WHITE PAPER

18 Best Practices When Applying Process

Modeling to Overpressure Protection and
Relief Networks
Ron Beck, Industry Marketing Director, Aspen Technology, Inc.
Wilfried Mofor, Product Management, Aspen Technology, Inc.

Abstract
Safety is one of the issues at the forefront of recent innovations in modeling technologies to help
companies optimize their systems and processes for safer performance. A barrier to achieving
optimal designs, from a safety point of view, has been the separate working and modeling
environments of different engineering specialists involved in the process design and the safety
design of these systems. New advancements have brought these environments together to enable
companies to achieve optimization across process, safety, and cost objectives. This paper explains
how the innovative integration between process simulation, dynamic analysis, and rigorous
pressure safety valve (PSV) and rupture disk modeling has evolved to make processes inherently
safer and describes the benefits of the new PSV sizing features in process simulation to improve
safety and optimize plant operations. One can now perform relief valve design analysis, sizing, and
documentation from within the process simulation, making the workflow easier and faster than ever
before. A number of best practices to bear in mind as one proceeds with this analysis are included.

18 Best Practices When Applying Process Modeling to Overpressure Protection and

Relief Networks

2015 Aspen Technology Inc. 11-7420-0615

Overview
Hydrocarbon and chemical processes operate
under elevated pressure and temperature
conditions. This makes overpressure
protection one of the most important safety
issues governing the design and
operation of a process facility,
whether a production field,
a transportation system,
or a process plant.
There is surprising
complexity involved
in the correct and
appropriate design of
overpressure protection
systems, mainly due to
the challenges in ensuring
that each item of equipment
and pipeline is protected under
each identified safety scenario. The
regulatory context has continued to become
more rigorous, due to the continued occurrence
of such overprotection incidents. For all
these reasons, the design of pressure relief
devices and the overall design of overpressure
protection systems is an extremely important
item during conceptual design and FEED, and
is often a critical path item, with the experts
tasked with these designs in high demand and
short supply in an organization.
This paper addresses several topics, including:
(1) the ability to complete rigorous pressure
relief studies within a process model from
performing relief valve design sizing and
analysis to completing documentationmaking
the process easier and faster than ever before;
(2) the close integration of flare system design

with simulation models; and (3) easier-to-use

dynamic modeling, which enables engineers
to avoid overdesign when considering safety,
thereby conserving capital. Finally, (4) to that
end, new tools to evaluate economics from
within these models, enabling the engineer to
optimize designs to achieve safety objectives,
while simultaneously optimizing capital and
operating costs.
AspenTech has put considerable time and
attention to the tools and workflow for relief
valve sizing and rating and flare network design
within the aspenONE Engineering framework.
In versions 8.3 (August 2013) and 8.4
(November 2013) of aspenONE Engineering,
substantial new capabilities have been
introduced in Aspen HYSYS and in version 8.6
(May 2014) similar capabilities were added
to Aspen Plus and further fire scenario
capabilities and validation data were added
in version 8.8 (May 2015). This enables: a)
performing steady state and/or dynamic
modeling, b) placing pressure relief valves in a
process flow sheet, c) automatically deriving
process parameters and relief loads from the
associated equipment or process stream (s),
d) developing safety scenarios, e) sizing the
relief valve or rupture disk, f) transferring relief
valves, loads and scenarios to Aspen Flare
Analyzer, and g) sizing the relief network.
These growing requirements are driving
innovations in modeling software to help
organizations optimize their systems and
processes for safer performance and reduced
regulatory risk.

18 Best Practices When Applying Process Modeling to Overpressure Protection and

Relief Networks

2015 Aspen Technology Inc. 11-7420-0615

Key Engineering Challenges

Overpressure protection systems design is a gating step in achieving safe plant designs. Overdesign
of these systems can also cause significant and unnecessary capital expense. Flare networks always
constitute a large portion of the capital budgets, and, once designed, the modification or expansion
of flare networks can be a substantial capital cost factor.
Key design factors include:
Ensuring adequate overpressure protection system capacity
Avoiding overdesign to avoid extra capital expenditure
Considering all pressure relief sources and pathways in safety scenarios
Ensuring that design comprehensively covers all scenarios
Dynamic analysis of the relief system load over time during a worst-case incident
Documenting complete and accurate PSV design parameters
Re-rating and re-certifying of overpressure protection system under MOC

Regulatory Context
The following are the main API standard practices and regulatory directives that apply to
overpressure protection system design and verification:
API Standard 520, Ninth Edition, Sizing, Selection and Installation of Pressure-Relieving Devices
API Standard 521, Sixth Edition, Pressure-Reliving and Depressuring Systems
API Standard 2000, Seventh Edition, Venting of Atmospheric and Low Pressure Storage Tanks
Canadian Safety Advisory, NEB SA 2012-01, Overpressure Protection
ISO 4126-10:2010
API 520, 521 and 2000 are built into the PSV sizing functionality in Aspen HYSYS V8.6 and V8.8.

18 Best Practices When Applying Process Modeling to Overpressure Protection and

Relief Networks

2015 Aspen Technology Inc. 11-7420-0615

Problems in Current Safety Analysis Workflow

Employing a spreadsheet method requires
that significant time be spent copying and
pasting values such as fluid properties and
flow rates from one tool to another to perform
calculations. In addition, more time is devoted
to entering the inputs into different tools,
with many errors reported in the transfer of
information. Spreadsheets also offer no visual
analysis of overpressure contingencies.

Overall, gathering and generating information

about process equipment, identifying relief
loads and sizing pressure relief devices, and
designing and rating the discharge systems
can be a simulation-intensive project. Up to
90% of the information for the proper design
and optimization of safety networks is
generated during this step.
The resizing and procurement
of pressure relief devices and
the review and maintenance
of documentation are also time
consuming, with up to 50% of the time
dedicated specifically to documentation. In
addition to maintaining the documentation
for future use, extensive documentation must
be created so the engineers work can be
understood by a supervisor.

The link between relief valve sizing and

flare network design is also important. The
integration between the relief load, relief valve,
and flare system design delivers a clear benefit.
The safety scenarios are identified and analyzed
during the relief valve design task. Typically,
in the traditional approach, the same safety
scenarios are separately identified and analyzed
during the flare system design. The benefits of
bringing together these two environments will
be discussed in more detail later.

Additionally, rigorous relief device sizing

methods are performed on an as-needed basis.
In many companies, complex spreadsheets
which are difficult to use, maintain, and
distribute company-wideare set up to handle
relief device sizing. Multiple methods are used
within the same organization depending on
which spreadsheet was generated by whom and
how it was shared.

Also, the models from which the loads and

designs are based are usually steady state
in nature. Dynamic modeling of each safety
scenario provides a more realistic view of the
actual peak load, which helps further optimize
operations.

Systematic Overpressure Protection Analysis

Size relief valves based
on safety scenarios
2

Design/rate flare system

1

Create process model and

model relief loads

Figure 1: The Overpressure Protection Safety Analysis Workflow

18 Best Practices When Applying Process Modeling to Overpressure Protection and

Relief Networks

2015 Aspen Technology Inc. 11-7420-0615

Best Practices Steps

Gathering and generating information is a multistep process. It includes identifying all equipment or
systems that could fail due to overpressure in a process, gathering information from the conceptual
design phase, developing process models or streams describing system conditions and fluid
properties, deciding what material will go to the flare system and what material will be disposed via
other mechanisms (sewers, treatment facilities, etc.), and determining the type of relieving devices
necessary.
Finding the relief loads involves determining the excess flow produced by each overpressure
scenario. Once this is completed, the orifice size for each overpressure scenario must be calculated,
along with identifying and analyzing all relieving devices (i.e., multiple valve analysis). Preliminary
line sizing should then be performed for the relief area calculations and preliminary pressure drop
calculations.
The next step involves designing and rating discharge systems. First, the discharge locations for
each relief device must be determined. The outlet lines for the relieving devices, as well as the flare
tip, must also be designed and sized. This must be done in the context of all of the enumerated
safety scenarios. Consideration of the scenarios entails making sure that each scenario is effectively
served by the overpressure protection system or, put another way, identifying and analyzing the
worst case load for each relief valve as well as the entire system, collectively. To complete this task,
information must be accrued about the outlet lines, and site verification must also be done. A flare
analysis software package saves significant time during this step.
Once the discharge systems have been fully designed and rated, pressure relief devices should be
resized by obtaining backpressure values from the flare system model. The relief devices can then
be procured by sending process data to vendors for more accurate information and recalculation of
relief areas.
Relief device documentation must be reviewed and maintained for each scenario to ensure that
the information is sufficient. Also, the relief device documentation should be grouped along with
simulation files for future use, should a need arise.
To help make this process easier to follow and understand, please reference the following:

18 Best Practices to Achieve Overpressure Protection

1. Fully study and understand the applicable regulations, rules and standards that apply to the
process you are designing for, both from the regulatory authorities and internal company
standards, such as API Standards 520, 521, and 2000.
2. Build a clean process flow diagram and simulation model, such that the equipment and streams
that will contribute load to a given pressure safety valve (PSV) and/or rupture disk can be clearly
seen, analyzed, and enumerated.
3. Define all needed emergency scenarios to fully protect the process, and those called for in the
API standards as well as the owner-operators and engineering organizations standards.

18 Best Practices When Applying Process Modeling to Overpressure Protection and

Relief Networks

2015 Aspen Technology Inc. 11-7420-0615

4. After arriving at the tuned process model in steady state, convert the model to dynamic mode
and analyze the design dynamically to realistically and conservatively identify maximum relief
loads.
5. Use an equipment-based approach: Start from each equipment item, understand each items
relief load, and add adequate pressure relief valves to relieve each piece of equipment.
6. Identify all equipment and systems that could fail due to overpressure in the process.
7. Transfer fluid properties, relief loads, and other key process parameters from the process model
to the PSV sizing calculator. When using Aspen HYSYS or Aspen Plus, these parameters are
automatically transferred from the stream to the associated relief valve. When using Aspen
HYSYS or Aspen Plus, alternate and multiple streams can be assigned to each relief valve.
8. Always use the same physical properties and hydrocarbon properties between the process
simulation model and the relief valve sizing calculation.
9. Select relief valve type and metallurgy and size PSVs.
10. Understand the governing scenario for each piece of equipment, when sizing PSVs.
11. Develop regulatory compliance documentation. When using aspen HYSYS or Aspen Plus,
design parameters automatically populate documentation, such as PSV process and mechanical
datasheets.
12. Transfer sized PSV parameters to Flare Network Analysis Design program.
13. Transfer scenarios to Flare Network Analysis Design program.
14. Consider the dynamics of the relieving load arrival at the flares, to avoid overdesign.
15. Design Flare Network and test network design against all relief scenarios.
16. Store all files for each analysis together, to comply with MOC. This includes tying specific process
simulation case, relief valve sizing calculations that apply to that case, resulting flare network
design that applies to that case, and the full set of relief valve documentation.
17. Deliver process model to owner operator, in tuned and as-built condition, to ensure that the
over pressure protection system can be verified by SHE on an ongoing basis.
18. Re-run the entire PSV and flare network analysis each time that a significant change is made to
the process, to ensure the currency of the overpressure protection strategy.

18 Best Practices When Applying Process Modeling to Overpressure Protection and

Relief Networks

2015 Aspen Technology Inc. 11-7420-0615

Improving the Safety Analysis Workflow

In order to improve the current workflow, certain measures can be taken, including the merging of
design and overpressure protection steps to create inherently safer designs; the elimination of any
walls between instrumentation, process, and safety groups so they speak the same language;
creating evergreen documentation; and providing easier access to dynamic modeling
to achieve realistic views of each scenario.
Merging the design and overpressure protection phases of a project allows for
the process safety analysis to be performed earlier in the design phase and for
the reuse of models created at conceptual design or equipment design phases.
By doing this, engineers are able to evaluate overpressure contingencies for
possible design reconfigurations to find the best and safest alternatives, if they
exist, and identify areas for capital cost savings.
By removing barriers between instrumentation, process, and safety groups, the
manual transfer of information from one group to the next is reduced and corporate
governance and adherence to standards is simplified. Use of the same tools between groups
makes communication easier and more efficient, while the automation of information transfer avoids
errors and frustration.
Automatically maintained documentation keeps design notes within design tools for easy
referencing and reuse, while also ensuring that any modifications to each process are captured and
updated. By automating the repetitive portions of the process, engineers are able to focus their
talents on process improvements.
Innovative equipment and tools that better protect relief systems help to further technology
improvements for safety, as well. New styles of relieving devices are being created by leading
manufacturers and new, improved engineering software packages help to enhance productivity and
reduce mistakes. It is important to consider the longevity, usability, reputation, and robustness of
vendors and their solutions when evaluating products for implementation.

18 Best Practices When Applying Process Modeling to Overpressure Protection and

Relief Networks

2015 Aspen Technology Inc. 11-7420-0615

Overpressure Protection in Aspen HYSYS V8.3, 8.4, 8.6,

and 8.8 and Aspen Plus V8.6 and 8.8
There have been significant enhancements to Aspen HYSYS that have enabled companies to achieve
safer operations at the design stage. In the aspenONE Engineering V8.3 and V8.4 software package,
in particular, Aspen HYSYS, Aspen HYSYS Dynamics, and Aspen Flare System Analyzer now
enable engineers to optimize conceptual design, equipment design, overpressure protection (such
as PSV and rupture disk sizing), and flare design and ratingall from one unified and compatible
environment.
User interface innovation, based on research into the workflow used by process engineers, first
introduced in HYSYS V8.0, has provided a highly intuitive environment where both new and
experienced users can take advantage of Aspen HYSYS. Coherent simulation environments are
intuitive and efficient, supporting process engineers who must construct a conceptual design. In
Version 8.3, a safety analysis environment was introduced, so that safety engineers can avoid
the details of process modeling and instead access detailed diagrams to determine appropriate
protection for overpressure contingencies. These same engineers can also rate and design flare
and discharge systems within the same environment. Instrumentation engineers can also access
the product to find documentation to keep up-to-date with sizing and design rationale for pressure
safety valves in the system and construct appropriate datasheets and calculation reports.
The documentation builder also auto-updates with each revision of the calculation or project notes,
so that engineers only must update the non-repetitive sections of the analysis.

Add PSVs to Process Model

Specify PSV Restraints

Figure 2: The Safety Environment within the Aspen HYSYS process modeling system provides an extremely efficient approach for the process
engineer or safety specialist to design and rate pressure safety valves within the model.
Once the relief valves are designed, additional integration has been provided that automatically
transfers each of the safety scenarios, together with the associated relief valves, into the flare
network design environment.
Additionally, usability advances have made it much simpler and more straightforward for the process
modelers to conduct dynamics studies of process designs. They can evaluate the potential impact of
worst-case relief loads that can occur by understanding the actual time sequencing of loads under
each safety scenario.

18 Best Practices When Applying Process Modeling to Overpressure Protection and

Relief Networks

2015 Aspen Technology Inc. 11-7420-0615

Improved Workflow for Ovepressure Protection Design

Flare System Analyzer
models flare

Size relief valves

Header 2

Tip

Con 2

Integrated within
simulation model

Poe 1

Stack

Con 3
Con 1

Header 3

Simulation modeling of equipment/plant

+ Dynamic modeling of maximum loads

Figure 3: Innovations support an optimized workflow for improved

safety in gas processing.

Examples of Benefits Achieved

E&C organizations conduct overpressure protection analysis and, in particular, pressure safety valve
(PSV) studies on a regular basis, both during FEED and for clients and their operating plants. This
aspect of the work is customarily done by specialists and often presents a schedule bottleneck
during early FEED. The methods described here, in which rigorous and verifiable PSV rating and
sizing is incorporated within the process modeling environment, can save significant time and
remove these bottlenecks. Techint reported 80% reduction in engineering manhours for PSV sizing,
using an earlier version of this approach (1), while Petrofac (2) reports excellent early results in
their testing of the latest version of this software innovation. Wintershall, working with Inprocess
Consultants (3), was able to save 70% of anticipated capital investment in flares through more
accurate safety analysis enabled by dynamic simulation of process loads.

140
120

Flow Rate

100
80
60

Total molar flow (MMSCPO)

40

Flare capacity (MMSCPO)

20
0
10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

Time (minutes)

Figure 4: Innovations support an optimized workflow for improved

safety in gas processing.

18 Best Practices When Applying Process Modeling to Overpressure Protection and

10 Relief Networks

2015 Aspen Technology Inc. 11-7420-0615

Summary
In conclusion, the way organizations are structured and the way process safety analysis is currently
conducted can lead to a slow and inefficient work process. One of the main causes of this is the
manual transfer of datafrom process simulator into spreadsheets and documentation, and
between departments. New and improved software tools help to improve the process of safety
analysis in terms of efficiency and accuracy.

References
1. Llorens, Andres Emilio (2011), Techint, presentation at AspenTech OPTIMIZE Global Conference,
May, 2011.
2. Brodkorp, Michael (2011), Inprocess Consultants, presentation at AspenTech OPTIMIZE Global
Conference, May, 2011.
3. Venkatesh, Lakshmi (2013), Petrofac, AspenTech press release, August, 2011.
4. Narayan, Raghu and Ron Beck (2014), Process Modeling Innovations Achieve Safer Operations
and Reduced Compliance Risk in Gas Processing and flare networks. GPA, Dallas, Texas, April
2014.

11

18 Best Practices When Applying Process Modeling to Overpressure Protection and

Relief Networks

2015 Aspen Technology Inc. 11-7420-0615

AspenTech is a leading supplier of software that optimizes process manufacturingfor energy, chemicals, engineering and
construction, and other industries that manufacture and produce products from a chemical process. With integrated aspenONE
solutions, process manufacturers can implement best practices for optimizing their engineering, manufacturing, and supply chain
operations. As a result, AspenTech customers are better able to increase capacity, improve margins, reduce costs, and become
more energy efficient. To see how the worlds leading process manufacturers rely on AspenTech to achieve their operational
excellence goals, visit www.aspentech.com.
Worldwide Headquarters
Aspen Technology, Inc.
20 Crosby Drive | Bedford, MA 01730 | United States
phone: +1-781-221-6400 | fax: +1-781-221-6410 | info@aspentech.com
Regional Headquarters
Houston, TX | United States
phone: +1-281-584-1000
So Paulo | Brazil
phone: +55-11-3443-6261
Reading | United Kingdom
phone: +44-(0)-1189-226400
Singapore | Republic of Singapore
phone: +65-6395-3900
Manama | Bahrain
phone: +973-13606-400
For a complete list of offices, please visit www.aspentech.com/locations

18 Best Practices When Applying Process Modeling to Overpressure Protection and

12 Relief Networks

2015 Aspen Technology Inc. 11-7420-0615