enertech valves – development and qualification using cfd

1 | May 12, 2014 | © 2014 Curtiss-Wright

Enertech Valves – Development and Qualification using CFD

ASME Verification and Validation Symposium 2014

2 | May 12, 2014 | © Curtiss-Wright

Outline

Principle of Operation – NozzleCheck Valves

Model XRV NozzleCheck Valve in AP1000 Passive Core Cooling System

Prototype Development

Use of CFD in Valve Design

Regulatory Considerations

QME-1 Qualification Test


Principle of Operation

Normally Open

Short Stroke

Low Pressure Drop

High Cv in both Forward and Reverse Flow Directions

Design Meets ASME OM CodeIST Program Requirements

Available Ports for Visual Inspection

Capable of Closing at Very Low Flow Rates

Minimizes Pressure Surge during Closure

XRV

Assembly Cross-Section


Application in AP1000 Design

Passive Core Cooling System– Provide coolant from CMT– Specified to remain open during

normal operation– Required to close to prevent from

Safety Injection Accumulator– Reopen after SIA is depressurized– Challenge: Test with maintenance

water source


Flow Analysis and Prototype Development

Preliminary Sizing based Bernoulli concepts/Flow through orifice Used CFD to iterate through several design concepts Built and Tested a Full Scale Prototype

– Forward/Reverse Flow Capacity Tests– Diffuser Jet Test

y = 1440.9x - 20.947R² = 0.9999

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Flow

(GPM

)

sqrt(DP)


Use of CFD in the Valve Development

Verified and Validated CFD Models– Solidworks Flow Sim & ANSYS CFX– Verified Against Test Results– Cv predictions accurate within 2%

13331347

13621349 1357

1375

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

Cv

Flow Rate (GPM)

Forward Flow Rate vs Cv

Cv (Test) Cv (Simulation)


Forward and Reverse Flow Qualification on 8”-1700 NCV

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Pres

sure

Dro

p (p

si)

Flow Rate (GPM)

Reverse Flow #1: Flow to Close = 414.2 GPM Reverse Flow #2: Flow to Close = 411.8 GPM Reverse Flow #3: Flow to Close = 411.1 GPM

Repeatable Performance Closed at 3 ft/s reverse flow


CFD Validation for NozzleCheck Valves

247, 249

939, 968

247, -0.81%

939, -3.09%

-3.50%

-3.00%

-2.50%

-2.00%

-1.50%

-1.00%

-0.50%

0.00%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Relat

ive E

rror (

%)

Cv(T

est)

Cv (CFD)

4"-1508"-150Relative Diff


Through-Diffuser Jet Flow Test

0.00010.00020.00030.00040.00050.00060.00070.00080.00090.000

100.000110.000120.000

0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000Time (s)

Flow Supply Pressure

Disc Closed

Disc Opened

Disc Closed

DiscOpened


Test Data and Test Comparison

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%open

Disc Position vs. Flow and Jet Force

Spring & Friction 45 50 40 55 60


LOCA Test Simulation

Safety-Accumulator Injection– Used Rupture Disc to Simulate Instantaneous DP– Specified Upstream Pressure: 700 psig– Actual Burst Test: 850 psig


LOCA Test Simulation

Safety-Accumulator Injection– Recorded Pressure Transient– Valve closed and re-opened successfully

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32.1 32.2 32.3 32.4 32.5 32.6 32.7 32.8 32.9 33 33.1 33.2 33.3 33.4 33.5

Time (sec)

770 psig disc

Upstream Pressure (P1)


Validation domain – Tested 4”, 8”, 16” and 24” valves at Utah Water Research Laboratory– Performance based on Flow Capacity (Cv) and Torque Coefficient (Ct)

Reliable predictions of flow capacity (Cv) for different opening angles using CFD

Additional work is required to better predict torque coefficients (Ct)

CFD to Predict Performance of Triple Offset Butterfly Valve Models


Solett & Pratt 2”-24” ANSI Class 150 BFVs

1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0

10000.0

100000.0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Cv

Degrees Open

2"3"4"5"6"8"10"12"14"16"18"20"24"


CFD Validation for Butterfly Valves - Cv

0

50

100

150

200

250

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

4"-150 Cv

Test net Cv (4")CFD Net Cv (4")

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

8"-150 Cv

Test net Cv (8")CFD Net Cv (8")

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

16"-150 Cv

Test Cv Net (16")CFD Cv Net (16")

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Test Cv Net (24")CFD Cv Net(24")


CFD Validation for Butterfly Valves - Ct

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Test Gross Ct (4")CFD Gross Ct (4")CFD Ct (4") Adjusted

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Test Ct (8")

CFD Ct (8")

CFD Ct (8") Adjusted

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Test Ct (16")CFD Ct (16")CFD Ct (16") Adjusted

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

CFD Ct (24")Test Ct (24")CFD Ct (24") Adjusted


Relative Errors - Cv

-6.00%

-4.00%

-2.00%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90°

Relat

ive E

rror

Degree Open

CFD vs Test Cv % Difference

4" Rel diff8" Rel Diff16" Rel Diff24" Rel Diff


Relative Errors - Ct

-70.47%

-63.18%

-51.02%

-41.86%

-28.35%

-20.76%-24.48%

-38.90%

-47.76%

-90.00%

-80.00%

-70.00%

-60.00%

-50.00%

-40.00%

-30.00%

-20.00%

-10.00%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90°

Degree Open

CFD vs. Test Ct Rel. Diff.

4"8"16"24"


Butterfly Valve Cv and Ct Test vs. CFD Comparison

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

10° 20° 30° 40° 50°60°

70°80°

90°

0.01% 0.01% 0.06% 0.27% 0.35% 0.66% 1.15% 3.02%2.92%

59.33%

33.38%

24.45%

17.81%

12.43%11.56% 13.85%

26.38%

33.67%

Average Cv%

Average Ct


www.curtisswright.com

Haykaz Mkrtchyan, PEEmail: [email protected]

enertech valves – development and qualification using cfd

Documents