International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 88 (2011) 109e118

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp

Experimental parametric equation for the prediction of valve coefficient (Cv)

for choke valve trims
Andrew Grace, Patrick Frawley*
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The calculation of nominal choke valve size determines the effective capacity for an oil and gas production
Received 16 July 2009 system. The degree of restriction for the controlling area in the valve is a function of the surrounding
Received in revised form geometry. In an orifice plate this is known as the “velocity of approach” and can be used to determine the
28 April 2010
meter coefficient (Cm). This paper presents a technique for choke valves, based on the meter velocity of
Accepted 25 November 2010
approach parameter, which can be used to predict the Valve Coefficient (Cv) for new trim designs. The
prediction method uses a data trend based on a number of flow tests conducted on various trim char-
Keywords:
acteristics. The resultant parametric equation is used to predict the Cv of a new trim geometry. The method
Choke valve
Valve coefficient
relies on experimental data determined per IEC 60534-2-3, with calculations per IEC 60534-2-1. This paper
Cv further investigates the effect of varying upstream geometry on Cv for a 400 nominal valve.
Meter coefficient Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Velocity of approach
Valve sizing
Valve flow test
Valve characteristic

1. Introduction
Control valves are used primarily to control operating condi-
tions such as flow, pressure and temperature in fluid systems. A
choke valve is a special type of control valve typically used in heavy
industries like oil and gas production. The term choke valve is
derived from the choked flow operating condition, wherein the
limiting flow condition has been reached. Choke valves are gener-
ally located at the production block (known as the Christmas Tree
or XT). It is the first control valve seen by the production fluid and
as the primary restriction governs the operating capacity of the
well.
A choke valve is sized based on the natural parameters of the
reservoir including; pressure, temperature and fluid properties, but
also the design of downstream systems including; pressure rating
and production capacity. An undersized control choke can ulti-
mately reduce the operating capacity of the production system
leading to commercial losses. An oversized choke valve has
a reduced controlling range which inhibits adjustment and can also
lead to increased erosion due to high velocity, Hutchinson [1].
A choke valve consists of an inlet and outlet bore, typically an
annulus, a trim and an actuation system (manual or automated), as
detailed in Fig. 1. The choke valve is used to take the majority of the
pressure drop in a system and as such the valve may be a number of
nominal sizes less than connecting pipe-work. In this case the inlet
and outlet connections may include line reducers. The trim consists
of a cylindrical cage with ports for flow and an internal plug which
is linearly actuated to open flow area.
The calculation of the valve size required to control a reservoir
condition is a function of the valve’s internal geometry. The current
industrial standard IEC 60534-2-1 [2] for sizing valves requires
a series of flow tests to be completed which define three parame-
ters of internal geometry. For any valve designed to have a unique
control characteristic [2] would require a manufacturer to first
produce the valve, then flow test it, before confirming that the
design meets the required controllability. Without a design ratio-
nale this would lead to a costly iterative process. This paper will
describe a design technique wherein the valve internal geometry
parameters are interpolated from experimental data, based on
a new non-dimensional geometry ratio. This non-dimensional ratio
is derived from the restrictive geometry of an orifice plate and the
non-dimensional geometry ratio used therein. This technique will
then be applied to a sample case to demonstrate its use.
2. Valve sizing and the meter coefficient

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ353 61202178. Sizing is the term given to the calculation of the restrictive area
E-mail address: patrick.frawley@ul.ie (P. Frawley). in a valve required to control a specific operating condition.

0308-0161/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2010.11.002
110 A. Grace, P. Frawley / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 88 (2011) 109e118

Nomenclature P1 valve inlet pressure, Pa

P2 valve outlet pressure, Pa
A2 orifice area, m2 Q volumetric flow rate, m3/s
Cd coefficient of discharge, dimensionless R pressure ratio e P1/P2, dimensionless
Cv valve coefficient, dimensionless rc theoretical critical pressure ratio, dimensionless
Cm meter coefficient, dimensionless SF saturation entropy at the vena contracta, J/K
D1 upstream pipe diameter, m SFG difference between saturated vapour and liquid
D2 orifice diameter, m entropies at vena contracta, J/K
D3 vena contracta diameter, m SVC entropy at VC, J/K
D4 valve annular diameter, m VVC vapour pressure in VC, kPa
D5 valve central diameter, m VC vena contracta, acronym
D6 valve cage diameter, m V specific volume, m3/Kg
FL pressure recovery factor, dimensionless xT gas critical pressure drop ratio, dimensionless
E mixture quality, dimensionless X gas pressure drop ratio e P1 e P2/P2, dimensionless
G specific gravity, dimensionless Y gas expansion factor, dimensionless
h length of annular area, m a valve velocity of approach, dimensionless
k ratio of specific heats, dimensionless B ratio of upstream pipe diameter to restriction
m mass flow rate, Kg/s diameter, dimensionless
N slope of a line, dimensionless r1 upstream density, Kg/m3
Pvc pressure at the vena contracta, Pa

Driskell [3] first introduced the concept of a valve coefficient (Cv) 2 3

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
to quantify the restrictive area in terms of the effective flow area. 6 u 2 7pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Q ¼ Cd 4A2 u
t  4 5 2ðP1  Pvc Þ=r1 (1)
The calculation of Cv is based on previous work conducted on the D2
orifice plate meter coefficient (Cm). For a simplified restriction as 1  D1
shown in Fig. 2 it is evident that the convergence of the flow
where Cd is the coefficient of discharge, accounting for the differ-
streams toward the orifice creates a reduced downstream flow
ence in geometrical flow area to effective flow area and is the ratio
area (vena contracta e VC).
of actual mass flow rate (taken at the orifice area) to ideal mass flow
For liquid flow the volumetric flow rate across this restriction
rate (taken at the VC area), see Eq. (2). For gas, Eq. (1) can be further
can be given in terms of its geometry by rearranging Bernoulli’s
generalised by introducing a gas expansion factor Y, yielding Eq. (3),
equation, see Eq. (1).
where Y ¼ 1 for incompressible fluids.

mActual
C ¼ (2)
mIdeal
2 3
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
6 u 1 7pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
m ¼ YCd 4A2 u
t  4 5 2r1 ðP1  Pvc Þ (3)
1 D D1
2

For an orifice plate Cm is defined as the product of Cd and the

geometry terms of the specific restriction. Eq. (3) can be given for
an orifice meter as Eq. (4), where the ratio of restriction diameter to
inlet diameter is b, see Eq. (5). b can be used to determine Cm and
the location of the VC. Fig. 3 details the change in Cm for fixed
Reynolds number based on an increasing value of b. Fig. 4 defines
the distance of the VC from the restriction based on a number of
pipe-diameters. b is commonly referred to as the velocity of
approach.

Fig. 1. Right angled choke valve assembly. Fig. 2. Orifice plate geometry.
 A. Grace, P. Frawley / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 88 (2011) 109e118
Fig. 3. Essom [4]. Plot of meter coefficient (Cm) versus b, for a corner tapped orifice
plate.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
m ¼ Cm YA2 2r1 ðP1  Pvc Þ
where; Cm ¼ Cd ½1=1  ðbÞ4 
D2
b¼
D1
3. A valve specific sizing equation
Eq. (4) equates the flow rate for a given orifice size based on the
pressure drop across it. The effective capacity (Cm) of the meter and
the size/location of the VC can be determined from the surrounding
geometry (b). A valve specific form of Eq. (4) can be derived by
determining a gas expansion factor Y and a pressure recovery factor
(FL). This equation when written in terms of Cv can be used to
calculate the required Cv based on the field data (given as pressure,
flow rate and fluid properties).
In practice a manufacturer produces a series of valve sizes with
over lapping flow areas which are then tested to produce a series of
flow curves, plotting rated Cv versus stem travel. These curves give
standard control profiles or characteristics including; linear, equal
percentage and quick opening, see Fig. 5 Baumann [6]. When
a customer application is sized the required Cv is plotted on the
standard pre-produced flow curves. The selection of a valve may
require numerous calculations of required Cv which determine the
controlling points required over its life. These may represent the
maximum and minimum conditions wherein flow rate is high and
pressure differential low or visa versa. Or they may represent
a spectrum of conditions representing reservoir pressure fluctuations
Fig. 4. North American manufacturing [5]. b versus distance of vena contracta from
orifice (in pipe lengths).
111
(4) Fig. 5. Baumann [5]. Standard flow characteristics.
over the life of the well. The suitability of a particular trim is based on
the required Cv values lying in the controlling range of the flow curve
(5) (best practice suggests a range of 20%e80% of total capacity).
For any new trim geometry both a sizing equation and a flow
curve are required. Under certain conditions the controlling
requirements of a well may require a customised characteristic. For
example some production systems require capacity limits and
controls to ensure that well pressure is relieved gradually over
time. As the well is a formation of brittle rock under high pressure
sudden pressure differentials can cause the structure to collapse.
These sudden well shocks can be caused by trim characteristics
where controllability varies considerably over a small range with
respect to valve stem travel. Once a well has produced for a number
of years the likelihood of collapse reduces as the pressure depletes.
This means that the control choke capacity needs to increase
dramatically near the end of its range to enable the same flow rates
at the lower pressure drops. If this characteristic does not exist in
the manufacturers range a new trim must be designed. Therefore
a rationale is required to predict rated Cv for a new trim design
based on its area open to flow, before manufacturing and test. Also
an equation is required to calculate required Cv so it can be plotted
on the flow curve (rated Cv versus travel) and the controllability
determined.
3.1. Gas expansion factor, Y
For an ideal restriction Y is the adiabatic expansion of the gas as
it travels from P1 to P2, Eq. (6). For the orifice restriction shown in
Fig. 2 the adiabatic assumption does not hold. Buckingham [7] and
Bean [8] defined Y for an orifice plate with flanged pressure taps
upstream and at the VC point in Eq. (7), which was subsequently
adopted by ASME. To define the Y factor Buckingham and Bean
completed a series of discharge coefficient tests using water on
a fixed orifice at various pressure drops. The tests were repeated
with gas on the same orifice at the exact same flow rates and
pressure drops. The variance between the discharge coefficients for
both tests was the Y factor. The nearest fit curve seen was disputed
in further analysis by Kinghorn [9]. Kinghorn proposed that at high
values of Y (circa Y ¼ 0.95) that the Buckingham and Bean coeffi-
cients were in error by as much as 0.5%.
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
! !ffi
u  
u 2 k 1  r
ðk1Þ
1  b 4
Y ¼ tr k
k
(6)
k1 1r 1  b rk
4 2
!
  1  PVC
Y ¼ 1  0:41 þ 0:35b
4 P1
(7)
k
112 A. Grace, P. Frawley / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 88 (2011) 109e118

Fig. 6. Gas Expansion (Y) variances for difference valve geometries.

More recent research into the ASME approved factor by Seidl

[10] confirmed the errors first indicated by Kinghorn. Various tests
were completed at pressure ratios from 0 to 0.2 and the expansion
factor calculated as with the ASME method. It is important to note
that at the referenced expansions factors and pressure drops that
the flow is laminar, with associated Reynolds number. The least
squares fit derived from the Seidl paper resulted in Eq. (8). Seidl
concludes that the errors identified by Kinghorn have some merit
while suggesting that further testing is required to confirm the new
interpretation of data. Fig. 8. Stiles [16]. VC specific volume versus pressure.

!
  1  PVC Additional analysis in the paper showed that the ASME defini-
Y ¼ 1  0:357 þ 0:557b
4 P1
(8) tion of Y was accurate for values of P2 down as low as 0.63P1. After
k
this point the discontinuity increased to range from 12% to 40% of
As the choke valve is the primary pressure drop point in actual flow. For outlet pressure lower than P2 ¼ 0.63P1 the Cun-
a production system the typical pressure differential tends to be ningham corrected ASME equation can be used, see Eq. (9).
above the range of Seidl’s testing. The specialised flow equation for
the valve should therefore focus on effects towards the lower
limiting range of the expansion factor.
Research conducted by Cunningham [11] showed that the fixed
critical limit for sharp edge orifice plates was inconsistent at higher
pressure drops. The conclusion was that with suitable corrections
the expansion factor for non-critical flow could be used for thin
edged orifice plates in all cases. However critical flow could be
expected for thick orifice plates where the thickness was greater
than six times the orifice diameter.

Fig. 7. Driskell [15]. Choked flow curve for liquid. Fig. 9. Stiles [16]. Critical pressure ratio curve.
 A. Grace, P. Frawley / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 88 (2011) 109e118 113

Fig. 10. IEC [2]. Critical pressure ratio curve.

!
  0:63  PVC p2 p  p2
Y ¼ Y0:63  0:49 þ 0:45b
4 P1
(9) x ¼ 1 ¼ 1 (10)
k p1 p1

There is some continued debate as to the accuracy of the Y ¼ 1  nx (11)

expansion factor given by ASME and even the further clarification 1 1 3
by Cunningham. Kegel [12] proposes that in some cases the theo- mfð1  nxÞx2 ¼ x2  nx2 (12)
retical calculations are inadequate for subsonic flow. The Kegel
x2 3nx2
1 1
paper investigates the use of a theoretical expansion factor for two dm
different meters and proposes a meter specific gas expansion ¼  (13)
dx 2 2
factor. The proposal of an empirical formulation of Y for unique
flow meter designs is most applicable to the specialisation of the dm
orifice plate equations to the choke valve capacity calculation seen ¼ 0 (14)
dx
later.
The current equation for Y as used by [2] is based on the original
1
x2 ¼ 3nx2 ; n ¼
1 1
Driskell derivation. As can be seen in Eqs. (7) And (8) Y varies almost (15)
3xT
linearly with (1 e P2/P1). The pressure terms in Eqs. (7) and (8) can
be replaced with x, the ratio of pressure differential, see Eq. (10).
x
Therefore Y can be written as an equation of a line given by Eq. (11), Y ¼ 1 (16)
3kxT
where n is representative of the constants seen in Eqs. (7) and (8),
including b and k. As flow rate is directly proportional to Y times the This yields the limit of Y ¼ 0.667 as the limiting flow factor for
square root of x, see Eq. (12) and Eq. (4) (for reference), the rate of the choked flow condition. For an ideal restriction the differential
change of flow rate with pressure drop can be given by Eq. (13). As pressure drop ratio yielding choked flow is 0.528 (based on
the flow rate chokes, Eq. (14), the limit of x becomes Eq. (15). Taking specific heat of air and adiabatic expansion). For a specific valve
into account the specific heat ratio (k) of the gas under consider- opening the critical pressure drop ratio could be as high as 0.81.
ation and the limit of x being xT, the expansion factor for a valve Y This is consistent with Cunningham’s research into thin lipped
can be given by Eq. (16). orifice plates wherein choked flow could not be achieved

Fig. 11. IEC [13]. Flow test apparatus.

114 A. Grace, P. Frawley / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 88 (2011) 109e118
Fig. 12. Choke valve internal geometry.
experimentally when the plate thickness was sufficiently small
(affect on flow rate was negligible). The limit of the pressure drop
ratio (xT) for a valve opening needs to be determined experimen-
tally per IEC 60534-2-1 [13].
As seen in Fig. 6 Y can be plotted against x for a number of
different valves based on their xT values (values taken from “Typical
Values for differential pressure ratio factor xT at full rated flow”, IEC
60534-2-1). The various valve internal geometries vary the slope of
the line.
It should be noted that the mechanism of choked flow for gas in
an orifice plate or valve is different to that seen in an ideal restriction.
Assuming the valve port edge and orifice plate are equivalent,
choked flow occurs due to an under-expanded jet forming outside
the port as the VC travels downstream. The limiting velocity occurs
in this cross-section which increases marginally as the pressure
differential increases. For an ideal restriction the limiting velocity
forms at the small cross-sectional area (throat) according to Euler’s
equation, see Anderson [14], which cannot increase.
3.2. Valve pressure recovery, FL
The pressure recovery factor FL is specific to liquid flow in
control valves. As shown in Fig. 4 the location of the VC is well
Fig. 13. Plot of Cv versus a for a 200 nominal choke valve.
Fig. 14. Plot of Cv versus a for a 300 nominal choke valve.
defined for an orifice plate based on b. In the choke valve cage the
VC position is unknown and inaccessible. Therefore P2 cannot be
used in a valve specific equation.
In liquid flow, the downstream pressure (PVC) bears a constant
linear relationship to the pressure at the VC, given in Eq. (17). This
relationship holds for a non-vaporising fluid, at a point where the
pressure has fully recovered. As the pressure differential (P1P2)
increases and the fluid cavitates the pressure recovery factor is no
longer relevant as the fluid has reached a limited flow condition, or
choked flow.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi P1  P2
P1  P2 ¼ FL P1  PVC ; FL ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ffi (17)
P1  PVC
FL can be determined experimentally for a valve opening from
the slope of the line drawn from the choked flow point and the
origin, as shown in Fig. 7. The end region of proportionality
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
between FL and P1  P2 depends on the geometry of the valve.
Currently there are no standards defining this region for choke
valves. Stiles [16] analysed a series of flow curves without yielding
a mathematical expression. The primary issue with testing in this
region is that the valve will be in maximum flowing condition. For
a large valve this requires a substantial pumping facility. For scaled
tests the changes in flow rates become proportionately smaller and
difficult to differentiate.
Fig. 15. Plot of Cv versus a for a 400 nominal choke valve.
 A. Grace, P. Frawley / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 88 (2011) 109e118 115

Fig. 16. Pressure recovery factor versus a, for a 400 nominal valve.

Stiles proposed an equation to best describe the choked flow

state that approximates the actual pressure within the VC. Eq. (17)
is limited to the understanding that once the vapour pressure is
reached that the fluid immediately chokes. Fig. 7 repeated in both
Stiles and Driskell shows that actual choking occurs at greater
pressure drops due to vaporisation not being fully developed at the
actual vapour pressure. Stiles highlights two basic assumptions of
a proposed choking equation. The first assumption is that the flow
from the inlet to the VC has constant entropy. The assumption of
a constant enthalpy is discarded as it requires that no vapour be
present. Also the fluid flow in the VC is much greater than that at
the inlet and therefore an isenthalpic process is impractical.
The assumption of isentropic flow is based on the fact that most
losses in contracting and expanding streams occur during expan-
sion. So although there are “losses” in the system they occur
upstream of the VC and therefore the process can be said to be
isentropic between the inlet and the VC.
The second assumption is in the definition of the mixture
formula. Assuming that the fluid at the inlet is in a liquid but fully
saturated condition the mixture quality E can be defined by Eq. (18);
SVC  SF
E ¼
SFG
with the quality of the mixture known the above relationship with
substitutions of specific volume for entropy may be used to
Fig. 18. Developments of different trim geometries and overlap.
compute the VC specific volume (denoted n) at each value of
assumed VC pressure, see Eq. (19).
nVC ¼ nF þ EnFG (19)
A curve can be plotted from this data, defining the relationship
between pressure and specific volume for the fluid in the VC, see
Fig. 8.
Mass flow through a restriction based on thermodynamic
principles can then be given Eq. (20).
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Z ffi
1
m ¼ 2g VVC dPVC (20)
n
(18)
As the mathematical relationship between VC specific volume
and pressure (as represented in Fig. 8) is not known the integral
must be obtained graphically. With values obtained, Eq. (20) can be
used to calculate values of mass flow rate for varying VC pressures,
see Fig. 9. It can be seen that such plots have steep slopes as the VC
pressure is reduced from the saturated liquid condition. The curve
slope decreases until a zero condition is reached indicating theo-
retical choked flow, as seen in Fig. 7. Continued reduction in VC
pressure shows a reduction in flow which is contrary to experi-
mental results which show the flow rate maintained at the zero
slope position.
Stiles termed the maximum point on the curve in Fig. 9 as the
theoretical critical pressure ratio, rc given by Eq. (21).

PVC
rc ¼ (21)
PV
Eq. (21) can be rearranged to present the VC pressure necessary
to produce a choked flow condition as seen in Eq. (22)

PVC ¼ rc PV (22)
Further work was completed on characterizing the relationship
Fig. 17. Gas pressure drop ratio factor versus a, for a 400 nominal valve. between rc and PV for water up to the thermodynamic critical
116 A. Grace, P. Frawley / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 88 (2011) 109e118
Fig. 19. Flow curve test results for trim geometries.
pressure, Pc. Values for choked flow VC pressure could be obtained
from the product of rc obtained from PV, and the PV value itself. It is
further seen from compiling a series of reference graphs for
different fluids that there is a marked similarity in the shape of the
curve. The curves could be combined into one curve with little loss
in accuracy where the x-axis now represents the division of the
vapour pressure by the critical pressure of the actual fluid con-
cerned, see Fig. 10.
Therefore the limit of FL can be given by the vapour pressure of the
fluid, whereas the effective choked pressure is defined by Eq. (23)
DPcritical ¼ FL2 ðP1  rc PV Þ
with FL and xT experimentally determined for a series of valve
openings Eq. (4) can be rewritten in terms of Cv for a specialised
valve sizing equation see Eq. (24). Where Y ¼ 1 for liquid flow and
the effective pressure drop is limited by Eq. (23). For gas flow the
limit of Y and (P1P2) is given by Eq. (16). In Eq. (24) Cv represents
the required effective area open to flow for an operating condition.
In Eq. (4) Cm represents the actual flow area through an orifice
based on upstream geometry, see b.
m Other flow test methods exist including the Wu-Shung Fu [17]
Cn ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Y 2r2 ðP2  P2 Þ
3.3. Rated Cv for a valve
The flow curve Cv values for a valve opening are determined
experimentally, per IEC [13]. The test rig, as given in Fig. 11, consists
of the test valve, upstream and downstream throttling valves,
pressure sensors at either side of the test valve, a flow meter and
a temperature sensor.
The IEC test arrangement can cause inaccuracies in the deter-
mination of rated Cv values. When the test valve represents a high
resistance to flow in the line, slight errors in pressure calculation
have negligible effects on Cv. However when a valve is fully opened
the affect of slight pressure errors are significant. The error in
pressure measurement has two sources e the pressure sensors and
pipe losses. The reading error in the sensors can be accounted for
and the calibration requirement is governed by the standard. The
pressure loss through the recommended straight pipe runs is not
accounted for. Driskell [13] states that “since a control valve and the
process pipe are seldom the same sizes, it is not even feasible to
compensate for this situation by subtracting these pipe lengths in
calculation”. The IEC standard states in Section 6 that the accuracy
of the test are only within 5% for dC2v < 0:0465 (IEC 60534-2-1, p. 19),
where d is the internal diameter of the flow rig pipe.
To ascertain the rated Cv, the valve is set to an opening position
with the upstream and downstream throttling valves used to set
a pressure drop across it. For each valve setting three different
pressure drops are used and the resultant inlet temperature and
flow rate is recorded. The third pressure drop setting can be used to
determine FL, see Fig. 7. At this pressure drop, the flow rate should
not increase for a 5% pressure increase and should see a decrease
for an equivalent decrease in pressure. This ensures that the fluid in
(23) the VC is not vaporising.
The tests should be repeated using air, in order to determine xT
and check for Cv duality. Different Cv values for liquid and gas are
sometimes evident in valves with smoothly contoured orifice
passages rather than the sharp edge seen in orifice plates and
typical choke cages. With a FL and xT value known for a setting,
three Cv results can be calculated from Eq. (24), where FL ¼ 1 for gas
and Y ¼ 1 for liquid. The rated Cv for the valve setting is the alge-
braic mean of the three Cv results, assuming they are with 3% of
each other. Values outside 3% are evident of unsteady state flow.
(24) method which proposed using high frequency data acquisition
techniques. The approach is limited to gas applications so is only
applicable to the calculation of Cv and xT. The technique enables
a blow-down system to be used where a constant pressure drop
need not be maintained. Due to the data acquisition technique, the
method can also be applied to valves under transient flow condi-
tions. In addition the method eliminates the need for a flow meter
which has benefits for the standard IEC technique as well as tran-
sient flow control valves, where transient flow meters are not
available.
4. FL, XT and rated Cv prediction
For an orifice plate the meter coefficient (Cm) and VC position
can be determined from b. By defining a valve velocity of approach
(a) comparable graphs can be generated for the valve specific
equation. These plots can then be used for any new trim design,
giving the total flow area in terms of a rated Cv and xT/FL used to
calculate required Cv. This rated Cv can then be used to plot a flow
curve (Cv versus stem travel), which can be used to verify trim
suitability against required Cv and control characteristic.
 A. Grace, P. Frawley / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 88 (2011) 109e118
The valve velocity of approach shall be the ratio of the upstream
area to the controlling port area within the valve. The internal
geometry of a choke is well defined based on its nominal size.
Regardless of connecting pipe the valve reduces to identical inlet
and outlet bores. These bores are connected via an annular area as
detailed in Fig. 12. Fluid travels from the inlet and is split in the
annulus by the cage, which it passes around before entering the
ports and exiting through the outlet bore. The inlet and outlet bores
are sized an order of magnitude greater than the total area of the
controlling ports, such that the cage always presents the greatest
restriction. Therefore the upstream area of most concern in a valve
is that present in the annulus.
Within the annulus cylindrical areas can be taken at a number of
diameters including; the cage surface (D6), at the mid-point (D5) or
at the annular wall (D4), as seen in Fig. 12. It has been proven
through experimentation that the annular wall area accounts most
for the upstream geometry variations. Thus the ratio of total port
area open to flow divided by the annular wall area gives the valve
velocity of approach factor, a see Eq (25).
pD3 h
a ¼
Total Uncovered Port Area
A series of flow tests were conducted on three nominal sized
choke valves e 0.05 m (200 ), 0.076 m (300 ) and 0.1 m (400 ). Each valve
was tested with 3 different trim characteristics. By design the
annular area for each valve was not scaled. Therefore the ratio of
port area to annular wall area varied for each valve, with the biggest
difference being apparent on the 400 nominal size. Figs. 13, 14 and 15
detail the plots of Cv versus a for the 3 sets of standard trim sizes. It
is important to note that the area open to flow for various Cv values
occur at different stem travels.
All three Cv curves present relatively consistent data regardless of
stem position, indicating that the position of the ports relative to the
annular wall area does not vary the flow efficiency greatly. Also the
division of total area does not apparently reduce the overall Cv value
in the range reviewed. This is most likely related to the erosion
guidelines for choke design which maximise the spacing between
ports to ensure as large a quantity of material exists. This limits the
total number of ports in a choke valve trim that can be opened at any
one time. It is expected that a cage with numerous ports would
present a much greater reduction in Cv for a similar cumulative area.
A parametric equation has been produced for each nominal size
based on a best fit trend line for the plots presented. The trend lines
associated with the data yields less than a 5% difference from
experimental results. A 5% prediction accuracy combined with
standard sizing practices is suitable for design. For the valve sizes
presented the parametric equations can be used to predict rated Cv
for new geometries within reasonable accuracy.
Using the same rationale, plots of FL and xT versus a have been
complied for the nominal sizes. Figs. 16 and 17 present those
specific to the 400 valve size. As expected FL is high at small openings
where the ratio of port area to annulus area is low, creating a high
convergence at the VC. As the total port area increase and conver-
gence at the VC reduces the total recovery declines but remains
somewhat linear.
From Fig. 16 it can be seen that xT never approaches 1 for a choke
valve. A value of 1 would meet Cunningham’s experiments where
a limited flow was never achieved. These predicted values of xT and FL,
for a new trim design, can be used with Eq (24) to calculate required Cv.
5. Parametric model application
The parametric model was applied to a new reduced capacity
trim designed for a specific low flow control requirement in a 400
117
nominal valve. Fig. 18 details the development of the cage for both
the new reduced design and a 100%linear profile previously tested
(for comparison).
The 400 nominal parametric equation, see Eq. (26) taken from
Fig. 15, was used to plot the rated Cv curve based on the total area
open to flow at a number of valve steps, see Curve 1 in Fig. 19.
Cv ¼ 7476:2a3 þ 2540a2 þ 737a þ 5:67 (26)
Values for FL and xT were determined from Figs. 16 and 17 and
the required Cv was calculated from the application data. With the
required Cv values lying within the controllable range of Curve 1 the
trim was manufactured and flow tested. The flow test results are
shown in Fig. 19 as Curve 2. As seen the predicted curve (Curve 1)
and the experimental curve (Curve 2) are within 5% of each other.
In order to confirm the effect of annular wall area on a and
resultant rated Cv the trim was flow tested in another valve body of
reduced annular wall area, as seen in Curve 3 in Fig. 19. The total
reduction in Cv is apparent, where the loss is in excess of 10% of
maximum capacity. For a valve with this specific annular area a new
parametric equation would be required to predict the rated Cv. Flow
(25) tests would need to be repeated on standard trim characteristics to
reproduce Eq. (26).
6. Conclusion
A parametric equation for a series of nominal valve sizes, that
predicts rated Cv based on upstream geometry has been presented.
The parametric equation constants are based on a series of exper-
imental data taken from a number of flow tests. It has been shown
that this equation gives good estimates of Cv for new trim designs
and also effectively takes into account the variation in upstream
geometry. As part of this equation a new valve geometry ratio (a)
has been defined based on the velocity of approach area ratio (b),
for orifice plates.
In addition, prediction graphs for both xT and FL have been
presented. These enable required Cv values to be plotted on the
predicted rated Cv graph in order to quantify controllability.
These equations are most effective when the trim cage consists
of a small number of ports, the ports have thin wall sections relative
to the flow area and annular area is an order of magnitude greater
than the inlet bore area.
References
[1] Hutchinson James. ISA control valve handbook. 3rd ed. ISA Publishers; 1997.
[2] IEC 60534-2-1 Mod: flow equations for sizing control valves, Switzerland,
International Electro-technical Commission.
[3] Driskell, Les. Control valve selection and sizing. 1st ed. North Carolina: Creative
Services Inc; 1983.
[4] Essom Company Limited. Determination of flow rate by orifice plate; 2007.
[5] North American Maufacturing Co. Bulletin 8695, orifice plates and flange
specifications; 1989.
[6] Baumann H. control valve primer: a users guide. ISA Publishers; 1998.
[7] Buckingham E. Notes on the orifice meter: the expansion factor for gases.
Bureau of Standards Journal of Research July 1932;9. Research Paper No. 459.
[8] Bean HS. Values of discharge coefficients of square-edged orifices. American
Gas Association Monthly; July, 1935.
[9] Kinghorn FC. The expansibility correction for orifice plates: EEC data. Paper
5.2, Presented at the International Conference on Flow Measurement in the
Mid 80’s. East Kilbride, Glasgow, Scotland: National Engineering Laboratory;
June 9e12, 1986.
[10] Seidl W. The orifice expansion correction factor for a 50 mm line size at
various diameter ratios. 3rd International Symposium. In: Fluid flow
measurement. Colorado, USA: Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc;
2002. p. 1e11.
[11] Cunningham RG. Orifice Meters with Supercritical Compressible Flow. Trans.
ASME 1951;73:625e38.
[12] Kegel T. Compressible flow effects in subsonic venturis. 3rd International
Symposium. In: Fluid flow measurement. Colorado, USA: Colorado Engi-
neering Experiment Station Inc; 2002. p. 12e21.
118 A. Grace, P. Frawley / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 88 (2011) 109e118

[13] IEC 60534-2-3: flow capacity test procedures, Switzerland, International
Electro-technical Commission.
[14] Anderson JD. Fundamentals of aerodynamics. 3rd ed. Singapore: McGraw-Hill; 2001.
[15] Driskell Les. Sizing theory and applications. In: Hutchison JW, editor. ISA
handbook of control valves; 1984. p. 180e90. North Carolina.
[16] Stiles GF. Cavitation and flashing considerations. In: Hutchison JW, editor. ISA
handbook of control valves; 1984. p. 206e20. North Carolina.
[17] Fu Wu-Shung. A concise method for determining a valve flow coefficient of
a valve under compressible gas flow. In: Experimental thermal and fluid
science, 18. Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publisher; 1998. p. 307e13.