Budget Shortfall Options

Ian Wyatt - Atkins

JIP on Bursting Disks for Shell & Tube Exchangers – 2nd Stakeholders Meeting

Heat Exchanger Design - Essential

• HE 1. Establish design criteria and engineering analysis requirements to assess if guillotine fracture is credible based on the following:

• The mechanical properties of the materials of construction used in heat exchanger tubes, baffles, etc.

• Degradation of the materials through corrosion or erosion. • Minimum tube thickness specification required to prevent guillotine

fracture. • Vibration analysis to ensure that the likelihood of guillotine fracture is

minimised. • Sensitivity analysis of process variations which should be carried out as

part of the engineering analysis to ensure that the design is robust, e.g. flow, pressure, temperature etc.

• Gathering industry heat exchanger data.

Heat Exchanger Design - Essential

• HE 2. Establish design criteria that determine when transient effects need to be considered for overpressure protection of STHEs:

• Determine if differential pressure limits can be established below which transient effects from a tube rupture can be ignored.

• Determine the maximum allowable transient overpressures (peak pressure and duration) in the shell, under tube rupture conditions, below which fast acting pressure relief is not required. Extend the University of Sheffield work on heat exchanger stress distribution.

• HE 3. Determine the impact of transient loads on the piping systems if bursting disks are not applied for overpressure and develop appropriate design guidelines to ensure that the piping design is robust but not overly conservative.

Relief Device Selection - Essential

• RD 1. Conduct shock tube tests at the same scale as typical relief device sizes encountered in real applications to establish the response times under a range of overpressures (150-400%).

• RD 2. Establish mechanical integrity criteria for relief valves for use in tube rupture service.

• RD 3. Establish the range of process conditions for which conventional relief valves could be utilised to protect against tube rupture and those for which bursting disks are required. This needs to consider aspects such as differential design pressure between low and high pressure side of exchanger, relief device speed of response etc. Alternate relief valve types and manufacturers’ products will be taken into account.

Design Guidelines - Essential

• DG 1. A design decision flowchart that takes designers through the engineering analysis required to develop the overpressure protection design for a shell and tube heat exchanger.

• DG 2. Relief device selection criteria for tube rupture.

• DG 3. Relief device set-point selection criteria.

• DG 4. Design criteria for overpressure protection of piping connected to heat exchangers.

• DG 5. Design criteria for the interface between the relief devices and the relief disposal (flare) system.

• DG 6. Lessons learned from operating experience of STHEs.

• DG 7. Instrumentation requirements for detection of tube rupture and bursting disk rupture.

Main Task Description

RD1 Conduct shock tube tests at the same scale as typical relief device sizes encountered in real applications to establish the response times under a range of overpressures (150-400%).

RD2 Establish mechanical integrity criteria for relief valves for use in tube rupture service.

RD3Establish the range of process conditions for which conventional relief valves could be utilised to protect against tube rupture and those for which bursting disks are required. This needs to consider aspects such as differential design pressure between low and high pressure side of exchanger, relief device speed of response etc. Alternate relief valve types and manufacturers’ products will be taken into account.

HE1 Establish design criteria and engineering analysis requirements to assess if guillotine fracture is credible

HE2 Establish design criteria that determine when transient effects need to be considered for overpressure protection of shell and tube heat exchangers

HE3 Determine the impact of transient loads on the piping systems if bursting disks are not applied for overpressure and develop appropriate design guidelines to ensure that the piping design is robust but not overly conservative.

DG1 a design decision flowchart that takes designers through the engineering analysis required to develop the overpressure protection design for a shell and tube heat exchanger

DG2 relief device selection criteria for tube rupture

DG3 relief device set-point selection criteria

DG4 design criteria for overpressure protection of piping connected to heat exchangers

DG5 design criteria for the interface between the relief devices and the relief disposal (flare) system

DG6 lessons learned from operating experience of shell and tube heat exchangers

DG7 Instrumentation requirements for detection of tube rupture and bursting disk rupture.

Essential Tasks & Cost Estimates

Researcher:£120,000

Engineering Study:£150,000

Energy Institute: Project Management:

£30,000

Contingency:£30,000

Total Estimate:£330,000

Proposed Structure

• The fee for operating companies or safety regulators sponsors is £30,000

• The fee for other participants (e.g. design houses) is £15,000

• Relevant in-kind contributions may be accepted from other participants, such as from relief valve manufacturers, heat exchanger design software specialists, etc.

• Target fee of £330,000 can be achieved with:• 11 operators• Or 10 operators + 2 others• Or 9 operators + 4 others• Etc

• Need 11 “operators”

Considerations

Main Task Description

RD1 Conduct shock tube tests at the same scale as typical relief device sizes encountered in real applications to establish the response times under a range of overpressures (150-400%).

RD2 Establish mechanical integrity criteria for relief valves for use in tube rupture service.

RD3Establish the range of process conditions for which conventional relief valves could be utilised to protect against tube rupture and those for which bursting disks are required. This needs to consider aspects such as differential design pressure between low and high pressure side of exchanger, relief device speed of response etc. Alternate relief valve types and manufacturers’ products will be taken into account.

HE1 Establish design criteria and engineering analysis requirements to assess if guillotine fracture is credible

HE2 Establish design criteria that determine when transient effects need to be considered for overpressure protection of shell and tube heat exchangers

HE3Determine the impact of transient loads on the piping systems if bursting disks are not applied for overpressure and develop appropriate design guidelines to ensure that the piping design is robust but not overly conservative.

DG1 a design decision flowchart that takes designers through the engineering analysis required to develop the overpressure protection design for a shell and tube heat exchanger

DG2 relief device selection criteria for tube rupture

DG3 relief device set-point selection criteria

DG4 design criteria for overpressure protection of piping connected to heat exchangers

DG5 design criteria for the interface between the relief devices and the relief disposal (flare) system

DG6 lessons learned from operating experience of shell and tube heat exchangers

DG7 Instrumentation requirements for detection of tube rupture and bursting disk rupture.

Minimum 50% Funding

Keep Researcher fully funded

Need to provide guidelines

Some guidelines require analysis

Management & Contingency

proportional to total funding

Cost Reductions

No of 'Operators' 11 9 7 5.5Percent Funding 100% 82% 64% 50%Funds Available £330,000 £270,000 £210,000 £165,000Full Time Researcher £120,000 £120,000 £120,000 £120,000Project Management £30,000 £24,545 £19,091 £15,000Contingency £30,000 £24,545 £19,091 £15,000Left for Analysis £150,000 £100,909 £51,818 £15,000

Resulting Engineering Tasks

Main Task Description 11 9 7 5.5

RD1 Conduct shock tube tests at the same scale as typical relief device sizes encountered in real applications to establish the response times under a range of overpressures (150-400%).

1 1 1 1

RD2 Establish mechanical integrity criteria for relief valves for use in tube rupture service. 1 1 1 1

RD3

Establish the range of process conditions for which conventional relief valves could be utilised to protect against tube rupture and those for which bursting disks are required. This needs to consider aspects such as differential design pressure between low and high pressure side of exchanger, relief device speed of response etc. Alternate relief valve types and manufacturers’ products will be taken into account.

1 1 1 1

HE1 Establish design criteria and engineering analysis requirements to assess if guillotine fracture is credible 1 1 0 0

HE2 Establish design criteria that determine when transient effects need to be considered for overpressure protection of shell and tube heat exchangers

1 0 0 0

HE3Determine the impact of transient loads on the piping systems if bursting disks are not applied for overpressure and develop appropriate design guidelines to ensure that the piping design is robust but not overly conservative.

1 0 0 0

DG1 a design decision flowchart that takes designers through the engineering analysis required to develop the overpressure protection design for a shell and tube heat exchanger

1 1 1 0

DG2 relief device selection criteria for tube rupture 1 1 1 1

DG3 relief device set-point selection criteria 1 1 1 1

DG4 design criteria for overpressure protection of piping connected to heat exchangers 1 0 0 0

DG5 design criteria for the interface between the relief devices and the relief disposal (flare) system 1 1 0 0

DG6 lessons learned from operating experience of shell and tube heat exchangers 1 1 1 0

DG7 Instrumentation requirements for detection of tube rupture and bursting disk rupture. 1 1 1 0

No. of 'Operators'