Proceedings of the ASME 2014 Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference

PVP2014
July 20-24, 2014, Anaheim, California, USA

PVP2014-28794

MEASUREMENT OF HIGH AMPLITUDE RELIEF VALVE NOISE FOR ACOUSTICALLY INDUCED

VIBRATION AND COMPARISON TO PREDICTIVE METHODS

Neal Evans
Southwest Research Institute
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, TX 78238 USA
neal.evans@swri.org

ABSTRACT a Internal pipe radius [m]

c Sound speed [m/s]
The prediction of acoustically induced vibration ṁ Mass flow [kg/s]
(AIV) failures in the design or redesign of piping systems r Distance from valve opening [m]
requires an accurate estimate of the excitation source. γ Ratio of specific heats, cp/cv
η Acoustic radiation efficiency
Furthermore, the next generation of AIV analysis may require
ρ Density [kg/m3]
a physics-based noise-generation predictive technique, which ω Angular frequency [rad/s]
entails the need for validation via direct measurements. The
noise generated by a pressure relief valve (PRV) during a full-
scale AIV blowdown test was measured inside a pipe BACKGROUND
downstream of the valve. A maximum flow rate of 33.5 kg/s
was achieved using nitrogen gas through a 3x4” relief valve High pressure ratio, high mass flow systems generate
generating a peak dynamic pressure level exceeding 650 kPa high amplitude fluctuating turbulent pressures at pressure
and sustained levels of 450 kPa (peak). Measurements are reducing components such as control valves, pressure relief
compared to existing noise calculation techniques which valves, and orifice plates. These dynamic pressure fluctuations
appear to under-predict the generated noise. propagate downstream and can impart energy to the
surrounding structure. In piping systems, acoustically induced
NOMENCLATURE vibration (AIV) has been shown to cause fatigue failures at
welded connections [1, 2]. A structural discontinuity such as a
D Valve opening diameter [m] welded Tee fitting creates a stress concentration when the pipe
Di Internal pipe diameter [m]
wall vibrates, potentially leading to fatigue failures over time.
LP Sound pressure level [dB ref. 20μPa]
LW Sound power level [dB ref. 1x10-12 W] Failures have been reported after several minutes or many
M Molecular weight [g/mol] months of operation depending on the amplitude of vibration
Pup Upstream pressure [Pa] and number of cycles. These failures can be dangerous,
Pdn Downstream pressure [Pa] environmentally damaging, and costly, particularly in oil and
SFF Sonic flow factor [6 dB] gas facility flare piping systems which may have very high
Tup Upstream temperature [K] pressure ratio and mass flow.
W Sound power [W]
Wff Free-field sound power [W] Predicting when AIV failures may occur requires an
Wref Reference sound power [1x10-12 W]
understanding of the source excitation mechanism and the

1 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 corresponding structural response. This paper presents results
from measurements of the noise generated by a control valve
and relief valve in series taken in conjunction with a full-scale
blowdown experiment for acoustically induced vibration
measurement at Southwest Research Institute (SwRI).
PREDICTING VALVE NOISE
Several analysis techniques have been developed for
assessing the potential risk of AIV failures in piping systems.
Some of the first reported work in the area was done by
Carucci and Mueller [1] and one of the most widely used
analysis techniques today is a guideline created by the Energy
Institute (EI) [3].
AIV analysis techniques all rely on some prediction
of the noise generated at the valve or pressure drop device.
Most fundamentally, Lighthill’s acoustic analogy of a
quadrupole can be used to predict aerodynamic noise where
the sound power from a free jet scales with the eighth power
of velocity [4]. This analogy assumes sub-critical pressure
ratio however, and does not account for nonlinear effects such
as shocking, which can dominate noise generation in the case
of choked or supersonic flow.
The EI method provides an AIV analysis procedure
that is calibrated from end to end based on observed failure
and non-failure data, but is not intended to accurately predict
the noise as a standalone value. The EI method uses the sound
power calculation presented by Carucci and Mueller shown in
Eq. 1.
[( ) ̇ ( ) ]
Other noise prediction techniques have been
presented by Ng [5] (Eq. 2) based on the pressure ratio, and
Franken [6] (Eq. 3) based on the kinetic energy and an
acoustic efficiency, η typically on the order of 10-5 – 10-2.
( ),
where { [( ) ]}
⁄ ̇
[ ]
An additional technique for predicting valve
generated noise, specifically from control valves, has been
published by the International Electrotechnical Commission
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
(IEC) [7] based on five flow regimes with increasing pressure
ratio corresponding to increasing acoustic radiation efficiency.
The standard provides a method for computing sound power
which is converted to sound pressure level as shown in
equation 4.
( ) (4)
Measurement data of valve generated noise at the
very high pressure ratio and mass flow regimes of interest in
AIV are limited; this paper attempts to provide insight into the
magnitude of dynamic pressures in such a regime.
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
Measurements of the noise generated over a control
valve and relief valve in series were taken during a full-scale
blowdown test at the Southwest Research Institute valve test
facility. Liquid nitrogen was pumped and vaporized into a
1125 ft3 reservoir of 3000 psi nitrogen gas, which was used to
drive flow through the 3” diameter upstream piping, annubar
flow meter, control valve, and relief valve into a 4” diameter
tailpipe and exhausting into a large header open to the
atmosphere (see figures 1 and 2; the measurement location is
circled in red in figure 2). Nitrogen gas first passes through the
control valve, constructed with a noise reducing trim, which is
used to actively modulate flow through the system. There are
two identical relief valves downstream of the control valve;
the first is intended to provide overpressure protection and is
vented to atmosphere; this valve did not open during testing.
The second relief valve which was the intended noise source is
1.5m downstream of the control valve and vents directly into
(1)
the downstream piping. This valve was set to an opening
pressure well below the system operating pressure. Static and
dynamic pressure, temperature, and flow measurement
locations are shown in figure 1.
(2)
(3)
Fig. 1 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
2 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 Dynamic pressure measurements were recorded at
the wall of the pipe 8” downstream of the relief valve orifice
via a PCB 112M66 piezoelectric dynamic pressure probe,
sampled at 51.2 kHz. The relief valve is an Anderson
Greenwood 3x4” pilot operated valve. Data were collected for
60 seconds starting with the control valve fully closed. The
control valve was fully opened after 10 seconds and was then
modulated manually to maintain a steady flow of
approximately 28 kg/s.

Fig. 3 TIME SERIES NOISE DATA

Fig. 2 VALVE CONFIGURATION

MEASUREMENT RESULTS

The measured time series waveform and power

spectral density are shown in figures 3 and 4 where the
generated noise is shown to be broadband up to approximately
1 kHz. The PSD was computed based on a 20-second period
when the flow was steady-state using 0.5-second records with
50% overlap and a Hanning window. The measured noise
(normalized by the maximum RMS fluctuating pressure level,
computed with a 1/8s moving average) is shown along with
the mass flow, mean flow velocity (predicted, downstream of
the relief valve), upstream and downstream pressures, and
upstream and downstream temperatures (relative to the relief
valve) in figure 5. Temperature measurements upstream and
downstream of the relief valve were not available, and are Fig. 4 POWER SPECTRAL DENSITY
predicted based on the temperature upstream of the control
valve and an assumption of isenthalpic expansion over both
valves. The flow velocity is predicted from the mass flow and
density based on the static pressure and temperature.

3 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Fig. 5 NORMALIZED PARAMETERS
The generated noise appears to track the mass flow
and pressure ratio well, with little dependence upon the flow
velocity. The initial peak in predicted velocity is likely caused
by the first inrush of nitrogen as the control valve is
modulated, which chokes quickly and reduces as the
temperature (and sound speed) drop. Since the temperatures
shown are predicted based on the isenthalpic expansion of the
gas, the values are only expected to be accurate during the
high flow, steady-state operating period. Maximum measured
and predicted values of dynamic pressure, mass flow, flow
velocity, and pressure are shown in the table. Upstream and
downstream notation refers to the measurement location
relative to the relief valve.
MAXIMUM MEASURED VALUES
Dynamic pressure 151 kPaRMS
Mass flow 33.5 kg/s
Flow velocity (predicted, downstream) 284 m/s (c = 349 m/s)
Tank pressure 19.8 MPa [2873 psia]
Upstream pressure 10.7 MPa [1548 psia]
Downstream pressure 1.72 MPa [250 psia]
Pressure ratio 6.19
COMPARISON TO PREDICTIVE METHODS
Most metrics for predicting valve noise provide the
result in terms of sound power level; however, measurements
relying on a single point pressure measurement provide the
energy in terms of the pressure level. For a point monopole in
free space, the source sound power can be calculated based on
the pressure at some distance r by equation 5. Peirce [8]
provides a frequency dependent formulation for calculating
4 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
the power as a function of frequency from a point monopole in
a pipe by equation 6, assuming the source is small relative to
the wavelength. We can extend this to a point quadrupole by
noting that the pressure will decay as 1/r3 in the near-field. A
simpler approximation similar to the free-field approach and
based on the internal area of the pipe is shown in equation 7,
where a is the pipe inner radius, r is the distance from source
to receiver, and it is assumed that since the valve is choked,
energy only radiates downstream. Assuming the receiver is
close to the source and minimal radiative losses through the
pipe wall, the power would be given by equation 8, which
only depends on the pipe radius. This equation has been used
to convert the sound power predictions to pressure for
comparison with the measured level.
( ) (5)
(6)
( ) (7)
( ) (8)
The measured sound pressure is shown in figure 6
along with predictions from IEC, Carucci and Mueller (also
used in the Energy Institute guideline), Franken/API, and the
Ng method based on the measured flow parameters, noting
that the EI, API, and Ng methods provide the predicted sound
power which was converted to pressure by equation 8. The
valve acoustic efficiency correction factor, An used in the IEC
calculations is -3.8 for the control valve. A value is not
defined specifically for relief valves, so two values were used
to approximate the flow path, -3.8 for a ported globe valve and
-3.6 for a 90° segmented ball valve. The sonic flow factor was
included for the PSV, but not the control valve. The maximum
acoustic efficiency of 1% was assumed for the Franken/API
method.
The plotted predictions account for the noise
generated by both the control valve and relief valve, where the
relief valve noise dominates based on proximity to the
measurement location and the greater pressure ratio (the
maximum pressure ratio over the control valve was 1.86, and
over the PSV was 6.19). No noise reduction was applied to the
control valve calculations for the noise reducing trim. Noise is
shown to track closely with mass flow rate. Existing methods
of calculating valve noise tend to underpredict the noise level,
and there is some disagreement between methods.
 REFERENCES

1. V. A. Carucci and R. T. Mueller, “Acoustically

induced piping vibration in high capacity pressure
reducing systems,” American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, (1983).

2. F. L. Eisinger, “Designing piping systems against

acoustically induced structural fatigue”, Journal of
Pressure Vessel Technology. 119, 379-383, (1997).

3. Guidelines for the Avoidance of Vibration Induced

Fatigue Failures in Process Pipework, Second
Edition, Energy Institute, London, (2008).
Fig. 6 MEASURED AND PREDICTED LEVELS
4. M. J. Lighthill, “On Sound Generated
SUMMARY Aerodynamically I. General Theory,” Proceedings of
the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical
Dynamic pressures generated over a series
and Physical Sciences, Vol. 211 No. 1107 (1952).
combination of a control valve and relief valve in a full-scale
blowdown test have been reported. Comparison with existing 5. Norton, Michael and Denis Karczub. Fundamentals
predictive techniques shows that levels may be greater than of Noise and Vibration Analysis for Engineers.
expected in high mass flow, high pressure ratio regimes. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Future methods to predict failures related to
acoustically induced vibration may wish to rely upon the
predicted sound pressure level, rather than power, which is
more easily validated by measurement. Further testing would
be useful in exploring the effects of different valve geometries
and configurations, operating conditions, and higher molecular
weight fluids such as CO2.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
6. Hanno, Heller and Peter Franken. Noise of Gas
Flows, Chapter 16 in Noise and Vibration Control,
ed. Leo Beranek. McGraw Hill, 1988.
7. IEC 60534-8-3. Industrial-process control valves -
Part 8-3: Noise considerations - Control valve
aerodynamic noise prediction method, Edition 3.0,
2010-11, International Electrotechnical Commission,
Geneva, Switzerland (2010).

The author would like to thank Dr. Tim Allison for 8. Pierce, Allan D. Acoustics: An Introduction to Its
his effort in leading the blowdown testing and providing Physical Principles and Applications. Published by
useful comments on this study, Dr. Andrew Marshall for the Acoustical Society of America through the
valuable discussions throughout the data collection and American Institute of Physics, 1994.
analysis process, and Nathan Poerner for help with
experimental setup and data acquisition.

5 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms