COPYING AND DISTRIBUTING ARE PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER

Open +

March 2020 (/magazine/2020/march-2020/)

ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY (/MAGAZINE/2020/MARCH-2020/#ENVIRONMENT-AND-SAFETY)

Solve PRV and piping capacity problems—

Part 1
Engineers often uncover problems or inadequacies with pressure relief valve (PRV) and relief system piping capacities that need creative
and cost-effective solutions.
Trimeric Corp.: Kerr, T. A. (/authors/t/trimeric-corp/kerr-t-a/) | Myers, D. B. (/authors/t/trimeric-corp/myers-d-b/) | Piggott, B. D. (/authors/t/trimeric-corp/piggott-b-d/) | Vance, A.
E. (/authors/t/trimeric-corp/vance-a-e/)
Engineers often uncover problems or inadequacies with pressure relief valve (PRV) and relief system piping capacities that need creative
and cost-effective solutions. These problems may surface in a number of ways. For example, when attempting to close a hazardous
operations (HAZOP) recommendation, it may be discovered that the PRV capacity is inadequate. A debottlenecking study may reveal that a
PRV is too small or that backpressure is excessive. When updating process safety information (PSI), calculations for an installed PRV may
indicate that PRV inlet piping pressure drop exceeds the 3% rule. Resolving inadequacies in pressure relief systems must be addressed to
ensure this important safety system will perform during an emergency overpressure event, and to meet industry codes, standards,
recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP), as well as the owner’s engineering standards.

Increasing pipe sizes to solve capacity problems can be costly, so alternative, creative solutions are needed. Practical solutions to solve PRV
and inlet/outlet piping capacity issues in gas conditioning facilities are explored here. “Rules of thumb” commonly applied to pressure relief
systems and ideas for avoiding major piping rework are also discussed.

Introduction
Overpressure protection and pressure relief systems are subject to design iterations as a facility matures through phases:

1. Overpressure scenario cause evaluation

2. Relief scenario flowrate (relief load) estimation
3. Preliminary design
4. PRV selection and implementation; verification of installed capacity
5. Changes to process requirements
6. Process safety management (PSM) validation checks.

Many relief system capacity inadequacies can be resolved by understanding and leveraging the design interrelationships between the PRV,
the inlet piping and the outlet piping. The application discussed here is for overpressure protection of pressure vessels governed by
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section 8, pertaining to conventional, balanced
bellows and pilot-operated PRVs designed in accordance with American Petroleum Industry (API) standards API 520, 521 and 526. The
API standard references in this paper are from the most recent versions issued.1,2,3,4
PRV rules of thumb explained
Design of a pressure relief system that will perform and meet the requirements of each overpressure scenario identified can be complex.
“Rules of thumb” for PRVs and relief system piping design provide useful starting assumptions for developing initial estimates for
overpressure protection. Understanding the origins and applications of the rules of thumb helps when navigating options for overpressure
protection. The common rules of thumb are generally based on the design limitations of a conventional PRV, which has been the workhorse
of the industry. The conventional PRV traditionally has been the most commonly encountered PRV type because it is simple, reliable and
cost-effective.

It is important to understand the design differences between conventional, balanced bellows and pilot-operated PRVs, as well as the
operating characteristics of each, to properly apply the rules of thumb. While other factors may be considered, the focus here is on the
different way each valve type is designed to respond to inlet pressure and pressure at the valve outlet (backpressure).

A conventional PRV is a spring-loaded valve, activated by inlet pressure and with a relief capacity and opening pressure directly affected by
changes in backpressure. A balanced bellows PRV is designed to minimize the effect of backpressure as a closing force by adding a
“bellows” to the conventional PRV design.

The balanced bellows PRV design mitigates the effect of backpressure on the valve’s relief capacity and opening pressure by isolating parts
of the valve from the backpressure, thereby balancing the opening and closing forces. A pilot-operated PRV is a valve in which the major
relieving device (main valve) is combined with and controlled by a self-actuated auxiliary PRV (pilot). The pilot-operated PRV tolerates much
higher backpressure than either the conventional PRV or balanced bellows PRV, and the opening pressure for the main valve is not affected
by backpressure; however, its capacity may be reduced in some situations.

Sometimes, backpressure is higher than can be tolerated by a conventional PRV or is variable due to multiple relief or vent sources that may
be present in a closed disposal system (e.g., flare vent header). The design features of balanced bellows and pilot-operated PRVs may make
them a better fit in certain process applications and help them operate with more stability than a conventional PRV.

API preliminary PRV sizing

The preliminary sizing of a PRV, using API guidelines, is an initial method for calculating and identifying a nominal PRV orifice size for a
required relief load. A nominal PRV orifice size may be chosen, using the following steps:

1. Compare PRV orifice areas calculated for each overpressure scenario relief load
2. Identify the largest orifice area calculated
3. Select the API nominal orifice area that exceeds the largest calculated orifice area.

A capacity can be calculated for the nominal PRV orifice area selected, and nominal PRV inlet and outlet connection pipe sizes can be
identified. This information may be used for preliminary design of the PRV inlet and outlet relief piping. API standardization of nominal PRV
orifice sizes, valve dimensions and other characteristics allows the engineer to make an initial PRV nominal size selection that is consistent
with the requirements of the ASME code.

API standardization provides a common basis to identify comparable PRVs from different manufacturers. It facilitates selection and
specification of a manufacturer’s PRV model that is suitable for an application with predictable valve performance and with the same
physical dimensions for interchangeability in the piping system. Once a specific PRV model is selected, the ASME code and API require that
the selected PRV and relief system piping capacity are verified to be sufficient for the application.

Individual PRVs are characterized by their discharge orifice area and their coefficient of discharge. API provides sizing equations to
calculate the PRV orifice area required for a relief load based on a PRV’s coefficient of discharge and the relieving fluid phase and
thermodynamic characteristics. For a specific fluid and relieving condition, the relief load mass flowrate (W) through a PRV is proportional
to the product of the PRV coefficient of discharge (Kd) and the PRV orifice area (A). As an example of this relationship, the API sizing
equation for an ideal gas at critical flow through a PRV with U.S. conventional units is shown in Eq. 1 (API 520, Part 1, Section 5.6.3):

(1)

where:
 A = Required effective discharge area of the device, in.2
W = Required relief flow through the device, lb/hr
C = Orifice factor that is a function of the ratio of the ideal gas specific heats (k = Cp/Cv), dimensionless (Eq. 2):

(2)

where:

Kd = Effective coefficient of discharge (0.975 is the API preliminary value for gases)
P1 = Upstream relieving pressure, psia
Kb = Capacity correction factor due to backpressure
Kc = Combination correction factor for installations with a rupture disk upstream of the PRV
T = Relieving temperature of the inlet gas or vapor, °R
Z = Compressibility factor
M = Fluid average molecular weight, lb/lbmol.

For the API preliminary PRV sizing method, API 520, Part 1 provides assumed “preliminary effective” values for the coefficient of discharge
(Kd) corresponding to the fluid phase to be relieved and the appropriate sizing equation. API 526 provides a list of nominal “effective” orifice
area values (A), and designates each size with a letter, D through T. A list of the nominal API effective orifice areas is shown in Table 1.

(/media/11348/kerr-table-01.jpg)
The API preliminary effective coefficient of discharge value can be used to calculate a required effective orifice area for a relief load, using
the appropriate API sizing equation and the particular fluid characteristics (phase, thermodynamic properties and relieving conditions). The
largest effective orifice area calculated (considering all potential relief loads for the PRV) is the minimum orifice area required for initial
design. This determines the relief scenario PRV sizing case and required relief load. Comparing the minimum required “effective” orifice
area to the API 526 list of nominal effective orifice areas allows for selection of an API letter-designated orifice size.

Manufacturers use the API letter designations to identify actual valve models that will meet or exceed the API nominal PRV capacities and
other API valve characteristics; however, there are exceptions. PRVs that meet the requirements of API 526 are commonly referred to as
“API valves,” and are listed in the manufacturer’s literature with the API orifice size letter designation. Valves manufactured to meet API 526
standard dimensions by different manufacturers will be physically interchangeable. However, API 526 effective orifice areas are “nominal”
values for use in preliminary sizing calculations; they are not actual orifice areas for any particular valve.
Once the engineer selects the actual PRV model for installation, PRV sizing calculations must be repeated for final sizing verification using
the manufacturer’s ASME code capacity-certified values for the “actual” rated flow coefficient of discharge and the “actual” orifice
(discharge) area. For example, the manufacturer’s “actual” values would be substituted for the API “effective” values in Eq. 1. This
subsequent calculation step is the ASME PRV sizing, and is required by the ASME code to confirm that the actual PRV model and
associated piping will prevent overpressure of the vessel. Note: API “effective” values and ASME “actual” values for the discharge coefficient
and orifice area must not be mixed and matched in PRV sizing equations (API 520, Part 1, Section 5.2.5).

Rule for inlet piping

The “3% rule” for inlet piping is a design guideline to limit the pressure drop in the piping between the protected vessel and the PRV to no
more than 3% of PRV set pressure (in psig). The 3% rule allows the engineer to estimate inlet piping dimensions for preliminary design and
then confirm the adequacy of the design for the actual valve selected.

Except for modulating pilot-operated PRVs (as opposed to pop action), inlet piping pressure drop is calculated using the “actual” rated
capacity of the PRV for the fluid relieved, rather than the required relief load. The PRV actual capacity is often significantly higher than the
required relief capacity. The reason is due to discrete steps in API orifice size, which can be seen in Table 1. The required orifice area in
many cases is slightly larger than one of the nominal sizes, leading to a big step up in orifice area and corresponding capacity. For example,
the increase in area between an F and a G orifice is 64%.

Excessive pressure losses in the inlet piping can reduce the system’s relieving capacity, cause pressure in the vessel to exceed the
protected vessel’s ASME code-allowed maximum accumulated pressure and cause valve instability (e.g., “chattering”). Chattering is a rapid
opening and closing of the PRV, which can lead to reduced flow capacity, mechanical damage and loss of containment.

Following the 3% rule provides a margin between the pressure at the PRV inlet when flowing and the PRV’s typical reseating or closing
pressure. “Blowdown” is the term used for the difference between the set pressure and the closing pressure, and is typically 7%–10% of set
pressure (in psig). Inlet piping pressure drop (non-recoverable losses) must be less than blowdown to prevent rapid-cycling open and
closed, or valve chatter. Table 2 shows how inlet piping pressure drop may cause chatter when it is greater than blowdown.

(/media/11349/kerr-table-02.jpg)
Some exceptions are allowed to the 3% rule. For example, remotely sensed, pilot-operated PRVs can be used when the inlet piping pressure
drop exceeds 3% of the PRV set pressure (API 520, Part 2, Section 7.3.9). Previous revisions of API 520 allowed flexibility for higher inlet
pressure drop if the owner conducted an “engineering analysis.” The present revision of API 520 makes it clear that the 3% limit on inlet
pressure drop is a guideline and not a precise design criterion. The inlet piping pressure drop is just one of several factors that affect PRV
stability and should not be relied on exclusively (API 520, Part 2, Section 7.3). A force balance calculation is the simplest method
recommended by API to check PRV stability (API 520, Part 2, Section 7.3.6d). The owner’s engineering standards may establish
requirements.

Rule for outlet piping

The “10% rule” for outlet piping is a design guideline to limit the pressure drop in the outlet piping from a PRV, calculated at rated capacity,
to no more than 10% of the PRV set pressure (in psig). The purpose of this guideline is to ensure that the pressure at the PRV outlet
(backpressure) will not result in forces that close the PRV when it should be open, reduce the flow through the PRV or otherwise adversely
affect the operation of the PRV.
During preliminary design, the 10% rule allows the engineer to perform conservative sizing for the PRV and disposal piping prior to
selecting a specific PRV. The 10% rule is a simplification based on a conventional valve design, 10% allowable overpressure for a non-fire
relief scenario, and zero pressure or constant pressure existing in the outlet piping when the PRV is closed. Selection of an appropriate PRV
type includes careful consideration of the effect of backpressure on the operating characteristics of the valve.

The terminology used for backpressure in PRV sizing and piping pressure drop calculations can be confusing. An explanation of PRV
backpressure terminology is helpful to understand design limitations placed on different PRV types. (Definitions are found in API 520, Part
1, Section 3.0.) The following bullet points and paragraphs explain PRV backpressure terminology and backpressure design considerations
for conventional, balanced bellows and pilot-operated PRVs to provide context for the 10% rule. Refer to API 520, Part 1, Section 5.3 for
more details on these points:

Accumulation is the pressure rise above maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) during the discharge of a PRV, commonly
expressed as a percentage of MAWP (psig). The maximum allowable accumulation is established by the ASME code.
Overpressure is the pressure increase above PRV set pressure, commonly expressed as a percentage of set pressure (in psig).
Allowable overpressure is established from the accumulation permitted by the ASME code, and depends on the relationship between
set pressure and MAWP; allowable overpressure % = (MAWP + accumulation – set pressure) ÷ set pressure. Allowable overpressure is
equal to the allowed accumulation when the set pressure equals MAWP; allowable overpressure is greater than allowed accumulation
when the set pressure is below MAWP.
Backpressure is defined as the pressure that exists at the outlet nozzle of a PRV as a result of the pressure in the disposal (discharge)
system. Backpressure may be caused by pressure drop buildup when the PRV is flowing, flashing liquids or pressure preexisting in the
disposal system.
Superimposed backpressure is defined as the static pressure that exists at the outlet of a PRV before the valve opens. Superimposed
backpressure is the result of pressure in the disposal system from other sources, and may be constant or variable.
Built-up backpressure is defined as the increase in pressure at the outlet of a PRV that develops as a result of flow after the PRV
opens.
Total backpressure (as referred to in this article) is the sum of superimposed and built-up backpressures.

The 10% limitation on outlet piping pressure drop is actually a limitation on built-up backpressure. Superimposed backpressure is
addressed separately, through the PRV type selection or through spring set pressure compensation of a conventional PRV by cold
differential test pressure (CDTP). Built-up backpressure greater than 10% is permitted for some relief scenarios, PRV installations and valve
types.

The limitation for a conventional valve is that the built-up backpressure must not exceed the allowable overpressure. Therefore, built-up
backpressure up to 21% may be acceptable for relief of a fire scenario; built-up backpressure up to 16% may be acceptable for installations
that use multiple PRVs in parallel; and, when set pressure is below MAWP, built-up backpressure in excess of the typical 10%, 16% and
21% may be acceptable. For example, assume MAWP = 100 psig, accumulation = 10% or 10 psi, and set pressure = 90 psig. Then the
allowable overpressure = 22% of set pressure. Built-up backpressure could be acceptable up to 22%. For balanced bellows and pilot-
operated PRVs, there is no built-up backpressure limitation and no CDTP correction for constant superimposed backpressure.

For a conventional PRV, excessive backpressure can increase the pressure required to open the valve, cause the valve to close too soon,
cause the valve to chatter, or reduce the relieving capacity, any of which may lead to an unacceptable pressure rise in the protected vessel.
Balanced bellows and pilot-operated PRVs are typically used when built-up backpressure exceeds allowable overpressure (nominally the
10%), but total backpressure does not exceed approximately 50% of set pressure with little to no capacity reduction (consult manufacturer
for backpressure correction factors).

Capacity reduction will occur for compressible fluids when flow becomes subcritical through the PRV. For balanced bellows and pilot-
operated PRVs, set pressure is not affected by superimposed backpressure. The bellows itself is typically rated for a certain pressure, and
the engineer must be aware of this limitation to ensure that the bellows will not be damaged by excessive backpressure. Typical design
backpressure limitations for the three considered PRV types are summarized in Table 3.

ASHRAE vs. API sizing approaches

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has its own standards for PRVs and the
associated inlet and outlet piping in refrigeration systems. The ASHRAE 15 standard for PRVs may be encountered in refrigeration
packages that are commonly used in gas processing facilities.

Since most gas processing facilities follow API guidelines, owners must decide if the PRVs in the refrigeration package should be checked
against the API relief scenarios and calculation methods, or if the ASHRAE 15 methods are acceptable. One method is not necessarily
“better” or “worse” than the other, but may be more appropriate for a given facility’s specifications and standards.

For example, API 521 includes a relief scenario that considers the leak or failure of a heat exchanger tube. When the process fluid is at a
higher pressure or is hotter than the refrigerant, the potential exists to overpressure the refrigerant-side equipment due to a leak or failure
inside the heat exchanger. ASHRAE 15 does not consider this scenario for sizing.
Following is a brief summary of how PRVs are sized and selected following the ASHRAE 15 guidelines. Engineers experienced in API
calculations can see that the ASHRAE methods are much simplified.

ASHRAE 15 provides two sizing bases for PRV required relieving capacity:

1. Isolated pressure vessel subject to a fire

2. Positive displacement compressor discharge.

ASHRAE provides sizing equations that calculate the required relieving flowrate in lb/min of air. Manufacturers of PSVs for refrigeration
systems also typically provide the relief valve size in lb/min (or kg/sec) of air, so calculating a required valve orifice area is not necessary.
ASHRAE 15 provides Eq. 3 for sizing PRVs on an isolated pressure vessel subject to a fire:

C = fDL (3)

where:

C = Minimum discharge (“relieving”) capacity of the relief device expressed as mass flow of air, lb/min
D = Outside diameter of vessel, ft
L = Length of vessel, ft
f = Factor dependent upon type of refrigerant [ASHRAE 15 provides a table with f factors; the f factor for propane (R-290) is 1].
If combustibles are used within 20 ft of the vessel, it is typical to multiply the value of f by 2.5.

The required relieving rate at the discharge of a positive displacement compressor is the swept volume flowrate of the compressor
converted to lb/min. ASHRAE 15 provides an equation to calculate this flowrate, as well as an equation to convert the flowrate from lb/min
of refrigerant to lb/min of air.

ASHRAE 15 guidelines state that all piping and fittings between the PRV and the parts of the system it protects should have at least the
cross-sectional area of the PRV inlet area. Furthermore, all piping and fittings on the discharge of a PRV should have at least the cross-
sectional area of the PRV outlet area. ASHRAE 15 provides an equation to calculate the maximum allowable length of the discharge piping.
ASHRAE 15 also provides guidance on the maximum allowable backpressure when not provided by the valve manufacturer: 15% of the set
pressure for conventional relief valves, 25% of the set pressure for balanced relief valves and 50% of the set pressure for pilot-operated
relief valves.

Part 2
Part 2 of this article, to be published in April, will examine practical solutions for installed PRV and piping capacity problems that avoid
costly rework and downtime. HP

LITERATURE CITED

1. API Standard 520, Part 1, “Sizing and selection of pressure-relieving devices,” American Petroleum Institute, 9th Ed., July 2014.
2. API Standard 520, Part 2, “Installation of pressure-relieving devices,” American Petroleum Institute, 6th Ed., March 2015.
3. API Standard 521, “Pressure-relieving and depressuring systems,” American Petroleum Institute, 6th Ed., January 2014.
4. API Standard 526, “Flanged steel pressure-relief valves,” American Petroleum Institute, 7th Ed., September 2017.

The Authors
Kerr, T. A. (/authors/t/trimeric-corp/kerr-t-a/) - Trimeric Corp., Buda, Texas
Teresa A. Kerr is a Process Engineer for Trimeric Corp. She has more than 25 yr of experience in the energy
industry and process engineering. Her expertise includes overpressure protection, relief system evaluation/design
and device selection/sizing. Ms. Kerr graduated with a BS degree in chemical engineering from the University of
Texas at Austin.

(/authors/t/trimeric-
corp/kerr-t-a/)
 Myers, D. B. (/authors/t/trimeric-corp/myers-d-b/) - Trimeric Corp., Buda, Texas
Duane B. Myers is a Process Engineer with Trimeric Corp. He assists clients with process engineering projects,
including overpressure protection. Mr. Myers has 25 yr of engineering experience and holds BS and MS degrees in
chemical engineering from the University of Delaware and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, respectively.

(/authors/t/trimeric-
corp/myers-d-b/)

Piggott, B. D. (/authors/t/trimeric-corp/piggott-b-d/) - Trimeric Corp., Buda, Texas

Brad Piggott is a Senior Engineer at Trimeric Corporation in Buda, Texas. He has more than 18 yr of experience in
process engineering for several different industries, including oil refining and upstream oil and gas. Mr. Piggott has
deep expertise with acid gas processes and acid gas systems. He is a licensed engineer in Texas and Mississippi
and earned a BS in chemical engineering from the Colorado School of Mines.

(/authors/t/trimeric-
corp/piggott-b-d/)

Vance, A. E. (/authors/t/trimeric-corp/vance-a-e/) - Trimeric Corp., Buda, Texas

Austyn E. Vance is a Process Engineer at Trimeric Corp. with 8 yr of process engineering experience on a variety of
projects. She has assisted clients with relief valve specification, inlet/outlet pipe sizing and relief scenario analysis.
Ms. Vance graduated with a BS degree in chemical engineering from the University of Tulsa in Oklahoma.

(/authors/t/trimeric-
corp/vance-a-e/)

Related Articles
Case study: Forced-circulation evaporator piping design (/magazine/2023/december-2023/special-focus-plant-design-engineering-
construction-and-commissioning/case-study-forced-circulation-evaporator-piping-design/)
Are resources and capacity the same? (/magazine/2023/december-2023/special-focus-plant-design-engineering-construction-and-
commissioning/are-resources-and-capacity-the-same/)
Arranging lines in a pipe rack: How to standardize pipe spacing in the oil and gas industry (/magazine/2023/december-2023/special-
focus-plant-design-engineering-construction-and-commissioning/arranging-lines-in-a-pipe-rack-how-to-standardize-pipe-spacing-in-the-
oil-and-gas-industry/)

Process design considerations for green ammonia manufacturing (/magazine/2023/december-2023/special-focus-plant-design-

engineering-construction-and-commissioning/process-design-considerations-for-green-ammonia-manufacturing/)
Design considerations and decarbonization options for fired heaters (/magazine/2023/december-2023/heat-transfer/design-
considerations-and-decarbonization-options-for-fired-heaters/)
A CFD study on the effect of operating an SMR furnace without one of the flue gas tunnels A (/magazine/2023/december-2023/heat-
transfer/a-cfd-study-on-the-effect-of-operating-an-smr-furnace-without-one-of-the-flue-gas-tunnels-a/)

From the Archive

Six considerations for turbomachinery control upgrades (/magazine/2018/august-2018/special-focus-fluid-flow-and-rotating-
equipment/six-considerations-for-turbomachinery-control-upgrades/)
Viewpoint: “Intelligizing” the refinery for business sustainability (/magazine/2016/june-2016/columns/viewpoint-intelligizing-the-
refinery-for-business-sustainability/)
Business Trends: Global petrochemical overview—Part 1 (/magazine/2016/april-2016/trends-and-resources/business-trends-global-
petrochemical-overview-part-1/)

Maximize petrochemicals in the FCCU to boost refinery margins, improve gasoline pool quality (/magazine/2016/february-
2016/special-report-clean-fuels-and-the-environment/maximize-petrochemicals-in-the-fccu-to-boost-refinery-margins-improve-
gasoline-pool-quality/)
Business Trends: Clean fuels—a global shift to a low-sulfur world (/magazine/2016/february-2016/trends-and-resources/business-
trends-clean-fuels-a-global-shift-to-a-low-sulfur-world/)
Top seven causes for lost olefin production (/magazine/2015/april-2015/special-report-petrochemical-developments/top-seven-
causes-for-lost-olefin-production/)

Comments

Type your comment here Add Comment