Loading…
Vent burst pressure effects on vented gas explosion reduced pressure
The overpressure generated in a 10 L cylindrical vented vessel with an L/D of 2.8 was investigated, with end ignition opposite the vent, as a function of the vent static burst pressure, Pstat, from 35 to 450 mb. Three different Kv (V2/3/Av) of 3.6, 7.2 and 21.7 were investigated for 10% methane–air...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of loss prevention in the process industries 2015-07, Vol.36, p.429-438 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-f9b71ee961158a09cc89d0dd1810a2ce62279e73bc92a9314d36723a0a567c23 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-f9b71ee961158a09cc89d0dd1810a2ce62279e73bc92a9314d36723a0a567c23 |
container_end_page | 438 |
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 429 |
container_title | Journal of loss prevention in the process industries |
container_volume | 36 |
creator | Fakandu, Bala M. Andrews, Gordon E. Phylaktou, Herodotus N. |
description | The overpressure generated in a 10 L cylindrical vented vessel with an L/D of 2.8 was investigated, with end ignition opposite the vent, as a function of the vent static burst pressure, Pstat, from 35 to 450 mb. Three different Kv (V2/3/Av) of 3.6, 7.2 and 21.7 were investigated for 10% methane–air and 7.5% ethylene–air. It was shown that the dynamic burst pressure, Pburst, was higher than Pstat with a proportionality constant of 1.37. For 10% methane–air Pburst was the controlling peak pressure for K Pburst in the literature and in EU and US standards. For higher Kv the overpressure due to flow through the vent, Pfv, was the dominant overpressure and the static burst pressure was not additive to the external overpressure. Literature on the influence of Pstat at low Kv was shown to support the present finding and it is recommended that the influence of Pstat in gas venting standards is revised.
•Influence of static burst pressure for different vent cover materials investigated.•The work carried out in a 10 L cylindrical vessel with L/D = 2.8.•Four Kv (V2/3/Av) of 3.6, 5.4, 10.9, and 21.7 for 10% methane–air were considered.•It is impossible for practical vent covers for Pstat < Pred at low Kv.•This work shows some contradictions to the assumption of the venting standards. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jlp.2015.02.005 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1696479196</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0950423015000510</els_id><sourcerecordid>3744036091</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-f9b71ee961158a09cc89d0dd1810a2ce62279e73bc92a9314d36723a0a567c23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtLxDAUhYMoOD5-gLuC69Z7kyZpcCXjEwbcDG5DJr2VlrGtSTvovzfD6NbVhXPPuY-PsSuEAgHVTVd027HggLIAXgDII7bASotcCMmP2QKMhLzkAk7ZWYwdAGqo9ILdv1E_ZZs5xCkbA8U4B8qoachPMRv6bJfaVGfvLmb0NW6H2CYxUD37pP4FLthJ47aRLn_rOVs_PqyXz_nq9ellebfKfanllDdmo5HIKERZOTDeV6aGusYKwXFPinNtSIuNN9wZgWUtlObCgZNKey7O2fVh7BiGz5niZLthDn3aaFEZVWqDRiUXHlw-DDEGauwY2g8Xvi2C3bOynU2s7J6VBW4Tq5S5PWQoXb9rKdjoW-rTj21IJGw9tP-kfwCvNHE_</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1696479196</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Vent burst pressure effects on vented gas explosion reduced pressure</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Fakandu, Bala M. ; Andrews, Gordon E. ; Phylaktou, Herodotus N.</creator><creatorcontrib>Fakandu, Bala M. ; Andrews, Gordon E. ; Phylaktou, Herodotus N.</creatorcontrib><description>The overpressure generated in a 10 L cylindrical vented vessel with an L/D of 2.8 was investigated, with end ignition opposite the vent, as a function of the vent static burst pressure, Pstat, from 35 to 450 mb. Three different Kv (V2/3/Av) of 3.6, 7.2 and 21.7 were investigated for 10% methane–air and 7.5% ethylene–air. It was shown that the dynamic burst pressure, Pburst, was higher than Pstat with a proportionality constant of 1.37. For 10% methane–air Pburst was the controlling peak pressure for K <∼8. This was contrary to the assumption that Pred > Pburst in the literature and in EU and US standards. For higher Kv the overpressure due to flow through the vent, Pfv, was the dominant overpressure and the static burst pressure was not additive to the external overpressure. Literature on the influence of Pstat at low Kv was shown to support the present finding and it is recommended that the influence of Pstat in gas venting standards is revised.
•Influence of static burst pressure for different vent cover materials investigated.•The work carried out in a 10 L cylindrical vessel with L/D = 2.8.•Four Kv (V2/3/Av) of 3.6, 5.4, 10.9, and 21.7 for 10% methane–air were considered.•It is impossible for practical vent covers for Pstat < Pred at low Kv.•This work shows some contradictions to the assumption of the venting standards.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0950-4230</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-3352</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2015.02.005</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Ethylene ; Explosion venting ; Explosions ; Methane ; Pressure ; Vent static burst pressure</subject><ispartof>Journal of loss prevention in the process industries, 2015-07, Vol.36, p.429-438</ispartof><rights>2015 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Jul 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-f9b71ee961158a09cc89d0dd1810a2ce62279e73bc92a9314d36723a0a567c23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-f9b71ee961158a09cc89d0dd1810a2ce62279e73bc92a9314d36723a0a567c23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fakandu, Bala M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andrews, Gordon E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Phylaktou, Herodotus N.</creatorcontrib><title>Vent burst pressure effects on vented gas explosion reduced pressure</title><title>Journal of loss prevention in the process industries</title><description>The overpressure generated in a 10 L cylindrical vented vessel with an L/D of 2.8 was investigated, with end ignition opposite the vent, as a function of the vent static burst pressure, Pstat, from 35 to 450 mb. Three different Kv (V2/3/Av) of 3.6, 7.2 and 21.7 were investigated for 10% methane–air and 7.5% ethylene–air. It was shown that the dynamic burst pressure, Pburst, was higher than Pstat with a proportionality constant of 1.37. For 10% methane–air Pburst was the controlling peak pressure for K <∼8. This was contrary to the assumption that Pred > Pburst in the literature and in EU and US standards. For higher Kv the overpressure due to flow through the vent, Pfv, was the dominant overpressure and the static burst pressure was not additive to the external overpressure. Literature on the influence of Pstat at low Kv was shown to support the present finding and it is recommended that the influence of Pstat in gas venting standards is revised.
•Influence of static burst pressure for different vent cover materials investigated.•The work carried out in a 10 L cylindrical vessel with L/D = 2.8.•Four Kv (V2/3/Av) of 3.6, 5.4, 10.9, and 21.7 for 10% methane–air were considered.•It is impossible for practical vent covers for Pstat < Pred at low Kv.•This work shows some contradictions to the assumption of the venting standards.</description><subject>Ethylene</subject><subject>Explosion venting</subject><subject>Explosions</subject><subject>Methane</subject><subject>Pressure</subject><subject>Vent static burst pressure</subject><issn>0950-4230</issn><issn>1873-3352</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEtLxDAUhYMoOD5-gLuC69Z7kyZpcCXjEwbcDG5DJr2VlrGtSTvovzfD6NbVhXPPuY-PsSuEAgHVTVd027HggLIAXgDII7bASotcCMmP2QKMhLzkAk7ZWYwdAGqo9ILdv1E_ZZs5xCkbA8U4B8qoachPMRv6bJfaVGfvLmb0NW6H2CYxUD37pP4FLthJ47aRLn_rOVs_PqyXz_nq9ellebfKfanllDdmo5HIKERZOTDeV6aGusYKwXFPinNtSIuNN9wZgWUtlObCgZNKey7O2fVh7BiGz5niZLthDn3aaFEZVWqDRiUXHlw-DDEGauwY2g8Xvi2C3bOynU2s7J6VBW4Tq5S5PWQoXb9rKdjoW-rTj21IJGw9tP-kfwCvNHE_</recordid><startdate>20150701</startdate><enddate>20150701</enddate><creator>Fakandu, Bala M.</creator><creator>Andrews, Gordon E.</creator><creator>Phylaktou, Herodotus N.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JG9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150701</creationdate><title>Vent burst pressure effects on vented gas explosion reduced pressure</title><author>Fakandu, Bala M. ; Andrews, Gordon E. ; Phylaktou, Herodotus N.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-f9b71ee961158a09cc89d0dd1810a2ce62279e73bc92a9314d36723a0a567c23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Ethylene</topic><topic>Explosion venting</topic><topic>Explosions</topic><topic>Methane</topic><topic>Pressure</topic><topic>Vent static burst pressure</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fakandu, Bala M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andrews, Gordon E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Phylaktou, Herodotus N.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><jtitle>Journal of loss prevention in the process industries</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fakandu, Bala M.</au><au>Andrews, Gordon E.</au><au>Phylaktou, Herodotus N.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Vent burst pressure effects on vented gas explosion reduced pressure</atitle><jtitle>Journal of loss prevention in the process industries</jtitle><date>2015-07-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>36</volume><spage>429</spage><epage>438</epage><pages>429-438</pages><issn>0950-4230</issn><eissn>1873-3352</eissn><abstract>The overpressure generated in a 10 L cylindrical vented vessel with an L/D of 2.8 was investigated, with end ignition opposite the vent, as a function of the vent static burst pressure, Pstat, from 35 to 450 mb. Three different Kv (V2/3/Av) of 3.6, 7.2 and 21.7 were investigated for 10% methane–air and 7.5% ethylene–air. It was shown that the dynamic burst pressure, Pburst, was higher than Pstat with a proportionality constant of 1.37. For 10% methane–air Pburst was the controlling peak pressure for K <∼8. This was contrary to the assumption that Pred > Pburst in the literature and in EU and US standards. For higher Kv the overpressure due to flow through the vent, Pfv, was the dominant overpressure and the static burst pressure was not additive to the external overpressure. Literature on the influence of Pstat at low Kv was shown to support the present finding and it is recommended that the influence of Pstat in gas venting standards is revised.
•Influence of static burst pressure for different vent cover materials investigated.•The work carried out in a 10 L cylindrical vessel with L/D = 2.8.•Four Kv (V2/3/Av) of 3.6, 5.4, 10.9, and 21.7 for 10% methane–air were considered.•It is impossible for practical vent covers for Pstat < Pred at low Kv.•This work shows some contradictions to the assumption of the venting standards.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.jlp.2015.02.005</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0950-4230 |
ispartof | Journal of loss prevention in the process industries, 2015-07, Vol.36, p.429-438 |
issn | 0950-4230 1873-3352 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1696479196 |
source | ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Ethylene Explosion venting Explosions Methane Pressure Vent static burst pressure |
title | Vent burst pressure effects on vented gas explosion reduced pressure |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T10%3A58%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Vent%20burst%20pressure%20effects%20on%20vented%20gas%20explosion%20reduced%20pressure&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20loss%20prevention%20in%20the%20process%20industries&rft.au=Fakandu,%20Bala%20M.&rft.date=2015-07-01&rft.volume=36&rft.spage=429&rft.epage=438&rft.pages=429-438&rft.issn=0950-4230&rft.eissn=1873-3352&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jlp.2015.02.005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3744036091%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-f9b71ee961158a09cc89d0dd1810a2ce62279e73bc92a9314d36723a0a567c23%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1696479196&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |