Spotlight
Process is vital to safety
Bad processes can lead to poor design and construction outcomes and should be updated, says Paul Donnelly of Autodesk
of the industry today. Quite rightly, chemical, oil and gas companies spend mil- lions on ensuring that the work environment is safe for their employees. Everything, from trans- porting staff to having the right equipment and clothing, is planned to the utmost to pre- vent mishaps. However, accidents also happen when outdated design or construction processes lead to unsafe outcomes. The scale and complexity
T
of today’s oil & gas projects de- mands a skilled team of design- ers and engineers to collaborate across divisions, companies and continents. Miscommunications and
mistakes are not uncommon whenever different businesses or even different departments of the same business – work to- gether on a major project. But these events can be managed and minimised with the latest processes and tech- nologies in an attempt to avoid conditions that can result in poor design or construction outcomes.
One solution that should be
considered lies in the use of in- telligent 3D models as well as model consolidation software. Combining multiple design
models from various engineer- ing firms and subcontractors into a single, comprehensive model allows for design con- flicts to be identified early in the design process.
36
he signs are every- where; “Safety is our Number One Prior- ity”, the watchwords
Construction simulation
software also now allows for a dry run of construction se- quencing to identify problems with coordination, materials management and scheduling. Once identified, these clashes can be resolved with the required engineering and design input. If unresolved and unde- tected, clashes have to be worked out in the field, which can lead to a departure from the optimal design, affecting the efficiency of the asset throughout its life, or, can lead to unsafe conditions resulting from workarounds.
Using a 3D model, together with 4D planning software, en- gineers can follow processes on screen, visualising and assess- ing their impact. When problems are identi-
fied, they can efficiently re- solve the conflict or problem during the design process in- corporating input from the re- quired experts.
When it comes to planning
for the operation of the facility, there is another area where en- hanced technology can help improve safety outcomes. In HazOp analysis, ‘what if’ planning can help engineers and facility managers look at the process flow, typically using a piping and instrumen- tation diagram (P&ID), and study what happens if certain incidents occur, for example, what are the consequences if this valve accidently switches off or this pump fails? Intelligent P&IDs are capa- ble of storing data behind the drawing so that the characteris-
tics of that valve and every other part are immediately available and an engineer can see from the intelligent P&ID what the valve is connected to or what is downstream from the pump. Rules can then be applied so that the impact of a failure anywhere down the line can be assessed. These kinds of capa- bilities make them increasingly suitable for use outside the ini- tial design phase of a project. Today, this kind of “what if” planning is commonly done manually which means going through a process multiple times, revising and then re- assessing, a laborious and time- intensive task. For this reason, it tends to happen later in the design process when it’s too late to most effectively correct the design. The combination of HazOp analysis tools with intelligent 3D design and review software make it both affordable and practical to carry out process safety and ‘what if’ analyses early in the design phase and as an integral part of the design process. This means that the results can be used to improve a design accordingly. Until recently, the industry has had little choice but to de- ploy complex and expensive, server-based software to enable intelligent 3D modelling. However, over the past few
years, 3D solutions for the desktop and laptop have been tailored for 3D plant design. These tend to be more af-
fordable than the 3D solutions traditionally used in the indus- try and far easier to implement and maintain.
November/December 2012 Offshore Technology
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40