Optimizing Petroleum Refinery Cooling Water System

Paresh S. Parekh, Unicade Inc.

John A. Latimer, Equilon Enterprises LLC

Introduction
A 145,000 Bbl/day refinery identified cooling water(CW) circulation rates and supply temperature as the
major bottlenecks to sustain crude throughput during the summer months. These CW limitations led to
processing slowdowns or increased flaring of light hydrocarbons, incurring several million dollars worth of lost
opportunity. The refinery has two closed loop cooling tower systems, cooling tower 1 and 2, with design flows of
74,000 gpm and 31,000 gpm respectively.
The objectives were to investigate fluid flow, heat transfer, and optimal asset utilization to obtain the best
bang for the capital improvement dollars. Both CW systems consist of a cooling tower, CW supply pumps, CW
piping distribution and CW process heat exchangers. The evaluation included creation of a complex piping
network fluid flow computer model of the CW systems that were tied to an Excel based heat exchanger model
which predicted interactive impact of physical and process changes of CW system on the refinery operations. The
project analysis included technical feasibility, economic analysis, prioritizing alternative solutions and making
recommendations. The article will address three separate areas.
1. Problem definition, goal settings, and base case model development of two cooling water systems utilizing a
PC based Flow Network Analysis (FNA) software and an Excel based heat exchanger process model.
2. Alternative case studies with what-if computer simulation, new project identifications, and cost/benefit
analysis.
3. Project implementation, impact evaluation, and lessons learned.

Defining the Pre-Retrofit Case

The petroleum refinery was built in 1958 with a capacity of 44,000 barrel per stream day (bpsd). Over the
period of time the existing process units were debottlenecked, expanded and new process units were added. The
current operating capacity of the refinery is 145,000 bpsd and it has one crude unit, a fluid catalytic cracking unit,
a cat-poly unit, two catalytic reforming units, two hydrotreating units, two alkylation units, a delayed coking unit,
and a sulfur recovery unit. Two cooling towers serve the refinery processing units. The cooling tower no.1 (CT1)
had a measured flow of 74,295 gpm with four pumps in operation and the cooling tower no. 2 (CT2) had a
measured flow of 31,744 gpm with two pumps in operation. The cooling tower 1 was expanded in 1989 by adding
one more cell and upgrading the circulation pump motors to 1000 hp. Both cooling towers independently serve
the process units, and interconnection between the towers and their pipe headers is not provided. Both cooling
tower distribution systems operated wide open and have no flow control. The goal of the base case was to
establish a piping network model of the existing system operation. Once the model achieved the accurate mapping
to the field verified data, then the what if case studies were conducted to debottleneck the cooling water system.

Problem Definition
Historical performance documented that both cooling water systems were not providing the desired
cooling during the summer months. The cooling tower 1 normally operated with three cooling tower pumps.

During the summer months, a fourth pump was brought on-line in an attempt to provide additional cooling. An
increase in the supply temperature from cooling tower 2 was consistently the constraint in the CT2 system. The
results of these limitations were the flaring of light hydrocarbons, reducing the throughput of various processing
units and the use of external water sprays on some critical shell and tube heat exchangers to keep the process
temperature down. The water run-off from the external water sprays created its own hazards, and increased waste
water treatment load. The lost opportunity costs were estimated at $3-5 million per year and provided substantial
justification to evaluate ways to improve the system.

Project Goals
The overall objective was to be able to sustain unit capacities during the summer months without flaring
and without using external water sprays. Intermediate milestones included analysis of the pre-retrofit cooling water
systems (includes cooling tower, cooling tower water circulating pumps, piping, process-to-water heat exchangers),
identification of existing system limitations and screening of the major alternatives. To be successful, the project
also needed to develop low cost creative solutions which maximized the existing cooling water supply and
distribution system investment.

Methodology

$
$

The base case (pre-retrofit) computer model development process was broken down into three separate
areas: Data Collection, Model Development, and Testing / Verification. The Figure 1 outlines the approach.

Measured Cooling
Water Flow to
Headers, laterals,
& to each Exchanger
Collected Utility
& Process PIDs,
Piping Drawings,
Data sheets,
DCS PFDs, and
Design Info

M
Metered
Motor Amps,
Power Draws

Compared Simulation
Results to Measured
Data and Tuned the
Base Case Model

Figure 1. Base Case Model Development Process

Entered Pipe
Length, Fittings,
Pipe Branches (nodes)
Elevation, Pump Curve,
Heat Exchanger Model in
Flow Network Analysis
software & Excel

Simulation
of Flow Network &
Heat Transfer

The data collection step included collecting process and design information such as equipment
datasheets, cooling water distribution Process and Instrumentation Diagrams, piping layout drawings (above
ground and under ground), operating procedures, etc. Field measurements of cooling water flows, cooling tower
inlet and outlet temperature, heat exchangers' water outlet temperature, and cooling tower circulation pump motor
power draws were taken for a total system analysis. The field measured data was then used to establish a
measured value base operating case for each cooling water system and served as the basis for tuning the FNA
computer models. The goal was to create a base case flow network model that was field tested and verified.
The field flow measurements on the cooling tower circulation pumps and exchangers were taken with a
clamp-on type ultrasonic model MST-P flowmeter manufactured by Polysonics Inc. of Houston, Texas. The
flowmeter readings were reasonably accurate for the main cooling water flows and provided excellent cross checks
with the power draws. However, the accuracy was poor in most cases when the readings were taken at individual
heat exchangers. As a result, the hydraulic modeling was the primary source for generating the flow data for the
individual exchangers. The validation checks used for the individual exchangers were the calculated cooling water
heat loads and comparison of these with estimated heat loads from the process side of the exchangers.
A separate base case model for each cooling tower system was developed. The cooling tower 2 serviced
four process units and cooling tower 1 provided water for the eight other refinery units. The cooling tower 1 was
designed to remove 3 times more heating load than the cooling tower 2. In the subsequent presentation, we will
focus on the cooling tower 2 model development and its analysis.
A base case block flow diagram of cooling tower 2 water distribution is presented as Figure 2. As you can
see, the Alkylation unit is closest to the CT2 with a 30 water supply (& return) header. An analysis clearly
indicated that due to a close proximity of the Alkylation unit to the cooling tower, the process unit received higher
percentage of the water flow and removed lower percentage of heat load than the design.

Sulfur Plant
194 gpm

3"

AIR

18"

Reformer
5,200 gpm

18"

Hydrotreater
5,917 gpm

18"

COOLING TOWER 2

28,964 gpm

Alkylation Unit
17,725 gpm

Makeup Water
& Chemicals

30"
36"

24"

Blowdown
RECIRCULATING
PUMPS 1, 2 & 3

Figure 2. A Block Diagram of Cooling Tower 2 Water Supply System (Base Case)
The flow network analysis was conducted by creating first a flow diagram of all nodes and pipes, and
entering physical parameters of each pipe segment (length, type, internal diameter, elevation, fittings, valves, etc.)
as well as pump curves & heat exchanger data into the modeling software program. The output results were
analyzed and the node diagram was corrected until converged results agreed with the field measurements. Figure
3 is a representative node/pipe diagram for an entire system and Figure 4 is an example of one of the process
units.

COOLING
TOWER
#2

2
3
29

1
30
EL

2
30
EL

25

32-P101

PUMP 1

26

32-P102

PUMP 2

4
24
EL

3
30
EL

PUMP 3

5
24
EL

10

27
32-P103

6
24
EL

8
36
EL

13

9
24
EL

10
18
EL

15

11
18
EL

12

11
23

24

36
EL

36
EL

18

7
36
EL

14
30
EL

16

13
18
EL

14

ALKYLATION UNIT

12
3
EL

17

28

20

REFORMER

SULFUR PLANT

HYDROTREATER
25

18
18
EL

21
30
EL

19

23

16
3
EL

24

21

22
27

17
18
EL

26

22
36
EL

20
36
EL

19
24
EL

15
18
EL

Figure 3. Overview Pipe Network Model Served by Cooling Tower 2

11
18
EL

10
18
EL

375
18
EL

376
14
EL

18

12
3
EL

338
12
EL

327
12
EL

340
12
EL

275

347
12
EL

281

328
3
EL
276

288

282

283

289

306

314

415
3
EL

319

324

343

396
1 1/2

EL

347

351

355

431
6
EL
360

338

391
6
EL
325

425
3
EL

402
4
EL

329

384
2
EL
320

372

390
6
EL

420
3
EL

403
4
EL
330

333

410
2
EL

416
2
EL
344

339

421
3
EL
348

426
3
EL
352

432
6
EL
356

361

BLM372

330

335

10E116A&B

10E113B&A

343

10E112

EL

EL

350

357

10E111B&A

10E106A&B

EL

10E116A&B

10E113B&A

278

331
8
EL
279

10E122A&B

EL

EL

297

345
8
EL
286

339
12
EL

292

346
12
EL

315

367
3
EL

397

BLM397

EL

411

412

417

422

427

433

10PK101

10E127A

10E127B

10E126A

10E126B

10E104B&A

EL

EL

EL

EL

EL

EL

EL

331

386
2
EL
322

10PK101

10E103B&A

326

381
8
EL
310

359
8
EL
298

353
12
EL

21

15
18
EL

303

352
6
EL

10E103B&A

10E121

321

366
3
EL

10E121

EL

10E122A&B

10E119A&B
309

358
8
EL

392

393
6
EL
327

10E127A

340

404
4
EL

334

10E127B

345

10E126A

349

413
2
EL

10E126B

353

418
2
EL

10E104B&A

357

423
2
EL

362

428
2
EL

434
6
EL

341

332

398

373
2
EL

363

405
4
EL

1 1/2

EL

435
6
EL
342

280

16
3
EL
22

351
6
EL
291

337
3
EL

10E106A&B

385

10P101
10P201
10P221
10P121

10P205
10P105
10P125
10P225

302

296

344
8
EL
285

332
3
EL

10E111B&A

290

336
3
EL

439
12
EL

10E112

284

380

10E119A&B

EL

EL

EL

365

MISC
CRU2

17
18
EL

383
2
EL

379
8
EL
308

359

409
3
EL
337

378
8
EL

364
3
EL
301

295

430
10
EL
336

401
6
EL

371
2
EL
307

356
8
EL

400
10
EL

335

328

313

363
3
EL
300

349
6
EL

399
14
EL

323

370
4
EL

305

355
8
EL
294

342
8
EL

362
4
EL

299

348
6
EL

389
14
EL

318

361
12
EL

293

341
8
EL

334
3
EL
277

354
12
EL

287

333
3
EL

329
3
EL
31
MISC
EL

377
14
EL

317

20

304

360
12
EL

311

368
12
EL

312

369
4
EL

316

374
4
EL

370

438
18
EL

382
8
EL

387
2
EL
369

437
14
EL

394
6
EL
368

388
14
EL

408
6
EL
367

395
14
EL

366

406
14
EL

414
3
EL

346

419
3
EL

350

424
3
EL

354

429
3
EL

358

365

407
10
EL

364

436
10
EL

Figure 4. Detailed Pipe Network Model for the Reformer

Flow Network Model
The FNA software program is designed to calculate the flow and pressure in a network of pipes and
piping systems. The network diagrams (Figure 3 & 4) were translated numerically and inputted into the software
for analysis. The diagrams consist of a set of pipes and nodes." The pipes duplicate the pipe sections and
equipment in which the liquid is flowing and the nodes duplicate the connections in the system. The FNA model

uses the numerical inputs to calculate a flow (in each pipe) and a pressure (in each node) by use of conventional
hydraulic equations in a set of simultaneous equations. The FNA model outputs also included other data such as
the Reynolds Numbers, friction factors, head loss/increase, and the accuracy of the model convergence. In both
base line FNA models, the active specified nodes were set at atmospheric pressure at the cooling tower and the
total flow of the system was permitted to balance within the model. There were no artificial constraints on the
system. The results of computer simulation (e.g.: flow and pressure) were verified with the field readings. Power
measurements at the pump motors allowed us to back-calculate pump flow rates and these agreed well with the
final base line model. A summary comparison of flow and circulation pump discharge head is presented in Table 1
and heat duty in Table 2 for both systems.
Cooling Tower #1
3 Pump Operation

Cooling Tower #2

4 Pump Operation

2 Pump Operation

Base Case
(FNA)

Measured

Base Case
(FNA)

Measured

Base Case
(FNA)

Measured

Total Flow, gpm

62,575

59,831

73,995

74,643

29,036

31,744

Disch. Press., psig

53.29

51.60

62.2

62.2

54

52

Table 1. Flow & Pressure Comparison: Cooling Tower Base Case to Field Measurements
Cooling Tower #1

Heat Duty, MMBTU/hr

Water Flow, gpm

Cooling Tower #2

Design
Original / Prior Exp.

Base Case
(FNA)

Design

Base Case
(FNA)

1,100 / 763

925

259

229

50,000 / 61,000

73,995

29,950

29,036

Table 2. Cooling Tower Heat Duty Comparison: Design to Base Case FNA Model
Figure 5 & 6 below present a comparison of cooling water flow & heat duty distribution between the design case of
all cooling water users in process units served by cooling tower 2 to the cooling water flow & heat duty distribution
predicted by the FNA/Excel model.

FLOW DISTRIBUTION
DESIGN CASE

SRU
1%

ALKY 2
57%

FLOW DISTRIBUTION
FNA MODEL

SRU
1%

CRU2
22%

HTU 2
20%

CRU2
18%

HTU 2
20%
ALKY 2
61%

Figure 5. Cooling Tower 2 Flow Distribution to Process Units: Design Case to Base Case
FNA Model

HEAT DUTY DISTRIBUTION

DESIGN CASE

SRU
2%

ALKY 2
53%

HEAT DUTY DISTRIBUTION

FNA MODEL

SRU
1%

CRU2
27%

HTU 2
18%

ALKY 2
45%

CRU2
36%

HTU 2
18%

Figure 6. Cooling Tower 2 Heat Duty Distribution to Process Units: Design Case to Base Case
FNA/Excel Model
Heat Transfer Model
The flow network analysis results from each case study were integrated with a heat transfer impact
analysis model for heat exchangers. Each heat exchanger was analyzed using its design data, current operating
performance, and future impact on heat transfer as cooling water flow changed. It was important to evaluate the
impact of water flow changes on heat exchanger tube water velocity (v), overall heat transfer coefficient (U),
exchanger heat duty (Q), and overall impact on process performance. Twenty-eight process-to-water heat
exchangers were identified as problem or key heat exchangers because of their poor performance due to
insufficient surface area, low cooling water flow rate, higher cooling water supply temperature, excessive fouling
and other process issues. The main focus was performance impact on key heat exchangers that had been
identified as the process bottlenecks. The impact of water flow changes on all the heat exchangers in each
process plant were compiled for evaluation.
Selected results from the FNA model were transferred by an Excel macro to an Excel spreadsheet. The
macro also calculated and prepared a table that summarized cooling water flow and heat duty for the specific case
study and compared its results with the design case and the base case model. An example of the output is shown
in Table 3 in the what If case study section.

What If Case Studies

Two independent base case flow network models, one for each cooling tower, were developed and
integrated with the heat exchanger evaluation model. The field verified models were used to determine the effect
of mechanical changes on the cooling water system, to provide the basis for further engineering analysis as well
as for economic justifications for potential improvements. The improvements in the heat exchanger system were
further qualitatively identified with other benefits such as product quality improvement, reduced flare, reduced
waste water treatment, energy savings, increased throughput, lower run-down temperature and off loading of the
cooling towers. In addition, we addressed the issue of net positive suction head and cavitation problem at

recirulation pumps at cooling tower 1, particularly during the summer months when water suction temperature was
higher and a fourth pump was brought on-line to meet the additional cooling demand.

A partial summary from a typical what if case study is presented in Table 3 below. Numerous case
studies were conducted leading to a final package that included an overall solution that could be implemented in
smaller discreet packages.
Design

CASE STUDY FILENAME: IMPRV104.FNA

COMPARISON BETWEEN: CT2BASE.FNA and IMPRV104.FNA

Case*

Meas (TDC)

Cooling Water Supply Temperature

85

79.2

Cooling Water Return Temperature

105

95.0

Heat Duty, MMBTU

Base
Case
15.81
13.52
31.98
5.82
18.86
3.15
1.07
2.40

Case
Study
15.52
14.32
31.43
5.71
18.52
3.32
1.13
2.53

UNIT HEADERS
Flow

Design

Case*
Total Cooling Tower #2 Supply Flow *
CRU2 Unit 10 Total Flow (Inlet Line)
HTU 2 Unit 11 Total Flow (Inlet Line)
Alky 2 Unit 12 Total Flow (Inlet Line)
CRU1/HTU1 Unit 6 and Unit 7 Total Duty
SRU Unit 16/17 Total Flow (Inlet Line)
Subtotal, Units
Cooling Water Return Line

29,950*
4,621
4,236
12,334
4,557
255
26,004

Base
Case

Case
Study

5,200
5,917
17,725
N/A
194
29,036
28,964

5,154
5,813
18,679
6,737
204
36,587
36,503

% Change from
Design Case Base Case
11.53%
37.24%
51.44%
47.83%
-20.02%
40.70%

-0.89%
-1.76%
5.38%
N/A
5.31%
26.00%

Heat Duty

Design
Base
Case
% Change from
Case
Case
Study
Design Case Base Case
259.0
228.7
288.3
11.3%
26.0%
59.2
83.7
83.3
40.6%
-0.5%
40.8
41.1
40.4
-1.1%
-1.8%
116.0
104.7
110.3
-4.9%
5.3%
91.8
N/A
39.9
-56.5%
N/A
4.8
2.3
2.5
-48.8%
6.9%
Subtotal, Units
312.7
231.8
276
-11.6%
19.2%
* The Data Sheet Design Flow and Design Heat Duty are from the Cooling Tower and Exchanger Design Sheets

MMBTUs
Cooling Tower #1 Total Duty
CRU2 Unit 10 Total Duty
HTU 2 Unit 11 Total Duty
Alky 2 Unit 12 Total Duty
CRU1/HTU1 Unit 6 and Unit 7 Total Duty
SRU Unit 16/17 Total Duty

Key
Exchanger

Service

10E-103 A/B
10E-104 A/B
10E-106 A/B
10E-111 A/B
11E-106 A/B
12E-116
12E-126
12E-130

Outlet Temperature oF
Design
Meas

Rx. Prod Trim Cooler

Recycle Comp Disch Cooler
Stabil Ovhd Trim Cooler
Deethanizer Condenser
Stripper O. H. Trim Cooler
Depropanizer Btms Cooler
DIB O. H. Cooler
DB Btms Cooler

115
115
115
105
100
99
99
100

125
124
145
112
133
102
83
120

Design
Case
607
556
838
330
658
231
501
100

Flow, GPM
Base
Case
693
606
976
356
704
277
565
118

% Change
Case
Study
681
642
959
350
691
292
595
125

from
Base Case
-1.79%
5.89%
-1.71%
-1.80%
-1.80%
5.46%
5.36%
5.71%

Design
Case
9.10
8.35
12.57
3.31
5.76
1.60
3.50
0.80

% Change

from
Base Case
-1.79%
5.89%
-1.71%
-1.80%
-1.80%
5.46%
5.36%
5.71%

Table 3. Cooling Tower 2 Flow and Heat Duty Analysis

Findings and Recommendations

The analysis of the base case and what if cases revealed several significant factors about both the
cooling water systems. The thorough understanding of the system performance helped us develop a series of
improvements. The significant findings on cooling tower 1 and 2 are presented below.

Cooling Tower 1 Findings

The existing cooling tower and internals were capable of meeting the desired heat rejection to the
atmosphere for the future cases
The pump suction was the circulation limitation with 4 pumps operating
Generally, the heat exchanger surface area was limiting the heat removal
Heat transfer was limited by the oil (process) side on oil/cooling water heat exchangers
Heat transfer was limited by the cooling water side on steam/cooling water heat exchangers

Higher process approach temperatures were occurring due to less process to process heat exchange
prior to the cooling water exchanger

Cooling Tower 2 Findings

The cooling tower performance was lacking the ability to reject the desired amount of heat resulting in
loss of performance with warmer air temperatures
Most of the heat exchangers in the system had adequate surface area but became limited by the
cooling water approach temperature

Recommendations
The what if case studies of FNA models resulted in several recommended projects for the refinery Each
proposed project was evaluated with a problem statement for the particular unit, an impact evaluation on current
operation, solutions investigated, process calculations, equipment specifications, order-of-magnitude cost
estimate, and recommendations with benefits specific to each project. The proposed projects included the
following.
Upgrade cooling tower 2 by installing new higher performance internals, adding four new cells and
installing an additional circulation pump. Included as part of this recommendation was shifting part of
the load on the cooling tower 1 to cooling tower 2 by changes to the major header piping.
Add a new cooling water booster pump to increase the water flow to two surface condensers.
Installation of additional surface area at 5 different process/cooling water locations
Installation of additional surface area at 2 different process/process locations
Recommissioning of an idle fin fan (air cooler) in a new service to improve a process/cooling water
location.
Modifying a current water booster pump application to provide water to an additional steam/cooling
water service.
Adding one additional booster ejector.
Increase the line size of cooling water supply and return header to one process unit.
Install restriction orifice or globe valve in several water lines with excessive flow.
No modification to the cooling tower 1 proper was proposed. The cooling tower 1 was off loaded by
moving part of the load to the expanded cooling tower 2, allowing additional water flow to key exchangers served
by the cooling tower 1.

Current Status
The Refinery has implemented several of the recommended projects and additional projects are schedule
for installation in 1999 and 2000. The new internals and expansion of cooling tower 2, shifting of load from cooling
tower 1 to 2 and the addition of the new booster pump has allowed 2 of the 3 constrained operating units to
maintain capacity during the summer months. Planned and scheduled modifications will debottleneck the 3rd
constrained unit.
The improvement on these constrained units has allowed increased gasoline and diesel production. The
addition of surface area on process to cooling water exchangers and the recommissioning of the idle finfan
significantly reduced the use of external water sprays and virtually eliminated flaring of light hydrocarbons due to

cooling water system limitations. The remaining external water sprays should be eliminated next year when
additional process to process and process to cooling water exchanger modifications are installed.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Paresh S. Parekh, P.E., PMP, is president of Unicade Inc., a consulting engineering firm in Bellevue,
Washington. He has has 26 years of industrial, commercial, and international business management experience.
He is an expert on chemical process engineering, systems engineering & classical project management
techniques. His projects in industrial energy conservation and process optimization for pulp & paper, petroleum
refineries, petrochemicals, heavy chemicals, chlor-alkali, plastics, food, electric utilities, and forest products
industries have resulted in millions of dollars in operating cost reductions. He has presented at number of
symposiums and technical meetings. Mr. Parekh is a past chairman of Puget Sound section of American Institute
of Chemical Engineers and an active member of AIChE, PMI, AEE and ASHREA. Mr. Parekh has a Master of
Science degree. in Chemical Engineering and is a registered professional engineer in the states of California and
Washington. He is a certified Project Management Professional.
He can be reached at UNICADE INC., 13219 NE 20th Street, Suite 211, Bellevue, WA 98005. Tel. No.
(425) 747-0353, Fax No. (425) 747-0316, e-mail: unicade@unicade.com, web site: http://www.unicade.com/.
John A. Latimer, P.E., is a Senior Project Engineer with Equilon Enterprises Puget Sound Refining
Company, Anacortes, Wa. He has undertaken various Process and Project assignments in support of operations
at the facility since joining Texaco in 1985. Latimer holds a BS (1984) in Chemical Engineering from the
University of North Dakota. He is a registered engineer in the state of Washington. John can be reached at Puget
Sound Refining Company, a Division of Equilon Enterprises, LLC, P.O.Box 622, 600 S. Texas Rd., Anacortes, WA
98221, phone: (360) 293-0863, e-mail: jalatimer@equilon.com.