Could you talk about using HAZOP for the analysis of process nodes? Then, the node division in HAZOP analysis is a bit difficult. . .
Thread Content
I have been conducting a HAZOP analysis on the company’s production facilities recently. It’s not for safety reasons, or at least not entirely for safety. The role of HAZOP in conducting hazard and operability analyses on existing installations goes without saying; its advantage lies in the fact that it covers every possible aspect without any gaps. It is possible to conduct a systematic “check-up” of the equipment and the process flow. As for me, I plan to use HAZOP analysis to get familiar with this set of equipment and process flows (I just started working at this company:D). I will analyze each individual unit on the process flow diagram – such as various steps, devices, and operations – and through such analysis, understand the function of each unit, the key points to pay attention to, and the operational requirements. I also want to understand the impact of failures or errors on safety and quality. I previously conducted a simple HAZOP analysis, but it was relatively rough, and it involved a batch-type reaction in just one reactor. This is a continuous production facility now. So during the process, it turned out to be two completely different things. Analyzing the \"nodes\" alone is easy, but dividing them into categories is not. I have been working on this HAZOP analysis for two days now; it focuses on the reaction units, such as intermediate tanks, heat exchangers, separators, etc. But after analyzing several units. I found that my division into “nodes” isn’t very reasonable; often several factors affect several such “nodes” at once to achieve a particular goal, and I think this should be considered a single unit. However, it is impossible to analyze these several “nodes” as a single “node”. Analyzing them separately fails to achieve the purpose of analysis. I feel the analysis has gotten a bit messy at this point. I have paused my analysis work for now and am reading books on HAZOP analysis; I’m also reaching out here to ask if anyone has any good suggestions. 1. This HAZOP analysis is not solely for safety purposes; it is mainly used to analyze the process. Because I’m not in charge of safety; I’m in charge of the manufacturing process (of course, I also take safety into account – without safety, what’s the point of talking about processes?) ! ). Moreover, I believe that quality defects resulting from errors in the manufacturing process are also a type of accident—a quality accident. 2. At the moment, I am the only one who can carry out this HAZOP analysis. HAZOP is a large-scale project that requires a team. But just because I only have one, it doesn’t mean I shouldn’t use such a tool. After all, HAZOP is like braised pork – just because I’m overweight doesn’t mean I should avoid eating it. My opinion is to give it a try first; if I do eat it, I’ll just exercise more afterwards :D. 3. At present, I have prepared this HAZOP work analysis sheet based on this PID diagram and my preliminary understanding of the workshop; then I take this sheet to the workshop to carry out on-the-job training. Through my own observations during work and discussions with workers on the same shift, I supplement and modify this work analysis sheet – it is a step-by-step process. 4. There are two ultimate goals: one is to enable me to thoroughly understand this manufacturing process through such work and take over its management ； Rather, through such work, it is possible to trace production or quality issues back to the fault point or cause as quickly as possible.
I’m very happy to discuss this issue with everyone. I’ll start by sharing my own approach. For the first time, it’s best to go with the simplest approach, suitable for the initial design phase; I think the key is to focus on the equipment, going through each important piece of equipment one by one. This way, the speed is high and the issues are concentrated. The second time around, it’s slightly more complex; it’s suitable for use at the beginning of the detailed design phase. It’s necessary to examine each system one by one according to the PID approach, so that no gaps are left unaddressed and all issues on paper can be identified. On the third attempt, when 60% of the detailed design was completed, SPR analysis was carried out based on the model. You can not only see the manufacturing process (actually, there have been no major changes to it anymore. ) You can also look at issues such as layout, piping, operation, transportation, construction, and maintenance. HAZOP is a team activity; it definitely cannot be carried out by just the process engineers. Keep it up, OP! ha~
Ah~ First of all, thank you to the moderator for visiting my floor:lol； Secondly, thanks to the moderator for their excellent speech (applause here is in order). . . ) Next, it’s my turn to speak: Hehe, I thought of trying to use HAZOP, a tool originally designed for safety purposes, in order to gain a good understanding of the process operations. Again, “Hehe.” . . ”
HAZOP is carried out along the process flow, but you say, “Try to use HAZOP, a tool originally designed for safety purposes, to help me gain a thorough understanding of the process operations.” I would like to ask: Do you mean that A. you are from a manufacturing company and need to learn this process in order to carry out production? B. You are from the design firm; do you need to learn *this process in order to...?
I feel that in China, when people copy foreign Hazop analysis methods, they often don’t really understand the concepts behind them, and the so-called \"experts\" are far from satisfactory. Sometimes it feels like it’s just a formality.
Not only the manufacturing process, but also equipment, electrical appliances, and automatic control systems are involved.
Yes, first of all, the range of specialties must be complete; in many cases, only two specialties are offered, namely process engineering and instrumentation. Obviously, the level of engagement is not sufficient.
Yes! We are a manufacturing enterprise, and the equipment was installed at the beginning of this year. At present, production is running normally, and both product quality and specifications are stable. I was hired by this company to be in charge of process and quality management going forward. Previously, I worked as a safety officer for a while; I knew about something called HAZOP, and I wanted to use this \"tool\" to analyze the manufacturing process. Through such a process, one can become familiar with, master, and thoroughly understand this set of techniques. In fact, what I’ve done might no longer be considered a true HAZOP; it can only be regarded as a \"variant\" of HAZOP, using some of the methods from HAZOP analysis to help me gain a thorough understanding of this process.
It seems like everyone has strayed from the topic. The reason I’m posting this is that my way of dividing “nodes” isn’t very logical; often several factors affect several such “nodes” at once to achieve a certain goal, and I think that should be considered one unit. However, it is impossible to analyze these several “nodes” as a single “node”. Analyzing them separately fails to achieve the purpose of analysis. I feel the analysis has gotten a bit messy at this point. ” For example, in the entire process, there is a section that consists of a \"heat exchanger\" + \"flash tank\" + \"water separator\". If I divide this section into 3 nodes, my entire process flow is likely to drive me crazy. If we treat these three as a single node, it’s a bit difficult to know how to analyze them; things become chaotic instantly. But I really feel that these 3 devices together form a small \"unit\" within the entire process flow. What should I do? Comrades, I need your advice and guidance. . .
The division of nodes should primarily be based on the functions related to the implementation process. Components that serve a similar function can be grouped together. However, combining the \"heat exchanger\" + \"flash tank\" + \"water separator\" into one node isn’t a good idea; it makes things more confusing for engineers when analyzing the situation. For example, when considering high-temperature deviations, what are the consequences of high temperatures in each of these three devices, and how do they affect one another when combined? As it goes on, things become chaotic; it’s better to separate them. Generally, each node should clearly represent one main function. If that cannot be done, it means the segmentation is too fine; if there are too many functions, then the segmentation is too coarse
I suggest that you divide the HAZOP into 2 parts to complete it. Actually, this can be divided into many small sections. Integrated with the production equipment. It can be refined a lot. But one person isn’t enough.