API Standard 520 - Sizing, Selection, & Installation of Pressure Relieving Devices

Part I, Sizing & Selection

Last update: November 23, 2004
Standard Section Inquiry # Question Reply
520 Part I 6th - Mar. 3.2 520-I-03/00 Question #1: How much greater can be the actual orifice area Reply #1: API recognizes that using the effective “D” through “T” orifice
1993 multiplied by the actual coefficient of discharge, i.e. will the sizes can result in oversized valves, since after calculation of the
actual flow rate of an orifice E be exactly that computed by required area, the next largest effective orifice size is typically chosen.
formulas in API 520, or will it be greater? Manufacturer’s pressure relief valves will typically provide greater
capacity than the capacity calculated with the API formulas using the
effective orifice area and effective coefficient of discharge.

Question #2: What is the allowed over-discharge rate? Reply #2: There are no established guidelines that limit the amount of
over-sizing allowed.

520 Part I 7th - Jan. 3.3.3.1 520-I-01/03 Question 1: Is this a correct interpretation of Section 3.3.3.1.3 in Reply 1: Yes. The latest revision to RP 520 Part 1 is intended to
2000 that the backpressure was specified to not exceed the allowable permit the backpressure for a conventional pressure relief valve to go
overpressure? up to but not exceed the allowable overpressure. For cases such as
the fire case, and as shown in your examples, a backpressure over
10% is permissible.

Question 2: If my interpretation of 3.3.3.1.3 is correct, would Reply 2: API cannot respond to this question as it is outside the scope
relief valve manufacturers be required to test their relief valves of RP 521. You should contact ASME for an interpretation.
at 21% overpressure with 21% backpressure in order to offer a
certified and ASME coded/stamped relief valve? My concern
here is to clarify under what circumstances this section may be
invoked if there is a restricted opportunity to take advantage of
its benefits due to lack of capability from relief valve
manufacturer

520 Part I 7th - Jan. 3.6.1.4 520-I-02/03 Background: Equation 3.1 in 3.6.1.4 gives a formula for Referring to 3.6.2.1.2, while ideal gas law behavior (with compressibility
2000 calculating critical flow ratio in terms of "k", which is defined as factor, Z, included) is generally acceptable for the majority of refinery
the ratio of specific heat for any ideal gas. I also see that the applications, Appendix B should be referred to for unusual situations in
ratio of Cp/Cv is being used in calculating F2 in 3.6.3.1 (Equations which deviation from ideal behavior is significant.
3.5 thru 3.7).

Question: Can Equation 3.1 be used, with k being the ratio of

ideal gas specific heats, even if the relieving vapor is non-ideal
with a compressibility factor Z = 0.75 (far from ideal)?

520 Part I 7th - Jan. 3.6.2.2 520-I-03/03 Referring to 3.6.2.2, the stated requirements in the example No. Although your observations are correct, the purpose of the
2000 indicate a C4/C5 hydrocarbon mixture with a molecular weight of example problem was to demonstrate the use of the critical flow
vapor of 65. It appears that the relieving conditions posed in the equation. The API Subcommittee on Pressure-Relieving Systems
example would be such that the hydrocarbon mixture would be a recognizes the inconsistency with the operating conditions postulated in
liquid at the inlet instead of a vapor. Are the conditions given in the example problem. The example will be revised in the Eighth
3.6.2.2 correct? Edition of RP 520 Part I to eliminate this confusion.
 API Standard 520 - Sizing, Selection, & Installation of Pressure Relieving Devices
Part I, Sizing & Selection
Last update: November 23, 2004
Standard Section Inquiry # Question Reply
520 Part I 6th - Mar. 4.3.2 520-I-01/00 Section 4.3.2 recommends that one should use the k (Cp/Cv) at Section 4.3.2 of the seventh edition (January 2000) of API RP 520 Part
1993 60oF & atm. pressure, or (for hydrocarbon gases) the isentropic 1 recommends that the ratio of specific heats, k, in the sizing equations
coefficient from Appendix E. (I have seen the technical should be determined at the inlet relieving conditions. This is a
interpertation on your site about Appendix E being perhaps departure from previous editions which always said that k should be
incorrect - that is not the question.) Does this paragraph mean to based on standard conditions (i.e. 60oF and atmospheric pressure). It
exclude the possibility of using k (Cp/Cv) at actual inlet is the committee’s opinion that k based on actual inlet conditions will
conditions? This will give a different C than the 60 oF k, in some give a better answer and should be used whenever the data is
cases a higher C meaning a higher flow through the valve. available. The ratio of specific heats, k, for most gases will become
unstable near the critical point, and therefore the committee cautions
users when the inlet conditions are near the critical point. Table 7
provides k values for some common gases at standard conditions. If
the k at standard conditions are used, the resulting answer should be
conservative.

520 Part I 7th - Jan. 4.3.2 520-I-01/01 Section 4.3.2 of the seventh edition (January 2000) of API RP The ratio of specific heats, k, for most gases will become unstable near
2000 520, Part I recommends that the ratio of specific heats, k, in the the critical point, and therefore the committee cautions users when the
critical flow sizing equations should be determined at the inlet inlet conditions are near the critical point. Table 7 provides k values for
relieving conditions. This is a departure from previous editions some common gases at standard conditions. If the k at standard
which always stated that k should be based on standard conditions is used, the resulting answer should be conservative.
conditions (i.e. 60°F and atmospheric pressure). It is the
committee’s opinion that k based on actual inlet conditions will The example calculations on page 44 and 45 do use the standard k
give a better answer and should be used whenever the data is values from Table 7. The committee will consider making changes to
available? the text as well as the example problems to make it clearer to the
reader that the actual values should be used and that the use of
standard values as provided in Table 7 will be conservative in most
cases.

520 Part I 7th - Jan. 4.3.2.1 520-I-02/00 Question 1: Since the effective coefficient of discharge Reply 1: Per API RP520 Part 1, “The effective orifice size and effective
2000 (according 4.3.2.1 API 520) is 0.975, the effective discharge area coefficient of discharge specified in API Standards are assumed values
(according 1.2.2.3 API 520) should be (0.790*0.960)/0.975=0.777. used for initial selection of a pressure relief valve size from
Is this correct? In this case, is it possible to designate the configurations specified in API STD526, independent of an individual
orifice as a "G" orifice (according table 1 API 526) even if the valve manufacturer’s design. In most cases, the actual area and the
actual flow capacity is 0.777/0.503=1.545 times the actual flow of rated coefficient of discharge for an API letter orifice valve are designed
an orifice area of 0.503 (orifice "G"). so that the actual certified capacity meets or exceeds the capacity
calculated using the methods presented in API RP520.”
Question 2: The same valve has an actual liquid discharge
coefficient of 0.690. Since the actual orifice area is 0.790, which For preliminary sizing purposes, API assumes effective values for the
is the standard effective orifice area for liquids ("H"=0.785 sq.in. coefficient of discharge and the orifice area. These effective values are
or "G"=0.503 sq.in.)? not actual values. They allow the user to determine a PRV size
(including the inlet and outlet size and face to face dimensions) prior to
purchasing a specific manufacturer’s valve. For vapor services, API
assumes an effective coefficient of discharge of 0.975. The effective
orifice areas are the common “D” through “T” orifice sizes as specified
in API STD 526. For example, the “G” orifice has an effective area of
0.503 inches.
 API Standard 520 - Sizing, Selection, & Installation of Pressure Relieving Devices
Part I, Sizing & Selection
Last update: November 23, 2004
Standard Section Inquiry # Question Reply
520 Part I 7th - Jan. D.2.1 520-I-04/02 Background: RP 520, Part I, Section D.2.1 requires the upstream Although several of the equations presented in Appendix D allow
2000 condition be taken into account when calculating the required calculation of the required area of the relief device using only properties
area of a relief valve in a two-phase flashing flow application. of the fluid at the inlet conditions, the two-phase methodology does take
There is no consideration for the portion of the inlet liquid that into consideration the effect of liquid that flashes across the valve.
flashes through the relief valve during depressuring.

Question: Should the downstream condition also be considered

when sizing for a two-phase flashing flow application?

520 Part I 7th - Jan. D.2.3.1 520-I-02/01 Question #1: Section D.2.3.1, Step 2, states that equation D.14 Reply #1: Yes. Equation D.15 should be viewed as a "universal" sizing
2000 shall be used for systems that satisfy all the following equation that applies to all systems, whether or not they meet all, some,
conditions: or none of the conditions listed for Equation D.14. Equation D.14 may
be used in lieu of Equation D.15 only for systems that meet all of the
a. Contains less than 0.1 wt% hydrogen. above conditions if its use is more convenient. The currently available
b. Nominal boiling range less than 150 °F. process simulators allow calculating the required parameters for use in
c. Either Pvo/Po less than 0.9 or Pgo/Po greater than 0.1. Equation D.15, and could eliminate the need for Equation D.14.
d. Far from its thermodynamic critical point (Tr = 0.9 or Pr = 0.5).

I assume that equation D.15 may be used for a system satisfying

all the above constraints as well. Is this assumption valid?

Question #2: Can we infer from D.2.1.1, Step1 that the method
and therefore equation D.3 is not valid for multi-component Reply #2: No. Equations D.3 and D.9 are valid for all multi-component
systems near the thermodynamic critical point? systems regardless of nominal boiling range and proximity to the
thermodynamic critical point. They are also the only valid equations for
multi-component systems having a boiling range in excess of 150 oF,
and for single component systems near the thermodynamic critical point
(Tr greater than 0.9 or Pr greater than 0.5).
Question #3: Can we infer from D.2.2.1, Step1, that the method
and therefore equation D.9 is not valid for multi-component Reply #3: No. Equations D.3 and D.9 are valid for all multi-component
systems near the thermodynamic critical point? systems regardless of nominal boiling range and proximity to the
thermodynamic critical point. They are also the only valid equations for
multi-component systems having a boiling range in excess of 150 oF,
and for single component systems near the thermodynamic critical
point (Tr greater than 0.9 or Pr greater than 0.5).

520 Part I 6th - Mar. D.5 520-I-04/99 In D.5.1 and D.5.2.1, should the contribution from the unwetted Yes, either the vapor thermal expansion relief load or the boiling liquid
1993 surface area be included when determining the fire relief vaporization relief load, but not both, should be used.
requirement of vessels containing some liquid?
 API Standard 520 - Sizing, Selection, & Installation of Pressure Relieving Devices
Part I, Sizing & Selection
Last update: November 23, 2004
Standard Section Inquiry # Question Reply
520 Part I 6th - Mar. D.5.1 There are two formulae in Section D.5.1 to calculate the heat A typical process plant with sewers to collect flammable liquids, a fire
1993 absorption across the wetted surface of a vessel.  One should be water system, and some type of fire brigade would be an example of a
used "when there are prompt fire-fighting efforts and drainage of facility with good drainage and prompt fire fighting.   A pressure storage
flammable materials away from the vessel."   The other formula vessel (e.g., an LPG sphere) in an unattended remote location would
should be used "where adequate drainage and fire-fighting be an example where you might expect inadequate drainage and less-
equipment do not exist."  Could you please give us examples of than-prompt fire fighting.  Based on the brief description of your facility,
these two conditions.  Would a well-maintained petrochemical it would appear that you could use the heat input equation with the
plant process area built in the late 60s and with normal fire-water lower factor (21,000).  However, that judgement is yours to make.
supply, monitors, and hydrants, be considered under the first
category and by that using the equation with the lower factor?

520 Part I 6th - Mar. D.5.2.1 520-I-04/00 Background: Preparing the calculation of a fire case following The heat absorption equations for fire relief sizing, formally in RP 520,
1993 technical discrepancy came to my attention. The determining Part I (Section D.5), were moved to RP 521, Guide for Pressure-
relief case for my calculation shall be a knock-out drum filled Relieving and Depressuring Systems, Fourth Edition, March 1997. The
with liquid hydrocarbons and fire. In D.5.2.1 of API 520, Part I, a equations for the effective discharge area and the relief load are now
simple formula is given for the calculation of the discharge area. Equations 5 and 8 respectively in Section 3.15.2.1.2 of RP 521.
However this formula is applicable for unwetted surface of, and a
gas containing vessel. In RP 521, Section 3.15.2.1.2, the same If the knock-out drum contains liquids that boil at relieving pressure
formula is given for application on super-critical fluids. (121% of the MAWP for the fire scenario), then the size of the relief
device should be based on the fire heat flux using equations 2/3 or 4 in
Question: Can formula D-3 or 5 be used in my relief case? 3.15.2.1.1 (whichever appropriate for your situation) along with
guidance given in 3.15.3. In certain cases, the normal operating
pressure may be below the thermodynamic critical conditions but the
relieving pressure is supercritical. In such cases, the guidance given in
3.15.2.1.2 can be used to size the relief device.

520 Part I 6th - Mar. D.6.2 The last paragraph of Appendix D, Section D.6.2 of API Standard This discussion is directed towards vessels which are liquid-full, the
1993 520 states, "Should a pressure relief device be located in the most common concern, although it would be possible to have a
liquid zone of a vessel exposed to fire conditions, the pressure comparable situation without a liquid-full vessel.  Normally when
relief device must be able to pass a volume of liquid equivalent designing a relief valve for fire conditions in a vessel, the most desirable
to the displacement caused by vapor generated by the fire."  I location for the relief valve is in either the top head (vertical vessel) or
would ask for further clarification of the meaning of the part of on the overhead line from the vessel.  Should fire occur a small amount
the sentence in italics.   I have spoken to a manufacturer of of liquid would be relieved which would create a vapor space in the
safety relief valves and they are also unable to fully understand vessel.   At this point, vapor would be generated due to the fire which
the text. would be relieved.   If the location of the relief valve is located
somewhere else on the vessel such as on the vessel itself, but on the
side of the vessel well below the liquid level or on the feed line if the
feed is liquid, then to relieve the pressure created by the fire, the
relieving fluid would have to be liquid.  This would be the case until
enough liquid is relieved to uncover the relief valve.  At this point, vapor
would be relieved.   Since in almost all cases, vapor will be generated
as soon as enough space is available for vapor to form,
to relieve the pressure on the vessel as stated in RP 520, "the
pressure relief device must be able to pass a volume of liquid
equivalent to the displacement caused by vapor generated by the fire."
 API Standard 520 - Sizing, Selection, & Installation of Pressure Relieving Devices
Part I, Sizing & Selection
Last update: November 23, 2004
Standard Section Inquiry # Question Reply
520 Part I 6th - Mar. Appendix E I am using a commercial software product for analyzing our The approach that you used to determine the isentropic expansion
1993 PSV's and this software is using the charts in API 520 - Part I, coefficient is correct.  You used an equation of state and isentropically
Appendix E to determine the C factor.  This has resulted in C flashed the fluid to the downstream pressure.  (Use the critical back
factors much lower than typically observed when ideal gas pressure for critical flow applications.)  Knowing temperatures at two
behavior is assumed.  I tried to duplicate some of the isentropic pressures then allowed you to utilize the following equation to
coefficients given in Figure E-1 and could not do so.  My values determine "n." n = ln P2/P1/(ln P2/P1 - ln T2/T1) We have reproduced
for isentropic coefficients were calculated via the following your value of 1.05 for "n" for 3-Methyl Pentane at 200 psia using
equation: Isentropic Exponent = ln P2/P1/(ln P2/P1 - ln T2/T1) As simulation software. We have tried to reproduce the work that is
a test, using the SRK equation of state, I used 3-methyl pentane currently presented in Appendix E related to the isentropic expansion
as a typical paraffinic component, isentropically expanded it coefficient and have also failed to obtain agreement with the curves
from its dewpoint at 200 psia to 30 psia which resulted in a flash provided. We have subsequently removed the curves from the next
temperature of 268 degrees F. Inserting these values into the revision of RP 520 Part I and are only providing guidance as to how the
above equation gives a value for the coefficient of 1.05. Used of coefficient should be determined. At this time, the task force cannot
Chart E-1 yields a coefficient of 0.76. Could you please look into recommend use of the curves presented in Appendix E.
this issue for me?