Guidelines For Pressure Relief and Effluent Handling Systems

220 API STANDARD 521
then be performed to determine the phase of the relief stream. The DIERS Project Manual [69] and the CCPS
Guidelines for Pressure Relief and Effluent Handling Systems [43] provide guidance to determine if two-phase
relief will occur due to liquid swell (e.g. the increase in liquid level due to liquid and vapor mixing) or liquid
entrainment caused by the velocity of the vapor across the surface of the liquid.
Complete vapor-liquid disengagement with no liquid entrainment will result in vapor relief. The required vapor
relief rate should be determined using the guidance provided in 4.4.8.3. In case it is assumed that liquid will
continue to flow from the high-pressure system, then the impact of flashing liquid on relief requirements should
be evaluated.
However, if the vapor-liquid disengagement analysis reveals a two-phase flow, then the guidance provided in
the DIERS Project Manual [69] and the CCPS Guidelines for Pressure Relief and Effluent Handling Systems [43]
can be used to estimate the two-phase relief stream quality. This guidance considers the fluid regime, i.e.
foamy, bubbly, or churn-turbulent. The required relief rate should be equal to the volumetric flow of fluid entering
the system through the flow limiting element (wide-open control valve, bypass valve, restriction orifice)
displacing an equal volume of the two-phase mixture at relief conditions, taking into consideration the mixing
with swelled liquid phase.
If the low-pressure vessel’s inlet nozzle becomes submerged, then when the vapor breakthrough occurs the
vapor will be sparged into the low-pressure vessel causing the liquid level to rise further. In this scenario, the
user should evaluate if a two-phase relief could occur due to inadequate vapor-liquid disengagement or due to
liquid re-entrainment caused by high velocity vapor flow.
2) Upstream system liquid inventory is more than the downstream system vapor volume at relief conditions.
In this case, the low-pressure vessel overfills before the vapor breakthrough occurs. The initial relief will be a
steady-state liquid relief (or steady-state two-phase relief). However, it is expected that the liquid level in the
high-pressure vessel will eventually be lost, which would result in vapor breakthrough. Since the low-pressure
system is liquid full, the required relief rate should be calculated based on the displaced liquid at a rate equal to
the volumetric flow of vapor or two-phase fluid entering the system through the flow limiting element (wide-open
control valve, bypass valve, restriction orifice) at relief conditions. Liquid displacement should be calculated
using liquid and vapor densities at the relieving conditions.
Consideration should be given to alternate modes of operation where liquid may not be present in the upstream
vessel (start-up/shutdown/catalyst treatment) and taking credit for liquid passing through the control valve would not
be appropriate. Additionally, in some cases multiple MAWP’s may exist under different operating temperatures. One
example of this is minimum pressurization temperature where the temperature of the equipment is raised gradually
to increase metal ductility before increasing pressure. Another is where an alternate high-temperature operation is
conducted during catalyst conditioning. In both cases, this results in a lower temporary MAWP then normal.
The user may consider taking credit for two-phase flow across the control valve if there is continuous liquid flow into
the high-pressure system to reduce the vapor breakthrough rate during the relief event and hence reduce the liquid
displacement relief rate. In these cases, the vapor phase density in the low-pressure system should account for
liquid flashing at relieving conditions.
It should be noted that the relief rate calculated for liquid displacement often results in substantial relief
requirements. The following options may be considered to mitigate the overpressure scenario or reduce the relief
requirements of liquid displacement.
1) Designing an inherently safer system by increasing the low-pressure system MAWP to eliminate the
applicability of the overpressure scenario. However, the impact on the equipment downstream of the
low-pressure system should be evaluated.
2) Increasing the size and vessel capacity of the low-pressure system to allow vapor-liquid disengagement to
occur and to prevent overfilling the low-pressure system.
3) Sizing the pressure relief devices for liquid displacement.

Guidelines For Pressure Relief and Effluent Handling Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guidelines For Pressure Relief and Effluent Handling Systems

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Guidelines For Pressure Relief and Effluent Handling Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

220 API STANDARD 521

3) Sizing the pressure relief devices for liquid displacement.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.