Special Report Plant Design, Engineering and Construction
R. DOLE, S. BHATT and S. SRIDHAR,
L&T-Chiyoda Ltd., Vadodara, India
Design a staggered depressurization sequence
for flare systems
Emergency depressurization is one of the most impor-
tant design provisions for safeguarding facilities in case of an
emergency, such as a fire or an exothermic runaway reaction,
that can cause catastrophic failure of equipment and loss of
containment. Depressurization reduces failure potential by
decreasing the internal stress, thereby extending vessel life at
a given temperature. By reducing vessel inventory, the depres-
surization of a pressurized vessel minimizes the impact of ves-
sel leakage and rupture.
A gas processing plant is typically divided into various iso-
latable sections (e.g., gas inlet manifolds, inlet separators, a gas
sweetening unit, a gas dehydration unit, etc.), each isolated by
emergency shutdown valves (ESVs). Each section can be de-
signed as a separate fire zone that is depressurized by a dedi-
cated emergency depressurization valve (EDV).
In general, during emergency shutdown conditions, the
depressurization of only relevant isolatable sections is carried
out to make those sections safe. However, during certain emer-
gency circumstances, the whole facility must be depressurized,
thereby creating a large load discharge to the flare.
In certain situations, flare systems (including the flare head-
er, the flare knockout drum and the flare stack) may not be ade-
quate to handle the entire plant’s depressurization load at once.
This situation is typically encountered when facilities are re-
vamped over time without a major revamp of the flare systems.
To overcome limitations of flare system capacity during
such a scenario, depressurization can be practiced in a sequen-
tial manner. Presented here are the criteria and calculation
methods for designing sequential depressurization, along with
guidelines for the implementation of recommended designs.
Design criteria. When designing the depressurizing se-
quence, several key guidelines must be considered:
• Priority of depressurization
• Number of steps
• Time delay between each step.
Priority of depressurization. Based on the cause of de-
pressurization, priority for depressurization is assigned to each
isolatable section. The following guidelines can be utilized to
specify priority:
• If the cause of depressurization is fire or gas leakage, then
the section activating the fire or gas detector must be de-
pressurized immediately. Nearby areas are assigned later
priority for depressurization.
• High-pressure sections should be given depressurization
priority over low-pressure sections.
• Depressurization priority can also be assigned based on the
nature of the isolatable section. Rotating equipment (e.g.,
compressors) should be given higher priority. Vessels can
be assigned moderate priority. Isolatable sections contain-
ing only piping can be given the lowest priority. Care should
be taken in determining timing for the centrifugal machine,
as keeping it under a pressurized shutdown for a prolonged
time would require an external seal gas supply and, based on
its availability, the delay timing would need to be adjusted.
Number of depressurization steps. The depressurization
requirement is divided into steps to enable nearly uniform peak
load at each step. A higher number of steps is better for the utili-
zation of the flare system, but it also increases the complexity of
sequence implementation and its maintenance.
Time delay between each step. The time delay between
each depressurization step is evaluated to create enough ullage
for the next depressurization peak load. To calculate the time
delay between each step, the flow/time relationship for each de-
pressurization valve must be known.
The whole facility can be simulated using modern software
programs. Depressurization can be calculated using dynamic
features to develop the depressurization curves of flow, in
terms of pressure vs. time.
The calculation can be simplified using Eq.1, which can
provide reliable depressurization curves. An entire facility de-
pressurization model can be built in a spreadsheet, greatly sim-
plifying the calculation.
The flowrate through the orifice significantly reduces with
time:
F = F0 e–θt (1)
where:
t = Time from start of depressurization, minute
F = Flow through orifice (depressurization load
at time t), kg/h
F0 = Initial flowrate through orifice (peak
depressurization load), kg/h
θ = Exponent coefficient factor depending on
orifice size, minute–1.
The exponent coefficient factor θ can be derived from:
P = P0 e–θt (2)
Hydrocarbon Processing | DECEMBER 201357
 Plant Design, Engineering and Construction

where: sections is 290,000 kg/h. During the depressurization of the

P0 = Initial pressure (internal pressure at time t = 0), bara
P = Final pressure (internal pressure at time t = t), bara.
Depressurization criteria for each valve are determined by
rupture time, rupture pressure, and vapor release due to rup-
ture. In a typical depressurization system design, the goal is
to reduce the pressure to less than 50% of the design pressure
within 15 minutes (min.), or to reduce the internal pressure to
7 barg from the design pressure in 15 min.
For example, depressurization of a system from design pres-
sure of 45 barg to 7 barg, in 15 min., would result in θ = 0.12
min–1. A flow profile is described in FIG. 1, based on the applica-
tion of Eq. 1 to F 0 = 50,000 kg/h.
Case study. For the sake of simplicity, this case study con-
siders the depressurization of a single train in a gas processing
plant to its dedicated flare system. Each process unit is consid-
ered as a single, isolatable system. The depressurization system
sizing criteria are summarized in TABLE 1.
The initial peak depressurization load can be evaluated
from the depressurization utility available in commercial simu-
lators. The initial peak load can be evaluated at the maximum
upstream operating pressure instead of the design pressure, if
the cause of emergency shutdown is not a fire in that section.
In this case study, the flare system capacity is pegged at
145,000 kg/h. Here, the total depressurization load of all the
60,000
Flowrate, kg/h
50,000 Section pressure, barg
entire facility, staggered depressurization is required.
There are several scenarios that can lead to the depressuriza-
tion of the entire plant:
• Fire or gas leakage detection in common process areas,
such as the inlet manifold, the export manifold, etc.
• Instrument air failure
• Low fuel gas supply pressure
• A power failure to the safeguarding system.
Since the depressurization priority may vary for different
causes, individual depressurization sequences may need to be
activated for each cause. The gas inlet manifold area is one place
where an entire-facility depressurization can be activated. To
design staggered depressurization for the gas inlet manifold,
several steps were applied:
Assign depressurization priority to each section. If fire is
the cause of an emergency shutdown, priority will be assigned
to each isolatable section based on geographical area. The iso-
latable section of the gas inlet manifold is affected by fire; there-
fore, it should be depressurized immediately (i.e., Priority 1).
The next priority is assigned to adjacent areas.
The gas separator and depletion compressor are located ad-
jacent to the gas inlet manifold, so these units will be assigned
the next level of priority (i.e., Priority 2). Priority of depressur-
ization is assigned to other isolatable sections in a similar man-
ner. Based on these guidelines, priority for depressurization is
assigned, as shown in TABLE 2.
Determine number of depressurization steps. Once the
priority of depressurization is assigned based on peak depres-
80
surization load, the valves that can be accommodated at the
Section pressure, barg

40,000 60 depressurization step should be determined. The total flaring

Flowrate, kg/h

load during depressurization and the flare system capacity are

30,000
40 the major factors used to determine the number of steps.
20,000 At the first staggered depressurization step, the flaring load is
20
10,000 zero. Depressurization valves with a total peak load that is slightly
0 0 less than the flare capacity should be initiated. In the subsequent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 steps, depressurization valves with a total peak load that is near
Depressurization time, min.
to half of the flare capacity should be initiated. The flaring load
FIG. 1. The flow profile of an individual depressurization valve used can be higher or lower than half of the flare capacity; however, to
for calculating the time delay between each step. have an optimum number of depressurization steps, it is recom-

TABLE 1. Depressurization data of isolatable section

Initial depressurization
Isolatable section Initial pressure, barg Final pressure, barg Depressurization time, min. load, kg/h
Gas inlet manifold 45 7 15 35,000
Gas separator 45 7 15 30,000
Depletion compressor 70 7 15 25,000
Acid gas removal 70 7 15 30,000
Dehydration 70 7 15 30,000
Mercury removal 70 7 15 20,000
Nitrogen rejection 70 7 15 30,000
NGL recovery 70 7 15 20,000
Fractionation train 60 7 15 25,000
Sweetening unit 60 7 15 20,000
Booster compressor 80 7 15 25,000

58DECEMBER 2013 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 Plant Design, Engineering and Construction

mended to have a total load of nearly half of the flare capacity. Ac-
cording to this methodology, isolatable sections can be accom-
modated in the depressurization steps, as outlined in TABLE 3.
Depressurization steps can have sections with more than one
level of priority. For example, in Step 1 of depressurization, sec-
tions of Priority 1, Priority 2 and Priority 3 are included based on
flare capacity. Similarly, isolatable sections of the same priority
can be divided into more than one depressurization step. For ex-
ample, the Priority 3 sections are divided into Step 1 and Step 2.
Determine the time delay between each step. The time de-
lays are selected to ensure that the flaring load never exceeds the
flare system capacity. To determine the appropriate time delay,
the flow profile should be generated for each depressurization
valve. The exponent coefficient factor can be calculated using
Eq. 2. The exponent coefficient factor for each isolatable section
is described in TABLE 4.
The flow profile for each isolatable section can be generated
using the initial depressurization load and the exponent coeffi-
cient factor θ in Eq. 1. The next step is to evaluate the time delay,
which can create sufficient ullage for the following step. Step 1
begins with a peak load of 140,000 kg/h, while Step 2 must ac-
commodate an additional 80,000 kg/h.
Therefore, Step 2 can begin when the flaring load is reduced
from 140,000 kg/h to 65,000 kg/h. As described in TABLE 5, af-
ter 6 min. from the start of the depressurization sequence, the
160,000
140,000
Blowdown load to flare
120,000
Mass flowrate to flare, kg/h
flaring load is reduced below 65,000 kg/h. Step 2 has an addi-
tional load of 80,000 kg/h and can be started at 6 min. The time
delay for further steps is determined in a similar manner. The
flaring load time profile during staggered depressurization is
also displayed in FIG. 2.
Implementation aspects. For successful implementation of
a staggered depressurization system, a number of detailed de-
sign features must be implemented. These features should be
included to avoid the simultaneous opening of all EDVs, which
would cause the flare load to exceed the design capacity and,
ultimately, lead to a catastrophic failure.
Secured instrument air system. Each EDV valve should be
provided with a secured instrument air (SIA) buffer vessel. To
ensure the workability of the EDV upon instrument air supply
failure, the SIA system should be designed to maintain suffi-
cient pressure in the buffer vessel for at least three valve strokes.
To indicate low air pressure in the SIA, a low-pressure alarm is
provided. To prevent backflow from the SIA system during the
loss of instrument air header pressure, two non-return valves are
recommended. Bleeding devices, such as regulators, should not
be used downstream of the non-return valves.
TABLE 2. Depressurization priority of isolatable section
Priority of depressurization Isolatable section
Priority 1 Gas inlet manifold
Priority 2 Gas separator

Total flare limit Depletion compressor

100,000 Priority 3 Acid gas removal
80,000 Dehydration unit
60,000 Mercury removal
40,000 Priority 4 Nitrogen rejection
20,000 NGL recovery
0
0 30 60 Priority 5 Fractionation unit
Depressurization time, min.
Sweetening unit
FIG. 2. Flaring load during staggered depressurization. Priority 6 Booster compressor

TABLE 3. Isolatable section accommodated in depressurization step

Initial depressurization
Depressurization step Isolatable section Priority of depressurization load, kg/h Flaring load added for step
Gas inlet manifold Priority 1 35,000
Gas separator Priority 2 30,000
Step 1 Depletion compressor Priority 2 25,000 140,000
Acid gas removal Priority 3 30,000
Mercury removal Priority 3 20,000
Dehydration Priority 3 30,000
Step 2 Nitrogen rejection Priority 4 30,000 80,000
NGL recovery Priority 4 20,000
Fractionation train Priority 5 25,000
Step 3 Sweetening unit Priority 5 20,000 70,000
Booster compressor Priority 6 25,000

Hydrocarbon Processing | DECEMBER 201359

 Plant Design, Engineering and Construction

TABLE 4. Exponent coefficient factor for each isolatable section

Initial depressurization Final depressurization Depressurization time, Exponent coefficient

Isolatable section pressure, barg pressure, barg min. factor θ
Gas inlet manifold 45 7 15 0.1241
Gas separator 45 7 15 0.1241
Depletion compressor 70 7 15 0.1535
Acid gas removal 70 7 15 0.1535
Mercury removal 70 7 15 0.1535
Dehydration 70 7 15 0.1535
Nitrogen rejection 70 7 15 0.1535
NGL recovery 70 7 15 0.1535
Fractionation train 60 7 15 0.1432
Sweetening unit 60 7 15 0.1432
Booster compressor 80 7 15 0.1624

TABLE 5. Calculation of time delay between each step

Flaring load to depressurization valve, kg/h
Isolatable section Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Time from start of depressurization sequence Peak load 0 min. 6 min. 6 min. 11 min. 11 min.
Gas inlet manifold 35,000 35,000 (0) 16,629 (6) 16,629 (6) 8,943 (11) 8,943 (11)
Gas separator 30,000 30,000 (0) 14,254 (6) 14,254 (6) 7,666 (11) 7,666 (11)
Depletion compressor 25,000 25,000 (0) 9,954 (6) 9,954 (6) 4,620 (11) 4,620 (11)
Acid gas removal 30,000 30,000 (0) 11,945 (6) 11,945 (6) 5,544 (11) 5,544 (11)
Mercury removal 20,000 20,000 (0) 7,963 (6) 7,963 (6) 3,696 (11) 3,696 (11)
Dehydration 30,000 30,000 (0) 13,925 (5) 13,925 (5)
Nitrogen rejection 30,000 30,000 (0) 13,925 (5) 13,925 (5)
NGL recovery 20,000 20,000 (0) 9,283 (5) 9,283 (5)
Fractionation train 25,000 25,000 (0)
Sweetening unit 20,000 20,000 (0)
Booster compressor 25,000 25,000 (0)
Total flaring load 140,000 60,746 140,746 67,603 137,603

Solenoid valves. The use of normally energized solenoid
valves with a 1oo1 or 1oo2 configuration is recommended. If
normally de-energized valves are used, then the solenoid valve
configuration will be 1oo2 (i.e., if one solenoid valve fails to
energize or fails to open on energization, then the depressur-
izing valve still opens).
Solenoid valves should be controlled from the instrument-
ed protective system (IPS). The uninterruptable power sup-
ply backup of the IPS should be sized for 30 min. or longer,
depending on the overall depressurization cycle time. The
exhaust port of the solenoid valve should be provided with
port protectors, such as bug screens. Solenoid valves should
be provided with resilient disc/seat material that gives a tight
shutoff feature.
Takeaway. For a situation where the flare system is inadequate
for handling the plant’s entire depressurization load, staggered
depressurization is a practical solution to avoid modification of
the flare system. During staggered depressurization, isolatable
sections with lower depressurization priority are depressurized
with a time delay.
With proper design of a staggered depressurization route,
the entire plant can be depressurized without exceeding the
flare capacity, thereby preserving the safety of the facility.
RAHUL DOLE is a process engineering manager with L&T-Chiyoda Ltd. in India.
He has over 16 years of experience in process design for oil and gas refineries and
petrochemical facilities. Mr. Dole holds a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering
from Mumbai University in India. He is also a registered member of the UK’s
Institution of Chemical Engineers and the Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers.
SOHAN BHATT is a senior process engineer with L&T-Chiyoda Ltd. in India. He
holds a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from the Maharaja Sayajirao
University of Baroda in India, where he also received three gold medals for
academic excellence. Mr. Bhatt is an active member of the Indian Institute of
Chemical Engineers, and he is experienced in the process safety design of gas
processing plants, oil refineries and petrochemical plants.
S. SRIDHAR is the head of process engineering at L&T-Chiyoda Ltd. He has
more than 30 years of experience in process design. Mr. Sridhar holds a master’s
degree in chemical engineering and has served as vice chairman for the Indian
Institute of Chemical Engineers’ Baroda Center.

60DECEMBER 2013 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com