In the ammonia synthesis process, can naval copper be used as the material for compressor coolers? Thank you all! ! ! Urgent! ! !
Thread Content
This post was last edited by yxmqh on 2010-11-1 15:42. In the ammonia synthesis process, can naval copper be used as the material for compressor coolers? Since there may be ammonia in the cooling water, will they react? ? Thank you all, urgent! ! ! ! Please also let me know the reason!
In the ammonia synthesis process, can naval copper be used as the material for compressor coolers? Since there may be ammonia in the cooling water, will they react? ? Thank you all, urgent! ! ! ! Please also let me know the reason!
Naval copper molecular formula: CAS number: Properties: An alloy of zinc, tin, and copper. It usually contains 70% Cu, 29% Zn, and 1% Sn. This alloy exhibits excellent corrosion resistance in seawater. HSn70-1, as specified in Appendix D of GB151, appears to be naval brass; some shell-and-tube heat exchangers and turbine condensers use this material. It is highly advisable to contact the design institute and consult with professional designers
It is recommended not to use it, as ammonia reacts with copper. Ammonia is inevitably present in the circulating water of the ammonia synthesis system.
Copper materials are generally not used, and there is no need to use them either. Compared with copper, stainless steel is cheaper and has higher strength. Although there is a significant difference in the thermal conductivity of these materials, the impact on the overall heat exchanger’s performance is minimal. Additionally, I would like to ask: what metal is alloyed with copper to form naval copper?
Naval copper molecular formula: CAS number: Properties: An alloy of zinc, tin, and copper. It usually contains 70% Cu, 29% Zn, and 1% Sn.
Thank you to the two people above! ! :handshake
Agree with the third floor’s opinion :) :)
Metal prices have risen significantly recently. As for compression coolers, it’s better to use common materials. The material we use most often is 10#; given the current market conditions, it’s sufficient to opt for a cheaper option as long as performance is maintained.
Generally, the coolers located after compressors are made of copper; that is, the tube bundles are constructed from copper (copper of type T2 is commonly used in environments where corrosion is not a concern). The reason why this alloy is called \"navy copper\" is that it possesses excellent corrosion resistance in seawater, and it is often used in the construction of ship hulls. Heat exchangers are generally employed when the CL- concentration in the water circulating in the cooler is high (this is usually determined by the characteristics of the local water source). I also disagree with the view expressed in the second comment: in scenarios involving compressed gases and circulating water for cooling, heat exchangers made of copper offer much better performance compared to those made of stainless steel, even when the tube bundle sizes are the same.
Perhaps I have only considered the scenario where one side is for steam condensation and the other side is for cooling water. In this case, the overall heat transfer coefficient of stainless steel tubes is only 5% lower than that of copper tubes. However, I haven’t conducted any comparisons for the situation where one side involves gas heat exchange without phase change and the other side uses cooling water. Do you have any approximate figures? Even so, what advantage does using copper tubes offer? Last edited by a77sun on 2008-5-30 15:19]