A Quick Approach to Reactor Vent Sizing

A quick and simple approach, permitting reactor-vent sizing for runaway chemical reactions under their own vapor pressure.
Hans K. Fauske, Fauske & Associates, Inc., Burr Ridge, IL 60521

A prerequisite for assuring a safe emergency relief system (ERS) design for conditions involving runaway chemical reactions and storage vessels is the necessity for considering the possible occurrence of liquid carryover in the relief line. Generally speaking, the presence of two-phase flow at the peak venting requirement will increase the vent line requirement relative to all gas venting. [1] Gas Disengagement The liquid and gas motion inside a reaction or storage vessel during pressure relief is an extremely complex hydrodynamic problem. The question of gas venting versus liquid-gas venting depends primarily upon the prevailing flow regime, i.e., bubbly and/or foamy, churn turbulent, or droplet flows. The bubbly and/or foamy regimes are indicative of relatively little gas disengagement and, for typical production vessels, can be approximated by treating the vessel content as a single fluid, i.e., the liquid-gas phase ratio entering the vent line can be approximated by the average vessel quality. In contrast, for the churn turbulent or droplet flow regimes, significant gas disengagement is possible, i.e., the liquidgas phase ratio entering the relief device can differ substantially from the average quality [2]. While a reliable first order estimate of significant gas disengagement in connection with depressurization of simple systems, i.e., pure one-component systems such as water, and various organic liquids is now possible [3], we should not expect to be able to be precise in our description of these phenomena for chemical reacting systems or, for that matter, any system where trace quantities of contaminants may be present. Attempting to generalize and to differentiate between disengagement and homogeneous behavior for such systems appears to be a hopeless task, particularly since our experience shows that the form and degree of bubbly and/or foamy behavior are highly dependent on the particular system properties and minute quantities of impurities. Unless flow regime characterization data are available for a given

system under prototypic runaway relief conditions, a homogeneous liquid-gas mixture entering the vent line at the peak venting requirement must be considered in order to assure a safe emergency relief design. In fact, for a majority of cases our experience suggests that this assumption is quite realistic [4]. Gas-Liquid Flow The gas and liquid can generally be assumed to be well mixed as the two-phase mixture enters the relief line and, for purposes of estimating the flow, the mixture can be treated as homogeneous. In cases where the flow is the dependent variable and the flow length is sufficient to allow flashing to approach equilibrium conditions (~100 mm), the use of the homogeneous equilibrium model is substantiated by a large body of data [5]. Furthermore, in the equilibrium regime, the flashing flow remains relatively insensitive to large variation in the length-todiameter ratio as long as the flow remains in the turbulent regime. Based upon these general observations, a simple design method is outlined below, considering systems under only their own vapor pressure. DESIGN METHOD For systems where the total pressure is the system vapor pressure, effective tempering of the chemical reaction may be provided early in the venting due to cooling associated with latent heat of vaporization. If the venting requirements do not become more severe as a result of depleting such exotherm-controlling volatiles, consideration of modest overpressures during the venting has the effect of substantially reducing the vent size relative to a no overpressure situation [2]. Based upon the guidelines summarized in the introduction, the following simple design method is suggested for overpressures (P) in the range of 10 to 30%,

A complete thermal history of the runaway reaction is generally required to establish the most stringent relief requirements.

A=

V G t v

(1)

where V is the reactor volume, is the density of the reactants, and G is the flashing critical flow rate given by G~ P T T C
1/ 2

(2)

where T is the temperature rise corresponding to the overpressure, P, T is the temperature, C is the specific heat, and tv is the venting time given by t ~ T C qs (3)

where qs is the energy release rate at the set pressure of the relief system. Combining equations (1-3), we obtain the following simple expression for the vent area A = V (TC )1/ 2 qs P (4)
Figure 1. Quantification of the FIA chart, based upon 20 psi overpressure. Vent area is simply obtained by specifying the energy release, q, corresponding to the set pressure of the relief system. Water properties ( ~ 1000 kg/m3, C ~ 4.18 kJ/kg-K, and T ~ 373 K) were used as reference in Equation (4).

For a frictionless vent line, Equation (4) predicts a vent size area somewhat less than a factor of 2 larger than that based upon a detailed integral analysis assuming homogeneous vessel behavior and homogeneous equilibrium flashing flow. Since the flashing flow rate, G, is relatively insensitive to large variation of the LD ratio in the turbulent flow regime (generally less than a factor of 2 for L/D up to 400), it follows that Equation (4) can provide a safe but not overly conservative estimate for most practical vent lines (5-10 cm). In this context, it is interesting to note that Equation (4), to a first order, can readily quantify the often quoted empirical FIA chart [6]. The four FIA reaction categories can be quantified in terms of first order design variables, including the energy-release rate, q, corresponding to the set pressure of the relief system and the allowable overpressure, P. Figure 1 illustrates the quantification for an overpressure of 20 psi (138 kPa). This corresponds to ~20% overpressure for the vessels used in the FIA chart [7].

LITERATURE CITED 1. Fauske, H. K., et al., "Emergency Pressure Relief Systems Associated with Flashing Liquids," Swiss Chem., No. 7/8, 73-78 (1980). Fauske, H. K., M. A. Grolmes, and R. E. Henry, "Emergency Relief Systems-Sizing and Scale-up," Plant/Operations Progress 2, No. 1 (January, 1983). Grolmes, M. A. and H. K. Fauske, "An Evaluation of Incomplete Vapor Phase Separation in Freon 12 Top Vented Depressurization Experiments," Proc. 3rd Multi-Phase Flow and Heat Transfer Symposium-Workshop, Miami Beach, Florida, April 18-20, 1983. Fauske, H. K., "Multi-Phase Flow Considerations in Sizing Emergency Relief Systems for Runaway Chemical Reactions," Proc. 3rd Multi-Phase Flow and Heat Transfer Symposium-Workshop, Miami Beach, Florida, April 18-20, 1983. Fauske, H. K., "Scale-Up for Safety Relief of Runaway Reactions," Plant/Operations Progress 3, No. 1 (January, 1984). Sestak, E. J., "Eng. Bulletin N-53," Fact Ins. Assn. Hartford, Connecticut, Prepared by W. H. Doyle and R. F. Schwab, (1965). Duxbury, H. A., "The Sizing of Relief Systems for Polymerization Reactors," The Chemical Engineer (January, 1980).

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Plant/Operations Progress (Vol. 3, No. 3)

July, 1984