Skip to main content

Tag: Ureaknowhow

Why use a vacuum based leak detection system?

In the March-April issue of Nitrogen+Syngas, Plant Manager+ reported on how to prevent safety risks with a proper leak detection system. In this issue we continue the discussion by further exploring the benefits of vacuum based leak detection systems, which provide several benefits including: less clogging, no build up of pressure, only one ammonia analyser needed for the high pressure equipment, works when there is only one leak detection hole, as well as when there are clogged or no grooves.

Preventing safety risks with a proper leak detection system

Several safety risks threaten urea high pressure equipment such as high pressures, high temperatures, various kind of corrosion phenomena, crystallisation risks, and the release of large volumes of toxic ammonia in case of a leak. A significant number of serious incidents with high pressure urea equipment still occur in the industry and, in 50% of cases, a failing leak detection system was one of the main causes. UreaKnowHow’s Risk Register for a 316L urea grade reactor identifies 50+ safety risks of which 75% can be prevented by operating a proper leak detection system. In this article, UreaKnowHow answers some key questions about the importance of an effective active leak detection system.

Incident No. 1: Leak in nozzle in urea reactor bottom

High pressure urea equipment often has lined nozzles. A lined nozzle is a full strength carbon steel nozzle that is protected against carbamate corrosion by a 5 or 6 mm thick stainless steel liner plate, which is welded to the carbon steel nozzle on either end. This design is however very vulnerable to fatigue cracking due to the difference in thermal expansion between the austenite liner and the carbon steel nozzle. History shows that such a design will lead to cracking in the long term. The following case study reports on a serious incident in a urea plant where a leak in a urea reactor nozzle caused a plant shutdown but could have resulted in rupture of the high pressure vessel.

Problem No. 60: Urea process passivation and heating rate

A Stamicarbon urea plant attempts to start up after a scheduled turnaround. Due to maintenance issues, it is necessary to shut down and block in the synthesis section several times. Although licensor’s procedures have been followed, several signs of active corrosion are noticed in the liner of the reactor. What could the cause be for this unexpected behaviour? Can sharing experiences from colleagues from other urea plants provide valuable support to find the root cause or even provide new insights into possible new causes? One observation is that the typical heating up rate of a liner in a reactor is much higher than recommended (refer to diagram). The condensation heat of steam heats up the liner much faster than the carbon steel pressure bearing wall. This creates stress on the liner and affects the lifetime of the liner. Another observation is a temperature rise in the reactor during a blocking in situation. This can be a cause for loss of oxygen required for passivation, resulting in higher corrosion rates.