Relief Scenarios

Todd Jekel, Ph.D., P.E.

Industrial Refrigeration Consortium

Research & Technology Forum

May 8-9, 2013
Madison, WI

5 6 7
In this presentation, I will
discuss

 The purpose of scenarios in relief

system vent piping design

 Common scenarios to consider

 Complications

 Examples
Scenarios
 Defined
− conditions enabling one or more relief
valves on a common header to
simultaneously relieve pressure

 Scenario categories include

Maintenance

Relief
Scenarios

Operational Fire Condition

Upset
 ASHRAE 15 “Scenarios”
 Basis for sizing the relief valves
− Vessels (§9.7.5) isolated & subject to a fire
 No insulation or jacket assumed
− Compressors (§9.8 & Appendix F) “cold-
start” with the discharge isolation valve
closed
 Minimum regulated flow with suction
assumed to be +50°F for high-stage duty and
the saturated intermediate temperature for
boosters

 §9.7.8.4 discusses common headers and

relief valves “expected to operate
simultaneously”
IIAR 2
11.3.4 ... The size and maximum
equivalent length of common
discharge piping downstream from
each of two or more relief devices shall
be governed by the sum of the
discharge capacities of all the relief
devices that are expected to
discharge simultaneously…
Relief header scenarios
 The extremes, often unrealistic
− Only ONE PRV relieving at a time
− EVERY PRV simultaneously relieving

EVERY PRV lifting is not a SCENARIO

but it does provide a RESULT

 What is the SCENARIO?

− Fire in the area surrounding the
components
− Maintenance related scenario
− Internal heat addition
− Other?
 The Extremes

 Only “ONE PRV relieving at a time”

− Issues
 ASHRAE 15 “scenarios” are for sizing the
relief valve (isolation)
 ASHRAE 15/IIAR 2 refers to multiple relief
valves relieving simultaneously
− Observations
 Every PRV needs to be present in at least
one scenario
 Only one PRV relieving at a time is often
not reasonable for external heat addition
scenarios (i.e. fire)
 The Extremes

 “All at once” simultaneous relief scenario

− Issues
 Doesn’t provide any additional insight into
actual scenarios
 May (probably) not be a realistic scenario
 Causes us to ignore possible lessons
learned by thinking through more realistic
scenarios
− Observations
 Provides for an apples-to-apples
competitive bid
 No one can say you haven’t considered
every possible overpressure scenario
 Scenario identification

 Use the Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) to

identify/corroborate scenarios
− Overpressure of system components or
plant areas (e.g. machinery room)

 Maintenance procedures should be

reviewed to identify potential overpressure
scenarios

 Previous incidents that have occurred in

the facility or the industry at-large should
be used to identify overpressure scenarios
 Scenario complications
 Component on common pressure level with
different MAWPs¹
− Examples
 Compressor oil separators (or oil coolers) with
300 psig MAWP discharging into an vessel
with <300 psig MAWP
 Booster compressors w/higher MAWP
discharging into an intercooler w/lower MAWP

 Sizing basis for internal heat sources

− Examples
 Thermosiphon oil coolers
− Recommend sizing relief valve for full-load oil
cooling heat load
 Components undergoing Clean-In-Place (CIP)
¹ Maximum Allowable Working Pressure
 Machinery room scenarios
 Fire
− What components are nearby?
− What pressure levels are they on?
− What are the component MAWPs?

 Maintenance
− Compressors are the most common
maintenance scenario
− ASHRAE sizing scenario
 How many compressors would
realistically be undergoing this scenario
simultaneously?
Example: Machinery Room
 Scenario #1: Machinery room fire
− All vessel relief valves in the room active
− Heat gain to components with higher
MAWP on the same pressure vessel is
considered
 Thermosiphon oil coolers heat gain (fDL)
added to pilot receiver relief valve
 Oil separators heat gain (fDL) added to
high pressure receiver or intercooler
 Example: Machinery Room

 Scenario #2-#n: Compressor maintenance

− Each compressor’s relief valve active for the
largest number of compressors expected to
undergo simultaneous maintenance
− Include the oil cooler if the relief valves
fitted on the oil cooler and oil separator
share a common riser to the header
− Note that each compressor may have it’s
own scenario if the branch piping details and
relief valve sizes are different
Other non-simultaneous
justifications

 Fire-rated partition separating

components on a common header
− For example, a high-pressure receiver
located outside of machinery room

 Components are normally in common

(i.e. not isolated relative to one another) with
different MAWPs
− For example, a 300 psig oil pot that is
connected to a 250 psig recirculator
package
Mitigation example
 Take steps to reduce the scenario or
the size of the required relief valve

 Background
− CIP of refrigerated silo
− ASME Stamped at 150 psig MAWP
− CIP has lifted relief valves in the past
even when steps are skipped and heat
exchanger is open to suction
− Unknown how much the pressure
exceeded the relief valve set pressure
 Mit. Example, continued
 An incident investigation should have been
done in response to lifting relief valve
− Possible investigation recommendations
 Revisit/re-do PHA on silo
 Train staff responsible for CIP
 Install a high-pressure cutout to stop CIP if
pressure reaches a pre-determined limit % of
MAWP
 Verify CIP process, controls, and equipment
are being maintained as part of mechanical
integrity
 Automate the CIP process
− Wrong response
 Increase the size of the relief valve
Recommendations
 If you use an “all at once” scenario for
designing the header, consider
describing and highlighting it as such
and creating reasonable scenarios for
showing compliance

 Use the PHA process to identify

scenarios

 EVERY relief valve on a header MUST

BE part of AT LEAST ONE scenario
− Without calculating the back pressure
you cannot show compliance
For more information,
 See two part series in IRC Cold Front:
Vol. 12 No. 1 and Vol. 12 No. 2