13 replies to this topic

[done]

Where can someone attend a details training on engineering design (I mean, design of various unit operation), and at the end of the training the candidate should be able to carry out design for industries or otherwise with conifdience.

 

I have been trying to specialize on these by reading alot of materials, but, discovered that my engineering knowledge cannot really handle some complex problems.

 

If there is anyone that can take me online or on this forum, let discuss ..  as per the conditions will be attached for the training.

 

 

My background .. Chemcal engineering, process Automation with knowledge on the uses of some application such as Hysys, Caeser II, PDMS, e.t.c 

 

Tom

[markymaark]

I'd say just experience.  The amount of different problems and permutations are too numerous to cover in a single class/training.  It will gradually be built up through experience.

[Raj Mehta]

Exactly,

 

You keep learning and with experience you will get answers to all your queries. But its only at the cost of time, nothing else. Almost all equipments designing is available in their respective books (each equipment, i guess has a design book written on it), but those are case specific, just to give you a glimpse of the variable you have to deal with and the significance of the same. But in real life, every problem is a new problem and you require your fundamental knowledge and those specific cases which you read in books, to arrive at a concrete logic for your design.

 

Happy reading.  

 

Thanks 

[done]

Thank you

[paulhorth]

Done,

 

You ask an interesting and important question.

"Design" is an activity which most engineers do, especially process engineers, but in my experience is not well understood by management and is difficult to teach. I agree with the other posters that it is learned by experience but good guidance can certainly help.

 

The employment of process engineers is divided between contracting companies, who design and build plant, and operators, who don't.

 

I would recommend tha tif you want to learn design, you try to get a job in a contracting company. If you are lucky you will get on to a major project where there is a lot of design happening. You will then need to ask your colleagues, as often as you can, why a feature is in the flowsheet, why a PID shows its particular details,etc. If you are told, "because it was in the last job" or "because the Code requires it" then ask someone else.

 

Process design is a complex judgment of compromise between a number of different objectives, including :

• safety ( risk to operators and the public)
• capital cost
• operating cost
• reliability (and maintenance)
• flexibility (to handle new feeds or changes in product)
• environmental impact
• schedule
• etc

That compromise might change from one project to the next. We use our experience to try to steer our way to the best compromise in the shortest time. You will learn about these factors at a contractor much more than at an operator.

Good luck

 

Paul

[Santoshp9]

Done,

Yes, what Paul said is absolutely right.

For better understanding & to save a time you should join a contractor who is in a business of designing.

Without having knowledge ,how to follow the path of designing,try to collect more information from people & search the topics you required for discussion forum.

I appreciate if Mr. Art  share his views.

[Art Montemayor]

Tom:

 

I don’t understand what you mean by stating that your “engineering knowledge cannot really handle some complex problems”.  You tell us you have training in Chemical Engineering, process Automation with knowledge on the uses of some application such as Hysys, Caeser II, PDMS, etc. – so to my way of thinking, you have the proper and required basic tools to take on a process design challenge.  You may lack the hands-on experience as well as the opportunities, but you should have the basic tools in your hip pocket and be able to confront a Unit Operation design problem.

 

Of course, if you are a recent graduate (little or no experience) then you are going through the usual and conventional “maturing” pains that we all have had to go through – here, I refer to those of us in our senior years.  A lack of mentorship may also contribute to your confidence level.  This, today, is a grave problem in my opinion but something that we may have to live with or adapt to.  In my junior years I enjoyed and profited from the mentors that I had.  I can only recommend that you persevere and continue in perfecting your knowledge and experience, jumping at every opportunity to confront a new challenge.

 

Paul Horth has made a clear and concise listing of different objectives you should always keep in back of your mind.  As he infers these are subject to different applications and under different scopes of work.  The meaning of such terms as reliability, flexibility, environmental impact, maintenance ease and access, and operating costs can take on different meanings depending on whether you are an engineering contractor or an operating owner at a plant level.  That is where the experience factor(s) come in.  I have always found that it is more difficult for a process engineer at an engineering contractor’s office to have the same level of rapid, accelerated learning curve as a process engineer at an operating plant.  I believe this is due to direct, hands-on exposure, and the direct level of accountability that is imposed on plant engineers as opposed to engineering contractors.  Therefore, one has to bear in mind that it generally takes longer for a process engineer to “mature” while working for an engineering contractor.  However, also consider that the expected engineering tradeoff exists: a plant engineer usually starts off at a lower salary than an engineer at a contractor’s office.  This is generally true for other reasons: a contractor’s job is usually seasonal and not often steady while a production plant offers more job stability.

 

Money is not the issue here, experience is what is of prime worth to a young engineer because it sets him/her in a special, professional class.  However, as would be expected, it comes at a price – and that price can be risk-taking.  In other words, the risks you take in your career formation can be rewarding if done correctly.  Sometimes taking a lower-paying, less stable job assignment can be very rewarding if it involves exposure to major engineering problems and decision-making, difficult tasks, difficult schedules, pioneering processes, foreign travel in under-developed areas, etc.  Sometimes a thankless, almost impossible engineering assignment can be a blessing in disguise.  This scenario is an example of my early engineering career and I profited greatly from it with friends, knowledge, experience, accountability, self-esteem, and accomplishments – while not making as much money as other engineers.  Today, I have already recovered all the financial sacrifice I endured in my early years and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

[kkala]

1. Our local teacher of English (1965) mentioned a man having acquired the richest vocabulary by himself, in isolation. He was an awesome translator, but could not communicate in English, either verbally or by writing. He had not had the chance to learn it. If he tried systematically, probably with the help of an instructor, he could communicate in English much better than other people. The vocabulary was necessary for translations, but also a hidden asset for other useful activities, potentially unlocked through some extra effort.
2. It seems that application of knowledge is a matter differing to its acquisition, rather an art. Efficient transfer of knowledge to practice depends on working environment and individual character. It can be certainly improved, as previous posts have suggested. Few additional notes on what I would try to do for improvement, specifically in this case (may not be good for other cases).
3.1 Read limited material that would be certainly useful to your specific task. Be aware of your task and follow all stages of its implementation if possible, concept - documentation - realization - tests. Take notice of "details" vaguely reported in books, if at all.
3.2 Reversely, look into your task in detail after you have taken it. Previous reading can greatly help and  now a lot of things will get clear during their way to implementation.
3.3 Be willing to undertake new jobs, especially under inspiring and responsible supervision (as proposed by other posts too).
3.4 Patiently repeat the actions for your target, a lot of practical things can be caught while trying for a satisfactory result.
3.5 Review actions / documents after task implementation, try to judge them (technically and from delays viewpoint).
3.6 Avoid stuff work, prefer action (it supplies experience). Action can be in either Operations (in a plant) or Engineering (Contracting) Firms. I consider myself lucky to have started from Operations, but this is a matter of character and inclination. Even in activities out of them one can find interests and avoid getting inert.

Edited by kkala, 12 March 2013 - 04:38 PM.

[done]

Thanks for all your advice

[nikan1389]

Dear done

i am working in petrochemical industries for 17 years,the thing that you are loooking for is not in the text books and not in the engineering software,its simply a work flow chart that show the necessary activities in detail to complete a basic or detail engineering.it starts with process engineering, with conceptual design,then bfd then pfd then some other diciplines like electrical, mechanical,civil,... get process information and pre design equipment and structure and then.............................

this flow chart could be found near the CONTRACTORS not in text books

 

 

REZA

[Steve Hall]

In the industries I serve -- pharmaceutical, specialty chemical, food & beverage -- there is a trend toward pushing the detailed design work onto the shoulders of equipment vendors and contractors. For the past two years I've been a "mentor/advisor" for a US$200 million project,working for the Owner's plant engineering group who were not in control of the project because the corporation's Central Engineering department had the responsibility and authority to dictate direction. On this project, engineering and architectural firms were hired to provide the "detailed design" and a construction manager handled the procurement and installation.

 

I was appalled at the engineering effort. In my role, I performed peer reviews and did my own calculations to check the work of the engineers. I looked at vendor submittals, P&IDs, and other documents. And I reviewed commissioning protocols, giving advice to the people responsible for carrying out the commissioning work. What I found was that "engineering" consisted of creating P&IDs and equipment specifications, with almost no documented and substantiated basis. When challenged for backup, the engineers scrambled to give calculations, which usually couldn't be followed and were never signed off, never mind checked. Vendors were given "performance" specifications and then left to provide equipment that they thought would do the job. Although the vendor submittals were reviewed by the engineers, quite a lot of equipment missed the mark in that features were over or under designed, or they failed to fully appreciate the range of duties required by the process. There are so many lessons from this project, I think I could write another book just addressing them!

 

What passes for "design engineering" today would not have made the grade when I was learning the craft. Why? It's partly laziness on the part of the engineers, fueled by relentless cost cutting. Engineering companies are being squeezed and the only way they can meet their budgets is by cutting corners. OK, I'm generalizing too much and there are certainly excellent companies who perform all of the necessary work. Still, for those engineers who are forced to be generalists - and this often includes project engineers working for Owners - it's not easy keeping up with technology and there may be insufficient time available to do all that is needed.

 

Thanks for letting me vent!

[gegio1960]

Dear Mr Hall,

Thank you for your clear words. I'd written the same, in a worse way....

I'm 53, with about 30 years of experience in the chemical engineering sector (downstream / refinery), working from Europe for a big world-class EPC firm.

I've other 15 years in front of me to meet the retirement age requested by the government but, because of the current situation, I don't think I'll ever overtake that goal.

More or less, we've already seen this picture about 10 years ago, when the major operating companies where going to kill the engineering companies. In that case, the majors autoregulated their actions to allow the EPCs to survive, but now new "actors" control the game and they don't seem forward-looking like the old ones.

Kind regards

[kabtik]

  I have always found that it is more difficult for a process engineer at an engineering contractor’s office to have the same level of rapid, accelerated learning curve as a process engineer at an operating plant. 

[bmsharad]

There is a difference in process design ( which you have already aquired) and detailed engg design ( which is a multi tasking activity involving not only the process eng but mech, fabrication, cadding etc etc, even requiring FEA / Stress analysis & such expertise. So it may reach a status where your expertise can drive the design only upto a basic / concept stage,which is further to be built upon by other disciplines.With the added complications of risk, safety, environment considerations, it has become today a very diverse & multi disciplinary excercise. Process / chemical engg now is more a core team member than a complete solution provider!