CH-09-061 Pressure Relief Device Capacity Determination Douglas T. Reindl, PhD, PE Fellow ASHRAE ABSTRACT ‘Pressure relief valves are the primary component in an engineered safery system intended to prevent the catastrophic failure of refrigeration equipment due to overpressure condi- tions that ean occur during abnormal standby or operating ‘excursions. ASHRAE Standard 15 (ASHRAE 2007) prescribes ‘methods fordetermining the mass flow rate (eapacity) require- ments for pressure relief devices aimed at protecting the pres ‘sure vessels and positive displacement compressors used in refrigeration systems. With the good intention of enhancing system safety, designers, contractors, or owners often install relief devices on other types of refrigeration equipment that may include: heat exchangers, piping and pumps. Unfortu- nately, the sizing and selection of pressure relief devices in these situations often occurs without the use of a clear and consistent basis; thereby, decreasing rather than increasing system safety This paper reviews the pressure relief valve sizing meth- odologyfor vessels and presents approaches for reliefeapacity determination applicable for other types of refrigeration equipment not explicitly covered in ASHRAE 15 including ofl ‘separators, shell-and-tube heat exchangers, plate-and-fiame heat exchangers, oil cooling heat exchangers, and product ‘storage tanks. One ofthe principle airs ofthis paper is todocu= ‘menta basis for relief device capacity determination to ensure these types of protected components remain safe during abnor ‘al excursions that can Tead to high pressures. Although the ‘methods presented in this paper are intended to apply across wide range of refrigeration equipment and operating condi- tions, itis nat possible to neatly prescribe relief device sizing and selection eriteria to cover all situations. As such, the use Todd B. Jekel, PhD, PE ‘Member ASHRAE of sound engineering principles and the application of engi- neering juclgment should be always expected. INTRODUCTION Pressure relief devices need to have sufficient mass flow carrying capability (capacity) to limit the pressure rise in @ protected component to prevent its catastrophic failure, The ‘minimum required relief device capacity will depend on the specific component being protected and the scenarios under which overpressure is being created, Although the maximum ielief device capacity is not limited by codes and standards, over-sizing relief valves should be avoided to prevent unstable relief device operation. ASHRAE Standard 15 provides simple method for capacity determination for both pressure vessels and positive displacement compressors (ASHRAE 2007). Because Stan- dard 15 isnot a design guide or handbook, it does not provide any additional information on other equipment where relief valves may be applied. In this paper, we present methods for relief device capacity determination intended for application ‘on equipment thats not presently discussed in codes and stan- dards including: oil separators, shell-and-tube heat exchang~ ers, plate-and-ftame heat exchangers, oil cooling heat exchangers, product storage tanks, and evaporative condens- ers. Our principle aim here is to document a basis for relief device capacity determination to insure these other types of protected components remain safe during abnormal operating ‘excursions that caa lead to high pressures, Although the meth- ‘ods presented inthis paper are intended to apply across a wide range of refigeretion equipment and operating conditions, it is impossible to neatly prescribe relief device sizing and selec- tion criteria to cover all situations. As such, the use of sound Douglas . Reindl isa profesor and director and Todd. Jekel is assistant director ofthe Industrial ReBigation Consortium at the University ‘of Wisconsin, Madison, WL ezanp ASHRAE, THIS PREPRINT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED IN PAPER OR DIGITAL FORM IN WHOLE OR IN PART ITS FOR OSSCUSSION PUROSES ONLY ‘arte 2000 ASH Wacien GONEERENCE. The eri! vorocn of Fis poper slong wn comments and auc responses wil be pubihed in ASHRAE Fae ae ae ip, ASMRAE mua ocehe wren qovafone Gr comments reparing ths pape’ by February 6, 209, I ey sre tobe nuded “ranean,Table 1. Summary of Conditions for Transient Analysis of Over-Pressurizing Oil Separators. Case Description Initial Conditions 1 ‘Booster compressor ol separator, idle and isolated prior 165 psig (11.4 bar) with a coincident gas temperature of to external heat addition '800°F (427°C) due to external heat addition 2 High stage compressor oil separator, operating prior 275 psig (19.0 bar with a coincident gus temperature of ‘tw isolation and external eat addition 515°F (268°C)due to extemal heat addition 5 High stage compressor oll separator, ile prior 275 psig (19.0 ba) witha coincident gas temperature of 1 isolation and external heat addition '570°F (299°C) due to external heat adlition cnginoaring principles and the application of engineering judgment should be always expected PRESSURE VESSELS ASHRAE 15 provides a prescriptive requirement for ‘determining the minimum capacity for pressure relief devices protecting pressure vessels. The besis for the pressure relief device capacity determination in ASHRAE is a fire condition with the heat generated from the fire radiating on a projected area ofthe vessel (i. the vessel isnot fully engulfed). If other hheat sources are present or contributing to the generation of | ‘vapor within the vessel, those need to be considered sepa- rately, Equation (1) shows the formule for determining the ‘minimum required capacity for pressure relief valves protect ing a pressure vessel (ASHRAE 15: §9.7.5). C= PDL @ where G = minimum required discharge capacity of the relief device expressed in lbm/nin of ait f= relif device eapacity factor that depends on refiigerant type and whether combustible materials axe in close proximity tothe pressure vessel (see ASHRAE 15 for capacity factor values) D = outside diameter ofthe vessal (R) iL = length of the vessel (ft) The coefficient, f, includes an overall heat transfer coef- ficient atsibutabe to radiation exchange from the fire condi- tion (Fenton and Richards, 2003), heat of vaporization fr the refrigerant (or other volatile fluid) contained within the vessel being protected, and the conversion of the refigerant mass flow rate to an equivalent air mass flow rate. The equivalent coveral heat transfer coefficient under this condition is just cover 9,000 Btwar-A (28 kWin?) OIL SEPARATORS ASHRAE 15 requires the application of pressure relief pprotectioa for vessels in accordance with Section VIII of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel code (§9.7.1). One of the kkey provisions for pressure vessel protection is included in 9.7.2 of ASHRAE Standard 15 which states: Pressure vessels containing liquid refrigerant and that are capable of being isolated by stop valves from other parts of areftigerating system shall be provided with overpres- sure protection. Pressure-relief devices or fusible plugs shall be sized in accordance with 9.7. ‘The reference to capacity determination with §9.7.5 is identical to that previously presented in Equation (1). Since ‘most oil separators, by their design and normal operation, will not contain liquid refrigerant — only liquid oil and reftigerant ‘vapor, there isa gap in the standard to guide the process of sizing pressure relief devices for oil separators. Note that regardless of whether or nota vessel contains liquid, pressure relief protection is required by Section VIII Division 1 of the ‘ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code, To assess the pressure relief capacity requirements of an oil separator, a transient analysis ofthe mass and energy flows associated with a pressure relief process for an oil separator ‘was conducted. The analysis compares relief capacities required to prevent overpressuring the oil separator with relief device sizing criteria previously given in Equation (1) for three alternative scenarios. Details of the governing equations used in the analysis are given by Reindl and Jekel (2006). Table 1 summarizes the cases analyzed and the initial conditions pres- entjust prior tothe elif valve protecting the oil separator its. Figure | shows the required time-dependent capacity for protecting the oil separator foreach ofthese three eases. In all situations, the maximum required relief capacity occurs early in the process and in all cases, the required capacity was less than that predicted by equation (1); consequently, the same basis for sizing relief valves to protect liquid reftigerant- containing vessels is recommended for oil separators. Cros =f Dob ® where Cos = minimum required discharge capacity of the relief evice protecting the ol separator (in Ib, min of ax) f= relief device capacity factor D_—— = outside diameter ofthe oll separator (8) L = length of he ol separator (8) cH-08-061,2 | & ena 250 Oe? Time 1 Figure 1 Time-dependent capacity required to prevent overpressuring an oil separator exposed to a 9,000 Bru/hr-f° (28 kW/m?) heat fluc. HEAT EXCHANGERS If a heat exchanger is built to the requirements of the ASME B&PV Code (Section VINI Division 1) and is physi- cally stamped as such, itrequires pressure reliefprotection per Section UG-125 of the B&PV Codie, In cases where conven- tional pressure relief protection is not required, it is often desirable to size a suitable “process” relief that will prevent coverpressuring the heat exchanger during abnormal condi- tions. The first step in determining the minimum required sass flow for elie protection is defining the scenarios ikely to cause the overpressure situation. The scenario previously discussed for vessels is etteibuted to an external heat load created by heat radiating from fire condition. Unlike vessel, hheat exchangers are susceptible to over-pressuring by internal heat loads from either product or other secondary fluid flow streams (eg. clean-in-place systems). In either situation, the key consideration for relief device sizing is determining the rate of eftgerant vapor production by evaporation which will bbe dependent on the heat load and the refrigerant properties (saturation pressure-temperature relationship and heat of vaporization). It is important to emphasize that for all of the cases considered, therate of refrigerant vapor production needsto be converted to an air mass flow since all of the relief devices are rated on an air basis as discussed by Reindl and Jekel (2008). ‘The sections that follow provide methods for relief capacity determination for different types of heat exchangers based on. scenarios that include extemal sources of heat addition (consistent with that assumed for pressure vessels) and alter- native sources for internal heat addition. cH-09-084, ‘The actual relief capacity should be based on the larger of these two scenarios. Shell-and-Tube Shell-and-tube heat exchangers are used in many reftig~ cration applications ranging from packaged chillers (as evap- orators and condensers for water-cooled units) to chillers in industrial refrigeration systems. With the exception of direct- ‘expansion shell-and-tube evaporators, the fluid being cooled (or heated) moves through the tube-side of the heat exchanger ‘while zeftigerent evaporates (or condenses) on the shell-side. Virtually all of today's shell-and-tube heat exchangers are builtas ASME-rated pressure vessels. When the shell-side of | the heat exchanger is configured to contain liquid refrigerant and is eapable of being isolated by stop valves from other parts of the system, they are subject to the provisions of §9.7.2 in ASHRAE Standard 15 (2007) which requires application of pressure relief protection sized in accordance with Equation o, Generally speaking, industrial shell-and-tube heat ‘exchanger designs include a surge drum positioned above the shell which cannot be isolated from the heat exchanger (chiller barrel), Figure 2 shows the field installation of this type of shell-and-tube chiller typically found in industrial reftigera~ tion systems In this case, the required capacity due to an exter- ‘nal heat load is calculated by the sum of the capacities determined from each the heat exchanger shell and the surge rum, Ifthe surge drum is capable of being isolated apart from. ‘the chiller barrel, each should be fitted with pressure relief protection separately with individual capacities determined based on respective vessel sizes. Figure 3 shows the key dimensions for a flooded shell- ‘and-tube chiller equipped with a horizontal surge drum that forms the basis for relief device capacity determination duc to ‘external heat load as follows: C2 F Oy by*Dy hy) o wher: ©, ~ minimum requieddssharge expect ofthe elie? device (Ib/nin of ai) J = rele device capaci ctor (b/min of airper of projected area) D, = outside diameter of the main vessel portion ofthe shell-and-tube heat exchanger (A) L, = length ofthe main vessel portion of the shell-and- tube heat exchanger (ft) D, = outside diameter of surge drum (ft) Lz = length of surge drum (A) In addition to the pressure relief capacity determination for shell-and-tube chillers estimated by Equation (3), it is mportantto consider other scenarios that have the potential to. generate refigerant vapor internally which can lead to over- pressure situations in the het exchanger. Most other scenarios 3Relist vanes ‘Surge crum Chiles barre Figure 2 Field-installation of a shell-and-tube chiller in an industrial refrigeration system, involve alternate means of thermal energy input to the heat exchanger when the reftigerant side of the chiller has been isolated from the refrigeration system but the secondary fluid side remains active. Examples of thermal loads that could generate excessive pressure in a shell-and-tube heat exchanger may include but are not limited to product loads and clean-in- place (CIP) loads, Of primary concem are those thermal energy sources ‘whose temperatures that exceed the saturation temperature corresponding to the heat exchanger’s maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) or pressure relief device set pres- sure. If the maximum fluid-side supply temperature is less than the saturation temperature corresponding to the heat cexchanger's MAWP, the pressure relief capacity can be deter- ‘mined by Equation (3) Ifthe maximum fTuid-side temperature {s greater than the saturation temperature corresponding to the heat exchanger’s MAWP, vapor generation rates based on the “intemal loads” should be estimated to determine if larger relief device capacity requirement results Since itis not possible to prescribe a relief device sizing strategy to address all possible operating scenarios that could lead to an overpressure situation, good engineering analysis and judgment are essential in addressing relief protection for this type of equipment. The approach presented here is intended to be illustrative of the process that can be followed in establishing pressure relief requirements for specific situa- tions. ‘The firststep in the process of considering an intemal heat load scenario that could generate an overpressure situation is to evaluate the normal capacity ofthe heat exchanger. Thenext 4 Figure 3 Illustration of key dimensions for relief capacity determination for sheil-and-tube chiller equipped with a surge drum. step is to estimate the heat exchanger’s capacity under the adverse load condition and determine the corresponding rate of refrigerant vapor generation, Lastly, the predicted rate of reftigerant vapor generation is converted to an equivalent air ‘mass flow rate to allow relief device selection, Determining the rate of refrigerant vapor produetion ean be accomplished by solving a system of equations that char- acterize the equipment heat transfer performance, as given by Equation (4), and the balance of both refrigerant-side and Fluid-side energy flows as given by Equations (5) and (6), respectively, The system of governing equations is as follows. Q = vA-uerD Cy taro = Teas Tpon) a wf estate] a a Q ™ tirana p,paia” Tres supply) (6) D * tinesrigerant’ Uvapor.sat™ iiguidsat) aM where @ beat exchanger heat x (Bruin) u overall heat transfer coeficien-aea produet (Btu'min-*F) LMID log mean temperature difference (°F) Tre load-side heat exchanger secondary uid return temperature *F) Tagg, > ‘lads heat exchanger secondary fhid supply temperature CF) Treienon —_‘efigran saturation temperatre (F) hye ‘Secondary fluid mass flow rate (Iby/min) cH02.061Std = secondary fuid heat capacity (Btu/bg-*F) ae effigerant vapor generation rate (Ib,y/min) ieee saturated vapor setigerant enthalpy atthe fully accumulated relief device set presure (Brlh,) Iugadon =. saturated liquid refrigerant enthalpy at fully accumulated relief device set pressure (Btw/lb,,) In a liquid-containing heat exchanger, the reftigerant temperature (Typigeran) 18 assumed to be the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure relief device set (opening) pressure. The enthalpy of vaporization Chypocsy = Ihngtdag) fr the reftigerat-sde energy balance is evaluated at the pressure relief device set pressure as well. The return fui temperature to the heat exchanger (Try) is estimated based on the load which sa function ofthe fuid flow rate and return fuid from process, CIP set temperature, ete. The mass ow rate of fluid on the load-side of the heat exchanger (anna) required a wellas the load-side uid heat capacity (ppd ‘The nominal valve of the heat exchanger's overall heat ‘ransfer-area product (UA) isbased on design operating ondi- tions. Equation (4) is used to estimate a nominal or design UA. ‘Once anominal or design UA is established, it can be adjusted ‘oreorected for usein estimating thereftigerant vapor produc- tion rate arising in an overpressure situation, For example, if te fiuid-side flow rate would be expected to vary fiom the design condition, the following relationship based on the Dittus-Boelter turbulent heat transfer correlation coulé be used to predict a modified UA based on an alternative fuid- side flow rate, ua! = UA {jeu {} ® ‘where: Ud = nominal overall heat transfer coefficient-area product (Btu/min-"F) UA! = modified overall heat transfer coefficient-area product (Btumin-"F) Pe Prandtl number for fluid used to establish the nominal UA (-) Pr’ = Prandtl number for fuid used to establish the modified UA") Inaddition, Equation (8) accommodates changesin work- ing fluids when transitioning from a design load condition to a different working fluid that may arise and create an over- pressure situation (eg. changing fom a uid beverage daring foad conditions to a CIP solution ducing clean-up) tha forms the bass for sizing pressure relief protection for the heat exchange. “The above-mentioned known information Tepe AnposanBiqidsop Ter fd pas #4 UA) c30 be wsES to simultaneously solve Equations (4), (6), and (7) to find the ‘cH-00-061 remaining three unknown vatiables:iepigerens Tagpiy and © The quantity of interest is the refrigerant vapor ow rat, "Brergeran Which represents the mass flow of vapor gener- ated during the overpressure scenszio. Once obtained, the resulting refrigerant mass flowrate must then be converted an ‘equivalent mass flow rat for ar using the following relation- ship (ASHRAE IS Appendix F): ¢ 7 ©, tnepegeran’ Te , oO se 8s00 C, igerant A Tae’ Mraprigerant “Appendix F of ASHRAE 15 (2007) assumes a reftigerant temperature of $10°R [283 K] and an air temperature of 520°R [289 K]. Appendix F lists values of the constants, C,j, and Cyebigounn for a number of different refrigerants. The calcu- lated ait mass flow based on the estimated refrigerant vapor mass flow represents the minimum required relief capacity for the internal loed scenario, Plate-and-Frame ‘A technology that is rapidly penetrating the refrigeration sarket for process fluid cooling is the plat-and-frame heat exchanger. These hea transfer devices canbe configured to be reftigerant-fed by direct-expansion, gravity looded recireu- lation, or overfed liquid recirculation. Figure 4 shows the field installation of a gravity flooded plate-and-frame heat ‘exchanger in an industrial chiller application. Notice that both the liquid supply and the vapor return from the plate heat exchanger have globe isolation valves which permit “valving out” the heat exchanger from the surge drum. In nearly all circumstances, the surge drum will be an ASME-rated vessel and, oftentimes, the plate heat exchanger will also be ASME- stamped. In this ease both the surge drum vessel and the heat Figure 4 Field-installation of a gravity flooded recirculating plate-and-frame chiller in an industrial system.exchanger will require separate pressure relief protection. The issue then becomes determining capacity of the pressure rele? protection for each. ‘The method outiined in ASHRAF 15 §9.7.5 (which is Equation (1) in this paper) is appropriate for sizing the pres- sure relief devices forthe surge drum. The next question is: whats the appropriate method for sizing relief valves prote: ing the plate heat exchanger? The sizing pressure relief protection fora plate heat exchanger pack should consider the nature of thermal energy input to the heat exchanger under isolation conditions. The thermal load that could generate excessive pressure due to extemal inca load ftom a fie ot intemal load as discussed previously Extending the analogy ofan extemal heat load froma fire condition a8 used on vessels, one could define a maximum projected area ofthe plate pack as shown in Figure 5. ‘The minimum required relief device capacity fortheplate heat exchanger based on this scenario then becomes: Crptarna = fA + WP (19) where Cpiae soe ~ minimum required rele device capacity for plate hea exchanger (l/min of at) f 1 ele device capacity fetor L = length ofthe plate pai (F) " width of the plate pack (8) H = height ofthe plate pack (8) For situations that lead to overpressure from “intemal” heat Joads on the heat exchanger, one has to evaluate the ‘magnitude of the expected load and translate that load into a En Arse Figure 5 Plate-and-frame heat exchanger projected area for pressure relief capacity determination ‘based on an external heat load input. refrigerant mass flow rate that would result from vaporizing, liquid reftigerant within the plate pack. The refrigerant flow rate must then be converted to an equivalent air mass flow rete ‘to maintain consistency with the sizing process and selection, of pressure relief devices on otler equipment. The methodol- ogy for relief capacity determination due to internal heat loads for plate-type heat exchangers is identical to that presented above for shell-and-tube heat exchangers. il Cooling Heat Exchangers The screw compressors used in industrial refrigeration systems are frequently being equipped with thermosiphon oil coolers. A thermosiphon oil cooling heat exchanger is, typi- cally, a shell-and-tube heat exchanger that rejects heat from the oil to high pressure refrigerant as shown in Figure 6. The oil cooling heat exchanger receives retum hot oil fom the screw compressor's oil separator at a temperature near the ‘compressor's discharge temperature (~185°F fora high stage ammonia machine) and rejects its heat to a high pressure reftigerant stream flowing through the tube-side to reduce the cil to a desired supply temperature (~130°F) before being delivered back into the compressor. ‘The capacity of relief valves for the reftigerant-side of a thermosiphon oil cooler should be determined based on the ‘maximum rate of reftigerant vapor generated within the oil cooler driven by heat input from likely scenarios that could contribute to overpressure conditions on the refrigerant-side of the oil cooler. At a minimum, itis recommended that the following two scenarios be considered for oil cooler relief protection (reffigerant-side): etn ton Sup catin ae shemmesthen ‘sen Tonio le escent Figure 6 Installation ofrelief protection on an industrial ‘win serew compressor package thermosiphon oil cooling heat exchanger cH.08-061,External heat input: Equation (1) for shell-and-tube oi coolers or equation (10) for plate oil coolers. Internal heat input: Refigerent vapor generated by the oil cooling loads at design compressor operating condi- tions at either normal or elevated oil supply temperatures. ‘The first scenario is relevant ina fire condition where the external heat load evaporates refrigerant within the oil cooler leading to an overpressure condition. Since oil coolers tend to be small heat exchangers (i.e. theirprojected area issmall), the cepacity based on method (2) above will be low. ‘The second scenario, (b), can occur when a thermosiphon cil-cooled screw compressor package is started while the reftigerant-side of the oil cooler is isolated (valved-out). In this case, the compressor will operate and reject heat to the oil cooler resulting in an increasing supply oil temperature back to the compressor over time, As the compressor continues to ‘operate and reject a portion ofits heat of compression through its oil to the oil cooling heat exchanger, a point will be reached ‘when the on-board compressor safeties shutdown the unit on high oil temperature. A typical screw compressor package high oil temperature cut-out is approximately 205°F [96°C] ‘The saturation pressure corresponding to areftigeranttemper- ature equal to the oil at its high temperature cut-out of 208°F [96°C] is 825 psig (forammonia). Since this pressures signif- icantly greater than the oil cooling heat exchanger's maximum allowable working pressure, the oil cooler will be subject to overpressure under this scenario, In the second scenario, (b), the mass flow rate of reftig- rant vapor generated on the reftigerant-side of an oil cooler in an overpressure situation is given by: Loc Tapersat™ Piqua ay i efrgeranoc where: Qoe = cil cooling heat load generated by the compressor operating at design suction pressure and discharge pressures with a corresponding supply oil temperature at the compressor high temperature cut- out limit (Brwimin) ‘= mass flow rate of retigerant vapor generated by the oil cooler (Ib,/min) Irponsat = saturated vapor refiigerant enthalpy at the fly accumulated relief device opening pressure (Btu) hte saturated liquid reftigerant enthalpy at the flly accumulated relief device ‘opening pressure (Btu) ‘The best source for determining the overpressure condi- tion oil cooling loads, Qoc, is by information provided from the compressor manufacturers. Some compressor manufactur- ers" computerized selection programs provide this informa- tion based on users inputting the design suction and discharge pressures along with oil supply temperatures. The program. cit08-061 returns the resulting oil cooling load under the modified (high oil supply temperature) conditions. Although there are no convenient rules-of-thumb for determining these altemate oil cooling loads, the following are observations on the general behavior ofthe ol cooling loads at elevated supply oil temper- atures, ‘As the supply oil temperature increases, the oil cooling load will decrease. The decrease in oil cooling loads at clevated supply oil temperatures is more dramatic at high reftigerant suction pressures. Table 2 shows an example of oil cooling loads over a range of suction pressures and supply oil temperatures ranging from normal (130°F) to a point where a high supply oil temperature cut-out will shutdown the compressor (205°F) for atypical screw compressor operating {nan industrial ammonia reftigeration system. The fraction of design oil cooling load at the overpressure condition ranges from 74% at a moderately low suction pressure (24 psia or 9 psig) to 49% at aligher suction pressure condition (49 psia or 134 psig). Booster loads show similar trends. Conservatively, the relief valve ean be sized based on the oil cooling heat ‘exchanger’s designed oil cooling load (without load reduction ddye to higher return oil temperatures), ‘The resulting oil cooling load at the elevated operating condition (Qj) can then by used to estimate the refrigerant ‘mass flow rate using Equation (11). Alternatively, the full oil cooling load can be taken for sizing the relief device. The refrigerant mass flow rate is then converted to an air basis using Equation (9); thereby permitting the selection of arelief device. Product Storage Tanks Product storage tanks, sometimes referred to as “silos,” are common in food plant applications of industrial rftiger- ation systems, This equipment frequently utilizes. jacket type heat exchanger to indirectly cool fluid product. The refriger- ‘ant-side of the product storage tank is often fed ditect-expan- sion or flooded; however, pumped liquid overfed arrangements are also possible. In cases where pressure relief protection is required for this equipment category, capacity determination needs to consider potential sources that can generate reftigerant vapor leading to an overpressure condition. Similar tothe other heat exchanger types, atleast two types of heat addition should be considered with the larger ofthe two taken for capacity deter- ‘mination, The fisstis an extension ofthe extemal heat addition due toa fire condition. In this case, the projected area used for relief device capacity determination is that of the heat ‘exchanger only—not of the entire producttank. Figure 7illus- trates a vertical product tank with a jacket heat exchanger located near the bottom of the tank. ‘The relief capacity determination based on an external heat load is given by: Cott LDH (ayHigh Stage and Booster Oil Cooling Loads at High Oil Supply Temperatures Mout Geary Cima _Taam|___Saetunnt ont 24 (10) 181 (95) 130 407 ‘Base meat me 1 ms 20 i185 10 » be stersngnin 390 ime 25 zm an om nao ne 10 v9 ben 200 ie as 2 aan a0 ne 10 xo ben ao in x us on 30 7a 0 = Ber 1029 00 me 0 o Bs Ba) v0 s ben moots 9D a 1 * winemer aaa) 120 a be ios) Po * en 7700 (a0 120 2 be Figure 7 Heat exchanger configuration for a product tank configured in a flooded arrangement. Cyuay = Minimum required discharge capacity of the relief devices protecting the product tank heat exchanger expressed in Ib,,/min of air lief device capacity factor nuside diameter of the product tank (ft) = height of the heat exchanger (ft) In neatly all cases, the heat exchanger is shielded by the outside jacket of the product tank making the exact determi- nation of its height difficult. As a result, the heat exchanger ‘height should be taken as the distance between the two refrig- rant connections on the tank (supply and return). ‘The second scenario for refrigerant vapor generation inthe heat exchanger arises during clean-in-place (CIP). Ideally, the designer should work with the silo orholding tank manufacturer ‘to obtain detailed information on the CIP cycle for determina- tion ofthe required relief capacity. Inthe absence of such infor- ‘mation, the rate of refrigerant vapor generation during CTP can be estimated as follows: oS 7 retgeran.ak 8 tigmacie’ Pawa.crp’ Thuis cre supts~ Tretaas) (13) Oraporsar~ Higntsza) ‘= mass flow rate ofreftigerant vapor generated in the heat exchanger (Ib, /min) refrigerant to product tank effectiveness (estimated as 0.2) i seprigeran sak cH09-061Hpuacr CW Suid mass flow rate (Iby/min) Ppuccr CIP Auid heat eapocity (approximated 5 1 Brllb,"F) Tpatcrrsgpty maximum Mud supply temperature during CIP CF) Tron = refigerat’s saturation temperature at ‘he relief valve set pressure (F) reponse saturated vapor reffigerant enthalpy at fully accumulated relief device set pressure @Baub,) Magis saturated liquid reftigerant enthalpy at fully accumulated relief device set pressure (Btwlb,) After determining the refrigerant mass flow rate, the relief device capacity (on an air-equivalent basis) is found by using Equation (9). The greater of these two capacities forms the basis for relief device selection for a product tank. CONCLUSIONS Safety relief systems are an important part of maintaining reftigeration system safety. Standards suchas ASHRAE Stan- dard 15 include prescriptive approaches for sizing pressure relief valves for vessels and positive displacement compres- sors; however, it does not include coverage of other related ‘equipment that may be fitted with pressure relief devices. In this paper, we present approaches for sizing pressure relief devices for oil separators, shell-and-tube heat exchangers, plate-and-frame heat exchangers, oil coolers, and jacketed product storage tanks. The sizing methods presented consider both sources of overpressure extemal tothe system as well as, ‘those internal tothe system. It is important that both sources be evaluated so a properly sized relief device can be applied, Undersizing pressure relief devices results in restricted vapor flow; thereby, increasing the risk of component failure during ‘operating excursions due to a much higher build-up of internal pressures. Oversizing pressure relief devices can lead to a rapid eyeling of relief device operation (chatter) with potential for relief device failure if allowed to persist. NOMENCLATURE “pasta secondary uid heat capacity Btullb,*F) Ppuacr clean-in-place fluid heat capacity Brullby"F) = minimum required discharge capacity ofthe relief device fora vessel (b,/min of ait) Cosa ‘= minimum required relief device capacity for plate heat exchanger (Iby/ rin of sit) ‘= minimum required discharge capacity of the relief device protecting an oil separator (Ib,/min of air) oH.09-081 Crs get i pmacie pwiacie Wi eapigeront i eapigeram. OC i apieront sa oe Tid crPsugply Treigernt Traps fe ‘minimum required discharge capacity of the relief device protecting a product tank heat exchanger (Iby/min of ai) outside diameter of vessel or product tank (A) cutside diameter of surge drum (A) cntside diameter of the main vessel portion of the shel-and-tube heat exchanger (f) relief device capacity factor that {depends on reftigerant type and ‘whether combustible materials are in close proximity to the pressure vessel (see ASHRAE 15 for capacity factor values) height of the plate pack or tank heat exchanger (A) saturated vapor reftigerant enthalpy at the fully accumulated relief device set pressure (Btw/lb,) saturated liquid reftigerant enthalpy at fully accumulated relief device set pressure (Biulby) length of the vessel or pate pack (@) Jog mean tempereture difference (°F) length of surge drum (f) length ofthe main vessel portionof the shell-and-tube heat exchanger (8) secondary fad mass flow ate (Ib,/in) clean-in-place fluid mass flow rete (gin) refrigerant vapor generation rate (lb y/min) mass flow rate of refrigerant vapor generated by the oil cooler (1,,/min) mass flow rate of refrigerant vapor generated ina tank heat exchanger (lbg/in) Prana number for fluid used to establish the nominal UA (-) Prandtl number for fluid used to establish the modified UA'() heat exchanger heat flux (Btu‘nin) «il cooling hest exchanger heat load (Beu/min) ‘maximum fluid supply temperature during CIP (F) refiigeran saturation temperature (°F) reftigerant’s saturation temperature at the relief valve set pressure (°F) load-side heat exchanger secondary fluid retar temperature °F)baa = load:-side heat exchanger secondary fluid supply temperature (°F) mu = overall heat transfer coefficient-area product (Btwmin-"F) us = modified overall heat transfer coefficient-area product (Bruimin-*F) w ‘width of the plate pack (A) e refigerant-to-product tank effectiveness (estimated as 0.2 for bulk tanks) REFERENCES ASME, “2007 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code”, ‘American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, (2007) ASHRAE Standard 15, “Safety Stendard for Reftigerating Systems", American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Airconditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, (2007). Fenton, D. L. and Richards, W. V, User's Manual for ANSU/ ASHRAE Standard 15-2001, American Society of Heat- ing, Refiigerting, and Air conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, (2003). Reindl, Douglas T. and Jekel, Todd B., Engineering Safety Relief Systems Guidebook. Industrial Refrigeration Consortium. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madi- son, WT (2006) Reindl, DT and Jekel, TB., “Fundamentals of Safety Relief Systems?” ASHRAE Journal 50(2):22-29 (2008). cH.09-081,