See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324221585

Process flow determines coker heater performance

Article  in  Petroleum Technology Quarterly · April 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 641

5 authors, including:

Rahul C. Patil Pinaki Patra

Reliance Industries Limited Reliance Industries Limited
18 PUBLICATIONS   55 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ajay Gupta Ved Prakash Mishra

Reliance Industries Limited, Jamnagar, Gujarat Reliance Industries Limited
7 PUBLICATIONS   107 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   266 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mitigation of Syngas Cooler Fouling View project

Integration of Catalytic Gasification Technology with Thermal Gasifiers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rahul C. Patil on 05 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Process flow determines coker
heater performance
Uniform tube metal temperature resulting from a change in process flow
enhances the run length of a delayed coker heater
RAHUL C PATIL, PINAKIRANJAN PATRA, AJAY GUPTA, VED PRAKASH MISHRA and ASIT KUMAR DAS
Reliance Industries
A
delayed coker in a petroleum
refinery processes vacuum
residue from the vacuum
distillation unit as feed and ther-
mally cracks it into useful products
including liquid petroleum gas,
naphtha, gasoline, diesel, heavy gas
oil, and petcoke. While it is desir-
able to have the majority of the
cracking and coking taking place
in the coker drum, a small amount
of these reactions occurring inside
the heater tubes is inevitable. The
coke so produced inside the heater
tubes provides additional resist-
ance to heat transfer between the
flue gas and the process fluid. Since
the coil outlet temperature (COT)
is to be kept constant, one may end
up by firing more fuel to achieve
the desired COT, thereby increas-
ing the tube skin temperature or
tube metal temperature (TMT) due
to the additional resistance offered
by coke. Coke depositing on heater
tubes thus usually limits the run
length by limiting the TMT which a
heater tube can be allowed to expe-
rience in view of its metallurgy. For
example, if the TMT at start of run
(SOR) conditions is 550°C and the
maximum allowable TMT is 650°C
(generally governed by its metal-
lurgy), for a rate of 2°C/day rise in
TMT, the heater would run for 50
days. Therefore, it is desirable to
restrict the rate of the TMT increase
to a low value, which as such is a
function of the rate of increase in
the thickness of coke deposits. Once
the limiting value of the TMT is
reached, coke needs to be removed
from the inner surface of the tubes,
which normally would require
downtime and consequent produc-
tion loss. Coke is removed from the
www.eptq.com
Q2 RELIANCE.indd 1
Flue gases
VR inlet
Convection
section
Radiant
section
VR outlet
Burners
Air and fuel
Figure 1 Schematic of delayed coker heater
tubes by two processes: by utilising
the difference in thermal expansion
coefficient between coke and tube
by applying sudden temperature
variations (spalling); or by physi-
cal scraping of coke from the tube
with the help of a moving pig (pig-
ging). The typical time required for
spalling and pigging is 1-1.5 days
and 3-5 days, respectively. During
this period, the throughput of the
coker unit is reduced, which results
in a loss in production. Further, the
tubes are subjected to a harsh envi-
ronment in both removal methods,
and the frequency of coke cleaning
eventually determines the life of the
heater tubes. Thus it is desirable to
increase the run length of the coker
heater so as to increase the produc-
tivity of the delayed coker unit as
well as the life of the coker heater
tubes.
A coker heater (see Figure 1) con-
sists of horizontal tubes where feed
conventionally enters from the con-
vection section to the radiant section
of the heater (a down-flow config-
uration). The outlet temperature of
the heater, the COT, is measured at
the radiant section outlet. The burn-
ers are normally floor mounted at
the bottom of the radiant section of
the heater where they fire fuel with
air. The radiative heat from the
combustion of fuel gas in the radi-
ant section is transferred to vac-
uum residue from the convection
section. The remaining heat from
the combustion gases is transferred
to preheat vacuum residue in the
convection section. In the process,
vacuum residue cracks into lighter
components. As pressure reduces
in the heater tubes, the lighter com-
ponents, typically from C1 to light
naphtha, evaporate to form two
phase flow in the heater. Along with
cracking, asphaltenes in the vac-
uum residue contribute to the cok-
ing phenomena, and part of this
coke deposits on the heater tubes
to increase the TMT as time pro-
gresses. Besides feed characteristics
such as asphaltenes, saturates, and
residence time, coking inside the
coker heater is a very strong func-
tion of the temperature it reaches
in the tubes throughout the radi-
ant section of the heater. Various
measures are taken when designing
the heat exchanger to eliminate or
reduce the possibilities of localised
peak temperatures.
PTQ Q2 2018 81
09/03/2018 17:43

Single-fired tube
Peak heat flux 1.8× average heat flux
Refractory
Tube
Double-fired tube
Peak heat flux 1.15–1.20× average heat flux
Refractory
Tube
Burner
Figure 2 Single fired and dual fired coker heater
Design considerations for a
coker heater
Owing to the very strong depend-
ence of coking reactions on temper-
ature, it is particularly important
to provide a uniform temperature
profile along the length of the tube.
Non-uniform coking is caused by an
irregular temperature profile expe-
rienced by the process fluid. Proper
burner placement along the tube
ensures a uniform temperature pro-
file along the length of the tube.
The other important factor which
is considered in the latest designs
of coker heater is uniform tempera-
ture distribution across the diame-
ter of the tube. In earlier designs of
coker heater, the burners are placed
at the centre of the heater, with tubes
placed horizontally along the wall.
This arrangement of burner and
tubes, termed a single fired coker
heater, causes the half of the tube
facing a burner flame to experience
higher temperatures compared to
the other half which faces refractory
at a lower temperature. This results
in a non-uniform temperature pro-
file across the circumference of the
tubes. Newer designs provide tubes
at the centre of the heater facing
flames from burners placed symmet-
rically on two sides of the tube. This
82 PTQ Q2 2018
Q2 RELIANCE.indd 2
from Golden & Barletta) of a single
fired and dual fired coker heater are
shown in Figure 2. While for a con-
ventional single fired coker heater
with an uneven temperature pro-
file around the tube circumference,
the peak heat flux is 1.8 times that of
Tube the average heat flux, for a dual fired
coker heater this peak flux is only
1.15-1.2 times that of the average
heat flux, thus offering a more even
temperature profile around the cir-
Burner
cumference of the tube. These design
changes have not only resulted in
uniform circumferential TMTs but
have enabled an increase in average
Refractory heat flux value by as much as 50%
for the same peak heat flux.
Strategies to improve the run
length of a coker heater
Once the above provisions are made,
a simple approach to increase the
Burner
run length of the coker heater is
to offload the radiant section by
shifting its heat load to the con-
vection section or redistributing
arrangement of burners and tubes, its heat load locally to reduce non-
termed a dual fired coker heater, uniformity in the temperature expe-
causes both sides of the tube to expe- rienced by vacuum reside inside the
rience the same temperature, unlike radiant zone tubes. In a conventional
the single fired coker heater arrange- delayed coker heater, the process
ment. The schematics (adopted fluid flows from top to bottom. Here,
high fluid temperature inside the
tubes meets high temperature flue
gas from outside. This causes higher
Radiant film formation as well as TMTs at
inlet
which cracking and coking takes
Radiant place. Ultimately, these tubes in the
outlet bottom section of the heater limit
the run length of the coker heater.
The temperature at which coking
takes place can be reduced either by
changing the process side temper-
atures (by varying the direction of
the process fluid) or by changing the
flue gas temperature in the fire box
(using more excess air) or by varying
the emissivity of the tubes (by var-
ying the emissivity coating) so as to
make it more uniform.
Radiant One way to evenly distribute the
outlet
heat load across the radiant zone is
Radiant to apply emissivity coatings to the
A inlet outer surfaces of the tubes. The coat-
Downflow
ings are applied in such a way that
B the tubes with high fluid temper-
Upflow ature in the bottom (the high tem-
perature region) are covered with
Figure 3 Coker heater configurations: a low emissivity coating so as to
(A) downflow (B) upflow absorb less heat, and the tubes with
www.eptq.com
13/03/2018 10:46
 low fluid temperature in the top
low-temperature region are smeared
with a high emissivity coating so as
to absorb more heat. Because of these
different emissivity coatings, the
heating rate experienced by hot fluid
reduces and that experienced by
cold fluid increases, which causes a
more uniform cracking temperature.
Such coatings have also been used to
make the heating rate uniform across
the circumference of the tube in a
single fired heater.
In a new configuration of coker
heater with respect to the flow of
process fluid, termed upflow con-
figuration (see Figure 3b), vacuum
residue enters the radiant section
from the bottom and exits at the top
of the radiant section. This means
that fluid at a lower temperature
has a higher heating rate and fluid
at a higher temperature has a lower
heating rate compared to conven-
tional heaters, leading to a more
uniform cracking temperature. This
design claims to give improved
coker heater performance by migra-
tion of the hottest part of the pro-
cess fluid to the upper portion with
a lower heating rate, resulting in
lower TMTs, reduced coking rates
and higher run length.
This article attempts to study the
effects of change in process flow
direction on heat transfer distribu-
tion in the radiant and convection
sections of a delayed coker heater.
This was determined by applying a
heater model employing commercial
as well as newly developed tools.
Coker heater modelling and
simulation
A heater model which takes into
account both process side heat
transfer and combustion side heat
transfer is not available for predict-
ing the performance of a delayed
coker heater. Thus, this study was
carried out by dividing the model
into three parts: a heater model, a
cracking model and a coking model.
A heater model for evaluating
the performance of box heaters
with dual side firing was utilised.
It accounts for both convective as
well as radiative heat transfer in
the heater. The model is used to
mimic the flue gas side heat trans-
fer in actual plant operation. Lobo
and Evans have presented a general
and simple theoretical treatment
of the radiant section in a heater
to correlate various variables and
their effect on its performance. The
calculations to determine the radi-
ative and convective heat transfer
in a heater is carried out by using
commercial software which uti-
lises more rigorous heater models to
determine localised heat fluxes.
On the process side, vaporisation
and molar expansion due to crack-
ing were computed using a com-
mercial simulator which employs
a kinetic model having five feed
and product lumps to predict the
yield pattern and properties of liq-
uid and gas products at the outlet
of the heater. Here, the feed is char-
acterised by its distillation curve,
asphaltenes, density, and so on. The
model breaks the feed into stand-
ard feed cuts, and applies calculated
values for conversion and severity
to determine product yields. The

TOP PERFORMER IN PORTABLE

FUEL ANALYSIS
MINISCAN IR VISION
• Portable High Speed FTIR Fuel Analyzer for
Gasoline, Diesel, Jet Fuel and Fuel Blends
• 100+ Preconfigured Fuel Parameters
- Concentrations of Oxygenates, Aromatics, Benzene, FAME
- Prediction of Octane, Cetane, AKI, Vapor Pressure, Distillation
• Complete Fuel Report within Minutes
• Ready to Measure: Factory Calibrated Databases
• Remote Access for Diagnostics, Help and Troubleshooting

Phone +43-1-282 16 27-0 | Fax +43-1-282 16 27-300 | grabner.sales@ametek.com | www.grabner-instruments.com

IR Vision + IR LOG.indd 1 14.06.2017 17:17:16

84 PTQ Q2 2018 www.eptq.com

Q2 RELIANCE.indd 3 09/03/2018 17:44

 tuning parameters of the cracking
model have been calibrated for the 1.0
base case to match the outlet stream Plant

Rate of temperature rise

Model
bulk properties like liquid API and
mass vaporisation. 0.5
The cracking model furnished the
information on tube velocity pro-
0
files in the heater. Having obtained
the required inputs, coke deposi-
tion on the tubes was computed
−0.5
using a model developed in-house
and validated with plant data.
Simplified coke formation kinet- −1.0
ics were used wherein the rate of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
coke formation was considered Day
to be a first order reaction (see
1.0
Equation 1): R2 = 0.8286

!"
= kC! (1) 0.5
!"

where CA is asphaltene
Model

concentration.
The reactions were considered to
occur inside the fluid film at an aver-
age temperature of the fluid film
and the bulk fluid. The oil film tem-
perature and TMT were estimated
based on API 530 calculations. Heat
flux required for determination of
the fluid film temperature (FFT)
and TMT were taken from the com-
bustion side simulations. The heat
transfer coefficient (HTC) required
for the calculation of the oil film
temperature can either be calculated
from API 530 or estimated from the
thermal cracking simulations.
Each heater tube was further
divided into ‘n’ number of parts
and solved for mass conservation in
each of these parts by the finite dif-
ference method. Properties like liq-
uid viscosity, liquid density, vapour
viscosity, vapour density and bulk
velocity, required for the calcula-
tion of the film velocity and film
thickness, were estimated from the
thermal cracking simulations. A
calibration factor was also intro-
duced in the model to quantify the
0
−0.5
−1.0
−1.0
Figure 4 Coking model: plant values vs model predictions for TMTs
one of the delayed coker units in
the refineries. TMT profiles pre-
dicted from the model matched the
plant data very well. The coefficient
of determination (R2) observed
between the model and the plant
data was around 83%. The rise and
fall seen in Figure 4 is because of the
actual variations occurring in the
plant with respect to feed flow, radi-
ant heat flux, and so on. As is evi-
1.70
1.60
Bottom
1.50
1.40
Heat flux ratio
−0.5 0 0.5 1.0
Plant
dent from the figure, the model was
able to accurately take into account
all these changes and predict the
TMT rise rate.
From the above analysis of dif-
ferent models, it is apparent that
the coking model with a commer-
cial heater and cracking model
can be used effectively to predict
the run length of a delayed coker
heater. The different configurations
0.78, 1.61
Upflow
Downflow
IN

1.00, 1.30
1.30
amount of coke depositing inside Bottom
1.20 OUT
the heater tubes from the total 1.10
amount of coke formed. The reac- 1.00
tion kinetic parameters were tuned 0.90 0.77, 0.84
to match the actual operating data. Top
0.80 Top OUT
If the maximum design limit of the 0.70 IN
1.00, 1.72
heater tube metallurgy is known, 0.60
run length can be predicted for var- 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
ious scenarios from a coking model. Bulk temperature, non-dimensional
The model was tuned to match
actual plant operations data from Figure 5 Heat flux ratio vs bulk temperature ratio in down- and upflow configurations

www.eptq.com PTQ Q2 2018 85

Q2 RELIANCE.indd 4 09/03/2018 17:44

 film temperature will eventually
Bottom
lead to lower TMTs. It should be
Upflow
OUT noted that the heat flux range in an
1.00 Downflow
1.00 upflow configuration has increased
Top compared to that in a downflow
OUT
0.95 configuration. But this increased
0.95
0.91 range results in more uniformity
TMT/Tmax SOR

0.90 of temperatures along the height

Bottom
IN
0.85
0.80
0.75
Furnace height
Figure 6 TMT profile in down- and upflow configuration at SOR
of flow in a coker heater explained
in the previous section were stud-
ied utilising the model. It should be
noted that the run length determi-
nation for different configurations
is carried out for fixed operating
conditions: fixed feed flow, inlet
temperature, outlet temperature,
and asphaltene content of the feed.
Downflow vs upflow configuration
Figure 5 shows the variation in heat
flux across the tubes for both down-
flow and upflow configurations in
the radiant section. The ratio of the
heat flux of an individual tube to
the average heat flux in a down-
flow configuration versus the non-
dimensional bulk temperature (ratio
of bulk temperature in tube to the
COT of the heater) is depicted in the
figure.
In a downflow configuration,
1.00
0.95
TMT/TMTEOR
1.80
Top
IN
the flux is highest at the exit of
the heater and lowest at the inlet,
whereas when the process fluid
flow is reversed, as in an upflow
configuration, the opposite occurs,
with the tubes at the exit experienc-
ing the lowest heat flux. The maxi-
mum heat flux ratio experienced
by tubes having vacuum residue at
a higher temperature is reduced by
~85% in an upflow configuration.
On the other hand, the heat flux
ratio experienced by tubes con-
taining vacuum residue at a lower
temperature is increased by almost
100% in the upflow configuration,
compared to the downflow config-
uration. The process fluid with the
highest temperature realising the
lowest heat flux in an upflow con-
figuration will have a lower film
temperature compared to a down-
flow configuration. The lower
1.00 1.00
of the radiant section. The same is
explained subsequently in terms of
resultant TMT profiles arising from
the heat flux profiles.
Figure 6 compares TMT for both
configurations at SOR. TMT is rep-
resented in this figure, relative to
the highest TMT in a downflow con-
figuration to present the compari-
son more clearly with respect to a
downflow configuration. The TMT
at SOR for an upflow configuration
at the bottom tube is lower and at
the top tube it increases compared
to a downflow configuration. This
makes the TMT profile flat in an
upflow configuration compared to
a downflow configuration. It should
be noted that, in the upflow con-
figuration, TMTs are higher in the
majority of tubes compared to the
downflow configuration.
The flat film and TMT profile as
well as lower TMT at SOR in an
upflow configuration results in a
slower rise in TMT. The rise rate
of maximum TMT along the run
length of the heater is shown in
Figure 7. The TMT is presented with
respect to end of run (EOR) TMT
which is the limiting TMT of metal-
lurgy. The lower film temperature
results in a lower coking rate and
subsequently lower coke thickness.
This results in more run length for
the upflow configuration compared
to the down-flow configuration. The
same is reflected in the TMT profile,
where the rise in TMT is slower in
an upflow configuration compared
to a downflow configuration. Table
1 shows the prediction of an inte-

0.90
grated model for upflow configura-
tion in terms of percentage change
0.85 from a downflow configuration for
various parameters.
0.82
0.80 The estimated average radiant
Upflow heat flux for an upflow configura-
0.78 Downflow tion is greater than for a downflow
0.75 configuration by 4.79%. Better distri-
Run length
bution of heat in the radiant section
improves the heat input to the feed.
Figure 7 Rate of temperature rise to maximum TMT in down- and upflow configurations This results in a higher average heat

86 PTQ Q2 2018 www.eptq.com

Q2 RELIANCE.indd 5 09/03/2018 17:44

 flux and is reflected in 30% more vaporisation and lower
Model prediction for upflow configuration
residence time in the heater for an upflow configuration.
As is evident in increased vaporisation and cracking,
an upflow configuration gives a higher exit tube veloc- Parameters (% change w.r.t. downflow configuration) Upflow
Average radiant flux +4.8
ity than the conventional downflow scheme. Since HTC Residence time (Rad) -6.8
is directly proportional to velocity, the higher the veloc- Mass vaporisation +30.2
ity, the higher the HTC. This enhanced HTC and lower Av. velocity (last tube) +19.1
heating rate lowers the oil film temperature by 2.6% in Film temperature (last tube) -2.6
Run length +61.6
an upflow configuration.
Overall, a reduction in film temperature and lower
residence time in the tube have resulted in an increase Table 1
in the run length of the coker heater by 61.6% due to
a reversal in the direction of flow of feed. It should be and Technology centre, Mumbai. His areas of expertise include
noted that the increase or decrease is with respect to computational fluid dynamics, reactor design and scale-up, and mixing
the base case in the heater considered in this study. The systems. He holds a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from REC,
numbers would vary on a case by case basis. Tiruchirapalli and master’s and doctoral degrees in chemical engineering
from ICT, Mumbai.
Asit K Das is Vice President and heads Refining R&D with Reliance
Conclusion
Industries Ltd., Jamnagar. He has vast experience in developing petroleum
An upflow configuration will help to improve delayed refining processes including modelling and simulation, pilot plant studies
coker heater performance by introducing feedstock to and scale-up. He holds a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from
the lower section of the heater, through the process coil, Jadhavpur University, West Bengal, India, a master’s degree in chemical
to the outlet located in the upper portion of the radiant engineering from IIT, Kanpur, India and a doctoral degree in chemical
zone. The benefits of such a configuration will include engineering from Ghent University, Belgium.
enhanced vaporisation, as well as migration of the hot-
test part of the process fluid to the upper portion with
lower heat flux, resulting in lower TMTs, reduced coking
rates and achieving a higher run length.

Further reading
1 Adam J, Hughes G C, Coker furnace online on-line spalling – safe, clean,
proven & profitable, AFPM AM, San Diego, California, 11-13 Mar 2012.
2 Gupta A, Patil R C, Mishra V P, Das A K, Hydrocarbon Processing, 2013,
92, 101.
3 Catala K A, Karrs M S, Seili G, Faegh A A, Hydrocarbon Processing, 2009,
87, 45.
4 Melton M S, US 5078857, 1992.
5 Golden S W, Barletta T, PTQ, 2006, 11, 105.
6 Zhu N, US 6626663, 2003, Fosbal Intellectual AG.
7 Gibson W C, Gibson R L, Eischen J T, US 6241855 B1, 2001, Petro-
Chem Development Co. Inc.
8 Lobo W E, Evans J E, Trans. Am. Inst. Chem. Engrs., 1939, 35, 748.
9 Bhirud V L, US 9359555B2, 2016, SBT Technology Inc.

Rahul C Patil is Lead Research Scientist in the Refining R&D division of

Reliance Industries Limited, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. He has 10
years of experience in debottlenecking, applications of computational
fluid dynamics, process modelling and optimisation in refinery and  PRESSURE VESSELS,
petrochemical units. He hold a MTech in chemical engineering from IIT HEAT EXCHANGERS
Kanpur and BChem Eng. in chemical engineering from ICT Mumbai.
• Waste Heat Recovery Systems
Pinakiranjan Patra is a Senior Technologist (Gasification) in the Centre • Transfer Line Exchangers
Of Excellence (CoE) department of Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai. • Scraped Surface Exchangers
He holds a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering and has more
than 11 years of experience in process engineering, plant operations,
modelling and simulations.  MEMBRANE TECHNOLOGY
Ajay Gupta is Assistant Vice President and currently heads the fixed bed
• Emission Control Units
process development group of Refining R&D with Reliance Industries • Product Recovery Units
Ltd., Jamnagar, Gujarat, India. His experience includes modelling and • Gas Separation
simulation of chemical processes, implementation of advanced process • Liquid Separation
control strategies and development of reactor models for various
chemical processes. He holds bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees
in chemical engineering from IIT, Delhi, India.
www.borsig.de
V P Mishra is Assistant Vice President and currently heads the
Reaction Engineering and CFD Modelling group with Reliance Research
BORSIG GmbH
Phone: +49 (0)30 4301-01
E-mail: info@borsig.de
www.eptq.com

Q2 RELIANCE.indd 6 09/03/2018 17:44

View publication stats