Smart questions

Smart answers
Smart people
Join Eng-Tips Forums
Engineering forums for professionals
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS
Member Login
Username or Email
Password
Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Join Us!
Come Join Us!
Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips now!
Talk With Other Members
Be Notified Of Responses
To Your Posts
Keyword Search
One-Click Access To Your
Favorite Forums
Automated Signatures
On Your Posts
Best Of All, It's Free!
Join Eng-Tips
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you ar
e opting in to receive e-mail.
Posting Guidelines
Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.
Eng-Tips Posting Policies
Jobs from Indeed
Manufacturing...
Charter... - United States
Engineering...
University... - Austin, TX
Operations Engineer
Merit... - Dallas, TX
Optical Systems...
TASC - Herndon, VA
Engineer
Cummins... - Denver, CO
Staff Engineer
Takeda... - Cambridge, MA
Manufacturing...
Boeing - Kennedy Space Center, FL
Process Engineer...
Ford Motor... - Lima, OH
P&P Mechanical or...
Hargrove... - United States
Reliability Engineer
Cooper... - Texarkana, AR
1 2 3 4 Next
What:

Where:
jobs by Indeed
Link To This Forum!
Partner Button
Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This Professionally Managed Technical
Forum.
Just copy and paste the
code below into your site.
<a href="http://www.eng-tips.com/threadminder.cfm?pid=124">Chemical plant design
& operations Forum at Eng-Tips</a>
Home > Forums > Chemical Engineers > Activities > Chemical plant design & operat
ions Forum
Low Pressure Vessel Pressure Protection
thread124-374754
Share This
Forum Search FAQs
Links
Berenger (Chemical) (OP)
10 Nov 14 22:06
Hi everyone,

MVPs

We are installing a new low pressure 2-phase separator in the field. The operati
ng P is around 120 psig. The pipeline and the vessel are to 1375 psig @ 185 F.
I had a discussion with another engineer on how best to protect this vessel. His
point is that since the operating P is very low compared to the design, protect
ion using PSV provide enough protection? His logic (and reality) is that we shou
ld not see a pressure above 300 psig (at worst) and the vessel is designed to 13
75 psig (PSV also set at 1375 psig).
However, I feel that, even though we may never see a pressure over 300 psig, we
also need high alarms just in case. We don't want the remote scenario of extreme
ly high pressure to happen and we only have the PSV to protect us. If we have al
arms, we will be able to respond to any unplanned increase in pressure before th
e PSV goes off. Also, what if the PSV fails? That leaves us with no layer of pro
tection. Hence, the alarms will provide another layer of protection.
Am I correct in wanting multiple layers even though we realistically don't expec
t to use them? Or should we just go with only the PSV and cross our fingers that
the never need it?
GHartmann (Chemical)
10 Nov 14 22:45
You need to do a mini HAZOP on your system.
What is happening upstream to cause the high pressure in your vessel? What is ha
ppening downstream to cause the high pressure?
Can any other equipment be damaged if your pressure exceeds your normal pressure
of 120 psig and reaches 300 psig.
I have seen HAZOPs go both ways. Some insisting on one more layer of protection.
Others did not consider the case viable and no extra layer of protection is req
uired.
I am with the second group. We will see what others say.
LittleInch (Petroleum)
11 Nov 14 5:22

I agree with GHartmann.

first you need to look at your pressure sources and work out what set of events
could lead to the highest possible pressure. If that is still less than the desi
gn pressure then you have no issue to deal with. You need to decide if your "rem
ote scenario of extremely high pressure " is actually feasible or not or whether
it requires multiple failures of other systems pressure controls. Is there such
redundancy / trips / valve closure on the lines feeding the separator with high
pressure that you can take account of / credit for?
Your point "Also, what if the PSV fails?" fails to grasp the sheer reliability o
f simple spring loaded relief valves. These things virtually never fail. Their a
ccuracy is sometime a bit low (-8%), but in terms of not going off their only pr
oblem comes if you've undersized it.
Do you have pressure transmitters on this vessel? If so just set a software alar
m if you're that concerned rather than a specific high pressure switch / trip.
with high pressure pressure vessels you should never have to "cross your fingers
" but instead deal with the issue in a rational and agreed way, then write it do
wn logically and distribute it for comment / approval.
My motto: Learn something new every day
Also: There's usually a good reason why everyone does it that way
moltenmetal (Chemical)
11 Nov 14 7:26
If you have an ASME vessel, you REQUIRE a relief device, whether there are relie
f scenarios or not. It can be set as high as the MAWP of the vessel, or as low a
s you feel is necessary to protect the balance of the system from harms other th
an failure of the vessel itself, but you are not given the option of NOT having
one unless the "vessel" is operated open to the atmosphere. As to what other lay
ers of protection are required for your particular situation, you need to do tha
t analysis with your group, investigating all scenarios in a systematic fashion
(a "what if" or HAZOP review) as noted by others. That analysis can be simple or
complex depending on what is in the process and the consequences of it getting
out. And it should never be forgotten that a relief event is seldom a no-hazard/
no consequence event. Relief events should not be routine- they should only occu
r when there is an emergency. Otherwise, you're challenging the availability of
the device in a real emergency.
bimr (Civil/Environmental)
11 Nov 14 16:47
The function of a pressure relief valve is to protect pressure vessels, piping s
ystems, and other equipment from pressures exceeding their design pressure by mo
re that a fixed predetermined amount. The permissible amount of overpressure is
covered by various codes and is a function of the type of equipment and the cond
itions causing the overpressure.
It is not the purpose of a pressure relief valve to control or regulate the pres
sure in the vessel or system that the valve protects, and it does not take the p
lace of a control or regulating valve. The aim of safety systems in processing p
lants is to prevent damage to equipment, avoid injury to personnel and to elimin
ate any risks of compromising the welfare of the community at large and the envi
ronment. Proper sizing, selection, manufacture, assembly, test, installation, an
d maintenance of a pressure relief valve are critical to obtaining maximum prote
ction.
ASME specifically states in Section VIII, Division 1, paragraph UG-125 (a) All pr
essure vessels within the scope of this division, irrespective of size or pressu
re, shall be provided with pressure relief devices in accordance with the requir

ements of UG-125 through UG-137. The pressure relief device may be the minimum si
ze of 1-Inch for blocked-in thermal relief situation.
I agree with the others that you need to do a HAZOP on your system. The high des
ign pressure does not make any sense in lieu of your proposed operating pressure
. If you are correct, your company is throwing money away with the equipment ove
r design.
Pressure relief valves should be designed to passively protect against a predete
rmined set of worst case conditions and should be installed to react to these co
nditions regardless of daily operation activities.
A credible worst-case scenario should be defined. For a given vessel, several pl
ausible scenarios may exist from external fire to various operating contingencie
s, such as overfill or vessel swell conditions. System overpressure is assumed t
o be caused by the controlling scenario. Most controlling scenarios are loaded w
ith conservative assumptions that are never achieved in actual operating conditi
ons. It is the controlling scenario relieving rate that dictates the pressure re
lief valve size. If sized correctly, the pressure relief valve should have enoug
h discharge capacity to prevent the pressure in the pressure vessel rising 10% a
bove its maximum allowable working pressure.
You need high alarms just in case of what? Alarm systems assist process operator
s in managing abnormal situations. One important alarm philosophy is that the op
erator must have some action for any specific alarm. If the action is not requir
ed, the alarm should not be installed. Improperly configured alarm systems make
contributions to accidents. Nuisance alarms, alarm floods and improperly priorit
ized alarms all contribute to operator confusion, and thus increase accident fre
quency.
MortenA (Petroleum)
12 Nov 14 2:35
@Berenger: Take a look at API 14C/ISO 10418 - this should give you a certain kno
wledge wbout what is needed. In addition to this look at the advice given above.
You have to consider your whole system before deciding what is best.
As a first guess i would say: PSV with a SP= 1375 psig. If the upstream poressur
e CANNOT exceed 1375 psig for process reasons e.g. well shut-in pressure<1375 ps
ig or MAWP upstream vessel <1375) then your design case could e.g. be fire. Once
you have your system design according to recognised standards/RPs then do a HAZ
OP of the system and see where this leads you.
Best regards, Morten
GarethChem (Chemical)
12 Nov 14 5:45
I agree 100% with everyone else. You definitely require a PSV and should do a HA
ZOP. Even though you will never operate at 1375psi, you need to remember if ther
e is a fire, the metal weakens and pressure increases.
PSVs are very reliable (0.01 - 0.67 faults/year for a 1/1 system, http://tinyurl
.com/o5rbl8q) , however, if you want a second layer of protection, why not add a
second PSV? One set to 600psi, and one set to 900psi? (these values obviously a
re dependent on the pressure ratings of the rest of your system)
You should have a PT on the vessel, so it should be pretty easy to program an al
arm for a higher pressure at no extra expense (i.t.o. hardware).
Gareth
MortenA (Petroleum)
12 Nov 14 8:39
It dosnt make much sence to install a 2. PSV. Actually i wouldnt consider a PSV

as the primary protection - that would be your PSHH and associated ESD. The PSV
would be the secondary protection. The PSHH should have a SP lower than the PSV
(10%) in order to avoid PSV lift. The API/ISO std says it all.
Best regards, Morten
Reply To This Thread
Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.
Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!
Back To Forum
Back To Chemical process engineering
Join | Indeed Jobs | Advertise
Copyright 1998-2014 ENGINEERING.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
Unauthorized reproduction or linking forbidden without expressed written permiss
ion.