thalathb:
I believe dcasto's point has been mis-interpreted. I believe I clearly understand that what he is pointing out are the engineering and technical improvements since the 1970's that have allowed adsorber vessel walls to withstand higher temperatures. This is an important point in that internal insulation has always presented practical operating and maintenance problems. What I believe he recognizes and is inferring is that were it not for that, we would have to put up with higher superficial velocities, much heavier vessels, and probably a lot of impurities slipping or "channeling" behind the internal insulation and by-passing the main adsorbent bed. I failed to point this out but he has helped out in that regard.
I don't know where you obtained or read your study, but channeling and by-passing of impurities behind internal insulation has been a detrimental effect and trade-off that we "old timers" have long known about. And I'm not even going to discuss the major differences in expansion and stresses that exist between internal insulation and vessel walls when one imposes temperatures of 500 oF or more to the adsorbent bed.
I disagree with your description of "there are a lot of diffrencies in operation point of view". On the contrary, there are few, if any operational differences. There are a lot of operational RESULTS differences between the internal and external insulated vessels - and most of them are from by-passing of the beds and higher pressure drops.
I believe dcasto's point is an important one and should be noted by less-experienced engineers.