Applied engineering is not all about the application of immense and intricate equations or concepts straight from textbooks. In the development of an engineering solution, you must be capable of doing more than regurgitating a previously encountered example and trying to superimpose it on any given situation. To solve a problem, you have to apply lateral thinking; take a mental leap of faith to discover ideas very much outside the box.

I personally applied lateral thinking during my process engineering internship in a gas processing facility last summer. One particular project forwarded to me involved a recurring problem, unsuccessfully dealt with in the past.

A piping circuit was persistently leaking on the discharge side of storage tanks containing hydrocarbon condensate. This circuit contained filters between the storage tanks and export pumps. The problem arose when the circuit was boxed in by the closure of valves and there was an increase in atmospheric temperature. Due to thermal expansion the pressure rose causing the filters to burst, ejecting flammable liquid. The previous solution had been to lag the circuit around the filters, but the problem remained. The operating procedure was still the only line of defence.

I started by compiling information and calculations. I found that the reason the lagging hadn’t worked was because only a fraction of the piping was covered, offering little heat protection. There were hundreds of metres of piping, therefore lagging the entire circuit would have been impractical. It was also suggested that strengthening the filters might fix the problem. However, I calculated that doing so would only have passed the problem onto the next weakest point as the overpressure could approach 500 bar. The line was rated at 19 bar.

I started formulating ideas with what I thought was wanton creativity, but my colleagues soon curtailed my incessant sketching by telling me the concept I was approaching was very similar to an existing piece of equipment: the accumulator. I had managed to reinvent the wheel with no prior knowledge of its existence, and went on to outline further ideas. I came up with four solutions: the accumulator, a relief valve (with associated piping), a cooling water jacket sensitive to overpressure and an interlock system to prevent blocking in the circuit.

I then used methodical thinking to eliminate the weaker ideas and approach a practical solution. The concept of the water jacket was too complex so I discarded it. I designed the interlock system and then eliminated it, as it would have overcomplicated the operating procedure. This left me with two options. The accumulator seemed like the easiest way forward, however it proved more of a logistical challenge than a relief valve system. In the end, I priced both proposals and submitted my report. When considering the optimisation, I decreased the price by including a simple interlock and could have perhaps done so further by having both an accumulator and a relief valve (both being significantly smaller than if they were implemented alone).

Here, a combination of lateral and methodical thinking was used. The final solution ended up being one which could not have been developed without formulating many innovative ideas, and indeed even one initially discarded was incorporated into the final proposal.