cdelan1
Chemical
- Feb 15, 2011
- 1
Is it acceptable to use the method listed in API 520 (part 1) 8th edition section 5.9 "Sizing for Liquid Relief: PRVs Not Requiring Capacity Certification" to evaluate the liquid relief capacity of a PSV which has a vapor trim, stamped capacity in SCFM, and has been tested using air? What about vapor flow through a liquid trim PSV? The language in section 5.9 seems to be referring to PSV's that were sized prior to the code requiring capacity certification. So, I'm not sure if the aforementioned interpretation is accurate.
I spoke with a PSV vendor today who told me that a PSV with a vapor trim should not be used for liquid relief (and vice versa) because of chattering, poor reliability, etc. He also said that the manufacturer's Kd for liquid relief was only for liquid trim PSV's, and should not be used for liquid relieving through a vapor trim PSV.
My understanding of API 520 (part 1) is that PSV sizing equations using API discharge coefficients and API effective discharge areas are to be used only for initial sizing, and that the ASME effective area and discharge coefficient should be obtained from the PSV manufacturer. Is this correct, and if so, how can one evaluate the capacity of a relief valve that has both liquid and vapor relief scenarios?
I spoke with a PSV vendor today who told me that a PSV with a vapor trim should not be used for liquid relief (and vice versa) because of chattering, poor reliability, etc. He also said that the manufacturer's Kd for liquid relief was only for liquid trim PSV's, and should not be used for liquid relieving through a vapor trim PSV.
My understanding of API 520 (part 1) is that PSV sizing equations using API discharge coefficients and API effective discharge areas are to be used only for initial sizing, and that the ASME effective area and discharge coefficient should be obtained from the PSV manufacturer. Is this correct, and if so, how can one evaluate the capacity of a relief valve that has both liquid and vapor relief scenarios?