Combustible Dust Testing

Laboratory testing to quantify dust explosion & reactivity hazards

Flammable Gas & Vapor Testing

Laboratory testing to quantify explosion hazards for vapor and gas mixtures

Chemical Reactivity Testing

Laboratory testing to quantify reactive chemical hazards, including the possibility of material incompatibility, instability, and runaway chemical reactions

DIERS Methodology

Design emergency pressure relief systems to mitigate the consequences of unwanted chemical reactivity and account for two-phase flow using the right tools and methods

Deflagrations (Dust/Vapor/Gas)

Properly size pressure relief vents to protect your processes from dust, vapor, and gas explosions

Effluent Handling

Pressure relief sizing is just the first step and it is critical to safety handle the effluent discharge from an overpressure event

Thermal Stability

Safe storage or processing requires an understanding of the possible hazards associated with sensitivity to variations in temperature

UN-DOT

Classification of hazardous materials subject to shipping and storage regulations

Safety Data Sheets

Develop critical safety data for inclusion in SDS documents

Biological

Model transport of airborne virus aerosols to guide safe operations and ventilation upgrades

Radioactive

Model transport of contamination for source term and leak path factor analysis

Fire Analysis

Model transport of heat and smoke for fire analysis

Flammable or Toxic Gas

transport of flammable or toxic gas during a process upset

OSS consulting, adiabatic & reaction calorimetry and consulting

Onsite safety studies can help identify explosibility and chemical reaction hazards so that appropriate testing, simulations, or calculations are identified to support safe scale up

Mechanical, Piping, and Electrical

Engineering and testing to support safe plant operations and develop solutions to problems in heat transfer, fluid flow, electric power systems

Battery Safety

Testing to support safe design of batteries and electrical power backup facilities particularly to satisfy UL9540a ed.4

Hydrogen Safety

Testing and consulting on the explosion risks associated with devices and processes which use or produce hydrogen

Spent Fuel

Safety analysis for packaging, transport, and storage of spent nuclear fuel

Decommissioning, Decontamination and Remediation (DD&R)

Safety analysis to underpin decommissioning process at facilities which have produced or used radioactive nuclear materials

Laboratory Testing & Software Capabilities

Bespoke testing and modeling services to validate analysis of DD&R processes

Nuclear Overview

Our Nuclear Services Group is recognized for comprehensive evaluations to help commercial nuclear power plants operate efficiently and stay compliant.

Severe Accident Analysis and Risk Assessment

Expert analysis of possible risk and consequences from nuclear plant accidents

Thermal Hydraulics

Testing and analysis to ensure that critical equipment will operate under adverse environmental conditions

Environmental Qualification (EQ) and Equipment Survivability (ES)

Testing and analysis to ensure that critical equipment will operate under adverse environmental conditions

Laboratory Testing & Software Capabilities

Testing and modeling services to support resolution of emergent safety issues at a power plant

Adiabatic safety calorimeters (ARSST and VSP2)

Low thermal inertial adiabatic calorimeters specially designed to provide directly scalable data that are critical to safe process design

Other Lab Equipment (DSC/ARC supplies, CPA, C80, Super Stirrer)

Products and equipment for the process safety or process development laboratory

FERST

Software for emergency relief system design to ensure safe processing of reactive chemicals, including consideration of two-phase flow and runaway chemical reactions

FATE

Facility modeling software mechanistically tracks transport of heat, gasses, vapors, and aerosols for safety analysis of multi-room facilities

Blog

Our highly experienced team keeps you up-to-date on the latest process safety developments.

Process Safety Newsletter

Stay informed with our quarterly Process Safety Newsletters sharing topical articles and practical advice.

Resources

With over 40 years of industry expertise, we have a wealth of process safety knowledge to share.

Recent Posts

Flow Regime Characterization in Emergency Relief System Design

Posted by The Fauske Team on 08.14.18

By Benjamin Doup, Ph.D., Senior Nuclear and Chemical Engineer, Fauske & Associates, LLC 

Illustration of blue sea underwater with air bubblesFlow regime characterization in emergency relief system (ERS) design is important because it can impact your required vent size and will impact the quantity and rate of liquid material that is vented.

The quantity and rate of liquid material that is vented will affect the design of downstream effluent handling equipment. The flow regime, in the context of emergency relief system design, refers to the interplay between vapor (and/or gas) and liquid phases in a vessel. The flow regime is a characteristic of the venting material during an emergency relief.

The Design Institute for Emergency Relief Systems (DIERS) program [1] contributed to the understanding of the behavior of the vapor liquid two-phase flow in vessels and supplied reasonably easy to use correlations that generally describe the two phase flow behavior. The resulting correlations are based upon a drift flux model [2-3] approach. The drift flux model treats the vapor and liquid phases as a single homogeneous mixture, but then describes the difference in velocity and the non uniform distribution of the two phases using constitutive correlations. The drift velocity, which models the velocity difference between the vapor and liquid, is defined as

Equation 1
           
                                      (1)

where             j = summation of the local vapor and liquid superficial velocities, m/s

                    ug = local vapor velocity, m/s

                   Vgj = vapor drive velocity, m/s

                      α = local vapor void fraction, - 

                    ⟨ ⟩  = indicates flow area leveraging, - 

The distribution coefficient, which models the nonuniform distribution of the phases, is defined as

Equation 2    (2)

where           C0 = distribution coefficient, -

Two flow regimes were initially defined in the DIERS program [1] utilizing the drift flux model. These two flow regimes are bubbly and churn-turbulent flow regimes. Other flow regimes such as the wall boiling or foamy regimes exist, but these flow regimes are not discussed further in this article.

 Figure 1 Image of Bubbly Flow in a Vertical Air-Water Test Section  - Courtesy of Dr. B. Doup and Dr. X. Sun (The Ohio State University)The bubbly flow regime is characterized by smaller bubbles that are typically spherical or near spherical in shape with diameters generally less than 11 mm (for water). These bubbles have a large surface area to volume ratio and are fairly uniformly distributed in the flow field. Figure 1 shows an image of bubbly flow in a vertical air-water test section. Momentum is transferred between the vapor and liquid phases at the interface of the vapor bubbles. This indicates that an increase in the vapor bubble surface area results in tighter coupling between the vapor and liquid phases and the result is less disengagement between the vapor and liquid phases.

The churn-turbulent flow regime is characterized by larger bubbles that can be elongated and the flow structure is very turbulent partially due to bubble induced turbulence. These bubbles have a smaller surface area to volume ratio. Figure 2 shows an image of churn-turbulent flow in a vertical airwater test section. This image was obtained in a 2” diameter cylindrical test section, which is much smaller than most vessels and the wall can impact the flow structure. These wall effects are not as pronounced in Figure 2 Image of Churn-turbulent Flow in a Vertical Air-Water Test Section - Courtesy of Dr. B. Doup and Dr. X. Sun (The Ohio State Universitylarge scale vessels. The smaller surface area to volume ratio compared to the bubbly flow regime indicates that the vapor and liquid phases are not tightly coupled, resulting in more disengagement between the vapor and liquid phases for this flow regime.  Figure 1 Image of Bubbly Flow in a Vertical Air-Water Test Section  - Courtesy of Dr. B. Doup and Dr. X. Sun (The Ohio State University)

The form of the drift velocity used in the original DIERS program [1] is given by

Equation 3  (3)

where            m= 3 for the bubbly flow regime and approaches ∞ for the churn turbulent flow regime
                       n= 2 for the bubbly flow regime and 0 for the churn turbulent flow regime
                    u = bubble rise velocity, m/s

Figure 2 Image of Churn-turbulent Flow in a Vertical Air-Water Test Section - Courtesy of Dr. B. Doup and Dr. X. Sun (The Ohio State University

They related the vapor superficial velocity to the average void fraction by assuming the average vessel void fraction is equal to the local void fraction for bubbly flow and by averaging the void fraction in churn turbulent flow over the height of the two-phase mixture. Grolmes and Fisher [4] re-investigated these correlations and derived an alternative form of the bubbly correlation that was obtained without assuming the average vessel void fraction is equal to the local void fraction. The vapor superficial velocity relations from the original DIERS program [1] are given in Equation 4.

equation 4 (4)

where           jg = vapor superficial velocity, m/s
                      α‾ = vessel average void fraction, -

Figure 3 Schematic of Bubble Force BalanceThe form of the bubble rise velocity is obtained by performing a force balance on a single bubble in an infinite medium (i.e., pressure force = body force + drag force). Figure 3 shows this force balance schematically.

The pressure force is defined in Equation 5

Equation 5          (5)

where           db = bubble diameter, m
                      Fp= pressure force, kg∙m/s2
                       g = acceleration due to gravity, m/s2
                      ρf = liquid density, kg/m3

The body force is defined in Equation 6

Equation 6         (6)

where             Fg = body force, kg∙m/s2
                       ρg = vapor density, kg/m3

The drag force is defined in equation 7

equation 7         (7)

where             CD = drag coefficient
                       FD = drag force, kg∙m/s2

The drag coefficient can be expressed as shown in Equation 8

equation 8  (8)

where                 μf = liquid dynamic viscosity, Pa∙s
                            σ = surface tension, N/m

The resulting bubble rise velocity is then

equation 9 (9)

Researchers have replaced the √2 factor by experimentally determined coefficients. Peebles and Garber [5] (according to Wallis [3]) present the bubble rise velocity as

equation 10 (10)

which was used in the DIERS program for the bubble rise velocity in the bubbly flow regime.

Harmathy [6] (according to Wallis [3]) presents the bubble rise velocity as

Equation 11 (11)

which was used in the DIERS program for the bubble rise velocity in the churn-turbulent flow regime.

The next logical question is how to determine flow regime for a new material or new mixture of materials? The only option at this point is to test your material under emergency relief conditions.

** See the fall 2018 Process Safety newsletter for a detailed flow regime testing approach and sample data.

References

  1. Fisher, H.G., Forrest, H.S., Grossel, S.S., Huff , J.E., Muller, A.R., Noronha, J.A., Shaw, D.A., and Tilley, B.J., Emergency Relief System Design Using DIERS Technology, The Design Institute for Emergency Relief Systems (DIERS ) – Project Manual, 1992.
  2. Zuber, N. and Findlay, J.A., “Average Volumetric Concentration in Two-phase Flow Systems,” Journal of Heat Transfer, November, 1965.
  3. Wallis, G.B., One-dimensional Two-phase Flow, 1969.
  4. Grolmes, M.A. and Fisher, H.G. “Vapor-liquid Onset/Disengagement Modeling for Emergency Relief Discharge Evaluation,” Prepared for Presentation at the AIChE 1994 Summer National Meeting , 1994.
  5. Peebles, F.N. and Garber, H.J. Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol. 49, pp . 88-97, 1953.
  6. Harmathy, T.Z. AIChE Journal, Vol. 6, pp . 281, 1960.

Dr. Benjamin Doup is a Senior Nuclear and Chemical Engineer in the Thermal Hazards department at Fauske & Associates, LLC.  For more information or to discuss Emergency Relief System Design, DIERS, two-phase flow regimes, risk based inspection and other process safety concerns, please contact info@fauske.com or 630-323-8750.

 

Topics: DIERS, emergency relief system design, two-phase

cta-bg.jpg

Is My Dust Combustible?

A Flowchart To Help You Decide
Download Now