Emissions Testing of Sonic Velocity Flares 2010 ZEECO, ZEECO, INC. INC. 1
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
Original Multipoint Flare Drawings Burner Development in Past Years 7 3
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
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
1 1 6
14 1 1 7
1 Typical Staging Curve 17 8
Typical Installations 18 Typical Installations 9
1983 CMA Testing Air assisted flare Un-assisted flare Steam assisted flare Extractive Sampling EPA Involvement Basis for Current Flare Regulations, 40 CFR 60.18 1983 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
1983 CMA TEST DATA ON PRESSURE ASSISTED TIP TESTING, CRUDE PROPYLENE FIRING 22 1986 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. 23 11
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
DOW PRESSURE ASSISTED TIP TESTING, AFRC PRESENTATION, 2007, PROPYLENE / N2 MIX. 26 DOW PRESSURE ASSISTED TIP TESTING, AFRC PRESENTATION, 2014. 27 13
Sonic Flare Full Scale Testing for Smokeless / Flame Length / Cross Lighting Xylene Testing Ethylene Testing 28 Multipoint Flare Burner Testing 29 14
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
Multipoint Sonic Flare Testing at Zeeco 32 Test Area Video 33 16
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 60.18 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 2316 400 800 99.99 99.99 99.6 16 54mol% Propane/46mol% N2 1251 400 903 99.99 99.99 99.9 10.3 Propylene 2183 400 823 99.99 99.96 99.6 16.9 Tulsa Natural Gas 937 400 1378 99.99 99.99 99.5 15 Propane 2316 400 820 99.99 99.99 15.1 55mol% Propane/ 45mol% N2 1274 400 913 99.99 99.99 10.2 Propylene 2183 400 859 99.99 99.99 15.4 Tulsa Natural Gas 937 400 1403 99.99 99.98 15.3 TNG 937 1443 99.997 99.9955 20 TNG 937 1440 99.9949 99.9943 20 87TNG/13N2 800 1411 99.9988 99.9976 20 65TNG/35N2 600 1323 99.9983 99.9971 20 76TNG/24N2 700 1387 99.9972 99.9887 20 54TNG/46N2 500 1307 99.9964 99.9882 20 30TNG/70H2 465 2500 99.9985 99.9964 20 30TNG/70H2 465 2450 99.9951 99.9923 20 30TNG/70H2 465 2495 99.9941 99.9925 20 Propane 2316 840 99.9977 99.9947 20 Propylene 2183 870 99.9991 99.9968 20 63Propylene/37N2 1375 954 99.9992 99.9971 20 37Propylene/63N2 808 1030 99.9979 99.9957 20 34 Destruction Efficiency, Sonic Velocity 101.0 100.0 Destruction Efficiency versus Flare Gas Exit Velocity Measured Destruction Efficiency from Extractive Sampling Destruction Efficiency (%) 99.0 98.0 97.0 Assumed Destruction Efficiency per 40 CFR 60.18 96.0 Maximum Allowable Exit Velocity per 40 CFR 60.18 95.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 Flare Gas Exit Velocity (ft/s) 17
Combustion Efficiency, Sonic Velocity Combustion Efficiency versus Flare Gas Exit Velocity 101.0 100.0 Measured Combustion Efficiency from Extractive Sampling Combustion Efficiency (%) 99.0 98.0 97.0 Maximum Allowable Exit Velocity per 40 CFR 60.18 Measured Combustion Efficiency from IMACC PFTIR technology 96.0 95.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 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 5159 15 99.6 99.99 99.99 11/11/2014 9:35:00 AM 13A MPGF Propane/ N2 2474/1347 16 99.9 99.99 99.99 11/11/2014 8:57:00 AM 12A MPGF Propylene 5053 17 99.6 99.99 99.96 11/11/2014 9:57:00 AM 14A MPGF Tulsa NG 3300 18 99.5 99.99 99.99 18
Past Zeeco Sonic Testing Results CFD Analysis 39 19
CFD Analysis CFD Analysis 20
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