Sustained Operating Performance of Lutianhua Ammonia Plant ...

Sustained Operating Performance of Lutianhua Ammonia Plant After 50% Capacity Increase Through Revamp

Lutianhua Co. (LTH) operated a 1000 MTPD of legacy Kellogg conventional design ammonia plant since 1976. The plant was revamped to a capacity of 1500 MTPD with energy consumption reduction of 0.47Gcal/MT using KBR technology. The revamped plant was commissioned in 2004, and after a very short startup, it passed the performance test, achieving design capacity and energy consumption. In years post revamp startup, the plant has maintained performance and smooth operation, and has helped LTH stay competitive in the fierce natural gas based ammonia industry in China. The paper describes the revamp technology used and compares performance before and post revamp.

Jiming Chen Lutianhua (LTH) Co. Luzhuo, Sichuan, China

Annie Jing KBR, Houston, USA

Introduction

utianhua Co. (LTH) has operated an ammonia/urea complex in Luzhuo, Sichuan, China since 1976. The

ammonia plant design was based on seventy’s vintage KBR’s conventional technology with a nameplate capacity of 1000 MTPD. The plant underwent its first revamp based on KBR design in 1988 and, with small modifications over the years, the plant capacity was increased to approximately 1150 MPTD and energy consumption reduced to 8.32 Gcal/MT from 9.2 Gcal/MT. With the arrival of the twenty-first century, as larger capacity and highly energy efficient modern plants were built and came online, and with rising energy prices, it became clear to LTH that a significant step upgrade of their

existing plant in scale and efficiency had to be made to stay competitive and economically viable in the long term.

In June 2001, LTH contracted KBR to perform a revamp study so as to determine the feasibility of achieving objectives of expanding plant capacity to 1500 MTPD and reducing energy consumption by approximately 0.5 Gcal/MT. This goal of substantial increased capacity with energy reduction presented quite a challenge.

The KBR revamp study started with development of a base case operation based on the measured plant data. This provided valuable information on the performance of exchangers, catalyst, reactors, machinery and columns, etc. as well as efficiencies of furnace and rotating equipment. Based on the evaluation of the base case operation, the inefficiencies and bottleneck areas of the existing plant for further capacity

L

1372014 AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL

expansion and energy reduction were identified and addressed in KBR’s revamp proposal submitted to LTH in October 2001, with budgetary cost estimates for proposed revamp options based on USGC basis. After a detailed risk and economic analysis based on costs in China, and careful evaluation and survey of the Chinese market and capabilities of equipment manufacturers, Chinese detailed engineering contractors and construction companies, LTH decided to proceed with the revamp project.

The project implementation was kicked off in July 2002 as LTH signed a contract with KBR for basic engineering design (BED). In November 2004, the revamped plant was commissioned, and after a very short start-up, it passed performance test in January 2005. Over the 10 years post revamp, plant operation has been smooth and overall performance has been robust as per the revamp design.

Description of Retrofit Feature

Figure-1 shows the schematic of the plant before the revamp. The major process steps included feed gas compression, desulfurization, primary reformer, air compression, secondary reformer, waste heat boiler, shift conversion, Benfield CO2 removal system, methanation, syngas compression, synthesis loop with four bed quench converter, three-stage refrigeration system, and purge gas recovery unit (PGRU) which includes two-stage Prism hydrogen recovery as well as HP purge gas ammonia recovery. All compressors, process air compressor, feed gas compressor, syngas compressor and refrigerant compressor, are steam turbine driven centrifugal machines. KBR’s evaluation showed the major bottleneck areas of the existing plant were: process air compression, CO2 removal system, syngas compression, and purge gas recovery unit, while the major inefficiencies lay in furnace, rotating equipment, synloop configuration, high pressure

drops, insufficient waste heat recovery, high inert level, and low hydrogen recovery. Figure-2 represents the revamp schematic. The revamp scheme was tailor made for LTH by KBR for cost effectiveness as well as with due consideration for reliability, operability and maintainability after revamp. The major revamp features by area are as follows:

Natural Gas Pretreatment & Compression

The existing MEA pretreatment for bulk sulfur removal downstream of the feed gas compressor was deleted. The unit was replaced with a ZnO desulphurization unit and moved to the upstream of the ammonia plant battery limits for bulk sulfur removal. The natural gas supply pressure to the plant increased 0.7bar. With these changes, the capacity of the existing feed gas compressor was adequate for revamp operation. The original compressor turbine efficiency had deteriorated over the years, and to produce rated power as required by revamp conditions, the turbine rotor required replacement for capacity and efficiency.

Addition of Parallel Air Compressor

In the base case operation, the existing air compressor was already operating at its upper limit. Three options can be used to increase air compression capacity: replace the existing machine with a new compressor and steam turbine train to handle the revamp capacity; retrofit both existing compressor and turbine for the revamp capacity; or add a new motor driven compressor train, operating in parallel with the existing machine to handle the additional capacity of 500MTPD. Since the first two options provide less operational flexibility and require significant longer downtime to execute, and since the first option is much more expensive than the parallel compressor option, a motor driven integral-geared six-stage centrifugal parallel air compressor was incorporated into the revamp scheme.

138 2014AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL

Primary Reformer Modification

The radiant section of the primary reformer was upgraded with thinner wall HP Modified tubes with an ID 89mm in 1997, and the existing catalyst tubes were in good condition. For the revamp operation, the catalyst volume is sufficient and the tube design temperature margin has been maintained. Additional modifications of the arch burners and convection section were needed to increase overall thermal efficiency and meet revamp duty.

The modifications incorporated include:

Replacement of the existing arch burners to meet fuel heat liberation requirement

Replacement of the convection coils which included mixed-feed preheat, process air preheat, steam superheat, and feed preheat coils for more heat transfer area and lower pressure drop, as well as coil material upgrade.

Replacement of the existing combustion air preheater with a larger and more efficient plate type exchanger since the existing Ljungstrom (rotary) type preheater was not only limited in surface area, but also a source of leakage and inefficiency.

Addition of pilots and flame scanner for auxiliary boiler burners for safety.

Secondary Reformer Modification

The top section of the existing secondary reformer was replaced with a new burner (mixer) for increased revamp throughput, and the catalyst bed volume reduced or short loaded to lower pressure drop.

Shift Conversion Modification

HTS catalyst volume is sufficient for revamp operation, but to minimize frontend pressure drop due to increased flow, the internals of HTS

reactor were modified to use an axial-radial basket.

The HTS effluent and methanator feed exchanger was found to be inadequate for revamp operation and was required to be replaced for capacity. Replacing this exchanger also reduces pressure drop since both sides of the exchanger are process gas.

A parallel LTS converter was added to handle 50% of the revamp flow and also to reduce the pressure drop. Additionally, a quench drum was installed upstream of LTS converters for inlet temperature control.

CO2 Removal System Modification

Increasing plant capacity to 1500 MTPD results in a commensurate increase in the throughput for the CO2 removal system. Because the CO2 loading in the rich solution was already close to the upper limit, any increase in acid gas removal must be accompanied by replacing activator and increasing solution circulation or solvent swap. After careful evaluation of three upgrade options (replace existing Benfield activator of DEA with ACT-1; swap to two-stage aMDEA; or to single stage aMDEA system), LTH elected to implement the option of swapping to BASF’s single stage aMDEA system in consideration of reduction in environmental impact (pollution elimination), easier control of solution chemistry, startup and operation, as well as lower Capex.

The major changes for the conversion to single stage aMDEA for revamp operation are:

Replacement of Benfield solution with

50% aMDEA solution.

The existing lean and semi-lean solution pumps were reused as cold lean solution pumps for the lean absorber, and warm lean solution pumps for the bulk absorber respectively, with modification of pump seals for aMDEA. The existing solution pumps could not provide the


head required for the revamp operation due to significant reduction (about 25%) in solution density of aMDEA in comparison with Benfield, so new booster pumps were added upstream of the existing pumps.

New semi-lean solution pumps for circulating solution from the bottom of the LP flash column to the top of the CO2 Stripper were added.

The existing hydraulic turbine internals were modified with new rotor and seal plan.

The existing LP steam generator (previously used for boiling stripper overhead condensate to generate LP steam for Benfield flash drum ejectors) was modified with a new shell to operate in parallel with existing reboiler to provide the total revamp CO2 stripper reboiling duty.

The existing absorber and stripper columns were reused with minimum internal modifications. For the absorber, the existing packing was sufficient for the revamp operation, but vortex breaking packing was added in the absorber sump to reduce gas entrainment, and the lean solution inlet distributer was replaced. For the stripper column, the flashing feed inlet device for LP flash and stripper were replaced; the packing for the stripper section was replaced with high performance packing to maintain the same packing as existing; besides internals such as liquid distributers and partitions were added and/or modified.

In the aMDEA system, the absorber operates with much cooler solution feeds (solution to lean section is more than 20 ºC colder and to bulk section more than 50 ºC colder in comparison with Benfield). To meet this requirement, two new solution coolers were added, one for

cold lean solution for the lean absorber section and another for warm lean solution to the bulk absorber section.

A new plate and frame lean solution and semi-lean solution exchanger was added to recover the heat from lean solution exiting the stripper.

For the system water balance, the process feed temperature to the absorber is also much colder than the Benfield system. To recover the heat and cool the feed, two coolers were added - one for preheating BFW and another CW trim cooler to control the feed temperature.

The existing stripper overhead condenser was more than sufficient for revamp operation. To reduce CW flow, a portion of the tubes were plugged.

All new exchangers added in the system were constructed of stainless steel (SS) on the solution side. New solution pump internals were also SS. New semi-lean solution lines were SS and existing carbon steel (CS) solution lines replaced with SS lines, if velocity exceeded 2m/s.

Methanation Section Modification Catalyst volume of the methanator is sufficient for revamp operation. Modifications were made on its feed and effluent exchangers. The methanator feed/syngas exchanger and methanator effluent/BFW preheater were replaced with new ones, while the methanator effluent/demineralized water preheater and water cooler were piped to operate in parallel to lower pressure drop. Synthesis Gas Compression Modification

As capacity increases to 1,500 MTPD, the make-up gas flow to the Synthesis Gas Compressor (103-J) increases more than 30% (mass) over the base case flow. In order to


minimize the front-end pressure drop increases caused by higher flow, in the revamp scheme we have optimized and incorporated physical changes in piping, exchangers, and reactor to compensate. Still volumetric flow increased over 40% at the compressor suction. The existing compressor could not handle such a large flow increment and higher-flow impellers were required, which entailed internal parts replacement including rotors and bundles and new diaphragm couplings and coupling guards for both LP and HP casings. The steam turbine for the compressor was upgraded in 1988, having the required capacity but efficiency was much lower than the original design. An overhaul to replace wear and tear to improve turbine efficiency was required.

Addition of New Mol-Sieve Dryer System

A new syngas drying system was added to dry the fresh makeup gas to the synloop in order to upgrade the existing wet loop configuration to a dry loop design. The dryer system consisted of two syngas dryers, two strainers, a regeneration dryer as well as a regeneration heater. The syngas dryer contains solid desiccant sized to remove residual carbon dioxide and water in the fresh makeup syngas in a 12-hour drying cycle. Waste gas from the PGRU is used as regeneration gas after being dried in the regeneration dryer. Synloop Modifications

Repiped synloop from existing “wet loop” to “dry loop” to increase synloop efficiency. Refer to sketch figure-1 showing existing wet loop and figure-2 the dry loop configuration. In the “dry loop”, the syngas from the compressor discharge is directly fed to the converter after heat exchange with the converter effluent. After mol-sieve drying, the fresh makeup gas is dry and free from

oxides, so there is no need to pass through an ammonia chilling cycle to remove them. As a result, the converter pressure is higher; loop pressure drop lower; power consumption of both syngas and refrigerant compressors lower due to lower circulation rate, lower loop delta-p, and lower refrigeration duty; ammonia conversion higher and catalyst life longer due to lower ammonia concentration and very low level of water and CO2 (poisons to catalyst) concentration in the converter feed.

Retrofitted converter basket to increase capacity and lower pressure drop. The basket retrofit consisted of replacing existing internals of 4 axial quench beds with a design having 3 radial-flow beds with quench and inter-coolers.

Replaced the converter effluent/BFW preheater as well as the converter exit line for increased capacity and higher temperature, as well as heat recovery enhancement. Converter effluent water cooler was also modified for capacity, pressure drop as well as tube material upgrade.

PGRU Modification

To handle the increased purge gas flow, the internals of the existing HP ammonia scrubber were modified.

The existing hydrogen recovery (Prism) system which consisted of a two-stage hydrogen recovery unit was retrofitted to accommodate increased flow and to achieve hydrogen recovery efficiency of 95%, existing P0 membranes were replaced with P2, and additional new membranes added.

New LP Ammonia scrubber system was added to recovered ammonia from low


pressure flash gases to lower NOx in the reformer flue gas.

HP Process Condensate Recovery Unit Modification To handle the increased load, the internals of the existing condensate scrubber were replaced, and additional condensate pump and cooler were added in the system. Steam System and Cooling Water System The high pressure steam generation from the steam drum was increased about 10% over the base case and HP steam superheat temperature increased to improve plant efficiency. The system was checked, verifying that no modification besides a few turbine modifications as mentioned above were required. Cooling water circulation increased about 20% over the base case, and a new cooling tower cell and additional pumps were added in OSBL for the increased capacity. Other Modifications A couple of new separators were added and several existing separators were modified internally for increased throughput and separation efficiency. Safety relief systems, instrumentation, piping systems were checked, modified, and upgraded as required.

Revamp Project Milestones

At the beginning of the project, LTH formed a dedicated revamp project management team responsible for project execution including project cost, overall schedule, and quality controls; equipment and material procurement; construction supervision; and safety throughout project execution.

To efficiently manage such a large and complicated revamp project, the LTH revamp project management team distributed responsibility by sections. Each section had a lead team responsible for their area engineering and safety reviews; preparation of operation procedures based on licenser, DEC and manufacturer inputs; operator training (extensive class room and plant site training were conducted to familiarize operators with operation changes brought by the revamp); mechanical completion checkup; audits before feed-in; as well as commissioning and startup operations. Table-1 Project Milestone

Date Milestones

5‐Jul‐02 Effective Date of the Contract

16‐Jul‐02 Project Kick Off Meeting with LTH, KBR and DEC (Chengda)

14‐Oct‐02 KBR Issued Process Design Package

18‐Dec‐02 KBR Issued BED for Client Approval

5‐Mar‐03 KBR Issued Final BED

30‐Jul‐03 Construction Startup

16‐Sep‐04 Completion of Commissioning New Parallel Process Air Compressor

30‐Sep‐04 Mechanical Completion of the New Mol‐Sieve Dryer System

17‐Oct‐04 Plant Shutdown

8‐Nov‐04 Completion Inspection and Maintenance of Steam System and Start Steam Blowing

19‐Nov‐04 Completion of Furnace Dry‐out and Start of Commissioning

24‐Nov‐04 Plant Restart, Feed‐in Primary Reformer

24‐Nov‐04 Completion of Cleaning of CO2 Removal System and Start Circulation of aMDEA Solution

26‐Nov‐04 Completion of Synloop Repiping Including Converter Basket Installation.

27‐Nov‐04 Start of Synthesis Compressor

2‐Dec‐04 Ammonia Product to OSBL Tank


Date Milestones

20‐Dec‐04 Ammonia Production Reached 97% of Capacity

20‐Jan‐05 Completion and Pass Performance Test Run

With diligent planning, safety focus and efforts of LTH revamp project team, KBR, engineering and construction contractors, the LTH revamp project was executed with zero recordable safety incidents during construction, commissioning, and startup. The revamp project was completed within budgeted cost; however, the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic in China, caused about four months delay. The revamp startup was short and successful. The LTH revamp project achieved an ammonia-to-ammonia period of only 45 days. In comparison with other Chinese plant revamps of similar revamp scope, this was the shortest span. Table-2 below provides the Performance Test Results. During Jan 17 to Jan 20 of 2005 in the 72-hour performance test run, the average capacity reached was 1510 MTPD. The CO2 production and energy consumption also all met the design and guarantee. Table-2: Performace Test Run Results

Operation Experience

The success of any revamp project is measured in how the plant operates after it is startup compared to before revamp. Tables 3 to 6 below provide comparisons of post revamp operation with before revamp. Table-3 Overall Capacity & Spec. Energy

Before Post Revamp RevampNH3 Production, MTPD 1150 1500 NG Feed & Fuel (Gcal/MT) 8.59 8.07 Electrical Power Import-Steam Export+CW+DW Makeup (Gcal/MT) (0.27) (0.22)

Specific Energy Gcal/MT 8.32 7.85

Table-4 Frontend Operation Comparison

Before Post Frontend Revamp RevampNG Feed (Gcal/MT) 5.3 5.27

Steam to Carbon Ratio ~3.3 ~3.2

Process air rate, (mass) base 130% of

base

Primary Reformer

Radiant Duty base ~115% of base

Tube outlet temp., C >800 <795

Anchor pres., bar(a) 32 34

Auxiboiler Duty base <60% of

base

Stack Temp, C >170 <120

Furnace efficiency ~88% >92%

Secondary Reformer

Outlet temp, C <990 <995

CO2 Removal

CO2 production ~1360 >1766

CO2 product purity ~98.6% >99%

Frontend Pres. Drop

102-J discharger to 103-J suction, bar ~14 ~17

Day1 Day2 Day3 Avg.NH3 Product Quantity

Metric Ton Per Day1511 1509 1509 1510 1500

NH3 Product QualityAmmonia wt% 99.99 99.99 99.99 99.99 ≥99.9

Water, wt% 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 ≤0.1Oil, ppmw <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

CO2 Product Quantity Metric Ton Per Day

1786 1766 1766 1773 1765

CO2 Product QualityCO2 vol% dry 99.18 99.14 99.14 99.15 ≥99

Pressure, Mpa(A) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 ≥0.06

Temp. deg. C 36.5 35.5 36.3 36.1 <40Energy Consumption

Natural Gas Feed&Fuel 8.062 8.074 8.071 8.069

Electrical Power Import-Steam Export+CW+DW

Makeup(0.224) (0.219) (0.203) (0.215)

Eng. Consump., Gcal/MT 7.838 7.855 7.868 7.854 7.865

Test Run Guaranteed Value


Table-5 Backend Operation Comparison

Before Post Backend Revamp Revamp Synthesis Section

103-J Suction press., bar >26 >25

Make-up gas flow, volume base

~140% of base

Loop press. drop, bar <11 <10

Recycle syngas

Pressure, bar ~136 >140

103-J Discharge

Flow rate, kNm3/hr ~660 ~600

Pressure, bar ~147 ~150

Converter inlet

H2 to N2 ratio ~2.85 ~3

NH3 content, mol% >1.8 <1.3

Inert CH4+Ar, mol% ~11 ~7

Converter outlet

Temperature, C <290 >370

NH3 Rise, mol% ~12 ~16

Temp. Rise, C ~174 > 230

HP loop purge

Rate, kNm3/h 10 ~20

H2 Recovery % ~70 95

Table-6 Compressor Operation Comparison

Before Post Compressors Revamp Revamp Air Compressor/Driver (MW) (MW)

Existing Comp/turbine ~8.3 ~7.2

New parallel comp. ~3.9

Feed Gas Comp/turbine base 130% of

base

Syngas Comp/turbine ~15 ~17.5

Refri. Comp/turbine ~7.6 ~7.1

As can be seen from the comparisons post revamp, the plant capacity, energy and efficiency improved significantly. The plant operability and reliability also improved thanks to modification and upgrades to equipment. The unchanged equipment were operated at lower load than the base case or within their design

conditions. Per LTH operators, post revamp operation has been much easier and more stable than before the revamp.

Since November 2004, the revamped plant has maintained performance. Table-7 below lists the ammonia production.

Table-7 Plant Capacity

Max Daily Production (MTPD)

Annual Production (MTPY)

Before Revamp 1150 350,000

Post Revamp

2005 1510 495,000

2006 1532 442,125

2007 1535 444,079

2008 1513 418,515

2009 1505 392,204

2010 1522 374,730

2011 1506 313,392

2012 1458 293,241

2013 1550 428,171

While the results are encouraging, the post revamp plant should have been able to reach much higher annual capacity if there were no reduction in natural gas supply and government as well as NG supplier mandated annual shutdowns for saving natural gas for other industries or domestic uses due to natural gas curtailment in China.

The revamp plant also achieved improvements in SH&E and reduced environmental impact. Before the revamp, there were hazardous discharges from CO2 removal due to the Benfield system use of vanadium pentoxide for corrosion inhibitor. The aMDEA system does not use a corrosion inhibitor, and there are virtually no effluent streams with proper maintenance of water balance of the system. With upgraded monitoring, controlling and instrumentation systems, and replacement of wear and tear parts of equipment as well as


material upgrades, the plant operational safety improved.

Although the plant has successfully achieved more than revamp design capacity, the operation did encounter a few problems especially during the first two years of post-revamp operation: Combustion Air Preheater High Pressure Drop Underperformance of the combustion air preheater was observed during the initial phase of post revamp operation, while the air side pressure drop across the preheater was much higher than design. After several years of operation, the pressure drop and the internal leakage increased. When the plant operated close to full rate or higher, vibration of the existing ID and FD fans became severe due to operating near their upper capacity limit. To alleviate the bottleneck caused by the Preheater, LTH installed a small secondhand ID fan to help handling about 5% of the load. In 2013, LTH replaced the preheater with a new one from the same Chinese vendor as the previous one, but a similar high pressure drop problem was encountered again. LTH is working with the vendor to a find solution to the problem. Problem with aMDEA CO2 Removal System In the initial phase of post revamp operation, LTH encountered the following problems: foaming, damage of internals of the stripper LP flashing top section, corrosion and erosion on CS lines & equipment, as well as scaling.

LTH experienced frequent foaming. After inspection of the system, it was concluded that the major cause of foaming was due to insufficient filtration. LTH replaced the filter cartridges as per KBR design specification.

Severe internal damage was found on the stripper LP flash top section, the rich solution inlet flashing gallery, top wash trays and demister pads were ripped off, bent and deformed. Analyzing the operation, it was concluded that the damage likely was caused by

the violent churning and slugging of the two-phase solution entering the column, with a large amount of vapor release from solution that exerted high shear stresses and mechanical forces on the internals. LTH followed KBR’s recommendation to repair and strengthen the flash gallery and inlet baffle, wash trays, and demister pad, and add reinforcement for supporting beams.

Severe corrosion was found in the CS shell of the LP flash overhead condenser and separator. Corrosion/erosion pits were found on the inner wall of the absorber just below the feed gas inlet nozzle and at the elbow of the return line to the stripper from the stripper reboiler as well as the CS shell of the reboiler (1105-C). Scale was found covering the SS tubes of the stripper reboilers as a dark colored layer 0.2~0.3mm in thickness, and similar scale was also found in the bottom bed of stripper packing. LTH lab analysis showed the scale contains 70% Fe2O3. It was concluded that the cause of corrosion was due to CS in contact with very corrosive wet CO2 in the LP flash overhead equipment. Erosion corrosion found in other areas was likely due to flow turbulence. For the LP flash overhead system, LTH replaced the equipment with new ones made of SS per the licenser requirement. The corrosion pits on the absorber wall and reboiler shell were removed by grinding. Per BASF, scale could have been formed due to insufficient startup cleaning, plus insufficient filtration, as well as not operating with corrosion inhibitors. Under these conditions, it was found possible to convert the old corrosion protection layer into a Fe2O3 layer. The scale was removed by hydro-blasting.

To prevent reoccurring of the corrosion problem, following BASF recommendation, LTH passivated the system to build a corrosion protective layer before introduction of process gas into the system. This included 72 hours of static passivation for the absorber and 36 hours for the stripper, followed by more than 24 hours of circulation passivation.


After a two- year learning curve, LTH operators said that the system is easier to operate than the previous system, as they gained more experience. With better maintenance of the solvent, activator and other chemical concentrations in the solution, and monitoring of the solution circulation rate, and better filtration, the system operated smoothly. The corrosion/erosion problem is also diminished to an acceptable level.

Conclusion

Lutianhua’s decision to revamp their plant in 2001 was very timely and prudent, as it helped them stay competitive in the harsh conditions prevalent in China’s natural gas based ammonia industry. LTH’s revamp project has been implemented successfully with payback period

less than two years. The LTH ammonia plant has maintained consistent performance over the past 10 years post revamp operation. Operation has been very smooth, and overall performance was robust as per the revamp design criteria. Acknowledgments Authors acknowledge LTH and KBR management for their leadership in bringing such a complicated revamp project to successful reality. Further, contributions of the specialists and engineering team members of both LTH and KBR as well as the contributions of the operations, maintenance, construction and related suppliers are highly appreciated and acknowledged.

An Elevated View of Lutianhua Overall Complex


Figure-1: Flow Sheet before Revamp


Figure-2: Flow Sheet Post Revamp

N

CO2 PRODUCT

PRIMARY REFORMER

SECONDARY REFORMER

HTSSULFUR REMOVAL

LTS

NG

M

aMDEA CO2 REMOVAL

METH

AIR

AIR COMPRESSOR

FEED GAS COMPRESSOR

PRIM SEPAMMONIA

CONVERTER

PGRUPRISM

REFRIG. SYSTEM

LETDOWN

NH3 PRODUCT

CONVECTION

SYN GAS COMPRESSOR

101C/102C 103‐C

124‐C

123‐C1

114‐C

136‐C

104‐C

REVAMP ‐ 1500MTPD

120‐C121‐C

AIR

PARALLEL AIR COMPRESSOR

M

N

R

M

HTS

R

R

LTSN

M

M

R

M MM

MOL‐SIEVE DRYER

N

N

N

RM

M

M

1104‐C1105‐C

M

N

LEGEND:N: NEW ITEMR: REPLACED ITEMM: MODIFIED ITEMD: DELETED ITEM

D

103‐J

101‐J


Sustained Operating Performance of Lutianhua Ammonia Plant ...

Documents