CatastrophicHeatExchangerFailures CorkInstituteofTechnology
XBPRefiningConsultantsLtd. 04Oct16
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Catastrophic
Heat Exchanger
Failures
Guest Lecture, Cork Institute of Technology, 04-Oct-16
Peter Marsh
Director - XBP Refining Consultants Ltd.
(e-mail: [email protected])
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Agenda
Key points
Process safety
Root cause analysis
Shell-and-tube heat exchanger configurations
Shell-and-tube heat exchanger parts
Incident #1 (gas processing) - Gas Plant channel end rupture [Accident]
Incident #2 (oil refining) - Naphtha Hydrotreater shell rupture [Accident]
Incident #3 (oil refining) - Cat Reformer channel head failure [Near Miss]
Summary (engineering issues, process safety management issues)
References
Questions
Rev.2 Sheet
28/05/2017 1 of18
CatastrophicHeatExchangerFailures CorkInstituteofTechnology
XBPRefiningConsultantsLtd. 04Oct16
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
KeyPoints
Most heat exchangers in gas processing and oil refining plant are
constructed from carbon or low alloy steels
Carbon and low alloy steels may be susceptible to brittle fracture
Brittle fracture is low probability, high consequence failure scenario
Brittle fracture requires low temperature and presence of flaw + stress
Other factors increasing susceptibility of equipment to brittle fracture
include metal degradation, metal quality (grain size) and metal thickness
Abnormal (transient) operating conditions in heat exchangers (startup,
fouling, shutdown etc) can create major process safety hazards
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
ProcessSafety
Process safety incidents can have catastrophic consequences including
multiple injuries or fatalities, substantial damage to property and/or
environment and major economic impacts (eg. lost production and fines)
Important to learn lessons from previous incidents and near misses to
raise awareness of potential hazards and minimise risk of or prevent a
recurrence of similar incidents
Near miss is an undesirable event which, under different circumstances,
could have resulted in a process safety incident
Incident investigation uses methodical examination of facts to identify
root cause and recommends remedial actions to control the risks
Rev.2 Sheet
28/05/2017 2 of18
CatastrophicHeatExchangerFailures CorkInstituteofTechnology
XBPRefiningConsultantsLtd. 04Oct16
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
RootCauseAnalysis Terminology
Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is a continuous improvement process to
identify causes and make recommendations for the prevention of
recurring and/or major failures to deliver safe, reliable and compliant
operations and reduce long term costs to the business
Immediate or Basic Cause is a sub-standard act or condition that led
directly to the incident
Critical Factor is an undesirable act or condition which if eliminated
would have prevented occurrence or reduced severity of incident
Root Cause or System Cause is an organisational failing that created
circumstances or conditions enabling the incident to take place
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
TubularExchangerManufacturersAssociation(TEMA)Codes
TEMA is a trade association of
leading manufacturers of shell
and tube heat exchangers who
produced design standard
TEMA code describes overall
configuration of exchanger
Code is 3 letters representing
front head, shell and rear head
Type AES is most common:
A: channel + removable cover
E: single pass shell
S: floating head + backing device
Rev.2 Sheet
28/05/2017 3 of18
CatastrophicHeatExchangerFailures CorkInstituteofTechnology
XBPRefiningConsultantsLtd. 04Oct16
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
TypicalHeatExchangerPartsList(TEMATypeAES)
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#1 LongfordGasPlantExplosion
Incident occurred on 25-Sep-98 at Longford Plant (Gippsland, Victoria)
2 people died, 8 people injured, all natural gas supply from plant ceased
Natural gas supply to state of Victoria severely affected for 2 weeks
Consequential loss to industry estimated at A$1.2 billion
Homes without gas for cooking, water heating and home heating
Incident investigated by Royal Commission (report published June 1999)
Rev.2 Sheet
28/05/2017 4 of18
CatastrophicHeatExchangerFailures CorkInstituteofTechnology
XBPRefiningConsultantsLtd. 04Oct16
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#1 SiteOverview
NATURAL GAS
Processes crude oil and raw gas
from Bass Strait offshore oilfields
RAW GAS GAS PLANT 1
Site comprised:
Crude Stabilisation Plant (CSP)
3 x Gas Plants (GP1/2/3)
GAS PLANT 2
Gas plants separate and purify
incoming gas to make natural gas
GAS PLANT 3 RAW LPG
GP1 (started 1969) is refrigerated
lean oil absorption plant
CRUDE CRUDE
STABILISATION
STABILISED GP2 (1976) and GP3 (1983) are
OIL CRUDE OIL
PLANT cryogenic separation plants
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#1 RichOilDeethaniserProcessFlowDiagram
METHANE
PRE-SATURATED LEAN OIL (REFLUX) -20 oC
RICHOIL
FROM
ABSORBERS
(68.0barg) 34.5 barg LT
SD
GP-1108
FLASH TANK
FC
-30 oC
GP-924
+10 oC GP-1109
GP-930 GP-925 GP-904
LF
SD 28.0 barg
TC LC
28.0 barg RICHOILTO
+140 oC
GP-1110 FRACTONATOR
LC GP-905 GP-922 (13.0barg)
OIL SATURATOR
LEANOIL TC
TO LEANOILFROM
+77 oC +285 oC
ABSORBERS FRACTIONATOR
(68.0barg) (13.0barg)
GP-1202 GP-1201 GP-910
A/B A/B/C
Rev.2 Sheet
28/05/2017 5 of18
CatastrophicHeatExchangerFailures CorkInstituteofTechnology
XBPRefiningConsultantsLtd. 04Oct16
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#1 SequenceofEvents
Upset caused increase in flow and molecular weight of GP1 raw gas feed
and condensate began to accumulate in 1 of 2 parallel lean oil absorbers
Rich oil deethaniser began to flood and puked liquid to saturator tank
Saturator tank high level caused GP-1201A/B/C lean oil pumps to trip
GP-1202A/B lean oil booster pumps tripped on saturator tank low level
Loss of lean oil flow for several hours and ongoing buildup of condensate
in lean oil absorber caused condensate carryover to rich oil system
Pressure letdown from lean oil absorbers to rich oil flash tank caused
condensate to flash and chill equipment to abnormally low temperatures
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#1 SequenceofEvents(cont.)
Deethaniser reboiler (GP-905) shell temperature fell from 100 oC (212 oF)
to -48 oC (-54 oF) and ice formed on uninsulated surfaces
GP-1201 pump restarted and warm lean oil flow resumed to GP-905
GP-905 steel had become brittle and thermal stress generated by radial
expansion of the tubesheet created stress that resulted in brittle fracture
Vapour cloud containing > 10 tonnes of flammable gas ignited resulting
in an intense jet fire beneath elevated piperack junction (Kings Cross)
Unable to isolate leak and flame impingement caused 3 more leaks
Entire plant inventory was lost and fire burned for more than 2 days
Rev.2 Sheet
28/05/2017 6 of18
CatastrophicHeatExchangerFailures CorkInstituteofTechnology
XBPRefiningConsultantsLtd. 04Oct16
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#1 FireDamage
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#1 RootCauseAnalysis
Immediate (basic) cause of loss of primary containment (LOPC) was
brittle fracture of deethaniser reboiler shell
Critical factors were:
Intense low temperature of shell due to loss of warm lean oil flow for extended period
Absence of remote isolation valves to isolate interconnected gas plants
Root (system) causes included
Inadequate hazard identification (HAZOP not done)
Inadequate procedures (cold metal embrittlement hazard not recognised)
Inadequate training (how to deal with loss of warm lean oil flow)
Inadequate alarm management (alarm flood)
Inadequate risk assessment (relocation of experienced engineers to remote head office)
Ineffective incident reporting system (escalation potential of process upsets not considered)
Inadequate safety management system (inadequate auditing by parent company)
Rev.2 Sheet
28/05/2017 7 of18
CatastrophicHeatExchangerFailures CorkInstituteofTechnology
XBPRefiningConsultantsLtd. 04Oct16
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#2 AnacortesFeed/EffluentExchangerShellRupture
Incident occurred on 02-Apr-10 at Naphtha Hydrotreating unit at
Anacortes Refinery (Washington)
7 people died (6 operators and 1 shift supervisor)
Refinery remained shut down for more than 6 months
Incident occurred during non-routine startup activity (restreaming bank
of 3 shell-and-tube heat exchangers after off-line cleaning)
Incident investigated by US Chemical Safety Board (CSB)
CSB incident report published in May 2014
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#2 TypicalNaphthaHydrotreater FlowDiagram
RECYCLE GAS OFFGAS
CHARGE COMPRESSOR
HEATER
WATER PRODUCT
43.4 barg, 288 oC STRIPPER
REACTOR
FEED/EFFLUENT
PRODUCT LPG
EXCHANGERS
SEPARATOR
40.7 barg, 377 oC
NAPHTHA
FEED 44.1 barg, 54 oC
HYDROGEN NAPHTHA
MAKEUP PRODUCT
Rev.2 Sheet
28/05/2017 8 of18
CatastrophicHeatExchangerFailures CorkInstituteofTechnology
XBPRefiningConsultantsLtd. 04Oct16
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#2 Feed/EffluentExchangerFireDamage
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#2 ExchangerConstruction
Failed shell (and twin) were
fabricated from carbon steel
and partially clad with 316 SS
Longitudinal & circumferential
seam welds had not been
post-weld heat treated
Metallurgical analysis showed
shell rupture caused by high
temperature hydrogen attack
Shell had been in service for
38 years when it failed
Rev.2 Sheet
28/05/2017 9 of18
CatastrophicHeatExchangerFailures CorkInstituteofTechnology
XBPRefiningConsultantsLtd. 04Oct16
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#2 HighTemperatureHydrogenAttack
High temperature hydrogen attack (HTHA) occurs when carbon and low
alloy steels are exposed to high hydrogen partial pressures at high
operating temperatures for extended period (exposure time cumulative)
Atomic hydrogen reacts with carbides in the steel to form methane (CH4)
which cannot diffuse through the steel
Loss of carbides weakens the steel and accumulation of CH4 pressure in
the steel creates cavities and fissures which combine to form cracks
HTHA most likely to occur in heat affected zones (HAZs) around welds
Inspecting for HTHA damage is extremely difficult (microscopic and
localised) and is therefore not reliable enough to ensure integrity
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#2 PipingIsometricDiagram
Isometric shows inlet
and outlet temperature
and pressure sensors
Some measurements
displayed at control
panel via distributed
control system (DCS)
Some measurements
displayed in field only
No instrumentation on
inlet or outlet streams
of intermediate shells
Rev.2 Sheet
28/05/2017 10 of18
CatastrophicHeatExchangerFailures CorkInstituteofTechnology
XBPRefiningConsultantsLtd. 04Oct16
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#2 APIRP941NelsonCurves
Nelson curves provide
1400
1300
External Decarburization Internal Decarburization limits on temperature
1200 and hydrogen partial
6 Cr-0.5 Mo
1100 pressure for carbon
1000 3 Cr-1Mo or 2.25 Cr-1Mo-V and alloy steels
900 2.25 Cr-0.5 Mo
1 Cr
Design
800 inlet condition Curves are empirical
700 Estimated 1 or 1.25 Cr-0.5 Mo based on experience
operating range
600
500 Carbon Steel
Apply safety margin
400
for both parameters;
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
28 oC (50 oF)
Hydrogen Pressure (psia) 3.5 bar (50 psi)
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#2 RootCauseAnalysis
Immediate (basic) cause of loss of primary containment (LOPC) was high
temperature hydrogen attack (HTHA)
Tubeside fouling was a contributing factor (higher shell temperature)
Critical factors were:
Design conditions used to evaluate susceptibility to HTHA (should use actual conditions)
High residual stresses in seam welds of shell (no post-weld heat treatment)
Presence of additional personnel (multiple large manual block valves at different locations)
Root (system) causes included
Inadequate hazard identification (proof of danger rather than effective safety implementation)
Inaccurate Nelson curve for carbon steel
Inadequate process monitoring (inadequate thermometry)
Failure to apply inherently safer design principles (Cr-Mo steels less susceptible to HTHA)
Rev.2 Sheet
28/05/2017 11 of18
CatastrophicHeatExchangerFailures CorkInstituteofTechnology
XBPRefiningConsultantsLtd. 04Oct16
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#3 CombinedFeedExchangerChannelHeadFailure
Semi-regen catalytic reformer
combined feed exchanger
Channel head failed during
hydrostatic testing at well
below intended test pressure
Fortunately no injuries but
restart delayed by 20 days
Reactor feed on shellside,
reactor effluent on tubeside
Tube inlet service conditions
ca 25.5 barg and 480 - 530 oC
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#3 TypicalCatalyticReformerFlowDiagram
HYDROGEN
RECYCLE GAS NET GAS
COMPRESSOR COMPRESSOR
OFFGAS
KNOCKOUT
DRUM STABILISER
FURNACE
LPG
REACTORS
COMBINED
FEED 25.5 barg
EXCHANGER 480 - 530 oC
REACTOR EFFLUENT
REFORMATE
AIR COOLER
NAPHTHA
FEED
SEPARATOR
Rev.2 Sheet
28/05/2017 12 of18
CatastrophicHeatExchangerFailures CorkInstituteofTechnology
XBPRefiningConsultantsLtd. 04Oct16
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#3 CombinedFeedExchangerFabricationDetails
Exchanger built in 1980
Designed to ASME VIII Div. 1 (1977), API RP 660 2nd Edition
TEMA Handbook 6th Edition, Class R (1978)
Channel head fabricated from 40 mm thick 2.25 Cr/0.5 Mo steel plate
Channel flange fabricated from 195 mm thick 1.25 Cr/0.5 Mo forged steel
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#3 CombinedFeedExchangerConstruction
Exchanger was specified as TEMA Type BEU with strength-welded tubes
Standard Double Groove
Roller Expanded Roller Expanded
Seal Welded Strength Welded
Rev.2 Sheet
28/05/2017 13 of18
CatastrophicHeatExchangerFailures CorkInstituteofTechnology
XBPRefiningConsultantsLtd. 04Oct16
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#3 WhatIsHydrostaticTesting?
Hydrostatic testing (hydrotest) is mandatory test procedure carried out
at specified intervals to verify strength/integrity of process equipment
Test pressure >> operating pressure to provide safety margin
Test fluid normally incompressible liquid because easy to develop high
pressure and only releases small amount of energy in case of failure
(high pressure gas would rapidly expand risking injury and damage)
Water typically used as test fluid because cheap, easily available and
harmless in most test applications
Test water has quality spec. (pH, Cl- etc) and temperature limitation
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#3 CombinedFeedExchangerHydrostaticTesting
Tubeside design pressure was 32.8 barg (475 psig) @ 552 oC (1026 oF)
Tubeside hydrotest pressure specified as 140 barg (2036 psig)
Minimum allowable hydrotest temperature specified as 6 oC (43 oF)
Rupture occurred at ~ 93 barg (1350 psig) with water at 20 oC (68 oF)
Exchanger had been in service for approximately 23 years
Metallurgical analysis showed failure mechanism was brittle fracture
Rev.2 Sheet
28/05/2017 14 of18
CatastrophicHeatExchangerFailures CorkInstituteofTechnology
XBPRefiningConsultantsLtd. 04Oct16
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#3 TemperEmbrittlement
Temper embrittlement causes loss of toughness in low alloy Cr-Mo steels
after long exposure to temperatures in range 327 - 593 oC (621 - 1100 oF)
Effect most pronounced in range 427 - 510 oC (801 oF - 950 oF)
Loss of toughness only affects material when exposed to relatively low
temperature (eg. startup, shutdown or hydrostatic test)
Temper embrittlement caused by segregation of tramp elements and
alloying elements along grain boundaries
Composition of steel, metal temperature, exposure time (thermal history)
are all critical factors
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#3 Was140bargTestPressureReallyNecessary?
Two pressure envelope integrity concerns;
external pressure envelope (leakage to atmosphere resulting in fire)
internal pressure envelope (leakage of reactor feed to reactor effluent)
Tube rupture exempted as credible failure scenario if tubeside hydrotest
pressure shellside maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP)
ASME code mandated use of 2/3rd design rule so minimum acceptable
hydrotest pressure would have been 150% of MAWP
Tubeside hydrotest pressure based on 2/3rd rule is 49.2 barg (714 psig)
Shellside design pressure was 33.4 barg (485 psig) @ 427 oC (801 oF) so
failure of shell due to tube rupture is not credible scenario
Rev.2 Sheet
28/05/2017 15 of18
CatastrophicHeatExchangerFailures CorkInstituteofTechnology
XBPRefiningConsultantsLtd. 04Oct16
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Incident#3 RootCauseAnalysis
Near miss; failure at startup could have caused personnel injury or fire
Immediate (basic) cause of channel head failure was brittle fracture due
to temper embrittlement
Uneven bolt torque and flange misalignment were contributing factors
Critical factors were:
age, composition of steel and operating temperature (temper embrittlement susceptibility)
tubeside hydrotest pressure (excessive stress)
Root (system) causes included
Inadequate job knowledge (full hydrotest pressure not required to verify tube joint integrity)
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Summary EngineeringIssues
Most pressure equipment in gas processing/oil refining is constructed
from carbon or low alloy steels
Carbon and low alloy steels are susceptible to cold metal embrittlement
when exposed to low temperatures (depressurisation/auto-refrigeration)
Carbon and low alloy steels lose strength when exposed to hydrogen at
elevated temperatures and pressures (high temperature hydrogen attack)
Some low alloy Cr/Mo steels are susceptible to temper embrittlement
after extended exposure to high temperatures but effect only evident
when cool (startup, shutdown or hydrostatic test conditions)
Gradual changes to operating conditions due to equipment fouling or
catalyst deactivation may lead to accidental breach of operating limits
Rev.2 Sheet
28/05/2017 16 of18
CatastrophicHeatExchangerFailures CorkInstituteofTechnology
XBPRefiningConsultantsLtd. 04Oct16
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Summary ProcessSafetyManagementIssues
Systematic process hazard analysis (PHA) vital for accident prevention
Procedures and gun drills essential for abnormal operating conditions
Startup, shutdown and emergency procedures to be rigorously enforced
Alarm review important to avoid too many alarms, poorly prioritised
Remote-operated isolation (shutoff) valves can reduce magnitude of leak
Safety Case agreed with regulator includes details of safety management
system, risk assessment studies and emergency response (audit basis!)
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
References
Standards of the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association
Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Inc (9th Edition, 2007)
The Esso Longford Gas Plant Accident
Report of the Longford Royal Commission, Parliament of Victoria (1999)
Lessons from Essos Gas Plant Explosion at Longford
Andrew Hopkins PhD, CCH Australia (2000)
API RP 941 Steels for Hydrogen Service at Elevated Temperatures and
Pressures in Petroleum Refineries and Petrochemical Plants (2016)
Catastrophic Rupture of Heat Exchanger (Tesoro Anacortes Refinery)
Report of the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (2014)
Rev.2 Sheet
28/05/2017 17 of18
CatastrophicHeatExchangerFailures CorkInstituteofTechnology
XBPRefiningConsultantsLtd. 04Oct16
Catastrophic Heat Exchanger Failures
Questions
Rev.2 Sheet
28/05/2017 18 of18
