You are on page 1of 10

Control-valve seat leakage | Hydrocarbon Processing | August 2011


Control-valve seat leakage
08.01.2011 | Sanders, D. , GE Energy, Atlanta, Georgia Enhancing initial performance, extending service life of valves offers benefits Keywords: Two of the leading causes of user concern regarding control-valve performance may surprise you. Field experience shows that the biggest contributor to control-valve maladies is often oversizing. It is a classic example of having too many cooks in the kitchen. Each of the engineers contributing to the final process specification adds what he or she believes is a constructive safety factor, and the resulting installed product is substantially oversized for the application. However, the focus of this article is what may be the second-leading cause of concerns: shutoff performance that does not meet the end user’s expectations. In all fluid-processing industries, tight-sealing control valves are vital to ensuring product quality, efficiency, safety and environmental protection. But how do you determine how tight is tight enough? Tolerance of leakage can vary widely from application to application; tight enough in one case can be overkill in another and insufficient in a third. And to top it off, the various industry standards that classify seat leakage in industrial valves fail to address some of the practical issues that confront valve manufacturers, specifiers and end users. In fact, it is quite possible to successfully specify, manufacture and test a valve according to a well-established industry standard, yet still experience less-than-satisfactory results in the field. This article will help address the technical and practical issues related to seat leakage, discussing the fundamentals behind the governing industry standards and offering guidance that users can apply to enhance initial seat leakage performance and help extend the life of their valve assets. Defining seat leakage. Seat leakage is defined as leakage that is internal to a valve—between the inlet and outlet sides of the valve—when the valve is in its closed position. It is not limited to leakage across the valve seat, but also encompasses all leakage across the valve trim when the valve is in the closed position. Leakage across internal trim seals, such as piston rings, and across trim-to-body seals, such as gaskets, can be counted as seat leakage. It is important to note that, while leakage through valve stem packing is of growing concern in the industry, governing industry standards address this type of leakage separately and do not consider it to be a form of seat leakage. Industry gold standard. ANSI/FCI 70-2, Control Valve Seat Leakage, published by the American National Standards Institute and the Fluid Controls Institute, is widely recognized as the defining standard for leakage in control valves. It categorizes seat leakage into six groups (Class I to Class VI). Generally, each higher class defines tighter or more stringent leakage criteria. While these classes are not linear in their progression, they follow a logical succession from lowest to highest class with some added footnotes. Additionally, for each leakage class, ANSI/FCI 70-2 provides detailed test procedures and defines the maximum allowable leakage (MAL). The test procedures include provisions for using water and/or air as the test medium, along with allowable pressure and temperature ranges. IEC Standard 60534-4, Industrial Process Control Valves—Part 4, Inspection and Routine Testing (2006), published by the International Electrotechnical Commission, contains the same control valve seat leakage criteria. Class I. Class I leakage is relatively undefined and is simply stated as agreed upon between purchaser and manufacturer. It does not identify a test procedure or specify a standard test pressure and, therefore, does not define the maximum allowable leakage. So why does it exist? While not stated in the standard, Class I is normally used when the valve specification has no leakage-

1 of 10

30-04-2013 11:35

For each of these classes. the flow restriction is the subject valve. the MAL rates for this valve are: •  Class II: 33 gpm •  Class III: 6. metal-seated control valve that meets standard ANSI/ISA 75. Using 50 psi of water at 60°F. “rated valve capacity” can be a rather elusive value to those who do not crunch valve data every day..10. the universal flow coefficient for valves as defined by ANSI/ISA Standard S75. nominal. Second. Class V. Fortunately.01% of rated valve capacity.0.01. The equation is: where Cv = Flow coefficient Q = Flow quantity gallons per min. The definitions of the other leakage classes are not quite as liberal. at 60°F. a value such as “0. so Class I may be appropriate. When quantifying seat leakage. In these cases. the MAL for Classes II through IV can be expressed in terms of gpm as a function of test pressure as: •  Class II: •  Class III: •  Class IV: To illustrate how these equations play out in the real world.7 gpm •  Class IV: 0. there is a common test procedure that permits the use of water or air at a temperature of 50°F to 125°F and a pressure of 45 psig to 60 psig.01.02 face-to-face dimensions. the equation can be solved for flow (Q) as follows: The SG of water between 50°F and 125°F only varies from 1. The maximum allowable leakage for each class is expressed as a function of the rated valve capacity as follows: •  Class II: Class III is five times tighter than Class II and Class IV is 50 times tighter than Class II.1% of rated valve capacity •  Class IV: 0. Cv is defined as the number of gallons of water per min. specific criteria based on its application. Per ANSI/ISA Standard S75.01. Therefore. 2 of 10 30-04-2013 11:35 .9887 and thus can be rounded to 1. Classes II–IV. control-valve manufacturers rate valve capacities in terms of Cv . or a system in which the control valve is always accompanied by an adjacent remote-operated isolation valve. The Class II. consider a common 10-in. A typical Cv for this type of valve is 950.01. Possible examples include a valve that is always in the open position. the user has no expectation that leakage through the valve will negatively impact the process. The fact is. that will pass through a flow restriction with a differential pressure of 1 psi.67 gpm.Control-valve seat leakage | Hydrocarbon Processing | August 2011 http://www.. (gpm) SG = Specific gravity dP = Differential pressure psi.01% of rated valve capacity” is not of much use to someone who wants to know how many cups or buckets or gallons of leakage per minute is acceptable for a particular valve.. There are two observations to note at this stage. cage-guided.0007 to 0. First. Assuming that valve capacity (Cv ) is known.5% of rated valve capacity •  Class III: 0. the difference between these classes is not trivial.hydrocarbonprocessing. III and IV definitions share many common attributes and are easily discussed as a set. and a basic conversion to Cv can help put the “rated valve capacity” leakage criteria into a more tangible context.

4 ml/min.34 Class 2500-rated valves is in the neighborhood of 6. Fig.000 times less leakage than the same Class IV valve’s MAL of 0. III and IV do not vary with service pressure. The maximum allowable leakage is not given in equation form. however. a seemingly zero-leakage shop test does not always lead to zero leakage under service pressures and temperatures. comes with a higher price tag.hydrocarbonprocessing. for a 1-in. Rather than a test pressure of 45 psig to 60 psig.250 psig. since the test pressure is fixed. the maximum allowable leakage for Classes II. but is instead presented as a table of values per nominal valve size. Several aspects of the ANSI standard can be confusing and frustrating for users. that the Class V category still retains some allowance for leakage. Roughly speaking.15 ml/min. And. which is the use of a test pressure that matches 3 of 10 30-04-2013 11:35 . the MAL values are discrete. nominal valve. For starters. but this is not a practical solution. 1.000 times tighter than its Class IV cousin.. Class VI. Class V represents what is commonly referred to as an “effectively zero-leakage” control valve.) x (test pressure in psi).67 gpm. Valves that are 8-in. it negates one of the attractive attributes of the Class V criteria. Like Class V. As illustrated earlier. the 100°F maximum working pressure of ASME B16. Shortcomings.): (5 x 10–4 ) x (seat diameter in in. is very tight and certainly takes a step far beyond Class IV. While this adds convenience. Note that the 2006 revision of ANSI/FCI 70-2 permits the use of air at 50 psig for the Class V test. An unbalanced control valve plug. Class VI bears no relationship to the other classes.) x (10 in. for a 16-in. understandably.6 x 10–5 gpm. not to exceed the 100°F-rated pressure of the valve body. (6) For the purposes of comparison. The formula for MAL is: Class V (ml/min. Class V. nominal and smaller are also given an equivalent MAL in bubbles per minute. consider the 10-in. as will be discussed later. however. The frustration comes for a user faced with a situation in which a Class IV valve is not tight enough but Class V performance is far more than is required.. For The solid plug leaves one potential leakage path at the seat. A different test procedure is used to calculate maximum allowable leakage for Class V. That is obviously a huge leap in performance—one that. a Class V valve can be up to 10. Class V requires the use of water at a pressure differential that is +/-5% of the service pressure differential. The values range from 0.Control-valve seat leakage | Hydrocarbon Processing | August 2011 http://www. this is 10. It may be tempting to work around this by always opting for a Class V valve. The specified test procedure requires the use of air or nitrogen gas at a temperature of 50°F to 125°F and at a pressure differential of 50 psi. The Class V MAL would be: Class V: (5 x 10–4 ml/min. It should be remembered.25 ml/min. The test pressure for these classes is fixed between 45 psig and 60 psig. valve in the previous example and assume that the service pressure equals the 50-psig test pressure. nominal valve to 28.) x (50 psi) = 0. while most control valves operate at pressures above that range. The ANSI standard offers no middle ground. = 6. And.

the equation becomes: Class IV-S1 MAL (gpm) = or 100 times less leakage than Class IV. Recall Eq. for the purpose of this discussion. which. the flow is directly proportional to the pressure differential.1 times the 100°F rating. does offer an intermediate step between Class IV and Class V. although it uses the term Seat Closure Test.) x (seat diameter) x (dP). IEC Standard 60534-4. the standard should not be used to predict leakage at conditions other than the test conditions.308. Over the life of a control-valve trim.hydrocarbonprocessing. For Classes II through IV. leakage—is a function of the inverse of the square root of differential pressure (dP). known as Class IV-S1.0067 gpm. 2–3 produce diverging results. by its own definition. with MAL defined as: Class IV-S1 MAL = (5 x 10–6) x rated valve capacity.. stop. its use has been creeping into control-valve specifications.0013 gpm) = 2.000 psi test pressure is: (Class IV) / (Class V) = (3 gpm) / (0. It is important to begin by acknowledging that this standard. the service pressure. but even it can leave the informed user wanting. The Manufacturers Standardization Society of the Valve and Fittings Industry publishes MSS does not apply to control valves. Class V MAL does at least use a representative (dP) value. 3): Leakage = (5 x 10–4 ml/min. Nonetheless. the driving equation behind the Cv definition: This is the fundamental equation that the valve industry uses to engineer. the ratio at a 1. it may be prudent for the end user to consider the value of the process fluid when making a decision on leakage class. Then consider the equation for MAL for Class V (Eq. 2 curve reflects the fundamental relationship between flow and differential pressure. The maximum allowable leakage is specified as: 4 of 10 30-04-2013 11:35 . This leaves the user with little or no prediction of field performance. sell and deliver flow capacity. The parallel standard. 2. the additional cost of an upgraded trim can pay for itself in a short period of time. Returning to the 10-in. Due to the disconnect between the driving equations for MAL and classical physics of flow through a restriction. Because the difference between Classes IV and V is so large. This discussion of ANSI/FCI 70-2 provides some insight into the attributes to consider when looking at another commonly referenced leakage standard—MSS SP-61.000:1 example shown previously only applies to the test pressure of 50 psi. example valve at 50 psig test pressure: Class IV-S1 MAL = 0. It uses the Class IV test pressure. Thus. Solving for gpm. example valve. It is no wonder that ANSI/FCI 70-2 states that “the standard cannot be used as a basis for predicting leakage at conditions other than those specified. then even the more sophisticated Class V definition has to be taken in narrow context. if applied to an ASME B16. in the previous 10-in. but instead to valves used in “full open” and “full closed” service. when leakage means lost revenue or lost energy. Also note that the 10. comparison of the two equations at alternate pressures yields alternate ratios.. For instance. and check valves. Pressure Testing of Steel Valves. It states that flow (Q)—or. Needless to say. it is intended for use with isolation.1 times the cold working pressure. The test pressure is specified as 1. Among other topics. The standard defines only one class of leakage.34 control valve. it addresses valve leakage. Eqs. If it can be assumed that the Eq.Control-valve seat leakage | Hydrocarbon Processing | August 2011 http://www. it is important to address its capabilities and appropriate use. Section 5 of MSS SP-61 defines test procedures as well as acceptance criteria of seat closure tests. neither ANSI/FCI nor IEC supports the use of test pressures that approach service pressures. means 1. More specifically. MSS SP-61.” In other words. Here. although either liquid or gas can be used as the test fluid.

However. it is difficult to interpret the exceptions in terms that clearly apply to control valves. both standards define MAL as variable in direct proportion to test pressure. Although its equivalent flow area is only 0.000 psi would only allow 0. From a broad viewpoint. The MAL is generally more stringent than ANSI/FCI 70-2. For this primary seat.000 the rate of the single-orifice flow. and the desired seat tightness will not be achieved. Like MSS SP-61.1 times the cold working pressure. There are a number of modifying circumstances named in the standard that can impact test pressure and maximum allowable leakage criteria. Because this standard specifically applies to on/off valves. Obviously. 5 of 10 30-04-2013 11:35 .. in a roundabout way. even when mating high-quality machined surfaces together. The theory is that. API Standard 598. if the same flow area were evenly distributed around the circumference of a 10-in.hydrocarbonprocessing. when mated together under loading. published by the American Petroleum Institute. For a liquid test: MAL = (10 ml/hr) x (valve NPS) where NPS is nominal seat size in inches.. the primary methods used to address seat leakage will be treated. and its design and control is the single largest contributor to leakage differentiation. Compliant material interfaces. To help prevent misunderstanding when these exceptions are applied. rather than to control valves. this standard was not written for control valves and further discussion of the unique requirements of control-valve performance will reveal why. for certain sizes and classes of valves. While this article will not provide an exhaustive exploration of control-valve trim Any pressure above that value and MSS SP-61 is more stringent. Additionally.1 times the maximum allowable working pressure at 100°F. such as PTFE. it would appear that controlling this leakage is a simple matter of the appropriate mating of parts.. permit the allowable leakage to be increased by a factor of four. Whether for rotary or reciprocating valves. A variation of the truly compliant material interface is to use a metallic member on one component that is softer than its mating part.Control-valve seat leakage | Hydrocarbon Processing | August 2011 http://www. For example. API 598 uses test pressures that are 1. This can be accomplished with appropriate lead-in angles and/or continuous guiding along the stem or cage. valve at 1. The plug-to-seat contact geometry should result in a single line of contact around the circumference of the parts. Interestingly. so the test parameters are presented here for comparison. the most basic trim design is a simple metal-to-metal interface between the valve seat and valve plug. the two standards converge when the test pressure is 320 psi. One method used to address the inherent imperfections in the plug-to-seat interface is to utilize a compliant member at the interface. there are provisions that.12-in.011 square in. microscopic imperfections can allow leakage. This can be accomplished by mating the softer grades of 300 series stainless steel to harder stainless or alloy steels. the plug-to-seat contact geometry and alignment are critical. while test pressures below that value show Class V to be more stringent. it is recommended that they be specifically identified and integrated into the product specification. it is appropriate to discuss how tighter seat leakage is obtained with various trim designs.0004-in. These compliant materials can be used in applications with temperatures up to 600°F. for certain types of valves. A full discussion of seat leakage would not be complete without recognizing API Standard 598. in diameter would be considered a leakage path of unwanted magnitude. there is a need for more than simple dimensional control of the mating parts. this hole would lead to flow of roughly 10 gpm. it would amount to a gap of only 0. The compliant material conforms to the mating imperfections and provides the desired closure of micro-gaps. Plug-to-seat interfaces. if the parts are not self-aligning within the trim assembly. permit the use of 80 psi air rather than 1. However. it is clear that a simple drilled hole that is 0. The plug should have some means of self alignment when approaching the seat in the closed configuration. This trim configuration would normally be used in achieving ANSI/FCI 70-2 Class VI leakage. plug-to-seat interface.. MSS SP-61 can be readily compared to ANSI/FCI Class V because both standards consider the nominal seat size and. This creates large unit loading. in spite of superior plug-to-seat geometry. there are provisions that. This interface is the primary path for seat leakage. Like MSS SP-61. that are embedded in either part. or approximately 1/10 the thickness of a human hair. when tested to Class V standards at 1. For instance. which is critical to closing the microscopic irregularities of the mating surfaces.000 psi. Additionally. Class V leakage for this 10-in. So now armed with the factual data regarding the various standards. Valve Inspection and Testing. to the extreme that it is expressed in drops and bubbles per minute.001 gpm—1/10. API 598 is not intended for control valves but has begun creeping into the control-valve specification process. the surfaces will not contact appropriately and repeatedly across multiple open and close cycles. the harder material actually causes the softer metal to deform. This can be accomplished with soft materials.

The common terms used to determine pressure and flow tendencies relative to trim design are flow-to-open (FTO) and flow-to-close (FTC). if oversized. it is important that the party responsible for packaging the valve and actuator factor in the entire range of possible supply loads—normal. potentially reducing leakage tendency. FTO trim designs provide other beneficial performance traits. In these designs. these parts are often overloaded at assembly to create a coining effect.hydrocarbonprocessing. particular care must be taken when pairing a control valve and actuator from different vendors. which is always present in control-valve applications. During the specification process. The requirements for control valves and on/off valves are quite different. Key specification considerations. In FTO trim designs. It is equally important. One of the most straightforward means to enhance service life in these areas is to provide high-hardness materials via base materials. more effectively reduce leakage. Again. the seating surfaces of both the valve seat and the valve plug are in the area of flow modulation. or if the friction changes over time. process hardening or weld overlays using hardened alloys. and even disassembly and reassembly. but also of supply pressure. creating prime conditions for deterioration of component geometry. The end user must. actuation loads and pressure assist forces all come together to create an effective primary seating surface. mate and conform) to ensure appropriate plug-to-seat loading. However. As noted previously. understand the required load and ensure that it is provided by the actuation platform and supply pressure. Collectively. then the control valve is rendered ineffective in a manner that would be less problematic for an on/off valve. these brute force. an FTO design may be preferable based on the desired failure mode when actuation energy is lost. While this argument is valid. FTO trim designs. Control valves must be able to move off of their seated position with a subtle change in instrument signal. the flowing fluid and its associated static and dynamic pressures tend to force the valve plug off of the seat. the combination of plug-to-seat interface geometry. thus compromising seat load and increasing leakage tendency. In fact. there is opportunity for misapplication when mating valves and actuators. negatively impacting the control valve’s ability to respond to an opening signal. trim designs often require large actuation forces. Early solutions included the advent of double seated valves (Fig. Balanced trim designs. when FTC would appear to provide the most generous seat loading and. may not coordinate the offerings. therefore. however. If the above combination creates friction that is difficult for an actuator to overcome. materials selection. This is especially important in applications involving metal-to-metal seat interfaces. to ensure that the actuator does not overload the parts and deform the trim or body components or cause the plug and stem to engage too tightly and become wedged together. Many designs attempt to address this issue by providing geometry that shields the critical surfaces from the erosive effects of high-velocity flow. For this reason. when a valve plug is lifted just off of its A fundamental element of all plug-to-seat interfaces is that part loading between the two components can greatly affect leakage performance. This loading effect is applied by the force of an actuator. 2). The obvious misstep would be a supply pressure that is too low to provide the necessary part loading under service conditions. the combination of actuator loading and fluid pressure can overload a plug-to-seat interface and cause damage. 6 of 10 30-04-2013 11:35 . Alternately. thus. Proper materials selection is also critical to ensuring that these surfaces survive the rigors of modulating flow. FTC trim designs. negates the matched affect.. For this type of trim. the inherently small available flow area leads to high fluid velocity. They are inherently more stable. can either assist or detract from part loading. and thus fluid pressure. In many trim designs. FTC trim designs are assisted by the fluid pressures. and thus costly actuation packages. minimum and maximum—as they can positively or negatively impact seating performance. It is reasonable to question the use of FTO trim designs versus their FTC cousins. providing the necessary force balancing to minimize actuation loads.Control-valve seat leakage | Hydrocarbon Processing | August 2011 http://www. it is important that the worst-case conditions are factored into the design so that fluid pressures do not relieve the necessary minimum seating load that closes those micro-gaps. as the flow under the plug does not create the recirculating flow eddies that can cause the valve to be sucked into the closed position. The separate parties. however.. and subsequent substitution of parts. manifested in excessive part friction and sticking. the valve seat geometry is arranged such that high-pressure fluid is present on both sides of the valve plug. or unbalanced. It is important to note that this coining results in a unique matched pair assembly. a concept known as negative gradient. Because the various components must work together to deliver the required loading. These designs still exist but their use is largely limited to smaller nominal sizes. An additional feature of these simple plug-to-seat interfaces is that the direction of flow. Additionally. or a third-party consolidator. the actuator must be adequately sized to overcome the worst-case active fluid pressure loads. On one hand. the valve manufacturer should provide guidance (based on an understanding of the behavior of the assembled parts and their tendency to align. And because actuation load is a function of not only actuator type and size.

but they also have passages that provide flow.hydrocarbonprocessing. The challenge with double seated designs is that it is difficult to exactly match the dimensional values between the two valve body seat regions and the two plug seating regions. Conventional balanced plugs have passages that provide pressure 7 of 10 30-04-2013 11:35 .Control-valve seat leakage | Hydrocarbon Processing | August 2011 http://www. 3). In double seated valves. the valve seat geometry is arranged such that high-pressure fluid is present on both sides of the valve plug. communication between the top and bottom of the plug. and thus pressure.. thermal excursions during service can cause differential thermal growth and loss of seat contact. This permits pressure to equalize on both sides of the plug. Fig. Control-valve manufacturers have addressed this dimensional challenge with the use of balanced trim designs (Fig. Even when good dimensional matching is provided. Fig. and actuation forces are substantially reduced. in which the plug travels inside a ported cylinder. 2. 3. Conventional balanced trims are available in cage-guided These designs still depend on an effective plug-to-seat interface for their primary sealing interface.

but each also has its Achilles Heel in such areas as durability. the frictional wear leads to increased leakage at the secondary plug seal. the user experiences unwanted leakage.. These rings prevent continuous flow across the balancing holes. face sealing with the mating groove. and even though the primary plug-to-seat geometry remains effective. The fact remains that none of the seat leakage standards makes any guarantees regarding in-service leakage. However. Note also that for cage-guided valves. A complicating factor in balanced designs is that a circumferential seal is required between the plug and cage to prevent flow from passing through the balancing holes. in the graphite seal. Instead. flexible graphite provides the necessary compliance to dynamically deform to fit its mating parts. Good piston ring design leans on installed circularity. The primary issue with graphite is that the normal frictional wear of a modulating control valve quickly leads to loss of mass. however. The user should seek evidence of long-term application experience in installations that are similar to the proposed application. will typically pass a shop test with ease. these secondary piston ring seals also provide the dynamic stability that is necessary for valve plugs with balancing holes. and thus volume. 4). and an ability to install the ring without deforming it. and it is here that the various designs show differentiation. Flexible graphite seals. which can cause pressure pulsations between the top and bottom of the plug and compromise valve stability. PTFE seals. or metal seals. such as PTFE or flexible graphite. Above the 600°F temperature threshold. such as classic piston rings. These seals are known as the secondary leakage path. A final topic that must be addressed in this discussion of secondary seals is the issue of shop-tested leakage versus installed leakage. This is one of the many areas where control-valve trim has additional dynamic requirements that are not required in on/off valves. Unlike graphite stem packing. Conventional piston ring designs are widely used as trim seals for balanced designs. A key differentiator among various piston rings is the design of the gaps where the open ends meet. Metallic piston ring seals. The design range of PTFE has recently been extended into the 600°F realm and these seals show good resistance to the expected frictional wear of a modulating seal. These include metallic seals that are also compliant to provide extended wear. communication between the top and bottom of the plug to minimize actuation forces. For high-temperature applications. and thus can be misleading if the user attempts to equate them to field service performance. internal trim seals cannot be adjusted by tightening a packing bolt or using a live loading mechanism. Shop-tested vs. incorporating the best attributes of both. Like PTFE. 8 of 10 30-04-2013 11:35 . Advanced solutions. Each of these secondary sealing techniques has merit. More advanced piston ring designs often use an inner expander ring to create continuous radial loading of the outer ring. a short time in modulating service can lead to loss of graphite mass and compromised leakage performance. these secondary seals are more typically metallic. or cage-mounted and work against the modulating plug. causing it to lose its radial contacting load. PTFE can also be formed to create pressure-assisting lips that improve the contact between the stationary and modulating parts. for example. Some compliant metals seals have been utilized to remedy the problems associated with double seated valves by providing dimensional forgiveness between the two seating regions. PTFE is not viable and flexible graphite is the only widely available compliant option. They can be compliant materials. passing between the plug-to-cage clearance and then exiting the trim. The seal can be either plug-mounted and work against the stationary This design is a hybrid of unbalanced and balanced designs. scalable size. Some designs also have used separate dynamic seals along with static seating seals to keep the wear of modulation isolated from the static seal. They simply represent stand-alone shop tests of new components.Control-valve seat leakage | Hydrocarbon Processing | August 2011 http://www. or temperature gradients.hydrocarbonprocessing. A popular option for high-temperature applications that cannot use nonmetallic compliant seals is the pilot-balanced plug (Fig. Some recent innovations in secondary sealing technology attempt to combine many of the previously discussed attributes into a single advanced seal. Pilot-balanced plugs. A graphite seal in a new assembly. even when designed to meet ANSI/FCI 70-2 Class V or MSS SP-61 criteria. installed leakage..

rameshsenthivel 9 of 10 30-04-2013 11:35 . A 29-year veteran of the control-valve industry.. Even though the actuation force may suggest that the plug has reached its proper travel stop. While there are various industry standards that can be utilized in the specification process. Many of today’s digital positioners have options for an override that prevents the plug from operating in this unfavorable travel position. The positioner’s role. In addition to the mechanical variations that can impact seat leakage performance. to maintain a target stiffness between the pilot plug and the primary plug. When the pilot plug is opened. Most designs use internal springs. He has a BS degree in mechanical engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. it provides a balancing path for pressure equalization across the primary plug. he has held positions in engineering. valve trim that operates just off of its seat creates small flow passages and the resulting high velocities within the trim are highly erosive.. 4. even in “clean” fluid applications. Pilot-balanced designs have a small unbalanced plug that is integrated into the larger primary plug to create a hybrid balanced design. the end user is wise to understand the more durable attributes that lead to satisfactory seat leakage performance over the installed life of a control valve. Fig. the assembly is effectively unbalanced. In the pilot-balanced concept. manufacturing. a small unbalanced plug is integrated into the larger primary As mentioned earlier.Control-valve seat leakage | Hydrocarbon Processing | August 2011 http://www. allowing the user to determine the desired minimum travel position relative to both trim protection and required low-end capacity. Others incorporate pressure ports to utilize the adjacent high-pressure fluid in a chamber with a pressure area biased toward stiffness. The greatest challenge in working with them is ensuring that the proper stiffness is maintained during mid-travel modulation. as inadequate stiffness can lead to instability. HP The author Don Sanders is product manager for engineered products and the severe service segment for GE Energy. there are a multitude of factors that influence seat leakage measurement and performance in control valves. either a coil or Bellville type. www. These overrides are typically user-configurable.geenergy. Additionally. ANSI/FCI 70-2 is the most widely used despite its shortcomings. This is quite useful if foreign material or damaged trim components prevent the plug from properly seating on the valve seat. Given that a shop-based seat leakage test provides limited prediction of field performance. marketing and management. the “brain” on top of the control valve—the positioner—can be an important tool in protecting critical seating surfaces. these smart positioners know that this position does not signify true seating and can provide the necessary alarm to process control personnel. Pilot-balanced plugs are time-tested and in widespread use. When both the pilot plug and primary plug are closed. the most advanced digital positioners can remember their shop-tested attribute of stem position when the trim is seated.

.com/Article/2880440/Control-..06. 10 of 10 30-04-2013 11:35 . Don.Precisely explained Sonal Singh 09. Don you have cleared so many of my doubts regarding seat leakages Thank you very much.Control-valve seat leakage | Hydrocarbon Processing | August 2011 http://www.. Sonal Singh 09.17..2012 Very good article.11.this is the first time i am commenting on a article.2013 I want leakage rate chat as per Cv in all Leakage class? Adeel Qaiser 12.2012 Excellent article.2012 Mr.2012 Excellent article. John Simmons 08...precisely explained.hydrocarbonprocessing.06..08. 01.Good insight about different standards.