@

OTC 8240

Subsea Valve Actuator For Ultra Deepwater

S.Z. Ali, FMC, and H.B. Skeels, FMC and B. K. Montemayor, FMC and M.R. Williams, FMC

Copyright 1996, OITdkxc Technology Con fercncf

As subsea completions have ventured into deeper waters, subsea
valve/actuator technology has traditionally wrestled with the
Thk paper wu presented at the 28th Annual OTC in Hcmmn, Tcxu, U S A, 6-9 May 1996
adverse effects of increased hydrostatic pressure which, acting
W paper WM selmcd fa pmmmdon
conwwd in an &tract mbmmd
by the OTC Prcgrun
by the mttbor(s) Contcnu
Comminec following review of infornmtion
of the pspcr, u presented, bwe not been
on the valve/actuatormechanism, can keep the valve from fully
reviewed by the OITshore Technology Confcfmce md we subject 10 axmc!ion by the uhf,) The closing or opening under certain conditions. Within the last
mated, M presented, & m neccss.n Iy mfl w my pm iii. of the OtTslwre Tcchno Iogy Ccmf.rcme or
IUoflbn Pmmisicm 10 WY i$ rexmzed to an abstract of mw more than 103 wrcb Illu.tr.tIOns may MI twenty years, these actuator designs have also had to deal with
bc mpud ti Aamct dmuid oman mnspmcw tcknowledsmcn: of whae md by whom Lhe paper wu
evolutionary changes in hydraulic control system architecture,
control fluid types and specific gravities, external override
technology, and the emergence of API Specification 17D. This
Abstract paper reviews the basic technical challenges inherent to ultra
deep water applications,and presents design & analysis methods
This paper reviews the continuing development of gate valve for developing and qualifying new deepwater actuator designs.
and actuator technology for subsea completions extending into
ultra deep water. l%e basic technical challenges inherent to Review of Fail Close Valve And Actuator Design
subsea valve actuators are reviewed, along with the various
factors which affect the design and performance of these devices The art of fail close (or open) gate valve design has been widely
in deepwater applications. The high external ambient pressures used for several decades. An excellent paper on this topic was
which occur in deep water, coupled witti high specific gravity published by Fowler and Herd 2 in 1976. In principle, the fail
hydraulic control fluids, are shown to have a significant impact close valves stem is sized large enough so that pressure inside
on the performance of the actuators. This paper presents design the valve, acting on the area of the stem, creates a stem thrust
& analysis methods and the verification test procedures which force large enough to overcome the tliction forces which oppose
are required to develop and qualify new deep water actuator valve movement (gate/seat drag and stem packing friction).
designs. Thus, the stem thrust force will cause the valve to close when
hydraulic control pressure in the actuator is released. As
Gate valve actuators of the type described in this paper are pressure inside the valve body increases, the stem thrust force
currently in use on subsea christmas trees on the worlds deepest increases in the same proportion as the valve friction forces, so
subsea wells offshore Brazil (water depths >3000 feet). New stem thrust alone is usually sufficient to ensure that surface valve
applications of the deepwater actuators are in process for actuators will reliably close the valve under all anticipated
upcoming Gulf of Mexico subsea production systems in water working pressure conditions.
depths approaching 6000 feet. The actuator/valve development
method described in this paper has been confirmed by Unlike surface valve actuators, the design of subsea valves &
performance verification testing of full scale valves& actuators actuators must take into account the effects of external ambient
using a hyperbaric chamber to simulate ultra deepwater seawater pressure. This ambient hydrostatic pressure acts upon
operating conditions. Performance of the test valves & actuators the exposed end of the actuators external stem producing a
correlated very well with analytical predictions. Test resuhs force which opposes the internal stem thrwst force and tends to
have confirmed that the new valve actuator designs will satisfy urge the valve toward the open position. When ambient
API 17D performance requirements for water depths up to 7500 seawater pressure is higher than the pressure within the valve,
feet, well in excess of the upcoming GOM application. the external stem thrust force may prevent the subsea valve from
closing properly when hydraulic control pressure in the actuator
Introduction is released. So, to overcome the effects of external ambient sea
pressure, subsea valve actuators are typically equipped with

799
2 SUBSEA VALVE ACTUATOR
heavy return springs. While heavy return springs can be
engineered to ensure proper closure of the valve under all
specified operating conditions, the use of large spring forces
results in higher hydraulic control pressures or larger piston
areas within the actuator. Optimization of the subsea valve and
design is therefore an iterative process, as described in the
following sections.
Early designs of hydraulic actuator pistons for subsea valves
were sized based ontheforce required toopenthe valve under
full differential pressure divided by the available control system
supply pressure, Theretum spring wasthen sized largerthanthe
sum of all of the forces left in the valve and from the
surroundingenvironment, when control pressure is lost,to assure
the valves closure over and above what the valve stem thrust
alone can provide. Equations forsizing afailclose valve stem,
effective piston area, return spring force, and minimum closing
force are (ref Fowler and Herd 2):
D,= Dv(Kp) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(A-l)
PC,={[PVx(7r/4)[D: +p(Dv)*]]+F, +FP+F}/AP
F,> F,+ F . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(A-3)
FC={[Py X( Id4)[DJ -p(Dv)2]] +F, -FP-F}> 0.....
Since that time, these equations have undergone aseriesof
changes to account for three additional criteria. First, the
Fowler-Herd equations assume that when control pressure is
removed, the actuator will see hydraulic pressure roughly
equivalentto the ambient sea water pressure on both sides of the
operating piston. This isonlytrue forclosed hydraulic control
systems which have the control fluid reservoir submerged
nearby. Closed systems today are very rare. Most systems are
of an open architecture, where the control fluid reservoirs
stored on an elevated platform. The added distance above sea
level (often referred to as the air gap) increases the static head
of the fluid acting on the pistons control side above that of the
ambient sea water pressure acting on the other portions of the
actuator. Second, theequations do not account forthe density
of thecontrol system fluid acting on the actuator. In deepwater,
use of heavy control fluid can create a significant imbalance
force across the actuator piston, whichs acts against valve
closure, even when the control fluid pressure is vented at the
surface control panel. Early useofhydraulic oils with densities
Iessthan seawater (specific gravities roughly 0.90) have given
way to the widespread use of heavier glycol enhanced water
based fluids with specific gravities inexcessofl .03. This large
swing in control fluid density coupled with the air gap can
produce startling non-closure effects for a valve/actuator design
that is otherwise sound by the traditional equations. Third, with
the widespread acceptance of ROV valve override technology,
recent valve/actuatordesign equationsmust take into account the
FOR ULTIU4 DEEPWATER 0TC8240
added hydrostatic force acting on the override stem which also
works against valve closure.
With these three additional factors figured in, the Fowler-Herd
equations can be re-written as:
D,= Dv(Kp)h. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (A-5)
PC, = ([PV X (7c/4)[D; + p(D,)]] + F,+ F, + F- F,) /~ . . . . . . . . (A-6)
F,>= FP+F, .,..,..,..,..,..,..,.. ,.. ,,. ,.. (A. . . . . . . . . .. (A-7)
F,= {[PVX (Tc/4)[D~- p(Dv)z]]+ F, - FP- F + F,} >0 . . . . . . (A-8)
where forces: FO=B, -U. -C,,..,,., ,., ... ,.., ..,..... (A-9)
u,= ?&w.,,,xWater Depth x(m/4)D02, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (A-IO)
Ce=a ~,mlfluid
x [WaterDepth+ Air Gap] x A, . . . . . . . . (A-11)
B,=& ~WXx WaterDepthxAP~~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (A-12)
Figure 1 illustrateswhere the forces, U., C,,and B. generated by
. . . (A-2) sea head and control line head are applied in the actuators
control system force diagram.
Minimum Spring Force / Pk.ton Area Method
(A-4)
Of the four physical sizing dimensions: valve stem size, D, ,
effective piston area, AP, spring return force, F,, and critical
closing force, FC, only the valve stem size is an independent
equation with can be readily optimized on its own. The other
criteria are hopelessly interdependent and have to be optimized
through several trial and error iterations; selecting/checking
piston area and return spring force against all of the
environmental hydrostatic variables while ensuring that the
critical closure force is a positive value for fail close operation.
To minimize the iterative processand guide the designer through
this trade off maze of opposing design criteria, an empirical
formula has been developed to create a relationship between the
size of the actuators operating piston and return spring force.
We will refer to this critical ratio as the minimum spring force
/ piston area rule. The rule seeks a balance between the two
such that the critical closing force is always positive,
maintaining a fail close status. l%e minimum spring force /
piston area rule is simply defined as the actuatorsreturn spring
force in its minimum compressed state (otlen referred to as its
preload condition) divided by effective piston area (operating
piston area minus the area for the override stem). Minimum
spring force / piston area does not need to account for friction-
pressure effects in the valve, since they are kept in check by the
fail safe valve stem sizing. Nor need it account for other
frictional components such as hydraulic seal drag, since these
forces are much smaller than the hydraulic, hydrostatic, and
800
OTC 8240 S.Z. Ali, H.B. Skeels, B.K.
valve stem forces at work. The designer is now free to size the
spring and piston up or down to meet the basic hydraulic
requirements of the valve and utilize the available hydraulic
control system as long as this combination does not violate a
minimum requirement for fail closure at depth.
With the introduction of API specification 17D in 1992,
committee members, suppliers, and end users wrestled with the
issues on air gap and control pressure in an effort to move the
industry toward sound minimum requirements for fail close
actuator design. API 17D established two major requirements
on subsea actuators. First, a minimum hydraulic back pressure
value of 100 psi was established to qualifjf a valve and actuator
design for a particular water depth service when the valve has
zero internal pressure (Opsig). Second, the hydraulic pressure
required to filly open the valve must not exceed 90?40of the
nominal operating pressure supplied by the control system with
the valvesfull rated differential pressure acting across the gate.
Nominal operating pressures were defined as either 1500 or
3000 psi (but higher operating pressures are now in common
use). The 100 psi minimum back pressure requirement was
established to address the air gap issue, while the 90V0of
nominal operating pressure limit ensured the actuator spring
design was not made so strong that the control system installed
in the field would be unable to operate the valve/actuator either
in submerged service or during a land check out of the subsea
completion (where there is no air gap or external ambient
seawater pressure to assist in opening the valve).
Unfortunately, control system fluid density is not addressed by
either requirement and this poses a real dilemma for the designer
who is trying to quali~ his design to API design specifications.
The designer is running out of maneuvering room for
conventional valve/actuator designs using glycol laden water
based fluids while attempting to meet both 100 psi minimum
back pressure and the 90% maximum control pressure
requirement as projects extend into deeper water depths. Hard
choices will have to be made to either abandon heavier control
fluids for lighter ones, or keep developing larger families of
hydraulic actuators with ever stronger return closure devices,
which in lum may require even higher control system operating
pressures.
Figure 2 illustrates the critical valve closure force, F,, required
to operate a conventional actuated valve with a given spring
size, piston size and control fluid density at increasing bore
pressures. The graph clearly shows that the critical valve closure
force curves decrease as water depth increases. Beyond the
water depth where the valve closure force curve falls below the
required 100 psi minimum, fail safe closure of the vaive would
be suspect. Note that for conventional subsea actuator designs,
the most critical point irr the actuator performance envelope
occurs when the valve bore is at zero pressure (Opsig). At this
point, a conventional subsea valve actuator has reached its API
801
Montemayor and M.R.Williams 3
17Dwater depth limit 3,and its minimum spring force/ piston
area is thus defined for a specific water depth and control
system fluid density. As will be discussed later, other types of
valve actuators may reach their critical performance points at
internal valve pressures other than zero psig, so the standard API
17D water depth ratings may be misleading for these designs.
Figure 3 illustrates how the minimum spring force / piston
area rule can be used as a convenient design aid when
developing new actuator designs, or when evaluating the
suitability of an existing actuator design for a specific
application. Actuators whose minimum spring force / piston
area fall above the applicable curve for the chosen control fluid
can be expected to perform reliably and satisfy the 17D
minimum back pressure requirement. For example, an actuator
intended for use in 7500 feet of water, using a glycol laden water
based control fluid (HW540), requires a spring force/ piston
area of at least 650 psi or greater. A spring force/ piston area
less than this value will not meet 17D back pressure
requirements and the valve may not close properly under low
valve bore pressure conditions.
The curves also bear out that current trends toward increaseduse
of heavier control system fluids and deeper waters will require
either reductions in actuator piston area and/or increases in
preloaded spring force; both resulting in the need for higher
control system pressures in a conventional actuator design. It
should be noted that the old 1500 psi nominal hydraulic
operating pressure rating will be marginal or inadequate for
operation of high pressure gate valves designed for deepwater
service, particularly during valve testing operations on surface.
Fortunately, most modem control systems are capable of
operating at pressures well above 1500 psi, and many can
operate reliably at pressures well above 3000 psi if required. By
taking advantage of these higher operating pressures, smaller
actuator pistons may be utilized. In addition to reducing the
physical size and weight of the deepwater actuators, designing
for higher control pressures can also improve actuator response
time, by reducing the swept volume which must be displaced
during valve operation.
Over the past several years, the authors have developed a
numtxx of deepwater valve & actuator designs using the design
methods described above. Extensive testing of these valve &
actuator designs has been conducted to verifi the design
methods and assumptions. Initial testing of the new actuator
designs was accomplished using test fixtures which simulated
the effect of ambient seawater pressure acting on the external
actuator stem. These tests confirmed that the valve/actuator
designs performed as predicted and satisfied the API 17D 100
psi minimum back pressure requirement. A typical chart
recording depicting the back pressure generated by the actuator
during the closing cycle with zero valve body pressure and
simulated water depth of 7500 feet is shown in Figure 6. In
4 SUESEA VALVE ACTUATOR
addition tothese simulated deepwater tests, afillscale 4'' 10K
deepwater valve and actuator were tested by rutindependent test
facility, using a hyperbaric chamber to simulate 7500 ft water
depth, as part of a joint industry t%ndedproject. Results from
the hyperbaric chamber tests were also consistent with the
performance predicted by the presented actuator design method.
This development program has successfully demonstrated that
conventional subsea valve & actuator designs can be optimized
for use in water depths up to 7500 feet without major departure
from proven valve/actuator design configurations and
technology.
Detached Balanced Valve Stem
Mr. Herd 2proposed a unique solution to the growing problem
of ever increasing valve actuator designs for deeper water
applications by adding a detached balance stem to the subsea
valve design. The balance stem helps ensure the valve will close
in low valve bore pressure situations. External ambient seawater
pressure, acting on the added balance stem, produces a force
which tends to counteract the effect of ambient seawaterpressure
acting on the actuators external stem. Since the balance stem is
not attached to the valve gate, the balance stem stays in the fully
extended position until the valve bore pressure falls below the
ambient sea pressure. So, at high internal pressures,the valve&
actuator work in the conventional manner, with the main valve
stem assisting valve closure. But, when valve bore pressure
falls below ambient seawater pressure, external pressure causes
the balance the stem to move inward and push against the gate,
helping to close the valve, So, at low valve bore pressures, the
beneficial thrust contributed by the detached stem assists the
return spring in closing the valve.
Figure 4 illustrates the critical valve closure force, F., required
to operate an actuated valve with a detached balance stem. The
graph clearly shows that critical valve closure force decreases
as water depth increases, as was the case for conventional
actuator designs. Note: when compared to Figure 2 for a
conventional actuated valve, the minimum back pressure
condition for the detached balance stem valve does not occur at
zero bore pressure. Instead, the most critical point in the
actuator performance envelope occurs when the valve bore is
equal to the ambient sea water pressure. When the minima of
the valve closure force curve drops below the required 100 psi
minimum, this type of valve has reached its API 17D water
depth limit, and its minimum spring force / piston area is
defined for this specific water depth and control system fluid
density.
Note that the standard API 17D water depth rating, which is
calculated when valve bore pressure is O psig, would produce
misleading results for detached balance stem actuators. As
shown in Figure 4, the actuator could satisfi the 100 psi
minimum backpressureat Opsig valve bore pressure at a certain
802
FOR ULTRA DEEPWATER 0TC8240
water depth, but might be unable to close the valve at higher
internalvalve bore pressures. As the figure indicates, the worst
performance problem would be anticipated when valve bore
pressure is approximately equal to ambient seawater pressure,
So, API 17D water depth rating alone is not suftlcient to predict
the perfonrtance of these types of actuators in deepwater service.
At the lowest point in the curve, where the valve pressure is
nearly equal to the ambient sea water pressure, the detached
stem is rendered ineffectualand the actuator must rely primarily
on spring force to close. The proposed minimum spring force
/ piston area method, can be still be employed to exploit the
detached stem actuatordesign, as long as this critical design ratio
is calculated using data corresponding to the low point on the
valve backpressure curve in Figure 4 rather than at zero bore
pressure.
A new series of springforce/ piston area curves were derived
for detached balanced stem valve for different control fluid
densities and water depths. The curves in Figure S represent
minimum spring force / piston area values required for proper
valve/actuatorperformance for a given control fluid density. As
before, spring force / piston area values for a detached stem
actuator design above the curve meet or exceed the 100 psi
reserve hydraulic pressure. Design values below the curve fail
to meet 100 psi minimum, and actuator performancewould be
questionable,
A comparison between Figures 3 and 5 suggests that the
detached balanced stem design may stretch the performance of
the hydraulic actuator roughly 30Y0,say from 7500 foot water
depths to 12,500 feet. While the detached balance stem design
does enhance the performance of the valve and actuator under
low internal pressure conditions, there is a price to pay. The
addition of the balanced stem increases the cost and complexity
of the valve, and it introduces additional leak paths in ~e valve
body (extra bonnet gasket and stem packing). And, the extra
space occupied by the balanced stem can complicate packaging
of the valves & actuators in the subsea tree assembly. Butj
where simpler subsea actuator designs are not technically
adequate,the detached balance stem valve/actuatordesign offers
a workable solution.
Conclusion
The effects of control system fluid density, control system
pressure limitations and the effects of sea head pressure on
exposed override stem, are creating new challenges in the design
of deepwater valve/actuator assemblies, These effects also
hamper the optimization of design by traditional equations.
An alternate design techrdque,using the minimum spring force
/piston area method, has been demonstrated as a simple means
to optimize the actuator design& performance. The minimum
OTC 8240 S.z. Ali, H.B. Skeels, B.K. Montemavor and M.R.Williams 5

spring force / piston area cuwes have been shown to be linearly D, valve stem diameter
proportionalto water depth and the slopes are proportional to the
increase incontrol fluid density. Theminimum spring force/ A, actuator effective piston area (seeing control system
piston area curves also illuminate the limitations of pressure)
conventional valve/actuator designs, if the trend of future
projects continues towards deeper water and heavier control
fluid densities. AP back actuator boost piston area (back side connected to sea
chest, seeing ambient sea water pressure)
Reduction in control fluid density can greatly improve the
performance ofsubsea valve actuators. Asaresult, existing BC sea chest force
actuator designs could be used for deeper water applications,
with little or no additional development costs for new hardware c, control line head force
and associated equipment. Also, the detached balanced stem
valve concept couId be used to extend existing actuator designs P Cs hydraulic control system pressure required to open the
into deeper water applications with a minimum valve redesign valve for a given Pv
effort.
Pv internal valve bore pressure, usually differential
Finally, caution isadvised when using thestandard APl 17D pressure across the gate
water depth rating alone to predict subsea actuator performance
in deepwater. Thedesign &analysis techniques presented here minimum (or preloaded) force in actuators return
F,
offer a more accurate method for assessing the performance of
spring mechanism
deepwater actuators over a more complete range of operating
conditions.
FP valve stem packing drag
Bibliography
F miscellaneous drag, including seal drag, various
1. Fowler, J.H., Development of High-Pressure Valves component frictional drags, not otherwise accounted
for Unattended Service, ASME Paper No. 67-Pet-34, for
Sept. 20, 1967.
FC critical valve closure force (must be >0 to achieve full
2. Herd, D.P, McCaskill, J.W., How to Make a Valve valve closure)
Which Will Fail-Safe in Very Deep Water, ASME
Paper No. 76-Pet-35, Sept. 19, 1976. F, net seawater depth (sea head) force acting on the
actuator
3. American Petroleum Institute, Specification for
Subsea Wellhead and Christmas Tree Equipment -
Specification 17D, 1st edition, October 30, 1992,
u, upper manual override stem force.
sections 908.2b(l) and 908,2c(4).

Nomenclature

6 specific head

P valve gate/seat drag coefficient

K factor of safety applied to gate/seat drag coef?lcient

while calculating Dv

DO override stem diameter

Dv valve gate/seat seal outside diameter

803
 w
v

Fl-
K
0

L
3N11 10M1NO3

804


I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
L II II II
I
I
1
i
\ \ I
I
I
I
I \
, LI
1
I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 0

805
-. _. . ---- . . . ---- ----. _ .

800
g HW540

Hydraulic Oil

~ Fresh Water
Valve Ditlerential Pressure = O psi
Air Gap=O ft, Fc= 100 psi
I
.
a)
v
600
/--
z
IL

400

200

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
(1000 fl)
Water Depth

.
 .....
. . -- .-----

1
1200
r---~
Critical Valve Closure Force for Detached Balanced Stem Actuated Valve

.-

Water Depth = O ft
1000
. Water Depth = 3000 ft

~ Water Depth = 7500 fl

I
600

600

II

400

21Xl

I------------------------------ --------
0 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 I ~~
o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Valve Differential Bore Pressure
 . -. . ..

I FIGURE 5
\DetatchedBalanced Stem Actuated Valve I
I I
Im . .- _ .._ --.

Hw540
Hydraulic Oil

~ Fresh Water

mo

,=.--=

al
.- ,.------------------
----
N--7---
r-----A

200

I
-+ I
I -+
(3
* +
I
i
I
-200 I 1 1 I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I 1 1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . 11
WIOO n)
Water Depth
 MINIMUM ACTUATOR BACK PRESSURE
DURING VALVE CLOSURE FOR 2-1OK ACTUATED VALVE

STROKE = 2.56 IN -----tE=-

. 1.950 psi

-

130 DSt

\
Full open 1: 2: Full Close 3;

VALVE STROKE (INCH)

This groph represents port of an actual testing of a 2-IOK actuator/valve assembly at 7,500 ft simulated water
depth. To create the worst case condition. the valve body pressure was maintained at zero psiand 2.660 psi
was applied to the top of the manual override stem (to simulate a water depth of 7.500 ft). The valve was
opened by applying 1,950 psiat the Control pressure port, then the pressure was slowly released to allow
the valve to close. At the end af the stroke (2.56 in)the control pressure wos 130 psi, which is greater than
the 100 psi minimum back pressure required by API 17D. Note that the critical farce, Fe. (ratio of spring preload
force to piston area), for this actuator size is 690 psi.

FIGURE 6