The impact of lEe 534-8-3

on control valve aerodynamic

noise prediction
E.W. Singleton
Technical Consultant, ABB Control Valves

Why Noise Prediction - and

Noise Reduction

Control valves along with compres-

sors and pumps are noteworthy noise
generators on chemical, petroleum
and power plants. . ~~"f ....,"='-~+..-7'7"-
For some time now concern has .:~
. . . :. I
been expressed for the protection of . " . .... ~ ,"

uip. :--~--'~.,---:"'.--r----:.-.-~--.: ,-
people and the environment against
,,
harmful and unnecessary noise, and ,
",":1
, ,,
this has been supported by govern- ,
ment guidelines and legislation. In :
the USA there was the Wilson
Committee recommendation in '63
and the Walsh-Healey Act for the
protection of industrial workers has
been around since the early '70's. In
for the protection of people and the
P environment, the engineering rea-
sons should not be overlooked.
·RI Since noise is a form of energy it
requires the expenditure of energy to
generate it - so it is a waste of ener-
gy. Unfortunately the techniques for
·_o..P~---------_t:~_¥ __ 'VV'~ .r---'----'--'-I---" p".p~ removing noise do not always result
, in a conservation of useful energy
r - - f - - - ·p'",~-... 4 but very high noise levels can be
damaging to the valve and to other
:-:_""--.-r-- adjacent equipment including the
j downstream pipework. This
CI~ ---------------i-----
, depends on how the generated peak
frequency relates to the pipe natural
i
J
frequencies but without a knowledge
vc of frequencies it can be said that a
. FL()WPATH Val.... oUl·

high noise pressure level inside the

R'= 1\ -P, pipe, perhaps in excess of 150 dBA,
L . P, - Pvc
could cause mechanical problems.
Pvcc= P.(-y+r)* Pv«;= vena"contraeta pressure at critical now
=0.53 Po (wbOllY= 1:4)

Noise prediction began to play a not

very conspicuous role in control
Figure 2 Pressure diagram showing the five lEe valve specifications in the late '60s,
flow regimes for noise prediction probably due to the problems of

Measurement + Control, Volume 32, March 1999 37

Impact of lEe 534-8-3 - Singleton _
1X10-3
new draft of this stan- methods only general comments can
f-- DIPOLE SOURCES ARE MAJOR CONIlUBIITOR BELOW MACH 1 - dard, presently being be made. Most manufacturers meth-
I - QUADRUl'OLEDELAYS ATFAsmR RAm WITH DlMINISHING
circulated for com- ods consider only three flow regimes
11 f-- MACH NUMBERS (REDUcnON5 IN l7f.)
ment by the industry, a - Subsonic, Sonic and Supersonic.
further improvement The IEC method considers five
1X10'"
in the transmission regimes as being necessary - the
loss calculation is extra regimes created by the recogni-
:-- / "
/ / MACH 1 described giving more, tion of certain break points occurring

ffj/
I
I accurate results for in supersonic flow. Most manufac-
~ ~<9 larger pipes with turers methods consider the trans-
~o 1
1X10·s / ~<1;'
I
lighter walls, and a mission loss to be a constant for the
~
0:
new section concern- particular size and pipe specification,
I---
ing the noise levels avoiding the complex transmission
/ I
emitted by valves with loss equation of lEe. Some make an
I / 1
Expanders and Higher attempt to allow for the effects of the
/ I
1X10-tl
I Mach Numbers is generated frequency on transmission
included. Again the loss by applying a simple multiply-
IEC sub committee ing factor based on the valve pres-
1 S65BIWG9 is indebt- sure drop.
I ed to Hans Baumann Manufacturers methods can give
I
I for his original work acceptable results. Most have been
1
1X10·
in this area. The IEC modified over the years as more
I I.l 12 1.3. 1.4 L? 1.6 1.7 1.8
I.' 2.0 Pt
p... PREssuu" AT VENA CONTRACTA
::1
Pv Aerodynamic Noise operating data has become available.
Prediction Standard is Their big advantage is that they are
FIgure 3 AcoustIc effinency factor for dIpole and
now finding general easy to use. Answers can be pro-
quadrupole sources against P/P v
acceptance among duced in a few minutes even without
designing oil platforms where per- valve users and manufacturers. As the aid of a computer. Their big dis-
sonnel were in close proximity to one representative of a large interna- advantage, from the user point of
valves for very long periods. tional oil company said, "It is not so view, is that they are all different.
Control valve manufacturers pro- important whether or not this IEC
duced their own prediction methods method is exactly right, it is a 'stan- The 5 Regimes of IEC 534-8-3
based on some theory with a large dard' and provides us with a bench
input of empirical data. Kent Introl mark for noise predictions". Figure 1 shows the pressure relation-
published the first version of its pre-
diction method in 1970 (Eng. Report Essential I

No. 9) placing it among the first two Differences

I 1
/1/
or three manufacturers to publish between IEC and
their work in this field. No national Manufacturers 1X10·
I If
or international standard existed methods -
until 1989 when the ISA published ---
S75.l7 for the prediction of No two manufacturers
11 - -
II/~ I
Aerodynamic Noise. Although this methods are alike. /11j I
was a well thought out standard, Some are so simple as lXla' :Y.. ~ '/$ I

owing much to the work of Hans to make one wonder -<:)~3:. =; .:::;
Baumann, it was for some time only what IEC sub-com-
/ I
used as a crosscheck by valve users mittee S65BIWG9 has
/ / I
to see if the manufacturers 'in- been doing for the last V
I
I
1
house' calculations were realistic. 10 years. Others 1X10"
Manufacturers, having developed address most of the -
their own prediction methods, were contributory factors in
I I
somewhat reluctant to switch over to a fashion - usually I
/ /
ISA S75.17. taking short cuts to REGIME I O&W IV

In 1995 the IEC published its arrive at a reasonable 1X10" V / M~y'2,1

0.1 0;> 0.4 0:6 0.8 1.0 2.0 M

international standard 534-8-3. It is result but at the same ~,
Retime t - Mach DUmbers M arc el the vena ooatraeta
based on S75.l7 but with a number time avoiding the use Regimes n.m, IV & V • Mach numb<ts M "'" ollhe fully oxpandcdjel
after the VCDI c;oOtr8C:I.l:I.
of improvements particularly in the of complicated equa-
method of calculating the transmis- tions. Because of the Figure 4a Contributions from dipole and quadru-
pole sources against Mach numbers
sion loss through the pipe wall. In a differences between

38 Measurement + Control, Volume 32, March 1999

 Impact of lEe 534-8-3 - Singleton
1X10"
ship for the three regimes normally subsonic but just
considered in manufacturers predic- reaching sonic in the 11 IEcsro, SLOPE"U{p~"I.O)
-I
r.1
tion methods.
Figure 2 shows the pressure rela-
extreme condition.
There is isentropic .
I I
I
1.'/1
~r-~
I£CSlD.SLOPE"H(F~"O.fJI)..J-;.I SUM OF
•
COMPONENrS

tionship for the five regimes in the recompression.

1X10' .,
~ :SLOP",,=
IEC standard.
Note: The critical pressure drop lEG - Regime 11 I---
---- ~,

(PI - P2C ) must not be confused with

the pressure at choked flow. Critical P2 < P 2C P2 ~ PYCC
f------
. ~
I
1

~lrecsm I
SUM OF DJl'OlL AliD '-
pressure drop is that which produces QUADRt..'POU: COUro:-:£NTS
I
I
sonic velocity at the vena contracta Flow is sonic at the I~
and for single stage trims it is given vena contracta. There
by (FL2 OA7P 1)' Choke flow pres- is isentropic recom- If I
sure drop is higher than the critical pression but this L++ I

and it comes from an increase in the

area of the vena contracta giving a
decreases to zero at
the upper limit of n.
SWPE").O

lX10~
11/
f..........sLOI"£.).J I
I

further increase in flow beyond the It is worth noting that f--- 7- 1

critical pressure drop. The choked recompression, pro- f I -
1
1---
flow pressure drop is given by XTP!. vided it is isentropic '; / / REGIME I
I
11&1111 IV
~-

(Ref to XT will be found in the IEC (reversible), does not M~V2,-:

1X10" V /
Sizing Standard 534-2-1). generate noise. It is a 0.1 OA 0.6 0.8 1.0 2.0
M vc M
100% efficient MACH NUMBER
J

lEG - Regime I process and therefore '------------------------1

no energy is wasted. Figure 5a Acoustic efficiency factor against Mach
P2 ~ P2C It can only exist in number
theory, but it is
This deals with all flow conditions in approached in practice. lEG - Regime V
which the pressure drop is less than
or just equal to the pressure drop that lEG - Regime '" P 2 < P 2CE
would produce sonic flow at the
vena contracta. The flow is therefore P2 < PYCC The Mach Cone (or Disc) has been
formed so the fully expanded (super-
1X10" Flow is sonic at the sonic) jet Mach No. after the vena
vena contracta but contracta is at a maximum and
I .' supersonic after, result- remains constant. The velocity at the
I
I ,
I
ing in shock waves. vena contracta is sonic. Further
There is no isentropic reductions in outlet pressure will not
I I recompression. increase the noise level. The

1X10·
I
I
I tf-
&"1
1.6 X 10·
-
lEG - Regime IV
acoustic efficiency factor is constant.
The break point at which regime V
~ starts coincides with the Mach NO of

-~
the fully expanded jet equalling -17 x
0;:'
~'.f-~
4X 10·
- Fl 2
(where FK = L ).
, O~·' lA
, j; <ft ' : Stream Power

- /J: I
I
, Having decided which Regime is rel-
evant the procedure for calculating
the noise level can be set in motion.
11
1 The IEC noise prediction method
1 I like all its predecessors owes much
I I to the work carried out by Professor
I
II&IU I REGlM EN 'REGIMEV Lighthill in 1952. He postulated that
M=v2 I M=Y7~1 the noise from a freely expanding jet
1X10' I "-..., I of air would be equal to some
I 4 6 7 8 M
J acoustical efficiency factor multi-
Figure 4b Contributions from dipole and quadru- plied by the power of the jet Wm
pole sources against Mach numbers In regime I the maximum power

Measurement + Control, Volume 32, March 1999 39

Impact of lEe 534-8-3 - Singleton _

his lectures, "The only satisfactory

theories are those that simultaneous-
ly accord with empirical data and
with scientific logic", which is pre-
cisely what has been done to evalu-
ate 11 for the lEe standard.
The aforementioned contributors
arrived at these equations for 11 by
way of a complicated path strewn
with scientific investigations, testing
and mathematical calculations, but
an understanding of their develop-
ment can be appreciated by a simpli-
fied consideration of the established
principles affecting the two relevant
' ; . noise sources. In the extension of
Lighthill's theory to jets discharging
into enclosures it was concluded that
the recognised quadrupole sources
are supported by a contribution from
dipole sources particularly below
Mach 1. It is therefore reasonable to
Figure 5b Acoustic efficiency factor against Mach accept that at Mach 1 the value of 11
number is l.OxlO- 4 but this is the result of
two equal contributions, one quadru-
of the jet is at the vena contracta and pole and one dipole, both with a
this is given by value of 5xlO-s . Figure 3 shows the
acoustic efficiency factor for sepa-
Wm= m U~c
rate dipole and quadrupole sources
2 varying with PJlPv . It will be noted
In regimes II to V the maximum that they are equal at Mach 1 but the
power of the jet is given by:
Wm= m s Cv~c
2 '.;

where W m is the power of the jet

U vc is the velocity at the vena
contracta . '.;.,- . . : ·:··I.· c.'.:
". ".
C vcc is the sonic velocity at
the vena contracta
m is the mass flow
ms is the mass flow at sonic
velocity

To convert the jet power into noise

power it must be multiplied by
Lighthill's Efficiency Factor 11.

m Uvc
Regime I Wa=11 _ _
2

Regimes 11 to V Wa =11 ms C vcc

2

Now the problem is to give a value to

11 for the 5 different regimes.
Lighthill's experiments with freely
expanding jets indicated that 11 is

40 Measurement + Control, Volume 32, March 1999

 Impact of lEe 534-8-3 - Singleton
factor as required for calculating
5X10"
II valve noise.
F.=I.O 3.45 x 10"
The IEC standard quotes equations
11 V./
./
FL -0.95 2.83 x 10·)
FL=-0.9
2.24 x 10"
for 1l appropriate for each regime
and introduces the effect of the pres-
F. ~:.~. 1.50 " 10 4
1X10"
---~/ -t4=
·v
I sure recovery coefficient for regimes

11
-1 V
-r,
V
+-_.~
-
FL = 0.65 9.20 x 10')

I-- f--
II to V.

5X10-C
VII
I
L'I l / !
//IF
/; WJ -- Regime 1I (sonic -- supersonic)
1X10'" Ah Pz ~ Pzc
1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 P.!---"b
P,
Pz ~ Pzc

Figure 6 b Acoustic efficiency factor TJ (lEe std)

against P 1IP2 - for regimes Il, Ill, IV and V
Regime III (supersonic)
Pz < Pvcc
Pz ~ PZCB (break point)

Regime IV (supersonic)
Pz < P ZB
Pz ~ P ZCE

TJ4 +
=( I x 10-4 ) { M2} (Y2)6.6F 2 L

Regime V (supersonic)
Pz < PZCE

Figure 7 Relative acoustic efficiences afvarious TJs =( I x 10-4) {1M2} ('12)6.6F 2 L

noise sources 2
Peak Frequency fp
100

'" Because the transmISSIOn loss

80 through the pipe walls is affected by
,. the frequency of the sound pressure
~ 80
~
OdllA
waves it is experiencing it is neces-
~ . sary to calculate the peak frequency
~
F
. of the noise generated by the valve.
The IEC standard uses Strouhal's
30

,. equation to calculate fp for regimes I

,. I and 11.

• I ,..'-r ...
" 31 03 '25 '000 3000 <000 0300 10000
~8MdCmtNF~{H.t)

Figure 8 Typical frequency spectrum for standard

control valve Experiments give SN a value of
0.2 if Dj is the diameter of the jet at
quadrupole falls away much more the vena contracta. D vc is the veloc-
rapidly than the dipole as the Mach ity at the vena contracta. In regimes
NO decreases. Ill, IV and V this equation is consid-
Figure 3 was compiled from erably modified to allow for the
Figure 4a & b. This shows on loga- supersonic velocities due to the

Measurement + Control, Volume 32, March 1999 41

Impact of lEe 534-8-3 - Singleton _
PLdBA
standard implies that the mode in which a pipe vibrates is
1I0· - ?' only a quarter of this frequency so the influencing factors

100

90 ~~
-- ~ =-- is radiated into the
downstream pipe. It
has been argued that
in noise transmission are.
1. The exciting frequency - the peak
frequency of the noise source.
.~ /'
/
IECr"fDICTIO~ ~ - this statement could 2. The natural frequencies of the pipe
80
7 AB. PfEDIC'nON~-
be misleading and - dependent on the diameter, thick-
~-
MEASURED
70 should be changed to ness and density.
60
indicate that only a
quarter of the jet Natural Frequencies of Pipe
50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 stream power is avail-
PI - 12.4 bara
47- able for noise genera- Cut-off frequency fc
AHnt20°C VALVETVPE;- ABB Control Valve series 12
21,770kgibt
siz.o4" tion and the whole of This does not get a mention in the
at Ap~O.7
triin3" portod cage
-r, this noise is radiated standard because it is below the fre-
C,,<;'ated constant at 0.83 into the downstream quency level which will excite any
Figure 11 Comparison of noise prediction results pipe. This makes no vibration in the pipe walls. This cut-
difference to the cal- off frequency corresponds to a wave-
uncontrolled supersonic expansion culated results. length of:
after the vena contracta. To arrive at the pressure level on
Di
Determining the jet diameter Dj the decibel scale the relationship A.c = 0.586
presents no problems if the trim con- between noise power and acoustic
e2 ~
sists of circular holes of equal diam- pressure is used:- f c =---r;=0.586 Di
eters but complications can arise
with the many trim designs involv- where w= Wa If A. is greater tha n O.~~6 there will
ing variously shaped orifices. The 4 be no noise transmitted.
standard overcomes this by introduc- A = area of pipe
ing the Valve Style Modifier - Fd. P2 = density of fluid downstream First internal coincidence
which was first introduced in the c2 = sonic velocity of fluid down frequency fo
lEe sizing standard to overcome stream
similar problems in laminar flow cal- For frequencies higher than the cut-
culations. The sound pressure is then con- off frequency (wavelengths shorter)
Hydraulic dia. of verted into sound pressure level on the acoustic pressure waves are able
Fd = single flow passage = the decibel scale:- to travel in transverse direction
Equivalent circular dia. rebounding off the pipe walls as they
L i = 1Olog 10 { : } 2
For a fully open circular flow orifice o
Fd= 1 where P o=2 x 10-5 Pa

p!-SLOPE~'20dBT,
For numerous equal circular flow Transmission Loss .:\ \
I
I
.

orifices Fd
o
=k TL
:\

:I \
\ .....--

\',
I.

:.,
'I,'
!;l ~,.-\-\t-~'~'-+--+--I·-f-,-I+·
log 10Hz ..
/ I
I

J . /. •

-,..+.~.I~·+'/.f~.-+----1
No = number of orifices The only way in '" :\.:-
which noise within the § :~.. \\:: . 7 .IOglO~ ..
SLOPE-+13riBt,
. ~~,rstoPE:=+20dBT'
.:/" .

The equation for Dj relates the downstream pipe can !' I~CL,.(~;~n.>:i...lOglO~
required Cv to the Fd factor
:i~eex~~~en~~:e ou:~ ·r j:\: ,!,: !'~r:; ;;;; ::",::::: >..
through vibration of . :r:. co': .. : 'l, ::.:.-~ .....
the pipe walls. If i: i 1:1 ,:: .
Figure 8 shows a typical frequency there is no vibration'f~. f. .. f,
spectrum for a control valve. In this no sound will be. . FREQl)EN~ H.. . .._

case the peak frequency is 4.000 Hz. transmitted so the waYACQUS.':ICC&r-PFf~REQuENCY/~~o.:S~6~ .

in which a pipe '. . . ....
Noise Pressure Level Inside the vibrates must have a I!'ITERNALCOIN~IDENCEFREQu'ENCYf·~i~;{3~3)- ~~3)
:~~n:~~:~t tr:~;r%tt~~ EXTERNALCO~CIDENCEFREQUENCYf;~': (<::;
Downstream Pipe Lp
. .
The total noise power generated in from inside to outside.
the valve is considered to be from a The principal char-
point source and the wording of the acteristic determining Figure 9 Pipe transmission loss frequency spectrum

42 Measurement + Control, Volume 32, March 1999

 Impact of lEe 534-8-3 - Singleton
travel down the pipe. The pipe walls ·
re IatlOns h'Ip f rom tests tJN Sched fr Tl fp on Noi"a Redw:tion

H, dB H, dB with IDCtco.sC
respond to this in the form of a and the three straight (RU>g I'>equmcyj
(Peak FrequtmeyJ in F'Tequency dB

localised flexing which travels down lines approximating to F==F=+'::;;;;;:":';::;~~+=====1F=~='+==-F~=~

the pipe in a spiral. This is repeated the curve are the basis 00 40 15780 ·54.4 20 S14 ·56.7 '.3
in sympathy with the frequency of for the transmission 50 40 10327 ·54.4 13425 -54.4 2.3

the noise source and it can coincide loss equation (37 in 00 40 7836 -50.8 10 187 -53.1 2.3

with a natural frequency of the pipe. the standard). so 40 6369 -SO.3 8916 -53.3 3.0

5268 -49.5 1375 -52.5 3.0

In this mode the pipe resonates natu- Fortunately the rela- 00 40
50 40 4785 -49.3 6699 -52.3 3.0
rally rather than a forced resonance, tionships between fo ' 00 40 <1179 ·49.3 6.68 -52.8 3.5
and therefore the forcing energy wi II fg and fr are practical- 50 40 3709 -49.2 5S63 -52.7 3.5

produce a much greater amplitude of ly the same for all;oo 40 . 3334 -48.S· 5001 -52.3 3.5

vibration than would be the case at pi pe sizes and the r:..;;;OO"-'---'-'40---J._----".-'77_4_---'-----""--''----'-''-----J._-'--''-~'--_

:48.6 " 161 -52.1 3.5. .....

other frequencies and is therefore a
point of minimum transmission loss.
This frequency is termed the First
Internal Coincidence Frequency - fo.
f'
lO
= l25~
JIDI
{.2.}
Co
Cz = vel. downstream
Co = speed of sound in air 343m/sec.
External coincidence
frequency fg
The frequency at which the external
acoustic wave speed is equal to the
velocity of a flexural wave is the
pipe wall.
-J3c o2
fg =- - Cs = speed of sound in
ITtc s steel 5,000 m/sec
Ring frequency fr
As its name implies, this is the fre-
quency at which a ring section of the
pipe vibrates naturally circumferen-
cially. The frequency of the exciting
force is such as to enable each stress
wave travelling round the circumfer-
ence of the pipe to be 'in phase' with
the next stress wave - so there is a
resonant condition. For this condi-
tion to apply the wave length of the
exciting source must be equal to the
circumference of the pipe.
Cs
slopes of the three Figure 10 Increase in transmission loss with
regions as represented increase in frequency for schedule 40 pipe
by the straight lines
remain reasonably
constant. It is therefore possible to noise pressure level which is then
write an equation for transmission adjusted to compensate for the
loss, satisfying all modes of vibra- velocity of the downstream fluid Lg
tion for different pipe sizes and and for the effect of other frequen-
schedules. Having said that - the cies (A weighting +5dB).
equation will be quite complicated.
The one in the IEC standard is the LpAe = 5 + Lpi + (-T L) + Lg
result of work carried out by C.
Chow and A.C. Fagerlund. It gives This gives the noise pressure level
the transmission loss in decibels so it adjacent to the pipe.
can be subtracted from the internal The recognised observation point
noise pressure level. for noise predictions is Im down-
Most control valves designed to stream from the valve and 1m from
reduce noise depend on the fluid the pipe wall. (The pipeline is con-
being constrained to flow through sidered as a line source). LPAe is
small orifices. This increases the adjusted for this location by:
peak frequency of generated noise -
so with a low noise valve it is usual LPAe,lm = LPAe-10loglO{ Db:
2
}
for the peak frequency on a poten-
tially noisy application to be well
above the ring frequency and there- The present and the future
fore in the region of maximum trans-
mission loss. Figure 10 tabulates the The IEC noise prediction standard
noise reduction that can be expected 534-8-3 has much to commend it. It
with increases of peak frequency has achieved the difficult task of pro-
above the pipe ring .",.,...."....-----...---------------,
SPLdBA
frequency.
External noise ---::: ~.
100
pressure level cor-
~
rected for down-
stream velocity, 80
./ ~V l.£CP~D1CTIO ~f-

r-
~V
ADD rREDlC1JON -
fr= JIDi 'A' weighting and MEAS1w ~f--

distance to listen- 10
I
It will be seen that ing point 60
i
fo=~{~}
4 Co
Having calculated the 50 0 0.1 0.2 0,3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.' ~
P,'
internal noise pressure .P... i 8.3 baIa
Airat20CC VALVETYPE:-ABB·Comr:olVlllvescrics l2
Figure 9 shows the relationship level Lpi and the 44,650 kglhr
at.!£.::i!: 0.85
size 6"
trim 4" HFD (2 "'8c)
P,
between the transmission loss and transmission loss T L
evC;:tcd constanl at 0.93
the frequency for a circular pipe. these can be combined
The smooth curve is the realistic to give the external Figure 12 Comparison of noise prediction results

Measurement + Control, Volume 32, March 1999 43

Impact of lEe 534-8-3 - Singleton
ducing reasonably accurate answers
to a most complex problem entirely
by theoretical means. It does not
require any testing or the application
of empirical data, although in arriv-
ing at some of the equations, purely
theoretical relationships have been
slightly modified, such adjustments
having been based on well proven
data.
Whatever its advantages or disad-
vantages, the IEC standard provides
a 'bench mark' for the industry
which should find acceptance by
manufacturers and users. There may
be some aspects of it that can be
improved and these will be exam-
ined as they arise by IEC committee
SC65BIWG9 which is presently
investigating the effects of high out-
let velocities and considering some
improvements to the transmission
loss section. The standard will never
be static - it will always be under
review in the light of the latest tech-
nology.
A comparison of the results from
two ABB control valves with predic-
tion carried out by the ABB 'in
house' method and by IEC is shown
in Figures 11 and 12. Except for low
pressure drop ratios there is agree-
ment within 5dB.
In the preparation of the standard a
great deal of testing was undertaken
by various participants and test
results are still being considered by'
the working committee when sub-
mitted. Noise being of an abstruse
nature does give rise on occasions to
inconsistent results regardless of the
method of prediction but careful
examination of the installation and
the measuring techniques can some-
times give a clue to the discrepan-
cies. There is no doubt that the IEC
Aerodynamic Noise Prediction
Standard 534-8-3 is the most reliable
method available at the present time.
References
Baumann H.D., Coefficient and Factors
Relating to Aerodynamic Sound Level
Generated by Throttling Valves, Noise
Control Engineering Journal, Vol 22 N-1
pp 6-11.
_
Baumann H.D., Predicting Control Valve
noise at High Exit Velocities INTECH, Feb
'97 pp 56-59.
Fagerlund A.C. & Chow D.C., Sound
Transmission through a Cylindrical Pipe
Wall, ASME Journal of Engineering and
Industry.
Reethoth, G & Ward W.C., A theoretically
Based Valve Noise Prediction Method for
Compressible Fluids, Journal of
Vibrations, Acoustics, Stress and
Reliability in Design, ASME July 1986,
00329.
Singleton E.w., Low Noise Control Valves
with High Performance, ABB Control
Valves Technical Publication.
Singleton EW.. Low Noise - High Energy
Control Valves, Chemical and Process
Engineering, June 1970.
Lighthill M.J., On Sound Generated
Aerodynamically - 1, The Royal Society,
London 1952.
Lighthill M.J., On Sound Generated
Aerodynamically - 11, The Royal Society,
London 1954.
Lighthill M.J., Jet Noise, AIAA Journal 1,
July 1963.
IEC Standard 534-8-3, Control Valve
Aerodynamic Noise Prediction Method,
Central Office of the IEC, 3 rue de
Varembe Geneva.