Choked flow at PSV outlet flange

Friends,

What should be the resolution if Flarenet output shows choked flow (Mach 1) at PSV outlet
flange? Reduction in outlet line size leads to MABP violation.

Also should MABP provided by PSV vendor be considered at PSV outlet flange or PSV seat.
During choked flow at PSV outlet flange there is generally significant difference between the
two pressures. Does PSV vendor perform outlet flange choked flow check during PSV model
selection?
10 months ago
8 comments

Dave
Dave B. Hi Rohit

If you could possibly describe the PSV tailpipe in more detail, then this may help our
understanding, i.e. 2 x 3" PSV with expansion to a 6" tailepipe, the model predicts choke flow in
region X.

In my experience of flarnet modelling, many PSV's can have choked flow conditions at the
entrance to the tailpipe. Quite often the tailpipe needs to be increased at least a size up from the
PSV outlet flange diameter in order to offer a good engineering solution, eg. mach Nos < 0.7 in
tail pipe, RhoV2 < 200,000. Even after doing this you are still left with a choke or high mach
Nos due to the expansion.

In these circumstances you can only try to reduce the load, i.e. use a pilot valve that will offer
proportional lift or you can assess the PSV for acoustic or flow induced vibration by using the
sound power level approach - this will tell you if you have a real issue with the choke / high
mach nos.

Regards Dave
10 months ago

Hraday
Hraday K. Many times mach no is in acceptable( < 0.7) limit but it shows chocked flow
warning in tail pipe section.
10 months ago

Rohit
Rohit M. Hello Dave,

Thanks for your valuable inputs. I initiated this discussion based on my observation over the past
few projects involving flare system.

I have seen flarenet predicting choked flow at PSV outlet flange in many cases e.g. for a 2" x 3"
PSV with expansion to a 6" tailpipe, the model predicts choke flow in 3" PSV outlet flange.
Choked flow warning at outlet flange appears only when PSV flange size is fed to flarenet model
(in absence of which flarenet considers flange size same as outlet line size).

Choked flow in tail pipe may be eliminated by increasing line size (I agree this is not always
practical), however PSV flange size cannot be changed. Choked flow at PSV outlet flange can be
possibly eliminated by increasing back pressure (by reducing outlet line size) but this sometimes
leads to MABP violation especially when conventional or balanced bellow valves are provided.

In green field projects, flare network sizes are generally confirmed after the PSV's get ordered
and considering vendor selected PSV model, rated flow, allowable back pressure, flange size etc.
Choked flow at PSV outlet flange surfaces at this stage of the project when it is not always
feasible to change the PSV type or model to eliminate this warning.

I thus though of having our group members opinion on this subject.

Regards,
10 months ago

Dave
Dave B. Hi Rohit

All the flarent modelling I have been involved to date has not modelled the PSV outlet flange
diam - I have left it blank and flarenet has matched it to the outlet line size. I assume you are
seeing only small differences in diameter?

One place I have seen a similar issue is at tailpipe specification breaks, where for example
schedule 160 is welded to schedule 10 - this sometimes leads to a choke.

If the PSV oulet flange is already set, why can't you just match it to the outlet line size as the
flareheader pipework may not have been ordered? - this is only good for new build systems.

Changes to the model general setup may help, i.e. what properties and pressure drop methods are
you using? If you are using a non-rigerous method then changing to Peng Robinson may help.

Regards Dave
10 months ago

Mark
Mark G. Dear Rohit,

I agree with above comments.
Try to keep the velocities below mach 0.7, there this would results in gigantic backpressures in
the relief system, and noise which may lead into additional noise insulation of the lines (this
should be always avoided).
Try to keep the back pressure after the PSV below 10% of the set pressure, but not higher than 7
barg. In a design phase, it is not bad to englarge from 4 to 6" or even 8" for a tail pipe.

Hopefully this is usefull.

Regards,
Mark Gelderblom
10 months ago

GIRIRAJ
GIRIRAJ P. Dear Rohit,

Remember choke flow is permitted at the outlet flange of PSV provided you flag piping group to
provide support for vibration problem.

Just ensure that the back pressure is not violated, usually vendor specifies back pressure or from
API 526 you can input mechanical permitted back pressure.

Also ensure that the back pressure at the outlet flange should not exceed the design pressure of
the flare header.

Of all the flarenet models that I have modeled I have not modelled the PSV outlet flange diam - I
have left it blank and flarenet matches it to the outlet line size.

Comments from group are welcome. girirajrajpurohit@gmail.com

Giriraj Purohit
Houston
6 months ago

Amin
Amin S. Dears, i agree with giriraj... We should input PSV outlet flange size in flarenet,
because in some case which psv outlet nozzle size and tail dia are differ, not only we could have
chocked flow in outlet flange, the back pressure and psv type could be affected by expander
which flare net will be considered for this case.
5 months ago

Brian
Brian M. hello Guys ,

When using Flarenet in the design mode it is better not to input the flange size as this will affect
the calculated bP on the valve and lead to incorrect line sizes. Once you have sized the network
then you can size the valves and add the flange diamters and rerun in rating mode to recalc the
bP's with any valve to tailpipe expanders. This is one of the most common errors in using the
program and hence the check button in Options to ignore the flange to pipe dP.
In rating mode then FNT will calculate any additional dP/recovery caused by the expander.

flare e nuf