Sunteți pe pagina 1din 7

Prevent leaks in heat exchangers

Hydrocarbon Processing 08.05.2007 | Rajkumar, R., Reliance Industries Ltd., Surat, India
Changes in design code lead to solutions for chronic leaking glycol exchanger
Keywords:

Leaking heating exchangers are problematic. Leaks can be sourced to poor design, bad workmanship, faulty
materials, etc. In this example, a heat exchanger in an ethylene glycol unit endured an ongoing leak. The following
procedure was used by the maintenance group to determine the leak's root cause and best remedial action.
Background. Leak from any flange, either from a small-bore process piping or a large dish-end of an exchanger is a
problem for the process and maintenance engineers. Leaks can happen due to bad workmanship, faulty material or
poor design. For whatever reason, such events can require isolating the line or equipment isolation with a chance of
capacity/quality compromise. The worst case scenario could lead to unit shutdown.
The problem. In one of the Reliance ethylene glycol plants, two glycol-service flash boilers were the source for
ongoing leaking problem from the channel-cover flanges. Leaks from the channel-cover flanges were observed
during the first year of operation. Both reboilers operate at very high temperatures. The glycol flasher operates at 19
bar pressure and 212C, passing glycol through the tubes with steam at 220C on the shell side (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
View of the leak between the tube sheet and the channel.

To correct the problem, the gasket selection was checked and changed to better designs during the annual
turnarounds. Since the problem could not be eliminated, similar gasket design changes were done during subsequent
turnarounds (Fig. 2). The original gaskets were spiral wound (SW) PTFE without inner and outer rings. The gasket
type was later changed to SW asbestos with SS 304 inner ring. Later, SW grafoil-filled gasket with SS304 inner ring
and CS outer ring was tried. In the last trial, the gasket was replaced with SW grafoil filled without inner and outer
rings but used an increased width. Yet, the problem still persisted!

Fig. 2
Proposed modifications of the gaskets over several
turnarounds.

It is worth noting that a very similar glycol plant was constructed six years later. Although the design code for these
exchangers was same, the manufacturing dimensions were a little different as shown in Table 1. The new exchanger
has 6005 tubes of 25.4 mm OD of 15 BWG. The materials of construction of the tubes are SA 268 Gr 405. The shell
and channel shells are SA516 Gr 70 and shown in Fig. 3.


Fig. 3
Details of old glycol exchanger shell and channel
covers.

From Table 1, it can be noted that there is an increase in the thickness of the flange and a reduction in the diameter
for the new plant exchanger. The bolt size was reduced, and the number bolts used doubled; thus, proper seating
with the gasket is ensured. The tube-sheet thickness was also increased by 43 mm.
Analysis. Now the most probable cause has been checked. It was then decided to check the design aspect of the
exchanger. The old exchangers were designed as per ASME Sec VIII Div 11986 & TEMA Class C 1978. They were
manufactured by a reputed engineering vendor. The code compliance was confirmed on verification.
A finite element analysis (FEA) was done to obtain the deflection of gasket seating face (Fig. 4). The FEA revealed a
net deflection of about 0.5 mm on the inner edge of the flange was occurring. However, the FEA also showed that the
effect of bolt spacing was not significant, and deflection between the bolts and locations of bolts are practically the
same.

Fig. 4
Finite element analysis of the girth flange.

It was noted that the flanges were safe and tended to have leakages due to excessive deflection over the last few
years. ASME Sec VIII Div 1 provided a procedure in Appendix S to calculate flange rigidity and to ensure that the
deflection of the flanges are within safe limits during testing and under operating conditions.
It was then decided to check the code adherence as per ASME Sec VIII- 2001, App. 2 (Mandatory), Calculation of
Flange Rigidity as per Non Mandatory Appendices. TEMA section 10 also specifies the need to review flange rigidity
as per the provisions under Appendix C, when designing large-diameter, low-pressure flanges.
Findings. Results from the analysis were:
1. The code compliance as per ASME Sec VIII- 2001, Appendix 2 (Mandatory) was confirmed for both old
exchangers.
2. One set of flanges was adhering to the appendix for rigidity in the testing condition, but not under operating
conditions.
3. Second set of flanges did not qualify either in testing or operating conditions.
4. The flanges of the new exchangers qualified on both requirementstesting and operations.
Path forward. Having verified the inadequacies of the design and root cause, various corrective actions were
developed to remedy this ongoing situation:
1. Since there is no significant difference in displacement at the location of bolting and midway between bolts, any
modification or addition of bolting may not improve the status. Thus, this option was not considered.
2. Due to overall displacement of the inner flange edge, there is possible loss of seating pressure in the gasket thus
resulting in leaks and formation of radial serration. These serrations, if any, can be machined off and a suitable
resilient design gasket can be tried. However, as this option also may not prove a concrete solution, it was not
considered for implementation.
3. Another school-of-thought suggested buying new exchangers and incorporate latest design codes inclusive of non-
mandatory appendices so that the girth flange rigidity is ensured. Since the cost for two exchangers was about
$440,000, an alternate solution was explored.
4. It was then proposed to convert the present exchangers from TEMA Type BEM to NEN by eliminating the girth
flange joint between the tube sheet and channel covers. Such a move would involve modifying the channels and
direct welding of channels to the tube sheet.
Design modifications. Detailed design calculations as per the latest design code (ASME Sec VIII, Edition 2001 with
addenda 2002) were done to verify the design adequacy for the fixed tube-sheet type construction (TEMA NEN
Type). The configuration of top and bottom channel shell assemblies welded to the respective tube sheets were
checked for these load cases:
1. Design conditions
2. Startup and shutdown conditions
3. Upset conditions.
The existing thickness of various critical components including the shell, channel and tube sheet were found to be
adequate.
Planning. Since we decided to eliminate the girth flanges of channel, the retrofit had to be finalized. If the same
channel cover is used after removing the flanges, the welding of the channel cover to the tube sheet will be very close
to the outer row of tubes. This change would be affected by heavy heat input. Also, any repair/plugging to be done on
those rows would encounter approach problems. It was then decided to buy new channel covers with a higher
diameter (2,644 mm). New covers resolved both issues with the exchanger (Fig. 5). A suitable welding procedure
was selected to avoid excessive and concentrated heat input during the process (Figs. 6 and 7). The retrofit was
done during the annual turnaround to avoid any lost production.

Fig. 5
New channel cover before welding modifications.

Fig. 6
Welding details of the channel to correct leaking
problem.


Fig. 7
Tube sheet welding details to correct leak problems.

Fig. 8
Final view heat exchanger retrofit after corrective
changes.

Execution. The top and bottom channel covers were manufactured as per the design codes and kept ready
including edge preparation. As soon the equipment was made available for modification during the turnaround, the
flanged channel covers were lifted and dropped. Welding preparation was done on all the four tube sheets (top and
bottom of two exchangers) simultaneously. The fit up and the welding could be completed again on all the four joints
at the same time (Fig.8). The whole activity could be completed in just five days. A problem that continued to
challenge the process and maintenance engineers was resolved with minimal cost and outage duration. HP
The author


R Rajkumar, is senior vice president in Central Engineering Services of Reliance Industries Limited,
Hazira Manufacturing Division, India. He has 35 years of experience in fertilizers, synthetic polymers
and petrochemical industries. His area of expertise is maintenance and turnarounds in the
petrochemical field. Mr. Rajkumar is a strong believer of using innovative ideas for solving chronic
problems. He is the leader of Engineering Team in Hazira, which has successfully implemented many
innovative ideas to improve plant and equipment reliability, productivity and availability. The
debottlenecking and turnaround strategies have been redefined in Hazira under his dynamic
leadership.

S-ar putea să vă placă și