Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering

ISSN 2095-0179

ISSN 2095-0187(Online)

CN 11-5981/TQ

Postal Subscription Code 80-969

2018 Impact Factor: 2.809

Front. Chem. Sci. Eng.    2018, Vol. 12 Issue (4) : 745-762    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-018-1779-7
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Process synthesis with simultaneous consideration of inherent safety-inherent risk footprint
Andreja Nemet1(), Jiří J. Klemeš2, Zdravko Kravanja1
1. Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, University of Maribor, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
2. Sustainable Process Integration Laboratory, NETME Centre, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Brno University of Technology, 61669 Brno, Czech Republic
 Download: PDF(860 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Process plants should be designed to be economically viable and environmentally friendly, while also being operable and maintainable during process implementation. The safety of processes is among the most important considerations in obtaining results that are more acceptably realistic, as it is linked to the availability and reliability of the process. Inherent safety can effectively be enhanced in the early stages of the design, when the main decisions on process design are made. The aim of this study is to enhance and select the appropriate risk assessment method and to incorporate it into process synthesis, using a mathematical programming approach. A mixed-integer, nonlinear programming (MINLP) model was used for the synthesis of a methanol production process, considering risk assessment during the synthesis. Risk assessment is performed simultaneously with the MINLP process synthesis, where the risk is determined either for the whole process as overall risk, or on a per unit-of-a-product basis. For the latter, a new measurement is proposed: the inherent risk footprint. The results of a case study led to two main conclusions: (i) Significantly safer designs can be obtained at negligible economic expense, and (ii) at higher production capacities, a lower inherent risk footprint can be achieved. The results also indicate that designs obtained using this method can have significantly increased inherent safety, while remaining economically viable.

Keywords inherent safety      process design      simultaneous risk assessment      risk footprint      methanol process     
Corresponding Author(s): Andreja Nemet   
Online First Date: 20 December 2018    Issue Date: 03 January 2019
 Cite this article:   
Andreja Nemet,Jiří J. Klemeš,Zdravko Kravanja. Process synthesis with simultaneous consideration of inherent safety-inherent risk footprint[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(4): 745-762.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcse/EN/10.1007/s11705-018-1779-7
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcse/EN/Y2018/V12/I4/745
LC50Phase at 25 °CLimiting value /kg
LC≤100Gas3
Liquid(L)10
Liquid(M)30
Liquid(H)100
Solid300
100≤LC≤500Gas30
Liquid(L)100
Liquid(M)300
Liquid(H)1000
Solid3000
500≤LC≤2000Gas300
Liquid(L)1000
Liquid(M)3000
Liquid(H)10000
Solid
2000≤LC≤20000Gas3000
Liquid(L)10000
Liquid(M)
Liquid(H)
Solid
LC>20000All phases
Tab.1  Limiting value of toxic substances depending on LC50 (rat, inhalation 1 h) and phase at 25 °C
Fig.1  Superstructure for methanol process synthesis (modified from Kasaš et al. [28])
FeedCompositionCost
FEED-1 composition0.6 H2
0.25 CO
0.15 CH4 (inert)
6375 k$?s?kmol?1?y
FEED-2 composition0.65 H2
0.30 CO
0.5 CH4 (inert)
7650 k$?s?kmol?1?y
Product
PRD-10.9 methanol80000 k$?s?kmol?1?y
PRD-2Purge5000 k$?s?kmol?1?y
Utilities
Hot utility-steam177 °C2.22 k$?(kWh)?1
Cold utility-water Inlet:10 °C
Outlet: 22 °C
0.194 k$?(kWh)?1
Electricity0.255 k$?(kW?y)?1
Process unit Fixed cost/k$Variable cost /k$?(y?m3)?1
RCT-150025
RCT-265030
Compressor5087.5
Tab.2  Input data for feeds, products, utilities and process units
Process unitFailure rate/(unit?y?1)
Compressor 0.004
Mixer 0.00062933
Reactor 0.00016324
Flash0.00016324
Splitter0.00062933
Valve 0.01
Tab.3  Failure rate of different process units
ComponentLimiting value G
Toxicity /kgFlammability /kgExplosiveness /kg
H23000100001150
CO3001000011500000
CH3OH3000100004070.8
CH43000100001654.7
Tab.4  Limiting values of different components
Unit f1f2f3
Compressor 1110
Mixer 1110
Reactor1110
Flash1110
Splitter 1110
Valve 1110
Tab.5  The factors considering facility and substance conditions
Unittretention_time/s
Compressor600+ 300
Mixer600
Reactor600+ 600
Flash600+ 600
Splitter 600
Valve600
Tab.6  Estimated retention times in different units
Fig.2  Process design for the reference case study
Fig.3  (a) Failure rate, (b) severity of consequences and (c) risk within each unit, separately
Fig.4  Absolute value of toxicity, flammability and explosiveness vs. the assigned relative risk limit level
Fig.5  The NPV of the methanol production process at varied risk tolerance on (a) an absolute and (b) a relative scale
RRref1 and 0.950.9?0.750.7 and 0.680.650.6?0.560.55
Feed 2
One-stage compression of feed stream
Two-stage compression of feed stream
Reactor 1
Reactor 2
One-stage compression of recycle stream
Two-stage compression of recycle stream
Tab.7  Structure of a methanol production process at different levels of risk tolerance
Fig.6  Recycle and inlet molar flow-rate at various assigned risk tolerance levels
Fig.7  Overall conversion of H2 in the process and the conversion of H2 per pass in the reactor at various assigned risk tolerance levels
Fig.8  The size of the inlet compressor/compressors, reactor and compressor/compressors on the recycle stream at various assigned risk tolerance levels
Fig.9  Investment cost at various assigned tolerance risk levels
Fig.10  Process design with risk limit set at 0.68 of initial risk level
Fig.11  Process design with risk limit set at 0.55 of initial risk level
Fig.12  Net present value of processes at different molar flow-rates of methanol on (a) absolute and (b) relative scale
Fig.13  Recalculated risk level for molar flow-rates at 0.6, 0.8, 1.2 and 1.4 kmol/s
Fig.14  Molar risk footprint vs. capacity of methanol production
Fig.15  Relative change in specific risk footprint and net present value compared to the reference case
CaseReference caseLimited inherent riskLimited inherent risk footprint
Production capacity /(kmol?s–1)11.21.2
Net present value /k$142,943153,627179,764
Investment /k$102,270126,195112,904
Recalculated inherent risk
Toxicity34.08833.30340.800
Explosiveness4.4554.4555.346
Flammability 1.7541.7452.104
Recalculated inherent risk footprint
Toxicity34.08827.752534.000
Explosiveness4.4553.71254.455
Flammability 1.7541.4541.753
Tab.8  Comparison of inherent risk and inherent risk footprint upper limit
Fig.16  Process design with capacity 1.2 kmol/s of methanol production and inherent risk footprint upper limit set at reference level
1 GReniers, PAmyotte. Prevention in the chemical and process industries: Future directions. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2012, 25(1): 227–231
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2011.06.016
2 T VThomaidis, E NPistikopoulos. Towards the incorporation of flexibility, maintenance and safety in process design. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 1995, 19: 687–692
https://doi.org/10.1016/0098-1354(95)87115-2
3 P KMarhavilas, DKoulouriotis, VGemeni. Risk analysis and assessment methodologies in the work sites: On a review, classification and comparative study of the scientific literature of the period 2000–2009. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2011, 24(5): 477–523
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2011.03.004
4 NRoy, FEljack, AJimenéz-Gutiérrez, BZhang, PThiruvenkataswamy, MEl-Halwagi, M SMannan. A review of safety indices for process design. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering, 2016, 14: 42–48
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2016.07.001
5 T AKletz. Inherently safer design—its scope and future. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2003, 81(6): 401–405
https://doi.org/10.1205/095758203770866566
6 M JJafari, HMohammadi, GReniers, MPouyakian, FNourai, S ATorabi, M RMiandashti. Exploring inherent process safety indicators and approaches for their estimation: A systematic review. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2018, 52: 66–80
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2018.01.013
7 S IAhmad, HHashim, M HHassim. A graphical method for assessing inherent safety during research and development phase of process design. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2016, 42: 59–69
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2015.09.018
8 C TLeong, A MShariff. Process route index (PRI) to assess level of explosiveness for inherent safety quantification. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2009, 22(2): 216–221
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2008.12.008
9 SRathnayaka, FKhan, PAmyotte. Risk-based process plant design considering inherent safety. Safety Science, 2014, 70: 438–464
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.06.004
10 SWarnasooriya, M YGunasekera. Assessing inherent environmental, health and safety hazards in chemical process route selection. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2017, 105: 224–236
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2016.11.010
11 A MHeikkilä. Inherent safety in process plant design: An index-based approach. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Helsinki: University of Technology, 1999: 35–36
12 SJung, DNg, C DLaird, M SMannan. A new approach for facility siting using mapping risks on a plant grid area and optimization. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2010, 23(6): 824–830
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2010.06.001
13 JKim, YLee, IMoon. An index-based risk assessment model for hydrogen infrastructure. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2011, 36(11): 6387–6398
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.02.127
14 A MShariff, C TLeong, DZaini. Using process stream index (PSI) to assess inherent safety level during preliminary design stage. Safety Science, 2012, 50(4): 1098–1103
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.11.015
15 A MShariff, DZaini. Inherent risk assessment methodology in preliminary design stage: A case study for toxic release. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2013, 26(4): 605–613
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2012.12.003
16 IChan, S R WAlwi, M HHassim, Z AManan, J JKlemeš. Heat exchanger network design considering inherent safety. Energy Procedia, 2014, 61: 2469–2473
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.12.025
17 XLiu, J JKlemeš, P SVarbanov, YQian, SYang. Safety issues consideration for direct and indirect heat transfer on total sites. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 2015, 45: 151–156
18 RVázquez-Román, J AInchaurregui-Méndez, M SMannan. A grid-based facilities allocation approach with safety and optimal heat exchanger networks synthesis. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 2015, 80: 92–100
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2015.05.014
19 JInchaurregui-Méndez, RVázquez-Román, JPonce-Ortega, MMannan. A heat exchanger networks synthesis approach based on inherent safety. Journal of Chemical Engineering Research Updates, 2015, 2(1): 22–29
https://doi.org/10.15377/2409-983X.2015.02.01.3
20 ANemet, J JKlemeš, IMoon, ZKravanja. Safety analysis embedded in heat exchanger network synthesis. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 2017, 107: 357–380
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017.04.009
21 P A MUijt de Haag, B J MAle. Guidelines for quantitative risk assessment, CPR18E. Hague, The Netherlands: Gevaarlijke Stoffen, 2005, 2.1–2.10
22 Flemish Government, LNE Department, Environment, Nature and Energy Policy Unit, Safety Reporting Division. Handbook Failure Frequencies 2009 for Drawing up a Safety Report. 2009
23 ANemet, ZKravanja. Synthesis of more sustainable total site. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 56: 19–24
24 ANemet, J JKlemeš, ZKravanja. Process synthesis with simultaneously considered inherent safety. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 2017, 61: 1555–1560
25 G KAl-Sharrah, DEdwards, GHankinson. A new safety risk index for use in petrochemical planning. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2007, 85(6): 533–540
https://doi.org/10.1205/psep06039
26 M HOrdouei, AElkamel, GAl-Sharrah. New simple indices for risk assessment and hazards reduction at the conceptual design stage of a chemical process. Chemical Engineering Science, 2014, 119: 218–229
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2014.07.063
27 ZKravanja, I EGrossmann. Prosyn—an MINLP process synthesizer. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 1990, 14(12): 1363–1378
https://doi.org/10.1016/0098-1354(90)80018-7
28 MKasaš, ZKravanja, Z NPintarič. Achieving profitably, operationally, and environmentally compromise flow-sheet designs by a single-criterion optimization. AIChE Journal. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2012, 58(7): 2131–2141
https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.12747
29 M ADuran, I EGrossmann. Simultaneous optimization and heat integration of chemical processes. AIChE Journal. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1986, 32(1): 123–138
https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690320114
30 ZKravanja. Challenges in sustainable integrated process synthesis and the capabilities of an MINLP process synthesizer MipSyn. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 2010, 34(11): 1831–1848
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2010.04.017
[1] Yang Su, Liping Lü, Weifeng Shen, Shun’an Wei. An efficient technique for improving methanol yield using dual CO2 feeds and dry methane reforming[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(4): 614-628.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed