Research Papers: Operations, Applications and Components

Analysis of Venting of a Resin Slurry

[+] Author and Article Information
James E. Laurinat

Savannah River National Laboratory,
Savannah River Site,
Aiken, SC 29808
e-mail: james.laurinat@srnl.doe.gov

Steve J. Hensel

Fellow ASME
Savannah River Nuclear Solutions LLC,
Savannah River Site,
Aiken, SC 29808
e-mail: steve.hensel@srnl.doe.gov

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received January 18, 2018; final manuscript received October 5, 2018; published online November 12, 2018. Assoc. Editor: San Iyer. The United States Government retains, and by accepting the article for publication, the publisher acknowledges that the United States Government retains, a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for United States government purposes.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 140(6), 061601 (Nov 12, 2018) (7 pages) Paper No: PVT-18-1018; doi: 10.1115/1.4041688 History: Received January 18, 2018; Revised October 05, 2018

A resin slurry venting analysis was conducted to address safety issues associated with over-pressurization of ion exchange columns used in the plutonium uranium redox extraction (PUREX) process at the U. S. Department of Energy's Savannah River Site (SRS). If flow to these columns is inadvertently interrupted, an exothermic runaway reaction could occur between the ion exchange resin and the nitric acid used in the feed stream. This reaction generates significant quantities of noncondensable gases. To prevent the column from rupturing due to pressurization by these gases, rupture disks are installed on the column vent lines. The venting analysis models accelerating rate calorimeter (ARC) tests and data from tests that were performed in a vented test vessel with a rupture disk. The tests showed that the pressure inside the test vessel continued to increase after the rupture disk opened, though at a slower rate than prior to the rupture. The increase in the vessel pressure is modeled as a transient phenomenon associated with expansion of the resin slurry/gas mixture upon rupture of the disk. It is postulated that the maximum pressure at the end of this expansion is limited by energy minimization to approximately 1.5 times the rupture disk burst pressure. The magnitude of this pressure increase is consistent with the measured pressure transients. The results of this analysis demonstrate the need to allow for a margin between the design pressure and the rupture disk burst pressure in similar applications.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Lapple, C. E. , 1943, “ Isothermal and Adiabatic Flow of Compressible Fluids,” T. Am. Inst. Chem. Eng., 39(4), pp. 385–432.
Moody, F. J. , 1965, “ Maximum Flow Rate of a Single Component, Two-Phase Mixture,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 87(1), pp. 134–142. [CrossRef]
Hsu, Y.-Y. , and Graham, R. W. , 1986, Transport Processes in Boiling and Two-Phase Systems, Including Near Critical Fluids, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, IL.
Henry, R. E. , and Fauske, H. K. , 1971, “ The Two-Phase Critical Flow of One-Component Mixtures in Nozzles, Orifices, and Short Tubes,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 93(2), pp. 179–187. [CrossRef]
Mena, P. C. , Ruzicka, M. C. , Rocha, F. A. , Teixeira, J. A. , and Drahoš, J. , 2005, “ Effect of Solids on Homogeneous-Heterogeneous Flow Regime Transition in Bubble Columns,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 60(22), pp. 6013–6026. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Comparison of Henry and Fauske choked flow data with homogeneous flow prediction, stagnation pressure = 1.48 × 106 Pa (200 psig)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of Henry and Fauske choked flow data with homogeneous flow prediction, stagnation pressure = 2.17 × 106 Pa (300 psig)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Cross section of test apparatus

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Correlation of pressure transient for resin vent test 14 prior to disk rupture

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of measured and predicted pressure transients for resin vent tests 14 and 15, without runaway reaction effect

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of measured and predicted pressure transient for resin vent tests 14 and 15, with runaway reaction effect

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Correlation of pressure transients for resin vent tests 14 and 15 after disk rupture



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In