Reprinted with permission from CEP (Chemical Engineering Progress),

May 2006. Copyright 2006 American Institute of Chemical Engineers.

Environmental Management

Industrial-Scale
Flare Testing
Jianhui Hong
Charles Baukal
Robert Schwartz
Mahmoud Fleifil
John Zink Co.

Advanced flare testing at full-scale can help

ensure that the system operates as designed.
This article explains whats involved
and the parameters that should be
measured and evaluated to demonstrate
performance, reliability and safety.

Figure 1. An industrial-scale flare test facility should be able to evaluate a wide range of flows.

odays process industries expect more from flare

systems than ever before. Chemical and petroleum
processing plants depend on flares to burn hydrocarbons, such as propane, propylene, ethylene, butadiene,
butane and natural gas, found in waste gases. Landfills and
wastewater treatment plants, oil-and-gas exploration and
production facilities, and loading terminals also use flares
to destroy potentially harmful gases.
In each case, the flare system must separate the gases
from any liquids present, ignite the gases, and provide the
stable combustion necessary for destruction, while minimizing smoke, thermal radiation and noise. And, it must
operate reliably and safely under a wide range of operating
conditions, including weather extremes.
With a greater demand for increased smokeless capacities, higher turndown and more-efficient plant production,
a flare failure can carry a big price tag. Factor in the
essential role flares play in the safe and environmentally

acceptable disposal of waste gases produced from industrial operations (1, 2), and its easy to understand why processing industries can benefit from flare testing as a safeguard against unexpected problems in the field. Testing a
flare before installation is a proactive measure to minimize
the uncertainty of flare performance, emission levels, and
the expense of repairs in the event of a problem.
But testing flares in the field is generally difficult or
impossible for several reasons. Operating flares usually do
not have the instrumentation required for assessing performance. Operating conditions are not easily modified or
controlled, and taking the plant off-line to test the flare is
impractical. In addition, flares are nearly impossible to test
under critical design conditions once installed.
Characterizing flare performance for reliability and safety requires comprehensive, accurate testing at full-scale and
under controlled conditions to collect and analyze critical
data. Although flare performance might be estimated based

CEP

May 2006 www.cepmagazine.org

35

Environmental Management

Figure 2. A
comprehensive
test facility
includes ground,
enclosed and
elevated flares.

on scaled-down experimentation and empirical data, industrial-scale testing is the most reliable method due to the complexity of the process. While testing custom-designed burners for process heaters has been common for decades, that
has not been true for large industrial flares, primarily due to
the lack of adequate testing facilities. With the advent of
state-of-the-art flare test facilities, large-scale flare testing is
recommended to ensure proper performance.

Advanced flare testing

Just as flares have evolved into modern-day, technologybased systems, flare test facilities must also mature into
state-of-the-art, full-scale operations, offering extensive
capabilities with sophisticated tools and instrumentation.
While flare manufacturers view these flare test facilities as
the vehicle for developing cleaner, more-efficient flare
innovations, global industries and environmental agencies
recognize them as a valuable resource to measure flare performance, system reliability and environmental compliance.
In the past, industry lacked the ability to test flares in a comprehensive manner. Todays test facilities (such as in Figures 1
36

www.cepmagazine.org

May 2006

CEP

and 2) should offer industrial-scale testing and measurement of

smokeless capacity, required purge rate, blower horsepower or
steam requirements for assisted flares, radiation and noise. To
properly characterize flare performance, a test facility must
have the capability and flexibility to evaluate a wide range of
ground, enclosed and elevated flares, including a variety of
flare sizes, operating conditions at full-scale, fuel compositions,
flowrates, assist media and other factors. Advanced flow control and data acquisition systems are required to control the
tests and ensure accurate measurements.
Safety is one of two critical features of a world-class
flare test facility. In addition to in-plant safety protocols,
equipment safety features and trained specialists, a test
facility should include exhaustive, redundant safety measures within its controls, automation software and operating
procedures to protect against potential problems.
The second critical feature is flexibility. A test facility
should support a wide range of fuel flowrates and test fuels,
such as propane, propylene, ethylene, butane, natural gas, and
blends of these, including inerts such as nitrogen. Higher
flowrates can be achieved with a storage vessel filled with fuel

Desired Mass Flowrate

140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
Automatic Control
Manual

40%
20%

3:1
3
pm : 1 5

3:1
2
pm : 5 8

3 :1
2
p m :4 0

3 :1
2
p m :2 3

3:1
2
pm :06

3 :1
1
p m :4 8

3 :1
1
p m :3 1

0%

Time

Figure 3. Target flowrates can be reached quickly and

maintained more tightly with automatic controls.

gases at an elevated pressure to increase the available

hydraulic capacity. A compressor can circulate the gases in the
storage vessel to ensure that blends are well-mixed. The fuel
flows should be accurately controlled and measured before
going to the flare. Multiple metering runs of different sizes
can significantly increase the available flow range. Between
tests, the lines should be purged with an inert gas for safety
and to prevent fuel contamination in subsequent tests.
A test facility should offer a variety of flare testing venues
to accommodate virtually every flare size and type used in
industry. In Figure 2, flare-testing venues are in place to test
enclosed flares, multi-point ground flares, air-assisted flares,
steam-assisted flares, high-pressure flares, and flare pilots.
A facility should have the capability of testing flares
with capacities up to 300,000 lb/h or more of fuel. Flarepilot test stands should be capable of simulating wind
speeds in excess of 150 mph (blowing against both the pilot
and the pilot mixer) and rain at more than 30 in./h (3).
Because many flares use some type of assisting media,
typically steam or air, to meet the specified smokeless
capacity, a test facility must be able to provide adequate
quantities of both media. For flares that do not require any
assisting media, such as high-pressure flares, the facility
should be able to produce the higher gas pressures
encountered in those applications.

Test parameters
Depending on the information required, the variables
typically measured during a flare test include flame length,
smokeless capacity, blower horsepower for air-assisted
flares, steam consumption for steam-assisted flares, and
cross-lighting distance for multi-point flares. Two types of
measurements are taken inputs and outputs.
Inputs are the controlled parameters set by the test

objectives. These include, for example, the gas flowrates,

fuel pressures and compositions specified by the test protocol. For assisted flares, the steam or air flowrate to the
flare is generally controlled for a given test point.
Atmospheric conditions (wind speed and direction, ambient temperature and pressure, and relative humidity),
while not controllable, need to be measured because they
may have a significant effect on flare performance.
Outputs, on the other hand, include noise, thermal radiation, flame stability, smokeless capacity and flame quality. Some of these measurements (e.g., flame stability) are
subjective and require the expertise of qualified engineering staff, while others (e.g., noise) can be measured with
appropriate instrumentation.
To ensure data accuracy and to minimize testing costs,
the facilitys flow control system must be capable of
reaching the target flowrate very quickly and maintaining
that rate. This is best accomplished with automatic controls (Figure 3). Because a wide range of flows may be
tested from purge rates up to the maximum hydraulic
capacity of a large flare tip multiple sets of flow metering and control runs are recommended to ensure accuracy
and controllability for both extremes.

Thermal radiation
Thermal radiation is one of the most important considerations in flare design. Stack height is often chosen so the
flare is tall enough to meet certain radiation heat-flux criteria at specified locations. Effective tip design, however,
can have a tremendous
impact on the radiation
characteristics of a flare,
as it can reduce the radiation fluxes from the
flame and make it possible to use a shorter flare
stack, which reduces the
cost of the flare system.
To test a flares radiation flux, multiple
radiometers (Figure 4)
are recommended to
measure the radiation
field, which is typically
non-uniform due to
wind effects and varies
with distance from the
flare. Through sophisticated mathematical
Figure 4. This radiometer is
used, as part of an array,
analysis, the measured
to determine the radiation field
radiant fluxes can be
from a flare.

CEP

May 2006 www.cepmagazine.org

37

Environmental Management

400
300

Wind
Speed = 20 m/s
Direction = 109 deg.

Btu/h-ft2 kW/m2
500.00 1.58
1,000.00 3.15
1,500.00 4.73
2,000.00 6.31

1
2
3
4

Distance, ft

200
100
0

100
4
3

200

400
400

Figure 6. This microphone is part of the sound measurement

system used for flare testing.

300

200

0
Distance, ft

200

400

Figure 5. Isoflux radiation profiles for a high-pressure flare.

used to determine the coordinates of the effective epicenter of the flame and the radiant fraction (i.e., the fraction
of heat released from combustion that is emitted as thermal radiation).
Numerous calculation methods have been proposed for
estimating the radiation from a flare. Predictions can vary
over a wide range, depending on which model is used and
what assumptions are made (4). Overestimating radiation
results in a flare stack that is taller and more costly than
necessary. Underestimating radiation means the radiant

JIANHUI HONG, PhD, is an advanced development engineer at John Zink Co. LLC
(11920 E. Apache, Tulsa, OK 74116; Phone: (918) 234-5845; Fax: (918) 2341827; E-mail: jianhui.hong@johnzink.com). He has several U.S. patents on
the ultra-stable WindProof flare pilot, low-NOx incinerator control apparatus
and methods, steam-assisted and air-assisted flares, and flare control
methods. He has also worked in the areas of kinetic simulation involving
NOx, SOx, and soot; global optimization of steel stack structures; and
phased array of thermal radiometers for measuring the flame epicenter and
radiant fraction of industrial flares. He holds a BS from Tsinghua Univ.
(Beijing) and a PhD from Brigham Young Univ., both in chemical engineering.
CHARLES E. BAUKAL, Jr., PhD, P.E., is the director of the John Zink Institute
(11920 E. Apache, Tulsa, OK 74116; Phone: (918) 234-2854; Fax: (918) 2345895; E-mail: charles.baukal@johnzink.com). He has over 25 years of
experience in the field of industrial combustion in the metals, minerals,
petrochemical, textile and paper industries. He has nine U.S. patents and
has authored two books, edited four books, and written numerous
technical publications. He holds a BS and an MS from Drexel Univ. and a
PhD from the Univ. of Pennsylvania, all in mechanical engineering, and an
MBA from the Univ. of Tulsa. He is a Board Certified Environmental
Engineer (BCEE) and a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP), and is a
member of ASME, AWMA and the Combustion Institute.

38

www.cepmagazine.org

May 2006

CEP

flux at the ground will be higher than desired, which may

be dangerous to personnel and equipment in the area during a flaring event.
Figure 5 is a plot of constant radiation lines (isoflux
lines) at ground level for a high-pressure flare test. This
plot was generated using measurements from an array of
radiometers positioned at various distances and angles
from the flare.

Noise
Noise from a flare must be adequately controlled to
protect personnel in the vicinity of a flare event. To study
the effects of noise from flares, a test facility requires a
sound measurement system that includes multiple microphones, such as the one shown in Figure 6. The duration
of measurements, microphones, type of data recorded, and

ROBERT E. SCHWARTZ, P.E., is a senior technical specialist at John Zink Co.

LLC (11920 E. Apache, Tulsa, OK 74116; Phone: (918) 234-5753; Fax: (918)
234-1986; E-mail: bob.schwartz@johnzink.com). He has over 40 years of
experience in the fields of combustion, heat transfer and fluid flow, and
has been granted 51 patents for inventions on a wide range of combustionand process-related products and methods. He has authored numerous
articles and papers on flares, and is a contributing author and associate
editor of The John Zink Combustion Handbook. He holds BSME and
MSME degrees from the Univ. of Missouri.
MAHMOUD FLEIFIL, PhD, is an acoustics engineer with John Zink Co. LLC
(11920 E. Apache, Tulsa, OK 74116; Phone: (918) 234-2748; Fax: (918) 2341827; E-mail: mahmoud.fleifil@johnzink.com). His areas of expertise are
fluid dynamics, combustion instability and noise control. He has over 23
publications on active control of combustion instability in IEEE,
Combustion Science and Technology, and Combustion and Flame Journals.
He has a PhD in mechanical engineering from a co-supervisory program
between Ain Shams Univ. and MIT. He is listed in Whos Who in America,
Whos Who in Science and Engineering, and Lexington Whos Who, and on
The National Aviation and Space Exploration Wall of Honor. He is a member
of ASME and AIAA.

A new era in problem-solving

In the past, flares have been designed
using semi-empirical and simplified analytical models that can sometimes produce lessthan-optimum results. This has primarily
been due to the inability to gather comprehensive experimental data from industrialscale flares and the lack of industrial-scale
flare testing capabilities. Today, industrialscale test facilities should provide important
data for greatly improving flare design and
in-field performance of existing flares.
The quest for flare knowledge has
taken many leaps forward with the
advancement of these test facilities, and
hydrocarbon and chemical processing
industries will benefit from this progress.
Through a better understanding of combustion science, full-scale testing and realworld simulation, cleaner, more-reliable
flare performance can stay a step
CEP
ahead of industry requirements.

90
Overall Sound Pressure Level, dB

type of spectrum analyzers used are among

the numerous conditions that can be varied
for noise testing.
Figure 7 illustrates the sound pressure
data recorded by two microphones at different locations during a typical flare test. The
spikes at 0 s and 10 s are not related to flare
noise, but represent noise from the safety
horn alerting personnel in the area of an
impending flare test. In this example, there
is a rapid rise in the sound level at the start
of the test, followed by a steady decline as
the fuel flowrate is reduced according to
the test plan.
Collecting accurate data for measurement and analysis requires a sophisticated
data-acquisition system. In the control room
pictured in Figure 8, three time-synchronized computers capture critical test information, which is recorded on a single test
record. The first computer collects general
data, such as ambient conditions, fuel temperature and flowrates, tip pressure, radiation fluxes, and locations of radiometers
and microphones. Another computer records
digital video from multiple cameras strategically positioned at various locations,
while the third computer records noise data.

85
Mic-2
Mic-5

80
75
70
65
60
0

20

40

60

100
80
Time, s

120

140

160

180

Figure 7. Sound levels decrease as flowrate is reduced during a flare test.

Figure 8. Data acquisition during tests is monitored from the control room.

Literature Cited
1.
2.
3.
4.

Schwartz, R., et al., Flares, Chapter 20 in The John Zink Combustion

Handbook, Baukal, C. E., ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (2001).
American Petroleum Institute, Recommended Practice 537: Flare Details for
General Refinery and Petrochemical Service, API, Washington, DC (2004).
Schwartz, R. E., et al., The Flare Pilot, Hydrocarbon Engineering, 7 (2), pp.
6568 (2002).
Schwartz, R. E., and J. W. White, Flare Radiation Prediction: A Critical
Review (Paper 12a), presented at the 30th Annual Loss Prevention Symposium,
American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Spring National Meeting, New
Orleans, LA (Feb. 29, 1996).

CEP

May 2006

www.cepmagazine.org

39