SAMSON

Evaluating the calculation accu-

racy provided by the relevant
noise prediction standards for
control valves

Special print from

“Valve World”
Volume 8 · April · 2003

By:
Dipl.-Ing. Domagoj Vnucec
Dr.-Ing. Jörg Kiesbauer
Evaluating the calculation accuracy provided by the relevant
noise prediction standards for control valves
D. Vnucec, J. Kiesbauer, SAMSON AG

Noise emission to be expected from control and shut-off valves 8-4: 1994) presently exist to determine noise emission that
is an important criterion on planning industrial plants. Its im- mainly differ depending on the flow medium. The following
portance is highlighted by legislation requirements regarding article evaluates these standards by comparing their accuracy
occupational health and safety as well as environmental pro- to the large number of measurements carried out by
tection. Various calculation standards (VDMA 24422: 1979, SAMSON.
VDMA 24422: 1989, IEC 60534-8-3: 2001 and IEC 60534-

Übersicht über die Genauigkeit von Schallberechnungsnormen bei Stellgeräten

Bei der Projektierung von Industrieanlagen ist die zu erwarten- (VDMA 24422:1979, VDMA 24422: 1989, IEC 60534-8-3:
de Geräuschemission von Regel- und Absperrarmaturen ein 2001 und IEC 60534-8-4: 1994), die in dem folgenden
wichtiger Planungsparameter, dessen Bedeutung durch die Beitrag unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Genauigkeit mit einer
Arbeits- und Umweltschutzgesetzgebung bedingt ist. Für die großen Anzahl von vorhandenen Messergebnissen der Firma
Ermittlung der Geräuschemission gibt es heute im Wesentlichen SAMSON verglichen und bewertet werden.
je nach Durchflussmedium verschiedene Berechnungsnormen

Special print from “Valve World” Volume 8 · April · 2003 3

1. Introduction
Noise prediction methods make a distinction between com-
pressible and non-compressible flow media. The reason for
this is that compressible and non-compressible flow media
have different sound characteristics:
In gases and vapors, the profile of the sound pressure level
increases continuously with increasing differential pressure
ratio at low outlet Mach numbers (Ma < 0.3). The noise emis-
sion profile of liquids, however, increases almost constantly
only in the turbulent flow region and then rises parabolically
in the cavitation region as can be seen in Figure 1.
The noise prediction standards evaluated in this paper can be
classified according to the type of medium as follows:
Noise prediction standards providing calculation formulae for
liquids [5, 6]
• VDMA 24422 (1979) [1]
• IEC 60534-8-4 (1994)[3] (almost identical with VDMA
24422 (1989) [2]) Fig. 2: Test bench at SAMSON AG
Noise prediction standards providing calculation formulae for
gases and vapors has been undertaking measurements on its test benches (see
• VDMA 24422 (1979) [1] Figure 2) for many years.
• VDMA 24422 (1989) [2] The measurements of the internal sound pressure level were
• IEC 60534-8-3 (2001) [3] taken according to the test procedure described in VDMA
These standards do not only differ in their approaches to pre- 24423 [4] and the measurements of the external sound pres-
dict noise emission, but also in their quantitative scope. The sure level were performed to meet the testing requirements of
VDMA 24422 (1979) noise prediction method only allows for IEC 60534-8 Parts 1 and 2. The measurements were carried
the calculation of the sound pressure level at a distance of one out on control valves featuring the following design:
meter from the control valve, whereas the other methods can • Globe valves with parabolic plugs or V-port plugs
additionally be used to calculate the internal sound power • Globe valves with one-stage perforated plugs
level as well as the frequency-dependent noise emission values • Rotary plug valves
(see Table 1). • Butterfly valves
• Segmented ball valves
2. Comparing numerical predictions with experimental data • All valves without any special noise attenuation
The noise prediction standards were evaluated by comparing • Kvs values ranging from 0.4 to 700
the results of the internal and external sound pressure levels • Nominal sizes ranging from DN 25 to DN 200
calculated according to the noise prediction methods of the To satisfy the requirements of the relevant standards, separate
standards with the measuring results provided by SAMSON measurements were performed for compressible and non-
AG. In order to obtain these measuring results, SAMSON AG compressible media, using air and water as test media.
Characteristics of the noise emission measurements using:
Air:
• Maximum Mach number at the valve outlet: Ma ≤ 0.3
• Differential pressure ratio ranging from 0.2 to 0.85
• About 2500 measuring points
Water:
• Use of the measured xFz value
• Differentiation between turbulent and cavitation regions
• About 5000 measuring points
Fig. 1: Typical noise emission profiles for liquids and gases/vapors The evaluation of the calculation accuracy provided by the

4 Special print from “Valve World” Volume 8 · April · 2003

noise prediction standards is based on the mathematical dif- viders) or nominal size of the control valve. The noise predic-
ferences between the calculated and the measured values for tion standard VDMA 24422 (1989) could be considerably
both the external and the internal sound pressure levels: improved if its freely adaptable factors G1, G2 or F1, F2, ∆LF
• LpAe,Standard – LpAe,Measurement were derived from measurements carried out on control valves,
• Lpi,Standard – Lpi,Measurement using standard media, i.e. air or water (see Figures 3 and 4,
for example). The international standards IEC 60534-8-3
3. Accuracy of the noise prediction standards (2001) and IEC 60534-8-4 (1994) do not allow for this adap-
The analysis of the mathematical differences between the cal- tation because they assume that noise prediction standards
culated and the measured values for the sound pressure levels should rather do without any additional measurements or ad-
basically reveals that VDMA 24422 (1979) provides the most aptations and should be a compromise between the degree of
accurate prediction of the external sound pressure level, irre- accuracy and the amount of work and time spent to perform
spective of the medium, valve type (with the exception of valves the measurements and predictions. Of course, such a reduc-
equipped with special low-noise accessories such as flow di- tion of accuracy cannot be in the users’ interest.

Table 1: Overview of the noise prediction standards and their parameters

Standards for compressible media Standards for non-compressible media
Parameter/
Factor VDMA 24422 VDMA 24422 VDMA 24422 IEC 60534-8-3 VDMA 24422 IEC 60534-8-4 (1994)/ IEC 65B-WG9
(1979) (1989) (1989) adapted (2001) (1979) VDMA 24422 (1989) (current draft)

FL x x x
xT x x
Fd x x
xFz x x x
Kv x x x x
D x x x x
d0 x x
di, s s only x x x s only x x
Adaptable acc. to
VDMA standard/
F1, F2
fixed acc. to IEC standard:
F1= –8, F2=0
Adaptable acc. to
VDMA standard/
∆LF x
fixed acc. to IEC standard:
LF =0
Fixed:
G1, G2 Adaptable
G1= –3, G2= 0.8
∆LG x
p1, p2 x x x x x x x
W x x x x x
T1 x x
ρ1 x x x x x x x
pv x x x
κ x x x
Lpi or LWi x x x x x
LWe x x x x
LpAe x x x x x x x
Octaves,
Frequency Peak
Octaves Octaves Octaves thirds,
information frequency
peak frequency

Special print from “Valve World” Volume 8 · April · 2003 5

3.1. Compressible media
This section presents the results obtained for the internal and
external sound pressure levels for compressible media, evalu-
ating them in detail in terms of their accuracy (see Figures 3
and 4 and Table 2).
• VDMA 24422 (1979) predicted 33% of the measured external
sound pressure levels LpAe within a deviation range of ± 2.5
dB(A) and as much as approximately 60% within a deviation
range of ± 5 dB(A) as can be seen in Figure 3 and Table 2.
• Both VDMA 24422 (1989) and IEC 60534-8-3 (2001) sig-
nificantly overpredicted the measured external sound pres-
sure levels LpAe. The mean deviation error was 10 dB(A) Fig. 3: External sound pressure level · Air
under the VDMA 24422 (1989) calculation scheme and Error distribution determined for the external sound pressure level of air
about 7 dB(A) when using IEC 60534-8-3 (2001). as a representative of compressible media (total number of measuring
points: N = 2386, nominal size: 50 ≤ DN ≤ 200, differential pressure
• Like the external sound pressure levels LpAe, the internal ratio: 0.2 < x < 0.85)
sound pressure levels Lpi were considerably overpredicted
by VDMA 24422 (1989) and mostly deviated from the nu-
merical predictions in the deviation range (deviation error =
Lpi,Standard - Lpi,Measurement) from +7.5 to +12.5 dB as illus-
trated in Figure 4.
• Comparing the external sound pressure levels with the internal
sound pressure levels calculated according to IEC 60534-8-3
(2001), however, revealed opposite trends: the external
sound pressure levels LpAe were overpredicted (by 7 dB(A) VDMA 24422 (1989)

as mentioned before) whereas many of the internal sound

pressure levels Lpi were underpredicted by IEC 60534-8-3
(2001). About 40% of the calculated values deviated by -7.5
to -2.5 dB from the measured levels. Fig. 4: Internal sound pressure level · Air
• The examination of the sound pressure levels calculated for Error distribution determined for the internal sound pressure level of air
compressible media according to the three relevant stan- as a representative of compressible media (total number of measuring
points: N = 2386, nominal size: 50 ≤ DN ≤ 200, differential pressure
dards revealed that, irrespective of the standard used, 90% ratio: 0.2 < x < 0.85)
of all calculated deviations from the measured values cov-
ered an overall deviation range of 20 dB.
• The results discussed in this section were similar for different other hand (see Figure 5). The external sound pressure levels,
nominal sizes and for both the overall examination of differ- however, can be calculated to a considerably higher degree
ent valve types and the individual examination of only one of accuracy under the IEC 60534-8-3 (2001) prediction
valve type. method provided that the valve style modifier Fd is deter-
VDMA 24422 (1989) mainly overpredicted both the external mined on the basis of previous measurements. Neglecting the
and the internal sound pressure levels because it had calcu- lower sound pressure levels (LpAe ≤ 75 dB(A)), a higher degree
lated too large a value for the acoustical conversion ratio ηG, of accuracy is obtained in the tolerance range of ± 5 dB(A): if
whereas IEC 60534-8-3 (2001) had calculated too small a the sound pressure levels are calculated using a corrected, i.e.
value for the acoustical conversion ratio and therefore under- reduced valve style modifier, the degree of accuracy is in-
predicted the internal sound pressure levels for most valve creased from 53% (when the uncorrected valve style modifier
types. The external sound pressure levels were overpredicted is used) to 67% (when the valve style modifier is corrected as
under the IEC 60534-8-3 (2001) prediction method because follows: Fd = 0.5 • Fd,IEC, see Figure 6). It is important to note
of the inexact determination of the peak frequency, on the one that unlike the external sound pressure levels, the internal
hand, and because of the calculation of too low a value for the sound pressure levels are not predicted on the basis of the
pipe transmission loss TL for certain frequency ranges, on the valve style modifier and therefore cannot be corrected.

6 Special print from “Valve World” Volume 8 · April · 2003

 110

-TL IEC 60534-8-3

100
Measurement 1/1 octave
90

80
-TL [dB]

70

60

50

40
0.01 0.1 1 10
f / fr [Hz]

Fig. 5: Deviation of the sound transmission loss values calculated under

IEC 60534-8-3 from those determined on the test bench (for DN 80)

3.2. Non-compressible media

When calculating the noise emission of non-compressible me-
dia, it is important to precisely determine the beginning of Fig. 6: IEC 60534-8-3 (2001) · Fd factor variation · External sound pres-
cavitation expressed by the xFz value because a deviation from sure level · Air
the actual xFz value by ± 0.05 leads to a considerate overpre- Error distribution with Fd factor variation for the standard IEC 60534-8-3
(2001) determined for the external sound pressure level of air as a repre-
diction or underprediction of the actual sound pressure level in sentative of compressible media (total number of measuring points:
the order of up to 25 dB. N = 1565, nominal size: 50 ≤ DN ≤ 200; differential pressure ratio:
The reason for this is that noise emission begins to rise sharply 0.2 < x < 0.85; external sound pressure level LpAe > 75 dB(A)
at the point when cavitation occurs, as can be seen in Figure 1.
It was found that the evaluation of the noise prediction stan- • Like the external sound pressure levels occurring in the turbu-
dards for non-compressible media provided almost the same lent region, the internal sound pressure levels were under-
results as the analysis of the noise prediction standards for predicted by IEC 60534-8-4 (1994). Compared with the
compressible media (see Figures 7 to 10 and Table 3). majority of the external sound pressure levels, which were
• Both VDMA 24422 (1979) and IEC 60534-8-4 (1994) un- accurate to within -12.5 to -2.5 dB, the majority of the inter-
derpredicted the noise emitted by control valves in the turbu- nal sound pressure levels were even 5 dB lower, i.e. as much
lent flow region. From Figure 7, it is evident that most of the as approximately 65% of all measuring points were pre-
predicted external sound pressure levels were about 7.5 to dicted to within -17.5 to -7.5 dB as can be seen in Figure 8.
2.5 dB lower than the measured values, i.e. 37% of the cal- • The external sound pressure levels predicted according to
culated results obtained under the VDMA 24422 (1979) VDMA 24422 (1979) for the cavitation region featured an
prediction method and 32% of the predictions under the IEC error distribution which was similar to that of the levels cal-
60534-8-4 (1994) standard came within the deviation culated for the turbulent region. The levels predicted for the
range from -7.5 to -2.5 dB. An accuracy of -7.5 to 2.5 dB cavitation region, however, showed a higher degree of ac-
was obtained for more than 60% of the values calculated curacy because as much as approximately 70% of the pre-
according to VDMA 24422 (1979) and for less than 50% of dictions were within the -7.5 to 2.5 dB deviation range as
the values calculated according to IEC 60534-8-4 (1994). illustrated in Figure 9.

Table 2: Overview of the accuracy provided by the noise prediction standards for compressible media. The accuracy is expressed as a
percentage of all calculated values lying in a particular accuracy or deviation range, such as ±2.5 dB(A), ±5 dB(A) or ±7.5 dB(A)
A-weighted external sound pressure level LpAe Internal sound pressure level Lpi
Standard
± 2.5 dB(A) ± 5 dB(A) ± 7.5 dB(A) ± 2.5 dB ± 5 dB ± 7.5 dB

VDMA 24422 (1979) About 35% About 60% About 80%

VDMA 24422 (1989) About 15% About 20% About 35% About 15% About 30% About 45%
VDMA 24422 (1989) adapted About 25% About 50% About 70% About 35% About 60% About 80%
IEC 60534-8-3 (2001) About 20% About 30% About 50% About 20% About 45% About 70%

Special print from “Valve World” Volume 8 · April · 2003 7

 • It was found that the IEC 60534-8-4 (1994) predictions for
the internal and the external sound pressure levels in the
cavitation region showed similar levels of accuracy.
• Like the analysis of the sound pressure levels predicted for
compressible media, the examination of the sound pressure
levels calculated for non-compressible media according to
the two relevant standards revealed that, irrespective of the
standard used, 90% of all calculated deviations from the mea-
sured values covered an overall deviation range of 20 dB.
• The results discussed in this section were similar for different
nominal sizes and for both the overall examination of differ-
Fig. 7: External sound pressure level · Water · Turbulent region ent valve types and the individual examination of only one
Error distribution in the turbulent region determined for the external sound
valve type.
pressure level of water as a representative of non-compressible media (total
number of measuring points: N = 1698, nominal size: 25 ≤ DN ≤ 200) IEC 60534-8-4 (1994) underpredicted both the internal and
the external sound pressure levels because it had determined
too low a value for the acoustical conversion ratio ηF.
Predictions for the noise emission of liquids performed accord-
ing to VDMA 24422 (1979) are reasonably accurate provided
that the xFz value has been determined by means of measure-
ments.

4. Summary and outlook

It was found that VDMA 24422 (1979) predicted the noise
emission to a relatively high degree of accuracy irrespective of
the type of medium. As indicated in the VDMA 24422 (1979)
standard, predictions deviated from the measurements by just
± 5 dB(A), proving the specified degree of calculation accu-
Fig. 8: Internal sound pressure level · Water · Turbulent region racy to be correct. Using the specific valve correction values for
Error distribution in the turbulent region determined for the internal sound
liquids and gases, i.e. ∆LF and ∆LG respectively, allows the
pressure level of water as a representative of non-compressible media (total
number of measuring points: N = 1698, nominal size: 25 ≤ DN ≤ 200) sound pressure levels of special low-noise valve designs to be
adapted to measurements. A disadvantage is that VDMA
24422 (1979) only predicts the external sound pressure level.
Compared with VDMA 24422 (1979), the other standards
provide far less accurate predictions which deviate consider-
• In comparison with the external sound pressure levels ob- ably from the measured values. These findings largely confirm
tained for the turbulent region, the results calculated for the the validation results obtained by IEC for the IEC 60534-8-3
cavitation region according to IEC 60534-8-4 (1994) were (2001) standard. The degree of accuracy, however, can be
even less accurate: about 70% of all predictions deviated increased considerably provided that the valve style modifier
from the measured values by -17.5 to -7.5 dB. Fd is determined on the basis of previous measurements.

Table 3: Overview of the accuracy provided by the noise prediction standards for non-compressible media. The accuracy is expressed as a
percentage of the calculated values and indicated for different deviation ranges, such as ±2.5 dB(A), ±5 dB(A) or ±7.5 dB(A)
A-weighted external sound pressure level LpAe Internal sound pressure level Lpi
Standard
± 2.5 dB(A) ± 5 dB(A) ± 7.5 dB(A) ± 2.5 dB ± 5 dB ± 7.5 dB
VDMA 24422 (1979) About 30% About 60% About 80%

IEC 60534-8-4 (1994) About 10% About 20% About 30% About 5% About 10% About 20%
IEC 65B-WG9 (current draft) About 40% About 65% About 85% About 35% About 60% About 80%

8 Special print from “Valve World” Volume 8 · April · 2003

 tics experts operating in the field of industrial plant design and
to manufacturers of throttle silencers to be installed down-
stream of a control valve in applications involving, for exam-
ple, the release of the process medium into the atmosphere.
Moreover, this standard allows the noise emitted by control
valves featuring a low-noise design to be predicted using val-
ues derived mathematically from measurements for the freely
adaptable factors G1 and G2. Furthermore, the formula for the
pipe sound transmission loss takes into account the corre-
sponding nominal size. This adapted version of VDMA 24422
(1989) has been used successfully by SAMSON for many
Fig. 9: External sound pressure level · Water · Cavitation region years. The IEC 60534-8-4 (1994) standard for non-compress-
Error distribution in the cavitation region determined for the external sound
ible media is currently under review. SAMSON’s measuring
pressure level of water as a representative of non-compressible media (total
number of measuring points: N = 3027, nominal size: 25 ≤ DN ≤ 200) results used for the validation of the reviewed version are il-
lustrated in Figures 7 to 10 and in Table 3. From these figures,
it is evident that the reviewed version will predict both the inter-
nal and the external sound pressure levels much more accu-
rately and even more precisely than VDMA 24422 (1979).
Nevertheless, this reviewed version will still have to be continu-
ously improved and validated by other manufacturers.

Fig. 10: Internal sound pressure level · Water · Cavitation region

Error distribution in the cavitation region determined for the internal sound
Dipl.-Ing. Domagoj Vnucec works for the development
pressure level of water as a representative of non-compressible media (total
test bench department at SAMSON AG MESS- UND
number of measuring points: N = 3027, nominal size: 25 ≤ DN ≤ 200)
REGELTECHNIK in Frankfurt/Main in Germany. His
work experience includes planning and evaluation of
flow and acoustic laboratory tests carried out on con-
It is important to note that, unlike the external sound pressure trol valves, application of CFD programs for the pur-
pose of flow calculation, development and optimisa-
levels, the internal sound pressure levels are not predicted by
tion of calculation and sizing methods as well as the
means of the valve style modifier and therefore cannot be op- implementation of sizing software for control valves.
timised in this way. The advantage provided by VDMA 24422 E-mail: [email protected]
(1989), however, is that it allows the calculation factors G1, G2
or F1, F2, ∆LF to be adapted to the measuring results by calcu-
Dr.-Ing. Jörg Kiesbauer is head of the development
lating them on the basis of measurements. If these factors are
test bench department at SAMSON AG MESS- UND
determined mathematically, the sound pressure level can be REGELTECHNIK in Frankfurt/Main in Germany. His
predicted to a much higher degree of accuracy than by using work experience includes R&D in the field of control
the standard factor values (the results provided by VDMA valves equipped with electric and pneumatic accesso-
ries as well as self-operated regulators (flow and
24422 (1989) are almost as precise as those obtained under
acoustical tests, development and optimisation of cal-
VDMA 24422 (1979) as can be seen in Table 2). VDMA culation methods, development and testing of diagno-
24422 (1989) has considerable advantages over VDMA sis tools for control valves etc., development of soft-
ware tools). Since 1999, he has been involved in the
24422 (1979) because it additionally allows the internal
IEC Working Group 65B-WG9 and in the DKE
sound pressure level as well as the frequency-dependent noise Working Group 963 as an expert.
emission to be calculated. These data are important to acous- E-mail: [email protected]

Special print from “Valve World” Volume 8 · April · 2003 9

Terms and units
Term Unit Definition
ηF - Acoustical conversion ratio for liquids
ηG - Acoustical conversion ratio for gases
κ - Specific heat ratio
ρ - Density of fluid
D m Nominal size of valve
di m Internal pipe diameter
d0 m Diameter of a circular orifice
Fd - Valve style modifier
FL - Liquid pressure recovery factor of a valve
F1 - Level exponent in the equation for hF
F2 - Slope exponent in the equation for hF
fr Hz Ring frequency of the pipe
fp Hz Peak frequency acc. to IEC 534-8-3 (2001)
G1 - Level exponent in the equation for hG
G2 - Slope exponent in the equation for hG
Kv m?/h Flow coefficient of a valve
Kvs m?/h Flow coefficient of a valve at rated travel
Ma - Mach number
∆LF dB(A) Specific valve correction value for liquids
∆LG dB(A) Specific valve correction value for gases and vapors
LpAe dB(A) A-weighted external sound pressure level
LWe dB(A) External sound power level
Lpi dB Internal sound pressure level
LWi dB Internal sound power level
pv bar Absolute vapor pressure of liquid
p1 bar Absolute upstream pressure
p2 bar Absolute downstream pressure
s m Thickness of pipe wall
T K Temperature of the fluid
TL dB Sound transmission loss corrected for peak frequency
W kg/h Mass flow of the fluid
x - Differential pressure ratio for gases and vapors
xF - Differential pressure ratio for liquids
xFz - Differential pressure ratio at beginning of cavitation
xT - Differential pressure ratio at choked flow

Literature
[1] Guidelines for noise calculation: control valves and shutoff valves,
VDMA-Einheitsblatt 24422, Recommended Practices, Beuth Verlag,
Berlin, 1979.
[2] Guidelines for noise calculation: control valves and shutoff valves,
VDMA-Einheitsblatt 24422, Recommended Practices, Beuth Verlag,
Berlin, 1989.
[3] Industrial-process control valves: noise emissions, CEI IEC 60534-8
(Parts 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, 8-4).
[4] Measurement of fluid borne noise emitted by valves; VDMA-
Einheitsblatt 24423, Beuth Verlag, Berlin, 1995.
[5] Kiesbauer, J.: An improved prediction method for hydrodynamic noise
in control valves. Valve World magazine, Vol. 3, Issue 3, June 1998,
pp. 33 – 49.
[6] Kiesbauer, J., Hoffmann, H.: Berechnung und Reduzierung der
Schallemission bei Stellgeräten. Industriearmaturen: Bauelemente der
Rohrleitungstechnik, Vulkan-Verlag, Essen, 1997 (in German).

10 Special print from “Valve World” Volume 8 · April · 2003

 2003-04 HD · WA 112 EN

SAMSON AG · MESS- UND REGELTECHNIK · Weismüllerstraße 3 · 60314 Frankfurt am Main · Germany

Phone: +49 69 4009-0 · Fax: +49 69 4009-1507 · E-mail: [email protected] · Internet: http://www.samson.de