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

Fire-size Carbon Adsorbtion Bed


This topic has been archived.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

#1 Bruce

Bruce

    Brand New Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 28 October 2003 - 06:31 PM

I am absorbing benzene on a carbon bed and need some thoughts on how to develop the relieving rate for sizing the PSV under fire exposure.

Container is 50 psig design bare carbon steel vessel with about half the total internal volume filled with carbon. Benzene can be adsorbed up to about 40% of weight of carbon. Normal internal atmosphere is nitrogen. Normal operating pressure is 2 psig. PSV set is 50 psig.

Under unwetted vessel fire sizing without adsorbed benzene, there is no relief (at internal temperature equal to wall temperature, pressure does not exceed set point.)

When carbon is partially or fully loaded, benzene will desorb when internal temperature exceeds about 300 F. I need to develop a heat input rate to determine a benzene evolution rate.

Wetted wall fire calculations are straight-forward but I don't have wetted walls. Is there a way to use the Environmental (insulation) Factor to simulate metal to gas rather than metal to liquid heat transfer?

Is there a better approach to estimate the heat input?

Thanks for your help.

#2 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • guestGuests

Posted 13 November 2003 - 12:13 PM

You should be able to take a "typical" heat transfer coefficient for gas/gas and use that as the assumption. Perry's 5th edn. lists air or flue gas as being 10 to 30 btu/(hr-°F-ft2). I would do a more detailed calculation and use the outer "tubewall" temperature of 1660°F that API 520 uses. This should give you a basis for heat transfer. Treat it more like a tube inside a reforming furnace with regards to a heat transfer coefficient and you should have a fairly conservative number since you will not have a significant flow inside the carbon bed.

Otherwise, assume the carbon is saturated and take that volume of benzene in the vessel and assume it is all in the bottom and estimate an "equivalent" wetted area. This will likely give you a larger device than the above.

good luck

#3 Bruce

Bruce

    Brand New Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 13 November 2003 - 01:53 PM

Thanks.

I ended up using your second suggestion, equivalent wetted area. After talking with several collegues, it seemed adequately conservative and easiest to defend.




Similar Topics