Safety Valve Reaction Force

12/03/2019 Safety Valve reaction force - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis
Welcome sharu. [Log out] ↓
Home Page » Forums » Analysis Solutions » CAESAR II » Safety Valve reaction force
Forum List My Stuff Calendar Active Topics Search FAQ
New Reply Topic Options Search

Safety Valve reaction force #27880 06/02/09 11:35 PM
adi singh Go
Member I have a safety valve exhaust system. The piping at the safety valve Advanced

exhaust(8") is connected(horizontally) through an 8" pipe(56m in
Registered: Who's Online
12/10/07 length with few bends)to another bigger exhaust pipe(20")which
Posts: 67 extends 2530m to the atmosphere and has a silencer mounted(welded 1 registered
Loc: india to it) at the top. There is no drip pan in the system all the connections (Allen_Moore), 25
are welded. Guests and 1 Spider
online.
First Question: Is it an Open Discharge system or a closed discharge Key: Admin, Global Mod,
system as per B31.1 (Non mandatory appendix) Mod

second Question: For calculating the safety valve reaction forces in March
system, can i use the same formula as given for calculating reaction Su M Tu W Th F Sa
force at at the discharge elbow in B31.1 (for open discharge system).
Shall i assume this force to be acting vertically on the exhaust pipe 1 2
(20") and no force acting on 8" pipe? (using, Dynamic load factor=2) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Third question: Will there be any reaction force due to silencer, which
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
needs to be added to the reaction force calculated above.
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Fourth question: Many times horizontal reaction is given as acting on 31
safety valve along with the vertical reaction, but there is no such force
given in 31.1, how can we calculate horizontal reaction forces. Forum Stats

11627 Members
Think i am asking a lot many questions, but will be very thankful for
14 Forums
your replies
15774 Topics

70858 Posts
Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post
Max Online: 126 @
Re: Safety Valve reaction force [Re: adi singh] #27905 06/03/09 11:27 AM 05/09/18 04:29 PM
manu
Member it would be very educating to know about basis for calculation of

horizontal reaction forces.
Registered:
06/03/09
Posts: 30
Loc: india
Re: Safety Valve reaction force [Re: manu] #27909 06/03/09 02:11 PM
anindya
stress To the extent I know the origin of the horizontal force equation is D
Member Laval rocket eqn.

Registered:
04/12/04 _________________________
Posts: 493
anindya
Loc: London, UK

Re: Safety Valve reaction force [Re: anindya stress] #27932 06/04/09 01:29 AM
adi singh
Member Dear Anindya.....

Can you explore more regarding your answer.
Registered:
12/10/07

http://forums.coade.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showﬂat&Number=33483&Searchpage=12&Main=6000&Words=constant&Search=true#Post33483 1/16
Posts: 67
Loc: india
Re: Safety Valve reaction force [Re: adi singh] #27933 06/04/09 02:00 AM
shr
Member Hi Adi

Regarding other points.
Registered:
02/16/07 1) You may consider it as close system.
Posts: 508
2) Open discharge calculation is quite conservative one. You may use it
Loc: Singapore to calculate force unless force value supplied by PSV vendor. I think you
have two PSV with 8" & 20", in that case you have to prepare OCC load
case for both of them. You may consider both case nonconcurrent in
case both are connected to same source.

3) No need to consider additional force for silencer.

Appreciate comment on above statement from Anindya or other expert.

Regards

Habib

Re: Safety Valve reaction force [Re: shr] #27940 06/04/09 04:00 AM
manu
Member Thanks anindya!

but it would help if you could explain it a bit.for i believe if there is a jet
Registered:
06/03/09 from elbow(curved)the reaction force would be vertical as is covered in
Posts: 30 the code and not horizontal.Please forgive my ignorance..i may be quite
Loc: india wrong.

I also came across one formula for horizontal reaction force, but it had
no mention of the source.

Dear habib!

please clarify one doubt, for the closed system, shall he consider the
reaction force at the first elbow(8")after exit from safety valve or at the
last/silencer end(20")(where it meets the atmosphere).

Manvender [:)]

Edited by manu (06/04/09 04:02 AM)

Re: Safety Valve reaction force [Re: manu] #27941 06/04/09 04:20 AM
RK
Member Hi Manu,

Registered:
02/24/09 For the safety valve forces you have to consider them at the first elbow
Posts: 173 after the safety valve. As what I see Mr. Adi was asking of some formula
Loc: India mention in ASME B31.1. You can use the same formula for determining
the magnitude of force for the close discharge system. It is mention in
the code. If I remember correctly then it is nonmendatory appendices
under II2.3.2

Regards,
RK

Re: Safety Valve reaction force [Re: RK] #27945 06/04/09 05:03 AM
manu
Member Dear RK

Registered:
06/03/09 u see the formula is ok!, but where should one apply the force?(in a
closed system)..
Posts: 30
Loc: india at the exit to atmosphere(i feel so!) or at the first elbow after the
exhayst valve(assuming there are a few bends before it reaches
atmosphere)..i read in one of the posts..mr brown had mentioned that it
should be applied at all the elbows ..but what magnitude..i couldn't get
it.

NewPiper
Member Manu,

Registered:
12/18/08 I think you can consider the first elbow after the PSV. After the pressure
Posts: 27 thrust hits the first elbow, the reaction force would not be significant at
Loc: Canada the exit to atm.

Thanks,

Re: Safety Valve reaction force [Re: NewPiper] #27961 06/04/09 12:29 PM
manu
Member Thanks Piper!

Registered:
06/03/09 i searched through the forrum and found a very similar problem. It was
Posts: 30 very informative. But now i am more confused than i was before
Loc: india
http://www.coade.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?
ubb=showflat&Number=18466&page=4

RK
Member Dear Manu,

You can add the force at the first elbow. There is no point in adding the
Registered:
02/24/09 force at the exit to ATM.
Posts: 173
Loc: India Regards,
RK

Umair
Member Well in the Caesar technical reference manual it is written than if a

manifold piping is attached and the discharge of psv fills the exit and
Registered:
04/16/09 manifold piping than the force should act on the last elbow of discharge
Posts: 13 to the atmosphere whereas in case of the manifold not being filled
Loc: Pakistan completely than the reaction force should act on the first elbow on the
exit piping. In another post in the thread mentioned below Mr.Loren has
suggested that in an open system this force should act on each elbow.

ubb=showflat&Number=11770&page=1#Post11770

Please clarify

Regards,
Umair

Re: Safety Valve reaction force [Re: Umair] #27986 06/05/09 03:48 AM
RK
Member I would like to say please refer ASME 31.1 nonmendatory app. for more

clarification on this issue.
Registered:
02/24/09
Posts: 173
Loc: India
manu
Member Thanks umair

Registered:
06/03/09 It's more clear now.
Posts: 30
I think the first time i read that thread i was very much sleeping.
Loc: india
Thanks RK,

I had read nonmendatory app.ASME 31.1, it doesn't say much about
closed systems, does it? though it was very informative, for sure.

..also there is a doubt I couldn't clarify
why is:

p3=p1(A1/A3) ......(II2.2.1)
v3=v1 ......(II2.2.1)

mariog
Member Itâ€™s a fluid mechanics model.

If you are outside B31.1 scope, you can follow your own model using
Registered:
09/29/07 software like AFT Arrow. Inside B31.1 scope itâ€™s better to follow the
Posts: 666 appendix.
Loc: Romania
Just few words.

You may consider a famous work on this subject â€œ75WA/FE23
Steam Flow through Safety Valve Vent Pipes by H. E. Brandmaier and M.

E. Knebelâ€ . Please see

ubb=showflat&Board=1&Number=21607

I second Mr. G.S. Liao criticism developed in "Discussion" section of the
above article. Arrow software solves the problem just as Mr. Liao hoped.

Iâ€™ve tried to make some comments on this subject at:

ubb=showflat&Number=21000

It would be "informative" or not, itâ€™s not more than my opinion.

regards

Re: Safety Valve reaction force [Re: mariog] #28007 06/05/09 09:27 PM
manu
Member Grazie Mariog!

Registered:
06/03/09 I have downloaded it, i will read it and will come back to u for help.
Posts: 30
Loc: india (..was in italy(genoa) last year..this time..and i love that country)

ciao

anindya
stress Dear Adi,
Member

Registered: The origin of th horizontal reaction force is somewhat like this ( this
04/12/04 derivation was told to me by a person who I consider as my guru in

Posts: 493
Loc: London, UK stress analysis):

The second half of the equation â€“ AP is obvious. The first part
129W√[kt/((k+1)M)] â€“ represents the momentum part of the
equation (i.e., F = Aρv2, where A = crosssectional area, ρ = density, v
= velocity). Writing this another way:

F = Aρv*v = W*v (where W = Aρv, mass flow in kg/sec).

So the question is, what is the maximum possible velocity when a vent
is opened, releasing a hot gas into the atmosphere (or an open
system)? To estimate that, we can turn to de Lavalâ€™s nozzle equation
(from rocketry):

where:

Ve

= Exhaust velocity at nozzle exit, m/s

T

= absolute temperature of inlet gas, K

R

= Universal gas law constant = 8314.5 J/(kmolÂ·K)

M

= the gas molecular mass, kg/kmol (also known as the molecular
weight)

k

= cp / cv = isentropic expansion factor

cp

= specific heat of the gas at constant pressure

cv

= specific heat of the gas at constant volume

Pe

= absolute pressure of exhaust gas at nozzle exit, Pa

P

= absolute pressure of inlet gas, Pa

If we assume that the valve vents into the atmosphere, then Pe
approaches 0, so this equation approaches:

V = √(TR/M)(2k)/(k1)

So:


F = W*√(TR/M)(2k)/(k1)

Since R = 8314.5, √2R = 129, reducing the equation to:

F = 129W*√(kT)/[(k1)M]

This is almost exactly the API520 equation (we have â€œk1â€ in the
denominator inside the radical, while API520 has â€œk+1â€ . I
donâ€™t know if that is an error on their part, or if they are using a
completely different basis for their estimate than I am, or if the Pe/P
part of the equation that I dropped out makes a differenceâ€¦

Regards

Edited by anindya stress (06/06/09 05:48 AM)
_________________________
anindya

mariog
Member Dear Anindya,

Registered:
09/29/07 A "k+1" in denominator formula is naturally comingup from Laval
Posts: 666 nozzle theory. See, for example, Roberson, Croweâ€˜s "Engineering
Loc: Romania Fluid Mechanics", paragraph "massflow rate through a Laval nozzle".

API formula is correct against the assumptions made: a perfect gas
evolving isentropic from stagnation state (M=0) to critical state (M=1).
You can correct this formula for a specific real gas. But staying under
API calculation it means to follow the formula.

Now few ideas not related to your comment but to Laval theory.

Although isentropic flow is an idealization, it often is a good
approximation for the actual behavior of nozzles. Since a nozzle is a
device that accelerates a flow, the internal pressure gradient is
favorable. This trends to keep the wall boundary layers thin and to
minimize the effects of friction, Fox McDonald "Introduction to fluid
mechanics"

In my opinion thatâ€™s why we cannot extrapolate directly the Laval
theory as valid for a PSV model (I refer here only to the PSV). A lot of
friction is generated in the PSV's body (and we want to have that
friction!) and itâ€™s hard to think that after the PSV throat the fluid
accelerates to supersonic flow.

It is one reason I donâ€™t agree with Brandmaier and Knebelâ€™s
articleâ€¦They said "The flow leaving the valve orifice can be
characterized as an underexpanded jet exhausting into a larger diameter
cylindrical pipe. The flow expands across a series of expansion waves to
supersonic velocities until its static pressure equals the pressure
surrounding the jetâ€¦."

IMO, there are few IFs here: IF the wall boundary layer is thin; IF the
friction effects are kept to minimum, IF the internal pressure gradient is
favorableâ€¦ Nevertheless, with such turbulence and friction developed
in PSV body, for me itâ€™s hard to believe such behavior.

I reattach this article; I remember you have posted it some time ago.
Thank you for your generosity!

My kind regards

Attachments

734432STEAMFLOWTHROUGHSAFETYVALVEVENTPIPES.pdf (2360
downloads)

Re: Safety Valve reaction force [Re: mariog] #28014 06/06/09 08:57 PM
manu
Member Thanks anindya!

Thanks mariog!
Registered:
06/03/09
Posts: 30 seems like i have a lot of homework to do
Loc: india
anindya
stress
Member

Mariog,
Registered:
04/12/04
Posts: 493 Thanks a lot.
Loc: London, UK
I will go through all the references cited by you.I also agree with you on
your view on the particular aspect of Brandmaier and Knebel's article.

Regards
_________________________
anindya

anindya
stress Mariog,
Member

I have seen some companies use an expression in lieu of the (Pexit
Registered:
04/12/04 Patm)* Exit Area ( for the Reaction force at the open end of an PSV tail
Posts: 493 pipe) :
Loc: London, UK
Force= mass flow rate times SQRT( GAMMA *g*R1*T2)/g

where GAMMA is the ratio Cp/Cv, R1 is gas constant, g=acceleration due
to gravity , T2= Max. Exit temp.

I am not sure how is this expression derived.

Kind help from Mariog/any member of this forum will be highly
appreciated.

Regards
_________________________
anindya

anindya
stress In continuation of the post above, my understanding is, the expression
Member is nothing but mass flow rate times sonic velocity at exit. But , my

question is, why this expression should be a substitute for (PexitPatm)*
Registered: Exit area?
04/12/04

Posts: 493
Loc: London, UK Regards
_________________________
anindya

anindya
stress Any thoughts from members of this forum?
Member

Regards
Registered:
04/12/04 _________________________
Posts: 493
anindya
Loc: London, UK

Re: Safety Valve reaction force [Re: anindya stress] #33380 02/25/10 12:27 PM
Richard Yee
anindya,

Member

The different terms for the derivation of the load might be from the
Registered:
12/16/99 equation for conservation of momentum, or impulse = chamge in
Posts: 166 momentum,
Loc: Chesterfield,
F*t = mv2mv1 .
MO 63017
_________________________
R Yee

stressengineer
Dear sir,

Member

refer API RP520 for PSV Reaction force calculation..
Registered:
08/07/09
Posts: 36
Loc: india
Re: Safety Valve reaction force [Re: stressengineer] #33419 02/28/10 08:31 AM
anindya
stress Richard,
Member

I agree with you that it is the momentum eqn.My question is , the
Registered:
04/12/04 expression mentioned in my post, in what way it can be a substitute for
Posts: 493 Pressure differential at exit times exit area and how is it derived in that
Loc: London, UK form?

Dear Stress Engineer,

My question is not about where to get the PSV reaction force from . I
also know that it is there in API 520. My question is in the previous
paragraph.If you have answer to this specific question , only then
respond.

Regards
_________________________
anindya

mariog Dear anindya,
Member

You can consider my understanding of this reaction force derivation in
Registered:
09/29/07
Posts: 666 ubb=showflat&Main=4654&Number=21003#Post21003
Loc: Romania
The reactive force has two components, derived from Fluid mechanics
model.

Reactive_Force= [mass flowrate]*[jet_velocity]+ [p_jet]*[area_jet]

The first term has that expression which appears as an "enigma" for a
regular engineer. However, jet_velocity is just the critical speed when
the jet gas flow has Mach=1; the expression is not exactly the sound
speed in resting fluid but is closed to that value anyway this is just a
detail.

The second term, even familiar, cannot be evaluated without a fluid
mechanics model. The "best" is to have a result from a flow simulation,
but depending on the application you can see some theoretical results in
some articles.

So in my understanding both terms are to be considered.

Sorry for the answer delay!
Best regards.

Re: Safety Valve reaction force [Re: mariog] #33431 03/01/10 08:37 AM
anindya
stress Mariog,
Member

Thanks for the input.
Registered:
04/12/04
Posts: 493 Reaction force should be equal to
Loc: London, UK
= Mass flow rate times velocity at Relief valve outlet + ( Exit pressue
atmospheric pressure) x exit area. This is precisely what API 520
expression says.

The flow process to bring the fluid from the vessel stagnation condition
to the nozzle throat can be assumed to be isentropic i.e adiabatic and
reversible, the flow from nozzle throat to the relief valve can be
considered to be adiabatic only but irreversible and finally the flow
through the outlet nozzle can be considred to be isentropic.

The first part of API 520 expression is = mass flow rate times exit
velocity.There can be three different scenarios.

1) flow through the relief valve is choked at the relief valve nozzle and
relief valve exit plane.

2) Flow through the relief valve nozzle is still choked but the flow at the
relief valve exit plane remains unchoked.

3) flow throughout the relief valve is unchoked.

It can be shown that the API 520 equation fits case 1 and the velocity at
exit is the sonic velocity. API expresses it in terms of stagnation temp.
in the vessel which can be coverted to temp. at exit and this conversion
shows the well known expression for sonic velocity ( SQRT GAMMA X R
X T/M)in terms of exit temperature.

My doubt is: the expression mentioend in my original post is sonic
velocity. So if this one used along with the first part i.e. momentum part
of API 520 eqn. is not not a doubling of momentum expression and
secondly how do we justify this expression as a substitute for the second
term of API expression?

Regards
_________________________
anindya

mariog
Member Dear anindya,

Registered:
09/29/07 Iâ€™m not sure I can follow your doubts.
Posts: 666
Iâ€™m not blaming you for thisâ€¦ itâ€™s just my incapacity to resolve
Loc: Romania your doubts vs. my "knowledge".

In API 520 "2.4.1 DETERMINING REACTION FORCES IN AN OPEN
DISCHARGE SYSTEM" first paragraph is saying "The following formula is
based on a condition of critical steadystate flow of a compressible fluid
that discharges to the atmosphere through an elbow and a vertical
discharge pipe. The reaction force ( F ) includes the effects of both
momentum and static pressure; thus, for any gas, vapor,
steam,â€¦.etc"

So itâ€™s clear that the intention is to consider a steadystate flow
counted as critical where the jet exists in the atmosphere. In
bracketsâ€¦the formula is not looking to what is happening in PSV.
Why? In my opinion because is nothing serious to give a reaction force
there, at least in steady state flow. Itâ€™s funny sometimes Vendor is
giving a reaction force in PSV but saying itâ€™s counted as PSV is free
discharging at outlet flange. In my opinion, in this case the real effect is
"free jet" at outlet flange, not specifically the PSV presenceâ€¦

In Fluid Mechanics the terminology "critical" is referring to Mach=1 in
that section and the critical velocity is counted as sqrt(kRT*) with
R=Ru/M.

To obtain T* , the theory is counting an isentropic evolution between
stagnation conditions in vessel (T0 @ Mach=0) and critical condition (T*
@ Mach=1) in exit section. The Fluid Mechanics rule for that is
T*=2*T0/(k+1).

Now you can get the API result, and you can calculate c*= the critical
velocity sqrt(kRT*) as

sqrt(2Ru)* sqrt[kT0/(k+1)/M].

In SI, Ru=8314.47 J/kgmol/K so numerically sqrt(2Ru)=129.
So the first term of API's SI formula is

Wxc*=129*W*sqrt[kT0/(k+1)/M] with W "flow of any gas or vapor, in
kilograms per second" as API says.

API is not entering in details for the second part of formula effect of
static. They are just saying is A = area of the outlet at the point of
discharge, multiply by P = static pressure within the outlet at the point
of discharge.

The formula has two parts and must include the effects of both
momentum and static pressure.

Nothing is double counted in my opinion. Both expressions must be
evaluated API says.

Now Iâ€™m not sure whatâ€™s your doubt.

Could be the assumption that the gas/vapor expands isentropically from
protected vessel/ pipeline to the exit? True, it seems that the PSV
existence is not specifically countedâ€¦ And true again, that pipe will
choke at more than one location along its length.

But this assumption (isentropic evolution on all path) just provides a
convenient mean to determine the maximum capacity / reaction force,
in my opinion.

And again in my opinion "choke" is not synonym with "free jet"...the
real troubles are where we have a free jet giving a reaction force, so
exactly where API is looking for...

You said "But , my question is, why this expression should be a
substitute for (PexitPatm)* Exit area?"

No, shouldn't replace the second term. Just the fact the second term is
not so easy to be counted and is moderate as value...

anindya
stress Mariog,
Member

Thanks for your input.
Registered:
04/12/04
Posts: 493 I will try to put my question in more clear terms.
Loc: London, UK
I am totally in agreement with the first part of the API expression i.e.
the momentum part.

My question is about the second term i.e. Area at exit x Exit Pressure.

API does not provide any expression for exit pressure.

Considering choked flow and adiabatic conditions, we can write an
expression for exit pressure as :

P exit= (W/Ae)x SQRT( 2RTo/(k(k+1)M)

Where is the mass flow rate (kg/sec)
Ae= exit area

R=universal gas constant
k=Cp/Cv

M=molecular weight

To= vessel stagnation temp

Using this expression and also the ratio of To/Te where Te is the exit
temp ( which is =(k+1)/2),I am getting the following expression for
Pexit x A exit

=WXSQRT(R'Te/k)...(1)

where R' is the characteristic gas constant=R/M

This expression is close to but not same as what is there in my original
post, which I am rewritting for ready reference.This time I am writing
the full expression with the units.

WX1.88 SQRT(k.g.R'.Te)/g....(2)This is in Newton

where g stands for gravitaional acceleration in m/sec^2. Unit of R' in (2)
is in J/kg K , Te is in K

I am not sure how to prove that (1)=(2)

Kindly throw some light.

Regards

_________________________
anindya

mariog
Member I understand you are looking to the second term of API formula.

I think your problem hasnâ€™t a simple answer and for this fact API
Registered:
09/29/07 doesnâ€™t enter in details.

Posts: 666

Loc: Romania
Letâ€™s simplify the discussion looking to a "dummy "fluid mechanics
model.

One pipe is connected to a large vessel and the other end of a pipe exits
into the atmosphere.

The vessel is large enough so even in steadystate flow the vessel
pressure ("large enough") remains constant.

So the pipe is connected to an "infinite source" with density0, p0 ,T0
and discharge into atmosphere with p_atm. T_atm. The pipe is adiabatic
insulated.

There is a steadystate flow trough the pipe. At the endpoint, the gas
pressure cannot drop to match the atmospheric pressure without the
gas accelerating to critical conditions. A shock wave forms at the end of
the pipe, resulting in a pressure discontinuity. In my opinion that
discontinuity results in energy dissipated in the atmospheric turbulence
so the pressure that would be taken into consideration in API reactive
force formula is the "upstream shock" static pressure. This approach
would be questionable but anyway is conservative.

It is true also that, the choked flow at the endpoint can be count as
Laval. However it is difficult to apply these equations to choked
conditions, because the local conditions upstream are not known at the
point of choking.

Anyway, to perform this calculation, one must be able to calculate the
stagnation pressure and temperature at the end of the pipe, upstream
of the shock wave. How?

The real behavior of gas flow in adiabatic pipe is the gas accelerates
along the length of the pipe. As the pressure drops, the gas density will
also drop and the dropping density must be balanced by an increase in
velocity to maintain mass balance. So to make a calculation means to
evaluate pressure, temperature and gas density as "local conditions"
upstream of the shock wave. In this case, important is to simulate the
flow trough the pipe.

Even so, the fluid mechanics model is a little bit strange since you know
one boundary condition at the end of the pipe (Mach=1).

BTW, if you take a look in the section "Discussions" of the famous article
"Steam Flow Through Safety valve Vent Pipes" by Brandmayer and
Knebel, Mr. G.S.Liao said "In any case, the conditions at the vent pipe
inlet can not be determined without knowing the conditions at the vent
pipe outlet. Therefore, the calculations are always backward". True,
thatâ€™s why I think that article is just a fluid mechanics model that
makes assumptions hard to be confirmed.

For adiabatic conditions, the calculation for this model can be performed
by hand. Some guidance you can found in the article "GasFlow
calculations: Donâ€™t Choke". Iâ€™ve downloaded the article from AFT
site. Mr. Trey Walters is the President of AFT (Applied Flow Technology).

Anyway, the real case of PSV is a much more complicated simulation, so
I would prefer to have the results from AFT package Arrow is the
module for GasFlow calculations.

I donâ€™t know if what I've written clarifies your doubts. Probably
neither of your formulas is what you need.

In my understanding it's important to simulate what is happening
through the piping system rather to know what is happening in final
shock wave.

Attachments

CE%20Gasflow%20Reprint.pdf (1448 downloads)

Edited by mariog (03/03/10 03:14 AM)

anindya
Mariog,
stress

Member
Thanks for your input. I would like to share two papers with you on this
Registered: subject. Due to copyright issues, I cannot post it on the forum.
04/12/04
Posts: 493
It will be great if you can share your email with me.
Loc: London, UK

Regards
_________________________
anindya

mariog
Member Iâ€™ll be honored to share ideas about the subject.

Iâ€™ve tried to send you a message via My stuff/ Messages.
Registered:
09/29/07 I get a nice "Private messages are disabled".
Posts: 666
It is a setting of my profile or Coade service is disabled?
Loc: Romania
anindya
stress Dear Mariog,
Member

I also could not send you a private message as against your name it is
Registered:
04/12/04 disabled.
Posts: 493
Loc: London, UK My email id is: abhattacharya_uk@hotmail.com

You can send a test mail at this address and I will Send you the papers.

Regards
_________________________
anindya

anindya
stress Mariog,
Member

I will send you the papers today. Regarding my post, this is how I could
Registered:
04/12/04 get 1=2 well at least nearly.
Posts: 493
Loc: London, UK Since k= 1.4 ,the expression for PX A that I got earlier can be written as
:

= W x 0.71 X SQRT( k x R' X Texit)

The expression in my post is :

(W x 1.88/g) X SQRT( k x g XR' X Texit)

This is equal to :

((W X 1.88 )/ SQRT(g)) X SQRT( kxg XR'XTexit)

Since g=9.81m/sec^2 and inverse of SQRT g= 0.319, the above
expression comes to :

WX1.88X0.319 X SQRT( kx R'XTexit) = W x 0.6 X SQRT( kx R'XTexit)

Hope my algebra above was correct.

Regards

_________________________
anindya

mariog
Member Dear all,

Registered:
09/29/07 Anindya has sent me two articles about the subject. They are valuable,
Posts: 666 no doubt. However, the author has developed a quite complex system
Loc: Romania â€“ eight equations, all based on the assumptions of perfect fluid in
steadystate, adiabatic, frictionless and isentropic flow.

If the goal is to evaluate the choked sonic speed and choked fluid
pressure, a serious simplification can be applied. There is a p_choked
formula that supplements API formula being developed in the same way
as that leading to the choked sonic speed expression. I have no idea
why API does not detail the reaction force formula with p_choked
expression.

I attach my interpretation. The result is identical with the articlesâ€™
conclusion and is in fact exactly what Anindya has posted previously.
So my contribution was just to simplify everything to "one page"
presentation. In addition it is not subject to copyright.

This discussion is not about where the choked flow and reaction force
may appear. The formulas are evaluating the sonic speed and choked
pressure in isentropic choked flow section they are not showing where
is that point.

About this aspect, I think the reaction force must be count just where
there is "the free jet" effect at the end of open discharge piping and in
that point there is a "choked" flow in many cases.

It may be a long discussion about this aspect anyway is what I am
thinking.

The formulas are not counting friction effects.

Are interesting also the remarks I found in the articles "As mentioned
before, the relief valve body has a very complex geometry. This complex
geometry causes the relieving fluid to have a complex flow pattern. The
fluid must change direction several times and there are certainly some
frictional effects within the relief valve body. However, by making these
assumptions, analytical expressions can be developed and these
expressions yield interesting information and valuable insight about a
rather complex problem. More complicated methods can certainly be
utilized to analyze the body of the relief valve. However, these added
complexities will certainly require a more detailed description of the
geometry within the relief valve body and will almost certainly require
numerical methods for computations."

I second this interpretation, the formulas are just what we can do
analytically and this fluid mechanics model is just one possible. The fact
API has accepted this way is encouraging.

Thank you, Anindya for your help.

Best regards.

Attachments

Choked flow pressure.pdf (1790 downloads)

sasklimin

Member Piping and Pipe Support Design and Engineering by Pau R. Smith had

pointed out this question and gave the equation to calculation reaction
Registered:
07/04/12 fore
Posts: 8
Loc:
saskatoon,sk,canada Attachments

Piping and Pipe Support Systems Design and Engineering by Paul R
Smith and Thomas J Van Laan.pdf (1083 downloads)

mariog
Member ... or B31.1, NONMANDATORY APPENDIX II, RULES FOR THE DESIGN OF

SAFETY VALVE INSTALLATIONS, II2.2.1 Design Pressure and Velocity
Registered:
09/29/07 for Open Discharge Installation Discharge Elbows and Vent Pipes....
Posts: 666
Loc: Romania
Re: Safety Valve reaction force [Re: sasklimin] #50101 08/06/12 05:11 AM
mariog
Member sasklimin,

Registered:
09/29/07 Because youâ€™ve mentioned the formulas given by Pipe Support
Posts: 666 Design and Engineering by Smith & Van Laan/ B31.1 "PSV steam case",
Loc: Romania activating this old thread, I have some remarks addressed to B31.1/ P1
and V1 expressions.

First, it is clear that B31.1/ Appendix II considers that not all stagnation
enthalpy (h0) can be transformed to a state based on chocked
parameters, so there is a correction as "h0a" instead of "h0". Here I
can speculate that this difference is because steam is not a "perfect
gas", so to the domain of lower temperatures/ pressures we may have
steam/water mixture or water and the idea is PSV can "consume" a
quantity of enthalpy up to such fluid state; maybe this approach is not
conservative, but I donâ€™t need to comment it too much; just
consider "h0a" as the enthalpy that is transformed.

It is interesting that, excepting the above mentioned deviation, the
B31.1 model is still based on the "perfect gas" model and there is
equivalence between the "b" factor of B31.1 and "k" the specific heat
ratio (or "adiabatic index").

The corresponding formula is k=b/(b1); I guess this info was lost from
the original work (unknown for me), but this is evident checking the
values of "k" versus "b" factors given in B31.1. i.e. k=11/(111)=1.10
for "wet steam" and k=4.33/(4.331)=1.30 for both saturated steam ">
90% quality" and "Superheated steam".

With these remarks, one can compare directly the results (between the
paper with "perfect gas" model and B31.1 model) because (k
1)/(k+1)=1/(2b1) appears in B31.1/"V1" expression and 1/k=(b1)/b
appears in "P1" expression.

More specific, following the paper I attached some time ago, in SI units
we obtain h0a=(1/2)*(k+1)/(k1)*V1^2=(1/2)*(2b1)*V1^2 that
would lead to a SI correspondent of B31.1/(A.2) expression; also P1=
(W/A)*(1/k)*V1 =(W/A)*((b1)/b)*V1 i.e. you obtain the SI
correspondent of (A.1) expression.

You may note that "gc" and "J" appears there because B31.1 is based on
US Customary Units, while the "SI formulas" coefficients in Smith &Van
Laanâ€™s book must be "2" (from theory) instead 2.0085 and 1.995
(from units conversions). But this is a secondary remark and anyway
the results are quite accurate vs. the assumptions made; more
interesting is that "the perfect gas model" of "P1" pressure gets results
inline with B31.1.

What I try to say is that P=(W/A)*(1/k)*V (where P and V are
characteristic to isentropic choked status) is confirmed indirectly by
B31.1 and obviously it is a more general formula. In fact, this long
discussion was just intended to clarify which pressure "p" must be
considered as the design pressures in the end of PSV discharge piping
and vent pipe, for open discharge installation; the goal is to check the
reaction force there.

My best regards.

Search Results

Tweet
Like Be the ﬁrst of your friends to like this.

Quick Reply:
HTML is
enabled
UBBCode
is
enabled
Add
Signature

Submit Preview Reply Switch to Full Reply Screen

Moderator: Dave Diehl, Richard Ay Hop to: CAESAR II Go
Privacy statement · Board Rules · Mark all read
GooG_v2_copy_copy_copy Contact Us · Home Page · Top

Generated in 0.106 seconds in which 0.065 seconds were spent on a total of 17 queries. Zlib compression disabled.
Powered by UBB.threads™ 7.5.7

Safety Valve Reaction Force

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Safety Valve Reaction Force

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12/03/2019 Safety Valve reaction force - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis

New Reply Topic Options Search

Like Be the ﬁrst of your friends to like this.

You might also like