PROTEGO® Braunschweiger Flammenfilter GmbH

Venting of atmospheric and low-pressure storage tanks ISO 28300/API 2000

Simon Maier
Regional Manger Europe 7.12.2017
Agenda

1 Why conservation vents do not function as Flame Arresters

2 Emission Reduction through breathing loss minimization

3 Storage Tanks with Pressure / Vacuum Relief Valves and Flame Arresters

© Braunschweiger Flammenfilter GmbH 2

 International Standard:
Venting of atmospheric and low-pressure storage tanks ISO 28300

API 2000
EN 14015
5th edition ISO 28300 Petroleum,
Annex L
petrochemical and natural gas
industries – Venting of
atmospheric and low-pressure
storage tanks TRbF 20

API 2000
6th/7th edition
 Background and development of ISO 28300 Standard

• ISO 28300 was mainly developed based on the API 2000 standard 1998 6th
Edition, the EN 14015 Standard Annex L and the German TRbF 20

• Contradiction towards the venting requirements for normal venting

• Contradiction towards the use of vents as flame arresters

Committee goal:
This standard shall consider all state of the art knowledge concerning tank
venting and safety and provide best practice to the user
 Why conservation vents do not function as flame arresters:

API 2000 5th Edition 1998 (old version not valid any more):
A flame arrester is not considered necessary for use in conjunction with a pressure
vacuum valve venting to atmosphere because flame speeds are less than vapor
velocities across the seat of the pressure vacuum valve

TRbF 20 (German standard):

Clearly calls for flame arresters for tanks that contain liquids that can create an
explosive atmosphere

Factory Mutual (Insurance and approval company)

Requires installation of flame arresters on tanks which store liquids with a flash point
at or below 43 ◦C or on tanks which heat the stored liquid to its flash point
Conclusion for ISO 28300 committee regarding atmospheric
explosion protection of storage tanks:

 Research work is needed due to contradicting standards and

opinions
 ISO 16852 shall apply as test standard
 Two types of test are needed:
• A) atmospheric deflagration test
• B) continuous burn test
 Atmospheric Deflagration - Test set-up

1 ignition source
2 plastic bag Ø 1,2 m, length 2,5m foil
thickness >0,05 mm
3 conservation vent
4 explosion proof container
5 mixture inlet with shut-off valve
6 mixture outlet
7 bursting diaphragm

atmospheric deflagration test of end-of-line flame arrester as

described in ISO 16852 part 7.3.2.1.
 High Velocity Burning - Test set-up

1 continuous flame
2 pressure vacuum valve
3 explosion proof container
4 mixture inlet
5 bursting diaphragm
7 pilot flame
10 shut-off valve

atmospheric deflagration test of end-of-line flame arrester as

described in ISO 16852 part 9.2.
 Example Methanol:
(ignitable temperature range is within normal storage conditions)

 Vapor pressure: 30 kPa LFL: 5.5 vol% UFL: 26.5 vol%

Explosion hazard of Methanol

40
Vapor Concentration in Vol.%

35
UFL = 26.5
30
25
20
15
LFL = 5.5
10
5 Ignitable Temperature Range
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Temperature of Liquid Methanol in degree Celcisus
 Recommendation of ISO 28300 regarding explosion prevention:

• Different tank selection

• Inert gas blanketing
• Flame arresters
• Pressure vacuum valves:
“Testing has demonstrated that a flame can propagate through a pressure vacuum
valve and into the vapour space of the tank. Tests have shown that ignition of a PV's
relief stream (possibly due to a lighting strike) can result in a flash back to the PV with
enough overpressure to lift the vacuum pallet causing the flame to enter the tank's
vapour space. Other tests have shown that under low flow conditions a flame can
propagate though the pressure side of the PV, ..”
 Emission Reduction through breathing loss minimization (VDI
3479*)

“The Function of the P/V Vent is to keep the vapor space closed during variations in
the atmospheric pressure and/or temperature decrease in spite of pertinent
changes of gas volume and pressure, until that time when a technically admissible
low or high pressure is reached”

Goal: avoid intake of ambient air and discharge of product/air mixture

* Forschungsbericht 225 “Kohlenwasserstoff – Emissionen aus Festdachtanks – Vergleich von

Berechnungsformeln unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der VDI Richtlinie 3479, Hamburg, February 1985
 Main influence factor of emission reduction for hydrocarbon
vapors

a) Upper and lower set pressure of vents (set pressure & set
vacuum)
b) Temperature difference within the vapor space of the tank
c) Hydrocarbon concentration of the hydrocarbon/air mixture in the
vapor space (vapor pressure)
 PVRV 100% vs. 10% Lift Tech.

Vent valves in acc. to API Standard 2000 with 100%

overpressure

20 mbar Opening pressure

Vent Valves with 10% Technology

difference from set pressure
(Start open) to opening pressure
(full open)

Valve set pressure to be

adjusted 10 mbar 18 mbar
Set Pressure and Vacuum needs to be influenced

MAWP
(design pressure)
 PROTEGO® 10% Technology

Difference between Full lift and proportional pallet

Function with lifting cover Function without lifting cover

© Braunschweiger Flammenfilter GmbH 17

 Design Problem with 100 % overpressure Technology

MAWP

Required flow

P set 100%
P close 100%

pressure P close PROTEGO 10%

P set N2 blanketing P set PROTEGO 10%

© Braunschweiger Flammenfilter GmbH 18

 10% vs. 100% Technology

4 6 4 6

Operating
Blow
Full flow
Starting down
torange
open 2 8
Operating
Starting
Blow torange
open
Fulldown
flow 2 8
0to
to
5.0”WC
+3.1”WC
+4.5”WC
+4.5”WC 0to
to
+2.5”WC
+2.5”WC
5.0”WC
+1.8”WC
0 10 0 10

inches of WC inches of WC

10% 100%
 Calculation Example
Fixed Roof Tank with Pressure/Vacuum Vents

80.00 71.68 %
Emission Massflow (t/yr) and
% of Emission Reduction

65.17 %
70.00

60.00 51.20 %

50.00
35.84 %
40.00

30.00

20.00
9.78 7.44 5.31 4.32
10.00

0.00
1 2 3 4
100% 40% 10% 0%
 Safe protection of storage tanks
with Pressure / Vacuum Relief Valves and Flame Arresters
Who knows such an installation?
 Many traditional configurations are a safety risk

ISO 16852 requires both flow and flame transmission testing of Pressure
Vacuum Relief Valves combined with Flame Arresters but lots of
Pressure Vacuum Relief Valves combined with Flame Arresters are not
fully tested!
 Many traditional configurations are a safety risk

At subsonic flow small pressure losses can impact the lift of a valve
pallet quite severely. An increase in the accumulation from set pressure
till full-lift is likely.
 Many traditional configurations are a safety risk

Placing a Flame Arrester below the Pressure Vacuum Relief Valve leads
to:

• Additional risk of clogging and hence storage tank collapse

• May not be safe if explosions or endurance burning occurs
• Flame Arrester element cannot be serviced without losing explosion
mitigation effect
• Difficult and lengthy maintenance procedure particularly with larger
sizes
 Many traditional configurations are a safety risk

Combining a Flame Arrester with a Pressure Vacuum Relief Valve can

lead to reduced flow or even severe chattering in high flow relief
scenarios when protection is needed most.
Chattering of combined valve with flame arrester

© Braunschweiger Flammenfilter GmbH 27

Combined valve with flame arrester

© Braunschweiger Flammenfilter GmbH 28

Thank you for the opportunity to present

Excellence in Safety and Evironment

 Back up

© Braunschweiger Flammenfilter GmbH 30

 Emission reduction with PROTEGO®
Over-/Underpressure- Relief Valves

Possible minimum leakage rates (examples)

Flange connection Protego Standard ISO 28300 / API 2000 6th edition
over up to bubbles per min cm³/min m³/h bubbles per min cm³/min m³/h
40 25 7,5 0,00045 786 236,6 0,01420
40 100 63 18,9 0,00113 786 236,6 0,01420
100 150 94 28,2 0,00169 786 236,6 0,01420
150 200 125 37,5 0,00225 7866 2360,0 0,14160
200 250 157 47,1 0,00283 7866 2360,0 0,14160
250 300 188 50,4 0,00302 7866 2360,0 0,14160
300 350 220 66,0 0,00396 7866 2360,0 0,14160
350 400 252 75,6 0,00454 7866 2360,0 0,14160
400 500 314 94,2 0,00565 31460 9438,0 0,56628
500 600 376 112,8 0,00677 31460 9438,0 0,56628
600 700 440 132,4 0,00794 31460 9438,0 0,56628

at 90% set pressure at 75% set pressure

 PROTEGO - Germany

TÜV-Certified Flow Test Rig

Flow testing of vents according to API 2000/ISO 28300 (TÜV Certified Flow
Rig)
1. test medium supply (e.g. blower or fan)
2. calibrated flow measurement device
3. test tank
4. calibrated measuring device for pressure and vacuum
5. (pressure and vacuum measurement may be achieved
with separate instruments)
6. temperature measuring device
7. barometer - measuring device for atmospheric pressure
8. device to be tested
9. pipe-away if fitted
10. atmospheric temperature and dew point measuring
device
11. L = length of connecting pipe (straight pipe nipple)
Emission per cycle (opening to reseating)

overpressure set pressure mass (opening) mass (reseating) total mass total volume
mbar kg kg kg m³
full lift 10% 20 0,08 0,32 0,40 0,5

modulated 40% 14 0,51 0,66 1,17 1,4

modulated 100% 11 2,31 1,08 3,39 4,1

3,50

3,00

2,50

2,00 reseating
opening
1,50

1,00

0,50

0,00
10% 40% 100%
 Opening pressure versus closing pressure
(by using 10% technology)
Pset,PV = 14,9 mbarg
Popen,PV = 16,4 mbarg
Pset,N2 = 10,4 mbarg
Pclose,PV = 11,3 mbarg
Pset,ERV = 18,2 mbarg
Popen,ERV = 20,0 mbarg
Pclose,ERV = 13,5 mbarg

Example: API 650 / EN 14015 Tank with a design pressure of

+20 mbarg
 Opening pressure versus closing pressure
(by using 100% technology)
Pset,PV = 3,8 mbarg
Popen,PV = 7,6 mbarg
Pset,N2 = 2,6 mbarg
Pclose,PV = 3,1 mbarg
Pset,ERV = 10,0 mbarg
Popen,ERV = 20,0 mbarg
Pclose,ERV = 8,0 mbarg

Example: API 650 / EN 14015 Tank with a design pressure of

+20 mbarg
 Blow Down needs to be considered when sizing

d D
d<D
F F F F
pset = = preseat = =
A π ⋅d2 A π ⋅ D2
4 4
pset > preseat
Benchmark Report on Vents (leak rate)
Areas where End-of-Line Endurance Burning
is likely to occur
 The Challenge of Designing
Endurance Burning Flame Arresters
end of line
deflagration flame
arrester
vapour
explosive Endurance Burning:
mixture
maximum thermal stress considering
2 heat transfer mechanisms
liquid filling burning situation
line (convection problem period 1)
outbreathing of explosive gas/air burning of explosive ignited
no burning situation
mixture gas/air mixture (conduction problem period 2)

flame
arrester
 The Challenge of Designing
Endurance Burning Flame Arresters

Convective Time Period (vapor flow cooling the filter element is present)

Conductive Time Period ( no cooling through vapor flow)

Temperature Curve for a Successful Endurance Burning
Test

Endurance Burning: 120min no flame

transmission
red: combustion side
blue: protected side Temperature rise
black: protected side
during conductive
Test Gas: Ethylene (NEC Group C Vapor)
periode
 Case 1: Endurance Burning Tested End of Line Arrester applied
with a P/V Vent

Enclosing heat from P/V – Vent

lead to failure

Endurance Burning: flame transmission after 9 min

red: combustion side
blue: protected side
black: protected side
Test Gas: Hexane (NFPA Group D Vapor)
 Case 2: Endurance Burning Tested End of Line Arrester applied
with „Goose Neck“

Endurance Burning: flame transmission after 16 min

red: combustion side
green: protected side
Test Gas: Hexane (NFPA Group D Vapor)
Factory Mutual Research Approval Guide
Important Demands from Test Standards like FM and European Test Standard ISO 16852, EN 12874 to Assure Chemical
Plant Safety

1. Flame Arrester Companies have to be Audited to assure Quality Production

2. Live Field Tests are documented in Test Report which Shows Exact Test
Conditions (c, p, T)

3. Arresters should only be installed according to Test conditions

4. Be aware what is written in the Standards

 Design Considerations to lower the likelihood of misapplication

1. Arrester has to be Safe

Goal can be achieved if arrester is tested according to ISO 16852, EN 12874 or
FM standard

2. Misapplication has to be avoided

Approval report should be requested from Vendor
End Of Line Arrester should only have 1 Flange

3. Easy Maintenance has to be assured

Goal can be achieved with hingeable Weather hood
Flame arrester Elements should be easily accessible
 Design solutions with a positive track record

“Investigation of main application failures proved by life field

testing of endurance burning tested end of line flame arresters “

Often typical misapplication for Endurance

Burning Protection: Heat trapped above arrester
results in flashback !

Test and Application Standards (EN 12874, ISO

16852, FM) Demand to apply only tested
configurations

Solution:Combination conservation vent/deflagration

arrester with hinged weather-hood for endurance
burning
Where Do My Storage Tank Losses Come From ?
Storage Tanks Have to Breath
Why Does A Quality Product Result in Vapor Saving?
 Leak rate testing according to API 2521

API calls for leak rate testing at 75% of set pressure

 Leak rate testing results
1
company
Groth A
0.9
PROTECTOSEAL
company B
0.8
PROTEGO
0.7
PROTEGO 10%
Leak rate [scfh]

0.6

0.5 75 % to set (0.5

oz/sqinch)
0.4 75 % to set (0.65
oz/sqinch)
0.3 Point of full open

0.2
PROTEGO 6"
0.1
PROTEGO 10% 6"
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Tank Pressure oz/sq inch
Avoid secondary damage from leaking!
Reduce your Explosion Risk from Leaking!
 Leak rate testing according to API 2521

API calls for leak rate testing at 75% of set pressure