1. Budget Shortfall Options Ian Wyatt - Atkins JIP on Bursting Disks for Shell & Tube Exchangers – 2 nd Stakeholders Meeting

2. Heat Exchanger Design - Essential HE 1. Establish design criteria and engineering analysis requirements to assess if guillotine fracture is credible based on the following: The mechanical properties of the materials of construction used in heat exchanger tubes, baffles, etc. Degradation of the materials through corrosion or erosion. Minimum tube thickness specification required to prevent guillotine fracture. Vibration analysis to ensure that the likelihood of guillotine fracture is minimised. Sensitivity analysis of process variations which should be carried out as part of the engineering analysis to ensure that the design is robust, e.g. flow, pressure, temperature etc. Gathering industry heat exchanger data.

3. Heat Exchanger Design - Essential HE 2. Establish design criteria that determine when transient effects need to be considered for overpressure protection of STHEs: Determine if differential pressure limits can be established below which transient effects from a tube rupture can be ignored. Determine the maximum allowable transient overpressures (peak pressure and duration) in the shell, under tube rupture conditions, below which fast acting pressure relief is not required. Extend the University of Sheffield work on heat exchanger stress distribution. HE 3. Determine the impact of transient loads on the piping systems if bursting disks are not applied for overpressure and develop appropriate design guidelines to ensure that the piping design is robust but not overly conservative.

4. Relief Device Selection - Essential RD 1. Conduct shock tube tests at the same scale as typical relief device sizes encountered in real applications to establish the response times under a range of overpressures (150-400%). RD 2. Establish mechanical integrity criteria for relief valves for use in tube rupture service. RD 3. Establish the range of process conditions for which conventional relief valves could be utilised to protect against tube rupture and those for which bursting disks are required. This needs to consider aspects such as differential design pressure between low and high pressure side of exchanger, relief device speed of response etc. Alternate relief valve types and manufacturers’ products will be taken into account.

5. Design Guidelines - Essential DG 1. A design decision flowchart that takes designers through the engineering analysis required to develop the overpressure protection design for a shell and tube heat exchanger. DG 2. Relief device selection criteria for tube rupture. DG 3. Relief device set-point selection criteria. DG 4. Design criteria for overpressure protection of piping connected to heat exchangers. DG 5. Design criteria for the interface between the relief devices and the relief disposal (flare) system. DG 6. Lessons learned from operating experience of STHEs. DG 7. Instrumentation requirements for detection of tube rupture and bursting disk rupture.

6. Essential Tasks & Cost Estimates Researcher: £120,000 Engineering Study: £150,000 Energy Institute: Project Management: £30,000 Contingency: £30,000 Total Estimate: £330,000

7. Proposed Structure The fee for operating companies or safety regulators sponsors is £30,000 The fee for other participants (e.g. design houses) is £15,000 Relevant in-kind contributions may be accepted from other participants, such as from relief valve manufacturers, heat exchanger design software specialists, etc. Target fee of £330,000 can be achieved with: 11 operators Or 10 operators + 2 others Or 9 operators + 4 others Etc Need 11 “operators”

8. Considerations Minimum 50% Funding Keep Researcher fully funded Need to provide guidelines Some guidelines require analysis Management & Contingency proportional to total funding

9. Cost Reductions

10. Resulting Engineering Tasks