Aspentech Safety Webinar

Removing the Barriers to
Better Process Safety Designs

AspenTech EPC Industry Insights Webinar Series
Ron Beck and Anum Qassam, AspenTech
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.
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)
Business and Regulatory Context
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
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
The History of Process Safety

API published first document
on Pressure Relief Systems
Guide for Pressure Relieving
and Depressuring Systems
1955
AIChE formed DIERS (Design

Institute for Emergency Relief
Systems) to study runaway
reactions
DIERS methodology available in
ASPEN PLUS
1969
API published 1st Edition
of API RP 521 separate
from API RP 520.
API methodology available
in HYSYS and Aspen Plus
1976
1993
OSHA 1910.119, Process
Safety Management of
Highly Hazardous
Chemicals, issued
From 1961 to 1991, 25% of the largest accidents in the Hydrocarbon-Chemical

industries involved pressure relief system inadequacies
7
US Chemical Safety
Board Recommends
Regulatory
modernization
2014
Overpressure Incidents Continue to be a Major Safety Risk

Studies show 20% are preventable through better engineering practices
Best Practice
Can be eliminated through

automated data transfer and
better
visibility of the entire process
SOURCE: Center for Chemical Process Safety, Process Safety Leading and Lagging Metrics, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 2007

Best Practice
Flare systems must be

re-rated after each
process modification

Best Practice
Integration of process model

with device design ensures
all sources considered
10

Best Practice
Relief device sizing

must consider all
potential sources
11
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.)
12
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)
13
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
Revisions to Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices
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
14
Work Processes and Methods
15
Process Safety Workflow

(Pains)
A Difficult to replicate analyses from
Determine
Conceptual Process
Design
D
Determine
Conceptual Flare
Header Design
Refine Flare
Header design A
Relief load
summary report B
Initial HAZOP,
HAZID, Env. Impact
Assessment A
Mechanical
Engineer
16
Create Plot Plan
Troubleshoot
A
D
Analyze Flare
Header Adequacy A
Final flare study

report
B
Revalidate Relief A
System
B
C
D
Revalidate HAZOP,
HAZID, Env. Impact
Assessment
Create 3D Models,
P&ID
Operations
Finalize P&ID,
HMB, Operating
Manual
Reanalyze PRD
and ESD Valves
Size/ Select PRDs

and ESD Valves
Process
(Safety)
Engineer
intensive
D Conservative relief analysis results in
unnecessary CAPEX expenditure
Detailed
Create Equipment
List, PFD, HMB,
Process Desc.
Size/Select
Equipment
C Safety analysis report generation is time-
previous stages of development

B Data transfer introduces errors & delays
project.
FEED
Conceptual
Process
Engineer
PAIN POINTS
Maturity Model
in Safety and Environment Management
BEST PRACTICES
Integrated Workflow
with Emphasis on
Dynamic Design
Dynamic Simulation for Safety Analysis

leverages extensive use of dynamics to eliminate
conservative assumptions that lead to overdesign
Concurrent Safety Design in Simulation
Integrated Process
Safety Workflow
2
Independent
Standalone Tools
enables collaboration, accelerates handoffs, and

improves efficiency. Working within simulators also
allows for easy re-use of the analysis across project
lifecycle
Establish In-House Competency in process

safety to keep large scale process safety work inhouse.
Overdesign increases CAPEX; steady state

conservative assumptions reduce accuracy of design
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
Difficult to replicate analyses. Overdesign increases

CAPEX. Loss of in-house process safety projects
reduce potential profits.
Subcontract Process
Safety Analysis
17
PAIN POINTS
Design Workflow
Conceptual
Detailed
FEED
Analyze Relief Systems
Analyze Blowdown Valves
Gather Data
Gather Data
Gather Data
Identify Relief Scenarios
Calculate Areas & Volumes
Recreate Flare Header
Calculate Relief Loads
Document Peak Mass Flow
Collect Global Scenario

Information
Calc. Reqd Orifice Area
Determine MDMT
Design Header
Select Orifice
Size BDV
Inlet/Outlet Pressure Losses
Conservative, Quick, Code-Compliant Analysis Desired

18
Operations
Analyze Flare Header
Rating Workflow
Reduce
assumptions
and
recalculate
Detailed
FEED
Conceptual
Analyze Relief Systems
Analyze Blowdown Valves
Gather Data
Gather Data
Gather Data
Identify Relief Scenarios
Calculate Areas & Volumes
Recreate Flare Header
Calculate Relief Loads
Document Peak Mass Flow
Collect Global Scenario

Information
Calc. Reqd Orifice Area
Determine MDMT
Reduce
assumptions
and recalculate
Reduce
assumptions
and recalculate
CheckSelect
If Orifice
Adequate
Orifice
Size
BDV
Check If
BDV
Adequate
Inlet/Outlet Pressure Losses
Conservative,
Quick,
Do
as much work
as Code-Compliant
required, and noAnalysis
more Desired
19
Operations
Analyze Flare Header
Rate Header
Design
header
Process Safety Case Studies
20
CASE STUDY: Hunt, Guillot & Associates

Efficiently Complete Relief Sizing with aspenONE Engineering
Business
Business Challenge
Challenge &
& Objective
Objective
Reduction in project cycle time to service more clients

needs for design meeting stringent
process safety standards
Results
Results & Benefits
Benefits
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
Solution
Solution Overview
Overview
Utilized key components of AspenTechs Process Safety
Solution, including:
Aspen HYSYS
PSV sizing within Aspen HYSYS
Aspen Flare System Analyzer
21
CASE STUDY: Inprocess

Save CAPEX of PSV and Flare Network Revalidation Projects
Business
Business Challenge
Challenge &
& Objective
Objective
Results
Results & Benefits
Benefits
Complete flare network revalidation of an European

Refinery
Aspen HYSYS Dynamics provided a more accurate way to model the flare
network behavior.
Determine if current equipment size is adequate or if

additional CAPEX is required
More accurate modeling enabled Inprocess Group to save $2 Million on its

Lube Oil unit refinery revalidation project
When additional CAPEX is required, is there any

way to reduce this CAPEX
Solution
Solution Overview
Overview
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
22
CASE STUDY: Wintershall and InProcess

Safer blow-down by Using Dynamic Process Simulation
Business
Business Challenge
Challenge &
& Objective
Objective
Results
Results & Benefits
Benefits
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?
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
Solution
Solution Overview
Overview
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
23
Ref: Michael Brodkorb, Inprocess

Group,
AspenTech Global Conference:
OPTIMIZE 2011,
Washington, D.C., May 2011
CASE STUDY: Chiyoda Corporation

Reduce Flare Loads with Dynamic Simulation
Business
Business Challenge
Challenge &
& Objective
Objective
Results
Results & Benefits
Benefits
Conventional flare load calculations tend to be

conservative.
A distillation column system of a newly constructed

refinery plant had a total flaring load of several
thousands ton/hr based on steady state calculations.
This flaring load was too much to design in a single
system, requiring extra cost for additional flare systems.
With the use of dynamic simulation for the distillation column system,
the relieving rates were reduced to almost 1/3 the steady state amount
The reduced total flaring load allowed a single flare system to be
designed
Dynamics helps to build a smaller flare system, thus reducing the flare
system cost.
Solution
Solution Overview
Overview
Aspen HYSYS Dynamics was used to analyze the
relief loads of the distillation column systems to
determine if the flaring load could be reduced for the
system.
24
Process Safety Solutions
25
A Holistic Safety Engineering Approach

Safety Analysis Based Around the Facility Process Model
PSV
(Safety Analysis Environment)
Safety Solution
Breakdown
Depressuring
Aspen Plus & Aspen

HYSYS Dynamics
Aspen Flare System

Analyzer
26
Utilize these tools in

combination with Aspen Plus
or Aspen HYSYS to complete
process safety work
AspenTech Process Safety

Tools enable users to
complete safety work all
within one software suite

Safety Analysis Based Around the Facility Process Model
Validate tool using
comprehensive whitepapers
PSV
(Safety Analysis Environment)
Benefits
Decrease project time and increase quality
with an integrated end-to-end workflow
Cut time with automated, code-compliant
relief load and orifice sizing calculations
Dynamic scenario simulation to reduce
CAPEX by eliminating conservative
assumptions
Increase quality of analysis with best-in-class
steady state and dynamic simulators for relief
analysis
27

Addressing the entire workflow
Leverage Simulation
Data
Size Pressure Relief

Devices
Complete Flare
Network
More Accurate Sizing and

Reduced CAPEX with Dynamics
Automated
28
Assess Costs
Recap: The Key Takeaways

A complete systems approach improves ability to achieve safer
designs and better overall process safety.
We propose an organizational process safety engineering best
practices maturity model.
Linking process models to overpressure protection design is a key

step toward systems analysis.
Use of dynamic modeling is another key step in both
understanding emergency scenarios and optimizing CAPEX.
Significant overpressure protection incidents could be avoided
with improved engineering workflows and tools.
29
30
Additional Resources
Available at www.aspentech.com/epcperspectives - Safety & Environmental Section
Safety Validation - Equations and Example Benchmark Calculations
Technical Articles
Meet the Safety Experts: Q&A with Craig Powers

Blog
Why Use AspenTechs Process Safety Solution?

Blog
Optimizing Flare System Performance Reducing Backpressure

Blog
Demo: Best Practices for Dynamic Pressure Relief Analysis
Video
31
On-Demand Webinars
Reduce the Time and CAPEX of Pressure

Relief Analysis Projects Using an
Integrated Process Safety Solution
Recorded July 2015
www.aspentech.com/events/on-demandwebinars/
Webinar with Inprocess Group: Flare

Network Revalidation Reduces CAPEX
Recorded April 2015
32
Viewers Choice Get Answers to Your

Technical Relief-Sizing Questions
Recorded January 2015
Improve FEED and Revalidation Projects

with Relief Sizing in Aspen Plus and
Aspen HYSYS
Recorded December 2014
Q&A
Visit our NEW website for the

E&C community
www.aspentech.com/epcperspectives
Ron Beck
ron.beck@aspentech.com
Anum Qassam
anum.qassam@aspentech.com
33
Thank You
AspenTech is ranked as a top innovative

growth company

Aspentech Safety Webinar

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Aspentech Safety Webinar

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Removing the Barriers to

Better Process Safety Designs

Ron Beck and Anum Qassam, AspenTech

Removing the Barriers to Better Process Safety Designs

Business and Regulatory Context

2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.

2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.

Business and Regulatory Context

2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.

What is the Cost of Safety Incidents ?

Regulatory violations result in fines and criminal prosecution

Worker and public injuries

2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.

What are the Business Opportunities?

2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.

The History of Process Safety

AIChE formed DIERS (Design

From 1961 to 1991, 25% of the largest accidents in the Hydrocarbon-Chemical

2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.

Overpressure Incidents Continue to be a Major Safety Risk

Can be eliminated through

2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.

Overpressure Incidents Continue to be a Major Safety Risk

Flare systems must be

2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.

Overpressure Incidents Continue to be a Major Safety Risk

Integration of process model

2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.

Overpressure Incidents Continue to be a Major Safety Risk

Relief device sizing

2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.

Example of Pressure Relief System-Related Industry Accident

Vessel overfilling, vapor cloud through

2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.

EPA (Accidental Release Prevention)

2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.

What May Happen Next

Indicates need for a more comprehensive use of simulation models as

2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.

Work Processes and Methods

2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.

Process Safety Workflow

A Difficult to replicate analyses from

Create Plot Plan

Final flare study

2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.

Size/ Select PRDs

C Safety analysis report generation is time-

previous stages of development

Dynamic Simulation for Safety Analysis

Concurrent Safety Design in Simulation

enables collaboration, accelerates handoffs, and

Establish In-House Competency in process

Overdesign increases CAPEX; steady state

Development & update of in-house tools can only be

Difficult to replicate analyses. Overdesign increases

2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.

Analyze Relief Systems

Analyze Blowdown Valves

Identify Relief Scenarios

Calculate Areas & Volumes

Recreate Flare Header

Calculate Relief Loads

Document Peak Mass Flow