TriplePoint.Threads by TriplePoint.Engineering

The world of Capital Expenditure (CapEx) projects, whether building a new petrochemical plant, expanding a mine, or constructing a massive data center, relies on a rigid, phased approach to manage risk and investment. These projects are high, stakes endeavors, often costing billions and spanning years. Their success hinges entirely on one foundational principle: Front, End Loading (FEL). However, the terminology used to define these crucial early phases; FEL 1, FEL 2, FEL 3, pre, FEED, FEED, Basic Engineering, and Detailed Engineering; is notoriously inconsistent. This lack of standardization is more than a semantic annoyance; it is a major source of project failure, leading to scope creep, budget overruns, and severe schedule delays. This detailed guide will decode these phases, explain the dangerous ambiguities, and introduce the most critical rule for all project managers and owners: The Engineering Work Done Test.   Decoding the CapEx Project Phases and AACE Classificat...

  Summary In project management, especially in high-stakes CAPEX environments, risk is inevitable. But unmanaged risk is unacceptable. This post explores why hope is not a strategy , and how structured risk management frameworks like PMI and PRINCE2 help teams proactively identify, document, and mitigate risks. It covers: Key principles from PMI and PRINCE2 Common and overlooked risks in CAPEX projects How to handle “Acts of God” A practical Excel-based risk register tool Why risk management is a mindset, not just a method Whether you're leading a capital project or refining your enterprise risk strategy, this post offers actionable insights and tools to strengthen your approach.   Risk? Identify it. Register it. Document it. Mitigate it. Let’s be real: hope is not a strategy. Wishing things will go smoothly doesn’t stop risks from becoming real problems. If you don’t spot the risks early, they’ll spot you later—usually at the wo...

Relief devices are the last line of defense when pressure builds up in a vessel or pipeline and things start to go sideways. Whether it’s a runaway reaction, a blocked outlet, or fire exposure, you need a way to vent that pressure safely. But sizing these devices isn’t just about plugging numbers into a spreadsheet. It’s about understanding the physics of what’s happening inside the system—and that’s where DIERS comes in. DIERS (Design Institute for Emergency Relief Systems) revolutionized how we think about emergency venting. Before DIERS, most relief systems were sized using vapor-only assumptions. That worked fine for simple systems, but it failed miserably for reactive or foamy ones. DIERS showed that two-phase flow—where gas and liquid vent together—can choke the vent line, reduce flow efficiency, and lead to catastrophic failure if not properly accounted for. So let’s break it down. Why do we care? How do we calculate it? And what does DIERS actually tell us?   ...