MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392758620 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu24-13874

Combustion Efficiency and Methane Emission Rate of Flares Subjected to Crosswind

2024· preprint· en· W4392758620 on OpenAlexaff
Milad Mohammadikharkeshi, Damon Burtt, Alexis D. Tanner, Brian Crosland, Gregory A. Kopp, Matthew R. Johnson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicOil, Gas, and Environmental Issues
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityNatural Resources CanadaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrosswindMethaneEnvironmental scienceCombustionAtmospheric methaneAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An estimated 139 billion m3 of gas are burned globally each year in flares at upstream oil and gas production sites.  However, data and models to reliably predict emissions from flares are notably lacking.  Especially concerning are the impacts of strong crosswinds, which can reduce the overall combustion efficiency and strip unburned methane from the flare, although the specific mechanisms behind these emissions are not well understood. Building on a methodology developed by Burt et. al, this study reports quantitative measurements of carbon conversion efficiencies and methane emission rates of 25-100 mm diameter flares subjected to turbulent crosswind in a large closed-loop wind tunnel.  Experiments considered multicomponent flare gas mixtures and operating conditions representative of flares at upstream oil and gas production sites which generally operate as simple non-premixed flames without supplementary air or steam injection.  Emission rates and combustion efficiencies were found to be influenced by wind speed, burner diameter, exit velocity, and particularly composition of the flared gas.  Comprehensive Monte Carlo uncertainty and sensitivity analysis was used to assess the uncertainties associated with such experiments. Attempting to propose a practically implementable model capable of encapsulating known affecting factors, good correlation was observed between carbon conversion inefficiency and both burner diameter and exit velocity for a single fuel mixture over a range of wind speeds.  However, in different flare gas mixtures, minor changes in the composition dramatically affected the overall efficiency and emission rates.  To capture the effect of fuel chemistry in a general model, different correlating factors (such as stoichiometric molar air-fuel ratio, volumetric hating value, carbon number, etc.) were considered and introduced to the model.  The final semi empirical model was shown to be capable of predicting combustion efficiency with reasonable accuracy (less than 1% absolute error for conversion inefficiency at a 95% confidence interval) over a wide range of flaring conditions. 

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOil, Gas, and Environmental IssuesFrench-language works237,207