FLUID JET ENERGY CRITERION FOR
CONTROL
VALVES
BY HERBERT L. MILLER, P.E.,
LAURENCE R. STRATTON,
AND MARK A. HOLLERBACH
I and standards associated with valve
n addition to all the other guidelines
designand control valves in particu-
larwe should also review jet energy
levels. By making sure the fluid jet
exiting from the valve trim is con-
trolled, we ensure a good control valve
application. Maintaining manageable
energy levels in the fluid jets elimi-
nates what happens because of vibra-
tion, erosion, cavitation, noise, and
other factors that ultimately lead to a
poor process control valve.
The following discussion presents
data on about 500 problem valves for
which only the valve trim was retrofit-
ted. The original valve designs did not
adequately reduce the fluid jets
energy as it passed through the throt-
tling area of the trim. New trim was
designed to control the jet energy and
limit energy of the fluid within cer-
tain limits as it exited the trim. These
limits were first published in 1997,
Reference 1, and later included in
ISAs Practical Guides for Measure-
ment and Control, Reference 2. Oper-
ating the same valve body with the
retrofitted trim but under the same
operating conditions eliminated the
problems associated with the original
valve trims.
40 | Valve M A G A Z I N E
THE AUTHORS PRESENT THE RESULTS OF
TESTING DONE ON 500 PROBLEM CONTROL
VALVES WITH RETROFITTED TRIM.THEY
CONCLUDE THAT MAINTAINING
MANAGEABLE ENERGY LEVELS IN THE
FLUID JETS HELPS ENSURE GOOD
CONTROL VALVE PERFORMANCE.
The Trim Exit Energy Criterion
An energy approach combines the influ-
ence of fluid density with the velocity of
the jet exiting a valve trim. This is
defined as follows:
r V2
KE =
2M
Where: M = 100,000 for Metric or
4,636.8 for Imperial units
KE is in bar or psi
V is in m/s or ft/s
r is in kg/m3 or lb/ft3
The equation expresses, in the form
of kinetic energy density, the energy of
the jets exiting the trim. This has the
same units as pressure and is sometimes
called the dynamic pressure. Since most
flow through the valve trim is highly
turbulent, the measurement is based on
the average velocity and density of the
fluid jets exiting the trim. To ensure the
2006 Valve Manufacturers Association. Reprinted with permission.
AS SEEN IN THE SPRING 2006 ISSUE OF...
control valve operates without prob-
lems, valve trim should be designed to
meet an average kinetic energy criterion
of 70 psi (4.85 bar) or lower. (Refer-
ences 2, 3 and 4 provide more detail on
how a user can make the calculation
meaningful.)
The pressure drop across a valve
drives the fluid though the trim. The
valves closure member will control the
rate of flow, but not the fluids velocity
through the trim. The only way to lower
the fluid velocity through the trim for
any given driving pressure drop is to
add resistance to the trims flow path. In
one valve type, shown in Figure 1, right
angle turns to the flow path provide
extra resistance until the energy dictated
by the outlet velocity and density is at
the desired level. Many valve suppliers
now provide similar types of trims. An
example would be concentric drilled-hole
cages in which the number of cages are
F L U I D J E T E N E R G Y C R I T E R I O N

defined by fluid resistance needed to

slow the exiting jet to a desired level.

Results of Retrofits
Implementing the energy criteria on
about 140 unique valve applications
revealed some interesting data. Each
application was handled by one or more
identical control valves and because of
numerous problems, about 500 valves
were retrofitted. Data on one or more
specified operating conditions was
reviewed for each of the unique applica-
tions. Problematic symptoms expressed
by the users were broken down into cat-
egories, with each application averaging
Figure 1. Energy control trim about two major problems.
Figure 2 shows the major problems
the original valves put into service expe-
rienced with inadequate control of the
Other fluid energy exiting the valve trim. The
15.1% Controllability
21.5%
most significant issues driving cus-
Capacity
4.9%
tomers to make the retrofit changes
Stem break or were controllability, erosion, and vibra-
separation 5.3%
Erosion
tion. Some problems listed as Other
Cavitation 12.9% included frequent maintenance, galling,
5.6% plugging, and lack of vendor support.
Noise Industry design standards address the
Vibration
9.7% issues of capacity and noise, and recom-
Leakage 12.6%
12.4% mendations address cavitation. How-
ever, this retrofit study showed that
more work needs to be done to address
Figure 2.Trim energy-related valve problems Figure 3. Retrofit inlet pressure applications all the symptoms and that the key is to
control the fluid trim exit energy.
A diverse range of valve designs were
All Fluid Cases retrofit from more than 25 different
3000 200 manufacturers. Those designs included
most sizes and the common operating
pressures encountered, from 1 inch to 36
2500
inches (25 mm to 900 mm). Figure 3
Original Trim 150 illustrates the distribution of inlet pres-
Kinetic Energy, psi

2000 sures encountered in the retrofit data-

base. The minimum and maximum inlet
KE, bar

1500 100 pressures in the database range from 60

Energy Control Trim psi to 5840 psi (4 bar to 402 bar).
1000
Figure 4 shows energy of the fluid
exiting the original valve trim and the
90% 50
rank from highest to lowest level of
500 energy control trim. It also shows the
dramatic energy reduction from the
70 4.85
0 0 failed original trim to a level that
1 101 201 301 401 ensures a good control valve applica-
Cases tion. The average reduction in kinetic
energy was from 480 psi to 44 psi (33
Figure 4. Energy before and after retrofit bar to 3 bar). The maximum kinetic

2006 Valve Manufacturers Association. Reprinted with permission.

42 | Valve M A G A Z I N E
F L U I D J E T E N E R G Y C R I T E R I O N

energy was 3280 psi (226 bar), which Figures 6 and 7 present the flow
Retrofit Database
is almost 50 times the recommended cases for liquid and gas conditions,
DESIGNS % criterion. With these high energy lev- respectively. In these figures the energy
Liquid designs 64 els, it is not surprising that much dam- control trim values are shown superim-
Gas designs 36 age was occurring in the control valve posed on the energy level for the original
and associated piping. Figure 4 trim, which illustrates the magnitude of
VALVES %
includes both liquid and gas applica- reduction in the retrofitted trim energy
Liquid Valves 70 tions (see Reference 5 for additional levels for each flow case.
Gas Valves 30 detail), while Figure 5 shows the A few cases where original trim met
breakdown of liquid and gas applica- the energy criterion but the valves were
Figure 5. Breakdown of designs and valves by tions, and valves. still retrofit existed for both liquid and
fluid type
gas categories. In almost all cases, there
were other flow conditions in which
All Liquid Cases energy exceeded the criterion of 70 psi
3000 (4.85 bar).
200 There were also a few cases in which
the energy level exceeded the 70 psi
2500
(4.85 bar) criterion even after retrofit
Original Trim 150 instances in which the criterion could
2000 not be met because of valve body space
Kinetic Energy, psi

limitations. However, the judgment to

KE, bar
1500 100 proceed was made after review of the
application and significant reduction in
Energy Control Trim trim exit energy for each retrofit.
1000
The fact that a few cases existed in
50
90% which the kinetic energy exceeded the
500 criterion would suggest that 70 psi
(4.85 bar) is not a hard rule. The data
70 4.85
0 0 demonstrates some validity to this pos-
1 101 201 sibility; however, during the original
valve procurement, incremental costs
Cases to achieve the criterion were small
Figure 6. Energy before and after for the liquid cases when compared to risk. History and
experience dictate some applications
in which the rule should not be
All Gas Cases exceeded will exist under any circum-
2000 stances. These exceptions would
include applications handling mixed-
120 phase fluids and/or entrained particles.
Another significant finding was that
1500 Original Trim 100 many of the problems occurred when
Kinetic Energy, psi

valves were partially opened. When a

80 valve is partially open, fluid energies
KE, bar

1000 through the trim are high while fluid

60 energies through the rest of the valve
Energy Control Trim
body are low. This demonstrates that
40 designing larger valve bodies is not the
500
94% answer to solving the problems.
20 Figures 4, 6, and 7 show the bene-
70 4.85 fits of controlling the fluid jet energy
0 0
exiting the valve trim. Failing valves
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131
were transformed into designs that
met the applications control needs
Cases
just by minimizing this energy to 70
Figure 7. Energy before and after for the gas cases psi (4.85 bar).
2006 Valve Manufacturers Association. Reprinted with permission.

44 | Valve M A G A Z I N E
F L U I D J E T E N E R G Y
Conclusion
This study showed that the very high
kinetic energy levels of the original
designs caused repeated failures before
the valves were finally retrofitted. How-
ever, these failures were transformed
into successful installations for a wide
range of designs, applications and condi-
tions, a range that would represent a sta-
tistically significant portion of the
control valve industry. The success was
achieved by making only one change to
the original design. That change was to
insert a trim that reduced the fluid jet
energy exiting the valve trim, a trim
designed with a criterion of 70 psi (4.85
bar) kinetic energy density for the fluid
exiting the trim. By applying this addi-
tional design criterion to the valve trim
design, valves are less likely to provide
poor control, require extensive mainte-
nance, and experience damage.
The fact that an industry standard for
this energy criterion does not yet exist
does not mean there shouldnt be one
created in light of the many control valve
problems encountered in the field. How-
ever, an industry standard will not
C R I T E R I O N
become a reality until users insist that
valve suppliers look at the fluid energy
leaving the valve trim. What occurred
from retrofitting so many valves in this
case is strong evidence that when the
energy of the trim jets is ignored, we risk
having a poor control valve application;
the cost of not paying attention to the jet
energy can be very high.
Valve users and specification writers
have a responsibility to make the best
decisions for procuring a control valve
that will do the job at the lowest cost.
Looking at the energy criterion not only
minimizes the risk of a problem valve
that would lead to a system problem and
higher total costs, it also provides a
means of comparing different design and
supplier options.VM
HERBERT L. MILLER, P.E. is a consultant based in
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA; 949.858.1877;
hlm@ccivalve.com. LAURENCE R. STRATTON is man-
ager,Technical Standards and Automation, and
MARK A. HOLLERBACH is engineering manager for
Control Components Inc. (www.ccivalve.com),
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA. Reach Stratton at
949.888.4136; lrs@ccivalve.com. Reach Holler-
bach at 949.888.4137; mah@ccivalve.com.
REFERENCES:
1. Miller, H. L., Stratton, L. R., Fluid Kinet-
ic Energy as a Selection Criteria for Con-
trol Valves, ASME Fluids Engineering
Division, Summer Meeting, Paper
FEDSM97-3464, Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada, June 22-26, 1997.
Published in Valve World, Volume 2, Issue
3, pg. 51-57, August 1997, KCI Publish-
ing B.V., Zutphen, Netherlands.
2. Control Valves Practical Guides for Measure-
ment and Control, Guy Borden, Jr. Editor,
International Society for Measurement
and Control, Research Triangle Park, NC,
Chapter 12 Control Valve Applications,
pg. 411-447, 1998.
3. Liu, Gerald, Miller, Herbert L., Stratton,
Laurence R., Establishing Control Valve
Trim Flow Velocity, ISA EXPO 2004,
Paper ISA04-P211, The Instrument,
Systems and Automation Society,
Research Triangle Park, NC, Houston,
Oct. 5-7, 2004.
4. Steinke, Joseph, Multi-Stage Control
Valve Analysis, ISA Calgary 2005, The
Instrument, Systems and Automation
Society, Research Triangle Park, NC, Cal-
gary, April 13-14, 2005
5. Miller, H. L., Stratton, L. R., Hollerbach,
M. A., The Case for a Kinetic Energy
Criterion in Control Valves Part 1,
ISA EXPO 2005, Paper ISA 2005-
P133, The Instrument, Systems and
Automation Society, Research Triangle
Park, NC, Chicago, Oct. 25-27, 2005.

!LL RIGHTS RESERVED 3OLUTIONS $2!' AND

##) $2!' ARE TRADEMARKS OF ##) ##) VALVES
ARE MANUFACTURED UNDER VARIOUS 5NITED 3TATES
AND INTERNATIONAL PATENTS

 ##)
 

2006 Valve Manufacturers Association. Reprinted with permission.

46 | Valve M A G A Z I N E