AWC FC-CoC 2019:JP3.

Common Sense Approaches to Control Valve Sizing

Jeff Peshoff
AWC, Inc.
jeff.peshoff@awc-inc.com

AWC Flow Control COC

6655 Exchequer Drive
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
April 12, 2019

AWC, Inc. shall not be responsible for statements or opinions contained in papers
or printed in publications

Keywords: Head Loss, Piping Friction, Installed Process Conditions

AWC FC-CoC 2019:JP3.0

Most all control valve manufacturers offer control valve sizing software which includes size, model specific
Cv data and relevant sizing constants for their currently offered valve products. Some manufacturers’
software tools also include actuator sizing, specification sheet generation, physical constants for common
fluids, prediction curves for installed conditions as well as noise or cavitation phenomenon, including
analysis with the use of upstream or downstream resistors (pressure differential producers or restrictors) to
take up some of the available pressure drop that would otherwise occur at the control valve alone.1
Also, third party software is available which includes sizing data from multiple control valve manufacturers,
allowing for ease of comparison between different valve models or sizes, as well as options for sizing
analysis, which may include the use of multiple pressure reducing resistors in conjunction with the control
valve.2 Regardless of complexity or capability, all of these tools require accurate process data in order to
produce appropriate results.
Determining accurate process information for control valve sizing can be a common challenge for
instrumentation engineers and maintenance personnel specifying control valves and/or engaging in
redesign of applications.
Modern sizing tools are typically very intuitive to use so that even someone inexperienced in the calculations
can be easily trained in how to input the correct data and generate results. However, regardless of the
utility of the chosen software, input data for sizing can sometimes be questionable or incomplete. A review
of historical client requests reveals some common concerns:
• The pressure (P2) just downstream of the control valve isn’t provided at all. Many times, there is
misunderstanding of how to calculate or even
estimate P2 in a piping system.
• A static pressure condition is given for the
control valve inlet pressure (P1) without
considerations for elevation head (liquids) or
friction losses upstream of the control valve to arrive at a reasonable figure for P1.
• Both the provided inlet and outlet pressure values are suspect and more frequently in vacuum
applications.
• It is unclear whether pressure values provided are in vacuum or absolute engineering units.
• Gas flow rates are given in actual volumetric engineering units without reference to specific flowing
pressure and temperature values or standard conditions.
• One flow condition is given without an understanding of whether this a normal operating point or
maximum. Sizing with a maximum and minimum set of operating conditions is recommended.
• The inlet and outlet pressure conditions don’t change even at multiple flow rates. In liquid transfer
systems utilizing a centrifugal pump and/or in a system with long piping runs with higher than
recommended fluid velocities, this can especially be of concern.
• Physical constants such as density, specific heat ratio, viscosity and vapor pressure for uncommon
process media are not provided, which can lead to the use of default assumptions, affecting sizing
results.
• There may be a lack of understanding of how precise engineering data needs to be in order to arrive
at a reasonable sizing/selection evaluation. Too little care can lead to errors but high levels of
precision, in some cases, may be unnecessarily cumbersome to determine, leading to wasted time
and effort.
AWC FC-CoC 2019:JP3.0

The reasons for these shortcomings in given process information is that, in many cases, those requesting
sizing assistance simply do not understand what is required and/or how to obtain the needed information.
Some might contend that an instrument engineer should work with a competent process engineer to arrive
at reasonable control valve sizing information for inquiry submittals, even performing their own sizing
calculations and subsequently asking the vendor/supplier for assistance only with selection or final checks of
vendor specific data.

There are also many reputable software packages which engineers can utilize to perform detailed flow
engineering calculations from a broader system perspective. Such software accounts for piping friction
losses, pump curves and implications for control valve sizing at various flow cases.3

Even so, in today’s world, process industry plants may lack the staff to perform this analysis or have funding
constraints for such engineering services. Plant operations, project engineering or maintenance personnel,
working in complement with a knowledgeable technology or sales consultant may be able to recognize when
given process details for sizing appears questionable and subsequently provide guidance on estimating
control valve sizing input data. Some real-world examples are detailed below with obvious name changes to
preserve anonymity.

Example 1:
ABC Refinery asks for control valve sizing assistance and provides the following process data:

6” SCH10S piping on inlet and outlet of control valve

Inlet Pressure (P1) = 20.5 inches of Hg vacuum
Outlet Pressure (P2) = 19 inches of Hg vacuum
Max Flow Rate = 40,000 scfh
Process Media is air @ 120F
Gas specific gravity = 1
Ratio of Specific Heats = 1.4

Implications: The error here is related to the fact that pressure on the inlet and outlet of the control valve is expressed
in inches of water vacuum. In of itself, that isn’t a problem. This means the pressure as stated is referenced to 0 gauge
pressure. However, the pressures are expressed such that the inlet pressure is lower than the outlet pressure, which
means the flow would be backwards through the control valve. This is more evident if one changes the given inlet and
outlet pressures to absolute units. Converting, P1 would equal 4.64 psia and P2 would equal 5.37 psia. This could be a
simple transpose error of given inlet and outlet pressures, but this could also signal a greater problem with care for
accuracy in the submitted data.

Example 2:
ACME Paper asked for help with an existing temperature control valve that is failing prematurely on a desuperheating
system. See the process diagram below for reference. The control valve (TCV-1) throttles boiler feedwater to a
desuperheating spray nozzle inserted into a steam line. Put simply, as the temperature rises, the temperature
controller (TIC-1) signals TCV-1 to open some, increasing the addition of atomized spray water through the nozzle to
reduce the steam temperature which is measured at TE/TT-1, downstream of the nozzle. As the temperature falls
below the target set point, the controller signals the valve to move more closed to bring the temperature back up to
set point. Mill maintenance personnel note the globe control valve shows severe trim erosion and sometimes even
washing of the body within 10 weeks of service. Plant personnel have inquired about a replacement control valve
with erosion resistant materials. Other system components with similar materials of construction and subject to the
same process media, pressure and temperature have acceptable service life.
 AWC FC-CoC 2019:JP3.0

Pressure Reducing Station with

Downstream Desuperheater

Steam
Flow

Solution: Before proceeding with re-design of the materials of construction, the throttling conditions should be
evaluated. Given this, one might be quick to request sizing data at various flow conditions. This can be difficult
information to obtain. Pressure indicating instruments may not be present or practical to install. In some cases, there
isn’t an available flow indication or a flow transmitter for the desuperheating water. In this actual case, a trend of the
steam flow was shown as holding relatively steady and the feedwater supply pressure appeared to be without
appreciable variation. One could use thermodynamic calculations to find the required desuperheating water flow by
utilizing steam flow, temperature and pressure to generate the required water demand at various steam flow rates for
a set steam temperature set point.

However, a more obvious evaluation path is available. Confirming that when the temperature control valve in this
service fails, it is replaced with a valve that is in like-new condition, the controller (TIC) output, or implied valve
position, can be trended to observe at what percent open TCV-1 commonly operates. Given the steady steam flow
rate and feedwater supply pressure to TCV-1, the desuperheating water demand shouldn’t fluctuate widely and
consequently, there should be little need for regular, major travel changes at TCV-1. If the valve positioner is
operating correctly, then the percent controller output should be approximate to the percent valve opening. A review
of this trend revealed that the controller output was running from 6 to 12% open right after replacement and from 0
to 7% open before a then degraded control valve is changed. This low operating travel indicates the valve is oversized
with subsequent high velocity flow impingement - likely causing the erosion.

Rather than collecting detailed sizing data, one could simply evaluate the Cv curve or tabular values for the existing
control valve. Since the maximum implied valve position is 12% right after replacement, the Cv of the installed control
valve can be found by researching the Cv table provided by the manufacturer for this specific valve/trim size and
characteristic at this percent opening. Using that Cv value, one could evaluate the Cv tables for a trim reduction
change or replacement control valve that has the same Cv value but at around 75% valve opening.
AWC FC-CoC 2019:JP3.0

Certainly, there could be other process issues or even problems with the control valve application such as cavitation or
even flashing. However, the likelihood is during the original design of the system, TCV-1 was sized considering a
maximum steam flow case and therefore, commensurate maximum desuperheating water demand, with little
consideration for the normal or minimal operating cases. This goes back to the adage that engineers view the more
consequential mistake is to undersize rather than oversize any given process equipment. A more detailed analysis of
this particular problem would obviously include existing sizing conditions at both minimal and normal operating
conditions. In some cases, a parallel staged or split ranged control with one desuperheating water valve handling the
normal operating conditions and another valve that opens to provide additional water flow when normal conditions
are exceeded. Further details for such a solution are beyond the scope of this document.

Example 3:
Consider the simple system shown in the process diagram below:

A recirculation line with control valve is

shown off the discharge of a centrifugal
pump delivering dilution water to a
downstream system. This is a common
control arrangement, sometimes utilizing
discharge pressure measurement, in order
to keep the pump in an acceptable
operating range and to ultimately prevent
dead heading if the downstream flow
demand falls to an unacceptable level.
It is also common for the recirculation
control valve to cavitate leading to a
relatively short service life.

A client asked for assistance in resolving the

short service life of the control valve in this
application.

Solution: This example assumes an existing system is being evaluated. Had this been an engineering design
evaluation ahead of actual construction, a detailed hydraulic analysis of the system, where pump and control valve are
concurrently specified, would be in order. Our purpose here is to demonstrate how minimal data gathered in the field
can be used to provide a reasonable estimate of control valve sizing data, ultimately leading to a solution.

A field survey of the system reveals that the recirculation line is discharging into the top of the atmospheric tank.
Therefore, the pressure at the recirculation discharge is known to be 0 psig. The pressure transmitter on the discharge
of the pump shows the pressure varying from 66 to 70 psig. The lower pressure at the higher flow rate is expected
due to the pump curve even though downstream friction losses will add more back pressure at higher flow rates. The
controller output is trended to show a properly calibrated control valve to be operating between 40 and 70% opening
and this is confirmed by visual observance of valve travel. There is reason to believe that standard engineering
practice was used to size the piping for flow velocities between 3 to 10 ft/sec. There is no flow instrumentation on the
recirculation or downstream line, but given the expected design velocity range and evaluation of the pump curve data,
the min and max flow rate shown is a good estimate. Audible indication of cavitation at the control valve can be heard
when near the system (sounds like gravel being pumped instead of water). A tape is used to measure the elevation
differences and length of piping runs shown on the diagram above.
AWC FC-CoC 2019:JP3.0

Estimating P2 (control valve outlet pressure): Since the pressure of 0 psig is known at the discharge into the tank, the
P2 pressure at the outlet of the control valve can be closely estimated by working backward from this known pressure.
The difference in the known pressure and the control valve outlet is the elevation head difference plus friction losses
in the pipe. The elevation difference is approximately 10 ft so there is at least (10 ft of water / 2.31 = 4.3 psig) of
pressure due to elevation head alone assuming a full pipe and some siphoning effect.

Using Crane Technical Paper No. 410, page B-11, one can read a pressure loss of 2.2 psid at the 900 gpm flow rate but
for 100 feet of 6” SCH40 pipe. The pressure loss is only 0.233 psid at the low flow condition of 300 gpm. There is 14ft
of pipe on the outlet of the control valve plus one 90 degree EL. (14ft/100ft)(2.2) = 0.31 psid at the high flow
condition and negligible loss at the low flow condition. A worst case pressure loss for the elbow, again using
calculation methods shown in Crane 410 reveal a 0.65 psid loss at the high flow condition.

Therefore, the P2 calculation is approximated as follows:

0 psig @ discharge into tank - 4.3 psi elevation head + 0.31 psi pipe friction loss + 0.65 psi loss in the elbow = -3.3 psig

Note: If the flow was actually known to be 900 gpm at the maximum observed control valve opening, control valve
sizing calculations using the Cv at this opening could be used to back calculate P1.

Armed with the inlet and outlet pressures and estimated flow rate, control valve sizing tools can be used to determine
whether the observed percent opening of the valve is as expected. Once this is complete, a solution dealing with the
cavitation phenomenon can be developed. This would typically involve the use of a control valve with cavitation
attenuating trim, such as Neles Q-RE or similar, or even adding a restriction or flow resistor just downstream of the
control valve thereby increasing the pressure at the control valve outlet and reducing overall control valve pressure
drop.