GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

API Standard 521 New Alternative Method to Evaluate Fire Relief for Pressure Relief Device Sizing and Depressuring System Design

Edward Zamejc EZ Relief Systems Consulting, Inc. 4110 Pine Blossom Trail Houston, TX, 77059 edzamejc@ezreliefsystems.com

Copyright EZ Relief Systems Consulting, Inc.

Prepared for Presentation at American Institute of Chemical Engineers 2013 Spring Meeting 9th Global Congress on Process Safety San Antonio, Texas April 28 May 1, 2013 UNPUBLISHED

AIChE shall not be responsible for statements or opinions contained in papers or printed in its publications

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

API Standard 521 New Alternative Method to Evaluate Fire Relief for Pressure Relief Device Sizing and Depressuring System Design

Edward Zamejc EZ Relief Systems Consulting, Inc. 4110 Pine Blossom Trail Houston, TX, 77059 edzamejc@ezreliefsystems.com Keywords: pool fire exposure; fire relief sizing; fire heat input; depressuring systems; pool fire tests; over-temperature failure

Abstract
Since the 1950s, API Standards have provided guidance on determining relief loads for equipment exposed to pool fires. The API method is empirical based on tests performed in the 1940s. There is increasingly widespread interest in analytical methods based on heat transfer principles to model fire heat input. The API committee agreed to include an analytical method in the next edition of API Standard 521 to establish relief loads for pressure relief devices and to design depressuring systems for the fire scenario. The analytical method provides more flexibility than the empirical method but has limitations (e.g., too many permutations are possible leading to potential under-sizing of the pressure relief device). This paper discusses the basis for the empirical method in API Standard 521 and provides comparisons of the empirical and analytical method with two more recent large-scale pool fire tests. This pool fire test data indicates that the empirical method will provide a conservative estimate of pool fire heat input for most applications and is still the method of choice when designing pressure relief systems. However, these recent tests indicate the empirical method needs to be modified when a vessel or equipment is partially confined 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 profiles for heating unwetted vessels of varying wall thicknesses and materials of construction. These profiles can be combined with tensile strength and stress-rupture data to specify a depressuring systems pressure-versus-time profile; this will minimize failure and/or mitigate the effects of failure due to overheating from a pool or jet fire exposure..

1. Introduction
American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 521 Pressure Relieving and Depressuring Systems is an internationally recognized engineering standard used to design pressure relief

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

systems, disposal systems (e.g., flares), and depressuring systems [1]. It is continually being reviewed, with new editions published in about 5-year intervals. A technical committee consisting of industry representatives, engineering contractors, and regulators recommend and integrate modifications into the Standard. These modifications involve lessons-learned from incidents or near-misses, advances in engineering methodologies, and new guidance based on shared experiences of the members or inspired by technical inquiries. The upcoming API 521 6th edition (to-be-published) will include an analytical method to establish relief loads for pressure relief devices and to design depressuring systems for the fire scenario. The analytical method will complement, but not replace, the existing empirical method. It is important to establish the scope of API 521 and differentiate it from API 2000 [2]. API 521 covers pressure vessels and processing equipment (e.g., vessels design in accordance with ASME Section VIII, Division 1 [3] and other pressure vessel design codes). In contrast, API 2000 covers low pressure, atmospheric, and refrigerated storage tanks designed in accordance with storage tank standards such as API 650 [4]. The current pool fire heat input equations in API 2000 are the same as those in NFPA 30 [4]. They were established in a 1963 meeting between API and NFPA and are based on a fire test and experience with storage tank fires. Because the origin/basis of API 521 and API 2000 fire equations are different and the scope of the equipment design codes are different, the fire exposure guidance API 521 and API 2000 can neither be interchanged nor compared (i.e., use API 521 for pressure vessels and API 2000 for storage tanks). The subsequent discussion relates only to API 521.

2. Fire Scenario - API Empirical Method

2.1 Basis of the API empirical method to evaluate pool fires

The fire scenario generates the most technical inquiries of any topic in API 521. The current method, shown in Equations 1 and 2, is an empirical method based on fire tests performed in the 1940s. With adequate drainage and prompt firefighting: Q = C1F A ws0.82
[Eq. 1]

Without adequate drainage and prompt firefighting: Q = C2F A ws0.82 Where:

Q C1 C2 is the total heat absorption (input) to the wetted surface, expressed in W (Btu/h); is a constant [= 43,200 in SI units (21,000 in USC units)]; is a constant [= 70,900 in SI units (34,500 in USC units)]. [Eq. 2]

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

F is an environment factor;

A ws is the total wetted surface, expressed in square metres (square feet). Note: the SI equation constants include a conversion factor for (Aws)0.82.

The origin of the empirical method can be traced back to the 1950s, when the API Pressure Relief Systems (PRS) technical committee analyzed the available pool fire test data and developed empirical equations to determine the pool fire heat input to a vessel. This heat input could then be used to calculate the fire relief load by dividing by the heat of vaporization. These empirical equations include the: Maximum fire heat input (i.e., maximum heat flux absorbed by the vessel and its contents) Effect of wetted surface area of the vessel or equipment (i.e., area of the equipment in contact with liquid or below liquid level) on fire heat input Effect of drainage (i.e., whether the pool fire is under the vessel) on fire heat input

The maximum fire heat input into a vessel is sometimes confused with the flame surface heat flux (i.e., pool fire heat duty divided by flame surface area) and the incident heat flux at a vessel exposed to the fire. The incident heat flux excludes reduction in heat flux due to the absorptivity of the vessel and re-radiation from the vessel. Based on plotting hydrocarbon pool fire test data (see Figure 1), the maximum heat input into the vessel was determined by the API committee to be 34,500 BTU/h-ft2 (see constant C2 in Equation 2). This maximum heat input would occur when the wetted surfaces of the vessel are completely and continuously exposed to flame. Figure 1. Pool fire heat input versus wetted area exposure

Heat Flux to Wetted Area (BTU/ft2-hr)

40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 % Observed Exposure of Wetted Area

Test data sources: a) API project test No. 1, b) API project test No. 2, c) Rubber Reserve Corporation test No. 17, d) Standard Oil Company of California, e) Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (See Reference [1] Table A-1).

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Outdoor pool fires are easily influenced by even relatively calm wind conditions; wind causes flames to move around, thereby only intermittently exposing surfaces of larger vessels to the highest incident heat flux. To determine the effect of vessel wetted area, the API Committee plotted the total heat input versus the wetted area from several pool fire tests and an actual pool fire [Table A.1 in Ref.1]. The results, shown in Figure 2, indicate the heat input correlates with a 0.82 exponent on the wetted area (Aws). It should be noted that, per convention, the heat input across only the wetted surfaces of vessels containing a liquid that can boil is considered when designing pressure relief systems for the fire scenario using the empirical method. The effect of heating unwetted surfaces and gas-filled vessels is discussed later in this article. Figure 2. API 521 Table A.1 fire tests - Wetted area versus fire heat input
10000

Wetted Area (ft2)

1000

100

10

1 10000

100000

1000000 Fire Heat Input (BTU/hr)

10000000

100000000

Table A1 Test Data

Q=34500Aw^0.82

Data sources: all tests shown in Reference [1] Table A-1 as well as the actual plant fire involving a 38 butane sphere.

The effect of drainage was determined from Hottels pool fire test data (see Reference 1, Table A.1, Test 1 and Test 2). Test 1 actually consists of the average of 31 tests without either drainage or firefighting. Test 2 consists of the average of 8 tests with drainage and 5 tests with both drainage and firefighting. The ratio for the pool fire heat input from Test 2 to Test 1 (no drainage nor firefighting) is 17,400 / 30,500 = 0.6. Hence, the maximum pool fire heat input to vessels with adequate drainage and firefighting is 34,500 * 0.6 = 21,000 BTU/h-ft2 (see constant C1 in Equation 1). Hottels test data from Reference 6, shown in Table 1, suggest that drainage alone (no firefighting) has a comparable reduction in heat input.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Table 1. Hottel pool fire test data showing effect of drainage with and without firefighting [6] Average heat input, BTU/ h-ft2 (1) 22,862 30,081 9,819 19,517 21,707 26,953 2,166 16,436 6,594 9,337 14,535 25,028 20,672 17,362 18,693 15,233

Run Drainage 10 Yes 11 Yes 12 Yes 13 Yes 14 Yes 15 Yes 17 Yes 19 Yes 18 Yes 22 Yes 23 Yes 24 Yes 25 Yes

Firefighting None None None None None None None None Chemical foam for 30 sec. then mechanical foam Chemical foam for 30 sec. then mechanical foam Chemical foam for 30 sec. then mechanical foam Chemical foam for 30 sec. then mechanical foam Chemical foam for 30 sec. then mechanical foam Average for all tests Average for tests with drainage, but no firefighting Average for tests with both drainage and firefighting

(1) Heat input into wetted surface area

The remaining parameter of the empirical method, designated F, is the environment factor which credits for adequate fireproofing (See Reference 1). The 6th edition will have an expanded expression to account for multi-layer fireproofing. 2.2 Limitations of the API empirical method to evaluate fires

There are two types of fires relevant to pressure relief and depressuring system design pool fire and jet fire. A pool fire is defined as a burning pool of liquid. A jet fire is a fire created when a leak from a pressurized system ignites and forms a burning jet. A pool fire can be classified as an open pool fire, a confined pool fire, or somewhere in between. A confined pool fire is defined as a fire inside a building or a compact process module where the walls and/or surrounding equipment can reradiate and preheat the combustion air causing higher heat fluxes than an unconfined (i.e., open) fire. Generally only pool fires are considered when designing pressure relief systems while both pool fires and jet fires are often considered when designing depressuring systems. Typical ranges for peak fire heat intensity (i.e., incident heat flux) are [7]: Open pool fire 16,000 to 48,000 Btu/h ft2 (50 to 150 kW/m2) Confined pool fire 32,000 to 79,000 Btu/h ft2 (100 to 250 kW/m2) Jet fire 32,000 to 127,000 Btu/h ft2 (100 to 400 kW/m2)

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

These peak fire intensities generally correspond to locations within the fire where the stoichiometric fuel-to-air ratio is equal to one. Because of the effects of ventilation (e.g., wind effects and confinement), fuel type, fuel-air stoichiometry and other factors, the peak fire heat intensity is generally only observed in localized parts of the flame volume. Most of the flame volume has significantly lower fire intensities than the peak. Pressure relief systems designed for fire exposure require a total heat input into the relevant surfaces (e.g., wetted areas) using an averaged fire heat flux. In these cases, the fire heat intensity should be averaged across the entire flame volume. This average is designated as the surface average heat flux. In contrast, when designing depressuring systems, the peak fire heat intensity (designated as the local peat heat flux) is important because localized overheating in a small area can result in equipment failure due to overheating. It should be noted that API 521 5th and prior editions provide design guidance for pressure relief and depressuring systems only for open pool fires. Also, the 34,500 Btu/hft2 maximum fire heat input used in the API empirical method includes the vessel absorptivity, which can reduce the incident heat flux by 20-70%.

3. Analytical method to evaluate fires

Several authors recommended using an analytical method to model the fire scenario to overcome limitations with the empirical method and to provide more flexibility in modeling (e.g. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]). Because these methods are becoming more widely used, the API 521 committee agreed to incorporate the analytical method as an alternative to the empirical method and to include guidance on its application. The empirical method will still be recommended as the preferred method to evaluate most fire scenarios involving pressure relief system design with the analytical method preferred for special cases and fires outside the scope of the empirical method. The analytical method to evaluate fires is a basic heat transfer as shown in Equation 3. The method determines the fire heat input to a vessel and conservatively ignores internal heat transfer limitations. It can be applied to all types of fires including open pool fires, confined pool fires, and jet fires. The proposed typical ranges in the parameters are given in Table 2 for the surface average heat flux for pool fires. Recommended values, which should be used where data or other resources are unavailable, will be given in the API 521 6th Edition. API 521 6th edition will also provide typical values of parameters for the local peak heat flux of pool fires and for the local peak and surface average heat fluxes for jet fires.
4 q absorbed = surface fire T fire

4 surface Tsurface + h (Tgas Tsurface )

[Eq. 3]

Where:
q absorbed surface

is the absorbed heat flux from the fire, expressed in Btu/hft2 (W/ m2); is the Stefan-Boltzmann's constant = 0.1713e-8 Btu/hft2R4 (5.67e-8 W/ m2K4); is the equipment absorptivity, dimensionless;

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

fire surface Tfire Tsurface Tgas h

is the fire emissivity, dimensionless; is the equipment emissivity, dimensionless; is the fire temperature, expressed in R (K); is the equipment temperature, expressed in R (K); is the temperature of air\fire in contact with the equipment surface, expressed in R (K); is the convection heat transfer coefficient of air\fire in contact the equipment, Btu/hft2R (W/m2K);

surface fire T4fire is the radiative heat flux to the equipment; surface T4surface h (Tgas - Tsurface)

is the re-radiation from the equipment; is the convection heat transfer between the combustion gases and the equipments surface

Caution must be taken when specifying the parameters because a wide range in fire 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. Table 2 Typical range in analytical method (Equation 3) parameters for an open pool fire surface average heat flux
Parameter fire surface surface h Description Hydrocarbon flame emissivity Equipment emissivity Equipment absorptivity Convective heat coefficient between and surrounding air transfer equipment Pool fire Surface Average Heat Flux Parameter Range 0.6 1.0 0.3 - 0.8 0.3 - 0.8 1.76 - 5.28 Btu/hft2R
2 (10 - 30 W/m K)

Tgas Tfire Tsurface qfire qabsorbed

Temperature of combustion gases flowing over the surface Fire temperature Equipment temperature Boltzmann's constant Fire heat flux a wider range is possible Absorbed heat flux at start of the fire

1 392 2,112 R 773 1,173 K 1,572 2,292 R 873 1 273 K

(932 1,652 F) (500 900 C) (1,112 1,832 F) (600 1 000 C)

Increases as surface heats up 0.1713e-8 Btu/hft2R (5.67e-8 W/m K

2 4) 4

9,510 31,700 Btu/hft2

2 (30 - 100 kW/m )

7,925 23,775 Btu/hft2 (25 - 75 kW/m )

2

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

4. Application of the analytical method to model recent pool fire tests

4.1 Use of the analytical method to model the Ballistics Research Laboratory (BRL) pool fire test wall temperature versus time In 1974, a pool fire test was performed by the Ballistics Research Laboratory [13]. A 33,000 gallon (125 m3) LPG tank car was exposed to a semi-enclosed pool fire where the pool fire and tank car were located in a pit, with embankments on all sides exceeding the tank car height (no roof). Fire and wall temperatures versus time at the top of the front and rear walls of the tank car are shown in Figures 3a and 3b, respectively. The analytical method (Equation 3) was used in an attempt to reproduce the wall temperature versus time. Values for the variables were adjusted until the calculated time-temperature profile was approximated. The parameters selected to model tank car rear wall temperature versus time at several locations are:
fire surface surface h Tgas Tfire Tsurface qfire qabsorbed = 0.62 (determined by BRL) = 0.5 = 0.5 = 1.76 Btu/hft2R (10 W/m2-K) = 2,112 R (1,652 F) 1,173 K (900 C) = 2,112 R (1,652 F) 1,173 K (900 C) = Initially @ 529 R (69 F) 294 K (21 C) = Maximum of 16,700 Btu/hft2 (52.7 kW/m2) (calculated) = Maximum of 9,560 Btu/hft2 (30.2 kW/m2) (calculated)

qfire was calculated by setting surface = 0, surface = 1. The maximum absorbed heat flux is predicted by the analytical model to occur at the start of fire when the equipment is at ambient temperature. A similar set of values was used to predict the front wall temperature versus time with the exception that the fire and gas temperature was set at 1,472 F (900 C). Other combinations of values in the analytical model can be used that may provide an equal or better fit to the test data. Note that, because the vessel was engulfed in the pool fire, the gas temperature should be set equal to the fire temperature. The gas temperature will be lower than the fire temperature for non-engulfing pool fires. Also, the fire and gas temperatures were assumed to be constant throughout the pool fire.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Figure 3a. Ballistics Research Laboratory pool fire test data illustrating fire temperature versus time at the top of the front and rear walls of a rail tank car

Figure 3b. Ballistics Research Laboratory pool fire test data illustrating rail tank car wall temperature versus time at the top of the front and rear walls

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

A comparison of the analytical model with the wall temperatures recorded during the test is shown in Figure 4. The analytical method provides a reasonable approximation to the observed rear wall temperature versus time. The leveling off of the front wall temperature at about 800 F (425 C) as observed in the test cannot be approximated with a single set of parameters, indicating that one or more parameters changed during the course of the fire. Once the temperature versus time profile is approximated by the analytical method, then the resultant vessel heat input (i.e., qabsorbed) can be determined. The analytical method will indicate the maximum heat input is at the start of the pool fire unless parameters change during the course of the fire. Figure 4. Comparison of rail tank car wall temperature versus time between the analytical model and Ballistics Research Laboratory pool fire test data

1200 Wall temperature (deg F) 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 5 10 15 Time (min) 20 25 30

Analytical model - rear wall

Fire test data - rear wall

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

4.2 Use of the analytical method to model the Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing (BAM) pool fire test [14][15] wall temperature versus time In 1999, a full scale pool fire test was performed by the Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing (BAM or Bundesanstalt fr Materialforschung und -prfung) in Germany [14] [15]. The test evaluated and compared fire exposure effects on a rail tank car containing propane and a Castor car used to transport radioactive material. The test setup is shown in Figures 5 and 6. Although the tank car was semi-confined by embankments on 3 sides, a light to calm northerly wind was still able to significantly affect the pool fire exposure of the tank car as shown in Figure 7. The tank car maximum pressure reached 25 bar (362 psig) about 15 minutes after the start of the pool fire at which time the tank car ruptured, resulting in a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE). The BLEVE aftermath is shown in Figure 8. Pool fire flame/gas and tank car wall temperatures versus time at the various locations around the tank car, as shown in Figure 9, are illustrated in Figures 10 and 11, respectively. It is important to note that failure occurred before the pressure reached the pressure relief device opening pressure. A discussion of this failure as it relates to depressuring system design is given in Section 6.3.

Figure 5. BAM pool fire test setup involving propane rail tank car [14] [15]

Embankment dimensions: 60 x 50 x 6 meters (197 x 164 x 20 ft) Tank car capacity = 12,000 gallons (45.36 m3) T-T length = 5.95 m; (19.5 ft) Diameter = 2.9 m (9.5 ft) Tank car test pressure = 28 bar (406 psia) Tank car contained liquid propane Fuel oil pool fire in troughs under the tank car and Castor container Castor container is used to store and transport radioactive materials and was tested along with the tank car

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Figure 6. BAM pool fire test setup involving propane rail tank car [14] [15]

Figure 7. BAM pool fire test [14] [15]

Note: taken near end of test (calm wind speed).

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Figure 8. BAM pool fire test BLEVE aftermath [14] [15]

Figure 9. BAM pool fire test Temperatures measurement locations [14] [15]

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Figure 10. BAM pool fire test Fire temperatures versus time [14] [15]

Note 1: Time = 0 is when gasoline starter fluid in a small plastic container was ignited. The main pool fire started about 100 seconds later when the plastic container failed and spilled burning gasoline into the fuel oil pool. Note 2: The unmarked temperature curves were primarily in the front of the tank car (upwind location and without an adjacent embankment).

Figure 11. BAM pool fire test Tank car wall temperatures versus time [14] [15]

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Because of the wide pool fire and wall temperature ranges shown in Figures 10 and 11, a single set of values for the parameters in the analytical method would not predict all variations. Table 3 illustrates parameters selected to model tank car wall temperature versus time at two locations. Other combinations of values in the analytical model can be used that may provide an equal or better fit to the test data. It should be noted that a transient approach to the analytical method, where the fire and gas temperatures were varied with time based on the test data shown in Figure 10, was evaluated; however, did not appear to significantly improve the fit with the test data. A comparison of the analytical model with the wall temperatures recorded during the test, shown in Figure 12, indicates the analytical method can provide reasonable approximations to wall temperatures versus time. Table 3. Analytical method parameters used to model tank car wall temperature versus time at two locations of the BAM pool fire test tank car Parameter Rear Center Front Right 482 (250) 482 (250) 5.28 (20) 0.6 0.4 0.4

Fire temperature, F (C) 1832 (1000) Gas temperature, F (C) 1832 (1000) Convective heat transfer Coefficient, BTU/h-ft2-R (w/M2-K) 5.28 (20) Fire emissivity 0.6 Metal emissivity 0.5 Metal absorptivity 0.5 The following were calculated using the values above: Calculated initial incident heat flux, BTU/h-ft2 (kW/m2) 34,570 (109.0) Calculated maximum absorbed heat 20,321 (64.1) flux, BTU/h-ft2 (kW/m2)

2,260 (7.1) 1,721 (5.4)

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Figure 12. Comparison of rail tank car wall temperature versus time between the analytical model and BAM test data

1200 Wall temperature (deg F) 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 5 10 Time (min) Calculated rear center Calculated front right BAM test rear center BAM test front right 15 20

5. Comparison of the pool fire heat inputs between the empirical method, the analytical method and pool fire test data
5.1 Comparison with pool fire heat input based on BAM time-versus-temperature test data

The pool fire heat input determined by the empirical method and the analytical method can be compared using the BAM pool fire test data. The rail tank car was filled with about 2,650 gallons (10 m3) of 95% liquid propane, resulting in an initial wetted surface area of about 249 ft2 (23.16 m2). The pool fire heat input 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.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Table 4. Pool fire heat inputs using the empirical and analytical method along with BAM fire test data Max Absorbed Heat Flux, BTU/ft2-h Total Heat Input, (kW/m2) Aw Factor BTU/h (kW) % of API Location 6 Analytical - Rear 20,330 5.07x10 center (64.1) 1 (1,485) 159% 6 Analytical - Front 1,720 0.43 x10 right (5.4) 1 (126) 14% 6 Analytical - Rear 15,040 3.75 x10 average (Note 1) (47.41) 1 (1,098) 118% 6 Analytical - Front 4,620 1.15x10 average (Note 1) (14.57) 1 (337) 36% 6 Analytical - Total 9,830 2.45x10 average (30.99) 1 (718) 77% 6 34,500 3.18x10 Empirical method N/A (70.9) (Note 2) 0.82 (933) 100% Note 1: Average of left, center and right locations. Note 2: The API maximum absorbed heat flux has units of BTU/hr/[(ft2)0.82] or kW/[(m2)0.82]. Max Fire Heat Flux, BTU/ft2-h (kW/m2) 34,560 (109) 2,260 (7.1) 24,350 (76.79) 6,650 (20.97) 15,500 (48.88)

5.2

Comparison with pool fire heat input based on BAM fire test liquid sensible heating

Test data on the sensible heating of the propane liquid was obtained during the BAM test. This data can be used as an independent means to determine pool fire heat input during the BAM test. Note that the pressure did not reach the pressure relief device opening pressure prior to rail tank car failure during the BAM test. The test data indicated an average temperature rise of 7.2 F/min (4.48 C/min). Hence, the calculated total heat input due to sensible heating of the liquid is about 3.805x106 BTU/h (1,115 kW). For comparison, the empirical method (assuming inadequate drainage) predicted a total heat input of 3.18 x106 BTU/h (933 kW) per Table 4. This is roughly the same as the analytical approach using only the averaged tank car rear temperature data. A possible reason for these differences is discussed below. Liquid swelling as the liquid heats up would increase wetted surface area; however, the temperature did not increase enough during the test for it to explain the difference between the test data and the empirical and analytical methods. A likely explanation is that the embankment on three sides of the tank car heated up during the fire and caused higher heat fluxes due to reradiation, preheating of combustion air, and enhanced heat transfer. Indeed, the fire should be classified as semi-confined because the height of the embankment walls exceeded the height of the tank car. In such cases, the API 521 empirical method (Equations 1 and 2) does not directly apply. However, the equations can be modified by using a wetted surface area (Aw) exponent of 1.0 instead of 0.82. This would be appropriate in scenarios where the pool fire flames directly

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

and continuously contact all of the wetted surfaces. Applying this to the BAM test rail tank car assuming 50% of the rail tank car is partially confined due to the embankments on three sides results in the Equation 4: Q API modified empirical method = 70,900 * [(Aw confined)1.0 + (Aw open)0.82] Q API = 70,900 * [(11.58)1.0 + (11.58)0.82] = 1.349 x 106 Watts = 4.604 x 106 BTU/h This is a conservative estimate of the total heat input as compared with the 3.805x106 BTU/h (1,115 kW) determined from liquid sensible heating. Based on the test data, the analytical method should use of the rear averaged heat input predicted by the analytical model (i.e., 3.75x106 BTU/h (1,098 kW)) to obtain a reasonable approximation. Where validating data is unavailable, the highest heat input obtained from the analytical model should be used. The fire relief load can be determined by dividing the fire heat input by the heat of vaporization of the fluid at relieving pressure. These results indicate that the API empirical method can be applied to some semi-confined configurations, where adjacent embankments exceed the vessel height, by using a wetted area exponent of 1.0 instead of 0.82 for the portion of the vessel adjacent to the embankment. This would not apply to completely confined situations (e.g., enclosed buildings or structures with a roof) which would require special modeling. [Eq. 4]

5.3

Comparison with pool fire 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 in these methods whereby the relief rate was varied with time to correspond to the decrease in wetted area as fluid is relieved. A comparison of the actual relief rate and that predicted by the empirical and analytical methods is given in Figure 13. Both the empirical and analytical methods predicted a decrease in relief rate with time because the wetted area is decreasing as fluid is relieved. However, the test indicated the relief rate actually increased with time. One explanation that can increase the relief rate versus time is that there was an increase in heat flux with time due to heating of the surroundings. Adjustments to the analytical method were made to account for enhanced heat transfer due to heat-up of the surrounding embankments during the test. Figure 13 illustrates a modified analytical method where the convective heat transfer coefficient and the vessel absorptivity were increased by 20% every 2.5 minutes with a limit of 1.0 for the absorptivity. This should be considered an example of adjustments that can be made to adjust the model to fit test data, but they may not represent actual conditions nor be applicable to other fires. Note that the fire and gas temperature were not adjusted because the data showed the fire temperature to slightly decrease during the test.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Figure 13. Empirical and analytical method calculated relief rates versus BRL test data

45 40 35 Relief Rate, kg/s 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Time (min) BRL Pressure Relief Valve Test Data API Empirical Method Analytical Method - Rear Tank Car Data Analytical Method - Front Tank Car Data Analytical method modified

Instead of modifying the analytical method, the empirical method can be adjusted to account for the apparent increased heat input with time by increasing the exponent on the wetted area versus time. This effect can be illustrated by inserting the heat input determined from the actual relief rate and the wetted area in the empirical method for inadequate drainage; the equation is then solved for the wetted area exponent versus time. The results, shown in Figure 14, indicate the wetted area exponent approaches 1.0 toward the end of the test. This suggests that flame contact with the entire vessel surfaces increases with time. Using a wetted area exponent of 1.0 for the entire vessel (located in a pit with embankments exceeding the vessel height on all sides), with the empirical method, would provide a conservative pressure relief system design.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Figure 14. Empirical method wetted area exponent versus time using BRL test data

20 Time (min)

15

10

0 0.750

0.800

0.850

0.900

0.950

1.000

Wetted Area Exponent

6. Application of the analytical method to depressuring system design

6.1 Effect of overheating unwetted metal plates

Unwetted metal surfaces are not cooled by boiling liquid inside the vessel. Hence, the metal temperature can get high enough such that metals such as carbon steel lose significant strength. Table 5 illustrates the effect of high temperatures on the tensile strength of carbon steel and 304 stainless steel. The loss of strength due to pool or jet fire exposure could exceed the safety factor used in the design of the vessels, thereby resulting in vessel rupture due to overheating, rather than overpressure.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Table 5. High temperature tensile strength of carbon steel and 18-8 stainless steel [16]
18-8 Stainless Steel (304, 304L) Temperature F 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 Temperature C 482 538 593 649 704 760 816 871 53,000 48,500 43,000 35,000 27,000 20,500 17,650 365.4 334.4 296.5 241.3 186.2 141.3 121.7 Tensile Strength psi Tensile Strength MPa Carbon steel (SA515, SA-516) Tensile Strength psi 45,500 36,500 27,200 20,000 13,500 9,025 Tensile Strength MPa 313.7 251.7 187.5 137.9 93.1 62.2

The specific pressure vessel design code and material used will determine the appropriate safety factor to use in the vessel design. For example, the current edition of ASME Section VIII, Division 1 Pressure Vessel Design Code [3] includes a safety factor (now termed design margin) of 3.5 between the tensile strength of the vessel and the allowable stress at room temperature for materials in which the tensile strength governs (e.g., carbon 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 wall, etc.). ASME Section VIII, Division 1, UG-27 [13] provides equations that relate the allowable stress, vessel design pressure and wall thickness. In the case of circumferential stress for a cylindrical shell, the Equation [5] applies if P does not exceed 0.385SE: P = S * E *t /[R + (0.6 * t)] Where: P = internal design pressure, psi E = joint efficiency = 1.0 for full x-ray S = maximum allowable stress value, psi t = minimum thickness of the shell, inches R = inside radius of the shell, inches It should be noted that carbon steel vessels constructed to pre-1999 versions of the ASME Section VIII, Div. 1 code used a safety factor of 4. For example, at room temperature, ASTM A515 Grade 70 carbon steel plate has a tensile strength of 70,000 psi [17;] therefore, the allowable stress will be S = 70,000 / 3.5 = 20,000 psi. [Eq. 5]

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

If a vessel fabricated from this material and designed to this allowable stress is heated to 1,200 F, the tensile strength will decrease to 20,000 psi, as shown in Table 5. In other words, the material strength is reduced to the equivalent of a zero safety factor. Vessel rupture would be a certainty if the pressure then exceeded the design pressure because the loads on the vessel would exceed the 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, temperature 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 designed to reseat at its blowdown pressure and maintain pressure near the 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. 6.2 Depressuring criteria

In order to be effective, the depressuring system needs to depressure at a high enough rate to compensate for the loss of strength as the vessel heats up. The vessel heat up rate is dependent on the type of fire, materials of construction, and wall thickness. API Std. 521 Figure 1 illustrates the heat-up of carbon steel plates of several thicknesses in an open pool fire [1]. One curve (Plate 2) was obtained from pool fire test data while the others were extrapolated based on the test data. Combining these temperature-versus-time curves along with the tensile strength data shown in Table 5 will allow determination of a minimum depressuring rate to keep the pressure below the tensile strength of the vessel. An appropriate safety factor should be considered given the uncertainties. Results, applying a 25% safety factor (i.e., Table 5 tensile strengths were multiplied by 0.75), are shown in Figure 15. The depressuring profile for a specific wall thickness needs to stay to the left of the specific curve shown in Figure 15. Failure will occur if the depressuring profile either intersects or is on the right side of the curve for the thickness in question. As noted in the previous section, failure can occur at even lower pressures, depending upon the amount of additional loads on the vessel. An often used criteria for depressuring is to depressure to 50% of the design pressure in 15 minutes. As shown in Figure 15, this would be appropriate for vessels whose wall thickness is 1 inch or greater. A second criteria often used is to depressure to 100 psig in 15 minutes. This is more conservative and would provide protection for more high pressure equipment exposed to pool fires. The latter criteria would be preferred when protecting against jet fire exposure. The user is cautioned that the design of a depressuring system to protect all equipment in a facility, regardless of size and/or design pressure, would be impractical in most cases. This is because the resultant large depressuring rates would likely require multiple large headers and multiple flares. The user needs to establish a list of large, high pressure equipment and determine which equipment from that list will be protected. A mitigating factor is that there are numerous small connections and piping sections in a unit which are relatively thin walled and likely to rupture in a large fire. Their rupture would provide additional depressuring capacity although there is no defensible way to quantitatively estimate it.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Figure 15. Reduction of carbon steel plate tensile strength versus time due to pool fire exposure
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 5 10 15 20

Maximum Pressure to Avoid Failure (% of design pressure)

Time from Fire Start (minutes) 1/8" (3.2 mm) wall thickness 1/2" (12.7 mm) wall thickness

6.3

Application of the analytical method to depressuring system design

The analytical method can be used to extend the curves in Figure 15 to other wall thicknesses. The analytical method along with the parameters determined in section 6.2, for example, can be set up in a spreadsheet as a transient model in which the wall temperature change with time is calculated. At each time interval, the metal wall mass can be conservatively assumed to absorb all of the heat input, thereby increasing the wall temperature. The effect of wall thickness is accounted by the metal mass. This temperature-versus time profile is then combined with tensile strength data as in Section 6.2. For example, the BAM pool fire test data indicated failure of the rail tank car occurred at rear center wall (in unwetted zone) [14] [15]. Test data further indicated the wall temperature ranged from 1,020 to 1,200F (550 to 650C), but it is possible that local temperatures got even higher because temperature recorded only at a few locations. Failure occurred 15 minutes after the start of the pool fire, or about 10 minutes after the fire temperature reached about 1,832F (1,000C). The rail tank car wall thickness was 0.59 inches (14.9 mm) and the material of construction was assumed to be comparable to carbon steel. The failure pressure of 362 psig (25 bar) was slightly lower than the test pressure of 406 psig (28 bar). The Rear Center parameters were used in the analytical model to predict the time-versus-temperature profile. This was combined with the tensile strength and stress rupture data to obtain the depressuring profile shown in Figure 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 Figure 16. Because the pressure at failure was slightly

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

lower than the test pressure, Figure 16 predicts that failure would occur about 14 minutes after the start of the pool fire, which is a reasonable approximation as failure actually occurred about 15 minutes after the main pool fire started (see Figures 10 and 11). Note the first 2 minutes of the pool fire test is not considered because the fire was localized to a small igniter assembly that did not cause any significant increase in rail tank temperatures. Figure 16. Depressuring profile to minimize failure potential of the rail tank car due to overheating in the BAM pool fire test
100% 90% 80% Maximum Pressure to Avoid Failure (% of Test Pressure) 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0.0 5.0 10.0 Time from Fire Start (minutes) 15.0 20.0

6.4

Effect of material of construction

The material of construction can significantly affect the depressuring requirements. The preceding sections discussed carbon steel vessels. As shown in Table 7, 304 stainless steel is superior to carbon steel regarding high temperature effects on tensile strength. A comparison of the depressuring profiles to minimize the potential for failure of a inch wall thickness carbon steel vessel and a inch wall thickness stainless steel vessel is illustrated in Figure 17. The depressuring system pressure-versus time profile would need to stay to the left of the applicable curve. These results indicate that the depressuring system for the stainless steel vessel would require a significantly lower depressuring rate than for the carbon steel vessel of comparable wall thickness. This method can be extended to other materials provided tensile strength data at high temperature is available.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Figure 17. Depressuring profiles to minimize failure potential of a 0.5 inch wall thickness carbon steel and stainless steel vessel due to overheating

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Maximum Pressure to Avoid Failure (% of design pressure)

Time from Fire Start (minutes)

Carbon steel 1/2" (12.7 mm) wall thickness Stainless steel 1/2" (12.7 mm) wall thickness

7. Conclusions
The increasingly widespread use of analytical methods to evaluate fire exposure of equipment prompted the API Std. 521 committee to include an analytical method in the upcoming 6th edition as an alternative to the existing empirical method. The analytical method provides more flexibility than the empirical method but has limitations (e.g., too many permutations are possible). More recent pool fire test data indicates the empirical method will provide a conservative estimate of pool fire heat input for most applications and is still the method of choice when designing pressure relief systems. However, these recent tests indicate the empirical method needs to be modified when a vessel or equipment is partially confined 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 profiles for heating unwetted vessels of varying wall thicknesses and materials of construction. These profiles can be combined with tensile strength and stress-rupture data to specify a depressuring systems pressure-versus-time profile to minimize failure and/or mitigate the effects of failure due to overheating from a pool or jet fire exposure.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

8. References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] ANSI/API Standard 521, Pressure-relieving and Depressuring systems, 5th Edition, Addendum, April 2008. ANSI/API Standard 2000, "Venting Atmospheric and Low-pressure Storage Tanks", 6TH Edition, November 2009. ASME Section VIII, Division 1, Pressure Vessel Code, 2007 with 2008a Addenda. API Standard 650, "Welded Tanks for Oil Storage", 11th Edition, October 2011. NFPA 30: Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code Personal correspondence from H.C. Hottel to L.W.T. Cummings December 12, 1950. Institute of Petroleum (Energy Institute, Guidelines for the Design and Protection of Pressure Systems to Withstand Severe Fires, March 2003, ISBN 0 85293 279 0 SCANDPOWER, Guidelines for the Protection of Pressurised Systems Exposed to Fire, Report no. 27.207.291/R1 - Version 2, March 31, 2004 Roberts, T. A.; Medonos, S.; Shirvill, L. C., Review of the Response of Pressurised Process Vessels and Equipment to Fire Attack, OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY REPORT, OTO 2000-051, June 2000 Shirvill, L. C., Heat Fluxes in Severe Fires, 2002 presentation to API Pressure Relief Systems Committee Salater, P., Overaa, S. J., Kjensjord, E., "Size Depressurization and Relief Devices for Pressurized Segments Exposed to Fire", Chemical Engineering Progress, September 2002, p38 Salater, P., "Proposed changes to the next revision of API 521", 2006 presentation to API Pressure Relief Systems Committee Anderson, C., Townsend, W., Zook, J. and Cowgill, G., The effects of a fire environment on a rail tank car filled with LPG, FRA-OR&D Report Number 75-31, PB241358, September 1974. Ludwig J. and Heller, W., "Fire test with a propane tank car", BAM Test Report III.2/9907, 1999. Balke, C.; Heller, W., Konersmann, R., Ludwig, J. , "Study of the failure limits of a railway tank car filled with liquefied petroleum gas subjected to an open pool fire test, BAM Final Report September 13, 1999. Wharton, H. R., Digest of Steels for High-Temperature Service, published by Timken Steel, 1946 ASME Section II, Part D, Materials Properties, 2007

[10] [11]

[12] [13]

[14] [15]

[16] [17]