...................................................

Control Valves A Source of Pipe Vibration

By H. L. Miller

22591 Avenida Empresa Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 949.858.1877 w Fax 949.858.1878 w ccivalve.com
234

07/00 w 2000 CCI w DRAG is a registered trademark of CCI.

Control Valves A Source of Pipe Vibration

n By Herbert L. Miller, Vice President CCI

Another characteristic of the problem system is that it occurs on water lines generally with pipe sizes of four inch diameter and larger. Thus there is a large mass of fluid per unit of pipe length. The pipe fluid velocities meet general liquid guidelines, but with steam in the line, the two-phase mixture is accelerated from 10 to 20 times the design conditions. The problem of pipe vibration does not lend itself to rigorous analytical evaluation. We can only imply the behavior from an evaluation of the fluid conditions as they are changed in their transport through the piping system. A typical piping system that could experience severe vibration is shown by Figure 1. The system is designed assuming there is no flashing of the water to steam. This is assumed because downstream pressures are above the vapor pressure of the fluid. Therefore, flashing of the water to steam will not take place. The following discussion will show that steam does exist, especially downstream of the restricting element in the valve, and thus the piping is subjected to the difficulties of transporting an unstable two-phase flow mixture.

Abstract

here are many locations within a nuclear or fossil power plant where excessive, sometimes violent pipe vibration can

exist. These lines are usually handling water with fairly high pressure drop across a valve in the system. The valve as a source of this pipe vibration is reviewed. The valve will cause the formation of steam bubbles, which collapse to cause cavitation damage and/or valve body vibration that is passed on the piping system. In some cases the downstream pressure conditions are such that the steam bubbles coalesce to cause slug or plug flow in the downstream piping. The slug and plug flow conditions can generate very high vibratory pipe forces. Introduction This paper discusses the control valve as a potential source for excessive and sometimes violent pipe vibration. There are many causes for pipe vibration. Some common causes are: 1) Control valves that produce unstable fluid conditions in down-stream piping. 2) The acceleration of a slug of water in a steam line. The water usually exists due to improper piping design or plugged drainage lines. 3) Water hammer, a pressure wave within a water pipe caused by fast closing valves such as check valves or pipe voids due to leaking block valves. The last two items are not covered in this paper. Three have been discussed in various papers, of which Biba and Niebruegge (1987) and Ozol (1987) are examples. Chen (1967) provides a review of the literature on flow-induced vibration in two phase flow. The control valve is discussed, as opposed to block valves, because they represent a significant pressure drop in the pipe line. The block valve can result in similar circumstances, but it is generally not a problem because they are either fully opened or closed and when open have low pressure recovery characteristics. The problem of severe pipe vibration is generally associated with startup/shutdown and emergency bypass systems. These systems are used intermittently and thus there is a higher tolerance for the off design condition. If similar off design conditions existed for a continuous duty line, catastrophic failure would result after a short time of operation.

The Valve Influence As the water flows through the valve, the local pressure downstream of the valve restriction, usually the cage orifices(s) or seat ring drops below the outlet pressure. The amount of internal pressure drop below the outlet is determined by the valve design. An approximation of the pressure curve as the fluid passes through a cage guided globe valve is shown by Figure 2. The minimum pressure is over 55 kg/sq. cm (750 psia) less than the outlet pressure. The conditions are representative of a superheater bypass valve. The process taking place during the pressure letdown in the valve is analogous to the expansion through ah orifice. This is illustrated on Figure 3. As noted in this figure the minimum pressure occurs at a position corresponding to the jet vena contracta. Within the valve a clear point of minimum pressure is not apparent because of the complex three dimensional flow paths produced within the valve is implied from measurements of flow capacity. It is included in the expression for the Pressure Recovery Factor fL.

(1) Or (2)

Control Valves - A Source of Pipe Vibration | 234

2000 CCI. All rights reserved.

Nomenclature Cv Valve Sizing Coefficient FF Liquid Critical Pressure Ratio Factor FL Pressure Recovery Factor fR Rice Frequency, Hertz G Mass Flow Rate, lb/hr/ft2 P Pressure, Kg/sq cm s Surface Tension, dynes/cm T Temperature [(g/0.075)(f/62.3)]1 2 , Density Correction Factor viscosity, Centipoise Density, lb/ft3 (P2-Pv) / (P1-P2), Cavitation Index [(73/s) f (62.3/ f )2 ] 3 3 , surface Tension Correction Factor Subscripts 1 2 c f Upstream Downstream Critical Fluid Phase g sat v vc Gas Phase Saturation Vapor Vena Contracta

If the minimum pressure as expressed in Equation 2 drops below the vapor pressure of the water then a steam bubble is formed. Note that it is possible to pick reasonable values for the variables of Equation 2 that will result in negative vena contracta pressures. This is physically impossible. If the vena contracta pressure is low enough, sufficient steam is produced to cause choked flow thus limiting the valve capacity and minimum pressure. Under choked flow conditions, Equation 2 is not applicable. The vena contracta pressure is give by: (3) Where (4)

The liquid critical pressure ratio factor, Ff, is approximated by flow through globe valves.

Equation 4 and there is general agreement with results for water

Typical values of full stroke FL are provided in Table 1 for some

selected valve designs. Values of FL for different valve strokes are are substituted into Equation 2 for various up-and-downstream pressures, one is surprised by the very low pressure that results.

presented by Driskel (1953) and Wing (1979). When these values

Figure 1: High pressure water letdown piping

Figure 2: Valve pressure gradient

Figure 3: Valve pressure gradient

234 | Control Valves - A Source of Pipe Vibration

2000 CCI. All rights reserved.

Table 1: Pressure Recovery Factors Flow Design Single Seat Globe, Cage Direction Open Close Double Seat Globe Angle Body Cage Open Close Ball with .8 dia. Orifice Butterfly 60 Open FL 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.55 0.68 Damaging P1/ P2 5.3 2.8 5.3 3.6 2.8 1.4 1.8

The lowest physical pressure in the valve would be a perfect vacuum, zero absolute pressure. By setting the vena contracta pressure equal to zero in Equation 2 a pressure ratio can be calculated for various F values. That is; (5) Values of the pressure ration from Equation 5 are shown in Table 1 as the damaging pressure ratio. The pressure ratio calculated is a strong indicator of the upper limit for which a particular valve design should be used. If a valve is operated at these pressure ratios, it will be choked, probably very noisy and be subject to excessive vibration. If the downstream pressure is greater than the fluid vapor pressure, severe cavitation damage will be present. If the fluid pressure is lower than the vapor pressure, then extreme velocities result due to the flashing conditions. There are many examples of valves that produce destructive forces when operated near or above these pressure ratios.
Figure 5: Fluid state versus downstream pressure for various temperatures and valve designs

Additional information can be gleaned from Equation 2 by setting the vena contracta pressure equal to the vapor pressure of the water. An example of this is shown on Figure 4 for a valve inlet pressure of 78Kg/sq cm (1115 psia). The conditions are similar to a nuclear plant pump recirculation valve. For a Pressure Recovery Factor of 0.9 the downstream pressure must be greater than 22 Kg/sq cm (320 psia) to avoid any two-phase flow after the valve. If the downstream pressure is less than 22 Kg/sq cm (320 psia) but greater than the vapor pressure of 9.4 Kg/sq (134 psia), then cavitation will occur after the valve. If the downstream pressure is less than the water vapor pressure then flashing will occur. The minimum vena contracta pressure under fully choked flow is shown by the dotted line of Figure 4 as calculated from Equation 3. The vena contracta pressure is 0.9 Kg/sq cm (13 psi) below the vapor pressure. This pressure difference is the driving force for vapor formation. As the water temperature increases so also does the driving force for vaporization. For example for 205C (400F) water this driving force is 2 Kg/sq cm (29 psia). Note that Equation 3 is independent of the value of FL although it is plotted on Figure 4 as a function of FL. In an ideal valve, where the pressure recovery factor is equal to one, the vena contracta pressure will not drop below the outlet pressure. Thus the dotted line of Figure 4 must converge to the vapor pressure at FL equal to one. This convergence was arbitrarily drawn between FL values of 0.95 and 1.0. The influence of the water temperature is shown on Figure 5. As the temperature decreases the downstream pressure can be closer to the vapor pressure. The word closer is relative. For the conditions of Figure 5 and a Recovery Factor of 0.85, the downstream pressure must be 17 to 21 Kg/sq cm (240 to 310) psi greater than the vapor pressure, depending upon the water temperature, to avoid steam bubble formation. For the inlet pressure condition of Figure 2, but at a recovery factor of 0.85, the downstream pressure must be 74 Kg/sq cm (1050 psia) greater than the vapor pressure.
2000 CCI. All rights reserved.

Figure 4: Fluid state versus downstream pressure for different valve designs

Control Valves - A Source of Pipe Vibration | 234

The influence of upstream pressure is shown in Figure 6. As the pressure increases, the boundary between liquid flow and cavitation flow rotates to increase the region of bubble formation. Or, as the upstream pressure increases, so must the downstream pressure increase to avoid steam bubble formation. The above discussion has demonstrated that a control valve can cause two-phase flow conditions downstream. This happens for a wide range of conditions for which it is normally expected that steam bubble formation is not present. Pipe Movement The presence of steam within the fluid stream causes the flow to accelerate downstream of the valve orifice. What happens next is dependent upon the downstream pressure and piping design. If the downstream pressure is greater than the vapor pressure then the steam bubbles will collapse, a process called cavitation. If the downstream pressure is less than the vapor pressure, the steam phase remains thus a flashing flow situation, and a complex twophase flow pattern develops in the downstream piping. For the cavitating conditions, the steam phase will collapse downstream of the valve orifice. The piping produced by this collapse are not predictable, but some quantitative insight can be gained. Figure 7 presents measurements of acceleration and frequency for a four-port cage-guided globe valve as reported by Outa, et. Al. (1986). Cavitation becomes more severe as the cavitation index decreases, that is, as the downstream pressure approaches the fluid vapor pressure. The different breakpoints on the acceleration curve indicate different levels of cavitation. Noteworthy is the fact that the acceleration level has increased by a factor of 70 times from the incipient to choking cavitation points.
Figure 7 : Ball acceleration and rice frequency versus cavitation index.

The Rice frequency of Figure 7 is a time weighted average of the random frequencies generated by the cavitation. In this test the frequency is very high, which is indicative of the small valve size and stiff piping system used in the test. However, frequencies well below 100 hertz have been reported by Ozol (1987) and Bake (1976), which are near the natural frequency of many piping systems. Thus large forces can be generated to produce dangerous and damaging pipe vibration due to the cavitation phenomena. The cavitation situation can be further complicated by the presence of a downstream expander. It is quite common to have the control valve size smaller than the piping as shown in Figure 1. Within the expander there is a very quick pressure recovery with subsequent forces caused by the rapid vapor suppression. Elimination of the downstream expansion is required to mitigate the unstable two-phase flow forces. If the fluid is flashing within the valve then a two-phase flow pattern exists in the downstream piping. The fluids are accelerated to very high average velocities due to the volumetric expansion from water to steam. An average fluid velocity of 30 m/sec (100 ft/sec) occurs with a 1 percent steam by weight fraction. This velocity is over 60 m/sec (200 ft/sec) when the mixture quality is just 3.5 percent. These high velocities by themselves are not particularly damaging. It is damaging when the two-phase flow mixture develops into a slug or plug flow regime. Figure 8 presents an aid for determining the flow regime as reported by Baker (1954). If a slug of water is accelerated then large forces are transmitted to the piping at sharp bends, valves, orifices, spargers, etc. These forces can result in excessive pipe movement and high destructive stresses.

Figure 6: Fluid state versus downstream pressure for various upstream pressures and valve designs
2000 CCI. All rights reserved.

234 | Control Valves - A Source of Pipe Vibration

Remedies To fix a severely vibrating piping system there are a number of independent remedies that can be used. Before making changes a measurement of the pressures at a few key locations would help in diagnosis of the vibration cause. As a minimum the pressure transient up-and-downstream of the valve should measured to permit evaluation of this as a cause. Measurement of the system acceleration and frequency are not too helpful in establishing the cause but can help to quantify pipe forces and stresses due to the vibration. Some fixes are:
Figure 8: Flow-regime correlations for adiabatic horizontal two phase flow

1)

Replace the control valve with one having high Pressure Recovery Factor, FL, and eliminate the valve as a cause. An example for the best valve of this type is shown Figure 9. It is a tortuous path trim valve in which the pressure is dropped with many small stages, as shown on the cutaway of Figure 10. The fluid velocity can be continously controlled so that cavitation is eliminated. This valve design is routinely used for pressure ratios ranging from 3 to 300.

2)

Move the valve nearer to the receiver so that there is minimal discharge piping. Because the upsteam pressure is high, only water exists upstream. In some nuclear applications the large diameter, long run piping system result in vibration because of the bends and the high fluid moementum and energy levels. Also note that for some valves the FL is different for an opposite flow direction, see Table 1. Thus simply reversing the valve flow may be sufficient in some borderline cases.

3)
Figure 9: High FL valve

Eliminate any increased flow area between valve and receiver. Any increase in flow cross-section, whether abrupt or gradual, will result in pressure recovery and thus vapor suppression.

4)

Increase the back pressure by adding orifices or perforated plates, reducing sparger tube flow area, and/or using smaller pipes downstream. These changes would require a review of the impact of sightly reduced capacity. Care must be taken to assure the back pressure is high enough to eliminate steam bubble formation at the valve for all operating conditions. Also, the restriction should not cause cavitation or flashing damage downstream of its placement.

5)

Limit excessive pipe motion by devices to contain the deflection and use dampers to absorb the energy at supports. Increasing the anchor strength and stiffness of the piping and valve support system could cause pipe yielding and eventually breakage.

6) 7)
Figure 10: Disk stack sectional

Smooth out the piping system by eliminating bends or using large radius bends. Use smaller diameter parallel systems to reduce the fluid energy and momentum levels.

Control Valves - A Source of Pipe Vibration | 234

2000 CCI. All rights reserved.

Summary The problem of severe pipe vibration can be a danger to workers who must be in the area. The control valve as a potential cause of this vibration has been shown by deomonstrating how a two-phase mixture can exist when it is normally not expected. The presence of the two-phase flow is then compounded by downstream piping configurations that transmit the unstable fluid forces to the piping system. A number of solutions are available that can be implemented one at a time or all at once depending upon analysis of the system.

References 1) Bake, E.A., Suplementary Notes on Cavitation and Flashing in Valves. ISA Handbook of Control Valves, Edited by Hutchison, J.W., Instrument Society of America, North Carolina, pg. 219-220, 1976. 2) Baker, O., Oil and Gas Journal, Vol. 53, No. 12, pg. 185-195, July 1954. 3) Biba, P., and Niebruegge, D., Design of Condenser and Related Systems for Plant Availability Surface Condenser Design, Installation and Operating Experience, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Joint Power Generation Conference, Miami, pg. 31-38, October 1987. 4) Chen, S.S., A Review of Flow Induced Vibration in Two-Phase Flow. Forum on Unsteady Flow 1987, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Winter Annual Meeting, Boston, pg. 1-4, December 1987. 5) Driskel, L., Control-Valve Selection and Sizing, Instrument Society of America, North Carolina, 1983, Appendix F. 6) Outa, E., Tajima, K., Machiyama, T., and Inou, F., High Frequency Vibration of Control Valves at Low Openings Due to Cavitation Development, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Winter Annual Meeting, Anaheim, 1986. 7) Ozol, J., Checkout Pumps, Valves in Condensate Piping Vibration, Power, Vol. 131, No. 8, pg. 33-37, August 1987. 8) Wing P., Determining and Using the Control Valve Pressure Recovery Factor, Intech, pg. 55-60, August 1979.

2000 CCI. All rights reserved.

234 | Control Valves - A Source of Pipe Vibration