Vent sizing for fire considerations: external fire duration, jacketed vessels and heat flux variations owing to fuel composition

Hauser, John J.; Ciolek, William H.; Fisher, Harold G.; Forrest, H. O.; Grolmes, M. A.; Grossel, Stanley S.; Keiter, Alan G.; Müller, A. von; Nazario, F.N.; Nichols, F.P; Stipanovich, J; Wilday, Jill; Windhorst, J

doi:10.1016/s0950-4230(01)00009-2

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After establishing the heat load from the fire, the first step is to determine the time to reach the onset decomposition temperature from the initial temperature or heat‐up time (HUT) [14, 15], and compare it with the fire duration time [14]. Note that HUT is context sensitive, and in this context refers to the onset decomposition temperature.…”

Section: Calculation Of Minimum Water Flow Rate To Absorb the Heatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…You can choose any realistic value of T f by a flame temperature calculation [15]. Experts [14] warn against using any calculated value of F APIins < 0.026. In view of the uncertainties in the stability of the insulation under prolonged fire duration, one expert [14(a)] suggests the lower limit of F APIins = 0.075.…”

Section: Heat‐up Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…11 or Eq. 13, one can calculate the final temperature, T opfinal , from a knowledge of the burn time BT [14, 15] of the fuel. Credit for the water spray can be taken by using an appropriate value of F in Eq.…”

Section: Heat‐up Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recommended values vary depending on hazards (30 min to 4 h). If the calculated burn time is less, then the latter should be used with some minimum recommended values [14]. The limitations of imperfect mixing for large equipment, tempering systems, and multicomponent systems apply as mentioned earlier.…”

Section: Heat‐up Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A heuristic approach of calculating spray water flux needed to avert fire‐induced runaway reactions

Das

2006

Process Safety Progress

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In general all reactions have some heat effects. When the ability of the equipment to remove the heat is exceeded by the heat generated by a reaction, a hazardous situation called a runaway reaction may take place. Sometimes the exothermicity of runaway reactions is so high that the size of an emergency vent becomes impractical to install. A water spray system can sometimes be used to avert a fire‐induced runaway reaction. Because the water spray system has a finite activation time, insulation helps to prolong the time required to reach the decomposition temperature. This article concludes that the required water flux to avert the fire‐induced runaway reaction may be conservatively estimated by adding the water flux necessary to maintain an unbroken water film on the external surface of the equipment and the water flux necessary to absorb the fire heat after allowing for the splash loss and the in‐flight loss. When adequate spray water is used, the metal temperature of the insulation jacket cannot theoretically exceed the boiling point of water thereby ensuring the avoidance of fire‐induced runaway reactions whose adjusted onset decomposition temperature exceeds 100 ° C. Fire‐induced runaway reactions with lower onset temperature can also be avoided depending on the initial temperature of the contents, mass of the contents and equipment, insulation thickness, and fire duration, for example, but a detailed calculation including dynamic simulation is necessary and the burden of proof lies with the designer. The reliability of the spray water system must be maintained high to include its credit as an environmental factor defined according to NFPA 30 to avoid the fire‐induced runaway reaction as a scenario. Although API RP 521 does not allow any credit for sprinkler water, it allows credit, unlike NFPA 30, for insulation thickness and thus a runaway reaction can be avoided by using insulation alone according to API RP 521. © 2006 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog, 2006

show abstract

Section: Calculation Of Minimum Water Flow Rate To Absorb the Heatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Heat‐up Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Heat‐up Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Heat‐up Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A heuristic approach of calculating spray water flux needed to avert fire‐induced runaway reactions

Das

2006

Process Safety Progress

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For such phenomena as BLEVE (case of liquid propane flows through pipe at high pressure and in low temperature conditions), a risk assessment methodology by using fuzzy logic is proposed in Karimpour et al (2016). The fire duration is also an important parameter, studied in Hauser et al (2001), who give guidelines to help the designers for three special external fire cases. The aim of this paper is to present and discuss some methods that can be used to evaluate the vapour flow.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaporation flow assessment from petroleum product storage tanks exposed to fire conditions

Ginestet

Bot

2018

Oil Gas Sci. Technol. – Rev. IFP Energies nouvelles

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Fire around storage tanks for petroleum products can have disastrous consequences for the environment and the population. These fires, due to accident or arson, are very well managed by security divisions but, nevertheless, involve the release of an amount of vapour from the petroleum present in the storage device. The exposure of a non-refrigerated aboveground liquid petroleum or petroleum product storage tank to fire can also lead to internal overpressure. PV-valves ensure that the normal and emergency venting requirements are satisfied, and determination of such requirements is key for the safety of petroleum tanks and should not be underestimated. This paper presents and discusses some methods that can be used to evaluate the vapour flow. In the aim of finding an exact answer rapidly, a thermal analytical approach is first investigated, which reveals the complexity of the solution. Thus, a numerical approach, based on finite-volume description, is used to set the first steps of the flow assessment. Based on a thermodynamic hypothesis, a simplified method is finally put forward for the evaluation of the amount of vapour released. The algorithm used to determine how temperature, pressure and flow evolve over time, which is very useful information for the safety of these devices, is then detailed and the results discussed.

show abstract

Practical examples of system design to mitigate overpressure scenarios—An owner's perspective

Tipler

Champion

Wagner

et al. 2013

Process Safety Progress

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2007, the American Petroleum Institute (API 521/ISO 23251) published guidance on the use of High Integrity Protective Systems (HIPS) to mitigate overpressure scenarios. A natural extension of HIPS is to use system design and operating discipline to mitigate overpressure scenarios where use of fully instrumented protection layers or conventional relief devices is neither practical nor effective. In Dow, this approach is referred to as Alternate Overpressure Protection (AOP). System design (HIPS or AOP) is commonly used to mitigate overpressure scenarios when: (1) a conventional pressure relief device (PRD) is not practical or effective, (2) a conventional PRD will not be reliable or (3) a conventional PRD will work but is not cost effective. HIPS or AOP can also be used to reduce the required relief size by limiting the operating window of the process. The purpose of this article is to provide several practical examples on the use of HIPS and AOP and to describe some of the challenges and associated strategies to ensure successful implementation and sustained process safety performance. © 2013 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog 32: 248–254, 2013

show abstract

Vent sizing for fire considerations: external fire duration, jacketed vessels and heat flux variations owing to fuel composition

Cited by 6 publications

References 3 publications

A heuristic approach of calculating spray water flux needed to avert fire‐induced runaway reactions

A heuristic approach of calculating spray water flux needed to avert fire‐induced runaway reactions

Evaporation flow assessment from petroleum product storage tanks exposed to fire conditions

Practical examples of system design to mitigate overpressure scenarios—An owner's perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About