HCL Unloading Study
HCL Unloading Study
for
Poly Processing Company
By
R-S-H Engineering
An investigation was made into tank venting requirements for a tank being filled from a
tank truck. The following data represents the typical case and is the basis for all
calculations:
Fill hose – 2” hose from hose connection on truck trailer to the fill connection of
the storage tank.
Tank Vent -- 6” diameter vent from the storage tank to a seal pot located at
grade with 6” depth of water above the vent outlet (used to scrub HCL vapors
from the venting air).
HCL acid -- Liquid being transferred from truck trailer to the storage tank.
Properties are:
Specific gravity -- 1.19
Viscosity -- 1.9 centipoise
37% by weight HCL
The cubic feet per minute determined in Section 1 is then the flow rate which must pass
out of the storage tank vent without causing the pressure in the tank to “grow” beyond
10” w.c. There is a back pressure of 6” w.c. at the exit of the vent (seal pot) due to the
height of the water. The total motive pressure for the vent is 10 inches w.c. minus 6”
w.c. That delta pressure is only 4 inches w.c. (0.144 psi).
Results for the Section 1 calculations show that the following flow rates in cubic feet per
minute are achieved from the truck to the storage tank with a motive force of 30 psi –
10” w.c. (0.361 psi) = 29.639 psi.
HCL
2”dia fill line -----------Æ 28.8 cfm
Air
2”dia fill line -----------Æ 920 cfm
Section 2 then must achieve vent flow rates equal to or better than those flow rates with a
pressure differential of only 0.144 psi.
The calculated results for Section 2 flowing air and HCL vapor are as follows:
Vapor
4”dia vent line -----------Æ 382 cfm
This shows that the 4” vent is more than adequate for air pressure driving liquid HCL
through the fill line. As long as there is total assurance that the unloading valve at the
truck is closed before the truck is totally emptied, there would not be any problem with
over pressurizing the Storage Tank. Resistance to flow due to the viscosity of the liquid
HCL is sufficient to prevent a rapid displacement of the air inside the storage tank.
If, however, the valve at the truck is not closed before air enters the fill line, there will be
a very rapid increase of the flow rate into the Storage Tank. The truck will have become
a very large air receiver filled with 30 psig air. This air will rush through the fill line
into the Storage Tank at the rate shown above of 920 cfm. That air will start leaving the
Tank at 382 cfm (4” dia vent) or 969 cfm (6” dia. vent) at the Tank’s maximum pressure
of 10 inches w.c. With the 4” vent, pressure will then continue to build until equilibrium
of flow is achieved or until the Tank fails. Calculations were made with 1 psig in the
tank which showed that air would enter the tank at 890 cfm and would vent out of the
tank at 878 cfm. Equilibrium would be established at slightly over 1.0 psig in the Tank
(by extrapolation). This is also roughly at the failure point of the tank. Clearly, a 4 inch
vent is not adequate.
As an example of how quickly a tank failure could happen, let's look at the case of a truck
being emptied with a 2" line and hose to the Storage Tank and a 4" vent line to the water
seal (scrubber). We can assume that the truck completely unloaded the typical capacity
of 5,500 gallons. The Tank has a total volume of 7,275 gallons counting the dome.
Tank air space = (7,275 gallons – 5,500 gallons) / 7.48 gal/cu.ft. = 237 cu.ft.
From the previous calculations we know that an average flow rate of around 900 cfm
would be achieved as the tank went from a few inches of water column to 1.0 psig
internal pressure. Flow out through the 4” vent will vary from around 200 cfm
immediately after air starts flowing to 878 at 1 psig. Using 550 cfm as the average vent
flow, we have the tank being filled with 1 psig air at a rate of 350 cfm (900 – 550) into a
space of 237 cu. ft. total. This indicates that the tank would reach 1 psig in less than 1
minute after air starts flowing through the fill line. (This approach to determining time to
reach pressure is greatly simplified and certainly not mathematically rigorous, but it is
sufficient to see that it would be a very short time before tank failure could potentially
occur.)
That time would be significantly shortened if the tank was more than 3/4 full, thus
reducing the available air space. Also we know that if a 3" fill hose were used instead of
a 2" hose, the time before failure would again be shortened.
Conclusion: Unless secondary safety devices are in place to protect the Storage Tank
from an internal pressure above 10” w.c., it would not be prudent to use a vent smaller
than 6" diameter when unloading a tank truck using 30 psig air as the motive force. The
margin of error is so small to protect the tank with only 10” w.c. internal pressure rating
that a safety relief device, such as a weighted hinged lid on the tank, is strongly
recommended.
APPENDIX A
CALCULATIONS