Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations pierreick on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

deflagration venting vs pressure containment (NFPA 68, 69)

Status
Not open for further replies.

ARenko

Mechanical
Jan 30, 2001
178
I posted this in the NFPA forum, but then found this forum and thought it may be more appropriate...

I have a vessel that will be operating at typically 1-2 psig - it is connected to a flare line. The vessel will occasionally handle air and natural gas and will experience mixtures in the explosible range. We intended that the vessel will operate at maximum 5 psi by using a relief device. In NFPA 69 Section 13 it gives an equation (13.2) for calculating the vessel MAWP required to contain a deflagration. I calculate this to be 150 psi at our minimum operating temperture of 32F. R=9, but is adjusted to 10.4 for 32F operation. Fy = 1.9 (A 516 Gr. 70).When I talked w/ a company about sizing a relief device they used NFPA 68 and came up w/ a 30" diameter rupture disk. My understanding from NFPA 69 was if the vessel was 150 psi MAWP and the initial pressure (Pi) was 5 psig, then the vessel could contain the deflagration.When I review NFPA 68, the term Pred corresponds with Pmawp * 2/3*Fy from NFPA 69 and when I use the calcs from NFPA 68 I get the same rupture disk sizing. Now I'm confused - do I need the large explosion vent or will my vessel contain the deflagration? Another confusing thing is how can the NFPA eq. 7.3.3.2 be used when it states initial pressure must be <= .2 bar (2.9 psig)?Can anyone offer any advice? Am I understanding NFPA 69 incorrectly?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor