• Please log in or register to access this feature.

Case Histories

You have free access to this content

The PSV That Did Not Fail—Misconceptions About PSVs

  1. Emmanuelle Hagey*

Article first published online: 8 FEB 2013

DOI: 10.1002/prs.11557

Issue

Process Safety Progress

Process Safety Progress

Volume 32, Issue 1, pages 84–89, March 2013

Additional Information

How to Cite

Hagey, E. (2013), The PSV That Did Not Fail—Misconceptions About PSVs. Proc. Safety Prog., 32: 84–89. doi: 10.1002/prs.11557

Author Information

  1. Loss Prevention Engineer, NOVA Chemicals Corporation, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

*hageye@novachem.com (for correspondence)

  1. This article was originally presented at the 8th Global Congress on Process Safety, Houston, TX, April 1–4, 2012

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 25 FEB 2013
  2. Article first published online: 8 FEB 2013

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (143K)

LITERATURE CITED

  • 1
    P.C. Berwanger, R.A. Kreder, and W.-S. Lee, Analysis identifies deficiencies in existing pressure relief systems, Process Saf Prog 19 (2000), 166–172.
    Direct Link:
  • 2
    API STD 521/ISO 23251. Pressure-Relieving and Depressuring Systems. 5th Ed, 2007.
  • 3
    ASME/BPVC Section VIII Division 1. Rules for construction of Pressure Vessels, UG-125 to UG-140 Overpressure Protection, 2010.
  • 4
    ASME/BPVC Section VIII Division 1. Non-mandatory Appendix M, Installation and operation, 2010.
  • 5
    API RP 520 Part II—Sizing, Selection, and Installation of Pressure-Relieving Devices in Refineries. Part II—Installation, 2011.
  • 6
    D. Smith, J. Burgess, and C. Powers, Relief device inlet piping: beyond the 3 percent rule, Hydrocarbon Processing 90 (2011), 59–66.
  • 7
    S. Urbanik, Evaluating relief valve reliability when extending the test and maintenance interval, Process Saf Prog 23 (2004), 191–196.
    Direct Link:
View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (143K)