T
he production capacity of a chemical plant is a maximum throughput multiplied by the flowtime (1).
fundamental measure of its economic potential, and A simple definition of capacity is the maximum through-
an integral factor in the assessment of a chemical put for a single processing step. (Subsequent sections
plants value. Although capacity is a central concept in discuss the important subtleties that this definition ignores,
production planning and scheduling, operations manage- but for the moment, this will suffice.) For chemical manu-
ment and chemical engineering literature do not offer a facturing operations, the production system usually takes
cohesive explanation or means for determining it. This the form of a series of processing steps; this is referred to as
article provides this missing insight with a definition and a serial production system. The capacity of a serial produc-
description of capacity that encompasses the various dis- tion system is governed by the slowest processing step in
parate descriptions offered, as well as a means to calculate the sequence, called the bottleneck (Figure 1). Because of
and evaluate it. the limitations placed on the process by the bottleneck, the
Copyright 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) CEP August 2014 www.aiche.org/cep 59
Reactions and Separations
60 www.aiche.org/cep August 2014 CEP Copyright 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
Determine the bottleneck. As discussed previously, to at steady state, is limited by the operation with the lowest
correctly determine the capacity, the bottleneck of the pro- throughput (i.e., the bottleneck). In addition to processing
cess must be identified and characterized. The bottleneck operations, other potential sources of bottlenecks include
can be quantified theoretically, as the design capacity, or logistical constraints, utility limitations, safe operating
empirically, as the demonstrated capacity. The implementa- limits, and environmental restrictions.
tion of either method depends on the structure and function Determine the design capacity from process calcu-
of the flowsheet. lations. The design capacity is usually dictated by the
The process flowsheet (Figure 2) represents the design basis for the process flowsheet. The process design
sequence of storage and transformation operations that document (e.g., the basis of design) specifies the product
comprise the process. Storage operations include raw throughput. To verify the stated design capacity, it is nec-
material storage, intermediate tanks, and product stor- essary to establish the throughput of the bottleneck, which
age. Transformation operations include material handling, may be explicitly identified in the design documents. If
separations, chemical reactors, and heat exchangers. the bottleneck is not identified, it can be determined by
The flowsheet organizes the storage and transfor- inspection of equipment ratings and analysis of the pro-
mation operations into a desired process, composed of cess mass balances.
three basic flow paths serial, parallel, and/or recycle. For simple processes, the bottleneck can be deter-
In a serial flow path, material flows directly from one mined by the rated throughput, the operating limit of
operation to the next. A parallel path consists of two or a specific piece of equipment, or a limit in an environ-
more serial paths into which the incoming flow is split; mental permit. In these instances, the bottleneck can be
typically, parallel paths are utilized for multiple-train established by inspection.
processes. In a recycle path, one stream is split into two For more complex processes, the mass balances for
streams, one of which continues down the serial path each process unit must be checked. If reactor yields
while the other stream is reintroduced at some upstream and separation splits are known, this can be reasonably
point (Figure 3). straightforward; if these values are not available, then more
When each operation in the flowsheet is designed, it is sophisticated process simulation may be needed.
sized according to the design basis. This suggests that the It is important to document the evaluation process to
capacity of a chemical process is simply its design basis, communicate to other parties the methodology behind the
and that capacity is therefore determined before opera- design capacity calculation.
tion begins. However, the actual throughput depends on Determine the demonstrated capacity by empirical
physical limitations of the equipment and the commercial testing. The motive for determining the demonstrated
availability of resources from vendors. As material flows capacity is to improve on the design (i.e., theoretical)
through the processing operations, the actual throughput, capacity calculation by incorporating empirical data.
Usually, a plants performance must be measured as a
contractual requirement during plant commissioning to
demonstrate the achievement of a performance guaran-
Process tee. This assessment is governed by a structured test plan
that prescribes how to operate the plant at steady state, at
specific conditions, for a discrete period of time. The test is
Raw Materials Final Product meant to demonstrate the maximum-throughput operation
p Figure 2. This type of process flow diagram is typically used in of the plant while satisfying the four capacity constraints.
operations management literature to depict a production system. In addition to the usual production monitoring process
measurements, supplementary measurements and sampling
may be necessary to validate estimated values of reactor
yields and separation splits. The test plan also includes
Process data quality objectives (e.g., sensitivity, accuracy, preci-
sion) for each process measurement. Depending on the
complexity of the operation, the test plan may also need to
Raw Materials Final Product address other operating issues, such as those in Table 1. It
Recycle Stream is essential that the appropriate facility managers review
p Figure 3. This process flow diagram includes a recycle stream that
and approve the test plan.
recirculates some of the product stream back through the system for When a formal test plan is not required, demonstrated
further processing. capacity may be measured using plant performance data
Copyright 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) CEP August 2014 www.aiche.org/cep 61
Reactions and Separations
obtained in the normal course of operation. During this from a set of diverse measurements. A more sophisticated
time, the analyst reviews the historical process data and approach is to use formal process data reconciliation meth-
identifies data sets that may represent the maximum aver- ods (9), which employ a least-squares estimation algorithm
age throughput from the plant. These instantaneous process to adjust the process data to obtain the best conformance
measurements are unlikely to satisfy the governing mass with the mass balances.
balances due to confounding effects such as sampling error, Determine the effective capacity from plant availability.
measurement uncertainty, calibration error, signal noise, To calculate effective capacity, the availability of the plant,
and, most significantly, the cumulative residence time of which is defined as the fraction of time that the plant is
the material in the process. To mask the effects of the con- up and running, must first be determined. Availability is
founding variables, the analyst must choose a reasonable calculated as the ratio of uptime to the mission time. The
time-averaging interval that will generate averaged data mission time is the sum of the uptime and downtime
suitable for mass balance analysis. A first approximation (i.e., zero production); to determine the effective capacity
for this time-averaging interval is several times the cumu- annually, the mission time is set at one year.
lative residence time for the process. If an estimate of the The monthly operating data displayed in Table 2 can
cumulative residence time is not available, the analyst may be used to calculate availability and effective capacity. The
have to select a time interval, select the relevant process availability of the plant is the ratio of the uptime, 342 days,
data for the interval, and test it for mass balance closure. to the total time of observation, 365 days, so the calculated
A simple test for mass balance closure compares availability is 93.7%. The effective capacity is the prod-
the averaged process data with accounting data (8). The uct of the availability and the design capacity, so if the
relevant accounting data, which are typically compiled design capacity is 200,000 m.t./yr, the effective capacity
monthly, consist of inventory measurements of raw materi- is 187,400 m.t./yr.
als, work in process, and finished goods. The advantage Downtime is the time interval when the plant is not
of this approach is that it is a comparison of data derived running, and can be planned or unplanned. Examples of
planned downtime include turnarounds, vessel cleaning,
and preventative maintenance activities, while unplanned
Table 1. Consider these points when developing
downtime is caused by equipment failures, utility failures,
a capacity assessment test plan.
or power outages.
Operator Assignments
Operating Procedures
Production
62 www.aiche.org/cep August 2014 CEP Copyright 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
Table 2. Example plant operating data.
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
For the purpose of calculating effective capacity, reactor is the bottleneck for this process unit, then the
downtime is modeled as a step function (Figure 4). This is annualized production capacity must be based on the
because downtime does not include reduced or degraded average catalytic activity of 89%. If the design capacity is
performance due to factors such as pipe scaling, heat 200,000 m.t./yr, the effective capacity is 178,000 m.t./yr.
exchanger fouling, accumulation of trace contaminants, or
catalyst deactivation. Unless these factors force production Closing thoughts
to zero, the reduced production is still considered uptime. Production capacity is an important factor that needs
The effective capacity can account for declining to be calculated to determine equipment size, satisfy
production rates in the uptime calculation with a time- contractual requirements, aid supply chain management,
averaging algorithm. Consider a fixed-bed catalytic reactor benchmark against competitors, and obtain operating
that experiences linearly declining catalyst activity. Fresh permits from regulators. There is no single way to measure
catalyst was loaded and the reactor was started in Janu- capacity, and there are numerous factors to consider, many
ary. Table 3 shows the monthly catalytic activity data for of which are unique to a specific process or facility. With
the observational period (one year). The average catalytic these guidelines, a well-documented methodology, and the
activity over the 12-mo period is 89%. If the catalytic involvement of the appropriate stakeholders, a clear and
unambiguous determination of a chemical plants capacity
can be realized. CEP
Literature Cited
1. Hopp, W. J., and M. L. Spearman, Factory Physics, 3rd ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (2008). Russell A. Ogle, P.E., is a principal engineer with Exponent, Inc.
(Warrenville, IL; Phone: (630) 658-7502; Email: rogle@exponent.
2. Alford, J. S., et al., Dynamic Capacity Modeling of Product com), where he specializes in the investigation of complex industrial
Development, Chem. Eng. Progress, 100 (7), pp. 4147 (2004). accidents, catastrophic fires and explosions, and incendiary fires. He
3. Manganaro, J. L., Estimate the Capacity of Simple Batch is experienced in process hazard analysis, consequence assessment,
risk assessment, and decision analysis. In addition to his work in
Processes, Chem. Eng. Progress, 98 (8), pp. 7075 (2002). process safety, he regularly consults with clients on process systems
4. Petrides, D., et al., Throughput Analysis and Debottlenecking engineering, particularly in the areas of plant performance and process
of Biomanufacturing Facilities, BioPharm, pp. 27 (Aug. 2002). operations. He has extensive experience evaluating the performance of
chemical process plants, including the analysis of process flowsheets
5. Hopp, W. J., Supply Chain Science, McGraw-Hill, New York, and production data, the determination of plant capacity, the identifica-
NY (2007). tion of production bottlenecks, and the investigation of product quality
issues. He is a registered professional engineer in the states of Illinois,
6. Anupindi, R., et al., Managing Business Process Flows: Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama. He received his BS in chemi-
Principles of Operations Management, 2nd ed., Pearson Prentice cal engineering from Purdue Univ. and his PhD in chemical engineering
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (2006). from the Univ. of Iowa.
7. Williams, T. J., et al., eds., A Handbook on Master Planning Andrew R. Carpenter, P.E., is a principal engineer with Exponent, Inc.
and Implementation for Enterprise Integration Programs, (Warrenville, IL; Phone: (630) 658-7515; Email: acarpenter@exponent.
Institute for Interdisciplinary Engineering Studies, Purdue Univ., com), where he investigates complex chemical process accidents,
West Lafayette, IN (2001). analyzes chemical production processes, and assesses process safety
and risk. He has 18 years of experience consulting on investigations of
8. Harkins, B., and K. Mills, Plant Floor vs. Financial Data: incidents such as fires, explosions, reactive chemical accidents, and
Resolving the Discrepancies, Chem. Eng. Progress, 97 (9), releases, as well as process safety and risk consulting, including pro-
pp. 5864 (2001). cess hazard analysis (PHA), facility risk identification and assessment,
facility siting studies, and layer of protection analysis (LOPA). He is a
9. Romagnoli, J. A. and M. C. Sanchez, Data Processing and registered professional engineer in Illinois and Ohio. He received his BS
Reconciliation for Chemical Process Operations, Academic in chemical engineering from Iowa State Univ. and his MS in chemical
Press, Waltham, MA (2000). engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology.
Copyright 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) CEP August 2014 www.aiche.org/cep 63