Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Proceedings
ProceedingsofofHT-FED04
HT-FED2004:
2004
2004ASME
ASMEHeat
HeatTransfer/Fluids
Transfer/FluidsEngineering Summer
Engineering Conference
Summer Conference
July 11-15, 2004, Charlotte, North Carolina USA2004
July 11-15,
Westin Charlotte & Convention Center
Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
HT-FED04-56016
HT-FED2004-56016
Keywords: Butterfly valve, compressible flow, aerodynamic the use of implicit or explicit equations. Because the
torque, bearing force, CFD. compressible flow field of a butterfly valve is complex and
since the butterfly valve geometry is also complex, the use of
ABSTRACT the coupled solver with implicit equations was chosen along
The ability to accurately predict the aerodynamic torque with a second-order time and flow discretization.
and lift and drag forces on a two-dimensional model of a 0.18 The disc geometry chosen was a symmetric 0.18 aspect
aspect ratio biconvex circular-arc disc operating in a ratio (ASR) biconvex circular-arc disc (BiCAD). The BiCAD
compressible flow using Fluent 6.0 was investigated. Grid- was studied by Morris [1], who reported the dimensionless
convergence and time-convergence/stability were analyzed pressure profile on the upstream and downstream disc faces for
first, followed by a qualitative study of the Spalart-Allmaras, k- various disc angles and pressure ratios. Morris used a duct of
, and k- turbulence models with their enhancement features rectangular cross-section with an aspect of 2.67.
and model variants. Fluent was used to predict the pressure
profile on the disc surface for disc positions 30, 45, and 60 NOMENCLATURE
(where 0 is the fully closed position), and over a range of D disc chord length, in.
pressure ratios. The pressure ratios were selected to determine Ct hydrodynamic torque coefficient
the capability of Fluent to accurately predict the flow field and Ctc aerodynamic torque coefficient
resulting torque in flows ranging from nearly incompressible to CM moment coefficient
highly compressible. Fluent predictions for the pressure Cv flow coefficient, GPM/psi
profiles on the disc were compared to test data so that the lift Kv valve resistance coefficient
and drag forces and aerodynamic torque could be determined P pressure, psia
responsibly. Acceptable comparisons were noted. Q volumetric flow rate, GPM
Taero aerodynamic torque, in-lbf
INTRODUCTION Thyd hydrodynamic torque, in-lbf
The scope of this study is to validate the use of Fluent 6.0, V average inlet velocity, ft/sec
a commercial computational fluid dynamics (CFD) package, as Pv valve pressure drop, psid
applied to butterfly valve torque prediction. The flow field of a fluid density, lbm/ft3
compressible fluid in a butterfly valve is quite complex and can Subscripts
be rather challenging for CFD codes. To quantify the b back pressure
numerical error associated with CFD predictions, it is necessary e exit
to perform a proper validation, which requires that the grid, i inlet
turbulence model, and solution technique be compared to actual o stagnation
test data over the full range of possible flow phenomena. The v valve
primary equation-solving technique that Fluent employs is the
Finite Volume Method (FVM). Fluent provides several options
such as the choice of a coupled or segregated solver, as well as
The flow fields of the third and fourth pressure ratios are 0.7
very similar, the only differences being the location of the 0.6
separation point on the trailing face and the presence of 0.5
reflecting shocks for the fourth pressure ratio. For some disc
0.4
geometries and positions, the third pressure ratio may be k- (RNG)
k- (Realizable)
skipped and the transition from the second to the fourth may be 0.3 k- (SST- Comp.)
Spalart-Allmaras
immediate. 0.2 Test Data
0.1
TURBULENCE MODEL COMPARISON
0.0
The disc-pressure profile was predicted and compared to -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
results for an operating pressure ratio, Pb/Po, of 0.23 with the Disc Position, x/D
disc at 45 (see Fig. 1) using the Spalart-Allmaras, k-, and k-
Figure 2 Comparison of the dimensionless pressure profiles of the
turbulence models, including a few turbulence model variants. numerical results for the k- RNG, k- Realizable, k- SST, and
The best performing models are given in Fig. 2. Two of the the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence models. The test data
models in Fig. 2 are part of the k- family, one model from the corresponds to a disc at 45 and a pressure ratio of 0.24 [1].
k- family and the fourth is the Spalart-Allmaras model. Of
the k- models, the RNG (Renormalization Group Theory) and The Spalart-Allmaras model is a one-equation model,
Realizable models, both with enhanced wall treatment, while the k- and k- turbulence models are both two-equation
produced the best results. In fact, the RNG and Realizable models. The k- models include the Standard, the RNG, and
models almost entirely overlap along the downstream face. Of the Realizable models. These models have additional
the k- models, the Shear Stress Transport (SST) model with enhancement options including different techniques of wall
the compressibility option produced the best results. The treatment: Standard, nonequilibrium, and enhanced wall
Spalart-Allmaras model also provides good agreement treatment. With the enhanced wall treatment option selected,
compared with the other turbulence models. two additional options are available: the pressure gradient and
All three turbulence models are available as part of Fluent thermal effects options. The k- RNG model also provides a
6.0 and only a brief description of the base models and possible differential viscosity model. The k- models include the
0.9
the trailing half of the downstream face.
0.8
1
0.1 0.4
Fluent Results - 30deg Instantaneous pressure profile
0 0.3 Fluent Results - 45deg
Fluent Results - 60deg
-0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Test Data - 30deg
0.2
Disc Position, x/D Test Data - 45deg
0.1 Test Data - 60deg
Figure 4 Numerical results for the disc at 45, 46, and 50 are
compared to test data [1] for a disc at 45 at a pressure ratio of 0
0.24. -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Disc Position, x/D
The pressure ratios used in the numerical investigation
were based on the pressure ratios of Morris [1]. Table 2 relates
the Case number, disc position, and pressure ratio, Pb/Po that Figure 5 Comparison of Fluent results with test data [1] for Case 1
were used in this work and in Morriss research. for disc angles of 30, 45, and 60.
0.1
The effect of the disc angle on the pressure profile can be 0
seen in Figs. 5 and 6. Figure 5 shows the pressure profile for -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Case 1 at disc positions of 30, 45, and 60. The numerical Disc Position, x/D
predictions for the downstream disc face pressure profiles are
higher than reported by Morris [1]. Possible explanations for
the difference are similar to those previously stated. Pressure Figure 6 Comparison of Fluent results with test data [1] for Case 6
for disc angles of 30, 45, and 60.
fluctuations for the 60 pressure profile due to vortex
formations in close proximity to the disc are noticeable. The From Figs. 5 and 6, it is clear that while the disc is in the
absence of noticeable fluctuations for the 30 and 45 positions nearly closed position, the stagnation point remains close to the
indicate that the location of the vortex structures is far enough pipe centerline, and the low flow velocity allows for a nearly
downstream that they have only a minor influence on the uniform pressure profile to exist along the upstream face. As
downstream disc pressure profile. The absence of pressure the disc opens toward 60, the stagnation point moves toward
fluctuations in the experimental results is likely due to the use the leading edge, away from the shaft centerline, and the profile
of the scanning valve used to record the pressure begins to decrease along the upstream face. The location of the
measurements. stagnation point has a strong influence on the location of the
Figure 6 shows the pressure profiles for Case 6 at disc resultant force and thus affects the aerodynamic torque.
positions of 30, 45, and 60. Reattachment and shock- Although the resultant force for a nearly closed disc may be
Moment Coefficient
30 -0.40
no direct relationship between the aerodynamic torque and the
bearing torque. To calculate the bearing and aerodynamic 25
-0.60
torque requires knowledge of both the magnitude and location 20
of the resultant force. It should be noted that the geometry of Lift Coefficient
the disc will influence the manner in which the stagnation point 15 Drag Coefficient -0.80
Moment Coefficient
moves. For example, the stagnation point on a concave leading 10
face will be different from that of the BiCAD disc which has a -1.00
5
convex face. Also the curvature of the downstream face will
influence reattachment and separation. 0 -1.20
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Pressure Ratio, Pb/Po
25 0.00
-0.15
Drag Coefficients
15 -0.60
-0.75
Figure 10 The pressure contours for Case 4 downstream of the
10 -0.90
BiCAD due to the vortex formations and oblique shockwaves. The
range of pressure values was set to capture the pressure field -1.05
Moment Coefficients
downstream of the disc and to omit the higher pressure upstream
5 -1.20
of the disc. The pressure contours range from 2 to 18 psia. Low
Mesh 1
pressures are represented by dark lines and high pressures -1.35
Mesh 5
represented by lighter lines. 0 -1.50
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
Time, seconds
35
Drag Coefficient -0.05
30 -0.20
Lift Coefficient
Lift and Drag Coefficients (Cl, Cd)
25 -0.35
Figure 11 The Mach number vector plot for Case 1 clearly shows -0.65
15
the absence of vortex formations immediately downstream of the
-0.80
disc. The maximum Mach number is 0.85.
10
-0.95
5
-1.10
Moment Coefficients
0 -1.25
0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.010
Time, seconds
Lift Coefficient
REFERENCES
15 -1.00
[2] Crane, 1988, Flow through Valves, Fittings, and Pipes:
Moment Coefficient
Technical Paper No. 410. Signal Hill, CA.
10
-2.00 [3] Sarpkaya, T., 1961, Torque and Cavitation Characteristics
5
of Butterfly Valves, ASME J. Appl. Mechs., 28, pp. 511-
0 -3.00 518.
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014
Time, seconds [4] Kalsi Engineering, 745 Park Two Drive, Sugar Land TX,
Figure 15 Time-dependent coefficients for Case 4 with the disc at 77478-2885, 281-240-6500, www.kalsi.com.
45.
[5] Silvester, R. S., 1980, Torque Induced by Compressible
Flow through a Butterfly Valve with an Asymmetric Disc
Design BHRA Fluid Engineering, RR1602, Project No.
CONCLUSIONS R. P. 21373.
CFD has the potential to be a useful tool in analyzing
compressible flow through butterfly valves. Standard [6] Steele, R. Jr., and Watkins, J. C., 1985, Containment
turbulence models provide the means for predicting the Purge and Vent Valve Test Program Final Report EG&G
pressure profiles on the disc surfaces. Furthermore, complex Idaho, Inc., Idaho National Laboratory, NUREG/CR-4141
geometries can be modeled using hybrid grids. EG-2374.
Two-dimensional numerical results compare well to
[7] Morris, M. J. and Dutton, J. C., 1991, The Performance of
experimental data [1], and provide the means for studying
Two Butterfly Valves Mounted in Series, ASME J. of
complex phenomena such as the effect of the pressure ratio on
Fluids Engr., 113, pp. 419-423.
the downstream flow field and the resulting forces and torque
acting on the disc. CFD can also reveal many important [8] Morris, M. J., Dutton, J. C., 1991, An Experimental
features of the flow field that might remain unnoticed from Investigation of Butterfly-Valve Performance Downstream
experimental results such as vortex proximity, pressure of an Elbow ASME J. of Fluids Engr., 113, pp. 81-85.
fluctuations, and flow attachment/separation from the pipe
walls and disc face. [9] Danbon, F., Solliec, C., 2000, Aerodynamic Torque of a
The behaviors of the pressure profiles were consistent with Butterfly Valve-Influence of an Elbow on the Time-Mean
experimental data and compensation can be made for and Instantaneous Aerodynamic Torque, ASME J. of
differences between numerical predictions and experimental Fluids Engr., 122, pp. 337-344.
results. The flow field is highly dependent on the pressure ratio [10] Solliec, C. and Danbon, F., 1999, Aerodynamic Torque
acting across the valve. Acting on a Butterfly Valve. Comparison and Choice of
The numerical results show that for certain disc angles and Torque Coefficient, ASME J. of Fluids Engr., 121, pp.
pressure ratios significant fluctuations in the torque are present 914-919.
and may cause sever vibrations to be present in the piping
system. [11] Fluent, 2001, Fluent Users Guide, Ver. 6.0.20, Fluent
The flow field and torque behavior are strongly dependent Inc.
on the disc angle and pressure ratio until the pressure ratio is [12] Bernard, Peter W. and Wallace, James M., 2002, Turbulent
reduced below the fourth characteristic pressure ratio, at which Flow, Wiley, New Jersey.
point the flow field in the vicinity of the disc is unaffected by a
further decrease in the pressure ratio. [13] Wilcox, David, 1993, Turbulence Modeling for CFD,
This study can be expanded to include other disc Griffin Printing, Glendale, CA.
geometries, piping configurations and disc positions. It can be [14] Ferziger, J. H. and Peri, M., 2002, Computational
further expanded to include three-dimensional geometries as Methods for Fluid Dynamics, Springer, Berlin.
well, which include manufactured disc geometries in more
complex piping systems.