Anda di halaman 1dari 4

J O U R N A L A R T I C L E S B Y F L U E N T S O F T WA R E U S E R S JA188

Simulation Helps Design More Efficient Control Valve


By Jim Stares, Chief Engineer - Masoneilan Asher Glaun, Manager of Product Engineering Masoneilan Dresser Avon, Massachusetts Computer simulation played a key role in the design of a control valve with a throttling capacity almost 15% higher than conventional valves of the same size and price. The required shape of inline control valve bodies makes it necessary to put the fluid through two 90 degree turns that generate losses, limiting the valve's flow capacity. In attempting to reduce these losses, valve designers have traditionally been hindered by the fact that they have no way to measure flows inside the valve body that would help them understand why a particular design is or isn't efficient. By using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to model flow patterns in a recent design concept, Masoneilan engineers gained an understanding of the flow in the valve, making it possible to optimize the design. For example, they modified the shape of ports in the throttling cage to minimize separation between the core fluid flow and the walls of the valve body, providing substantial reductions in pressure losses. The CFD models predicted absolute results within 5% of physical measurements as well as relative results that allowed them to forecast the effects of design changes. The standard reciprocating globe style control valve (Figure 1) provides flow control by throttling pressure drop across a variable throttling area, such as a cage port opening (Figure 2). Most applications require that the valve inlet and outlet be in line with each other, so the valve plug, which is modulated to adjust the flow rate, must be raised to expose the cage flow area. Because the valve is inline with the piping, the fluid has to take two 90-degree turns to

Figure 1: Cross section of a standard globestyle control valve with throttling cage

Copyright 2003 Fluent Inc.

JA188 Page 1 of 4

pass through the throttling area. Also, the fact that the throttling orifice is radial means that additional fluid direction changes are needed to direct the flow into the downstream pipe. The challenge is increased by the fact that standardized system installation dimensions, particularly valve inlet to outlet length, limit the ability of the designer to shape the body to reduce fluid momentum losses. The resistance to flow that results from the body geometry can also have a negative effect on the throttling control characteristics, or amount of throttle movement required to obtain a given change in flow rate, especially when the valve is operating near its flow capacity limits.

Importance of increasing flow capacity


The flow capacity of a valve can be increased by using larger valve orifices and bodies but this increases the size, weight, and cost of the valve. Increasing the size of the orifice also requires the use of larger control actuators to compensate for the higher off balance areas of the orifice (Figure 2). Recently, Masoneilan engineers set out to improve this situation by modifying the throttling geometry to

minimize fluid momentum losses during the throttling process, thus increasing the flow capacity of a given size of valve. Design of this area is normally a long and expensive trial and error process, because it is virtually impossible to obtain a clear understanding of the complex fluid dynamics that occur in this area using conventional physical testing methods. Physical testing can easily determine the capacity of a particular design, normally measured in CV (valve sizing coefficient) units, with one CV being equal to a one psi pressure drop at a one gallon per minute flow rate. But, with no way to determine which design variables are having a negative impact on flow, engineers are forced to try different designs, build prototypes, measure their performance, and repeat the process until they achieve an acceptable design. The high cost involved in building and testing designs means that in most cases the process concludes long before the design is optimized. On their most recent design, Masoneilan engineers selected CFD as their primary analysis tool because it provides fluid velocity, pressure, particle trajectories, and more throughout the region of interest for problems with complex geometries and boundary conditions. As part of the analysis, a researcher may

Figure 2: A cut-away view of the valve, showing the components

Copyright 2003 Fluent Inc.

JA188 Page 2 of 4

change the geometry of the system or the boundary conditions, such as inlet velocity, and then view the effect on the flow field in the system as a whole. CFD can also provide detailed parametric studies that can significantly reduce the amount of experimentation necessary to develop a prototype device and thus reduce design cycle times and costs. The critical advantage of CFD in control valve design is that it is the only method that makes it possible to evaluate the effect of changes to the design without the expense, leadtime, and risk of actually building a prototype. To study the flow inside the valve, engineers imported a solid model of their concept design into FLUENT CFD software from Fluent Incorporated, Lebanon, New Hampshire. They created a half-symmetry model of the valve design with pressure boundary conditions on the upstream and downstream pipe and a k- turbulence model.

predicted the resulting flow rate and pressure drop through the valve, making it possible to calculate the CV value flow coefficient as the flow rate in gallons per minute divided by the square root of the pressure drop in psi. The simulation results varied from the testing results by considerably more than a percent or two that Masoneilan engineers had come to expect from previous CFD simulations. The engineers immediately suspected that the geometry of the prototype varied from the design specifications. They measured the inside contours of the valve body prototype and discovered manufacturing differences from original model which explained the lack of correlation. They patched the prototype with plaster of paris and re-ran the tests, which then matched the CFD results within the 2 percent accuracy expected. The CFD results, particularly the pressure profile through the valve, provided a clear picture of how geometry affected the flow through the valve. Engineers could clearly see how the flow was separating from the walls of the body in certain areas, reducing the efficiency of the valve. They also saw areas where the configuration of the throttle cage was forcing the flow to take extra turns that provided additional pressure drop. Being able to graphically view the flow patterns provided insights that allowed engineers to take immediate action to improve the
Figure 3: Flow through the valve, illustrated by stream ribbons

Simulation results match testing


Standard physical tests, defined by the Instrument, Systems, and Automation Society, were then performed on the CFD model for comparison to tests run on a prototype. These included measuring pressure drop between points two diameters upstream and six diameters downstream of the valve. FLUENT

Copyright 2003 Fluent Inc.

JA188 Page 3 of 4

design by modifying the CFD model. They smoothed the contour of the valve body in areas where the simulation showed that flow separation was taking place.

Redesign of throttling cage


The most important and difficult part of the design process involved redesigning the throttling cage. The engineers changed the flow passages of the cage to redirect the flow within the throttling area to reduce fluid impingement angles on the body cavity internal walls, minimizing fluid momentum losses as the flow exits or enters the cage. This reduced angle of flow impingement directs the flow into the downstream pipe while minimizing fluid separation from the body internal surfaces. The position of the throttling cage was also changed from the normal centered position to the back of the body bowl cavity to allow for gradual flow expansion into the downstream piping, further maintaining fluid attachment to the body walls and reducing the amount of turbulent flow mixing (Figure 3). The throttling port flow passages are angled to provide reduced angles of impingement and detachment with the contoured internal body surfaces. In addition, the use of a flow splitter positioned at the back of the body bowl

minimizes the turbulent flow mixing and resultant fluid momentum losses that occur due to the 180 degree fluid flow directional changes required to exit the body cavity into the downstream pipe from this portion of the throttling area. The result was a substantial improvement in the flow capacity of the valve for a given body size. For example, the standard capacity of a 6-inch valve is 400 CV while the new design provides 450 CV. This improvement significantly reduces the cost and size of the valve required for a certain application. If the application requires a 410 CV valve, Masoneilan customers can now use a 6-inch instead of an 8-inch valve. CFD played a key role in these improvements by making it possible for the first time to visualize flow through the valve and also by allowing engineers to quickly determine the effect of design changes without having to build additional prototypes. The FLUENT CFD software used in this application demonstrated its ability to accurately model this type of valve by producing results that were within a few percent of physical measurements.

Copyright 2003 Fluent Inc.

JA188 Page 4 of 4

Anda mungkin juga menyukai