The Use of Tube Inserts in Fired Heaters

By Matthew Martin, Chief Research & Development Scientist

In 1896 Whitham reported the successful use of twisted tapes (originally called retarders, and now also
called turbulators) to increase heat transfer in boiler fire tubes; the effectiveness for increased heat
transfer is well known (Whitham). The predominant use of twisted tapes is to increase heat transfer in
laminar flows, but their use in turbulent flows has also been studied extensively (Manglik).

Fired heaters are common in refining and petrochemical plants where the process requires high-intensity
heat. State-of-the-art fired heaters are some of the most fuel-efficient devices in use, with efficiencies
over 92%. It is not readily apparent how the use of turbulators, which engineers have long applied to
increase heat transfer, might benefit such highly efficient systems. The process flow in many fired heaters
vaporizes as it travels through the heater. By applying purpose-built inserts that outwardly resemble
turbulators, one can improve heat transfer characteristics of multiphase flows by addressing non-
homogeneity in the process flow regime.

Background: Fired Heaters, Heat Transfer, and Heat Flux Uniformity

Figure 1 shows a typical fired heater. Burners fire into a ‘radiant section’ transferring heat from the flue
gas to the process fluid which flows through pipes commonly called ‘tubes’. The process fluid typically
receives 60-70% of the heat within the radiant section. The flue gas then flows into the ‘convection
section’ which transfers 15-20% of the remaining heat to the process fluid. As indicated by the name of
each respective section, the principal mode of heat transfer in the radiant section is through thermal
irradiation; the principal mode of heat transfer in the convection section is convective. Tubes in the
convection section usually have extended surfaces in the form of fins or studs to provide additional heat
transfer from the hot flue gas flow.
Figure 1 - A typical fired heater. Burners fire into a radiant section generating hot flue gas. Radiation transfers 60-70% of the heat
in this section after which the flue gas flows through the convection section where the process absorbs 15-20% of the remaining
heat.

The process flow in practical fired heaters is turbulent, with Reynolds numbers on the order of 106. Most
heat transfer occurs within the radiant section where radiation accounts for 90% of the heat transferred.
The convection section compensates for small reductions in radiant section heat transfer due to fouling
and non-ideal flames; a higher radiant section exit-temperature results in more heat transfer within the
convection section. Because the process flow is turbulent resulting in a high tube-side convection heat
transfer coefficient, the principal heat transfer mechanism is radiation, and the convection section is
designed to result in a specified flue gas temperature exiting stack, there has been little incentive for fired
heater designers to increase heat transfer intensity in the fired heater using devices such as twisted tapes.
However, the benefit of in-tube mixing enhancement goes far beyond the benefits of increased heat
transfer.

Reformers and pyrolysis heaters fall among a class of heater where intentional and valuable reactions
take place inside the heater tubes. In reactor charge heater tubes, such as those used in propane
dehydrogenation units, undesirable chemical reactions cause in-heater feed conversion and reduce unit
selectivity, which reduces the ultimate yield. Many other heaters experience unintended reactions that
reduce the value of the product, usually oil, passing through the heater tubes. Heaters used in certain
services, such as crude distillation, vacuum distillation, or delayed coking, have both unintended reactions
and phase change within the heater tubes. Similar devices to heaters, such as once-through steam
generators (OTSGs), do not have chemical reactions within the tubes but do exhibit phase change. In all
cases, not only is the total absorbed heat important, but also the location of the absorbed heat –
particularly when considering yield, reliability, profitability, and safety.
To see why the variation in temperature along the outside coil surface is critical in heaters with multiphase
process flow, consider the idealized graph of heat transfer coefficient versus temperature difference
between wall and fluid in Figure 2. Beneath the chart is a representative picture of the liquid/vapor
composition within the process coil corresponding to the heat transfer coefficient. The highest
temperature at any point in the flow occurs at the boundary between the process coil wall and the process
flow. When the combustion heats the process flow, vapor first forms at the interior wall of the pipe. Gases
have a significantly lower overall convection heat transfer coefficient when compared to liquids, so the
process flow transfers less heat away from the pipe wall. In this way, deleterious feedback ensues wherein
the high wall temperature begets more boiling which in turn reduces the inside convection heat transfer
coefficient, thus increasing the wall temperature and the resulting boiling. In this way, “hotspots” can
form on the heater tubes given an initial slight difference in heat transfer.

Gravity further exacerbates phase non-uniformity inside horizontal sections of process coils. Gravity pulls
liquid, being denser than vapor, to the bottom of the pipe, resulting in a strong tendency toward stratified
flow with resulting higher temperature on the upper pipe surface.

Figure 2 - Example heat transfer coefficient versus temperature differential for a multiphase horizontal pipe and flow regime.

What is the source of temperature non-uniformity? The major sources result from the unavoidable
combination of geometry and physics. As the burner flames and hot flue gas transfer radiant heat to the
process coil, the flame-facing surface of the coil receives more heat. This is true for both ‘single-fired’
process coils where the burners are mounted on one side of the coil and ‘double-fired’ process coils where
the burners are mounted on both sides of the coil. This maldistribution is known as the circumferential
flux factor and has been well-characterized. As combustion releases heat from the burner flame and
radiant and convection transfer heat from the hot flue gas there is an additional longitudinal flux factor.
Engineers have not been able to characterize the longitudinal flux factor in a general sense because it is
heater and burner dependent. Figure 3 shows an example of single-fired tubes with high longitudinal
variation flux and the resulting peak-to-average flux ratio of 2.3. This difference in flux ratio translates to
a 61 °F higher film temperature and a 100 °F higher tube metal temperature in example calculations.

Variation in heat transfer to the process fluid comes from both within and without the process coil. So,
what is to be done? Variation in the physical properties of the fluid which are driven by vaporization inside
the coil play a strong role in the local tube metal temperature. It is also apparent that physics and
geometry of the flue gas side drive non-uniformity from the outside the coil. A common method of
increasing homogeneity in a process is to increase the mixing of the constituents. One can show through
simulation that one can precisely achieve that – increased process homogeneity with the antecedent
improvements in reduced tube metal temperature, increased yield, and increased capacity.

Circumferential Flux Factor (CFF) Longitudinal Flux Factor (LFF) Overall Flux Non-Uniformity

2.3 Peak /
1.8 CFF 1.3 LFF
Average Flux
Figure 3 - Flux factors used in heater tube temperature calculations.

Simulation Results: Improved Area Goodness Factor for Tube Inserts

Increasing the mixing inside a process coil comes at a cost – the pressure drop through the system also
increases. One can estimate the process fluid diffusion inside the heater tube by using heat transfer as a
surrogate measure. There are potentially an infinite variety of tube insert designs that one could place
within a process coil to increase the heat transfer. To measure the relative effectiveness of various inserts
we simulated step-change designs in combination with automated optimization for thousands of
combinations of geometric parameters. We judged the relative merit of each design by comparing the
area goodness factor, or the Colburn factor (j) divided by the Fanning friction factor (f). The final optimized
design has a 30% increase in area goodness factor compared with traditional twisted tapes. The practical
implication of this is that by using an optimized design one can achieve more process mixing with lower
pressure drop when compared with traditional twisted tape designs. A key parameter in twisted tape
design is the twist-pitch, or the number of pipe diameters required for the twisted tape to make a 180°
(or 360° depending on the source) helical revolution, within a length of the tape. Figure 4 shows a
comparison in the simulated area goodness factor for both traditional twisted tapes and the optimized
design versus increasing twist pitch.
Figure 4 - A comparison of optimized tube insert design to a traditional twisted tape shows an increase in goodness factor of 30%.

Simulation Results: Multiphase Flow Through a Horizontal Return

Simulations comparing the optimized design to an empty tube demonstrate that the in-coil mixing
translates to increased process homogeneity for multiphase flows. Figure 5 shows the predicted
convection heat transfer coefficient over the entire tube surface and liquid volume fraction at the inlet
and outlet of the tube for a simulation with 80% liquid and 20% vapor by volume. There are inserts both
before and after the return, but in this case the flow requires one straight section of tube to establish the
mixing motion provided by the insert. With the tube insert in place the convection heat transfer coefficient
is more uniform when compared to the empty tube. Near the inlet, at point ‘A’, gravity stratifies both
flows. At point ‘B’ the return has temporarily changed the stratified flow to annular flow, producing a
more uniform heat transfer coefficient at the tube surface for both cases. At point ‘C’ the stratified flow
returns in the empty tube, but the liquid remains adhered to the tube wall when using the insert.

On the outlet leg of the coil section, the tube insert increases the area-weighted average heat transfer
coefficient by 20% when one compares the empty tube. More importantly, the minimum heat transfer
coefficient over the same section of the coil using inserts is 50 times higher than the minimum heat
transfer coefficient of the same section of the empty tube. Tube failures occur at specified, often initially
small, locations. The use of the insert eliminates the point of minimum heat transfer coefficient where
this failure would likely occur. One can use the inserts in only the tubes that are most prone to failure or
where the process improvement is greatest. In this way one can maximize the benefit of insert use while
reducing the total additional pressure drop.

Figure 5 - Comparison of convection heat transfer coefficient and liquid volume fraction for a tube without (left) and with (right)
tube inserts.

Estimates of Economic Impact

The variability in causes of shutdowns will impact any economic assessment for the use of in-tube inserts.
If a plant shuts down often due to tube failures, the value for preventing those failures is far greater than
incremental increases in run length. We can, however, estimate the value of using the inserts for normal
operation without special cause failures.

To evaluate the effect on run-length we created a model for a coker unit furnace. The computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) model of the coil included sub-models for phase change of the vacuum residual oil as well
as the propensity for coking based on the work of Ebert and Panchal (Ebert). The predicted coking rate
and daily temperature rise for coils with the insert in place is three times less than of that of an empty
tube. The predicted run length of the furnace is increased by 35%. Using validated assumptions for the
coker spread, shutdown days, and current energy costs, the two-year net value addition of inserts is 1.96
MMUSD for a typical 30,000 barrel per day coker unit.

Practical Considerations and Conclusions

The use of tube inserts does raise the practical concern of how one removes the inserts when the coil
requires pigging. We developed a mechanical solution which uses flanged connections outside the heat-
affected zone. This solution removes the potential for leakage of the process fluid which is a problem for
traditional plug headers. We performed physical testing to assure that one can remove the insert from a
tube even if coke or scale has completely seized it in place.

Tube inserts are a well-proven method to increase heat transfer. They also increase process homogeneity.
For most processes, and particularly those with phase change inside the heater, the benefit for coil
longevity, run length, and unit profitability should be greatly enhanced through the proper application of
in-tube mixing. In-tube mixing comes at an expense of pressure drop through the coil. Properly optimized
mixing elements provide both relatively low pressure drop and increased mixing required to bring your
heaters to a new level of performance.

Funding Acknowledgement
The research results discussed in this publication were made possible in total or in part by funding through
the award for project number AR18-015, from the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and
Technology.

About the Author

Matthew Martin has 27 years of experience in the combustion industry and 19 year
of experience in Computational Fluid Dynamics of combustion equipment. He has
27 patents for burners, flares, thermal oxidizers, and flame detection technology.
He holds a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science from the University of Tulsa.

XRG Technologies
XRG Technologies is an innovative engineering and procurement firm specializing in fired equipment for
the refining, petrochemical, and power markets. We collaborate with our partners to solve complex
problems and manage projects from concept to completion.

Our staff of industry experts functions as an outside engineering support team. We brought together
experts in fired heaters, burners, boilers, flare, vapor recovery, and thermal oxidizers to create a
centralized firm for all of our customers' fired equipment needs.

We would love to hear from you! Reach out to us at info@xrgtechnologies.com or visit our website at
xrgtechnologies.com.
References
Ebert, W. and Panchal, C.B. Analysis of Exxon Crude Oil Slip Stream Coking Data in Fouling Mitigation of
Industrial Heat Exchange Equipment. New York: Begell House, 1997.

Manglik, Raj M., Bergles, Arthur E. "Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Correlations for Twisted-Tape
Inserts in Isothermal Tubes: Part II, Transition and Turbulent Flows." 1992.

Whitham, Jay M. "The Effect of Retarders in Fire Tubes of Steam Boilers." Transactions of the ASME XVII
(1896): 405-470. Book.