See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337603699

A review on modeling and simulation of blowdown from pressurized vessels

and pipelines

Article  in  Process Safety and Environmental Protection · November 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2019.10.035

CITATIONS READS

12 1,610

6 authors, including:

Umar Shafiq Azmi Shariff

Institute of Engineering Fertilizer Research Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
30 PUBLICATIONS   122 CITATIONS    127 PUBLICATIONS   1,765 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Muhammad Babar Mohamad azmi Bustam

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
29 PUBLICATIONS   289 CITATIONS    319 PUBLICATIONS   5,695 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ionic liquid for biomedical applications View project

biological activities and phytochemical analysis of potentially active compounds in cranberry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Babar on 10 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Process Safety and Environmental Protection 133 (2020) 104–123

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Process Safety and Environmental Protection

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psep

A review on modeling and simulation of blowdown from pressurized

vessels and pipelines
Umar Shafiq a , Azmi M. Shariff a,∗ , Muhammad Babar a , Babar Azeem a , Abulhassan Ali b ,
Mohamad Azmi Bustam a
a
CO2 Research Centre (CO2RES), Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 32610 Bandar Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia
b
Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In process industry, failure or rupture of pressurized vessel is very dangerous especially when there is
Received 14 February 2019 an escape of flammable gaseous mixture that can cause potential fire or explosion. One of the scenarios
Received in revised form that causes such accidents is the blowdown process. Therefore, it becomes crucial to control blowdown
24 September 2019
process to prevent such accidents. It is important to design optimally to make sure that blowdown valve
Accepted 31 October 2019
is according to the requirements. For the safe use of a pressure relief system, some of the parameters are
Available online 13 November 2019
critical, for example, selection of construction material, sizing of relief valves, temperature, and pressure,
etc. There is no literature currently available that discusses all the mathematical models or simulation
Keywords:
Blowdown
tools for optimum design of the blowdown process. This subject matters because the available models
High-pressure vessels or tools cover different aspects of blowdown process. A meticulous review is required to present the
Hazards applications of these models and tools based on the accidental scenarios. Therefore, this paper critically
Depressurization reviews the models and tools that are developed purposely to calculate optimum blowdown parameters
Simulation tools based on fluid and vessel conditions. Recommendations are given for the development of new simulation
Modeling tool to simulate phase change conditions especially when solid formation is involved.
© 2019 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
1.1. Concerns and considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
2. Design of blowdown system for pressure vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
2.1. DIERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
2.2. BLOWDOWN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
2.3. FRICRUP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
2.4. BLOWSIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
2.5. PHAST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
2.6. P. S. Cumber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
2.7. A. Fredenhagen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
2.8. H. Mahgerefteh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
2.9. SDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
2.10. J. Zhang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
2.11. VBsim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
2.12. A. Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
3. Design of blowdown system for pressure pipelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
3.1. META . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
3.2. Fairuzov . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: azmish@utp.edu.my (A.M. Shariff).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2019.10.035
0957-5820/© 2019 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 U. Shafiq, A.M. Shariff, M. Babar et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 133 (2020) 104–123 105

3.3. CNGS-MOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

3.4. A. Oke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
3.5. VPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
3.6. OLGA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
3.7. S. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
3.8. S. Martynov . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
3.9. M. Drescher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
4. Major findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Nomenclature

BP British Petroleum
CCS Carbon Capture and Sequestration
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
EoS Equation of State
FBR Full Bore Rupture
FDM Finite Difference Method
FEM Finite Element Method
HC Hydrocarbon
HEM Homogenous Equilibrium Model
HRM Homogenous Relaxation Model Fig. 1. Common reasons for pressure vessel failures.
ID Inner Diameter
MAD Maximum Absolute Deviation
is enough to inflict the structural damage such as weld failure, local
META Multi-Component Equilibrium Two-Phase Analyser
instability, or extensive inelasticity.
MOC Method of Characteristics
The National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors
MSM Marginal Stability Two-Fluid Model
recorded a 24 % increase in the number of accidents involving pres-
PR Peng & Robinson
sure vessels during 1999–2000. Steam heating, power boilers, and
PRV Pressure Relief Valve
unfired pressure vessels were the major sources of such accidents
QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment
(Transporter B. Boiler, 2001). From 1992–2001, a total of 23,338
SCWR Supercritical Water-Cooled Reactor
accidents related to pressure vessels were recorded (Transporter
SDM Simplified Dynamic Model
B. Boiler, 2001; The National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel
SRK Soave-Redlich-Kwong
Inspectors, 2002; AirConditioning, 2002). Similarly, according to
TEM Thermodynamic Equilibrium Model
Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (Lydell, 2000), more than 66 %
VBsim Vessel Blowdown Simulator
(2476) of the pipeline failure incidents recorded during 1994–1999
V-L Vapor-Liquid
were triggered due to leakage or puncture. Common reasons for
VPM Vent Pipe Model
pressure vessel failures are illustrated in Fig. 1.
V-S Vapor-Solid
In oil and gas platforms or offshore operations, overpressure of
VLE Vapor Liquid Equilibrium
pressurized vessels also arises during emergency situations due to
fire or valves’ malfunction. These industries usually work with CO2,
natural gas, and fossil fuels (Talbi, 2017; Milano et al., 2016). Most
1. Introduction of the accidents at offshore oil and gas industries, nuclear power
plants, and chemical plants cause the outflow of radioactive, toxic,
Air-tight pressurized vessels and pipelines are widely used to explosive, or flammable materials. Particularly in the oil and gas
transport or hold gases and process liquids or fluids in petro- facilities, failure or rupture of pressurized vessels poses higher risk
chemical plants, refineries, and process industries. These vessels due to the possible escape of flammable gaseous mixture in a fire
are generally subjected to high-pressure loading and unidentical event. Therefore, process vessels are depressurized for the trans-
external or internal pressures in comparison to the ambient pres- portation of flammable or environmentally toxic gaseous mixture
sure (Barma et al., 2017). Consequently, it becomes potentially to a safer place (Mahgerefteh and Wong, 1999; Moss, 2004; Cui
hazardous and dangerous because of characteristic operational et al., 2010; Onyebuchi et al., 2017). Blowdown is a typical way of
pressure of the vessel (Ladokun et al., 2010). The rupture of pipeline minimizing the failure hazard of vessels when an emergency arises
and subsequent eruption of fire broke down the platform into in a process facilities. However, for the safe use of a pressure relief
seabed resulting in a loss of 167 lives during the Piper Alpha inci- system, some of the parameters are crucial; for example, tempera-
dent (Cullen, 1990). Many other tragedies have been witnessed that ture, pressure, selection of construction material, and sizing of relief
caused a significant number of fatalities due to pipeline and vessel valves. Prediction of precise minimum vessel wall temperature dur-
rupture (Bond, 2002; Fletcher, 2001). After the Piper Alpha tragedy, ing depressurization process can affect the selection of construction
the offshore industry carried out a great deal of research work to material, reduce over-design, and subsequently lower the project
understand the characteristics of hydrocarbon fires and explosions cost. Similarly, over-design can also be reduced by precise predic-
(Selby and Burgan, 1998; Tolloczko, 1992). The results indicate that tion of maximum flow rate during blowdown. Critical parameters
a pressure above 4 bar developed in typical topsides of the vessels for a safe blowdown process are portrayed in Fig. 2.
106 U. Shafiq, A.M. Shariff, M. Babar et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 133 (2020) 104–123
Fig. 2. Important parameters for safe blowdown process.
1.1. Concerns and considerations
In recent years, safety and process engineers have encountered
several safety-related issues while dealing with high-pressure
blowdown. The key principle of sustainable depressurization pro-
cess design is to decrease the pressure and discharge the inventory
safely in the minimum possible time (Gradle, 1984). The discharge
rate of compressible fluids generally depends upon pressure, pres-
sure drop, temperature, friction factor, Reynolds number, pipeline
diameter, roughness, length, and gas properties (L-b and Aziz,
1996). However, the rapid expansion of gas and generation of
vapors can expose the pressure vessel to pressurized thermal shock
during an emergency blowdown process. This shock initiates due
to integrated stress from rapid transitions in pressure and temper-
ature that result in the non-uniform distribution of temperature
in vessel walls and, therefore, lead to the differential contraction
and expansion. Pressurized thermal shocks can also cause embrit-
tlement of vessel walls and subsequent “failure by fatigue” due to
very low temperature generated inside the vessel because of Joule-
Thomson effect. Therefore, to predict the effects of vessel/pipeline
rupture or leak, or to design a sustainable blowdown process, there
is dire need of a technique to predict the mass efflux. Moreover,
to calculate optimum blowdown time, a precise balance between
maximum acceptable depressurization time (Api, 1990) and min-
imum fluid and wall temperature that may be safely considered,
is required. Some of the important factors to be considered before
designing the blowdown system are illustrated in Fig. 3.
Conventionally, several numerical models and simulation tools
are reported in literature for the prediction of maximum possi-
ble blowdown time and fluid and vessel conditions. The numerical
models have been developed by commonly adopting the Homoge-
nous Equilibrium Model (HEM) assumption such that each phase is
considered to be at the phase equilibrium and thermal equilibrium.
Some of the researchers also coded simulation tools based on their
numerical models. However, the available mathematical models or
simulation tools cover different aspects of blowdown or depres-
surization process. Therefore, a literature review of the existing
correlations, numerical models, and computational tools that have
capability to calculate optimum blowdown parameters for pres-
sure vessels and pipelines, is presented in this paper to summarize
existing work and set out most overlooked aspects.
2. Design of blowdown system for pressure vessels
In case of blowdown of vessels, a hazard may emerge due to very
low temperature gained by the material inside the process vessel.
This can potentially lead to rupture even with a small amount of
force if temperature falls below the ductile-brittle transition tem-
perature of vessel’s material of construction (Byrnes et al., 1964).
If free water is present inside vessel, it can result in growth of
hydrates or formation of liquid condensate that can get carried-over
into the flare or vent system. If large droplets of liquid conden-
sate or continuous liquid stream gets into the flare, they will start
falling from the top covering entire flare into flames. This condition
is extremely dangerous as this falling and burning liquid may cause
a major fire incident in vicinity of the plant (Richardson and Saville,
1993). To date, several numerical models and simulation tools have
been developed that can simulate different blowdown scenarios
of vessels based on vessel sizing, blowdown conditions, and com-
positions etc. A timeline of these simulation tools or numerical
models is illustrated in Fig. 4 followed by a brief description (Some
of the authors didn’t name their simulation tools; therefore, we
have mentioned the name of the authors instead of the simulation
tool).
2.1. DIERS
A consortium of several companies founded DIERS program
in 1976 to design pressure relief system for runaway reactions
and develop the additionally required technology. DIERS research
program performed several experimental studies, coded a com-
prehensive simulation tool, and designed a bench-scale prototype
apparatus. The aim was to predict two-phase flow venting and ana-
lyze the possible applicability of various two-phase (vapor-liquid)
flashing flow methods for sizing of relief systems. In this model, it
is considered that boiling takes place through the entire volume of
liquid rather than solely at the surface. Each bubble occupies vol-
ume and displaces the liquid surface upward. Individual bubbles are
able to rise (slip) through the liquid with a velocity that depends
on buoyancy and surface tension, whereas they are retarded by vis-
cosity and foamy character of the fluid (Simon et al., 2008). DIERS
program evolved over time; the initial phase included study of
vapor-liquid phase dynamics, second phase involved the experi-
mental investigations for small and large scale integral blowdown
and vented runaway reaction, and the final phase included the
development of a coded computational package along with a bench
scale prototype experimental apparatus (Fisher et al., 2010).
2.2. BLOWDOWN
A brief description of prediction and experimentation of fluid
and vessel behavior during blowdown process was presented by
Haque et al. in 1990 (Haque et al., 1990). Experiments were per-
formed on blowdown of pressurized vessels containing pure N2, 70
% N2–30 % CO2, and natural gas/hydrocarbon mixture. Based on the
experiments performed and assessment of available data, a com-
putational tool called BLOWDOWN was coded to simulate rapid
depressurization of vessels. The developed BLOWDOWN package
has the ability to measure the temperature, pressure, and compo-
sition as a function of time.
For the experimental investigation, a 6.325 mm orifice was used
to blowdown the mixture from a 0.086 m3 vessel with 25 mm of
wall thickness. Pure N2 took almost 100 s to reach the atmospheric
pressure from 15 MPa. Whereas, the vessel containing 70 % N2–30
% CO2 binary mixture reached the atmospheric pressure in 60 s. The
 U. Shafiq, A.M. Shariff, M. Babar et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 133 (2020) 104–123 107

Fig. 3. Factors to be considered before designing a sustainable pressure relief system.

Fig. 4. Timeline for blowdown simulation tools and numerical models for vessels.

dynamic change in gas and wall temperature is depicted in Fig. 5.

To analyze the predicted results, the coefficient of determination,
R2 , and geometric mean bias of the model data are calculated. For
this model, the R2 for temperature prediction is ≈ 0.977. A compar-
ative illustration of R2 values and geometric mean bias of different
models is presented in Figs. 33 and 34 respectively.
Subsequently, an extension in the simulation tool was made that
can also be used to simulate the blowdown of pipeline, particularly
a long subsea pipeline. Extension of this work by Haque et al. in 1992
covers simulation study of free water (produced during depres-
surization) for the arbitrary combinations of vessels and pipelines
(Haque et al., 1992a). This extended version of BLOWDOWN tool
was validated again in 1992 by Haque et al. while supported by
several case studies (Richardson and Saville, 1991; Haque et al.,
1992b). In the first case study; 53,804 m long, 16.5 subsea gas line
containing 51 MMSCF methane at 283 K was blown down from a
pressure of 12 MPa. In the second case study, full-bore depressur-
ization of 2000 m long pipeline containing 1975 tonnes of methane
condensate was carried out. The initial pressure inside the pipeline
was 20 MPa and initial temperature was around 313 K.
Another comparison of BLOWDOWN predictions and exper-
imental data was made during LPG test performed by British
Petroleum (BP) and Shell on the Isle of Grain in 1985 (Richardson
and Saville, 1996; Cowley and Tam, 1988; Tam and Higgins, 1990). Fig. 5. Dynamic temperature changes during blowdown for (a) 70 % N2–30 % CO2
Further experimental investigations on the prediction of blow- mixture and (b) pure N2 (Haque et al., 1990).
108 U. Shafiq, A.M. Shariff, M. Babar et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 133 (2020) 104–123

down parameters using BLOWDOWN package are also available

in literature (Saville et al., 2004). In all the experimental studies,
BLOWDOWN package provides a reasonable understanding of the
physical processes occurring and an ability to make predictions
with adequate certainty. However, use of extended corresponding
states principle introduces uncertainties that make the simula-
tion computationally difficult. Moreover, the limitations of a cubic
equation of state (EoS) near or at the critical region are well doc-
umented but their effect on the accuracy of blowdown simulation
is still unknown. Further improvement and simulation of practical
problems imply the assumptions of homogeneity when the flow is
two-phase and the quasi-steadiness could be neglected.

Fig. 6. Correlation between predicted and experimental pressure-time profiles

2.3. FRICRUP
(Mahgerefteh and Wong, 1999).

A simple mechanistic model named FRICRUP was coded by Nor-

ris et al. in FORTRAN program to predict single and multi-phase
flow behavior during blowdown of vessels or pipelines (Norris and
Puls, 1993). HEM and thermodynamic equilibrium model (TEM)
assumptions along with no relative velocities between liquid and
vapor phases were taken into account. Moreover, FRICRUP tool
was validated with the available data for gaseous mixture of CO2,
carbonated water, and air. The comparison shows that a reason-
able mechanistic model has been developed that can predict single
and multi-phase blowdown from the vessel as well as the pipe.
Regardless of its complexities, the mechanistic model indicates
disagreement with multi-phase flow possibly due to TEM assump-
tions. A year later, Norris et al. conducted another experimental
study using HC gases (Norris, 1994). The results were similar to
the ones achieved while using the non-HC gases because the basic Fig. 7. Correlation between predicted and experimental vapor temperature profile
mechanical model assumptions remained the same. (Mahgerefteh and Wong, 1999).

2.4. BLOWSIM
BLOWSIM model (Mahgerefteh and Wong, 1999; Wong, 1998),
developed by Mahgerefteh and Wong is based on three cubic-
EoSs including Peng and Robinson (PR) (Peng and Robinson, 1976),
Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) (Soave, 1972), and newly developed
TCC Cubic-EoS (Twu et al., 1992). BLOWSIM (BLOWdown-
SIMulation) requires a minimum number of input parameters. It is
computationally efficient and can predict pressure, mass flow rate,
and fluid and wall temperature, all as a function of time. BLOWSIM
model considers the following:
1 Heat transfer between fluid phases and their corresponding sec-
tions of the vessel wall.
2 Non-equilibrium effect between phases.
3 The effect of sonic flow at the orifice.
4 Interphase fluxes because of condensation and evaporation.
2.5. PHAST
The Unified Dispersion Model (UDM) developed by Woodward
and Cook in the early 90’s was later implemented into DNV soft-
ware package, termed as PHAST in version 6.0 (Witlox and Holt,
1999; Woodward et al., 1995; Woodward and Papadourakis, 1995).
PHAST is a helpful tool to study the initial release of mixture as
well as the far-field dispersion. Previously, PHAST was limited only
to vapor and liquid phase release of the chemicals. However, the
upgraded version allows to study the occurrence of fluid to solid
transition during release of CO2. PHAST was validated against sev-
eral experimental studies for unpressurized release of CO2 (Witlox
and Holt, 1999, 2001). Later, Witlox et al. performed some more
experimental studies for the validation against pressurized release
of CO2 (Witlox et al., 2014). An overview of the validation of
different models including flammable effect, dispersion and pool
spreading/evaporation, and discharge models was provided along
with extensive experimental database for validation of the above
models and scenarios (Witlox et al., 2018).

The performance of the featured model was assessed by the
correlation of predicted data generated from BLOWDOWN and
experimental results obtained from blowdown of condensable gas.
Typical output results include dynamic temperature and pressure
profiles for liquid and vapor phases as well as unwetted and wet-
ted walls. The achieved results and their comparison with different
EoSs as well as the experimental data are illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7.
BLOWSIM’s predictions are quite insensitive to the Cubic-EoS used.
In general, it can be inferred that choice of the Cubic-EoS has a negli-
gible effect on predicted results. Moreover, both numerical models
are capable of reasonably predicting the dynamic pressure varia-
tions. The R-square noted for TCC (TWU) model for temperature
predictions is ≈ 0.992.
2.6. P. S. Cumber
A numerical model was coded by Cumber for the prediction
of vent sizing of pressurized vessel during blowdown batch pro-
cess (Cumber, 2001). The pressure vessel containing gas mixture
is considered as a single unit with thermodynamic equilibrium
assumptions. This model has a vast range of venting models imple-
mented for a two-phase system. However, selection of the most
suitable model for a specific case study necessitates the user to
have comprehensive information on the scope of application of the
respective model. For this particular case, predicted blowdown data
was plotted against the experimental data as shown in Figs. 8 and 9.
The trend indicates that predicted gas temperature in the initial
 U. Shafiq, A.M. Shariff, M. Babar et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 133 (2020) 104–123
Fig. 8. Dynamic pressure profile during blowdown of LPG (Cumber, 2001).
Fig. 9. Dynamic temperature profile during blowdown of LPG (Cumber, 2001).
phases of depressurization is in agreement with the experimental
data. However, ultimately it poorly predicts temperature with an
R-square ≈ 0.445 because of the adiabatic vessel wall assumption
as shown in Fig. 9. The significant difference is with respect to the
phase temperature measurement that shows that thermodynamic
equilibrium assumption is not effective for this case. However, the
measured pressure of vessel was precisely predicted. For the ves-
sel depressurizing over long time-scale, the temperature of the
vessel was under-predicted after first few minutes as a conse-
quence of assuming no heat transfer through the vessel walls. This
did not have a substantial effect on the simulated mass flow rate
though. Another discrepancy with the application of this model is
the robustness that needs to be addressed (Skouloudis, 1992).
2.7. A. Fredenhagen
Previously accomplished research work on depressurization of
pure CO2 leads towards successful modeling of the pressure tran-
sitions and axial void profile during the expansion process (Eggers
and Green, 1990; Gebbeken and Eggers, 1995, 1996; Gebbeken and
Eggers, 1997). However, an experimental investigation on blow-
down of the top vented pressurized vessel containing CO2 with
impurities (N2) was performed by Fredenhagen and Eggers in 2001
to study the effect of impurities (Fredenhagen and Eggers, 2001).
In this study, the axial void profiles, axial temperature profiles, and
pressure and mass were measured. Top vented cylindrical vessel
with 0.05 m3 volume, 0.242 m ID, and a 4:5 height to diameter
ratio was used. The venting line was linked to a quick opening ball
valve with a cross-sectional area of 50 mm2 . PR EoS was used for
the calculation of phase equilibrium. For the prediction of this pro-
cess, a simulation tool was also coded based on the energy and
mass balance and a drift flux model. The dynamic pressure and
temperature profiles predicted by featured simulation tool and the
experimental results are illustrated in Figs. 10 and 11. The compu-
tational model predicted reasonable results of pressure transition
throughout the process. The overall R-square for temperature pre-
109
Fig. 10. Calculated and measured pressure transients for 17 mm2 orifice
(Fredenhagen and Eggers, 2001).
Fig. 11. Calculated and measured temperature transients (Fredenhagen and Eggers,
2001).
dictions is ≈ 0.955, however, the temperature predictions at low
pressure were not much precise. Consequently, an improvement
needs to be made for more precise modeling of thermodynamic
behavior of the mixture.
2.8. H. Mahgerefteh
Most comprehensive blowdown model reported in literature
was BLOWDOWN, later on extended as BLOWSIM as discussed ear-
lier. Although validated extensively with the experimental results,
the prediction is still limited to depressurization under ambient
temperature. This is a serious drawback since the blowdown situ-
ations may involve a fire case most of the time. To overcome this
issue in 2002, Mahgerefteh et al. described the establishment of a
numerical model for quantitative risk assessment (QRA) of rupture
following the depressurization of vessel under fire (Mahgerefteh
et al., 2002). The model is able to predict the tri-axial transient
pressure and thermal stress produced in both unwetted and wetted
wall sections of the vessel. The fluid/wall heat transfer was obtained
using the following equation.
 n  
’
Q = h Tw (a, t) ’
Tw (a, t) − TZ At (1)

Where h is the heat transfer coefficient, Tw (a, t) refers to the
unknown wall temperature at time t, TZ is the liquid or vapor
temperature, A is the heat transfer area and n stands for power
index. A hypothetical case study for the depressurization of a ves-
sel containing higher-HC was performed. The vessel was supposed
to be at the initial pressure and temperature of 11.6 MPa and 293 K
respectively. Two types of blowdown scenarios were simulated:
(1) the vessel under ambient conditions and (2) the vessel under
fire radiating a heat flux of 90 kW/m2 . The predicted pressure and
temperature profiles for a vessel under ambient and fire condi-
tions are illustrated in Fig. 12. The predicted results show that
thermal radiation compensates the temperature drop to a large
110 U. Shafiq, A.M. Shariff, M. Babar et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 133 (2020) 104–123
Fig. 12. Temperature and pressure histories under ambient and fire conditions
(Mahgerefteh et al., 2002).
extent. A comprehensive analysis of pressure stress and triaxial
thermal profiles indicates that rupture occurs in dry section of
vessel because of the combined effect of resident total stress and
thermally induced mechanical weakening of vessel walls. The fea-
tured numerical model serves as a powerful tool for the calculation
of minimum required blowdown time to eradicate the risk of vessel
puncture under fire.
2.9. SDM
Over the years, the researchers’ primary focus has been on the
performance of pressure relief valve (PRV) using dynamic model-
ing approach. Unfortunately, most of the processes were simulated
for dynamic properties of PRV at the fixed inlet scenarios and not
during the reclosing process (API, 1993). To predict the dynamic
properties of PRV during reclosing process, a simplified dynamic
model (SDM) was presented by Song et al. (Song et al., 2013). When
the disc moves, PRV behaves as one degree-of-freedom system and
motion of the moving part (stem and disc) was resolved based on
force balance when open. The motion of value was simulated based
on second-order differential equation deduced from Newton’s sec-
ond law (Eq. 2).
mẍ + c ẋ + Fs = Ff − Fg + fc
Where m, ẍ, and ẋ represent the mass of the moving parts, accel-
eration, and velocity of the disc part in the moving direction
respectively. c represents the damping coefficient and Fs stands
for the spring force acting on the disc that was calculated using
k(x0 + x (t)). Ff , Fg , and fc are the flow force acting on the disc part,
the gravity of disc, and the coulomb friction parameters respec-
tively. One degree-of-freedom system based on the equation of
motion was calculated using Eq. 3.
mẍ/ + c ẋ/ + k(x0 + x)/ = (/4).Cf .
Where k is the spring stiffness. and  are the reference force and
pressure difference ratio. The dynamic numerical model was based
on the major principles of the steady computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) analysis and rigid-body motion of the PRV. Afterwards, the
results from a case study revealed that SDM predicted the blow-
down of conventional PRV reliably as shown in Fig. 13. In addition,
the effect of reclosing/opening process and spring stiffness can also
be easily studied using this dynamic numerical model.
2.10. J. Zhang
To Simulate the blowdown process for the supercritical
water-cooled reactor (SCWR), a transient analysis code using a
comprehensive numerical model was developed by Zhang et al. in
2013 (Zhang et al., 2014). Three different phase separation mod-
els were implemented for the calculation of stagnation enthalpy of
two-phase fluid. Firstly, a homogenous mixture model was used to
Fig. 13. Comparison of experimental results and SDM (Song et al., 2013).
Fig. 14. Dynamic pressure comparison of different models (Zhang et al., 2014).
calculate subcooled, supercritical, and overheated fluid by neglect-
ing phase separation effect. Secondly, assuming that bubble rising
and blowdown periods are comparable and ignoring neither dis-
charge rate nor the bubble rising velocity, bubble rising model
describes this process properly. Thirdly, a complete separation
model is considered suitable for conditions when bubble rising
(2) velocity is faster as compared to the discharge speed and when the
droplets falling velocity is higher than discharge speed for conden-
sation because there is enough time for vapor dome development
in both the cases.
Supercritical CO2 and H2O were blown down initially from
313 K temperature and 25 MPa pressure for experimental inves-
tigation and verification of the developed code. The experiments
were performed on a cylindrical vessel with a 4 m height, 2 m diam-
eter and a 17 mm2 orifice for depressurization. The experimental
study and predicted pressure drop results with different models
as shown in Fig. 14. The R-square for pressure predictions is ≈
(3)
0.377 by complete separation model. The consequence of the ini-
tial condition on pressure drop was considered for different regions
divided by the relationship between corresponding pseudo-critical
and initial temperature. Furthermore, it was concluded that both
void fraction and blowdown speed increase with the decrease in
initial pressure and an increase of initial temperature, yet vice versa
for the fluid inventory.
2.11. VBsim
To predict the depressurization behavior of vessel containing
two-phase (V-L) HC mixture with non-ideal behavior, Alessan-
dro et al. described the modeling and experimental validation
of the new unsteady model, VBsim (Vessel Blowdown Simula-
tor) (D’Alessandro et al., 2015). The featured model accounts for
non-equilibrium effects between constituent fluid phases such
as temperature difference between phases. The numerical model
evaluates dynamic fluid temperature, pressure, and composition
 U. Shafiq, A.M. Shariff, M. Babar et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 133 (2020) 104–123
Fig. 15. VBsim and BLOWDOWN predictions vs experimental data (S9)
(D’Alessandro et al., 2015).
using EoS for non-ideal gas. SRK and PR EoS with Van der Waals mix-
ing rules have been implemented. Vapor phase discharge ( G, out )
was estimated using equations of motion for compressible fluid
through the orifice (Eqs. 4 and 5).
G, out = CDG G
is /MW
⎧  (+1)/2(−1)  /(−1)
⎨ SG, or √pG 2/( + 1) p/pext ≥ 2/( + 1)
⎩ SG, or 1/ 2/( − 1)pG 1 − (−1)/   /(−1) (5)
is =
p/pext < 2/( + 1)
Where MW G is the vapor phase molar weight and C G is fixed to
D
a default value of 0.84. G is the vapor density, SG, or is the orifice
area, p is the vessel pressure, pext is the atmospheric pressure,
is the ratio of p & pext , and  is the isentropic coefficient of the real
gas. The equation for an incompressible fluid through an orifice was
used for the calculation of liquid phase discharge rate (Eqs. 6 and
7).
L, out = CDL L L
/MW
 
L
= SL, or L 2 (p − pext )/L + gHL
Where SL, or , L and HL are the orifice area, liquid density, and liq-
uid static head respectively. The MW L stands for liquid phase molar
weight. The liquid discharge coefficient, CDL , is fixed to a default
value of 0.61. The liquid and the vapor daughter phase compositions
were calculated by xi and yi respectively.
xi = zi /(1 − ˇ + ˇKi ’ )
yi = Ki zi /(1 − ˇ + ˇKi )
Where Ki is the initial equilibrium coefficient and the overall vapor
fraction, ˇ, is calculated by solving the Rachford–Rice equation.
For experimental validation of the developed model, the predicted
results were plotted against the experimental data from Haque et
al. (PR and SRK) and HSE (SRK) (Haque et al., 1992a, b; Roberts
et al., 2000). A comparison with the previously defined blowdown
model (BLOWDOWN) prediction was also made as shown in Fig. 15.
Considering the overall performance, VBsim produced reasonable
results with R-square ≈ 0.682 for temperature predictions and less
CPU time requirements. However, the impact of the model could
be significantly improved if compared with further experimental
data.
2.12. A. Park
Previously, Haque et al. and Mahgerefteh et al. developed mod-
els to study heat transfer between the mixture and the vessel walls.
However, the correlation used and the value of the heat transfer
coefficient were unclear. Therefore, Park et al. (2018) presented
an elaborated heat transfer model including combined convec-
tion (forced and natural), multi-layer transient conduction, and the
111
Fig. 16. Vessel wall temperature histories and comparison with other simulation
tools and numerical models (Park et al., 2018).
nucleate boiling using PR EoS (Park et al., 2018). Mass and energy
conservations for the fluid were calculated using equations pre-
sented by Speranza and Terenzi Speranza and Terenzi (2005). The
model consists of sub-algorithms of flash calculation, discharge rate
(4)
calculation, and heat transfer rate calculation in order to estimate
the realistic expansion path. The predicted results were compared
with the measured and simulated data from literature including
renowned simulation tools such as BLOWDOWN, BLOWSIM, VBsim,
BLOW, and commercial tools such as VessFire 1.2 and Aspen HYSYS
v9. The model reasonably predicted the vapor temperature within
the experimental range while BLOWDOWN, VBsim, and HYSYS
predicted 2–10 K higher temperature. Similarly, the model also
precisely predicted the wall temperature within the experimental
range while VessFire v1.2 and BLOW predicted almost 2–8 K higher
wall temperature in contact with vapor, and VBsim predicted 10 K
higher wall temperature in contact with liquid as shown in Fig. 16).
(6)
3. Design of blowdown system for pressure pipelines
(7)
The blowdown of a pipeline and a vessel differs from each other
due to a considerable pressure difference within the vessel but not
within the pipeline. For blowdown of a vessel, pressure drop is
across the orifice, whereas for a pipeline blowdown, pressure drop
is along the line and across the orifice if it is small enough. In case
of blowdown of pipelines, the hazard emerges not only following
the low temperature generated in the pipeline walls but also due to
(8)
the high efflux rates and large total efflux that arise when a massive
(9) inventory in a typical line is depressurized (Richardson and Saville,
1993; Jarrah, 2016). To avoid accidents caused by these issues, sev-
eral numerical models have been developed. Later, some of them
have also been coded as computerised program usually known as
simulation tools. A timeline for the available simulation tools and
numerical models capable to simulate the depressurization pro-
cess is illustrated in Fig. 17 followed by a brief description (Some of
the authors didn’t name their simulation tools; therefore, we have
mentioned the names of those authors instead of the simulation
tool).
3.1. META
Marginal stability two-fluid model (MSM) based on extended
Geurst’s variational principle to generalize multi-component two-
phase dispersion was presented by Chen et al. in 1995 (Geurst,
1985a, b; Geurst, 1986; Chen et al., 1995a). Thermodynamic equi-
librium assumptions were made to develop the equations of motion
and energy conversion for compressible single or multi-component
vapor-liquid (V-L) mixture. To make the mathematical simulation
of physical process possible and profound, the flow was considered
to be marginally stable to achieve hyperbolicity of the equations.
112 U. Shafiq, A.M. Shariff, M. Babar et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 133 (2020) 104–123
Fig. 17. Timeline for blowdown numerical models.
Fig. 18. Dynamic pressure changes’ histories at the closed end (Chen et al., 1993).
In the later volume of publication, the simplified numerical
method developed by Chen et al. in 1993 (Chen et al., 1993)
was modified and applied to the MSM for multi-component mix-
tures (Chen et al., 1995b). Subsequently, MSM and HEM were
incorporated on the basis of simplified numerical method, and a
computational package termed as META (Multi-component Equi-
librium Two-phase Analyser) was coded. A comparison of different
case studies was made between HEM and the MSM with experi-
mental data for single or binary component two-phase blowdown.
A 100 m long horizontal commercial steel pipeline with 0.15 m
inner diameter (ID) containing LPG (95 mol % propane and 5 mol
% butane) was blown down. The testing temperature and pres-
sure were kept between 288–293 K (ambient temperature) and
800–2100 kPa respectively. The bore size was varied from 0.05 m to
full-bore in diameter and controlled with the circular orifice plate.
Figs. 18 and 19 show the history of the pressure and temperature
variations with respect to time at the closed ends. An R-square
≈ 0.957 was found in case of META-MSM CS for the temperature
predictions.
The comparison of HEM predictions and the measured data has
been exceptionally reasonable. All the predicted temperature, pres-
sure, inventory, and void fraction transitions correspond with the
measured data. The only peculiarity was in case of the void frac-
tion that was over-predicted after 7 s at the closed end. The most
significant findings are presented as follows.
1 The simplified numerical method predicted reasonable results
for blowdown through experimental validations as shown in
Figs. 18 and 19.
2 In case of a full-bore short pipeline blowdown (< 10 m), both
mechanical and thermal non-equilibriums are significant. How-
Fig. 19. Dynamic temperature changes’ histories at the closed end (Chen et al.,
1993).
ever, for a long pipeline blowdown, thermal non-equilibrium is
found to be insignificant.
3 Precise predictions of the phase equilibrium and thermodynamic
behavior are important for the transient flow calculations.
3.2. Fairuzov
Previously, most of the work encompassed the modeling of
depressurization from vessels or relatively short pipelines (Lahey
and Moody, 1977; Reibold et al., 1981; Jackson et al., 1981). There-
fore, a numerical simulation model for the depressurization of
relatively large pipeline transporting multi-component flashing
mixtures was coded by Fairuzov in 1998 (Fairuzov, 1998). The effect
of heat transfer between fluid flow and pipeline wall during blow-
down phenomenon was also described. Heat transfer model, the
hydrodynamic model, and break-flow model were the building
blocks of the featured model. No experimental study was con-
ducted, however, the simulation tool was validated against the
already available experimental data from BP and Shell on the Isle of
Grain (Cowley and Tam, 1988). The calculations were carried out on
an HP Apollo Series 700 working station using a double-precision
FORTRAN 77 code.
Fairuzov proposed a higher amount of heat transfer amongst
fluid and pipe walls during the depressurization process, hence,
the adiabatic assumption for simulation became invalid. Therefore,
effect of thermal capacitance was integrated into the model using
a different method in the development of energy conversion equa-
tion. The study unveiled considerable effect of thermal capacitance
of pipeline on the behavior of two-phase fluid flow. Consequently,
thermal capacitance should not be ignored especially in case of the
 U. Shafiq, A.M. Shariff, M. Babar et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 133 (2020) 104–123
Fig. 20. Dynamic pressure transitions at the open and closed ends of the line
(Fairuzov, 1998).
Fig. 21. Dynamic temperature transitions at the open and closed ends of the line
(Fairuzov, 1998).
flashing fluids. The dynamic pressure and temperature profiles are
reported in Figs. 20 and 21 respectively. Fig. 20 illustrates that the
model slightly over-predicted depressurization rate at the closed
end of pipe. However, when the fluid flow was considered to be adi-
abatic, the temperature at the open end was significantly predicted
with R-square ≈ 0.914.
3.3. CNGS-MOC
An efficient mathematical model (CNGS-MOC) for the sim-
ulation of full-bore rupture (FBR), based on the method of
characteristics (MOC) was developed by Mahgerefteh et al. in 1999
(Mahgerefteh et al., 1999). The MOC was implemented to simu-
late FBR or depressurization of a long pipe containing two-phase or
condensable HC mixtures. This method was used to develop a more
suitable method than the Finite Difference Method (FDM) and Finite
Element Method (FEM) because both had troubles in handling the
choking scenarios at the ruptured end. Moreover, the MOC is more
precise than FDM and FEM because it can resolve the blocked flow
intrinsically using Mach line characteristics. The MOC significantly
reduces number of iterations involved while solving the system of
simultaneous equations. The use of curved characteristics in con-
junction with fast-mathematical algorithm and compound nested
grid system leads to a dramatic reduction in CPU time in addition
to improved accuracy. The model was extensively validated using
field data obtained during Isle of Grain (Richardson and Saville,
1996) as well as Piper Alpha tragedy (Chen, 1993). The simulation
studies were performed on the basis of HEM assumptions. In Fig. 22,
the predicted data with CNGS-MOC and field data are correlated
with those based on other simulation tools including BLOWDOWN
(Haque et al., 1990), META-HEM (Chen et al., 1995a, b; Chen, 1993),
MSM-CS (Chen et al., 1995a, b; Chen, 1993) as well as PLAC (Hall
et al., 1993). Both META-HEM and CNGS-MOC produced reasonably
precise predictions while other models’ predictions were relatively
113
Fig. 22. Dynamic pressure histories at the open end for the P42 test LPG
(Mahgerefteh et al., 1999).
poor. The CNGS-MOC predicted the physical process with R-square
≈ 0.850 for pressure predictions.
3.4. A. Oke
Regardless of the fact that most common pipeline tragedies
include rupture, majority of the reported models so far are based
on 1-D axial flow. Others just treat the pipeline as a vessel discharg-
ing through an orifice. Therefore, Oke et al. developed a model that
can predict the transient release rate through the punctured plane
based on MOC (Oke et al., 2003). The model accounts for axial and
radial flow and real fluid behavior as well as the rupture locality
with respect to pipeline length. The PR EoS was employed to get
suitable phase and thermodynamic equilibrium data that is partic-
ularly appropriate for high-pressure HC mixtures (DeReuck et al.,
1996; Assael et al., 1996).
In case of 1-D unsteady flow, assuming phase and thermody-
namic equilibrium among phases, the energy, momentum, and
continuity conservation equations for a fluid in a rigidly clamped
pipeline were taken from literature (Veersteg and Malalasekera,
1995). The continuity equation was reformulated as follows.
[T + ϕ] dP/dt − ϕ*dh/dt + 2 a2 T *∂u/∂x = 0 (10)
Where h and ϕ represent enthalpy and thermodynamic function
respectively.  and u are density and velocity as a function of time
(t) and distance (x) respectively. Using MOC, the conservation of
continuity, energy, and momentum equations can be substituted
with three compatibility equations along with their correspond-
ing characteristic lines. The isolated flow was modeled based on
termination of the inlet feed upon rupture. In case of non-isolated
flow, inlet feed is supposed to be stopped after a prescribed period
of time. Fig. 23 is schematic illustration of the fluid flow analysis
following rupture and emergency isolation with various boundary
conditions from B1 -B6 .
In Fig. 23, C stands for match line, C0 stands for path line, and
J represents solution joints. The simulation of pressure and veloc-
ity profiles specifies three separate fluid flow regimes predominant
within the pipe that manage the dynamic transitions of the release
rate. For validation of the numerical model, the simulated outcomes
were plotted against the data from experiments performed by BP
and Shell on the Isle of Grain (Cowley and Tam, 1988). Pressure
and temperature transitions at closed and opened end are shown
in Figs. 24 and 25 respectively. The results ended up with a reason-
able prediction of the physical process with R-square ≈ 0.942 for
temperature at the closed end as shown in Fig. 25.
3.5. VPM
Until 2011, no numerical model was developed to analyze
the blowdown conditions for a vent pipeline. Therefore, Rajiwate
114 U. Shafiq, A.M. Shariff, M. Babar et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 133 (2020) 104–123
Fig. 23. Rupture plane and fluid flow study following line puncture (Oke et al., 2003).
Fig. 24. Pressure transitions at closed and opened end of P40 (LPG) test (Oke et al.,
2003).
Fig. 25. Temperature transitions at closed and opened end of P40 (LPG) test (Oke
et al., 2003).
developed a vent pipe model (VPM) to investigate the behavior of
compressible gas in a vent pipeline using thermodynamic and fluid
dynamic approach (Rajiwate, 2011). Integrated with the GERG EoS,
the use of REFPROP makes a highly adequate prediction with the
VPM (Lemmon et al., 2009; Kunz et al., 2007).
Temperature, pressure, and density relations in terms of stagna-
tion properties were defined previously (Bansal, 2005; Saad, 1993;
Shapiro, 1954). Mass efflux prediction for pipe is the central step
for the development of blowdown model for vent system in terms
of static pressure and static temperature that is expressed as:
G = PM /ZRT
The above equation for mass flux in terms of stagnation proper-
ties was represented as:
 (+1)/2(−1)
G = Po / To * /ZRM/ 1 + ( − 1)/2 *M 2
Where To , Po are the stagnation temperature and pressure respec-
tively,  is the specific heat ratio, and Z, R and M are the
compressibility factor, universal gas constant and match number
respectively. For a given downstream and stagnation pressure,
Fig. 26. Measured upstream pressure and temperature (Clausen et al., 2012).
geometry, and assumed friction factor, Eq. 11 and 12 define the
flow (Parker, 1985).
The predicted results were then validated with the experimental
study performed on a 12 m long stainless-steel pipeline. A total of 9
experimental studies were conducted with an initial pressure and
temperature of 200–400 kPa and ≈ 19 ◦ C respectively. The experi-
mental data were plotted only for a steady-state period that showed
a good agreement with the predicted values.
3.6. OLGA
Most of the reported data on experimental study of CO2 blow-
down (Gebbeken and Eggers, 1996; de Koeijer et al., 2009; Clausen
and Munkejord, 2012; de Koeijer et al., 2011; Cho et al., 2013)
describes findings from small-scale laboratory setups of flow loops
and vessels. Thus, it is of great interest for carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS) community to collect field data from exist-
ing large-scale CO2 facilities. Therefore, a large-scale CO2 pipeline
blowdown was carried out by Clausen et al. in 2012 while pointing
the possible limitations of existing dynamic multi-phase flow sim-
ulator (OLGA) (Clausen et al., 2012). An onshore buried 50 km long
24 ID pipeline containing 93,000 tonnes of CO2 (>99 % Pure) was
initially depressurized from supercritical conditions. The initially
reported temperature and pressure were 304 K and 8.1 MPa respec-
tively. The blowdown process was modeled using OLGA V5.3.2, a
multi-phase thermo-hydraulic simulation tool developed by SPT
Group (Bendiksen et al., 1991). The new coded module of OLGA for
(11)
CO2 single component was used that utilizes Span-Wagner EoS for
pure CO2 (Span and Wagner, 1996; Aursand et al., 2013).
The total blowdown time was noted to be nearly 10.50 h while
OLGA predicted duration of 10 h and 25 min. Both simulation and
(12) experimental data showed that the blowdown stayed well above
the CO2 triple point, and no traces of solidification were found as
shown in Fig. 26. However, the minimum simulated temperature
was almost 17 K lower than the minimum measured temperature.
The deviation between simulated and measured blowdown path
reveals inability of the simulation tool to handle CO2 along with
 U. Shafiq, A.M. Shariff, M. Babar et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 133 (2020) 104–123
Fig. 27. Pressure transition of simulated and measured data for 92 % CO2–8 % N2
blowdown (Huh et al., 2014).
Fig. 28. Temperature changes of simulated and measured data for 92 % CO2–8 % N2
blowdown (Huh et al., 2014).
impurities. Even a very small amount of impurities will disturb the
blowdown path.
To further study the effect of impurities on CO2 blowdown and
reliability of the OLGA tool, Huh et al. conducted experimentation
in 2014 with 2–8 % N2 addition by mass fraction (Huh et al., 2014).
The experimental apparatus comprises of the pressurization part,
liquefying part, mixing zone, and the test section. Total length of
the testing apparatus was 51.96 m with 3.86 mm ID. The temper-
ature and pressure measurements were observed at four different
positions as illustrated in Figs. 27 and 28. However, the simula-
tion tool did not predict temperature drop precisely. The results
show that the numerical simulator predicted better pressure drop
at higher concentration of impurities. Furthermore, the R-square
value at initial portion (7.93 m) of pipeline is ≈ 0.697. While, at
last portion (51.85 m), the temperature predictions are much pre-
cise with R-square ≈ 0.859. It can be inferred that the numerical
simulator requires further improvements in phase change model.
3.7. S. Brown
The commonly reported vessel/pipeline outflow numerical
models were based on HEM assumptions where the fluid phase was
considered to be at the mechanical and thermal equilibrium. Con-
sequently, there was no-equilibrium V-L transition and phase-slip
phenomena, that is, delayed bubble formation was ignored. In 2013,
Brown et al. extended the prior work by establishing and validat-
ing homogeneous relaxation model (HRM) for depressurization of
dense phase CO2 pipeline (Brown et al., 2013). Initially, the phases
were assumed to be at mechanical and thermal equilibrium, hence,
the mass, momentum, and energy conservation were presented by
Eqs. 13–15 respectively.
∂/∂t + ∂u/∂z = 0(Conservation of Mass) (13)
∂u/∂t + (∂u2 + P)/∂z = −fw u2 /Dp (14)
115
Table 1
Predominant conditions and pipeline characteristics for the COOLTRANS shock tube
test.
Pipeline characteristics Initial conditions
Pipeline length 144 m Fluid temperature 278.35 K
Internal diameter 150 mm Fluid pressure 15.335 MPa
Pipeline wall roughness 0.05 mm Ambient pressure 0.101 MPa
Fig. 29. Pressure-time profile at 0.1 m from release end of the CO2PipeHaz FBR test
(Brown et al., 2013).
∂E/∂t + ∂u(E + P)/∂z = −u(fw u2 /Dp )(Energy Balance) (15)
Where , Dp , P, u, and fw are the mixture density, pipeline diame-
ter, pressure, velocity, and fanning friction factor respectively. All of
these factors were evaluated using Chen’s correlation (1979) (Chen,
1979) as function of space (z) and time (t). E stands for the energy of
the mixture. For the non-equilibrium V-L transition, HRM was used
with the mechanical equilibrium assumption such that no phase
slip was maintained. The non-equilibrium V-L transition equation
with thermodynamic equilibrium for the vapor mass fraction is
presented in Eq. 16.
∂x/∂t + u(∂x/∂z) = (xeq − x)/ (16)
Where x represents the dynamic vapor quality and stands for
relaxation time accounting for the phase change transition delay.
Angielczyk et al. proposed an empirically determined correlation
for the relaxation time as given in Eq. 17 (Angielczyk et al., 2010).
 −0.54  −1.76
= 2.15 × 10−7 x(/sv (Ps (Tin ) − P)/(Pc − Ps (Tin )) (17)
Where Pc , sv and Ps are critical pressure, saturated vapour density
at given pressure, and saturation pressure at given temperature
respectively. To validate numerical flow model’s reliability, the
hypothetical shock tube test was conducted initially for both single
(Liquid) and two-phase CO2. Table 1 presents the initial conditions
and pipeline characteristics for the COOLTRANS FBR dense-phase
CO2 shock tube test. Moreover, CO2PipeHaz CO2 pipeline rup-
ture experiment conditions were used as an experimental study
(Mahgerefteh et al., 2011).
A 37 m long with 40 mm ID instrumented pipeline carrying pure
CO2 was blown out using an explosive charge. Pipeline’s initial con-
ditions were 7 MPa pressure and 298.35 K temperature. In general,
HRM produced plausibly good estimations of the experimental data
especially during the initial period of blowdown as shown in Fig. 29.
R-square for pressure predictions is ≈ 0.924 that indicates reliabil-
ity of the model. It was observed that FBR clearly indicates fully
dispersed flow and, hence, the phase-slip can’t be ignored.
3.8. S. Martynov
Since most of the prior reported blowdown simulation models
have been developed for V-L phase depressurization, they were not
appropriate for simulating solid CO2 release. Martynov et al. in 2013
116 U. Shafiq, A.M. Shariff, M. Babar et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 133 (2020) 104–123
Table 2
Initial experimental conditions of the release.
Initial fluid condition Test 1 Test 2
Pressure/MPa 8.0 8.6
Temperature/K 307 312
Inventory/tonne 6.5 4 6.5
Fig. 30. Time variation of the pressure measured in test 3 (Martynov et al., 2014).
extended HEM for the development of outflow model accounting
for CO2 solidification during blowdown (Martynov et al., 2014). A
set of equations describing the HEM flow including mass conver-
sion, and momentum and energy balance equations were used. For
mass conservation, Eq. 13 was used. Eqs. 14 and 15 were modified
to Eqs. 18 and 19 to calculate the momentum and energy balance
respectively.
∂u/∂t + (∂u2 + P)/∂z = −2f w u2 /D(Momentum Balance) (18)
∂E/∂t + ∂u(E + p)/∂z = 4qw /D − 2f w u3 /D(Energy Balance) (19)
To calculate the properties of vapor-solid (V-S) and vapor-liquid
(V-L) equilibrium mixtures formed during the depressurization of
vessel/pipeline containing CO2, previously developed PR EoS by
Martynov et al. (Martynov et al., 2013) was extended and applied.
p = RT/(v − b) − a/(v (v + b) + (b (v − b))
Where R, T , p, and v are the universal gas constant, temperature,
pressure, and specific volume respectively. a and b are the empiri-
cal parameters accounting for the intermolecular attraction forces
and molecular volume respectively. The instantaneous heat flux at
the pipe wall was calculated based on pipeline wall temperature
transitions with time using Eq. 21.
average average
qw = w Cp,w ıw *((dTw )/dt)
average
Where Tw represents the average pipeline wall temperature.
w , Cp,w , and ıw stand for density, pipeline heat capacity, and wall
thickness of pipeline respectively.
The featured numerical model was validated against experi-
ments conducted by Dalian University of Technology (DUT) under
CO2PipeHaz project. The model precisely predicts the pressure
transitions in the pipeline for initially supercritical fluid (Test 1 and
2). The initial experimental conditions for all the case studies are
presented in Table 2.
In case of an initially two-phase fluid (Test 3), the given HEM
model is not much reliable because of R-square ≈ 0.661 for pres-
sure predictions as shown in Fig. 30. Moreover, the release model
also predicted the dry ice formation and explained the transition
phenomena from V-L to V-S equilibrium at a triple point of CO2.
3.9. M. Drescher
HEM was validated mostly against the experimental data from
CO2 pressure release. However, Dresher et al. (2014) executed
Test 3
5.3
290
Fig. 31. Comparison of numerical and experimental (PT-40, TT-40) dynamic tem-
perature changes for different compositions at 50 m (Drescher et al., 2014).
Fig. 32. Comparison of numerical and experimental (PT-40, TT-40) dynamic pres-
sure changes for different compositions at 50 m (Drescher et al., 2014).
experiments with different CO2–N2 compositions to study the
potency of the modified HEM for a multi-component system
(Drescher et al., 2014). For simulation study, PR EoS was used and
experiments were performed on a 140 m long horizontal tube with
10 mm ID. Initially, the binary mixture in the supercritical region
(20)
was at 12 MPa pressure and a temperature of approximately 293 K.
The numerical results for all three fluid compositions regarding the
relative and absolute value match the experimental results very
well as illustrated in Figs. 31 and 32. With the increase in compo-
sition, the model predictions become more precise as maximum
R-square ≈ 0.919 for temperature prediction is noted in case of 90
% composition. Despite few complexities in the HEM employed, it
still contains several simplifications in view of the comparatively
(21) reasonable results. Further work could involve the advanced heat-
transfer models considering the effect of flow regimes or boiling.
4. Major findings
Table 3 presents a matrix of modeling outlooks presented in
literature that could aid in a holistic simulation of blowdown use
in the industrial sector. Based on the literature reviewed, Table 3
illustrates the followings:
• Commonly, the models focused on pressure and mixture temper-
ature transitions with time to understand the blowdown process.
• Limited studies on vessel wall temperature and void fraction
are also available, however, further research is required when
applied to multi-phase processes.
• HEM is extensively used to solve the blowdown process with
thermodynamic assumptions.
• Mostly, the models were validated against previously published
experimental data, especially for pure or impure CO2.
 U. Shafiq, A.M. Shariff, M. Babar et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 133 (2020) 104–123 117

Table 3
Summary of modeling approaches.

Temperature
Title Pressure Flowrate Void Fraction
Mixture Wall
√ √ √ √ √
BLOWDOWN
√ √ √ √
BLOWSIM ×
√ √ √ √
P. S. Cumber ×
√ √ √ √
A. Fredenhagen ×
√
SDM × × × ×
√ √ √ √
J. Zhang ×
√ √ √ √
VBsim ×
√ √ √ √
A. Park ×
√ √ √ √
META ×
√ √ √ √
Fairuzov ×
√ √ √
CNGS-MOC × ×
√ √ √ √
A. Oke ×
√ √ √
OLGA × ×
√ √ √ √
S. Brown ×
√ √ √ √
S. Martynov ×
√ √ √
M. Drescher × ×

Fig. 33. Comparative illustration of R2 values for different models.

Fig. 34. MG bias values for different models.

Some of the numerical models or simulation tools produced
incredibly precise predictions of the physical phenomenon occur-
ring during the blowdown process. The BLOWSIM produced most
precise results with R-square ≈ 0.9925 followed by BLOWDOWN
with R-square ≈ 0.977. BLOWSIM, META, OLGA etc. also produced
the accurate results before the process, however, they lack the abil-
ity to simulate some of the significant parameters. On the other
hand, BLOWDOWN has the ability to predict most of the impor-
tant parameters accurately. Cumber and J. Zhang produced poor
results with R-square lower than 0.4. A bar chart (Fig. 33) illus-
trates R-square value for most of the reviewed simulation tools
or numerical models. For the quantitative comparison of reviewed
models, the geometric mean bias is taken into account (Fig. 34). A
perfect model is said to have a geometric mean bias equal to 1.0.
A geometric mean bias less than 1.0 refers to underprediction and
above 1.0 refers to overprediction (Hanna et al., 1993).
5. Summary
Different simulation tools and numerical models for the cal-
culation of optimum parameters during blowdown process are
reviewed. Table 4 summarizes the operating conditions, vessel
dimensions, characteristics, and key challenges. Several novel
emerging blowdown models have been reviewed and a compar-
ative study has been presented.
 118
Table 4
Comparative analysis of different simulation tools and numerical models.

Name/Title Year Composition Condition Vessel/Pipeline Volume Orifice Size (mm) Characteristics Key Challenges Ref

Models + Tools
BLOWDOWN N2, 70 % N2 – 30 % CO2, 1.5 m long vessel with - Good understanding - No work in cryogenic (Haque et al., 1990;
1990 150 bar & 20 ◦ C 6.325 of the physical conditions or
(1990) NG/C3 & HC 10.6 diameter Haque et al., 1992a, b)
processes occurring emergency
- Ability to make - Use of the extended

U. Shafiq, A.M. Shariff, M. Babar et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 133 (2020) 104–123
predictions with an principle of
acceptable corresponding states
uncertainty for generating the
- Based on a three pertinent fluid
fluids model (vapor, thermophysical
liquid and free properties
water) - A simulation study is
restricted to
depressurization
under ambient
conditions only
- Not fully
documented

Case 1: C1 –C6 + 4.03 % 117 bar & 10 ◦ C 40 km long pipeline 0.4191 - Good understanding - Homogeneity (Richardson and
Model + Tool 1991 of the physical assumption when
N2 Saville, 1991)
Case 2: C1 –C5, C1 O, 200 bar & 40 ◦ C 20000 m long pipeline 0.4064 processes occurring the flow is
C2O + 3 % H2O - Ability to make two-phase
predictions with an - Quasi-steadiness
acceptable assumption
uncertainty - No work on
- Suitable for planned cryogenic conditions
blowdown

1996 LPG (95 % C3 – 5 % C4) 11.3-22.5 bar & 100 m long pipeline 35-154 - Predictions have - No work on Natural (Richardson and
13.3-20 ◦ C with 2-6 diameter been shown to be in gas Saville, 1996)
at least adequate, - No work in cryogenic
and often good, conditions or
agreement with the emergency situation
Isle of Grain
measurements

META (1994) LPG (95 % propane & 5 - Well prediction of - More efficient
1995 8 to 21 bar & 15 to 20 ◦ C 100 m in length, 0.15 m 0.05 m thermodynamic
(Chen et al., 1995a, b)
Model + Tool % butane experimental data
measurement
methods needed
FRICRUP (1993-94) 1993 Air, CO2, carbonated 69-138 bar & 37.8 ◦ C 25.5 km long pipeline 1.5 to 12.7 for a bottle - Predict P, T, time and - Did not predict very (Norris and Puls, 1993;
Model + Tool 1994 water, CH4 and HHC (Vessel) and 40 bar & with 7.992 diameter & 84 for Pipeline mass flowrate. well for multi-phase Norris, 1994)
15.5 ◦ C (pipeline). - For single and flow
multi-phase - Can predict
- For Vessel/Pipeline
multi-component Conditions
- No work on Natural
gas
Table 4 (Continued)

Name/Title Year Composition Condition Vessel/Pipeline Volume Orifice Size (mm) Characteristics Key Challenges Ref

Fairuzov 1998 LPG (95 % propane & 5 11.25 bar & 19.9 ◦ C 100 m long pipeline Full-bore rupture - Multi-component, - Thermal equilibrium (Fairuzov, 1998)
(Model + Tool) % butane with 150 mm internal two-phase pipe flow between the fluid
diameter model and pipe wall was
- Effect of heat not reached
transfer is discussed - Rigorous conjugated
- For non-adiabatic heat transfer model

U. Shafiq, A.M. Shariff, M. Babar et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 133 (2020) 104–123
fluid flow should be used for
- Well prediction of transient heat
experimental data transfer description

BLOWSIM 1999 64 % C1 , 6 % C2, 28 % 116 atm & 293 K N/A 10 mm - Multi-component, - Limited data on (Mahgerefteh and
(Model + Tool) n-C3 & 2 % n-C4 the multi-phase pipe experimental Wong, 1999)
flow model validation
- BLOWSIM performs - No work on Natural
better than gas
BLOWDOWN - Thermal and
- The cubic equation mechanical
of state has positive equilibrium
effects on data assumption (Brown
et al., 2013)
- No work in cryogenic
conditions or
emergency situation

CNGS-MOC 1999 LPG (95 % propane & 5 11.25 bar & 19.9 ◦ C 100 m long pipeline FBR - Reasonably accurate - No Experimental (Mahgerefteh et al.,
(Model + Tool) % butane with 150 mm internal predictions Work 1999)
diameter - Less CPU time - Less data on
- improving accuracy experimental
validation

P. S. Cumber 2001 LPG (C1 66.5 %, C2 3.5 % 120 bar & 25 ◦ C 3.24 m height with 10 mm - Precise prediction of - No experimental (Cumber, 2001)
(Model + Tool) & C3 30 % 0.54 m ID pressure and mass study conducted
flow rate - Imprecise
- Less computational temperature
time prediction
- No heat transfer
through vessel wall
assumption

A. Fredenhagen 2001 N2 – CO2 25-15 bar & 298 K 0.05 m3 vessel with 29-17 mm2 - A good prediction of - Tool commercially (Fredenhagen and
(Model + Tool) 0.242 m diameter the process not available Eggers, 2001)
- Applicable for - Unable to predict
Multi-component equipment
process conditions
- Limited data on
experimental
validation
- No data on
multi-phase process

119
 120
Table 4 (Continued)

Name/Title Year Composition Condition Vessel/Pipeline Volume Orifice Size (mm) Characteristics Key Challenges Ref

H. Mahgerefteh 2002 64 % C1 , 6 % C2, 28 % 116 bar & 293 K 3.24 m vessel with 10 mm - Prediction of - No experimentation (Mahgerefteh et al.,
(Model) n–C3 & 2 % n–C4 1.13 m diameter and thermodynamic validation 2002)
59 mm wall thickness properties under fire - No simulation tools
and ambient developed
conditions
- For

U. Shafiq, A.M. Shariff, M. Babar et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 133 (2020) 104–123
multi-component
and multi-phase
process
- Vessel conditions
calculations

A. Oke (Model) 2004 LPG 21.6 bar & 20 ◦ C 100 m long with 150 - The model accounts - No experimental
0.154 m ID for axial and radial study performed
flow, real fluid - No validation for
behavior as well as natural gas mixture
the locality of and cryogenic
puncture with conditions
respect to the length
of pipe

VPM (Model) 2011 78.12 % N2, 20.96 % O2 200-400 kPa and ≈ 120 m long pipeline N/A - For - It can only predict (Rajiwate, 2011)
& 0.92 % Ar 19 ◦ C multi-component steady state
process conditions
- Ability to calculate - It is not suitable for
pipe wall the multi-phase
temperature process

OLGA (1991) 50 km long, 24 - Experimental data - Non-reliable

2012 CO2 81 bar & 31 ◦ C 8 from large-scale CO2 predications of (Clausen et al., 2012)
pipeline
unit experimental data
- Initially supercritical - No work on
conditions multi-component &
- Multi-phase process multi-phase process
- No study on the
Tool
2014 CO2, 2–8 % N2 85b bar & 20 ◦ C 51.96 m tube with N/A - Studied Effect of effect of initial (Huh et al., 2014)
3.86 mm ID impurities on CO2 conditions
blowdown
- Good predictions of
initial pressure drop

J. Zhang 2013 CO2 & Water 25 MPa & 380 ◦ C 4 m height & 2 m 0.008 m2 - A good prediction of - Limited data on (Zhang et al., 2014)
diameter the process experimental
- Supercritical validation
conditions - No work on natural
- Multi-component gas
and multi-phase - Only work on
process supercritical
conditions
Table 4 (Continued)

Name/Title Year Composition Condition Vessel/Pipeline Volume Orifice Size (mm) Characteristics Key Challenges Ref

15.335 MPa & 278.35 K 144 m long pipeline - Model predictions - Lack of sufficient and
S. Brown (Model) 2013 CO2 FBR (Brown et al., 2013)
with 150 mm diameter produced a reliable
reasonable experimental data
agreement - No work on the
- Multi-phase process multi-component
- Delayed phase process
transition has an - No work on natural
insignificant effect gas and cryogenic

U. Shafiq, A.M. Shariff, M. Babar et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 133 (2020) 104–123
on the conditions or
7 MPa & 298.35 K 37 m long pipeline depressurization rate emergency situation
with 40 mm ID of pipe
S. Martynov 2013 CO2 53-86 bar & 34-39 ◦ C 256 m long pipeline 50 mm - Good prediction for - Unable to predict (Martynov et al., 2014)
(Model) with 233 mm diameter initially supercritical initially two-phase
fluid fluid
- Prediction of dry ice - No work on
formation cryogenic or
emergency
conditions
- Experimental study
performed only for
single component

M. Drescher 2014 CO2 + 10–30 % N2 120 bar & 20 140 m long pipeline 9.5 mm - Good predication of - Require (Drescher et al., 2014)
with 10 mm ID experimental results advancement of
- Experimental heat-transfer models
validation of HEM - Temperature
with binary prediction was less
components accurate

VBsim 2015 N2 CO2–HC (up to C1 O) 290-323 K & 118.5-22 8.429 m length with 0.635-1.4 cm - Good predication of - No experimental (D’Alessandro et al.,
& HC (up to C3) bar 1.97 m diameter experimental results study performed. 2015)
- For - No study in the
multi-component cryogenic region.
and multi-phase
process
- Consider
non-equilibrium
effects between
constituent fluid
phases

293-303 K & 3.24 m length with - Two-phase - No experimental

A. Park 2017 HC Mixture 10 mm (Park et al., 2018)
117.5-120 bar 1.13 m ID multi-component work performed No
system prediction. study in the
- Can predict wall cryogenic region.
temperature
contracting liquid
and vapor.
- More precise
predictions than
previously available
models

121
122 U. Shafiq, A.M. Shariff, M. Babar et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 133 (2020) 104–123
6. Conclusion
In this paper, the available models for the optimum blow-
down parameters’ calculation are discussed. The challenges for
depressurization in process industry through a review of existing
literature are also highlighted. The available models are capable
of solving the blowdown scenarios, however, there are still some
limitations listed as follows.
• Only a few lab-scale experimental studies are reported for the
validation of models. The reliability of models will be improved
if also validated against the large scale experimental facilities.
• More extensive experimental studies on natural gas and other
gaseous mixtures could help to improve the validity of models.
• Limited studies are reported for the blowdown of pressure vessels
under fire conditions.
• Experimental studies for blowdown from the cryogenic con-
ditions could also be considered. It would help to study the
blowdown process under worst case scenarios especially when a
phase change is involved that can lead to the formation of solids.
• A new numerical model can also be developed to overcome the
problems related to dry ice formation during the blowdown pro-
cess.
• Studies on blowdown of vessels/pipelines through multiple
chokes needs to be considered.
• To avoid solidification during blowdown, the effect of additives
can be studied.
In addressing these research areas, industry should be empow-
ered to make effective and sustainable retrofit decisions while
simultaneously reducing hazards and improving the safety. This
paper has focused on solutions for industrial hazards related to
depressurization. However, the outcome of the identified research
areas has wide-ranging applications with techniques that could be
applied to solve many other system simulation challenges.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to extend their most profound grati-
tude to the CO2 Research Centre (CO2RES), Universiti Teknologi
PETRONAS (UTP), Malaysia, for the accomplishment of this Review
article.
References
Hanna, S., Chang, J., Strimaitis, D., 1993. Hazardous gas model evaluation with field
observations. Atmos. Environ. Part A Gen. Top. 27, 2265–2285.
AirConditioning, H., 2002. Refridgeration-The News. Boiler Accident Report : To Err
Is Human, November 8th.
Angielczyk, W., Bartosiewicz, Y., Butrymowicz, D., Seynhaeve, J.-M., 2010. 1-D Mod-
eling of Supersonic Carbon Dioxide Two-Phase Flow through Ejector Motive
Nozzle.
Api, R., 1990. Recommended Practice., pp. 521.
API, 1993. Recommended Practice 520 Part 1—Sizing and Selction, sixth ed.
Assael, M.J., Trusler, J.M., Tsolakis, T.F., 1996. Thermophysical Properties of Fluids:
An Introduction to Their Prediction. World Scientific.
Aursand, P., Hammer, M., Munkejord, S.T., Wilhelmsen, Ø., 2013. Pipeline transport
of CO2 mixtures: models for transient simulation. Int. J. Greenh. Gases Control
15, 174–185.
Bansal, R.K., 2005. Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Machines, 9 ed. Laxmi Publications
(P) Ltd, New Delhi, ed.
Barma, M., Saidur, R., Rahman, S., Allouhi, A., Akash, B., Sait, S.M., 2017. A review on
boilers energy use, energy savings, and emissions reductions. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 79, 970–983.
Bendiksen, K.H., Maines, D., Moe, R., Nuland, S., 1991. The dynamic two-fluid model
OLGA: theory and application. SPE Prod Eng. 6, 171–180.
Bond, J., 2002. Institute of Chemical Engineers Accidents Database. Institute of Chem-
ical Engineers., Rugby. UK.
Brown, S., Martynov, S., Mahgerefteh, H., Proust, C., 2013. A homogeneous relaxation
flow model for the full bore rupture of dense phase CO2 pipelines. Int. J. Greenh.
Gases Control 17, 349–356.
Byrnes, W., Reid, R., Ruccia, F., 1964. Rapid depressurization of gas storage cylinder.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Process. Des. Dev. 3, 206–209.
Chen, J.-R., 1993. Modelling of Transient Flow in Pipeline Blovvdown Problems.
University of London.
Chen, N.H., 1979. An explicit equation for friction factor in pipe. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Fund. 18, 296–297.
Chen, J., Richardson, S., Saville, G., 1993. A simplified numerical method for transient
two-phase pipe flow. Trans IChemE 71, 304–306.
Chen, J., Richardson, S., Saville, G., 1995a. Modelling of two-phase blowdown from
pipelines—i. A hyperbolic model based on variational principles. Chem. Eng. Sci.
50, 695–713.
Chen, J., Richardson, S., Saville, G., 1995b. Modelling of two-phase blowdown from
pipelines—II. A simplified numerical method for multi-component mixtures.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 50, 2173–2187.
Cho, M.-I., Huh, C., Jung, J.-Y., Kang, S.-G., 2013. Experimental study of N2 impu-
rity effect on the steady and unsteady CO2 pipeline flow. Enrgy Proced. 37,
3039–3046.
Clausen, S., Munkejord, S.T., 2012. Depressurization of CO2–a numerical benchmark
study. Energy Procedia 23, 266–273.
Clausen, S., Oosterkamp, A., Strøm, K.L., 2012. Depressurization of a 50 km long 24
inches CO2 pipeline. Enrgy Proced. 23, 256–265.
Cowley, L., Tam, V., 1988. Consequences of pressurized LPG releases: the Isle of
grain full scale experiments. In: Submitted 13th Int. Conf LNG/LPG Conference
and Exhibition, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Cui, H., Wang, W., Li, A., Li, M., Xu, S., Liu, H., 2010. Failure analysis of the brittle
fracture of a thick-walled 20 steel pipe in an ammonia synthesis unit. Eng. Fail.
Anal. 17, 1359–1376.
Cullen, W., 1990. The Public Inquiry Into the Piper alpha Disaster. Department of
Energy, HMSO, London, UK.
Cumber, P.S., 2001. Predicting outflow from high pressure vessels. Process Saf. Env-
iron. 79, 13–22.
D’Alessandro, V., Giacchetta, G., Leporini, M., Marchetti, B., Terenzi, A., 2015.
Modelling blowdown of pressure vessels containing two-phase hydrocarbons
mixtures with the partial phase equilibrium approach. Chem. Eng. Sci. 126,
719–729.
de Koeijer, G., Borch, J.H., Jakobsenb, J., Drescher, M., 2009. Experiments and mod-
eling of two-phase transient flow during CO2 pipeline depressurization. Energy
Proced. 1, 1683–1689.
de Koeijer, G., Borch, J.H., Drescher, M., Li, H., Wilhelmsen, Ø, Jakobsen, J., 2011.
CO2 transport–Depressurization, heat transfer and impurities. Energy Procedia
4, 3008–3015.
DeReuck, K., Craven, R., Elhassan, A., 1996. In: Millat, J., Dymond, J.H., Nieto de Cas-
tro, C.A. (Eds.), Transport Properties of Fluids: Their Correlation, Prediction and
Estimation. IUPAC. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Drescher, M., Varholm, K., Munkejord, S.T., Hammer, M., Held, R., de Koeijer, G., 2014.
Experiments and modelling of two-phase transient flow during pipeline depres-
surization of CO2 with various N2 compositions. Energy Proced. 63, 2448–2457.
Eggers, R., Green, V., 1990. Pressure discharge from a pressure vessel filled with CO2 .
J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 3, 59–63.
Fairuzov, Y.V., 1998. Blowdown of pipelines carrying flashing liquids. Aiche J. 44,
245–254.
Fisher, H., Forrest, H., Grossel, S.S., Huff, J., Muller, A., Noronha, J., et al., 2010. Emer-
gency Relief System Design Using DIERS Technology: The Design Institute for
Emergency Relief Systems (DIERS) Project Manual. John Wiley & Sons.
Fletcher, S., 2001. US Senate ready to act on pipeline safety as public attention
sharpens. Oil Gas J. 99, 58–60.
Fredenhagen, A., Eggers, R., 2001. High pressure release of binary mixtures of
CO2 and N2. Experimental investigation and simulation. Chem. Eng. Sci. 56,
4879–4885.
Gebbeken, B., Eggers, R., 1995. Thermohydraulic phenomena during vessel release of
initially supercritical carbon dioxide. International Symposium Two-Phase Ow
Modelling and Experimentation.
Gebbeken, B., Eggers, R., 1996. Blowdown of carbon dioxide from initially supercrit-
ical conditions. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 9, 285–293.
Gebbeken, B., Eggers, R., 1997. Investigations on vessel blowdown and flashing of
pressurized carbon dioxide. Proc of the 4 World Conference on Experimental
Heat Transfer, Fluid Mechanics and Thermodynamics (ExHFT4), 1709–1716.
Geurst, J., 1986. Variational principles and two-fluid hydrodynamics of bubbly liq-
uid/gas mixtures. Physica A 135, 455–486.
Geurst, J., 1985a. Virtual mass in two-phase bubbly flow. Physica A 129, 233–261.
Geurst, J., 1985b. Two-fluid hydrodynamics of bubbly liquid/vapour mixture includ-
ing phase change. Philips J. Res. 40, 352–374.
Gradle, R., 1984. Design of gas pipeline blowdowns. Energy Proc. Cdn., 15–20.
Hall, A., Butcher, G., Teh, C., 1993. Transient simulation of two-phase hydrocarbon
flows in pipelines. European Two-Phase Flow Group Meeting (Hannover), paper,
p. I4.
Haque, A., Richardson, S., Saville, G., Chamberlain, G., 1990. Rapid depressurization
of pressure vessels. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 3, 4–7.
Haque, M., Richardson, S., Saville, G., 1992a. Blowdown of pressure vessels. I. Com-
puter model. Trans IChemE, Part B, Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 70, 3–9.
Haque, M., Richardson, S., Saville, G., Chamberlain, G., Shirvill, L., 1992b. Blowdown of
pressure vessels. II. Experimental validation of computer model and case studies.
Trans IChemE, Part B, Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 70, 10–17.
Huh, C., Cho, M.-I., Hong, S., Kang, S.-G., 2014. Effect of impurities on depressurization
of CO2 pipeline transport. Energy Procedia 63, 2583–2588.
 U. Shafiq, A.M. Shariff, M. Babar et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 133 (2020) 104–123
Jackson, J., Liles, D., Ransom, V., Ybarrondo, L., 1981. LWR system safety analysis.
Nuclear Reactor Saf. Heat Transf. 12, 415.
Jarrah, A.A., 2016. Modeling and simulation of rapid depressurizations of hydrocar-
bon gas mixture flowing at unsteady high velocity in piping transport system.
Int. J. Ind. Eng. (SSRG-IJIE)., 3.
Kunz, O., Klimeck, R., Wagner, W., Jaeschke, M., 2007. The GERG-2004 Wide-range
Equation of State for Natural Gases and Other Mixtures. Fortschr. Ber VDI, VDI-
Verlag, Düsseldorf.
Ladokun, T., Nabhani, F., Zarei, S., 2010. Accidents in Pressure Vessels: Hazard Aware-
ness. International Association of Engineers.
Lahey, R.T., Moody, F., 1977. The Thermal Hydraulics of a Boiling Water Nuclear
Reactor (Monograph Series on Nuclear Science and Technology).
L-b, Ouyang, Aziz, K., 1996. Steady-state gas flow in pipes. J. Petrol Sci. Eng. 14,
137–158.
Lemmon, D.E.W., Huber, D.M.L., McLinden, D.M.O., 2009. REFPROP Manual. U S
Department of Commerce, Boulder.
Lydell, B.O., 2000. Pipe failure probability—the Thomas paper revisited. Reliab. Eng.
Syst. Saf. 68, 207–217.
Mahgerefteh, H., Wong, S.M., 1999. A numerical blowdown simulation incorporating
cubic equations of state. Comput. Chem. Eng. 23, 1309–1317.
Mahgerefteh, H., Falope, G.B., Oke, A.O., 2002. Modeling blowdown of cylindrical
vessels under fire attack. AIChE J. 48, 401–410.
Mahgerefteh, H., Saha, P., Economou, I.G., 1999. Fast numerical simulation for full
bore rupture of pressurized pipelines. Aiche J. 45, 1191–1201.
Mahgerefteh, H., Fairweather, M., Falle, S., Melheim, J., Ichard, M., Storvik,
I., et al., 2011. CO2Pipehaz: Quantitative Hazard Assessment for Next
Generation CO2 Pipelines. Institute of Chemical Engineers, Rugby,
pp. 606–610.
Martynov, S., Brown, S., Mahgerefteh, H., Sundara, V., Chen, S., Zhang, Y., 2014.
Modelling three-phase releases of carbon dioxide from high-pressure pipelines.
Process Saf. Environ. 92, 36–46.
Martynov, S., Brown, S., Mahgerefteh, H., 2013. An extended Peng-Robinson equation
of state for carbon dioxide solid-vapor equilibrium. Greenhouse: Sci. Technol. 3,
136–147.
Milano, J., Ong, H.C., Masjuki, H., Chong, W., Lam, M.K., Loh, P.K., et al., 2016. Microal-
gae biofuels as an alternative to fossil fuel for power generation. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 58, 180–197.
Moss, D.R., 2004. Pressure Vessel Design Manual. Elsevier.
Norris III, H., 1994. Hydrocarbon blowdown from vessels and pipelines. SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Norris III, H., Puls, R., 1993. Single-phase or multiphase blowdown of vessels or
pipelines. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition: Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
Oke, A., Mahgerefteh, H., Economou, I., Rykov, Y., 2003. A transient outflow model
for pipeline puncture. Chem. Eng. Sci. 58, 4591–4604.
Onyebuchi, V.E., Kolios, A., Hanak, D.P., Biliyok, C., Manovic, V., 2017. A systematic
review of key challenges of CO2 transport via pipelines. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev.
Park, A., Ko, Y., Ryu, S., Lim, Y., 2018. Numerical modeling of rapid depressurization
of a pressure vessel containing two-phase hydrocarbon mixture. Process Saf.
Environ. 113, 343–356.
Parker, G., 1985. ‘Pop’safety valves: a compressible flow analysis. Int. J. Heat Fluid
Flow 6, 279–283.
Peng, D.-Y., Robinson, D.B., 1976. A new two-constant equation of state. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Fundam. 15, 59–64.
Rajiwate, F.L.H., 2011. Investigation of Compressible Fluid Behaviour in a Vent Pipe
During Blowdown. Curtin University.
Reibold, W., Reocreux, M., Jones, O., 1981. Blowdown phase. Nuclear Reactor Safety
Heat Transfer., 325–378.
Richardson, S., Saville, G., 1993. Blowdown of vessels and pipelines. Institution
of Chemical Engineers Symposium Series: Hemsphere Publishing Corporation,
195-.
View publication stats
123
Richardson, S., Saville, G., 1991. Blowdown of Pipelines. Offshore Europe: Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
Richardson, S., Saville, G., 1996. Blowdown of LPG pipelines. Process Saf Environ. 74,
235–244.
Roberts, T., Medonos, S., Shirvill, L., 2000. Review of the Response of Pressurised
Process Vessels and Equipment to Fire Attack.
Saad, M.A., 1993. Compressible Fluid Flow, 2 ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, ed.
Saville, G., Richardson, S., Barker, P., 2004. Leakage in ethylene pipelines. Process Saf.
Environ. 82, 61–68.
Selby, C., Burgan, B., 1998. Blast and Fire Engineering for Topside Structures-phase
2: Final Summary Report. SCi publication.
Shapiro, A.H., 1954. The Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Compressible Fluid Flow,
vol2.
Simon, L.L., Introvigne, M., Fischer, U., Hungerbühler, K., 2008. Batch reactor opti-
mization under liquid swelling safety constraint. Chem. Eng. Sci. 63, 770–781.
Skouloudis, A.N., 1992. Benchmark exercises on the emergency venting of vessels.
J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 5, 89–103.
Soave, G., 1972. Equilibrium constants from a modified Redlich-Kwong equation of
state. Chem. Eng. Sci. 27, 1197–1203.
Song, X.-G., Park, Y.-C., Park, J.-H., 2013. Blowdown prediction of a conventional
pressure relief valve with a simplified dynamic model. Math. Comput. Model.
57, 279–288.
Span, R., Wagner, W., 1996. A new equation of state for carbon dioxide covering the
fluid region from the triple-point temperature to 1100 K at pressures up to 800
MPa. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 25, 1509–1596.
Speranza, A., Terenzi, A., 2005. Blowdown of Hydrocarbons Pressure Vessel with Par-
tial Phase Separation. Applied and Industrial Mathematics in. World Scientific,
Italy, pp. 508–519.
Talbi, B., 2017. CO2 emissions reduction in road transport sector in Tunisia. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 69, 232–238.
Tam, V., Higgins, R., 1990. Simple transient release rate models for releases of pres-
surised liquid petroleum gas from pipelines. J. Hazard. Mater. 25, 193–203.
The National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors, URL: 2002. National
Board Bulletin. http://www.nationalboard.org.
Tolloczko, J., 1992. Interim Guidance Notes for the Design and Protection of Topside
Structures Against Explosion and Fire: Steel Construction Institute.
Transporter B. Boiler, URL 2001. Pressure Vessel Accidents Increase. http://
bulktransporter.com.
Twu, C.H., Coon, J.E., Cunningham, J.R., 1992. A new cubic equation of state. Fluid
Phase Equilibra 75, 65–79.
Veersteg, K., Malalasekera, W., 1995. An introduction to computational fluid dynam-
ics: the finite volume method. Pearson Schweiz Ag. 20, 400.
Witlox, H., Holt, A., 1999. A unified model for jet, heavy and passive dispersion
including droplet rainout and re-evaporation. CCPS International Conference &
Workshop on Modeling the Consequences of Accidental Releases of Hazardous
Materials, Sept.
Witlox, H., Holt, A., Contract 44003900 for Exxon Mobil 2001. Validation of the
Unified Dispersion Model against Kit Fox Field Data.
Witlox, H.W., Harper, M., Oke, A., Stene, J., 2014. Phast validation of discharge and
atmospheric dispersion for pressurised carbon dioxide releases. J. Loss Prev.
Process Ind. 30, 243–255.
Witlox, H.W., Fernandez, M., Harper, M., Oke, A., Stene, J., Xu, Y., 2018. Verification
and validation of Phast consequence models for accidental releases of toxic or
flammable chemicals to the atmosphere. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 55, 457–470.
Wong, M.A., 1998. Development of a Mathematical Model for Blowdown of Vessels
Containing Multi-component Hydrocarbon Mixtures. University of London.
Woodward, J.L., Papadourakis, A., 1995. Reassessment and reevaluation of rainout
and drop size correlation for an aerosol jet. J. Hazard. Mater. 44, 209–230.
Woodward, J.L., Cook, J., Papadourakis, A., 1995. Modeling and validation of a dis-
persing aerosol jet. J. Hazard. Mater. 44, 185–207.
Zhang, J., Zhu, D., Tian, W., Qiu, S., Su, G., Zhang, D., 2014. Depressurization study of
supercritical fluid blowdown from simple vessel. Ann. Nucl. Energy 66, 94–103.