Combustible Dust Testing

Laboratory testing to quantify dust explosion and reactivity hazards

Safety Data Sheets

Develop critical safety data for inclusion in SDS documents

Gas and Vapor

Laboratory testing to quantify explosion hazards for vapor and gas mixtures

Classification of hazardous materials subject to shipping and storage regulations
Testing and consulting on the explosion risks associated with devices and processes which use or produce hydrogen
Safety Data Sheets

Develop critical safety data for inclusion in SDS documents

Thermal Stability

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

Adiabatic Calorimetry
Data demonstrate the consequences of process upsets, such as failed equipment or improper procedures, and guide mitigation strategies including Emergency Relief System (ERS) design
Reaction Calorimetry
Data yield heat and gas removal requirements to control the desired process chemistry
Battery Safety

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

Safety Data Sheets

Develop critical safety data for inclusion in SDS documents

Cable Testing
Evaluate electrical cables to demonstrate reliability and identify defects or degradation
Equipment Qualification (EQ)
Testing and analysis to ensure that critical equipment will operate under adverse environmental conditions
Water Hammer
Analysis and testing to identify and prevent unwanted hydraulic pressure transients in process piping
Acoustic Vibration
Identify and eliminate potential sources of unwanted vibration in piping and structural systems
Gas & Air Intrusion
Analysis and testing to identify and prevent intrusion of gas or air in piping systems
ISO/IEC 17025:2017

Fauske & Associates fulfills the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025:2017 in the field of Testing

ISO 9001:2015
Fauske & Associates fulfills the requirements of ISO 9001:2015
Dust Hazards Analysis
Evaluate your process to identify combustible dust hazards and perform dust explosion testing
On-Site Risk Management
On-site safety studies can help identify explosibility and chemical reaction hazards so that appropriate testing, simulations, or calculations are identified to support safe scale up
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 safely handle the effluent discharge from an overpressure event

FATE™ & Facility Modeling

FATE (Facility Flow, Aerosol, Thermal, and Explosion) is a flexible, fast-running code developed and maintained by Fauske and Associates under an ASME NQA-1 compliant QA program.

Mechanical, Piping, and Electrical
Engineering and testing to support safe plant operations and develop solutions to problems in heat transfer, fluid, flow, and electric power systems
Hydrogen Safety
Testing and consulting on the explosion risks associated with devices and processes which use or produce hydrogen
Thermal Hydraulics
Testing and analysis to ensure that critical equipment will operate under adverse environmental conditions
Nuclear Safety
Our Nuclear Services Group is recognized for comprehensive evaluations to help commercial nuclear power plants operate efficiently and stay compliant
Radioactive Waste
Safety analysis to underpin decomissioning process at facilities which have produced or used radioactive nuclear materials
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 and Parts for the DSC/ARC/ARSST/VSP2 Calorimeters

Products and equipment for the process safety or process development laboratory


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


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


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.


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

Recent Posts

The Impact of Physical Properties for Reactive and Nonreactive Emergency Relief System Design – Part 1

Posted by Fauske & Associates on 11.09.23

When designing a safe process, our goal is to reduce risk by implementing layers of safeguards. One example of a risk in processing is a loss of containment, and a potential cause of this is an unexpected buildup of pressure. Emergency relief systems (ERS) are a safeguard used to mitigate overpressure scenarios to protect people, the environment, and infrastructure. If these systems are not adequately sized, installed, or maintained, catastrophic incidents can occur.

VSP2wscreen-1We typically categorize potential sources of overpressure as either reactive or nonreactive, and it is important to note that reactive hazards can be present whether the reaction is intended or not, and there can be multiple sources of overpressure present for a given piece of equipment or process. Examples of hazards that could lead to overpressure include fire exposure, loss of power or cooling, and overcharge or undercharge of reactant, catalyst, or solvent.

Evaluating or designing an ERS requires careful consideration of the upset scenario(s) that lead to an overpressurization (hazard characterization), the rate at which this pressure builds in the system (source of pressurization), and the rate at which pressure can be relieved from the system (discharge rate). The upset scenario is typically determined during a systematic procedure such as a Process Hazard Analysis (PHA). A special subset of a PHA is a Reactive Hazard Assessment (RHA) in which potential reactive hazards are identified within a process. Once potential hazards are identified, the hazard can be evaluated, and the source rates can be obtained using a low phi-factor adiabatic calorimeter like the VSP2 [1] pictured in Figure 1.

Additionally, an ERS design is dependent on both the vessel and relief device details. The discharge rates depend on the flow regime and material properties of the fluid. The focus of this discussion, is the selection and impact of material properties in the context of ERS design. This is not only important for appropriately protecting the vessel against overpressurization, but there are also downstream effluent considerations that are impacted by material properties.

Vent Sizing Basics

In relation to vent sizing evaluations, the source of pressurization is often modeled using three general classifications: a tempered (or vapor system), a non-tempered (or gassy system), and a gas generating tempered system (hybrid system).

Vapor systems describe both reactive and nonreactive situations where pressure generation is due to an increase in the vapor pressure of a liquid. In this system, evaporation of the liquid is used to control or “temper” the exothermic reaction. The required volumetric vapor generation rate which the ERS must accommodate to ensure that the vessel of interest is not overpressurized is related to the temperature rise rate as described in Equation 1.

Screenshot 2023-11-01 at 4.02.06 PM

Gassy systems describe a situation where noncondensable gas generation , for example oxygen or carbon dioxide reaction products, is the cause of the pressure buildup. In this system, the latent heat of vaporization is not available for tempering, and the reaction temperature cannot be controlled by venting. Therefore, the source term is a function of pressure rise rate alone. The volumetric gas generation term is described in Equation 2.

Screenshot 2023-11-01 at 4.02.10 PM

Finally, hybrid systems describe situations where both vapor and gas generation coincide in the venting region . The latent heat of cooling is available at the relief pressure, and the reaction temperature can be controlled by venting, but noncondensable gas is also occurring simultaneously. The hybrid (summation of vapor and gas) generation term is described in Equation 3.

Screenshot 2023-11-01 at 4.02.15 PM

Below is a simplified version of a vent sizing equation where we see the ideal vent area is proportional to these two terms depending on the system type. The blue term in Equation 4, highlights the lumped material properties that are required to represent vapor generation. We need to know the liquid density ρ, liquid heat capacity c, latent heat of vaporization λ, and the molecular weight of the vapor Mw,v corresponding to the temperatures and pressures of relief. This article will further explore the impact of this lumped parameter on the ideal vent size.

Screenshot 2023-11-01 at 4.02.21 PM

Material Properties for ERS Design

Material properties are composition and temperature dependent, and when evaluating or designing an ERS, we are specifically interested in the properties of the vented fluid at our elevated relieving conditions. Figures 2 and 3 provide the latent heat of vaporization and lumped parameter term highlighted in blue from Equation 4 for ethanol as a function of temperature [2] and provide an example of the temperature dependence of material properties crucial for ERS design.

Screenshot 2023-11-01 at 4.02.55 PM

Ideally, pure component or mixture properties of the anticipated relieving fluid can be found in literature such as the NIST Webbook [3], DIPPR [2], or within the material SDS. Alternatively, there are tools for experimentally measuring material properties such as utilizing the VSP2 to measure the vapor pressure of the material to extract the latent heat of vaporization. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to find properties in the literature, and sometimes experimentally measuring these properties is not feasible. Therefore, we have adopted a staged approach to selecting material properties for ERS evaluations and design:

  1. Use a Single (Dominating or Similar) Component to Represent a Mixture
  2. Assume Ideal Mixing Properties
  3. Employ Thermodynamic Mixing Models


Case Study — Repurposing an Existing Vessel

This example explores repurposing an existing vessel. Two potential uses have been identified: a reactor for a phenol-formaldehyde process, or a storage vessel for an ethanol, water, and propylene glycol mixture. The vessel is internally agitated, and the vessel and relief device parameters are listed in Table 1.

Screenshot 2023-11-01 at 4.03.09 PM

A Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) was conducted to evaluate the two prospective uses for the vessel. The PHA identified that both a fire exposure scenario as well as a loss of cooling scenario during the reaction are possible sources of overpressure for the phenol-formaldehyde process. There are two potential methods for running the reaction: batch or semi-batch depending on the final product use, and therefore, both methods must be evaluated for the loss of cooling scenario. For use as a storage tank, fire exposure was identified as the only credible upset scenario.


Phenol Formaldehyde Reactor ERS Design

To evaluate the adequacy of the vessel as a reactor and potential relief line to protect the reactor from overpressurization, we start by evaluating the ideal vent diameter needed for each identified upset scenario. The PHA found that for the fire exposure scenario, a fire was most likely to occur when the vessel contents were nonreactive. Therefore, when evaluating the adequacy of the existing relief system to protect the reactor during a fire exposure scenario, nonreactive venting is considered with the source term based on API 521 (found to be 651 kW without insulation but considering prompt fire-fighting and adequate drainage) [4].

For the loss of cooling scenarios, adiabatic calorimetry was performed simulating both the batch and semi batch processes. A summary of the approximate tested composition for each experiment is shown in Table 2.

Screenshot 2023-11-01 at 4.03.18 PM

The data indicate that vapor generation will be the sole source of overpressure in the venting region. The temperature rise rate vs. temperature results from the VSP2 experiment are illustrated in Figure 4. Here the data representing the batch process are shown red, and the data representing the semi batch process (controlled addition of catalyst) are in blue. The flow regime for each scenario is assumed to be bubbly.

Screenshot 2023-11-01 at 4.03.26 PM

Six ideal vent sizing evaluations were conducted using the Leung Omega methodology [5-7] within FERST powered by CHEMCAD [8] assuming a bubbly flow regime; these are summarized in Table 3. The first three results use the best estimate material properties. For the fire exposure scenario (non-reactive vapor venting), water is the primary component expected to be present, and therefore it is assumed that the material properties of water adequately represent the relieving fluid. For the loss of cooling scenarios, ideal mixing (Raoult’s Law) material properties are employed, and this assumption was confirmed by comparing the measured vapor pressure to the predicted vapor pressure. For comparison, the blue lumped material property term (as shown in Equation 4) is doubled for the last three results.

Screenshot 2023-11-01 at 4.03.33 PM

When comparing the results utilizing the best estimate material properties, we notice that the non-reactive vapor venting scenario results in an ideal vent area close to 30 times smaller than the semi-batch process results, and close to a factor of 100 times smaller than the batch process. Further, we notice that increasing the lumped material property term by a factor of two roughly doubles the ideal vent area.

These results illustrate the importance of first understanding and quantifying the worst plausible upset scenario and the source of pressurization associated with this scenario. It is crucial to identify and characterize this value because the source of pressurization can cause a step change of multiple orders of magnitude in the required vent area. Once the worst plausible upset scenario has been fully understood, and if further refinement in the required ideal area is justified, the material properties should be investigated further as the material properties can also have a direct impact on required ideal area.

Comparing only the results with the best estimate for the material properties, the scenario that results in the largest relief requirement is a loss of cooling during a batch process. The ideal vent diameter is 17” which is much greater than the available 4” vent diameter, and therefore this vessel is not adequately equipped to act as a reactor for the phenol-formaldehyde process.


Ethanol-Water-Propylene Glycol Storage Tank ERS Design

To evaluate the adequacy of the existing vessel for use as a storage tank for a complex mixture of ethanol-water-propylene glycol, a set of important questions must be answered:

  • Is the mixture reactive or non-reactive?
  • How much liquid is entrained during venting?
  • How important are mixture material property calculations?

Stay-tuned for Part 2 to explore these questions and determine the adequacy of the existing vessel to act as a storage tank for the ethanol-water-propylene glycol mixture.



In summary, Part 1 of this article showcases the direct impact material property selection has on the relative size of an ERS design, but also clearly indicates that the detection and quantification of chemical reactivity often has the greatest impact on the ERS design. Part 2 of this article will further explore the effect vapor/liquid disengagement characteristics have on ERS design and provide an example of our recommended approach when pure component or ideal mixing material properties may not appropriately represent a relieving fluid.

The VSP2 is an excellent laboratory tool used to detect chemical reactivity (intended or not), and it measures directly scalable temperature and pressure rise rate source terms for ERS design. FERST Powered by CHEMCAD is an easy-to-use software tool to quickly apply VSP2 data to full-scale vessels with material properties for over 3,000 components built-in and with ~40 different thermodynamic mixing models available to represent a wide range of mixtures. Please contact to learn more.



1. Fauske & Associates, Vent Sizing Package 2 (VSP2):

2. The DIPPR Information and Data Evaluation Manager for the Design Institute for Physical Properties, Version 11.3.0, Database Date 2016, Brigham Young University

3. NIST Chemistry Webbook:

4. API Standard 521, “Pressure-relieving and Depressuring Systems,” American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., Seventh Edition, June 2020

5. Leung, J. C., “Flashing Two-Phase Flow Including the Effects of Noncondensable Gases,” Journal of Heat Transfer, pp. 269-272 (February, 1991)

6. Leung, J.C., “Vent Sizing for Gassy and Hybrid Systems,” Safety of Chemical Batch Reactors and Storage Tanks, 1991

7. Leung, J.C. and Epstein, M.A., “A Generalized Correlation for Two-Phase Nonflashing Homogeneous Choked Flow,” Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 112, 1990

8. FERST powered by CHEMCAD Version Fauske & Associates, LLC, 2020

Topics: Emergency Relief System Design, VSP2 & ARSST Calorimeters


Is My Dust Combustible?

A Flowchart To Help You Decide
Download Now