COOP TRAINING AT SAMREF REFINERYBY: ASSAD BOKHARI

OUTLINE of This Presentation• SAMREF Refinery

• My unit area A1 processes

• Case studies

• Experiences

2

SAMREF Refinery

• Started operating in 1984 by the joint venture of Petromin &

Mobil Oil Corporation (PEMREF)

• Saudi Aramco took Petromin shares in 1993 (SAMREF)

• Initial design processed 250,000 BPD of Arabian Light Crude Oil

• Nowadays, design reached around 400,000 BPD capacity

3

SAMREF Products Percentages

25%

30%15%

18%

10% 2%

Premium GasolineDiesel OilJet FuelMarine Fuel OilRegular GasolineSulfur

4

5

SAMREF Departments• Technical Department (Process, Project, Design, Training)

• Operation Department ( Control, Shelters)

• Maintenance Department ( Inspection, Maintenance)

• Finance and Accounting Department ( Management, Human- -Resource, Security)

6

Safety

7

Area A1 units

8

9

Area A1 units

10

SAMREF Departments:

11

12

13

Case Studies

14

Case study 1: CDU & VDU Yields

• Objective:– Learn PI tag system integration with Excel – Calculate yield using actual live data (10 years range)

15

Crude Distillation Unit Stream flow (m3/day) Tag No. from PI system

Input CDU Feed 11FNQX001.

Output

Naphtha 11FN091.

Kero 11FN092. + 32FN658.

LGO 11FN093.

HGO 11FI094.

CDU Bottom (Resid) 12FN003.

Calculations

16

17

18

Conclusion

• Flowrates were balanced most of the ten years (input = output)

• Kerosene flow reading (32FN658.) had very low readings until 2013.

The reason according to Eng. Abdulaziz was CHD unit was too small

and was improved in Jan 2013

• Some turnarounds and shut down periods were noticed in the figures

(yield % = around zero)

• Shut down in April 2016 (last bottom peak) in VDU while I was a trainee

19

Case Study 2: Fouling Rate for Heat Exchanger

• Objective:– Find actual and theoretical heat transfer coefficients – Calculate fouling rate to predict when the unit needs cleaning

Q = m x Cp x ∆T

Q = U x A x LMTD

Fouling rate = U Theoretical – U Actual

20

Calculation

21

Tube-Light

Arabian Crude

Density ρ 778.5 Kg/m3

Specific Heat(Cp) 2.395 KJ/(Kg.C°)Surface Area 240.74 m2

Thermal Cond. (k) 0.1135 w/m.C°Viscosity (µ) 1.4 mPa.sVelocity U 3.5 m/s

outside diameter 254 mmThickness. 2.74 mm

inside diameter 251.26 mm

22100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300

0.000

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000

700.000

800.000

f(x) = 2.68798738779346 x − 80.2096421796557R² = 0.993484330039097

Actual Heat Transfer Coefficient U (W/m2.C°) (23/Apr to 11/June) in 2010

Actual ULinear (Actual U)

Feed Flowrate (kg/s)

U (K

W/m

2.C°

)

This equation is used to find U theoretical

23

12/Dec/15

31/Jan/16

21/Mar/16

10/May/16

29/Jun/16

18/Aug/160.000

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000

700.000

800.000

Actual & Theoretical Heat Transfer Coefficients U , During 2016

Actual U

Theoritical U

U (K

W/m

2.C°

)

2412/Dec/1531/Jan/16

21/Mar/1610/May/16

29/Jun/1618/Aug/16

0.000

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

Fouling Rate, During 2016 Fo

ulin

g Fa

ctor

(W/m

2.C°

)

2528/May/05 10/Oct/06 22/Feb/08 6/Jul/09 18/Nov/10 1/Apr/12 14/Aug/13 27/Dec/140.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

90.000

100.000

f(x) = 0.0145078424488091 x − 556.328983407271R² = 0.398261734135305

Fouling Rate for 11-E-01Fo

ulin

g ra

te

This is the after cleaning period used to get the the-oretical U

Conclusion• Difference between Theoretical and actual U was noticeable, so

not very efficient is not optimum

• Fouling rate figure during 2016 shows non stability, there are several reasons for this and they need to be checked

• Some optimization techniques were suggested to improve the efficiency of these heat equipment. Also to decrease the load on some suboptimal equipment.

26

Case Study 3: Pump Efficiency Evaluation

• Objective:

– Understand how pumps cavitates and malfunction

– Evaluate efficiency, hydraulic power, total head, net positive

suction head required and absolute

– Suggest methods to improve the NPSHa

27

Calculation

28

= Efficiency

29

First, we start by reconstructing the pump data sheet figures

Calculated

Capacity (M3/hr) Total head (Meter) Hydraulic power BHP (Kw) Efficiency %

0 782.8 0.0 371.70.0

63.5 763.7 122.8 404.730.2

142 754.7 271.3 495.454.6

257.6 712.6 464.7 637.872.7

351 621.6 552.3 723.376.2

387.8 582.8 572.1 747.676.3

463.1 456.8 535.5 777.368.7

Capacity (M3/hr) NPSHr

65 3.1

145 3.3

260 4

350 5.5

380 6.4

30

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 5000

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

68.7

777.3

456.8

f(x) = − 0.000594004527376216 x² + 1.23088290586817 x + 350.296317790586f(x) = − 0.0019589730695301 x² + 0.254666674138162 x + 769.207500226148R² = 0.991003261169777

G-150-01C Pump Performance Curve

Total head (Meter)Polynomial (Total head (Meter))BHP (Kw)Polynomial (BHP (Kw))Efficiency %

Capacity (m3/hr)

Tota

l Hea

d (H

ead)

, BHP

(KW

)

Effici

ency

%

Actual pump data sheet used

31

Pump is in area B2150 – Boilers No access to P&ID’s was granted to me.

32

Calculation

PI Tag Numbers 98fic021 98fic041 98fic061 98fi703 - -

Weekly dataFlowrate Boiler 1

(tonne/h)

Flowrate Boiler 2

(tonne/h)

Flowrate Boiler 3

(tonne/h)

Flow Users's

(tonne/h)

Total flowrate

(tonne/h)

Actual Capacity (m3/h)

17-Jan-16 133.02 128.65 121.68 207.82 591.18 318.87

24-Jan-16 138.08 131.19 128.32 213.68 611.27 329.70

31-Jan-16 143.02 137.78 134.46 219.24 634.50 342.23

7-Feb-16 127.22 131.79 108.99 191.70 559.69 301.88

14-Feb-16 136.66 135.02 124.04 184.55 580.28 312.99

21-Feb-16 139.96 138.53 129.44 243.90 651.82 351.58

28-Feb-16 135.55 131.49 124.96 250.65 642.64 346.62

6-Mar-16 134.99 139.26 133.71 218.92 626.87 338.12

13-Mar-16 137.90 141.33 125.51 239.84 644.58 347.67

20-Mar-16 139.68 134.87 125.08 251.15 650.78 351.01

27-Mar-16 143.46 137.69 128.65 242.33 652.13 351.74

*Using the same

total head

equation

Shaft power (kW) (obtained

from driver's calculations)

716

98pi003. 98PI008.

Pressure in (brag)

Pressure out (brag)

Total Head

hydraulic Power at current capacity

Actual Efficiency

%NPSHA NPSHr

2.52 67.28 647.57 562.33 78.59 24.85 5.31

2.54 65.03 624.86 561.05 78.41 25.20 5.51

2.92 63.90 609.80 568.34 79.43 31.33 5.76

2.63 62.73 601.07 494.15 69.06 26.52 5.00

2.52 68.37 658.45 561.24 78.44 24.85 5.20

2.56 64.70 621.36 594.93 83.15 25.44 5.96

2.45 65.20 627.54 592.38 82.79 23.59 5.85

2.56 66.26 637.01 586.56 81.98 25.38 5.68

2.60 65.36 627.61 594.23 83.05 26.10 5.87

2.48 64.92 624.34 596.82 83.41 24.17 5.95

2.40 64.81 624.12 597.84 83.56 22.82 5.96

Discussion

• NPSHa was noticed to be a critical aspect of a pump efficiency

• NPSHr is usually uncontrollable, because it is designed by company

that built it

• Allowing higher level in the supply tank will reduce chance of

pump cavitation

• Frictional loss could be decreased by reducing valves, strains, and

length of the piping 33

Experiences Acquired

34

• 2 Weeks of rich preparatory induction program (full day class)

– Chemical Engineering for 1 week

– Mechanical Engineering for 2 days

– Electrical Engineering for 2 days

– Control & Instrumentation for 1 day

35

VDU overflash Coke formation

36

• First meeting of engineer and managers

Flare Reduction Project

37

SL# Equipment Tag System Line Size Type Equipment Details Area Unit Flare

Header P&ID Ref

Pipe VENT FM 31-K-03B 31-K-03 2" VENT MAKE UP GAS TO CHD LINE B1 HRU CFP C0EF-031B1-009

1 66-PSV-004 66-D-13 3" PSV Hydrogen make up from CCR B1 MDU CFP C0EF-066B1-011

2 66-PSV-177 66-D-13 8" PSV Hydrogen back up from HRU B1 MDU CFP C0EF-066B1-011

3 66-PSV-015 66-M-01A 6" PSV FCC Gasoline Feed from USGP B1 MDU CFP C0EF-066B1-012

4 66-PSV-016 66-M-01B 6" PSV FCC Gasoline Feed from USGP B1 MDU CFP C0EF-066B1-012

5 66-PSV-021B 66-D-01 6" PSV Hydrogen make-up from 66-D-13 B1 MDU CFP C0EF-066B1-013

6 66-PSV-020/030 66-D-01 16" PSV Relief from 66-D-01 B1 MDU CFP C0EF-066B1-013

7 66-PSV-034 66-E-01 12" PSV Relief from 66-E-01 B1 MDU CFP C0EF-066B1-014

8 66-PSV-044 66-E-03 10" PSV Relief from 66-E-03 B1 MDU CFP C0EF-066B1-015

9 DEPR. FM 66-E-03 66-E-03 2" Drain From 66-E03 Depressurization line B1 MDU CFP C0EF-066B1-015

10 FM 66-D-02B 66-D-02B 10" Drain Draning line B1 MDU CFP C0EF-066B1-016

38

VDU Shut Down

• Objective:– Replace two rusty heat exchanger bundles– install new steam motive nozzles– Test the new heat exchanger bundles (Hydro test)

39

40

Thank you for listening

41

Questions

42