Environment

and Safety
T. A. KERR, D. B. MYERS, B. D. PIGGOTT and
A. E. VANCE, Trimeric Corp., Buda, Texas

Solve PRV and piping capacity problems—Part 2

Engineers often uncover problems or Options should be explored to reduce the by into a low-pressure system or high-
inadequacies with pressure relief valve relief load to a flowrate that is less than the pressure letdown into a lower-pressure
(PRV) and relief system piping capaci- installed PRV capacity or to eliminate the system. Similarly, the rationale can be
ties that need creative and cost-effective overpressure cause entirely as a PRV relief applied to the closed outlets scenario to
solutions. These problems may surface scenario by other means of protection. establish the maximum suction pressure
in a number of ways. For example, when The four approaches to reduce or to centrifugal pumps and compressors.
attempting to close a hazardous opera- eliminate a PRV relief load that are dis- In each situation, the engineer should re-
tions (HAZOP) review recommenda- cussed in this section include: search and select a reasonable maximum
tion, it may be discovered that the PRV 1) Redefine the maximum possible possible operating pressure to determine
capacity is inadequate. A debottlenecking system pressure the appropriate relief load for the PRV.5
study may reveal that a PRV is too small or 2) Reduce the source pressure In the example of a heat exchanger tube
that backpressure is excessive at increased 3) Install mechanical limiting devices rupture, an existing facility has a closed-
production rates. When updating process 4) Install a safety instrumented loop refrigeration circuit that chills and
safety information, calculations for an in- system (SIS). liquefies process gas by evaporating am-
stalled PRV may indicate that PRV inlet Redefine the maximum possible monia at low pressure in a shell-and-tube
piping pressure drop exceeds the 3% rule. system pressure. For relief scenarios heat exchanger. The facility was moved to
Resolving inadequacies in pressure re- such as heat transfer equipment failure, a new location and, as part of the project, a
lief systems must be addressed to ensure failure of automatic controls and closed process hazard analysis (PHA) was carried
this important safety system will perform outlets, the relief load will be a function of out for the facility and the ammonia refrig-
during an emergency overpressure event the pressure upstream of the failed equip- eration system. The PHA was reviewed
and to meet industry codes, standards, ment or control element. carefully since it would fall under OSHA’s
and recognized and generally accepted PRV sizing is often done at an early Process Safety Management standard.
good engineering practices (RAGAGEP). stage in a project, and engineers complet- During the PHA, the project team
Increasing pipe sizes to solve capac- ing the PRV sizing calculations may have found that a relief scenario for tube rup-
ity problems can be costly, so alternative, used assumed, conservative values for the ture in the heat exchanger was not in-
creative solutions are preferred. Part 1 pressure source [e.g. maximum allowable cluded in the PRV sizing. It generated
of this article, published in March, ex- working pressure (MAWP), pump dead an action item for a tube rupture relief
plained the “rules of thumb” commonly head]. In some instances, it may be pos- load estimate and check to ensure that
applied to pressure relief systems. (Note: sible to lower the upstream pressure used the installed PRV had sufficient capacity.
The online version of Part 1 contains cor- in the relief load calculation and thereby FIG. 1 shows a simplified configuration of
rections to the original published text.) reduce the estimated relief load. The key the equipment.
Part 2 explores practical solutions to is to more rigorously define the maximum The refrigerant in the shell side of the
solve PRV and inlet/outlet piping capac- operating pressure of the system. ammonia chiller operates at 6 psig, while
ity issues and presents ideas for avoiding More rigorously estimated relief loads the process gas in the tube side operates
major piping rework. ensure that a PRV is properly sized and at 250 psig. As a result, process gas will
not oversized. This approach is dem- flow into the shell side of the exchanger
Practical solutions: Reduce or elimi- onstrated in the following example for if a heat exchanger tube ruptures. The set
nate the relief load. When the capacity the heat transfer equipment failure relief pressure of the shell-side PRV is 300 psig.
of a PRV and associated piping are found scenario caused by a heat exchanger tube A typical tube rupture calculation
to be inadequate for a particular relief rupture. The same rationale for determin- would use the MAWP of the high-pres-
load (the flowrate of fluid that needs to be ing the maximum possible system pres- sure side of the exchanger to calculate the
relieved by the relief valve), take a closer sure can be applied to scenarios like the flow through the ruptured tube, which
look at the overpressure cause before in- failure of automatic controls resulting in in this case is 450 psig for the tubes. At a
creasing the PRV and piping capacity. a wide-open control valve and gas blow- pressure of 450 psig, the installed PRV did
Hydrocarbon Processing | APRIL 2020 71
 Environment and Safety

not have sufficient capacity. Note: The from consideration for PRV sizing is to a wide-open control valve, and are listed
operating pressure of the tube side of the reduce the potential upstream source in descending order of preference:
exchanger is significantly lower than the pressure by setting an upstream PRV at • Install an appropriately sized
MAWP of the tube side of the exchanger. a low enough pressure to prevent the up- control valve. The most thorough
Per API-521, “the use of maximum pos- stream source from overpressuring the and prudent solution to the
sible system pressure instead of MAWP downstream equipment. problem of an oversized control
may be considered as the pressure of the This option may be attractive in low- valve is to install an appropriately
high-pressure side on a case-by-case ba- pressure systems, such as sour water sized control valve. A well-sized
sis.”3 The question then becomes: What strippers or amine strippers, where the control valve will not exceed 70%
is the maximum possible system pressure columns may have MAWPs as high as open for the maximum expected
for the process gas in the tubes? 150 psig, but operate at 10 psig or less. operating case.
In this example, the process gas is com- In this situation, it may be feasible to • Install a restriction orifice.
pressed from near-atmospheric pressure set the PRV that protects the column at Installation of a restriction orifice
to the normal operating pressure of 250 a lower pressure to protect equipment is recommended upstream of
psig. Use of the normal operating pressure downstream of the column with a lower the control valve that is being
of 250 psig does not allow for any process MAWP. However, PRVs with a very low considered for failure wide-open.
upsets, unintended operation, etc., and set pressure can be large and expensive, The orifice should be placed
probably should not be used as the maxi- so there is a tradeoff to consider. upstream of the manual bypass
mum possible system pressure. Install mechanical limiting devic- loop around the control valve
However, the process gas compressor es. A common problem with failure of to also protect from inadvertent
had a high discharge pressure shutdown. automatic controls relief scenarios is an opening of the bypass valve.
It is reasonable to use this shutdown val- oversized control valve that would result The orifice should be sized such
ue as the maximum possible system pres- in a surge of fluid from a high-pressure that, at PRV relieving conditions
sure since it is unlikely that the process system to a low-pressure system if it were downstream, the flowrate through
would be operating above the compres- to fail open. A well-sized control valve the restriction orifice and the
sor shutdown pressure and that the heat will be approximately 70% open for the wide-open control valve does not
exchanger tube rupture would occur at maximum normal flow case, but it is not exceed the PRV capacity.
the same time. uncommon to see this maximum flow The restriction orifice should be
In this example, the high discharge case sized for 50% open, or even lower in stamped with the PRV tag number,
pressure shutdown of the process gas some circumstances. and the purpose of the restriction
compressor was set at 290 psig, which When the valve is equipped with equal orifice should be fully documented
was below the MAWP of the shell side percentage trim, the flowrate through as safety-critical for overpressure
of the exchanger. By defining the maxi- the valve increases exponentially as the protection in the documentation
mum possible system pressure as 290 valve approaches a wide-open condition. for the PRV and restriction orifice
psig instead of 450 psig, the tube rupture The flowrate from a wide-open control and on piping and instrument
relief scenario was eliminated from con- valve is often the PRV sizing relief load; diagrams (P&IDs).
sideration for sizing the PRV since there therefore, an oversized control valve can • Install mechanical valve stops.
would be no overpressure if a heat ex- increase the size and cost of the down- Installation of mechanical stops in
changer tube were to rupture, given that stream PRV, the inlet and outlet piping the control valve will prevent the
the shell is rated for 300 psig. and even the relief disposal system. valve from opening more than a
Reduce the source pressure. Anoth- Several mechanical options may be specified percentage to limit the
er option for eliminating a relief scenario available to limit the PRV relief load from wide-open flowrate to less than
the PRV capacity. The purpose of
the mechanical stops should be
fully documented as safety-critical
Shell-side PRV
set at 300 psig for overpressure protection in the
Ammonia compressor documentation for the control
Ammonia chiller valve and PRV, in the field, and
Process gas Process fluid
on P&IDs.
Ammonia • Car-seal control valve bypass
condenser
valve closed. In some cases, it may
Shell MAWP: 300 psig be appropriate to car-seal closed
Shell operating pressure: 6 psig the bypass valve around a control
Tube MAWP: 450 psig
Tube operating pressure: 250 psig valve to eliminate the bypass valve
flowrate contribution from the
Ammonia calculated relief load. Appropriate
surge drum
administrative controls must
also be implemented. It is the
FIG. 1. Process schematic for heat exchanger tube rupture scenario. responsibility of the owner to
72 APRIL 2020 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 Environment and Safety

ensure that sufficient written to a unit’s capacity and disposal system Restricting the lift is a
procedures, training, audits and piping modifications to increase capacity potentially low-cost solution and
operating experience are in place would be costly and potentially impact is accomplished by installing a
to rely on administrative controls production. The good news is that there limit washer in the existing valve
like car seals. may be a solution that does not require designed to achieve a specific
Install a safety instrumented sys- increasing the pipe size. Modifying or re- capacity.7 This solution more
tem. In some facilities, a PRV and even placing the PRV may be a safer and more closely matches the PRV rated
the relief disposal system (flare header, cost-effective option than replacing pipe. capacity to the required relief load.
flare knockout drum, flare tip, etc.) may It is worth noting that the rated ca- Reduction of the rated capacity
be so undersized that replacement to in- pacity of a selected PRV model typically will, in turn, reduce the pressure
crease capacity may not be practical. An exceeds the rated capacity calculated by drop calculated in the inlet piping
example of this could be incorporating API preliminary sizing. This may ensure (as well as the outlet piping). It
new, high-pressure gas or oil wells into adequate PRV capacity during valve se- may also reduce acoustic effects
an existing gas treatment facility where lection, but can result in excessive pres- from rapid opening and closing.
the facility’s capacity is essentially fixed, sure drop in the inlet and/or outlet The most recent revision of
but failure of the well’s choke valve could piping. (Recall from Part 1 that piping API 5264 provides guidance for
result in very large flows of fluids to the pressure drop is typically calculated using specifying a restricted lift.
facility at high pressure. the PRV’s rated capacity.) The ratio of the • Choose a smaller PRV. Replace
In this situation (and potentially oth- products of the API effective discharge the valve with a smaller one,
ers, such as gas blow-by), the installation coefficient (Kd ) and API effective area with multiple smaller valves that
of a SIS, a type of high-integrity protec- (A) to the ASME6 actual discharge coeffi- operate in parallel, or with a
tion system (HIPS), in lieu of a PRV cient (K) and ASME actual area (A) pro- different manufacturer’s valve
may eliminate the relief scenario for the vides a factor for capacity comparison. that has a lower rated capacity.
PRV. An SIS is a control system separate Problem: Inlet piping pressure This solution also “right sizes”
from the basic control system that runs drop limit is exceeded. Except for re- the PRV while reducing the inlet
the rest of the facility. The SIS’s major motely sensed, pilot-operated PRVs, piping pressure drop.
function is to reliably execute automated PRVs should be designed for inlet piping • Replace with a modulating
shutdowns that have a high safety im- pressure drop that does not exceed 3% of pilot-operated PRV. Replace a
pact. FIG. 2 shows an example SIS that set pressure. This is the “3% limit” dis- conventional, balanced bellows or
protects a low-pressure vessel from over- cussed in Part 1. High inlet piping pres- snap-action pilot-operated PRV
pressure by a high-pressure source. sure drop is often difficult to resolve with- with a modulating pilot-operated
The capital cost for an SIS for over- out replacing the pipe and/or fittings. PRV. Modulating pilot-operated
pressure protection is relatively high for Some options to consider when con- PRVs are designed to relieve only
redundant, high-pressure-rated valves fronted with pressure drop in the inlet the amount of flow needed to
rated for SIS service, multiple pressure piping that is greater than the 3% limit maintain the upstream pressure in
transmitters rated for SIS service, and include: the vessel at the PRV’s set pressure.
logic solvers capable of SIL-3. In addition • Restrict the lift. Some PRV They open proportionally to the
to the high initial cost, there are strict and designs have a conversion option inlet pressure.
frequent maintenance, testing and in- to restrict the travel or lift when The main advantage of this
spection requirements for an SIS. the valve opens. The valve’s device is that the amount of flow
In the example shown in FIG. 2, the capacity may be reduced to as through the PRV and associated
SIS eliminates the high-pressure source little as 30% of the rated capacity. piping is limited to the flowrate
as a relief scenario for the PRV protect- The valve will have the same required to protect the vessel.
ing the vessel in question, and the PRV body but a reduced flow capacity Therefore, the inlet piping
on the vessel no longer needs to be sized because of the restricted lift. pressure drop can be calculated
for that scenario. When the PRV and
disposal system already exist and do
not have extra capacity, it may be more Logic solver
economical to install the SIS rather than
replace the existing PRV, associated pip-
ing, header, etc.
HP LP PT PT PT
Practical solutions: Change the
PRV, not the pipe. The problems of un- High-pressure source
dersized inlet piping, undersized outlet
piping and excessive backpressure can be
challenging. Often, these problems arise
when checking the capacity of a pressure
FIG. 2. Example SIS for a PRV alternative.
relief system or when making a change
Hydrocarbon Processing | APRIL 2020 73
 Environment and Safety

for the maximum required relief • Change the blowdown. Blowdown problem of undersized outlet piping may
load instead of the PRV’s rated (in psi) is the difference between be solved by considering options to re-
capacity, which will reduce the the actual set pressure of a PRV and duce the flowrate that the tail pipe or lat-
pressure drop. the actual reseating pressure; it can eral must be designed to move. This can
• Replace with or convert to be expressed as a percentage of set be achieved by changing an aspect of the
remotely sensed pilot-operated pressure or in pressure units. For PRV design:
PRV. A remotely sensed pilot- compressible fluids, the typical PRV • Reduce the valve capacity.
operated PRV utilizes tubing or reseat pressure is 7%–10% below set The lift of the installed PRV can
other small-bore piping to connect pressure. Increasing the blowdown be restricted, or the PRV can be
the inlet of the pilot assembly to lowers the reseating pressure. replaced with a smaller valve,
the vessel, rather than to the inlet of When the blowdown is greater multiple smaller valves in parallel
the main PRV. This allows the pilot than the inlet piping pressure or a different manufacturer’s valve.
to sense the vessel pressure instead drop (non-recoverable losses), These options may sufficiently
of the pressure at the main valve the chance of valve instability reduce the rated capacity of the
inlet after the inlet piping pressure decreases. Review the PRV’s valve, as previously discussed
drop. The pilot and the main PRV blowdown setting with the for inlet piping pressure drop.
will remain open, even when the manufacturer to determine actual Reduced PRV capacity, in turn,
pressure drop in the inlet piping to requirements for the valve design. will reduce the pressure drop
the main PRV is greater than 3% of The manufacturer may be able to calculated in the outlet piping.
set pressure and otherwise would test and/or set the blowdown to a • Replace with a modulating
have caused the pilot to close, better value for the service so that pilot-operated PRV. Replace a
which may have led to chattering or higher inlet losses can be tolerated. conventional, balanced bellows or
rapid cycling of the pilot. Unfortunately, it is sometimes not a snap-action pilot-operated PRV
The capacity of the main PRV economical or technically feasible with a modulating pilot-operated
should be checked to ensure it has to do a dynamic blowdown test. PRV, as previously discussed for
sufficient capacity at the higher • Change the upstream rupture inlet piping pressure drop. The
inlet piping pressure drop. Consult disk. Select a rupture disk with flowrate used in the outlet piping
the manufacturer for guidance on a capacity rating in combination design for this type of valve is
maximum remote sense distances. with the PRV that is less than the the required relief load, not the
• Perform a force balance capacity of the installed PRV and rated capacity. Therefore, the
assessment. A documented rupture disk. Note: The pressure outlet piping backpressure can
engineering analysis for a PRV that drop associated with the rupture be calculated for the maximum
has no history of chatter can be disk (Kr ) may increase inlet piping required relief load instead of the
used by the owner to accept a PRV pressure drop, and this tradeoff may PRV’s rated capacity, which will
installation with an inlet piping be unacceptable. reduce the pressure drop.
pressure drop greater than 3% of Problem: Outlet piping capacity is • Change the upstream rupture
set pressure. Consult API 520, undersized. PRV outlet piping is com- disk. Select a replacement rupture
Part 2, Section 7.3.62 for topics monly a tail pipe to atmosphere, or a disk and PRV combination with an
to consider for the engineering lateral to a closed disposal system that ASME capacity rating that is less
analysis. A simple force balance may include a common vent header, vent than the capacity of the installed
can indicate potential acceptability stack, flare or other treatment system. rupture disk and PRV. A caution is
of the installation, as shown in The flowrate to be handled by the out- that the pressure drop associated
Eqs. 3 and 4 (units are psi): let piping is a function of the PRV type with the rupture disk (Kr) may
selected. All PRVs, except for modulat- increase inlet piping pressure
Conventional PRV: ing pilot-operated PRVs, should have tail drop, and this tradeoff may be
Total inlet pressure loss + pipe or lateral piping designed to flow at unacceptable.
Built-up backpressure ≤ (3) the PRV’s rated capacity. The rated ca- • Reduce the set pressure. For
Overpressure + Blowdown pacity is the flowrate of the fluid through vapor relief, a lower set pressure
Balanced bellows PRV: the PRV at relieving conditions when the typically reduces the capacity of
Total inlet pressure loss + 0.1 × PRV is wide open or at full lift. However, the valve. A caution is that the inlet
built-up backpressure ≤ (4) the common vent header piping may be piping pressure drop will increase
Overpressure + Blowdown sized based on the required relief loads due to the lower pressure (lower
from PRVs that will relieve during the vapor density), and this offset may
• Convert a conventional PRV to header relief sizing scenario, as opposed be unacceptable.
a balanced bellows PRV. The to the rated capacities of the PRVs. Problem: PRV backpressure is too
simple force balance assessment By definition, the PRV rated capac- high. High pressure at the PRV outlet
shows that the balanced bellows ity will be higher than the required re- may result from many situations. When
PRV will tolerate higher inlet losses lief load used to size the PRV; for some tail pipes or laterals do not have suffi-
than the conventional PRV. PRVs, it may be significantly higher. The cient capacity, excessive backpressure
74 APRIL 2020 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 Environment and Safety

can build up when the PRV opens. In a but the ideas may also be useful to a force of the variable superimposed
closed disposal system, a common relief closed system with multiple PRVs. Note: backpressure is not present.
scenario cause (i.e., a pool fire or util- Any solution that results in higher back- • Check allowable overpressure.
ity outage) will raise backpressure to all pressure should include a check to en- Conventional PRVs are limited
connected PRVs. Increases to the vent sure that the pressure rating for all com- to built-up backpressure that
header load from depressuring or main- ponents in the relief system will tolerate does not exceed the maximum
tenance activities may raise the super- the higher pressure. Solutions to manage allowable overpressure. If the total
imposed backpressure on all connected high backpressure include: backpressure limit was based on
PRVs (pressure that exists when a PRV is • Specify CDTP. For conventional the 10% rule or did not consider
closed). Flashing liquids downstream of PRVs discharging to a closed that the set pressure was below
a PRV will increase the vapor load in the system, the cold differential test MAWP, a higher total backpressure
disposal piping, which also increases the pressure (CDTP) should be may be acceptable because the
backpressure. When a unit is debottle- specified to account for constant allowable overpressure may be
necked and the PRV size is increased, the superimposed backpressure. a higher value. As covered in
PRV built-up backpressure will increase. This is always a first step to Part 1, built-up backpressure up
The problem of high backpressure address backpressure. The CDTP to 21% of set pressure (in psig)
could be solved by eliminating excess compensates for the constant may be acceptable for relief of
PRV capacity, as referenced in the previ- superimposed backpressure by a fire scenario, while built-up
ous section. Other potential solutions do reducing the spring force required backpressure up to 16% may be
not involve reducing the backpressure, to keep the PRV closed. Some acceptable for installations that
but instead require modification of the owners will compensate for low use multiple PRVs in parallel.
PRV design to operate properly at the amounts of variable superimposed When set pressure is below MAWP,
high backpressure. backpressure, as well. However, built-up backpressure in excess of
Potential solutions to manage high it is important to ensure that the the typical 10%, 16% and 21%
backpressure that are discussed in the operating pressure is sufficiently may be acceptable. The PRV
following list are intended for individual below the set pressure so that must be fully open at overpressure
PRVs experiencing high backpressure, the PRV will not open when the equal to 10% of set pressure.

AMERICAS

This year, IRPC Americas is excited to provide two tracks for attendees!
One track will focus on Refining Processes and the second will focus on
Petrochemical Processes.

Questions about sponsoring/exhibiting at IRPC Americas?

For sponsorship and exhibit information, please contact your HP representative or [email protected].
For additional information, please contact Melissa Smith, Events Director,
at [email protected] or +1 (713) 520 4475.

Owners/Operators: Register for FREE! Use code OPERATOR_ONLY by July 14, 2020.

Hydrocarbon Processing | APRIL 2020 75

 Environment and Safety

Preheater the PRV, and then moving further back

Set pressure: 525 psig on the pump curve.
Operating pressure: 430 psig FIG. 3 shows a recent application of re-
lief sizing validation for a PRV located on
To process a vaporizer system. The pump’s dead head
pressure was well above the MAWP of the
vaporizer vessel. As a result, blocked flow
Vaporizer that resulted from a closed valve down-
Flash drum
stream of the vessel was a cause for over-

100 ft
pressure. The pump’s flowrate at the relief

70 ft
Minimum flow
pressure was the first check, but the PRV
PC FC
was found to be undersized for that flow.
Pump discharge pressure
at relief conditions: 638 psig A more thorough analysis was needed
Operating pump discharge to evaluate and hopefully reduce the re-
pressure: 500 psig quired relief load.
From storage tank
Grade A hydraulic analysis was completed
Feed pump from the pump discharge to the PRV to
determine the pressure drop through the
FIG. 3. Simplified process diagram for closed outlets scenario. equipment between the pump discharge
and the vaporizer vessel. Each control
valve was assumed to be wide open, since
• Convert conventional PRV and quantifying relief loads. Owners are the natural response of the flow control
to a balanced bellows PRV. A advised to have robust engineering stan- loop would be to go wide open as the flow-
balanced bellows PRV is designed dards that include the philosophy behind rate dropped. The pressure control valve
to handle higher backpressures. their overpressure protection strategy, risk was normally operated in manual mode
Many conventional valves can tolerance criteria and specific guidance for at 100%. Height differences between the
be converted with a bellows kit applying industry codes, standards, and pump and the vessel were also considered
installed by a certified repair shop RAGAGEP in their facilities. in the hydraulic analysis. Accounting for
or by the manufacturer. Many engineers make overly conserva- this pressure drop characterized the sys-
For API preliminary sizing tive assumptions when owner guidance is tem curve more completely, which in turn
for vapors and gases, a balanced lacking or when the owner’s risk tolerance showed that the pump would operate at
bellows valve is assumed to is not clearly understood. A consequence a point further back on the pump curve,
have full capacity, with total of overly conservative assumptions may thereby reducing the pump flowrate. The
backpressure up to 30% of not be a safer system, but potentially a result reduced the required relief load to
set pressure (Kb = 1). The less stable or less reliable system—and within the PRV capacity.
manufacturer’s backpressure definitely a more costly one. Well-defined A potentially better approach during
capacity reduction curves must engineering standards and other guid- the original facility design would have
be checked, but it is common to ance8,9 help engineers appropriately refine been to design the entire system MAWP
handle backpressure up to their assumptions. for the pump dead head pressure to avoid
45% of set pressure with little Refine assumptions. Closed outlets the need for a PRV.
capacity reduction, and even is a typical relief scenario to consider for Check and validate. Commercial pro-
higher backpressure (when the the discharge side of centrifugal pumps. cess modeling software is often used to es-
capacity is compensated) by A common, but conservative, assump- timate the pressure drop in PRV inlet and
selecting the appropriate Kb. tion is to use the pump dead head pres- outlet piping, as well as any vent headers,
For API preliminary sizing for sure to determine if overpressure is cred- so that pressure drop calculations may be
liquids, a balanced bellows valve ible. The cause of the closed outlet or updated automatically when operating
is assumed to have full capacity blocked flow could be far downstream of conditions change.
with backpressure up to 15% the pump, with heat exchangers or other While modeling piping pressure drop,
of set pressure (Kw = 1). pressure vessels between the pump and it was found that one case appeared to
• Replace installed PRV with a the blocked flow point. Elevation changes have both inlet and outlet pressure drop
pilot-operated PRV. Conventional also impact the maximum pressure at the above the API guidelines. Through care-
or balanced bellows valves may be protected vessel and PRV. ful checking of the calculations, an error
replaced with a pilot-operated valve. It is possible, in some cases, to elimi- was discovered in the reducer fitting “K
These valves are designed for high nate the PRV relief scenario by consider- values” in the process modeling software
backpressure applications. ing the frictional and static pressure losses that resulted in higher calculated pressure
between the pump and the PRV. At the drop. By entering standard K values for
Sharpen the pencil. Pressure relief work very least, the required relief load could the reducers into the software package,
often requires making simplifying assump- be reduced by accounting for pressure both the inlet and outlet pressure drop
tions when evaluating relief scenario causes drop between the pump discharge and estimates fell within the API guidelines.
76 APRIL 2020 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 Environment and Safety

The pressure drop estimates with the The most direct approach to reducing specified differently to make the selected
standard K values were double-checked the required relief load from a fire case is PRV a better match for the required relief
using “old-fashioned” spreadsheet and to avoid it entirely by eliminating the fuel load and installed inlet/outlet piping and
paper methods to confirm that the lower source from the process unit. Facilities header systems. This can help avoid cost-
pressure drop values were reasonable. may develop a plot plan showing areas ly piping and equipment replacements
The foregoing example demonstrates where pool fires are and are not possible and facility downtime.
why it is worth a close look at the tools to avoid overly conservative assumptions.
employed in the performance of pressure The API 521 correlations3 for heat in- LITERATURE CITED
relief work. Equations provided in indus- put from a pool fire generally assume that 2
API Standard 520, Part 2, “Installation of pressure-
relieving devices,” American Petroleum Institute, 6th
try standards and in commercial simula- the flammable material is a hydrocarbon Ed., March 2015.
tion software should always be checked with an implied heat of combustion. Cor- 3
API Standard 521, “Pressure-relieving and depres-
and used with care to ensure that the rection factors can be applied to reduce suring systems,” American Petroleum Institute, 6th
underlying limitations are understood the heat generated by the fire if the fluid Ed., January 2014.
4
API Standard 526, “Flanged steel pressure-relief
and that boundaries are not exceeded. is not a hydrocarbon—for example, alco- valves,” American Petroleum Institute, 7th Ed.,
Pressure drop due to fittings may not be hols or other oxygenated organics. Annex September 2017.
consistent from one software package to A of API 5213 provides adjustment factors 5
NB-18, “National Board pressure relief device certi-
fications,” The National Board of Boiler and Pressure
another, for example. for non-hydrocarbon fires. Vessel Inspectors, online: www.nationalboard.org
The default equations for pressure Credit may be taken for reduced heat 6
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section 8,
drop calculations in commercial process input to the process fluid if the equipment Division 1, “Rules for construction of pressure ves-
modeling software may or may not be and piping are insulated. The correction sels,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
2015.
appropriate for the process system of in- factors for insulation depend on the in- 7
Baker Hughes, a GE Company, “1900 series restrict-
terest. The fluid type (compressible, in- sulation material and the fastener type. ed lift options,” July 21, 2017.
compressible, or non-Newtonian), flow Credit also may be taken for reduced heat 8
Emerson, “Emerson pressure relief valve engineer-
regime and phase (laminar, transition, input to the process fluid if fire protec- ing handbook,” Technical Publication No. TP-V300,
2012.
turbulent, two-phase, slug, etc.) and pro- tion systems, such as water deluge, are 9
GE Oil & Gas, “1900 series consolidated safety relief
cess conditions will determine which cor- available for the equipment and piping valves maintenance manual,” May 2013.
relations and property sets are most ap- exposed to the fire. The fire protection
TERESA A. KERR is a Process
propriate for a given process system. systems may not be used to eliminate the Engineer for Trimeric Corp. She has
Particular attention should be given to fire case by assuming that the fire is extin- more than 25 yr of experience in
the fluid property calculation methods for guished; they should be used only to re- the energy industry and process
supercritical fluids and non-ideal liquid duce the heat input. engineering. Her expertise includes
overpressure protection, relief
mixtures. The properties calculated using system evaluation/design and
the software package should be verified Recommendations. Relief systems can device selection/sizing. Ms. Kerr graduated with
against literature data. It may be possible be complex, and squeezing out additional a BS degree in chemical engineering from the
to eliminate excessive pressure drop or capacity in an existing system is not al- University of Texas at Austin.

insufficient PRV relief capacity with the ways easy. This article presented ideas DUANE B. MYERS is a Process
selection of more precise fluid properties. and items to examine more closely for po- Engineer with Trimeric Corp.
Note: The 3% and 10% rules of thumb tential changes to resolve pressure relief He assists clients with process
engineering projects, including
discussed in Part 1 for PRV inlet and out- system capacity problems without major overpressure protection. Mr. Myers
let pressure drops, respectively, should in- piping replacement. has 25 yr of engineering experience
clude only the “non-recoverable” pressure Reducing a relief load or eliminating and holds BS and MS degrees
losses. The static head losses for liquid an overpressure relief cause may avoid in chemical engineering from the University of
Delaware and the Massachusetts Institute of
relief cases are considered to be “recover- the need to increase relief system capac- Technology, respectively.
able” and are not included in the pressure ity. Whether by refined assumptions and
drop calculation. better system definition or by physical BRAD D. PIGGOTT is a Process
Engineer with 18 yr of process
Refine the fire case required relief changes to instrumentation or equip- engineering experience. He works
load. The pool fire relief scenario is often ment, preventing or eliminating a poten- for Trimeric Corp., where he has
the sizing case for PRVs, and is the only tial overpressure situation is almost al- assisted numerous clients with vent
credible relief cause in some instances. ways preferred. header design, relief valve sizing
and relief scenario development.
Multiple assumptions must be made to When piping pressure drop is too high Mr. Piggott holds a BS degree in chemical engineering
estimate the required relief loads from or backpressure is excessive for a PRV in- from the Colorado School of Mines.
pool fire cases. The heat input to a pro- stallation, examining ways to leverage the
cess unit from a pool fire depends, among interrelationships between the PRV type, AUSTYN E. VANCE is a Process
Engineer at Trimeric Corp. with 8 yr
other factors, on the classification of PRV capacity and relief system inlet/ of process engineering experience
flammable material that is burning, the outlet piping hydraulic design require- on a variety of projects. She has
surface area of equipment exposed to the ments can avoid the need to increase re- assisted clients with relief valve
specification, inlet/outlet pipe
heat, the type of insulation (if any) on the lief system piping sizes. The PRV can be sizing and relief scenario analysis.
equipment, and the types and capacities changed to a different type, model, size or Ms. Vance graduated with a BS degree in chemical
of fire protection systems in service. capacity, or the PRV characteristics can be engineering from the University of Tulsa in Oklahoma.

Hydrocarbon Processing | APRIL 2020 77