Professional Documents
Culture Documents
networks
A rigorous exchanger simulation model can be used to calculate the true cost of
fouling in crude preheat networks
Laura Copeland Nalco Company
Fouling mechanisms
What is fouling? It is the formation of deposits
in process equipment that impedes the transfer
of heat and increases the resistance to fluid flow.
Several physical, operational and chemical
factors can combine to form these deposits. Most
crude preheat deposits have low thermal conductivity and reduce heat transfer. Fouling can have
a substantial economic impact upon a refiners
profitability when it causes throughput reductions due to hydraulic limits or furnace tube
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000544
PTQ Q4 2012 1
Relative absorbance
0.10
2 PTQ Q4 2012
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000544
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000544
be
r
ly
em
Ju
ov
28
ru
ar
y
be
r
em
Fe
b
ril
Ap
Se
pt
be
r
em
Ju
ne
12
ov
ar
y
st
Ja
nu
13
Au
gu
16
19
ar
ch
NFIT, F
lower temperature crude must be heated up to throughput margin or even environmental penalthe fixed furnace exit temperature in order for ties from firing the furnace harder. The costs of
the refiner to meet their target cut points. This fouling control are the total spend the refiner
additional fuel due to fouling is difficult to calcu- makes to clean or keep an exchanger network
late without a proper heat exchanger simulator clean. This would include the maintenance cleaning costs, extra fuel to the furnace (if an
being run on a regular basis.
Refiners will also change the pumparound exchanger is taken off-line to clean), lost
rates to manipulate the cuts in the atmospheric throughput margin (if rates are reduced to
tower for maximum profitability. This will also clean), antifoulant chemical (if used), cleaning
add or delete heat from the preheat, but this is chemical (if used) and any other cost the refiner
not due to fouling. A proper monitoring absorbs when taking action to reverse or control
programme will be able to distinguish the the existing fouling in the exchangers.
The most common method of fouling control is
difference between temperature losses due to
operational changes from temperature losses to take exchangers off-line and mechanically clean
due to fouling. This can be achieved by calculat- them by hydroblasting or lancing the inside and
ing a NFIT using a base set of operating outside of the exchanger tube bundle. Whatever
conditions. The NFIT will be equal to the actual the cleaning process, the refiner should add all
furnace inlet temperature (FIT) as long as the the costs associated with the cleaning to deteroperating conditions remain the same. When mine the optimum time to clean. Calculating the
pumparound flow rates or temperatures change, cleaning cost is relatively easy, but knowing when
the heat load to the preheat will change and to clean is the hard part.
affect the FIT, causing the FIT and the calculated NFIT to be different. The difference will Solutions
be the result due solely to operating changes In order to calculate the true cost of fouling, a
proper monitoring programme is critical. The
between the base case and the current case.
Figure 3 is an example of the differences that total spend on fouling and fouling control
can be seen between FIT and NFIT. The NFIT discussed in this article is the total cost of operawill show the temperature decline due to fouling, tion for the crude preheat. The optimum TCO is
while the FIT will show the temperature decline the lowest combined cost of fouling and spend
due to both fouling and operational changes. The on fouling control.3 Each exchangers contribuNFIT trend is useful to show the impact of tion to the furnace inlet temperature is
changing any variable that has an effect on the maximised by cleaning exchangers at the
fouling rate.
The decline in temperature
480
due to fouling can be converted
into lost BTUs (energy) that
440
NFIT and FIT
must be made up in the furnace
difference due
by
burning
extra
fuel.
to operational
400
changes
Incorporating furnace efficiency
and cost of fuel, the NFIT
360
reflects a cost of fouling.
An antifoulant programme
320
could be added to improve
280
(reduce) the cost of fouling. The
NFIT
cost of the antifoulant would not
FIT
240
be a cost of fouling, but it should
be considered as cost of fouling
control. The only costs that
should be considered as fouling
costs are those costs that occur
due to fouling, such as increased Figure 3 Example showing the difference between NFIT and FIT that can be
furnace
fuel
spend,
lost seen due to operational changes
PTQ Q4 2012 3
Conclusion
Crude preheat networks can be managed to
achieve the lowest possible total cost of operation. It requires a rigorous exchanger simulation
model that can normalise input data to calculate
the true cost of fouling. The same model should
be used to calculate the optimum cleaning cycle
frequency for each exchanger in order to determine the true cost of fouling control. In this way,
antifoulant chemistries can be evaluated based
4 PTQ Q4 2012
References
1 Worrel E, Galitsky C, Energy Efficiency Improvement and Cost
Saving Opportunities for Petroleum Refineries, an ENERGY STAR
Guide for Energy and Plant Managers, 2005.
2 Wiehe I A, Kennedy R J, The Oil Compatibility Model and Crude
Oil Incompatibility, Energy & Fuels, 14, 56-59, 2000.
3 Mason B, McAteer G, Nalco Company, Energy Services Division
(USA), Crude Preheat Energy Management Leads to Sustainable
Energy Savings, Hydrocarbon Processing, 105-110, Sept 2008.
Laura C Copeland is Global Industry Development Manager
with Nalco in Sugar Land, Texas. She holds a BS in chemical
engineering from The University of Iowa and a MBA from
Northwestern University.
Email: lccopeland@nalco.com
LINKS
More articles from the following categories:
Corrosion/Fouling Control
Heat Transfer
Process Modelling & Simulation
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000544