AS SEEN IN THE SUMMER 2004 ISSUE OF...

SEVERE SERVICE CONTROL VALVES

BY JOHN WILSON

SELECTING AND SIZING

SELECTING AND SIZING

SEVERE SERVICE CONTROL VALVES

CONSIDER USING THE GUIDELINES PROVIDED BY THE MANUFACTURER FOR THE VALVE BEING SPECIFIED RATHER THAN A GENERAL, APPLIES-TO-ALL PROCEDURE.
BY JOHN WILSON

M trol valves traditionally have

ethods to select and size con-

varied from one manufacturer to the next, a situation that has given rise to industry-accepted valve selection procedures. Two such standards are the calculation of the valve sizing coefficient, Cv, and a prediction technique for control valve noise. However, there has been no accepted industry standard developed to select a valve trim for severe service applications that experience cavitation, noise, or flashing. Meanwhile, nearly all valve manufacturers have developed their own experience-based guidelines for selecting valve and trim combinations for severe service use, and some have published their guidelines so that valve users can apply this methodology to the selection of valve trim, regardless of the control valve supplier. One guideline is to place a limit on trim exit velocity or trim exit kinetic energy to protect against damaging conditions, be they noise, cavitation, or flashing. On the surface, this velocity limit approach appears simple and looks to be applicable to all types of valve trim. However, when one examines more closely the guidelines underlying assumptions, it
42 | Valve M A G A Z I N E

becomes apparent that this methodology may not produce accurate results and should not necessarily be applied across the board. According to the velocity limiting guideline, the trim exit kinetic energy should be limited to a certain value. Equation 1 shows the calculation for kinetic energy expressed as a function of density called kinetic energy density.

Equation 1

KE

Vave2 ____ 2gc

In Equation 1, KE is the trim exit kinetic energy, o is the density of the fluid at the trim exit, Vave is the average velocity at the trim exit and gc is a gravitational constant. There are several reasons why Equation 1 may not work on all types of control valves. First, this calculation presumably allows a single measure to handle both incompressible and compressible flow by including density. In this case, density is usually calculated assuming there is subsonic flow at the trim exit, which is not likely. The velocity is calculated assuming a constant velocity across the trim exit and by applying continuity and the known valve exit conditions. These two assumptions are not entirely accurate since they yield the kinetic energy density of the velocity averaged across an assumed ideal velocity profile. A better measure of the exit flow energy is the average of the kinetic energy density. This can be expressed as the actual kinetic energy density averaged across the actual velocity profile. The trim exit density and velocity are not generally constant, which leads to an assumed value calculated from Equation 1. Equation 2 takes into account the true velocities and densities that can vary across the trim outlet.

Equation 2

KEave

1 _ A

1 ___ V2dS 2gc

2004 Valve Manufacturers Association. Reprinted with permission.

Figure 1: CFD contours of Mach number for Trim Type A (left) and Trim Type B (right)

By incorporating the surface integral across the trim exit area, A, we can take into account the differences in velocity and density that can occur. If we assume that velocity and density are constant, as is typically done in an introductory physics course, we would see that the kinetic energy calculation in Equation 2 equals that calculated in Equation 1. While it is easy to understand how this assumption is made, it is not what is actually occurring at the trim exit. Figure 1 shows a computerized fluid dynamics (CFD) model of two different types of noise-attenuating trims. In these models, the blue areas indicate areas of the lowest velocities, while red shows the areas of highest velocities. Both CFD models have been conducted with identical flow and inlet and outlet pressures. Figure 1 tells two different stories. The Trim Type A at left is a tortuous path trim that relies on a series of right-angle turns to accomplish the pressure reduction through the trim. This trim is normally selected using a velocity-based limit, but as the CFD shows, the trim exit velocities vary dramatically across the trim exit area. This renders the assumptions made in Equation 1 inaccurate.

In contrast, Trim Type B at right is a multiple-path, multiple-stage trim that has a much more uniform exit velocity profile, which will yield comparable results across the entire trim exit area. The exit profile of this trim better matches the assumption made in Equation 1.

To further illustrate the impact of true velocity on kinetic energy, we can examine simple pipe flow models. These will be shown across one half of a pipe diameter. In this case, we will compare three different velocity profiles with the same average velocity, equating to equal flow rates (Figure

Velocity Profiles for Pipe Flow

25

s Constant Velocity
20

s Laminar Velocity s Turbulent Velocity

Velocity, m/s

15

10

0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

Pipe Internal Radius, m

Figure 2: Resultant velocity profiles across one-half pipe diameter

S u m m e r 2 0 0 4 | 43
2004 Valve Manufacturers Association. Reprinted with permission.

S E V E R E

S E R V I C E

C O N T R O L

V A L V E S

Profile Type

Kinetic Energy Density of the Average Velocity, kPa (Equation 1) 50 50 50

Average Kinetic Energy Density, kPa (Equation 2) 100 53 50

Maximum Kinetic Energy Density, kPa 200 75 50

Laminar Turbulent Constant

Table 1: Kinetic energy calculations for different velocity profiles

2). The types of velocity profiles that will be compared are shown in Equations 3, 4 and 5.
Equation 3: Constant Velocity Profile

Vave

Equation 4: Laminar Velocity Profile

V(r)

r 2Vave 1

R
Equation 5: Turbulent Velocity Profile

V(r)

(1 m)(2 m) r Vave 1

Again, note that the velocity profiles shown in Figure 2 equal the same average velocity. However, we see a great deal of variance in the true velocities when compared to an average velocity. This is because fully developed, incompressible pipe flow demonstrates the effects of non-uniform velocity profiles. If these results are then carried over to Equation 1, we can expect to see a varying relationship to kinetic energy. Table 1 shows the results of the kinetic energy calculations for the different velocity profiles. Looking at the laminar profile results, we see that the Equation 1 under-predicts the average kinetic energy density (Equation 2) by half and the maximum kinetic energy by four times. Again, this is due to assuming an average exit velocity and density profile at the trim exit.

It is starting to become clear that the simplified equations for calculating kinetic energy density do not yield accurate results across the entire trim outlet. As Figure 1 shows, applying this to all types of valve trim is not an entirely accurate representation of all trims available in the market. As mentioned earlier in this article, in order for Equation 1 to be applied, velocity had to be constant across the entire trim exit area and exit density had to be subsonic. For the velocity to be subsonic, the density at the outlet of the trim has to equal that in the downstream pipe. Figure 3 shows the Mach number profiles for the trim types denoted in Figure 1. Figure 3 explicitly shows that the flow is supersonic at the trim outlet for Trim Type A. Trim Type B has much lower exit velocities, but still has some

Figure 3: Contours of trim exit Mach number for Trim Type A (left) and Trim Type B (right)

44 | Valve M A G A Z I N E

2004 Valve Manufacturers Association. Reprinted with permission.

600

6.00e+02

Velocity Magnitude (m/s)

Velocity Magnitude (m/s)

500 400 300 200 100 0

0.0015 0.0020 0.0025 0.0030 0.0035 0.0040 0.0045 0.0050 0.0055 0.0060 0.0065

5.00e+02

4.00e+02

3.00e+02

2.00e+02

1.00e+02

0.00e+02 0.0730

0.0732

0.0734

0.0736

0.0738

0.0740

0.0742

0.0744

Position (m)
Figure 4:Velocity profile across trim exit for Trim Type A (left) and Trim Type B (right)

Position (m)

1.150 1.100 1.050

1.15e+00 1.10e+00 1.05e+00

Density (kg/m3)

1.000 0.950 0.900 0.850 0.800 0.750 0.700 0.650

0.0015 0.0020 0.0025 0.0030 0.0035 0.0040 0.0045 0.0050 0.0055 0.0060 0.0065

Density (kg/m3)

1.00e+00 0.950e+00 0.900e+00 0.850e+00 0.800e+00 0.750e+00 0.700e+00 0.650e+00 0.0730

0.0732

0.0734

0.0736

0.0738

0.0740

0.0742

0.0744

Position (m)
Figure 5: Density profile across trim exit for Trim Type A (left) and Trim Type B (right)

Position (m)

120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0

0.0015 0.0020 0.0025 0.0030 0.0035 0.0040 0.0045 0.0050 0.0055 0.0060 0.0065

1.20e+05

1.00e+05

ke-density

ke-density

8.00e+04

6.00e+04

4.00e+04

2.00e+04

0.0e+00 0.0730

0.0732

0.0734

0.0736

0.0738

0.0740

0.0742

0.0744

Position (m)
Figure 6: Kinetic energy density profile across trim exit for Trim Type A (left) and Trim Type B (right)

Position (m)

2004 Valve Manufacturers Association. Reprinted with permission.

S u m m e r 2 0 0 4 | 45

S E V E R E

S E R V I C E

C O N T R O L

V A L V E S

Average Exit Density, kg/m3 Trim Type A Trim Type B 0.845 0.813

Average Exit Velocity, m/s 314 427

Kinetic Energy Density, kPa, Equation 1-1 42 74

Maximum Kinetic Energy Density, kPa 120 83

Average Kinetic Energy Density, kPa, Equation 1-2 55 74

Table 2: Kinetic energy density of average velocity

level of supersonic flow. Since the flow is supersonic at the outlet, the other assumption for Equation 1 has been rendered inaccurate. We have looked at a number of different ways to express the outlet velocity and density and the subsequent kinetic energy density. It is now important to break the models shown in Figures 1 and 3 into hard data to show the difference in the subsequent velocity, density, and kinetic energy calculations across the entire trim exit area. Comparing the profiles in Figure 4 and Figure 5 shows that the velocity and density profiles for Trim Type A vary dramatically across the trim exit. These types of trim most commonly use exit velocity and exit kinetic

energy density as a criteria in valve trim selection. As noted, these calculations assume that both velocity and density are constant across the trim exit. In actuality, Trim Type B maintains better uniform properties at the trim exit. Similar results are seen in Figure 6 when these results are combined to determine the kinetic energy density profile across the trim exit. As Table 2 shows, the kinetic energy density of the average velocity is generally not similar to the average of the kinetic energy density, and the latter is a better representation of the true kinetic energy at the trim outlet. When selecting valve trim for a severe service application, utilize the

guidelines provided by the valve manufacturer for the valve being specified as opposed to using a general, appliesto-all procedure. The very fact that standards committees have not agreed upon a single selection method for severe service trim validates the practice of relying upon the manufacturers experience and technologies. VM
JOHN WILSON is the Severe Service Business Manager at Fisher Controls International, LLC (www.fisher.com) in Marshalltown, IA. He received his BS in Chemical Engineering from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. For the past five years, he has worked extensively on severe service applications focused on the power and hydrocarbon industries. Reach him at 641.754.2554 or john.wilson@emersonprocess.com.

46 | Valve M A G A Z I N E

2004 Valve Manufacturers Association. Reprinted with permission.