I have noticed there are many engineers still asking a simple question. In determining if a Pressure Relief Device is required for tube rupture, should we apply two-third (2/3) rule or ten-thirteen (10/13) rule ?
For those who has read my earlier post “Criteria for Requirement of Pressure Relief Device for Tube Rupture” may have aware that two-third (2/3) rule or ten-thirteen (10/13) rule are basically derivation of above criteria. Both are correct BUT subject to design code and revision of vessel being designed to.
WHY two-third (2/3) rule ?
Earlier revision of ASME required that equipment and piping be tested at 150% of stated design pressure. If the equipment design pressure is 15 barg, then the test pressure must be 22.5 barg, thus 15/22.5 = 2/3. API RP 521 (1997 edition) stated that if the design pressure of the low-pressure side (LPS) is at least 2/3 of the design pressure of the high pressure side (HPS), tube rupture is not considered a credible relieving scenario.
WHY two-third (2/3) rule ?
Earlier revision of ASME required that equipment and piping be tested at 150% of stated design pressure. If the equipment design pressure is 15 barg, then the test pressure must be 22.5 barg, thus 15/22.5 = 2/3. API RP 521 (1997 edition) stated that if the design pressure of the low-pressure side (LPS) is at least 2/3 of the design pressure of the high pressure side (HPS), tube rupture is not considered a credible relieving scenario.
WHY ten-thirteen (10/13) rule?
In latest ASME, it stated that the test pressure of equipment to be 130% of the design pressure. If the equipment design pressure is 15 barg, then the test pressure shall be 19.5 barg, thus 15/19.5 = 10/13. Similarly follow API RP 521 (1997 edition) statement, if the design pressure of the low-pressure side (LPS) is at least 10/13 of the design pressure of the high pressure side (HPS), tube rupture is not considered a credible relieving scenario.
In latest API STD 521, a more reasonable statement is the corrected test pressure of low pressure side (LPS) is more than the design pressure of high pressure side (HPS), tube rupture may not be considered a credible relieving scenario. This statement is applicable to any test pressure requirement.
In latest API STD 521, a more reasonable statement is the corrected test pressure of low pressure side (LPS) is more than the design pressure of high pressure side (HPS), tube rupture may not be considered a credible relieving scenario. This statement is applicable to any test pressure requirement.
WHY both are correct ?
One shall remember, the equipment may be designed to latest ASME code which called for test pressure to be 130% of equipment design pressure. Then ten-thirteen (10/13) rule is applied. But if the vessel is designed to AS (Australia), GB (China), etc which both standards still call for equipment test pressure to be 150% of equipment design pressure with stress correction, then two-third (2/3) rule still applied. Thus, whenever consider a tube rupture scenario, the design code of the vessel shall always be taken into consideration. Nevertheless, latest API STD 521 statement still applicable in conjunction with equipment design to any code (ASME, AS, GB, JIS, etc).
Updated :
June 07, 2008 : "...within" changed to "...at least". Thanks to swakee.
Sept 20, 2008 : "22.5/15" to "15/22.5"...
Related Topic
Updated :
June 07, 2008 : "...within" changed to "...at least". Thanks to swakee.
Sept 20, 2008 : "22.5/15" to "15/22.5"...
Related Topic
- Tube Rupture : Pressure Relief Valve (PSV) or Rupture Disk (RD) ?
- Criteria for Requirement of Pressure Relief Device for Tube Rupture
- Requirement of Overpressure Protection Device on "Final Vessel"
- FREE & Reliable Pressure Relief Valve Sizing Software
- Extra Caution When Eliminating Overpressure by Fire Attacks
- Should maximum recommended wall temperature (Tw) for carbon steel vessel used as design temperature ?
- Should we install Butterfly valve for Pressure Relief Valve (PSV) isolation ?
No comments:
Post a Comment