Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 3 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 380–390

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Research and Design

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

Pyrometer-based control of a steam cracking

furnace

Stijn Vangaever, Pieter A. Reyniers, Steffen H. Symoens, Nenad D. Ristic,

Marko R. Djokic, Guy B. Marin, Kevin M. Van Geem ∗
Ghent University, Laboratory for Chemical Technology, Technologiepark 125, 9052 Ghent, Belgium

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

Article history: Optical thermometry offers great precision, repeatability, flexibility, and stability, hence pro-
Received 26 August 2019 viding performance advantages in non-contact temperature measurement. To assess its
Received in revised form 8 October potential for controlling the temperature of steam cracking furnaces, ethane steam cracking
2019 experiments were carried out on pilot plant scale. The control performance of the pyrome-
Accepted 14 October 2019 ter was found to be comparable to that of a weld-on type K thermocouple, the latter being
Available online 24 October 2019 representative of the industrial standard. The tested optical thermometer is suited as a sen-
sor to measure tube metal temperatures of a steam cracking reactor coil, either inside or
Keywords: outside of the firebox. Due to its fast response time, optical thermometer temperature mea-
Steam cracking surements help to prevent temperature overshoots, which have an adverse effect on the
Pyrometry tube longevity and coke formation. Flexibility in positioning makes optical thermometry a
Optical temperature measurement viable alternative compared to conventional type K thermocouples.
Furnace control © 2019 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Pilot plant

1. Introduction importance. Researchers realized early that the effluent composition is

Steam cracking is currently the predominant process to produce valu-
able light olefins such as ethene, propene and 1,3-butadiene (Amghizar
et al., 2017). These important building blocks for the chemical indus-
try are mostly used as monomers for the production of large-volume
polymers such as polyethene and polypropene. In an industrial steam
cracking unit, a hydrocarbon feedstock is diluted with steam and
rapidly heated to temperatures between 1070 K and 1170 K. The rapid
temperature increase causes the hydrocarbon bonds to break, forming
the desired small, unsaturated molecules (Van de Vijver et al., 2015; Van
Geem et al., 2006). As breaking the hydrocarbon bonds is endothermic,
sufficient thermal energy has to be supplied to the process gas. There-
fore, the process takes place in tubular reactors, also called reactor coils,
with a high surface-to-volume ratio, suspended in large furnaces. Mod-
ern furnaces are fired with natural gas which generally combusts in a
relatively clean way, i.e. the emission of harmful components such as
CO or NOx is kept to a minimum. Older furnaces still implement liquid
fuel burners which makes their maintenance and process control more
tedious.
As the process gas temperature is the driving force for the chemical
reactions, stringent control of the process gas temperature is of great
∗
Corresponding author.
turn negatively affects the yield of the desired light olefins. The mech-
E-mail address: Kevin.VanGeem@UGent.be (K.M. Van Geem).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2019.10.023
0263-8762/© 2019 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
determined to a large extent by the temperature profile in the reactor.
Van Camp et al. (1985) found a strong correlation between the coil out-
let temperature and the product yield. Van Geem et al. (2005) continued
this research and identified the temperature and the partial pressure
of the reactants as the two independent variables that determine the
effluent composition for a given feedstock. van Goethem et al. (2010)
tested different temperature profiles along the reactor axial coordinate
and concluded that the optimal temperature profile depends strongly
on the type of hydrocarbon feed, later going into more detail with a
kinetic modelling study with ethane as feedstock (van Goethem et al.,
2013). Zhang et al. (2017a, 2017b) further demonstrated that realizing
optimal temperatures for all reactors via a carefully determined distri-
bution of the feed over the reactors results in higher annual light olefins
production and longer run lengths.
The temperature of the process gas not only affects the product
yields but also impacts the deposition rate of coke, a carbonaceous sub-
stance that is inevitably formed on the tube inner wall when cracking
hydrocarbons (Kopinke et al., 1988). Due to its low thermal conductivity,
coke acts as a thermal insulator. To overcome the additional thermal
resistance and to maintain the same cracking severity, the furnace
temperature and hence the firing rate have to be increased over time.
Additionally, the coke layer formed on the reactor inner wall restricts
the crosssectional area for flow leading to higher velocities. Conse-
quently a higher pressure drop over the reactor coil is observed which in
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 3 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 380–390
Nomenclature
m Mass, kg
MM Molar mass, kg/mol
R Universal gas constant, J/mol/K
p Total pressure, Pa
V Volume, m3
T Temperature, K
Greek symbols
t Time step size, s
ϕ Volume fraction, –
Abbreviations
GC Gas chromatography
IR Infrared
MV Manipulated variable
PID Proportional-integral-derivative
PLC Programmable logic controller
PV Process variable
PY Pyrometer
SP Set point
TK Thermocouple
TMT Tube metal temperature
anism for coke formation is complex (Wauters and Marin, 2001, 2002)
not only depending on the inner wall temperature of the reactor coil
(Plehiers et al., 1990; Reyniers et al., 1994) but also depending on the
reactor coil metallurgy (Mahmoudi et al., 2018; Muñoz Gandarillas et al.,
2014a, 2014b).
This brief, high-level overview of the influence of temperature on
the steam cracking process illustrates the absolute necessity of strin-
gent and rigorous temperature control. Temperature measurements
are crucial to maintain stable operation and to detect any anomalies
that might lead to off-spec products, harmful emissions or safety inci-
dents. For a more extensive overview of best practices in industrial
temperature measurement the reader is referred to specialized litera-
ture (Liptak, 2003). The current state of the art in the chemical process
industry is based on contact temperature measurements where the
measurement device is in direct contact with the body or the surface
to be measured. Thermocouples are the most widely used temperature
measurement devices as they are applicable in a wide temperature
range (100 K to 1550 K for the popular type K thermocouple), rela-
tively inexpensive, flexible in size and can be made to be mechanically
rugged. The measurement is based on the open loop voltage generated
when a junction of two dissimilar metals is brought into contact with
a surface at an elevated temperature. The major disadvantages are the
sensitivity to environmental influences such as interference from other
electromagnetic equipment in close proximity and the inherent drift.
The latter refers to the phenomenon where the junction between the
two dissimilar metals degrades over time which influences the temper-
ature measurement. In harsh conditions, this drift can be of the order of
magnitude of 10 K per year. Additionally, low-quality extension wires
used to connect the thermocouple to the temperature controller can
cause considerable uncertainty on the measured absolute temperature
value.
Alternative contact temperature measurement devices are resis-
tance temperature detectors and thermistors. Resistance temperature
detectors are however rarely used at temperatures above 900 K since
at these higher temperatures the sensitive element made out of
an extremely pure metal, e.g. platinum, can get contaminated with
impurities influencing its resistivity. Thermistors rely on the highly
nonlinear temperature dependent resistance of ceramics or polymers.
Selection of the right thermistor material will give greater precision in a
limited temperature range compared to resistance temperature detec-
tors. Even though thermistors offer an inexpensive, highly stable and
381
highly sensitive temperature measurement option, the fact that they
are limited to a predefined temperature range typically at lower tem-
peratures does not make them a suitable candidate for temperature
control in gas-fired steam cracking furnaces.
Non-contact temperature measurements via radiation pyrome-
ters or infrared (IR) thermometers provide an attractive alternative in
hostile environments, when the temperature measurements cannot
interfere with the process or when the response of the measurement
to changes in the product temperature should be instantaneous. The
temperature of a surface is determined based on the electromagnetic
radiation it emits, allowing for a measurement window dependent on
the measured wavelengths. Two-color or ratio thermometers measure
the intensity of the emitted radiation at two different but similar wave-
lengths which eliminates interference problems and allows to correct
for the usually unknown emissivity of the surface (Brouwer et al., 1987).
The idea of using a spectral infrared analyzer for the control of a
steam cracking furnace is not new. However, previously the infrared
measurement was not used to determine a temperature but to analyze
the composition of the reactor effluent. Indeed, patents were granted
to several industry majors in which it is suggested to perform a con-
tinuous measurement of the reactor effluent composition via infrared
spectroscopy to obtain a measure for the cracking severity and hence
to be able to adapt the firing rate accordingly (Crouzet and Martens,
1992; Timmermans and Morgenstern, 2003). As Van Geem et al. (2005)
observed, combining the methane yield and the ethene/ethane yield
ratio uniquely characterizes a reactor effluent for a given feedstock.
However, as determining product yields on-line is far from straight-
forward and as the effluent composition is an indirect measurement
of the prevailing conditions in the furnace, ethene producers prefer to
control the firing rate of the furnace based on the coil outlet temper-
ature (Barazandeh et al., 2015), i.e. the temperature of the process gas
at the outlet of the reactor, or based on the tube metal temperature at
the reactor outlet. The present state of the art consists of measuring
the coil outlet temperature or tube metal temperature via a thermo-
couple inserted in a thermowell or welded to the reactor outer surface,
respectively. An overview of the underlying process control models is
given by Rossi et al. (2019).
Pyrometry could replace thermocouple measurements in cases
where the continuity of the process has to be guaranteed. Inside the
radiant firebox of a steam cracking furnace maintenance to replace
a defect thermocouple is only possible during a limited timeframe
where production needs to be halted. Because of the financial losses
of a furnace shutdown this will never be done to replace a thermocou-
ple. Pyrometers can be installed on a safe distance where they can
be attended to if required. Additionally, the flexibility of a pyrome-
ter allows the process operator to scan the process tube and detect
hotspots indicating local coke build-up or to assess whether the tube
metal temperatures are almost at end-of-run conditions, signaling that
the furnace will have to be decoked.
The goal of the present work is to use a pyrometer as the temper-
ature sensor in the main control loop of a steam cracking furnace. To
prove the viability of an optical thermometer as part of a control loop
in a steam cracking furnace, experiments were carried out on the pilot
plant for steam cracking of the Laboratory for Chemical Technology
of Ghent University. Section 2 describes the equipment and provides
details on the pilot plant for steam cracking and the experimental pro-
cedure. The results for temperature, product yields and coke formation
are analyzed in Section 3. The main conclusions are summarized in
Section 4.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Temperature measurement device
2.1.1. Type K thermocouple
The type K thermocouple is the most commonly used type
of thermocouple in industrial furnaces (Ghashghaee and
Karimzadeh, 2011) because they are inexpensive while pro-
viding accurate and reliable results over a wide temperature
382 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 3 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 380–390
Fig. 1 – Diagram of the optical thermometer, focusing on the components that convert the electromagnetic radiation to an
interpretable digital or analog signal.
range. However, thermocouples experience an inherent drift
caused by metallurgical changes over time during oper-
ation (Bentley, 1990). Even more important for industrial
and pilot plant scale is that once experimental failure of
the thermocouple occurs, the entire plant has to be shut
down for repair works. Movable non-contact temperature
measurement devices might in this case offer a worthy alter-
native.
2.1.2. Optical thermometer
The pyrometer consists of several components that convert
the electromagnetic radiation emitted by a surface to a digital
signal that can be interpreted by a computer or to an ana-
log signal that can be used as input to a programmable logic
controller (PLC), see Fig. 1.
The collection optics receive electromagnetic radiation
emitted by a surface. A combination of lenses and in some
cases flexible fiber optic cables captures the radiation from a
small focal point on the target surface and conveys it to the
electronic components in the probe head. Installing a fiber
optic cable between the collection optics and the probe head
has the advantage that the electronic components of the probe
head can be located sufficiently far away from the furnace in
order to not interfere with the strict zoning regulations that
are enforced on petrochemical sites. However, the downside
is a lower signal-to-noise ratio as up to 80% of the light can
be attenuated by the fiber optic cable. In that case, in-place
calibration is required to obtain a correct absolute tempera-
ture measurement. The first signal processing step is to isolate
the desired wavelength from the incoming light. Two options
are available: electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of
1600 nm is used to measure temperatures between 400 K and
3075 K while radiation with a wavelength of 900 nm is used to
measure temperatures between 600 K and 3275 K. Those two
wavelength options are selected to minimize the interference
with optically active molecules commonly present in air or
in flue gas from natural gas combustion (H2 O, CO2 , CO, CH4 ,
etc.). The photons of the selected wavelength are converted
to an electrical signal in a solid-state photodetector made of
silicon or an indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) ternary alloy.
The amplifier strengthens the signal from the photodetector
to allow currents as low as 10−15 A to be detected. The con-
tinuous electrical signal is discretized by an analog to digital
convertor and the discretized signal is supplied to the proces-
sor unit which calculates the surface temperature based on
the intensity of the discretized signal. The temperature sig-
nal can be digitally interpreted via dedicated software but can
also be supplied directly to a PLC system via a 4–20 mA signal
or a 0–10 V output. Basic signal processing can be carried out
by the processor to filter outliers and to provide minima, max-
ima and averages in a specified time interval. The precision of
the temperature measurement is determined by the amount
of electrical noise in the probe head. The described combina-
tion of parts allows to detect temperature changes as small
as 0.01 K. Up to 1000 measurements per second are possible,
with a thermal drift of less than 0.1 K per year. When rigorously
calibrated, the accuracy of the measurements is within 1.5 K.
Given its high measurement accuracy, fast response and low
thermal drift, the temperature measurements of a pyrometer
could not only be used for furnace firing control, but also as
an input variable for calibration or tuning of a process model.
The latter could in turn assist process operators in optimizing
the startup, shutdown and operational procedures of steam
cracking furnaces, thus increasing the energy efficiency and
reducing the emissions to the environment.
2.2. Pilot plant for steam cracking
A schematic representation of the pilot plant for steam crack-
ing is given in Fig. 2. As a detailed description of the unit, the
analytical equipment and the calibration procedure is avail-
able elsewhere (Dierickx et al., 1986; Vandamme and Froment,
1982), only a brief description is given, based on Wang et al.
(2007), Dhuyvetter et al. (2001) and Van Geem et al. (2010).
The feed section controls the supply of different feedstocks
to the reactor coil. The feedstock can be gaseous (ethane,
propane, butane), liquid (hexane, naphtha, gas condensate,
etc.) or solid (e.g. waxes). The mass flow rate of liquid hydro-
carbons and water is set using a CORI-FLOW mass flowmeter
controlled pump. The flow rate is automatically regulated by
adjusting the pumping frequency of the pump. The furnace,
built with silica/alumina bricks (PROMATON® ), is 4.0 m long,
0.7 m wide and 2.6 m high. The power is supplied via ninety
premixed gas burners, equipped with automatic fire checks
and arranged on the side walls to provide a uniform heat dis-
tribution over the height of the furnace.
The furnace is divided into seven separate cells, which can
be fired independently to set any type of industrially relevant
temperature or heat flux profile over the length of the reactor
(Van Geem et al., 2010). The firing rate is controlled in each
cell by adjusting the pressure in the premixed fuel feed line
to the burners. Twenty thermocouples and five manometers
are located along the reactor coil to measure the tempera-
ture and pressure of the process gas as indicated in Fig. 2.
The reaction section of the tube is made of Incoloy 800 H T
and is about 12 m long with an internal diameter of 9 × 10−3
m. The tube is designed to achieve turbulent flow conditions
(Re > 7000) in the coil with reasonable feed flow rates (∼10−3
kg/s of hydrocarbons). The pressure at the exit of the reac-
tor is controlled by a reduction valve. At the reactor outlet,
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 3 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 380–390 383

Fig. 2 – Schematic overview of the pilot plant setup, indicating the most important temperature (o) and pressure
measurements (P) (1: electronic balance, 2: demineralized water reservoir, 3: liquid hydrocarbons reservoir, 4: heated
sampling oven (570 K), 5: heated transfer lines (570 K), 6: oil cooled heat exchanger, 7: water cooled condenser, 8: cyclone, 9:
thermal mass flow controller (internal standard addition), 10: outlet pressure regulation valve, 11: water cooled heat
exchanger, 12: dehydrator). The location of PYRO 3, TK 1 and PYRO 1 at the outlet of cell 7 is highlighted in color (Van Geem
et al., 2010).

the injection of nitrogen provides an internal standard and
contributes to a certain extent to the quenching of the hot
reactor effluent. Before the cooling of the effluent, a sample is
taken for the on-line C5 + analysis, performed using compre-
hensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GC × GC) (Van
Geem et al., 2010). After cooling, another sample is drawn from
the product gas for on-line C4 - analysis via one-dimensional
gas chromatography (GC). During the decoking of the reactor
coil, the mass of coke deposited in the reactor is measured
through the gasification products CO and CO2 . Via a combina-
tion of a volumetric flow meter and an infrared analyser for CO
and CO2 , the mass of deposited coke can be calculated based
on a straightforward carbon balance and applying the ideal
gas law. This is illustrated Eq. (1). In this equation, MMC is the
molar mass of carbon, T is the temperature, p is the absolute
pressure, V is the volumetric flow rate, ϕCO and ϕCO2 are the
CO and CO2 volume fractions in the effluent measured via the
infrared analyser and t is the time between subsequent mea-
surements. The index i relates to the discrete measurements
at the sampling frequency 1/t.
MMC V p   used to collect infrared radiation through an opening in the
i i
mcoke = ϕCO,i + ϕCO2 ,i t
R Ti
i
2.3. Installation of pyrometer in the pilot plant
In the default situation, the various temperature measure-
ments in the pilot plant are carried out using type K
thermocouples in thermowells protruding in the reactor coil
to measure the process gas temperature in combination with
type K thermocouples that are welded on the reactor surface
to measure the tube metal temperature. The pyrometers were
installed on two locations in the unit. A custom collar was fit-
ted around the reactor outlet section, where the reactor exits
through the furnace wall. To avoid damage to the lenses, the
temperature of the optics should be kept below 330 K. Hence,
mounting a light pipe or a lens directly inside the furnace
was not possible. However, a custom collar fitted around the
reactor outlet was designed to minimize heat losses and to
maximize the responsiveness by having a low thermal heat
capacity and low thermal conductivity.
Fig. 3 illustrates the design of the custom collar fitted
around the reactor outlet section as well as its actual posi-
tion. The first two pyrometers were mounted on the custom
collar, 0.038 m apart to check consistency, but only one was
used for control purposes during the experiments. The pri-
mary pyrometer is referred to as PYRO 1 while the secondary
pyrometer is referred to as PYRO 2. A type K thermocouple was
welded to the reactor outlet in between the furnace brick wall
and the custom collar. This weld-on thermocouple measur-
ing the tube metal surface temperature provided the required
validation data for the optical thermometers positioned on
the reactor outlet. This thermocouple is referred to as TK 1. A
third pyrometer was positioned outside the furnace and was
(1)
refractory from a small focal point on the outlet bend of the
reactor in the last cell of the furnace, i.e. cell 7. This pyrometer
is referred to as PYRO 3. At the same axial position, a type K
thermocouple inside a thermowell measured the process gas
temperature.
So the optical measurement of the tube metal temperature
could be compared with the process gas temperature mea-
surement by the type K thermocouple. This thermocouple is
referred to as TK 3. Fig. 4 shows the mounting of the pyrom-
eter on the outside of the furnace and provides insight in the
384 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 3 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 380–390

Fig. 3 – (a) Design of the custom collar around the reactor outlet section to mount two pyrometers and one additional device.
(b) Fit of the custom collar around the reactor coil after exiting the furnace: CAD drawing. (c) Reactor tube without the
custom collar.

Fig. 4 – (a) Positioning of the pyrometer analyzing the tube metal temperature on the outlet bend of cell 7. (b) Focal point of
the optical temperature measurement device (digitally enhanced) with a diameter of around 0.001 m on a 0.009 m diameter
reactor.

focal point size of the lens (diameter of about 0.001 m) on the The temperature control loop is visualized in Fig. 5. The
0.009 m internal diameter reactor. regulated parameter in the studied system is the outside tube
metal temperature (TMT) which indirectly relates to the con-
version or so-called cracking severity. This corresponds to
today’s industrial standard. Different temperature measure-
2.4. Experimental procedure and data analysis
ment devices are tested sending a temperature signal, i.e.
measured process variable (PV), to the PID controller where it
Three types of experiments were carried out, differing in the
is compared to the desired set point (SP). The final control ele-
temperature measurement device to control the firing in cell
ment in the loop is a valve regulating the flow rate of premixed
7 of the furnace: PYRO 1, TK 1 and PYRO 3 were used dur-
combustion gas. By adjusting the valve opening, the flow rate
ing a 6 h cracking cycle in which the temperature set point
of premixed combustion gas to the firebox is regulated, i.e.
was changed twice to observe the performance of the temper-
manipulated variable (MV). Tuning of the PID controller, which
ature measurement in varying circumstances. The two new
is in turn integrated into the programmable logic controller
temperature set points were 10 K and 25 K higher than the
(PLC), is performed using the heuristic Ziegler-Nichols tuning
initial set point. The firing in the other cells of the furnace
method.
was controlled via the default control system throughout all
experiments.
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 3 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 380–390
Fig. 5 – Block diagram for the process control system. The final control element, i.e. process valve, adjusts the burner gas
flow rate, impacting the temperature measured by the temperature sensor (PYRO 3, TK 1 or PYRO 1 depending on the
experiment). The measured process variable is subtracted from the set point to compute the controller error. The PID
controller output to the process valve is based on this error.
The following experimental details were common to all
experiments. Ethane was used as a hydrocarbon feedstock.
During cracking, 0.833 × 10−3 kg/s ethane and 0.321 × 10−3 kg/s
steam are fed to the reactor, resulting in a steam dilution of
0.385 kg/kg. Each experiment started with the reactor inner
surface in the oxidized state as a consequence of the decoking
procedure in the previous experiment. The following exper-
imental procedure was adopted for all experiments, further
referred to as step 1 to step 8, with step 8 of the previous
experiment being equal to step 1 of the following experiment.
1 Pre-oxidation of the reactor coil during decoking in the pre-
vious experiment.
2 Leak test using N2 at a pressure of 4 bar during 300 s.
3 Preheating of the reactor coil using the default temperature
measurement (TK 3) for control. Steam is supplied to the
reactor.
4 Cracking using the default temperature measurement (TK
3) for control during 4080 s.
5 Cracking using the alternative temperature measurement
(PYRO 1, TK 1 or PYRO 3) for control during 6600 s at the
equivalent temperature set point of step 4. The equivalent
temperature set point is determined as the stable value of
the alternative temperature measurement during step 4.
6 Cracking using the alternative temperature measurement
(PYRO 1, TK 1 or PYRO 3) for control during 5160 s with a set
point 10 K higher than the set point of step 5.
7 Cracking using the alternative temperature measurement
(PYRO 1, TK 1 or PYRO 3) for control during 5760 s with a set
point 25 K higher than the set point of step 5.
8 Decoking of the reactor via gasification with a steam/air
mixture, including pre-oxidation of the reactor for the next
experiment.
Effluent composition analyses are done consecutively, as
frequently as the gas chromatography allows. The C4 − anal-
ysis takes approximately 1500 s, a new sample injection is
started once the previous C4 − analysis cycle is finished. This
implies that two to three C4 − analyses can be done per
step during steps 4–7. The most abundant components were
the unconverted feed component (ethane), the correspond-
ing olefin (ethene) and the light components (hydrogen gas,
methane). Other C4 − components were measured but their
yield was generally small (<2 wt.% in total). The focus in the
current campaign is on the C4 − analysis as only a small frac-
tion of the reactor effluent in ethane cracking has a carbon
number higher than 4 at the cracking severity targeted in
the present experiments. At the moment of injection of the
sample to the GC, all available measurements of temperature,
385
pressure and flow rates were logged to have comprehen-
sive information on the state of the furnace at the moment
of sampling. These snapshots of temperature and pressure
rather than their continuous measurements were used to
draw conclusions with respect to process yields due to the dis-
crete nature of the yields measurements. Error bars in figures
correspond to the 68% confidence interval equaling a single
standard deviation .
3. Results and discussion
Two repetitive experiments were carried out with differ-
ent temperature measurement devices (PYRO 1, TK 1 and
PYRO 3) following the eight steps as described in Section 2.4,
resulting in a total of 6 experiments. The experiments were
labelled according to the following convention: XXm–n where
XX indicates the temperature measurement method (PY for
pyrometer-based control and TK for thermocouple-based con-
trol), m indicates the position of the process measurement (1
refers to the measurement outside the furnace and 3 refers
to the measurement inside the furnace, as shown in Fig. 2)
and n is used to differentiate between the two experiments
performed with the same temperature measurement device.
For example, PY3-1 is the first experiment carried out with
the pyrometer collecting radiation from the outlet bend of the
reactor inside the furnace, PY3-2 corresponds to the repeat
experiment with the same temperature detector on the same
location. All experiments were carried out according to the
stepwise procedure described in Section 2.1. To guarantee that
all experimental data is gathered at comparable conditions,
the preheating and initial cracking, corresponding to step 1–4,
is performed with the default thermocouple TK 1. Only when
the system is stable, the alternative temperature measure-
ment device (PYRO 1, TK 1 or PYRO 3) is added as detector in
the control loop. The performance of each of the control sys-
tems in terms of stability, precision and reproducibility was
investigated for the following three aspects: temperature and
pressure, product yields and coke formation.
The main focus of the present work is on the performance
of the pyrometer as a temperature measurement device in a
PID control loop, in particular with respect to yields and coke
formation. The dynamic behavior of the system with respect
to temperature will be studied in detail in Section 3.1 since
the temperature will impact the product yields and both the
amount and the nature of the formed coke. Therefore, Sec-
tions 3.2 and 3.3 aim to provide a thorough analysis of the link
between the temperature measurements and the product and
coke yields, respectively.
386 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 3 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 380–390
Fig. 6 – Temperature measurements over time for
experiment PY3-1 with indication of the steps as described
in Section 2.4. Full lines: experimental measurements;
dashed lines: averages during each of the phases; dots
indicate the set point (for step 4 TK 1 is used to regulate
temperatures from step 5 onwards PYRO 3 is used).
3.1. Temperature and pressure
Temperatures measured during experiment PY3-1 using PYRO
1, TK 1, PYRO 3 and TK 3 are shown in Fig. 6, including
their averages per step. It is immediately clear that control-
ling the furnace temperature via PYRO 3 is feasible: the set
point tracking is adequate and the oscillations are limited for
all measurements, indicating stable operation. In step 4, the
TK 3 temperature measurement is used to control the furnace
while in steps 5–7, the PYRO 3 measurement is used. There is a
clear difference in time scales during step 4: when starting the
cracking experiment, the temperatures measured inside the
furnace (PYRO 3 and TK 3) reach steady state within minutes
while the temperatures measured outside the furnace (PYRO 1
and TK 1) take around one hour to reach a steady state. Inside
the furnace, the reactor tube is directly exposed to the heat
source and hence changes temperature quickly. The section
of the reactor outside of the furnace, where TK 1 and PYRO 1
are located is heated indirectly via heat exchange from the hot
process gas to the process tubes. Due to this indirect heating,
the response to a set point change was much slower for the
temperature measurements outside the furnace as compared
to the temperature measurements inside the furnace. This
also explains why the PYRO 3 temperature measurements are
more sensitive to changes in process conditions compared to
TK 1 and PYRO 1 where there is more delay due to the indirect
heating by the process gas.
A more rigorous analysis of the gathered data is required
in order to draw quantitative conclusions. In a first step, the
averaged process gas outlet temperature measured using TK 3
per experimental phase as discussed in Section 2.4 is given in
Fig. 7. Only the instantaneous measurement of the process gas
temperature at the moment of injecting a process gas sample
on the GC for analysis are considered.
During step 4, the temperature in the furnace is con-
trolled via the default control system based on the process
gas measurement TK3. As the process gas temperature is
the controlled variable during step 4, the measured process
gas temperatures are grouped closely together around the set
point value of 1093 K, independent of the experiment. In the
subsequent phases, the spread on the process gas outlet tem-
perature increases as different control systems are used. In
step 5, the process gas temperature should maintain the same
Fig. 7 – Averaged process gas outlet temperature measured
using TK 3 at the moments of sampling for the process gas
composition analysis during the steps described in Section
2.4.
value as in step 4. Only PY3-n succeeds in keeping the tem-
perature more or less constant while PY1-n and TK1-n appear
to show a drop in temperature up to 15 K, in particular TK1-
2. Maintaining a given temperature set point outside of the
furnace (PY1-n and TK1-n) does not guarantee a stable temper-
ature inside the furnace. This can be explained by the indirect
heating of the reactor outlet by the process gas causing the
outlet temperature to respond slower to changes in the sys-
tem, or by the fact that external influences, such as heat losses
due to convection, affect the temperature measurement out-
side of the furnace to a greater extent than inside the furnace.
The temperature in step 6 should increase by 10 K as com-
pared to the temperature in step 5. The temperature rise is
observed in all experiments and is consistent for the PY3-n
experiments but shows more erratic behavior for PY1-n and
TK1-n. The temperature in step 7 should be 25 K above the
temperature in step 5, which is again attained in PY3-n only.
Even though the difference in absolute temperature between
PY3-1 and PY3-2 is around 6 K in step 7 as a consequence of
the choice of the temperature set point in step 5 where this
difference was introduced. Temperatures for TK1-n and PY1-
2 end up significantly higher than the temperature in PY3-n.
This indicates how much the choice of the measured value for
the temperature control loop influences the steady-state and
transient behavior of single measurement values such as the
coil outlet temperature and by extension also the behavior of
the complete furnace. This wide spread on a primary process
variable such as the coil outlet temperature should be kept in
mind when observing secondary process variables such as the
coil outlet composition or the amount of coke deposited.
To further analyze this variation in the process variables
and its dependence on the temperature measurement used for
control, Fig. 8a shows the parity plots of the measured temper-
ature at certain axial positions in the final pass of the reactor
coil against the temperature at those axial positions averaged
over all experiments.
A larger spread in the parity plot around the first diago-
nal indicates a more erratic behavior at that point during the
experiments. The parity plot for temperature in Fig. 8a con-
firms the observations made based on Fig. 7: PY3-n succeeds in
controlling the temperature relatively well given the relatively
small spread. The spread is higher for PY1-n and TK1-n as
compared to PY3-n. Only a small number of the temperatures
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 3 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 380–390 387

Fig. 8 – Parity plots for temperature (a) and pressure (b) for the different experiments; Averages are taken for different axial
positions along the last pass of the reactor coil, over all experiments. The larger the spread in the parity plot, the more
erratic the control system behaved during the experiment.

shown in Fig. 8a are used as measured value in a temperature

Table 1 – Total decoking time and normalized time for
control loop for that particular part of the furnace. Tempera- decoking for the different experiments.
ture measurements that are part of a temperature control loop
Experiment Total time for Normalized time for
exhibit a less wide spread compared to temperature measure-
decoking [s] decoking [s/(10−3 kg)]
ments that are a result of the furnace operation. The majority
of the data points represent measurements along the reactor PY1-1 4210 263
coil for which the temperature is determined by the prevailing PY1-2 4860 236
TK1-1 3920 250
conditions in the furnace and the reactor.
TK1-2 6820 336
The pressure was not the main focus of the present exper- PY3-1 4130 247
imental campaign but it is nonetheless important to analyze PY3-2 4700 307
as deviations in the pressure could influence the secondary
process variables such as product yields and amount of coke
in steps 5–7, the spread on the ethane weight fraction in the
deposited to an equal extend as the temperature (Van Geem
reactor effluent becomes larger. As conversion is proportional
et al., 2005). As seen in Fig. 8b, at higher pressures, i.e. more
to temperature, it is evident that the temperature decrease in
upstream in the reactor, the pressure exhibits a rather large
step 5 observed in Fig. 7 results in higher amounts of ethane
spread but this is a phenomenon that is independent of the
in the outlet. As the temperature set point increases, the
chosen control technology. It is caused by the deposition of
feedstock conversion increases and the remaining amount
coke over time, which reduces the cross-sectional area for
of ethane goes down. Although they are about 2 wt.% abso-
flow, thus increasing the flow velocity and increasing the
lute apart, the curves of PY3-n exhibit a mutually consistent
pressure drop. Towards the end of the reactor, the pressure
trend and narrow confidence intervals whereas the profiles for
measurements converge to the process set point value of
PY1-n and TK1-n are more erratic and have wider confidence
1.70 × 105 Pa absolute although outliers with up to 10% dif-
intervals but generally follow the temperature trend. Ethene
ference in absolute pressure are present. Due to the complex
yields are a second adequate indicator of the extent to which
nature of the pilot plant there is some uncertainty on the
the reactions have progressed in the process gas. In step 4, the
obtained experimental data. Repeats often show differences
ethene yield is consistently clustered around 44 wt.%. How-
compared to the initial experimental data. This is due to the
ever in the further experimental steps, the clustering is less
fact that the system is subjected to various external distur-
and the ethene yield is spread in a wider range, but the trends
bances. There is a convective and conductive heat loss to the
agree well with those observed in the ethane yields (Fig. 9a)
surroundings depending on the ambient temperature. The
and in the temperature (Fig. 7).
pilot plant wall burners operate in the fuel rich combustion
regime so air leakages into the pilot will increase the temper-
3.3. Coke formation
ature in the firebox for a constant burner pressure.

The amount of coke formed in each experiment as well as the

3.2. Product yields
The amount of the reactant molecule ethane and of the most
important product ethene at the reactor outlet are shown in
Fig. 9 per step for the different experiments.
Conversion and product yields are strongly correlated to
temperature so it is not unsurprising that similar trends are
observed in Figs. 7 and 9b. The remaining amount of ethane
in the reactor effluent, shown in Fig. 9a, is consistent around
48 wt.% during step 4, when the temperature in the furnace
is still controlled by the process gas thermocouple TK3. As
soon as one of the alternative measurement systems is used
time needed for decoking is given in Table 1. The latter can
be correlated to the structure of the coke layer. Heynderickx
et al. (2005) provided extensive experimental and theoretical
evidence that the rate of coke combustion and gasification
depends on the microstructural properties of the coke layer,
in particular its porosity, since the rate of coke combustion
and gasification is restrained by internal diffusion limitations.
As discussed by Marchand, coke undergoes a graphitization
process with a gradual decrease in porosity and an increase
in (unsaturated) bonds between the coke precursors as the
temperature increases (Marchand, 1986). This is reflected in
a gradually decreasing hydrogen-to-carbon ratio over time
388 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 3 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 380–390
Fig. 9 – (a) Ethane and (b) ethene weight percent at the reactor outlet for the different experiments, per step as described in
Section 2.4.
Fig. 10 – Amount of coke burned as a function of decoking
time for the different experiments; inlay: rate of coke
burned as a function of decoking time for the different
experiments.
(Dente et al., 2007). Longer decoking times as a consequence
of a higher coke density and lower porosity is indicative of
higher temperatures during the coke formation. Therefore, the
decoking time can be correlated to the temperature control
mechanism during cracking, in addition to the obvious link
between the amount of coke deposited and the decoking time.
The average amount of coke deposited during the PY3-
n experiments is lower compared to PY1-n and TK1-n as
seen in in Table 1. Since during the PY3-n experiments, the
temperature in the last cell was directly controlled by a mea-
sured temperature in that cell, the number of temperature
overshoots that cause excessive coking could be minimized.
However, the average amount of time required to burn off a
gram of coke is unexpectedly high for PY3-2. The amount of
coke formed was the lowest for all experiments but the time
required to burn it off was high, pointing to denser coke. This
is counterintuitive as the coke formed in the PY3-n experi-
ments should be the most porous and hence the most easily
removed, due to the absence of temperature overshoots. The
longest decoking time is observed for the PY1-2 and TK1-2
experiments, mostly because the amount of coke formed dur-
ing these experiments was the highest. However, the majority
of that coke was assumed similar in structure to the coke
formed during the other experiments as the rate of coke burn-
off is nearly the same for all experiments, see the inlay in
Fig. 10. In the beginning of the decoking process, the porous
Fig. 11 – Number of temperature measurement readings
above a given arbitrary temperature threshold during
cracking (steps 5–7).
coke which can easily be gasified, is removed. Towards the end
of the decoking process, the harder, denser coke is burned at
a rate that is at least one order of magnitude lower compared
to the beginning of decoking. In PY1-2, the total amount of
coke is the highest due to a higher deposit of porous coke
which is easily burned off. In TK1-2, the total amount of coke
is also high but in this case, more dense coke is formed, as
seen from the long time until complete decoking. This can be
explained by the occurrence of temperature peaks that caused
rapid graphitization of the coke already present on the reactor
surface. In other words, one expects a correlation between the
number of temperature overshoots above a certain threshold
value on one hand and the amount of coke formed on the other
hand, which is confirmed by an a posteriori statistical analysis
of all temperature measurements during the experiment, see
Fig. 11.
PY1-2 and TK1-2, the experiments with the highest amount
of coke formed and the longest decoking time, also exhibit
the highest number of thermocouple measurement points
above a certain measurement value. Especially for tempera-
tures beyond 1180 K, the correlation between the amount of
data points and the amount of coke formed is strong. It is strik-
ing that TK1-1 has a high number of measurement points for
temperatures up to 1150 K. This did not influence the amount
of coke formed significantly but it has an effect on the conver-
sion and the ethene selectivity as observed in Fig. 9.
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 3 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 380–390
4. Conclusions
Rigorous temperature control is critical in the operation of a
steam cracking furnace. Temperature instabilities, especially
overshoots, negatively influence the product yields, run length
and reactor coil longevity. The optical thermometer test in the
pilot plant for steam cracking showed that the performance
of the pyrometer as the temperature measurement device in
a furnace temperature PID control loop is comparable to that
of a commonly used weld-on type K thermocouple. Despite
its higher cost compared to a type K thermocouple, an opti-
cal pyrometer could be beneficial due to the absence of drift
over time and the movability of the detector. The present work
delivered proof-of-concept evidence for using a pyrometer as a
measurement device in a temperature control loop, but other
aspects such as robustness in an industrial environment and
cost are also important when considering installing optical
temperature measurement devices on an industrial furnace.
Declaration of interests
None.
Acknowledgments
Pieter Reyniers acknowledges financial support from a doc-
toral fellowship from the Research Foundation - Flanders
(FWO). The authors also acknowledge the financial support
from the Long Term Structural Methusalem Funding by the
Flemish Government – grant number BOF09/01M00409. The
research leading to these results has received funding from
the European Research Council under the European Union’s
Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme/ERC grant
agreement n◦ 818607.
References
Amghizar, I., Vandewalle, L.A., Van Geem, K.M., Marin, G.B., 2017.
New trends in olefin production. Engineering 3, 171–178.
Barazandeh, K., Dehghani, O., Hamidi, M., Aryafard, E.,
Rahimpour, M.R., 2015. Investigation of coil outlet
temperature effect on the performance of naphtha cracking
furnace. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 94, 307–316.
Bentley, R.E., 1990. Long-term drift in mineral-insulated
Nicrosil-sheathed type K thermocouples. Sens. Actuators A:
Phys. 24, 21–26.
Brouwer, N.L., Urbanic, J.M., Anderson, A.R., 1987. Emissivity
Error Correcting Method for Radiation Thermometer.
Crouzet, P.G., Martens, A.J., 1992. Process for Controlling
Hydrocarbon Steam Cracking System Using a
Spectrophotometer.
Dente, M., Bozzano, G., Faravelli, T., Marongiu, A., Pierucci, S.,
Ranzi, E., 2007. Kinetic modelling of pyrolysis processes in gas
and condensed phase. In: Marin, G.B. (Ed.), Advances in
Chemical Engineering. Academic Press, pp. 51–166.
Dhuyvetter, I.R., M.F, Froment, G.F., Marin, G.B., Viennet, D., 2001.
The influence of dimethyl disulfide on naphtha steam
cracking. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 40, 4353–4362.
Dierickx, J.L., Plehiers, P.M., Froment, G.F., 1986. On-line gas
chromatographic analysis of hydrocarbon effluents:
calibration factors and their correlation. J. Chromatogr. A 362,
155–174.
Ghashghaee, M., Karimzadeh, R., 2011. Multivariable
optimization of thermal cracking severity. Chem. Eng. Res.
Des. 89, 1067–1077.
389
Heynderickx, G.J., Schools, E.M., Marin, G.B., 2005. Coke
combustion and gasification kinetics in ethane steam
crackers. AlChE J. 51, 1415–1428.
Kopinke, F.D., Zimmermann, G., Nowak, S., 1988. On the
mechanism of coke formation in steam cracking —
conclusions from results obtained by tracer experiments.
Carbon 26, 117–124.
Liptak, B.G., 2003. Instrument Engineers’ Handbook, Fourth
Edition, Volume One: Process Measurement and Analysis. CRC
Press.
Mahmoudi, E., Hafizi, A., Rahimpour, M., Bolhasani, A., Shariati,
A., 2018. Inhibition effect of CeO2 promoted SiO2 coating on
coke growth during steam cracking of ethane. Chem. Eng. Res.
Des. 136, 271–281.
Marchand, A., 1986. Physico-chemical and structural
characterization of carbons. In: Figueiredo, J.L., Moulijn, J.A.
(Eds.), Carbon and Coal Gasification: Science and Technology.
Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 93–136.
Muñoz Gandarillas, A.E., Van Geem, K.M., Reyniers, M.-F., Marin,
G.B., 2014a. Coking resistance of specialized coil materials
during steam cracking of sulfur-free naphtha. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 53, 13644–13655.
Muñoz Gandarillas, A.E., Van Geem, K.M., Reyniers, M.-F., Marin,
G.B., 2014b. Influence of the reactor material composition on
coke formation during ethane steam cracking. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 53, 6358–6371.
Plehiers, P.M., Reyniers, G.C., Froment, G.F., 1990. Simulation of
the run length of an ethane cracking furnace. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 29, 636–641.
Reyniers, G.C., Froment, G.F., Kopinke, F.-D., Zimmermann, G.,
1994. Coke formation in the thermal cracking of
hydrocarbons. 4. Modeling of coke formation in naphtha
cracking. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 33, 2584–2590.
Rossi, F., Rovaglio, M., Manenti, F., 2019. Model Predictive Control
and Dynamic Real-time Optimization of Steam Cracking
Units, Computer Aided Chemical Engineering. Elsevier, pp.
873–897.
Timmermans, G.J., Morgenstern, H.J., 2003. Method and apparatus
for controlling severity of cracking operations by near infrared
analysis in the gas phase using fiber optics. Google Patents.
Van Camp, C.E., Vandamme, P.S., Willems, P.A., Clymans, P.J.,
Froment, G.F., 1985. Severity in the pyrolysis of petroleum
fractions: fundamentals and industrial application. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Process. Des. Dev. 24, 561–570.
Van de Vijver, R., Vandewiele, N.M., Bhoorasingh, P.L., Slakman,
B.L., Seyedzadeh Khanshan, F., Carstensen, H.-H., Reyniers,
M.-F., Marin, G.B., West, R.H., Van Geem, K.M., 2015. Automatic
mechanism and kinetic model generation for gas- and
solution-phase processes: a perspective on best practices,
recent advances, and future challenges. Int. J. Chem. Kinet. 47,
199–231.
Van Geem, K.M., Pyl, S.P., Reyniers, M.-F., Vercammen, J., Beens, J.,
Marin, G.B., 2010. On-line analysis of complex hydrocarbon
mixtures using comprehensive two-dimensional gas
chromatography. J. Chromatogr. A 1217, 6623–6633.
Van Geem, K.M., Reyniers, M.-F., Marin, G.B., 2005. Two severity
indices for scale-up of steam cracking coils. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 44, 3402–3411.
Van Geem, K.M., Reyniers, M.F., Marin, G.B., Song, J., Green, W.H.,
Matheu, D.M., 2006. Automatic reaction network generation
using RMG for steam cracking of n-hexane. AlChE J. 52,
718–730.
van Goethem, M.W., Barendregt, S., Grievink, J., Verheijen, P.J.,
Dente, M., Ranzi, E., 2013. A kinetic modelling study of ethane
cracking for optimal ethylene yield. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 91,
1106–1110.
van Goethem, M.W.M., Barendregt, S., Grievink, J., Moulijn, J.A.,
Verheijen, P.J.T., 2010. Model-based, thermo-physical
optimisation for high olefin yield in steam cracking reactors.
Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 88, 1305–1319.
Vandamme, P.S., Froment, G.F., 1982. Putting computers to work
— thermal-cracking computer control in pilot plants. Chem.
Eng. Prog. 78, 77–82.
390 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 5 3 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 380–390

Wang, J., Reyniers, M.-F., Marin, G.B., 2007. Influence of dimethyl
disulfide on coke formation during steam cracking of
hydrocarbons. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 46, 4134–4148.
Wauters, S., Marin, G.B., 2001. Computer generation of a network
of elementary steps for coke formation during the thermal
cracking of hydrocarbons. Chem. Eng. J. 82, 267–279.
Wauters, S., Marin, G.B., 2002. Kinetic modeling of coke formation
during steam cracking. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 41, 2379–2391.
Zhang, Y., Reyniers, P.A., Du, W., Qian, F., Van Geem, K.M., Marin,
G.B., 2017a. Incident radiative heat flux based method for the
coupled run length simulation of steam cracking furnaces.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 56, 4156–4172.
Zhang, Y., Reyniers, P.A., Schietekat, C.M., Van Geem, K.M., Marin,
G.B., Du, W., Qian, F., 2017b. Computational fluid
dynamics-based steam cracking furnace optimization using
feedstock flow distribution. AlChE J. 63, 3199–3213.