29/4/2021

Inprocess Methodology for Flare

Analysis
28 April 2021

Flare Systems Analysis: Project Scope

Is the current equipment size appropriate for plant safe operation?

Relief devices: Headers and Flare tip and

PSVs and BDVs
pipes KO Drum

© by Inprocess 2
2

1
 29/4/2021

Flare Systems Analysis: Methodology

Blowdown
• Blowdown Scenarios
• RO size
• Peak Load, Time, Back Pressure, Metal Temperature, CO2 formation, Hydrates

PSV Revalidation (Conventional and DSS Approach)

• Relief Scenarios
• Relief Load
• PSV size

Flare Network Revalidation

• Common Relief Scenarios
• Blowdown Scenarios

Dynamic Modelling: Simultaneous Relief Load Analysis

• Dynamic modelling of the units with a large load to the flare
• Dynamic modelling of the flare network

© by Inprocess 3
3

References

More tan 30 world wide Projects related to this subject

NALA 23% EUROPE 58%

DSS Flare Refinery CWF GPF(2014, 2019)
Revamping Oil&Gas Field (2016) OP Bolivia
New Flare System Oil&Gas Field (2013) EPC Chile, Bolivia
CO2, Off Shore FPSO (2012),
MMDT Off Shore Platform (2011)
DSS PSV CWF GPF(2021), Belgium MEA 19%
MMDT Gas gathering, EPC, (2015) Abu Dhabi
PSV Revalidation Refinery (2020), Spain
PSV Revalidation Refinery (2020), Spain Gas Gathering and CPF (2014), EPC Korea, AbuDhabi
Down Grade Gas Plant (2015) OP, Qatar
DSS PDH (2019), Italy&Denmark
PSV Revalidation Refinery (2019), Spain Central Process Facility (2016) EPC, Italy, Irak
PSV Revalidation and Flare Refinery (2017), Belgium Revamping Gas Plant (2012), OP Germany Lybia
DSS Flare Refinery (2017) Czech
DSS PSV Revamping VDU Unit (2016),
Flare Refinery GPF DYN(2016), Spain
PSV Revalidation and Flare Refinery (2016), Spain
Flare Refinery(2015), Spain
DSS PSV CDU (2015), Spain
DSS PSV Naphta Splitter(2015), Spain
PSV Revalidation and Flare Refinery (2013), Spain
PSV revalidation and DSS Flare Refinery (2014),Spain
MMDT Compressor Unit Revamping (2011) EPC Italy, Poland
PSV, GOSP Flare Refinery (2011), Germany Lybia
PSV, GOSP Flare Refinery (2010), Germany Lybia
DSS PSV (Refinery 2009), Germany
DSS PSV Refinery (2009), Germany
DSS PSV CDU (2008) , Germany
DSS Flare Refinery (2008), Italy

© by Inprocess 4
4

2
 29/4/2021

References

BLOWDOWN
8% RO
9% MMDT, CO2
26% DSS
FLARE NETWORK
Simultaneous Relief 43%
UPSTREAM
13% Conventional OIL&GAS
PSV REVALIDATION
57%
13% Conventional REFINERIES
FLARE NETWORK PETROCHEMICALS

30% DSS
PSV REVALIDATION

© by Inprocess 5
5

Is the current equipment

design appropriate for
plant safe operation?

© by Inprocess 6
6

3
 29/4/2021

Flare Systems Analysis: Methodology

Data
Then, we need: collection
Do we have a Flare Network  Flare network layout
Hydraulic Model? NO  Flare network isometrics
 Length and diameter of the piping

YES PSV service / BD RO

Then, we need: revalidation project
Do we know the composition and load  H&MB at Normal Operation
from each PSV during common NO  Unit P&ID
scenarios or RO during a Simultaneous  PSV Load and composition
calculation
Blowdown?  RO Maximum Load and composition
 Equipment Datasheets

YES
Flare Network Simulation Design
(Steady State) Constraints

Is the current equipment Unit and Flare Is the current equipment

size appropriate for plant Network Simulation size appropriate for plant NO
NO
safe operation? (Dynamic Analysis) safe operation? LOWER
CAPEX
YES CAPEX YES
© by Inprocess 7

Flare Systems Analysis: Objective

The aim of a Flare System Revalidation Project is:

the revalidation of the Pressure Safety Device Services
the revalidation validation of the flare system equipment/devices
in order to determine the suitability for the plant safe operation

Otherwise,
to calculate the required size of the safety and security devices to increase the level of security of the
different units in the Plant.

© by Inprocess 8
8

4
 29/4/2021

Flare System Analysis: Project Activities

BASE LINE CASE

© by Inprocess 9
9

Flare Systems Analysis: Revalidation

Relief devices: RO Revalidation

PSVs and BDVs • Data Reduction
• Blow Down Scenarios
Data Reduction
• RO Sizing – API 520
Aspen Blowdown Relief Scenarios – API 521
• Documentation
Relief Calculation -
Simulation
PSV Revalidation
• Data Reduction PSV Sizing – API 520
• Relief Scenarios – API 521
Documentation
• Relief Calculation – Aspen HYSYS
• PSV Sizing – API 520 – Safety
Utility or IPSV from Inprocess
• Documentation

© by Inprocess 10
10

5
 29/4/2021

PSV Revalidation Guidelines

• Data Reduction • Fire as cause of Overpressure

• Develop Relief Scenarios by Using General Possible Causes and • Utility Failure
• General and Partial Power Failure
PSD • Cooling Failure (Water or Coolant)
• Determine Required Relief Area for each case (Design Load) • Fan Failure
• Instrument Air
• PSV Sizing API-520 • Instrument Power
• Choose the worst case scenario to be the governing case • Fuel
• Abnormal Heat or Vapor Input
• Select Proper orifice
• Equipment Malfunctions
• Compare against Current Orifice (available Area) • Blocked Outlet
• Define Criteria for Acceptance (i.e. less than 25% deviation ) • Reflux Failure
• Otherwise, Review Scenario Contingency and Modelling Approach with • Accidental Mixing
COMPANY • Overfilling
• For Scenarios with a Design Flow Rate > 75% of the governing case • Control Valve Failure
• Pressure Surge
• Calculate Inlet Line Size (Line DP < 3% of RP)
• Runaway Reaction
• Perform Hydraulic Estimate Tail Pipe • Exchanger Blocked In
• (Fire and liquid flow with the design flow rate) • Fire
• In case Current Size is not appropriate: • Exchanger Tube Failure
• Review Scenario Contingency and Modelling Approach with COMPANY • Thermal Expansion
• Documentation

© by Inprocess 11
11

PSV revalidation: Documentation

© by Inprocess 12
12

6
 29/4/2021

Review Cycles

RELIEF REQUIREMENTS
IDENTIFICATION
DISCUSSIONS
REQUIRED CALCULATION
DISCUSSIONS

© by Inprocess 13
13

Engineering criteria

(2)
• (1) Rated flow of the RV with the composition Total head:
at the discharge of the pump.
• (2) Required Head for such rate and
113,6 m
Discharge Pressure. Volumetric
Difference in pressure between the suction
and the discharge (at the relief valves flow rate:
pressure) 36,76 m3/h
• The head and the volumetric flow has been
plotted in the pump’s curve.
As it can be observed in the figure, the point
calculated is above the pump’s curve. No relief
load is expected.
(1)

© by Inprocess 14
14

7
 29/4/2021

Review Cycles

RELIEF REQUIREMENTS
IDENTIFICATION
DISCUSSIONS
REQUIRED CALCULATION
DISCUSSIONS

© by Inprocess 15
15

PSV revalidation

Relief Loads
• Documentation
• Contingency Analysis for each Pressure Relief Service
• PSV Datasheet
• Data Sheet
• Basis of Design • Advantatges
• Calculation Data
– All the methodology well
• Tail Pipe Hydralulic Calculation
• Mach number
documented
• Back pressure – HYSYS as Basis of Calculation
• Temperature limits Methodology
• Two phase flow – Methodology ready for future
Reviews
• IPSV Database

© by Inprocess 16
16

8
 29/4/2021

Workflow PRV Design

Bring together all information about

pressure relief devices and store it in a
single, centralized database

© by Inprocess

17

Workflow PRV Design

Contingency
Data
Analysis Calculation Reporting
Reduction
PHA

© by inprocess

18

9
 29/4/2021

Challenges

Contingency Data
Calculation Reporting
Analysis Reduction

Improvements in Standardization
documentation of company
and Calculation workflow.
consistency.
© by Inprocess

19

Benefits

Single repository
for all the Standardization
Documentation of company
(up to date and workflow.
archived records)
© by Inprocess

20

10
 29/4/2021

Benefits

Reporting duties Tracking of

to authorities. design
decisions.

Efficient search,
management and Quick screening
handover of of desired
information. variables.

Single repository Standardization

for all the of company
Relief System workflow.
documentation
© by Inprocess

21

Flare Systems Analysis: Methodology

Up to now, we know the hydraulic behaviour of the

subheaders for single contingencies
This is fine, but we have only calculated such info when a
single PSV service group is discharging to the flare network:
• What happens if other PSV units are discharging?
• Which is the Back Pressure?
• Will our PSV be able to open?

© by inprocess 22
22

11
 29/4/2021

Flare Systems Analysis: Methodology

Flare Network Methodology

© by Inprocess 23
23

Flare Network Revalidation

Common Reliefs: Is the current equipment size appropriate for plant safe operation?
0

BP ∆P, T, u, FLOW ∆P, T, u, FLOW

SIZE BP

• FLARE LOAD
– BACK PRESSURE
∆P, T, u, FLOW – PRESSURE
PROFILE
0.1 kg/cm2g 0.075 kg/cm2g 0.025 kg/cm2g
– TEMPERATURE
0.565 kg/cm2g 0.065 kg/cm2g 0.5 kg/cm2g PROFILE
– LIQUID KO
DRUMS
• TOTAL RADIATION

@ by Inprocess 24
24

12
 29/4/2021

Flare Systems Analysis: Methodology

Flare Network Methodology

Flarenet Model according to Plant Layout

Scenarios
 General Power Failure
 Partial Power Failure
 Fire
 Cooling Water Failure

Data
 Design load, P, T and composition
 Challenge: A single set of components
 Vessel and Pipe Metal Temperature

© by Inprocess 25
25

Flare Systems Analysis: Methodology

Flare Network Methodology

Scenarios
 General Power Failure
 Partial Power Failure
 Fire
 Cooling Water Failure

© by Inprocess 26
26

13
 29/4/2021

Flare Systems Analysis: Methodology

Flare Network Methodology

Scenarios
 General Power Failure
 Partial Power Failure
 Fire
 Cooling Water Failure

© by Inprocess 27
27

Deliverables

• Relief Devices Report comprising existing PSV sizing calculation, relief loads calculated per each
scenario
• Relief Calculation Simulation Models
• Final Report of the Relief Study including detailed list of the relief devices, recommendations,
conclusions as well as the indication of the limiting devices.
• Aspen Flare System Analyzer simulation files
• Knowledge Transfer Program - 3 days Workshop
• Introduction to Aspen HYSYS Simulation Program
• Introduction to IPSV or other in-house tools or commercial Tool like Aspen Safety Analysis for Relief valve
SIZING
• Introduction to Aspen Flare Analyzer
• Review of Project Case study cases

© by Inprocess 28
28

14
 29/4/2021

Is the current
equipment design
appropriate for plant
safe operation?

© by Inprocess 29
29

Flare Systems Analysis: Methodology

Data
Then, we need: collection
Do we have a Flare Network  Flare network layout
Hydraulic Model? NO  Flare network isometrics
 Length and diameter of the piping

YES PSV service / BD RO

Then, we need: revalidation project
Do we know the composition and load  H&MB at Normal Operation
from each PSV during common NO  Unit P&ID
scenarios or RO during a Simultaneous  PSV Load and composition
calculation
Blowdown?  RO Maximum Load and composition
 Equipment Datasheets

YES
Flare Network Simulation Design
(Steady State) Constraints

Is the current equipment Unit and Flare Is the current equipment

size appropriate for plant Network Simulation size appropriate for plant NO
NO
safe operation? (Dynamic Analysis) safe operation? LOWER
CAPEX
YES CAPEX YES
© by inprocess 30

30

15
 29/4/2021

• Past Experiences –
Is there a possibility Literature Case Studies
to reduce CAPEX by
estimating the flare
network behaviour in • Guidelines /
a more accurate way? Recommendations /
API521
How about
Dynamic Process • Fundamentals /
Theoretical basis
Simulation

© by inprocess 31
31

Relief load is
0.0 t/h

@ by inprocess 32
32

16
 29/4/2021

Flare Network Dynamic Analysis during GPF

@ by inprocess 33
33

Flare Load Estimation in Industry : How API works

The API 521 standard provides general
guidelines on estimating relief loads but it
leaves the calculation details to the
process engineer’s judgment
 Most flare are evaluated considering a
steady-state case and the calculation of
the flare load is made without considering
superimposed and non-linear phenomena.
 Flare networks designed with conventional
methods might be oversized and therefore
they could be capable of accommodating
new load
API 521 01/2007 (Chapter 5.22)*:
“Dynamic simulation can be used in pressure-
relief system design to calculate transient
pressure increases as indicated in 5.19 or
to calculate required relief rates from
individual pressure-relief devices.
Conventional methods for calculating relief
loads are generally conservative and can
lead to overly sized relief- and flare system
designs. Dynamic simulation provides
an alternative method to better define
the relief load and improves the
understanding of what happens during
relief.”

@by inprocess 34
34

17
 29/4/2021

Flare Systems Analysis: Dynamic Analysis

Flare Load Estimation in Industry: Conventional Methods Limitations

The conventional approach does not consider any dynamic phenomena that happens during the
emergency situations

© by Inprocess 35
35

Flare Systems Analysis: Dynamic Analysis

Dynamics of the Relief Valve

@ by inprocess 36
36

18
 29/4/2021

Flare Systems Analysis: Dynamic Analysis

Avoidance of Relief Load Double Dipping

@ by inprocess 37
37

Flare Systems Analysis: Dynamic Analysis

Reduction due to the staggered reliefs

© by Inprocess 38
38

19
 29/4/2021

Flare Systems Analysis: Dynamic Analysis

Flare Network Packing during Blowdown

© by Inprocess 39
39

Flare Systems Analysis: Dynamic Analysis

Unit Selection
 Large load to flare
 Small Current size
 Back Pressure

Unit Dynamic Modeling

Dynamic Flare Network Model

© by Inprocess 40
40

20
 29/4/2021

KOM: During this meeting the information available will be reviewed and the project scope will be discussed
Data Reduction: Data provided by ENI will be reviewed and prepared for use during modelling.
Model Development: A model Design basis document is delivered and Inprocess develops the model based on the previous document
Model Validation: Inprocess carries out the steady state validation and prepares the steady state report, which includes the BOD and the validation
methodology
Model Review Meeting: During this meeting, the steady state validation results will be verified and accepted. This meeting allows for early risk
identification in the dynamic modelling phase and discussion of the modelling approach and control details, in order to make sure all the parts
involved understand these points.
Scenario Procedures & Dynamic Review Meeting: A detailed description of the Scenario Procedure based on the Project Control Narrative
is submitted to COMPANY for review and acceptance
Scenario Execution & Analysis: Scenarios are carried out and analyzed an. Inprocess provides COMPANY with a Simulation Scenarios
Reports for each scenario, immediately after completion.
Dynamic Review Meeting: After COMPANY review a meeting is hold on to discuss each scenario. Inprocess updates the report according
to the Meeting conclusions.
Flare Network Model and Analysis: Inprocess will carry out a case study with the dynamic model to estimate the transient flare load
during the relieving scenario
Final Meeting: Once all the scenarios are completed, a Meeting is hold in order to present the main results of the study.

© by Inprocess 41
41

Workflow/Metodologia

© by Inprocess 42
42

21
 29/4/2021

DATA REDUCTION

• Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs). • Operating Manual

• The Heat and Material Balance • Control Valve Data.
• Process and Instrumentation Diagrams • Isolation Valve Data.
(P&IDs). • Cause and Effect Logic Diagrams
• Equipment Data Sheets. • Description of overall process,
• Piping holdups and equivalent lengths. If including control philosophy.
this data is not available, the equivalent
length is determined by isometric
analysis

© by Inprocess 43
43

Model Development and Validation

Simulation Model Scope

• Reference Documents
• Flow sheet Scope Definition
• Equipment, Valves and
Instrument list
Dynamic Modelling Approach
• General Approach
• Thermodynamics and
Physical Properties
• Equipment modelling
approach
• Control Loops and Sensors
Model Validation: Comparison
Results with the H&MB

© by Inprocess 44
44

22
 29/4/2021

Relief Load Calculation

© by Inprocess 45
45

Flare System Model Development and Validation

• Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs).

• Process and Instrumentation
Diagrams (P&IDs).
• Equipment Data Sheets.
• Piping holdups and equivalent
lengths. Length is determined by
isometric analysis

© by Inprocess 46
46

23
 29/4/2021

Flare System Model Development and Validation

 A Flare Network model is developed using Aspen Flare analyzer

(Flarenet)
 A Flare Network model is developed using Aspen HYSYS dynamic mode
 The model is validated by comparison against the Aspen Flare Analyzer
model
© by Inprocess 47
47

Integrated Model Example

© by Inprocess

48

24
 29/4/2021

Deliverables

Basis of Design
Process Units

Steady State
REPORT D1

Dynamic Simulation
REPORT D2

Basis of Design
Flare Network

SS REPORT D3
Flare Network

Dynamic Simulation D4
Flare Network

© by Inprocess 49
49

Related Publications in books and Journals

Beyond guesswork
Inprocess Technology and Consulting Group;
Hydrocarbon Engineering, July 2020
“explores the use of dynamic simulation to find the optimal control parameters for purge gas injection in flares.”
Determination of Dry-Ice Formation during the Depressurization of a CO2 Re-Injection System
Inprocess Technology and Consulting Group and Virtual Materials Group Europe;
Book Chapter Cutting-Edge Technology for Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage, (135–146) © 2018 Scrivener Publishing LLC
“Several simulation studies have been carried out to determine if in current process conditions the depressurization
of the process sections could lead to the formation of dry ice”
Taking care of Flare Header Pressure
Inprocess Technology and Consulting Group;
2018. Oilfield Technology,
“discuss the application of dynamic simulation to analyze potential trips of the HIPPS system at the flare header of
a central processing facility during trunkline pigging operations”
Reviewing the Situation
Inprocess Technology and Consulting Group;
Published Hydrocarbon Engineering, October 2016
“Describes the steps that should be taken during a flare network capacity assessment, using both a conventional
aaproach or dynamic simulation”
Dynamics Break the Bottleneck
Wintershall, Germany;Inprocess Technology and Consulting Group;SoftBits Consultants, UK ;
Engineering, September 2011
“Demonstrate the ways in which a dynamic flare system modelling study allows for Safer Blowdown, using a
Winterhsall facility as an example”
Are there alternatives to an expensive overhaul of a bottlenecked flare system?
BP Lingen Refinery & Refining Technology Inprocess Technology and Consulting
Petroleum Technology Quarterly in Q1 2010
“Changes in regulation or the revamp of an existing plant need not require an upgrade to a refinery’s flare system
configuration. This article gives an overview of the advantages of the Dynamic Simulation approach, guidance on
when and where to apply it, and describes a case study of a study at BP’s Lingen refinery in Germany”.

© by Inprocess 50
50

25