The pressure reducing

17 valve (PRV)

17.1 Introduction
The pressure reducing valve may be used for water hammer protection
under properly defined conditions. The water hammer events are so fast
that the relief of pressure by this means requires very special rapid
response valves designed for the particular system.
Pressure relief valves may also be used as an added precaution where
some other method is in place as the basic protection device, such as an
air vessel.
There are also by-pass valves which are required to operate when a
pump stops due to a power failure or normal trip, anticipating the eventual
return flow, and then being required to be closed to prevent the excessive
waste of the return flow.
Figure 17.1 shows the basic system configuration for the installation of
the PRV, where the PRV at (1) is a subsidiary type, maybe at the pump
flange and the PRV type at (2) is the anticipating valve.

HAB (relief setting)

To waste
Fig. 17.1 PRV installation
96 Water hammer: practical solutions

17.2 Example
An example of the use of a PRV follows for the pump example presented
in Chapter 2, and the data is in Table 17.1 for a PRV near the pump.
Note that some of the data for the PRV is not relevant, for example the
volume VAV, as these are general terms for air vessel and surge tank data.
The data not shown includes the area of the valve and its dynamic
hydraulic loss coefficient.
Table 17.1 PRV data

No. Length c d Q /
1 10 000.00 1000.00 0.7600 0.6260 0.0129
2 1000.00 1000.00 0.7600 0.6260 0.0129

ON HSTAT Constant JVALVE

2.0 214.00 Y 0

JPU HPU HC GD NR ef LNS NRV PS

2 175.00 50.00 1000.000 1475 0.75 1 Y 0.0

NAV VAV AV n area top (HAB)

1 10.00 0.4000 1.00 10.0000 240.00

X 0.0 4000.0 8000.0 10 000.0 11000.0

Y 50.0 67.0 105.0 140.0 200.0

The analysis depicted graphically in Figure 17.2 shows that the PRV in
this case is only marginally effective in reducing the water hammer from
about 340 m to 310 m (less N.S. level) approximately. This case would
require considerably more analysis to see if such a method would be effec-
tive for a large reduction in the water hammer.
The pressure head average was near to the value HAB, but short spikes
raised it to the value mentioned above as shown in Figure 17.3.
no PRV

T-l—I I I I I I I I I I—I—I I I I I f 1 I I—I

3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
km X 2

Rg. 17.2 PRV analysis

 The pressure reducing valve 97

H 200

"T 1—I—I 1 — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — ] — I 1
1 5 9 1317 2125 29 33 37 4145 49 53 57 6165
Seconds

Fig. 173 Time plot of head at PRV

17.3 PRV type

A cautionary note regarding the use of the PRV is in the wisdom of rely-
ing upon it as the basic method of protection for a pipeline. There are
valves designed by such as NEYRPIC®, a manufacturer from Grenoble in
France, which have had considerable acceptance as a method of water
hammer protection. Specifically they are designed for the system for pre-
scribed pressure limits. Most other types of spring-controlled valves would
be suspect, having regard as well for the long-term reliability for protec-
tion that is required.

17.4 Some basics

In Chapter 11, in discussion of a high-point case, a pressure reducing valve
was used and the water hammer was reduced for the pump start condi-
tion by a significant amount.
To appreciate the basic parameters that lead to a definition of the PRV
characteristics there is shown in Figure 17.4 a graphical analysis of the case
of a pump failure.
The initial pressure head falls to B^, where here for convenience HAW,
the pump suction level, and the outlet pressure head seen by the PRV,
when open, are the same. The propagation to A^ then returns and if there
was no PRV the non-return at the pump flange would give the value Bj'
but with the PRV set for a value HAB there will be an overshoot to some
value C reducing to C" and C" which will ultimately yield B^ the value
corresponding to HAB. The parabolic loss curve for the PRV will be a
dynamic loss determined under special test conditions from fully closed
(C) to fully open (C"). At B^ the velocity associated with the area of
the PRV will indicate the full discharge required to satisfy the prescribed
^maximum' HAB. The better the PRV design, the lower the value of C
compared to C".
98 Water hammer: practical solutions

PRV
opening

Pump characteristic
(rated speed)

(HAW)

Fig. 17.4 Pump failure, PRV action

Overshoot

- i — r — T — I — I — I — I — I — r — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41
Seconds X 10
Rg. 17.5 Pump stop - PRV action

Table 17J Data for basic PRV analysis

No. Length C d Q /
1 981.00 1000.00 0.3000 0.0353 0.0150
2 98.10 1000.00 0.3000 0.0353 0.0150

ON HSTAT Constant JVALVE

2.0 70.00 Y 0

JPU HPU HC GD NR ef LNS NRV PS

2 52.00 20.00 0.500 1450 0.70 1 Y 0.0

NAV VAV AV n area top (HAB)

1 5.00 0.0350 1.00 0.5000 80.00

X 0.0 511.0 556.0 783.0 823.0 958.0 1079.1

Y 0.0 2.0 4.8 11.4 24.4 25.0 25.0
 The pressure reducing valve 99

In Table 17.2 is the data for a computer analysis corresponding approx-

imately to the above example. Here the PRV area is half the pipeline area.
The results of the analysis are summarised in Figure 17.5, showing the
overshoot and also showing that the limit HAB is otherwise achieved. It
remains necessary to judge how serious an overshoot is and how exten-
sive its effect will be on the system.