ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY

Venting vapor streams:

Predicting the outcome
Laminar and turbulent jet theories provide strong
support when addressing cold venting situations
R. BENINTENDI, Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd., Reading, UK

as and vapor venting to the atmosphere from tanks and

equipment may provoke hamful effects due to the flammable, toxic and corrosive properties of the released substances. Venting lines are generally connected to flaring or treatment systems, where they are burned or processed with the aim of
preventing harm to personnel and the environment. Nevertheless,
cold vents may not always be avoided, and, when they are feasible
and environmentally acceptable, they offer significant advantages
over alternative methods.
Cold venting is frequent in both onshore and offshore installations, despite efforts made in the design phase to prevent or properly manage the emissions. In these cases, applicable regulations and
standards require identification of the quantitative features of the
released streams. This narrows the engineering choices to consider
the acceptability of a safe, open discharge by implementing the
necessary protection. A general reference is given by API RP 521,1
which says that disposal can be accomplished without creating a
potential hazard or causing other problems, such as the formation
of flammable mixtures at grade level or on elevated structures.
Also, NORSOK standards2 require that cold vents be based on dispersion calculation results to prove that explosive mixtures are not
created in the installation vicinity and to ensure that the concentration therein does not exceed a fraction of the lower flammable limit.
Background. Open discharges should be considered when:

Safety valve releases from atmospheric tanks storing hydrocarbons or organic compounds, in case of process offset or instrument failure
Releases from rupture disks or emergency-relief valves
(ERVs) from atmospheric tanks storing hydrocarbons or organic
substances, in case of external fire
Emissions from pressure equipment in onshore and offshore
facilities; examples include methane emissions from common vent
stacks or low-boiling, pressurized compounds.

PVAP -OP = 10

A-

B
C +TOP

(1)

The gas molar fraction corresponding to the set pressure can

be calculated as:
P
X S1 = VAP OP
(2)
PS1
and the nitrogen molar fraction as:
P
X N 2 = 1 VAP OP
PS1

(3)

The assumed relieving scenario for the ERVs is external fire,

with a setting pressure (PS2 ). The nitrogen content in the tank
head space is assumed to remain the same, whereas the gas amount
will increase due to heating from fire. Accordingly, if the headspace volume does not change significantly, the second law of Gay
Lussac may be applied:

PS 2
POP
and the gas molar fraction (XS2 ) corresponding to PS2 is:
T fire = TOP

PVAP T fire = 10

B
C +T fire

(4)

(5)

To atmosphere at safe location

Nitrogen
PC

Emergency
relief valve

Release from atmospheric tanks. Flammable and combus-

tible liquids stored in atmospheric tanks are assumed to be blanketed

with nitrogen working at a low relative pressure, as shown in Fig. 1.
The working conditions are the operating temperature (TOP ) and
the operating pressure (POP). The relieving scenario assumed for
the pressure relief valve (PRV) is a control valve failure, with a setting pressure (PS1 ) and a corresponding temperature equal to TOP .
Vapor pressure is given by the Antoine equation:

FIG. 1

Atmospheric tank relief scenarios.

HYDROCARBON PROCESSING APRIL 2012

I 103

ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY

The gas outlet characteristics have now been completely identified. For the purpose of this work, the released mass flowrate
is essential information, being a venting design issue covered by
the standard API 520.3 The described scenario has been summarized in Table 1, where input design data and calculated values
have been included. The gas stripping from a solution can be
approached in the same manner, using gas-liquid equilibrium
equations, such as the Henry formula.

The theory of turbulent and laminar jet is based on the original

studies of Ricou and Spalding4 and Schlichting,5 respectively.
Momentum driven turbulent jets from relief valves are also covered by the API 521 standard, and its conclusions fit well with the
Ricou and Spalding theory of entrainment approach.
A full development of the jet air dispersion model relative to
both turbulent and laminar regimes has been carried out by the
author,6,7 with the aim of predicting the endpoint concentration
contour of hazardous areas due to flammable substances. This
method gives much more realistic results than those provided by
the standard IEC 60079-10,8 as confirmed by Webber et al.9 The
same models may be used to investigate whether (and to what
extent) gas cold venting is harmful.

Release from pressure vessels. Cold venting from pres-

Turbulent jet. According to literature data6 and to the standard

sure vessels is much less frequent than atmospheric venting, and it

consists of a pressurized gas or a vapor in equilibrium with its liquid. The first case, natural gas in offshore facilities, is completely
defined by the pressure and the geometrical characteristics of the
jet, and the second case can be treated as atmospheric blanketed
storage, being that the substance in both of these cases is formed
by a single compound under pressure.

API RP 521, the fully turbulent regime exists from the Reynolds
number of 104 upward. If it is verified, air entrainment works
reducing the jet gas concentration according to the following
general equation:

XS2 =

PVAP T fire

(6)

PS 2

where PVAP-T

fire

is the vapor pressure at Tfire .

Modeling. Modeling aims to describe the concentration contour of a gas jet downstream from a nozzle outlet, with reference
to specific toxic or fire end points. As the gas leaves the nozzle,
it is entrained by air, strongly depending on the fluodynamic
features and on the wind velocity and direction. This results in a
progressive gas concentration dilution as both the axial and the
radial distance from the outlet increase (Fig. 2).

TABLE 1. Atmospheric tank relief scenario

Variable

Relief case

Symbol

TOP

Operating temperature

Design Calculation
input
output

POP

PRV set pressure

Control failure

PS1

ERV set pressure

External fire

PS2

Fire temperature

External fire

Tfire

Gas concentration at PS1

Control failure

XS1

Gas concentration at PS2

Operating pressure

External fire

XS2

PRV/ERV diameter

Mass flow rate

y
M ( y)
= Ce
(7)
D
Me
Within the equation, Me and M(y) are the initial and the overall
entrained gas mass flowrates at a distance y from the exit, D is the
outlet diameter and Ce is the coefficient of entrainment, which is
0.32 according to Ricou and Spalding4 and 0.264 according to the
standard API RP 521. This approach has been followed6 in order
to define the distance along the axis, where the lower flammable or
toxic endpoint is reached. Assuming a cross sectional average gas
concentration, the jet development is as outlined in Fig. 3. Indicating with EP the flammable or toxic endpoint, with MWG and MWA
as the gas and air molecular weight, and XMo as the initial gas mass
fraction, the mentioned distance is given by the following equation:

y EP

1
1

MW

+1

A
EP MW

MWG
G

= X Mo
D (8)
Ce

Laminar jet. The laminar jet theory is based on the original

work of Schlichting.5 Accordingly, the same calculation carried

out for turbulent jet has been developed7 for the laminar regime,
resolving the mass and momentum equations and obtaining an
exact solution for the axial and radial concentration gradient. The
jet surface, as defined by the points of space where the concentration is the end point, is given by the following formula:
y

yEP

C(r,y)
r(y) C(0,y)

Core

Transition

Flammable/toxic
endpoint

Fully developed ow
y

FIG. 2

104

Jet flow showing gas concentration distribution.

I APRIL 2012 HydrocarbonProcessing.com

FIG. 3

Turbulent discharge illustrating distance to flammable or

toxic endpoint.

ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY

3 X o ve D 2
64
1
(9)
32EP y
3 e M e

REP ( y) = y

Within the formula, is the gas diffusivity in air; ve is the gas

velocity at the outlet; is the gas viscosity; Xo is the initial gas mass
fraction; EP is expressed in the same unit; and Me is the initial
average momentum. As for the turbulent jet, the distance along
the axis, where the lower flammable or toxic end point is reached,
has been determined as:

3ve D 2
(10)
32 EP
Meanwhile, the maximum transversal distance REP is calculated as:
y EP = X o

REPMAX = X o

27ve D 2
512 EP

(11)

In Fig. 4, the endpoint contour has been depicted for a typical

application. In the previous equations, XMo and Xo are equal to 1
for pure gases.
End points for venting. Flammable and toxic endpoints
must be defined for the substances under investigation. For fire
and explosion cases, the lower explosion limit (LEL) is entered
into Eq. 8 or Eq. 10, depending on the existing regime. Toxic
clouds can be described in terms of immediately dangerous to
life and health (IDLH), temporary emergency evaluation levels
(TEELs), emergency response planning guides (ERPGs) and
acute emergency guidance levels (AEGLs) or, in accordance
with the applicable safety philosophy, more stringent values can

be assumed. Basic information can also be obtained relative to

the occupational impact of venting, considering TLV-TWA and
TLV-STEL indices.
The model can easily be adjusted in the case of a gas mixture
containing more than one substance, other than the inerting gas
only. In this case, with reference to the flammable endpoint, a
mixture limit can be calculated using the Le Chatelier equation:
1
(12)
Xi
LEL
i
i
Within this equation, Xi is the single component molar fraction.
The same additive mixture formula applies, as per the ACGIH
guidelines,10 to two or more hazardous substances having a similar
toxicological effect on the same target organs or systems.
LELmix =

Applications. Table 2 includes data relative to an ethyl acrylate

storage tank blanketed with nitrogen. The Reynolds number is

higher than 10.000, so the turbulent model is to be used. The
calculation has been carried out considering both the LEL and the
IDLH, obtaining two very different results. Roughly, it could be
concluded that fire and explosion hazards are unlikely, whereas the
toxic scenario does not seem negligible. A further confirmation of
the accuracy of the method may be found in the volume of J. L.
Woodward edited by the CCPS.11 Here, the concentration profile
drawn for a methane turbulent jet would fit very well with the
values calculated through the model.
Final analysis. An exact method has been presented with the
aim of predicting the outcome of an open discharge from tanks and
equipment. The method has been split into two different equations,

TABLE 2. Ethyl acrylate cold venting

Item

Location

Substance
released

Relief
case

Relief rate
kg/hr

Discharge
destination

Calculation
scenario

Refer. Set pressure,

temp., K
mbarg

Vap. pressure, Outlet

mbar
concent., %

PRV

Atmospheric
tank

Nitrogen ethyl
acrylate

Control valve
failure

500

Atmosphere

Equilibrium @
max. operating
temperature

313

107

105

9.48

ERV

Atmospheric
tank

Nitrogen ethyl
acrylate

External
fire

35,000

Atmosphere

Equilibrium @
ERV set pressure

319

143

115

10.06

Outlet
Mass flow concentr.,
rate, kg/h
ppm

Outlet
concentr.,
mg/m3

Mass flow
rate,
kg/h

IDLH,
ppm

PVRV or ERV
diameter, m

Outlet velocity,
m/sec

112.29

94,850.9

369,532.62

136.28

300

0.1016

12.64234

34.84

0.15

11.46

9,061.98

100,612.4

384,606.28

9,999.98

300

0.4572

44.01475

35.25

0.79

58.08

Average
LEL, molecular weight Distance to Distance to
%
at the outlet
LFL, m
IDLH, m

REP(y)

R(y)

REPmax
Wind

yEP

FIG. 4

Laminar discharge illustrating distance to flammable or

toxic endpoint.

FIG. 5

Hemispherical approach to endpoint contour.

HYDROCARBON PROCESSING APRIL 2012

I 105

ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY

depending on the fluodynamic regime existing at the jet outlet.
The equations can be used in a very flexible way, since the contour
describes the concentration field of the specific endpoint used,
whatever it is. The results expected could be considered satisfactorily reliable, provided that the following boundary conditions exist:
A steady state can be assumed
The jet does not impinge over adjacent obstacles and barriers
The equipment under investigation is not installed in a
congested zone, where closed spaces and a cul-de-sac can provoke
hazardous gas accumulations and significant modifications of the
concentration profile obtained using the entrainment equations
Borderline cases or specific lay outing and spacing concerns
should be further investigated through CFD and more accurate
dispersion models; the method is very useful in giving a first estimate of the predictable outcome.
A specific mention must be made relative to the action of the
wind, both on the laminar and the turbulent jets. Even if it results
in an increased air entrainment, an uncertainty might exist about
the direction of the plume and its profile. This is the case even if
the standard API 521 states that, for high Reynolds numbers, the
turbulent equation is valid anyway, provided that jet velocity is
higher than about 12 m/s or the jet-to-wind velocity ratio is more
than 10. The same standard shows how the effect of the wind, in
terms of wind velocity to initial jet velocity ratio, is effective in
reducing the endpoint vertical downwind distance; whereas, the
horizontal distance is much less affected.
As a conservative application of the presented model, engineering judgment suggests extending the hazardous zone to the
whole hemispherical volume of radius equal to the endpoint

106

I APRIL 2012 HydrocarbonProcessing.com

distance (Fig. 5), and to use an endpoint concentration equal to

25% of its real value. HP
LITERATURE CITED
ANSI/API Standard 521, Pressure-Relieving and Depressuring Systems, Fifth
Edition, January 2007 (addendum May 2008).
2 NORSOK Standard S-001, Technical Safety, Fourth Edition, February 2008.
3 API Standard 520, Sizing, Selection and Installation of Pressure-Relieving
Devices in Refineries, Eighth Edition, December 2008.
4 Ricou, F. P. and D. B. Spalding, Measurements of entrainment by axisymmetrical turbulent jets, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 11(1), 21 e 32, Cambridge
University Press, 1961.
5 Schlichting, H., Boundary Layer Theory, Sixth Edition, McGraw Hill, New
York, 1968.
6 Benintendi, R., Turbulent jet modeling for hazardous area classification, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 23, Issue 3,
pp. 373378, May 2010.
7 Benintendi, R., Laminar jet modelling for hazardous area classification, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 24, Issue 2,
pp. 123130, March 2011.
8 IEC 60079-10-1 ed 1.0, Explosive atmospheres, Part 10-1: Classification of
areasExplosive gas atmospheres.
9 Webber, D. M., Ivings, M. J. and R. C. Santon, Ventilation theory and dispersion modeling applied to hazardous area classification, Health and Safety
Laboratory, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 24, Issue 5,
pp. 612621, September 2011.
10 ACGIH, Threshold limits values for chemical substances and physical agents and
biological exposure indices, 2008.
11 Woodward, J. L., Estimating the flammable mass of a vapor cloud, CCPS,
American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1998.
1

Renato Benintendi is a loss prevention and process specialist at Foster Wheeler

Energy Ltd. in Reading, UK. He holds a degree in chemical engineering from the
University of Naples Federico II in Italy. He has been working for 25 years in process
safety and environmental projects and has been a lecturer and a professor of process
safety and environmental engineering at Salerno University and Naples University.

Select 170 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS