Your Opinion On This Sticky Subject (PSV Closed System) - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis

3/14/2018 Your Opinion On this Sticky Subject (PSV Closed System) - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis
Welcome Rajith T.. [Log out]

Home Page » Forums » Analysis Solutions » CAESAR II » Your Opinion On this Sticky Subject (PSV
Closed System)
Forum List My Stuff Calendar Active Topics Search FAQ
New Reply Topic Options Page 1 of 2 1 2 > Search

Your Opinion On this Sticky Subject (PSV Closed #45142 - 10/09/11 12:43 AM
System) Go
Dee Advanced
Member Dear All,
Registered:
Who's Online
I just want to see your opinion about this subject, i have followed many
10/01/11 0 registered (), 8 Guests
Posts: 10 discussion about this topic, in Eng-Tips.com, Cheresources.com, and
and 2 Spiders online.
Loc: UK offcourse COADE CAESAR Forum, and still i am agree wit Mariog on the
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
thread of "PSV Reaction Force" when he said:
March
Quote: Su M Tu W Th F Sa
[/quote]You have this force exactly where there is a FREE jet. 1 2 3
That means:
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
- in an open system, where really the free fluid jet is released
into atmosphere 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
- in a closed system, at the header connection, presuming your 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
PSV is not pressurizing the header- that is the header is 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
counted as a large volume receiving the jet rather than a path
for flowâ€¦[quote] Forum Stats
11407 Members
14 Forums
This is also inline with LC Peng opinion on his book "Pipe Stress 15297 Topics
Engineering" about this subject. 69026 Posts
But recently i have seen a method that quite conservative, and with this Max Online: 105 @ 07/02/17
method i think when we are doing detailed engineering with static 09:16 PM
analysis, we only need to apply the reaction force on vertical and
horizontal direction in PSV Body (as seen in figure below) as long as the
good support/restraint applied in the system (also as seen in figure
below), with stopper in approriate location after discherge valve, it will
minimize the effect of reaction load downstream.
I want to hear opinion about this, please..
Regards
Attachments
http://65.57.255.42/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=45142 1/11
Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post
Re: Your Opinion On this Sticky Subject (PSV Closed #45144 - 10/09/11 02:21 AM
System) [Re: Dee]
danb
Member I think that before anything else the question to be answer is:
Registered:
04/22/05 Does "Pop up Condition" exist or not?
Posts: 1262
Loc: ... Regards,
_________________________
Dan
System) [Re: Dee]
danb
Member At page 12 of the pdf there are some things about this:
Registered:
04/22/05 http://www.parcol.com/docs/3-I_gb.pdf
Posts: 1262
Loc: ... _________________________
Dan
System) [Re: danb]
Dee
Member Yes danb,
I'm also quiet often hear about that question (does "Pop Up Condition"
Registered:
10/01/11 exist or not)and have read also this reference from PArcol,that is why
Posts: 10 there is a stopper and rest support (with 10 mm gap) that intended to
Loc: UK avoid transmitted force and heavy stress to PSV Body, and also
downstream to the header (Large Area) where jet force ussualy will
applied.
About Pop up condition, yes it happened, altough only in a few
millisecond, that is why in App.2 non mandatory ASME B31.3 mentioned
in Para.II-2.3.2, paraghrap two:
Quote:
[/quote]Relief valves discharging into an enclosed piping

system
create momentary unbalanced forces which act on
the piping system during the first few milliseconds following

relief valve lift The pressure waves traveling
relief valve lift. The pressure waves traveling
through the piping system following the rapid opening
of the safety valve will cause bending moments in the
safety valve discharge piping and throughout the
remainder of the piping system. In such a case, the
designer must compute the magnitude of the loads, and
perform appropriate evaluation of their effects.[quote]
Ussualy the most accurate for Closed Discharge System is to do Time

history analysis (as also stated in Para.II-3.5.2), but this will be time
consuming.
Quasi static analysis as proposed by E.C. Goodling and also LC Peng, to
calculate each load in each length leg as:
F= F1*L/c*t0
F1 = 129 W/1000 * SQRT(k.T/(k-1)M)....(KN)
L= Length of each leg
c or v = is fluid velocity or near sonic velocity (get this from process
dept.)
t0= time valve opening (get from vendor or assume 4ms)
this force applied by multiplying it with DLF to each elbow or

obstruction.
But the question with this method will be: until how far this load should
be applied to be near to accurate or conservative result?
This will depend the judgement and experience of each engineer.
So because of the complexity of that method,we ussualy will provide

good support and restraint system based on experiences that has been
working for many years. With propered support, you will only need to
apply the load as figure above unless more complex system and
stringent system need another approaches.
By the way thanks for the comment danb.
Regards
D
Re: Your Opinion On this Sticky Subject (PSV Closed #45149 - 10/09/11 12:43 PM
System) [Re: Dee]
danb
Member Please note also some other things.
Registered:
04/22/05 At the moment of "pop up", the line downstream PSV is yet cold.
Posts: 1262
Loc: ... Support upstream PSV should be a hold down support.
In some cases an u-bolt may not be appropiate.
In most of cases the elevation of the two trunnions will not be the same.
Regards,
_________________________
Dan
System) [Re: Dee]
Dee
Member You are absolutely right danb...thanks
Registered:
10/01/11
Posts: 10
Loc: UK
System) [Re: Dee]
danb
Member See also Pipemill. Interesting is that Pipemill apply also a DLF to the
vertical force while others don't.
Registered:
04/22/05
Posts: 1262 And this is from EN13480-3, Appendix A
Loc: ...
"A.2.4.1 General
The discharge of a safety valve will produce a reaction load on the piping
to which it is connected. The initial rapid opening of the valve produces a
dynamic component to the force which can be significant.
The effect should be treated as a localised event producing point loading
at the nozzle connecting the valve to the piping, and should be
incorporated into the design of the piping and the supporting
arrangements."
Regards,
Edited by danb (10/10/11 06:57 AM)
_________________________
Dan
System) [Re: danb]
mariog
Member Just note that "F2" Pipemill formula considers vertical component as
W^2RT/(pA)instead the "correct" form W^2RT*/(p*A). I've explained in
Registered:
09/29/07 other post where is the "fluid mechanics" error and without this
Posts: 620 correction "F2" has no theoretical support.
Loc: Romania
I would add that "correct" means here the API "free jet" reaction force
formula, and I do not interpret this as an evidence there is a vertical
force which must be calculated with that formula.
Of course, this is my opinion, perfectly in line with the title "your opinion
on this sticky subject"...
Best regards.
System) [Re: mariog]
Dee
Member Mario, I think you are refer to Gas in closed system calculation (PSV) ,
because for Liquid Closed system (PRV) it using different formula due
Registered:
10/01/11 to different nature of gas and liquid.
Posts: 10
Loc: UK Related to this i still found some Engineering company using the
formula of Gas in closed system when they are calculated Liquid in
closed system. Offcourse the reult will become so vey conservative.
As an example, i have checked a pipe stress calculation for a liquid in

closed system.
The system is 6 " Pipe Sch.40, with PRV 2"x3" 150#
Design Pressure upstream PRV = 16.4 Bar
Design Pressure Downstream PRV = 10 Bar
Setting Pressure = 17.40 Bara
Relief Temperature = 214 C = 487.15 K
Max. Disch. Rate/Valve = 4752 Kg/h (1.32 Kg/s)
Calculated or Required Orrifice Area = 506 mm^2
Actual or Selected Orrifice Area - 563 mm^2 (Type H)
Using Pipemill:
F1 = 50.72 N
so that F4 = 101.43 N
Using Excell SPreadsheet (that used by Engineering Company,

because of they apply Gas in closed system formula:
F1 = 0.7 KN
So that the force in verical and horizontal of PRV:
F2 = 0.4 KN
F3 = 1.3 KN
As you can see it is too conservative and lead to costly design and
stiff system.
Maybe they intrepret the line in Para II-2.3.2 of ASME B31.1 Non
Mandatory App. II, (that mentioned :"The large steady state force will
act only at the point of discharge, and the magnitude of this force
may be determined as described for open discharge systems")
without considering the different between gas and liquid.
CAESAR II also give a seperate calculation for gas and liquid as you
can found in Dynamic input for Relief Load analysis. There are Relief
Load Syntesis for Gas and Liquid.
This is also one reason i open again this discussion, because there are
still many missconception about this topic.
Many International world Scale Project using that calculation for gas
to be applied to liquid.
And for Liquid Closed system, i prefer not to input the force in
CAESAR II input, unless it is significant. Just use proper support as
above in my first post (with Hold down guide on upstream as danb
said).
regards
dee
Attachments
Edited by Dee (10/11/11 09:41 AM)

System) [Re: Dee]
danb
Member Well, Dee... Maybe is a PSV for tube rupture case. Even if it is on liquid
line, it need to be sized for gas.
Registered:
04/22/05
Posts: 1262 Regards,
Loc: ...
_________________________
Dan
System) [Re: Dee]
mariog
Member Dear Dee,
Registered:
09/29/07 I failed to understand the discussion is on liquid PSVs.
Posts: 620
Loc: Romania Of course my comments were focused on "API formula" which is one for
gas applications.
Yes, that gas formula gives larger forces than for liquid because
considers the "critical" gas speed.
Under normal circumstances there is no need to mix API formula for
liquid application. However, for flashing liquid cases...
I would add something....In fact also in your scan paper appears the
pop-up force of W^2RT/(ps*A) with ps- gas set pressure. What is
interesting with this formula (active now all around the world) is the fact
the set pressure is placed in denominator and that means the smaller is
the set pressure, the larger is the pop-up force.
I would imagine that the author liked Parmenides' (and Aristotle's)
famous dictum "horror vacui"...indeed "Nature abhors a vacuum" was a
driving principle in science and (maybe) we would claim such pop-up
force formula is the true "reaction" force measure in terms the PSV disk
detests the low set pressure...
About the liquid PSV formula: it is good that there is no "horror vacui",
it's just a moderate crash with "Bernoulli"...
But wait, Bernoulli for transient "pop-up" is the same as Bernoulli for
"steady-state"? Well, here is another dilemma... which is better, "horror"
or "vacuum"?
And just to finish my discussion on "opinions".... returning Dan's

question "Does "Pop up Condition" exist or not?" it seems that he found
the answer. I did it, too: "pop-up condition" exists, except cases when
PSV is not opening!
About the magnitude of the pop-up force....It is said Galileo had

accepted the weightlessness of air as a simple truth ... so, humble in
thoughts, I must question myself who am I to understand such simple
truth as the magnitude of pop-up force in PSVs?
My best regards.
Edited by mariog (10/11/11 02:27 PM)

System) [Re: Dee]
mariog
Member Dear Dee,
Registered:
09/29/07 In the scan paper youâ€™ve attached (that one valid for compressible
Posts: 620 fluid in PSV closed systems), there is a note valid for "established
Loc: Romania conditions": "Only F2 is effective, as other forces are balanced".
I would like to discuss this conclusion; the goal is just to invite you all to
think about rather than to say this approach is wrong.
It seems that they placed (in each piping elbow) two forces estimated by
API formula â€“ which is based on reaction force of "free jet" having
critical speed. In addition they placed at PSV outlet the same force.
As a result it appears that forces are balanced, except vertical in PSV.
Why vertical force is unbalanced? I think the logic is we cannot assume
the same "free jet" force upstream the PSV.
For "pop-up" condition (the other figure in the paper scanned) I guess
the PSV is considered as an "enlarged bend" and probably the logic is
that forces are imbalanced because the flow is initially established in this
"bend" and not in the rest of piping system. As a result it appears that
only two forces are in system and they are acting in PSV- one horizontal
and one vertical.
I have few remarks based on some concepts of fluid mechanics.
- In a steady state flow through a regular piping system having only

elbows, fluid exerts forces acting in elbows and these forces are
"balanced" giving some tension in pipes. Under normal circumstances
the dynamic components are negligible and these forces are pressure
forces, these forces are balanced and give the pressure longitudinal
stress (commonly considered as PD/(4t)).
If the dynamic components cannot be neglected, Fluid Mechanics (by
"Momentum equation") gives us the expression for forces acting in 90
degree elbows.
At a first approach, we can consider that the fluid has the same pressure
and same velocity for all elbows, so all forces are balanced in such
system.
At a second (more detailed) analysis, one would observe that these
forces are not identical because it is a loss of pressure in system and
some changes in velocity, but in this case the "momentum equation"
must be completed with supplementary friction and/or inertial forces, so
again the forces appear as balanced.
The conclusion of this fact: we donâ€™t need the "free jet" reaction
force assumption in each elbow in order to get the balance of forces in
such system. The forces are balanced anyway, because the physical
reality; however, for compressible fluids, it would be difficult to
accurately calculate "by hand" their magnitude.
- A good question: it is the "90 degree bend" fluid model an appropriate

model for flow through PSV? My answer is NO, because we are not able
to properly calculate the action of fluid in a PSV!
Here I need to explain what "momentum equation" is. It is the second

Netwonâ€™s law. Why we use it? Mathematically, one advantage of
using "Momentum equation" for flow action in bends (and not only
there) is the simplicity of method; we need only to draw a control
surface such that it crosses uniform flow zones where the velocity and
pressure are essentially constant. In back, it can be proved that that
momentum equation gives us indirectly a surface integral of pressure,
ie. the fluid force on that surface.
Without "momentum equation" tool, we need to carry out the integration
p*dA (pressure over the surface), but in practice this would be a
"tragedy".
The common form of "Momentum equation" neglects the friction. This is

not so evident in some fluid mechanics books; in others they said
"friction is neglected" or "shear is a topic for later".
But this is evident if we remember that "Momentum equation" is the
second Netwonâ€™s law and we have experience with this law applied in
Mechanics; there are cases in which friction can be neglected, there are
cases where friction drives the problem!
In my understanding, in a PSV, fluid friction cannot be neglected

because PSV is constructed to destroy fluid energy and momentum by
friction.
Can we evaluate what is imbalanced in a steady state system with PSV?

Yes, after separating the effects of fluid shear forces, we need to carry
out the integration p*dA fluid inside the PSV!.
It is not a matter to be solved by a stress engineer.
You have to consider results of CFD models in order to understand
something.
- About considering the vertical imbalanced force in PSVâ€¦. Reducing to

a stupid simplicity what it is inside the conventional PSV: there is a
nozzle, a jet of fluid strikes a plate (the disc) and a spring provides
resistance to plate movement.
There is the temptation to be focused on the momentum transmitted to
plate and to the fact spring exerts up a force to PSV bonnet.
However -remaining into the same stupid simplicity...do not forget that
there is a jet that exits the nozzle and there is also a "reaction force"
transmitted to "nozzle". PSV nozzle and PSV bonnet are mechanically
assembled together, so the "imbalance" should be proved before to be
axiomatic declared!
My opinion; only for pop-up condition we can talk about an imbalanced

force applied to disc and the consequence is the disc movement. See API
520 for a good description of "pop-up"- I attach a sketch with three
figures from API.
But is there an imbalanced vertical force transmitted to PSV body? In my

understanding, the answer is rather no...
Of course the right answer must consider that- inside the PSV- things
are much more complicated than I described and- again- the CFD
models can give the answer.
The last question: are CFD models reporting imbalanced forces?

In my knowledge, no, but I would like to say "yes" if you can give me a
serious reference.
I prefer to quote the "abstract" of one reference I have:
"If the safety valve outlet piping is connected to a blowdown system or,
in case of blowing off into the atmosphere, are equipped with a T-piece
at the outlet, the stationary reaction forces are compensated completely.
The transient opening process, however, develops flow reaction forces
which culminate in peaks of short duration. [â€¦] Special importance is
attributed to the short duration of the effect of the reaction forces which
seems to have only a negligible impact on the supporting steel
structure."
Best regards.
Attachments
Forces Balance PRV.PDF (944 downloads)
System) [Re: Dee]
appleapple
Originally Posted By: Dee
Member
Dear All,
Registered:
12/09/10
Posts: 18 I just want to see your opinion about this subject, i have
Loc: Singapore followed many discussion about this topic, in Eng-Tips.com,
Cheresources.com, and offcourse COADE CAESAR Forum,
and still i am agree wit Mariog on the thread of "PSV
Reaction Force" when he said:
Quote:
You have this force exactly where there is a FREE jet.

That means:
- in an open system, where really the free fluid jet is
released into atmosphere
- in a closed system, at the header connection, presuming
your PSV is not pressurizing the header- that is the header is
counted as a large volume receiving the jet rather than a
path for flowâ€¦
Hi Dee,
Providing line line-stop really helpfull to reduce stress due to PSV pop
up. My recent project however client not allowed to have restrained
close to the PSV (right before PSV outlet). Hence, in this case we should
figure out case by case basis in which part the stress occured.
Force in vertical from the inlet of PSV normally can be negligible and
only PSV reaction force from outlet of PSV that is having significant
impact for calculating PSV case. DLF for coservative result can consider
2 times.
just my two cents

-wan-
Re: Your Opinion On this Sticky Subject (PSV #70812 - 01/22/18 06:48 AM
Closed System) [Re: Dee]
sam
Member Dee's earlier post
Registered:
02/25/04 "Quasi static analysis as proposed by E.C. Goodling and also LC Peng, to
Posts: 604 calculate each load in each length leg as:
F= F1*L/c*t0
F1 = 129 W/1000 * SQRT(k.T/(k-1)M)....(KN)
L= Length of each leg
c or v = is fluid velocity or near sonic velocity (get this from process
dept.)
t0= time valve opening (get from vendor or assume 4ms)
this force applied by multiplying it with DLF to each elbow or

obstruction.
But the question with this method will be: until how far this load should
be applied to be near to accurate or conservative result?
This will depend the judgement and experience of each engineer."
is Justified!
Then, why are we not using it, still, on other legs of piping?
reg,
sam
_________________________
_
Re: Your Opinion On this Sticky Subject (PSV #70817 - 01/22/18 08:42 AM
Closed System) [Re: Dee]
sam
Member Dan's approach of L/(c*t0) forL less than c*t0 and 1 for L equal and
Registered: greater than c*to is inline with steam hammer load calculation in old
02/25/04 MEN issue and referred in CAESAR II time history webinar.
Posts: 604
But, how many of us put psv thrust load in psv inlet and outlet legs and
design enough restraints! Knowing something as right and not following
the same is unethical forengineers
_________________________
_
Previous Topic Index Next Topic Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Tweet
Like Be the first of your friends to like this.
Quick Reply:
HTML is
enabled
UBBCode
is
enabled
Add
Signature
Submit Preview Reply Switch to Full Reply Screen
Moderator: Dave Diehl, Richard Ay Hop to: CAESAR II Go
Privacy statement · Board Rules · Mark all read

Contact Us · Home Page · Top
GooG_v2_copy_copy_copy
Generated in 0.023 seconds in which 0.006 seconds were spent on a total of 17 queries. Zlib compression disabled.
Powered by UBB.threads™ 7.5.7

Your Opinion On This Sticky Subject (PSV Closed System) - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Your Opinion On This Sticky Subject (PSV Closed System) - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/14/2018 Your Opinion On this Sticky Subject (PSV Closed System) - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis

Welcome Rajith T.. [Log out]

New Reply Topic Options Page 1 of 2 1 2 > Search

I want to hear opinion about this, please..

[/quote]Relief valves discharging into an enclosed piping

the piping system during the first few milliseconds following

Ussualy the most accurate for Closed Discharge System is to do Time

this force applied by multiplying it with DLF to each elbow or

So because of the complexity of that method,we ussualy will provide

By the way thanks for the comment danb.

In some cases an u-bolt may not be appropiate.

Edited by danb (10/10/11 06:57 AM)

As an example, i have checked a pipe stress calculation for a liquid in

Using Excell SPreadsheet (that used by Engineering Company,

Edited by Dee (10/11/11 09:41 AM)

And just to finish my discussion on "opinions".... returning Dan's

About the magnitude of the pop-up force....It is said Galileo had

Edited by mariog (10/11/11 02:27 PM)

I have few remarks based on some concepts of fluid mechanics.

- In a steady state flow through a regular piping system having only

- A good question: it is the "90 degree bend" fluid model an appropriate

Here I need to explain what "momentum equation" is. It is the second

The common form of "Momentum equation" neglects the friction. This is

In my understanding, in a PSV, fluid friction cannot be neglected

Can we evaluate what is imbalanced in a steady state system with PSV?

- About considering the vertical imbalanced force in PSVâ€¦. Reducing to

My opinion; only for pop-up condition we can talk about an imbalanced

But is there an imbalanced vertical force transmitted to PSV body? In my

The last question: are CFD models reporting imbalanced forces?

You have this force exactly where there is a FREE jet.

just my two cents

this force applied by multiplying it with DLF to each elbow or

Previous Topic Index Next Topic Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Like Be the first of your friends to like this.

Submit Preview Reply Switch to Full Reply Screen

Moderator: Dave Diehl, Richard Ay Hop to: CAESAR II Go

Privacy statement · Board Rules · Mark all read

You might also like