Flare Systems

NED ALUMNI PRESENTATION

March 01, 2008

Bilal Kureshi
Topics to cover

 Introduction
 Characteristics of Relief Valves
 Typical upset scenarios and calculation procedures
 Real World Example (Gas Oil Fractionator)
 PSV and line sizing (gas, liquid, two-ph)
 Equipment sizing (stack, drum, pump)
 Depressuring and Blowdown
 Flare Technology
1.0 Introduction

Relief and Blowdown System is required to protect

pressurized equipment and piping against overpressure.
Relief devices (PSVs, RDs, etc.) are the last line of defense.
Relief devices are required to meet ASME BPV
Section I and VIII
Other recommended Practices:
API 520, 521
Colt Engineering Practice EP-309-05
GPSA Volume I, Section V
Characteristics of Safety Relief Valves
Relief Events Considered
Blocked Discharge Scenario
External Fire Scenario
Tube Rupture Scenario
Control Valve Failure Scenario
 “Double jeopardy” events need not be considered
 Instrumentation action that would mitigate relief
(as long as not HIPPS) should not be considered
Blocked Discharge
Outlet of any vessel, P-D pump, compressor, or other
equipment item that can be blocked from a high pressure
source
Relief load is typically the maximum flow which the P-D
pump, compressor, or other flow source produces if
Vendor data is not available
Blocked Discharge (Cont..)
System Sketch

Scenario Description = A block valve or a control valve

downstream of P-D compressor inadvertently closes
Operating pressure = 900 psig; MAWP = 1000 psig
Accumulated Pressure = 1100 psig
Compressor design capacity = 50,000 lb/hr (take
compressor outlet stream in HYSYS, add valve and
increase downstream pressure to 1.10 x MAWP for
properties (P & T rise at constant enthalpy)
Relief load = 50,000 lb/hr (use design capacity for P-D
compressors and P-D pumps, EP-309-05)
Blocked Discharge (Cont..)
External Fire Scenario

Least predictable event which may occur

Fire conditions may overpressure vapor-filled,
liquid-filled, or mixed phase systems
Depending on equipment spacing, multiple fire
relief can be significant for Flare system sizing
(Fire circles)
External Fire Scenario
System Sketch

HLL

Skirt Height

Scenario Description = External fire scenario on liquid-filled

pressure vessel. Vapour generation due to fire causes
overpressure.
MAWP = 1000 psig
Accumulated Pressure = 1210 psig
External Fire Scenario (Cont..)
Calculation Procedure
Step 1: Determine Vessel Skirt Height and HLL location. Per
API guidelines, the flame is assumed to engulf up to 25’-0”
of the vessel from grade. Determine Vessel wetted surface
area:
A = DL (Add 10 to 20% contingency for piping)
D = Vessel Diameter, ft
L = Vessel total height (up to HLL, to a maximum of 25 ft)
Step 2: Enter HYSYS, take liquids stream of the separator.
Add heater on liquids outlet and raise the pressure on the
downstream side to 1.21 x MAWP and specify the vapour
fraction to between 0.01 and 0.0001. Determine Latent Heat
of Vapourization (Btu/lb). Take Average value.
Q = mCpT + mH
External Fire Scenario (Cont..)
Step 3: Determine Heat input from fire, Q, Btu/hr
Use Q = (21,000) F A 0.82 (If adequate drainage and fire-
fighting equipment in place – default) OR
Use Q = (34,500) F A 0.82 (If no drainage and fire-fighting
equipment is in place – If client wants)
Typically, F = 1 and depends on insulation and banding
Step 4: Determine Relief Load, W (lb/hr) = Q / H
Other Concerns:
1. If operating close to the critical region, use article,
“Calculation of Relieving Requirements in the Critical
Region, by J.O Francis and W. E Shackelton
2. For vapour-filled vessels, use Vapour-thermal
expansion procedure as listed in API 520/521 (Or Farris
Program)
Tube Rupture Scenario
Caused when a large differential (1.33) between the
design pressure of the shell and tube side of an
exchanger exists
For design, only one tube is considered to rupture
(calculate flow and x 2 as flow exits both split ends)
Relief load can be estimated using orifice flow
equations (Ref: Crane Manual).
Flashing effects (when a cool media contacts a hot
stream) should be considered.
Transient conditions (sudden release of vapor into all-
liquid should be considered – displacement of
equivalent liquid USGPM can be huuuuuuuuge).
Tube Rupture Scenario (Cont..)
System Sketch
Design Pressure S/S =
300 psig

Design Pressure T/S =

1000 psig

Scenario Description = Split tube in Exchanger causes

overpressure on the shell side. Assume tube contains 100%
non-condensable gas for this example.
S/S MAWP = 300 psig; Accumulated Pressure = 330 psig
T/S Operating Pressure = 900 psig
Tube Rupture Scenario (Cont..)
Calculation Procedure
Step 1: Use Crane Manual equation for compressible flow
W = 1891 Yd2 [(XP1)/(KV)]1/2
W = Relief load per tube end (lb/h). Multiply this by 2 as
relief flow occurs from both ends of the tube.
K = 1.00 (Velocity head loss for pipe exit)
Y = 0.67 to 1.00 (Net Expansion Factor for square edge
orifice, Y = 1.00 for liquid flow, Crane A-21)
X = P/P1 where P = P1 – P2 or P1 – Pc whichever is lower
(critical flow considerations)
V = specific fluid volume, ft3/lb
d = tube ID, inch
Tube Rupture Scenario (Cont..)
Some recommendations for relief load mitigation:

Some clients consider this upset as a “remote”

contingency. Downstream relief pressure can be as high as
the hydrostatic test pressure for remote contingencies.

Remote Contingency: P2 = 1.33 x MAWP

Design Contingency: P2 = 1.10 x MAWP (single PSV) or 1.16
x MAWP (multi-PSV)
Control Valve Failure Scenario

Consider this relief when there is a spec change (HP to

LP) across control valve.
Faulty controls can cause the valve to stick open.
Some clients like to consider a partially open bypass
also (can be a “remote” contingency)
Liquid followed by vapor blow-by can also occur
(flushing toilet example)
Consider start-up scenario, vapor blow-by only (Hydro-
treater applications)
Control Valve Failure Scenario (Cont..)
System Sketch

HP Sep LC

LV

LP Sep
HP LP

Scenario Description = Start-up scenario with recycle gas

circulating from HP separator to LP separator. Level control
valve fails 100% open, Vapour blow-by from HP separator
to LP separator occurs.
HP Sep maximum operating pressure = 1000 psig
LP Sep MAWP = 300 psig; Accumulated Pressure = 330
psig
Control Valve Failure Scenario (Cont..)
Calculation Procedure

Step 1: Determine Level Control Valve Rated Cv (Cv at

100% open, from Controls Group or Fisher Catalogue)
Step 2: Determine Relief Load (assume no system
“outflow”)
W = 63.3 Cv Y (P1)1/2 – [GPSA Chapter 4]
W = Relief Load, lb/h
Cv = Valve Flow co-efficient at 100% open
Y = Expansion Factor, typically 0.67 for critical flow
P = P1 – P2 or P1 - Pc whichever is lower
1 = Upstream density, lb/ft3
Control Valve Failure Scenario (Cont..)
Other Key Parameters:

1. Vapour blow-by only case is controlling under most

circumstances.
2. If start-up scenario as shown does not exist, determine
time required for LP vessel to fill-up (from NLL to top
tan line). Credit for Operator Response Time (20 – 30
minutes) may be taken.
3. For Multi-Phase streams, i.e normal liquid rate followed
by vapour, ISA equations in GPSA should NOT be used.
Either use Vendor software OR PSV HEM model
(simulate PSV as a control valve in multi-ph service).
4. In this upset , credit for lower upstream pressure may
be taken due to inlet line losses.
Control Valve Failure Scenario (Cont..)
Some recommendations for relief load mitigation:

As long as process flow conditions and valve

performance are being met:
 Reduce control valve trim
 Replace control valve type (from equal percent to linear)
 Include upstream line losses to control valve
 Response time for operator intervention (20 – 30 mins
for LP vessel fill-up)
 Two parallel (2 x 50%) control valves with independent
control loops.
 Install restriction orifice (no mechanical hard-stops!)
upstream of control valve to increase upstream
pressure loss.
Relief Load Determination – Other upsets
 Utility Failure
 Cooling Water Failure
 Total Power Failure
 Partial Power Failure
 Instrument Air Failure
 Other Upsets
 Overspeed Scenarios (Pumps and Compressors
on VFD)
 Liquid and Vapour Thermal Expansion
 Check Valve Failure (Imperial Oil favorite)
 Run-away reactions, etc..
What can go wrong here?
Gas Oil Fractionator System
PSV
set @ 50 psig

Flare (From Upgrading CT)

CW
PC

Wash Water
FC Off Gas
E-6A-D
54.86 MMBtu/h FC
FC

Feed from
C-12 LC
Hot HP Separator

Naphtha
TC FC

C-8
Product
C-11 37
Hot LP Separator LC
Gas Oil Fractionator FO FC
230 psig G-2A/B G-6A/B Sour Water
M/T (Note 1) M/M
FC

LGO PA
E-7A-C 31 G-102A/B
FO
M/M
FC
E-2 Rx Eff. 28
(Note 4) LGO
FC
Product
21
FC E-103 FC
G-101A/B (Note 4)
70.9 MMBtu/h
50 Psig M/M
(Note 2)
Steam
FC

FO 1
H&M Envelope
E-8A/B (Note 3)
(parallel)
50 Psig LC

Steam

FC

FO F-2
70 MMBtu/h
FC

G-3A/B
M/M
FC

HGO Feed HGO

CW
Fuel Product
FC
E-4
E-9A/B
G-5A/B
M/M

Notes:
(1) Turbine pump is auto-standby.
(2) Net LGO PA cooler duty is about 41 MMBtu/h.
(3) Hysys simulation only include LGO PA cooler duty and so assume LGO product leaving as saturated liquid upstream of E-103.
(4) Assume failed open control valve for LGO PA and failed close control valve for LGO product.
PSV and Line sizing

• Types of relieving devices

• Sizing equations
• Orifice designations
• Inlet / Outlet line sizing
Types of relieving devices
SPRING OPPOSED VALVES
Safety valves (Vapor):
Rapid lift, popping action
ASME BPV Section I Equipment
Relief valves (Liquid):
Lift proportional to rising pressure, full lift and capacity at 125% of set
pressure
Safety-relief valves (most common service)
Works like a safety valve in vapor/two-phase service and relief valve in liquid
service
Liquid trim relief valves:
Applies where liquid relief is controlling, existing safety relief valve can’t
meet the ASME Section VIII requirement of achieving full lift at 110% of set
pressure
Pilot operated pressure relief valves:
Used in vapor or liquid service. Typically used when
a) Poper > 90% of Pset
b) location at which pressure is sensed is different from relief load location
Types of relieving devices
RUPTURE DISCS
 Non-reclosing differential pressure relieving devices
 Includes a rupture disc and a rupture disc holder
 Some types:
a) Conventional tension loaded discs
b) Prescored tension loaded discs
c) Composite discs
d) Reverse buckling discs with knives
e) Prescored reverse buckling discs
f) Reverse buckling discs for liquid service
g) Graphite discs
Types of relieving devices
Typical Safety and Safety Relief Valves:

Conventional PSVs
Used when service is clean and non-corrosive
Not used when build-up back pressure during relief exceeds
10% of set pressure

Balanced Bellows PSVs

Used when service contains coke or slurry particles
Maximum superimposed backpressure exceeds 10% of set pressure
Do not use Bellows PSVs where conventional PSVs are suitable
Do not use in vibratory service
Conventional PSV

Inlet Pressure to valve directly opposed by

spring
Effective disk area greater than nozzle seat area
Differential pressure valve: spring tension keeps
the valve shut in normal operation but allows to
open during relief
Backpressure limited (upto 10%)
Balanced Bellows PSV

Two types: Piston / Bellows

Effective bellows/pistons area same as
nozzle seat area
Disk area extending beyond the bellows and
seat area cancel
Higher possible backpressures (upto 50%)
PSV sizing equations
(When in doubt, use the Farris PSV sizing program but be careful about 2ph!)
Critical flow (Vapour)

Kd by vendor (prelim = 0.975), Kb is different for conv. & bellows valves

(by vendor or prelim from API charts)
Sub- critical flow (P2 > PCF)

F2 from API charts

PSV sizing equations
Liquid relief
(Capacity Certification)

Kw and Kv from API charts

Steam relief

Liquid flow – Conventional PRV (Capacity Certification not required)

Same as the “Capacity Certification” equation, only with an additional
Correction factor in the denominator, “Kp” = 0.60 for 10% accumulation
and 0.92 for 21% accumulation, Use API charts

Two-phase relief

Use API 520 Part 1 Appendix D, latest edition (2001 and above)
The “HEM” Approach
Standard orifice designation
Standard info on PSV datasheets
Inlet line sizing
 Rated Flow = Required Flow x Installed Area / Required Area
API Guideline: 3% rule
a) High inlet loss can result in valve chattering
b) Include unrecoverable losses only (static, frictional, valves and fittings)
c) Pay special attention to reducers on inlet stem
d) Hint: When doing inlet line losses for vapor relief, consider fluid as
incompressible to ignore velocity head loss
e) 3% rule can be revised to 4 or even 5% based on manufacturer’s
recommendation
f) The 3% rule mainly applies to vapour relief in conventional and bellows
PSVs
g) The “swinging door” example
Outlet line sizing
Outlet line losses are either backpressure limited or mach number limited.
Mach No. = Ug/Us (gas exit velocity / velocity of sound)
For new plants: mach no. not to exceed 0.5
For debottlenecks: mach no. not to exceed 0.75
Use Flarenet for complicated flare hydraulics (multiple contingencies,
effect of liquids condensing (cold + hot vapor mix) etc.
Telescoping effect
PSV tail pipe sizing criteria is vague. Make sure safety of the system is not
being compensated.
PSV tail pipe means PSV outlet line to main header
YOUR HYDRAULICS ALWAYS START AT THE FLARE TIP
Flare tip pressure drop can be estimated using vendor curves. For open
pipe-tip flares, using the atmospheric pressure is conservative
Typical PSV line sizing criteria
PSV INLET / OUTLET LINE SIZING CRITERIA (TYPICAL)
INLET TAIL PIPE

Valve Type Phase Max Loss Flow Rate Basis Max Loss Flow Rate Basis
at 10% at 10%
% Set P overpressure % Set P overpressure
Conventional VAP 3% Rated 10% Rated
Conventional LIQ N/A Required 10% Required
Conventional VAP/LIQ 3% Rated 10% Rated

Balanced Bellows VAP 3% Rated 50% Required

Balanced Bellows LIQ N/A Required 50% Required
Balanced Bellows VAP/LIQ 3% Rated 50% Required

Nonmod Pilot VAP 3% Rated 50% Required

Nonmod Pilot LIQ N/A Required 50% Required
Nonmod Pilot VAP/LIQ 3% Rated 50% Required

Mod Pilot VAP 3% Required 50% Required

Mod Pilot LIQ N/A Required 50% Required
Mod Pilot VAP/LIQ 3% Required 50% Required
 Developing flare hydraulics
Make a copy of the latest plot plan (if new plant, use isometrics if existing)
Determine major relief locations within each building / module, etc.
On an 11 x 17 sheet, connect the major relief locations to the main
ipe rack going to the KO drum and eventually to the flare stack
Record equivalent lengths of all these segments
Always consider telescoping effect: example: 8” tail pipe connects to
6” flare sub-header, that connects to 24” main header
Input relief loads and equivalent length estimates from major relieving
ources into either a spreadsheet application (conservative) or programs like
larenet (realistic) for flare header sizing
The 11 x 17 sketch you have made will also be used to develop Flare
nterconnect P&IDs
Some good design practices:
) The flare header continuously slopes towards the KO Drum to avoid line
ockets
) The PSV is usually at the highest point and the header slopes downwards
rom there
Equipment Sizing

• Flare stack sizing

• KO drum sizing
• Pump sizing
Flare stack sizing

Simple Method
B & S Method (Default)

Kent method

Windspeed
design: 20 mph
normal: 10 mph
K = 500
btu/(ft2 hr)
H1 Use
H1-H2 &
R2
H2
K = 1,500 btu/(ft2 hr)
K = 500
btu/(ft2 hr)

R1

R2
Flare stack sizing
Rules of thumb:

• Use B & S Method (as default)

• Always check spreadsheet application before using. Ensure the
correlations are related to API 521 (for prelim sizing)
• Fraction of Radiant Heat (F) is a complicated value, ranges from
0.10 to 0.40. Check client and/or Colt guidelines
• Recommended Radiant Intensity (K) at Flare Stack Base = 1,500
btu/(ft2-hr); For normal/continuous exposure = 500 btu/(ft2-hr)
• Radiant Intensity can be as high as 2,500 btu/ft2-hr) for some
designs (check local guidelines)
• Size flare stack at design wind speed and full flow. Check rate at
Normal wind speed and turndown flow
• Always check with the vendor. Use vendor information as much
as possible at any stage of the project
• Flare vendors : 1. John Zink, 2. Zeeco Inc., 3., Flare Industries,
and, 4. GBA-Corona. Personal bias: (2) and (4)
Flare KO Drum sizing
Rules of thumb:

• Size drum for 400 micron liquid droplet removal with no

demister pad (Ref: API 521)
• AEUB Guide 60 (Draft 2001) recommends new drums to be sized
for 300 micron liquid droplet removal with no demister pad
• If flare slop volume is not known, assume vessel is 25% full of
liquids at SG of 0.7 (or lower depending on process liquids)
• If flare slop volume is known, allow for:
a. Volume equivalent to 5 - 20 minutes for drainage from other
sources. Refer sketch
b. Volume equivalent to 20 – 30 minutes residence time for the
liquid relief event. Refer sketch
• API method does not account for vapour inlet and outlet
nozzles. Dead space from nozzle centerline to vessel head not
used in particle separation calculations
• 2 inlet / 1 outlet design is usually better (bullet shaped vessel,
smaller diameter, lesser weight, meaning less eq. cost etc.)
Flare KO Drum Sizing
Flare KO Drum Sketch
Flare KO Drum Pump sizing
Rules of thumb:

• It is recommended that flare slops be directed to a) slop oil

system, b) disposal well, c) any other place other than the main
process!
• If liquid relief is not known, typical pump capacity = 50 USGPM
@ SG of 0.70 (or lower depending on process liquids)
• If liquids relief is known, pump capacity to be based on liquid
relief load (conservative – check with client, project specific)
• At least 1 of the 2 x 100% pumps to be connected to emergency
power generator
• For NPSHA calculations, assume boiling liquid with a safety
factor of at least 3.0 feet (project specific)
• May require a booster pump and P-D pump combination
depending on P requirements (project specific)
Depressuring and blowdown

• Definition and theory

• Safeguarding diagram
• Calculation steps
• HYSYS blow down utility
• Depressuring using spreadsheets
Definition and Theory
Why is depressuring required?
 When metal temperature is increased above the specified design
temperature due to fire or chemical reaction, stress rupture could
occur
 Deplete inventory during shutdowns
Typical sizing basis for vapour depressuring
 Reduce equipment pressure from initial conditions to a level equivalent
to 50% of the vessel design pressure in 15 minutes. Criteria based on
vessel wall temperature versus stress to rupture

Theory
 Depressuring of a system
occurs at a logarithmic rate
as shown
Pressure

Final pressure (100 psig)

15 minutes
Time
How to create a safeguarding diagram
 Developing a safeguarding diagram is not a Colt standard, but some
projects do require this deliverable
 Using the P&IDs as a basis, do the following on the current set of
PFDs:
a) Assign failure positions of all valves (FV, LV, PV, etc.)
b) Locate all in-line check valves
c) Locate all PSVs on individual equipment, indicate: size, disposal
location (HP/LP flare), and sizing case
d) Locate restriction orifices and blow down valves to flare
e) Locate all emergency shutdown valves (ESD)
f) Determine blow down envelope based on ESD location
g) Try using a different color or a cloud for each blow down envelope
Safeguarding diagram (De-eth/De-but)
Calculation steps (Its all about volumes)
 Develop safeguarding diagram
 Assume all valves to fail in fail-safe position
 Assume PSVs in the loop to handle vapour generation due to fire
during emergency depressuring
 Compute the original volumes (vapor, two-phase, and liquid) of
equipment and piping, and arrange in descending order of pressure
 Calculate Vt = Vvap + Vtwo-ph + Vliq. This is a fixed number
 Calculate Volumetric Average Pressure PVA
PVA = (PVIVVI + PVLJVVLJ) / VtVVL
Where:
PVI = Pressure of Vapor volume segment, i
VVI = Volume of Vapor volume segment, i
PVLJ = Pressure of two-phase volume segment, i
VVLJ = Volume of two-phase volume segment, i
VtVVL= Total vapour + two-phase volume
Calculation steps (Its all about volumes)
 Calculate final volume of the system at 1.2 x PVA, 1.1 x PVA, and 1.05 x
PVA
 Using HYSYS, for the 1.2 x PVA case:
a) Flash HP Vapour and liquid “segments” from maximum operating
pressure to 1.2 x PVA
b) Determine additional gas volume due to expansion and additional
vapor volume for liquids due to flashing
c) Check if total volume in step b) is the same as original volume of the
enclosed system Vt
 Repeat above procedure at 1.1 x PVA and 1.05 x PVA
 Settle-out pressure, Ps is typically 1.03 to 1.10 x PVA
 For new systems, Ps is typically the design pressure of the LP side
 For blow down valve or RO sizing, either use maximum upstream
operating pressure or Ps, whichever is greater to determine maximum
blow down rate (max flow max P)
 Check rate blow down valve size at min flow and min P also
HYSYS depressuring utility
HYSYS blowdown utility: Open HYSYS Case  Tools Utilities
Depressuring Dynamics

1. Select HYSYS stream

to depressure
2. Enter vessel volume
and correction
factors (if applicable)
3. Under heat flux,
select either fire-
mode or adiabatic.
Heat loss model =
simple
4. Enter valve
parameters
5. Under options: PV
work term = 87% -
98% for gas service
and 40% - 70% for
liquid service.
Depressuring spreadsheet
Flare technology

• Flare tip selection: Sonic versus Conventional

• Elevated flares
• Ground flares
• Enclosed flares
• Exhaust vent stacks
Sonic Flare tips (HP Flare)

•Fig - JZ multi-point “HYDRA” tip: small

diameter arms separate the flow to
individual, aerodynamic nozzles
•Higher backpressure (50 – 200 psig)
results in lower KO drum and header size
•Lower purge gas requirements
•Smokeless (higher exit velocity, air
entrainment, and allowable P)
•Longer flare tip life as flame ignited
above tip metal
•Lower flare height as compared to
conventional
Conventional flare tips (LP Flare)
Tulip designs (JZ Technology)
1. Burns smokelessly without air
assist at 10 psig or higher allow BP
2. HP gas ejects radially from
annular slot and entrains air
3. Slots can be fixed or variable
4. Unfavorable due to flame
“licking” and burnback
Utility Designs (Conventional)
1. Applicable at lower pressures
2. Pipe-type tip
3. Forced air from blower and gas
routed separately
4. Flame lick and burnback
eliminated by forced air from
blowers
5. Forced air also shortens flame
Elevated flares
Advantages:
1) lower to moderate equipment cost
2) Best practice design in North America
Disadvantages:
1) High Noise levels (sonic flares)
2) Higher luminosity (flame length and support structure)
3) Spacing requirements
Elevated flare are of three types:
• Guyed Stack – Least expensive to build; however guy wires result in
restrictions on the use of adjacent land, in addition to normal spacing
restrictions
• Derrick Support Stack – Most expensive to erect and maintain. Well
suited for tall structures subject to strong winds. LP and HP flare
“risers” in a common derrick support saves plot space
• Self Support Stack – Designed such that flare riser pipe has no lateral
structural support. For short flares, this is the least expensive to erect
and maintain
Ground flares

•A multipoint ground flare has

multiple burners to distribute
flared gases across numerous
burning points, multiple burning
points arranged in arrays
•Multi-burner, staged flares are fed
from a manifold that distributes the
flow of flare gas to individual
branches (or stages) containing
one or more burner tips Advantages:
•Typically, control valves would 1) Lower noise and luminosity
direct the flow of flare gas to each
2) Lower equipment spacing
stage. These control valves open
requirements
or close depending upon the
upstream pressure Disadvantages:
1) Moderate to higher equipment
cost
2) Higher maintenance – More tips to
maintain
Enclosed flares

•Thermal oxidizer enclose the

flame in a refractory lined
combustion chamber, effectively
eliminating any visible flame
•The wind fence is designed to
assist in distributing air around the
unit. It also shields against
radiation and combustion noise
•Typical unit capacity range from
20 MMSCFD to 100 MMSCFD Advantages:
1) Lowest noise and luminosity
2) Lowest equipment spacing
requirements
Disadvantages:
1) Highest equipment cost
2) Constructability may be an issue
Exhaust vent stacks

• An exhaust vent stack is a simple pipe riser similar to an elevated

flare stack, without accessories such as continuously lit pilots, flame
front or electrical ignition panels, etc.
Disadvantages:
1) GHG emissions from venting 6 to 8 times higher than flaring
2) Equipment cost difference between elevated flare and exhaust vent is
minimal
3) EUB Guide 60 (1999) does not recommend venting large volumes of
gas
4) Potential for accidental ignition due to lightning
5) High noise levels
6) Vapour MW increase during facility depressurization (Dispersion
modeling). Cost may increase due to additional height
The flare engineer food chain
Beginner skills:
• Flare hydraulics (inlet and outlet line sizing) and interconnecting
P&IDs
• PSV orifice sizing
• “Easy” Equipment sizing (Drum, pumps, and stack)
• “Easy” PSVs relief load calcs: single contingencies
Intermediate skills:
• Safeguarding diagram development
• PFD and P&ID development
• Depressuring and Blowdown calculations
• “Medium” PSV relief load calcs: multiple contingencies
Advanced skills:
• “Hard” PSV calcs (e.g.: the fractionator relief)
• Operating and Relieving pressure profiles
• Advanced blow down calcs (e.g: HP loop in a gas-oil hydrotreater)
• Flare technology selection
• Dynamic simulations to mitigate relief load
Questions?