Home | PipeSize | Tankjkt | Tank Volume | VentManifold | More Apps | Tech

Info | Order




Overview
Free Seed
Template
Pump
Datasheet

SAFELY SIZE AND DESIGN
Relief Headers
It is often desirable to combine the discharges from safety relief valves into common pipe
headers. The common headers are piped to a safe location, with provision for collecting
liquid relief and treating vapor discharge.
VentManifold is an Excel spreadsheet template that calculates the backpressure that
develops when simultaneous vents discharge into a common header. This is important
because relief valves are designed to operate within specified back pressure limits.
This page discusses the design of relief valve discharge manifolds.
A relief valve discharge header takes the form of a tree. Each valve, vent, or rupture disc
is piped to a branch; branches may combine into larger branches. Finally, the main trunk
is reached, discharging to atmosphere (perhaps by way of a large knock-out drum or
scrubber).
After the equipment arrangement is established, a rough pipe routing is made. Then the
piping may be sized using the methods presented here. A detailed routing is designed,
being sure that there are no pockets where liquid could obstruct the flow. Sizing should be
checked with the detailed routing, again using the procedures presented here.
PIPE SIZING
Relief manifold pipe sizing is critical to the reliable operation of the system. The
discharge piping produces back pressure on the relief valves. Larger diameter piping
results in lower back pressure. Relief valves are designed to work with back pressure from
10% (conventional valves) to 50% (balanced valves) of their set pressure. For example, a
conventional valve relieving at 100 psig will work reliably if the back pressure does not
exceed 10 psig.

When determining the allowable back pressure, manufacturer's test data should be used
for the specific valve in question. Do not rely on "rules of thumb." Balanced valves will
relieve at their rated set point, even with high back pressure (up to 80% of set pressure).
However, at high back pressure, the valve capacity (lb per hr of flowing material) is
derated. So if a balanced valve is installed that is exactly matched to the service, it may be
that the back pressure is limited to about 35 to 40% of set pressure.
For example, consider a Farris Balanseal valve with a 100 psig set point. The valve is
rated at 100% of its nominal capacity up to 35% back pressure. At higher back pressures,
the capacity is reduced. At 60% back pressure (i.e., 60 psig), the valve is derated to 88%
of its normal capacity.
The possibility of simultaneous discharge from multiple valves makes line sizing difficult.
For valves sized for protecting tanks against external fires, NFPA-30 requires that it be
assumed all vessels connected to the manifold will relieve at once. Installations where the
relieving conditions are based on other criteria, unchecked exothermic reactions for
instance, should be analyzed to determine how many devices could conceivably relieve
simultaneously.
When it has been determined which valves will relieve simultaneously, the task of pipe
sizing can commence. Each segment in the manifold network is analyzed using the flow
rates summed from upstream relief valves. It may be necessary to perform the calculations
under multiple scenarios.
Temperature is an important vapor-phase property; it affects the gas density and viscosity
with direct impact on pressure drop. Each pipe segment can potentially convey a different
mix of materials, depending on the contents of the vessels relieving into the manifold. To
determine the temperature for the system, I advise using the relieving temperature at each
relief valve as the starting point. Assume isothermal flow throughout the system. Where
sub-headers join, compute the mixture temperature (and viscosity) using the mole fraction
mixing rule. If the components are likely to react with each other in the header those
vessels have no business being piped together!
The best way to size the piping is to work backwards (upstream) from the point where the
manifold discharges to atmosphere or a treatment unit. The general approach is to make a
guess for pipe sizes. Then a detailed computation is performed to determine the pressure
drop through each segment. The back pressure calculated at each relief valve is compared
with the allowable back pressure for the valve. Judgment is used to adjust pipe sizes in the
network (larger or smaller); the calculations are done again and the procedure continued
until back pressures are all within tolerance.
Bear in mind that the minimum allowable pipe size is the size of the discharge flange on
the relief valves. Also, critical (sonic) velocity can not be exceeded in a pipe.
SHOULD WE SIZE FOR TWO-PHASE FLOW?
Two-phase flow through safety relief valves is expected. The Design Institute for
Emergency Relief System (DIERS) method is used to predict the quantity and quality of
two-phase flow relieved from a reactor (Ref 1). A careful experimental program,
extensive data collection and sophisticated computer simulation (SAFIRE) are required to
adequately analyze this complex situation (Ref 2).
The scope of this article is limited to all vapor flow. It is applicable when it is known that
only vapor will be relieved, or when the liquid portion is assumed to flash. Where mixed
flow is present, and the total mass quantity (flow rate) is known, an all vapor model will
yield conservative results. It may be prudent to be conservative given the uncertainty of
two-phase prediction models.
Although the piping may be sized for all vapor flow, liquid in the vent line should not be
ignored. The piping design must account for its possible presence. Piping should include
drains at low points, sloping to drain, knock-out pots and the practice of connecting each
subheader into the top of a downstream header. The amount of liquid may be
considerable. It is not unusual for the entire contents of a reactor to discharge into the vent
header; careful analyses of causes and consequences of emergency situations are required
to properly size and design the liquid handling provisions.
Vertical pipes create a special problem. Two-phase flow is influenced by gravity. The
discharge pressure determines how high above the relief device the pipe may go; at low
discharge pressures (e.g., 10 psig), the gravity effect will predominate and severely limit
the vertical distance that can be achieved. In severe cases, there may be no flow at all due
to the liquid component collapsing under its weight.
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
To obtain the minimum total cost, a number of scenarios may be studied. Consider the
effect of different failure assumptions. As with any piping system, the route chosen for
running the pipe can have a major impact on cost.
Comparisons should be made between running one manifold with the cost of dividing the
header into two or more systems. Multiple manifolds may result in greater total length of
pipe, but much of it will be smaller diameter than that required by a single header system.
This is especially true when there is a wide range of relieving pressures. If a single
manifold is sized, the lowest relief pressure will often dictate the back pressure; removing
the low pressure valves from the manifold may result in much smaller pipe sizes due to
the higher back pressure that can be tolerated.
The sizing calculations should be continued until each relief valve is connected to the
minimum allowable pipe size (i.e., the size of the outlet flange) or is presented with the
maximum permissible back pressure. To minimize pipe sizes, especially when the runs
are long, balanced valves should be considered instead of conventional type. This won't
always result in savings: the minimum pipe size may be dictated by the size of the valve
outlet flange or the critical velocity of the fluid.
Balanced valves typically cost less than 50% more than conventional type. It may take
less than 50 feet of pipe, reduced by one size (e.g., 6 inch to 4 inch), to economically
justify the higher cost valve.
SYSTEM DESIGN
This section presents some basic guidelines to follow when the header piping is being
designed and installed. Manifolds are treated similarly to other process piping: The ANSI
Pressure Piping Code (B31) should be followed.
Important factors in the system design are:
Avoid Obstructions
Check existing headers for obstructions, valves, pluggages, etc. Provide clean-out ports or
connections. This will enable future inspection and maintenance of the lines. After
installation, use the inspection ports regularly.
Provide Adequate Supports
Manifold piping should be independently supported from the relief valve, and carefully
aligned to avoid mechanical stress. Reaction forces from valve discharges and at pipe
segment intersections must be considered. Consider thermal stresses in the manifold,
originating from environmental sources (radiation from sun, adjacent operating process
equipment) or from the relief itself. Reduce the effect of discharge forces by using "Y"
connections in lieu of "T"s.
Test per ANSI B31
Hydrostatically test piping to 150% of the maximum anticipated pressure of the system,
or pneumatically tested to 110% of the maximum anticipated pressure. Remove relief
valves from piping prior to performing the pressure tests.
Discharge Safely
The manifold must discharge to a safe location. Where condensable or toxic materials are
present, some type of collection or treatment operation is required. Examples are water
scrubbers and flares. Class I materials (flash point < 100F) must be discharged vertically
or horizontally at least 12 feet above the adjacent ground level and at least 5 feet away
from building openings. Corrosive or toxic vapors may need chemical neutralization (in a
scrubber) prior to release. Atmospheric discharge should be limited to vapors that will not
condense at the lowest temperatures encountered in that locality.
Reference 3 provides detailed recommendations for the design of catch tanks, scrubbers
and flares. Two or three phase flow is expected and must be considered when designing
containment and treatment equipment. Cyclone type separators are more effective than
traditional style "knock-out" pots.
Eliminate Contamination by Foreign Matter
Provisions are needed to prevent the entrance (and accumulation) of rainwater into the
manifold. Rain caps are acceptable for the purpose; their effect on back pressure must be
included in the sizing calculations. Also consider that many vent manifolds will rarely see
actual service; birds or rodents may find the empty piping an ideal place to nest so guard
against this by incorporating an appropriate barrier.
Design Piping to be Self-Draining
The discharge system should drain toward the discharge end, avoiding pockets if possible.
Unavoidable pockets should be fitted with drip legs or knock-out pots. Piping sloped at
1/4 inch per foot is preferred. Branches enter trunks from the top.
PROCEDURE FOR PIPE SIZING
Detailed instructions are provided for sizing a relief manifold. A computer spreadsheet
program is useful for carrying out the computations; the examples show the steps in
creating a spreadsheet such as VentManifold, available from
chemengsoftware.com. Formulas are presented on a separate page.
I nitial Calculations
The procedure first requires that a system sketch be prepared. Basic data for flow rates
and physical properties are collected. A material balance for the manifold is made.
Here are details.
1. System Sketch
Prepare a sketch of the manifold system. It shows the actual or proposed piping
configuration. Each pipe intersection ("node") is labeled. For clarity, show the equipment
being relieved. See an example.
2. Basic Data
Make a table with basic data. See example from the VentManifoldData Input area. Each
of the pipe segments is listed. It helps to list them in a sequence that begins with the
segment discharging to atmosphere (or the treatment device), then working back through
the manifold, finally listing the segments that connect directly to the relief valves. List the
Node labels for the upstream and downstream end of each segment.
Actual or proposed pipe diameters are entered. The example uses nominal pipe
dimensions, but actual inside diameters will make the calculations more accurate.
The equivalent length for each segment is entered. To get this, you need to know how the
pipe is (or will be) routed in the plant. Count or estimate the number of elbows, tees and
other fittings. Measure or estimate the physical length of the segments. Compute the
equivalent length by adding the physical length to the equivalent length of fittings.
For each relief valve, enter the material name, mass flow rate, molecular weight,
temperature, viscosity and allowable back pressure. These values must all be at the
relieving conditions. In the example, the methanol vessels are assumed to relieve at 130
psig; the toluene vessels are relieving at 150 psig. Notice that the temperatures are
approximately the boiling points at the relieving pressures. Conventional relief valves
have an allowable back pressure of 10% of the set pressure.
3. Complete the Material Balance
Table 1 is completed for the common headers in the manifold by carrying out a material
balance. In Table 2, the mass flow rates are added. A new entry is computed, molar flow
rate. Then, the temperature and viscosity of the combined streams are estimated by using
molar summations. This method of estimating the properties for the mixtures is well
within 5% of actual, and more than adequate for these calculations.
Definitive Calculations
Refer to the Definitive Pipe Sizing formula. Both the upstream and downstream pressures
are within the right-hand-side. The equation cannot be rearranged to solve for one
pressure given the other. Therefore, the solution is iterative.
Modern spreadsheets have an equation solver feature that permits iterative solutions to
equations. In VentManifold, the Definitive Sizing formula is solved in a Visual Basic
subroutine to model the entire example manifold.
SUMMARY
Relief valve discharge manifolds are needed to keep costs down and protect the
environment. Sizing them is straightforward but can be time consuming. It is important to
realize that high pressure drops in the piping require that the iterative formula for
compressible flow be used.
REFERENCES
American Petroleum Institute, "Recommended Practice for the Design and Installation of Pressure
Relieving Systems in Refineries," 4th edition, RP-520, API (1976).
Coker, A.K., "Size Relief Valves Sensibly," Chemical Engineering Progress, 88:8, p.20 (August 1992).
Coker, A.K., "Determine Process-Pipe Sizes," Chemical Engineering Progress, 87:3, p.33 (March 1991).
National Fire Protection Association, "Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code," NFPA-30.
(1) Fisher, H.G., "An Overview of Emergency Relief System Design Practice," Plant/Operations
Progress,10:1 (January 1991).
(2) Shaw, D.A., "SAFIRE Program for Design of Emergency Pressure Relief Systems", Chemical
Engineering Progress, 87:7, p.14 (July 1991).
(3) Grossel, S.S., "An overview of equipment for containment and disposal of emergency relief system
effluents," Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industry, 3:1, p.112 (January 1990).
(4) Mak, H.Y., "New method speeds pressure-relief manifold design," The Oil and Gas Journal, p.166 (Nov
20, 1978).
(5) Reid, R.C., Prausnitz, J.M., Poling, B.E., The Properties of Gases and Liquids, 4th edition, McGraw-
Hill (1987).
Table 1
This is the basic data needed for chemengsoftware's VentManifold spreadsheet template.

Table 2
The material balance is completed by summing branches into subheaders, and subheaders
into the discharge header. VentManifold does these calculations automatically.


ChemEngSoftware.com Send Email


























Design Criteria
Flare system commonly consists of collection networks, liquid Knock-Out drum, knock-out pump and flare stack with
tip. Some flare system may includes liquid seal drum, air ingress & purge reduction seal, flare recovery system, liquid
heater and/or vaporiser, etc In recent posting, there are several topics related to Flare have been discussed :

Providing More than One Flare KOD in SERIES
Elevated Flare (SI Unit) Datasheet
ANSI/API Std 537 / ISO 25457 2nd edition, Dec 2008 is Released
Flare Tip Quick Selection Chart
Flare Smokeless Ringlemann Chart
Guideline on Quick Determination of Flare Stack Support Type

Why not bury flare pipe header ?
If you are dealing with Flare, one of the technical book that you may not missed is John Zink Combustion
handbook. Flare network hydraulic simulation may be conducted usingAspen Flare System Analyzer,
AFSA (formerly FLARENET). Interesting and useful documents related to AFSA / FLARENET can refer to "Useful
Documentation for AFSA / FLARENET...". There are several constraints, parameters and/or criteria that may be
considered while carry out Flare network hydraulic studies :

Mach No.
Mach number is the ratio of fluid flowing velocity to fluid sonic velocity. Mach number equation for a fluid may refer to
previous post "...Mach No. & Critical Pressure Calculation". For Pressure Relief Valve tail pipe (pipe immediate
downstream of PRV),Mach no is commonly limits to 0.7 whilst for collection header, Mach no limit to 0.5. The flow
for calculation for tail pipe and header are subject to PRV type. Read more in "Consider Rated flow or Required
Relieving Flow ?".

One shall take note, above are common recommendation and good engineering practice. Some engineers may
design flare network to Mach no of 1.0, Several concerns related to flare system design to Mach no of 1 may refer to
"Is PSV tail pipe & lateral at CHOKED (Mach no = 1) Accpetable ?".

Momentum (density x velocity2)
Momentum is fluid density time fluid flowing velocity power two. For tail pipe, maximum momemtum may be limited
to 150,000 Pa whilst for collection header, limited to 100,000 Pa. The flow for calculation for tail pipe and header are
subject to PRV type. Read more in "Consider Rated flow or Required Relieving Flow ?". Above value may be
increased (not more than 200,000 Pa) provided that the piping support and vibration analysis are healthy.

Back Pressure
Increase (or reduction) in PRV tail pipe or flare header size may affect Mach no. It also decrease (or increase) back
pressure to PRV. A conventional Spring loaded pressure relief valve, maximum allowable back pressure
(MABP) is typically limited to 10% of PRV set pressure. A balanced bellow (or piston) type pressure relief valve,
MABP is typically limited to 30% -50% of PRV set pressure. For pilot operated PRV, MABP of more than 50% of
PRV set pressure may be allowed (some previous experience may reach 80% of set pressure). Above are typical
value base on Good Engineering practice. Detail and exact MABP is subject to actual PRV and guaranteed by PRV
vendor.

Above are typically related to performance (relief capability) and stability of PRV (as discussed in "Several Impact of
Backpressure on Conventional PRV". One shall take note that there is Maximum Allowable Backpressure due
to mechanical limitation which subject to temperature. Detail may refer to API Std 526.

When discussed about PRV back pressure, correct definition of "back pressure" shall be used in communicating
information to PRV vendor. Discussion on confusion about "back pressure" may refer to "PRD Backpressure".

Noise Level
As fluid passing through the PRV (and tail pipe & header), significant noise would be generated and transmitted
along the tail pipe and header. The noise may also emitted to atmosphere. One of the common safety requirement is
limit the noise level to 115 dBA(Noise level with A-weighted) during intermittent emergency relief scenario.
Besidesintermittent relief from PRV, some Pressure control valve (PCV) may discharge (continuous or frequent) fluid
into flare network. The noise level may limit to 85 dBA forcontinuous scenario. One shall remember, this noise level
should be the mix of noise from device and back ground noise i.e. pump compressor,
etc. Acoustic insulation may be considered to minimise noise emission from PRV, tail pipe and headers.

Two Phase Flow Pattern
During common mode relief scenario i.e. total plant power failure, total cooling water failure, etc may leads to multiple
PRVs relieve. JT cooling due to pressure reduction, hot fluid mix with cold fluid and composition change may
results two phase flow in the tail pipe and header. The flow pattern of this two phase flow shall be analysed
and avoid slugging flow pattern as much as possible. Typically may consider to use Taitel-Dukler map to determin
flow pattern. Flare network exposing to two phase flow, piping support designer shall make aware and provide
sufficient support for piping with two phase flow. If necessary, may consider additional intermediate knock out drum
to remove liquid (as discussed in "Provide More than One Flare KOD in SERIES".

[More disucssion about AIV, FIV, Thermal shock, Slug hammering, etc in "Several Criteria and Constraints for
Flare Network - Piping"]