White Paper

Use of Rupture Discs in Combination

with Relief Valves

White Paper

1. Pressure Control Versus Pressure Relief

Since the earliest days of the industrial revolution, industrial
processes working under other than atmospheric pressures
(both overpressure and vacuum) typically will require
(mandatory) measures to assure a safe operation. National
and transnational legislations are developed and in place to
assure that the required safety levels are not breached and
the environment and investments are safe.
As a first line of defence, pressure control systems are typically
used. These systems monitor the pressure developments
in the process equipment and timely interact with the
process control system to limit the pressure to acceptable
levels. Control and/or monitoring devices, which are not
a necessary part of a safety system, are usually excluded
from safety design standards since they are typically active
in advance of a safety system. They also may combine
other activities related to the process and cannot always be
considered as dedicated safety systems. The efficiency of
these pressure control systems depends on input received
from instrumentation devices and require extensive and
validated reliability analysis, based on probability of failure
on demand (PFD) or safety integrity level (SIL) assessment.
As in most cases, pressure control systems may not assure
the required level of reliability in all service conditions; the
use of (last-line of defence) pressure relief systems is often
required. In cases where the pressure control systems would

fail to achieve the required pressure safety levels, these

dedicated protection devices safeguard the installation when
the critical pressure threshold is reached. Figure 1 illustrates
the correlation between pressure control and monitoring
systems, and pressure relief systems.
It is essential to not only consider the pressure relieving
device but the complete pressure relief system, so as not to
reduce the relieving capacity or adversely affect the proper
operation of the pressure relieving devices. Operating
problems where observed - within pressure relief systems,
frequently result from incorrect selection of the appropriate
device or from improper handling, incorrect installation or
lack of maintenance.
A risk assessment and determination of all possible
upset condition scenarios which could potentially lead to
unacceptable and dangerous pressures needs to be done
with sufficient attention and based on experience in running
the process. A multi-disciplinary group of experts may be
required to collect the necessary information.
To attain the required safety against pressure risks the
industry has been using pressure relief devices. Such
pressure relief devices are categorized as reclosing and nonreclosing types, and both offer unique characteristics which
make them a viable selection for the design engineer.
This document will focus on pressure relief devices only.

Figure 1: Relationship between Control & Monitoring and Safety Systems

Pressure
Maximum allowable pressure PS x 1.10

Maximum allowable pressure PS

Pressure
R
Relief
System

Normal
operating range

Pressure
Co
Control
System

Time

Regulating control
system reacts

White Paper

Table 1: Rupture Discs versus Relief Valves

2. Relief Device Options

The industry has worked traditionally with (reclosing) relief
valves or (non-reclosing) rupture (or bursting) disc devices
to achieve pressure relief action. Both types are accepted
for use as independent primary relief devices, protecting the
installations against unallowable pressures.

Properties

Rupture Disc

Relief Valve

Complexity of device

Low

High

Investment Cost

Low

High

After activation

Replace

Reset

Protection against
Overpressure

Yes

Yes

Reclosing pressure relief devices, commonly referred to as

safety relief valves (SRV), pressure relief valves (PRV) or
relief valves (RV), are designed to provide opening for relief
at the selected set pressure. This allows for the overpressure
to evacuate and then the valve recloses when the pressure
drops below an acceptable level. Safety or pressure relief
valves come as spring-operated or as pilot-operated units.

Protection against
Vacuum Pressure

Yes

No

Mounting Position
Restrictions

None

Vertical only

Installation Cost

Low

High

Maintenance Cost

Low

High

Requires Regular
Recalibration

None

Yes

To protect installations against unacceptable vacuum

pressures, the use of reclosing vacuum relief valves (VRV) or
breather valves may be considered. Again these devices will
open and allow for atmospheric pressure to be re-established
when the set-to-open vacuum pressure is reached.

Affected by Back
Pressure

Yes

Yes

Operational Testing
Possible

None

Yes

Leak tight

Yes

No

Selection of Materials
of Construction

Large

Limited

Rupture disc devices are often preferred to achieve instant

and unrestricted pressure relief (both overpressure and
vacuum pressure). They consist of a calibrated (metallic or
graphite) membrane which ruptures when the set pressure
is achieved. After activation the membrane remains open,
resulting in a complete discharge of the pressure in the
installation.
The main properties of these fundamental protection devices
are shown on Table 1.

Size range

Large

Limited

Change of Set
Pressure

None

Yes

Suitable for Gas/

Liquid/2-Phase

Yes

No

Reaction Time

Low

High

Unrestricted Opening

Yes

No

Depending on the equipment to be protected and

required performance, reclosing and non-reclosing devices
are complementary and offer unique advantages and
restrictions. The appropriate selection and preference must
be determined by the design engineer or user depending on
the specific application needs.

White Paper

3. Combinations of RD & RV

Often, using rupture discs in combination with relief valves

offers the best solution. Such combinations can be either
in parallel or in series, offering the user a combination of
features which provides the best of both worlds. The
design engineer or safety specialist needs to carefully
consider which combination provides the targeted features,
while keeping the consequences in balance.

Sizing of the secondary relief devices (the rupture disc)

to be such that the pressure does not exceed 116%
of the equipment design pressure (ASME Section VIII
Division 1, UG-125 (c) (1)) up to

Maximum achieved overpressure not to exceed 110%

of the equipment design pressure (European Pressure
Equipment Directive 93/23/EC; EN 764-7 6.1.4).
Why?
Creates added safety
Achieve required discharge capacity

Figure 2: Typical RD & RV Combinations

Benefits/Considerations:
Higher safety
Engineering Standards:
Sizing/set pressures to be in line with legislation
in place and with common engineering practices

Case 2: Rupture Disc in Series with Relief Valve

Parallel Use

Rupture disc devices may also be installed upstream or

downstream of relief valves, each geometry offering its
particular benefits for the user.

In-Series Use

Case 1: Rupture Disc in Parallel with Relief Valve

A. Rupture disc upstream of Relief Valve:

When used in parallel, the main objective is to allow for

the relief valve to handle the overpressure situation, bleed
the pressure until an acceptable, reduced pressure is
achieved and allow for the process to continue. Where the
overpressure cannot be effectively reduced by the relief
valve (due to malfunction, blockage or in case of excessive
generation of pressures) the pressure may continue to rise
until the (higher) set pressure of the rupture disc is reached.
Upon activation the rupture disc provides an additional/
back-up relief path for the overpressure, resulting in a safe
situation.

The use of rupture discs upstream with relief valves is a

common practice to achieve one or more of the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.

revent plugging of the relief valve

P
Prevent corrosion of the relief valve internals
Prevent leakage through the relief valve
Allow for in-situ testing of the relief valve

Prevent plugging or gumming of the relief valve

Through the selected use of suitably designed rupture
discs, product build up or polymerization can be limited.
Most relief valves are, due to their geometry of inlet, are
not suitable for use with media that create a build-up layer,
resulting in the inability of the relief valve to open. The use
of an upstream rupture disc reduces the need for regular
inspection, maintenance or cleaning (increased productivity)
and the reliability of safety.

When using rupture discs and relief valves in parallel, a

suitable margin of set pressure needs to be introduced to
avoid premature failure of the rupture disc. This requires
that the set to open pressure of the relief valve be below
the burst pressure range of the bursting disc, with a suitable
margin. Legislative requirements for pressure limitation, and
size determination, range from:

White Paper

Prevent corrosion of the relief valve internals

When the process media requires specific corrosion resistant
materials to be used, it can reduce the relief valve options
and/or have a substantial impact on cost and delivery time
of the valve and its spare parts. By installing a high alloy
material rupture disc upstream of the relief valve, the valve
is physically isolated from the process. Exposure to the
process media is restricted to the overpressure event only,
after which the rupture disc must be replaced and the valve
cleaned/refurbished. Until this emergency event occurs, the
relief valve remains in pristine conditions, not affected by
the process.

Allow for in-situ testing of relief valve

The acceptable use of relief valves to protect installations
is linked to the need for periodic calibration of these safety
devices. Depending on the local legislative requirements
such calibration may be required annually. Since process
shutdown and removal of the relief valve from the process
equipment is required for such calibration testing often
to be done at a special test institute or qualified service
centres - important economic reasons exist to try to extend
the calibration intervals. Longer calibration intervals may be
allowed for by the supervising authorities if the user provides
evidence of unaffected set pressure over time. This can be
achieved by regular testing of the relief valve in-situ, e.g.
without removing the relief valve from the installation, and
demonstrating its unchanged performance. By installing a
rupture disc upstream of the relief valve a limited volume
is created, allowing for controlled introduction of pressure
between rupture disc and the valve inlet from the outside.
This pressure (possibly combined with special pulling
force-test and measuring equipment applied to the valve
spindle to overcome the spring force and keeping the relief
valve in closed condition) can be measured and registered as
evidence of acceptable valve performance. The relative cost
related to adding the rupture disc device is generally far less
than the loss of production time and need for removal and
re-assembling of the relief valve.

This allows for the use of standard material relief valves and
related spare parts, resulting in substantial cost savings at
the initial investment and spares, a wider range of potential
suppliers of relief valves and shorter equipment lead times.
Prevent leakage through the relief valve
Most spring operated relief valves rely on special metal-tometal sealing surfaces and spring load applied, in order to
achieve leak tightness. This inevitably results in some leakage
which increases as the operating pressure approaches the
valve set pressure. Relief valve leakage rates are addressed
in industry standards and acceptable leakage rates are
defined (API 576). Where such leak rates are unacceptable
(for example for environmental reasons/restrictions, toxic
nature of product or to avoid loss of valuable process
media) the user can choose soft-seated relief valves or
pilot-operated relief valves. Both of
these options require higher
investments and may still have
restrictions such as availability
of suitable O-ring material
with sustained performance
characteristics
when
exposed
to
process,
pilot-valve leakage and
corrosion or plugging, etc.
By concept, rupture discs
offer improved leakage rates
and designs are available
with
virtually leak-free
constructions. The installation
of rupture discs upstream of the
relief valve eliminates emissions in a
simple and cost-effective manner.

White Paper

When selecting a rupture disc upstream of a relief valve the

following needs to be considered:

cc If

the space is otherwise closed then a pressure

gauge alone should not be considered suitable. This
approach relies on plant personnel to periodically
check each gauge to insure that pressure build
up has not occurred. This could easily result in an
unsafe situation existing for hours, days or even
weeks at a time.

The rupture disc is not allowed to interfere with the

relief valve operation, e.g.
cc No

fragmentation of the rupture disc is allowed as

such loose parts may obstruct the valve orifice or
restrict the valve from reclosing.

cc A

pressure switch or transmitter that provides an

alarm in the control room is a more appropriate
indication method.

cc Sufficient

distance needs to be available for the

rupture disc to open without blocking the relief valve
nozzle. This may need special attention: for example,
after opening a single petal rupture disc may extend
beyond the height of the holder and reach into the
inlet section of the relief valve.

cc A

pressure gauge along with a pressure switch

or transmitter is often a better choice so not only
the control room is notified, but the maintenance
personnel also have visibility to the elevated pressure
condition prior to breaking loose the pipe flanges.

cc To

assure proper functioning of the relief valve the

rupture disc device is to be close-coupled with the
relief valve, therefore assuring that the pressure drop
during flow at the inlet of the relief valve does not
exceed 3% as required. In most cases this restricts
the distance between the rupture disc and relief valve
inlet to 5 pipe diameters maximum. This situation
is again often achieved by installing the rupture
disc device directly upstream of the relief valve.
Longer distances between the rupture disc and relief
valve for example by introducing pipe sections
or spacers - may result in the creation of reflective
pressure waves upon opening of the rupture disc.
This phenomenon may result in undesired re-closing
of the rupture disc or even fragmentation and should
be avoided.

cc In

some cases the space is not vented. In others,

venting to atmosphere, catch tank, or collection
header may be desired. It is common in these cases
to use an excess flow valve (a type of check valve)
on the venting line. At very low flow conditions, as
in the case of thermal expansion of trapped air, the
check ball allows the fluid to vent. When the disc
ruptures, the excess flow valve closes to prevent fluid
loss through the vent.

cc The

use of a break wire or other flow sensitive burst

indication devices alone are not considered suitable
unless they are capable of detecting leakage through
the rupture disc.

cc No

one configuration is ideal for all applications. The

corrosiveness or toxicity of the media is often what
drives how this space is monitored and vented.

Since the rupture disc, like the relief valve, is a device

that reacts to differential pressure between the
upstream and downstream side, measures need to be
taken to avoid that any unnoticed pressure increase
occurs in the closed cavity between the rupture disc and
relief valve inlet. Most industry standards and related
legislations require that the pressure in the cavity is
either monitored and/or vented to atmosphere. This is
commonly achieved through the use of a so-called telltale assembly consisting of pressure gauge or indicator,
try cock and free vent. Specific considerations are listed
below:

When installing rupture disc devices upstream (at the inlet)

of relief valves, the size of the rupture disc should be a
least the same nominal size of the inlet of the relief valve.
Additionally the rated relief capacity of the relief valve, as
stated by the relief valve manufacturer, is to be reduced by
10% or alternatively reduced to the certified combination
capacity value (where the specific combination has been
capacity tested and certified by a recognized third party).
See Table 2.

White Paper

Table 2: Certified Combination Capacity Values of Fike Rupture Discs

Min. Size (IN)

Min. Burst
Pressure in Min.
Size (PSIG)

Certified
Combination
Capacity Factor

Poly-SD CS

125

.989

Poly-SD DH

32

.989

Rupture Disc
Model

SRL

Valve Model

Consolidated Dresser
1900E-2, 1900-30E-2

27

.994

SRX

95

.978

Poly-SD DH

1.5

28

.994

HOV

25

.976

MRK

53

.979

1.5

95

.971

1.5

28

.986

SRX
SRL

Consolidated Dresser
1900, 1900-30,
1900-35

Axius

1.5

15

.988

Atlas

1.5

117

.980

55

.989

30

.985

Poly-SD CS

125

.958

Poly-SD DH

32

.999

Poly-SD

83

.974

27

.996

Poly-SD
HOV

SRL
SRX

Consolidated Dresser
3900

Farris 2600, 2600S

95

.969

MRK

34

.983

Axius

15

1.00

Atlas

198

.998

MRK

60

.977

Axius

15

.987

124

.970

32

.997

SRL

27

.979

SRX

95

.996

Poly-SD CS
Poly-SD DH

Anderson Greenwood
Crosby JOS-E, JBS-E

MRK

Anderson Greenwood
Crosby 223/423/623/923

88

.991

MRK

Anderson Greenwood
Crosby
273/473/576/673/973

1.5

62

.988

White Paper

The set pressure of the rupture disc device is to be set in

accordance with the applicable legislative standards and
guidelines:
ASME VIII Division 1 UG-127 footnote 52 says:
.result in opening of the valve coincident with the
bursting of the rupture disk. For combination capacity
testing, ASME UG-132(a)(4)(a) says: The marked
burst pressure shall be between 90% and 100% of the
marked set pressure of the valve.
API RP520 paragraph 2.3.2.2.2 states: the specified
burst pressure and set pressure should be the same
nominal value.
EN ISO4126-3 paragraph 7.2 says: The maximum limit
of bursting pressureshall not exceed 110% of the
set pressure or a gauge pressure of 0.1 bar, whichever
is greater and The minimum limitshould not be less
than 90% of theset pressure.

CCF values higher than 0.90 may be used in certain cases

where specific testing has been done with a particular
combination of rupture disc and relief valve type. This is often
referred to as a certified combination capacity factor (CCCF).

While all statements are slightly different, the basic guidance

is the same: keeping the rupture disc specified burst pressure
and relief valve set pressure at the same nominal value
(ignoring tolerances) meets the intent of each of the standards
and is relatively easy to implement.

EN ISO 4126-3:
No certifying body or laboratory requirements
One size method and three size method are accepted
One size method is applicable to all combinations of the
same size and design of rupture disc and relief valve
equal to or above the tested pressure
Three size method is applicable to all combinations of
the same design of rupture disc and relief valve in all
sizes equal to or greater than the smallest tested size;
and pressures equal to or greater than the appropriate
minimum pressure for the size

The methods for establishing the CCCF vary based on the

applicable code and are summarized as follows:
ASME:
Testing must be done by an authorized testing
laboratory and results registered with the National Board
of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors
Testing of only one size is required to establish a CCCF
for a range of sizes
Testing with the smallest size and minimum
corresponding pressure covers all higher pressures in
that size and all sizes larger

There may be special cases where it is desirable to have

these pressures significantly different; in these cases the
user should carefully evaluate both the rupture disc and relief
valve function to insure that there are no adverse effects on
performance.
Sizing and Marking:
The process of sizing the relief valve is exactly the same for a
combination of rupture disc with relief valve as it is for a standalone relief valve, except the addition of the combination
capacity factor (CCF). This factor represents the ratio of the
capacity of the combination to the capacity of the valve alone.

Both ASME and EN/ISO have requirements for establishing

nameplate marking to reflect the capacity (or combination
capacity factor) of the combination, model and manufacturer
of both the rupture disc and relief valve. Although these
are requirements of both ASME and EN/ISO this nameplate
is rarely supplied because the components are generally
purchased independently with neither manufacturer aware of
the other.

CCF = Capacity of the Combination / Capacity Stand-alone

Relief Valve
The default CCF (Fd according to EN/ISO 4126-3) for most
codes is 0.90 (in other words, the combination is assumed
to have a capacity equal to 90% of the relief valve rated
capacity, if nothing more is known about the actual capacity).
EN ISO 4126-3 adds an additional condition on the use of the
default CCF and requires that the petal(s) of the rupture disc
be fully contained within the holder after rupture in order to
use the default CCF; otherwise a tested or certified value must
be used.

Why?
Creates added safety
Reduce cost of ownership & investment
Benefits/Considerations:
Higher reliability and cost savings
Reduction of emission

White Paper

B. Rupture disc downstream of relief valve

Prevent corrosion of the relief valve internals:

To avoid corrosion and the resulting need for inspection,
maintenance and repair of the relief valve, the use of
a downstream rupture disc can be considered. The set
pressure of this rupture disc needs to be low enough not to
affect the proper performance of the upstream relief valve.

The primary reasons for applying rupture discs downstream

of pressure relief valves are:

Prevent corrosion of relief valve

cc Prevent fouling or sticking of the relief valve
Prevent variable superimposed backpressure from
affecting relief valve
Detect opening or leakage of relief valve

Prevent back pressure from affecting relief valve

performance:
Where back pressure can be present the effects on the
performance of the relief valve needs to be considered.
This can be done by selecting relief valve attributes such as
balanced metallic bellows or using pilot-operated relief valves.
Such selections will have an economic impact and result in
the need for additional spare parts and/or maintenance. As
an alternative, the use of downstream rupture disc devices
installed at the relief valve outlet, prevents the relief valve
from being exposed to back pressure.

Figure 3: Rupture Disc at Relief Valve Outlet

Detect the leakage or activation of relief valve:

By detecting the rupture of the downstream rupture disc
device often done by means of burst detectors used as an
integral part of the rupture disc the plant operators can
be informed about the upset condition leading to blow off.
Where the interspaces between the relief valve outlet and
rupture disc is monitored, the leakage of the relief valve can
be detected and emissions avoided.
The use of rupture discs at the downstream side of relief
valves is relatively unknown but offers an array of benefits
and possibilities to the plant owner. The acceptable use of
this combination has to comply with following sizing and set
pressure requirements:

Prevent fouling/plugging of the relief valve:

Where relief systems are vented into a common header, the
risk exists that blow-down material may enter into the vent
side of the installed relief valves. Where such vented media
can result in either corrosion or polymerization, the external
side of the relief valve mechanism may be affected resulting
in failure to operate when required. By installing a rupture
disc device with suitable properties at the downstream
side of the relief valve, vented media is isolated from the
relief valve, therefore avoiding such effects, increasing the
reliability of the safety system and reducing the need for
inspection and maintenance. To ensure that the downstream
rupture disc will not impede the proper performance of the
relief valve the burst pressure of the rupture disc should
be as low as possible, whereas the provided minimum
net flow area of the rupture disc needs to be as at least
as large as the relief area of the relief valve outlet.

1. The minimum net flow area of the rupture disc

device installed at the relief valve outlet needs to be
equal or larger than the relief valve outlet relief area.
2. The burst pressure of the rupture disc needs to be as
low as practical to reduce any effect on the relief valve
performance.
3. Where applicable, the selected rupture disc needs
to be capable of withstanding the back pressures
expected from the effluent handling system.

White Paper

4. The opening of the rupture disc shall not impede with

the relief valve opening or performance.

and selection of low rupture disc burst pressures

are commonly used to meet these requirements.

5. The system design shall consider the adverse effects

of any leakage through the relief valve or through
the rupture disc to ensure performance and reliability.

7. The bonnet of a balanced bellows-type relief valve

shall be vented to prevent accumulation of pressure
in the bonnet and affecting relief valve set pressure.

6. The relief valve may not fail to open at the expected

opening pressure regardless of any backpressure that
may accumulate between the relief valve outlet and the
rupture disc. The space between the relief valve outlet
and the rupture disc shall be vented, drained or suitable
means shall be provided to ensure that an accumulation
of pressure does not affect the proper operation
of the relief valve. Venting, pressure monitoring,

Why?
Creates added safety
Reduce cost of ownership and investment
Benefits/Considerations:
Higher safety
Cost savings

ASME SECTION VIII, DIVISION 1 VS EN ISO 4126-3:

Compare and contrast the various requirements within the two major standards on the subject. Note the requirements of
API RP520 are taken directly from ASME Section VIII, Division 1.
Requirement

ASME Sect. VIII,

Div. 1 (API)

EN ISO 4126-3

Comments

Definition of a RD/PRV
combination

None

Rupture disc is within 5 pipe

diameters of the inlet of the PRV

If the RD is not within 5 pipe diameters then a

combination capacity factor is not applicable.

3% rule

Certified
Combination
Capacity Factor

Pressure drop between the vessel

The difference between flowing at nameplate
Pressure drop between the vessel and
capacity or some other maximum could be
and PRV inlet including the
PRV inlet including the effect of the
significant. i.e. what if the PRV is set well below
effect of the rupture disc shall
rupture disc shall not exceed 3% of the
the MAWP but sized to prevent exceeding 110%
not exceed 3% of the valve set
set pressure of the valve at maximum
pressure at valve nameplate
of MAWP. It may be impossible to meet the ISO
flowing conditions.
flowing conditions.
requirements in this situation.
One size method applicable to all
sizes equal to and larger than the
tested combination

One size method for a single size or

three size method to be applied to
a family

Pursuit of the ISO 3 size combination capacity

factors is cumbersome due to the cost and
logistics. With a default of 0.9 the pay-back on 3
size testing is minimal.

Protrusion of petals
into valve

No specific requirement

Petals shall not protrude into the PRV

inlet unless the influence of the petals
Both codes use language prohibiting the RD to
on the capacity and
impair the performance of the PRV. The ISO
performance of the PRV has been
document seems to take a firm stand on the petal
assessed and proven to meet the
protrusion issue but points to Clause 7 which
allows a default CCF (Fd) of 0.9.
requirements of Clause
7. (Combination Performance)

Documentation of the
combination

Nameplate marking
for the combination
provided by the User, PRV mfr,
RD mfr, or vessel mfr.

Supplier of the combination shall

provide the nameplate, certification,
In both codes there are gaps in these
assy & installation instructionstaking requirements. In practice these requirements are
into account the results of a hazards
rarely followed.
analysis.

10

White Paper

Frequently Asked Questions

4. Conclusions

Q1 Can a composite rupture disc with a fluoropolymer (or other

elastomer) seal or a scored rupture disc with a fluoropolymer
liner be used at the inlet of a relief valve?

Pressure relief solutions are common in industry processes

to assure that the investments are protected and a safe
working environment is created. Most commonly used
devices to offer pressure safety are selected on the basis
of specific requirements for the applications. Relief valves
and rupture (bursting) discs are mostly specified, each
offering their specific features and considerations and
providing the system designer viable solution choices.

A1 When a disc with a fluoropolymer seal or liner bursts the fluoropolymer

breaks apart and discharges out of the relief valve. However, there is
a chance that the fluoropolymer will hang up and become trapped in
the valve seat when it re-closes, resulting in a leak. Since re-closing is
often an important part of the relief valve performance, the conservative
answer is no. If leak-tight re-closing is not important for the application
then this type of rupture disc may be acceptable.
Q2 I am using the default combination capacity factor of 0.90
to determine the capacity of my combination. Do I have to also
worry about the relief valve inlet line loss calculation? It seems
like Im being penalized twice for using the rupture disc.

The use of rupture discs in combination with relief valves

can be done in several geometries and combinations. These
configurations offer a wide range of benefits to the user;
environmental, cost reduction, emission control, higher
safety/reliability levels and improved performance of the
plant safety systems are a direct result. Process system
designers need to evaluate the individual effects and make
a selection of what geometry works best for the individual
plant requirements. Industry standards and legislations are
in place to assure that safe solutions are effectively used.
In most applications the combined solution of rupture discs
and relief valves offer more value for more benefits a true
definition of more for more.

A2 Yes, ASME Code Interpretation VIII-1-98-43 requires that the rupture

disc be considered when calculating the inlet line loss.
Q3 How do I manage the difference in rupture disc burst pressure
and the relief valve set pressure given the manufacturing range,
rupture tolerance and set pressure tolerance?
A3 The easiest way is to specify the rupture disc and pressure relief
valve at the same nominal pressure and order the rupture disc with
zero manufacturing range. The resulting differences in set pressure
tolerances are insignificant.
Q4 The certified combination capacity factor that I want to use
was based on a 1 @ 45 psig test series but my application is
for a 4 @ 25 psig. Can I still use this CCCF even though it is at
a lower pressure than what was tested?

Where needed pressure relief specialists are available

to assist in determining the best way forward.
(See www.fike.com)

A4 No. The minimum set pressure tested during certification tests is the
minimum pressure that may be used for all sizes equal to and larger than
the size tested. The established CCCF cannot be used for pressures lower
than tested in the same size and the CCCF cannot be used for any sizes
smaller than the test series size regardless of pressure.

Additional Important Technical Readings Available:

Fike Technical Bulletin TB8103
Fike Technical Bulletin TB8105
Fike Technical Bulletin TB8100
Roger Bours
Pressure Relief Sales Manager
Roger Bours, MSc, has been the Pressure Relief Sales and Product Manager
for Fike Corporations European base in Herentals, Belgium for nearly 30
years. Roger is extremely knowledgeable in pressure relief solutions for
a wide range of applications and industries. He specializes in engineered
solutions with extended knowledge in industry needs and requirements.
Roger is the author on multiple technical papers, white papers and
articles, and regularly conducts workshops on pressure relief applications,
requirements and issues.

He is active in international standardization committees, including:

ISO TC185 Pressure Relief Devices
(Belgian representative since 1986)
CEN0 TC 69 WG10 SG2 Bursting Disc Devices
(Belgian representative since 1990)
CEN TC 69 WG10 SG3 Bursting Disc Devices in Combination with
Safety Relief Valves (Convenor since 1996)
CEN TC 305 WG3 Explosion Venting Devices & Systems
(Belgian representative since 1998)

Fike Europe Fike Europe B.v.b.a. Toekomstlaan 52, 2200 Herentals Belgium Tel: +32-14-210031 Fax: +32-14-210743

Copyright 2013, Fike Corporation.

All rights reserved. Form No. IPGWP-003 0513

11