To: Professor Alan S.

Feitelberg
From: Jonathan Mares and Travis Wasson (subgroup of Mo4)
Date: September 15, 2014
Re: Control Valve Test
Per the instructions contained in your memo dated 26-August-2014, we have tested the control valve
provided by Mr. Rocky Jones. We have prepared a calibration curve of Cv (flow coefficient) as a
function of percent open for the valve, where percent open is based on the standard 3 - 15 psig range
of compressed air actuators. Curves were obtained for both opening and closing strokes of the valve.
Using water as the test fluid, the minimum fluid pressure obtained by the team dictated the baseline
for calculating percent open. After establishing a minimum, the valve was slowly opened. The measurements, of air pressure (psig), water pressure (psig), and flow rate (gallons per minute), were used
to calculate the curve for the opening stroke of the valve. Similarly, the team measured the closing
stroke, but starting with a completely open valve and slowly closing it. At this point, the system
was safely taken offline by venting air pressure, shutting off the source of the water, and draining the
system.
In performing the analysis, the flow coefficient was calculated in order to demonstrate changes. This
was performed using the following relation, where Q represents flow rate, SG represents specific
gravity, and P represents a change in pressure [1]:
r
SG
(1)
Cv = Q
P
Friction must be taken into account due to the amount of and bends in piping between the two gauges.
These losses were estimated using the following relation, where f is the fanning friction factor,
calculated with the Churchill equation, is the fluid density, L is the length of the piping, D is the
pipe diameter, and v is the velocity of the fluid [1]:
P = 4 f

Lv2
2D

(2)

Additionally, we calculated frictional losses due to pipe expansion and contraction, where hL is head
loss, Ke/c is the expansion/contraction loss coefficient, and g is the gravitational constant [1]:
hL = Ke/c

v2
2g

(3)

When comparing the pressure drop from fluid with that of friction, it was determined that frictional
forces were negligible. This may not be the case with higher flow rates due to further deviation from
ideality (frictionless pipes). In Figure 1, the calibration curve is shown for both opening and closing
the valve. Hysteresis likely explains the visible deviations from linearity. Despite this, the linear fit
does provide a reasonable approximation for each point in both the opening and closing data sets.

[1] C. T. Crowe. Engineering fluid mechanics. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2009.

Figure 1: Plot of flow Coefficient verses % open. Data points are from valve opening and closing.
Figure 2: Valve Information
Manufacturer
BadgerMeter, Inc.
Nominal Size
1/2inch
Materials of Construction Body and Intervalve: Stainless Steel
Body Type
Global Cast
Body End Fitting
NPT
Bonnet Style and Packing
Standard Bonnet-cv ring packing
Actuator Type
ATO standard
Trim Size
Delinear, Cv 0.8
Trim Material
316 Stainless Steel
Actuator Standard
Fail Close