Dynamic Model for a

A. Nabi
e-mail: nebia@rafael.co.il
E. Wacholder
e-mail: eitanwa@rafael.co.il
Rafael–Israel Armament Development Authority,
P.O. Box 2250,
Haifa, 31021, Israel
J. Dayan
Technion–Israel Institute of Technology,
Mechanical Engineering Faculty,
Haifa, 32000, Israel.
e-mail: merdayan@tx.technion.ac.il
Dome-Loaded Pressure Regulator
A generalized physical model describing dynamic behavior of a fast-acting, dome-loaded,
gas pressure regulator was developed. The regulator is designed to respond quickly to
command changes, and to operate over a wide range of flow rates and pressures. The
analytical lumped-parameter model developed consists of a set of nonlinear, first-order,
ordinary differential equations with respect to time, accounting for mass and energy
conservation at regulator outlet, command dome and internal feedback compartments. It
also accounts for the equation-of-motion for the poppet and the control piston-assembly.
The numerical solution, based on a Runge–Kutta method, is amenable to an extensive
parametric study of regulator performance, and serves as a useful analytical tool for
designing new pressure regulators. Several tests were performed on a fast-acting regu-
lator to verify the physical model. Good agreement between predictions and measure-
ments was obtained. The effect of several parameters, geometrical and operational, on
regulator performance was studied. 关S0022-0434共00兲00402-0兴
Keywords: Dome-Loaded Pressure Regulator, Regulator Dynamics, Regulator Perfor-
mance, Control, Simulation, Pneumatic Device

1 Introduction
Gas dome-loaded pressure regulators 共DLPR兲, having fast re-
sponse and large flow rates, are essential equipment in modern
high-energy chemical lasers, as well as in some special industrial
applications. These regulators have been continuously developed
and improved over the years 共in a few centers around the world兲,
and though the principle of operation of today’s equipment is the
same as 30 or 40 years ago, the modern regulators are quite dif-
ferent in appearance, accuracy and in their fast dynamics com-
pared to the ‘‘old’’ regulators. Nevertheless, dynamic analysis of
such regulators has not been reported for almost three decades. In
fact, only a few papers dealing with the dynamic and static be-
havior of the more familiar spring-loaded pressure regulator
共SLPR兲 have been published. Tsai and Cassidy 关1兴 introduced,
probably for the first time, a systematic analysis, linear as well as
nonlinear, of a simple SLPR. For simplicity, they assumed a linear
viscous friction force on the command piston and on the poppet-
stem seals. Dustin 关2兴, presented a nonlinear investigation of a
more complicated SLPR, with more realistic nonlinear constant
dry friction force, but restricted the model to choked flow through
the valve, and neglected gas temperature dynamics. Anisimikin
et al. 关3兴, investigated the stability of a regulator with a linearized
model including nonlinear friction force. Sverbilov and Ani-
simikin 关4兴 presented a linear model for the study of a very simple
SLPR, operating under an arbitrary load.
It should be pointed out that, for many years, the trial-and-error
method of developing the various kind of pressure regulators was
the only accepted way 共see, for example, Dustin 关2兴; Tsai and
Cassidy 关1兴兲. Most probable, this was the result of the inherent
difficulties in the modeling of these regulators, due to the nonlin-
earities and coupling among the equations describing the dynam-
ics of both the fluids and the mechanical parts. The main source of
nonlinearities are the gas processes, the dry Coulomb friction act-
ing on the poppet-command piston assembly, and the dependency
of the free cross-flow area on the poppet location. These difficul-
ties, together with the slow running nonlinear programs, led to
various attempts to linearize the equations around the operating
point. Though it is possible to obtain various analytical solutions
Contributed by the Dynamic Systems and Control Division for publication in the
JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL. Manuscript
received by the Dynamic Systems and Control Division December 17, 1997. Asso-
ciate Technical Editor: Woong-Chul Yang.
as well as stability criteria in this way, these are of very limited
value, since such models are only suitable for small deviations
around the selected equilibrium point. Thus, caution must be ex-
ercised if an attempt is made to extend these results to large
changes in the working conditions.
In this paper, we present a carefully built analytical model de-
veloped for a newly designed DLPR. The analytically obtained
dynamic model and its simulated response contributed consider-
ably to the understanding of the various effects influencing actual
regulator behavior. Thereafter, for the remainder of the regulator
development, computer runs of the model were substituted for a
large portion of the previously required physical tests, which
saved a great deal of time and expensive resources. Moreover, the
model is now available for future designs.
2 Regulator Description and Operation
The DLPR discussed in this paper is schematically shown in
Fig. 1. It was developed for applications requiring very fast dy-
namic response, i.e., capability of reaching the desired value of
the outlet pressure within a fraction of a second from its opening,
while exhibiting stable and damped behavior.
The DLPR operation is based on force balance. The desired
outlet pressure is dictated by applying a reference pressure to the
upper side of the command piston. This pressure causes a dis-
placement of the poppet 共opening or closing the outgoing passage兲
and a respective change in the regulator outlet pressure. The regu-
lator has a built-in feedback control loop, since the outlet pressure
acts on the lower side of the command piston and the poppet
through one or more pressure-equalization holes. At steady state,
this pressure applies a balancing force on both command piston
and poppet. Regulators having this arrangement are said to have a
‘‘balanced poppet.’’ This special feature reduces, but does not
cancel, the effects of changes in inlet 共supply兲 pressure on the
regulated outlet pressure.
Initiating a command to the regulator is governed by a three-
way solenoid valve 共Fig. 1兲. Initially, the command volume is
open to atmosphere and the regulator is closed. When the solenoid
valve is activated, it closes the opening to atmosphere, and con-
nects the upper side of the command piston to the desired refer-
ence pressure from a pressure accumulator. A needle valve con-
trols the flow of the command gas from the accumulator to the
upper side of the command piston. This restriction 共later referred
to as ‘‘command orifice’’兲 affects the rate of regulator opening

290 Õ Vol. 122, JUNE 2000 Copyright © 2000 by ASME Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 1 Schematics of gas DLPR and experimental arrange-
ments
and its dynamic stability, the entering command-pressure forces,
the command-piston and poppet movements, and permits the flow
of gas through the regulator. As the outlet pressure rises, both
pressures under the command piston and under the poppet rise
with it. The lag between these two pressures and the outlet pres-
sure is dictated by the size of the pressure equalization holes, and
this, in turn, affects the characteristics of the response. When
equalization of forces, above and below the poppet and piston, is
reached, the regulator is operating at steady state.
3 Analysis and Modeling of the Regulator Dynamics
The presented analysis is based on the following assumptions.
1 Generally, the poppet and command piston are moving as a
single unit. Separate movements of these parts are assumed to
occur only during extreme imbalance between the feedback pres-
sure sensed under the poppet and the pressure above the poppet.
Assuming a single unified movement for the poppet-command
piston assembly greatly simplifies the dynamic equations.
2 In computing the force balance on the poppet, it is assumed
that a sharp boundary, perpendicular to the conic edge and located
at the narrowest cross-section of the flow, divides the free space
around the poppet. In the space directly below this boundary, the
pressure is ‘‘close’’ to the inlet pressure, while above this bound-
ary, the pressure is close to the outlet pressure. The exact prox-
imity of these pressures to the inlet and outlet pressures, respec-
tively, is determined experimentally. This assumption is based on
a somewhat simpler approach stated by Anderson 关5兴.
3 The forces acting on the poppet are symmetric. In reality,
possible asymmetric forces and moments can be formed around
the poppet by the flow through the valve due to the single inlet
and single outlet configuration. Neglecting these effects signifi-
cantly simplifies the force-balance analysis.
4 The seals of the command piston and the poppet produce a
constant Coulomb friction force, acting in a direction opposite to
the poppet-command piston assembly movement.
Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control
Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
5 According to Potter and Levi 关6兴 the time required to obtain
significant pressure changes in the system is much greater than the
time for wave propagation indicated by Reynolds and Kays 关7兴.
Thus, the gas dynamics can be considered as continuum of quasi
steady states.
6 The compression and expansion processes are adiabatic. This
assumption is reasonable, as long as the gas dynamic processes
within the regulator are faster than the heat-transfer processes at
and through the walls.
7 The gas behaves ideally. This is probably a reasonable as-
sumption for the entire operation range of the regulator when
either air or nitrogen at moderate pressures is used. A possible
deviation from ideal-gas behavior may occur for very high
pressures.
8 The specific heats of the gases are constants, a reasonable
assumption for the considered gases at temperatures in the neigh-
borhood of standard atmosphere.
9 The volume at the regulator exit is lumped. Thus, dynamic
effects and possible pressure distribution in a long pipe connected
to the exit are neglected in the parametric study. Nevertheless,
adding a simple pipe model was also attempted in order to facili-
tate comparison between the measured and the calculated outlet
pressure time-response. 共Measurements were taken at a distance
of 2 m from the regulator exit.兲
The Governing Equations. The equation-of-motion repre-
sents the balance of the inertia, friction, pressure, and spring
forces acting on the poppet and the command piston. The sche-
matic force diagram and main nomenclature are presented in Fig.
2. Positive forces are assumed to act in the upward direction,
while, for the mechanical parts, downward motion, i.e., opening
the valve, is considered positive. The equation is
M ẍ⫹K s x⫹F s ⫹ f •sgn共 ẋ 兲 ⫹ 共 A s1 ⫺ ␣ A s2 兲 P s ⫹A ␯ 1 P 1 ⫹A 3 P 3
⫹ 共 A ␯ o ⫺ ␤ A o2 兲 P o ⫺A ␯ P ␯ ⫽0 (1)
where, ␣ and ␤ are empirical correction factors for the force act-
ing symmetrically on the poppet surface, according to assump-
tions 2 and 3. A s2 and A o2 are the conical surface areas of the
poppet related to the valve opening area A p ,
A s2 ⫽A s2,o ⫹A p cos ␪ (2)
A o2 ⫽A o2,o ⫺A p cos ␪ (3)
A p ⫽ ␲ x sin ␪ 共 d⫺x sin ␪ cos ␪ 兲 (4)
A o2,o and A s2,o are the exit side and supply side conical surface
areas of the poppet, for a closed regulator, and d is the diameter of
the poppet seat. 共See Figs. 1 and 2 for nomenclature and
definitions.兲
The dynamic equations for pressure and temperature at the
regulator exit and in its internal compartments, based on the
above-stated assumptions, were derived from the mass, momen-
tum and energy balances. The analysis is applied to a general case
of variable control volume 共moving piston兲 with single inlet and
single outlet flows, assuming ideal gas behavior and constant spe-
cific heats 关8兴:
d P ␥R ␥A P
⫽ 共 T inṁ in⫺Tṁ out兲 ⫺ ẋ (5)
dt V V
冋冉 冊 册
dT RT 2 T in 共 ␥ ⫺1 兲 AT
⫽ ␥ ⫺1 ṁ in⫺ 共 ␥ ⫺1 兲 ṁ out ⫺ ẋ (6)
dt VP T V
where, V⫽V(0)⫹Ax.
For the pressure and temperature at the lumped-exit volume, the
equations are
d Po ␥R
⫽ 共 T ṁ ⫺T o ṁ o 兲 (7)
dt Vo s s
JUNE 2000, Vol. 122 Õ 291
 d P1 ␥R ␥ A ␯1
⫽sgn共 P o ⫺ P 1 兲 T ṁ ⫹ P ẋ (12)
dt V1 o 1 V1 1
V 1 ⫽V 1,o ⫺A ␯ 1 x (13)
With the above-mentioned assumptions, and by neglecting the
small volume variations due to poppet motion, the pressure dy-
namics at the feedback compartment under the poppet is given by
d P3 ␥R
⫽sgn共 P o ⫺ P 3 兲 T ṁ (14)
dt V3 o 3
The DLPR dynamics comprises a set of seven coupled, nonlin-
ear, ordinary differential equations with respect to time, namely:
共1兲, 共7兲–共10兲, 共12兲, and 共14兲. In order to solve this set of equa-
tions, the flow to and from the various volumes must be specified.
For a general case of choked and nonchoked compressible flow
through a restriction, the mass flow rate is given by 共Andersen 关5兴,
p. 20兲
ṁ⫽C d A f 共 ␥ 兲 N in,outP in/ 冑RT in (15)
where C d is the geometry dependent discharge coefficient of the
restriction,
f 共 ␥ 兲 ⫽ 冑␥ 关 2/共 ␥ ⫹1 兲兴 共 ␥ ⫹1 兲 / 关 2 共 ␥ ⫺1 兲兴 (16)
N in,out accounts for the ratio of inlet to outlet pressure conditions
共‘‘in’’ and ‘‘out,’’ respectively兲. For choked flow N in,out⫽1; else,
it is less than one, as calculated by

再 共 P out / P in兲 2/␥ ⫺ 共 P out / P in兲 共 ␥ ⫹1 兲 / ␥

冎
1/2

冋 册
N in,out⫽N 共 P out / P in兲 ⫽ 共 ␥ ⫹1 兲 / 共 ␥ ⫺1 兲
共 ␥ ⫺1 兲 2
2 共 ␥ ⫹1 兲
(17)
Fig. 2 The schematic force diagram and main nomenclature
for the DLPR, „a… Forces acting on the poppet and on the con-
Applying Eqs. 共15兲–共17兲 to the flow through the passage con-
trol piston, „b… Poppet’s schematic diagram. trolled by the poppet movement yields:
ṁ s ⫽C ds A p f 共 ␥ 兲 N s,o P s / 冑RT s (18)

冋冉 冊 册
where N s,o ⫽N( P o / P s ) is given by Eq. 共17兲, and variations in A p
dT o RT 2o Ts
⫽ ␥ ⫺1 ṁ s ⫺ 共 ␥ ⫺1 兲 ṁ o (8) are controlled by the poppet displacement, according to Eq. 共4兲.
dt VoPo To The flow through the exit nozzle is
For the command-dome volume, the pressure and temperature ṁ o ⫽C doA noz f 共 ␥ 兲 N o,envP o / 冑RT o (19)
are given by
where N o,env⫽N( P env / P o ) is, again, determined by Eq. 共17兲.
d P␯ ␥R ␥A␯ 共P env is the environment pressure at the nozzle exit.兲
⫽sgn共 P ␯ o ⫺ P ␯ 兲 T ⬘␯ ṁ ␯ ⫺ P ẋ (9)
dt V␯ V␯ ␯ The flow through the restriction 共needle valve兲 into the com-

冉 冊
mand dome is
dT ␯ RT 2␯ T ␯⬘ 共 ␥ ⫺1 兲 A ␯
dt
⫽sgn共 P ␯ o ⫺ P ␯ 兲
V␯P␯
␥ ⫺1 ṁ ␯ ⫺
T␯ V␯
T ␯ ẋ ṁ ␯ ⫽C d ␯ A c f 共 ␥ 兲 N ␯ P ␯⬘ / 冑RT ␯⬘ (20)
(10) where
where subscript ␯ o denotes conditions upstream of the command
orifice and subscript ␯ conditions at the command dome. N ␯ ⫽N ␯ , ␯ o ⫽N 共 P ␯ / P ␯ o 兲 , P ␯⬘ ⫽ P ␯ o ,
It should be noted that fluid can enter and exit through a single and
port only. The direction of flow through this port affects the tem-
perature and pressure of the fluid in the dome. Thus, T ␯⬘ ⫽T ␯ o for T ␯⬘ ⫽T ␯ o for flow into V ␯
positive sgn(P␯o⫺P␯), which applies to the case when fluid enters while N ␯ ⫽N ␯ o, ␯ ⫽N( P ␯ o / P ␯ ), P ⬘␯ ⫽ P ␯ , and T ␯⬘ ⫽T ⬘␯ for flow out
the dome, while T ␯⬘ ⫽T ␯ for negative sgn(P␯o⫺P␯) applies to fluid of V ␯ .
leaving the dome.
It should also be noted that the volume in the command dome is Because of the wide range of flow regimes into the command
changing due to the command piston movement, and is given by volume 共from choked flow to zero兲, C d ␯ varies, but can be ap-
proximated by the linear correlation 共based on 关5兴兲
V ␯ ⫽V ␯ ,o ⫹A ␯ x (11)
C d ␯ ⬇1.0⫺0.7• 共 P ␯ / P ␯ o 兲 (21)
The pressure dynamics at the feedback compartment under the
command piston is evaluated in a similar manner to that of the Similarly, the flows into the two feedback compartments are
ṁ 1 ⫽C d1 a 1 f 共 ␥ 兲 N 1 P 1⬘ / 冑RT o
exit volume. Neglecting temperature variations by assuming T 1
(22)
⬇T o , and recalling that the motion considered here is in the op-
posite direction with respect to the coordinate x 共which causes a ṁ 3 ⫽C d3 a 3 f 共 ␥ 兲 N 3 P 3⬘ / 冑RT o (23)
change in sign for the displacement and the velocity terms兲, the
equations are where, for entering flow

292 Õ Vol. 122, JUNE 2000 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 1 Construction data of the DLPR

Symbol Value Units

Poppet angle ␪ 45 deg Degree
Main valve orifice diameter d 67.5 mm
Range of effective diameter of dc 0.8–8 mm
the restriction to dome
Pressure-equalization holes d 3 ⫽d 1 4 mm
共4 in command piston, 1 in poppet兲
Area of upper side of command piston A␯ 1.08⫻10⫺2 m2
Area of lower side of poppet A3 3.47⫻10⫺3 m2
Outlet nozzle area A noz 7.04⫻10⫺4 m2
Volume of outlet tube Vo 3.5⫻10⫺3 m3
Initial command volume V ␯ ,o 4.0⫻10⫺5 m3
Piston and poppet mass M 1.46 kg
Spring constant Ks 2.68⫻105 N/m
Spring preset force Fs 3.80⫻103 N
Friction force 共varied in the f 0–500 N
parametric study兲

Fig. 3 Simulation of regulator reaction to a 60.5 bar step
change in command pressure „inlet pressure 122 bar…. Run
conditions: ␣ Ä0.8, ␤ Ä0.4, f Ä100 N, d c Ä1.06 mm, d 1 Ä d 3
Ä4 mm, F s Ä3800 N.
N 1 ⫽N o,1⫽N 共 P 1 / P o 兲 , P 1⬘ ⫽ P o ,
N 3 ⫽N o,3⫽N 共 P 3 / P o 兲 ,
and
P 3⬘ ⫽ P o
while, for exiting flow
N 1 ⫽N 1,o ⫽N 共 P o / P 1 兲 , P 1⬘ ⫽ P 1 ,
N 3 ⫽N 3,o ⫽N 共 P o / P 3 兲 ,
and
P 3⬘ ⫽ P 3 .
4 Simulation of Regulator Dynamics
The dynamic response of the DLPR is simulated by solving the
model equations, for a given set of initial conditions and a forcing
function 共the command pressure at the dome as function of time兲.
The numerical integration was carried out by a fourth-order
Runge–Kutta algorithm 关9兴.
The physical constraints limiting the movement of the poppet
were also included in the program. These constraints zero the
value of the coordinate x in case it becomes negative during the
calculations, since the poppet obviously cannot pass its seats. In
addition, the velocity ẋ of the poppet is set to zero when x⫽0.
Physically, this means that the poppet has been completely
stopped by its seat 共plastic collision兲 and the regulator is closed.
Similarly, another constraint limits the maximal opening of the
valve, and x is set to x max while the poppet velocity is, again, set
to zero (ẋ⫽0) when this limit is exceeded.
The simulated model solutions for the regulator operation pre-
sented here, always start with a closed valve (x⫽ẋ⫽0) and with
atmospheric pressure at both regulator command-dome and exit.
The simulation of the regulator response to a step change in
command pressure is presented by the curves in Fig. 3. The simu-
lation was conducted for the regulator whose geometrical mea-
sures and other characteristic data are given in Table 1, and for
command pressure of 60.5 bar and inlet gas pressure of 122 bar.
The effective needle-valve flow diameter 共command orifice diam-
eter兲 at the inlet to the command dome was 1.06 mm. An approxi-
mate friction force of 100N has been included in the model. This
parameter is not known exactly, and its influence on the calculated
results was studied. A representative constant correction factor of
␣ ⫽0.8 and ␤ ⫽0.4 共affecting Eq. 共1兲兲 was used throughout the
calculations.
It can be seen that the regulator exhibited stable and generally
damped response. It achieved steady state after approximately
0.37 s, and the outlet pressure reached 46 bar. The feedback pres-
sure, P 1 , was almost identical to the outlet pressure, P o , through-
out the valve opening process, due to four pressure-equalizing
holes 共4 mm in diameter兲 through the command piston. On the
other hand, there is only a single hole, of the same diameter, in the
poppet, and this caused a delay in the response of pressure P 3 .
Except for the small overshoot during the initial stages of regu-
lator opening, the displacement of the poppet was overdamped. A
0.02 s delay time between poppet movement and command exists
due to the build-up of the required minimum pressure 共7.7 bar兲
within the dome necessary to overcome the preset force of the
spring. The temperature within the command dome rose, during
the first 0.02 s 共coinciding with the poppet delay time兲, to a maxi-
mal value of approximately 380 K, due to the adiabatic compres-
sion process. This was followed by a short undershoot due to an
abrupt increase in the command volume as the poppet began to
move, and then remained almost constant. However, the tempera-
ture at the regulator exit rose to 360 K, but then returned slowly to
its initial value of 293 K.
5 Experimental Testing of the DLPR
Several tests were conducted on a DLPR designed and devel-
oped at Rafael for high gas-flow rates 共up to 10 kg/s兲 and quick
opening. Its geometrical and operational data 共corresponding to
Figs. 1 and 2 nomenclature兲 are given in Table 1. The general
scheme of the experimental set-up is also shown in Fig. 1. The
experiments were conducted with air source 共pressurized cylin-
ders兲 of 200 bar maximal pressure. In the experimental set-up, the
regulator exit arrangement consisted of two parallel tubes, each of
30 mm diameter and 2 m long, discharging through a common 30
mm diameter orifice.
As described in Section 2, command pressurized air is obtained
from a pressure accumulator through the adjustable needle valve
共Fig. 1兲. 共The effective needle valve adjustment is determined by
separate tests of filling a known volume with air flowing in
choked-flow regime.兲 In all of the experimental runs, a step input
was applied to the regulator command-dome by means of the
three-way solenoid valve.
Initially, this solenoid valve was closed allowing the regulator
command-dome to be ventilated to the atmosphere. Then the so-
lenoid valve was opened, shutting off the atmospheric vent of the
dome, and allowing the inside pressure to build up to the accumu-
lator pressure and to operate the regulator. Two to three seconds
later, after steady-state conditions were definitely achieved, the

Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control JUNE 2000, Vol. 122 Õ 293

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 2 DLPR test data for initially closed valve. P ␯ o —dome
final pressure, P s —supply upstream pressure, P o —outlet pres-
sure at the regulator, P o ,noz—pressure at exit nozzle,
d c —command orifice diameter, t d —dead time, t f —settling time.

Run P ␯o Ps dc Po P o,noz tf td
# bar bar mm bar bar s s
1 61.5 125 1.06 — 40.5 0.44 0.02
2 60.5 122 1.06 — 40.2 0.46 0.02
3 60.5 122 1.21 — 41.2 0.35 0.02
4 60.7 118 1.02 — 41.5 0.44 0.02
5 60.7 116 0.94 — 42.0 0.63 0.02
6 20.0 114 1.06 — 9.6 0.34 0.06
7 6.0 113 1.06 — 1.0 * *
8 10.0 113 1.06 — 3.6 0.17 0.11
9 83.0 112 1.06 — 66.0 0.8 0.016
10 85.0 198 1.06 61.5 55.0 0.40 0.025
11 82.5 165 1.06 66.7 57.0 0.46 0.025

*Valve did not open.

Fig. 4 Empirical correlation for the correction factors ␣ and ␤
as function of outlet to inlet pressure ratio assuming ␣ Ä ␤
experiment was shut off by closing the solenoid valve. Eleven
experiments were made, for which the data are summarized in
Table 2.
During the first nine runs, the pressures were measured at four
different locations: P ␯ 0 in the accumulator, P ␯ at the command
dome, P s at the inlet to the regulator, and P o,noz at the exit orifice
共the far end of the 2 m long pipe, just before the opening to
atmosphere兲. For comparison with the experimental results of the
first nine runs a simple model for the pipe, which takes into ac-
count the effect of the pipe on the pressure drop and time response
关8兴, was added to the regulator model. Fig. 5 Regulator response in run no. 2 for command pressure
of 60.5 bar and needle valve openings of 1.06 mm. Run 2 con-
For the last two experiments, the pressure, P o , at the immediate ditions: P ␯ o Ä60.5 bar, P s Ä122 bar, d c Ä1.06 mm.
vicinity of the regulator outlet 共at the beginning of the 2 m long
pipe兲 was also measured.
The first five test runs were conducted with almost identical
command pressure but the needle valve opening was changed to
study its effect on the regulator response. The rise time became
shorter as the command orifice diameter was increased. It varied
from 0.63 s for a 0.94 mm orifice diameter in run 5 down to 0.35
s for a 1.21 mm orifice diameter in run 3.
Runs 6 to 9 were conducted with fixed valve opening but with
different command pressures, to study the regulator response at
different operating points. As the command pressure was lowered, Fig. 6 Regulator dynamics at low command pressures of 20
the rise time became shorter, going down to 0.17 s for a command bar for run no. 6. Run 6 conditions: P ␯ o Ä20 bar, P s Ä114 bar,
pressure of 10 bar in run 8, but at the same time, the pressure d c Ä1.06 mm.
response delay time was increased up to 0.11 s for the same run.
Note that in run 7, with a 6 bar command pressure, the valve did
not open because it did not reach the required minimum pressure
to overcome the spring preload 共see Section 4 and Table 1兲. sure inside the dome. However, in most of the experimental runs,
Runs 10 and 11 had command orifice diameter and command especially those with high outlet pressures, there are some ‘‘struc-
pressure similar to those in run 9, but the inlet supply pressures tural’’ discrepancies between the predicted and the measured tran-
were higher 共198 bar and 165 bar, respectively兲. As a result, sient response of the outlet pressure. Right after the beginning of
shorter rise times 共0.4 s and 0.46 s兲 were obtained, compared to a the run, the actual pressure rises slower and in a more gradual
rise time of 0.8 s in run 9 for inlet pressure of 112 bar. way, exhibiting ‘‘S-shape’’ behavior, compared to the predicted
The values of the steady-state outlet pressure were used to de- exponential-shape 共similar to first-order lag response兲 pressure
rive an empirical estimate for the correction factors ␣ and ␤ of the rise. Substantial effort was invested to identify the source of this
force acting on the poppet’s upper face, in Eq. 共1兲. Figure 4 pre- discrepancy. Some of these efforts, such as adding the above men-
sents a semilog plot of ␣ and ␤ as functions of outlet to inlet tioned pipe model, assuming isothermal operation, and studying
pressure ratio. These values were derived with the rather artificial the effect of very high friction, did not provide an acceptable
assumption of ␣ ⫽ ␤ . Note that these correction factors are not explanation. In all these attempts, the calculated pressure response
constant. They approach 1.0 at the two limits of pressure ratios 0 has an exponential-shape similar to the one in Fig. 5. It is pos-
and 1.0, and have a minimum at pressure ratio of about 0.2. sible, however, that the pressure distribution 共namely, ␣ and ␤兲,
The experimental results for three of the test runs were plotted hence, the force on the upper side of the poppet, is dynamically
共dotted curves兲, along with the theoretical calculated predictions changing as a function of the ratio between the inlet and outlet
from the model 共continuous curves兲. Figure 5 describes regulator pressures, similar to Fig. 4 indication 共see further discussion in
response in run 2 representing the general behavior for all the first Section 6兲.
five runs. Only rise time, which was affected by the different Figure 6 describes the regulator dynamics at low command
needle valve opening, was different as discussed earlier. The pressures for run 6. 共Run 8 yielded similar behavior.兲 Again, the
model reconstructs the initial delay time behavior quite accu- model reconstructs quite accurately the initial behavior and the
rately. It also correctly predicts the transient of the command pres- long delay time.

294 Õ Vol. 122, JUNE 2000 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 7 Dynamic response of the regulator for a d c Ä2 mm
command-orifice diameter
6 Parametric Study of the Nonlinear Dynamic Model
The general agreement between the model predictions and the
experimental results indicates that the model is reasonably correct,
and is capable of predicting the general dynamics of the regulator.
Thus, the effects of the physical and geometrical parameters,
f ,d c ,d 3 ,d 1 ,F s 共pre-applied spring force兲, P ␯ o , and P s , were
studied by simulation.
The effect of friction on the DLPR time response was studied
by varying the value of f in the model between 0 to 500 N. The
dome pressure and the outlet pressure showed damped response
during the entire opening process 共similar to that in Fig. 3兲 even
for zero friction. Only the simulation of the poppet displacement
showed some small-amplitude high-frequency vibrations 共⬃310
Hz兲 at the beginning of the process. The minor role of the friction
in damping the pressure response is probably an indication that
most of the DLPR damping is related to the pneumatic process.
Figure 7 shows the regulator dynamic response for a 2 mm
command orifice diameter, which is larger than the 1.06 mm ori-
fice of the ‘‘nominal case’’ in Fig. 3. The forcing function 共60.5
bar step input to the command dome兲 and other DLPR parameters
are the same as for the nominal case. The regulator equipped with
the larger opening shows a much faster response compared to the
regulator response with nominal opening,—settling within 0.15 s
versus 0.37 s. The command dome pressure and the outlet pres-
sure show small overshoots. The dome pressure oscillates slightly
during the transient, while the poppet responds with an initial
sharp overshoot—about six times larger than in Fig. 3—changing
to high frequency 共⬃700 Hz兲 with high but decaying amplitude.
Near the steady state, the poppet movement turns into a lower
frequency 共⬃60 Hz兲 and lower amplitude decaying movement.
Further simulations for larger orifices indicate that overshoots of
the outlet pressure, poppet movement and the oscillations ampli-
tude are all intensified.
The effect of reducing the size of the equalizing holes is de-
picted in Fig. 8, for d 1 ⫽d 3 ⫽2 mm 共physically, d 1 ⫽d 3 ⫽4 mm兲.
This causes increased overshoot in the outlet pressure response,
and increased settling time. Nevertheless, smaller equalizing ori-
fices cause increased damping of the poppet movement. It should
be noted that the feedback pressure P 1 under the command piston
reaches P o faster than the pressure under the poppet P 3 , due to
the four pressure equalizing holes under the piston compared to
only one hole through the poppet. However, P 3 is the pressure
dictating the rate at which P o reaches steady state. It was found,
Fig. 8 The effect of changing the size of the equalizing holes
„ d 1 Ä d 3 Ä2 mm…
Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control
Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
for the DLPR under study, that enlarging the diameter d 3 共even up
to 12 mm兲 in order to shorten the delay of P 3 , improved the
overall DLPR response but with only minor effect on the
damping.
The preload force applied to the poppet by the spring, and the
spring constant selection are determined at an early design stage,
mainly according to considerations dealing with preventing leak-
age between the poppet and its seals. The effect of initial spring
load and spring constant on the regulator dynamics was studied by
reducing the preload force by a factor of 10 with respect to the
actual load used in the experiments. The overshoot in poppet
movement increases substantially, and the forces acting on the
low stiffness spring may cause it to fail 共as actually did happen
during experiments兲.
Increasing command pressure increases overshoot of the poppet
movement and lowers its damping. At the same time, the rise time
is also increased 共a trend supported by the experimental findings
of Table 2兲. However, the dead time delay is shortened from 0.025
s at 20 bar to 0.005 s at 90 bar command step input.
Studying the effect of the inlet supply pressure shows that the
outlet pressure overshoot increases with increase in the supply
pressure, but the rise time decreases. For the same command, the
final steady state regulated pressure increases if the supply pres-
sure is reduced—a phenomenon that was more pronounced in the
experiments than in the predictions
Finally, a cross comparison summary of the various parameter
effects on regulator dynamics is presented by the curves in Fig. 9.
All these curves are given as a function of the restriction size at
the inlet of the command dome inlet, d c . Figure 9共a兲 summarizes
the dependence of the poppet movement overshoot at the begin-
ning of regulator opening. This dependence is given for several
cases of initial spring loading and different pressure-equalizing
holes. The command pressure in all these cases was a 60.5 bar
step input. Figure 9共b兲 presents the overshoot of the controlled
outlet pressure P o as a function of the restriction diameter d c , for
various sizes of the pressure-equalizing holes. Effect of supply
pressure is also shown for one size of pressure-equalizing holes.
Figure 9共c兲 depicts the settling as function of d c . For d c
⭐3.5 mm, the opening time is inversely proportional to the re-
striction diameter. This inverse proportionality is steeper for d c
⭐1.5 mm, while for d c ⬎1.5 mm the dependence is more gradual,
but overshoot appears at the regulated pressure. For d c ⬎4 mm,
the regulated pressure starts developing oscillations that increase
the time to reach steady state. These phenomena are related to the
time lag in the dynamics of P 3 , the pressure under the poppet.
The shape discrepancy between the measured and predicted
outlet pressure response led to an intense study of the validity of
the model assumptions. Four different modifications have been
tried:
共a兲 Expanding the model by adding a simple pipe dynamics of
several stirred tanks in series 关8兴 instead of assumption no. 9.
共b兲 Assuming an isothermal, rather than adiabatic dynamic pro-
cess 共assumption no. 6兲.
共c兲 Assuming very fast dynamics in the feedback volumes V 1
and V 3 , with respect to V ␯ and V o . This simplification is justified
for very small feedback volumes and very large pressure-
equalizing holes, causing P 1 (t)⬇ P 3 (t)⬇ P o (t), but it requires a
minimal amount of friction ( f ⬎170 N) to stay stable.
None of the above three modifications provided the expected
S-shape response during the middle section of the transient. They
all stayed rather exponential in shape and some even deviated
from the correctly predicted initial and steady-state responses of
the original model.
共d兲 Finally, the model had been tried with varying correction
factors 共reinspecting assumption no. 2兲. Values for ␣ and ␤ were
obtained from Fig. 4 for P o (t)/ P s (t) during the calculations of
the dynamic response 共note that ␣ and ␤ were derived from ex-
perimental measurements at steady-state conditions兲. Figure 10
JUNE 2000, Vol. 122 Õ 295

Fig. 9 Cross comparison of the various parameter effects on
regulator dynamics as a function of the restriction opening, d c .
„a… Dependence of overshoot in poppet movement on d c for
different initial spring loading and pressure equalizing holes.
„b… Overshoot in outlet pressure, P o , as function of d c for vari-
ous sizes of the pressure equalizing holes and for different
supply pressures. „c… Settling time as a function of d c .
296 Õ Vol. 122, JUNE 2000
Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Fig. 10 Effect of variable correction factors ␣ and ␤ „Fig. 4… on
the model predictions for conditions in run 2
depicts the results of such calculations for run No. 2. Obviously,
the predictions are much closer to the entire measured dynamical
and steady-state data than those of Fig. 5.
The new assumption, namely, that the pressure distribution over
the upper face of the poppet is changing dynamically, can be
explained by an analogy to an over-expanded variable-area
choked-nozzle. The pressure distribution and the pattern of pres-
sure recovery shock waves downstream of the nozzle throat shifts
location as a function of pressure ratio in quite a complicated
manner. This explanation is even more applicable to the annulus
shaped ‘‘nozzle’’ created between the poppet and the seat. Thus, a
time dependent force, which is changing along with the transient,
is acting on the poppet surface and is different 共lower兲 than the
force predicted by assumption no. 2.
7 Summary and Conclusions
Theoretical analysis and experimental testing of a dome loaded
gas pressure regulator were presented. This is a high-flow fast-
responding regulator, for which design and development are usu-
ally costly and time consuming. A nonlinear dynamic model de-
scribing the response of the major regulator variables was
suggested, and its predictions were experimentally validated.
The following conclusions and observations have resulted:
1 The dynamic response of the regulator is nonlinearly depen-
dent on the magnitude of the command-dome pressure 共the DLPR
set point兲. For increasing command pressures, the system damping
decreases and the poppet displacement displays greater overshoot.
On the other hand, opening time is shortened as command-
pressure magnitude decreases.
2 The size of the inlet command orifice, d c , is a very important
factor in determining the rate at which the regulator opens, the
magnitude of the poppet-movement overshoot and the regulated
outlet pressure. For the investigated regulator, only a narrow
range of needle-valve opening (d o ⫽0.95⫺1.8 mm) produces fast
共0.15–0.6 s兲, damped opening with tolerable overshoot in the
regulated pressure and the poppet movement.
3 The pressure equalization holes in the poppet and command
piston affect poppet damping and overshoot in the regulated outlet
pressure. Too small holes may cause overshoot in the outlet pres-
sure because of delay in the feedback. Too large holes reduce the
outlet pressure overshoot, but also reduce the amount of damping
of the poppet. The model predicts improved response for this
regulator if d 3 is increased to 6–10 mm.
4 The preload force applied to the poppet by the spring mainly
affects the overshoot of the poppet opening at the beginning of the
regulator response. Large spring force reduces the overshoot.
Thus, it is recommended to select the spring and its initial com-
pression not only by static consideration 共prevention of gas leaks
while the regulator is closed兲, but also by dynamic considerations.
5 The regulator response is almost unaffected by the ‘‘inter-
nal’’ seals friction force in the 0–500 N range.
Transactions of the ASME
 6 High supply pressure causes large overshoot in the regulated
outlet pressure, but reduces the regulator opening time 共settling
time兲. If, during the regulator operation, the inlet stream 共supply兲
pressure drops 共e.g., because of source depletion兲, the final outlet
pressure rises slowly 共creeps upward兲. The actually detected pres-
sure rise was even higher than that predicted.
7 The experimental correction factors ␣ and ␤ for the force
acting on the poppet are not constants, but vary with the ratio of
outlet to inlet pressures. This is explained by the complicated
dynamics of the flow expansion process through the DLPR annu-
lus nozzle. Using variable coefficients improves the model predic-
tion of the transient pressure behavior.
It should be mentioned that in the course of this study, a lin-
earized model was also derived and verified by experiments. Ob-
viously, the results are valid only for small variations in continu-
ous steady-state operation. This additional work will be described
in a paper under preparation.
Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control
Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
References
关1兴 Tsai, D. H., and Cassidy, E. C., 1961, ‘‘Dynamic Behavior of Simple Pneu-
matic Pressure Reducer,’’ ASME J. Basic Eng., 83, p. 253.
关2兴 Dustin, M. O., 1971, ‘‘Analog Computer Study of Design Parameter Effects
on the Stability of a Direct-Acting Gas Pressure Regulator,’’ NASA TN
D-6267.
关3兴 Anisimikin, Yu. S., Kvasov, V. M., Kravchenko, Yu., Suslin, E. I., Shorin, V.
P., and Chibizov, V. V., 1976, ‘‘Stability Analysis of Gas Pressure Regulator
Operating Under High-Temperature Conditions Over a Wide Flow Rate
Range,’’ Sov. Aeronaut., 19, No. 1, p. 94.
关4兴 Sverbilov, Y. Ya, and Anisimikin, Yu. S., 1981, ‘‘Evaluation of Multi-Purpose
Gas Pressure Regulator Stability,’’ Sov. Aeronaut. 24, No. 3, p. 62.
关5兴 Andersen, B. W., 1967, The Analysis and Design of Pneumatic Systems,
Wiley, New York.
关6兴 Potter, J. H., and Levy, M. J., 1961, ‘‘The Free Expansion of Dry and Moist
Air,’’ ASME J. Eng. Ind., 83, No. 1, Feb., p. 97.
关7兴 Reynolds, W. C., and Kays, W. M., 1958, ‘‘Blow-Down and Charging Process
in a Single Gas Receiver With Heat Transfer,’’ Trans. ASME, 80, p. 1160.
关8兴 Nabi, A., 1986, ‘‘The Dynamics of Fast Responding Dome-Loaded Pressure
Regulator,’’ M.Sc. thesis, Technion, Haifa.
关9兴 White, F. M., 1974, Viscous Fluid Flow, McGraw-Hill, New York.
JUNE 2000, Vol. 122 Õ 297