Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Petroleum Economist
Publication Agreement Number 40034765
Printed in U.S.A
Houston Office: 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1020, Houston, Texas 77046 USA
Mailing Address: P. O. Box 2608, Houston, Texas 77252-2608 USA
Phone: +1 (713) 529-4301 Fax: +1 (713) 520-4433
E-mail: Editorial@HydrocarbonProcessing.com
www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com
Publisher Bill Wageneck Bill.Wageneck@GulfPub.com
EDITORIAL
Editor Stephany Romanow
Reliability/Equipment Editor Heinz P. Bloch
Process Editor Adrienne Blume
Technical Editor Billy Thinnes
Online Editor Ben DuBose
Associate Editor Helen Meche
European Editor Tim Lloyd Wright
Contributing Editor Loraine A. Huchler
Contributing Editor William M. Goble
Contributing Editor Y. Zak Friedman
Contributing Editor ARC Advisory Group
MAGAZINE PRODUCTION
DirectorProduction and Operations Sheryl Stone
Manager Editorial Production Angela Bathe
Artist/Illustrator David Weeks
ManagerAdvertising Production Cheryl Willis
ADVERTISING SALES
See Sales Offices page 88.
CIRCULATION +1 (713) 520-4440
DirectorCirculation Suzanne McGehee
E-mail circulation@gulfpub.com
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Subscription price (includes both print and digital versions): United
States and Canada, one year $199, two years $359, three years $469.
Outside USA and Canada, one year $239, two years $419, three
www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com
Select 151 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
Engineering advanced
2011 Chemstations, Inc. All rights reserved. | CMS-322-1 9/11
We make your challenges our challenges.
To see how CHEMCAD has helped advance engineering
for our customers, visit chemstations.com/demos16.
David Hill, CHEMCAD Support Expert
Need to predict emissions from a scrubbing
column and display real-time data? Were on it.
2011 AIChE Annual Meeting
October 16-21 | Minneapolis, MN
2011 ChemShow
November 1-3 | New York, NY
InChem Tokyo 2011
November 16-18 | Tokyo, Japan
V
I
S
I
T
U
S
A
T
4
I
OCTOBER 2011 HydrocarbonProcessing.com
|
|
|
>
>
>
>
:
>
>
:
>
>
|
|
|
T
o
f
i
n
d
a
n
A
l
l
i
e
d
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
,
v
i
s
i
t
:
w
w
w
.
f
l
e
x
i
t
a
l
l
i
c
.
c
o
m
o
r
c
a
l
l
U
S
1
.
2
8
1
.
6
0
4
.
2
4
0
0
:
U
K
+
4
4
(
0
)
1
2
7
4
8
5
1
2
7
3
.
LIKE
GOLD. But more valuable.
No matter what the application, the
THERMICULITE
is non-toxic,
non-hazardous and biodegradable. Its patented formulation delivers fast and highly
effective results. So, less time is needed to prepare equipment for entry while safety
concerns associated with cleaning, degassing and environmental compliance are
simply eliminated. Its the naturally safe solution that does it all in a single step.
Zyme-Flow
Select 85 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
HEINZ P. BLOCH, RELIABILITY/EQUIPMENT EDITOR
HPIN RELIABILITY
HB@HydrocarbonProcessing.com
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2011
I
9
A refinery engineer was in a quandary over requests from a
project group. High volume/pressure/temperature pumps in
hydrocarbon service were involved and the refinerys standards
had, in 2007, been changed so as to avoid purchasing pumps
that might not operate well in the lower flow region. The engi-
neer asked if it was really practical to insist on accepting only
pumps with an N
sss
(meaning suction specific speed) below
9,000, although decades ago his company had allowed pumps
with N
sss
values up to 12,000. But first, a greatly simplified
introduction to N
sss
and its importance.
Note: The pump suction specific speed (N
ss
or N
sss
) differs
from the pump specific speed parameter, N
s
. Suction specific
speed is calculated by the straightforward mathematical expression:
(1)
N
ss
=
(r/min)[(gal/min)/eye]
1
2
(NPSH
r
)
3
4
In Eq. 1, both the flowrate and net positive suction head
required (NPSH
r
) pertain to conditions observed at 100% of
design flowat the best efficiency point (BEP)on the maxi-
mum available impeller diameter for that particular pump.
The higher the design suction specific speed or N
sss
, the
closer the point for troublesome internal flow recirculation
to BEP. Similarly, the closer the internal recirculation capac-
ity is to BEP, the higher the hydraulic efficiency. Pump sys-
tem designers are tempted to aim for highest possible effi-
ciencythus, high suction specific speed. However, such
designs might result in systems with restricted pump operat-
ing range. If operated inside the restricted (high recirculation)
range, then disappointing reliability and frequent failures will
be experienced.
Although more precise calculations are available, trend
curves for probable NPSH
r
for minimum recirculation and zero
cavitation-erosion in water (Fig. 1) are sufficiently accurate to
warrant our attention.
1
The NPSH
r
needed for zero damage to
impellers and other pump components may be many times that
published in the manufacturers literature. The manufacturers
NPSH
r
plot (lowermost curve in Fig. 1) is based on observing
a 3% drop in discharge head or pressure; at Q=100%, we note
NPSH
r
= 100% of the manufacturers claims. Unfortunately,
whenever this 3% fluctuation occurs, some damage may already
be in progress. Assume the true NPSH
r
is as shown in Fig. 1 and
aim to provide a net positive suction head available (NPSH
a
)
in excess of this true NPSH
r
.
1
Irving Taylor compiled his general observations and alerted
pump specialists to this fact.
1
Taylor cautioned against con-
sidering his curves as totally accurate and mentioned that
the demarcation line between low- and high-suction specific
speeds was somewhere between 8,000 and 12,000. Many data
points were taken after 1980 and point to 8,500 or 9,000 as
numbers for concern. If pumps with N
ss
numbers higher than
9,000 are being operated at flows much higher or lower than
the BEP, then their life expectancy or repair-free operating
time will be reduced.
In the decades after Taylors presentation, controlled testing
was done in many industrialized countries. The various findings
have been reduced to relatively accurate calculations that were
later published by the Hydraulic Institute.
2
Relevant summaries
can also be found in Ref. 3. Calculations based on Refs. 2 and
3 determine minimum allowable flow as a percentage of BEP.
Note: Again, recirculation differs from cavitationa term
that describes vapor bubbles that collapse. Cavitation damage
is often caused by low NPSH
a
. Such cavitation-related damage
starts on the low-pressure side and proceeds to the high-pressure
side. An impeller requires a certain NPSH; this NPSH
r
is simply
the pressure needed at the impeller inlet (or eye) for relatively
vapor-free flow.
Suction specific speed choices have consequences
0
0 20 40 60
Q, %
Trend of probable NPSH
r
for zero cavitation-erosion
Various pumps (high head) = 650 ft (~200 m), rst stage
High head high suct. specic speed
High head low SSS
Low-moderate head high SSS
Low-moderate head low SSS
NPSH
r
for 3% head drop
H
,
%
N
P
S
H
r
,
%
80 100 120
25
50
75
100
0
100
200
300
400
H-Q
Pump manufacturers usually plot only the NPSH
r
trend
associated with the lower most curve. At that time, a head
drop or pressure fluctuation of 3% exists and cavitation
damage is often experienced.
FIG. 1
HPIn Reliability continued on page 88
Put AMETEKs new IPS-4 on the job.
High performance, low maintenance
and now available in Infrared!
Put next-generation technology to work to verify the quality of your
feedstocks, intermediates, final products and more. The new IPS-4
spectrophotometer detects and quantifies thousands of chemical species
up to eight at once. With an IP-65-compliant housing and a 2-year-life
lamp, the IPS-4 needs no annual maintenance. So its perfect for outdoors,
next to inaccessible areas along your process.
Just 31 inches wide, the IPS-4 is packed with features including 22-key keypad, analog
signal output, 3 digital signal ports, high-speed Ethernet port, plug-and-play/web-based
queries, alarm contacts, RS232 and RS485 ports. Plus, its multilingual interface includes
English, French, German, Russian and Spanish. The IPS-4 is available in UV/Vis and NIR
versions with fully integrated sampling systems.
AMETEKs entire family of spectrophotometer-based analyzers is proven in applications
from chemicals and petrochemicals to pharmaceuticals, food and metals processing.
To learn more call 412-828-9040 or visit our web site.
U
V
/V
is a
n
d
N
IR
S
P
E
C
T
R
O
P
H
O
T
O
M
E
T
E
R
S
W
A
N
T
E
D
F
O
R
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
E
N
G
IN
E
E
R
IN
G
.
P
lan
t/p
ro
cess en
g
in
eer seeks h
ig
h
-p
erfo
rm
an
ce
sp
ectro
p
h
o
to
m
eter fo
r lo
n
g
-term
em
p
lo
ym
en
t. M
u
st b
e co
m
p
act, ru
g
g
ed
an
d
m
easu
re m
u
ltip
le
co
m
p
o
n
en
ts sim
u
ltan
eo
u
sly.
www.ametekpi.com
Select 56 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
TIM LLOYD WRIGHT, EUROPEAN EDITOR
HPIN EUROPE
tim.wright@gulfpub.com
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2011
I
11
Biofuels are growing up in Europe. From an exotic outlet for
European Union (EU) agricultural product in the 1990s, to a
boutique fuel for the green consumer in the 2000s, now todays
industry has filled out and bulked up. In 2011, biofuels are a
globally traded business; this industry has transformed some
of its pioneering suppliers into household names. But many
more European startups lie bloodied by the wayside or limping
along the sidewalk.
Manufacturers, suppliers, consumers, some non-govern-
mental organizations (NGOs) and even pure-play fossil fuels
suppliers have had their share of growing pains during the rapid
rise of the market. Many biodiesel and bioethanol manufactur-
ers in Europe have exited the industry or have gone bankrupt.
Growing pains. Now, the European industry stands at a
milestone, warily eyeing billion-dollar investments in equatorial
regions, while nursing the bruises of a less competitive domestic
industry. The industry suffers from over-investment, says
Andrew Owens, chairman and co-founder of the UKs Green-
ergy, a prime example of a biofuels distributor that has suc-
ceeded in the green industry. During the mid-2000s, credit
was easy and too much was built, he says. The industry still
has a hangover from that time.
Dieter Bockey, spokesperson for the Union for the Promo-
tion of Oilseeds and Protein Plants in Germany, identifies credit
conditions as part of the cause of the rapid growth of the indus-
try. In 2006, everyone could finance a plant, he says. But
now in Germany, several hundred thousand tons of production
have been idle for several years now.
Legislation. Another pillar of the industrys growth is that
phenomenon without which Greenergy might never have made
its astonishing journey from being the new kid in the 1990s,
to its position today as the UKs third largest private company,
the tax incentive. When the consulting group Arthur D. Little
reported, in the early stages of the development of the 1997 Fuel
Quality Directive, that when Sweden had used taxation policy
to steer its refiners into profitable, clean fuels production, the
detaxation of greener products was taken up with relish across
large parts of Europe. Article 16 of the European Energy Taxation
Directive allowed governments to exempt fuels, and the stimulus
this provided led many to conclude that there were sound reasons
to turn more of Europes agricultural product into biofuels. That
phase, which effectively afforded manufacturers a 10-year trade
wind, is now drawing to a close. The rules are clear, and the
general policy is to move from promoting biofuels with detaxa-
tion to mandating their use with quotas, says Bockey.
Two pieces of European rule-making are responsible for this.
The Renewable Energy Directive is a major policy initiative
currently being transposed into national laws in the member
states. In the UK, where it should enter fully into law by year
end, it calls for 15% of UK energy all energy, but specifically
10% of transport fuels, to be supplied from renewable sources
by 2020. Compared to initial ambitions for 20% biofuels in
2020, this goal has effectively been halved, and some of the
more ambitious biofuels champions have seen slower growth
as they realign their trajectory to a 10% share of the renewable
energy in the transport sector. The target includes second-
generation biofuels that can be double counted in the quota sys-
tem because they are derived from used oils, waste or residues.
Conventional biofuel producers perceive this next generation
of sources as further reducing the demand for rapeseed and soy
oils and sugar-derived ethanol.
Alongside the renewables directive are the greenhouse
gas (GHG) provisions of the Fuel Quality Directive. These
require fuel suppliers to reduce the lifecycle GHG lifecycle
emissions of products that they supply by 6% by 2020. In
July 2011, the European biofuels information initiative,
EurObservER, reported that biofuels sales grew by 1.7 mil-
lion tons/yr (1.7 MMtpy) to 13.9 MMtpy between 2009 and
2010. Of this total, 10.7 MMtpy is biodiesel and 2.9 MMtpy
is bioethanol.
Biodiesel. The European standard for biodiesel, EN590, lim-
its the blending of biodiesel to 7 vol%. Against a total market
for 209 MMtpy within the EU, that suggests a potential market
of 14 MMtpy. The Union zur Frderung von Oel- und Pro-
teinpflanzen e.V. (UFOP) reports the stark fact that European
production capacity, at 22.4 MMtpy, exceeds that by almost
10 MMtpy. The association is calling for B100 or B30 blends
to be made available for sale as a way to boost the European
industry, something that would also help fuel suppliers to hit
their own quotas.
Ethanol. In the ethanol market, a failure to meet even the
existing quotas, means that, this year, oil companies in Europe
will likely pay hundreds of millions of Euros in fines for failing
to blend sufficient biofuels into their products.
As I reported in May, a bungled introduction of E10 gaso-
line into the large German gasoline market means that the large
players will be paying the German government some 620 for
every 1,000 l when they are below their quota commitment.
Likewise, there are growing pains for German consumers due
to a lack of persuasive information on the suitability of high-
ethanol blends. Result: Many German drivers have persistently
avoided the blended fuels. But for German oil companies to
meet their quotas, they really need to attain 80%90% of the
total marketshare as E10.
Europe warily prepares to enter
a newly globalized age of biofuels
HPIN EUROPE
12
Other problems. Aside from the bottom line hit that the
German companies face this year, there have also been reputa-
tional issues to contend with. Consider Neste, the export-ori-
ented Finnish refinery. This refiner focused on reacting nimbly
to the need for on-spec bioblending components, as it once
did to US West Coast reformulated gasoline demand. But its
attempts to control its supply chain through involvement with
Indonesian palm oil producers have left it exposed to constant
criticism from environmentalists.
Despite its technical and commercial leadership in hydroge-
nated vegetable oil production, and its rapidly growing boiler-
plate capacity in Europe and Singapore, it is dogged by claims
that its oils resources are destructive to rainforest.
Greenpeace members wearing orangutan suits who leafleted
on the steps of the Rotterdam World Biofuels Markets confer-
ence this year may be tolerable for a fuels manufacturer at an
industry conference. But how easy it is for some of Europes
major consumer brands, including the airlines involved in
the fledgling biojet fuel market, to deal with environmentalist
criticism of what they see as their green initiatives remains to
be seen.
Article 17 of the Renewable Energy Directive requires the
whole supply chain of compliant fuels to be certified. Unsus-
tainable biofuels will simply not generate the tradable certifi-
cates that must be surrendered to avoid fines under the scheme.
Fuels that do not offer a 35% GHG gas saving compared to
gasoline or diesel will not count in the early phase of the legis-
lation. In 2017, this threshold will rise to 50% and, in 2018,
to 60% for new plants that come onstream after Jan. 1, 2017.
Faced with the difficulty of sourcing biofuels that meet
sustainability requirements, its understandable that large oil
companies should seek relationships with Brazilian companies.
Sugarcane ethanol from Brazil has lifecycle GHG emissions that
are hard to beat in an energy-dense liquid.
This year Shell announced a joint venture with Cosan, the
worlds largest manufacturer, which the companies value at some
$12 billion. Cosan represents the best entry to sustainable biofu-
els in the marketthe best entry of scale, Mark Williams, Shells
director of downstream operations, told the Financial Times,
adding, we will take the lowest-carbon, least-impact form of
ethanol and leverage that into a worldwide opportunity.
Its understandably difficult for some European manufactur-
ers to accept that their markets, stimulated by the European
tax-payer, will be supplied from outside of the EU. Get over it,
says Owens. Trade bodies are looking to be protectionist and
close the door and I think thats absolutely the wrong way to.
European producers need simply to ask, who are my custom-
ers, whats my customers, and how do I meet my customers
needs, he says.
Globalization. But as Shell spends its billions in the tropics
and Owens feeds UK cars on US cooking oil and Brazilian etha-
nol, the apparent winners in the European biofuels market will
need to contend with a political risk that could yet upset their
plans. Globalization is not a philosophy that has emerged com-
pletely unscathed from the restructuring of European economies
post-2008 crash. German and European politicians are no lon-
ger accessible like they once were to the biofuels industry. They
dont reply to letters, says Bockey. Their answer to requests to
support the European biofuels market with tax exemptions is to
ask why they should spend European money to line the pockets
of manufacturers in the US or South America.
European politicians dont necessarily have to put up further
tariffs to deter biofuel imports. There are less dense biofuels,
uneconomic to transport across the planet, than that are pro-
duced on small farms and at local council facilities from Sweden
in the North to Naples in the south.
Other options. Biogasmethane derived from biomass,
human, animal and household wastehas lifecycle GHG cre-
dentials that Brazilian biofuels can only dream of. Stimulating
the market leads to investments in the local neighborhood,
not the Atlantic Basin. Vehicles are becoming more efficient,
and the product is interchangeable with natural gas. Already,
European politicians have seen to it that there are some 7,000
sites in Germany manufacturing biomethane, and the Swedish
market grew 40% last year. Its becoming more important for
German agriculture than liquid biofuels, says Bockey. That may
overstate the importance of a market that is largely restricted to
a strip of Europe from Sweden, through Germany and the Alps,
to Italy in the south.
But manufacturers will be wise to remember that policy mak-
ers created the biofuels markets, and their influence, alongside
the power of the free market, will continue to shape it. HP
The author is HPs European Editor and is also a specialist in European distillate
markets. He has been active as a reporter and conference chair in the European
downstream industry since 1997, before which he was a feature writer and
reporter for the UK broadsheet press and BBC radio. Mr. Wright lives in Sweden
and is the founder of a local climate and sustainability initiative.
Select 152 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
Bringing energy and the environment into harmony.
automation@mustangeng.com
www.mustangeng.com
Select 100 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
HPIMPACT
19
fatalities. Despite an increase in fatalities in
2010 the ratios were only slightly reduced.
These observations led to the conclusion
that the overall improvement in the level of
lower severity safety indicators is not neces-
sarily leading to the prevention of the more
severe incidents that result in fatalities.
Fig. 2 details the causes of the 14 fatali-
ties recorded in 2010 and Fig. 3 shows the
percentage of the main causes over the last
five years and for all years since this infor-
mation was first collected in 1998.
The FAR (2.68 per 100 million hours
worked) and the total number of fatalities
(14) in 2010 were somewhat higher than
in 2009, which is of concern. Thirteen of
the 14 fatalities were associated with con-
tractors: five (~36%) were caused by burn
or electrical incidents, three (~21%) were
a result of confined space entry incidents,
two (14%) were caused by road accidents,
two (~14%) resulted from construction
and maintenance, one (~7%) resulted
from a fall from height, and one (~7%)
was classified as other.
For the last five-year period, construc-
tion/maintenance/operations activities and
road accidents remain the principal causes
of fatalities.
Libya at a glance
Wood Mackenzie recently undertook
an analysis of Libya, attempting to discern
how long it could take for a recovery of
oil and gas production. One of the key
issues in this respect is how quickly the
National Transitional Council (NTC)
can stabilize the security situation across
the country. Regardless, it is too early to
expect a material recovery in Libyas oil
and gas production.
Once a resolution is reached, we
believe it will take around 36 months for
oil production to recover to the pre-conflict
level of 1.6 million bpd, said Ross Cassidy,
a research analyst for Wood Mackenzie.
It may be possible, however, for up to
600,000 bpd to be restored within three
months assuming a swift end to hostilities,
and an early focus by the NTC and inter-
national community on stability and infra-
structure repair.
Wood Mackenzies global gas research
shows that gas production could take less
time to recover. Eight billion cubic meters
of gas per year is contracted from Libya to
Italy, with Eni as the primary off-taker sell-
ing to customers in Italy. The Greenstream
gas pipeline routes gas from Eni-operated
fields in Libya to Italy.
The Italian market is presently over-
supplied with gas and Eni has had to delay
off-take obligations from other suppliers
because insufficient market is available,
said Massimo Di-Odoardo, a European
gas analyst for Wood Mackenzie. During
the Greenstream outage, Eni increased off-
take of Russian pipe gas supplies therefore,
resumption of Greenstream will add gas
to an already oversupplied Italian market
with implications for downside price risk
and reduced flows of pipe gas from other
suppliers, notably Russia. It could take
as little as three months to restart Green-
stream supply and reach pre-crisis produc-
tion levels, however, the time to resume
supply will depend on local security and
the state of infrastructure.
Wood Mackenzie estimates that it will
take around 36 months for Libya to recover
its full production capacity, from when-
ever the current crisis reaches a resolution.
Velan Abv S.p.a.
Select 153 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
Rening
With over forty years of experience providing technology,
engineering, fabrication, and construction services,
Linde Process Plants, Inc. is in a unique position to be your
one-stop total optimized plant life-cycle solution provider.
Linde Process Plants, Inc.
6100 South Yale Avenue, Suite 1200, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136, USA
Phone: +1.918.477.1200, Fax: +1.918.477.1100, www.LPPUSA.com, e-mail: sales@LPPUSA.com
Cryo-Plus and Cryo-Flex
Liquid Recovery
Sulfur Recovery
Contaminant Removal
Sour Water Stripping
Off-Gas Treating
Amine Treating Units
Hydrotreating
Merox
Isomerization
Platformers
Continuous Catalyst Regeneration
A member of The Linde Group
Select 81 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
HPIMPACT
21
This depends on the scale of damage to oil
infrastructure being limited, swift removal
of international sanctions and the timely
return of international oil companies and
foreign workers. The Libya state-owned
NOC and the international industry will
have to work in partnership to repair facili-
ties, restart production and ramp-up to pre-
crisis rates. Production recovery is likely
to vary by basin. It will take longer in the
mature and complex Sirte Basin, in eastern
Libya, which is the foundation of Libyan
production, than in the more modern and
less complex fields of the Murzuk and Pela-
gian Shelf basins, of western Libya.
Substantial oil volumes could be back
in the market by late 2012, if a resolution
is achieved by the end of 2011. But the
recovery period will extend if production
remains shut-in for longer, as infrastructure
continues to deteriorate. There is unlikely
to be any increase in production or restart
of exports, while Libyas oil infrastructure
is open to sabotage by either side.
In the longer-term, the production
outlook will be largely dependent on the
nature of the outcome to the conflict and
its political fallout. Libya has the poten-
tial to produce up to 3 million bpd of oil
and become a major gas exporter through
partnering with the international industry,
which will bring finance, skills and tech-
nology to existing fields. But, for now, this
brighter future remains on hold until mili-
tary operations are concluded.
EU Parliament seeks
stricter greenhouse
gas rules
The European Parliament is calling
for fast action to reduce non-CO
2
cli-
mate forcers including black carbon soot,
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), methane and
ground-level ozone. The Parliaments call
for action came in a resolution passed this
week by an overwhelming majority (578 to
51 with 22 abstentions).
The resolution calls for a comprehensive
climate policy and stresses that in addition
to considering CO
2
emission reductions, it
should place emphasis on strategies that can
produce the fastest climate response, spe-
cifically strategies to cut black carbon soot,
HFCs, methane and ground-level ozone.
Because these climate forcers are short-
lived, reducing them produces a fast cli-
mate response, the Parliament said.
This is in contrast to long-lived CO
2
,
where a significant portion remains in the
atmosphere for thousands of years. Even
cutting CO
2
emissions to zero today will
not produce cooling for a thousand years,
officials said.
Cutting just two of the short-lived
climate forcers (black carbon soot and
ground-level ozone) can cut the rate of
global warming in half and by two-thirds
in the Arctic for the next 30 to 60 years,
assuming we also make progress on CO
2
,
said Durwood Zaelke, president of the
Institute for Governance and Sustainable
Development.
Emissions of black carbon and other
short-lived climate forcers can be reduced
quickly using existing technologies and
existing laws, according to a recent assess-
ment by the UN Environment Program and
World Meteorological Organization. The
EU resolution follows the first-ever ministe-
rial meeting on short-lived climate forcers
held September 12 in Mexico City. HP
Select 154 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
ABB Lifecycle Services. No one else knows your
systems like we do.
With over 30 years of automation system heritage, no one else knows your ABB
control systems better than we do! And with our outstanding lifecycle policies and
programs, system expertise, evolution options, value added services and determined
commitment to our customers, we can help you evolve to the latest in control system
technology with System 800xA. So, if you have an INFI90, MOD 300, Advant, DCI, or
other control system, we are here to make sure your control system will continue to
meet your business needs now and in the future. For more information:
www.abb.com/controlsystems
Select 76 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
HPINNOVATIONS
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2011
I
23
SELECTED BY HYDROCARBON PROCESSING EDITORS
Editorial@HydrocarbonProcessing.com
Mercaptan oxidation
in aqueous waste
Tert butyl mercaptan (TBM) and
dimethyl sulfide (DMS) are oxidized to
destruction in an aqueous-waste solution
containing methanol (MeOH), mono-
ethylene glycol (MEG), ammonia and
hydrocarbon sources using advanced oxi-
dation process (ozone, hydrogen peroxide
and uV). The aqueous solution in the trial
mimics the expected waste stream from a
gas-transport pipeline.
Background to the problem. PSE
Kinsale Energy required a process to
dispose of an aqueous waste stream in a
gas-storage project. Injection gas consti-
tutes odorized natural gas containing 4.7
ppmv and 1.3 ppmv of TBM and DMS
respectively. This is injected into an off-
shore reservoir during summer for winter
withdrawal. Withdrawn gas is expected
to be water saturated, and hydrate inhibi-
tors, MEG and MeOH, are injected. The
aqueous waste generated from the onshore
separator contains MEG/MeOH, TBM/
DMS and trace amounts of native petro-
leum species (alkanes, cyclics, phenol, etc.).
Initial treatment options. Due
to the uncertainty of produced water
flowrates (from 10 m
3
/d to 100 m
3
/d) and
the relatively low absolute value of flows,
disposal is best achieved by third-party
offsite disposal. Third-party water-treat-
ment plants cannot accept a waste with
mercaptan (thiol).
Pilot-trial results. Phase 1 of trials by
PSE Kinsale Energy was to establish back-
ground rates of MEG/MeOH destruction.
If the process achieved significant MEG/
MeOH destruction, disposal could be
implemented within the site and transport
infrastructure could be avoided. Batches
ran up to two hours. Achieved destruction
for samples of different chemical oxygen
demand (COD) concentrations, respec-
tively 98 mg/l and 35 mg/l, were 45% and
12%. This did not yield a viable disposal
process and was unexpected.
Phase 2 dosed mercaptan and petroleum
species into MEG/MeOH solutions. The
trials were located in a remote area due to
odor potency. Vials were opened under a
liquid surface to prevent gas escape, and
equipment was rinsed with hypochlorite
to destroy mercaptan odor. The trial equip-
ment was placed under a fume-hood with
an extract fan fitted with a KOH/KI-
impregnated activated-carbon filter.
In tests, mercaptan odor was not evident
after 30 minutes. Subsequent trials with
varying solution strengths confirmed this.
Increasing the background COD from 700
mg/l to 2,400 mg/l equivalent did not sig-
nificantly affect the mercaptan destruction
rate as detected by the trial operators, as
shown in Fig 1.
Attempts to identify a rate of reaction
were not possible; the reaction was quicker
than one simple residence time (50 liters
circulated at 1m
3
/h).
In Phase 3, two batches of a fully simu-
lated waste with petroleum species were
processed for 120 minutes. The analysis to
confirm odor destruction was three-fold:
Liquid samples were taken at time
intervals and analyzed for mercaptan.
After 120 minutes, the batch was
transferred to a barrel for headspace analysis
using graphite adsorption tubes.
Liquid samples were taken at time
intervals and subsequently sampled by an
odor panel. Mercaptan destruction was
confirmed within 60 minutes.
Conclusion. The advanced oxidation
process using ozone/uV rapidly and selec-
tively destroyed mercaptan in an aque-
ous waste containing MeOH, MEG and
petroleum species. Competitive behavior
was negligible despite the higher concentra-
tions of the potentially competing species.
Despite the inference in published research,
the oxidation process was not capable of
destroying MeOH or MEG in a time suit-
able for process implementation.
Select 1 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
Wastewater treatment
exceeds standards
The result of a four-year development
effort, GEs next-generation membrane
bioreactor (MBR) wastewater-treatment
technology, LEAPmbr, is claimed to offer
the lowest life-cycle costs available from any
MBR technology, while also being cost-
competitive with conventional treatment.
These cost savings, along with operational
simplicity and a compact footprint, derive
from innovations to the popular GE Zee-
Weed 500 MBR product line. Cost and
efficiency savings include:
A minimum 30% reduction in energy
costs
A 15% improvement in productivity
(greater water-treatment capacity)
A 50% reduction in membrane aera-
tion equipment and controls, leading to a
simpler design with lower construction,
installation and maintenance costs
A 20% reduction in physical footprint,
leading to further reduced construction and
installation costs, as well as lower ongoing
consumption of cleaning chemicals.
MBR technology consists of a sus-
pended-growth biological reactor inte-
grated with GEs high-performance, rug-
ged ZeeWeed hollow-fiber ultra-filtration
membranes. ZeeWeed membranes are
immersed in a membrane tank, in direct
contact with the water to be treated, which
is known as mixed liquor. Through a
permeate pump, a vacuum is applied to
a header connected to the membranes.
The vacuum draws the water through the
ZeeWeed membranes, filtering out solids,
As HP editors, we hear about new
products, patents, software, processes,
services, etc., that are true industry
innovationsa cut above the typical
product offerings. This section enables
us to highlight these significant
developments. For more information from
these companies, please go to our website
at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/rs
and select the reader service number.
TBM
DMS
COD
0.0 0
400
800
1,200
1,600
2,000
2,400
2,800
0 10 20 30
Time, min
40 50 60
1.0
2.0
3.0
O
d
o
r
a
n
t
c
o
n
c
.
,
m
g
/
l
C
O
D
,
m
g
/
l
4.0
5.0
6.0
Mercaptan destruction rate. FIG. 1
We dont have a department
dedicated to quality. We have
a company dedicated to it.
2
0
1
0
S
w
a
g
e
l
o
k
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Simulated computer modeling, dimensional testing, and electron scanning
of raw materials you name it, well go to any lengths to ensure that if its
from Swagelok, its top quality. Because Quality isnt just one of our values.
Its our attitude. Its the focus of every associate, affecting everything from
our services to our products. And by using the same disciplines, practices,
and technologies through every ofce in every country, that focus is constant.
We know that quality isnt just a well-made product, its customers served
beyond what they were expecting. To see what that attitude can do for you,
visit swagelok.com/quality.
Select 63 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
HPINNOVATIONS
25
along with bacteria and viruses. The filtered
water, or permeate, can then be further
treated, reused or discharged as needed.
Select 2 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
Alliance brings together
production technology
UOP LLC, a Honeywell company,
has formed a licensing alliance with
ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Co.
(EMRE) to offer integrated solutions for
producing lubricant oils and high-quality
fuels. The agreement between Honeywell
UOP and EMRE will reportedly provide a
one-stop solution for refiners to maximize
lubricant oil and diesel fuel production
levels. The alliance harmonizes EMRE
technology, used to produce lube base oils
for use in motor oil, with UOP hydropro-
cessing solutions that produce the high-
quality feedstocks needed for lubricant
production.
Users will also have access to integrated
process design solutions for EMRE fuel-
dewaxing technologies and UOP hydro-
processing solutions to produce high-
cetane, ultra-clean diesel for cold climates
in a single engineering package. By bring-
ing together these two well-established
portfolios, we are maximizing solutions for
our customers to produce more and better
products from each barrel of crude, said
Pete Piotrowski, vice president and general
manager of Process Technology and Equip-
ment for Honeywells UOP.
Select 3 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
Redesigned analyzer for
H
2
S in crude oil
The OMA-300 hydrogen sulfide (H
2
S)
analyzer crude oil edition from Applied
Analytics, Inc. (AAI) is a specialized con-
figuration of the OMA-300 H
2
S system.
Equipped with a headspace sample-con-
ditioning system, it monitors an opaque
liquid process. When a sample is too dark
or dirty to transmit a light signal, the head-
space system is said to produce a represen-
tative vapor-phase sample that can be easily
monitored via ultraviolet-visible absor-
bance spectroscopy and correlated to the
chemical composition of the liquid process.
AAI has always offered a highly effec-
tive solution for measuring H
2
S in opaque
liquids, but the current demand for crude
analysis has given us cause to rethink
our offering, said Dan Murphy, senior
mechanical engineer. The process resulted
in modifications to the crude oil edition
Applied Analytics headspace
system.
FIG. 2
Whether your field is upstream, midstreamor
downstream, MSA, the World Leader in Fixed Gas and
Flame Detection, can help you safely navigate with our
extensive line of detectors, built to meet your flame,
oxygen, combustible and toxic gas detection needs.
BeginYour Journey.
Free safety glasses to the first 100 participants.
Get started by scanning the QR code below.
To learn more about our newest products,
visit us at www.msanet.com or call 1-800-MSA-INST.
Safely Navigating
the Production Stream
fi ld i Whether h th ids dd tr tt e rr amor
MSA 2011 5603
Select 155 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
HPINNOVATIONS
26
of the OMA-300 H
2
S. The refined design
puts everything in one enclosure and adds
the capability to monitor multiple crude
streams at once using multiple headspace
columns running in parallel.
Select 4 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
Renewable fuel options for
condensing hydronic boiler
Fultons Vantage boiler, which has been
available since 2003 as an ultra-high-effi-
ciency condensing hydronic boiler, is said
to be drawing attention for its ability to
use B100 biodiesel and ultra-low-sulfur
(under 15 ppm) heating oils for full con-
densing operation. As a result of com-
prehensive testing at the independent
Brookhaven National Laboratory, it has
been proven that the Vantage can meet or
exceed the thermal efficiencies attainable
with natural gas, said Erin Sperry, Fultons
commercial heating product manager.
The biodiesels used in the Brookhaven
testing facility included biodiesels pro-
duced from both soybeans and recycled
tallow. According to findings, ignition on
B100 biodiesel, even from a cold start,
was identical to traditional No. 2 heating
oil. Testing also discovered that carbon-
monoxide emissions and smoke-number
readings were essentially maintained at
zero during steady-state operation and
at a normal excess-air level of 25%. Fol-
lowing test runs, burner head inspections
found no significant coke deposits and
measurable reductions for NO
x
, SO
2
and
soot were observed. Predicted corrosion
rates were in the acceptable range for the
application. Boiler-jacket lossmoni-
tored using the standards of the Ameri-
can Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
Standard 103was found to be 0.2% of
steady-state input, a very low value.
At Brookhaven, boiler efficiency was
measured using both an indirect flue-
loss method and a direct input/output
method. As typically observed with
hydronic boilers, efficiency and conden-
sate collection rate are impacted by the
return-water temperature. At high fire
with a return-water temperature of 122F,
efficiency was found to be 88%. At low
fire with a return-water temperature of
90F, efficiency was 93%. Under BTS-
2000 test conditions of 80F, return-
water temperature and 180F supply-
water temperature, the rated efficiency
was 98% at high fire.
Select 5 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
Fultons Vantage boiler. FIG. 3
This bench top analyzer tops all others in its price range for
features and performance. Its equipped with an intuitive user
interface, full-color touch screen and on-board Windows XP
computer. Ethernet electronics that permit remote access for
calibration, diagnostics or service support. Plus, the Phoenix II
has a large sample compartment that accommodates spinners
and special holders yet requires little or no sample preparation.
It all adds up to the lowest cost of ownership, backed by
AMETEKs reputation for reliability and world class customer
support. Visit: ametekpi.com
Select 156 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
Reliability has
no quitting time.
Think about ITT.
Conoow | Enidine | Fabri-Valve | Fiberbond | Goulds | ITT Standard | Midland-ACS | Neo-Dyn
In oil and gas facilities around the world, ITT delivers pumps, valves, composite piping, switches,
regulators and vibration isolation systems that can handle harsh conditions and keep going.
After all, in the 24/7/365 renery business, the last thing you want is a piece of equipment that
fails. With ITT, your processes stay upand your total cost of ownership stays down. For more
information, and to receive our Oil and Gas catalog, visit www.ittoilgas.com or call 1-800-734-7867.
Select 86 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
Prepare for tomorrow. Total Safetys
Downstream Safety Services improve safety,
decrease turnaround periods and lower costs.
Contact the best minds in Downstream Safety.
TotalSafety.com/services
mail@totalsafety.com
SCAN TO
LEARN MORE.
Know Safety.
S E R V I C E S - S T R A T E G I E S - E Q U I P M E N T - T R A I N I N G
PLAN FOR YESTERDAY
Select 79 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2011
I
29
HPIN CONSTRUCTION
HELEN MECHE, ASSOCIATE EDITOR
HM@HydrocarbonProcessing.com
North America
Dominion is proceeding with its next
major project in the Marcellus and Utica
Shale regions, the construction of a large
natural gas processing and fractionation
plant along the Ohio River in Natrium,
West Virginia.
The first phase of construction includes
facilities that can process 200 million cfd
of natural gas and fractionate 36,000 bpd
of natural gas liquids (NGL). This phase of
the project is more than 90% contracted
and is expected to be in service by Decem-
ber 2012.
US Senator John Hoeven has announced
that the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has approved a key permit
for the proposed petroleum refinery on
the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation near
Makoti, North Dakota. The Mandan,
Hidatsa, Arikara (MHA) Nation Clean
Fuels Refinery is expected to be one of the
few oil refineries to be constructed in the
US in the last 30 years, and be capable of
refining 15,000 bpd of oil.
During his tenure as governor, and
now as a member of the US Senate Indian
Affairs Committee, Senator Hoeven has
worked to support the project and see that
it achieved federal approval. In anticipa-
tion of the refinerys approval, the Fort
Berthold Community College created a
two-year training program to educate stu-
dents interested in energy-related careers,
including refinery operation.
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. will
construct a 150 million cfd cryogenic natu-
ral gas processing plant on its Anadarko
gas-gathering system near Wheeler, Texas.
The $230 million Ajax plantstrategically
located to serve the rapidly growing Granite
Wash playwill add much-needed natural
gas processing capacity to the partnerships
Anadarko system and is expected to be in
service by early 2013.
Black & Veatch has begun front-end
engineering design (FEED) for a new, liq-
uefied natural gas (LNG) export facility
that will be constructed on a barge and
transported to the Douglas Channel near
Kitimat Village, British Columbia, Canada.
The unique facility will feature the com-
panys patented PRICO process to liquefy
natural gas for transport to Asian markets.
The project is owned by HN DC LNG
Ltd. Partnership (Haisla Nation), LNG
Partners, LLC, and Douglas Channel Gas
Services Ltd. It will reportedly be the first
barge-mounted export facility serving the
Pacific Basin, as well as the first for export-
ing Canadian natural gas
Black & Veatchs FEED work for the
facility, which will produce more than
800,000 tpy of LNG, will be completed
in January 2012. The FEED will provide
a definitive estimate in finalizing a lump-
sum, turnkey contract between the parties
for the facilitys engineering, procurement,
construction, testing and commissioning.
Golden Valley Electric Association and
Flint Hills Resources Alaska have com-
menced engineering on a natural gas liq-
uefaction (NGL) facility on Alaskas North
Slope. The two companies have signed a
memorandum of understanding to exclu-
sively negotiate agreements to construct
and operate a facility that would enable
liquefied natural gas (LNG) to be trucked
to the Interior by the first quarter of 2014.
GVEA would use the gas to power its
newest turbine at the North Pole Power
Plant. Flint Hills would use the gas as a
supply fuel for the refining process at its
North Pole refinery.
The deal would deliver gas at cost to
each company. Lower costs mean lower
rates to GVEA members. Flint Hills would
reportedly become more competitive
and efficient by burning LNG instead of
refined crude oil in its refinery. Engineering
for the project is underway. The objective
is to have LNG available in the North Pole
by the first quarter of 2014.
UOP LLC, a Honeywell company, has
begun construction of a biofuels demon-
stration unit in Hawaii that will convert
forest residuals, algae and other cellulosic
biomass into green transportation fuels.
Backed by a $25 million US Department
of Energy (DOE) award, the Honeywell
UOP integrated biorefinery will upgrade
biomass into high-quality renewable gaso-
line, diesel and jet fuel. The project will also
support the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative
goal to achieve 70% clean energy by the
year 2030.
Located at the Tesoro Corp. refinery in
Kapolei, the biorefinery will demonstrate
the technologys viability, test the fuels pro-
duced and evaluate the environmental foot-
print of the fuels and process technology.
The project is scheduled to begin initial
production in 2012, and is expected to be
fully operational by 2014.
The demonstration unit will utilize the
rapid thermal processing (RTP) technology
to rapidly convert biomass into a pourable,
liquid biofuel. This liquid biofuel will then
be upgraded to green transportation fuels,
using hydroprocessing technology from
Honeywells UOP.
South America
Foster Wheelers Global Engineering
and Construction Group has been released
to perform the second phase scope for an
existing contract with Ecopetrol S.A. for
modernization of the refinery in Barran-
cabermeja (PMRB), Colombia. This release
includes additional project management
consultancy (PMC) and front-end engineer-
ing design (FEED), detailed engineering
for the crude unit revamps, assisting Eco-
petrol in the selection process for engineer-
ing, procurement and construction (EPC)
Trend analysis forecasting
Hydrocarbon Processing maintains an
extensive database of historical HPI proj-
ect information. The Boxscore Database is a
35-year compilation of projects by type, oper-
ating company, licensor, engineering/construc-
tor, location, etc. Many companies use the his-
torical data for trending or sales forecasting.
The historical information is available in
comma-delimited or Excel
c
I
n
c
.
A
l
l
r
i
g
h
t
s
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
s
i
n
a
n
d
t
o
t
h
e
M
a
t
c
h
e
s
a
n
d
B
l
o
w
t
o
r
c
h
p
h
o
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
s
a
r
e
o
w
n
e
d
b
y
a
t
h
i
r
d
p
a
r
t
y
a
n
d
l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
f
o
r
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
u
s
e
o
n
l
y
t
o
T
h
e
r
m
o
F
i
s
h
e
r
S
c
i
e
n
t
i
c
b
y
m
a
x
x
i
m
a
g
e
s
a
n
d
S
u
p
e
r
S
t
o
c
k
.
Select 95 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
PROCESS CONTROL AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALREPORT
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2011
I
39
Intelligent severity optimization
project pays off in two months
Major olefin producer uses new process control
to fine-tune energy consumption
H. WANG, Z. WANG, W. DU, D. WANG and F. QIAN, East China University
of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China; and Z. TANG, Sinopec Yangzi
Petrochemical Co. Ltd., Nanjing, China
T
he Sinopec Yangzi Petrochemical Corp. (SYPC) wanted to
increase ethylene production at the Nanjing facility while
decreasing energy consumption. The ethylene producer
elected to use a real-time optimization (RTO) program to meet
its production and energy consumption goals. The SYPC ethylene
plant at Nanjing, China, increased higher-value product yield by
1.3% and decreased energy consumption by 2.5%. The authors
discuss the thinking and techniques applied to achieve both goals.
Background. As one of the pioneers in the development and
application of novel technologies in Sinopec, SYPC has been
working closely with East China University of Science and Tech-
nology (ECUST) for technical research to improve operation
efficiency, reduce energy consumption and increase benefits. On
the way to total automation, the step-by-step principle was
observed. The first target for the ethylene plant should be the
ethylene cracker, since it is not only the most important device
but also the largest energy consumer.
Simple advanced controls and product quality controls have
been successfully implemented in the plant and have continuously
produced benefits.
1,2
The benefits achieved in SYPC were soon
extended to other ethylene plants.
Although a more consistent furnace yield slate was produced
by using severity control in place of coil outlet temperature (COT)
control, determining severity setpoint remained an issue. The set-
point was set by plant management and nearly always around the
design value. This conservative approach inevitably incurs profit
loss, due to aging of the furnace. Also, decision-making could not
keep up with the frequent feed composition changes.
In response to the frequent market prices and feed changes,
SYPC decided to implement an RTO system for the ethylene
crackers. This is the first RTO project for the ethylene crackers
in China. It began in 2007 and was completed in 2009. In this
project, the severity was defined to be only independent variables.
The feedrate and steam-to-hydrocarbon ratio would be fine tuned
in the plant optimization project.
This decision was made based on the plant instrument condi-
tions and the step-by-step principle. From another viewpoint,
it also reflected the uncertainty of management on the potential
benefits. This uncertainty was quickly eliminated after the system
performance test.
System overview. Fig. 1 shows the optimization and con-
trol structure for the SYPC ethylene cracker. The RTO system
is on top of the severity control, regular controls (including the
COT control) and other plant provided basic controls. These
well-tuned control systems and reliable instruments promise (to
keep) stabilizing plant operation and to maintain the optimum
operating conditions found by the RTO system.
The RTO system comprises six processes and includes yield
prediction, data collection and validation, status monitoring,
model updating, optimization and results output. The system
provides the engineer with a choice of four objective functions or
operating modes, including: maximum overall profit, maximum
PHD
Online GCs Valves and measurements
Data collection
RTO
Data validation
Process monitor Model updating
Optimization
Results output
Operators interface Setpoint check
Severity control
Regular controls
DCS
Process
Serial interface
Ethylene cracker severity optimization and control
architecture.
FIG. 1
PROCESS CONTROL AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALREPORT
40
I
OCTOBER 2011 HydrocarbonProcessing.com
ethylene yield, maximum propylene yield and maximum olefins
yield. The operators interfaces for optimization are embedded
in the distributed control system (DCS). Plant engineers and
operators can write feed composition data and enable/disable
optimization commands through the user interface. The data are
continuously uploaded to the process history database (PHD).
The RTO system takes the process data, feed composition
data and operators command flags from the PHD. After calcula-
tion, the optimization results are written to the DCS, via a serial
interface (SI) card. The results are implemented as setpoints for
the existing controllers after validity check in the DCS.
Time interval varies in different parts of the optimization
system. The data collection runs every 5 minutes, and the yield
prediction also runs every 5 minutes. The execution cycle for
optimization process can be 30 minutes or 1 hour, depending on
the set boundaries of the step size for setpoints downloaded. If
any process or analytical abnormity is detected, the timer will be
cleared and will restart only when the process returns to normal.
For the project, a dedicated workstation (also called an opti-
mization server in the plant) was added. The optimization server
was placed in the engineering station room. A hardware firewall
was also installed to assure safe data flowing to the server from
the plant website.
Different access levels were assigned to different user classes.
Plant engineers and managers can update the product market
prices and select the optimization objectives. The software design-
ers and maintainers can do system performance monitoring and
necessary parameter debugging. The RTO system can be divided
into four components, including the yield prediction model, an
optimizer, custom programs and user interfaces.
Yield model. SYPC has access to a rigorous model for predict-
ing effluent compositions. This model is normally used for feed
selection and COT optimization in an offline mode. The rigorous
model requires a large amount of measured information including
the detailed feed compositions or feed characteristics. However,
there is no online measurement for the feed detailed composi-
tion in the plant, and the routine feed analysis cannot suffice the
required information, which makes the rigorous model difficult
to be incorporated in the RTO system.
Neural-network composite models comprising several sub-
models were developed to predict the cracked product yield for
the furnaces. Different sub-models feature feeds with distinct
pyrolysis characteristics, thus different product spectrum.
The model uses several feed characteristics and key operat-
ing variables to predict product yields. The feed characteristics
used include the PIONA values and density that can be acquired
by routine feed analysis. The operating variables include COT,
feedrate, steam-to-hydrocarbon ratio, and other temperature and
pressure variables.
The training data were based on the simulation results from
the rigorous model over a wide range of operating conditions,
with special emphasis on the normal operating range. A feedstock
historical database collected over more than five years was used,
and those representative feed samples were chosen for the simula-
tion and to produce the training data. The developed model was
first tested against the rigorous model. Until the relative error for
yields prediction fell below a predefined value, the model moved
to the online test stage. During online testing, the model was fur-
ther evaluated against analysis results from online gas chromato-
graphs (GCs). Before the test, the GCs were calibrated and also
tested by several repeated laboratory analyses to ensure reliability.
Fig. 2 compares the model prediction of propylene-ethylene
ratio (PER) with GC analysis results. The data are randomly
scattered around the x-axis, and the relative errors are below 3%.
Since the yield prediction model uses steady-state approximations
to estimate the dynamic furnace operations, the model will not
match the process exactly. But the model mismatches are taken
into account in the optimization results to update the optimizer.
Optimizer. The optimizer is the engine of the RTO system.
The primary function is to solve the yield model and execute the
online optimization. Meanwhile, it can do offline optimization
studies. As stated earlier, four optimization goals, or objective
functions, are available, including: maximum overall profit, maxi-
mum ethylene yield, maximum propylene yield and maximum
olefins yield. The profit function is defined as:
Profit = (Product values) (Feedstock costs) +
(Utilities values) (Utilities costs)
For the furnace, utilities values include super high-pressure
steam (SHPS) generation, and utilities costs comprise fuel con-
sumption, dilution steam and boiler feedwater (BFW) used. These
alternatives help plant managers or engineers to choose the best
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
One month
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
e
r
r
o
r
,
%
Yield model accuracy compared with online GC data. FIG. 2
Engineers interface to the server. FIG. 3
PROCESS CONTROL AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALREPORT
way to operate the furnaces, based on the political policy, market
situation and feedstock availability.
An optimization toolkit was developed and can be used to solve
both single-objective optimization problems and multi-objective
optimization problems. Deterministic algorithms including a
sequential quadratic programming (SQP) technique, golden-sec-
tion search, a simplex method and hybrid methods with stochastic
algorithms can be selected according to the problem characteristics.
The optimization toolkit was designed not only for this sever-
ity optimization project, but also for plant optimization that
involves several independent variables in the future.
The downloaded optimization variables are furnace severities.
The setpoints downloaded are not the optimal severity solved
by the optimizer. The optimal severity is updated based on the
model prediction error to account for model inconsistency. The
optimizer would take a bounded step from the current setpoint
toward the updated severity value. This updating strategy allows
the controllers to have enough time to achieve the setpoints pre-
dicted by the optimizer, thus ensuring smooth furnace operation.
Custom programs. The custom programs were developed
to facilitate model predictions and to optimize the process while
addressing possible abnormal situations and maintaining all com-
munications involved and process data download as safe as pos-
sible. These functions were implemented in both the optimization
server and the DCS.
Server programs. The programs in the optimization server
were mainly designed to do data collection and validation, to
monitor the process based on data analysis, to update the system
with new input variables, to send the final results to the DCS, to
execute self-diagnosis and to log all important changes or even
system breakdown.
Several status flags are displayed in the server user interface,
including the communication status from PHD to server, the
optimization on/off command from operators, the status of fur-
nace and key instruments, and process data validity.
These statuses determine the sequence of events defined in
the RTO system. For example, if the process data was confirmed
98
99
100
101
102
103
96 hr
Y
i
e
l
d
,
%
Before RTO After RTO
RTO increased the yield of high-value olefins production. FIG. 4
Attention PI PESYS users
-Minimize gathering system bottlenecks to maximize delivery to process facilities
-Size pipes to maximize production by reducing friction without causing liquid loading
-Determine the potential effects of changes in plant or pipeline operating conditions
b
e
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
www. s p t g r o u p . c o m
b
e
n
d
y
n
Do upstream issues affect your process facilities
and downstream bottom line?
PIPESYS licenses for use with HYSYS
are
only available directly from SPT Group.
*HYSYS
F
Time below
low limit is 9 min
Area low
High limit
Area
high
Low limit
Time above
low limit is 7 min.
A typical example of an operator evaluation. FIG. 9
Model observations 39.7%
Other 7.1%
ESD 5.8%
DCS affecting
model 9.5%
DCS observations 38.9%
Factory acceptance test observations for current project categorized. FIG. 10
TABLE 3. Work breakdown
structure for the operator training
simulator
Activity Effort, %
Model building 45
Project management, quality, 15
documentation
Instructor station 5
Integration and testing 12.5
Reviews, acceptance tests (factory, site) 10
Updates (plant data alignment) 7.5
Training and documentations 5
Total 100
PROCESS CONTROL AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALREPORT
50
up. Since delivery time, the operators used
the simulator extensively, obtaining confi-
dence, learning about the plant behavior,
and getting hands-on training on opera-
tional procedures and in mitigating the
effects of equipment malfunctions.
After the plant commissioning, startup
and attaining the nominal steady state,
the simulator was successfully updated to
reflect the realities in the plant. Thus, it
will continue to offer a) valuable insight to
engineers for verification of plant design
updates, controllability and de-bottle-
necking studies, b) continuous training
and certification to plant operators, and c)
increased value for the shareholders for the
years to come. HP
LITERATURE CITED
1
Resnik, C., Better Operator Ergonomics Increase
Plant KPIs, Automation World, December 2009.
2
Pankoff, J. A. Sr., Use a Competency-Based
Approach to Develop High-Performance Workers,
Hydrocarbon Processing, August 1999.
3
Harismiadis, V. I., Earn two million dollars a year.
Dynamic Process Simulation: DCS Integration,
Quality Assurance, and Operator training, 3rd
Pan-Hellenic Chemical Engineering Conference,
31 May2 June 2001.
4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrodesulfurization
5
Hydrocarbon Processing, Refining Processes
Handbook; Advanced Process Control and
Information Systems Handbook, 2005.
6
Olsen, T. and B. Bialkowski, Lambda Tuning
as a Promising Controller Tuning Method for
the Refinery, AIChE Spring National Meeting,
March 2002.
Amr AlDaiel is a project engineer
at Saudi Aramco for Northern Area
Projects Department. He has five years
of experience in project management
in the area of Instrumentation, pro-
cess control and automation. Mr. AlDaiel holds a BS
degree in electrical engineering, cum laude, from the
University of Colorado.
Maan AlMulla is a senior Project
Engineer at Saudi Aramco for North-
ern Area Projects Department. He has
13 years of experience in project man-
agement and has managed from the
client side two OTS Projects. Mr. Maan holds a bachelor
degree in Systems EngineerAutomation and Control
from KFUPM University since 1998.
Mansour AlNajrani is a senior
process engineer at Saudi Aramco
for the Ras Tanura Refinery Opera-
tion Department. He has 14 years of
experience in operation and was rep-
resented the refinery for the OTS Project. Mr. AlNajrani
holds a bachelor degree in chemical engineering from
KFUPM University since 1995.
Krishna Chaitanya is a pro-
cess simulation engineer at Hyperion
Systems Engineering, Pune, India. He
has two years of experience in refinery
FCCU process operations and three
years in dynamic process modeling and operator train-
ing simulators. Mr. Chaitanya holds an MS degree in
refining and petrochemical engineering.
Amol Deshpande is a team
leader at Hyperion Systems Engineer-
ing, Pune, India. He has nine years of
experience in the process industry:
three years in process design and
detailed engineering and six years in dynamic process
modeling. Mr. Deshpande holds a BE degree in chemical
engineering from Pune University, India.
Vassilis Harismiadis is the real-
time process optimization and train-
ing manager at Hyperion Systems
Engineering. He has over 13 years
experience in the oil and gas indus-
try with particular emphasis on using dynamic process
modeling to improve plant effectiveness. Dr. Harismiadis
holds a PhD from NTU, Athens, Greece in the thermo-
dynamic modeling of complex systems.
Scott Rollman
Strategic Business Manager:
Global Engineering
s.rollman@vega.com
www.vega-americas.com
VEGA Americas VEGAPULS 62 through-air
radar sensor produces a safety high level
signal, protecting against overll situations.
With self-diagnostics and self-calibration,
the unit provides the user with measurement
accuracy and reliability.
The VEGAPULS 62 through-air radar
supplies the following benets:
Mountable on a ball valve assembly for
service and access
Integral self-monitoring signicantly reduces
maintenance costs
Operation verication without process
interruption and system downtime
SIL approved
Overll Protection with
Through-Air Radar Technology
Select 165 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
PROCESS CONTROL AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALREPORT
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2011
I
51
Process gas chromatography: Avoid
the iceberg of hidden expenses
Total cost of ownership can quickly add up for
field analytical equipment
M. GAURA, Emerson Process Management, Houston, Texas
P
rocess gas chromatographs (GCs) are the most common
multi-component, online chemical analyzer used in modern
hydrocarbon processing industry (HPI) facilitiesrefineries,
petrochemical plants and natural gas sites. GCs are proven and can
provide data to control processes, supervise product quality and
monitor facility emissions. Historically, GCs were placed in shel-
ters that provided a stable temperature environment and a clean
work area for operation and maintenance periods.
To ensure optimal performance and reduce sample lag time
the time required for a sample to travel from the sample tap to
the GCthe shelters were often located in areas classified as
hazardous by industry codes and standards. Also, the space for
the GC and shelter was not always available in close proximity to
the process line being sampled.
In both situations, significant costs were added to these proj-
ects that operations or environmental personnel had not consid-
ered in the project budget. The primary focus would have been
on purchasing a GC that could provide a reliable and repeatable
analysis of a sample stream at the best price. Unfortunately, the
cost for the GC often represents a very low percentage of the total
project cost, about 5% to 20%. Parties responsible for profit and
loss (P/L) of operating units, plants and pipelines are keenly aware
of the total cost impact of adding a traditional GC to perform a
stream analysis. Accounting systems are now more open, and in-
house engineering and installation resources have been replaced
with contractors and consultants. So where are the hidden costs
for field-mountable GCs, and what can be done to greatly reduce
the total costs to install and operate a GC?
The iceberg. Selecting, installing, operating and maintaining a
traditional GC can, and does, involve costs that exceed the capital
cost for the GC. Think of the total cost structure as being similar
to that of an iceberg in the ocean. A typical iceberg has about 10%
to 15% of its volume above the water with the remainder hidden
below the waters surface. When deciding to install a GC, think
of the price for the GC (only) as the portion of an iceberg visible
above the water. This example shows that significant additional
costs may not be considered when selecting the GC. Those costs
can include: a protective shelter, in-house or contracted engineer-
ing, installation charges, instrument air, heated sample lines,
training, and startup and check out.
Shelter. If one assumes that the shelter will need to control
temperature in both directionsheating during winter and cool-
ing during summerand be compliant to hazardous ratings of
the location, it will represent at least 40% of the total project
cost. One cannot simply consider the cost of four walls, a door, a
roof and a floor for a typical installation. The additional costs of
the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) unit also
involve a purge system, area monitors and alarms, lighting, com-
munication and electrical distribution, as well as instrument air,
plumbing and vent headers; all must be considered.
Engineering. The cost for both in-house and contract engi-
neering are significant for any project. They involve bringing a
physical structure onto an industrial plant. These costs are some-
where between 15% to 18% of the total project cost.
At the onset, equipment requirements need to be understood
and discussed by those wanting the new GC and those that are
responsible for the processing unit that will house the GC. Speci-
fications must be developed and distributed to internal teams and
potential suppliers that address the installation area including
Iceberg of hidden costs. FIG. 1
PROCESS CONTROL AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALREPORT
52
I
OCTOBER 2011 HydrocarbonProcessing.com
hazards present, available footprint, environmental conditions,
proximity to sample point and utilities, etc. After hundreds of
hours of reviewing proposals, clarifying concerns and ultimately
making a purchasing decision, site-preparation engineering must
begin. Foundation requirements need to be detailed, plumbing
and conduit runs drawn up, communication and power inter-
connections finalized. All actions require significant time and,
therefore, add cost to the GC addition project.
Installation. Once the planning and designing are detailed,
the shelter must be physically installed. Installation charges will
make up 15% to 20% of the total GC project costs. The material
and labor costs to install a secure base (concrete pad) represent a
portion of the installation costs, but not all of it. If the shelter is
large, the installation may require renting a large crane to place the
shelter in the final mounting locationa significant additional
expense. Even if the shelter can be placed at the selected loca-
tion utilizing available plant equipment, labor costs will still be
incurred as the structure is secured, communication and power
interconnects are made, and tubing and piping are connected to
existing points in the plant.
Instrument air. Although instrument air is often readily avail-
able in a plant, lines must be installed to the shelter, thus adding
more costs to the project. These expenses are composed of not
only materials, but also the labor required to install and con-
nect the hardware. The operational cost of air use should also
be considered. Using a cost of $0.80/1,000 scf for plant air, an
air-bath-heated GC can add over $2,000 to the operational costs.
If the GC and shelter also require purge system, the operating
costs to escalate.
Heated sample line(s) and probe(s). For samples necessitat-
ing extended sample line runs (assume 200 ft = extended) and
a heated probe, it is reasonable to assume an additional cost of
$7,000$15,000 to total project expenses. Sample lines that are
unheated and uninsulated can save several thousand dollars in
costs, but one needs to closely evaluate the typical stream com-
position and its possible dew point and compare them to the
known environmental conditions before foregoing heated sample
lines. Failure to do so may result in multi-phase samples entering
the sample-handling system or the GC, resulting in inaccurate
analysis values.
These hidden costs account for 70% to 80% of the total
installation cost of a new GC. They are referred to as hidden
costs, as they are often not considered when the initial decision is
made to add a control or required measurement in a plant. Obvi-
ously, they must be.
How can you reduce hidden costs? Many users of
GCs are convinced that they (GCs) are complex pieces of
equipment and must be housed in environmentally controlled
shelter. A GC can be intimidating. Why? These devices have an
electronic section similar to that of a personal computer (CPU,
communication interfaces and video displays); and they have an
analytical oven that can consist of shut-off, vaporizing inject,
column and back-flush valves, and, more important, such ana-
lytical units include multiple detector technologies such as ther-
mal conductivity, flame ionization and flame photometric, and
a variety of possible separation media, e.g., columns. Couple
this mindset with the critical nature of the results being gener-
ated, and it is easy to understand why process GCs are often
placed in shelters. Of course, some users have experienced per-
formance issues with their GCs when atmospheric temperatures
and/or pressures swing; they also contribute to the preference
of placing a GC in a shelter.
What if the GC did not need to be placed in a shelter,
or did not require the shelter to be temperature controlled? Yes,
to properly analyze a sample stream, GCs require stable tempera-
ture, pressure and flowrate of the sample as it travels through the
analytical oven. Variations in temperature can result in drifting
baselines, peak shifts and even multi-phasing of the sample. Pres-
sure and flowrate changes can also impact sample values if they
are not controlled.
Minimizing analytical errors can be accomplished by using a
properly designed sample handling system, appropriate transport
tubing and an application-defined probe assembly. At no point
in this extraction, transport or conditioning of the sample gas is a
shelter required. The items listed here can be electrically or steam-
heated and mounted outside in nearly any environment without
compromising performance or safety. The costs associated with
a shelterincluding the shelter itself as well as the engineering
and installation costshave already been discussed. They are
significant, but can they be removed or reduced?
Recently, field-mountable process GCs have been introduced
to the industry and are gaining increasing acceptance. Field-
mountable GCs are generally smaller and typically have more
limited application capability compared to traditional air-bath
oven GCs. But the initial costs to house, install, operate and
maintain these field-mountable process GCs are less than larger
conventional GCs.
Issues of environmental impact, hazardous area classifica-
tion, utility consumption, application capability, availability
and maintainability are discussed and compared and costs
assigned where possible. The total cost of installing, main-
taining and operating process GCs will be examined over a
hypothetical installation and 10-year period and compared to
a traditional air-bath oven analyzer design and field-mountable
transmitter designs.
Environmental. For a conventional GC, the instrument is
designed for installation in an analyzer house. It is not recom-
mended to be installed in the field without additional climate-
control protection because of repeatability issues. It cannot
withstand rain and is sensitive to high humidity. Normally, con-
ventional GCs need some ambient temperature control to ensure
Field-mountable process GC. FIG. 2
PROCESS CONTROL AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALREPORT
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2011
I
53
oven temperature stability, particularly in low-temperature envi-
ronments and those with widely varying temperature cycles.
For the new field-mounted GC, the instrument is designed to
be installed directly in the field without any additional protection.
Field-mountable GCs are designed to withstand rain, high humid-
ity and a wide ambient temperature rangetypically 20C to
60C (4F to 140F)without impact on their analytical per-
formance. Housings are typically IP 56 or higher. A rain shield or
three-sided rack can be included for those times when technicians
must do maintenance on the equipment, but it is not required.
Hazardous area classification. For a conventional process
GC, the area classification GC depends upon the manufacturer,
but is normally Class 1 Division 2 Groups B, C and D, utilizing
an appropriate purge mechanism. Some manufacturers offer Class
1 Division 1 Groups B, C and D. None of these instruments are
explosion proof. Fig. 2 is a typical example of a conventional
process GC.
The field-mountable GC derives its protection for flammable
hazardous areas from its enclosure (Fig. 3). The instrument hous-
ing is explosion proof, and there is no need for an air purge to
ensure rating. The typical area classification is Class 1, Zone 1,
AEx d IIB+H
2
, T4, Enclosure Type 4various agency approvals,
such as ATEX, CSA and IEC-Ex are often obtained.
Utilities. For the conventional GC, normal electrical require-
ments for the oven are from 1,140 W to 1,200 W during initial
startup and 400 W to 500 W during normal service. Instrument
air is required for cooling and purging of the electronics (Class 1
Division 1), as well as for the oven temperature air-bath heater.
Some manufacturers also recommend purging electronic sections
with dry instrument air to prevent the buildup of dust or mois-
ture in them. Failure to do so can result in the premature failure of
electronic board assemblies or components housed in this section
of the process GC.
For field-mounted GCs, the instrument consumes less elec-
trical power during initial startup and during normal useoften
less than 150 W. The field-mountable GC does not require instru-
ment air for any functions because of oven and housing design.
Therefore, continuous heating of plant air is not required,
reducing the power requirements. Pneumatic valves can be actu-
ated safely by carrier gas. Electric sample shut-off valves, solenoids
and sample stream switching valves can be utilized. Pneumatic
sample valves and column valves are also utilized. Carrier gas fol-
lows a flow path from reference detector to oven columns/valves,
and then to the measurement detector to minimize carrier gas
consumption. The field-mountable GC provides significant utility
cost savings over the useful life of the instrument.
Oven design capability. For a conventional GC, the oven
heat is provided by a heating tube and heater coil. Because the
oven space is large, air must circulate to ensure adequate tem-
perature distribution and control. This arrangement is known
as an air-bath oven. Almost all process GCs use air-bath ovens.
Tight proportional, integral, derivative (PID) control of the oven
temperature is normally used. (Some older process GCs have only
proportional integral control.) This provides adequate tempera-
ture control; however, the large thermal mass of the oven makes it
slow to heat up and cool down. Temperature stability upon initial
power-up or after oven maintenance will take at least one hour
to attain. Maximum oven temperatures vary depending upon
the manufacturer. Typical upper limits are 180C to 200C. The
larger internal space allows multiple detectors and valves to be
housed. Sub-oven assemblies can also be installed, allowing for
temperature programming that is required for applications like
simulated distillation.
For the field-mounted GC, a central core is used for the oven.
This is heated by block wrap-around heaters. The thermal mass of
the oven assembly maintains temperature stability and transmits
heat to the detectors mounted to the oven assembly. Tight PID
control can be maintained because the ovens thermal response
time is fast. The columns are near the detectors and heaters,
allowing stable heating throughout the analysis. The entire oven
assembly is enclosed in an insulation packing. This ensures the
ambient temperature rating of the field-mountable GCtypically
20C to 60C (4F to 140F).
A maximum of four sample/column switching valves (6-port
or 10-port) can fit into the oven, based on the manufacturer.
The oven can house up to two thermal conductivity detector
(TCD) sets: TCD/TCD; or a flame ionization detector (FID)
and TCD in a TCD/FID detector set. This is also dependent on
the manufacturer.
Given the compact design and the heating method of the
analyzer, the maximum oven temperature is lower than that of a
traditional GC, but can still be up to 150C. The lower number
of possible valves, reduced space for columns and lower tempera-
ture capabilities can all limit the number of applications capable
by the field-mountable GC; in some instances, it can limit which
high carbon number compounds can be analyzed. Programmed
temperature type applications, such as simulated distillation,
cannot be done.
$60,000 $60,000 $60,000
$5,000 $5,000
$10,000
$7,500
$60,000
$125,000
$3,300
$24,750
$56,824
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
A
n
a
l
y
z
e
r
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
s
t
,
$
250,000
300,000
350,000
Sun shields 3-Sided shelter Analyzer house
Engineering
Installation and training
Shelter/enclosure
Heated sample line cost
GCs and SHS
$125,800
$199,750
$301,824
Installation cost comparison of field-mountable and
conventional process GC (1 GC).
FIG. 3
2,722 5,610 143
6,600
2,900
19,400
6,800
20,400
20,736
50,681
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
T
o
t
a
l
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
r
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
,
$
100,000
120,000
140,000
Airless oven Air-bath oven
HVAC electricity
Utility air
Carrier gas
Spares
Calibration gas
Electricity
Total OPEX Savings over
10 years = $105,086
Ten-year cost comparison of field-mountable and
conventional process GC (1 GC).
FIG. 4
PROCESS CONTROL AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALREPORT
54
I
OCTOBER 2011 HydrocarbonProcessing.com
Cycle times. Column configurations and oven temperatures
for both the field-mountable GCs and conventional GCs do
not differ significantly for most applications. Accordingly, the
cycle times are relatively equivalent. A complete analysis of
natural gas up to and including C
6
+ hydrocarbon components,
giving a measurement within 0.1 Btu in 1,000 Btus, for exam-
ple, is accomplished in a field-mountable GC in four minutes.
Sample transport lag times. Conventional process GCs are
usually installed in analyzer houses, which are often five times
more expensive than the cost of a single GC. Therefore, an opti-
mization of the analyzer house is done to place as many analyzers
as possible into a single house. This rationalizes the cost of the
house between various GCs. Location of the house is determined
by plant geography (space available as opposed to the geographic
distribution of the sample taps). This rarely allows for the opti-
mizing transport lag. A conventional GC typically has longer
lag times when compared to a field-mountable GC. A 200-foot
-in. sample line will introduce a two-minute transport lag into
a control loop. The effect of this lag depends upon the control
strategy, process dynamics and analysis cycle time. Additionally,
compromises and costs in sample/speed loop disposal to a flare
may have to be made to obtain fast sample transport times.
The field-mountable GC can be installed close to the sample
tap to reduce the sample transport lag and to help optimize con-
trol response. A closely coupled field-mountable GC (30 ft to 40
ft) will typically have a 20-second sample lag time.
Installation considerations. For a conventional GC, typical
extra expenses include engineering time and costs, additional
labor associated with a shelter installation, safety systems for
the enclosed space, pouring an installation pad and bringing
plant instrument air to the conventional process GC. For a
field-mounted GC, the design allows it to be mounted closer to
the sample takeoff; so the sample line itself can be shorter. The
installed cost is lower, and that can be significant when heat-
traced sample lines are used. Fewer problems will be encountered
obtaining a representative sample due to the sample characteristics
TABLE 1. Basis for cost estimates
Utility and calibration costs
Electricity cost $0.05 $/kW-hr
Instrument air $ for 1000 scf $0.80 $/1,000 SCF
Carrier gas cost $170.00 $/cylinder
Calibration cost $330.00 $/cylinder
GC data Air bath oven Airless oven
Utility air CFM 5 0
Electricity (W) 630 33
Calibration gas bottles/year 2 1.7
Carrier gas bottles/year 12 4
Annual spares and replacement parts $1,940 $290
Shelter
HVAC unit power 6.6 KW
HVAC description CSA Certified Class I Div
2 Groups B, C & D,
includes freestanding 25 ft
fresh air stack, certified
to 130 mph wind
Replacement A/C after 10 years $21,620
TABLE 2. Installation cost comparison: Field-mountable GC vs. traditional GC
1 Transmitter GC 1 Transmitter GC 1 Conventional GC
in sun shield in 3-sided shelter in analyzer house
Number of GCs/enclosed house 1
Number of GCs/3-sided shelter 1
Number of GCs/sun shield 1
Number of 3-sided shelters 1
Number of enclosed shelters 1
Gas chromatograph cost $45,000 $45,000 $45,000
Sample system cost $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Sample line cost per ft-insulated Installed $5,000 $5,000 $10,000
Engineering costs $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Enclosed house cost C1 D2 10 ft x 14 ft $125,000
3-sided shelter cost C1 D2 6 ft x 6 ft $60,000
Sun shield for single GC cost $7,500
Enclosed shelter installation at site cost $49,725
3-sided shelter installation at site cost $20,800
Sun shield installation at site cost $650
Analyzer installation cost $650 $650
Shelter startup and check-out cost $1,300 $2,600
Training cost $2,000 $2,000 $2,000
Instrument air piping (300 ft) cost $2,499
One-year cost estimate
Required capital $125,800 $199,750 $301,824
Savings $176,024 $102,074
PROCESS CONTROL AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALREPORT
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2011
I
55
changing during transport. Problems with clogging, two-phase
flow and condensation are also reduced. The field-mountable GC
can be freestanding, mounted to a pipe, or mounted in a simple
three-sided shelter. The field-mountable GC will occupy less space
in the plant than an analyzer house, and will simplify transporta-
tion of the analyzer to the final site.
Availability. Preventative maintenance needed by both the
field-mountable GC and conventional GC is similar as is the time
required to do this maintenance. Should oven substitutions be uti-
lized, some field-mountable GC ovens can be completely replaced
in approximately 20 minutes. Mean time to repair (MTTR) will
depend upon the particular defect in question. Both the field-
mountable GC and conventional process GC will require about
10 minutes of cool-down before components can be handled, plus
the time to substitute any required components. It will take from
1 to 4 hours to re-establish temperature stability.
So how can you avoid or reduce the hidden costs?
When considering a new GC for your site, one should be able to
determine whether a field-mountable process GC can be utilized
for a specific plant need. If possible, using a field-mountable GC
can significantly lower the costs associated with adding a process
GC measurement. Tables 13 outline not only the upfront cost
savings if a fully enclosed shelter can be eliminated, but also
the expected cost savings over the life of the equipment. In this
example, 10 years was selected. Tables 13 detail the differences
between field-mountable and conventional process GC installa-
tions and life-cycle costs, and Figs. 4 and 5 add graphical repre-
sentations of the comparative costs.
A decision to add a process GC in a plant is often the result
of extensive research and planning, and the benefits or required
needs are well understood. However, many hidden costs are often
not considered in the planning and budgeting phase(s). Selecting
the appropriate GC and enclosure type can significantly reduce
both capital and operational expenses. In appropriate applica-
tions, field-mountable GCs offer significant savings and greatly
reduce total cost of ownership compared to conventional process
GCs by reducing costs with climate controlled shelters, instru-
ment air, electrical power, carrier gas consumption, installation
costs, and also by reducing sample lag times. Typical installation
cost savings, given the estimates and assumptions can be as much
as $175,000, and the 10-year operational cost savings can be as
much as $105,000. HP
TABLE 3. Cost comparison field-mountable GC vs.
traditional GC over 10 years
GC operation cost Air bath oven Airless oven Savings
Electric cost $2,722 $143 $2,579
Utility air cost $20,736 $0 $20,736
Calibration gas $6,600 $5,610 $990
Carrier gas $20,400 $6,800 $13,600
Spares and replacement parts $19,400 $2,900 $16,500
GC total operation costs $69,858 $15,453 $54,405
Total shelter and HVAC $50,681
Total OPEX savings $105,086
Total OPEX savings over 10 years $105,086
Select 166 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
Where do You Want to be
on the Performance Curve?
P = People
M = Methodologies
T = Technologies
For more information on how
KBC can help you achieve
NextGen Performance,
contact us at:
AMERICAS +1 281 293 8200
EMEA +44 (0)1932 242424
ASIA +65 6735 5488
answers@kbcat.com U www.kbcat.com
Your Company + KBC Produces NextGen Performance
n
We collaborate with our clients to create unique solutions to their specic
challenges. Some of these challenges may include:
For 30 years, KBC consultants have provided independent advice and expertise to enable
leading companies in the global energy business and other processing industries manage
risk and achieve dramatic performance improvements.
Strategic Challenges
U Creating Effective Business Strategy/Decisions
U Increasing Return on Investments
U Enhancing Returns on Acquisitions/Divestitures
U Reducing Strategic/Capital/Market/Investment Risk
U Enhancing Yields
U Creating Effective Response to Crude/
Feedstock/Product Markets
U Improving Financial Performance
Operating Challenges
U Improving Yield
U Increasing Availability
U Reducing Maintenance Costs
U Improving Safety Performance
U Implementing/Improving
U Managing Operational Risk
Behaviour-based Reliability
U Improving Supply Chain Performance
Capital Challenges
U Increasing Return on Capital Investment
U Rationalising/Optimising Environmental
Compliance Capital Expenditures
U Reducing Capital Risk
Organisational Challenges
U Increasing Organisational Effectiveness
U Improving Employee Competency/Capability
U Enhancing Employee Support Systems
U Improving Shift Team Function
Environmental Challenges
U Reducing Emissions
U Ensuring Compliance
U Reducing/Managing Environmental Liabilities
U Improving Energy Efciency
U Rationalising Compliance Expenditures
Select 99 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
PROCESS CONTROL AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALREPORT
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2011
I
57
Find benefits in automating
boiler systems
Dynamic models unravel potential problems in high-pressure
steam production and consumption
A. BOURJI, D. BALLOW and M. CHOROSZY, WorleyParsons, Houston, Texas
S
team-load shedding is a series of automated actions imple-
mented to prevent or to minimize the impact to a refinery
or petrochemical complex due to a shortage of steam supply
shortage or in drop steam-system pressure. Steam load is eliminated
by shutting down or shedding expendable steam users. Without
an appropriate strategy, safety systems will engage possibly shutting
down critical equipment to prevent catastrophic consequences,
and production will be lost. It is important to note that steam load
shedding is done to improve the reliability of the steam system; it
is not a safety system. Steam load shedding will replace or eliminate
the need for a properly designed emergency shutdown system.
Design stability. The stability of high-pressure (HP) steam
boiler(s) is critical for hydrocarbon processing industry (HPI)
facilities. There are several stability definitions in steam delivery
systems. Process and mechanical engineers generally think of sta-
bility in terms of the equipments ability to function as intended.
The steam system is unstable when a boiler cannot produce the
requested amount of steam due to insufficient fuel or heat-transfer
surface limitation. Control engineers, however, think of stability
in terms of loop stability. An automatic controller is deemed stable
if the process variable tracks the setpoint in an acceptable manner.
The third stability type is combustion stability. A well-anchored
flame is produced when combustion is stable. Unstable flames are
produced when local upsets in the air-to-fuel ratio occurs. Local
upsets in air-to-fuel ratios are sometimes caused by oil mixtures
that contain excessive amounts of light volatile hydrocarbons.
Realizing the potentially varied viewpoints of all stakeholders,
the goal of stability control is to steer the steam system toward
operating conditions that meet all of these expectations. To that
end, a master controller is often applied.
Case study. To better illustrate the concept of steam load shed-
ding and boiler stability, the following case study investigates the
expansion of an ethylene petrochemical complex. The complex
consists of three facilities (A, B and C), and it was built in three
phases at different times over 15 years. Each phase of the complex
was provided with its own separate steam system. At the end of
the third phase, one design objective was to integrate the steam
system throughout the three phases to optimize cost and provide
a reliable, robust and stable steam supply for the entire complex.
The integrated steam system consists of seven boilers and
various users from the three processing facilities. Each boilers
control philosophy is similar, consisting of feedback control using
local steam header pressure to adjust boiler loading. Individu-
ally, this control strategy works well, maintaining the required
steam header pressure at the local source. When used in a large,
integrated facility with boilers separated by more than 1,000 m of
piping as in this case study, the total system stability and required
response time becomes critical.
Defining upsets. In the system, an initial condition must first
be established. This initial condition can be viewed as the normal
operating backdrop against which the dynamic analysis will intro-
duce upsets. For this case study, a base scenario of normal operation
was set at running all boilers in automatic pressure cascade control.
Alignment with the operating plan is important at this stage, since
the dynamic results will be influenced by the initial conditions.
To properly mitigate declining steam availability, the likely
causes for steam shortages must be defined. These cases are best
agreed upon by consulting with the process engineering and oper-
ations personnel. For this case study, these upsets are proposed:
Loss of one hydrocarbon feed source to the ethylene furnaces,
resulting in the shutdown of the furnace-wall burners on 3 of the
10 cracking furnaces.
Loss of super-high pressure (SHP) boiler feedwater to the
ethylene furnace convection section steam system or fuel gas, result-
ing in a shutdown of all furnace burners on all cracking furnaces.
Boiler trip, including a series of boilers going out of service:
Single boiler tripping
Two boilers tripping
Three boilers tripping.
These scenarios are analyzed using a dynamic simulation to
determine their impact on the steam system.
Dynamic modeling. To achieve a reliable, robust and stable
steam supply throughout the complex, the fully integrated steam
system must be analyzed in a dynamic state to understand the
probable interactions between the shedding logic programs. Oper-
ating facilities are generally not able to risk a major shutdown to
test system responses from upsets. The next best option is to model
the system dynamically. The dynamic model is a testing platform
on which the logic can be proved out and adjusted, if necessary.
A steam balance is first developed using a steady-state model.
These models are based on the assumption that feed streams and
specifications are constant, with no holdup, delay or transient
PROCESS CONTROL AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALREPORT
58
I
OCTOBER 2011 HydrocarbonProcessing.com
condition in the process being modeled. Dynamic simulators, in
contrast, do account for holdup, delay and some transient condi-
tion.
1
Fig. 1 is a dynamic model of the steam system, and it is
built using these cases:
Steam suppliers and users are modeled as control valves
with their performance characteristics programmed into the valve
actions. This allows for reduced complexity and stable model
solutions while still giving the user control over rates of change
at the supplier/user.
Let down valves are modeled using valve data.
HP steam header piping configuration is determined from
isometrics when available and plot plans in the absence of iso-
metrics.
Control information: Boiler performance per manufacturer
and/or plant data
Maximum boiler ramp rate
Boiler capacity limitations
Turndown restrictions.
Compressor turbines steam use is based on performance curves
Ethylene furnace trip action narratives and cause/effect
matrices.
As shown in Fig. 1, the model is designed as a simplified
system using a source and sink construction. This is an appro-
priate model construction when the boiler characteristics are
well understood and the primary interest is the piping systems
dynamic characteristics. The model is focused on studying the
changes in header pressure during upsets; a simplified source-
sink structure is used. Boiler ramping characteristics can be
programmed into the emulating controller to closely mimic the
boilers observed or predicted behavior.
Dynamic modeling limits. As with any engineering exercise,
it is important to understand the limitations of the chosen analyti-
cal method. For this case study, the dynamic model is ideal but has
limitations. Noise, lag and process variability will force the real
controllers to work at maintaining their setpoints. The idealized
model presented here does not account for this behavior. How-
ever, dynamic simulation software generally has the capability to
emulate this non-ideal behavior. It is up to the user to determine
the appropriate level of complexity and to recognize that increased
complexity will result in slower, less stable simulation runs. Addi-
tionally, the model simulates the steam-distribution network.
But, it does not include the other two sides of the boiler stability
trianglefire side and water side. This will be important when
analyzing the results for boiler stability.
Shedding strategy. After identifying the upset cases and
setting the major parameters and assumptions for the dynamic
model, a shedding strategy must be developed (see Table 1). Major
steam users must shed to recover from the upset scenario. The
input of experienced operations personnel is essential in develop-
ing a ranking of the major steam users for the shedding process.
This ranking will allow developing steam-shed actions resulting
from steam-header pressure loss.
For the case study, System A was constructed first. Its steam
shedding was initially developed on a stand-alone basis. Each sub-
sequent addition, systems B and C, were also
initially configured on a stand-alone basis.
The total facility must be evaluated for inter-
actions. If required, setpoint adjustment or
other mitigation strategies may develop from
the integrated case check. For example, if
steam header pressure sag causes simultane-
ous actions in all three major areas that shed
too much load, some actions may be shifted
to a different trigger point in the logic.
Automated steam-shed control
system. Each of the three case study pro-
cess facilities have steam-shed control sys-
tems implemented by logic programmed
within their respective distributed con-
trol systems (DCSs). Note: For this case
study, three separate and distinct DCSs are
involved due to the timing and execution
strategy applied when building facilities
A, B and C.
Each process areas steam-shed control
system monitors the pressure of the HP
steam header within its process area. When
Ethylene unit
compressor
turbine
Boiler 1 Boiler 2
Turbine
user
Condensing
user 1
Condensing
user 2 Let down
station
FC
xxx
FC
xxx
PC
xxx
FC
xxx
FC
xxx
FC
xxx
FC
xxx
FC
xxx
FC
xxx
Secondary
producers
Secondary
consumers
Include sufcient
pipe operations to
simulate holdup
volume
Pipe 1 Pipe 4 Pipe 6 Pipe 7
P
i
p
e
2
P
i
p
e
3
P
i
p
e
5
P
i
p
e
8
P
i
p
e
9
Direct manipulation of the
boiler source stream ow
Sample model flowsheet. FIG. 1
TABLE 1. Basic principles of steam-load shedding
Steam-load shedding is done through an automated program in the DCS.
The steam-load shedding program is configurable at an engineering level to
allow the facility to make setpoint adjustments as required in the future.
The steam-load shedding program will have an automatic (or active) mode and
a manual mode.
Proactive actionsSimultaneous shed actions that are triggered upon receipt
of trip signal such as a boiler-master fuel trip.
Reactive actionsShed actions as a result of a steam header pressure sag.
Shedding a turbine driver and activating a motor backup must include steps to
ensure that the load is taken by the electric driver prior to shedding the steam
turbine. This happens above the turbine auto trip point, since the turbine con-
troller would automatically switch the driver to electric if steam pressure is lost.
Shedding strategy includes the impact of header pressure sag on the large
turbo-machinery equipment. This equipment often must be protected from high
pressure differentials that can cause damage.
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2011
I
59
the steam-header pressure within a process area drops to a prede-
termined pressure, the areas steam-shed control system automati-
cally shuts down the expendable steam users within its process
area, in a predefined shed group determined according to the
shedding strategy. If the steam-header pressure continues to drop,
the steam-shed control system automatically shuts down addi-
tional steam user shed groups within its process area. As a shed
group is shut down, the demand on the steam system is reduced,
assisting the boilers in restoring header pressure.
Steam shed groups are predefined groups of steam users. Each
group consists of steam users that have been selected to be shut-
down or shed at a specific HP steam header pressure. There can
be several shed groups within a single facility. The shed groups
within each process facility are grouped by their importance to
plant operations. The first shed group contains users that are least
important, followed by the second, third and fourth shed groups
in order of increasing importance.
For the case study, the steam-shed control systems within each
of the three process facilities are programmed to shed only steam
users within its process area. The steam-shed control system
for one process area does not shut down steam users in another
process area.
Once a proposed shedding logic has been added to the model,
analysis of the system response to the defined upsets can begin.
For the case study, the analysis of the dynamic simulation model
shows that the existing steam-shed control system within each
process facility properly mitigates the simulated steam system
failure scenarios and prevents an uncontrolled collapse of the
integrated HP-steam system pressure.
Results. For each upset scenario, a dynamic model is run with
and without steam-load shedding actions. The upset begins 30
seconds into the simulation so that the steady-state normal opera-
tion prior to the upset is visible. A representative sample of the
dynamic modeling results is presented for Scenario 1loss of one
hydrocarbon feed source to the ethylene furnaces resulting in a
shutdown of the furnace wall burners on three cracking furnaces.
The initial state for Scenario 1 is normal operation with nine
ethylene unit furnaces online and the tenth in hot steam standby
(HSSB). The upset occurs when loss of a single hydrocarbon feed
to the system results in the activation of the furnace emergency
shutdown system. The resulting safety interlock activation will
force three of the eight operating furnaces from normal opera-
tion to HSSB.
For the case study facility, SHP steam is produced in the eth-
ylene unit cracking furnaces and is let down to the HP level. The
ethylene units are connected on the HP header level to balance
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time, minutes
F
l
o
w
,
k
g
/
h
Ethylene unit HP steam production. The initial steady-state
operation of the HP steam production is interrupted after
a partial furnace trip. The loss of furnace heat input results
in a ramp down of HP steam production.
FIG. 2
Since 1968
Select 72 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
PROCESS CONTROL AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALREPORT
60
I
OCTOBER 2011 HydrocarbonProcessing.com
the facility. An upset in SHP steam production in an ethylene unit
cascades to reduce available HP steam for the rest of the facility.
After a partial trip, each tripped furnace produces steam equiva-
lent to HSSB rates. Simultaneously, the cracked-gas compressor
in the ethylene unit (due to reduced feed) will go to turndown
operation. The net effect on the HP steam header will be a ramp
down of HP steam extraction from the cracked-gas compressor
as shown in Fig. 2.
The pressure controller for each boiler area automatically
senses the drop in HP steam header pressure and ramps up steam
production to compensate. Fig. 3 shows a typical boiler ramp up
for each area. The ramp rate is limited by the emulating flow con-
troller based on known boiler characteristics. Once steam header
pressure nears a recovery point, the header pressure controller
seeks its setpoint according to its tuning parameters, as evident by
the slight oscillations shown starting at 10 minutes.
The boilers are not able to ramp up production fast enough
to prevent a rapid drop in header pressure. The header pressure
response is shown in Fig. 4. The steam-load shedding logic begins
switching off expendable users at 38 kg/cm
2
g, thus facilitating a
more rapid pressure recovery.
Fig. 5 is an example on the impact of steam load shedding.
Once Facility A header pressure drops to 38 kg/cm
2
g, the load
shedding logic stops an expendable user within the Facility A
utility area. A typical user is a large turbine driver that has an
available electric motor backup. As shown in Fig. 5, Facility A
has a turbine user in its utility area that is included in the shed-
ding logic. For this example, when the header pressure reaches
the shedding trigger point, the logic engages the backup electric
driver and disengages the turbine driver, thus reducing the steam
requirement for the Facility A utility area more quickly than a
boiler can ramp up steam production.
Integrated system stability control. As previously dis-
cussed, steam-load shedding logic prevents or lessens the impact
from upsets on the steam system. During operation, some vari-
ability will occur within the normal operating range. The facility-
wide steam system must be capable of responding to these normal
variations without relying on steam-load shedding logic. For a
complex site with multiple boiler installations, such as the case
study, a supervisory stability controller or plant master controller
can be used to ensure appropriate responses by different boiler
areas. The objective of the stability controller is to prevent a boiler
trip or steam-header pressure sag scenario from causing steam
loss, resulting in an uncontrolled crash of multiple process units.
What is a plant-master controller? Without a plant
master, there is a potential that although the individual control
system responses to a perturbation are correct, the sum total
of the individual actions can cause the total system to become
unstable, and all boilers to be knocked offline. However, a plant
master cannot function effectively unless each boilers individual
boiler master is fully functional.
For all boilers to be effectively integrated and function as a
single central steam plant, each boiler must be fully functional and
capable of being put into automatic control. When each boiler is
capable of functioning in automatic, a plant-master control can
be used to orchestrate the response of individual boilers to system
TABLE 2. Potential issues causing boiler instability
Process issues
Effects of produced fuel gas composition swings on boiler stability
Variability of oil delivery temperature, pressure and composition
Lack of system blow off
Environmental constraints
Boiler mechanical issues
Inability to produce name-plate steam rate
Cold end corrosion
De-superheat circuit reliability
Position of swirler in burner
Position of oil gun (proper insertion)
Vibration associated with oil burning rates
Vibration associated with excess FGR rates
Limitations of the burners
De-superheat circuit reliability
Control function issues
Inaccurate/unstable air measurement
Possible inaccurate gravity feed bias to air-to-fuel ratio adjustment
Damper characterization
Repeatability of valve and damper positioning on demand change
Environmental constraints
126,250
136,250
146,250
156,250
166,250
176,250
186,250
196,250
206,250
216,250
226,250
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time, minutes
F
l
o
w
,
k
g
/
h
Boiler steam production. Boilers outside of the ethylene
unit will respond as header pressure falls, ramping up
their steam production rate. The ramp rate is limited by
the emulating flow controller based on known boiler
characteristics.
FIG. 3
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time, minutes
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
k
g
/
c
m
2
g
B A C
Steam header pressures. The header pressures begin
declining immediately due to the upset. Boiler ramp rates
are insufficient to stop the decline until the first shedding
logic trigger point is reached at 38 kg/cm
2
g. The system
rebounds quickly after the shedding logic engages.
FIG. 4
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2011
I
61
perturbations. The plant master is essentially instructions that tell
each boiler what to do when the system is perturbed. The plant
master tells the individual boilers boiler master what to do.
Options. A plant master can be designed with various goals.
For the case study facility, the plant-master control can be imple-
mented in several ways:
As is. This option basically does the best with what the plants
already have in terms of hardware. It will run the seven boilers in
automatic under a limited number of conditions and will flip the
system into manual when it sees certain conditions.
When a predetermined number of signals are unavailable or
deemed out of range, the plant master puts the system in manual
just as the individual boiler master puts a control loop into manual
when it loses a primary signal. For example, for an individual boiler,
if the signal from the flue-gas recirculation flow transmitter becomes
unavailable to the controls of the boiler, this condition is alarmed,
and the associated FGR control station is automatically switched
to manual mode. To understand what it means to configure a plant
master in this fashion, one must understand the limitations of the
existing equipment, fuels and individual system dynamics.
The boilers operate under many constraints. All boilers must
work within the constraints set up by their individual burner
management systems (BMSs). A BMS can be thought of as a
set of go/no-go instructions. The BMS does not control boiler
modulation; it simply allows the boilers to modulate. The rules
or setpoints within the BMS are fixed and cannot be altered dur-
ing operation.
It is not uncommon for boilers to operate on a wide range of
fuel gas gravity and composition. This fact causes an inherent
control difficulty for all of the boilers. The control systems of all
boilers can only function if gravity and heat release are consistently
related. Fig. 6 represents the programmed relationship between gas
specific gravity (sg) and Btu content, when the sg of the gas is 0.5,
then the fuel value must be approximately 1,000 Btu/scf and when
the sg is 0.2, the fuel value must be approximately 500 Btu/scf. The
system cannot function if the heat value of the gas is ever 500 Btu/
scf or when the sg is 0.5, as represented by the red dot in Fig. 6.
The relationship between gravity and air demand must also
be similar. Any changes in air demand for a given gravity will
cause problems for the burner. For example, in combustion
controls, it is not uncommon to program gas gravity compensa-
tion into the control system if a variable fuel gas composition
is expected. The potential downside of this strategy is that gass
gravity must be consistently related to specific gravity. If com-
positions can exist that create a gas sg with a heating value that is
not in line with the programmed relationship, then combustion
instability can occur.
Facility A other
process users
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time, minutes
F
l
o
w
,
t
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
k
g
/
h
Facility A utility area
User shedding example. FIG. 5
Since 1968
Select 72 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
PROCESS CONTROL AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALREPORT
62
I
OCTOBER 2011 HydrocarbonProcessing.com
Each BMS has a set of rules that determines the allowable fuel
gas pressure to each burner. If the gas pressure is too high, or if the
gas pressure falls too low, the burner is no longer safe, and the
BMS will take action to shut the burner down. Since a burner is
essentially a fixed orifice, the gas pressure at the burner for a given
heat release will be much higher on fuel gas compared to natural
gas. The problem can be that the high-high fuel gas pressure trip
was set to natural gas. When the boiler fires produced fuel gas, its
output is constrained. It may not be able to make its nameplate
rating for steam because the BMS shuts the burner down when it
gets to that high-high gas pressure setting. The plant master and
boiler master must understand the constraints and tell the boilers
to act accordingly. This information can be incorporated into the
steam-shed dynamic model, introducing new constraints to the
model and altering conclusions when compared to more ideal
boiler performance constraints.
The essence of the as is strategy is to define how to live with
the physical and dynamic constraints of the system. This strategy
will need to identify when and how the current equipment can
be controlled in automatic. Some of the issues with the as is
scenario are:
Difficulties in accurately measuring combustion air
Difficulties in achieving NO
x
compliance under all load
scenarios
Effect of demanded low load on the metallurgy
Ability to maintain boiler operation on single burner MFT
Repeatability of FGR valve positioning on load change
Mechanical vibration associated with oil burning
Thermo-acoustic vibration on fans.
Further dynamic modeling of the system as is will help
increase the understanding of the limitations and constraints
that exist in the current boiler systems. The modeling will
need to incorporate field measurements of various process
parameters, and to be tested against historical data trends from
known upsets.
Most of the time. This strategy addresses any issues experienced
by existing boilers. It will require that all existing boilers be tuned
and that operational priorities and strategies for waste disposal be
addressed. After studying the existing system, hardware and philo-
sophical changes can be made to stabilize operations. Once indi-
vidual boiler stability is demonstrated, a plant master can be config-
ured to reinforce stability when rapid and coordinated responses are
required from the three steam plants. The plant master can decide
which plant reacts first, second and third, taking into account the
constraints of the individual systems, as shown in Table 2.
Dynamic modeling will be useful in this scenario as a testing
platform for proposed hardware or control changes. After more
precisely emulating current boiler behavior, the model can be
updated to predict the benefits of the proposed modifications.
All of the time. This is the perfect world scenario. All boilers
would run totally in automatic. This is probably not realistic for
many boiler installations, especially those firing fuels with varying
compositions such as waste oils. It would require that all of the
fuels (gas and liquid) being fired in the boilers be consistent in
terms of composition and delivery pressure.
Field verification and stability. Input from the field is
essential to the success of developing a plant master. Current
problems in automatic and manual control must be understood
and mitigated where possible.
The robustness of a plant master depends on the robustness of
the individual boiler masters. It is necessary to discuss operating
practices and challenges with the operators to ensure that all issues
are addressed and factored into the design of the plant master.
System stability depends on the ability of each individual boiler
to do requested actions consistently without affecting the other
boilers within the system. Individual boiler stability depends on
the ability of that boiler to perform the action requested without
knocking itself offline.
The dynamic model can be easily tailored to mimic current
operation and then used to predict future response and guide
decisions. This tailoring can only be accomplished through
close consultation with operators who have hands-on experience
with the existing boilers under a variety of operating condi-
tions. Once tailored, the model is tested for acceptance during
an organized meeting by a team comprising of engineering and
operations representatives. This is commonly known as a model
acceptance test.
Options. With the five boilers of Facilities A and B in opera-
tion, the plant operators are able to maintain header pressure by
manually modulating the five boilers. At any given time, they
could make as many as 120 (5 factorial) wrong decisions. When
Facility C comes online, with two additional boilers, if the system
is in total manual, they could make 5,040 (7 factorial) wrong deci-
sions in response to a system perturbation, a major increase in the
probability of system wide destabilization.
The dynamic load shed analysis has shown that the capacity
and layout of the system are essentially functional but do not
address system stability. Further model development could incor-
porate additional information from the field and provide insight
to stability issues.
If the multiple decentralized steam plants are to be run in
automatic for any length of time, as in the case study, there must
be plant-master controller. The plant-master controller will tell
each boiler how to respond to perturbations in the system. A
plant-master controller can work only if each boiler is capable of
responding to the request being made. To configure a plant mas-
ter in the most economic and effective manner, the difficulties
encountered by each individual boiler must be acknowledged and
understood. Problems that can be mitigated through boiler tun-
ing should be resolved. Problems requiring changes in hardware
should be evaluated relative to cost and benefit. HP
0
500
1,000
1,500
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Gas specic gravity
G
a
s
B
t
u
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
,
B
t
u
/
s
c
f
Heating value as a function of specific gravity. FIG. 6
Complete literature cited and author biographies and photos available online at
HydrocarbonProcessing.com.
Select 72 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
Engineering Solutions for Oil, Gas, Rehning 8 Chemical !ndustries.
sales@bre.com www.bre.com 979-776-S220 US 800-776-S220
ProMax is a powerful and versatile process simulation
package that is used worldwide to design and optimize
gas processing, refning and chemical facilities. Totally
integrated with Microsoft Visio
, Excel
and Word
,
ProMax is the best simulation tool for designing gas
plants and predicting performance under varying
process conditions.
Discover why engineers around the world depend on ProMax!
M NGL LNG LG
k
D CC
2
S
U L
C MCnn
2
CnC
S
M
ProMax
& PROSIM
CW
( R1)
+ CW
( R2)
+ CW
(R3)
RON is inferred based on these process measurements:
R
xj
inlet temperature
R
xj
outlet temperature
Feed rate
H/HC ratio
Separator pressure
Catalyst circulation rate
Feed naphthenes
Feed aromatics
Rvp specification.
The average bed temperature for each reactor is calculated
using the R
xj
measures, and RON is then inferred based on a qua-
dratic correlation and using these average bed temperatures and
all other measures reported here. The correlation actually uses all
measures both linear and quadratic terms.
Coke. Both the coke laydown rate (kg/h) and its amount on
catalyst (wt%) have been calculated based on both the reactor
and the regeneration operative conditions. A coke profile in the
reactor has been also calculated depending on the occasional event
of not completely burning the coke in the regenerator and thus
not completely regenerating the catalyst. This profile is used to
evaluate the maximum amount of coke deposition in the reactor
to be used to set the minimum hydrogen-to-hydrocarbon ratio.
The minimum H
2
/HC ratio is calculated to avoid excessive coke
on catalyst entering the regenerator.
It is well known that a full catalyst cycle reactors-regenerator is
as long as 8 or 10 days but the regenerator section (i.e., CCR sec-
tion of the reformer) can stop for a long time while the reformer
keeps running. These events have then to be properly managed.
The current coke laydown rate (i.e. the rate in kg/h at which
coke is laying down on the catalyst) and the resulting equilibrium
coke on catalyst (wt%) are inferred based on the same process
measurements used for RON (obviously apart Rvp) plus naph-
tha feed boiling range information and using a similar linear and
quadratic correlation.
The current coke laydown rate (kg/h) inferred represents the
spot coke laydown rate. If the same feed
and operating conditions are maintained
for a complete catalyst cycle, then this
would represent the equilibrium coke on
catalyst (wt%) entering the regenerator. The
regenerator entry point is where the catalyst
samples are taken and then analyzed.
The catalyst cycle through all reactors
in the eni Sannazzaro refinery is approxi-
mately eight days and during this period
feed quality and operating conditions nor-
mally change many times. Using laboratory
results to update this inferential would be
incorrect. Nevertheless the coke on catalyst
can be calculated as:
Flowsheet model of reformer. FIG. 2
Diagram of inferred property model for the reformer. FIG. 1
PROCESS CONTROL AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALREPORT
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2011
I
67
Coke
wt %
=
Coke
kg /h
CatalystCirculationRate
kg /h
100
We could call the above properties equilibrium coke laydown
rate and coke on the catalyst. The actual coke laydown rate to the
regenerator (kg/h) and the current spot (wt%) coke on catalyst is
calculated directly from the air and oxygen content process mea-
surements. The calculation is based on a total mass and oxygen
balance around the regenerator. The combustion reaction, assum-
ing a chemical formula for coke equal to CH
x
is:
4CH
x
+ 4+ x ( )O
2
4CO
2
+2x H
2
O
With the air flow measures, it is possible to calculate the oxy-
gen amount that is consumed during the burning process and the
burned coke (kg/h) corresponding to the amount of consumed
oxygen. Once the coke laydown is obtained, the coke on catalyst
(wt%) can then be calculated.
H
2
/HC ratio. The minimum H
2
/HC ratio, that guarantees to
maintain the coke deposition over catalyst within limits, must also
be calculated. This is actually the minimum H
2
/HC ratio that
maximizes reformate yield while respecting the coke on catalyst
constraint in regenerator capacity.
Both the reactor and regenerator operations affect the mini-
mum H
2
/HC ratio because the coke deposited over the catalyst
depends on the operative conditions of the reactor but also on
the coke that passes through the regeneration section without
burning. Its very important to consider the event of the coke
not burning in the regenerator due to a CCR failure and passing
through and thus underestimating the minimum H
2
/HC ratio.
Fig. 3 reports three different cases that explain what happens
when the regenerator tower shuts down:
In normal operations (A,) the coke deposited in the reac-
tor is totally burned in the regeneration section; thus the coke
on catalyst depends only on the reactor operative conditions. A
uniform deposition of coke along the reactor can be assumed in
this case.
If the regeneration tower fails to burn completely, then the
coke (B), a slice of catalyst not completely regenerated enters the
reactor.
When the regeneration tower is again operative (C), the coke
is completely burned and the catalyst is fully regenerated again.
However the slice of catalyst covered by coke is still in the reactor,
slowly moving and generating a coke profile.
The minimum H
2
/HC ratio calculation considers the presence
of the moving coke slice to avoid underestimating the H
2
/HC
ratio. Without this accurate calculation, when the coke slice exits
the reactors section, the operator has to reduce the catalyst circu-
lation rate to avoid an overload of the regeneration tower. This
would happen days after the CCR failure event. The coke profile
is described and monitored within the solution and accurate
minimum H
2
/HC ratio is supplied to the multivariable predictive
controller application.
Duties and skins temperatures. Duty is evaluated on the
process side with the classical heat transfer equation taking into
consideration the mass flow, feed composition, H
2
/HC ratio and
the delta in I/O temperatures.
Skin temperatures are inferred by adopting the Standard API-
530 method, where the radial component of the heat flow is cal-
culated together with the transfer heat coefficients in bulk, fouling
and across the tube describing this way the temperature profile
from the inner part to the skin of the tube itself. This certified
methodology is not straightforward to implement and requires
a detailed knowledge of furnace geometry and metallurgy and
also products thermodynamic properties, but it permits safe use
of inferred skin temperatures as closed-loop controlled variables.
The products affecting heat exchange are naphtha and hydro-
gen, in a vapor-phase mixture, and also coke deposited along
the walls of the tubes. The thermodynamic properties that are
required for naphtha and hydrogen are specific heat, viscosity and
thermal conductivity; while for coke the only needed property is
thermal conductivity. All of these properties have been calculated
using the rigorous model and then building accurate correlations,
function of pressure and temperature, to be deployed online. Heat
transfer coefficients have been calculated according to API-530 as
function of Reynolds (Re) and Prandtl (Pr) numbers:
h = f Re, Pr,
Tb
Tw
,
b
w
T across fluid
T
c
=
Q
RAD
tc
kc
De
Di tc
T across coke
T
m
=
Q
RAD
ta
kw
De
De ta
T across metal
where:
De and Di are external and internal diameter of the tubes
tc is the coke layer thickness
ta is the tube thickness
kc and kw are the thermal conductivities of coke and metal
respectively
The maximum skin temperature can then be calculated adding
the above Ts to bulk temperature.
Results. Some obtained results are reported:
RON results:
1 year data (2008, Fig. 5)
160 lab analysis,
11 outliers (plant shutdown-startup),
149 used samples.
where in blue the inferential, in red the infrequent lab. The pro-
cess licensor correlation was based mainly on the WAIT measure
and the N+2A feed analysis was required to update the mea-
sure (this analysis is done once per week) to account for feed
quality changes. The blue line RON inferred measure takes into
account the feed quality changes, by including in the calculation
the WABT, which is a measure of the reaction progress. Fig. 6
provides an idea of how well the lab analysis data are reproduced:
99% of the data falls within 0.45 range, and the official lab
analysis ASTM reproducibility is 0.70.
99.00
6,660 6,720 6,780 6,840 6,900 6,960 7,020 7,080
98.50
99.17
98.67
99.33
98.83
99.50
99.00
99.67
99.17
99.83
99.33
100.00
99.50
100.17
99.67
RON_AT
RON_LAB
RON values predicted and measured by the lab. FIG. 5
0
-3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00
RON (LAB-INF)
Data
Gauss
1.00 2.00 3.00
5
10
15
20
25
Scatter of lab vs. model predicted RON. FIG. 6
Coke Lab
Coke INF
4.000
2
7
/
0
2
/
0
8
0
5
/
0
3
/
0
8
1
4
/
0
3
/
0
8
1
1
/
0
3
/
0
8
2
0
/
0
3
/
0
8
1
7
/
0
3
/
0
8
2
3
/
0
3
/
0
8
0
8
/
0
3
/
0
8
0
2
/
0
3
/
0
8
4.750
5.500
6.250
7.000
4.000
8.500
Coke make values predicted and measured by the lab. FIG. 7
APC can maximize profitable operations
while respecting both constraints that can
be measured directly and those variables
that can be accurately inferred to maintain
safe and reliable operation.
PROCESS CONTROL AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALREPORT
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2011
I
69
Coke results:
1 year data (2008, Fig. 7)
97 lab analyses
6 outliers (regeneration tower OUT)
86 used samples.
where in blue the inferential and in red the infrequent lab analy-
sis, Fig. 8 provides an idea of how well the lab analysis is data is
reproduced.
Skins results as shown in Fig. 9:
1. Green lines: installed thermocouples (low reliability, par-
ticularly with furnace in end-of-run conditions); red line: inferred
skin temperature
2. Change in process operative condition: inferred measure
was responding properly, following the most reliable thermo-
couples indications
3. Plant shutdown: during startup the inferred measure fol-
lowed the thermocouples signal
Similar impressive results have been obtained for H
2
/HC ratio,
Duties and other estimated properties.
Advantages. The solution described in the previous sections
and deployed online to be used by the closed-loop control, is by
far superior to any other available solution and also to any online
analyzer. It can provide not only RON but also coke on catalyst,
minimum H
2
/HC ratio, Skins and other accurate information
that analyzers cant supply.
Some of the advantages for this solution are:
1. Use of standard software: open architecture; no hidden
code nor black boxes; and use of configurable, integrated and
user friendly tools.
2. Inferred measures (RON, coke laydown, skins, etc.) are
calculated by regressing a reformer rigorous model that can be
tuned and calibrated easily. No simple correlations nor simpli-
fied models.
3. Detailed feed characterization in the model (not simply
N+2A).
4. Accuracy in constraints calculations makes it possible rid-
ing actual constraints as defined by an LP or blending model, i.e.,
obtain the true potential from the unit.
5. The application can be easily maintained, recalibrated and
even customized by changing a few parameters in the configura-
tion section.
6. The deployment online is made through a standard and
field-proven tool that provides validation for both input and
output signals to guarantee a safe DCS interfacing.
7. The operator interface used for online deployment is stan-
dard, web based, auto-configurable, i.e., does not need any effort
to be maintained and modified in case of application changes: it
reads the configuration files and updates automatically.
8. Inferred measures updates with lab analyses or analyzers to
correct bias are embedded in the web based application.
9. Automatic links with APC platform and inferred proper-
ties are made available via standard architecture that allows only
validated values to be used for closed loop control.
10. Availability of a rigorous reactor model for offline what-
if analysis, test different naphtha feeds and catalyst deactivation
monitoring.
11. Model can be also used for planning (LP) models accuracy
improvements and online KPI targets calculation and perfor-
mance monitoring.
12. Catalyst and even process vendor independent solution
model can be tailored on specific process configuration and if
catalyst is changed and even if process is revamped/modified, the
investment is preserved.
Benefits. The benefits related to more accurate, reliable and
real-time information on quality depend on the use of informa-
tion. Certainly using RON, skins, H
2
/HC, coke laydown as
controlled variables within a control application that is designed
to continuously push the unit, permits to make the best use
of such information. Obtainable benefits obviously depend
on market scenario, the way reformer is operated and specific
refinery constraints.
At present, H
2
costs are well above 1,000 /ton and a less than
maximum H
2
production from a reformer due to constraints
such as skins or coke, that are not truly represented, can result in
huge profit losses from hydrocracking or desulfurization units.
Just 200 kg/h of H
2
not available for refinery conversion and
desulfurization units could mean 2 million (MM) /y loss.
The gasoline pool plays a role even in current diesel oriented
market, because gasoline is one of the crude cuts and must be
sold. Being able to run closer to a RON target, minimizes give-
away, and permits avoiding downgrading too much gasoline
to LPG. Conversely, a too low RON leads to more expensive
blending receipts and higher MTBE consumption. Typical sav-
ings, even if strongly depending on specific refinery layout and
blending pool, could range from 0.5 up to 1.5 MM/y for each
reformate RON point.
0
Coke (LAB-INF)
5
10
15
20
25
-3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
Data
Gauss
Scatter of lab vs. model predicted coke make. FIG. 8
Skin temperatures values predicted and measured by the
thermocouples.
FIG. 9
70
PROCESS CONTROL
It has been verified that efficient reformer inferentials embed-
ded in a closed-loop application led to a feed increase of 3.7% in
the eni Sannazzaro refinery. These came with:
Increased H
2
production being able to push truly repre-
sented constraints
Reduced RON giveaway
Reduced MTBE consumptions
Better CCR temperature profile.
In a semi regenerative reformer, where catalyst life cycle is
driving operations having accurate RON and coke, i.e., catalyst
life, estimates is even more important and benefits can be much
higher particularly in a pro-aromatics reformer. This solution has
also been successfully applied to a semi-regenerative reformer.
Options. The proposed application for CCR and SRR infer-
entials, developed with a rigorous model and deployed online
through a field proven tool, is by far superior to any other solution
currently available. Its based on open architecture and is accurate,
reliable, easy to configure and maintain. The investment is always
preserved also in case of process or catalyst changes.
Using such inferentials in closed-loop-control applications to
obtain additional benefits, if compared to poor estimates, may
repay the investment in just a few months. The availability of
a rigorous reformer model can be used for other purposes like
what-if analysis and to test different feed types, maximizing
this way the investment. The next step is deploy online directly
the rigorous model and move to a truly adaptive inferential. HP
Stefano Lodolo is a senior advisor and industry consultant with
Aspen Technology in Italy. He has nearly 25 years of field experience
in advanced process control in refining, chemical and petrochemical
industries. Mr. Lodolo has successfully implemented dozens of MPC
and other automation projects on a wide variety of process units. He
holds an MS degree in chemical engineering for Bologna University, Italy.
Dr. Clive Beautyman is a senior advisor with AspenTech
and is based in the UK. After earning a BSc in chemical engineer-
ing from UMIST and a PhD from Imperial College, he joined BP in
1984 working on early refinery RTO and inferential projects. Dr.
Beautyman has subsequently worked for a number of refinery
services companies including Profimatics, Honeywell and KBC Process Technology.
In 2001, he joined AspenTech. He specializes in refinery reactor modeling across a
range of planning, operational and process engineering applications. He has worked
on projects with numerous refining clients throughout the world. Dr Beautyman is a
Fellow of the Institution of Chemical Engineers and is a Chartered Engineer.
Santo Biroli is with the process control dept. responsible at the
eni R&M Sannazzaro Refinery. He has a broad range of experience
in process control, modeling and optimization. Over the past 15
years, he has been actively involved in developing, implementing
and commissioning of APC algorithms, inferential sensors, multi-
variable predictive control and optimization projects carried out on numerous refinery
processes. He holds a BS degree in electronic engineering for the Pavia University, Italy.
Augusto Autuori is responsible for APC project coordination of
eni refineries. After a degree in chemical engineering from University
of Salerno, in 2002, he joined eni as an APC engineer. Between
2002 and 2006, he participated on several APC projects (DMCplus
and inferential implementation) at some refinery plants. In 2006, he
moved to eni R&M HQ technology department and is responsible for APC project coor-
dination, oil movement systems implementation on eni primary logistics hubs a long
with innovative systems implementation for plants monitoring and operator training.
ARCA
Flow Group
worldwide:
Competence in valves, pumps & cryogenics
Subsidiaries and partners in Switzerland, the Netherlands,
India, P.R. China, Korea, Japan and Mexico!
ECOTROL
control valve
Advantages,
that should not be kept quiet!
High reliability guaranteed by
precision manufacturing processes
and quality control
Emission control and leakage
conforming to the highest international
standards
Tubeless, integrated mounting of
positioners acc. to VDI 3847
Minimal working life costs
A range of awarded patents
Take advantage of the most technically
innovative control valve in a generation,
up to 400 mm!
ARCA Regler GmbH, P. O. Box 2120, D-47913 Tnisvorst
Phone +49-2156-7709-0, Fax -55, sale@arca-valve.com
www.arca-valve.com
The State
of the Art
solution!
Request
Technical
Information or
a Quotation:
T
h
e
Q
u
i
e
t
W
o
r
k
-
H
o
r
s
e
!
Armaturen AG
von Rohr
ARCA BV
von Rohr
Select 167 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
REFINING DEVELOPMENTS
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2011
I
71
A
challenge for existing refineries is
how to process heavy crudes and
handle the technical constraints
associated with such feedstocks. A new
heavy crude was discovered at the Mangala
field in the Thar Desert of Rajasthan, India,
in January 2004. The crude resources went
into production in late August 2008. The
Indian Institute of Petroleum (IIP) con-
ducted a detailed analysis of this crude for
product yields and characteristics. Lower
distillate yield (23 wt%) and difficulties
associated with its transportation through
pipeline due to a higher pore point (39
+
C) clearly indicate that neat processing of
the new crude by existing refineries may
not be feasible.
One solution was to design a grassroots
refinery designed specifically for this chal-
lenging heavy crude oil located near the
Mangala field. Eight grassroots refinery
configurations capable of processing the
Mangala crude were conceptualized and
evaluated economically with regard to finish
products meeting Euro IV specifications.
Results from the study indicated that indi-
vidual product and combined distillate yield
(gasoline + kerosine + diesel) are configura-
tion dependent, and they are governed by
the combination of secondary conversion
processes as part of the processing scheme
included in the configuration.
Need for more oil. Reduced avail-
ability of lighter conventional crudes and
growing global demand for energy drive
efforts to find and produce new crude
resources. India is actively seeking new
offshore and onshore crude sources. Like-
wise, heavy crude oil reserves are increas-
ing in availability. For example, the heavy
crude reserves at the Mangala field in the
Thar Desert of Rajasthan, India are esti-
mated at 3.6 billion barrels (570 billion
m
3
) oil of which 1 billion barrels (160 bil-
lion m
3
) are recoverable. Cairn India is the
current operator of the field, a subsidiary
of Cairn Energy. At present, 125,000 bpd
(125 Mbpd) of crude oil is pumped out
from wells in Rajasthan by Cairn India,
Refinery configurations:
Designs for heavy oil
Conceptualization and economic evaluations considered all possible
scenarios to process clean gasoline and diesel from domestic feedstock
S. KUMAR, S. M. NANOTI, Y. K. SHARMA and M. O. GARG,
Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, India
Amine treating
Treaters
Treaters
Hydrotreater
Gas processing
SR naphtha
SR gasoil
Kero
Naphtha
Other units gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
VGO
V
a
c
u
u
m
d
i
s
t
i
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
l
a
y
e
d
c
o
k
e
r
LCO
FCC
unit
HN
NHT NSPL
Reformer
LN
LN
Coker LN
Vacuum
residuum
L
o
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
u
e
Coker HN
LCGO
HCGO
H
2
H
2
H
2
Crude
ADU
Renery gas
Gasoline
Diesel
Claus sulfur plant
Kero/jet fuel
Sulfur
LPG
Slurry oil
Light naphtha
Coke
Configuration 1CDU + DCU + FCC + Reformer + HDT. FIG. 1
TABLE 1. Mangala crude
characteristics
Characteristics Value
Density, 15C, kg/liter 0.8804
Gravity, API at 60F 29.13
Pour point, C +39
Total sulfur, wt% 0.08
Total acid value, mg KOH/g 0.25
Wax content, wt% 20.60
Watson characterization factor, K
UOP
12.47
LPG potential (C
3
+ C
4
), wt% 0.01
Naphtha (IBP140C), wt% 1.10
Distillate (IBP370C), wt% 23.30
REFINING DEVELOPMENTS
72
I
OCTOBER 2011 HydrocarbonProcessing.com
and plans are in effect to to produce 150
Mbpd in the near term.
1,2
Reliance Industries, Essar Oil and
Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. (IOCL) and Man-
galore Refinery have shown interest in pro-
cessing a blending stock to conventional
crude. With an increasing production
rate, lower distillate yield (23 wt%) and
difficulties associated pipeline transport
issues associated with the Mangala crude,
existing refineries are not designed to han-
dle this very heavy crude oil. A grassroots
refinery located near the Mangala field is
the best option.
Mangala crude characterization.
Detailed analysis of Mangala crude was
carried out at IIP. Table 1 lists the major
characteristics of the crude oil. With a spe-
cific gravity value of 0.881 (API: 29.1),
the Mangala crude is neither heavy nor
light. However, its distillate (from IBP
370C) and naphtha (from IBP140C)
fraction yield values of approximately 23
and 1.1 wt % of crude are significantly
lower in comparison to corresponding
values of approximately 50 and 12 wt%
for conventional crude. This crude oil can
be considered part of the heavier crude
category. Watson characterization factor
value of 12.47 clearly indicates that it is
paraffinic in nature. Also, the higher pore-
point value of 39
+
C poses the challenges
in transpiration via pipelines.
Refinery configurations. Present
day data indicate that there is a continuous
shift to middle and light distillates at the
expense of heavy ends and to ever increas-
ing higher quality standards.
In view of constraints associated with
Mangala crude and its present explora-
tion rate, eight refinery configurations
for a 5 million metric tpy (5 metric
MMtpy or 100,000 bpd (100 Mbpd))
crude processing capacity were conceptu-
alized and analyzed. Table 2 summarizes
possible processes and configurations. In
each configuration, diesel and gasoline
pool streams from different processes
units are blended to produce Euro IV
diesel and gasoline.
TABLE 2. Mangala refinery
processing schemes and
configurations
Configuration-1 CDU + DCU + FCC +
Reformer + HDT
Configuration-2 ADU + FCC* + SHDS +
PRU + DHDT + HGU
Configuration-3 ADU + DCU + FCC* +
SHDS + PRU + HDT + HGU
Configuration-4 CDU + DCU + HDK +
HDT + HGU
Configuration-5 CDU + DCU + HDK
(60% conversion) + FCC +
HDT + Reformer + HGU
Configuration-6 CDU + SDA + FCC +
Reformer + HDT
Configuration-7 CDU + SDA + HDK +
HDT + HGU
Configuration-8 CDU + SDA + HDK
(60% conversion) + FCC +
HDT + Reformer + HGU
Amine treating
Treaters
Treater
Hydrotreater
Gas processing
SR naphtha
SR gasoil
Kero
Naphtha
Other units gas
Gas
NHT NSPL
HGU
PRU
HN
LN
H
2
H
2
H
2
H
2
Crude
L
o
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
u
e
ADU
SHDS
Renery gas
Gasoline
Diesel
Diesel
Claus sulfur plant
Kero/jet fuel
Sulfur
Propylene
LPG
Slurry oil
Gas + LPG
LCO
LSHS
F
C
C
*
Configuration 2ADU + FCC* + SHDS + PRU + HDT + HGU. FIG. 2
Amine treating
Treaters
SHDS
Treater
Hydrotreater
Gas processing
SR naphtha
SR gasoil
Kero
VGO
Naphtha
Gas + LPG
Other units gas
Gas
NSPL
HGU
PRU
HN
LN
H
2
H
2
H
2
Crude
L
o
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
u
e
ADU
Renery gas
Slurry oil
Diesel
Claus sulfur plant
Kero/jet fuel
Sulfur
Gasoline
Propylene
LPG
Coke
V
a
c
u
u
m
d
i
s
t
i
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Vacuum
residuum
H
y
d
r
o
t
r
e
a
t
e
r
Gas
Coker LN
Coker HN
LCGO
HCGO
D
e
l
a
y
e
d
c
o
k
e
r
NHT
Configuration 3CDU + DCU + FCC* (50% LR) + SHDS + PRU + HDT + HGU. FIG. 3
REFINING DEVELOPMENTS
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2011
I
73
These configurations were developed
using technologies and processes that are
already commercially proven and well
established in refineries. Figs. 18 are flow
diagrams for the proposed processing con-
figurations. Based on technical and eco-
nomic ranking criteria, six configurations
(17) are shown here (Fig. 8 is available
online at Hydrocarbonprocessing.com).
In configurations 1 and 6, the hydrogen
generation unit (HGU) is not included,
as hydrogen (H
2
) demand can be met
by recovering the H
2
from the gasoline
reformer unit.
Product yields and properties. In
all cases, product streams generated in each
process unit were blended to obtain the
final products with desired quality speci-
fications such as Euro IV for gasoline and
diesel.
3
A commercially available software
was used in the optimization and planning
of plant operations in the refineries; in-
house developed correlations and a knowl-
edge data base available at IIP were used to
calculate the yields and properties of dif-
ferent products obtained from each process
unit.
49
Product yields obtained for each
refinery configuration are listed in Table
3, along with the distillate yield, which is
the summation of kerosine, gasoline and
diesel yields.
Study results indicate that the individ-
ual product and combined distillate yield
(gasoline + kerosine + diesel) are configura-
tion dependent and governed by the com-
bination of secondary conversion processes
included in the configuration. Accordingly,
the configurations can be categorized in
these classes based on configuration selec-
tivity toward specific types of product man-
ufacturing potential.
Gasoline and diesel-oriented con-
figurations (1, 5, 6 and 8). Euro IV gaso-
line and diesel can be manufactured.
Diesel-oriented configurations (4
and 7). Only Euro IV diesel can be pro-
duced. However, these processing configu-
rations do not have gasoline production
potential.
Propylene-oriented configurations
(2 and 3). These processing configurations
have propylene manufacturing potential
that the other options do not have due to
FCC*/propylene recovery unit inclusion in
these configurations.
From Table 3, it is clear that in Con-
figurations 1 and 6, there is surplus light
naphtha whereas in Configuration 7,
about 52,000 metric tpy of light naph-
tha procurement is needed to meet H
2
demand in this configuration. Distillate
yield value (gasoline + kerosine + diesel)
follows configuration numbers in the order
of 4>5>7>1>8>3>6>2. However, including
LPG yield in the distillate yield changes
the former trend to 4>5>1>7>3>8>2>6.
These trends suggest that including a
hydrocracker will yield more distillates.
Amine treating
Treaters
Hydrotreater
Gas processing
Treater
Kero
SR naphtha
N
a
p
h
t
h
a
SR gasoil
VGO
Gas
Other units gas
Gas
NSPL
NHT
LN
H
2
H
2
Crude
L
o
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
u
e
ADU
Renery gas
Diesel Diesel
Claus sulfur plant
Kero/jet fuel
Sulfur
LPG
Coke
V
a
c
u
u
m
d
i
s
t
i
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Vacuum
residuum
H
y
d
r
o
c
r
a
c
k
e
r
Gas
Coker LN
Coker HN
LCGO
LN naphtha
HN naphtha
Diesel
Kero
HCGO
D
e
l
a
y
e
d
c
o
k
e
r
HGU
Configuration 4CDU + DCU + HDK + HDT + HGU. FIG. 4
Amine treating
Treaters
Hydrotreater
Gas processing
Treater
Kero
SR naphtha
N
a
p
h
t
h
a
SR gasoil
VGO
Gas Gas
LCO
HN
HN
LN
LN
Other units gas
Gas
NHT
HGU Ref
H
2
H
2
H
2
Crude
L
o
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
u
e
ADU
Renery gas
Diesel
Slurry oil
Diesel
Claus sulfur plant
Kero/jet fuel
Sulfur
LPG
Coke
Gasoline
V
a
c
u
u
m
d
i
s
t
i
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Vacuum
residuum
H
y
d
r
o
c
r
a
c
k
e
r
F
C
C
u
n
i
t
Gas
Coker LN
Coker HN
LCGO
Naphtha
Distillate
HT gasoil
HCGO
D
e
l
a
y
e
d
c
o
k
e
r
NSPL
Configuration 5CDU + DCU + HDK (60%) + FCC + Reformer + HDT + HGU. FIG. 5
REFINING DEVELOPMENTS
74
I
OCTOBER 2011 HydrocarbonProcessing.com
The configurations (6, 7 and 8) with the
solvent deasphalting (SDA) unit give a
lesser combined distillate yield value cor-
responding to the configurations (1, 4, and
5) with the delayed coking unit (DCU) in
place of the SDA.
From the crude vacuum resid (VR)
fraction physico-chemical characteriza-
tion, it is clear that the VR has a low
sulfur and vanadium content but has a
high nickle (Ni) content. Thus, only fuel-
grade coke can be produced from the
DCU using VR as a feedstock due to Ni
content. However, if the VRs Ni metal
content can be reduced by pretreatment,
then premium-grade anode coke can be
produced due to the very low sulfur and
vanadium content in the VR. Lowering
the sulfur content (<1%) of the fuel oil
provides opportunities to sell it at a higher
price than the refinery-fuel grade.
Economic evaluation. The economic
analysis for these configurations was car-
ried out for 5 metric MMtpy (100,000
bpd) crude processing capacity. The study
was done during second quarter (2Q)
of 2010. Crude and product prices were
taken from the database available on Inter-
net, in public sector oil refineries and IIP
database.
1, 9, 10
Capital costs of processing
units were also taken from data available in
technical journals, Internet and informa-
tion provided from oil refineries; units cap-
ital cost were corrected for the base price
corresponding to 2Q 2010, using the Mar-
shall & Swift equipment cost index.
1012
To calculate payback for each con-
figuration, a straight-line depreciation
method was used assuming a plant life of
15 years. Corporate tax was considered at
the rate of 30% of gross profit. Manpower
charges of $22.2 million, and insurance,
maintenance and miscellaneous costs at
the rate of 0.5%, 4.5% and 0.15% of
plant cost, respectively, were considered
under the working capital head along
with the crudes cost. These configura-
tions were compared with respect to prod-
uct sales value realization, the investment
required to set up the grassroots refinery,
utility cost, gross profit and the payback
period. Table 4 lists the details of the eco-
nomic evaluation.
The results from Table 4 indicate
that gross profit follows the configura-
tion number trend: 2>4>7>3>1>6>5>8.
Although, products sale values for Con-
figuration 2 and 4 are comparable but
payback period values are significantly
different due to higher capital investment
and utilities cost requirements for Con-
figuration 4. Furthermore, Configuration
7 (CDU + SDA + HDK + HDT + HGU)
has comparable gross profit and payback
period value with Configuration 2, but a
significant amount of pitch is generated
that can pose a serious demand and dis-
posal problems, and pushes this configura-
tion as less attractive than 2 and 4.
Options. These preliminary refinery
configurations conceptualization and
Amine treating
Treaters
Treater
Hydrotreater
Gas processing
SR naphtha
SR gasoil
Gas
Kero
Naphtha
Diesel
Kero
HN
LN
Other units gas
Gas
H
2
H
2
Crude
L
o
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
u
e
ADU
H
y
d
r
o
c
r
a
c
k
e
r
Renery gas
Diesel
DAO
Claus sulfur plant
Kero/jet fuel
Sulfur
LPG
Pitch
Vacuum
residium
HCGO
S
D
A
u
n
i
t
VGO
V
a
c
u
u
m
d
i
s
t
i
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
NSPL
NHT
LN
Naphtha
Purchased L napahtha
HGU
Configuration 7CDU + SDA + HDK + HDT + HGU. FIG. 7
Amine treating
Treaters
Treater
Hydrotreater
Gas processing
SR naphtha
SR gasoil
Gas
Kero
Naphtha
Other units gas
Gas
NHT NSPL
Reformer
H
2
H
2
LN
LN
H
2
Crude
L
o
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
u
e
ADU
FCC
unit
Renery gas
Gasoline
Light naphtha
Slurry oil
Diesel
DAO
Claus sulfur plant
Kero/jet fuel
Sulfur
LPG
Pitch
Vacuum
residium
HCGO
LCO
S
D
A
u
n
i
t
VGO
V
a
c
u
u
m
d
i
s
t
i
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Configuration 6CDU + SDA + FCC + Reformer + HDT. FIG. 6
REFINING DEVELOPMENTS
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2011
I
75
their economic evaluation analysis results
indicate that Configuration- 2 (ADU +
FCC* + SHDS + PRU + HDT + HGU)
tops the gross profit and payout period
ranking list. Maximum gasoline yield is
obtained in Configuration-1 (CDU +
DCU + FCC + Reformer + HDT), but
it occupied 5th place in gross profit pay-
back period ranking. However, Configu-
ration 4 (CDU + DCU + HDK + HDT +
HGU), which ranked just below Configu-
ration-2 from profit and payback points
of view, but provides the maximum distil-
late (4,305 metric tpy diesel) manufactur-
ing potential against the distillate yield
(2,856 metric tpy gasoline and diesel) for
Configuration 2.Therefore, in view of
current diesel driven economy, Configu-
ration 4 may be proved the best over the
long term. HP
* The INDMAX technology maximizes the conver-
sion of heavy oils to highly olefinic LPG through a
fluidized catalytic cracking (FCC) process.
NOMENCLATURE
ADU Atmospheric distillation unit
VDU Vacuum distillation unit
CDU Crude distillation unit
(ADU + VDU)
DCU Delayed cocker unit
FCC Fluidized catalytic cracking unit
SHDS Selective hydrodesulfurization unit
PRU Propylene recovery unit
HDK Hydrocracker unit
SDA Solvent deasphalting unit
HDT Hydrotreating unit
DHDT Diesel hydrotreating unit
NHT Naphtha hydrotreating unit
NSPL Naphtha splitter
HGU Hydrogen generation unit
INDMAX FCC/propylene recovery unit
LN Light naphtha
HN Heavy naphtha
LCGO Light coker gasoil
HCGO Heavy coker gasoil
LCO Light cycle oil
VGO Vacuum gasoil
LITERATURE CITED
Complete literature cited avaiable at
HydrocarbonProcessing.com
TABLE. 3. Material balance and product yields for all refinery configurations
Configuration number,
thousand tpy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Feed
Crude 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Hydrogen 0 11 14 74 63 0 66 48
Total 5,000 5,011 5,014 5,074 5,063 5,000 5,066 5,048
Product yields
Fuel gas 176 283 276 91 225 87 11 128
Sulfur 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 1
LPG 501 623 538 102 250 416 48 261
HGU Naphtha 0 40 51 222 189 0 198 143
Surplus/procured naphtha 123 0 0 0 0 52 73 0
Gasoline 1,409 1,327 868 0 650 1,005 0 0
Kerosine 225 225 225 399 225 225 417 225
Diesel 1,908 1,304 1,993 3,906 3,047 1,738 3,410 ,037
Slurry oil 188 134 88 0 71 201 0 120
Coke 347 0 348 347 347 0 0 0
Pitch 0 0 0 0 0 1,143 1,048 1,048
FCC coke 131 302 194 0 36 128 0 79
Propylene 0 762 416 0 0
Total 5,009 5,000 4,998 5,069 5,043 4,996 ,061 5,043
Distillate 3,542 2,856 3,086 4,305 3,922 2,968 3,827 3,262
Dr. M. O. Garg is the director of
Indian Institute of Petroleum, Deh-
radun, a constituent laboratory of
Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research. Dr. Garg has 33 years of
experience in the refining industry. He started his career
after graduating from IIT-Kanpur in the Research and
Development Division of Engineers India Ltd. in 1976.
He earned a PhD at University of Melbourne. In 1994, he
joined the process system services division of KTI-Technip
India Ltd. and joined Indian Institute of Petroleum in
1998. Dr. Garg has developed and commercialized sev-
eral technologies and has received two CSIR Technology
Award . Dr. Garg has published over 207 papers and
holds 26 patents . He has been elected Fellow of Indian
National Academy of Engineering. Dr. Garg specializes
in the area of liquid-liquid extraction, simulation and
modelling, process integration, advance control, and
process conceptualization. He is acknowledged as an
expert in petroleum refining and petrochemicals.
Shrikant Nanoti is head of sep-
aration processes division at Indian
Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun,
India. He received a chemical engi-
neering degree from Laxminaryan
Institute of Technology, Nagpur and a PhD from the
Indian Institute of Technology. Dr. Nanoti has over 26
years of experience in the development and scale-up of
separation-based technologies, process design, process
integration and pinch analysis for the petroleum refining
and petrochemical industries. He has published more
than 35 research papers in national and international
journals and holds eight patents.
Yogendra Kumar Sharma
has 30 years of experience in analyti-
cal, research and development work
and presently heads the crude oil eval-
uation laboratory at Indian Institute
of Petroleum, Dehradun. Dr. Sharma was awarded the
INSA/DFG fellowship to work on mechanism of degrada-
tion of middle distillate fuels at Engler Bunte Institut der
universitat Karlsruhe, Germany and has submitted the
D.Sc theses at B.R Ambedakar University of Agra. He is a
Sunil Kumar received an MS
degree in chemical engineering from
the Indian Institute of Kanpur, India in
2009. He has been awarded with Cer-
tificate of Merit for Academic Excel-
lence in the Master of Technology Pro-
gramme in chemical engineering at IIT Kanpur and also
honored with Ambujas Youngh Researchers Award. He
started his career in modeling and simulation group, as
a scientist, at Indian Institute of Petroleum (CSIR), Dehra-
dun, India, in 2009. He has completed several projects in
the area of petroleum refinery separation and conversion
processes using the advanced state-of art tools.
TABLE 4. Economic evaluation for various grassroots refineries
Configuration number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Product sales value, billion $ 3.148 3.482 3.24 3.417 3.288 3.022 3.322 3.15
Refinery cost, billion $ 1.751 1.613 1.926 2.01 2.16 1.368 1.663 1.722
Utility cost, million $ 109 126 133 200 266 90 205 220
Working capital, billion $ 2.685 2.678 2.694 2.699 2.706 2.666 2.681 2.684
Gross profit, million $ 237 570 284 384 172 176 326 131
Payback period, years 6.2 3.2 5.9 5.0 8.2 6.4 4.9 8.3
NABL technical assessor and has significantly contributed
to the evaluation of various indigenous and imported
crude oils, natural gas liquids, condensate and petroleum
products. Dr. Sharma has published 12 research papers
in international journals and has filed seven patents.
GulfPub.com/IRPC
Hydrocarbon Processings 3rd Annual International Rening and
Petrochemical Conference will be held in Milan, Italy on June 1214 2012.
Hydrocarbon Processings International Rening
and Petrochemical Conference (IRPC) is a market-
leading technical conference, providing an elite
forum for industry leaders to come together to
share knowledge and ideas relating to the rening
and petrochemical industries. IRPC emphasizes
the latest technological and operational advances
from both a local and global perspective and is
attended by project engineers, process engineers
and hydrocarbon processing industry management
of cials from around the world.
In todays increasingly competitive global HPI,
managers and engineers are actively seeking
information and solutions to make their company
or organization more ef cient and protable. This
is your chance to take part in the discussion. IRPC
ofers an intimate, thought-provoking working
environment to meet and network with industry
leaders and key decision makers as they explore how
technological and operating advances can benet
their organization or plant.
Make your plans for IRPC 2012.
How you can participate:
Submit an Abstract for Consideration:
Events@GulfPub.com
Exhibit or Sponsor: Contact your local
Hydrocarbon Processing sales representative
INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2011
I
77
Improve material balance by using
proper flowmeter corrections
Here are guidelines to increase accuracy for flow measurements
S. PERAMANU and J. C. WAH, Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., Calgary, Canada
P
rocess plants frequently encounter mass imbalances. These
can be attributed to various factors, but often they lead back
to inappropriate measuring devices, improper calibration,
incorrect installation or incorrect interpretation of the measured
flows. There are well-established guidelines available to ensure
appropriate flowmeter selection based on the process conditions
and control requirements.
Instrument vendors follow the industry standards and
approved procedures for flowmeter calibration, calculating the
calibration factors based on the data provided in the flowmeter
specification datasheets. Engineering and construction service
contractors often follow vendor guidelines and standard prac-
tices to correctly install the flowmeters. This means that most
flowmeter installations, therefore, meet accepted project stan-
dards and specifications.
Whats the flowrate? However, measured flow interpreta-
tion, normally a process or production engineers responsibility,
is often done without proper directions or guidelines. Although it
appears straightforward that the flowmeter measures the flowrate
and the flowrate value is read from the display, significant error
can be introduced if the flow measurement conditions are not
understood and appropriate correction factors are not applied.
Accurate stream flow interpretation and critical mass balance
reconciliation require understanding flowmeter characteristics and
their associated measurement uncertainties. This is of particular
importance where mass balances may be used for highly sensitive
process control operations, production accounting or government
reporting on royalties and emissions.
This article provides a background on the importance of
accurate measurements, a description of measurement errors
and the role of uncertainties in mass balance and reconciliation.
Flowmeter correction equations are derived for differential pres-
sure flow, volumetric flow and mass flowmeters, and flow cor-
rection factors are provided for various units of measurements
(UOM). Flowmeter uncertainty equations are derived for differ-
ential pressure flow, volumetric flow and mass flowmeters.
METERING APPLICATIONS
To achieve the most accurate flow measurement (minimum
uncertainty), proper flow system operation and maintenance must
be practiced so that meter accuracy capabilities are realized. Periodic
maintenance, testing and recalibration are essential because the cali-
bration will shift over time due to wear, damage or contamination.
The maintenance may be only a secondary-equipment calibra-
tion, a complete system mechanical inspection, an actual through-
put test against some agreed-upon standards or any combination
of these. The equipment used to test the meter, such as thermom-
eters, dead-weight tests, pressure gauges, differential-pressure
gauges, chromatographs and provers (used for throughput tests),
must have accuracy certification and should be approved and
agreed upon by the interested parties. Having operators who have
had experience with similar metering systems also increases the
calibration and test procedure confidence levels. Test equipment
itself should be recertified periodically by the agency or manufac-
turer that originally certified the equipment.
Custody transfer operations. In custody-transfer measure-
ment, the measurement furnishes quantity and quality informa-
tion that can be used as the basis for a change in ownership and/
or a change in responsibility for materials.
Custody-transfer measurement is distinct from other measure-
ment types because of the contractual nature of the meter. Cus-
tody-transfer metering may require accuracy of 0.1% or better,
whereas control measurement may be accepted at a 2% accuracy
and operational measurement may require a 5% accuracy. A
high-integrity custody-transfer measurement system is a result
of careful design based on the specific application requirements
comprising fluid control, conditioning, metering, computation
and a means of traceable site data validation.
1, 2
Custody-transfer management involves the entire chain from
the custody-transfer metering conceptualization to the final pro-
duction or sale data reporting. For example, in the upstream oil
and gas sector, measurement includes all intermediate steps such
as measurement and sampling guidelines, operational procedures,
data processing, data transmission and reconciliation, allocation
or custody-transfer procedures. To solve the flow measurement
equation, it is imperative that every equation parameter be well
understood and represented.
A primary custody-transfer measurement consideration is to
minimize flow variations by maintaining better flow control. For
situations where this may not be possible, a meter with a wide-
ranging flow capacity is needed. If a single meter with the required
flow capacity to cover the intended operating range with mini-
mum uncertainty does not exist, using multiple meters with some
type of meter-switching control is required. Most meters operate
with a specified uncertainty within the stated flow capacity limits
that is typically from 25% to 95% of the flowmeter maximum
INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT
78
I
OCTOBER 2011 HydrocarbonProcessing.com
capacity. For custody-transfer metering and critical control mea-
surement, it is important to maintain the meter operation within
the stated flow capacity limits.
Errors. Other than some operating problems and poor mainte-
nance that may affect the measurement, the main cause of error is
the fluid characteristics and errors in fluid density calculation. For
gases, mixtures are more accurately measured if the stream has rel-
atively constant composition. This allows specific PVT tests to be
run, or data may be available for common mixtures from previous
work. If the mixture is changing rapidly, a densitometer or a mass
meter may be required to determine an accurate measurement.
During times when a custody-transfer meter is out of service
or registering inaccurately, a procedure must be in place for mea-
suring or estimating deliveries. This procedure may need to be in
accordance with regulatory standards if the meter flow is used for
regulatory reporting. An example of this is the recent USA EPA
Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Rule issued Sept. 22, 2009.
A typical accuracy limit from 0.5% to 2% may be used, but
may be set closer or wider depending on the specific meter costs
and measurement ability.
For custody-transfer meters, a prover system or master meter
should be used for throughput testing and recalibration. The
best throughput test can be run directly in series with a prover.
The prover can come in many forms, but essentially it involves a
basic volume that has been certified by a government or industrial
group. Since most meters are not totally linear, tests may have to
be run over the meters operating range to calculate the calibration
factors dependent on the flow capacity.
Commercial mass balance software. The characteristics
and strengths of commercial mass-balance software may include:
Graphically aided input that is user friendly and intuitive
Interactive diagnostics and feedback on input errors
Flexibility to select the measurement units desired by the user
Flexibility for the user to select start and end times to per-
form the reconciliation
Facility to construct mass-balance units based on plant con-
figuration user input
Reconciliation processes perform linear, nonlinear and
inequality constraints on the measurement data to produce rec-
onciled measurements and unmeasured flow estimates
Algorithm for efficient iteration and fast convergence to the
solution. Some algorithms may include the Monte Carlo method
to generate sets of random values for measurement errors within a
prescribed range (%uncertainty) that are solved and iterated in
the reconciliation algorithm
Algorithm to ensure numerical robustness and prevent
numerical runaway
M
4
Stream 1, M
1
Stream 2, M
2
Stream 3, M
3
Tank
Flow reconciliation example for a storage tank. FIG. 1
TABLE 1. Flow correction factors for various flowmeters
Differential-pressure meters, Volumetric flowmeters, Coriolis with
orifice, venturi, nozzle, vortex, turbine, ultrasonic Mass flowmeters, integrated density
Phase, UOM wedge, pitot and annubar and magnetic Coriolis and thermal measurement
Liquid flow, act. m
3
/h 1 1
M
Liquid flow, std. m
3
/h
D_Std
M _Std
D_Std
M _Std
D_Std
M _Std
D_Std
M _Std
Liquid flow, kg/h 1 1
D
Gas flow, act. m
3
/h 1 1
(M
D
P
D
/ Z
D
T
D
)
(M
M
P
M
/ Z
M
T
M
)
M
D
P
D
Z
D
T
D
M
M
P
M
Z
M
T
M
Gas flow, std. m
3
/h*
(M
D
Z
D
T
D
/ P
D
)
(M
M
Z
M
T
M
/ P
M
)
Z
D
T
D
P
D
( )
Z
M
T
M
P
M
( )
M
D
M
M
M
D
M
M
Gas flow, kg/h 1 1
(M
M
P
M
/ Z
M
T
M
)
(M
D
P
D
/ Z
D
T
D
)
(M
M
P
M
/ Z
M
T
M
)
(M
D
P
D
/ Z
D
T
D
)
*For gas flow, std. m
3
/h, the design and measured compressibility factors at standard conditions (101.325 KPa
a
; 15C) are assumed to be the same compressibilty factors for most gases is close to
unity at standard conditions.
INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2011
I
79
A reconciled mass balance at the processing unit level or group
of processing units, progressing all the way up to the plant level
Ability to reconcile total mass and selected component frac-
tions at the same time
Reporting tool to verify the present error in balance for each
node and generate the customized reports.
Mass balance and reconciliation. Data reconciliation
3,4
improves process data accuracy by adjusting the measured values so
that they satisfy the process constraints. The amount of adjustment
made to the measurements is minimized since the random errors are
expected to be small. Data reconciliation can be formulated by the
following constrained weighted least-squares optimization problem:
Minimize the function (known as objective function):
M
i
( )
2
i
2
i=1
n
1
2
+
M
2
( )
2
2
2
+
M
3
( )
2
3
2
+
M
4
( )
2
4
2
Subject to the constraint:
(M
1
M
1
) (M
2
M
2
)
(M
3
M
3
) (M
4
M
4
) = 0
Where
i
is the uncertainty associated with the instrument that
gives the measured quantity, M
i
.
The use of uncertainties for reconciliation can be explained with
this example. Assume that a flowmeter M
1
with percent uncer-
tainty at 95% confidence level (%U
95
) as 2% is reading 300 kg
True value Average
Biased, not precise
Bias
True value Average
Biased, precise
Bias
Not biased, not precise Not biased, precise
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
True value and average
True value and average
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Measured value Measured value
Measured value Measured value
Bias and precision errors. FIG. 2
TABLE 2. Variable uncertainty
Sensitivity coefficient Sensitivity value, S Uncertainty, U
95
(S U
95
)
2
C
D
Discharge coefficient 1 1 0.45 0.2025
d Orifice diameter 2/(1
4
) 2.298 0.05 0.0132
D Pipe diameter 2
4
/(1
4
) 0.298 0.25 0.0056
P Differential pressure
1
2 0.5 0.5 0.0625
Actual density
1
2 0.5 0.45 0.0506
Std
Standard density 1 1 0.5 0.25
Sum of squares (S U
95
)
2
= 0.5844
Square root of sum of squares (S U
95
)
2
= 0.7644
INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT
80
I
OCTOBER 2011 HydrocarbonProcessing.com
during a certain time period. Since the 95% confidence level cor-
responds to two standard deviations, 2
1
, the standard deviation
error,
1
, for this measurement can be calculated as 3 kg as:
2
1
=
%U
95
100
M
1
=
2
100
300 =6 kg
(95% confidence error)
Therefore, the weight factor, (1/
1
2
), for measurement M
1
in the objective function above is 1/9. Suppose if the reconciled
flowrate for M
1
is 307 kg, then the reconciled error (difference
between the reconciled value and the measured value) is 7 kg. This
value is greater than the 6 kg error (95% confidence) calculated.
This means that measurement M
1
has a gross error and should be
eliminated or properly compensated for effective reconciliation.
FLOW CORRECTIONS
Process industry flowmeters can be classified into three broad
categories that include differential-pressure meters, actual volu-
metric flowmeters and mass flowmeters. The differential-pressure
meters include orifice, venturi, nozzle, wedge, pitot tube and
annubar; volumetric flowmeters include vortex, turbine, ultrasonic
and magnetic; and mass flowmeters include Coriolis and thermal
meters. The meter operating principles and flow equations are
provided in Appendix A.
For any of these flowmeters, the vendor should make sure that
the flowmeters measured outputs are in the UOM requested in the
flowmeter specification datasheet. For this, the vendor calculates
the conversion factor by using the design density data (or pressure,
temperature and molecular weight data for gases) specified on the
datasheet to output measured values in the desired UOM.
During process operation, the measured density (or P, T, MW
and z for gases) values may not be the same as the values on the
datasheet. Therefore, the measured flowrates should be corrected
to account for the measured process conditions. The correction
factors for various flowmeters using different UOM are provided
in Table 1. The details of the flowmeter correction calculation are
available in Appendix B.
Flow uncertainty equations. Uncertainty, U
95
, is a statisti-
cal statement of measurement accuracy that is useful in:
Defining tolerances for reconciling measurements with
concurrent gross-error detection and elimination
Estimating accuracies when reporting to government on
measurements that impact royalties and emissions
Evaluating custody-transfer metering performance.
Uncertainty is a measurement process characteristic. It provides
an estimate of the error band within which the true value for that
measurement process must fall with high probability.
5
It is based
on the probability of 95% that is twice the standard deviation, 2.
The 95% confidence level for the estimated flowmeter uncertainty
is in accordance with prudent statistical and engineering practice.
Flowmeter uncertainty is actually a function of both bias (sys-
tematic or gross error) and precision (random error), as shown
in Fig. 2. Flowmeter part manufacturers follow rigorous testing
and calibration to remove or randomize the measurement biases.
In Canada, they follow the standards by Measurements Canada,
and in the US, the test method follows the National Bureau of
Standards (National Institute of Standards and Technology). The
values used for the precision may be obtained from manufacturers
specifications for the respective equipment provided that the
values are adjusted to reflect operating conditions.
To calculate the uncertainty values, the significance of each
variable (parameter) in the flow calculation equation is examined
and is related to flow measurement. It is assumed that the meter
has been properly installed, operated and maintained. It is also
assumed that the systematic equipment biases are randomized
within the database, which means that variations in the equip-
ment and laboratories will not impose any bias in the equations
ability to represent reality.
For practical considerations, the pertinent variables are
assumed to be independent to enable simpler uncertainty cal-
culations. It was noted that the simplified uncertainty equations
would provide very good uncertainty estimates.
6
The mathemati-
cal relationships among the variables establish the sensitivity of
the metered quantities to each of these variables. Each variable
that influences the flow measurement uncertainty has a specific
sensitivity coefficient. The uncertainty for a general equation
Q = f (x
1
, x
2
,.....x
N
) can be derived analytically by partial differen-
tiation based on propagation of uncertainty by the Taylor series.
Refer to Appendix C for derivation using the Taylor series. The
uncertainty in Q can be given as:
Q
Q
=
x
1
Q
Q
x
1
2
x
1
x
1
2
+
x
2
Q
Q
x
2
2
x
2
x
2
2
+.... +
x
N
Q
Q
x
N
2
x
N
x
N
1 2
This can be represented in a simpler form as:
Q
Q
=
S
x
1
( )
2
U
x
1
( )
2
+ S
x
2
( )
2
U
x
2
( )
2
+............ +
S
x
N
( )
2
U
x
N
( )
2
1 2
where Q/Q is the uncertainty in Q, S
x
is the sensitivity coefficient
associated with the variable and U
x
is the variable uncertainty.
The uncertainty equations are derived for differential pressure,
volumetric and mass flowmeters in Appendix D using the flow
equations representing the basic operating principle.
FLOWMETER UNCERTAINTY
Uncertainty for orifice, venture or nozzle meter measuring in
standard flow is given by:
Q
StdVol
Q
StdVol
=
1 ( )
2
C
d
C
d
2
+
2
1
4
2
d
d
2
+
2
4
1
4
2
D
D
2
+
1
2
2
P
P
2
+
1
2
Act
Act
2
+ 1 ( )
2
Std
Std
1/2
The same equation above can be used for a wedge meter;
however, the deviation in the equivalent diameter, d, for a wedge
meter is calculated by using:
d
d
=
H
d
1
1/2
G
1/2
2n
1/2
+
1
1m
2
( )
1/2
1
2
m
2
n
1/2
H
H
+
D
d
1
1/2
G
1/2
G
H
D
1
1m
2
( )
1/2
+2n
1/2
1
2
m
2
n
1/2
D
D
D_Std
= Design standard density = 950 kg/m
3
(normally
obtained from process simulation)
D
= Design actual density = 750 kg/m
3
(normally obtained
from process simulation).
During actual operation, the measured conditions are:
T
M
= Measured temperature = 310C
P
M
= Measured pressure = 1,500 kPaa
M_Std
= Measured standard density = 960 kg/m
3
(measured in
the laboratory using the sample)
M
= Measured actual density = 740 kg/m
3
(measured, or
calculated using an appropriate correlation).
For liquid flows, if the measured densities are not available at
the actual operating conditions, the established correlations can
be used. It should be noted that these correlations may result in
some error in the density predictions.
Actual liquid hydrocarbon stream density can be estimated
using the equation by Yawas:
7
SG
m
= SG
r
( )
2
0.0011(T
m
T
r
)
For C
20
and heavier alkanes, the densities can be obtained
using the method by Fisher:
8
SG
m
=1.29+
SG
r
1.29
T
r
+737
T
m
+737 ( )
where SG
m
is specific gravity at measured temperature
SG
r
is the specific gravity at reference temperature
T
m
is measured temperature in Kelvin
T
r
is reference temperature in C.
A method for calculating actual density using liquid critical
properties is given by Noor:
9
m
=
M
V
C
3.9641.957
T
m
T
C
( )
where
m
= Density at measured temperature in kg/m
3
,
M = Molecular weight,
V
C
= Critical volume in m
3
/kg
T
m
= Measured temperature in Kelvin
T
C
= Critical temperature in Kelvin.
From Table 1, the correction factor for the orifice meter with
indicated (readout) liquid flowrate at standard conditions is
given by:
Correction Factor =
M
D_Std
M _Std
H
D
Wedge owmeter
P
1
P
S
P
t
P
P
2
P
1
P
2
P
1
P
2
D
d
Orice owmeter
Flow
Pitot tube owmeter
D
D d
Venturi owmeter
Flow
D d
Nozzle owmeter
Flow
Flow Flow Flow
Flow Flow Flow
D
w
Interval
(frequency)
Vortex owmeter
D
Angular velocity measurement
Turbine owmeter
D L
Upstream transducer
Downstream transducer
Ultrasonic owmeter
D
Magnetic owmeter
Voltage (E)
Magnetic eld (B)
L
Examples of various flowmeters used by industry. FIG. 3
INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT
82
I
OCTOBER 2011 HydrocarbonProcessing.com
and the corrected flowrate at standard conditions is given by:
Q
StdVol_Corr
= Q
StdVol_Meas
Correction Factor
If the flowmeter indicated (readout) flow is 600 std. m
3
/d, then
the corrected flowrate at standard condition is:
= = 589.8 Std m
3
/d ~ 590 std. m
3
/d
600
740
750
950
960
Uncertainty calculation. A 3-in. orifice meter run with a
ratio of 0.6 is selected for the previous liquid hydrocarbon flow
measurement example at a static pressure of 1,500 kPaa and flow-
ing temperature of 310C. Differential pressure recorded for the
flow is 25 kPa and the flowrate is 590 std. m
3
/h.
The variable sensitivity coefficients can be calculated using the
orifice uncertainty equation:
Q
StdVol
Q
StdVol
=
1 ( )
2 C
d
C
d
2
+
2
1
4
2
d
d
2
+
2
4
1
4
2
D
D
2
+
1
2
2
P
P
2
+
1
2
Act
Act
2
+ 1 ( )
2
Std
Std
1/2
The uncertainty values for the variables x/x at 95% confi-
dence level, U
95
, can be obtained from industry standards and
procedures (AGA, API, ASME, ASTM) and/or manufactures
specifications for the equipment or parts. For each variable, the
uncertainty listed in Table 2 represents random errors only, which
are obtained from AGA RP-3-1.
Based on the calculations, the standard volumetric flow mea-
surement uncertainty at 95% confidence level is 0.76%. For
mass flow measurement uncertainty, the standard density variable,
Std
, in the above equation is excluded, which gives the % U
95
value of 0.58%.
APPENDIX A
The operating principles and flowmeter equations are listed in
this appendix for the flowmeters as shown in Fig. 3.
Differential pressure flowmeters. The flowmeters that
measure differential pressure to calculate the flowrates can be clas-
sified as differential pressure flowmeters.
Orifice, venturi and nozzle flowmeters. For fluid flow in an
orifice, venturi or nozzle flowmeter, the actual volumetric flowrate
can be given as:
10
Q
ActVol
=C
d
E
u
Y
4
d
2
2 P
1
P
2
( )
1
=C
d
E
u
Y
4
d
2
2P
1
where d is the orifice diameter for an orifice meter or throat diam-
eter for venturi and nozzle meters,
P
1
= Pressure at the upstream pressure tap,
P
2
= Pressure at the downstream pressure tap
1
= Density at P
1
pressure condition.
C
d
= Discharge coefficient to account for frictional losses
(kinetic energy into heat) due to viscosity and turbulence effects.
E
u
is the velocity approach factor that relates the flowing fluid
velocity in the meter approach section (upstream meter tube) to
the orifice/throat fluid velocity:
E
u
=
1
1
4
where = d / D is the orifice bore (or throat for the venturi and
nozzle) to pipe inner-diameter ratio.
Y is the expansion factor to account for the gas compressibility
that is given by:
Y = P
2
P
1
( )
2
k
k
k 1
1 P
2
P
1
( )
k1 ( )
k
1 P
2
P
1
( )
1
4
1
4
P
2
P
1
( )
2
k
where k is specific heat ratio C
P
/C
V
. For less than 0.25,
4
value
approaches zero in the equation.
Pitot tube or annubar flowmeters (for velocity less than
30% of sonic velocity). For fluid flow in a Pitot tube flowmeter,
the actual volumetric flowrate can be given as:
Q
ActVol
=K
4
D
2
2 P
t
P
s
( )
Act
= K
4
D
2
2P
Act
Where: K = Instrument coefficient that is usually determined
through calibration,
D = Pipe inside diameter
P = Pressure drop measured by the Pitot tube, which is the
difference between the total (stagnation) pressure, P
t
, and the
static pressure, P
s
.
Wedge flowmeter (used for liquid flows only). For liquid
flow in a wedge flowmeter, actual volumetric flowrate can be
calculated using the orifice equation:
Q
ActVol
=C
d
E
u
4
d
2
2P
Act
where d is equivalent orifice diameter that is calculated using
equivalent beta ratio:
=
d
D
=
1
1/2
cos
1
12
H
D
2 12
H
D
H
D
H
D
1/2
where H = wedge segment opening height,
D = Pipe inside diameter,
P = Pressure drop across the orifice
Act
= Liquid density at actual temperature and pressure condi-
tions, T, P.
C
d
is the wedge meter discharge coefficient to account for
frictional losses (kinetic energy into heat) due to viscosity and
turbulence effects.
E
u
is the velocity approach factor that relates the flowing fluid
velocity in the wedge meter approach section (upstream meter
tube) to the fluid velocity in the wedge section.
E
u
=
1
1
4
where is d/D which is equivalent orifice to pipe inner diameter
ratio.
Volumetric flowmeters. The flowmeters that directly inter-
pret the actual volumetric flow from other measured parameters
are called volumetric flowmeters. To interpret the velocity, vortex
INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2011
I
83
meters use vortex shedding frequency; ultrasonic meters use sound
transit time; and magnetic meters use voltage induced in the fluid
(conductive) flowing through an imposed magnetic field.
Vortex flowmeter. A vortex flowmeter measures the volumet-
ric flowrate by using the vortex shedding frequency caused by a
flow barrier.
11
Strouhal number, S, is related to vortex shedding frequency
by S = fw / u
where f = Vortex shedding frequency that depends on flow veloc-
ity, fluid viscosity and flow barrier dimensions (bluff, which is
either a cylinder or a square column) used to create vortex
w = Flow barrier width (bluff )
u = Fluid velocity in the bluff section.
Actual volumetric flowrate can be given by:
Q
ActVol
= Au =
4
D
2
B
fw
S
4
D
2
KwD
4
D
2
=1
4K
w
D
where K factor is used to compensate for the pipe flow nonuni-
form profile in industrial applications. Combining the above
equations the actual flowrate is given as:
Q
ActVol
=
fD
3
4S
w
D
1
4K
w
D
Kr
tan
Ultrasonic flowmeter. An ultrasonic flowmeter measures
the volumetric flow by using sound pulse transit time in the
flow medium caused by doplar effect.
1517
A typical ultrasonic
flowmeter (transit-time flow measurement) system utilizes two
ultrasonic transducers that function as both transmitter and
receiver. The flowmeter operates by alternately transmitting and
receiving a sound energy burst between the two transducers and
measuring the transit time that it takes for sound to travel between
the two transducers. The difference in the transit time measured is
directly and related to the liquid velocity in the pipe.
If t
D
is the sound pulse transit-time (or time-of-flight) traveling
from the upstream transducer to the downstream transducer, and
t
U
is the transit-time from the opposite direction, the equations
can be given as:
t
D
(D / sin )
c u cos
t
U
(D / sin )
c u cos
where = Angle between the transducer axis to the flow direction,
c = Sound speed in the liquid,
D = Pipe inside diameter
u = Flow velocity averaged over the sound path. Solving the
above equations leads to:
t
U
t
D
t
U
t
D
=u
2sin cos
D
=u
sin2
D
u =
KD
sin2
t
U
t
D
t
U
t
D
=
KD
sin 2
t
f
where t
f
= (t
U
t
D
) / (t
U
t
D
) is the transit-time function and K
is the instrument factor determined through calibration. There-
fore, by accurately measuring the upstream and downstream
transit-times, t
U
and t
D
, the flow velocity, u, can be obtained.
Actual volumetric flowrate is calculated as:
Q
ActVol
= Au =
4
D
2
KD
sin2
t
f
where A is the pipe inner cross-section area.
Magnetic flowmeter. Magnetic flowmeter operation is based
on Faradays Law that states that the voltage induced across any
conductor as it moves at right angles through a magnetic field is
proportional to the conductor velocity.
18
To apply this principle
the fluid being measured must be electrically conductive.
The voltage, E, generated in a conductor is given by:
E BLu
where:
E = Voltage generated in a conductor
B = Magnetic field strength perpendicular to the flow direction
L = Distance between the electrodes (usually equal to pipe
inside diameter in most construction)
u = Conductor velocity.
The fluid velocity can be given by:
u K
E
BL
=
where K is the instrument coefficient that is usually deter-
mined through calibration.
Subsequently, the actual volumetric flow rate is calculated as:
Q
ActVol
= Au =
4
D
2
KE
BL
where A is the pipe inner cross-section area and D is the pipe
inside diameter.
INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT
84
I
OCTOBER 2011 HydrocarbonProcessing.com
Mass flowmeters. A coriolis flowmeter directly measures
the mass flow based on the inertial forces exerted on the tube
vibrations.
1921
When an oscillating excitation force is applied
to the tube, causing it to vibrate, the fluid flowing through the
tube will induce a twist (or rotation) to the tube because of the
Coriolis acceleration acting in opposite directions on either side
of the applied force.
In a U-tube coriolis meter, the flow is guided into the U
shaped tube that is vibrated using an actuator. The vibration is
commonly introduced by electric coils and measured by magnetic
sensors. When the tube is moving upward during the first half of
a cycle, the fluid flowing into the meter resists being forced up by
pushing down on the tube. On the opposite side, the liquid flow-
ing out of the meter resists having its vertical motion decreased
by pushing up on the tube. This action causes the tube to twist.
When the tube is moving downward during the second half of
the vibration cycle, it twists in the opposite direction. The two
vibrations are shifted in phase (time lag) with respect to each
other, and the degree of phase-shift is directly affected by the
mass passing through the tube.
A U-shaped Coriolis flowmeter mass flow is given as:
Q
Mass
=
K
u
I
u
2
( )
2KL
2
where K
u
= Tube stiffness,
K = A shape-dependent factor
L = Width,
= Time lag,
= Vibration frequency
I
u
= Tube inertia that includes the tube fluid mass. The expres-
sion can be simplified as:
Q
Mass
=
K
u
1
2KL
2
where:
u
=
K
u
I
u
is the natural frequency of the U-shaped tube system.
Thermal flowmeter. A thermal flowmeter measures the mass
flow based on heat absorption. As molecules of a moving fluid
come into contact with a heat source, they absorb heat and cool
the source. At increased flowrates, more molecules come into
contact with the heat source absorbing even more heat. The heat
dissipated from the source in this manner is proportional to the
number of molecules of a particular gas (its mass), the gas thermal
characteristics, and its flow characteristics. The mass flow of a
thermal mass flowmeter can be given as:
Q
Mass
= K H
where K is the instrument coefficient which is usually determined
through calibration, and H is the amount of heat dissipated
from the heat source. HP
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank their colleague Ken Fernie, P.Eng., for review and valu-
able comments on custody transfer metering, and Andrew Nelson, Production
management manager from Matrikon Inc., his for review and valuable input on
flow meter uncertainties.
LITERATURE CITED
1
Spitzer, D. W., Flow Measurement: Practical Guides for Measurement and
Control, 2nd Edition, Research Triangle Park, NC: ISA, 2001.
2
Upp, E. L. and P. J. LaNasa, Fluid Flow Measurement: A Practical Guide to
Accurate Flow Measurement, Gulf Professional Publishing, 2nd Edition, 2002.
3
Romagnoli, J. A. and M. C. Sanchez, Data Processing and Reconciliation for
Chemical Process Operations, Process Systems Engineering, Vol. 2, Academic
Press, 1st Edition, 1999.
4
Ozyurt, D. B. and R. W. Pike, Theory and Practices of Simultaneous Data
Reconciliation and Gross Error Detection for Chemical Processes, Computers
and Chemical Engineering, 28, pp. 381402, 2004.
5
ASME MFC-2M, Measurement Uncertainty for Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits,
American National Standard, 1983 (Revised 2006).
6
AGA RP-3-1, Orifice Metering of Natural Gas and Other Related Hydrocarbon
Fluids Part 1General Equations and Uncertainty Guidelines, American Gas
Association, June 2003. (API MPMS 14.3-1; ANSI/API 2530-91 Part 1; Gas
Processors Association GPA 8185 Part 1).
7
Yawas, C. L., et al, Equation for Liquid Density, Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 70, No 1, January 1991, pp. 103106.
8
Fisher, C. H., How to Predict n-Alkane Densities, Chemical Engineering,
Vol. 96, No 10, pp. 195, October 1989.
9
Noor, A., Quick Estimate of Liquid Densities, Chemical Engineering, Vol.
88, No. 7, pp. 111, 6th April 1981.
10
ASME MFC-3M, Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Orifice, Nozzle
and Venturi, American National Standard, 2004.
11
ASME MFC-6M, Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes using Vortex Flowmeters,
American National Standard, 1998 (Revised 2005).
12
AGA RP-7, Measurement of Natural Gas by Turbine Meters, American Gas
Association, February 2006.
13
API MPMS-5.3, Measurement of Liquid Hydrocarbons by Turbine Meters,
American Petroleum Institute, September 2000.
14
ASME MFC-4M, Measurement of Gas Flow by Turbine Meters, American
National Standard, 1986 (Revised 2008).
15
AGA RP-9, Measurement of Gas by Multipath Ultrasonic Meters, American Gas
Association, April 2007.
16
API MPMS-5.8, Measurement of Liquid Hydrocarbons by Ultrasonic Flow
Meters Using Transit Time Technology, American Petroleum Institute, February
2005.
17
ASME MFC-5M, Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits Using
Transit-Time Ultrasonic Flowmeters, American National Standard, 1985
(Revised 2006).
18
ASME MFC-16M, Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits with
Electromagnetic Flowmeters, American National Standard, 1995 (Revised
2006).
19
AGA RP-11, Measurement of Natural Gas by Coriolis Meter, American Gas
Association, January 2003.
20
API MPMS-5.6, Measurement of Liquid Hydrocarbons by Coriolis Meters,
American Petroleum Institute, October 2002.
21
ASME MFC-11M, Measurement of Fluid Flow by Means of Coriolis Mass
Flowmeters, American National Standard, 1989 (Revised 2003).
Appendices BD can be found at HydrocarbonProcssing.com.
Subodhsen Peramanu has more than 15 years of experi-
ence in conceptual, front-end design and detailed engineering of
upgrading and refining processes. He has authored papers on topics
including hydrogen separation and economics, bitumen character-
ization, and asphaltene solubility and reversibility. Dr. Peramanu was
involved in commissioning and start-up of CNRL Horizon Upgrader and is working with
CNRL Thermal Team as a senior engineering specialist on in-situ oil recovery. He holds
a BChemEng degree in chemical engineering from Institute of Chemical Technology
(formerly UDCT), Mumbai, MTech degree from Indian Institute Technology, Kanpur
and PhD from University of Calgary.
Juon Wahs career in process engineering spans more than 30
years and covers conceptual design, FEED, EPC and detailed pro-
cess and equipment design of major projects in refining, bitumen
upgrading and oil and gas production facilities. At present, Mr.
Wah is a consultant on process design and plant operations. At the
time of writing, he was working on an expansion project for the Horizon Upgrading
complex of CNRL. Mr. Wah holds a BSc degree in chemical engineering from the
University of Birmingham, UK, and a Diplme dIngnieur in chemical engineering
and petroleum refining from the IFP, France.
INDUSTRYREPORT
The Future of the Global Rening
Industry to 2015Benetting From
National Oil Companies Growth
This report provides an in-depth analysis of the
key trends, issues, challenges in the global rening industry to
2015, including information on renery product types and future
rening trends. The research covers the global rening market with
information on historical and forecast capacities of reneries by
region and key countries during the period 20002015. Leading
companies in the global rening industry and their investment
opportunities and challenges have been examined.
Single User: $3,500 Site License: $7,000 Global License: $10,500
INDUSTRYREPORT
Global Top 10 Emerging LNG Markets
Analysis of Capacity, Trade Movements,
Supply-Demand and Competitive
Scenario to 2015
This report includes extensive information on the top 10 emerging
Liquied Natural Gas (LNG) markets in the world. This study
provides a detailed analysis of the global top 10 emerging LNG
markets categorized into Emerging Liquefaction and Emerging
Regasication Markets with a focus on the key trends, drivers and
challenges to the growth until 2015. The research examines capacity
forecasts, the supply and demand of natural gas, the LNG trade in
emerging liquefaction and regasication markets, key contracts
dening the future trade and the market structure of the LNG
industry in each country to 2015.
Single User: $3,500 Site License: $7,000 Global License: $10,500
INDUSTRYREPORT
Rening Industry Outlook in China to
2015Capacity Analysis, Forecasts
and Details of All Operating and
Planned Reneries
This report is a comprehensive resource for industry data and
information relating to the rening industry in China, providing
historical data from 2000 to 2009 and forecast data to 2015. The
preports provides asset level information relating to active and
planned reneries in China. Extensive information is provided for
key companies including China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation,
PetroChina Company Limited and CNOOC Limited. Growth segments
and opportunities in Chinas rening industry are explored in detail.
Single User: $2,500 Site License: $5,000 Global License: $7,500
INDUSTRYREPORT
Global Biodiesel Market Analysis
and Forecasts to 2020
This report gives an in-depth analysis of the global
biodiesel market and provides forecasts up to 2020. The
research analyzes the growth and evolution of the global biodiesel
market up to 2009 and gives historical and forecast statistics for
20012020. This research analyzes the market scenarios for this
technology and the regulatory policies that govern them. Analysis
of key countries such as the US (United States), China, India, Brazil,
Germany, France and Italy is included as are company proles of key
market players including Archer Daniels Midland Company, Axiom
Energy Limited, Cargill Incorporated, and Diester Industrie S.A.S.
Single User: $3,500 Site License: $7,000 Global License: $10,500
INDUSTRYREPORT
Asia Pacic Rening IndustryMarket
Analysis, Capacity Forecasts and
Competitive Landscape to 2015
The report provides information on renery product
types and future rening trends in Asia Pacic. The research covers
the Asia Pacic rening market with information on historical and
forecast capacities of reneries by region and key countries during
the period 20002015. Leading companies in the Asia Pacic
rening industry and their investment opportunities and challenges
have been examined in the report. The report features detailed
information and analysis on rening capacities by key countries,
upcoming reneries and capacity expansions, market shares of key
companies and competitive scenario in the Asia-Pacic rening
market to 2015.
Single User: $3,500 Site License: $7,000 Global License: $10,500
GULF
PUBLI SHI NG COMPANY
For More Information or
to Place Your Order, Contact
Lee Nichols at +1 (713) 525-4626 or Lee.Nichols@GulfPub.com
Order Online at
www.GulfPub.com/Downstream-Industry-Reports
INDUSTRY REPORTS
Gulf Publishing Company Introduces Market and Regional Reports Providing
Actionable Analysis and Forecast Information. Gain a Deeper Understanding
of Market Trends and Industry Development and be Ready to Capitalize on
New Global Opportunities.
86
I
OCTOBER 2011 HydrocarbonProcessing.com
HPI MARKETPLACE
SURPLUS GAS PROCESSING/REFINING EQUIPMENT
25 MMCFD x 1100 PSIG PROPAK REFRIGERATION PLANT
28 TPD SELECTOX SULFUR RECOVERY UNIT
1100 BPD LPG CONTACTOR x 7.5 GPM CAUSTIC REGEN
NGL/LPG PLANTS: 10600 MMCFD
AMINE PLANTS: 603300 GPM
SULFUR PLANTS: 10180 TPD
FRACTIONATION: 100025,000 BPD
HELIUM RECOVERY: 75 & 80 MMCFD
NITROGEN REJECTION: 25100 MMCFD
MANY OTHER REFINING/GAS PROCESSING UNITS
We offer engineered surplus equipment solutions.
Bexar Energy Holdings, Inc.
Phone 210-342-7106 s Fax 210-223-0018
www.bexarenergy.com s Email: info@bexarenergy.com
Select 203 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
Select 202 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
Select 201 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
WABASH SELLS & RENTS
BOILERS & DIESEL GENERATORS
FAST EMERGENCY SERVICE
www.wabashpower.com
800-704-2002
FAX: 847-541-1279
847-541-5600
Select 204 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
Select 205 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
Select 206 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
CUSTOM
REPRINTS
For additional information, please contact
Foster Printing Service, the official reprint
provider for Hydrocarbon Processing.
Give yourself a competitive
advantage with reprints.
Call us today!
Call 866-879-9144
or sales@fosterprinting.com
Take advantage of
your editorial exposure.
REPRINTS ARE IDEAL FOR:
Q Product announcements
Q Sales aid for your eld force
Q PR materials and media kits
Q Direct mail enclosures
Q Trade shows
Q Conferences
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING OCTOBER 2011
I
87
HPI MARKETPLACE
Pipe Stress
Process Simulation
Pelletizing Die Design
Heat Transfer Analysis
Finite Element Analysis
Computational Fluid Dynamics
Vessel/Exchanger/Machine Design
Rotor Dynamics/Structural Dynamics
3PECIALISTSINDESIGNFAILURE
ANALYSISANDTROUBLESHOOTINGOF
STATICANDROTATINGEQUIPMENT
WWWKNIGHTHAWKCOM
Fousou, !eas
!e|. 2812829200
fa. 2812829333
Visit our Website at
HydrocarbonProcessing.com
HFP Acousti cal Consul tants
Houston TX Calgary AB
(888) 789-9400 (888) 259-3600
(713) 789-9400 (403) 259-6600
E-mail: info@hfpacoustical.com
Internet: www.hfpacoustical.com
NOISE
CONTROL ENGI NEERI NG
Select 208 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
Call 713-520-4449 for details about
Hydrocarbon Processings
Recruitment Advertising
Program
Use a combination of print, recruitment e-newsletter,
plus Website to reach our total audience circulation
of more than 100,000!
Select 211 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
To learn more call 281-913-7756
or visit www.catastak.com
Low Emissions. High Efciency.
Boilers|Gas Turbines|Heaters|Furnaces
CataStak
. Nationwide.
Total Plant Solutions.
Innovative. Trusted. Proven.
Peace of Mind.
Ease of Maintenance.
Near Zero Emissions.
Quality. Efciency. Reliability.
Experience You Can Trust.
SCR Leader.
HTRI Xchanger Suite