SCHLUMBERGER SOFTWARE INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS NEWSLETTER

JUNE 2020
Dear Respected Users,
With this newsletter, we would like to highlight some fascinating articles exclusively for you. In this June edition we will talk
about Symmetry: Steady State to Dynamic Flare Analysis. In this newsletter we will talk about how Symmetry could analyze
Flare system in steady state and dynamic mode within one environment. For brownfield system, dynamic simulation became a
necessity in order to optimize the CAPEX and OPEX so we could analyze unnecessary oversized design from the steady state
analysis.

APPLICATIONS Background Case

 Difference between steady state and
dynamic analysis of the flare system
BENEFITS
 The ability to seamlessly model the pro-
cess units, flare header piping and flare
stack radiation within an integrated envi-
ronment.
 Symmetry Flare facilitate the work with
flare systems and includes a direct link with
Flaresim for detailed analysis of the radia-
tion levels.
 Dynamic simulation may troubleshoot the
hazard identified in a steady state analysis.
 Provide better understanding about the
dynamic behavior during blow down sce-
nario.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
 Symmetry 2018
Flare and relief system are part of every onshore or offshore installation
in the energy industry. Whether a grass root design or revamp of existing
facilities, analysis of parts or the whole Flare and Relief system are often
undertaken. Analysis starts with evaluation of the process, relief load
generation, hydraulic header design and concludes with the analysis of
the Flare Stack and Radiation.
Historically, steady state analysis has prove adequate for the majority of
cases and often use for a new field. Meanwhile, for brownfield, compre-
hensive design validation of flare system is required to decide whether
the existing flare network will be able to cope with additional load from
new facilities, dynamic analysis provides better understanding of the dy-
namic phenomenon of the operation leading to more realistic solution
which otherwise could be expensive is judged based solely on steady
state analysis only.
CASE STUDY
The case presented in this newsletter details various situations where a
flare study may have to consider dynamic analysis being required in ad-
dition to the traditional steady state methods.
In this case existing facility consists of a typical drilling platform connect-
ed to the main process platform by a 100m long bridge. The facility has
recently undergone a capacity expansion and various analysis need to
be performed to confirm the suitability of the existing flare design.

Figure 1 Drilling platform connected to the main platform through a 100m bridge pipe

slb.com/symmetry

*Mark of Schlumberger
Other company, product, and service names
are the properties of their respective owners.
Copyright © 2020 Schlumberger. All rights reserved. 19-IS-000003
SIS Newsletter/June2020/Page-2

ANALYSIS
The study we consider here focuses on differences to be found in steady state and dynamic analysis of the flare system. The actual equip-
ment being depressurized is simplified for the simulation and represented by simple vessel in the process simulations.

Figure 2 PFD representing the platform

The scenario under consideration will be the necessity to blowdown the three pig catchers and associated piping on the platform. Initial pres-
sures will range from 170 barg to 75 barg.
Symmetry offers a steady state network solver side by side to the sequential steady state solver and dynamics integrator. These solver can
be interchanged with simple clicks in order to carry out analysis with the correct tool.
We have identified varios areas that require studying and understanding in both steady sate and in dynamics:
1. Cold temperature penetration across the bridge
2. Maximum flow rates during blowdown
3. Potential liquid formation in the cold headers
4. Flare radiation levels

Analysis 1—Cold penetration study across the bridge

Consideration must be given to both the bridge and flare header material of construction. Carbon steel is normally adequate down to
–44degC, below that there is potential risk of brittle fracture and more expensive low temperature steel must be used. Economically the use
of this material should be minimized. The source of cold is duet to the relief fluid expanding as it passes through blowdown orifice and travels
across the bridge into the existing platform flare system.
In steady state the fluid flashes and cools continuously as it flows from the blowdown
orifice to the flare tip. In dynamics however, the coldest point is initially located immedi-
ately downstream of the orifice and from there the gas warms up as it picks up heat from
the pipe wall. A total 4 simulation runs have been done based on an ambient tempera-
ture of 25degC:
A. Steady state: Cold plant operation with sources at 10degC
B. Steady state: Warm plant operation with sources at 30degC
C. Dynamics: Cold plant operation with sources at 10degC
Figure 3 Steady state bridge inner wall temperature (Case A and B)
D. Dynamics: Warm plant operation with sources at 30degC
The simulation results show:

Figure 4 Dynamic bridge inner wall temperature (Case C) Figure 5 Dynamic bridge inner wall temperature (Case D)
slb.com/symmetry

*Mark of Schlumberger
Other company, product, and service names
are the properties of their respective owners.
Copyright © 2020 Schlumberger. All rights reserved. 19-IS-000003
SIS Newsletter/June2020/Page-3

Analysis 1—Cold penetration study across the bridge

In conclusion, we observe that:
• Initially in steady state it is difficult to determine which approach is more conservative and will shows that the whole part of the bridge
must be replace.
• Dynamics approach provides more detail which assists decision making. And the possible solution would be to replace only part of the
bridge with low temperature steel instead of replacing the whole length.

Cases Steady State Dynamic

Warm Case (30degC) No low temperature steel required (-27degC) Temperature below -40degC could be reach
as far as 35m across the bridge
Cold Case (10degC) Temperature steel reach -53degC Temperature below -0degC could be reach
until 75m across the bridge

Analysis 2—Maximum flowrate during the blowdown

Flowrate in both dynamics and steady state will be analyze and results compared. As initially designed the facility was deemed safe however
due to an increase in capacity, focus is now put on studying the headers, knock-out drum and stack for Mach numbers and pressure drops.
Steady state approach:
• Blowdown the tree pig catcher simultaneously using the peak flow of each at the initial pressure and temperature
• Peak flow last for the duration of the run.
• Table 1 Conditions for steady state cases (Case A and Case B)
Knockout Drum Mass Flow Flare Tip Temp
Max Mach
T (degC) P (barg) (kg/h) (degC)
Cold Case (A) -58.4 1.7 0.87 85882 -85.1
Warm Case (B) -31.3 1.87 0.89 83097 -59.1

The situation in dynamic is different as shown in Figure 6. here are no condensate predicted because of the warm metal and the gas that
initially filled the pipes. This causes higher pressure drop than in the steady state analysis in the pipes and this the KOD is at a lower pres-
sure. Figure 7 shows that the peak mass flow it lower than in steady state because there are packing effects in the flare system. The Mach
number in the flare tip significantly lower in dynamics than in steady state.

Figure 6 Dynamic Analysis pressure and temperature (Case C and Case D) Figure 7 Dynamic Analysis Mach number and mass flow (Case C and Case D)

In conclusion, steady state suggested that the old subsonic flare tip might need to be replaced given the Mach numbers predicted around
0.89. On the other hand, dynamic analysis predicted lower flows and Mach numbers averaging 0.83 and only beyond 0.5 for less than 50
seconds. This may allows to continue using the current flare tip following discussions with the appropriate flare vendor.

slb.com/symmetry

*Mark of Schlumberger
Other company, product, and service names
are the properties of their respective owners.
Copyright © 2020 Schlumberger. All rights reserved. 19-IS-000003
SIS Newsletter/June2020/Page-4

Analysis 3—Flare radiation levels

Symmetry seamlessly interfaces with Flaresim to provide detailed flare radiation analysis. This integration allows dynamic radiation
simulation to be modeled using thet actual time dependant flows to evaluate the suitability of an existing flare.

During cold case, based on the steady state approach, the radiation levels are 5.9 kW/m 2 at the Stack base and 5.1 kW/m2 at the Deck NW
corner. Both locations are constantly exceeding the 4.7 kW/m2 limit. Dynamic simulation demonstrates that the radiation limit at the Stack
base is exceeded only for 30s during the initial stage of the blowdown and then drops below the maximum tolerable level as the flow de-
pletes. The dynamic radiation at the Deck NW corner remains below the constraint during the entire depressurization with a maximum radia-
tion Peak of 4.2 kW/m2.
During warm case, steady state results show radiation violations at both locations. The crane cabin receive a continuous level of 3.8 kW/m2
and the laydown area 3.6 kW/m2, both exceeding the 3.2 kW/m2 maximum tolerable level. Examination of the dynamic results is reassuring
since the radiation curves for the two receptor points remain within the tolerable level during the 400s blowdown. The peak radiation intensi-
ties are 3 kW/m2 and 2.9 kW/m2 for the crane cabin and laydown area respectively.

Figure 8 Radiation levels at Stack base and Deck NW corner for Cold Case Figure 9 Radiation levels at crane cabin and laydown area for Warm Case

CONCLUSIONS

The use of dynamic simulation as a value added tool provides better understanding and opportunities for optimization in building new flare
design and also assist in identifying the limitation in existing flare design thus removing the need of unnecessary capital expenditure. It is
clear that dynamic simulation provides better insight into the process behavior which is not apparent from steady state simulations which
proves dynamics simulation, a better tool for design of a flare system providing benefits especially for brownfield system.

slb.com/symmetry

*Mark of Schlumberger
Other company, product, and service names
are the properties of their respective owners.
Copyright © 2020 Schlumberger. All rights reserved. 19-IS-000003
SIS Newsletter/June2020/Page-5

SYMMETRY-STEADY STATE TO DYNAMIC FLARE ANALYSIS

The procedure below will explain about how to change Symmetry engine from Steady State to Dynamic swiftly. The model used here is
only simple example and does not represent the case before.

1. Prepare your Symmetry Flare Case

a. Open the “FlareSStoDynamic.vsym” case

b. Notice that the current workspace is “Flare” and the engine is set on “Steady State” mode.

c. To change the engine mode from steady state to dynamic, click the dropdown on the “Engine” section and choose “Dynamic”.
d. Symmetry will ask “Do you want to initialize dynamics with the values from Steady State?”, click “Yes”.
e. Your case is now working on “Dynamic” mode.

2. Input the additional data for dynamic simulation

a. For dynamic simulation, detail information for each equipment will be required to specify. For example valve’s CV, orifice’s diameter,
etc.
b. To check which variables is missing go to Home > Integrator > Spec Analysis

c. In Spec Analysis you could find possible problem specifications. In this case we have extra information that needs to be deleted and
several missing information.

d. Also all inlets and outlets in the system must have pressure specifications. The table below is the summary of the additional specifica-
tion for this model.

slb.com/symmetry

*Mark of Schlumberger
Other company, product, and service names
are the properties of their respective owners.
Copyright © 2020 Schlumberger. All rights reserved. 19-IS-000003
SIS Newsletter/June2020/Page-6

e. Another way to check if you’re model is ready to go is through Model Audit. Go to Dynamics > Model Audit.

f. In the model audit, you’ll find several findings that you need to resolved
in order to solve the model. The color indicates the severity of the error,
in this case you need to define the Relief Valve (A-PSV2) size and Sep1
dimension.

3. Additional volume factor for Dynamic simulation

The case we use here purposely built for steady state mode, so the output will be show steady state as well. To observe the dynamic simu-
lation, we need to add more dynamic factor, in this case is volume. So with the additional volume to this case, we are hoping to generate
more dynamic result.
a. Add two phase separator to the model. Double click on the separator , go to Holdup tab. In the Init From column, click the dots on the
right, and choose S6 Out and click OK.

b. Add new stream from the vapor outlet of the separator and connect it to the B-BDV1 valve.
c. Add one more separator to the model, repeat step a and use S12 as the initial value. Add another new stream from the vapor outlet of
this separator and connect it to the B-CV1 valve.

Overall your final model will look like the picture below.

slb.com/symmetry

*Mark of Schlumberger
Other company, product, and service names
are the properties of their respective owners.
Copyright © 2020 Schlumberger. All rights reserved. 19-IS-000003
SIS Newsletter/June2020/Page-7

4. Run the simulation and extract results

a. On the Dynamics ribbon, click Historian Manager, this historian is used to keep track of key process variables in Dynamics, where
each variables that you selected will be monitored. In the historian window, you can add the variable with 2 ways.

• Manually add the variable, on the historian window, click Add Property > uncheck the Show Short List > choose “S6” material
stream > choose Mass Flow as the variable > click OK.

• Or you could drag and drop the variable you wanted to the strip chart. To do this, go to Dynamics > Strip Charts > DataSet1. Pin
the strip chart so it won’t close.
• Open Sep2 , open the Holdup tab and click on the “Pressure” box, hover your cursor to the border of the box until you fine the
“+” on your cursor and drag it to the strip chart. You’ll found the Mach Number successfully added to the strip chart.

• You could add more variable to the strip chart.

b. To run the simulation, on the Home ribbon, you will find Run Main Flowsheet.
c. While the cases being run, you can check the strip chart shows the parameter that you define in the historian.

Your final strip chart shows you the vessel pressure

and mass flow over time. It only takes less than 150
sec to depressurized 300psia from Separator 3,
meanwhile to depressurized 800psia from Separa-
tor 2 takes around 450sec.

slb.com/symmetry

*Mark of Schlumberger
Other company, product, and service names
are the properties of their respective owners.
Copyright © 2020 Schlumberger. All rights reserved. 19-IS-000003