Heat Transfer

Optimize Heat Exchanger Cleaning Schedules

Brendan R. ODonnell and Bruce A. Barna, Michigan Technological University Chris D. Gosling, UOP LLC

Evaluate the trade-offs between a one-time expenditure and reduced operating expenses, increased income, and/or longer operating life span.

C
56
www.aiche.org/cep/ June 2001

lassically, process optimization evaluates the trade-off of capital expenditure against reduced operating expenses. The standard approach involves an incremental analysis using a discounted cash-flow technique, such as net present value (NPV) or discounted cash-flow rate of return (DCFROR). However, this method is not applicable in all situations. For example, when determining an optimum cleaning schedule for heat exchangers, one must factor in that a one-time expenditure can lead to both a reduction in expenses and a change in the life of the project. This is also a good example of an optimization where expenses vary with time (unsteady state). In this case, incremental analysis is still required, but the discounted cash flow analyses will require the use of the equivalent uniform annual worth (EUAW) technique. This arti-

cle explains how to use the this technique to determine the optimum heat exchanger cleaning schedule.

The theory Consider a single bank of process exchangers, as shown in Figure 1. Assume that the target temperatures for both the hot and cold streams are such that any degradation in exchanger performance results in incremental utility consumption on trim heaters and coolers elsewhere in the plant. The equations associated with this system are:
QE100 = mcCpc(t2 t1) QE100 = mhCph(T2 T1) QE100 = UATlm (1) (2) (3)

CEP

Trim Cooler (E-102)

Nomenclature
Process Exchanger (E-100) A Cpc Cph k mc mh Q t t0 t1 t2 tf T1 T2 Tf Tlm U =process exchanger area, ft2 =heat capacity of cold stream, Btu/lbF =heat capacity of hot stream, Btu/lbF =fouling rate constant for degradation of U, yr1 =mass-ow rate of cold process stream, lb/h =mass-ow rate of hot process stream, lb/h =exchanger duty, Btu/h =time, yr (or mo) =initial time (year 0) =entering cold stream temperature, F =cold stream temperature exiting process exchanger, F =target temperature of cold stream, F =entering hot stream temperature, F =hot stream temperature exiting process exchanger, F =target temperature of hot stream, F =log mean temperature difference =[(T2 t1) (T1 t2)]/ln[(T2 t1)/ (T1 t2)], F =overall heat-transfer coefficient, Btu/ft2hF

Tf T2 mh , Cpc

T1

t1

mh , Cph

t2 tf
Trim Heater (E-101)

s Figure 1. Model heat exchanger system.

QE101 = mhCph(Tf T2) QE102 = mcCpc(tf t2)

(4) (5)

Note that any change in process duty due to fouling or cleaning results in a similar change in the duty for both trim exchangers. Thus: QE-100 = QE-101 = QE-102 (6)

minimum acceptable return (MAR); marginal hot utility cost; marginal cold utility cost; and direct and indirect cost of cleaning process exchanger.

Economic parameters The analysis requires an understanding of the loss in performance vs. time for the process exchanger due to fouling and of the incremental utility rates for the plant. The overall heat-transfer coefficient, U, can be tracked vs. time to indicate the loss in process exchanger performance as the heat exchanger fouls. Given the change in U, Eqs. 15 can be solved to arrive at the new process and trim duties. Although not required, it can be useful to model the degradation in U with time. A first-order degradation equation works quite well for many fouling situations:
dU/dt = kU or the integrated form: (7)

Finding an optimum schedule Using the decline of U over time, one can calculate the duty of the process exchanger from the end of year 0 to the end of years 1, 2, 3, and so on, by solving Eqs. 13 simultaneously. Because energy not recovered in the process exchanger must be made up in the trim exchangers, incremental increases in utility costs that result for each year of the analysis can also be calculated. Cleaning is a one-time expense, which is assumed to return U to its original (i.e., clean exchanger) value. Figure 2 plots U vs. time for various cleaning schedules.

100 90

U, Btu/ft2 hr F

ln(U/U0) = k(t t0) or: U = U0ekt

(8)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time, yr 6 7

Every 2 yr Every 5 yr

(9)

Every 10 yr

By fitting a limited amount of operating data to this equation, the required time vs. cost information can be calculated. This approach can also be used to integrate the performance over the year to more correctly determine annual costs. In addition to heat-transfer information, the following cost data are also needed:

10

s Figure 2. U vs. time for various cleaning schedules.

CEP

June 2001

www.aiche.org/cep/

57

Heat Transfer

Table 1. Data for model heat exchanger system. Hot Fluid: mh = 50,000 lb/h Cph = 0.5 Btu/lbF T1 = 600F T2(Clean) = 200F Cold Fluid: mc = 40,000 lb/h Cpc = 0.5 Btu/lbF t1 = 50F t2(Clean) = 550F Exchanger: UClean = 100 Btu/ft2hF A = 1,098 ft2 Economics: MAR = 20% DCF Tax Rate = 34% Hot utility cost = $5.00/MMBtu Cold utility cost = $0.50/MMBtu Operation time = 8,760 streamh/yr (100% service factor)

s Figure 3.
The fouling rate constant can be calculated from a U vs. time plot.
100

U , Btu/ft2 hr F
10 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time, yr 6 7 8 9 10 Table 2. Incremental utility increase for k = 0.1 yr1.

Year 0

Process Duty, QE100, MM Btu/h 10.00

Trim Duty, QE101, QE102 MM Btu/h 0.00 0.07 0.24 0.41 0.60 0.81 1.03 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.01

Incremental Hot Utility, $/yr 0 3,269 10,415 18,156 26,489 35,408 44,902 54,951 65,532 76,615 88,161

Incremental Cold Utility, $/yr 0 327 1,042 1,816 2,649 3,541 4,490 5,495 6,553 7,661 8,816

Cleaning changes the project life, or 1 9.93 analysis period, to the number of 2 9.76 years between cleanings. A cash 3 9.59 flow analysis is used to find incre4 9.40 mental increases in operating ex5 9.19 penses until the year of cleaning. 6 8.97 Cleaning is treated as a year zero 7 8.75 8 8.50 cost for a new analysis period. Discounted cash flow is used to calcu9 8.25 10 7.99 late a net present value for the cleaning and subsequent incremental operating costs. From the net present value, an EUAW can be calculated based upon the life of the project between cleanings. Using EUAW allows a direct comparison of results between projects with varying life spans. Plotting EUAW vs. cleaning schedule reveals the maximum annual worth or optimum cleaning schedule.

Using the technique We can illustrate the application of this technique by looking at a model heat exchanger system. Table 1 summarizes the initial conditions and requirements for this system. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to investigate the effect of the fouling rate, represented by the degradation constant (k), and the effect of the total cleaning cost over the following ranges: k = 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2; total cleaning costs = $5,000, $10,000, $15,000, $20,000. The fouling rate constant is easily calculated from U vs. time historical operating data (Figure 3). The firstorder fouling model fits the data with a slope, which is the value of k, equal to 0.1 yr1.

Using this model, we can readily find discrete U values at the end of each year. The degradation of U is continuous over time, and the first-order model could be integrated to determine incremental trim duties and costs for each year. However, the slow change in U in this example indicates that linearizing the curve over a one-year period is reasonable and that the average value can be used to represent each year. Table 2 presents the solution of Eqs. 13 and the resulting required duties and energy costs for a degradation constant of k equal to 0.1 yr1. To evaluate different cleaning options, we assume that a cleaning occurs in year zero for all cases and starts a new project life for the analysis. For example, a two-year cleaning schedule would have the following cash flows: Year 0 expenses = 0 + cleaning cost. Year 1 expenses = hot utility + cold utility for average decrease in U from Year 0 to Year 1. Year 2 expenses = hot utility + cold utility for average decrease in U from Year 1 to Year 2. A cash flow table, incorporating the marginal tax rate,

58

www.aiche.org/cep/

June 2001

CEP

0 -4 EUAW, $1,000

Total Cleaning Costs

0 Total Cleaning Costs -5 $5,000 EUAW, $1,000 -10 $10,000

$5,000 -8 -12 -16 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000

-15 $15,000 -20 -25 -30 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 $20,000

Cleaning Interval, yr

Cleaning Interval, yr

s Figure 4. EUAW vs. cleaning interval for k = 0.01 yr1.

s Figure 6. EUAW vs. cleaning interval for k = 0.1 yr1.

0 Total Cleaning Costs -4 EUAW, $1,000 -8 -12 -16 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EUAW, $1,000

0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 Cleaning Interval, yr 0

Total Cleaning Costs $5,000 $10,000 $20,000 $15,000

10

Cleaning Interval, yr

s Figure 5. EUAW vs. cleaning interval for k = 0.05 yr1.

s Figure 7. EUAW vs. cleaning interval for k = 0.2 yr1.

is developed for each cleaning case, and the NPV and EUAW are calculated. This is repeated for cleaning intervals of one to ten years and all combinations of the two sensitivity variables (total cleaning cost and degradation constant). The results are presented in Figures 47. (The EUAW results are all negative, as expected for a cash flow analysis that has only costs and taxes involved.) The optimum occurs at the maximum EUAW (minimum cost). As we would anticipate, higher fouling rates (degradation constant) lead to shorter optimum cleaning cycles, and higher total cleaning costs (direct cost plus downtime) lead to longer optimum cleaning cycles. It is interesting that the optimum cleaning schedules are all relatively short for the range of parameters used in this model system. For example, only at the very low k values or high cleaning costs are the optimum cleaning cycles three or more years. This may suggest that current practices deserve review.

The plots in Figures 47 can also be used to estimate the incremental cost of using a nonoptimal cleaning cycle. This is done by comparing annual worth at the optimum cleaning cycle to annual worth at the actual cleaning cycle. For example, consider a process where the degradation constant is k = 0.05 yr1, incremental utility costs are similar to the model system, and total cost of cleaning is $5,000 (the upper cleaning cost curve in Figure 5). If the exchanger is cleaned every eight years, the incremental losses due to not cleaning at the optimum are approximately $5,000/yr.

Example This example illustrates the application of this optimization technique to a commercial problem where the solution lies outside the boundaries of the previous model system. The data (Table 3) are representative of actual performance results for a combined feed exchang59

CEP

June 2001

www.aiche.org/cep/

Heat Transfer

Table 3. Gas-oil hydrotreater combined feed exchanger data. Hot Fluid: mh = 160,000 lb/h Cph = 0.56 Btu/lbF T1 = 700F T2(Clean) = 312F Cold Fluid: mc = 160,000 lb/h Cpc = 0.53 Btu/lbF t1 = 250F t2(Clean) = 660F Exchanger: UClean = 45 Btu/ft2hF U1 = 38 Btu/ft2hF (6 mo) U2 = 32 Btu/ft2hF (12 mo) U3 = 27 Btu/ft2hF (18 mo) U4 = 22 Btu/ft2hF (24 mo) A = 15,412 ft2 (4 shells) Economics: MAR = 10% Hot utility cost = $4.25/MMBtu Cold utility cost = $0.40/MMBtu Cleaning costs = $22,000 (labor and materials) Operation time = 8,760 streamh/yr (100% service factor)

s Figure 8.
EUAW vs. cleaning interval for gas-oil hydrotreater example (k = 0.35 yr1 and total cleaning costs = $22,000).
0 -4 EUMW, $1,000

-8 -12 -16 0 5 10 Month 15 20

er in a gas-oil hydrotreater. The unit is a 12 million bbl/d hydrotreater processing a 30 API gas-oil. As in the model system, trim units must supply energy not recovered in the process exchanger. The heated reactor feed is sent to a fired charge heater and the cooled reactor effluent is sent to a water-cooled condenser. Results. Based on the overall heat-transfer coefficient data, k = 0.35 yr1. Rapid fouling requires the analysis to be performed on a monthly basis (rather than the yearly basis used previously), so the input parameters, operation time, MAR, and k are adjusted to reflect a monthly analysis. Equations 13 are solved and cash flow tables generated for cleaning intervals of 1 to 24 months. The results are presented graphically in Figure 8. The optimum cleaning schedule is found to be 10 months. As before, we can use the results to examine the impact of cleaning at a less-than-the optimum point. Standard practice in this service is to clean in conjunction with normal turnarounds at 24 months. The incremental cost for a 24-month cleaning interval over the 10-month optimum is (from Figure 8) approximately $15,000/yr. No downtime has been built into the cleaning cost. If downtime were a component, then the incremental cost for cleaning at a turnaround would have to be corrected to reflect the fact that downtime costs should not be assigned to the cleaning operation at a normal turnaround.

Closing thoughts The optimization techniques illustrated here permit prediction of the optimum cleaning schedule from the fouling rate data, incremental utility costs, and cleaning costs for a given situation. The same optimization techniques could also be applied to a wide variety of optimization problems dealing with expense trade-offs, such as those often found in optimization related to mainteCEP nance and repairs.

B. R. ODONNELL is an MS candidate at Michigan Technological Univ., Houghton, MI in the field of process design and optimization. His primary research focus is developing software to automate opportunities for process improvement. He obtained a BS in chemical engineering from Michigan Tech in 1999 and is a member of AIChE. B. A. BARNA is a professor of chemical engineering at Michigan Technological Univ., Houghton, MI (Phone: (906) 487-2569; Fax: (906) 487-3213; E-mail: bbarna@mtu.edu). He holds BS and MS degrees in chemical engineering from Michigan Tech and a PhD in chemical engineering from New Mexico State Univ. Prior to joining the faculty at MTU, he worked as a process engineer for Reynolds Metals and Exxon, and as a plant engineer and plant manager for Kalsec, Inc. He is a registered professional engineer in Michigan. He is a member of AIChE. C. D. GOSLING is the alkylation, oxygenates, and treating technologies manager in UOPs FCC, Alkylation, Oxygenates, and Treating Business Group, Des Plains, IL (Phone: (847) 375-7759; Fax: (847) 391-2253; E-mail: cdgoslin@uop.com). He joined UOP after graduating from Michigan Technological Univ. in 1980 with a BS and MS in chemical engineering. He has had assignments in UOPs technical service and R&D departments, involving development and commercialization of a number of new technologies and products. Since 1996, he has been responsible for new alkylation technology developments. He is a registered professional engineer in Michigan.

60

www.aiche.org/cep/

June 2001

CEP