PLANT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT

Proper relief-valve sizing

requires equation mastery
These simple and rigorous critical-flow equations will help
stem the tide of potential catastrophic failures
J. S. KIM and H. J. DUNSHEATH, Bayer Technology Services, Baytown, Texas;
N. R. SINGH, Bayer CropScience, Institute, West Virginia

P
ressure-relief valves are reliable and effective pressure-relief
devices that protect personnel from the dangers of over- W T1Z1
A
pressurizing equipment, prevent damage to equipment, and C k* K d P1K b K c M
minimize release of hazardous materials. Sizing relief valves involves
determination of the rate of material release through the relief valve where: (1)
during the identified worst-case contingency. Relief valves are k* +1
designed to relieve liquids, vapors or two phases from protected ⎛ 2 ⎟ ⎞ k* −1
C k* = 0.03948 k* ⎜⎜ ⎟
pressure vessels before excessive pressures are developed. A mistake ⎜⎝ k* +1⎟⎟⎠
in the relief-valve sizing can result in catastrophic failures because
relief valves are usually the last defense to the process equipment
k*
against instrument failures, process upsets and operator errors.
This article focuses on sizing the pressure-relief valves for critical 2 k* 1
(2)
Pchoke P1
flow of gases or vapors. Two-phase sizing methods1,2 are not well k* 1
established, but it is generally understood that sizing methods for
vapor or gas are well established and the results are relatively accu- where:
rate. Relief-system designers favor simple sizing equations, and use A = Relief valve orifice area, mm2
the conventional vapor-sizing equation in American Petroleum W = Mass flow rate, kg/h
Institute (API) Standard 520, using the ideal gas specific heat ratio.3 Ck* = A function of the ratio of ideal gas specific heat at
Although rigorous calculations using isentropic flash calculations inlet conditions
give the most accurate results, the simple API relief-valve sizing Kd = The coefficient of discharge
equation is still preferred because of its simplicity. Kb = The capacity correction factor due to backpressure
However, sometimes the real gas specific heat ratio is more Kc = The combination correction factor for installation
readily available from a process simulator than the ideal gas specific with a rupture disk upstream
heat ratio. Thus, a simple sizing equation using the real gas specific Subscripts
heat ratio was developed. Emerging from that development is an 1 = Fluid conditions at the inlet of the relief valve,
improved sizing equation using the real gas specific heat ratio. The where velocity is equal to zero
results are compared with the conventional API sizing equation. choke = Choked (critical) conditions.
Furthermore, a rigorous critical-flow equation with the isentropic
flash is introduced as a recommended estimation tool for gas or Real gas specific heat ratio. The new equation uses the
vapor critical flow when the gas or vapor is known to deviate sig- real gas specific heat ratio in the sizing equation instead of the
nificantly from ideal conditions. ideal gas specific heat ratio. In order to figure out what assump-
tions are needed to use the gas specific heat ratio as an isentropic
Conventional API flow equation. Eq. 1 is the conven- expansion coefficient, it is required to check with Eq. 3. This
tional API relief-valve sizing equation for critical vapor flow. The equation is one of the widely used methods for calculating the
conventional API sizing equation requires five fluid property data: isentropic expansion coefficient where rigorous relief-valve sizing
absolute pressure, P ; kPa, absolute temperature, T ; K, molecular is deemed necessary. The equation is based on the assumption
weight, M , compressibility factor, Z , and ideal gas specific heat that the isentropic expansion coefficient is constant. Although
ratio, k *, at inlet conditions. The equation provides satisfactory the isentropic expansion coefficient is actually not constant dur-
sizing results over a wide range of process conditions. However, ing the expansion process, the sizing results with the isentropic
the sizing equation is only valid for 0.8 < Z < 1.1.3 This means expansion coefficient are relatively good. The derivatives in Eq. 3
that the sizing results may not be satisfactory for very high pres- for the Redlich-Kwong and Peng-Robinson equations are readily
sure conditions or critical-point regions. available in the literature.4,5
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING DECEMBER 2011
I 77
PLANT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT

The Peng-Robinson equation of state appears to be the most among the compressibility factor, real gas specific heat ratio and
favorable with the SRK equation. Eq. 4 shows the derivative of isentropic expansion coefficient over the range of 0 < n < 2.5.
pressure with respect to specific volume, v; m3/kg, at constant k 1 n1
temperature and constant compressibility factor. The gas specific 2 k 1 2 n 1
Z1 k n
heat ratio becomes the isentropic expansion coefficient (n) when k 1 n 1 (9)
the compressibility factor is constant. Of course, the real gas spe-
cific heat ratio, k, will be the ideal gas specific heat ratio, k*, if the Finally, Eq. 10 can be obtained as a critical-flow sizing equa-
compressibility factor is 1. In conclusion, it is required to assume tion with the compressibility factor and isentropic expansion coef-
the constant compressibility factor when developing a sizing equa- ficient. Eq. 7 and Eq. 10 are identical, and the two equations give
tion with the real gas specific heat ratio. the same sizing results. However, Eq. 11 predicts better choked
v ⎛ ∂P ⎞ pressures than Eq. 8.
n = − ⎜⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎟ k (3) W T1Z1
P ⎝ ∂v ⎠T A=
C n K d P1K b K c M
⎛ ∂P ⎞⎟
⎜⎜ ⎟ = − ZRT where: (10)
⎜⎝ ∂v ⎟⎠ v2 n+1
T
⎛ 2 ⎟ ⎞ n−1
C n = 0.03948 n ⎜⎜⎜ ⎟
where: (4) ⎝ n +1⎟⎠
Pv = ZRT n
⎛ 2 ⎞⎟n−1
where R is a universal gas constant, 8.314 kPa-m3/kg-mole-K. Pchoke = P1 ⎜⎜⎜ ⎟ (11)
Eq. 5 is easily found in textbooks. 6 When ideal gases are ⎝ n +1⎟⎠
expanded, they follow Eq. 5. However, Eq. 6 is for real gases pro-
vided that the compressibility factor is constant. Eq. 6 explains n = a + bY + cY 2 + dY 3 + eY 4 (12)
why the inlet compressibility factor is not to be included in Eq.
7. The real gas specific heat ratio already accounts for the value of k +1
the compressibility factor and non-ideality at high pressure condi- ⎛ 2 ⎞⎟ k−1 (13)
Y = Z1k ⎜⎜⎜ ⎟
tions. Therefore, when the real gas specific heat ratio is used in the ⎝ k +1⎟⎠
sizing equation, the compressibility factor is not necessary. If one
uses the real gas specific heat ratio in Eq. 1, the compressibility a = 4.8422E-5 b = 1.98366 c = 1.73684 d = 0.174274 e = 1.48802
factor will be accounted for twice. This may result in inadequate where Cn is a function of the isentropic expansion coefficient at
relief valves, as addressed in API-520.7 A statistical analysis shows inlet conditions.
that about 7% of the equipment in the oil, gas and chemical
industries had pressure-relief devices undersized.8 Isentropic flash. Eq. 14, which requires a few iterations in
an isentropic flash routine, is the most accurate sizing equation.
Pvk* = constant (5)
The rigorous method uses the best predictions of the actual fluid
⎛ v ⎞⎟k
P ⎜⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = constant (6) properties since the calculated isentropic expansion coefficient
⎝Z ⎠ is constant between two data points. The first trial of isentropic
The authors developed Eq. 7 for relief-valve sizing for critical flash can start with an initial estimate of choked pressure at 55%
vapor flow with the real gas specific heat ratio. The simple equa- of the inlet pressure. The choked condition is usually attained
tion follows fundamental thermodynamic rules. when the downstream pressure is about 45% to 65% of the inlet
W T1 pressure. Repeat the isentropic flash with the new estimate until it
A stops changing. In case of liquid formation during the isentropic
C k K d P1K b K c M flash, the overall specific volume of the fluid has to be used in Eq.

where: (7) 15. Otherwise, it is better to use the temperature and compress-
k +1 ibility factor in Eq. 15 to indicate that there is no condensation
⎛ 2 ⎟ ⎞ k−1 during expansion. The calculation details will be illustrated in the
C k = 0.03948 k ⎜⎜⎜ ⎟
⎝ k +1⎟⎠ “example calculations” section. However, the equivalent results
can be obtained using numerical integration with numerous
k flash calculations. The intensive numerical integration method is
⎛ 2 ⎞⎟k−1 presented in API Standard 520.
Pchoke = P1 ⎜⎜⎜ ⎟
⎝ k +1⎟⎠ (8) W T1 Z1
A=
where Ck is a function of the ratio of real gas specific heat at inlet C r K d P1K b K c M
conditions. where: n+1
Although Eq. 7 may be satisfactory for critical-flow relief-valve ⎛ 2 ⎞⎟n−1 (14)
C r = 0.03948 n ⎜⎜⎜ ⎟
sizing, the critical pressure prediction is not sufficiently accurate. ⎝ n +1⎟⎠
In order to predict the accurate critical pressure, Eq. 9 is derived
1 1
based on Eq. 7 being equal to Eq. 10. Instead of solving Eq. 9 for P1 v P1 PT Z
the isentropic expansion coefficient with the real gas specific heat n ln ln 2 ln ln 1 2 2 (15)
P2 v1 P2 P2T1Z1
ratio and compressibility factor, Eq. 12 fits well the correlation

78
I DECEMBER 2011 HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 PLANT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT

where Cr is a function of the rigorous isentropic expansion coef- Examples. A relief valve should release 10,000 kg/h of saturated
ficient, and Subscript 2 refers to fluid conditions at the outlet of n-hexane vapor (M = 86.18) at a relief pressure of 1,807.38 kPa
the relief valve (at the nozzle throat). (inlet reduced pressure of 0.6) and a relief temperature of 474 K.
The compressibility factor at the conditions is 0.6279. Calculate the
Comparison. The predictions of the simple flow equations required actual orifice area based on Kd = 0.877, Kb = 1 and Kc = 1.
have been compared with the most accurate estimates for the fol- The authors used a process simulator with a selection of the Peng-
lowing two cases at six different pressures. The two cases include Robinson equation of state to obtain the necessary fluid properties.
high pressures and critical-point regions to evaluate the limitations Calculations with Eq. 14. The results of isentropic flashes
of the new simple method. The Peng-Robinson equation of state for Eq. 14 that were obtained from a process simulator are sum-
was used for the estimation of necessary fluid properties. marized in Table 1. Iterations were stopped after four trials, as the
Case 1: Air at 250 K. The first case considers the discharge of new choked pressure was close enough to the old one. The best
air at 250 K that is relieving at six different pressure levels of the estimate of required orifice area is 556 mm2.
inlet reduced pressure from 0.5 to 8. The inlet compressibility −1
factors are in the range of 0.9 < Z < 1.1. Fig. 1 shows the mass ⎛ 1,807.38 ⎞⎟ ⎡ ⎛⎜ (1,807.38)(459.9)(0.7503) ⎞⎟⎤
n = ⎜⎜ln ⎢ ln ⎥ = 0.7251
flux (W/A) deviations of Eqs. 1 and 7 from Eq. 14. Here, the ⎜⎝ 1, 223.63 ⎟⎟⎠ ⎢ ⎜⎜⎝ (1, 223.63)(474)(0.6279) ⎟⎟⎠⎥
⎣ ⎦
compressibility factor decreases during expansion. Therefore, both 0.7251
of the simple sizing equations appear to oversize the relief valves. ⎛ 2 ⎞⎟0.7251−1
Pchoke = 1,807.38 ⎜⎜⎜ ⎟ = 1, 224 kPa
The difference between the compressibility factors increases with ⎝ 0.7251+1⎟⎠
increasing the inlet reduced pressure. Fig. 1 shows that both sim-
0.7251+1
ple equations give conservative estimates as expected. The results
⎛ 2 ⎞⎟0.7251−1
of both equations are satisfactory at low pressures. However, if the C r = 0.03948 0.7251⎜⎜⎜ ⎟ = 0.0211
vapor or gas is at high pressure and low temperature, one should ⎝ 0.7251+1⎟⎠
use them with caution. Generally, the vapor or gas tends to behave 10,000 (474)(0.6279)
ideally at high temperatures. A= = 556 mm 2
(0.0211)(0.877)(1,807.38)(1)(1) 86.18
Case 2. Saturated n-hexane vapor. The second case considers
the discharge of a pure component-saturated vapor (n-hexane) that Calculations with Eq. 1. Using the ideal gas specific heat
is relieving at six different pressure levels of the inlet reduced pres- ratio along with the inlet compressibility factor gives the required
sure from 0.15 to 0.9. The inlet compressibility factors are in the orifice area of 482 mm2, which is much smaller than the best
range of 0.4 < Z < 0.9. Here, the compressibility factor increases estimate of 556 mm2.
during expansion. The difference between the compressibility fac-
tors increases with increasing the inlet reduced pressure. Therefore,
the simple sizing equations appear to undersize the relief valves. Fig. 0
Mass flux deviation from Eq. 14, %

2 shows that the conventional simple API equation gives profoundly -2

unconservative estimates as expected. Unlike the conventional sim- -4
ple equation, the results of Eq. 7 or Eq. 10 are satisfactory up to the -6
inlet reduced pressure of 0.75. However, if the inlet reduced pressure
-8
is greater than approximately 0.7, one should use it with caution.
-10
-12 Eq. 1
TABLE 1. Results of isentropic flashes Eq. 7 or 10
-14
T2 , K Z2 n -16
First trial at 994.059 kPa 453.8 0.7959 0.7554 0.5 2.0 3.5 5.0 6.5 8.0
Inlet reduced pressure
Second trial at 1,208.05 kPa 459.5 0.7534 0.7272
FIG. 1 Calculation results for high-pressure air at 250 K (Case 1).
Third trial at 1,222.584 kPa 459.9 0.7505 0.7252
Fourth trial at 1,223.63 kPa 459.9 0.7503 0.7251

TABLE 2. A summary of example calculations 35

Mass flux deviation from Eq. 14, %

30 Eq. 1
Eq. 14 Eq. 1 Eq. 7 Eq. 10
25 Eq. 7 or 10
Ideal gas specific heat ratio used N/A 1.041 N/A N/A
20
Real gas specific heat ratio used N/A N/A 1.265 1.265
15
Inlet compressibility factor used 0.6279 0.6279 N/A 0.6279
Isentropic expansion 0.7251 N/A N/A 0.6866 10
coefficient used 5
Choked pressure calculated 1,224 kPa 1,080 kPa 998 kPa 1,244 kPa 0
Outlet temperature used 459.9 K N/A N/A N/A -5
0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.75 0.90
Outlet compressibility factor used 0.7503 N/A N/A N/A Inlet reduced pressure
Required orifice area calculated 556 mm2 482 mm2 567 mm2 566 mm2
FIG. 2 Calculation results for saturated n-hexane vapor under
Remarks – Undersized – – critical conditions (Case 2).

HYDROCARBON PROCESSING DECEMBER 2011

I 79
PLANT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT

Calculations with Eq. 7. Using the real gas specific heat ratio accurate fluid properties. The simple sizing equation for critical
gives the required orifice area of 567 mm2. vapor flow using the real gas specific heat ratio has been tested on
Calculations with Eq. 10. Eq. 10 is technically identical to two cases: air at higher pressures and n-hexane under critical con-
Eq. 7. This method will give a better estimate of the choked pres- ditions. Although in both cases the conventional API equation is
sure than the Eq. 7 method. difficult to properly size pressure relief devices, the new approach
1.265+1 results in a significant improvement. It is also important to note
⎛ 2 ⎞⎟1.265−1 that the compressibility factor should be removed in the simple
Y = (0.6279)(1.265)⎜⎜⎜ ⎟ = 0.2742
⎝1.265 +1⎟⎠ sizing equation where the real gas specific heat ratio is used as an
isentropic expansion coefficient. However, relief-system designers
n = 4.8422E-5 +1.98366Y +1.73684Y 2 + 0.174274Y 3
should be careful when sizing the pressure relief devices for vapor
+1.48802Y 4 = 0.6866 or gas at critical regions or high pressures where the gas or vapor
0.6866+1 deviates significantly from the ideal conditions.
⎛ 2 ⎞⎟0.6866−1 Any simple equation involves assumptions that generally
C n = 0.03948 0.6866 ⎜⎜⎜ ⎟ = 0.0207
⎝ 0.6866 +1⎟⎠ introduce errors. As demonstrated in the example calculations,
the rigorous flow equation with isentropic flash is not so com-
10,000 (474)(0.6279) plicated and difficult to use. The rigorous flow equation with no
A= = 566 mm 2
(0.0207)(0.877)(1,807.38)(1)(1) 86.18 assumptions uses the most accurate fluid properties. Therefore,
0.6866 using the rigorous flow equation with isentropic flash is recom-
⎛ 2 ⎞⎟0.6866−1 mended when the gas or vapor is known to behave significantly
Pchoke = 1,807.38 ⎜⎜⎜ ⎟ = 1, 244 kPa
⎝ 0.6866 +1⎟⎠ non-ideally. HP

All calculation results are summarized in Table 2 for compari-
son. The required orifice area estimated by the API sizing equation
is not satisfactory as expected, and this may result in an under-
sized relief valve. On the other hand, the new method by Eq. 7 or
Eq. 10 produces satisfactory results.
LITERATURE CITED
1 Darby, R., “Evaluation of two-phase flow models for flashing flow in nozzles,”
Process Safety Progress, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 32–39, 2000.
2 Diener, R. and J. Schmidt, “Sizing of throttling device for gas/liquid two-
phase flow, Part 1: Safety valves,” Process Safety Progress, Vol. 23, No. 4,
pp. 335–344, 2004.
3 “Sizing, selection and installation of pressure-relieving devices in refineries,”

API Standard 520, Part I—Sizing and selection, December 2008.

Recommended usage. Proper sizing of a relief valve requires 4 “Guidelines for pressure-relief and effluent-handling systems,” Center for
not only using an accurate critical-flow equation, but also using Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), AIChE, New York, 1998.
5 Pratt, R. M., “Thermodynamic properties involving derivatives using

the Peng-Robinson equation of state,” Chemical Engineering Education,

pp. 112–115, Spring 2001.

The is On! 6 Crowl, D. A. and J. F. Louvar, Chemical Process Safety: Fundamentals with

Applications, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1990.

7 Shackelford, A., “Using the ideal gas specific heat ratio for relief-valve sizing,”

Chemical Engineering, pp. 54–59, November 2003.

Go to www.GulfPub.com and get the latest 8 Patrick, C., R. A. Kreder and W. Lee, “Analysis identifies deficiencies in

upgrade to our best-selling software! existing pressure-relief systems,” Process Safety Progress, Vol. 19, No. 3,
pp. 166–172, 2000.

WinHeat 4 Jung Seob Kim is a principal process safety engineer at Bayer

Technology Services, where he is responsible for designing emer-
Put control back into the hands
gency pressure relief systems and technical consultation. He has
of the process engineer
more than 25 years of experience in different roles with chemical
www.GulfPub.com/Winheat process industry including with Samsung BP Chemicals Co. and
Samsung Engineering Co. in Korea. He holds a BS degree in chemical engineering
from the University of Seoul. Mr. Kim is a member of AIChE, and is a registered
professional engineer in the state of Texas.
HEAT E
EXCHANG
XCHANG
XC
X

RECOMMENDED GUIDE:
GERS SELECTION
GERS

Heather Jean Dunsheath is a pressure safety specialist at

Heat Exchangers Bayer Technology Services, where she is responsible for identifying
ON AND THERMA

potential overpressure scenarios and designing emergency pres-

THERM

Selection, Rating and sure relief systems. She holds a BS degree in chemical engineering
RM
RMA
MAL
M
MA

Thermal Design
AL
A DESIGN

from Rice University and is a member of the Design Institute for

DES
ESIGN

www.GulfPub.com/HeatExchangers Emergency Relief Systems.

GULF
P U B L I S H I N G C O M PA N Y
Dr. Navneet R. Singh is a senior process engineer at Bayer
CropScience LP, where he is responsible for process design, pro-
cess modeling and emergency relief system design. He holds an
MS degree and a Ph.D. from Purdue University, and a bachelor’s
+1-713-520-4426 degree in chemical engineering from the Institute of Chemical
Email: svb@GulfPub.com I www.GulfPub.com Technology in Mumbai, India, is a senior member of AIChE and a certified functional
safety professional.

80
I DECEMBER 2011 HydrocarbonProcessing.com