25/7/2018 Condenser Limitations

Condenser Limitations

11. Condenser Limitations

Man proposes, but God disposes.

—Count Leon Tolstoy

How would one know that a process facility, such as a distillation tower, is limited by condenser capacity? The
normal answer is that the system pressure increases. It's also true that a vessel downstream of a condenser may
experience a loss in liquid level. This drop in level can be due to a lack of heat input or a lack of condenser
duty. If the lack of heat input is the malfunction, then the vessel pressure will fall. If the lack of condenser duty
is the malfunction, then the vessel pressure will rise. The idea is that "Heat Makes Pressure!"

The malfunctions that limit condenser capacity are:

Blow-through, also called "blowing the condensate seal."

Condensate backup, or subcooling.

Noncondensable accumulation, also called vapor binding or vapor lock.

Fouling.

Problems on the cooling water or the air cooling side of the exchanger.

Nonsymmetrical piping of parallel condensers.

11.1. Blow-Through

I was working for the Fina refinery in Bridge City, Texas. The project was to debottleneck their sulfuric acid
alkylation plant. The unit was limited by the flow rate of isobutane refrigerant. The refrigerant was circulated
by a motor-driven (i.e., constant speed) centrifugal compressor, as shown in Figure 11-1. Centrifugal
compressors, just like centrifugal pumps, run on a performance curve. Increasing the compressor discharge
pressure is certain to reduce compressor capacity and in this case isobutane refrigerant circulation. The reduced

https://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/browse/process-equipment-malfunctions-techniques-to-identify-and-correct-plant-problems/c9780071770200ch11?s.n
25/7/2018 Condenser Limitations
refrigerant flow had increased the reactor temperature above 60°F, which degraded the product quality. The
operators would then cut the reactor feed to reduce the exothermic heat of reaction so as to reduce the reactor
temperature below 60°F.

Figure 11-1. Setting the compressor outlet pressure controller too low will result in blowing the
condensate seal. Too high results in excess condensate backup.

My question to the Fina operators was, at what pressure did they set the compressor discharge controller shown
in Figure 11-1?

"Lieberman, we hold 80 psig."

Now, the vapor pressure of pure isobutane at 100°F is only 58 psig, or 73 psia at sea level. This should have
represented the condenser pressure and the compressor discharge pressure. So the 80 psig backpressure seemed
rather high to me. But, perhaps my observation about the excessively high (i.e., 80 vs. 58) compressor
discharge backpressure might be quite wrong. After all, if there were 10 mole percent propane in the circulating
refrigerant, then the vapor pressure of the liquid at the current 100°F condenser outlet temperature would be 70
psig (85 psia), rather than my calculated 58 psig for pure isobutane.

Also, perhaps there was a 10 psi delta P across the condenser. Well then, 70 psig (for the 90%/10%
isobutane/propane mixture vapor pressure at 100°F), plus 10 psi condenser pressure drop, would equal the 80
psig. So perhaps the operators' set point was correct. So I asked in my most polite tone:

"Why 80 psig?"

And the Fina operators responded with open hostility. "Because we always hold 80 psig, Mr. New York
Engineer."

https://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/browse/process-equipment-malfunctions-techniques-to-identify-and-correct-plant-problems/c9780071770200ch11?s.n
25/7/2018
Dear Reader, you have to understand that Bridge City, Condenser
Texas, isLimitations
not too far from the San Jacinto Monument.
There, 11 Texans defeated 16,000 Mexicans to gain freedom for the Lone Star State. Also, that I have a really
strong Brooklyn accent. So I said, "Let's all try to be open-minded. Let's try to optimize the compressor
discharge pressure. How about if we reduce the set point slowly a couple of pounds."

"Okay, your royal Yankeeship," said the panel operator, as he changed the compressor discharge controller set
point from 80 to 70 psig.

"Hey, I didn't say 10 psi all at once. I said a couple of pounds slowly," I objected.

"Look, Lieberman. We just figured we would do what you want quickly. The quicker we do what you want, the
quicker we'll get rid of you."

Then I thought, "Maybe this is all for the best. Maybe the optimum pressure is close to the 58 psig I just
calculated. Maybe even the 70 psig is too high."

But then I thought, "No, these guys really dislike me. They probably have tried to change the compressor
discharge pressure before. Probably they have seen that something bad will happen if they suddenly drop the
compressor discharge pressure set point too far and too fast."

At first, the reactor temperature at T-1 slipped below 60°F, to 55°F, which was fine. But my worst fears were
suddenly justified. The reactor outlet temperature started to climb above 65°F. The compressor suction and
discharge pressures started to increase. The refrigerant circulation rate increased as well. As the compressor
discharge pressure was rising, the pressure control valve holding back pressure on the refrigerant condenser
opened. But this just seemed to make matters worse. Worse, in the sense that the reactor temperature as
measured at T-1 increased to 70°F.

I looked around me. The operators were passing around a can of Copenhagen. That's finely ground chewing
tobacco. "Hey, Mr. Norm! You all want a dip of snuff?" the stillman, John Hunter, called out happily. The panel
board operator also smiled broadly as he spat on my boots. It's nice to make people happy in their work.

Now what? I was pretty sure what had happened. We had blown the condensate seal in the condenser. I call this
blow-through. Let me explain in detail what had transpired:

Step 1—The panel operator had suddenly lowered the set point on the compressor discharge pressure by 10
psi, from 80 to 70 psig.

Step 2—The pressure control valve located downstream of the condenser (see Figure 11-1) opened rapidly
from 70% to 100%.

Step 3—The entire isobutane refrigerant liquid level in the condenser drained out.

Step 4—Without a minimum liquid level in the condenser, refrigerant vapors blew out of the condenser
outlet into the reactor. That's blow-through, which most operators call blowing the condensate seal.
Especially as applied to steam condensation on the tube side of process reboilers.

https://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/browse/process-equipment-malfunctions-techniques-to-identify-and-correct-plant-problems/c9780071770200ch11?s.n
25/7/2018 Condenser Limitations
Step 5—The uncondensed isobutane vapors raced through the reactor without extracting any appreciable
heat from the reactor.

Step 6—The increased vapor flow to the compressor raised the compressor's suction pressure. This also
raised the reactor temperature, as isobutane evaporates at a higher temperature, at a higher pressure.

Step 7—The higher vapor flow from the compressor raised the compressor discharge pressure. This in turn
caused the compressor discharge pressure control valve to open further, which made the blow-through
worse.

Thus, a positive feedback loop was created. I've written a lot about positive feedback loops in my book,
Troubleshooting Process Plant Control (Wileybooks.com).

11.2. Optimum Drainability Point

Whenever you are caught up in a positive feedback loop, your first reaction must always be the same:

Switch from auto to manual.

Manually move the control valve in the reverse direction from its current direction.

This should be the first lesson process control engineers learn.

Having switched the compressor discharge control valve to manual, I closed it rapidly to 50%, to stop the blow-
through of the uncondensed refrigerant vapors. At the same time, I cut the reactor feed rate in half. This
reduced the T-1 temperature (Figure 11-1) back below the maximum 60°F target. As my objective was to
increase rather than decrease reactor feed and alkylate production, this was not so good.

"Could be, Lieberman, you best go back to the admin building and leave us dumb operators to run this here
alky unit. Could be we should put the pressure controller back on auto, at 80 psig," the panel board operator
said with a sarcastic smirk.

It's true that at 50% valve position, the compressor discharge pressure was higher than before I began my plant
test. It's also true that both the refrigerant isobutane flow and the reactor feed rate were lower than before my
ill-fated experiment. I knew that my apparent failure was viewed by the Texas operators as a partial
compensation for the Confederacy having lost the Civil War.

"Look," I said, "I'm going to try to optimize the compressor discharge pressure control valve on manual. When
I find the optimum discharge pressure by experiment, then we will switch it back to auto. My experiment will
determine the new pressure set point."

"How you gonna do that?" asked Leroy Johnson. Leroy was a young trainee operator, not qualified yet to work
on the panel. "How you gonna know if this here speriment is workin, Mr. Engineer?"

"Well, Leroy, let me explain. You can have too many girlfriends or too few girlfriends."

https://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/browse/process-equipment-malfunctions-techniques-to-identify-and-correct-plant-problems/c9780071770200ch11?s.n
25/7/2018 Condenser Limitations
"Ain't that the God's honest truth."

"The position of the control valve downstream of the condenser is like that. We can open it too much or too
little."

"We just done seen what'll happen if you open it too much," said the stillman John Hunter. "Them compressor
vapors just blow right through that condenser without liquefying."

"Right," I said, "We've just done that."

"But what'll happen Mr. Engineer, if we don't open that control valve enough?" asked Leroy.

"Well, that's the situation right now. We're suffering from condensate backup." And I drew a sketch similar to
Figure 11-2. (Note that the refrigerant is on the tube side of the condenser and the level shown is in the channel
head, and not the shell.) "You guys can see from my drawing that about 40% of the tubes are filled by the
condensed isobutane. Those tubes are not available to help condense the vapor. In effect, that shrinks the size of
the condenser, as far as the vapor is concerned."

The panel operator edged up closer. "That's all true. But I reckon that having 40% of the tubes cooling the
liquid off from 120°F to 100°F makes the refrigerant take a lot more heat out of the reactor. Colder refrigerant
is better than warmer refrigerant."

"That's true. Can I explain with some engineering calculations:

Cooling butane off by 20°F will take 10 Btu/lb of heat out of the reactor. The specific heat of butane is 0.5
Btu/lb/°F. And 20°F times 0.5 equals 10 Btu/lb. That's sensible heat removal.

But when a pound of butane evaporates, it absorbs an additional 130 Btu/lb. That's called the latent heat of
evaporation of butane.

Thus, the extra 10 Btu/lb or 20°F of subcooling only increases the heat removed from the reactor per pound of
refrigerant circulated by around 7%. That's not much compared to the 40% of the condenser surface area lost
due to the isobutane condensate backup."

https://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/browse/process-equipment-malfunctions-techniques-to-identify-and-correct-plant-problems/c9780071770200ch11?s.n
25/7/2018 Condenser Limitations

Figure 11-2. About 40% of condenser surface area is lost due to condensate back-up and subcooling of
the isobutane refrigerant. Note that refrigerant is on the tube-side.

"Excuse me, Mr. Norm," asked Leroy, "But how do you all know where that liquid level really is in the
condenser channel head? You got X-ray Superman-type vision?"

11.3. Identifying Condensate Backup in the Field

"Leroy, run your fingers around the channel head. Can you feel where it starts to get cooler?"

Leroy, the stillman John Hunter, and I had walked out together to examine the condenser. I could see the new
bridge to Port Arthur shining in the distance.

"I surely can. The colder part starts just below the middle. I guess that's the butane getting cooled after it done
condensed."

"Right! So what do you think we ought to do next, Leroy?"

"Well, that there condensate butane liquid is stealing the tubes away from the vapor. So I reckon we ought to
lower the liquid level by opening up that control valve on the outlet. Make the condenser drain out faster."

John Hunter then cracked open valve A shown in Figure 11-1 (the control valve bypass).

"Say, Mr. Engineer," observed Leroy, "I can feel that warm level droppin in the channel head. Mr. John, you
need to keep on with openin that bypass valve. But real slow, like. If you open it too much, we gonna blow-
through that vapor out the condenser before it got's time to liquefy itself."
https://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/browse/process-equipment-malfunctions-techniques-to-identify-and-correct-plant-problems/c9780071770200ch11?s.n
25/7/2018 Condenser Limitations
"Leroy, that's called blowing the condensate seal," I added.

But Leroy was ignoring me. He was seeking, with his fingers running up and down the channel head, to
determine the optimum drainability point. That is, he was trying to minimize condensate backup without
blowing through. As John Hunter opened valve A:

The condenser outlet temperature went up.

The compressor discharge pressure went down.

The refrigerant flow went up.

The reactor temperature cooled.

And the still-hostile panel board operator increased the reactor feed flow, which was my ultimate objective.

The compressor discharge pressure was 73 psig. The compressor discharge control valve was switched to auto
at this set point, and Mr. Hunter shut the bypass valve A.

"You know, guys, that you're going to have to repeat this procedure every time the cooling water temperature
changes, or if the amount of propane in the circulating isobutane increases," I explained.

"Lieberman, why didn't you dumb New York City engineers design the condenser with a boot? Then we could
have level-controlled out of the boot. This would have kept from blowing through, but also avoided condensate
backup."

"Mr. Hunter! Better to light one small candle than curse the darkness," I responded.

11.4. Methods to Achieve the Optimum Drainability Point

The need to prevent blow-through, yet still minimize condensate backup, is one of the fundamental principles
of process operations. The problem was recognized almost at the start of the Industrial Revolution with the
invention of the steam trap. The purpose of the steam trap is to prevent condensate backup and avoid blowing
the condensate seal.

In a properly designed refrigeration system, the condenser drains into the refrigerant receiver vessel. If the
condenser is elevated above the vessel, which is best, then the condenser drains by gravity into the refrigerant
receiver. The flow from the refrigerant receiver is by liquid level control, which in effect prevents blow-through
of the refrigerant vapors.

If the condenser is located below the liquid level of the refrigerant receiver, then a small amount of condensate
backup is required. This condensate backup is required not so much to provide head pressure, but to subcool
the refrigerant, or condensed liquid hydrocarbon, below its boiling point temperature and pressure.

11.5. Required Subcooling of Condensed Liquids

https://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/browse/process-equipment-malfunctions-techniques-to-identify-and-correct-plant-problems/c9780071770200ch11?s.n
25/7/2018 Condenser Limitations
The condenser shown in Figure 11-3 is located below the receiver. Vent valve B is shut. Therefore, the fluid
entering the receiver must not contain any vapor. If it did, then:

The receiver pressure would rise.

The level in the condenser would be pushed up to fill more tubes.

The liquid would become progressively more subcooled, so that when it rose to the higher elevation in the
receiver, it would not vaporize.

Figure 11-3. Noncondensable vent should be connected just below channel head pass partition baffle,
when the condensing vapor is on the tube side.

But condensate backup is due to factors other than the rise in elevation. These are:

Frictional loss in the riser pipe shown in Figure 11-3.

Nozzle exit loss from the condenser channel head outlet.

For refrigeration systems, heat gain from poor insulation of the riser pipe.

The effect of the preceding four factors must be added to predict the required amount of subcooling and
condensate backup. And obviously, as seen in my story about the Fina refinery, if a control valve is located on
the condenser outlet, its delta P will also contribute to condensate backup in the condenser channel head.

https://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/browse/process-equipment-malfunctions-techniques-to-identify-and-correct-plant-problems/c9780071770200ch11?s.n
25/7/2018 Condenser Limitations
In summary, the concept of minimizing condensate backup while preventing blow-through is one of the most
important concepts in process engineering. Think about a distillation tray downcomer. We're trying to minimize
the downcomer backup, but without blowing the downcomer seal. How about the seal on a flare? We try to
minimize backpressure on the flare header line, but without blowing the flare's water seal.

How about the condensate drain placed on a steam reboiler? Same problem. The loop seal from an absorber
draining back into the feed recontact drum; the drain line from the interstage condenser draining back to the
main condenser; the drain from a blow-down tower to a pressured condensate collection sewer. All the same
problem.

Then we have the most famous blow-through incident of all. The BP Deep Horizon well blowout near my
home in Louisiana. Also a matter of the loss of a liquid (drilling mud) seal. But that's another story.

11.6. Noncondensable Venting

Figure 11-3 shows the condensing vapors located on the tube side of the exchanger. I've shown it this way
because half or more of process plant condensers are air coolers. Two-pass air coolers will also have the
horizontal pass partition baffle shown in Figures 11-2 and 11-3. Especially on startup, noncondensables will
accumulate just below the pass partition baffle on the channel head (for a shell-in-tube exchanger) or on the
header box (for an air cooler).

The correct place then to vent off the noncondensable gas is through valve A (Figure 11-2). Venting through
valve C will just vent the hydrocarbon vapor feed from the condenser, but not the noncondensable vapors. To
separate the noncondensables from the vapor feed, the vapor must first be condensed. This occurs after, and not
before, the vapor passes through the tube bundle.

If you have the condensing vapors on the shell side of an exchanger, locate the vent on the top of the shell, as
far away from the vapor inlet as practical.

In Figure 11-3, I have shown the noncondensable vent connected beneath the pass partition baffle on the
channel head and flowing to the riser line. Valve A and valve B should then be opened together, as required for
noncondensable venting. After venting, the condenser pressure should drop. If that does not happen, you have
vented off valuable vapors, and not noncondensable gas.

Leaving valve A on Figure 11-3 open, even with valve B closed, is still bad. Then you are bypassing some
uncondensed vapors into the receiver vessel. This will result in an additional increment of condensate backup in
the channel head and a loss of some condenser capacity. Then, closing valve A will reduce the condensate
backup a little. Which is always a good thing.

The effect of noncondensable accumulation is called by the operators "vapor lock" or "vapor binding." After
startup, air, nitrogen, or fuel gas that was used in startup for purging out air or vacuum breaking is the main
problem. During normal operations, hydrogen or CO2 can be produced as a by-product of corrosion or
carbonate breakdown. Most so-called noncondensables are soluble in the condensate and thus do not have to be
vented.
https://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/browse/process-equipment-malfunctions-techniques-to-identify-and-correct-plant-problems/c9780071770200ch11?s.n
25/7/2018 Condenser Limitations

11.7. Exchanger Fouling

The three factors that control heat transfer rates in exchangers are:

Viscosity

Low velocity

Fouling

The viscosity of vapors and condensed liquids is small and can be neglected. High velocities hinder, rather than
aid, heat transfer in condensing services. Therefore, it's really only fouling that counts in process plant heat
transfer in condensing service.

According to Donald Kern's book, Heat Transfer Fundamentals, the heat transfer coefficient for condensing
steam is around 600 Btu/hr/ft2/°F. When I first read this, I thought Mr. Kern must be insane. I had never
measured any coefficient in any service above 150 Btu/hr/ft2/°F. But then in 1990, I measured a coefficient of
400 in Aruba. It was on a steam surface condenser. The clean turbine exhaust steam was condensing on the
shell side of a water-cooled condenser. The unit had been in service only a few days. There was zero
condensate backup and no fouling—yet.

Within a year, the coefficient had fallen to about 200 Btu/hr/ft2/°F, due to water-side fouling. Let me explain:

Let's say that the overall clean resistance to heat transfer is 0.0025 (the reciprocal of the 400 coefficient).

A typical fouling factor for seawater on the tube side is at least 0.0025.

Then, 0.0025 + 0.0025 = 0.0050. That is, I am summing up the resistances to heat transfer—film plus
fouling.

The reciprocal of 0.0050 equals 200 Btu/hr/ft2/°F.

My point is that in the condensation of vapors, a relatively small degree of fouling, which might ordinarily go
unnoticed, leads to a relatively great loss in heat transfer coefficiency in condensing service. When we are
condensing steam or closed-loop refrigerant vapors, the fouling is almost always on the water or air side.

I say almost always. But I recall at a Chevron plant in El Paso, Texas, that they had a closed-loop refrigeration
plant with lube oil fouling on the refrigerant side. The compressor seals were defective. I recall how an older
and smarter engineer than me showed me that it was necessary to drain down the lube oil from the low point in
the refrigerant receiver vessel, so as to maintain heat exchanger efficiency in both the evaporator and the
condenser.

11.8. Use of Low-Fin Tubes in Condenser Service

https://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/browse/process-equipment-malfunctions-techniques-to-identify-and-correct-plant-problems/c9780071770200ch11?s.n
25/7/2018
I once made a serious mistake in retrofitting a sulfuric Condenser Limitations
acid alkylation unit de-isobutanizer overhead condenser.
To increase condenser capacity, I had the tube bundles retubed with Wolverine low-fin serrated tubes. The
tubes' external surface area increased by a factor of 2.7. But since the controlling resistance to heat transfer was
fouling inside the tubes (that is on the cooling water side), the effect of the water-side fouling also increased by
a factor of 2.7. I had better explain. To calculate the overall heat transfer coefficient, we must multiply the two
tube-side heat transfer resistances:

Fouling factor inside the tubes.

Plus the tube-side heat transfer film resistance.

by the ratio of the tube external area (including the fins), divided by the tube inside area. That is about a factor
of 2.7 for the finned tubes.

So you may think I didn't gain very much from the finned tubes. Quite true. But you may be surprised to learn
that I actually lost about half of the original condenser capacity. The corrosion products on the shell side lodged
between the fins. Thus, the dirty fins acted as an insulating barrier between the cooling water and the
condensing isobutane vapors. The refinery manager of the American Oil refinery, Colonel Norogaard,
personally accompanied me as I inspected the fouled bundles.

But the project was a big success anyway. A success in the sense that I learned never to use low-fin tubes,
unless the tube side and the shell side are both in clean services. I still recall that Colonel Norogaard, a
legendary tyrant, was really very kind to a young engineer who had made a serious design mistake.

11.9. Cooling Medium Problems

For air-cooled condensers, please consult Chapter 12, "Air Coolers: Forced- and Induced-Draft Air Side
Malfunctions."

For water-cooled condensers, please consult Chapter 13, "Cooling Water: Towers and Circulation."

For air coolers, the main problem is dirt accumulation between the fins on the bottom two rows of tubes. For
water coolers, the main malfunction is carbonate deposits inside the final tube pass restricting the cooling water
flow rate.

11.10. Parallel Condensers with Nonsymmetrical Piping

For condensers placed in parallel, two criteria must be met for the condensers to work properly:

The condensers must be identical.

The piping must be symmetrical.

https://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/browse/process-equipment-malfunctions-techniques-to-identify-and-correct-plant-problems/c9780071770200ch11?s.n
25/7/2018 Condenser Limitations
One of the many examples of the consequences of the violation of these criteria occurred at the Texaco refinery
in Convent, Louisiana. As in the first example in this chapter, the service was condensing the refrigerant
isobutane effluent from the alkylation unit refrigerant recycle centrifugal compressor. Figure 11-4 shows two
parallel identical condensers, A and B, with almost symmetrical piping. Almost, but not quite.

Figure 11-4. The extra 40-feet line shown causes excessive condensate backup in condenser A.

The nonsymmetrical pipe is shown by the 40 feet of heavy, horizontal line. The plot plan did not permit the
refrigerant receiver vessel to be located between the two condenser shells. So it was located next to condenser
B, and only 40 feet further from A. I calculated the delta P through this 40 feet of line as only 0.3 psi. But with
a specific gravity of butane of 0.55:

(0.30 psi) × (28 inch H2O) ÷ (0.55) = 16 inches

The 28-inch H2O factor is the height of water equivalent to 1 psi.

The calculated 16 inches of frictional loss in the horizontal 40 feet of pipe will back up the liquid by an extra 16
inches in shell A, as compared to the liquid level in shell B. As the shell's ID was only 30 inches, the 16 inches
of extra isobutane condensate backup also submerged well over half the tubes in shell A. This sounds really
bad, but what proof did I have of this malfunction?

First: The cooling water flow was symmetrical between exchangers A and B. Yet the observed water
temperature rise for B was 30°F, versus only 10°F for A. This was happening because B was condensing
three times as much of the refrigerant flow as was A.

https://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/browse/process-equipment-malfunctions-techniques-to-identify-and-correct-plant-problems/c9780071770200ch11?s.n
25/7/2018 Condenser Limitations
Second: I could observe, using my infrared temperature gun, that almost two-thirds of the height of the shell
for condenser A was full of liquid. There was a distinct level I observed on the exterior of shell A where the
shell's skin temperature dropped from about 120°F down to about 90°F. That distinct temperature gradient
corresponded to the liquid level in the condenser's shell.

Third: The effluent butane temperature from condenser A was about 40°F below its calculated saturated
liquid or bubble point temperature of 125°F. The effluent isobutane temperature from condenser B was only
about 5°F below its bubble point temperature. The only way to account for this was excessive condensate
backup in the shell side of condenser A.

I have quite a similar story to relate from the Amoco refinery in Texas City, on my giant butane splitter. There
the problem was my addition of a small new condenser piped up in parallel with a larger existing condenser.
The smaller new condenser had a tendency to blow through. This caused extreme condensate backup and
subcooling in the older and larger condenser shell.

Actually, I have dozens of similar stories which I will not relate. However, all these stories have one feature in
common. They did not have a happy ending. I cannot recall even one instance where I succeeded in balancing
the flows to the two non-symmetrical parallel condensers so that I could simultaneously prevent the dual
malfunctions of:

Condensate backup and subcooling.

Blow-through and loss of the condensate seal.

That is, I could never achieve the point of "optimum drainability." Just ask Tiger Woods, the famous golf pro,
about optimizing your number of girlfriends. It can't be done, unless you realize that the optimum number is
one.

11.11. Combined Effect of Blow-Through and Condensate Backup

Let me refer again to Figure 11-4. Let's assume that condenser B was blowing through and thus had lost its
condensate seal. Now note that there is no vapor vent from the refrigerant receiver drum. Thus it follows that
the combined mixed effluent from both condensers A and B, at equilibrium, must be saturated liquid, or bubble
point liquid, with zero weight percent vapor.

What then happened to the vapor flowing from condenser B? It must have condensed! It must have condensed
in the subcooled liquid draining from condenser A. However, the only way the liquid leaving condenser A can
become subcooled is for condensate to back up in the shell of condenser A.

So vapor blow-through in one of the two parallel condensers results in condensate backup in its sister
condenser's shell, and a consequent reduction in net condensing capacity for both shells.

I've explained this concept in every one of the 700 plus process troubleshooting seminars I have presented since
1983. One time, an alert attendee asked the following pertinent question:

https://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/browse/process-equipment-malfunctions-techniques-to-identify-and-correct-plant-problems/c9780071770200ch11?s.n
25/7/2018 Condenser Limitations
"Norm, wouldn't it be best, both from the aspect of condensatebackup and vapor blow-through, to put
condensers in series rather than in parallel?"

The answer is certainly yes. My preferred method of expanding condenser capacity on existing units is indeed
to add a new, low delta P condenser, upstream of the existing condenser. But engineering care must be
exercised in the design.

First, if the new condenser is not elevated so that it is self-draining into the old condenser, the pressure stability
of the upstream process vessels may be compromised. If there is a vapor–liquid mixture flowing uphill in a
riser pipe, at a velocity of less than 20 to 30 ft/sec, phase separation will result in the riser pipe. The liquid will
accumulate in the riser pipe and periodically blow clear. This is called slug flow in risers. As I write this, I'm
returning from a BP refinery in Brisbane, where they have exactly this problem on their HF alkylation unit
recycle isobutane condensers.

Second, placing equipment in series has the potential for a greatly increased pressure drop. If two equal
exchangers are switched from parallel to series, the delta P might increase by a factor of eight. Thus, the new
condenser must be of a very low delta P design. Also, it must always be placed upstream of the older exchanger
and preferably elevated for gravity drainage to the existing exchanger. Which is exactly what BP failed to do on
their alky unit in Australia.

Citation
EXPORT
Norman P. Lieberman: Process Equipment Malfunctions: Techniques to Identify and Correct Plant Problems. Condenser
Limitations, Chapter (McGraw-Hill Professional, 2011), AccessEngineering

Copyright © McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC. All rights reserved.

Any use is subject to the Terms of Use. Privacy.

For further information about this site, contact us.

Designed and built using Scolaris by Semantico.

This product incorporates part of the open source Protégé system. Protégé is available at
http://protege.stanford.edu//

https://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/browse/process-equipment-malfunctions-techniques-to-identify-and-correct-plant-problems/c9780071770200ch11?s.n