Inspection Techniques for Digestion Pressure Relief System

2013 ◽  
pp. 823-827
Author(s):  
W. P. Harrington ◽  
G.W. Harrell ◽  
B. J. Cohea
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Relief ◽  
Relief System ◽  
Inspection Techniques

Inspection Techniques for Digestion Pressure Relief System

2016 ◽  
pp. 823-827
Author(s):  
W. P. Harrington ◽  
G. W. Harrell ◽  
B. J. Cohea
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Relief ◽  
Relief System ◽  
Inspection Techniques

Geotextile encased columns (GEC) used as pressure-relief system. Instrumented bridge abutment case study on soft soil

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Schnaid ◽  
D. Winter ◽  
A.E.F. Silva ◽  
D. Alexiew ◽  
V. Küster
Keyword(s):  
Soft Soil ◽  
Pressure Relief ◽  
Bridge Abutment ◽  
Relief System

Thermographic survey of the integrity of a process plant pressure relief system

1985 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brenton G. Jones ◽  
Raymond C. Duckett
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Relief ◽  
Process Plant ◽  
Relief System

The Effect of Reduced Design Margin on the Fire Survivability of ASME Code Propane Tanks

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. M. Birk
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Relief Valve ◽  
Pressure Relief ◽  
Mode Of Failure ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Failure Scenario ◽  
Fill Level ◽  
Relief System ◽  
And Storage ◽  
Design Margin

The design margin on certain unfired pressure vessels has recently been reduced from 4.5 to 4.0 to 3.5. This has resulted in the manufacture of propane and LPG tanks with thinner walls. For example, some 500 gallon ASME code propane tanks have had the wall thickness reduced from 7.7 mm in 2001 to 7.1 mm in 2002 and now to 6.5 mm in 2004. This change significantly affects the fire survivability of these tanks. This paper presents both experimental and computational results that show the effect of this design change on tank fire survivability to fire impingement. The results show that for the same pressure relief valve setting, the thinner wall tanks are more likely to fail in a given fire situation. In severe fires, the thinner walled tanks will fail earlier. An earlier failure usually means the tank will fail with a higher fill level, because the pressure relief system has had less time to vent material from the tank. A higher liquid fill level at failure also means more energy is in the tank and this means the failure will be more violent. The worst failure scenario is known as a boiling liquid expanding vapour explosion (BLEVE) and this mode of failure is also more likely with the thinner walled tanks. The results of this work suggest that certain applications of pressure vessels such as propane transport and storage may require higher design margins than required by the ASME.

Study on the Performance of Pressure Release Valve Based on AMESim

2013 ◽  
Vol 753-755 ◽  
pp. 2659-2662
Author(s):  
Zhi Qing Wu ◽  
Hao Hui Shi
Keyword(s):  
High Pressure ◽  
Control System ◽  
Pressure Control ◽  
Hydraulic Cylinder ◽  
Control Performance ◽  
Pressure Relief ◽  
Release Process ◽  
Release System ◽  
Pressure Release ◽  
Relief System

The hydraulic cylinder should be safety released in high-pressure situations, the release valve system is presented under such situation in this paper, which can release the high pressure from the hydraulic cylinder, in order to validate its feasibility, the simulation model of pressure release system is established in AMESim, the pressure release process of which is studied, the results show that the pressure relief system can release the high pressure of hydraulic cylinder smoothly, the pressure release system verifies the pressure control performance of control system, some of the parameters or factors of pressure release system are analyzed.

Study on the Relief Capacity and Safety Integrity of Multiple Relief Valves of Charge Gas Pipe in Ethylene-Cracking Plant

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianxin Zhu ◽  
Xuedong Chen ◽  
YunRong Lu ◽  
Zhibin Ai ◽  
Weihe Guan
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Relief Valve ◽  
Pressure Relief ◽  
Emergency Relief ◽  
Safety Integrity Level ◽  
Upstream Pressure ◽  
Minimum Number ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Relief System

The shutdown of charge gas compressor in large-scale ethylene-cracking plant always involves emergency pressure relief of charge gas through multiple safety valves. The emergency relief capacity plays an important role on the safety of the overall plant. In this paper, by studying the difference between the configuration of the pressure relief system of two 1000 KTA ethylene-cracking plants (the inner diameters of the charge gas pipeline in both plants are 2m, while the number of same-sized relief valves are 28 and 19, respectively), the relief capacity of multiple relief valves is studied and compared with empirical calculation and numerical analysis. It is found that, due to the interruption of fluid flow when compressor is emergency shutdown, the upstream pressure of each relief valve increase steadily with the continuously make-up of the charge gas, but the difference between the inlet pressure of all relief valves can be neglected. With the increase of the upstream pressure, the opening of relief valves is determined mainly by the set pressure. In multiple valves pressure relief scenario, normally the downstream valves have greater relief capacity than those upstream valves if both relief valves have the same back pressure. Also, by analysis it is noted that the pressure relief capacities of multiple relief valves in both plants are sufficient. The minimum number of relief valves required for process safety is obtained. The maximum achievable Safety Integrity Level (SIL) of pressure relief system is determined by calculation of the reliability of the redundant relief valves. The analysis is used for determination of the SIL of the pressure relief system. The finding is also significant for determination of the required capacity of multiple relief valves.

Thermodynamic methods for pressure relief system design parameters

2006 ◽  
Vol 241 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 41-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kwang W. Won ◽  
Arnie R. Smith ◽  
Gerald A. Zeininger
Keyword(s):  
System Design ◽  
Design Parameters ◽  
Pressure Relief ◽  
Relief System

Design of Discharge Piping for Pressure Relief Systems

1981 ◽  
Vol 103 (3) ◽  
pp. 190-195
Author(s):  
R. H. Ross
Keyword(s):  
Mach Number ◽  
Simple Technique ◽  
Careful Analysis ◽  
Back Pressure ◽  
Piping System ◽  
Flow Function ◽  
Pressure Relief ◽  
Adiabatic Flow ◽  
Pressure Relief Valves ◽  
Relief System

The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and publications by many manufacturers caution the design engineer to consider back pressure in discharge piping when sizing and selecting pressure relief valves. Only general guidelines are given, however, because of widely varying installation requirements. This paper addresses manifolded discharge piping system design. The method of analysis provides a simple technique for determining pressure within a discharge piping system. The method is based on adiabatic flow and uses local Mach number to relate expansion of the gas in the pipes to a mass flow function. The paper illustrates that relief valves discharging into lines and headers should not be sized or selected without careful analysis of the entire relief system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document