Prophet N.,ioMosaic Corporation
Design Institute for Emergency Relief Systems (DIERS) 2015 - Topical Conference at the 2015 AIChE Spring Meeting and 11th Global Congress on Process Safety | Year: 2015
Ever since OSHA implemented their National Emphasis Program in 2007, facility's pressure relief systems design basis have come under increasing scrutiny. Recognizing that they may not be fully compliant, many companies are conducting audits of their relief systems design basis to determine their current state, identify gaps, and establish a path forward for compliance. ioMosaic Corporation is often called upon to conduct these audits, and in doing so, has developed a successful methodology to do this efficiently and effectively. This paper outlines how companies can conduct audits of their relief systems in a successful way. © ioMosaic Corporation. All rights reserved.
Melhem G.A.,ioMosaic Corporation
28th Center for Chemical Process Safety International Conference 2013, CCPS - Topical Conference at the 2013 AIChE Spring Meeting and 9th Global Congress on Process Safety | Year: 2013
Current API, AIChE/CCPS, and AIChE/DIERS pressure relief and flare systems guidelines and standards do not formally address vibration risk. They do not offer specific guidance on velocity limitations other than backpressure calculations and they do not offer guidance on acoustic induced or flow induced piping vibration fatigue failure. This paper provides a summary of experience based methods for the estimation of vibration risk in relief and process piping. In addition, this paper extends the applicability of the experience based methods to two-phase flow. © 2013 ioMosaic Corporation all rights reserved.
Melhem G.A.,ioMosaic Corporation
Process Safety Progress | Year: 2013
The process industries are primarily concerned with the reliability, availability, auditability, and maintainability of relief and flare systems data. These data are critical component of process safety information and its lifecycle must be properly managed to ensure sound process safety management and loss prevention programs. For most large facilities, the process of managing the lifecycle of relief and flare systems data are complex and fraught with challenges and risks, whether the work is performed internally or contracted out. For existing large facilities, the process of relief and flare systems evaluations require mechanical and process data collection, field verification, up to date heat and material balances, information about process safeguards, scenario identification, establishing relief requirements, identification and risk ranking of deficiencies, and managing the corrective actions process for addressing deficiencies where applicable. Reliability is influenced by many technical and human factors including the quality of data, adequacy of tools used for analysis, the qualifications of the relief systems engineers performing the scenario identification, and relief and flare systems evaluations. Availability primarily deals with how quickly can one access accurate and up to date relief and flare systems data. This is especially challenging since relief systems data are not all "structured" data and are interconnected with other engineering data systems. Auditability involves version control and the management of revisions and/or modifications of relief and flare systems that typically result from plant/process modifications, process hazard analysis, incident investigations, etc. Maintainability requires keeping the relief and flare systems data forever green and enabling efficient reviews and revisions. This article describes a systematic web-based workflow methodology for managing the lifecycle of relief and flare systems data for a single site or at a corporate level. The workflow methodology breaks the flare and relief systems data lifecycle into discrete components and activities, with built-in review, approval, quality management, and reporting. Built-in business and engineering rules ensure that all activities can only progress when specific quality criteria are met. This system was developed based on our experience with the execution of many such large scale projects for refineries, chemical, and petrochemical facilities. © 2013 American Institute of Chemical Engineers.
Perry J.A.,Buckman United States |
Myers M.R.,ioMosaic Corporation
Chemical Engineering Progress | Year: 2013
Effective preparation by the team leader before a potential hazard analysis (PHA) meeting can reduce the total PHA resource hours required for a one-week PHA by up to one-third. The preparation includes methodology selection, checklist development, and grouping of similar processes. It also includes selecting software to capture the PHA discussions and create the final documentation for each PHA. The safeguards should be determined according to recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP), which is available in the literature provided by the chemicals suppliers. Although efficient meeting facilitation is critical, up-front preparation work completed by the PHA leader prior to the meetings is the biggest meeting time-saver. Another valuable type of preparation is to pre-populate consequences and typical safeguards. Before PHA meetings, the worksheets need to be updated to reflect the equipment ad instrument numbers at the subsequent facility.
ioMosaic Corporation | Date: 2015-09-21
Computer software for the collection, editing, organizing, modifying, book marking, transmission, storage and sharing of data and information.