Hazards Analysis, Code Compliance & Procedure Development

Services to identify process safety hazards and facilitate compliance with established standards and codes.

Combustible Dust Testing

Laboratory testing to quantify dust explosion and 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 and Parts for the DSC/ARC/ARSST/VSP2 Calorimeters

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

The Impact of Two-Phase Flow – Emergency Relief System Design

Posted by The Fauske Team on 01.13.22

By Elizabeth Raines & Benjamin Doup, PhD

Ensure your emergency relief system is adequately sized by accounting for two phase flow

Introduction to Two Phase Flow

In order to ensure your vessel is appropriately protected from possible overpressurization scenarios, it is crucial to consider multiphase or two-phase flow. The presence of two-phase flow can increase the required size of your relief device, relief piping, and/or the effluent handling systems.

In the context of emergency relief system design, two‑phase vapor-liquid flow is very common due to the volume expansion of the initially all-liquid pool in the vessel caused primarily by vapor/gas generation and to a lesser extent by the reduced liquid density at increased temperatures. The extent of the volume expansion depends on the fill fraction (liquid volume fraction) of the vessel at the onset of venting, the two-phase flow regime of the fluid, and the rate of vapor/gas generation. When the fill fraction or the rate of vapor/gas generation increase, the likelihood of two‑phase flow in the relief system increases. The flow regime characterization depends upon the fluid, vessel geometry, and upset scenario.

Multiple two-phase flow regimes were modeled in the original DIERS research project [1] and are based upon a drift-flux modeling approach. Assuming uniform vapor generation, a fluid can be classified as churn-turbulent, bubbly, or homogeneous (or foamy). A homogeneous flow regime indicates there is no vapor-liquid disengagement. A bubbly flow regime indicates minimal vapor-liquid disengagement, and a churn-turbulent flow regime results in significant vapor-liquid disengagement. The models for these flow regimes have been benchmarked against large scale experimental data [1,2]. If the flow regime of a fluid is unknown, blowdown testing can be used to classify the flow regime (https://www.fauske.com/blog/flow-regime-determination-in-emergency-relief-system-design-blowdown-testing and https://www.fauske.com/blog/flow-regime-characterization-in-emergency-relief-system-design).

If the upset scenario is fire exposure, vapor/gas generation may preferentially occur at the vessel wall. This wall-boiling flow regime was developed for liquid filled storage vessels and relies upon natural circulation currents that aid in vapor-liquid disengagement [3‑5]. Care should be taken in applying this flow regime, as it is not always applicable. For instance, the wall-boiling regime is not applicable for smaller diameter vessels (due to merging of the two-phase boundary layers) or vessels with agitation (due to the inability to develop natural circulation currents). Interested readers should refer to Fisher and Forest [6] and Fauske [7] for additional discussions on the wall-boiling flow regime.

To investigate the impact of two-phase flow and the fluid flow regime on the required ideal vent area, the discharge flow rate and the vapor quality of the discharge flow, a case study is performed here that compares a hypothetical non-reactive fire exposure scenario to an agitated reactor vessel scenario.

Comparison of ERS Design Results Based on Flow Regime

This relief system design problem was evaluated within FERST Powered by CHEMCAD [2]. The Leung Omega methodology for vapor systems [3] was utilized with API 520/521 methodology [4, 5] for the fire heat input calculation. The following flow regimes were considered: vapor only, churn turbulent, bubbly, and homogeneous. The material properties were assumed to be those for dichloromethane and were obtained within FERST Powered by CHEMCAD. The vessel parameters utilized are shown in Table 1. Evaluations were conducted considering two different void fractions at the time of relief, and two different set pressures. Some example parameters that can be compared include ideal vent area/diameter, discharge mass flow rate, exit quality, and mass remaining at the turnaround time. Table 2 provides definitions for these parameters, and the results of the evaluations are documented in Table 3 through Table 5. 

Table 1: Vessel Parameters

Vessel Parameters

Table 2: ERS Parameter Definitions

ERS Parameter Definitions

Table 3: Test Results – Vessel 100% Full with a 10 psig Set Pressure

Test Results – Vessel 100% Full with a 10 psig Set Pressure

Table 4: Test Results – Vessel 70% Full with a 10 psig Set Pressure

Test Results – Vessel 70% Full with a 10 psig Set Pressure

Table 5: Test Results – Vessel 100% Full with a 50 psig Set Pressure

Test Results – Vessel 100% Full with a 50 psig Set Pressure

Conclusion

Comparing the results in Table 2 through Table 4 provides an example of how two-phase flow (and specific flow regime) can impact the results of an ERS evaluation. The presence of two-phase flow can increase the required size of a relief device, and the capacity required for effluent handling systems. Tools like FERST powered by CHEMCAD make it easy to evaluate the impact of these parameters and allow the user to quickly perform sensitivity analyses to determine how things like void fraction or set pressure can impact vapor/liquid disengagement, and therefore the results in terms of parameters such as ideal vent diameter or discharge mass flow rate.

Contact us today to help you evaluate the potential presence of two‑phase flow and ensure that your entire relief system is properly sized to handle the worst-case situations. We would also be happy to provide you with a demonstration of FERST powered by CHEMCAD!

Contact: Elizabeth Raines at Eraines@fauske.com  

Resources

  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. Grolmes, M.A. and Fisher, H.G., “Vapor-Liquid Onset/Disengagement Modeling for Emergency Relief Discharge Evaluation,” AIChE 1994 Summer Meeting, 1994.
  3. Grolmes, M.A. and Epstein, M., “Vapor-Liquid Disengagement in Atmospheric Liquid Storage Vessels Subjected to External Heat Source,” Plant/Operations Progress, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1985.
  4. Fauske, H.K., Epstein, M., Grolmes, M.A, and Leung, J.C., “Emergency Relief Vent Sizing for Fire Emergencies Involving Liquid-Filled Atmospheric Storage Vessels,” Plant/Operations Progress, Vol. 5, No. 4, 1986.
  5. Epstein, M., Fauske, H.K., and Hauser, G.M., “The Onset of Two-Phase Venting Via Entrainment in Liquid-Filled Storage Vessels Exposed to Fire,” J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industry, Vol. 2, 1989.
  6. Fisher, H.G., and Forrest, H.S., “Protection of Storage Tanks from Two-Phase Flow Due to Fire Exposure,” Process Safety Progress, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1995.
  7. Fauske, H.K, “Properly Size Vents for Nonreactive and Reactive Chemicals,” Chemical Engineering Progress, February, 2000.
  8. FERST powered by CHEMCAD Version 1.0.0.14534, Fauske & Associates, LLC, 2020.
  9. Leung, J. C., Simplified Vent Sizing Equations for Emergency Relief Requirements in Reactors and Storage Vessels,” AIChE Journal, Vol. 32, No. 10, p. 1622-1634, 1986.
  10. API Standard 521, “Pressure-relieving and Depressuring Systems,” American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., Seventh Edition, June 2020.
  11. API Standard 520 Part 1, “Sizing, Selection and Installation of Pressure-relieving Devices,” American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., Tenth Edition, July, 2020.
cta-bg.jpg

Is My Dust Combustible?

A Flowchart To Help You Decide
Download Now