Petrocontrol

Leader in inferential control technology

Controlling the mundane naphtha stabilizer

By
Y. Zak Friedman, PhD
Principal Consultant

September 2007

34 East 30th Street, New York, NY 10016 • Tel: 212-481-6195 • Fax: 212-447-8756 •
zak@petrocontrol.com
 Controlling the mundane naphtha stabilizer
Part 1

Consider the distillation column of figure 1. It is called “stabilizer” and has the task of
removing LPG from naphtha. Every refinery has at least three of them, and often five or
more, one each in every crude unit, reformer, FCC, hydrocracker, coker, isomerization,
and possibly other units. Being simple in structure, and with a well defined objective you
would think controlling a stabilizer is a cinch. Why then we encounter so many of them
being run with the main DCS controllers in manual?

The name stabilizer reflects a historical task of removing enough LPG to reduce the RVP
(Reid Vapor Pressure) of naphtha, permitting its storage in floating roof tanks.
Economics have changed however, and today the objective is to remove essentially all
LPG from the naphtha, subject to a constraint on LPG purity of about 1% C5
contamination. The reasons why operating targets have changed vary from unit to unit,
and usually have to do with RVP and alkylation economics. On FCC gas plants it is of
value to remove butane from naphtha because olefinic FCC butane is one of the
alkylation ingredients. On saturated gas plants we try to maximize isobutane recovery
because it is the other alkylation ingredient. That calls for removal of all butane and
processing it in a deisobutanizer tower. Furthermore, stabilized virgin naphtha is split
into light and heavy naphtha, and light naphtha is processed in an isomerization unit.
LPG is problematic in the isomerization unit and should be removed from the feed. Even
where these considerations do not apply, RVP specifications have tightened, and
gasoline blending is easier when the components have low RVP.

In short, today a more appropriate name for the column of figure 1 would be
“debutanizer”, but that is in theory. Most debutanizers I have looked at leave about 2%
butane in naphtha and their top C5 contamination is less than 0.2%. IE, we still operate
them as stabilizers, losing money by not recovering all of the butane. How much
money? Take typical numbers, 2% LPG in naphtha and 200 M3/Hr of naphtha (that’s the
approximate naphtha production of a 150,000 BPD crude unit), and a cost penalty for
leaving LPG in naphtha of $50/M3. If those numbers are realistic for your refinery then
the penalty for leaving LPG in naphtha adds up to $1,600,000 annually.

How is a debutanizer to be controlled to maximize removal of LGP from naphtha? Figure

1 suggests a rectifying section tray temperature controller, several trays from the top,
manipulating reflux, while the reboiler heat duty is set manually by the operator. The
alternative to this structure is actually more common: a stripping section tray temperature
controller manipulating the reboiler. Which temperature controller is better – a rectifying
tray or stripping tray temperature controller?

The stripping section tray temperature can be viewed as an approximate inference of C4

in naphtha. If the naphtha cutpoint, column pressure and reflux ratio are approximately
constant, the stripping tray temperature defines naphtha C4 content on that tray. Thus,
stripping tray temperature control is very appropriate if the operational objective is to
leave 2% C4 in naphtha. The tray would contain approximately 20% C4, and at constant
operating conditions the ratio between tray composition and bottom composition does
not very much. But if the objective is to minimize C4 in naphtha, and we could expect

Controlling the mundane stabilizer, September 2007, Page 1

values of 0.2% C4 in the debutanizer bottom, then the stripping tray temperature loses
its ability to infer bottom C4. Instead of bottom C4 it starts inferring the quantity of C5 in
naphtha, perhaps of interest to process engineers but of no relevance to the control
objective.

Suppose we have a stripping section tray temperature controller and a rectifying section
temperature indicator, should we restructure the DCS control as figure 1 suggests? The
main problem with rectifying section tray temperature control is that it does not provide a
very precise inference of C5 in LPG. The debutanizer feed typically comes from an
overhead condenser on an upstream fractionator, where the LPG composition and C2
content vary with weather and with the number of fans being turned on the upstream air
cooled condenser. IE, the correct setpoint of the rectifying tray temperature controller is
not constant.

Part 2

Part 1 of this editorial, (see HPJ September issue), has discussed a debutanizer control
strategy as shown in figure 1. Given that feed composition varies with ambient
conditions one could argue that unless you have advanced control with a more precise
inference of C5 in LPG – controlling rectifying section tray temperature is not a good
idea.

I have further investigated this issue using data from a crude unit stabilizer and
Petrocontrol’s GDS (generalized distillation shortcut) inferential package. The results
are shown in figure 2. The figure first compares lab values of C5 in LPG against the
model to illustrate the validity of this investigation. The inferential blue line model is in
good agreement against lab results for a period of two month without any bias change.
The inference oscillates at a frequency of 24 hours, obviously due to day – night ambient
temperature differences, reflecting LPG composition change with weather as discussed
above. And while the general correlation of purity with tray temperature is clear enough,
sometimes even at a constant temperature the LPG purity can drift. This last effect
cannot be blamed on pressure variations. Pressure was constant throughout the period.
It must be due to non-constant reflux ratio, and crude to crude LPG composition
variation.

Did operator actions of changing tray temperature controller setpoint make sense? At
the beginning of the period of figure 2 we see the LPG impurity trending up, and
operators responded incorrectly by increasing tray temperature from 70.5 to 71°C. Still,
71°C was not a bad overall decision and for about three days the C5 in LPG was kept at
0.7%. Then, in a series of changes over about one month operators set the tray
temperature gradually lower, down to 70°C. No one noticed that it was a money loosing
operation, even though the lab values of C5 in LPG were quite low. Products were within
specification and there were no complaints. On day 40 of the period the tray
temperature went up one degree, to 71°C. Someone must have finally noticed LPG
going to the wrong place. The temperature then continued to be nudged up gradually to
72 degrees.

The moral of this story is simple. If a debutanizer should be operated at 1% C5 in LPG

but is operated at 0.2%, then that difference of 0.8% is translated to a much higher LPG

Controlling the mundane stabilizer, September 2007, Page 2

yield penalty, not to mention other inconveniences of too much C4 in naphtha, and that is
a strong economic incentive to implement APC on the column. With or without APC, the
DCS control configuration should be as shown in figure 1, with a rectifying section tray
temperature controller. Without APC one would need frequent lab support, plus frequent
operator training, and then it would be possible to keep the LPG C5 content at an
average 0.6%. With the addition of closed loop reliable inference model that average
could be brought up to 0.9 or 1%, because besides being more precise than the
operator, APC would also eliminate the day – night cycles.

Controlling the mundane stabilizer, September 2007, Page 3

 Figure 1. Stabilizer control configuration

PC

FI

LC

TC

FC FC
FC
LC

PI
TI

LC

FC

FC
Heat
source

Controlling the mundane stabilizer, September 2007, Page 4

 Figure 2. C5 in LPG inferential model versus lab values trend
2.0 75

Tray 7 temperature, deg C

1.8 73

1.6 71

1.4 69

1.2 67

1.0 65
C5 in LPG %vol

0.8 63

0.6 61

0.4 59

0.2 57
C5_in_LPG_Model
C5_in_LPG_Lab
Tray 7 temperature
0.0 55
Two month

Controlling the mundane stabilizer, September 2007, Page 5