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 petro-
leum refinery processes
vacuum residue from the
vacuum distillation unit as feed
and thermally cracks it into use-
ful products including liquid
petroleum gas, naphtha, gaso-
line, diesel, heavy gas oil, and
petcoke. While it is desirable to
have the majority of the crack-
ing and coking taking place in
the coker drum, a small amount
of these reactions occurring
inside the heater tubes is inev-
itable. The coke so produced
inside the heater tubes pro-
vides additional resistance 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 increasing the tube
skin temperature or tube metal
temperature (TMT) due to the
additional resistance offered
by coke. Coke depositing on
heater tubes thus usually lim-
its the run length by limiting
the TMT which a heater tube
can be allowed to experience
in view of its metallurgy. For
example, if the TMT at start of
run (SOR) conditions is 550°C
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001513
of increase in the thickness of
Flue gases coke deposits. Once the limiting
value of the TMT is reached,
VR inlet
coke needs to be removed
Convection
section from the inner surface of the
tubes, which normally would
require downtime and conse-
quent production loss. Coke is
removed from the tubes by two
processes: by utilising the dif-
ference in thermal expansion
coefficient between coke and
Radiant
section tube by applying sudden tem-
perature variations (spalling);
or by physical scraping of coke
from the tube with the help of a
moving pig (pigging). The typ-
VR outlet ical time required for spalling
Burners
and pigging is 1-1.5 days and
3-5 days, respectively. During
Air and fuel this period, the throughput of
the coker unit is reduced, which
results in a loss in production.
Figure 1 Schematic of delayed coker Further, the tubes are subjected
heater to a harsh environment in both
removal methods, and the fre-
and the maximum allowable quency of coke cleaning even-
TMT is 650°C (generally gov- tually determines the life of the
erned by its metallurgy), for heater tubes. Thus it is desirable
a rate of 2°C/day rise in TMT, to increase the run length of the
the heater would run for 50 coker heater so as to increase
days. Therefore, it is desirable the productivity of the delayed
to restrict the rate of the TMT coker unit as well as the life of
increase to a low value, which the coker heater tubes.
as such is a function of the rate A coker heater (see Figure
PTQ Q2 2018 1

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
1) consists of horizontal tubes
where feed conventionally
enters from the convection sec-
tion to the radiant section of
the heater (a down-flow con-
figuration). The outlet temper-
ature of the heater, the COT,
is measured at the radiant sec-
tion outlet. The burners are
normally floor mounted at
the bottom of the radiant sec-
tion of the heater where they
fire fuel with air. The radiative
heat from the combustion of
fuel gas in the radiant section
is transferred to vacuum res-
idue from the convection sec-
tion. The remaining heat from
the combustion gases is trans-
ferred to preheat vacuum res-
idue in the convection section.
In the process, vacuum residue
cracks into lighter components.
As pressure reduces in the
heater tubes, the lighter compo-
nents, typically from C1 to light
naphtha, evaporate to form two
phase flow in the heater. Along
2 PTQ Q2 2018
Tube
Burner
Refractory
Burner
with cracking, asphaltenes in
the vacuum residue contrib-
ute to the coking phenomena,
and part of this coke deposits
on the heater tubes to increase
the TMT as time progresses.
Besides feed characteristics
such as asphaltenes, saturates,
and residence time, coking
inside the coker heater is a very
strong function of the temper-
ature it reaches in the tubes
throughout the radiant section
of the heater. Various measures
are taken when designing the
heat exchanger to eliminate or
reduce the possibilities of local-
ised peak temperatures.
Design considerations for a
coker heater
Owing to the very strong
dependence of coking reac-
tions on temperature, it is par-
ticularly important to provide
a uniform temperature profile
along the length of the tube.
Non-uniform coking is caused
by an irregular temperature
profile experienced by the pro-
cess fluid. Proper burner place-
ment along the tube ensures a
uniform temperature profile
along the length of the tube.
The other important factor
which is considered in the lat-
est designs of coker heater is
uniform temperature distribu-
tion across the diameter 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 sin-
gle fired coker heater, causes the
half of the tube facing a burner
flame to experience higher tem-
peratures compared to the other
half which faces refractory at a
lower temperature. This results
in a non-uniform temperature
profile across the circumference
of the tubes. Newer designs
provide tubes at the centre of
the heater facing flames from
burners placed symmetrically
on two sides of the tube. This
arrangement of burners and
tubes, termed a dual fired coker
heater, causes both sides of the
tube to experience the same
temperature, unlike the single
fired coker heater arrangement.
The schematics (adopted from
Golden & Barletta) of a single
fired and dual fired coker heater
are shown in Figure 2. While for
a conventional single fired coker
heater with an uneven tempera-
ture profile around the tube cir-
cumference, the peak heat flux
is 1.8 times that of 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
circumference of the tube. These
design changes have not only
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001513
resulted in uniform circumfer-
ential TMTs but have enabled
an increase in average 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 run length of the
coker heater is to offload the
radiant section by shifting its
heat load to the convection sec-
tion or redistributing its heat
load locally to reduce non-
uniformity in the tempera-
ture experienced by vacuum
reside inside the radiant zone
tubes. In a conventional delayed
coker heater, the process fluid
flows from top to bottom. Here,
high fluid temperature inside
the tubes meets high tempera-
ture flue gas from outside. This
causes higher film formation as
well as TMTs at which crack-
ing and coking takes place.
Ultimately, these tubes in the
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 temperatures (by
varying the direction of the pro-
cess 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 varying the emissivity
coating) so as to make it more
uniform.
One way to evenly distribute
the heat load across the radiant
zone is to apply emissivity coat-
ings to the outer surfaces of the
tubes. The coatings are applied
in such a way that the tubes
with high fluid temperature in
the bottom (the high tempera-
ture region) are covered with a
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001513
Radiant
inlet
Radiant
outlet
Radiant
outlet
A
Radiant
Downflow
inlet
B
Upflow
Figure 3 Coker heater configurations:
(A) downflow (B) upflow
low emissivity coating so as to
absorb less heat, and the tubes
with low fluid temperature in
the top low-temperature region
are smeared with a high emis-
sivity coating so as to absorb
more heat. Because of these dif-
ferent emissivity coatings, the
heating rate experienced by hot
fluid reduces and that experi-
enced 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 configuration
(see Figure 3b), vacuum resi-
due enters the radiant section
from the bottom and exits at the
top of the radiant section. This
means that fluid at a lower tem-
perature has a higher heating
rate and fluid at a higher tem-
perature has a lower heating
rate compared to conventional
heaters, leading to a more uni-
form cracking temperature.
This design claims to give
improved coker heater perfor-
mance by migration of the hot-
test part of the process 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
distribution in the radiant and
convection sections of a delayed
coker heater. This was deter-
mined 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 avail-
able for predicting the per-
formance 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 heat-
ers with dual side firing was
utilised. It accounts for both
convective as well as radia-
tive heat transfer in the heater.
The model is used to mimic
the flue gas side heat transfer
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 radiative and
PTQ Q2 2018 3
 where CA is asphaltene
1.0
Plant concentration.
Rate of temperature rise Model The reactions were considered
0.5 to occur inside the fluid film at
an average temperature of the
fluid film and the bulk fluid.
0
The oil film temperature and
TMT were estimated based on
−0.5 API 530 calculations. Heat flux
required for determination of
the fluid film temperature (FFT)
−1.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
and TMT were taken from the
Day combustion side simulations.
The heat transfer coefficient
1.0
R2 = 0.8286 (HTC) required for the calcula-
tion of the oil film temperature
0.5 can either be calculated from
API 530 or estimated from the
thermal cracking simulations.
Model

0
Each heater tube was fur-
ther divided into ‘n’ number of
−0.5 parts and solved for mass con-
servation in each of these parts
by the finite difference method.
−1.0
−1.0 −0.5 0 0.5 1.0 Properties like liquid viscos-
Plant ity, liquid density, vapour vis-
cosity, vapour density and
Figure 4 Coking model: plant values vs model predictions for TMTs bulk velocity, required for the
calculation of the film veloc-
convective heat transfer in a tuning parameters of the crack- ity and film thickness, were
heater is carried out by using ing model have been calibrated estimated from the thermal
commercial software which uti- for the base case to match the cracking simulations. A cali-
lises more rigorous heater mod- outlet stream bulk proper- bration factor was also intro-
els to determine localised heat ties like liquid API and mass duced in the model to quantify
fluxes. vaporisation. the amount of coke depositing
On the process side, vapor- The cracking model fur- inside the heater tubes from the
isation and molar expansion nished the information on total amount of coke formed.
due to cracking were computed tube velocity profiles in the The reaction kinetic parameters
using a commercial simulator heater. Having obtained the were tuned to match the actual
which employs a kinetic model required inputs, coke dep- operating data. If the maxi-
having five feed and product osition on the tubes was mum design limit of the heater
lumps to predict the yield pat- computed using a model devel- tube metallurgy is known, run
tern and properties of liquid oped in-house and validated length can be predicted for var-
and gas products at the out- with plant data. Simplified ious scenarios from a coking
let of the heater. Here, the feed coke formation kinetics were model.
is characterised by its distilla- used wherein the rate of The model was tuned to
tion curve, asphaltenes, density, coke formation was considered match actual plant operations
and so on. The model breaks to be a first order reaction (see data from one of the delayed
the feed into standard feed cuts, Equation 1): coker units in the refineries.
and applies calculated values TMT profiles predicted from
for conversion and severity to
!"
(1) the model matched the plant
determine product yields. The !"
= kC! data very well. The coefficient

4 PTQ Q2 2018 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001513

of determination (R2) observed
1.70
between the model and the 0.78, 1.61
Upflow
1.60
plant data was around 83%. Bottom
1.50 IN Downflow
The rise and fall seen in Figure 1.40

Heat flux ratio

4 is because of the actual var-
iations occurring in the plant
with respect to feed flow, radi-
ant heat flux, and so on. As is
evident 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
different models, it is apparent
that the coking model with a
commercial heater and cracking
model can be used effectively
to predict the run length of a
delayed coker heater. The dif-
ferent configurations of flow in
a coker heater explained in the
previous section were studied
utilising the model. It should be
noted that the run length deter-
mination for different configu-
rations 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 varia-
tion in heat flux across the
tubes for both downflow and
upflow configurations in the
radiant section. The ratio
of the heat flux of an indi-
vidual tube to the average
heat flux in a downflow con-
1.00, 1.30
1.30
Bottom
1.20 OUT
1.10
1.00
0.90 0.77, 0.84
Top
0.80 Top OUT
IN
0.70 1.00, 1.72
0.60
0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
Bulk temperature, non-dimensional
Figure 5 Heat flux ratio vs bulk temperature ratio in down- and upflow
configurations
in an upflow configuration, the figuration will have a lower
opposite occurs, with the tubes film temperature compared to
at the exit experiencing the low- a downflow configuration. The
est heat flux. The maximum lower film temperature will
heat flux ratio experienced eventually lead to lower TMTs.
by tubes having vacuum resi- It should be noted that the heat
due at a higher temperature is flux range in an upflow config-
reduced by ~85% in an upflow uration has increased compared
configuration. to that in a downflow configu-
On the other hand, the heat ration. But this increased range
flux ratio experienced by tubes results in more uniformity of
containing vacuum residue at a temperatures along the height
lower temperature is increased of the radiant section. The same
by almost 100% in the upflow is explained subsequently in
configuration, compared to the terms of resultant TMT pro-
downflow configuration. The files arising from the heat flux
process fluid with the highest profiles.
temperature realising the low- Figure 6 compares TMT for
est heat flux in an upflow con- both configurations at SOR.
Bottom Upflow
OUT
1.00 Downflow
1.00
Top
0.95
OUT
0.95
0.91
TMT/Tmax SOR

figuration versus the non- 0.90

Bottom
dimensional bulk temperature IN
(ratio of bulk temperature in 0.85
tube to the COT of the heater) is
depicted in the figure. 1.80
0.80
In a downflow configuration, Top
IN
the flux is highest at the exit
0.75
of the heater and lowest at the Furnace height
inlet, whereas when the pro-
cess fluid flow is reversed, as Figure 6 TMT profile in down- and upflow configuration at SOR

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001513 PTQ Q2 2018 5

 from a downflow configuration
1.00 1.00 for various parameters.
1.00
The estimated average radi-
ant heat flux for an upflow con-
0.95
figuration is greater than for
a downflow configuration by
TMT/TMTEOR

0.90
4.79%. Better distribution of heat
in the radiant section improves
0.85 the heat input to the feed. This
0.82
results in a higher average heat
0.80
Upflow
flux and is reflected in 30% more
0.78 Downflow vaporisation and lower resi-
0.75 dence time in the heater for an
Run length upflow configuration. As is evi-
dent in increased vaporisation
Figure 7 Rate of temperature rise to maximum TMT in down- and upflow and cracking, an upflow con-
configurations figuration gives a higher exit
tube velocity than the conven-
TMT is represented in this fig- in TMT. The rise rate of maxi- tional downflow scheme. Since
ure, relative to the highest TMT mum TMT along the run length HTC is directly proportional to
in a downflow configuration to of the heater is shown in Figure velocity, the higher the veloc-
present the comparison more 7. The TMT is presented with ity, the higher the HTC. This
clearly with respect to a down- respect to end of run (EOR) enhanced HTC and lower heat-
flow configuration. The TMT at TMT which is the limiting ing rate lowers the oil film tem-
SOR for an upflow configura- TMT of metallurgy. The lower perature by 2.6% in an upflow
tion at the bottom tube is lower film temperature results in a configuration.
and at the top tube it increases lower coking rate and sub- Overall, a reduction in film
compared to a downflow con- sequently lower coke thick- temperature and lower resi-
figuration. This makes the TMT ness. This results in more run dence time in the tube have
profile flat in an upflow config- length for the upflow configu- resulted in an increase in the
uration compared to a down- ration compared to the down- run length of the coker heater
flow configuration. It should be flow configuration. The same by 61.6% due to a reversal in
noted that, in the upflow con- is reflected in the TMT pro- the direction of flow of feed.
figuration, TMTs are higher in file, where the rise in TMT is It should be noted that the
the majority of tubes compared slower in an upflow configura- increase or decrease is with
to the downflow configuration. tion compared to a downflow respect to the base case in the
The flat film and TMT pro- configuration. Table 1 shows heater considered in this study.
file as well as lower TMT at the prediction of an integrated The numbers would vary on a
SOR in an upflow configura- model for upflow configuration case by case basis.
tion results in a slower rise in terms of percentage change
Conclusion
An upflow configuration will
Model prediction for upflow configuration help to improve delayed coker
heater performance by intro-
Parameters (% change w.r.t. downflow configuration) Upflow ducing feedstock to the lower
Average radiant flux +4.8 section of the heater, through
Residence time (Rad) -6.8 the process coil, to the out-
Mass vaporisation +30.2
Av. velocity (last tube) +19.1 let located in the upper portion
Film temperature (last tube) -2.6 of the radiant zone. The bene-
Run length +61.6 fits of such a configuration will
include enhanced vaporisation,
Table 1 as well as migration of the hot-

6 PTQ Q2 2018 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001513

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,
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001513
Maharashtra, India. He has 10 years
of experience in debottlenecking,
applications of computational
fluid dynamics, process modelling
and optimisation in refinery and
petrochemical units. He hold a MTech
in chemical engineering from IIT Kanpur
and BChem Eng. in chemical engineering
from ICT Mumbai.
Pinakiranjan Patra is a SeniorTechnologist
(Gasification) in the Centre Of Excellence
(CoE) department of Reliance Industries
Limited, Mumbai. 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.
Ajay Gupta is Assistant Vice President
and currently heads the fixed bed
process development group of Refining
R&D with Reliance Industries Ltd.,
Jamnagar, Gujarat, India. His experience
includes modelling and simulation of
chemical processes, implementation
of advanced process 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.
V P Mishra is Assistant Vice President and
currently heads the Reaction Engineering
and CFD Modelling group with Reliance
Research and Technology centre,
Mumbai. His areas of expertise include
computational fluid dynamics, reactor
design and scale-up, and mixing systems.
He holds a bachelor’s degree in chemical
engineering from REC, 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 Industries
Ltd., Jamnagar. He has vast experience in
developing petroleum refining processes
including modelling and simulation, pilot
plant studies and scale-up. He holds a
bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering
from Jadhavpur University, West Bengal,
India, a master’s degree in chemical
engineering from IIT, Kanpur, India and a
doctoral degree in chemical engineering
from Ghent University, Belgium.
LINKS
More articles from the following
categories:
Coking
Energy Efficiency and Energy
Management
Instrumentation, Automation and
Process Control
PTQ Q2 2018 7