Value of monitoring exchanger

networks
A rigorous exchanger simulation model can be used to calculate the true cost of
fouling in crude preheat networks
Laura Copeland Nalco Company

eat exchanger fouling has a direct impact

on profitability. Over time, fouling leads
to higher energy consumption, higher
maintenance costs, reduced feed rates and
shorter intervals between turnarounds. The relationship between fouling and energy becomes
more significant when you consider the link
between additional fuel gas consumption, higher
CO2 emissions and the detrimental impact on a
refinerys energy intensity index (EII). The environment and the total cost of operation (TCO)
are negatively impacted.
Proven energy savings can be realised when
the fouling of a crude unit preheat network
exchanger can be effectively monitored.
Monitoring will determine how fouling in a
network changes with time. Crude units see the
highest charge rates and the largest temperature
increase of any refinery unit,1 so the benefits of a
successful monitoring and fouling control
programme can be significant.
This article will include a brief review of crude
unit heat exchanger fouling mechanisms, how
fouling affects energy management costs, and
potential solutions.

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

temperature limits. Fouling always leads to

energy losses when fuel has to be increased to
the furnace to make up for lower crude temperatures coming from the fouled crude preheat
network.

What causes fouling?

There are three main operational factors that
lead to fouling: blending crudes, the velocity
through the process and crude quality. Changes
to any of these factors can lead to a change in
fouling throughout the process.
When crudes are blended together, there is the
potential for instability that can lead to fouling.
If the crudes are processed individually, the fouling potential can be different than if two or more
crudes are blended together. For example, a
refiner could be processing a heavy, low API
crude and have very little fouling, but when they
blend a light, high API crude with it they see
increased fouling in their crude preheat train.
The introduction of another type of crude has
caused instability in what is normally a stable
crude. Preheat train monitoring can be used to
support the refiners decision-making process
when implementing a strategy to prevent fouling
deposition due to the incompatibility of crudes.2
Figure 1 shows the results of testing done on the
Nalco Fouling Potential Analyzer (FPA), where
each crude individually has a lower fouling
potential than when they are blended together.
The FPA value is the inflection point of each
trend, and a lower FPA value equals less stability. In this example, when crude A is blended
with crude B, the stability decreases and, therefore, there is a higher potential for fouling.
Another operational factor that can cause foul-

PTQ Q4 2012 1

event with a sudden lowering

of throughput. A well-monitored
0.09
system
can
locate
which
0.08
exchangers tend to foul the
0.07
most as a result of decreased
throughput (velocity).
0.06
FPA value decreased
= less stability
The third operational factor
0.05
that can lead to fouling issues
0.04
throughout the refinery is the
0.03
quality of the incoming crude.
Crude
A
0.02
Crude
oil
can
contain
Crude B
0.01
Crude C
asphaltenes
and
inorganic
0
materials that can contribute to
45
47
49
51
53
fouling
in
the
system.
FPA value
Asphaltenes are the most
Figure 1 FPA trend that shows crude blending impact on stability
common fouling material found
in the hot preheat train. They
are naturally stabilised by
500
resins that prevent them from
agglomerating, but asphaltenes
495
can easily agglomerate when
490
destabilised and cause fouling.
485
Another type of foulant is exist480
ent debris such as sand or
475
sediment carried in the crude
470
oil that may be deposited when
465
stressed by heat. The deposition
460
of inorganic salts can result in
455
fouling if the refinery has no
14 November
3 January
22 February
12 April
desalting capability or if the
Figure 2 Example trend of NFIT; circle indicates where a crude change took
desalters are not working propplace that led to increased fouling
erly. Finally, one more potential
type of fouling material is polying is a change in the velocity through the process. meric gums that can form if a reactive stream is
Initially, most heat exchangers are designed and added to the crude oil. Figure 2 shows an examsized to achieve a maximum heat transfer at ple plot of normalised furnace inlet temperature
design throughput conditions. Often these design (NFIT). This shows how a change in incoming
conditions achieve very low fouling rates due to crude to a refinery could have a significant
the high velocity and proper baffle design and impact on fouling. More discussion of NFIT can
spacing. As throughput changes or heat exchang- be found in the next section of this article.
ers are added or redesigned, velocity changes and
the rate of fouling can also change.
Cost of fouling + cost of fouling control = total
Particulates travelling along with the crude cost of operation
have a greater potential to fall out and cause It is possible to operate a crude preheat to
fouling at lower velocities. A proper monitoring achieve the lowest TCO by calculating the total
programme should take into account the veloci- cost of fouling and the total cost of fouling
ties of the various streams, how they are control. The costs of fouling are all related to the
changing with time, and the impact on fouling extra fuel burned in the furnace due to the fouland temperatures throughout the system. Just as ing layer inhibiting heat to be transferred to the
many exchanger networks may encounter a crude. As the fouling increases in the different
cleaning effect from a sudden increase in exchangers, the crude exiting each exchanger
throughput, they can also experience a fouling leaves at colder and colder temperatures. That
NFIT, F

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

optimum cleaning cycle frequency, and good

exchanger network simulators will calculate the
optimum time between cleanings. The optimum
TCO is totally dependent on the fouling rate. If
the unit starts to process a crude that fouls at a
faster rate, there will be exchangers in the
network that will need to be cleaned more often
and, therefore, the optimum TCO will increase.
The same holds true if the unit starts to process
a crude that is less fouling in nature the optimum TCO will decrease. By trending the
optimum TCO for each data set the refiner can
see how much is being spent and so manage
cleaning to achieve the lowest possible spend.
This includes all costs: cleaning, fouling, chemical, lost production, and so on. What it does not
include is a discount the refiner receives for
processing opportunity crudes. The refiner will
now be able to see the added cost of processing
opportunity crude(s) and include these economics into future buying decisions.
Antifoulants can also decrease the fouling rate,
but they add to the cost of fouling control. The
addition of antifoulants has to reduce the fouling
rate enough to lower the overall TCO of the
preheat to justify the added cost. By using a
proper simulation model on a regular basis, the
refiner can evaluate the benefits of using an antifoulant (or not) and will always be able to
schedule the right exchanger for cleaning in time
to keep the preheat operating at the lowest possible total cost.

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

on the impact on the total cost of operation.

Do:
Use a rigorous exchanger simulation model
Normalise the furnace inlet temperature
Base cleaning decisions on the maximum
impact on the furnace inlet temperature when
the TCO calculation shows it is time to clean
Evaluate discounted crude purchases based on
impact to TCO
Evaluate antifoulant chemistry based on
impact to TCO.
Do not:
Make cleaning decisions based on individual
exchanger data (no way to achieve lowest TCO)
Normalise the data based on crude flow only
can cause you to miss >75% of the operating
changes that affect the furnace inlet
temperature.

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