CORROSION CONTROL SPECIALREPORT

Closed-loop control can clamp

down on crude unit corrosion
Automating the detection process and controlling applications
in real time dramatically improves performance
N. P. HILTON, Nalco Energy Services, Sugar Land, Texas
T
he refining industry has been dealing with crude
unit overhead corrosion since the early days of the
industry. Many refiners today understand that 90% of
corrosion damage occurs 10% of the time, when persistent
and ongoing overhead corrosion is prevalent. These small
periods of corrosion are related to unstable operations, the
processing of opportunity crudes or other interruptions in
normal operations. The industry has historically tried to
control the corrosive environment through the application of
best practices; by using specialty chemicals including sodium
hydroxide (caustic); by improving desalter operations; and by
upgraded metallurgy. The gap with this approach is not the
tools themselves but the application of these tools. Todays
industry best practices impact 90% of stable operations but fail
to address the 10% of time during unstable operations when
the lions share of corrosion damage can occur.
Traditional corrosion control. Refiners assess the
corrosive conditions of the crude atmospheric overhead
on an arbitrary but set frequency. This can differ greatly
between refineries. Best-in-class refiners are typically assessing
the corrosive environment once a day, typically on the day
shift. This is a reasonable approach during periods of stable
operation, but this approach does not account for changes to
operation or periods of unstable operation. The two major
flaws to this approach are the frequency of data collection and
the frequency of corrective actions taken.
The purpose for accessing the corrosive environment is to
understand the impact that changes to operations are having
on the health of the overhead, as well as, the corresponding
demands these changes are placing on the chemical treatment
program. It stands to reason that changes to operation and
adjustments to the chemical treatment program are only made
when actionable data is available.
In this model, the occurrences of data collection are far too
infrequent, given that there can be large swings in the corrosive
conditions during times of unstable operation. This is what
should be referred to as the corrosion window. Refiners
who constantly process a variety of crudes and have frequent
periods of unstable operation need a better way of assessing
the crude overhead conditions and making adjustments to
operations immediately, not waiting hours for the refinerys
central laboratory to process samples collected overnight so
they can have the data needed to take a corrective action.
New solutions are being deployed that combine the
capabilities of detecting changes in corrosive conditions and
automatically adjusting chemical and/or caustic addition to
meet system demands in real time. For example, a new crude
unit analyzer has been deployed that continuously monitors
the pH, chloride and iron in refinery overhead sour water.
The analyzer takes these results and automatically controls
the addition of the neutralizing amine, sodium hydroxide and
filming amine to meet the system demands within the control
limits specified.
Testing frequency. Refiners and specialty chemical
suppliers typically assess the corrosive conditions of the crude
overhead by conducting a handful of wet chemistry tests.
These should include pH, chloride, iron, ammonia and sulfide
as a minimum. These tests have been around for many years
and are widely adopted by industry for their practicality. The
problem is not the validity of the tests conducted, but the
frequency of the data collected. In the best cases, refiners are
interrogating their overhead systems once in a 24-hour period.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
9/7/09 9/8/09 9/8/09 9/8/09 9/8/09 9/8/09 9/9/09 9/9/09 9/9/09
C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

i
n

p
p
m

Date and time
Analyzer beta test data
Cl
Fe
pH 1
pH 2
The analyzer beta test data shows that chloride and iron
increased significantly with only a subtle change in pH.
FIG. 1
Originally appeared in:
March 2012, pgs 49-53.
Used with permission.
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING MARCH 2012
CORROSION CONTROL SPECIALREPORT
In the worst cases, refiners are interrogating their overhead
systems once per week.
The measurement of pH, in many cases, will be the only
exception to this. As a general practice, pH is measured at least
once per shift. The other testschloride, iron, ammonia and
sulfide (all good indicators of the corrosive conditions)can
be more involved and typically require the use of the refinery
central laboratory or involvement of the specialty chemical
supplier. As a result, these tests are not conducted as frequently.
The time lag between sampling and an actionable result can
be many hours, depending on who is conducting the test.
Often, the upset condition has passed well before a result and
anticipated actions are ready.
This may be adequate for those refiners who are running a
limited or restricted crude diet and experience few changes or
periods of unstable operation; but, for the majority of refiners
today, this is not optimal. Most refiners in this day and age are
constantly juggling opportunity crude cargoes and managing
frequent changes in operation, which increases the risk and
frequency of periods of unstable operation. These refiners need
to be accessing the corrosive environment on a far more frequent
basis if they are to gain an understanding of the impact these
changes are having on their equipment and reliability.
Todays practices tend to facilitate the feeding of chemical
additives (caustic, neutralizing amine and filming amine) to
a base-line dosage or to stable operations 90% of the time.
Under current practices, refiners are not capable of measuring
and/or responding to system changes and unstable operations
fast enough. The result is that the right amount of chemical is
rarely injected at the right time. Hence, things are constantly
in a perpetual state of over-feeding or under-feeding chemical
Crude Overhead Analyzer Control Phase
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1-Oct 1-Oct 2-Oct 2-Oct 3-Oct 3-Oct 4-Oct 4-Oct
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
Chloride ppm Neutralizer Pump pH Avg
A sharp increase in chloride is evident with a
corresponding decrease in pH.
FIG. 2
Corrosion Excursion Control Mode
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1-Oct 1-Oct 2-Oct 2-Oct 3-Oct 3-Oct
C
h
lo
r
id
e
p
p
m
, C
o
r
r
o
s
io
n
R
a
t
e
M
P
Y
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Chloride ppm Corr Avg MPY pH Avg Iron ppm
Corrosion increased from a chloride and pH excursion. FIG. 3
9
/
1
6
/
1
0
1
0
/
6
/
1
0
1
0
/
4
/
1
0
1
0
/
2
/
1
0
9
/
3
0
/
1
0
9
/
2
8
/
1
0
9
/
2
6
/
1
0
9
/
2
4
/
1
0
9
/
2
2
/
1
0
9
/
2
0
/
1
0
9
/
1
8
/
1
0
-3
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
1.60
1.65
1.70
1.75
1.80
1.85
1.90
1.95
2.00
2
4
-
h
o
u
r

C
R
,

m
p
y M
e
t
a
l

l
o
s
s
,

m
i
l
Alpha test site metal loss
Metal loss, mil
Running linear
corrosion rate
Chloride
Linear
(metal loss, mil)
Average rate 2.8 mpy
The same data from Fig. 3 is reconfigured, with the
corrosion rate expressed as metal loss.
FIG. 4
TABLE 1. Three phase technology implementation
over a 30-month period
Phase Time period Description
Base conditions 2006 to March 1, 2009 Manual data collection/
Manual control
Monitoring phase March 2, 2009 to Crude unit analyzer/
September 17, 2010 Manual control
Control phase September 18, 2010 Crude unit analyzer/
to present Auto control
TABLE 2. A comparison of Probe 1 and Probe 2 from
2006 to 2011
Year Probe 1 Probe 2
2006 8.98 10.57
2007 7.83 9.07
2008 5.56 5.01
2009 7.90 8.46
2009 Monitor Mode 5.36 4.79
2010 Monitor Mode 6.55 5.23
2010 Control Mode 2.67 3.59
2011 Control Mode 3.35 2.77
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING MARCH 2012 HYDROCARBON PROCESSING MARCH 2012
CORROSION CONTROL SPECIALREPORT
additives. The goal should be to always have the correct
amount of chemical injected at the most opportune time and
in the right location.
If periods of unstable operation are caught, it is unlikely
that the catch happens immediately. What usually happens is
that upset conditions are detected in the middle of the upset,
when the conditions are highly visible with much of the
corrosion damage in progress. The result is a corrective action
that is after the fact, resulting in only partially addressing
the problem. One result of addressing upset conditions after
the fact is that there is a tendency to feed high amounts of
chemical to correct the situation. This inefficiency results in
higher volumes of chemical consumed, often with little impact
on the final result.
The other more serious concern is smaller, subtler changes
to operations that are not highly visible but are quietly
damaging the integrity of the plant. One such example is
captured in Fig. 1. What can clearly be seen from this graph
is that only chloride and iron increased significantly, with
only a subtle change in pH. In this instance, if the only gauge
of corrosive conditions was pH, operations and most likely
the specialty chemical supplier would not have taken any
corrective action. However, as the graph shows, there is clearly
a corrosive event taking place here that is not represented by
the pH of this highly buffered system.
Solution. The key to controlling crude overhead corrosion
is twofold. The first goal is to collect accurate data frequently
enough to be able to track unstable operating conditions from
the onset through the duration of the event, while simultaneously
assessing the severity. After that, the ideal arrangement would be
to directly link the addition of chemical additives based on the
systems true demands to these periods of unstable operations.
For the past 30 months such an analyzer has been deployed
in a North American refinery. Process sour water from the
crude overhead has been continuously sampled for pH,
chloride and iron. These results are then simultaneously stored
in a process historian and run through a commercially available
programmable logic controller (PLC). The function of the
PLC is to assess the measured result and take action based on
the results in real time.
As with any modern sophisticated controller, the means to
TABLE 3. Quantification of the corrosion rate
reduction for both probes
% Improvement % Improvement
Probe 1 Probe 2 Probe 1 Probe 2
Year mpy mpy vs 2006 vs 2006
2006 8.98 10.57
2007 7.83 9.07
2008 5.56 5.01
2009 7.90 8.46
2009 Monitor Phase 4.17 4.35
2010 Monitor Phase 6.55 5.23
2010 Control Phase 2.67 3.59
2011 Control Phase 3.35 2.77
Monitor vs Control 44% 34%
40% 55%
66% 70%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2006 2007 2008 2009 2009
Monitor
mode
2010
Monitor
mode
2010
Control
mode
2011
Control
mode
C
o
r
r
o
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e
s
,

m
p
y
Probe 1
Probe 2
A comparison of Probe 1 to Probe 2 from 2006 to 2011. FIG. 5
0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2009
Monitor
phase
2010
Monitor
phase
2010
Control
phase
2011
Control
phase
Monthly average
Average monthly spending for both neutralizing amine and
filmer since 2006.
FIG. 6
TABLE 4. A summary of inspection records for
Exchanger 1 and Exchanger 2
Inspection history 1995 to 2011
Year Exchanger 1 Year Exchanger 2
Dec-95 Bundle replaced Jan-96 Bundle replaced
Oct-97 Retube C-E-1D installed Oct-97 Inspection
Oct-98 Retube
Dec-99 10 leaking tube Dec-99 514 tubes plugged
Aug-00 14 leaking tubes Mar-00 Bundle replaced
Jan-02 120 tubes plugged Oct-02 Passed inspection
Mar-03 235 tubes plugged
Jan-04 Retube Jan-04 1 tube plugged
Apr-04 1 tube plugged Apr-04 310 tubes plugged
Jul-06 Bundle replaced Feb-05 Bundle replaced
Apr-07 Inspection no repairs
Jul-07 Inspection no repairs Jun-07 Spare bundle installed
Mar-08 Spare bundle installed Mar-08 1 tube, 60% wall loss
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING MARCH 2012 HYDROCARBON PROCESSING MARCH 2012
CORROSION CONTROL SPECIALREPORT
alarm and calculate many important parameters exists. The
ability to control the addition of chemical additives to best
practice standards and then constantly adjust the dosage to
meet system demands is real. It is now possible to directly
link a change in desalter operations with performance in the
overhead. In Fig. 2, a sharp increase in chloride is observed
with a corresponding decrease in pH, while the analyzer is
simultaneously adjusting the neutralizing amine dosage to
meet the system demands.
The function of alarming key overhead parameters (such as
detecting large swings in pH and chloride) can now be fed directly
back to the unit operators and the specialty chemical provider,
alerting them to a potential onset of an upset condition.
The process historian now provides the ability to go back in
time to help develop a better understanding of process changes
and their impact on the crude overhead system. The data is
available in real time to unit operations, engineering and the
specialty chemical supplier.
As with any system, the true indication of performance is
the corrosion rate. During the 30-month trial period, electrical
resistance probes were located on the inlet to the first two
overhead exchangers. These probes had historically been good
indicators of the performance of the overhead. For the first
12 months (and prior to implementing full control of the
addition of chemical additives), these probes were manually
read once a week. The problem with this approach was that
there was not enough clarity to detect daily unit changes.
What was needed was the ability to detect unit upsets and
corrosion episodes in real time. To facilitate this, the probe
signals were brought directly into the analyzer, allowing for
an instantaneous corrosion rate. This data was then pushed
to the process historian and logged. Fig. 3 shows the resulting
increase in corrosion from a chloride and pH excursion. Here
the corrosion rate is expressed in terms of mil per year (mpy).
Fig. 4 presents the same data in a different light. Here the
corrosion rate is expressed as metal loss (mil). It is clear that the
base corrosion rate is fairly low, but there is a sharp and clear
change in slope corresponding with the two excursions. Both
these graphs are evidence that corrosion damage is accelerated
during times of unstable operation.
Impact(s). To understand the impacts experienced by the
refinery over the past 30 months, one needs to understand that
there have been several phases to the implementation of this
technology (Table 1).
The results achieved show improved performance in all phases
during the 30 months. Not only has the refiner seen performance
improvements and increased the life of the overhead bundles, but
these results were achieved with a reduction in chemical additives
and caustic spend, a true win/win.
The refiner in question witnessed an overall improvement
of 64% in corrosion on Probe 1 and 72% on Probe 2 when
compared to base conditions. This was achieved with higher
TABLE 5. Incoming and desalted crude content from
2006 to 2011
Salt in, ptb* Salt out, ptb
2006 8.7 0.7
2007 12.2 0.8
2008 16.9 0.8
2009 21.1 2.1
2009 Monitor Phase 16.1 1.1
2010 Monitor Phase 12.1 0.9
2010 Control Phase 12.4 0.7
2011 Control Phase 18.4 1
*Note: ptb stands for pounds per thousand barrels
TABLE 6. A detailed accounting of expenses related to both exchanges from December 1995 to March 2008
Bundle Labor and Tube Lost Total costs at
Year Exchanger 1 Year Exchanger 2 replacement/Retube inspection plugging production bbl $2/bbl upgrade
Dec-95 Bundle replaced Jan-96 Bundle replaced $70,000 $350,000 320,000 $1,380,000
Oct-97 Retube Exchanger D installed Oct-97 Inspection $35,000 $175,000 320,000 $1,170,000
Oct-98 Retube $35,000 $175,000 160,000 $690,000
Dec-99 10 tubes plugged Dec-99 514 tubes plugged $75,000 $10,000 320,000 $1,045,000
Aug-00 14 tubes plugged Mar-00 Bundle replaced $35,000 $175,000 $10,000 320,000 $1,180,000
Jan-02 120 tubes plugged Oct-02 Passed inspection $75,000 $10,000 320,000 $1,045,000
Mar-03 235 tubes plugged $75,000 $10,000 160,000 $565,000
Jan-04 Retube Jan-04 1 tube plugged $35,000 $175,000 $10,000 320,000 $1,180,000
Apr-04 1 tube plugged Apr-04 310 tubes plugged $75,000 $10,000 320,000 $1,045,000
Jul-06 Bundle replaced Feb-05 Bundle replaced $70,000 $175,000 320,000 $1,205,000
Apr-07 Inspection no repairs $75,000 160,000 $555,000
Jul-07 Inspection no repairs Jun-07 Spare bundle installed $35,000 $175,000 $10,000 320,000 $1,180,000
Mar-08 Spare bundle installed Mar-08 I tube 60% wall loss $35,000 $175,000 $10,000 320,000 $1,180,000
= Bundle replacement $350,000 $1,950,000 $80,000 3,680,000 $13,420,000
or Retube
**Source: Refiner inspection records**
**assumption bundle retube $35,000/each, Labor for bundle replacement 5 x cost of bundle, if no bundle replacement cost $75,000, inspection and tube plugs $10,000, lost production
40,000/bpd 8 days x 2 exchanger 4 days x 1 exchanger, barrel upgrade $2.**
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING MARCH 2012
CORROSION CONTROL SPECIALREPORT
overall crude incoming salt levels and a spike in desalted crude
salt levels during the 30 months. Fig. 5 and Table 2 break this
data down further.
During the initial monitoring phase, a 40% reduction in
corrosion rate for Probe 1 and a 55% reduction in corrosion
rate for Probe 2 were observed. During the control phase,
Probe 1 saw an additional corrosion rate reduction of 44%,
with Probe 2 reducing an additional 34% (Table 3). It is clear
that the hourly performance data, coupled with extensive
monitoring from onsite personnel, had a significant impact on
the corrosion rates during the initial monitoring phase. What
was uncertain is if performance would improve further during
the control phase.
The second step change was, without a doubt, due to the
automatic control of the chemical additives during the control
phase. The PLC was able to respond automatically to changes
in pH, chloride and iron levels, thus delivering precisely the
appropriate amount of chemical in the right place at the right time.
As further val idation, one onl y needs to l ook into
the inspection records for these two exchangers. Table 4
summarizes the inspection records for both Exchanger 1 and
Exchanger 2. The inspection records show that Exchanger 1
was new in 1995; re-tubed in October 1998; re-tubed again
in January 2004; replaced in July 2006; and then swapped
with a spare bundle in March of 2008. The longest period
without downtime or maintenance was 24 months. Since
March 2008, Exchanger 1 had been online for 44 months
without maintenance or down time. Exchanger 2 had a similar
story, although it saw less maintenance and downtime when
compared to Exchanger 1, with 48 months being its longest
period of sustained operation.
Not only did automated control improve corrosion
performance, but the performance was achieved with
substantially lower costs for the chemical additives and caustic
program. Fig. 6 represents the average monthly spends for
both neutralizing amine and filmer since 2006. The chemical
additives spend was reduced 42% from 2006 and 60% when
compared to 2009 prior to the installation of the crude
overhead analyzer. A closer look at the increased spends for
2009 can be explained by the large increase seen that year in
both the incoming and desalted crude salt content (Table 5).
At each stage of the crude analyzer trial, improved
performance was achieved with lower consumption of chemical
additives and caustic (Fig. 6). Again, there is a clear step change
from base conditions to the monitoring phase.
The perfectly timed addition of the correct amount of
chemical through the use of automation not only impacted
performance but also allowed faster response to upset
conditions, minimizing overdose and under dose conditions
usually seen when operating under manual control.
Total cost reduction. In order to assess the total cost of
operation, industry standard costs must be applied to the past
performance of Exchanger 1 and Exchanger 2. Taking these
costs and then multiplying by the failure and maintenance
history has generated a total cost of $13.4 million since 1995.
Thus, the refiner in question spent, on average, $1.03 million
per year from 1995 to 2008 for equipment, labor and lost
production. Table 6 summarizes the cost per year that the
refiner incurred.
Most refiners do not have the luxury of being able to
maintain equipment on the run without paying some penalty
in reduced unit throughput and the associated lost margin
opportunity. Table 6 also summarizes the barrels of lost
production during this period and factors these lost production
barrels into the total costs at a $2/barrel upgrade margin.
Granted, these are only the hard costs of equipment
replacement, labor and lost production. Other less tangible
but very real costs associated with these failuressuch as the
increased safety exposure to employees and contractors and any
potential environmental impacts of this workare not captured
in this analysis.
Improved performance, but still a long way
to go. Refiners clearly still have a long way to go when it
comes to automating and controlling many of the peripheral
applications that can impact reliability. To compete in todays
highly competitive refining environment, refiners will need to
deploy technologies such as the crude unit analyzer highlighted
in this article if they want to capture every advantage possible.
By any measurement, spending in excess of $1 million
a year on crude unit overhead corrosion is an expensive
proposition and one not easily undertaken given todays
current industry practices. What can clearly be seen from the
performance data presented is that automating the corrosive
condition detection process in the crude unit overhead and
controlling the chemical additives and caustic application in
real time have dramatically improved performance. The refiner
in question has gone from spending in excess of $1 million a
year to spending zero on this system since March 2008, all
while lowering its spend on chemical additives and caustic by
$174,000 a year. HP
Nigel P. Hilton is the downstream marketing manager with Nalco Energy Ser-
vices in Sugar Land, Texas. He joined Nalco in 1990, starting as a technical service
representative. Mr. Hilton has held several positions throughout his Nalco career
in sales and marketing in the US and Europe. His current responsibilities are the
strategic development of new technologies for Nalcos downstream refining and
petrochemical division.
Article copyright 2012 by Gulf Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A.
Not to be distributed in electronic or printed form, or posted on a website, without express written permission of copyright holder.
Nalco Company
Energy Services Division, Downstream
7705 Highway 90-A
Sugar Land TX, 77478 USA
281.263.7000 www.nalco.com
R-1065