Proceedings of FEDSM’07

5TH ASME/JSME JOINT FLUIDS ENGINEERING CONFERENCE

San Diego, CA, USA, July 30-August 2, 2007

FEDSM2007-37690

FLUID KINETIC ENERGY BASED LIMITS IN THE DESIGN OF CONTROL VALVES AND VALVE-
RELATED SYSTEMS

Sanjay V. Sherikar Vinay Nagpal

Control Components Inc. (Formerly) Control Components Inc.
22591 Avenida Empresa 22591 Avenida Empresa
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Ph: (949) 858 1877 Fax: (949) 858 1877 Ph: (949) 858 1877 Fax: (949) 858 1877
E-mail: svs@ccivalve.com E-mail: vinay1@cox.net

ABSTRACT V, v = Velocity, mean and fluctuating respectively

Vh = Velocity head
The term 1/2 ρ V2 represents kinetic energy per unit volume; it is We = Weber number
also known as dynamic pressure, or velocity head, in flowing ρ = Fluid density
fluids and has units of pressure. It is one of the primary σ = Cavitation index
parameters in many wide-ranging phenomenon of practical θ = angle of impact
interest in control valves and valve-related systems. The
phenomena of interest include vibration, noise, solid particle Subscripts:
erosion, liquid impingement erosion, cavitation and more. The 1 = upstream
description of the extent of these phenomena through their 2 = downstream
physics, as relating to acceptability of the system performance, crit = critical
is closely tied to the magnitude of the kinetic energy of the v = vapor
flowing stream; this permits use of this parameter as a criterion f = fluid
for reliable performance of control valves and valve-related j =jet
systems. Kinetic energy criterion is a more general approach, p = particle
when compared to the older engineering practice of specifying rel = relative
velocity limits only, because it takes into account the effect of
fluid density which can be different by orders of magnitude INTRODUCTION
depending on the process. The robustness of this criterion is
confirmed by the results of its application in solving valve Variability of fluid density in process systems:
problems. Its main advantages are simplicity while staying
close to the phenomena of interest. Over the decades, the process control industry has
developed and applied velocity based rules in the design of
Key words: fluid kinetic energy, dynamic pressure, equipment and piping. Each of the rules focuses on the
velocity head, cavitation, vibration, noise, erosion, atomization. relatively narrow range of conditions faced by the designer. As
an example, the designer of a high pressure steam piping
NOMENCLATURE system supplying to an electrical power turbine typically would
face a steam pressure range of 7 to 25 MPa. On the other end
Cv = flow capacity the designer of the piping/ducting connecting the turbine
d =diameter of the nozzle, or orifice exhaust to the condenser would deal with pressures in the 0.003
D32 = Sauter Mean Diameter - 0.010 MPa range. The density variation in each system is
Ev = eroded volume limited. However, when considered across the board, the
K = loss coefficient density variation in these two examples would be about 4
M = Mass orders of magnitude.
P, p = pressure, mean and fluctuating respectively

1 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

 Similarly, there are Mach number limitation rules for
noise/vibration. These practical guidelines are also valid in the
narrow range of fluid densities of the designers’ needs and
experience. Often the simple rule is to limit the Mach number
to a maximum of 0.3. Application of such rules beyond the
original intended range of densities results in poor performance
or excessive cost.
This illustrates that a rule that can be applied for a wide
variability in fluid density will necessarily have to include
density as a variable; such rule cannot be based on velocity
alone.
Valves:
In specification of control valves for industrial processes
systems, the primary requirements typically are:
• Pressure boundary requirements
• Process (flow capacity etc.) requirements
• Power available for actuation
• Input control signal
• Action upon failure of signal or power
• End connections at the piping interfaces
• Other performance requirements, such as for allowable
leakage when shut, noise etc.
How these specifications are met is a matter of valve
selection and design. There are many different configurations
of valves to begin, some of which are illustrated in Figures 1
and 2. The experience of the users and designers plays a major
role in selection of the valve type for specific applications. The
rules that are used for selection and sizing generally reflect
good prior experience, or what has worked, within the envelope
of the operating parameters. One recurring theme among such
rules is the limits on fluid velocity, with separate limits for
liquids and gases; the separate limits, in a way, recognize that
density has a role too. Accurate and versatile tools have been
developed over time for design. These have generally evolved
from a limited portion of the full spectrum of applications.
They include many implicit assumptions and empirical
relationships; the empiricism, and their limitations, often is not
visible. In the end, these rules do not provide any simple, and
uniform means of identifying the potential for problems in
service.
Figure 1. Hierarchy of control valves.
Figure 2. Different trim configuration in control valves.
Fluid kinetic energy criterion in valve design and selection
evolved from such recognition; it takes into account both fluid
density and its velocity. As a result, it makes it possible to seek
a general formulation rather than having separate limits for
incompressible and compressible flows. This is a reasonable
expectation since the dynamics in the two cases is quite similar.
Valves with high internal velocities:
High internal velocities in valves are undesirable because
they can result in potentially damaging phenomena; it is the
most common mark of severe service applications. Robustness
to withstand, and perform, under severe operating conditions is
always an overriding requirement from an overall systems
perspective. Since the energy dissipation in the control valve is
the source of energy for the damaging phenomenon, it becomes
a useful parameter for control in addressing all the problematic
issues related to it. As an illustration, the effectiveness of
kinetic energy criteria in addressing control valve vibrations is
described in References 1-4. It is easily calculable and
verifiable, as shown in References 5 and 6, which makes it
useful in practice.
ENERGY DISSPATION IN CONTROL VALVES
Pressure drop:
Valves require pressure drop for their function. This is not
a problem - it is the intent in many cases. Flow control is
achieved by controlling area of the flow path inside the valve.
This results in high local velocities in the vicinity of the
controlled area; most of the kinetic energy is dissipated via
turbulence downstream while some of it goes back to pressure
head. When the pressure drop is high, the velocities along the
flow-path are correspondingly higher as shown in Figure 3; this
figure illustrates pressure reduction process in one stage and, as
a result, velocities are high along the flow-path in the valve.
High fluid velocities in valves cause erosion along the flow
path while the turbulence contributes to high vibration and
noise.
2 Copyright © 2007 by ASME
 VALVE
Inlet Outlet
Inlet
Pressure

Pinlet

Inlet Velocity
Vinlet Voutlet
Velocity

Vapor Poutlet
Pressure Figure 4. Flow-path with many stages for pressure reduction (24
Pressure stages in this illustration).
Cavitation occurs in this
pressure-recovery region
Figure 3. Velocity and pressure variation for a single stage pressure
reduction. VALVE
Inlet
Outlet
Control valves are often modeled as variable-area orifices
Inlet
because of similarity in their characteristics. Indeed, traditional Pressure
Pinlet
control valves are just that – in-line orifices whose area can be
controlled. Pressure drop, when there is flow through the valve,
can be expressed in a form,
Voutlet
Velocity
1  Inlet
∆P = (K ) ρV 2  (1) Velocity
 2 
Pressure
Vapor
Typically, V is a characteristic velocity at some point in the Pressure
flow such as vena contracta; K is a constant which depends on
the geometry. Looking at the term 1/2 ρ V2, it has units of
pressure. It also represents the kinetic energy of the fluid at a Figure 5. Velocity and pressure variation for a valve with a large
point per unit volume. number of stages for pressure reduction.

Damaging phenomenon related to high velocities in valves:

Kinetic energy criterion:
High internal velocities caused by high pressure drops
means that the energy to be dissipated is high. When the energy There is no industry standard as far as how best to achieve
to be dissipated is high, and the process of energy dissipation is pressure reduction in valves from a design standpoint. The
not controlled, there is potential for many undesirable designers and users often go by their prior experience, and what
phenomena to occur: is available to them in form of configurations such as those
illustrated in Figure 2. Miller et al [1, 2], through well-
• Cavitation documented analysis of practical experiences, have
• Erosion demonstrated that limiting trim exit kinetic energy (1/2 ρ V2), is
• Vibration a key requirement in assuring good performance in severe
• Noise service applications. The guidelines in Table 1 serve as good
screening criteria for severe service valve applications and have
Therefore, recognizing the special requirements in high been recommended for practice [7].
pressure drop applications, valve designers sought to mitigate
the effect of high fluid velocity by dissipating the energy in Table 1. Trim Outlet Kinetic Energy Criteria
many steps. Several types of designs evolved based on such an Kinetic Energy Equivalent
approach. The tortuous flow path of the type shown in Fig. 4 Service Conditions Criteria Water Velocity
divides the pressure drop over a large number of pressure-
Psi KPa ft/sec m/s
reducing stages; this illustration shows 24 stages for pressure-
reduction, which is equivalent to 24 orifices in series. Kinetic Continuous Service, 70 480 100 30
Single Phase Fluids
energy of the fluid can be controlled to desired limits by
appropriate selection of the number of pressure-reduction Cavitating and Multi- 40 275 75 23
stages. Figure 5 shows the schematic for this process. phase Fluid Outlet
Vibration Sensitive 11 75 40 12
System

3 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

 The neatness in this formulation is that this unified
criterion addresses several problems that are chronic in high
fluid velocity applications. Further, it is simple to understand,
easily specified and verifiable. It also maintains the key essence
of the physics of the phenomena being addressed in the
selection and design process.
CONNECTION OF FLUID KINETIC ENERGY TO
DAMAGING PHENOMENON IN VALVES
The discussion in this section describes the connection
between the fluid kinetic energy and the damaging phenomena
referenced previously. It is most relevant in severe applications
because high energy dissipation increases the intensity of these
phenomena and the risk of poor performance
Cavitation:
The onset of cavitation in flowing liquids is expressed in
terms of an incipient cavitation index, defined as,
(P1 − Pv )
σ= (2)
(ρV 2 / 2)
The potential for cavitation increases as the cavitation
index gets closer to 1 for a given geometry. The role of kinetic
energy is thus evident in the denominator; the higher the kinetic
energy, the greater is the potential for cavitation. Further,
cavitation may be completely suppressed if the kinetic energy is
kept sufficiently low.
A limit of 40 psi (275 kPa) for kinetic energy of the fluid
exiting the last stage has been shown to be effective in
eliminating cavitation in multi-path multi-stage pressure
reduction flow paths. This only applies as far as potential for
cavitation after the last stage; it is important to provide
sufficient stages of pressure reduction to eliminate inter-stage
cavitation as well. The effectiveness of the fluid kinetic energy
control in eliminating cavitation is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Cavitation regimes for valves, with and without fluid
kinetic energy control.
Vibration:
Vibration in valves can be classified into two broad
categories – resonant and non-resonant, i.e. forced vibrations.
Resonant vibrations can be eliminated by modifying the
vibrating component to change its natural frequency and/or by
removing the source of excitation, where possible; increasing
the damping can also mitigate the problem.
High levels of forced vibrations are common in severe
service control applications because the energy dissipated is
high. For example, the rate of energy dissipation in a 4 inch
control valve in boiler feed-pump recirculation service, with
3000 psi (~ 20 MPa) drop and flowing 2000 gpm (~7500l/m) of
water, approaches 2.6 Megawatts. Even a small fraction of this
is capable of creating tremendous vibrations in conventional
valves. Dissipation of fluid energy takes place through
turbulence downstream of the throttling area in the valve. This
generates unsteady forces that are the root cause of the
vibrations.
The solution in this case lies in dissipating most of the
energy within the boundaries of the static element in the valve.
This results in significant reduction of flow turbulence and
associated unsteady forces acting on the valve plug and the
valve body.
Figure 7. Schematic of flow through the elements inside a valve.
An estimate of the unsteady forces causing vibrations can
be obtained by decomposing the local velocity and pressure
into a mean component and a fluctuating component, i.e.
V = V+v (3a)
P =P+p (3b)
4 Copyright © 2007 by ASME
 Then the fluctuating pressure p can be expressed as,
1/8" (3.12 mm) jet; L/d = 4
p ~ (ρ)(V )( v) + v 
2
(4)
 2
130

Ignoring higher order terms which tend to be negligible, 120

Sound Power (Pa), dB

 ρV 2  v  110
p ~   
 V 
(5)
 2  100

For a given flow-path, the term  v  is the local

90
 V
80
turbulence intensity and does not vary significantly. The term
1
/2 ρ V2, in this equation is related to the trim exit kinetic 70
energy. 10 100 1000
Kinetic energy at the jet exit, kPa
Thus, the relationships in this context can de described as
follows: in the process of pressure reduction, energy is Measured Prediction
transferred to turbulence; the unsteady pressures caused by
turbulence on solid boundaries result in unsteady forces; these Figure 8b. Variation of sound power of a 3.12 mm (0.125 inch)
unsteady forces are the primary cause of vibrations in the valve. jet with kinetic energy at the jet exit.
Since the unsteady pressures are proportional to
1
/2 ρ V2, it follows that limiting fluid kinetic energy also limits
The conditions in most control valve applications flowing
the potential for vibration of this nature. compressible fluids operate within the range of Mach numbers
of Figure 8a. The simple experiment described above
Noise: demonstrates that the aerodynamically generated noise would
correlate well with fluid kinetic energy at the trim exit as well
Noise from a 3.12 mm (1/8”) diameter jet was measured in most practical situations.
for upstream pressure varying from 5 psig to 100 psig. Sound
pressure levels at different angular locations were used to
Erosion due to solid particles:
estimate corresponding sound power levels; these are plotted in
Figure 8a as a function of fully expanded jet Mach number.
The empirical equations for predicting erosion of materials
Also shown are predictions using the theoretical model which
due to impingement of solid particles are generally of the form:
forms the basis of Reference 8, with a modified acoustic
efficiency factor of 4 x 10-5. The agreement is pretty
reasonable. Then the estimated sound power level was plotted (
Ev = (Cons tan t ) M p Vpn )( )[f (θ)] (6)
versus the term ( ρ V2/2) and is shown in Figure 8b. Again, the
agreement seems equally good. Value of the exponent ‘n’ depends on the target material;
typically, it is around 2 for brittle materials and between 2 and
3 for ductile materials. The term (MpVpn) in the equation above
1/8" (3.12 mm) jet; L/d = 4 appears closely connected with the total kinetic energy of the
impinging particles. Recognizing that this form of prediction
130
equation is empirical, it is intuitive that kinetic energy (of the
120 impinging particles) plays a key role in erosion. This was
Sound Power (Pa), dB

observed in the erosion testing of tungsten carbide (6% Co

110 binder) by silica (sand) particles 120 – 400 microns in size in
the impingement velocity range of 75 – 150 m/s (250 - 500
100
ft/s); these results are shown in Figure 9.
90
To make the connection between particle kinetic energy
80 and fluid kinetic energy, one has to look at the configurations in
valves. Typically, the flow-path involves rapid acceleration of
70
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
the fluid; the particles follow the mean flow but tend to lag in
velocity because of inertia.
Fully expanded Mach number, Mj

Measured Prediction

Figure 8a. Variation of sound power of a jet with fully-expanded Mach

number – classical approach.

5 Copyright © 2007 by ASME


Eroded volume/area/particle vs Energy
input/particle
5.E-04
y = 0.486x + 3E-07
Eroded volume/particle
4.E-04
3.E-04
2.E-04
1.E-04
0.E+00
0.E+00 2.E-04 4.E-04
Energy input per particle, J
Figure 9. Variation of eroded volume per particle as a function of
kinetic energy of the impinging particles.
The fluid velocity depends on the number of stages of
pressure reduction; specifically,
∆P
Vf ~
N
Over short distances, such as those encountered in valves,
and for a given application, the particle velocity varies with the
fluid velocity, i.e.
Vp ~ Vf
Again, for a given application, which means for the same
amount of erodent through a valve, the erosion would be
proportional to (Vp)n. Since ‘n’ is close to 2 and based on
Equation (8),
Erosion rate ~ (Vf )2
This relationship suggests that the erosion due to solids is
roughly proportional to fluid kinetic energy of the flow carrying
these particles, if all other conditions remain the same.
It is not possible to set generic limits on fluid kinetic
energy in the case of solid particle erosion because of strong
dependencies on additional variables. Foremost among these is
the amount of solids, which varies over a very wide range.
Then, the proportionality of particle velocity to fluid velocity is
dependant on the corresponding density ratio as well as details
of the flow-path; also, the erosion material properties play an
important role. Yet, the relationships are useful in comparing
design options for a given service when many of these other
factors remain the same. This is possible by estimating the
connection, even on a relative basis, between the particle
velocity Vp and the pressure drop.
The particle velocity is related to the pressure drop across
the valve based on Equations (7) and (8):
∆P
Vp α (10)
N
R2 = 0.9893
The erosion rate can then be related to pressure drop, since
it is proportional to (Vp)n and ‘n’ is close to 2:
 ∆P 
Erosion rate ~ Vp 2 ~   (11)
 N 
Even though this relationship is not exact, it gives a sense
6.E-04 8.E-04 1.E-03 of the order-of-magnitude of the effect of dividing the total
pressure drop in many steps; it implies that for all other factors
remaining the same, the expected life of a multi-stage pressure
reduction flow path, such as in Figure 4, would be roughly ‘N’
times that for a single stage pressure drop, where ‘N’ is the
number of stages over which the pressure drop is divided.
OTHER VALVE-RELATED SYSTEMS
Fluid kinetic energy plays an important role in other valve-
related systems as well. Two phenomena are discussed below:
(7) piping vibration and secondary break-up of sprays.
Piping vibration
In the design of power plants and process systems, a
number of factors are considered in sizing of the pipes. One of
the important considerations, especially when choosing the
(8) smallest size possible, is the pressure drop that is permissible.
Another constraint that is commonly applied is a maximum
velocity limit, which is driven by concerns regarding vibration,
noise and erosion.
However, there are many situations when pressure drop is
not a consideration; an example of this is bypass systems. In
such cases, the maximum velocity limits alone do not take into
(9) account the fluid density. It seems logical that density also
plays, or should play, a role when it comes to pipe vibration.
Following the same line of reasoning similar to that for
vibration due to unsteady forces in valves, it is intuitive that
limiting the fluid kinetic energy (1/2 ρ V2) in the pipe can limit
the potential for piping vibration as well.
Pittard et al (Reference 9] studied pipe vibrations and
correlated it to Reynolds number; the flow was fully developed
and turbulent in their experiments. Assuming that the
turbulence intensity (v’/V) is constant, which is nearly so for
fully developed flows in pipes, their data correlate well with the
fluid kinetic energy based on mean velocity in the pipe
(1/2 ρ V2) as shown in Figure 10.
A review of many different systems in operation suggests
that the piping vibration due to fluid turbulence is not a
problem when the magnitude of fluid kinetic energy is below
10 psi (68 kPa).
6 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

0.20
0.15
Acceleration, g's
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 0.5 1 1.5
Fluid kinetic energy, psi
3" STEEL 1.5" STEEL
Figure 10. Vibration of 3” and 4” diameter steel pipes as a function of
mean fluid kinetic energy of the flow (derived from the correlation in
Reference 9).
Desuperheating
Many systems consist of valves followed by
desuperheating elements. Desuperheating is the process of
reducing temperature of superheated steam by spraying water
into the flow stream. In such systems, evaporation of the
injected water is of key importance. As a result, smallest
possible drops are desired at the end of the atomization process.
To achieve this, the designers often rely on the energy of the
gaseous/ vapor phase to break up large drops. Droplet size of
less than 250 microns Sauter Mean Diameter (SMD) is
recommended for most desuperheating systems in steam plants
so that large drops do not fall to the bottom of the pipe.
The theoretical limit, based on stability, for droplet size in
gas flows as a reference is:
ρ f Vrel D crit
2
We crit =
σ used to fine-tune designs and to gain insights into the
Wecrit is reported to be between 12 and 16 according to
literature [10]. This clearly establishes the relationship between
(1/2 ρf Vrel2) and droplet size; Vrel is the relative velocity
between the gaseous stream and the droplets. Vrel is also closely
related to gas phase velocity, Vf. The variation of surface
tension of water over the range of temperatures normally
encountered in desuperheating applications is not large. This
means that,
 1 
D crit ~   density, which allows for a criteria that can be applied to both
ρ U 2  incompressible and compressible flows. Limits on fluid kinetic
 f f  energy therefore serve as good screening criteria in intelligent
This result states that when water is sprayed cross-stream
(perpendicular) into steam flow, higher energy of the gaseous
phase will result in smaller drops. This permits establishment of
a criterion for minimum steam kinetic energy, if the system is
dependant on secondary break-up to achieve fine drops smaller
than a known size; for dense conical sprays injecting in a
gaseous cross-flow, such as those reported in [11], it has been
determined that a minimum steam kinetic energy ~ 2000 Pa
(0.3 psi) is necessary to achieve SMD of 250 microns.
This result breaks a paradigm in the industry in that only
(steam phase) velocities are often specified as far as acceptance
criteria for good desuperheating; Equation (13) shows that the
density also has an important influence in secondary break-up.
Second, it provides a criterion in the form of (1/2 ρ V2) which
represents the physics more closely and is applicable over the
full range of steam densities that are encountered in practice.
2
DISCUSSION
The fluid kinetic energy is the source that drives the
phenomena in valves discussed in previous sections. This
relationship is similar in nature to turbulence in pipe flows,
where the energy of the turbulence fluctuations comes from the
energy in the mean flow; therefore, for a given configuration,
smaller energy in the mean flow means that turbulence is
correspondingly less energetic. In the same vein, lower level of
fluid kinetic energy at the trim exit in valves means that the
energy for vibration, noise etc is correspondingly lower. The
seminal work of Miller et al [3, 4] documenting field
experiences in close to 500 cases of valve retrofits confirms the
strong connection between fluid kinetic energy and the
problematic phenomena in valves. In all these cases, the
problems were solved by making only one change to the
original design - to reduce the fluid jet energy exiting the valve
trim. The physics basis for importance of fluid kinetic energy,
together with its confirmation in practice, provides a strong
foundation for a limit on this parameter as a design criterion - a
criterion that is general enough to be applied to compressible as
well as incompressible flows.
Such criteria have to be applied correctly. They are not a
substitute for advancements that have been made in many areas
(12) of design. Tools that are more accurate and versatile should be
phenomena of interest. The kinetic energy criteria provide a
check to gage the risk of problems in control valves and valve-
related systems without resorting to complex analytical tools.
Its simplicity, the ability to specify and verify, are key
advantages for its use in practice.
CONCLUSIONS
Fluid kinetic energy is related closely to the physics of
many phenomena in valves, such as cavitation, vibration, noise
and erosion. It takes into account fluid velocity as well as
(13)
selection, and design, of valves. The recommended maximum
limits on fluid kinetic energy at the trim exit are:
11 psi (75 kPa) for vibration-sensitive systems
40 psi (275 kPa) when cavitation potential is high
70 psi (480 kPa) for continuous service applications
7 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

Limits on fluid kinetic energy also find application in
valve-related systems such as piping and secondary atomization
of sprays in desuperheating systems. Fluid kinetic energy of
less than 10 psi (68 kPa) in piping is recommended to minimize
potential for vibration.
Robustness of this approach allows extrapolation of design
rules to systems where direct testing may be difficult. It also
provides guidance in solving practical problems.
Finally, it is emphasized that fluid kinetic energy is only
one of the many criteria in selection, and design, of valves and
valve-related systems; there are other considerations as well.
The kinetic energy criteria is an insurance for reliable
performance of control valves without getting into the details,
while staying close to the physics of the phenomena of interest.
REFERENCES
1. “Kinetic Energy as a Selection Criteria for Control
Valves”, Miller, H.L. and Stratton, L.R., ASME Fluids
Engineering Division, Summer Meeting, Paper FEDSM97-
3464, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, June 22-26, 1997.
2. “Trim Exit Kinetic Energy in Control Valves”, Miller,
H.L., Valve World 2002 Conference and Exhibition –
Flow Control for the Future, Maastricht, The Netherlands,
pp. 74-79, November 12-14, 2002.
3. “The Case for a Kinetic Energy Criterion in Control
Valves – Part 1,” H. L. Miller, L. R. Stratton, and Mark A.
Hollerbach, ISA EXPO 2005, Paper ISA 2005-P133, The
Instrument, Systems and Automation Society, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, Chicago, October 25-27,
2005.
4. “Fluid Jet Energy Criterion for Control Valves,” Miller,
H.L., Stratton, L.R. and Hollerbach, M.A., Valve
Magazine, pg 40-45, Spring 2006.
5. “Establishing Control Valve Trim Flow Velocity,” Gerald
Liu, Herbert L Miller, and Laurence R. Stratton, ISA
EXPO 2004, Paper ISA04-P211, The Instrument, Systems
and Automation Society, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, Houston, October 5-7, 2004.
6. “Multi-Stage Control Valve Analysis”, Steinke, J.H., ISA
Calgary 2005, The Instrument, Systems and Automation
Society, Research Triangle Park, NC, Calgary, April 23-
24, 2005.
7. Control Valves – Practical Guides for Measurement and
Control, Guy Borden, Jr. Editor, International Society for
Measurement and Control, N.C., Chapter 12 – Control
Valve Applications, pp 411-447, 1998.
8. Noise considerations – Control Valve Aerodynamic Noise
Prediction Method, Part 8-3, IEC Standard 60534-8-3,
Second Edition, International Electrotechnical
Commission, Geneva, Switzerland (2000)
9. “Experimental and numerical investigation of turbulent
flow induced pipe vibration in fully developed flow”,
Pittard, M.T, Evans, R.P, Maynes, R.D. and Blotter, J.D.,
Review of Scientific Instruments, Volume 75, Number 7,
July 2004.
10. Atomization and Sprays, Lefebvre, A.H. Hemisphere, New
York (1989).
11. “Characteristics of High Capacity Cone Sprays Injected
into a Crossflow”, Sherikar, S.V., Brown, C.T. and
McDonell, V.G., !7th Annual Conference on Liquid
Atomization and Sprays, Arlington, VA (2004).
8 Copyright © 2007 by ASME