A S H RA E JOURNAL

The following article was published in ASHRAE Journal, June 1997. © Copyright 1997 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers,
Inc. It is presented for educational purposes only. This article may not be copied and/or distributed electronically or in paper form without permission of ASHRAE.

Figure 2: Load terminal.

Figure 1: Hydronic system.

Selecting Control and

Balancing Valves in a
Variable Flow System
Editor’s note: This article is preceded by an article by James
B. (Burt) Rishel, P.E., that has a different viewpoint.

Figure 3: Two-position control.

By Richard A. Hegberg, P.E.
Life Member trol valves are usually limited to the manufacturer’s available
capacities, unless special valve plugs are specified at addi-
tional cost. An automatic flow-limiting valve may be specified

A hydronic system design is contemplated with 100 load

terminals for providing cooling to a building. It is
desired to have a two-way valve on each load terminal to pro-
vide a variable water flow in each load terminal under com-
mand of local temperature/humidity control (Figure 1). A
variable speed control of the distribution pumping system pro-
vides a variable system flow to maintain a hydronic differen-
tial pressure at the last terminal. A separate pump maintains
flow in each chiller source.
Each load terminal consists of heat transfer load coil, ser-
vice valve, strainer, control valve, air vent and balancing-ser-
vice valve (Figure 2). The purpose is to efficiently transfer
heating and/or cooling to the load space by means of an air sys-
tem circulating airflow through the load coil to the space.
A temperature and humidity control positions the valve in
relation to the load. The control valve varies the terminal flow
in proportion to its load. A shut-off valve and a strainer are pro-
vided on the terminal supply to protect the terminal from for-
eign material clogging its heat transfer tubes and headers.
A manual balancing valve on the return of the control valve
permits trimming the control valve maximum flow and ser-
vices the terminal without draining supply/return mains. Con-
in lieu of a manual balancing valve, but union connections and
a manual shut-off valve need to be included.
An automatic air vent is located on the terminal return ahead
of the control valve to permit venting air from the terminal and
a petcock permits service of the air vent.
If the designer selects two position temperature control,
such as a thermostat operating an on-off valve on a fan coil
unit, then the load will operate with a cycling room tempera-
ture (Figure 3) energizing an on-off water flow to the coil.
About the Author
Richard A. Hegberg, P.E., now an independent consultant, is
the former director of technical development at Powers Regula-
tor Co.; a former research and systems engineer at Bell & Gos-
sett; and a former balancing consultant at Tour & Andersson
Controls. Hegberg is head of Section 8.0 Technical Activities
Committee (TAC), Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration System
Components. He also is a member of TC 6.1, Hydronics and
Steam Equipment; TC 8.10, Pumps and Hydronic Piping; and
the Illinois Chapter.

June, 1997 ASHRAE Journal 53

Figure 4: Proportional control. Figure 5: Proportional-integral control.

Valve Pipe Size 1/2 3/4 1 1 1/4 1 1/2 2 2 1/2 3 4

Valve Mfr. 1 2.7 6 10 16 20 38 65 94 174
“ 2 1.8 3.8 7 12 20 26 51 83 150
“ 3 4.0 6.3 10 16 25 40 63 100 160
“ 4 3.6 6.2 11 16 25 40 56 85 145
“ 5 4.7 7 12 19 25 40 75 94 146
Figure 6: Typical control valve flow coefficients.

This results in a differential temperature swing of 3-4°F, or An established practice is to select the valve size based upon the
more, that may be noticeable by the occupants in the space. Cv valve flow coefficient required. The Cv is defined as the flow in
Cycling the unit fan on-off in parallel with the coil valve will gpm through the wide open valve with a 1 psi pressure drop.
make this swing even more noticeable. The valve flow coefficient may be determined from the formula:
If the designer selects proportional control (P) (Figure 4) or
proportional-integral control,(PI) (Figure 5), there is an oppor- GPM
GPM = C v ∆P, or C v = ------------- (1)
tunity to control the space temperature conditions closer to the ∆P
load set point. This minimizes the temperature cycle with pro-
portional positioning of the control valve flow versus the load. where GPM is the load coil design flow in gpm,
In either of the control modes, two position, P, or PI, it is nec- ∆P is the pressure drop across the valve in psi,
essary that the designer properly select the control valve size
based upon design water flow requirements of the load terminal. See Hegberg, Page 56

Figure 7: Direct return piping. Figure 8: Reverse return piping.

54 ASHRAE Journal June, 1997

 Advertisement in the print
edition formerly in this space.

June, 1997 ASHRAE Journal 55

Figure 9: Direct return pressure distribution. Figure 10: Reverse return pressure distribution.

Ratio of Sub-circuit p.d. % Design Flow

To Distribution p.d. In End Circuit
4 95%
2 90
1 80
Figure 11: Ratio of sub-circuit pressure drop to distribution
pressure drop.

Hegberg, From Page 54

Cv is the control valve flow coefficient in GPM (@ wide open)

The valve flow formula may also be expressed as:

GPM = 0.67C v ∆H (2)

where ∆H is the pressure drop across the valve in feet.

The valve size is selected from the control valve manufac-
turer’s tech sheets based upon the required Cv, the estimated
pressure drop and an actuator size capable of closing the valve
against the maximum differential pressure.
It is important to note that the Cv rating varies by manufac-
turer so each must be studied. Figure 6 shows a chart of Cv val-
ues noted for some manufacturer’s valves.
To determine the pressure distribution available for each
load terminal, the designer establishes a piping design concept
and pumping arrangement to meet the physical source and ter-
minal locations and the overall project concept. Two basic pip-
ing systems are usually considered: the direct return (Figure 7)
and the reverse return (Figure 8) concept.
The direct return design (Figure 7) supplies source water in a
supply main and then returns its terminal flow into a return main
directly to the source. The supply main is selected to carry the
total design flow from the source and the main is gradually
reduced in size as flow is supplied to each terminal or branch.
Figure 13: Control valve flow characteristics at constant ∆P.
The return main is gradually increased in size from the last
terminal to the source as flow is returned from each zone. Its
pressure distribution diagram (Figure 9) can be drawn in scale
to represent the pump head in feet and the appropriate feet
head drop for each pipe section. It is important to determine
actual pipe size for each section of pipe, required for the design
flow so that an accurate assessment of pressure drop can be
determined.
The reverse return concept (Figure 8) supplies source water
in a supply main but returns its flow into a reverse-return main
See Hegberg, Page 59

Figure 12: Fric- 1000 GPM Flow, Schedule 40 Steel Pipe

tion loss and pipe size diameter 10” 8” 6” 5”
velocity for wa-
ter in Schedule head loss feet/100’ 0.50 1.56 6.17 15.8
40 Pipe2. velocity feet/sec. average 4.07 6.41 11.1 16.0

56 ASHRAE Journal June, 1997

 Advertisement in the print
edition formerly in this space.

June, 1997 ASHRAE Journal 57

 Advertisement in the print
edition formerly in this space.

58 ASHRAE Journal June, 1997


Figure 14: Heating transfer.
Hegberg, From Page 56
that proceeds to the last terminal’s return and then returns to
the source. The scaled pressure distribution diagram, reverse
return, (Figure 10) not only shows the pump head required, but
shows a more uniform pressure distribution for each terminal
than the direct return (Figure 9). Terminals near the pump have
lower pressure drops.
The pump is selected to provide the system flow or sum of
all the terminal’s design flows and the required foot head to
overcome the friction loss of the most resistant circuit. Each
circuit is analyzed for the total pressure loss from the pump
discharge, the supply main loss, the terminal, control valve,
balancing device, the fittings, return main, and back to the
pump suction.
Construction of pressure distribution diagrams or a spread-
sheet help the designer study the resistant losses in the mains
and across each terminal. Notice that when the direct return
design is selected (Figure 9), the high pressure drop across
Terminal #1 compared to Terminal #100. The reverse return
Figure 16: Terminal heat output, valve flow and terminal output vs. control valve position.
June, 1997
B A L A N C E VA L V E S
Figure 15: Cooling transfer.
system should be considered (Figure 10), since it reduces the
extreme pressure drops required.
The designer must pay attention to what pipe sizes are
selected to keep the distribution main’s head-loss at an accept-
able level. For example, a direct return design might have a
large supply main pressure drop of 30 ft (9.14 m), and a 25-
foot (7.62 m) drop across the last terminal’s sub-circuit and a
return main pressure drop of 30 ft.
The high main loss in comparison to terminal sub-circuit
loss will reduce the ability to proportionally distribute flow to
the terminals and especially a design flow in the last terminal.
This was pointed out in an ASHRAE Journal article1 by Gil
Carlson, Fellow ASHRAE. His article recommends higher
pressure drop (p.d.) across the terminal sub-circuits compared
to the distribution piping p.d.to increase the ability to obtain
design flow in the end circuit. His article produced the table
shown in Figure 11.
In the case of a system design requiring 100 terminals of 10
gpm (.631 L/s) each, then the main has to be capable of 1000
gpm (63.1 L/s), at full load, at the pump’s discharge. If we refer
ASHRAE Journal 59
to the pipe sizing charts in Chapter 33 of the 1993 ASHRAE
Fundamentals Handbook or the friction-loss and velocity
tables in the Hydraulic Institute Engineering Data Book2, we
will find the friction loss and velocity for water in Schedule 40
Pipe2.
It would appear that extreme pressure drops requiring high
pump heads could be avoided to minimize pumping horse-
power (Figure 12). Chapter 33 also suggests adding an allow-
ance of 15 to 20% to the friction loss of a closed piping system
for aging. However, this philosophy needs review as variable
speed pumping systems are more common and job experience
data becomes available.
Handbook Chapter 33 also suggests a velocity limit of 4 fps
(1.22 m/s) for 2-inch (5.1 cm) pipe and smaller; and also sug-
gests a head-loss of 4 feet/100 ft for piping over 2 inches in
diameter. However, it also discusses that velocities above 4 fps
can be used in piping of larger size. A table of water velocities
from 4 to 10 ft/sec (1.22 to 3 m/s) depending on type of service,
is also shown. The 4 feet/100 would suggest a pipe size between
6 in. (15.2 cm) and 8 in. (20.3 cm) or even 10 in. (25.4 cm) for
the 1000 gpm (63.1 L/s) example. Chapter 33 further references
the Water Flow Rate Limitations3 (Stewart & Dona ASHRAE
RP-450) with interesting guidelines and cautions for designers. Figure 17: Distortion of equal percent characteristic vs. au-
As pointed out, velocity noise is a concern and can result thority.
from several causes such as: turbulence, cavitation, release of
entrained air or water hammer. Physical location of mains and
branches has to be carefully studied if the design is to consider where
water velocities greater than 6 ft/sec (1.8 m/s) and the accept- -Pressure Drop Across Control Valve is determined from
able noise levels for the type of building occupancy. the control valve Cv selection (1).
In proportional control (P) or proportional-integral control -Pressure Drop Across System is determined by totaling the
(PI), the designer should consider the flow characteristics of the pressure drop path from the pump discharge through the sup-
control valve available and specify an Equal Percentage charac- ply main, branch supply, load coil, branch return and return
teristic for hydronic heating or cooling applications (Figure 13) main to the pump suction.
to linearize the percentage of the hydronic coil’s heat transfer The distortion of an Equal Percentage control valve charac-
emission (Chapter 41 of ASHRAE 1996 Handbook). teristic versus the control valve authority is shown in Figure
The purpose of selecting the control valve with a Equal Per- 17, also from Chapter 41 of ASHRAE 1996 Handbook.
centage characteristic is to linearize the percent of hydronic It is recommended the designer also select a control valve with
coil heat transfer (Figure 14-heating) or (Figure 15-cooling) as as high a Valve Rangeability as feasible to ensure a predictable
shown in Chapter 34 of ASHRAE 1995 Handbook. minimum flow through the control valve at low loads. Since a
Combining the percent coil heat transfer, Figure 16, i.e. great number of operating hours are at part-load, it’s important
90% heat output at 50% flow; with the percent of control valve that the designer understand this valve requirement. High control
travel, i.e. 50% flow at 90% travel, results in a theoretical lin- valve rangeability results in a predictable minimum percent of
ear heat output with control valve travel, i.e. 90% heat transfer heat transfer before the control valve closes. It is defined as:
at 90% travel. This shows the result of combining the equal
percentage valve characteristic (at 100% authority) to linearize Maximum Flow
coil heat transfer with valve stroke. (Chapter 41 of ASHRAE Valve Rangeability = -------------------------------------- (4)
Minimum Flow
1996 Handbook).
The designer should also select a high control valve author-
ity to ensure the least distorted flow characteristic. Maximum Flow -
or Minimum Flow = --------------------------------------------- (5)
The control valve authority is calculated from: Valve Rangeability

Valve Authority = Pressure Drop Across Control Valve-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pressure Drop Across System (3) See Hegberg, Page 62

Bal. Valve Pipe Size 1/2 3/4 1 1 1/4 1 1/2 2 2 1/2 3 4

B.V. Manf. 1 1.5 2.7 5.7 12.7 20 40.5 68. 135. 245.
“ 2 4. 8. 12. 24. 46. 72 125. 200. 440.
“ 3 2.9 8. 8. 25. 25. 54. 104. 150. 214.
“ 4 3.9 7. 10.8 18. 24.5 42.5 64. 90. –
“ 5 4.6 6.6 10. 16. 23. 37. 99. 139. 220.

Figure 18: Manual balancing valve flow coefficients (wide open).

60 ASHRAE Journal June, 1997

 Advertisement in the print
edition formerly in this space.

June, 1997 ASHRAE Journal 61

Hegberg, From Page 60
If the chilled water control valve is selected with Valve
Rangeability = 20:1, the Minimum Flow predictable in the
valve is (100% / 20) = 5%, referring to Fig.15, a 5% design
flow results in about 20% minimum sensible load capability.
(Latent heat removal is substantially reduced below 40%
design flow, per Figure 15).
Specifying a higher rangeability, say 40:1, will bring the Min-
imum Flow predictable in the valve to (100% / 40) = 2.5% of
design flow. This results in the valve being controllable down to
about 10% minimum sensible load before close-off (Figure 15).
One source4 points out that actual valve range depends on
valve authority and is equal to Minimum Flow x 1/√Authority.
So when control valves are selected at low authority, i.e.
selected at a low pressure drop, the ability to control the flow
near shut-off conditions becomes reduced.
Selecting the balancing valve (Figure 2) is similar to the pro-
cedure for the control valve. The flow through the Balancing
valve is determined by terminal design flow and the Cv formula:
GPM = C v ∆P or, GPM = 0.67 C v ∆H (1&2)
However, the designer should select the balancing valve
with a minimum pressure drop to permit the control valve to
operate with as high an authority as feasible.
The purpose of the balancing valve is to permit measure-
ment of the design water flow and permit proportional balanc-
ing of each load terminal’s flow in proportion to the other
terminals in a zone. The balancing valve is similarly used on
zone return mains for flow measurement and proportional bal-
ancing of the zone loads.
Once the terminals and the zone returns are balanced, then
the pump discharge balancing valve can be used to measure
the total design flow. If the pump balancing valve is set for a
pressure drop greater than 10% of the pump head as shown in
a test & balance report, the designer should consider trimming
or replacing the pump impeller (in agreement with the manu-
facturer’s certified pump head-capacity curves) and then the
pump discharge balancing valve’s artificial setting should be
returned to its wide open position. It is not good practice or
economy to operate any pump with excessive pressure drop
across the pump discharge valve.
It is interesting to also note that the manual balancing valve Cv
rating varies by manufacturer, so each must be studied. Figure 18
lists some of the Cv ratings noted for some manufacturers valves.
Selection of the manual balancing valve should be at its
wide open position, at the terminal’s design flow and a mini-
mum pressure drop. Selecting the balancing valve at its wide
open Cv rating will result in a minimum drop of 2.3 ft.or 1 psi.
A pressure drop of 1 ft. is readable in the field.
The designer should consider proportional balancing of all
the load terminals and return mains. Proportional balancing will
help determine where the most resistant loops are located, dif-
ferential pressure sensing locations and setting for the variable
speed pump control. A test and balancing evaluation of the sys-
tem operation at 100% and 50% of design flows will help to
locate any balancing readjustments for variable speed operation.
Improper use of a manual throttling valve in a pump dis-
charge that results in an unusual pressure drop should be
avoided. This should be corrected during the system commis-
sioning or balancing checkout. If the pump was selected incor-
62 ASHRAE Journal
rectly, it should be determined whether the impeller can be
replaced or trimmed. If not, the pump should be replaced.
In summary:
1. Operation of a variable speed pumping system for propor-
tional control requires two-way equal percentage control valves
specified for: proper size based on terminal design flow, valve pres-
sure drop, flow characteristic, authority and rangeability to
approach a linear terminal emission over the valve operating range.
2. Pressure distribution analysis needs to be considered by
the designer early in the design process to determine and adjust
pipe design selections, valve pressure drops and piping config-
uration (like reverse vs. direct return) to minimize pump head
and operating horsepower.
3. Manual balancing valves, automatic flow limiting valves
or flow measuring devices are tools that should be specified to
proportion the flow to each terminal and zone. Customized
throttling plugs on control valves, though possible, may not be
economically feasible.
4. Proportional balancing and verification of the terminal
circuit’s flow needs to be performed and tested at full-load
(100% flow) and a part-load (50% flow). This means the con-
trol valves have to be physically set at the full and part-load
positions for the balancing test.
5. Variable speed pumping should employ a differential
pressure sensor-transmitter across the most resistant terminal
and control valve location (usually at the last terminal). Alter-
nate sensing locations should be permitted if job conditions
require. The proportional balancing report should determine
the minimum differential pressure set point and help to con-
firm the sensor’s proper location.
References
1. Hydronic Systems Analysis and Evaluation, Carlson,G.F,
ASHRAE Journal, Nov. 1968.
2. Hydraulic Institute Engineering Data Book, 1990
3. Water Flow Rate Limitations, Stewart, W.E. & Dona, C.L.,1987
ASHRAE Transations pt.2, RP-450, #3106.
4. Total Balancing, Tour & Andersson, Petitjean, R, 1988.
5. ASHRAE Fundamental Water System Design, self-learning
course, 1996.
6. ASHRAE Journal, October 1990, The Pros and Cons of Balanc-
ing a Variable Flow Water System, (several authors).
7. ASHRAE 1996 HVAC Systems & Equipment, Chap. 41 Valves.
8. ASHRAE Fundamental Water System Design, self-learning
course, 1996.
9. ASHRAE Journal October 1990, The Pros and Cons of Balanc-
ing a Variable Flow Water System, (several authors).
10. ASHRAE 1993 Fundamentals, Chap. 33 Pipe Sizing.
11. ASHRAE 1995 HVAC Applications, Chap. 34 Test, Balancing
& Adjusting.
12. ASHRAE 1996 HVAC Systems & Equipment, Chap. 41 Valves. „
Please circle the appropriate number on the Reader Service
Card at the back of the publication.
Extremely Helpful ........................................................ 462
Helpful ....................................................................... 463
Somewhat Helpful ....................................................... 464
Not Helpful................................................................. 465
June, 1997