Professional Documents
Culture Documents
You Are Here: Safety Valve Noise
You Are Here: Safety Valve Noise
Search
HOME You are here: safety relief valves > Safety Valve Noise
AND MORE... What is a safety valve? How often, long and loud is its noise?
The safety valve is a device to avoid a dangerous build-up of pressure within a system that it is designed
Contact us
to protect. One should never forget that any redesign of the PSV system must not decrease the safety of
Profile yourself
the protected system. A safety valve is normally used with compressible fluids, whereas a relief valve is
Comments
primarily used with incompressible fluids (see the introduction to Ref 1). The safety valve is generally
Meet the staff known as a PSV and may release the process fluid directly to the atmosphere via a short stub pipe, or
release the process fluid via a pipe to a flare, or some other equipment. These will be called "open vent"
and "closed" PSV systems, respectively. A PSV is actuated by upstream pressure and is characterised by
what is described as a "pop" action upon opening. It is important to recognise that one should not expect
a gentle release of gas proportional to valve lift.
The noise from major PSVs can be expected to be in the region of 150 -170 dB PWL. I will guess a figure
of "once in a hundred years" for the operational frequency of a single PSV, and thus on a plant with a
hundred PSVs a noise from a PSV might be heard once a year.
While the system is depressurising the PSV will make noise. The noise changes and decays with time as
the pressure decreases. The noise is greatest while the pressure drop across the valve induces sonic
velocities in the valve. The higher the pressure ratio the higher the noise. The PSV may "chatter" due to
flow instability while the gas flow continues, and it may not re-seat when the pressure is low enough for
this to happen.
We shall define these emergency releases of gas as transient noise sources, but it may take hours for a
system's total inventory to be released to the atmosphere or to the flare.
Here are two documents which include noise limits that seem appropriate for any review of PSV noise.
86/188/ECC. (Ref 4)
This directive states that if a maximum value of the unweighted instantaneous sound pressure level is
greater than 200 Pa "suitable and adequate" ear protectors, which can be reasonably expected to keep
the risk to hearing to below the risk arising from exposure to 200 Pa, must be used.
http://www.valve-world.net/srv/ShowPage.aspx?pageID=585 22/10/2008
Safety Valve Noise Página 2 de 5
It is on this directive that the UK's Noise at Work regulations are based. (Ref 5)
The ½MC 2 term is the kinetic power of the choked flow through the valve, and the symbol h is for the
acoustic efficiency associated with the transformation of some of the kinetic power to sound power. M is
the mass flow rate. C is the speed of sound in the choked gas thus, C2 = k*R*T/ (MW). Franken shows
that h ranges between about 10-5 to 10-2.
With the above two equations the Franken discussion leads to an equation for the SPL at 30 m:
where the value in dB of the term (10*Log[ ] + 79 ) is to be evaluated from the graph (dB vs. Pressure
Ratio) published in the Recommended Practice.
The ordinate scale on the API graph is labelled 'L = L30 -10Log(½MC2)', however the simple derivation
given above displays its physical basis.
The curve that is the result of plotting jet acoustic efficiency, against pressure ratio is shown in Fig. 1.
Both the API, (10*Log[ ] + 79) and Franken, ( ) ordinate scales are given for this characteristically
shaped curve.
At least one PSV vendor has simplified things yet further. By ignoring minor PSVs with pressure ratios of
less than three, and with the assumption that one value of acoustic efficiency, say 4* 10-3, can be used
for pressure ratios above three, a formula results for the sound pressure level at 30 m which is:
Other methods that are used for calculating the sound power level of PSV's can be found in the technical
literature. We had one project at Foster Wheeler Energy where there was a proliferation of PWL prediction
methods and we found it expedient to initiate a labelling system. In this system the initials of a methods
author/s were written after the symbol PWL to indicate the source of the calculation. Note that no one
method appears to have been adopted by the "valve industry" and that no international standard exits
solely for the calculation of PSV noise.
The reader may wish to calculate an example, so a relevant data set is given here,
A prediction method for noise at worker positions due to PSV vents was required, and in the absence of
an acknowledged and accepted method, the following simple one was developed to find the sound level
at an angle and distance from a pipe vent. Consideration is given here to the case of an "open vent"
http://www.valve-world.net/srv/ShowPage.aspx?pageID=585 22/10/2008
Safety Valve Noise Página 3 de 5
rather than a "closed" system as it will be seen to represent the most onerous case.
It is reasonable to suppose that the noise at the worker positions close to an open vent PSV will be a
function of:
valve body and pipe radiation (themselves functions of frequency)
radiation from vents which are directly to atmosphere ( a function of frequency)
the distance to the nearest " worker position"
any directivity associated with the ratio of, wave length of sound to vent diameter ( the gas may be cold
or hot and possibly about mach 0.5).
Assumptions were;
The API 521 calculation provided a dB(Lin) value that could be approximated to the same value in dB
1.
(A)
2. Directivity factors for the stub pipe's vent could be found and used.
3. A peak frequency of noise could be selected so as to act as a guide to the directivity factor.
4. Reduction of noise with increase of distance would follow the inverse square law.
A simplified set of directivity curves was used for the initial trial calculations with this method. They
provided the increase or decrease of sound with angle and were based on data in ISVR course notes
( See Chapter 9 of Ref 9) which was itself based on BBN data from 1952 and VDI 3733 data of 1983. This
directivity data is not given in VDI 3733 of July 1996. This data was reduced to a directivity table after
the selection of a peak frequency to act as a guide to the directivity factor. See Fig 2 for an example
based on 1000 Hz.
Initially, there was a lot a work involved in gathering the data on the positions of the platforms ladders
and stairs, and the positions of the closest PSV vents, but now, with the help of Foster Wheeler /
Intergraph 3D PDS it is a much quicker process.
An example of a PSV noise spreadsheet is given in Fig 3. This spreadsheet shows the "safe distance" at
which a worker might stand. "Safe distance" is defined as the distance at which the sound from the PSV
has reduced to the safe level. The safe level will be the level set by the owner, but is typically 100 to 125
dB(A) SL as was noted in Section 3. The safe distances from the open vent and from the pipe are
different because the rules for noise attenuation with distance from these types of sources are different.
We assume that the sound from the vent falls off at a rate inversely proportional to the square of
distance from the vent. We assume that the sound from the pipe falls off at a rate inversely proportional
to the distance from the pipe. At the foot of the spreadsheet there is a warning of the results obtained
from these simple assumptions. The data shown as entered is not "real" but is realistic and a "safe
distance" can be seen for both vent and pipe radiated noise at a range of sound power levels and sound
pressure levels at 1m distance from both the vent and the pipe wall. The table has been simplified to the
bare essentials. No directivity corrections are made in this example and the effect of pipe wall
transmission loss is demonstrated only by a constant difference of 25 dB between columns 6 and 7.
Conclusions
http://www.valve-world.net/srv/ShowPage.aspx?pageID=585 22/10/2008
Safety Valve Noise Página 4 de 5
References
1. API RP 520. Sizing, selection and installation of pressure relieving devices in refineries.
Pt 1. Sizing and selection (March 1993)
Pt 2. Installation (December 1994)
2. Guidelines on noise. Medical Research Report EA 7301. API 1973
3. Design principles: Working environment. NORSOK Standard S-DP-002 Rev 1, Dec. 1994 (PO Box 547,
N-4001 Stavanger, Norway. Fax (47) 51562105.)
4. 86/188/EEC Council Directive of 12 May 1986 on the protection of workers from the risks related to
the exposure to noise at work.
5. The noise at work regulations. SI No. 1790, 1989.
6. IEC 534-8-3: 1995 Industrial process control valves
Part 8 Noise Considerations
Section 3 Control valve aerodynamic noise prediction method
7. API RP 521. Guide for pressure relieving and depressuring systems (March 1997)
8. Noise Reduction. L L Beranek (Ed) McGraw-Hill (Pub. 1960)
9. Noise control for engineers in processing industries. Course notes 1990.
Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, University of Southampton, Hampshire, UK.
A letter of enquiry
February 1996
Dear Sir,
LIMITS AND CONTROL OF NOISE FROM THE RELEASE OF SAFETY VALVES DIRECTLY TO ATMOSPHERE
Currently, we have occasion to consider what philosophy we should adopt on future projects in regard to
the noise from safety valves which release directly to atmosphere, i.e. those that are not connected to a
flare or other system.
This letter, and your reply, will help define our future philosophy.
Limits to noise from "emergency vents" are often set at about 115 to 125 dB(A) at the ear of the nearest
personnel. See, for example, the 115 dB(A) of API EA 7301 (1973). Here 'emergency' relates to
foreseeable design situations such as safety valve operation and emergency depressurisation.
1. a safety valve which does not exceed 115 dB(A), both at 1.5 m from the pipe vent and at
positions 1 m from the valve body and 1 m from the down-stream pipe;
2. a safety valve with associated silencer element, which does not exceed the limits given above.
We also seek your comments on other possibilities for reduction or control of safety valve noise at the
nearest personnel. Here we have in mind by way of example,
We seek your comments on the suggestion that a safety valve vendor should be responsible for both the
calculation to verify the noise from the safety valve and the test procedure and measurement of the
sound pressure level and sound power level. The same responsibility would remain with the vendor where
a safety valve and an associated silencer element were bought from the safety valve vendor.
At this juncture, we also request that you send to us notes and information on:-
The difficulty and cost of noise control may be reduced if advantage is taken of the distance and
directivity between a safety valve vent and the nearest platform, stairway, or ladder (P,S,L). We invite
your comments on the proposal to provide vendors with details of both safety valve vent positions and
P,S,L positions in order that they may take appropriate advantage of the distance and directivity effects
of their proposed solutions.
Please treat this enquiry as a discussion document, which may be seen as " for the general good", and
thus need not be regarded as strictly confidential.
http://www.valve-world.net/srv/ShowPage.aspx?pageID=585 22/10/2008
Safety Valve Noise Página 5 de 5
Yours faithfully,
MDGR.
Acknowledgements: This paper was published in the December 1998 issue of Valve World magazine.
Valve World wishes to acknowledge that 1) this paper is based on a paper first presented at the Institute
of Acoustics Conference, Windermere, Cumbria, UK, November 1997, and 2) that this paper was first
published in Hydrocarbon Engineering - June 1998
http://www.valve-world.net/srv/ShowPage.aspx?pageID=585 22/10/2008