Utility piping: Why over-engineering is inefficient

08.01.2012 | Wilkerson, G., Victaulic, Easton, Pennsylvania

Grooved mechanical piping can offer improved constructability, speedy expansion, retrofit and
turnaround, and also reduce safety risks. It is a quality pipe-joining method.

Keywords: [piping] [welding] [flange] [safety] [corrosion] [construction] [maintenance]

Refineries built in the 1950s to 1970s used all welded piping for both process and utility
services. The specifications used during that time are often applied to retrofits, expansions and
turnaround projects. But this reliance on the traditional specifications does have a downside.
Scheduling, safety and constructability are three major factors in turnarounds. They are also the
impacting factors that affect welding activities. However, alternatives, such as grooved
mechanical piping, have been slow to gain acceptance due to the perception that the joining
method won’t work and a reluctance to use a gasketed joint.

This article will compare the primary pipe-joining methods—welding, flanging, threading and
grooved—and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each method as used in the
hydrocarbon processing industry (HPI). The misconceptions over grooved piping will be
explained and corrected, and how this method can speed project completion, and improve
constructability and safety, making it an ideal pipe-joining method for plant utility services.

HISTORY OF HPI PIPE JOINING

During the wave of refinery construction in the 1950s to 1970s, over 99% of the HPI facilities
elected to weld all piping. Everything was based on process piping. Even utility piping systems
were designed to the same material class as process piping. Many engineers didn’t differentiate
between piping classes. Nonprocess piping was over-engineered and over-constructed for
perceived safety reasons.

At present, during retrofits, expansions and turnarounds, the specifications of the mid-20th
century are still used. There is a mindset of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Welding is certainly
not broken. But when it comes to utility piping, it may not be the best choice, given this
method’s shortcomings as it relates to construction, maintenance and safety.

Reliability and maintainability needs

Several factors that are important during construction projects typical of existing refineries and
chemical plants include:

 Schedule
 Safety
 Constructability, reliability and maintainability of equipment and systems.
Whereas welding is typically very reliable when performed by an experienced and highly skilled
welder, the method does not promote quick project completion. It lacks in the constructability
and maintainability of piping systems, and is inherently unsafe, particularly in the presence of
volatile, toxic and explosive chemicals. It’s also simply unnecessary for low-risk, nonprocess
oriented utility services such as domestic water, plant water, plant air and compressed air. Other
major pipe-joining methods also have their challenges.

PIPE-JOINING PLAYERS

Other methods equally have their pros and cons in plant piping systems:

Welding

This pipe-joining method produces a high-strength, permanent joint, which is usually very
reliable. With the ability to use the joining method on just about any piping service, welding has
become the standard by which all other methods are compared. The strength and reliability of
welded joints are essential for critical high-temperature, high-pressure process piping. However,
for utility services, welding’s disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

Safety. First, safety concerns are considerable during welding activities. Welding by its very
nature is dangerous. It is one of the most dangerous industrial activities. When welding is done in
a potentially volatile environment, the risks become even greater. Welding produces flames,
sparks and fumes; all introduce the risk of fire or explosion. Welding requires a fire watch during
and following the work, which can slow the construction schedule. Furthermore, welding
exposes workers to noxious fumes and particulate matter, as well as potential burns and eye
damage.

Time-consuming activity. Second, welding is a time-consuming process. Welders must cut,

bevel and prepare the pipe lengths; align and clamp the joint; and then undertake two, three or
more passes using the selected welding method at each joint. A single 4-in. carbon steel pipe
joint can take up to 2.25 hours to weld; a 12-in. joint can take 4 hours or longer, based on values
found in the Mechanical Contractors Association of America’s Labor Estimating Manual (Rev.
2/98). Once the weld is complete, an X-ray may be required for quality inspection. In the case of
a failed X-ray inspection, the re-work increases facility downtime. The challenges, time and risk
associated with welding galvanized pipe are even greater.

Complex method. Third, the maintenance of a welded system is difficult. Welded systems
convert individual pipe sections into a single unit, making it much harder to access a specific
point within the system. If not accessing a welded system at a flange, the pipe would have to be
cut in place to provide access.

Skill shortage. Finally, the quality of welding is declining. Many of the highly skilled welders
with years of experience are reaching retirement age. The need for welding is unlikely to drop as
quickly as the number of skilled welders available to do the work. Result: A shortage of skilled
labor is quite possible, which could affect the quality of work. Allocating skilled labor to critical
process systems and using alternative joining methods for noncritical utility systems are
strategies to mitigate this challenge.

Flanging

This pipe-joining method is a mechanical method that uses a series of bolts and nuts to compress
a gasket between two flat-faced, flanged pipe ends. Flanging also produces a strong and reliable
joint. Unlike welding, it provides a means for system access, but requires more maintenance to
support joint integrity.

Union maintenance. The bolts and nuts of a flanged union and gasket absorb and compensate
for system forces. Over time, the bolts and nuts can relax due to surges, system working
pressure, vibration and expansion and contraction. When the bolts lose tension, the gasket can
“slip,” which can result in a leak. Flange gaskets can take on compression over time, also
resulting in leakage. To prevent or stop leaks, routine bolt and nut tightening is required.

Galvanization. Joint integrity may also be affected by the galvanization process. Under normal
process conditions, galvanization may result in a zinc buildup on the flange, thus producing a
flange face that is no longer flush. Such conditions can cause the flange to be more prone to
leaks.

Although flanges provide system access, performing maintenance can be a time-consuming

process because each of the bolts needs to be loosened and removed. In some cases, the gasket
needs to be scraped off the flange and then replaced. The same bolt-tightening sequence required
upon initial installation is also required upon reconnection of the flanges.

Welding issues. Finally, because flanges are typically welded onto the pipe ends, this method
carries the same issues associated with welding, including safety risks and lengthy installation
time.

Threading

In threading, a process that is typically used to join small-diameter pipe involves cutting conical
spiraling male or female channels into the inside or outside of pipe or mating components. The
joint is quick and simple to assemble. However, it is the least reliable compared to the other
pipe-joining methods.

Threaded joints are notorious for leaks, which can result from improper initial installation and
ongoing plant operations that weaken the threaded seal. System vibration can compromise the
thread tape or sealant, resulting in a leak. Poor thread cuts can also cause leaks. In a threaded
system, the leak is usually “fixed” by tightening the joint. The problem with this solution is that
tightening one end of the threaded joint ultimately loosens an adjacent joint, so fixing one leak
may lead to a new one.

Threading joints can present alignment issues with branches and elbows. In addition, the joints
are difficult to repair. Over time, the joint may become fused, making system access more
challenging. Many refineries have experienced problems with threaded small-diameter
galvanized piping. They are replacing these systems with stainless steel (SS) systems.

The final method is the grooved mechanical piping. It is widely known and highly regarded in
the upstream oil and gas industry. However, grooved mechanical piping is relatively unknown
and, in some cases, misunderstood on the downstream side.

ANATOMY OF A GROOVED JOINT

A grooved mechanical joint is formed with grooved-end pipes, fittings or valves, and a coupling,
as shown in Fig. 1. The coupling comprises three elements: gasket, housings, and nuts and bolts.

Fig. 1. A grooved mechanical joint is formed

with grooved-end pipes, fittings or valves and a
coupling.

Grooved pipe

Grooved mechanical piping does not require special pipe. Standard, off-the-shelf pipe is
fabricated by cold-forming or machining a groove into the pipe ends. There are two types of
grooving: roll and cut grooving. Roll grooving is far more common, and is the preferred method
for most utility services. To form a roll groove, the pipe end is placed between the roll set of a
grooving machine. As the roll set closes, the pipe is compressed and rotated, which radially
displaces a small portion of the pipe wall to form a groove around the outer diameter of the pipe
that is recessed on the outside and indented on the inner pipe wall, as shown in Fig. 2. Unlike
threading, roll grooving does not remove any material from the pipe. A fast and clean technique,
roll grooving is used on a variety of pipe sizes and wall thicknesses, from Schedule 5 through
ANSI standard wall thickness carbon steel (CS) and SS, copper and aluminum pipe. Roll-
grooved systems range in diameter from ¾ in. up to 60 in.
 Fig. 2. A small portion of the pipe wall is
displaced to form the groove around the outer
diameter of the pipe.

Gaskets

To seal the joint, a resilient, pressure-responsive elastomer gasket seals around two abutted
grooved pipe ends. The nitrile gasket, which is common in most water with oil vapor
applications, is injection-molded to precise tolerances and is resistant to aging, heat and
oxidation.

Housings, bolts and nuts

The coupling housings fully enclose the gasket, and the key sections of the housings engage the
grooves. The housings are typically constructed from ductile iron (painted or with engineered
coatings), SS or aluminum. While the housings are exposed to the external environment, they are
insulated from the system media by the coupling gasket that contains the fluid within the interior
of the pipe. The bolts and nuts, which hold the housings together, are tightened with a socket
wrench or an impact wrench.

In the installed state, the coupling housings encase the gasket and engage the groove around the
circumference of the pipe to create a leak-tight seal in a self-restrained pipe joint. With the
availability of rigid and flexible couplings, a grooved joint can be completely rigid, like a welded
joint, or offer flexibility to accommodate thermal expansion and contraction, deflection, seismic
movement and vibration.

The housings of a rigid coupling positively clamp the pipe to create a rigid joint, resulting in
system behavior characteristics similar to other rigid systems. The piping remains strictly aligned
and is not subject to axial movement or angular deflection during operation. For this reason,
systems installed with rigid couplings utilize support techniques identical to those of welded
systems when designed and installed according to the hanger spacing requirements as noted in
the ASME B31.1 Power Piping Code, ASME B31.3 Process Piping Code, ASME B31.9 Building
Services Piping Code and NFPA 13 Sprinkler Systems Code.

Flexible couplings provide controlled linear and angular movement that may be used to
accommodate linear movement due to thermal changes. It may be used at system changes in
direction to provide stress-free offsets, or it may be used on traditional expansion loops, resulting
in loops one-half to one-third the size of a loop of welded construction.
Couplings localize vibration within the pipeline, dampening the vibration of the system. Grooved
piping systems do not require rubber bellows or a braided flexible hose, which can wear out and
require replacement.

MISCONCEPTIONS OF GROOVED PIPING

Unlike other industries that have readily accepted grooved piping, HPI facilities have been
hampered by a perception that the joining method won’t work and reluctance to use a gasketed
joint. Fears exist that the coupling will leak or even fail, and that the grooving process weakens
the pipe. These ideas have arisen due to limited exposure to grooved piping systems. The
concerns can be easily rectified by reviewing strength and pressure performance capabilities.

With regard to pipe end preparation, roll grooving does not compromise the integrity of the pipe
joint. The inward radial displacement that occurs at the groove during the roll-grooving process
causes pipe material property changes comparable to similar cold-forming manufacturing
operations. Any potential increase in pipe hardness, reduction in tensile strength, or reduction in
elongation due to the roll-grooving process has no effect on the pressure capability of the joint.

The pressure rating of a grooved system—established after extensive performance barometers

including ultimate pressure, bending moment and cyclic loading tests—is based on the
components of the joints. Grooved pipe has no rating without the corresponding coupling, and
coupling pressure ratings vary based on the pipe material and wall thickness. The published
maximum rated pressures for couplings are based on test data and field experience. Any effect
that roll grooving has on the pipe material has been accounted for in coupling pressure ratings.

Performance codes

Component performance requirements for many piping applications are dictated by standard
codes relevant to the service. To comply with the code requirements, the piping materials must
be able to maintain published performance capabilities while in service. Based on their proven
performance capabilities, use of couplings on grooved pipe meets the requirements of ASME
B31.1, B31.3 and B31.9, as well as NFPA 13.

The suitability of grooved pipe for use in piping systems is recognized in such standards as
ASTM F1476, Performance of Gasketed Mechanical Couplings for Use in Piping Applications,
and ANSI/AWWA C606, Grooved and Shouldered Joints. These pipe standards have been
established in recognition of the widespread use of grooved piping in air- and water-conveying
systems, and the subsequent need for sufficient clarity in the performance and dimensional
requirements of grooved joints.

Grooved pipe joining has been proven through research, testing and extensive evaluation.
Provided the coupling is correctly installed—a process that is substantially easier than most other
pipe-joining methods—the joint will not leak or fail as long as the working pressure of the
system is within the coupling’s pressure rating for the type and thickness of the pipe. With
couplings currently rated up to 4,000 psi, grooved pipe joining can be used on almost all utility
services.
BENEFITS FOR UTILITY SERVICES

There are multiple reasons why grooved mechanical piping is an ideal choice for plant utility
services. The three key benefits are also factors that drive equipment and material decisions in
refinery expansions and turnarounds:

 Ability to ease construction and maintenance

 Speed project completion
 Improve safety.

Constructability

Ease of installation and maintenance is one of the most appealing aspects of grooved piping. To
assemble a grooved joint, two grooved pipe ends are abutted, the gasket is positioned over the
joint, the housings are placed over the gasket, and finally, the bolts and nuts are tightened to
secure the housings together. Welding and special tools are not required. Grooved systems offer
360° of rotational allowance for field flexibility, meaning alignment of the pipe by the bolt-hole
index, as would be required with flanging, is unnecessary.

Unlike other pipe-joining methods, visual inspection can confirm correct installation of most
grooved systems. Metal-to-metal bolt-pad contact confirms that the assembled joint is properly
and securely installed, and no re-work is necessary.

Couplings decrease maintenance time because, unlike flanges, they do not require regular
retightening. A coupling holds the gasket in precise compression from the outside of the pipe
joint. While the bolts and nuts of the coupling hold the housings together, the coupling itself is
what holds the pipe together. Over the service life of the system, the nuts and bolts do not require
regular maintenance and will not relax.

Should access to the piping system be required for maintenance, expansion, alteration or
equipment/component replacement, the coupling can be removed quickly, and with no special
tools. Following completion of the work, the coupling can be reassembled just as quickly on the
joint. Maintenance of grooved systems is far simpler than maintenance of welded, threaded and
flanged systems. The ease of access allows piping systems to quickly adapt to changes in plant
operations.

Grooved is also beneficial for specialty applications such as lined pipe and galvanized pipe.
Typical specifications do not allow torch cutting or welding lined pipe because it can
compromise the integrity of the internal linings. As grooved systems are cold-formed, they meet
the requirements of most piping specifications. Grooving the pipe does not have an effect on the
internal coating. Furthermore, gaskets with a central leg that acts as a pipe stop protect the pipe
ends from installation damage that can cause a holiday in the coating. As a result, grooved piping
maintains the integrity of internal pipe coatings. In fact, grooved is the only pipe-joining method
that can ensure a holiday-free system.
Grooved piping eliminates the disadvantages associated with welding and flanging galvanized
pipe. Because welding is not required, no toxic fumes are created. Furthermore, there is no
increased risk of leaks, as there would be with flanged due to leak paths created by zinc buildup.
The fabrication and assembly of a grooved galvanized system are much quicker than other
joining methods.

Schedule

Another key factor during plant expansions, retrofits and turnarounds is the schedule. It is quite
obvious that the shorter the downtime, the sooner the plant is online and producing revenue-
generating products.

Installation of grooved piping is up to 10 times faster than welding and up to 6 times faster than
flanging. Although installation time will vary by installer, conservative estimates require
approximately 15 minutes to assemble a 4-in. grooved joint and 45 minutes to assemble a 12-in.
joint, a vast difference compared to the 2.25 hours and 4 hours required to weld joints of the
same size. As shown in Fig. 3, the ease and speed of installation can reduce onsite manhours by
up to 45% compared to welding.

Fig. 3. Grooved-joint piping can provide

benefits in construction and turnaround projects.

Safety

In the volatile environment of a refinery, any procedure that can reduce risk is worth exploring.
In terms of pipe joining and maintenance, grooved is among the safest methods due to the
elimination of hot work. Most injuries on job sites occur via material handling, but the most
significant risks are caused by fire and fume hazards.

Because the assembly of a grooved pipe joint does not require welding, flame or heat of any
kind, it can be installed by almost anyone. It does not require time-consuming X-rays of joints,
purge gases, fire watches, hot-work permits, cutting/grinding of weld bevels, tacking, slag
cleaning or dealing with weld fumes, weld splatter and sparks, and welding cable trip hazards.
No-flame grooved systems pose no fire or respiratory risk, do not necessitate increased
ventilation, and often reduce or eliminate system cleaning and flushing.

Better methods

The primary obstacles in the use of grooved piping are lack of knowledge and fear. As
demonstrated, concerns regarding the strength of the system are unfounded, and awareness of the
grooved system’s array of benefits can undoubtedly outweigh the reliance on traditional,
inefficient joining methods. Grooved mechanical piping can offer improved constructability,
speedy expansion, retrofit and turnaround completion, and also reduce safety risks. It is a quality
pipe-joining method for utility services in any HPI facility. HP

The author

Grady Wilkerson is vice president of oil, gas and chemical sales with Victaulic, a producer of
mechanical pipe joining systems. He began his career with Victaulic in 1980 as a member of the
West Texas Oil Metro Group in Odessa, Texas. Mr. Wilkerson holds a BBA degree from Texas
A&M University.

Press-to-connect systems

Many plants utilize Schedule 40 or Schedule 80 threaded galvanized pipe for small-diameter
systems such as compressed air lines. But like any utility service using threaded pipe, the
systems are prone to leakage. In compressed-air applications, leaks can lead to problems such as
inconsistent equipment performance due to fluctuating system pressure, increased energy and
maintenance costs, reduced service life of the compressors due to excess load, and corrosion of
the piping caused by moisture within the system.

In addition to grooved piping, an alternative to threaded small-diameter pipe is a joining method

known as press-to-connect piping. The press-to-connect systems join standard plain-end pipe by
compressing a fitting onto the pipe ends, as shown in Fig. 4. The fitting, which contains O-ring
seals, is compressed onto the pipe, fitting or valve using a hand-held pressing tool, resulting in a
permanent seal. Like grooved systems, it is a cold-forming process that does not require heat or
flame. Press-to-connect systems also require very little pipe-end preparation, resulting in an
extremely fast joint that meets ANSI Class 150 standards. When installed correctly, the
elastomeric seal of a press joint dramatically reduces the likelihood of leaks compared to
threaded systems.

Press-to-connect systems can be used with off-the-shelf Schedule 10S SS pipe up to 2 in. in
diameter. Systems larger than 2 in. can benefit from the same constructability, schedule and
safety features as larger systems by using grooved piping.
 Fig. 4. Press-to-connect systems join standard
plain-end pipe by compressing a fitting onto the
pipe ends.

Have your say

 All comments are subject to editorial review.

All fields are compulsory.
 Name:
 Email address (not published):

 Comments:
Use dynamic simulation for advanced LNG plant design
08.01.2012 | Harismiadis, V. I., Hyperion Systems Engineering Modeling and
Simulation, Athens, Greece; Stavrakas, D., Hyperion Systems Engineering, Athens,
Greece; Fantolini, A. M., Saipem SpA, Milan, Italy; Pedone, L., Saipem SpA, Milan,
Italy; D’Orazi, L., Saipem SpA, Milan, Italy; Prodan, R., Saipem SpA, Milan, Italy; Sood, A.,
Hyperion Systems Engineering, Pune, India; Bhattad, G., Hyperion Systems
Engineering, Pune, India

The work performed for the project shows that dynamic simulation can be an excellent tool for
the support and verification of process design during the engineering, procurement and plant
construction (EPC) stages.

Keywords: [LNG] [natural gas] [simulation] [engineering and design]

Performing engineering studies with dynamic simulation is becoming a critical requirement for
new liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants. Typically, the major target for such a study is the
investigation and review of critical plant design elements, such as compressors, flares and boiler
systems. Dynamic engineering studies can identify design changes that will significantly
improve plant performance and the safety and reliability of plant operations. Furthermore, if such
design changes are identified early, they can be implemented at a low cost and provide
significant savings during a plant’s lifetime.1–3

LNG plant design is based on steady-state process simulation. This approach typically does not
take into account rotating equipment characteristics, holdups or actual pressure drops. However,
the use of a dynamic process simulator is required to understand actual plant transients and
dynamics, to examine and verify control schemes, and to review plant procedures. The dynamic
model allows for the calculation of process variables as a function of time (i.e., as a movie
instead of a series of snapshots). Moreover, it is possible to examine process upsets, including
process startups and shutdowns—a critical functionality not offered by the steady-state
simulator.

This article presents experiences obtained from a detailed engineering study for Sonatrach’s
GNL3Z project, a grassroots baseload LNG production plant in Algeria. A brief description of
the LNG production process is provided, along with a number of test cases demonstrating the
design challenges faced and their resolutions. Lessons learned during this study with regard to
project execution and project management are offered, and the benefits obtained through
engineering studies are described.

Systems examined and simulation test cases

All compressor systems in the GNL3Z plant have been examined, and a series of simulations has
been performed to verify the process design. In this section, the approach used in engineering
studies and in the overall liquefaction process is described. Next, details are provided on the
compressor systems and on the test cases reviewed.
Engineering study approach. A dynamic engineering study involves a number of steps before
delivery of the final results and recommendations, as outlined below:

 Exact scope definition, which includes the modeling boundaries and the test cases to be
examined
 Careful data collection and reduction to a form usable by the simulator; these data should
be easily accessible, reusable and verifiable, which, in practice, means maintaining
specific project folders and spreadsheets and ensuring version control
 Calculation of pipework volume and resistance to flow through analysis of isometric
drawings
 Model building as per piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs) and agreed scope,
incorporating plant logic (e.g., cause-and-effect charts) and isometrics; elements typically
included are:
Compressor system (gas/steam turbines, electric motors, heat exchangers, vessels, etc.)
a.
Compressor control, including the anti-surge, hot-gas/cold-gas bypass and bleed valves
b.
Regulatory control, emergency shutdown logic and related valves c.
Startup and normal shutdown procedures. d.
 Integration of sub-models and preparation of the final model, aligned at the agreed heat
and material balance (H&MB)
 A first report to the final user clarifying data and general approaches used, comparing the
model with the agreed H&MB, and supporting the model review
 Model update, which can include client comments, incorporation and review of data,
preparation of repeatable scenarios for test runs, defining test run duration and specific
integration time steps, etc.
 Execution of the test run, which involves collecting data, graphically reviewing the
results (i.e., process variable as a function of time) for easy analysis, and discussing first
results with the client
 Delivery of the individual test run and reporting of observations, conclusions and
possible recommendations
 Delivery of the final report, including all individual run reports and final
recommendations.

LNG production process description. Natural gas is first compressed in a feed gas compressor
and then sent to the mercury-removal unit. The gas is further treated in an acid gas absorber to
remove CO2 and H2S, if present. The sweet gas is dried in molecular sieve beds and further
processed in the natural gas liquids (NGL) recovery unit to remove the C2+ compounds. The
chilling requirement for the treatment is supplied by auxiliary propane (C3) refrigeration.4–6

The treated natural gas is then compressed in a residue gas compressor and cooled by C3 chillers.
Afterward, it is fed to the bottom of the main cryogenic heat exchanger (MCHE), where it is
liquefied by mixed refrigerant (MR). This is the typical liquefaction technology used in projects
based on a propane/MR process. The LNG produced is sent to the helium recovery and nitrogen-
stripping sections. The nitrogen- and helium-free LNG is then sent to the storage tanks. The boil-
off gas (BOG) from storage is recompressed and sent to fuel gas. The gas coming from the
helium-recovery and nitrogen-stripping units is compressed in the end-flash gas compressors and
sent to the fuel gas header.

The following compressor systems are considered in the current dynamic simulation scope:

 Feed gas compressor

 Residue gas compressor and turboexpander
 Auxiliary propane compressor
 Refrigerant (C3/MR) compressors
 End-flash gas compressors
 Boil-off gas compressors.

Several test cases are reviewed in the following sections.

Feed gas compressor startup. The natural gas is fed to the feed gas compressor suction
knockout drum to remove any entrained or condensed liquids. The overhead vapor is directed to
the feed gas compressor. The compressed gas is cooled and then directed to other LNG plant
units for further treatment. A simplified process diagram is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Feed gas compressor system

simplified process flow diagram.

During startup, the feed gas compressor pressurizes other downstream units to the residue gas
compressor. The volume of the downstream system is very large (about 3,000 m3). Thus, during
a typical startup, when the downstream pressure is low, our simulations show that the
compressor would operate in the stonewall region until the downstream system is pressurized, as
shown in Fig. 2 (red line).
 Fig. 2. Compressor maps for the feed gas
compressor system, with the movements of
the operating point during compressor
startup.

To avoid operating at high compressor flows, it was decided to isolate the compressor from the
downstream system during startup. A valve bypassing the discharge on/off valve and controlling
the downstream pressure was used to smoothly pressurize the downstream system. Results are
shown in Fig. 2 (blue line). In this case, the anti-surge controller was allowed to control pressure
while increasing the compressor speed from minimum to operating speed.

A further refinement to the procedure was implemented to allow the anti-surge system to control
when the compressor reached the minimum speed. Results are shown in Fig. 2 (green line). The
compressor startup procedure was optimized, achieving smooth system pressurization while the
compressor was protected from surge.

End-flash gas system: Motor trip case. Nearly 85% of the fuel gas is made by the end-flash gas
coming from the helium-recovery drum overheads and the nitrogen-stripping column overheads.
Before combining together, both streams pass through the end-flash gas exchanger for heat
recovery. The combined stream is then compressed to about 32 bara. There are two compressor
trains with three stages each. A simplified process diagram is shown in Fig. 3.
 Fig. 3. End-flash gas compressor simplified
process flow diagram.

The performance of the anti-surge system during motor trip was studied extensively. It has been
observed that the first-stage compressor was surging upon trip (Fig. 4, blue line). To solve this
problem, two options were examined to improve the system design:

Use a check valve at suction ( 1.Fig. 4, green line)

Use a hot-gas bypass (HGB) valve ( 2.Fig. 4, cyan line).

Fig. 4. First-stage fuel gas compressor map

during motor trip.

Both options appear valid. However, the results demonstrate that, if an HGB valve is used, high
temperatures occur at the compressor discharge. This can be detrimental to the compressor seals.
Based on these findings, it was recommended to modify the design and to use a check valve at
the compressor suction.

Liquefaction section: Refrigeration compressor cases. Refrigeration for this process is

provided by two major systems: the C3 system and the MR system, containing nitrogen,
methane, ethane and propane. The low-pressure MR is compressed in three stages of MR
compressors. The high-pressure vapor from the discharge of the compression train is cooled and
partially condensed by four C3 chillers in series. The partially condensed MR is fed to a high-
pressure separator, where heavy MR and light MR are separated before entering the MCHE.

The C3 refrigeration system utilizes C3 evaporating at four pressure levels to supply refrigeration
to the natural gas feed and to the MR circuit. The chilled natural gas feed enters the MCHE,
where it is liquefied.

Case 1: Verification of compressor valve size. One of the objectives of the simulations
performed was to verify the sizing of the compressor anti-surge valve. For the majority of the
runs performed, it was noted that, for the low-pressure C3 compressor anti-surge valve, a valve
size (calculated as CV) of 1,600 was adequate to protect from the risk of damage due to surge.
However, while performing startup of the C3 system, the valve size proved to be insufficient.
Results of the test cases examined are presented in the following figures.

Fig. 5 shows a map of the C3 low-pressure (first-stage) compressor with anti-surge valve CVs of
1,600 (red line) and 2,600 (blue line), while starting up the system with propane. Using a CV of
1,600, the operating point appears to be in the surge region for a significant part of its path. The
higher CV (2,600) is needed to start the compressor safely, with normal composition and
pressure of 1.5 bara.
 Fig. 5. First-stage C3 compressor map
during startup with propane (Liquefaction
Case 1). The pink line shows the compressor
curves at the highest and lowest speed and
the surge line.

However, when starting up the C3 system with defrost gas or N2, the low-pressure C3 anti-surge
control valve requires an even higher CV to protect from surge. A CV of 3,000 is needed to start
the compressor safely with N2 or defrost gas, together with a starting pressure increase to 1.5–2.5
bara. The case of defrost gas is shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6. First-stage C3 compressor map

during startup with defrost gas (Liquefaction
Case 1). The pink line shows the
compressor curve at the nominal speed and
the surge line. The blue, green and pink lines
demonstrate the operating point using
different CVs. A high CV is required for safe
operation when defrost gas is used.
Compare with Fig. 5.

To start the compressor with different compositions (C3, N2 and defrost gas), a semi-automated
approach was developed, based on the aforementioned results. The plant operator knows the
current operation case (e.g., startup with defrost or propane gas) and presses the appropriate
button on the distributed control system. The operator action ensures passing the necessary
information to the compressor control system. The compressor control then adjusts the value of
the first-stage C3 compressor anti-surge valve maximum opening/CV through a software clamp,
and it also defines the startup pressures and permissives required.
The different approaches used in valve design by vendors are worth mentioning. The typical
valve design is based on a number of distinct/discreet operation cases at steady-state conditions.
Each case may be based on different gas conditions at the suction and discharge of the valve
(e.g., gas temperature, pressure, density, etc.).

With dynamic simulation, it is possible to explore a continuous set of plant conditions. For
example, during a simulated compressor startup, all plant conditions from the settle out/trip to
the final steady-state conditions are visited. These include intermediate conditions with
increasing compressor speed, varying suction/discharge compressor temperatures, ΔP across the
anti-surge valve, etc.

In brief, using dynamic simulation, the engineering study team was able to evaluate design
modifications and to capture cases where the original valve design was not satisfactory for
startup.

Case 2: MR compressor HGB valve design. Another objective of this dynamic simulation
study for the low-pressure MR compressor was to confirm the requirement for an HGB valve
and its stroking time. Note that the low-pressure MR compressor is provided with a bleed valve
and a discharge pressure control valve to flare.

A number of sensitivity test runs were conducted. It was determined that the bleed valve opening
time could be reduced to 1 sec. Furthermore, it was shown that, by opening the bleed valve
quickly and the discharge valve to flare relatively slowly, the HGB valve size could be reduced,
or the valve itself could be removed. Results are demonstrated in Fig. 7. To compensate for any
uncertainties, it was decided to maintain the original design (i.e., maintain the HGB valve with a
small size).
 Fig. 7. Low-pressure MR compressor map
upon MR compressor trip (Liquefaction Case
2). The pink line shows the compressor
curves at the highest and lowest inlet guide
vane positions and the surge line.

Case 3: Valve opening on compressor trip. As soon as the C3/HP MR compressor driver was
tripped, the compressor speed decreased, as expected. However, the simulation run showed a
pronounced effect on the MR compressors. The first stage of MR compressor was entering the
surge region upon C3 compressor trip.

A series of simulation test cases revealed that, to protect the MR compressor from surge upon C3
compressor trip, both the low- and medium-pressure MR compressor anti-surge valves must
open shortly after the C3 trip, following a feed-forward signal. The performance map of the low-
pressure MR compressor with the aforementioned feed-forward signal to the low-pressure MR
anti-surge valve can be seen in Fig. 8.

Fig. 8. Low-pressure MR compressor map

on C3 compressor trip (Liquefaction Case 3).

Lessons learned and execution methodology

It is challenging to perform a meaningful dynamic simulation study. To ensure useful results,

some principles must be understood and basic guidelines must be followed:

 An engineering study is a dynamic process. It requires continuous interaction between the

EPC contractor, the dynamic simulation provider, the equipment vendors and the client at
all levels (managerial, technical, etc.). Excellent cooperation must be achieved to turn the
study into important findings and appropriate process design changes.
  Small teams of engineers with good process understanding and the ability to cooperate
will drive the project to success. The team should remain the same throughout the project
execution.
 The plant data used for the study must be accurate and consistent. After some point, data
changes should be minimized to have consistent and comparable results, while avoiding a
series of costly sensitivity-simulation runs.
 For all test cases, detailed procedures are required and should be communicated in
writing. This step ensures common understanding, targets and methodology.
 The simulation models must be of high fidelity. Special attention should be devoted to all
critical parameters that could possibly invalidate the study results (isometrics, valve sizes
and timings, compressor and driver inertia, compressor curves, etc.).
 Models should be approved before proceeding to results generation. The following
should be reviewed and accepted:
Model topology and match with P a.&IDs
Main data used b.
Match with heat and mass balance c.
Isometrics d.
Compressor curves and inertia values used. e.
 After the simulation models are prepared, it is critical to debug • the models by running a
series of test cases. These can reveal model weaknesses. At the same time, early findings
can be communicated so that the direction of investigation can be set.

From a project management point of view, a dynamic simulation study follows a relatively
standard schedule that can be changed according to project-specific needs and requirements. The
main elements are:

 The kickoff meeting is where the study’s targets are confirmed and data are provided.
 When the model is prepared, a report describing the match of the models to the data and
the heat and mass balance is delivered. The model validation test follows. The delivered
models and associated reports are examined to ensure the match with the actual plant
design. This model review can be an offline activity. However, face-to-face meetings are
advisable to improve the communication of findings. Such meetings present ideal settings
to finalize the procedure for every simulation test case.
 After the model review meeting(s) are conducted, the dynamic models are updated and
retested, the individual cases are examined, and the individual run reports are delivered.
Early findings are communicated, and the direction of investigation is discussed.
 A number of review meetings should be arranged to closely monitor the project execution
and to discuss important findings or challenges that must be addressed to avoid delays
and project risks.
 The dynamic study completion is accompanied by the appropriate deliverables, including
the final project report. This report includes:
An executive summary a.
The study objectives b.
Model scope and description c.
Stream comparison d.
Individual studies and results. e.
Benefits

The work performed for the GNL3Z project illustrates that dynamic simulation can be an
excellent tool for the support and verification of process design during the engineering,
procurement and plant construction (EPC) stages. The advantages of dynamic simulation are
becoming more important and valuable, as evidenced by the fact that dynamic simulation is
increasingly included as a fundamental engineering step. Experience has revealed several
attractive attributes of dynamic simulation:

 A dynamic simulation study is a useful tool for process verification and optimization of
operating procedures, along with control and protection systems. Through critical results
analysis and comparison with project constraints, it is possible to improve the quality of
process design. In turn, the early implementation of improved solutions reduces total
project cost.
 Dynamic simulation can reproduce the behavior of a real plant and offer process insight
that cannot be obtained with traditional steady-state simulators. Using dynamic models
and studies through all of the engineering phases improves knowledge of process
dynamics. This understanding is fundamental during plant startup and for the
identification and resolution of process bottlenecks.
 The evaluation of sequences and procedures involving rotating equipment and important
packages during the engineering stage increases process controllability and reliability.
Furthermore, the machine/package vendor can verify and implement suggested
improvements in control functionality.
 By maintaining the dynamic model (i.e., ensuring that it tracks the adjustments applied
onsite during the commissioning and startup phases), it is possible to extend the life and
value of the simulation well beyond the engineering stage. Any update/improvement of
the control schemes, the creation of “what-if” scenarios, etc., can be easily implemented
using the simulation study model.

In the current project, the use of dynamic simulation delivered significant estimated value:
around 1% of capital expenditure ($30–$60 million) at plant commissioning, taking into account
the minimization of reworks and the avoidance of prolonged commissioning activities. Increased
process reliability is estimated to yield around $10 million per year. To capture these benefits
and boost confidence in the plant design, it is critical to have an appropriate project execution
strategy that includes:

 A recognized and validated modeling tool

 An experienced project team with a significant track record
 An accurately defined scope of work and a flexible project execution plan
 Maturity of design and availability of actual equipment data during the early construction
stage, which allows for the timely implementation of study findings into the actual plant.

Failing to take into account the aforementioned measures significantly increases the risk that
potential benefits will not be realized. HP

LITERATURE CITED
1
Psarrou, S., Y. Bessiris, I. Phillips and V. I. Harismiadis, “Dynamic simulation useful for
reviewing plant control, design,” Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 105 (30), August 13, 2007.
2
Al-Dossary, A., M. Al-Juaid, C. Brusamolino, R. Meloni, V. Mertzanis and V. I. Harismiadis,
“Optimize Plant Performance Using Dynamic Simulation,” Hydrocarbon Processing, June 2009.
3
Panigrahy, P., J. Balmer, M. A. Alos, M. Brodkorb, B. Marshall, “Dynamics break the
bottleneck,” Hydrocarbon Engineering, Vol. 16 (9), September 2011.
4
Price, B. C., “Small-scale LNG facility development,” Hydrocarbon Processing, January 2003.
5
Foglietta, J. H., “Consider dual independent expander refrigeration for LNG production,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, January 2004.
6
Harrold, D., “Design a turnkey floating LNG facility,” Hydrocarbon Processing, July 2004.

The authors

Anton Marco Fantolini is the LNG technology manager at Saipem. He holds a degree in
chemical engineering and has 14 years of experience in the oil and gas industry, with
concentrations in LNG plant design and development during the conceptual, FEED and EPC
phases.

Luigi Pedone is a lead control engineer with Saipem’s automation and control
department. He holds a degree in chemical engineering and has 12 years of
experience in the oil and gas industry. His areas of focus include dynamic and
operator training simulators, management information systems, and advanced
process control.

Luca D’Orazi is a process engineer with Saipem. He holds a degree in chemical

engineering and has six years of experience in the oil and gas industry, with a
concentration in plant simulation.

Ramona Prodan is a technical engineer specializing in control systems and

automation. She has more than five years of professional experience in the oil and
gas industry. She holds a BS degree in chemical engineering from the Petroleum
Gas University of Ploiesti, Romania.

Ankush Sood is a team leader with Hyperion Systems Engineering in Pune, India.
He has seven years of experience in the oil and gas industry, including five years of
delivering engineering studies for centrifugal compressors and developing high-
fidelity operator training simulators. He holds a BSc degree in chemical engineering
from Punjab Technical University.
 Girish Bhattad is a team leader with Hyperion Systems Engineering in Pune, India.
He has eight years of experience in the oil and gas industry, including four years of
developing high-fidelity operator training simulators and delivering engineering
studies. He holds an MTech degree in process engineering and design from The
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi.

Dionysios Stavrakas is a senior engineer at Hyperion Systems Engineering in

Athens, Greece. He has five years of experience in delivering high-fidelity
engineering studies and developing operator training simulators. He holds an MSc
degree in chemical engineering and energy production and management from The
National Technical University of Athens.

Vassilis Harismiadis is the real-time optimization and training simulation manager

at Hyperion Systems Engineering. He has 12 years of experience in the oil and gas
industry, with a focus on using dynamic process modeling to improve plant
efficiency. Dr. Harismiadis holds a PhD in thermodynamic modeling of complex
systems from NTU Athens.

Fire incident at Jaipur was a wakeup call

08.01.2012 | Dutta, H., Oil Industry Safety Directorate, New Delhi, India

After the 2009 accident at Indian Oil's lubricants terminal, new safety standards were developed
to help avoid future tragedies. The focus is as it should be, on people, process and technology.

Keywords: [safety] [accident] [incident] [fire] [regulations] [India] [Oil Industry Safety
Directorate] [recommendations] [implementation]

The 2009 fire incident at Indian Oil’s Jaipur petroleum oil lubricants (POL) terminal happened
while reversing the hammer blind during transfer of POL to the pipelines. Unfortunately, while
this reversal was taking place, the tank body’s motor operated valve (MOV) was open. The oil
spillage and vapor cloud formation that followed resulted in a devastating fire and loss of
property and human life. As per normal practice, the MOV should not have been kept open while
reversing the hammer blind.

The episode led to the loss of 11 lives and a property loss of around $60 million. The root cause
of the incident revealed that plant personnel did not follow standard operating procedures. This
terrible tragedy was a wake-up call for the industry.

Refinery vs. marketing operations

Marketing locations are spread across the nooks and crannies of India; in order to be in the
vicinity of the customer base. With more than 660 marketing installations and 22 refineries in the
country, the geographical spreads of marketing locations are enormous. Refinery operations are
complex, with high temperature, high pressure operations taking place constantly. Marketing
operations, in contrast, are not so complex, with practically no source of ignition. Refinery
operations are uninterrupted seven days a week, whereas marketing operations in most of these
locations are two shift operations. Marketing locations do not have their own full-fledged fire-
fighting crews at their disposal, nor do they have a training center attached to the location.
Furthermore, many of them are located in highly congested and densely populated locations.

Given these scenarios and constraints, it seems that marketing is perhaps more shambolic
compared to refining in terms of infrastructure and environment. However, this poses a great
challenge to the oil marketers in India.

Primary and secondary factors

To mitigate unsafe situations, oil companies’ approach to safety management must be systemic,
encompassing both primary and secondary factors (Fig. 1). Primary safety management factors
include risk analysis, hazard and operability (HAZOP) study and risk assessment. Safety
measures should also be built in at the design stage, incorporating safety in instrumentation
(including safety interlocks), while following best engineering practices like API and ASME
codes. In addition, walk-throughs of the plant—using 3D modeling and other techniques,
overseen by multi-disciplinary teams with engineers from chemical, mechanical,
instrumentation, electrical backgrounds—are also helpful. Operating manuals should not only
cover normal start-up, shutdown and emergency procedures, but also include disaster
preparedness issues so that employees are prepared to manage smooth and safe operations under
any conditions.

FIG. 1. Safety management systems in the

hydrocarbon processing sector.

Secondary safety factors include fire-fighting infrastructure and facilities to address any
development once an incident or accident happens due to a failure of the primary safety systems,
as outlined previously.

The Oil Industry Safety Directorate has developed a number of safety standards (112) to be
implemented by the oil industry in India. The directorate undertakes audits at regular intervals,
including surprise safety checks, to oversee the implementation of the safety standards and to
point out gaps that may exist in a particular company’s approach. Accidents are investigated and
root cause analysis is shared with the industry, not for the sake of fault finding, but rather to learn
from the mistakes and avoid recurrence. Thanks to this approach, the number of accidents in
India has been reduced over the last three years.

A close analysis of the accidents that took place in the last three years shows that a majority of
the incidents have taken place due to:

 Not following the standard operating procedures

 Poor upkeep of equipment and assets
 Knowledge gaps.

To meet the objective of no incidents in the oil industry, the leaders of the industry recognized
the need for a paradigm shift in safety management approaches. Foremost is the belief that
accidents can be prevented. The second is a renewed focus on learning, unlearning and re-
learning (applicable not only to full-time employees but also to the large number of contract
laborers that work in oil installations), coupled with strict adherence to standard operating
procedures. The third important factor is that of asset integrity management.

Emphasis on learning

The successful absorption of any technology or process depends on how it has been assimilated
by the plant personnel. Accidents take place due to:

 Incorrect operations
 Not properly maintaining the equipment or facilities
 Not following procedures
 Knowledge gaps.

Thus, it is evident that the success of any improvement effort, namely managing safety or
improving productivity or gross refining margin, depends upon the employees.

In India, it is mandatory that all new entrants to oil installations must successfully complete fire
and safety training. The training encompasses both classroom inputs and onsite drills. Refresher
programs are conducted at all the installations. The training materials are critically reviewed,
radar charts are developed for each operating crew, and needs-based training sessions are
included.

Training for all contract employees has also been made mandatory. Identification of critical
workers like riggers, welders, electricians, crane operators, and drivers selected by outsourced
agencies includes periodically monitoring and assessing their competencies.

The directorate demanded that industry identify and give a critical task analysis of high-risk jobs.
It encouraged periodic observation of the critical tasks by a supervisor, followed by a discussion
with the operating personnel.
Mock drills have become a regular feature of safety preparedness training for employees, as the
outcome of each drill is critiqued for lessons learned, and then action items are discussed,
corrected and completed in a timely manner.

Another aspect of the renewed focus on quality assurance and preventive maintenance programs
examines: pressure vessels and storage tanks; piping systems, including valves; relief and vent
system devices; emergency shutdown systems; monitoring devices; sensors, alarms and
interlocks; inspection techniques; and pumps and compressors.

Standard operating procedures

Each element of standard operating procedures (SOPs) is now discussed with the plant operators
and technicians to provide clarity for all participants. It is vital to have SOPs that are properly
understood by the personnel who are responsible for following and implementing them. The
SOPs should be regularly updated and displayed at a location near critical equipment.

The concept of equipment ownership and “know your equipment” (KYE) was brought in. This is
aimed at improving ownership and accountability. More emphasis on visual management and its
display at appropriate locations to eliminate operational mistakes has been put into practice.

Asset integrity management

Employees and supervisors should constantly be concerned about proper facilities maintenance.
While it is easy to build facilities, it is more challenging to maintain them in a “like new”
condition. Unless asset reliability is monitored consistently, the various safety devices associated
with the plant may not work.

The remote operated device that was supposed to shut off the MOV at Jaipur did not function
properly. A similar thing happened at the Buncefield, UK, terminal, where the high-level tank
indicator did not work appropriately. If it had, it could have prevented such a huge loss of life
and property.

Oil companies today are putting more emphasis on safety through intense reliability testing,
properly scheduled maintenance of rotary equipment and inspection of static and rotary
equipment. Storage tank maintenance and inspection schedules are followed and not
unnecessarily delayed. Pipelines are receiving periodic health checks and troublesome equipment
replaced wherever necessary. This shows that the the emphasis is on maintaining assets in a “fit-
for-use” condition all of the time.

The significant aspect of asset integrity involves people and their development. Unless the
human assets are equipped with adequate knowledge and skills, motivation and a climate for
fostering innovation, it is impossible to achieve the desired results.

Post-Jaipur: Other safety measures

Reversing a hammer blind is always problematic, as there are chances for accidental spillage. To
eliminate hammer blind reversal as a potential hazard, India decided post-Jaipur that all hammer
blinds throughout the oil industry would be replaced by double block and bleeder valves or plug
valves. At many locations, this has already been implemented. Another post-Jaipur safety
decision was to replace the tank MOV with remote operated shut-off valves (ROSOVs), which
can be operated from the control room (with the cable leading to the control room being
fireproof). ROSOVs also have the additional benefit of operating the same from the field through
a switch located outside the tank dike. This changeover from tank MOV to ROSOVs is
underway across the country.

To prevent tank overflow, a separate hardwired independent switch with a high-high level alarm
in the control room has been proposed to bolster the normal high level alarm from the radar
gauge. The additional high-high level alarm from the independent switch would actuate an
emergency shutdown switch to shut off the ROSOV. These additional layers of protection, which
are under various stages of implementation, are aimed at further enhancing the safety of oil
installations.

Visible change

A visible change has taken place in the attitude of top management. The attitude toward safety
has changed from being reactive to being proactive, following philosophical shift from
preventive to predictive. Routine training programs have been expanded to increase learning
opportunities for employees, and top leadership is now accepting dissent views as a valuable
resource.

The focus is as it should be, on people, process and technology. Industry management should
recognize that when people, process and technology work in cohesion, surprises can be
eliminated, safety can be improved and profitability can be increased. HP

FIG. 2. The safety triangle illustrates that when

people, process and technology work in tandem,
there is always a significant reduction in surprises.

The author

Hirak Dutta has a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from Jadavpur University in
Kolkata, India. He is currently executive director of India’s Oil Industry Safety Directorate. Mr.
Dutta has over three decades of experience in the oil industry, including operations, process
engineering, troubleshooting, project management and human resources management.

Reliability solutions offer unique value propositions

08.01.2012 | Hollywood, Paula, ARC Advisory Group, Dedham, MA

Keywords: [asset management] [wireless] [software] [optimization] [maintenance]

Globally, the process industries lose the equivalent of 5% of production annually because of
unscheduled downtime and poor product quality. ARC Advisory Group estimates that almost
80% of these losses are preventable. As the longest phases in any asset’s life cycle, operation and
maintenance (O&M) expenses account for the highest costs. Any improvements that a
manufacturer can make in these life-cycle phases can significantly impact the bottom line.

A perfect storm

A number of factors have converged to drive present interest in reliability software and services.
Increases in the amount and complexity of plant assets applied are the primary factor, as the lines
between work management and information technology (IT) are blurred. Greater emphasis on
safety, energy consumption and environmental control compound the need for more data.
Enterprises now place greater emphasis on risk management to limit exposure to adverse events.
With the growing shortage of skilled technicians capable of operating and maintaining such
assets, a “perfect storm” is materializing.

For owner-operators, asset reliability requires the convergence of process control with work
management to form the basis for a more robust approach to sustainable business performance
improvement. This convergence resolves weaknesses in one methodology, while being additive
for both. For example, process control solutions cannot identify asset criticality, but reliability
solutions can. Manufacturers can improve efficiency and productivity with standardized
workflows based on best practices. Reliability solutions transform data into instantly accessible,
context-appropriate information for those who need it.

Proactive maintenance as a strategy

As maintenance activities migrate from reactive to proactive, new solutions are emerging that are
designed to leverage the now available rich information to manage critical issues better within
the confines of operational constraints. In terms of enterprise software for the manufacturing
industries, asset reliability software is a new entry to the marketplace. ARC believes the real
value of enterprise-level reliability software lies in its analytical capabilities.

Operational risk management

Managing risk is an essential component of a reliability program. Decision-makers must
understand the uncertainties of costs vs. risks to make informed decisions about the benefits of a
given strategy and their possible impact on safety. Identifying critical equipment; failure modes;
failure effects on equipment, personnel and the environment; and critical spares on hand enables
decision-makers to leverage the right risks, while maintaining the appropriate controls to ensure
effective and efficient operations. Visualization capabilities in risk-management modeling tools
provide individuals with information in the context of their responsibilities and level of authority.
Displays of real-time information and historical trends at the management level enable actions
based on facts to minimize costs and losses associated with a business interruption.

Reliability goes mobile

Technicians frequently perform work that takes them out of range of wireless networks or
handheld cradles for data transmission. As a result, reliability solutions have migrated into
handheld devices and tablets for the bidirectional exchange of data. This enables operators to
take a more proactive role in initiating corrective actions for degrading equipment.

Taking reliability to the next level

At present, reliability is generally an afterthought, with little input in the concept and design
phase of the asset life cycle. To take reliability to the next level, it must be built into the asset.
Reliability expectations should be defined in the concept phase and used to drive performance
into the design phase of the product development cycle. Early testing can identify important
failure modes that should be resolved in the final design. Unresolved failure modes, such as
normal wear of items, should be tagged in diagnostic guides for condition monitoring and PAM
solutions to drive appropriate maintenance strategies. A reliable-by-design approach provides a
clear understanding of the risks before products are introduced and enables end users to better
address issues later, if necessary.

Historically, in the hierarchy of an enterprise, maintenance has been viewed as the ugly
stepchild. It carries negative connotations—connotations that something is broken and will cost a
lot to fix. In challenging economic times, the maintenance organization is frequently the first to
experience cuts in an attempt to improve profitability. Enterprises have come to the collective
realization that this attitude can be self-destructive. As a tool in the asset-performance
management toolbox, reliability solutions enable enterprises to optimize asset availability and
utilization while mitigating exposure to risk. HP

The author

Paula Hollywood, senior analyst at ARC Advisory Group, has been covering field
instrumentation and other automation technologies for over 30 years. At present, she focuses on
enabling technologies and strategies for industrial asset performance management. Prior to ARC,
she held various technical and marketing positions at The Foxboro Company, Krohne America
and Kentrol, Inc. Ms. Hollywood has a BS degree from Northeastern University and an MS
degree from the University of Massachusetts in Boston.
PERU LNG: Executing Peru’s largest industrial project
08.01.2012 | Sharma, S., Hunt Oil Co., Peru; Hill, D., CB&I, Peru; Rano, P.,
CB&I, Peru; Humphrey, G., CB&I, Peru; Mayer, M., CB&I, Peru

The PERU LNG project includes a liquefaction plant, marine export facilities with an island
breakwater, and a 408-km pipeline that connects to an existing pipeline in the Ayacucho
mountains. Hunt Oil Co. is the operator.

Keywords: [LNG] [natural gas] [engineering and design] [gas processing]

Peru LNG is Latin America’s first liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project. It was developed
by a consortium of Hunt Oil Co. (50%), SK Energy (20%), Repsol YPF (20%) and Marubeni
Corp. (10%). The PERU LNG project includes a liquefaction plant, marine export facilities with
an island breakwater, and a 408-km pipeline that connects to an existing pipeline in the
Ayacucho mountains. Hunt Oil Co. is the operator of the PERU LNG liquefaction plant and
LNG loading terminal, and Stream—a joint venture of Repsol YPF and Gas Natural—has
exclusive rights to market the 4.5 million metric tons (metric MMt) of LNG produced each yea

Rotterdam LNG facility wins top project award

08.01.2012 | Romanow, Stephany, Hydrocarbon Processing Staff, Houston, TX

The Gate megaproject is one of Europe's largest LNG terminals. With two jetties, it can unload
simultaneously two vessels of the Q-Max type, the world's biggest LNG carriers.

Keywords: [project management] [construction] [LNG] [Europe] [safety] [environment]

The liquefied natural gas (LNG) regasification plant Gate terminal, located in Maasvlakte
(Rotterdam) has been named “project of the year” by the European Construction Institute (ECI)
and is featured as the cover of HP’s August issue. The award was announced by the Institute
during the 23rd Annual ECI conference in Düsseldorf, Germany. ECI is Europe’s only
transnational learning and improvement network covering the entire project cycle for
engineering construction.

The Gate terminal megaproject is one of the largest LNG terminals in Europe, with an initial
throughput capacity of 12 billion m3/yr and three 180,000-m3 storage tanks. The terminal has two
jetties and is able to unload simultaneously two vessels of the Q-Max type (the world’s largest
LNG carriers). The high-scale Gate terminal is able to fulfill the natural gas needs for The
Netherlands and part of Europe. Total project cost is estimated at 800 million euros.

This project is a success story. TS LNG—a joint venture of Techint-SENER and TSEV (Techint-
SENER-Entrepose-Vinci), the main contractor of the plant—delivered the facility to the client on
September 1, 2011, as planned, complying successfully with the EPC contract. The project began
in June 2008; special attention was consistently applied to safety, protecting the environment,
operational availability and versatility. This plant is environmentally friendly, and it was
designed for the “unthinkable.” For example, it has a safe shutdown earthquake element with a
return period of 5,000 years. The Gate terminal was designed to manage rising sea levels linked
to global warming and to comply with the latest safety and security standards, such as SEVESO,
HAZOP, HAZID, ISPS, SVA, etc.

Along with the plant’s design, onsite safety was a high priority for the main contractors and the
TSEV consortium. More importantly, the construction phase was completed with one of the
highest levels of safety ever recorded for works implemented in Rotterdam’s Europort (boasting
more than 2.5 million work hours without accidents).

The TS LNG joint venture was in charge of managing the engineering, procurement,
construction and start-up of the LNG plant. Techint E&C was the leader for the building
consortium TSEV, and the company was also assigned the entire project and site management,
together with the supervision of construction works. SENER participated in project management,
procurement and construction works. Also, SENER was responsible for managing the plant’s
implementation, commissioning and start-up, as well as for the engineering activities. In
addition, the Gate terminal was also named “LNG Project of the Year” in January 2012 by the
European Gas Conference Awards. HP

Fig. 1. Aerial view of Gate terminal at

Rotterdam.
Fig. 2. Workers finish insulating pipework at
the Gate terminal LNG facility.
Automation: The path to reliability
08.01.2012 | Kern, A.G., Tesoro Corp., Los Angeles, California

Keywords: [automation] [process control]

Consider the view looking back from 2020. Will the current decade be the decade of process
automation? This may seem a puzzling way to frame the question. We have been automating for
several decades. To understand the question, we must define the distinctions between
modernization, automation and optimization.

In investigating the net effects in how the process industry does business and operates facilities
today, one conclusion is that the process-control business has been involved primarily in
modernization, to some degree optimization, and least of all automation. That is surprising, since
automation was the initial goal.

What came first?

Modernization and its prodigious offspring, information, have been several fold. Control-system
success has often meant just keeping pace with technological change—completely separate from
automation and optimization. Control systems have evolved from pneumatic to analog, digital,
distributed and, now, open systems. Safety systems and field devices have undergone similar
evolutions. Business pressures compel adopting each successive technology. Most people are
only too familiar with the pace and demands of modernization.

It would be nice if, like information, automation sprang naturally from modernization. But that is
not at all the case. It is quite possible to keep pace through multiple modernization cycles
without ever making headway in automation. Indeed, this is the present condition for many
companies. Processing plants are more modernized, but the difficult challenges of sustaining
reliable operation still remain.

What is ‘modern’ control?

For example, modern control systems are digital and not pneumatic. However, are there fewer
operators in the field, fewer process upsets, and fewer equipment trips? Are more valves in
automatic mode, with less frequent reliance on manual mode? Are board operators less alarm-
driven and more procedure-driven? Are more procedures and sequential operations automated?
While the answer to these questions may be a tentative “yes,” in most cases, the improvement
has been incremental and stems from modernization, not automation. The answer that we wish to
see is that process industries have achieved the same transformational level of automation as
many manufacturing industries.

Automation

Let’s define automation as automatic control that takes place in the control system domain. This
fits the traditional concept of automation involving direct control of equipment or machinery.
This includes, most notably, advanced regulatory control (ARC), multivariable control (MPC)
and sequential control. But it really includes all automatic distributed-control system (DCS),
safety instrumented system (SIS) and other base-layer functions.

Optimization

Let’s define optimization as activities that take place in the business domain. They have the
objective of arriving at optimal operating targets, or making optimal business decisions that are
implemented across the organization. Optimization has been sustained by constant improvement
on information flows. Many resources participate in this task across an organization. In many
ways, the entire business is “plugged into” this mission; the automation domain is just one
aspect. However financially winning optimization can be, plant reliability is not one of its usual
consequences.

Little such carefree collaboration characterizes the automation domain, where equipment and
procedures often defy automation solutions; implementation is laborious; mistakes are painful;
and critical skills are scarce. This is one hurdle to automation. The control domain is not a very
hospitable environment.

Modernization vs. automation

With these definitions in hand, it becomes clear that continued modernization and greater
automation are the challenges before us. Modernization will continue to bring reliability and
efficiency gains, such as centralized monitoring, remote control, lower cost and less nuisance
trips, if not exactly automation. Greater automation, while harder to come by, can ultimately be
expected to bring the same transformational improvements in safety, reliability and quality as in
many manufacturing industries.

Next decade

The single biggest challenge facing process plants today is reliability. And automation is the
single best answer. Will this decade become the automation decade? The situation is unfolding
slowly, with manufacturers still engaged in modernization, broadly tackling the optimization
puzzle and, when it comes to automation, still focused primarily on MPC, which is only one
piece of automation. Perhaps, the 2020s will eventually unfold as the decade of automation.
Those companies who start the automation process early may find themselves leading the
industry over the next decade. HP

The author

Allan Kern has 30 years of process control experience and has authored numerous papers on
advanced process control with emphasis on operation and practical process control effectiveness.
Mr. Kern is a professional engineer, a senior member of ISA, and a graduate of the University of
Wyoming.
The modern world of steel
08.01.2012 | Thinnes, Billy, Hydrocarbon Processing Staff, Houston, TX

Keywords: [steel] [refining] [crude steel] [pig iron production] [China] [Japan] [US] [India]
[Russia]

The World Steel Association recently published the 2012 edition of “World Steel in Figures.”
This study provides essential facts and statistics about the global steel industry, including
information on crude steel production, apparent steel use, pig iron production, the steel trade,
iron ore production and trade, and scrap trade.

Steel plays an important role at an oil refinery. Within a hydrocarbon processing facility,
important trays, piping, tubing, boilers, exchangers and the like are all reliant on steel. The
refinery of today is especially interested in high-alloy, corrosion-resistant steels, especially
stainless steels, to process crudes all across the corrosive spectrum.

The World Steel Association’s study provides data to clarify where the steel is coming from that
is being used in new projects like Borouge in Ruwais, UAE, and CNOOC’s refinery in Huizhou,
China. The top five steel-producing countries of 2011 can be found in Table 1, and they should
not come as a surprise. China, Japan, the US, India and Russia have all been steel-producing
powerhouses for some time.

Table 2 provides the crucial data indicating the world’s top steel-producing companies.
ArchelorMittal is by far the globe’s leader in steel, producing 97.2 million tons in 2011. The
company’s next-closest competitor, Hebei Group, was a distant second, at 44.4 million tons
produced.
Providing a distillation of data that can then be used as a springboard to other economic analysis,
Table 3 breaks down the top 10 countries with the highest apparent steel use per capita. Of
particular interest are the high rankings achieved by the Czech Republic (3rd) and Belgium-
Luxembourg (10th).

When parsing these statistics, be aware that apparent steel use comprises the deliveries of steel to
the marketplace from the domestic steel producers together with imports. This differs from real
steel use, which takes into account steel delivered to or drawn from inventories.

For more information on this study, visit www.worldsteel.org. HP