Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Since the 1950s, API Standards have provided guidance on determining relief loads for equipment
Received 31 October 2012 exposed to pool res. The API method is empirical based on tests performed in the 1940s. There is
Received in revised form increasingly widespread interest in analytical methods based on heat transfer principles to model re
28 October 2013
heat input. The API committee agreed to include an analytical method in the 6th edition of API Standard
Accepted 29 October 2013
521 to establish relief loads for pressure relief devices and to design depressuring systems for the re
scenario. The analytical method provides more exibility than the empirical method but has limitations
Keywords:
(e.g., too many permutations are possible leading to potential under-sizing of the pressure relief device).
Pool re exposure
Jet re exposure
This paper discusses the basis for the empirical method in API Standard 521 and provides comparisons
Vessel failure of the empirical and analytical method with two more recent large-scale pool re tests. This pool re test
Tensile strength data indicates that the empirical method will provide a conservative estimate of pool re heat input for
Time to failure most applications and is still the method of choice when designing pressure relief systems. However,
Fire heat input these recent tests indicate the empirical method needs to be modied when a vessel or equipment is
partially conned by adjacent embankments or walls equal or greater than the vessel height. In such
cases, the wetted area exponent should be 1.0 instead of 0.82.
The analytical method is useful in determining time-versus-temperature proles for heating unwetted
vessels of varying wall thicknesses and materials of construction. These proles, which depend upon the
type of re (e.g., unconned pool re, jet re, etc.), can be combined with tensile strength and stress-
rupture data to specify a depressuring systems pressure-versus-time prole. This will minimize fail-
ure and/or mitigate the effects of failure due to overheating from re exposure.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0950-4230/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2013.10.016
22 E. Zamejc / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 27 (2014) 21e31
Table 2 gallon (125 m3) LPG tank car was exposed to a semi-enclosed pool
Typical range in analytical method (Equation (3)) parameters for an open pool re re where the pool re and tank car were located in a pit, with
surface average heat ux.
embankments on all sides exceeding the tank car height (no roof).
Parameter Description Pool re surface average Fire and wall temperatures versus time at the top of the front and
heat ux parameter range rear walls of the tank car are shown in Fig. 3a and b, respectively.
re Hydrocarbon ame emissivity 0.6e1.0 The analytical method (Equation (3)) was used by the author in
surface Equipment emissivity 0.3e0.8 an attempt to reproduce the wall temperature versus time. The
asurface Equipment absorptivity 0.3e0.8
reported values in Anderson et al., 1974 were used for the param-
h Convective heat transfer 1.76e5.28 Btu/h ft2 R
coefcient between equipment (10e30 W/m2 K) eters where given (e.g., re temperature, re emissivity, initial
and surrounding air temperature). There is insufcient technical basis to theoretically
Tgas Temperature of combustion 1392e2112 R (932e1652 F) predict the value of the unknown parameters that would apply to
gases owing over the surface 773e1173 K (500e900 C)
this specic re due to the re variability. Hence, values for the
Tre Fire temperature 1572e2292 R (1112e1832 F)
873e1273 K (600e1000 C)
unspecied parameters were adjusted by trial-and-error until the
Tsurface Equipment temperature Increases as surface heats up calculated timeetemperature prole approximated the wall tem-
s StefaneBoltzmann constant 0.1713 108 Btu/h ft2 R4 perature data from the re test shown in Fig. 3b. The values of
(5.67 108 W/m2$K4) parameters selected to model tank car rear wall temperature versus
qre Fire heat ux e a wider range 9510e31,700 Btu/h ft2
time at several locations were:
is possible (30e100 kW/m2)
qabsorbed Absorbed heat ux at start 7925e23,775 Btu/h ft2
of the re (25e75 kW/m2) re 0.62 (determined by BRL)
surface 0.5
surface is the equipment emissivity, dimensionless;
asurface 0.5
h 1.76 Btu/h ft2 R (10 W/m2 K)
Tre is the re temperature, expressed in R (K);
Tgas 2112 R (1652 F) 1173 K (900 C)
Tsurface is the equipment temperature, expressed in R (K);
Tre 2112 R (1652 F) 1173 K (900 C) e see Fig. 3a
Tgas is the temperature of air/re in contact with the equipment
Tsurface Initially @ 529 R (69 F) 294 K (21 C)
surface, expressed in R (K);
h is the convection heat transfer coefcient of air/re in contact
the equipment, Btu/h ft2 R (W/m2 K);
s$asurface$re$T4re is the radiative heat ux to the equipment;
s$surface$T4surface is the re-radiation from the equipment;
h$(Tgas Tsurface) is the convection heat transfer between the
combustion gases and the equipments surface.
h is the convection heat transfer coefcient of air/re in contact
the equipment, Btu/h ft2 R (W/m2 K);
s$asurface$re$T4re is the radiative heat ux to the equipment;
s$surface$T4surface is the re-radiation from the equipment;
h$(Tgas Tsurface) is the convection heat transfer between the
combustion gases and the equipments surface.
Note that published heat transfer coefcients and emissivities
are often empirically determined but the test conditions may not
accurately represent the conditions associated with a particular
re. Caution must be taken when specifying the parameters
because a wide range in re heat inputs can result. When applying
the analytical method to sizing pressure relief devices, the total
heat input into the vessel shall use the wetted area to the 1.0
exponent, not the 0.82 exponent used in the API empirical method
as shown in Equations (1) and (2). The 0.82 exponent is empirically
derived from re test data as shown in Fig. 2 and has no theoretical
basis. It is important to note that API 521 provides methods to
determine the re heat input to equipment while it is up to the user
to determine the vessel area exposed to a re based on the type,
size, conguration and location of their postulated re. Conse-
quence modeling is outside the scope of API 521.
Application of the analytical model to pool res is discussed in
Section 4.0 Application of the analytical method to modeling jet
res is given in Salater and Overa, (2004).
Fig. 4. Comparison of rail tank car wall temperature versus time between the Fig. 6. BAM pool re test setup involving propane rail tank car (Balke et al., 1999;
analytical model and Ballistics Research Laboratory pool re test data. Ludwig & Heller, 1999).
26 E. Zamejc / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 27 (2014) 21e31
test data. The rail tank car was lled with about 2650 gallons
(10 m3) of 95% liquid propane, resulting in an initial wetted surface
area of about 249 ft2 (23.16 m2). The pool re heat input deter-
mined by the author for the empirical method without adequate
drainage (see Equation (2)), and the analytical method for several
locations around the tank car are given in Table 4. There are two
locations in the rear of the tank car where the analytical method
indicated higher heat inputs than the empirical method. However,
when averaged across the entire tank car, as one should do if sizing
a pressure relief device, the empirical method resulted in about 30%
more heat input than the analytical method.
Fig. 9. BAM pool re test e Temperatures measurement locations (Balke et al., 1999;
Fig. 8. BAM pool re test e BLEVE aftermath (Balke et al., 1999; Ludwig & Heller, 1999). Ludwig & Heller, 1999).
E. Zamejc / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 27 (2014) 21e31 27
5.3. Comparison with pool re heat input based on the BRL test
The BRL test obtained data on the relieving rate versus time, which
was compared with that obtained with the empirical and analytical
methods. A transient approach was used by the author in these
methods whereby the relief rate was varied with time to correspond
to the decrease in wetted area as uid is relieved. A comparison of the
actual relief rate and that predicted by the empirical and analytical
methods is given in Fig.13. Both the empirical and analytical methods
predicted a decrease in relief rate with time because the wetted area
is decreasing as uid is relieved. However, the test indicated the relief
rate actually increased with time.
Fig. 10. BAM pool re test e Fire temperatures versus time (Balke et al., 1999; Ludwig One explanation that can increase the relief rate versus time is
& Heller, 1999). Note 1: Time 0 is when gasoline starter uid in a small plastic that there was an increase in heat ux with time due to heating of
container was ignited. The main pool re started about 100 s later when the plastic
the surroundings. Adjustments to the analytical method were made
container failed and spilled burning gasoline into the fuel oil pool. Note 2: The un-
marked temperature curves were primarily in the front of the tank car (upwind to account for enhanced heat transfer due to heat-up of the sur-
location and without an adjacent embankment). rounding embankments during the test. Fig. 13 illustrates a modi-
ed analytical method where the convective heat transfer
coefcient and the vessel absorptivity were increased by 20% every
Q API modified empirical method 2.5 min with a limit of 1.0 for the absorptivity. These were empir-
h i
70; 900* Aw confined1:0 Aw open0:82 (4) ically determined by trial-and-error so predicted relief rate versus
time matched the re test data as close as possible. This should be
h i considered an example of adjustments that can be made to adjust
Q API 70; 900* 11:581:0 11:580:82 the model to t test data, but they may not represent actual con-
ditions nor be applicable to other res. Note that the re and gas
1:349 106 Watts 4:604 106 BTU=h temperature were not adjusted because the data showed the re
temperature to slightly decrease during the test.
This is a conservative estimate of the total heat input as compared
Instead of modifying the analytical method, the empirical
with the 3.805 106 BTU/h (1115 kW) determined from liquid
method can be adjusted to account for the apparent increased heat
sensible heating. Based on the test data, the analytical method
input with time by increasing the exponent on the wetted area
should use the rear averaged heat input predicted by the analytical
versus time. This effect can be illustrated by inserting the heat input
model (i.e., 3.75 106 BTU/h (1098 kW)) to obtain a reasonable
determined from the actual relief rate and the wetted area in the
approximation. Where validating data is unavailable, the highest
empirical method for inadequate drainage; the equation is then
heat input obtained from the analytical model should be used.
solved for the wetted area exponent versus time. The results,
The re relief load can be determined by dividing the re heat
shown in Fig. 14, indicate the wetted area exponent approaches 1.0
input by the heat of vaporization of the uid at relieving pressure.
toward the end of the test. This suggests that ame contact with the
These results indicate that the API empirical method can be
entire vessel surfaces increases with time. Using a wetted area
applied to some semi-conned congurations, where adjacent
exponent of 1.0 for the entire vessel (located in a pit with em-
embankments exceed the vessel height, by using a wetted area
bankments exceeding the vessel height on all sides), with the
exponent of 1.0 instead of 0.82 for the portion of the vessel adjacent
empirical method, would provide a conservative pressure relief
to the embankment. This would not apply to completely conned
system design.
Table 3 that metals such as carbon steel lose signicant strength. Table 5
Analytical method parameters used to model tank car wall temperature versus time illustrates the effect of high temperatures on the tensile strength
at two locations of the BAM pool re test tank car.
of carbon steel and 304 stainless steel. The loss of strength due to
Parameter Rear center Front right pool or jet re exposure could exceed the safety factor used in the
Fire temperature, F ( C) 1832 (1000) 482 (250) design of the vessels, thereby resulting in vessel rupture due to
Gas temperature, F ( C) 1832 (1000) 482 (250) overheating, rather than overpressure.
Convective heat transfer 3.52 (20) 3.52 (20) The specic pressure vessel design code and material used will
2 2
Coefcient, BTU/h ft R (W/m K)
determine the appropriate safety factor to use in the vessel design.
Fire emissivity 0.6 0.6
Metal emissivity 0.5 0.4 For example, the current edition of ASME Section VIII, Division 1
Metal absorptivity 0.5 0.4 Pressure Vessel Design Code (ASME Section VIII) includes a safety
The following were calculated using the values above: factor (now termed design margin) of 3.5 between the tensile
Calculated initial incident heat ux, 34,570 (109.0) 2260 (7.1)
strength of the vessel and the allowable stress at room temperature
BTU/h ft2 (kW/m2)
Calculated maximum absorbed heat ux, 20,321 (64.1) 1721 (5.4)
for materials in which the tensile strength governs (e.g., carbon
BTU/h ft2 (kW/m2) steel). For carbon steel, the safety factor implies the design pressure
is a minimum of 3.5 times the burst pressure (assuming the weak
link in the vessel is the wall plate, there are no imperfections in the
the user should use the API 521 empirical method for sizing pres- wall, etc.). It should be noted that carbon steel vessels constructed
sure relief devices for the pool re scenario. to pre-1999 versions of the ASME Section VIII, Div. 1 code used a
The comparisons in the previous sections indicate the 50 year safety factor of 4.
old empirical method in API 521 given in Equations (1) and (2) would ASME Section VIII, Division 1, UG-27 provides equations that
provide a reasonable approximation of unconned pool re heat relate the allowable stress, vessel design pressure and wall thick-
input to a vessel but would need adjustment for cases where the ness. In the case of circumferential stress for a cylindrical shell,
vessel is partially conned. If the vessel is partially conned, the BRL Equation (5) applies in many cases:
full-scale test indicates a conservative size for a pressure relief de-
vice can be obtained using the heat input from Equation (2) but with P S*E*t=R 0:6*t (5)
a wetted area exponent of 1.0 instead of the 0.82 exponent valid for
unconned pool res as shown in Equation (4). where:
API 521 does not provide any recommendations regarding P must be < 0.385 *S*E.
completely conned pool res. In the case of completely conned
pool res, there is no full scale test data available so it cannot be P internal design pressure, psi (MPa)
determined if the API 521 empirical methods would be conservative. E joint efciency 1.0 for full X-ray.
Although the analytical method may provide the potential to model S maximum allowable stress value, psi (MPa)
completely conned pool res, selection of the values for the model t minimum thickness of the shell, inches (mm)
parameters would need to consider their variation with time as the R inside radius of the shell, inches (mm)
re heats the surroundings. This can only be done on a case-by-case
basis. Further, validation tests to support selection of appropriate For example, at room temperature, ASTM A515 Grade 70 carbon
values for the model parameters would be recommended. steel plate has a tensile strength of 70,000 psi (482.6 MPa) (ASME
Section II, 2007) therefore, the allowable stress will be
S 70,000/3.5 20,000 psi (137.9 MPa). If a vessel fabricated from
6. Application of the analytical method to depressuring
this material and designed to this allowable stress is heated to
system design
1200 F (650 C), the tensile strength will decrease to 20,000 psi
(137.9 MPa), as shown in Table 5. In other words, the material
6.1. Effect of overheating unwetted metal plates
strength is reduced to the equivalent of a zero safety factor. Vessel
rupture would be a certainty if the pressure then exceeded the
Unwetted metal surfaces are not cooled by boiling liquid inside
design pressure because the loads on the vessel would exceed the
the vessel. Hence, the metal temperature can get high enough such
tensile strength. Rupture would occur at even lower internal
pressures if there are other coincidental loadings on the vessel
(such as the weight of the vessel and attached equipment, tem-
perature gradients, static head, internals, etc.) or defects in the
vessel. In all these cases, a pressure relief valve would not provide
protection because it is typically designed to reseat (i.e., close)
when the pressure decreases to about 93% of its set pressure for
vapor trim valves. This would thereby maintain the vessel pressure
near its design pressure. Instead of a pressure relief valve, a
depressuring system can be used to provide vessel protection, or at
least mitigation of the effects of failure.
Table 4
Pool re heat inputs using the empirical and analytical method along with BAM re test data.
Location Max re heat ux, Max absorbed heat ux, Aw exponent Total heat input, BTU/h (kW) % Of API
BTU/ft2 h (kW/m2) BTU/ft2 h (kW/m2)
Analytical e Rear center 34,560 (109) 20,330 (64.1) 1 5.07 106 (1485) 159%
Analytical e Front right 2260 (7.1) 1720 (5.4) 1 0.43 106 (126) 14%
Analytical e Rear average (Note 1) 24,350 (76.79) 15,040 (47.41) 1 3.75 106 (1098) 118%
Analytical e Front average (Note 1) 6650 (20.97) 4620 (14.57) 1 1.15 106 (337) 36%
Analytical e Total average 15,500 (48.88) 9830 (30.99) 1 2.45 106 (718) 77%
Empirical method N/A 34,500 (70.9) (Note 2) 0.82 3.18 106 (933) 100%
2013). One curve (Plate 2) was obtained from open pool re test 6.3. Application of the analytical method to depressuring system
data while the others were extrapolated based on the test data. design
Combining these temperature-versus-time curves along with the
tensile strength data shown in Table 5 will allow determination of a The analytical method can be used to extend the curves in Fig. 15
minimum depressuring rate to keep the pressure below the tensile to other wall thicknesses. The analytical method along with the
strength of the vessel. An appropriate safety factor should be parameters determined in Section 6.2, for example, can be set up in
considered given the uncertainties. Results obtained by the author, a spreadsheet as a transient model in which the wall temperature
applying a 25% safety factor (i.e., Table 5 tensile strengths were change with time is calculated. At each time interval, the metal wall
multiplied by 0.75), are shown in Fig. 15. The depressuring prole mass can be conservatively assumed to absorb all of the heat input,
for a specic wall thickness needs to stay to the left of the specic thereby increasing the wall temperature. The effect of wall thick-
curve shown in Fig. 15. Failure will occur if the depressuring prole ness is accounted by the metal mass. This temperature-versus time
either intersects or is on the right side of the curve for the thickness prole is then combined with tensile strength data as in Section 6.2.
in question. As noted in the previous section, failure can occur at For example, the BAM pool re test data indicated failure of the
even lower pressures, depending upon the amount of additional rail tank car occurred at rear center wall (in unwetted zone) (Balke
loads on the vessel. et al., 1999; Ludwig & Heller, 1999). Test data further indicated the
An often used criteria for depressuring is to depressure to 50% of wall temperature ranged from 1020 to 1200 F (550e650 C), but it
the design pressure in 15 min. As shown in Fig. 15, this would be is possible that local temperatures got even higher because tem-
appropriate for open pool re exposure of vessels whose wall perature was recorded only at a few locations. Failure occurred
thickness is 1 inch or greater. A second criteria often used is to 15 min after the start of the pool re, or about 10 min after the re
depressure to 100 psig (6.90 barg) in 15 min. This is generally more temperature reached about 1832 F (1000 C). The rail tank car wall
conservative given the high pressures involved in most depres- thickness was 0.59 inches (14.9 mm) and the material of con-
suring applications. The more stringent criteria, (almost always the struction was assumed to be comparable to carbon steel. The failure
latter) would be preferred when protecting against jet re pressure of 362 psig (25 bar) was slightly lower than the test
exposure. pressure of 406 psig (28 bar). The Rear Center parameters were
used in the analytical model to predict the time-versus-
temperature prole. This was combined with the tensile strength
and stress rupture data by the author to obtain the depressuring
prole shown in Fig. 16. In order to minimize the potential for
rupture due to overheating, a depressuring system would need to
stay to the left of the curve shown in Fig. 16. Because the pressure at
failure was slightly lower than the test pressure, Fig. 16 predicts that
Fig. 13. Empirical and analytical method calculated relief rates versus BRL test data. Fig. 14. Empirical method wetted area exponent versus time using BRL test data.
30 E. Zamejc / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 27 (2014) 21e31
Table 5
High temperature tensile strength of carbon steel and 18-8 stainless steel (Wharton,
1946).
failure would occur about 14 min after the start of the pool re,
which is a reasonable approximation as failure actually occurred
about 15 min after the main pool re started (see Figs. 10 and 11). committee to include an analytical method in the 6th edition as
Note the rst 2 min of the pool re test is not considered because an alternative to the existing empirical method. The analytical
the re was localized to a small igniter assembly that did not cause method provides more exibility than the empirical method but
any signicant increase in rail tank temperatures. has limitations (e.g., too many permutations are possible). API
521 provides recommended values that would apply to many
open pool res. However, the comparisons with full-scale pool
6.4. Effect of material of construction re tests indicate that caution needs to be taken when selecting
the values; otherwise, the re heat input can be underestimated
The material of construction can signicantly affect the resulting in an undersized pressure relief device. Where uncer-
depressuring requirements. The preceding sections discussed car- tain, the values selected in the analytical model should be vali-
bon steel vessels. As shown in Table 5, 304 stainless steel is superior dated with testing.
to carbon steel regarding high temperature effects on tensile More recent pool re test data indicates the 50 year old API
strength. A comparison of the depressuring proles to minimize 521 empirical method will provide a conservative estimate of pool
the potential for failure of a inch wall thickness carbon steel re heat input for most applications and is still the method of
vessel and a inch wall thickness stainless steel vessel is illustrated choice when designing pressure relief systems for an open pool re
in Fig. 17. The depressuring system pressure-versus time prole scenario. However, these recent tests indicate the empirical
would need to stay to the left of the applicable curve. These results method needs to be modied when a vessel or equipment is
indicate that the depressuring system for the stainless steel vessel partially conned by adjacent embankments or walls equal or
would require a signicantly lower depressuring rate than for the greater than the vessel height. In such cases, the wetted area
carbon steel vessel of comparable wall thickness. This method can exponent should be 1.0 instead of 0.82.
be extended to other materials provided tensile strength data at The analytical method is useful in determining time-versus-
high temperature is available. temperature proles for heating unwetted vessels of varying wall
thicknesses and materials of construction. These proles can be
7. Conclusions combined with tensile strength and stress-rupture data to specify a
depressuring systems pressure-versus-time prole to minimize
The increasingly widespread use of analytical methods to failure and/or mitigate the effects of failure due to overheating from
evaluate re exposure of equipment prompted the API Std. 521 a pool or jet re exposure.
Fig. 15. Reduction of carbon steel plate tensile strength versus time due to open pool Fig. 17. Depressuring proles to minimize failure potential of a 0.5 inch wall thickness
re exposure. carbon steel and stainless steel vessel due to overheating.
E. Zamejc / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 27 (2014) 21e31 31
References National Fire Protection Association NFPA 30 (2008): Flammable and Combustible
Liquids Code.
Personal correspondence from H.C. Hottel to L.W.T. Cummings December 12, 1950.
Anderson, C., Townsend, W., Zook, J., & Cowgill, G. (September 1974). The effects of a
Roberts, T. A., Medonos, S., & Shirvill, L. C. (June 2000). Review of the response of
re environment on a rail tank car lled with LPG. FRA-OR&D Report Number 75e
pressurised process vessels and equipment to re attack. Offshore Technology
31, PB-241358.
report, OTO 2000-051.
ANSI/API Standard 2000. (November 2009). Venting atmospheric and low-pressure
Salater, P. Proposed changes to the next revision of API 521. 2006 Presentation to API
storage tanks (6th ed.).
Pressure Relief Systems Committee.
ANSI/API Standard 521. (2013). Pressure-relieving and depressuring systems (6th ed.).
Salater, P., & Overa, S. J. (March 2004). Pipes exposed to medium sized jet res e
API Standard 650. (2013). Welded tanks for oil storage (12th ed.).
Rupture conditions and models for predicting time to rupture. Paper presented at
ASME Section II, Part D, materials e Properties. (2007).
Fire and Blast Information Group (FABIG), London and Aberdeen, January 2004
ASME Section VIII, Division 1, Pressure Vessel Code, 2007 with 2008a Addenda.
and Houston.
Balke, C., Heller, W., Konersmann, R., & Ludwig, J. (September 13, 1999). Study of the
Salater, P., Overa, S. J., & Kjensjord, E. (September 2002). Size depressurization and
failure limits of a railway tank car lled with liqueed petroleum gas subjected to
relief devices for pressurized segments exposed to re. Chemical Engineering
an open pool re test. BAM Final Report.
Progress, 38.
Energy Institute. (March 2003). Guidelines for the design and protection of pressure
SCANDPOWER. (March 31, 2004). Guidelines for the protection of pressurised systems
systems to withstand severe res, ISBN 0 85293 279 0.
exposed to re. Report no. 27.207.291/R1-Version 2.
Heller, F. J. (1983). Safety relief valve sizing: API versus CGA requirements plus a
Shirvill, L. C. Heat Fluxes in Severe Fires. 2002 Presentation to API Pressure Relief
new concept for tank cars. API Rening Proceedings, 82, 123e140.
Systems Committee.
Ludwig, J., & Heller, W. (1999). Fire test with a propane tank car. BAM Test Report
Wharton, H. R. (1946). Digest of steels for high-temperature service. Timken Steel.
III.2/9907.