2011-01-2641
Compensation Force CFD Analysis of Pressure Regulating Valve
Applied in FMU of Engine and System Controls
Weishun Bill Ni, Steve Heitz, Dan Bartholme, Mike Cass
Copyright © 2011 SAE International
ABSTRACT
A pressure regulating valve is a type of flow control
device that is a combination of a control orifice and
a flow compensator. The compensator orifice
modulates its opening to regulate the flow rate at a
constant pressure drop across the control orifice.
The objective of this paper is an experimental and
numerical analysis of flow compensation forces on
pressure regulating valve applied on aircraft engine
and control systems in a Fuel Metering Unit (FMU).
The CFD analysis was applied to analyze and
evaluate the various flow rates and patterns and
thus estimate the pressure regulating control valve
flow compensation force and characteristic curve.
The CFD model is used to validate the dynamic
behavior of the pressure regulating valve to bypass
the fuel flow from a high pressure gear pump and to
compensate burn flow of the metering valve. The
model can then be used to evaluate and improve
the design and operation of the valve for specific
operations.
INTRODUCTION
In an engine control system, the control valve
performs a special task, controlling the flow of fluids
so that a process variable such as fluid pressure,
fluid flow rate or temperature can be controlled. In
addition to controlling the flow, a control valve may
be used to shut off the flow and may be defined as
a valve with a powered actuator that responds to an
external signal. This signal usually comes from a
controller. The controller and valve together form a
basic control loop. The control valve is seldom fully
open or closed but is generally in an intermediate
position controlling the flow of fluid through the
valve. In the dynamic service condition, the valve
Hamilton Sundstrand – United Technologies
must withstand erosive effects of the flowing fluid
(ex: cavitation etc..) while maintaining an accurate
position to maintain the process variable. In the
engine system loop, the pressure regulating spool
valve performance and sizing is generally stated in
terms of envelope of inlet characteristics and
required discharge characteristics.
Regulating valves, a kind of control valve, are used
in engine fuel systems as variable restrictions to
accomplish changes in flow or pressure as required
for proper system operation. The regulation is
required to provide a continuously variable flow
restriction between shutoff and maximum flow and
pass the maximum required flow rate with minimal
pressure drop. The regulating valves are generally
classified either as a balancing type, which include
butterfly and spool valves, or an unbalanced type
which included poppet, plug and gate valves. In the
engine control system, the most popular regulating
valves are spool valves in which flow is to be
modulated in order to meet the engine required burn
flow. The control spool valve dynamic performance
is critical to the overall performance of the engine
and control system. Proper control of a system is
based on the consistent operation of all valves
within the system. Without consistent valve
operation, the system becomes unpredictable.
While this may not be applicable to all systems, it is
necessary that valve performance be known to a
engine system designer.
The pressure regulating valve performance is
dependant on the presence of flow reaction forces
which act on the spool. These forces from the fluid
pressure and spring load can result in the
necessary unbalance which drive the spool and in
some cases have been directly linked to valve and
1
circuit instabilities and cavitation erosion in the Pump
system recirculation downstream piping. As such, Discharge
the valve force balance analysis has concentrated HP Flow Q1
on ways to reduce or compensate for flow forces. Pg and
Pressure MV
The classic work proved to be introductory valve P1
Engine
design that can been found in text books [1-3]. The Burn
Flow
transient flow force estimation on the pilot stage of a Rate Q2
hydraulic valve was studied by M. Borghi, M. Milani, Pressure
and R. Paoluzzi [4]. K Krishnaswamy and P.Li [5] P2
PRV
and Q. Yuan and P Li [6] who studied the unstable
valve in the electrohydraulic valves for control and
Bypass Flow Qb Pd
steady flow force. R. Amirante, G. Vescovo, and A.
Lippolis [7] applied CFD to study flow force analysis
of an open center hydraulic direction control valve Figure 1: Schematic diagram of engine fuel control
sliding spool. M. Borghi, M. Milani, and F. Paltrinieri
performed CFD analysis on the influence of notch Typical Engine Burn Flow Q2 and HP Delivery Flow Q1 vs. Engine Speed
shape and number on proportional driection control 100%
90%
valve. R Yang [9-10] also utilized the CFD tool to 80%
% Burn Flow Q2 (pph)

Flow rate (pph)

70%
predict hydraulic valve flow forces. D. Wu, R. 60%
HP Gear Pump Q1 (pph)
Burton, G. Schoenau [11] studied the pressure
50%
40%

compensation flow control valve with defined flow

30%
20%

gain transfer function and flow-pressure coefficient 10%

0%

transfer function. All of their researchers were very 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Engine N2 Speed (rpm)
70% 80% 90% 100%

similar to our study, but not in the pressure

Figure 2: Typical engine burn flow rate and gear pump
compensation combined with flow metering valve
delivery flow vs. speed
control applied in a FMU.

A simplified schematic diagram of a FMU with an

engine burn flow Metering Valve (MV) and a
Discharge Pressure

Control Range
Differential (P1-Pd)

Pressure Regulating Valve (PRV) is shown in Figure

1 where HP is the high pressure engine driven
positive displacement pump, normally an external
gear pump. The engine burn flow rate Q2 is variably
dependant to the flight envelope, ex take-off, climb,
cruise, and descent etc. and a non-linear function of
engine speed. The HP positive displacement pump
which delivers the fuel flow Q1 is a linear function of
engine speed. The figure 2 shows a typical engine
Flow Rate (Qb)
fuel comsumption flow rate Q2 and positive
displacement pump delivery flow rate Q1 vs the
engine speed. The aircraft fuel system is subjected Figure 3: Pressure regulating valve discharge pressure vs
to the continuous operating procedure of the flight flow rate.
conditions. The take-off and climb time segments
are typically rolled in the high fuel flow rate
operation regime when compared to the cruise CONTROL VALVE GENERAL FLOW
portion of a typical mission. During the flight EQUATION VS. GEOMETRY
envelope, the PRV works to bypass the maximum
inlet flow Qb and pressure available P1 under the
control band versus other system variables. This
In this paper studying application of engine control
pressure regulator discharge pressure differential
technology conducted on a flow regulating valve as
P1 - Pd verse flow rate Qb is shown in Figure 3.
shown in Figure 4, it was established that the u-
notch with radius tap machined into the inlet land of
the PRV spool as shown in circle of Figure 4 to
reduce the flow dividing error, and it was deduced
that the main contribution to this error was flow

2
force. The PRV spol is immersed in the fuel and the
fuel around the spool forces it to move. The motion
is bidirectional, along the axial direction of the valve,
and the force is determined based on the spool
position, calculating a force balance on the solid
face of the spool. The usual PRV sizing is based on
the flow coefficient Cv calculation that is made for
required flow rate and related pressure drop in
control valve as shown in Equation1. The flow
coefficient Cv is based on the relationship between
the pressure drop and the flow rate in the control
valve, where the complete turbulent flow following
power law flow coefficient Cv is the proportional
constant.
2 P
Q Cv A Eq . (1)
Where:
Q = Fluid flow rate
Cv = Valve flow coefficient
A = Valve window area
P = Pressure drop
= Density
u-
Notch
Figure 4: Pressure regulating valve Section
view
The figure 4 spool diameter is 16.497 mm, mass 86
mg, and spring stiffness 10.5 kN/m. The PRV flow
rate is modulated by the constant pressure
differential from the circuits P1 and P2 from
metering valve; therefore its dynamic performance
is critical to the overall performance of the circuit.
Fundamental to this performance is the presence of
flow reaction forces which act on the spool. These
forces can result in the necessary use of the
metering valve (MV) pressures (P1 and P2) to drive
the spool and in some cases have been directly
linked to valve and circuit instabilities. As such, this
CFD analysis has concentrated on ways to reduce
or compensate for flow forces and describe the fluid
mechanics associated with the steady state flow
forces as it provides a detailed structure of the flow
through the valve, and to identify the flow
mechanism whereby flow forces are analyzed by
the size of the u-notch with a radius tap on the inlet
land of the spool.
If the pressure differential across the PRV orifice
can be kept constant, then the flow through the
orifice will be independent of the pressure in the
circuit supplied. The pressure compensated flow
regulator valve shown in Figure 4 is a means of
achieving a constant pressure differential across
orifice.
FLOW FORCE ON SPOOL VALVE:
STEADY STATE FLOW FORCE
COMPENSATION
In the engine start-up mode, the PRV spool is
closed to begin the pumping pressure at a fixed
pressure hydraulic force (P1-P2) from MV which is
sustained by EHSV to inject fuel into the engine
nozzles. Continuous MV flow requires a stable
pressure, which, in turn, requires matching the fuel
flow rate and pressure to the engine burn flow
demand until the HP pump delivers a flow rate in
excess of the system requirement. After that, the
spool moves a small stroke, and initial motion is
provoked by the upstream dynamic pressure field of
HP positive displacement pump which generates
pressure ripple, viscosity forces around the spool,
and balance of the elastic force of the spring.
For the theoretical case, the influence of the inlet
and outlet connections on the internal flow field of
PRV is the inlet characteristics variations with the
spool opening. The PRV fluid flow force on a spool
valve due to flow entering a valve chamber is shown
in Figure 5. When the fluid flows through the valve
there will be induced forces acting on the valve. By
Newton’s law, the fluid jet force has an equal and
opposite reaction force which revolves into two
components in lateral and axial directions. The
lateral component tends to push the valve spool
sideways against the sleeve and cause potential
sticking. The axial force is not compensated and
acts in a direction to close the valve port, as may be
seen by a comparison of the pressure distribution
3
on faces A and B as shown in Figure 5. In detail, the this jet force has an equal and opposite reaction
attention is mainly not only focused on the force which can be solved into two components: F1
description of the inlet coefficient and on the jet axial component and F2 lateral component as
angle variation but also the spool compensation shown in Equation (4) and (5).
balancing force. The total force over the spool is Q2 d Q12 Q12
calculated as sum of the pressure force, viscosity Ft V 1 VdV Eq. (3)
A1V dt v A1 C c A0
damping force, spring force, and the spool
momentum force as shown in Equation (2). These F1 Ft cos (axial component) Eq. (4)
forces are normally calculated using a mathematical F2 Ft sin (lateral component) Eq. (5)
formulation of Newton’s second law suitable for
application to a controlled volume. Q1 = Volumetric flow rate through orifice

FTotal F pressure Fdamping Fspring Fmomentum Eq ( 2) V = Volume of fluid being accelerated

A0 = wx0 = orifice area

x Pd Q1
Fluid
Q2
Fk Element
P1 Cc = Contraction coefficient
2
P1i
1
= mass density of fluid
F1
Ft A1 = area gradient of orifice
F2

Face A Face B
P1 P2 = Fluid jet angle

Assuming the fluid is incompressible, the continuity

requires that Q1=Q2 and the orifice Equation (1)
can be used to describe the flow and shown in
Figure 5: PRV flow force on a spool valve due to Equation (6). Applying Equation (4) into Equation (1)
flow entering a valve chamber. and neglecting the dynamic term, the axial
component force F1 can be described as the
This equation states that the sum of all forces acting steady-state force acting on the valve spool shown
on a non-accelerating control volume is equal to the in Equation (7). Therefore, the steady-state PRV
sum of the rate of change of momentum inside the spool compensation flow force is simplified as a
control volume and the net rate of efflux of function of jet flow angle, inlet and discharge flow
momentum through the control surface. We are coefficient, pressure drop, and orifice area.
looking for the horizontal force and the only surface
force in the horizontal direction is the force Ft, which 2 P1 P2 2 P1 P2
is the force of the spool on the control volume. The Q1 Q2 Cd A0 CcCv A0 Eq. (6)
momentum changed inside the control volume
occurs when the spool position is suddenly
changed, say to the right, as shown in Figure 5. If
F1 2Cd Cv A0 P1 P2 cos Eq. (7)
the fluid element is being accelerated, the pressure
on the left side of the element must be greater than Cd = flow coefficient
the pressure on the right side. Therefore, the
pressure on face B must be greater than the Cv= metering-out flow coefficient
pressure on face A. Thus the transient flow force is
due to acceleration of the fluid in the annular valve
chamber. The direction of this force for the case COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMIC
shown in Figure 5 is such that it tends to open the MODELING OF STEADY FLOW FORCES
valve; however, this is not the general rule. A
movement of the spool can also cause the fluid to
AND ANALYSIS
be decelerated. Applying the momentum equation
into the control volume yields Equation 3 where the
integration term can be eliminated when the steady The pressure regulating valve CFD analysis is a
state condition is approached. By Newton’s third law “two-way” Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI), the fluid

4
motion and pressure affecting the valve spool
displacement. Consequently the response of the
spool displacement has a significant effect on the
fluid flow and pressure. In two-way interactions, the
spool responds to the pressure or viscous shear
traction in the fluid. On the other hand, the fluid
responds to the spool in various ways; the shape of
the spool obviously affects the flow field, but it is the
velocity of the spool (or change in displacement)
that has the greatest effect. In fact, it can be shown
that the acceleration of the spool gives rise to
proportional pressure responses much like how the
acceleration of the fluid leads to a hydrostatic
pressure gradient. In this analysis of the spool
displacement response was determined not only the
spool moved but also how the spool accelerated.
The CFD model of the hydraulic channels at the
circuit, the valve manifold, and the valve itself
applied valve template from CFD software
PumpLinx [12] and are shown in Figure 6. The
volume mesh, consisting of 166,328 cells, 649,646
faces, and 277,771 nodes, was obtained by gridding
the surface meshing in pre-PumpLinx [12] and the
deforming mesh model. A cross section view of the
mesh model can be seen in Figure 7. Two bypass
flow rates,1588 kg/hr and 2903 kg/hr, were applied
at PRV inlet in corresponding to 882.5 kPa with 60
o
C and 896.3 kPa with 122 oC at discharge port.
The jet fuel, Jet-A, properties used at 60 oC and 122
o
C are: density 772 kg/m^3 and 723 kg/m^3,
kinematic viscosity 1.1 cStoke and 0.59 cStoke.
Figure 6: PRV CFD fluid volume mesh
The bypass flow was assumed to be steady,
incompressible and turbulent. The CFD analysis
was used to describe the fluid mechanics
associated with the steady state flow forces as it
provided a detailed structure of the flow through the
valve, and to identify the flow mechanism whereby
flow forces are balanced. This analysis will consider
the reaction flow force associated with the u-notch
machined into inlet spool land. The grooved and
notch radius were specially designed geometrically
to the lands of the standard spool in order to
stabilize the large steady state flow forces inherent
in the standard spool valve. The prediction of the
steady state flow force on the u-notch spool was
investigated and the results from the CFD analysis
indicated a greatly stabilized balance force.
Figure 7: PRV fluid regime center section mesh view
RESULTS
The convergence of CFD simulation was set by the
turbulent kinetic energy, turbulent energy dissipation
rate, velocity, and pressure when the small
variations ( usually <1%) were reached by three
cycles with 50 iterations at 100 time steps applied in
each simulation. The results of flow rate, pressure,
spool position, fluid velocity, and flow force have
been observed during the simulation. The spool
valve flow force was calculated by using a method
of Pressure Integral, a built-in function of the
PumpLinx [12] CFD software valve template, which
integrates the pressure field over the nodes
attached to the areas of spool surface on the axial
of metering region. The PRV cross section view of
velocity and pressure contour plots corresponding
to different spool strokes (2, 3, and 4 mm) with 6400
pph flow rate are shown in Figure 7. The maximum
velocity at the meter-in orifice at each spool position
of 4,3, and 2 mm are 38, 58, and 232 meter/sec.
As a consequence of CFD computation, the
pressure drop across the metering-in edge, P, has
5
been associated to every spool stroke condition, The plot of dynamic simulation of spool stroke
and the total force associated to the spool, F1, has position with 6400 pph bypass flow rate when the
been determined by the direct integration of the compensation force stabilizes is shown in Figure 9.
static pressure distribution. These spool
compensation forces of 4, 3, and 2 mm stroke were PRV Pressure and Compensation Force vs. Stroke
listed at Table 1 with two bypass flow rates of 6400 4,000 1.00

pph and 3500 pph. In Table 1, the nonlinear curves 3,500

were charted with PRV spool valve position (stroke) 3,000

0.50

to the valve pressure drop and valve compensation

Inlet Pressure (psi)

2,500
0.00
force. The small orifice area (stroke) generated high 6400 pph Inlet Pressure

Lbf
2,000
pressure drop and less spool compensation force at 3500 pph Inlet Pressure
0.50
1,500
a fixed flow rate. The flow coefficient was not a fixed 6400 pph Hydro Force

value at this irregular metering-in orifice as 1,000 3500 pph Hydro Force
1.00

described in Equation-(1) due to turbulent flow. The 500

pressure drop and spool compensation forces 0

2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00
1.50

corresponding to each stroke result are also plotted Stroke (mm)

in Figure 8.
Figure 8: PRV CFD compensation flow velocity at
Velocity Contour 4 mm 3 mm 2 mm different spool stroke position with 3500 pph & 6400 pph
bypass flow rate.

Pressure Contour 4 mm 3 mm 2 mm

Figure 7: PRV CFD velocity and pressure contour plots

at different spool stroke positions with fixed 6400 PPH
flow rate
Figure 9: PRV transient analysis with 6400 pph flow with
60 psid pressure differential (P1-P2) force.
Bypass 6400 pph Bypass 3500 pph
PRV Pd Disch P1 Inlet Spool Comp Pd Disch P1 Inlet Spool Comp
Stroke Pressure Pressure Force Pressure Pressure Force
mm psi psi lbf psi psi lbf SUMMARY
2.00 130 3,591 -1.078 130 1,537 0.204
2.54 130 580 -0.479 130 263 0.391
3.00 130 317 0.276 130 186 0.682
4.00 130 203 0.776 130 152 0.818 The CFD results show that changes in valve flux
and stroke significantly impact the compensation
Table 1: PRV spool valve compensation force and inlet force on the PRV (due to the complex orifice
pressure corresponding to spool position with different window geometry) and also varies the flow
flow rates. coefficient. The CFD analysis provides the control
valves necessary information about the streamline
The system dynamic simulation was performed and angular distribution in the connection surface and
the transient flow force was analyzed in order to about the flow rate distribution. An extremely
approach the balanced spool compensation force at accurate prediction of the pressure drop caused by
the fixed bypass flow rate. The spool velocity term, the spool in a geometrically complex hydraulic fluid
or stroke position variation, is more significant channel (including an adjustable valve) can be
because it represents a damping force which may achieved by using CFD. Numerical simulation
or may not resonate with pumping flow frequency. provides essential indications during the preliminary
The CFD showed the PRV flow force stabilizing at a design phase and assists in minimizing
pump speed of 151 Hz without damping applied. development time and costs of the subsequent

6
experimental analysis. It was demonstrated that the
combination of a numerical investigation with
experimental validation saves time and money in
valve design and development work.
It is important to state that the compensated
conditions defined in this paper are directed at
improving performance for applications that
primarily use a regulating valve to control flow rate;
however, the same techniques can be used for
applications in complex circuits where the metering
valve plays an interactive role in both flow control
and pressure sensing with a pressure compensated
regulating valve. In engine and system control
applications where the regulating valve is used only
for flow control, the overall flow-pressure coefficient,
Cv, of the regulating valve is not a constant value
and, therefore, the operating condition has effects
on performance. Since the PRV spool
compensation flow force is function of jet flow angle,
inlet and discharge flow coefficient, pressure drop,
and orifice area, the PRV orifice window geometry
plays a key role in the compensation. Nevertheless,
when the regulating valve is used for both flow
control and pressure sensing, the different design of
the valve compensated geometry could produce
completely different consequences The CFD
analysis used to predicate the PRV flow
compensation force can reduce the equipment-
base calibration method in the test rig which is more
cost effective.
REFERENCE:
[1] John F. Blackburn, G. Reethof, J. L. Shearer,
“Fluid Power Control”, The Technology Press of
M.I.T. and John Willey & Sons, Inc., 1960, Chapter
6 and 7, pp. 144-212.
[2] Herbert E. Merritt, “Hydraulic Control Systems”,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967, Chapter 5, pp.
132-170.
[3] Noah D. Manring, “Hydraulic Control Systems”,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc, 2005, Chapter 4, pp.
169-255.
[4] M. Borghi, M. Milani, and R. Paoluzzi, “Transient
flow force estimation on the pilot stage of a
hydraulic valve,” Proceedings of the ASME-IMECE
FFPST-Fluid Power Systems & Tech., Vol. 5, 1998,
pp 157-262
[5] K. Krishnaswamy and P. Y. Li, “On Using
Unstable Electrohydraulic Valves for Control”,
Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and
Control, ASME, March 2002, Vol-124, pp 183-190.
[6] Q. Yuan and P. Y. Li, “Using Steady Flow Force
for Unstable Valve Design: Modeling and
Experiments”, Journal of Dynamic Systems
Measurement, and Control, ASME, September
2005, Vol-127, pp 451-462.
[7] R. Amirante, G. Vescovo, and A. Lippolis,” Flow
Forces Analysis of An Open Center Hydraulic
Directional Control Valve Sliding spool”, Energy
Conversion and Management 47, 2006, pp 114-131.
[8] M. Borghi, M. Milani, and F. Paltrinieri,”“The
influence of the Notch and Number on Proportional
Direction Control Valve Metering Characteristics”,
SAE Commerical Vehicle Engineering Congress
and Exhibition, Chicago, IL, USA, October, 2004.
[9] R. Yang., “Predicting Hydraulic Valve Flow Force
using CFD,” ASME International Mechanical
Engineering Congress and Exposition, November
2004, Anaheim, California USA, pp.1-7.
[10] R. Yang, “CFD Simulations of Oil Flow and
Flow Induced Forces Inside Hydraulic Valves”,
Proceedings of IFPE 2002 Technical Conference &
SAE International Off-Highway & Powerplant
Congress, Las Vegas, Nevada, March, 2002; and
also SAE Paper 2002-01-1376.
[11] D Wu, R. Burton, G. Schoenau, D. Bitner, “
Analysis of A Pressure-Compensated Flow Control
Valve”, Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement,
and Control, ASME, March. 2007, Vol-129, pp. 203-
211.
[12] PumpLinx User Manual, Revision 2.6.6. , 2010