Comparison of Flare Dispersion Modeling Methodologies and Current Flare Technologies

Control # 37 Whitney L Boger [1], Jacquie Hui [1], Weiping Dai [1], Qiguo Jing [1], Kaushik Deb [2]
[1] [2]

Trinity Consultants, 12770 Merit Drive, Suite 900, Dallas, TX 75251 Ras Gas Company Limited, Ras Laffan Industrial City, Qatar

INTRODUCTION
Air dispersion modeling applications for flares has traditionally been focused on a generic approach that has been applied across the board regardless of flare type and configuration. The guidelines from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) are dated (i.e. 1980s and 1990s) in comparison to todays flare technology. The current EPA guideline and most states call for modeling flare sources as point sources in refined dispersion models such as AERMOD. An equivalent stack diameter based on flared gas heat content is used. Default values for stack temperature of 1,273 Kelvin (K) and stack gas exit velocity of 20 meter per second (m/s) are assumed.1,2 In addition, a default radiation heat loss of 55% is commonly assumed in EPA and state flare modeling methodology guidance.1,2 With more efficient flares and different types of flares emerging, the default modeling parameters for flares may be inappropriate for modeling used for the development of state implementation plans and permit compliance demonstrations. A comparative study between different flare types, literature review, sensitivity analyses modeling and the appropriateness of the current flare modeling guidelines from the U.S. EPA was conducted in order to determine if the current flare guidelines and air dispersion modeling applications require updating and/or review. Actual flare operating parameters and configurations were not reviewed. Rather, ranges of typical operating parameters based on literature reviews were analyzed in comparison with the default parameters.

METHODOLOGY
Modeling of flare sources as equivalent point sources is described by EPA in the screening model, SCREEN3, and is recommended by EPA for the use in AERMOD.1,2 The method described in SCREEN3 is to set equal the buoyancy flux ( Fb , m4/s3) in two different forms: Equation 1. Buoyancy flux for flare releases.

Fb

gQH , C p aTa

where:

Fb = buoyancy flux (m4/s3) g = acceleration of gravity (m/s2) QH = sensible heat release rate (cal/s) Cp = specific heat of air at a constant pressure (cal/g-K) a = air density (g/m3) Ta = air temperature (K) Equation 2. Buoyancy flux for non-flare point sources.

Fb

gvs d s2 (Ts Ta ) . 4Ts

where: vs = exit velocity (m/s) ds = equivalent diameter (m) Ts = exit temperature (K). When QH, vs, and Ts are known, ds can be solved by equating Equations (1) and (2). The momentum flux ( FM, m4/s2) used for point sources in SCREEN3 and AERMOD is given by Equation (3). Equation 3. Momentum flux for point sources.

FM

vs2 d s2Ta . 4Ts

where: Fm = momentum flux (m4/s3) With Equations (1) and (2), FM can also be expressed as Equation (4). Equation 4. Alternative expression for momentum flux.

FM

vs QH . C p a (Ts Ta )

Equations (1) and (4) form the buoyancy flux and momentum flux of flare sources, which determine the plume rise in dispersion models. For non-flare point sources, the exit velocity and temperature play important roles: Equations (2) and (3) indicate that the buoyancy flux is linearly related to the exit velocity; the momentum flux is proportional to the square of the exit velocity; and temperature affects both buoyancy and momentum fluxes. However, for flare sources, the impacts of exit velocity and temperature are reduced: Equations (1) and (4) indicate that buoyancy flux is independent of the exit velocity and temperature, and momentum flux and the exit velocity are linearly related. The sensible heat release rate is critical in determining both the buoyancy flux and the momentum flux of flare sources. In SCREEN3, the sensible heat release rate, QH = 0.45 H, is based on the assumption that 55% of the total heat released (H) is lost due to radiation based on the high end of the range from Leahey and Davies suggestion that radiation losses can range from 20% to 55% of H .3 However, observations by Leahey and Davies were based on a flare made purposely smoky. 4 The 55% heat loss rate may be conservative and inappropriate for modern flare technologies. Several different types of flares are used in various industries, including utility flares, air-assist flares, steam-assist flares, high/low pressure gas-assist flares, ground flares, and sonic flares.5,6,7 Several new advancements in flares have set a new standard for cleaner flares that minimize smoke and radiation (i.e. steam-assist and air-assist). EPA and several state agencies require that flares be smokeless.8,9 This paper directly investigated the impact of radiation heat loss rate, exit velocity, and temperature on modeled ground level concentration due to flare sources. The ground level concentration is estimated using AERMOD, which is based on current understanding of dispersion and is recommended by the U.S. EPA for regulatory applications.

Modeling and Discussion

The parameters that were assessed include radiation heat loss, velocity, temperature, and stack height. All other input parameters not being assessed were kept constant throughout the modeling runs. A low net heat release rate (275 kcal/s) and a high net heat release rate (200,000 kcal/s), based on values seen in the field, were used in the sensitivity analysis across flares. Both short term (i.e. 1-hour) and long term (i.e. annual) averaging periods were reviewed. The latest version of AERMOD v12345 was used. A variable density receptor grid, extending from 30 m to 10 kilometers (km), was used. The model was set up at a representative location along the Texas Gulf Coast with flat terrain assumed. One year (i.e. 2008) of Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ)-preprocessed meteorological data for the county where the modeled source is located are used for the analysis. Building downwash was not considered in this study. Four distinct release heights were selected from the 2010 TCEQ Emissions Inventory Data in Brazoria County for use in the analysis: 9.14 m, 18.29 m, 30.48 m, and 60.96 m. These heights represent the most common stacks in industries including production, refining, chemical,

terminals, and synthetic resin and correspond to the most common stack heights of all flares reviewed. Radiation heat loss values used in the assessment were 15%, 20%, 33%, 40%, and 55%.10 The value of 20% is noted for methane and 33% is noted for propane and is close to the API RP 521 referenced value for gases heavier than methane at 30%.10 Exit velocities of flares range from less than 18.3 m/s to 122 m/s.8 Therefore, 10 m/s, 20 m/s, 40 m/s, 80 m/s, and 120 m/s were evaluated in this paper. Based on the Briggs plume rise equations, the combusted gas plume rise from a flare stack is defined as starting at the end of the visible flame.11 Since the flare plume entrains air from the surrounding atmosphere, the combusted gas temperature at the end of the visible flame is approximately 922 K to 1,255 K.11 As such, gas temperature values of 922 K, 1,000 K, 1,100 K, 1,200 K, and 1,273 K were evaluated in this study. Tables 1 through 6 show the 1-hour and annual averaged modeling results. The maximum ground level concentrations ( GLCmax) were normalized by the results of the modeling run using the EPA default parameters. Table 1. Variable radiation heat loss results for the 1-hour averaging period.
Radiation Heat Loss (%) 15 20 33 40 55 Equivalent Diameter (m) La 0.48 0.46 0.42 0.4 0.35 Hb 12.88 12.5 11.44 10.82 9.37 L H 9.14 m 0.81 0.30 0.84 0.33 0.89 0.47 0.92 0.56 1.00 1.00 Normalized GLCmaxc L H L H 18. 29 m 30.48 m 0.79 0.53 0.76 1.10 0.82 0.58 0.79 1.10 0.86 0.70 0.86 1.08 0.89 0.78 0.90 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 L H 60.96 m 0.77 1.01 0.79 1.01 0.86 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00

Table 2. Variable radiation heat loss results for the annual averaging period.
Radiation Heat Loss (%) 15 20 33 40 55 Equivalent Diameter (m) L 0.48 0.46 0.42 0.4 0.35
a

H 12.88 12.5 11.44 10.82 9.37

L H 9.14 m 0.64 0.66 0.69 0.67 0.79 0.72 0.84 0.78 1.00 1.00

Normalized GLCmaxc L H L H 18. 29 m 30.48 m 0.73 0.70 0.80 0.48 0.76 0.74 0.83 0.51 0.84 0.88 0.89 0.63 0.88 0.96 0.92 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

L H 60.96 m 0.87 0.47 0.89 0.51 0.93 0.63 0.95 0.72 1.00 1.00

Table 3. Variable velocity results for the 1-hour averaging period.

Velocity (m/s) 10 20 40 80 120 Equivalent Diameter (m) L 0.49 0.35 0.25 0.17 0.14
a

H 13.25 9.37 6.63 4.69 3.83

L H 9.14 m 1.03 1.27 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.16 1.02 0.11 1.01 0.11

Normalized GLCmaxc L H L H 18. 29 m 30.48 m 1.02 1.27 1.01 6.63 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.16 0.99 0.35 1.01 0.11 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.11 0.98 0.24

L H 60.96 m 1.01 2.11 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.64 1.01 0.49 0.99 0.49

Table 4. Variable velocity results for the annual averaging period.

Velocity (m/s) 10 20 40 80 120 Equivalent Diameter (m) L 0.49 0.35 0.25 0.17 0.14
a

H 13.25 9.37 6.63 4.69 3.83

L H 9.14 m 1.03 5.04 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.70 0.97 0.66 0.93 0.63

Normalized GLCmaxc L H L H 18. 29 m 30.48 m 1.03 5.04 1.03 2.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.70 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.92 0.97 0.63 0.99 0.88

L H 60.96 m 1.02 1.39 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.93 0.99 0.91

Table 5. Variable temperature results for the 1-hour averaging period.

Temperature (K) 922 1000 1100 1200 1273 Equivalent Diameter (m) L 0.37 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.35
a

H 9.96 9.78 9.6 9.46 9.37

L H 9.14 m 1.00 1.23 1.00 1.16 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.03 1.00 1.00

Normalized GLCmaxc L H L H 18. 29 m 30.48 m 0.99 1.23 1.00 1.15 1.00 1.16 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.06 1.00 1.03 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

L H 60.96 m 1.00 1.06 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.00

Table 6. Variable temperature results for the annual averaging period.

Temperature (K) 922 1000 1100 1200 1273
a

Equivalent Diameter (m) L 0.37 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.35

a

H 9.96 9.78 9.6 9.46 9.37

L H 9.14 m 0.99 1.23 1.00 1.16 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00

Normalized GLCmaxc L H L H 18. 29 m 30.48 m 0.99 1.23 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.16 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

L H 60.96 m 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

L = low heat release; H = high heat release; c Normalized based on default parameters for each independent stack heights and heat release rates.
b

For flares with low heat release rate (275 kcal/s): The radiation heat loss parameter impacts the modeled concentrations considerably, with up to a 24% and 36% change in modeled impacts between the scenarios using radiation heat loss of 15% and 55% for short term and long term averaging periods, respectively. According to Equations (1) and (4), both buoyancy and momentum fluxes decrease with increasing radiation heat loss; consequently, the plume rise decreases and the modeled concentration increases. Velocity and temperature have little to no impact on the results. Although the momentum flux increases with increasing exit velocity and with decreasing stack temperature, the net momentum change is minor because the total heat release rate is low (See Equation (4)). For flares with high heat release rate (200,000 kcal/s): For the same reason as the low heat release rate case, the modeled concentration increases with increasing radiation heat loss. The radiation heat loss parameter impacts the modeled concentrations considerably for shorter flares, with up to a 70% and 53% change between the scenarios using radiation heat loss of 15% and 55% for short term and long term averaging periods, respectively. The reduction in modeled concentrations diminished for taller flares for the short term averaging period. However, the impact on modeled concentrations for taller flares for the annual averaging period was more pronounced compared to the shorter flares. With high heat release rate, increase in exit velocity can cause higher net increases in momentum flux (See Equation (4)), and consequently the exit velocity impact becomes noticeable. Tables 3 and 4 indicate that increases in velocity reduce the modeled concentrations considerably, with up to 89% and 27% change between 20 m/s to 120 m/s for short term and long term averaging periods, respectively. This reduction is most notable for the 18.29 m and 9.14 m flares. With high heat release rate, decrease in temperature can cause high net increases in momentum flux (See Equation (4)), and consequently the temperature impact becomes more apparent than in the low heat release case. Tables 5 and 6 indicate that decreases in stack temperature increase the modeled concentrations. The resulting modeled concentrations are less impacted by temperature for taller flares.

SUMMARY
A smoky flare has higher radiation losses than well-designed flares. With federal and state regulations for flare sources, EPAs recommended radiation heat loss of 55% is considered to be conservative. 4,5,10 Lower radiation heat loss results in lower modeled concentrations for flares with both low and high net heat releases and flared volumes, especially for flares with shorter stack heights. Therefore, this parameter should be studied and reviewed closely for certain industries (i.e. oil and gas production and terminals) to see if it can be further refined to better reflect current flare design practices. Depending on the stream composition going to the flare and whether or not steam-assist or gas-assist is required, one may be able to argue for a lower radiation heat loss than is currently noted as the default factor. For example, for oil and gas production flares, the radiation heat loss may be closer to 20%, based on literature values, since the stream is primarily methane and the flares are required to be smokeless.10

Based on the sensitivity analyses, velocity, temperature, and diameter have insignificant impacts on the modeled concentrations for flares with low net heat releases. Therefore, it is concluded that the current default parameters used in the EPA method may be acceptable for flares with low net heat releases. For flares with high net heat release rates and flared volumes, however, velocity and temperature become increasingly important factors regardless of stack height. These parameters should be reviewed carefully for industries, such as refineries, where the net heat release rate and flared volume of gas may be high. There is no one size fits all solution for flare modeling parameters since the stream compositions and flare designs vary so greatly across sites and industries. However, based on the results of this sensitivity analysis, the radiation heat loss parameter should be reviewed closely for low net heat release flares and shorter height, high heat release flares. The velocity and temperature parameters should be closely reviewed for high heat release flares. Additional modeling and in situ measurements are suggested in order to verify the results for several different scenarios.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful for John Bellovich of John Zink Hamworthy Combustion, and Katie Eaton, Tony Schroeder, and George Schewe of Trinity Consultants for their guidance.

REFERENCES
1. SCREEN3 Model User's Guide. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (c). Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division. Research Triangle Park, NC, 1995; EPA-454/B-95-004. 2. User's guide for the AMS/EPA regulatory model - AERMOD U.S. EPA, 2004:.. U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, 2004; EPA-454/B-03-001. 3. D.M. Leahey and M.J.E. Davies: Observations of plume rise from sour gas flares. Atmos. Environ., 1984, 18, 917-922. 4. D. B. Turner and R. H. Schulze, 2007: Practical guide to atmospheric dispersion modeling. Trinity Consultants, Inc. and Air & Waste Management Associate. 5. EPA/OAQPS Control Cost Manual Chapter 7. Flares. United States Environmental Protection Agency, December 1995. 6. Guide for Pressure-Relieving and Depressuring Systems. American Petroleum Institute, API Recommended Practice 521, Fourth Edition, March 1997. API Publishing Services. Washington, D.C. 7. Flare Details for General Refinery and Petrochemical Service. American Petroleum Institute, API Recommended Practice 537, First Edition, September 2003. API Publishing Services. Washington, D.C. 8. 40 CFR 60.18, General Control Device and Work Practice Standards 9. Title 30 of the Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 111 Control of Air Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter 10. Selma E. Guigard, Warren B. Kindzierski, and Nicola Harper. Heat Radiation from Flares. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, for Alberta Environment, May 2000.

11. Beychok, Milton R. Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion. Newport Beach, CA, Fourth Edition, 2005.

KEYWORDS
Flare, dispersion modeling, radiation heat loss, exit velocity, temperature