Site Built Cryogenic Pressure Vessel 1

[Smith55]

Hi all,

We are looking at the feasibility of construction of a site built cryogenic pressure vessel (Design Pressure 19 Bar, Design Temp -165 Deg C, volume 3500m3 (water volume), material 9% Ni or SS304). To be in compliance with Pressure Directive (Europe).

Looking for advice / suggestions on what type of vessel, configuration and construction methodology could be most suitable for this application.

Many thanks.

 

[LittleInch]

Why 19bar,??

At -165, this is an LNG facility.

Most of those tanks are atmospheric.

Pressurised your looking at things like LPG dome tanks, but they are not cryo.

What is design? Long horizontal?

But that pressure is huge for such a large vessel.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[MJCronin]

Tell your lead process engineer to stop his everyday smoking of those weeds he finds alongside of the road !!!

a "site built cryogenic pressure vessel" ????!!! .... To what code/standard/in what country ???

The only suitable site-built configuration would be a single sphere, and NO ONE HAS EVER BUILT A SPHERE OF THAT SIZE AND DESIGN PRESSURE !!!

a Design Pressure 19 Bar (275 psig), .....and a massive volume of 3500m3 (926,000 gallons)

NASA has site-built a few spheres of about that size for liquid hydrogen .... BUT THE DESIGN PRESSURE IS FAR LESS !!!

NASA's newest storage sphere is a record breaker ...

https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/new-lh2-sphere.pdf

If you were to build your monster Cryo tank, it would set several world records !!!

Anyone can always build a group of smaller cryo tanks with a MAWP of 19 bar each .... but is that what you are demanding?

Most massive LNG cryo storage tanks are designed for a FAR LOWER PRESSURE ... explain why you must have 19 bar ?

I don't want to hear any of this crap.... "But.... but...Its what the client waaaaaants! ... I only do what I am told !!!".... That is BS and you know it

This monster is for LNG storage, isn't that correct, ?

...... and you are a young engineer and this is your first, LNG tank job ..... isn't it ??

..... and a much more reasonable and prudent course of action would be to become rational, rethink this massive tankage, or break the storage up into a group (ten?) tanks

Awaiting you comments ....



MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

 

[Smith55]

LittleInch thanks. Not LNG but another cryogenic liquid.

Flexible on design options. Looking at multiple smaller vessels or single larger vessel.

 

[Smith55]

MJCronin - thanks for the feedback, this is helpful. This is a novel/niche application, hence the deviation from the norm. As you suggest breaking the tankage into a number of smaller vessels looks like the right way to go.

Thank you for the link to the document, this is very helpful.

Any suggestions on resources such as design books / guides would be appreciated.

No, not a young engineer any more sadly. I'm just looking for some advice and suggestions from engineers more experienced than me in this particular field.

 

[MJCronin]

I agree with LittleInch .... as always..

I also believe that the CRYO design pressure should be revisited .... You must be personally satisfied on how it was finally determined... This is step ONE !

Cryo tanks are commonly designed with redundant pressure relief devices to protect the shell... the proper and competent selection of these devices can enable a lower MAWP and thereby a cheaper tank... You must have process engineers that are not under the influence

What is your process engineer really smoking and where on the globe, will the tankage be located ?

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

 

[Smith55]

MJCronin, thanks as always for the candid response! I don't think my process engineer is under the influence... I will check on the design pressure - the vapour pressure of the liquid at the operating temperature is a couple of bar lower, but still the pressure will be far higher than what I see in the documentation about the Nasa spheres you sent the link to. Regarding relief devices - yes there will be redundant devices available. Location is europe.

 

[Caloooomi]

Small standard tanks would be much simpler. 16 bar is not that uncommon for cryo tanks but this is considering much smaller volumes. Chart might be able to do 4 x 875 m3 tanks (they go up to 1225 m3 @ 8 bar MAWP), with the ET Series, but the design pressure may cause issues. The Klaipeda LNG storage tanks were 1000 m3 each but I these were only 8 bar.

 

[LittleInch]

Smith55,

You simply need to do the feasibility / concept design work looking at all the options.

A vessel to hold that much liquid at that pressure at that temperature in most locations will not be economic and take too long to design and build.

Caloooomi has some good names and it looks like Chart do some decent sized tanks. This goes up to ~250m3 @ 12 bar and the ET series seems to go even bigger but at lower pressure

https://files.chartindustries.com/20758418_HS_VS_LNGStorage.pdf

https://online.fliphtml5.com/gktj/uivr/#p=6

But they will not be cheap.

Atmospheric cryo tanks on the other hand you can build very big.

You also need to think about risk and failure. A pressurised cryo tank that big would have a huge impact in the event of a rupture or fire and that could easily be your defining issue to solve.

What is this stuff? It's not liquid H2 or LNG apparently so??



Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[MJCronin]

Agree with LittleInch !!! ---- Good Advice and reasonable further questions !!!

So, considering how much we have taken our time and helped you, why won't you tell us the contents of this tank ?

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer