Rotating Equipment

N. KADAM, Daelim Industries Co. Ltd.,

Seoul, South Korea

Design a pressure safety valve at the

centrifugal pump discharge
In most process plants, it is unusual to install a pressure safety valve (PSV) at the site of the centrifugal pump and compressor discharge, but some PSVs are needed and are installed to
protect the system against miscellaneous scenarios that could
create overpressure in the system.1
An external PSV is often installed at reciprocating pumps
and the reciprocating compressor discharge to protect the
machine and downstream system against block discharge. For
the reciprocating pumps, an internal PSV is often provided to
protect the casing, since the pump and compressor circuits are
usually designed for the pump shutoff pressure and compressor
settle-out pressure, respectively. This ensures that pump/compressor discharge piping and equipment are protected against a
blocked outlet scenario. Instead, providing a PSV at the pump
discharge before the first isolation valve would solve and fulfill
safety purposes.
Calculating load for such PSVs during the early stages of design is always a conservative approach, which, in turn, results in
oversizing the PSV and its inlet and outlet lines. Therefore, it is
the designers duty to redesign the PSV once the pump curves
are available from the vendor.
System description. A side-draw liquid (solvent) from a solvent tower (C-101) is collected in a collection drum (D-101)
to separate the vapor content from the solvent (FIG. 1). Vapors
from drum D-101 are then routed back to the tower. Liquid
from the drum is pumped to the solvent storage tank (T-101)
using the solvent collection pump (P-101A/B) through a solvent cooler (E-101). Before the solvent cooler E-101, a hot
solvent stream is provided as a flushing liquid for other pumps
during startup. The isolation valve on the flushing liquid header
is normally closed, and it is opened when required.

falls into 300#-rating piping. The provision of PSV-102 at the

P-101A/B discharge line could restrict the maximum pressure
in the discharge header at 15 barg. Thus, the installation of the
PSV-102 is justified in this case.
PSV-102 design (preliminary)Scenario analysis:

1. Loss of cooling water or other cooling fluid: There is no

cooling water or other cooling fluid used in this system,
so this is not an applicable scenario.
2. Loss of power: The loss of power to the P-101A/B
would lead to a shutdown of the pump. This is not a
credible overpressure scenario.
3. Steam failure: Not applicable (N/A)
4. Instrument air failure: The EBV-101 on the P-101A/B
suction line; the EBV-102 on the P-101A/B discharge
line; the LV-101 on the E-101 tube side outlet line;
and the EBV-103 on the flushing liquid header are
demonstrating a fail-closed position. Instrument air
failure will cut off inlet and outlet flow of the solvent,
so this will not lead to overpressure.
5. Control valve failure: The inadvertent closing of LV101 will lead to a blocked outlet from E-101. This will
result in the P-101A/B reaching its shutoff pressure.
The preliminary shutoff pressure of the pump is higher
than the PSV-102 set pressure. Thus, this scenario is a
credible overpressure scenario.
Flushing liquid header
PSV-101
Set at: 6 barg

EBV-103
CWS

System information. Solvent tower C-101 and collection

E-101
D-101
NLL

EBV-102

C-101

LV-101
CWS

2,500 mm

drum D-101 are protected by the PSV-101, which is located

on the C-101 overhead line and set at a C-101 design pressure
of 6 barg. Another safety valve, PSV-102, is installed on the P101A/B discharge line before the first isolation valve to protect
the exchanger tube side and the downstream pipeline from the
pump P-101A/B shutoff condition. The PSV-102 is set at 14.5
barg, considering the liquid static head (TABLE 1).
The use of flushing header piping is not frequent and would
only be used during startup. Designing a flushing liquid header
for the P-101A/B shutoff pressure is not cost effective since it

IA

To flare

PSV-102
Set at: 14.5
barg
IA
EBV-101

T-101
IA

4,000 mm
P-101A/B

FIG. 1. A centrifugal pump system.

Hydrocarbon Processing|APRIL 201669

Rotating Equipment

Flushing liquid header design pressure

15 barg

PSV-102 set pressure1

14.5 barg

Density of the solvent

1,200 Kg/m3

Viscosity of the solvent

0.63 cP
170 m3/hr

Normal capacity of P-101A/B

Differential head of the P-101A/B

70 m

Maximum suction pressure for P-101A/B2

1

6.3 barg

The PSV set pressure is corrected, considering a 4-m liquid static head from the
pump discharge nozzle.
The maximum suction pressure for the P-101A/B is considered the same as the D-101
design pressurePSV-101 set pressure + a liquid static head of 2.5 m.

TABLE 2. A design comparison of the PSV orifice size, and the

inlet line and outlet line sizes for both of the relieving rates
PSV-102
Parameter
Relieving load, m3/hr
PSV size1

Preliminary

Final

170

60

4 in. 6 in.

2 in. 3 in.

PSV designation

Inlet line size, in.2

6 in.

3 in.

Outlet line size, in.3

6 in.

3 in.

1
2

The PSV size and designation is decided as per API 526.2

The inlet line size is calculated considering the inline pressure drop, which does not
exceed 3% of the set pressure as per API 520.3 The inlet length is considered as 10 m.
The outlet line size is calculated considering the balanced bellow PSV and inline
pressure drop, which does not exceed 30% of the set pressure as per API 520.3
The outlet length is considered as 20 m.

Preliminary shutoff pressure calculations are as follows:

Shutoff pressure = Maximum suction pressure +
1.25 differential pressure
= 6.3 + 1.25 (70 1.2 10)
= 16.8 barg.

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

During the early design stage, because no vendor

information is available, the relieving load is assumed to
be the same as the normal capacity of pump P-101A/B,
which is 170 m3/hr. The PSV-102 size, inlet line and
outlet line sizes are calculated based on the assumed
relieving load.
Blocked outlet: See scenario 5
Gas blow through: N/A
External fire: N/A
Exchanger tube rupture: E-101 follows the 10/13 rule.
This scenario is not credible.
Liquid overfill: N/A
Thermal expansion: The solvent operating temperature
is 85C. Thermal expansion due to solar radiation is
not credible.
Vacuum: N/A.

PSV design based on vendor information. Referring to the

performance curve (FIG. 2) received from the vendor, the shutoff
head rise is 20%. Thus, the recalculated shutoff pressure would be:

Shutoff pressure = 6.3 barg + 1.2 (70 1.2 10)

= 16.38 barg.
70APRIL 2016|HydrocarbonProcessing.com

40% 50%

60% 65%
Hydr. eff.
70.7%
69.7%

15 barg

Head 20%

209
64.6%

200
50%

56.7%

40%
160
140

NPSHvalues

140

209

E-101 tube-side design pressure

92
84
80.4 m
76
68
60
52
44
28
28
20
12
8.5
7.5
6.5
5.5
4.5
3.5
75
65
55
45
35
25
15

Shaft
power
P2

209
200

Kw

TABLE 1. A summary of the PSV operating parameters

140
0

20

40

60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
60 m3/hr
m3/hr

FIG. 2. The performance curve for the P-101A/B discharge line.

The calculated shutoff pressure is higher than the PSV set

pressure. Thus, this case still stands as credible. The relieving
load is recalculated as per the performance curve:
Relieving pressure for PSV-102 = 15.95 barg
(considering a 10% accumulation)
Maximum suction pressure = 6.3 barg
Differential head corresponding to relieving pressure
= (15.95 6.3) 10 1.2 = 80.4 m
Referring to the performance curve, relieving flowrate
= 60 m3/hr.
Design comparison. The PSV orifice size, and the inlet line

and outlet line sizes are calculated for both of the relieving rates.
The comparison for the design is summarized in TABLE 2. It is
clear that the designed PSV-102 was oversized during its early
stage. The design was rectified after the vendor data was received. Although this leads to a marginal cost savings, the correct
design would prevent some operational problems related to the
PSV if it is oversized.
Whenever PSVs are installed at the centrifugal pump in the
plant, their design has to be rechecked and finalized based on the
pump vendor data. In some cases, this could lead to significant
cost reductions. Additionally, a correctly sized PSV would prevent
operational difficulties and ensure the safety of the system.
LITERATURE CITED
API Standard 521, Pressure-relieving and depressuring systems, 6th Ed., 2014.
2
API Standard 526, Flanged steel pressure-relief valves, 6th Ed., 2009.
3
API Standard 520, Sizing, selection and installation of pressure-relieving devices
in refineries: Part 1Sizing and selection, 8th Ed., 2008.
1

NIKHIL KADAM is working as a senior process engineer for Daelim Industries

Co. Ltd. in Seoul, South Korea. He has more than nine years of experience in the
front-end engineering and design (FEED) and detailed engineering fields, and has
worked on a variety of refinery, chemicals, and oil and gas projects. Mr. Kadam
earned a BS degree in chemical engineering from Mumbai University in India.

Environment
and Safety
D. A. G. SUARES, Fluor Daniel (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
Gurgaon, India

Innovative design configurations

for flare system reliability
The function of a flare system in a refinery or chemical plant is
to collect gases released during an overpressure scenario, typically
resulting from a plant upset. The flare is intended to completely
burn these gases to prevent damage to the environment or endangering human health. If a flare system is unavailable or must be
temporarily shut down, this can lead to total plant shutdown and
result in significant financial losses. Proper design, operation and
monitoring of a flare system is of the utmost importance.
The design and performance of a flare depend largely on the
skill and experience of a flare designer. Rigorous analysis of flare
network hydraulics and the overall performance (including thermal radiation and dispersion calculations) must be performed in
designing a flare system.
A properly designed flare system includes the following:
An adequately sized flare header(s): Use maximum
permissible velocity, such as Mach number, and back
pressure criteria based on project design philosophy,
in accordance with applicable codes and standards.1
An adequately sized flare knockout drum(s) to prevent the
carryover of liquid to the flare stack, which could result
in burning rain from the flare tip. Also, flare knockout
drum pumps should be on emergency power so that
they are operable during a local or general power failure.
Alternatively, one pump could use a non-electric drive.
A flare stack tall enough to ensure that ground-level
radiation and pollutant concentrations are in an acceptable
range per safety environmental and considerations.
A properly designed liquid seal drum (where provided)
to prevent flashback.
The proper sloping of flare headers toward the
knockout drum(s) to ensure that there are no pockets
for condensed liquid to accumulate.
Adequately sized flare header purge connections at all
dead ends of flare headers and subheaders, to ensure a
small positive flow exists in the headers and subheaders
at all times. Flare purge is usually fuel gas or nitrogen.
Ensure backup purge gas is provided in case of temporary
loss or failure of primary purge. Additionally, provide
an emergency purge for the main flare header and stack
following any hot vapor release. Subsequent cooling and
condensation of the hot vapors lead to shrinkage, which

could result in the development of vacuum conditions in

the flare header, with possible air ingress.
A provision for smokeless flaring: To make the flare
smokeless, a system for steam or air injection is usually
employed. The generally accepted smokeless capacity
is limited to around 10% of the design capacity, from
economic considerations. Unless there is a regulatory
requirement for 100% smokeless, consider the expected
duration of the various flaring scenarios so that the longer
eventsoften involving unit startup or shutdownare
those chosen to be smokeless.
A flare monitoring system: Include flame failure and
burnback thermocouples with alarms on DCS and
Flare stack

From relief network

To ground flare

Flare KOD
Overflow to sewer
Stack liquid
seal drum

Overflow to sewer
Liquid seal drum

FIG. 1. Enclosed ground flare operating in conjunction with an

elevated flare.
Hydrocarbon Processing|APRIL 201671

Environment and Safety

opacity meters for proper monitoring of flare tip
performance. Additionally, operators may install a closedcircuit TV (CCTV) to view the flare tip.
Provision to inject a calculated quantity of assist gas
usually fuel gas or low-pressure natural gaswhen
flaring gases of low heating value to ensure complete
combustion.
Flare configurations. The simplest flare configuration con-

sists of a main flare header routed to a knockout drum, from

which it is routed to an elevated flare stack. The drum is
equipped with two pumps, one operating and one on standby,
to pump out any condensate that collects in the drum. A liquid seal drum is generally included between the stack and the
knockout drum to prevent flashback. This basic configuration
can be adapted to suit project requirements. Brief descriptions
of some innovative flare configurations are provided here:
Enclosed ground flare operating in conjunction with an
elevated flare (FIG. 1). An enclosed ground flare is an obvious
choice when the facility is located near a populated area where
the flame needs to be concealed and the high noise from the
burning gases could be an issue. However, when the peak flare
load is high (i.e., several hundred tons of gas), the design of a
ground flare becomes uneconomic and an elevated flare becomes the preferred choice. An interesting case is provided in
an Indian refinery that is located not far from a wildlife sanctuary: an enclosed ground flare operates in conjunction with an
elevated flare. Normally, the elevated flare pilots burn with a
small non-luminous flame that is not expected to disturb the
local fauna. A properly designed stack liquid seal drum is provided to divert the flared gases to the elevated flare during peak
flaring, when a luminous flame will be seen from the elevated
flare stack for the duration of peak flaring (which is not expected to last long). A separate liquid seal drum is provided at the
ground flare inlet for additional system protection.
Flare stack

Low-capacity sour gas header tied in directly to hydrocarbon flare stack (FIG. 2). In a refinery that is processing a relatively sweet crude, peak sour relief load was only around 10%
of the peak hydrocarbon relief load. For this particular case, the
heat-traced sour flare header from the outlet of a small vertical
sour flare knockout drum was tied in to the elevated flare stack
at the base of the molecular seal. The selection of metallurgy
for the molecular seal, flare tip and stack (and the entire sour
gas flare network) was dictated by the sour gas composition.
The overall system economics were the driver for this configuration, which has been operating successfully for several years.
Elevated flare with a 100% spared stack, liquid seal
drum and knockout drum (FIG. 3). Flare design regulations
followed in some countries (e.g., Russia3) demand that a spare
flare stack, liquid seal drum and knockout drum be provided
to ensure 100% availability of a flare system, and guarantee uninterrupted plant operation. This is accomplished by employing a set of mechanically interlocked isolation valves, which are
used to isolate the spare flare. It is vital to use safe operating
procedures with mechanically interlocked isolation valves during the flare switchover. The two flare stacks (one in normal
operation and one on standby) with demountable tips are usually mounted on a common derrick structure, so that the spare
flare tip can be lowered and inspected without shutting down
the operating flare.
Separate low-pressure and high-pressure flare headers.
In a large refinery or petrochemical complex in which there
are a number of PSVs with significant differences in their set
pressures, along with high relief loads from PSVs with high set
pressures, it is prudent to consider separate HP and LP flare
headerswith or without dedicated HP and LP knockout
drumsrather than a single header of much higher diameter.
Higher backpressures can be allowed at the high-pressure PSV
outlets, which would lead to an overall reduction in the overall cross-section and, therefore, the diameter of the HP flare
header. The provision of separate HP and LP knockout drums
would enable sharing of the load from HP and LP flare headers and could result in two smaller knockout drumsone HP
and one LPrather than a single, large, common knockout

From sour relief network

Sour relief KOD

Flare stack
From relief network

From relief network

Overflow to sewer

Flare KOD
Mechanically
interlocked valves

Spare
flare
stack

Seal drum

From relief network

Flare KOD
Overflow to sewer
Stack liquid seal drum

FIG. 2. Low-capacity sour gas header tied in directly to hydrocarbon

flare stack.

72APRIL 2016|HydrocarbonProcessing.com

Spare flare
KOD

Overflow to sewer
Spare seal drum

FIG. 3. Elevated flare with 100% spared stack, liquid seal and knockout
drums.

Environment and Safety

drum that has been sized for the combined peak flare load. In
such a case, consider the overall economics of the entire system. However, there are certain flare design regulations2 that
require the provision of separate HP and LP relief networks,
each with its own knockout drum, liquid seal drum and stack.
PSVs with set pressures of 30 barg or higher are required to be
connected to the HP relief network.
Two separate flare headers connected to a single knockout drum by separate inlet nozzles. Sometimes, the layout
of the process units and pipe racks in a large complex may
be such that two separate flare headers (e.g., the north-south
header and the east-west header) are connected to a single
flare knockout drum by separate inlet nozzles. Even if there is
simultaneous relief in both headers during peak flaring, only
the common outlet header from the knockout drum to the
stack (which should be kept short) needs to be sized for the
combined flare load. Such a configuration was adopted in a
modularization project in which the client imposed a limitation on the maximum flare header diameter. One of the main
flare headers was already at the maximum diameter prior to
joining the knockout drum, and a similar diameter was maintained for the much shorter common outlet header from the
knockout drum to the stack. Note that on a horizontal knockout drum, the inlet nozzle does not have to enter at the top of
the drum. Instead, rolling the inlet header into a radially projecting nozzle at an angle less than the vertical aids in lowering
the flare header and piperack, thereby reducing costs.

Summary. Several possible variations exist in basic flare design

and configuration of the flare headers, ranging from a simple

utility flareor unassistedto an enclosed, multi-point, staged
ground flare, or a combination with more than one main flare
header. The main drivers include:
1. Location of the plant or complex, and environmental and
social impact of the facility.
2. Availability of sufficient plot space, which could prove
to be quite challenging, especially when a large-capacity
expansion of a complex has been planned along with
a new flare.
3. The overall plot plan and layout of the complex, as well as
the routing of the pipe racks, which could sometimes prove
advantageous (e.g., in the modularized design above).
4. The overall system economics, which should respect the
flare design regulation/code being followed.
LITERATURE CITED
API Standard 521, Pressure Relieving and Depressuring Systems, Sixth
Edition, 2014.
2
Russian PB 03-591-03 Rules for the Design and Safe Operation of Flare
Systems, 1992.
1

DAVID A. G. SUARES is a process engineer with Fluor Daniel

(India) Pvt. Ltd. and has been with the company for eight years.
He has over 20 years of experience in process engineering and
holds an ME in chemical engineering from the Indian Institute
of Science in Bangalore, India. Previously, he worked for
Engineers India Ltd. and Bechtel (India) Pvt. Ltd.

August 23, 2016

Norris Conference Centers
CityCentre | Houston, Texas
GTLTechForum.com

Explore the Dynamics of GTL in a Low-Cost Environment

Gulf Publishing Company, publisher of Hydrocarbon Processing and Gas Processing, is pleased to announce this
years GTL Technology Forum will be held August 23, 2016, in Houston, Texas, at Norris Conference Center
CityCentre. This years program will focus on economics of scale and the dynamics of GTL in a low-cost environment.

2016
Super Early Bird Rate:

Register Now
and Save 15%

Specific topics to be discussed include: GTL products, economics, financing, permitting issues; Fischer-Tropsch; mtg/
methanol; floating GTL; waste heat recovery; upstream and downstream integration; SynGas generation, and more.
Now in its fourth year, past participants have included Sasol, ExxonMobil Research and Engineering, Shell,
Primus Green Energy, ConocoPhillips, Velocys, EmberClear and many others.
The preliminary agenda will be announced soon. Stay tuned to
GTLTechForum.com for more information.
For sponsorship/exhibit/general inquiries: Contact Melissa Smith,
Events Director, at +1 (713) 520-4475 or Melissa.Smith@GulfPub.com

2016 Advisory Board:

VIPs Attend Free!

Employees of Owner/Operator
companies involved in Gas-toLiquids are eligible to attend this
event at NO COST.
To see if you qualify for a free pass,
contact Melissa Smith, Events Director,
at Melissa.Smith@GulfPub.com
or +1 (713) 520-4475
Hydrocarbon Processing|APRIL 201673

Heat Transfer
P. DARJI, N. CHAUBE and N. DAVE,
L&T-Chiyoda Ltd., Baroda, India

Calculate thermal growth of a fractionation tower

for piping engineering
The fractionation tower/column is common processing
equipment in the petroleum refinery and chemical industry.
This essential equipment is used in the distillation of crude
(hydrocarbon mixtures) to separate the mixture into its component parts or fractions, based on the difference in volatilities. Because its principal function is to separate hydrocarbon
based on boiling points of the hydrocarbon mixture, the column is subjected to varying operating temperature across its
height rather than the same temperature throughout.
The fractionation tower is connected to many piping
systems for conveying liquid and gaseous fluids. Piping is
subjected to very high temperature and differential thermal
growth of the tower. Hence, piping shall be adequately designed to sustain in cold, as well as hot, conditions. The high
thermal growth of a tall tower presents numerous challenges
for piping designers.
In general, piping flexibility analysis is performed by considering temperature values listed in equipment general arrangement drawings (GADs) for calculating thermal growth
of equipment. The direct application of GAD temperatures
in piping flexibility analysis does not simulate the actual scenario when connected to fractionating towers. Moreover, use
of larger values of temperature would result in a greater number of spring supports and additional piping flexibility. So, a
sectional temperature distribution is needed for the accurate
piping stress analysis.
A temperature profile concept can be used to analyze piping systems connected to a fractionator tower. A detailed
thermal profile of a fractionating tower is seldom available to
a piping engineer, requiring that a better way be found to obtain it. Tower sectional temperature can be derived by using
major process outlet piping temperatures. Two methods for
temperature profile calculation of fractionating columns are
discussed here.

should be calculated by taking the average of the temperatures

of product outlet piping. For this example, it can be assumed
that there are four product outlet nozzles (N1, N2, N3 and
N4)/piping terminals connected to the fractional tower, as
shown in FIG. 1. It is assumed that operating temperatures of
the lines connected to N1, N2, N3 and N4 nozzles are T1, T3,
T5 and T7, respectively, and design temperatures of the lines
connected to N1, N2, N3 and N4 nozzles are T2, T4, T6 and
T8, respectively. Values of the T1 to T8 should be obtained
from a process line list. The fractionator tower temperature
profile can be calculated as presented in TABLE 1, and the same
should be used for the piping flexibility analysis.
Nozzle N1
OPE temperature = T1
DES temperature = T2
Section 1
OPE temperature = (T1 +T3)/2
DES temperature = (T2 +T4)/2

Nozzle N2
OPE temperature = T3
DES temperature = T4

Section 2
OPE temperature = (T3 +T5)/2
DES temperature = (T4 +T6)/2

Section 3
OPE temperature = (T5 +T7)/2
DES temperature = (T6 +T8)/2

Nozzle N3
OPE temperature = T5
DES temperature = T6
TL

TABLE 1. Fraction tower temperature profile

Tower section

Method 1. In this method, tower sectional temperature

Operating temp, C

Design temp, C

Section 1

(T1 + T3)/2

(T2 + T4)/2

Section 2

(T3 + T5)/2

(T4 + T6)/2

Section 3

(T5 + T7)/2

(T6 + T8)/2

Section 4

T7

T8

Section 4
OPE temperature = T7
DES temperature = T8
Nozzle N4
OPE temperature = T7
DES temperature = T8

FIG. 1. Temperature profile calculation by Method 1.

Hydrocarbon Processing|APRIL 201675

Heat Transfer
Method 2. In this method, the temperature of the preceding

maining length shall be governed by the temperature of successive nozzles. As shown in FIG. 2, at any point within the first
half of the distance from nozzle N1, the operating temperature
is T1 and the design temperature is T2. Successively from the
second half to nozzle N2, the operating temperature is T3 and
the design temperature is T4. The fraction tower temperature
profile can be calculated as presented in FIG. 2, and the same
can be used for the piping flexibility analysis. When comparing the same line under analysis, it was observed that the
above two methods give close results.

nozzle shall be governed up to half of the region, and the reNozzle N1

OPE temperature = T1
DES temperature = T2
Use OPE temperature = T1
OPE temperature = T2 over
the length L 1/2

L 1/2
L1

Use OPE temperature = T3

DES temperature = T4 over
the length L 1/2

L 1/2
Nozzle N2
OPE temperature = T3
DES temperature = T4
L 2/2

Use OPE temperature = T3

DES temperature = T4 over
the length L 2/2

L 2/2

Use OPE temperature = T5

DES temperature = T6 over
the length L 2/2

L 3/2

Use OPE temperature = T5

DES temperature = T6 over
the length L 3/2

L2

Nozzle N3
OPE temperature = T5
DES temperature = T6
L3

Case study. Flexibility analysis was performed for 18-in. light

vacuum gasoil (LVGO) piping connected to a vacuum distillation tower in accordance with ASME B31.3 code.1 The input
parameters are listed in TABLE 2. Two cases for the piping flexibility analysis using CAESAR-II software2 were simulated.
Case A. A piping flexibility analysis was performed by using
tower temperatures as specified in the equipment GAD. The
temperature profile used for the design and operating cases is
shown in FIGS. 3, 4 and 5.

Use OPE temperature = T7

DES temperature = T8 over
the length L 3/2

L 3/2

L = 1,681 mm

DES temperature = 427C

OPE temperature = 142C

Use OPE temperature = T7

DES temperature = T8 from
TL to nozzle

L = 9,119 mm

LVGO nozzle

Top section

Nozzle N4
OPE temperature = T7
DES temperature = T8

DES temperature = 427C

OPE temperature = 318C

FIG. 2. Temperature profile calculation by Method 2.

TABLE 2. Input parameters

Input

Values

Line size

18 in.

Line schedule

Standard

Line operating temperature

55C

Line design temperature

122C

Line design pressure

8.4 kg/cm2

Fluid density

840 kg/m3

Line material

A672 C60

Tower material

SA 516-60 with SS cladding

Intersection

L = 25,345 mm

Bottom section
DES temperature = 427C
OPE temperature = 366C

L = 13,579 mm

FIG. 3. Temperature profile for Case A.

TABLE 3. Induced nozzle load comparison for Case A and Case B

CASE A, using GAD temperature

CASE B, using temperature profile

Axial load (kg)

Circum. moment
(kg-m)

Longitud. moment
(kg-m)

Axial load (kg)

Circum. moment
(kg-m)

Longitud. moment
(kg-m)

Design

128

959

7,507

158

454

919

Operating

120

182

6,113

148

105

440

15

62

117

15

62

117

2,204

1,984

2,579

2,204

1,984

2,579

48%

291%

7%

23%

36%

Load cases

Sustain
Allowable
Ratio of max./allowable

6%

Case status

76APRIL 2016|HydrocarbonProcessing.com

Not acceptable

Acceptable

Heat Transfer
Case B. A piping flexibility analysis was performed by using the tower temperature profile as derived from the average
temperature of outlet piping by using Method 1. The temperature profile for the design and operating cases is shown in
FIGS. 6, 7 and 8.
and discussion. Thermal
growth of the fractionator tower derived
from Case A and Case B would primarily
affect nozzle loads and expansion stress
(thermal stress) evaluation. Induced
nozzle loads in operating, design and sustained conditions are listed in TABLE 3 for
Case A and Case B, along with allowable
values set forth by the equipment vendor.
It is clearly evident that Case A nozzle
loads are exceeding allowable limits, and
are not acceptable. This is happening due
to a greater temperature difference between column and piping, resulting in a
non-loading condition at the first cleat
gravity support. In turn, loads are transferred to the nozzle rather than at the
piping support point. To qualify Case A
nozzle loads, it is necessary to introduce
spring supports and/or additional piping
flexibility. Conversely, nozzle loads can

be qualified without spring supports and additional flexibility,

as per Case B. Maximum induced thermal stress at node point
220 is listed in TABLE 4 and compared with allowable stress
range in accordance to ASME B31.3.1 It is evident that induced

Results

FIG. 4. Operating temperature profile for Case A.

FIG. 5. Design temperature profile for Case A.

WHO IS THE
PUPPET MASTER?
Energy markets are influenced by
personalities and hidden agendas
as much as market fundamentals.
With Petroleum Economist you get
the analysis and informed opinion that
allows you to see behind the scenes.

Intelligence at your fingertips

Independent Analysis For Energy Leaders

Petroleum-Economist.com
Hydrocarbon Processing|APRIL 201677

Heat Transfer
thermal stresses are acceptable for both cases. However, the
maximum stress levels in Case A and Case B are 68% and 23%,
Vapor outlet (54-in.)
D.T. = 122C, O.T. = 60C

Inside dia. =
7,200 mm

LVGO draw off (20-in.)

D.T. = 122C, O.T. = 106C

respectively, in the design condition. In certain circumstances,

it may be possible that Case A could result in thermal stress
failure, e.g., 110%, and call for an additional piping flexibility
to qualify, whereas Case B would result in acceptable thermal
stress without additional piping flexibility.

L = 581 mm
LVGO nozzle
D.T. = 122C
O.T. = 83C

L = 5,799 mm

Conclusion. These suggested methods can be used for the

piping flexibility analysis for calculating thermal growth of

the fractionation tower in the absence of a detailed thermal
profile. Using this approach, economical piping design can be
achieved, as it prevents or reduces the use of spring supports
and additional piping flexibility requirements by simulating
an actual scenario. Apart from the normal operating, design
and sustained conditions as considered in this case study, it is
also suggested to consider other applicable conditions (hydro,
startup, shutdown, steam out, wind, seismic, etc.) during the
course of piping design.

D.T. = 197C
O.T. = 182C L = 11,145 mm
MVGO draw off (20-in.)
D.T. = 272C, O.T. = 257C

Inside dia. = 10,000 mm

HVGO draw off (20-in.)

D.T. = 341C, O.T. = 327C

D.T. = 307C L = 5,850 mm

O.T. = 292C
D.T. = 384C
O.T. = 356C L = 6,170 mm

Over flash draw off (10-in.)

D.T. = 427C, O.T. = 384C

D.T. = 427C L = 5,480 mm

O.T. = 362C

LITERATURE CITED
ASME B31.3,2012, Process Piping Code, ASME Publication.
2
CAESAR-II 2014, A product of Intergraph, USA (M/s Hexagon AB Group Co.).
1

Inside dia. =
4,300 mm

D.T. = 427C
O.T. = 362C

Tangent line
(anchor)
L = 13,579 mm

NITISH CHAUBE graduated with a degree in mechanical

engineering from Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, India,
in 1987. He has over 27 years of experience in oil, gas and
other process industries, having worked with leading
engineering and consultancy firms through MECON Ltd. and
L&T-Chiyoda Ltd. During his job tenure, Mr. Chaube has been
involved in working with different standards of
major companies, including Shell Global, Technip,
Fluor, EIL, ADCO and ARAMCO. He has worked
in various capacities in design, including the
troubleshooting of major industrial plants.
At present, he serves as the head of plant and
piping at L&T Chiyoda Ltd., Baroda, India.

Vacuum residue (12-in.)

D.T. = 427C, O.T. = 340C

FIG. 6. Temperature profile for Case B.

PRADEEP DARJI works as a lead

piping stress engineer at L&TChiyoda Ltd., Baroda, India.
He holds a masters degree in
mechanical engineering from
the University of Pune. Mr. Darji
has 11 years of experience
in piping stress analysis and troubleshooting
for numerous refinery and petrochemical plants.
He has also worked for Reliance, Bechtel and Linde.

FIG. 7. Operating temperature profile for Case B.

FIG. 8. Design temperature profile for Case B.

NANDISH DAVE works as a

senior piping stress engineer
at L&T-Chiyoda Ltd., Baroda,
India. He holds a masters
degree in mechanical
engineering from Nirma
University. He has six years of
experience in piping stress analysis for refinery
and petrochemical plants.

TABLE 4. Induced thermal stress comparison for Case A and Case B

CASE-A

CASE-B

Allowable stress range

ASME B31.3, kg/cm2

Induced stress,
kg/cm2

Stress ratio of
induced/allowable

Induced stress,
kg/cm2

Stress ratio of
induced/allowable

Operating case

3,316

864

26%

568

17%

Design case

3,259

2,204

68%

754

23%

Load cases

Case status

78APRIL 2016|HydrocarbonProcessing.com

Acceptable but with high stresses

Acceptable with low stresses