1

Heat exchanger tube rupture

scenario evaluation using Aspen
HYSYS Dynamics
By: Francisco Da Silva, MSc. P.Eng.

03/01/13
 2
Overview
• Introduction
• Process Safety Considerations
• When Dynamic Simulation is required?
• Modelling Approach
• Case Study: Coker Bottoms Steam Generator
– Device Selection
– Device Sizing
• Conclusions
• Questions & Answers

2017©COPYRIGHT PROCESS ECOLOGY INC.

 3
Company Background: Process Ecology

• Founded 2003, Calgary, AB

• Key Competencies

– Engineering consulting,
process simulation
– Process engineering &
optimization
– Air emissions estimation
and management
– Software development

2017©COPYRIGHT PROCESS ECOLOGY INC.

 4
Heat Exchanger Tube Rupture: Why Simulate it?
• Goodyear Synthetic Rubber Factory [1]
• Plant was shutdown for maintenance
• Isolation valve was closed (upstream of
relief valve)
• Steam was used to clean tube side
• Steam heated ammonia causing a
pressure buildup, ending in a heat
exchanger failure
• 1 operator killed and 7 injured, loss of
containment, and thousands of dollars in
equipment damage

1U.S. Chemical Safety Boards, CSB Investigating Causes of Fatal Rupture of Heat Exchanger at Goodyear Synthetic Rubber
Facility in Houston, 2008

2017©COPYRIGHT PROCESS ECOLOGY INC.

 5
Process Safety Considerations
• API 521[1]: recommends the evaluation of tube
rupture scenario when the Maximum Allowable
Working Pressure (MAWP) of the Low Pressure
(LP) side is lower than 10/13 of MAWP of the High
Pressure (HP) side of the Heat Exchanger (HE).
• The Pressure Relief Device (PRD) needs to be
sensitive enough to react quickly and relieve the
pressure.
• Opening times for Pressure Relief Valves (PSV) are
in the range of 50-100 ms and for graphite Rupture
Disks (RD) around 1-10 ms [2].

1American Petroleum Institute, Pressure-relieving and Depressuring System. API Standard 521 6 ed., Washington: American
Petroleum Institute, 2014.
2S. Nagpal, "Evaluate Heat-Exchanger Tube-Rupture Scenarios Using Dynamics Simulations," Chemical Engineering, pp. 48-53, 2015

2017©COPYRIGHT PROCESS ECOLOGY INC.

 6
When is a Dynamic Simulation required?
• Reactive systems,
• HEs in which the pressure
difference between the HP and
LP sides exceeds 7,000 kPa
(~1,000 psi), or
• HEs where the LP side is liquid-
full.

1American Petroleum Institute, Pressure-relieving and

Depressuring System. API Standard 521 6 ed.,
Washington: American Petroleum Institute, 2014.
2S. Nagpal, "Evaluate Heat-Exchanger Tube-Rupture

Scenarios Using Dynamics Simulations," Chemical

Engineering, pp. 48-53, 2015

2017©COPYRIGHT PROCESS ECOLOGY INC.

 7
Modelling Approach
• LP side of the HE needs to be
divided into sections
• Number of sections will depend on
HE dimensions. Each section is
modeled as a two-phase separator.
• The rupture is located at the HP
side outlet.
• HE duty is kept constant.
• Step time needs to be reduced to
0.1 - 1 ms.
• Flash efficiencies is reduced to 5%.

Taken from: R. Urdaneta Perez and J. Oude Lenferink, "Design

pressure reduction in high-pressure heat exchanger with dynamic
simulation," Hydrocarbon Processing, pp. 37-41, 2015.

2017©COPYRIGHT PROCESS ECOLOGY INC.

 9
Tube Rupture Flow Estimation [1]
• Tube failure is a sharp break in 1 tube [1].
• Tube failure is assumed to occur at the
back side of the tubesheet [1].
• HP fluid is assumed to flow both through
the tube stub remaining in the tubesheet
and through the other longer section of tube
[1].
• Flow estimation is based on Homogeneous
Direct Integration (HDI) method [1]

−2 ∫ 4633 υ 4633
= = −2
υ

1American Petroleum Institute, Pressure-relieving and Depressuring System. API Standard 521 6 ed., Washington: American
Petroleum Institute, 2014.
2017©COPYRIGHT PROCESS ECOLOGY INC.
 12
Case Study
Client: Confidential
Process Unit: Coker Unit
Service: Coker Bottoms Steam Generator
Design Duty: 88.5 MMBtu/hr
TEMA type: AKT
Fluids (tube/shell): Coker Bottoms (oil) / BFW

Tubeside flow: 5,100 bpd

Tubeside Temperature (in/out): 700 / 500 °F
Tubeside Pressure (in/out): 85 / 81 psig

Shellside Flow: 97,200 lb/hr

Shellside Temperature (in/out): 458 / 458 °F
Shellside Pressure (in/out): 445 / 445 psig
Design Pressure (tube/shell): 550/177 psig
RD Pressure Set: 140 psig
Taken from: Gary, J.H; Handwerk, G.E.; and Kaiser, M. J.
Petroleum Refining: Technology and Economics (5th Edition).
CRC Press (2007)

2017©COPYRIGHT PROCESS ECOLOGY INC.

 13
Case Study: Model Scope
• Simplified model of Coker Fractionator
• Coker Fractionator Bottoms Pumps modeled using Performance Curves
• Pump discharge check valves (10% back-flow)
To Steam Generator
tube-side inlet pipe

2017©COPYRIGHT PROCESS ECOLOGY INC.

 14
Case Study: Model Scope
• Tube Volume divided into 3 volumes (Inlet • No holdup considered in relief piping (i.e.
head, tube bundle, and outlet head) negligible volume, velocity >160 ft/s
• Detailed piping was provided by client • Flare Main Header pressure is constant (10
• Evaluated Scenarios: 1 RD vs 2 RDs psig) Remaining tube
BFW @ shell (long) entrainment
conditions

Tubesheet
entrainment

Top RD

Bottom RD

Flare Main
Header Tie-in

From Coker Fractionator Tube-side Tube-side

Tube Bundle
Bottoms Pumps Inlet Head Outlet Head
2017©COPYRIGHT PROCESS ECOLOGY INC.
 12
Case Study: PRD Selection

• Due to uncertainty on tube

rupture flow, a sensitivity analysis
was performed to determine the
effect on the pressure rise time.

• It takes between 6 to 14 ms to
reach tube design pressure,
therefore a rupture disk is
recommended

2017©COPYRIGHT PROCESS ECOLOGY INC.

 13
Case Study:
HX Tube Bundle Pressure HX Inlet Head Pressure HX Outlet Head Pressure
160
• Tube rupture occurs at 1 s. DISK PRESSURE
RUPTURE PEAK
150

• RD bursts 9 ms after tube rupture

140
(140 psig).

Pressure (psig)
130

• A lower peak pressure (130 psig)

120
is reached 620 ms after the tube
rupture (oil pulse). 110

• The maximum pressure (150 100

psig) is reached 1,480 ms after 90

TUBE
the tube rupture (steam/oil pulse) RUPTURE
80
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

Time (seconds)

2017©COPYRIGHT PROCESS ECOLOGY INC.

 14
Conclusions
• The pressure in the Steam Generator inlet will take from 6 to 14 ms to reach the
design pressure in the tubeside, so RD was recommended for this application.

• The simulation model shows that the first peak reaches 130 psig which
corresponds to the RD burst pressure, and the pressure decreases suddenly when
the disk ruptures. At this moment, the system is full of liquid.

• A second pressure peak (149.9 psig) is reached at 2.44 seconds which corresponds
to a steam/oil slug when BFW flashes at tubesibe pressure.

2017©COPYRIGHT PROCESS ECOLOGY INC.

 15
Conclusions
• Once a stable condition is reached, pressures in the heat exchanger are in the
range of 116 psig.

• Based on the dynamic study, one 8 inch rupture disk is sufficient to protect the
steam generator.

• The model built in Aspen HYSYS Dynamics provided a basis for the assessment
on the steam generator tube rupture event allowing us to recommend measures
to avoid loss of containment, equipment damage, and possible human losses.

2017©COPYRIGHT PROCESS ECOLOGY INC.

 16

???
????
Question & Answers

2017©COPYRIGHT PROCESS ECOLOGY

INC.