Improving solids handling in

a delayed coker
A reliability model applied to a coke handling system demonstrates the
benefits of compliance with a preventive maintenance programme

Randy Hull, Steve Stewart and James Teets

Marsulex

P
etroleum refineries are
increasingly adding
cokers and hydrocrackers
Total customer cost, $

to meet refining challenges

from heavier/more sour feed-
stock and increasing demand
for higher distillate/ function just to the left of
gasoline ratios with very low
sulphur levels. Uplift margins
on US Gulf Coast cokers have
moved to over $30 per barrel,
so that cokers are among the
most important units in a
modern complex refinery.
Unfortunately, these new proc-
ess configurations create very
high volumes of solids. A typi-
cal large-scale delayed coker
produces well over 1 million t/
y of solids, which would fill
30–35 railcars in a day. That is
a lot of solids handling, which,
for most refiners, is not a core
operational competency.
Interruptions in coker units
are widespread due to
unplanned outages in the
industry as a result of break-
downs in the solids handling
systems. Shortening coke drum
reheat cycles to compensate for
downtime can lead to prema-
ture drum cracking, resulting
in significant downtime and
lost profitability.
A well managed PM
programme should
the minimum maintenance
cost line
PM cost, $
Figure 1 Maintenance Parabola: total maintenance vs PM costs
Marsulex has developed a Since most refinery opera-
total maintenance and reliability tions are characterised as
model for delayed coking units continuous processes handling
(DCU) to help refiners plan a liquid and gas streams,
preventive maintenance strategy handling solids in a batch proc-
to significantly reduce the total ess operation is usually not an
cost of ownership for coke area of excellence within refin-
handling. This model maximises ery operations. Effective
a coker’s profitability by reduc- performance of the coke
ing equipment repair and handling and batching opera-
replacement costs, as well as tion requires effective
minimising unplanned outages. performance in safety, opera-
Refiners who choose to carry tions and reliability.
out their own solids handling Operations know-how and
are encouraged to adopt a simi- experience constitute the
lar total maintenance cost second critical area for the coke
approach. cutting business. The coke

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000390 PTQ Q3 2011 1


Type I – expected
Type II – expected
25
Type III – incident
Type IV – wreck
20
Type II-IV, %
an effective PM programme to
model the above relationship.
The programme optimises PM
100
activities to deliver the lowest
total maintenance cost, which
80 includes total preventive and
corrective maintenance, as well

as consequential opportunity

15
10
5 20
0 0
65
75
PM, %
Figure 2 Failure types expected vs PM compliance levels
drum heading and unheading
systems, the coke pit and the
coke conveyance areas are
highly automated with solids
handling technology that
requires well-trained operators.
The third area is reliability,
which is the focus of this arti-
cle. Since the coke cutting and
movement business is so
mechanically intensive, this is
an area of high cost with many
opportunities for cost reduc-
tion. Reliability separates the
competition in DCU solids
handling and maintenance;
however, with the constant
pressure to reduce costs, elimi-
nating reliability programmes
is a short-term fix with long-
term consequences. It is
Marsulex’s philosophy and
experience that reducing the
reliability investment — significantly at first. As PM
namely, scaling back preventive
maintenance and systems
investment — can be an expen-
sive decision in the long run.
The “acquisition cost” dollars
saved when bidding on a serv-
ices contract are insignificant
when compared to the total
lifetime cost from unreliable,
Type I, %
60
40
85 95
poorly maintained equipment.
A world-class preventive main-
tenance (PM) programme is
key to delivering a successful
operation, whether a refiner
chooses to self-perform or
elects to outsource these
services.
Reliability philosophy
Marsulex’s philosophy of relia-
bility is best described by the
Maintenance Parabola shown
in Figure 1.
The Maintenance Parabola is
an established but subtle
concept. The curve shows the
relationship between PM
expenditure and total mainte-
nance cost. Starting at the left of
the curve and moving right, as
PM activity is increased mainte-
nance costs are reduced,
expenditure increases, moving
right on the curve, maintenance
cost reductions reach a point of
diminishing returns. To the
right of the curve, minimum
total maintenance costs begin to
rise with increasing PM expen-
ditures. Marsulex’s philosophy
is to stay focused on delivering
costs related to lost production
experienced during unplanned
outages.
Equipment failure background
Marsulex categorises repairs, or
failures, into four basic types:
• Type I: planned or expected
failure
• Type II: unplanned prema-
ture failure
• Type III: incident
• Type IV: wreck.
Type I, a planned or expected
failure, is rarely complicated
and can be assigned a repair
cost of 1X. Type II, an
unplanned premature failure,
has a cost that typically aver-
ages 3X, or three times that of a
Type I failure. A Type II failure
occasionally has additional
costs, such as an operational
outage. A Type III failure,
considered an incident, is a
premature failure with a typi-
cal cost of 6X. Type III failures
often involve an operations
loss, or a logistics cost to avoid
an operations loss. Type IV, a
wreck, is the most severe fail-
ure. Type IV failures average
9X or greater repair cost versus
the Type I planned/expected
failures and can include signifi-
cant premature failures,
operations or logistics costs and
insurance claims.
Figure 2 shows a typical fail-
ure distribution as a function of
PM compliance levels, which
were estimated in the develop-
ment of the reliability model.
The values vary by equipment

2 PTQ Q3 2011 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000390

 Coke crusher preventive maintenance

Crusher daily PM Task Time min Freq Period Number Total FTE Assigned
Check oil level in sight glass on guard (85 - 140 Super Red) Oil 10 2 D 1 20 0.042 Oper.
Inspect hopper for un-crushables Visual 10 2 D 1 20 0.042 Maint.
Verify all safety guards are in place Visual 15 2 D 1 30 0.063 Maint.
Inspect all mountings for tightness Visual 2 1 D 10 20 0.042 Oper.
Listen for unusual noises; eg, metal to metal, belts slapping Visual 10 2 D 1 20 0.042 Oper.
Inspect crusher for leaks Visual 5 2 D 1 10 0.021 Maint.
Check for excessive vibration Visual 5 2 D 1 10 0.021 Oper.

Table 1

type, but the trend is consist-
ent: increased PM compliance
yields a higher distribution of
Type I failures. Conversely,
decreasing PM compliance, or
an ineffective PM programme,
yields an increased percentage
of Type II through Type IV
failures.
The objective of an effective
PM programme is to reduce
costly and unplanned failures
by increasing the less expensive
preventive and planned main-
tenance activities.
Reliability study
A company operating a large
coker on the US Gulf Coast was
chosen for a detailed reliability
assessment, with the objective
of building and correlating the
reliability model of the coke
handling system. The purposes
of the study were to examine
our reliability philosophy, quan-
tify site PM compliance, and
determine the relative benefits
and costs from the identified
PM compliance levels. The
assessment consisted of a
detailed review of the preven-
tive maintenance programme,
development of an equipment
repair table, a multi-year review
of actual maintenance repair
statistics, and development of a
Monte Carlo reliability model,
relating PM compliance to
maintenance repair cost.
Preventive maintenance review considered the time value of
The PM review involved a money. For example, a repair
detailed examination to iden- cost of $5000 with a one-year
tify eight key elements. A MTBF frequency, using a net
sample PM plan for the coke present value (NPV) method
crusher outlines this review with a 6% interest rate, would
and is shown in Table 1. (Note: be equivalent to an expected
operator-assigned PM is one of 20-year MTBF repair cost of
the most efficient and effective $184 000 instead of the simple
ways to perform PM activities.) yearly equivalent of $100 000.
Using the NPV method with a
Repair expectation table $100 000 repair cost and 20
The repair expectation table (a years’ MTBF frequency would
portion of which is shown in produce a yearly equivalent of
Table 2) uses the same detailed $2718.
equipment list as the PM effort
to set realistic goals for repair Detailed review of actual
frequencies and costs. repair cost
The failures were divided The third element of the study
into classes based on mean was a multi-year review of
time between failures (MTBF). maintenance repair costs on the
Generally, the shorter-term DCU used to define and corre-
MTBF repairs had lower costs late our model. The key
than the longer MTBF repairs. components of the review were
All losses were evaluated on a the repair cost, the number of
yearly equivalent basis, which failures per year, the cost per
Component failure expectations
Equipment list Material cost, MTBF, # similar Repair time, Cost,
$/failure years comp. Mhrs $/y equiv.
Bridge crane
Hold cable $1000 1 2 24 $2000
Close cable $500 2 4 24 $971
Bearing $2100 4 2 4 $960
Coupling $12 500 5 2 4 $4435
Housing $30 000 20 1 2 $816
Table 2

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000390 PTQ Q3 2011 3

 generally inexpensive, but they
Maintenance repair cost analysis sheet
must be performed routinely,
on time and they must initiate
Analysis sheet Repair expense Failures/ yr Yearly expense Failure type corrective action when prob-
Top head ass’y. 4.17 5.0 20.8 I lems are identified.
Bolts and nuts 3.47 0.3 1.0 I
Bolts and nuts 0.80 3.0 2.4 I Table 5 shows the results of
Gasket 1.33 0.5 0.7 I the maintenance repairs analy-
Gasket surface 1.10 0.5 0.6 I sis on the unit against the ideal
N2 skid: maintenance levels required to
N2 pumps 1.00 0.2 0.2 I
N2 skid controls 75.00 1.0 75.0 II deliver the lowest total cost of
N2 bottles 75.00 1.0 75.0 II ownership. The costs were
North console 7.00 1.0 7.0 II calculated considering the time
South console 0.50 3.0 1.5 I value of money to establish an
Terminal load out:
Filters 2.50 4.0 10.0 I ideal maintenance base repair
Silo 2.00 1.0 2.0 I cost, expressed as a dollar
Scale 3.00 0.5 1.5 I yearly equivalent.
Hydraulic pressure unit 4.00 1.0 4.0 I The costs are displayed as a
Hydraulic pressure unit 8.33 1.0 8.3 II
HPU pump 1.00 0.5 0.5 I percentage of the total ideal
maintenance base cost. The
largest variance was in the
Table 3 miscellaneous category, which
tends to be a catch-all for main-
year equivalent, and the failure the left shows the type of PM tenance cost. The total cost was
type, I through IV. Table 3 activities. Note that all of these 167.8% of the ideal base, which
shows a sample of the review. activities were relatively simple
tasks, such as visual checks,
Study feedback changing oil, lubrication, Ideal vs actual maintenance cost
The study’s feedback and corre- sampling oil and housekeeping. comparison
lations are summarised in There were 156 activities in this
Tables 4–6. Table 4 is the PM PM stack. By separating activ- Equipment Maint, % ideal Maint % actual
Misc 0 42.10
analysis feedback for a set of ity (time) and total cost, this Crane 27.24 25.64
PM procedures. The column on table shows how PM tasks are Feeder 2.31 8.65
Crusher 3.83 0.55
Heads 9.61 28.02
PM procedures Cutting 30.73 34.24
Transport 2.49 5.70
Conveying 9.67 5.34
Rail 12.63 15.50
PM # of activities % of total activities % of total cost Loading 1.50 2.10
Change filters 1 0.6 23.3 Total 100.0 167.8
Clean 5 3.2 14.1
Housekeeping 1 0.6 11.1
Check visual 78 50.1 26.1 Table 5
Lubricate 5 3.2 2.6
Change oil 27 17.4 3.5
Refurbish 10 6.4 2.7 Actual failure types observed
Test 2 1.3 0.4
Grease 18 11.6 1.4
Calibrate 4 2.6 1.4
Torque 1 0.6 0.1 Failure type % task Count
Inventory 1 0.6 8.9 I 85.3 81
Hydro-blast 1 0.6 3.3 II 12.6 12
Change bulbs 1 0.6 1.1 III 2.1 2
Sample oil 1 0.6 0.0 IV 0.0 0
156 100.0 100.0 Total 100.0 95

Table 4 Table 6

4 PTQ Q3 2011 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000390

is broken down by failure type
in Table 6.
100
There were 85.3% planned, 70% PM
expected Type I repairs, 12.6% 80% PM
unplanned Type II repair costs, 80 90% PM
and 2.1% Type III incidents,

Probability, %
with no Type IV wrecks. 60
Referencing the projected repair
distributions shown earlier, the
40
model suggests 90% PM
compliance.
20
Development of Monte Carlo
PM model 0
A statistically based Monte 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Carlo method analysis was MTBF, years
undertaken to expand and
enhance the site study and to
examine all of the cost compo- Figure 3 Predictive DCU model assumed probability of failure vs PM investment
nents affected by PM
compliance levels. safety, repairs, frequency PM and training, increase as
Using data collected from the increase from expected, sever- percentage PM compliance
study, specifically the failure ity from expected, operations increases. The third cost
expectation table and historical and logistics, and spare parts. element (repairs) remains
reliability information, site- The first two cost elements, constant regardless of PM
specific failure cost tables were
developed. A Weibull analysis
was then used to simulate fail-
ure frequencies at varying PM 3750
Spares
compliance levels. The relation- 3500
Oper.
ship assumed that, as PM 3250
Sever.
compliance was reduced, the 3000 MTBF
failure frequency widened and Repairs
2750
the MTBF was reduced or
Maintenance expense

Train
2500
shifted left, as shown by the PM
failure distribution curves in 2250
Total
Figure 3. 2000
The results of the model runs, 1750
which simulated numerous 20- 1500
year cycles, are shown in
1250
Figure 4. These results were
based on actual maintenance 1000
schedules, failure rates and 750
costs from the DCU reliability 500
study. 250
0
Explanation of model results 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
The chart shown in Figure 4 PM, %
uses the following cost catego-
ries to calculate overall
maintenance expense: preven- Figure 4 Predictive working model of DCU total maintenance costs vs PM
tive maintenance, training and compliance

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000390 PTQ Q3 2011 5

 compliance levels. The remain-
ing cost elements increase with
decreasing PM compliance.
Note that, with a decrease in
PM investment from 90–65%
compliance, which would save
$250 000 in budget investment,
the total cost of maintenance
actually rises by over $2 000
000. The costs predicted by the
model replicated our actual
experience over several years
on this large DCU.
The initiative to reduce budg-
eted and planned costs such as
PM can be initiated by numer-
ous events, including budget
cuts to reduce operating expense
and/or headcount, short-term
production increase require-
ments that tend to drive
operators to defer PM, evaluat-
ing service suppliers based
solely on lowest bid price and
not lowest total cost of owner-
ship, and many others.
However, these planned savings
are often only an illusion.
Conclusions from modelling
exercise
The model assumptions and
development yielded predicted
results that closely matched
actual experience and costs.
This outcome suggests that the
model can provide an effective
planning and operations tool.
Ancillary cost, MTBF, severity,
operations losses and spare
parts costs are much larger
than the base repair cost at low
PM compliance. Placing a low
priority on, or deliberately
reducing, PM expenditures can
be an expensive strategy, as
costs rise quickly when PM
compliance falls below 90%.
Diligent compliance with an
6 PTQ Q3 2011
effective PM programme has more difficult. Total mainte-
an excellent return. It is not just
nance investment is generally
about doing the correct volume comparable to the investment
of PM; it is also about knowing in operating labour and materi-
the right PM activities to als. This tempts refiners to scale
perform. back maintenance investment
for short-term gain, whether
Additional benefits of maintenance is performed in-
reliability study house or by outsourcing. The
The study helped focus the cost of this short-term focus
reliability programme’s contin- can be significant, with severe
uous improvement efforts and effects on refinery profitability.
validated our reliability philos- Refiners are encouraged to
ophy. It also highlighted resist this short-term cost
several areas for improvement reduction approach to maxim-
in the site’s PM programme, ise the long-term performance
expanded the number of right of critical assets.
PM activities to execute, and
further refined the relationship Randy Hull is Senior Vice-President,
between PM compliance and Sales, Marketing and Development, for
the total cost of repairs. Marsulex Inc in Houston, Texas. He holds
This exercise and the success- a BS in mechanical engineering and a
ful development of a diagnostic MBA, and is a member of AIChE, ASME
and Tau Beta Pi.
maintenance planning model
Email: rhull@marsulex.com
reinforced the need for addi-
Steve Stewart is Director of Operations,
tional maintenance planning Refinery Services, Southern US, for
and execution systems. The Marsulex in Texas City, responsible for
benefits of computerised main- refinery operations in delayed coking
tenance management systems, units, as well as terminal operations. He
maintenance planning and holds a BS in industrial engineering and
scheduling activities, critical is a member of Alpha Pi Mu and Tau Beta
spare parts identification and Pi.
risk management were realised, Email: sstewart@marsulex.com
as they maximise the effective- James Teets is the Reliability Manager,
Refinery Services, Southern US, for
ness of maintenance resources.
Marsulex in Texas City, responsible for
Additionally, condition-based
reliability systems in refineries’ delayed
equipment inspection, life cycle coking units. He holds a BS in mechanical
analysis and root cause analysis engineering from the University of
play key roles in reducing the Cincinnati and is a member of Pi Tau
severity of equipment failures Sigma and Tau Beta Pi.
and preventing recurrence. Email: jteets@marsulex.com
Conclusions
While planned operating costs Links
for the delayed coking unit are
fairly transparent and measura- More articles from the following
ble, the ability to quantify the category:
effectiveness of the total main- Delayed Coking
tenance investment is much
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000390