The seven stages of chemical engineering technology from concept to industrialization (Issue 60/100) -- An overview of engineering translation

Thread Content

The seven stages of chemical engineering technology from concept to industrialization (Issue 60/100) —— Engineering translation: from technical language to engineering language. Dear readers: Hello! The previous issue concluded Phase 4, “Technical Finalization,” with the case study of terephthalamine. Starting from this issue, we officially enter the fifth phase — engineering translation. The process packages are on the table, in a thick stack. PFD, PID, equipment data sheets, instrument data sheets, pipe material grades, boundary condition tables, general instructions – everything is available. This set of documents tells you what kind of device needs to be built. But it still hasn’t answered a key question: how to build it? This is what needs to be done during the engineering transition phase. Translate “what to build” as “how to build it,” and translate technical terms into engineering terminology. This translation process is not simply about enlarging the scale on the drawings and replacing the text with construction terminology. It is a comprehensive engineering overhaul – from multi-disciplinary collaboration and design refinement to compliance reviews, each step can lead to the re-examination and adjustment of the technical solutions from the previous stage. I. Technical language and engineering language represent two different ways of thinking; the process package uses technical language. It tells you at what temperature and pressure this reactor should operate, what the heat load of this heat exchanger is, and what the flow rate and composition of this material are. Engineering design uses engineering language. It tells you: what thickness to choose for the reactor wall, what material to use, where to locate the pipe openings, how large the foundation should be, what load it can bear, and whether the seismic resistance is sufficient. The difference between the two ways of thinking determines the core challenge at this stage. Technical thinking seeks the “optimal solution” – which approach is best under ideal conditions. Engineering thinking seeks a \"feasible solution\" – under real-world constraints, the approach that not only meets technical requirements but also allows for safe construction, easy operation, and economic Reasonableness. The process package tells you how many theoretical plates the distillation column requires, but what needs to be determined in terms of engineering design is whether this column will be a plate column or a packed column What is the diameter and wall thickness? What material should be used? Who will supply the tower internals? How tall is the skirt base? How to do the foundation? How to set up a ladder platform? This is not a simple proportional enlargement, but a complete engineering redesign. Every engineering decision is constrained by regulations, safety, cost, construction capabilities, and operational requirements. The transformation from an “optimal solution” to a “feasible solution” reflects the core difference between technical thinking and engineering thinking. Technical thinking focuses on performance metrics such as reaction conversion rate, separation efficiency, and energy consumption levels under ideal conditions. On this basis, engineering thinking also takes into account various factors such as safety margins, material corrosion tolerance, construction tolerances, operational variations, ease of maintenance, and long-term operating costs. A good engineer does not simply reject the \"optimal solution\" in terms of technology; rather, they strive to approach it as closely as possible while ensuring safety and operability. II. Multidisciplinary collaboration: The core challenge in engineering translation. The most significant challenge during the engineering translation phase is not a lack of depth in a particular discipline, but rather the lack of collaboration among various disciplines. Process, equipment, piping, structure, electrical, and automation – these disciplines begin to collaborate at the process package stage, but during the engineering implementation phase, the depth and complexity of their collaboration increase significantly. If one parameter is adjusted in the process engineering field, the pipe diameter in the piping engineering field may need to be recalculated; the frame loads in the structural engineering field may need to be adjusted; the motor power in the electrical engineering field may need to be changed; and the range values and interlock settings in the automation engineering field may need to be modified. It’s like dominoes – the craft major is the first domino; once it falls, the others follow. Without establishing an effective coordination mechanism, information suffers from degradation and distortion as it is transmitted between different specialties. The process engineering team changed the operating temperature of a certain heat exchanger, but only informed the equipment engineering team to update the data sheets; they forgot to inform the piping engineering team – which is still conducting stress analysis using the old temperature values. During the construction phase, it was found that the thermal expansion amount of the pipes did not match the estimated values; upon investigating further, it was discovered that the reason lay in inadequate notification during the process changes. This degradation in inter-disciplinary information flow is the root cause of many on-site changes and rework in projects. Rework is not due to mistakes in construction, but rather because the drawings were not coordinated properly from the start. How to break it? It is useful to emphasize “strengthening communication” through meetings, but relying solely on people’s awareness is not enough. What is needed is a system: the transfer of conditions across all specialties must be documented in writing, in a version-controlled format, with acknowledgments, confirmations, and traceability. The process engineering department specifies a design requirement to indicate the version number, date, and author. Once the downstream department receives the conditions, it needs to confirm which version was received, when it was received, and whether there are any questions regarding those conditions. If conditions change in the future, the process engineering team needs to assess the scope of impact, inform all affected teams, and ensure that all teams update their plans accordingly. If this system is implemented well, information flow will be clear and traceable. It wasn’t implemented properly; there were mixed versions, and different teams were designing using various versions of the specifications, so when problems arose it was impossible to determine their source. III. Main contents of the fifth phase: Starting from this issue, the fifth phase, “Project Transformation,” will be covered in detail over a series of ten-odd issues. It is organized roughly in accordance with the actual sequence of progress of a chemical project, from receiving the process package to the delivery of the construction drawings. First is the preparation of the feasibility study report. This is the first systematic task to be carried out after the delivery of the process package; it involves not only technical evaluation but also re-evaluation of market prospects, site selection assessment, checks for environmental compliance, as well as investment estimation and economic analysis. Then comes the scheme design. This serves as a bridging stage between feasibility studies and preliminary design, during which the overall layout, the main process scheme, and the initial choices for key equipment are determined, while the planning application is prepared simultaneously. Next is the basic design. Transform the technical proposals of the process package into engineering documents suitable for detailed design – determine the selection specifications for key equipment, complete the preliminary design of the process system, decide on the material and flow parameters for pipelines, carry out the layout and vertical design, prepare an estimate for the basic design, and complete the preparation of the four specialized sections. Then comes the detailed design. This is the final stage in producing the construction drawings – pipeline stress analysis, 3D piping design, simultaneous in-depth development of various disciplines related to structural and electrical automation, preparation of technical specifications for long-life equipment, and review and filing of the construction drawings. At the same time, it is also necessary to advance various types of specialized evaluations. Safety assessments, environmental impact assessments, occupational health assessments, energy assessments, and water conservation evaluations – these assessments are carried out simultaneously at various stages of design, with feedback flowing between them. The requirements identified in these assessments must be implemented in the design, while design data is also needed to support the assessment reports. A design review system is integrated throughout the entire process. HAZOP analysis, LOPA classification, 30%, 60%, 90% reviews of the 3D model, and constructability review – the design reviews at each stage are key aspects of quality control. The discussion will conclude with two project cases: the entire engineering transition process of the PPS project, from the process package to the detailed design, and the design management for the retrofitting of the existing FEP plant. IV. Between the drawings and the steel lies the entire fifth phase. When discussing the investment-risk curve in Phase 2, it was mentioned that in later phases, each defect from the earlier stages is amplified exponentially. This perspective is most directly evident in the engineering transition phase. Changing a single wire on the drawing incurs almost zero cost. Changing a pipe that has already been welded on-site can result in costs increasing by hundreds or even thousands of times. Between the drawings and the steel lies the entire fifth phase. Spending one extra day at this stage to identify and fix issues can save a whole week of rework on site later on. This is not an exaggeration. I did some calculations: to change the route of a pipeline during the drawing phase, designers spend half an hour making the adjustments, while reviewers take fifteen minutes to verify it, and the cost ranges from dozens to hundreds of yuan. At the equipment manufacturing stage, if the orientation of the connections for the equipment that has already been ordered needs to be changed, it is necessary to inform the manufacturer to revise the drawings or even redo the work, resulting in costs that can reach several thousand or even tens of thousands of dollars. By the installation stage, the pipes have already been prefabricated or even welded; any rework would require cutting, rewelding, re-nondestructive testing, and re-pressure testing, with costs that can reach tens of thousands or even over a hundred thousand yuan. If the plant is already in operation and shutdown is required for emergency repairs due to weld cracks caused by pipeline stress, the losses are no longer in the tens of thousands; rather, they amount to hundreds of thousands or even millions per day in terms of production losses. This is why the phrase mentioned in Issue 5, “eliminate problems on the drawing,” is so important. The drawing review and design inspection during the engineering transition phase are not mere formalities; they involve real financial costs. At this stage, identifying a collision interference, resolving a stress issue, and ensuring there is enough space for the operation pathway are all of utmost value. V. Several Themes That Run Through the Entire Process Entering the fifth phase, there are several themes that reappear repeatedly. First, efficiency comes first. Design documents on the critical path are issued and reviewed first, so as not to hinder the progress of construction and procurement. The procurement specifications for long-cycle equipment, the basic drawings of the main units, and the steel structure diagrams for the pipe galleries – these are key milestones in the project schedule, and it is essential to prioritize quality and progress at these stages. Second, risk anticipation. HAZOP analysis, 3D model review, and constructability review are all used to identify potential issues before construction begins. The earlier a problem is detected, the cheaper it is to resolve. Third, technology reigns supreme. Regardless of the specialty, it is necessary to base everything on the process requirements in order to achieve the process objectives. A facility is built to convert specific raw materials into specific products; if it deviates from the process objectives, then no matter how good its structure is, no matter how advanced its instrumentation, and no matter how attractive its overall layout, it is putting the cart before the horse. Fourth is collaborative win-win outcomes. Seamless coordination among multiple specialties is more important than the efficiency of any single specialty. No matter how well a particular task is done, if there is poor coordination with other related tasks, the overall situation remains chaotic. Preview for the next issue: Issue 61 – Feasibility Study Report: More Than Just a Technical Assessment. Starting from the next issue, we will begin covering the content of Phase 5 in earnest. Let’s talk about the feasibility study report first. The feasibility study report must answer not only whether it is technically feasible, but also whether it should be built overall. What is the standard structure of a feasibility study report? How to estimate investment costs? How is economic evaluation conducted? What core data does the process package provide for the feasibility study? To be continued in the next issue.