×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Mitigating Processes

Mitigating Processes

Mitigating Processes

(OP)
I am evaluating a tube rupture RV case.  Due to the tube size (3") and high pressure diffential, the calculated flow is huge.  The calculated RV size is 24", which is larger than any nozzle.  I am hoping that one of the forum members might have encounted this problem.  Does ASME allow for mitigation via upgraded preventive/predictive maintenance?

Thanks in advance.

RE: Mitigating Processes

Bill3752,

I have one question.  Did you use the hydrotest pressure of the shell as your low pressure?  This may help reduce your required rate.

In addition, API 521 also allows credit for the normal volumetric capacity of the system.  This is based on the assumption that as soon as the tube ruptures, the normal flow will stop, and all that will be going downstream is from the high pressure side.

RE: Mitigating Processes

Bill,
Tube rupture is a rare phenomena and you're talking about a huge (probably bigger even than is commercially available) PSV. Why not go with a rupture disk which anyway will offer better protection from a rapidly acting pressure surge such as the tube rupture scenario. If you do use one or more RD's, put one in the center of the tube bundle; for several, space them around the center of the tube bundle.

RE: Mitigating Processes

(OP)
Thanks for the input. There are several exhangers that are involved.  I am assuming the the high pressure flow is the only flow.  Rupture disks are being used, not RV's (except in a couple of cases as extra protection). Grasping at straws, but wondering if one looks at likelihood of event, plus takes extra predictive maintenance measures, that he could install instead a smaller RD based on a much more likely case.   

RE: Mitigating Processes

I think the answer is "NO". Though unlikely, tube rupture is considered a valid relief scenario and must be provided for. There are no mitigating circumstances that can justify anything less than the full relief scenario.

RE: Mitigating Processes

(OP)
Thanks Jack, you pretty much confirmed what I knew (but wished I was wrong - lol).

RE: Mitigating Processes

You may be able to look at the design pressures of the system -if the low side design pressure is 66% of the highside, there are some provisions for not requiring tube rupture protection....

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources