Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ISSN: 2454-132X
Impact factor: 4.295
(Volume 4, Issue 2)
Available online at: www.ijariit.com
Sr no. Composition (Mole %) Feed (COG) Fuel 1, COG Fuel 2, TOP GAS FUEL
1 CO 4-6 4-6 14-19
2 CO2 3-4 3-4 13-15
3 H2 55-62 55-62 48-50
4 H2O 3-4 3-4 6-12
5 N2 Max. 4 Max. 4 3-6
6 O2 0.3-0.7 0.3-0.7 -
7 CH4 24-28 24-28 4-5
8 C2H6 1-2 1-2 -
9 C3H8 0.1-0.3 0.1-0.3 -
10 C4H10 - - -
11 C5H12 - - -
12 C6H14 0.5-0.9 0.5-0.9 -
13 H2S 0.4-1.2 0.4-1.2 -
14 NH3 0-1.1 0-1.1 -
15 HCN 0-1.2 0-1.2 -
© 2018, www.IJARIIT.com All Rights Reserved Page | 2039
Tiwari Laxmi Mani et.al; International Journal of Advance Research, Ideas and Innovations in Technology
3.1 Radiant Configuration Selection: For the first example, we will say that plot limitations make the Vertical Tube Cylindrical
Design more attractive.
3.1.1 Preliminary estimate of surface in radiant section: To begin a design, you can assume that approximately 70% of the heat
to be absorbed will be absorbed in the radiant section, and the remaining in the convection section.
Approximate surface = 0.70 * 45,000,000 / 21,500 = 146.51 m2
3.1.2 Deciding the initial tube size and layout for trial and error:
Now, we are going to design this heater as a vertical tube cylindrical heater, for this we a rough assumption for tube circle and tube
length to start the designing procedure for simulation,
OD= 0.1143 m
Thickness= 0.0127 m
Tube length L = 9.00858 m
Tube circle diameter (TCD) = 4 m
3.1.3 Dimensions of firebox
Height of radiant section, metre = 9+1= 10 m
Diameter of radiant section, metre = TCD + 1 m (gap between refractory line to tube center = 2*OD) = 4 +1 = 5 m
3.1.4 Convection Section: (for rectangular opening)
Length, L = tube circle diameter of radiant section = 5 m
Width, W = L/2.75 = 5/2.75 = 1.81 m
Height of convection section = H = 3*.2286 + .4 + 2*.2286 = 1.543 m
Since API 560 requires this type of heater to have an L/D ratio of less than 2.75, and if L/D is greater than 2.75 than we have to
increase the number of tubes.
3.2 Preliminary Design consideration of Radiant Section for box type heater
3.2.1 Convection Section Dimensions
No. of tubes = 35
Effective tube length = tube dia (OD)*no. of tubes
Width = L/2.75 (L/W ≤ 2.75, as per API 560)
Height = 1
For initial calculation only based on industrial experience, later it can be optimized by the GUI of software, if needed.
L = .1143*35 m = 4.005 m
W = 4.0005/2.75 m = 1.45 m
H = 3*.2286 + .4 + 2*.2286 = 1.543 m
3.2.2 Radiant Section Dimensions
Length = Length of convection section + 1 (1 to 1.5 m) = 5.0053 m
Width = Length of radiant section/2.75 = 5.0053/2.75 = 1.82 m
Height = 1 m (approx.)
And tube dimensions are same as convection section.
3.3 Initial considerations for fired heater designing - FRNC-05PC
3.3.1 For radiant section
• First, decided that 70% of heater duty we should get from radiant section
• Tube angle orientation
• Gap between refractory line to tube centre is
• Height of firebox = nominal length of tube + 0.5 m
3.8 Trial and error analysis result: In the first attempt we considered above mentioned data and did analysis of output results. To
get the efficiency between 70 to 85 %, for this we considered below mentioned process parameters for optimization,
• Stack flue gas temperature
• Velocity of feed
• Pressure drop inside the coil
• ΔT (temperature) of flue gas in and out at each section of tube bundle
To get the desired efficiency we considered following parameters and their subjected variables to optimize the simulated result,
4. OPTIMIZATION
Design optimization is the process of finding the best design parameters that satisfy project requirements. Engineers/Process
Designers typically use design of experiments (DOE), trial and error methods, used of algorithms, statistics, and other optimization
techniques to evaluate trade-offs and determine the best design.
4.1 Dimensions and other parameters consideration during optimization:
In designing, optimization is the process of finding the best design parameters that satisfy project requirements. Engineers/Process
Designers typically use below mentioned optimization techniques to evaluate trade-offs and determine the best design,
• Design of experiments (DOE)
• Trial and error methods
• Use of algorithms
• Statistics
Table 3: Optimized heater dimensions and coil/tube properties
Convection section
5. CONCLUSION
By mathematical designing and simulation of fired heater for heating of COG gas, we got efficiency of Cylindrical type fired is
approx. 80 and for box type it is 80-82. As mentioned data in the Table 2. Some points mentioned below as per observation,
• Fixed the dimensions of each section of fired heater for both type of heater designing w.r.t. each other.
• Also, fixed coil length, coil OD, coil numbers and coil material.
• Fixed fin length, height, number of fins per cm.
• Consider common process parameters for designing of both type of fired heater.
Observations: Points are mentioned below,
• Efficiency of Box type fired heater is greater than cylindrical type fired heater.
• Other process parameters are also within range in the box type of fired heater compare to cylindrical type fired heater.
The only major difference is the required installation area, in the box type it needs 29.75 m2 compare to cylindrical type which
required only 9.62 m2. In short, we can say that box type fired heater is quite good compare to cylindrical type fired heater as per
process point of view. As we can see the selection of box type fired heater will increase the capital cost of designing, compare to
cylindrical type fired heater but parallelly it will reduce the operational cost compare to cylindrical type fired heater.
6. REFERENCES
[1] “Simulation study of Coke Oven Gas Heating in Cylindrical and Box Type Heater Using FRNC-5PC Simulator” accessed on
17thSeptember, http://www.pfrengineering.com/products/frnc-5pc/
[2] “Simulation study of Coke Oven Gas Heating in Cylindrical and Box Type Heater Using FRNC-5PC Simulator” accessed on
25thSeptember, http://www.vergaengineering.it/f/images/07.jpg
[3] “Simulation study of Coke Oven Gas Heating in Cylindrical and Box Type Heater Using FRNC-5PC Simulator” accessed on
24thSeptember, http://www.vergaengineering.it/f/images/22.jpg
[4] “Simulation study of Coke Oven Gas Heating in Cylindrical and Box Type Heater Using FRNC-5PC Simulator” accessed on
6thSeptember, http://www.thermaxglobal.com/boilers-and-heaters/large-boilers/fired-heaters/
[5] “Simulation study of Coke Oven Gas Heating in Cylindrical and Box Type Heater Using FRNC-5PC Simulator” accessed on
27thSeptember, http://www.techengineering.it/images/img_forni_indust_processo.jpg
[6] “Simulation study of Coke Oven Gas Heating in Cylindrical and Box Type Heater Using FRNC-5PC Simulator” accessed on
9thOctober, http://ispatguru.com/coke-oven-gas-generation-and-usage/
[7] Cliff Lowe, Nick Brancaccio, Dan Batten, Chris Leung – Dick Waibel “Technology Assessment of Hydrogen Firing of Process
Heaters”, Chevron Energy Technology Company, Richmond, CA, USA, Chevron Energy Technology Company, Houston, TX,
USA. volume 4, 2011 (pages 1058-1065).
[8] Navid Parnian, “Failure analysis of austenitic stainless-steel tubes in a gas fired steam heater”, Department of Technical
Inspection & Protection, South Zagros Oil & Gas Production Co., Shiraz Iran. 2011.12.027.
[9] A. Garg, “Get the Most from Your Fired Heater”, Senior Thermal Engineer at Furnace Improvements (Sugar Land, Texas),
March 2004 issue.