ZEECO, INC. Emissions Testing of Sonic Velocity Flares

Transcription

1 Emissions Testing of Sonic Velocity Flares 2010 ZEECO, ZEECO, INC. INC. 1

2 Flare Product Division John Ehlig 2010 ZEECO, ZEECO, INC. INC. Multipoint Ground Flare History Developed Early 1970 s Zeeco founder was one of the original inventors and listed on Original Patent Original Installation In 1972 Many Improvements over past 43 years in Burner technology Basic Overall Concept Today is Same as Original 2

3 Original Multipoint Flare Drawings Burner Development in Past Years 7 3

4 Common Burner Characteristics Use Jet action of gas to entrain air for smokeless burning Smokeless Burning over Wide pressure ranges Low Radiation Stable Operation at Sonic Velocity Multiple burners for unobstructed air access Wind is less of a factor due to significant momentum 8 Modern Sonic Velocity Burners Variable Arm Area Investment Cast Pressure Tested at Factory 310 SS Cast Material Inherently Stable on Wide Range of Gases 9 4

5 Common MPGF Design Concept Many small burners each able to pull in air Staging system to Ensure Operation in Optimum Pressure Band leading to smokeless operation Burners in Service are Proportional to Gas Flow Typically Used for High Pressure, Heavy Hydrocarbon Service Allows for Controlled Flame Length from Burners 1 5

6 1 1 6

7

8 1 Typical Staging Curve 17 8

9 Typical Installations 18 Typical Installations 9

10 1983 CMA Testing Air assisted flare Un-assisted flare Steam assisted flare Extractive Sampling EPA Involvement Basis for Current Flare Regulations, 40 CFR CMA Testing Subsequent to all of the CMA sponsored testing of flare systems, there was a separate test using the same equipment on a pressure assisted flare tip. Results of that test were submitted to the EPA. Results showed very high destruction efficiency. No specific conclusion, but the concept of if a stable flame exist, high CE exists. 10

11 1983 CMA TEST DATA ON PRESSURE ASSISTED TIP TESTING, CRUDE PROPYLENE FIRING EER Testing for EPA Further EPA sponsored testing on different type of flare tips. Testing was intended to analyze further gas mixtures, alternative gas types, etc. 3 inch nominal flare tip size for most tests. Also, testing was performed on Pressure Assisted commercially available high velocity flare tips, Commercial tips E and F

12 1986 EER TESTING ON PRESSURE ASSISTED FLARE TIPS, PROPANE IN NITROGEN 24 Testing by DOW for Two Installations Sonic velocity multipoint ground flares Two different applications, 2007 and 2014 Nominal 4 inch spider type sonic burners. General Test results presents at AFRC Meetings. 12

13 DOW PRESSURE ASSISTED TIP TESTING, AFRC PRESENTATION, 2007, PROPYLENE / N2 MIX. 26 DOW PRESSURE ASSISTED TIP TESTING, AFRC PRESENTATION,

14 Sonic Flare Full Scale Testing for Smokeless / Flame Length / Cross Lighting Xylene Testing Ethylene Testing 28 Multipoint Flare Burner Testing 29 14

15 Sonic Flare Testing at Zeeco for DRE Natural Gas Propylene Propane Inert / H2 Mixtures Consistently over 99.5% DE Summer 2013, Fall 2013, Fall 2014, Spring 2015 Testing Methods Used Extractive Sampling Sample Hood with Venturi Suction Same Design and TCEQ / TU Tests 2010 Temperature and FLIR Camera for Positioning PFTIR Analysis Providence FEMS Optical Efficiency Monitor Device Wind and weather monitoring 15

16 Multipoint Sonic Flare Testing at Zeeco 32 Test Area Video 33 16

17 Details for Recent Sonic Testing Flare Gas Fuel Type Flare Gas Lower Heating Value Max Allowable Exit Velocity per 40 Flare Gas Exit Velocity in Zeeco Test (Btu/SCF) CFR Regulation (ft/s) Facility (ft/s) Destruction Efficiency % from Extractive Sampling of Zeeco Flares Combustion Efficiency % from Extractive Sampling Combustion Efficiency % from Operating Pressure IMACC PFTIR Measurement (psig) Propane mol% Propane/46mol% N Propylene Tulsa Natural Gas Propane mol% Propane/ 45mol% N Propylene Tulsa Natural Gas TNG TNG TNG/13N TNG/35N TNG/24N TNG/46N TNG/70H TNG/70H TNG/70H Propane Propylene Propylene/37N Propylene/63N Destruction Efficiency, Sonic Velocity Destruction Efficiency versus Flare Gas Exit Velocity Measured Destruction Efficiency from Extractive Sampling Destruction Efficiency (%) Assumed Destruction Efficiency per 40 CFR Maximum Allowable Exit Velocity per 40 CFR Flare Gas Exit Velocity (ft/s) 17

18 Combustion Efficiency, Sonic Velocity Combustion Efficiency versus Flare Gas Exit Velocity Measured Combustion Efficiency from Extractive Sampling Combustion Efficiency (%) Maximum Allowable Exit Velocity per 40 CFR Measured Combustion Efficiency from IMACC PFTIR technology Flare Gas Exit Velocity (ft/s) PFTIR versus Extractive Sampling Data CE/DRE Testing Points - IMACC Testing Air Hygiene Data Test Date Start Time Test Facility Notation - IMAAC Notation - Test Test Point # Flare Fuel Actual Fuel Rate lb/h Point # IMACC CE% DRE % CE% 11/11/2014 9:25:00 AM 11A MPGF Propane /11/2014 9:35:00 AM 13A MPGF Propane/ N2 2474/ /11/2014 8:57:00 AM 12A MPGF Propylene /11/2014 9:57:00 AM 14A MPGF Tulsa NG

19 Past Zeeco Sonic Testing Results CFD Analysis 39 19

20 CFD Analysis CFD Analysis 20

21 General Benefits for MPGF High Destruction Efficiencies Maximum Smokeless Capacity Possible Low Utility Usage and Cost Minimizes Impact to your Neighbors Radiation Fence Smoke Production Easy Access for Maintenance Small Plot Space Questions? 2010 ZEECO, ZEECO, INC. INC. 21