ChemEngSquirrel
Chemical
- Jun 10, 2010
- 72
I'm trying to determine if the sizing case for an existing PRV is correct.
The PRV is located on the production header of an offshore platform upstream of the HP separator. A number of subsea wells supply the production flowline. The subsea line is rated for CITHP (closed in tubing head pressure). Topside there is a HP/LP interface and is therefore protected by the PRV i'm considering. In addition to the PRV, two high pressure trips provide further protection by closing an ESDV at the HP/LP interface as well as the sub sea well wing valves. Note: the two high pressure trips are not considered as HIPPS (i.e. not maintained as SIL 3 protection, ESDV are not fast acting). There is also a further high pressure trip at the HP sep and this will also isolate ESDVs and wells if activated.
PRV sizing case is blocked outlet based on steady state flow from all producing wells (at maximum expected steady state production).
However, if a well (initially at CITHP) was inadvertently opened to 100% choke on start up (i.e. operator error), the production rate from that well would exceed both relief valve and flare system capacity. My question is:
Should relief valve sizing consider a transient peak production flow caused by choke valve moving 100% open with a well at CITHP.
My initial thoughts are that this would require four failures so may be double jeopardy. Failures:
1 & 2. 2 high pressure trip failures on production header,
3. operator error in opening choke to 100%
4. Either HP sep high pressure trip failure or blockage upstream of HP sep.
However, for points 1 & 2, it seems possible that the rapid pressurisation caused by the high flow achievable following well opening would prevent the high pressure trip isolating ESDVs / wells quickly enough. This is because production header trips are only 10% below design pressure; HP sep trip is set 25% below design and is therefore more likely to provide sufficient margin to allow for ESDVs to close before design pressure is breached. Therefore, i'm not convinced that credit can be given to the two high pressure trip on the production header.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
The PRV is located on the production header of an offshore platform upstream of the HP separator. A number of subsea wells supply the production flowline. The subsea line is rated for CITHP (closed in tubing head pressure). Topside there is a HP/LP interface and is therefore protected by the PRV i'm considering. In addition to the PRV, two high pressure trips provide further protection by closing an ESDV at the HP/LP interface as well as the sub sea well wing valves. Note: the two high pressure trips are not considered as HIPPS (i.e. not maintained as SIL 3 protection, ESDV are not fast acting). There is also a further high pressure trip at the HP sep and this will also isolate ESDVs and wells if activated.
PRV sizing case is blocked outlet based on steady state flow from all producing wells (at maximum expected steady state production).
However, if a well (initially at CITHP) was inadvertently opened to 100% choke on start up (i.e. operator error), the production rate from that well would exceed both relief valve and flare system capacity. My question is:
Should relief valve sizing consider a transient peak production flow caused by choke valve moving 100% open with a well at CITHP.
My initial thoughts are that this would require four failures so may be double jeopardy. Failures:
1 & 2. 2 high pressure trip failures on production header,
3. operator error in opening choke to 100%
4. Either HP sep high pressure trip failure or blockage upstream of HP sep.
However, for points 1 & 2, it seems possible that the rapid pressurisation caused by the high flow achievable following well opening would prevent the high pressure trip isolating ESDVs / wells quickly enough. This is because production header trips are only 10% below design pressure; HP sep trip is set 25% below design and is therefore more likely to provide sufficient margin to allow for ESDVs to close before design pressure is breached. Therefore, i'm not convinced that credit can be given to the two high pressure trip on the production header.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.