Proceedings of the ASME 2017 36th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2017
June 25-30, 2017, Trondheim, Norway

OMAE2017-61609

A NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF RAPID DEPRESSURIZATION IN PRESSURE

VESSELS INCORPORATING NUCLEATE BOILING OF HYDROCARBON MIXTURE

Ahmin Park Yoonae Ko Youngsub Lim

Seoul National Univ. Seoul National Univ. Seoul National Univ.
Seoul, South Korea Seoul, South Korea Seoul, South Korea

ABSTRACT
In offshore operations, overpressure of pressure vessels can
arise in case of emergencies like fire or malfunction of valves.
This situation can cause physical damages of the vessel and,
operation break. Thus, managing overpressure is important in
terms of safety of offshore facilities. To handle the overpressure
problems, the rapid depressurization, so-called 'Blowdown', is
used. During depressurization, temperature of internal fluids in a
vessel get decreases by the expansion of the fluids. Predicting
decrease of the temperature is critical to choose the material of a
pressure vessel. Overdesign without the prediction leads to the
rapidly decreasing profit margins. For these reasons, the
analyzing dynamic behavior of thermodynamics properties like
temperature is required for material selection and design
verification during depressurization. In this study, a dynamic
model for depressurization was developed to simulate
thermodynamics behavior in a vessel during depressurization
including low temperature phenomena. The model contains non-
equilibrium zone between phases, heat transfer between walls
and fluids in the vessels. The heat transfer coefficient between
internal vapor and wall was calculated from a combined
convection that includes the both natural and forced convection.
This study includes the calculation of liquid/wall heat transfer
coefficient. During depressurization, liquid in the vessel
becomes boiling closed to surface of the wall because the
temperature of the wall is higher than the boiling point of the
liquid. This phenomenon can be described as 'nucleate boiling',
causes decreasing convective heat transfer coefficient from inner
wall to the liquid in the vessel. Using the proper correlations
about this phenomenon, the calculated coefficient made this
study get closer to reality. The results were compared to
experimental and simulation data from literature and it shows
this model can properly estimate the thermodynamic property
change in a vessel.
INTRODUCTION
There are many pressure vessels to store fluids or separate
phases in offshore oil and gas platforms. In operation, a pressure
vessel can be damaged from overpressure in emergencies such
as excessive inlet flows or malfunction of valves on the side of
outlet flows. Thus, it is necessary to remove the pressure quickly
when overpressure occurs. API Standard 521 (API, 2007)
recommended that efficient depressurization condition is to
decrease the pressure in the vessels below 50% of design
pressure or 690kPa in 15minutes.
During the depressurization, the expansion of the vapor in
the vessel causes a sudden drop of the temperature. If the
temperature of the wall contacted with fluid reaches the ductile-
brittle transition temperature (DBTT) of the vessel material, the
vessel can also be broken easily by small forces. Therefore, it is
important to estimate the temperature change over time at the
design stage and reflect it in the production of the pressure
vessel.
The vapor inside the vessel is condensed into liquid when
the gas is expanded and the temperature drops. After the liquid
occurs, the temperature of the wall contacted with the liquid
decreases more than the vapor. The wall contacted with the liquid
lose more heat than the wall contacted with the vapor due to the
heat transfer from vaporization. Therefore, it is important to
estimate the heat transfer coefficient between the liquid and the
wall.
When the temperature of the wall is higher than the
saturation temperature of the liquid, the liquid boils. This
phenomenon is called ‘pool boiling’. Figure 1 was first presented
by Nukiyama and is often referred to as Nukiyama’s curve.
(Nukiyama, 1934) This graph shows the correlation between
difference between the temperature of the wall contacted with
the liquid and the saturation temperature of the liquid and the
heat flux exchanged between the liquid and the wall. The reason
why the heat flux changes with the temperature difference is that
the amount of bubbles affects the heat transfer coefficient.
According to the curve, the pool boiling regime is divided into

1 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 the four sections based on the value of the temperature Re = Reynolds number for boiling
difference. There are several experimental correlations for each 𝑃𝑟 = Prandtl number of liquid
pool boiling regime. It is important to select a suitable pool
boiling regime and correlation for conditions of the heat transfer The general expression of Rohsenow correlation can be
model like the kind of the liquid, temperature and pressure of the obtained by substituting the definition of each dimensionless
liquid and the material of the vessel. Therefore, the appropriate number.
correlation for pool regimes should also be selected for the
simulation of depressurization. 𝐶𝑝 𝐿𝑖𝑞 ∆𝑇𝑒 3
𝑔(𝜌𝐿𝑖𝑞 − 𝜌𝐸𝐿 )
𝛼𝑣𝑏,𝐼 = 𝜇𝐿𝑖𝑞 ℎ𝑓𝑔 √[ ]( )
𝜎 𝐶𝑠𝑓 ℎ𝑓𝑔 𝑃𝑟𝐿𝑖𝑞 𝑛
μLiq = viscosity of liquid
hhg = latent heat of vaporization for liquid
g = gravitational acceleration
ρLiq = density of liquid
ρEL = density of evaporated liquid
σ = surface tension of liquid
Cp = specific heat capacity of liquid at constant pressure
liq
∆Te = temperature difference between wall and liquid
Csf , n = parameter concerned with interaction between the
liquid and the wall
PrLiq = Prandtl number of liquid
𝛼𝑣𝑏,𝐼 = heat transfer coefficient
Figure 1 pool boiling curve
Thermodynamic properties used in the correlation can get
There are several previous studies about the simulation of value with the appropriate state equation and experimental
depressurization. Previous studies considered methods used to correlations. The value of exponents for Prandtl number is
obtain heat transfer coefficient between the liquid and the wall n =1.7 for all fluids except for water for which Rohsenow
contacted with the liquid. Haque and his coworkers referred that recommended setting n =0. aalue of Csf which is concerned
they considered nucleate boiling, transition boiling and film with various surface-fluid combinations proposed by aanchon,
boiling which are kinds of pool boiling regime, but did not Nix and Tangor (aanchon, Nix and Tangor, 1967).
specify which correlation was used. (Haque et al., 1992a) And, This correlation is accurate for estimating nucleate boiling
Mahgerefteh considered nucleate boiling to obtain the heat heat transfer coefficient of pure substance. But in case of mixed
transfer coefficient, and provided the correlation used in his substances, additional development is needed to estimate the
studies. (Mahgerefteh and Wong, 1999) However, it did not heat transfer coefficient.
specify the values of the heat transfer coefficient, so there is Thome correlation (John R. Thome., 1989) makes a
limitation to understand the heat transfer model used by the numerical relation between the heat transfer coefficient of the
studies. pure substances calculated by Rohsenow correlation and the heat
This study developed the model of heat transfer between the transfer coefficient of the mixed substances.
liquid and the wall in detail. The value of the heat transfer
coefficient that were not disclosed in previous studies were 𝛼𝑛𝑏 𝛼𝑛𝑏,𝐼 −𝑞 −1

shown and analyzed. = {1 + ∆𝜃𝑏𝑝 (1 − 𝑒𝑥𝑝 )}

𝛼𝑛𝑏,𝐼 𝑞 𝜌𝐿 ℎ𝐿𝐺 𝛽𝑚𝑙
𝑞
𝛼𝑛𝑏 =
𝛥Te
BACKGROUND ∆θbp = difference between dew point and bubble point of liquid
There are many experimental correlations to simulate hLG = latent heat of vaporization for liquid
phenomenon of nucleate boiling. Rohsenow correlation is
g = gravitational acceleration
generally used for nucleate boiling heat transfer coefficient. This
βmL = mass transfer coefficient in the liquid (set to fixed value
correlation has also been used in previous studies. (Mahgerefteh
of 0.0003m/s)
and Wong, 1999) Rohsenow (1952) proposed one of the first
𝛼𝑛𝑏,𝐼 = nucleate boiling heat transfer coefficient
nucleate pool boiling correlations. It presupposes the bubble
agitation mechanism and formulated as a single phase forced 𝛼𝑛𝑏 = nucleate boiling heat transfer coefficient
convection correlation:

𝑁𝑢 = 𝐶1 𝑅𝑒 𝑥 𝑃𝑟 𝑦
𝑁𝑢 = Nusselt number for boiling

2 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 MODELLING
The purpose of this numerical simulation is to obtain the
conditions and properties which changes during rapid
depressurization. These process calculate the material properties
and change of time when the pressure decrease at a constant rate
by applying finite element method. The ratio of pressure
decreasing is 95% with reference to previous studies (Wong,
1998).
𝑃𝑖 = 0.95𝑃𝑖−1
𝑃𝑖 = Pressure at current stage
P𝑖−1 = Pressure at previous stage
When the vapor and liquid phase coexist at a pressure stage,
there is non-equilibrium between the vapor and the liquid in the
pressure vessels. Therefore, each of the two phases has a
different temperature, and material and energy exchange occur
between two phases considering the equilibrium for each two
phases. To reflect these non-equilibrium condition, “evaporated
liquid” and “condensed vapor” are defined. The evaporated
liquid means a fluid which generates when a flash calculation is
performed on a liquid phase at a certain stage. Conversely, the
condensed vapor means a fluid which generates when a flash
calculation is performed on a gas phase. The algorithm including
the concept is as follows.
Figure 2 Phase distribution in the model
3 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
𝑖 = current stage
𝑖 − 1 = previous stage
𝐿 = Liquid phase
𝑉 = aapor phase
𝐸𝐿 = Evaporated liquid
𝐶𝑉 = Condensed vapor
The procedure for calculating the properties of the pressure
vessel and the internal fluid in each pressure step is as follows.
1) Calculate the pressure at current stage
2) Assume the time change between the previous and the
current stage and the entropies of the internal vapor and
liquid
3) Calculate the composition and the amount of the
evaporated liquid at the current stage with Ps flash
combining the condensed vapor and the liquid in the
previous step
4) Calculate the heat transfer in zone 2 and wall
temperature contacted with zone 2
5) Update entropy of zone 2 to reflect the transferred heat
6) Calculate the composition and amount of the
condensed vapor at the current stage with Ps-flash
combining the evaporated liquid calculated at 3) and
the vapor at the previous stage
7) Calculate discharge rate through the valve
8) Calculate the heat transfer in zone 1 and wall
temperature contacted with zone 1
9) Update entropy of zone 1 to reflect the transferred heat
10) Update time change with discharge rate obtained at 7)
11) Compare time change and entropies assumed at 2) with
the values calculated at 5), 9), 10)
-If the difference is less than tolerance
Finish the calculation at the current stage and proceed
to the next step
-If the difference is larger than tolerance
Update the amount, entropy, composition and
temperature information of the internal fluid to values
calculated at the current iteration, return to 3)
HEAT TRANSFER BETWEEN LIQUID AND WALL
In a previous study (A. Haque et al., 1990), it was noted that
both natural convection which results from the difference in
density of the fluid and forced convection which results from the
discharged fluid through the valve are considered. Therefore a
method of combining natural convection and forced convection
is used.
HEAT TRANSFER BETWEEN LIQUID AND WALL
The main point of the heat transfer model between the liquid
and the wall contacted with the liquid is to get heat flux from the
wall to the liquid. This heat flux allows the temperature changes
of the wall and the liquid after a given time.
 The first step for obtaining the heat flux is to calculate the
nucleate boiling heat transfer coefficient. The heat transfer
coefficient of pure substances is calculated using Rohsenow
correlation, and the coefficient of mixed substances is obtained
by substituting the coefficient of pure substances into Thome
correlation. Numerical analysis is needed for solving this
correlation because there is the heat transfer coefficient of mixed
substances on both the left and right sides of the correlation. And
next step is to calculate the area of the wall contacted with the
vapor from the volume of the liquid. The last step is to obtain the
heat flux using this formula:

𝑞 = h ∙ A ∙ 𝛥𝑇
𝑞 = heat flux from the wall to the liquid
h = heat transfer coefficient of mixed substances
A = area of the wall contacted with the liquid
�

RESULT
Figure 3 Pressure-time graph during depressurization
Using the simulator of depressurization, the pressure and the
temperature of the internal fluid and internal wall with the
2) aapor temperature vs time
variation of time were calculated. The condition of this
At the early stage, because the internal vapor has a relatively
simulation was based on experimental data released by Haque
small heat capacity, the temperature drops sharply when the
(Haque et al., 1992). A vertical cylindrical suction scrubber was
energy of the vapor is lost due to the rapid expansion. At the latter
used for the experiments and its dimension was 3.24m length,
stage, the temperature is rebounded by the heat transfer from the
1.13m inner diameter, 59mm thickness, 2.75m Tan-to-tan length.
wall.
A valve which has 10mm choke diameter was connected with the
The experimental data of temperature was given as the area
top of the vessel. The vessel material was assumed to stainless
because the measurement was made by attaching the sensor to
steel, SS 304. The results are compared with the experimental
various positions inside the pressure vessels. Figure 4 presents
data, and also previous studies named as BLOWDOWN (Haque
the simulated vapor temperature compared to the experimental
et al., 1992, Mahgerefteh and Wong, 1999), aBSIM
data, previous studies and commercial software
(D’Alessandro, Giacchetta et al., 2015) and commercial software
(HYSYS v9).

- Experimental case (Named S12 in Haque et al. (Haque et al.,

1992b)
Initial composition of fluid was 66.5mol% C1, 3.5mol% C2
and 30mol% C3 at 293K and 120bar. The vessel was surrounded
by 293K stagnant air.

1) Pressure vs Time
As depressurization progresses, the pressure in the pressure
vessel tended to decrease sharply at the early stage due to the
sudden pressure difference between inlet and outlet of the valve
and at the latter stage, the pressure tended to decrease gradually.
Figure 3 show this tendency well.
This study, previous studies and commercial software
showed high accuracy consistent with the experimental data.

Figure 4 Vapor temperature-time graph during

depressurization

4 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Previous studies and commercial software showed high
accuracy in the early stage of depressurization, but showed a
tendency to increase in temperature in the latter stage, which was
higher than the experimental data. This study showed relatively
accurate results as the entire range was in the experimental data.
3) Liquid temperature vs time
The heat capacity of the internal liquid is higher than that of
the internal vapor, so that the temperature does not rise in latter
half of the depressurization unlike the vapor temperature.
Compared with the experimental data, all simulated data fit well
with the experimental data until 300s. After 300s, aBSIM was
higher than the experimental data and other simulated data was
lower.
Figure 5 Liquid temperature-time graph during rapid
depressurization
4) Wall temperature vs time
Figure 6 shows the simulated temperature and experimental
data of the inner wall contacted with the internal vapor and
liquid. At first, the temperature of the wall contacted with the
internal vapor tended to decrease due to the temperature decrease
of the vapor in the early stage and gradually showed a constant
temperature in the latter stage. The temperature of the wall
contacted with the liquid tended to drop continuously similar to
the temperature of the liquid.
At first, the simulated temperature of the wall contacted the
vapor was within the range of the experimental results except for
aBSIM. The temperature of aBSIM was lower than the
experimental data. In the case of the wall contacted with the
liquid, this study showed good performance compared with the
experimental data, but the temperature of BLOWDOWN and
HYSYS v.9 were slightly lower than the experimental data. And
the temperature of aBSIM was very higher than the
experimental data.
5 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Figure 6 Vapor-side and liquid-side inner wall temperature-
time graph during depressurization
CONCLUSION
This study implemented the simulation of rapid
depressurization for pressure vessel containing hydrocarbon
mixture. It reflected the reality by considering non-equilibrium
conditions between vapor phase and liquid phase in pressure
vessel, and the results were compared with the experimental
data, previous studies and commercial software to validate this
model.
In order to increase the accuracy of the heat transfer model,
an accurate model considering the nucleate boiling phenomenon
was proposed. In particular, the correlation was used to calculate
the nucleate boiling heat transfer coefficient of mixtures. And it
was proved by comparison with the experimental data.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was partially supported by the Program of
University Specialized for Offshore Plant Engineering funded by
Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Republic of Korea.
REFERENCE
API, 2007. Standard 521: Pressure-relieving and
Depressuring System, 5th ed. American Petroleum Institute (API)
D’Alessandro, a., G. Giacchetta, M. Leporini, B. Marchetti
and A. Terenzi. (2015). Modelling blowdown of pressure vessels
containing two-phase hydrocarbons mixtures with the partial
phase equilibrium approach, Chemical Engineering Science,
126, 719-729
Haroun Mahgerefteh, Shan M. A. Wong. (1999). A
numerical blowdown simulation incorporating cubic equations
of state, Computers and Chemical Engineering 23, 1309-1317
 Haque, M. A., Richardson, S. M., & Saville G. (1992a).
Blowdown of pressure vessels. Ⅰ. Computer model. Transactions
of the Institute of Chemical Engineers Part B: Process Safety
Environmental Protection, 70(BI), 1-9
Haque, M. A., Richardson, S. M., Saville G., Chamberlain,
G., & Shirvill, L. 1992b. Blowdown of pressure vessels. Ⅱ.
Experimental validation of computer model and case studies.
Transactions of the Institute of Chemical Engineers Part B:
Process Safety Environmental Protection, 70(BI), 10-17
John R. Thom. 1989. Prediction of the Mixture Effect on
Boiling in aertical Thermosyphon Reboiler, Heat Transfer
Engineering, vol. 10, no. 2
Rohsenow, W. M., 1952. A Method for Correlating Heat-
Transfer Data for Surface Boiling of Liquid, Trams ASME, 74,
969-976
Shiro Nukiyama. 1934. The Maximum and Minimum
aalues of the Heat Q Transmitted from Metal to Boiling Water
under Atmospheric Pressure, Journal Japan Soc. Mech. Engrs 37,
367-374
aachon, R. I., Nix, G. H., Tanger, G. E. 1968. Evaluation of
Constants for the Rohsenow Pool-Boiling Correlation. J. Heat
Transfer, 90(2), 239-246

6 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use