AspenTech EPC Industry Insights Webinar Series
Ron Beck and Anum Qassam, AspenTech
Removing the Barriers to Better Process Safety Designs
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 2 2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 2
Removing the Barriers to Better Process Safety Designs Webinar Agenda
Business and Regulatory Context
Work Processes and Methods for Safety Design and Revalidation
Solution Maturity Model
Case Studies
Solution Overview
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 3
Webinar Scope
Focus on solving business challenges by adopting new methods, in particular a systems approach
Focus on engineering work processes and safety analysis opportunities for improvement
For product-level details, we have several product webinars available to view online (Titles and dates are provided at the end of the webinar)
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 4
Business and Regulatory Context
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 5
What is the Cost of Safety Incidents ?
Public relations challenges for the entire industry
Affects the stock price of facility owners and operators
Impacts the way engineering projects are performed
Impacts suppliers such as AspenTech
Regulatory violations result in fines and criminal prosecution
Plant losses and damage Cost to rebuild Lost revenues
Worker and public injuries
Possible further regulations that the industry must live with
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 6
What are the Business Opportunities?
Safer Designs and Operations: Improve operational integrity and uptime
Optimized Design: Ensure safe operations at optimal capital cost
Ensured Compliance and Simplified Reporting
Optimized Operating Strategies: Maximize asset performance within safety envelopes
Improved Project Delivery: Minimize safety design as potential project bottleneck
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 7
The History of Process Safety
1955 1969 1976 1993
API published first document
on Pressure Relief Systems
API published 1st Edition
of API RP 521 separate
from API RP 520. API methodology available
in HYSYS and Aspen Plus
AIChE formed DIERS (Design
Institute for Emergency Relief
Systems) to study runaway
reactions DIERS methodology available in
ASPEN PLUS
Safety Management of
Highly Hazardous
US Chemical Safety Board Recommends Regulatory modernization
2014
From 1961 to 1991, 25% of the largest accidents in the Hydrocarbon-Chemical
industries involved pressure relief system inadequacies
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 8
neers, New York, 2007
Best Practice
Can be eliminated through automated data transfer and
better visibility of the entire process
Overpressure Incidents Continue to be a Major Safety Risk Studies show 20% are preventable through better engineering practices
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 9
neers, New York, 2007
Best Practice
Flare systems must be re-rated after each
process modification
Overpressure Incidents Continue to be a Major Safety Risk Studies show 20% are preventable through better engineering practices
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 10
neers, New York, 2007
Best Practice
Integration of process model with device design ensures
all sources considered
Overpressure Incidents Continue to be a Major Safety Risk Studies show 20% are preventable through better engineering practices
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 11
neers, New York, 2007
Best Practice
Relief device sizing must consider all potential sources
Overpressure Incidents Continue to be a Major Safety Risk Studies show 20% are preventable through better engineering practices
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 12
Example of Pressure Relief System-Related Industry Accident
Texas City, Texas (USA), March 23, 2005
Vessel overfilling, vapor cloud through
atmospheric blowdown system
Fifteen fatalities, 170 injured
Key finding:
Various pressure relief system-related citations (inadequate relief system,
inadequate header design information, equipment not protected, etc.)
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 13
Current Rules
Relief System Standards:
API 520, 521
Regulators:
OSHA (Process Safety Management)
EPA (Accidental Release Prevention)
California Division of Occupational Safety
and Health (New draft regulations for refineries)
Investigators:
US Chemical Safety Board
(Recommendations for regulatory modernization)
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 14
What May Happen Next As being promoted and lobbied by the CSB
More focus on leading and lagging indicators
Management of change (and its relationship to overpressure protection)
Broader inclusion of runaway reactor analysis
Indicates need for a more comprehensive use of simulation models as well as a more holistic approach to safety design and analysis involving multiple engineering tools and players
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 15
Work Processes and Methods
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 16
Process (Safety) Engineer
Determine Conceptual Process
Design
Conceptual
Process Safety Workflow (Pains)
Process Engineer
Mechanical
Engineer
FEED Detailed
Size/Select Equipment
Create Equipment List, PFD, HMB, Process Desc.
Finalize P&ID, HMB, Operating
Manual
Create 3D Models, P&ID
Determine Conceptual Flare Header Design
Size/ Select PRDs and ESD Valves
Refine Flare Header design
Operations
Reanalyze PRD and ESD Valves
Revalidate Relief System
Create Plot Plan
Analyze Flare Header Adequacy
Troubleshoot
Initial HAZOP, HAZID, Env. Impact
Assessment
Revalidate HAZOP, HAZID, Env. Impact
Assessment
Relief load summary report
Final flare study report
PAIN POINTS
Difficult to replicate analyses from
previous stages of development
Data transfer introduces errors & delays
project. B
A Safety analysis report generation is time-intensive
Conservative relief analysis results in
unnecessary CAPEX expenditure
C
D
A
A B
B B
C C
D
A B
B
C
A A
D
D
A
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 17
Development & update of in-house tools can only be done by in-house expert. Data transfer between tools introduces errors & delays project. Safety analysis report generation is time-intensive
Maturity Model in Safety and Environment Management
Independent Standalone Tools
2
Subcontract Process Safety Analysis
1
Integrated Process Safety Workflow
3
Integrated Workflow with Emphasis on Dynamic Design
4
PAIN POINTS BEST PRACTICES
Difficult to replicate analyses. Overdesign increases CAPEX. Loss of in-house process safety projects reduce potential profits.
Overdesign increases CAPEX; steady state conservative assumptions reduce accuracy of design
Establish In-House Competency in process safety to keep large scale process safety work in-house.
Concurrent Safety Design in Simulation enables collaboration, accelerates handoffs, and improves efficiency. Working within simulators also allows for easy re-use of the analysis across project lifecycle
Dynamic Simulation for Safety Analysis leverages extensive use of dynamics to eliminate conservative assumptions that lead to overdesign
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 18
Design Workflow
Gather Data
Identify Relief Scenarios
Calculate Relief Loads
Inlet/Outlet Pressure Losses
Analyze Relief Systems Analyze Blowdown Valves Analyze Flare Header
Gather Data
Calculate Areas & Volumes
Document Peak Mass Flow
Determine MDMT
Gather Data
Recreate Flare Header
Collect Global Scenario
Information
Size BDV Select Orifice
Design Header
Conceptual FEED Detailed Operations
Conservative, Quick, Code-Compliant Analysis Desired
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 19
Gather Data
Identify Relief Scenarios
Calculate Relief Loads
Inlet/Outlet Pressure Losses
Analyze Relief Systems Analyze Blowdown Valves Analyze Flare Header
Gather Data
Calculate Areas & Volumes
Document Peak Mass Flow
Determine MDMT
Gather Data
Recreate Flare Header
Collect Global Scenario
Information
Size BDV Select Orifice
Design header
Conceptual FEED Detailed Operations
Conservative, Quick, Code-Compliant Analysis Desired
Rating Workflow Conceptual FEED Detailed Operations
Check If BDV Adequate Check If Orifice Adequate
Rate Header Reduce assumptions and recalculate
Reduce assumptions and recalculate
Reduce assumptions and recalculate
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 20
Process Safety Case Studies
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 21
Solution Overview
Business Challenge & Objective Results & Benefits Business Challenge & Objective
needs for design meeting stringent
process safety standards
Solution Overview
Results & Benefits
Solution, including:
Aspen HYSYS
PSV sizing within Aspen HYSYS
Aspen Flare System Analyzer
Used a validated, off-the-shelf PSV and Flare design tool rather than
time-consuming custom calculations
Analyzed multiple overpressure scenarios
Performed safety analysis within the process simulator and linked results
into Aspen Flare System Analyzer
Eliminated copy of data during PSV sizing
Reduced time of the entire relief valve sizing workflow
CASE STUDY: Hunt, Guillot & Associates
Efficiently Complete Relief Sizing with aspenONE Engineering
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 22
Solution Overview
Business Challenge & Objective Results & Benefits Business Challenge & Objective
Complete flare network revalidation of an European
Refinery
Determine if current equipment size is adequate or if
additional CAPEX is required
When additional CAPEX is required, is there any
way to reduce this CAPEX
Solution Overview
Results & Benefits
Utilized the Aspen HYSYS Safety Analysis Utility and
Aspen Flare System Analyzer tools to determine if the
current equipment size is adequate for plant safe
operation in the revalidation study
Used Aspen HYSYS Dynamics to model the flare
more rigorously
Aspen HYSYS Dynamics provided a more accurate way to model the flare
network behavior.
More accurate modeling enabled Inprocess Group to save $2 Million on its
Lube Oil unit refinery revalidation project
CASE STUDY: Inprocess
Save CAPEX of PSV and Flare Network Revalidation Projects
2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 23
Solution Overview
Business Challenge & Objective Results & Benefits Business Challenge & Objective
Solution Overview
Results & Benefits
Aspen Flare System Analyzer to model the complete
flare header system and modelling of multiple flare tips to
predict correct pressure drop
Modeled the flare header with Aspen HYSYS Dynamics
for validation of pressure drop and mass flows
Integrated the Aspen HYSYS Dynamics models of the
different process sections with the flare header model
CASE STUDY: Wintershall and InProcess
Safer blow-down by Using Dynamic Process Simulation
Complete dynamic model gives a maximum flare load of 75% (of total
capacity)
Low investment solution identified with a significant reduction (by 70%)
in the investment for the flare system upgrade
Simulation can be used for modelling the complete process plant as well as
the flare headers and shows additional capacity of the existing flare system
Plant revamp required a revision of the blow-down
strategy
Different simultaneous blow-down scenarios were
evaluated
What measures are required to allow a complete
blow-down that will be in accordance with the API 521
blowdown guidelines?
Ref: Michael Brodkorb , Inprocess Group,
AspenTech Global Conference: OPTIMIZE 2011 ,
Washington, D.C., May 2011