Use of Variable Frequency Drives for Better Destruction Efficiency of Air-Assisted Flares BY Scot Smith, PE Director of Zeeco Flare Products AND Greg Seefeldt, PE Zeeco Senior Flare Applications Engineer Presented at the American Flame Research Committee Industrial Combustion Symposium September 23% — 25" 2013 Kauai, HawaiiPage |2 Contents Abstract ce Background... Air Flare Tip Desig External Air Ring Drilled Spider Design:.. Triangular Arm Design: Internal Tube Style: Air Blowers/Fans: Cooling Air: Blower Staging: Air Compressors:.. Previous Testing:... DEVELOPMENT OF TEST PROCEDURE. Test Facility and Equipment. Test Plan, Test Executior RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS......ssmnnennmnnnnnnninnnnnnnnninninnninnnnnnnnmnnasssssnnns 1S CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 18 18 Flare Operating Recommendations: 20 Flare Blower Design: jv.nnsmnnnnsensnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnein REFERENCES. Zeeco, Inc.Page 13 Abstract Many U.S. gas production, transportation, and processing facilities utilize air-assisted flares to achieve smokeless combustion. Most of the installed base of air-assisted flares use either a single-speed or two- speed blower to control the air flowrate. During day-to-day operations, frequently these systems operate at full turndown with only purge gas going to the flare. Previous Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) testing provided limited results for hydrocarbon destruction efficiencies of air-assisted flare tips at purge rates using gases that were representative of those used in a refinery or petrochemical plant application. Due to the recent increase in U.S. shale gas production, many wellhead, pipeline, and ges processing plants are being outfitted with air-assisted flares to achieve smokeless flaring. These flares typically use a drilled spider flare tip design and burn gas cases that primarily consist of natural gas and/or propane. Some of these systems are being installed with variable frequency drives (VFD) for the blower speed control to facilitate better air volume control, though little data exists for establishing the proper operating ranges for the VFO driven blowers. Zeeco will discuss the results from our emissions testing of an air-assisted flare design when burning natural gas and propane at turndown rates. In addition to destruction efficiency, this testing also compares the effectiveness when using single-speed or two-speed blowers versus VFD controlled blowers for air turndown. Recommended operating practices to ensure high destruction efficiency will also be provided. Background ‘Acommen method for achieving smokeless burning in a flare system is to utilize forced air injection into the combustion zone. This increases the amount of oxygen in the combustion zone and helps to produce smokeless flaring. Several methods exist for achieving this air injection, and even amongst the various flare system manufacturers there are different variations of common designs. The following section describes some of the typical designs. Air Flare Tip Design: To avoid burning or explosion of the gases inside the flare stack, the flare gas and assist air are kept separate until reaching the top of the flare stack, where they mix at the top of the flare tip. Gas is delivered to the top of the tip through the gas riser. At the exit point of the flare tip, the gas exits through the gas plenum. Air is delivered to the top of the flare through a separate air riser. Zeeco, IncPage 14 Typical Air-Assisted Flare Designs External Air Ring: The simplest type of air-assisted flare tip has a utility or pipe flare in the center with an air injection ring around the perimeter of the flare tip. Other variations can include a utility flare tip with an annular air riser around the outside, where air mixes with the gas around the full perimeter of the flare tip. Another variation is the Saudi Aramco HPAAS design that utilizes supersonic air injection nozzles around the perimeter of the flare tip. These designs normally use a small pipe (located on the outside of the flare stack) to deliver the air to the top of the flare, Figure 1: External Air Ring Tip Design (left) and HPAAS Tip Design (right) Drilled Spider Design: This design uses an annular arrangement with the gas riser located inside of the air riser. At the tip, the 4s riser is connected to a multi-arm “spider” assembly. This spider can be fabricated from steel pipe/plate or it can be a casting. Ports are drilled or machined into the spider to provide the exit point for the flare gas. Airis supplied to the combustion zone through an air duct that is commonly used as the main support structure for the flare stack, The gas and air are mixed together at the top of the flare, tip in the combustion zone. Zeeco, Inc.Page 15 Figure 2: Drilled Spider Tip Design Triangular Arm Design: Some tip designs use triangular arms or open slots as the gas exit point. These are typically used in flare systems with larger gas riser sizes that make it difficult to use a fabricated or cast spider with enough exit area, At the flare tip, the gas transitions from the gas riser pipe out into the open slots. These slots are typically fabricated from stainless steel plate material. Just like the drilled spider design, air is supplied to the combustion zone through an air duct that is an annular design with the gas riser inside. Figure 3: Triengular Arm Style Tip Design Zeeco, Inc.Page 16 Internal Tube Style: In some cases the gas riser size becomes so large thet it may become difficult to achieve enough open area in the triangular arm design. There may also be some concern about coking of heavy hydrocarbon gases in the narrow arm sections. In these cases, another design can be used that utilizes internal air tubes to distribute the air into the combustion zone. With this type of design, the air runs through the ‘tubes and the gas is delivered through the spaces in between the tubes. Figure 4: Internal Tube Style Flare Tip Design Other Design: The above mentioned tip designs are the most common air-assisted flare tip designs; however, itis not a fully inclusive list, Though not as common, some other air-assisted tip designs are utilized in certain applications. Figure 5: Other Flare Tip DesignsPage |7 Air Assist: Air can be delivered to the flare tip by an air blower or from an air compressor. Air Blowers/Fans: ‘The most common air source for air-assisted flares is an air blower (or fan). These blowers are most commonly a high volume/low pressure design with a maximum pressure of around 6-7 inches water column. Vane Axial: Vane axial blowers are the most frequently used design for air flares. They can hang from the flare stack or they can be located at grade level. This blower design has the motor mounted inside of the blower housing with a direct connection between the blade hub and the motor drive shaft. The mi advantages of this design is the simplicity (no belts or gearboxes), the reliability, the small size, the easy- mounting arrangement with no foundation required (most sizes can be directly hung on the flare stack from the blower outlet flange), and the TEAO air over cooling design (the motor is located directly in the air-flow, 50 2 separate cooling fan is not required for the motor). Additionally, in sandy environments, axial blowers can hang from the flare stack at a high enough elevation above grade, to avoid sucking in sand from the ground level, Figure 6: Typical Vane Axial Fan Arrangements Zeeco, Inc.Page |8 Centrifugal: Centrifugal blowers can also be used for air assist. For drilled spider and triangular arm flare tip designs, a low pressure centrifugal blower would be used, while tips with an external air injection ring would utilize high pressure centrifugal blowers. Centrifugal blowers are mounted on @ foundation at grade level. In sandy environments, they are supplied with an inlet duct and sand screen to avoid damaging the tight blower tolerances with sand. Figure 7: Typical Centrifugal Blower Arrangement Cooling Air: The design of some gas tips and air plenums results in many welds and stress concentrations in the upper heat affected zone of the flare tip. It is for this reason that most flare manufacturers recommend that @ minimum cooling rate of air be provided to the flare tip at all times, even when air is not required for smokeless combustion. If this cooling air is lost, then the heat from flaring (even flaring of purge gas) over time can cause damage to the flare tip and reduce its ability to provide safe, smokeless flaring. Blower Staging: Flares normally operate across a wide range of flowrates, from the minimum purge rate all the way up to the maximum emergency flowrate. The design flowrate of the air blower(s) is sized to provide enough assist air for smokeless burning at the peak smokeless flowrate of the flare system. Some flare systems are simply provided with a single speed blower that runs at al times; however, there are several disadvantages to this arrangement. First, the flare systern may not require the full air rate at all cases, so during normal purge conditions, the site is wasting electricity by running the blower at full speed, Second, the blower could provide so much air that the flame could snuff out low gas flowrates. Additionally, running the blower at full rate at all times will increase the continuous noise exposure levels for plant personnel. Zeeco, Inc.Page lg The next step in the progression of air flare design is to provide a two-speed blower. In this arrangement, as the flare gas flowrate (and the need for air assist) decreases then the blower switches from high speed to low speed. This reduces the air flowrate by % and helps to avoid snuffing out the flame at lower gas rates. To achieve additional turndown, a 2™ stage single-speed blower could be added to this arrangement (with each blower sized for 50% air flowrate). With this arrangement, the system could be turned down to % of the air flowrate by shutting off the 2”stage blower and switching the 1” stage blower to half speed. Figure 8: System with Two Air Blowers In some cases, even with the above two-blower arrangement, it does not provide enough turndown to avoid over-aerating or snuffing the flame at low gas flowrates. To achieve additional turndown, a Variable Inlet Vane (VIV) damper can be used on the blower inlet. In recent years, it has become more common to use 4 variable frequency drive (VFD) to control the blower speed. VFD's can be locally mounted near the flare or located indoors in @ motor control center. With use of a VIV or VED, the air speed can be reduced to s much lower rate to help maintain stable burning of the flare, Figure 9: Variable Inlet Vane Damper (left) and Local Mounted VFO Panel (right) Zeeco, Inc.Page |10 Air Compressors: ‘The Saudi Aramco HPAAS technology (licensed to Zeeco) utilizes compressed air for the smokeless assist medium, This design is most commonly used as a retrofit for existing utility tins, because the air supply line along the flare stack is very small. Previous Testing: In the last several years, much attention has been focused on determining the proper operating parameters for steam-assisted flares. By checking with newer optical emissions monitoring devices, ‘many systems in the industry have shown to be operating in an “over-steamed” condition that is producing low hydrocarbon destruction efficiency. The main concern with this testing has been to determine how to operate these flares at the purge or turndown condition to avoid low destruction efficiency, itis understandable thet the initial focus has been on these flares, given the large number of ‘these flares in operation and the possibilty of benzene or other VOC's as a part of the emissions. Air flares have been previously studied in CMA testing [1] and the 2010 TCEQ testing [2], but the data acquired from the testing is not extensive enough to provide clear operating ranges for these systems during purge or turndown, With VFD technology becoming more cost effective, some operators have assumed that turning their flare down with a VFD when itis at purge rate will ensure ideal operation and high destruction efficiency. However, there is not enough test data available to support this simplistic approach. The 1983 CMA testing included several tests of a small air-assisted flare. The design was a drilled spider flare tip with @ 4” gas riser and air supply from a 7.SHP blower. The testing was completed with propylene gas that was diluted with nitrogen in some cases. While this provided useful information for the intent of this testing, it did not represent the normal operation of most flare systems in the U.S. Most flare systems operate with a natural gas purge, or in some cases with a propane purge. It would be very rare for a flare system to use propylene as the purge gas. Additionally, the CMA testing was mainly focused on ges flowrates that were much higher than the purge gas rate. The few data points that were taken at purge rate were low heating value cases and the large flare pilots used in the testing “masked” the overall efficiency of the flare. ‘The 2010 TCEQ testing included testing of an air-assisted flare. The design was a triangular arm style tip with a 24” gas riser. This testing used a mix of propylene and natural gas that was diluted with nitrogen, which is not representative of the purge gas used at most facilities. All of the flowrates in this testing ‘were at higher flowrates, in the range of 10-30 times the typical purge rate for a flare tip of this size. {As can be seen, there is a lack of destruction efficiency testing data for air flares operating a purge gas rates with the fuels most commonly used for purge (natural gas or propane). This provided the motivation for Zeeco to perform additional testing. Zee!Page [11 DEVELOPMENT OF TEST PROCEDURE There were several goals for Zeeco to accomplish as the test procedure was developed. Th determine the proper operation (gas flowrate and air flowrate) at purge rates to ensure high hydrocarbon destruction efficiency. The second was to compare the hydrocarbon destruction efficiency of systems using the most common blower arrangements. Test Facility and Equipment Testing took place at Zeeco’s Combustion Research and Testing Facility at Zeeco’s Corporate Headquarters in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. This facility includes all the necessary equipment for completion of a large-scale flare test. Figure 10: Testing Area Layout Hlare Tip: A drilled spider flare tip wes utilized for the testing, it was determined that this type of flare tip would most closely represent the largest amount of flare systems in operation in the US. The flare tip had a 10” nominal gas riser and a 28” nominal air riser. The tip was installed with two standard Zeeco pilots. Air Blower: The air blower was a 40HP centrifugal blower that was fitted with an inlet damper and an outlet damper. This arrangement was selected because it allowed the test engineers to manually adjust ‘the air flowrate within a wide range. Zeeco, Inc.Page [12 Figure 11: Test Center Air Flare ‘An anemometer tool was developed to quickly allow test engineers to confirm the air flowrate at the tip exit for each sample point. This allowed the team to positively check the actual air flowrate at each test point rather than trusting a damper or VED setting to provide an assumed airflow. Figure 12: Example Air Velocity Test Points Zeeco, Inc.Page [13 Emissions Sampling Hood and Data Trailer: An eductor was used to draw the exhaust plume into a fume hood and capture the emissions for the analysis. A probe within the furne hood pulled samples of ‘the emissions from the exhaust. The data was routed into an emissions monitoring trailer, where data was recorded in real time using state-of-the-art emissions analyzers. Thermocouples readings were also Used to ensure the probe was not damaged due to heat. The data that was recorded during each test included 0,, NO,, CO, CO,, Total Hydrocarbon Content (THC), and sample temperature. Data was recorded at a rate of one sample per second during the testing. Figure 13; Test Arrangement FLIR Camera: A FLIR camera was utilized during the testing. This camera allowed the eductor to be properly positioned over the flare exhaust plume to ensure the best sample. The camera could also be switched to an infrared mode to confirm if there was flame present or ifit had been snuffed out by high air flowrates. This was an important check during high air flowrates with natural gas purge, Decause the flame could not be seen with the naked eye during daylight. Zeeco, Inc.Page |14 Figure 14: FLIR Camera Images from Testing Test Plan Gases: The main gases tested were natural gas and propane. At most of the air flowrates, the gas flowrate was adjusted to several different levels. These included a rate representing the typical purge flow to an air flare, as well as a rate equal to two times this amount and four times this amount. Additionally, at several of the higher blower speeds, the gas rete was slowly increased in small steps to determine the gas flowrate required to achieve 98% or 99% destruction efficiency. Air Flowrate: Air flowrates were operated across a broad range of flows from the maximum blower flowrate all the way down to 2% of the blower flowrate, Destruction Efficiency Calculations: The equations for calculating destruction efficiency were developed prior to the testing, and were incorporated into the emissions sampling software to provide real-time destruction efficiency output during the testing, The basic equation is listed below: Equation 1: DRE of Natural Gas and Propane THCgue(PPM) DRE (%)=]1 = TT + 100 (THCyue(ppm) + C02 oue(PPM) + COque (PPM), DRE(%)= destruction removal efficiency (%) THCout= total hydrocarbons out (ppm) COz0u= carbon dioxide out (ppm) CO = carbon monoxide out (ppm)Page 115 Test Execution Testing was completed in June and July 2013 over a period of 2 weeks. During this timeframe over 100 different tests were run and over 4000 data points were taken. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ‘The test results were somewhat as expected, With no air assist turned on, the flares achieved destruction efficiencies greater than 99%. With the air assist on at low rates, the destruction efficiency remained greater than 99%. As the air rate continued to increased, the destruction efficiency remained high and then gradually began to decrease. As shown in Figure 15, the natural gas had a more abrupt drop-off in the destruction efficiency, as its flame became more unstable than the propane flame as the air rate increased. Natural Gas Purge a8 8 Destruction Efficiency (reitoenens Figure 15: Natural Gas Destruction Efficiency Propane Purge F ox i Bose Soon : i Bmw a Figure 16: Propane Destruction Efficiency Zeeco, Inc.Page |16 The comparison of blower arrangements also had results as expected. The arrangements with the highest amount of blower turndown resulted in the most stable operation and the highest destruction efficiencies. The arrangements with less blower turndown resulted in less stable operation and a decrease in destruction efficiency. This was especially noticeable with the natural gas cases. Destruction Efficency for Natural Gas 200% 90% 20% 0% os 508 0% DestructionEtficiency 30% 20% 10% o% Figure 17: Blower Staging Comparison for Natural Gas Purge Destruction Efficency for Propane Destruction Efficiency Figure 18: Blower Staging Comparison for Propane Purge Zeeco, Inc.Page |17 Figure 19 shows the comparison of the data collected from Zeeco’s testing with the previous CMA and TCEQ testing by plotting the destruction efficiency versus Combustion Zone Net Heating Value (CZNHV). : eed om | Al Maes 098 wae oe . soe > z "ao E oor = 0.96 norte oss sropane 2 Bons * g ercea 5 om Be on | % 08 Combustion Zone Net Heating Value Figure 19: Combustion Zone Net Heating Value Comparison As shown in Figure 19, when the data is evaluated based on CZNHV, the data from the previous CMA and TCEQ testing corresponds well with Zeeco’s new data. Even though the CMA and TCEQ testing differed from Zeeco's testing in many ways, using the CZNHV calculation seems to provide a consistent method for evaluating the destruction efficiency. It should be noted that the CMA testing appeared to show higher destruction efficiencies than the TCEQ testing did at lower CZNHV figures. We expect that the tip design (drilled spider vs. triangular arm) or the use of very high heat release pilots on the CMA testing may have caused this difference. The data collected from the Zeeco testing provides a relatively clear approach for designing air-assisted flare systems to achieve high destruction efficiency, By using the CZNHV data from our testing, the proper tip design, blower staging, and pilot arrangement can be selected for each application.Page |18 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Zeeco's testing provides useful information for establishing the destruction efficiency of air flares at purge gas flowrates. It also provides insight into the expected destruction efficiency for existing air flares. Please note that this testing is not fully conclusive ~ as discussed in the earlier sections of this paper, there are multiple variations of air flare designs from different manufacturers, and each design may provide some variation in flame stability and destruction efficiency. However, when Zeeco’s testing is compared with the previous CMA and TCEQ testing, general conclusions and recommendations can be made. General Comments: The testing affirms that properly designed air-assisted flares can be used to reduce hydrocarbon and VOC emissions at facilities by achieving high destruction efficiency. Smoking flares can have equal or higher destruction efficiency than non-smoking flares, achieving destruction efficiencies of 99% or higher. Properly operated air-assisted flares can achieve hydrocarbon destruction efficiencies exceeding 99%. Combustion Zone Net Heating Value (CZNHV) is likely the most accurate parameter for predicting flare destruction efficiency of air-assisted flares. Flare Operating Recommendations: Flares operating with a visible flame generally have the highest destruction efficiency. When air is increased high enough to make the flame invisible during the daytime, (this is common with. natural gas flares) then there is ¢ higher likelihood that the destruction efficiency may begin to decrease. Setting the blower at the minimum required rate to maintain smokeless flaring (ie, just before the incipient smoking point) is likely the best operating point. ‘Arumbling sound coming from the flare system can indicate an unstable flame that is not achieving high destruction efficiency. Unstable flames are often the result of too much air assist If the flame is not visible but there is visible smoke coming from the flare tip, it could indicate ‘that pressure capping is occurring. This is when the air flowrate is creating a higher pressure zone above the tip exit that is pushing the flame back inside of the flare tip, resulting in an air flowrate that is too high and a higher likelihood of low destruction efficiency. Low heating value gases are more likely to have unstable burning and drops in destruction efficiency, and are more easily impacted by high air flowrates than higher heating value gases. Zee!Page |19 Flare Blower Desig - New flare systems should be installed with a VFD driven motor for the primary or first stage blower. The design should be evaluated to determine if two blowers (at 50% capacity each) or @ single blower (at 100% capacity) is needed to provide the proper turndown for high destruction efficiency at the flare gas purge rate. Even though Zeeco’s testing showed high destruction efficiency for the one-blower and two-blower (VFD driven) simulations, the overall blower capacity may impact whether each blower arrangement is suitable. This is more of a concern with very large air-assisted flares. - Existing flares should be evaluated to determine if the blower arrangement is providing high destruction efficiency at the normal purge rates. In cases where it is determined that the blower arrangement is NOT suitable for high destruction efficiency at the normal purge rates, then the following options can be considered: (© Increasing the purge gas rate, or use a purge gas with a higher heating value ‘0 Applying a VFD to the primary or first stage blower © Adding a variable inlet damper to the primary or first stage blower © Onsystems with very large air blowers, it may be possible to add a dedicated small blower for purge rates and cooling of the tip (the primary blowers can be turned completely off at the purge rate) Zeeco is currently working with several customers in the U.S. to make these kinds of modifications.Page 120 REFERENCES [1] McDaniel, Marc, “Flare Efficiency Study.” EPA-600/2-83-052. July 1983. (2) Allen, David T. “TCEQ 2010 Flare Study Final Report.” PGA No. 582-8-862-45-FY09-04, August 2011. Zeeco, Inc.