Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

2009, 48, 3505–3512 3505

Chemical Plant Flare Minimization via Plantwide Dynamic Simulation

Qiang Xu,* Xiongtao Yang, Chaowei Liu, Kuyen Li, Helen H. Lou, and John L. Gossage
Department of Chemical Engineering, Lamar UniVersity, Beaumont, Texas 77710

Flaring is crucial to chemical plant safety. However, excessive flaring, especially the intensive flaring during
the chemical plant start-up operation, emits huge amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and highly
reactive VOCs, which meanwhile results in tremendous industrial material and energy loss. Thus, the flare
emission should be minimized if at all possible. This paper presents a general methodology on flare minimization
for chemical plant start-up operations via plantwide dynamic simulation. The methodology starts with setup
and validation of plantwide steady-state and dynamic simulation models. The validated dynamic model is
then systematically transformed to the initial state of start-up and thereafter virtually run to check the plant
start-up procedures. Any infeasible or risky scenarios will be fed back to plant engineers for operation
improvement. The plantwide dynamic simulation provides an insight into process dynamic behaviors, which
is crucial for the plant to minimize the flaring while maintaining operational feasibility and safety. The efficacy
of the developed methodology has been demonstrated by a real start-up test.

Introduction minimization has become one of the major concerns for the
chemical process industry.
Downloaded by LAMAR UNIV on October 7, 2009 | http://pubs.acs.org
Publication Date (Web): February 27, 2009 | doi: 10.1021/ie8016219

Chemical plant start-up operations can be considered as

plantwide dynamic operations, by which the whole plant
operating status is transferred from one steady state to another.
Apparently, the start-up operation is a highly nonlinear, complex
operation that usually involves discontinuous and/or parallel
operating procedures, as well as a wide change of many
controllers’ set points. Such complex operations would inevi-
tably generate huge amounts of off-spec product streams that
have to be sent to flaring systems for destruction, if the plant
start-up could not be completed promptly. Flaring can protect
chemical plant personnel and equipments, as well as protect
the local environment from direct emission pollutions. Thus,
flaring is crucial to the chemical process industry (CPI).
Excessive flaring, however, will also cause negative envi-
ronmental and social impacts and result in tremendous material
and energy losses.1 The flaring emissions during chemical plant
start-up operations generate huge amounts of CO, CO2, NOx,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), highly reactive VOC
(HRVOCs) (defined in Texas air quality regulation as ethylene,
propylene, isomers of butene, and 1,3-butadiene), and partially
oxygenated hydrocarbons (such as formaldehyde). It has been
estimated that an ethylene plant with a capacity of 1.2 billion
pounds of ethylene production per year will easily flare about
5.0 million pounds of ethylene during one single start-up.2 Given
the 98% flaring efficiency (destruction efficiency), the resultant
air emission will include at least 40.0 klb CO, 7.5 klb NOx,
15.1 klb hydrocarbon, and 100.0 klb HRVOCs.
The flaring emission will cause highly localized and transient
air pollution events, which are harmful to people’s health. For
instance, the industrial flare emission of HRVOCs mixed with
NOx has been identified with high concentrations of ozone
observed in the Houston/Galveston area of Texas, which violates
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
ozone.3-7 Note that the flaring emission not only causes
dangerous environmental pollution but also results in tremendous
raw material and energy loss that could generate much needed
products from the industry. As a result of the increasingly strict
environmental regulations and economic competition, flare
Current practice of flare minimization in CPI plants is not
standardized due to the complexity of the different process and
operating procedures. This causes flare minimization to depend
almost exclusively on the experienced and well trained operators,
engineers, and administrators.8,9 The focal point for flare
minimization is to reduce the number of instances when the
plant has to flare and the quantity of the materials to be flared.
However, the industrial-experience based methods are often
limited, when they have to confront complex plantwide dynamic
operations (e.g., start-up) with critical control and safety issues.10
Consequently, virtual models are employed to study the start-
up behaviors. Some studies have tried steady-state simulation
(SS) for start-up operation, based on a set of predicted steady-
state operating points to project the system dynamic response.11
The methods have inherent deficiency because they could not
reveal the real dynamic behaviors between two adjacent steady
states and thus lack the capability to guide critical process
control and operation.12
To provide more accurate dynamic information, plantwide
dynamic simulation (DS) methods have recently become popu-
lar.13 It is used to virtually test plant start-up operations
according to the operating strategies that will be undertaken by
the plant operating personnel.14-17 It examines critically the
potential process operational risks and infeasibilities. Based on
the DS results, the feedback will help the plant improve the
start-up operating strategies and thus reduce flare emissions.
The methodology is cost-effective and proved very successful
in real application. Based on the previous studies, this paper
for the first time generalizes a systematic methodology for flare
minimization during CPI plant start-up operations via plantwide
dynamic simulation. It covers the modeling of recent practice
for start-up operations with total recycles. Meanwhile, modeling
experience and required industrial data are also summarized. A
field test for flare minimization during an ethylene plant start-
up is presented to demonstrate the efficacy of the methodology.
Scope of the Dynamic Simulation Model

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Telephone: 409- The amount of flaring emission during a plant start-up
880-7818. Fax: 409-880-2297. E-mail: Qiang.xu@lamar.edu. normally increases with the start-up duration. To shorten the
10.1021/ie8016219 CCC: $40.75  2009 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 02/27/2009
 3506 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 48, No. 7, 2009
Downloaded by LAMAR UNIV on October 7, 2009 | http://pubs.acs.org
Publication Date (Web): February 27, 2009 | doi: 10.1021/ie8016219
Figure 1. General sketches of normal operation and the initial status for
start-ups.
start-up time, the important plant units are usually commissioned
at some designated steady states before initiating the start-up,
which is called the initial state for start-up. For instance,
distillation columns need to run with total reflux, and reactors
need to be controlled at certain temperature levels. Recent flare
minimization practices have shown the total-recycle start-up may
significantly reduce the flare emission. This suggests that the
plant should start with full-recycled streams from downstream
process as system input, which can capture, recycle, and reuse
large amounts of off-spec products that would otherwise be sent
to the flare system as waste streams. To model the total-recycle
start-up without losing the generality, the proposed methodology
will address the dynamic simulation of the process system
defined in Figure 1.
For comparison, the plantwide dynamic simulation model at
normal operations is shown in Figure 1a, where normal feed
means the raw material input at normal operating conditions.
Note that Figure 1a includes all the internal recycles at normal
working conditions. Figure 1b shows the initial state of the
dynamic simulation model for start-ups. Based on a general case,
the DS model contains all the designated outer and inner loops
of recycled streams, which are only used for plant start-up. Here,
a recycled stream is called an outer-loop stream because it
recycles the off-spec materials to the very beginning of the
system input; otherwise, it is called an inner-loop stream. With
the help of Figure 1, the DS model for a plant start-up can be
defined as simulating the transient behaviors from the initial
condition of start-up (Figure 1b) to the normal working condition
(Figure 1a). Note that the topology of the simulation model
Figure 2. General methodology framework.
changes when full-recycle start-ups are considered, which makes
the simulation task extremely complex.
General Methodology for Plantwide Dynamic Simulation
To conduct the plantwide dynamic simulation for total-recycle
start-ups, a systematic modeling methodology has been devel-
oped in this paper, which considers more general and complex
situations than previous methods. The plantwide dynamic
simulation is performed based on the integration of rigorous
process models, plant design data, P&ID, DCS historian, and
industrial expertise. Generally, the developed methodology is
the integration of modeling activities among three interactive
stages as shown in Figure 2.
Steady-State Modeling and Validation. In the first stage,
model development starts with the setup of the SS model for
the plant process system that needs to be investigated during
the start-up. The sequential modular approach is used in this
methodology, by which each subsystem will be modeled and
solved independently. The reasons for selecting sequential
modular approach instead of the equation oriented approach are
mainly because the whole plantwide simulation task is more
convenient to be decomposed into small subsystems for valida-
tion and troubleshooting. Although the modeling process will
be slower, it does not influence too much as the start-up
simulation task is conducted offline. The developed SS model
is usually validated by plant design data first, which are collected
from plant design documents. Then the model will be further
validated by normal steady-state operating conditions, where
DCS (distributed control system) historian will be used.
Sometimes, the real plant data are not in mass or energy balance
due to unpredicted reasons such as sensor drifting, malfunction,
or the negligence of some input/output streams. Under such

Figure 3. General model for plant start-ups.
Downloaded by LAMAR UNIV on October 7, 2009 | http://pubs.acs.org
Publication Date (Web): February 27, 2009 | doi: 10.1021/ie8016219
conditions, data verification, data reconciliation, and the support
from industrial expertise will be extensively involved. Typical
model turning parameters in this stage include column tray
efficiency, heat transfer efficiency, reaction kinetic parameters,
etc.
Dynamic Modeling and Validation. If the plantwide SS is
satisfied, the validated SS model is then transferred to the DS
model. Three types of information must be involved to support
such a model transition. First, equipment dimension data (such
as initial equipment hold-up level, vessel type and geometry,
hydraulics, and tray geometry and details) from updated
mechanical drawings is required, which provides the process
capacity information. Second, control strategy and controller
parameters from current plant P&ID (piping and instrument
diagram) are needed, which provides process control informa-
tion. Third, process and equipment heat-transfer methods should
be given for the dynamic simulation model, which provides the
thermodynamic information.
When the plantwide DS model has been built, the plant DCS
historian of some process upset scenarios will be used again
for further model validation. This is a nontrivial task, because
lots of data preprocessing and postprocessing, as well as
modeling troubleshooting activities, are induced. Meanwhile,
it is also unrealistic to expect the DS results will exactly match
the real measurements even if all possible modeling efforts have
been made. The success of the DS validation depends on
whether or not the timing and amplitude of the dynamic
responses of each subsystem will match the real DCS historian.
Sometimes, the plant may lack some transient concentration,
temperature, or pressure information, which really provides
difficulties for DS model validation. Therefore, it is always better
to collaborate with experienced plant engineers to judge the
validation results, so as to improve the modeling quality. Note
that this is the last chance to validate the plantwide DS model.
Identification of Start-up Initial Status. Before the validated
plantwide DS model is applied for start-up simulation, the whole
model should be adjusted to run at the initial state of start-up.
This step actually highlights the most important difference
between normal DS and start-up DS. The initial state of start-
up usually involves low-load running equipment, zero inflow
and outflow rate, and full reflux of distillation columns, as well
as temporary multiple recycles and auxiliary streams at the
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 48, No. 7, 2009 3507
beginning of start-up. Meanwhile, the transfer procedure from
the normal status to its initial start-up status oftens lacks
supporting information, such as real plant data, parameter
estimations, and operating guidance. Thus, the activities of
model status adjustment present the most challenging step for
plantwide start-up simulation, where sufficient care is needed
to prevent the divergence of the modeling process. Figure 3
shows a general model system to illustrate the transformation,
where the initial feed for start-up represents the feed used for
commissioning the system to its initial state for start-up. Note
that the transition of model status requires not only system model
input changes but also process topology changes (recycle and
auxiliary streams) and operating status changes (e.g., temper-
ature, pressure, concentration, and control parameters changes).
A general algorithm to accomplish the status-adjusting task,
which was completely ignored in previous studies, is presented
below.
Step 1. Make the plantwide DS model run at the normal
steady state. At this step, the flow rates of the entire inner and
outer loop streams for start-up are zero. The normal feed (stream
A in Figure 3) will be exactly equal to system input (stream C
in Figure 3), while the flow rates of initial feed for start-up
(stream B in Figure 3), system recycle (stream D in Figure 3),
total recycle (stream E in Figure 3), and purge (stream F in
Figure 3) are all zero.
Step 2. According to the plant start-up procedure, add
additional dynamic models into the plantwide DS model. The
additional models include mixers, splitters, and outer and inner
loop streams (heat exchanger models may also be needed).
Step 3. Identify the operation conditions for the key units at
the initial status for start-up, such as the composition of stream
B, controller set points, reflux ratios, and heating and cooling
duties.
Step 4. Gradually reduce the flow rate of A and meanwhile
gradually increase the flow rate of B, which will make the
system input of C gradually transform from A to B. During the
input transform, the flow rates of the entire inner and outer loop
streams for start-up should be gradually increased from zero to
the designated value. The controller set points for all the key
units should be gradually adjusted accordingly. At the end of
this step, the flow rate of A will be zero; the flow rate of B will
 3508 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 48, No. 7, 2009
Table 1. Major Information for Plantwide Dynamic Simulation
modeling level SS validation
targets model capability check
set point identification
major supporting data from plant plant PFD and P&ID
plant design data
nominal operating data
industrial expertise
typical simulators Aspen Plus
Hysis
Pro II
normalized time expense 1 2∼3
reach the desired value, which will make the system run close
to the initial status for start-up.
Step 5. Gradually increase the splitter ratio of D and make
its flow rate increase. Meanwhile gradually decrease the flow
rate of B. At the end of this step, the flow rates of B and purge
stream F will be zero. Thus, the total recycle flow rate of E
will exactly equal the system recycle flow rate of D, which also
equals the system input flow rate of C.
Step 6. Check the entire DS model to see if every unit is
Downloaded by LAMAR UNIV on October 7, 2009 | http://pubs.acs.org
Publication Date (Web): February 27, 2009 | doi: 10.1021/ie8016219
running at the expected initial state of start-up. If yes, the model
system has reached the initial state of start-up. Otherwise, the
model system needs further fine-tuning. First, make sure all the
controller set points are fixed at the specified values in step 2.
Then increase the flow rate of B from zero to some small value,
and meanwhile reduce the flow rate of D by the same value by
reducing its split ratio, and go to step 5.
Note that in steps 4 and 5, the system input transformation
needs sufficient care to avoid computational divergence, because
such transformation influences the dynamic simulation result
of every unit of the model system. Except the small changes at
every input adjustment, the most important is to make the
plantwide system reach the steady state at some intermediate
transformation points (e.g., 50%, 70%, and 90% completion of
full recycles), and then continue the model tuning. Thus, the
system input transformation in steps 4 and 5 actually suggests
the acquisition of a series of steady states. Because of that, the
identification of start-up initial status is considered as the most
critical and time-consuming task during the dynamic simulation.
Also note that this general algorithm is a hypothetical modeling
procedure without any real implementation assumption. It
presents a systematic way to obtain the initial state of the
plantwide DS model for the start-up simulation.
Dynamic Simulation for Flare Minimization. After the
initial state of a start-up is obtained, the DS model is ready to
virtually test the start-up operating procedures provided by the
plant. The final modeling activity is to schedule all the dynamic
operating procedures as the input of the DS model and “let it
run”. Note that a chemical plant start-up undergoes a number
of stages. At each start-up stage, specific objectives and
constraints must be obtained, which usually involves process
inputs, temperature, pressure, flow rate, and stream components
of each unit changing nonlinearly.18-20 Thus the controller set
points and even control strategy should be changed accordingly.
To model the dynamic process inputs and dynamic start-up
operation procedure, a set of program scripts, or so-called start-
up “tasks”, have to be developed and embedded into the DS.21
Then, the DS model is ready to run, while the simulation results
will be fully repeatable.
Supposedly, the dynamic simulation results will identify
unexpected or unsafe operation conditions. This will be fed back
to the plant operation group to recheck their previous operating
procedures. The modified operating procedures will be virtually
DS validation DS for start-up operation
model capability check feasibility test
safety check
start-up procedure improvement
equipment capacity turnaround operating data
control strategy and parameters industrial expertise
process upset data
industrial expertise
Aspen Dynamics Aspen Dynamics
Dynsim Dynsim
Hysis Hysis
3∼4
tested again by rerunning the DS model with modified input.
Similarly and iteratively, the DS model will help the plant
identify viable or even optimal operating strategies for its start-
up operations. Note that when simulation meets an infeasible
problem, two possibilities may exist: either the model itself has
some problems, which are not detected in previous model
validation, or the plant operating procedures do have uncontrol-
lable operations. Thus, troubleshooting should be conducted with
the help of both theoretical analysis and industrial expertise.
Also note that all the developed methodology is based on first-
principles models. Therefore, commercial simulators such as
Aspen Plus, Aspen Dynamics, PRO/II, Dynsim, or Hysys are
recommended. The developed methodology is applicable in
general and is not limited to one particular plant or process. It
is also a cost-effective approach for flare minimization.
Table 1 gives a summary about the major supporting
information needed from a real plant. It is worth noting that
although the focal point of the developed methodology is
dynamic DS, SS is absolutely necessary. This is not only
because DS models are generated from the SS models but also
because SS can identify the controller set point information,
which determines the settling point of a dynamic response.
Therefore, the controller set points at the end of start-up
operations should be identified through SS before the DS
validation and application.
Due to the inherent complexity of plantwide dynamic
simulation and the possible data incompleteness, on-site indus-
trial expertise is required at every stage. It helps validate the
simulation result and facilitate troubleshooting. Two groups,
operation group and simulation group, usually work together
for the DS based flare minimization project. The operation group
from the plant includes experienced operators and engineers.
They provide alternative start-up procedures based on their
planning and experience. Then the simulation group virtually
tests the proposed procedures with the plantwide DS model to
check the operational feasibility, reliability, and safety issues.
The plantwide DS model will be validated or modified based
on the simulation results and joint discussions. The time cost
generally increases as the modeling activity goes to the next
stage. Based on the experience, if time expense for steady-state
modeling is normalized as one unit, dynamic modeling activity
will cost two to three units. The final start-up simulation for
flare minimization will take three to four units, which is because
considerable troubleshooting and improvement efforts will be
involved at this stage.
Case Study
Ethylene plant start-ups emit huge amounts of VOCs and
HRVOCs that may cause highly localized and transient air
pollution events and also result in tremendous raw material and
energy loss. Thus, one flare minimization project based on the
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 48, No. 7, 2009 3509

Figure 4. Sketch of the entire modeling system for the case study.

developed methodology has been conducted. A general ethylene

Downloaded by LAMAR UNIV on October 7, 2009 | http://pubs.acs.org
Publication Date (Web): February 27, 2009 | doi: 10.1021/ie8016219

plant starts with thermal cracking of raw feedstock in furnaces.

The effluent cracked charge gas is cooled and partially
condensed and then sent to a charge gas compression system.
Charge gas from the final stage compression is dried prior to
the chilling train. After the majority of hydrogen is removed
from the chilling train, the cold charge gas is then fed to the
fractionation section, which consists of a demethanizer (DeC1),
deethanizer (DeC2), depropanizer (DeC3), and debutanizer
(DeC4). In the demethanizer, methane and hydrogen are
separated from the charge gas mixture as overhead vapor. The
bottom stream with the enriched mixture of C2+ (ethylene,
ethane, propane, and heavier hydrocarbons) is then sent to the
recovery section for further separation. The recovery section
employs a deethanizer, depropanizer, and debutanizer to separate
the products of C2s, C3s, C4s, and C5s plus heavier components,
respectively. All the products have to meet the product
specifications or purity at normal operation conditions.
To reduce flare emission, the start-up with total recycle has
been implemented. Figure 4 presents a sketch of the entire
modeling system for the case study, where some subsystems
are simplified for easy illustration. It should be noted that since
the furnace operations are not within the total-recycled start-up
process, the charge gas flow rate and component concentrations
from furnaces only functioned as the simulation inputs. Mean-
while, because the charge gas concentrations from a specific
furnace are fixed (for either heavy or light naphtha cracking),
in this case study only the furnace flow rate is changed
dynamically according to increased number of activated fur-
naces. Thus, the furnace simulation is unnecessary to be
dynamic. To reduce the computational load without the sacrifice
of simulation accuracy, the furnace simulation is conducted
independently and is not included in the dynamic simulation of
the case study.
Note that four major outer recycles are considered during
start-up, which include the recycles of H2 from the chilling train:
H2 and methane from the top of DeC1, C2s from the top of
DeC2, and C3s from the top of DeC3. A major inner recycle is
the stream of C4s from the top of DeC4 fed back to the bottom
of DeC2. With these recycles, the start-up emissions are
expected to be greatly reduced due to two reasons: one is that
the huge amounts of components from H2 though C4 will be
reused instead of being flared during start-up; the other is that
with the help of these recycled streams, the key units of DeC1
Figure 5. Depropanizer temperature profile at normal steady state.
through DeC4 can gear toward their normal operation conditions
quickly, which means the start-up flaring time will be reduced
compared with the start-up without recycles.
This daring start-up indeed presents considerable challenges
for modeling and dynamic simulation. With the developed
methodology, the plantwide dynamic simulation has successfully
helped the plant validate the conceptual start-up procedure. In
accordance with the developed methodology, the simulation
results at different modeling stages are shown below.
Model Development and Validation. After the SS model
has been developed, model validation is needed. If the SS test
is not satisfied, it needs to be calibrated with plant data by
adjusting different model parameters to match the steady-state
model results with plant data measurements. For instance, Figure
5 shows the comparison between SS model prediction and real
measurements for DeC3 tray temperature profile, which are key
factors for evaluating separation performance of these distillation
columns. It is clear that the simulation results match well with
the real measurements.
As examples of dynamic model validation, Figures 6-8
show the flow rate dynamic response for DeC2, DeC3, and
DeC4 product streams under a recorded disturbance from the
DCS historian. The disturbance was caused by a cracking
furnace shutdown for decoking, which caused upstream
process upset. As a result, the disturbance was propagated
to the downstream process. The response time and trend
 3510 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 48, No. 7, 2009
Figure 6. Dynamic response for the deethanizer.
Downloaded by LAMAR UNIV on October 7, 2009 | http://pubs.acs.org
Publication Date (Web): February 27, 2009 | doi: 10.1021/ie8016219
Figure 7. Dynamic response for the depropanizer.
Figure 8. Dynamic response for the debutanizer.
predicted by the DS model match the DCS historian quite
well, except for some system biases. Through troubleshooting,
it is identified that this is because the DCS data does not
satisfy mass balance while the dynamic model does. It
actually reminded the plant that the flow rate sensors might
have problems during that period. The simulation results and
Figure 9. Start-up procedure for the case study.
analysis are also acknowledged by the plant engineers based
on their industrial expertise.
DS for Flare Minimization. Once the steady-state and
dynamic model validation has been completed, the plantwide
DS model needs to be transformed to its initial state for start-
up. At this initial state, the whole process system runs stably
with the total recycle. A light hydrocarbon mixture containing
hydrogen, methane, ethane, ethylene, and propylene with the
composition ratio of 1.5:15:1.5:73:9. in mole percent is circu-
lated in the system. There are no system inputs and outputs at
the initial state of start-up, but only the inner and outer recycles
are fully open. Based on the plant operation strategy, the start-
up is made up of two different feeds: heavy naphtha and light
naphtha. One studied start-up procedure in terms of feed input
is shown in Figure 9, which is also the input of the DS model.
It shows the charge gas feed from heavy naphtha cracking
furnaces (the first two furnaces) is incremented in two ramps
for each of the first two furnaces with a half-hour duration in
between. The feeds from light naphtha cracking furnace (the
third through the seventh furances) are also incremented in two
ramps for each furnace but without any idle waiting between
two furnaces.
Based on this start-up procedure, the dynamic simulation for
product streams of DeC1, DeC2, DeC3, and DeC4 are shown
in Figures 10-13. The overall dynamic responses show the start-
up will take about 14 h to reach the normal steady-state
operation, during which all the product streams are within
specification. Historically, the plant start-up took about at least
one day. Based on the simulation prediction, the new start-up
procedure will help the plant save more than 44% of the start-
up time. The predicted start-up time has been really ac-

Figure 10. Dynamic response of demethanizer top products during the start-
up.
Downloaded by LAMAR UNIV on October 7, 2009 | http://pubs.acs.org
Publication Date (Web): February 27, 2009 | doi: 10.1021/ie8016219
Figure 11. Dynamic response of deethanizer top products.
Figure 12. Dynamic response of depropanizer top products.
complished on site with the help of the developed plantwide
DS model. The dynamic simulation provided an insight into
process dynamic behaviors, which really helped the plant
beforehand start-up material preparations and process operation,
and meanwhile increased the plant engineers’ confidence level.
As an example, Figure 10 shows that during the start-up DeC1
top stream temperature will decrease continuously, while flow
rate will generally decrease first and then increase. This is
because the temperature of DeC1 feed from the chilling train
will continuously decrease during the start-up, which makes the
top temperature also decrease from -150 to -250 °F. Because
of that, the top flow rate of C1 will decrease initially. However,
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 48, No. 7, 2009 3511
Figure 13. Dynamic response of debutanizer bottom products.
Table 2. Flare Minimization Results for the Case Study
amount of major emitted
flared raw pollutantsa
start-up materials (klb) (klb)
duration
(h) C1 C2 C3 C4+ NOx HC
shortest start-up 25 2163 5569 3017 2782 19.5 270.6
in the pastb
DS assisted start-up 14 904 2237 1001 918 7.4 101.2
saved percentage (%) 44 58.0 59.8 66.8 67.0 62.1 62.6
a
Assuming 98% flaring efficiency and based on U.S. EPA Flare
Efficiency Study, 1983.22 b The amounts of flared raw materials are
estimated based on the plant start-up time and feedstock flow rate.
as the system feed from cracking furnace increases, the total
amount of methane in DeC1 feed increases with each furnace
feeding in. The combined effects result in the obtained flow
rate response. It helps operators avoid potential inappropriate
control to increase the top flow rate, as the flow rate will come
back automatically to the expected level after some time. As
another example, Figure 13 shows that the DeC4 bottom flow
rate will be zero during the first hour of start-up. The reason is
that at the initial start-up state, C5s or heavier components do
not exist in the system. As the charge gas is fed in the system,
the C5s or heavier components will gradually accumulate in
the sump of DeC4. The simulation predicts that the bottom flow
rate will increase after 1 h of sump accumulation. This
information helps the plant prepare the downstream units
operation for start-up.
With the plantwide dynamic simulation, the flare emission
data is summarized in Table 2. For simplification, the flared
raw materials are aggregated and classified as C1 (methane),
C2 (ethane and ethylene), C3 (propane, propylene), and C4+
(butane, butylene, butadiene, etc.). The flaring emissions are
aggregated as NOx and hydrocarbons, the calculation for which
is based on 98% flaring efficiency and the U.S. EPA Flare
Efficiency Study in 1983.22 For comparison, the emission data
for the plant best start-up in the past are also calculated and
shown in Table 2. The simulation shows C2 are the major flaring
materials for both cases. The DS assisted start-up can save
58.0%-66.8% of flared raw materials under different categories.
As a result, the total NOx and hydrocarbons emissions of the
DS assisted start-up are estimated as 7.4 and 101.2 klb,
receptively. These are significant reduction by 62.1% and 62.6%,
respectively, compared with 19.5 and 270.6 klb of emissions
from the historical best start-up.
It should be indicated that the flaring sources and thus
emissions in the case study have been significantly reduced
because of the novel start-up procedure with total recycles (see
 3512 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 48, No. 7, 2009
Figure 4) and operation strategies (see Figure 9). The DS plays
the important role to virtually verify the applicability of the start-
up procedures and the operation conditions, which helps reduce
flaring during the plant start-up. The DS shows, due to various
recycles during a plant start-up, that the majority of off-spec
product streams (recycled H2/C1, C2, C3, and C4 streams in
Figure 4) from DeC1 through DeC4 have been reused instead
of flared. Meanwhile, start-up time is significantly reduced (11
h less compared with the shortest start-up in the past). Note
that the reduction of flaring time means the increase of normal
manufacturing time. It also means the saving of raw materials
from flaring for future production. Furthermore, the salient
environmental and societal benefits from flare minimization are
priceless. The predictions of the start-up time and dynamic
responses are in good agreement with reality.
Conclusions
Plant-wide dynamic simulation serves as a powerful tool in
aiding flare minimization for CPI plants today. This paper
developed a general methodology on flare minimization for
chemical plant start-up operations via plantwide dynamic
Downloaded by LAMAR UNIV on October 7, 2009 | http://pubs.acs.org
simulation. The plantwide dynamic simulation is performed
Publication Date (Web): February 27, 2009 | doi: 10.1021/ie8016219
based on the integration of rigorous process models, plant design
data, P&ID, DCS historian, and industrial expertise. It can
predict accurately the dynamic behavior of a process prior to
any real plant changes, which gives insight into the process
behavior that is not apparent through SS or operational
experience. It helps test plant operating procedures and support
decision making during plant start-up. It is also a cost-effective
approach for industrial emission source reduction. The benefits
from this study are not only for environment and society but
also for the economics and sustainability for the chemical
process industry.
Acknowledgment
This work was in part supported by the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Texas Air Research Center,
and Texas Hazardous Waste Research Center.
Literature Cited
(1) Pohl, J.; Lee, J.; Payne, R. Combustion efficiency of flares. Combust.
Sci. Technol. 1986, 50, 217.
(2) Xu, Q.; Li, K. Y. Dynamic simulation for chemical plant turnaround
operation. Integrated Environmental Management Consortium Meeting,
Houston, TX, June 25, 2008.
(3) Nam, J.; Webster, M.; Kimura, Y.; Jeffries, H.; Vizuete, W.; Allen,
D. T. Reductions in ozone concentrations due to controls on variability in
industrial flare emissions in Houston, Texas. Atmos. EnViron. 2008, 42,
4198.
(4) Vizuete, W.; Kim, B.; Jeffries, H.; Kimura, Y.; Allen, D. T.;
Kioumourtzoglou, M.; Biton, L.; Henderson, B. Modeling ozone formation
from industrial emission events in Houston, Texas. Atmos. EnViron. 2008,
42, 7641.
(5) Webster, M.; Nam, J.; Kimura, Y.; Jeffries, H.; Vizuete, W.; Allen,
D. T. The effect of variability in industrial emissions on ozone formation
in Houston, Texas. Atmos. EnViron. 2007, 41, 9580.
(6) Murphy, C. F.; Allen, D. T. Hydrocarbon emissions from industrial
release events in the Houston-Galveston area and their impact on ozone
formation. Atmos. EnViron. 2005, 39, 3785.
(7) EPA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.epa.gov/
air/criteria.html, accessed March 8, 2008.
(8) Doe, K.; Coppard, D. Process simulation and ethylene cracker for
operation training. Proceedings of the 13th Ethylene Producers Conference,
Houston, TX, April 23-26, 2001; p 656.
(9) Chenevert, D.; Harry, C.; Walker, J.; Unterbrink, B.; Cain, M. Flare
minimization practices improve olefins plant start-ups. Oil Gas J. 2005,
103, 54.
(10) Greg, D. The use of dynamic simulation to develop control strategies
for emergency situations. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2000, 24, 1181.
(11) Vinod, P.; Jeffrey, Y.; Surajit, D.; Prakash, R.; Jihong W.
Application of dynamic simulation in the design, operation, and trouble-
shooting of compressor. Systems Proceedings of the 36 Turbomachinery
Symposium, 2007.
(12) Mario, R. E.; Arne, K. l.; Louis, H.; Sten, B. J. Dynamics and
control during start-up of heat integrated distillation column. Comput. Chem.
Eng. 2000, 24, 1091.
(13) Luyben. W. L. Plantwide Dynamic Simulators in Chemical
Processing and Control, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2002.
(14) Bernard, A. Start-up planning and support Following a plant revamp,
2007. AIChE Spring National Meeting, Houston, TX, 2007.
(15) Singh, A.; Li, K. Y.; Lou, H. H.; Hopper, J. R.; Golwala, H.;
Ghumare, S. Flare minimization via dynamic simulation. Int. J. EnViron.
Pollut. 2007, 29, 19.
(16) Li, K.; Xu, Q.; Lou, H. H.; Gossage, J. L.; Singh, A.; Vragolic, S.;
Kelly, T. Flare minimization during plant start-up via dynamic simulation.
PSE ASIA 2007, Xi’an, China, 2007.
(17) Gore, S., Plant start-up in CPI via dynamic simulation: Case study.
Master Thesis, Lamar University, Beaumont, TX, 2005.
(18) Rajagopalan, S.; Pradeep, V.; Hiranmayee, V.; Ananthanarayanan,
N. A framework for managing transitions in chemical plants. Comput. Chem.
Eng. 2005, 29, 305.
(19) Wang, L.; Makita, H.; Kano, M.; Hasebe, S. Dynamic start-up
model of heat integrated distillation column. PSE ASIA 2007, Xi’an, China,
2007.
(20) Joao, A. F.; Arrude, L. V. R.; Flavo, N., Jr. Startup of a distillation
column using intelligent control techniques. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2005,
30, 309.
(21) Rutherford, P.; Persad, W.; Lauritsen, M. Consider dynamic
simulation tools when planning new plant start-up. Hydrocarbon Process.
2003, 82, 75.
(22) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Flare Efficiency Study,
EPA-600/2-83-052, Cincinnati, OH, 1983.
ReceiVed for reView October 24, 2008
ReVised manuscript receiVed January 19, 2009
Accepted January 22, 2009
IE8016219