Flare Stack Process

Kurdistan Regional Government
Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research

Koya University
Faculty of Engineering
Chemical Engineering Department
GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS

A Project Submitted to the Chemical Engineering Department - Faculty of
Engineering - Koya University.
In partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Bachelor in Chemical
Engineering.
Authors:
Shad B. Ibrahim
Mohammed A. Abdulkadir
Rabar M. Mahmood
Supervisor:
Srwa I. Khaleel
May 2017
ABSTRACT
Gas flaring is a combustion device to burn associated, unwanted or excess gases and
liquids released during normal or unplanned over-pressuring operation in many industrial
processes, such as oil-gas extraction, refineries, chemical plants, coal industry and
landfills.
This paper provides an overview of the gas flaring in industry, concentrated on its
composition, relevant environmental and health impacts, process conditions, preferable
ignition systems, cost factors of flares (such as height, diameter, flame length, horizontal
distance to nearest tower, wind velocity, gas temperature, civil and erection costs).
Also, the effect of wind velocity, gas temperature, flare height, gas Mach number, on the
process and equipment design specifications are studied with the connection of inspection
and maintenance to ensure worker and process safety.
ABSTRACT II
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors acknowledge with thanks and appreciation, the contribution, assistance and a
life time of continuous motivation from the family, friends and the supervisor in charge
of the project with her constant support, facilitating the preparation and presentation of
this paper and everyone else who has been a source of help.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT III
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ II
ACKNOWLEDGMENT........................................................................................................................... III
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 General Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Gas Flaring Composition ............................................................................................................. 3
2. FLARE CLASSIFICATION ............................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Height of the Flare........................................................................................................................ 4
2.1.1 Elevated Flare ....................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.2 Ground Flare ......................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Method to enhance mixing at the flare tip.................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Steam-Assisted Flares ........................................................................................................... 9
2.2.2 Air-Assisted Flares................................................................................................................ 9
2.2.3 Non-Assisted Flares ............................................................................................................ 10
2.2.4 Pressure-Assisted Flares ..................................................................................................... 10
3. PROCESS DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Gas Transport Piping.................................................................................................................. 12
3.2 Knock-out Drum ........................................................................................................................ 12
3.3 Liquid Seal ................................................................................................................................. 14
3.4 Flare Stack .................................................................................................................................. 15
3.5 Purge Gas Reduction (Gas Seal) ................................................................................................ 15
3.6 Burner Tip .................................................................................................................................. 16
3.7 Pilot Burners............................................................................................................................... 17
3.8 Steam Jets ................................................................................................................................... 18
3.9 Controls ...................................................................................................................................... 19
3.9.1 Flame Front Generator (FFG): ............................................................................................ 20
3.9.2 Electronic spark ignition ..................................................................................................... 20
3.9.3 Ballistic Pellet Ignition ....................................................................................................... 21
4. DESIGN PROCEDURE .................................................................................................................... 23
4.1 Flame Properties ......................................................................................................................... 23
4.1.1 Burning Velocity................................................................................................................. 23
4.1.2 Flame Stability .................................................................................................................... 24
TABLE OF CONTENTS IV
4.1.3 Flame Length ...................................................................................................................... 24
4.2 Radiation .................................................................................................................................... 27
4.3 Size of Flare ............................................................................................................................... 29
4.3.1 Diameter .............................................................................................................................. 30
4.3.2 Height .................................................................................................................................. 31
4.3.3 Flare Tip .............................................................................................................................. 32
4.3.4 Jets....................................................................................................................................... 32
4.4 Sample of Calculation ................................................................................................................ 33
4.4.1 Calculation of Flare Diameter ............................................................................................. 34
4.4.2 Calculation of Flame Length .............................................................................................. 34
4.4.3 Calculation of Flame Distortion caused by Wind Velocity ................................................ 34
4.4.4 Calculation of Flare Stack Height ....................................................................................... 35
5. COST ESTIMATION........................................................................................................................ 37
5.1 Estimating Total Capital Investment .......................................................................................... 37
5.1.1 Equipment Costs ................................................................................................................. 37
5.1.2 Installation Costs ................................................................................................................. 40
5.2 Estimating Total Annual Costs .................................................................................................. 40
5.2.1 Direct Annual Costs ............................................................................................................ 40
5.2.2 Indirect Annual Costs ......................................................................................................... 41
6. INSPECTION (MAINTENANCE), SAFETY AND RECOVERY.................................................. 45
6.1 Inspection ................................................................................................................................... 45
6.1.1 Maintenance ........................................................................................................................ 46
6.1.2 Spare Parts .......................................................................................................................... 46
6.1.3 Malfunctions ....................................................................................................................... 46
6.1.4 Operator Training................................................................................................................ 47
6.2 Safety.......................................................................................................................................... 48
6.2.1 Emergency planning ........................................................................................................... 48
6.2.2 Maintenance ........................................................................................................................ 49
6.2.3 Ventilation........................................................................................................................... 49
6.2.4 Noise ................................................................................................................................... 49
6.3 Recovery..................................................................................................................................... 49
7. FLARE GAS IMLICATIONS........................................................................................................... 51
TABLE OF CONTENTS V
7.1 Environmental Implications ....................................................................................................... 51
7.1.1 Climate Change ................................................................................................................... 53
7.1.2 Acid Rain ............................................................................................................................ 53
7.1.3 Agriculture .......................................................................................................................... 53
7.1.4 Thermal Emissions and Luminosity ................................................................................... 54
7.1.5 Noise Pollution.................................................................................................................... 54
7.2 Health Implications .................................................................................................................... 55
7.2.1 Radiation Effect on Humans ............................................................................................... 55
7.2.2 Adverse Effects ................................................................................................................... 56
7.2.3 Hematological Effects ......................................................................................................... 56
7.3 Other Implications ...................................................................................................................... 57
7.3.1 Economic Loss .................................................................................................................... 57
7.3.2 Pollution .............................................................................................................................. 57
7.3.3 Social................................................................................................................................... 58
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 59
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 60
TABLE OF CONTENTS VI
List of Figures
Figure 1: Self-Supported Stack Schematic. ............................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: Guy Wired Supported Stack Schematic. .................................................................................... 5
Figure 3: Derrick Supported Stack............................................................................................................. 6
Figure 4: Demountable Derrick Schematic. ............................................................................................... 6
Figure 5: Open Ground Flare. .................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 6: Enclosed Ground Flare. .............................................................................................................. 8
Figure 7: Diagram of an overall Flare Stack System in a Petroleum Refinery ........................................ 11
Figure 8: Vertical Two Phase Knock-out Drum Schematic .................................................................... 12
Figure 9: Horizontal Two Phase Knock-out Drum Schematic. ............................................................... 13
Figure 10: Vertical Liquid Seal Schematic. ............................................................................................. 14
Figure 11: Molecular Seal Schematic ...................................................................................................... 15
Figure 12: Velocity Seal Schematic. ........................................................................................................ 16
Figure 13: Burner Tip Close-up Image. ................................................................................................... 16
Figure 14: Pilot Burner Close-up Image. ................................................................................................. 17
Figure 15: Steam Jets Schematic. ............................................................................................................ 18
Figure 16: FFG at Site. ............................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 17: Launching Ignition Pellets ...................................................................................................... 21
Figure 18: Typical Flare Installation P&ID. ............................................................................................ 22
Figure 19: Approximate Flame Distortion due to Lateral Winds on Jet Velocity from a Flare Stack
(Courtesy of API, 1220L Street, NW, Washington D.C) ......................................................................... 26
Figure 20: Dimensional References for Sizing a Flare Stack (Courtesy of API, 1220 L Street, NW,
Washington D.C) ...................................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 21: Flame Length vs Heat Release. .............................................................................................. 29
Figure 22: Cost vs Flare Height. .............................................................................................................. 32
Figure 23: Dimensional References of Flame Distortion. ....................................................................... 35
Figure 24: Kurdistan Region Gas Flaring Practices (May 2014) (Provided and Licensed by SkyTruth
Global Flaring Map) ................................................................................................................................. 36
LIST OF FIGURES VII

List of Tables
Table 1: Radiation from Gaseous Diffusion of Flames............................................................................ 28
Table 2: Design Data ................................................................................................................................ 33
Table 3: Capital Cost Factors for Flare Systems...................................................................................... 42
Table 4: Capital Costs for Flare System................................................................................................... 44
Table 5: Malfunction Mechanisms, Symptoms and their Corrections. .................................................... 46
Table 6: Allowable Waste Gas Composition. .......................................................................................... 52
Table 7: Thermal Radiation & Noise Level as a Function of Distance. .................................................. 55
Table 8: Exposure Times Necessary to Reach Pain Threshold ................................................................ 56
Table 9: Pollutants of Flare and Their Health Effect ............................................................................... 57
LIST OF TABLES VIII

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 General Introduction
The flame at the top of an oil production site is an iconic image for the oil and gas
industry. Yet few people know why the flare is there and its purpose. The extraction of
highly flammable liquids and gases from the earth is obviously a precise and potentially
dangerous operation. It involves precise technology combined with experience and
expertise developed over decades. Despite well publicized incidents that occasionally
take place, the industry is safe and consistently getting safer.
Burning excess gas by flare is a critical part of that safety regime. Flare stacks are often
used for burning off flammable gas released by pressure relief valves during unplanned
over-pressuring of plant equipment. This often takes place during start-ups and
shutdowns in production when the volume of gas being extracted can be uncertain. In
this respect flare stacks provide a critical means by which to ensure safety – the
alternative to allowing the gas to escape would be a significant build-up of pressure and
the risk of explosion. It is not always the case that gas is flared for safety reasons. When
crude oil is extracted and produced from onshore or offshore oil wells, raw natural gas
also comes to the surface. In areas of the world lacking pipelines and other gas
transportation infrastructure, this gas is commonly flared.
The flare is a last line of defense in the safe emergency release system in a refinery or
chemical plant. It uses to dispose of purged and wasted products from refineries,
unrecoverable gases emerging with oil from oil wells, vented gases from blast furnaces,
unused gases from coke ovens, and gaseous water from chemical industries. It provides a
means of safe disposal of the vapor streams from its facilities, by burning them under
controlled conditions such that adjacent equipment or personnel are not exposed to
hazards, and at the same time obeying the environmental regulation of pollution control
and public relations requirements. (Ling, July 2007)
Flaring is a volatile organic compound combustion control process in which the VOCs
are piped to a remote, usually elevated, location and burned in an open flame in the open
air using a specially designed burner tip, auxiliary fuel, and steam or air to promote
mixing for nearly complete (> 98%) VOC destruction. Completeness of combustion in a
flare is governed by flame temperature, residence time in the combustion zone, turbulent
mixing of the components to complete the oxidation reaction, and available oxygen for
GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS 1

Chapter 1 Introduction
free radical formation. Combustion is complete if all VOCs are converted to carbon
dioxide and water. Incomplete combustion results in some of the VOC being unaltered or
converted to other organic compounds such as aldehydes or acids.
The flaring process can produce some undesirable by-products including noise, smoke,
heat radiation, light, SO , NO , CO, and an additional source of ignition where not
desired. However, by proper design these can be minimized. (Leslie B. Evans, William
M. Vatavuk, Diana K. Stone, Susan K. Lynch, Richard F. Pandullo, September 2000)
Downstream processing of hydrocarbons is a tricky business. It must be safe, not only for
personnel but also the longevity of the equipment. Regulations of all types shape how
systems can be designed, and those regulations can change, requiring modifications to
equipment during operation. The process of flaring falls firmly into this category. And as
flaring restrictions become more stringent, not only new builds but also existing
structures must be kept up-to-date, requiring studies of flare processes and solutions.
Conducting flare designs requires significant engineering knowledge:
a. How does the deployment of a multiphase flow meter in a system affect flaring
requirements?
b. How do you mechanically overcome pressure differences associated with re-
injecting separated well fluids and gases back into a production line?
c. What are the recognized flaring categories and how do they shape flaring process
and its design contributions?
The differences in government and environment approach may at times strongly drive the
options available to designers of downstream constructions and modifications. Client
budget and goals also affect options: does the company want to simply meet regulatory
requirements under a fixed budget, or does it want to spend a little extra to reduce flaring
to as low a level as possible to reduce environmental impact beyond what’s regulated?
Flare studies also evaluate a variety of components to determine if they are appropriate
for a build or upgrade. Configurations of relief valves, hydraulic flare header systems,
and real-time monitoring equipment are analyzed and simulated using standard and
software-based tools to determine the best configurations for efficient relief loads and
flare capacities. In addition to efficiency, flare studies also take into account safety

Chapter 1 Introduction
analyses, ensuring, when appropriate, flame arrestors and control valves are in place to
prevent over pressurization and equipment damage.
1.2 Gas Flaring Composition
Generally, the gas flaring will consist of a mixture of different gases. The composition
will depend upon the source of the gas going to the flare system. Associated gases
released during oil-gas production mainly contain natural gas. Natural gas is more than
90 % methane (CH4) with ethane and a small amount of other hydrocarbons; inert gases
such as N2 and CO2 may also be present. Gas flaring from refineries and other process
operations will commonly contain a mixture of hydrocarbons and in some cases H 2.
However, landfill gas, biogas or digester gas is a mixture of CH 4 and CO2 along with
small amounts of other inert gases. There is in fact no standard composition and it is
therefore necessary to define some group of gas flaring according to the actual
parameters of the gas. Changing gas composition will affect the heat transfer capabilities
of the gas and affect the performance of the measurement by flow meter.

2. FLARE CLASSIFICATION
Flares are generally categorized in two ways: (1) by the height of the flare tip (i.e.,
ground or elevated), and (2) by the method to enhance mixing at the flare tip (i.e., steam-
assisted, air assisted, pressure-assisted, or non-assisted). Elevating the flare can prevent
potentially dangerous conditions at ground level where the open flame (i.e., an ignition
source) is located near a process unit. Further, the products of combustion can be
dispersed above working areas to reduce the effects of noise, heat, smoke, and
objectionable odors.
2.1 Height of the Flare
In industrial, the most common utilized flare systems are elevated flares and ground
flares.
Selection of the type of flare is influenced by several factors, such as:
❖ Availability of space
❖ The characteristics of the flare gas (composition, quantity and pressure)
❖ Economics
❖ Investment and operating costs
❖ Public, government and environmental regulations.
2.1.1 Elevated Flare
Elevated flare is the most commonly used type in refineries and chemical plants. Have
larger capacities than ground flares. The waste gas stream is fed through a stack from 50
to 250 meters tall and is combusted at the tip of the stack head, so that the heat generated
will not cause safety problems and for the reduction of noise.
The elevated flare, can be (steam assisted, air assisted or non- assisted). Elevated can
utilize steam injection / air injection to make smokeless burning and with low luminosity
up to about 20% of maximum flaring load. If adequately elevated, this type of flare has
the best dispersion characteristics for malodorous and toxic combustion products. Capital
costs are relatively high, and an appreciable plant area may be rendered unavailable for
plant equipment, because of radiant heat considerations.

Chapter 2 Flare Classification
All elevated flares contain similar types of secondary equipment to process the flue gas
prior to being combusted. Mist eliminators and gravity settlers remove liquid from the
gas stream. In the flare tip, a seal prevents dangerous air intrusion, an ignition system
keeps the pilot lit, and equipment measures flow rates and temperatures. In addition many
flare systems contain equipment to eliminate smoke produced during combustion.
2.1.1.1 Self-Supported Stacks
This is the simplest and most economical design for applications

requiring short-stack heights because they require relatively less
installation space and are simple to erect, reducing capital costs. Self-
supporting flare systems have no wires or framework to support
them. Instead, the material thickness is set to provide the desired
strength, limiting the height to under (50 meters overall height);
however, as the flare height and/or wind loading increases, the
diameter and wall thickness required become very large and
expensive.
Figure 1: Self-Supported Stack Schematic.
2.1.1.2 Guy Wired Supported Stacks
This is the most economical design in the 50 – 150 meters height

range. The design can be a single-diameter riser or a cantilevered
design. Normally, sets of 3 wires are anchored 120 degrees apart at
various elevations (1 to 6). Investment for guy wires flare systems is
generally lower than the other types of structural support because
their installation require large amounts of land to accommodate the
wires.
Figure 2: Guy Wired Supported Stack Schematic.

2.1.1.3 Derrick Supported Stacks
This is the most feasible design for stack heights above 200 meters.
Derrick supported flares can be the optimum solution for flare
systems installed inside plants, when higher elevation is required to
limit ground radiation, thermal expansion and available area is
limited as a result of other present equipment. They use a single-
diameter riser supported by a bolted framework of supports which
offer greater support than guyed stacks, but cost 50 to 100% more to
build. Derrick supports can be fabricated from pipe (most common),
angle iron, solid rods, or a combination of these materials.
Figure 3: Derrick Supported Stack.
2.1.1.4 Demountable Derrick
This is a variation on a derrick supported system, this type of

elevated flare tip is mounted on top of a riser supported by a steel
trussed (derrick) structure which is designed so that multiple flares
can be installed in a single derrick structure. Similar to a
conventional derrick supported flare system, demountable derricks
require three or four additional foundations for the derrick legs. Due
to the economic impact of shutting a flare down and the requirement
for large cranes, users welcome a means to be able to lower the flare
tip to grade level for maintenance, inspection, or repair activities that
allows one flare to be worked on or replaced while the other flare(s)
remain in service.
Figure 4: Demountable Derrick Schematic.
A demountable derrick allows a user the ability to lower the flare tip and pilots to grade
through the use of a winch system (typically three different winches), guide rails, tilting
tables, and flanged riser sections. Demountable derricks eliminate concerns associated
with process temperature designs.

2.1.2 Ground Flare
A ground flare is where the combustion takes place at ground level. It varies in
complexity and may consist either of conventional flare burners discharging horizontally
with no enclosure or of multiple burners in refractory-lined steel enclosures. The type,
which has been used almost exclusively, is the multi jet flare (enclosed type).
Compared to elevated flare, ground flare can achieve smokeless operation as well, but
with essentially no noise or luminosity problems, provided that the design gas rate to the
flare is not exceeded. However, it has poor dispersion of combustion product because it
stack is near to ground, this may result in severe air pollution or hazard if the combustion
products are toxic or in the event of flame-out. Capital, operating and maintenance
requirements cost are high.
Because of poor dispersion, multi jet flare is suitable for "clean burning" gases when
noise and visual pollution factors are critical. Generally, it is not practical to install multi
jet flares large enough to burn the maximum release load, because the usual arrangement
of multi jet flare system is a combination with an elevated over-capacity flare. (Ling, July
2007)
2.1.2.1 Open Ground Flare
An open ground flare can come in several

different configurations. Most systems have a
series of headers spaced across open ground with
multiple burner tips to distribute the flame with a
radiation fence typically surrounding the area.
Open ground flares are able to burn larger
quantities at a time. These units are almost
completely smokeless and have a very high
gaseous conversion rate. Open Ground Flares are
necessary for handling large gas flow rate with
smokeless operations nevertheless they require
large clearances.
Figure 5: Open Ground Flare.

The open ground flare units contain a limited amount of space for the burners. This
means that the units must be kept at a distance for safety reasons. These systems also
require a gas pressure of 3-5 psi, which is much higher than any other type of flare
system. While open ground flare units are effective, their bright light, noise and heat
emissions require that the unit be used in a more secluded area.
2.1.2.2 Enclosed Ground Flare
An enclosed ground flare is much more common than an open ground flare. This
combustion system utilizes a refractory shell to enclose the incineration process. An
enclosed flare's burner heads are inside a shell that is internally insulated. This shell
reduces noise, luminosity, and heat radiation and provides wind protection. A high nozzle
pressure drop is usually adequate to provide the mixing necessary for smokeless
operation and air or steam assist is not required. They are equipped with a vertical
combustion chamber and the height must be adequate for creating enough draft to supply
sufficient air for smokeless combustion and for dispersion of the thermal plume. The
internal processes of the enclosed ground flare are the same as that of the elevated flare.
Enclosed flares generally have less capacity than open flares and are suitable for
managing low and medium gas flow rates (~100,000 kg/hr or less) due to the cost of
providing an enclosure around the flame and are used to combust continuous, constant
flow vent streams, although reliable and a very high combustion efficiency under any
atmospheric conditions operation can be attained over a wide range of design capacity.
Stable combustion can be obtained with lower Btu content vent gases than it is possible
with open flare designs probably due to their isolation from wind effects.
Figure 6: Enclosed Ground Flare.

2.2 Method to enhance mixing at the flare tip

2.2.1 Steam-Assisted Flares
Steam-assisted flares are single burner tips, elevated above ground level for safety
reasons that burn the vented gas in essentially a diffusion flame. They reportedly account
for the majority of the flares installed and are the predominant flare type found in
refineries and chemical plants.
Steam assisted flares are designed to dispose of heavier waste gases which have a greater
tendency to smoke and are typically found in downstream applications where high
efficiency combustion of heavy hydrocarbons is required. In order to prevent incomplete
combustion and ensure an adequate air supply and good mixing, steam is injected into the
waste stream (using peripheral steam rings, center steam sparkers, and/or inner induction
tubes) to promote turbulence for mixing and to induce air into the flame. Steam flares are
used in applications where high-pressure steam is available on site. (Leslie B. Evans,
William M. Vatavuk, Diana K. Stone, Susan K. Lynch, Richard F. Pandullo, September
2000)
The injection of steam has two principal effects:
❖ High-pressure steam flow causes turbulence in the waste stream which improves
mixing and therefore improves combustion efficiency.
❖ Additional air is induced into the waste gas providing the oxygen necessary for
augmented smokeless capacity.
2.2.2 Air-Assisted Flares
Air-assisted flares are comprised of two risers (waste gas and air) and a blower system
that provides supplemental combustion air, this type of flares use forced air to provide the
combustion air and the mixing required for smokeless operation. Upon mixing, the high-
pressure air flow causes turbulence in the waste gas stream, improving mixing, and
ultimately combustion efficiency. These flares are built with a spider-shaped burner (with
many small gas orifices) located inside but near the top of a steel cylinder (two feet or
more in diameter). Combustion air is provided by a fan in the bottom of the cylinder. The
amount of combustion air can be varied by varying the fan speed.

The principal advantage of the air-assisted flares is that they can be used where steam is
not available. Although air assist is not usually used on large flares (because it is
generally not economical when the gas volume is large) and the number of large air
assisted flares being built is increasing. These flares generally dispose of heavier waste
gases which have a greater tendency to smoke.
2.2.3 Non-Assisted Flares
The non-assisted flare is just a flare tip without any auxiliary provision for enhancing the
mixing of air into its flame. Its use is limited essentially to gas streams that have a low
heat content and a low carbon/hydrogen ratio that burn readily without producing smoke
and for installations where smokeless combustion of heavy hydrocarbons is not required.
These streams require less air for complete combustion, have lower combustion
temperatures that minimize cracking reactions, and are more resistant to cracking. Utility
flare tips are one of the lower capital cost options for safe disposal of waste gases.
2.2.4 Pressure-Assisted Flares
Pressure-assisted flares use the vent stream pressure to promote mixing at the burner tip.
If sufficient vent stream pressure is available, these flares can be applied to streams
previously requiring steam or air assist for smokeless operation. High Pressure Flares use
the actual pressure of the waste gas to create turbulence, entraining combustion air into
the base of the flame to obtain smokeless combustion.
Pressure-assisted flares generally (but not necessarily) have the burner arrangement at
ground level, and consequently, must be located in a remote area of the plant where there
is plenty of space available. They have multiple burner heads that are staged to operate
based on the quantity of gas being released. The size, design, number, and group
arrangement of the burner heads depend on the vent gas characteristics.

3. PROCESS DESCRIPTION
For flares, VOC’s are led via a pipe to a remote place, normally high, and are then
combusted in open air via an open flame or sent to an enclosed ground flare. In order to
realize effective combustion, a well-designed burner outlet, a pilot flame, steam or air
injection for good turbulence and mixing are needed, along with extra fuel.
Most flames work via a diffusion flame. With a diffusion flame, air is mixed with the
outer edge of the fuel gas/flue gas so that the fuel gas is surrounded by a combustible gas
mixture. A stable flame is obtained when this mixture is ignited. The heat transfer takes
place via heat diffusion between the boundary layer and the fuel gas.
Soot particles will be formed due to the cracking of VOC’s. The glow created by these
soot particles lends a yellow color and clarity to the flame. In large diffusion flames, a
burning section can be sealed off from the open air due to gas burbles and turbulence.
This causes soot to be formed and there is local instability which makes the flame flicker.
The elements of an elevated steam-assisted flare generally consist of gas vent collection
piping, utilities (fuel, steam, and air), piping from the base up, knock-out drum, liquid
seal, flare stack, gas seal, burner tip, pilot burners, steam jets, ignition system, and
controls. The Figure diagram of a steam-assisted elevated smokeless flare system
showing the usual components that are included.
Figure 7: Diagram of an overall Flare Stack System in a Petroleum Refinery

Chapter 3 Process Description
3.1 Gas Transport Piping
Process vent streams are sent from the facility release point to the flare location through
the gas collection header. The piping (generally schedule 40 carbon steel) is designed to
minimize pressure drop. Ducting is not used as it is more prone to air leaks. Valving
should be kept to an absolute minimum and should be “car-sealed” (sealed) open. Pipe
layout is designed to avoid any potential dead legs and liquid traps. The piping is
equipped for purging so that explosive mixtures do not occur in the flare system either on
start-up or during operation.
3.2 Knock-out Drum
Liquids that may be in the vent stream gas or that

may condense out in the collection header and
transfer lines are removed by a knock-out drum.
Gravity causes the liquid to settle to the bottom of
the vessel, where it is withdrawn. The vapor
travels upward at a designed velocity which
minimizes the entrainment of any liquid droplets
in the vapor as it exits the top of the vessel. The
knock out or dis-entrainment drum is typically
either a horizontal or vertical vessel located at or
close to the base of the flare, or a vertical vessel
located inside the base of the flare stack. Liquid
in the vent stream can extinguish the flame or
cause irregular combustion and smoking. In
addition, flaring liquids can generate a spray of
burning chemicals that could reach group level
and create a safety hazard.
Figure 8: Vertical Two Phase Knock-out Drum Schematic
For a flare system designed to handle emergency process, this drum must be sized for
worst case conditions (e.g., loss of cooling water or total unit de-pressuring) and is
usually quite large. For a flare system devoted only to vent stream VOC control, the
sizing of the drum is based primarily on vent gas flow rate with consideration given to
liquid entrainment. (Cheremisinoff, PRESSURE SAFETY DESIGN PRACTICES FOR
REFINERY AND CHEMICALOPERATIONS, 1998)

Both the horizontal &

vertical design is a
common consideration for
the Knock out drum,
which is determined based
on the operating
parameters as well as
other plant conditions. If a
large liquid storage
capacity is desired and the
vapor flow is high,
Figure 9: Horizontal Two Phase Knock-out Drum Schematic.
A horizontal drum is often more economical. Also, the pressure drop across horizontal
drums is generally the lowest of all the designs. Vertical knockout drums are typically
used if the liquid load is low or limited plot space is available.
A vapor-liquid separator may also be referred to as a flare KO drum, flash drum, knock-
out drum, knock-out pot, compressor suction drum or compressor inlet drum.
The separator is designed into 3 zones with different functions.
❖ Zone 1: Inlet distribution zone
The inlet distribution zone provides 2 functions. First the installed internals – such
as inlet gas distributors or an open half pipe – knock out the majority of the
incoming liquid. Second the internals distribute the incoming gas flow as
uniformly as possible. The function of the inlet distribution zone is often
underestimated in its complexity and requires special care in its design.
❖ Zone 2: Fine separation zone
In the fine separation zone all remaining liquid is removed from the gas flow.
Technologies used for the separation are inertial impaction and direct interception -
covering a particle range starting from 2-3µm. The fine separators can be equipped
with perforated plates – for flow straightening purposes – ensuring the optimum
function of the separator.
❖ Zone 3: Liquid collection and drain zone
In this zone all pre-separated liquid (from zone 1) and from the fine separator
(zone 2) is collected and drained off. The bottom section of the vertical KO drum

holds the collected and separated liquid coming from zone 1 and 2. The down
comers (drain pipe typically coming from zone 2) are mounted as close as possible
to the vessel shell wall and will not be positioned in close proximity to the inlet gas
distributors. The height of zone 3 depends on process parameters such as hold-up
time, surge time and the amount of liquid passing through the vessel.
3.3 Liquid Seal
Purge systems are the perfect solution for

preventing air infiltration in the flare stack
and header system; however, it is possible to
lose purge gas supply. When purge gas is lost
or interrupted, the flare system and plant can
once again face the possibility of flashback
and/or catastrophic explosion. Process vent
streams are usually passed through a liquid
seal before going to the flare stack. The liquid
seal can be downstream of the knockout drum
or incorporated into the same vessel.
Figure 10: Vertical Liquid Seal Schematic.
The liquid seal drum is a specially designed vessel containing a predetermined level of
water in the base of the drum. As the waste/process gas enters the drum through the flare
system header, it is diverted down into the water and forced to bubble through the liquid
seal. The gas then travels up through the flare stack and tip for combustion.
The main purpose of the liquid seal drum: Firstly, is to stop flame propagation and
prevent possible flame flashbacks caused when air is inadvertently introduced into the
flare system and the flame front pulls down into the stack by quenching the flame with a
barrier of water.
Second, the liquid seal acts as a large check valve so that gas cannot travel upstream for
any reason.
A third function, is to dis-entrain liquid droplets. Thus, the liquid seal drum provides
flame arresting capabilities, acts as a check valve, and knocks liquids out of the waste

gas. Liquid seals can be designed as a separate vessel or as an integral part of the flare
riser structure.
The liquid seal also serves to maintain a positive pressure on the upstream system and
acts as a mechanical damper on any explosive shock wave in the flare stack. Other
devices, such as flame arresters and check valves, may sometimes replace a liquid seal or
be used in conjunction with it. Purge gas also helps to prevent flashback in the flare stack
caused by low vent gas flow. (API, JANUARY 2000)
3.4 Flare Stack
For safety reasons a stack is used most of the time to elevate the flare. The flare must be
located so that it does not present a hazard to surrounding personnel and facilities. As
described in details in Chapter 2.
3.5 Purge Gas Reduction (Gas Seal)
Keeping oxygen out of the flare system is a critical safety concern. At low waste gas flow
rates, air may tend to flow into flare tip through the top and travel down the inside wall of
the tip due to wind or thermal contraction of stack gases and create an explosion
potential. To prevent this, purge or sweep gas is used. Purge gas can be any gas that will
not condense. Natural gas and nitrogen are the two most commonly used. Purge reduction
devices are used to reduce the amount of purge gas required to keep the oxygen level
below 8% and minimize utility costs. There are two types of purge reduction devices
commonly in use:
❖ Molecular Seal: (also referred to as a buoyancy seal, flare
seal, stack seal, labyrinth seal, or gas barrier), are installed
just below the flare tip flange. The seal internals force the
waste and purge gas travelling up the stack to make a 180
degree turn down and then it must turn again to go up to the
flare tip. The light gases will collect at the top of the seal
creating a barrier to any oxygen that may have come down
the flare stack. This design provides a greater reduction in
required purge gas but are considerably larger and more
expensive than velocity seals. Molecular Seals can also
collect liquids which can freeze in cold environments.
Figure 11: Molecular Seal Schematic

❖ Velocity Seal: These are known by the names

(internal-gas seal, fluidic-seal, and arrestor seal). A
velocity seal is simply a cone or chevron that is located
inside the flare tip just above the flare tip flange. The
cone shaped design breaks the flow of air into the
system by disrupting the flow passage of the air to the
wall and creates a velocity differential barrier in the
purge gas. A velocity seal doesn’t collect liquids or
require draining, making it suitable for cold weather
environments. They are less expensive but do not
reduce the amount of purge gas as much as a molecular
seal, although they are usually proprietary in design and
their presence reduces the operating purge gas
requirements. (Charles E. Baukal, JR., 2014)
Figure 12: Velocity Seal Schematic.
3.6 Burner Tip
The burner tip or flare tip, is designed to give

environmentally acceptable combustion of the vent gas
over the flare system's capacity range and play the role to
keep an optimum burn and control over all flow rates. The
burner tips are normally designed to make sure that the tip
does not come into contact with the flame making the tips
reliable and long lasting. Consideration is given to flame
stability, ignition reliability, and noise suppression. The
maximum and minimum capacity of a flare to burn a
flared gas with a stable flame is a function of tip design.
Flame stability can be enhanced by flame holder retention
devices incorporated in the flare tip inner circumference.
Figure 13: Burner Tip Close-up Image.

Burner tips with modern flame holder designs can have a stable flame over a flare gas
exit velocity. The actual maximum capacity of a flare tip is usually limited by the vent
stream pressure available to overcome the system pressure drop. (Cheremisinoff,
INDUSTRIAL GAS FLARING PRACTICES, Apr 1, 2013)
3.7 Pilot Burners
Presence of a flame and pilot gas supply should be stable and

continuous (also required by EPA regulations). Reliable ignition
is obtained by continuous pilot burners designed for stability and
positioned around the outer perimeter of the flare tip. The
number and duty of the pilot burners should be determined by
the size of the flare and its application. For most flare systems
the pilot burner cannot be accessed for service. Maintenance or
replacement is not possible while the flare is in operation.
Figure 14: Pilot Burner Close-up Image.
The pilot burner is essentially a robust premixed burner unit designed to provide a stable
flame for igniting the waste gas exiting the flare tip and features three main components
(venturi or mixer, gas jet or orifice and the burner nozzle or pilot tip). The flow of the
pilot gas through the orifice and into the mixer draws in air through the inspirator
assembly. This air then mixes with the fuel gas and flows up to the burner nozzle (pilot
tip) where it is ignited and the resultant pilot flame is stabilized. Reliable operation of the
pilot burner is governed by achieving the right air fuel ratio for the pilot gas being used.
Too much air and the pilot will be unstable, too little air and the pilot will struggle to
light unless enough secondary air is available around the pilot nozzle.
Pilot burners have to be designed to withstand extreme weather conditions (rain, wind,
humidity and high temperatures) along with direct flame impingement from the flare
tip as the pilot burner nozzle is typically subjected to thermal cycling by being frequently
engulfed in flame from the flare itself.

The pilot burners are ignited by an ignition source system, which can be designed for
either manual or automatic actuation. Automatic systems are generally activated by a
flame detection device using either a thermocouple, an infra-red sensor or, more rarely,
(for ground flare applications) an ultra-violet sensor.
3.8 Steam Jets
A diffusion flame receives its

combustion oxygen by diffusion of air
into the flame from the surrounding
atmosphere. The high volume of fuel
flow in a flare may require more
combustion air at a faster rate than
simple gas diffusion can supply. High
velocity steam injection nozzles,
positioned 1-15 around the outer
perimeter of the flare tip,
Figure 15: Steam Jets Schematic.
Increased gas turbulence in the flame boundary zones, drawing in more combustion air
and improving combustion efficiency. For the larger flares, steam can also be injected
concentrically into the flare tip.
The injection of steam into a flare flame can produce other results in addition to air
entrainment and turbulence. Three mechanisms in which steam reduces smoke formation
have been presented.
Briefly, one theory suggests that steam separates the hydrocarbon molecule, thereby
minimizing polymerization, and forms oxygen compounds that burn at a reduced rate and
temperature not conducive to cracking and polymerization.
Another theory claims that water vapor reacts with the carbon particles to form CO, CO 2,
and H2, thereby removing the carbon before it cools and forms smoke.

An additional effect of the steam is to reduce the temperature in the core of the flame and
suppress thermal cracking.
The physical limitation on the quantity of steam that can be delivered and injected into
the flare flame determines the smokeless capacity of the flare. Smokeless capacity refers
to the volume of gas that can be combusted in a flare without smoke generation. The
smokeless capacity is usually less than the stable flame capacity of the burner tip.
Significant disadvantages of steam usage are the increased noise and cost. Steam
aggravates the flare noise problem by producing high-frequency jet noise. The jet noise
can be reduced by the use of small multiple steam jets and, if necessary, by acoustical
shrouding. Steam injection is usually controlled manually with the operator observing the
flare (either directly or on a television monitor) and adding steam as required to maintain
smokeless operation. To optimize steam usage infrared sensors are available that sense
flare flame characteristics and adjust the steam flow rate automatically to maintain
smokeless operation. Automatic control, based on flare gas flow and flame radiation,
gives a faster response to the need for steam and a better adjustment of the quantity
required. If a manual system is used, steam metering should be installed to significantly
increase operator awareness and reduce steam consumption. (Ludwig, Ernest E., 1999)
3.9 Controls
Flare system control can be completely automated or completely manual. Components of

a flare system which can be controlled automatically include the auxiliary gas, steam
injection, and the ignition system. Fuel gas consumption can be minimized by
continuously measuring the vent gas flow rate and heat content (Btu/scf) and
automatically adjusting the amount of auxiliary fuel to maintain the required minimum
heating value for steam-assisted flares. Steam consumption can likewise be minimized by
controlling flow based on vent gas flow rate. Steam flow can also be controlled using
visual smoke monitors. Automatic ignition panels sense the presence of a flame with
either visual or thermal sensors and reignite the pilots when flameouts occur.
In order to light the pilot burner and in turn the flare tip, an ignition system is required.
Ignition of the premixed gas at the pilot burner nozzle is the most reliable arrangement
and can be achieved by flame or spark. A number of different ignition systems are
available, the most common being:

3.9.1 Flame Front Generator (FFG):
Sometimes referred to as the ’fire ball’

ignition type. These systems are also very
common and among the oldest
technologies. The FFG mixes plant or
instrument air with pilot ignition gas
(typically natural gas or propane) at grade
and fills a line running up to the pilot
burner.
Figure 16: FFG at Site.
At grade an electrically generated spark ignites the mixture and the resulting fireball
travels up to the pilot and ignites the main pilot fuel gas. These systems are also available
in Manual or automated version.
The disadvantage is that FFGs are temperamental. Moisture or solids can block the
fireball from making it up to the pilot. It is also not uncommon for the gas and air mixture
to get too lean or too rich and the spark doesn’t ignite. Sometimes over anxious operators
don’t allow the line running up to the pilot to completely fill and the fireball “stops
short.” All of these disadvantages can be suppressed with maintenance and training.
The advantage of these systems is that all items (flow control and the sparking device)
needing maintenance or repair are at grade and can be serviced while the flare is in
operation. It is not uncommon for an automatic HEI system to be the primary method of
ignition and a manual FFG to be the backup system.
3.9.2 Electronic spark ignition
This type of a flare pilot burner is simple and easy to automate and more frequently
becoming the preferred flare ignition method. There are two basic forms of these
systems; high energy (HE) and high tension (HT).
High Energy Ignition (HEI) is probably the most common and primary method of pilot
ignition for newer systems. HEI systems use an electric probe inserted near the pilot
burner to create a spark and ignite the pilot fuel gas/air mixture. A capacitor is used to

discharge the spark across a low tension spark plug in a short time and with a high
current. Pilot flame monitoring is achieved through the use of thermocouples.
Over the last several years these systems have proven very reliable. These systems can
easily be automated so that an HEI system will attempt to relight the pilot without the
need for operator action.
3.9.3 Ballistic Pellet Ignition
This system, originally developed in Norway

for offshore use. Instead of a fireball made
of natural gas and air, it comprises a
launching cabinet containing the ignition
pellets, a guide tube and a pellet collector.
Figure 17: Launching Ignition Pellets
The launcher uses compressed air to drive a pellet through the guide tube up to the flare
tip/deck. Once the pellet exits the guide tube, the fuse is released and the pellet explodes
producing a shower of sparks over the flare tip and any associated pilot burners thereby
lighting the gas. The empty pellet is retained in the collector. Flame monitoring can be
carried out optically or via thermocouples attached to the pilot burners (if fitted). These
systems are often found in production facilities but not very often in process plants.

Figure 18: Typical Flare Installation P&ID.

4. DESIGN PROCEDURE
The sizing of flares requires determination of the required stack diameter and the required
stack height.
Since the flare tip is open to the atmosphere, high gas velocities are expected at this point.
Very high tip velocities cause a phenomenon known as blow-off where the flame front is
lifted and could eventually turn into a blow-out. Very low velocities could damage the
flare tip due to high heat intensities and smoking. In this case ingress of air in the system
and creation of a flammable mixture is possible. Therefore, determination of the right
flare diameter is important as far as operation of the system is concerned.
The location and height of flare stacks should be based upon the heat release potential of
a flare, the possibility of personnel exposure during flaring, and the exposure of
surrounding plant equipment. There are exposure limitations set forth which must be
taken into consideration. This in effect fixes the distance between the flame and the
object. Now if there are limitations on the location (distance), then the stack height can be
calculated, otherwise an optimum tradeoff between height and distance should be
applied.
Wind velocity, by tilting the flame in effect changes the flame distance and heat intensity.
Therefore, its effect should be considered in determining the stack height.
If the flare is blown-out (extinguished), or if there are environmental hazards associated

with the flare output, the possibility of a hazardous situation downwind should be
analyzed.
4.1 Flame Properties
4.1.1 Burning Velocity
A flame is a rapid self-sustaining chemical reaction occurring in a distinct reaction zone.

Two basic types of flames are: (1) the diffusion flame, found in conventional flares,
which occurs on ignition of a fuel jet issuing into air: and (2) the aerated flame, which
occurs when fuel and air are premised before ignition. The burning velocity, or flame
velocity, is the speed at which a flame front travels to its surface and into the unburned
combustible mixture.

Chapter 4 Design Procedure
4.1.2 Flame Stability
In the case of a flare, the flame front is normally at the top at the stack. However, at low
gas velocities, back mixing of air may occur in the top of the stack. Experiments show
that if a sufficient flow of combustible gas maintained to produce a flame visible from
ground level, there usually will not be significant back mixing of air into the stack. At
lower gas flows there is the possibility of combustion at a flame front part way down the
stack with a resultant high stack temperature, or of flame extinguishment with subsequent
formation of an explosive mixture in the stack and ignition from the pilot light.
In an aerated flame from a premising device a phenomenon known 'flashback' may occur.
This results from the linear velocity of the combustible mixture becoming less than the
flame velocity, causing the flame to travel back to the point of mixture.
In the case of either aerated or diffusion flames, if the fuel flow rate is increased until it
exceeds the flame velocity at every point, the flame will be lifted above the burner until a
new stable position in the gas stream above the port is reached as a result of turbulent
mixing and dilution with air. This phenomenon is called 'blow off'. (Extinguishment of
the flame is referred to as 'blowout'). By means of a sufficiently large pilot flame, it is
possible to anchor the flame of the main stream in the boundary regions where velocity
gradient would otherwise far exceed the critical value for the blow off. However, there is
evidence that flame stability can be maintained at Mach numbers of about 0.4, depending
on discharge properties and type of tip used. Both blow off and flashback velocities are
greater for fuels with high burning velocities. Small amounts of hydrogen in a
hydrocarbon fuel widen the stability range, because blow off velocity increases much
faster than flashback velocity.
4.1.3 Flame Length
The flare tip exit velocity is calculated as follows:

4𝐹
𝑈𝑗 = (4.1)
𝜋𝑑2
Where:
𝑈𝑗 = Flare tip exit velocity in m/s.
𝐹 = Actual volumetric flow rate in m3/s.

𝑑 = diameter of the pipe in m.
The flame distortion caused by the wind velocity is calculated as follows:

𝑈∞
𝑈= (4.2)
𝑈𝑗
Where:
𝑈 = velocity factor
𝑈∞ = wind velocity in m/s.
The flame vertical length, ∆𝑦 is estimated by using the following equation:

0.1267 0.0178 0.003
∆𝑦 = 𝐿 {−0.0392 + + − } (4.3)
𝑈 0.5 𝑈 𝑈 1.5
Equation 4.3 (above) is valid for 1.2 ≥ 𝑈 > 0.022. Similarly, the flame horizontal length,
∆𝑥 is estimated by using the following equation:
0.1067 0.0165 0.0038
∆𝑥 = 𝐿 {0.9402 + − + } (4.4)
𝑈 0.5 𝑈 𝑈 1.5
Equation 4.4 is valid for 1.22 ≥ 𝑈 > 0.005. Both ∆𝑦 and ∆𝑥 can also be calculated using
Figure 19.

Figure 19: Approximate Flame Distortion due to Lateral Winds on Jet Velocity from a Flare Stack
(Courtesy of API, 1220L Street, NW, Washington D.C)
The center of the flame from the top of the flare stack can be calculated as follows:
1
𝑦𝑐 = ∆𝑦 (4.5)
2
1
𝑥𝑐 = ∆𝑥 (4.6)
2
Where:
𝑦𝑐 = vertical distance of the flame center from the top of the flare stack in m.
𝑥𝑐 = horizontal distance of the flame center from the top of the flare stack in m.

From the geometry of the flare stack (Figure 20), the flare stack height can be easily
calculated. (Datta, 2014)
Figure 20: Dimensional References for Sizing a Flare Stack (Courtesy of API, 1220 L Street, NW,
Washington D.C)
4.2 Radiation
Equation 4.7 may be used to determine the distance required between a location of
atmospheric venting and point of exposure where terminal radiation must be lifted:
𝐹𝑄
𝐷=√ (4.7)
4𝜋𝐾
Where:
𝐷 = Minimum distance from midpoint of flame to object being considered, in m.
𝐹 = Fraction of heat radiated.
𝑄 = Heat release, in kcal/h.
𝐾 = Allowable radiation, in kcal/m2/h.

The F factor allows for the fact that not all the heat released in a flame can be released as
radiation. Measurements of radiation from flames indicate that the fraction of heat
radiated (radiant energy per total heat of combustion) increases toward a limit somewhat
as the burning rate does with increasing diameter of flame. (Crawford, 1988)
Data from the US Bureau of Mines for radiation from gaseous diffusion of flames are
given in Table 1. These data apply only to the radiation from a gas. If liquid droplets of
hydrocarbon larger than 150 pm in size are present in the flame, these values should be
increased somewhat.
Table 1: Radiation from Gaseous Diffusion of Flames
Gas Burner diameter (cm) 𝑹𝒂𝒅𝒊𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒐𝒖𝒕𝒑𝒖𝒕

100 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒎𝒂𝒍 𝒐𝒖𝒕𝒑𝒖𝒕
Hydrogen 0.51 9.5

0.91 9.1
1.90 9.7
4.10 11.1
8.40 15.6
20.30 15.4
40.60 16.9
Butane 0.51 21.5

0.91 25.3
1.90 28.6
4.10 18.5
8.40 29.1
20.30 28.0
40.60 29.9
Methane 0.51 10.3

0.91 11.6
1.90 16.0
4.10 16.1
8.40 14.7
Natural gas (95% methane) 20.30 19.2

40.60 23.2

Figure 21: Flame Length vs Heat Release.
The calculated distance is based on a vertical flame burning in still air. Flame under the
influence of wind will tilt in the direction the wind is blowing. Until more data become
available, the lateral wind effect on flames from flare stacks may be obtained from Figure
19 which relates horizontal reach and vertical lift of flames to the lateral wind velocity
relative to stack velocity. (Hossein Shokouhmand, Shahab Hosseini, October 24, 2007)
4.3 Size of Flare
The sizing of flares requires determination of the required stack diameter and the required
stack height. Factors also governing sizing are wind effect, dispersion, and ground flares.
An example covering the full design of a flare stack is given in Section 4.4.

4.3.1 Diameter
Flare stack diameter is generally sized on a velocity basis. Although pressure drop should
be checked. Depending on: (1) the volume ratio of maximum conceivable flare flow to
anticipated average flare flow; (2) the probable timing, frequency. and duration of those
flows; and (3) the design criteria established for the project to stabilize flare burning, it
may be desirable with low pressure flare tips and to permit a velocity of up to 0.5 Mach
for a peak, short-term, infrequent flow (emergency release) and 0.2 Mach for normal
conditions, (where Mach equals the ratio of vapor velocity to sonic velocity in that vapor
at the same temperature and pressure and is dimensionless). These API 521
recommendations are conservative. Some suppliers are designing "utility-type" tips for
rates up to 0.8 Mach for emergency releases. For high-pressure flare tips, most
manufacturers offer "sonic" flares that are very stable and clean burning; however, they
do introduce a higher backpressure into the flare system. Smokeless flares should be
sized for the conditions under which they are to operate smokelessly. (McDaniel, July
1983)
The formula relating velocity (as Mach number) to flare tip diameter can be expressed as
follows:
𝑊 𝑇
𝑀𝑎𝑐ℎ = (1.702)(10−5 ) √ (4.8)
𝑃𝑑2 𝑑 𝐾𝑀
Where:
𝑀𝑎𝑐ℎ = Ratio of vapor velocity to sonic velocity in that vapor.
𝑊 = Vapor relief rate in kg/h.
𝑃 = Pressure of vapor just inside flare tip in kgf/cm2.
𝑑 = Flare stack tip diameter in m.
𝑇 = Temperature of vapor just inside flare tip in degrees R.
𝐾 = Ratio of specific heats, 𝐶𝑝: 𝐶𝑣 for vapor being relieved.
𝑀 = Molecular weight of vapor in kg/mol
Pressure drops as high as 0.14 kgf/cm2 have been used satisfactorily at the flare tip. Too
low a tip velocity can cause heat and corrosion damage. The burning of the gases
becomes quite slow, and the flame is greatly influenced by the wind. The low-pressure
area on the downwind side of the stack may cause the burning gases to be drawn down
along the stack for 3 m or more. Under these conditions, corrosive materials in the stack

gases may attack the stack metal at an accelerated rate, even though the top 2.5 - 3m of
the flare is usually made of corrosion-resistant material.
𝜌𝑔 𝑉 2 𝑉 𝜌𝑔 𝑉 2
∆𝑃𝑤 = = (4.9)
(2𝑔)(144) 9,274
Where:
𝑔 = acceleration due to gravity, 32.3 ft/s2.
𝑉 = gas velocity, ft/s.
∆𝑃𝑤 = pressure drop at the tip, inches of water.
𝜌𝑔 = density of gas, lbm/ft3.
4.3.2 Height
The flare stack height is generally based on the radiant heat intensity generated by the
flame. If toxic or corrosive pollutants are present in the stream, a check should be made
on the maximum concentration level and its location to determine what might occur if the
flare pilot flame should be lost.
To utilize the formula for radiant heat given in Section 4.2, two factors must be
established: 𝐹 the fraction of heat radiated, and 𝐾 the allowable radiation intensity, it
appears that an 𝐹 value of 0.2 for methane, 0.3 for higher molecular weight
hydrocarbons, and 0.15 for hydrogen would be the maximum thermal radiation values
expected with near-ideal combustion conditions. Since efficient combustion would
seldom be expected at peak flaring rates, use of 𝐹 values of approximately two-thirds of
those cited herein are suggested as representing a more practical approach.
𝐻 ′ = 𝐻 + 1⁄2 (𝑦) (4.10)
𝑅’ = 𝑅 − 1⁄2 (𝑥) (4.11)
𝐷 2 = 𝑅′2 + 𝐻′2 (4.12)
Figure 22 shows that there is a linear relation between flare height and cost. For example,
a 10 m increase in flare height causes 40 thousand USD more cost. Therefore, a lower
flare with bigger R is preferable. There is a constraint in lower limit of flare height. In
order to diffuse the pollution, the flare needs to be risen up to a height so that the wind

speed is enough to diffuse the pollution. (Hossein Shokouhmand, Shahab Hosseini,

October 24, 2007)
Figure 22: Cost vs Flare Height.
4.3.3 Flare Tip
The flare tip exit velocity is calculated as follows:

4𝐹
𝑈𝑗 = (4.13)
𝜋𝑑2
Where:
𝑈 𝑗 = Flare tip exit velocity in m/s.
𝐹 = Actual volumetric flowrate in m3/s.
𝑑 = diameter of the pipe in m.
4.3.4 Jets
The number of jets is based on gas velocity. For 25 mm standard pipe, the recommended
maximum velocity permits a flow rate of 72.2 m3/h (actual or standard) of gas per jet.
The following empirical equation can be used:
𝑁 = 0.013 𝑉 (4.14)

Where:
𝑁 = Number of jets (𝑁 should be rounded off upward to a whole number)
𝑉 = Flare design capacity, m3/h (for a flare system, actual and standard cubic
meters are virtually equivalent).
The jets are laid out on an approximately square pitch, with spacing in both directions
varying between roughly 450 mm and 600 mm.
𝑃1 = 𝑃2 𝐷 = 833 √𝐷2 /𝑁 (4.15)
Where:
𝑃1 = Center-to-center spacing of adjacent burner lines, mm
𝑃2 = Center-to-center spacing of jets along a burner line, mm
𝐷 = Inside diameter of stack, m.
This equation is based on a negligible wall effect. The design values of 𝑃1 and 𝑃2 must
be determined from a scale drawing, which is made to allow the required number of jets
to be installed in the available area. This area is restricted by the limitation that no jet
should be placed closer than 300 mm from the inside wall of the stack. The spacing is
also affected by air flow considerations, which may require the layout to be modified.
(Standards, April 2012)
4.4 Sample of Calculation
Basis: Design for velocity of Mach number = 0.2

Table 2: Design Data
Parameters Value
Material Flowing Hydrocarbon Vapors
Flow rate 45 360 kg/h
Average Molecular Weight 46.1
Flowing Temperature 760 °R = 300 °F = 148.8 °C
Heat of Combustion 11 950 kcal/kg
Ratio of Specific Heats (𝛾 = 𝐶𝑃/𝐶𝑉) 1.1
Flowing Pressure at tip 1.03 kgf/cm2/a
Design Wind Velocity 33 km/h = 9.14 m/s
Hydrocarbon Vapor Density 1.33 kg/m3

4.4.1 Calculation of Flare Diameter
𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑟
𝑀𝑎𝑐ℎ =
𝑆𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑐 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑟
𝑘∗𝑅
𝑆𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑐 𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 67.97 ( ) 0.5
𝑀𝑊
(1.1)(760) 0.5
= 67.97 [ ] = 67.97 (4.26)
46.1
= 289.55 𝑚/𝑠
𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 289.55 (0.2)
= 57.91 𝑚/𝑠
𝑘𝑔
45 360
ℎ
𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 1.33𝑘𝑔 𝑠
= 9.43 𝑚3 /𝑠
𝑚3
(3600 ℎ)
9.43 𝑚3 /𝑠
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 = = 0.1627 𝑚2
57.91 𝑚/𝑠
𝑑 2 (0.785) = 0.1627 𝑚2
𝑑2 = 0.21 𝑚2
𝑑 = 0.45 𝑚
4.4.2 Calculation of Flame Length
𝑄 = Heat liberated in kcal/h = 𝑊 (heat of combustion)
𝐾𝑐𝑎𝑙
𝑄 = 45 360 (11 950) = (54)(107 ) = 6.2 ∗ 105 𝑘𝑊
ℎ
From Figure 21, 𝐿 = 51.8 𝑚
4.4.3 Calculation of Flame Distortion caused by Wind Velocity
A method is given to determine flame distortion.

𝑈𝑤 𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦
=
𝑈𝑜 𝐹𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑝 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦
9.14
= = 0.158
57.91
∑∆𝑦
From Figure 19, = 0.35 𝑚
∑𝐿
∑∆𝑥
= 0.85 𝑚
∑𝐿
∑∆𝑦 = 0.35 𝑚 (51.82) = 18.13 𝑚

∑∆𝑥 = 0.85 𝑚 (51.82) = 44.0 𝑚
Figure 23: Dimensional References of Flame Distortion.
4.4.4 Calculation of Flare Stack Height
Design basis:
❖ Fraction of heat radiated, 𝐹 = 0.3. Use two-thirds of F in Hajek and Ludwig's
equation.
❖ Heat liberated, 𝑄 = (0.54) (109 ) 𝑘𝑐𝑎𝑙/ℎ
❖ Maximum allowable radiation at 45.72m from flare stack,
𝐾 = 5424 𝑘𝑐𝑎𝑙 / 𝑚 2/ ℎ.
(𝐹)(𝑄)
𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐷: 𝐷 = √
(4)(3.14)(𝐾)
0.67 (0.3) (0.54)(109 )

= √ = √ 0.15 (104 ) = 0.39 (102 ) = 39.0 𝑚
4(3.14)(5425)
𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝐻: 𝐻′ = 𝐻 + 1⁄2 (𝑦)
𝑅’ = 𝑅 − 1⁄2 (𝑥)
𝑦 = 18.13 𝑚

𝑥 = 44.04 𝑚
𝑅′ = 45.72 − 1⁄2 (44.04) = 23.70 𝑚
𝐷2 = 𝑅′2 + 𝐻′2
392 = 23.702 + 𝐻′2

2
𝐻′ = 392 − 23.72 = 1521 − 561 = 960
𝐻′ = 30 𝑚 and 𝐻 = 30 − 1⁄2 (18.13) = 21.0 𝑚
Figure 24: Kurdistan Region Gas Flaring Practices (May 2014) (Provided and Licensed by SkyTruth
Global Flaring Map)

5. COST ESTIMATION
5.1 Estimating Total Capital Investment
The capital costs of a flare system are presented in this section and are based on the
design/sizing procedures discussed in Chapter 4.
Total capital investment TCI, includes the equipment costs EC for the flare itself, the cost
of auxiliary equipment, the cost of taxes, freight, and instrumentation, and all direct and
indirect installation costs.
The capital cost of flares depends on the degree of sophistication desired (i.e., manual vs
automatic control) and the number of appurtenances selected, such as knock-out drums,
seals, controls, ladders, and platforms. The basic support structure of the flare, the size
and height, and the auxiliary equipment are the controlling factors in the cost of the flare.
The capital investment will also depend on the availability of utilities such as steam,
natural gas, and instrument air.
The total capital investment is a battery limit cost estimate and does not include the
provisions for bringing utilities, services, or roads to the site, the backup facilities, the
land, the research and development required, or the process piping and instrumentation
interconnections that may be required in the process generating the waste gas. These
costs are based on a new plant installation; no retrofit cost considerations such as
demolition, crowded construction working conditions, scheduling construction with
production activities, and long interconnecting piping are included. These factors are so
site-specific that no attempt has been made to provide their costs.
5.1.1 Equipment Costs
The expected accuracy of these costs is ± 30% (i.e., "study" estimates).
The standard construction material is carbon steel except when it is standard practice to
use other materials, as is the case with burner tips.

Chapter 5 Cost Estimation
The flare costs, 𝐶𝐹 presented in Equations 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 are calculated and are based on
support type as follows:
Self-Support Group: 𝐶𝐹 ($) = (78.0 + 9.14 𝐷 + 0.749 𝐿)2 (5.1)
Guy Support Group: 𝐶𝐹 ($) = (103 + 8.68 𝐷 + 0.470 𝐿)2 (5.2)
Derrick Support Group: 𝐶𝐹 ($) = (76.4 + 2.72 𝐷 + 1.64 𝐿)2 (5.3)
Where:
𝐷 = Tip diameter (in)
𝐿 = Stack height (ft) (30 ft or 9 m minimum)
The equations are least-squares regression of cost data. It must be kept in mind that even
for a given flare technology (i.e., elevated, steam assisted), design and manufacturing
procedures vary from vendor to vendor, so that costs may vary. Once a study estimate is
completed, it is recommended that several vendors be solicited for more detailed cost
estimates.
Each of these costs includes the flare tower (stack) and support, burner tip, pilots, utility
(steam, natural gas) piping from base, utility metering and control, liquid seal, gas seal,
and galvanized caged ladders and platforms as required. Costs are based on carbon steel
construction, except for the upper four feet and burner tip, which are based on 310
stainless steel.
The gas collection header and transfer line requirements are very site specific and depend
on the process facility where the emission is generated and on where the flare is located.
For the purposes of estimating capital cost, it is assumed that the transfer line will be the
same diameter as the flare tip and will be 100 feet (30 m) long. Most installations will
require much more extensive piping, so 100 (30 m) feet is considered a minimum. (Leslie
B. Evans, William M. Vatavuk, Diana K. Stone, Susan K. Lynch, Richard F. Pandullo,
September 2000)
The costs for vent stream piping 𝐶𝑝 , are presented separately in Equation 5.4 or 5.5 and
are a function of pipe or flare diameter 𝐷.
𝐶𝑝 ($) = 127 𝐷1.22 (𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 1′′ < 𝐷 < 24′′ ) (5.4)

𝐶𝑝 ($) = 139 𝐷1.07 (𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 30′′ < 𝐷 < 60′′ ) (5.5)
Where:
𝐷 = Pipe or flare diameter (in)
The costs 𝐶𝑝 , include straight, Schedule 40, carbon steel pipe only, are based on 100 feet
(30 m) of piping, and are directly proportional to the distance required.
The costs for a knock-out drum, 𝐶𝑘 , are presented separately in Equation 5.6 and are a
function of drum diameter, 𝑑 (in), and height, ℎ (in).
𝐶𝑘 ($) = 14.2 [𝑑𝑡 (ℎ + 0.812 𝑑)]0.737 (5.6)
Where:
𝑡 = Vessel thickness (in) determined based on the diameter.
ℎ = Height (in)
𝑑 = Drum diameter (in)
Flare system equipment cost EC presented in Equation 5.7, is the total of the calculated
flare, knock-out drum, and piping costs.
𝐸𝐶 ($) = 𝐶𝐹 + 𝐶𝐾 + 𝐶𝑃 (5.7)
Purchased equipment costs PEC (Equation 5.8), is equal to equipment cost EC plus
factors for ancillary instrumentation (i.e., control room instruments) (0.10), sales taxes
(0.03), and freight (0.05) or,
𝑃𝐸𝐶 ($) = 𝐸𝐶 (1 + 0.10 + 0.03 + 0.05) = 1.18 𝐸𝐶 (5.8)

5.1.2 Installation Costs
The total capital investment TCI (Equation 5.9), is obtained by multiplying the purchased
equipment cost PEC by an installation factor of 1.92.
𝑇𝐶𝐼 ($) = 1.92 𝑃𝐸𝐶 (5.9)
These costs were determined based on the factors in Table 3.

Direct installation costs cover foundations and supports, equipment handling and
erection, piping, insulation, painting, and electrical.
Indirect installation costs cover engineering, construction and field expenses, contractor
fees, start-up, performance testing, and contingencies. Depending on the site conditions,
the installation costs for a given flare could deviate significantly from costs generated by
these average factors.
5.2 Estimating Total Annual Costs
The total annual cost, TAC is the sum of the direct and indirect annual costs.
5.2.1 Direct Annual Costs
Direct annual costs include labor (operating and supervisory), maintenance (labor and
materials), natural gas, steam, and electricity. Unless the flare is to be dedicated to one
vent stream and specific on-line operating factors are known, costs should be calculated
based on a continuous operation of 8,760 h/yr and expressed on an annual basis. Flares
serving multiple process units typically run continuously for several years between
maintenance shutdowns.
Operating labor is estimated at 630 hours annually. A completely manual system could
easily require 1,000 hours. A standard supervision ratio of 0.15 should be assumed.
❖ Maintenance labor is estimated at 0.5 hours per 8-hour shift. Maintenance
materials costs are assumed to equal maintenance labor costs. Flare utility costs
include natural gas, steam, and electricity.
The total natural gas cost 𝐶𝐹 , to operate a flare system includes pilot 𝐶𝑝𝑖 , auxiliary fuel
𝐶𝑎 , and purge costs 𝐶𝑝𝑢 :

𝐶𝐹 ($/𝑦𝑟) = 𝐶𝑝𝑖 + 𝐶𝑎 + 𝐶𝑝𝑢 (5.10)

𝐶𝑝𝑖 ($/𝑦𝑟) = (𝐹𝑝𝑖 𝑠𝑐𝑓 ⁄𝑦𝑟)($⁄𝑠𝑐𝑓 ) (5.11)
Where:
𝐹 = Annual volume of pilot gas.
($⁄𝑠𝑐𝑓) = Cost per 𝑠𝑐𝑓
𝐶𝑎 and 𝐶𝑝𝑢 are similarly calculated.
Steam cost 𝐶𝑠 to eliminate smoking is equal:
𝐶𝑠 ($/𝑦𝑟) = (8 760 ℎ𝑟⁄𝑦𝑟) (𝑆 𝑙𝑏⁄ℎ𝑟) ($⁄𝑙𝑏) (5.12)
Where:
𝑆 = Annual steam consumption.
($⁄𝑙𝑏) = Cost per 𝑙𝑏
The use of steam as a smoke suppressant can represent as much as 90% or more of the
total direct annual costs.
5.2.2 Indirect Annual Costs
The indirect (fixed) annual costs include overhead, capital recovery, administrative (G &
A) charges, property taxes, and insurance.
Overhead is calculated as 60% of the total labor (operating, maintenance, and
supervisory) and maintenance material costs. The system capital recovery cost CRC is
based on an estimated 15-year equipment life. For a 15-year life and an interest rate of
7%, the capital recovery factor is 0.1098. The system capital recovery cost is the product
of the system capital recovery factor CRF and the total capital investment TCI or:
𝐶𝑅𝐶 ($/𝑦𝑟) = 𝐶𝑅𝐹 ∗ 𝑇𝐶𝐼 = 0.1098 ∗ 𝑇𝐶𝐼 (5.13)

Table 3: Capital Cost Factors for Flare Systems
Cost Item Factor

Direct Costs
Purchased Equipment cost
Flare System 𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 𝐴
Instrumentation 0.10 𝐴
Sales Taxes 0.03 𝐴
Freight 0.05 𝐴
Total PEC 𝑩 = 𝟏. 𝟏𝟖 𝑨
Direct Installation Costs

Foundations and Supports 0.12 𝐵
Handling and Erection 0.40 𝐵
Electrical 0.01 𝐵
Piping 0.02 𝐵
Insulation 0.01 𝐵
Painting 0.01 𝐵
Total 𝟎. 𝟓𝟕 𝑩
Site Preparations 𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑

Facilities and Buildings 𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Annual Costs

Engineering 0.10 𝐵
Construction and Field Expenses 0.10 𝐵
Contractor Fees 0.10 𝐵
Start-up 0.01 𝐵
Performance Test 0.01 𝐵
Contingencies 0.03 𝐵
Total Indirect Costs 𝟎. 𝟑𝟓 𝑩
Total Capital Investment 𝟏. 𝟗𝟐 𝑩 + 𝑺𝑷 + 𝑩𝑳𝑫

Once the required flare tip diameter and stack height have been calculated (in previous
chapter) then equipment costs can be calculated. Since the height is 21 m, the flare will
be self-supporting. The costs are determined from Equation 5.1.
In which 𝐷 = 0.46 m = 17.71 in

𝐿 = 21 m = 68.89 ft
𝐶𝐹 ($) = (78.0 + 9.14 𝐷 + 0.749 𝐿)2 = (78.0 + 9.14 ∗ 17.71 + 0.749 ∗ 68.89)2
= 84 953.6 $
Knock-out drum costs are determined using Equation 5.6, where height and thickness is
depended on the drum diameter.
In which 𝑑 = 1𝑚 = 39 𝑖𝑛
ℎ = 3𝑑 = 117 𝑖𝑛
𝑡 = 0.37 𝑖𝑛
𝐶𝑘 ($) = 14.2 [𝑑𝑡 (ℎ + 0.812 𝑑)]0.737 = 14.2 [12 ∗ 0.37 (117 + 0.812 ∗ 39)]0.737
= 1699.54 $
Transport piping costs are determined using Equation 5.4.
𝐶𝑝 ($) = 127 𝐷1.22 = 127(17.71)1.22 = 4232.8 $
The total auxiliary equipment cost = 𝐶𝑘 ($) + 𝐶𝑝 ($)

= 1699.54 $ + 4232.8 $ = 5932.34 $
The total capital investment is calculated using the factors given in Table 3. The
calculations are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Capital Costs for Flare System
Item Cost ($)

Direct Costs
Purchased Equipment cost
Flare System 84 953.6
Auxiliary 5 932.34
Sum of A 90 885.94
Instrumentation (0.10 A) 9 088.59

Sales Taxes (0.03A) 2 726.57
Freight (0.05 A) 4 544.29
PEC = B 107 245.39
Direct Installation Costs

Foundation and Supports (0.12 B) 12 869.44
Handling and Erection (0.40 B) 42 898.15
Electrical (0.01 B) 1 072.45
Piping (0.02 B) 2 144.90
Installation (0.01 B) 1 072.45
Painting (0.01 B) 1 072.45
Total 61 129.84
Site Preparation 10 000

Facilities and Buildings 15 000
Total Direct Costs 𝟗𝟔 𝟏𝟐𝟗. 𝟖𝟒
Indirect Annual Costs

Engineering (0.10 B) 10 724.53
Construction & Field Expenses (0.10 B) 10 724.53
Contractor Fees (0.10 B) 10 724.53
Start-up (0.01 B) 1 072.45
Performance Test (0.01 B) 1 072.45
Contingencies (0.15 B) 16 086.80
Total Indirect Costs 50 405.29
Total Capital Investment 146 535.13

6. INSPECTION (MAINTENANCE), SAFETY AND RECOVERY
6.1 Inspection
Flare systems are typically custom designed units consisting of common equipment.
Because of the nature of the materials handled and the conditions under which
components operate, the flare system is subject to corrosion, erosion, thermal stress,
cracking, spalling and plugging. Most of the maintenance costs and problems, however,
arise from instrumentation and process control devices. Daily, monthly and annual
inspections are recommended.
On a daily basis, the auxiliary fuel, pressure seals, knockout drum, and monitoring and
electrical devices should be physically inspected to verify that they are clean, functioning
and calibrated. Pressure seals should be tight and intact. Gas jets should be free of
corrosion and cleaned of deposits and blockages. Valves and electrical devices should be
checked for proper position and condition. Such things as dirty contacts, moisture leaks,
deteriorating insulation and plugged drains should all be repaired. Pressure gauges,
thermometer and/or thermocouples and level indicators should all be inspected for
physical integrity and calibrated as necessary.
On a monthly basis moving parts such as fans and blowers, solenoids, check valves and
dampers should be lubricated and cleaned of any foreign matter that may interfere with
operation.
Annually or during each equipment shut down, structural components including anchors,
straps, foundations and guy wires, should be inspected for integrity. Refractory lining
should be checked for cracks and spalling. The outer shell of the stack and flare system
components should be checked for cracks and fatigue caused by over pressurization or
temperature stress. Flares are typically utilized in harsh environments and
corrosion/erosion problems should be carefully monitored and attended whenever found.
As always, inspection forms should be tailored to system specific components (e.g.,

electric arc ignition system) and operational and regulatory requirements. All
maintenance activities and inspections should be recorded and studied for trends and
variances from design and/or normal operating conditions. (EPA, November 1991)

Chapter 6 Inspection, Safety & Recovery
6.1.1 Maintenance
Most of the problems that occur with flares have a direct impact on emission rates. Flares
are not immune to physical problems caused by overloading. Excessive flow rates may
cause explosions, uncontrolled fire, and ventilation of toxic or obnoxious gases. Hence
routine maintenance to assure that safety devices are intact and that process controllers
are functioning properly is critical. Fouling and plugging is the deposition of foreign
material on the exterior and/or interior of nozzles, valves, monitors, controllers and
burner heads. Cleaning of deposits is generally performed only during major shutdowns.
(Buonicore, 1982)
6.1.2 Spare Parts
Generally flares are moderate maintenance systems. A facility should maintain a ready
supply of antifouling agents, gauges, valves, floats, and gasket material.
6.1.3 Malfunctions
Operational failures and malfunctions include both equipment and personnel induced
accidents. A brief discussion on problems associated with flares is provided in Table 5 to
alert readers of issues that may cause safety problems and/or excessive emissions. (Stone,
March 1992. )
Table 5: Malfunction Mechanisms, Symptoms and their Corrections.
Mechanism Symptom Correction

Over Pressurization Relief valves open, compressor Set valves and dampers to correct
overheating, condenser out jet position. Clean condensate removal
temperature low, condenser flooded, system.
flame out and leaks.
Cross and open Back fire, soot/smoke, open valves, Verify connection and valve
connections. leaks, and submerged pipes. position.
Burner fouling Flame out, flame instability, Clean burner tips more frequently.
soot/smoke.
Improper flame Soot/smoke, flame instability, flame Adjust fuel/air mixture ratio.
temperature color change. Verify flame heat content.
Refractory failure Cracks, spalling, crumbling, hot Ramp up to operating temperature.
spots on shell, paint blisters. Properly limit peak temperatures.
Limit heating/cooling cycles.
Protect from corrosion.

Self-fueling Increased temperature, maximum Purge with inert gas. Flood knock
turn down, extended flame length, out drum.
unusual noise.
Internal Vibration, noise, vacuum in seal Water seals not maintained. Adjust
explosion/flashback line, pulsation in knock out drum, fuel/air ratio. Increase refractory
relief valves open, metal thickness. Erect wind shields.
incandescence. Increase exist velocity.
External burning Flame flickering, extended flame Lower exist velocity.
front.
Secondary fire Submerged stack drain, large pilot Adjust condenser and pilot.
gas consumption.
6.1.4 Operator Training
Similar to any piece of equipment, a flare will not receive proper maintenance without
management's support and the willingness to provide its employees with proper training.
Efficient operation of a flare, promoted by adequate inspection and maintenance
procedures, is important. Management and employees must be cognizant of proper
procedures necessary to prevent equipment malfunctions or failures.
System training should be received from the manufacturer when a new system is
commissioned. The manufacturer’s start-up services will generally include introductory
training for facility operators and maintenance personnel. The field service engineer
involved in startup procedures will instruct plant personnel in the methods to ensure
proper assembly and operation of the system components and instrumentation and
controls. Training should also include procedures to perform simple troubleshooting.
Following start-up training, regular courses should be held by in-house personnel or

through the use of outside expertise. The set of manuals typically delivered as part of a
new installation will include manufacturer-recommended maintenance procedures.
Annual in-house training should at a minimum include a review of these documents and
confirmation of the original parameters. Training should include written instructions and
practical experience sessions on safety, inspection procedures, system monitoring
equipment and procedures, routine maintenance procedures, and recordkeeping.

6.2 Safety
The availability of a flare or a vent is absolutely necessary in oil and gas production
operations. It ensures that safe disposal of the hydrocarbon gas inventory in the process
installation is possible in emergency and shut down situations. Where gas cannot be
stored or used commercially, it is essential that the risk of fire and explosion can be
reduced by either flaring or venting.
Even where associated gas is being sold or re-injected, small amounts of gas will still
need to be flared or vented for safety reasons. Oil and gas processing and storage
equipment is often operated at high pressures and temperatures.
When abnormal conditions occur, the control and safety systems must release gas to the
emergency flare or vent to prevent hazards to the employees or public. Good maintenance
and operating strategies are the main mechanisms used to keep this already small volume
as low as practicable.
Another safety issue in the application of flaring and venting is the toxicity of the gases
being disposed. In some situations, the toxicity of the gas relative to the toxicity of its
combustion products may need to be considered when choosing between flaring and
venting as a means of disposal. An example would be where gas containing hydrogen
sulfide is being produced. Hydrogen sulfide is a gas that can be fatal if inhaled even at
low concentrations. However, its combustion product, sulfur dioxide, is relatively less
toxic.
Since flaring is still a major refining process in most of the countries, oil and gas
operators will have to find improved ways to control and manage their flaring safely.
(J.Loss.Prev, 1996) (John Bellovich, Jim Franklin, Bob Schwartz, 30 August 2006)
6.2.1 Emergency planning
Oil and gas companies operate flares to safely burn excess gases in facilities, as such it's
important they invest in emergency planning and preparation to protect workers.
Employers should have a plan of what to do in case flares are unable to function
correctly. This includes how they may have to evacuate the facility in case of an
equipment malfunction or the necessary personal protective equipment workers will have
to don to guard against any harmful exposure.

6.2.2 Maintenance
During an emergency, flare systems will need to release gas through piping to flare stacks
to relieve pressure in piping or equipment. However, employers may be unaware of
potential problems with this equipment if they have not checked it recently. Since there is
the risk of malfunction in flare and ignition systems at oil and gas facilities, employers
should consider implementing regular maintenance and testing for these systems to
ensure they are working properly. Flares that are not regularly checked may pose a
greater danger to facilities as this could increase the chance of fires and explosions.
6.2.3 Ventilation
Companies may not expect workers to inhale gases emitted from flares, outside
containments have a high likelihood of mixing with indoor air. The gases that are being
burned may be toxic depending on the type of gas and concentration. Companies should
assess whether the gases that are being burned are more dangerous in their combustion
form. With the risk of poor indoor air quality resulting in negative health effects for
workers, employers should consider improving their ventilation systems as well as
installing air purification equipment in case there is a high concentration of hazardous
gases in the workplace.
6.2.4 Noise
When flaring natural gas occurs, it often produces a loud noise. Employees who work
near flares may be at risk for hearing loss or other auditory problems. According to the
U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, almost 125,000 members of the
national workforce have reported serious or permanent hearing loss since 2004.
Employers could provide their workers with hearing protection like ear muffs or plugs to
prevent loud noises from affecting their hearing.
6.3 Recovery
Several steps may be help to reduce the flared gas losses such as: proper operation and
maintenance of flares systems, modifying start-up and shut-down procedures. Also,
eliminating leaking valves, efficient use of fuel gases required for proper operation of the
flare and better control of steam to achieve smokeless burning all contribute to reducing

flare losses. Recovery methods may also use to minimize environmental and economic
disadvantages of burning flare gas.
Recently, several technologies in flare tip design offers the greatest reduction in flare
loss. Even in most advanced countries only a decade has passed from FGRS, thus the
method is a new method for application in refineries wastes. Of such countries active in
FGRS are USA, Italy, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. Most FGRS has been installed
based primarily on economics, where the payback on the equipment was short enough to
justify the capital cost. Such systems were sized to collect most, but not all, of the waste
gases. The transient spikes of high gas flows are typically very infrequent, meaning
normally it is not economically justified to collect the highest flows of waste gas because
they are so sporadic. However, there is increasing interest in reducing flaring not based
on economics, but on environmental consideration.
There is a range of methods to reduce and recover flaring, it is summarized as the

followings
1. Collection, compression, and injection/reinjection
❖ Into oil fields for enhanced oil recovery.
❖ Into wet gas fields for maximal recovery of liquids.
❖ Into of gas into an aquifer.
❖ Into the refinery pipelines.
❖ Collection and delivery to a nearby gas-gathering system.
❖ Shipping the collecting flared gas to treatment plants before subsequent use.
❖ Using as an onsite fuel source.
❖ Using as a feedstock for petrochemicals production.
2. Gas-to-liquid (GTL)
❖ Converting to liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).
❖ Converting to liquefied natural gas (LNG).
❖ Converting to chemicals and fuels.
3. Generating electricity
Burning flared gas in incinerators and recovering exhaust heat for further use (generation
and co-generation of steam and electricity).

7. FLARE GAS IMLICATIONS
Oil companies find it more economically expedient to flare the natural gas and pay the
insignificant fine than to re-inject the gas back into the oil wells. Additionally, because
there is an insufficient energy market especially in rural areas, oil companies do not see
an economic incentive to collect the gas. From a social perspective, the oil-producing
communities have experienced severe marginalization and neglect. The environment and
human health have frequently been a secondary consideration for oil companies and the
local governments. However, although there may be reasons for the continuous gas
flaring, there are many strong arguments suggesting that it should be stopped.
Corporations’ accountability to the people and environment surrounding them imply that
oil companies should be required to re-inject the gas, to recover it, or to shut down any
extraction facilities in which the gas flaring is occurring. The ramifications for human
health, local culture, indigenous self-determination, and the environment are severe. As is
the case in most oil producing regions of less developed countries, the economic and
political benefits are given significantly more weight by the government than the
resulting damage to the environment and human health therefore a series of implications
and problems affected by gas flaring is summarized below.
7.1 Environmental Implications
People outside the oil and gas industry sometimes express concerns about the
environmental impacts of flaring and venting. One such concern relates to the potential
for global climate change. Both carbon dioxide and methane (the major component of
natural gas) are known as greenhouse gases associated with concerns about global
warming.
Flaring produces predominantly carbon dioxide emissions, while venting produces
predominantly methane emissions. The two gases have different effects, however.
The global warming potential of a kilogram of methane is estimated to be twenty-one
times that of a kilogram of carbon dioxide when the effects are considered over one
hundred years.
While there are still many uncertainties in our understanding of the complex issue of
climate change, it makes sense to avoid the unnecessary release of carbon dioxide or
methane into the atmosphere, where practicable. This points to a need to reduce

Chapter 7 Flare Gas Implications
emissions in a reasonably practicable way. However, it is important to recognize that

other environmental impacts also need to be managed.
Sometimes those needs can conflict with managing greenhouse gas emissions. This
conflict may take a variety of forms, but usually relates to the need to manage potential
contributions to local environmental impacts, such as air quality, alongside global issues,
such as climate change. Although the global warming potential of methane when
compared to carbon dioxide usually suggests that flaring is a more environmentally
attractive option than venting, neighbors of onshore oil and gas developments sometimes
prefer venting because it is less visible and produces less noise due to this a lot of
regulations and limitations have been developed, table 6 below shows the typical
allowable waste gas stream of plants that’s also required by EPA standards. (Standards,
April 2012) (EPA, November 1991)
Table 6: Allowable Waste Gas Composition.
Gas Flaring Constituent Gas Composition Gas Flaring %

Min. Max. Average
Methane CH4 7.17 82.0 43.6
Ethane C2H6 0.55 13.1 3.66……
Propane C3H8 2.04 64.2 20.3
n-Butane C4H10 0.199 28.3 2.78
Isobutane C4H10 1.33 57.6 14.3
n-Pentane C4H10 0.008 3.39 0.266
Isopentane C5H12 0.096 4.71 0.530
Neo-Pentane C5H10 0.000 0.342 0.017
n-Hexane C6H14 0.026 3.53 0.635
Ethylene C2H4 0.081 3.20 1.05
Propylene C3H6 0.000 42.5 2.73
1-Butene C4H8 0.000 014.7 0.696
Carbon Monoxide CO 0.000 0.932 0.186
Carbon Dioxide C02 0.023 2.85 0.713
Hydrogen Sulfide H2S 0.000 3.80 0.256
Hydrogen H2 0.000 37.6 5.54
Oxygen O2 0.019 5.43 0.357
Nitrogen N2 0.073 32.2 1.30
Water H2O 0.000 14.7 1.14

7.1.1 Climate Change
Gas flaring contributes to climate change, which has serious implications for both local
and the rest of the world. The burning of fossil fuel, mainly coal, oil and gas (greenhouse
gases) have led to warming up the world and is projected to get much, much worse
during the course of the 21st century according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). This scientific body was set up in 1988 by the UN and the World
Meteorological Organization to consider climate change. Climate change is particularly
serious for developing countries. Gas flaring contributes to climate change by emission of
carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. Venting of the gas without burning, a practice
for which flaring seems often to be treated as a synonym, releases methane, the second
main greenhouse gas. Together and crudely, these gases make up about 80% of global
warming to date.
7.1.2 Acid Rain
Acid rains have been linked to the activities of gas flaring. Structures and buildings may
be corroded by the composition of the rain that falls as a result of flaring. The primary
causes of acid rain are emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NO) which
combine with atmospheric moisture to form sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and nitric acid (HNO3)
respectively. Size and environmental philosophy in the industry have very strong positive
impact on the gas-flaring-related CO2 emission.
Acid rain acidifies lakes and streams and damages vegetation. In addition, acid rain
accelerates the decay of building materials and paints. Prior to falling to the earth,
SO2 and NO2 gases and their particulate matter derivatives, sulfates and nitrates,
contribute to visibility degradation and harm public health.
7.1.3 Agriculture
The flares associated with gas flaring give rise to atmospheric contaminants. These
include oxides of Nitrogen, Carbon and Sulfur (NO2, CO2, CO, SO2), particulate matter,
hydrocarbons and ash, photochemical oxidants, and hydrogen sulfide (H 2S). These
contaminants acidify the soil, hence depleting soil nutrient. Previous studies have shown
that the nutritional value of crops within such vicinity are reduced. In some cases, there is
no vegetation in the areas surrounding the flare due partly to the tremendous heat that is
produced and acid nature of soil pH.

The effects of the changes in temperature on crops included stunted growth, scotched
plants and such other effects as withered young crops. Reference concluded that the soils
of the study area are fast losing their fertility and capacity for sustainable agriculture due
to the acidification of the soils by the various pollutants associated with gas flaring in the
area.
7.1.4 Thermal Emissions and Luminosity
As in the case of thermal radiation, it is probable that most of the visible radiation is the
result of radiation from hot carbon particles. Electronic transitions, such as in the
formation and recombination of certain radicals: CH, C2, HCO, NH, and NH2 are also
accompanied by emission in the visible and near ultraviolet, but probably contributes
only a small fraction of the total luminous radiation. The distribution of radiation
frequencies from hot carbon particles is predicted from Planck's radiation law and
requires a knowledge of the flame temperature.
7.1.5 Noise Pollution
Noise pollution from flares has for too long been an inconvenience, accepted in
petrochemical plants as an inevitable byproduct of flaring process. It has been established
that major individual source of noise from flare is usually at the flare tip itself. This is
especially true when the flare tip is of the type used for smokeless flaring of hydrocarbon
gases utilizing steam injection.
Basically, noise is created because of two reasons, 1- steam energy losses at the high-
pressure steam injectors, and 2-unsteadiness in the combustion process.
Ground flares are normally quieter than elevated flares. This is probably due to the fact
that the flame contained inside a box is protected from wind effects and the stabilizing
effect of the heat re-radiated from the refractory walls reduces then random
characteristics of combustion. The walls themselves will absorb some of the sound
energy.
Sophisticated design of flare tips has greatly reduced the noise pollution. In some
designs, combustion efficiency has been greatly increased by remixing of air with gas
before they are combusted. Steam is also premixed with air and gas before gases leave
the flare tip. Some of the turbulent noise energy is thus shielded by the tip itself.

Environmental consequences associated with gas flaring have a considerable impact on

local populations, often resulting in severe health issues. Generally, gas flaring is
normally visible and emitted both noise and heat.
Thermal radiation and noise level is calculated as a function of distance from the flare for
flare systems. The results are presented in Table 7. (J.Loss.Prev, 1996) (McDaniel, July
1983)
Table 7: Thermal Radiation & Noise Level as a Function of Distance.
Distance (m) Thermal Radiation (kW/m2 ) Noise Level (dB)

10 5.66 86.3
20 5.87 86.19
30 6.04 86.02
40 6.14 85.78
50 6.17 85.50
60 6.14 85.18
70 6.04 84.83
80 5.88 84.46
90 5.67 84.08
100 5.42 83.68
7.2 Health Implications

7.2.1 Radiation Effect on Humans
Numerous investigations have been undertaken to determine the effect of thermal

radiation on human skin. It is understood that with an intensity of 5425 kcal/m2/h the pain
threshold was reached in 8 s and blistering occurred in 20 s. On the bare skin of white
rats, an intensity of 5425 kcal/m2/h produced burns in less than 20s. The same report
indicated that an intensity of 20 350 kcal/m2/h caused burns on the skin of white rats in
approximately 6s.
The following data give exposure times necessary to reach the pain threshold as a
function of radiation intensity. These experimental data were derived from tests given to
people who were radiated on the forearm at room temperature. It is stated that burns
follow the pain threshold very quickly. Since the allowable radiation level is a function of
length of exposure, factors involving reaction time and human mobility must be

considered. In emergency releases, a reaction time of 3-5s may be assumed. Perhaps 5-

10s more would elapse before the average individual could seek cover or depart from the
area, which would result in a total exposure period ranging from 8-15 s.
Table 8: Exposure Times Necessary to Reach Pain Threshold
Radiation Intensity (kcal/m2/h) Time to pain threshold (s)

1190
1500 60
2000 40
2500 30
4070 16
5970 9
8140 6
10 050 4
17 100 2
7.2.2 Adverse Effects
The implication of gas flaring on human health are all related to the exposure of those
hazardous air pollutants emitted during incomplete combustion of gas flare. These
pollutants are associated with a variety of adverse health impacts, including cancer,
neurological, reproductive and developmental effects. Deformities in children, lung
damage and skin problems have also been reported.
7.2.3 Hematological Effects
Hydrocarbon compounds are known to cause some adverse changes in hematological

parameters. These changes affect blood and blood-forming cells negatively. And could
give rise to anemia (aplastic), pancytopenia and leukemia.
The technology to address the problem of gas flaring exists today and the policy
regulations required are largely understood. Global emissions from gas flaring stand for
more than 50 % of the annual Certified Emissions Reductions (624 Mt CO 2) currently
issued under the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanisms. However, flaring is considered
as much safer than just venting gases to the atmosphere. Pollutants of flare and their
health effect are summarized in Table 9.

Table 9: Pollutants of Flare and Their Health Effect
Chemical Name Health Effect

Ozone in land In low densities eye will stimulate and in high densities it will cause
respiratory problems (especially in children and adults)
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) In low densities it will affect on eye and nose which result in insomnia and
headache.
Nitrogen Dioxide It will affect on depth of lung and respiratory pipes and aggravates
(NO2) symptoms on asthma. In high densities it will result in meta-hemoglobins
which prevents from absorption of oxygen by blood.
Particles Matter There is this believe that it will result in cancer and heart attack.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) It will stimulate respiratory system, and as a result aggravating asthma and
bronchitis.
Alkanes: CH4, C2H6, In low densities it will result swelling, itching and inflammation. In high
C3H8 densities it will result in eczema and acute lung swelling.
Alkenes:C2H4, C3H6 It will result in weakness, nausea and vomit.
Aromatics: C6H6, C6H5- It is poisonous and carcinogenic. It influences on nerve system and in low
CH3, C8H10 densities it will result in blood abnormalities and also it will stimulate
skin and result in depression
7.3 Other Implications

7.3.1 Economic Loss
Aside from the health and environmental consequences of gas flaring, the nation also
loses billions of dollars’ worth of gas which is literally burnt off daily in the atmosphere.
Much of this can be converted for domestic use and for electricity generation. By so
doing the level of electricity generation in the country could be raised to meet national
demand. Nigeria has recorded a huge revenue loss due to gas flaring and oil spillage.
Though more than 65 % of governmental revenue is from oil, it is estimated that about
$2.5 billion is lost annually through gas flaring in government revenues.
7.3.2 Pollution
Drilling mud and oil sometimes find their way to the streams, surface waters and land
thus making them unfit for consumption nor habitable by man or animal. This problem
has been produced by a range of international oil companies which have been in
operation for over several decades. The economic and environmental ramifications of this

high level of gas flaring are serious because this process is a significant waste of potential
fuel which is simultaneously polluting water, air, and soil.
7.3.3 Social
Although the plant operation has complied with the environmental regulation, sometime
the outcome resulting flare system may not meet the expectations of the plant's
neighbors.
Example: A smokeless flame may meet the regulatory requirements, but the neighbors
may complaint due to light and noise from flare system causing instability of the local
community and sometimes aggression.

CONCLUSION
Energy demand and consumption is rising day by day which have a significant side effect
or even a main effect that influences the lives around it and the atmosphere of the entire
planet. Gas flaring is one of the main sources to cause environmental problems through
greenhouse gases and other emissions. These emissions have high global warming
potential and contribute to climate change. Improving the equipment and process design
of flared gas and its emissions are very important and has been a challenging approach.
Due to this the best design and favored methods have been approached, taking into
account the environmental and economic considerations. While working to improve these
two, it also leads to reduce noise, thermal radiation, operating and maintenance costs, air
pollution, gas emission and reduces fuel gas and steam consumption.
It is well known that there are many economical ways to achieve flaring minimization
and gas conservation in oil and gas refineries. In order to find these ways, a detailed study
and reliable designs of the flare must be provided of comprehensive process evaluation of
plants, comprehensive monitoring of flow and composition of flare gases, investigation
of existing flare systems and finding alternative choices for reusing and recovering flare
gases. Based on process evaluation and estimation, alternatives can be also derived to
reduce gas flaring.
CONCLUSION 59
REFERENCES
1. API. (JANUARY 2000). Sizing, Selection, and Installation of Pressure-Relieving Devices in
Refineries, API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 520, Seventh Edition. 1220 L Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20005: API Publishing Services.
2. Buonicore. (1982). A. Air Pollution Control Equipment: Selection, Design Operation and
Maintenance. Prentice Hill .
3. Charles E. Baukal, JR. (2014). The John Zink Hamworthy Combustion Handbook, Second
Edition: Volume 3 – Applications. , Boca Raton, Fort Lauderdale, USA: Taylor & Fransic Group
LLC.
4. Cheremisinoff, N. P. (1998). PRESSURE SAFETY DESIGN PRACTICES FOR REFINERY AND
CHEMICALOPERATIONS. USA: Noyes Publications.
5. Cheremisinoff, N. P. (Apr 1, 2013). INDUSTRIAL GAS FLARING PRACTICES. New Jersey
USA: John Wiley & Sons Cooperation.
6. Crawford, J. (1988). Offshore Installation Practice. Cambridge, Uk: Butterworth-Heinemann.
7. Datta, A. (2014). Process Engineering and Design Using Visual Basic®, Second Edition. 6000
Broken Sound Parkway NW: CRS Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
8. EPA. (November 1991). Control of Volatile Organics Compound Emissions from Reactor
Processes and Distillation Operations Process in the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing industry. USA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, QAQPS. EPA-450/4-91-
031.
9. Hossein Shokouhmand, Shahab Hosseini. (October 24, 2007). Optimally Economic Design of
Flare Systems. San Francisco, USA: World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science.
10. J.Loss.Prev. (1996). Making the flare safe. USA: Flaregas Corporation.
11. John Bellovich, Jim Franklin, Bob Schwartz. (30 August 2006). Flare Pilot System Safety.
Orlando, FL,USA: American Institute of Chemical Engineers.
12. John Kearns, Kit Armstrong, Les Shirvill, Emmanuel Garland, Carlos Simon, Jennifer
Monopolis. (January 2000). Flaring & venting in the oil & gas exploration & production
industry. UK: OGP Publications.
13. Lees, F. (Jan 25, 2005). Lees' Loss Prevention in the Process Industries: Hazard Identification,
Assessment and Control, Volume 1, Third Edition. 200 Wheeler Road, Burlington, USA:
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
14. Leslie B. Evans, William M. Vatavuk, Diana K. Stone, Susan K. Lynch, Richard F. Pandullo.
(September 2000). VOC Destruction Controls. North Carolina, Durham: Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S Environmental Protection Agency.
REFERENCES 60
15. Ling, A. L. (July 2007). FLARE SELECTION AND SIZING (ENGINEERING DESIGN
GUIDELINE). Johor Bahru: KLM Technology Group.
16. Ludwig, Ernest E. (1999). APPLIED PROCESS DESIGN FOR CHEMICAL AND
PETROCHEMICAL PLANTS, Volume 1, Third Edition. United States of America: Gulf
Publishing Company.
17. McDaniel, M. (July 1983). FLARE EFFICIENCY STUDY, Prepared for: U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Office of Research and Development. 2901 North
Interregional Austin, Texas 78722: Engineering~Science, Inc.
18. Standards, U. E. (April 2012). Parameters for Properly designed and operated flares. USA: U.S.
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS).
19. Stone, L. e. (March 1992. ). Flares Part I. Flaring Technologies for Controlling VOC-
Containing Waste Streams Journal of Air and Waste Management. Vol. 42 No. 3.
REFERENCES 61

Flare Stack Process

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flare Stack Process

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kurdistan Regional Government

Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research

GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS

LIST OF FIGURES VII

LIST OF TABLES VIII

GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS 1

GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS 2

GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS 3

Selection of the type of flare is influenced by several factors, such as:

GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS 4

2.1.1.1 Self-Supported Stacks

This is the simplest and most economical design for applications

Figure 1: Self-Supported Stack Schematic.

2.1.1.2 Guy Wired Supported Stacks

This is the most economical design in the 50 – 150 meters height

Figure 2: Guy Wired Supported Stack Schematic.

GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS 5

2.1.1.3 Derrick Supported Stacks

Figure 3: Derrick Supported Stack.

2.1.1.4 Demountable Derrick

This is a variation on a derrick supported system, this type of

Figure 4: Demountable Derrick Schematic.

GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS 6

2.1.2 Ground Flare

An open ground flare can come in several

GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS 7

Figure 6: Enclosed Ground Flare.

GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS 8

2.2 Method to enhance mixing at the flare tip

The injection of steam has two principal effects:

2.2.2 Air-Assisted Flares

GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS 9

GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS 10

Figure 7: Diagram of an overall Flare Stack System in a Petroleum Refinery

GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS 11

3.1 Gas Transport Piping

Liquids that may be in the vent stream gas or that

GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS 12

Both the horizontal &

GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS 13

3.3 Liquid Seal

Purge systems are the perfect solution for

GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS 14

GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS 15

❖ Velocity Seal: These are known by the names

3.6 Burner Tip

The burner tip or flare tip, is designed to give

Figure 13: Burner Tip Close-up Image.

GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS 16

Presence of a flame and pilot gas supply should be stable and

Figure 14: Pilot Burner Close-up Image.

GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS 17

3.8 Steam Jets

A diffusion flame receives its

Figure 15: Steam Jets Schematic.

GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS 18

Flare system control can be completely automated or completely manual. Components of

GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS 19

3.9.1 Flame Front Generator (FFG):

Sometimes referred to as the ’fire ball’

Figure 16: FFG at Site.

GAS FLARE STACK PROCESS 20

3.9.3 Ballistic Pellet Ignition

This system, originally developed in Norway