Economical structural design of natural gas
processing plants
Case study of a butane treatment unit illustrates effective structural design procedures
and highlights construction challenges encountered in new and expansion projects
OSAMA BEDAIR
Consultant
N
atural gas processing sepa-
rates hydrocarbons and flu-
ids from pure natural gas to
produce dry gas suitable for pipe-
line transportation. Raw natural gas
is first collected from oil wells then
processed at collection points using
separator vessels to remove fluids
and other impurities. Gas process-
ing plants convert natural gas to
other products such as gasoline,
ethane, butane, and propane. In
some cases, hydrocarbon materials
such as ethane, propane, and butane
must be extracted from natural gas
prior to pipeline transportation.
Fractionation converts raw material
into refined products transported
using pipelines to various process-
ing units for further processing.
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)
refers to propane or butane (either
separate or in a mix), maintained
in a liquid state under specific pres-
sure/temperature within a vessel.
LPG is a valuable energy source
and is widely used as a chemical
feedstock for the petrochemical
and agriculture industries. Butane
is a hydrocarbon gas (C4H10) that is
colourless, odourless, flammable,
and can be easily liquefied. Butane
is used as fuel for portable stoves/
barbecues, a propellant in aero-
sols, refrigerants, and a feedstock
to manufacture ethylene and buta-
diene, a key ingredient of synthetic
rubber. Butane extractions occur
in a closed-loop extraction system.
These units are closed, devoid of
atmosphere, and recover the gas to
its original vessel.
Design cycles of natural gas pro-
cessing plants are complicated and
require close interaction between
www.digitalrefining.com
process, mechanical, and structural
engineering disciplines. The engi-
neering design is normally staged
into several gates that require the
owner’s approval for funding.
Delays in construction projects due
to engineering ambiguities may
result in substantial losses in the
form of interest on construction
loans, management/staff time, and
an increase in commodities prices as
a result of the continuous inflation
of material prices.
Significant work has dealt with
chemical and mechanical design
improvements compared to
structural aspects. Patience and
Bockrath1 presented a butane oxi-
dation technique used in circulating
a fluidised bed reactor to produce
anhydride from n-butane Wu, et
al2 presented a study to enhance
catalytic performance for butane
oxidation. Sáez, et al3 performed
experimental tests employing a
diesel oil burner to study the com-
bustion process of liquid butane. A
dual pumping and injection system
was designed to operate with pres-
sures varying from 0.8 to 2.0 MPa.
They also performed a feasibility
study to modify the combustion
technology of diesel oil burners to
use liquid butane as an alternative
fuel. Yang, et al4 presented a pro-
cess model that utilises n-butane
compounds to extract organic pol-
lutants from contaminated water.
Removal efficiencies for hydropho-
bic pollutants were greater than
90%. Removal of residual butane
in treated effluent was achieved by
depressurisation, air stripping, and
elevating operating temperature.
Mokhatab and Poe5 introduced real-
time optimisation models in the
gas processing industry. The con-
cept enables operating facilities to
respond efficiently and effectively
to changing feed rates and compo-
sition, equipment condition, and
dynamic processing economics.
Liu, et al6 presented modelling and
optimisation tools for the petro-
leum refinery process. Bulasara,
et al7 presented a study to revamp
heat exchangers in process plants
to evaluate various commercial
aspects. Lulianelli and Drioli8 pre-
sented a review of recent develop-
ments of gas separation technology
used in the petrochemical indus-
try and refineries. The review also
highlighted the importance of mem-
brane reactors for fuel processing
and membrane-based pretreatments
and integrated membrane gas sepa-
ration systems. Other aspects deal-
ing with process design or butane
process plants are presented by
Gallagher9 and Meyers10. Bedair11-15
addressed various design aspects of
structural members used in heavy
industry.
Not much information is available
on the structural design improve-
ments of natural gas process-
ing plants. Most effort is directed
towards process or chemical design
aspects. Investigators and plants
owners have given barely any atten-
tion to improving structural design
aspects of hydrocarbon facilities.
Minimal literature has addressed
structural engineering requirements
of natural gas processing plants.
Furthermore, most of the design
provisions available in the North
American codes of practice16-22 deal
with residential structures.
Gas 2022 31
 Therefore, it is important to high-
light requirements for the structural
design of natural gas processing
plants. This article presents a butane
treatment unit (BTU) case study to
illustrate effective structural design
procedures and highlight construc-
tion challenges encountered in new
and expansion projects. The layout
of the BTU is presented to describe
the facilities used in gas process-
ing. Then, a brief overview of the
geometric characteristics of the
facility is provided to identify load-
ing mechanisms. Structural design
criteria developed for each facil-
ity’s transportation, installation,
and operation are also discussed.
Simplified numerical modelling
strategies are described to simu-
late load transfer and soil/structure
interactions. The article also pro-
vides recommendations and guide-
lines for engineers to use in practice.
Butane treatment unit description
The BTU is part of the naphtha
hydrotreating facility and consists of:
• Horizontal (HPR) and vertical
(VPR) pipe racks
(SM-02)
(BR)
(CB)
(SM-01)
(PCH)
Figure 1 Butane treating unit plan
32 Gas 2022
• Pumps and compressor house
(PCH)
• Butane reactor (BR)
• Steel modules (SM-01), (SM-02)
• Substation building (SB)
• Control building (CB)
• Heat exchangers, horizontal and
vertical vessels
• Underground services, roads, and
parking
Note that the layout of the BTU
may vary depending on the process
design. The layout in Figure 1 was
designed to boost refinery produc-
tion of synthetic light crude oil to
232 mbbl/d. The orange arrow shows
the direction of north (N). Two main
pipe racks support the pipelines
transporting process material from/
or to the BTU. These are denoted as
horizontal (HPR) and vertical (VPR)
pipe racks in Figure 1. HPR supports
pipelines and cable trays running in
the east-west direction and consists
of seven modules. VPR runs from
south-north and consists of 13 steel
modules.
The butane reactor (BR) is located
in the north-west (NW) quadrant of
the BTU and is supported by octago-
(HPR)
N thickness of 3.0m. The second lay-
(VPR)
(SB)
nal concrete foundations. The pumps
and compressor house (PCH) is
located in the southwest quadrant of
the BTU. This facility consists of steel
framing that partitions each piece of
equipment and concrete pad base
supports. Mechanical equipment
is shown in orange. Steel module
SM-01 is placed at the lower half of
the BTU and supports heat exchang-
ers, pipelines, and cable trays. Some
heat exchangers are stacked to opti-
mise the floor space. Butane steel
module SM-02 is located in the
northwest quadrant of BTU and sup-
ports heat exchangers, pipelines, and
cable trays. Columns of steel mod-
ules (SM01) and (SM-02) are sup-
ported on pile foundations.
The substation building (SB) is
shown in yellow and located in the
southeast quadrant. This building
consists of two elevated floors and
hosts critical electrical equipment.
The building size and layout are
determined by the required inte-
rior equipment spacing. The control
building (CB) houses critical instru-
mentation controls and is occupied
almost continuously. Plant design
criteria were used to determine the
spacing between control buildings
and process units where explosion
potential is high.
The soil profile consists of four
main soil layers. The first layer is
sandy with pockets of clay, with a
ers consists of silty clay with traces
of coarse and an average thickness
of 5m. The third layer is made up
of silty sand mixed with very dense
to hard cemented siltstone. This
layer is very stiff and considered the
bearing layer for pile foundations.
Groundwater level was detected at
about 3.0-4.0m depth.
BTU structural design criteria
Steel modules were designed
for erection, operation, testing,
and transportation load condi-
tions. The dead load consists of
the total self-weight of structural
steel, equipment, permanent fix-
tures, fireproofing, insulation,
fixed partitions, piping, and elec-
trical material. The weight of cable
trays, safety ladders, cages, and
junction boxes was also taken into
account. The grating dead load
www.digitalrefining.com
was approximated using linear
load distribution along the runs.
The dead loads of pipes with small
diameters were converted into an
equivalent uniform distribution.
The pipe hydro-test load was not
applied concurrently with wind or
earthquake loads. Equipment dead
loads included equipment weight,
insulation, fireproofing, perma-
nent fixtures, and attachments.
Fireproofing material density was
25 KN/m3. Cable tray weight was
approximated using linear load dis-
tribution along the supporting beam
spans. Concrete paving weight was
approximated as 25 KN/m3.
Live loads included temporary/
maintenance loads and moveable
partitions. Floorplates and grat-
ing loads were designed for a live
load of 4.8 KPa. Static loads and
impact forces at start-up or normal
operation were obtained from the
mechanical datasheet. Equipment
load was extracted from vendor
drawings. Wind, snow, and earth-
quake loads were calculated using
NBC (2010). The notional load
was added to the sway effects for
all load combinations. The trans-
lational load effect produced by
notional lateral loads at each level
Z Elevated Equipments
Horizontal vessels
Vertical vessel
Electrical boxes
Junction box
(O)
(a)
Fig.(2) SM01 snapshot with installed pipes/equipments
Figure 2 SM01 snapshot with installed pipes/equipment
www.digitalrefining.com
was approximated using 0.005 times
factored gravity loads contributed
by that storey.
Steel module SM-01
Steel module SM01 is used at the
BTU to support piping, electrical
cable trays, and mechanical equip-
ment. The size of the steel module
is 5m x 7m x 12.6m and consists
of three levels. The frame base is
embedded in concrete foundations.
Figure 2 shows snapshots for SM-01
to provide insight into the steel
structure loaded with equipment.
The origin is located at the lower
left-hand corner and denoted by O.
Note that Z is measured from the
ground elevation. Different view
layers were used to designate pipes,
structural steel, and electrical cable
trays. Figure 2a displays the front
elevation of the module showing
mechanical equipments and pipe-
lines to illustrate the loading mecha-
nism. Cable trays are shown in blue.
Vertical cable trays connecting var-
ious module levels are supported
by horizontal projections from the
primary beams. The structural steel
is coloured red, and process ves-
sels are silver. Figure 2b shows an
isometric view of the module from
Vertical cable trays
Heat exchanger
Y
Y
B
a side angle. On the ground level
(Z=0), mechanical pumps and hori-
zontal vessels are directly bolted to
the central beams. Pipelines con-
necting the mechanical equipment
are shown in green. The figure also
includes examples of vertical and
horizontal pipelines, electrical junc-
tion boxes, and elevated platforms.
The intermediate level (Z)=5m sup-
ports the horizontal heat exchanger
and vertical process vessel. Blue
electrical cabinets are bolted to the
steel beams. The third level (Z)=10m
supports horizontal vessel span-
ning the y-axis. The vessel supports
are connected to the main framing.
The platform projections at (Z)=10m
support electrical cabinets shown in
pink and pipelines. A bolted con-
nection connects the platforms to
the primary beams. Vertical pipe-
lines penetrate the floor gratings to
connect mechanical equipment at
various elevations.
Vertical pipe bends require sec-
ondary steel supports projected
from the primary beam or column
members. Pipe horizontal bends
(or expansion loops) are also com-
monly used to reduce pipe stresses,
as shown. Two major pipelines
with a diameter of 24in are placed
Connecting pipelines
Z Horizontal vessel
X
(O) 2
A 1
(b)
Gas 2022 33

A B
Z Z
2m
1
(O)
(a) Elevation A
Figure 3 SM01 structural elevations
on this level. A small platform is
placed on the longitudinal beams
to facilitate maintenance access dur-
ing shutdown. Grating with vertical
pipe penetrations were reinforced
for holes larger than 300mm in
diameter.
Figure 3a shows structural eleva-
tions along grid line 1. Cantilever
platforms are used at levels (z)=5
and 10m. Vertical bracings reduce
tip deflections. A wide bracing
pattern is used at frame in the two
levels to maximise the access area
required for maintenance. Figure
3b shows the frame elevation along
grid line B. The module along this
grid line consists of three levels.
Splice joints are also shown on this
elevation. Steel framing is con-
nected to primary beams at (Z)=5m
to support interior equipment. The
steel module SM-01 is divided into
1 2
5m
Z
B
(P)max
7m
A ance is (Vc)= 1703 KN > 827 KN.
(a) Pile-cap layout
Figure 4 SM-01 foundation plan and details
34 Gas 2022
tions were modelled. The tempera-
ture change (ΔT) = ±40°C was used
1 2
for steel members. Horizontal fric-
tion and anchor forces at start-up
7m 5m
and shutdown conditions were also
2.6m PF1 2.6m considered.
PF2
The maximum beam vertical
M3 1m M3
Splice joint deflection is calculated as (δmax)
=14.6mm. The allowable beam ver-
5m
M2 4m M2 tical deflection is (δv)=17.5 mm. The
steel module sway deflection was
Splice joint calculated at several elevations to
assure compliance with the ser-
M1 5m M1 5m
viceability limit state. The maxi-
Y X mum sway deflection was found as
B
(O)
(δHmax) =61mm. The allowable sway
(b) Elevation B deflection was minimised to avoid
excessive lateral deflection that
may impact equipment function-
ality. The largest lateral deflection
was (δH)Limit =63mm. The utilisation
three sub-modules (M1, M2, M3) ratio index (UI) was calculated for
and was assembled on-site using service limit state (SLS) and ulti-
heavy lift cranes. The envelopes of mate limit state (ULS) conditions to
these modules are shown in Figure confirm compliance with CSA-S16
3 as dashed rectangles. Pipelines, requirements. The maximum SLS
cable trays, and mechanical equip- unity index is (UI)SLS=0.84 and (UI)
ment were installed and commis- ULS
=0.88.
sioned in the fabrication yard and Figure 4a shows the founda-
transported to the site. Four lifting tion pile cap layout for SM-01. The
points were used on each module. dashed circles denote concrete pile
Orange represents M1, yellow M2, locations. For the erection condi-
and green M3. tion, the maximum SLS column
reaction was found as (P)max =616
SM-01 numerical simulation KN, maximum shear reaction (Q)
The structure was modelled using max
=78 KN, and (T)max =0. The criti-
568 (2D) elements with a total of cal columns for compression and
7043 degrees of freedom (DOF). shear forces are identified in Figure
Equipments and vertical piping 4a. Maximum ULS column reaction
loads for empty, operational, and for the steel module was found to
testing conditions were considered. be (P)max=827 KN and the maximum
Thermal loads (TL) arising from shear reaction was (Q)max =99 KN.
contraction or expansion of the Section A-A through the pile
members due to temperature varia- cap is shown in Figure 4b. The pile
cap thickness used in this numer-
ical model is 0.6m. The steel skid
of the module SM-01 is partially
embedded in concrete to minimise
4m
15M @ 150mm 15M @ 150mm
the vibration effect induced during
operation. The vertical pile rein-
2m
0.6m forcements are projected into the
pile cap. The maximum FE pile cap
A A 15M @ 200mm
20-30M
moment is (Mmax) =120 KN-m/m.
The recommended pile cap rein-
15M @ 200mm
(Q)max
forcement is shown in Figure 4b.
B B
20-30M The factored pile cap shear resist-
X
(b) Section A-A (c) Section B-B The nominal pile diameter used
is 750mm and the maximum pile
length is 20m. Upon installation, the
pile head is treated as free headed
www.digitalrefining.com
 Horizontal cable trays
Pipeline system
X
Fig.(5) Snapshot of SM02 with showing installed pipes and cable trays
Figure 5 Snapshot of SM02 with showing installed pipes and cable trays
in the analysis. The allowable pile
compression capacity in this case is
(P)Cap =2200 KN and shear capacity
is (QH)Cap =240 KN. The maximum
pile lateral deflection was limited
to 6mm. After casting the concrete,
the pile head is restrained against
rotation. The pile lateral capacity
for fixed condition is (QH)Cap =231
KN. The pile group reduction factor
is 2.1. Figure 4c shows section B-B
details through the pile. The recom-
mended vertical bars are 20-30M,
and spiral reinforcement is 15M @
200mm.
Steel module SM-02
Steel module SM02 is used in the
BTU to support pipes, electrical
cable trays, and mechanical equip-
ments. The module size is 10m x
6m x 10m and consists of four lev-
els and two bays. Figure 5 shows
a snapshot front elevation for the
steel module SM-02. Cable trays are
shown in green and the structural
steel is red. Some equipment is not
shown to maintain clarity of the fig-
ure. In this module, most pipelines
are located on the upper elevation
(Z)=10. Note that vertical cables
trays are supported by horizontal
projections from the primary beams.
The structure was divided into two
sub-modules and assembled on-site
using heavy lift cranes. Pipelines,
cable trays, and mechanical equip-
www.digitalrefining.com
(O)
ment was installed and commis-
sioned in the fabrication yard and
then transported to the site.
SM-02 numerical simulation
Equipment and piping vertical
loads for empty, operational, and
testing conditions for SM-02 were
idealised at five nodes. Horizontal
friction and anchor forces at
start-up and shutdown conditions
were considered. The structure was
modelled using 307 elements with
a total of 1368 DOF. The maximum
beam vertical deflection is calcu-
lated as (δmax) =8.5mm. The allow-
able beam vertical deflection was
limited to (δv) =15mm. The sway
deflection was calculated at several
elevations to assure compliance
with the serviceability limit state.
The maximum sway deflection was
found as (δH)max =47mm. The allow-
able sway deflection was limited to
(δH)Limit =67mm. The maximum SLS
unity index was found as (UI)SLS
=0.67 and the (UI)ULS =0.69.
A pile cap size of 12m x 8m x
0.6m with six concrete piles was
used to support the structure.
The lower steel skid of the steel
model is partially embedded in
concrete to minimise the vibration
effect induced during operation.
The nominal pile diameter used is
750mm and the pile length is 20m.
For erection conditions, the max-
B
Vertical cable trays
imum SLS column reaction for
SM-02 was computed as (P)max=526
KN, maximum shear reaction (Q)max
=68 KN, and (T)max =0. For operating
and testing conditions, (P)max=851
KN, maximum shear reaction (Q)
max
=89 KN, and (Tmax) =0. The max-
imum ULS column reaction for the
steel module was found to be (P)
max
=1070 KN and the maximum
shear reaction (Q)max =115 KN. The
vertical pile reinforcements are
projected into the pile cap. Upon
installation, the pile head is treated
as free headed in the analysis. The
allowable pile compression capac-
ity in this case is (P)Cap =2200 KN
and shear capacity (QH)Cap =240 KN.
After casting the concrete pile cap,
the pile head is restrained against
rotation. The pile lateral capac-
ity for a fixed condition is (QH)Cap
=323 KN and the pile group reduc-
tion factor is 1.5. The maximum
(FE) pile cap moment is (Mmax)
=140 KN-m/m. The recommended
pile cap reinforcement =15M @
150mm (each way). The pile cap
shear resistance is (Vc) =1703 KN
>1070 KN.
Pump and compressor house (PCH)
The pump and compressor house
layout is shown in Figure 6a. The
primary framing system consists of
four bays and houses four pumps
varying in size. The steel framing is
Gas 2022 35
 prior to the casing of the pile cap
11 22 AA BB
and pump pads to determine the
3m
3m ZZ 7m
7m maximum pile reactions. The nomi-
AA 5.5m
5.5m 5.5m
5.5m nal pile diameter is 750mm and pile
YY
11 length is 20m. Upon installation, the
2.5m
2.5m pile head is treated as free headed
BB 3.5m
3.5m in the analysis. The allowable pile
compression capacity in this case
3m
3m XX is (P)Cap =2200 KN and shear capac-
ity (QH)Cap =240 KN. The maximum
(b)
(b)Section
SectionA-A
A-A pile lateral deflection was limited
12m
12m
to 6mm. After casting the concrete
Figure 6 PCH geometric details pile cap, the pile head is restrained
3m
3m against rotation and lateral capacity
beam vertical deflection is calcu- for this condition is (QH)Cap =145 KN.
AA
lated as (δmax) =9.1mm. The allow- Pile group reduction factor is 1.65.
2.5m
2.5m
XX able beam vertical deflection is (δv) For erection conditions, the maxi-
(O)
=16.75mm. The maximum sway mum SLS column reactions are axial
(O) AA
(a)
(a)Plan
Plan deflection was found as (δH)Max compression (Pmax =182 KN, maxi-
=16mm. The allowable sway deflec- mum shear reaction (Q)max =9 KN,
tion was limited to (δH)Limit =20mm. and maximum tension (T)max =0. For
3m (W) x 12m (L) x 3.5m (H). The The maximum unity index (UI)SLS operating/testing conditions, (P)max
base framing at Z=0 is embedded =0.54 and (UI)ULS =0.47. =227 KN, and (Q)max =11.5 KN.
in concrete foundations. Pumps are It is recommended to use the PCH Figure 7b shows section A-A to
seated on four steel frames bolted support system shown in Figure 7a illustrate the interface of the pump
to the base skid. Figure 6b shows to reduce deflections and vibration skid with the concrete pile cap. The
the structural elevation of section during operation. The size of the maximum FE bending moment is
A-A along grid line 1. The two concrete pile cap is 4m (W) x 13m 80 KN-m/m. Recommended top
frames are separated by 1m and (L) x 0.6m (t) and was modelled and bottom reinforcements are 25M
each side contains two pumps. The using 1300 shell elements. The steel @ 200mm (each way). The concrete
pump house was analysed using framing of the PCH at (Z)=0 is par- shear resistance is 791 KN, which
Finite Element for erection, oper- tially embedded in the concrete. exceeds the maximum factored pile
ation, testing, and transportation The numerical FE model was first loads = 227 KN. The vertical pile
load conditions. The maximum analysed for erection conditions reinforcements must be projected
into the pile cap, as shown. Figure
7c shows section B-B through the
pile. The recommended longitu-
1
3m
2 dinal reinforcement is 20-30M,
Y
and spiral reinforcement is 15M @
25M @ 200mm 25M @ 200mm 200mm.

3m Conclusions
0.6m
Current design guidelines for natu-
B ral gas processing plants overlook
15M @ 200mm critical structural aspects. This arti-
A A
cle describes cost-effective meth-
odologies to design the steel and
7m
B B concrete members required in natu-
(b) Section A-A ral gas processing plants. Simplified
models are described to idealise
load transfers. Horizontal and ver-
15M @ 200mm
tical springs along the pile length
simulate soil structural interactions.
A 20-30M
Numerical results were discussed
3m for the design of pumps and com-
X
pressors located at the BTU. Results
(c) Section B-B
also presented modular steel struc-
4m (a) Pile-cap layout tures required in the BTU. The
procedures are computationally effi-
cient and can be used by the oil and
Figure 7 PCH Support plan and details gas industry.

36 Gas 2022 www.digitalrefining.com

 future perspectives in emerging applications, on blast resistant design. New York: ASCE.
References
Fuel Processing Technology, 2020, 206, 106464. 18 ASCE. 2010. Minimum design loads and
1 G S Patience, R Bockrath, Butane oxidation
9 J E, Gallagher, Natural Gas Measurement other structures. ASCE/SEI 7. Reston, VA:
process development in a circulating
Handbook, Elsevier Inc., Netherlands, 2007. ASCE.
fluidized bed, Applied Catalysis A: General,
10 R Meyers, Handbook of Petroleum Refining 19 ASCE’s Task Committee on Wind-
2010, 376, (1), 4-12.
Processes, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill Induced Forces. 2011. Wind loads for
2 H P Wu, Y Jin, M Sun, M Yang, Enhancing
Education, USA, 2016. petrochemical and other industrial facilities.
catalytic performance of phosphorus-
11 O Bedair, Design Of Mobile Facilities Reston, VA: ASCE.
modified ceria supported VPO catalysts for
used In Surface Mining Projects ASCE, 20 CSA (Canadian Standards Association).
n-butane oxidation, Journal of Molecular
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and 2004. Design of concrete structures. CAN/
Catalysis A: Chemical, 2016, 414, 1-9.
Construction, 2015, 21 (1), 04015007. CSA-A23.3-04. Rexdale, Canada: CSA.
3 A Sáez, A Flores-Maradiaga, M Toledo,
12 O Bedair, Rational Design of Pipe-Racks 21 CSA (Canadian Standards Association).
Liquid butane as an alternative fuel for diesel
Used For Oil Sands and Petrochemical 2007. Limit states design of steel structures.
oil burners, Applied Thermal Engineering,
Facilities, ASCE, Periodical on Structural CAN/CSA-S16-01. Rexdale, Canada: CSA.
2012, 45-46, 1-8.
Design and Construction, 2014, 20 (2), 22 NRC (National Research Council of
4 C Yang, K Teo, Y Xu, Butane extraction of
04014029. Canada), 2010. National building code.
model organic pollutants from water, Journal
13 O Bedair, modern steel design and Ottawa, ON: National Research Council of
of Hazardous Materials, 2004, 108, (1-2), 77-83.
construction used in Canada’s oil sands Canada.
5 S Mokhatab, W Poe, Handbook of Natural
industry, Journal of Steel Design Construction
Gas Transmission and Processing, Elsevier Inc.,
and Research, 2014, 7 (1), 32-40 Osama Bedair is a Senior Consultant with
Netherlands, 2012.
14 O Bedair, Cost-effective modeling significant design experience in heavy
6 Y Liu, A Chang, K Pashikanti, Petroleum
strategies for spliced steel connections. industrial projects that include oil & gas,
Refinery Process Modeling: Integrated
Journal of Applied Mathematical Modelling, petrochemical, mining and pipelines. He
Optimization Tools and Applications, Wiley
2011, 35 (4), 1881-1892. holds an MS and PhD in civil engineering
Publishing Company, New Jersey, USA, 2018.
15 O Bedair, Economical damage from university of Waterloo.
7 V Bulasara, R Uppaluri, A Ghoshal,
classification procedure for blast resistant
Revamp study of crude distillation unit
buildings in petrochemical plants, ASCE,
heat exchanger network Energy integration
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and
potential of delayed coking unit free hot
Construction, 2020, 25(3), 04020020.
streams, Applied Thermal Engineering, 2009,
16 AISC. 2006. Steel Construction Manual,
LINKS
29 (11-12), 2271-2279.
14th ed. Chicago: AISC. More articles from the following
8 A Lulianelli, E Drioli, Membrane
17 AISC. 2010. Design of blast resistant categories:
engineering: Latest advancements in gas
buildings in petrochemical facilities: ASCE Gas Processing and Treatment
separation and pre-teatment processes,
petrochemical committee, task committee
petrochemical industry and refinery, and

www.digitalrefining.com Gas 2022 37