Sie sind auf Seite 1von 50

Item 03-1389: Section XII, Certification Requirements for Rupture Disks

SC-SVR History

November 3, 2009 – Mr. Cammerisi sat in on the SG meeting for Section XII. The plan is to
parallel Section XII requirements with those of Section VIII. Mr. Wang noted that the
definition of “device” and “holder” may become an issue. Section XII needs some help with
SVR activities. Sid and Brian will be attending Section XII SG-GR meetings and will be
liaisons between the two. It would be beneficial for a new committee member on SC-SVR
who is familiar with both Section XII and Safety Valve Requirements.

February 2, 2010 – This item is similar to item #03-1388, these two items may eventually be
combined but the PM’s will need to speak with the Section XII PM’s to see if this is agreeable.

August 3, 2010 - Brian Pittel reported that he attended the XII SG-GR to give a presentation on
the proposal he has been working on for this item. He had looked through the TR100-500
paragraphs and created a proposal to bring it in line with BPV VIII. A Joint Task group was
formed between BPV XII and SC-SVR consisting of Stan Stanisevski, John Frier, Sid Cammerisi,
David Scallan, Brian Pittel and Zhenggang Wang. This TG will work together to complete this
proposal, in combination with #03-1388, in one update).

November 30, 2010 - Brian Pittel is continuing to work on these updates (in conjunction
with record #03-1388) to bring BPV XII up to date with BPV VIII. Mr. Pittel will send a
request to Messer’s Alton Cox and Stan Staniszewski to close these two items and open
several new records to cover these revisions.
Background requirements for BPV XII record 03-1389
Background requirements for BPV XII record 03-1389
Record Record Level Project Manager Record Sub-Type Pages
03-1392 SC Proposal Geoffrey Brazier Revision
Subject
Section XII, TR-520 - Marking and Certification of Rupture Disk Devices
Proposal
To incorporate the rupture disk marking requirements as expressed in Code Case 2367 into
Section XII, paragraph TR-520
Explanation
This item was opened to review applicable Code Cases for incorporation into Section XII.
Code Case 2367, which addresses alternate marking requirements for rupture disks needs to
be incorporated into TR-520.
Summary of Changes
to be completed at a later date.
Item History
SC-SVR, February 3, 2009 - Mr. Brazier will be working on adding the information from CC
2367.

SC-SVR, August 11, 2009 - The SG decided that they will bring the requirements into line with
section VIII practices with the addition of the UD stamp for the holder as well. A proposal was
presented to the committee but it needs to be cleaned up before it can be officially voted upon.
The PM will redraft the proposal so that all of the changes being made are clear and it will be
balloted via CS Connect to the SC-SVR. Once it is approved by SVR it will be forwarded
onto the Section XII Standards Committee.

SC-SVR, November 3, 2009: Geoff Brazier is the PM of this item and was not able to attend
the meeting so there is no progress report.
Sub-Tier Committees Involved
BPV SC-SVR
BPV SC-XII SGGR
Latest Ballot Information
Item 03-1392: Section XII, TR-520 – Marking and Certification of Rupture
Disk Devices; Incorporation of CC 2367

SC-SVR History

November 3, 2009 – Geoff Brazier is the PM of this item and was not able to attend the
meeting so there is no progress report.

February 2, 2010 – This item is for when a name plate cannot fit or be seen, this item is on
hold pending the changes being made on this topic within Section VIII.

August 3, 2010 – This item is on hold pending action on #09-270.

November 30, 2010 – This item is on hold pending action on #09-270.


RECORD #03-1392
BACKGROUND MATERIAL

122
Record Record Level Project Manager Record Sub-Type Pages
04-20 SC Proposal Stanley Staniszewski Revision
Subject
Section XII Editorial Revisions
Proposal
Revise Section XII's PRD requirements editorially.
Explanation
This is an IOU to address comments from D. Tanner received on LB#03-0974. The
background material contains the SGGR responses and recommended actions to address those
comments.
Summary of Changes

Item History

Sub-Tier Committees Involved


BPV SC-SVR
BPV SC-XII SGGR
Latest Ballot Information
Item 04-20: Section XII, Editorial Revisions to PRD Requirements

SC-SVR History

January 6, 2010 – This item was transferred to SC-SVR from BPV XII. The BPV XII
Secretary reported that this record is intended to resolve comments submitted by SC-SVR
when Section XII was first published. SGGR (XII) has reviewed all of the comments and
proposed actions for SVR to consider, as these comments are all related to relief devices. The
original comments and SGGR (XII) responses and recommended actions are included as
background material on the record.

February 2, 2010 – Mr. DeMichael noted that a lot of active items within SVR already cover
most of these. He will go through all of them to be sure that there is an item open to cover
each issue.

August 3, 2010 - Mr. Demichael reported that the first three pages of the proposal are
basically a list of tasks from BPV XII. There are two items that require the most work
which are numbers 4 and 9. Mr. DeMichael will verify that these items are being covered
by SG-T. The subgroup has developed a list of items needed to respond to these requests
and will send it to the secretary to be established and included in this meetings minutes.

November 30, 2010 – The requests in this item were broken up and separated into individual
records to handle the revisions individually. The two items which did not have new records
opened for them are going to be incorporated into the effort of #03-1388 and #03-1389. Denis
will write a letter to be sent to BPV XII informing them of the actions this committee took in
response to their requests and suggest that this item be closed. Denis will draft the letter, forward
it to the secretary and she will send it to BPV XII Committee.
04-20 SGGR(XII) approved responses

Responses to comments submitted on the approval ballot for Section XII that were placed
in a parking lot. These responses are approved by SGGR(XII). SGGR responses and
proposed actions are shown in red.

TANNER’S NEGATIVE
Date Posted: 08/11/03

1. TR-100 (a) states that overpressure protection shall be provided. It does not,
however, establish the pressure that the device must prevent exceeding. In
comparison, see VIII-1 UG-125 (c). It is noted that the only Modal Appendix,
Appendix 3, Paragraph 1-7(b) does speak to required capacity, whoever,
paragraph (1) seems to be limited to "vacuum-insulated tanks" and "tanks
insulated with solid material." No capacity requirements appear to be stated for
other XII tanks.
SGGR(XII) Response: Correct, Due to the varying requirements of all BPV XII
Tanks, a generic statement similar to UG 125(c) was deemed inappropriate. The
specific requirements for each tank is reserved for the applicable Modal
Appendix as stated in TR-120(a) and TR-140(a).
Action: None needed.

2. TR-110 Definitions
A. "Assemblers" and "Manufacturers": It is not clear why the Manufacturer
definition includes the phrase "as an ASME Certificate of Authorization holder"
and the Assembler definition does not. Assemblers may be given permission to
use the "TV" Code Symbol (see TR-213 (d)) so it must hold a Certificate.
Therefore delete the phrase from Manufacturer to be consistent with VIII-1 or add
it to Assembler.
SGGR(XII) Response: Originally it was inserted to add clarity and noted that it
appeared in the body of the text of TR-500(a).
Action: Delete “as an ASME Certificate of Authorization holder” from the
definition of manufacturer and add “a person or organization.”

Also, under Manufacturer’s responsibilities it includes "when required". Under the


provisions of Part TR, when is a Manufacturer not required to certify the device
capacity or flow resistance?
SGGR(XII) Response: Agree, the manufacturer is required to certify the device in
all cases as envisioned in Part TR.
Action: Remove “when required” from definition.

B. "Authorized Observer": Revise by replacing "designated" with "accepted" and


replace "approved" with "ASME accepted" to be consistent with TR-400 (e).
SGGR(XII) Response: Agree.
Action: Revise as suggested.
04-20 SGGR(XII) approved responses

C. "flow rating" does not appear to be used within Part TR and the term does
not seem to fit the definition. It implies a capacity value but the definition is
speaking of a pressure value. This term should be deleted.
SGGR(XII) Response: Agree. Term should be “flow rating pressure”
Action: Revise to read “flow rating pressure.”

3. TR-211 (e) requires external seals be installed but fails to require that the
seals serve to identify the manufacturer and assembler as found in Section VIII-
1.
SGGR(XII) Response: Agree.
Action: Add the appropriate wording from SC VIII-1.

3. Article TR-3 for Non-reclosing devices does not include provisions for
determining relieving capacity when used as a sole overpressure protection
device. These devices are marked with a flow resistance coefficient and
minimum net flow area. Capacity is a function of its installation. See VIII-1
UG127(a)(2) for guidance.
SGGR(XII) Response: Agree.
Action: Add appropriate wording from SC VIII UG 127(a)(2).

4. TR-400 (c) first line, replace the phrase "multiple sizes" with "multiple set
pressures".
SGGR(XII) Response: Agree.
Action: Replace “multiple sizes” with wording “multiple set pressures” in TR-
400(c). See UG131(d)(2).

5. TR-400 (d) first line, replace the phrase "provided in (c) above" with "provided
in (b) or (c) above"
SGGR(XII) Response: Agree.
Action: Add “(b) or” prior to (c) in TR-400(d). See UG131(e).

6. TR-400 (d) (2) does not present theoretical flow equations in SI units as
required by the Standards Committee directives.
SGGR(XII) Response: Agree.
Action: Add appropriate SI units. This is an ongoing task throughout Section XII.

7. TR-400 (e)(2) second line replace "or" with "on" to read "of the ASME on
recommendation of an ASME Designee."
SGGR(XII) Response: Agree.
Action: Replace or with “on” in TR-400(e)(2). See UG131(f).

8. TR-400 does not include provisions for determining the certified flow
resistance coefficient, Kr, which is required by sub-paragraph TR-520 (i) to be
marked on the Rupture Disk Device. (see VIII-1, UG-131 (k) through (r) for
example requirements)
04-20 SGGR(XII) approved responses

SGGR(XII) Response: Agree.


Action: Add appropriate wording from SC VIII, UG-131(k)-(r).

9. TR-500 - Device marking should signify compliance to specific Modal


Appendix requirements especially when they deviate from or are supplements to
the basic requirements found in TR 1 through 5. For example, TR-400(b)(1)
states capacity tests to be conducted at 120% of set pressure. Modal Appendix 3
could state a different flow rating pressure and has a specific requirement for
blowdown. How would a user know if a "TV" stamped valve meets these specific
Modal requirements?
SGGR(XII) Response: Agree.
Action: Add appropriate wording and additional marking criteria for device to
signify meeting specific Modal Appendix.

10. Modal Appendix 3, paragraph 1-7 (a), as written, will possibly lead to
unstable valve operation. This is existing DOT requirement. This appendix does
not specify a different flow rating pressure so the 120% of MAWP found in TR-
400 (b)(1) applies. So in order to meet the 1-7(a) requirement that the valve is
fully open at 121% of MAWP, then the valve must not be set higher than 101% of
MAWP. A further requirement is that the valve recloses at a pressure not lower
than the MAWP. This means the valve must have a 1% blowdown, which is not
practical for direct spring loaded valves. These performance requirements must
be re-evaluated. Modal Appendix 3, paragraph 1-7 (a)(1) introduces the term
"frangible discs" which is not defined elsewhere in the Section. Perhaps "rupture
disk device" was the intended term.
SGGR(XII) Response: Agree.
Action: Replace “frangible discs” with “rupture disk device”.

11. No provisions have been made for designated oversight on the use of the
new "TV’ and "TD" Code Symbol Stamps in accordance with CSP-53 similar to
those recently published in Section I and VIII-1 requiring the involvement of
Certified Individuals and the completion of Certificates of Conformance.
SGGR(XII) Response: Agree.
Action: Add appropriate wording from SC VIII. See UG117(a) & UG 130.

12. It is my understanding that SC-SVR members were asked to comment on


Part TR. Many of the items stated above were included among the SC-SVR
comments. These comments and SC XII resolutions should be made available to
the Standards Committee.
SGGR(XII) Response: Agree.
Action: SGGR will provide this document as background material on C&S
Connect. See also the SGGR response to SC SVR comments on Section XII,
Article TR-1, Rev. 4/12/03.
04-20 SGGR(XII) approved responses

11-Aug-03
David E. Tuttle, SC-BPVA

Comments on ASME Letter Ballot #03-0974, Approval of Section XII

See Responses to Tanner above.


I have been asked to forward the following comments to the attention of the BPV
Standards Committee from Fred Harrison, SC-SVR Chairman, and Alan West,
Vice-Chairman. The issues raised need to be addressed.

1. TR-100 (a) states that overpressure protection shall be provided. It does


not, however, establish the pressure that the device must prevent
exceeding. In comparison, see VIII-1 UG-125 (c). It is noted that the only
Modal Appendix, Appendix 3, Paragraph 1-7(b) does speak to required
capacity, however, paragraph (1) seems to be limited to "vacuum-
insulated tanks" and "tanks insulated with solid material." No capacity
requirements appear to be stated for other XII tanks.
2. TR-110 Definitions
A. "Assemblers" and "Manufacturers": It is not clear why the
Manufacturer definition includes the phrase "as an ASME Certificate of
Authorization holder" and the Assembler definition does not. Assemblers
may be given permission to use the "TV" Code Symbol (see TR-213 (d))
so it must hold a Certificate. Therefore delete the phrase from
Manufacturer to be consistent with VIII-1 or add it to Assembler.
Also, under Manufacturer's responsibilities it includes "when required".
Under the provisions of Part TR, when is a Manufacturer not required to
certify the device capacity or flow resistance?
B. "Authorized Observer": Revise by replacing "designated" with
"accepted" and replace "approved" with "ASME accepted" to be consistent
with TR-400 (e).
C. "flow rating" does not appear to be used within Part TR and the term
does not seem to fit the definition. It implies a capacity value but the
definition is speaking of a pressure value. This term should be deleted.
3. TR-211 (e) requires external seals be installed but fails to require that the
seals serve to identify the manufacturer and assembler as found in
Section VIII-1.
4. Article TR-3 for Non-reclosing devices does not include provisions for
determining relieving capacity when used as a sole overpressure
protection device. These devices are marked with a flow resistance
coefficient and minimum net flow area. Capacity is a function of its
installation. See VIII-1 UG127(a)(2) for guidance.
5. R-400 (c) first line, replace the phrase "multiple sizes" with "multiple set
pressures".
04-20 SGGR(XII) approved responses

6. R-400 (d) first line, replace the phrase "provided in (c) above" with
"provided in (b) or (c) above"
7. R-400 (d) (2) does not present theoretical flow equations in SI units as
required by the Standards Committee directives.
8. TR-400 (e)(2) second line replace "or" with "on" to read "of the ASME on
recommendation of an ASME Designee."
9. TR-400 does not include provisions for determining the certified flow
resistance coefficient, Kr, which is required by sub-paragraph TR-520 (i) to
be marked on the Rupture Disk Device. (see VIII-1, UG-131 (k) through
(r) for example requirements)
10. TR-500 - Device marking should signify compliance to specific Modal
Appendix requirements especially when they deviate from or are
supplements to the basic requirements found in TR 1 through 5. For
example, TR-400(b)(1) states capacity tests to be conducted at 120% of
set pressure. Modal Appendix 3 could state a different flow rating
pressure and has a specific requirement for blowdown. How would a user
know if a "TV" stamped valve meets these specific Modal requirements?
11. Modal Appendix 3, paragraph 1-7 (a), as written, will possibly lead to
unstable valve operation. This appendix does not specify a different flow
rating pressure so the 120% of MAWP found in TR-400 (b)(1) applies. So
in order to meet the 1-7(a) requirement that the valve is fully open at 121%
of MAWP, then the valve must not be set higher than 101% of MAWP. A
further requirement is that the valve recloses at a pressure not lower than
the MAWP. This means the valve must have a 1% blowdown, which Is
not practical for direct spring loaded valves. These performance
requirements must be re-evaluated. Modal Appendix 3, paragraph 1-7
(a)(1) introduces the term "frangible discs" which is not defined elsewhere
in the Section. Perhaps "rupture disk device" was the intended term.
12. No provisions have been made for designated oversight on the use of the
new "TV' and "TD" Code Symbol Stamps in accordance with CSP-53
similar to those recently published in Section I and VIII-1 requiring the
involvement of Certified Individuals and the completion of Certificates of
Conformance.
04-20 SGGR(XII) approved responses
Record Record Level Project Manager Record Sub-Type Pages
08-487 SC Proposal Thakor Patel Revision
Subject
Section VIII, Division 1; Capacity Certification
Proposal
Change "direct spring loaded" to "pressure relief" in paragraph UG-131(e)(7). See attached
proposal file.
Explanation
Existing paragraph Section VIII, Div 1, UG-131(e)(7) contains the rules for extrapolating
capacity certification test results for only direct spring loaded pressure relief valves. Other
pressure relief valves standards such as ISO 4126-4 and ISO 28300 have been reviewed for
applicability of rules for dimensional and geometric similarities to the valve sizes not tested.

Standards ISO 4126-4 covers pilot operated safety valves and paragraph 7.2.4 states that
when size range cannot be adequately covered then scale model shall be used. All dimensions of
flow path in the model shall be strictly with corresponding dimensions of the actual valve.

Standard ISO 28300, paragraph 6.3.2.2.1 states that the testing results can be extrapolated to
include valves either smaller or larger than the valves used in the test programme providing that
geometric similarities exists between tested valves and predicted valves.

The proposed revision to UG 131(e)(7) is expanding the requirements for extrapolating


capacity certification test results to the valve sizes not tested to all types of pressure relief valves.
Summary of Changes
ASME Section VIII, Div. 1 paragraph UG-131(e)(7), the word "direct spring loaded" is
changed to "pressure relief" to cover all types of pressure relief valves. The wording "providing"
in the third sentence of the paragraph is changed to "provided" for clear meaning of the
sentence.
Item History
SC-SVR, February 5, 2008 - Item opened to address comments received under LB#08-108
(BC99-562)

SC-SVR, August 5, 2008 - Thakor Patel assigned as new PM

SC-SVR, Febraury 3, 2009 - Mr. Conley reported, they have received a copy of ISO 4126
and are in the process of creating a draft.

SC-SVR, August 11, 2009 - This item was transferred from SG-T to SG-D. The Subgroup is
struggling with the fact that if they use the Section VIII rules they have now, the set pressure
could exceed the testing pressure. The SG felt that there may not be a need for this item
especially since there are so many technical obstacles. It was noted that there may be a need for
new hydrostatic test requirements or procedures due to the lack of technology for the safety
valves. It was said that there is need for these requirements and that the SG should continue to
move forward.

A MOTION was made to request participation from Section VIII on a joint Task Group to
help with the efforts in this revision, which was seconded and approved. The Secretary will
contact the Section VIII Secretary to solicit participation on this team.
SC-SVR, November 3, 2009 - Mr. Doelling reported that the subgroup has decided to create
a joint task group between SC-SVR and Section VIII so that they can work on this together.
There is also potential for help for this item from the new ISO Standard, which is similar to PTC
25.
Sub-Tier Committees Involved
BPV SC-SVR SGD
Latest Ballot Information
Ballot: 10-1796
Ballot Level: Subcommittee
Final Record Status :Disapproved
Date Opened: 09/07/2010
Date Closed: 10/05/2010
Item 08-487: Section VIII-1; Capacity Certification

SC-SVR History

November 3, 2009 – Mr. Doelling reported that the subgroup has decided to create a joint task
group between SC-SVR and Section VIII so that they can work on this together. There is also
potential for help for this item from the new ISO Standard, which is similar to PTC 25.

February 2, 2010 – Mr. Conley reported, this item deals with set pressures below 15 psi. Mr.
Conley reposted that he looked at ISO 4126 and ISO 28300 to see how they handle this (for
handout see page 223 of the February 2010 Minutes). It was discussed where the information
I 28300 originally came from and Mr. West noted that he recalls that this information was
added from ISO 4126. Mr. West also noted that API is reviewing ISO 28300 right now and
that he believes that the test requirements will eventually be that every size must be tested to
get the certification.
Mr Danzy does not believe that they will be able to write requirements for scaling for every
component of the valve, and that it may have to eventually be based on performance criteria.
Mr. West agreed to bring the words that result from the upcoming API meeting to the next
meeting of the SC-SVR for review.

August 3, 2010 – Mr. Patel reported. The subgroup has developed a proposal on this item.
This proposal is SG-D’s suggestion for revisions to this paragraph to be included in proposal
99-562.
MOTION was made to move this item for ballot. Motion was seconded and discussed
as follows. Mr. Demichael noted that the record needs to be clarified so that this item
can move forward smoothly through the BPV VIII Standards Committee. BPV VIII
may ask where the rest of the rules are for certification of devices with a set pressure
under 15 psi. Mr. Patel will change the explanation on CS Connect for this item. This
item should be a stand alone item and will no longer refer to #99-562. SVR-SG
Design recommends that the language in the proposal is satisfactory. The Motion was
approved and the Secretary will send this item for ballot once she receives verification
that the CS Connect item has been updated.

November 30, 2010 – This item was balloted after the last meeting and received several
negatives. Mr. Danzy will contact Mr. Patel and have him post responses. The negatives
on the ballot, as well as the proposed revisions in response to them, were reviewed at the
meeting. Mr. DeMichael and Mr. West both agreed that their negatives were satisfied. No
changes will be made to the actual proposal file, only the record. Once the PM posts
responses, he will contact the secretary and she will issue as a first consideration ballot.
Record Record Level Project Manager Record Sub-Type Pages
08-490 SC Proposal Robert J. Doelling Revision
Subject
Section VIII, Division 1; Set and Burst Pressure Tolerances necessary to Extend the Range of
Relief Device Certification below 10 psig
Proposal

Explanation
The proposed revision to Section VIII, Div. 1 to incorporate capacity certification of devices
with set pressures less than 15 psig only extends the certification range to 10 psig. BC06-1323
established that the maximum overpressure during a relief event for a pressure vessel with no
relief device is limited to 21%. With this overpressure limitation, the existing set and burst
pressure tolerances exceed the allowable overpressure at pressures less than 10 psig. In order
to extend the range of low pressure certification below 10 psig, appropriate set and burst
pressure tolerances must be established for this range.

SGT requests that SC-SVR open a new item to establish set and burst pressure tolerances
necessary to extend the range of relief device certification below 10 psig.
Summary of Changes

Item History
SC-SVR, February 5, 2008 - Item opened to address comments received under LB#08-108
(BC99-562)

SC-SVR, August 5, 2008 - Robert Doelling assigned as new PM

SC-SVR, Febraury 3, 2009 - Work in progress at the TG level. Looking for more input on the
need for this item.

SC-SVR, August 11, 2009 - This item was transferred from SG-T to SG-D. The Subgroup is
struggling with the fact that if they use the Section VIII rules they have now, the set pressure
could exceed the testing pressure. The SG felt that there may not be a need for this item
especially since there are so many technical obstacles. It was noted that there may be a need for
new hydrostatic test requirements or procedures due to the lack of technology for the safety
valves. It was said that there is need for these requirements and that the SG should continue to
move forward.

A MOTION was made to request participation from Section VIII on a joint Task Group to
help with the efforts in this revision, which was seconded and approved. The Secretary will
contact the Section VIII Secretary to solicit participation on this team.

SC-SVR, November 3, 2009 – Mr. Doelling reported that the subgroup has decided to create
a joint task group between SC-SVR and Section VIII so that they can work on this together.
There is also potential for help for this item from the new ISO Standard, which is similar to PTC
25.
Sub-Tier Committees Involved
BPV SC-SVR SGD
Latest Ballot Information
Item 08-490: Section VIII-1; Set and Burst Pressure Tolerance Necessary to
Extend the Range of Relief Device Certification Below 10psig

SC-SVR History

November 3, 2009 – Mr. Doelling reported that the subgroup has decided to create a joint task
group between SC-SVR and Section VIII so that they can work on this together. There is also
potential for help for this item from the new ISO Standard, which is similar to PTC 25.

February 2, 2010 – Mr. Danzy reported that they are still looking for a joint task group with
Section VIII. Either Mr. DeMichael, Mr. West or Mr. Danzy will attend the Section VIII
meeting to get participation on this task group.

August 3, 2010 - Mr. Doelling reported that SVR SG-D determined that it isn’t possible to
reduce the device tolerance below 10 psi. SVR had agreed that we need to form a joint task
group with BPV-VIII. At the February meeting, Mr. Danzy made a request to BPV-VIII for
members to be on this task group but there has been no response. The Chair, Mr. Alan West,
will take an action to meet with the BPV-VIII chair, some time this week, to get this
participation. We want to know how far below 10 psi they want us to go, it was noted that the
methodology for 15 and above will not work for below.

November 30, 2010 – A request for representation on a Joint Task Group was sent to BPV-VIII
but there has been no interest expressed to date. Mr. Doelling reported that there has not been
much success in determining the scope of this item. The subgroup had proposed that they create a
proposal by the next meeting on what they believe the tolerance below 15 psi is. However, Alan
West suggested that this item be put on hold until discussion on this issue can be brought up to
the TOMC at their meeting in February 2011. Alan will attempt to get better guidance from
TOMC on whether the Code wants to require certified PRD's for applications below 15 psi.
Work on this item is on hold pending the result of the discussion at the next TOMC meeting.
BC99-562
Rev. 11-12-07

(1), (2) and (4)


BC99-562
Rev. 11-12-07

(4) For vessels with maximum allowable working pressures


of 15 psig (100 kPa) or less, stamped in accordance with U-
1(c), the pressure relieving device shall prevent the pressure
from rising more than 21% above the maximum allowable
working pressure.
BC99-562
Rev. 11-12-07

(d) The set pressure tolerance shall meet the requirements of


UG-134(d).
BC99-562
Rev. 11-12-07

in accordance with UG-131(c)(1)

in accordance with UG-131(c)(1)

in accordance with UG-131(c)(1) for valves certified in


accordance with UG-131(e)(2)(a).
BC99-562
Rev. 11-12-07

stamped set pressure by more than the maximum


overpressure shown in the following table, except as
provided in (c)(2) below.

Max. Overpressure
Stamped Set Pressure
Above Measured Set
10 psi (70 kPa) - 15 psi (100 kPa) 20%
15 psi (100 kPa) - 30 psi (200 kPa) 3 psi (20 kPa)

Above 30 psi (200 kPa) 10%


BC99-562
Rev. 11-12-07

maximum overpressure specified in UG-131(c)(1) or (c)(2).

fluid designs with a set pressure of 15 psi (100 kPa) or greater,

absolute flow-rating

absolute flow-rating

relieving
BC99-562
following formulas: Rev. 11-12-07

(a) For valves with set pressures 15 psi (100 kPa) or greater,
For tests with dry saturated steam,
(U.S. Customary Units)
WT = 51.5 AP1
(SI Units)
WT = 5.25 AP1
NOTE: For dry saturated steam pressures over 1500 psig (10.9 MPa gage) and
up to 3200 psig (22.1 MPa gage), the value of WT, calculated by the above
equation, shall be corrected by being multiplied by the following factor, which
shall be used only if it is 1.0 or greater.
(U.S. Customary Units)
⎛ 0.1906 P1 − 1000 ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ 0.2292 P − 1061 ⎟
⎝ 1 ⎠
(SI Units)
⎛ 27.6 P1 − 1000 ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ 33.2 P − 1061 ⎟
⎝ 1 ⎠
For tests with air,
(U.S. Customary Units)
M
WT = 356 AP1
T
(SI Units)
M
WT = 27.03 AP1
T
For tests with gas,
M
WT = CAP1
ZT

(b) For tests with water for set pressures above and below 15 psi
(100 kPa),
(U.S. Customary Units)
WT = 2704 A (P1 − P2 )w
(SI Units)
WT = 5.092 A (P1 − P2 )w

To convert lb/hr of water to gal/min of water, multiply the capacity in


lb/hr by 1/500.
(c) For valves with set pressures below 15 psi (100 kPa),
For tests with air or gas,
(U.S. Customary Units) M
WT = 735 FAP1
ZT
(SI Units)
M
WT = 55.83FAP1
ZT
where
A = actual discharge area through valve at developed lift, in2 (mm2)
C = gas constant based on ratio of specific heats, k (See Fig. 11-1)
F = coefficient of subcritical flow = ( )
(k (k − 1)) r (2 / k ) − r (k +1)/ k
k = ratio of specific heats = cp/cv
M = molecular weight
P1 = set pressure plus overpressure as specified in UG-131(c)(1)
or (c)(2) plus atmospheric pressure, psia (MPa)
P2 = absolute pressure at valve discharge, psia (MPa)
r = absolute pressure ratio, P2/P1
T = absolute temperature at inlet, °R = °F+460 (K = °C+273)
w = specific weight of water at inlet conditions, lb/ft3 (kg/m3)
WT = theoretical capacity, lb/hr (kg/hr)
Z = compressibility factor corresponding to P1 and T
BC99-562
Rev. 11-12-07

(3) For valves tested in accordance with UG-131(e)(2)(a) or


UG-131(e)(2)(b), the average of the coefficients KD of the nine
tests required shall be multiplied by 0.90, and this product shall
be taken as the coefficient K of that design. The coefficient of
the design shall not be greater than 0.878 (the product of 0.9 x
0.975). All experimentally determined coefficients KD shall fall
within a range of ±5% of the average KD found. Failure to meet
this requirement shall be cause to refuse certification of that
particular valve design.
(4) For valves tested in accordance with UG-131(e)(2)(c), an
equation KD that best fits the coefficients of discharge in terms of
the absolute pressure ratio r shall be determined. This equation
shall be multiplied by 0.9, and this product shall be taken as the
coefficient equation K of that design. No coefficient K of the
design shall be greater than 0.878. All measured coefficients
shall fall within ±5% of the KD values determined from the
equation KD . Failure to meet this requirement shall be cause to
refuse certification of that particular valve design.

(5)

UG-131(e)(2)

UG-131(e)(2)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)
BC99-562
Rev. 11-12-07

the maximum overpressure specified in UG-131(c)(1)

the maximum overpressure specified in UG-131(c)(1)


BC99-562
Rev. 11-12-07

(g) The relieving capacity of a pressure relief device with a set


pressure above 15 psig (100 kPa) may be prorated at any
relieving pressure greater than 1.10p, as permitted under UG-
125, by applying a multiplier to the official relieving capacity as
follows:
BC99-562
Rev. 11-12-07

For set pressures greater than 15 psi, the capacity of a safety or


safety relief
BC99-562
Rev. 11-12-07

11-2
For set pressures less than 15 psi, the capacity of a safety or safety
relief valve in terms of a gas or vapor other than the medium for
which the valve was officially rated shall be determined by
application of the following formula:
(U.S. Customary Units)
M
W = 735FKAP1
ZT
(SI Units)
M
W = 55.83FKAP1
where ZT
A = actual discharge area through valve at developed lift, in2 (mm2)
(
F = coefficient of subcritical flow = (k (k − 1)) r (2 / k ) − r (k +1) / k )
k = ratio of specific heats = cp/cv
K = coefficient of discharge based on pressure ratio r (0.90×KD)
M = molecular weight
P1 = set pressure plus overpressure as specified in UG-131(c)(1)
or (c)(2) plus atmospheric pressure, psia (MPa)
P2 = absolute pressure at valve discharge, psia (MPa)
r = absolute pressure ratio, P2/P1
T = absolute temperature at inlet, °R = °F+460 (K=°C+273)
W = capacity, lb/hr (kg/hr)
Z = compressibility factor corresponding to P1 and T
To convert from lb/hr air to SCFH air [standard cubic feet per hour at
60°F and 14.7 psia (20°C and 101 kPa)], multiply the capacity in lb/hr
by 13.1.
Example 5
GIVEN: It is required to relieve 2000 lb/hr of methane from a safety
valve with a set pressure of 10 psig to a collection header at 0.5 psig.
The ratio of specific heats at relief pressure and temperature of 70°F is
1.311 and the certified coefficient of discharge is given by the
following equation.
K = 0.63(r ) −0.265
PROBLEM: What is the required nameplate capacity of the safety valve
in in lb/hr air?
SOLUTION:
For methane,
M
W = 735FKAP1
ZT
r = 15.2 26.7 r = 0.569
F= (10..311
311
)(0.569(2 /1.311) − 0.569(2.311)/1.311 ) F = 0.473

K = 0.63(0.569 )
− 0.265
K = 0.731
2000 1 ⋅ 530
AP1 = AP1 = 45.3
735 ⋅ 0.473 ⋅ 0.731 16.04
For air nameplate stamping with atmospheric discharge pressure,

r = 14.7 26.7 r = 0.551

F= ( )(
1.4
0.4
0.551
(2 / 1.4 ) − 0.551(2.4 ) / 1.4 ) F = 0.484

K = 0.63(0.551)− 0.265 K = 0.738


28.97
Wa = 735 ⋅ 0.484 ⋅ 0.738 ⋅ 45.3 Wa = 2802 lb/hr air
1 ⋅ 520

11-3
Record Record Level Project Manager Record Sub-Type Pages
09-209 Stds Comm Roger D. Danzy , PE Revision
Proposal
Subject
Section VIII, Division 1 (2007 Edition); UG-136(b)(3), UG-137(b)(3), and UG-138(b)(3)
Low Temperature Applications
Proposal

Explanation
This is an IOU to address comments on item 01-059 from U Miller on LB#08-1556 and R
Sims on LB08-1128. See Current Backgound Material File for summary of ballot comnments.
Summary of Changes

Item History

Sub-Tier Committees Involved


BPV SC-SVR
BPV SC-SVR SGD
BPV SC-VIII SGGR
Latest Ballot Information
Item 09-209: Section VIII-1 (2007 Edition); UG-136(b)(3), UG-137(b)(3)
and UG-138(b)(3) Low Temperature Applications

SC-SVR History

February 2, 2010 – This item was opened to respond to comments submitted on ballots. The
SG discussed these comments and they will continue to work on this.

August 3, 2010 - Mr. Beair reported that a task group has been formed with Mr. Danzy to
work on this item. They expect to have a report by the next meeting. Anyone who wishes to
help with this item should contact Mr. Beair or Danzy.

November 30, 2010 – The subgroup discussed this item at their meeting yesterday however; the
project manager was not in attendance. The subgroup has two potential approaches for this item.
The first is to remove the current wording so that the code does not say anything regarding low
temperature, and the other is to add further requirements. The subgroup will determine if the
exemptions are unique to PRD's or just repetitive exemptions from other Sections.
The secretary will look at historical records to see what history remains on the addition of the
reference to UCS-66 in paragraph UG-136(b) (3).
SCVIII 08-1248 Ballot Comment
SimsJ (Approved)
Date Posted: 10/18/08
Paragraph UG-138(b)(3) - subparagraphs (a) and (b) should be deleted since the
reference to UCS-66 is sufficient by itself. Even that reference is not necessary because
we require the material to meet all of the requirements for any pressure containing
material.

SCVIII 08-1248 Ballot Response to SimsJ


Response:
Paragraph UG-138(b)(3) has the same requirements that appear in UG-136(b)(3) for
pressure relief valves and UG-137(b)(3) for rupture disks. To expedite this ballot and to
keep code requirements consistent among the devices, I would like to keep the current
proposal as is and open a new item to address the comment for all three paragraphs.

Standards Committee 08-1556 Ballot Comment


MillerU (Approved)
Date Posted: 12/22/08
Since I do not wish to hold this item, I am voting approved; however, I suggest some
consideration be given to stainless steel body material used in low temperature
applications. The proposed UG-138(b) provides requirements for carbon and low alloy
steel operating below -20F (and is silent on SS material). In cryogenic applications,
stainless steel castings may be used as the device body. UHA-51 requires impact
testing of cast SS when the MDMT is colder than -20F. I suggest that consideration be
given in UG-138(b) to address SS castings, or to make a general comment that all the
toughness rules in the applicable parts of the Code must be satisfied for the pressure
containing components. One could interpret the proposed UG-138(b) rules to mean that
if you have a SS casting material, then UHA-51 is not applicable since CS and LA
material are specifically addressed and SS is not.

Standards Committee 08-1556 Ballot Response to MillerU


Response:
A new item is planned to address Bob Sims’ comment from the SCVIII 08-1248 ballot
on UG-138(b). The stainless steel issue will be incorporated into the scope of that item.
Also, the stainless steel issue needs to be addressed for pressure relief valves [UG-
136(b)] and rupture disks [UG-137(b)].
Record Record Level Project Manager Record Sub-Type Pages
09-270 SC Proposal Geoffrey Brazier Revision
Subject
Section VIII-1, Incorporation of CC 2367
Proposal

Explanation
to be added at a later date.

Summary of Changes

Item History
SC-SVR, February 3, 2009 - Mr. Brazier will work on draft.

SC-SVR, August 11, 2009 - Work is continuting on the draft and expects to have it completed
by the next meeting of the subcommittee.

SC-SVR, November 3, 2009 – Geoff Brazier, the Project Manager, was not able to attend the
meeting and therefore there is no report.
Sub-Tier Committees Involved
BPV SC-SVR SGGR
Latest Ballot Information
Item 09-270: Section VIII-1; Incorporation of CC-2367

SC-SVR History

November 3, 2009 – Geoff Brazier, the Project Manager, was not able to attend the meeting
and therefore there is no report.

February 2, 2010 – Mr. Brazier reported, referring to page 160 of the agenda, which is a copy
of the code case at hand, that one key factor to note is that UD stamping was not a
requirement at the time of publication. UG-129 E as a cross reference, is the point where all
these issues in marking come up. The proposal that the SG has come up with adds two more
layers of marking criteria. This proposal will be written and uploaded onto CS Connect. The
completed proposal and record will be discussed at the next meeting before being sent for
ballot.

August 3, 2010 - Mr. Demichael reported that this item is for attaching a name plate near
the location where the rupture disk is installed. He reported that there is no further action
taken on this item in his absence.

November 30, 2010 – No progress yet, waiting on proposal from Mr. Brasier.
Record Record Level Project Manager Record Sub-Type Pages
09-1236 SC Proposal Waring F. Hart Revision
Subject
Section IV; HG-402.5 Opening Tests of Temperature and Pressure Safety Relief Valves
Proposal
revise title of HG-402.5 and add new requirements under new para. HG-402.5(b)
Explanation
Specific rules are needed for ASME Section IV (HV Stamped) pressure-only safety relief
valves regarding the allowed set pressure definitions for opening tests to support capacity testing
(i.e., determination of 110% of the pressure for which the valve is set to operate). Since
HG-402.5 currently only addresses temperature and pressure safety relief valves, the set
pressure definition used by ASME accepted laboratories for certification testing of ASME
Section IV pressure-only safety relief valves typically defaults to the “popping point”. However,
this set pressure definition can create inconsistencies with other standards applicable to the
valve, as well as, the criteria utilized by the manufacturer to actually set the valve. These
inconsistencies pose undue hardship on the valve manufacturers in trying to satisfy certification
testing requirements and satisfy multiple standards.
The proposed additional code rules will in affect provide the valve manufacturers with two
acceptable set point definition options for certification testing of ASME Section IV
pressure-only safety relief valves. This will provide the manufacturer with the ability to
specify the appropriate set pressure definition to preclude the inconsistencies discussed above.

For additional explanation see background information file.


Summary of Changes

Item History
SC-SVR, August 11, 2009 - A task group was appointed to work on this. The original inquirer
is going to be included on the task group to be sure that all of their concerns are met.

BPV IV - August 12, 2009:


Colleen O’Brien, Secretary of the SC on SVR, notified Gerardo Moino that a TG had been
formed to address the inquirer’s request. The inquirer is to be one of the members of the TG.

SC-SVR, November 3, 2009 – Mr. Scallan reported that he would like this item to remain
open and to keep it on hold pending the outcome of item #09-1237.
Sub-Tier Committees Involved
BPV SC-SVR
BPV SC-SVR SGT
Latest Ballot Information
Item 09-1236: Section IV: HG-402.5 Opening Tests of Temperature and
Pressure Safety Relief Valves

SC-SVR History

November 3, 2009 – Mr. Scallan reported that he would like this item to remain open and to
keep it on hold pending the outcome of item #09-1237.

February 2, 2010 – Mr. Scallan reported, the Subgroup has no changes to be made to the
proposal submitted by Mr. Thibodaux at this time but are waiting for the outcome of #09-
1237.

August 3, 2010 - Mr. Scallan reported that this item will be addressed depending on the
outcome of #09-1237. The PM will be changed on CS Connect to Mr. Scallan.

November 30, 2010 – The Project Manager was changed to Frank Hart. Mr. Hart reported that
the Task Group will be looking into this and they expect to have a report to the committee by the
next meeting.
(b) For the purpose of determining the set (opening) pressure of safety
of temperature and pressure safety relief valves relief valves other than temperature and pressure safety relief valves,
the actual popping point shall be utilized, or alternately, if specified by
the valve manufacturer, the criteria described in HG-402.5(a) for
temperature and pressure safety relief valves may be utilized.

(a)
__
ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code
Technical Inquiry, Code Revision/Addition

Purpose:
Additional Code Rules – ASME Section IV, HG-402.5 – Addition of rules concerning
opening tests of safety relief valves.

Proposed Revision/Addition:
ASME Section IV, HG-402.5, title is revised from “Opening Tests of Temperature and
Pressure Safety Relief Valves” to “Opening Tests of Safety Relief Valves.” Current rules
of HG-402.5 are grouped into subparagraph “(a)” and the words “of temperature and
pressure safety relief valves” are added to the first sentence to clarify that subparagraph
“(a)” applies to temperature and pressure safety relief valves. Subparagraph “(b)” is
added to provide new rules to clarify opening tests of safety relief valves other than
temperature and pressure safety relief valves. The proposed wording for subparagraph
“(b)” is as follows:

(b) For the purpose of determining the set (opening) pressure of safety relief
valves other than temperature and pressure safety relief valves, the actual popping
point shall be utilized, or alternately, if specified by the valve manufacturer, the
criteria described in HG-402.5(a) for temperature and pressure safety relief valves
may be utilized.

Attached is a markup made to 2007 ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, 2008
Addenda, Section IV, HG-402.5, to reflect the changes described above.

Statement of Need:
Specific rules are needed for ASME Section IV (HV Stamped) pressure-only safety relief
valves regarding the allowed set pressure definitions for opening tests to support capacity
testing (i.e., determination of 110% of the pressure for which the valve is set to operate).
Since HG-402.5 currently only addresses temperature and pressure safety relief valves,
the set pressure definition used by ASME accepted laboratories for certification testing of
ASME Section IV pressure-only safety relief valves typically defaults to the “popping
point”. However, this set pressure definition can create inconsistencies with other
standards applicable to the valve, as well as, the criteria utilized by the manufacturer to
actually set the valve. These inconsistencies pose undue hardship on the valve
manufacturers in trying to satisfy certification testing requirements and satisfy multiple
standards.

The proposed additional code rules will in affect provide the valve manufacturers with
two acceptable set point definition options for certification testing of ASME Section IV
pressure-only safety relief valves. This will provide the manufacturer with the ability to
specify the appropriate set pressure definition to preclude the inconsistencies discussed
above.

Page 1 of 5
ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code
Technical Inquiry, Code Revision/Addition

Background Information:
ASME Section IV, HG-400.1 and HG-400.2 require installation of safety valve(s) for
steam boilers and safety relief valve(s) for hot water boilers. Thus, the certified medium
for all ASME Section IV safety relief valves is saturated water. Since they are installed
in a liquid filled system, ASME Section IV safety relief valves will open to prevent
system overpressure due to thermal expansion of the heated water if appropriate
expansion controls are not included in the system design. Additionally, in the event that
the boiler controls fail and boiling occurs, the ASME Section IV safety relief valves will
open to prevent system overpressure due to the generation of steam in the system. Thus,
the ASME Section IV safety relief valves may be called upon to discharge either hot
water or steam (i.e., incompressible or compressible fluids).

ASME Section IV, HG-402.5 currently specifies the actual set pressure for temperature
and pressure safety relief valves is defined as the pressure at the valve inlet when the flow
rate through the valve is 40 cc/min of room temperature water. This method was
borrowed from ANSI Z21.22 a number of years ago to eliminate steam pop as an opening
point criterion, for certification testing of these type valves.

Since HG-402.5 currently only addresses temperature and pressure safety relief valves,
the set pressure definition used by ASME accepted laboratories for certification testing of
ASME Section IV pressure-only safety relief valves typically defaults to the “popping
point”. HG-402.8 requires testing to be in accordance with the requirements of ASME
PTC 25, which further requires repeated steam pops until stabilization is reached.
Stabilization is considered reached when three consecutive pops fall within +/- 1% or
+/-0.5 psi, whichever is greater, of their average, which is then considered the “popping
point”. This laboratory test method subjects valves to numerous steam pops, creating
repeated and violent valve action, at temperatures reaching 360 °F --- quite often causing
set point drift.

Although designs have been revised to use more heat resistance springs, Cash Acme has
learned that in some cases, a higher cold set pressure is required to compensate for changes
in the spring and other components at elevated (test) temperatures. While the practice of
setting valves to a higher ‘cold set’ pressure isn’t uncommon for steam valves, it creates a
non-conservative set pressure for thermal expansion relief at lower temperatures --- which
is a typical function for safety relief valves. Utilizing the 40 cc/min method for the opening
point definition of these valves will preclude this non-conservative valve setting.

ANSI Z21.22, Relief Valves for Hot Water Supply Systems, Part II, defines the
opening point as the pressure at the valve inlet when the flow rate of water through the
valve is 40 cc/min and does not differentiate between pressure-only and T and P valves.
Thus, utilizing the 40 cc/min method for the opening point definition of pressure-only
safety relief valves would, therefore, provide consistency with ANSI Z21.22.

Page 2 of 5
ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code
Technical Inquiry, Code Revision/Addition

ASME Section IV, paragraph HG-401.4(a), Manufacturer’s Testing, in lieu of using the
term “popping point” as it does for safety valves, states that every safety relief valve shall
be tested to demonstrate its “opening point.” It also states that safety relief valves can be
tested on water, steam, or air. Use of the term “opening point” and allowing testing on
water implies the 40 cc/min method is acceptable for the manufacturer to use for setting the
ASME Section IV pressure-only safety relief valves. Cash Acme has used the 40 cc/min
water flow bases for the manufacturer’s testing of its safety relief valves (pressure-only and
temperature and pressure safety relief valves) for many years. Temperature and pressure
safety relief valves tested using the 40 cc/min method during certification find little
problem meeting the opening point requirement. Pressure-only safety relief valves have
demonstrated approximate correlation between the 40 cc/min water flow and steam “pop”
opening point definitions. However, in some cases there are enough variables to present
problems in maintaining the required tolerances when a valve is set based on one opening
point definition and then tested based on the other opening point definition.

As in the current HG-402.5, even when water (40 cc/min method) is used as the opening
point definition for ASME Section IV safety relief valves, capacity testing is performed
using steam as required by HG-402.7. Using steam for the capacity testing of these
valves demonstrates the popping action of the valve (see HG-401.1(b)) and in effect
verifies the popping action occurs prior to reaching 110% of the actual valve opening
point determined by the 40 cc/min method (i.e., pop action required to meet capacity
requirements).

As previously stated, HG-402.8 requires testing to be in accordance with the


requirements of ASME PTC 25. ASME PTC 25, Paragraph 2.7, Operational
Characteristics of Pressure Relief Devices, defines set pressure as: “the value of
increasing inlet static pressure at which a pressure relief device displays one of the
operational characteristics as defined under opening pressure, popping pressure, start-to-
leak pressure, burst pressure, or breaking pressure. (The applicable operating
characteristic for a specific device design is specified by the device manufacturer.)”
Thus, allowing the manufacturer to specify the appropriate set pressure definition is
consistent with ASME PTC 25.

Considering the dual function (compressible and incompressible fluid relief) of the pressure-
only safety relief valves and the other considerations discussed above, both the 40 cc/min water
flow and “popping point” set pressure definitions are appropriate for ASME Section IV
pressure-only safety relief valves. The proposed additional code rules will in affect provide the
valve manufacturers with the option of specifying one of these two acceptable set point
definition options for certification testing of ASME Section IV pressure-only safety relief
valves. This will provide the manufacturer with the ability to specify the appropriate set
pressure definition to preclude the inconsistencies that pose undue hardship in trying to satisfy
certification testing requirements and satisfy multiple standards. Additionally, the proposed
additional code rules will not adversely affect safety considering they provide for the safety
relief valves being set and tested based on appropriate set (opening) pressure definitions,
capacity testing will continue to be performed with steam, and popping action of the valves
will be demonstrated during capacity/certification testing.

Page 3 of 5
ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code
Technical Inquiry, Code Revision/Addition

Submitted by:

Albert W. Thibodeaux, Jr., PE


Cash Acme
2400 7th Avenue, SW
Cullman, AL 35055
Direct: 256-775-8136 Fax: 256-775-8221
Email: bwt@cashacme.com

Page 4 of 5
ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code
Technical Inquiry, Code Revision/Addition (Attachment – Code Markup)

Page 5 of 5
ITEM 09-1236
PROPOSAL (b) For the purpose of determining the set (opening) pressure of safety
of temperature and pressure safety relief valves relief valves other than temperature and pressure safety relief valves,
the actual popping point shall be utilized, or alternately, if specified by
the valve manufacturer, the criteria described in HG-402.5(a) for
temperature and pressure safety relief valves may be utilized.

(a)
__