Fluid Flow and
Rotating Equipment
Understand API and ASME standards
to prevent oversizing PSVs
If you have ever sized or selected a
pressure safety relief valve (PSV) us-
ing vendor sizing programs or hand cal-
culations, you have probably run into a
strange anomaly: Why does a PSV orifice
size change between American Petroleum
Institute (API) and American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) datas-
ets? What is an “effective” orifice area?
How can you know which standard to use
when selecting a PSV?
Usually, this issue is one of curiosity
and does not affect the result of which
valve is chosen. Common practice is to
default to API sizing equations and pa-
rameters, and use only ASME datasets
for situations outside of API letter des-
ignations. However, this approach is
likely causing you to oversize some of
your PSVs and their respective piping
systems. Standards referenced in this ar-
ticlea include:
• ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code (BPVC), Section VIII
• API Recommended Practice
(RP) 520
• API Recommended Practice
(RP) 526.
ASME and API standards for PSVs:
To size or not to size? Most of the
time, simply using API datasets is ad-
equate. Note: This is a conservative ap-
proach, so you will not make a mistake
in doing this. Did you know, however,
that PSVs are certified to ASME capaci-
ties—not API? Did you also know that
those ASME capacities are nearly always
higher than the API capacities? Very few
available resources speak to this topic. It
is common for engineers to understand
API 520 quite well, but they often have
B. TAYLOR, Anvil Corp., Bellingham, Washington
a limited working knowledge of how the
ASME BPVC comes into play.
The main roles that API and ASME
play on this subject must be clarified first,
along with how the standards are intend-
ed to be used:
1. API 526 provides basic design
criteria for PSVs, and is aimed at
manufacturers
2. API 520 provides detailed
methods to determine specific
required relief loads and to select
preliminary, generic valve sizes
3. ASME BPVC governs testing and
certification of valves.
Too often, we leave the third part out
of the process and simply calculate relief
loads and select valves using API tech-
niques, without ever checking our selec-
tion against certified ASME data. Proper
application of these standards is the first
key point of this article: Initial sizing and
valve selection is done using API equa-
tions, and final valve selection and certifi-
cation is done using ASME-certified coef-
ficients and capacities.
When sizing a PSV, the sizing equations
are always API 520. When a PSV is certi-
fied, it is always certified to ASME BPVC,
regardless of whether ASME certification
is selected. It is important to remember
that the ASME BPVC is the “code,” the
standard to which we must design. API
520 and API 526 are “recommended prac-
tices” developed to give engineers a tool
to meet the ASME requirements. Another
way to look at it: ASME BPVC sets the
goal, API 520/API 526 provide the in-
structions and ASME has the final say.
ASME BPVC: What are the rules?
The BPVC is an enormous code, and is
not reviewed in detail here. With regard
to PSVs, BPVC basically says that a PSV
must be capable of relieving the required
load, and it must be tested in a specific
manner to be certified to do so. If a valve
is tested per the specific directions in the
BPVC, it will be ASME-certified and re-
ceive an ASME Pressure Vessel Pressure
Relief Valves (ASME UV) stamp.
Note: When specifying a PSV for a
pressure vessel, it is important to always
specify that the UV stamp is required. A
non-code PSV is acceptable in certain
instances, but that is outside the scope of
this article.
API 526: Standardized valve design.
API first attempts to standardize physical
PSV sizes and design, and it does so with
API RP 526, which is targeted at PSV
manufacturers. API provides predefined
valve sizes, with letter designations
D through T (API 526). It also defines
other details directed toward valve man-
ufacturers, such as temperature ratings.
These specifications are intended as min-
imum design standards, and manufactur-
ers are free to exceed these parameters.
API 520: PSV sizing equations. The
second thing API does is provide stan-
dardized equations and parameters for
discerning what size of PSV is needed
for a specific scenario. The equations ac-
count for design parameters that ASME
does not address, such as specific fluid
properties, backpressures, critical flow,
two-phase flow and other aspects of fluid
dynamics that affect the ability of a valve
to relieve a required load.
API sizing equations are by nature the-
oretical and standardized, and use default
Hydrocarbon Processing | NOVEMBER 2018 79
 Fluid Flow and Rotating Equipment
TABLE 1. Example scenario API vs. ASME values
API N-orifice
API calculated required area
ASME calculated required area
ASME certification for brand X* 4N6
*Note: This data is from a real case; the specific PSV make/model is omitted.
or “dummy” values for several sizing pa-
rameters that may or may not reflect the
actual values for a specific valve.
API RP 520 addresses these theo-
retical parameters and emphasizes that
the intended use of equations is to de-
termine a preliminary valve size, which
should be verified with actual data. PSV
sizing is a two-step process in API RP
520, but this is not obvious if the full
standard is not read, or if vendor sizing
software that hides the iteration is used.
See API 520, Part 1, Section 5.2 for fur-
ther explanation.
Pressure vessel PRVs. When valves
are built, they are built to the API RP
526 standard; however, as one might
imagine, when valves are tested and
certified, the results do not match up
identically to the theoretical values that
were calculated. This is where API and
ASME intersect; we switch from calcu-
lations (API) that were used as a basis
to design the valve, to actual empirical
data (ASME) to certify the valve. When
a valve manufacturer obtains the UV
code stamp that certifies the valve orifice
size and capacity, it is based on actual
test results, not on API sizing standards.
ASME, which came first, does not have
tiered letter designations. The typical
D, E, F, etc. sizes are strictly an API tool,
and ASME’s capacity certifications are
completely independent of them.
An example scenario explaining this
conundrum is as follows: ABC Valve Co.
builds a valve, aiming at the design specs
for an API N-orifice, which API says is an
effective area of 4.34 in.2 The company
tests the final product according to ASME
BPVC, and achieves a result that equates
to an effective orifice area of 4.9 in.2—i.e.,
its ASME effective area. A third-party en-
gineer (you), trying to select a PSV, runs
a sizing calculation using API 520 equa-
tions on ABC Valve Co.’s sizing software,
gets a result that requires 4.66 in.2 to re-
lieve the load, and is now thoroughly con-
fused on what size valve to select.
80 NOVEMBER 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
4.34 in.2
4.667 in.2
4.624 in.2
4.9 in.2
If one selects the API dataset on the
sizing software in this example, it will
automatically eliminate N-orifice valves
as an option and bump up the user to a
P-orifice. However, if one simply selects
the ASME dataset, then the N-orifice
valve suddenly reappears as an option.
How can this be? Will the N-orifice
work, or not? The short answer is yes,
because it is certified to an actual area of
4.90 in.2 Therefore, the N-orifice for this
specific PSV will work, and is certified
to do so, in this application. Remember:
Use API to get close, and use ASME to
confirm the final answer.
Digest that for a moment. If you have
sized and purchased more than a dozen
PSVs, chances are that you have inadver-
tently selected a PSV a full size larger than
you needed to, in a situation much like
our example, simply because you chose
a PSV based on its API “rating” rather
than its real, certified, stamped ASME
rating. If it was a small valve, the impact
was probably insignificant—but what if
this happened on a valve that resulted in
selecting an 8 × 10 PSV when a 6 × 8 PSV
could have been used?
That answer may not be very satisfy-
ing. How can you simply hit a button on
the sizing program and make a different
size of valve suddenly acceptable? The
key lies in how the main coefficient of dis-
charge, Kd, is handled, and how capacities
are determined. Several K values are used
in API calculations. All these values have
generic values defined in API 520 that can
be used for preliminary sizing. These are
the numbers used in initial sizing calcu-
lations to get us close, and then replaced
with the actual/tested/empirical/ASME
values when a certified valve is obtained.
Remember: Anytime you hear “certified”
or “stamped,” think ASME.
Let us consider the numbers from the
example above, which came from an at-
tempt to size a valve for liquid relief. API
says to use a value of Kd = 0.65 for liq-
uid relief. If one uses the API dataset on
the vendor software, then the calculation
stops here and a required area of 4.66 in.2
is obtained. When selecting a valve, that
number is compared to the API effec-
tive (actual) area of an N-orifice of 4.34
in.2—this is too small, and logically re-
quires a step up to a P-orifice. However,
it is important to remember that the API
N-orifice area is just the benchmark, a
minimum requirement, and likely does
not reflect the actual area of a real PSV.
Once a valve is selected, all K values and
capacities should be replaced with ac-
tual ASME-certified K values, also de-
termined by testing, that are specific to
each valve model, and the calculations
should be performed again.
Normally, ASME-certified K-values
are smaller than the API dummy values,
driving up the required orifice area. This
means that valve manufacturers must
over-design their valves to make up for
this discrepancy, resulting in ASME-cer-
tified areas and capacities that typically
exceed the benchmark API ones. The
result is that the ASME-certified capacity
of any given valve will nearly always ex-
ceed its API capacity.
All this boils down to one sneaky sen-
tence in the ASME BPVC that mandates
a 10% safety factor on the empirically de-
termined Kd that “de-rates” the valve (see
ASME BPVC Section VIII, UG-131.e.2).
This little-known fact is key to correct
PSV sizing and selection; as engineers,
we often pile safety factors upon each
other and oversize our equipment. By se-
lecting an ASME dataset at the final itera-
tion of valve selection, a 10% safety factor
is automatically included in your design.
As mentioned, ASME K values are
nearly always lower than API values, due
to this 10% de-rating. The PSV in the ex-
ample scenario has a determined Kd of
0.73, which is adjusted by 10% for a final
AMSE Kd of 0.66, slightly higher than
the dummy API value. The discrepancy
means that the flow on this valve can do
approximately 11% better than the mini-
mum theoretical flow calculated by API
when it was tested. For the valve in ques-
tion, the required ASME area is slightly
less than the API area. This is atypical
(but not unheard of), and points to the
importance of checking the ASME rat-
ings of any valve selected and comparing
it against API benchmarks.
For our example, the net effect of the
ASME Kd is basically nothing; therefore,
how is the ASME capacity higher? This
 Fluid Flow and Rotating Equipment

brings us to the last key concept: When the
ASME data is used for a specific valve, it is
not just the Kd sizing factor that changes;
the actual orifice area and, therefore, the
capacity of the valve also adjusts to em-
pirical, certified values. Both values can be
generally expected to increase over the API
values. The simple reason is that any given
real-world valve is usually over-designed
so that it will meet and exceed the required
minimum capacity of its corresponding
API size. This is a simple concept, but one
that is often overlooked by engineers.
Back to our example scenario: Even
though the ASME Kd (and, therefore, the
required area) adjustment had a negligi-
ble effect, the actual ASME orifice area
(and, therefore, capacity) is significantly
higher than the listed API area and capac-
ity for an N-orifice. TABLE 1 shows a sum-
mary of these calculations.
With this adjusted orifice area, we
can compare to the ASME certified area
(which will always be larger than the API
area), and we have our final answer for the
valve size. Often, this will not result in a
different choice of valve, but sometimes,
as in the example case, it will allow use of
a valve with an API letter designation that
did not appear large enough based on its
API effective area. This can save time
and money by preventing over-sizing of
valves, leading to smaller piping systems
to support them. Remember: The ASME
values are empirical and have a 10% safe-
ty factor built in, so we do not need to
worry about cutting the design too close;
the conservatism is already built in to the
method. We can choose the Brand X N-
orifice valve and sleep well at night.
Recommendations. Avoid simply de-
faulting to the API dataset for the final
“rating” or datasheet when selecting a
PSV. Use API sizing calculations as they
are intended—for preliminary valve se-
lection. Then, switch to the ASME datas-
et. This will often (but not always) result
in two differences:
1. An actual orifice area greater than
the standard API letter-designated
orifice area. This means that the
PSV selected performs slightly
better, or is slightly larger, than
the minimum design conditions
for its API letter designation.
2. A required orifice area that is
greater than the one calculated
by API. This is usually due to
the 10% de-rating on Kd that
ASME requires.
PSV sizing and selection is a wide
topic, and this article addresses only one
issue. Specific code references and quota-
tions have been omitted to create a gen-
eral guideline that is useful for most engi-
neers, rather than an interpretation of the
codes. Anytime you are selecting a PSV
that is near its API capacity limits, a flag
should go off in your head: Remember to
check the ASME capacity!
NOTES
a
This article is written for an audience that is familiar
with PSVs, PSV sizing, and API and ASME standards
at a basic level.
BENJAMIN TAYLOR is Project Manager at Anvil
Corporation in Bellingham, Washington. His
background is in control systems and instrumentation.
He holds a BS degree in chemical engineering from
Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana, and a
PE in control systems engineering in Washington state.

Statement of Ownership, Management and Circulation (Required by 39 U.S.C.).

1. Title of publication: HYDROCARBON PROCESSING
2. Publication number: ISSN 0018-8190
3. Filing date: October 1, 2018
4. Issue frequency: Monthly
5. Number of issues published annually: 12
6. Annual subscription price: $399.00
7. Complete mailing address of known office of publication:
Gulf Publishing Company, P. O. Box 2608 (2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1020,
77046), Houston, Harris County, Texas 77252-2608.
8. Complete mailing address of the headquarters or general business offices
of the publishers: Gulf Publishing Company, P. O. Box 2608 (2 Greenway
Plaza, Suite 1020, 77046), Houston, Texas 77252-2608, Contact person:
Suzanne McGehee; Telephone (713) 520-4473.
9. Names and complete addresses of publisher, editor and managing editor:
Publisher—Catherine Watkins, 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1020, Houston,
Texas 77046; Editor—Lee Nichols, 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1020,
Houston, Texas 77046; Executive Editor—Adrienne Blume, 2 Greenway
Plaza, Suite 1020, Houston, Texas 77046.
10. Owner: Gulf Publishing Holdings LLC, 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1020,
Houston, Texas 77046.
11. Known bondholders, mortgagees and other security holders owning
or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages
or other securities: Gulf Publishing Holdings LLC, 2 Greenway Plaza,
Suite 1020, Houston, Texas 77046.
12. Tax Status has not changed
13. Publication title: Hydrocarbon Processing
14. Issue date for circulation data below: September 2018
15. Extent and nature of circulation: Average, Actual
A. Total number of copies (net press run): 21,011, 21,198
B. Legitimate paid and/or requested distribution:
1. Outside County Paid/Requested Mail Subscriptons stated
on PS Form 3541—10,609, 11,274
2. In-County Paid/Requested Mail Subscriptions stated
on PS Form 3541—0, 0
3. Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors,
and counter sales, and other paid or requested distribution
outside USPS—8,843, 8,146
4. Requested Copies distributed by other mail classes through
the USPS—19, 23
C. Total paid and/or requested circulation (sum of 15B1,2,3 and 4):
19,471, 19,443
D. Nonrequested distribution (by mail and outside the Mail):
1. Outside County nonrequested Copies Stated on PS Form 3541—
0, 0
2. In-County Nonrequested copies Stated on PS Form 3541—0, 0
3. Nonrequested copies distributed through the USPS by
Other Classes of Mail—0, 0
4. Nonrequested Copies Distributed Outside the Mail—902, 1,135
E. Total Nonrequested Distribution (sum of 15d): 902, 1,135
F. Total distribution (sum of 15C and E): 20,373, 20,578
G. Copies not distributed: 638, 620
H. Total (sum 15F and G): 21,011, 21,198
I. Percent paid and/or requested circulation (15C/F x 100):
95.6%, 94.5%
16. Electronic Copy Circulation: Average, Actual
A. Requested and Paid Electronic Copies: 12,211, 12,112
B. Total Requested and Paid Print Copies (Line 15c) +
Requested/Paid Electronic Copies: 31,682, 31,555
C. Total Requested Copy Distribution (Line 15f) +
Requested/Paid Electronic Copies: 32,584, 32,690
D. Percent Paid and/or Requested Circulation: 97.23%, 96.53%
17. This statement of ownership will be printed in the November 2018
issue of this publication. Publication required.
18. Signature and Title of Editor, Publisher, Business Manager, or Owner
I certify that the statements made by me above are correct and complete.
/s/ Catherine Watkins, Publisher

Hydrocarbon Processing | NOVEMBER 2018 81