T

his article presents the funda-

mental concepts of the discharge
coefficient, K
D
, of a relief valve
or a safety relief valve, and flow
resistance factor, K
R
, of a rupture
disk, and their proper use in sizing
an emergency relief system. When
these devices are used to protect a
pressure vessel, they must be certi-
fied according to ASME code in the
U.S. Both the discharge coefficient
and the flow resistance factor are di-
mensionless numbers determined by
measurement and theoretical compu-
tation. These factors are prescribed
in Performance Test Code (PTC) 25 of
ASME VIII, Division 1.
Discharge coefficient
The discharge coefficient of a relief
valve or safety relief valve is the ratio
of the measured relieving capacity of
the valve to its theoretical relieving
capacity computed by a prescriptive
theoretical equation matching the
test fluid, test pressure, temperature
and flow area of the valve. In the
determination of the discharge coef-
ficient, there is a choice of the test
fluid among steam, air, gas or water.
The deviation of the discharge coef-
ficient from the value of unity comes
from the deficiency of either the flow
model (mass flux through the valve
as a function of density and pressure)
or the fluid model (density as a func-
tion of pressure), or both. Although the
value of the discharge coefficient is
normally less than 1, a value greater
than 1 indicates either a poor choice of
models or erroneous data. Such values
of discharge coefficients greater than
one should be discarded unless a de-
liberate use results in a safer design
of the intended equipment.
Flow resistance factor
The flow resistance factor of a disk,
K
R
, is not a ratio of flow or a ratio
of resistance, but rather, it is a di-
mensionless term that expresses the
number of velocity heads lost due to
the flow through the rupture disk. It
is the calculated flow resistance fac-
tor of the piping system, including the
disk between two pressure taps in the
PTC 25 rig using air or gas as the test
fluid, minus the calculated flow resis-
tance factor of the same piping sys-
tem between the same pressure taps
with identical mass flowrate of air, but
without the disk. The current calcula-
tion method of the test code strictly
applies to those disks whose area is
the same as that of the pipe, but yields
acceptable flow predictions if the area
ratio (minimum net flow area of disk
divided by flow area of pipe) is at least
0.8. In the determination of the K
R
for
liquid, the disk is broken with water,
followed by testing with air.
The current method of reporting
the flow resistance coefficient in PTC
25, however, ignores the effect of the
reduced flow area of some rupture-
disk devices. It reports an apparent
flow resistance factor that yields
flow predictions, which differ from
the true flow resistance factor pre-
dictions of the disk, even when ex-
pressed in terms of the same velocity.
The calculated flow based on the flow
resistance factor, as reported cur-
rently through PTC 25, is apt to be
lower than the actual value in cases
with an area ratio lower than 0.8.
This makes the best estimate flow
for effluent handling less conserva-
tive, an issue that is under consider-
ation of the experts associated with
development of PTC 25.
Combination capacity factor
The combination capacity factor, CCF,
applies when the combination of a
rupture disk and relief valve is used.
CCF is the ratio of the measured re-
lieving capacity of the combination to
the measured relieving capacity of the
pressure relief valve alone.
The combination system of a rup-
ture disk and a relief valve is tested
in the rig in a closed-coupled position.
Therefore, if the disk of a combination
system is separated by a pipe, fittings
or fragments trap, the CCF (even the
lower default value of 0.9) becomes in-
valid, and the flow estimation for sta-
bility analysis or effluent handling will
likely be under-predicted, even after re-
moving the CCF. This is especially true
when the area ratio is less than 0.8.
The resistance of all the components
of the line containing the disk should
be accounted for in determining the
capacity and stability of a combination
system. In addition, the possibility of
choking at the disk should be checked.
In extreme cases using a fragments
trap, expert guidance should be sought
if forbidden components, such as when
a fragmenting disk is used in a combi-
nation system, cannot be avoided.
Table 1 outlines the basis of calcu-
lating the flow capacity, pressure loss,
and stability analysis of a device sys-
tem. Where ASME area and ASME K
D

are mentioned as a pair of data set in
Table 1, the corresponding API area
and API K
D
pair data set for the valve
may be used. Components of this data
set pair must not be mixed up. The
Feature Report
52 CHEMCAL ENGNEERNG WWW.CHE.COM OCTOBER 2008
Engineering Practice
Dilip Das
Bayer CropScience
Discharge Coefficients and
Flow Resistance Factors
An in depth understanding of the ASME code that
describes these terms enables engineers to properly
design pressure relief systems
use of vessel pressure as the choice
of stagnation pressure is generally
acceptable, whether the device is a
pressure relief valve, rupture disk or a
combination of the two. This is true as
long as the 3% rule for the inlet pres-
sure loss is maintained for the relief
valve and combination, and the area
of the rupture disk in a combination
is at least equal to that of the nominal
pipe size.
ASME VIII, Division 1
Citations from ASME Code VIII, Div. 1
are shown in the box on p. 54. Here, we
will explain and expand upon specific
segments of this code.
Adjusting K
D
by the 0.9 factor. Re-
moving the 0.9 factor (that is, to divide
ASME K
D
by 0.9) as shown in Table 1
for pressure loss or stability analysis
is a judgment call, practiced by some
experts and widely used in industry,
especially for pressure loss analysis.
However, this is neither mandated by
ASME Section VIII, as seen in Note
1, nor by the Guidelines book. ASME
Section VIII and the Guidelines book
[1c,d] allow pressure loss and stability
analysis to be based on the nameplate
capacity (see the definition on p. 55)
of the valve, which is in effect the flow
at 10% overpressure times 0.9. The
danger of removing the 0.9 factor on
pressure and stability analysis is that
it may lead to the selection of larger
valves with a much higher instanta-
neous capacity. This will raise the po-
tential for cycling problems and insta-
bility of the valve, which the designer
is trying to avoid in the first place. It
is also not economically justifiable to
remove the 0.9 factor when the de-
signer is trying to meet the 3% rule
in an existing installation. When dy-
namic simulation is used with ASME
K
D
and ASME flow area, the inlet line
loss for a system using a pressure re-
lief valve should be read against the
10% overpressure (that is, 10% above
set pressure, not 10% above maximum
allowable working pressure), and not
against any higher pressure at which
the inlet pressure loss may exceed 3%
of the differential set pressure of the
pressure relief valve. The term over-
pressure refers to the set pressure of
the pressure relief valve, whereas the
term accumulation has the reference
of maximum allowable working pres-
sure of the equipment. Accumulation
and overpressure become identical
when the pressure relief valve is set
at maximum allowable working pres-
sure. Therefore, percent overpressure
has no connection with maximum al-
lowable working pressure.
Combination systems. It is implied
that when a rupture disk is used in a
combination system as a fitting with
appropriate, known flow-resistance
factor, K
RGL
, the minimum net flow
CHEMCAL ENGNEERNG WWW.CHE.COM OCTOBER 2008 53
Table 1. Basis of calculation of the capacity, pressure loss and staBility analysis
device type choice of device
inlet stagnation
pressure, p
0
relieving capacity
study
pressure loss or sta-
bility analysis
consideration of inlet
and outlet piping loss
Pressure relief valve alone
with 3% limit on inlet loss
Vessel
pressure [1e]
Use ASME area and
ASME K
D

Use relieving capac-
ity based on ASME
area, but ASME
K
D
/0.9 See Note 1
& Adjusting K
D
by
the 0.9 Factor
Not required for reliev-
ing capacity study,
but required for pres-
sure loss and stability
analysis (Note 1)
Pressure relief valve alone
with higher than 3% limit on
inlet loss as in some
application with pilot oper-
ated valve, or best esti-
mate case
Vessel pressure
minus
inlet line loss [1e]
Same as above Same as above Required for relieving
capacity study, pres-
sure loss, and stability
analysis.
Involves trial-and-error
for P
0
Rupture disk alone Vessel pressure Use disk as a fitting
with K
RGL
of disk along
with piping compo-
nents. Multiply the
calculated capacity
with 0.9 to specify the
relieving capacity of
the disk (Note 1)
Stability analysis is
not performed but
maintenance of
code limited pres-
sure of protected
equipment is re-
quired
Required in relieving
capacity
Pressure relief valve and
rupture
disk combination
with 3% limit on inlet loss
Vessel pressure Use ASME area and
ASME K
D
x CCF (Note 3)
Use relieving capac-
ity based on ASME
area and ASME K
D
/
(0.9 x CCF) . See
Note 1, Adjusting K
D

by the 0.9 Factor,
and Note 3
Not required for reliev-
ing capacity study,
but required for pres-
sure loss and stability
analysis (Note 1)
Pressure relief valve and
rupture disk combination
with higher than 3% limit
on inlet loss, or best esti-
mate case
Vessel pressure
minus
inlet line loss
Same as above Same as above Required for relieving
capacity study, pres-
sure loss, and stability
analysis.
Involves trial-and-error
for P
0
Engineering Practice
54 CHEMCAL ENGNEERNG WWW.CHE.COM OCTOBER 2008
area of the disk does not have to match
the flow area of the device inlet under
certain circumstances. Its nominal
size must be at least the same as the
nominal size of the device inlet, its in-
clusion in the inlet line must meet the
3% rule, and its capacity in combina-
tion with a relief valve must be estab-
lished by test. The reader is warned
that the CCF becomes invalid if the
disk and the relief valve are installed
apart with piping in between. When
the combination capacity factor be-
comes inapplicable due to lack of close
coupling in the layout or lack of CCF
test data, but with an appropriate non-
fragmenting disk, the default value of
0.9 for CCF applies. Note that the 3%
rule applies to compressible flow, al-
though its adherence in liquid service
is considered a good engineering prac-
tice for valves with liquid trim.
Understanding ASME terms. The
static pressure referred to in the dis-
charge line should not erroneously be
understood as irreversible pressure
loss. Set pressure is actually the set
pressure of a balanced valve and pilot
valve, but the differential set pressure
of a conventional valve. Other valve
types refers to balanced valve and
pilot valves. By referring to no chance
of interference, the code cautions
against the use of fragmenting metal
disk and graphite disk in a combina-
tion system. Use of such disks invali-
dates the application of CCF, and ad-
vice from an expert should be sought
under this circumstance [3a].
When using a disk, which is individ-
ually certified, but not in combination
with a valve, the default CCF value
of 0.9 may be used, provided the area
ratio is not less than one. When the
area ratio is less than one, the capac-
ity of the combination system should
be checked after a consideration of
inlet line loss.
Using a rupture disk alone. In
Note 2, notice the and conjunction
in (a); all conditions (1), (2), and (3)
must apply in order to use the 0.62
discharge coefficient. For example, if
the disk is installed at the end of ten
pipe diameters from the vessel nozzle,
this method of using the discharge co-
efficient equal to 0.62 does not apply.
When this method applies, the mini-
mum net flow area of the disk applies.
In this method, the piping system is
treated as a nozzle. This rule may be
called the 8-5-0.62-MNFA Rule.

Definitions
In the following paragraphs, defini-
tions of some terms are given in the
order that various flows are computed.
Differential pressure. This expres-
sion is defined by Equation (1) in the
box on p. 55.
Accumulation. This is the pressure
above the maximum allowable work-
Citation from aSmE Viii, DiViSion 1
Note 1
The nominal pipe size of all piping, valves and fittings, and vessel
components between a pressure vessel and its safety, safety relief,
or pilot operated pressure relief valves shall be at least as large as
the nominal size of the device inlet, and the flow characteristics of
the upstream system shall be such that the cumulative total of all
non-recoverable inlet losses shall not exceed 3% of the valve set
pressure. The inlet pressure losses will be based on valve name-
plate capacity corrected for the characteristics of the flowing fluid
[2a] (compressible fluid). The flow characteristics of the discharge
system of high lift, top guided, safety, safety relief, or pilot oper-
ated pressure relief valves in compressible fluid service shall be
such that the static pressure developed at the discharge flange of
a conventional direct spring loaded valve will not exceed 10% of
the set pressure of when flowing at a stamp capacity. Other valve
types exhibit various tolerance of back pressure and the manufac-
turers recommendation should be followed [2b].
The opening provided through the rupture disk, after burst, [must
be] sufficient to permit a flow equal to the capacity of the valve [in
a combination system], and there is no chance of interference with
the proper functioning of the valve; but in no case shall this area
be less than the area of the inlet of the valve unless the capac-
ity and the functioning of the specific combination of rupture disk
device and pressure relief valve have been established by test in
accordance with UG-132 [2c].
[Authors comment: This implies full-area disks unless disk flow
diameter is larger than the nominal pipe size of the valve.]
Note 2
The rated flow capacity of a pressure relief system which uses a
rupture disk device as the sole relief device shall be determined by
a value calculated under the requirements of (a) using a coefficient
of discharge or (b) using the flow resistance [as shown] below.
(a) When the rupture disk device discharges to atmosphere and
(1) is installed within eight pipe diameters from the vessel nozzle
entry; and (2) with a length of discharge pipe not greater than
five diameters from the rupture disk device; and (3) the nominal
diameters of the inlet and discharge piping are equal to or greater
than the stamped NPS [nominal pipe size] designator of the de-
vice, the calculated relieving capacity of a pressure relief system
shall not exceed a value based on the applicable theoretical flow
equation[see UG-131(e)(2)and Appendix 11] for the various
media multiplied by a coefficient of discharge K equal to 0.62.
The area in the theoretical equation shall be the minimum net flow
area [mnfa] as specified by the rupture disk manufacturer. The
minimum net flow area for sizing purpose shall not exceed the
nominal pipe size area of the rupture disk device.
(b) The calculated capacity of any pressure relief system may
be determined by analyzing the total system resistance to flow.
This analysis shall take into consideration the flow resistance
of the rupture disk device [K
R
], piping and piping components
including the exit nozzle of the vessel, elbows, tees, reducers,
and valves. The calculation shall be made using accepted engi-
neering practices for determining fluid flow [relieving capacity]
through piping systems. This calculated relieving capacity shall
be multiplied by a factor of 0.9 or less to allow for uncertainties
inherent in this method [2d].
Note 3
For closed coupled installation of a rupture disk and pressure relief
valve, use the default value of CCF (combination capacity factor)
as 0.9 if the Red Book value (certified value) of the selected com-
bination pair of rupture disk and pressure relief valve is not avail-
able. As an alternative to removing the 0.9 factor, the name plate
flow capacity for the valve alone using ASME area and ASME
K
D
at 10% overpressure can be calculated, and then multiply by
CCF to get the flow for pressure loss analysis for the same concern
expressed in (a) in authors comments under Note 1. The flow re-
sistance factor, K
R
, and other resistances in inlet piping must be
considered to compute the inlet pressure loss.
CHEMCAL ENGNEERNG WWW.CHE.COM OCTOBER 2008 55
ing pressure (or design pressure when
calculations are not made to establish
the maximum allowable working pres-
sure). Accumulation is expressed as a
percentage of the maximum allowable
working pressure.
Minimum required relief capacity.
Symbolized by W
min
, this is the mass
flowrate required to limit the pressure
rise to the pressure at maximum al-
lowed accumulation, which is 10% for
non-fire contingency and 21% for fire
contingency. For a fire contingency
with thermally stable single-compo-
nent liquid, with maximum pressure
below 90% of the critical pressure,
without specific volume correction,
this is obtained by dividing the fire
heat load with the latent heat of va-
porization at the maximum pressure,
if two-phase flow is ruled out.
Ideal nozzle flow area of a relief
valve. This value is symbolized as A
id-
eal
. Using W
min
, the ideal nozzle flow
area is calculated with K
D
= 1, nozzle
length = 0, all fitting resistances = 0 and
the properties of the relieving fluid.
The minimum real nozzle flow
area. A
real, min
is described by the fol-
lowing equation: A
real, min
= A
ideal
/ K
D
Code mass velocity. The code mass
velocity, G
code
, is obtained by dividing
the minimum required relief capacity
with real nozzle flow area, as shown
by Equation (2).
(2)
Code relief capacity. To determine
W
code
, select the ASME area, A
ASME
,
of the relief valve, whose certified
K
D
was used to calculate real nozzle
flow area, so that the selected area
matches or is the next higher in value
compared with calculated real nozzle
flow area. Then calculate W
code
using
the following equation.
(3)
Nameplate capacity. The name-
plate capacity corrected for the prop-
erties of the fluid, W
10%
, is expressed
by Equation (4) in the box above.
The nameplate capacity is used to
stamp the valve at the manufactur-
ers shop. Please note that the name-
plate capacity is in effect the flow at
10% overpressure times 0.9, since
the code K
D
has a multiplier of 0.9.
This flow as such is acceptable for
pressure-loss computation by ASME.
Removing the 0.9 factor for pressure
loss analysis is a judgment call that
is not exercised by some experts. In
fact, this removal of 0.9 factor is also
not recommended by the Guidelines
book [1c]. At least one expert [3d]
does not recommend removing the
0.9 factor if this results in a larger
valve size; the danger of selecting a
larger valve is that this may drasti-
cally increase the instantaneous flow
and raise the potential of cycling
problems and instability.
Best estimate flowrate at 10%
overpressure. The best estimate
flowrate at 10% overpressure is de-
fined by Equation (5) in the box. In
the Guidelines book [1b], the best
estimate flowrate, also uses: inlet
stagnation pressure = vessel pressure
inlet loss. If the rigorous accounting
of inlet loss is not included, the best
estimate flowrate computed as shown
above can be up to 3% higher than a
value obtained by rigorous account-
ing of the inlet loss.
The best estimate flowrate at 10%
overpressure, Equation (5), is option-
ally used for calculating the inlet and
outlet line pressure losses even though
the nameplate capacity flowrate, is
also acceptable by ASME [2a] for pres-
sure loss calculation.
According to Reference [1c], the
inlet line loss is computed based on
the relieving capacity for a pressure
relief valve or a combination system
with a disk with full area ratio to ex-
amine if the 3% rule is obeyed. The
relieving capacity needed for this
computation is the ASME nameplate
rated capacity at 10% overpressure
corrected for the properties of the
fluid. This capacity may be deter-
mined without a consideration of the
piping resistances.
However, the disk and the pressure
relief valve must be close-coupled in
the actual installation, because CCF
applies only to close-coupled systems.
When the combination system is not
close-coupled (if there is pipe between
the disk and the pressure relief valve,
for example), flow capacity and inlet
loss computation for a combination
system should consider the inlet line
pressure loss. This, in turn, should
consider the inclusion of the flow re-
sistance factor of the disk.
Best estimate flow for effluent han-
dling. This estimate can be calculated
with the following equation.
(6)
The Guidelines book [1b], as well
as the CC
flow
program, use calculated
Equations (1), (4) and (5)
(1)
(4)
(5)
Engineering Practice
56 CHEMCAL ENGNEERNG WWW.CHE.COM OCTOBER 2008
inlet stagnation pressure in best es-
timate flow calculation, if significant
inlet loss exists.
The K
RGL
of rupture disk
The certified flow resistance factor,
K
RGL
, of a rupture disk is the dimen-
sionless flow resistance factor mea-
sured by the manufacturers of the
disk according to the Performance
Test Code (ASME PTC 25-2001) [4].
This factor, when multiplied by corre-
sponding velocity head, gives the cor-
responding irreversible loss through
the device in terms of fluid head. The
measurement of the flow resistance
factor is based on the same principle
that is applied to pipe fittings. For con-
stant-density (incompressible) fluids,
the following equation is used.
(7)
The factor in the denominator,
u
2
/2g
c
, is called the velocity head.
When multiplied with the certified
flow resistance factor, it gives the
pressure loss across the device in head
of fluid. The pressure loss is measured
against a metered flow (and hence u)
across the device, so the value of K
RGL

can be determined from the known
density of the test fluid. This equation
is not, however, used in the measure-
ment of K
RGL
. The compressible flow
equations of Levenspiel [12] and Lap-
pel [13] are used instead, because air
or gas is used for measurement.
The total flow resistance factor of a
piping system, N, also known as fric-
tional length parameter or overall loss
coefficient, is conventionally expressed
as follows.
(8)
In the PTC 25 setup, there is a
pressure tap designated as tap B
upstream of the disk, and a pressure
tap designated as tap C downstream
of disk. Thus, the setup consists of an
upstream piping section, the mid-sec-
tion holding the device, and a down-
stream piping section. The total flow
resistance factor, including the device,
is calculated based on metered flow
and pressure difference between taps.
Then, the flow resistance factor of the
pipe sections alone, without the de-
vice, is calculated. From the difference
of these two resistance factors, K
R, de-
vice
is determined as follows.
(9)
The flow resistance factor N be-
tween pressure tap B and pressure tap
C, including the disk, is determined by
the compressible flow equation of Lev-
enspiel and Lapple. The Fanning fric-
tion factor, f, is calculated from known
pressure loss, flowrate and physical
properties of air across a section of
pipe of known length before pressure
tap B. This friction factor is then used
to calculate the flow resistance factor
of the pipe portion only between pres-
sure tap B and pressure tap C.
It is important to note that, in the
current test code, the velocity through
the device is based on the full inside
flow area of the pipe, and not on the
minimum net flow area of the disk.
The total irreversible loss in piping
containing a disk that is connected to
a vessel and relieving to atmosphere
may be summarized as follows:
Total irreversible loss =
entrance loss + inlet piping loss
+ device loss + pressure recovery loss
in expansion from device to pipe
+ loss in tail pipe.
The irreversible pressure loss due
to a rupture disk with an area ratio
less than unity consists of two parts:
the irreversible loss due to disk, which
can be computed using the True-K
R

and ideal-nozzle inlet contraction, and
the pressure recovery loss if the flow is
not choked, which has to be calculated
using a separate method. The pressure
recovery loss does not apply to full-
bore disks. The concern arises from
the fact that the measured loss across
the device in the certification rig is the
sum of the loss in the device plus the
loss in any expansion from the device
to the pipe flow area, with no consid-
eration of the possibility of choking in
the device. Thus, for reduced area de-
vices, the observed or apparent K
RGL
,
based on inside full flow area, in-
creases asymptotically with test pres-
sure (higher flowrate), even though
the true K
RGL
, based on minimum net
flow area of device, is constant. Also,
the choking effect is not accounted for
(calculation based on pipe area cannot
choke, but the actual flow can be lim-
ited by choking in the design case, so
flow is over-estimated by the present
method of calculating, using apparent
K
RGL
). The choked flow in a reduced
area device can be reached at seem-
ingly high ratios of recovered down-
stream pressure to device inlet stag-
nation pressure. This translates to 0.6
or higher, as opposed to the theoretical
value of 0.53 for free discharge of air
from an ideal nozzle [8a].
Also, the certified K
RGL
is close to
the observed maximum value at the
higher flowrates, and it is certainly
very conservative at lower design
flows. All this adds up to a underesti-
mate of flowrate for the effluent han-
dling system. For the estimation of
best estimate flow for stability analy-
sis or effluent handling, the flow esti-
mate is conservative, as a low estimate
leads to a bigger disk for area ratio of
0.8 or higher. However, it can differ by
10% or more from the calculated flow
based on actual area of the disk for
an area ratio on the order of 0.5, even
after the mandated code factor of 0.9
is removed [3c].
Such low area ratio occurs when
some rupture disks with vacuum sup-
ports are selected. Such disks with low
area ratio should be avoided in combi-
nation with a relief valve, and in un-
avoidable circumstances expert advice
should be sought.
Understanding parameters
The symbol K with subscripts such as
D or R, and the parameters N, C
D
, and
C
V
are used in literature to symbolize
different concepts. It is easy to slip
into a misunderstanding, particularly
when the thought process of authors
fails to be translated appropriately. In
general, K
D
and C
D
are used to denote
the discharge coefficient of the flow ca-
pacity of a pressure relief device, pres-
sure relief valve or disk, while K
R
de-
notes the flow resistance factor of the
disk only. The parameter N denotes
the flow resistance factor of a piping
system of which the device is just a fit-
CHEMCAL ENGNEERNG WWW.CHE.COM OCTOBER 2008 57
ting, like an elbow. All the parameters
K
D
, K
R
, C
D
, and N are dimensionless.
The flow coefficient parameter C
V,

used in control engineering for control
valves, is a dimensional parameter.
For liquid service, for example, C
V
of a
control valve denotes the flow of water
at 60F in gallons per minute for a
pressure loss of 1 psi across the valve.
A relationship between the flow coef-
ficient parameter, C
V
and flow resis-
tance factor, K
R
of a control valve for
incompressible flow may be given by
the following equation.
(11)
A relationship between K
R
, K
D
, and
C
D
for incompressible flow, such as a
liquid, is as follows [14a].
(12)
(13)
An approximate relationship be-
tween K
R
, K
D
, and C
D
for compress-
ible flow is described by Equation (14)
in the box above [14c].
K
R
in Equation (14) should be used
with velocity based on the full-bore
inlet diameter of the device for the
computation of pressure loss. If based
on the velocity through the orifice
(device nozzle) for the computation
of pressure loss, then the term in the
denominator is excluded.
The predicted K
R
from the above com-
pressible flow equation is higher than
true K
R
. This means that Equation (14)
overestimates the parameters.
K
D
for gas or liquid flow
The values of discharge coefficients
for gases are very different from
those of liquids, because gas coef-
ficients are measured under choked
flow for which the nozzle is the flow-
controlling element in the valve, and
is well represented by the isentropic
nozzle flow model. Liquid coefficients
are determined under un-choked con-
ditions reflecting the influence of the
entire valve (nozzle and the body) on
the flow, which is not accounted by
the isentropic nozzle model.
One expert advises to use gas dis-
charge coefficient for choked flow, and
liquid discharge coefficient for un-
choked flow [14b] for gas, vapor, liquid
or two-phase flow. The determination
of choking at the device requires the
thermodynamic conditions at the de-
vice. Therefore, one can appreciate
why one expert suggests the computa-
tion of inlet line pressure loss for the
determination of the relieving capac-
ity of a pressure relief valve [9].
Alternatively, the discharge co-
efficient for two-phase flow can be
evaluated from certified discharge
coefficients as a smooth function of
omega parameter and backpressure
[15]. According to this expert, the
discharge coefficient for non-flash-
ing two-phase flow (such as air and
water) lies between the liquid dis-
charge coefficient and gas discharge
coefficient. The discharge coefficient
for flashing two-phase flow (such as
steam and water) is higher than the
gas discharge coefficient, but less
than 1. The procedure of determin-
ing the two-phase flow coefficient
using this experts latest method is
an iterative process involving the de-
termination of choked condition.
Account for piping system in C
D
An approximate relationship between
the flow resistance factor of a piping
system and C
D
of the same piping sys-
tem may be adapted from an equation
given by Fauske [11a], as is given by
Equation (15) in the box.
Note that if the discharge pipe vents
to atmosphere or any unconfined
space, K
R, exit
= 0 because the kinetic
energy change is zero [14d]. Dr. Fauske
has presented equations for mass flux
using the C
D
and the physical proper-
ties at stagnation conditions, and has
compared the predicated mass flux
against the experimental data, which
provides a good agreement.
K
D
of a safety relief valve
The relieving capacity of a safety re-
lief valve is determined by the ASME
by two methods.
The slope method. This method is
based on the principle that flow is
linearly proportional to absolute pres-
sure. In this method the slope deter-
mined by the ratio (measured capacity
absolute flow pressure) is for a set
of three valves for each combination of
size, design, and pressure setting. The
test values are averaged, and all the
test values are verified to ensure that
they lie within 5% of the average
value. The relieving capacity stamped
on the valve shall not exceed 90% of
the average slope, multiplied by the
absolute accumulation pressure.
The coefficient of discharge
method. For each design, at least
three valves for each of three differ-
ent sizes (total of nine valves) are
tested for the coefficient of discharge.
The average of the coefficients of the
nine tests shall be multiplied by 0.9
Equations 14, 15, 16
(14)
(15)
(16)
Engineering Practice
58 CHEMCAL ENGNEERNG WWW.CHE.COM OCTOBER 2008
and this product shall be taken as
the discharge coefficient for design,
and be reported in the Red Book.
This value shall not be greater than
0.878 (that is, 0.9 x 0.975). This is
the value, called the Red Book K
D

or Code K
D
, which is used for cal-
culating the relieving capacity of a
safety relief valve. The same Code
K
D
is used to calculate the name-
plate capacity at 10% overpressure
and study pressure loss.
K
D
of a relief valve
The coefficient of discharge is defined
by Equation (16) in the box on p. 57.
Thus, the coefficient of discharge of
a relief valve is a dimensionless, em-
pirical flow, capacity correction factor,
which is usually less than unity. It
represents the limitation of the theo-
retical computational model as used
in the code, and deviation of the valve
nozzle from an ideal nozzle.
In Equation (16), the actual flow is
measured by a flowmeter using the
slope method. The theoretical flow is
determined by equations that are pro-
vided in the code for valves certified
for Sections I, III, IV, and VIII (Divs.
nomEnClaturE
A Flow area, in.
2
A
ideal
Ideal nozzle flow area, in.
2
A
realmin
Minimum real nozzle flow area, in.
2
A
ASME
Flow area of pressure relief valve, in.
2
Areal ratio minimum net flow area of a rupture disk divided by
the full bore area, dimensionless.
C Constant for gas or vapor based on the ratio of spe-
cific heats (c
p
/c
v
)
D Pipe inside diameter, ft
d Pipe inside diameter, in.
f Fanning friction factor, dimensionless
G
code
Mass velocity required for the pressure relief valve as
a minimum by ASME code, lb/hin.
2
g
c
Dimensional constant, 32.174 lbft/(s
2
.lbf)
K
D
Coefficient of discharge
K
RGL
Flow resistance factor of a rupture disk for gas or liq-
uid service, dimensionless
K
RG
Flow resistance factor of a rupture disk for gas ser-
vice, dimensionless
K
RL
Flow resistance factor of a rupture disk for liquid ser-
vice, dimensionless*
L Length of pipe, ft
L
bc
Length of pipe between tap B and tap C in PTC test
rig, ft
M Molecular weight, lb/lbmol
N Flow resistance factor of a piping system, dimension-
less
P (Set pressure, psig x 1.1+ atmospheric pressure, psia)
or (Set pressure, psia + 3) whichever is greater for
theoretical flow equation, psia
P
d
Pressure at discharge of valve, psia
P Pressure differential, lbf/ft
2
T Temperature in R
u Fluid velocity, ft/s
w Water density, lb/ft
3
W
code
Relief capacity required by ASME code based on the
certified flow area of selected relief valve, lb/h
W
min
Minimum required relief capacity to limit the pressure
loss to the code-allowed limit, lb/h
W
T
Theoretically computed relieving capacity of a pres-
sure relief valve, lb/h
W
10%
Nameplate capacity of a pressure relief valve at 10%
overpressure, lb/h. This flow is acceptable for pres-
sure loss computation.
W
10%,Best estimate
Best estimate flowrate at 10% overpressure,
generally used for line pressure loss calculation. This
flow is higher than W
10%
because of division by 0.9
and 0.9(CCF), lb/h
W
Best estimate, effluent handling
Best estimate flow rate for effluent
handling, lb/h
Z Compressibility factor, dimensionless
Fluid density, lb/ft
3

Acronyms:
API American Petroleum Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
CCF Combination Capacity Factor: A relief flow capacity
correction factor determined by PTC 25 apparatus
*At the time of publication, the K
R
value is determined using air or gas. This
value is used with the velocity head in the applicable fluid phase (vapor, liquid,
or two-phase) to compute pressure loss
References
1. Guidelines for Pressure Relief and Effluent
Handling Systems, CCPS, AIChE, New York,
NY [1a: p. 185; 1b: p. 189; 1c: p. 187; 1d: p.
184; 1e: p. 255, p. 256, p. 182]
2. 2004 ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,
Division 1, ASME, New York, N.Y. [2a: Ap-
pendix M-6(a), p. 584; 2b: Appendix M-7(c),
p. 584; 2c: UG-127, (a)(3)(b)(5), p. 89; 2d:
UG-127, (a)(2)(b), p. 89; 2e:UG-131(e)(2)(e),
p. 94; 2f: UG-132 (b)(c)(d), p . 96]
3. Huff, J.E, Huff Consulting Services, Stock-
ton, CA, Personal communication [Dr. Huff
is the authors initiating preceptor in the
DIERS technology].[3a: May 2007; 3b, 3c, 3d:
June 2007]
4. Huff, J.E, Flow Characteristics of Rupture
Disc Devices: Models for Certification and
Design, Huff Consulting Services, DIERS
Users Group Meeting, Las Vegas, 05/02/06.
5. Performance Test Code 25-2001, published
February 2002 ASME, New York, N.Y.
6. Pressure Relief Certification, NB-18 [Red
Book], The National Board of Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Inspectors [614-888-8320]
7. Huff, J.E. and K. R. Shaw, Measurement of
Flow Resistance of Rupture Disk Devices,
Plant/Operations Progress, 11, No. 3, pages
187-200 (July 1992). [Basis of ASME PTC 25:
Current certification method].
8. Huff, J.E., Restrictive Rupture Disc Devices:
A Calculation Method for Certification and
Design, Topical Conference Proceedings of
the 2001 Process Plant Safety Symposium,
AIChE Spring National Meeting, pp. 578-584
(April 2001)
9. Fisher, H, Fisher Inc., Personal Communica-
tion June,2007
10. Das, D. K. and R.K. Prabhudesai, Chemical
Engineering, PE License Review, Kaplan AEC
education, Chicago, IL.(2007) [10a: p. 157]
11. Fauske, H. K., Similarity Between Two-
phase Flashing and Compressible Gas Pipe
Flows, Process Safety, Fauske & Associates,
Inc., Burr Ridge, IL, Fall 2001 [11a: p. 6]
12. Levenspiel, O., The Discharge of Gases from
a Reservoir through a Pipe, AIChE Journal,
pp. 402-403 (May 1977)
13. Lapple, C.E., Isothermal and Adiabatic Flow
of Compressible Fluid, Trnas. AIChE, 39, pp.
385-432 (1943).
14. Darby, Ron, Chemical Engineering Fluid Me-
chanics, Second edition, Marcel Dekker, Inc.,
NY(2001)[14a,14b: personal communication,
September 2007], [14c:p. 310; 14d: p. 213]
15. Leung, J. C., A theory on the discharge co-
efficient for the safety relief valve, Journal
of Loss Prevention in the process industries,
Elsevier Ltd., 17 (2004) pp. 301-313
CHEMCAL ENGNEERNG WWW.CHE.COM OCTOBER 2008 59
1 & 2). For Section VIII, the theoreti-
cal flow is determined by selecting the
appropriate expression from Equation
(17) in the box above.
Determination of the CCF
The combination capacity factor (CCF)
is determined in applications where
a rupture disk is used upstream of a
pressure relief valve in a closed cou-
pled position [2f].
The capacity of the pressure relief
valve as an individual valve is deter-
mined according to the code procedure
at a pressure 10% or 3 psi, whichever
is greater, above the valve set pressure
(W
code,valve
).
The rupture disk device shall then
be installed at the inlet of the pres-
sure relief valve and the disk burst to
operate the valve. The capacity test
shall be performed on the combination
at 10% or 3 psi, whichever is greater,
above the valve set pressure, dupli-
cating the individual pressure relief
valve capacity test (W
code, valve+disk
).
From the results of these tests, which
must fall within a range of 10% of the
average capacity, the CCF is math-
ematically computed as follows.
(18)
Thus, if the combination of rupture
disk, irrespective of its area ratio, and
pressure relief valve is used as a close-
coupled system in the actual instal-
lation, and the 3% rule is followed,
the inclusion of the K
RGL
value of the
disk in the inlet line is not required
in the determination of the capacity.
This method, although not theoreti-
cally correct, is acceptable within the
tolerance of errors inherent in the
analysis, and relieves the designer
from avoidable strenuous exercises.
One expert recommends a conserva-
tive practice: whenever a combina-
tion system is used, the inlet line loss,
which includes the inlet line with all
fittings as well as the rupture disk
should be considered both during the
inlet stagnation pressure determina-
tion and the pressure loss analysis [9].
This approach, although theoretically
rigorous, requires trial-and-error, and
is computationally intensive for multi-
component systems with reaction even
with the help of a computer. This may
not be necessary under circumstances
explained above. However, if the disk
is separated from the relief valve in
the actual installation or the 3% rule
is violated, the CCF value does not
apply, and the K
RGL
value of the disk
must be considered in the inlet line,
both for capacity determination and
stability analysis.
Edited by Kate Torzewski
(17)
Author
Dilip K. Das is a principal
engineer in Bayer Crop-
Sciences Kansas City engi-
neering department (8400
Hawthorn Rd., Kansas City,
MO 64120; Tel:816-242-2879;
Fax: 816-242-2693; E-mail:
dilip.das@bayercropscience.
com.) where he is currently
in charge of emergency relief
system design, and previ-
ously held process engineer-
ing positions at Ciba-Geigy, Rhone-Poulenc,
Stauffer Chemicals, and C. F. Braun. He holds
a B.S. (honors) in chemistry from Rajshahi Uni-
versity in Pakistan, and a B.S.Ch.E. (Honors)
from Jadavpur University in India. He earned
an M.S.Ch.E from University of Washington
(Seattle), and was trained at MIT in expert sys-
tem in process engineering. Das is a registered
engineer in the states of N.Y., N.J., La., and Mo.
He is a past chair and director of AIChEs Kan-
sas City chapter, and is currently the chairman
of SuperChems Technical Steering Committee
under the Design Institute of Emergency Relief
System (DIERS).
ZIEMANN THERMIPACK

Everything for
the Chemical
Industry
Design, implementation, support of
turn-key plants and complete compo-
nents
Columns
Reactors
Condensation Towers
Heat exchangers
Storage Tanks and Process Tanks
In any size, also laser-welded and
made from the most different mate-
rials.
Decades of experience, state-of-the-art
manufacturing methods, flawless qua-
lity.
ZIEMANN FRANCE S.A.S.
Tel.: +33 (0)3 88 00 39 40
sales@ziemann-france.com
www.ziemann-france.com
Taking care of processing
ZF_ChemEn_T_280408:ZF_ChemEn_T_280408 28.04.2008 16:03 Uhr Seite 1
Circle 29 on p. 78 or go to adlinks.che.com/7377-29