Jump to content



Featured Articles

Check out the latest featured articles.

File Library

Check out the latest downloads available in the File Library.

New Article

Product Viscosity vs. Shear

Featured File

Vertical Tank Selection

New Blog Entry

Low Flow in Pipes- posted in Ankur's blog

Pcv Failure Case


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
7 replies to this topic
Share this topic:
| More

#1 Nagarajan K

Nagarajan K

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 12 August 2014 - 03:15 AM

Dear All,

 

Earlier i prepared a PVRV report for one of my Client.

 

Say for Single uninsulated tank,

 

Out Breathing:

 

Pump in flow of 170 m3/hr=146.6 Nm3/hr

Thermal Outbreathing= 107.52 Nm3/hr

 

Total Outbreathing = 254.12 Nm3/hr

 

Inbreathing:

 

Pump out flow of 18 m3/hr=16.85 Nm3/hr

Thermal Outbreathing= 599.57 Nm3/hr

 

Total Inbreathing = 616.8 Nm3/hr.

 

These were flow rate used for PVRV Sizing.

Also, as per API 2000 2 scenarios can occur simultaneously,So thermal + Normal Pumping were used.

 

Now the thing is that, Its has Nitrogen Blanketing with PCV,

So based on Operating of Inflow or Out flow Maximum Nitrogen required will be 616.8 nm3/hr.

 

Now Client has commented consider additional flowrate to be verified due to Nitrogen PCV failure Case.

 

Will there be additional increase in Outbreathing flow rate.

 

if yes how and why.?.

 

can anyone help, bit Confused

 

Regards,

 

Nagarajan K

 

 

 

 

 



#2 ankur2061

ankur2061

    Gold Member

  • Forum Moderator
  • 2,484 posts

Posted 12 August 2014 - 03:57 AM

Nagarajan,

 

Per my understanding PVRVs are never sized for N2 blanketing valve failure case (stuck-open). PVRVs are sized for normal venting (Vaccum venting for Total Inbreathing & Pressure venting for Total Outbreathing).

 

Emergency venting devices such as blow-off hatches or in some special cases rupture disks are provided for emergency conditions. Refer Section 4.4.2 of API STD 2000 for the types of emergency venting devices.

 

Although emergency as described in API STD 2000 is a fire emergency, any abnormal condition such as a utility failure / instrument failure can be categorized as an emergency.

 

Many a times tanks which are connected to a flare have split control (blanketing gas control valve and vent control valve) system for pressure control in the tank instead of a conventional PVRV. To make this split control system relaible, a SIL study maye be required, and based on that an appropriate SIL rating may be assigned to the components of the split pressure control system of the tank.

 

Hope I have been able to provide some clarity.

 

Regards,

Ankur.



#3 fallah

fallah

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 4,930 posts

Posted 12 August 2014 - 04:42 AM

Nagarajan K,

 

Where there is an emergency vent, incoming nitrogen flow rate of blanketing system due to relevant PCV failure to be in wide open position wouldn't normally be considered among the credible scenarios of tank's PVRV sizing, because it will lead to much higher size of PVRV while existing EV can easily handle the case. If there isn't an EV because the fire case isn't credible, it's another story and PCV failure to be wide open can be considered among PVRV sizing cases...

 

Please recheck about the credibility of fire case in your system and let's know the result...



#4 Nagarajan K

Nagarajan K

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 12 August 2014 - 05:59 AM

Thanks for the Valuable Information Ankur and Falah,

 

Is it EV refers to Emergency Venting and not ERV (for whose calculation fire case shall be used).

 

Regards,

 

Nagarajan K



#5 fallah

fallah

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 4,930 posts

Posted 12 August 2014 - 06:38 AM

Nagarajan K,

 

EV refers to Emergency Vent would be used for relief load of fire case in atmospheric storage tank...



#6 Nagarajan K

Nagarajan K

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 13 August 2014 - 01:58 AM

Dear All,

 

I discussed with client,i tried a discussion on same that EV can handle the additional flow.

 

But he said as per API 2000,6th edition Clause 4.3.1,2nd paragraph.

 

When determining the venting requirements, the largest single contingency requirement or any circumstances and combination of contingencies shall be considered as the design basis.

 

Also,

addition of (thermal  + Pumping) case for inbreathing and outbreathing is the minimum design flow rate.

 

Discussing to above mentioned.

 

a) It seems that thermal Case is considered as one of contingency and N2 supply PCV failure as another case contingency.

that is combination of two contingencies.Is it so?

 

or

 

B) Pumping + Thermal case together is considered as comibination of contigencies.

 

Regards,

 

Nagarajan K



#7 ankur2061

ankur2061

    Gold Member

  • Forum Moderator
  • 2,484 posts

Posted 13 August 2014 - 02:59 AM

Nagarajan,

 

"Contigency" as defined in the Oxford Dictionary has the following meaning:

 

"A future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty:"

 

Based on the above, thermal inbreathing / outbreathing is not a contigency. It is a normal occurence due to variations in ambient temperature from the maximum to the minimum. A rain shower causing sudden cooling of the tank surface leading to large thermal inbreathing is not a contigency. This can happen in the normal course of weather changes.

 

Fire  and Utility / Instrument failure can certainly be classified as contigencies based on the above definition.

 

Hope this provides you an idea of what to considere as a contigency and what not to.

 

Regards,

Ankur.



#8 Nagarajan K

Nagarajan K

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 13 August 2014 - 07:19 AM

Thanks for the information sir.






Similar Topics