Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd.

,Thal
Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd
at a glance
• Profile of our company (RCF):
Annual turnover: @ Rs 5229 crores.
RCF with mini Ratna status, ISO 9001-2000,
ISO14001 & OHSAS18001 compliant &
one of the largest fertilizer and chemicals
company in Asia.
Plant Capacity & products:
• 3 x 1725 MTPD Urea plants based on Snam Progetti,
Italy technology.
• The Ammonia plant comprises of two streams, each
producing 1500 MTPD of Ammonia. M/s Haldor
Topsoe, Denmark has supplied the process know-how
and basic engineering.
 • RCF, Thal has two main cooling towers for 2 streams of Ammonia
Plant and 1 Cooling Tower for 3 streams of Urea Plant.
• Each Cooling Tower is induced draft, double flow, cross flow type supplied by M/s
PCT with Fan Deck in the Centre.

AMMONIA UREA

Year of Commissioning 1983 1983

No. of cells per Tower 5 10
Total length of C.T. - Mtr 80.67 97.74
Height at Distribution Deck-Mtr 13.63 13.70
Height at Fan Deck-Mtr 14.43 14.50
Circulation Rate /Tower-m3/hr 17,500 33,000
Layout of Return Headers
Ammonia Plant:
The 20”return header (riser) from front-
end is on south side & 42” return header
(riser) from back-end is on the north side
of the C.T.
Urea Plant:
The size of both the return headers is 62”
and is located on the north side of the
C.T., on one side only.

UREA C.T. NORTH AMM. C.T.-NORTH AMM. C.T.-SOUTH

COOLING TOWERS -
INTRODUCTION
• Hot water horizontal headers are supported
on wooden saddles mounted directly on
main wooden columns at 4 feet spacing.
• All the structural members of cooling tower
are made of wood and fills are made of
PVC.
• Load carrying vertical wooden members of
the tower structure are mounted on RCC
Columns erected in the basin.
• Some of the wooden columns and
diagonals are anchored with RCC work at
the bottom whereas others are just resting.
• The tower is balanced by means of
diagonals provided in the tower structure
beneath the decks in longitudinal and
transverse direction.
• Wooden diagonals are anchored with RCC
work at the bottom. Vertical columns are
just resting on RCC Columns
 CASE STUDY - AMMONIA-I
C.T. FAILURE
EVENT
• At around 11:45 hrs on
22nd Feb. 2006, entire
West side wooden
structure including
nozzle deck of C.T.
covering the five cells
collapsed along with
Distribution header.

• East side nozzle deck, WEST

distribution header
along with its structure
of the cooling tower
were intact.
Damages Observed

• The 42” north side

riser (back-end
return header) was
found corroded
and thinning had
occurred just at
the ground level.
Damages Observed

• The 20” south

side riser (front-
end return
header) also got
detached due to
the impact of 42”
north side riser.
Damages Observed

• Wooden
structure, fan
hoods and fans
collapsed.
• The riser vent
hit the fan and
the fan assembly
came down.
Damages Observed

• The fan
hoods
damaged.
Damages Observed

• 42” dia. north side

riser had bent
towards east side
and bulged at the
bottom

• 2” FRP line for

Chlorine dosing at
the ground level was
completely
damaged.
 IMMEDIATE ACTION AFTER
AMMONIA C.T.FAILURE

•Since heavy loss of water

was taking place, it was
not possible to maintain
water level in the cooling
tower sump.
• Ammonia-I & one Urea
plant were stopped
immediately.
 Possible Reasons of
Break Down
• Sudden failure of the structural timber may
be the main reason of the collapse of the tower.
Over a period of time, the structural
wooden members such as columns, girts and
diagonals become soft and spongy and lose their
strength. This might have resulted in breaking
of distribution header leading to collapse of the
tower due to hydraulic and mechanical loading.
• Another reason may be the failure of the
distribution header at the top, due to stresses
developed on it because of the toppling of its
supports, possibly due to the movement of the
vertical riser pipe towards the cooling tower.
 Possible Reasons of
Break Down
Other probable explanations for the failure may be
as below:

• 42” north side and 20” south side risers were

corroded and thinning observed at the ground level,
due to which shearing of the pipe might have taken
place.

• Impact of the risers on the top distribution header .

• Resultant impact of the distribution header finally

on the wooden structure of CT.
Restoration of Cooling Tower

• Though east side structure appeared intact, the integrity of

cooling tower structure was doubtful.

• As per advise of M/S Paharpur cooling tower it was decided to

reconstruct the total cooling tower structure.

• The company placed an order on M/S Paharpur Cooling Tower

Ltd. for the supply of required materials and reconstruction of
complete tower in the shortest possible time.

• The first Three Cells were in operation in 41 days & plant was
started at a 85-90%plant load . 4th & 5th cell were re constructed
subsequently.
Restoration of Cooling
Tower
The debris was
removed
carefully.
Restoration of Cooling
Tower

• Damaged
RCC
columns
were recast.
Restoration of Cooling
Tower

• Total
reconstruction
of wooden
structure of
Cooling Tower.
Restoration of Cooling
Tower

Epoxy Painting & Wrapping/Coating of

riser pipes, at least up to a height of 1 ft
above ground level.
Restoration of Cooling Tower
• Distribution headers
were re located at the
ground level, on both
east & west sides. Risers,
with vents, were tapped
from the distribution
header for the individual
cell, to reduce the overall
loading on the C.T.
structure.
• All fans , gear boxes &
torque tube were
rectified & replaced.
 Recommissioning of CT

• Cooling Tower was

re-commissioned on
3rd April , 2006 in the
normal procedure.
• The total job was completed in 42
days.
Commissioning of Cooling
Tower
The cooling tower was commissioned in a
shortest possible time of 42 days.
 MAINTENANCE PRACTICES

• Epoxy paint & wrapping coating of

complete piping done. Wrapping coating
continued up to 1 ft above the ground level
to avoid corrosion.
• Chlorine dosing system to be re located at a safe
place away from the tower.
• Vibration measurement of fans on regular basis.
• Vibration measurement of Return headers and
distribution headers regularly.
• Annual Preventive Maintenance of Fans, Gear
boxes, Motors.
• Distribution headers have to be checked for
thinning, corrosion etc
 MAINTENANCE PRACTICES

• Annual Inspection & repair of Cooling tower Timber

Structure by OEM.
• Developing internal skills for Cooling tower Inspection.

• Developing checklist for inspection of Tower Timber

structure.

• In-house Inspection in running by isolating cells one by

one.

• Wood samples to be sent for analysis for strength

checking, preferably to Forest Research Institute,
Dehradun.
MAINTENANCE PRACTICES

• Support
strengthening of
risers at all locations.
• Inspection of risers,
especially where it is
coming out from
ground.

• Checking the
verticality of the riser
pipes every year.
PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES

• Based on the
experience of
Cooling Tower-I
precautionary
measures were
taken.
• In-house
modification of
support to risers
given in other
Cooling Towers
designed by
M/S PDIL
 Inspection Practices for
Timber Structure

• Inspection of Tower Timber Structure and in-

house inspection in running by isolating cells
one by one.

• Repair / Replacement of items affecting

stability of Cooling Tower.

• Periodical inspection of the structures and

internals by a competent party.
 TIMBERS FOR COOLING TOWER
Species recommended for cooling tower –
IS 2372 : 2004 specification
8 out of 9 species are conifers
1. Abies pindrow (Fir)
2. Cedrus deodara (Deodar)
3. Picea smithiana (Spruce)
4. Pinus kesiya (Khasi pine)
5. Pinus roxburghii (Chir)
6. Pinus wallichiana (Kail)
7. Pseudotsuga taxifolia (Douglas fir)
8. Tectona grandis (Teak)
9. Pinus radiata (Radiata pine)

Remarks:
• Strength, durability and performance of each timber
species is different
• Now a days mostly timber of New Zealand and South
African origin is being used
 Criteria's for cooling tower timber

Strength properties

• Strength of timber varies from species

to species
• Within a species strength of timber may vary
due to factors called as “defects”
• Certain defects are completely prohibited
while others are permissible with certain limits
• Grading is therefore done to control the variability in
material quality and strength
• For cooling towers three grades are specified in the IS
2372 : 2004 standard
• Species and grade of the timber is to be decided in the
beginning itself before designing the cooling tower to
ensure safe load applications
 Criteria's for cooling tower timber

Defects:
Prohibited defects:Timber with loose grain,
heartwood rot, warp, Worm holes, pith pockets,
centre heart (pith), shakes, twisted grain and wane

Permissible defects (extent specified):Slope of grain,

knot / knot hole, check and end split

Grade: Three grades namely Select grade, Grade I and

Grade II

Each grade for a species has specified permissible values

 Criteria's for cooling tower timber
Criteria of Grade I Timber
[IS: 2372 (2004)]

Permissible Defects: Defects permissible for grade I

Slope of Grain Shall not exceed 1 in 12

Knot/Knot Both on narrow and wide face up to 50 mm, the diameter
hole of knots shall not be more than 1/5th of face.
Beyond 50 mm face the diameter of knots shall not be
more than 1/6th of the face. Such knots shall not be more
than one per any given 1 m length.
Check Up to 5 mm in depth shall be allowed.
End split Permitted up to 150 mm on either end subject to
maximum 33% of overall length.
 Reasons for failure as per FRI, Dehradun

• Selection of timber not tested for

cooling towers

• Timber used are not of suitable grades

• Use of core material with lots of defects

lowers the strength

• Use of timber infected with pathogens and insects

• Improper treatment of preservatives

 Reasons for failure as per FRI, Dehradun

• Lack of awareness and knowledge

among the user group regarding timber

• Use of imported timber without proper R and D

specifically on cooling towers

• Lack of awareness regarding designing of cooling

towers with respect to timber quality and strength
 Observations of FRI

• Mostly Pinus radiata of New Zealand and Pinus

elloti of south African origin are being used
presently

• Both the timbers have not been tested for cooling

towers

• Material available in the market is of very low grade

• Use of core material which is weak in strength is being

used
 Observations of FRI

• Very low retentions and non-uniform

distribution observed while testing

• Treatability difference observed from

pith to periphery

• Fungal spores and borer attack observed in

timber selected for cooling tower

• Soft rot decay very prominent in samples sent for

testing

• Very low strength tested in some of the samples

received
RESPONSIBILITY OF
M/s PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS.
• In the last few years there have been many
incidences of cooling tower failures
particularly in fertilizer industry.

• In almost every incidence the cooling tower supplier is M/s.

Paharpur. At no time there was any feedback from
M/s Paharpur regarding failure of cooling towers and
preventive measures to be initiated.

• Since fertilizer industry is a important contributor to the

Indian economy such failures have caused huge losses.

• It is imperative that M/S Paharpur should recheck their

design & quality of material supplied.
SNAPS OF COOLING TOWER TIMBER
MATERIAL RECEIVED FROM M/s PCT

The adjacent
photograph shows the
quality of the timber
received from M/s
Paharpur for
reconstruction of our
Urea Cooling tower.
The timber supplied is
Australian Pine wood
and is much inferior to
Indian timber. In fact,
more than 90% of the
timber failed to meet the
required specifications
as per IS 2372 : 2004.
TIMBER SUPPLIED FOR REVAMP OF UREA COOLING TOWER
TIMBER SUPPLIED FOR REVAMP OF UREA COOLING TOWER
TIMBER SUPPLIED FOR REVAMP OF UREA COOLING TOWER
Thanks….

We are thankful to