Training Program on

Petroleum Refining
Technology
Session 5: Fouling - Causes,
consequences and mitigation
Faculty: R. Mukherjee
Heat Transfer Consultant
New Delhi
Topics

 Categories and  Selection of

mechanisms of fouling resistance
fouling  Design guidelines
 Parameters which for minimising
affect fouling fouling
 How to provide a
fouling allowance

Fouling Mitigation, April 2008

R. Mukherjee
What is fouling?
 Deposition of unwanted material on a heat
transfer surface.
 Jerry Taborek of HTRI called fouling ‘the
major unresolved problem in heat transfer’
in 1972.
 The situation isn’t very different in 2008!

Fouling Mitigation, April 2008

R. Mukherjee
Variation of fouling

Fouling Mitigation, April 2008

R. Mukherjee
Adverse effects of fouling
 Increased capital cost  Maintenance costs for
due to larger chemical treatment
equipment and cleaning
 Additional energy  Downtime costs
required due to (a)  Loss of throughput
increased pumping
(b) reduction in
energy recovered

Fouling Mitigation, April 2008

R. Mukherjee
Fouled tube bundle

Fouling Mitigation, April 2008

R. Mukherjee
Fouled tube

Fouling Mitigation, April 2008

R. Mukherjee
Cleaning of fouled tube bundle

Fouling Mitigation, April 2008

R. Mukherjee
Categories of fouling

Particulate fouling
Bio-fouling
Corrosion fouling (of tube material)
Precipitation (scaling) – cooling water
Chemical reaction fouling
Coking
Generally, several fouling mechanisms occur
at the same time, nearly always being mutually
reinforcing.
Fouling Mitigation, April 2008
R. Mukherjee
 Particulate fouling
 Accumulation of finely  Frequently
divided solids superimposes on
suspended in the precipitation and
process fluid on to the facilitates certain
heat transfer surface types of chemical
 In some instances, reaction fouling.
settling by gravity
prevails ->
sedimentation fouling
Fouling Mitigation, April 2008
R. Mukherjee
 Bio-fouling (organic)
 The attachment of  Combines with or
macro-organisms superimposes on
and/or micro- precipitation and
organisms to a heat particulate fouling.
transfer surface,  Degree varies with
along with the water source and
season.
adherent slimes often
generated by the  Bacterial growth can
usually be controlled
latter. by chlorination.
Fouling Mitigation, April 2008
R. Mukherjee
Corrosion fouling
The heat transfer Heavy HC streams
surface itself reacts at temp’s of about
to produce 290C and higher
corrosion products cause corrosion of
which foul the CS tubes and other
surface and may components due to
promote the high-temperature
attachment of other sulfur corrosion.
foulants.

Fouling Mitigation, April 2008

R. Mukherjee
Precipitation

 The precipitation  With inverse

of dissolved solubility salts, the
substances on precipitation occurs
the heat transfer on superheated
surface. rather than
subcooled surfaces:
scaling.

Fouling Mitigation, April 2008

R. Mukherjee
Chemical reaction fouling

 Deposits formed at  Such fouling results in

the heat transfer oil sludge, organic
surface by chemical polymers and
reaction in which the insoluble
surface material itself decomposition
is not a reactant. products.
 Surface temperature
very significant.

Fouling Mitigation, April 2008

R. Mukherjee
Coking
 Although generically  Foulant materials
used to describe have high organic
many forms of content and appear
organic fouling, as black oily deposits.
coking typically  Rate of coking is a
occurs at high function of tubewall
temperature and the
temperatures in crude amount of fouling
and middle distillate precursors (like
service. asphaltenes) present.
Fouling Mitigation, April 2008
R. Mukherjee
Parameters which affect fouling

Nature of fluid
Fluid velocity – high velocity minimises
all modes but requires more pumping
power
Wall temperature affects scaling, bio-
fouling, chemical reaction rates
Tube material
Fouling Mitigation, April 2008
R. Mukherjee
The stages of fouling
Step 1 Initiation Delay, nucleation, induction,
incubation, surface conditioning
Step 2 Transport Mass transfer

Step 3 Attachment Surface integration, sticking,

adhesion, bonding
Step 4 Removal Release, re-entrainment,
detachment, erosion, spalling
Step 5 Ageing

Fouling Mitigation, April 2008

R. Mukherjee
How fouling builds up

Fouling Mitigation, April 2008

R. Mukherjee
Cooling water fouling

Fouling Mitigation, April 2008

R. Mukherjee
Selection of fouling resistance
 Even after many  Except for water and crude
years of fouling oil, TEMA values do not
research, designers consider fluid allocation,
use TEMA values. velocity, temperature level
and MOC.
 Not surprising,
considering  Latest TEMA table
indicates a range, e.g.,
complexity. kerosene 0.002-> 0.003
 Important to monitor (British)
fouling – tedious  Selection should be done
carefully based upon
feedback and engineering
judgment.
Fouling Mitigation, April 2008
R. Mukherjee
Design guidelines for minimising
fouling
Use heat exchanger However, dirty
types that foul less: fluids invariably
Plate, Spiral, Fluidised more viscous ->
Bed, Helixchangers shellside
and Twisted Tube.
Trade-off between
Tubeside easier to initial cost and
clean, hence dirty operating cost.
fluids -> tubeside.

Fouling Mitigation, April 2008

R. Mukherjee
Dirty fluid on tubeside
Maximise fluid velocity Use spare
within erosion limit: bundle/spare shell
CW 1.5 m/s minimum
Use 2 shells in parallel,
Use bigger dia. tubes: each of 60-70%
20 mm, 25 mm, even
higher. Use tube inserts:
minimise fouling to
Check pressure drop dramatic levels
with fouling layer
thickness or leave Use chemical additives
sufficient margin. (anti-foulants)

Fouling Mitigation, April 2008

R. Mukherjee
Dirty fluid on shellside - 1

 Use floating-head or U-
tube design.
 Use square or rotated
square layout.
 Minimize dead spaces by
optimum baffle design.
 Maintain high velocity –
use multiple shells in
series (case study follows)

Fouling Mitigation, April 2008

R. Mukherjee
Dirty fluid on shellside - 2

 Use larger tube pitch

for very dirty services.
 Check pressure drop
with nil clearances or
fouling layer
thickness

Fouling Mitigation, April 2008

R. Mukherjee
Case study: the problem
Shellside Tubeside
Fluid Vac. residue Crude oil
Flow rate, kg/h 55,000 170,000
Temp. in/out, oC 350/300 270/287
Viscosity in/out, cp 1.8/3.35 0.48/0.41
All. Δp, kg/cm2 0.7 0.7
Fouling res. (met.) 0.002 0.0006
Heat duty, kcal/h 1.84 MM
Fouling Mitigation, April 2008
R. Mukherjee
Case study: the solution
One shell design Two shells in
series
Total HTA, m2 304 240
Shell ID, mm 1075 675
No. of tubes x NTP 670 x 6 260 x 2
Tube pitch 32 mm rot. sq.
Baffle spacing, mm 211 165
Baffle cut, dia % 18.4 25
Velocity shell/tube, m/s 0.15/2.02 0.36/1.73
Pr. drop shell/tube, kg/cm2 0.07/0.79 0.38/0.44
Overdesign, % 4.2 5.4

Fouling Mitigation, April 2008

R. Mukherjee
References
 Mukherjee, R, “Conquer Heat Exchanger
Fouling,” Hydrocarbon Processing, 75 (1), pp.
121-127 (Jan. 1996)

Fouling Mitigation, April 2008

R. Mukherjee