Decision tool for major revamping of

fertilizer plants
A good number of fertilizer plants are more than 15 years old and just as many plants will reach that age
shortly. Revamping/retrofitting to make these plants fit for continuing production with improved
reliability and integrity entails a huge capital outlay and a long project cycle. The volatile situations,
existing in the areas of marketing, economics, and business viability, demand precision in the choice and
timing of the revamping. This paper deals with a systematic approach in the form of a simple decision
tool where major criteria for revamping are chosen and evaluated on a scale of high, medium, and low.
They are evaluated against cost, payout, and benefit using the same scale that leads to a decision scale.
Parameters for revamping criteria are developed and numerical values are assigned for them, as well as
for cost, payout, and benefit. These are then represented in a nomograph that transforms all calculated
values into ultimate decision rankings. The method is demonstrated with a few revamp proposals from
ammonia & urea plants to illustrate the different decisions that can be reached and supported by this
simplified decision making method.

Dr. Rangarajan S.V. Sampath

SAFCO (Saudi Arabian Fertilizer Company)

hoc approach. A methodology that will enhance

decisiveness and lead to an appropriate plan of
Introduction action is needed. This paper deals with a
method that creates a decision tool, in the form
onsequent to the introduction of

C Process Safety Management, revamp

proposals are studied presently under
the scope of Management of Change (MOC)
of a nomograph, where major criteria for re-
vamping are considered leading to scheduling
and prioritization of the proposals. The method
is demonstrated with a few revamp proposals
element and all related aspects are defined for
from ammonia and urea plants to illustrate its
obtaining approval from senior management.
effectiveness for decision making through a
This frequently leads to an accumulation of ap-
process of factual approach (Ref.1).
proved proposals with most of them appearing
to have top priority. This creates a situation
where senior management may wade through
top-priority projects with perplexity and an ad-

2004 17 AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL

Methodology
The methodology cited in this paper has the follow-
ing steps:
1. Selection of Revamp criteria (RC)
2. Consideration of each RC using High, Me-
dium or Low ratings and assignment of
numerical values for proposal against the
criteria
3. Evaluating Revamp proposals for cost and
payout in numerical terms to arrive at
Revamp factor (RF) and matching it with
Benefit criteria (BC)
4. Developing nomograph using RF and BC
range values to produce a decision scale
5. Referring the values of each proposal from
the nomograph and arriving at the decision
In the following sections, these steps are explained.
Step 1: Selection of Revamp Criteria (RC)
Several items are to be considered for their selec-
tion as Revamp criteria (RC) “Availability factor” of
equipment, piping and connected components, design
aspects for safety and “Meantime between failures” for
machinery should be of high order in order to maintain
the desired productivity level. It is appropriate, there-
fore to consider Mechanical Integrity (MI) that governs
these factors as one of the items of Revamp criteria.
The next item to be considered is “Process Upgrading”.
This category calls for improvements needed to elimi-
nate process related problems and safety concerns in the
area of flow, pressure, temperarture, volume, mass,
conversion and consumption by way of introducing or
modifying equipment, relief systems, controllers, or any
other devices. Then, elements necessary to achieve
regulatory compliance must be considered as next item
of revamp criteria. This may entail adding new or modi-
fying existing equipment to meet current or proposed
standards related to quality and environmental perform-
ance. Local and regional regulations are so demanding
that changes have to be planned and effected periodi-
cally as part of corrective/preventive actions (Ref.2).
Marketing requirements deserve serious consideration
to sustain the company’s reputation and gain customer
satisfaction for its products. As an example, different
customers may have different choices for coloring
Diammonium Phosphate (DAP). The facility should
have the capability to impart the color of customer’s
choice. This requirement may involve adding a pigment
AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL
tank, a new set of sprayers, vapor recovery systems, etc.
Lastly, the addition/modification needs to address op-
erational convenience, safety and maintainability, are to
be considered as part of any revamping proposal. Under
this category, we can consider providing suitable plat-
forms for approaching valves at higher elevation, reori-
entation of valves for ease of operation, free access to
equipment, exit routes, drain channels and any addi-
tional facilities needed for smooth operation. As a re-
sult, the following are considered as Revamp criteria
(RC).
6. Mechanical Integrity (MI)
7. Process Upgrading
8. Regulatory Requirements
9. Marketing Requirements
10. Operational Convenience
Step 2: Consideration of each RC using
High, Medium or Low Ratings and
Assignment of Numerical Values
For evaluation of a proposal against these criteria, a
quantitative tool is needed to transform opinions and
judgments into meaningful representations in the form
of numerical values. By choosing the proper parameters
for each category, a proposal’s rating can be judged as
High, Medium or Low and a value of 3,2 or 1 can be
assigned in that order. As an example, let us consider
the parameters for Mechanical Integrity. If “Availabil-
ity factor” is poor and the failure rate is high for com-
ponents appearing in the proposal, it can be concluded
that MI requirement is of high order and a value of 3
will be assigned. In case of frequent attention through
unplanned maintenance schedule, Medium scale can be
considered assigning a value of 2.Otherwise; the MI
ranking for the proposal will fall into Low level getting
a score of 1.In case the proposal does not require MI
consideration, a value of 0 is assigned. In this fashion,
all other Revamp criteria can be considered using the
“Hi-Med-Lo” scale and assigning value of 3,2,1 or 0
correspondingly. Table 1 provides parameters for each
RC under “Hi-Med-Lo” scale with corresponding nu-
merical values. By adding the values obtained for each
category and dividing by number of criteria that has ob-
tained a value of 1 or above, the final value of RC is ob-
tained.
18 2004

Step 3: Evaluating Revamp criteria for
cost and payout in numerical terms to
arrive at Revamp factor (RF) and
matching it with Benefit criteria (BC)
As cost and payout are the two factors that ulti-
mately speak in favor of or against any proposal, they
are considered for arriving at Revamp Factor (RF). The
cost involved and payout characteristics are judged us-
ing “Hi-Med-Lo” scale followed by assigning numeri-
cal value of 3,2 or 1 accordingly. Table 2 contains the
parameters for assessing the intensity of cost and pay-
out and assigning numerical values.
Using these values and that of RC, a numerical ex-
pression is worked out by dividing RC by Cost to which
the value of Payout is added. So the expression for Re-
vamp Factor (RF) is as follows
RF = [(RC/Cost) + Payout] …….Equation 1
Revamp criteria (RC) are the directly related entities
of the revamp proposals, whereas cost has inverse in-
fluence on the decision process. Therefore RC/Cost ra-
tio is given primary consideration. Payout is also a di-
rectly proportional entity influencing revamp factor so
it is added to the criteria-cost ratio. Since all are repre-
sented in terms of numerical value, the value of Re-
vamp factor (RF) is also a numerical entity.
Secondly, the revamp factor is matched with each
one of the following Benefit Criterion.
• Production improvement–This relates to
enhancement of capacity factor&service
factor
• Improvement in Health, Safety and Envi-
ronment -This relates to compliance to
2004
regulations as well as proactive measures
to avoid potential incidents in HSE area
• Improved business prospects or continuity-
This relates to cost savings via energy&
specific consumption reduction, technical
excellence, enhanced competitiveness, cus-
tomer satisfaction, etc.
As done earlier, each benefit category is evaluated
with the scale of “Hi-Med-Lo” and assigned value of 3,
2 or 1 in that order. As benefit categories have cumula-
tive effect, the values of benefit categories are added
and the total value is called Benefit Criteria (BC).
Now we have two sets of values, one for RF and
another for BC. Using these values in the nomograph,
which is explained below, the decision on revamp pro-
posal can be reached.
Step 4: Developing nomograph using RF
and BC range values and creating a
decision Scale
The nomograph is drawn with 3 parallel lines.
Line1 is Revamp factor (RF) scale; Line 2 is Benefit
category (BC) scale and Line 3 is Decision scale. Refer
to nomograph provided in Attachment 1. Using Equa-
tion#1 and applying low and high values to each of
variables in it, we can get maximum value of 6 and
minimum value of 1.33 for the RF scale. Therefore the
RF scale is drawn from 1 to 6(from top to bottom). The
Benefit scale is similarly worked out by considering 1
as the lowest value when there will be one benefit cate-
gory alone with lowest ranking and 9 as the highest
value when each benefit category gets a maximum
value of 3. Since benefit and revamp factors have in-
verse proportions, the Benefit criteria scale is drawn
from bottom to top, keeping 1 at the bottom and 9 at the
top. The minimum value of RF is aligned to the mini-
mum value of BC and then extrapolated. Similarly, the
maximum value of RF is aligned with that of BC and
then extrapolated. When a third parallel line is drawn
after BC at a distance equal to the distance between RF
and BC, it will cut the extrapolated lines. The cut points
are the extreme limits of this third line which is called
as Decision scale and the zone in between these ex-
treme points leads to the decision.
19 AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL
Step 5: Referring the values of each cles of molecular sieve catalyst. Approximately 10% of
proposal to the nomograph for decision the tubes had been plugged. This condition has caused
making several concerns like potential limitation on plant load,
possible contamination to methanator catalyst, fear of
The nomograph is provided in Attachment 1. Frac- unplanned shut down of back end of the plant. The
tional values also can be used in RF line. The decision methanator gas treatment circuit is shown below in
scale has several segments. For each proposal, the value Fig 1.
of RF is aligned with that of BC and extrapolated to cut
the decision scale. The decision on severity and time
scale is obtained from the zone the proposal has
touched on the decision scale. The numerical values
and decision scale characteristics are arbitrarily chosen.
They can be adapted to real situations with modified
parameters as deemed appropriate. The upper segment
of the decision scale is called the “Hi-Hi” zone. For
proposals falling in this zone, execution is recom-
mended at the earliest opportunity. This is followed by Under this condition, the plant has two options:
HI zone that indicates that the proposal has to be done 1. To run until tube leak occurs and continue with
within 1 year. The next segment is medium zone. Pro- tube plugging (or)
posals falling in this region should be considered within 2. To replace the tube bundle as a retrofitting
1-2 years. The last two zones in the lower part of the measure.
decision scale are that of “Low”(Lo) and “ Low- Let us apply the methodology for this case and see
Low”(Lo-Lo). Low category proposals can be planned the outcome.
and scheduled between 2 and 3 years whereas Lo-Lo
proposals can wait for next 3 years.

Illustrations:
Two proposals for ammonia and another two for
urea plants are considered here as illustrations of this
methodology. The proposals considered for ammonia
plant are:
• Retrofitting of methanator feed heater From Table 2, the value for cost and payout is 2
• Revamping of MEA absorber for NG feed and 3 respectively. Upon using Equation 1 with the
gas and the proposals for urea plants are: numerical values assigned appropriately, the Revamp
• Flare stack for off-gas from ammonia re- Factor (RF) is: RF = 2.25/2 +3 = 4.1
ceiver Let us work out the benefit of this retrofitting pro-
• Urea reactor revamp posal.
• Production improvement = High = 3
• Improvement in Health, safety and Envi-
Illustration 1: Retrofitting of methanator ronment =Reduces process incidents = 2
heater • Improved business prospects and continu-
ity = Marginally = 1
This equipment is down stream of High Tempera-
ture Shift Converter (HTS) with the shell side receiving
gas from the CO2 absorber (after a knoc-out drum)
Therefore the Benefit Factor (BF) is = 3 + 2 + 1 = 6
along with stream of gas joining from molecular sieve
dryer during its drying operation. In its tube side enters
When RF value (4.1) from Line 1 is aligned with that of
the gas from HTS before reaching LTS. This equip-
BF (6) in Line 2 and extrapolated to cut Line 3, we can
ment had a history of frequent tube leak due to Ben
field solution carry over and erosion due to dust parti-

AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL 20 2004

see that this proposal has fallen under “HI” zone cate-
gory that recommends retrofitting within 1 year.
Illustration 2: Revamping of MEA
absorber for feed gas
H2S and other Sulfur compounds, converted as H2S
in the Hydrotrator, are removed from natural gas by ab-
sorption in MEA solution and then stripped. This sys-
tem is designed for a maximum concentration of 30
ppm of sulfur compounds. In recent times, concentra-
tion of sulfur compounds far exceeds this limit that de-
mands high efficiency in the MEA system. So a pro-
posal to revamp the system is raised But operational
history indicates that the system is free from corrosion
and efficient in H2S removal. Further, downstream of
MEA absorber has ZnO bed to treat any H2S slip from
MEA system.
Since the costs are high and payout is long for this
proposal, their values are 3 and 1 respectively as shown
in Table 2. Using Equation 1, the Revamp Factor (RF)
is arrived at as follows: RF = 1.5/3 +1 = 1.5. Let us
work out the benefit of this retrofitting proposal.
• Production improvement = Marginal = 1
• Improvement in Health, Safety and Envi-
ronment = Marginal=1
• Improved business prospects&continuity =
Marginal = 1
Therefore the Benefit Factor (BF) is = 1 + 1 + 1 = 3
When RF value (1.5) from Line 1 is aligned with
that of BF (3) in Line 2 and extrapolated to cut Line 3,
we can see that this proposal has fallen under “Low”
zone category that recommends retrofitting to be
planned within 2-3 years.
2004
Illustration 3: Flare stack for ammonia off
gas from ammonia receiver
When the Urea plant has to be shut down, the am-
monia inventory will be drained and stored in ammonia
receiver. The vapor is recovered and sent for refrigera-
tion. In the past, there were occasions of ammonia va-
por release from this vessel from relief system leading
to environmental incidents. Investigation of such inci-
dents concluded that close adherence to Standard Oper-
ating Procedures (SOP) could avoid vapor releases but
recommended routing such vapor release to a flare
stack. This proposal has a bearing on environmental
compliance but, upon applying the present methodol-
ogy, we get less compelling recommendation.
The cost and payout values are 2 and 1 respectively
as shown in Table 2. Using in equation 1,the Revamp
Factor (RF) is arrived at as follows: RF = 1.5/2 + 1 =
1.75. Let us work out the benefit of this retrofitting pro-
posal as shown here under:
• Production improvement = No = 0
• Improvement in Health, Safety and Envi-
ronment = Significant = 2
• Improved business prospects and continu-
ity = Significant for Regulatory Compli-
ance
=2
The Benefit Factor (BF) is 0 + 2 + 2 = 4
From the nomograph, we can see that this proposal
has fallen under “Low” zone that recommends retrofit-
ting to be planned within 2-3 years
21 AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL
Illustration 4: Urea reactor revamp
A highly corrosive atmosphere within urea reactor
will necessitate replacement well before the failure of
weldment or reactor liners that may have serious conse-
quences. On the basis of process incidents concerning
urea reactor, this methodology can be applied for plan-
ning its revamp as shown below:
Values for cost and payout are 3 and 2 respectively
as shown in Table 2. Using Equation 1, the Revamp
Factor (RF) is arrived at as follows: RF = 2.6/3 +2 =
2.87. Let us work out the benefit of this retrofitting
proposal.
• Production improvement = Highly signifi-
cant = 3
• Improvement in Health, Safety and Envi-
ronment = Significant = 2
• Improved business prospects and continu-
ity = Highly Significant = 3
The Benefit Factor (BF) is 3 = 2 + 3 = 8
From the nomograph, we can see that this pro-
posal has fallen under “HI” zone category that rec-
ommends retrofitting to be planned within 1 year.
AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL
Conclusion:
Manufacturing plants need remedy, recuperation
and rehabilitation through revamping/retrofitting on a
periodic basis. The volatile situations, existing in the
areas of marketing, economics and business viability,
demand precision in the choice and timing of such pro-
jects. This paper has dealt with a factual approach for
enhancing decisiveness on revamp proposals. The
method described here provides consistency in the deci-
sion making process and is useful for the originator to
determine the viability of his proposal. The outcome of
this methodology will help senior management priori-
tize proposals, realize the magnitude of revamping ac-
tivities and their impact on business prospects. The fig-
ures and values cited under illustrations can be
modified according to conditions as deemed appropriate
for the application.
Acknowledgement:
The author wishes to acknowledge the support and
encouragement given by Mr. AbdulAziz A. Al-Harbi,
Director General-Technical, SAFCO and thank the
management of SAFCO&Sabic SBU for granting per-
mission to participate and present this paper in this con-
ference. Comments from peers and line managers are
acknowledged with gratitude.
References:
1. 1. Quality Management Principles adopted
for ISO 9000:2000 family of Standards
2. 2. ISO 14001:1996 EMS standard
22 2004
2004 23 AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL