Flare for

design
Dhiren Madlani, Flaretot, UK, demonstrates how total flare system design can be
achieved using one integrated suite of software applications.

t
f
a
r
D
A

n integrated flare system design involves the key

disciplines of process and safety engineering. The
design tasks for an integrated flare analysis and
design cover hydraulic analysis of the flare header
and piping components, the radiation and dispersion
calculations and associated noise, wall temperature and flare
knockout drum sizing calculations. Usually these tasks are split
between the process and safety groups within an organisation.
Performing these key tasks in an efficient and integrated
manner addresses the technical challenges of interfacing the
results from each application to a resulting component, giving
a better representation and design.
Designing the flare system for any hydrocarbon processing
plant entails the use of various software to evaluate the
different components of the flare system design:
depressurisation rates, sizing of relief devices, defining relief
loads, network design, radiation and dispersion, and noise
calculations. There are a number of software applications in
the market that address these calculations using separate
programs. However, there is an integrated flare design
application that allows all the major components of the flare
system to be designed using a single piece of software.

In order to demonstrate the essential facets of the

software and total flare system design, actual project data
from previous study has been used. The facilities entail
processing heavy sour crude with gas separation and
treatment, and have been built on a brown field site alongside
of existing operating facilities. The flare system must take into
account these additional constraints. This study deals with a
general description of the acid, low pressure and high pressure
flare network for the new plant to be located at the existing
facility. The purpose of the study was to finalise the design
parameters for the flare and depressurisation network for the
new plant. Sizes for main flare headers were finalised based on
the hydraulic study carried out for the controlling relief cases.
All the elements for the flare system were modelled using
Flaretot software. The single model was used to verify the size
of the main flare headers within the new plant, to verify flare
knockout drum sizes and relief rate for two phase flow safety
valve sizes using the Diers HIM method, and to finalise
backpressures on various safety valves and blowdown valves.
The final confirmation and selection of safety valves was based
on the back pressures.

Hydrocarbon

Engineering

May 2012

Figure 2. Combined radiation from all six flares

Figure 1. Expanded view of both the existing flare

operating simultaneously.

system and new flares to be installed at the site.

Relief load calculation

For estimation of the relief loads, the following relief scenarios
were considered:
nn
nn
nn
nn
nn
nn
nn

External fire.
Inlet valve failure.
Blocked outlet.
Gas blow by from upstream equipment.
Heating system control failure.
Tube rupture.
Utility failure.

External fire
In the case of fire, two applicable scenarios were considered:
nn Liquid vaporisation due to external fire.
nn Gas expansion due to external fire.
No credit was taken for decreased heat transfer due to
insulation.

Inlet valve failure

This case considered the failure of the inlet emergency shut
down (ESD) valve to close on demand or an inadvertent
opening of the manual valve (for example, the choke valve).
The relief flow rate was based on the estimated flow
coefficient (Cv) of the choke valve and the design capacity of
the vessel.

This case considered the failure of the gas outlet valve. The
normal fluid handling capacity at the relieving pressure was
considered as the relief flow rate.

Gas blow by from upstream equipment

In the event of the upstream equipment having a higher design
pressure, there exists a possibility of a gas blow by from the
upstream equipment. For the purpose of the relief load
calculations, the upstream equipment is assumed to be
operating at the maximum operating pressure: at pressure
alarm high (PAHH) setting if available or pressure safety valve
(PSV) set pressure. The downstream equipment was assumed
to be operating at the relieving pressure or at maximum equal
to the overpressure considered in the valve. Based on the
above conditions, the flow rate through the upstream
control/manual valve was calculated using an estimated Cv.
This flow rate was verified upon finalisation of the control
valves.

t
f
a
r
D

Blocked outlet

May 2012

Figure 3. Combined H2S dispersion contours from

all six flares operating simultaneously.

Hydrocarbon

Engineering

Heating control failure

Case five: normal continuous load

A heating medium control valve fully open case was

considered for the relief calculations relating to the
equipment provided with heating systems (for example, the
reboiler). Maximum flow through the valve was estimated and
this value was used to rate the normal blocked discharge relief
requirement. No credit is taken for the log mean temperature
difference (LMTD) decrease due to the increase in boiling
point at relieving pressure.

This case considers average normal flow through high pressure

flare header.

Flare network design

Location of the new D3 high pressure, D3 low pressure and D3
acid flares were calculated to be 800 m from the knockout
drums, which were located within the new plant boundary.
The location of the flare stack was chosen so that the new
flares were closer to the existing flare. The pressure required at
the bottom of the new high pressure flare stack was
considered as the controlling case.
The objective of the study was to size the high pressure
flare header so that backpressures on the safety valves fall
within the limits. The minimum set pressure in the system is
for low pressure separator safety valve, which is set at 10 barg.
The maximum allowable back pressure for this pilot operated
safety valve is 7 barg. In addition, the blowdown valves, which
are connected to high pressure flare, are required to
depressurise the system to 7 barg. For this, the backpressures
must be below 7 barg during the depressurisation operation
considering the decreasing flow rates of depressurising valves.
The main sizing cases considered for the flare header sizing
case were as follows.

Case six: continuous load and gas compression

train blow down
The high pressure flare load was based on average of maximum
relief plus compressor depressurisation.

Case seven: fire in oil area and blow down of gas

and oil systems
In the case of fire in the plant, ESD level 0 will be activated.
This will result in closing of ESD valves on inlet manifold and
PSVs on the production lines may open. Simultaneous
automatic blow down operation of all the systems in the plant
also will occur. Maximum expected load on the flare would be
same as that in case seven.

Case eight: maximum fire case

Maximum fire case in the plant is from the desalter area.

Flare network calculation basis

Based on good engineering practice, the following design
criteria were followed for sizing the headers and sub headers
in the new plant.

t
f
a
r
D

Caseone: emergency flaring

In case of ESD level 0, the ESD valve closes on inlet manifold

and the manifold PSVs open, resulting in total plant
depressurisation (total for all systems).
In case of fire in the plant, the unit will be automatically
shut down. As the plant shuts down, the manifold PSV may
open. The depressurisation of the plant may be required for
deinventorying the system and this will be done automatically
in case of ESD level 0. No other fire case relieves are higher
than this complete depressurisation load, so they are not
considered as coincidental in this emergency relief scenario.

Case two: blocked outlet at first stage separator

outlet
This case considers that the separator is operating at normal
capacity and failure of the inlet ESD valve on demand. All the
outlet valves on the separator are closed.

Casethree: simultaneous gas blow by from the

existing plant and new plant
As well as the gas produced in the new plant, an additional
facility was considered in the design to handle extra gas from
the existing plant (maximum 200 million ft3/d). Controlling the
gas blow by case will be via simultaneous gas blow by through
slug catcher.

Casefour: maximum continuous flaring

When gas compression and fuel gas systems are down, the
complete gas is sent to the flare.

nn Minimum line size 2 in.

nn Back pressure consistent with relieving capacity of
pressure relieving devices and with design pressure of the
protected equipment.
nn Velocity and V2.
nn Intermittent flow.
Lines downstream of relieving devices and sub headers:
0.7Mach maximum and V2 < 150 000 kg/m/s2
considering the maximum capacity of the relieving
devices even if this figure exceeds the actual maximum
flow rate due to process limitation and the relevant
occurrence. If relief is a gas liquid mixture, these criteria
reduce to 0.25Mach (based on gas superficial velocity)
maximum and mVm2 < 50 000 kg/m/s2.
Headers: 0.7 Mach maximum and V2 < 150 000 kg/m/s2
considering the maximum flow rate due to process
limitations and for the relevant occurrence. However a
velocity of 0.8 Mach could be accepted for a long
straight line without elbows and connections (for
example, stack or line on bridge).
Studies are required for a V2 > 100 000 kg/m/s2
vibration and line support.
nn Continuous flow.
Gas: velocity < 0.35 Mach and V2 50 000 kg/m/s2.
Liquid gas mixture: superficial gas velocity < 0.25 Mach
and V2 50 000 kg/m/s2.
nn The flare tip pressure drops for the maximum relief cases
had to be calculated for carrying out the network analysis.
Hence, a hypothetical flare stack/tip diameters are used
in the simulation model.
High pressure flare stack: back pressure at the base of
the stack is 1.8 bara for high pressure flare relief scenario
case three.
Low pressure flare stack: back pressure at the base of
the stack is 1.1 bara for low pressure flare relief case
three.

Hydrocarbon

Engineering

May 2012

Figure 4. Stress results of the vessel which is

under fire. These show that the vessel can fail

under stress due to inadequate orifice size.

Figure 6. All six flares in operation, with the three

newest flares shown in the foreground.

Figure 5. Stress calculation based on revised

orifice calculation.

t
f
a
r
D

Acid gas flare stack: back pressure at the base of the

stack is 1.1 bara for acid gas flare relief case two.
nn The maximum allowable back pressures for the
depressurisation valves were limited to 50% of the inlet
pressure to ensure critical flow is maintained across the
depressurisation orifice.

High pressure flare network

calculation

The flare network was modelled using Flaretot software and

the pressure drop calculations were carried out for various
controlling cases to determine the limiting sizes for the main
flare header. Figure 1 shows the model simulated on Flaretot.

Radiation and temperature calculations

Once the hydraulics were finalised, the same input file was
used to carry out Flaretots radiation and temperature
calculations (Figure 2). The stack height was defined by the
radiation intensity levels on personnel, equipment and
structure at the plant during the maximum flaring cases and
was designed so that allowable radiation limits are satisfied
based on the flare stack configuration. Remedial actions can be
offered where necessary. The objectives of radiation
calculation are to:

May 2012

Hydrocarbon

Engineering

nn Define clearly the basis and the assumptions for the

radiation calculations, including the acceptable radiation
criteria.
nn Define the relief scenarios that lead to the design cases in
terms of flare radiation, for both instantaneous and
continuous flaring.
nn Calculate the flare stack height at the allowable radiation
levels associated with the design cases at the different
points of interest (considering both personnel and
equipment).
nn Establish the required flare stack height.
nn Perform the isopleths for the main design cases.

Dispersion calculation

Details of the dispersion calculation can be seen in Figure 3.

Depressurisation calculations

The objective of these calculations was to check stress

calculation during depressurisation of a very high pressure
vessel under fire case (Figures 4 and 5).

Conclusion
The findings and recommendation of the review were
implemented in the design and the flare system is now
operating successfully.