Emergency Relief System Design

Reducing costs and increasing accuracy in the design or revalidation of relief systems.

Effective Emergency Relief System (ERS) design helps companies meet risk-management goals, compliance requirements, and sound business practices. ioMosaic provides a total ERS solution with our comprehensive ERS design services, from reactivity testing for design basis determination to calculations for Z-axis deflection from dynamic loads.

Learn More

How We Can Help You

Our team has decades of experience performing PRFS analysis and design.

Our risk-based approach helps mitigate near-unventable scenarios to a tolerable level of risk.

Better evaluate hazards in your facility with an accurate process simulation.

Delivering properly designed pressure relief systems that save both money and time.

Have a Question on Emergency Relief System Design?

Contact Us

Our Team

Georges A. Melhem, Ph.D., FAIChE

President & CEO The founder of ioMosaic and internationally renowned expert in the areas of pressure relief and flare systems design, chemical reaction systems, process safety and risk analysis. Read more...

Neil Prophet

Senior Partner Pressure relief and flare systems design project management and engineering expertise for chemical, pharmaceutical and petrochemical companies. Read more...

Daniel Nguyen, PE & PMP

Senior Partner & CTO Responsible for a team of software engineers in the development of ioMosaic’s PSO software and manages pressure relief and flare systems evaluation and design projects. Read more...

John Barker, Ph.D.

Partner Leader in developing and reviewing risk management for the international oil and gas and transportation industries. Read more...

Marcel Amorós-Martí

Senior Safety and Risk Management Consultant The head of our California office is experienced in pressure relief and flare systems design projects for chemical, petrochemical, oil & gas and utilities industries. Read more...

Featured Videos

Featured Case Studies

Fire Exposure and Relief Protection for Vessels Containing Reactive Chemicals

The client was storing reactive materials in vessels that could be subject to fire exposure. They wanted to be sure that the relief protection on the vessels was correctly sized, or if not, what changes were necessary for an effective relief system.

View Case Study
A refinery approached ioMosaic for the purposes of ensuring that pressure relief capacity was adequate for the loss of liquid seal scenario in a high-pressure separator (2,000 psig). They were also concerned about the pressure waves that would occur in the high-pressure separator’s outlet lines on rapid closing of the isolation valves and sought our expertise.
A large oil refinery with a very complex flare network had become so complex that the tools the refinery was using to evaluate the flows through the flare network could not adequately model the system. Management no longer had confidence that their model results reflected the actual network performance and therefore, could not be sure the system would perform properly in the event of a global relief scenario at the facility.
A multinational energy company wanted to complete an evaluation of a PRV system in order to comply with the PSM standard OSHA 29 CFR 1910.119 which requires that employers compile information pertaining to the equipment in the process, including relief system design and design basis. 

Featured Resources

Detailed dynamics. Challenges associated with PRV stability issues for existing installations are not unique to any particular segment of the chemical process industry. This is an industry wide problem that has received a lot of attention from both OSHA and industry associations such as API, ACC, and AFPM. A consistent definition of what constitutes an Engineering Analysis is currently being proposed by API/ACC/AFPM for inclusion in the upcoming revision to API 520.
Screening. In part I of this paper we established a detailed dynamics methodology for the modeling of PRV stability. We demonstrated that (a) the irrecoverable inlet pressure loss due to friction has essentially no impact on PRV stability (also see [3]), (b) PRV instability is caused by the coupling of PRV disk motion with the pressure wave caused by excessive acoustic pressure drop (1/4 wave) during PRV opening/closing, (c) the instability does not amplify, and (d) liquid systems are the most likely to cause damage to piping and piping components..
How to avoid the singing PRV problem. Excitation of acoustic standing waves in a main process flow line closed side branch, such as the inlet line of a pressure relief valve (PRV), can occur due to vortex shedding generated by increased flow in the main process line. The flow velocity for process lines where pressure relief devices are mounted via a side branch should be limited to where ce is the effective isentropic speed of sound of the main process flow pipe fluid system, u is the maximum allowable fluid flow velocity in the main process line, and d/L is the pressure relief device inlet line diameter to length ratio. This limit can be very restrictive for flashing two phase flow.

Featured Services

Pressure Relief and Flare System Design

Our risk-based approach helps mitigate near-unventable scenarios to a tolerable level of risk and develop economical designs for more credible events. Read more...

Relief Header and Flare Analysis Systems

Delivering properly designed pressure relief systems for refineries and chemical plants that save both money and time. Read more...

Latest News