Issue
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering,
Vol.39, No.4, 838-852, 2022
Dynamic analysis of a flare network: Gas blow-by and depressurization system
Flare network systems are essential in chemical plants to ensure process safety. In particular, the flare network system of offshore platforms is expected to play a critical role, mainly due to the isolated location from the onshore safety infrastructure and the compact structure of the platforms. However, owing to the spatial and weight limitations of the offshore platforms, it is important to reduce the pipe sizes used in the flare network, while also satisfying the installation codes and standards for such systems. In this study, flare network systems of the offshore platforms were designed and optimized based on dynamic simulation results. For this, two separate cases of “control valve fail-open” and “depressuring system” were considered. In the former scenario, we observed ‘gas blow-by’ due to the inlet of high-pressure gas into the low-pressure separator, caused by liquid disappearance in the high-pressure separator. Under the latter scenario, we analyzed whether the developed design of the flare networks satisfies the depressuring rate requirement from API Standard 521 and noticed potential extreme decline in temperature in a unit during the relieving condition. As a result, we developed a strategy to decrease depressuring rate in the unit. Lastly, we saved capital costs by reducing the pipe sizes based on the optimization results, obtained from the dynamic simulation analysis.
[References]
  1. Cho Y, Kwon S, Hwang S, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 35, 20, 2018
  2. Standard API, Pressure-relieving and depressuring systems (2014).
  3. Baalisampang T, Abbassi R, Garaniya V, Khan F, Dadashzadeh M, Fire Safety J., 92, 42, 2017
  4. Cullen LWD, Drilling Contractor, 49, 4, 1993
  5. Kabir S, Taleb-Berrouane M, Papadopoulos Y, Energy Sources Part A-Recovery Util. Environ. Eff., 1, 2019
  6. Berrouane MT, Lounis Z, J. Chem. Technol. Metall., 51, 229, 2016
  7. Deyab SM, Taleb-Berrouane M, Khan F, Yang M, Process Saf. Environ. Protect., 113, 220, 2018
  8. Park K, Shin D, Won W, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 35, 1053, 2018
  9. Smith J, Al-Hameedi H, Jackson R, Suo-Antilla A, Int. J. Petrochem. Res., 2, 175, 2018
  10. Wu X, Li CJ, Jia WL, Mu JC, Int. Pet. Technol. Conf., 5, 2843, 2019
  11. Yazdani E, Asadi J, Dehaghani YH, Kazempoor P, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng., 84, 103627, 2020
  12. Hamidzadeh Z, Sattari S, Soltanieh M, Vatani A, Energy, 203, 117815, 2020
  13. Tahouni N, Gholami M, Panjeshahi MH, Energy, 111, 82, 2016
  14. Tovar-Facio J, Eljack F, Ponce-Ortega JM, El-Halwagi MM, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng., 5, 675, 2017
  15. Wasnik R, Singh H, Kamal FR, Takieddine OH, Abu Dhabi Int. Pet. Exhib. Conf, 2, 787, 2018
  16. Standard, NORSOK, Process System Design (2014).
  17. Jo YP, Cho Y, Hwang S, Process Saf. Environ. Prot., 134, 260, 2020
  18. Davoudi M, Aleghafouri A, Safadoost A, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng., 21, 221, 2014
  19. Pemii LL, Dagde KK, Goodhead TO, Adv. Chem. Eng. Sci., 10, 297, 2020
  20. Shenoy UV, Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 89, 2686, 2011
  21. Somozas AXO, Nielsen RP, Maschietti M, Andreasen A, J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 67, 104211, 2020
  22. Shafiq U, Shariff AM, Babar M, Azeem B, Ali A, Bustam MA, Process Saf. Environ. Protect., 133, 104, 2020
  23. Shafiq U, Shariff AM, Babar M, Azeem B, Ali A, Bustam A, J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 64, 104073, 2020
  24. Surmi A, Int. Pet. Technol. Conf., 4, 2305, 2019
  25. Jalil AAM, Isa MFM, Rostani K, Othman NA, Shariff AM, Lau KK, Partoon B, Tay WH, SPE Annu. Tech. Conf. Exhib., 7, 4877, 2019
  26. Rahman FH, Isa FM, Salihuddin RS, Jalani M, Karim F, Hashim WMW, Offshore Technology Conference Asia, 3, 1702, 2018
  27. Ebrahimi K, Mofrad SR, Millet B, Kirkpatrick K, Miller G, Proc. ASME Pressure Vessels Piping Conf., 3A, 2018
  28. Zadakbar O, Khan F, Imtiaz S, Risk Analysis, 35, 713, 2015
  29. Hernandez-Suarez R, Puebla H, Aguilar-Lopez R, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 46, 7008, 2017