Gas flaring system design and optimization

with commercial simulation tool

S. T. TIEW and D. C. FOO, Centre for Green Technologies/Department of Chemical and
Environmental Engineering, University of Nottingham Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia; and R. M.
RAZALLI, IGL Services Sdn Bhd., Kuala Lumpur

In the chemicals, petroleum refining and natural gas industries, gas flaring systems are commonly
installed for safe operation to burn associated and non-associated gases. Gas flaring is a common
process in hydrocarbon processing plants during maintenance or abnormal situations.1 In addition to
providing safe operations, a gas flaring system also helps to reduce air pollution from hydrocarbons. As
most components in hydrocarbons are greenhouse gases (GHGs), they show greater greenhouse effect
than carbon dioxide (CO2) with higher carbon equivalent value [e.g., methane (CH4) with 30 CO2-e–36 kg

CO2-e].2,3 It is therefore necessary to design a flaring system to provide fast conversion to reduce the GHG

emissions into the atmosphere.

Safety is a critical element for every operating plant. An appropriate flare system should always be
available and capable of performing its intended purpose through all emergency plant conditions.
According to American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 537,4 flare-related components should be
designed to operate and properly perform under specified service conditions for a minimum of 5 yr without
the need of an outage of the operating facility. Therefore, the design of the flaring system is important to
satisfy the minimum requirement to ensure the safety of an operating plant.
Process simulation may be used to optimize the gas flaring system, as it provides comprehensive
visualization and reveals debottlenecking potential for a given system. In the work by Davoudi, et al.,5 a
proprietary simulation toola was used to assess two flaring networks in the South Pars gas processing
plant in the Middle East. The results showed that the backpressure of flaring networks was overestimated,
so the designed gas sweeping flowrate can be reduced by one-third.5

As gas flaring systems are considered unprofitable, it is important to reduce their capital cost. A cost-
reduction exercise can be conducted in several ways (e.g., equipment and pipe sizing reduction).
Equipment reduction can be performed through integrating flaring networks. Such work was reported by
Pemii, et al.,6 who integrated flare networks that are in close proximity, resulting in an optimized flare
system of lower cost and environmental impact. Pipe size reduction can be carried out through flaring
system debottlenecking studies, in both steady-state and dynamic models. Dynamic models require the
calculation for time-dependent pressure safety valve (PSV) opening rate and time-dependent heat transfer
rate. This is generally more time-consuming and requires computation resources. Therefore, the
optimization of the flaring system may be attempted through a steady-state model. Assumptions made
include maximum heat transfer rate and maximum allowable relieving rate. This eliminates the
computation for time-dependent variables.

This article details a gas flaring system that was designed by considering different emergency scenarios.
Cost reduction was conducted by performing pipe analysis for each scenario. The proposed framework
made use of the simulation modela for the design of a gas flaring system. Further evaluation of the gas
flaring systems was performed by installing additional equipment. Pipe analysis was conducted for the
optimization of the gas flaring system.

Methodology. FIG. 1 shows the flow chart for designing the gas flaring system proposed in this work.
First, the simulation model of the process was first generated using a commercial simulation software.a
Physical properties of molecules (e.g., mole fraction, heat capacity, latent heat) and equipment operating
conditions (e.g., temperature, pressure) were exported to Microsoft Excel. Other equipment data—such as
volume of equipment, maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP), maximum allowable accumulated
pressure (MAAP) and liquid inventory—were also extracted to Microsoft Excel. API Standard 521 was used
as the major design code in this report.7 The emergency scenarios considered were based on API
Standard 521.

FIG. 1. Flow chart for designing the gas flaring system.

Based on API Standard 521,7 the gas flaring system design was constrained by allowable backpressure
(the maximum backpressure that can be withstood by a PRV in the gas flaring system) and Mach number
The allowable backpressure of PSVs varies with different manufacturers—however, the allowable
backpressure cannot exceed 21% of the set pressure of the PSVs (according to API Standard 520).8

Conversely, the Mach number is defined as the actual fluid velocity over sonic velocity through the fluid at
the associated temperature. The Mach number limit is to prevent the flow from entering transonic flow,
which may create shock waves and dramatically increase drag. According to API Standard 521,7 the Mach
number of a flare header is allowed up to 0.5 for short-term, peak, infrequent flow that is mainly seen
during emergency situations. The Mach number of tailpipes can be as high as 0.7. The Mach number of
0.2 for continuous flaring is not considered in this work, as routing flaring is excluded during the design.7
TABLE 1 shows the maximum allowable Mach number in different situations.
The maximum relieving rate of each PSV in each scenario was calculated based on API Standard 521.7
Next, the gas flaring system was designed using the simulation toola and considering all scenarios. To
determine possible improvements to the design, a pipe analysis was performed for all flare headers to
reduce their pipe size.

To prevent equipment overpressure, backpressure was used as a limiting factor during the pipe analysis
(i.e., the pipe size was reduced to the maximum allowable backpressure). Backpressure tolerance is
defined as the difference between the allowable backpressure and exerted backpressure. Due to safety
considerations, backpressure tolerance is prohibited to be a negative value. When the pipe size was
reduced, the reduction of backpressure tolerance of the PSVs remains identical. Therefore, the PSV with
the lowest backpressure tolerance was selected to perform the pipe analysis.

After the pipe size reduction, the exerted backpressure of all PSVs was examined to ensure that it fell
below the allowable backpressure. A rating calculation in the simulation toola was used to ensure the
feasibility of the system in terms of backpressure and Mach number. If there is no further reduction in pipe
sizing, the optimized gas flaring systems will undergo cost analysis. Cost correlations from Stone, et al.,9
were used to calculate the cost of pipes, given as Eqs. 1 and 2:

CP = [127LD1.21/ 100] (where 1 in. < D < 24 in.) (1)

CP = [139LD1.07/ 100] (where 30 in. < D < 60 in.) (2)

where D is the diameter of the pipe [in inches (in.)] and L is the length of the piping [in feet (ft)].

After selecting the gas flaring system, the addition of equipment (e.g., reactor, distillation) was considered
before any decisions were made. If there is additional equipment, a re-evaluation is required for all flaring
systems. In the absence of additional equipment, a detailed piping drawing of the chosen flare system was
drawn in the simulation toola.

Case study. A case study on an ethanol production plant was evaluated for its flare system design; the
process flow diagram is shown in FIG. 2. The process flow of the ethanol production plant begins with the
fermentation of a glucose mixture, followed by the purification of ethanol. The glucose mixture is sent to
two glucose fermenters (GF-001, GF-002) that are operated at 35°C and 2 bar. Dilute ethanol is produced in
the fermenters and sent to the ethanol distillation column (DC-001) for purification; this column (DC-001)
is operated at 120°C and 2 bar. Ethanol leaving the top stream of DC-001 has a purity of 60% and is sent to
the azeotrope distillation column (DC-002) for further purification. Ethylene glycol is added to DC-002 as
solvent to ease the separation of the ethanol-water mixture; DC-002 is operated at 135°C and 1.8 bar.
Ethanol is purified to 90% before it leaves DC-002 and is sent to a storage tank. As ethylene glycol is an
expensive solvent, a recovery column (DC-003) was installed to purify ethylene glycol for its recovery to
DC-002. Note that DC-003 is operated at 150°C and 1.6 bar.
 FIG. 2. The process flow diagram of the flare system design in an ethanol production plant.

As ethanol is produced and purified in the plant, a gas flaring system is required to prevent accumulation
of ethanol in the process during emergencies. Ethylene glycol is also a hazardous chemical, and due to
these materials, fermentation and distillation are two hazardous sections that were considered in the gas
flaring design. The fermentation section is the main reaction section in the plant where a large amount of
ethanol is produced, while the distillation and accumulator sections involve ethanol purification where
high-purity ethanol and large amounts of ethylene glycol exists.

To design the gas flaring system, various emergency scenarios were screened based on the major
potential circumstances. During the process operation, emergency scenarios may occur due to closed
outlets, utility failure, external fire and chemical reaction. Among these, the external fire scenario is the
most hazardous as high temperatures and pressure may build within the equipment, causing overpressure
and rupture of equipment.

According to API Standard 521,7 there are three external fire scenarios: open pool fire, confined pool fire
and jet fire. Among these scenarios, a confined pool fire is not considered as the plant is in an open area
where the air-to-fuel ratio is sufficient for continuous combustion. As a jet fire will only occur when the
reservoir pressure is > 3 bar,1 jet fire is excluded from the scenarios as the highest operating pressure in
the plant was 2 bar, which is lower than the required pressure. Therefore, only open pool fire is considered
in this case, where constant heat radiation is emitted from the fire due to the stabilized combustion of
open pool fire.

A closed outlet is the most frequent scenario and can be caused by stream blockage, controller failure and
reverse flow. The inadvertent closure of a valve at the outlet of the equipment during operation can expose
the equipment to a pressure that exceeds its MAWP. All closed outlet scenarios are independent
scenarios, as the outlet blockage of a stream does not cause the blockage of other streams in the
process. To study the design of a gas flaring system, both the most hazardous scenario and the most
frequent scenario were considered to achieve a better vision of the gas flaring system design. In the
process, a PSV is installed for each piece of equipment to relieve its accumulated gases, avoiding any
equipment overpressure. A summary of the sources of the gas flaring design is shown in TABLE 2.
Design approach. The base case of the gas flaring system of the ethanol production plant was
designed using the simulation toola, with Peng-Robinson as its thermodynamic model. The worst-case
scenario, shown in TABLE 2, was considered for the design of the gas flaring system. To reduce the
capital cost, the size of the piping in the gas flaring system is to be reduced by decreasing the governing
flowrate, which is the highest relieving rate within the selected scenario.

FIG. 3 shows four different configurations of the considered gas flaring system. In Alternative 1 (top left),
the sub-headers of the distillation section, fermenter section and accumulator section were integrated,
leading to a reduced number of sub-headers that are connected to the flare header. The relieving rate from
the PSVs in each section were connected to a sub-header, where a total of three sub-headers were used.
The governing flowrate in Alternative 1 was determined as 39,269 kg/hr, which has the total relieving rate
of PSV-004 and PSV-005.

FIG. 3. Four different configurations of the considered gas flaring system.

Alternative 2 (top right) was designed to reduce the size of the flare header by having two separate flare
headers (i.e., Flare Headers 1 and 2). Each fermenter is connected to a flare header, segregating the
governing flowrate. The governing flowrate of the first header is the total flowrate from PSV-001, PSV-002
and PSV-003 (i.e., 35,154 kg/hr), while that of the second header originates from PSV-004 (i.e., 19,634
kg/hr).

In Alternative 3 (bottom left), the governing flowrate is further segregated. The highest flowrate of PSV in
Flare Header 1 was connected to Flare Header 2, which significantly reduced the governing flowrate in
Flare Header 1. Overall, the governing flowrate of Flare Header 1 originates from PSV-002 and PSV-003
(i.e., 22,068 kg/hr), while the governing flowrate of Flare Header 2 header originates from PSV-004 (i.e.,
19,634 kg/hr).

In Alternative 4 (bottom right), the pipe size of the sub-header based on Alternative 1 is reduced. This
decreases the governing flowrate of Sub-header 1 from 39,268 kg/hr to 19,634 kg/hr, while remaining the
governing flowrate of Flare Header 1. After the simulation of the four alternative designs, the optimization
of piping is then carried out for each alternative. The pipe size was reduced until the simulated
backpressure reached the allowable backpressure. For all alternatives, the smallest available size (2 in.) is
sufficient for the relieving rate of the closed outlet scenario. Therefore, the optimization of pipes in the
Accumulator Section (PSV-006 to PSV-008) is infeasible. The summaries of optimization are shown in
TABLE 3.
As shown in FIG. 4, there is high backpressure tolerance of PSV-004 and PSV-005 in Alternative 1.
However, further optimization is infeasible, as PSV-002 limits the reduction of the flare header.
Additionally, the size reduction of the sub-header is also infeasible, as the exerted backpressure will
exceed the allowable backpressure when decreasing one pipe size. Alternatives 2 and 3 give similar
backpressure of PSVs due to the similar design of the two alternatives. The segregation of PSV-004 and
PSV-005 allowed the size reduction of pipes in the fermenter section. Further pipe size reduction is
infeasible as the exerted backpressure exceeded the allowable backpressure. In Alternative 4, the
backpressure profile shows a similar trend with Alternative 1—the improvement in Alternative 4 was
performed based on Alternative 1. All alternatives are feasible as the exerted backpressure for each PSV is
below the allowable backpressure. Therefore, the selection of alternatives falls on the comparison of cost.

FIG. 4. Backpressure tolerances of Alternatives 1–4.

The PSVs in each optimized gas flaring system were examined to ensure that the exerted backpressure is
below the allowable backpressure (FIG. 4). As the sizes of the flare stack and horizontal knockout drum
are identical among the alternatives, the estimated costs for both equipment are excluded. Therefore, the
comparison was achieved by calculating the cost of pipes in each alternative using Eqs. 1 and 2. Based on
TABLE 4, Alternative 1 was selected as the optimum design due to its lowest cost among the design
approaches: it indicated a cost reduction of $20,152 from the base case.

Takeaway. Because a gas flaring system is unprofitable, it is beneficial to reduce its capital cost—this
can be achieved through pipe size reduction. To design a gas flaring system, various emergency scenarios
 can be achieved through pipe size reduction. To design a gas flaring system, various emergency scenarios

were screened based on significant circumstances that often occur. In this work, a gas flaring system was
designed for an ethanol production plant where a fire scenario was chosen as the worst-case scenario.
Various configurations of the gas flaring system were simulated using a proprietary simulation toola to
explore alternatives with lower capital cost. The optimization of each alternative was conducted through
the analysis of backpressure tolerances. Compared to the base case, results showed that the piping cost
of the flaring system design could be reduced by 39% after optimization. HP

NOTES
a Aspen HYSYS® with Aspen Flare System Analyzer™ (AFSA)

LITERATURE CITED

1. Yazdani, E., J. Asadi, Y. H. Dehaghani and P. Kazempoor, “Flare gas recovery by liquid ring compressors-system
design and simulation,” Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, Vol. 84, 2020.
2. Caulton, D. R., P. B. Shepson, M. O. L. Cambaliza, D. McCabe, E. Baum and B. H. Stirm, “Methane destruction
efficiency of natural gas flares associated with shale formation wells,” Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 48,
Iss. 16, 2014.
3. Hodnebrog, Ø., S. B. Dalsøren and G. Myhre, “Lifetimes, direct and indirect radiative forcing, and global warming
potentials of ethane (C2H6), propane (C3H8), and butane (C4H10),” Atmospheric Science Letters, Vol. 19, Iss. 2, 2018.
4. American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 537, “Flare details for petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas
industries,” 3rd Ed., March 2017.
5. Davoudi, M., A. Aleghafouri and A. Safadoost, “Flaring networks assessment in South Pars Gas processing plant,”
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, Vol. 21, 2014.
6. Pemii, L. L., K. K. Dagde and T. O. Goodhead, “Gas flare design debottlenecking using pinch analysis,” Advances in
Chemical Engineering and Science, Vol. 10, Iss. 4, 2020.
7. American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 521, “Pressure-relieving and depressuring systems,” 6th Ed., January
2014.
8. American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 520, “Sizing, selection, and installation of pressure-relieving devices:
Part 1—Sizing and selection,” 9th Ed., July 2014.
9. Stone, D. K., S. K. Lynch, R. F. Pandullo, L. B. Evans and W. M. Vatavuk, “Flares: Part 2—Capital and annual costs,”
Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, Vol. 42, Iss. 4, 1992.
10. Hekkelstrand, B. and P. Skulstad, “Guidelines for the protection of pressurised systems exposed to fire,” 2004, online:
https://www.iomosaic.com.

SHIE TECK TIEW is a chemical engineering graduate from the University of Nottingham,
Malaysia. His research interests are in the areas of process safety, process design and
optimization, and chemical product design. His final year research project included work on
the design of fragrance molecule using machine-learning and computer-aided molecular
design. Tiew also has experience in sustainability during his summer internship at Kuala Lumpur Kepong
Berhad. The author can be reached at [email protected].

DOMINIC C. Y. FOO is a Professor of Process Design and Integration at the University of

Nottingham, Malaysia. He was the winner of the Innovator of the Year Award 2009 of the
Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE), and the Outstanding Asian Researcher and
Engineer and Top Research Scientist Malaysia 2016, among other honors. He is Editor-in-
Chief for Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability, Subject Editor for IChemE Transaction
Process Safety and Environmental Protection, and an editorial board member for several journals. Foo has
published and edited 10 technical books, and is certified as a PEng (Board of Engineer Malaysia), a
Chartered Engineer (Engineering Council UK), and an ASEAN Chartered Professional Engineer. The author
can be reached at [email protected].

RAZMAHWATA BIN MOHAMAD RAZALLI is a Lead Engineer for IGL Services Sdn Bhd,
and earned both BA and MEng degrees. With more than 25 yr of experience in the oil and
gas industry in both design and operations he has upstream and downstream experience in
 gas industry in both design and operations, he has upstream and downstream experience in

process safety, measurement and allocation, process engineering and offshore technical support, and is
also a training provider. The author can be reached at [email protected].

Scroll down to read