CFD predictions on Liquid Pressure Recovery Factor

(FL) for a control valve

Objective :
Develop a methodology to find out the Liquid Pressure Recovery factor (FL) for the
control valves using CFD simulations.

Background of the study:

Liquid pressure recovery factor for a control valve is the essential parameter for the

end users.
Every time rely on the testing laboratories is the time taking process and cost
effective too.
So develop a methodology by using the numerical tool to predict the liquid pressure
recovery factor (FL) is the inevitable one.

Liquid Pressure recovery (FL)

Formula for Liquid Pressure Recovery (FL)

A number used to describe the ratio between the pressure recovery after the vena contracta and the
pressure drop at the vena contracta is called a liquid pressure recovery factor.
It is a measure of the amount of pressure recovered between the vena contracta and the valve outlet.

Globe
valve

Plug
valve

(0.87-0.92)

(0.75-0.85)

Butterfly
valve

Ball valve

(0.50-0.80)

(0.35-0.50)

FIG:A Type of valves and its liquid pressure recovery (FL) values

FL is related to :
Depth of plunge to vena contracta

Maximum internal velocity

Tendency to cavitate

Tendency to generate noise

FL predictions methodology using CFD

Inlet

Outlet
PL1

PL20

FIG:A CFD Fluid volume for a Valdisk Butterfly valve

Methodology : Create a accurate CFD fluid domain.

20 Planes has been created (Ref Fig: A above) perpendicular to the flow direction and monitor the average pressure

values on each planes during CFD simulation.

Minimum Upstream pressure has been decided based on the ANSI/ISA-75.02.01-2008 (Page number :21).
The DPchoked has noted down by the moment the average pressure values of any of the planes falls below the vapor
pressure of the water (0.435psi).
For the same openings 2 or 3 different upstream pressure values has been considered for the CFD simulation to
ensure the sensitivity of FL value.

Numerical set up

Inlet

Outlet
FIG:A CFD Fluid volume for a Valdisk Butterfly valve

Software used
Inlet Boundary condition
Outlet Boundary condition
Turbulence model
Type of mesh
Meshing approach
Fluid medium
Nature of simulation
vapour pressure of water

STAR CCM+ (Ver 7.06.012)

Stagnation inlet
Pressure outlet
Kepsilon (two layer
Hexa hedral elements
Wall function
Water at room temperature
Unsteady
0.4psi

Table: A Boundary conditions & CFD settings

time (S)
0.5
1
1.5

P1 (Pa)
300000
300000
300000

P2 (Pa)
280000
260000
240000

300000

220000

2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7

300000
300000
300000
300000
300000
300000
300000
300000
300000
300000

200000
180000
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000

Table: B Transient boundary conditions

Validation:1 CAVITATOR Orifice FL Study

Outcome of the Study : Orifice was modeled with the accurate dimensions .(Dimensions are in
Fig:1)
Apply the FL prediction methodology which discussed in the previous slide.
CFD calculated Cv/d^2 and the FL values are closure agreement with the
values obtained from several lab results.(refer Table:1)
Table:2 discuss the results which received from the testing laboratories.

Fig:1 Calibration Sharp edged Orifice

Source:-Orifice dimensions & Other details were
obtained from the study of CALIBRATION AND
VERIFICATION OF CAVITATION TESTING
FACILITIES USING AN ORIFICE by William
Rahmeyer and Fred Cain

LAB Cv/d^2
A
B
B
C
D
E
E
F
G
CFD

5.43
5.51
5.51
5.55
5.47
5.59
5.59
5.56
5.47
5.42

FL
0.85
0.86
0.86
0.88
0.86
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.86
0.86

Table:1 Experimental Vs.

CFD Results Comparisons

Table:2 Results received from the labs (Tested in 7 different

labs in USA.

Cont.

CAVITER Orifice CFD Simulation & Results

Interpretation
Press PL-0

CAVITER
3bar @ Inlet

Pmin
2.745
2.737
0.354
0.221
0.088
-0.046
-0.180
-0.313
-0.444
-0.582
-0.713

Time
0.25
0.5
5
5.25
5.5
5.75
6
6.25
6.5
6.75
7

mass (kg/s) Press PL -1

2.822
2.818
1.169
1.077
0.985
18.28
0.893
0.801
0.710
0.618
0.521
0.431

Time
0.25
0.5
6.75
7
7.25
7.5
7.75
8
9
9.25
9.5

mass(kg/s) Press PL -1
3.827
3.817
1.523
1.432
1.341
20.88
1.251
1.157
1.064
0.695
0.605
0.514

Press PL -4
2.975
2.975
2.758
2.745
2.734
2.722
2.710
2.698
2.686
2.673
2.662

Press PL -5
2.984
2.985
2.854
2.847
2.840
2.832
2.825
2.818
2.811
2.804
2.797

Press PL 0
2.757
2.750
0.490
0.363
0.238
0.111
-0.015
-0.138
-0.264
-0.397
-0.521

Press PL 1
2.753
2.746
0.444
0.315
0.187
0.058
-0.070
-0.196
-0.324
-0.459
-0.585

Press PL 2
2.748
2.741
0.392
0.261
0.130
-0.001
-0.132
-0.261
-0.392
-0.530
-0.658

Press PL 3
2.746
2.738
0.369
0.236
0.104
-0.028
-0.161
-0.292
-0.424
-0.562
-0.691

Press PL 4
2.745
2.737
0.359
0.226
0.093
-0.041
-0.175
-0.307
-0.438
-0.576
-0.706

Press PL 5
2.745
2.737
0.354
0.221
0.088
-0.046
-0.180
-0.313
-0.444
-0.582
-0.713

Press PL -3
3.853
3.845
1.907
1.830
1.753
1.676
1.597
1.519
1.208
1.132
1.055

Press PL -4
3.976
3.975
3.674
3.662
3.650
3.638
3.626
3.614
3.566
3.555
3.543

Press PL -5
3.985
3.984
3.804
3.797
3.790
3.783
3.776
3.768
3.740
3.733
3.726

Press PL 0
3.765
3.751
0.605
0.480
0.356
0.232
0.104
-0.023
-0.531
-0.654
-0.778

Press PL 1
3.761
3.746
0.543
0.416
0.289
0.163
0.033
-0.097
-0.613
-0.738
-0.865

Press PL 2
3.756
3.741
0.473
0.343
0.213
0.085
-0.049
-0.181
-0.707
-0.835
-0.965

Press PL 3
3.754
3.739
0.441
0.310
0.178
0.048
-0.087
-0.220
-0.750
-0.879
-1.011

Press PL 4
3.754
3.738
0.427
0.295
0.161
0.031
-0.104
-0.238
-0.769
-0.899
-1.032

Press PL 5
3.753
3.738
0.420
0.288
0.154
0.024
-0.111
-0.245
-0.777
-0.908
-1.041

Press PL -3
4.849
4.845
4.775
2.209
2.131
2.054
1.976
1.899
1.356

Press PL -4
4.975
4.975
4.961
4.566
4.555
4.543
4.531
4.519
4.436

Press PL -5
4.984
4.985
4.974
4.740
4.733
4.726
4.719
4.712
4.663

Press PL 0
4.757
4.750
4.638
0.472
0.345
0.220
0.094
-0.032
-0.914

Press PL 1
4.753
4.746
4.632
0.390
0.261
0.133
0.004
-0.123
-1.022

Press PL 2
4.748
4.741
4.624
0.296
0.164
0.034
-0.098
-0.228
-1.144

Press PL 3
4.746
4.738
4.621
0.253
0.120
-0.012
-0.144
-0.276
-1.201

Press PL 4
4.745
4.737
4.620
0.233
0.100
-0.032
-0.165
-0.297
-1.226

Press PL 5
4.745
4.737
4.619
0.224
0.091
-0.041
-0.174
-0.307
-1.237

Pin

Pout

DP

2.926

0.7

2.226

Press PL -2
3.835
3.825
1.632
1.545
1.457
1.371
1.281
1.192
0.839
0.754
0.666

Pin

Pout

DP

3.903

2.903

Time
0.25
0.5
0.75
9
9.25
9.5
9.75
10
11.75

mass

Press PL -1
4.822
4.818
4.735
1.697
1.604
1.513
1.421
1.329
0.686

Press PL -2
4.830
4.826
4.746
1.841
1.753
1.665
1.577
1.490
0.874

Pin

Pout

DP

4.877

1.2

3.677

0.87

FL

CAVITER
5bar @ Inlet

Pmin
4.745
4.737
4.619
0.224
0.091
-0.041
-0.174
-0.307
-1.237

FL
Press PL -3
2.849
2.845
1.452
1.374
1.297
1.219
1.141
1.064
0.986
0.905
0.829

CAVITER
4bar @ Inlet

Pmin
3.753
3.738
0.420
0.288
0.154
0.024
-0.111
-0.245
-0.777
-0.908
-1.041

Press PL -2
2.830
2.826
1.249
1.161
1.073
0.985
0.897
0.810
0.722
0.629
0.543

0.86

FL

0.87

Table:1 CFD Result Analysis

All the pressure values are in bar

CFD simulations has been performed for different upstream pressures (3bar,4bar ,5bar & 6bar)
The average FL value for the CAVITATOR orifice is 0.86

Press PL-20

FL prediction for 6Inch Valdisk Shaft up position

FL calculations using CFD
Valve
Openings
(%)
20%
40%
60%
90%

Minimum
DP Choked
upsteram
(bar)
pressure (bar)
3
2.786
4
3.682
5
4.676
3
2.387
4
3.055
3
1.915
4
2.535
5
2.358
6
2.757

Qmax
(gpm)

FL

520.07
598.39
677.04
1479.17
1702.10
2352.66
2189.70
4322.88
4714.82

0.97
0.96
0.97
0.90
0.88
0.80
0.80
0.69
0.68

Ave
FL
0.97
0.89
0.80
0.68

Table:1 FL calculation procedure

Chart:1 FL Vs. various valve openings

Methodology : 20%,40%,60% and 90% has been considered for CFD simulations.
Minimum Upstream pressure has been decided based on the ANSI/ISA-75.02.01-2008 (Page number :21).
20 Planes has been created (Ref Fig: A above) perpendicular to the flow direction and monitored average pressure

values on each planes during simulation.

The DPchoked has identified by the moment the average pressure values of any of the planes falls below the vapor
pressure of the water (0.435psi)

Conclusions

Estimate the FL value for a valve with any numbers of openings within a short period of time.
Cost required for an experiment is saved by using this methodology.(FL testing for a 2 valve are charged
(~$1000 to $2500 ) in Indian Pvt labs)
Doing an experimental study for a bigger size valves are (>32 valve sizes) difficult and requires lot of capital
investments to perform.