Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Realistic Control Valve Pressure Drops

    Uploaded by

    RomanStriker
    51 views5 pages
    Realistic Control Valve Pressure Drops

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Realistic Control Valve Pressure Drops

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    51 views5 pages

    Realistic Control Valve Pressure Drops

    Uploaded by

    RomanStriker
    Realistic Control Valve Pressure Drops

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 5
    aa h = Above vas PrTnox 6 REEINCRA DE peTROLeD #1887 BIBLIOTECA TECNICA, cen TANS boom! A. a GFR fF oes li a PPC Qa REPS Pee Bites, YO fm) pe iQ) iw FID} BS ace ha Here is a method of 4:8, Connell, Norihein Alberts Inetvule of Technology determining optimum a . = control-valve pressure controversial subjects is the n Sat "each preanure drop should 9 he assigned to control valves. The confrontation is generally between drop -~ sufficient Lisa the process designers, who realize that pressure drop eonsumes euerz, pressuie drop to assure and therefore should be minimized, and the instrumentation engineers, who automatic control, iknow that itis the pressure drop that provides the driving foree moving the fluid theough the control valve, and iat the greater the pressure dap, the reater the controlie’s ability to influence the process and change the valne of the controlled variable. In the extreme, if the pressure drop at the coutrol valve were zero, the controller wauld have zero ability to change the valve ofthe controlled varishle and thus would have no effect. 1 is most curiaus that, despite the obvious importance of this aspect. of automatic process control, s0 litle bas een published in the way of specific puidelines for determining the proper zimounit of eontrolvalve pressure drop. “Proper” is that amount that wil assure the successful functioning of the control system, yet avoid energy waste without wasting energy. What the literature says ‘The control valve handbook of one leading valve manufacturer does nat even disenss how to establish eontrol-valve pressnre drop. Another manufacturer's hnnlook suggests that the contra valve often should have one-third of the total friction deop in the system, However, the handbook also points out that. “under eertan circumstances” 25% might be satisfactory, or possibly even 10% right be appropriat A statement that appears in Vol. 2 of the “Instrument Engineers’ Hand: book,” revised ed. page 412, asserts that the umount of control-valve pressure Grop that should be specifically assigned for control is none tall (0%) "The | implication is that process designers, in their usual charitable manner, ean be | depended upon to design “Fat” into the system in the form of exeess pressie | drop. This “fat” will end up in the eontrol valve and will provide all that is | necessary for automatic control Arguing over arbitrarily chosen percentages of system pressure drop that should be given to 2 control valve is at best a waste of time, because there is no real engineering basis for the percentage numbers, What is needed is a method. based on sound, eredible principles. Here we introduce such a method for determining the optimum control-vaive pressure drop, balancing the need to provide enough pressure drop to achieve coutrol with the need to conserve energy. Engineering the control-valve pressure drop. A typical situation is shown in Fig. 1. We will use this identify the problem but also to establish some basic tru ferns, Assume that a prosess-design engineer is working on the charge cirewit fo a Iydrocarbon feedstream that passes frst through some preleat exehsingers, then through a fired heater, and finally ends up in a fractionator agram not only to ind define some CHRTICALENRNERRINGSEPTENOERS we 128 fractionator oporates at20psig, and 15 ps is nec the liquid, from grade, up to the feed nozzle, At w: nsidezed to he the design fowrate in this eieuit flowrate Qi, there will be 82 psi of pressure drep in the proheat exchangers, 6 psi in the fred heater, an 30 psi in the piping. Since the intent is to Wvave this stream on flow there will leo be a 2psi drop in the orifice meter. Let ws eall the pressinre drop taken op by the piping and all items of process. equipment in the system, including the orifice, the “frietion pressure drop,” and designate it by the letter F. In this example, F'= 124 psi, Having reached this point in the development of the design, the design engineer ow approacii's the instrument engineer with the ques- tion — “How much pressure drop is required for the eoatrol valve?” Once this figure is established, the design engineer ccan complete the pressure balance, determine how rmuch is needed at the startof the eirenit, and draw up the e instrument engineer falls back on the popular rule that one-third of the system drop should be in the control valve, This would put the control valve pressure drop at onchalf of F, or 62 psi, The design engineer takes this number, calculates that the pamp dis charge pressure must be 221 psig, and says “No way. This would call for a big pump, with a bigger driver, that would consume far too much energy. Why does the pressure drup at the valve have to be so high?” ‘This usually puts the instrament engineer on the defer: sive. The response may be, “How much pressure drop can be allowed?” The process designer's answer: “How about 10 psi?” The instrument engineer knows intuitively that, the control system camot work over any significant range if the control vaive hes only 10 psi, bute orshe lacks any soundly hased ancoment to prove the point, Eventually, the two settle for 25psi, and the instrament engineer buys the eolfee sand hopes for the best. Surely, there has to be a better way. ‘The frietion pressure drop, F, has been defined ns the pressure drop taken, at design flowrate Qa, by the process ‘egquipment ad the piping. Bear in mind that F must change if Qy changes. Notice also that this system, like most, starts and ends at two points of relatively constant pressure. Let us call the beginning: and end pressures for the system P and | P,. In Fig. 1, Peis the fractionator pressure plus the statie bead, that i, 35 psig. P, wil be the pump diseharge pressure, which would be 184 psig if the control valve were to be | assigned a pressure drop of 25 psi, The phrase “relatively Constant pressure” means thatthe pressures P, and P, do not change Lo any appreciable extent when the flowrate in the system changes, The difference between P, and Pe provides the driving force for moving the find through the ‘whole system. The pressure balance equation is Pra Pet P+ OP a where AP? is (he controlvalve pressure drop. Rearranging yields: AP (P,-P)-F ® | th ly anilous ta | to now how to avaid being deus the nnd tke 2 This ts an out nd instrument enginests ove it wo themselves m. inko it. The answer is obvins from Eq, @). The pressure drop atthe eontral valve can only he what i left of the overall system pressure drop aftor the frition presstre érop hes been deducted Suppose that in the Fig. 1 example, the control valve size turned out to-be 2 in, with # AP of 2 psi assigned. Let v He out the Zin, control valve and! put ain, one i its Would the pressure drop al the eontral valve ehauo? Cerizily not. The enteol yale pressive deep mustbe what eft of (P,—P,) afer Fis deducted — so i is stil 25 ps The Bin, eontzol valve would he pinched down in its stroke farther than the Zin, bot the pressure drop ata flowrate of Qq would still be 25 psi. Pot in a 4in. control valve, and’ AP ‘would still he 25 ps at the design flowrate Qa, although the ‘in, valve would be pinched down even farther. ‘The bottom lines that the eontrol valve pressure drop has nothing to do with valve size, It is determined only by the pressure balance, iq 2), Period! Fig. 1 reveals still one more important concept. Suppose Fractionator Lil 1 cheese pean ing drop ~ £0 psi Prehesters “i Figure t How Fractonalar-charge-crcok examele ‘pressure drop des the contol valve nocd? that for operating purposes itis necossary, at some time, to increase the flowrate loa value of Qy + 10%. Since pressure drop varion as the square of flowrate, ifthe flowrate in creases to HV of Qa, the friction pressure drop wil jn crease to 121% of F, oF 150 psi. Tis is an increase of (150— 124), oF 26 psi, Whee is this additional 26 psi going to come from? Since Py and P_ do not change significantly with the addtional 3 psi not made up by any inerease sm pressure drop. pablo answer The inesca is that it has to eure out of the eontral valve, The control valve as a pressure-drop “bank” evolves the important concept of the control valve as a We should note carefully what Ka, (2)isteing us. Oneof the | pressure-drop “hank.” It is a hank on which the devices that aiost aggravating questions that process designers can pot. | {0 instrument engincers is, "Why ean’t you put in a larger 124 EMAL ENGINEERING EMP 26 6 make up the frietion drop draw on for more pressure drop when itis necessary to inerease the flowrate in the system. It also points out the cf the ) impose some resistance to fons; therefore twill eente some controbvalve pressne dhup te the wor is | pressure drop. This will he fumetion of the type of eontral i “enytineering” salve used (plug, cage, ball hatter‘, et.) | The underiving principle is that, st the design stage, the | What wwe now nued are methods for potting numbers on | control valve must he provided with enangi pressure dieop co | ench ofthe three contre factors just listed | that when the system lowrabe fs nerve nticpated | Alicwronce for inereasr in frition dvup. To ealextnre | maximum rate, the central valve can give up the additional | this, we need ta know the ratio of the maximum anticipated pressure drop demanded by the friction drop, and still have | flowrate, Que, Wo the design flowrate, Qy, OF Qn/ Qy. Note | ‘Giemininnm pressure diop left that will permit the antomat- | that the redial values need vot be specified, onky the rato. i ic controller to keep the eintrolled variable on control. | Usually the process designer will be wilimg to estimate i In the Fig. 1 example, we saw that an increase in flow Qnt@, sd on knowledsce of how the plant will be run, or to 110% of Qy would inerease the friction drop F by 26 psi. | on the upper limit values of fnetors such es pry This woul! have to conve out of the contsol valve. If the | rates, I the provess designer is walling to commit to any i control valve were assigned oly 25 ps in Une ist plsee, then | estimate of the Qy/Qa ratio, then the instrument engineer i the flow eontrol loop woutd ue oat of conto! at this higher | will have io make a best estimate, based on what transients | Hlowrate. The contre! valve would go wide open, and the | in flowrate ney be expected as the control loop recovers. in | Movrate mould determined y the vgs of tesystem, | is pia epee fasion, fem an apt. A¢ the nd of this { In certain cases, thore will be no need te perform ealeala- cgested values for Qn/Qy ave given. 1 tions to determine eon vol-valve pressure drop. One example design flowrate, Qu, the fiction drop wil be ps. {is a stoampressureletdown station, The valve inlet tnd imum flowrate, Qa, Ue friction drop will become: t outlet pressures are the higher and lower steam pressures, Fx Qn Qa? | ee aoa a ee Nomenclature B_Base pressure drop (controbvalve pressure ; trop with valve ix wideopen posiio) F Friction pressure drop at design flowrate a P, End pressure for the i a header | Py Beginning pressure for the system t Gy, | ‘AP Pressure drop in the eontrol valve tps : 1 1}) Qe Design flowrate ; Fred neater ! ‘The increase in pressure drop, consequently, will be: i | FX Ql Qd"-F, 0F [Qm/Qa? 1] x F cage-typo : ; conpalvatve C— ‘The valve of F, as determined hy the process design engi teppei exist only on paper, and twill not be possible to get sm —EE fang ctoeas Sopa accurate fix on pipe lengths, numbers and types of fittings, 5 Figure 2—Fred-hea‘er example: Moxiying the burers velocity, und physieal properties of the stream. Therefore, it e Enoreaved the avaiable control veive pressure cop eurficionty is probably prudent to apply a small factor of safety, 107, to the above culeulation, As a result, the allowance for the respectively, and the pressure drop is their difference. Av- | increase in fiietion drop will be: other example is a hydrocarbon/water separator drumn from faa hich the waters bang damped on interiace-level eantzol to LAX [@n/ Qa 1) x F S ‘an open sewer. The drum pressure iste vulveinlet pressure, | Allowance for possible falloff in overall system pressiere i and the sower pressure (zero) is the valve outlet pressure. | drop. A reasonable figure, cousiering that P, and P, are Unfortunately, these simple eases are in the minority. | both supposed to be points of relatively constant pressure in In general, the pressure drop ulliinately assigned to a | the system, would be 10% of W, -P.). However, if this fizure control valve must take into account the folowing: isused, it will prove pratia in some eases but nt in others 1. How much pressure drop will the control valve have to | Consider the situation in which fluid i owing through & ive up wo the system friction drop if there is an increase in | contro! valve from one vessel that operates at 300 psig, toa fhe flowrate from the design value Qy to the anticipated | second vessel that operates al 250 psig. The overall system maximum flow? (Cail this Qo.) pressure drop would he 50 psi, If the allowance for loss of 2. How much alloscance Shouk! be made for a possible | system driving force were 10% of this vale (ha is, 5 psi it falioit in the overall system pressure drop (P,- P,) if there | becomes obvious that the pressure in cither of he vessels : should be an increas steta flowrate? would only have to change 2**, for the allowance to be wiped 4 2. Even in the wide-open position, a eontrol valve will | out, Tus, this allowanee should! take into account not ons meee ner 125 Gwesystem prossure drop (P,—P, pbut als the pressure level aut which the system operates. ‘Tae solution isto use the system end-yrossure, Py a8 an indicator of the pressure level in the overall sysiem, and divide the 10% allawance equally (5 and 5) between the system pressure drop (P,~P,)and the system pressure level (3. The sllowanee (tem 2} therefore becom 0.05 x (P,-P,) + 105 x Pe ‘This expression simplifies to: 0.5 P, ® Allowance for the control valve itself: Bvex ‘ven position, the control valve will impose some re to flow, and will require some base pressure drop. The value will vary withthe design of control valve used, and probably with the appliation, Tis part of the controb-valve pressur rap allowance will be identified by the letter B, for ba pressure drop. By working with average line velocities, and ‘assuming that in ment ca smaller than the line, and by averaging the caleulated values of P over a range of valve sizes, the following values of B have been arrived at, and are recommended: ControLvalve type B, psi Single plug a Double plug 1 Cage valve (unbalanced) 4 Cage valve (ualanced) 4 Butterfly 02 V-ball J Taking into account the pressure drop allowances. that, should be designed into the control valve for all three of the foregoing, the aggregate required controlvalve pressare drop is therefore: Required AP = 0.03 Py + 1.1 [Qy/ Qa? A fired-heater example A Toole at gome examples may help to clear up any skepti: «ism. Fig, 2shows a temperature control valve in the fel g line toa fred heater. The system clearly starts at the fuel Fee w as header, where the pressure is 35 psig; but where dovs the system end? At first glance, it appears to end at the inlet to the gas burners. However, the requirement for both the start and end points of the system is that they be points at whieh the pressure remains relatively constant despite changes in flowrate. This woutd not apply to the burner inlet Decause the pressure here varies considerably with changes in gas firing rate. Tho real end of this system is in the firebox, whore the pressure is 0 psig. ‘The frition drop Fat Qe will be in the orifice plate (t psi), the piping @ psi, and the burner (8 psi), Thus, F = 21s ‘The available pressare drop is caleulated from Eo, Available AP =(P,~P)-F P = 85~0-21 = UM psi ‘The pressure drop required to accommottate the Qua/Qa ratio of 1.4 that has been speeified is ealeulated from Eq. (0) The value of B for a cage controlvalve is 4 psi Therefore Required AP = 005 x 35 4 1 x (42-1) x 21 44 28 ps ‘These two calculations show that 28 psi is needed for the 26 caeNIcar, ENEINEERINGSHIAUS HT es the control valve will heone pipe | Ive, but only 14 psi is availible, Furthermore, the vali, 28 si, wns not detem ined 00 ventage oft gveeall systens crop it was based on -sure drop that the fuss of nature eal fr sLongineer a lest has an ansiver ‘question, “So what if we ean't give yon 28 psi?” The “Unless the ennirl vaive has 28 psi pressure d n Rowerate Qa it wil not be possible to incre flowrate to anywhere near 14 x Qu (= Qu) before the control valve is compictely robbed of al ofits pressure drop | aid the temperature-contzol loop goes out of contreh.” ‘This coample comes from an autval ciretinery 1 roquiced control-vave pressure drop, using Eq. (6), not ony puts the comparison of required versie available pressure

    You might also like