GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

API Standard 521 New Alternative Method to Evaluate Fire Relief

for Pressure Relief Device Sizing and Depressuring System Design

Edward Zamejc
EZ Relief Systems Consulting, Inc.
4110 Pine Blossom Trail
Houston, TX, 77059
edzamejc@ezreliefsystems.com

Copyright EZ Relief Systems Consulting, Inc.

Prepared for Presentation at

American Institute of Chemical Engineers
2013 Spring Meeting
9th Global Congress on Process Safety
San Antonio, Texas
April 28 May 1, 2013
UNPUBLISHED

AIChE shall not be responsible for statements or opinions contained

in papers or printed in its publications

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

API Standard 521 New Alternative Method to Evaluate Fire Relief

for Pressure Relief Device Sizing and Depressuring System Design

Edward Zamejc
EZ Relief Systems Consulting, Inc.
4110 Pine Blossom Trail
Houston, TX, 77059
edzamejc@ezreliefsystems.com
Keywords: pool fire exposure; fire relief sizing; fire heat input; depressuring systems; pool fire
tests; over-temperature failure

Abstract
Since the 1950s, API Standards have provided guidance on determining relief loads for
equipment exposed to pool fires. The API method is empirical based on tests performed in the
1940s. There is increasingly widespread interest in analytical methods based on heat transfer
principles to model fire heat input. The API committee agreed to include an analytical method in
the next edition of API Standard 521 to establish relief loads for pressure relief devices and to
design depressuring systems for the fire scenario. The analytical method provides more
flexibility than the empirical method but has limitations (e.g., too many permutations are
possible leading to potential under-sizing of the pressure relief device).
This paper discusses the basis for the empirical method in API Standard 521 and provides
comparisons of the empirical and analytical method with two more recent large-scale pool fire
tests. This pool fire test data indicates that the empirical method will provide a conservative
estimate of pool fire heat input for most applications and is still the method of choice when
designing pressure relief systems. However, these recent tests indicate the empirical method
needs to be modified when a vessel or equipment is partially confined by adjacent embankments
or walls equal or greater than the vessel height. In such cases, the wetted area exponent should
be 1.0 instead of 0.82.
The analytical method is useful in determining time-versus-temperature profiles for heating
unwetted vessels of varying wall thicknesses and materials of construction. These profiles can
be combined with tensile strength and stress-rupture data to specify a depressuring systems
pressure-versus-time profile; this will minimize failure and/or mitigate the effects of failure due
to overheating from a pool or jet fire exposure..

1. Introduction
American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 521 Pressure Relieving and Depressuring
Systems is an internationally recognized engineering standard used to design pressure relief

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

systems, disposal systems (e.g., flares), and depressuring systems [1]. It is continually being
reviewed, with new editions published in about 5-year intervals. A technical committee
consisting of industry representatives, engineering contractors, and regulators recommend and
integrate modifications into the Standard. These modifications involve lessons-learned from
incidents or near-misses, advances in engineering methodologies, and new guidance based on
shared experiences of the members or inspired by technical inquiries.
The upcoming API 521 6th edition (to-be-published) will include an analytical method to
establish relief loads for pressure relief devices and to design depressuring systems for the fire
scenario. The analytical method will complement, but not replace, the existing empirical method.
It is important to establish the scope of API 521 and differentiate it from API 2000 [2]. API 521
covers pressure vessels and processing equipment (e.g., vessels design in accordance with
ASME Section VIII, Division 1 [3] and other pressure vessel design codes). In contrast, API
2000 covers low pressure, atmospheric, and refrigerated storage tanks designed in accordance
with storage tank standards such as API 650 [4]. The current pool fire heat input equations in
API 2000 are the same as those in NFPA 30 [4]. They were established in a 1963 meeting
between API and NFPA and are based on a fire test and experience with storage tank fires.
Because the origin/basis of API 521 and API 2000 fire equations are different and the scope of
the equipment design codes are different, the fire exposure guidance API 521 and API 2000 can
neither be interchanged nor compared (i.e., use API 521 for pressure vessels and API 2000 for
storage tanks). The subsequent discussion relates only to API 521.

2. Fire Scenario - API Empirical Method

2.1

Basis of the API empirical method to evaluate pool fires

The fire scenario generates the most technical inquiries of any topic in API 521. The current
method, shown in Equations 1 and 2, is an empirical method based on fire tests performed in the
1940s.
With adequate drainage and prompt firefighting:
Q = C1FA ws0.82

[Eq. 1]

Without adequate drainage and prompt firefighting:

Q = C2FA ws0.82

[Eq. 2]

Where:
Q

is the total heat absorption (input) to the wetted surface, expressed in W (Btu/h);

C1

is a constant [= 43,200 in SI units (21,000 in USC units)];

C2

is a constant [= 70,900 in SI units (34,500 in USC units)].

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

F

is an environment factor;

A ws is the total wetted surface, expressed in square metres (square feet).

Note: the SI equation constants include a conversion factor for (Aws)0.82.

The origin of the empirical method can be traced back to the 1950s, when the API Pressure
Relief Systems (PRS) technical committee analyzed the available pool fire test data and
developed empirical equations to determine the pool fire heat input to a vessel. This heat input
could then be used to calculate the fire relief load by dividing by the heat of vaporization. These
empirical equations include the:

Maximum fire heat input (i.e., maximum heat flux absorbed by the vessel and its
contents)
Effect of wetted surface area of the vessel or equipment (i.e., area of the equipment in
contact with liquid or below liquid level) on fire heat input
Effect of drainage (i.e., whether the pool fire is under the vessel) on fire heat input

The maximum fire heat input into a vessel is sometimes confused with the flame surface heat
flux (i.e., pool fire heat duty divided by flame surface area) and the incident heat flux at a vessel
exposed to the fire. The incident heat flux excludes reduction in heat flux due to the absorptivity
of the vessel and re-radiation from the vessel. Based on plotting hydrocarbon pool fire test data
(see Figure 1), the maximum heat input into the vessel was determined by the API committee to
be 34,500 BTU/h-ft2 (see constant C2 in Equation 2). This maximum heat input would occur
when the wetted surfaces of the vessel are completely and continuously exposed to flame.
Figure 1. Pool fire heat input versus wetted area exposure

Heat Flux to Wetted Area (BTU/ft2-hr)

40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

% Observed Exposure of Wetted Area

Test data sources: a) API project test No. 1, b) API project test No. 2, c) Rubber Reserve Corporation test No. 17,
d) Standard Oil Company of California, e) Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (See Reference [1] Table A-1).

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Outdoor pool fires are easily influenced by even relatively calm wind conditions; wind causes
flames to move around, thereby only intermittently exposing surfaces of larger vessels to the
highest incident heat flux. To determine the effect of vessel wetted area, the API Committee
plotted the total heat input versus the wetted area from several pool fire tests and an actual pool
fire [Table A.1 in Ref.1]. The results, shown in Figure 2, indicate the heat input correlates with a
0.82 exponent on the wetted area (Aws). It should be noted that, per convention, the heat input
across only the wetted surfaces of vessels containing a liquid that can boil is considered when
designing pressure relief systems for the fire scenario using the empirical method. The effect of
heating unwetted surfaces and gas-filled vessels is discussed later in this article.
Figure 2. API 521 Table A.1 fire tests - Wetted area versus fire heat input

Wetted Area (ft2)

10000

1000

100

10

1
10000

100000

1000000

10000000

100000000

Fire Heat Input (BTU/hr)

Table A1 Test Data

Q=34500Aw^0.82

Data sources: all tests shown in Reference [1] Table A-1 as well as the actual plant fire involving a 38 butane sphere.

The effect of drainage was determined from Hottels pool fire test data (see Reference 1, Table
A.1, Test 1 and Test 2). Test 1 actually consists of the average of 31 tests without either drainage
or firefighting. Test 2 consists of the average of 8 tests with drainage and 5 tests with both
drainage and firefighting. The ratio for the pool fire heat input from Test 2 to Test 1 (no drainage
nor firefighting) is 17,400 / 30,500 = 0.6. Hence, the maximum pool fire heat input to vessels
with adequate drainage and firefighting is 34,500 * 0.6 = 21,000 BTU/h-ft2 (see constant C1 in
Equation 1). Hottels test data from Reference 6, shown in Table 1, suggest that drainage alone
(no firefighting) has a comparable reduction in heat input.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Table 1. Hottel pool fire test data showing effect of drainage with and without
firefighting [6]

Run Drainage
10
Yes
11
Yes
12
Yes
13
Yes
14
Yes
15
Yes
17
Yes
19
Yes
18
Yes
22
Yes
23
Yes
24
Yes
25
Yes

Firefighting
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Chemical foam for 30 sec. then mechanical foam
Chemical foam for 30 sec. then mechanical foam
Chemical foam for 30 sec. then mechanical foam
Chemical foam for 30 sec. then mechanical foam
Chemical foam for 30 sec. then mechanical foam
Average for all tests
Average for tests with drainage, but no firefighting
Average for tests with both drainage and firefighting

Average
heat input,
BTU/ h-ft2 (1)
22,862
30,081
9,819
19,517
21,707
26,953
2,166
16,436
6,594
9,337
14,535
25,028
20,672
17,362
18,693
15,233

(1) Heat input into wetted surface area

The remaining parameter of the empirical method, designated F, is the environment factor
which credits for adequate fireproofing (See Reference 1). The 6th edition will have an
expanded expression to account for multi-layer fireproofing.
2.2

Limitations of the API empirical method to evaluate fires

There are two types of fires relevant to pressure relief and depressuring system design pool fire
and jet fire. A pool fire is defined as a burning pool of liquid. A jet fire is a fire created when
a leak from a pressurized system ignites and forms a burning jet. A pool fire can be classified as
an open pool fire, a confined pool fire, or somewhere in between. A confined pool fire is defined
as a fire inside a building or a compact process module where the walls and/or surrounding
equipment can reradiate and preheat the combustion air causing higher heat fluxes than an
unconfined (i.e., open) fire. Generally only pool fires are considered when designing pressure
relief systems while both pool fires and jet fires are often considered when designing
depressuring systems.
Typical ranges for peak fire heat intensity (i.e., incident heat flux) are [7]:

Open pool fire 16,000 to 48,000 Btu/h ft2 (50 to 150 kW/m2)
Confined pool fire 32,000 to 79,000 Btu/h ft2 (100 to 250 kW/m2)
Jet fire 32,000 to 127,000 Btu/h ft2 (100 to 400 kW/m2)

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

These peak fire intensities generally correspond to locations within the fire where the
stoichiometric fuel-to-air ratio is equal to one. Because of the effects of ventilation (e.g., wind
effects and confinement), fuel type, fuel-air stoichiometry and other factors, the peak fire heat
intensity is generally only observed in localized parts of the flame volume. Most of the flame
volume has significantly lower fire intensities than the peak.
Pressure relief systems designed for fire exposure require a total heat input into the relevant
surfaces (e.g., wetted areas) using an averaged fire heat flux. In these cases, the fire heat intensity
should be averaged across the entire flame volume. This average is designated as the surface
average heat flux. In contrast, when designing depressuring systems, the peak fire heat intensity
(designated as the local peat heat flux) is important because localized overheating in a small
area can result in equipment failure due to overheating.
It should be noted that API 521 5th and prior editions provide design guidance for pressure relief
and depressuring systems only for open pool fires. Also, the 34,500 Btu/hft2 maximum fire heat
input used in the API empirical method includes the vessel absorptivity, which can reduce the
incident heat flux by 20-70%.

3. Analytical method to evaluate fires

Several authors recommended using an analytical method to model the fire scenario to overcome
limitations with the empirical method and to provide more flexibility in modeling (e.g. [7] [8] [9]
[10] [11] [12]). Because these methods are becoming more widely used, the API 521 committee
agreed to incorporate the analytical method as an alternative to the empirical method and to
include guidance on its application. The empirical method will still be recommended as the
preferred method to evaluate most fire scenarios involving pressure relief system design with the
analytical method preferred for special cases and fires outside the scope of the empirical method.
The analytical method to evaluate fires is a basic heat transfer as shown in Equation 3. The
method determines the fire heat input to a vessel and conservatively ignores internal heat transfer
limitations. It can be applied to all types of fires including open pool fires, confined pool fires,
and jet fires. The proposed typical ranges in the parameters are given in Table 2 for the surface
average heat flux for pool fires. Recommended values, which should be used where data or other
resources are unavailable, will be given in the API 521 6th Edition. API 521 6th edition will also
provide typical values of parameters for the local peak heat flux of pool fires and for the local
peak and surface average heat fluxes for jet fires.

4
q absorbed = surface fire T fire

Where:

4
surface Tsurface
+ h (Tgas Tsurface )

[Eq. 3]

q absorbed

is the absorbed heat flux from the fire, expressed in Btu/hft2 (W/ m2);

is the Stefan-Boltzmann's constant = 0.1713e-8 Btu/hft2R4 (5.67e-8 W/ m2K4);

surface

is the equipment absorptivity, dimensionless;

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

fire

is the fire emissivity, dimensionless;

surface

is the equipment emissivity, dimensionless;

Tfire

is the fire temperature, expressed in R (K);

Tsurface

is the equipment temperature, expressed in R (K);

Tgas

is the temperature of air\fire in contact with the equipment surface, expressed in

R (K);

is the convection
heat transfer coefficient of air\fire in contact the equipment,
Btu/hft2R (W/m2K);

surface fire T4fire is the radiative heat flux to the equipment;

surface T4surface

is the re-radiation from the equipment;

h (Tgas - Tsurface)

is the convection heat transfer between the combustion gases and the
equipments surface

Caution must be taken when specifying the parameters because a wide range in fire heat inputs
can result. When applying the analytical method to sizing pressure relief devices, the total heat
input into the vessel shall use the wetted area to the 1.0 exponent, not the 0.82 exponent used in
the API empirical method as shown in Equations 1 and 2.
Table 2 Typical range in analytical method (Equation 3) parameters for an open pool
fire surface average heat flux
Parameter

Description

Pool fire Surface Average Heat Flux Parameter Range

fire

Hydrocarbon flame emissivity

0.6 1.0

surface

Equipment emissivity

0.3 - 0.8

surface

Equipment absorptivity

0.3 - 0.8

Convective
heat
coefficient between
and surrounding air

transfer
equipment

Tgas

Temperature
of
combustion
gases flowing over the surface

Tfire

Fire temperature

Tsurface

Equipment temperature

Boltzmann's constant

1.76 - 5.28 Btu/hft2R

2
(10 - 30 W/m K)

1 392 2,112 R
773 1,173 K
1,572 2,292 R
873 1 273 K

(932 1,652 F)
(500 900 C)
(1,112 1,832 F)
(600 1 000 C)

Increases as surface heats up

0.1713e-8 Btu/hft2R

4)

(5.67e-8 W/m K
qfire
qabsorbed

Fire heat flux a wider range is

possible

9,510 31,700 Btu/hft2

Absorbed heat flux at start of the

fire

7,925 23,775 Btu/hft2

2
(30 - 100 kW/m )

(25 - 75 kW/m )

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

4. Application of the analytical method to model recent pool fire tests

4.1 Use of the analytical method to model the Ballistics Research Laboratory (BRL) pool fire
test wall temperature versus time
In 1974, a pool fire test was performed by the Ballistics Research Laboratory [13]. A 33,000
gallon (125 m3) LPG tank car was exposed to a semi-enclosed pool fire where the pool fire and
tank car were located in a pit, with embankments on all sides exceeding the tank car height (no
roof). Fire and wall temperatures versus time at the top of the front and rear walls of the tank car
are shown in Figures 3a and 3b, respectively.
The analytical method (Equation 3) was used in an attempt to reproduce the wall temperature
versus time. Values for the variables were adjusted until the calculated time-temperature profile
was approximated. The parameters selected to model tank car rear wall temperature versus time
at several locations are:
fire
surface
surface
h
Tgas
Tfire
Tsurface
qfire
qabsorbed

= 0.62 (determined by BRL)

= 0.5
= 0.5
= 1.76 Btu/hft2R (10 W/m2-K)
= 2,112 R (1,652 F) 1,173 K (900 C)
= 2,112 R (1,652 F) 1,173 K (900 C)
= Initially @ 529 R (69 F) 294 K (21 C)
= Maximum of 16,700 Btu/hft2 (52.7 kW/m2) (calculated)
= Maximum of 9,560 Btu/hft2 (30.2 kW/m2) (calculated)

qfire was calculated by setting surface = 0, surface = 1. The maximum absorbed heat flux is
predicted by the analytical model to occur at the start of fire when the equipment is at ambient
temperature. A similar set of values was used to predict the front wall temperature versus time
with the exception that the fire and gas temperature was set at 1,472 F (900 C). Other
combinations of values in the analytical model can be used that may provide an equal or better fit
to the test data. Note that, because the vessel was engulfed in the pool fire, the gas temperature
should be set equal to the fire temperature. The gas temperature will be lower than the fire
temperature for non-engulfing pool fires. Also, the fire and gas temperatures were assumed to be
constant throughout the pool fire.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Figure 3a. Ballistics Research Laboratory pool fire test data illustrating fire temperature
versus time at the top of the front and rear walls of a rail tank car

Figure 3b. Ballistics Research Laboratory pool fire test data illustrating rail tank car wall
temperature versus time at the top of the front and rear walls

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

A comparison of the analytical model with the wall temperatures recorded during the test is
shown in Figure 4. The analytical method provides a reasonable approximation to the observed
rear wall temperature versus time. The leveling off of the front wall temperature at about 800 F
(425 C) as observed in the test cannot be approximated with a single set of parameters,
indicating that one or more parameters changed during the course of the fire. Once the
temperature versus time profile is approximated by the analytical method, then the resultant
vessel heat input (i.e., qabsorbed) can be determined. The analytical method will indicate the
maximum heat input is at the start of the pool fire unless parameters change during the course of
the fire.
Figure 4. Comparison of rail tank car wall temperature versus time between the analytical
model and Ballistics Research Laboratory pool fire test data

Wall temperature (deg F)

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

10

15

20

25

Time (min)

Analytical model - rear wall

Fire test data - rear wall

30

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

4.2 Use of the analytical method to model the Federal Institute for Materials Research and
Testing (BAM) pool fire test [14][15] wall temperature versus time
In 1999, a full scale pool fire test was performed by the Federal Institute for Materials Research
and Testing (BAM or Bundesanstalt fr Materialforschung und -prfung) in Germany [14] [15].
The test evaluated and compared fire exposure effects on a rail tank car containing propane and a
Castor car used to transport radioactive material. The test setup is shown in Figures 5 and 6.
Although the tank car was semi-confined by embankments on 3 sides, a light to calm northerly
wind was still able to significantly affect the pool fire exposure of the tank car as shown in
Figure 7. The tank car maximum pressure reached 25 bar (362 psig) about 15 minutes after the
start of the pool fire at which time the tank car ruptured, resulting in a boiling liquid expanding
vapor explosion (BLEVE). The BLEVE aftermath is shown in Figure 8. Pool fire flame/gas and
tank car wall temperatures versus time at the various locations around the tank car, as shown in
Figure 9, are illustrated in Figures 10 and 11, respectively. It is important to note that failure
occurred before the pressure reached the pressure relief device opening pressure. A discussion of
this failure as it relates to depressuring system design is given in Section 6.3.

Figure 5. BAM pool fire test setup involving propane rail tank car [14] [15]

Embankment dimensions: 60 x 50 x 6 meters (197 x 164 x 20 ft)

Tank car capacity = 12,000 gallons (45.36 m3) T-T length = 5.95 m; (19.5 ft) Diameter = 2.9 m (9.5 ft)
Tank car test pressure = 28 bar (406 psia)
Tank car contained liquid propane
Fuel oil pool fire in troughs under the tank car and Castor container
Castor container is used to store and transport radioactive materials and was tested along with the tank car

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Figure 6. BAM pool fire test setup involving propane rail tank car [14] [15]

Figure 7. BAM pool fire test [14] [15]

Note: taken near end of test (calm wind speed).

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Figure 8. BAM pool fire test BLEVE aftermath [14] [15]

Figure 9. BAM pool fire test Temperatures measurement locations [14] [15]

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Figure 10. BAM pool fire test Fire temperatures versus time [14] [15]

Note 1: Time = 0 is when gasoline starter fluid in a small plastic container was ignited. The main pool fire started about 100 seconds
later when the plastic container failed and spilled burning gasoline into the fuel oil pool.
Note 2: The unmarked temperature curves were primarily in the front of the tank car (upwind location and without an adjacent
embankment).

Figure 11. BAM pool fire test Tank car wall temperatures versus time [14] [15]

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Because of the wide pool fire and wall temperature ranges shown in Figures 10 and 11, a single
set of values for the parameters in the analytical method would not predict all variations. Table 3
illustrates parameters selected to model tank car wall temperature versus time at two locations.
Other combinations of values in the analytical model can be used that may provide an equal or
better fit to the test data. It should be noted that a transient approach to the analytical method,
where the fire and gas temperatures were varied with time based on the test data shown in Figure
10, was evaluated; however, did not appear to significantly improve the fit with the test data.
A comparison of the analytical model with the wall temperatures recorded during the test, shown
in Figure 12, indicates the analytical method can provide reasonable approximations to wall
temperatures versus time.
Table 3. Analytical method parameters used to model tank car wall temperature versus
time at two locations of the BAM pool fire test tank car
Parameter

Rear Center

Fire temperature, F (C)

1832 (1000)
Gas temperature, F (C)
1832 (1000)
Convective heat transfer
Coefficient, BTU/h-ft2-R (w/M2-K)
5.28 (20)
Fire emissivity
0.6
Metal emissivity
0.5
Metal absorptivity
0.5
The following were calculated using the values above:
Calculated initial incident heat flux,
BTU/h-ft2 (kW/m2)
34,570 (109.0)
Calculated maximum absorbed heat
20,321 (64.1)
flux, BTU/h-ft2 (kW/m2)

Front Right
482 (250)
482 (250)
5.28 (20)
0.6
0.4
0.4

2,260 (7.1)
1,721 (5.4)

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Figure 12. Comparison of rail tank car wall temperature versus time between the analytical
model and BAM test data

Wall temperature (deg F)

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

10

15

20

Time (min)
Calculated rear center
Calculated front right

BAM test rear center

BAM test front right

5. Comparison of the pool fire heat inputs between the empirical method, the
analytical method and pool fire test data
5.1

Comparison with pool fire heat input based on BAM time-versus-temperature test data

The pool fire heat input determined by the empirical method and the analytical method can be
compared using the BAM pool fire test data. The rail tank car was filled with about 2,650 gallons
(10 m3) of 95% liquid propane, resulting in an initial wetted surface area of about 249 ft2 (23.16
m2). The pool fire heat input for the empirical method without adequate drainage (see Equation
2), and the analytical method for several locations around the tank car are given in Table 4.
There are two locations in the rear of the tank car where the analytical method indicated higher
heat inputs than the empirical method. However, when averaged across the entire tank car, as one
should do if sizing a pressure relief device, the empirical method resulted in about 30% more
heat input than the analytical method.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Table 4. Pool fire heat inputs using the empirical and analytical method along with BAM
fire test data
Max Absorbed
Heat Flux,
BTU/ft2-h
Total Heat Input,
(kW/m2)
Aw Factor
BTU/h (kW)
% of API
Location
6
Analytical - Rear
20,330
5.07x10
center
(64.1)
1
(1,485)
159%
6
Analytical - Front
1,720
0.43 x10
right
(5.4)
1
(126)
14%
6
Analytical - Rear
15,040
3.75 x10
average (Note 1)
(47.41)
1
(1,098)
118%
6
Analytical - Front
4,620
1.15x10
average (Note 1)
(14.57)
1
(337)
36%
6
Analytical - Total
9,830
2.45x10
average
(30.99)
1
(718)
77%
6
34,500
3.18x10
Empirical method
N/A
(70.9) (Note 2)
0.82
(933)
100%
Note 1: Average of left, center and right locations.
Note 2: The API maximum absorbed heat flux has units of BTU/hr/[(ft2)0.82] or kW/[(m2)0.82].
Max Fire Heat
Flux, BTU/ft2-h
(kW/m2)
34,560
(109)
2,260
(7.1)
24,350
(76.79)
6,650
(20.97)
15,500
(48.88)

5.2

Comparison with pool fire heat input based on BAM fire test liquid sensible heating

Test data on the sensible heating of the propane liquid was obtained during the BAM test. This
data can be used as an independent means to determine pool fire heat input during the BAM test.
Note that the pressure did not reach the pressure relief device opening pressure prior to rail tank
car failure during the BAM test. The test data indicated an average temperature rise of 7.2 F/min
(4.48 C/min). Hence, the calculated total heat input due to sensible heating of the liquid is about
3.805x106 BTU/h (1,115 kW). For comparison, the empirical method (assuming inadequate
drainage) predicted a total heat input of 3.18 x106 BTU/h (933 kW) per Table 4. This is roughly
the same as the analytical approach using only the averaged tank car rear temperature data. A
possible reason for these differences is discussed below.
Liquid swelling as the liquid heats up would increase wetted surface area; however, the
temperature did not increase enough during the test for it to explain the difference between the
test data and the empirical and analytical methods. A likely explanation is that the embankment
on three sides of the tank car heated up during the fire and caused higher heat fluxes due to reradiation, preheating of combustion air, and enhanced heat transfer. Indeed, the fire should be
classified as semi-confined because the height of the embankment walls exceeded the height of
the tank car. In such cases, the API 521 empirical method (Equations 1 and 2) does not directly
apply. However, the equations can be modified by using a wetted surface area (Aw) exponent of
1.0 instead of 0.82. This would be appropriate in scenarios where the pool fire flames directly

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

and continuously contact all of the wetted surfaces. Applying this to the BAM test rail tank car
assuming 50% of the rail tank car is partially confined due to the embankments on three sides
results in the Equation 4:
Q API modified empirical method = 70,900 * [(Aw confined)1.0 + (Aw open)0.82]

[Eq. 4]

Q API = 70,900 * [(11.58)1.0 + (11.58)0.82] = 1.349 x 106 Watts = 4.604 x 106 BTU/h
This is a conservative estimate of the total heat input as compared with the 3.805x106 BTU/h
(1,115 kW) determined from liquid sensible heating. Based on the test data, the analytical
method should use of the rear averaged heat input predicted by the analytical model (i.e.,
3.75x106 BTU/h (1,098 kW)) to obtain a reasonable approximation. Where validating data is
unavailable, the highest heat input obtained from the analytical model should be used.
The fire relief load can be determined by dividing the fire heat input by the heat of vaporization
of the fluid at relieving pressure.
These results indicate that the API empirical method can be applied to some semi-confined
configurations, where adjacent embankments exceed the vessel height, by using a wetted area
exponent of 1.0 instead of 0.82 for the portion of the vessel adjacent to the embankment. This
would not apply to completely confined situations (e.g., enclosed buildings or structures with a
roof) which would require special modeling.

5.3

Comparison with pool fire heat input based on the BRL test

The BRL test obtained data on the relieving rate versus time, which was compared with that
obtained with the empirical and analytical methods. A transient approach was used in these
methods whereby the relief rate was varied with time to correspond to the decrease in wetted
area as fluid is relieved. A comparison of the actual relief rate and that predicted by the
empirical and analytical methods is given in Figure 13. Both the empirical and analytical
methods predicted a decrease in relief rate with time because the wetted area is decreasing as
fluid is relieved. However, the test indicated the relief rate actually increased with time.
One explanation that can increase the relief rate versus time is that there was an increase in heat
flux with time due to heating of the surroundings. Adjustments to the analytical method were
made to account for enhanced heat transfer due to heat-up of the surrounding embankments
during the test. Figure 13 illustrates a modified analytical method where the convective heat
transfer coefficient and the vessel absorptivity were increased by 20% every 2.5 minutes with a
limit of 1.0 for the absorptivity. This should be considered an example of adjustments that can be
made to adjust the model to fit test data, but they may not represent actual conditions nor be
applicable to other fires. Note that the fire and gas temperature were not adjusted because the
data showed the fire temperature to slightly decrease during the test.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Figure 13. Empirical and analytical method calculated relief rates versus BRL test data

45
40

Relief Rate, kg/s

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Time (min)
BRL Pressure Relief Valve Test Data
API Empirical Method
Analytical Method - Rear Tank Car Data
Analytical Method - Front Tank Car Data
Analytical method modified

Instead of modifying the analytical method, the empirical method can be adjusted to account for
the apparent increased heat input with time by increasing the exponent on the wetted area versus
time. This effect can be illustrated by inserting the heat input determined from the actual relief
rate and the wetted area in the empirical method for inadequate drainage; the equation is then
solved for the wetted area exponent versus time. The results, shown in Figure 14, indicate the
wetted area exponent approaches 1.0 toward the end of the test. This suggests that flame contact
with the entire vessel surfaces increases with time. Using a wetted area exponent of 1.0 for the
entire vessel (located in a pit with embankments exceeding the vessel height on all sides), with
the empirical method, would provide a conservative pressure relief system design.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Figure 14. Empirical method wetted area exponent versus time using BRL test data

Time (min)

20

15

10

0
0.750

0.800

0.850

0.900

0.950

1.000

Wetted Area Exponent

6. Application of the analytical method to depressuring system design

6.1

Effect of overheating unwetted metal plates

Unwetted metal surfaces are not cooled by boiling liquid inside the vessel. Hence, the metal
temperature can get high enough such that metals such as carbon steel lose significant strength.
Table 5 illustrates the effect of high temperatures on the tensile strength of carbon steel and 304
stainless steel. The loss of strength due to pool or jet fire exposure could exceed the safety factor
used in the design of the vessels, thereby resulting in vessel rupture due to overheating, rather
than overpressure.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Table 5. High temperature tensile strength of carbon steel and 18-8 stainless steel [16]
18-8 Stainless Steel
(304, 304L)
Tensile
Strength
psi

Carbon steel (SA515, SA-516)

Tensile
Strength
MPa

Tensile
Strength
psi

Tensile
Strength
MPa

45,500

313.7

365.4

36,500

251.7

48,500

334.4

27,200

187.5

649

43,000

296.5

20,000

137.9

1,300

704

35,000

241.3

13,500

93.1

1,400

760

27,000

186.2

9,025

62.2

1,500

816

20,500

141.3

1,600

871

17,650

121.7

Temperature
F

Temperature
C

900

482

1,000

538

53,000

1,100

593

1,200

The specific pressure vessel design code and material used will determine the appropriate safety
factor to use in the vessel design. For example, the current edition of ASME Section VIII,
Division 1 Pressure Vessel Design Code [3] includes a safety factor (now termed design
margin) of 3.5 between the tensile strength of the vessel and the allowable stress at room
temperature for materials in which the tensile strength governs (e.g., carbon steel). For carbon
steel, the safety factor implies the design pressure is a minimum of 3.5 times the burst pressure
(assuming the weak link in the vessel is the wall plate, there are no imperfections in the wall,
etc.).
ASME Section VIII, Division 1, UG-27 [13] provides equations that relate the allowable stress,
vessel design pressure and wall thickness. In the case of circumferential stress for a cylindrical
shell, the Equation [5] applies if P does not exceed 0.385SE:
P = S * E *t /[R + (0.6 * t)]

[Eq. 5]

Where:
P = internal design pressure, psi
E = joint efficiency = 1.0 for full x-ray
S = maximum allowable stress value, psi
t = minimum thickness of the shell, inches
R = inside radius of the shell, inches
It should be noted that carbon steel vessels constructed to pre-1999 versions of the ASME
Section VIII, Div. 1 code used a safety factor of 4.
For example, at room temperature, ASTM A515 Grade 70 carbon steel plate has a tensile
strength of 70,000 psi [17;] therefore, the allowable stress will be S = 70,000 / 3.5 = 20,000 psi.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

If a vessel fabricated from this material and designed to this allowable stress is heated to 1,200
F, the tensile strength will decrease to 20,000 psi, as shown in Table 5. In other words, the
material strength is reduced to the equivalent of a zero safety factor. Vessel rupture would be a
certainty if the pressure then exceeded the design pressure because the loads on the vessel would
exceed the tensile strength. Rupture would occur at even lower internal pressures if there are
other coincidental loadings on the vessel (such as the weight of the vessel and attached
equipment, temperature gradients, static head, internals, etc.) or defects in the vessel. In all these
cases, a pressure relief valve would not provide protection because it is designed to reseat at its
blowdown pressure and maintain pressure near the design pressure. Instead of a pressure relief
valve, a depressuring system can be used to provide vessel protection, or at least mitigation of
the effects of failure.
6.2

Depressuring criteria

In order to be effective, the depressuring system needs to depressure at a high enough rate to
compensate for the loss of strength as the vessel heats up. The vessel heat up rate is dependent on
the type of fire, materials of construction, and wall thickness.
API Std. 521 Figure 1 illustrates the heat-up of carbon steel plates of several thicknesses in an
open pool fire [1]. One curve (Plate 2) was obtained from pool fire test data while the others
were extrapolated based on the test data. Combining these temperature-versus-time curves along
with the tensile strength data shown in Table 5 will allow determination of a minimum
depressuring rate to keep the pressure below the tensile strength of the vessel. An appropriate
safety factor should be considered given the uncertainties. Results, applying a 25% safety factor
(i.e., Table 5 tensile strengths were multiplied by 0.75), are shown in Figure 15. The
depressuring profile for a specific wall thickness needs to stay to the left of the specific curve
shown in Figure 15. Failure will occur if the depressuring profile either intersects or is on the
right side of the curve for the thickness in question. As noted in the previous section, failure can
occur at even lower pressures, depending upon the amount of additional loads on the vessel.
An often used criteria for depressuring is to depressure to 50% of the design pressure in 15
minutes. As shown in Figure 15, this would be appropriate for vessels whose wall thickness is 1
inch or greater. A second criteria often used is to depressure to 100 psig in 15 minutes. This is
more conservative and would provide protection for more high pressure equipment exposed to
pool fires. The latter criteria would be preferred when protecting against jet fire exposure.
The user is cautioned that the design of a depressuring system to protect all equipment in a
facility, regardless of size and/or design pressure, would be impractical in most cases. This is
because the resultant large depressuring rates would likely require multiple large headers and
multiple flares. The user needs to establish a list of large, high pressure equipment and
determine which equipment from that list will be protected. A mitigating factor is that there are
numerous small connections and piping sections in a unit which are relatively thin walled and
likely to rupture in a large fire. Their rupture would provide additional depressuring capacity
although there is no defensible way to quantitatively estimate it.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Maximum Pressure
to Avoid Failure
(% of design pressure)

Figure 15. Reduction of carbon steel plate tensile strength versus time due to pool fire
exposure
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

10

15

20

Time from Fire Start (minutes)

1/8" (3.2 mm) wall thickness
1/2" (12.7 mm) wall thickness

6.3

Application of the analytical method to depressuring system design

The analytical method can be used to extend the curves in Figure 15 to other wall thicknesses.
The analytical method along with the parameters determined in section 6.2, for example, can be
set up in a spreadsheet as a transient model in which the wall temperature change with time is
calculated. At each time interval, the metal wall mass can be conservatively assumed to absorb
all of the heat input, thereby increasing the wall temperature. The effect of wall thickness is
accounted by the metal mass. This temperature-versus time profile is then combined with tensile
strength data as in Section 6.2.
For example, the BAM pool fire test data indicated failure of the rail tank car occurred at rear
center wall (in unwetted zone) [14] [15]. Test data further indicated the wall temperature ranged
from 1,020 to 1,200F (550 to 650C), but it is possible that local temperatures got even higher
because temperature recorded only at a few locations. Failure occurred 15 minutes after the start
of the pool fire, or about 10 minutes after the fire temperature reached about 1,832F (1,000C).
The rail tank car wall thickness was 0.59 inches (14.9 mm) and the material of construction was
assumed to be comparable to carbon steel. The failure pressure of 362 psig (25 bar) was slightly
lower than the test pressure of 406 psig (28 bar). The Rear Center parameters were used in the
analytical model to predict the time-versus-temperature profile. This was combined with the
tensile strength and stress rupture data to obtain the depressuring profile shown in Figure 16. In
order to minimize the potential for rupture due to overheating, a depressuring system would need
to stay to the left of the curve shown in Figure 16. Because the pressure at failure was slightly

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

lower than the test pressure, Figure 16 predicts that failure would occur about 14 minutes after
the start of the pool fire, which is a reasonable approximation as failure actually occurred about
15 minutes after the main pool fire started (see Figures 10 and 11). Note the first 2 minutes of the
pool fire test is not considered because the fire was localized to a small igniter assembly that did
not cause any significant increase in rail tank temperatures.
Figure 16. Depressuring profile to minimize failure potential of the rail tank car due to
overheating in the BAM pool fire test
100%
90%

Maximum Pressure
to Avoid Failure
(% of Test Pressure)

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

Time from Fire Start (minutes)

6.4

Effect of material of construction

The material of construction can significantly affect the depressuring requirements. The
preceding sections discussed carbon steel vessels. As shown in Table 7, 304 stainless steel is
superior to carbon steel regarding high temperature effects on tensile strength. A comparison of
the depressuring profiles to minimize the potential for failure of a inch wall thickness carbon
steel vessel and a inch wall thickness stainless steel vessel is illustrated in Figure 17. The
depressuring system pressure-versus time profile would need to stay to the left of the applicable
curve. These results indicate that the depressuring system for the stainless steel vessel would
require a significantly lower depressuring rate than for the carbon steel vessel of comparable wall
thickness. This method can be extended to other materials provided tensile strength data at high
temperature is available.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Maximum Pressure
to Avoid Failure
(% of design pressure)

Figure 17. Depressuring profiles to minimize failure potential of a 0.5 inch wall thickness
carbon steel and stainless steel vessel due to overheating

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

10

15

20

25

30

Time from Fire Start (minutes)

Carbon steel 1/2" (12.7 mm) wall thickness

Stainless steel 1/2" (12.7 mm) wall thickness

7. Conclusions
The increasingly widespread use of analytical methods to evaluate fire exposure of equipment
prompted the API Std. 521 committee to include an analytical method in the upcoming 6th
edition as an alternative to the existing empirical method. The analytical method provides more
flexibility than the empirical method but has limitations (e.g., too many permutations are
possible). More recent pool fire test data indicates the empirical method will provide a
conservative estimate of pool fire heat input for most applications and is still the method of
choice when designing pressure relief systems. However, these recent tests indicate the
empirical method needs to be modified when a vessel or equipment is partially confined by
adjacent embankments or walls equal or greater than the vessel height. In such cases, the wetted
area exponent should be 1.0 instead of 0.82.
The analytical method is useful in determining time-versus-temperature profiles for heating
unwetted vessels of varying wall thicknesses and materials of construction. These profiles can
be combined with tensile strength and stress-rupture data to specify a depressuring systems
pressure-versus-time profile to minimize failure and/or mitigate the effects of failure due to
overheating from a pool or jet fire exposure.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

8. References
[1]

ANSI/API Standard 521, Pressure-relieving and Depressuring systems, 5th Edition,

Addendum, April 2008.

[2]

ANSI/API Standard 2000, "Venting Atmospheric and Low-pressure Storage Tanks",

6TH Edition, November 2009.

[3]

ASME Section VIII, Division 1, Pressure Vessel Code, 2007 with 2008a Addenda.

[4]

API Standard 650, "Welded Tanks for Oil Storage", 11th Edition, October 2011.

[5]

NFPA 30: Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code

[6]

Personal correspondence from H.C. Hottel to L.W.T. Cummings December 12, 1950.

[7]

Institute of Petroleum (Energy Institute, Guidelines for the Design and Protection of
Pressure Systems to Withstand Severe Fires, March 2003, ISBN 0 85293 279 0

[8]

SCANDPOWER, Guidelines for the Protection of Pressurised Systems Exposed to

Fire, Report no. 27.207.291/R1 - Version 2, March 31, 2004

[9]

Roberts, T. A.; Medonos, S.; Shirvill, L. C., Review of the Response of Pressurised
Process Vessels and Equipment to Fire Attack, OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY REPORT,
OTO 2000-051, June 2000

[10]

Shirvill, L. C., Heat Fluxes in Severe Fires, 2002 presentation to API Pressure Relief
Systems Committee

[11]

Salater, P., Overaa, S. J., Kjensjord, E., "Size Depressurization and Relief Devices for
Pressurized Segments Exposed to Fire", Chemical Engineering Progress, September
2002, p38

[12]

Salater, P., "Proposed changes to the next revision of API 521", 2006 presentation to API
Pressure Relief Systems Committee

[13]

Anderson, C., Townsend, W., Zook, J. and Cowgill, G., The effects of a fire
environment on a rail tank car filled with LPG, FRA-OR&D Report Number 75-31, PB241358, September 1974.

[14]

Ludwig J. and Heller, W., "Fire test with a propane tank car", BAM Test Report
III.2/9907, 1999.

[15]

Balke, C.; Heller, W., Konersmann, R., Ludwig, J. , "Study of the failure limits of a
railway tank car filled with liquefied petroleum gas subjected to an open pool fire test,
BAM Final Report September 13, 1999.

[16]

Wharton, H. R., Digest of Steels for High-Temperature Service, published by Timken

Steel, 1946

[17]

ASME Section II, Part D, Materials Properties, 2007