Understanding thermal oxidisers

Dealing with common misconceptions on the design of vapour and liquid

waste thermal oxidiser systems
PETER PICKARD and KEVIN MCQUIGG
Zeeco

here are many similarities

between thermal oxidisers
and fired heaters. A thermal oxidiser and a fired heater
both include one or more burners, an insulated refractory-lined
combustion chamber, and a fuel
measurement
and
control
system. Both can be designed to
operate under either forced
draft or natural draft conditions. However, the similarities
between them quickly begin to
diverge upon a detailed examination of their design and
intended function (see Figure
1).
The purpose of a fired heater
is to heat a process fluid using
fuel gas or oil. Examples of
common fired heater applications are:
Ethylene cracking furnaces
Thermal fluid heaters
Crude oil heaters
Regeneration gas heaters
Delayed coker heaters.
The primary purpose of a
thermal oxidiser is efficient
waste
stream
destruction.
Common
thermal
oxidiser
applications include:
Tail gas from sulphur recovery systems in natural gas
plants and refineries

www.eptq.com

Chlorinated
hydrocarbons
from vinyl chloride monomer
manufacturing
Vent streams from batch
reactors
Vents from tank farms
Waste solvents from pharmaceutical manufacturing
Tail gas from carbon black
manufacturing
Carbon
monoxide-laden
regeneration flue gas from
catalytic cracking furnaces.
The function of a thermal
oxidiser is to efficiently
destroy hydrocarbons and
other environmental contaminants; therefore, it must be
designed
with
sufficient
mixing, reaction time, reaction
temperature and excess flue
gas oxygen content to achieve
the goal. On the other hand,
the function of a fired heater is
to efficiently heat process
fluids, so it is designed to
conserve fuel. This primary
functional difference results in
the primary design difference.
A thermal oxidisers combustion chamber is lined with
refractory and sized for one to
two seconds of flue gas residence time before contact with
heat transfer surfaces. In

contrast, a fired heater typically has heat transfer surfaces

located very close to the flame.
Thus, a fired heater has no
refractory-lined chamber separating the flame from the heat
transfer tubes. If a fired heater
was used as a thermal
oxidiser, the cold heat transfer
surfaces would inhibit efficient
destruction of hydrocarbons. If
a thermal oxidiser was used as
a fired heater, the NOx emissions would be higher than
expected; the cost to heat the
fluids would be unnecessarily
high due to the purposeless
refractory-lined
chamber
upstream of the heat recovery
section; and the fuel usage
would be higher.

API Standard 560

A thermal oxidiser is not a fired

heater. In fact, the two are, at
best, only distant cousins for
reasons
already
discussed.
However, in the absence of a
clearly defined design standard,
many engineers attempt to
adopt API Standard 560 (API
560), entitled Fired Heaters for
General Refinery Service, as a
primary thermal oxidiser design
specification.

PTQ Q2 2013 1

Fired heater
chamber

Heat transfer
tubes
Refractory

Burner

Waste heat
recovery unit
Thermal oxidiser
reaction chamber

Burner

Refractory

Vent
stack

Figure 1 Arrangements of a fired heater (top) and a thermal oxidiser (bottom)

2 PTQ Q2 2013

The first two paragraphs of

API 560 are:
Paragraph 1.1.1 This standard
covers the minimum requirements for the design, materials,
fabrication, inspection, testing,
preparation for shipment, and
erection of fired heaters, air
preheaters, fans and burners
for general refinery service.
Paragraph 1.1.2 A fired heater is
an exchanger that transfers
heat from the combustion of
fuel to fluids contained in
tubular coils within an internally insulated enclosure.
Notice that thermal oxidiser
(or incinerator) is not mentioned
in either of these statements.
Nor is thermal oxidiser or
incinerator listed in the
Definition of Terms, mentioned
or illustrated anywhere else in
the entire document.
There are 14 sections of API
560. Of these, only two
Section 7, Refractory and
Insulation, and Section 11,
Centrifugal Fans and Drivers
for Fired Heater Systems are
primarily related to the design
of a thermal oxidiser.
The first paragraph of Section
7, Refractory and Insulation, is
quite often incorrectly applied
to a thermal oxidiser. This
paragraph,
labelled
as
optional, limits the shell
temperature of the outside
casing of the radiant and
convection sections and hot
ductwork to 82C (180F).
This may be acceptable for
fired heaters, where the main
purpose is the efficient use of
energy, but it is frequently
unacceptable for a thermal
oxidiser. Limiting the shell
temperature can create many
problems with the design of a
thermal oxidiser. These problems include:

www.eptq.com

Most thermal oxidisers are

internally lined with some
combination of a firebrick and
castable lining. The inclusion of
an 82C shell requirement
maximises the thickness of this
lining, resulting in a larger
thermal oxidiser vessel and
higher capital cost
If we assume that the reason
for the low-temperature casing
requirement is the conservation
of energy, it makes very little
sense for a thermal oxidiser
burning an exothermic waste
to incorporate this feature,
unless there is some type of
downstream heat recovery
involved and energy conservation is very important. Even for
a thermal oxidiser using fuel
gas to burn an endothermic
waste, the amount of heat lost
from the shell is usually a
minor fraction of the total heat
release. In these cases, an
in-depth analysis should be
performed to determine if the
low-temperature shell justifies
the requirement for larger
equipment and higher capital
cost
Many thermal oxidisers burn
wastes containing elements
(such as sulphur, halogens and
sometimes phosphorus) that
create acid gases with dew
points well above the API 560s
recommended shell temperature. The long-applied solution
for handling high sulphuric
acid dewpoint problems in the
sulphur industry has been to
design thermal oxidisers with
casing temperatures at least
28C (50F) above any anticipated sulphuric acid dewpoint
and then enclose the thermal
oxidiser shell with a rain shield
(either aluminium, galvanised
steel or stainless steel). The rain
shield maintains the thermal

www.eptq.com

oxidiser shell at a fairly

constant operating temperature, regardless of the ambient
weather conditions. This outer
rain shield also serves as
personnel
protection
by
providing an external surface
that is below 120F.

NOx emissions

Fired heater NOx emission

requirements are often mistakenly applied to thermal
oxidisers. Fired heaters typically fire fuel gas and air into
a chamber containing a heat
transfer surface. Even though
the flue gas from a fired heater
may contain only 2% to 3%
oxygen, the flame temperatures in the heater are
minimised and produce less
NOx. This is because recently
developed burner technology
such as that employed by the
patented Zeeco GLSF Free Jet
Ultra-Low NOx burner circulates low oxygen flue gas that
has been cooled by the internal heat transfer surface. The
circulating flue gas decreases
burner flame temperatures
and reduces NOx emissions.
In thermal oxidisers, waste
gases of various compositions
are fired in refractory-lined
adiabatic chambers. In high
excess air applications, there
are no low-oxygen, cooled flue
gases to circulate. The oxygen
content and temperatures in
these adiabatic chambers are
often higher than in fired heaters. This means thermal
oxidisers frequently generate
more NOx than fired heaters
designed for a similar heat
release.
Regulations regularly specify
fired heater NOx emissions in
units of mass divided by heat
release based on a lower

heating value (for example, lb/

MMBtu LHV). For a system
firing fuel gas and air, the
conversion of lb/MMBtu to
flue gas concentration is almost
universally repeatable. For
instance, an emission requirement of 0.2 lb/MMBtu when
firing natural gas and air will
correspond to a flue gas NOx
concentration of 150 parts per
million by volume (ppmv)
corrected to 3% oxygen, dry
basis.
This
relationship
between lb/MMBtu and flue
gas concentration will hold
true as long as the fuel gas
composition contains mostly
organic compounds. The relationship does not hold if the
fuel gas contains significant
amounts of inerts (nitrogen or
carbon dioxide) or hydrogen.
The compositions of the
wastes and fuels fired in thermal
oxidisers
will
vary
significantly. In fact, seldom
are any two thermal oxidiser
applications
identical.
For
example, consider two different
thermal
oxidiser
applications using natural gas
as fuel. The waste gas to thermal oxidiser A is essentially
100% nitrogen; the waste gas to
thermal oxidiser B is 100% CO2.
With both thermal oxidisers at
the same fuel firing rate, thermal oxidiser A with the N2
waste can handle more waste
than thermal oxidiser B with
CO2 waste. Assume the NOx
requirement is specified at 0.2
lb/MMBtu for each thermal
oxidiser. This will translate to
flue gas NOx concentrations of
28 ppmv and 35 ppmv, respectively (values corrected to 3%
oxygen, dry basis) for A and B,
with both thermal oxidisers
operating at 1600F (1800C). If
the thermal oxidisers should

PTQ Q2 2013 3

Sulphur oxide (SOx) emissions

SOx is produced in flue gas by

the presence of sulphurcontaining combustibles in the
feed
streams.
These
are
commonly elemental sulphur,
H2S, COS, CS2 and various
mercaptans. The most common
reactions are:
S + O2 SO2
H2S + O2 H2O + SO2
COS + O2 CO2 + SO2
CS2 + O2 CO2 + SO2

Figure 2 Two vertical low-NOx thermal oxidisers used for NOx reduction

have to operate at 1800F

(982C) to achieve a higher
waste destruction efficiency,
the 0.2 lb/MMBtu value now
corresponds to 32 ppmv and 40
ppmv, respectively, for A
and B.
The above example, plus the

fact that it is usually more

difficult to control NOx in a
thermal oxidiser than in a fired
heater, demonstrates that NOx
regulations for fired heaters
should not be generally applied
to thermal oxidisers (see
Figure 2).

Figure 3 Sulphur recovery unit (SRU) tail gas thermal oxidiser with a fire tubestyle waste heat boiler. This unit is designed for a total 75 MW heat release

4 PTQ Q2 2013

Carbon monoxide can be

further oxidised to CO2 by efficient burner and oxidiser
design:
CO + O2 CO2

NOx production can be

inhibited, as discussed above.
However, while it is possible
to design a burner that will
minimise NOx and CO, it is
not possible to design a
combustion system to minimise SO2 formation. CO2 is the
normal, expected and intended
product of combustion for any
compound containing carbon.
Similarly, SO2 is the normal,
expected and intended product of combustion for sulphur
compounds.
Therefore,
sulphur content in the feed
will produce a predictable
quantity of SOx (SO2 and SO3)
in the flue gas, independent of
burner or combustion system
design (see Figure 3).
The only way to lower SOx
emissions
is
to
remove
sulphur from the feed stream
or remove SOx from the flue
gas with SOx scrubbing equipment such as a spray tower,

www.eptq.com

packed column or a dry scrubber. However, due to the high

cost of such systems and high
water usage, the typical solution is a tall vent stack (45-65
m) to disperse the SOx over a
broad area.
This same discussion applies
to other inorganic substances
in typical waste streams, such
as chlorine, sodium, potassium,
phosphorus and silica in the
sense that burner design
cannot inhibit the presence of
these elements in flue gas.

Burner testing

The following examples are

primary reasons why factory
testing of thermal oxidiser
burners prior to shipment is
not a routine practice:
While a mixture of gases can
easily be made to produce a
stream that will be very close
to the expected fuel for a fired
heater burner test, it is rarely
feasible to produce a waste
stream that approximates what
the thermal oxidiser will typically burn. This is usually due
to the high volume and/or
unusual nature of the waste
components
If it is possible to produce a
stream that is comparable to
the expected waste, it is likely
that the components of the test
waste will require a special
environmental permit. Most
projects do not allow for the
time and expense required to
obtain such a permit and most
test facilities are not willing or
able to pursue this type of
permit
If it is possible to prepare a
comparable waste stream and a
permit can be obtained, it may
not be feasible to heat the
stream to the expected operating temperature

www.eptq.com

Thermal oxidiser burners are

frequently too large to fit into
an existing burner test furnace
Thermal oxidiser burners are
frequently too large to be fired
at the available test facility fuel
rate
Most available test furnaces
are designed to simulate the
conditions of a fired heater.
The behaviour of a thermal
oxidiser burner in a fired
heater will be quite different
from the same burner in a
refractory-lined
thermal
oxidiser chamber. As discussed
previously, the NOx emissions
will certainly be different, as
will the flame length and
almost any other combustion
performance measurement that
may be of interest
It is usually not feasible to
test the thermal oxidiser burner
in its combustion chamber due
to the cost of a field simulation
test setup.
Despite the above limitations,
many thermal oxidiser manufacturers will provide an
optional burner flame stability
test using fuel oil, natural gas
or propane fuel gas (subject to
fuel capacity and test furnace
size constraints), but only if the
customer specifically requires
the test. However, this type of
limited test represents significant additional cost and
provides very little useful
information.

Calculation of required
supplemental fuel

The proliferation of chemical

process simulation software
has provided an increase in
productivity
for
engineers
around the globe. However,
like all software, it has its limitations. It is common among
combustion engineers to speak

of exothermic and endothermic streams. These are

rather
loose
definitions:
exothermic streams are generally considered to be ones that
require no supplemental fuel to
reach the oxidiser operating
temperature when burned.
Conversely,
endothermic
streams require supplemental
fuel. The danger is assuming
the result from the process
simulator reactor module will
accurately
calculate
the
required supplemental fuel.
For example, it is common in
the carbon black industry to
burn tail gas that is roughly:
Component
Vol%
Nitrogen
40
Water vapour
40
Carbon monoxide
10
Hydrogen
10
Temperature
450F
Lower heating value 60 Btu/scf
Now, let us compare that to
the following hypothetical vent
gas stream:
Component
Vol%
Methane
10
Carbon monoxide
10
Carbon dioxide
80
Temperature
100F
Lower heating value 123 Btu/
scf
If the combustion of each of
these streams is simulated
using 25% excess air at 982C
(1800F) operating temperature,
neither
requires
supplemental fuel. However,
experience shows that the
hypothetical vent gas stream
requires supplemental fuel,
whereas carbon black tail gas
does not. Please note that this
is the case even though the
hypothetical waste is twice the

PTQ Q2 2013 5

heating value of carbon black

tail gas. Intuitively, tail gas
combustion is self-sustaining
due to high feed temperature
and hydrogen content (see
Figure 3). It is important to
note that there is not a mathematical formula available that
will
reliably
predict
the
required fuel for many exothermic waste streams. Simply put,
there is no substitute for experience in thermal oxidiser
design.

Mechanical design pressure

Many engineers are uncomfortable with the concept of a

high-pressure stream flowing to
a system that operates at relatively low pressure. This
apprehension is quite understandable
because
thermal
oxidisers (and flares) are often
the only process in the plant
that has an unobstructed flow
path to atmosphere. Typically,
there are no block valves to
obstruct the flow downstream
of the burner. Pressure that can
exist downstream of the valve
separating high pressure from
the incineration system is the
sum of the pressure drop of the
equipment/piping downstream
of the valve. To get a sense of
the pressure drop of typical
thermal oxidiser system equipment, see Table 1.
Waste streams are often
injected into the burner.
Typical required oxidiser injection point pressure drops for
various streams are shown in
Table 2.
The reason these pressures
are listed in a separate table is
that the system we are
describing
actually
begins
downstream of these injection
points. The pressure in the
pipe feeding these injection

6 PTQ Q2 2013

Typical pressure drop in a thermal

oxidiser system
Equipment
Pressure drop (mbar)
Oxidiser vessel
1 to 3
Water tube boiler
2.5 to 20
Fire tube boiler
5 to 20
Superheater
1 to 7
Economiser
1 to 7
Combustion air preheater
7 to 40
Waste gas preheater
7 to 50
Baghouse (particulate filter)
5 to 20
Water spray quench
5 to 10
Submerged quench
40 to 150
Venturi scrubber
20 to 70
Packed column scrubber
10 to 25
Acid gas absorber
10 to 25
Dry electrostatic precipitator
1 to 7
Wet electrostatic precipitator
1 to 7
Vent stack
Usually 0

Table 1

points must be greater than the

pressure drop of the injection
point. Downstream of this
point, the pressure is dictated
by the downstream equipment
pressure drops. Thus, the
burner housing and combustion chamber in which a
hydrocarbon liquid is being
burned does not need to be
designed for 10 barg, although
the pipe that feeds the burner
does need to be.
Theoretically, it is possible to
exceed the maximum expected
operating pressure in cases of
explosion (a rare and usually
avoidable event), vastly higher
than expected waste vapour
stream flow or blockage of the
flue gas path (due to fouling,
for example). A safety and
control system designed by any
Required injection point pressure
drop
Stream
Aqueous liquid
Hydrocarbon liquid
Exothermic vapour
Endothermic vapour

Table 2

Pressure drop (bar)

10 to 12
10 to 12
1 to 0.1
0.01 to 0.3

reasonable standard should be

in place to prevent these
scenarios. However, in the
unhappy event that flue gas
pressure drop does increase
without the intervention of
instrumentation, it is much
more likely that excess pressure will be relieved through
the vent stack exit or through
the combustion air fan housing
than oxidiser system over-pressurisation occurring.

Conclusion

The misconceptions discussed

regarding thermal oxidiser
design are often found to be
pervasive
throughout
the
process industries. Thermal
oxidisers and fired heaters
differ from each other in terms
of purpose, designed function,
NOx/SOx generation, emissions control and designed
operating pressure. It is important to understand these
differences to ensure the design
of a robust system that meets
project
and
operational
requirements.

Peter Pickard is an Applications

Engineer for Zeeco, Inc, a combustion
equipment
manufacturer
based
in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, USA.
His experience includes the design,
construction and commissioning of
thermal oxidiser systems in locations
around the world. He holds a BS in
chemical engineeringfrom the University
of Tulsa.
Kevin McQuigg is a Senior Process
Engineer for Zeeco, Inc. He has over
30 years of experience in the design,
construction and commissioning of all
types of combustion-related systems in
locations around the world. He holds a
MS in chemical engineering.

www.eptq.com