Introduction to Source Models

Prof. Shishir Sinha

Department of Chemical Engineering.

1
 Introduction
• Chemical process industries are usually prone to accidents.
• Usually small incidents progressively results to big accidents which cost
towards loss of man, material and money.
• The material may be
– Toxic
– High calorific value
• Common incidents may include:
– Rupture/ break in pipelines,
– Hole in a tank or pipe,
– Runaway reaction, or fire external to the vessel
2
 Introduction
• Source models are used to describe the discharge of material due to the
incident from the process.
• The source model provides a description of
– Mass/ volumetric flow of discharge
– Total quantity discharged
– Phase of discharged material (solid, liquid, vapor, or multiphase)
– Total time for complete discharge
• Fundamental/ empirical equation are used to
define the source model.
• Each incidents has its unique model
3
Selection of a Release Incident Selection of Source Model
 Rupture/ Breakage in pipeline  Model must fit release incident
 Hole in a Tank/ Vessel or Pipeline Outcomes:
 Flashing  Total quantity Released
 Runaway Reaction  Time of complete discharge
 Fire Exposure  Mass/ Volumetric Release Rate
 Other  Material Phase

Selection of Dispersion Model

 Mostly done for toxic gas
release
Influencing Factors
 Wind Speed
 Temperature inversion
 Buoyancy
Results may Include:
 Downwind Concentration
 Area affected
 Duration

Contd.
4
 Flamable Flammable / Toxic
Toxic
Selection of Effect Model Results may include:
Selection of Fire and Explosion
Model  Response v/s Dose  Toxic Response
 Probit Model  No. of Individuals Affected
 TNT Equivalency models  Log uniform model  Property Damage
 TNO Multi-energy models Flammable and  Others
 Multi-Energy Explosion Toxic
 Fireball
Mitigation Factors
 Baker-Strehlow-Tang model
 Others  Distance b/w possible release
points
Results may include:
 Escape Plan/ Shelter
 Blast Overpressure  Secondary containment for
 Radiant Heat Flux storage, handling and fire
situations
 Remote Shutoff, Flow limitation
 Absorbents, Foam, other covers
 Water spray, steam curtains

Source[4] Consequence Modelling

5
 Safe modelling
• Results obtained from source models will not define the whole event
completely, if the physical properties of the fluid discharged cannot be
characterized, and the physical processes involved cannot be
understood
• If uncertainty exists, the parameters should be selected to maximize the
release rate and quantity. This ensures that a design is on the safe side.
• Safe Design:
– Choose condition for maximum release rate
– Maximum quantity
– If uncertainty exists, choose the worst scenario
6
 Release Modes
– Wide aperture release
Explosion in a storage tank (due to overpressure)
– Limited aperture release
holes and cracks in tanks and pipes,
leaks in flanges, valves, bends Source[4]
Leakage through pumps,
Broken pipelines

7
 Basic Source Models
• flow of liquid through a hole,
• flow of liquid through a hole in a tank,
• flow of liquids through pipes,
• flow of vapor through holes,
• flow of gases through pipes,
• flashing liquids, and
• liquid pool evaporation or boiling.

8
 flow of liquid through a hole,
• A mechanical energy balance describes the
various energy forms associated with flowing
fluids[10]:
2
dP u g Ws
න +∆ + Δz + F = −
ρ 2αg c gc mሶ
Where,
P is the pressure (force/area),
ρis the fluid density (mass/volume),

9
 flow of liquid through a hole,
u = average instantaneous velocity of the fluid
(length/time),
gc, is the gravitational constant (length mass/force
time2),
αis the unit less velocity profile correction factor
with the following values[4]:
0.5 for laminar flow,
1.0 for plug flow, and
tends to 1.0 for turbulent flow

10
 flow of liquid through a hole,
g is the acceleration due to gravity (length/time2),
z is the height above datum (length),
F is the net frictional loss term (length force/mass),
Wsis the shaft work (force length), and
mሶ is the mass flow rate (mass/time).

11
 flow of liquid through a hole,
• For incompressible liquids the density is constant,
and
Δ𝑃 Δ𝑃
න =
𝜌 𝜌

• The frictional losses in the leak are approximated

by a constant discharge coefficient Cd, defined as

Δ𝑃 2 Δ𝑃
− − 𝐹 = 𝐶𝑑 ( )
𝜌 𝜌

12
 flow of liquid through a hole,
• The average discharge velocity from leak can be
determined as
2𝑔𝑐 𝑃𝑔
𝑢 = 𝐶𝑑 𝛼
𝜌

If, 𝐶0 = 𝐶𝑑 𝛼
2𝑔𝑐 𝑃𝑔
𝑢 = 𝐶0
𝜌

13
 flow of liquid through a hole,
• Mass flow rate Qm will be,
𝑄𝑚 = 𝜌𝑢𝐴 = 𝐴𝐶0 2𝜌𝑔𝑐 𝑃𝑔

The total mass of liquid spilled depends on the total

time that the leak is active.
• C0= f ( Re, D); D is the diameter of hole
• For Sharp edges and for Re>30,000;
C0 → 0.61; exit velocity of fluid is independent of size
of the hole.

14
 Various Values of Discharge Coefficient
• Well-rounded nozzle: C0 →1.
• Short sections of pipe (L/D > 3) attached to a
vessel: C0 ≈ 0.81.
• Use C0 =1 for unknown or uncertain values (safe
side)

15
 Flow of Liquid through a Hole in a Tank

𝑔𝑐 𝑃𝑔
𝑄𝑚 = 𝜌𝐴𝐶0 2 [ + 𝑔ℎ𝐿 ]
𝜌

Pg
𝜌 = 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑
hL
A= Leak cross section area
𝑢1 = 0
Ws = 0
𝑢2 = 𝑢
P = 1 atm

16
 Flow of Liquid through a Hole in a Tank
• A hole develops at a height hL below the fluid
level. Pg

hL
• The flow of liquid through this hole is represented 𝑢1 = 0

Ws = 0
by the mechanical energy balance and the 𝑢2 = 𝑢
P = 1 atm

incompressible assumption
2
dP u g Ws
– ‫׬‬ρ +∆ + Δz + F = − ሶ
2αgc gc m
Δ𝑃 Δ𝑃
– ‫׬‬ =
𝜌 𝜌

17
 Flow of Liquid through a Hole in a Tank
Assumptions
• Pg = gauge pressure on the tankand Pg

hL

• External gauge pressure = atmosphericpressure

𝑢1 = 0

Ws = 0
𝑢2 = 𝑢

• The shaft work Ws = 0, and P = 1 atm

• The velocity of the fluid in the tank = 0

• Discharge coefficient Cd, can be determined as

∆𝑃 𝑔 2 ∆𝑃 𝑔
− − ∆𝑧 − 𝐹 = 𝐶𝑑 (− − ∆𝑧)
𝜌 𝑔𝑐 𝜌 𝑔𝑐
18
 Flow of Liquid through a Hole in a Tank
• Solving the equation of getting average
instantaneous distance velocity from the leak Pg

hL
𝑢1 = 0
𝑔𝑐 𝑃𝑔 Ws = 0

𝑢 = 𝐶𝑑 𝛼 2[ + 𝑔ℎ𝐿 ] 𝑢2 = 𝑢
P = 1 atm
𝜌
• If C0 = Cd 𝛼
𝑔𝑐 𝑃𝑔
𝑢 = 𝐶0 2[ + 𝑔ℎ𝐿 ]
𝜌

19
 Flow of Liquid through a Hole in a Tank
• Therefore, instantaneous mass flow rate will be
given as Pg

hL
𝑢1 = 0
𝑔𝑐 𝑃𝑔
𝑄𝑚 = 𝜌𝐴𝐶0 2[ + 𝑔ℎ𝐿 ቉ Ws = 0
𝑢2 = 𝑢
𝜌 P = 1 atm

As the tank empties, the liquid height decreases and

the velocity and mass flow rate decrease

20
 Rate of discharge through a Hole in a Tank
• If the vessel was fill out with an inert gas to
prevent explosion or was vented to the Pg

atmosphere, then 𝑢1 = 0
hL

Ws = 0
• gauge pressure P, on the surface of the liquid = 𝑢2 = 𝑢
P = 1 atm

constant
• For a tank of constant cross-sectional area At, the
total mass of liquid in the tank above the leak is
𝑚 = 𝜌𝐴𝑡 ℎ𝐿

21
 Rate of discharge through a Hole in a Tank
• Rate of change of mass can be given as,
𝑑𝑚 Pg

= −𝑄𝑚 hL

𝑑𝑡 𝑢1 = 0

Ws = 0

• Combining the equations and integrating for 𝑢2 = 𝑢

P = 1 atm

hL = hL0 ; at t = 0
hL= hL; at t = t

22
 Rate of discharge through a Hole in a Tank
• The liquid level height in the tank, yields[4]
Pg

𝐶0 𝐴 2𝑔𝑐 𝑃𝑔 𝑔 𝐶0 𝐴 2 hL
ℎ𝐿 = ℎ𝐿0 − + 2𝑔ℎ𝐿0 𝑡 + ( 𝑡) 𝑢1 = 0

𝐴𝑡 𝜌 2 𝐴𝑡 Ws = 0
𝑢2 = 𝑢
P = 1 atm

• Mass discharge rate at any time t, is given by

𝑔𝑐 𝑃𝑔 𝜌𝑔𝐶0 2 𝐴2
𝑄𝑚 = 𝜌𝐴𝐶0 2( + 𝑔ℎ𝐿0 ) − 𝑡
𝜌 𝐴𝑡

23
 Time for emptying the tank
• Time for the vessel to empty to the level of the
leak can be determined as Pg

hL
𝑢1 = 0
1 𝐴𝑡 𝑔𝑐 𝑃𝑔 2𝑔𝑐 𝑃𝑔 Ws = 0

𝑡𝑒 = [ 2 + 𝑔ℎ𝐿0 − ] 𝑢2 = 𝑢
P = 1 atm
𝐶0 𝑔 𝐴 𝜌 𝜌
• If the vessel is at atmospheric pressure then,
Pg = 0
1 𝐴𝑡
𝑡𝑒 = 2𝑔ℎ𝐿0
𝐶0 𝑔 𝐴
24
 Flow of Liquid through Pipes

L P 2 < P1
U2= U1
Z2

P1
U1
Z1 ρ = Constant

25
 Flow of Liquid through Pipes
• A pipe transporting liquid is shown in figure
• The liquid flows through the pipe due to the
pressure gradient across the ends of the pipe.
• The will be a definite amount loss in pressure
encountered due to the presence of frictional
forces between the liquid as well as between the
fluid and the wall of container
• Losses due to friction in long pipelines are quite
larger than the losses due to bends and sudden
enlargement and contraction in the fitting.
26
 Flow of Liquid through Pipes
• For incompressible liquid, the mechanical energy equation can be
written as,
2
∆𝑃 ∆𝑢 𝑔 𝑊𝑠
+ + Δ𝑧 + 𝐹 = −
𝜌 2𝛼𝑔𝑐 𝑔𝑐 𝑚ሶ
• The frictional loss term F includes the losses due to
– flow through lengths of pipe
– fittings such as control valves, bends, orifices
– pipe entrances and exits
– Sudden expansion and contraction

27
 Flow of Liquid through Pipes
Frictional losses F can be calculated as
𝑢2
𝐹 = 𝐾𝑓 ( )
2𝑔𝑐
Where,
• Kf = excess head loss due to the pipe or pipe
fitting (dimensionless) and
• u = fluid velocity
• 𝑔𝑐 = gravitational constant

28
 Flow of Liquid through Pipes
Excess head loss Kf can be calculated as
4𝑓𝐿
𝐾𝑓 =
𝑑
Where
• f is the Fanning friction factor (unit less),
• L is the flow path length (length), and
• d is the flow path diameter (length).

29
 Flow of Liquid through Pipes
• For laminar flow, the fanning friction factor is
given by
16
𝑓=
𝑅𝑒
• For turbulent flow,
1 1 𝜀 1.255
= −4log( + )
𝑓 3.7 𝑑 𝑅𝑒 𝑓

0.25
1 𝑓 −
𝑓
1 𝜀
= (10 − )
𝑅𝑒 1.255 3.7 𝑑
30
 Roughness factor ϵ for Clean Pipes[4]
Pipe Material ϵ (mm)
Riveted Steel 1-10
Concrete 0.3-3
Cast Iron 0.26
Galvanized Iron 0.15
Commercial Steel 0.046
Wrought iron 0.046
Drawn Tubing 0.0015
Glass 0
Plastic 0
31
Moody Diagram[11]

32
 Flow of Liquid through Pipes
• For fully developed flow, f is independent of Re
1 1 𝑑
= 4log
𝑓 3.7 𝜀
• For smooth pipes, 𝜀=0
1 𝑅𝑒 𝑓
= 4log
𝑓 1.255
• Blasius approximation:
For smooth pipes with Re< 100 000
f = 0.079 Re-1/4
33
 Flow of Liquid through Pipes
2-K (Hooper) Method
• It is possible to calculate the loss in pressure head for pipe fittings,
valves, orifices and other flow obstructions the method as discussed
above.
• Calculation of losses due to pipe friction is not possible through these
methods, because they have very long length (in kms), and friction
factor is a function of pipe length.
• The 2-K method defines the excess head loss in
terms of two constants, the Reynolds number and
the pipe internal diameter.
34
 Flow of Liquid through Pipes
𝐾1 1
𝐾𝑓 = + 𝑘∞ (1 + )
𝑅𝑒 𝐼𝐷𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠
• Head loss (hl) through fitting can be calculated by
determining the value of Kf from above equation and
using it in the following equation

𝑉2
ℎ𝑙 = 𝐾𝑓
2𝑔
• Head loss through pipe friction (hf)can be calculated as
𝐿 𝑉2
ℎ𝑓 = 𝑓
𝐷 2𝑔
35
 Flow of Liquid through Pipes
Total head loss will be: ht = hf + hl
3-K (Darby) Method
𝐾1 𝐾𝑑
𝐾𝑓 = + 𝑘∞ (1 + )
𝑅𝑒 𝑂𝐷𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠

Here,
Kf: Excess head loss
K1 and Kꚙ: Constants
IDinches : inside diameter in inches
ODinches : Nominal/ Outside diameter in inches

36
 Table: Constants for 2-K method for loss coefficients in fittings and
valves[4]

Fittings Description of fitting K1 Kꚙ

Elbows Standard (r/D = 1), threaded 800 0.40
90o Long Radius (r/D = 1), flanged/ Welded 800 0.25
Long radius (r/D = 1.5), all types 800 0.20
Elbows 1 weld (90o) 1000 1.15
90o 2 welds (45o) 800 0.35
Mitered (r/D = 3 welds (30o) 800 0.30
1.5) 4 welds (22.5o) 800 0.27
5 welds (18o) 800 0.25

37
 Table Contd.
Fittings Description of fitting K1 Kꚙ
45o Elbow Standard (r/D = 1), all types 500 0.20
Long radius (r/D = 1.5) 500 0.15
Mitered, 1 weld (45") 500 0.25
Mitered, 2 welds (22.5") 500 0.15
180o Elbow Standard (r/D = 1), threaded 1000 0.60
Standard (r/D = 1), flanged/welded 1000 0.35
Long radius (r/D = 1.5), all types 1000 0.30
Tees Standard, Threaded 500 0.70
Used as Long radius, Threaded 800 0.40
elbows Standard, flanged/welded 800 0.80

38
 Table Contd.
Fittings Description of fitting K1 Kꚙ
Used as elbows Stub-in branch 1000 1.00

Run through Threaded 200 0.10

Flanged/Welded 150 0.50
Stub-in Branch 100 0.00
Valves Full line size, β = 1.0 300 0.10
Gate, ball or Reduced trim, β = 0.9 500 0.15
plug Reduced trim, β = 0.8 1000 0.25

39
 Table Contd.
Fittings Description of fitting K1 Kꚙ
Globe Standard 1500 4.00
Angle or Y- Type 1000 2.00
Diaphragm Dam Type 1000 2.00
Butterfly 800 0.25
Check Lift 2000 10.0
Swing 1500 1.50
Tilting disk 1000 0.50

40
Table: Constants for 3-K method for loss coefficients in
fittings and valves[12]
90o Elbow K1 Kꚙ Kd

Threaded, r/D = 1 800 0.14 4.0

Threaded, Long Radius, r/D = 1.5 800 0.071 4.2

Flanged, Welded, Bend, r/D = 1 800 0.091 4.0

Flanged, Welded, Bend, r/D = 2 800 0.056 3.9

Flanged, Welded, Bend, r/D = 4 800 0.066 3.9

Flanged, Welded, Bend, r/D = 6 800 0.075 4.2

Mitered, 1 Weld, 90° 1000 0.270 4.0

Mitered, 2 Weld, 45° 800 0.068 4.1

Mitered, 3 Weld, 30° 800 0.035 4.2

41
 Table Contd.
45° Elbow K1 K∞ Kd

Standard, r/D = 1 500 0.071 4.2

Long Radius, r/D = 1.5 500 0.052 4.0

Mitered, 1 Weld, 45° 500 0.086 4.0

Mitered, 2 Weld, 22.5° 500 0.052 4.0

180° Bend K1 K∞ Kd

Threaded, r/D = 1 1000 0.230 4.0

Flanged/ Welded, r/D = 1 1000 0.120 4.0

Long Radius, r/D = 1.5 1000 0.100 4.0

42
 Table Contd.
Tees K1 K∞ Kd
Standard, Threaded, r/D = 1 500 0.274 4.0
Long Radius, Threaded, r/D =
1.5 800 0.140 4.0
Standard, Flanged/ Welded, r/D
=1 800 0.280 4.0
Stub-in Branch 1000 0.340 4.0
Run Through, Threaded, r/D = 1 200 0.091 4.0
Run Through, Flanged/ Welded,
r/D = 1 150 0.050 4.0
Run Through Stub in Branch 100 0 0

43
 Table Contd.
Valves K1 K∞ Kd
Angle Valve = 45°, β = 1 950 0.250 4.0
Angle Valve = 90°, β = 1 1000 0.690 4.0
Globe Valve, β = 1 1500 1.700 3.6
Plug Valve, Branch Flow 500 0.410 4.0
Plug Valve, Straight Through 300 0.084 3.9
Plug Valve, 3-way, Flow Through 300 0.140 4.0
Angle Valve = 45°, β = 1 950 0.250 4.0
Gate Valve, β = 1 300 0.037 3.9
Ball Valve, β = 1 300 0.017 3.5
Butterfly Valve 1000 0.690 4.9
Swing Check Valve 1500 0.460 4.0
Lift Check Valve 2000 2.850 3.8

44
 References
1. Frank P. Lees. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries Volume 3. Loss Prev. Process Ind. Hazard
Indentification, Assess. Control 1996, 3 (2), 1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-397189-
0.00055-0.
2. Frank P. Lees. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries Volume 3. Loss Prev. Process Ind. Hazard
Indentification, Assess. Control 1996, 3 (2), 1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-397189-
0.00055-0.
3. Mannan, S. Lees’ Loss Prevention in the Process Industries: Hazard Identification, Assessment
And Control: Fourth Edition. Lees’ Loss Prev. Process Ind. Hazard Identification, Assess. Control
Fourth Ed. 2012, 1–2, 1–3642. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-24104-3.
4. Crowl, D. A.; Louvar, J. F. Chemical Process Safety; 2002. https://doi.org/10.1021/op3003322.
5. Basu, S. Plant Hazard Analysis and Safety Instrumentation Systems; 2016.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803763-8.00004-2.
6. de Jesús Guillén-Cuevas, K.; Ozinan, E.; Ortiz-Espinoza, A. P.; Kazantzis, N. K.; El-Halwagi, M. M.;
Jiménez-Gutiérrez, A. Safety, Sustainability and Economic Assessment in Conceptual Design
Stages for Chemical Processes; Elsevier Masson SAS, 2018; Vol. 44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64241-7.50387-6.

45
 References
7. http://www.reliabilityeducation.com/intro_et.html
8. Kletz, T. What Went Wrong? : Case Histories of Process Plant Disasters and How They Could Have
Been Avoided.; Elsevier Science, 2009.
9. Sutton, I. Plant Design and Operations (Second Edition); Sutton, I., Ed.; Gulf Professional Publishing,
2017; https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812883-1.00026-7.
10. Treybal, Robert E. Mass-transfer Operations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980.
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moody_chart
12. https://neutrium.net/fluid_flow/pressure-loss-from-fittings-3k-method/

46
Thank You

47