What Are The Flash Point Calculation Methods
This can be a query commonly asked of Technical Help – so i figured we might submit the answer here to assist those that don’t want to contact Technical Support.
Flash point – The minimal temperature at which a liquid provides off a vapor in adequate focus to ignite when examined by the next strategies:
1.Tagliabue Closed Tester (See American National Standard Methodology of Take a look at for Flash Level by Tag Closed Tester, Z11.24 1979 [ASTM D56-79]).
2.Pensky-Martens Closed Tester (See American National Normal Technique of Test for Flash Level by Pensky-Martens Closed Tester, Z11.7-1979 [ASTM D93-seventy nine]).
Three.Setaflash Closed Tester (See American Nationwide Standard Method for Check for Flash Level petroleum oil refinery group by Setaflash Closed Tester [ASTM D 3278-78]).
Pensky-Martens (ASTM D93) is used for the flash level of gas oils as well as viscous supplies and suspension of solids.
Tagliabue (ASTM D56) is used for the determination of the flash level of all mobile liquids flashing below 200F except products classed as gas oil. The Tag technique is really useful for liquids having viscosities lower than 5.5 cSt at 40C that don’t include suspended solids or do not have a tendency to kind a floor film whereas under check.
(1003 12/15 TLM: Added D86 to the API methodology under)
(1312 12/15 TLM: Added the edition and yr to API Knowledge Book beneath)
(1328 12/15 TLM: Modified the spelling of Pensky-Martens under)
In Pro/II and in ROMeo:
Flash level can be calculated by the Nelson methodology (FLPOINT=NELSON) or by the Pensky-Martens methodology (FLPOINT=API). Nelson is the default.
Professional/II keyword syntax:
Methodology SYSTEM=……..FLPOINT=NELSON OR API
NELSON is default.
The opposite is API 2B7.1(Penske-Martins Closed Cup) .
The Nelson method is described in “Petroleum Refinery Engineering” by W.L. Nelson, 4th version, McGraw-Hill E-book Firm, p 131-133. The reference doesn’t mention any restrictions on the vary of applicability. I have copies of articles by Nelson in the 1944 Oil and Gasoline Journal through which he states his correlation is “probably not accurate enough to differentiate between diferent kinds of flash factors”.
For the Nelson method, set T= (IP + 2 x 5%pt + 10%pt)/ four after which the FP= zero.Sixty four x T – a hundred. Note that T is a mean T that could be outlined in another way by other implementations of the Nelson flash level distilled fraction equation. The temperature is in F and the percentages are volume percents petroleum oil refinery group of the ASTM D86 distillation. Since the initial level for simulated refinery streams is notoriously inaccurate, I’m not surprised that inaccuracies are found in the Nelson technique simulated results.
The API Procedure 2B7.1 is discovered within the API Data E-book, 5th ed. 1992 Hydrogen Peroxide Equipment (API 2B7.1). That is the Pensky-Martens closed cup methodology. The really helpful vary of applicability is between -15F to 325F flash points.
For the API methodology 1/FP = -0.014568 + 2.84947/T1 + 1.903E-03 ln(T1) the place T1= ASTM D86 10% temperature for petroleum fractions or normal boiling petroleum oil refinery group point for pure compounds in degrees Rankine and FP is the flash level in levels Rankine. There’s a Figure 2B7.2 in the API Knowledge Ebook that represents the equation written above.
A comment on the correlation of plant data to predicted outcomes…
The perfect any simulator can do is to “simulate” a lab procedure. ASTM Lab checks are fairly specific as to time and temperature handling of samples. Errors can creep into the results in taking and storing the pattern as properly because the precise lab evaluation. I do not know how shut the simulated results are to plant information, but for the D93 lab test itself, answers for duplicate samples analyzed at totally different labs are acceptable within 6F.