Chatter of Safety

y Valve

November, 2011
Hisao IZUCHI
PLE Technology Center
Chiyoda Advanced Solutions Corporation

Copyright © 2011 Chiyoda Advanced Solutions Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Contents
1. Purpose
2. Experimental Results / Simulation Results / Stability Analysis
3 Classification
3. Cl ifi i off Instability
I bili
- Dynamic Instability (Acoustic Interaction)
- Static
St ti IInstability
t bilit (P
(Pressure D
Drop D
Development)
l t)
4. Effect of PRV Inlet Pressure Drop
5 Effect of PRV Outlet to Orifice Area Ratio
5.
6. Conclusion

Reference
(1) H. IZUCHI, “Chatter of Safety Valve”, API Meeting, April 2008
(2) H.
H IZUCHI
IZUCHI, “Stability
Stability Analysis of Safety Valve
Valve”, AIChE Spring Meeting
Meeting, April 2010
(3) V. Dossena, F. Marinoni, B. Paradiso, “Valve Size Influence on the Discharge Capacity
of Spring Loaded Safety Valves”, Paper 722, Valve World Conference 2007
(4) D.
D W W. Sallet
S ll t and
dDD. WW. Somers,
S “Flow
“Fl Capacity
C it and
d Response
R off Safety
S f t Relief
R li f V
Valves
l
to Saturated Water Flow”, Plant/Operation Progress, 4-4, 1985, 207-216
Copyright © 2011 Chiyoda Advanced Solutions Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 1
Purpose
Safety valve chatter would result in
(1) Mechanical failure of the valve and related piping system
(2) Reliving
R li i flow
fl rate reduction
d i caused dbby iinsufficient
ffi i valve
l
opening due to chatter
Chiyoda had executed to study safety valve chatter for the
following purposes:
(1) Investigate mechanism of chatter
(2) How to prevent chatter
Study Program
(1) Chatter test at a manufacturer experimental facility with air
(2) Dynamic simulation (taking valve motion and pressure wave
propagation throughout inlet/outlet piping into account)
(3) Stability
St bilit analysis
l i (th
(theoretical
ti l iinvestigation)
ti ti )

Copyright © 2011 Chiyoda Advanced Solutions Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 2

Experimental Facility
Displacement
Meter No Inlet Pipe

Safety
Valve

Inlet Piping (5m)

Inlet Pipe Length is 1m

Vessel

Copyright © 2011 Chiyoda Advanced Solutions Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 3

 Experimental Results / Effect of Inlet Pipe Length
Chatter occurs No Chatter
Inlet length < 5m Inlet Length >= 10m
I l t Pipe
Inlet Pi Size
Si / IInlet
l t Pipe
Pi L
Length
th
Chatter Frequency
1"/0m 1"/1m 1"/3m 1"/5m 1"/10m 1"/15m 1"/20m
1E2
- 55-68Hz
55 68H 71 111H
71-111Hz 79 104H
79-104Hz - - -
1-1/2"/0m 1-1/2"/1m 1-1/2"/3m 1-1/2"/5m 1-1/2"/10m
1.5F2
74-92Hz 42-59Hz - - -
1-1/2"/1m 1-1/2"/5m
1E2
-, 43-52Hz -

A t l length
Actual l value
th iis fi l
figure iin ttable
bl + 1
1.2m
2 off safety
f t valve
l stand
t d
Chatter occurs
Both cases were observed with chatter and without chatter
Natural frequency of valve disc and spring is 75 Hz
Longer line length means larger pressure drop in piping.
Therefore, chatter could not be caused by excessive pressure drop in pipe
because the safety valve system stabilized as inlet line length increased
increased.
Chatter is caused by acoustic interaction between safety valve and inlet pipe.
Copyright © 2011 Chiyoda Advanced Solutions Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 4
Dynamic Simulation Model

Safety Valve
Equation
E ti off Motion
M ti for
f Valve
V l Disc
Di
Orifice Flow Equation at Nozzle
Flow Equation at Outlet
Mass Conservation in Valve Body

IInlet
l t / Outlet
O tl t Piping
Pi i
（divided into several segments)
Equation of Mass Conservation
Equation of Motion for Gas Flow
Equation for Energy Conservation
Equation of State for Gas

Copyright © 2011 Chiyoda Advanced Solutions Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 5

 Simulation Results
1E2 Inlet
1E2, I l t : 1”/1m,
1”/1 N No R
Reducer
d att O
Outlet
tl t 1E2, Inlet : 1”/10m, No Reducer at Outlet
4.0 Experiment 4.0 71msec = Duration pressure wave
3.5 Simulation 3.5 propagates from safety valve to vessel
3.0 3.0 and return back to safety valve
m)

m)
Lift (mm

Lift (mm
2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
Oscillation is attenuated
L

L
05
0.5 05
0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Time ((s)) Time (s)
1E2, Inlet : 0m, 1” Reducer at Outlet Interaction between valve disc motion and
4.0 pressure wave propagation (acoustic
35
3.5 phenomena) could cause instability
instability.
3.0
ft (mm)

2.5 Simulation effectively indentifies safety

2.0
1.5 valve instability caused by both of inlet
Lift

1.0 piping
i i andd small ll outlet
l to orifice
ifi area ratio.
i
0.5
0.0 Stability theory supports the safety valve
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
instability caused by inlet pipe acoustics.
acoustics
Time (s)

Copyright © 2011 Chiyoda Advanced Solutions Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 6

Classification of Instability
( ) Dynamic
(a) D i IInstability
t bilit (Acoustic
(A ti Interaction)
I t ti ) Diff. Press.
Opposite phase between lift and differential Valve Lift
pressure though valve disc
1E2, Inlet : 1”/1m, No Reducer at Outlet 1E2, Inlet : 1”/10m, No Reducer at
(experimental results) Outlet(experimental results)

Pa)

Pa)
4.0 Unstable 2.5 4.0 2.1

Diff. Press. (MP

Diff. Press. (MP

3.5 3.5 Stable 2.0
3.0 2.0
3.0
Lift (mm)

Lift (mm)
2.0
2.5 1.5 2.5
1.9
2.0 2.0
15
1.5 10
1.0 19
1.9
1.5
1.0 1.0 1.8
0.5
0.5 0.5 1.8
0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7
0 00
0.00 0 05
0.05 0 10
0.10 0 15
0.15 0 20
0.20 0 00
0.00 0 10
0.10 0 20
0.20 0 30
0.30 0 40
0.40
Time (s) Time (s)
- Caused by interaction between valve motion and pressure wave propagation at
inlet pipe
- Relatively high frequency (determined by combination effect of acoustic natural
frequency and valve natural frequency)
- No
N relation
l ti tot inlet
i l t pressure drop
d
- Stable for longer length of safety valve inlet line due to attenuation effect
Copyright © 2011 Chiyoda Advanced Solutions Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 7
Classification of Instability
Diff. Press
Diff Press.
(b) Static Instability (Pressure Drop Effect) Valve Lift
1E2, Inlet : 1”/100m, No Reducer at Outlet 1E2, Inlet : 1”/0m, 1” Reducer at Outlet
(simulation results) (experimental results)

Diff. Press. (MPa))

Diff. Presss. (MPa))
4.0 3.0 4.0 2.5
3.5 3.5
2.5 2.0
3.0

mm)
3.0
mm)

2.5 2.0 2.5 1.5

Lift (m
Lift (m

2.0 1.5 20
2.0
1.5 1.5 1.0
1.0
1.0 1.0 0.5
0.5 0.5 0.5
00
0.0 00
0.0 00
0.0 00.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Time (s) Time (s)
E cessi e Inlet Press
Excessive Pressure
re Drop Excessive Outlet Pressure Drop
(Smaller outlet to orifice area ratio)
After safety valve opens, available differential pressure
decreases and stable opening cannot be kept
- Caused by large pressure drop of inlet pipe / outlet pipe (safety valve outlet)
- Relatively low frequency (basically determined by duration time of pressure
accumulation and valve lift/blowdown characteristics)
Copyright © 2011 Chiyoda Advanced Solutions Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 8
Effect of PRV Inlet Pressure Drop
1
1E2, Set 20barg,
0 Blowdown = 10%
Inlet Length 1m 10m 20m 50m 100m
(simulation) (simulation)

Inlet
2.6% 3.8% 4.8% 9.2% 10.2%
Press. Drop*

Instability Unstable Stable Stable Stable Unstable

Dynamic / Static /
Cause of
Acoustic - - - Excessive
Instability
(Press. Wave) Press. Drop
* : average figure at actual PRV lift

- PRV static instability due to excessive pressure drop occurs if inlet pressure drop
exceeds the blowdown of PRV. 3％ rule for inlet pressure drop would be too much
conservative.
- There is another mechanism of PRV instability
instability, dynamic instability caused by interaction
between valve motion and pressure wave propagation at inlet pipe (acoustic effect).
This dynamic instability should be considered separately from inlet pressure drop.
- If inlet
i l t pressure d
drop would
ld b
be llarger th
than 3%
3%, flflow capacity
it should
h ld bbe checked
h k d ttaking
ki
both effects of pressure drop and PRV lift reduce into account.
Copyright © 2011 Chiyoda Advanced Solutions Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 9
Effect of PRV Outlet to Orifice Area Ratio
- Chiyoda study shows PRV instability would occur if outlet to orifice Pressure att
P
area ratio would be lower than 6.0. PRV outlet
- This instability is caused by pressure accumulation in the PRV body.
Thi pressure accumulation
This l ti iin th
the PRV b body
d can b
be confirmed
fi dbby
pressure drop calculation at the PRV outlet as shown in Fig.1.
- Dossena (3) shows that flow reduction
would occur for 8T10 PRV due to “high Fig 1
Fig.1
backpressure on the valve disc” based
on CFD analysis. Relatively small outlet
t orifice
to ifi area ratio,ti 3.04,
3 04 would ld result
lt iin
lack of valve lift force and insufficient

Q [m3/s]
Lower frequency (5Hz)

Q [[ft3/s]
valve opening for 8T10 PRV. vibration were observed
- Sallet and Somers (4) also show that the
flow capacity of PRV would decrease if
the outlet to orifice area ratio is lower
th 6.0.
than 6 0 (Lower
(L ffrequency di
disc
vibrations, which suggests static
instability, were observed when the PRV PRV Outlet Area / Orifice Area
outlet to orifice area ratio was lower
lower.)) Flow Rate vs. Area Ratio (Sallet and Somers (4))
(F Orifice, Saturate and Subcooled water,stitic
0.69MPa, 10degC)
Copyright © 2011 Chiyoda Advanced Solutions Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 10
Experimental Results / Effect of Outlet Area Ratio
(1) Orifice Outlet (2) Outlet Ratio
SV Size
Area Size Area (2) / (1)
1E2 1 82 cm2
1.82 2"
2 20 3 cm2
20.3 11 2
11.2
1-1/2" 13.6 cm2 7.5
1-1/4" 10.0 cm2 5.5
Chatter 1" 6 0 cm2
6.0 2 33
3.3
Almost
1.5F2 2.43 cm2 2" 20.3 cm2 8.3 Equivalent
1-1/2" 13.6 cm2 5.6 (similarity
Chatter 1-1/4" 10.0 cm2 4.1 law)
1" 6.0 cm2 2.5
4P6 47 80 cm2
47.80 6"
6 182 4 cm2
182.4 38
3.8
For larger size safety valves such as 4P6, where there is a
relatively small outlet to orifice area ratio, would result in chatter.
Outlet to Orifice Area Ratio < 6.0 Î There is possibility of chatter
Chatter is caused by pressure accumulation in the valve body
body.
Safety valve size including outlet area is specified in API526.
Copyright © 2011 Chiyoda Advanced Solutions Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 11
Conclusion

- Instability of PRV can be classified into dynamic instability and static instability.
- Dynamic
y instabilityy is caused by
y interaction between valve motion and pressure
p
wave propagation at inlet pipe. Longer inlet pipe length results in stable
condition due to attenuation effect.
-E
Excessive
i iinlet
l t liline pressure d
drop causes static
t ti iinstability
t bilit if iinlet
l t pressure d
drop
exceeds the PRV blowdown. 3％ rule for inlet pressure drop would be too much
conservative to prevent PRV instability.
- Outlet to orifice area ratio lower than 6.0 would result in static instability and
insufficient flow through PRV.

Copyright © 2011 Chiyoda Advanced Solutions Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 12

Thank You
END
Chiyoda Advanced Solutions Corporation
Technowave 100 Bldg.,1-25 Shin-Urashima-Cho 1-chome,
Kanagawa-ku, Yokohama 221-0031, Japan
Hisao IZUCHI
hisao.izuchi@chas.chiyoda.co.jp
@ y jp
Tel: +81-45-441-1277

Copyright © 2011 Chiyoda Advanced Solutions Corporation. All Rights Reserved.