Selection of ULSD dryers:

Key technical considerations

An evaluation of various drying options for ULSD aiming to pass bright and clear
specifications or haze ratings

Rajib Talukder and Prabhas Mandal

Aramco

W
ater present in ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULSD)
poses significant risks by corroding and plugging 250

engine components. It is also a major factor con-

Dissolved water (wppm)

200
tributing to corrosion at the bottom of ULSD storage tanks
and promotes bacterial growth. Water in ULSD can exist 150
either as dissolved or as tiny, suspended droplets ranging in
size from 0.1 µm to 10 µm. Exceeding a water content of 100 100
wppm may cause haziness, leading to the product becoming
Hysys
off-specification due to a lack of brightness and clarity. 50
API Databook
According to the ASTM D975-23 standard, the bottom
sediment and water (BS&W) content in diesel must be less 0
20 30 40 50 60
than 0.05% by volume. The European Norm EN 590 stip- Temperature (˚C)
ulates that the total water content should be a maximum
of 200 wppm. Additionally, international market specifica- Figure 1 Dissolved water in ULSD
tions have mandated clear and bright, in which the ULSD
contains no visible water drops or particulates and is free of pipelines exceeding 200 km in length, operators typically
haze or cloudiness. The haze rating for ULSD should not to restrict water content to a maximum of 80 wppm.
exceed a level of 2.0, as per the ASTM D4176-22 standard. Nevertheless, variances in haze ratings have been
The ASTM D8148-22 test method provides a spectro- observed when comparing individual ULSD samples with
scopic procedure for determining the level of suspended equivalent water content levels. These discrepancies may
water and particulate contamination (haze) in liquid middle be attributed to variations in the ability of each sample
distillate fuels, including those blended with synthesised to dissolve water at the test temperature, a characteristic
hydrocarbons or biofuels. This method assigns an ordinal largely influenced by the fuel’s aromatic and polar com-
Instrument Haze Rating (IHR) from 1.0 to 6.0 and a Haze ponent levels, such as bio-diesel content. For instance, a
Clarity Index (HCI) from 50.0 to 100.0, assessed on a test ULSD sample with a high aromatic or biodiesel content
specimen at 22.0°C ± 2.0°C. may dissolve more water than a highly paraffinic fuel lack-
ing biodiesel or other polar components.
Correlation of water content and haze At elevated temperatures, ULSD saturated with water
This discussion does not encompass a study of all factors can contain significant levels of dissolved water. As the
influencing haze formation in ULSD. Such factors, not exhaus- temperature decreases, the dissolved water transitions to
tively examined here, include temperature, additives, fuel a suspended state. The ‘haze point’ or ‘saturation point’ is
type, interfacial tension, and water separation characteristics. defined as the temperature at which water dissolved in the
The haze rating of ULSD is primarily dependent on its ULSD begins to precipitate and form free water droplets.
water content, including both dissolved and free water. Experimental data indicates that a temperature reduction
Therefore, refineries aiming to export ULSD must reduce of 25°F (14°C) below the saturation point leads to the pre-
the total water content to meet international market stand- cipitation of a substantial amount of water droplets within
ards. Previous studies, notably referenced in sources 1 and the ULSD, causing it to appear hazy. Figure 1 illustrates the
7, have established that maintaining total water content in dissolved water content in a specific ULSD sample at var-
ULSD below 100 wppm at storage temperature is suffi- ious temperatures, estimated using Hysys simulation and
cient to meet haze specifications at the test temperature. the API Technical Data Book equation.
Moreover, some pipeline operators impose maximum
water content limits in ULSD to maintain the efficacy of ULSD drying methods
additives and to minimise water settling in pipelines. For Drying ULSD is unnecessary if a reboiler is used for the

www.digitalrefining.com PTQ Q4 2024 41

 hygroscopic nature, CaCl₂ cannot remain in stagnant ULSD
90 for more than approximately a day without risking crystal-
80 lisation or lumping within the dryer. This lumping is an irre-
versible process that can cause channelling, subsequently
Solubility (wt%)

70
impacting the performance of the salt dryer. Some refiners
60
have reported negative experiences with CaCl₂ lumping.
Solubility CaCl2 wt%
50
Solubility NaCl wt%
Hence, rock salt is more commonly used.
40 Salt dryers also present several operational challenges,
including problems with salt bridging, high salt consump-
30
tion rates, difficulties in disposing of brine, and the need
20
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
to continually monitor salt levels in the dryer. Additionally,
Temperature (˚C) there is a risk of corrosive chloride carryover into storage
tanks.
Figure 2 Solubility of NaCl and CaCl₂ Coalescer cartridges, which are typically guaranteed
for one year of operation, require replacement at a cost of
product stripper downstream of the reactor loop. However, about $2,500 each. This leads to an annual cartridge cost
it is crucial to limit the maximum outlet temperature of the of $375,000, considering a typical number of 150 car-
reboiler to 385°C to prevent colouration issues in ULSD. In tridges. During periods when the coalescer is out of service
the absence of a reboiler, several drying options are availa- for cartridge replacement, typically about one week, the
ble when using a steam stripper, including: salt dryer’s salt consumption can increase by up to 25 times
• Coalescer at ULSD rundown line the normal rate. Given these considerations, the salt drying
• Salt drying at coalescer downstream at coalescer downstream option has become an increasingly
• Vacuum dryer unfavourable option among refiners.
• Molecular sieve and low-temperature coalescer. The use of vacuum dryers (VD) for drying ULSD has
Historically, conventional refinery units producing ULSD recently increased. VDs can vary significantly in their con-
have been equipped with coalescers on the rundown line. figurations, including single-stage systems with one vacuum
Coalescers are designed to remove free water, achieving column and two-stage systems featuring two vacuum col-
levels as low as 15-20 wppm of free water. The effective- umns. Additionally, vacuum system ejectors employed can
ness of a coalescer is influenced by its operating tempera- range from single to multi-stage, each variant affecting over-
ture; at higher temperatures, ULSD can saturate with more all system efficiency and performance.
water, which the coalescer cannot remove. For instance, This study examines various VD configurations, with
when operating at 45°C, the ULSD may still appear bright objectives centred around reducing utility consumption, opti-
and clear at the coalescer outlet with a total water content mising equipment size, and minimising both capital expendi-
of 150 wppm, as indicated in Figure 1. tures (Capex) and operational expenditures (Opex). Except
However, this clarity can be misleading, as the sample for higher utility costs, the operation of VDs is noted for its
might appear hazy at the recommended testing tempera- reliability and its ability to handle a wide range of feed water
ture of 22°C. At this temperature, the dissolved water esti- contents effectively.
mated to precipitate out, as per Figure 1, would amount to Detailed discussions of different VD configurations are
70 wppm. This level of moisture potentially leads to haze, provided in subsequent sections, outlining their specific
causing the ULSD to fail the ‘bright and clear’ specifica- advantages, limitations, and suitability under varying oper-
tion. However, not meeting bright and clear becomes more ational conditions. Some refineries have adopted innovative
prominent in the geographic region where day-night tem- processes such as chiller operations, where incoming ULSD
perature variation and summer-winter temperature varia- is cooled to sufficiently low temperatures to convert dis-
tion are very high. solved water into free water. A coalescer positioned down-
Therefore, maintaining total water content below 100 stream of the chiller can effectively remove this free water,
wppm to meet the ‘bright and clear’ specification at the significantly reducing the total water content in the ULSD.
testing temperature can be challenging for a coalescer In scenarios where ULSD water content of less than 10
when the dissolved water content is high at the coalescer wppm is required, molecular sieve dryers have been sug-
operating temperature. gested as a viable option. Molecular sieves offer highly
A salt dryer functions as a large oil desiccator and can effective moisture removal capabilities, ideal for achieving
remove both free and dissolved water from ULSD. To stringent water content specifications. However, it should
reduce the operational load on the salt dryer, a coalescer is be noted that the authors have not encountered any instal-
typically installed upstream. The type of salt used can vary lations where molecular sieves are used specifically to meet
between rock salt (NaCl) and calcium chloride (CaCl₂), each the ‘bright and clear’ specifications for ULSD.
with differing solubilities, as depicted in Figure 2.
CaCl₂ has a significantly higher solubility than rock salt, Study of vacuum dryer configurations
making it more effective in removing dissolved water from A comprehensive study was conducted to evaluate the pros
ULSD, especially when the fuel contains higher levels of and cons of various VD configurations. This assessment
aromatics or polar components. However, due to its highly utilised Aspen Hysys for simulation purposes, selecting the

42 PTQ Q4 2024 www.digitalrefining.com

Grayson Streed (GS) thermodynamic package
to model the system accurately, where column Differences in resource use across the various setups for Cases 1-4
operates under total reflux conditions. The
Utility Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (APEA) was
MP steam, kg/h 316 73,241 281 206
employed to estimate equipment costs, ensur-
Cooling water, kg/h 979,018 5,480,465 668,139 661,194
ing a thorough economic assessment alongside Power, kW 526 549 521 521
the technical evaluation.
The parameters set for this study were: Table 1
• Feed rate: 98,000 bpd.
• Feed total water content: 5,000 wppm. Utility consumption
• ULSD product target total water content: 50 wppm. Utility consumption for each evaluated VD configuration is
• Feed pressure and temperature: 12 barg and 160°C. summarised in Table 1.
• Product ULSD pressure and temperature: 9 barg and 45°C. Analysis of utility consumption:
• Air leakage rate: 45 kg/hr per vacuum tower. • Single-stage dryers (Case 1) require higher MP steam,
• Vacuum tower overhead pressure: Varied between -0.49 which is also reflected in higher cooling demand compared
barg (392 mmHg) and -0.86 barg (115 mmHg) to achieve a to Cases 3 and 4.
ULSD product water content of 50 wppm. • Single vacuum tower without pre-condenser (Case 2)
• Medium pressure (MP) steam operating conditions: requires significantly more steam for the ejector compared
Pressure 11 barg and temperature 190°C. to other configurations. This high steam demand also results
• Cooling water: Pressure 6 barg, supply temperature 30°C, in greater cooling duty due to increased steam utilisation.
return temperature 40°C. • Power consumption is relatively similar across the configu-
• Flare pressure: 0.3 barg. rations, except for Case 2, which exhibits slightly higher power
• Number of trays in vacuum tower: two (representing two needs due to its greater mechanical and thermal burden.
theoretical stages). Pre-condenser effectiveness: Integrating a pre-condenser
• Liquid residence time: five minutes in a single tower con- (Cases 1, 3, and 4) substantially reduces utility consumption.
figuration, two minutes in the first tower, and five minutes in By pre-condensing vapours before they enter the ejector,
the second tower for dual tower configurations. the load on ejectors and cooling systems is significantly
• Number of ejector stages: two, with the compression ratio decreased, leading to lower overall utility usage.
maintained the same for both stages and calculated using Two-tower efficiency: The two-tower system (Case 3) with
the formula (Pf/Pi) ^ (1/2), where Pf is the final pressure at a pre-condenser shows improved efficiency in cooling duty
discharge in bara (1.31 bara) and Pi is variable as previously compared to the single-tower setups (Case 1), highlighting
mentioned. the benefit of distributing the workload over more stages.
The study evaluated four distinct configurations of VDs to Cost implications: Higher utility consumption, as seen in
determine their efficiency and effectiveness under varying Case 2, can translate to increased operational costs, sug-
operational conditions, illustrated with four detailed figures gesting a potential trade-off between system simplicity and
(PFDs) representing Cases 1-4 and available at https://drive. economic efficiency.
google.com/drive/folders/1n3MefOF7tcGCffU3vy87a9t5p- This analysis underscores the importance of system con-
3b0Usa2?usp=sharing. Each configuration was modelled figuration in optimising utility consumption and overall oper-
and analysed using Hysys simulation, including: ational efficiency in ULSD drying processes. The decision
u Case 1: Single vacuum tower with pre-condenser: This on which VD configuration to use should consider both the
setup includes a pre-condenser system integrated with a Capex and Opex.
single vacuum tower, designed to condense vapours before
they enter the vacuum system, potentially reducing the load Financial implications
on the ejector and enhancing overall system efficiency. Evaluation of financial implications of various VD configu-
 Case 2: Single vacuum tower without pre-condenser: rations takes into account adjustments for inflation and is
This configuration utilises a single vacuum tower without a considered alongside Capex and Opex, based on historical
pre-condensing step, providing a baseline scenario to eval- and projected costs.
uate the impact of omitting the pre-condenser on system Inflation adjustments: The equipment costs, sourced from
performance and operational costs. the Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (APEA) prior to 2019,
 Case 3: Two vacuum towers with pre-condenser: have been adjusted for an average annual inflation rate of
Incorporating two vacuum towers with a pre-condenser 2.5% in Saudi Arabia from 2019 to 2024, cumulatively
allows for enhanced separation efficiency and potentially reaching about 13.15%. This adjustment reflects an increase
reduces the load on the ejector. in costs in line with economic conditions.
 Case 4: Flash vessel followed by vacuum tower: This Total installed cost (TIC): The TIC is estimated at seven
configuration includes a flash vessel prior to the vacuum times the equipment cost, derived from similar project data.
tower. The flash vessel is used to separate bulk water and Operational expenditure (Opex): This includes utilities
heavy hydrocarbons under reduced pressure, which can (MP steam, cooling water circulation, and power) and sour
significantly decrease the load on the subsequent vacuum water processing costs:
tower and improve the drying process. • Sour water processing: $13.2 per ton

www.digitalrefining.com PTQ Q4 2024 45

 $13.42 million, indicating higher utility
Financial overview comparing dryer configurations based on Capex, Opex, usage and operational demands due to
NPV, IRR, and PI calculations its configuration.
Parameters Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
Capex, MM$/yr 26.71 28.02 30.03 28.63 NPV
Opex, MM$/yr 0.79 13.42 0.74 0.72 Case 1 exhibits the highest NPV at $186
NPV @10% discount, MM$ 186 117 184 185 million, indicating that it generates the
IRR,% 66 50 62 63 most value over the project’s life, con-
Profitability index 6.96 4.18 6.13 6.46 sidering both revenue and costs, under a
Payback after commissioning, years <1 1 <1 <1 10% discount rate.
While Cases 3 and 4 are close contend-
Table 2 ers with NPVs of $184 million and $185
million, respectively, the lower Capex and
• MP steam: $6.14 per ton Opex of Case 1 make it the most financially viable option.
• Cooling water circulation: $0.0164 per ton
• Electricity: $0.07 per kWh Profitability index (PI)
Basis for net present value (NPV)/internal rate of return The PI is highest for Case 1, further establishing its superior-
(IRR) calculations: ity in terms of return on investment.
• Feed/product pricing: This evaluation provides a clear picture of the finan-
■ Feed – high water content (200 wppm) ULSD: $697/ton cial implications of each dryer configuration, offering vital
■ Product – ULSD with <80 wppm water: $707/ton insights for decision-making regarding the optimal setup
• Financial assumptions: for ULSD drying operations based on both initial investment
■ Capex and Opex sensitivity: 0% and ongoing operational costs. Case 1 emerges as the most
■ Discount rate: 10% economically favourable option, balancing initial costs with
■ Project life: 20 years operational efficiency and overall profitability.
■ Project execution time: Four years
• On-stream days/year: 350 Benchmarking of different configurations
• Cost estimate accuracy: ±50% Benchmarking activities were conducted across various
• Capital expenditure distribution: facilities as part of this study, encompassing a total of 18
■ 10% in first year ULSD systems. These investigations revealed that both
■ 35% in second and third years single- and two-stage VDs are commonly employed.
■ 20% in fourth year Industry engagements with licensors involve the imple-
mentation of a combination of coalescers and salt dryers
Profitability index (PI): Calculated as NPV divided by total from Axens to achieve a water content of 80 wppm in ULSD,
Capex. while UOP offers multiple solutions aiming to maintain water
Table 2 provides a financial overview comparing the dif- content below 100 wppm in ULSD:
ferent dryer configurations based on Capex, Opex, NPV, • A fired reboiler for the ULSD stripper, with 50% vapori-
IRR, and PI calculations. sation, maintaining the maximum outlet temperature below
385 °C to avoid colour degradation.
Capex • For steam-operated ULSD strippers, a preference for
Case 1, with a Capex of $26.71 million, offers the lowest ini- single-stage VDs is noted.
tial investment among the configurations, which is advan- None of the surveyed facilities utilise a coalescer upstream
tageous for budget management and financial flexibility. of their VDs. These dryers generally operate at higher tem-
Case 2 requires a Capex of $28 million, which is higher peratures, with one exception: a refinery reported that its VD
than Case 1 due to the need for a larger overhead drum, a for light cycle oil (LCO) HT, located downstream of a coa-
bigger sour water pump, and a higher duty after cooler to lescer, operates effectively at 60°C, consistently achieving
handle the substantial ejector MP steam load. water content below 100 wppm without any operational or
The two-stage VD (Case 3) demands the highest Capex reliability issues.
at $30.03 million, reflecting its complexity and the addi- All VDs in these facilities are designed to operate on full
tional equipment required. reflux, with the option for occasional bleeding to the slop
Incorporating a flash vessel (Case 4) slightly reduces system, enhancing flexibility in operation and maintenance.
the Capex to $28.63 million compared to Case 3 due to a Benchmarking results show the following preferences and
reduction in equipment size and complexity. trends:
u Three ULSD systems do not require any drying as the
Opex ULSD strippers are configured with reboilers.
Case 1 also benefits from significantly lower operational v Three ULSD systems use a coalescer only.
costs ($0.79 million), enhancing its operational efficiency w Two ULSD drying systems are provided with salt dryers
and long-term cost savings. after a coalescer.
In contrast, Case 2 has a substantially higher Opex at x Five ULSD systems use a single-stage VD.

46 PTQ Q4 2024 www.digitalrefining.com

y Four ULSD systems use a two-stage VD.
z One ULSD system uses a single-stage VD after a flash
200 wppm

Vacuum dryer pressure (barg)

-0.73
vessel. 5000 wppm
The operability and reliability of single-stage VDs are -0.78
comparable to those of two-stage VDs, indicating that the
simpler configuration does not compromise performance. -0.83

Facilities with only a coalescer for ULSD drying do not aim to

-0.88
meet a total water content below 100 wppm. The number of
facilities employing single-stage VDs is the highest, reflect- -0.93
ing a broader industry preference. Newly commissioned
ULSD facilities show a preference for single-stage VDs, sug- -0.98
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
gesting a shift towards simpler, possibly more cost-effective Vacuum dryer feed inlet temp (˚C)
configurations.
To assess the impact of feed temperature and water con- Figure 3 Effect of water in VD feed for VD operating pres-
tent on the performance of VDs, a case study was conducted sure and temperature
using Hysys simulation for a single-stage VD. The study var-
ied feed temperatures from 60°C to 165°C and analysed two protection system to prevent liquid overfill scenarios;
scenarios with total water content in the feed at 200 wppm instead, they size the tower’s vapour space from the high-
and 5,000 wppm, respectively. In both scenarios, the VD’s level alarm to the top of the tower to accommodate at least
pressure was adjusted to achieve a target water content of 10-15 minutes of hold-up. In configurations where a flash
50 wppm in the VD bottom. The outcomes of this study are vessel or a first-stage VD is placed above the second-stage
depicted in Figure 3. VD, using a hydrostatic loop instead of a level control valve
Additionally, the steam consumption of the ejector was between these two pieces of equipment can significantly
estimated for these varying feed water contents to maintain reduce size and eliminate the need for separate relief valves
50 wppm water in the VD bottom (Figure 4). for each piece of equipment.
Key takeways include:
• Deep vacuum requirements: For feed temperatures below Calculation of air leakage
120°C, a very deep vacuum is necessary for effective water The size of the ejector and its steam consumption depend
removal, regardless of whether the feed water content is on the volume of gases to be removed from the system, a
200 wppm or 5,000 wppm portion of which comes from air leakage from the atmos-
• Reduced vacuum for higher temperatures: At feed tem- phere. Accurate estimation of air leakage is thus critical for
peratures above 120°C, the vacuum requirement in the VD is the design of ejectors and vacuum overhead systems. The
comparatively lower, especially when the feed water content Heat Exchanger Institute (HEI) has developed standards for
is 200 wppm as opposed to 5,000 wppm. estimating the rate of air leakage into commercially tight
• Steam consumption variances: Below 120°C, steam con- vacuum systems, specifically outlined in the 5th Edition of
sumption for the ejector is considerably higher when the their Steam Jet Vacuum Systems standards.
feed water content is 5,000 wppm compared to 200 wppm. Utilising the following Equation 1, air leakage can be calcu-
However, above 120°C, steam consumption levels off and lated without resorting to graphical interpretation:
becomes similar for both levels of water content
• Operational optimisation: Operating the VD at higher Air leakage rate, (L) Ib/hr. = a x V^b  Eq 1
temperatures, preferably above 120°C, is beneficial after
maximum energy recovery for uses such as DHT feed pre- where:
heating, BFW preheating, or LP steam generation V = system volume (ft3) and ‘a’ and ‘b’ are coefficients which
• Contradictions with coalescer use: The integration of are a function of process pressure, as shown in Table 4.
a coalescer with a VD presents operational challenges. Feed to the ULSD VD usually comes from the ULSD stripper.
Coalescers are more effective at lower temperatures (prefer- During start-up, shutdown, or any upset of the stripper, there
ably below 60°C), whereas economically, VDs operate better is a possibility of encountering H₂S in the overhead, along with
at higher temperatures (above 120°C). Moreover, the need non-condensable hydrocarbons, water, hydrocarbon gases,
for frequent replacement of coalescer elements every 12-18 and possible oxygen from air leakage. These components can
months, and pre-filter elements every six months, adds sig- lead to corrosion of the vacuum overhead system, particularly
nificantly to operational expenditures. the overhead cooler/condenser and the overhead receiver.
Some refineries use chemical injections (neutralisers) to mit-
Advanced VD design considerations igate corrosion. Most refiners prefer overhead exchangers
Vacuum columns are significant Capex contributors in made of alloy material, and overhead vessels equipped with
ULSD systems. Adopting multi-diameter towers can opti- lining. Benchmarking across different facilities also supports
mise tower size and cost. Liquid residence time is a critical the use of higher-grade metallurgy as a preferred option.
factor in determining tower dimensions, as vapour load is
relatively negligible (see Table 3). Conclusion
Some refineries do not account for an instrumented The selection of an appropriate ULSD water removal system

www.digitalrefining.com PTQ Q4 2024 47

 Comparisons between single-diameter and Equation 1 can be used for easy calculation without
multi-diameter vacuum dryers going through tiresome graphical interpretation steps

Parameters Single Multi Pressure level a b

ID, m 1.6 Top 1.6 90-760 mmHg 0.1779 0.6758
Height (T-T), m 52.33 3.8 21-89 mmHg 0.1460 0.6667
ID, m - Bottom 3.6 3.1-20 mmHg 0.1010 0.6637
Height (T-T), m - 7.58 1-3 mmHg 0.0469 0.6719
Cost, $ 465 k 421 k <1 mmHg 0.0196 0.6962

Table 3 Table 4

is crucial and depends on both the required product specifi- facilities. This alignment with industry practices ensures not
cations and the specific design of the stripper. For product only compliance with stringent water content specifications but
water content specifications below 100 wppm, VDs emerge also operational sustainability and cost-effectiveness.
as the most reliable method, offering significant operational
benefits. Operating VDs at temperatures above 120°C, after References
maximum energy recovery from the ULSD rundown, is eco- 1 Evaluation of ULSD Fuel Haze Resulting from Water Content, CRC
nomically beneficial and increases system efficiency. Project No. DP-06-20.
From the comparative analysis, both single-stage and 2 Brown R L, Wines T H, Improve suspended water removal from fuels,
two-stage VDs demonstrate comparable operational per- Hydrocarbon Processing, December 1993.
formance and reliability. However, while two-stage dryers 3 AFPM Conference, 2010.
4 Standards for Steam Jet Vacuum Systems, 5th edition, HEI.
involve higher capital expenditures, single-stage dryers
5 ASTM D4176-22 – Standard Test Method for Free Water and Particulate
slightly increase operational costs due to higher utility require-
Contamination in Distillate Fuels (Visual Inspection Procedures).
ments. Considering both Capex and Opex, the single-stage
6 ASTM D8148-22 – Standard Test Method for Spectroscopic
VD stands out as the overall better option. Additionally, the
Determination of Haze in Fuels.
integration of a pre-condenser is highly recommended as it
7 Nelakanti D M, Patel K, Gadhvi S, Experimental study on ULSD fuel
significantly reduces the steam consumption of ejectors and
haziness, Catalysis PTQ 2024.
cooling water circulation for after-cooler, thereby lowering
operational expenses. Rajib Talukder is a chemical engineer in the Global Manufacturing
The use of a multi-diameter VD can further optimise tower Excellence department at Aramco. Throughout his career, he has
sizing and substantially reduce Capex. However, the place- worked on numerous projects around the world employed by various
ment of a coalescer upstream of the VD is generally not pre- engineering companies. He graduated from NIT Tiruchirappalli, India.
ferred due to the additional Capex and Opex involved. This Email: [email protected]
study also highlighted the need for adopting higher-grade Prabhas K Mandal is an Operations Engineer Specialist at Aramco. He
metallurgy in vacuum overhead systems to prevent corrosion. has more than 30 years of experience in petroleum refining, and sup-
Benchmarking across various facilities has reinforced the pref- ports front end design development for capital projects. He holds a
erence for simpler, cost-effective configurations, with a nota- B.Tech in chemical engineering and a M.Tech in petroleum engineering.
ble trend towards single-stage VDs in newly commissioned Email: [email protected]

600 10,000
Ejector MP steam flow - 5000 wppm feed (kg/h)

544 9,057
Ejector MP steam flow - 200 wppm feed (kg/h)

8,921
9,000
512 8,417
500 8,730 481 7,710 8,000
440
406 6,869 7,000
400
6,000
369
300
4,905 5,000
290
224 4,000
200 179
144 3,000
118
200 wppm 2,000
100 5000 wppm
333 1,000
576 240 191
0 0
60 80 100 120 140 160
Vacuum dryer feed temp (˚C)

Figure 4 Effect of water in ULSD vs VD pressure and temperature

48 PTQ Q4 2024 www.digitalrefining.com

LINKS

More articles from the following categories:

Corrosion and Fouling Control
Mass Transfer
Mechanical Engineering
Sulphur Removal and Recovery

www.digitalrefining.com