7 replies to this topic

[John T]

I work for Tyco and we have a PRV sizing program known as SafetySize which has been out for about 5 years now. I'm aware of several other valve sizing programs in the market today from Consolidated, Fisher and Ferris as well.

I'm curious if anyone has ever used SafetySize and what they think about the program. How does it compare to other programs you have used? What really bothers you about vendor sizing programs?

What kind of things would you like to see in a valve sizing program from a vendor? If you could tell the vendor how to build their program what would you tell them?

If you have never used our program we have a new website at http://sizing.tycovalves.com where you can download it and let me know what you think. There is also an online ARC valve sizing program as well. I'm trying to create a site there that is useful to all valve engineers by providing content. I'd be interested in feedback you might have about the site or any of our programs.

I'd like to be able to give people a good place to go for information about valve sizing. Thats why I have put a link back to this forum, I think this place is a great resource. You are the users of these systems so I'm interested in what you would like to see.

[pleckner]

John,

The only software I've used in the past is Sizemaster. However, and sorry, but I'm not a fan of any canned software for PSV sizing, I find a spreadsheet does quite well.

The calcualtions are not rocket science. The real effort is understanding the system, performing the analysis and determining relieving rates. For this a good process simulator is sometimes needed, not canned PSV sizing software. Some of what may be easier relief scenarios, e.g.blocked-in (pumping or compressores), control valve failure, are easily handled with a spreadsheet. An experienced Process Engineer should easily be able to set these up in Excel. A less experienced Process Engineer shouldn't even be doing these type of calculations without the guidance of an experienced Process Engineer.

I will grant you that your software (and the others) will be able to produce the data sheet but then I get your specific valve and perhaps I don't want your specific valve. OK, so I can customize the data sheet for a "generic" valve, then what is the difference if I set up my own spreadsheet?

The beauty of your company wesite and others is that us Process Engineers can get the information we need to make intelligent decisions on what products are out there and their applications. This is worth gold to me!

[John T]

Phil:

Thanks for the response and the input. It seems a spreadsheet is the most common program. I almost put that as a choice in my poll but figured everyone would vote for it which isn't what I wanted. I'm looking to see if there is a preference within that list of programs.

I guess if you already know you want to purchase a Consolidated, Ferris, Tyco valve then the programs make sense, but for generic sizing they might not. And to your point, it's not rocket science, nor is it proprietary. All the formulas are available online so anyone can build a spreadsheet. I guess there is some value in retaining a history of your valves, but again you've already chosen a vendor when you use their program. So sizing is straight forward, it's the "selection" part that is not so clear. Once the valve is sized you get a list of models that you can select as your "selection". From there you can configure the product and print a report.

What if there was a generic sizing engine that allows you to select the generic size of valve not a vendor specific model, then it gave you a list of options so you were at least able to create a nice report for your vendor? maybe it's not a Tyco valve you want but it's a nice program for you to keep a history of the valves you sized and generate reports. Granted the configuration would have nothing intelligent about it, but a list of options for you pick. Just some thoughts...

I appreciate your feedback, and to others, you won't hurt my feelings if you tell me our software sucks. I'm interested in candid feedback. Good or bad. If anyone really hates the program I'd like to know. I don't take it personally, you're not attacking me, your attacking the software. I would like to improve upon the user experience.

[pleckner]

John,

Great disucssion. I can see this topic taking a life of its own.

I'll try to get a chance to review Tyco's product.

A generic package as you suggest that could pick various vendor options would be useful. Now that I can support even more so!

[psvprocess]

Hi,
you should have a look at PSVPlus .. this software is designed for Process Engineers who handle Projects of a significant size and is capable of calculating physical properties at relieving conditions, required relieving rates for the most common scenario's, single and two phase orifice and inlet / outlet line sizing ... and generate automatically Process Data sheets, Summary Calculation sheets and Relief Load Summary ... You're not going to find any similar software on the market !

[Art Montemayor]

I've "looked" at PSVPlus. Actually all I can do (without actually buying this new, unproven software which is just released this summer) is read about it on the PSVPlus website. And what I read is:

1. As noted, this software is just now being released, as we write. There is no history or proven track record on it. There won't be a proven track record for it for various years - just as is demanded of the related simulator programs it relates to - such as Aspen, HySym, SimSci, etc. Therefore, any claims about greatness, accuracy, dependability, credability, etc. are yet to be earned - and I stress the word "earned".

2. This software is not on the same level as that being discussed. This software carries a price - which incidentally is not even mentioned or offered in the website. I simply don't know how to find out how much of my money they want for this software. The sizing software being discussed on this thread is about PSV fabricators helping out with a method of mechanically calculating the physical size of their hardware. The real tough subject of identifying and quantifying the design case for the PSV involved is still in the realm of the process engineer - not the fabricator of the PSV.

3. PSVPlus states in their website:

"This new development will allow engineers to merge flowsheet simulation data, flare relief network data and PSV sizing data together in one place, PSVPLUS. The direct data interface will reduce engineer error, improve consistency and most importantly dramatically reduce the man hours required for relief system design."

I would caution any inexperienced or naive process engineer that believes 100% of the above. The responsibility of identifying the credible design case for the subject PSV IS AND WILL ALWAYS REMAIN HIS/HER RESPONSIBILITY - and not the responsibility of the software writer. I can bet my life that this fact will never change. You will be required to put your "stamp" (identification or P.E. license) on the specification forms for the PSV and you will not be allowed to state: "the PSVPlus computer printout states .....", or "Farris says ....", or "Tyco's program says ....", etc., etc.. In other words, do not believe that you can "reduce your errrors" by using software. The errors aluded to are mathematical errors that have to be checked by your peers anyway. The "REAL" errors lie in the identification of the correct scenario - and that, in my opinion, will never be credible when spit out by a computer today.

I heartedly sponsor any computer program that reduces the manhours of calculations, reduces mathematical errors, reduces the efforts of trial-and-error, allows the engineer more sophisticated methods of calculations, etc., etc.. But I will challenge any attempt to allow language that seems to hint or indicate that the engineering effort in thinking out a problem and resolving it with ingenuity can be substitued by a computer is possible. That type of insinuation is, in my opinion, total garbage and belongs with the rest of so-called "junk science" and wishful thinking by persons who have not proven that they can think and logic at the engineering level.

The ultimate decision - and responsibility - for good or for bad, will always be at the engineer's level and not in a computer printout.

Montemayor,

I perfectly agree with you about the full responsability of the engineers when designing the Pressure Safety Valves. I believe PSVPlus, as all the other engineering softwares, are designed only to help engineers to make calculations and optimize process design .... we cannot dispute about the misuse of PSVPlus, as well as of any other software such as Hysys, Flarenet, ProII, etc...

PSVPlus is not at Release 5.1 and is on the market from approx. eight years. From my personal experience, this has been used on very large EPC contracts to design Pressure Safety systems and proved to be accurate.

Also, this is not a tool coming from Pressure Relief valves vendors and this is definitely a 'plus' for process engineers that should not be related to the market when making sizing and selection.

For process engineers handling projects with a significant number of PSV's the option of having a fully integrated, database linked, tool is an absolute advantage to generate automatically all the the process documentation and to have full consistency with process and flare network simulators as well.

Regards

[JBradley]

Just a few points - first, I think Art began to touch on this point, the difficult part of sizing PRVs is in understanding the system and knowing what is the worst case scenario. No software can do this part for you (well - it can help).

Second point - the equations are rocket science!! )

And for the vote - I use a s/sheet but am just downloading Safety Size now for a trial.