Applied Thermal Engineering 125 (2017) 702–713

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Research Paper

Standards for fired heater design: Analysis of two dominant heat flux
variation factors
Jiří Hájek ⇑, Zdeněk Jegla
Brno University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Process and Environmental Engineering, Technická 2, 616 69 Brno, Czech Republic

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

Evidence is provided that fired heater

design standards need correction.

Longitudinal heat flux variability is
analysed experimentally and Tubes of
Convection
computationally. Section

Tube circumferential heat flux + 17.0 m

variability is systematically analysed.

Impact of tube deformations on heat + 10.0 m
Tubes of
flux variability is evaluated. Radiant
Chamber

Impact of tube alignment in coils with + 5.0 m

changing diameter is evaluated.

+ 0.0 m

Burners

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Many fired heaters in all parts of the globe are designed according to long-standing standards of the
Received 22 December 2016 American Petroleum Institute. The relevant API standard 560 is to a large degree based on heat flux
Revised 5 May 2017 non-uniformity factors that have been first graphed early in the 20th century using idealised 2D calcula-
Accepted 8 July 2017
tions of radiative heat transfer. The basic set of assumptions and values for these factors has recently been
Available online 10 July 2017
challenged, as they neglect or underestimate several significant aspects of nonuniformity including lon-
gitudinal heat flux variation due to up-to-date low-NOx burners, interaction of flames from multiple
Keywords:
burners, Coandă effect and non-ideal geometry.
Fired heater
Radiant zone
This paper brings new data and quantified corrections of two dominant heat flux variation factors (tube
Heat flux circumferential factor and longitudinal factor) that are based on numerical modelling, large-scale labora-
Surface-to-surface radiation model tory measurements and real-life data from operating fired heater. The new information provides evidence
that standardised design calculations of fired heaters for refinery service need urgent update and revision,
mainly concerning the longitudinal factor. The results show that real-life heat flux distribution can be sig-
nificantly less uniform than estimated by traditional design techniques (such as API Design Standards).
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction process heat exchangers). They provide heat by combustion of var-

Tubular furnaces (also called fired heaters) are key units mainly
in refineries. They are typically the last element in the process of
heating up crude before it enters the distillation column (following
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hajek@fme.vutbr.cz (J. Hájek).
ious fuels. The processed stream is heated to a level required by a
key processing unit of the production technology, which is mostly
a distillation column or reactor.
Most contemporary installations of fired heaters belong to one
of two prevalent basic types, cabin (also called shaft or box type)
and cylindrical (always vertical). Cabin type furnaces are used for
high thermal duties, whereas cylindrical furnaces are preferred

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.07.062
1359-4311/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J. Hájek, Z. Jegla / Applied Thermal Engineering 125 (2017) 702–713
Nomenclature
Symbol Description (Unit)
d tube diameter (m)
D diameter of a cylindrical furnace (radiant section in fired
heater) (m)
FC tube circumferential heat flux variability global factor,
Eq. (3) (–)
FC,local tube circumferential heat flux variability local factor, Eq.
(2) (–)
FL furnace longitudinal heat flux variability factor (–)
FT tube metal temperature heat flux variability factor (–)
F jk fraction of energy leaving surface j incident on surface k
(view factor) (–)
L length of furnace (along the flame) (m)
q local (point) radiant heat flux (W/m2)
qm local-maximum radiant heat flux (W/m2)
for lower thermal duties. In spite of apparent similarity, each unit
is custom-made and tailored for maximum compatibility with the
specific process.
Each of these furnace types consists of two main parts – com-
bustion chamber (radiant zone) and convective part (convective
zone). Process medium flows inside of a tubular system, which
forms the heat exchanger. By changing the shape and configuration
of tubes in radiant and convective zone, multiple heater design
types are formed that satisfy specific demands and conditions of
concrete process.
The design practice of fired heaters is based on long-standing
standards, among which prominent are the standards of the Amer-
ican Petroleum Institute (API), namely standard 530 [1] and 560
[2]. It is important to note that the design calculation methodology
described by these standards is almost a century old [3] and is
based on a few correlations that are deeply rooted in the engineer-
ing practice [4]. At the core of the design calculation methodology
are correlations drawn historically using simplified 2D radiation
models (see e.g. [1]).
Our previous analysis [5] led to the conclusion that the prevail-
ing classical fired heater design methodology significantly under-
estimates the heat flux variability occurring in fired heaters
which has significant consequences for fouling, safety and the lifes-
pan of heaters. A correction to the standard methodology was rec-
ommended accounting for the types of variability observed in
detailed 3D model predictions. It was however also concluded that
more detailed analysis of the individual variability factors is neces-
sary to quantify with more confidence each of the factors.
Advanced modelling results have been reported in recent years
with broad range of modelling capabilities, e.g. in [6] detailed com-
bustion chemistry, in [7] NOx emission prediction, in [8] coupled
simulation of flue gas and process side, in [9] coking rates in tubes,
in [10] another coupled simulation in a naphtha cracking furnace,
etc. These achievements demonstrated the current capabilities of
detailed, coupled, 3D modelling that can provide much insight into
the operation of fired heaters. However, none of these results have
been translated into the terms and conditions applied in fired hea-
ter design.
The API standards indicate that tube circumferential heat flux
variability factor is responsible for most of the heat flux nonunifor-
mity on tube surface. In contrast to that, our previous results indi-
cate [5] that longitudinal factor and a newly identified ‘‘furnace
circumference” factor are of comparable importance and that the
real heat flux variability may significantly exceed the estimate pro-
vided by standard design calculations. In this work we add a sys-
703
qr average radiant heat flux (to the tube coil) in a furnace
(W/m2)
qrc average convection heat flux (to the tube coil) in a fur-
nace (W/m2)
qtube average heat flux on a single tube (W/m2)
qscenario average heat flux on all tubes in a single scenario (W/
m2)
Qr radiant heat duty of a furnace (W)
Qtube radiant heat duty of a single tube (W)
Qscenario radiant heat duty of all tubes in a model representing
furnace (W)
W width of a cabin type furnace (distance of main walls)
(m)
x length-wise coordinate in a furnace (along the flame)
(m)
tematic analysis of the tube circumferential factor in
configurations that are not covered by the standards, but are often
encountered in practice. The previous results [5] indicated a cer-
tain correlation of tube coil deformations with changes in heat
loading, but in combination with other phenomena. Thus here
we provide an independent analysis of tube coil imperfections.
The API standards also indicate that longitudinal heat flux vari-
ability (along the flame) is moderate, compared to the tube circum-
ferential variability. In this work we provide multiple measured
evidences that the longitudinal heat flux variability may easily
reach comparable level to the tube circumference and contribute
to overall heat flux variability in a fired heater much more signifi-
cantly than previously expected.
All results in this work are interpreted in terms of the standard
design calculation methodology to facilitate meaningful interpre-
tation by furnace designers. Consequently, it is necessary to pro-
vide in the beginning a brief introduction of the standard design
practices. In the results chapter, evidence is provided on how flame
shape, tube coil deformations and tube coil arrangement with
changing tube diameter influence heat flux uniformity. The find-
ings indicate that continuation of the strict adherence to standard
design practices in this specific industry [11] may lead to unneces-
sary operating problems including significant fouling propensity
and wear of the tube coil.
2. Fired heater design and operational issues
The design calculation of fired heaters is based on a single equa-
tion, which we have to briefly introduce in order to define termi-
nology that will enable us to translate our results into the
language of the furnace designers. After that, configurations inves-
tigated in this work are described and related to the issues faced in
design and operation of fired heaters.
2.1. Design calculation according to API standards
Fired heaters for refinery applications are generally designed for
an average radiant heat flux (qr), which is one of the most impor-
tant design parameters. The typical way to obtain the average radi-
ant heat flux is to first calculate the radiant heat duty (Qr) of the
new fired heater (from the required total heat duty). A method of
obtaining Qr is not part of API standards, but there are several
well-established 1D quasi-theoretical calculation techniques, e.g.
[12]. These are based on global design parameters of the fired hea-
ter and its tube coil, like tube spacing and outer tube diameter d.
704 J. Hájek, Z. Jegla / Applied Thermal Engineering 125 (2017) 702–713
When the radiant heat duty Qr is established, the average radiant
heat flux (qr) is obtained by dividing Qr with the total radiant heat
transfer area. Note that the average convection heat flux to the
tube coil in a furnace (qrc) is typically much smaller quantity.
Average radiant heat flux forms the basis from which local-
maximum radiant heat flux qm has to be estimated. A key equation
provided in API Standard 530 [1] stipulates that the local-
maximum radiant heat flux qm is to be calculated as follows:
qm ¼ F C  F L  F T  ðqr  qrc Þ þ qrc
where FC, FL and FT are so-called factors (proportionality constants)
accounting for (tube) circumferential heat-flux-density variations,
(furnace) longitudinal heat-flux-density variations, and effect of
the tube metal temperature on the radiant heat-flux density,
respectively.
Factor FC is a function of tube spacing and tube-wall distance.
Longitudinal heat-flux-density variation factor FL reflects the influ-
ence of radiant zone shape on the distribution of heat flux density
along the flame. Note that the longitudinal dimension in cylindrical
as well as in cabin-type radiant chambers is always along the flame
(i.e. vertical dimension).
2.2. Tube deformations
In operating fired heaters, the geometry of tube coil undergoes
quite significant thermal expansion. In combination with slight
imperfections of the tube suspension and coil assembly, progres-
sive coking and complex turbulent two-phase flow in the tubes,
this often leads to vibrations and significant deformations of the
tubes, some of which are observable even in cold furnaces during
shutdown. In this work, we do not take into account vibrations
of the tubes, which may lead to noise and wear, but we focus on
tube coil deformations that may impact the radiative heat transfer,
namely the tube circumferential heat flux variability factor FC.
This work is further limited to fired heaters with vertical tubes,
which is motivated by the fact that fired heaters with vertical tubes
enable independent analysis of tube circumferential and longitudi-
nal heat flux variability. In contrast to that, tube circumferential
heat flux variability cannot be separated from longitudinal heat
flux variability in fired heaters with horizontal or helical coils.
However, results of heat flux variability for displaced vertical tubes
are to a great degree relevant to horizontal coils as well.
Since the axisymmetric circular geometry of tubes is not easily
affected by deformations due to large internal pressures, only tube
displacements caused by tube bending or transverse (crosswise)
translation need to be considered. Lengthwise translations of the
tubes are not relevant, as vertical tubes sit on the furnace floor
(thus cannot move in the vertical direction). To further simplify
the problem, this work analyses a situation where a single tube
is slightly displaced from its nominal position, with other tubes
undisturbed. In this way, it is possible to quantify the precise effect
of coil deformation on radiative heat flux variability.
2.3. Change of tube coil diameter
The heated process medium in tube coil is typically a mixture of
liquid and gaseous fractions of crude oil. Very frequent applications
of fired heaters are found in crude distillation units (CDUs), where
partial evaporation of the process fluid occurs in the tubes. Certain
prescribed evaporated fraction of the stream is usually required for
correct performance of the following unit, i.e. distillation column.
Boiling of the working fluid typically starts in the tube coil of the
radiant chamber. With the ongoing evaporation process and
increasing gaseous fraction in the stream, specific volume of the
fluid-gas mixture increases and due to that, the mean velocity of
the stream rises as well. This can lead to negative changes in the
regime of two-phase flow (for example from bubble to slug/
churn/plug flow or to wall local dry-out) and consequently to sig-
nificant decline in the intensity of heat transfer.
In order to prevent undesirable acceleration of the process fluid
with resulting high pressure drop and decreased heat transfer
intensity, the designers sometimes choose to increase the tube coil
diameter within the radiant chamber of the fired heater. The
growth of tube coil diameter is governed by the evaporation and
boiling of the medium in the tube. Thus especially in cases of vac-
ð1Þ
uum distillation processes, the tube coil needs to be widened,
sometimes not even simply to the next standardised tube diame-
ter, but even to the second or third following standardised tube
size. The design considerations are naturally influenced also by
the cost optimization of the tube coil, which is made of expensive
high-alloy steel. The present work aims at providing evidence in
terms of factor FC to aid in the design of such atypical tube coils.
2.4. Traditional approach to determine the factor FL
Only general recommendations on height to diameter ratios (L/
D) for cylindrical radiant chambers or height to width ratios (L/W)
for cabin radiant chambers can be found in the standards. For
example, the recommendation of API 530/2008 [1] for longitudinal
variability factor FL for a fired heated studied in a recent case study
[5] is a value from the interval h1.0; 1.5i. API 530/2008 says liter-
ally that values between 1.0 and 1.5 are most often used and spec-
ifies that in a firebox with very uniform distribution of heat-flux
density, a value of 1.0 can be appropriate, while value greater than
1.5 is appropriate only in a firebox with extremely uneven distri-
bution of heat flux density (e.g. a tall, narrow firebox).
Experienced design engineer of fired heaters Pelini [13] gives
more specific guidelines about the FL factor than API 530/2008.
He says that longitudinal flux is difficult to quantify accurately,
as it depends on the fuel characteristics, flame length, and excess
air levels. He explains that for gas-fired heaters with a flame length
equal to 50–60% of the radiant cylinder length, the (longitudinal)
peak flux occurs at a distance of about 1/3 of the radiant zone
length from the burner. At this location the longitudinal heat flux
factor (FL) may be obtained as normalised local radiant heat flux.
Pelini further specifies that FL is mostly in the range from 1.05 to
1.4, with 1.1 being a typical value for a single long-flame forced-
draft burner and 1.2 a typical value for high intensity burner (i.e.
typically low-NOx type), as shown by indicative heat flux profiles
in Fig. 1. Unfortunately, he provides no experimental evidence or
references to support these claims.
Fig. 1. Typical variations of the correction factor FL according to [13]. (Note that x=L
is the normalised longitudinal coordinate.) Solid line represents classical burners
and dashed line high intensity burners.
 J. Hájek, Z. Jegla / Applied Thermal Engineering 125 (2017) 702–713
From comparison of the curves in Fig. 1 it is apparent that Pelini
[13] expects an increase of longitudinal variability factor FL by
about 10% (from FL = 1.1 to FL = 1.2) due to high intensity burner
(typical of low-NOx type burners), as compared to classical burner
type. Moreover, he notes that these values are to be expected in
radiant zone with L/D between 2.0 and 3.0 and flame length
between 50 and 60% of the radiant chamber length. This implies
that only radiant chambers with L/D higher than 3.0 or with differ-
ent flame length could have more uneven longitudinal distribution
of heat flux density.
In spite of the apparent lack of hard evidence, this quantitative
expectation about the value of FL factor is widely accepted by the
engineering community, which is reflected in the design of numer-
ous fired heaters [14]. In this work, we put together measured and
calculated data showing that the widespread assumptions are in
fact not trustworthy.
2.5. Influence of radiant chamber proportions on the factor FL
Extensive literature review performed in [14] shows that the
expectations of Pelini [13] regarding the value of FL factor are
widely shared. Let us briefly summarize the main relevant points
of the review. Notably, Martin [15] states that large height to width
(L/W) ratios reduce cabin heater plot space and that historically a
maximum L/W ratio of 2.7 was considered a good design practice
to keep the longitudinal heat flux distribution reasonably uniform.
However, this is in contrast with many heaters that are still
designed with L/W > 3.0 (typically from 3.3 to 3.5), so they are tall
and narrow and exhibit larger longitudinal heat flux variations per
tube pass resulting in high tube temperatures, especially in the
middle of the tube passes. Similarly Cross [16] discusses cabin-
type heater with L/W ratio in the range h2.5; 3.5i and recommends
a value around 2.5 to minimize the longitudinal heat flux variation.
Cross [16] also discusses vertical cylindrical-type heater and rec-
ommends the L/D ratio between 2.0 and 3.0 with preferred value
around 2.5 for acceptable longitudinal heat flux variation. None
of the authors however argue with the API-proposed range of FL
factor.
Interestingly, the above design recommendations are in good
agreement with the results of a method for optimum design of ver-
tical cylindrical fired heater, presented in [17] for vertical cylindri-
cal heater containing convective section and in [18] for vertical
cylindrical heater without convective section. In the case with con-
vective section Jegla [17] shows that vertical tube coil in radiant
chamber with L/D ratio of 2.4 is an optimum configuration with
minimum overall cost (including investment and operating costs).
In the case without convective section Jegla [18] identified L/D
ratio of 2.2 and spiral tube coil heat transfer system as optimum
configuration with minimum overall cost.
Summarizing the above notes, it can be concluded that even
widely recommended configurations of radiant chambers with
the L/D or L/W ratios in the range of 2.5–3.0 do not ensure small
longitudinal heat flux variations (in contrast with the general rec-
ommendations of API 530/2008). To our experience, no measured
data have been published to corroborate the published opinions
on FL factor by hard evidence. Designer of a fired heater, wishing
to put his decision about the value of FL factor on firm ground is
thus left in the void.
Our recently published results of detailed 3D computational
modelling of a cylindrical fired heater [5] show that the real longi-
tudinal variability factor FL may easily exceed value of 1.7 or 1.9
(depending on the refractory wall material) even in chambers with
L/D around 2.5 (and designed according API standards). Note that
the heater in [5] used up-to-date low-NOx burners. This unique
evidence has been to our knowledge the first to suggest that real
longitudinal heat flux variation may be in a sharp contrast with
705
the very weak non-uniformity widely assumed by the designers,
guided by the API design standards. In this work, large laboratory
experiments and industrial measurements supplemented by novel
simplified modelling are reported for the purpose of providing new
evidence in this argument.
3. Modelling methods and validation
The present work presents data computed by two methods as
well as measured in large-scale laboratory and in operating fired
heater. This chapter provides an overview of the methods, config-
urations and approaches that were used to obtain the data.
3.1. 2D surface-to-surface radiative heat transfer model
The nonuniformity of heat flux distribution on tube circumfer-
ence has been traditionally analysed using simplified 2D calcula-
tions of radiative heat transfer [4]. The values of tube
circumferential heat flux variability factor used in standards like
API 530 [1] are based on such calculations. They cover an array
of basic design configurations including one or more rows of tubes
arranged along a refractory wall or placed between two flames, and
a wide span of pitch to diameter ratios.
Basic parameters of the configuration that was traditionally
used to calculate tube circumferential factor include perfect sym-
metry and temperature uniformity of heat source (flame), adia-
batic refractories and constant temperature on the inside tube
walls, as well as no circumferential heat transfer by conduction
in the tube wall. Radiative properties of all surfaces are also ide-
alised, they are all assumed radiatively diffuse and black. There is
no medium (gas) participating in radiative heat transfer. Due to
all these simplifications, the absolute values of predicted heat flux
distributions must be normalised before interpretation. This is
however no obstacle, as information is needed only about heat flux
nonuniformity (factor FC). In the present computational analysis,
all physical model parameters were set to correspond to this clas-
sical approach.
The numerical model used to determine the value of factor FC is
the so-called surface-to-surface (S2S) radiation model [19]. The
model is a modern implementation of the zonal method, however
simplified in that it does not account for participating medium.
Nevertheless, it is perfectly suited to analyse tube circumferential
heat flux factors using the assumptions described above.
The amount of incident radiant energy on a specific surface is a
direct function of a geometric ‘‘view factor” F jk , which is the frac-
tion of energy leaving surface j incident on surface k. These view
factors have to be calculated for all surface faces before the start
of a simulation. In problems with large number of surface faces,
this can become very time consuming task, but in the present anal-
ysis, the CPU costs were on the order of minutes due to relatively
simple 2D geometries.
The settings of the S2S model were very strict to achieve max-
imum precision. Thus, no clustering of surface faces was allowed,
aliasing effects in calculation of face projections were minimised.
Residual convergence criterion in the iterative solution of radiative
heat transfer equation was also set to a very conservative value of
1012. View factors were calculated by the ray tracing method. Set-
tings of the S2S model were optimised by progressive modifica-
tions that were repeated until the results were independent of
the settings. The boundary conditions in the 2D simulations were
defined by constant temperature values of the flame and the tubes.
There was no participating medium.
Grid resolution in all the simulated cases was based on the tube
diameter (in case of two tube diameters, the smaller served as a
basis). Fixed cell size of 1/30 of tube diameter has led to about
706 J. Hájek, Z. Jegla / Applied Thermal Engineering 125 (2017) 702–713
100 cell faces on the tube circumference. This has been found fully
satisfactory in order to resolve tube circumferential heat loading.
In spite of all measures adopted in order to ensure consistently
accurate predictions, it is important to note validation results of
the present model. The validation has been reported in [5] and
excellent agreement was obtained.
3.2. Modelled configurations in tube displacement analysis
If we disregard helical tube coil arrangements that are used only
exceptionally, all the remaining fired heaters have tube coils con-
sisting of straight tubes welded together using 180° or 90° bends.
Tube bends are dominantly manufactured in two designs, so-
called ‘‘short radius” (SR) and ‘‘long radius” (LR) bends. Sizing of
the bends defines pitch of the tubes in a fired heater, which for
SR bends is about 1.8 times the tube outside diameter and for LR
bends about it is 2.7 times the tube outside diameter. There are
slight differences in these ratios between the various normalised
tube sizes.
In vertical cylindrical chambers the tube coil is typically ori-
ented vertically (in special cases it can be helical). The tube coil
is placed close to the chamber wall, while one or several burners
fire vertically upward inside the circle of tubes. In the cabin type
radiant chambers, the tube coil system typically consists of hori-
zontally oriented tubes placed only on the longer side walls (‘‘main
walls”). Typically on the heater centreline are installed burners
(one or more rows) firing vertically upward between the main
walls.
Note that the nominal tube distance from refractory wall is
equal to one tube diameter. Also note that helical coils (in both
cylindrical and cabin-type fired heaters) enable virtually any pitch
of the tubes. Optimum pitch then can be found using design opti-
misation based on economic objective function with technical con-
straints [18].
Four basic configurations were analysed to evaluate the impact
of tube displacement on radiative heat flux variability. These corre-
spond to cylindrical and cabin-type furnace geometries, each alter-
nately with SR and LR tube bends. The modelled configurations are
all conceptually very similar to the one displayed in Fig. 2. They
consist of the same set of boundary zones (flame, refractory, tubes
and symmetry planes) and they also contain the same number of
tube cross-sections. On both sides of the deformed tube there are
in all cases six undisturbed tube cross sections in their design posi-
tions. The number of tubes necessary to keep in the modelled
domain has been determined in preliminary calculations to pro-
vide negligible impact on the outermost tubes, when the central
tube is deformed.
The impact of the central tube deformation was studied in a ser-
ies of simulations covering a two-dimensional array of displace-
ments. The transverse translations of the central tube were
limited to ±80% of tube diameter in the wall-normal direction,
which means that the tube may get to a distance of one fifth of
its diameter to the wall, but will not touch it. In the wall-
Fig. 2. Sketch of the simulated domain, in this case for a cylindrical fired heater
with SR bends.
tangential direction, maximum displacement is also limited by a
minimal distance from the neighbouring tube, which is again about
one fifth of the tube diameter. This means that in cylindrical fur-
nace with SR coil bends, the tube may move ±3°, and with LR coils
±6°. Due to the symmetry of the modelled domain, tangential dis-
placements to only one side needed to be simulated. A complete
displacement array (including mirrored displacements) from a
cylindrical fired heater with SR tube bends is schematically
sketched in Fig. 3. Note that the outside tube diameter in all simu-
lations was 194 mm (same as in [5]).
The number of simulated scenarios was different for LR and SR
cases, which is a consequence of the constant displacement steps
equal to 20% of tube diameter. In total, there were 45 simulated
scenarios for the SR coils and 90 for the LR coils.
3.3. Configurations in analysis of changing tube diameter
The parameter targeted by this analysis is the distance of tubes
with smaller diameter from the refractory wall, as standards do not
say explicitly whether smaller tubes should be aligned with the
larger tubes on the wall side or on the flame side or lie somewhere
in between these limits. Computations were performed for four
locations of the smaller tube, as shown schematically in Fig. 4.
The highlighted position C lies in the middle between the limits
and position B lies at 25% of the range, measured from the flame
side. All the four alternatives were simulated for both SR and LR
tube bends.
As there are slight differences in proportions between the vari-
ous combinations of standard tube diameters, three most com-
monly encountered tube changes were analysed, specifically 1000 –
800 (DN 250 – DN 200), 800 –600 (DN 200 – DN 150), 600 –400 (DN 150
– DN 100). Thus altogether have been analysed 24 different geom-
etry configurations.
The modelled configurations are all conceptually very similar to
each other. They consist of the same set of boundary zones (flame,
refractory, tubes and symmetry planes on the sides) same as in the
tube displacement analysis. In contrast to the former, there are in
all cases five large tubes and ten small tubes. The number of tubes
necessary has been determined to provide negligible impact on the
outermost tubes, so that the symmetry conditions would not have
a detrimental impact on the results.
Fig. 3. Sketch of the displacement matrix (including positions mirrored across the
symmetry axis), in this case for a cylindrical fired heater with SR bends. Two
displaced tubes are plotted (red dotted lines) as examples. (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)
 J. Hájek, Z. Jegla / Applied Thermal Engineering 125 (2017) 702–713
B
Combustion chamber design using an arbitrary zonal or plug-
Fig. 4. Four alternatives with different wall-normal position of the smaller tubes.
3.4. Combustion experiments for measuring FL factor
Specialised burner testing facilities equipped for the measure-
ment of MW-scale burner characteristics are rare. They are avail-
able to only a few specialized research institutes and burner
manufacturers over the world. The purpose of these burner testing
facilities is primarily to identify safe and stable operating envelope
and emission characteristics. The tests provide burner characteris-
tics that must be known before new burner can be applied in an
industrial unit.
Testing facilities providing additional capabilities not related to
the primary purpose are however exceptional. To the best of our
knowledge, there is only one burner testing facility worldwide
(described e.g. in [20]), which is equipped for accurate measure-
ment of actual local heat flux extracted by combustion chamber
walls. Conceptually similar combustion facilities like the one in
London [21] or in Lisbon [22] are not equipped to measure heat
flux in the cooling water at individual annular segments of the
combustion chamber.
This very special burner testing facility is operated at the Insti-
tute of Process Engineering, Brno University of Technology. It has a
horizontal double-shell water-cooled combustion chamber of
overall length 4 m with 1.2 m outside diameter (inner dimensions
are L = 3.8 m and D = 1.0 m, i.e., L/D = 3.8). Unique feature of the
design is independent cooling water supply with flow rate and
temperature measurement in each of the sections. This enables
very robust and very accurate determination of the heat flux
absorbed along the length of the chamber from heat balance of
cooling water side [23]. Further information about the design
and instrumentation of the testing facility can be found in [20] or
[24].
Experimental research performed at the facility has had many
objectives, but it is worth mentioning that heat loads along the
flame were collected in most of these tests. For example, recently
Bělohradský et al. [20] published results on the effects of oxygen
content in combustion air on the combustion characteristics of
two-gas-staged low-NOx burner type. Similarly Skryja et al. [25]
presented experimental investigation on the impact of operating
conditions and burner design parameters on nitrogen oxides for-
mation. Thus data on the heat flux distribution are available for
several different burner types, fuels, oxidizers and other various
combustion conditions.
3.5. Low cost modelling of longitudinal heat flux variation
In the analysis of longitudinal heat flux variations in radiant
zone of a fired heater (for the purpose of interpreting and transpos-
ing experimental data) it is advantageous to employ a low-cost
model, so-called Modified Plug Flow (MPF) model. It has been
devised as integral part of an approach for efficient and accurate
design of combustion chambers with inbuilt heat transfer surfaces
[14]. The methodology is composed of three main steps:
707

Experiment to measure heat flux profile specific to a specific
burner

Modified Plug Flow model applied to obtain burn-out profile
flow method
The general principle of the MPF model is schematically pre-
sented in Fig. 5 using as example the above described testing facil-
ity, i.e. horizontally oriented cylindrical radiant chamber of length
L divided into n segments. Fig. 5 shows the local heat flow (Qi, [W])
absorbed by the heat transfer area of i-th segment (Ai, [m2]) as a
function of the local volumetric heat release rate (i.e. volume frac-
tion of fuel burnt) the sum of which in the whole chamber is one.
When the measured longitudinal heat flux profile is available from
burner testing, then MPF model allows (using a fitting procedure)
to identify the thermal behaviour of the burner, represented by a
sequence of calculated burn-out fractions along the combustion
chamber length. Further details on the MPF model can be found
in [14].
Besides its primary use, the MPF model can also be applied in
data reconciliation and interpretation for field measurements of
heat flux on operating industrial fired heaters, where thermal
behaviour of individual burners is usually not known. Such appli-
cation of the MPF model requires a proper adaptation for the actual
geometry of the industrial combustion chamber and its inbuilt
tubular heat transfer system. Details of the methodology may be
found in [26]. This approach is applied in the following chapter
to reconcile and interpret results of industrial heat flux measure-
ment, which has poor spatial resolution. Calculations performed
using the adapted MPF model thus further enable validation of lon-
gitudinal heat flux variation predicted using Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) for an industrial fired heater (numerically anal-
ysed in our previous paper [5]).
4. Results for circumferential heat-flux-density variation factor
FC
In order to interpret meaningfully the large amount of data gen-
erated in the computations, it is important to describe the postpro-
cessing methodology adopted in this study.
1,3
FL
1.0
0.7
Fig. 5. Schematic outline of the general principle of MPF model (modified from
[26]).
708 J. Hájek, Z. Jegla / Applied Thermal Engineering 125 (2017) 702–713
4.1. Postprocessing methodology
The methodology is focused on providing data directly applica-
ble in the design of fired heaters. Therefore, all the results are pri-
marily postprocessed by normalization. However, the
normalization procedure had to be slightly modified for the pre-
sent purpose.
Analysing a single tube circumference for mean and peak heat
flux yields the basic data necessary to calculate the classical tube
circumference heat flux variability factor. However, in the present
case, dealing with nonuniform, asymmetric geometries, the heat
flux distribution is different on each tube in any of the simulated
scenarios. Therefore, also the tube circumference heat flux variabil-
ity factor is different for each tube in a scenario. That creates
uncertainty and does not satisfy the need to assign a single result
to each of the scenarios.
One option how to define a single characteristic figure for a sce-
nario is to use the highest circumference heat flux variability factor
from all tubes in the scenario. Let us call this a ‘‘local” factor and
denote it F C;local :
! normalised by the overall mean heat transfer rate in the scenario.
maxðqÞ
tube
F C;local ¼ maxscenario ð2Þ
Q tube
where q is heat flux density at a point on tube surface and Qtube is
mean heat flux density on the tube circumference. The indices of
the ‘‘max” function serve as an intuitive representation of a more
rigorous mathematical expression, which would include the indices
of each tube in the furnace and index of an individual scenario. This
definition is consistent with the old tabulated data e.g. in [4], where
a single tube represented well all of them, due to perfect symmetry.
However, in the case of deformed coil, high F C;local factor may occur
even on tubes with modest peak heat flux, as it depends also on the
denominator in Eq. (2).
In order to define a truly representative value of tube circumfer-
ence heat flux variability factor for each scenario, one should keep
in mind its primary purpose. Specifically, heat flux variability fac-
tors are used in a standardised calculation procedure described
above in Section 2.1 to compute maximum heat flux in a radiant
chamber by multiplying the mean heat flux in that chamber. It is
apparent that increase of heat flux above the mean value on any
tube has to be accounted for by the resulting factor. Let us call this
a ‘‘global” factor and denote it F C :
max ðqÞ
F C ¼ scenario ð3Þ
Q scenario
where q is the set of local heat flux densities occurring in a scenario
and Qscenario is mean heat flux density calculated from all tubes in
that scenario. This seems to be a more robust definition, which cor-
responds well to the purpose of the tube circumference heat flux
variability factor. However, the mean heat flux in each scenario
may be different. It remains to check, how the mean heat flux differs
between the scenarios.
To compare the behaviour of the two factors, let us analyse in
more detail the results for any one of the four basic configurations.
We choose arbitrarily a cylindrical furnace with SR tube bends in
the tube coil. Note that the nominal value of circumferential heat
flux variability factor related to the undisturbed geometry in this
case is equal to 1.89. To display cumulatively the resulting heat
flux variability factors, we use the displacement matrix as a
domain, on which are plotted the values of F C;local or F C for each
of the scenarios, as shown in Fig. 6. It is clear from Fig. 6 that the
local factor F C;local rises appreciably higher than the global factor
and also that their overall behaviour is quite different. The global
factor F C has a fairly flat profile for scenarios where the deformed
tube is displaced towards the refractory wall. It grows more steeply
only with a shift of the displaced tube towards the flame. In con-
trast to that, the local factor F C;local grows most when the displaced
tube comes close to its neighbour.
In order to get more insight into this behaviour, let us look at
the mean heat flux over all tubes in a scenario, which is used in
the denominator of Eq. (3). Its value should be similar across all
scenarios of a given configuration; otherwise it would make the
factors incomparable. We again use the configuration of cylindrical
furnace with SR tube bends. Fig. 7 shows that the overall heat
transfer is mostly affected only slightly, but extreme tube deforma-
tion may decrease overall radiative heat transfer by up to 1.5%. In
contrast to that, there is a very small set of scenarios with the dis-
placed tube moved slightly towards the flame, in which overall
heat transfer is very slightly increased by 0.035% at most.
Further, it is insightful to look at the heat loading of individual
tubes. This is however possible only for a single scenario at a time,
due to the high dimensionality of the complete results. Two
extreme deformation scenarios are documented in Figs. 8 and 9.
Peak and mean heat fluxes on individual tubes are in these figures
Also shown are peak-to-mean values on each tube. Note that high-
est of the heat flux peaks is the value of global factor F C for the sce-
nario, whereas F C;local is the highest peak-to-mean value.
The first scenario documented in Fig. 8 is characterized by a rel-
atively high value of both global and local factor. The displaced
tube is shifted towards the flame and receives an increased radia-
tive heat flux. The nearest neighbouring tube is partially shadowed
and as expected, it receives a smaller amount of radiative heat flux.
The figure shows that interestingly, the shadowed tube has a high
value of heat flux variability, almost equal to that of the displaced
tube, in spite of having the lowest peak heat flux of all tubes in the
scenario.
The second scenario documented by Fig. 9 features a central
tube displaced towards the refractory and it has a relatively high
value of the local factor, whereas the global factor is moderate
(see Fig. 6). Additionally, the overall radiative heat transfer in this
scenario is lower than with the nominal tube coil geometry (see
Fig. 7). This scenario thus provides a second clear argument against
the local factor F C;local , because the high value of this local factor is
not caused by increased peak load to the tubes, but rather by a low
mean loading of the two most affected tubes.
Therefore, in the remainder of this paper we report only the val-
ues of global factor F C . It has been shown that in the presence of
displaced tube, the global definition of tube circumference heat
flux variability factor by Eq. (3) provides relevant information
about the relationship of the mean and peak heat flux on tube sur-
faces. In contrast to that, the local definition is misleading and
should be avoided.
4.2. Tube displacement
The results for a tube coil in the same cylindrical furnace with
LR bends are qualitatively very similar to the SR case analysed in
detail in the previous section. The nominal value of circumferential
heat flux variability factor related to the undisturbed geometry is
equal to 1.58. It is smaller in this configuration compared to the
case with SR bends, due to higher pitch-to-diameter ratio. Also,
the variability of the F C factor is decreased as documented by
Fig. 10(a). The reference value used in the calculation of the F C fac-
tor (the mean heat transfer rate in a scenario) behaves also very
similarly to the SR case, as shown in Fig. 10(b). Its range is slightly
larger than for the SR case, but again varies appreciably only in
extreme tube displacements.
 J. Hájek, Z. Jegla / Applied Thermal Engineering 125 (2017) 702–713 709

Fig. 6. Contour plots of (a) local tube circumferential heat flux variability factor FC,local, (b) global tube circumferential heat flux variability factor FC. Both plots are from
cylindrical furnace with SR tube bends. Red asterisk marks the nominal tube position. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred
to the web version of this article.)

at most. Specifically, the maximum predicted increase is about

5% in both configurations with SR and LR tube bends.
In cabin-type fired heaters, the sensitivity of peak tube circum-
ference heat flux to a tube displacement is lower than in the case of
cylindrical configurations. The predictions are summarized in
terms of the F C factor in Figs. 11and 12. On closer inspection, the
data reveal that maximum predicted increase of the peak tube cir-
cumferential heat flux is about 1.5% in the SR case and about 2.4%
in the LR case.

4.3. Tube alignment with change of tube diameter

The results of case study relating to a change of diameter in the

Fig. 7. Mean heat flux Qscenario for cylindrical furnace with SR tube bends, scale in
percent, normalised by the mean heat flux for nominal geometry scenario, red star
marks the nominal scenario. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
To summarize the main results for cylindrical fired heaters, we
observe mainly that single tube displacement may lead to an
increase of peak tube circumferential heat flux by several percent
tube coil have revealed that sensitivity of peak tube circumference
heat flux to the type of alignment of the smaller tubes is marginal.
Fig. 13 shows the graphs of peak heat flux on a tube over mean
_ Q_ scenario for each of the
heat flux in the scenario, i.e. maxtube ðqÞ=
tubes included in a scenario. For simplicity, vertical axis in the
graphs is denoted as F C , since F C for a scenario is the largest value
in the corresponding graph. It is also clear to see that the impact of
changing alignment is significantly decreased in the case of larger
tube pitch (with LR tube bends). The differences between the
specific diameter changes were negligible, thus only one set of
results is displayed on behalf of all four (specified in Section 3.3).
Comparing the four scenarios A to D, the highest heat flux vari-
ability is observed in scenario D. The increased variability however

2
Normalized means and peaks

Fig. 8. Left: normalised heat loads to individual tubes for a scenario with high global and local factors F C and F C;local . Full squares: means, empty squares: peaks, line: local
peaks/means highest of which is F C;local . Right: schematic drawing of the scenario.
710 J. Hájek, Z. Jegla / Applied Thermal Engineering 125 (2017) 702–713

Normalized means and peaks

Fig. 9. Left: normalised heat loads to individual tubes for a scenario with moderate global factor F C and high local factor F C;local . Full squares: means, empty squares: peaks,
line: local peaks/means highest of which is F C;local . Right: schematic drawing of the scenario.

Fig. 11. Global tube circumferential heat flux variability factor FC, for cabin-type
furnace with SR tube bends, red star marks the scenario with tubes in nominal
position. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 10. Cylindrical furnace with LR tube bends, (a) global tube circumferential heat
flux variability factor FC, b) mean heat flux Qscenario, scaled in percent (normalised
by the mean heat flux in nominal geometry scenario). Red star marks the scenario
with tubes in nominal position. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

means that a few tubes have lower peak heat loading and margin-
ally increased loading is observed only on the larger tubes. There
are larger changes in the mean heat flux absorbed by individual
tubes, as evidenced by Fig. 14. The reason for that is a lower degree
of shadowing of the larger tubes, when smaller tubes are aligned Fig. 12. Global tube circumferential heat flux variability factor FC, for cabin-type
furnace with LR tube bends, red star marks the scenario with tubes in nominal
farther from the flame. The maximum differences in mean heat
position. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
flux are on the order of several percent and again, the differences reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
are larger in the case of SR tube bends.

5.1. Impact of low-NOx burner head on FL factor

5. Results for longitudinal heat-flux-density variation factor F L
This chapter provides a discussion of several related results for
the longitudinal heat flux variation factor F L . First are presented
data measured in the large-scale burner testing facility. After that
follows a validation of 3D CFD simulation in terms of longitudinal
heat flux distribution. For this purpose, results of heat flux mea-
surement are compared also with results of MFP model.
Significant for the analysis of the F L factor are experimental data
from two experiments at the burner testing facility (described in
Section 3.4) that are shown in Fig. 15. The data are adapted by nor-
malising results published in [25]. They are in qualitative agree-
ment with the F L profiles of Fig. 1 in the sense that low-NOx
burner design contributes to increasing longitudinal heat flux vari-
 J. Hájek, Z. Jegla / Applied Thermal Engineering 125 (2017) 702–713 711

Fig. 13. Global tube circumferential heat flux variability factor FC, for a step change in tube diameter.

Fig. 14. Mean heat flux Qtube for a step change in tube diameter.

5.2. Heat flux density measurement on operating fired heater

The fired heater discussed in this chapter is very similar to the

model heater described in detail and simulated using CFD in [5]. It
is a typical vertical cylindrical fired heater (see Fig. 16) containing
standard radiant and convective zone, operated in crude oil atmo-
spheric distillation unit. Radiant zone of the heater and its tube
system has been designed in accordance with the relevant API
Standards 530 [1] and 560 [2]. Tubular system of the radiant zone
consists of two-pass tube coil containing a total of 60 tubes (placed
in one row around circular lining wall) with constant tube outer
diameter 194 mm and tube spacing 350 mm. The tubes are approx-
imately 17 m long and the tube coil circle diameter (D) is about
6.7 m, so the shape of radiant chamber is characterized by ratio
of height (L) to tube coil diameter L=D ffi 2:5. The radiant chamber
is equipped by two levels of observation doors, allowing visual

Fig. 15. Comparison of longitudinal heat flux profiles of experimental burner before Tubes of
application of low-NOx modifications (standard burner head: —) and after (new
Convection
burner head: - - -). Data from [25], normalised.
Section
+ 17.0 m top of chamber
ability. Specifically, the original burner head was replaced by
newly designed low-NOx burner head tailored for the same burner
body (both had 1 MW nominal firing duty). Note that the main rea- position of 2nd level
son why peaks of heat flux profiles in Fig. 15 are located at around + 10.0 m of observation doors
1/2 length of radiant chamber is that flame shape of the burner has Tubes of
Radiant
not been optimised for the testing facility. The facility itself can be position of 1st level
Chamber + 5.0 m
used for burners up to 1.8 MW. of observation doors
Combustion chamber of the burner testing facility does not con-
tain a tubular heat transfer system and instead the inner surface of
the chamber is plain cylinder serving as heat transfer area (inten- + 0.0 m bottom of chamber
sively cooled by water). Hence the other variability factors (for
tube circumference and temperature variation, as described in Sec-
tion 2.1) are practically eliminated by the design of the combustion Burners
chamber (in accordance with Eq. (1) one may consider F C ¼ 1 and
F T  1). Fig. 16. Simplified drawing and description of the fired heater.
712 J. Hájek, Z. Jegla / Applied Thermal Engineering 125 (2017) 702–713
check on all radiant tubes and all burner flames. These observation
doors are located at the level of 5.0 m and 10.0 m above the bottom
of radiant zone (see Fig. 16). Each level contains 12 observations
doors placed uniformly over the circumference of the radiant
section.
The burner system contains a total of six staged-gas low-NOx
burners vertically oriented and mounted on bottom of the radiant
section. The burners are equipped with guide-vane stabilizers
(swirlers) and each has 4 MW nominal firing duty. Air preheat sys-
tem supplies combustion air preheated to 170 °C. Results of stan-
dard rating thermal–hydraulic simulation of the fired heater for
nominal operating conditions further inform that thermal effi-
ciency of the fired heater is 90%, average heat flux of radiant tubes
is about 30 kW/m2 and outlet flue gas temperature from radiant
section (i.e. bridge wall temperature) is about 700 °C.
Fired heater during its operation generally allows access for
probes only at certain locations of the radiant zone. Heat flux mea-
surement is thus a typical example of measurement which pro-
vides only partial insight, as it cannot cover the chamber height
in any detail. Moreover, such operating measurement requires spe-
cialized equipment (heat flux meter) with trained staff. In the pre-
sent case, observation doors of radiant section were used as access
points to measure local total heat flux. Commercial heat flux meter
was employed in each of the access doors. Obtained results of mea-
surement were post-processed and among other statistics, average
values of local total heat flux were determined for each observation
door. These local heat flux values were normalised by the mean
radiant zone heat flux and are presented for both levels of access
doors in Fig. 17.
5.3. Validation of MPF and CFD models by measured heat fluxes
As described in Section 3.5, the low cost MPF model has been
adapted for interpretation of measured data. This approach was
applied to the measured heat fluxes shown in Fig. 17. The data
Fig. 17. Local normalised heat fluxes obtained from operating measurement of
radiant chamber, 1st level at 5 m: —, 2nd level at 10 m: - - -. Data from [26],
normalised.
from furnace circumference have been firstly averaged to yield
mean heat flux at both of the two levels of observation doors.
Number of computational segments in the MPF model provid-
ing adequate resolution was determined on the basis of the
approach recommended in [26], yielding 8 equidistant MPF model
segments. The results of MPF model are presented in Fig. 18
together with the measured data and CFD prediction of longitudi-
nal heat flux profile in a nearly identical fired heater (data adapted
from [5]).
Results of the MPF model allow interpretation in terms of grad-
ual fuel burnout along the radiant zone length (height). In the pre-
sent case of low-NOx burner system a complete burnout of fuel is
predicted in first four segments of the MPF model. Specifically,
61.3% of fuel is burnt in the first segment, 19.8% in the second seg-
ment, 14.3% in the third segment and 4.6% in the fourth segment.
Additionally, these results also indicate that flames are about
6.5 m long. (Note that all these interpretations are valid only in
the context of the simple plug-flow approximation.)
The agreement of all three sets of data in Fig. 18 is very good.
The MPF model slightly deviates from the CFD prediction, but the
position of longitudinal peak and the maximum heat flux are very
nearly the same. It can be concluded that these results confirm the
value of longitudinal variability factor F L ffi 1:7 obtained by
detailed CFD simulation and presented in our previous paper [5].
Especially important is the confirmation of the predictions by heat
flux measurement in an operating fired heater.
This finding confirms the initial hypothesis of this paper that
real longitudinal heat flux variation in fired heaters is in sharp con-
trast with the very weak non-uniformity assumed by the API
design standard. The present results show that the standard
Fig. 18. Comparison of results of operating measurement, CFD simulation and
adapted MPF model.
 J. Hájek, Z. Jegla / Applied Thermal Engineering 125 (2017) 702–713
neglects large source of overall heat flux variability in the longitu-
dinal variability factor. This means that real peak heat flux in radi-
ant zone of many fired heaters may significantly exceed the design
value.
6. Conclusions
The analysis of tube circumferential heat flux variability factor
F C has evaluated the impact of tube deformation on radiative heat
transfer. The present results provide insight into the effect of wear
in tube coils. It has been shown that the impact of tube displace-
ment is about two times higher in fired heaters with short radius
bends. It has been further quantified that tube coil deformations
lead to increases of the F C factor, which are mostly quite low, on
the order of one percent.
The impact of tube coil alignment in fired heaters with changing
tube diameter has been shown to be also marginal. Maximum heat
flux is in such situation affected only very slightly. It has been
observed that circumferential heat flux variability is appreciably
decreased for a small-diameter tube neighbouring with a larger
tube. Therefore the alignment of tubes in coil with changing diam-
eter does not need to be watched closely. Nonetheless, the best
configuration has been identified as one with tubes aligned on
the flame side.
The paper finally presents new data relating to longitudinal
heat flux density variation factor F L for up-to-date low-NOx burn-
ers. Specifically, the results prove that the real longitudinal heat
flux variation in cylindrical radiant chamber of API style fired hea-
ter (L=D ¼ 2:5) may often be in sharp contrast with the very weak
non-uniformity assumed by the API standard [1]. Thermal beha-
viour has been predicted by two independent methods and con-
firmed by measurement for an industrial low emission gas fuel
burner system operated in vertical cylindrical fired heater of crude
oil atmospheric distillation unit. Thus the present results confirm
that a high value of longitudinal variability factor F L previously
predicted by numerical simulation [5] is true and real. Our results
show that in combustion chambers equipped with up-to-date low-
NOx burners local peak heat flux may significantly exceed values
estimated by the API standard, which has grave consequences for
maintenance costs and lifetime expectation of fired heaters.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support within
the project NETME CENTRE PLUS (LO1202) which was co-funded
by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports within the support
programme ‘‘National Sustainability Programme I”.
References
[1] API, Standard 530, Calculation of Heater-tube Thickness in Petroleum
Refineries, sixth ed., American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., 2008.
[2] API, Standard 560, Fired Heaters for General Refinery Service, fourth ed.,
American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., 2007.
713
[3] W.E. Lobo, J.E. Evans, Heat transfer in radiant section of petroleum heaters,
Trans. Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. 35 (1939) 743–751.
[4] H.C. Hottel, A.F. Sarofim, Radiative Transfer, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.
[5] Z. Jegla, J. Vondál, J. Hájek, Standards for fired heater design: An assessment
based on computational modelling, Appl. Therm. Eng. 89 (2015) 1068–1078,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.05.012.
[6] G.D. Stefanidis, B. Merci, G.J. Heynderickx, G.B. Marin, CFD simulations of
steam cracking furnaces using detailed combustion mechanisms, Comput.
Chem. Eng. 30 (2006) 635–649, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.compchemeng.2005.11.010.
[7] A. Habibi, B. Merci, G.J. Heynderickx, Multiscale modeling of turbulent
combustion and NOx emission in steam crackers, AIChE J. 53 (2007) 2384–
2398, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.11243.
[8] S.C.K. De Schepper, G.J. Heynderickx, G.B. Marin, Coupled simulation of the flue
gas and process gas side of a steam cracker convection section, AIChE J. 55
(2009) 2773–2787, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.11927.
[9] G. Hu, H. Wang, F. Qian, Y. Zhang, J. Li, K.M. Van Geem, G.B. Marin,
Comprehensive CFD simulation of product yields and coking rates for a
floor- and wall-fired naphtha cracking furnace, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50 (2011)
13672–13685, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie2012642.
[10] G. Hu, H. Wang, F. Qian, K.M. Van Geem, C.M. Schietekat, G.B. Marin, Coupled
simulation of an industrial naphtha cracking furnace equipped with long-
flame and radiation burners, Comput. Chem. Eng. 38 (2012) 24–34, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2011.11.001.
[11] S. Li, H. Zhang, S. Meng, H. Lu, Improving energy efficiency for refinery through
bottleneck elimination, Chem. Eng. Trans. 45 (2015) 1159–1164, http://dx.doi.
org/10.3303/CET1545194.
[12] N. Wimpress, Generalized method predicts fired-heater performance, Chem.
Eng. (New York). 85 (1978) 95–102.
[13] R.G. Pelini, Heat flux and film temperature in fired, Therm.-Fluid Heaters,
Chem. Eng. 115 (2008) 34–40.
[14] Z. Jegla, B. Kilkovský, V. Turek, Novel approach to proper design of combustion
and radiant chambers, Appl. Therm. Eng. 105 (2016) 876–886, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.03.068.
[15] G.R. Martin, Heat-flux imbalances in fired heaters cause operating problems,
Hydrocarbon Process. 77 (1998) 103–109.
[16] A. Cross, Evaluate temperature gradients in fired heaters, Chem. Eng. Prog. 98
(2002) 42.
[17] Z. Jegla, The conceptual design of a radiant chamber and preliminary
optimization of a process tubular furnace, Heat Transfer Eng. 27 (2006) 50–
57, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01457630600674683.
[18] Z. Jegla, Optimum arrangement of tube coil in radiation type of tubular
furnace, Heat Transfer Eng. 29 (2008) 546–555, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01457630801893082.
[19] ANSYS FLUENT Release 16.2, ANSYS, Inc., 2015.
[20] P. Bělohradský, P. Skryja, I. Hudák, Experimental study on the influence of
oxygen content in the combustion air on the combustion characteristics,
Energy. 75 (2014) 116–126, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.04.026.
[21] D. Dimitriou, N. Kandamby, F. Lockwood, A mathematical modelling technique
for gaseous and solid fuel reburning in pulverised coal combustors, Fuel 82
(2003) 2107–2114, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-2361(03)00184-4.
[22] C. Casaca, M. Costa, Detailed measurements in a laboratory furnace with
reburning, Fuel 90 (2011) 1090–1100, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.fuel.2010.12.020.
[23] J. Vondál, J. Hájek, Experimental and numerical analysis of wall heat transfer in
non-premixed gas combustor, Chem. Eng. Trans. 18 (2009) 587–592, http://dx.
doi.org/10.3303/CET0918095.
[24] V. Kermes, P. Bělohradský, Biodiesel (EN 14213) heating oil substitution
potential for petroleum based light heating oil in a 1 MW stationary
combustion facility, Biomass Bioenergy. 49 (2013) 10–21, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.10.013.
[25] P. Skryja, P. Bělohradský, I. Hudák, T. Juřena, Experimental study on NOx
formation in gas-staged burner, Chem. Eng. Trans. 45 (2015) 997–1002, http://
dx.doi.org/10.3303/CET1545167.
[26] Z. Jegla, Innovative Adaptation of MPF model to recognition of thermal
behaviour of operated industrial low emission burner system, Chem. Eng.
Trans. 52 (2016) 667–672, http://dx.doi.org/10.3303/CET1652112.