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

Replacing Complex Two-Fluid Models With A Simple Model 

Posted by The Fauske Team on 01.08.18

Replacing Complex Two-Fluid Models With A Simple Model That Has No Adjustable Parameters and That is Agreeable With Experimental Data Including Both Non-Equilibrium and Equilibrium Flashing Flows

By: Hans K. Fauske, D. Sc., Regent Advisor, Fauske & Associates, LLC (FAI)

In contrast to the two-fluid models that require numerous assumptions and the corresponding closure equations, the Simple Model can be stated as:

Equation 1(1)

where G (kg m-2 s-1) is the Non-Equilibrium or Equilibrium two-phase flow rate including the effects of subcooling (GSC), Y is the dimensionless independent variable ranging from 0 to 1 and G0 and G1 are the corresponding asymptotic flow rate limits. For all specified stagnation conditions (subcooled liquid, saturated liquid and liquid-vapor mixtures) and flow geometries (nozzle, short and long), the easy to estimate G values in the region between the known asymptotic limits with no arbitrary adjustable parameters are in remarkable agreement with available experimental data. The nozzle constant area length L is the key parameter and values (Y) leading to non-equilibrium and equilibrium flashing flows is provided by (Fauske, 1985, 2017).

sozzi_sutherland_nozzle

An example is illustrated below the agreement of the simple model is consistently good for all inlet quality (Xo) conditions, where Gc is the dimensionless mass flux, defined as G/√Poρo, and quoting Sozzi and Sutherland (1975), stagnation quality (Xo) in the vessel upstream of the nozzle is based on the density in the vessel and the stagnation pressure (Po):

Equation 2(2)

when the liquid is subcooled, vf >1/ρ and, consequently Eq. 2 results in Xo < 0 as a negative quality.

It should be noted that the short nozzle No. 2 (D = 12.7 mm and L/D = 1) non-equilibrium data by Sozzi and Sutherland (1975) have provided difficulties in predicting especially with two-fluid modelling which required empirical adjustment to fit the test results (Levy, 1993).

For more information or to discuss two-phase flow concerns, contact Kris Fauske at 630-887-5213, kfauske@fauske.com

References

Hans K. Fauske, 1983, "Flashing Flows Or: Some Practical Guidelines for Emergency Releases," Plant/Operations Progress, July, 1985.

Hans K. Fauske, 2017, "Further Clarification of Non-Equilibrium and Equilibrium Flashing Flows Through TOP Located Relief Valves (SRVs)," Process Safety News, Summer 2017, Volume 24, Number 3.

Solomon Levy, 1999, "Two-Phase Flow in Complex Systems," A Wiley Interscience Publication, 1999.

Sozzi, G. L. and Sutherland, W. A., 1975, "Critical Flow of Saturated and Subcooled Water at High Pressure," Report NEDO-13418, General Electric Company, San Jose, Ca (July).

 SUBSCRIBE TO OUR PROCESS SAFETY NEWS

Topics: Two phase flow, non equilibrium, flashing flows

cta-bg.jpg

Is My Dust Combustible?

A Flowchart To Help You Decide
Download Now