Echo Yodel Heat Radiation-Report 3035780 01

Echo Yodel Heat Radiation Report
Ocean General - July 2001
Woodside Echo Yodel Heat Radiation Report
Diamond Ocean General
July 2001.
Chris Butler, Schlumberger.
Perth, Australia.
Rev 1 Page 1 of 29 02/08/01

Background:
A high rate Well Clean up was conducted on the Yodel 3 Gas / Condensate Subsea completion on board the Diamond Ocean General MODU
during July 2001.
This report details the effects of the Heat generated during flaring upon the MODU and comments upon the effectiveness of the measures
employed to mitigate this radiation.
Thermal Imaging Equipment:
The Thermogram images presented were captured using a ISI Infrared Solutions IR SnapShot Imaging Radiometer Camera together with
their SnapView processing software.
The detector was rated from 0 to 350degC, accuracy 3%.
In addition, a hand held remote laser themometer was used for spot checks.
Hydrocarbon Flaring Equipment:
The Schlumberger EverGreen burner is a single head, twelve nozzle system making extensive use of pneumatic atomization and enhanced air
induction. No water injection into the flame is required. Key advantages are smoke free and fall out free operation. It includes two gas
pilots, flame front igniting system and water shield.
The EverGreen burner is very efficient with all types of oil, including heavy oil.
Historically, water injection into the traditional burner flame (Sea Dragon, Green Dragon etc.) effectively suppresses black smoke and
reduces flame temperatures thus reducing radiant heat. However larger water droplets do not totally vapourise and can fallout together with
hydrocarbons. Marine pollution can be a problem with water injection type systems. The Evergreen Sunflower pattern burner avoids this
problem by allowing sufficient air entry for complete combustion with no water injection.
Two Evergreen burners were mounted upon 90ft (27.5m) booms on the Ocean General. One was mounted at the port Aft corner facing Aft.
The second burner was mounted at the Starboard Aft corner facing to Starboard.
Only the Port Aft burner was used during Yodel 3 flaring due to the prevailing winds.
A twin water spray system was mounted on legs at approximately 2/3 of the length of the boom near the burner head.
A MODU deluge system was installed consisting of a 6” header running around the Starboard and Aft sides of the rig. At intervals of ~3m a
1/2” spiral ‘Bete Nozzle’ was mounted on an extension at pipe deck level. Sea water was pumped to this system throughout flaring from the
mud pumps.
Water monitors were used in addition to provide additional coverage for the pipe deck and rig floor where required.
Tarpaulins were suspended over the Aft Lifeboat and from the Rig floor Vee door to protect the Subsea tree umbilicals. These were kept wet
with water sprays.
To supply Air for atomization, six compressors were supplied, supplying a total of 4,900 SCF/minute in operation.
In operation 1,000 SCF/minute minimum per 1,500 BPD of dead oil are required for ideal clean combustion using the Evergreen.
Rev 1 Page 2 of 29 02/08/01

Flow Rates:
Yodel 3 was cleaned up over approximately 24hr period with flowrates of up to 85MMSCF/d, 11,000 BPD with 105 MMSCF/d peak for a
short period. All images were taken during flow periods.
Heating Theory
The energy released during the hydrocarbon flaring is dissipated mostly as heat.
Of the three modes of heat transfer: conduction, convection and radiation, the heat is dissipated only as Convection (hot combustion gases
rising upwards) and Radiation (visible and infra red thermal radiation).
Heat transfer to the MODU is by Radiation only. Only a part of the total thermal radiation impinges upon the MODU.
The geometry of the Evergreen flame (‘Sunflower’ pattern) is optimized to allow more air between the flame fingers for complete
combustion, in addition the flame stiffness (due to huge air flow) exposes a larger area of flare to the MODU than conventional burners.
Heat Radiation travels at the speed of light and behaves in a manner similar to light.
Heat transfer between flare and MODU is proportional to the Third power of the temperature difference between flare and MODU.
The rule for the distance is given by the square of the distance ratio
The rule for the flow rate is:
• Below 35 m 3 /h (5,300 bopd) the radiation is linear with the oil flow rate.
• Above 35 m 3 /h (5,300 bopd) the radiation grows as the square root of the flow rate.
The measurements and the simulations show that the radiation can be considered, in a first approximation and in the back side only (on the
rig deck), as the radiation of a point source. This means that the radiation field is spherical and that the flux received by a given point of the
rig, for a given oil flow rate, is only function of the distance to the source center.
The degree of radiant flux emitted and absorbed by a surface is dependent upon its Emissivity. Typical values for Emissivity are:
Steel, Rough Surface: 0.96

Paint, oil, average: 0.94
For this analysis, an average Emissivity of 0.95 has been used throughout
Simulation
As part of the system design, a Heat Radiation Simulation was conducted to predict safe operating parameters for the flaring operations.
Refer to Schlumberger Well Test Design Package: Echo Yodel 3, Section 3.8 Heat Radiation Considerations.
From this analysis a maximum incident heat radiation from the Evergreen oil burner was calculated to be 1,450 BTU/hr/ft 2 at the handrail.
In addition, the maximum gas flare contribution will be approximately 280 BTU/hr/ft 2
This is additive to the oil calculation.
Therefore TOTAL HEAT RADIATION = 1,730 BTU/ft2/hr
Rev 1 Page 3 of 29 02/08/01

With reference to the below table, the structure and equipment would be safe, however the heat levels would be unsuitable for unprotected
personnel.
Quantity Description
330 Btu/hr/ft 2 Greatest solar radiated heat at soil level.
440 Btu/hr/ft 2 Upper limit for harmless exposure of bare human skin.
1300 Btu/hr/ft 2 Is the exposure which can heat a piece of wood up to 500degF and dehydrate it.
1500 Btu/hr/ft 2 API RP 521 recommended upper limit for an oilfield worker wearing work clothes and
intermittently sheltered or sprayed with water.
2000 Btu/hr/ft 2 Reaches ( on bare human skin ) a pain threshold after 8 seconds’ exposure. The skin blisters
after 20 seconds.
3000 Btu/hr/ft 2 Upper limit for unprotected structures and equipment; personnel may escape harm by leaving
quickly.
4000 Btu/hr/ft 2 Heats wood to 800 °F [427 °C ] and ignites it.
5300 Btu/hr/ft 2 Bare human skin blisters after 5 seconds.
Note: The Thermal Imaging camera cannot measure incident radiation flux (BTU/hr/ft 2) as above, it measures temperature rise of a surface
due to incident radiation. From observed surface temperatures we can approximately correlate with the above descriptions to confirm the
simulations.
Safe Temperature Levels
In deciding a safe surface temperature the following factors should be considered:
• Injury to personnel from radiation or hot surface temperatures (Exposed skin burns)
• Structural Damage due to overheating (Kingposts supporting flarebooms)
• Risk of Ignition of combustible materials (Wooden boxes, tarpaulins, )
• Heating of enclosed spaces causing damage to contents (Number 2 Stores, ballast control, e-line doghouse)
• Damage to equipment (Polymer SSTT Umbilicals for example)
As a guide, absolute material limits are as follows:
Diesel Flash Point*: >66 degC
Polyflex Hose Maximum Temperature: 100 degC
PVC (Tarpaulin) Melting point : 220 degC
Wood Ignition Temperature: >400 degC
Aluminium Melting point : 660 degC
Steel Annealing/Normalizing temperature: >500 degC
Steel melting Point : 1371- 1454 degC
* Flash Point Definition: The flash point of a fuel is the temperature at which vapour given off will ignite when an external flame is applied.
Rev 1 Page 4 of 29 02/08/01

During flaring, continuous monitoring was conducted using the thermal imaging camera and the hand held remote laser themometer, any
surface temperatures above 70degC were alerted immediately to the Rig Crew.
Rig Layout
Rev 1 Page 5 of 29 02/08/01

Conclusions and Lessons Learnt
• Over 35m from the handrail, or 65m from the burner head, the incident heat from the flare is comparable with maximum solar
radiation, no additional protection is generally required.
• Shading is the most effective barrier against heat radiation (empty containers, tarpaulins)
• Water spray/mist reduces the fraction of transmitted radiation due to refraction and absorption.
• Water spray onto a heated surface effectively cools down the surface as long as the spray is constant and sufficient flow.
• Temperature recovery after intermittent wetting is very rapid (3-5mins)
• Uncooled metal containers experience sizeable surface temperature increases, however container contents can remain cool if
provided with adequate ventilation and not in contact with the heated surface.
• Liquid filled tanks (eg. Diesel) are effectively cooled by internal convection currents if positioned sufficiently far from the flare, for
the Port burner this was 60m from the burner head. The Starboard burner is however relatively closer. A Tarpaulin covering would
be the most effective protection.
• Maximum heat is transferred when the absorbing surface is perpendicular to the heat source. It follows that Incident radiation is
minimised if the surface can be angled away from the heat source.
• Direct contact water deluge can reduce surface temperatures by up to 20 degC.
• Water mist cooling can be effective given a sufficient flow. As Radiant heat behaves similarly to light, visibility of the flare is a
good indicator of efficiency. (i.e. if the flare is more obscured by water spray/mist, radiant heat will be comparably low)
• Should MODU deluge be interrupted, the flaring should be stopped immediately. Extreme Surface Temperatures can be expected
within a few minutes.
• The fixed MODU deluge system was effective at protecting the MODU structure, however the low height of the nozzles prevented
effective shielding of pipe deck equipment.
• Additional sprinkler water cooling was provided to cool the Methanol tanks. In theory this was a good idea, however the tanks
were situated over 70m from the flare and totally shaded. As their temperature never exceeded ambient the cooling was
unnecessary.
• The thermal imaging camera and/or a hand held remote laser thermometer used to identify hot spots proved essential. Without
this apparatus, remote estimation of surface temperatures is impossible. Temperature estimation by hand could lead to burns and
access problems.
• This analysis is only valid for the Port burner, the Starboard burner is situated closer to the test package and closer to the
Starboard crane relative to the burner-crane proximity for the Port side.
• The Simulated Heat Radiation Calculations have a factor of safety built in, higher levels of incident radiation are predicted than
actually observed. Because the proportion of flame hidden by the water deluge is manually estimated, this may be a source of
error.
• Due to diligent preparation, good monitoring and control, MODU temperature levels observed throughout flaring resulted in a safe
and incident free operation.
Rev 1 Page 6 of 29 02/08/01

Evergreen Burner Flame
Info:
Image Path D:\ECHO YODEL IMAGES FORMATTED\ir00002.isi
Image Date/Time Saturday, 21 July 2001 11:45:32 AM
Report Date/Time Monday, 23 July 2001 7:36:05 PM
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location At the base of the port flare, from the pipe deck.
Target
Data:
Label Emissivity Background Average Std Dev Max Min
P1 0.95 24.98 510.05 . . .
P2 0.95 24.98 372.38 . . .
P3 0.95 24.98 277.57 . . .
P4 0.95 24.98 150.36 . . .
Comments:
This illustrates the high temperatures seen in the Evergreen ‘sunflower’ flare pattern. This image was taken from the pipe deck, above the
level of the burner.
The lower fingers are obscured by water mist form the boom deluge system (this is the diagonal boom projecting from the base of the
burner), however the upper fingers were clearly visible.
As the Infra Red camera is operating out with its specifications, accuracy of the quoted temperatures cannot be assured.
Rev 1 Page 7 of 29 02/08/01

Vee-Door Umbilicals
P1 +
P2 +
Info:
Image Date/Time Sunday, 22 July 2001 9:58:54 AM
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location Pipe deck
Target
Data:
P1 0.95 24.98 46.71 . . .
P2 0.95 24.98 44.86 . . .
Comments:
The 18 core umbilical from the pipe deck reeler to the sheave wheel passes up through the Vee door (the green line). Operation of the
SenTree 7 Subsea Test Tree depended on the integrity of this.
A tarpaulin was erected to cut down the majority of the radiation. Behind this shield, surface temperatures were ambient. Water was
occasionally sprayed to cool the tarpaulin down.
Surface temperature of the unshielded umbilical reached 45degC, the umbilical was rated to 100degC.
Rev 1 Page 8 of 29 02/08/01

Wireline Doghouse
P1 +
A1
Info:
Image Date/Time Sunday, 22 July 2001 12:10:47 PM
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location End of catwalk, Aft pipe deck.
Target
Data:
A1 0.95 24.98 27.22 0.51 29.5 25.9
P1 0.95 24.98 47.3 . . .
Comments:
A very effective MODU deluge combined with additional hoses created a cool zone, so no features are visible (area A1 is where the
Doghouse was), however the unused structure above remained uncooled, temperatures reached 48degC.
Rev 1 Page 9 of 29 02/08/01

Starboard Compensator
Info:
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location Starboard Aft Compensator System
Target
Data:
A1 0.95 24.98 35.71 1.91 40.3 31.8
A2 0.95 24.98 47.23 2.08 49.3 38.8
Comments:
This side was cooled by a firehose set just below the wheels at area A1.
The hot square is an illuminated deck light..
Area A2 is uncooled.
Rev 1 Page 10 of 29 02/08/01

Port Compensators
Info:
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location Port Aft Compensator System (Image rotated anticlockwise 90deg)
Target
Data:
A1 0.95 24.98 45.67 2.05 49.8 40.3
A2 0.95 24.98 57.16 1.31 59.6 53.3
A3 0.95 24.98 44.80 3.31 52.5 38.4
Comments:
The compensation system on this side was not water cooled during flaring.
The hot square is an illuminated deck light.
Surface temperatures were on average 10 – 15degC higher than the cooled compensator.
Rev 1 Page 11 of 29 02/08/01

Starboard Crane
Info:
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location Forward Starboard Deck, flare was directly behind photographer.
Target
Data:
A1 0.95 24.98 43.12 0.68 44.6 41.6
P1 0.95 24.98 34.38 . . .
P2 0.95 24.98 33.46 . . .
P3 0.95 24.98 34.25 . . .
Comments:
The starboard crane was further from the flare (~70m ) than the Port side crane (~40m), much lower surface temperatures are recorded.
Above the cab, the warm exhaust can be seen.
Rev 1 Page 12 of 29 02/08/01

Port Crane
Info:
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location Port Pipe Deck, flare to the Left of photographer, crane was angled so jib facing away from flare.
Target
Data:
P1 0.95 24.98 53.27 . . .
P2 0.95 24.98 46.9 . . .
P3 0.95 24.98 44.47 . . .
P4 0.95 24.98 30.57 . . .
P5 0.95 24.98 31.49 . . .
Comments:
The Port crane was much closer to the flare than the Starboard. Additionally the rear panels were perpendicular to the flare as the jib was
angled away from the flare.
A small sprinkler system was installed to protect part of the crane and works well. The hot spots seen above are electrical/hydraulic (?)
panel covers.
Note: If the crane was angled at 45deg to the heat source, surface temperatures could be reduced as the apparent surface area would be
increased.
Rev 1 Page 13 of 29 02/08/01

Derrick
A1
P1 +
P2 +
Info:
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location Drilling Derrick from catwalk
Target
Data:
A1 0.95 24.98 37.06 4.40 46.8 19.2
P1 0.95 24.98 48.37 . . .
P2 0.95 24.98 48.54 . . .
Comments:
The derrick is directly affected by the flare radiation with no shade or deluge for protection.
Surface temperatures are elevated with a few hotter spot but nothing to cause concern.
Rev 1 Page 14 of 29 02/08/01

Top of Derrick
Info:
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location Drilling Derrick from catwalk
Target
Data:
Comments:
As previous image.
Rev 1 Page 15 of 29 02/08/01

Diesel and Surge Tanks
P1 +
P5 +
P2 +
P6 +
P3 +
P4 +
Info:
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location Starboard Aft pipe deck
Target
Data:
P1 0.95 24.98 63.13 . . .
P2 0.95 24.98 61.78 . . .
P3 0.95 24.98 42.04 . . .
P4 0.95 24.98 44.54 . . .
P5 0.95 24.98 44.86 . . .
P6 0.95 24.98 44.86 . . .
Comments:
The square diesel tank sits on top of the Steam Generator. It is in direct view to the flare, no deluge cooling was used. The diesel level can
clearly be seen. This was taken after approximately 20hrs continuous flaring.
The temperature of the diesel has been elevated by convection to a steady 45degC. The flash point of diesel is minimum 66 degC so it is not
hot enough to support combustion.
The upper empty portion of the diesel tank is considerably hotter at 63 deg illustrating the beneficial effect of convective cooling.
The Surge tank was empty at this time and uncooled. It was later cooled by fire hose however this was strictly unnecessary and the water
caused problems with salt encrustation on the nearby compressor radiators.
Rev 1 Page 16 of 29 02/08/01

Storage Containers
Info:
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location
Target
Data:
A1 0.95 24.98 66.75 1.67 69.6 53.5
A2 0.95 24.98 37.21 2.27 45.1 32.9
A3 0.95 24.98 58.31 2.79 63.7 51.0
A4 0.95 24.98 30.41 1.31 38.1 28.9
P1 0.95 24.98 69.31 . . .
P2 0.95 24.98 61.2 . . .
P3 0.95 24.98 42.56 . . .
P4 0.95 24.98 29.19 . . .
P5 0.95 24.98 38.55 . . .
Comments:
The three small containers were left deliberately positioned to shield the subsea umbilical reeler and operator from the flare radiation.
These were not constantly cooled by water during flowing, however they were occasionally wetted by water bucket.
Concern was raised regarding the contents, therefore critical items were unloaded.
As a shield, they proved very effective. Refer to next image for details of interior temperatures of contents.
Rev 1 Page 17 of 29 02/08/01

Inside Container
Info:
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location Storage Container on Port Aft Pipedeck
Target
Data:
A1 0.95 24.98 53.69 0.81 55.0 49.9
A2 0.95 24.98 27.60 1.54 36.5 25.2
Comments:
This is a view of inside the small storage container where external surface temperatures approaching 70degC were measured.
Area A1 is the back panel of the container, heated by the radiation externally.
Area A2 shows the contents of the container, wooden reels and cardboard packaging. Surface temperatures are only in the 30’s.
Given sufficient ventilation, air and therefore surface temperatures can remain at safe levels, no more than during solar heating.
Rev 1 Page 18 of 29 02/08/01

Tarp Covered Skid
P1 +
P2 +
P3 +
P6 +
P4 +
A1
P6 +
Info:
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location Port Aft pipedeck
Target
Data:
A1 0.95 24.98 67.48 7.25 86.0 51.8
P1 0.95 24.98 100.8 . . .
P2 0.95 24.98 89.05 . . .
P3 0.95 24.98 84.51 . . .
P4 0.95 24.98 80.17 . . .
P5 0.95 24.98 65.37 . . .
P6 0.95 24.98 61.55 . . .
Comments:
This is small skid with a fitted dark blue PVC tarpaulin cover positioned close to the handrail. No water cooling was provided.
The temperature peaked at 100.8degC, the highest recorded temperature measured.
The PVC was more pliable but otherwise unaffected by this elevated surface temperature.
Underneath, the temperature of the skid was elevated to only moderate levels above ambient.
Rev 1 Page 19 of 29 02/08/01

Aft Lifeboat
P2 +
P1 +
A1
A2
Info:
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location Aft Lifeboat
Target
Data:
A1 0.95 24.98 27.88 0.29 28.7 27.1
A2 0.95 24.98 26.91 0.55 28.1 25.6
P1 0.95 24.98 35.11 . . .
P2 0.95 24.98 34.45 . . .
Comments:
From the diagonal davits the Aft lifeboat is suspended, at about the position indicated at A1 & A2, only 20m from the flare
The lifeboats were shielded by a large tarpaulin and doused by the rig deluge and additional water hoses.
This proved so effective that the lifeboat is not distinguishable behind the spray.
Rev 1 Page 20 of 29 02/08/01

Inside Lifeboat
Info:
Report Date/Time Tuesday, 24 July 2001 11:31:02 AM
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location Inside Aft Lifeboat
Target
Data:
A1 1 24.98 35.74 1.45 38.0 32.2
P1 1 24.98 37.91 . . .
P2 1 24.98 39.6 . . .
Comments:
Temperatures inside the Lifeboat were maintained at safe levels given the extremely exposed position.
This is due to the combination of Tarpaulin shield and water deluge.
Elevated temperatures seen in the image are only due to the metallic portholes and thinner hatchway material.
Rev 1 Page 21 of 29 02/08/01

Aft Walkway
A2
A1
Info:
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location Aft Walkway
Target
Data:
A1 1 24.98 61.37 1.98 66.2 56.3
A2 1 24.98 47.16 6.29 57.1 33.8
Comments:
This is the Aft Lifeboat Muster area taken from near the lifeboat looking forwards.
Generally protection was good in this area due to the large water screen protecting the Aft Lifeboat, however areas of heated wall are
evident to the sides.
Above the walkway are trays carrying electrical and communication services, the hot line in this tray is the burner air supply hose from the
compressors.
Rev 1 Page 22 of 29 02/08/01

Electrical Junction Box
P2 + P1 +
Info:
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location Aft Muster Area
Target
Data:
A1 1 24.98 55.25 1.76 58.5 48.0
P1 1 24.98 74.85 . . .
P2 1 24.98 66.35 . . .
Comments:
This metal junction box P1 was attached to a wooden backing plate P2.
Water cooling was not used.
Rev 1 Page 23 of 29 02/08/01

Starboard Aft Leg
P5 +
P4 +
P3 +
P2 +
P9 + P8 +
P7 + P6 + P1 +
Info:
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location
Target
Data:
P1 1 24.98 71.22 . . .
P2 1 24.98 68.16 . . .
P3 1 24.98 64.91 . . .
P4 1 24.98 48.72 . . .
P5 1 24.98 36.04 . . .
P6 1 24.98 40.47 . . .
P7 1 24.98 38.41 . . .
P8 1 24.98 36.6 . . .
P9 1 24.98 36.79 . . .
Comments:
This is the Aft Starboard leg, taken between the water level and deck level.
Elevated temperatures are seen where the surface is perpendicular to the flare.
Rev 1 Page 24 of 29 02/08/01

Burner Compressors
P4 +
A2
A1
P1 +
P2 +
P3 +
Info:
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location Starboard Aft Pipedeck
Target
Data:
A1 0.95 24.98 31.28 0.67 33.1 29.9
A2 0.95 24.98 34.06 1.45 37.9 31.0
P1 0.95 24.98 76.43 . . .
P2 0.95 24.98 43.42 . . .
P3 0.95 24.98 72.93 . . .
P4 0.95 24.98 41.71 . . .
Comments:
The six air compressors (2 shown above) were subject to direct heat radiation. These were on full load throughout the test and in close
proximity to each other.
Surface temperatures A1 and A2 are good. The output line is hotter P1, P2 & P3 as expected.
The Crane Lay-down brace is behind at P4.
Rev 1 Page 25 of 29 02/08/01

Well Test Package
A1
P1 +
P1 +
Info:
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location Starboard Testing Area
Target
Data:
A1 0.95 24.98 36.10 1.83 40.3 32.7
P1 0.95 24.98 35.7 . . .
P2 0.95 24.98 56.1 . . .
Comments:
The test package was situated relatively far from the flare. Radiant heat was not a problem due to distance and shading from other
equipment.
The hot process lines are clearly visible. The Steam Exchanger was not operating at this time.
Rev 1 Page 26 of 29 02/08/01

Metal and Wood test pieces
P2 +
P1 +
Info:
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location Port Aft Pipe Deck
Target
Data:
P1 0.95 24.98 89.05 . . .
P2 0.95 24.98 92.33 . . .
Comments:
The scrap metal skip P1, (galvanized steel) was in an exposed position near the handrail on the Port Aft pipe deck, at 2.5m from the handrail,
offset 5m to Starboard from the burner, this was in the area of maximum radiant heat.
A block of dry wood, P2, was placed on top of the top rail of the skip and left exposed to the heat radiation for 2 hours.
From the Simulation, a heat flux of 1,730 BTU/ft2/hr was predicted. As quoted previously:
1300 Btu/hr/ft 2 Is the exposure which can heat a piece of wood up to 500degF (260degC) and dehydrate it.
2000 Btu/hr/ft 2 Reaches ( on bare human skin ) a pain threshold after 8 seconds’ exposure. The skin blisters
after 20 seconds.
The wood appeared warped, cracked and dehydrated after exposure but the surface temperature only reached 92.3 degC.
On bare human skin, the effects were a painless u, comfortable heat, but certainly not pain or blistering.
It would appear that the simulation yields higher levels of radiant flux than those observed, however this acts as a factor of safety.
Rev 1 Page 27 of 29 02/08/01
Personnel
P1 +
Info:
Report Date/Time Thursday, 26 July 2001 10:03:09 PM
Temp Unit Celsius
User
Location Port Aft Pipe deck Telephone
Target
Data:
P1 0.95 24.98 38.1 . . .
Comments:
This image shows a person wearing Hard Hat and Ear Protection working in an area of high heat radiation using a telephone.
Skin temperatures are high, although some of this is due to the stress of the ongoing testing operations.
It can be seen that exposed skin temperature is elevated; the skin temperature measured here is 38.1degC (normal body temperature is 37.0
degC)
During the flaring, the radiant heat felt mildly uncomfortable to a bystander at the handrail nearest the flare.
Rev 1 Page 28 of 29 02/08/01

END OF REPORT
Rev 1 Page 1 of 29 02/08/01

Echo Yodel Heat Radiation-Report 3035780 01

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

Echo Yodel Heat Radiation-Report 3035780 01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Echo Yodel Heat Radiation Report

Ocean General - July 2001

Woodside Echo Yodel Heat Radiation Report

Diamond Ocean General

Chris Butler, Schlumberger.

Rev 1 Page 1 of 29 02/08/01

Thermal Imaging Equipment:

The detector was rated from 0 to 350degC, accuracy 3%.

Hydrocarbon Flaring Equipment:

Rev 1 Page 2 of 29 02/08/01

The rule for the flow rate is:

Steel, Rough Surface: 0.96

This is additive to the oil calculation.

Therefore TOTAL HEAT RADIATION = 1,730 BTU/ft2/hr

Rev 1 Page 3 of 29 02/08/01

Safe Temperature Levels

In deciding a safe surface temperature the following factors should be considered:

• Structural Damage due to overheating (Kingposts supporting flarebooms)

• Risk of Ignition of combustible materials (Wooden boxes, tarpaulins, )

• Damage to equipment (Polymer SSTT Umbilicals for example)

As a guide, absolute material limits are as follows:

Diesel Flash Point*: >66 degC

Polyflex Hose Maximum Temperature: 100 degC

PVC (Tarpaulin) Melting point : 220 degC

Wood Ignition Temperature: >400 degC

Aluminium Melting point : 660 degC

Steel Annealing/Normalizing temperature: >500 degC

Steel melting Point : 1371- 1454 degC

Rev 1 Page 4 of 29 02/08/01

Rev 1 Page 5 of 29 02/08/01

Conclusions and Lessons Learnt

• Temperature recovery after intermittent wetting is very rapid (3-5mins)

• Direct contact water deluge can reduce surface temperatures by up to 20 degC.

Rev 1 Page 6 of 29 02/08/01

Evergreen Burner Flame

Rev 1 Page 7 of 29 02/08/01

Rev 1 Page 8 of 29 02/08/01

Rev 1 Page 9 of 29 02/08/01

The hot square is an illuminated deck light..

Rev 1 Page 10 of 29 02/08/01

The hot square is an illuminated deck light.

Rev 1 Page 11 of 29 02/08/01

Above the cab, the warm exhaust can be seen.

Rev 1 Page 12 of 29 02/08/01

Rev 1 Page 13 of 29 02/08/01

Rev 1 Page 14 of 29 02/08/01

Rev 1 Page 15 of 29 02/08/01

Diesel and Surge Tanks

Rev 1 Page 16 of 29 02/08/01

Rev 1 Page 17 of 29 02/08/01

Rev 1 Page 18 of 29 02/08/01

Tarp Covered Skid

The temperature peaked at 100.8degC, the highest recorded temperature measured.

Rev 1 Page 19 of 29 02/08/01

Rev 1 Page 20 of 29 02/08/01

This is due to the combination of Tarpaulin shield and water deluge.

Rev 1 Page 21 of 29 02/08/01

Rev 1 Page 22 of 29 02/08/01

Electrical Junction Box

Water cooling was not used.

Rev 1 Page 23 of 29 02/08/01

Starboard Aft Leg

Rev 1 Page 24 of 29 02/08/01

The Crane Lay-down brace is behind at P4.