding by taking into consideration the differential pressure
between the seal drum, the condenser and the liquid to be
drained (density and tendency to foam). The design requires a
minimum change in direction and absolutely no horizontal runs
(which creates “air pockets”).
The pipe configuration may have several 45° elbows due to
plant layout and/or available space. These elbows increase the
risk of deposits, such as salts from amines injected to neutral-
ize hydrogen chloride, wax formation and corrosion product
accumulation. Sludge that accumulates in the seal drum due to
biological corrosion is also a common source of poor seal leg
drainage. Good engineering practice is to construct the entire
seal leg out of 316 SS and not carbon steel (CS). It is also a good
practice to tape up all flanges.
The A-train second-stage condenser (E-4 in FIG. 1) was found
to be operating partially flooded on its shell side. FIG. 5 presents
an infrared scan of the condenser shell side showing that con-
densate level was approximately 50%. The resulting reduction
in the tube area available to condense the discharge of the up-
stream ejector increased the gas load to the downstream ejector.
The additional load was, especially during summer, above the
handling capacity, and the condenser pressure increased. The
resulting pressure would exceed the upstream ejector maximum
discharge pressure, and the ejector would “break performance.”
Forced out of critical flow, the second-stage ejector subsequent-
ly cascaded the effect back to the first-stage system.
A partially plugged barometric leg could be the source of the
problem. To test this hypothesis, a hose was connected to the
2-in. block valve (with a blind flange), as shown in FIG. 6, to help
drain the condenser to the seal drum.
Water was used to fill the hose and push air pockets in the
hose all the way to the condenser. After the line was filled with
water, the condenser started draining. Flooding disappeared
and first-stage ejectors stopped surging.
Another common cause of poor seal leg drainage and con-
densate backup are holes in the seal leg. Air draw through such
holes slows the drainage of water and oil from the condenser.
Leaks on the seal legs are indicated by cool spots on the legs
themselves. Air entering the vacuum inside the legs expands
and cools. In the US state of Louisiana, the humid air will con-
dense and visibly drip off the seal legs, indicating the exact lo-
cation of a leak. If a leak is inside the seal drum, then raising
the seal drum level will result in the restoration of drainage and
improved condenser performance.
Motive steam. Vacuum column operation can be negatively
impacted by poor motive steam conditions. If the steam pres-
sure upstream of the ejector steam chest falls below the design
value, then the motive nozzle will pass less steam. A reduced
steam rate to the ejector may not be enough to compress the
process fluid from the ejector suction to the discharge pressure.
Similarly, a high degree of superheat drops the steam density.
Less steam will then pass through the motive nozzle and impact
the ejector compression capacity.
Conversely, motive steam pressure above the ejector design
will cause excessive steam to pass through the motive nozzle,
and less process fluid will be pulled through the ejector suction.1
 Process Engineering and Optimization

The same steam header serves all 12 ejectors (FIG. 1), and the The first-stage condensers (E-1, E-2 and E-3) were designed
steam header conditions are controlled with a pressure-reduc- for 10,000 gpm of cooling water. This cooling water cascades
ing valve and a temperature controller to inject steam conden- to the next stages, as depicted in FIG. 7. As fouling and scaling
sate and control the superheat degree. take place, the first-stage ejector will be the first to be impacted.
Knowing that some condensers were fouled and that cooling As the cooling water flowrate drops, condenser process outlet
water flowrate was below the design flowrate, the pressure con- temperature will increase. Due to the low maximum design dis-
troller setpoint was stepped down from the design value and the charge pressure, jet performance may break.
system was observed. Reducing steam flow to the ejectors un- In an attempt to recover performance in the first-stage ejector,
loads the cooling requirements of the condensers. Steam pres- the cooling water bypass valve would be partially opened (FIG. 7).
sure was reduced by 3% stepwise. Steam pressure was optimized Opening the bypass valve restored cooling water rates to the
at 6% lower than the design pressure. No major improvement in first-stage condenser, but starved the subsequent stages. Low
operating conditions was observed, but unloading the condens- cooling water velocities in the tube side further promoted scaling
ers also led to approximately 3,500 lb/hr in steam savings. and tube plugging, as observed in the fourth-stage condensers.
Motive steam supply lines for the system were not properly Design cooling water rates for first-stage condensers could be
insulated, which led to condensate formation upstream of the achieved by using the cooling water bypass valve, but, even at
ejector nozzles. Steam condensate not only reduces ejector that rate, performance of the first stage would not be restored.
compression capacity, but it can also cause erosion of the steam Cold-side “temperature approach” (process vapor outlet minus
nozzle and diffuser throat, which ultimately will cause the ejec- cooling water inlet temperatures) would be an excessive 20°F.
tor to not perform as expected. Steam headers should be insu- This was a clear indication that the condensers were severely im-
lated all the way to the ejector. pacted by poor heat transfer coefficients due to the fouling layer.
As suggested in the literature,3 regardless of what tempera- To slow the rate of fouling in the condensers, N2 should be
ture and pressure readings indicate in a steam header, it is always blown through the tubes twice per week, and the condensers
advisable to check steam quality as closely as possible to each should be back-flushed once per week.
ejector. By opening a bleeder valve and observing the jet, the
following can indicate steam quality:
• Superheated steam—jet is invisible for some distance
beyond the bleed
• Steam close to saturation or with slugs of water—jet
becomes visible a short distance beyond the bleed, and
periodic puffs of white are visible.
When connections are available, a test can be executed to de-
termine if the nozzle is damaged. It is recommended to install a
pressure gauge on the inlet to the downstream condenser, on the
inlet of motive steam, and on the ejector inlet nozzle. The steam
valve can then be closed, reducing the pressure to approximately
70% of design. If the pressure in the inlet of the ejector decreases,
then the motive steam nozzle will need replacement. However, if
the pressure downstream of the ejector decreases, then it means
that the condenser was unloaded, indicating a fouled condenser.
As mentioned previously, the steam nozzle throat is an ori-
FIG. 6. Valve used to install a drain hose parallel to the partially
fice designed for critical flow. Observing the reduction in steam plugged barometric leg.
usage when removing the ejector from service gives an excellent
indication as to whether the ejector is consuming more or less
than the design amount.
The total motive steam consumption for the entire vacuum E = 4, 5, 6
E = 1, 2, 3
system (12 ejectors) was approximately 10% above the design “A train”
Cooling water
value, an indication that threads on the nozzle or the extension Cooling water bypass valve
in the steam chest may be damaged and/or the nozzle itself has
Cooling water return header

supply
eroded due to wet steam. Problems with the nozzle threaded
connection can cause a considerable amount of steam to leak
and bypass the nozzle. This leaking steam does not provide any E = 7, 8, 9
“B train”
compression work and, indeed, it will add to the ejector suction First stage
load, deteriorating the system performance. Second stage
Third stage
Fourth stage
Cooling water system fouling. The cooling water supplied E = 10, 11, 12
“C train”
to the surface condensers comes at the end of the plantwide
distribution header, where minimum differential pressure exists
(low supply and high return pressures) impacting the cooling
FIG. 7. Schematic of the cooling water sides of the surface condensers.
water flows. Thus, fouling deposits are likely.
Hydrocarbon Processing | FEBRUARY 201663
 Process Engineering and Optimization
TABLE 3. Slop oil lab analysis results
Samples Sample 1 Sample 2
SimDist IBP 188°F 350°F
SimDist 5% 306°F 420°F
SimDist 10% 380°F 458°F
SimDist 20% 479°F 507°F
Specific gravity 0.88 0.88
Overall system approach. Besides mechanical problems, foul-
ing issues and design limitations, evaluating the whole system
(starting at the bottom of the crude distillation tower) can reveal
additional options to reduce the load in the already-impaired
ejector vacuum system. One approach to this troubleshooting is
to make a process variable change and evaluate the benefits. Some
of the trials conducted are outlined in the following paragraphs.
Hydrocarbon carryunder from bottom of atmospheric
crude distillation tower. Any light ends carryunder will put
more load in the overhead vacuum system. Special samples
from slop oil (collected from the seal drum) indicate the pres-
ence of low-boiling-range components (Sample 1 in TABLE 3).
Stripping steam to the bottom of the atmospheric distillation
tower was adjusted. There was no appreciable gain in vacuum
performance, as the test was performed during winter and the
vacuum system was not overloaded; however, the slop oil dis-
tillation data showed a reduction in light ends components
(Sample 2 in TABLE 3).
Comparing samples of the top pumparound and seal oil in-
dicated that most of the seal oil is generated by entrainment at
the top of the vacuum tower. The reason for the entrainment is
unknown, although it may be contributing 10% of the load to the
first-stage jets. Typically, vacuum towers with jets on top have
demisters to eliminate this entrainment. The authors’ experi-
ence with such demisters is not positive—they foul, create a high
pressure drop and often fail.
Vacuum tower bottom. High residence time and high bot-
tom temperature will lead to more cracking (cracking is a func-
tion of time and temperature). A reduction in the tower bottom
level and tower bottom temperature using a recycled quench
stream will help. As a general rule, 680°F is a good starting tem-
perature. Sometimes, due to design limitations, the quench
control valve goes wide open, and a bottom temperature target
cannot be achieved. At this point, a low residence time will be
important to avoid cracking.
Velocity steam in vacuum tower heater. It is recommended
to increase steam to the heater passes, using as a reference at least
1.5 lb of steam per bbl of vacuum heater charge. The objective is
to limit the peak temperature in the heater coil and, therefore, to
minimize cracking. This also contributes to the reduction in coke
deposition in furnace passes. A good strategy is to inject as much
steam into each pass as possible, to the limit of pass valve output.
Initially, as velocity steam was increased, some improvement
was observed in the vacuum system, indicating a reduction of
cracked gas make. However, a further increase caused the system
pressure to begin deteriorating, due to the vacuum system being
overloaded with additional steam.
Vacuum tower heater outlet temperature. High coil outlet
temperature increases cracked gas production. At some point, a
64FEBRUARY 2016 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
reduction in furnace outlet temperature does not provide a sub-
stantial reduction of cracked gas production, and heavy vacuum
gasoil ends up in the residue.
A noncondensable load that is higher than the design load
can severely impair a vacuum system: as noncondensable gases
increase, saturated vapors discharging from the condenser in-
crease. The downstream ejector may not be able to cope with
the additional load, which will lead to an increase in the con-
denser pressure.4
The ejector before the condenser may reach its MDP. As a
consequence, the first-stage ejector will break operation, system
operations will destabilize and the tower pressure will rise. Ad-
justments to the furnace outlet temperature should take place
after having the use of velocity steam is maximized, as previously
described. Reducing furnace outlet temperature did not provide
considerable relief to the vacuum system during the trial period.
Stripping steam to vacuum tower and side strippers.
Stripping steam should be kept at an optimum to fulfill product
specifications. Too much stripping steam may not have an influ-
ence on product quality, but it may adversely affect the vacuum
system by increasing the ejector load.
Takeaway. Troubleshooting steam ejector vacuum systems is a
challenging activity, and the ejector-condenser interdependen-
cy adds to the complexity.5 In general, there are several possible
causes for a particular performance problem.
As described here, troubleshooting will require exploratory
activity where a step change is made and the impact is observed.
Data collection is critical for performing appropriate trouble-
shooting. It is not recommended to jump to early conclusions
(e.g., a surging first-stage ejector may be caused by a flooded
second-stage condenser). Pressure and temperature surveys are
a good starting point for determining the cause of the problem,
but they must be properly interpreted to be useful.
Inspection records and turnaround reports should be gath-
ered and unit operation should be discussed with operations
personnel. Operational details include findings from outages,
modification history, new chemicals being used and crude slate
history. Finally, design data evaluation may reveal inherent sys-
tem limitations.
LITERATURE CITED
1
Martin, G. R., J. R. Lines and S. W. Golden, “Understand vacuum system funda-
mentals,” Hydrocarbon Processing, October 1994.
2
Putman, R. E., Steam Surface Condensers, ASME Press, December 2000.
3
Unique Systems Inc., “Installation, operation, maintenance and troubleshooting
of ejector systems,” Bulletin PVS-80025121-ESM.
4
Lines, J. R. and R. T. Smith, “Ejector system troubleshooting,” The International
Journal of Hydrocarbon Engineering, 1997.
5
Lieberman, N. P., “Troubleshooting vacuum systems,” John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken, New Jersey.
NORMAN LIEBERMAN is a field troubleshooter for refinery process problems.
He graduated with a degree in chemical engineering in 1964 from Cooper Union
for the Advancement of Science and Art in New York. His company provides
retrofit designs for refinery vacuum systems. Additionally, Mr. Lieberman has
been instructing refinery troubleshooting seminars since 1983. More than 18,800
technicians and engineers have attended his 860 seminars.
RODRIGO CARDOSO is a lead process engineer for the Phillips 66 Westlake
Refinery. He has 10 years of experience as a process engineer and has worked
as a chemical expert for the federal police in Brazil. Mr. Cardoso holds a
BS degree in chemical engineering from Rio de Janeiro Federal University
in Brazil and an MS degree from the French Institute of Petroleum in France.