09/03/2026
Most equipment failures in a chemical plant are not really failures. They are mismatches that were built in on day one.
A valve that galls shut in six months. A heat exchanger that pinholes in a year. A gasket that will not hold the service it sees. When it happens, the plant blames the part. Usually the part was never made for the duty in the first place.
Severe service is its own discipline. Abrasive slurries. Fouling media that cakes and clogs. High temperature. Acids aggressive enough that stainless is the wrong answer and the right one is graphite, or titanium, or zirconium. General-purpose equipment pulled from a catalog does not survive any of that for long, no matter how good the catalog number looks.
The work is matching the metallurgy and the design to what the process actually does, not to what the datasheet assumes. A bottom-outlet valve that clears solids instead of trapping them. An exchanger built in the alloy the acid cannot touch. Tank protection sized for the v***r the tank actually breathes.
Get that right and the equipment stops being a line item you replace every year. It becomes infrastructure.
The difference between selling a valve and specifying one is knowing which service will eat it, and choosing accordingly.
If you run a process that keeps destroying equipment, that is the conversation we are built for. Chemicals, petrochemicals, and the firms that engineer them.