White Paper

Blowdown Analysis Improvements With the

UniSim® Design Blowdown Utility

Executive Summary

Blowdown, the emergency or planned depressuring of process equipment, is a critical process safety
operation. It may be necessary, in the event of a fire, leak, pipe rupture or other hazardous situation,
as well as for a planned shutdown. Devices such as control valves, relief valves, restriction orifices,
rupture disks, and safety valves transfer the potentially dangerous contents of process equipment to a
safe lower-pressure location, or to the flare system for controlled combustion.

To ensure blowdown can be executed safety and effectively, a number of design concerns must be
addressed. Rapid depressuring and gas expansion can result in very low temperatures, potentially
putting equipment at risk of brittle fracture if the construction material goes below its ductile-brittle
transition temperature. In addition, the entire pressure relief system, including safety valves, relief
orifices, flare piping and knockout drums, must be sufficiently sized to handle the flowrates that occur
during blowdown, in addition to the piping and capacity of the flare system.

For new installations, accurately predicting the minimum vessel wall temperature during blowdown is
important for selecting the appropriate construction material, for helping reduce overdesign and
consequently for lowering project cost. Similarly, having an accurate prediction of the maximum flow
rate during blowdown reduces overdesign associated with the relief valve/network, without
compromising on safety. For existing facilities, blowdown studies can lead to changes in operating
procedures or process equipment material or capacity in order to avoid brittle fracture during
blowdown.

To obtain these predictions, software simulation tools are used to model the depressuring behavior of
process equipment, and support design decisions such as:

• At what rate must gas be released from each equipment item to meet the required
depressuring times?
Blowdown Analysis Improvements With the UniSim® Design Blowdown Utility 2

• What is the required total flare capacity?

• What is the lowest metal temperature experienced in each equipment item and in the flare
system?

• Which low-temperature materials are required?

• What size restriction orifice or other flowrate-controlling device and flare connections are
required for Depressuring in each section of the plant?

Conventional simulation tools, such as the legacy UniSim® Design Depressuring Utility, employ
equilibrium-based calculation methods that rely on a number of assumptions and approximations.
These tools are widely used and they provide acceptable results when used appropriately. However,
they often give rise to overly-conservative predictions, resulting in costly over-design. For example,
specifying stainless steel where carbon steel would have been adequate could double or triple capital
expenditure.

The UniSim Design Blowdown Utility addresses the shortcomings of the legacy Depressuring Utility. It
incorporates a much more rigorous vessel unit operation model based on non-equilibrium
calculations, simultaneous solution of the model equations, and a clear, straightforward, interface to
configure the model. The Blowdown Utility has been extensively validated and tuned against both
proprietary and open-literature experimental data.

This white paper presents the improvements made with the UniSim Design Blowdown Utility and
validates the models against published experimental data.
Blowdown Analysis Improvements With the UniSim® Design Blowdown Utility 3

Table of Contents
The Blowdown Operation .......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Emergency and Planned Depressuring ................................................................................................................................... 4

Construction Material Selection for Low Temperatures ........................................................................................................... 5

Sizing of Relief Valves, Orifices, Piping, and Vessels ............................................................................................................. 5

Connections and Capacity of Flare System ............................................................................................................................. 5

Simulation Tools ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6

UniSim Design Blowdown Utility .............................................................................................................................................. 6

Comparison of Legacy Depressuring Utility and Blowdown Utility Functionality ...................................................................... 9

Dynamics Models & Validation with Experimental Data ....................................................................................................... 10

Model Implementation ........................................................................................................................................................... 10

Model Testing ........................................................................................................................................................................ 10

Model Validation .................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Conclusions and Future Enhancements ................................................................................................................................ 20

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Future Enhancements released in November 2015 .............................................................................................................. 20

References ................................................................................................................................................................................ 21
Blowdown Analysis Improvements With the UniSim® Design Blowdown Utility 4

The Blowdown Operation

Emergency and Planned Depressuring
The term ‘blowdown’ denotes the emergency or planned depressuring of process equipment, such as vessels, heat
exchangers, distillation columns, and compressors, in order to remove combustible hydrocarbons and protect against
excessively high pressures or temperatures. This may be necessary, for example, in the event of a fire, leak, pipe rupture,
or other hazardous situations, as well as for a planned shutdown.

During blowdown, devices such as relief valves, orifices, rupture disks, and safety valves are used to remove the
potentially dangerous contents of process equipment in a controlled manner and transfer them to a safe lower-pressure
location, or burn exhaust gases through the flare system to dispose of them in the environment. Reducing the process
pressures in this way decreases the propensity for leaks and the risk of vessel or pipe rupture. This in turn diminishes the
risk of event escalation with the release of explosive, combustible, or toxic substances.

For the purposes of depressuring, a process plant is typically isolated into a number of independent blowdown segments.
The blowdown of the entire plant will then consist of the simultaneously or sequentialy depressuring all the pressurized
gas (and/or in some cases liquid) in each segment by routing it to a lower-pressure location or to one or more flare tips for
controlled combustion.

A typical example of an independent blowdown segment is a high-pressure separator in an oil and gas separation process
(see Figure 1). During depressuring in the high pressure separator, the vessel’s inlets and outlets (gas, liquid and/or
water) are blocked by closing isolation valves (also called emergency shutdown valves or ESDVs). The gas is directed to
the flare (or vent) system by means of an isolation valve and restriction orifice or through a manual valve. Instead of using
a restriction orifice to set the flowrate, some installations use depressuring valves with a known flow coefficient.

FIG 1. Typical Pressure Vessel.

Blowdown Analysis Improvements With the UniSim® Design Blowdown Utility 5

Although the blowdown process is intended to ensure the safe operation of the plant, it is itself a potentially hazardous
operation, during which a number of concerns arise. The three main factors to consider for the safe design of a pressure
relief and blowdown system are:
• Construction material selection for low temperatures
• Sizing of the relief valves, orifices, piping, and vessels
• Connections and capacity of flare system
These design considerations are discussed in the following sections.

Construction Material Selection for Low Temperatures

During rapid depressuring, auto-refrigeration effects can result in very low fluid temperatures which are then transferred to
pipe or vessel walls, potentially putting them at risk of brittle fracture if the construction material goes below its ductile-
brittle transition temperature. Also, rapid temperature changes lead to non-uniform temperature distributions in pipe and
vessel walls, causing differential expansion and contraction that places further stress on construction materials. For this
reason, it is important to be able to correctly predict the temperatures of piping, valves, and other components, to avoid
metal material cracking in both the process and flare system, with potentially serious consequences. For example, in a
hydrocarbon processing facility, a brittle fracture of a pressure vessel or pipe segment could cause the release of
flammable material, with a significant risk of harm to people and the environment. Similarly, the low temperatures that
occur during blowdown can also pose a threat to the mechanical construction of the flare system. Avoiding these risks
requires the use of materials suited to very low temperatures, which are, however, expensive and difficult to procure.
Accurately predicting blowdown temperatures makes it possible to minimize the use of special low-temperature materials
without compromising safety.
[1]
The 6th edition of the API 521 Guidelines on Pressure Relieving and Depressuring Systems highlight the requirement to
consider the mechanical design and risk of brittle failure of process equipment and piping during depressuring.

Sizing of Relief Valves, Orifices, Piping, and Vessels

To ensure that depressuring can take place safely, rapidly and effectively, all the components of the blowdown system,
including safety valves, relief orifices, flare piping and knockout drums, must be sufficiently sized.

Connections and Capacity of Flare System

The flare system must also be correctly sized to handle the material vented during depressuring, especially peak flow.
During the blowdown operation, a large amount of material must be disposed of simultaneously. It is necessary to ensure
that there is sufficient flare discharge capacity to do this without violating hydraulic constraints in the flare piping, causing
overpressures or excessive vibrations or exceeding radiation limits from the flare tip. It is also necessary to accurately
determine what size of restriction orifices or other flow-controlling devices and flare connections are required for
depressuring each section of the plant.
Blowdown Analysis Improvements With the UniSim® Design Blowdown Utility 6

Simulation Tools
To meet these design challenges involved in the safe design of a blowdown system, calculation and simulation tools are
generally employed. Their purpose is to determine:
• The minimum temperatures that will be experienced throughout the process and pipework metal walls, in order to
select construction materials accordingly.
• The blowdown times and the relief loads entering the flare network.
• Valve sizing, for example the blowdown valve sizes required to achieve pressure reduction within a specified time
or the relief valve sizes to prevent overpressure.
• The temperature of the fluid entering the flare system (which may contain evaporating entrained liquids), in order
to select the appropriate construction material for the flare system tailpipes, sub-headers and headers.
However, the accuracy of these simulation tools may vary significantly depending on the fidelity of the modeling approach
that they employ. Inaccurate simulations pose the risk of either over-designing the system (which unnecessarily elevates
costs) or under-designing the system (potentially making it unsafe).

UniSim Design Blowdown Utility

UniSim Design introduces the Blowdown Utility, which achieves improved fidelity by adopting a modeling approach
th
consistent with the new recommended practices set out in the 6 edition of the API 521 Guide for Pressure Relieving and
[1]
Depressuring Systems . This utility enables engineers to:
• Simulate emergency plant depressuring of process equipment within the UniSim Design flow sheeting
environment.
• Rigorously handle non-equilibrium three-phase (gas, liquid, water) systems.
• Use a wide variety of rigorous thermodynamic models.
• Improve the heat-transfer modeling across metal by incorporating better correlations for heat transfer coefficients.
• Accurately incorporate rigorous formulas for volumes, and for surface and interfacial areas.
• Evaluate different configurations of vessel orientations.
Flowsheeting Environment

The Blowdown Utility can be easily attached to a single stream (or multiple streams combined with a mixer) on the
process flowsheet. This initializes the vessel holdup. The Blowdown Utility is accessed from the Utilities menu in
UniSim Design:

FIG 2. Accessing the Blowdown Utility.

Blowdown Analysis Improvements With the UniSim® Design Blowdown Utility 7

Non-Equilibrium Model Method

A major change in the Blowdown Utility is the adoption of a new, significantly more accurate, holdup model that is able to
represent the non-equilibrium conditions that actually occur during depressuring. To accomplish this, the Blowdown Utility
uses a three-phase non-equilibrium model that divides the vessel into up to three zones, roughly corresponding to: vapor,
liquid and heavy liquid phases. Within each zone, the fluid is in equilibrium, so that vapor bubbles can be formed in the
liquid zones and liquid droplets in the vapor zone. The bubbles then move dynamically to the vapor zone and similarly
droplets move dynamically to the liquid. However, the zones are not in equilibrium with each other, and the holdup model
calculates both mass and energy transfer between the zones. An important part of this model is a rigorous calculation of
the holdup volume, wall surface area and interfacial area. The model predicts how the zone volumes and areas change
dynamically as the phase distribution changes.

FIG 3. Vessel with Three-Phase Non-Equilibrium Model.

Variety of Thermodynamic Packages

Software solutions based on conventional calculations are limited in the number of thermodynamic packages and
components they can use. This is not the case with the Blowdown Utility, which can be used with a wide selection of
thermodynamic property packages.

Heat Transfer/Wall Modeling

The heat transfer/wall model is also considerably more sophisticated than in the legacy UniSim Design Depressuring
Utility and allows for highly accurate calculation of the temperature profile through the walls. Each holdup zone
incorporates heat transfer with the vessel wall, heat transfer with adjacent zones and heat transfer with the environment
through radial heat conduction in the vessel wall and insulation. Both the wall and insulation can each be modeled with up
to two layers. The heat-transfer correlations take into account the phase and conditions of the fluid.
Blowdown Analysis Improvements With the UniSim® Design Blowdown Utility 8

FIG 4. Heat-Transfer for Vessel with Three-Phase Non-Equilibrium Model.

Distributed Flowsheet Model

Conventional analysis adopts a ‘lumping’ approach whereby the entire segment is represented by a single notional vessel,
with wall thickness chosen to approximate the entire metal mass of the original segment. This approach, although useful,
has limitations as real systems are distributed in nature, so that metalwork and fluid temperatures may vary significantly
within the blowdown segment. The next version of Unisim Design with Blowdown Utility due in November 2015 will allow
multi-vessel and interconnecting pipeline design (see Future Enhancements section below).

Vessel Configuration / Geometry

In common with the legacy UniSim Design Depressuring Utility, the Blowdown Utility models a single, horizontally or
vertically oriented, vessel (without a feed stream). The Blowdown Utility supports depressuring through a single outlet on
the top, bottom or side of the vessel. The legacy utility supported simultaneous depressuring through two nozzles,
although in practice this was rarely used. The Blowdown Utility allows the vessel to have no outlet (with the None option),
to simulate the pressurization dynamics of a closed vessel.

FIG 5. Different Vessel Orientations.

Blowdown Analysis Improvements With the UniSim® Design Blowdown Utility 9

In the Blowdown Utility the top and bottom outlet options are truly located in the top and bottom surface of the vessel (in
the legacy utility, by contrast, the top and bottom outlets occupied 5% of the vessel side wall by default). For a Side outlet
the mixture in the outlet nozzle is determined by the proportions of the cross-sectional area of the nozzle covered by the
aqueous, liquid and vapor zones of the vessel. Instead, the legacy model used a linear coverage rule.

As described above, accurate calculation of the interfacial area, as well as the vessel volume and surface area is very
important. For this reason the Blowdown Utility includes a detailed representation of torispherical (dished) vessel heads.
The user can select from a number of predefined head types (e.g. Hemispherical, 2:1 Semi-Elliptical) or supply custom
Dish Radius and Knuckle Radius factors. The legacy utility used a much simpler flat-headed vessel assumption, and
allowed the user to customize the Top Head Area and Bottom Head Area to account for the actual area of a non flat-
ended vessel. This customization is no longer needed in the Blowdown Utility.

Comparison of Legacy Depressuring Utility and Blowdown Utility Functionality

The table below compares the capabilities of the UniSim Design legacy Dynamic Depressuring Utility with those of the
UniSim Design Blowdown Utility:

UniSim Design (Legacy) UniSim Design

Dynamic Depressuring Utility Blowdown Utility
Robustness Fair Good

Ability to Model External Fire Yes Yes

Model Vertical & Horizontal Vessel Orientations Yes Yes

Model Top/Bottom Depressuring Configurations Limited Yes

Interfaces with Spreadsheet Software Yes Yes

Limitations in the Number of Components in
No No
Simulation
Physical Property Package Options Most UniSim Design Options Most UniSim Design Options

User-Friendly Documentation Yes Yes

Rigorous Heat Transfer Model No Yes

Model Multiple Connected Vessels and Piping No No

Tested Against Measurements from Full Scale
Experiments that Include HC Systems with Phase No Yes
Change
Models 3-Phase Systems (Gas, HC Liquid, Water) No Yes

Includes Geometry of Vessel Heads Limited Good

Ability to Model Non-Equilibrium Cases No Yes

Modeling Rigor Limited Good

TABLE 1. Comparison of the legacy UniSim Design Depressuring Utility and the UniSim Design Blowdown Utility.
Blowdown Analysis Improvements With the UniSim® Design Blowdown Utility 10

Dynamics Models & Validation with Experimental Data

Model Implementation
Blowdown dynamics for a number of vessels were modeled using the UniSim Design Blowdown Utility software. The
vessel models covered top and bottom blowdown and a wide range of compositions, vessel orientations and orifice sizes.

It should be emphasized that UniSim Design Blowdown utility contains no adjustable parameters. If all the testing
conditions are described fully, the UniSim Design Blowdown utility is completely predictive.

Model Testing
The dynamic models were subjected to tests that reflected experiments with data available on the public domain
(references 1-6). The results were compared to the experimental data collected from the respective experiments.

The following cases, discussed in this white-paper, are a subset of the cases that were examined:
[2] [3]
• Spadeadam Experiment S12
[2]
• Gas N2 blowdown
[2]
• Gas N2/CO2 blowdown
[2] [4]
• Gas C1/C2/C3/C4 blowdown
[5]
• CO2 Blowdown from Super-Critical Condition
[6]
• CO2 Blowdown from Liquid State
[7]
• Fire Engulfment Test of LPG Tank

Model Validation
Spadeadam Experiment 12

This experiment represents a retrograde condensation, in which condensate forms even though the pressure is dropping
due to Depressuring. The table below summarises the Spadeadam S12 experiment conditions:

Item Value
Composition
CH4 66.5 mol%
C2H6 3.5 mol%
C3H8 30 mol%
Initial Temperature 20 degC (293 degK)
Initial Pressure 120 bara
Vessel
Diameter 1.13 m
Tan-tan Height 2.25 m
Orientation Vertical
Head type torispherical
Wall thickness 59 mm
Orifice Diameter 10 mm
Blowdown From Top
Blowdown Analysis Improvements With the UniSim® Design Blowdown Utility 11

Back Pressure 1.013 bar

Ambient Temperature 20 degC
TABLE 2. Spadeadam S12 Experiment Conditions.

The Blowdown Utility model predictions and the experimental results are displayed below:

FIG 6. Pressure Profile for Spadeadam S12 experiment. FIG 7. Vapour Temperature Profile Spadeadam S12 experiment.

FIG 8. Liquid Temperature Profile for Spadeadam S12 experiment. FIG 9. Wall Temperature Profile Spadeadam S12 experiment.

As can be seen from Figure 6, there is very good agreement in the pressure profile between the model prediction and the
experimental data. Likewise, as it can be seen from Figures 7 and 8, the liquid and vapor temperature profiles are in good
agreement between the model and the experimental data. Finally, as it can be seen in Figure 9, there is also good
agreement in the inner wall temperature profiles for the liquid and vapor zones, between the model and the experimental
data.
Blowdown Analysis Improvements With the UniSim® Design Blowdown Utility 12

Gas N2 blowdown

The table below summarizes the Gas N2 blowdown experiment conditions and the figures that follow, report the validation
test results:

Item Value
Composition
N2 100 mol%
Initial Temperature 20 degC (293 degK)
Initial Pressure 120 bara
Vessel
Diameter 0.273 m
Tan-tan Height 1.524 m
Orientation Vertical
Head type Flat
Wall thickness 25 mm
Orifice Diameter 6.35 mm
Blowdown From Top
Back Pressure 1.013 bar
Ambient Temperature 20 degC
TABLE 3. Gas N2 Blowdown Conditions.

160 300
model
140 280 data, upper
120 data, lower
pressure, bara

model 260
gas temp, K

100
data
80 240
60
220
40
20 200

0 180
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
time, sec time, sec
FIG 10. Pressure Profile for Gas N2 blowdown. FIG 11. Vapour Temperature Profile for Gas N2 blowdown.

It is generally quite easy to predict the pressure profile if orifice diameter is given, as seen in Figure 10. The measured
temperatures vary within the bulk fluid phase and the inside wall, which are denoted as upper and lower to bracket the
data between the upper and lower locations of the vessel, in Figure 11. The model assumes uniform temperature within
each phase and the wall. For the temperatures in Figure 11 & 12, the agreement between the data and the model
prediction, at least in terms of trend, is quite good.
Blowdown Analysis Improvements With the UniSim® Design Blowdown Utility 13

320

310

inside wall temp, K

model
300 data, upper
data, lower
290

280

270

260
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
time, sec
FIG 12. Pressure Profile for Gas N2 blowdown.

Gas N2/CO2 blowdown

The table below summarizes the Gas N2/CO2 blowdown experiment conditions and the figure that follows, reports the
test results:

Item Value
Composition
N2 70 mol%
CO2 30 mol%
Initial Temperature 20 degC (293 degK)
Initial Pressure 150 bara
Vessel
Diameter 0.273 m
Tan-tan Height 1.524 m
Orientation Vertical
Head type Flat
Wall thickness 25 mm
Orifice Diameter 6.35 mm
Blowdown From Top
Back Pressure 1.013 bar
Ambient Temperature 20 degC
TABLE 4. Gas N2/CO2 Blowdown Conditions.
Blowdown Analysis Improvements With the UniSim® Design Blowdown Utility 14

20
model, top
10 model, bottom
0 data, vap
data, liq
-10
fluid temp, C
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
time, sec
FIG 13. Temperature Profile for Gas 70/30 N2/CO2 blowdown.

The presence of CO2 leads to a possibility of liquid condensation or even solid CO2 formation. According to the authors
[2], the fluid temperature at the top of the vessel continued to fall and remained as a gas phase shown as red square
symbols. The temperatures measured near the bottom of the vessel, which was a liquid condensate with orange round
symbols in Figure 13, showed a rise at about 30 sec and then a steady fall. The temperature rise was due to the relatively
warm temperature of the bottom wall of the vessel initially. While some evaporation may have occurred, more condensate
was formed from the upper part of the vessel due to expansion. Eventually the liquid temperature would continue falling
due to evaporative cooling. The model follows the gas temperature data very well until about 50 sec, where solid CO2
may have appeared. The current UniSim Design Blowdown Utility does not consider formation of the solid phases. As a
consequence, the predicted temperatures deviate from the data. From Figure 13, the gas temperature prediction is very
accurate up to slightly beyond CO2 triple point (5.2 bar, -57C). Therefore, based on thermodynamic calculations, UniSim
Design would predict a possible solid CO2 formation at about 40 or 50 sec.

The liquid temperature prediction is also very good until about 30 sec, after which the model misses the increase of the
temperature.

Gas C1/C2/C3/C4 Blowdown

The table below summarises the Gas C1/C2/C3/C4 blowdown experiment conditions and the figures that follow, provide
the test results:

Item Value
Composition
CH4 64 mol%
C2H6 6 mol%
C3H8 28 mol%
C4H10 2 mol%
Initial Temperature 20 degC (293 degK)
Initial Pressure 120 bara
Vessel
Diameter 1.13 m
 Blowdown Analysis Improvements With the UniSim® Design Blowdown Utility 15

Tan-tan Height 2.25 m

Orientation Vertical
Head type torispherical
Wall thickness 59 mm
Orifice Diameter 10 mm
Blowdown From Top
Back Pressure 1.013 bar
Ambient Temperature 20 degC
TABLE 5. Gas C1/C2/C3/C4 blowdown Conditions.

140 300
UniSim model
UniSim model 290 data, upper
120
data, lower
data 280
100 legacy model
pressure, bara

vapor temp, K
legacy model 270
80
260
60
250
40 240
20 230
0 220
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
time, sec time, sec
FIG 14. Pressure Profile for Natural Gas blowdown. FIG 15. Vapour Temperature for Natural Gas blowdown.

300 300

290 290
inside wall temp, K

model data
280 280
liquid temp, K

270 270
model lower
260 260 model upper
data, upper
250 250
data, lower
240 240
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
time, sec time, sec
FIG 16. Liquid Temperature for Natural Gas blowdown. FIG 17. Inner Wall Temperature for Natural Gas blowdown.

Figure 14 shows that both UniSim Design Blowdown and Depressuring (Legacy) models can track the experimental
pressure easily. For the vapor temperature in Figure 15, while some deviation from data exists, UniSim Design Blowdown
model generally follows that data trend much better then UniSim Depressuring Utility. Furthermore, the UniSim Design
Blowdown model shows excellent agreement with data for the liquid temperature in Figure 16, but legacy Depressuring
Blowdown Analysis Improvements With the UniSim® Design Blowdown Utility 16

Utility model has only one temperature for both vapor and liquid, which is entirely incorrect. Again, the data indicated by
“upper” and “lower” refers to the thermocouple positions in the vapor zone of the vessel. Figure 17 shows the excellent
agreement between the measurement and the UniSim Design Blowdown Utility for the inside wall temperatures, where
“upper” means vapor phase and “lower” means liquid phase.

CO2 Blowdown from Super-Critical Condition

The table below summarizes the CO2 blowdown from super-critical conditions and the figures that follow, the test results:

Item Value
Composition
CO2 100 mol%
Initial Temperature 40 degC (313 degK)
Initial Pressure 150 bara (15 MPa)
Vessel
Diameter 0.242 m
Tan-tan Height 1.1 m
Orientation Vertical
Head type Flat
Wall thickness 35 mm
Orifice Area 17 mm2
Blowdown From Top
Back Pressure 1.013 bar
Ambient Temperature 20 degC
TABLE 6. CO2 Blowdown from Super-Critical Conditions.

16 313
model vapor
14 303 model, liq
293 data, vap
12 data, liq
model
pressure, Mpa

283
10 data
fluid temp, K

273
8
263
6
253
4
243
2 233
0 223
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 50 100 150 200
time, sec time, sec

FIG 18. Pressure Profile for Super-Critical CO2 blowdown. FIG 19. Fluid Temperature for Super-Critical CO2 blowdown.

Figures 18 & 19 show the comparison of measured data with UniSim Design Blowdown model prediction for the pressure
profile. Very good agreement between the data and the model can be seen. At the onset of depressuring, the supercritical
CO2 flashed so rapidly that the pressure dropped almost instantaneously. The CO2 fluid changed to a sub-cooled liquid
Blowdown Analysis Improvements With the UniSim® Design Blowdown Utility 17

and quickly turned into a liquid CO2 phase at its bubble point with continuous vapor flashing. The predicted liquid
temperature follows the vapor-liquid equilibrium temperature at a given pressure, according to the UniSim Design model.
Both the measured and the predicted vapor temperatures are higher than the liquid temperatures due to heat flow from
the wall. No CO2 freezing was expected in the time scale shown in Figure 19, as the temperature is above -56C.

CO2 Blowdown from Liquid State

The table below summarises the CO2 blowdown from liquid state conditions and the figures that follow, the test results:

Item Value
Composition
CO2 100 mol%
Initial Temperature 22 degC (295 degK)
Initial Pressure 62 bara (0.62 MPa)
Initial Level 86%
Vessel
Diameter 0.242 m
Tan-tan Height 1.1 m
Orientation Vertical
Head type Flat
Wall thickness 35 mm
Orifice Area 17 mm2
Blowdown From Top
Back Pressure 1.013 bar
Ambient Temperature 20 degC
TABLE 7. CO2 Blowdown from Liquid State Conditions.

70 20 m ode l, top
model 10 m ode l, bot
60 data, top
0
data data, m id
50 -10
r data, bot
a
b
, 40 -20
e C
,
r p -30
u
ss 30 m
e
t -40
e
r
p
20 -50
-60
10
-70
0 -80
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
time, sec tim e, sec
FIG 20. Pressure Profile for Liquid CO2 blowdown. FIG 21. Fluid Temperature for Liquid CO2 blowdown.

Figures 20 & 21 show the pressure and temperature data and the model prediction by UniSim Design. The data indicated
by “top”, “mid” and “bot” in Figure 21 represent the thermocouple locations in the vessel, understandably with the vapor
phase in the top and the liquid phase in the bottom. As can be seen, the model follows the vapor phase temperature quite
Blowdown Analysis Improvements With the UniSim® Design Blowdown Utility 18

well. The model accurately predicts the bottom or the liquid temperature until about 200 sec, where solid CO2 was formed
at its triple point. While the data shows a constant bottom temperature, UniSim Design predicts a steady drop of the liquid
temperature because the UniSim Design Blowdown calculations do not consider solid phase, as mentioned earlier.
However, UniSim Design can correctly predict the time of solid CO2 formation.

Fire Engulfment Test of LPG Tank

The table below summarises the fire engulfment of LPG tank conditions and the figures that follow, the test results:

Item Value
Composition
LPG 100 mol%
Initial Temperature 6.4 degC (279.4 degK)
Initial Pressure 5.8 bara (0.58 MPa)
Initial Level 72%
Vessel
Diameter 1.68 m
Tan-tan Height 4m
Orientation Horizontal
Head type elliptical
Wall thickness 11.85 mm
Orifice Area 0 mm2 (PSV closed under P = 14.7 bara)
Blowdown From Top
Back Pressure 1.013 bar
Ambient Temperature 20 degC
TABLE 8. Fire Engulfment of LPG Tank Conditions.

16 250
14 data, liq
ar12 200 data,gas
a C
, data, gas top
b
, 10 p150
e m model, liq
r 8 e
u
ss 6 t model, gas
d
i 100
e
r data u
lf
p4
model 50
2
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
time, sec time, sec
FIG 22. Pressure Profile for Fire Engulfment of LPG test. FIG 23. Fluid Temperature for Fire Engulfment of LPG test.
Blowdown Analysis Improvements With the UniSim® Design Blowdown Utility 19

450
400
C
, 350
p
m300
e
tl 250
la
w200
ka150
e100 data
p
50 model
0
0 100 200 300 400
time, sec

FIG 24. Wall Temperature Profile for Fire Engulfment of LPG test.

The data used to compare with the model was up to the point when the PRV opened at about 14.7 bara, as the UniSim
Design Blowdown Utility does not yet model the actual control action of PRV. Figures 22-24 show the comparison of the
data with the model. The pressure remained quite constant initially, then increased almost linearly with time, which was
captured quite well by the UniSim Design Blowdown Utility. In the blowdown model, the blowdown orifice size was set to
zero to simulate this fire engulfment test before the PRV opened. The model also tracked the measured liquid and vapour
temperatures quite well. Finally, in Figure 24, it can be seen that the model predicts the wall temperatures very accurately.
Blowdown Analysis Improvements With the UniSim® Design Blowdown Utility 20

Conclusions and Future Enhancements

Conclusions
The validation tests show that the UniSim Design Blowdown utility matches the experimental data from a variety of
sources with desired accuracy for blowdown prediction. It correctly predicts the non-equilibrium nature of a blowdown
vessel, i.e. different vapor and liquid temperatures, which the legacy UniSim Design Depressuring Utility does not
distinguish. The UniSim Design Blowdown Utility requires no adjustable parameters in the model which means fewer user
inputs. While it does not account for the solid phase in the model, it can accurately predict the incipient solid CO2 or
hydrate formation temperature. The UniSim Design Blowdown Utility is clearly a better and more accurate tool for
blowdown calculations than the legacy UniSim Design Depressuring utility.

Future Enhancements released in November 2015

The forthcoming release of UniSim Design, allows for modeling of multiple vessels with interconnecting piping, in an
equation-based modeling (EO) environment. This enables the user to more accurately predict temperature profiles in
vessels and surrounding piping, to integrate blowdown scenarios with process design and to configure the flowsheet to
achieve optimization in the future with a single tool.

As a flowsheeting tool, UniSim incorporates a broad range of component databases and thermodynamic packages.
Performing blowdown calculations in a flowsheeting tool such as UniSim Design also avoids the data/information transfer
or export/import from a flowsheeting tool to a different blowdown tool. This has the benefit of minimizing the errors and
reducing the number of iterations.

In addition, with the UniSim Design Blowdown Utility, the user is able to specify the time at which a pressure vessel
begins depressuring, which may differ from vessel to vessel. In this way, it will be possible to test blowdown schedules,
staggered blowdown, back-pressure build-up, and flare system capacity.

Finally, the upcoming UniSim Design Blowdown Utility has the following additional heat-transfer features:

a. Vessel may be subject to a user-imposed heat flux (other than fire) that can be applied to the external wall, the
liquid(and/or water) or the vapour phase, independently

b. A new two dimensional heat conduction model of the wall and heads of the vessel for heat-exchange with the
fluid-phases that the contact; and heat exchange by conduction in the radial and axial directions

c. Optional initialization of the wall temperatures of vessels and pipes using the environment and fluid temperature
as boundary conditions

These features allow for more accurate temperature prediction in the vessel and allow for an even broader selection of
test scenarios that can be applied.
Blowdown Analysis Improvements With the UniSim® Design Blowdown Utility 21

References

[1] American Petroleum Institute (January 2014). API Standard 521 Pressure-relieving and Depressuring System. Sixth
Edition. Washington DC: American Petroleum Institute.

[2] Haque, M., Richardson, S., Saville, S., Chamberlain, G., & Shirvill, a. L. (1992). Blowdown of Pressure Vessells II.
Experimental Validation of Computere Model and Case Studies. Trans IChemE, Vol 70, Part B , 10-17.

[3] Renfro, J., G.Stephenson, E.Marques-Riquelme, & Vandu, C. (May 2014). Use Dynamic Models When Designing
High-Pressure Vessels. Hydrocarbon Processing , 71-76.

[4] Mahgerefteh, H., & Wong, S. M. (1999). A Numerical Blowdown Simulation Incorporating Cubic Equations of State.
Computers and Chemical Engineering, Vol 23 , 1309-1317.

[5] Gebbeken, B., & Eggers, R. (1996). Blowdown of Carbon Dioxide From Initially Supercritical Conditions. J. Loss Prev.
Process Ind., Vol. 9, No. 4 , 285-293.

[6] Eggers, R., & Green, V. (1990). Pressure Discharge from a Pressure Vessel Filled with CO2. J. Loss Prev. Process
Ind., Vol. 3 , 59.

[7] Moodle, K., Cowley, L., Denny, R., Small, L., & Williams, I. (1988). Fire Engulfment Tests on a 5 Tonne LPG Tank. J.
of Hazardous Materials, Issue 20 , 55-71.

For More Information

Learn more about how Honeywell’s UniSim
Design Blowdown Utility can improve plant safety
visit our website www.honeywellprocess.com or
contact your Honeywell account manager.
Honeywell Process Solutions
Honeywell
1250 West Sam Houston Parkway South
Houston, TX 77042
Honeywell House, Arlington Business Park
Bracknell, Berkshire, England RG12 1EB UK
Shanghai City Centre, 100 Junyi Road
Shanghai, China 20051 WP-15-13-ENG
July 2015
www.honeywellprocess.com © 2015 Honeywell International Inc.