An approach for risk reduction (methodology) based on optimizing the facility layout and siting in fire and explosion scenarios

Transcription

1 MKOPSC Symposium An approach for risk reduction (methodology) based on optimizing the facility layout and siting in fire and explosion scenarios CFD QRA OPT Dedy Ng, Seungho Jung, Christian Diaz Ovalle, Richart Roman Vazquez, M. Sam Mannan 1

2 Contents Introduction Overview Motivation Research objectives Flowchart of the Proposed Methodology Overall theme (QRA Optimization - CFD) Case study with Hexane distillation plant Description for case study 1 st approach 2 nd approach 3 rd approach Evaluations with RealityLINx and FLACS Conclusion & Future work 2

3 Overview Process Design P-4 E-5 E-6 E-3 E-1 E-2 E-4 E-7 Equipment Layout Facility Layout + Piping Route 3

4 Motivation BP Texas city (2005) Trailers Pasadena (1989) Control room Separation Distance Hazardous point vs. Occupied buildings Residential Area Between hazardous facilities Bhopal (1984) Affecting nearby residential area Literature review Buncefield (2005) Storages San Juanico disaster (1984) Residential area Domino effect upload.wikimedia.org/.../250px-gaskessel_gr.jpg (Victor Carreto reproduced) 4

5 Research Objectives Combine economic concept and safety concept Facility layout optimization using QRA Aim for realistic prediction! Consider obstacle effects Adopt real scenarios in the model formulation Optimization (MINLP) GAMS Develop a layout optimization model Help in a decision-making for safer siting & layout 5

6 Methodology for 3 different approaches Optimization Interconnection cost Land cost Separation constraints Separation distance from boundary (1) Distance-based approach QRA Release frequency Event tree analysis Consequence analysis QRA Release frequency Event tree analysis Consequence analysis Optimization Interconnection cost Land cost Layout results Risk cost (2) Overpressure estimation approach Optimization Interconnection cost Land cost Risk cost FLACS Overpressure evaluation FLACS-CFD code Facility (equipment) type Separation constraints (3) Integrated method based on recommended separation distance and overpressure 6

7 Case Study C 6 distillation column Description - A distillation column is used to separate hexane and heptane Incident outcome probability via ETA Incident outcome Release frequency (yr -1 ) Incident outcome probability Incident outcome frequency (yr -1 ) BLEVE 2.3 X X 10-6 VCE 2.3 X X 10-6 Flash fire 2.3 X X 10-6 AICHE/CCPS (2007) Guidelines for chemical process quantitative risk analysis 7

8 Recommended separation distance between facilities, D i,j (m) Case study Hexane distillation plant i Type Length (m-m) Boundary (m) Facility cost, FC i ($) 1 Control room (non-pressurized) ,000,000 2 Administrative building ,000 3 Warehouse ,000 4 High pressure storage sphere ,000 5 mospheric liquid storage tank ,000 6 mospheric liquid storage tank ,000 7 Cooling tower ,000 8 Process unit Facility I Unit interconnection cost, UIC i,j ($ / m)

9 1 st Approach (Distance based) - formulations Objective function Min( Land cost + Interconnection cost i,j ) Land cost = UL X Max(x i Lx i ) X Max(y i Ly i ) Interconnection cost i,j = UIC i,j X d i,j d i,j2 = (x i - x j ) 2 + (y i - y j ) 2 Constraints "Left" x j x i D i,j NO,x "Rigt" x j x i + D i,j NO,x "Above", "Down" NO,x x j x i D i,j NO,x x j x i + D i,j "Above" "Down" NO,y y j y i + D i,j x j y i D i,j NO,y where, D NO,x i,j = Lx i+ly j 2 + D i,j D NO,y i,j = Ly i + Ly j 2 + D i,j 9

10 Non-overlapping constraints Region Left Region Above Facility s Facility k Region Right Region Down " L" " R" x x D x x D min, x min, x s k s, k s k s, k " A"," D" x x D min, x s k s, k x x D min, x s k s, k " A" " D" y y D y y D min, y min, y s k s, k s k s, k Disjunctions 10

11 1 st Approach Distance based 1 (85,123) 2 Plant unit HP Control Room Cooling tower W. M. B. H. Administrative Building x (m) 11

12 2 nd Approach (Overpressure based) consequence modeling Probability of Structure Damage Pr 23.8 BLEVE 2.92ln( o p ) Sigmoid equation a y x x0 1 exp{ ( )} b VCE a b x 0 BLEVE VCE

13 2 nd Approach Overpressure based y (m) (60,100) HP Control Room Plant unit 1 Cooling Tower 2 Min (Land cost + Interconnection cost i,j + PSDC i ) Potential Structure Damage Cost of i-th facility (PSDC i ) = Plant lifetime X Incident outcome frequency X % of structural damage X Fc i Constraint: 5 meters separation between all facilities Separation distance from the property boundary W. H. Administrative Building x (m) 13

14 3 rd Approach integrated with W.F. - formulations Objective function Min (Land cost + Interconnection cost i,j + PSDCW i ) Potential Structure Damage Cost of i-th facility (PSDCW i ) with Weighting Factor PSDCW i = Plant lifetime X Incident outcome frequency X % of structural damage X FC i X WF i i Type Population Weighting Factor, WF i 1 Control room (non-pressurized) Administrative building Warehouse High pressure storage sphere mospheric liquid storage tank mospheric liquid storage tank Cooling tower

15 3 rd Approach Probit functions (Salzano, 2006) y a 1 exp{ x x0 ( )} b i Type Probit function Explosion a b x General Building ln(p 0 ) BLEVE VCE Pressurized vessel ln(p 0 ) BLEVE VCE mospheric Vessel ln(p 0 ) BLEVE VCE

16 3 rd Approach integrated with W.F. y (m) Overpressure 2 estimation approach HP Control HP Room Plant unit Cooling Tower Plant unit (60,100) Cooling tower (85,123) y (m) 1. Distance-based approach HP 2 Plant unit Cooling Tower (85,124) 3. Integrated approach Control Room 1 2 Control Room W. M. B. H. Administrative Administrative Building W. Building H. Administrative Building W. H x (m) (m) x (m) 16

17 Evaluation - Asset Visualization Solution -FLACS Use RealityLINx 5.3 (INOVx Inc.) to obtain real geometry of the process plant Facility #, i Overpressure of the 1 st layout result (barg) Overpressure of the 2 nd layout result (barg) Overpressure of the 3 rd layout result (barg) Control rm Admin bld Warehouse High press. sphere m tank m tank Cooling tower Summary S. Jung et. al. A New approach to Optimizing the Facility Siting and Layout for Fire and Explosion Scenarios, I&EC Research, submitted Comparing three different approaches to choose the best layout Evaluating layouts with RealityLINX and FLACS 17

18 Conclusion Comparing three different approaches to choose the best layout Case study for Hexane-Heptane separation plant was demonstrated to obtain the optimal layout of 7 facilities around the process unit using MINLP Evaluating layouts with RealiLINX and FLACS Future work Compare with Grid-based plane approach Propylene plant case study Developing solver options 18

19 Acknowledgements Dr. M. Sam Mannan Dr. Richart Vazquez Christian Diaz Ovalle Thank you! All members of MKOPSC