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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of loss prevention in the process industries 2015-07, Vol.36, p.429-438
Main Authors: Fakandu, Bala M., Andrews, Gordon E., Phylaktou, Herodotus N.
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 &lt;∼8. This was contrary to the assumption that Pred &gt; 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 &lt; 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 &lt;∼8. This was contrary to the assumption that Pred &gt; 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 &lt; 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 &lt;∼8. This was contrary to the assumption that Pred &gt; 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 &lt; 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