High Back Pressure On Pressure Safety Valves (PSVS) in A Flare System
High Back Pressure On Pressure Safety Valves (PSVS) in A Flare System
High Back Pressure On Pressure Safety Valves (PSVS) in A Flare System
Muktikanta Sahoo
October 2013
Acknowledgements
First I would like to thank my supervisor Professor Alex C. Hoffmann for his guidance
through this thesis, and Mr. Carl Morten Haukeland (Project Manager , Kollsnes Flare
Project) from Statoil ASA for his guidance and including me in the project organization. I
also want to thank Ms. Gro Haugom (Senior Process Engineer Statoil ASA, Technical
System Responsible Flare System) for her support in collecting actual plant data used in the
project.
in sharing technical and operational issues encountered with respect to flare system.
Finally I would like to thank my wife Sasmita Sahoo who has been a great support
not only during this thesis but also during my whole Master’s study, taking extra care of our
two children at home, and encouraging me all time to do well in my Master’s program.
i
ii
Abstract
Process safety is a disciplined framework for managing the integrity of operating systems
Flare systems play an important role in the safety of Oil and Gas installations by
serving as outlets for emergency pressure relief in case of process upsets. Accurate and
pressure is critical to the integrity of a flare system design. Accurate design of the flare
system plays a key role in containing possible process safety hazards on the oil and gas
installation, especially oil and gas offshore platforms. In order to enable uniformity and
consistency, design guidelines and constraints are provided within the industry, both
national and international standards – NORSOK, API and ISO – which serve as
This thesis is focused on analyzing the back-pressure build-up in the high pressure
flare system at Kollsnes gas processing plant. The relief scenario considered in this thesis
is pool fire case in condensate system in Kollsnes gas processing plant. The simulation tool
used to model the flare system in this case is Aspen Tech’s Flare system analyzer (known
as FLARENET), is a steady state simulation tool. The FLARENET model includes the
pressure safety valves (PSV), downstream tail pipes, flare header, flare knock out drum and
iii
flare stack. All the actual plant data are given as input to the model so as to get the more
practical result.
After running the simulation model, it emerges that for a total relieving rate of
108.33 kg/sec (Vapor flow) in pool fire scenario, the back-pressure generated at some of
the PSV’s in the relief network is 10.6 Barg against their set pressure of 10 Barg. This
raises serious process safety concern as the relieving rate from the PSVs is drastically
reduced due to very high back-pressure, which in turn will increase the pressure inside the
process equipment exposed to fire. This concern has been conveyed to the Kollsnes plant
operations group.
To verify the results obtained from FLARENET simulation, I had undertaken actual
plant verification. This was carried out in co-ordination with the Kollsnes plant operations
group during September 2012, just before annual maintenance shutdown of the plant. The
back-pressure results obtained as a result of controlled blow-down from the plant matched
Further follow up tasks is being under taken by Statoil ASA to alleviate the back-
pressure problem. This thesis suggests two options for solving the problems. Further
evaluation of the suggestion and its implementation in the plant is going on in the company.
This thesis also opens door for further research on high back-pressure in flare system and
analyze the problem dynamically. This will reduce the conservative steady state
assumptions and will have much wider industrial acceptability with respect to cost savings
potential.
iv
Contents Page no.
Acknowledgements i
Abstract iii
List of Symbols ix
List of Abbreviations xi
List of Figures xiii
List of Tables xv
1. Introduction 1
1.1. General background 1
1.2. Flare system 2
1.3. Typical over pressure scenarios (Oil & Gas Industry focus) 5
1.4. Relief to Flare System 7
1.5. Components in Flare Network 8
1.6. Flare system Design requirements 10
2. Literature survey 13
2.1. Flare system’s contribution for overall Process safety 13
2.2. Challenges in modeling flare system 14
2.3. Flare system limitations in Oil & Gas industry 15
2.4. Handling of Multi-phase flow of fluid in flare system 16
v
3. Theory for thermo-hydraulic modeling of flow in
flare systems 17
3.1. General Fluid Flow Equations 17
3.2. Thermodynamics 19
3.3. Different flow considerations 22
3.3.1. Incompressible flow 22
3.3.2. Compressible flow 22
3.4. Other pressure loss in fluid flow 32
3.4.1. Pressure loss coefficients 33
3.4.2. Resistance co-efficient 35
5. Simulation run 49
5.1. Running the simulation for case (Pool fire scenario) 51
5.2. Printing the results/output 51
vi
6. Verification of simulation results with actual plant
data 55
6.1. Set-up for plant verification 55
6.2. Analysis and Discussion of the result 60
Appendices 75
A Schematic diagram FLARENET model 75
Bibliography 89
List of Symbols
ix
x
List of Abbreviations
PSV Pressure safety valve
HP High pressure
LP Low pressure
PR Peng-Robinson
xi
xii
List of Figures Page no.
xiii
xiv
List of Tables Page no.
xv
xvi
Chapter 1
1. Introduction
of major incidents. For the oil & gas industry the emphasis of process safety and asset
integrity is to prevent unplanned releases which could result in a major incident. Process
safety is a disciplined framework for managing the integrity of operating systems and
principles, engineering, and operating and maintenance practices. It deals with prevention
and control of events that have potential to release hazardous materials and energy. Such
incidents can result in toxic exposures, fires or explosions and could ultimately result in
environmental damage.
As a major safety requirement at oil and gas installations such as refineries and
process facilities, a flare system is usually installed to relieve built up pressure that may
occur during shut down, start up or due to process system failure, reducing other safety
Accurate design of the flare system plays a key role in containing possible process safety
hazards on the oil and gas installation, especially oil and gas offshore platforms. In order to
enable uniformity and consistency, design guidelines and constraints are provided within
the industry, both national and international standards – NORSOK, API and ISO – which
1
Thermo-hydraulic modeling serves a key role in flare system design. It enables the
velocity/mach, and other flow parameters required for building/modification of flare systems.
There are several simulation tools used for flow simulation in the Oil and Gas industry.
AspenTech’s FLARENET (flare system analyzer) has found common use among many flare
system design engineers as a steady state simulation tool. Accurate and reliable estimation
Build the FLARENET model of the section of the Kollsnes Gas Processing plant
Run the simulation for over pressure scenario (pool fire in condensate system).
The flare system is the single largest pipe network in an oil & gas/ gas processing plant. It
serves as a relief system for depressurizing different process and production units in cases
fluid through relief devices and a pipe network and disposing of it to the required outlet. The
light hydrocarbons and other gases are released by combustion into the atmosphere while
2
the heavier hydrocarbon, liquids are let out through drains and are often pumped back into
The descriptive figure 1.2 shows a typical high pressure flare system. The manifolds
and process facilities can be critical channels for over pressure. They are thus usually tied
to the flare via pressure relieving devices (such as PSVs, EBVs), to protect the system in
3
Figure 1.2: A typical Drawing showing components of a flare system
4
and energy that causes the material or energy, or both, to build-up in some part of the
system. Analysis of the causes and magnitudes of overpressure is, therefore, a special and
devices are installed to ensure that a process system or any of its components is not
The inadvertent closure of a manual block valve on the outlet of a pressure vessel while the
equipment is on stream can expose the vessel to a pressure that exceeds the maximum
Operator error
overpressure.
The inadvertent opening of any valve from a source of higher pressure, such as high-
pressure steam or process fluids has the potential to expose the vessel and pipeline
downstream to a pressure that exceeds the maximum allowable working pressure of the
Check valves are used to allow flow only in one direction. Most commonly they used in the
discharge of a pump or compressor. In the event of a leakage/failure of check valve the flow
of process fluid can occur in the other direction. This can result in exposing the upstream
5
the equipment/pipeline.
Utility failure
In the event of loss of utilities like electricity, cooling water/ medium, Instrument air, steam,
Inert gas it is possible to expose the part of a plant or whole plant to a pressure that
Reflux failure
The loss of reflux as a result of pump or instrument failure can cause overpressure in a
Reboilers are designed with a specified heat input. When they are new or recently cleaned,
additional heat input above the normal design can occur. In the event of a failure of
temperature control, vapor generation can exceed the process system’s ability to condense
or otherwise absorb the build-up of pressure, which may include non-condensables caused
by overheating.
In shell-and-tube heat exchangers, the tubes are subject to failure from a number of causes,
including thermal shock, vibration and corrosion. The result is the possibility that the high-
6
Fire scenario
In the event of an external fire, the process fluids inside the equipment/pipelines evaporate
In some reactions and processes, loss of process control can result in a significant change
in temperature and/or pressure. The result can cause over pressure in the reactor and
connected systems.
Hydraulic expansion
The entrance of water into hot oil is most common source of potential overpressure.
different processes taking place on the platform/plant, to ensure safety of life and property
on it. Typical sources of process relief are the production manifolds, compression system
The relief systems include; process relief, process flaring, blow-down etc.
Process relief
Process relief involves pressure relief of a process unit in case of overpressure due to a
process upset. In order to ensure process safety, pressure relief devices are connected to
7
The design basis of these pressure relief devices is dependent on the thermo-hydraulic
conditions; pressure, and temperature of the vessel being relieved. These will be taken into
account in order to determine the required relieving rate. The design pressure (set
pressure) of the relief valve is usually set to a value at which it (the valve) opens to prevent
Process Flaring
Process flaring involves the controlled flaring or bleeding out of gas from a particular
process unit or compressor, in case of pressure build-up above the acceptable limits. This is
in order to allow for continued production, without causing a process upset from build-up of
pressure. Pressure control valves (PCV or PV) are used for process flaring.
Blow down
Blow down is the actual process of depressurizing a given process unit or section of a plant
after shut down. A blow down valve (BDV) is used in this case. In the event of emergency
(e.g. fire, gas leaks etc.)the EBVs are open after plant shut down. This serves as a safety
In addition to these reliefs, in certain cases there are continuous purging of inert gas in
the flare system so as to avoid oxygen ingress into flare the system.
process relief. Discharged fluid from the relief valves are led through the flare network to a
safe disposal point. The disposal system may be single device (connected to only a single
relieving device), or multiple device disposal. Flare networks are normally multiple device
disposal system due to the economic advantage it presents. The releases are disposed off
to a vessel or point of lower pressure than the vessel being relieved. Gaseous releases are
8
disposed off or flared (combusted) to the atmosphere, while liquid/heavier releases are
recycled back to the main process system. Below are the main components of a flare
network.
Tail pipes
The tailpipes are connected with the relieving device, PSV or PV, so they are the first
contact line of the discharge/flare network. They are of comparably smaller diameters than
the other branches of the flare network, and are designed to handle the maximum allowable
back-pressure of the relieving device they are connected to. Flow velocities may be very
high for tailpipes; they are designed for mach numbers of up to 0.7 mach
Flare Headers serve as the collection point for releases coming from the different tailpipes.
Depending on the size of the disposal system, system loads and back-pressure limitations,
flare sub-headers may be required as intermediate lines connecting with the main header.
Flare headers are of larger diameter than the other network pipes and are designed for
mach number of up to 0,6. Flare headers are classified as high pressure or low pressure
The Knock-out Drum is a separation unit, usually a simple 2-phase separator. The heavy
fluids like oil/condensate and water are lead out to drains and often pumped back into the
separation system, while the lighter and gaseous components of the stream escape to the
flare stack.
9
The flare stack is usually an elevated pipe pointing upwards. For offshore platforms, the
size, positioning and orientation of the flare stack is a function of factors like personnel
safety, wind direction, hydrocarbon dispersion and radiation heat from the burning flare. The
flare stack is designed for velocities of up to 0.5 mach. Flare stack is connected to the flare
tip, which serves as the burner for the combusted gases. For disposal to the atmosphere,
the pressure downstream the flare tip is atmospheric. Flare tip design is very important; it
influences the flare radiation, dispersion and back-pressure generated in the flare system.
engineering, safety, economic and practical. A proper analysis of thermal and hydraulic
loads resulting from various relief scenarios and process contingences are crucial to proper
Design codes
10
To ensure safe and reliable design, there are national and international standards that
API 520
11
12
Chapter 2
2. Literature Survey
Process safety is a disciplined framework for managing the integrity of operating
systems and processes that handle hazardous substances. It relies on good design
incidents in both the upstream and downstream industries have highlighted the importance
13
Figure 2.1: Swiss cheese model for HAZARD prevention (Based on the work of James
Reason [27] [28])
Flare and disposal system is one of the major prevention barriers for the safety and integrity
of the operating assets. API 521standard [1] and API 520 [2] has guidelines for proper
design/rating of the flare system and its associated components.
The steady state simulation tool used in this thesis, FLARENET from Aspen Tech
depends on the various process input parameters, over pressure scenario selection,
physical properties and equations of state used in the model. The correct use of all these
14
variables comes from the experience. The user guide from Aspen Tech [6] has useful
information for various assumptions and variable selection.
Quality check of the steady state FLARENET model is a challenge in most of the
cases. Even though the model is built based on the actual plant data, isometrics and other
steady state process conditions, in some cases the results obtained from the model could
vary compared to the results from actual relieving condition in the plant. This could be due
to the fact that dynamics of various conditions in actual relieving case compared to the
steady state case used by FLARENET. This necessitates the need for dynamic modeling of
flare system to get the comparable results.
Another aspect is getting quality data from the actual plant operation. Flaring from a
plant does not take place in normal plant operations. The flaring of high pressure sources to
flare system takes place in emergency conditions, plant startup/shut down cases.
Happening of these events are not very frequent due to good process design, control and
operations. Hence it remains a challenge to get the correct data from the on field
instruments during these short emergency situations and sometimes also these data are not
stored in the history.
15
The guide line from Scandpower As [23] has very good information on risk
assessment for new and expansion projects. The input from [19], considering new analysis
for flare suggests various methods to be followed to reduce the expansion costs in flare
system.
16
Chapter 3
continuity equation, the energy balance equation, and the momentum balance equation.
The general forms of these equations are referred to as the Navier Stokes equations.
Appropriate assumptions and simplifications are applied to these general equations in order
to solve specific flow problems. For flow in pipes, the following assumptions may apply
The general conservation equations for one dimensional flow may be written as follows:
Continuity Equation
ρ1 A1 U1 - ρ2 A2 U2 = V ( CV ) (3.1)
t
For steady state flow, ( CV ) = 0. i.e.
t
ρ1 A1 U1 - ρ2 A2 U2 = 0
ρ1 A1 U1 = ρ2 A2 U2 = ρ A U (3.2)
CV = control volume
17
(3.4)
For steady state flow accumulation is always equal to zero, therefore the energy balance
(3.5)
where:
q = heat, w = work
(3.6)
The equation (3.8) may be further simplified depending on the type of thermodynamic
system assumed.
For steady state flow there is no accumulation of momentum within the control volume,
( m U ) cv = 0
18
This equation (3.11) may be rewritten in polar co-ordinate form (r, Ө,z) as:
U z ) out - ( m U z ) in
∑Fz = (m (3.9)
U r ) out - ( m U r ) in
∑Fr = (m (3.11)
Here ∑F is the sum of all forces acting on the fluid mass, including gravity forces, shear
forces, and pressure forces. This can be shown using the Navier-Stokes equations.
network during fluid flow may be described using equations of state, thermodynamic laws
and relations. Important thermodynamic relations include; enthalpy, entropy, heat capacity.
f (p ,v ,T) = 0 (3.12)
or
pv pv
= =z (3.13)
RT RT
For a thermally perfect (ideal) gas, z = 1. Thus the equation of state for a thermally perfect
gas becomes:
p
= RT or p = RT (3.14)
For a thermally imperfect (real) gas z is a function of temperature and pressure. There exist
a number of equations of state for a thermally imperfect (real) gas, the most common of
which are:
19
RT a
P=( )-( ) (3.15)
vb v2
RT a c
P=( )-( ) (3.16)
vb v (v b)
where,
RT a c
P=( )-( ) (3.17)
vb v (v b ) b ( v b )
where,
S = 0.37464+1.5422ω-0.26992ω2,
ω = acentric factor
The Peng-Robinson EOS gives a more accurate estimation of the liquid phase density in
VLE calculations.
Laws of thermodynamics
de = dq + dw = dq – p dv (3.18)
It states that for a closed system (one in which neither heat nor work is exchanged with the
T ds = de + p dv = dq (3.19)
20
dq
ds = (3.20)
T
where S = entropy
Heat capacities:
e
cv = (3.21)
T v
q
c p = (3.22)
T p
c p = cv + R (3.23)
h=e+pv (3.24)
h = e + RT (3.25)
dh = de + R dT = cv dT + R dT
dh = ( cv + R) dT = c p dT (3.26)
21
Continuity Equation
Q = AU = constant (3.27)
Energy Equation
p U 2 p U 2
z z hL (3.28)
g 2 g in g 2 g out
where:
p 0
head loss = hL
g
Momentum Equation
a function of temperature and pressure. This strongly influences the flow behavior.
Appropriate equations of state and thermodynamic relations are used to characterize the
flow parameters/behavior.
22
2 2
U1 U2
h1 + + q H = h2 + (3.30)
2 2
isentropic conditions.
p R0T
c2 = = RT = (3.31)
Mw
molecular weight
The mach number, M is the ratio of the local velocity to the local speed of sound
M U (3.32)
c
When M<1, the flow is subsonic; when M=1, the flow is sonic; for M>1 the flow is said to be
supersonic.
Mach number is a parameter strictly related with compressible flow. Mach number does not
exist in incompressible flow (M = 0), because the speed of sound is considered infinite in
this case.
Mach number serves as a valuable parameter in describing compressible flow. At low mach
numbers, M <= 0.3 gas or vapor flow may be described with the assumption of
23
Adiabatic flow
In adiabatic flow there is no heat transfer, q H = 0. The energy balance equation (3.33) takes
the form
U2
h+ = constant (3.33)
2
2 2
U1 U2
c p T1 + = c p T2 + = c p T0 (3.34)
2 2
Here T0 is the stagnation temperature, the temperature at static conditions (U = 0). This
For adiabatic frictional flow (Fanno flow) in a constant area duct, the energy equation can
1
2 2
L 1 m 2
m
f = -
D 2 A
1 dp - A n (3.35)
2
In adiabatic frictional flow critical conditions occur at M = 1. The maximum flow speed which
is the speed of sound is reached, and this occurs downstream of the pipe.
Isothermal flow
Temperature, T is said approximately constant in isothermal flow. In this case the internal
energy and enthalpy remain constant. The energy balance equation (3.33) takes the form:
2 2
U1 U2
+ qH = (3.36)
2 2
24
For frictional flow in a pipe of uniform diameter, the energy balance equation may be re-
derived to give an expression for the pressure drop for isothermal flow across a pipe of
m 2 RT L p1
+ 2 n ]
2 2
p1 - p 2 = [f
p (3.37)
A2 D 2
Where
.
The above comparison between adiabatic flow and isothermal flow of air through a constant
area duct, assuming the same initial values for each. Inspection of the results showed that
at low pressure drops, P2/P1 > 0.9, showed very little difference. Thus adiabatic flow in a
pipe may be analyzed as isothermal flow without introducing much error, for such pressure
drop ranges.
25
number of the flow. Depending on the upstream and downstream mach numbers, the other
Orifices)
The general relationship relating the influence of cross-sectional area change on flow speed
is given as
dU 1 dA
= (3.39)
U 1 M A
2
dM
= [1
1M 2
] /( 1 M 2
dA
) (3.40)
M 2 A
These relations shows that
a) At subsonic speeds, 0 M<1, an increase in area gives rise to a decrease in flow velocity
b) At supersonic speeds, M>1, an increase in area gives rise to an increase in velocity and
mach number; and a decrease in area gives rise to a decrease in velocity and Mach
number.
c) At sonic velocity, M=1, the denominator ( 1 M 2 ) is zero. This means that for the axial
change in velocity and mach number ( dU/dx and dM/dx) not to become infinite, the axial
change in cross-sectional area (dA/dx) must be zero; i.e. cross-sectional area must be
constant at M=1.
From the analysis above, it can be stated that an initially subsonic flow through a
convergent - divergent nozzle will remain subsonic if it does not turn sonic at the throat.
26
Normal shock waves: The following relationship for adiabatic flow through a duct of constant
cross-sectional area, in which discontinuity of flow properties exist due to the presence of a
The conditions on either side of the discontinuity may be related by applying the principles
1U 1 2U 2 (3.41)
p1 1U 1 p 2 2U 2
2 2
(3.42)
2 2
U1 U2
h1 = h2 = h0 (3.43)
2 2
Writing these equations for a perfect gas, for which h = CPT; the energy equation then
shows that the total temperature, T0 remains constant across a normal shock wave.
Using the relations for a perfect gas, and the definition of mach number, the conservation
2 2
T1 p1 M1
=
M
(3.44)
T2 p 2 2
p1 1 M 2
2
(3.45)
p
2 1 M 1
2
And
1 (( 1) / 2) M 2
2
T1
= 1 (( 1) / 2) M 1 2 (3.46)
T2
Eliminating temperature and pressure from these 3 relationships and solving for M2 in terms
of M1, we have
27
0.5
2 ( 1) M 1 2
M2
2M 1 2 ( 1)
(3.47)
In practice it is seen that that the condition; if M1 > 1, then M2 < 1 holds, while for M1
It is said that M1 can have any value in the range 0 ≤ M1 ≤ ∞. Inspection of the equation
above shows that the minimum value of M2 is (( 1) / 2 ) 0.5 corresponding to M1 = ∞. So the
Based on the equations above, pressure, temperature and density ratio relationships across
a) M, U, P0 decrease;
b) T0 remains constant;
c) P, T, ρ, S, and a increase
Stagnation properties
A relationship between stagnation properties (at zero velocity) and static properties may be
T0 ( 1) M 2
=1+ (3.48)
T 2
p0
= 1 (( 1) / 2) M 2 /( 1)
(3.49)
p
28
flow behavior in multi-phase flow strongly differs from single phase flow, and thus cannot be
well defined by single phase flow models. Multi-phase flow is associated with higher
pressure drops; flow regimes are strongly influenced by pipe dimension and inclination, and
flow-rate of the different phases. There are a number of multi-phase flow pressure drop and
friction factor correlations and models available today. Some of them are listed below
None of these models is thought to be universal, covering all flow regimes and fluid
correlations are used in numerical simulators. A number of them are available for use in
FLARENET. A brief description of the Beggs and Brill model is presented below.
(gas/liquid) flow using air and water. The parameters studied and their range include
29
The 2-phase flow regimes were divided into 4 groups, limited within ranges for certain
derived parameters.
Segregated flow
Transitional flow
Intermittent flow
Distributed flow
Where:
The Beggs and Brill (homogeneous) model is the recommended pressure drop model for
30
the speed of sound and thus Mach number will be strongly affected. Speed of sound lies in
the range of 300m/s in gas, and over 1000m/s in liquid. But for gas-liquid flow the speed of
sound depends on the flow regime, and phase fraction. Below is a figure 3.1 taken from [29]
showing the effect gas-liquid flow on the speed of sound for water (c = 1500 m/s) and gas (c
= 344m/s). Two extreme gas-liquid flow regimes are considered; stratified flow and
homogenized flow.
(3.50)
(3.51)
31
Figure 3.1: Sonic velocity in gas-liquid flow, for stratified (black line) and homogenized
(dispersed)(blue line) flow. Plots are shown for pressures of 1, 10 and 100 bar [29].
32
We shall consider combining or mixing flow, which is typical for a flare network.
Continuity equation:
Q1+ Q2 = Q3 (3.52)
Energy Balance:
(3.53)
Momentum Balance:
then:
(3.54)
When two flows meet at a junction, there is an additional loss in pressure due to:
To account for the pressure loss across Tees/junctions/branches, restrictions and bends,
33
(3.55)
(3.56)
The loss coefficients have been defined using the total pressure drop across the branches
and the dynamic pressure in the branch with the combined flow.
By solving simultaneously the continuity equation, energy balance equation and momentum
In line with this loss coefficients were experimentally obtained, and empirical correlations
were developed to match the experimental data. Among these are correlations by Gardel
(1957) and Miller (1971). The experiments were conducted under turbulent flow conditions
For flow through 90o-junctions, with A1=A2=A3 and q=Q1/Q3; Gardel (1957) gives
(3.57)
and
(3.58)
Miller’s (1971) experimental data best fit the empirical relations given by Ito and Imai (1973)
(3.59)
and
(3.60)
Influence of geometric parameters
34
Taking into account the influence of inclination,Ө , and cross-sectional area ratio A1/A3
(given A2=A3), and the radius ρ, of a fillet used by Gardel to fair the tail limb 1, into the
main. A group of tests were run with Ө =90 DEGC, and varying A1/A3 in the range
0.4<A1/A3<1; for A1=A2=A3 and vary in the range 45 DEGC< Ө <135 DEGC; and for r,
The empirical equations derived by Gardel to fit the results from these experiments
were:
(3.61)
Where
35
We know, the velocity in a pipe is obtained at the expense of static head, and
(3.62)
which is also defined as he “velocity head”. Flow through a restriction similarly causes a
reduction in static head that may be expressed in terms of the velocity head. In this case,
(3.63)
where K is the resistance coefficient; defined as the number of velocity heads lost due to a
Reynolds number, and may be treated as a constant for any given restriction in a piping
If the formula for hL above in equation (3.63) is compared with that for a strait pipe,
(3.64)
then
Where L/D is the equivalent length in pipe diameters of a straight pipe that will cause the
same pressure drop as the given obstruction under the same flowing conditions.
In bends, the additional head loss may be split into 3 component part given as:
(3.65)
Where:
36
Losses due to curvature and downstream tangent can be summed to give a quantity hb = hp
(3.66)
Where:
Taking the additional losses into consideration, the energy balance equation (3.53)
for fluid flow through a pipe with bends and restrictions may be written as follows:
(3.67)
And
h = hL+ht
where:
h = total head loss, hL = loss due to pipe length, ht = additional loss due to restriction
then
(3.68)
Several experiments have been conducted for the evaluation of K and Kb for different
restriction types; values which can be found in standard tables and charts.
We see that pressure loss coefficients and resistance coefficients are derived from the
same expression. Therefore correctly estimated resistance coefficients should give the
same value for pressure loss as the pressure loss coefficients used in tee correlations.
37
38
Chapter 4
FLARENET model built in the thesis is for a section/part (Condensate system) of the whole
Kollsnes gas processing plant. The process flow diagram (PFD) of the condensate system
is attached in Appendix B.2. Figure B.1 in Appendix B.1 shows the important process
all the data that will determine the system are defined first. In this model all the data’s are
collected from the database of Kollsnes Gas processing plant and used to build the model.
Data’s given as inputs to the FLARENET model are shown in Table 4.1.
DATA DESCRIPTION
Connectivity Prepared a simple system sketch defining
the connectivity of pipe segments to different
nodes.
Pipe Length and associated fittings for each Taken from existing Isometric (ISO) drawing
pipe segment of Kollsnes plant.
Diameter and pipe schedule for each pipe Taken from the flare system process &
segment instrumentation diagram (P&ID) and ISO
drawings.
Table 4.1: Pipe segment and geometry
The following diagram, Figure 4.1 shows the connectivity of the system used in this project.
39
40
The piping datas are given as input to FLARENET as shown in Table 4.2 for some selected
pipe segments.
Name 7040 (VF-43-5698) 7060 (VF-43-5698) 7070 (VF-43-5698) 7100 (VF-43-5647) 7110 (VF-43-5698) 7120 (VF-43-5698)
Location PF-003-20 PF-003-20 PF-003-20 PE-106-01 PF-003-20 PF-003-20
UpstreamNode J705 J704 J706 29-PSV-6080 J710 J712
DownstreamNode J704 J706 J710 J710 J712 J715
Ignored No No No No No No
Tailpipe No No No Yes No No
Length(m) 0.45 26.75 66.4 18.80 7.38 3.7
ElevationChange(m) 0 0 0 -3230 0 0
Material Stainless Steel Stainless Steel Stainless Steel Stainless Steel Stainless Steel Stainless Steel
Roughness(mm) 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254
ThermalConductivity(W/m-K) 16.29 16.29 16.29 16.29 16.29 16.29
InternalDiameter(mm) 396.84 396.84 396.84 206.4 396.84 396.84
WallThickness(mm) 4.78 4.78 4.78 6.35 4.78 4.78
Table 4.2: Input piping data to FLARENET
The flare tip used in the simulation is not a pipe segment. It is specified as a node that
represents a zero length piece of pipe segment. The fitting loss for the flare tip is taken from
the manufacturer’s specification. A pressure drop Vs Flow correlation is fed into the
41
DATA DESCRIPTION
Flow and Composition Flow refers to the quantity of fluid that the
Source valve must pass as a consequence
of the plant upset condition. Rated Flow
refers to the quantity of fluid that the
source valve will pass due to its physical
construction. Rated Flow must always be
greater than or equal to Flow. This is taken
from the process datasheet.
Maximum Allowable Back-Pressure (MABP) This is the maximum pressure that can exist
at the outlet of the device (source) without
affecting its capacity. This is taken from the
process datasheet.
Downstream temperature This temperature is used as the pressure
independent temperature at which the
source enters the network. This temperature
is used when ideal gas enthalpies are used
to calculate the heat balance, or as an initial
guess when any other enthalpy method is
used.
Upstream pressure and temperature Relief source set pressure is used as
upstream pressure.
Discharge flange size Taken from the relief valve datasheet.
Table 4.4: Relief source data specification
42
Table 4.5 shows relief source (PSV) data input into the FLARENET for some of the relief
valves.
Additional input conditions for PSVs are given in Table C.1 in Appendix C.
The composition of fluid being relieved from PSVs is copied from the HYSYS simulation file
into the FLARENET.The composition of fluid from the relief/control valves can be defined in
process flow sheet. The desired objects for the network are added from the available palette
43
The details of each palette are entered in FLARENET as described in chapter 4.1.1 and
4.1.2. However the details of flare knockout drum (KOD), flare tip, blow down valves are
A portion of the flare pipe network in FLARENET looks as shown in the Figure 4.3.
44
Kollsnes gas processing plant is defined as the overpressure scenario. This scenario is
In the scenario editor tab the sources (PSVs) that are relieving are de-selected in the model
The constraints are also specified in the scenario editor tab for maximum allowable Mach
45
In some cases, while simulating the blow down conditions the sources are modeled as
control valves (such as EBVs) and the conditions for those are specified in control valve
editor.
46
insufficient information about connectivity and ignored sources. All the mandatory fields
need to be filled for the model to converge quickly. The model is set to run by pressing the
run button. The detail options used for calculation are described in Appendix D.
Figure 4.6: Pointer showing checking and running the FLARENET model
47
48
Chapter 5
5. Simulation run
As part of the Kollsnes Flare project, the task was to estimate the back-pressure in the
fire area A44 (Condensate and flash gas system) in the event of a large pool fire in the
whole area. The design case for the single fire area is” the Flare header should be
sized in such a way that it can handle the fire relief load (From PSVs) form one fire area
at a time” . This area comprises of different section with varying design pressures from
7-93 Barg.
In the steady state FLARENET simulations the back-pressure generated for a flow
rate of 108.33 kg/sec (Estimated peak flow rate from the PSVs in fire area A44) is
calculated by activating the PSVs in simulation process flow sheet. The PSVs open
during this scenario are highlighted in the general arrangement drawing, Figure 5.1. The
49
50
hydrocarbon present in the process equipment / pipelines will get heated and pressure
start to increase beyond their normal operating pressure. Following PSVs will open at
their respective set pressures to keep the pressure in the equipment below their design
pressures. The FLARENET simulation is run with making these PSVs active in the
simulation file with the relief flow rate as mentioned in the Table 5.1.
29PSV4522 the back-pressure is 11.2 Bara against the set pressure of 11 Bara.
51
Figure 5.2: Steady state FLARENET simulation result for back-pressure build-up
Table 5.2 shows the back-pressure build-up for all the PSVs in the area.
52
53
The summary result for the 29-PSV-4018 after running the simulation is as shown in the
figure 5.4.
54
Chapter 6
Kollsnes gas processing plant. Hence it is difficult to obtain the actual plant data and
suggested the plant operation and maintenance department to carry out this
test/verification during a planned plant shut down. The relief of hydrocarbon gases into
the flare system will be done while depressurizing the dew point control (DPC) trains
through a pressure control valve. The process parameters shall be noted during blow-
installed instruments.
maintenance job around the equipments in the plant. In that period, it was possible to do
the controlled hydrocarbon relief to the HP flare system through the pressure controllers
in dew point control trains (DPC trains). The flow rate is measured using the online flow
the pressure transmitter on KO drum and another temporary pressure gauge at the
condensate system node. Fig 6.1 shows the set-up done in the plant.
55
Fig 6.2 shows the flow (in kg / sec) Vs de-pressurization time (in Sec) in the flare
system. A verification point is chosen for a flow rate of 176.4 kg/sec which is the most
stable region.
56
The back-pressure build-up due to the relief flow of 176.4 kg/sec is measured at two
points in the flare system. The back pressure build up is plotted versus time in the Figure
6.3. The green curve represents the pressure build-up at flare KO drum and the violet one is
the pressure build-up in the condensate system. As shown in the Figure 6.3, the pressure
build- up in the condensate system is 4.5 Barg and at the KO drum is 3.0 Barg.
57
FLARENET simulation is run for the relief case of 176.4 kg/sec from the pressure
control valves in dew point control trains. Results from the FLARENET simulation is shown
58
Back-pressure at Condensate
system node: 6.6 Bara (= 5.6
Barg)
Back-pressure at KO
drum: 4.7 Bara (= 3.7
Barg)
59
However the values obtained from FLARENET simulations are on higher side. This
is due to the fact that results obtained from FLARENET are conservative and used in plant
Hence the trend for pressure build-up from FLARENET matches closely with the actual
higher than their set pressures. This has severe consequences for the process safety of the
individual equipment the PSVs are protecting. The high back-pressure on the PSVs has
various consequences:
For the balanced bellow PSVs, the back-pressure above 50% of the PSV set
pressure will dramatically reduce the PSV relieving capacity. This will result in
The back-pressure higher than design pressure of bellows will damage the PSV
bellows.
From the figure 5.3, it shows the clouded part with steepest increase in back-pressure of
6.7 Bar. From the FLARENET model and actual plant data it seems that, this portion of the
60
pipe (length approximately: 453 meters) is of dimension 406.4 mm (16 inch). The velocity in
this section of the pipeline is very high and in some parts it is 135m/s.
Further investigation on this issue shows that, the 406.4 mm (16 inch) pipeline from
the condensate area was build when the plant was built and after wards a new condensate
and flash gas compression facility was built in 1995. The PSV outlet from the new facility is
also connected to the previously existing 406.4 mm (16 inch) line. As per the Kollsnes
plant’s existing design & operational philosophy, the whole condensate area (Both the new
and old part) is considered as one fire area and the fire relief from PSVs in this area has to
be accounted for.
Hence the existing branch pipe of 406.4 mm (16 inch) nominal diameter is too small
to take the relief load of 108.33 kg/sec in fire scenario from the condensate area. Different
Base Case solution: Increasing the Nominal diameter of 406.4 mm (16 inch)
branch pipeline.
fire areas with PSV relief from each area connecting the main 762 mm (30
61
62
Chapter 7
branch line. The current FLARENET model is changed by changing the size of the
branch pipe to 609.6 mm (24 inch). The simulation is run after doing necessary
changes with the suggested new data. The result from the simulation shows the
Pressure build-up in the HP flare system, which is shown below in Fig 7.1.
63
Figure 7.1: Base case solution for the back-pressure problem
Since the back-pressure calculated from FLARENET for the 609.6 mm (24inch) new line is
within 50% of the set pressure of the low pressure PSVs (PSVs with set pressure below 15
Barg) , it is recommended to build a new 609.6 mm (24 inch) pipeline and connect it to the
existing 762 mm (30 inch) main HP flare header. The length of the new 609.6 mm
(24 inch) pipeline is approximately 453 meters, if it follows the routing of existing 406.4 mm
64
small concrete wall between the old condensate facility (one area) and new KFGC
facility (other area). Assuming that, this concrete wall separates the two areas physically
(This is against the current safety strategy and fire area segregation philosophy of
Kollsnes plant) and hydrocarbon leak/spillage from one area does not spread into the
other which limits the fire/explosion in one area confined to that area itself, then this two
diameter 508 mm (20 inch) is modelled and PSVs from old condensate system are
connected to this.
65
Figure 7.2: Alternative solution for the back-pressure problem
generates a total back-pressure of 3.7 Barg (obtained from simulation result) at the PSV
downstream flange. This back- pressure is acceptable as it is below 50% of the PSV set
pressure (= 10 Barg).
66
Both the solutions described in chapter 7.1 and 7.2 will mitigate the high back-pressure at
the PSVs. However, the solution with segregation of the whole area into two generates
The process equipment’s in the two sections are placed so close to each
other that fire in one side will potentially be spread to the other part and vice
versa.
The division of whole area is against the current safety strategy and fire area
The new KFGC plant does not have an independent access road, active and
Based on these, it is improper to divide the whole area into two separate fire areas.
The whole area is treated as one and the PSV relief from the whole area be accounted for.
Hence, the recommended solution for the plant is as described in Chap 7.1.This
solution introduces new pipe lengths and its supports. This induces cost to do this
modification project. It addresses the existing back pressure problem in the plant and also
provides future opportunity for plant expansion in which some more PSVs can relieve flow
through the new pipeline. This solution is simple and easy to execute and should be done in
67
68
Chapter 8
8.1. Conclusion
The FLARENET model developed as part of this thesis gives very good result for
various other relieving scenarios as described in chapter 1.3. This can be done by
The summary of the results obtained from this thesis can be listed as follows:
opening of PSVs from condensate system in pool fire scenario is too high.
This will affect the relieving rate from the PSVs and may result in further
the process system, this can result in explosion and fire. This may result
The designing of flare system with respect to pipe sizes be such that it
emergency scenarios which can generate maximum flow through the flare
system.
evaluated properly looking at the all possible relief cases and in a global
69
chapter 7.1
This introduces the concept of zero emission to the environment with the
use of “closed flare system”. Even though, the use of closed flare system
pressure in the flare system and to all the PSVS connected to the closed
flare system. Hence this could be challenge for the Kollsnes plant, if in
future the closed flare system is implemented. This concern has also been
department.
valves (BDVs) and pressure safety valves (PSVs), Mach number in the headers, and
radiation at the flare tip. This steady-state assumption is highly conservative. While
conservative approaches may be desirable in safety system design, they can nevertheless
lead to gross overdesign throughout the system. Key areas of over design include:
70
Sizing the header for the sum of the maximum flows takes no account of effects such as:
• System packing, where the gas pressurizes the available volume in the flare
network.
causes PSVs to lift. Steady-state peak flow analysis, on the other hand,
Reducing the peak flows used as the design basis by judicious analysis can significantly
reduce pipe sizes and materials and fabrication costs, which can be substantial for large-
diameter headers. Reducing the size also creates knock-on savings related to the support
The flare stack sizing depends on radiation emitted by the flame, which is a function of the
volumetric gas flow rate through the flare tip. Using unrealistically high flow rates
determined from peak flows results in an over-long stack, creating weight problems in
offshore facilities or adding stack support costs (or unnecessary additional header length) in
onshore facilities. Similarly, a lack of accurate temperature information leads to a wide span
between the minimum and maximum design temperatures used for gas arriving at the
Although flare system pipework may be in contact with gas at extremely low temperatures,
this typically occurs for a relatively short duration. The use of steady-state flows does not
consider the duration of such exposures to low temperature, which may result in very
71
conservative and expensive application of alloys. It can be argued that a good flare network
design is one that minimizes capital expenditure while meeting all safety constraints.
By making dynamic analyses using data that is mostly already available in some
form, it is often possible to refine network designs to arrive at systems with a significantly
lower capital cost while demonstrably meeting safety requirements. Similarly, it is often
possible to find additional capacity during retrofits, thus removing the need for additional
capital expenditures. However, further research on this could be done with respect to the
real-time data on the relieving rate, time-interval for opening of various relief devices and
72
Chapter 9
problems associated with it. However there need to be done further study to completely
This thesis shows that how the flare system of an actual plant could be modeled
using FLARENET steady state simulation tool which gives good indication of how to protect
the safety and integrity of the equipment. This also helps to define the safe operating
Developing a dynamic model which gives real-time data on the pressure build-up in
a flare system for the PSV relief or emergency Blow down cases. This should also
include how the dynamics of flare system affected by the multiple relief from different
PSVs. The result from the research will have wide industrial acceptance as this will
lead to substantial financial savings with much better process design of the safety
the equipment and pipelines. Applying the heat due to fire into different segments or
to the whole section. Studying behavior of process fluid inside the vessel/pipeline.
73
Lastly, combining the aforesaid two models so as to build the complete plant model
which includes both the processing facility and the flare relief system. This model
can be extensively used in Oil & Gas and other downstream hydrocarbon industries
optimization.
74
Appendices
Appendix A
Schematic Diagram FLARENET model
75
76
Aspen Flare System Analyzer
Version25.0.0.36
User Name : ABB Offshore System
Schematic Of The Flarenet Model For Condensate System
Job Code : 002828
Project : Kollsnes Export Capasity Upgrade
Description : HP Flare Network KECU1 Blowdown of 6 for maintenance Max rate from train 6: 149300 kg/h
Scenario : Fire Cond area+KFGC+All source
Label : None
PFD
77
Appendix B
Block flow diagrams
78
79
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
LEGEND
WATER
DWG PS-001-01
EBV EV
4"
4"
PC EV
HP FLARE 6"
PC
29-HA415 6"
ONSHORE GLYCOL/CONDENSATE 23-VD302A
23-HC301A FLASH GAS COMPR. 23-HC302A 23-VD303A
HEATER/(HOT OIL) PC
EBV FLASH GAS COMPR. FLASH GAS
INTERSTAGE FLASH GAS COMPR.
INTERCOOLER SUCTION DRUM AFTERCOOLER COMPR. DIS-
HP HP FLARE HP FLARE
6" CHARGE DRUM
FLARE 6"
TC
PC
6"
G EBV
23-VD301A
FLASH GAS COMPR.
G
LC
LC
TO FUEL SUCTION DRUM
GAS SYSTEM 4" TC
TC
FC FT
12"
HP
HOT OIL
FLARE
29-VE303
LC
CONDENSATE
29-VA305
ONSHORE GLYCOL/COND 6"
PC STRIPPER
GLYCOL SETTLER
FROM 25-VA301/302/303 EV
TC
27-VD301/401/.../801 LC
12" 29-VA301
LC 23-KB301A 23-KB301A
FLASH GAS FLASH GAS
DWG PS-001-01 ONSHORE
COMPRESSOR COMPRESSOR
EV 12" GLYCOL/CONDEN-
UNLOADING
29-HA301/302
SATE SEPARATOR 10" SYSTEM
ONSHORE S S
FI TO CLOSED DRAIN
GLYCOL/CONDENSATE LC
STRIPPER
REBOILER
CONDENSATE FROM
OFFSHORE GLYCOL/COND HP FLARE 68-PA302/29-PA302
12"
HP FLARE
PC
TC
EV 29-HA401/402 CONDENSATE
E OFFSHORE FC TO 32-PA301A/B E
10" GLYC./CONDENS.
LC
HEATER
ILC
DWG PS-001-01
29-VA304 29-HC312
OFFSHORE EMERGENCY
EV GLYCOL/CONDEN- CONDENSATE
SATE SEPARATOR COOLER
EV
2"
6"
29-PD305
RICH MEG GLYCOL PUMP EV
TO 68-TA302 8"
6" 2"
DWG PS-001-01
D D
29-HC412
CONDENSATE COOLER
FT
8"
6" 8"
HP FLARE HP FLARE
EV
TIC
EBV
TO 29-PA302
PIC
FLOW CONTROL
HP FLARE HP FLARE
6" FT PIC
DWG PS-001-01
EV
29-HA411/412
29-VE403 2"
OFFSHORE
CONDENSATE STRIPPER EBV EBV
GLYCOL/CONDENSATE
HEATER 6"
10"
8" 8" EV HP FLARE
C UV
6" C
29-VA405 UV
GLYCOL SETTLER
TIC
HP FLARE HP FLARE EBV
8"
10"
LC
LC
PC
29-VA404 PC
OFFSHORE TT FT PT
TT FT PT
EBV EBV 23-VD403
GLYCOL/CONDENSATE 29-PA401 A/B
ASC FLASH GAS COMPR.
SEPARATOR CONDENSATE STRIPPER ASC
DISHARGE DRUM
INTER-REBOILER PUMP
S S PT
TT PT
23-VD402 TT PT
LC
10" 2ND STAGE FLASH
ILC TC
29-HA405 GAS COMPRESSOR
CONDENSATE STRIPPER SUCTION SCRUBBER
LC
FT INTER-REBOILER
LC
LC
FIC
FIC FT
TC
TC
29-HA407
CONDENSATE TIC
STRIPPER REBOILER TC 23-HC402
HOT OIL EV 23-HC403
1ST STAGE FLASH GAS
2ND STAGE FLASH GAS
EV 8" COMPR. AFTER COOLER
COMPR. AFTER COOLER
FT LC
3" 8"
23-VD401
1ST STAGE FLASH GAS
COMPRESSOR SUCTION SCRUBBER
B 8" B
SC 23-KA401
23-KA402
1ST STAGE FLASH GAS
2ND STAGE FLASH GAS
COMPRESSOR EV
COMPRESSOR
29-PD405
GLYCOL PUMP PC 2"
TO CLOSED DRAIN
EV
2"
SYSTEM NO:
TROLL
on - A1
TITLE:
croStati
A
ONSHORE PLANT
WORK PACK
OVERALL PROCESS SCEMATIC
lUBT - Mi
NO:
DRAWING NO.:
AB AS BUILT FOR KFGC 05.06.08 JN R BAM SCALE: PROJECTION:
Statoi
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
80
Appendix C
Following input process parameters has been used in the model for the PSVs active during
fire scenario.
Allowable
Backpressure
Inlet Temperature (Recommended by Rated Mass
PSV Ignored Inlet Pressure manufacturer) Flow Relief Valve
0
Tag number (Yes/No) (Bara) ( C) (Bara) (Kg/s) Type
29-PSV-6013/6014 No 34 63 13 14.33 Balanced bellow
29-PSV-6018/6019 No 12 32 5 18.33 Balanced bellow
29-PSV-6031/6032 No 12.55 215 5.2 4.44 Balanced bellow
29-PSV-6038/6039 No 12.55 215 5.2 4.44 Balanced bellow
29-PSV-6093/6094 No 12 92 5 8.61 Balanced bellow
29-PSV-6097 No 17.5 234 7 21.17 Balanced bellow
29-PSV-4523/4524 No 43.35 295 15 1.39 Balanced bellow
29-PSV-4503 No 13.10 188 5 1.22 Balanced bellow
29-PSV-4521/4522 No 12 85 5 0.64 Balanced bellow
29-PSV-4070A/B No 34 27 13 0.58 Balanced bellow
29-PSV-4594A/B No 13.1 149 5 2.08 Balanced bellow
29-PSV-4580A/B No 13.1 242 5 29.11 Balanced bellow
29-PSV-4501A/B No 39.5 211 15 0.25 Balanced bellow
29-PSV-4018A/B No 12 18.3 5 1.72 Balanced bellow
The details of the pipes and fittings have been given as input to the model as per actual
plant data.
81
82
Appendix D
Following options have been chosen prior to running the model as stated below.
Choked flow check active and use rated flow for tail pipes.
Properties
Sources outlet temperature estimation VLE method: Peng Robinson (Equation 3.20)
Sources outlet temperature estimation Enthalpy method: Peng Robinson (Equation 3.20)
83
84
Appendix E
Continuity Equation
D ( u ) ( v) ( w)
= + + + =0
Dt t x y z
It expresses the principle of conservation of matter. This is written for Cartesian coordinates
components u, v, and w.
Energy Equation
De T T T p D
= (k )+ (k )+ (k )+ +
Dt x x y y z z Dt
p
h e
which gives,
Dh De 1 Dp p Dp
= + -
Dt Dt Dt 2 Dt
After substitution, we get
Dh Dp T T T
= + (k )+ (k )+ (k )+
Dt Dt x x y y z z
85
Momentum Equation
Du xx xy xz
= X + + +
Dt x y z
Du yx yy yz
= Y + + +
Dt x y z
Dw zx zy zz
= Z + + +
Dt x y z
Re = Reynolds number
This is friction factor for turbulent flow and flow in the flare network is considered to be
turbulent.
86
2 fu 2 L
Pfl =
gD
Paccl = ( u 2 u1 )
2 2
2g
where:
and
L= pipe length
G = gravitational constant
∆Z = elevation
87
88
Bibliography
Standard 520 (Part I, 8th Edition and Part II, 5th Edition).
3. Analysis, Design, Installation, and Testing of Basic Surface Safety Systems for
10. Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s Handbook, By Don W. Green, Robert H. Perry, 8th
Edition.
11. OGP, International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, Process Safety-
12. Flare Gas Systems Pocket Handbook; by K. Banerjee, N.P. Cheremisinoff, P.N.
Cheremisinoff, 2003
13. Flare System Analyzer Course, By Aspen Tech, September 2011, Stavanger,
Norway.
University of Leeds
89
15. Flare header failure: An investigation, Hydrocarbon processing journal, Jan 2013
16. Relief valve and flare action items: What plant engineers should know,
Hydrocarbon Processing Journal Jan 2012 Edition. By Smith, D., Smith & Burgess
LLC, Houston, Texas; Burgess, J., Smith and Burgess LLC, Houston, Texas
18. Flare stack structure revamp: A case history, Journal Jan 2011 edition. By Singh,
19. Consider new analysis for flares. Hydrocarbon Processing Journal Jan 2010 edition.
Urban, Z., Process Systems Enterprise Ltd., London, United Kingdom; Marriott, J. ,
Ltd., Medstead, UK
20. Best Practice on Depressurization and Fire-Relief Design, Norsk Hydro ASA. By
21. Handbook of Fire and Explosion Protection Engineering Principles for Oil and Gas
22. Determination of Temperatures and Flare Rates During Depressurization and Fire,
24. Guidelines for the Design and Protection of Pressurized Systems to Withstand
90
25. Flow Assurance with OLGA, Training course organized by SPT group.
26. Next generation dynamic process simulator using K-Spice. Training course by
28. Managing the risk of organizational accidents, by Reason James, 1997, Hants,
Stavanger.
30. Internal Fluid Flow: The Fluid Dynamics of Flow in Pipes and Ducts; by A. J. Ward-
91