PSV

PSV Reaction Forces and Direction
Miyamoto
Member

Registered:
09/13/11
Posts: 69
Loc: Brazil
Hi all,

I know this issue is an old discussion in this forum, but I have a lot of doubts
yet. I read a lot of thread but no one solved my problem. I didn't find threads
considering open discharge system for liquids. So, I'm here again. I'll be glad if
someone can answer any question.

First, my system consists in a single PSV (PRV to be more exact) in a pipeline
with water and Open Discharge System.

My question is:

I contacted some vendors and everybody said me the same: "For open discharge
system, the pressure at exit pipe is almost atmospheric". I think CAESAR II
uses ASME B31.1 equation for force calculations:

F1 = (W*V1)/gc + (P1 - Pa)*A1

Being, P1 the static pressure at exit pipe, and this value is almost 1 kgf/cm2, the
second term will be zero.

So,

F1 = (W*V1)/gc

In other words this force may be calculated only with mass flow vs fluid sonic
velocity?

Someone knows any equation that I can calculate pressure at exit pipe and fluid
sonic velocity for liquid? All equations that I saw is specific for vapor/gases.

Vendors said me also, for liquids the PSV don't "pop". Is this right?

For conclude, the only reaction force that acts in this system is F1 and this force
is applied in last elbow of pipe exit?

Thanks in advance,

Miyamoto

Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post

#50313 - 08/18/12 01:40 AM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: Miyamoto]
mariog
Member

For liquid, the flow does not accelerate to sonic speed in the exit section, so in
your case
exit_speed=[vol flow-rate]/[exit area]
Registered:
09/29/07
Posts: 333
Loc: Romania
You must know the mass flowrate and density and calculate the volumetric
flowrate- anyway this info is specific to PRV "process" calculation.

You may evaluate dP (difference between pressure in the protected equipment
and pressure in exit section) by Bernoulli; an approximate form is:
exit_speed=SQRT(2*dP/Density)

Just as a little more advanced topic: to calculate dP seems to be very simple,
however the "trick" here is based on the fact a correct "process" calculation
already considers the actual dP when evaluate the actual flowrate- so when we
know the actual flowrate we know also dP and by calculation we count also the
energy lost through PSV/PRV. I would add that a process calculation is not
focused on the "actual flowrate" but to a conservative procedure to select
PSV/PRV orifice and the last step- a calculation with actual orifice isn't
performed under normal circumstances... eventually your calculation is strong
linked to the quality of that process calculation. So isn't so simple, but the
conclusion is you may go ahead based on the process calculation!

You may review this post where is discussed a result from Cheresources. For
your case that "D" is the diameter of exit section.


#50321 - 08/18/12 04:19 PM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: Miyamoto]
mariog
Member

Registered:
09/29/07
Posts: 333
Loc: Romania
About the explanation on Pressure discharge in the end of PSV liquid piping, I
should have explained it better- even it is not a "big issue".

Rigorously speaking, Bernoulli equation has to include also the pressure loss
through PSV and also pressure loss through inlet piping and discharge piping of
PSV (for the last ones their values are limited by constructive rules).

By PSV Liquid Sizing procedure, the difference between pressure in the
protected equipment and pressure in discharge section (lets say it is "DP") is
the basis of the calculation of the PSV minimum required orifice area. That
means that the basis of PSV orifice dimensioning is the idea that PSV shall
consume almost all that DP. It would follow that the discharge pressure is near
"zero"- as your Vendor said.

However, the calculation of PSV orifice includes coefficients to dimension the
orifice a little bit larger than necessary, and in the end, it is selected a
"commercial" (standardized) PSV orifice valve bigger than the calculated one.
Consequently, PSV will be a "hydraulic resistance" with a value less than is
required and that means also the flow-rate will be greater that it was counted as
"required to relief" the equipment.
Normally, the calculation does not consider "actual values", since the
calculation goal is to dimension the PSV and this is achieved by the calculation
algorithm. However, if you want to see how much is the pressure discharge, you
have to repeat the hydraulic calculation with the actual orifice, actual PSV
coefficients, actual piping configuration, liquid viscosity, etc and the result of
that hydraulic calculation will show also the actual flow-rate released. In my
opinion, this is far exceeding the stress engineer duty and its likely that
"process" department will not be supporting you for a calculation that is
"unnecessary" for them...

I would underline that the above written ideas are specific to liquid PSVs. For
gas or steam, a supplementary issue is the fact the fluid accelerates to critical
speed and density is also changed, so a calculation of "exit pressure" must
follow other rules than a simple hydraulic calculation specific to liquids.


Miyamoto

Member

Registered:
09/13/11
Posts: 69
Loc: Brazil
mariog,

Thank you very much. You explanation was very clear.

Due relief is very slowly for liquid, I can't consider "pop condition" right? So, what
is the direction of these forces? I understand should have a reaction force against
pipe direction acting on valve and another in last elbow of the system. Please, look at
draft attached.

At node 10 only F2 act (DLF x F1)

At node 20 all forces are balanced.

At node 30, vertical force is balanced and horizontal force act at the elbow.

Is my understand right?

Regards,

Miyamoto

Attachments


Miyamoto
Member

Registered:
09/13/11
Posts: 69
Loc: Brazil
Forgot to mention, CAESAR II uses flow velocity at orifice to calculate Thrust
Force. So, may I use this velocity as v1 (exit velocity at Point 1)?


#50355 - 08/21/12 01:32 PM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: Miyamoto]
mariog
Member

Registered:
09/29/07
Posts: 333
Loc: Romania
The "reaction force" formula (as is given in B31.1, for example) is linked to the
"free jet" assumption. So the horizontal force in node 30 is a steady-state force
as a consequence of the third law of dynamics.

At node 10 you may consider a similar horizontal force; however that means
you consider there is a free-jet downstream PSV/PRV.
Velocity is [v-orifice]=[vol flow-rate]/[orifice-area],
multiplying by mass-flow-rate gives a force, etc.


danb
Member

Registered:
04/22/05
Posts: 1059
Loc: ...
One side note. If is liquid, the dowstream line need to go down, not up.
_________________________
Dan


Miyamoto
Member

Registered:
09/13/11
Posts: 69
Loc: Brazil
danb,

I need downstream up because this line will discharge in a open tank that is a
little bit tall.

May I have any problems with downstream up?

Regards,

Miyamoto


danb
Member
The line need to be self-draining.

Registered:
04/22/05
Posts: 1059
Loc: ...
In your case you need to place the psv at an elevation above the tank, then to go
down with the discharge line.
_________________________
Dan


Miyamoto
Member

Registered:
09/13/11
Posts: 69
Loc: Brazil
danb,

As mentioned in API 520, I can install a manual drainage at discharge line.

Regards,

Miyamoto

Edited by Miyamoto (08/23/12 06:50 AM)

danb
Member

Registered:
04/22/05
Posts: 1059
Loc: ...
Then you do not need the tank.
_________________________
Dan


Ltorrado
Member

Registered:
10/19/10
Posts: 10
Loc: Metairie,
LA
I would like to open this topic back up regarding the proper method of
perfmorming a "static analysis" on relief valve discharge piping. We have an
ongoing discussion at work on how to do it. My opinion is that, when dealing
with a discharge pipe that has multiple turns before it discharges either to
atmosphere or to a larger relief header, all the vector forces should NOT be
applied at the same time but instead as different vectors AT different points in
time (i.e F1 at t1, F2 at t2, etc.). Of course, assuming F1 = F2 = F3 if cross
sectional area stays constant throughout.

So let's say you have Miyamoto's piping but relief being passed is gas. I agree
the fluid will be traveling at extremely high velocities, but unless the spools are
very short, the metal will NOT feel these at the same time (even if it's only
miliseconds). But yet I see everyone's standard practice is to apply them all at
once at every turn in direction as one single vector force (F1 at t1, t2, t3, etc.).

There is one post in particular from Loren Brown that I believe backs my
reasoning up, see below:

"For an open system, if you have more than one bend in your vent stack then
apply this force at each bend under a separate load vector.

For a closed system you would apply this force on bends on each long leg of
pipe. The only way to truly figure out which pipe leg is short enough to ignore
the PSV force is to run the force/time profile through Caesar II's DLF generator
in the dynamics module, but then you might as well perform this analysis
dynamically. For short pipes the duration of the unbalanced PSV force is small
and this shifts the DLF peak to the right (higher frequency) which at some point
is past the majority of your piping system natural frequencies of interest. But if
you are going to do this statically you might simply take the nine longest pipe
legs and apply your force to each bend corresponding to these longest legs. This
would be the "brute force" approach, not really an approach based on physics.

You have 9 different force vectors to choose from so apply your PSV force
under a different force vector for each bend because we want to only examine
the effect on one bend at a time. Then set up separate OPE cases that include
your different force vectors."

Ignoring the calculation method of the actual thrust loads (which I calculate
based on Process Engineering's computer modeled fluid conditions at discharge
of PSV and at downstream points and also applying a conservative DLF of 2.0),
what do the experts think is the correct way of doing this static analysis?
Shouldn't it be like this (in Miyamoto's example):

L1 = W+P1+T1 (OPE)
L2 = W+P1+T1+F1 (OPE)
L3 = W+P1+T1+F2 (OPE)
L4 = W+P1+T1+F3 (OPE)
L5 = W+P1+T1+F4 (OPE)
L6 = W+P1 (SUS)
L7 = L1-L6 (EXP)
L8 = L2-L1 (OCC) segregated effect of F1
L12= L6+L8 (OCC) use Scalar Combination Method
L13= L6+L9 (OCC) scalar combination

Thanks.


#50636 - 09/06/12 04:39 AM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: Ltorrado]
mariog The reaction force as a result of a free jet existence is "physics" and nobody can
Member

Registered:
09/29/07
Posts: 333
Loc: Romania
deny it.
The assumption F1 = F2 = F3= reaction force of "free jet" as describing the
"traveling wave" is not "physics", is just an assumption based on our limited
knowledge about the real phenomenon- this is my opinion.
Of course, nothing wrong to be conservative; the only question is how we can
realize when we are too conservative...
But when it works with a reasonable piping layout , will be OK.

Best regards.


Ltorrado
Member

Registered:
10/19/10
Posts: 10
Loc: Metairie,
LA
As I feared, we are steering away from the static analysis method topic and
more into the fluid dynamics and physics of the phenomenon. I always say
begin doing analysis very conservatively, and if you encounter problems, only
then begin to step away from conservatism and more into "reality".

Now when the gas exits the relief valve it will lose most of its pressure due to
frictional losses in the initial length of the discharge piping. As the gas travels
down the piping it will lose pressure, which will lower the density, and in turn
will increase velocity. So the assumption of F1 = F2 = F3 is not "real" because
as the flow reaches higher velocities, the thrust load will increase. That is why I
tell our Process Engineers to provide us with the maximum velocity exhibited in
the discharge piping which in a closed system is usually right before entering
the larger diameter relief header.

As far as the DLF goes, I begin with a conservative 2.0 and only in situations
where I am forced to reduce the thrust loads due to problems do I start looking
at PSV opening times, piping periods, etc. to calculate an approximate DLF.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the DLF stem from the traveling
pressure wave due to the unbalanced system pressures?

But what I am more interested really is the way of applying these loads in
CAESAR if you are not performing the dynamic analysis. I have not found
much guidance in COADE's literature. The best advice I've encountered is
Loren's method I quoted above.

Regards.

Edited by Ltorrado (09/06/12 07:48 AM)

#50644 - 09/06/12 09:06 AM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: Ltorrado]
mariog
Member

It seems you are interested in the implementation of these loads in CAESAR
static analysis.
Mr. Loren Brown has a post where he detailed the procedure:
Registered:
09/29/07
Posts: 333
Loc: Romania
http://65.57.255.42/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2148

About flow dynamics you've mentioned. IMO the gas that exits the relief valve
already lost most of its pressure due to frictional losses in PSV. Is not a rule the
fluid will accelerate so much in the initial length of the discharge piping, it will
accelerate in the end of system where the boundary conditions offers conditions
for such acceleration to critical speed. As you said, some software is available
for steady state calculation. About the transient calculation for gases exiting the
PSV- well... this is an endless discussion.


danb
Member

Registered:
04/22/05
Posts: 1059
Loc: ...
Is anyone that saw this paper: "Flow Reaction Forces upon Blowdown of Safety
Valves"?

What formula use?

In addition it mention a tee piece at the outlet but this is not a common layout,
even it sound quite interesting.

Regards,
_________________________
Dan


SJ
Member

Registered:
11/14/09
Posts: 163
Loc: India
Dan,

The reasoning behind using a tee at the outlet end is to nullify the forces which
are of equal maginitude.

I,too, was naive on this issue till I found such layouts in my current
organisation.

Seems, interesting...huh...
_________________________
Keep Smiling

SJ


danb
Member

Registered:
SJ,

There are also some PSV with two discharge nozzles at 180 degree.

04/22/05
Posts: 1059
Loc: ...
My question is: Why is not a standard layout if the advantage exists? Still, it is
not common.
_________________________
Dan


#52584 - 01/21/13 08:02 AM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: danb]
Ltorrado
Member

Registered:
10/19/10
Posts: 10
Loc: Metairie,
LA
I've only seen the dual-outlet type tail pipes a couple of times. It is definitely not
standard practice.

Although how much of a benefit would it really be? It would seem that you
would still experience the impact force due to the momentum of the fluid hitting
the end before shooting out the sides. It would also seem that you'd need some
kind of clamp or something to dampen the vibrations from a possible imbalance
upon the fluid exits to atmosphere. Only in theory it would cancel the forces out
perfectly.


Search Results

Quick Reply:
HTML is
enabled
UBBCode is
enabled
Add
Signature

Dear All,

there is some issue that i need to clarify in this forum since i see that many
expert in Piping Stress Engineering and COde Committe are visited this forum.
The issue is about Force on PSV Closed system.
As what i know that Force that show up when PSV in closed system begin to
firing is including in Impact Force so it is a dynamic event, but still we can use
the quasi static method to analyze it by use the DLF factor.
As long as i know this event also not a static condition because the pressure will
change rapidly when the PSV first firing.
The problem of my concern is for this PSV Closed system i usually used and
consider not only the first impact/unbalanced forced in first elbow or
obstruction but also in the second elbow and other downstream this PSV.
I also read in Peng book, that he mentioned that the event when PSV in closed
system firing still consider as Non static condition, so from here i can take the
conclusion there will be no Balanced force, it means Impact force will occurs in
each elbow or obstruction but in opposite direction.
We can measure each of this Force if we know the opening time of the PSV and
multiply it with the length of each pipe section to get the Max. Unbalanced
force in each elbow or obstruction.
But here in my new assignement i found a different method for client method,
where Force downstream of PSV (other than force on first elbow) are consider
to be balanced each other.
I also found this method in one Engineering company that become a trade mark
for Piping Engineering.
So for all Expert and Collegues here, i ask for your advice, amybe opinion about
this Issue.
Hope that it can give another value for all of us here.
Thanks.

With Regards
Nalibsyah

Top
Reply Quote
Quick Reply
Quick Quote
Notify Email
Post

#40429 - 01/25/11 04:22 AM Re: PSV Closed system Force [Re: Nalibsyah]
stressguy8
1
Member

Registered:
07/03/08
Posts: 71
As per API 520 Part 2, Cl. 4.4.2
"

Pressure-relief devices that relieve under steady-state flow conditions into a closed
system usually do not transfer large forces and bending moments to the inlet system,
since changes in pressure and velocity within the closed system components are
small.
Loc: India .....
A complex time history analysis of the piping system may be required to
obtain the reaction forces and associated moments that are transferred to the inlet
piping system."

As you said in general practice, the momentum component is imposed as a reaction
force at PSV.
generally divided as two cases,
Case1: When PSV pops up (Force imposed at PSV) and
Case2: When there is established flow (When the forces cancel each other)

You might find this topic interesting

http://65.57.255.42/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=11775#Post
11775
http://65.57.255.42/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=24685#Post
24685

I case of having a long run reaction forces can be imposed at the first elbow at a
different case, ex: F1 at PSV and F2 at first elbow in the establised flow condition,
conservatively.


#40430 - 01/25/11 06:35 AM Re: PSV Closed system Force [Re: stressguy81]
mariog
Member

Registered:
09/29/07
Posts: 333
Loc: Romania
The only accident with PSVs in closed systems I know it is one in which the
PSV was wrong chosen and was chattering for years before piping was broken.
It was a fatigue damage "assisted" by poor supports- this was the conclusion of
investigations. In my opinion it would have been avoided by common sense
process/piping experience but also by field operators feedback.

Reversing the point of view, you can see in field PSV arrangements that cannot
be qualified by today calculations but have had a satisfactorily service for long
time.

I think any calculation for PSV in closed systems is good because offers the
opportunity to review the related piping and helps providing stiff supports. For
this point of view the calculation must be encouraged.

In the same time, Im in doubt that 99% of these calculations would simulate
what its happening in field with PSV in a closed system. That's why I don't
want to say one approach is wrong and another one is good.

In addition, when the Client/Company regulations are hard (and usually it is the
case, because it seems to be o hot topic!) you have to comply with.


#40431 - 01/25/11 07:33 AM Re: PSV Closed system Force [Re: mariog]
danb
Member

Registered:
04/22/05
Posts: 1059
Loc: ...
I agree with mariog and stressguy81.

I'd like to add the following.

Check should be done for pop forces and if the velocities are close to 1 mach,
apply forces at elbows equal with w x v (flow times velocity)

Regards,
_________________________
Dan


#40434 - 01/25/11 07:46 AM Re: PSV Closed system Force [Re: danb]
MoverZ
Member

Registered:
11/22/06
Posts: 978
Loc: Hants, UK
A further warning about Mach speed ..... it cannot in most cases be exceeded in
a PSV body due to choking. Since velocity is not directly addressed in the
equations given, the formulas in API RP 520 used to calculate reaction forces
can give incredible results. If you check the associated velocity it may be well in
excess of Mach speed and thus impossible. A reduction to a realistic mass flow
rate should give better force results.


#40435 - 01/25/11 08:17 AM Re: PSV Closed system Force [Re: MoverZ]
danb
Member

Registered:
04/22/05
Posts: 1059
Loc: ...
Indeed, and this is in line with Norsok P-001 limiting criteria ro x v2 less than
200 000.

However a rough formula w x v = ro x v2 x A is quite reasonable. (e.g. for a 8"
line and a ro x v2= 200 000, force will be 7534 N) Not big, not small, but will
lead to a lot of guides and/or stops.
_________________________
Dan


#40440 - 01/25/11 09:56 AM Re: PSV Closed system Force [Re: MoverZ]
mariog
Member

Registered:
09/29/07
Posts: 333
Loc: Romania
Dear MoverZ

You say
Quote:
Since velocity is not directly addressed in the equations given, the formulas in
API RP 520 used to calculate reaction forces can give incredible results.

Well, I cannot blame the API formulas. Maybe the people applying API
formulas.

API formulas are based on "free jet" approach.
If a free jet is released in atmosphere or in a large volume, the piping system
will receive a reactive force.
This is the force that API counts as:

Reactive_Force= [mass flow-rate]*[jet_velocity]+ [p_jet]*[area_jet]

where

- mass flow rate must be the actual value (it is greater than the designed flow
rate, because the actual PSV orifice is larger than minimum required!)
- jet_velocity is the critical speed when the jet gas flow has Mach=1 feature (is
counted in Fluid Mechanics as jet_velocity= sqrt(2*R*k*T/ ((k+1)*M)), where
notations are as in API, R is the universal perfect-gas constant , in SI is
R=8314.5 J/kg mol/K.
- p_jet is the gauge pressure in the released jet
- area_jet is the internal area of piping at the point where the jet is released

This is exactly the API formula, where the numerical coefficient is sqrt(2*R), in
SI units sqrt(2*8314.5)=129
Obviously, the formula is based on the "choked" condition i.e. Mach=1 and this
is taken into consideration by counting jet_velocity= sqrt(2*R*k*T/ ((k+1)*M)

A possible source of errors may be the term [p_jet]*[area_jet], because it seems
that "p" in chocked flow is somehow out of common engineering perception and
API does not give details on the subject.

I reattach a paper showing a simple way to evaluate pressure in isentropic
choked flow (Mach=1). You can see the same result in some articles, but the
fluid mechanics model is more complicated there.

My best regards.

Attachments
Choked_flow_pressure.pdf (321 downloads)


MoverZ
Member
Thanks for the fluid mechanics lesson Mariog, I am well aware of theory. My
note was a warning since I have had occasion to check calculations where a

Registered:
11/22/06
Posts: 978
Loc: Hants, UK
small PSV apparently attracted a huge force, due exactly to the error I outlined.
People do make mistakes and far too many 'engineers' apply equations blindly,
because all too often they have found an unchecked and non-validated Excel
spreadsheet solution on some dodgy company drive.


#40449 - 01/25/11 03:56 PM Re: PSV Closed system Force [Re: danb]
mariog
Member

Registered:
09/29/07
Posts: 333
Loc: Romania
Dan,

I think your example may be written as "if there is a free-jet exiting 8" piping
area with (choked) parameters complying with rho*v^2=200000 kg/(ms^2), the
reaction force would be 7534 N".

For a closed system I would say it is a "better than nothing" criteria.

PS. I have a funny story with a PSV process issue in a big company that after 2
months of Olga software calculation decided to have 24" size line downstream
of the 2"x4" piloted PSV. So 24" wasn't the subheader size, it was the size
connection to the subheader. The model was a visual aggression and the
calculation was "worse than nothing".


danb
Member

Registered:
04/22/05
Posts: 1059
Loc: ...
I think that I will not rephase as the purpose of this was more trivial.

I was talking about flow induced forces. Decent problems require decent
solutions, sort of "better than nothing". For complex problems, there are other
solutions and I am not one of the specialists that can solve them.
_________________________
Dan


#40462 - 01/26/11 08:52 AM Re: PSV Closed system Force [Re: danb]
mariog
Member

Registered:
09/29/07
Posts: 333
Loc: Romania
Dan,

You were talking about flow induced forces in closed systems and I was talking
on the fact rho*v^2 transposed in "force criteria" would be a criteria for forces
due to "free-jet" effect in open systems. I think also that rho*v^2 is a steady-
state criteria and does not address to the "momentary, instantaneous forces that
result when the valve first opens".

The point is I have no evidence such criteria is a decent one in closed system
except the connection with subheader/header where a "free jet" may exist.

The only certitude I have is that every stress specialist and Company has the
certitude that his/her/their criteria is decent. I'm not in position to say they are
right or not, so I accept their approach, criteria, etc.

It is interesting (for me) to see that the process people have the certitude they
don't know such decent criteria to evaluate roughly the magnitude of forces in a
closed system. I accept also their position.

Best regards.


#43155 - 06/02/11 08:40 AM Re: PSV Closed system Force [Re: Nalibsyah]
Tengku_Syahdilan

Member

Registered:
12/26/09
Posts: 56
Loc: Indonesia
Stress guy and others, i think i need to clarify what asked. My concern is
that when PSV first pop up there will be a travelling wave downstream the
PSV discharge or RV discharge. This load is not balanced each other. This
force will have the same history shape throught out the system but the
arriving time is different in each point. This is why in API 520 as stress guy
taken above mention :
A complex time history analysis of the piping system may be required to
obtain the reaction forces and associated moments that are transferred to the
inlet piping system."

and in ASME B31.1 Non Mandatory App. II Para II.2.2.2 :

...."However when a safety valve discharge is connect to a relatively long
run of pipe and suddenly opened, there is a period of transient flow until the
steady state discharge condition is reached.

and in Para II.2.3.2 :

......"Relief Valves discharging into an enclosed piping system create a
momentary unbalanced forces which act on the piping system during the
first few milliseconds following relief valve lift. The pressure waves
travelling through the piping system following rapid opening of the safety
valve will cause bending moments in the safety valve discharge piping and
the reminder of the piping system. In such a case, the designer must compute
the magnitude of the loads and perform approriate evaluation of their
effects."

LC Peng book page 401-403 so talk about this, where there will be a net
force impact on each leg (elbow or other obstruction) downstream the RV or
PSV discharge as a result of the traveling wave or transient condition.

So what i mean is that we also have to considered the effect of this transient
load during pop not only at the first elbow ( i see in some company standard
they apply this two condition, during steady state and pop up, but during pop
up they only apply the force directly upward and horisontal at the body of
the Rv or PSV.....i also have see some one post this kind of pictures in other
thread about PSV too).

Apply the load at n elbow/obstruction and n+1 elbow/obstruction, but
because it is quite complicated and we will not know the limit of this
travelling wave unless we perform simulation (maybe with Boss fluid) or do
the time history analysis for better and realistic result, then it is common to
assume to apply until the third elbow/obstruction.

I have found a case where previous engineering company apply the usual
method (apply upward, and horizontal at valve body), and the result the
pump downstream of this RV system having a trouble. so we fix it by apply
and considered the transient effect that not considered by previous company
and now have been 3 years the pump still run smoothly.
_________________________
Tengku_Syahdilan
"From Failure we Learn"


Search Results

Quick Reply:
HTML is
enabled
UBBCode is
enabled
Add
Signature

I am looking for any book, paper or code to know a bit more how to calculate
the transient loads during the discharge of safety valves, specially in closed
discharge systems. Could you recommend m any?

Thanks in advance
_________________________
Carletes

Top
Reply Quote
Quick Reply
Quick Quote
Notify Email
Post

#3648 - 09/02/05 01:14 PM Re: Safety valve discharge loads
Sun Wee
Member

Registered:
12/20/99
Posts: 75
Loc:
Calgary,Canada
I would like to recommend following;
1) Analysis of Power Plant Safety and Relief Valve Vent Stacks, Transaction of
the ASME, 1975, G.S.Liao
2) ASME B31.1 Appendix II
3) Time-Dependent Pipe Forces Caused by Blowdown and Flow Stoppage,
F.J.Moody, Transaction of the ASME 1973
4) Transient Analysis of water Slug Discharge in PWR safety/Relief Valve
Piping, D.A.Van Duyne, ASME 1981
5) Flow of Fluids through Valves, Fittings, and Pipe, CRANE, 1985

Other member may give better idea.
_________________________
Sun Wee


John Breen
Member

Registered:
03/09/00
Posts: 482
Loc: Pittsburgh,
PA (& Texas)
Hello Carletes,

Sun Wee has it covered. I can only add American Petroleum Institute Standard
RP-520.

If you want to really get serious about the topic seek out the DIERS
publications:
http://www.aiche.org/diers/

Regards, John.
_________________________
John Breen


anindya stress

Member

Registered:
04/12/04
Posts: 493
Loc: London,
I would like to add one more to the list:

Steam Flow through safety valve vent pipes by Brandmaier and Knebel- Journal
of Fluids engineering-June 1976.

Regards
_________________________
anindya
UK

tubecomp
Member

Registered:
05/27/04
Posts: 42
Loc: spain
Thank you all.

I think I have got all the papers you have suggested (except Transient Analysis
of water Slug Discharge in PWR safety/Relief Valve Piping), but I still don't see
it clear how to get the transient forces in the discharge of my closed system. I
would desire a document with any "example" about how to apply all those hard
differential equations to a real system (perhaps I am dreaming..) Do you know
any?

regards,
_________________________
Carletes


#3652 - 09/22/05 02:54 AM Re: Safety valve discharge loads
SUPERPIPER

Member

Registered:
08/13/03
Posts: 404
Loc: Europe
Look in the back of the piping codes at the
section marked 'how to guess your way through common analytical problems'
You'll probably find out there how to do trunnions and pipe attachments as well.

:p

(only joking)
_________________________
Best Regards T.J.N


tubecomp
Member

Registered:
05/27/04
Posts: 42
Loc: spain
So, there is not any book, paper, etc where these problems are discussed from a
more "peactical" point of view? Something like "differential equations applied
to the real world"?

Regards
_________________________
Carletes


RS
Member

Registered:
09/15/04
Carletes, the formula in ASME B31.1 Appendix II is very straight forward and
practical.
I normally get the force from the RV supplier, when available.
Dynamic analysis is described in detail in the Caesar Application Manual.
_________________________
Posts: 81
Loc: South
Africa,
Johannesburg
Regards
Ranka


tubecomp
Member

Registered:
05/27/04
Posts: 42
Loc: spain
RS,

The problem is that the B31.1 formula is valid for steady discharge but there are
transient forces that must be evaluated for those systems whose discharge is not
straight forward to the atmosphere. I suppose that a software of compressible
flow transients will make it quite esay but when you don't have that...That/s my
problem...

regards,
_________________________
Carletes


John C. Luf
Member

Registered:
03/25/02
Posts: 1110
Loc: U.S.A.
anyone want to volunteer writing up a method for inclusion in the code, attend
all the meetings, resolve all comments etc.? I thought not...

But in all seriousness this is a topic that should be covered but nobody has
"volunteered" so we all are left wanting....
_________________________
Best Regards,

John C. Luf


RS
Member

Registered:
09/15/04
Posts: 81
Loc: South
Africa,
Johannesburg
Yes Carletes, that is why we have Caesar and time history analysis. The time
history analysis is suggested in the ASME B31.1 for the closed systems.
You should use Caesar's Time History analysis to calculate stresses and forces
in the piping system due to a short duration precalculated dynamic force.

Another analysis is the calculation of dynamic force due to a dynamic event.
This is science in itself for which we "pipers" use approximate methods as one
referenced in ASME Code. Dynamic piping stress analysis does not involve
analysis of the fluido-dynamic phenomena induced by the process fluids flow.
The phenomena is to be analysed and relevant dynamic loads are to be provided
by the Process Department if approximate methods are not sufficient. There are
specialised software packages for calculations of transients in fluids used by
process guys.
_________________________
Regards
Ranka


sam
Member

Registered:
02/25/04
Posts: 463
You can read the following article .
http://www.pipingdesign.com/articles/piping_surges.pdf

But, unless you have some knowledge about transient analysis, you will not be
able to run the softwares viz. pipenet-transient, AFT-Impulse in public domain
correctly.

Many in the nuclear industry have dedicated their whole life in this field just to
ensure plant safety. It is better not to trivialize this field. If you are really
interested, go back to your engineering school once more for learning the same.

regards,

sam
_________________________
_


Jackdliu
Member

Registered:
09/21/05
Posts: 4
Loc: Calgary
Engineering design is about safety without waste of too much money.

The easiest solution for this problem is using the reaction force supplied by the
safety valve manufacturer and taking 2 as DLF to run static analysis. The reason
for this is that most of safety valve piping systems can be considered as one
degree freedom system, in which the greatest DLF is 2.

Jack
_________________________
JDL


#42071 - 03/31/11 05:09 PM Re: Safety valve discharge loads [Re: John C. Luf]
danb
Member

Registered:
04/22/05
Posts: 1059
Loc: ...
How about the fact that some huge companies consider POP forces while here
in this forum nobody mention it?

Regards,
_________________________
Dan


#42108 - 04/01/11 01:11 PM Re: Safety valve discharge loads [Re: danb]
Crusader911

Member

Registered:
11/22/09
Posts: 25
Loc: Louisiana,
USA
"We are but warriors for the working day..."

With the time I am given to do most analysis, I follow Jackdliu's method.
However, many times I do not have the manufacturer's information, so I
calculate a thrust load from the formula in API 520, put it in the model as a
static load, and get on to the next job. Don't forget to double it, like he said.

The problem, of course, is that although you didn't have time to do anything
more sophisticated, if something goes wrong the company that sues you will
have plenty of money to pay some engineer who's never been outside the walls
of a university to do some unbelievably impressive dynamic analysis that shows
that the failure could have been anticipated if you had spent ten times the man-
hours analyzing it.

If anyone has a better practical method I would love to hear it.


#42119 - 04/03/11 01:51 PM Re: Safety valve discharge loads [Re: Crusader911]
danb
Member

Registered:
04/22/05
Posts: 1059
Loc: ...
Many engineers seems to be atracted by the dynamic analysis, but from my
experience is quite unusual to be really required.

Regards,

P.S. And yes, at a rate of few hours per line, is anyone expecting full analysis?
_________________________
Dan


#42235 - 04/06/11 10:29 AM Re: Safety valve discharge loads [Re: danb]
Carter
Member

Registered:
08/08/09
Posts: 21
Loc: Ontario,
Canada
http://www.aft.com/products/impulse/

Carletes,

I have a similar concern regarding relief valve loading. From the instruction, it
looks like the software AFT Impulse has this fuction. I have used AFT Fathom
and others from AFT. They are good and easy to use.

Carter


Search Results

Quick Reply:
HTML is
enabled
UBBCode is
enabled
Add
Signature

Hello Everyone,

I have been searching through this forum a discussion about
PSV reaction force but unfortunately I can't find the specific
one. If you do have a link please do send it to me.

My concern is PSV Reaction Force:

I am analysing an open system PSV directly above an
equipment vessel by static analysis. I have referred to API
RP520 for obtaining this force, what I'd like to understand is
do we need to multiply this Force by 2 times for
consideration of "dynamic load factor"? What is dynamic
load factor and what part in the code can I read about it. By
the way, I have read this in our project standard.

Thanks.

Top
Reply
Quote
Quick
Reply
Quick
Quote
Notify
Email Post

#11775 - 06/20/07 10:48 AM Re: PSV Reaction Force [Re: ichigo]
Loren
Brown
Member

Registered:
10/18/01
pinoy,

The dynamic load factor (DLF) is a characteristic of the
applied load shape (your PSV force versus time curve) which
is plotted vs. system natural frequency. It is determined by a
Time History integration of the dynamic equations of
Search

Who's Online
0 registered (), 6
Guests and 1
Spider online.
Key: Admin,
Global Mod, Mod
March
Su M Tu W Th F Sa

1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

Forum Stats
8938 Members
13 Forums
11306 Topics
51424 Posts
Max Online: 57 @
12/06/09 11:14
AM
Posts: 281
Loc:
Houston,
TX
motion. For impulse loads, such as your PSV, the maximum
DLF is usually less than or equal to 2.0 (which is why this
value shows up in your project standard).

To perform your PSV analysis statically, multiply your PSV
thrust force by 2.0 (check your API RP520 standard as it
may already be applying this DLF=2.0 factor) and apply this
at your bend midpoint downstream of the PSV in your vent
stack. The direction of the force is opposite the direction of
fluid flow in your vent stack.

For an open system, if you have more than one bend in your
vent stack then apply this force at each bend under a separate
load vector.

For a closed system you would apply this force on bends on
each long leg of pipe. The only way to truly figure out
which pipe leg is short enough to ignore the PSV force is to
run the force/time profile through Caesar II's DLF generator
in the dynamics module, but then you might as well perform
this analysis dynamically. For short pipes the duration of the
unbalanced PSV force is small and this shifts the DLF peak
to the right (higher frequency) which at some point is past
the majority of your piping system natural frequencies of
interest. But if you are going to do this statically you might
simply take the nine longest pipe legs and apply your force to
each bend corresponding to these longest legs. This would be
the "brute force" approach, not really an approach based on
physics.

You have 9 different force vectors to choose from so apply
your PSV force under a different force vector for each bend
because we want to only examine the effect on one bend at a
time. Then set up separate OPE cases that include your
different force vectors.

The OPE load cases should be used to determine your
equipment and restraint loads. Subtract your standard OPE
case from each of these, then add that result to SUS to obtain
OCC code stress (note some codes use the OPE+F1 load case
directly for comparison to the allowable stress, so how you
need to review the particular code you are using to determine
the proper approach here). Here is an example of load cases
for B31.1 or B31.3 assuming 3 PSV forces, F1, F2, and F3,
each applied at a different bend:

L1 = W+P1+T1 (OPE)
L2 = W+P1+T1+F1 (OPE)
L3 = W+P1+T1+F2 (OPE)
L4 = W+P1+T1+F3 (OPE)
L5 = W+P1 (SUS)
L6 = L1-L5 (EXP)

Note that L10 through L12 are code compliance cases. L7
through L9 are interemediate load cases and not used for
anything other than determining the stress results for L10
through L12.
_________________________
Loren Brown
Director of Technical Support
CADWorx & Analysis Solutions
Intergraph Process, Power, & Marine
12777 Jones Road, Ste. 480, Houston, TX 77070 USA

Top
Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email
Post

#11794 - 06/21/07 07:29 AM Re: PSV Reaction Force [Re: Loren
Brown]
ichigo
Member

Registered:
12/22/05
Posts: 51
Loc: USA-
Philippines
Hello Loren,

Thanks for the quick reply, this is what I love about this
forum... and thanks to COADE for making this possible.

Keep up the good work!

Top
Post

#12035 - 07/04/07 04:45 AM Re: PSV Reaction Force [Re: ichigo]
ajaykumar

Member

Registered:
06/23/07
Posts: 1
Hello Loren,

Thanks for your reply regarding PSV,I faced this problem
while working on a project,I searched this form and got
valuable information.

and thanks for Ianpinoy for asking this question.
Loc:
AP,INDIA

with regards
ajay

Top
Post

#16292 - 02/27/08 02:03 AM Re: PSV Reaction Force [Re:
ajaykumar]
supremo

Member

Registered:
06/18/07
Posts: 12
Loc: --
Mr. Brown,

Do we really need to consider the temperature for stress
evaluation of thrust force?

Top
Post

Brown]
Dylan
Member

Registered:
09/23/07
Posts: 99
Loc:
Indonesia
Mr.Loren,

You wrote:
Php Code:
L1 = W+P1+T1 (OPE)
L2 = W+P1+T1+F1 (OPE)
L3 = W+P1+T1+F2 (OPE)
L4 = W+P1+T1+F3 (OPE)
L5 = W+P1 (SUS)
L6 = L1-L5 (EXP)

Note that L10 through L12 are code compliance
cases. L7 through L9 are interemediate load cases
and not used for anything other than determining
the stress results for L10 through L1

My question is this example a case for Non-Liniear bondary
condition?(because you take F from subtracting it with Basic
OPE) and which Paragraph of B31.1 or B31.3? Para for
Occasional Loads?

Top
Post

Brown]
Dylan
Member

Registered:
09/23/07
Posts: 99
Loc:
Indonesia
Dear Mr.Loren,

I want to ask, if you have 2 pumps running together and have
to analysis the worst case, Pump A & B ON (T1), Pump A
on Pump B off(T2), Pump B on Pump A Off(T3) and Pump
A B OFF(T4) with design temp -39/45 deg c and Amb Temp
-39/39 deg C. You have 2 piping spec here with Spec1 P=12
bar, Spec2 P=230 bar. This system has 3 PSVF1,F2,F3.
Boundary condition Liniear.

So Please can you give an example how to build the case for
PSV in Load case editor?
Because i confused, when T1 all 3 PSV are open, but when
T2 it is only F1 and F3 will act, so does at T3 F2 and F3, for
T4 it is only F3 act. I hope you understand my question.

Here i attached my example input for your review.

Attachments
264-B.O.T.P.System.zip (446 downloads)

Top
Post

#16345 - 02/28/08 12:08 PM Re: PSV Reaction Force [Re: Dylan]
SUPERPIPER

Member

Registered:
08/13/03
Posts: 404
Loc: Europe
People,

When doing load cases, try to think about all of the
reasonable and possible real life situations which could
happen in the system.

whatever about the accademics, if your scenarios are over
or under cautious, your wasting your time.

Example:
Some relief valves only open once at which you have to
physically go and close it, therefore how can the reaction
forces act on hot pipe? its impossible. (same as a Bursting
Disk)

Why apply 3 valve reliefs at once? these things are quick
and statistically, is it impossible for all 3 to open at
exactly the same time?

So turn off the computer, get a pen, paper and a strong
coffee and think about the design and operating regimes
before pilling into caesar.
_________________________
Best Regards T.J.N

Top
Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify
Email Post

#27868 - 06/02/09 10:29 AM Re: PSV Reaction Force [Re:
SUPERPIPER]
Umair
Member

Registered:
04/16/09
Posts: 13
Loc:
Pakistan
Hello Lauren
Could you please clarify as to what practical situation do
these load cases refer to


Top
Post

#27903 - 06/03/09 12:16 PM Re: PSV Reaction Force [Re: Umair]
manu
Member

Registered:
06/03/09
Posts: 28
Loc: india
Dear Umair

L5+L7 is the sum of principal stresses in the system. You
must be knowing that principal stresses are different from
secondary stresses in a way that the pipe may not fail if the
secondary stresses exceeds the limiting stress value(they are
self limiting). But it can fail if the sum of principal stresses
exceeds the limiting value.
now earthquake is a principal stress and so is the stress due
to pipe wt(L5) hence they need to be added before they can
be evaluated..

this is basic..asking Lauren for this is like asking God for
coffee [:)]

Top
Post

#27925 - 06/03/09 11:57 PM Re: PSV Reaction Force [Re: manu]
Umair Thank you for the reply manu ..the metaphor used in the end
Member

Registered:
04/16/09
Posts: 13
Loc:
Pakistan
was pretty logical

Top
Post

Previous Topic Index Next Topic

Quick Reply:
HTML is
enabled
UBBCode
is enabled
Add
Signature

Hop to:
Moderator: Dave Diehl, Richard Ay
Privacy statement Board Rules Mark all read

Contact Us Home Page Top

Generated in 0.043 seconds in which 0.006 seconds were spent on a total of 14 queries. Zlib
compression disabled.
Powered by UBB.thr

PSV

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

PSV

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

PSV Reaction Forces and Direction

Potrebbero piacerti anche