Tube rupture calculation скачать в хорошем качестве

Tube rupture calculation

Tube rupture in heat exchanger could create important hazard and loss of containment especially if the lower pressure side fluid is only liquid which is incompressible. Why? The liquid is incompressible and the high pressure fluid will push with higher velocity the liquid from lower side and the shock wave could damage and even determine loss of containment even if safety valve is present. The tube rupture could be determined by corrosion, erosion, thermal shock, vibration and poor design of heat exchanger. The mitigation measures that need to be embedded in the design are the following: 1. Rise design pressure of lower pressure side using 10/13 rule – the design pressure shall be extended to inlet lines including manual isolation valves 2. Try to minimize the number of heat exchangers with higher pressure fluid by sending high pressure fluid not to make heat exchange but instead directly to column not through heat exchanger 3. For heat exchanger with area lower than 15 m2 use double pipe type because if made by schedule piping the API doesn’t consider tube rupture 4. Strength-weld tubes to the tubesheet to minimize leakage 5. Use for design smaller tube diameters to reduce the flowrate in case of tube rupture 6. Specify a higher tube thickness to reduce ID of tube 7. Use U-tubes to reduce the number of tube to tubesheet connections 8. Specify tie rods instead of impingement baffle to minimize corrosion and vibrations – as per HTRI recommendation 9. Use steams with similar composition & pressure, if no possible lower p fluid shall have at least 2 % vapor to attenuate shock wave Remember that the mentioned measures doesn’t prevent tube rupture, BUT shall avoid loss of containment and minimize associated safety risks! Tube rupture simulation layout to be build in Hysys, Unisim or Petrosim is at one click distance and other technical tips to help YOU to proper set the simulation. Enjoy! #innovation #sustainability #research #energy #training #technology #business #engineering #design #future The references: 1. Ewan B, Moatamedi M. Design aspects of chemical plant exposed to transient pressure loads. Chem Engineer Res Design. 2000; 78(6):866–70. 2. Nagpal S. Evaluate heat-exchanger tube-rupture scenarios using dynamic simulation. Chem Engineer. 2015; 122(2):48. 3. Acosta C, Siu N. Dynamic event trees in accident sequence analysis: application to steam generator tube rupture. Reliability Engineer Syst Safety. 1993; 41(2):135–54. 4. Thyer A, Wilday A, Bankes G. The experimental study and simulation of tube rupture in shell-and-tube heat exchangers. In: Institution of Chemical Engineers Symposium Series. Marylebone: Institution of Chemical Engineers; 1999: 2000. 5. Pipeline Simulation and Integrity Ltd. Testing and analysis of relief device opening times. Tech Rep, Health Safety Executive. 2002. 6. Schwartz MP. Four types of heat exchanger failures. Plant Eng. 1982; 23:45–50. 7. Megens B. Tube rupture study of a 300 bar heat exchanger. In: ASME 2014 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection: 2014. 8. API521 last edition.