Reliability Modeling for Utilities Projects Scouting Phase

Ryan Stephens Celesta White Nazim Nathoo

Outline

Introduction & RM Overview RM for Utilities Example: Decision-making for Scouting Phase Cogen Project

Introduction and Overview

What is a Reliability Modeling Study?

Reliability Modeling Study is a

-

structured process to mathematically simulate the stochastic performance of plant hardware and process systems as well as local/global network of systems. ensure current, new and revamped plants can meet defined operating/project premises such as production levels, availability targets, environmental regulations, etc. For new and revamped plants, ensure design meets premise for the lowest capital investment. make objective data-driven decisions around appropriate equipment capacity, sparing philosophy and system/hardware selection options to meet project premises get the emotion out! assist with defining feed and product contracts as well as security of supply determine storage and logistics requirements. assure project funding entities or lenders that their investment will result in the expected return (production).

Results can be used by project teams to .

-

Definition of Terms RM
Availability = Up Time ---------------------------------Up Time + Down Time Actual (Projected) Production ------------------------------------------Production Capacity*
*Design, Maximum, Business Plan

Capacity Utilization

Production Efficiency

5 Copyright 2008 by Shell Oil Company. All rights reserved.

Reliability Modeling
Sales Strategy / Logistics

Individual Product Efficiency Individual Product Volumes

Plant-Wide Reliability Unit Utilization

Utilities Unit Interdependency Unit Capacities

Performance Forecasting

Storage and Inventory Management System Configuration Unit Restarts Unit Configuration Equipment Availability Maintenance Strategies Unit Availability Operational Flexibility e.g. Revised Slate Slowdowns Back-up Routes

MTTR

Component Reliability

MTTF Traditional RCA FMEA RAM Modelling

Applications and Scope

This methodology is applied to a wide range of assets, such as:

-

Refineries Petrochemical complexes Gas production and distribution networks Utility production and distribution networks Systems involving product transport and logistic (shipping, rail, trucks, pipelines) Upstream extraction and processing

Depending on the asset and the objectives of the study, the scope of the project might include:
-

Feedstock availability Multiple production plants (down to equipment level) Intermediate tanks Product tanks Product export Utility systems

Performance Analysis: Typical Objectives

Quantifying the future performance of the system and its components (production and utilization). Optimization of the system design (e.g. configuration, redundancy, storage, capacity, equipment sparing, etc). Optimization of the asset operations (e.g. maintenance philosophy, inventory management, product export, load shedding rules, etc). Identification of bottlenecks and key performance drivers (e.g. where to focus reliability improvement efforts). Evaluation and prioritization of investment opportunities (based on life cycle cost analysis).

Reliability Modeling for Utilities

RM vs. Excel-based Analyses

Excel or spreadsheet-based analyses of utility systems do not provide a complete, in-depth view of likely outcomes
-

Such analyses may under or overestimate sparing done via N+1, N+2 type approaches.

Operating reality, of course, involves random, unplanned and stochastic events.

-

RM attempts to emulate real-life behavior by taking into account the stochastic operational behavior of both producers and users in a utility (or any production) system.

10

Example: Scouting Phase Cogen Project

Background

Shell site must comply with upcoming regulations limiting emission of NOx, SOx and dust, which cannot be done with current equipment and employed fuel mix. The objective of the Cogen Scouting Study was to identify the future steam balance and optimal steam & power generation facilities for the site, in order to:
-

Comply with emissions regulations, Increase steam & power generation efficiency, Reduce CO2 footprint, Increase reliability, Increase operational flexibility, Allow capability for integration with a potential JV project in proximity to the site.

Scope of Reliability Modeling

Several options were screened for ranking based on NPV, reliability, CO2 efficiency, CAPEX, JV integration, and flexibility of steam balance. These options were narrowed down to 3 scenarios for further investigation. Shell Global Solutions was asked to conduct a more detailed reliability analysis of these options to help the project team to better understand the impacts of these options on HP steam reliability.

Basic Assumptions

The reliability study was limited to the following scope:

-

HP Steam System Only: The impacts to the MP and LP system are impacted by the HP steam demand as defined by the individual HP steam users. In practice, as much of the scheduled maintenance as possible will be forced to coincide with plant turnarounds. As the turnaround schedule is not yet confirmed, the study looked at the impacts if all scheduled maintenance could not be done in conjunction with plant TAs. Cracker trip scenario was included. System Life was 19 years (3 full GT maintenance cycles). Simulation Start Year = 2010.

Option Descriptions
Option Option 0.1 Description Base Case: 1 Fr6B GT + 2 end-of-life HP Steam Boilers with stand-alone capability + 1 stand-alone HP steam boiler Minimum Export Cogen Case: 2 parallel Cogen Trains + 1 new Auxilliary Boiler 3P Integration Cogen Case: 1 Cogen Train + 1 new Auxilliary Boiler + 3rd Party Steam Import Interim Case: 1st Cogen Train + old GT + 2 old HP Steam Boilers Maximum 3rd Party Integration: 2 new Auxilliary Boilers + Steam & Power import

Option 2a

Option 2b Option 2c Option 3

Failure & Scheduled Maintenance Data

Component Heavy Duty GTs (old) Heavy Duty GTs (new) Unscheduled Failures Failure Mode MTTF (yr) Trip 0.02 Unplanned Shutdown 1.00 Offline GT Wash 0.17 Trip 0.08 Unplanned Shutdown 1.00 Offline GT Wash 0.25 Trip 0.02 Unplanned Shutdown 1.00 Offline GT Wash 0.17 Trip 0.25 Unplanned Shutdown 3.00 Trip 0.50 Unplanned Shutdown 3.00 Trip 0.50 Unplanned Shutdown 2.00 Offline GT Wash 0.17 Trip 1.00 Blackout 25.00 MTTR (hr) 2 72 4 3 72 4 2 72 4 3 144 2 144 2 72 1 2 24 Impact (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Heavy Duty GTs (IGCC, syngas)

Boilers (old) Boilers (new) HRSG

Cracker Public HV grid

Component Heavy Duty GTs

IGCC GTs

Boilers (old) Boilers (new) HRSG (with cold air fan)

Scheduled Activities Activity Combustor Inspection Hot Gas Path Inpsection Major Overhaul Combustor Inspection Hot Gas Path Inpsection Major Overhaul Preventative Maintenance Preventative Maintenance Preventative Maintenance

Frequency (yr) Duration (hr) 1.0 72 3.0 168 6.0 504 0.5 72 3.0 168 6.0 504 2.0 672 4.0 504 4.0 336

Example Model Diagram

Normal Flows, tonnes/Hour Actual Flows, tonnes/Hour Maximum Stream Flow, tonnes/Hour
Power Production (MW) Sn.17 Power Consumption (MW ) Capacity: 94

93.997
17 Sq.8

Sn.1 GT-1 - Power (MW ) Capacity : 70

67.814
GT-1 - Power (MW) 1 Sq.1 Power Grid

Sn.15 Power Production (MW ) Capacity: 99 Feed: Util.: Avail.: 93.998 94.9% 100.0%

93.997 0.001

[16]

Dummy Power Supply

Sn.18 Power Consumption Cracker Trip Capacity: 5

Power Generation
5
Total Steam Production Sn.19 Cracker Steam Drives Capacity: 745

Power Production (MW)

18

Sq.8

Sn.5 Power Grid Capacity : 100

26.185
5 Sq.1

15

Sq.7

744.745
Sn.16 19 16 Sn.7 Cracker - Steam Production Capacity: 372 Sq.7 [18] Sq.9

4.999

371.974
7 Sq.2 Sn.13 Total Steam Production Capacity: 956 Feed: Util.: Avail.: 784.69 82.1% 100.0% Total Steam Production

Sn.20 Let Down Stations Capacity: 25

24.944
Cracker - Steam Produ...

TEG/Air Supply to HRSG/Boilers (assume 1:1 air/steam equivalence)

744.745 24.944 0.036

20

Sq.9

Steam from Boilers Sn.8 Sn.2 GT-1 TEG / Fresh Air to HRSG-1 Capacity : 230 HRSG-1 Capacity: GT-1 TEG / Fresh Air t... 230 119.178 51.8% 98.7%

Steam from Boilers - Ba...

98.991 20.187
Sn.11 Steam from Boilers Capacity : 850 = Feed: Util.: Avail.: 365.835 43.0% 100.0%

119.178

Feed: Util.: Avail.:

14.966

HRSG-1

230
2 Sq.1 8 Sq.3 HP Boiler 1

365.835

13

Sq.5 Dummy Steam Supply Sn.21 Cracker Trip - Let Down Stations 171

310
= HP Boiler 2

[14] 11 Sq.4

Sn.6 GT - TEG Supply (Boiler TEG Mode) Capacity : 52

310 23.988
GT - TEG Supply (Boile... Sn.14 Sn.9

Capacity: [21] Total Steam Production 21

170.996

24.086
6 Sq.1

26
Air Supply (Boiler Stand...

HP Boiler 1 Capacity: Feed: Util.: Avail.:

310 147.955 47.7% 95.3%

133.422 14.533

HRSG-1

260
Air Supply - (Boiler MC...

Sn.12 Steam from Boilers Balance Capacity : 850 Feed: Util.: Avail.: 46.881 5.5% 100.0%

170.96
14 Sq.5

Sq.9

HP Boiler 1

46.881
Sn.22 Total Steam Production Cracker - Other Capacity: 15

26
9 Sq.3 HP Boiler 2

14.966
Sn.3 Air Supply (Boiler Standalone Mode) 520 Capacity : Sn.10 12 Sq.4 22 310 145.583 47.0% 95.7% Sq.9 HP Boiler 2 Capacity: Feed: Util.: Avail.:

123.966

GT - TEG Supply (Boile...

26
Air Supply (Boiler Stand...

133.422 12.161

121.496
3 Sq.1

260
Air Supply - (Boiler MC...

26
10 Sq.3

Cogen Diagram f or AIChE

Sn.4 Air Supply - (Boiler MCR Mode) Capacity : 52

0.001 0.001

Sq.1

Steam Generation

Network Diagram
Rev 17.02.10 By : Celesta.White CHK:

Overall Plant Availability

Overall Plant Average Option 0.1 # of Outages/yr Avg Deficit per Outage (t/hr) Avg Duration per Overall System Power Outage (hrs) Availability * Availability

0.7 178 11.9 99.82% 99.9942% 0.5 195 29.6 2a 2.4 170 7.5 99.79% 99.9995% 2b 4.5 157 5.3 99.70% 99.9996% 2c 2.4 157 9.1 99.74% 99.9967% 3 2.4 191 5.9 99.83% 99.9994% * Overall System Availability = The percentage of time that the system is capable of meeting the Demand Capacity.

While the system will operate at 100% steam demand for over 99% of the time, when there is an outage it is important to understand the duration and extent of the expected outages in order to plan mitigation (i.e., load shedding) accordingly.

Results Summary

While the system will operate at 100% steam demand for over 99% of the time, when there is an outage it is important to understand the duration and extent of the expected outages in order to plan mitigation (i.e., load shedding) accordingly.

Expected Shortfall Duration

Distribution of Outage Duration
90% 80% 70% 60%
% of Outages

Option 0.1 Option 2a Option 2b Option 2c Option 3

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-24 24-36 36-72 >72 Outage Duration (hrs)

Expected Shortfall Size

Distribution of Outage Extent
90% 80% 70% 60% Option 0.1 Option 2a Option 2b Option 2c Option 3

% of Outages

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% < 125 125-150 150-175 175-200 200-250 250-300 300-350 > 350

Outage Extent (t/h)

Conclusions

The majority of the outages for Option 0.1 occur when one boiler is down for maintenance (either scheduled or unplanned) and another boiler trips. For this case, GT trips do not impact steam production, and is therefore the most reliable scenario even with the less reliable old boilers. For the three new cases, most of the outages occur when a GT trips (2 hrs) or requires an off-line wash (4 hours) during an extended outage of another steam producer.

Conclusions (2)

The reliability model provided quantitative insight into the differences in both power and steam reliability of the various options examined, including expected downtime duration & extent so that the project team could begin thinking of mitigation and load shedding options.