Reducers For Control Valves

Normally it is a practice to have the pipe size is one size higher than the control valve size.When
engineering starts in a project ,initial control valve sizes are based on the inhouse programs the
company has.Subsequently the vendor checks and confirms the sizes.

If the vendor suggested control valve size that matches the line size Is it required to still increase
the line size by one size add reducers?Or a control valve can be same as line size?

Dear Suresh
The use of a control valve having one size lower than the pipeline is not a mandatory
requirement. It all depends on the Cv value of the control valve and the allowable pressure drop
thru the valve. Normally, the allowable pressure drop thru a control valve is considerably higher
than what would have been thru a pipeline. This delta P allows better control of the fluid. To
accomodate the pressure drop, the control valve is normally sized lower than that of the pipeline
and hence you require a reducer.
If the valve manufacturer specifies a control valve of the same size as that of the pipeline, I donot
see a reason in increasing the pipeline size and then putting a reducer. However, you should
check that the pressure drop thru the line is as per your requirement and not more than that.
Samir

Suresh:

The way I do hydraulic design and the way I've worked with hydraulic design in/with major
design engineering organizations and projects in the past is that the line size is first calculated
and fixed - not the other way around as you describe it. Perhaps that is how you've been taught,
but the logic seems contradictory. Perhaps it is a language or translation mis-interpretation, but
you state: "Normally it is a practice to have the pipe size is one size higher than the control valve
size" and this is not correct engineering design. Normally you first find the appropriate pipe size
for the velocity and pressure drop you can tolerate and then you calculate the corresponding
control valve sizes - just as Samir has indicated - allowing for a pressure drop acorss each valve.

It is rare to find a hydraulic system that is composed primarily of a control valve and negligible
piping. Just as Samir points out, if the resulting control valve turns out to have a miserable Cv
value (indicated by it being the same size as the piping, then you either have a valve with severe
Cv characteristics, the wrong valve size, or you haven't allowed for enough pressure drop (&
control) across the valve - something that is commonly done by engineers without sufficient
design experience. I suggest you obtain the free copy of the Fisher Control Valve Handbook that
can be found at their website and which I have recommended in the past. It is, by far, one of the
best texts on control valve design and characteristics.
I would again caution everyone concerns avoidance of any "one size fits all" approach. I have
seen properly sized control valves at full line size and at least two sizes (and I believe three sizes)
smaller than line size. The control valve's purpose is to control the process variable and it is sized
to purpose. There are situations where very little pressure drop is available and fine control is not
needed. That could result in a line size valve. (My current project has several full size butterfly
control valves that mainly function to balance flows in parallel paths.) If you have long circuits
and lots of equipment, you could experience large hydraulic losses in a circuit. You still need to
provide a proportionate amount of dP "to burn" in the control valve. Such a valve may be several
sizes smaller than line size. Read the literature, exercise caution, and, if you don't know, ask.
Doug

When the required body size of a control valve is lower than the inlet and outlet line sizes,
inlet reducer and outlet expander are normally provided. Under what circumstances do we
use eccentric reducer/expander? Likewise, under what circumstances do we use
concentric reducer/expander? If eccentric type is required, under what circumstances do
we use bottom flat orientation (or top flat orientation)? Are there any industry
standards? Thanks in advance for your help.

This topic can arouse quite heated discussions. It may sound crazy to you, but people get very
passionate about whether the flat side goes up or down.

My take on the subject is that mostly it doesn't matter and a concentric reducer is fine. If you have
solids present that may settle out, then (I believe) it is best to use an eccentric reducer and to put the
flat side down. On the other hand, if you have bubbles in a liquid then putting the flat side up
eliminates a potential spot where gas could accumulate. In the overwhelming majority of cases the
velocities are adequate to keep the solids and the bubbles moving and flushed out of the system when
you use concentric reducers.

The vast majority of control valves I've seen are located near low points in a piping circuit. Often a pipe
up in a pipe rack is diverted to belt buckle height for a control valve. This allows easy access to the
valve; e.g. for maintenance. In these situations, I would always use a concentric reducer because 1)
they really are "the standard", 2) they are cheaper, 3) they are more readily available, 4) less chance
for error, and 5) the pressure drop will be less than an eccentric orifice. The only situations where I
would use eccentric reducers are for slurry systems and where it is imperative to totally drain ALL
condensed fluid. In both these situations, eccentric reducers can avoid small "dead spots" that exist
behind concentric reducers. The only place I'd use flat side up eccentric reducers would be in pump
suction line to avoid accumulation of gas pockets.

I admit being one of those that took part in the heated confabulation mentioned by Katmar about
reducers on centrifugal pump suction lines.

An old ROT on CV sizing I remember: never less than two sizes below size line and never less than half
the pipe size.

The general recommendations, from a process point of view, to avoid adversely altering the CV
characteristics and capacity are:

1. Avoid arrangements that can result in a nozzle-effect into the CV

2. Avoid closed-coupled inlet block valves reduced from line size
3. Avoid contorted manifolds to achieve accesibility, in particular in block-and-bypass arrangenments
4. Use straight-line pipe sections into and out of the CV as needed for the CV, as originally established
by the control engineer. A ROT for reducers and expanders: 12
nominal pipe diameters (NPD) upstream and 5 downstream. For elbows on the same plane 18 NPD
upstream, 30 NPD if not on thesame plane, etc., etc.

These are ideal situations not always achievable. Piping designers, who determine the actual layout,
and process-control engineers should cooperate on this subject.

If specifying eccentric be sure to specify top of pipe or bottom pipe for flat side orientation to the
fabricators and field installers. That one has cost me some time and money

Also if tying into an existing piping system the existing pipe elevations could dictate need for concentric
or eccentric.