Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Piping - Control - Valve - Vibration PDF
Piping - Control - Valve - Vibration PDF
Involving Control
Valves
..................................................
By Herbert L. Miller
P.E. Vice President, Technology and Standards
Flashing Flow. For this type of flow, discussed by Miller (1988), the To control the vibration caused by a standing wave it is necessary to
static pressure downstream of a valve is less than the vapor pressure of change the magnitude and/or the frequency of the standing wave or to
the liquid and the bubbles formed in the flow stream passing through change the natural frequency of the pipe or components being excited
the valve do not collapse. Depending upon the amount of flash, there by the wave.
may be a segregation of the vapor and liquid phases such that pockets The best approach is to address the magnitude of the standing wave.
of each move down the pipe. When the higher density slugs of liquid The magnitude is related to the fluid turbulent energy that is enforcing
impact other devices in the flow stream there are large forces imposed the wave. The most dominant source of this turbulence is the kinetic
on the piping. The pipe vibration can be very dramatic and result energy generated by the fluid jet exiting the valve trim. Thus a valve
in failure within a short time. The slug flowing frequencies can change with a trim that reduces this jet energy will eliminate this wave
be very near the natural frequency of the piping system and cause influence.
large displacements. Piping systems will almost always have natural
The way to change the wave frequency is apparent from Equations 1
frequencies less than 30 Hertz with usual values in the 8 to 12 Hertz
and 2. However, focusing on the frequency is usually not beneficial.
range.
There is such a wide range of frequencies present in the turbulent
flow that excitation can continue to establish a strong wave at the new
The best way of eliminating this slug flow as a cause of the piping
frequency and continue the piping vibration.
vibration is to minimize the piping length between the valve and the
downstream reservoir. Another way if this is not possible is contrary to Lynch (1991) discusses a case in which the standing wave occurred at
general perceptions and that is to reduce the downstream piping size. the same frequency as the natural frequency of a linear control valve
Reducing the piping size increases the fluid pressures. This in turn plug and actuator piston assembly. This was causing significant valve
causes less flashed flow. Increasing the pipe size may work, however, failure that would cause the plant to shut down because of a lack
this usually requires a large increase in size because the two-phase of control. His study provided an extensive analytical procedure
flow expands readily to fill the larger size without a significant change for predicting the coincidence of the standing wave and the valve
in the pressure. assembly.
Inserting an orifice at the pipe outlet could also increase piping pres- A transient pipe wave case that occurs sometimes is referred to as a
sure. The valve capacity would need to be checked to assure there is water hammer. This is an extreme example of an acoustic wave forcing
sufficient flow capability. Placing an orifice or baffle plate at the valve piping vibration. It is caused by a sudden opening or closing of a valve
exit does not eliminate the liquid/gas weight ratios in the downstream and the comments in this paper are not directed to this special case.
piping, so slugs of water would still exist.
Vortex Shedding. When fluid moves through a piping component
Standing Waves. Within every flowing pipe there will be a sonic that causes a change in flow direction there likely will be a separation
wave moving axially back and forth in the pipe. This is referred to as of the fluid from the constraining wall. With the separation a vortex is
a standing wave. The frequency of this wave will be dependent upon formed and then swept into the main stream. This vortex shedding will
the length of the pipe and the sonic velocity of the fluid in the pipe.
2001 CCI. All rights reserved. 449 | Piping Vibration Involving Control Valves 3
occur at fairly well defined dimensionless frequencies. The strength of are nearly the same.
the vortex will vary but does not need to be very strong if the shedding Table 1 shows criteria for a valve trims outlet kinetic energy. The
frequency is coincident with the natural frequency of the piping valve trim should be selected to keep the kinetic energy below these
system. levels. The examples that follow support the values shown in the table.
The shedding frequency for a vortex is given by: For most conditions, an acceptance criterion of 70 psi (480 kPa) for
NStr = f * D / V (3) the trim outlet kinetic energy will lead to a trouble free valve. In
The Strouhal Number, NStr, varies depending upon the geometry flashing service, liquid droplets are carried by their vapor at much
causing the separation of the boundary layer. For a circular cylinder higher velocities. To eliminate the risk of erosion, the acceptance
its value is 0.2 over a wide range of Reynolds numbers. It is usually criteria for flashing or potentially cavitating service should be lowered
between 0.1 and 0.3, however, there are exceptions. Blevins (1990) to 40 psi (275 kPa). Special applications may require even more
provides values for the Strouhal Number for many different types of stringent kinetic energy criteria. Gas or steam valves with low noise
geometry. requirements may also result in very low trim outlet kinetic energy
requirements.
The frequencies resulting from vortex shedding are generally greater
than the 30 Hertz that would be the upper limit for most piping system Table 1: Trim Outlet Kinetic Energy Criteria
natural frequencies. As noted from the Strouhal number definition a
large characteristic dimension would have to be the cause of the vortex Service Conditions Kinetic Energy Velocity if
Typically the characteristic dimension is in the range of an inch (25- psi kPa ft/sec m/s
mm). So it is fairly rare that this type of forcing function is the root
Continuous Service, 70 480 100 30
cause of the pipe motion.
Single Phase Fluids
High Fluid Kinetic Energy. The fluid kinetic energy exiting a Cavitating and Multi- 40 275 75 23
control valve trim has a significant impact on the behavior of the Phase Fluid Outlet
downstream piping system. If this energy level is high then cavitation, Vibration Sensitive 11 75 40 12
flashing, and high turbulence levels can be present that would result System
in the damaging cases discussed above. Experience has shown that
Intermittent Duty, 5% 150 1030 --- ---
control of this parameter can resolve excessive vibration in existing
or Less Use
piping systems. The kinetic energy is defined as follows.
KE = 12 V2 / M (4) Results
The velocity in this expression is the trim outlet velocity. Different In the two examples presented below each of the valves were
valve trims and the location within the trim for the velocity and other retrofitted with multistage trim because the original valve trim
considerations in the calculation of the kinetic energy are expanded imposed limitations in the valves use due to excessive piping
upon in ISA (1998). vibration. After repeated attempts to fix the problems and the plants
need for working valves, the valves were retrofitted with trim designed
Valve Trim Kinetic Energy Criteria
to reduce the kinetic energy at the trim outlet.
The piping industry has long recognized the need to control the kinetic
The only change made to the valves was to change the internal valve
energy levels in the transport of fluids through a pipe. The industry
trim and hence, the trim outlet kinetic energy. No changes were made
has created design criterion that limits the fluid velocity in the pipe to
to the valve bodies or the piping. Since the bodies were not changed,
acceptable limits. For example, a normal criterion for liquids in pipes
the fluid velocities exiting the valve bodies were the same before
is to limit the fluid velocity to a range of 5 to 50 ft/s (1.5 to 15 m/s).
and after the retrofit. In all cases, significant improvements in valve
Assuming normal water densities, this is equivalent to a kinetic energy
performance were achieved by retrofitting the trim to meet the
of 0.16 to 16 psi (1.1 to 110 kPa). The typical criterion for gases is
suggested kinetic energy design criteria.
to keep the fluid Mach number (actual velocity divided by the fluids
sonic velocity) below 0.15. Assuming saturated steam of 100 to 1000
psi (700 to 7000 kPa) and a sonic velocity of 1630 ft/s (500 m/s), the
kinetic energy is in the range of 1.5 to 15 psi (10 to 100 kPa).
Velocity criteria for liquids are much lower than for gases because
liquid densities are much higher, resulting in higher energy levels.
While the velocity limits are quite different, the kinetic energy limits
4 Piping Vibration Involving Control Valves | 449 2001 CCI. All rights reserved.
Figure 1
The trim exit kinetic energy for the original valve trim was 148 psi
(1020 kPa). With the retrofit the energy level was reduced to less than
24 psi (168 kPa). A reduction of 84 percent in energy level.
For this case, the water outlet pressure was close enough to the waters two cages.
vapor pressure to suggest cavitation and two phase flow conditions The vibration values reported in this case were the sum of the
may exist. Therefore, the design criteria for the trim outlet kinetic
vibration velocity peaks in the 0 to 500 Hertz range. The results
energy was the more stringent 40 psi (275 kPa) value for the pressure
are shown in Figure 3 where the vibration velocity magnitude is
conditions that could result in vaporization.
plotted as a function of the valve stroke. Values are not available
beyond 65 percent of stroke for the original trim as the valve was
not operated in this region. The severity of the vibration beyond
65 percent open caused a concern that the piping would rupture.
2001 CCI. All rights reserved. 449 | Piping Vibration Involving Control Valves 5
Other Examples
Figure 3: Steam Dump All of the retrofits arose as a result of a problem with the original
installation. In all of the cases, the retrofits were successful in
The reduced trim exit kinetic energy solved the severe vibration
resolving the root cause of the valve problem and the only
problems associated with this steam system. The energy was
significant change was the limiting of the fluid kinetic energy
reduced from 83 psi (570 kPa) to 25 psi (172 kPa), a 70 percent
exiting the valve trim.
reduction. The dramatic reduction in vibration behavior is also
shown in Figure 4 by the stem spectral measurements for each Conclusions
trim set. The stem measurements were the worst case vibration A criteria for the selection of a control valve has been provided
results. As shown, the peak velocity was reduced by 77 percent. which goes beyond the many rules and exceptions being used in
The change in total vibration energy was even more significant the industry. The criterion is a limit on the kinetic energy exiting
as illustrated by the area under the spectral curve. The frequency the throttling point of the valve trim. It addresses the energy
content above 100 Hertz was essentially eliminated and the that contributes to the problems associated with piping systems
low frequency content was inconsequential. This also is not a with excessive vibration. By addressing the valve trim exit kinetic
comparison of the results at the same flow rates through the valve energy and maintaining it below Table 1 values a designer can be
as the retrofit is at almost twice the valve flow rate. confident that a good installation will result.
6 Piping Vibration Involving Control Valves | 449 2001 CCI. All rights reserved.
References 11. Simonen, Fredric A., and Gosselin, Stephen R., 2001, Life
1. Blevins, R.D., 1990, Flow-Induced Vibration, Second Prediction and Monitoring of Nucler Power Plant
Edition, Van Nostrand einhold, New York, pp 47-50. Components for Service-Related Degradation, ASME
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 123, February, pp
2. Carrucci, V. A., and Mueller, R. T., 1982, Acoustically
5864.
Induced Piping Vibration in High Capacity Pressure
Reducing Systems, ASME Paper No. 82-WA/PVP-8. 12. Tarbet, Mark A., 2001, Cavitation in Centrifugal Pumps,
Energy-Tech, Western Section, MacMillan, New York,
3. Eisinger, F. L. and Francis, J. T., 1999, Acoustically Induced
February, pp 18.
Structural Fatigue of Piping Systems, ASME Journal of
Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 121, November,
pp 438443.
2001 CCI. All rights reserved. 449 | Piping Vibration Involving Control Valves 7