Improved conceptual process design
avoids revamp scope growth
Tony Barletta and Gary R Martin Process Consulting Services
Adrie Visser National Petroleum Refiners of South Africa (PTY)
F
or grassroots design, defining project scope
is a straightforward exercise. Grassroots
projects can follow optimum execution
procedures for engineering and construction.
Office-based conceptual process design (CPD)
works well because there is no existing unit to
present unique challenges and obstacles. For a
revamp, however, CPD demands a much more
detailed attack, because most equipment — with
all its possibly hidden shortcomings — already
exists. The only foolproof way of carrying out
CPD for a revamp is to first establish a perform-
ance base line of the existing unit. This entails
making a comprehensive test run to gather
actual field data on temperatures, pressures and
flows. Original equipment drawings, P&IDs and
control room data are not sufficient. Once real-
time field data is obtained, it is used for
calibrating computer simulations in the design
office. All major cost bottlenecks are now identi-
fied and alternative process flow schemes are
evaluated to determine the lowest cost.
Finally, equipment lists and cost estimates are
developed. Admittedly, all this takes time
and costs money, but unless such work is thor-
oughly and carefully carried out at this point,
scope can grow enormously during front-end
process design (FEED) and detailed engineering
(DE).
This article presents data on a revamp under-
taken for National Petroleum Refineries of South
Africa (PTY), (NATREF, a joint venture of
SASOL and Total Fina Elf) in which a study was
begun to determine whether increasing crude
capacity at its Sasolburg refinery was a sound
investment. A NATREF multidisciplinary team
coordinated engineering work with several
contractors to carry through a staged process
beginning with CPD, continuing through FEED
and ending in DE.
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000227
Introduction
CPD is the most important activity in revamp
design. Often, its significance is overlooked. As a
result, minimum engineering effort is expended
on it, with the expectations that the more
detailed process design work can be performed
during FEED or the beginning of DE.
Consequently, many revamps start with superfi-
cial process work and little money assigned for
CPD. Often looming behind these seemingly
cost-effective CPD packages are scope growth
and revamp cost escalation.
CPD largely determines revamp costs and
whether or not the results will meet yield, run
length and reliability objectives.1,2,3,4 Failure to
meet any one of these processing objectives can
turn an otherwise profitable revamp into one
that loses refiners millions of dollars due to poor
performance or an unscheduled outage to correct
revamp design flaws. When done properly, CPD
will identify all significant process and equip-
ment modifications, and scope growth will be
minimal as engineering progresses.
By today’s standards, revamps are deemed
successful if: throughput, yield and reliability
objectives are achieved, and they are on schedule
and under budget. Large overruns can wreck
revamp economics. Volumes have been written
about cost estimating, cost control, project
management and scheduling. All of these are
important activities that must be executed well
for a successful revamp. However, if the CPD is
poor quality or insufficient in detail, then no
amount of cost estimating, cost control, project
management and scheduling activities will
prevent scope growth. This article presents
guidelines for revamp CPD. If these guidelines
are executed properly, they will minimise revamp
scope growth. While the examples presented are
specific to crude/vacuum units and the approach
March 2002 1
 and thorough CPD is needed to
±50-100% satisfy the competing objectives.

Order of magnitude estimate

±20%
±30-40% Why is a different approach

Semi-detailed estimate
needed?

Preliminary estimate
±10%
When a conventional office-based

Definite estimate
approach is applied to revamp
design, it is common today for a
major portion of the process engi-
neering design to take place in the
Feasibility FEED stage. Only a superficial
Conceptual F.E.E.D.
study
design
amount of process design is
Detailed engineering performed during the CPD, resulting
Start End in a cursory review of much of the
equipment. Consequently, the
Figure 1 Stages of engineering revamp scope of work is poorly
defined. Conventional office-based
used by NATREF, the techniques can be applied CPD focuses on scheduling and cost estimating,
to other refinery unit revamps. not on process design. But if scope is poorly
defined, the estimate will not be accurate even if
Revamp conceptual process design it is expertly prepared with much detail.
Project schedules often demand fast-track revamp During CPD, all related revamp modifications
conceptual process design. Overall revamp dura- must be identified so a cost estimate can be
tions can be as short as one year from beginning prepared. If the scope of work is well defined,
to startup for fast-track revamps (typically under costs can be estimated with a reasonable degree
$20 MM) or longer for larger investments. of accuracy. However, if the scope is incomplete,
Whatever the case, CPD must be fast and efficient. the estimate will not capture all revamp costs.
There is no time for re-engineering. Poorly defined scope is the number one cause of
CPD costs must also be controlled. At the revamp cost escalation. It is the conceptual proc-
conceptual design stage, the revamp has not yet ess design, not cost control or project
received full funding (see Figure 1). If engineer- management activities, that defines the flow
ing costs are excessive and the revamp does not scheme and therefore the revamp scope.
get funded, money is wasted. However, there is For grassroots design, defining the scope is a
some minimum amount of engineering that must straightforward exercise. Grassroots projects can
be performed to sensibly direct the capital follow optimum project execution procedures for
expenditure. Otherwise, all major scope-related engineering and construction. The office-based
items may not be identified and the process flow CPD approach works well because there is no
scheme selected may not be minimum cost.5 existing unit with its many challenges and obsta-
Minimum CPD cost and sufficient engineering cles. However, project execution procedures that
are always competing objectives during the work well with grassroots design must be altered
conceptual design stage. The trend has been to for revamp design. Revamp CPD demands a
reduce the cost of CPD by pushing essential proc- more detailed process design because most of
ess engineering evaluations into FEED and DE. In the equipment exists. Revamps present
many revamps, this has resulted in either scope unknowns, constraints and problems that are
growth or scope rationalisation, where many common within an existing operating unit. The
pieces of equipment were removed to control conceptual designer must maximise the use of
costs. At this point, it may be well to ask if equip- existing equipment (or minimise new equip-
ment can be removed to control costs without ment) to implement a cost-effective revamp.
impairing the process scheme, and why the equip- Otherwise, revamp costs can be excessive and
ment was specified in the first place. In corollary, jeopardise the chance for approval. Revamp
if the process scheme will be impaired, how can conceptual designers must therefore understand
removal be justified? A more intelligent, efficient existing unit performance and constraints in

2 March 2002 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000227

detail and know how to circumvent them with
practical, cost-effective flow scheme modifica-
tions. This requirement does not exist in
grassroots CPD. While the conventional office-
based approach works well for grassroots
projects, rarely does it foster an intimate under-
standing of all factors affecting revamp success.
Without this understanding, it is impossible to
make good investment decisions.
Refiners must recognise that CPD is where the
process flow diagram (PFD) is set and equipment
modifications are identified. The options for the
engineering effort to influence costs are greater
in the CPD stage than at any other time in the
revamp. If the PFD that is developed during the
conceptual process design is found to have flaws
during FEED or DE, scope growth will almost
always result. Once the PFD has been set, there
is usually very little time available in the sched-
ule to re-engineer the PFD. Scope rationalisation,
“value” engineering or other similar exercises
that are common today are frequently employed
to lower costs resulting from a flawed process
flow scheme and/or incomplete scope definition.
But, “value” engineering participants often have
little understanding of unit limitations that drive
the process flow scheme selection; hence, the
focus becomes the elimination of equipment.
This simply is not an effective means of meeting
reliability and operability6,7 requirements.
In the revamp under discussion, prior to the
CPD NATREF had done a crude/vacuum unit
feasibility study based on a conventional
approach using only office calculations. The
New line
Pressure, kg/cm2
23.5
22.5 21.7 21.2
Figure 2 Crude hydraulics - parallel feed line
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000227
study recommended making minimum modifica-
tions to the PFD; equipment sizes were increased
or new parallel equipment such as a new vacuum
column and vacuum heater were to be installed
to meet processing objectives. One consequence
of maintaining the existing PFD was that a new
parallel crude line from the charge pumps in the
tank farm to the unit would be needed to meet
the higher crude flow rate (see Figure 2).
Increasing crude flow rate increases pressure
drop if the existing process flow scheme is to be
retained and the desalter operating pressure
considered fixed. The new parallel charge line
would be over 5000 ft long and the cost high.
During CPD, it was essential that alternative
process flow schemes be explored.
A different cpd approach: understanding unit
performance
The complexities of revamp design demand a
stronger emphasis on understanding the existing
unit performance and constraints; otherwise,
scope growth will be likely. Additionally, concep-
tual designers must also consider non-idealities
like fouling and s These demands are not usually
attainable with the office-based approach with-
out excessive CPD cost and schedule impacts.
The following guidelines, which supplement CPD
activities, will minimise revamp scope growth:
• Perform comprehensive unit performance test
run
• Evaluate unit hydraulics
• Evaluate heat integration, fired heaters and
column internals.
25.5
0.3
Crude
charge
Desalter
17.0
20.8 20.4 19.9
March 2002 3

Cold train heat (% design)
Pumparound Test run duty, % design
Top 43
Heavy naphtha 107
No. 2 oil 112
Total pumparound duty 68
Diesel from hydrotreater 70
Total cold train duty 69
Table 1
Following these guidelines requires that the
conceptual process designers’ experience be
matched to the specific unit being revamped.
Performance test runs
By definition, a revamp starts with an existing
operating unit. Maximum reuse of existing
equipment minimises new equipment and
revamp costs.10 A conceptual design engineer
must have an intimate understanding of the
existing unit performance and bottlenecks to
maximise the use of the existing equipment in
the revamp flow scheme.11,1. However, the
competing objectives of schedule and cost limit
the time and money available to become inti-
mately familiar with the existing unit operation
during the conceptual stage. A performance test
run is an effective method for developing an in-
depth understanding of the unit performance
and bottlenecks while minimising the expendi-
ture of time and money. The performance test
run enables the conceptual design engineer to:
• Measure unit performance
• Quantify unit bottlenecks
• Quantify hydraulic system limitations
• Identify and quantify non-idealities such as
heat exchanger fouling
Field measured pressure, kg/cm2
151 148
48
Kerosene
product
Figure 3 Baseline kerosene product hydraulic profile
4 March 2002
• Identify damaged or under-performing
equipment
• Generate a calibrated process simulation.
The plant performance test run is the only
method of evaluating the real unit performance
and bottlenecks. To many people, a performance
test is a casual exercise. Samples are drawn for
laboratory analysis while the refinery process
computer retrieves process data. Maybe a few
control valve positions are noted in the field. The
information is taken back to the office and a
computer simulation is built. This is not a
comprehensive performance test, and the results
are usually misleading, leading to disastrous
scope growth later in engineering.
A performance test is a comprehensive test run
that establishes a full pressure, temperature and
composition profile of the unit. In addition to
obtaining data from the process computer, pres-
sures are measured locally for all hydraulic
systems to establish baseline hydraulic perform-
ance criteria (see Figure 3). Temperatures are
measured locally where remote indication does
not exist. Control valve and battery limits pres-
sures are measured. Bypasses that are partially
open around control valves are noted. The test
run does not end with the collection of field-
measured and computer system data. The data
are then used to generate a heat and material
balance, which is the basis for a baseline simula-
tion. The simulation is calibrated with
field-measured test run data. The simulation
calibration will typically include:
• Distillation tower stage efficiencies
• Heat exchanger fouling factors
• Heat exchanger hydraulics allowances
• Fired heater radiant flux imbalances.
Comprehensive performance test runs are
rarely performed for refinery revamp CPD
21000 BPD
Battery
limits
FC
146 145 140 25% 45
open Kerosene
product
to treater
138
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000227

Raw
crude
Figure 4 Existing raw crude/desalter crude PFD
because the designers or project management do
not see the value added. The conventional
wisdom is that a simulation can be generated
with information that is extracted from the as-
built data sheets and drawings, original
equipment specifications and limited plant data
(office-based approach) and, therefore, test runs
are deemed wasteful. This is a terrible
misconception.
Simulations that are built with the office-based
approach rarely represent actual operating unit
performance. It is ironic that more effort is not
put into generating an accurate simulation, since
the simulation is the main process tool that is
used to evaluate process changes that will ulti-
mately define the revamp scope and installed
cost. True, conducting a performance test run
will be more expensive and time consuming than
an office-based conceptual process design
approach that pushes the majority of meaningful
process engineering into FEED and DE.
However, planning and executing a comprehen-
sive test run is the most cost-effective method of
performing the minimum amount of conceptual
process design required to fully define the
revamp scope at the CPD stage.
Hydraulics
When crude/vacuum units are revamped to
increase throughput, crude hydraulics are almost
always a unit constraint. Capital expenditure
necessary to overcome crude hydraulic
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000227
Desalters
Flashed crude
vapours
Flashed crude
constraints can be a significant portion of the
total revamp cost. However, crude hydraulics are
rarely reviewed during the CPD at the level of
detail necessary to identify all hydraulic-related
scope of work changes. But sensible decisions
about the revamp flow scheme cannot be made
without understanding the impact of crude
hydraulics. An office-based method of evaluating
hydraulics consists of collecting the equipment
as-built data sheets and piping isometrics and
rigorously calculating the system pressure drop.
While this approach may be very scientific, it is
not practical because it consumes many man-
hours, is too expensive, takes too long for the
CPD stage, and does not necessarily reflect actual
unit hydraulics that are affected by fouling.
These rigorous calculations are more appropriate
for the DE stage, where a final check of all
system design is warranted.
A more efficient method of identifying
hydraulic constraints during CPD can be accom-
plished by using field-measured performance
test run data. One of the performance test
run objectives is to develop a complete hydrau-
lic profile of each circuit. Once hydraulic
profiles are developed from the performance
test run, the conceptual design engineer can
scale the baseline hydraulic profile up or down
to quickly and accurately evaluate revamp
hydraulics.
Heat integration
In another completely different crude/vacuum
March 2002 5
 Revamp cold train heat (MMBtu/hr)
Pumparound Duty
Top 71
No. 1 oil 40
Total pumparound duty 111
Diesel from hydrotreater 50
Total cold train duty 161
Table 2
unit revamp, an objective was to increase the
crude unit desalter operating temperature. Raw
and desalted crude preheat trains are shown in
Figure 4. Revamp modifications resulting from
an office-based CPD approach are shown in
Figure 5. Two desalted crude heat exchangers
were re-piped from downstream of the desalter
to upstream of the desalter. The piping costs
were estimated and included in the overall
revamp cost estimate.
When a detailed hydraulic evaluation was
performed during DE, it was discovered that
relocating the two desalted heat exchangers
upstream of the desalter would increase the
front-end operating pressure above the design
pressure of the first heat exchanger. At this stage
of the project it was too late for re-engineering;
the alloy exchangers would have to be replaced
with exchangers designed for higher operating
Relocated
exchangers
Raw
crude
Figure 5 Re-piped raw crude/desalter crude PFD
6 March 2002
pressure. Not only was the operating pressure at
the front end above the design pressure of the
first exchanger, it was also above the pressure
that the piping flange rating would permit.
Flanges and valves would have to be replaced as
well. These changes resulted in a significant
amount of scope growth.
In this example, scope growth was incurred
because the crude hydraulics were not properly
evaluated in the CPD stage. The engineering
company had chosen to use an office-based
approach. When the conceptual designer was
asked during the CPD if the crude hydraulics
would be a problem when two exchangers were
added to the raw crude preheat train, her
response was “no, but we will look at the hydrau-
lics in the next stage of engineering”. Had the
conceptual designer used the performance test
run data that were available to her, she would
have quickly seen the flaw in the design (see
Figure 6).
It is especially important to consider crude
unit hydraulics during the CPD stage. Crude
units utilise a high level of heat integration
between the crude/vacuum column products and
pumparounds in the crude preheat train. This
high level of heat integration tightly links the
crude and vacuum columns’ heat balance and
crude preheat train hydraulics. For example,
modifications to one or more of the crude/
Desalters
Flashed crude
vapours
Flashed crude
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000227
 pressure, PSIG
216
Raw
crude
Near maximum
262 215 front-end pressure
160
Figure 6 Field-measured raw crude/desalter crude pressures
vacuum pumparound systems may involve
adding additional exchangers to satisfy revamp
heat balance requirements. Adding additional
exchangers to the preheat train affects crude
hydraulics.
Fired heaters and distillation column internals
Fired heater and distillation column internals
modifications can be significant revamp cost
items. Major modifications in these areas can
extend turnarounds and require special plan-
ning. Fired heater and distillation column
internals must be evaluated in enough detail
during CPD to identify modifications and define
revamp scope. But sadly, fired heaters and
column internals are often only reviewed with
cursory calculations or rules of thumb during
CPD. This approach can result in scope growth.
Abbreviated or rule-of-thumb evaluations, such
as use of average radiant heat flux or percentage
of flood, can be very misleading and result in
incorrect conclusions about fired heater or distil-
lation column performance. Good field data and
a detailed review of the specific equipment
parameters that determine ultimate capacity are
what is really needed to determine maximum
heater or distillation column capacity.
Fired heaters and distillation column internals
pose a real challenge to the conceptual design
engineer. Many times the conceptual design
engineer does not have the equipment expertise
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000227
185 182 175 169
Desalters
Minimum desalter
pressure to prevent
vaporisation is 165 PSIG
Flashed crude
vapours
130 90
40
120
50
Flashed crude
required to evaluate them in enough detail to
determine equipment scope even though he may
be proficient at modelling and developing heat
and material balances. Yet, in an effort to mini-
mise cost, equipment specialists may not get
involved in CPD. Therefore, heater and column
internals scope is often poorly defined.
Average radiant flux rate
Average radiant flux rate is the heat duty
absorbed in the radiant section of a heater
divided by the surface area of the radiant section
tubes (see Figure 7). Average radiant flux rate
rules-of-thumb are used in the refining industry
to give only very general guidelines for heater
capacity. Sometimes, conceptual designers do
use average radiant flux guidelines to determine
heater capacity during CPD. But when heaters
operate with flux imbalances, using average radi-
ant flux rate alone can lead to grossly incorrect
conclusions about heater capacity. Average radi-
ant flux guidelines assume even flux distribution
in the radiant section. In reality, many heaters
operate with flux imbalances that result in a
difference in pass flow rates as high as 50%
between radiant passes.13,14 Flux maldistribution
is a function of firebox tube geometry, pass
layout, burner operation, number of burners and
burner location (see Figure 8). The vacuum
heater in Figure 9 operated with average radiant
flux rates of 9000 Btu/hr-ft2, within the guide-
March 2002 7
 passes were coking while the upper passes were
Shield tubes not.
Radiant tubes This demonstrates that average radiant flux
rate is not a good indicator of heater coking
potential or capacity. Peak film temperature and
Convection oil residence time, which determine vacuum
section heater coking and ultimate capacity, are better
indicators of heater capacity. Oil mass velocity
and flux distribution determine peak oil temper-
ature. When heaters operate with large radiant
section flux maldistribution, the difference in
Radiant peak film temperature can be as high as 75ºF
section between passes. This is why average radiant flux
rate should not be used to make decisions
concerning heater capacity. A tube-by-tube
heater simulation calibrated with accurate field-
measured data is the only way peak oil film
Figure 7 Simplified heater sketch temperatures can be calculated when heaters
experience flux maldistribution. Three essential
lines for vacuum heater operation. However, the items must occur to accurately calculate peak
heater flux imbalances resulted in flux rates of film temperature in this situation:
13 000 Btu/hr-ft2 and 5000 Btu/hr-ft2 for the • The conceptual designer must recognise that
lower and upper passes, respectively! The lower the heater has flux maldistribution
• Accurate field data must be collected
• A rigorous heater model (tube-
Steam Steam by-tube) must be calibrated with the
field-measured data to simulate the
Pass Pass Pass Pass flux imbalance.
No. 1 No. 2 No. 4 No. 3 Often, the rigorous nature of the
calculations necessary to properly
Reduced crude Reduced crude
evaluate fired heater capacity are
viewed by project management as
exercises more appropriate for the
FEED and DE stages. This delays
critical scope definition decisions
Pass Pass until later stages of engineering,
No. 1 No. 3 resulting in cost escalation.

Crude column stripping trays

Heater pass Heater pass
outlet outlet
In most refineries, the performance
of crude column stripping trays is
critical. Low stripping tray efficiency
or damaged trays increase the
amount of light material in the crude
Pass Pass
No. 2 No. 4 column bottoms product. Light
crude columns bottom product loads
the vacuum ejectors, raising column
operating pressure, and costs refin-
Coking ers millions of dollars. Replacing
damaged or poorly designed strip-
ping trays with properly designed
Figure 8 heater layout sketch trays almost always has an attractive

7 March 2002 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000227

payback, but can be a costly
Relative flow rate
revamp item. To hold to
Temperature, ºF Pass No. 1
budget, the need must be
identified during cpd. Pass No. 2
Failure to identify low-effi- Pass No. 3
Atmospheric Vacuum unit
ciency stripping tray operation column
Pass No. 4
fired heater
or damaged trays unfortu-
769
nately is a common oversight Pass
1.0 No. 1
during CPD. Yet, damaged or No. 1 800
dislodged stripping trays can No. 2
1.5
be identified with precise field Pass 768
No. 2 No. 3
measurements using accurate
pressure gauges. An experi- 801
1.1 No. 4
Pass
enced CPD engineer will No. 3
measure stripping tray pres-
sure drop during a 1.4
Pass
performance test (see Figure No. 4
10). Damaged or dislodged
stripping trays have little or Figure 9 Pass heat-flux maldistribution
no pressure drop, while intact
stripping trays have a pressure
Pressure, PSIG
drop of 0.06-0.12 psi per tray.
Stripping trays have inherently
low efficiencies. A well- 7
designed stripping tray will 6
have an efficiency of 40%,
Feed from
while a poorly designed tray crude heater
can have an efficiency of only
dP = 0.5 PSI 20.5
10-25%. Poorly designed strip-
5
ping trays result in low 4
strip-out of light material from 3
2
the crude column bottoms 1
product. Crude column strip- dP = 0.5 PSI 21.0
Stripping
ping trays operate with high steam
liquid loads and low vapour
loads. This combination
demands a special design;
otherwise, the trays will have
low efficiencies. A well-
designed stripping tray is not
an off-the-shelf item.
Poorly designed stripping Reduced
trays operating with low effi- crude
ciencies often go unnoticed
during CPD. Standard calcula- Figure 10 Stripping section pressure survey
tions of percentage flood are
sometimes the only calculations that conceptual able percentage flood. Since the problem with
designers use to determine if a distillation tray is poorly designed stripping trays is weeping, not
fit-for-purpose. But standard calculations of tray flooding, more rigorous calculations are needed
percentage flood will not identify a poorly to identify poorly design stripping trays. If the
designed stripping tray. In fact, stripping trays stripping trays are not evaluated in sufficient
operating with low efficiency will have an accept- detail during CPD, the need for replacement can

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000227 March 2002 9


Figure 11 Damaged stripping trays
go unnoticed until FEED or detailed design
stages — an expensive oversight.
Conceptual designer experience
Revamp conceptual process design must be fast
and efficient. The experience of the conceptual
designer specific to the unit being revamped can
make the difference between an efficient concep-
tual process design package that defines all of
the revamp scope, and one that results in signifi-
cant scope growth or even worse, does not
achieve revamp objectives. In revamping a
crude/vacuum unit, the conceptual designer
must have extensive experience with crude/
vacuum units. In revamping an FCC unit, he
must have extensive experience with FCCUs.
While this is only common sense, it is often
overlooked. Conventional approaches to CPD
based on project management hierarchy view the
CPD as simply another activity. People are
assigned based on availability and the projected
CPD completion on the Gantt chart, rather than
necessary expertise.
When the conceptual designer has extensive
experience specific to the unit being revamped,
he will know what roads to go down and what
roads are dead ends. Knowing which revamp
options to evaluate and which ones to discard
saves both time and money. A minimum cost
solution may require altering the process flow
scheme to circumvent bottlenecks.15 This can be
complex. Quickly knowing what alternate flow
schemes to consider only comes with experience.
10 March 2002
Furthermore, conceptual designs that are
generated by designers who do not have
experience with the type of unit being
revamped often result in unstable, inop-
erable or unreliable designs. Most refinery
units have qualities or characteristics that
are specific to each process. Failure to
consider these qualities can result in
unproven or untried revamp solutions.
Refiners should ask, “Where have you
successfully done this before and who can
I talk to about it?”
Stripping tray mechanical design
Distillation column internals are normally
designed for stable steady-state operation.
Failure to consider non-steady state oper-
ation, like startup, during conceptual
process design can lead to scope growth.
Not only must stripping trays be designed prop-
erly to achieve good efficiency, but well-designed
stripping trays must also withstand start-up
conditions during which they can be easily
dislodged (see Figure 11).16,17 For that reason,
stripping trays require a more robust mechanical
design. Stripping trays should be constructed
with shear clips and through bolts, and should
typically be designed to withstand an uplift force
equivalent to 2 psi. The cost of a mechanically
robust stripping tray is approximately three to
five times the cost of a standard stripping tray. If
the conceptual designer is not familiar with
crude unit startup procedures, a standard strip-
ping tray may be specified with unfortunate
results.
NATREF’S crude/vacuum unit and FCCU product
recovery CPDs
To return to the South African revamp,
NATREF’s objective was to increase crude
processing capacity by over 22%; consequently,
all refinery units required capital investment.
Revamp scope of work and capital investment
varied for each unit. However, the crude/vacuum
and FCC product recovery units combined capi-
tal investment represented about 50% of overall
refinery investment. Figure 12 shows the refinery
block diagram.
NATREF used a four-staged engineering
approach for the refinery expansion. The four
stages of engineering were:
• Feasibility study
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000227
 C3’s
LSR LSR Premium
MEROX Alkylate gasoline

Reformate Blender
FCC gasoline Regular
Sat. gasoline
Reformer
gas

Kerosene Kerosene Kerosene

MEROX
Blender
C4
Alky. Jet fuel
ISOM
Crude
unit Diesel Distillate
hydro-treater
AGO

FCC
Crude
oil Blender Diesel
LVGO
Vacuum MVGO Distillate
unit HVGO
hydro-cracker

Fuel oil /
RCD asphalt

Figure 12 NATREF refinery block diagram

• CPD crude/vacuum unit and FCCU product recovery

• FEED
• DE.
NATREF funded the refinery expansion and
has already completed construction on several
units. The revamped FCCU product recovery unit
has started up, while the crude/vacuum unit
work is being finished in early 2002. Even
though the crude/vacuum and FCC product
recovery unit revamps were more complicated
than other refinery unit revamps, they experi-
enced significantly less scope growth from the
end of CPD to the definitive estimate.
NATREF and Process Consulting Services used
the CPD approach discussed in this article for
the crude/vacuum and FCC product recovery
units. The CPD for the other refinery units was
done in a traditional manner, with thorough
process design work conducted during FEED
and DE, not within the CPD stage.
In December 1998, NATREF kicked off the
CPD with a comprehensive test run on the
unit. NATREF’s CPD work scope included:
• Comprehensive performance test run
• Identification of all major cost bottlenecks
• Evaluation of process flow scheme alternatives
to find the least-cost flow scheme
• Development of equipment lists and cost
estimates.
First, the performance test run gathered suffi-
cient plant data to evaluate unit performance
and identify limitations that would prevent addi-
tional crude processing capacity. During and
immediately following the test run, it became
clear that there were a number of major equip-
ment limitations that would have to be
circumvented in order to increase crude process-
ing capacity. Maintaining the existing process
flow scheme (see Figure 13) simply would not
allow crude rate to be increased without high
investment and poor energy utilisation.
As test run data gathering must be
comprehensive and should not rely solely on the

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000227 March 2002 11

 zone pressure were all meas-
ured with an accurate absolute
pressure manometer.
Increasing vacuum unit feed
rate would have increased
transfer line pressure drop and
Naphtha increased heater outlet pres-
sure, which would reduce the
HVGO product yield or require
Kerosene
higher heater outlet tempera-
ture to maintain cutpoint.
Crude
oil LVGO NATREF’s vacuum heater
Diesel already operated with flame
impingement and rapid tube
‘Cold’ MVGO
AGO coking; therefore, additional
exchanger
train
heater firing was not feasible.
HVGO This emphasises that identify-
ing limitations cannot be done
with computer system data
alone.
Desalter
Once all performance test
‘Hot’ crude run measurements were
exchanger train completed, a calibrated base
VTB
case process flow sheet model
Atmospheric Vacuum column was developed. Unit constraints
column were clearly defined in the
model; otherwise, it would not
Figure 13 Existing NATRF crude/vacuum unit simplified PFD have been possible to effi-
ciently evaluate practical flow
scheme alternatives.
Absolute pressure, mmHG Some of the major crude unit
24
constraints that needed to be
circumvented to meet
113 50
NATREF’s capacity objectives
were:
• Vapourisation at the crude
418 heater pass inlet control valves
• Crude hydraulics and preheat
train design pressure
• Desalter capacity
• Crude heater duty
• Crude column heat removal
Vacuum heater Vacuum column • Crude column shell capacity
• Vacuum heater duty
Figure 14 NATREF tansfer line pressure survey • Vacuum column shell
capacity
easy-to-get information such as process control • Product cooling circuits.
computer data, complete pressure and local A conceptual designer with extensive experi-
temperature surveys were performed throughout ence specific to the unit being revamped can
the unit. Figure 14 shows some of the vacuum narrow down the flow scheme alternatives to a
unit pressure measurements. Vacuum heater few practical options, but rote solutions are
outlet pressure, transfer line pressure and flash common. As in NATREF’s feasibility study,

12 March 2002 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000227


Crude
oil
‘Cold’
exchanger
train
Desalter
Desalted crude
exchanger train
Pre-flash Atmospheric
column column
Figure 15 Revamped NATREF crude/vacuum unit simplified PFD
paralleling or replacing equipment with larger
pieces of equipment is almost never cost effec-
tive when there are major unit constraints.
Finding the least-cost flow scheme requires
extensive crude unit revamp experience. This is
critical to cost control.
Two major bottlenecks were the atmospheric
and crude vacuum column diameters. Both
columns had to be paralleled or replaced if the
existing process flow scheme were maintained.
The engineering company that performed the
feasibility study had decided to parallel the
vacuum heater and vacuum column. But revamps
should maximise the use of existing or spare
equipment to minimise cost. During the CPD, a
survey of all idled equipment was done. NATREF
was modifying the reduced crude desulphuriser
(RCD) unit, and several pieces of its equipment
were available for use in the crude/vacuum unit.
The most significant was the RCD vacuum
column, which could easily be modified for use
in the crude unit.
Practical flow scheme alternatives were stud-
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000227
Naphtha
Naphtha
Gas
Kerosene
LVGO
Light Light
diesel diesel
Heavy MVGO
diesel
HVGO
Pre-flash
AGO gas oil
VTB
Pre-flash Vacuum column
vacuum column
ied, with the selected process flow scheme shown
in Figure 15. The most cost-effective revamp
used two preflash columns: an atmospheric
preflash and a vacuum preflash. The atmospheric
preflash column would eliminate vapourisation
at the heater inlet, debottleneck crude hydrau-
lics, reduce crude column overhead condensing
duty, reduce loads in the crude column, allow for
changes to the preheat train that would increase
heat recovery, and require no new heaters. The
vacuum preflash column would pre-flash atmos-
pheric residue before the vacuum heater and use
the idled RCD vacuum column. This enabled
crude throughput to be increased without
exceeding the vacuum heater, transfer line and
vacuum column ultimate capacity. The vacuum
heater would need to be revamped; however, no
other heater changes would be needed.
Identifying the right process flow scheme thus
minimised revamp costs.
Once the least-cost PFD was identified, equip-
ment lists and cost estimates were completed.
These were relatively straightforward activities.
March 2002 13
 However, all significant scope items had to be
identified; otherwise, the most highly skilled cost
estimator in the world could not do the job prop-
erly. Total installed equipment costs (TIC) are
many times equipment purchase price. CPD
performance tests must therefore identify all
bottlenecks and find the least-cost process flow
scheme if estimators and schedulers are to do
their jobs effectively.
Conclusions
The complexities of revamp conceptual process
design demand a stronger emphasis on under-
standing existing unit performance and
constraints, and more attention to detail than
grassroots conceptual process design. For this
reason, an office-based CPD approach that works
well for grassroots design does not work well for
revamp design. Since the CPD sets the revamp
scope and will therefore largely determine
revamp costs, well-executed conceptual process
design results in minimum-cost revamps that
achieve yield and run length objectives, and
minimum scope growth during the revamp
design life cycle. Properly executed revamp
conceptual process design costs more than office-
based conceptual process design. But, when the
conceptual designers’ experience matches the
unit being revamped, applying the guidelines put
forth in this article will reduce the cost of FEED
and DE.
Scope definition has an enormous impact on
the accuracy of the cost estimate. Total installed
cost (installed, direct and indirect field costs,
engineering, taxes, etc) is typically four to eight
times the cost of equipment for refinery revamps.
Therefore, failure to identify scope items can
quickly lead to large scope growth and cost esca-
lation between CPD and detailed design. CPD
packages that minimise the process design effort
solely to reduce up-front engineering costs may
appear to be an appropriate utilisation of engi-
neering funds. However, this almost always leads
to higher overall engineering costs, revamp cost
escalation and/or compromised revamp
objectives.
References
1 Barletta T, Martin G R, Revamping Conceptual Process Design,
PTQ, Winter 2001, 41-48.
2 Golden S W, Kowalczyk D, FCC Optimization — A Minimum
14 March 2002
Capital Approach, Fuel and Technology Management, March/April
1996, 37-45.
3 Barletta T, Smith M, Macfarlane C, Crude Unit Revamp
Increases Diesel Yield, PTQ, Spring 2000, 45-51. See www.
digitalrefining.com/article/1000251
4 Hanson D W, Lieberman N P, Lieberman E T, De-entrainment
and Washing of Flash Zone Vapors in Heavy Oil Fractionators,
Hydrocarbon Processing, July 1999, 55-60.
5 Golden S W, Minimum Investment Revamps — Achieving
Attractive Economics, 1997 NPRA Annual Meeting, San Antonio,
Texas, Paper AM-97-58.
6 Golden S W, Revamping FCCs — Process and Reliability, PTQ,
Summer 1996, 85-93.
7 Martin G R, Luque E, Rodriguez R, Revamping Crude Unit
Increases Reliability and Operability, Hydrocarbon Processing,
June 2000, 45-56.
8 Barletta T, Revamping FCC Units: Debutanizer Reboiler Fouling
— Don’t Treat the Symptoms, World Refining, Jan/Feb 2001, 20-
22.
9 Barletta T, Revamping Crude Units - Consider Heat Exchanger
Fouling When Redesigning Heat Exchanger Networks, Hydrocarbon
Processing, Feb 1998, 51-57.
10 Golden S W, Pushing Plant Limits: Test Runs, Plant
Expectations, and Performance Confidence, World Refining,
March/April 1999, 75-91.
11 Golden S W, Fulton S, Low cost Methods to Improve FCCU Energy
Efficiency, PTQ, Summer 2000, 95-103. See www.digitalrefining.
com/article/1000249
12 Hartman E L, Hanson D W, Weber B, FCCU Main Fractionator
Revamp for CARB Gasoline Production, Hydrocarbon Processing,
Feb 1998, 44-49.
13 Martin G R, Heat-Flux Imbalances in Fired Heaters Cause
Reliability Problems, Hydrocarbon Processing, May 1998, 103-
109.
14 Martin G R, Barletta T, Vacuum Unit Fired Heater Coking —
Avoid Unscheduled Shutdowns, PTQ, Spring 2001, 119-125.
15 Barletta T, Practical Considerations for Crude Unit Revamps,
PTQ, Autumn 1998, 93-103. See www.digitalrefining.com/
article/1000250
16 Martin G R, Barletta T, Revamping Crude Units — Consider
Startups to Improve Unit Reliability, World Refining, Jan/Feb
2000, 30-35.
17 Nigg J M, Sitton K D, Improve Reliability and Maintenance of
FCC Main Fractionator Internals, AKZO Nobel Australian Seminar,
13-14 May 1999.
Links
More articles from: Process Consulting Services
More articles from the following categories:
Crude Vacuum Units Heavy Crudes
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000227