Aspentech Safety Webinar

download Aspentech Safety Webinar

If you can't read please download the document

description

- 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

Transcript of Aspentech Safety Webinar

  • 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