PROTEGO® Braunschweiger Flammenfilter GmbH
Venting of atmospheric and low-pressure storage tanks ISO 28300/API 2000
Simon Maier Regional Manger Europe 7.12.2017
© Braunschweiger Flammenfilter GmbH 2
Agenda
Why conservation vents do not function as Flame Arresters 1
Emission Reduction through breathing loss minimization 2
Storage Tanks with Pressure / Vacuum Relief Valves and Flame Arresters 3
International Standard: Venting of atmospheric and low-pressure storage tanks ISO 28300
EN 14015
Annex L
API 2000
5th edition
TRbF 20
API 2000
6th/7th edition
ISO 28300 Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas
industries – Venting of atmospheric and low-pressure
storage tanks
Background and development of ISO 28300 Standard
• ISO 28300 was mainly developed based on the API 2000 standard 1998 6th Edition, the EN 14015 Standard Annex L and the German TRbF 20
• Contradiction towards the venting requirements for normal venting
• Contradiction towards the use of vents as flame arresters Committee goal: This standard shall consider all state of the art knowledge concerning tank venting and safety and provide best practice to the user
Why conservation vents do not function as flame arresters:
API 2000 5th Edition 1998 (old version not valid any more): A flame arrester is not considered necessary for use in conjunction with a pressure vacuum valve venting to atmosphere because flame speeds are less than vapor velocities across the seat of the pressure vacuum valve TRbF 20 (German standard): Clearly calls for flame arresters for tanks that contain liquids that can create an explosive atmosphere Factory Mutual (Insurance and approval company) Requires installation of flame arresters on tanks which store liquids with a flash point at or below 43 ◦C or on tanks which heat the stored liquid to its flash point
Conclusion for ISO 28300 committee regarding atmospheric explosion protection of storage tanks:
Research work is needed due to contradicting standards and opinions
ISO 16852 shall apply as test standard
Two types of test are needed:
• A) atmospheric deflagration test
• B) continuous burn test
Atmospheric Deflagration - Test set-up
1 ignition source 2 plastic bag Ø 1,2 m, length 2,5m foil
thickness >0,05 mm 3 conservation vent 4 explosion proof container 5 mixture inlet with shut-off valve 6 mixture outlet 7 bursting diaphragm
atmospheric deflagration test of end-of-line flame arrester as described in ISO 16852 part 7.3.2.1.
High Velocity Burning - Test set-up
1 continuous flame 2 pressure vacuum valve 3 explosion proof container 4 mixture inlet 5 bursting diaphragm 7 pilot flame 10 shut-off valve
atmospheric deflagration test of end-of-line flame arrester as described in ISO 16852 part 9.2.
Example Methanol: (ignitable temperature range is within normal storage conditions)
Vapor pressure: 30 kPa LFL: 5.5 vol% UFL: 26.5 vol%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Vapo
r Con
cent
ratio
n in
Vol
.%
Temperature of Liquid Methanol in degree Celcisus
Explosion hazard of Methanol
UFL = 26.5
LFL = 5.5
Ignitable Temperature Range
Recommendation of ISO 28300 regarding explosion prevention:
• Different tank selection • Inert gas blanketing • Flame arresters • Pressure vacuum valves: “Testing has demonstrated that a flame can propagate through a pressure vacuum valve and into the vapour space of the tank. Tests have shown that ignition of a PV's relief stream (possibly due to a lighting strike) can result in a flash back to the PV with enough overpressure to lift the vacuum pallet causing the flame to enter the tank's vapour space. Other tests have shown that under low flow conditions a flame can propagate though the pressure side of the PV, ..”
Emission Reduction through breathing loss minimization (VDI 3479*)
“The Function of the P/V Vent is to keep the vapor space closed during variations in the atmospheric pressure and/or temperature decrease in spite of pertinent
changes of gas volume and pressure, until that time when a technically admissible low or high pressure is reached”
Goal: avoid intake of ambient air and discharge of product/air mixture
* Forschungsbericht 225 “Kohlenwasserstoff – Emissionen aus Festdachtanks – Vergleich von Berechnungsformeln unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der VDI Richtlinie 3479, Hamburg, February 1985
Main influence factor of emission reduction for hydrocarbon vapors
a) Upper and lower set pressure of vents (set pressure & set
vacuum) b) Temperature difference within the vapor space of the tank c) Hydrocarbon concentration of the hydrocarbon/air mixture in the
vapor space (vapor pressure)
Vent valves in acc. to API Standard 2000 with 100% overpressure
Vent Valves with 10% Technology difference from set pressure
(Start open) to opening pressure (full open)
PVRV 100% vs. 10% Lift Tech.
10 mbar 18 mbar
20 mbar
Valve set pressure to be adjusted
Opening pressure
MAWP
Set Pressure and Vacuum needs to be influenced
(design pressure)
PROTEGO® 10% Technology
Function with lifting cover Function without lifting cover
Difference between Full lift and proportional pallet
© Braunschweiger Flammenfilter GmbH 17
© Braunschweiger Flammenfilter GmbH 18
V
pressure
MAWP
Required flow
P set PROTEGO 10% P close PROTEGO 10%
P set 100%
P close 100%
P set N2 blanketing
Design Problem with 100 % overpressure Technology
8 2
0 10
4 6
8 2
0 10
4 6
Operating range 0 to +4.5”WC
Starting to open +4.5”WC
Full flow 5.0”WC
Blow down to +3.1”WC
Operating range 0 to +2.5”WC
Starting to open +2.5”WC Full flow 5.0”WC
Blow down to +1.8”WC
10% 100%
inches of WC inches of WC
10% vs. 100% Technology
9.78
35.84 %
7.44
51.20 %
5.31
65.17 %
4.32
71.68 %
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
Emiss
ion M
assfl
ow (t/
yr) a
nd
% of
Emiss
ion R
educ
tion
1 2 3 4
Calculation Example Fixed Roof Tank with Pressure/Vacuum Vents
100% 40% 10% 0%
Safe protection of storage tanks with Pressure / Vacuum Relief Valves and Flame Arresters
Who knows such an installation?
Many traditional configurations are a safety risk
ISO 16852 requires both flow and flame transmission testing of Pressure Vacuum Relief Valves combined with Flame Arresters but lots of Pressure Vacuum Relief Valves combined with Flame Arresters are not fully tested!
Many traditional configurations are a safety risk
At subsonic flow small pressure losses can impact the lift of a valve pallet quite severely. An increase in the accumulation from set pressure till full-lift is likely.
Many traditional configurations are a safety risk
Placing a Flame Arrester below the Pressure Vacuum Relief Valve leads to: • Additional risk of clogging and hence storage tank collapse • May not be safe if explosions or endurance burning occurs • Flame Arrester element cannot be serviced without losing explosion
mitigation effect • Difficult and lengthy maintenance procedure particularly with larger
sizes
Many traditional configurations are a safety risk
Combining a Flame Arrester with a Pressure Vacuum Relief Valve can lead to reduced flow or even severe chattering in high flow relief scenarios when protection is needed most.
Chattering of combined valve with flame arrester
© Braunschweiger Flammenfilter GmbH 27
© Braunschweiger Flammenfilter GmbH 28
Combined valve with flame arrester
Thank you for the opportunity to present
Excellence in Safety and Evironment
Back up
© Braunschweiger Flammenfilter GmbH 30
Emission reduction with PROTEGO® Over-/Underpressure- Relief Valves
Possible minimum leakage rates (examples) Flange connection Protego Standard ISO 28300 / API 2000 6th edition
over up to bubbles per min cm³/min m³/h bubbles per min cm³/min m³/h 40 25 7,5 0,00045 786 236,6 0,01420
40 100 63 18,9 0,00113 786 236,6 0,01420 100 150 94 28,2 0,00169 786 236,6 0,01420 150 200 125 37,5 0,00225 7866 2360,0 0,14160 200 250 157 47,1 0,00283 7866 2360,0 0,14160 250 300 188 50,4 0,00302 7866 2360,0 0,14160 300 350 220 66,0 0,00396 7866 2360,0 0,14160 350 400 252 75,6 0,00454 7866 2360,0 0,14160 400 500 314 94,2 0,00565 31460 9438,0 0,56628 500 600 376 112,8 0,00677 31460 9438,0 0,56628 600 700 440 132,4 0,00794 31460 9438,0 0,56628
at 90% set pressure at 75% set pressure
PROTEGO - Germany
TÜV-Certified Flow Test Rig
Flow testing of vents according to API 2000/ISO 28300 (TÜV Certified Flow Rig)
1. test medium supply (e.g. blower or fan) 2. calibrated flow measurement device 3. test tank 4. calibrated measuring device for pressure and vacuum 5. (pressure and vacuum measurement may be achieved
with separate instruments) 6. temperature measuring device 7. barometer - measuring device for atmospheric pressure 8. device to be tested 9. pipe-away if fitted 10.atmospheric temperature and dew point measuring
device 11.L = length of connecting pipe (straight pipe nipple)
Emission per cycle (opening to reseating)
overpressure set pressure mass (opening) mass (reseating) total mass total volumembar kg kg kg m³
full lift 10% 20 0,08 0,32 0,40 0,5
modulated 40% 14 0,51 0,66 1,17 1,4
modulated 100% 11 2,31 1,08 3,39 4,1
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
3,00
3,50
10% 40% 100%
reseatingopening
Pset,ERV = 18,2 mbarg Pclose,PV = 11,3 mbarg
Pset,N2 = 10,4 mbarg
Opening pressure versus closing pressure
Example: API 650 / EN 14015 Tank with a design pressure of +20 mbarg
Pclose,ERV = 13,5 mbarg
Pset,PV = 14,9 mbarg
(by using 10% technology)
Popen,PV = 16,4 mbarg
Popen,ERV = 20,0 mbarg
Pset,ERV = 10,0 mbarg Pclose,PV = 3,1 mbarg
Pset,N2 = 2,6 mbarg
Opening pressure versus closing pressure
Example: API 650 / EN 14015 Tank with a design pressure of +20 mbarg
Pclose,ERV = 8,0 mbarg
Pset,PV = 3,8 mbarg
(by using 100% technology)
Popen,PV = 7,6 mbarg
Popen,ERV = 20,0 mbarg
Blow Down needs to be considered when sizing
4
2dF
AFpset ⋅==π
4
2DF
AFpreseat ⋅==π
d D d < D
reseatset pp >
Benchmark Report on Vents (leak rate)
Areas where End-of-Line Endurance Burning is likely to occur
end of line deflagration flame
arrester explosive mixture
filling line
flame arrester
outbreathing of explosive gas/air mixture
burning of explosive ignited gas/air mixture
liquid
vapour Endurance Burning:
maximum thermal stress considering 2 heat transfer mechanisms burning situation (convection problem period 1) no burning situation (conduction problem period 2)
The Challenge of Designing Endurance Burning Flame Arresters
Convective Time Period (vapor flow cooling the filter element is present)
Conductive Time Period ( no cooling through vapor flow)
The Challenge of Designing Endurance Burning Flame Arresters
Endurance Burning: 120min no flame transmission red: combustion side blue: protected side black: protected side Test Gas: Ethylene (NEC Group C Vapor)
Temperature Curve for a Successful Endurance Burning Test
Temperature rise during conductive periode
Case 1: Endurance Burning Tested End of Line Arrester applied with a P/V Vent
Endurance Burning: flame transmission after 9 min red: combustion side blue: protected side black: protected side Test Gas: Hexane (NFPA Group D Vapor)
Enclosing heat from P/V – Vent lead to failure
Case 2: Endurance Burning Tested End of Line Arrester applied with „Goose Neck“
Endurance Burning: flame transmission after 16 min red: combustion side green: protected side Test Gas: Hexane (NFPA Group D Vapor)
Factory Mutual Research Approval Guide
Important Demands from Test Standards like FM and European Test Standard ISO 16852, EN 12874 to Assure Chemical Plant Safety
1. Flame Arrester Companies have to be Audited to assure Quality Production 2. Live Field Tests are documented in Test Report which Shows Exact Test
Conditions (c, p, T) 3. Arresters should only be installed according to Test conditions 4. Be aware what is written in the Standards
Design Considerations to lower the likelihood of misapplication
1. Arrester has to be Safe Goal can be achieved if arrester is tested according to ISO 16852, EN 12874 or
FM standard 2. Misapplication has to be avoided Approval report should be requested from Vendor End Of Line Arrester should only have 1 Flange 3. Easy Maintenance has to be assured Goal can be achieved with hingeable Weather hood Flame arrester Elements should be easily accessible
Design solutions with a positive track record
“Investigation of main application failures proved by life field testing of endurance burning tested end of line flame arresters “
Solution:Combination conservation vent/deflagration arrester with hinged weather-hood for endurance
burning
Often typical misapplication for Endurance Burning Protection: Heat trapped above arrester
results in flashback !
Test and Application Standards (EN 12874, ISO 16852, FM) Demand to apply only tested
configurations
Where Do My Storage Tank Losses Come From ?
Storage Tanks Have to Breath
Why Does A Quality Product Result in Vapor Saving?
Leak rate testing according to API 2521
API calls for leak rate testing at 75% of set pressure
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Tank Pressure oz/sq inch
Leak
rate
[scfh
]Groth
PROTECTOSEAL
PROTEGO
PROTEGO 10%
75 % to set (0.5oz/sqinch)
75 % to set (0.65oz/sqinch)
Point of full open
PROTEGO 6"
PROTEGO 10% 6"
Leak rate testing results company A
company B
Avoid secondary damage from leaking!
Reduce your Explosion Risk from Leaking!
Leak rate testing according to API 2521
API calls for leak rate testing at 75% of set pressure