Optimising safety relief and flare systems

Understanding the behaviour of refinery units by dynamic modelling of

emergencies enables the prediction of realistic relief loads
Alban Sirven, Julien Grosclaude and Guillaume Fenol Technip France
Jeremy Saada Invensys Operations Management

ver the past decades,

the refining industry
has
continuously
moved towards higher levels of
crude conversion and more
stringent product specifications.
When they are combined with
aromatics production in particular, refinery schemes have
become
more
complex.
Conventional approach

Additionally, nameplate capacity limits for grassroots plants

have been gradually pushed
upwards.
At the same time, along with
dieselisation of the European
vehicle fleet and the strengthening of product specifications,
the
refining
scheme
of
European refineries has become
Semi-dynamic approach
6OJU


6OJU


6OJU


6OJU


6OJU


6OJU


6OJU


6OJU


5PUBM

$VNVMBUJWF

SFMJFG
MPBET

Dynamic approach
6OJU


6OJU


6OJU


increasingly complex. The addition of new units to an existing

refining scheme affects flare
systems, leading to a revamp
of the existing flare network or
to the addition of a new flare
network and the consequences
of altering the network.
Flare systems are primarily
sized with regard to common

5PUBM
$VNVMBUJWF

SFMJFG
MPBET

$VNVMBUJWF

SFMJFG
MPBET

6OJU


U

Figure 1 Comparison of three methods for sizing flare systems

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000394

PTQ Q2 2011 1

Conventional
approach

Qualitative
analysis

Quantitative
analysis

Screening and
identification
of large relief
loads

Semi-dynamic
approach for
these large
relief loads
Dynamic
simulation

Review of
the system
characteristics

Does this
system match
Technip criteria
for dynamic
simulation?

.O

9ES

Dynamic
simulation
of the
system. New
relief loads

Implementation of flare
loads mitigation measures

Sizing of
flare systems

Figure 2 Dynamic simulation within flare study methodology

2 PTQ Q2 2011

failure modes. General electrical

power failure (GEPF) results in
a simultaneous loss of condensation for most process systems,
and all corresponding individual relief loads are summed up
to determine the required capacity of the flare systems.
In the context of both an
increased number of interconnected process units and higher
processing capacities, flare
systems approach critical sizes
when industry-standard calculation
methods
for
the
determination of individual
relief loads are applied. To
overcome the related issues in
terms of mechanical and structural design, supply and
constructability, as well as to
satisfy the requirements of
refinery turnaround and scheduled
maintenance,
the
configuration of the relief
disposal system for grassroots
designs should consist of
several flare systems, the largest with a main header
diameter as wide as 100in or
more and a flare stack as high
as 200m.
The
cost
of
providing
adequate protection systems
for any refining complex is
substantial. At this point,
understanding and modelling
the dynamic behaviour of refinery
units
in
emergency
situations becomes necessary to
assess the required capacity of
flare systems more accurately
than conventional calculations
methods, which tend to
produce conservative results.

Modelling refinery equipment

behaviour in emergency
conditions

The sizing of refinery flare

systems requires prediction of
the behaviour of equipment

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000394

(or
refinery
subsystems)
Calculation methods used for
the determination of relief loads
have, since the beginning of the
refining industry, required
static
and
semi-dynamic
calculations.

Conventional approach

The conventional approach is

based on the use of process data
shown in the unit heat and mass
balance, corresponding to steadystate operating conditions.

Semi-dynamic methods

Semi-dynamic
calculations
require the enhanced use of
static modelling tools such as
SimSci-Esscor Pro/II to better
model upset scenarios. This
method will correct the results
of static methods, accounting
for basic equipment design data
or the change of key fluid properties between operating and
relief conditions. This type of
analysis also aims to evaluate
the relief start/end time for critical equipment and systems.
The result is less conservative
relief loads than with static
calculations, but the analysis
cannot account for complex
phenomena related to the transient responses of process
systems to major upsets.

Dynamic methods

With the increasing performance of calculation tools,

dynamic process simulators are
now able to work on desk
computers with reasonable
computation
time.
Process
dynamic simulations are based
on validated thermodynamic
models as well as dynamic heat
and material balance equations.
They also consider the response
times of control loops, thereby
predicting more realistic relief

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000394

scenarios. Figure 1 shows a

comparison of the accumulated
relief loads used for sizing a
flare system, obtained by these
different methods.
In addition to the reduction
in relief loads, dynamic simulation offers the advantage of
evaluating the impact of different system response times on
accumulated relief loads.
However, dynamic modelling
is time consuming compared to
earlier calculation methods.
This is due in particular to the
amount and diversity of input
data that must be defined for
the description of any system;
for instance:
Definition of process streams
Operating conditions based
whenever applicable on licensor information
Detailed equipment design
and geometry data based on
vendor information
Instrumentation, automation
and safeguarding data.
Technip developed a methodology
for
targeting
opportunities
for
dynamic
simulations and set up a list of
criteria to select candidate
systems for the use of dynamic
simulation. This methodology
for a refinery flare study (GEPF
scenario)
is
detailed
in
Figure 2.

Dynamic simulation software

Computer simulations were

made using the SimSci-Esscor
Dynsim tool from Invensys as
the dynamic process simulator.
The program provides a series
of capabilities that enable the
modelling of rigorous transient
processes and facilitate the
development of dynamic simulations for applications from
process studies through to
operator training systems.

The equipment models are

rigorous dynamic models. A
library of unit operations,
equipment types, control functions and other algorithms have
been developed, enabling the
specification of models for
high-level concepts.
In dynamic relief load calculations, the user can often come
across unexpected operating
conditions and effects. The
provision of accurate thermodynamic predictions enables
these effects to be modelled
correctly. Ranges of rigorous
thermodynamic
methods
enable the user to predict phase
behaviour and so achieve accurate
simulations
of
real
processes.
Other features that make the
software suitable for relief load
analysis are the interactive run
control and scenario handling
options. These include the ability to change from one operating
condition to another quickly
and easily, speed up or slow
down the execution of the simulation, and record/play back
operating
scenarios.
These
features enable the user to
investigate how relief loads are
impacted by different emergency
situations,
initial
conditions and operating procedures. The software also
includes a basic data historian
and options for trending and
storing process variables so that
relief load scenarios can be
viewed and recorded for future
analysis.
Dynamic simulations were
built using the software. One of
the technical challenges of
applying process dynamic simulations lies in the capacity of
having a system description
capable of supporting the generation of a realistic transient

PTQ Q2 2011 3

Residual duty, percent of

normal operating duty

100
Upset

80

Charge maintained, firing stopped

Charge stopped, firing maintained
Charge stopped, firing stopped

60
40
20
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Time, sec
Figure 3 Furnace behaviour in three shutdown cases

response of process equipment

and systems during upset and
emergency scenarios.
Throughout
the
studies,
several of the default modules
available with the software
were analysed not to have
sufficient descriptive capabilities and functionalities so it
was mandatory to incorporate
user models. For example, the
default furnace module has
been improved by providing a
reliable furnace model for the

simulation
behaviour
upsets.

of the
under

Dynamic simulation results

Dynamic simulation of furnace
shutdown

The vapours generated in

column reboiling furnaces are
major contributors to flare relief
loads if the column condensation
is
stopped
(single
condensation
failure
or
common mode of failure such




UIS







MBTU

147T



0WFSIFBE
QSFTTVSF
3FMJFG
PX
SBUF



STU

147T
6QTFU










































Re l i e f
f l ow r at e
, t / h r





Ove r h e ad
pre ssu re ,
barg

furnace
process

Time, min

Figure 4 CDU behaviour under reflux failure after optimisation of the installed
orifice area

4 PTQ Q2 2011

as GEPF). In the specific

scenario of GEPF, the feed to
the furnace is stopped if the
reboiler feed pump is electric
motor-driven or may be continuously pumped in the case of a
steam turbine driver. Even
when furnace firing is shut
down (the normal scenario for
fired heaters equipped with a
forced-draft fan), heat transfer
and vapour generation continue
as a result of thermal inertia of
the radiant box walls.
For these reasons, a reliable
representation of the furnace is
necessary.
The
softwares
default furnace module enables
simulation of the furnaces
thermal inertia. However, this
Max two-column width
module is unable to model the
background
response of Blue
the liquid
inven- around
brown.
tory in furnace coils during
upsets. Thus,
Technip
has into UK
Always
translate
developed in-house
modelling
English (except images).
modules and techniques for
Leading cap on first word
furnaces, based on Dynsims
only. module, to
default furnace
have a proper and realistic
representation of the key
parameters affecting the determination of relief rates.
There are no standard criteria
regarding the residual heat
duty transferred to the process
in the case of trip of process
feed and/or furnace firing. The
industry considers values as
high as 100% of normal duty if
heater firing is maintained.
This results in substantially
conservative relief flow rates to
the flare.
The case study in this context
evaluates the behaviour (residual duty transferred to process)
of
a
reformate
splitter
furnace in three different
configurations:
Charge stopped and firing
maintained
Charge and firing stopped

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000394

Charge maintained and firing

stopped.
Dynamic simulations have
demonstrated that, if the process feed to the furnace is
stopped, the residual duty
transferred to the fluid drops
immediately (see Figure 3). It
then does not exceed a peak
value of 40% of normal duty.
Averaged over a few minutes, it
does not exceed 30% of normal
duty. These values correspond
to the fact that drastic changes
in flow patterns, resulting from
the interruption of process feed
to the furnace coils, affect heat
transfer coefficients. Vapour
generation
is
significantly
reduced, even if furnace firing
were to be maintained. This
reduction is more significant if
both process feed and furnace
firing are stopped.
Dynamic simulations have
also demonstrated that the heat
duty transferred to the process
decreases more sharply if the
furnace feed pump is stopped,
compared to the furnace feed
being maintained.

Crude distillation column

dynamic simulation

The use of dynamic simulations

helps in an understanding of
the behaviour of crude distillation units (CDU) after process
upsets, as well as the importance of the appropriate
configuration of pressure safety
valves (PSV) to reduce relief
flow rates.
Actual PSV relief flow rates
depend mainly on two factors:
Dynamic behaviour of the
equipment itself
PSV configuration (number,
size, set pressure stepping).
The case study in this context
considers a crude distillation
unit of 250 000 b/d capacity

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000394



Ove r h e ad
pre ssu re ,
barg



0WFSIFBE
QSFTTVSF
3FMJFG
PX
SBUF























6QTFU






































Re l i e f
f l ow r at e
, t / h r



Time, min

Figure 5 Chattering during GEPF

and compares the benefits of

optimisation using dynamic
simulation against a conventional approach.

orifice/balanced
bellows/set
pressure = 3.5 barg
Installed orifice area: 2020
cm2.

Results of a conventional
approach

Optimisation of installed orifice

area using dynamic simulation

The sizing of the relief installed

capacity (orifice area) by means
of a conventional approach
using heat and material balances
leads to the following results:
Reflux failure: 860 t/h (sizing
case)
GEPF: 200 t/h
PSV configuration: 12 PSV/T

The conventional approach

gives an over-sized installed
orifice area. Dynamic simulation of the system under upset
may help in optimising the
required installed orifice area.
The installed orifice area has
been optimised down to 930
cm2, corresponding to 9 PSV

Selected PSV configuration

Set pressure, barg PSV number/type Installed orifice area
Conventional calculations
3.5
12 T
2020 cm2
3.5
3R
Dynamic simulation optimisation
930 cm2

3.7

6 R

Table 1
Selected PSV configuration with new set pressure

Set pressure, barg PSV number/type Installed orifice area
Conventional calculations
3.5
12 T
2020 cm2
Dynamic simulation optimisation 4.3

3 Q

210 cm2

Table 2

PTQ Q2 2011 5











147
PQFO




UIS

4USJQQJOH
TUFBN

NBJOUBJOFE









6QTFU





































Re l i e f
f l ow r at e
, t / h r

0WFSIFBE
QSFTTVSF
3FMJFG
PX
SBUF


CBSH




Ove r h e ad
pre ssu re ,
barg



Time, min

Staggering of safety valve set

pressures

Figure 6 CDU behaviour in the event of GEPF with selected configuration






CBSH





UIS











6QTFU














































3F M J F G
G M PX
S B U F
U  I S

0WF S I F B E
QS F T T V S F
CB S H



0WFSIFBE
QSFTTVSF
3FMJFG
PX
SBUF



Time, min

Figure 7 CDU behaviour in the event of reflux failure with increased set pressure


CBSH



0WFSIFBE
QSFTTVSF
3FMJFG
PX
SBUF


















6QTFU



               

5JNF
NJO

Figure 8 CDU behaviour in the event of GEPF with increased set pressure

6 PTQ Q2 2011

3F M J F G
G M PX S B U F
U  I S

0WF S I F B E
QS F T T V S F
CB S H



(Orifice R). Figure 4 shows that

the relief flow rate in the event
of reflux failure would be stable
at around 414 t/h, compared to
the 860 t/h initially envisaged.
With regard to these two cases,
dynamic simulation shows a
reduction of relief loads of about
50%. It is also noticeable that the
number of PSVs can be reduced,
leading to a reduction in capital
and maintenance costs.

Safety valve staggering is most

of the time neglected in conventional calculations, but dynamic
simulation shows that it is a
key parameter in a correct estimation of flow rates. Even if
the installed orifice area is
reduced, as shown previously,
dynamic simulation shows
chattering conditions for nonsizing scenarios such as GEPF.
Figure 5 shows this chattering situation in the event of
GEPF, where peak relief flow
rates reach about 400 t/hr, the
average relief load being about
110 t/h. The staggering of the
PSV avoids chattering situations and cancels high peak
flows. Table 1 shows the
selected configuration of the
PSV complying with reflux failure and GEPF requirements.
Figure 6 shows that, by implementing this configuration, the
relief flow rate would now be
stable around 110 t/h in the
event of GEPF, compared with
200 t/h initially envisaged with
the conventional approach. In
this case, a reduction of about
50% in relief rate is indicated.

Mitigation measure: design

pressure selection with dynamic
simulation

Common failure modes such as

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000394

From
other units

FG

11 t/h

From
other units

GP

LPG
90 t/h
265 t/h

1300 t/h
37 API
0.8% S

275 t/h

NHT

275 t/h

diH

Gasoline
185 t/h

CDU

500 t/h

180 t/h

Naphtha
splitter

From
other units

489 t/h

ISOM

REF

HDS

Kero
Diesel
Heating
oil

From
other units

540 t/h

ALKY
VDU

310 t/h

530+ 230 t/h

330 t/h

89 t/h

FCC

28 t/h

HDS

FO
VB

Figure 9 Case study for refinery upgrading scheme (before revamp)

GEPF are generally the sizing

scenario for the flare system
(main flare header, KO drums,
flare stack and tip, radiation
calculations). Avoiding any
relief situation during GEPF for
the CDU column would
contribute to reduced aggregate
refinery flare loads. Dynamic
simulation offers this possibility, for new designs, by
optimising the column design
pressure.
In the case under study,
increasing this design pressure
to 4.3 barg enables the relief
flow rate to be cancelled
during GEPF (see Figure 8).
Table 2 shows the selected PSV
configuration in the event of a
set pressure increase, the

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000394

sizing case corresponding to

reflux failure.
This set pressure increase
makes recondensation of hydrocarbon vapours more important,
and reduces the flow rate of low
pressure stripping steam to
almost nil. Consequently, the
relief flow rate observed during
the reflux pump failure will be
smaller (113 t/h versus 414 t/h,
see Figure 7).

Dynamic simulation results for

a CDU case study

Dynamic simulation shows its

value in optimising relief valve
design and configuration for a
CDU column through the
following main results:
Installed orifice area and

relief flow rates can be

decreased by about 50% in any
upset case by choosing the
proper
PSV
configuration
(number, size and staggering)
Relief flow rates and installed
orifice area can be further
significantly
reduced
by
increasing the design pressure
of the CDU column. In this
case, relief flow rates during
GEPF can be cancelled.
The potential benefits of the
selected PSV configuration can
be estimated as follows:
Reduction in investment and
maintenance costs (fewer PSVs,
reduction in flare header size
and flare height as a consequence of relief flow rates
reduction)

PTQ Q2 2011 7

'SPN

PUIFS
VOJUT

'(


UI

'SPN

PUIFS
VOJUT

(1

-1(

UI

UI


UI

"1*

4


UI

/)5


UI

7%6

3FWBNQFE
VOJUT


UI

(BTPMJOF

UI

3&'

)%4

'SPN

PUIFS
VOJUT


UI

EJ)

TQMJUUFS

$%6


UI


UI


UI /BQIUIB

'SPN

PUIFS
VOJUT


UI

*40.

)$,


,FSP

%JFTFM
)FBUJOH
PJM

)
QMBOU

L/NI
"-,:


UI


UI

'$$


UI

)%4

'0



UI

7#

/FX
VOJUT

Figure 9 Case study for refinery upgrading scheme (after revamp)

Reduction
in
chattering
inducing a reduction in pipe
stress.

Potential savings for grassroots

or upgraded refineries
General overview

The approach in this case is to

use dynamic simulations to
predict emergency situations
applied to grassroots or revamp
projects. For grassroots refinery
projects, the establishment as
early as possible of a clear
philosophy regarding the optimisation of flare systems is
beneficial in terms of capital
spending. Flare header size,
flare stack height and the
dimensions of flare KO drums
can be reduced significantly.
For
refinery
upgrading

8 PTQ Q2 2011

projects, the use of dynamic

simulations becomes especially
meaningful when assessing the
capacity of existing flare
systems to accommodate additional relief loads from new
and revamped units. The
contribution of dynamic simulation can lead to important
reductions in relief loads to the
flare and to the conclusion that
it is not necessary to implement
additional flare network. When
the objective is to connect relief
valves previously discharging
to atmosphere to the existing
flare network, dynamic simulations
produce
realistic
predictions of the new relief
flow rates and confirm whether
or not the existing flare network
is under-sized.

Case study for a grassroots

refinery with an aromatic
complex

Technips methodology for

optimising flare network sizes
was applied to a grassroots
refinery including an aromatic
complex. Relief loads were
drastically reduced (2700 t/h
from 6500 t/h), as well as flare
header size (76in from 130in)
and flare stack height (180m
from 280m). In this case,
expected
investment cost
savings
approached
20
million.

Case study for a refinery

upgrade

This study considers upgrading

an existing 1300 t/h capacity
European topping/reformer/

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000394

catalytic cracker (TRC) refinery

with new conversion units to
achieve higher conversion and
desulphurisation.
Figure
9
shows the refinerys block flow
diagram before and after the
revamp. New units included
a
hydrocracking
complex
(supplemented by the required
hydrogen plant), whereas existing CDU bottoms and VDU
units needed to be revamped.
This upgrading solution is a
good approach to processing
heavier and higher-sulphur
crude to meet the current
European specifications.
Table 3 shows the relief flow
rates to be considered: in the
event of GEPF for the flare
system design in the existing
refinery configuration; for the
upgraded refinery configuration without the implementation
of dynamic simulation; and
following the implementation
of dynamic simulation.
Considering that the original
refinery flare network is
designed to handle 985 t/h in
the event of GEPF, the use of
conventional calculations after
the refinery upgrade with a
new hydrocracker unit leads to
an increase in the flare
networks design flow rate to
1285 t/h (+27%). In this context,
it would be necessary to
consider the implementation of
an additional flare system or
expanding the existing flare
system, which are both costly
solutions.
Existing simulation models
were adapted in this case.
Relief load contributors such as
crude distillation columns,
vacuum distillation columns,
reformate splitter and FCC
main fractionators were simulated and their associated relief
loads recalculated. In spite of

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000394

Dynamic simulation results for upgraded refinery flare study

General electrical power failure
TRC refinery
20% cut-off failing
Conventional

method, t/h
CDU/VDU/gas plant
220
Gasoline units (NHT/Reformer/ISOM/Alky) 660
HDS
50
FCC complex (inc CatNaphtha HDS)
55
Visbreaker
0
HCK (inc H2 plant)
-
Total
985%

TRC refinery upgraded with HCK

Conventional
With dynamic
method, t/h
simulation, t/h
280
190
650
515
50
50
55
0
0
0
220
145
1255%
900%
(+27%)
(-8%)

Table 3

the introduction of two new

units (hydrocracker and hydrogen plant), aggregate relief
loads to the flare in the event
of GEPF were reduced by 8%,
from 985 to 900 t/h, generating
substantial investment cost
savings (around 15 million, or
about
4%
of
the
total
investment).

Further benefits of dynamic

simulation

A process model used as a

knowledgebase can enable
savings in many areas. The use
of a dynamic simulation rather
than a steady-state representation
opens
up
new
opportunities. The flare study
work reported here targets the
capital cost of construction,
with a particular focus on the
materials of construction. This
provides a real multimilliondollar return from the flare
system. In the design phase of
any project, the capital expenditure budget is paramount.
The benefits of simulation
are not limited to design.
Dynamic simulation can be
used to investigate specific
implementation tasks and to
assess operability and trip
settings ahead of the plant
being built. More intensive
process design, with wider

feedstocks and narrow product

qualities, is making process
plant harder to operate.
Questions such as Does the
operator have sufficient time
to respond to a disturbance?
are increasingly important. A
trip that takes out a unit in a
refinery can cost $0.5 million.
If the trip propagates to other
units through the utility
systems, the costs can be even
greater.
In addition, the training of
operators so that they maintain
a well-regulated process and
know how to operate the units
for optimum production, while
respecting the alarm and trip
aspects of the process, can
regularly improve production
by $10100 000/day.
Every grassroots refinery
goes through a commissioning
phase, not least the control and
trip systems. Checking out the
configuration using a dynamic
simulation provides a more
rigorous and extensive review
of the control systems implementation
and
catches
configuration, parameter and
design errors before they are
identified on plant. In general,
the greater the level of automation, the greater the saving.
SimSci-Esscor, DYNSIM

and

PRO/II

PTQ Q2 2011 9

are trademarks of Invensys plc, its

subsidiaries or affiliates.

Alban Sirven is Refining Chief Engineer,

Process and Technology division, at
Technip France, Paris. He holds an
engineers degree from cole Centrale
Paris, France. Email: asirven@technip.com
Julien Grosclaude is Lead Process
Engineer, Refining, Process and Technology
division, at Technip France, Paris. He holds
an engineers degree from cole Centrale

10 PTQ Q2 2011

Paris and a MSc from IFP School, Paris.

Email: jgrosclaude@technip.com
Guillaume Fenol is Process Engineer,
Refining, Process and Technology divison,
at Technip France, Paris. He holds an
engineers degree from Lyons School of
Chemistry and a MSc from IFP School,
Paris. Email: gfenol@technip.com
Jeremy Saada is a Client Sales Executive
for Invensys Operations Management in
charge of the SimSci-Esscor simulation
software business in France. He holds
a masters in process engineering from

cole Nationale Suprieure des Industries

Chimiques, France.
Email: jeremy.saada@invensys.com

Links
More articles from the following
categories:
Combustion Engineering
Process Modelling & Simulation

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000394