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

net/publication/333133846

Design of high pressure vessels using Aspen HYSYS blowdown analysis

Article  in  International Journal of Environment and Waste Management · May 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 2,190

2 authors:

Nagamalleswararao Kanidarapu Babu Ponnusami

VIT University VIT University
9 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   845 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Lithium perchlorate modified nanoporous polyethersulfone membrane for improved dye rejection View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nagamalleswararao Kanidarapu on 03 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

272 Int. J. Environment and Waste Management, Vol. 22, Nos. 1/2/3/4, 2018

Design of high pressure vessels using Aspen HYSYS

blowdown analysis

K. Nagamalleswara Rao*
Centre for Disaster Mitigation and Management,
VIT University,
Vellore, Tamilnadu – 632014, India
Email: nagamalleswara.rao@vit.ac.in
Email: aspenmodels@gmail.com
*Corresponding author

A. Babu Ponnusami
Department of Chemical Engineering,
School of Civil and Chemical Engineering,
VIT University,
Vellore, Tamilnadu 632014, India
Email: ababuponnusami@vit.ac.in
Email: ababuponnusami@gmail.com

Abstract: This work deals with the safety of high-pressure vessels by

blowdown analysis in oil and gas industry using Aspen HYSYS simulation
tool. During the design of high pressure vessel API 521 standards are
implemented. The required parameters governing the depressurisation
technique and the selection of thermodynamics property package, heat transfer
model selection are explained. All physically significant effects of the process
which governs the safety of the high-pressure vessel are predicted. These
findings are highly useful in the safe design of high-pressure vessels in oil and
gas industry. The predicted results are also useful in the selection of the
material of construction and reduce the cost and reduce the risk of failure of the
equipment. This work guarantees the life of people working in the industry and
reduces the process equipment cost and environmental problems. This work is
useful to process design engineers and safety engineers in mitigating the
chemical disasters in oil and gas industries.

Keywords: API 521; blowdown; heat transfer model; high-pressure vessel;

chemical disasters; oil and gas industry.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Nagamalleswara Rao, K.

and Ponnusami, A.B. (2018) ‘Design of high pressure vessels using Aspen
HYSYS blowdown analysis’, Int. J. Environment and Waste Management,
Vol. 22, Nos. 1/2/3/4, pp.272–281.

Biographical notes: K. Nagamalleswara Rao is a faculty in Centre for Disaster

Mitigation and Management, VIT University, Vellore, Tamilnadu, India. His
research topics include techno-economic analysis, energy analysis and process
safety of industrial processes using ASPEN PLUS software.

Copyright © 2018 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Design of high pressure vessels using Aspen HYSYS blowdown analysis 273

A. Babu Ponnusami is a faculty in the Department of Chemical Engineering in

the School of Civil and Chemical Engineering, VIT University, Vellore,
Tamilnadu, India. His research topics include water and waste water treatment
using adsorption and advanced oxidation processes.

1 Introduction

Blowdown is rapid depressurisation of pressure vessels and pipe lines and it is a

hazardous operation. Due to sudden release of gas into atmosphere low temperatures are
created in the equipment which causes the failure of the vessel or pipeline. Rapid
depressurisation experiments were conducted for large pressure vessels and the physical
processes involved during blowdown were studied. Mathematical models for these
studies were developed and converted in to a computer program (Haque et al., 1990).
This computer program is used for designing industrial blowdown systems. This software
programme was adopted by Aspen Tech® and integrated with Aspen HYSYS. This
computer program accurately predicts the low temperature locations arise with rapid
depressurisation process. This step is helpful in improving safety of the process or
individual equipment. Aspen HYSYS blowdown tool is useful in conducting dynamic
simulations for the flow of hydrocarbons in multiple depressurising vessels and pipelines.
In blowdown analysis there is an option to select the thermodynamic package to predict
the properties of the hydrocarbons and the same thermodynamic package is used to
calculate mass and energy balances in the process. Simulation results are compared with
experimental blowdown results (Haque et al., 1992). Blowdown tool predicts
temperature, pressure and multiphase compositions within a vessel or line, temperatures
of the wall and rates of efflux, all as functions of time. During rapid depressurisation
there is a chance of sudden fall down of temperature of the fluid, reduction in temperature
of metal wall which finally leads to equipment failure. So predicting the temperatures
accurately is a tedious task. Aspen HYSYS blowdown tool solves all these complex
problems and based its predictions appropriate materials can be selected and the safety of
the process can be improved.
In blowdown analysis each case we are dealing is considered as a scenario. A pool
fire on a system often represents the scenario which results in the greatest peak mass flow
rate that the blowdown valve (BDV) must handle (since the liquid will likely vaporise
over the course of the fire, causing a rise in system pressure, which both introduces more
possible vapour to the flare system and establishes a greater driving force to the disposal
system). Aspen HYSYS blowdown tool allows two industry standard heat flux models:
1 API 521 heat flux model outlined in Section 4.4.13.2.4.2 of API 521 (6e)
2 a constant heat flux in accordance with global standards.
To simulate a pool fire scenario constant heat flux model is used for the outer layer of the
vessel.
Using HYSYS depressurisation, we can design orifice pool fire pressurisation,
determine the materials of construction for cold case pressurisation; assess risk to the
facility based on peak pressures reached in the system. The property analysis package is
used to simulate the blowdown analysis in the main simulation.
274 K. Nagamalleswara Rao and A.B. Ponnusami

In literature simplified models are available for safety of offshore oil platforms
(Omogoroye and Oke, 2007; Beard and Santos-Reyes, 1999). These models guarantee the
lives and properties of those who utilise the oil platform. Possible ways of storage tank
incidents and the causes of incidents with case studies are presented and explained
(Shaluf and Abdulla, 2010). Model developed by Xia et al. (1993) analysed the
depressurisation of gas filled pressure vessels, and the model is in good agreement in
predicting the depressurisation process. BLOWSIM numerical model is proposed by
Mahgerefteh and Wong (1999) based on three cubic equation of state for simulating
blowdown of vessels containing multi-component hydrocarbon mixtures. This model is
especially suitable for condensable gas from high pressure. Numerical simulations are
proposed by Mahgerefteh et al. (2002) for predicting the risk of rupture during blowdown
of cylindrical vessels under fire attack. These vessels contained high pressure two phase
hydrocarbon mixtures. For validating the model results, the developed model is tested
with a real system. Comparison studies between blowdown predictions and the
experimental results of blowdown liquefied petroleum gas are conducted by Richardson
and Saville (1996), the prediction results are in good agreement with the blowdown
computer program results. Models are developed for two phase carbon dioxide transport
through pipelines (Lund et al., 2011). These studies explained the importance of accurate
numerical method in developing mathematical model and explained the importance of a
discontinuous sound velocity on the depressurisation. Bolwdown studies for storage tank
protection are explained by Kim (1986) for a variety of chemicals. Currently, industry is
depending on American Petroleum Institute’s Recommended practices 520 (Standard,
A.P.I., 2014) and American Petroleum Institute’s Recommended Practices 521 (1997) for
the specification of pressure relieving systems to enable pressurised plant to withstand
fire conditions.
Using blowdown analysis designing orifice pool fire pressurisation, determination of
materials of construction for cold case pressurisation, assessing risk to the facility based
on peak pressures reached in the system are possible. The property analysis package is
used to simulate the blowdown analysis in the main simulation. Objective of this work is
to predict all physical parameters which affect the safety of the high pressure vessel using
Aspen HYSYS blowdown tool.

2 Materials and methods

Blowdown simulations studies have been conducted for a single high pressure vessel in a
gas plant. Feed stream composition is nitrogen 1.89%, carbon dioxide 28%, hydrogen
sulphide 3.2%, methane 50%, ethane 3.5%, propane 2.4%, n-butane 2%, n-pentane
0.68%, n-hexane 0.5%, n-heptane 0.4%, n-octane 0.5%, n-nonane 0.6%, e-mercaptan
6.33%. High pressure vessel is shown in Figure 1. This composition represents initial
liquid and vapour composition at time t = 0 for the entire system.
First step in implementing blowdown technique using Aspen HYSYS safety
environment is creation of blowdown analysis. Drainage and piping configurations,
defining the overall system parameters and vessel configuration, defining piping
parameters and restriction orifice steps follows next.
High pressure vessel for implementing blowdown analysis contains main vessel, i.e.,
high pressure vessel, blowdown line-H-1, orifice and tail pipe boundary as shown in
Figure 1. Step by step blowdown analysis is explained in the following sections.
 Design of high pressure vessels using Aspen HYSYS blowdown analysis 275

Figure 1 Main-vessel for blowdown analysis (see online version for colours)

2.1 Creating blowdown analysis

High pressure vessel mass and energy balances are completed in Aspen HYSYS steady
state simulation atmosphere. The file with zero warnings and zero simulation errors is
selected for conducting blowdown analysis in Aspen HYSYS safety environment. Once
the blowdown and depressurising option is selected, blowdown template is configured
with geometrical options and connections piping. Material and energy balances for high
pressure vessel are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Mass and energy balances for pressure vessel

Name Feed Liquid Vapour

Vapour 0.72 0.0 1.0
Temperature [C] 5.0000 5.0 5.0
Pressure [bar] 64.5 64.5 64.5
Molar flow [kgmole/h] 5425.0 1501.97 3923.0
Mass flow [kg/h] 172,696.29 70,572.7 102,123.5
Std ideal liq. vol. flow [m3/h] 322.22 106.76 215.40
Molar enthalpy [kJ/kgmole] –171,148.8 –193,900 –162,438.3
Molar entropy [kJ/kgmole-C] 136.11 111.40 145.57
Heat flow [kJ/h] –928,482,613 –291,232,338 –637,250,274

2.2 Drainage and piping configuration

Drainage and piping configuration is the second step in blowdown. In some cases there is
a possibility of the tank pipes and tank exposed to fire. This scenario is named as fire
case. Analysis for this case is known as fire case analysis. For fire case analysis, dry
segments of the system may heat up and fail faster than wet segments of the system.
During blowdown the gases inside the vessel are released with very high speed leads to
the cracks in the high pressure vessel walls. This case is known as cold case
depressurisation. In this case low points in the system will cause liquid to pool causing
local low temperatures that are not present in the single lumped model. So protection
from low temperature is necessary. In blowdown two options are available they are
276 K. Nagamalleswara Rao and A.B. Ponnusami

without pocket and with pocket. Without pocket option leads the liquid in the inlet line
without pocket drains towards the main vessel. For drainage with pocket option is
selected. Here with pocket option is selected. Vapour outlet line leaves vessel vertically.
In this method liquid with pocket option is selected. Liquid pooling effects the
temperature prediction. The direction of liquid flow will usually follow the gravitational
pull, which may be opposite to vapour movement. This highlights the importance of
setting the piping layout in blowdown to reflect the low points in the system as accurately
as possible in order to capture effects of liquid pooling on the temperature predictions
throughout the system. We can attach blowdown line to the inlet line, outlet line or to the
vessel. In this work blowdown line is attached to the system. For vapour outlet line
entering the correct number of line segments is necessary. Additions of extra pipes are
required for significant changes in pipe diameters.

2.3 Defining the overall system parameters and vessel configuration

This is the third step in blowdown analysis. The defined single vessel blowdown template
defined in Section 2.1 is prepared for orifice size and minimum metal temperature
concerns during the depressurisation of a high pressure vessel. Equipment, fluid, and
ambient information are specified. Ambient air conditions are entered. Air temperature is
25°C and velocity 10 m/s. Units upstream of the restriction orifice have the same initial
liquid phase composition, vapour phase composition, temperature and pressure. System
feed conditions are taken as input for the blowdown analysis. Equipment conditions
upstream of orifice are initial temperature 6°C and initial pressure 70 bar. Vessel
specifications, i.e., geometry, heat transfer and initial conditions are specified. Geometry
of the vessel is shown in Table 2. If the system is exposed to fire the option ‘yes in fire
zone’ is selected. Apply to liquid option is selected for heat flux method. Since apply to
liquid option works on the API 521 standards. In the next step insulation option is
selected. Here the insulation type is glass with thickness of insulation is 1.27 mm. Initial
liquid level in the tank is 3.1 m bottom head.
Table 2 Geometry of the pressure vessel

Orientation Vertical
Tangent to tangent height of the vessel [m] 12
Cylinder inner diameter [m] 4
Wall material Carbon steel
Wall material thermal conductivity [W/m-K] 43.2
Wall material thermal diffusivity [m2/s] 1.18e-005
Cylinder wall thickness [mm] 120
Head geometry 2:1 semi-ellipsoidal
Head wall thickness [mm] 100
Total vessel volume [m3] 167.5
Min design metal temperature [C] –25
Max design metal temperature [C] 150
 Design of high pressure vessels using Aspen HYSYS blowdown analysis 277

2.4 Defining piping parameters and restriction orifice

To match the Aspen HYSYS blowdown analysis results with the actual system behaviour
piping parameters are entered. Appropriate piping schedule, nominal diameter and length
of the all pipes in the system are entered. At the tail pipe boundary flow is driven by the
pressure. So elevation and roughness are specified for the tail pipe, these are not
applicable for the other pipes upstream of the orifice. For the other pipes of the system
flow is driven by the drainage specification. In the next step minimum design metal
temperature and maximum design metal temperature are entered. Next heat transfer
values are entered. In this work we are assuming that all pipes are not exposed to the fire.
So include ambient heat transfer option is selected i.e. we will include the effects of
ambient heat transfer. The system has no insulation/cladding. Next initial conditions are
entered, i.e., inlet stream contains 15% liquid. Tail pipe boundary temperature is 20°C.

2.5 Restriction orifice

Orifice diameter is defined as 62.69 mm. Discharge coefficient 0.9. Back pressure is
1.013 bar. Drainage type is directional; source is blowdown line, destination main vessel
at blowdown point. For blowdown halt conditions are defined. Time 1,200 seconds and
pressure 1.013 bar.

3 Results and discussion

Blowdown is a completely predictive model in the sense that it contains no disposable

parameters which can be adjusted to fit particular circumstances (Richardson S.M and
Saville G). The optimal size for the orifice is 1.536 inches, which is when the final
pressure at 15 minutes is 374.644 psia. The blowdown valve (BDV) vendor can select the
next standard orifice size up from this in order to ensure that the system is adequately
sized for the fire scenario. The predicted variations with time of the overall metal
temperatures are shown in Figure 2. From Figure 2 low temperature violations can be
seen in the case of main vessel bottom end inner wall temperature and blowdown line H1
cylinder in contact with vapour inner wall temperature, i.e., these two temperatures
crossed the main vessel minimum design temperature. Based on these low temperature
locations in the process, process safety engineers and process design engineers can take
better decisions to minimise cost and at the same time they can improve the safety of the
vessel. From Figure 3 overall pressure and flow behaviour through orifice can be seen.
With decreasing pressure the orifice mass flow rate decreases up to blowdown time of
1,200 seconds. Main vessel vapour temperature and liquid temperature variations with
blowdown are shown in Figure 4. It is observed that vapour temperature decreases up to
700 seconds with blowdown and after that vapour temperature increased. So up to 700
seconds cold conditions or violation from main vessel design temperature can be
observed. Main vessel liquid height is shown in Figure 5. With blowdown liquid height in
the vessel slowly decreases.
278 K. Nagamalleswara Rao and A.B. Ponnusami

Figure 2 Overal metal temperatures (see online version for colours)

Figure 3 Overall pressure/flow (see online version for colours)

 Design of high pressure vessels using Aspen HYSYS blowdown analysis 279

Figure 4 Main vessel fluid conditions (see online version for colours)

Figure 5 Main vessel liquid height (see online version for colours)
280 K. Nagamalleswara Rao and A.B. Ponnusami

Blowdown line H-1 minimum vapour temperature 46.81°C and minimum wall
temperature 36°C. Main vessel minimum liquid temperature –23.94°C, minimum vapour
temperature –47.2°C and minimum wall temperature –20.28°C. Maximum flow through
orifice is 172,238 kg/hr. tail pipe boundary minimum liquid and vapour temperature is
–87.95°C and minimum wall temperature is 82°C. For orifice upstream temperature is
5.74°C and upstream pressure is 69.7461 bar. Minimum discharge conditions for orifice
are, time 795 seconds, upstream temperature –46.3°C upstream pressure 9.3 bar and mass
flowrate 23,556 kg/hr.
Major findings are, BLOWDOWN run ended at 1,200 seconds and 4.37 bar. High
pressure vessel unit operation blowdown line H-1 has a wall temperature less than or
equal to the minimum design metal temperature of –31.67°C. Pipe Tail pipe boundary
has a wall temperature less than or equal to the minimum design metal wall temperature
of –31.67°C between 0 m and 35.36 m liquid height. For high pressure vessel phase
mixing performed. The blowdown flash predicts that the initial inventory is 2.7872%
liquid volume. The initial vapour and liquid phase compositions were remixed to match
the 15.00% liquid volume specified.

4 Conclusions

The blowdown analysis tool is the industry-validated technology to assess cold-

temperatures in process equipment and process piping. This work explained the step by
step application methodology of Aspen HYSYS blowdown analysis tool to design a high
pressure vessel in a gas plant. All physically significant effects of the process which
governs the safety of the high pressure vessel are predicted. These predicted values are
highly useful for safe design of high pressure vessels in oil and gas industries. The
methodology developed here is useful in mitigating the chemical disasters by designing
industrial standard high pressure vessels. This methodology can be implemented for oil
and gas industries to prevent or mitigate chemical disasters from high pressure vessels.

References
API, R. 521 (1997) Guide for Pressure-Relieving and Depressuring Systems, American Petroleum
Institute, Washington DC.
Beard, A.N. and Santos-Reyes, J. (1999) ‘Creating a fire safety management system for offshore
facilities’, Facilities, Vol. 17, Nos. 9–10, pp.352–362.
Haque, A., Richardson, S., Saville, G. and Chamberlain, G. (1990) ‘Rapid depressurization of
pressure vessels’, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.4–7.
Haque, M.A., Richardson, S.M., Saville, G., Chamberlain, G. and Shirvill, L. (1992), ‘Blowdown
of pressure vessels. II. Experimental validation of computer model and case studies’, Trans.
IChemE, Part B, Proc. Safe Env. Prot., Vol. 70 No. B1, pp.10–17.
Kim, R.H. (1986) ‘Storage tank blowdown analysis’, P.V.P., Vol. 102, pp.141–143.
Lund, H., Flatten, T. and Munkejord, S.T. (2011) ‘Depressurization of carbon dioxide in pipelines –
models and methods’, Energy Procedia, Vol. 4, pp.2984–2991.
Mahgerefteh, H. and Wong, S.M. (1999) ‘A numerical blowdown simulation incorporating cubic
equations of state’, Computers and Chemical Engineering, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp.1309–1317.
 Design of high pressure vessels using Aspen HYSYS blowdown analysis 281

Mahgerefteh, H., Falope, G.B. and Oke, A.O. (2002) ‘Modeling blowdown of cylindrical vessels
under fire attack’, AIChE Journal, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Vol. 48 No. 2,
pp.401–410.
Omogoroye, O.O. and Oke, S.A. (2007) ‘A safety control model for an offshore oil platform’,
Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.588–610.
Richardson, S.M. and Saville, G. (1996) ‘Blowdown of LPG pipelines’, Process Safety and
Environmental Protection, Vol. 74, No. 4, pp.235–244.
Shaluf, I.M. and Abdulla, S. (2010) ‘An overview on ADCO crude oil storage tanks’, Disaster
Prevention and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp.370–383.
Standard, A.P.I. (2014) Sizing, Selection, and Installation of Pressure-relieving Devices.
Xia, J.L., Smith, B.L. and Yadigaroglu, G. (1993) ‘A simplified model for depressurization of gas-
filled pressure vessels’, International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol. 20
No. 5, pp.653–664.

View publication stats