Coatings for mitigation of Heat exchanger fouling

Manoj Saraf Multicoat Coating Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,

Email: info@multicoats.com

Surface coating is an attractive mitigation strategy for combatting heat exchanger fouling in process industry.
Antifouling coatings manipulate the interactions between the surface and fouling precursors or fouling deposit
to either extend the induction period before appreciable fouling starts and/or reduce the rate of deposition.
Coated heat exchangers extend the time between cleaning operations, thereby reducing the operating cost of
the system. The choice of coating material and method depends on the process fluid, nature of the surface to
be coated as well as the nature of the species causing fouling.
Fouling is a nearly universal problem in the design and operation of heat exchangers. The low thermal
conductivity of the fouling layer(s) causes an increased resistance to heat transfer and reduced effectiveness of
heat exchangers, as shown in Figure 1. The thermal conductivities of fouling deposit materials can be two to
three orders of magnitude less than the underlying metal. Moreover, as deposition occurs, the cross-sectional
area is reduced, causing an increase in pressure drop across the apparatus.

Fouling is a universal problem in the design and operation of process heat transfer systems and necessitates
regular cleaning and/or costly mitigation measures. The low thermal conductivity of the fouling layer(s)
causes an increased resistance to heat transfer and reduced effectiveness of heat exchangers, as shown in the
figure below. The thermal conductivities of fouling deposit materials can be two to three orders of magnitude
less than the underlying metal. Moreover, as deposition occurs, the cross-sectional area is reduced, causing an
increase in pressure drop across the apparatus.

It is a challenge for sustainable manufacturing as it incurs additional equipment, energy, treatment chemicals
and downtime with associated costs as well as increasing the environmental impact of the process. Fouling
can be mitigated by modifying the process streams (e.g. softening hard water), manipulating process
conditions (e.g. temperatures and flow rates/shear stresses, using alternative apparatus such as fluidised bed
heat exchangers), and by modifying the heat transfer surface to reduce (or eliminate) fouling and/or enhance
cleaning. Coating a surface to reduce fouling or other deposition processes involves modifying the interaction
between the surface and the process fluid and thus the attachment, adhesion, retention and removal of
depositing species. These interactions determine the strength of adhesion of any fouling layer and the
cleanability of the surface. An ideal coating would prolong the fouling induction period, improving the plant
operating efficiency. If deposition did occur, it would require less effort for cleaning (lower concentration and
temperature of cleaning solutions, shorter cleaning times), increasing the plant productivity and reducing the
consumption of natural resources.
Fouling is a function of the system and the equipment used. Parameters which influence the fouling rate in a
system include: the type of fluid, the type of heat exchanger, the temperatures, the velocities and the materials
of construction etc. Fouling is a complicated and dynamic process and the actual fouling rate is different for
each application.

There are numerous resources for fouling factor values. The best source is from existing operating
facilities. When production data is available, it can be used to calculate the actual fouling factors for the
system. Together with the maintenance and cleaning history, this provides the best resource for selecting the
fouling factors for a particular application.
Biofilms are ubiquitous and complex biological structures generated by an assemblage of bacterial and/or
fungal and/or algae species at a wide variety of interfaces, as illustrated in Figure 1 herebelow. In some
respects, these films resemble a multicellular system. What is intriguing about the biofilm environment is that
these different species can promote, protect and propagate the biofilm environment for the benefit of all the
different unicellular participants.
The problem created by the growth and accretion of biofilm is that they seriously impede heat transfer from a
surface. The reduction in heat transfer is because their thermal conductivity is significantly lower than even
that of H2O (thermal conductivity of 0.561 W/(mK) at 0C & 0.679 W/(mK) at 100C ) as evidenced in
high temperature heat exchanger systems.

Figure 1: Illustration of the biofilm community

The substantial variety of single cell

species involved in generating complex
biofilm structures and the broad conditions
under which they prosper are themselves
interesting scientifically. Examples are the
dental plaque in our mouth and the slime
on filter beds in water treatment plants.
The latter impacts the power industry since
the build-up of biofilms in power plant can
seriously impact the efficiency of heat
exchangers leading to significant economic
costs.

Corrosive and mineral laden fluids that come into contact with heat transfer surfaces have always plagued
heat-exchanger equipment. Historically, water treatment and periodic cleaning by hydro-blasting managed
this process, but the results were not always optimal.
Internal coatings made from phenolic materials were developed in Germany in the 1950s. They were applied
by filling, draining and rotating the tubes in a specialised facility. In the 1980s an Italian company developed
a spray-on technique for applying epoxy-phenolics. These coatings proved successful in reducing corrosion
and fouling in large condensers, and in restoring leaking uncoated condensers. Subsequently, numerous
different coatings have been developed for various applications. Now, refineries and utilities are applying
polymer coatings to the tubular inner and outer diameters (ID and OD) of the heat-transfer apparatus. This
practice has evolved and matured into a cost-effective remedy to reduce typical fouling and corrosion
problems intrinsic to heat-exchange equipment.
Coatings for heat exchangers include baked phenolics, epoxy-phenolics, novolacs, PTFE, PFPE and thermal
plastics etc. One of the best coatings for oilfield application is polyphenylene sulphide (PPS), which is also
used in cookware. PPS can be combined with polytetrafloroethylene (PTFE) to create a thermally conductive,
self-healing thermoplastic that can be used at 200C continuously. A lot of research is underway and coatings
based on Polysaccharide and biopolymers have been developed for thin film deposition on heat exchanger
surface for mitigation of fouling in milk and food processing industry.
Polymer tube coatings/linings have always suffered from a perception of heat transfer penalties due to their
lower thermal conductivities vis--vis metallurgy but case history has demonstrated just the opposite. Decades

of service history have shown that tube coatings can actually enhance heat transfer and overall performance to
a significant degree. While the thermal conductivity of the coating is much less than the parent tube, its
impact is offset by several factors.
The first factor covers normal design considerations. Generally, heat exchangers are designed with a fouling
factor of 0.0056 or 0.0115 m2K/W. Adding a coating to the tube ID impacts the thermal duty by a factor of
0.0030 - 0.0080 m2K/W at full-dry film thickness of approximately 200 microns, which is well below the
pre-calculated design. Applying the coating either totally eliminates the subsequent fouling or greatly reduces
the accumulation of typical micro-/macro fouling, mitigating the initial design consideration.
The second major factor is the boundary layer-drag reduction. About 70 percent of total heat transfer
resistance (HTR) across a heat exchanger tube is the result of boundary layer drag. Tube wall friction reduces
this flow and creates an insulating barrier of low velocity fluid. Polymer coatings reduce the surface tension at
the tube wall substantially, by a factor of 40 dynes per cm2 compared to metallurgy in a non-oxidized or new
condition. Reducing friction reduces the boundary layer drag and substantially opens up the flow profile. Two
separate studies show flow rate improvements of 80 to 100 percent with polymer coatings compared to new
uncoated tubes in the same fluid train. This increase in flow and low surface energy of the coating contributes
to the improved overall thermal efficiency of the heat exchanger in fluid service. In fact the roughness of a
fouled tube wall is significantly higher than an un-coated tube and this drastically increases the boundary
layer-drag and the pressure drop which the fluid undergoes.
Effect of coating on heat transfer
The thermal conductivity of tubing materials describes the amount of energy required to increase/decrease the
temperature of the liquid inside/outside the tubing to the same temperature on the interior/exterior of the
tubing. Simply stated, thermal conductivity is the rate at which heat is transferred through a material.
Different materials contain differing thermal conductivity rates, based upon their molecular structure. The
heat flow through the tubing material increases or decreases in heat by the amount of energy presents.
Thermal conductivity of some materials and the calculated heat transfer per unit of time is presented in Table
1. The ratings provided indicate the materials ability to transfer heat. The higher the rating of the material
indicates the greater the ability of the material to transfer heat. This transfer rate is influenced by the thickness
of the materials. All units are presented in SI units. The SI unit W/mK indicates the amount of energy in
Watts or one joule per second taking into consideration the thickness of the material in meters and the
temperature in Kelvins
Thermal Conductivity values of some tube material & foulants (Table 1)
Material

Carbon Steel (Approximately 0.5%C) at 20C

Carbon steel, Plain carbon, (Mn 1%, Si 0.1%) at 27C
Copper, Pure at 20C

Thermal Conductivity (W/m.K)

53.60
60.50
386.00

Chrome-Nickel Steel (20% Cr, 15% Ni) at 20C

15.10

Molcoat SPGC 14

~9.00

Molcoat SPGC 18

~6.00

Biofilm

~0.63

Calcium Carbonate

~2.19

Magnesium Carbonate

~0.43

Calcium Sulphate

~0.73

(Source: Heat and Mass transfer data book)

From the above table it can be seen that microbiological film has an even greater heat transfer retardation
effect than scale in heat transfer equipment. Through research conducted by the Cooling Tower Institute in the
United States, it was found that microbiological film (biofilm) deposited on condenser tubes had 4 times the
heat retardation effect of mineral scale heat transfer capability would have been reduced by 4 times! The
overall reduced heat transfer efficiency due to a combination of biofilm and scales would mean substantial
loss of efficiency and energy.
No doubt that there would be an initial reduction in the Thermal Conductivity of Molcoat SPGC-14 &
Molcoat SPGC-18 coated tube bundles compared to the uncoated and unscaled bundle, since both clean
ferrous and non-ferrous metal tubes exhibit good initial thermal conductivities. However it represents a multifold improvement over the scaled and biologically fouled un-coated tube bundles.
A coated heat exchange tube initially exhibits a lower heat transfer coefficient (HTC) than a clean, uncoated
tube. The coating is, however, much thinner than the scale/biofilm that builds up in the absence of coating.
The thermal conductivity of biofilm and scales being very low, even thin deposits can create a significant
resistance to heat transfer. Since coatings minimize scale/biofilm attachment the average HTC for a coated
tube for the period between cleanings is much higher than that of the uncoated tube. Perspective on this is
given in Table 2 and Figure 2 which shows the dramatic effect of scale thickness on the heat transfer
coefficient of a coated tube, emphasising the large effect of initial scaling. The effect of the scale overrides the
effect of the coating. (Note that these calculated HTC figures ignore effects of boundary layers drag
reduction.)
The resistance to the flow of heat by the material of tube wall can be expressed as a "heat transfer coefficient
of the tube wall". However, one needs to select if the heat flux is based on the pipe inner or the outer
diameter. Selecting to base the heat flux on the pipe inner diameter, and assuming that the pipe wall thickness
is small in comparison with the pipe inner diameter, then the heat transfer coefficient for the pipe wall can be
calculated as if the wall were not curved
U= f / f
Where f is the effective thermal conductivity of the wall material and f is the total thickness including
thickness of coating/biofilm/scale.
The thermal impact of fouling is quantified via the fouling resistance, Rf, which is related to the thickness of
the deposit, f, and its thermal conductivity, f.
=

As the deposit layer grows,

increases the temperature at the deposit/process stream interface will change.
This will affect the rate of deposit formation. The sensitivity to temperature is determined by the species and
mechanisms involved in deposition. For the purposes of this paper, the rate of change in Rf with time (the
fouling rate) is taken to be constant, at . Deposit ageing, which also complicates the effect and rate of
deposition over time, is not considered here: is also assumed to remain constant over time.
For some processes and surfaces, there may be a delay before there is a discernible increase in . This
induction period,
, may be extended by the use of a coating and is modelled as an initial lag, giving
( )=

0,
),

<

The rate of heat transfer is calculated using an average temperature driving force and an overall heat transfer
coefficient . As deposition proceeds, U is related to its deposit-free (clean) value,
, by
1

The overall heat transfer coefficient for clean heat exchanger can be calculated from
1

1
+

where and are the hot and cold stream film heat transfer coefficients, respectively,
is the
thickness of the heat transfer surface ,
is its thermal conductivity, and
is the thermal resistance of
the coating. In the above equation internal and external heat transfer areas are assumed to be equal.
is
calculated from the coating thickness,
, and its thermal conductivity,
, using
=

The following assumptions are made in the calculation of heat exchanger unit performance:

i.

The thermal and physical properties of both the hot and cold process streams remain constant within
the heat exchanger. Each value corresponds to the arithmetic average of the stream inlet and outlet
temperatures;

ii.

The coating layer is homogeneous, durable, free of defects and its fouling mitigation properties do
not change over its lifetime;

iii.

The thickness of the deposit is small compared to the tube diameter, as such change in flow area,
average velocity and film heat transfer coefficients of both streams during operation have been
ignored.

iv.

Fouling deposits are uniformly distributed.

The following parameters are ignored/not considered in the calculation of heat exchanger performance:

i.

When fluid flows through the plain tube the fluid nearest to the wall is subjected to the frictional drag
which has the effect of slowing down the fluid at the wall this laminar boundary layer can
significantly reduce the tube side heat transfer coefficient and consequently the performance of heat
exchanger. The friction drag coefficient is independent of surface roughness in laminar flow, but is a
strong function of surface roughness in turbulent flow due to surface roughness elements protruding
further into the highly viscous laminar sublayer. Coatings exhibit low surface energy and surface
roughness resulting in reduction in frictional drag, differences in surface roughness between a coated
and un-coated surface have been ignored as also boundary layer-drag reduction has been ignored.

ii.

Deposit/Foulant ageing and removal due to turbulent flow.

iii.

Flow turbulence, velocity, fluid viscosity, shear stress and temperature.

iv.

Low roughness and hydrophobicity of the coating that inhibits bacterial growth and attachment.

v.
vi.

vii.

Biocidal & Quorum Sensing inhibiting properties of the coating.

The surface material and roughness are also important influences on fouling. Certain materials are
more susceptible to fouling than others. Roughness can affect both deposition and removal, via
nucleation and bonding.
The adhesive strength of crystalline deposits on polymer-based coatings is less than the
corresponding value on an uncoated metal surface.

Table 2 here below suggests that the theoretical potential heat transfer for a clean tube is 26800 W m-2K-1
however on coating the tube it comes down to 16786 W m-2K-1 thus we see a reduction in heat transfer
coefficient.
Assuming that the tube is not coated then the scenario would be that after the initial induction period is over
there would be steady deposition of mineral scales and micro-organism and given the low thermal
conductivity of mineral scales and biofilm the reduction in heat transfer would be phenomenal. For example
for a deposition of 1 mm layer of Calcium Sulphate scale on the tube surface the heat transfer coefficient
would come down to 711 W m-2K-1 illustrating the overriding effect of scale compared to coating.
Table 2: Perspective on heat transfer barriers for coated & fouled tubes.

Heat Transfer Barrier

Carbon Steel (Approximately 0.5%C) at 20C
Carbon steel, Plain carbon, (Mn 1%, Si 0.1%) at 27C
Copper, Pure at 20C
Chrome-Nickel Steel (20% Cr, 15% Ni) at 20C
Molcoat SPGC 14
Molcoat SPGC 18
Biofilm
Calcium Carbonate
Magnesium Carbonate
Calcium Sulphate
Carbon Steel (Approximately 0.5%C) + Molcoat SPGC 14
Carbon Steel (Approximately 0.5%C) + Calcium Sulphate

U= f / f
Heat
(f)
transfer
(f)
Rf= ff
Thermal
conductivity Thickness coefficient Fouling
2
(W/(mK)
(mm) (W/(m K) Resistance
53.60
60.50
386.00
15.10
9.00
6.00
0.63
2.19
0.43
0.73
36.93
2.13

2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
0.20
0.20
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.20
3.00

26800
30250
193000
7550
45000
30000
630
2190
430
730
16786
711

0.04
0.03
0.01
0.13
0.02
0.03
1.59
0.46
2.33
1.37
0.06
1.41

In the case of a coated tube bundle the reduction in heat transfer coefficient vis--vis an un-coated tube bundle
would be evident only during the few days of initial lag phase (i.e. induction period) during which no
significant fouling is observed. However after a few day/week active foulant species stick to the surface and
gradually cover the surface & the foulant already on the surface acts as a seed, attracting more foulant in a
micro-growth manner thereby severely impeding the heat transfer coefficient of an un-coated as can be seen
from the table here above.

Figure 2. Perspective on the effect of scale thickness on heat transfer (assuming scale forms on a stainless steel tube with no coating
ignoring boundary effects).

Thus over a longer period of time coated heat exchangers exhibit steady heat transfer coefficient resulting in
significant savings. Further perspective on the effect of mineral scale thickness is illustrated in Figure 2,
which highlights the effect of the initial scale formation on HTC.
In addition to the prevention of scale build-up, coating increases the HTC by reducing friction between the
liquid and tube wall, thereby reducing the boundary layer. Thus from the above graph it clear that; as
thickness of scaling/fouling increases thermal conductivity goes on decreasing.
Coatings thus significantly reduce fouling and incrustation extending the length of equipment operating
periods in fouling and cleaning cycles and provide multiple benefits such as increased heat transfer duty,
eliminate corrosion, reduce or eliminate micro- and macro-fouling and associated cleaning cycles, energy
saving, increase process throughput, and provide perpetual equipment life with recoating, as also significant
saving in terms of initial capital cost since coating can prevent corrosion completely so that a stainless steel
unit could be replaced by a coated carbon steel one.

**********************