Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
This still continues, with allsides frequently claiming victory. lt is not unusual for composite systems using PUF for the inner layers and cellular glass for the outer layer to be specified.
An area where particularcare is needed is in the fitting of insula-
l\4ost thermal insulation materials have thermal conductivities which change with temperature. This is illustrated for cellular glass by Figure 19.6. Hence the mean temperature of a layer of
tion to valves and other fittings. Infrared thermography discussed in Section 19.10 is a useful tool for inspecting low temperature pipe insulation systems. The identification of the causes of failure or lack of longevity of such pipe insulation systems is not always straightforward. A refinery in the UK had problems of early breakdown of its carefully installed cellular, glass-based insulation. The cause ofthis problem was eventuallyhaced to the fact that the workforce fre-
insulation material within the multi-layersystem must be known before the thermal resistance of that layer can be calculated, and the thermal resistance is required to establish the mean remperarure. The way out of this apparent impasse is to assume a temperature profile for the various interfaces within the system, use this to calculate the mean temperatures of the individual layers and this in turn to obtain the k values of the various materials to perform the initial calculation. The results of this calculation allow the interface temperatures to be recalculated and the k values to be revised. Asecond calculation is carried out and the results ofthis allow a further revision of the k values. A couple offurther iterations should show temperature values at the interfaces converging and this should be sufficient. Figure 19.23 shows a numerical example of this Drocess. This is a tedious calculation to carryoutbyhand and is ideallysuited to Excel spreadsheets.
. . . . .
The central area ofthe tank base The oerioheral area ofthe tank base The lower tank wall where thermal orotection has been installed The upper tank wall where no thermal protection has been installed The tank roof
xAxAT
iL
equ 19.1
where:
H k
= =
heat flux through component (W) thermal conductivity of the insulation material
These samples would be sent to an agreed laboratory where the K values would be verified at the appropriate temperature (or range of tem peratures). lt is usual for the eventual owners of the tank to witness this testing, either themselves or via their hired engineering or inspection companies. As has been mentioned earlier, the measurement of low temperature insulation properties is noteasyand should be leftto those skilled and experienced in this work. Note that this testing is usually conducted in air.
(W/m'K)
area of component (m2)
hot to cold face temperature range ('K)
A = AT = L =
For porous materials such as perlite, glass fibre or mineral wool, the vapour within which the insulation material is operaf ing wiil have a significant effect on lts effective K value. Thus the test results which are based on air as the interstitial gas will have to be adjusted to account for the presence of a different gas. This is discussed in Section 19.8.3. Where the insulation material has been penetrated by items
made from different materials, such as is the case for resilient blankets supported by being impaled on pins, the effective K valueto be used in the calculations must be adjusted to take account of the short circuiting effect ofthe pins. Asuitable calculation method for making this adjustment is given in section ,q3 of
Where more than one material is used the following method taken from section A3 oI Reference 79.3 is used:
U = 1/ (R1+ R2 + R3+.....+Rn)
equ 19.2
wnere:
U
R1 & R2 etc
= =
thermal resistance ofthe various insulation components (m2'K iV) - calculated from equation '19.3 below
equ 19.3
R=L/K
Hence the equation to calculate the heat flux through a multilayer component is:
H=U
xAxAT
equ 19.4
ABumptions for the exercise: Outer surface tamperature lnner sutfsoa ternperature Intef,stltialgas Installed perlle density lnstallsd glass fibre dn8ity Section through wa[:
To Ti
+40'c
-165 'C Methane 60 kglm3 24 relm3
Matedal Thickne6s(mm) 600 5 Sleel linet 960 Psdite 240 Glasslibre 10 Inside 90/6 ni inner tank Assumed thermalgradienl ('C)
Outside Concte
Air/concrelg
Conc|Eie,/perlite Prlite/gla8s tibre Glass fibr/product
lgnor
h thermalcalculation
40 30 -125 -'165
148 108
313.0000
310.256
313,0000
310.7349
'
Perlite
step l
Taken as 1.60 Wm'K tiroughout calqiation calculate K value of hterstitial gas (f1) 155 'K ATp 0.0243158 w,lm'K
step 2
Gla6s
fibre step
step 2 step 3
KS1 8.252384i| R y 0.137422 0.0401584 Wm'K Kp calculate K value of interstitial gas (lQ2) 40'K ATfg 0.0133521 dm"K l{gz fuctor ftom Figure 19.25 1.455 f calculale K value of glass fibr 0-0194273 Kg
calculate K value of petlib (KP)
Thidmess (mm) K
ConaGte Perlite
Glass fib|e
value Themalresistance(rn2 "K iv) AT 2.0985 1.6 0.3750 600 960 0.0401584 23.9054 133.771407 6S.1301 240 0.0194273 12.3538 36.6341 m5.0000 Total
Heat
FlI(
(dmz)
5.5959
Figure
t
STORAGE TANKS & EQUIFII'ENT 397
Concrets
Pedite
step
stp 2
Glass
fib|
step
.l
step 2 step 3
ATp 133.7714'K Kgl 0.0266994 w/m'K calculale K value of pertite (Kp) R 7.87Tt517 y 0.1374?2. Kp o.o428oa w/m'K calculale K value of inteGfitial gas (Kg2) Arfu 69.1901 'K Kg2 0.01499s6 w/m'K factor from Figure 9.2S t 1.455 calculate K value of glass fibre Kfs 0.0218187
1
Taken as 1.60 Wm'K thrcughout calculation calculate K value of intersfital gas (lg1)
Thlckness (mm)
Kvalue Thermal resistance(mr.XLn) at 600 1.8 0.3750 2,2744 960 0.042808 22-4287 136.012036 240 O.O21B|B7 10.999g 66.7,13 Toiat $.9005 208.0000
6.0650
Conqeie
Pedite
step
step 2
Glass
fibr step
step 2 step 3
ATp 136.0i20 'K lQl 0.0285485 w/m'K calculate K value of pedite (Kp) R 7.9020321 y 0.137422. Kp 0.0426242 wtm'K calculale K value of interstitial gas (Kg2) ATfs 66.7136 'K Kg2 0.0148s87 dm'K
factor from Figure 1 9.25 1.455 calculate K value of glass jibre
Kfg
0.02i6194
Thickness (mm)
Kvalue The.malresistance(flf "tgu/) AT 600 1.6 0.3750 2.2611 960 0.0426242 Z2.Sn4 135.8027i18 240 0.0216194 11.'1011 66.936.1
Total
33.9986
205.0000
Hat Flux
(dm2)
6.0297
'efent temperatures are given in Figure '19.24. The source of tis data is Reference 19.4.
Fomula for themal conductivity In wm"K
o oorou
u'"tito'Lt'Jli
5
o.oos6r
9l7 t 1o'
lT'l''
uuttilo'[t.ll' o.oorot .
I 258'10
7
nT \Ttll
.-,e6rr,
t'
lr
rrr,.1-."""
-^T L
)r'
-i--L'r',
Tl
For tanks built on the ground, the hot face temperature is based on the operational settings of the base heating control system. lt is clearly unwise to have the base heating
T+12CK)
d
g u
ifferent
Forcalculating the Kvalue ofperlite with the air replaced byone cf these gases at a particular set oftemperature conditions, the 'ollowino formula can be used:
level. Purchasing expensive energy, be it electrical, steam or heated brine to boil off more product than is necessary incurring further costs in terms of re-liquefaction or product loss to atmosphere is clearly a nonsense. Consequently a design hot face value as low as possible is used. -5 'C is a not unusualvalue to use in the calculations in these circumstances.
xo=Kn(-v)+
vhere:
/^,+o-1f
equ 19.5
For tanks built on elevated foundations, a hot face design temperature equal to the maximum shade temperature would seem to be a sensible choice. There is perhaps a case for using a lower temperature. Experience suggests that the space beneath the base slab of such tanks is a cold place to be, even on hot days.
Kp = Ks = R" = y = p =
thermal conductivity of perlite in the replace' ment interstitial gas (Wm 'K) thermal conductivity of the interstitial gasatthe appropriate temPerature (Wm "K)
0.114i Ks+ 3.608
3.9x10'3xp087
installed perlite density (kgim3)
For calculating the K value of glass fibre or mineral wool, the graph shown in Figure 19.25 can be used. (Both equation 19.5 and Figure '19.25 are attributed to the late Dr lan Leadley of Whessoe.)
"The maximum heat leak shall not exceed 0.05% of the full tank contents per day on the assumption that the tank contents are considered to be pure methane." The latter requirement to consider the tank contents as a pure product is to avoid the complication of working out the latent heat ofthe LNG which may have a range ofcompositions and to
avoid subsequent contentious arguments. lt is normal to make the same form of wording for any tank containing a mixed product, expressing the permitted heat leak in terms ofa percentage ofthe major constituent. The following points are worth bearing in mind:
. . .
lt may be necessaryto run the in-tank pumps during the test period to ensure proper mixing. Allowance for the energy inout from this source must be made.
Boil off is known not to occur at a uniform rate, but rather as a series of irregular "burps". This is another reason why the
test must be conducted over a protracted period. Arrangements must be made to record and take account of the effects of wind and solar radiation.
the permitted heat leak. For LNG a latent heat of 507.0 kJ/kg should be used with the pure methane density of
0.422. Using the design density of LNG (frequently given as 0.48) will give too high a value of the permitted heat leak.
These difficulties combine to make a physical heat leak test time consuming, expensive and inconclusive. To avoid this
problem area, the following procedure is often adopted:
lt is often presumed that the worst conditions pertaining at any point on the tank outer surface at any time during the whole day will persist for the full 24 hours. This has occasionally become a point of dispute beh,veen the owner and the designer, with the tank designer claiming that it represents an unnecessarily conservative interpretation. The full tank contents is usually taken to mean just that, i.e. with no deduction for in-tank pump NPSH etc.
The tank designer must prepare detailed heat leak calculations together with the appropriate certification (and possibly QA records if these are available at the time) to demonstrate that the materials used havethe required thermal properties. These calculations and the associated documentation will be submitted to an expert third party, previously agreed by both the owner and the tank contractor, who would review the calculations and whose findings would be binding on both parties.
. .
Whilst the calculations seek to cover all of the sources of possible heat leakage from tank to atmosphere, there will
probably be some which have been ignored or overlooked such as the smaller connected pipe connections. To cover for these uncertainties, it is usual for the designer to aim for a calculated heat leak lower than the full target value. A not unusual starting point would be to aim for 85% of the full value in the first instance.
A well
set out heat leak calculation for a large full containment type LNG tank is shown in Figure 19.26. This makes use of a series of linked Excel soreadsheets.
One of the added advantages of this procedure is that in the event of a shortfall being found in the thermal insulation provided, then this can be made good prior to the tank entering service. This could perhaps be by a simple addition to the thickness ofthe insulation on the suspended deck, an action with no knock-on effects. With the physicaltest route, this pre-commissioning adjustment is not possible.
lvleasuring the heat leak will require either a significant change in the tank liquid level to occur, which may take some days depending upon the accuracy ofthe level measuring equipment provided, or will require the accurate measurement of the vapour flow through the vapour outlet line, something difficult and expensive to achieve. Vapour flow measurement is not a normal part of the tank instrumentation. For a large LNG tank with a specified boil off rate of less than 0.05% (a typical figure for such tanks) the level change will be of the order of 15 mm/day. To get a sensible measurement which will be sufiicient to negate any uncertainty caused by tolerances on gauging accuracy, it is clear that the test duration must run into several days.
. . . . .
The tank must be fullor close to full at the time of the test to avoid contentious arguments revolving around the extrapolation ofthe heat leakfrom a lowerliquid levelto a fulltank.
The tank must not be subject to any liquid movements during the test period.
An investigation into the cause of this base insulation failure was carried out and this is reported in Reference 19.5.
The investigation revealed that in July 1990, blasting work had been carried out within 200 m ofthe two tanks. The tank nearest to the blasting was full of Iiquid at the time and undamaged. The tankfurthest awayfrom the blasting location was fllled to 20% of
lf;lFtF|F|nt
ai
gi
:
+
$$
9!
b b
:E
ls
Ei
Fq$$ECH
SeS9qqq
i
!
gl9 383 bbb
teF
it
*seRsBg *6bb{oo
htil
tsl
r'1
E]II
n
:
9-E
3
; s*:$
nHB
! ! 5! Ed i.E
ffiHuffi
Fl
Fl fl
$tiiEiiigiiitiiui,u
I FI ;-E ; c 13
=!5! F: ;:
F" i!
ri
Figure
'1
page
t
STORAGE TANKS & EQUIPMENT 401
t
I ! I I
6
!;
B
!
d
t I t tz
!
T E
a
t -t t.
B
f
.6 6i
!rii
! i9
It
EE
{ l!
I
E .l
5E
5
rR i !E
g
.*-t t
: EB
6
iE
!ll
* ia
r
Ei: ili
iie
I
.
i3"r,r.i
EEi!E
t
it
8E {: s i
iEIiS
i rl -r;
a,I l s Ei B fii I TE H {3 :
IE L fB
,!*
.:
i
tl t;
[:l
;3
-.8
{
T q 5i E! 5 g tl
I
B.T
-''
E
I !
I
Er
*"_" ! +" oi *E *i t *" *'
3 t* 1E
I
t !
i;'
q I l? " It
5
.t r ,
8X dd EE
RE
E
EEE
tEt
E !F
l!
se
i{
H H
5* E;
lx
q E-,' I (t
t-+
t !
5
85
3
g3 ,t;
!l
rtl
I
is:
,t
ij
! dd i
dd
j- E * tl
fl
ilii ;ii
.: ,l ar F rId
: ii
EC
f ii tE
Ei
Figure 19-26 A typical heat leak celculation for a laEe LNG tank - page 2
I
E ,.,,",. i fr .!tE;ft
r
-E
*rttt*r :i;:;;;
gEgEgI 3; l_
li t"
EE,s3;
$g313l3
33 i
3
;
s$ -q E- ir
e
r EHtili gii:- tl ii rI
u ' $ $E ! I .E.liii i
i !
$ =,,!
I lli 'f i
! I
g
"5
3t
g!:
I
I 3
,3 !: ri'
5x s!
33
;e
:
ral l-l ;5 Fl 6 !l"l ' i '
!
E
ffis
9
EEI
*r :;u : i:t
I
att t!
i i i "
ri: :,
8!:
i I t
:
a
I lr I ! f I3
+E E I : ,. E
t:.' :q;9 !i
ii!l'i
t
!
=
r
;
ir! i
*
I
E
Figure 1 9-26 A typical heat leak calcutation for a large LNG tank - page J
g
r EE;E-;E EgIFI:: l5 f fi l;El i
,,. , .,,,. + rt -!ij;Ff i, ii
:
!-
r3:!:!i
!F
a
!
j
-' lEt
l.t -ri
s
T
t
I ;-;
I
E itt
I
E
: iii i
it I
lgql5l
r^
t* !! ;i
tt
6E;: :;:t
"r 5gr;
I
Itr'"t
rrM trrrt
ii
!E! i
rl is
f-t :
I
:
';
g
i
:3
3i*$
I
I
Fl* BEg:
-!
!ls
I
E
FTE
9939:
i:ii
i lxi 6 |
I I t
Figure
page 4
!8
3
"E
i is ;t
I I
I
-5.9
.E
5*E
" i E
":lYtYtl r ss;sss; ! N
Ei3 i* :
{
: E E*f
E
_!Er#Ft 3 i lii t i
* 6 I
l EFi 6
;::;.S srl:t
FC
+e
FJE:.;
t t
:;:*E
gE
ii
:;
P
i! P3 v:
.g
tt 6 lelq: a! g .r t ;3 ei t;.'i c .r 3 I I *s -." > t _E E l'l b ' -i = -n- -r'l ; E' s I tl8lt l lB EF!E ^r qE t -3[ E : iI o s ';6 5l'lE 6l"l -:fr s Y ; IJH l-i 3 E -: B ; A\b EEI i 5 s ti ! I t: - 9 FtdlJ e :lF
I
E cE s ! F Er i; E ! i i 3 Eg E;
l +! :j E
'
E ;' 6 "{ I
d'
!
.p
TE
e+; E -5
$ g 1$iE r i _c a; E
c
i ; E! { i* E! s : i E !.9 ES r ii ii Eg F
;*.
5 {
!b
9 E$;;
Figure
9.26 A typical heat leak calculalion for a large LNG tank - page 5
knks
AE
:>p
ir
E E r'6 FI E"
;-q
E Ef ;E ; $ E FEEE gI g r
gE
;$ ;8
=oo
;
_a
Ei EqE ;
=
.. ;'
g
9ss essr
F B
i4;;
5
i.i : -
*'ee+F :;
eE
.'
i
i
3$i-"
!
a
a
f, o a-dd
Bo s
.E^qq
6
*i
_ P y .. .. B 9 699
-8* ^ri -a 3
--E !.!.i o ll ;'.d Eg x i 3I t. e s i . i i gi i x 3 r i i ! ; i 5 5 i F F E Fg i
tl I-I E I ] tt
96N;
I
P
FF
,'
.3
a5t
-d
i
-d 5i
3q -!3 EE
6<
it*
E:
9r
!i ; E ii
3:"
.i
E
b&
t8
Figura
9.26 A typical heat lek calculation for a large LNG tank - page 6
19
g
a6'
E
EE
8
z z
9E
i! td
4oooo
E
eAEBg
:i
3
E
giE9qEsg
;
s
El EeEsE
5s
f
Ps
g
ii'ln;F :: 55
is -""' i
::
B5;:3 :
tt l-l
O;E iFliFlsFFl+Fl I ],8
3
*t
g
"s9 aE.!
lil $ i ]
I
&
I
,l-
tt 'Eg E5
Ed E;
HEffiffi
I ll?iX "s. r;di ;;;;r
:; : s-o
llE
t :tE !ET
3
riEie$t$$3 -Et
.6!
rE E*
Sigl!33339
tl
9r
.j
qi
Figure 1 9.26 A typical heat leak calculation for a large LNG tank - page 7
! 6E
;-s 9d
!
E;>>===
T9
.^o
{i 6lF !tF
vx =n
9:iE
6j!
d7:gq
et ;_EF
-d6 PF :-s.n
UPS
E;E! ;.s1
F6dotsiF
E* :*a
"qEg'::PF
Figufe 19.26 A typ cal heat leak calculation for a Lafge LNG tank - page
I
408 STORAGE TANKS & EQUIPMENT
19
:s capacity and was damaged as described. The investigation :ound that the partiallyfilled tank had a higher natural frequency
. . .
Exposed to frequent waterfall events, due to concentrated rainfall from the roof and shell. Complications to detailed design caused by holding-down anchors.
:han the fuller tank and was thus more susceptible to damage iom the blasfinduced ground motions. -lhe lesson from this incident is clearly that any blasting on the same, or adjacentsites should be avoided, and ifthis is not possible, then detailed investigations should be carried out to deiermine the susceptibility of tanks with brittle base insulation naierials to damage.
19.1 1.4
Perlite settlement
. . .
Lack of, or inadequate, or ineffective vibration ofthe perlite during its site expansion and insiallation. The provision of insufficient hoppervolume atthe top corner
of the tank.
On at least one occasion, the location of a large diesel-powered generatoradjacentto the tank following perlite installa-
Higher than anticipated heat in leak and consequent product Soiloff, the appearance of external condensation orofice spots or (in at least one case) sudden failure and collapse ofallor part of the shell insulation are the usual signs.
tion.
The use of experienced perlite installation companies using ap-
The lesson here is that the external vapour seal and its
ong-term abilityto keep atmospheric moisture out ofthe insulation material is viialto the survival ofthe insulation system. Corr.ect material selection, sDecification and installation are all aclivities, which will help to ensure that the required performance and service life are obtained.
propriate methods and equipment will help to avoid this problem and its solution, expensive in service topping up of the perlite.
19.12 References
Research into the structural integrity of LNG tanks, D. Neville and G. White, British Gas Engineering Research Station. LNG 9. October 1989.
The lnternational Heating and Ventilating Guide, Chartered Institution of Building Services.
fhe
J.G.
. .
19.5
Damage to base ofLNG tanks from blast loadings - A case study, R. Tinawi, A. Filiatrank, C Dor6, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. Vol 7. No 3. Auqust 1993.