Control Valves

A Source of
Pipe Vibration

...................................................

By H. L. Miller

22591 Avenida Empresa

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
949.858.1877 w Fax 949.858.1878 w ccivalve.com
234

07/00 w 2000 CCI w DRAG is a registered trademark of CCI.

Control Valves
A Source of Pipe Vibration
n By Herbert L. Miller, Vice President CCI

Another characteristic of the problem system is that it occurs on

water lines generally with pipe sizes of four inch diameter and
larger. Thus there is a large mass of fluid per unit of pipe length.
The pipe fluid velocities meet general liquid guidelines, but with
steam in the line, the two-phase mixture is accelerated from 10
to 20 times the design conditions.

Abstract

The problem of pipe vibration does not lend itself to rigorous

analytical evaluation. We can only imply the behavior from an

pressure drop across a valve in the system. The valve as a source

A typical piping system that could experience severe vibration

of this pipe vibration is reviewed. The valve will cause the

is shown by Figure 1. The system is designed assuming there

formation of steam bubbles, which collapse to cause cavitation

is no flashing of the water to steam. This is assumed because

damage and/or valve body vibration that is passed on the piping

downstream pressures are above the vapor pressure of the

system. In some cases the downstream pressure conditions are

fluid. Therefore, flashing of the water to steam will not take

such that the steam bubbles coalesce to cause slug or plug flow in

place. The following discussion will show that steam does

the downstream piping. The slug and plug flow conditions can

exist, especially downstream of the restricting element in the

generate very high vibratory pipe forces.

valve, and thus the piping is subjected to the difficulties of

here are many locations within a nuclear or fossil power

plant where excessive, sometimes violent pipe vibration can

exist. These lines are usually handling water with fairly high

evaluation of the fluid conditions as they are changed in their

transport through the piping system.

transporting an unstable two-phase flow mixture.

Introduction
This paper discusses the control valve as a potential source for

The Valve Influence

excessive and sometimes violent pipe vibration. There are many

As the water flows through the valve, the local pressure

causes for pipe vibration. Some common causes are:

downstream of the valve restriction, usually the cage orifices(s)

1) Control valves that produce unstable fluid conditions in

down-stream piping.
2) The acceleration of a slug of water in a steam line. The

or seat ring drops below the outlet pressure. The amount of

internal pressure drop below the outlet is determined by the
valve design. An approximation of the pressure curve as
the fluid passes through a cage guided globe valve is shown

water usually exists due to improper piping design or plugged

by Figure 2. The minimum pressure is over 55 kg/sq. cm

drainage lines.

(750 psia) less than the outlet pressure. The conditions are

3) Water hammer, a pressure wave within a water pipe caused by

representative of a superheater bypass valve.

fast closing valves such as check valves or pipe voids due to

The process taking place during the pressure letdown in the valve

leaking block valves.

is analogous to the expansion through ah orifice. This is illustrated

The last two items are not covered in this paper. Three have been
discussed in various papers, of which Biba and Niebruegge (1987)
and Ozol (1987) are examples. Chen (1967) provides a review of
the literature on flow-induced vibration in two phase flow.
The control valve is discussed, as opposed to block valves, because
they represent a significant pressure drop in the pipe line. The

on Figure 3. As noted in this figure the minimum pressure occurs

at a position corresponding to the jet vena contracta. Within the
valve a clear point of minimum pressure is not apparent because
of the complex three dimensional flow paths produced within the
valve is implied from measurements of flow capacity. It is included
in the expression for the Pressure Recovery Factor fL.

block valve can result in similar circumstances, but it is generally

not a problem because they are either fully opened or closed and
when open have low pressure recovery characteristics.
The problem of severe pipe vibration is generally associated
with startup/shutdown and emergency bypass systems. These

(1)
Or
(2)

systems are used intermittently and thus there is a higher

tolerance for the off design condition. If similar off design
conditions existed for a continuous duty line, catastrophic
failure would result after a short time of operation.

Control Valves - A Source of Pipe Vibration | 234

2000 CCI. All rights reserved.

Nomenclature

If the minimum pressure as expressed in Equation 2 drops below

Cv Valve Sizing Coefficient

Note that it is possible to pick reasonable values for the variables

the vapor pressure of the water then a steam bubble is formed.

FF Liquid Critical Pressure Ratio Factor

FL Pressure Recovery Factor

of Equation 2 that will result in negative vena contracta pressures.

This is physically impossible. If the vena contracta pressure is low
enough, sufficient steam is produced to cause choked flow thus
limiting the valve capacity and minimum pressure. Under choked

fR Rice Frequency, Hertz

flow conditions, Equation 2 is not applicable. The vena contracta

G Mass Flow Rate, lb/hr/ft2

pressure is give by:

P Pressure, Kg/sq cm

(3)

s Surface Tension, dynes/cm

Where

T Temperature

(4)

[(g/0.075)(f/62.3)]1 2 , Density Correction Factor

viscosity, Centipoise

The liquid critical pressure ratio factor, Ff, is approximated by

Density, lb/ft3

Equation 4 and there is general agreement with results for water

(P2-Pv) / (P1-P2), Cavitation Index

flow through globe valves.

[(73/s) f (62.3/ f )2 ] 3 3 , surface Tension Correction Factor

Typical values of full stroke FL are provided in Table 1 for some

Subscripts

presented by Driskel (1953) and Wing (1979). When these values

Upstream

Gas Phase

Downstream

sat

Saturation

Critical

Vapor

Fluid Phase

vc

Vena Contracta

selected valve designs. Values of FL for different valve strokes are

are substituted into Equation 2 for various up-and-downstream
pressures, one is surprised by the very low pressure that results.

Figure 1: High pressure water letdown piping

Figure 2: Valve pressure gradient

2000 CCI. All rights reserved.

Figure 3: Valve pressure gradient

234 | Control Valves - A Source of Pipe Vibration

Table 1: Pressure Recovery Factors

Flow
Design

Damaging

Direction

FL

P1/ P2

Open

0.9

5.3

Close

0.8

2.8

0.9

5.3

Open

0.85

3.6

Close

0.8

2.8

Ball with .8 dia. Orifice

0.55

1.4

Butterfly 60 Open

0.68

1.8

Single Seat Globe, Cage

Double Seat Globe

Angle Body Cage

The lowest physical pressure in the valve would be a perfect

vacuum, zero absolute pressure. By setting the vena contracta
pressure equal to zero in Equation 2 a pressure ratio can be
calculated for various F values. That is;
(5)
Values of the pressure ration from Equation 5 are shown in Table
1 as the damaging pressure ratio. The pressure ratio calculated is
a strong indicator of the upper limit for which a particular valve
design should be used. If a valve is operated at these pressure
ratios, it will be choked, probably very noisy and be subject to
excessive vibration. If the downstream pressure is greater than the
fluid vapor pressure, severe cavitation damage will be present. If
the fluid pressure is lower than the vapor pressure, then extreme
velocities result due to the flashing conditions. There are many
examples of valves that produce destructive forces when operated
near or above these pressure ratios.

Figure 5: Fluid state versus downstream pressure for various

temperatures and valve designs

Additional information can be gleaned from Equation 2 by setting

the vena contracta pressure equal to the vapor pressure of the
water. An example of this is shown on Figure 4 for a valve inlet
pressure of 78Kg/sq cm (1115 psia). The conditions are similar to
a nuclear plant pump recirculation valve. For a Pressure Recovery
Factor of 0.9 the downstream pressure must be greater than 22
Kg/sq cm (320 psia) to avoid any two-phase flow after the valve.
If the downstream pressure is less than 22 Kg/sq cm (320 psia)
but greater than the vapor pressure of 9.4 Kg/sq (134 psia), then
cavitation will occur after the valve. If the downstream pressure is
less than the water vapor pressure then flashing will occur.
The minimum vena contracta pressure under fully choked flow is
shown by the dotted line of Figure 4 as calculated from Equation
3. The vena contracta pressure is 0.9 Kg/sq cm (13 psi) below
the vapor pressure. This pressure difference is the driving force for
vapor formation. As the water temperature increases so also does
the driving force for vaporization. For example for 205C (400F)
water this driving force is 2 Kg/sq cm (29 psia).
Note that Equation 3 is independent of the value of FL although it is
plotted on Figure 4 as a function of FL. In an ideal valve, where the
pressure recovery factor is equal to one, the vena contracta pressure
will not drop below the outlet pressure. Thus the dotted line of
Figure 4 must converge to the vapor pressure at FL equal to one. This
convergence was arbitrarily drawn between FL values of 0.95 and 1.0.
The influence of the water temperature is shown on Figure 5. As the
temperature decreases the downstream pressure can be closer to the vapor
pressure. The word closer is relative. For the conditions of Figure 5 and a
Recovery Factor of 0.85, the downstream pressure must be 17 to 21 Kg/sq
cm (240 to 310) psi greater than the vapor pressure, depending upon the

Figure 4: Fluid state versus downstream pressure for different valve

designs

water temperature, to avoid steam bubble formation. For the inlet pressure
condition of Figure 2, but at a recovery factor of 0.85, the downstream
pressure must be 74 Kg/sq cm (1050 psia) greater than the vapor pressure.

Control Valves - A Source of Pipe Vibration | 234

2000 CCI. All rights reserved.

The influence of upstream pressure is shown in Figure 6. As

the pressure increases, the boundary between liquid flow and
cavitation flow rotates to increase the region of bubble formation.
Or, as the upstream pressure increases, so must the downstream
pressure increase to avoid steam bubble formation.
The above discussion has demonstrated that a control valve can
cause two-phase flow conditions downstream. This happens for
a wide range of conditions for which it is normally expected that
steam bubble formation is not present.
Pipe Movement
The presence of steam within the fluid stream causes the flow to
accelerate downstream of the valve orifice. What happens next is
dependent upon the downstream pressure and piping design. If
the downstream pressure is greater than the vapor pressure then
the steam bubbles will collapse, a process called cavitation. If the
downstream pressure is less than the vapor pressure, the steam
phase remains thus a flashing flow situation, and a complex twophase flow pattern develops in the downstream piping.
For the cavitating conditions, the steam phase will collapse
downstream of the valve orifice. The piping produced by this
collapse are not predictable, but some quantitative insight can
be gained. Figure 7 presents measurements of acceleration and
frequency for a four-port cage-guided globe valve as reported by
Outa, et. Al. (1986). Cavitation becomes more severe as the
cavitation index decreases, that is, as the downstream pressure

Figure 7 : Ball acceleration and rice frequency versus cavitation index.

The Rice frequency of Figure 7 is a time weighted average of the

random frequencies generated by the cavitation. In this test the
frequency is very high, which is indicative of the small valve size
and stiff piping system used in the test. However, frequencies
well below 100 hertz have been reported by Ozol (1987) and
Bake (1976), which are near the natural frequency of many piping
systems. Thus large forces can be generated to produce dangerous

approaches the fluid vapor pressure. The different breakpoints

and damaging pipe vibration due to the cavitation phenomena.

on the acceleration curve indicate different levels of cavitation.

The cavitation situation can be further complicated by the

Noteworthy is the fact that the acceleration level has increased by a

presence of a downstream expander. It is quite common to have

factor of 70 times from the incipient to choking cavitation points.

the control valve size smaller than the piping as shown in Figure
1. Within the expander there is a very quick pressure recovery
with subsequent forces caused by the rapid vapor suppression.
Elimination of the downstream expansion is required to mitigate
the unstable two-phase flow forces.
If the fluid is flashing within the valve then a two-phase flow pattern
exists in the downstream piping. The fluids are accelerated to very
high average velocities due to the volumetric expansion from water to
steam. An average fluid velocity of 30 m/sec (100 ft/sec) occurs with a
1 percent steam by weight fraction. This velocity is over 60 m/sec (200
ft/sec) when the mixture quality is just 3.5 percent.
These high velocities by themselves are not particularly damaging.
It is damaging when the two-phase flow mixture develops into a
slug or plug flow regime. Figure 8 presents an aid for determining
the flow regime as reported by Baker (1954). If a slug of water
is accelerated then large forces are transmitted to the piping at
sharp bends, valves, orifices, spargers, etc. These forces can result in
excessive pipe movement and high destructive stresses.

Figure 6: Fluid state versus downstream pressure for various

upstream pressures and valve designs
2000 CCI. All rights reserved.

234 | Control Valves - A Source of Pipe Vibration

Remedies
To fix a severely vibrating piping system there are a number of
independent remedies that can be used. Before making changes a
measurement of the pressures at a few key locations would help
in diagnosis of the vibration cause. As a minimum the pressure
transient up-and-downstream of the valve should measured to
permit evaluation of this as a cause. Measurement of the system
acceleration and frequency are not too helpful in establishing the
cause but can help to quantify pipe forces and stresses due to the
vibration. Some fixes are:
Figure 8: Flow-regime correlations for adiabatic horizontal
two phase flow

1)

Replace the control valve with one having high Pressure

Recovery Factor, FL, and eliminate the valve as a cause. An
example for the best valve of this type is shown Figure 9. It
is a tortuous path trim valve in which the pressure is dropped
with many small stages, as shown on the cutaway of Figure
10. The fluid velocity can be continously controlled so that
cavitation is eliminated. This valve design is routinely used for
pressure ratios ranging from 3 to 300.

2)

Move the valve nearer to the receiver so that there is minimal

discharge piping. Because the upsteam pressure is high, only
water exists upstream. In some nuclear applications the large
diameter, long run piping system result in vibration because
of the bends and the high fluid moementum and energy
levels. Also note that for some valves the FL is different for an
opposite flow direction, see Table 1. Thus simply reversing the
valve flow may be sufficient in some borderline cases.

3)

Eliminate any increased flow area between valve and receiver.

Any increase in flow cross-section, whether abrupt or gradual,
will result in pressure recovery and thus vapor suppression.

Figure 9: High FL valve

4)

Increase the back pressure by adding orifices or perforated

plates, reducing sparger tube flow area, and/or using smaller
pipes downstream. These changes would require a review of
the impact of sightly reduced capacity. Care must be taken
to assure the back pressure is high enough to eliminate steam
bubble formation at the valve for all operating conditions.
Also, the restriction should not cause cavitation or flashing
damage downstream of its placement.

5)

Limit excessive pipe motion by devices to contain the

deflection and use dampers to absorb the energy at supports.
Increasing the anchor strength and stiffness of the piping and
valve support system could cause pipe yielding and eventually
breakage.

6)

Smooth out the piping system by eliminating bends or using

large radius bends.

7)
Figure 10: Disk stack sectional

Control Valves - A Source of Pipe Vibration | 234

Use smaller diameter parallel systems to reduce the fluid

energy and momentum levels.

2000 CCI. All rights reserved.

Summary
The problem of severe pipe vibration can be a danger to workers
who must be in the area. The control valve as a potential cause of
this vibration has been shown by deomonstrating how a two-phase
mixture can exist when it is normally not expected. The presence
of the two-phase flow is then compounded by downstream piping
configurations that transmit the unstable fluid forces to the piping
system. A number of solutions are available that can be implemented
one at a time or all at once depending upon analysis of the system.

References
1) Bake, E.A., Suplementary Notes on Cavitation and Flashing
in Valves. ISA Handbook of Control Valves, Edited by
Hutchison, J.W., Instrument Society of America, North Carolina,
pg. 219-220, 1976.
2) Baker, O., Oil and Gas Journal, Vol. 53, No. 12, pg. 185-195,
July 1954.
3) Biba, P., and Niebruegge, D., Design of Condenser and Related
Systems for Plant Availability Surface Condenser Design,
Installation and Operating Experience, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Joint Power Generation Conference,
Miami, pg. 31-38, October 1987.
4) Chen, S.S., A Review of Flow Induced Vibration in Two-Phase
Flow. Forum on Unsteady Flow 1987, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Winter Annual Meeting, Boston, pg.
1-4, December 1987.
5) Driskel, L., Control-Valve Selection and Sizing, Instrument
Society of America, North Carolina, 1983, Appendix F.
6) Outa, E., Tajima, K., Machiyama, T., and Inou, F., High
Frequency Vibration of Control Valves at Low Openings Due
to Cavitation Development, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Winter Annual Meeting, Anaheim, 1986.
7) Ozol, J., Checkout Pumps, Valves in Condensate Piping
Vibration, Power, Vol. 131, No. 8, pg. 33-37, August 1987.
8) Wing P., Determining and Using the Control Valve Pressure
Recovery Factor, Intech, pg. 55-60, August 1979.

2000 CCI. All rights reserved.

234 | Control Valves - A Source of Pipe Vibration