Sabp A 008 PDF

Best Practice
SABP-A-008 28 February 2016

Load Management for Energy Efficiency: Heat Transfer Equipment
Document Responsibility: Energy Systems Optimization Standards Committee
Load Management for Energy Efficiency:

Heat Transfer Equipment
Developed by: Energy Systems Division

Process & Control Systems Department
Previous issue: 21 July 2013 Next Planned Update: TBD

Revised paragraphs are indicated in the right margin Page 1 of 84
Contacts: Ali Al-Qahtani, (ali.qahtani.57@aramco.com), Phone: +966-13-8801600
Mohammed Al-Ibrahim: (mohammad.ibrahim.15@aramco.com) Phone: +966-3-8808096
CopyrightSaudi Aramco 2016. All rights reserved.

Document Responsibility: Energy Systems Optimization Standards Committee SABP-A-008
Issue Date: 28 February 2016
Next Planned Update: TBD Load Management for Energy Efficiency: Heat Transfer Equipment
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION 3
1.1 Purpose 3
1.2 Scope . 3
1.3 Intended Users .. 4
1.4 References and Related Documents 4
2.0 GENERAL 5
2.1 Definitions .. 5
2.2 Principles and Concepts 5
2.3 Degrees of Freedom . 5
2.4 Process Variability 6
2.5 HX Design and Simulation .. 9
2.6 Fouling Monitoring & Mitigation ...................... 14
3.0 PROCESS HEARING TRAINS . 19
3.1 Single Process Stream Heated in Series .. 19
3.2 Single Process Stream Heated in Network of Parallel HX Trains .. 21
3.3 Avoid Un-Necessary Heating 23
4.0 PROCESS COOLING TRAINS . 25
4.1 Single Process Stream Cooled in Series 25
4.2 Single Process Stream Cooled in Network of Parallel HX Trains 26
4.3 Multiple process Streams Cooled with a Single Cooling Utility .. 29
4.4 Avoid Un-Necessary Cooling 30
4.5 Load Shedding versus Process Modifications .. 31
5.0 HEAT EXCHANGER NETWORKS .. 33
5.1 Simple HENs 33
5.2 Complex HENs 37
5.3 HEN Operability Considerations and Constraints .. 42
6.0 BOILER NETWORKS 46
6.1 Boiler Sparing Philosophy for Optimum Reliability . 46
6.2 Load Allocation among Multiple Parallel Boilers . 49
6.3 Load Management of Boiler Auxiliaries .. 53
6.4 Steam Balance Optimization . 58
7.0 Furnace Networks 63
7.1 Heater Sparing Philosophy . 64
7.2 Load Allocation among Multiple Parallel Heaters .. 65
7.3 Load Allocation in Hot Oil Loops 65
7.4 Load Management of Furnace Auxiliaries . 69
7.5 WHB Opportunities 73
Page 3 of 84
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
Large industrial plants commonly use multiple parallel equipment trains for improved reliability. Very often,
installed equipment capacity far exceeds normal production requirements. This excess capacity can often
be translated into energy cost savings. Also, the heating and cooling objectives for the process can be
met in a variety of alternative ways, using different types and amounts of utilities. There is a certain utilities
mix that results in the lowest overall operating costs. The purpose of this new Best Practice is to describe
ways in which energy cost can be minimized through optimum allocation of load among existing heat transfer
equipment.
1.2 Scope
Many types of equipment commonly used in Saudi Aramco plants are significant energy consumers
and amenable to operational optimization through Load Management, including:
Steam heaters
Fired Heaters (furnaces)
Process Coolers air, water, refrigerant
Complex Heat Exchanger Networks
Boilers fired and unfired
Pumps and compressors
Steam and Gas Turbines
This Best Practice manual provides guidelines on methods to determine the optimum load management
policies for heat transfer equipment only. Other types of energy consuming and converting equipment are
covered in complementary Best Practice manuals.
It is also important to note and understand what this manual is not:
It is not a text book on heat transfer theory.

It is not a Design Procedure for heat exchangers or for optimum design/retrofit of Heat Exchanger
Networks (HENs).
It is not a Design Procedure for boilers or fired heaters.
It is not a procedure for calculating boiler or furnace efficiency.
It is not a course.
It is not a Saudi Aramco equipment design standard.
Although some of the topics covered in this manual may overlap with those found in the foregoing
texts, they have been included only to provide background, and to make the reader aware that these subjects
have a bearing on the determination of operational optimization via Load Management. For detailed
information on these subjects, the reader should consult the reference books and related documents cited in
section 1.4.
Page 5 of 84
1.3 Intended Users

This Best Practice manual is intended for use by the engineers working in Saudi Aramco plants, who
are responsible for energy efficient operation of their facility. It provides guidelines for developing optimum
load management policies, and estimating the cost savings therefrom. It is not intended to serve as a
comprehensive treatise or design manual for heat exchangers, heat exchanger networks, boilers, or fired
heaters.
1.4 Related Documents and References

SABP-A-002: Load Management for Energy Efficiency: Pumps and Compressors, Saudi Aramco
Engineering Standard (2005)
SABP-A-005: Quick Energy Assessment Methodology for Energy Efficiency Optimization,
Saudi Aramco Engineering Standard (2006)
SABP-A-007: Steam Trap Management for Energy Efficiency, Saudi Aramco Engineering
Standard (2006)
rd
Handbook of Heat Transfer, 3 ed, W. M. Rohsenow, J. P. Hartnett, and Y. I. Cho, McGraw- Hill
Inc, New York (1998), Ch 18.
Fundamentals of Heat Exchanger Design, R. P. Shah and D. P. Sekulic, John Wiley & Sons Inc.,
Hoboken, NJ (2003), Chs 3 and 11.
th
Heat Transfer, 8 ed., J. P. Holman, McGraw-Hill Inc, New York (1997), Ch 10.
Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis, U. V. Shenoy, Gulf Publishing Co, Houston, TX (1995)
Thermal Design of Heat Exchangers, E. M. Smith, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK (1997),
Ch 2.
th
Steam Plant Operation, 7 ed, E. B. Woodruff, H. B. Lammers, and T. F. Lammers, McGraw- Hill
Inc., New York (1998).
The Control of Boilers, S. G. Dukelow, ISA Press, Research Triangle Park, NC (1986).
The John Zink Combustion Handbook, .C. E. Baukal, ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (2001),
Chs 2, 16.
Combustion System Design, Y. Khavkin, PennWell Books, Tulsa, OK (1996).
No conflict is expected between the optimum load management policy and other Saudi Aramco standards with
respect to reliability, safety, etc. If any such conflict should arise, the standard shall take precedence.
Page 6 of 84
2.0 General
2.1 Definitions
Best Practice: A process or method that, when correctly executed, leads to enhanced system performance.
Load Management: An operating policy that distributes the load among multiple machines or equipment
installed as series-parallel networks in a way that minimizes their energy (fuel + power) consumption,
without compromising safety or reliability.
2.2 Principles and Concepts

When a process plant is designed, it is common practice for the engineering contractor to build some fat into
the equipment sizes and piping, as a contingency factor to compensate for uncertainties in future operating
conditions. Consequently, equipment is invariably over-sized for the task at hand. When equipment is being
operated at rates below the installed capacity, it is often possible to extract some operating cost savings
in the form of reduced energy consumption from the capital that has already been invested in surplus
equipment capacity, but is not being utilized for additional production. On the other hand, over-sizing can
also cause reduced overall system efficiency, because excessive heat transfer in a non-pinch HX could
potentially reduce driving forces in a more critical pinch HX. The objective is to operate the equipment at
the lowest total cost while still meeting the production objective.
Several general principles and strategies apply in all cases:
Minimize number of equipment items being operated in parallel (load sharing).

Use heat recovery in preferences to utilities, and use the lower cost utilities in
preference to higher cost utilities (load shifting).
Allocate heat transfer duties to the different heat exchangers in a series/parallel network in
such a way that minimizes the total cost of the various utilities required.
Operate equipment at conditions that will maximize the system efficiency, even if it means that
individual items may have to operate away from their maximum efficiency points.
Assign maximum duty to the most efficient equipment (in a parallel set), and use the least
efficient equipment as the swing machine.
For parallel equipment with efficiency profiles of different shapes, assign incremental load
according to incremental efficiency gradient (slope of curve).
The analytical procedures outlined in this manual will help establish the quantitative relationship between
operating flexibility and energy costs, thereby enabling plant engineers and foremen to jointly make
intelligent decisions about the optimum operating policy.
2.3 Degrees of Freedom

Optimization implies that one has multiple choices to accomplish the desired objective, and the only problem
remaining is to choose the best option. The range of options available is limited by constraints which can be
either hard or soft. A hard constraint is one which we cannot violate at any cost e.g. the laws of
physics, market realities, or the directives of senior management. A soft constraint is one that we have
imposed on ourselves, and which could be relaxed at our discretion upon penalty of incurring some
Page 7 of 84
additional costs elsewhere. An example of a soft constraint is the requirement for redundancy in installed
equipment in order to increase the level of operator comfort. It follows that the range of available
options can be increased by relaxing soft constraints, and by finding some other way to alleviate the problem
that the constraint was intended to prevent/mitigate.
One way of highlighting the nature of a constraint is to set bounds for the acceptable temperature range.
Process plants seldom operate under fixed condition. For instance, as discussed below, throughput can vary
significantly, which gives rise to variations in process temperatures. We can identify the hardness of a
constraint by specifying both a normal (eg. design point) value and maximum and minimum acceptable
values. In this way we can define the flexibility inherent within the plant, and exploit it to reduce operating
costs.
The key to increased flexibility is introducing new Degrees of Freedom, which are parameters or design
features over which one has some control. For example, a process heater that operates under varying load
can be piped up to use two alternative sources of steam LP and HP, so that the cheapest one can be used
depending on operating conditions requirements.
Basically, one must keep an open mind. Think out-of-the-box. Do not accept the existing plant
configuration as inviolate; try to think of the ideal solution, and then systematically add features to the
existing design that will help to reach that ideal solution. Learn to recognize the difference between hard and
soft constraints.
2.4 Process Variability

Process variability is a major cause of operating equipment at sub-optimal conditions. The smother the
process flow rate, the greater the potential for stable and efficient operation.
Consider the feed rate profile of experienced by one of our condensate fractionation plants. As you will see
in Figure 1, it is highly variable, with a max/min flow ratio of roughly 630/350 =1.8 and a peak/avg ratio
of about 630/450 = 1.4. The plant is clearly capable of being operated at a throughput of 630 MBD
while still maintaining temperatures within acceptable bounds. This suggests that if the throughput were
controlled closely within narrow bounds, the investment that has already been made would permit a 40%
increase in production. That is the inherent power of reducing process variability.
Now consider the impact of the variable fractionation feed rate on plant energy costs. The steam
production rate will typically follow the feed flow rate. The ratio of peak/average flow is seen to be
approximately 2200/1530 = 1.44, consistent with the feed flow profile.
The benefits of reduced process variability apply to utility systems as well. Consider the case of a plant
whose operating policy is to run N+1 boilers, where N is the minimum number of boilers required to
satisfy peak process demand. Suppose that the boilers are equal sized, with a maximum sustained capacity
of 530 Klb/h each. The estimated potential savings from reducing process variability to 1.0 is shown in
Table 1. Note that these are free savings, requiring minimal capital investment in process revamp.
Page 8 of 84
700
C2+ Feed
600 C3+ Feed
Combined Feeds
500
Flow, MBD
400
300
200
100
0
5/1/01 6/8/01 7/16/01 8/23/01 9/30/01 11/7/01 12/15/01 1/22/02 3/1/02 4/8/02
Figure 1 - Feed Rate Profile for Fractionation Plant
Boiler Steam Gen.

2500
2000
Total HP Stm Gen, Klb/h
1500
1000
500
0
4/1/2001 5/21/2001 7/10/2001 8/29/2001 10/18/2001 12/7/2001 1/26/2002 3/17/2002
Figure 2 - Steam Demand Profile for Fractionation Plant
Page 9 of 84
Table 1 - Savings Potential from Improved Process Stability
How can we reduce process variability? Generally by revamping the control strategy and introducing
additional surge capacity at critical pinch points in the process scheme. In the example cited, it is clear
that the data clearly show that swings in steam demand follow (and therefore are most likely a consequence
of) variations in feed flow rate. By increasing the amount of feed surge capacity through addition of a
couple of storage tanks, the feed to fractionation was able to be changed from level control (as obvious in
Figure 3) to flow control, per Figure 4, thus eliminating the hourly swings.
Feed to Fractionation
12000
10000
8000
Total Flow, BPH
6000
4000
C3+ from BGP

C3+ feed to Mods
2000
0
4/1 4/25 5/19 6/12 7/6 7/30 8/23 9/16 10/10 11/3 11/27 12/21 1/14 2/7 3/3 3/27
Figure 3 - Correlation between Feed to Plant and Feed to Fractionation
Page 10 of 84
Figure 4 - Example of Control Strategy Change to Improve Process Stability
2.5 Heat Exchanger Design and Simulation

There are many types of heat exchanger (HX) designs, with the most common design being the Shell-and-
Tube type. All indirect contact heat transfer equipment designs, however, are governed by a common set of
design considerations.
The most fundamental relationship in heat transfer is the heat balance, which derives from the first law of
thermodynamics, and can be expressed as follows:
q = Mass flow rate of cold stream x specific heat cold stream x (t2 t1)
= Mass flow rate of hot stream x specific heat of hot stream x (T1-T2) The heat
transferred by a HX is given by the equation:
q = U x A x CMTD
where q = heat transfer duty, MMBtu/h

U = overall heat transfer coefficient, Btu/ft2-h-F A
= heat transfer area, ft2
and CMTD = corrected mean temperature difference
Page 11 of 84
The overall heat transfer coefficient is related to the film heat transfer coefficients for the hot and cold fluids
by the equation:
1/U = 1/h1 + 1/h2
where h1 and h2 are the film heat transfer coefficients, inclusive of fouling allowances, for the hot and cold
fluids respectively, and which are a function of the fluid flow regime (proportional to Reynolds number
raised to the power 0.8), exchanger geometry (equivalent diameter of cross-sectional flow area), and fluid
properties (specific heat, thermal conductivity, density, viscosity).
The CMTD is a complex function of the exchanger geometry and fluid flow profiles, and is generally
expressed as
CMTD = Ft x LMTD
where LMTD = log mean temperature difference for true countercurrent flow, and
Ft = correction factor for non-countercurrent temperature profile
Consider Figure 5, which shows the schematic representation of a HX with a true counter- current
temperature profile. The Logarithmic Mean Temperature Difference, or LMTD, is defined as
The correction factor Ft adjusts the LMTD for cases where the temperature profiles of the hot and cold
stream are not true counter-current. Detailed procedures for calculating Ft are beyond the scope of this
Best Practice manual. The reader is instead referred to basic college text books on heat transfer theory and
th
heat exchanger design, such as Holmans Heat Transfer, 8 ed, McGraw-Hill Book Co, New York (1997),
or Kerns Process Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill Book Co, New York (1950)
Figure 5 - Counter-current Temperature Profile
Page 12 of 84
For economic reasons, the HX is normally designed is such a way that the value of Ft is between 0.75
and 1.0 (Saudi Aramco standard is 0.8). For multi-pass shell & tube HX with t2 < T2 (ie. no temperature
cross), the approximations of Gulyani & Mohanty [Chem Eng, (Nov 1996) p127] can be used with an
error of less than 1%:
T
t 2
Ft = A + B

2

T1
t1
HX Configuration A B
1-2+ 0.8037 1.208

2-4+ 0.961 0.237
4-8+ 0.991 0.0661
Page 13 of 84
HX Effectiveness Relationships

th
Source: J. P. Holman, Heat Transfer, 8 ed, p 581. Note that C = C
min/C
max
, and N = NTU. For a more comprehensive list, see Table 17.6, Handbook of Heat Transfer, Rohsenow et
al, op. cit.
Page 14 of 84
Except when C (more commonly denoted as R) = 0, the hot and cold outlet temperatures can
be calculated from the known hot and cold stream inlet temperatures T1 and t1 as:
T2 = T1 (T1 t1), and t2 = t1 + R(T1 t1)
Using the Ft method, the number of minimum shells in series can only be determined by trial and error.
Shenoy [Ref. Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis, Gulf Publishing Co, Houston (1995), pp 260-264] has
described a more direct method using two parameters P and R:
Page 15 of 84
The minimum number of shells required (in multiple tube-pass configuration) in order to have Ft
0.75 is obtained by
(NS)min usually turns out to be a fractional number, and must be rounded up to the next integer. The
design is considered acceptable when P PC.
The Ft method can be used only when the inlet and outlet temperatures are specified, or otherwise
known. For heat load management, that is not generally the case. Normally, we know only two of the four
terminal temperatures, with the other two having to be determined by simulation. Because the equations
involved are non-linear, the solution requires trial and error. For simulating the performance of existing
heat exchangers of known geometry under different operating conditions, the effectiveness-NTU method is
much more convenient. The effectiveness is defined as:
act ual heat t ransfer T of fluid with lower heat

= maximumpossible heat transfer = capacit y Max
tempdifference in HX
= (t2-t1)/(T1-t1), if cold fluid heat capacity < hot fluid
= (T1-T2)/(T1-t1), if hot fluid heat capacity < cold fluid
1 expNTU .(1 Cmin / Cmax ) for true counter-current flow

=
1 Cmin / Cmax expNTU .(1 C
/ Cmax )
min
Page 16 of 84
where NTU = Number of Transfer Units = UA/Cmin Cmin

= heat capacity of smaller stream, Btu/h-F
and Cmax = heat capacity of larger stream, Btu/h-F
A quick approximate estimate for the number of shells-in-series required for a given duty can obtained by
stepping down the hot and cold duty lines (see Figure 6). This is equivalent to applying a temperature meet
condition to each shell. Since the number of shells must be an integer, fractional solutions are rounded up.
Figure 6: Stage-wise Construction Procedure for NTU
These are the critical relationships that will be required to perform HEN simulations, from which we
can derive the optimum HX load management policies.
2.6 Fouling Monitoring & Mitigation

One of the problems that plague most heat exchangers is fouling, which degrades the ability of the equipment
to transfer the desired amount of heat. Fouling can be due to a number of factors. Polley et al [Evaluation
of Crude Oil Fouling Data for Application to Refinery Preheat Trains, Applied Thermal Engineering, vol 22
(2002), pp 777-788] showed that for oil refining processes, the fouling mechanism consists of a competition
between scale deposition (thermal effect) and removal (shear effect), which can be adequately modeled by the
equation
Page 17 of 84
Where: TW = tube wall temperature, which can be estimated as = (hoTo + hiti) / (ho + hi)
To = bulk temperature of hot fluid (shell side), and ti
= bulk temperature of cold fluid (tube side).
Fouling rates are determined through HX performance monitoring under actual field conditions, as illustrated in
Figure 7. The activation energy E is a key variable which must be empirically adjusted to fit the data, and
usually falls in the range 16.8 - 18.9 Btu/lbmole (39-44 kJ/kg-mole) for most crude oil streams. The removal
-8
constant k has a value of 3 x 10 .
0.011
0.01
0.009
0.008
Overall Fouling Factor
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Time since last cleaning (hours)
Figure 7: Experimental Measurement Fouling Rate (Field Data)

Source: G. T. Polley (gtpolley@aol.com), personal communication (2006)
Activation Energy (E) and Removal Constant (k) are best obtained through the analysis of the performance of
an existing plant. Figure 8 shows a screen shot from ESDUs EXPRESS computer program. The plot is
derived for chosen E and k. The upper line (red) shows fouling rate predicted for the hottest point in the
exchanger, the lower line (blue) shows the rate predicted for the crude inlet, the middle line (magenta)
gives a prediction of the overall fouling rate (derived from an integral equation), the short (grey) line is the rate
measured on the plant.
It is possible to get the integral rate and the measured rate to coincide through judicious selection of E
and k. The best values for E and k are obtained by analyzing the performance of a range of exchangers each
operating at different velocity and bulk temperatures.
At high temperatures, the deposition rate increases. At high velocities, the scale removal rate increases. It is
therefore possible to construct a chart, as in Figure 10, that shows the flow regimes and temperatures in
which deposition rates exceed removal rates, and vice versa. Such fouling threshold plots should be
developed for each exchanger (shell-side as well as tube-side), and the HX must be operated in the
appropriate temp-flow regime to minimize fouling. The fouling threshold identifies the flow and
Page 18 of 84
temperature conditions at which it becomes impossible to eliminate fouling through exchanger design. Above
this point either a cleaning schedule should be introduced or fouling controlled through the use of tube inserts.
Figure 8: Predicted Fouling Rates for a Particular HX
Source: G. T. Polley, Saudi Aramco Course Notes , lecture 7 (July 2006)
Figure 9: Typical Composition of Fouling Deposits in Crude Oil Refineries
Source: H. Lemke, Fouling in Refinery Equipment an Overview, AIChE Spring Mtg (March 1999)
Page 19 of 84
The fouling problem is equally important for fin-fan to air coolers, which are the predominant type of utility
coolers in Saudi Arabia. Fortunately, they are relatively easy to clean.
340
320
300
Temperature (C)
280
260
240
Epstein Model
Polley Model
220 No Fouling
Positive Fouling
Negative Fouling
200
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Velocity (m/s)
Figure 10: Fouling Threshold Plot

Source: B. L. Yeap et al, Chem Eng Res Des, vol 82A (2004), pp 53-713
Page 20 of 84
The conventional cleaning method is to use hydro-blasting. However, this tends to damage the
fins, causing a permanently high flow resistance on the air aide, and corresponding loss of
capacity. A newer and preferred method is foam cleaning. This has been successfully used in
some Saudi Aramco refineries, and is recommended as a best practice. Since cleaning costs are
low, the optimum cleaning cycle is much shorter than for shell & tube HX cleaning.
Gentle Foam
Drainage
through Fins
Low Pressure
Foam Aerates
and Protects
Fins
Figure 11: Hydro-blasting versus Foam Cleaning of Fin-Fan Coolers

Source: www.northernindustrialcleaners.com (2006)
Page 21 of 84
(a) Before Cleaning
(b) After Foam Cleaning
Figure 12: Results of Foam Cleaning Before and After
Source: www.northernindustrialcleaners.com (2006)
Page 22 of 84
3.0 Process Heating Trains
When a process stream has to be heated from its supply temperature to its target temperature, this can be
accomplished in a variety of ways. For example, all of the heat could be supplied through utilities, or some
could be supplied via heat recovery from other process streams, and the balance through utilities. There is also
the option of allocating load between utilities.
3.1 Single Process Stream Heated in Series

Three examples of alternative heating sequences are illustrated in Figure 13, each of which has a different
energy cost as shown in Table 2.
Figure 13: Alternative Sequences for Process Heating in Series
Page 23 of 84
Table 2: Energy Cost of Alternative Process Heating Sequences
Page 19 of 74
In case 1, all heat is supplied using high-pressure (HP) steam, at a cost of $58.3 per hour. In case 2, the
heating load is split between low-pressure (LP) and HP steam, for a total cost of
$52 per hour. This reduction in operating cost was possible because we shifted some of the heating duty
from a more expensive (HP steam) utility to a less expensive utility (LP steam).
Now let us consider case 3a. Here, some of the heating duty is provided by recovery of waste heat from
another process stream, one which requires cooling. The cost drops further, and rather dramatically, from
$52 per hour to $37.5 per hour. If we do more heat recovery, as in case 3b, the cost drops to $36 per hour.
Obviously, our goal is to minimize the total utility cost, which corresponds to case 3b. However, unless the
design of the existing train conforms to the configuration shown in case 3, we will not have the flexibility
to trade-off LP steam versus HP steam, and LP steam versus process heat recovery.
These three cases illustrate the essential principle of load management. viz., when we have the option to use
multiple utilities, we should maximize the duty of the cheapest utility, and minimize the duty of the most
expensive utility. Thus, in Cases 2 and 3, the control system should be designed to maximize the process
stream temperature out of the LP steam heater, as illustrated in Figure 14, rather than setting LP steam on
direct flow control.
Figure 14: Control Strategy for Optimal Steam Load Distribution in a Preheat Train
In general, we will not have the freedom to do all of the heating with free waste heat. Nor will we be able to
eliminate use of the most expensive utility. This is because we have certain design constraints. One is
the temperature of the heat source, another is the available quantity of the heat source, and the third is the
capacity of the heat exchange equipment itself.
Page 25 of 84
The first two constraints are obvious. It is not possible to heat a cold stream to a temperature higher than the
temperature of the hot stream (heat source). This is known as the driving force constraint. Similarly, the
cold stream cannot be supplied more heat than is available in the heat source. This is known as the heat
balance constraint. The third constraint has to do with heat transfer capacity of the HX, which could become
limiting because at flow rates below design, U, LMTD, and Ft all fall, and the multiplicative effect of the
combined reduction could over-ride the reduced requirement for Q.
While the Case 3 configuration shown in Figure 13 may give the lowest operating cost, it should be
recognized that the capital cost of this design will be higher than that of Case 1. Suppose we are faced
with a Case 1 configuration. What can be done to minimize operating cost at minimal expense of capital cost?
A possible solution is illustrated in Figure 15.
The basic principle is to introduce a new degree of freedom by adding a new LP supply connection,
and blend LP steam with HP steam through an ejector. The discharge pressure from the ejector will be an
intermediate value between that of LP steam and HP steam. The cost savings derive from the fact that
some of the HP steam is substituted with LP steam. Some additional capital will be required for an ejector
and for additional process controls, but it would be substantially less than adding a new LP steam heater.
Figure 15: Energy Cost of Alternative Process Heating Sequences
3.2 Single Process Stream Heated in Network of Parallel HX Trains

Flow rates in many Saudi Aramco facilities are so big that it is not possible to build single- train equipment
large enough to accomplish the desired heat transfer. In these situations, banks of parallel heat exchangers
are used, as illustrated in Figure 16.
What is the optimum load management policy when the actual flow rate is less than design? Should we
reduce all flows equally, or should we valve off some of the HX and run the rest at closer to design capacity?
The two options are compared in Table 3.
Page 26 of 84
Figure 16: Process Heating in Parallel HX Trains
Page 27 of 84
Table 3: Comparison of Operating Policies for Process Heating in Parallel
Page 22 of 74
What is very interesting is that even though the heat transfer duty on the inter-changer goes down
substantially at lower operating rates, the feed outlet temperature stays about the same. This is not an
0.2
aberration; but has a theoretical basis: LMTD is roughly proportional to r , where r = actual throughput
design throughput. Thus LMTD remains substantially constant over the normal range of operating rates. A
50% reduction in throughout will cause LMTD to suffer only a 13% decrease. As LMTD falls, the feed
outlet temperature rises, and steam requirement per unit of feed flow goes down. This observation is
generically true.
The simulation results show that it is better to run the network with all units, although the difference is
very slight. This is based on the assumption that lower velocities will not result in increased fouling rates (per
Figure 9). However, if the lower velocities at reduced operating rates cause the HX to fall into the fouling
zone, then it would be better to run the network with fewer trains, and accept the small increase in steam
costs. The model should check that HX duty q = M.Cp.(T1-T2) is q = U.A.CMTD, as this constraint cannot
be violated.
What the simulation model also shows is that a very small energy cost penalty (< 1%) is incurred if the
plant elects to shut down one train (during low-rate operation) for HX cleaning or repair while the rest of the
trains pick up the slack.
Page 27 of 84
3.3 Avoid Un-Necessary Heating

Sometimes, it is possible to save steam load merely by looking at the overall process scheme to identify
opportunities for avoiding steam use in the first place. Most process units are designed to be self-
contained, with storage tanks in between them to provide surge capacity for intermediate products.
Figure 17: Bypass Line Avoids Un-Necessary Heating & Cooling
Typically, the intermediate product from process A must be cooled before storage, both to prevent
material loss due to evaporation, as well as consequent environmental emissions. Typically this
intermediate product must then be reheated before it is fed to process B. Once we recognize the inter-
relationship, it becomes obvious that both heating and cooling duties could be eliminated (or at least
minimized) by by-passing the intermediate storage tank during regular operation, and using it only to
compensate for flow imbalances between the operating rates of processes A and B.
Page 28 of 84
4.0 Process Cooling Trains
Load management policies for process coolers follow the same general rules as for process heaters.
4.1 Single Process Stream Cooled in Series

Three examples of alternative cooling sequences are illustrated in Figure 18, each of which has a different
energy cost as shown in Table 4.
Figure 18: Alternative Sequences for Process Cooling in Series
Page 29 of 84
Table 4: Energy Cost of Alternative Process Cooling Sequences
In case 1, all cooling is done with refrigerant, at a cost of $34.9 per hour. In case 2, a significant
portion of the cooling duty has been shifted to lower cost air cooling, for a total cost of only $14.9 per hour.
Process-process heat recovery, while it can reduce total utility cooling duty, does not reduce costs
significantly, because all the saving occurs in low-cost air-cooling duty. Therefore Case 2 will in all
likelihood have better economics than Cases 3a and 3b. The key optimization parameter here would be
the outlet temperature from the air cooler (120F in the example). All efforts should be made to
minimize this temperature. The appropriate operating policy whenever refrigerant is being used would
therefore include some or all of the following:
Run all the air-cooler (fin-fans) at full speed all the time
Clean the fin-fans frequently to maintain high U (must set up a monitoring program)
Use water spray on fin-fans to boost heat transfer capacity through evaporative cooling. Water
quality must be very high, though, to prevent scale formation and/or corrosion. Cooled boiler
blowdown may a suitable candidate for this application.
It would be a mistake to control the air-cooler outlet temperature to some set design value by cutting back on
the fans.
Depending on the economics, it might also be worth introducing another degree of freedom, e.g., cooling
water as an additional utility to off-load the refrigerant duty.
The best way to determine the optimum load management strategy is to construct a simulation model for each
application as illustrated in Table 4, and focus on optimizing the operating parameters that have the greatest
impact on energy total cost.
Page 30 of 84
4.2 Single Process Stream Cooled in Network of Parallel HX Trains

The general procedure for determining the optimum operating policy for cooling trains in parallel is the
same as described for heating trains. The simulation results for the network of parallel cooling trains shown
in Figure 19 are presented in Table 5, for the following data:
Observe that the previous conclusion about running all trains in preference to fewer trains is no longer
correct. The previous conclusion is valid only if the utility cost is a continuous function of capacity; eg
for steam, for which the cost per MMBtu is constant within narrow bands. In the case of air cooled (fin-
fan) HX that is generally not so. Air coolers are usually equipped with fixed speed fans which can be
either ON or OFF, so that a reduced cooling load does not automatically translate into power savings. Only
when the cooling load drops sufficiently, one of the fans in a fin-fan bank c a n be shut off. In other words,
fan power is a discrete (step-wise) function of cooling load.
Page 31 of 84
Figure 19: Process Cooling in Parallel HX Trains
For the selected design basis conditions, the optimum operating policy is:
It was determined by running the simulation model at various load factors, making sure that the actual
capacity of the heat exchangers never exceeds the maximum capacity.
In the illustrative example, the cold process stream is being heated against the product and fed directly to a
reactor. That may not always be feasible, and a trim heater (or flow bypass) for more precise temperature
control may be required.
If the air cooler motors were equipped with variable frequency drives, then it would be possible to modulate
the fan speed and reduce the air flow rates to exactly match the required duty. In such a case, the cost of
operating the air cooler would be more nearly a constant with respect to capacity, and we would have to do
the economics differently, as in Table 4, with the optimum operating policy probably also being different.
So the message is one can only determine the optimum load management policy by constructing a
simulation model that accurately reflects the actual capabilities and operating characteristics of the
equipment in the field. Generalizations can be dangerously misleading.
Page 32 of 84
Table 5: Comparison of Operating Policies for Process Cooling in Parallel
What Table 5 demonstrates is that it is possible to save a significant portion (25%) of the power cost for
operating this cooling train if the number of trains being operated is adjusted accordingly to the load. The
actual savings potential versus flat out operation with all trains running all the time can be estimated using
historical data on the load profile, as illustrated in Figure 20 and Table 6.
Page 28 of 74
Flow Profile
4500
4000
3500
3000
Hours per year
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
200 240 280 320 360 400
Flow, MBD
Figure 20: Historical (12 month) Flow Profile of Stream Being Cooled
Table 6: Estimated Savings from Optimum Cooler Management
The potential savings in this case are not especially large, but they are FREE, requiring zero capital
investment, and are a substantial reduction (about 20%) compared to the base case power cost
when running with all four trains all the time. In the example shown, only flow rate variations have
been examined. In fact, many other parameters could also be varying, such as supply temperatures
of the product and cold process stream, U values (due to fouling), and of course, ambient
temperature. These additional complexities can be easily accommodated in a spreadsheet model; the
simulation approach remains the same.
Page 34 of 84
4.3 Multiple Process Streams Cooled with a Single Cooling Utility

This situation arises in cases where a cooling utility such as cooling water, sea water, or
refrigerant is used to cool multiple process steams in a network of HX some of which may be in
series and others in parallel, as illustrated in Figure 21.
Figure 21: Cooling Water Circuit with Series-Parallel HEN
The optimum distribution of LMTD in each cooler occurs when the coolant flow is controlled to
achieve the desired target temperature of the hot process stream, which minimizes the power
consumption of the cooling water circulation pumps [Ref. Kumana, A Pre-Design Strategy
for Selecting Near-Optimum Cooling Water Flow Rates, AIChE Symposium Series
no. 236, Vol 80, (1984), pp 117-121].
Most often, all coolers are arranged in parallel, between the CW supplies and return headers. This is
usually not the optimum configuration. Some of the coolers should be in series with respect to coolant
flow. The correct cooler network structure (series/parallel arrangement and sequences) should be determined
by Pinch Analysis, and the appropriate piping modifications should be made to approach the optimum structure
as close as possible.
Observe in particular the location of the cooling water makeup and blowdown locations. The make-up must
be added at the point in the circuit where coolant temperature is lowest, and the blowdown should be taken
from the point in the circuit where the coolant temperature is highest. Usually these are reversed, for
mechanical convenience, by vendors and contractors who neither understand nor care about operating
efficiency.
Page 40 of 74
4.4 Avoid Un-Necessary Cooling

See Section 3.3.
4.5 Load Shedding versus Process Modifications

Power consumption can also be reduced by minimizing the required discharge pressure. For example most
Aramco compressors have a fin-fan cooler in their discharge line, whose cooling capacity varies with
ambient temperature. One of the power conservation strategies used by the operators is to shed power load
on the fans during cooler weather (a laudable attempt at thermal load management) once the temperature
set point downstream of the cooler is being met. However, maintaining a constant condenser temperature
is the wrong control objective if the compressor discharge stream is going to a condenser, because the
required pressure for condensation is not constant but varies with ambient temperature. In such cases,
even greater power savings could be obtained by following a different operating policy viz. to maximize
the fin-fan cooling capacity but save even more power by minimizing the discharge pressure (and therefore
the compression ratio). A suggested control scheme is shown in Figure 22, with the supporting calculations
presented in Table 7.
Figure 22: Power Conservation by Minimizing Compressor Discharge Pressure
Page 40 of 74
The tricky part is being able to determine when exactly we have achieved total condensation, something very
difficult to do. The proposed solution is to have two condensers in series. The main condenser would
condense only about 90-95% of the vapor, and the vent condenser would condense the balance. The
control system would be set up to maintain a fixed flow ratio in the range from 10:1 to 20:1 between the
main flow and the vent flow.
Table 7: Shedding Fan Load vs Minimizing Compression Ratio
The required discharge pressure in Case 2 is found by successive iteration until the calculated condenser
surface area for cases 1 and 2 are identical.
Although process modifications cannot strictly be classified as Load Management, the subject has been
presented here because it is a way to introduce new degrees of freedom that enable optimal load allocation
between the different energy consumers in the overall system.
Page 40 of 74
5.0 Heat Exchanger Networks
Process heating and cooling seldom occurs in isolation. Invariably, heating and cooling loads are interlinked
though the heat and material balance. Even the simplified examples in sections
3.2 and 3.3 featured both heating and cooling.
In this section we are going to focus on how to optimize operating loads in more complex Heat Exchanger
Networks (HENs), that are typical of oil, gas and petrochemical processes.
5.1 Simple HEN with HX, Heating and Cooling

Consider the simple HEN shown below.
Figure 23: Example of Simple HEN
The following design data are given, with the flow rate and feed supply temperature known to deviate
significantly from design. What should the optimum operating policy be when these two parameters
(identified as green-shaded cells) vary over their typical range of values?
Page 40 of 74
Once again, we take the simulation approach, and work out what the performance of the HEN would be
under various scenarios. Once we understand the response of the HEN to the expected deviations from
design conditions, it becomes possible to determine the optimum load management policy that gives the
lowest operating cost.
Table 8: Simulation Results for Simple HEN Flow Deviation Only
Page 40 of 74
What if the operation involves a change in both the feed rate and the feed temperature, as shown below?
The model structure would still be the same, but the optimum set points for operation would be different, as
illustrated in Table 9.
Table 9: Simulation Results for Simple HEN Combined Flow and Temp Deviations
Page 40 of 74
The simulation models are not difficult to develop, but the following points should be noted:
For the Design Case

(a) The exchanger minimum approach temperature EMAT is selected to be identical to the minimum
approach temperature for the entire network (often referred to as the heat recovery approach
temperature, or HRAT). HRAT is normally determined using the optimization algorithm of Pinch
Analysis; in this case it is given to be 20F. Once EMAT is specified, the terminal temperatures for
all HX can be calculated.
(b) For the sake of consistent simulation results, the area of the HX must be adjusted iteratively
until the required U matches the available U.
(c) For convenience of simulation, exchangers number 1 and 4 have been specified as true
counter-flow (1-1 shell & tube) configuration, with Ft = 1. In reality they would probably be
either 1-2 or 2-4 configurations, with 0.75 < Ft < 1. The HX effectiveness formulas, in terms of R
and N, would have to be modified accordingly.
For the Operating Case Simulation

(a) The HX areas have to be the same as those for the design case
(b) HX inlet temperatures are known from the process requirement. Outlet temperatures can be
calculated from the effectiveness factor, viz.
T2 = T1 (T1 t1), and t2 = t1 + R(T1 t1)
Note that for steam heaters, R = 0, = 1 exp(-NTU), and t2 = t1 + (TS t1)
(c) There is one drawback of calculating terminal temperatures in this way to prevent circular
references in the algorithm, the hot and cold stream flow rates are required as input data. In the
case of process streams this is generally not a problem, as they are known from the material
balance. In the case of utility streams, however, eg. cooling water, this algorithm does not
accurately represent the way the process is operated. Normally, for utilities, the objective is to
minimize the flowrate required to achieve a particular terminal temperature for the process
stream being heated or cooled, and that is how the control loop is set up. Therefore, instead of
specifying utility stream flow, we should specify the EMAT for each exchanger. We then need to
go through an iterative trial and error procedure to ensure that the specified EMAT values result
in terminal temperatures and heat transfer duties consistent with the HX size and the expected
U values at the new (off-design) operating conditions. The iteration stops when the required U
and available U agree within the specified tolerance limits.
(d) Flow rates for the heating and cooling utilities are calculated from the heat balance.
Page 40 of 74
The simulation models tell us that if we change the set points of the HX control loops to achieve the
indicated terminal temperatures and duties, then the energy cost of operating the HEN will drop from $332/h
to $238/h, a saving of 28% in utility costs in Case A and a saving of 26.5% in Case B. The control logic for
the steam heaters should be as shown in Figure 14. The recommended control logic for the trim cooler is
presented in Figure 24.
Figure 24: Recommended Control Strategy for Trim Cooler
Page 40 of 74
5.2 Complex HENs

The spreadsheet-based simulation approach illustrated in section 5.1 can be extended to much more
complex networks, and has in fact been successfully applied to several process units in oil refining CDU,
NHT, CCR, Isomerization, etc. as well as gas processing plants.
Figure 25: Simplified Flowsheet of NHT Plant
The spreadsheet simulation model for the NHT process (as designed) is shown in Table 10.
Observe that the actual (operating) U values, even for the base case scenario, are significantly lower than the
expected clean U values, almost by an order of magnitude. Why such a huge discrepancy? The reason is that
most EPC contractors tend to use overly conservative fouling factors, which result in excessive heat transfer
area. The fact that actual U values are so low indicates that both shell and tube side the velocities are
extremely low, under which conditions rapid fouling is much more likely. Therefore the exchangers will
have to be cleaned more frequently, defeating the purpose of choosing a high fouling allowance to begin
with. What we need to do is check the shell and tube side velocities for each application, and determine
where the HX operation falls on the fouling threshold chart (see Figure 10). Normally the velocities should
be in the range of 3-10 ft /sec.
Page 40 of 74
Table 10: Simulation Model of HEN for NHT Process (Design Case)
Page 40 of 74
A detailed HX simulation (as opposed to HEN simulation) should also be done for each HX, as illustrated in
Table 11 and Figure 26. From this analysis, it is possible to determine what mechanical modifications,
e.g. adding another tube-side pass, adding a longitudinal shell-side baffle (conversion from E-shell to
F-shell configuration), etc, would be most practical to achieve the desired performance.
Table 11: Simulation Model for Shell & Tube Heat Exchanger
Page 40 of 74
To assess maximum heat transfer capacity of the HX, adjust the duty until the available fouling factor is
approximately 0.0005 (generally between 0.0003 and 0.001).
To goal of making such mechanical modifications is to get additional heat transfer capacity from the HX,
and thereby to achieve better overall heat recovery in the HEN.
HX Temp Profile
160
150
140
130
Temp, F
120
110
100
90
Hot Stream
80 Cold Stream
70
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Q, MMBtu/h
Figure 26: Overall Temperature Profile for Simulated HX Operation
Although all the HEN simulation models of Saudi Aramco plants have thus far been developed internally from
scratch, it is possible to purchase commercial software programs that automate much of the work. One is
Persimmon , that provides a convenient ready-made Excel inter- face for general HEN simulation as well
as some advanced features such as a module for determining optimum HX cleaning schedules. This
software has been extensively used in the oil refining and petrochemical industries, and is available from
Veritech Energy, Virginia, USA. Also, a suite of inter-related programs that include Integrity and Express,
are available from ESDU International plc, London, UK. [Note: Software names have been mentioned here
for the readers convenience only, and should not be construed as a commercial endorsement.]
A very useful tool for assessing whether the pinch HX is in the network is the Driving Force Plot, as in
Figure 27. If the actual temp profile of the HX is far from the ideal driving force profile, the HX is
wasting temperature gradient. If the available temperature gradient within the HX is significantly less than
the ideal, then that HX is the one limiting the heat transfer capability of the HEN. To get improved
performance from the HEN, some corrective action in terms of piping modifications or addition of more
surface area will be required.
Another useful tool is the Exchanger Response (or Sensitivity) Plot, illustrated in Figure 28.
Page 40 of 74
Poor Alignment
Good Alignment
Figure 27: Sample Driving Force Plot from Integrity

Figure 28: Sample Exchanger Response Plot from Express

Page 47 of 84
Unfortunately, the problem of optimum operation of existing HENs has received very little attention
from research scholars, and there is a dearth of published material on the subject. Only four relevant papers
were found after conducting an exhaustive literature search:
K. Li and B. Niemeyer, Optimal Operation of HENs Under Uncertainty, Int J of Heat Exchrs, vol V
(2004), pp 79-94.
B. Glemmestad, S. Skogestad and T. Gundersen, Optimal Operation of HENs, Computers & Chem Eng, vol
23 (1999) pp 509-522.
N. G. Brancaccio, G. T. Polley and B. L Pretty, Spreadsheet Modeling of HENs using Effectiveness-NTU

Method, NPRA Computer Conference, Atlanta, GA (Nov 11-13, 1996).
R. Ratnam and V. S. Patwardhan, Sensitivity Analysis of HENs, Chem Eng Sci, vol 46, no 2 (1991), pp
451-458.
The general consensus seems to be that a two-step approach is best:
(a) Set up the model to determine the optimum temperature set-points for HEN control, with the
objective of minimizing total utility cost.
(b) Run the model periodically with updated process flow and inlet temperature data, say every 4-8
hours, and adjust the set points accordingly.
5.3 HEN Operability Considerations and Constraints

HEN operability depends not only on the design structure (ie. if the matches make effective use of the
available heat and temperature gradients), but also on parametric changes that are unavoidable in practice. In
all cases, the problem can be thought of as due to a mismatch between process requirement and equipment
capability/performance.
A HX may be improperly sized for its duty either because it was incorrectly designed for the specified
service to begin with, or because the actual operating conditions (flow rates, temperatures, heat transfer
coefficients) have deviated from expected design conditions. The consequences of undersized HX are
generally well known, but the pitfalls of over-sized HX are often not recognized.
2
Consider the simple system shown in Figure 29. Exchanger E-1 requires 1622 ft in order to achieve the
2
necessary duty. However, it has been oversized by 10% and 1785 ft have been installed. Similarly
2 2
exchanger E-2, which requires 5155 ft , has also been oversized by 10% with 5671 ft . Detailed simulation
results are summarized in Table 11.
The result of over-sizing E-1 means that it performs better than expected. So, the cold stream leaves the unit at
280F rather than the targeted value of 277F. Since, this does not have a detrimental effect upon the process
downstream of the unit this over-performance would not normally draw attention.
Page 48 of 84
Figure 29: Network Performance with Over-sized HX
Note: Blue font = specified data, black font = calculated

values 10% excess area for E-1 and E-2, no excess area for
steam heater H.
Table 12: Simulation Results for HEN of Exhibit 5-9
However, the hot stream leaves the unit at a temperature of 253F rather than the expected value of 259F.
This reduces the available temperature driving force in E-2 to below that used for design, and results in less
heat recovery than expected for this unit. The cold stream now leaves the E-2 at 210F rather than the
expected 212F. The shortfall in performance occurs despite the exchanger actually being over-sized by 10%,
and has two negative consequences
(a) energy penalty of 0.4 MMBtu/h, and (b) failure to meet the target cold stream temperature of 300F. One
could argue that the target temperature could be achieved by adding more surface area to the heater as
well, but that is additional investment for no energy benefit. A possible solution to avoiding the energy
2
penalty is to add 690 ft more surface area to E-2. We now have traded off a capital cost penalty for an energy
2
penalty. Observe that we would have to add 690 ft more area over and above the 10% over-size already built
2
into the design, for a total of 1205 ft extra (i.e., 23% over-sized). This is more than 7 sq ft extra in E-2 for
each sq ft of excess area in E-1.
Page 49 of 84
The proper solution to this problem is to recognize that E-1 is over-performing, and operate a bypass around
it in order to restore the temperature driving force on E-2. These insights cannot be obtained without a
thorough analysis, as illustrated above. This example further demonstrates that in order to employ effective
Heat Load Management, the control system must be designed properly as well, and adequate instrumentation
must be provided.
An important principle for understanding the performance of HENs is the propagation of disturbances.
Recall that the increase in area of E-1 resulted in a disturbance to temperatures at which both hot and cold
streams left the exchanger, and in turn affecting the performance of E-2 located downstream. Reduced heat
transfer in E-2 caused the temperature of the cold stream leaving it to fall, thereby increasing the required
duty on the heater positioned downstream of E-2. Note that both disturbances only affected equipment
that was located downstream along the paths defined by the individual streams and the heat recovery
exchangers (Figure 30).
Now consider what would have happened if the temperature at which the cold stream entered E-2 had been
disturbed (see Figure 31). This disturbance affects the temperature at which the cold stream leaves E-2 and
enters the heater positioned downstream. It also affects the temperature at which the hot stream involved in
the match leaves the exchanger. Given the network structure, it cannot possibly affect the temperature of
the hot stream entering E-2. In short, the disturbance cannot move upstream.
The principle is simple, but general: disturbances can only propagate downstream.
Figure 30: Propagation of Disturbances along Downstream Paths
Page 50 of 84
Figure 31: Propagation of Disturbances along Downstream Paths
The concept of downstream paths though simple is very powerful. For instance, if one process stream
is known to be subject to large disturbances and another stream needs to have a closely controlled
temperature, the designer can prevent control problems by simply ensuring that the sensitive stream is not
on a path downstream of the variable stream. If it is known that one particular exchanger is the subject of
severe fouling but some others in the system are not, then the effects of that fouling on the overall system
can be compensated for by installing extra area to clean exchangers that are on the same path as the dirty
one. The exchanger that is subject to fouling can then be designed with the objective of minimizing the
fouling within it rather than adding extra area to the unit (with resultant lower velocity and higher
fouling), which is the normal practice.
The concept of downstream paths is particularly relevant for Load Management in HENs. The
opportunities for exploiting changes in operating conditions of a given HX only exist along thermal paths
downstream of that location.
The real parameters of significance for developing an optimum HEN load management strategy are not the
unique target temperatures for streams, but the maximum and minimum allowable temperatures. The target
temperatures are useful the plant design; the allowable bounds are useful for heat load management. During
plant operation it is normal to find that the actual process temperature differs from the original target
(design) temperature. It is the relationship between actual temperature and the bounds that is important. For
instance, in the HEN of Exhibit 5-8, rather than simply compensate for the over-performance of E-1 relative
to the design target, the operator can exploit the flexibility inherent in the HEN by operating a bypass
around E-1 such that both the outlet temperatures are close to their optimum values, and result in minimum
steam use.
Page 51 of 84
6.0 Boilers
Almost all industrial plants use steam as the principal energy source for process heating. However,
boilers should not be seen as islands, but merely as one of the components of the overall utility system, also
known as the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system for the facility. Normally, a plant CHP system has
multiple boilers, which may or may not be of equal capacity and operating pressure, and may or may not
use the same fuel or operate at the same efficiencies. Furthermore, some of the process steam may be
generated in Waste Heat Boilers (unfired heat exchangers), while some might be generated in Heat
Recovery Steam Generators (HRSGs) associated with a gas turbine. Also HRSGs can be either supplementary
fired or unfired. Both HRSGs and WHBs are part of the plant CHP system. Although their mechanical
designs are radically different, functionally they are both identical to boilers.
This manual is focused on the predominant type of boilers used in Saudi Aramco plants, viz. natural-
circulation oil- and gas-fired water-tube industrial boilers. Operating pressures of modern boilers can
range from 150 to 1800 psig, with 150 psig and 600 psig being the most common within the company.
However, most of the load management principles described and recommendations made in this manual will
apply to other types of boilers as well, including smaller fire-tube boilers used in lower pressure applications
such as HVAC.
6.1 Boiler Sparing Philosophy for Optimum Reliability

Most industrial plants have multiple boilers, for two reasons. One is that the plant may have a steam demand
that is larger than the maximum practical size of an industrial boiler, which is around 1,000 Klb/h. Many
Saudi Aramco gas plants use much more than this amount. The other reason is to ensure improved reliability
of steam supply. Thus even in plants where the total steam demand could be comfortably supplied by one
boiler (eg. the refineries), it is common practice to operate multiple boilers, on the basis that if one of them
trips the other(s) can instantaneously pick up the slack and the main process continues to operate at full rate.
The policy of running more boilers than needed is expressed as N+, where N is the minimum number of
boilers required to supply the peak process steam demand, and is the number of extra boilers that are kept
in operation to provide instantaneous spare capacity in the event one of the boilers trips.
Some Saudi Aramco plants operate with an N+1 policy, while others follow an N+2 policy; but there is a
cost. When excess numbers of boilers are operated, the average steam generation rate for each boiler will be
significantly less than design, and the energy efficiency will be lower, as shown in Table 13.
The fact is that improved reliability can be achieved in a number of different ways, most of which do not
incur such a high energy cost penalty. An understanding of the factors that govern reliability of steam
supply to the process is therefore critical to the question of optimum load management policies. The crucial
issue is not how many boilers to operate as running spares, but whether adequate steam reserve is available
at all times to accommodate short- term process load swings.
Page 52 of 84
Figure 32: Typical Design of Field-erected Water-tube Boiler Fired with Clean Fuels
rd
Source: Singer, ed, Combustion: Fossil Power Systems, 3 ed, Combustion Engg Inc, Windsor, CT (1981), p8-
25
Page 53 of 84
Table 13: Comparison of Boiler Sparing Policies
Basis: Fuel cost = $1.25/MMBtu, Operating rate = 8760 h/yr
The Reliability of a boiler is usually measured in terms of an Availability Factor, defined as
Availability Factor = (Available On-stream hours) / (Total hours in the Period)
Another measure of reliability is also important:

ForcedOutage Hours
Forced Outage Rate (FOR) =
Service Hours ForcedOutage Hours
One of the ways to reduce the required steam reserve is to minimize process variability (cf. section 2.4).
Another is to develop a load-shedding program during upsets, when non-critical steam users (such as storage
tank coils, or even the de-aerator) can be temporarily shut off. A third might be to increase the amount of
steam generated in the process WHBs. A fourth option would be to keep the spare boiler on hot standby,
rather than full operation; this will enable rapid startup (within 20-30 min at most) to full rate in case one of
the boiler trips, during which time the plant can resort to load shedding or one of the other tactics. In the
worst case, production rate might have to be slowed down somewhat for a few minutes, which can be
easily made up as soon as the spare boiler is up and running; hardly a disaster.
In Table 13, notice the available steam reserve for the N+0 operating policy. It is equivalent to more than 2
full boilers. This is the type of analysis that should be done when determining the optimum boiler load
management policy.
The example cited assumes equal sized boilers at the same pressure and with the same energy efficiency
profiles. In such cases, a CHP model such as that described in section 6.4 can be a more effective analytical
tool.
Page 54 of 84
6.2 Load Allocation among Multiple Parallel Boilers

A common practice in many facilities is to distribute the steam load among the boilers equally on a prorated
basis. This practice is not optimal, and should be discontinued.
Best Practice depends upon the amount of reliable data available, and the sophistication of the control system.
One is load allocation by efficiency; the other is by least operating cost.
6.2.1 Load Allocation by Efficiency
This is the simpler of the two methods. It is close to optimal when the boilers use the same fuel, and have
a congruent efficiency profile. However, it could be far from optimal if these conditions do not hold. The
appropriate operating policy, when we have N parallel boilers using the same fuel and with efficiency
curves of the same shape is simple, and easy to implement:
Use the most efficient (N-1) boilers for base load, and
use the least efficient boiler for swing load.
Boiler Efficiency is non-linear with steam load. However, the fuel consumption varies quasi- linearly with
steam load (the fuel consumption is approximately linear with steam rate for boiler loads of 25% and
higher, with a quadratic multiplier at low steam rates). It is therefore much easier to obtain accurate
correlations, when attempting to determine boiler efficiency from field data, by plotting the total energy
(fuel + power) consumption versus steam rate rather than plotting efficiency versus steam rate. Figures 33
and 34 illustrate this point.
Boiler Efficiency Curve

100 100
90
80 80
70
Fuel, MMBtu/h
Boiler Eff, %
60 60
50
40 40
30
20 Fuel 20
Efficiency 10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Steam gen rate, % of design
Figure 33: Boiler Fuel Use and Efficiency versus Steam Rate
Source: Kumana, Correlation of typical boiler performance data (Saudi Aramco plants)
Page 55 of 84
Boiler Efficiency versus System Efficiency
Boiler efficiency is traditionally defined according to the ASME code, which considers
it to be the heat absorbed in the boiler (radiant and convection sections) for
converting boiler feedwater into steam, whether saturated or superheated, divided
by the amount of fuel energy supplied. Thus,
MassFlow Rate of Generated Steam x (HS h W )

Boiler Efficiency
Fuel Input
where HS = enthalpy of generated steam, Btu/lb

and hW = enthalpy of BFW entering the boiler, Btu/lb
Saudi Aramco practice, which follows the ASME boiler code, is to use the higher
heating value (HHV) for calculating fuel input, not the lower heating value (LHV).
Also, boiler efficiency is normally calculated by the energy balance (heat loss)
method; the equation presented above is intended only to illustrate the underlying
concept.
This traditional definition of boiler efficiency, while suitable for monitoring

equipment performance, is not appropriate for making operating decisions for
overall process-utility optimization. For that we need to use the system efficiency,
defined as under.
Let us define the following parameters:
E0 = Fuel Input = fuel flow rate x HHV

E1 = Energy absorbed by BFW for steam generation = S(HS
hW ) E2 = Energy supplied to the de-aerator(s) by parasitic
steam
E3 = Energy in steam used for BFW preheating prior to entering the de-
aerator E4 = Energy in steam used to preheat the BFW post DA but pre-
boiler
E5 = Energy in steam used to pre-heat combustion supply air
E6 = Electrical power consumed by combustion air supply (FD)
fans E7 = Electrical power consumed by induced draft (ID) fans
E8 = Electrical power for fuel gas compression (if any) or fuel oil
pumping E9 = Energy in steam used for fuel oil atomization (if any)
E10 = Energy in steam used for LPG vaporization (if
any) E11 = Energy in steam used for soot blowing
E12 = Electrical power for boiler house lighting and controls
Then the system energy efficiency is calculated as
E1
=
12
E i E
0
i2
Page 56 of 84
Although the boiler efficiency represents the dominant component of system

efficiency, for true optimization by the least-cost load allocation algorithm described
herein, it is the system energy efficiency that should be used.
Boiler Fuel Use at Turndown

1.12
1.1
2
y = 0.75x - 0.555x + 1.0995
1.08 2
R = 0.9991
Fuel multiplier
1.06
1.04
1.02
0.98
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
% Boiler load
Figure 34: Effect of Turndown on Boiler Fuel Consumption

Source: Kumana, Correlation of empirical boiler performance data (USA)
Page 51 of 74
6.2.2 Load Allocation by Least Cost
The current state of the art technique for boiler load allocation when using different fuels for
different boilers (some could even be dual-fueled) is the least cost algorithm per Figure 35,
which develops a bias signal to raise or lower the firing rate.
Figure 35: Load Allocation Algorithm based on Least Cost
Source: Dukelow, The Control of Boilers, ISA Press (1986), p101
Page 51 of 74
The computations for load allocation signals include all operating costs fuel consumption, unit fuel
cost, and any special factors (such as O&M differentials). The boiler with the highest efficiency may not
be the best one for adding incremental steam load; the correct policy is to load and unload the boilers at
the most favorable incremental rate.
Figure 36 demonstrates the logic of this approach. Assume that we have two boilers for which the
efficiency curves are known (Figure 36a). Boiler 1 efficiency is always higher than that of Boiler 2 at all
steam rates, which might lead us to conclude that Boiler 1 is always more economical than Boiler 2.
However, this may not be so. The fuel input vs steam output curves in Figure 36b clearly show that in this
case, the least cost load allocation policy for a boiler load range between 0% and 100% is actually as
follows:
Page 59 of 84
In order to implement such a policy, accurate data for each boiler is required to determine the slopes of the
efficiency curves, and this must then be converted into an optimum boiler load allocation policy as
illustrated above.
Figure 36: Effect of Turndown on Boiler Fuel Consumption
Page 52 of 74
6.3 Load Management of Boiler Auxiliaries

As mentioned earlier, a boiler actually consists of many sub-systems, each of which can be operated in
different ways, and which can have a significant effect on overall boiler efficiency.
6.3.1 Burners
In the past, the principal objective of good burner design was efficient combustion. New and increasingly
stringent environmental regulations have forced a consideration of NOx emissions to the environment as well.
Unfortunately there is usually a penalty associated with low NOx emissions. For example, a proven
technique for reducing NOx emissions is staging, where the primary combustion zone is deficient in
either the fuel or air, with the balance being injected into the secondary combustion zone downstream.
4
Staging reduces both fuel NOx and thermal NOx. However, because flux is roughly proportional to T , lower
flame temperatures also reduce the capacity of the radiant zone. Similarly the flue gas recirculation
approach to reducing NOx emissions increases the amount of power consumption.
Burners are most commonly classified according to the method of fuel-air mixing diffusion, pre-mixed,
and staged. However, they may also be classified according to location floor burners, roof burners, and
wall burners.
The keys to efficient burner operation are to (a) accurately control the air-to-fuel ratio (see Figure 37),
and (b) make sure that the firing rate of each burner is within its operating range. An excellent discussion of
the parameters that govern burner efficiency is given by Khavkin (cf. section 1.4).
Extensive experience with oil and gas fired boilers has shown that it is imperative to achieve proper air
distribution to each burner to control flame shape, flame length, excess air ratio, and overall combustion
efficiency. Most existing boilers with older technology have burners with a turn-down ratio limited to 3:1, so
that when the boiler is operating significantly below design rates, the correct burner management policy is
to selectively shut down burners rather than attempt to reduce the firing rate equally to all burners. That
is why boilers usually come equipped with multiple burners (typically 2-8 for Saudi Aramco plants), to
provide relatively continuous turn-down capability. Equal load distribution overa ll operating burners gives
the best overall results [cf. Baukal, Combustion Handbook, p 564]. This requires independent flow control of
both fuel and air, as shown in Figure 38.
There is an optimum pattern to shutting down burners when steam generation rate is reduced, and restarting
burners when the steam generation rate is increased. This pattern depends on the location of the burners in
relation to the radiant section tubes. This operating procedure is normally specified by the boiler manufacturer,
and should be followed exactly. When burners are loaded properly, the flames will be very similar in
appearance, as in Figure 39.
Newer burner technology is now available that offers improved operating turndown ratios of up to 10:1, while
maintaining flame stability and low NOx emissions. For boilers equipped with these new burners, the best
operating policy would be possible to keep all burners running (ie. no selective shut-downs) but continue to
distribute the load evenly to all.
Page 61 of 84
Figure 37: Excess Air versus Boiler Load, Typical Curve
Table 14: Heating Values and Stoichiometric Air Requirement for Common Fuels
* approximate
Page 62 of 84
Figure 38: Fuel and Air Distribution Control for Multi-Burner Boilers
Page 63 of 84
Figure 39: Flame Similarity with Good Burner Control
Source: Baukal, John Zink Combustion Handbook, CRC Press (2001), p566
Page 64 of 84
6.3.2 FD and ID Fans
The flow of air and combustion gases through a boiler is achieved by creating draft, defined as the pressure
difference between the flue gases in the furnace section and the atmosphere by one of four methods natural
draft, forced draft, induced draft, or balanced draft. In modern boilers natural draft and induced draft are not
commonly used. In a forced draft system, the fan is on the combustion air supply; in balanced draft
systems, there is an additional induced draft fan is on the hot flue gas at the boiler outlet just prior to
the stack. The furnace is maintained at 0.05-0.10 inches of water (gauge) below atmospheric pressure. The
balanced draft system is standard for modern designs, except for package boilers which use forced draft.
Typically, boiler has its own set of fans (Figure 40a). During turndown operation, therefore, the combustion
air supply from the FD fan has to be regulated with a damper, forcing it to operate at lower than optimum
efficiency. An alternative scheme that minimizes pressure loss across the damper is illustrated in Figure 40b.
The feasibility of such an arrangement depends to a large extent on the physical location of the boilers. If
they are too far apart, it may not be cost-effective to install the required new ductwork for the discharge
header. The analysis, therefore, must be done on a case-by-case basis. An illustrative example is presented in
Figure 41 and Table 15.
Figure 40: FD Fan Load Management: (a) 3 running; (b) 2 running
Page 65 of 84
Figure 41: Typical Fan Performance Curves
Table 15: Estimation of Savings from FD Fan Load Management
Basis: $32/MWH for power, and 8600 h/yr of operation
For ID fans, a similar load management policy would probably not be feasible, as installing a new flue gas
header is unlikely to be practical.
Page 66 of 84
6.3.3 Feedwater Pumps
The analysis procedure for load management of boiler feedwater pumps is identical. Once again, a new
discharge header will be needed, as illustrated in Figure 42.
Figure 42: BFW Pumps Load Management: (a) 3 running; (b) 2 running
6.4 Steam Balance Optimization

As noted earlier, the ultimate goal of boiler load management is to minimize total utility operating
cost, taking appropriate credit for condensate return rates and temperatures, steam generation from process
WHBs and HRSGs, and power generation from steam and gas turbines. The best way to properly
account for the complex non-linear interactions between the various parameters is to construct a CHP system
model.
Using such a model, one can easily compare alternative operating policies to meet various process steam
and power demand scenarios, and determine the one that will provide the lowest total operating cost
while still meeting all process requirements and equipment constraints. Three alternative scenarios are
evaluated in Figures 43 through 45.
Page 67 of 84
Figure 43: Refinery Steam Balance with Gas Turbines running at Full Capacity
Page 60 of 84
Figure 44: Refinery Steam Balance with Gas Turbines Off, and Boilers Equally Loaded
Page 61 of 84
Figure 45: Refinery Steam Balance with Gas Turbines Off, and Boilers Optimally Loaded
Page 62 of 84
Plant process steam and power requirements are fixed in all cases:
300 Klb/h HP steam, 125 Klb/h MP steam, 75 Klb/h LP steam, and 37 MW.
In scenario 1, all three gas turbines (GTs) are running at their full capacity of 20 MW each, and the HRSGs are
being run without supplementary firing. This leaves only 54 Klb/h of steam deficit, which is made up by
running Boiler #4. Boilers #1 and 2 are kept on hot standby.
In scenario 2a, the gas turbines are all off, and all steam comes from boilers no. 2 and 4, loaded equally
(85% of design capacity). In scenario 2b, the GTs are again off, but Boiler #4 (high efficiency) is loaded
fully, while Boiler #2 (low efficiency) is loaded only 66%. The only difference between scenarios 2a and 2b
is the boiler load allocation. The savings are seen to be about $90,000 per year. While they may represent
only 0.5% of the total site energy bill, they can be achieved at zero capital expense purely by optimal load
management.
Table 16: Comparison of CHP Scenarios
Page 63 of 84
7.0 Fired Heaters
Fired heaters are used for direct process heating, as opposed to steam generation for indirect process heating.
The reason for using them is that they are able to deliver very high process temperatures typically required
in oil refining processes that are beyond the capability of steam. Normally each fired heater is dedicated
to a particular process heating duty, and it is very rare to see more than two fired heaters in parallel for the
same process duty. If a process duty is too small to justify its own fired heater, a fired heater could be
used to heat up a circulating hot oil loop, which would typically serve several such small high-temp duties;
this is a form of load sharing between one heater and multiple process duties.
Table 17: Principal Fired Heater Applications in Oil Refining
The mechanical design of fired heaters is also very different from that of steam boilers. The process fluid is
always inside the tubes; natural draft is the most common type.
Figure 46: Schematic of a Typical Process Heater

Page 64 of 84
Many different mechanical arrangements are used, one of the principal considerations being prevention of
damage to the tubes and refractory linings at the high temperatures prevalent in the fire-box. An additional
concern is fouling inside the tubes due to coking.
Figure 47: Common Mechanical Configurations of Fired Heaters

7.1 Heater Sparing Philosophy

Normal practice is to have a single heater for each process train, primarily because the reliability of
fired heaters is very high, with typical run times of 2-4 years between major shutdowns for repair and
refurbishment. Maintaining an idle spare on hot standby is simply not done, because it is not economically
warranted.
Page 65 of 84
7.2 Load Allocation among Parallel Heaters

The issue of load allocation among two or more parallel heaters in a single train seldom arises. When it does,
however, the recommended policy is to manage load on the basis of heater efficiency, operating the high-
efficiency heaters for base load, and the lower efficiency heater for swing load. The least cost operating
policy recommended for boilers (cf. section 6.2) usually does not apply because the heaters are invariably
the same size and type, use the same fuel, and have similar efficiency curve shapes (slopes).
7.3 Load Allocation in Hot Oil Loops
7.3.1 Multiple Loads, Single Heater
Hot oil loops are normally used only in oil refineries and GOSPs. However, in remote desert areas where
low-cost water supply is not available, they could be a viable alternative to steam boilers as well (eg., Haradh
Gas Plant).
Figure 48: Optimum Flow Distribution for Hot Oil Loops
This situation is similar to that for Cooling Water loops (section 4.3). The optimum distribution of LMTD in
each process heater occurs when the hot oil flow is controlled to achieve the desired target temperature of
the hot process stream, which minimizes the power consumption of the circulation pumps. The process duties
are usually arranged in parallel, which is often not the optimum configuration. The optimum network
structure (series/parallel arrangement and sequences) should be determined by Pinch Analysis, and the
appropriate piping and control system modifications should be made to approach the optimum design as
closely as possible.
Page 66 of 84
7.3.2 Multiple Loads, Multiple Heaters
This situation is less common, but does occur, eg. Safaniya Onshore Plants. The basic principles and
engineering approach are best illustrated with an example. Consider the case where there are three desalter
trains at a GOSP two for Arab Heavy crude, and one for Arab Medium crude. All trains were built at
different times, so the designs are not identical. The design includes some process-process heat recovery,
with the remaining feed heating duty being provided by dedicated hot oil loops. The heating load is a
function of flow rate, water cut, and supply temperature from the wells, all of which vary with time.
Figure 49: Existing Process and Heater Configuration
Step one is to collect PI data for these variables and determine the heat load profile over 1 full year (Figure
50).
Page 67 of 84
Heat Load Distribution Profile

120
100
80
Days per year
60
40
20
0
250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Total Process Heating Duty, MMBtu/h
Figure 50: Process Heating Duty Histogram
Next, we evaluate the potential savings that can be realized through two complementary load
management strategies - load sharing and load shifting strategies. The basic idea of load sharing is
to see if we can distribute the total process load among the available heaters in a way that
minimizes operating cost. If the different trains are not interconnected on the utility side, then such
jumpover pipes with appropriate controls must be added. This will effectively create a single hot oil
supply system, and provide the flexibility to supply process needs from any one of the operating
heaters. Figure 51 illustrates the piping modifications and additional equipment required for both
strategies. The red lines in represent the new jumpover piping. The green dashed box represents the
changes to the utility (CHP) system required to introduce additional degrees of freedom for load
shifting.
Sample calculations for potential savings from load sharing are presented in Table 18 and 19. For
the sake of simplicity, only two time periods (e.g., summer & winter) have been considered. In
actual practice it would be necessary to perform these calculations for each period over the total
load range shown in Figure 50.
The load shifting approach was described earlier in section 3.1. The idea is to introduce a new heat
exchanger in series which can do a portion of heating duty with a lower cost utility, such as steam.
Typically the marginal cost of effective process heating with steam is about 75-85% that of hot oil,
depending on the steam pressure and the path that it follows through the CHP system. The more
significant benefit of having a steam heater in series, however, is that it can extend the range of
process throughput over which N fired heaters can be operated before starting up the N+1 th. Table
20 presents the estimated savings for this scenario, significantly higher than load sharing alone, though
not without some associated capital cost.
Finally, it should be noted that such a steam heater can be designed to be switchable between LP steam
and HP steam. This extends the run time between shutdowns for HX cleaning.
Page 68 of 84
Figure 51: Proposed Heater Configuration for Optimum Load Management
Table 18: Furnace Data
Page 69 of 84
Table 19: Savings Potential from Furnace Load Sharing Policy
Table 20: Savings Potential from Load Sharing plus Shifting
Page 70 of 84
7.4 Load Management of Furnace Auxiliaries

Auxiliary systems for fired heaters include burners, combustion air supply fans (always forced draft; ID fans
are not used because of high temperature), and fuel oil pumps.
7.3.3 Burners
The considerations for load management of burners described in section 6.3 for boilers applies for fired heaters
as well. The main difference is that burners in fired heaters tend to be smaller and more numerous (typically
12-24) than in boilers, mainly to provide more accurate control of the temperature profile in the firebox.
Table 21: Average Burner Number and Size in Fired Heaters
Source: Baukal, John Zink Combustion Handbook, CRC Press (2001), p 12
Table 22: Optimum Excess Air Ranges for Common Fuels
Table 23: Adiabatic Flame Temperatures for Various Fuels with 15% Excess Ambient Air
Source: Baukal, John Zink Combustion Handbook, CRC Press (2001), pp 45, 61
Page 71 of 84
One way to get higher temperatures in the fire box (radiant section) is through the use of fuel and air
preheating in the convection section of the furnace. The relationship between air supply temperature and
adiabatic flame can be directly and easily calculated from the combustion-side heat and material balance.
Higher temperatures in the fire box have the advantage of higher capacity due to better heat transfer driving
forces, as explained below. However, there are significant disadvantages and risks as well. One is that NOx
emissions increase exponentially with flame temperature. Coking rates also increase, though not
exponentially. The second more serious disadvantage is that if spot temperatures in the fire box exceed
allowable limits, the heater tubes could rupture, because the mechanical strength of metals drops off
sharply at high temperatures. Nevertheless, the air-preheat control scheme shown in Figure 53 offers an
opportunity to increase the capacity of the fired heater, at least on a short term basis. By enabling a furnace to
temporarily exceed its nominal design capacity, the need to start up a second furnace can be avoided.
The energy efficiency of the heater is also improved, as seen from Table 24. Maintaining the proper
distribution of fuel and air to each burner is critically important. See section 6.3.1, especially Figure 38.
Figure 52: Adiabatic Flame Temperature vs Air Preheat (for Stoichiometric Air)
Page 72 of 84
Figure 53: Furnace Capacity Control System Based on Combustion Air Preheat
Page 73 of 84
Table 24: Improved Furnace Efficiency with Combustion Air Preheat
Observe in Table 24 that when operating at lower than design capacity, no air preheating is needed, as the
required firebox temperature to accomplish the process heating duty is lower than would be obtained with
the design excess air ratio. In such a situation, the excess air ratio should be increased (to 20%, in this
example) in order to avoid exceeding the target process temperature (eg. to prevent fouling or evaporation).
7.3.4 Air Supply FD Fans
Normally only a single air supply fan is used for each heater. If there multiple heaters are located in close
proximity, however, the introduction of a header system similar to that shown in Figure 40 could open up
some opportunity for energy savings through load management. One has to be careful though that the
required air supply pressures and fan performance characteristics are compatible.
Page 74 of 84
7.3.5 Fuel Pumps
Normally, only a single fuel supply pump is used even for multiple parallel heaters (although with an
installed spare for emergencies), so the question of load management does not arise.
7.5 WHB Opportunities

Fired heaters typically have very low overall efficiencies, because the flue gas exhaust temperatures are much
higher than for steam boilers. This offers an opportunity for steam generation in a waste heat boiler
immediately downstream of the convection section of the heater, as illustrated in Figure 54. Although,
strictly this is more a HEN optimization (Pinch Analysis) issue than a load management issue, the two are
intimately related and cannot be divorced.
The addition of a WHB at the back end of a fired heater or thermal oxidizer (as in Claus sulfur plants)
introduces a new degree of freedom, and can have significant implications for load management of the
comprehensive CHP system, as described in Section 6.4.
Figure 54: Improved Furnace Efficiency by Addition of a WHB
Page 75 of 84
When the convection coil (or even an external HX) is used for steam generation as opposed to air preheating,
furnace efficiency can be maintained at a high level even under low process load conditions, because any heat
that is not absorbed by the process fluid will be recovered as steam, which in turn will help to back off boiler
fuel.
Revision Summary
12 March 2011 Reaffirmed the contents of the document, and reissued with editorial changes.
21 July 2013 Editorial revision to change document responsibility name from P&CSD/Energy Systems
Unit to P&CSD/Energy Systems Division.
31 January 2016 Minor revision to convert the naming of tables and charts from exhibits to table and figure.
Page 76 of 84

Sabp A 008 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sabp A 008 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Best Practice

SABP-A-008 28 February 2016

Load Management for Energy Efficiency:

Developed by: Energy Systems Division

Previous issue: 21 July 2013 Next Planned Update: TBD

CopyrightSaudi Aramco 2016. All rights reserved.

It is also important to note and understand what this manual is not:

It is not a text book on heat transfer theory.

1.3 Intended Users

1.4 Related Documents and References

Combustion System Design, Y. Khavkin, PennWell Books, Tulsa, OK (1996).

2.2 Principles and Concepts

Several general principles and strategies apply in all cases:

Minimize number of equipment items being operated in parallel (load sharing).

2.3 Degrees of Freedom

2.4 Process Variability

Figure 1 - Feed Rate Profile for Fractionation Plant

Boiler Steam Gen.

Figure 2 - Steam Demand Profile for Fractionation Plant

Table 1 - Savings Potential from Improved Process Stability

C3+ from BGP

Figure 3 - Correlation between Feed to Plant and Feed to Fractionation

Figure 4 - Example of Control Strategy Change to Improve Process Stability

2.5 Heat Exchanger Design and Simulation

transferred by a HX is given by the equation:

where q = heat transfer duty, MMBtu/h

1/U = 1/h1 + 1/h2

Figure 5 - Counter-current Temperature Profile

1-2+ 0.8037 1.208

4-8+ 0.991 0.0661

act ual heat t ransfer T of fluid with lower heat

= (t2-t1)/(T1-t1), if cold fluid heat capacity < hot fluid

= (T1-T2)/(T1-t1), if hot fluid heat capacity < cold fluid

1 expNTU .(1 Cmin / Cmax ) for true counter-current flow

where NTU = Number of Transfer Units = UA/Cmin Cmin

Figure 6: Stage-wise Construction Procedure for NTU

2.6 Fouling Monitoring & Mitigation

Figure 7: Experimental Measurement Fouling Rate (Field Data)

Figure 8: Predicted Fouling Rates for a Particular HX

Source: G. T. Polley, Saudi Aramco Course Notes , lecture 7 (July 2006)

Figure 9: Typical Composition of Fouling Deposits in Crude Oil Refineries

Figure 10: Fouling Threshold Plot

Figure 11: Hydro-blasting versus Foam Cleaning of Fin-Fan Coolers

(a) Before Cleaning

(b) After Foam Cleaning

Figure 12: Results of Foam Cleaning Before and After

Source: www.northernindustrialcleaners.com (2006)

3.0 Process Heating Trains

3.1 Single Process Stream Heated in Series

Figure 13: Alternative Sequences for Process Heating in Series

Table 2: Energy Cost of Alternative Process Heating Sequences

Figure 15: Energy Cost of Alternative Process Heating Sequences

3.2 Single Process Stream Heated in Network of Parallel HX Trains

Figure 16: Process Heating in Parallel HX Trains

Table 3: Comparison of Operating Policies for Process Heating in Parallel

3.3 Avoid Un-Necessary Heating

Figure 17: Bypass Line Avoids Un-Necessary Heating & Cooling

4.0 Process Cooling Trains

4.1 Single Process Stream Cooled in Series

Figure 18: Alternative Sequences for Process Cooling in Series

Table 4: Energy Cost of Alternative Process Cooling Sequences

4.2 Single Process Stream Cooled in Network of Parallel HX Trains

Figure 19: Process Cooling in Parallel HX Trains