Special Focus Plant Safety and Environment

H. AMIN, Saudi Aramco, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia;

P. DHOTE, Siemens, United Arab Emirates; and
S. KANADE, Siemens, Houston, Texas

Reboiler pinch: An approach to optimize

flare system design during FEED
A process plant’s pressure relief and This article guides the user to select with engineering design companies on
flare systems are critical safety elements. the appropriate philosophy and deter- various pressure relief and flare projects
Efficient design, management and main- mine the reboiler temperature pinch at over several years. The projects incurred
tenance of suitable pressure relief and relief conditions. This replaces the use of unnecessary increased capital expendi-
flare systems are vital to operations dynamic simulation or an overly conser- ture costs and lost opportunity to opti-
throughout the lifecycle of a plant. This vative approach that estimates the relief mize the relief loads and flare header size.
article focuses on estimating the relief re- load by dividing the design duty of the A systematic, equipment-based pres-
quirements from the distillation columns, reboiler by latent heat of vaporization of sure relief analysis of the plant helps de-
using steady-state methodology during the top tray liquid. The design can be- termine the controlling global relief loads
the front-end engineering design (FEED) come more conservative by adding some to the flare. In the gas plant, observation
project phase. Using dynamic simula- margin for design duty and latent heat shows that the distillation towers are one
tion during FEED is not practical due to calculations. The overall result can be a of the main contributors to the flare loads.
the lack of critical data and the high cost significant overestimation of relief loads. The behavior of distillation columns
or complexity of the software used. Dy- The cumulative impact of calculating depends on the pressure and tempera-
namic simulations also require accurate multiple relief loads, using this approach ture profiles. Plant upset conditions
information about plant equipment and on the overall flare system design, cannot change the distillation column behavior
operational experience, which is not avail- be understated. dramatically—as pressure and tempera-
able during the early design stages. ture profiles change, the composition
Engineers will typically use a conven- Flare header design—Conservative along the column height is significantly
tional design approach, which often re- approaches prove costly. Flare header impacted. The change in composition,
sults in an overly conservative flare design design is a critical component and early particularly at the bottom, greatly im-
and significantly large flare loads. This milestone of any process plant’s design. pacts the reboiler duty. The reboiler
leads to higher costs for designing the flare The best time to determine the flare may completely or partially pinch out,
system, and, consequently, the opportuni- header design is during the early stages of depending on the column bottom con-
ty for potential savings during the FEED the project to avoid any potential surpris- ditions. A pinch-out may reduce the
phase can be lost. es and major changes during the detailed ability of the reboiler to transfer heat.
Once the design proceeds into the de- engineering stage that can significantly This phenomenon significantly impacts
tailed engineering phase, the opportunity impact cost and schedule. the vapor relief load-out of the column.
to optimize the flare system design either The challenge with performing accu- A failure to consider reboiler pinching
diminishes, or it triggers major change rate dynamic modeling during the early may result in a significantly higher relief
orders, further increasing costs and de- stages of the project is the lack of detailed load to the flare for the controlling flar-
laying the project. Attempts have been engineering data that is critical for suc- ing scenario, leading to increased header
made to pinpoint areas where significant cessful modeling. Therefore, overly con- size and additional flare stack height and
benefits can be achieved with industry- servative and simplified approaches are fencing requirements.
proven and conventional optimization used to determine the relief requirement, Potential savings are expected if the
methodologies. Experience over years of which results in significantly oversizing project team agrees to consider reboiler
plant design and engineering shows that the flare header. Oversized header de- pinching and develops a method to esti-
calculating the distillation column relief signs increase both the capital cost of the mate the relief rates based on reduced re-
requirements, using reboiler temperature project and the recurring operating and boiler duty at relief pressure at the begin-
pinch at relief condition yields, noticeably maintenance costs. ning of the project.
lowers relief loads. This study evaluated The authors observed this tendency Based on the data gathered from re-
columns typically used in a gas processing for overly conservative flare designs dur- cent projects, the flaring load for the
facility in a steady-state simulator. ing early project stages, while working controlling scenario is observed to po-
Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2020 53
 Plant Safety and Environment

tentially decrease by approximately 30% liquid composition at normal The normal heating medium flowrate
or more. This significantly impacts the conditions instead of the will be determined by using the following
header size, flare stack height, knockout bottoms composition). hierarchy:
drum sizing, fencing requirements and a. If the lower boiling point 1. Use the flowrate in the heat and
purging requirements, among other pa- composition results in a material balance (H&MB).
rameters. The savings can run into sever- duty less than 60% of normal 2. When the hot side is steam,
al million dollars, depending on the size duty, limit the duty to determine the amount of steam
of the flare system. 60% of normal duty. that is necessary to generate
b. If the lower boiling point the normal duty based on
Reboiler pinch calculation method- composition results in a saturated steam conditions at
ology. The following are details of over- duty greater than 75% of the inlet to the exchanger and
pressure scenarios where the hot-side normal duty, then limit full condensation of the steam
fluid flowrate is not expected to increase. the duty to 75% of normal at the outlet of the exchanger,
Reduced duty—Column reboilers. duty. This was a project- with service UA specified.
The reduced reboiler duty will be calcu- specific limitation. 3. When the hot side is hot oil or a
lated for column reboilers based on the This approach is reasonable because process stream, determine the hot-
service’s unified architecture (UA) value. the tray liquid will tend to weep (dump) side flowrate necessary to generate
The liquid assumed to be in the reboiler to the bottoms as the reboiler starts to the normal duty based on the
uses the following logic: pinch significantly. The feed stream typi- normal inlet temperature to the
1. Use normal bottoms composition. cally represents a mixture of the remaining exchanger and the normal outlet
If the predicted pinch-out is severe inventory on the trays and in the column. temperature from the exchanger,
(i.e., the reduced reboiler duty at Exceptions are made for a water sys- with service UA specified.
relief pressure is less than 60% tem, such as amine absorbers or sour 4. When the hot side is hot oil or
of the normal reboiler duty), water strippers. For these systems, the a process stream, determine the
then go to Step 2. reboiler may pinch to less than 60% hot-side flowrate necessary to
2. Lighten up the reboiler of normal reboiler duty or completely generate the normal duty based
composition (i.e., use the feed pinch out to zero. on simulation of the exchanger by
specifying the service UA, normal
TABLE 1. Deethanizer relief load comparison
cold-side inlet conditions and
normal hot-side inlet conditions.
Mass flow, Vapor volume flow, MOL flow, Molecular Direct fired furnace heaters/reboil-
Reboiler duty lb/hr MMsft3d lbmol/hr weight ers. A reduced reboiler duty will not be
Normal 1,267,501 381.7 41,894 30.3 calculated for furnace type heaters/re-
Pinch 1,161,402 217.3 23,859 48.7 boilers, and the normal reboiler duty—as
provided by the H&MB—will be used in
Stream to
Normal vapor return relief simulations.
Temperature 217.8 F
reboiler Pressure 448.5 psig Steps to calculate the reduced duty
Actual gas flow 3460 ACFM
VS
Mass flow 1110802 lb/hr of the reboiler, using process simula-
op-102 Normal case to reboiler Molecular weight 48.14
tion softwarea:
Mass density 5.351 lb/ft3
LP steam 9 Normal vapor return 1. Simulate the normal reboiler
• On the normal column
Normal reboiler 4
Normal case to reboiler simulation, double-click on
Temperature 204.3 F V-101
Pressure 448 psig
Duty
Normal reboiler
1.031e+008 Btu/hr
the column icon and select
Molar flow 3.082e+004 lb mole/hr
Actual liquid flow 7802 USGPM Tube inlet temperature
Tube outlet temperature
366.6
311.8
F
F
“Flowsheet” and then
Shell inlet temperature 204.3 F 7 “Internal Streams.”
Shell outlet temperature 217.8 F
LMTD 102 F
The relief stream • Click on “Add” and give the
VS Overall UA 1.22e+006 Btu/F/hr
Temperature
Pressure
247.2
568.1
F
psig
stream a name.
op-103 Relief case to reboiler
Mass flow
Actual gas flow
1161402
2498
lb/hr
ACFM
• Select the bottom tray, then
LP steam
Relief case to reboiler relief 9-2
Molecular weight 48.94 select “Liquid” in the Type
Mass density 7.749 lb/ft3
Temperature
Pressure
231.6
567.6
F
psig Relief The relief stream
column and select “Net” and
Molar flow 2.373e+004 lb mole/hr reboiler click on the “Export” box.
Actual liquid flow 7802 USGPM This scenario shows the case
4-2 of using the reduced reboiler • Click on the “Run” button at
Normal reboiler
duty vaporizing the normal the bottom of the screen,
V-101-2 reboiler feed composition
Duty
Tube inlet temperature
7.508e+008
366.6
Btu/hr
F at the normal volumetric rate and then the stream will show
Tube outlet temperature
Shell inlet temperature
311.8
231.8
F
F
7-2 up on the main flowsheet.
Shell outlet temperature 247.2 F • Add “Heat Exchanger”
LMTD 74.29 F
Overall UA 1.22e+006 Btu/F/hr equipment from the palette
and attach the stream to
FIG. 1. Snapshota of the steps for the deethanizer relief load comparison.
the exchanger.
54 OCTOBER 2020 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 Plant Safety and Environment

• Create the steam stream and set setting the steam outlet to system (e.g., sour water stripper
the pressure and temperature. saturated liquid. and amine columns), allow for
Calculate the steam rate • Double-click on the “Heat pinching of more than 60%.
automatically by setting the Exchanger” icon and on
steam outlet to saturated liquid. the “Design” tab. Select Impact on relief loads. The following
• Double-click on the “Heat “Parameters,” and, for “Heat are some of the examples from a typical
Exchanger” icon and on Exchanger Model,” select gas processing unit, where the relief rates
the “Design” tab. Select “Simple Weighted.” Enter obtained using the conservative approach
“Parameters,” and, for “Heat the shell-side and tube-side (normal reboiler duty and top tray liquid
Exchanger Model,” select pressure drops in the “Weighted composition) are compared to rates while
“Simple Weighted.” In addition, Model Inputs” section. taking credit for reboiler pinching.
enter the shell-side and • On the same “Design” tab, Example 1: Deethanizer relief
tube-side pressure drops select “Specs” and click loads. A comparison of deethanizer relief
in the “Weighted Model on “Add.” Select “Overall loads is shown in TABLE 1. The reason for
Inputs” section. UA” and enter the result the difference between the normal and
• Verify that the duty of this from the normal reboiler pinch-off relief loads: The calculated re-
external heat exchanger simulation. The user can duced duty in the reboiler in pinch-off
matches the duty of the then see the “Overall UA” mode was 75.1 MMBtu/hr as opposed to
column heat exchanger, as on the “Performance” tab the normal reboiler duty of 103.6 MMB-
stated in the H&MB sheet. of the heat exchanger. tu/hr. The volumetric flow to the flare
2. Simulate the reboiler at relief • Add a separator to the cold-side was reduced by 43%. A snapshot for this
conditions outlet to split the phases. The process is shown in FIG. 1.
• Create another stream with vapor phase is the relief stream. Example 2: Sulfur recovery unit
the same composition as the • For hydrocarbon streams, note (SRU) regeneration column relief
normal stream but set the new if the reboiler pinches more loads. A comparison of SRU regen-
stream to the relief pressure than 60% of normal duty. If this eration column relief loads is shown in
and bubble point temperature. is the case, then change the feed TABLE 2. The reason for the difference
Adjust the mass rate so that the composition to the feed stream between the normal and pinch-off relief
volumetric rate is the same as liquid and use 60% of normal loads: The calculated reduced reboiler
the normal rate. duty. If the column is a water duty was 21.2 MMBtu/hr as opposed to
• Add a “Heat Exchanger”
from the palette and attach TABLE 2. SRU regeneration column relief load comparison
the stream.
Mass flow, Vapor volume flow, MOL flow, Molecular
• Create the steam stream Reboiler duty lb/hr MMsft3d lbmol/hr weight
and set the pressure and
temperature. Calculate the Normal 72,363 28.4 3,119 23.2
steam rate automatically by Pinch 24,221 11.9 1,312 18.5

8
Normal reboiler
Amine regenerator composition Amine regenerator
reboiler at normal conditions reboiler at relief conditions
Determine BP at relief V-101 with normal reboiler composition
Temperature 307.1 F
Pressure 56.4 psig
9 VS
Reboiler feed at relief
Steam rate calculated Normal reboiler op-102 Temperature 307.1 F
Temperature 327.8 F feed composition Normal steam rate Pressure 56.4 psig Backup relief
Pressure 73 psig Temperature 327.8 F Reboiler Molar flow 5.790e+004 lb mole/hr Temperature 307.1 F
Mass flow 108735 lb/hr Pressure 73 psig
Condensed steam Normal vapor return Mass flow 105735 lb/hr feed at Actual liquid flow 2524 Pressure 56.4 psig
Molar flow 24221 lb/hr
Steam rate calculated
Temperature 262.2 F relief Actual liquid flow 18.47
Pressure 20.29 psig
Normal Mass flow 105363 lb/hr Normal steam rate Steam out
T75-E-0112AB Mass density 823.4e+002 lb/ft3 Vapor from reboiler
2 Molecular weight 18.15 175-8-0112AB relief
Normal T75-E-0112AB Normal vapor return T75-E-0112AB relief Boilup
Duty 95550002 Btu/hr Duty 21209e+192 Btu/hr
2-2 MDC-100 relief
Tube inlet temperature 327.8 F Tube inlet temperature 327.8 F
Tube outlet temperature 312.5 F Tube outlet temperature 318.6 F V-101-2 Assume
VS
Shell inlet temperature 261.9 F Shell inlet temperature 307.1 F NC come out
Shell outlet temperature 262.2 F ADJ-1 Shell outlet temperature 307.2 F
LMTD 53.5 F
V-100 LMTD 11.5 F 6-2
Overall UA 1.844e+006 Btu/F/hr Overall UA 1.844e+006 Btu/F/hr
X-100
6
12

FIG. 2. Snapshota of the steps for the SRU regeneration column relief load comparison.

Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2020 55

 Plant Safety and Environment

TABLE 3. RVP column relief load comparison

the normal reboiler duty of 98.6 MMB-
tu/hr. The volumetric flow to the flare
Mass flow, Vapor volume flow, MOL flow, Molecular was reduced by 58%. A snapshot for this
Reboiler duty lb/hr MMsft3d lbmol/hr weight
process is shown in FIG. 2.
Normal 90,367 11.4 1,251.6 72.2 Example 3: Reid vapor pressure
Pinch 46,263 5.4 598 77.4 (RVP) column relief load. A compari-
son of RVP column relief loads is shown
Decolorizer reboiler vapor
normal condition in TABLE 3. The reason for the difference
Normal feed to
Temperature
Pressure
211.4 F
34.8 psig between the normal and pinch-off relief
RVP reboiler Actual gas flow 1761 ACFM
loads: The calculated reduced reboiler
41 27 Mass flow 61752 lb/hr
Molecular weight
Mass density
77.26
0.5844 lb/ft3
duty was 6.8 MMBtu/hr as opposed to
RVP reboiler the normal reboiler duty of 9.6 MMBtu/
RVP reboiler inlet pressure normal Decolorizer reboiler Normal reboiler
Duty 9.600e+006 Btu/hr conditions 43 vapor normal hr. The volumetric flow to the flare was
conditions simulation
Tube inlet temperature
Tube outlet temperature
366.6
307.4
F
F reduced by 52%. A snapshot for this pro-
V-101 46
Shell inlet temperature
Shell outlet temperature
200.1
211.4
F
F Ambient cess is shown in FIG. 3.
LMTD 103.1 F 45 cooling Example 4: Decolorizer column
Fill time in the accumulator
Normal feed to RVP reboiler relief pressure
Temperature 235.1 F Duty
RVP reboiler inlet pressure
6.750e+006 Btu/hr E-106 V-101
is less than 10 minutes, relief load. A comparison of decolorizer
so ambient cooling credit
Pressure
Actual liquid flow
58 psig
1124 USGPM
Tube inlet temperature
Tube outlet temperature
366.6
307.4
F
F cannot be taken column relief loads is shown in TABLE 4.
Mass density 3.222e+005 lb/ft3 Shell inlet temperature
Shell outlet temperature
235.1
240.4
F
F
Relief stream using normal 49 The reason for the difference between
reboiler composition to reboiler
Normal feed to RVP LMTD 72.52 F Temperature 240.4 F 49 the normal and pinch-off relief loads:
Pressure 58 psig
reboiler relief pressure 41.2 27-2 Actual gas flow 903.5 ACFM
Temperature 215.5 F
The calculated reduced reboiler duty
Pressure 58 psig
Relief stream using Mass flow 46263 lb/hr
RVP 4-2 normal reboiler Molecular weight 77.41
Actual gas flow 122.2 ACFM was 25.1 MMBtu/hr as opposed to the
Mass density 0.8534 lb/ft3
reboiler compression normal reboiler duty of 41.9 MMBtu/
relief V-101-2 to reboiler Boil-up simulation using normal
pressure reboiler feed composition at relief hr. The volumetric flow to the flare was
7-2
pressure and bubble point temperature reduced by 28%. A snapshot for this pro-
cess is shown in FIG. 4.
FIG. 3. Snapshota of the steps for the RVP column relief load comparison.
Example 5: Condensate stripper
column relief load. A comparison of
condensate stripper column relief loads is
TABLE 4. Decolorizer column relief load comparison shown in TABLE 5. The reason for the dif-
Mass flow, Vapor volume flow, MOL flow, Molecular
ference between the normal and pinch-
Reboiler duty lb/hr MMsft3d lbmol/hr weight off relief loads: The calculated reduced
Normal 407,152 29.4 3,234 125.9
duty was 38.7 MMBtu/hr as opposed to
the normal reboiler duty of 48.7 MMB-
Pinch 244,219 21.1 2,311 105.7
tu/hr. The relief composition used was
Decolorizer reboiler vapor normal conditions
the vapor from the normal reboiler com-
Temperature
Pressure
460
18.8
F
psig
position. The volumetric flow to the flare
Normal feed to
Normal feed to reboiler
Temperature 423.6 F RVP reboiler Actual gas flow 9458 ACFM was reduced by 60%. A snapshot for this
Mass flow 332482 lb/hr
Pressure 18.3 psig 41 27 Molecular weight 156.7 process is shown in FIG. 5.
Actual liquid flow 1125 ACFM
Decolorizer reboiler normal conditions RVP reboiler The observed volumetric load reduc-
Duty
Tube inlet temperature
4.189e+007 Btu/hr
648.8 F
normal Decolorizer reboiler
Normal reboiler tion of around 30%–60% can be cred-
conditions 43 vapor normal
Tube outlet temperature
Shell inlet temperature
481.7 F
423.8 F conditions simulation ited to reboiler pinching at relief pres-
Shell outlet temperature
LMTD
460 F
41.46 F
V-101 sure. Note that the methodology used
Overall UA 1.010e+006 Btu/F/hr 45 to calculate the reboiler pinch may vary
Feed tray liquid at relief pressure Decolorizer reboiler feed tray liquid Relief stream using feed tray depending on specific guidance from
Temperature
Pressure
342.4 F
58 psig
Duty
Tube inlet temperature
4.189e+007 Btu/hr
648.8 F
composition to reboiler
Temperature 415.9 F the company guidelines. Regardless, the
Boil-up simulation using
Molar flow
Actual liquid flow
2061 lb mole/hr
1125 USGPM
Tube outlet temperature
Shell inlet temperature
451.7 F
342.4 F
Pressure
Molar flow
58 psig
feed tray liquid as reboiler
2194 lb mole/hr
examples confirm that reboiler pinching
Feed tray
Shell outlet temperature
LMTD
415.9 F
106.5 F
Actual gas flow
Molecular weight
4120 ACFM
111.3
feed composition at relief should be considered in estimating the
liquid pressure and bubble point
VS temperature relief requirements for flare design.
op-100-2 Ambient cooling 46
Feed tray E-106 Fill time in the accumulator Impact on flare header size. The dif-
liquid at relief 41-2-2-2 27-2-2-2 44
is less than 10 minutes, ference in the header size, using the con-
pressure Decolorizer Relief stream using V-101 so ambient cooling
reboiler feed
43-2-2-2
feed tray liquid cannot be taken servative approach vs. taking credit for re-
tray liquid V-100-2-2-2 composition to 49 boiler pinching, is summarized in TABLES
reboiler
49 6 and 7. In general, these results suggest
45-2-2-2 Temperature 394.8 F
Pressure 58 psig that an approximate 20%–25% reduction
Actual gas flow 229.9 ACFM
in header size can be achieved by taking
credit for reboiler pinching. Once again,
FIG. 4. Snapshota of the steps for the decolorizer column relief load comparison.
each case is unique, and this data should
56 OCTOBER 2020 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 Plant Safety and Environment

not be applicable across the board. Nev- Stream to reboiler

Stream to reboiler
ertheless, these results show that the ben-
Temperature
Pressure
193.6
197
F
psig
Boil-up normal
Mass flow 657581 lb/hr 1 5 reboiler duty
efits of optimizing the flare header design Actual liquid flow 2564 USGPM
by considering reboiler pinching cannot Normal
Normal condensate stripper reboiler condensate 6
be understated. Duty 48881265 Btu/hr stripper reboiler
Tube inlet temperature 366 F
Tube outlet temperature 308.1 F 7
Impact on project cost. The signifi- Shell inlet temperature
Shell outlet temperature
193.6 F
228.4 F V-101
cant reduction in relief loads, using the Overall UA 494867 Btu/F/hr

reboiler pinch methodology, allows the 10

required header size to be optimized for Boil-up normal
different flares. A reduction in header Stream to reboiler 2
Temperature 217.1 F
Stream to reboiler reboiler composition Condensate stripper boilup
Temperature 245.6 F
size helps reduce the purging rates and Pressure
Mass flow
246
634373
psig
lb/hr 1-2 5 Pressure 249 psig
Mass flow 257126 lb/hr
the size of the flare gas recovery system Actual liquid flow 2579 USGPM
Normal Condensate Actual gas flow 1616 ACFM
(FGRS). It also reduces the project’s cap- Relief condensate stripper reboiler condensate stripper boilup Molecular weight
Mass density
56.61
2.652 lb/ft3
ital expenditure, along with the operating Duty 38651465 Btu/hr stripper reboiler
Tube inlet temperature 366 F
and maintenance costs of the plant. Tube outlet temperature 308.1 F 7.2
Shell inlet temperature 217.1 F
A larger header could sag over time, Shell outlet temperature 245.6 F V-101-2
Overall UA 495079 Btu/F/hr
thus necessitating additional structural 10.2
support to avoid sagging. An optimally
sized header would lower this sagging FIG. 5. Snapshota of the steps for the condensate stripper column relief load comparison.
risk, saving on structural support costs.
Based on project calculations, a re-
duced header size promises significant TABLE 5. Condensate stripper column relief load comparison
project cost savings. In the header size Mass flow, Vapor volume flow, MOL flow, Molecular
comparison presented in TABLE 7, the rec- Reboiler duty lb/hr MMsft3d lbmol/hr weight
ommended header size was 56 in. when Normal 679,709 103.7 11,385 59.7
considering reboiler pinching, and 72 in.
Pinch 257,126 41.4 4,543 56.6
when using the conservative calculation
approach. The header run was roughly
10,000 ft—so, based on the savings for TABLE 6. Low-temperature flare header size comparison
costs of materials, installation and labor, Approach Header size, in.
the reduced header sizes would avoid a
Conservative 68
cost of several millions of dollars for low-
pressure and low-temperature headers. Taking credit for reboiler pinching 54

Takeaway. Given its cumulative impact TABLE 7. Low-pressure flare header size comparison
on optimizing multiple relief flare loads,
Approach Header size, in.
the reboiler temperature pinch at relief
condition should be considered. Reduced Conservative 72
flare loads help reduce the flare header size Taking credit for reboiler pinching 56
and lower the costs incurred in designing
and building the flare header. In addition, yr of experience in the process and operations of oil Dhote has led various process safety studies
future operating and maintenance costs and gas and petrochemical industries. Prior to joining for more than 14 yr, such as quantitative risk
Saudi Aramco, Mr. Amin worked with CH2M Hill assessment, process hazard analysis, pressure
for the plant are optimized. (formerly VECO Canada), Worley Parsons Canada, relief analysis, and flare header analysis, among
and others in the process engineering department. others for oil and gas, petrochemical and chemical
DISCLAIMER Throughout his career, Mr. Amin has worked projects at various locations. He is also a certified
The information contained in this article repre- in various project lifecycle activities, including functional safety professional. Mr. Dhote graduated
sents the current view of the authors at the time of this proposals, conceptual design, front-end engineering, in 2001 from the Laxminarayan Institute of
publication. Process safety management is complex, detailed engineering, construction support, Technology at Nagpur University in India.
and this article cannot embody all possible scenarios or commissioning, operations and maintenance.
solutions related to compliance. This article contains He earned a BSc degree in chemical engineering and SACHIN KANADE is a Technical Safety Lead at
examples for illustration and is for informational pur- an MSc in total quality management (TQM) from the Siemens, supervising a team of engineers to
poses only. The authors’ companies make no warran- University of Punjab, Pakistan, as well as an MEng execute and provide process safety technical
ties, express or implied, in this work. degree in chemical and petroleum engineering from support. He has 16 yr of experience in process
the University of Calgary, Canada. He is a registered safety and risk assessment in the oil and gas
professional engineer in Alberta, Canada. industry. Mr. Kanade has extensive experience
NOTE performing consequence modeling and
a Aspen Technology’s HYSYS process simulation PRAVEEN DHOTE is a Chemical Engineer and a quantitative risk assessment studies, dispersion
software Process Safety Team Leader at Siemens. He has studies, facility siting/layout studies, radiation
19 yr of experience, specializing in process safety analysis, HAZOP studies, overpressure assessments,
HASAN AMIN is a Senior Process Engineer with the management (PSM) studies, and his extensive pressure relief and flare design, and much more.
process and control systems department at Saudi experience includes working on projects in Asia, He has a master’s degree in chemical engineering
Aramco in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. He has nearly 22 central Africa, the Middle East, and the U.S. Mr. from Texas A&M University.

Hydrocarbon Processing | OCTOBER 2020 57

Copyright of Hydrocarbon Processing is the property of Gulf Energy Information and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.