Piping Vibration

Involving Control
Valves
..................................................
By Herbert L. Miller
P.E. Vice President, Technology and Standards

Presented at International Joint Generation

Conference and Exposition ASME International -
Power Division New Orleans, LA; June 4-7, 2001

22591 Avenida Empresa

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
949.858.1877 w Fax 949.858.1878 w ccivalve.com
449 | 10/01 w 2001 CCI w DRAG is a registered trademark of CCI.
Piping Vibration Involving
Control Valves
n Herbert L. Miller, P.E., Vice President, Technology and
Standards, CCI, Control Components Inc, Rancho Santa
Margarita, California, USA.
Presented at International Joint Generation Conference and
Exposition ASME International - Power Division
New Orleans, LA; June 4-7, 2001
Abstract
There are many causes of vibration in piping systems involving con-
trol valves. Many of these causes are discussed, such as cavitation,
flashing flow, standing waves, vortex shedding and high fluid kinetic
energy. By addressing the fluid kinetic energy exiting the valve trim
as opposed to the fluid velocity exiting the valve body most of these
vibration problems are solved. A design parameter for the valve trim is
discussed and limits provided that will assure minimum risk of having
a piping system that will experience damaging vibration problems.
This design parameter is the trim exit kinetic energy level. The param-
eter is applicable for both compressible and incompressible flow
through the valve.
Two installation cases are presented for which quantified vibration
data has been taken before and after the trim change. This data shows
reductions of over 90 percent in the vibration variables measured.
Frequency spectra are presented that show the reductions and the
change in peak levels due to the retrofit. The results illustrate that the
root cause of the vibration is the high kinetic energy imparted to the
fluid as it passes through the valve trim.
Nomenclature
c sonic velocity of the fluid, ft/s or m/s
D a characteristic dimension, ft or m
f frequency of a standing wave or vortex shedding, Hertz
i wave number, 1, 2, 3, ...
KE kinetic energy, psi or kPa
L pipe length, ft or m
M units conversion factor, 4636.8 for Imperial units and 1000 for
Metric units
NStr Strouhal Number, dimensionless frequency, nearly constant.
V average or trim outlet velocity of the fluid, ft/s or m/s
density, lbm/ft3 or kg/m3
Introduction
Vibration exists in many piping systems in power and process plants.
Vibration has been identified as the dominant cause of piping failures.
In Simonen and Gosselin (2001) piping vibration fatigue was reported
as the cause of piping failures 29 percent of the time in US nuclear
plants between 1961 and 1996. In small bore pipes, 2 inch and less,
vibration fatigue accounted for 45 percent of the piping failures. With
such a high failure rate it is important that the cause of the vibration be
eliminated whenever possible.
2 Piping Vibration Involving Control Valves | 449
Eisinger and Francis (1999) discuss the energy input that will cause
pipe failure due to fatigue. This study is an extension of data on pipe
failures due to acoustically induced piping vibration by Carucci and
Mueller (1982). This type of pipe vibration is a ringing of the pipe at
frequencies higher than that, which would cause large pipe motion.
This acoustic energy is almost always that created by a control valve
in the line.
Piping vibration can be caused by a weak support system that has
resulted from a poor design in which vibration would occur with the
normal turbulence inside the pipe. However, most cases involve good
piping system design with a disturbance that is frequently generated
because of a control valve in the line. The control valve could be
located quite far from the observed vibration or it may be prevalent
at the valve location. Unfortunately, the plant operators live with the
situation for many years, develop work a rounds and/or implement
many trials to attempt a fix of the problem before a resolution of the
cause is discovered.
The following paper looks briefly at the main causes of the flow
induced vibration of the piping system. These causes are usually the
two-phase flow situations involving cavitation or flashing, standing
waves within the pipe, vortex shedding and a high kinetic energy
exiting an upstream control valve trim. The paper does not address
vibration caused by a mechanical motion such as that of a pump,
compressor, or turbine. A mechanical source such as a control valve
with side to side plug vibration discussed by Illing (1988) could also
act as a source for piping motion and this case type is not considered
here.
The results of specific before and after measurements due to a
change in a control valves trim exit kinetic energy are presented.
The results demonstrate the impact of controlling the trim exit kinetic
energy to assure a good control valve application.
A valve installation that will be free of unacceptable vibration and
noise.
Vibration Causes
Cavitation. Cavitation is a flow condition in which the static pressure
is reduced as energy is used to accelerate the fluid to a higher velocity.
If the static pressure drops below the fluid vapor pressure the fluid
boils, creating vapor bubbles. When the fluid decelerates to the pipe
line velocities there is a recovery of the static pressure and the bubbles
collapse when the static pressure is greater than the vapor pressure.
The collapse of the bubbles is very damaging under most conditions
in industrial processes. The collapse of a bubble creates a very high-
localized stress that fatigue fails small chunks of material from the
adjacent surface.
Damage also occurs from the piping vibration that results as the cloud
of bubbles or vapor pockets of coalesced bubbles collapse randomly
and over a wide range of frequencies. The pressure waves set up by
2001 CCI. All rights reserved.
the collapse can cause significant pipe movement when they are coin-
cident with the natural frequency of the piping system. They may also
cause components within the system, such as valve parts to vibrate
which in turn act like a mechanical vibration source on the piping.
Frequencies of cavitation due to pumps are discussed in Tarbet
(2001) in which he indicates that the peak cavitation frequencies exist
over a wide range with some related to running speed and/or vane
pass frequencies. Similar frequencies occur with control valves and
although the peak frequency is much higher than the natural frequency
of the piping there are frequencies that are coincident with the piping
components in the values.
For this two-phase flow situation the best means of eliminating the
vibration is to eliminate the cavitation. For control valves this subject
is extensively discussed in ISA (1995). In essence, the cavitation is
eliminated or minimized by controlling the valve trim exit kinetic
energy.
Flashing Flow. For this type of flow, discussed by Miller (1988), the
static pressure downstream of a valve is less than the vapor pressure of
the liquid and the bubbles formed in the flow stream passing through
the valve do not collapse. Depending upon the amount of flash, there
may be a segregation of the vapor and liquid phases such that pockets
of each move down the pipe. When the higher density slugs of liquid
impact other devices in the flow stream there are large forces imposed
on the piping. The pipe vibration can be very dramatic and result
in failure within a short time. The slug flowing frequencies can
be very near the natural frequency of the piping system and cause
large displacements. Piping systems will almost always have natural
frequencies less than 30 Hertz with usual values in the 8 to 12 Hertz
range.
The best way of eliminating this slug flow as a cause of the piping
vibration is to minimize the piping length between the valve and the
downstream reservoir. Another way if this is not possible is contrary to
general perceptions and that is to reduce the downstream piping size.
Reducing the piping size increases the fluid pressures. This in turn
causes less flashed flow. Increasing the pipe size may work, however,
this usually requires a large increase in size because the two-phase
flow expands readily to fill the larger size without a significant change
in the pressure.
Inserting an orifice at the pipe outlet could also increase piping pres-
sure. The valve capacity would need to be checked to assure there is
sufficient flow capability. Placing an orifice or baffle plate at the valve
exit does not eliminate the liquid/gas weight ratios in the downstream
piping, so slugs of water would still exist.
Standing Waves. Within every flowing pipe there will be a sonic
wave moving axially back and forth in the pipe. This is referred to as
a standing wave. The frequency of this wave will be dependent upon
the length of the pipe and the sonic velocity of the fluid in the pipe.
2001 CCI. All rights reserved.
The length of the pipe is not the total length of a pipeline with all of
its valves, pumps, orifices, branches and so on, but it is the length
between obstructions or acoustic barriers. Examples of obstructions
would be valves, pumps and orifices. An acoustic barrier would be an
opening into a larger pipe, a reservoir, the end of a pipe run such as
a T intersection where the branch of interest requires a right angle
turn. Piping components such as expanders or reducers could be an
obstruction. Any analysis should look at the frequencies with and
without the expanders as obstructions.
The frequency of the standing wave can be calculated from Equations
1 or 2 and then compared with natural frequencies of valve
components and the piping system to determine if there is a potential
for this to be the root cause of the vibration.
Standing Wave Frequency
Closed End pipe f = i * c / (4 * L) (1)
Opened End pipe f = i * c / (2 * L) (2)
To control the vibration caused by a standing wave it is necessary to
change the magnitude and/or the frequency of the standing wave or to
change the natural frequency of the pipe or components being excited
by the wave.
The best approach is to address the magnitude of the standing wave.
The magnitude is related to the fluid turbulent energy that is enforcing
the wave. The most dominant source of this turbulence is the kinetic
energy generated by the fluid jet exiting the valve trim. Thus a valve
change with a trim that reduces this jet energy will eliminate this wave
influence.
The way to change the wave frequency is apparent from Equations 1
and 2. However, focusing on the frequency is usually not beneficial.
There is such a wide range of frequencies present in the turbulent
flow that excitation can continue to establish a strong wave at the new
frequency and continue the piping vibration.
Lynch (1991) discusses a case in which the standing wave occurred at
the same frequency as the natural frequency of a linear control valve
plug and actuator piston assembly. This was causing significant valve
failure that would cause the plant to shut down because of a lack
of control. His study provided an extensive analytical procedure
for predicting the coincidence of the standing wave and the valve
assembly.
A transient pipe wave case that occurs sometimes is referred to as a
water hammer. This is an extreme example of an acoustic wave forcing
piping vibration. It is caused by a sudden opening or closing of a valve
and the comments in this paper are not directed to this special case.
Vortex Shedding. When fluid moves through a piping component
that causes a change in flow direction there likely will be a separation
of the fluid from the constraining wall. With the separation a vortex is
formed and then swept into the main stream. This vortex shedding will
449 | Piping Vibration Involving Control Valves 3
occur at fairly well defined dimensionless frequencies. The strength of
the vortex will vary but does not need to be very strong if the shedding
frequency is coincident with the natural frequency of the piping
system.
The shedding frequency for a vortex is given by:
NStr = f * D / V (3)
are nearly the same.
Table 1 shows criteria for a valve trims outlet kinetic energy. The
valve trim should be selected to keep the kinetic energy below these
levels. The examples that follow support the values shown in the table.
For most conditions, an acceptance criterion of 70 psi (480 kPa) for
the trim outlet kinetic energy will lead to a trouble free valve. In

The Strouhal Number, NStr, varies depending upon the geometry flashing service, liquid droplets are carried by their vapor at much

causing the separation of the boundary layer. For a circular cylinder higher velocities. To eliminate the risk of erosion, the acceptance

its value is 0.2 over a wide range of Reynolds numbers. It is usually criteria for flashing or potentially cavitating service should be lowered

between 0.1 and 0.3, however, there are exceptions. Blevins (1990) to 40 psi (275 kPa). Special applications may require even more

provides values for the Strouhal Number for many different types of stringent kinetic energy criteria. Gas or steam valves with low noise

geometry. requirements may also result in very low trim outlet kinetic energy
requirements.
The frequencies resulting from vortex shedding are generally greater
than the 30 Hertz that would be the upper limit for most piping system Table 1: Trim Outlet Kinetic Energy Criteria
natural frequencies. As noted from the Strouhal number definition a
large characteristic dimension would have to be the cause of the vortex Service Conditions Kinetic Energy Velocity if

in order to have a shedding frequency in the 8 to 12 Hertz range. Criteria Water

Typically the characteristic dimension is in the range of an inch (25- psi kPa ft/sec m/s
mm). So it is fairly rare that this type of forcing function is the root
Continuous Service, 70 480 100 30
cause of the pipe motion.
Single Phase Fluids

High Fluid Kinetic Energy. The fluid kinetic energy exiting a Cavitating and Multi- 40 275 75 23

control valve trim has a significant impact on the behavior of the Phase Fluid Outlet

downstream piping system. If this energy level is high then cavitation, Vibration Sensitive 11 75 40 12
flashing, and high turbulence levels can be present that would result System
in the damaging cases discussed above. Experience has shown that
Intermittent Duty, 5% 150 1030 --- ---
control of this parameter can resolve excessive vibration in existing
or Less Use
piping systems. The kinetic energy is defined as follows.

KE = 12 V2 / M (4) Results
The velocity in this expression is the trim outlet velocity. Different In the two examples presented below each of the valves were
valve trims and the location within the trim for the velocity and other retrofitted with multistage trim because the original valve trim
considerations in the calculation of the kinetic energy are expanded imposed limitations in the valves use due to excessive piping
upon in ISA (1998). vibration. After repeated attempts to fix the problems and the plants
need for working valves, the valves were retrofitted with trim designed
Valve Trim Kinetic Energy Criteria
to reduce the kinetic energy at the trim outlet.
The piping industry has long recognized the need to control the kinetic
The only change made to the valves was to change the internal valve
energy levels in the transport of fluids through a pipe. The industry
trim and hence, the trim outlet kinetic energy. No changes were made
has created design criterion that limits the fluid velocity in the pipe to
to the valve bodies or the piping. Since the bodies were not changed,
acceptable limits. For example, a normal criterion for liquids in pipes
the fluid velocities exiting the valve bodies were the same before
is to limit the fluid velocity to a range of 5 to 50 ft/s (1.5 to 15 m/s).
and after the retrofit. In all cases, significant improvements in valve
Assuming normal water densities, this is equivalent to a kinetic energy
performance were achieved by retrofitting the trim to meet the
of 0.16 to 16 psi (1.1 to 110 kPa). The typical criterion for gases is
suggested kinetic energy design criteria.
to keep the fluid Mach number (actual velocity divided by the fluids
sonic velocity) below 0.15. Assuming saturated steam of 100 to 1000
psi (700 to 7000 kPa) and a sonic velocity of 1630 ft/s (500 m/s), the
kinetic energy is in the range of 1.5 to 15 psi (10 to 100 kPa).

Velocity criteria for liquids are much lower than for gases because
liquid densities are much higher, resulting in higher energy levels.
While the velocity limits are quite different, the kinetic energy limits

4 Piping Vibration Involving Control Valves | 449 2001 CCI. All rights reserved.
Figure 1

EXAMPLE 1, RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL, ARNOLD,

ET AL. (1996)
These 14- x 14- inch valves were originally top guided, control valves
without a cage. The valves were retrofit with a tortuous path trim such
as shown in Figure 1. The kinetic energy on the top guided version is
calculated in the annulus area created between the plug and the seat
ring. The kinetic energy for the retrofitted trim is at the outlets of each
of the disks forming the cage.

The trim exit kinetic energy for the original valve trim was 148 psi
(1020 kPa). With the retrofit the energy level was reduced to less than
24 psi (168 kPa). A reduction of 84 percent in energy level.

A typical reduction, 95 percent, of the vibration velocity, is shown on

Figure 2. The accelerometer that resulted in this maximum output was
located on the actuator and measured a direction that was rotational
around the centerline of the pipeline. Vibration velocity for the five Figure 2: Residual Heat Removal
accelerometers at different locations on each of four valves showed
reductions in value that ranged from 49 to 91 percent with even larger EXAMPLE 2, STEAM DUMP, PERSAD, ET. AL. (1997)
reductions occurring on piping components in the system. The high
The valve instrumented was an 18- x 18- inch steam valve with
frequency vibration was essentially eliminated. The pipe motion at 20
a flow to open trim consisting of three concentric cages with
Hertz was the highest level, although inconsequential at the 1.75 mm/s
(.069 in/s) level. drilled holes in each cage. The cages were tightly touching so that
there was no axial flow between the cages. Each cage was slightly
The retrofitted valves were able to pass full design flowrates without
the accompanying cavitation. All concerns regarding the potential of offset to create a tortuous path for the pressure letdown. The exit
piping fatigue as a result of the vibration were eliminated. throttling area is the flow area caused by the restriction of the last

For this case, the water outlet pressure was close enough to the waters
vapor pressure to suggest cavitation and two phase flow conditions
may exist. Therefore, the design criteria for the trim outlet kinetic
energy was the more stringent 40 psi (275 kPa) value for the pressure
conditions that could result in vaporization.
two cages.
The vibration values reported in this case were the sum of the
vibration velocity peaks in the 0 to 500 Hertz range. The results
are shown in Figure 3 where the vibration velocity magnitude is
plotted as a function of the valve stroke. Values are not available
beyond 65 percent of stroke for the original trim as the valve was
not operated in this region. The severity of the vibration beyond
65 percent open caused a concern that the piping would rupture.

2001 CCI. All rights reserved. 449 | Piping Vibration Involving Control Valves 5

Figure 3: Steam Dump
The reduced trim exit kinetic energy solved the severe vibration
problems associated with this steam system. The energy was
reduced from 83 psi (570 kPa) to 25 psi (172 kPa), a 70 percent
reduction. The dramatic reduction in vibration behavior is also
shown in Figure 4 by the stem spectral measurements for each
trim set. The stem measurements were the worst case vibration
results. As shown, the peak velocity was reduced by 77 percent.
The change in total vibration energy was even more significant
as illustrated by the area under the spectral curve. The frequency
content above 100 Hertz was essentially eliminated and the
low frequency content was inconsequential. This also is not a
comparison of the results at the same flow rates through the valve
as the retrofit is at almost twice the valve flow rate.
Figure 4: Steam Dump Stem N/S Spectral
6 Piping Vibration Involving Control Valves | 449
Other Examples
The examples presented above are typical control valve
applications and are representative of the many applications
in different industries that have been retrofitted. In the past 20
years, over 400 valves ranging in size from 2 to 36 have had
only the trim replaced to achieve the kinetic energy criteria
identified above. However, before and after retrofit measurements
to quantify the benefits of the change have only been carried out
on a few installations. To make these detailed measurements
in just a few cases resulted in a significant cost to the plant
operators. A number of the retrofitted cases are discussed and
referenced in Miller (1997).
All of the retrofits arose as a result of a problem with the original
installation. In all of the cases, the retrofits were successful in
resolving the root cause of the valve problem and the only
significant change was the limiting of the fluid kinetic energy
exiting the valve trim.
Conclusions
A criteria for the selection of a control valve has been provided
which goes beyond the many rules and exceptions being used in
the industry. The criterion is a limit on the kinetic energy exiting
the throttling point of the valve trim. It addresses the energy
that contributes to the problems associated with piping systems
with excessive vibration. By addressing the valve trim exit kinetic
energy and maintaining it below Table 1 values a designer can be
confident that a good installation will result.
2001 CCI. All rights reserved.
References 11. Simonen, Fredric A., and Gosselin, Stephen R., 2001, Life

1. Blevins, R.D., 1990, Flow-Induced Vibration, Second Prediction and Monitoring of Nucler Power Plant

Edition, Van Nostrand einhold, New York, pp 47-50. Components for Service-Related Degradation, ASME
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 123, February, pp
2. Carrucci, V. A., and Mueller, R. T., 1982, Acoustically
5864.
Induced Piping Vibration in High Capacity Pressure
Reducing Systems, ASME Paper No. 82-WA/PVP-8. 12. Tarbet, Mark A., 2001, Cavitation in Centrifugal Pumps,
Energy-Tech, Western Section, MacMillan, New York,
3. Eisinger, F. L. and Francis, J. T., 1999, Acoustically Induced
February, pp 18.
Structural Fatigue of Piping Systems, ASME Journal of
Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 121, November,
pp 438443.

4. Illing, Henry, 1988, Plug Vibrational Tendencies of

Top Guided Throttling Control Valves, 2nd International
Conference on Developments in Valves and Actuators for
Fluid Control, British Valve Manufacturers Association and
the Institution of Mechanical Engineers - Process Industries
Division, Manchester England, 2830 March.

5. ISA Considerations for Evaluating Control Valve Cavitation,

1995, RP75.23, Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation
Society, Research Triangle Park, N.C.

6. ISA Control Valves - Practical Guides for Measurement

and Control, 1998, Guy Borden, Jr. Editor, Chapter 12,
Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society, Research
Triangle Park, N.C.

7. Lynch, John, 1991, Impedance-Coupled Valve and Fluid

System Instability, American Nuclear Society, May,
Pittsburgh.

8. Miller, H. L., and L.R. Stratton, 1997, Fluid Kinetic

Energy as a Selection Criteria for Control Valves,
ASME Fluids Engineering Division, Summer Meeting, Paper
FEDSM97-3464, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, June
22-26.

9. Miller, H. L., 1988, Control Valves A Source of Pipe

Vibration, Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, June 19-23, (88-PVP-10),
Pittsburgh.

10. Jim Persad, M. John Scurr, Sina Alikhani and H. L. Miller,

1997, Condenser Steam Dump Valve Retrofits Solve
Vibration Problems, EPRI Sixth Valve Technology
Symposium, Electric Power Research Institute, Portland,
Maine, July 14-16.

2001 CCI. All rights reserved. 449 | Piping Vibration Involving Control Valves 7