junior,

I'm not totally sure we're "on the same page", but assuming you're trying to calculate the minimum temperature that will be reached in a vessel
during a blowdown operation, my explanation would be as follows:
Minimum liquid level = Maximum amount of vapor phase
Cooling occurs mainly by Joule-Thompson effect in the vapor space
More vapor = more cooling
Less liquid = less thermal inertia in your system
Combined, these factors generate the controlling case at minimum liquid level. You didn't state whether or not you plan to do a more accurate
dynamic simulation of your system. If you do, the effects of minimum liquid inventory should be even more apparent.
Agree with Doug's post. In addition, you may need to consider HLL liquid inventory in the case you have vapor-liquid equilibrium inside the
vessel. In such circumstances, the final temperature drop due to vaporization of hydrocarbons can result in much lower final temperature in the
vessel and downstream of RO/blowdown valve. This will be the boiling/bubble point of hydrocarbon(s) at final pressure inside the drum.
QUOTE (junior1 @ Jun 19 2008, 05:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In addition, you may need to consider HLL liquid inventory in the case you have vapor-liquid equilibrium inside the vessel Wouldnt the
vapour- liquid equilibrium exist in all blowdown cases? Or am I mission something.

Theoretically - yes. But the effect of relatively small amount of liquid on heat transfer will be almost negligible, based on my experience.
Furthermore, liquid will start to vaporize as soon as blowdown process is initiated so what will remain at the end - in most of the cases - is that
the influence on temperature profile is very small (it is something similar to the term Doug has used, "thermal inertia"). As a rule of thumb, in
systems where vapor presents more than 70% of vessel inventory the resulting temperature will be the one calculated by using Joule-Thomson
effect; if system is liquid-dominated, the final temperature inside the vessel will reach bubble point of hydrocarbon mixture at the final blowdown
pressure.

During a process vessel blowdown procedure, the sequence of event is exactly

as Doug has explained. However the resulting lower temperatures realized are
not only due to the principles that Doug has also detailed, but they affect
different portions of the vessel and its connected components. The operation
involves two basic unit operations:
1) The free expansion of a compressed gas; and,
2) The vaporization of any compressed liquid remaining in the vessel - leading
up to a steadily changing phase equilibria.
The first effect is just as Doug has described it: it is a classic Joule-Thomson
expansion resulting in a cool-down of the escaping, lower pressure
vapors/gases. This cooling effect is downstream of the blowdown valve and
differentially starts to cool down the blowdown piping, the blowdown valve and
everything that can be found downstream of the blowdown. As long as the
vessel is blowing down, there will be no cooling of the blowdown valve and the
upstream, pressurized piping and vessel - at least not upstream of the
blowdown valve's seat. The reason for this is that the constant flow of the
relatively warmer vessel vapors that are flowing under pressure towards the
valve's seat will pick up any coldness that the valve transmits upstream
through metal conduction. As soon as the blowdown flow ceases, the cooling of
the upstream piping will start (through conduction). This will be a relatively

slow process and will not affect the contents that remain within the vessel.
The second effect is more pronounced in reducing the vessel's contents and
walls temperature because it is a result of liquid vaporization due to a decrease
in its pressure. This is the same effect that occurs in a normal mechanical
refrigeration's vaporizer coil: the liquid acts as a boiling (actually vaporizing)
refrigerant. As can be appreciated, this effect is much more pronouned and
quicker.
Junior fails to identify what he calls the "minimum blowdown temperature" - is
it the temperature of the vapors/gases exiting the blowdown valve? - or the
temperature of the vessel itself? I believe he is referring to the former rather
than the latter, in which case then he should concern himself with the JouleThomson effect - which is undergoing a differentially lower-and-lower
temperature approach as the vessel contents themselves are feeding a
progressively lower pressure as the vessel temperature decreases during the
total blowdown procedure. This is a complex problem and involves differential
equations to follow the complete progression of cold produced.
As Doug has inferred, the amount of original liquid (hydrocarbon, I must
presume) has to be taken into account if one is to make a complete analysis
and a heat and mass transfer of the operation. If the original liquid inventory is
not sufficient to generate vapors during the blowdown time, then the JouleThomson effect will dominate at the end. However, if the amount of liquid
inventory at the outset is sufficient to maintain a constant feed of steadily
vaporized and progressively colder vapors to the blowdown valve, then the
vaporization effect will dominate the operation in fixing the resultant low
temperature at the end of the operation.
I hope I have succeeded in explaining what I believe is taking place during this
type of blowdown.

Does The Back Pressure @ The Downstream Of Blow Down Valve

Affect The
I was confused on this topic described as in the subject when I was doing the depressuing calculation via Flarenet for blow
down valves in a closed flare system.
Normally I picked up the peak flow of depressuring calculation from either Hysys or certain spreadsheet to input the
blowdown scenario in Flarenet. However that peak flow is obtained from initial pressure depressuring to atmosperic pressure,
which there is no back pressure issue. What I really concerned is in the closed flare system, if there is much higher
downstream pressure for blowdown, sometimes even higher than the depressuring pressure, can I still use that peak flow as
a correct one or not?
What I had done for those cases is to assume a backpressure, then calculate the peak flow in Hysys and input it into flarenet,
then get a new backpressure from flarenet to calculate the new peak flow in Hysys. Using Trial and Error method (iteration)

until both of backpressure and peak flow are match in Hysys and Flarenet.
I don't know if I am in the correct path regarding to this matter. Hope to get your feedback or advices.
Thanks for your time in advance.
Regards,
BWang
Hello,
I'm not sure what a closed flare system is but I'm assuming it is a closed drain system. Normally, all systems depressure to
atmosperic pressure, so I'm a little confused. If I am wrong, please let me know. But back pressure exists even when flaring is to atm
pressure, based on relieving rate, length of piping etc. So your flareheader will have to be Sized accordingly. Just make sure
backpressure at any PSV oulet is within the norm (10% for conventional PSVs etc).
Thanks

Sorry...last sentence in previous post should read as 10% of PSV set pressure for conventional type.
Hi BWang,
In the critical flow conditions, back pressure has no impact on the released flow rate. The close flare system should be designed so
that all relief valves and blowdown valves release in the critical conditions in all the cases. If not, you may have to install a restrict
orifice to limit blowdown flow or increase flare header sizes.
It is impossible for a lower pressure release to flow through higher pressure piping section. If it is true, when you open the blowdown
valve, gas would back flow into your container through the opened valve, because flow direction is always the same as pressure
gradient.

Regards
Shan

orry...last sentence in previous post should read as 10% of PSV set pressure for conventional type.

Thank Ashetty for your comments.

But what I referred to in my case is blowdown valve rather than PSV.
Regards,
BWang
QUOTE (shan @ Aug 27 2008, 02:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
...In the critical flow conditions, back pressure has no impact on the released flow rate...

I agree with Shan in general.

(Infact under critical flow via restriction orifice...back pressure do have influence on the flow rate... Ignore this statement if it
confuse you...)
QUOTE

...The close flare system should be designed so that all relief valves and blowdown valves release in the critical conditions in
all the cases...

This is the ideal solution. However, in reality, many blowdown line (valve with restriction orifice) would see critical flow.
However, there are still some in the system (those with lower pressure) would see subscritical flow especially during total
plant or zone simultaneous blowdown.
You may consider the following...
i) Consider ATM in HYSYS for depressuring
ii) Let Flarenet calculate the back pressure at each BDV/RO
iii) Check each BDV/RO critical pressure is higher than back pressure. If yes, no problem.
iv) If not, you need to adjust the back pressure in HYSYS and rerun Flarenet again.
This significant reduce you iteration.
Backpressure higher than system pressure would result back flow. You may have tie to low backpressure point which is
further downstream of the flare header...
HTH.
JoeWong
What I did for the blowdown scenario in the flare system is very close to the situation you commented.
In my case there are 7 blowdown valves depressuring at the same time under the different initial pressure individually. Meanwhile the
RO is not permitted in the downstream of BDV based on our client's DEP. So I could not ignore the impact of the backpressure on the
peak flow at the beginning and did the iteration between Hysys and Flarenet. I was not confident in what I did at that time.
Now I am feeling better. Thanks for your feedback.
Regards,
BWang

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/BDV-allowable-back-pressure3822450.S.261643794?trk=groups_search_item_list-0-b-ttl&goback=
%2Egna_3822450
For BDVs, Flarenet specifies the default allowable backpressure of 50% of the relief pressure (as a typical critical pressure) because the flow
through BDV is constant (choked flow) as long as the backpressure is less than about 50% of the upstream pressure. The capacity of
blowdown valve decreases when the backpressure increases beyond the critical pressure. This means that you need to incorporate the
backpressure into depressuring model in order to make sure that API requirements (on fire depressuring time to reach the final pressure for
instance) are met.
As mentioned by Frank, the backpressure is function of depressuring rate which decreases by time. Since upstream pressure also decreases
during depressuring, therefore you need to update the depressuring model backpressure during the depressuring which is not easy especially
with software like Hysys where you dont have this option to change the BDV backpressure during depressuring.
Flarenet can produce the backpressure at reduced depressuring rates but how to feed this backpressures into Hysys depressuring model (in
order to get the realistic results) is the main challenge.
From valve sizing view point, as long as the same backpressure is specified in the blowdown valve datasheet, there should be no problem.
if you dont want to get into this, you can review other options like reducing depressuring flow or increasing the flare header size.
By the way, when you are talking about backpressure of 60% of relieving pressure and I assume the vessel design pressure of at least 17.0
barg (say 20 barg relieving pressure) where depressuring facility is usually provided, the backpressure for this BDV is about 12.0 barg which is

quite high for any flare system. I am thinking about the limitation that such a high backpressure will impose on the relief valve selection. Refer
to API-526 and limitation on the availability of large spring loaded relief valves at high pressures.
Saiedeh:
50% criteria is a legacy rule of thumb. This ensures choked flow via BDV allowing flow calculation as a function of flow area and upstream
pressure (F=A*P1). Modeling is simple
If the back-pressure is above 50%, flow becomes a function of area and delta P (F=A*(P1-P2)).
In a blowdown system, downstream flow rapidly declines with time and backpressure will also fall as square of the flow. You may specify for
P2, the initial backpressure in Hysys. The prevailing backpressure is likely to be low after the initial few minutes. This may make the flow more
than predicted by Hysys. That means the blowdown time will be faster than predicted by Hysys.
This initial-subcritical with >50% backpressure, is OK as long as this does not increase the BDV size. BDVs are usually 2 and you may go
ahead with subcritical flow if this source is a minor contributor.
If the source is a major contributor and you wish to decrease the BDV size and its initial flow, you may carry out blowdown in stages that is a
select a size; blowdown for a few minutes; reset this as the initial condition and specify a reduced backpressure based on reduced or declining
flow from all sources, based on a composite flow Vs time curve. Will require a few days of additional work and give you the satisfaction of a
good analysis.
blow down procedures in simulators generally assume critical flow in RO (normal condition for sonic flow is Pout < 0.5 * Pin) and calculate flow
accordingly based on system pressure,
in your case, possibly, the mass flow in RO will be lower than critical (that will depend from backpressure which will not be constant during
blow down process).
(I have a similar problem with the depressuring procedure included in PRODE PROPERTIES which however allows to specify a variable flow
which mitigates the problem).
if your simulator doesn't allow to specify that condition (i.e. to define a variable backpressure or the flow through BDV at different intervals) you
may evaluate the errors introduced in simulation by calculating the ratio of critical / real flow at regular intervals, integrate and estimate the
correct results, for example you can average the volumes discharged corrected by density to keep in account the different operating conditions
and calculate a correction factor.
As alternative you can model the whole process with a direct integration procedure,
With direct integration you simulate directly the blowdown process by calculating at regular intervals of time the mass discharged and the
conditions in vessel.
You can do that with Excel or a similar tool by accessing the methods in your software for solving flash operations and fluid properties,
I use PRODE PROPERTIES for that but I think Hysys should do the same.
By the way the main difficult with these procedures (assuming that backpressure > 0.5 Pin is allowed by project specifications) is that you must
be prepared to provide detailed technical support to your calcs,
most engineers accept without discussions the results from a simulator but may ask many questions if you introduce some variants.
Saiedeh: I do not have a reference unless Saied writes one for his site or I prepare one. Latter is unlikely (*_*)!! Briefly,
(1) Please enter in an Excel sheet the declining loads from all the sources time 0,3,6,9,12,15 against kg/h. Graph time Vs total load
(2) You know the pressure profile at time 0 and you should be able to figure out the pressure profile at other time periods in Excel, taking tip
pressure drop as choked pressure for sonic conditions; velocity head for subsonic condition. Yes, blown down or vented gas property from all
the sources changes all the time, gases getting heavier. Yes, all the gases are not going linearly thru the header. Ignore for the first pass.
[Rigorous Flarenet modelling to get exact back-pressure is possible with Hysys data.]
(3) Plot in the same graph, declining source pressure of the source 7 bar vessel. You can instinctively figure out at what point in time the backpressure changes from >50% to <50%. If it happens in the initial 2-4 minutes, you can take the back pressure <50% from time 0 as the flow
from the source will be critical and constant as predicted by Hysys. I believe with a source pressure of 7 barg or 8 bar, you need a
backpressure of about <4.4 bar or 3.4 barg for the flow to become critical. That is at about 85% of time 0 flow. It should happen after 1 minute.
Again, if the source is a small one compared to the rest, say with about 10% of total load, you dont have to worry.
This may look crude but considering the degree of inaccuracy in Hysys and Flarenet predictions, it is OK. Remember when we did not have
Hysys blowdown or Flarenet model, not long ago, we took Grotes equation and sized the systems. Availability of tools, in a few instances,
instead of saving time has exponentially increased it..
If you wish to go for a rigorous validation, I guess the above method will instinctively provide the road map. Sorry, I could not be of much help.