PLANT MANAGEMENT
REFUSE REMOVAL T
ROBOT
Following new research on the impact of heat exchanger cleaning, Nikki Logan explores why eff ective fouling removal should be a top priority for plant managers
he detrimental eff ects of fouling aff ect process industry operators’ profi t, environmental impact and operator safety, which in turn aff ect the majority of plant personnel, fi nancial stakeholders, governing bodies, regulators and a plethora of people in between. It’s a big problem, but often one that is expected to be resolved by contracting the same cleaning company that the plant has used for years, despite the typical use of traditional cleaning methods that off er limited success and accessibility. In addressing the damaging eff ects of fouling, a recent study commissioned by process cleaning engineers, Tube Tech International, reveals new calculations on the signifi cant effi ciency saving potential
30
www.engineerlive.com
that can be experienced following the use of pioneering robotic fouling removal technology.
THE DOWNFALL OF TRADITIONAL METHODS Tube Tech International’s white paper, ‘A techno-economic overview of fouling in steam crackers and available solutions’, examines numerous mechanical, chemical and hydroblasting fouling removal methods that fall short of the full cleaning potential that can be achieved. Examples include the inaccessibility of traditional water jetting and the implications of chemical cleaning, including the detrimental impact on the environment, inability to pass through blockages or
remove hydrocarbon fouling and the risk of eroding metal surfaces. Cost is invariably a key driver when it comes to choosing cleaning contractors, but this reduces the opportunity for specialist contractors to establish the most effi cient and cost-eff ective solution, often resulting in subsequent attempts at a further cost and interference to turnaround procedures. Using ethylene production via steam cracking as an example in studying the eff ects of fouling and the benefi ts of effi cient fouling removal, the study reveals that at historic prices of US$1,000 per ton of ethylene, the lost revenue for fi ve-10 days of lost production would be US$14- US$28 million respectively.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
