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)
1955
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
US Chemical Safety
Board Recommends
Regulatory
modernization
2014
SOURCE: Center for Chemical Process Safety, Process Safety Leading and Lagging Metrics, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 2007
SOURCE: Center for Chemical Process Safety, Process Safety Leading and Lagging Metrics, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 2007
SOURCE: Center for Chemical Process Safety, Process Safety Leading and Lagging Metrics, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 2007
10
SOURCE: Center for Chemical Process Safety, Process Safety Leading and Lagging Metrics, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 2007
11
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)
Investigators:
US Chemical Safety Board
(Recommendations for regulatory modernization)
13
14
15
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
Troubleshoot
A
D
Analyze Flare
Header Adequacy A
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
Process
(Safety)
Engineer
intensive
D Conservative relief analysis results in
unnecessary CAPEX expenditure
Detailed
Create Equipment
List, PFD, HMB,
Process Desc.
Size/Select
Equipment
FEED
Conceptual
Process
Engineer
PAIN POINTS
Maturity Model
in Safety and Environment Management
BEST PRACTICES
Integrated Workflow
with Emphasis on
Dynamic Design
Integrated Process
Safety Workflow
2
Independent
Standalone Tools
Subcontract Process
Safety Analysis
17
PAIN POINTS
Design Workflow
Conceptual
Detailed
FEED
Gather Data
Gather Data
Gather Data
Determine MDMT
Design Header
Select Orifice
Size BDV
Operations
Rating Workflow
Reduce
assumptions
and
recalculate
Detailed
FEED
Conceptual
Gather Data
Gather Data
Gather Data
Determine MDMT
Reduce
assumptions
and recalculate
Reduce
assumptions
and recalculate
CheckSelect
If Orifice
Adequate
Orifice
Size
BDV
Check If
BDV
Adequate
Conservative,
Quick,
Do
as much work
as Code-Compliant
required, and noAnalysis
more Desired
19
Operations
Rate Header
Design
header
20
Results
Results & Benefits
Benefits
Used a validated, off-the-shelf PSV and Flare design tool rather than
time-consuming custom calculations
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
Results
Results & Benefits
Benefits
Aspen HYSYS Dynamics provided a more accurate way to model the flare
network behavior.
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
Results
Results & Benefits
Benefits
Complete dynamic model gives a maximum flare load of 75% (of total
capacity)
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
Results
Results & Benefits
Benefits
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
25
Safety Solution
Breakdown
Depressuring
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
Complete Flare
Network
Automated
28
Assess Costs
29
30
Additional Resources
Available at www.aspentech.com/epcperspectives - Safety & Environmental Section
Safety Validation - Equations and Example Benchmark Calculations
Technical Articles
31
On-Demand Webinars
32
Q&A
Ron Beck
ron.beck@aspentech.com
Anum Qassam
anum.qassam@aspentech.com
33
Thank You