Modeling Pressure Relief in

Aspen Plus Dynamics the

DIERS Benchmark Examples

Pressure Relief in Aspen Plus

Dynamics
The pressure relief capability in Aspen Plus Dynamics is
provided by a collection of specialized pressure relief models
together with a number of unit operation models with pressure
relief support. All models use Aspen Properties for accurate
and reliable estimation of physical properties.
Pressure relief models can be added to a dynamic flowsheet and
configured as necessary to define a relief system. This approach
allows you to model and simulate pressure relief from entire
flowsheets, including the control system, rather than just
individual unit operations.
The combination of equation-based solution strategy, rigorous
physical property estimation and an extensive library of unit
operation models gives Aspen Plus Dynamics a unique and
flexible capability for solving a wide variety of pressure relief
problems, from steady state (rating) calculations through to
dynamic simulation of relief events such as blocked-in
operation or runaway reactions.
The DIERS Formed in 1976 under the auspices of AIChE, the Design Institute
Consortium for Emergency Relief Systems (DIERS) was originally a
consortium of 29 companies to develop methods for the design of
emergency relief systems to handle runaway reactions. DIERS
became a user group in 1985. Presently, over 120 companies have
formed the DIERS Users Group to cooperatively assimilate,
implement, maintain and upgrade the DIERS methodology. The
purpose of the group is:
to reduce the frequency, severity and consequences of
pressure producing accidents, and;

Modeling Pressure Relief in Aspen Plus Dynamics the DIERS Benchmark Examples 1
 to develop new techniques which will improve the design
of emergency relief systems.
Of particular interest to DIERS is the prediction of two-phase
flow venting and the applicability of various sizing methods for
two-phase vapor-liquid flashing flow. DIERS has spent $1.6
million to investigate the two-phase vapor-liquid
onset/disengagement dynamics and the hydrodynamics of
emergency relief systems. Aspen Technology is a member of
the DIERS Users Group.

DIERS Methodology The Aspen Plus Dynamics pressure relief models include
methods and principles developed by DIERS for calculating
two-phase vessel onset/disengagement dynamics and relief
system hydrodynamics (Fisher et. al., 1992; CCPS, 1998). The
accuracy and validity of these models for rating pressure relief
systems in Aspen Plus Dynamics has been demonstrated
through solution of the DIERS benchmark examples. These
examples include various cases of compressible and
incompressible single phase flows and flashing, hybrid and
frozen two-phase flows through (i) a safety relief valve system
and (ii) combinations of nozzles and horizontal and vertical
piping arrangements. Solutions obtained with Aspen Plus
Dynamics give good agreement with consensus results.

DIERS Benchmark Examples

The DIERS benchmark examples are a set of case studies that
serve to validate computer software for rating pressure relief
systems. Successful solution of the benchmark examples is
demonstrated by attainment of consensus results with those
reported by other members of the users group (Adair and Fisher,
1999).
There are two categories of benchmark examples:
safety relief valve case studies
pipe benchmark studies
Full details of the DIERS benchmark examples and results are
available in the open literature (Adair and Fisher, 1999).

Safety Relief Valve The safety valve problem was formulated to illustrate the effect of
Case Studies viscosity, the presence of non-condensable gas and inlet quality
(disengagement) assumptions on safety relief valve (nozzle) mass
flow rate, inlet pipe irreversible pressure loss and discharge pipe
back pressure calculations, for a relief system venting to
atmosphere. The relief system comprises an inlet line, a safety
relief valve and a discharge line.

Modeling Pressure Relief in Aspen Plus Dynamics the DIERS Benchmark Examples 2
 A summary of the safety relief valve case studies is given in
Table 2.1.

Case Flow Viscosity Inlet Quality Comments

1 Vapor Low 1.0
2 Flashing Low 0.01
Liquid
3 Hybrid Low 0.01
4 Flashing Moderate 0.01
Liquid
5 Hybrid Moderate 0.01
6 Flashing Low Churn-Turbulent
Liquid onset/disengagement
7 Flashing Low Homogenous
Liquid onset/disengagement
8 Liquid Low 0.0
(water)
9 Liquid High 0.0
(water)
10 Frozen Low 0.01
two-
phase
11 Frozen High 0.01
two-
phase
12 Flashing High 0.01
liquid
13 Flashing Very
liquid high
14 Hybrid High 0.01
15 Hybrid Very 0.01
high
16a Flashing Very 0.01 Constant viscosity
liquid high nozzle flow
16b Flashing High 0.01 Constant viscosity
liquid nozzle flow
16c Flashing Moderate 0.01 Constant viscosity
liquid nozzle flow
17 Frozen Very 0.01
two- high
phase
Table 2.1: Safety Valve Case Studies

Modeling Pressure Relief in Aspen Plus Dynamics the DIERS Benchmark Examples 3
 Running the Safety Relief Valve Case Studies
To run one of the safety relief valve case studies:
1. Copy the relevant Aspen Plus Dynamics input file (.dynf)
and the appropriate Aspen Plus backup file (.bkp) to a
convenient working folder. There is one Aspen Plus
Dynamics input file for each case study (named
accordingly) and two Aspen Plus backup files;
SafetyReliefValve.bkp is used for Cases 1-9 and 12-16,
SafetyReliefValveFrozenFlow.bkp is used for Cases 10,
11 and 17.
2. Load the .bkp file into Aspen Plus and run it. Note that the
.bkp file is used to create a properties input file, so you
will not see a flowsheet within Aspen Plus.
3. To create an Aspen Plus Problem Definition file (.appdf),
save the simulation as an Aspen Plus Document (.apw
file) and exit Aspen Plus. The .appdf file contains all of
the physical properties data required for the dynamic
simulation. The .apw file is not required, and can be
deleted.
4. Open the Aspen Plus Dynamics simulation.
5. From the Tools menu, click Snapshots.
6. Select the converged snapshot that is marked as kept, then
click Copy Values.
Ensure the Run Mode is set to Initialization and Run the
simulation.
Once you have run the simulation, you can use the forms and
plots for the streams and blocks to see the results.

Results
Results of the safety relief valve examples are summarized in
the attached spreadsheet (click on icon to open):

SafetyValveResults.
xlsx

The key results reported for each case are:

the relief mass flow rate,
the irreversible inlet pressure drop (the difference between
the inlet stagnation pressure and the stagnation pressure at
the valve inlet, less any pressure drop due to inlet pipe
elevation),
the discharge pipe back pressure (the difference between
the exit pressure of the valve and the relief system
discharge pressure).

Modeling Pressure Relief in Aspen Plus Dynamics the DIERS Benchmark Examples 4
 Other results, including the choke conditions at the nozzle
throat, are also reported.

Pipe Benchmark The pipe benchmark cases were formulated to illustrate the effect
Cases of viscosity, the presence of non-condensable gas and inlet
quality, and the pipe orientation on the mass flow rate through
piping systems.
A summary of the pipe benchmark cases is given in table 2.2.

Case Flow Viscosity Inlet Comments

Quality
1 Liquid Low 0.0 Horizontal and
down flow
2 Two-phase Low 0.001 Horizontal and
flashing down flow
3 Two-phase Low 0.001 Horizontal/vertical
flashing and
vertical/horizontal
4 Hybrid Low 0.001 Horizontal and
vertical and
inclined down
flow
4a Hybrid Low 0.01 Horizontal and
vertical and
inclined down
flow
5 Initially Low 0.0 Nozzle flow
subcooled/two-
phase flashing
6 Initially Low 0.0 Pipe flow
subcooled/two-
phase flashing

7 Two-phase V. high 0.001 Horizontal and

flashing down flow
8 Two-phase High 0.001 Horizontal and
flashing down flow
9 Two-phase Moderate 0.001 Horizontal and
flashing down flow
10 Cold Liquid Low 0.0 Horizontal and
flow and hot down flow
initially
subcooled/two-
phase flashing
flow
Table 2.2: Pipe Benchmark Cases

Modeling Pressure Relief in Aspen Plus Dynamics the DIERS Benchmark Examples 5
 Running the Pipe Benchmark Examples
To run one of the pipe benchmark examples:
1. Copy the Aspen Plus backup file pipebench1.bkp and the
relevant Aspen Plus Dynamics input file (.dynf) to a
convenient working folder. There is one Aspen Plus
Dynamics input file for each benchmark example (named
accordingly).
2. Load the .bkp file into Aspen Plus and run it. Note that the
.bkp file is used to create a properties input file, so you
will not see a flowsheet within Aspen Plus.
3. To create an Aspen Plus Problem Definition file (.appdf),
save the simulation as an Aspen Plus Document (.apw
file) and exit Aspen Plus. The .appdf file contains all of
the physical properties data required for the dynamic
simulation. The .apw file is not required, and can be
deleted.
4. Open the Aspen Plus Dynamics simulation.
5. From the Tools menu, click Snapshots.
6. Select the converged snapshot that is marked as kept, then
click Copy Values. Note that many of the pipe benchmark
examples include several sub-cases. Table 2.3 identifies
the kept snapshots for each case.
7. Ensure the Run Mode is set to Initialization and Run the
simulation.

Modeling Pressure Relief in Aspen Plus Dynamics the DIERS Benchmark Examples 6
 Once you have run the simulation, you can use the forms and
plots for the streams and blocks to see the results.

Case Snapshot Name Description

1 Pipe2x16_4 2 ID, 16.4 pipe
Pipe2x160_4 2 ID, 160.4 pipe
Pipe2x1600_4 2 ID, 1600.4 pipe
Pipe8x16_4 8 ID, 16.4 pipe
Pipe8x160_4 8 ID, 160.4 pipe
Pipe8x1600_4 8 ID, 1600.4 pipe
2 H16_4 Horizontal 16.4 pipe
H160_4 Horizontal 160.4 pipe
H1600_4 Horizontal 160.4 pipe
V16_4 Vertical 16.4 down pipe
V160_4 Vertical 160.4 down pipe
V1600_4 Vertical 160.4 down pipe
3 HV16_4 Horizontal 16.4 pipe
HV160_4 Horizontal 160.4 pipe
HV1600_4 Horizontal 1600.4 pipe
VH16_4 Vertical 16.4 down pipe
VH160_4 Vertical 160.4 down pipe
VH1600_4 Vertical 1600.4 down pipe
4 H16_4 Horizontal 16.4 pipe
H160_4 Horizontal 160.4 pipe
H1600_4 Horizontal 1600.4 pipe
V16_4 Vertical 16.4 down pipe
V160_4 Vertical 160.4 down pipe
V1600_4 Vertical 1600.4 down pipe
DEG45_16_4 45 degree 16.4 down pipe
DEG45_160_4 45 degree 160.4 down pipe
DEG45_1600_4 45 degree 1600.4 down pipe

Modeling Pressure Relief in Aspen Plus Dynamics the DIERS Benchmark Examples 7
 Case Snapshot Name Description
4a H16_4 Horizontal 16.4 pipe
H160_4 Horizontal 160.4 pipe
H1600_4 Horizontal 1600.4 pipe
V16_4 Vertical 16.4 down pipe
V160_4 Vertical 160.4 down pipe
V1600_4 Vertical 1600.4 down pipe
DEG45_16_4 45 degree 16.4 down pipe
DEG45_160_4 45 degree 160.4 down pipe
DEG45_1600_4 45 degree 1600.4 down pipe
5 N2_0psi 0 psi of N2 subcooling
N2_1psi 1 psi of N2 subcooling
N2_2psi 2 psi of N2 subcooling
6 ID0_417 0.417 ID pipe
ID1_291 1.291 ID pipe
ID3_146 3.146 ID pipe
7 H16_4 Horizontal 16.4 pipe
H160_4 Horizontal 160.4 pipe
H1600_4 Horizontal 1600.4 pipe
V16_4 Vertical 16.4 down pipe
V160_4 Vertical 160.4 down pipe
V1600_4 Vertical 1600.4 down pipe
8 H16_4 Horizontal 16.4 pipe
H160_4 Horizontal 160.4 pipe
H1600_4 Horizontal 1600.4 pipe
V16_4 Vertical 16.4 down pipe
V160_4 Vertical 160.4 down pipe
V1600_4 Vertical 1600.4 down pipe
9 H16_4 Horizontal 16.4 pipe
H160_4 Horizontal 160.4 pipe
H1600_4 Horizontal 1600.4 pipe
V16_4 Vertical 16.4 down pipe
V160_4 Vertical 160.4 down pipe
V1600_4 Vertical 1600.4 down pipe
10 H_cold Horizontal pipe, cold water
H_hot Horizontal pipe, hot water
V_cold Vertical down pipe, cold water
V_hot Vertical down pipe, hot water
Table 2.3: Snapshots for Pipe benchmark examples.

Modeling Pressure Relief in Aspen Plus Dynamics the DIERS Benchmark Examples 8
 Results
Results of the pipe benchmark examples are summarized in the
attached spreadsheet (click on icon to open):

PipeBenchMarkResult
s.xlsx

The key result reported for each case is the relief mass flow
rate.

References
Fisher, H.G., Forrest, H. S., Grossel, S. S., Huff, J. E., Muller, A.
R., Noronha, J. A., Shaw, D. A. and Tilley, B. J. (1992).
Emergency Relief Systems Design Using DIERS Technology: the
Design Institute for Emergency Relief Systems (DIERS) project
manual. AIChE.
Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). (1998). Pressure
Relief and Effluent Handling Guidelines. AIChE.
S. P. Adair and H. G. Fisher (1999). Benchmarking of two-
phase flow through safety relief valves and pipes. Journal of
Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 12, pp.269-297.

Modeling Pressure Relief in Aspen Plus Dynamics the DIERS Benchmark Examples 9