Types of Space Suitable for Pilot Plant

Operations: Separate Buildings

 Published on May 2, 2016

Richard Palluzi
Pilot Plant and Laboratory Engineering, Safety, and Design Consultant at Richard P Palluzi LLC
85 articles Following

 There are many types of space available for pilot plant operations.  It is important to understand
the differences between them and the advantages and disadvantages of each in order to try to
optimize pilot plant operations.  Frequently pilot plants are simply placed into the most readily
available space with little thought for the long term impact; this incurs hidden costs later in
design, construction and operation.

 In general, pilot plant space can be divided into five basic types:

 o Separate buildings;

o Containment (blast) cells;

o Open bays;

o Walk-in hoods; and

o Laboratory areas.

 Separate Buildings

 Separate buildings were historically the first major type of area used for pilot plant operations. 
Most pilot plants started near the process plants and were housed in whatever space was
available.  Safety and operational concerns led to the pilot plants being removed from close
proximity to the main process units, usually by being constructed in separate buildings. This type
of space has some significant advantages:
 o It isolates the pilot plant from other process equipment and pilot plants adding a measure of
safety; minor accidents in the pilot plant cannot easily spread to adjacent equipment nor can
accidents on other process equipment readily affect the pilot plant. 

 o The building can be optimized for the specific pilot plant operations envisioned frequently
leading to process or operating efficiencies.  High clearances, air conditioning, area heating or
cooling, etc. can all be added in an economical fashion.

 o Interferences and interfaces with other pilot plants can be avoided.  This can be significant if
the pilot plant, for example, can use a general purpose electrical classification.  Being separated
in its own building may allow a substantial reduction in construction costs.

 While still used today this approach has fallen out of favor for most new installations for
numerous reasons.

 o A separate building in no way accentuates the safety of the pilot plant itself.  It simply
minimizes the potential hazards of an incident on the unit and/or lowers the likelihood of
adjacent incidents affecting the unit. In general, it is usually safer for the operating personnel and
more economical for the organization to add extra safety systems or locate the pilot plant in a
containment cell.

 o A separate building is rarely economical to operate in the long run.  Building support
requirements increase much more quickly with the quantity and not the size of the buildings. A
dozen separate small buildings may cost three to four times more to operate and maintain than a
single larger building.

 o Providing adequate utilities to numerous isolated buildings is expensive. It also leads to higher
maintenance costs. In many cases, the isolated nature of the individual buildings leads to the
installation of numerous small dedicated systems in each building. Separate air compressors,
chillers, nitrogen cylinder banks, air handling units and other small utility systems end up costing
significantly more to install and maintain than larger single central systems.

 o Providing central services to numerous different locations can also become expensive.  Mail,
sample pick up, material delivery costs are but a few examples of services which increase
significantly as the number of buildings increase. If these services are not provided by the
organization, the costs are not saved. Rather the operating personnel are required to perform
these tasks usually at a much greater although less obvious cost. Similarly, providing adequate
maintenance support services economically can be difficult when the pilot plants are spread over
a large area.

 o Unless the pilot plant always requires multiple operating personnel, the lone operator in a
remote area can present a serious safety problem.  While mechanical measures are available to
reduce the concern (such as radios, motion detectors, closed circuit TV's, etc.), this frequently
still remains a problem area.

I will talk about the other types of space in future posts

 Types of Space Suitable for Pilot Plant
Operations: Containment Cells
 Published on May 5, 2016

Richard Palluzi
Pilot Plant and Laboratory Engineering, Safety, and Design Consultant at Richard P Palluzi LLC
85 articles Following

The next type of plant space which evolved was based on containing or barricading the pilot
plant in a blast resistant area. This received impetus from experimental work being done to
support the rocket and military explosive programs. The first barricades were steel walled cells,
some of which are still existent. (Portable steel enclosures made somewhat of a comeback during
the era of high pressure synthetic fuels research.) Most of these steel cells rapidly evolved into
reinforced concrete bunkers. Typical cells usually have a blowout wall or roof designed to vent
the force of any explosion to a restricted, safe area. Total containment cells have been
successfully constructed although at a much higher cost.

This type of pilot plant space has many advantages:

o It is generally conceded to be the safest possible operating environment assuming all

operations are truly remotely controlled from outside the cell and the operators never have to
enter the cell during unit operation.

o A higher level of uncertainty can be accepted in assessing process hazards as the consequences
will affect equipment rather than personnel. This should not suggest that the consequences of an
accident will not be very expensive and time consuming to repair, only that the accident will
usually not be life threatening.

o The grouping of cells in an area or building allows a larger variety of utilities, central services
and maintenance support can usually be more economically provided.

o A common control area, typically the corridor outside the cells, can usually be designed into
the facility at little extra cost.

While still in service at many places, and likely to remain so for years to come, this type of pilot
plant space has many disadvantages:
o It is extremely expensive to construct the basic space, with typical costs for a 9 to 37 square
meter containment cell ranging from $100,000 to $500,000 depending on the area, level of
containment and layout required.

o Installing a pilot plant in a containment cell is expensive. Remote operation requires costly
automation such as remote operated valves, switches, pumps, instrumentation and a host of other
expensive items.

o Operating a pilot plant in a cell costs more than in any other type of pilot plant space. The
maintenance requirements for all the equipment mentioned above is high. In addition, the limited
visibility and separation of the operators from the unit does not promote efficient operation.

o In practice, it is difficult to ensure all the operations on a typical pilot plant are completely
remote controlled from outside the cell. If not, and the operating personnel begin to routinely
enter the cell, the major advantage of this type of space is lost. Worse, this practice may
introduce a significant safety hazard into the normal operations which may go undetected for an
extended period.

o It can be difficult to ensure the cell's blast rating is not exceeded. Estimating the blast potential
for many process failures in advance is frequently difficult as it requires defining the specific
failure mode. This is rarely obvious and can lead to an overly conservative and expensive design
or, worse, a dangerously under designed and potentially unsafe facility. In addition, the
placement in the cell can have significant effect. For example, to maximize the cell's blast rating
the pilot plant should be in the middle of the cell equidistant from all walls. This makes
observation, piping, wiring and operation less than optimum. Since most pilot plants end up with
some or all of the unit constructed against one or more walls, a failure could exceed the cell's
blast rating in the event of an accident.

o This type of space almost always has limited utility. Typical problems include the following.

- Since cells are so expensive to construct and get significantly more expensive as they grow
larger, they usually have limited height which frequently restricts the size of columns, tanks, etc.

- To retain the blast rating of the cell, the wall penetrations become more complex and
expensive. Hence access for piping and electrical frequently becomes a problem.

- Major wall openings for ventilation are not usually possible except in containment cells
designed only to stop shrapnel from moderate pressure operations. This either limits the quantity
of ventilation which can be provided or forces moving the entire ventilation unit into the cell.
This latter approach wastes valuable pilot plant space and can be very expensive after an
accident as the ventilation unit is frequently damaged or destroyed.

- Analytical equipment usually must be located outside the cell. This makes it very remote,
decreasing accuracy and response time and increasing costs.
 - Support space adjacent to the unit is typically very limited. Usually this space winds up being at
a remote location which increases maintenance costs.

While necessary to support some research work, this type of space is not preferred; generally, it's
use is becoming less common except as required to support high hazard operations.

More on the other types of space in the next post.

Types of Space Suitable for Pilot Plant

Operations: Open Bays
 Published on May 7, 2016

Richard Palluzi
Pilot Plant and Laboratory Engineering, Safety, and Design Consultant at Richard P Palluzi LLC
85 articles Following

Open Bays

 With the introduction of more reliable control and monitoring instrumentation, which reduce the
potential safety hazards associated with many common pilot plant operations, the most preferred
type of space for pilot plant operations is becoming the open bay.  This is a large contiguous area
with few, if any, vertical partitions. This allows pilot plants to be located throughout the area in
whatever configuration makes the most sense.  Open bays may be electrically classified
(Division 1 or 2) or general purpose depending on the materials and processes involved.  They
may have significant overhead clearance or be relatively short as required.  Numerous central
support areas can usually be included such as control rooms, laboratories, computer rooms, lunch
rooms, central receiving areas, hot and cold rooms, sample storage areas, mechanical shops and
equipment storage areas.

 This type of pilot plant space has many advantages:

 o A large array of common utilities can usually be economically provided.  Due to the high unit
density even relatively specialized utilities may be justifiable.  Typical utilities include air,
nitrogen, tower water and steam. Other specialized utilities could include helium, argon,
hydrogen, ethylene, carbon monoxide, hot oil, cooling oil and chilled water.
 

o This type of space is much more economical to construct than any other.  An open warehouse
or prefabricated metal building can serve as the basic structure.

 o Due to its open configuration, pilot plant layout is simplified.  Some reasonable standards
covering aisles, emergency exits, etc. must usually be developed before the area is opened to use;
random layout based solely on the date of the unit's construction can lead to some significant
problems later by restricting new pilot plants in their layout, access or means of egress.
Nevertheless, virtually any special layout can be accommodated.

 o The open layout promotes easy operation, maintenance and modification by allowing access
from most, if not all, sides.

 o Shared common facilities such as those listed above are usually justifiable in the initial
installation. These additional common facilities promote efficient operation and helps to lower
operating costs.

 o Operators are rarely alone or even out of sight, promoting increased safety.

 Some areas of concern do arise with this type of space:

 o The operation of adjacent pilot plants must be evaluated carefully.  An accident in one can
easily spread to others. A low risk unit, for example, with a large operating inventory located
next to a higher risk unit with a minimal operating inventory could result in a potentially
hazardous situation in an accident. Hence safety reviews must address the effect of all pilot
plants in the open bay.

 o The area electrical classification can be a problem.  In general, the only practical solution is to
divide the open bay into classified and unclassified areas if both types of area electrical
classifications are necessary, and impose a physical or ventilation barrier.  This can usually be
handled if planned in advance but is very difficult and expensive to retrofit.

 o Ensuring sufficient clearance for all circumstances can be costly although it typically can be
implemented less expensively than with any other type of pilot plant space.  A more typical
solution is to provide limited areas of the open bay with a high clearance for those pilot plants
which require it. The rest of the open bay a lower, and less expensive, height.

 o Appropriate area safety monitoring may be advisable.  Typical systems include combustible
gas, toxic gas, fire and ventilation alarms.

 o If the open bays are extremely large, the distance to control rooms, analytical areas and
support laboratories may begin to be a problem.  This can usually be eliminated by proper
design. Typically, these common areas are placed in the center of the space     or, less commonly,
a number of satellite control rooms at different locations are provided around the bay.
 Next in this series Laboratory Areas

Types of Space Suitable for Pilot Plant

Operations: Laboratories
 Published on May 19, 2016

Richard Palluzi
Pilot Plant and Laboratory Engineering, Safety, and Design Consultant at Richard P Palluzi LLC
85 articles Following

Laboratory areas are common in almost any pilot plant site.  The construction of true pilot plants
in a laboratory area is a relatively new phenomena brought about by the reduction in the size of
many pilot plants.  Many pilot plants can now fit inside a standard or slightly expanded
laboratory hood.  This allows operations in a climate controlled environment which increases
operator productivity as well as eliminating problems with off line equipment such as computers
and analytical instrumentation. In addition, the proximity to other laboratory operations can
reduce the personnel operating costs significantly by allowing shared resources.

 Some advantages of laboratory areas include:

 o If the space is constructed in a remote area, it can be a viable alternative for laboratory style
operations which are too large or too dangerous to be allowed in a standard laboratory building
with a higher density of people.

 o Most, if not all, laboratory areas are air conditioned.  Aside from the obvious increase in
productivity from increased operator comfort, the savings from eliminating temperature swings
can be significant.  Leakage is reduced; process streams at ambient conditions are normally at a
constant temperature; analytical and control equipment rarely need special heating or cooling.
 o The high ventilation typical in a laboratory hood can substantially reduce the hazards of
handling toxic materials.

 This type of space is very efficient for small scale pilot plants with large amounts of associated
off-line equipment but it does have some disadvantages:

 o Laboratory pilot plant space is usually very expensive to construct and even more expensive to
operate because of the high ventilation rate.  Secondary heat recovery systems can reduce this
cost but usually are only marginally economical.  This problem becomes even more difficult if,
as in most pilot plant facilities, no air re-circulation is allowed for safety.

 o Height is usually a problem as rarely are typical laboratory hoods able to operate economically
over ten to fifteen feet tall.

 o Space can be restricted, particularly in a hood, causing crowded and in efficient operation.

 o Hood design is a specialized area and obtaining a flexible design which promotes future reuse
can be difficult and very expensive.

 Overall, the use of this type of pilot plant space is increasing.  The high operating costs,
however, usually encourages alternate approaches if possible.

 Estimating Pilot Plant Space Requirements

 Estimating the space required for a pilot plant is difficult unless a detailed design is available.
Even then many of the extraneous space required to support the pilot plant operation such as
storage and operator work up space is frequently overlooked. This is due to a variety of reasons.

 First, space estimates are frequently made very early in the preliminary design when little
information is available and before the design is truly realistic. As a result, there is usually a
tendency to overlook many space consuming items or make unrealistic assumptions about what
will fit in a given area. Uncertainty in the early stages of cost estimating is covered by including
contingency, an allowance for unknown but historically expected additions and changes.
Contingency is rarely if ever added to the pilot plant's space estimate.

 Second, estimating space requirements is usually not a high priority item until late in the project
unless it is recognized as a major cost factor early in the project. As a result, relatively little
effort is expended on this effort. Hence, the resulting estimate is rarely rigorous, comprehensive
or accurate.

 Finally, typical space estimates are heavily dependent on the experience of the estimator and
comparison with similar units. This can lead to large errors if the personnel are new to this
activity or if the unit is novel or different.

 While the best way to estimate pilot plant space requirements remains a detailed layout based on
a relatively completed design there are alternative approaches. The most common is to divide the
unit into a series of basic systems such as feed, product, reactor, etc. and estimate the space
required for each system. Alternately the space required for major equipment can be estimated
and a rough layout developed. A combination of both approaches usually works best. These
estimates are very broad; high density mounting and careful layout can reduce the overall space
requirements significantly. Conversely, the need for easy access, improper initial layout or poor
installation can double the required space. Additional space over and above the maximum
estimated should always be left to cover unexpected problems or last minute additions.

A final word of caution for the end of this series. In the authors experience, initial space
estimates are usually low by at least 200% unless a very experienced pilot plant designer is
involved. (I.e. twice as much space is eventually required as initially estimated.) This is very
difficult for some research personnel to accept but it has consistently proved to be true.