Engineering Costs andProduction hconomics, 5 (1981) 1935203

@ Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company,

Amsterdam
-- Printed in The Netherlands

193

ENERGY SAVINGS FROM STEAM LOSSES ON AN OIL REFINERY

G. McKay and C.R. Holland
Department
(Received

of Industrial Chemistry, 21 Chlorine Gardens, The Queen k Universiry of Belfast, Belfast BT9 SAG, U.K.
November

29, 1979; accepted

July 7, 1980)

Abstract
A study of steam and condensate utilisation on a refinery has been undertaken. Based
on the total amount of steam produced on
the plant approximately
36% was being
returned to the system as condensate. Since
75% should be returned, a large quantity
of steam and condensate was being lost. A
total of 7 100 kg h-l condensate and steam
losses were detected of which 5450 kg h-
were condensate losses. Nevertheless, in financial terms, the economic losses are greater
due to the 1650 kg h- of steam being lost.
A survey of the plant to locate and meaINTRODUCTION
In the nineteen-fifties
and -sixties the
western world had a cheap and plentiful
supply of oil from the Middle East. The prices
remained relatively constant and not until1
after the Middle East War of 1973 did the
price dramatically increase and has continued
to rise ever since. With a cheap supply of fuel
suddenly gone, many of the processing
industries which could formerly afford to
be carefree with their fuel usage, found
that there were large savings to be made on
their plants. Insulation of equipment and
pipework, heat recovery from processed
0167-188X/81/0000-0000/$02.50

01981

Elsevier Scientific

sure losses, showed that the major part of

the total loss could be attributed to a small
number of large steam or condensate leaks.
The loss of steam due to malfunctioning
of steam traps has been considered and
25% were found to be passing live steam.
Heat losses from condensate pipes were
measured and the economic justification
for
lagging the pipes is considered. Finally, efficiency tests were carried out on the main
boiler which had an efficiency of 80%.
In economic terms a financial saving of
over & 12 1 500 per year is attainable based
on the results of this investigation.

fluids, etc., were all seen as areas where

heat could be saved, and heat saved meant
fuel saved.
It was against this background that a
study was undertaken into energy conservation in a refinery. A considerable amount
of energy, in a refinery, is utilised in steam
raising, and therefore a study into steam
production,
distribution, usage, and most
important, condensate return would yield
valuable information.
Steam generation, in refineries, usually
comes from two major sources: waste-heat
boilers; and oil fired boilers. Certain process

Publishing

Company

194
units within the plant, e.g. catalytic reformer
units, contain furnaces whose primary objective is heating process fluids but also have
a secondary function of steam raising. Water
tubes in each of the furnaces are situated
at the top of the combustion chambers
where heat is transferred from the flue gases
before they exit to the stack. During normal
plant operation, steam production from each
of these waste-heat boilers is fairly constant
throughout the year. The other steam raising
equipment on the plant is oil-fired boilers.
They usually produce in excess of half of
the plants steam requirement
and are also
the variable component in the plant for steam
production. Any variations in steam requirement are met directly by these boilers.
Normally one feed-water system is used
to feed all types of boilers within the plant.
The water has to be de-aerated immediately
before being pumped to the boilers. This deaeration process, which involves the removal
of dissolved oxygen to prevent severe corrosion problems with boiler tubes, is carried
out by boiling the water with steam which
releases the uncondensible
gases to the atmosphere, with only a small steam loss. The
water supplied to the de-aerator will be from
three sources: firstly as condensate which has
been returned from the plant; secondly as
newly softened towns water used as make-up;
and thirdly as steam, much of which gives UP
its latent heat to the cool softened water.
The use of low and high pressure steam.
can be categorised into those processes in
which there can and cannot be condensate
returned from them. Processes which use
steam for stripping purposes or atomisation
in burners etc. cannot return any of the condensate which may be formed. Steam, which
is used for heating and driving turbines,
compressors, etc., can be returned in the
form of condensate to the boiler feed-water
system.
Optimisation of the condensate return
system, identification
and rectification
of all

condensate and steam losses will yield considerable financial rewards. The paper discusses how all the leaks can be quantified, and
in addition considers heat losses from condensate pipes and economic justification
for
lagging these pipes is given. Finally, efficiency
tests are given on a refinery boiler and recommendations are made to improve the efficiency.
This investigation was undertaken on a
small integrated refinery, processing 1 .S X 1O6
tonnes of crude oil per annum, and the refinery was commissioned in 1964.
CONDENSATE AND STEAM
PRODUCTION
Before attempting to pin-point losses in
the plant steam and condensate systems, it
was necessary to obtain a mass balance
incorporating make up water, steam generation and condensate return, It is essential to
determine the amount of water being returned as condensate and compare this
figure with the quantity which could be
returned under ideal circumstances,
i.e.
assuming no steam or condensate losses.
Since all the steam on the plant is produced
from water which passes through the deaerator, and as all condensate from the
plant is returned to the de-aerator, this is
the most satisfactory point to perform
the mass balance on the system. The overall
balance is:
MASS INTO DE-AERATOR
= MASS OUT OF DE-AERATOR

In terms of component
kg h-
softened
water

kg h-
+ condensate
= kg h-
boiler
feed-water

(1)

streams eq. 1 becomes,

kg h-
+ steam

kg h-
+ vent
(negligible)

Table 1 shows a typical set of results.

(2)

195

TABLE

The various techniques of energy conservation used in the investigation will now be
considered. Having quantified the total
steam and condensate losses over the plant,
the next part of the energy project was to
quantify as many of the individual losses
as possible. It was impossible to locate certain
leaks, such as those occurring in heating
coils in tanks or leaks in underground pipes.

Steam and condensate

usage on plant
24
6
18
8
9

Total steam production

Live process steam
Ideal condensate
return
Measured condensate
return
Condensate
loss

(kg h- 1
500
050
4.50
850
600

The total steam production is 24 500 kg

h-l and live process steam requirements are
6050 kg h- . Process steam is used for atomisation, chemical reaction, and driving
motors. The total loss of steam and condensate is 9600 kg h-l and the cost of hot
condensate on the plant is 66 p per 1000 kg
representing a financial loss of & 49 000 per
year (based on 48 weeks on stream). The
previous figures use the cost of condensate
in calculating the financial loss, however,
some of the losses are going to be steam
losses. High pressure steam costs the plant
& 4.58 per 1000 kg to produce and so the
figure quoted for capital loss due to steam
and condensate losses is a minimum value.

ESTIMATION

OF ENERGY LOSSES

(1) Steam leaks

Detecting steam leaks on process plant
is relatively easy; since steam, escaping from
a pipe or fitting, expands to atmospheric
pressure and fine droplets condense out as
the steam contacts the cold air. This expansion produces the distinctive steam plume,
which can be easily located.
The steam leaks may be quantified knowing the steam pressure and estimating the
orifice diameter of the hole. Leaks from
fittings and valves will rarely approximate

1000
60
50
40

" 98;;
700
600
500

30

20

20

400

400
300

(lb h-')
10

15

200

7
5
3
2

1f
l/6"
Orifice

2oo

(bar)
100

10

6":
7

40

100

80

20

4
4.23

mm

Diameter

50
Steam

Steam

Lost

Pressure

(gauge)

Fig. 1. Steam losses from dry saturated

steam systems

when

orifice

diameter

is known.

(p.s.i.)

196
to the conditions of discharge through a small
circular orifice, consequently
the loss calculations have only limited accuracy. The steam
losses on the plant were estimated using the
nomogram shown in Fig. 1, and the economic
losses due to steam are based on the following
equations:
Steam

cost
CLkg-)

Heat in
Heat in
Water
= cost
+ steam
- water
(kJ kg-)
o<J kg- )
G kg- )
Boiler efficienc$
[
I

The total
1650 kg h-
of & 60 500
steam leaks
difficulty.

Fuel
x cost
(fZkJ- )

steam losses recorded were

representing a loss to the refinery
per year. The majority of these
were repaired without too much

(2) Condensate losses

Unlike steam leaks, condensate leaks do
not advertise their presence. Frequently a
condensate leak may be hidden from view,
perhaps very close to the ground, and only
by careful searching can the loss be located.
The condensate return system on the plant
was extensive and included process areas,
laboratories, administrative buildings and
off-site areas (the latter included heating
coils and steam tracing to heavy oil and
chemical tank farms).
Considerable losses were detected due to
several reasons.

la> malfunctioning steam traps.

(b) Wrong steam traps having been installed
initially, so that the condensate return
system was removed, allowing the steam
traps to discharge to drain. Most of the
original mechanical traps were replaced by
thermally operating traps during the
project.
fc) Incorrect sizing of condensate return
pipes, thus not allowing all the discharged
condensate to be returned to the boiler
make-up system.

The losses were measured by collecting the

condensate in a suitable receptical over a
sufficiently long period of time to ensure that
a representative
discharge rate could be calculated. The condensate losses on the plant
were more numerous and the total loss
recorded was much greater than the steam
loss, but the cost of condensate losses is much
less than steam losses, since steam costs are
higher by a factor of 7. The condensate
losses on the plant were estimated to be
5450 kg h- and represented a financial
loss of 2 29 000 per year.
Consequently
a total of 7 100 kg h-l condensate and steam losses were detected, which
is 74% of the total plant loss. The undetected
losses are probably due to inaccuracies in
estimating procedures and undetected condensate losses. A similar equation to that
used for costing steam was used for the
condensate except that the term heat in
steam, was replaced by heat in condensate.
(3) Steam trap survey
Steam traps are used in pipelines to allow
condensate to pass through the traps and
along the pipelines while preventing steam
from passing through. If a steam trap is not
functioning properly steam may be passing
through the trap and being wasted. Alternatively, if a trap is not opening completely,
or not opening frequently enough to permit
condensate to drain away, lines become
flooded with condensate and inefficient heat
transfer results.
There are three simple methods for determining trap performance,
by visual observation, by sound, and by temperature
measurements.
(al Visual method. For visual observation
no special equipment is required only that
one should be able to distinguish between
live steam and flash steam. The presence of

197

flash steam is natural and it does not imply

waste steam or trap failure. Flash steam is
usually in the form of a lazy vapour which
forms above the hot condensate being discharged to atmosphere.
(b) Sound method.
Listening carefully to
traps is an effective method particularly
when working with a closed condensate
return system. An industrial stethascope is
the ideal equipment for this method. By
placing the listening device against the trap
bonnet, the operation of the trap internals
may be heard. Table 2 gives a summa~ of
the sounds to be heard from different types
of trap.
(c) Temperature measurements. A steam trap
is essentially an automatic condensate valve
with a significant temperature
differential
existing between the upstream and downstream sides of a correctly functioning trap.
Trap performance,
therefore, can be checked
by making temperature measurements
on
the pipeline immediately upstream and downstream of the trap. For this method a contact

TABLE 2
Steam trap leaks
Type of trap

Operating properfy

Failure

Disc-type
(impulse or
thermodynamic)

Opening and
snap-closing of
disc several times
per minute.

Rapid chattering
of disc as steam blows
through.

Mechanicaltype
(bucket)

Cycling sound of
the bucket as it
opens and closes.

hissing
sound of
steam blowing
through at high
velocity.

Thermostatic-type

Sound of periodic
discharge if on
medium to high
load; possibly no
sound if light load,
throttled discharge.

Whistling sound of
steam blowing
through at high
velocity.

thermocouple
is needed and a knowledge of
the line pressure upstream and downstream
of the trap.
At each steam pressure there is a corresponding temperature
range within which the
surface temperature
of the pipe should lie
and these values are shown in Fig. 2.

10

30

20
Pipe

internal

Steam

Fig. 2. Surface temperature vs. internal pressure for steam pipes.

Pressure

(bar)

40

198
Three hundred steam traps were tested
on the plant and only 75% of these were
found to satisfy the conditions for correct
operation. From a quantitative standpoint,
steam trap losses were ascertained through the
use of the C, concept. The term C, expresses the flow capability of the steam trap
and can be obtained from standard figures
or from a flow factor which is obtained from
Fig. 3. An example of the calculation is now
given.

7r
,"

4000
3000

5
CI

2000

_c

,
g
G
5
d)
x

4000
3000
2000
1000

Trap Inlet Pressure

Bar

Fig. 4. Trap inlet pressure versus steam flow for a flow

factor, C, = 1.

1OOOC

5000

s
d

(4) Heat losses from steam and condensate

return pipes

1000
I

10

,'O

30

I.

40

Trap Inlet Pressure Bar

Fig. 3. Condensate flow against trap inlet pressure for a

flow factor, C, = 1.

A trap on a 15 bar steam line is blowing

steam through. The catalogue rating, WR, is
2500 kg h-r at saturation temperature
(0C
subcooled) at 15 bar.
(i) Figure 3 shows a flow value, WhJ, 2 150 kg
h-l at 15 bar for 0C subcooled condensate.
The flow factor is:
NT% 2500
-=
= 116
WM 2150
.

(ii) Figure 4 shows 165 kg h-l steam flow at

1.5 bar for a flow factor of 1. Hence the
steam loss is:
165 X l.l62=192kgh-

(iii)Based on the steam cost of & 4.58 per

1000 kg the annual financial loss is
&.7090 per annum.
The total losses from the steam traps investigated amounted to 2 32 000.

Heat losses from steam pipes on the plant

were examined, and as a result of the findings,
most of the insulation on main pipes was
renewed with a thicker layer. For re-lagging
the twelve pipelines in Table 3 it has been
shown that the money spent in carrying
out the operation will be recuperated within
2.0 years due to savings in heat losses.
it was found that several condensate
return pipes had never been lagged. Although

TABLE 3
Dimensions and temperatures of individual pipelines
Pipe
number

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Ambient
temperature
ec,

Average skin
temperature
ec,

Pipe
outside
diameter
(mm)

4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5

93
93
82
71
60
71
88
60
49
38
32
38

61
61
61
61
61
61
36
61
61
89
89
61

Pipe
length
(m)

11
11

41
20
27
119
119
99
10
93
46
183

199
the condensate is often leaving its source at
bubble point temperature,
in the past heat
losses from the bare pipes have never been
considered great enough to warrant spending
money on insulation. Now, however, as the
cost of producing heat energy is so much
greater, the economics of lagging condensate
pipes has been reconsidered.
There are three measurements
required
for the calculation of the heat loss from a
pipe, namely, the skin temperature
at the
end of the pipes (provided the temperature
gradient along the pipe is constant) and the
ambient air temperature.
The results of
studies on twelve pipelines are shown in
Table 3 and an example of the calculations
used are given for pipeline 6. The methods
used are based on those recommended
by
the Department of Energy [ l-41.
(a) Heat loss determination for pipe 6. Nomograms are used to calculate the radiant heat
transfer coefficient (RHTC) and the natural
convective heat transfer coefficient (NCHTC)
as shown in Fig. 5 and 6. The NCHTC is used
to calculate the forced convective heat

-17.0

Surface
Temperature

-15.0

-14.0

J3.0

Ambient
Temperature

Temperature

G.5

J2.0
!4dK-'
-11.0

-10.0

-9.0

-8.0

-7.0

-6.0

A.0

Fig. 5. Radiant heat transfer

coefficient
for radiant heat
loss from a hot surface.

Coefficient
of Heat
Transfer
for Natural
Convection
Ambient

Surface
Temperature

l.15

1
10

1.10

-10

20

6.0

30

40
OF

1
z

50

10

XL

60
70

1.00

0C

5.5

2O

90

l2

125,260
-240
100

3o

4o
50

4.5

0.80

4.0

0.70

3.5

0.60

3.0

Fig. 6. Coefficient
of heat transfer
from a hot surface.

.280

OC

0.90 >

10
11

150.-300

t-

80

for natural

convection

.50

-16.0

OF

-4.0

Radiant
Transfer

Heat

Coefficient

Fig. 7. Correction factors for natural convection heat loss from a cylindrical surface.

transfer coefficient (FCHTC) which incorporates a correction factor for the surface
being cylindrical in shape and these factors
may be obtained from Fig. 7. The RHTC and
FCHTC are combined to give an overall heat
transfer coefficient (OHTC). The data pipe
no. 6 and the final heat loss are given in Table 4.

(b) Economic insulation thickness and resultant

Knowing the heat Loss from a

pipe, the economic insulation thickness can
be determined from Table 5. Only two
parameters are necessary to use this table,
namely the nominal pipe diameter and the
mean skin temperature of the pipe. The
pay-back time.

TABLE 4
TABLE 5
Data for pipe no. 6
Economic insulation thicknesses (mm) for hot pipework
Length
Outside diameter
Average skin temperature
Ambient temperature
From Fig. 5, radiant HTC
From Fig. 6, NCHTC
From Fig. 7, correction factor
Correction factor for wind
Forced CHlC
Overall HTC (iY)
Pipe surface area (A)
Heat loss

119 m
61 mm
71C
4.5C
6.25 Wm- K-
4.77 Wmma K-
1.13
1.5
4.77 x 1.13 x 1.5 =
8.08 Wm- I(-
6.25 + 8.08 =
14.33 Wrne2 KwL
22.76 mQ= UAaT=
21.7 x IO3 W

Nominal
pipe

Pipe skin temperature CC)

SiX

up

(mm)

100

25
40
50
75
100
150
200
250
300

40
40
40
50
50
50
65
65
6.5

to

150

200

250

300

3.50

400

50
50
50
65
65
65
65
65
65

50
65
65
6.5
65
65
75
90
90

65
65
65
65
75
75
75
90
100

65
65
65
65
90
100
115
115
115

65
65
65
90
100
115
115
125
125

75
75
75
100
115
125
140
140
150

201

TABLE

Installed

TABLE
Economic

cost per metre of insulation

thickness

for preformed

rigid fibrous

sections

(January

1979)

Nominal
pipe size

Insulation

(mm)

(mm)

40

50

65

75

90

100

115

125

140

150

50
75
100
150
200
500
600

5.00
5.62
6.05
6.87
8.91
10.28
11.20

6.80
7.65
8.24
9.36
12.14
14.01
15.26

8.31
9.42
10.30
12.21
15.06
16.15
18.58

9.19
10.93
11.29
14.11
16.54
17.18
20.48

12.52
13.13
14.01
16.88
18.48
20.48
23.41

13.86
14.57
15.23
17.96
19.82
22.37
25.22

15.49
16.90
17.98
20.12
23.11
24.91
28.32

16.54
17.72
19.11
22.15
24.58
27.21
30.32

19.02
20.68
22.18
25.17
28.43
30.19
34.45

20.87
22.26
24.03
21.53
30.16
32.85
36.78

heat loss from the insulated pipe may now

be calculated using figures [41 of the type
represented by Fig. 8, and hence the heat
saving due to the insulation is found. The
cost of installation (labour and materials)
is estimated and a comparison is made between this capital investment and the financial savings to be made.
To demonstrate
the procedure pipe no. 6
is again used as an example, see Table 7.
The results of the twelve pipelines studied
on this particular process plant are listed in
Table 8. A saving of & 22 000 may be made
over a five year period.

7
calculations

using pipe no. 6 as an example

21.7 X 10s W

Heat loss
From Table 5, economic
insulation thickness
From Fig. 8, heat loss from
insulated pipe
Heat saving
Energy costs of the plant
Total annual saving
From Table 6 installed
cost of insulation
Cost for pipe no. 6
Pay-back time

TABLE

38 mm
1940 W
19.76 x lo3 W
f. 6.14 X 1O-6 W-r
E 991 per year
E 5.00 per m
E 595
595/991 = 0.60 years

Energy

and financial

Pipe
number

Heat loss
from bare
pipe (WI

1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
10
11
12

3213
3213
9937
3892
4215
21710
18980
15300
1191
10730
4275
15240

savings from insulating

Economic
insulation
thickness

Heat loss
from
lagged

(mm)

pipe WI

40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
50
50
40

273
273
950
329
211
1940
1830
950
77
538
264
1055

pipework
Heat saved
per hour
(W)

Financial

Cost of

saving

insulation

Pay-back
period

(E/year)

(f)

(years)

2940
2940
8987
3563
4064
19770
17150
14350
1114
10192
4011
14185

141
147
450
179
204
991
860
119
56
511
201
711

55
55
205
101
137
595
595
494
50
741
363
914

0.37
0.37
0.46
0.56
0.67
0.60
0.69
0.69
0.89
1.45
1.80
1.29

202
(C) Total heat content of steam = 2855 kJ kg-
Heat content of steam = 43.4 X lo6 kJ kg-
Feed water to boiler = 15 420 kg h-r
Heat content of feed water = 407 kJ kg-
(D) Total heat content = 6.28 X lo6 kJ h-*
C-D
Efficiency = A+B

Fig. 8. Heat loss for pipes with surface temperature

150C with varying insulation thickness.

of

(5) Boiler efficiency

In order to achieve high boiler efficiencies
the fuel combustion must be complete, heat
transfer in the boiler must be good, heat
losses from the system should be negligible
and the flue gas exit temperature should be
low. The general definition of the efficiency
of a boiler is the ratio of the heat made use
of by the boiler, to the heat available for its
use.
Heat content of steam exit boiler per hour Heat content of feed entering boiler per hour
Efficiency =
Heat available from complete combustion of fuel

Boiler tests were carried out according to

recommended
procedures I5 $5If and the
results of four tests are summarised in Table 9
A typical boiler efficiency calculation is
now shown for Test Number 1.

x 100% = 81.6%

Percentage stack losses were calculated and

are listed in Table 9, furthe~ore,
the heat
loss due to boiler blowdown was determined
and shown to be 0.2%; a figure which has
little effect on the overall efficiency.
An efficiency of approximately
80% is
in quite good agreement with figures quoted
in the literature [ 71 for similar boilers.
However an increase in the boiler efficiency
of 5% would result in a saving of % 33 000
per year. Areas where savings could possibly
be made are summarised although the values
were not quantified in this investigation.
(0 Radiation losses from the boiler should
not be more than 1%. Conseq~~ently the
quality of the refractory lining and external insulation should be inspected at
each shutdown.
(ii) Losses due to inefficient combustion
can be ascertained from carbon monoxide
levels in the flue gases. Poor combustion
may be due to inefficient atomisation or
poor mixing of fuel and air.
(iii) If the exit flue gas temperature is high
an air preheater may be considered for
heat interchange. The flue gas temperature may be reduced to approximately
150C before condensation
of the acidic

TABLE 9
Boiler efficiency test data

Fuel oil consumption = 1.005 ma h- = 996 kg h-

(A) Heat release from oil (CV = 40.36 X lo6 J kg- ) =
38.99 x 10 kJ h-
Fuel gas consumption = 216 m3 h-t
(B) Heat release fuel gas (CV = 40.24 X IO6 J mm3) =
8.96 x lo6 kf h-
Steam production = 15 200 kg h-

Test

Fuel oil

Fuel gas

Steam

Feed

no.

(ml

(m

production

water

(kg h- )

(kg h- )
-____

h-l)

h-l)

Stack

Boiler
efficiency

loss

(%I

f%)

1 .OOS

216

15200

15420

81.6

10.6

0.946

294

15420

15650

81.3

10.5

0.965

236

14520

14740

79.1

10.6

0.952

209

14060

14290

19.3

10.6

203
components is likely to occur in the stack.
Boiler efficiency tests should be performed
on a regular basis to monitor the performance
of the boiler throughout its operation.
CONCLUSION
An energy conservation study has been
undertaken on an oil refinery. The study
involved an assessment of the financial savings
available from the efficient utilisation of
steam. Steam leaks were responsible for
financial losses of & 60 500 per year; heat
losses from steam and condensate return
pipes amounted to & 22 000 per annum,
and inefficient steam trapping produced
losses of & 32 000 per year. Further savings
were available on the plant by better insulation and more efficient boiler operation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their
gratitude to Mr. B. Reid and Mr. R.S.
McDowell, Department of Industrial Chemistry,
The Queens University of Belfast, for their
assistance throughout the duration of this
project.
REFERENCES
British Standards
BS 5422, 1977.
British Standards BS 3958 Parts l-5. The Use of
Thermal Insulating Materials.
British Standards
BS 1588 and BS 3708. Economic
Thickness of Insulation.
Department
of Energy, 1978. Fuel Efficiency
Booklet
No. 8. The Economic Thickness of Insulation for Hot
pipes :
Williams, J.N., 1969. Steam Generation. Allen and Unwin.
Dehnel, P.D., 1973. Fundamentals of Boiler House Techniques. Hutchinson.
Brame J.S.S. and King, J.G., 1967. Fuel. Ed. Arnold.