Pressure Surge Relief Options in Terminal Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Terminals are an integral part of a pipeline system. Typically, petroleum products are transported from an initiating terminal to various delivery terminals along the pipeline. Operation safety is paramount in transporting petroleum products in the pipeline industry. Safety can affect the performance and economics of a pipeline system. While effective operation safety requires well-trained operators, operational procedures, and compliance with regulatory requirements, the best way to ensure operation safety is to implement safety systems during the design stage of the pipeline system. A pressure relief system is an important component of an engineered safety system. This system is intended to prevent catastrophic failure of the transport system due to overpressure conditions that can occur under abnormal operating conditions. This paper discusses pressure surge relief as it applies to the design of pipeline terminals. Different pressure surge relief devices such as pressure relief valves and pressure surge vessels are considered and their advantages and disadvantages are discussed. The effects of transport rates, piping configurations, and other equipment operation, such as pumps and valves, on pressure surge relief system, are evaluated. One of the primary objectives of this paper is to discuss pressure surge events, device simulations, and key parameters to consider when selecting a pressure surge relief system for a terminal design to ensure that the piping system and hydraulic components remain safe during abnormal operating conditions. Although the analyses presented in this paper are applicable across a broad range of operating conditions and equipment and devices in terminal system designs, it is not possible to cover all situations. As such, sound engineering principles and engineering judgment should always be applied in an engineering design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".