Tech Talk
Removing Some Mystery that
Surrounds Control Valve Coefficients
In the control valve world, theres noth-
ing quite like valve sizing. It permeates
every valve style, size, and manufacturer.
Since its inception, valve sizing has rather
quickly evolved into its own branch of
engineering, where it encompasses parts
of mechanical, acoustical and chemical
engineering. However, some reps and end
users consider it somewhat superfluous.
They often assume finding the proper
solution is done by selecting a valve
based on required CV. This is a serious
mistake, as many engineers have found
when their process reaches Mach 1 and it
sounds like a jet is taking off inside their
plant!
By John Roper - Yeary Controls
The norm these days is for the manufacturer
to provide a valve sizing data sheet based
on the conditions the customer has given
to them. This sizing sheet gives the end
user an estimate of how well the valve will
perform, and is nearly always provided by
the manufacturers own sizing program.
These sizing programs are great in that they
take many complex equations and slim them
down to a handful of inputs. These programs
allow calculations to be done by many people
that may not understand all of the intricacies
of control valve sizing. This is both a blessing
and a curse. It is efficient but it can lead to
errors in the calculations. Compounding the
problem it often takes a trained eye to see
these errors. The point of this article is to give
the reader some general guidelines to spot
such errors. We will briefly explore the three
most common coefficients in hydrodynamic
sizing and provide the reader with a means
to determine if they fall within the proper
ranges for the specified valve type.
Well start with the most common coefficient,
the so called Pressure Recovery Factor or
FL. This factor was introduced in the 1960s
by Dr. H.D. Baumann and adopted into
international standards in the ISA Handbook
of Control Valves. 1 FL is the ratio of effective
pressure drop to the pressure difference
between the upstream pressure and the vena
contracta pressure. While officially termed
Liquid Pressure Recovery Factor, it is used
for both gas and liquid sizing. It is determined
by test procedures and calculations found
in ISA-75.02-1996.2 In essence, this factor
represents the valves ability to prevent
choking conditions. Assuming all other
conditions remain the same, the higher the FL
Valve World Americas - August 2016 20 www.valve-world-americas.net
the more flow the valve can handle without
choking. This factor can vary according to
valve style and between models of the same
style. Consequently, this article is only meant
to give a general guideline of the acceptable
ranges for the given valve styles.
The next factor to discuss is the Valve Style
Modifier or Fd. This is perhaps the most
misunderstood factor in valve sizing and can
be calculated by using the geometry of the
valve or flow testing analysis. We will focus
on the valves geometry as the basis for
determining the valve style modifier, which
is defined as the hydraulic diameter of a
single flow passage divided by the equivalent
circular diameter of the valves total flow
area.3 Consider the design of a butterfly
valve, which has two flow passages, one
on each side of the disc. By definition any
butterfly valve (regardless of style or model)
cannot, under any circumstances, have an
Fd value of 1.0. This is because one of the
flow passages will always be smaller than the
total flow areas equivalent circular diameter.
When considering a full pass through valve,
such as a ball valve, if the valve is at 100%
open, it can and does reach Fd values of 1.0.
For non-standard valve types the Fd value can
reach values as low as .001, as some multi-
port trim styles can create very small flow
passages which produce low Fd values. While
the Fd can seem ambiguous and is often
misunderstood, if it is looked at as being
simply one flow area divided by the total
flow area one can learn to more quickly to
assess Fd values on data sheets by keeping
this relationship in mind. Referring to the
values in Chart 1.1 may assist in this analysis.
Prior to bringing up the third and final sizing
coefficient that shall be discussed, one
should note that there are many different
ways to calculate cavitation, each of which
employs different factors. For this paper we
shall focus on XFZ, even though a commonly
seen factor when calculating cavitation is
Kc. While Kc has its usefulness in the proper
place its erroneously used in a popular sizing
program as the point at which cavitation
starts, leading to an incorrectly calculated
Cavitation Pressure Drop value. The
proper use of Kc is to determine the point
at which cavitation begins to effect flow
rates. However, it has been shown that the
inception of cavitation occurs well before
this point, and this leads to an undervalued
assessment of the cavitations intensity and
noise emission.4 If a sizing data sheet only
has a Kc factor, and does not utilize an XFZ
input, this author advises that the sizing

results should be verified by contacting a
company that specializes in valves to be
certain the calculations are error free.
With that in mind, the third coefficient we
will consider is the vital XFZ, or the incipient
cavitation factor. This value represents
the valves ability to prevent the onset of
cavitation. It is found by lab testing the valve
and increasing upstream pressure until the
inception of incipient cavitation. Equation
1.1 shows the way this factor is determined
in flow analysis, where P1= upstream
pressure, P2= downstream pressure, Pmin=
the minimum pressure the fluid reaches.5
Typical values for XFZ are found in the
included chart. While these values can vary
based on valve design, we can be certain
values approaching 1.0 are reserved only for
the most severe cavitation abating valves that
usually employ multi-port trims with several
stages. In this authors opinion, the values of
XFZ are the most important to check, and can
tell a lot about a valve, before even looking
at the performance. Since cavitation is the
main cause of pipe and valve failure in liquid
applications with significant pressure drop
it is absolutely critical the XFZ is thoroughly
investigated.
When analyzing a sizing data sheet, besides
coefficients, it is also important to consider
the point at which the valve can no longer
analyzing a valve with standard geometry the
control. All control valves have a typical
control range which is based on their design
and style. The control ranges may vary
slightly from Chart 1.2, but it can be used
as a general guideline. When examining the
angle of opening, if the valve is shown to be
outside of the controllable ranges listed, it
would be a good idea to discuss this with the
sales rep that provided the data sheet. Also,
if there is a significant difference between
the valves positions at different conditions,
there should also be a noticeable difference
between the coefficients. As a valve opens,
the geometry in relation to the process
changes, therefore the coefficients should
change. As a rule of thumb, during the stroke
from closed to open, Fd should go up, while
the FL & XFZ should go down.4
It is pertinent to mention that there are
components that will change both the
range of control and coefficients for certain
valves. One example is a cartridge called
the Sharktooth that is installed on the
downstream side of a butterfly valve, giving
it controllability from 1.5 to 80 percent of
Valve World Americas - August 2016 21 www.valve-world-americas.net
Tech Talk
rated CV, while also giving it higher XFZ and As always, if ever a situation arises where
FL, and lower Fd when compared to other the figures do not make sense based on
butterfly valves.7 It is important to note that the topics covered here it is best to contact
products or designs that change the standard the valve manufacturer for an explanation
geometry of valve styles will also impact the of the discrepancies. Valve sizing is a very
coefficients; in that case, the charts in this important; when it is done properly, it will
article will likely not apply. However, when lead to increased profits, less downtime, and
increased outputs.
topics discussed in this article can be used to
determine if the data sheet provided with a Special thanks to Art Yeary, without whom
control valve quotation is properly calculated. this article would not have been possible.
About the Author
John Roper is a sales engineer that began working at Yeary Controls
in 2010. While his schooling was in Chemistry, when combined with
his interests in all things mechanical, valves became the perfect fit for
him. He currently does valve sizing, CAD design and 3D printing for
Yeary Controls. He has written his own sizing program and continues
to make improvements in it based on the latest valve sizing research.
He can be reached at jroper@yearycontrols.com.
Citations
1. Hutchison, J.W. ISA Handbook of Control Valves, Instrument Society of America.
Pittsburgh, PA. 1971.
2. Control Valve Capacity Test Procedures, Instrument Society of America ANSI/
ISA-75.02-1996
3. Flow Equations for Sizing Control Valves, Instrument Society of America ISA-S75.01
4. Kiesbauer, J. "Control valves for critical applications." Hydrocarbon Processing 80.6
(2001): 89-100.
5. Samson, A. G. "Cavitation in control valves." Samson Technical Information (2003).
6. Inherent Flow Characteristic and Rangeability of Control Valves, Instrument Society of
America, ISA-75.11-1985 (R1996).
7. Buse, Dave and Arthur Yeary. An important Advancement