Evaluating hydrogen rich fuel gas firing

A sudden shift to hydrogen rich fuel gas firing may not be prudent if a fired heater is
not designed for it

RUPAM MUKHERJEE and SHILPA SINGH

Engineers India Limited (EIL)

F
ired heaters are designed to for installations struggling with their Burners are a specialised item
combust refinery fuel gas which carbon footprints and may become requiring intricate know-how, and
may contain a wide array of a way of keeping greenhouse gas should be suited to a wide range of
components including hydrogen. emissions at bay. However, there are fuel gases. Dumping hydrogen into
Generally, hydrogen content in various other factors which should the fuel gas header may lead to the
refinery fuel gas is limited to 10-30 be kept in mind when planning to fuel gas composition breaching the
vol% depending on the refinery con- shift to hydrogen rich fuel gas firing. range for which the burners were
figuration and hydrogen recovery initially designed. Such excursions,
technologies employed. Hydrogen, Why worry about high hydrogen in if they persist for a long time, will
being a fuel with appreciably higher fuel gas? impact the performance and opera-
heating value and low energy per Petroleum refineries burn a wide tion of process fired heaters. Thus it
unit volume, has to be treated differ- array of fuel gas mixtures depend- is imperative that a detailed study
ently. In general, maximum recov- ing on the group of units operating of process furnaces is undertaken
ery of hydrogen is attempted across or under shutdown. Accordingly, to evaluate the impact of changing
the refinery complex due to its high the fuel gas composition can vary fuel gas composition. Hydrogen
commercial value. However, there to a large extent. In general, refin- concentration in fuel gas plays a
can be instances when a gas stream eries have a complex hydrogen bal- prominent role as it sharply alters
rich in hydrogen has to be routed ance across the complex to ensure the molecular weight of the fuel gas
to the fuel gas header. This article that minimal hydrogen is routed to mix. Methane, the other main com-
addresses the impact on thermal flare or for other non-process uses. ponent, should also be considered in
design and performance evaluation Hydrogen being a valuable utility, conjunction with hydrogen to work
of a fired heater for hydrogen rich its recovery and re-use is maximised out various scenarios.
fuel gas firing (hydrogen content up to the extent that it is economically
to 90 vol%). As a sample case, a nat- feasible. Basis of case study: parameters and
ural draft furnace of moderate heat However, there can be certain considerations
duty in hydrotreating service has instances due to operational upsets In order to evaluate the impact of
been selected for the study. of certain units or failure of criti- hydrogen burning in the fired heater,
The study shows that shifting cal equipment which may end in there are a few aspects to consider,
from conventional refinery fuel dumping precious hydrogen into like the suitability of the fired heater
gas to hydrogen rich fuel gas may the fuel gas header. To add to this design for hydrogen rich fuel gas,
affect the thermal design and per- concern, operational upsets may last the suitability of the burner design,
formance parameters of the furnace for days while the fuel for a fired and the suitability of fuel piping,
only marginally, unless the furnace heater has a rich composition of control valves and other equipment.
is fired near to metallurgical limits hydrogen across the refinery. When The suitability of the fired heater
or designed with too little margin to designing fired heaters, the gamut design for hydrogen rich fuel gas fir-
manoeuvre. of fuel compositions expected to be ing demands thorough evaluation;
There are enough reasons, fired in the furnace is well defined. this article focuses on this aspect
explained in the following sec- through a case study.
tions, for the need for a detailed Combustion parameters of hydrogen and methane The generic combustion
study. It is seen that hydrogen parameters of methane and
rich gas firing helps the envi- Parameter Methane Hydrogen hydrogen are shown in Table
ronmental cause by reducing Molecular weight, kg/kmol 16 2 1. Several of the parameters
carbon dioxide emissions sig- Lower heating value, kcal/kg 11 972 28 710 shown in Table 1 are critical
nificantly, thereby helping the Energy density, kJ/Nm3 35 831 10 801
when applied to fired heaters.
Standard density, kg/Nm3 0.716 0.09
refinery with carbon credits. Flame speed, m/s 0.55 7.7 For example, hydrogen has a
Thus, hydrogen rich fuel gas fir- Air to fuel ratio, kg/kg 20.78 41.2 much higher heating value than
ing may be an alternative to car- methane. Hence, for the same
bon capture and sequestration Table 1 fired duty the mass of hydrogen

www.digitalrefining.com PTQ Q1 2021 59

Q1 EIL.indd 1 11/12/2020 12:34

 to be fired is far lower. However, the from the respective unit is bypassed
Design parameters of case study furnace
density of hydrogen is appreciably around the ROG PSA and routed
lower than that of methane. Hence, Parameter Values directly to the header, which can
the volumetric flow of hydrogen Absorbed duty, MMkcal/h 17.2 drive the fuel gas mix to the lighter
required to attain the same heat Fluid phase Two phase side. If ROG PSA is not used in a
Type of fired heater Natural draft
input as for methane is much higher. Number of passes 8 refinery, Case 2 effectively becomes
Accordingly, fuel supply piping, Excess air, % 20 the normal fuel gas scenario.
fittings, and valves need to be ade- Case 3 is an extreme case tak-
quately designed to handle this Table 2 ing into account all of the scenar-
additional volume. ios described for Case 2. Hence,
Probably the most critical point to • Case 2: 50% Methane + 50 vol% the shutdown of any fuel gas con-
note is the difference in flame speed, hydrogen tributing units bypassing the ROG
a measure of the rate at which the • Case 3: 10% Methane + 90 vol% PSA for maintenance often results
fuel burns. Hydrogen has a flame hydrogen in a fuel gas mix as high as 80 vol%
speed 10 times that of methane, Case 1 represents a common refin- hydrogen. In the current study, Case
which means the chances of flash- ery fuel gas composition where 3’s hydrogen content was chosen
back of hydrogen at lower loads is hydrogen recovery is maximised to check the extremes of thermal
high. This needs to be taken care of through refinery off-gas pressure design and to test the metallurgical
during the burner design to avoid swing absorption (ROG PSA). In limits. The results of Case 3 can be
flashback of burner flame at lower general, refiners maximise extraction extended to the more practical sce-
loads, leading to extinguishing of of hydrogen to the extent that this nario of 80 vol% hydrogen.
the flame and release of unburnt is economically beneficial and pro- During the course of the study,
hydrocarbons into the firebox, a vides enough energy content for the the following common basis was
severe safety hazard. fuel gas header. followed:
To address such concerns, a Case 2 is a common refinery ratio • The fuel cases were simulated
detailed study was undertaken. For when any or a group of units which keeping the process absorbed duty
the purpose of the study, a natural are heavy contributors to the fuel unchanged
draft gasoil heater with the configu- gas balance are under shutdown for • The fuel cases were simulated pro-
ration shown in Table 2 was selected. maintenance or upset. For example, viding equal percentages of excess
The study was carried out using units such as the FCC or DCU con- air
in-house software programs and tribute to the fuel gas mix; if they are • A well stirred firebox model is
FRNC 5PC software for the fired shut down, this may drive the refin- assumed
heater simulation. ery fuel gas composition towards • Fouling factor, both inside and out-
Three ratios of methane to hydro- the lighter end. Similarly, if the ROG side tubes, remains the same
gen were considered for analysis: PSA is taken off for maintenance, or
• Case 1: 90% Methane + 10 vol% in the event of an equipment level Performance analysis of the furnace
hydrogen upset, the hydrogen rich fuel gas For evaluation, the major parame-
ters that affect fired heater design
Performance parameters were chosen for comparison. These
parameters are shown in Table 3.
Parameter Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
(90% methane (50% methane (10% methane
+ 10 vol% + 50 vol% + 90 vol% Analysis of performance parameters
hydrogen hydrogen hydrogen The result table throws out cer-
Fuel LHV, Kcal/ kg 12 210 13 841 20 800 tain critical inferences. As Figure 1
Fuel density, KJ/ Nm3 33 328 23 316 13 304 shows, hydrogen rich fuel gas (Case
Rate of fuel fired, kg/hr 1839 1606 1046
Vol. fuel firing rate, Nm3/ sec 0.78 1.10 1.9 3 with hydrogen volumetrically
Fuel efficiency, % 76.8 77.5 79 around 90%) has a LHV almost 70%
Air required, kg/h 38 736 37 130 33 170 higher than that of ordinary refinery
Flue gas flow rate, kg/h 40 572 38 690 34 216 fuel gas (Case 1 with 10 vol% hydro-
Radiant duty, % of total 68 68.8 71
Avg. radiant flux, Btu/h.ft2 9323 9436 9660 gen). Due to this higher heat content
Peak radiant flux, Btu/h.ft2 17 266 17 483 17 900 per unit weight, the fuel efficiency of
Arch temperature, °C 856 855 858 the furnace (see Figure 2) is apprecia-
Ex-convection temperature, °C 444 440 433 bly higher when Case 3 fuel is fired.
Max. tube metal temperature, °C 568 574 588
Max fin tip temperature, °C 589 577 557 Purely on a mass basis and consid-
Film temperature, °C 496 503 516 ering 8000 stream hours, Case 3 will
Relative coking rate 0.953 * 102 0.107 * 103 0.139 * 103 require 8368 t/y of fuel gas whereas
Carbon dioxide emitted, t/d 120 94 33 Case 1 would require 14 712 t/y,
Floor flux density, kW/m2 862 854 838
Adiabatic flame temperature, °C 1770 1806 1904 which translates to an improvement
NOx emitted (as predicted by FRNC), ppmv 35 41 61 in fuel efficiency of 2.2% and a fuel
saving of approximately 6300 t/y.
Table 3 However, on a volumetric basis, an

60 PTQ Q1 2021 www.digitalrefining.com

Q1 EIL.indd 2 11/12/2020 12:34

 35 Rate of fuel fired in kg/hr
Heating value * 10 3
30 1839
25
>

1606
20
1046
15
10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Hydrogen vol% in fuel gas mix (90% Methane + (50% Methane + (10% Methane +
10% Hydrogen) 50% Hydrogen) 90% Hydrogen)
Fuel LHV in Kcal/kg
Vol. energy density in Kcal/Nm3 Figure 2 Comparison of fuel efficiency translated as fuel firing rate

Figure 1 Heat content analysis ing if the process fluid is prone to almost 1.5 times had the heater been
fouling. In the long run, such foul- employed in a high coking service
opposing inference is drawn. As ing may prove to be a deterrent in like a delayed coker.
Table 3 shows, volumetric flow rate the smooth operation of the fired Due to higher heat release poten-
for Case 3 is almost 2.5 times that of heater. This fact is also very well tial and lower air flow rate in Case
Case 1. Hence, the existing piping captured in the relative coking rate. 3 fuel gas compared to Case 1,
and valve systems may become lim- As can be seen from Table 3, the the adiabatic flame temperature
iting for the additional flow require- relative coking rate for Case 3 is increases by almost 140°C (see
ment if the same rate of firing is to almost 1.4 times higher. A corollary Figure 4) for which the software
be sustained. but very important inference is that reported value of the NOx emis-
The total flue gas generated for the run length could be reduced by sion rate is almost doubled. This
Case 3 is almost 15% lower com-
pared to Case 1. This lower flue
gas flow rate results in lower con- 600
vective heat pick-up, resulting in a 580
Max film temp in ˚C Max TMT in ˚C
588
requirement for higher radiant heat 574
intensity. Thus, the radiant duty
560 568
pick-up for Case 3 is increased by 540
3% to compensate for the loss in 520
convective duty. This additional 516
500
radiant duty is also depicted by the 503
496
increase in radiant flux. However, 480
the arch temperature is not affected 460
much by this increase in radiant flux
440
which means that hardware compo-
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
nents such as tube supports might (90% Methane + (50% Methane + (10% Methane +
not need to change. However, the 10% Hydrogen) 50% Hydrogen) 90% Hydrogen)
maximum tube metal temperature,
which happens to be experienced Figure 3 Film temperature and TMT comparison
in the shock section tubes, is ele-
vated by almost 20°C when Case 3
1920
fuel is fired. Although this may be
1900
acceptable for fired heaters which
Adiabatic flame temperature, ˚C

are designed with a certain cushion 1880

at the design stage, the increase may 1860
not be acceptable for heaters which
1840
have been operated over a long
period or have been designed with 1820
little room for adjustment. 1800
The film temperature (see Figure 1780
3) is found to increase by 20°C for
1760
Case 3 fuel gas firing compared to 0 20 40 60 80 100
Case 1 fuel gas. It is well known that Vol% of hydrogen in fuel gas
an increased film temperature may
cause fluid deterioration or crack- Figure 4 Effect of hydrogen vol% on adiabatic flame temperature

www.digitalrefining.com PTQ Q1 2021 61

Q1 EIL.indd 3 11/12/2020 12:34


140
Carbon dioxide emission, TPD 120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20
Hydrogen vol% in fuel gas mix
Figure 5 Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions
can be a hurdle whenever the emis-
sion rates of developed economies
apply. Having said this, the increase
in NOx emissions can be weighed
against developing burner tech-
nologies or through ultra-low NOx
burners which employ fuel staging
and flue gas recirculation. Thus,
the increase in adiabatic flame tem-
perature may just push the emis-
sions out of bounds for an existing
furnace with burners not designed
to handle 90% hydrogen fuel gas.
However, if this is taken into con-
sideration at the design stage, the
NOx emissions problem can be
overcome through proper burner
design and testing.
Last but not least, in fact the most
promising aspect is the massive
reduction in CO2 emission rate (see
Figure 5). The carbon emission rate
is cut by 70%, approximately 90 t/d.
This point is critical when applied to
nationwide furnaces and boilers.
Conclusions
The current study indicates that it
might not be prudent to suddenly
shift to hydrogen rich fuel gas firing
if the fired heater is not designed
for it. A study of the thermal and
mechanical parameters is warranted
before such a decision is taken.
For a natural draft furnace with
a proper design and more space for
adjustment, shifting to hydrogen rich
fuel gas firing might not be a major
issue as most of the thermal and
mechanical parameters may prove
to be well within limit. However, an
increase in tube metal temperature
and film temperature may need to
be reviewed considering fired heater
service. Increased tube metal tem-
62 PTQ Q1 2021
Q1 EIL.indd 4
40 60 80 100
perature and film temperature are
primary causes for increased cok-
ing. When firing hydrogen rich fuel
gas for a heavy fouling fluid such as
delayed coker feed, heavy vacuum
residue, asphalt, or heavy vacuum
gasoil, or for a thermic fluid heater
heating sensitive hot oil, this increase
may prove detrimental to unit relia-
bility as well as product quality.
Similar studies on heaters with
elaborate air preheat systems may
need to be undertaken to assess the
extent of the impact. However, the
directional results from the current
study can be extended to heaters
with air preheat systems.
The decrease in convective heat
duty pick-up may prove to be a
deciding factor for platformer or
CCR unit heaters which typically
house elaborate steam generating
and superheating convection sec-
tions. In such cases, the reduced con-
vection duty can cause a fall in steam
export from the unit which has to
be made up by the utility boilers or
cogeneration units. Thus for CCR
unit heaters, this factor needs to be
accounted for.
The high reduction in CO2 emis-
sions is a very promising aspect of
this technological shift. Future tech-
nical advances may produce lighter
components and off-gases, hence
the requirement to fire hydrogen
rich fuel gas might not be restricted
to upsets only, rather it may become
the primary design case.
Burners play a key role if any shift
to high hydrogen fuel gas is under-
taken. The is all the more important
if it is applied to existing fired heat-
ers. Burners may not be designed to
sustain such high flame velocities,
which may lead to flashback of flame
and extinguishing of the fire. Such
instances are precursors to major
accidents. Secondly, the elevated
adiabatic flame temperature may
require a metallurgical or refractory
upgrade of the burner components.
Increased NOx emissions may be
a dampener for such an exercise,
hence it is most important to check
the suitability of burners from the
original equipment manufacturer
for the revised operating conditions
with respect to pore size, metallurgy
suitability, and NOx emission lev-
els. For new fired heaters, all such
concerns can be taken care of by
properly defining the fuel gas at the
design stage and through extensive
site testing of the burners under sim-
ulated site conditions.
To sum up, it is evident that
hydrogen rich fuel gas firing on a
continuous basis in process furnaces
warrants a detailed study before
its introduction. The performance
parameters critical to heater oper-
ation need to be evaluated for the
revised fuel as the heat duty split is
driven towards the radiant section.
Burners also need detailed eval-
uation by the supplier in case the
shift to hydrogen rich fuel gas is
undertaken in an existing furnace.
Another important point stems from
the reduction in carbon footprint
which augurs well for sustainable
development.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to extend their thanks to
EIL management for permission to publish this
article. Special thanks to Dr Shobha Agarwal,
Mr S C Gupta, and Ms Indrani Krishnan for their
valuable suggestions and encouragement.
Rupam Mukherjee is Senior Manager in EIL’s
Process Thermal department. With over 12
years of experience in the design, engineering
and troubleshooting of fired heater systems, he
holds a BTech degree in chemical engineering
from NIT Durgapur and a master’s degree in
energy and environmental management from
IIT Delhi. Email: rupam.mukherjee@eil.co.in
Shilpa Singh is Deputy General Manager in
EIL’s Process Thermal department. With over
23 years of experience, she leads a team of
chemical engineers involved in grassroot
designs, revamp studies, capacity, and
efficiency improvement projects for fired
heater systems. She holds a BTech degree in
chemical engineering from IIT Delhi.
Email: shilpa@eil.co.in.
www.digitalrefining.com
11/12/2020 12:34