Improve the design of fire emergency relief systems
In recognition of the potential severe consequences of a process vessel rupture under fire exposure, industry codes such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 30 and the American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 2000 have been established for the specification of emergency relief systems (ERSs). The intent is to reduce the risk of human injury and asset losses associated with process plant fires. These codes are largely prescriptive in nature. That is, they provide specific details on how to achieve safe design. Prescriptive standards are easy to apply, because they are simplified approaches which generally apply to many (but not all) situations. But they also have limitations, including the tendency to result in, at best, suboptimal (overly conservative) designs, and in some instances potentially unsafe designs. As the fire community moves toward performance-based standards for building protection, perhaps it is time to consider a similar approach for vessel protection in a fire. The design issues addressed in this article include: Use of heat input based on actual fuel burning rate, heat of combustion, and flame emissive power, vs. NFPA 30 and API 2000 heat-input equations; Effect of drainage (from vessel to sump) on fire duration, rather than heat input; Use of risk assessment to determine the relative frequency of fire and process-induced incidents; and design for containment, rather than vessel protection when fire probability is low
- OSTI ID:
- 160798
- Journal Information:
- Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol. 91, Issue 11; Other Information: PBD: Nov 1995
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Dust collector venting: Don't take chances
Accelerated Materials Deployment in Advanced Nuclear Power Plants