Betrayal
Figure 1. Added capacity after revamp was largely undone by later change.
The changes raised tower capacity by 40%. Plant performance tests confirmed the increase.
In the 16 years since making those modifications, many feed and product quality changes had occurred, creating new bottlenecks. So, the plant launched a second revamp project.
The first step was to re-run tests on major plant constraints. To everyone's surprise, the test of fractionator indicated it was running at only 110% of original design capacity rather than the previously demonstrated 140%. Engineers reviewed plant information in detail but couldn't find any reasons for the reduced capacity.
A scan of the column didn't provide any insights. In fact, the scan results were so contradictory they were useless. (Further investigation showed the execution of the scan was badly botched.)
The only benefit from the scan was that it forced plant personnel to re-check every detail yet again. This led to a significant discovery. A purchase order for replacement tray panels, which had been placed after the first revamp, specified that panels conform to the original drawings for the tower internals. The bubble area added in the revamp had been replaced by solid tray panels.
The return to the original tray panels had undone most of the capacity increase. Feed composition changes had hidden the effect and an extended period of soft market demand had eliminated any immediate need for the lost capacity. When the market rebounded, enough time had elapsed that the capacity drop went unnoticed.
Putting back correct tray panels markedly improved operation.
Accurate equipment records can provide major help in identifying many plant problems. It's our job both to create good records and to look at them in detail as needed.
Andrew Sloley is a Chemical Processing Contributing Editor. You can e-mail him at [email protected].