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 existing plant in scale and efficiency had to be

made to stay competitive and economically

L
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
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

2014 137 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
AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL
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 2014
 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
2014
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
139 AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL
 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
AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL
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
140 2014
 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
2014
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
141 AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL
 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.
AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL
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 
Project Kick Off Meeting with LTH,  
16‐Jul‐02 
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 
Completion of Commissioning New 
16‐Sep‐04 
Parallel Process Air Compressor  
Mechanical Completion of the New 
30‐Sep‐04 
Mol‐Sieve Dryer System  
17‐Oct‐04  Plant Shutdown 
Completion Inspection and 
8‐Nov‐04  Maintenance of Steam System and 
Start Steam Blowing 
Completion of Furnace Dry‐out  and 
19‐Nov‐04 
Start of Commissioning 
Plant Restart, Feed‐in Primary 
24‐Nov‐04 
Reformer 
Completion of Cleaning of CO2 
24‐Nov‐04  Removal System and Start 
Circulation of aMDEA Solution 
Completion of Synloop Repiping 
26‐Nov‐04  Including Converter Basket 
Installation. 
27‐Nov‐04  Start of Synthesis Compressor  
2‐Dec‐04  Ammonia Product to OSBL Tank 
142 2014
 Date  Milestones  Operation Experience
Ammonia Production Reached 97% 
20‐Dec‐04  The success of any revamp project is measured
of Capacity 
in how the plant operates after it is startup
Completion and Pass   compared to before revamp. Tables 3 to 6 below
20‐Jan‐05 
Performance Test Run 
provide comparisons of post revamp operation
with before revamp.
With diligent planning, safety focus and efforts
of LTH revamp project team, KBR, engineering Table-3 Overall Capacity & Spec. Energy
and construction contractors, the LTH revamp
Before Post
project was executed with zero recordable safety
Revamp Revamp
incidents during construction, commissioning,
and startup. NH3 Production, MTPD 1150 1500
NG Feed & Fuel
(Gcal/MT) 8.59 8.07
The revamp project was completed within
budgeted cost; however, the 2003 severe acute Electrical Power Import-
Steam Export+CW+DW
respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic in
Makeup (Gcal/MT) (0.27) (0.22)
China, caused about four months delay.
Specific Energy Gcal/MT 8.32 7.85
The revamp startup was short and successful.
Table-4 Frontend Operation Comparison
The LTH revamp project achieved an ammonia-
to-ammonia period of only 45 days. In Before Post
comparison with other Chinese plant revamps of Frontend Revamp Revamp
similar revamp scope, this was the shortest span. NG Feed (Gcal/MT) 5.3 5.27
Steam to Carbon Ratio ~3.3 ~3.2
Table-2 below provides the Performance Test
130% of
Results. During Jan 17 to Jan 20 of 2005 in the
Process air rate, (mass) base base
72-hour performance test run, the average
capacity reached was 1510 MTPD. The CO2 Primary Reformer
production and energy consumption also all met ~115%
Radiant Duty base of base
the design and guarantee.
Tube outlet temp., C >800 <795
Table-2: Performace Test Run Results Anchor pres., bar(a) 32 34
Test Run Guaranteed <60% of
Day1 Day2 Day3 Avg. Value Auxiboiler Duty base base
NH3 Product Quantity
Metric Ton Per Day
1511 1509 1509 1510 1500 Stack Temp, C >170 <120
NH3 Product Quality
Furnace efficiency ~88% >92%
Ammonia wt% 99.99 99.99 99.99 99.99 ≥99.9
Water, wt% 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 ≤0.1 Secondary Reformer
Oil, ppmw <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
CO2 Product Quantity Outlet temp, C <990 <995
1786 1766 1766 1773 1765
Metric Ton Per Day
CO2 Product Quality
CO2 Removal
CO2 vol% dry 99.18 99.14 99.14 99.15 ≥99 CO2 production ~1360 >1766
Pressure, Mpa(A) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 ≥0.06
Temp. deg. C 36.5 35.5 36.3 36.1 <40 CO2 product purity ~98.6% >99%
Energy Consumption
Frontend Pres. Drop
Natural Gas Feed&Fuel 8.062 8.074 8.071 8.069
Electrical Power Import- 102-J discharger to
Steam Export+CW+DW (0.224) (0.219) (0.203) (0.215)
Makeup
103-J suction, bar ~14 ~17
Eng. Consump., Gcal/MT 7.838 7.855 7.868 7.854 7.865

2014 143 AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL

 Table-5 Backend Operation Comparison conditions. Per LTH operators, post revamp
operation has been much easier and more stable
Before Post
than before the revamp.
Backend Revamp Revamp
Synthesis Section Since November 2004, the revamped plant has
103-J Suction press., maintained performance. Table-7 below lists the
bar >26 >25 ammonia production.
Make-up gas flow, ~140% of
volume base base Table-7 Plant Capacity
Loop press. drop, bar <11 <10
Recycle syngas Max Daily Annual 
Production Production 
Pressure, bar ~136 >140 (MTPD) (MTPY) 
103-J Discharge
Before Revamp 1150 350,000 
Flow rate, kNm3/hr ~660 ~600
Post Revamp   
Pressure, bar ~147 ~150
2005 1510 495,000 
Converter inlet
2006 1532 442,125 
H2 to N2 ratio ~2.85 ~3
2007 1535 444,079 
NH3 content, mol% >1.8 <1.3
2008 1513 418,515 
Inert CH4+Ar, mol% ~11 ~7
2009 1505 392,204 
Converter outlet
2010 1522 374,730 
Temperature, C <290 >370
2011 1506 313,392 
NH3 Rise, mol% ~12 ~16
2012 1458 293,241 
Temp. Rise, C ~174 > 230
2013 1550 428,171 
HP loop purge
Rate, kNm3/h 10 ~20 While the results are encouraging, the post
H2 Recovery % ~70 95 revamp plant should have been able to reach
much higher annual capacity if there were no
Table-6 Compressor Operation Comparison reduction in natural gas supply and government
Before Post as well as NG supplier mandated annual
shutdowns for saving natural gas for other
Compressors Revamp Revamp
industries or domestic uses due to natural gas
Air Compressor/Driver (MW) (MW)
curtailment in China.
Existing Comp/turbine ~8.3 ~7.2
New parallel comp. ~3.9 The revamp plant also achieved improvements
130% of in SH&E and reduced environmental impact.
Feed Gas Comp/turbine base base Before the revamp, there were hazardous
Syngas Comp/turbine ~15 ~17.5 discharges from CO2 removal due to the
Benfield system use of vanadium pentoxide for
Refri. Comp/turbine ~7.6 ~7.1
corrosion inhibitor. The aMDEA system does
As can be seen from the comparisons post not use a corrosion inhibitor, and there are
revamp, the plant capacity, energy and virtually no effluent streams with proper
efficiency improved significantly. The plant maintenance of water balance of the system.
operability and reliability also improved thanks With upgraded monitoring, controlling and
to modification and upgrades to equipment. The instrumentation systems, and replacement of
unchanged equipment were operated at lower wear and tear parts of equipment as well as
load than the base case or within their design

AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL 144 2014

 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
2014
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.
145 AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL
 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
An Elevated View of Lutianhua Overall Complex
AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL
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.
146 2014
 Figure-1: Flow Sheet before Revamp

2014 147 AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL

 Figure-2: Flow Sheet Post Revamp

AIR REVAMP ‐ 1500MTPD 

AIR

N
101‐J
AIR  N PARALLEL AIR  N
COMPRESSOR COMPRESSOR LTS
101C/102C HTS 103‐C
D M
LTS
SULFUR  PRIMARY  SECONDARY  M
HTS N
REMOVAL REFORMER REFORMER

M CONVE R R
FEED GAS  CTION METH
COMPRESSOR R 104‐C
114‐C M M
NG
R
1105‐C 1104‐C
M
136‐C
aMDEA CO2 
SYN GAS COMPRESSOR M REMOVAL
M M
103‐J 124‐C
M
CO2 PRODUCT

121‐C 120‐C
123‐C1 N
R PRIM 
AMMONIA M SEP
CONVERTER
N

MOL‐SIEVE  M
PGRU REFRIG.  LET
DRYER LEGEND: DOWN
PRISM SYSTEM
N
N: NEW ITEM
R: REPLACED ITEM
M: MODIFIED ITEM NH3 PRODUCT
D:  DELETED ITEM

AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL 148 2014