A fluidic phenomenon:

Fighting cavitation in
butterfly control valves
By Hans D. Baumann, PhD, PE

C
avitation is the implosion of tiny vapor
bubbles in a liquid when the static pressure
reaches the vapor pressure of the specific
liquid. This happens when, due to a high pressure
differential across a valve, the resultant high veloci-
ty lowers the static pressure. Cavitation is a bane for
the valve designer and valve user alike. It not only
causes severe damage to valve trim, but also creates
sound levels that can exceed 110 decibels.
The damage is caused when the imploding va-
por bubbles create pressure waves that accelerate
at values of 1.5 × 1011 m/s2 and reach velocities of
500 m/s. Even hardened steel cannot resist such an
impact, even though the bubble size has a diam-
Figure 1. A butterfly valve reduces cavitation by utilizing air sucked in by the eter of only about 200 micrometers.
liquid vapor through a series of holes. A check valve prevents the escape of There have been methods to eliminate, or at
liquid in case there is no vacuum downstream of the vane. least reduce, cavitation in throttling valves. The
simplest way is to reduce the pressure drop by
changing the altitude of a valve or installing two
valves in series. However, these approaches are
usually not doable because of system restrictions.
If possible, one should limit the valve’s pressure
drop below the pressure level indicated by the cav-
itation index Xfz, where Xfz is the allowable delta
P divided by inlet pressure minus vapor pressure
(pressures in absolute terms). Xfz values may be
gleaned from figure 7.
Cv is an industrywide flow coefficient defined as
Cv = 1.17 × [ Q / (P1 – P2)0.5], where Q = m3/hr of
cold water and P is in bar(abs) = (1 × 105 Pascal). For
example, a DN 100 conventional globe valve with a
required Cv of 50 has an Xfz factor of 0.34.
Other known ways of fighting cavitation is inject-
ing air into the fluid or using the vacuum pressure
Figure 2. A low noise
and anticavitation created by the cavitating fluid. Figure 1 shows how
butterfly valve using this can be done. A butterfly valve has a hollow
opposed rows of teeth, stem conducting outside air into a number of small
splitting up the fluid holes and dispersing the air into the water. This can
stream, changing fre-
only be done if the vapor pressure is in a vacuum
quency, and increasing
the Xfz factor. and if the particular fluid tolerates air inclusion.
Another quite effective way of reducing cavita-
Source: Tomoe Company tion is by utilizing drilled cages inside globe valves,

40 INTECH NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 WWW.ISA.ORG


sometimes using several hundred drilled holes.
The effect is twofold. First, the small holes in-
crease the Xfz factor, and second, the resulting
small jets create only localized cavitation. The
drawback is that this is an expensive solution and
cannot readily be scaled up.
Quite often, butterfly valves are used especially
in larger sizes due to lower cost. To reduce the ten-
dency to cavitate in such valves, companies employ
proprietary vane designs. Figure 2 shows such a de-
sign, using a row of teeth on both leading edges of
the vane to split up the liquid jets.
Anecdotal information indicates that this de-
sign indeed reduces cavitation, as these valves
were used successfully in Japan, in sizes up to 2
meters for drinking water pipelines. These valves
had the drawbacks that they cannot provide tight
shutoff and cannot offer the more popular equal
percentage flow characteristic.
Another design solves such deficiencies (fig-
ure 3). Here, a low-noise insert is attached to a
conventional triple eccentric butterfly valve,
which provides shutoff. The attachment not
only reduces cavitation (as explained later), but
also creates an equal percentage flow character-
istic due to the special configuration of the teeth
part of the attachment.
Reducing cavitation
First a little theory: Most of us are by now familiar
with the fluid resistant (FL) factor, denoting pres-
sure recovery in a valve. This factor has been an
invaluable aid in proper valve sizing, even though
the concept of pressure recovery in valves has only
been known since 1963.
What most people may not know is that the FL
factor tells us how much of the kinetic energy (ve-
locity head) in a valve is converted into turbulence
and heat. There is a correlation between FL and the
head loss coefficient Κ or ∑; here Κ = FL2. Inciden-
tally, FL works for all Newtonian fluids, whether
liquids or gases.
Assume a valve has an FL of 1. Here all kinetic
energy is converted into heat (turbulence), and
therefore, the valve cannot experience cavitation.
On the other hand, consider a conventional but-
terfly valve with a typical FL of 0.65. Here the K fac-
tor is 0.422, meaning only 42 percent of the kinetic
energy is converted, and the rest is used to evapo-
rate some of the liquid; the vapors then implode
in the pressure recovery zone of the valve to cause
damage and noise.
Figure 4 shows a pressure diagram using 10
bar absolute as inlet pressure and 4.5 bar as out-
let pressure. Using the typical butterfly valve FL of
0.65, we notice a velocity head of 13 bar. This is a
AUTOMATION BASICS
Figure 3. A Sharktooth
butterfly system using
conventional shutoff
butterfly valves. By
attaching a multitooth
element, it has higher
fluid resistant and
Xfz factors. The teeth
profiles provide an
equal percentage flow
characteristic.
Source: Yeary Associates, Inc.
theoretical number, since the velocity head can-
not exceed the vapor pressure. But what it means
is that an energy equivalent of 2 bar is used to
evaporate the liquid, and cavitation will occur.
On the other hand, if another valve with an FL of
0.84 were used, the velocity head will only be 7.8
bar, and the bottom will stay well above the vapor
pressure, hence, no cavitation.
Having realized the importance of head loss,
it was found that the configuration of the Yeary
valve indeed produced sufficient hydraulic fric-
tion to yield high FL numbers. The graph in fig-
ure 5 shows the results of a water test on a DN
150 (6-inch) valve at 60 degrees open (a large
opening for a valve having high pressure drops)
and an FL factor of 0.8. Here the inlet pressure
was 7.7 bar absolute with pressure drops down
to just below 1 bar absolute.
It is perhaps astonishing how closely the cal-
culated levels correspond with the microphone
readings. Note that the blue line corresponds to
the 30 log(10X) relationship predicted for tur-
bulent water. Cavitation occurs at 5 bar pres-
sure drop (64 percent of the inlet pressure).
The cavitation amplitude was calculated as 5.6
dB, which matches the test data. Note that the
increase in slope terminates when X is equal to
INTECH NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 41
 AUTOMATION BASICS

Inlet pipe Valve Outlet pipe DN 150 (6-inch) Sharktooth butterfly valve, Cv = 340, FL = 0.8, P1 = 7.7 bar (abs).
10.55 Xfz = 0.64 valve opening 60 degrees
10 Calculated estimate Cavitation amplitude 5.6 dB
100

Outlet pressure bar (abs)

FL = 0.84
8 FL = 0.65 90
Xfz = 0.64
80
Inlet pressure bar (abs)

6 0.55

Sound level in dBA at 1 m

7.8 Energy grade 70 Blue line depicts turbulent flow
proportional to 30 log (10X)

4.5 60
4 Hydraulic grade
13
50

2 40

Pressure recovery 30
[(P1 – P2) / FL2] – (P1 – P2)
0
Vapor pressure 20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 4. Graphic presentation of pressure 12.5 times X, X = (P1 – P2) / (P1 – Pv)
gradients inside a valve at 5.5 bar pressure
drop Figure 5. Results of a water test on a DN 150 (6”) valve at 60 degrees open
and an FL factor of 0.8

FL2, which happens around a P2 of 3 bar

absolute.
This test shows that calculated tur-
bulent water slopes can easily be used 10-inch (0.250 m) Sharktooth butterfly valve at 35 degrees open
to predict the onset of cavitation. In this Cv = 397, FL = 0.9, Xfz = 0.81, P1 = 7.76 bar (abs)
case it happened around an outlet pres- Estimated sound level
Cavitation amplitude = 3 dB
sure of 3 bar, as is predicted by the equa-
100 Xfz
tion: P2cav. = P1 – [(P1 – Pv) × FL2], which
calculates the limit to be 2.8 bar. The es- 90
timated cavitation sound level closely Ambient sound
matches the test data despite a lack of test 80

points. As shown in the graph, when the

1 m sound level in dBA

70
outlet pressure dips into vacuum, water
saturates with vapor, and there is a sud- 60 Slope of turbulent water
proportional to 30 log (10X)
den drop in sound.
50
These tests have been duplicated at 20
and 30 degrees opening, yielding almost 40
identical results. At 20 degrees open, for
example, the 0.150 valve only started cav- 30

itating at an Xfz of 0.83 with a cavitation

20
amplitude of only 3 dB.
As shown in figure 6, the cavitation only 10
happens at a high pressure drop of 6.3 bar
(X = 0.81). The cavitation amplitude of 3 70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
dB matches the prediction, where ampli- 20 x pressure ratio, x = (P1 – P2) / (P1 – Pv)
tude = 60 log (Xy / Xfz), Xfz = 0.81, and Xy
= 0.91. The apparent discrepancy of 4 dB Figure 6. Data from tests conducted with a 10-inch Sharktooth valve to verify that
and 5 dB between test data and calcula- the beneficial effects can be scaled up
tions can partially be explained by signifi-
cant pump noise in the laboratory.
All tests confirm the exceptional high
conversion rate of dynamic fluidic energy

42 INTECH NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 WWW.ISA.ORG

 AUTOMATION BASICS

to static energy, thus avoiding cavitation Xfz factors for various rotary control valve types
in all but the very high pressure drop re- Sharktooth

gions. As the designer of the valve, I can 1

Lower Xfz factors denote increased severity of cavitation
attest to the veracity of these features. 0.9 Typical butterfly valves
These tests also show that sound can play Typical segmented ball valves
0.8
an important role in testing valves for
cavitation characteristics. 0.7

A globe valve is a two-stage device

0.6
consisting of a plug and seat ring hav-

Xfz factors
ing an FL of perhaps 0.6, implying an 0.5

Xfz factor of 0.36. The valve body, hav- 0.4

ing a tortuous flow path, may have

0.3
an FL of 0.9, making the overall FL = (Kv/D2) x 104
D = meter
0.82. Here the governing Xfz is that of 0.2

the valve trim (where cavitation actu-

0.1
ally occurs), and the relationship Xfz =
0 0,3 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0
square root of overall FL does not apply. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
All tests were performed at the Utah
Relative capacity Cv/d2 (d = inches)
State Water Research Laboratory in
Logan, Utah, under the guidance of Figure 7. Xfz values. Note that the graph shows both the European (in meters) and
Professor Michael Johnson, PhD, PE. the U.S. (in inches) systems on the x-axis.
I thank Dr. Johnson for his help and
Graph references: IEC 60534-8-4: Prediction of noise generated by hydrodynamic
valuable advice. n
flow and “A fresh look: How to estimate cavitation noise” (Valve World, April 2015)
by H.D. Baumann
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Hans D. Baumann, PhD, PE (hdbaumann@
att.net), a former vice president of Maso-
neilan and Fisher Controls, is the coau-
thor of two handbooks on acoustics, the
Control Valve Primer (published by ISA),
more than 100 patents, and 140 publi-
Measure 4-20 mA
cations. He is a member of the Scientific
Research Society, an Honorary Member
without breaking
of ISA, a Life Fellow Member of ASME, the loop
and an inductee of the Automatic Con-
trol Hall of Fame. He has designed more
than 30 control valve types.

RESOURCES

Control Valve Primer: A Users Guide, Fourth Edition

www.isa.org/controlvalveprimer

Low Torque and Low Noise Butterfly Valve

773 772
U.S. Patent 3,960,177 The Fluke 77X Series mA Clamps 771

www.uspto.gov allows you to measure 4-20 mA

signals without taking down the loop.
“The elusive Strouhal number: Completing the fundamentals
based hydro-noise estimating method” For more information:
www.valve-world.net/pdf/the-elusive-strouhal-number.pdf Call: 1-800-49-FLUKE
Email: fluke-info@fluke.com
Visit: fluke.com/mAClamps

©2016 Fluke Corporation.

AD 6008792a-en

INTECH NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 43