PSV Reaction Forces and Direction Hi all, Miyamoto Member I know this issue is an old discussion in this forum,

but I have a lot of doubts Registered: yet. I read a lot of thread but no one solved my problem. I didn't find threads 09/13/11 considering open discharge system for liquids. So, I'm here again. I'll be glad if Posts: 69 someone can answer any question. Loc: Brazil 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] For liquid, the flow does not accelerate to sonic speed in the exit section, so in mariog your case Member exit_speed=[vol flow-rate]/[exit area]

Registered: You must know the mass flowrate and density and calculate the volumetric 09/29/07 flowrate- anyway this info is specific to PRV "process" calculation. Posts: 333 Loc: Romania 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. Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #50321 - 08/18/12 04:19 PM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: Miyamoto] About the explanation on Pressure discharge in the end of PSV liquid piping, I mariog Member should have explained it better- even it is not a "big issue". Registered: Rigorously speaking, Bernoulli equation has to include also the pressure loss 09/29/07 through PSV and also pressure loss through inlet piping and discharge piping of Posts: 333 PSV (for the last ones their values are limited by constructive rules). Loc: Romania 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. Top #50334 - 08/20/12 08:00 AM Miyamoto mariog, Member Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: Miyamoto]

Thank you very much. You explanation was very clear.

Registered: Due relief is very slowly for liquid, I can't consider "pop condition" right? So, what 09/13/11 is the direction of these forces? I understand should have a reaction force against Posts: 69 pipe direction acting on valve and another in last elbow of the system. Please, look at Loc: Brazil 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

Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #50346 - 08/20/12 11:20 AM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: Miyamoto] Forgot to mention, CAESAR II uses flow velocity at orifice to calculate Thrust Miyamoto Member Force. So, may I use this velocity as v1 (exit velocity at Point 1)? Registered: 09/13/11 Posts: 69 Loc: Brazil Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #50355 - 08/21/12 01:32 PM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: Miyamoto] The "reaction force" formula (as is given in B31.1, for example) is linked to the mariog "free jet" assumption. So the horizontal force in node 30 is a steady-state force Member as a consequence of the third law of dynamics. Registered: At node 10 you may consider a similar horizontal force; however that means 09/29/07 you consider there is a free-jet downstream PSV/PRV. Posts: 333 Loc: Romania Velocity is [v-orifice]=[vol flow-rate]/[orifice-area], multiplying by mass-flow-rate gives a force, etc. Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #50362 - 08/22/12 01:49 AM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: Miyamoto] One side note. If is liquid, the dowstream line need to go down, not up. danb _________________________ Member Dan Registered: 04/22/05 Posts: 1059 Loc: ... Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #50369 - 08/22/12 06:47 AM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: Miyamoto] danb, Miyamoto Member I need downstream up because this line will discharge in a open tank that is a Registered: little bit tall. 09/13/11 May I have any problems with downstream up? Posts: 69 Loc: Brazil Regards, Miyamoto Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #50390 - 08/23/12 02:26 AM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: Miyamoto] The line need to be self-draining. danb Member

Registered: 04/22/05 Posts: 1059 Loc: ... Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #50393 - 08/23/12 06:48 AM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: Miyamoto] danb, Miyamoto Member As mentioned in API 520, I can install a manual drainage at discharge line. Registered: 09/13/11 Regards, Posts: 69 Loc: Brazil Miyamoto

In your case you need to place the psv at an elevation above the tank, then to go down with the discharge line. _________________________ Dan

Edited by Miyamoto (08/23/12 06:50 AM) Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #50394 - 08/23/12 07:04 AM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: Miyamoto] Then you do not need the tank. danb Member _________________________ Dan Registered: 04/22/05 Posts: 1059 Loc: ... Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #50620 - 09/05/12 10:46 AM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: Miyamoto] I would like to open this topic back up regarding the proper method of Ltorrado perfmorming a "static analysis" on relief valve discharge piping. We have an Member ongoing discussion at work on how to do it. My opinion is that, when dealing Registered: with a discharge pipe that has multiple turns before it discharges either to 10/19/10 atmosphere or to a larger relief header, all the vector forces should NOT be Posts: 10 applied at the same time but instead as different vectors AT different points in Loc: Metairie, time (i.e F1 at t1, F2 at t2, etc.). Of course, assuming F1 = F2 = F3 if cross LA 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 L9 = L3-L1 (OCC) segregated effect of F2 L10 = L4-L1 (OCC) segregated effect of F3 L11 = L5-L1 (OCC) segregated effect of F4 L12= L6+L8 (OCC) use Scalar Combination Method L13= L6+L9 (OCC) scalar combination L14= L6+L10 (OCC) scalar combination L15= L6+L11 (OCC) scalar combination Thanks. Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #50636 - 09/06/12 04:39 AM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: Ltorrado] The reaction force as a result of a free jet existence is "physics" and nobody can mariog

Member

deny it. The assumption F1 = F2 = F3= reaction force of "free jet" as describing the Registered: "traveling wave" is not "physics", is just an assumption based on our limited 09/29/07 knowledge about the real phenomenon- this is my opinion. Posts: 333 Of course, nothing wrong to be conservative; the only question is how we can Loc: Romania realize when we are too conservative... But when it works with a reasonable piping layout , will be OK. Best regards. Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #50641 - 09/06/12 07:47 AM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: Miyamoto] As I feared, we are steering away from the static analysis method topic and Ltorrado Member more into the fluid dynamics and physics of the phenomenon. I always say begin doing analysis very conservatively, and if you encounter problems, only Registered: then begin to step away from conservatism and more into "reality". 10/19/10 Posts: 10 Now when the gas exits the relief valve it will lose most of its pressure due to Loc: Metairie, frictional losses in the initial length of the discharge piping. As the gas travels LA 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) Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #50644 - 09/06/12 09:06 AM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: Ltorrado] It seems you are interested in the implementation of these loads in CAESAR mariog Member static analysis. Mr. Loren Brown has a post where he detailed the procedure:

Registered: http://65.57.255.42/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2148 09/29/07 Posts: 333 About flow dynamics you've mentioned. IMO the gas that exits the relief valve Loc: Romania 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. Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #52507 - 01/16/13 02:32 AM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: Miyamoto] Is anyone that saw this paper: "Flow Reaction Forces upon Blowdown of Safety danb Member Valves"? Registered: 04/22/05 Posts: 1059 Loc: ... 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 Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #52538 - 01/18/13 05:09 AM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: Miyamoto] Dan, SJ Member The reasoning behind using a tee at the outlet end is to nullify the forces which Registered: are of equal maginitude. 11/14/09 Posts: 163 I,too, was naive on this issue till I found such layouts in my current Loc: India organisation. Seems, interesting...huh... _________________________ Keep Smiling SJ Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #52539 - 01/18/13 05:29 AM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: Miyamoto] SJ, danb Member There are also some PSV with two discharge nozzles at 180 degree. Registered:

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

Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #52584 - 01/21/13 08:02 AM Re: PSV Reaction Forces and Direction [Re: danb] I've only seen the dual-outlet type tail pipes a couple of times. It is definitely not Ltorrado Member standard practice. Registered: 10/19/10 Posts: 10 Loc: Metairie, LA 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. Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post

Top 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 Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post

Top #40429 - 01/25/11 04:22 AM Re: PSV Closed system Force [Re: Nalibsyah] stressguy8 As per API 520 Part 2, Cl. 4.4.2 " 1 Member Pressure-relief devices that relieve under steady-state flow conditions into a closed Registered: system usually do not transfer large forces and bending moments to the inlet system, 07/03/08 since changes in pressure and velocity within the closed system components are Posts: 71 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. Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #40430 - 01/25/11 06:35 AM Re: PSV Closed system Force [Re: stressguy81] The only accident with PSVs in closed systems I know it is one in which the mariog Member 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 Registered: investigations. In my opinion it would have been avoided by common sense 09/29/07 process/piping experience but also by field operators feedback. Posts: 333 Loc: Romania 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. Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #40431 - 01/25/11 07:33 AM Re: PSV Closed system Force [Re: mariog] I agree with mariog and stressguy81. danb Member I'd like to add the following. Registered: 04/22/05 Check should be done for pop forces and if the velocities are close to 1 mach, Posts: 1059 apply forces at elbows equal with w x v (flow times velocity) Loc: ... Regards, _________________________ Dan Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #40434 - 01/25/11 07:46 AM Re: PSV Closed system Force [Re: danb] A further warning about Mach speed ..... it cannot in most cases be exceeded in MoverZ Member 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 Registered: can give incredible results. If you check the associated velocity it may be well in 11/22/06 excess of Mach speed and thus impossible. A reduction to a realistic mass flow Posts: 978 rate should give better force results. Loc: Hants, UK Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #40435 - 01/25/11 08:17 AM Re: PSV Closed system Force [Re: MoverZ] Indeed, and this is in line with Norsok P-001 limiting criteria ro x v2 less than danb 200 000. Member Registered: 04/22/05 Posts: 1059 Loc: ... 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

Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #40440 - 01/25/11 09:56 AM Re: PSV Closed system Force [Re: MoverZ] Dear MoverZ mariog Member You say Registered: Quote: 09/29/07 Since velocity is not directly addressed in the equations given, the formulas in Posts: 333 API RP 520 used to calculate reaction forces can give incredible results. Loc: Romania

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) Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #40441 - 01/25/11 10:10 AM Re: PSV Closed system Force [Re: mariog] Thanks for the fluid mechanics lesson Mariog, I am well aware of theory. My MoverZ note was a warning since I have had occasion to check calculations where a Member

Registered: 11/22/06 Posts: 978 Loc: Hants, UK Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #40449 - 01/25/11 03:56 PM Re: PSV Closed system Force [Re: danb] Dan, mariog Member I think your example may be written as "if there is a free-jet exiting 8" piping Registered: area with (choked) parameters complying with rho*v^2=200000 kg/(ms^2), the 09/29/07 reaction force would be 7534 N". Posts: 333 Loc: Romania 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". Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #40455 - 01/26/11 05:40 AM Re: PSV Closed system Force [Re: mariog] I think that I will not rephase as the purpose of this was more trivial. danb Member I was talking about flow induced forces. Decent problems require decent Registered: solutions, sort of "better than nothing". For complex problems, there are other 04/22/05 solutions and I am not one of the specialists that can solve them. Posts: 1059 _________________________ Loc: ... Dan Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #40462 - 01/26/11 08:52 AM Re: PSV Closed system Force [Re: danb] Dan, mariog Member You were talking about flow induced forces in closed systems and I was talking Registered: on the fact rho*v^2 transposed in "force criteria" would be a criteria for forces 09/29/07 due to "free-jet" effect in open systems. I think also that rho*v^2 is a steadyPosts: 333 state criteria and does not address to the "momentary, instantaneous forces that Loc: Romania 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

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.

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. Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #43155 - 06/02/11 08:40 AM Re: PSV Closed system Force [Re: Nalibsyah] Tengku_SyahdilanStress 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 Member 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 Registered: arriving time is different in each point. This is why in API 520 as stress guy 12/26/09 taken above mention : Posts: 56 A complex time history analysis of the piping system may be required to Loc: Indonesia 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" Top Search Results Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post

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 #3648 - 09/02/05 01:14 PM Re: Safety valve discharge loads I would like to recommend following; Sun Wee Member 1) Analysis of Power Plant Safety and Relief Valve Vent Stacks, Transaction of the ASME, 1975, G.S.Liao Registered: 2) ASME B31.1 Appendix II 12/20/99 3) Time-Dependent Pipe Forces Caused by Blowdown and Flow Stoppage, Posts: 75 F.J.Moody, Transaction of the ASME 1973 Loc: 4) Transient Analysis of water Slug Discharge in PWR safety/Relief Valve Calgary,Canada 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

Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post

Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #3649 - 09/02/05 03:01 PM Re: Safety valve discharge loads Hello Carletes, John Breen Member Sun Wee has it covered. I can only add American Petroleum Institute Standard Registered: RP-520. 03/09/00 Posts: 482 If you want to really get serious about the topic seek out the DIERS Loc: Pittsburgh, publications: PA (& Texas) http://www.aiche.org/diers/ Regards, John. _________________________ John Breen Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #3650 - 09/04/05 10:01 PM Re: Safety valve discharge loads anindya stress I would like to add one more to the list: Member Registered: 04/12/04 Posts: 493 Loc: London, Steam Flow through safety valve vent pipes by Brandmaier and Knebel- Journal of Fluids engineering-June 1976. Regards _________________________ anindya

UK Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #3651 - 09/21/05 04:39 PM Re: Safety valve discharge loads Thank you all. tubecomp Member I think I have got all the papers you have suggested (except Transient Analysis Registered: of water Slug Discharge in PWR safety/Relief Valve Piping), but I still don't see 05/27/04 it clear how to get the transient forces in the discharge of my closed system. I Posts: 42 would desire a document with any "example" about how to apply all those hard Loc: spain differential equations to a real system (perhaps I am dreaming..) Do you know any? regards, _________________________ Carletes Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #3652 - 09/22/05 02:54 AM Re: Safety valve discharge loads SUPERPIPER Look in the back of the piping codes at the section marked 'how to guess your way through common analytical problems' Member You'll probably find out there how to do trunnions and pipe attachments as well. Registered: 08/13/03 Posts: 404 Loc: Europe :p (only joking) _________________________ Best Regards T.J.N

Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #3653 - 09/22/05 11:51 AM Re: Safety valve discharge loads So, there is not any book, paper, etc where these problems are discussed from a tubecomp Member more "peactical" point of view? Something like "differential equations applied to the real world"? Registered: 05/27/04 Regards Posts: 42 _________________________ Loc: spain Carletes Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #3654 - 09/23/05 02:01 AM Re: Safety valve discharge loads Carletes, the formula in ASME B31.1 Appendix II is very straight forward and RS Member practical. I normally get the force from the RV supplier, when available. Registered: Dynamic analysis is described in detail in the Caesar Application Manual. 09/15/04 _________________________

Posts: 81 Regards Loc: South Ranka Africa, Johannesburg Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #3655 - 09/23/05 09:52 AM Re: Safety valve discharge loads RS, tubecomp Member The problem is that the B31.1 formula is valid for steady discharge but there are Registered: transient forces that must be evaluated for those systems whose discharge is not 05/27/04 straight forward to the atmosphere. I suppose that a software of compressible Posts: 42 flow transients will make it quite esay but when you don't have that...That/s my Loc: spain problem... regards, _________________________ Carletes Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #3656 - 09/23/05 10:44 AM Re: Safety valve discharge loads John C. Luf anyone want to volunteer writing up a method for inclusion in the code, attend Member all the meetings, resolve all comments etc.? I thought not... Registered: 03/25/02 Posts: 1110 Loc: U.S.A. 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 Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #3657 - 09/28/05 01:58 AM Re: Safety valve discharge loads Yes Carletes, that is why we have Caesar and time history analysis. The time RS Member 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 Registered: in the piping system due to a short duration precalculated dynamic force. 09/15/04 Posts: 81 Another analysis is the calculation of dynamic force due to a dynamic event. Loc: South This is science in itself for which we "pipers" use approximate methods as one Africa, referenced in ASME Code. Dynamic piping stress analysis does not involve Johannesburg 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 Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #3658 - 09/28/05 04:30 AM Re: Safety valve discharge loads You can read the following article . sam Member http://www.pipingdesign.com/articles/piping_surges.pdf Registered: 02/25/04 Posts: 463 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 _________________________ _ Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #3659 - 09/28/05 11:14 AM Re: Safety valve discharge loads Engineering design is about safety without waste of too much money. Jackdliu Member The easiest solution for this problem is using the reaction force supplied by the Registered: safety valve manufacturer and taking 2 as DLF to run static analysis. The reason 09/21/05 for this is that most of safety valve piping systems can be considered as one Posts: 4 degree freedom system, in which the greatest DLF is 2. Loc: Calgary Jack _________________________ JDL Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #42071 - 03/31/11 05:09 PM Re: Safety valve discharge loads [Re: John C. Luf] How about the fact that some huge companies consider POP forces while here danb Member in this forum nobody mention it? Registered: Regards, 04/22/05 _________________________ Posts: 1059 Dan Loc: ... Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #42108 - 04/01/11 01:11 PM Re: Safety valve discharge loads [Re: danb]

Crusader911 Member

"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.

Registered: 11/22/09 Posts: 25 Loc: Louisiana, The problem, of course, is that although you didn't have time to do anything USA 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 manhours analyzing it. If anyone has a better practical method I would love to hear it. Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #42119 - 04/03/11 01:51 PM Re: Safety valve discharge loads [Re: Crusader911] Many engineers seems to be atracted by the dynamic analysis, but from my danb Member experience is quite unusual to be really required. Registered: 04/22/05 Posts: 1059 Loc: ... Regards, P.S. And yes, at a rate of few hours per line, is anyone expecting full analysis? _________________________ Dan

Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post #42235 - 04/06/11 10:29 AM Re: Safety valve discharge loads [Re: danb] http://www.aft.com/products/impulse/ Carter Member Carletes, Registered: 08/08/09 I have a similar concern regarding relief valve loading. From the instruction, it Posts: 21 looks like the software AFT Impulse has this fuction. I have used AFT Fathom Loc: Ontario, and others from AFT. They are good and easy to use. Canada Carter Top Search Results Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post

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.

Search

Who's Online 0 registered (), 6 Guests and 1 My concern is PSV Reaction Force: Spider online. Key: Admin, I am analysing an open system PSV directly above an Global Mod, Mod equipment vessel by static analysis. I have referred to API March RP520 for obtaining this force, what I'd like to understand is Su M Tu W Th F Sa do we need to multiply this Force by 2 times for 1 2 consideration of "dynamic load factor"? What is dynamic 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 load factor and what part in the code can I read about it. By 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 the way, I have read this in our project standard. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Thanks. 31 Reply Forum Stats Quote 8938 Members Quick 13 Forums Reply 11306 Topics Quick 51424 Posts Quote Notify Max Online: 57 @ Top Email Post 12/06/09 11:14 #11775 - 06/20/07 10:48 AM Re: PSV Reaction Force [Re: ichigo] AM pinoy, Loren Brown The dynamic load factor (DLF) is a characteristic of the Member applied load shape (your PSV force versus time curve) which Registered: is plotted vs. system natural frequency. It is determined by a 10/18/01 Time History integration of the dynamic equations of

Posts: 281 motion. For impulse loads, such as your PSV, the maximum Loc: DLF is usually less than or equal to 2.0 (which is why this Houston, value shows up in your project standard). TX 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) L7 = L2-L1 (OCC) segregated effect of F1 L8 = L3-L1 (OCC) segregated effect of F2 L9 = L4-L1 (OCC) segregated effect of F3 L10= L5+L7 (OCC) use Scalar Combination Method L11= L5+L8 (OCC) scalar combination L12= L5+L9 (OCC) scalar combination 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 Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Top Post #11794 - 06/21/07 07:29 AM Re: PSV Reaction Force [Re: Loren Brown] Hello Loren, ichigo Member Thanks for the quick reply, this is what I love about this Registered: forum... and thanks to COADE for making this possible. 12/22/05 Posts: 51 Keep up the good work! Loc: USAPhilippines Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Top Post #12035 - 07/04/07 04:45 AM Re: PSV Reaction Force [Re: ichigo] ajaykumar Hello Loren, Member Thanks for your reply regarding PSV,I faced this problem while working on a project,I searched this form and got Registered: valuable information. 06/23/07 Posts: 1 and thanks for Ianpinoy for asking this question.

Loc: AP,INDIA with regards ajay Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Top Post #16292 - 02/27/08 02:03 AM Re: PSV Reaction Force [Re: ajaykumar] supremo Mr. Brown, Member Registered: 06/18/07 Posts: 12 Loc: -Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Top Post #16317 - 02/27/08 11:40 AM Re: PSV Reaction Force [Re: Loren Brown] Mr.Loren, Dylan Member You wrote: Registered: 09/23/07 Php Code: Posts: 99 L1 = W+P1+T1 (OPE) L2 = W+P1+T1+F1 (OPE) Loc: L3 = W+P1+T1+F2 (OPE) Indonesia L4 = W+P1+T1+F3 (OPE)
L5 = L6 = L7 = L8 = L9 = L10= L11= L12= W+P1 (SUS) L1-L5 (EXP) L2-L1 (OCC) L3-L1 (OCC) L4-L1 (OCC) L5+L7 (OCC) L5+L8 (OCC) L5+L9 (OCC) segregated effect of F1 segregated effect of F2 segregated effect of F3 use Scalar Combination Method scalar combination scalar combination

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

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?

Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Top Post #16333 - 02/28/08 12:53 AM Re: PSV Reaction Force [Re: Loren Brown] Dear Mr.Loren, Dylan Member I want to ask, if you have 2 pumps running together and have Registered: to analysis the worst case, Pump A & B ON (T1), Pump A 09/23/07 on Pump B off(T2), Pump B on Pump A Off(T3) and Pump Posts: 99 A B OFF(T4) with design temp -39/45 deg c and Amb Temp Loc: -39/39 deg C. You have 2 piping spec here with Spec1 P=12 Indonesia 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) Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Top Post #16345 - 02/28/08 12:08 PM Re: PSV Reaction Force [Re: Dylan] SUPERPIPERPeople, Member Registered: 08/13/03 Posts: 404 Loc: Europe 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 Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Top Email Post #27868 - 06/02/09 10:29 AM Re: PSV Reaction Force [Re: SUPERPIPER] Hello Lauren Umair Member Could you please clarify as to what practical situation do these load cases refer to Registered: 04/16/09 L10= L5+L7 (OCC) use Scalar Combination Method Posts: 13 L11= L5+L8 (OCC) scalar combination Loc: L12= L5+L9 (OCC) scalar combination Pakistan Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Top Post #27903 - 06/03/09 12:16 PM Re: PSV Reaction Force [Re: Umair] Dear Umair manu Member L5+L7 is the sum of principal stresses in the system. You Registered: must be knowing that principal stresses are different from 06/03/09 secondary stresses in a way that the pipe may not fail if the Posts: 28 secondary stresses exceeds the limiting stress value(they are Loc: india 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 [:)] Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Top Post #27925 - 06/03/09 11:57 PM Re: PSV Reaction Force [Re: manu] Thank you for the reply manu ..the metaphor used in the end Umair

Member Registered: 04/16/09 Posts: 13 Loc: Pakistan

was pretty logical

Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email 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