Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
© Siemens AG 2017
Agenda
• Introductions
Topic
Introduction
Safety Moment
Siemens Process Safety Consulting Overview
Dynamic Simulation Overview
Dynamic Simulation Work Process
Case Study - Debutanizer
Q&A
Our Vision
“Every Siemens employee should be able to rely on an
intact and safe working environment so that they can
return healthily and safely to their family and friends.”
Management of Process
Process Safety
Safety
Change Services
PS Change Manager® Consulting
Consulting
PSCM™
• Process Optimization
• Startup / Shutdown
• Throughput Changes
• Operator Training
• Emergency Procedures and Response
• Compressor Systems
• Safety Analysis
Aspentech
• HYSYS
• Aspen Plus
Honeywell
• Unisim Design (useful for Dynamic engineering studies)
• Unisim Operations (best for OTS)
• Can be done on entire system, or can take a hybrid approach and focus on largest contributors,
while smaller one rely solely on a quicker/cheaper steady state approach
• Can be used to determine staging of loads to the header (pressure up time, time for relief)
• Computer technology and software advanced enough that expensive servers are no longer a
strict requirement, however performance is impacted by use of standard workstations.
• Can help analyze control system actions/reactions to take credit for additional layers of
protection
• Studies have shown some promising results for certain global scenarios
• Boil-up scenarios (loss of feed and reflux, heat input continues) in particular have shown significant
reductions compared to traditional steady state analysis, upwards of 90% in some cases
• Lower load reduces relief device backpressures and can also reduce predicted radiation levels
• Often, the flare header design scenario is a total power failure which results in boil up at many locations
in the refinery
• May also demonstrate that system is not capable of reaching a relief condition
• Other scenarios, such as loss of cooling with continued reflux, do not have the same magnitude of reduction
• Some systems as low as 5-15% reduction
• Feed boiling point range can serve to predict effectiveness of approach.
• Simulation Time
1. Data Collection
a) Equipment Mechanical details – dimensions, elevations, piping information
b) Equipment internal details – Column tray/packing (type, spacing, HETP), reboiler sump,
exchanger setp, accumulator vessel internals
c) Process data – Steady state H&MB, PI data
d) Control system information – Valve details, tuning parameters, control system logic, ESD logic,
emergency procedures
e) Utility system information - may include piping isometrics depending on complexity requirements
f) Relief system information
g) Piping isometrics
2. Data Entry
a) Certain equipment may be represented via multiple unit operations in simulation software, i.e.
column reboiler sump is built separately to model thermosiphon effect
b) Piping/hydraulics have several options depending on tool selected
c) ‘Dummy’ control valves and controllers required to help set flows and pressures to unit operations
d) Component setup
e) Integrator details – step size, calculation priority, acceleration
f) Strip Charts – setup to view key process variables, controller actions
g) Weeping factor
h) OTS Framework (AspenTech only)
Several key variables have been identified that can greatly affect performance
System Details
• Two section trayed distillation column
• One steam thermosiphon reboiler shell
• Two cooling water condensers run in series
• Reflux drum equipped with control valve vent to flare header
• Control system is fairly simple, no emergency shutdown systems or HIPPS.
• Two cascaded control loops, for steam flow and overhead product/reflux
• System has three available relief devices
• Two located on column overhead prior to condenser inlet, and venting to flare header
• One more located on reboiler return that also vent to flare header
• Scenario evaluated is a total power failure, which results in a loss of feed, reflux and overhead cooling.
Steam continues to provide heat input
• Sensitivity analysis was performed on several key variables
Some simplifying assumptions are necessary to build a model that will run in a reasonable amount of
time
• System is at a pre-defined steady state based on maximum expected throughput prior to initiating an
event.
• Instrument air system has enough capacitance to keep certain instruments active
• Control loops that provide benefits to the system are assumed not to act/remain in position
• Control loops which provide adverse affects to the system in response to the initiating event are
allowed to continue functioning
• Example: Overhead vent from accumulator to flare is set to act below relief pressure, and allowed
to open at it’s set point to provide flow to flare header
• Steam turbine pump availability is determined based on whether keeping them online would benefit
the system or not (pumps that provide benefit are usually assumed to fail, unless automated pump
starts are being analyzed)
• Reboiler is allowed to pinch as LMTD changes throughout the scenario
Weeping Factor
Weeping Factor 1 0.3
Peak relief load (lb/hr) 93,700 86,300
Time to peak load (minutes from 3.3 3.1
event initiation)
Observed Reboiler Duty at peak 15.3 14.5
(MMBTU/hr)
Reboiler Setup
Reboiler Setup 1 2 3 4
Peak relief load 93,700 94,600 104,000 191,000
(lb/hr)
Time to peak load 3.3 3.4 3.1 5
(minutes from event
initiation)
Observed Reboiler 15.3 15.5 17 32
Duty at© Siemens
Restricted peak AG 2016 All rights reserved. siemens.com/answers
(MMBTU/hr)
Page 23
Conclusions
• Dynamic simulation can significantly reduce predicted relief rates vs traditional steady state methods
for certain scenarios
• Models can be very sensitive to key variables, so these must be chosen wisely
Dan Pulis
Technical Advisor
Office: +1 713 570 2979
Mobile: +1 8323504031
Daniel.Pulis@Siemens.com