See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/261012049

CFD Prediction and Validation of Butterfly Valve Hydrodynamic Forces

Conference Paper · June 2004

DOI: 10.1061/40737(2004)232

CITATIONS READS
25 5,540

2 authors:

Fangbiao Lin G. A. Schohl

Stantec Tennessee Valley Authority
13 PUBLICATIONS 65 CITATIONS 28 PUBLICATIONS 322 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by G. A. Schohl on 24 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CFD Prediction and Validation of Butterfly Valve Hydrodynamic Forces

Fangbiao Lin, Ph.D.1 and Gerald A. Schohl, Ph.D.2

1
Alden Research Laboratory, Inc., 30 Shrewsbury St., Holden, MA 01520-1843; PH
(508) 829-6000; FAX (508) 829-5939; email: [email protected]
2
Tennessee Valley Authority, P.O. Box 1649, Norris, TN 37828; PH (865) 632-1968;
FAX (865) 632 1840; email: [email protected]

Abstract

This paper presents a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model developed using
the commercial software FLUENT, and presents predicted hydrodynamic force
coefficients for a disc-shaped butterfly valve at different valve operating angles. The
predicted force coefficients were used to provide estimates of hydrodynamic loads on
the butterfly valve during closure against flow. The results of this study expand the
knowledge base of butterfly valve hydrodynamic forces.

The use of FLUENT for estimating force coefficients was validated by comparing
CFD predictions to experimental results for the drag coefficient of a coin-shaped disc
placed perpendicular to flow in an infinite flow field. The sensitivity of the results to
turbulence model selection, accuracy of discretization schemes, grid quality, and grid
dependence was studied as part of the validation.

CFD models of the butterfly valve were used to compute drag coefficients, lift
coefficients, moment coefficients, and discharge coefficients for the valve at seven
different opening positions. The computed discharge coefficients compared very
well with experimental discharge coefficients available in the literature, which
provided confidence in the accuracy of the predicted force and moment coefficients
as well, and suggests that CFD analysis can be a useful tool for predicting drag forces
and lift forces on similar hydraulic structures.

Introduction

With the development of computational fluid dynamics (CFD), it is feasible to predict

hydrodynamic forces (drag forces, lift forces, and moments) on partially open valves
or other blunt bodies in flow. However, questions remain about the accuracy of such
predictions and the relationship between accuracy and model refinement details, such
as choice of turbulence model, discretization scheme, and grid size.

In this study, a CFD model was developed for predicting position varying
hydrodynamic force coefficients for a disc-shaped butterfly valve used in the
Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA’s) Great Falls Hydro Plant. Drag coefficients,
lift coefficients, discharge coefficients, and moment coefficients were computed for
the valve at seven different opening positions. These coefficients were used in a
separate study along with results from hydraulic transient analyses to estimate
unsteady drag and lift forces on the butterfly valve during closure against flow
(Schohl, 2003).

Results from a preliminary CFD model were used to guide the development of the
butterfly valve model and to provide some indication of the likely accuracy of the
results. The preliminary model predicted the drag coefficient for flow past a coin-
shaped disc in an infinite flow field. The accuracy of the prediction was evaluated for
various choices of turbulence model, discretization scheme, and grid size by
comparing the CFD results with available experimental data.

Both CFD models were developed using FLUENT (version 6.0). This finite volume
based software solves 3-D steady and unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes
equations with selected turbulence models (Fluent, 2003). The computational meshes
were generated using FLUENT’s built-in mesh generator Gambit (version 2.0) and
the results were post-processed using a professional post-processor EnSight version
7.4 (CEI, 2003).

Force and Moment Coefficients for a Butterfly Valve

Water flowing through a partially open butterfly valve exerts both drag force and lift
force on the valve disc. As illustrated in Figure 1, the drag force, FD, is directed
parallel to the conduit axis and the lift force, FL, is directed perpendicular to the
conduit axis. The resultant force, F, is directed at an angle β from the horizontal.
The line of action of the resultant force and the center of the rotation typically do not
coincide, resulting in a hydrodynamic moment, M, that tends to close the disc. To
maintain control of the valve position, α, the valve operating mechanism must be able
to both resist M during valve closure and apply a torque that is greater than M during
valve opening.

D Dia. d
α
M
Flow
FD
β

Valve Disc FL F

Figure 1. Hydrodynamic Force on a Partially Open Butterfly Valve

The directions of the lift force and moment depend on the direction of rotation of the
valve disc. A valve disc that rotates counter-clockwise from α = 0 (wide open) to
α = 90 degrees (closed), as illustrated in Figure 1, experiences a downward directed
lift force and a counter-clockwise moment. A valve disc that rotates clockwise from
α = 0 (wide open) to α = -90 degrees (closed) experiences an upward directed lift
force and a clockwise moment. In both cases, the sense of the moment tends to close
the valve.

For a given butterfly valve, the hydrodynamic force and moment vary with the valve
position, α, and with the discharge through the valve, Q. The functional relationships
FL(α, Q), FD(α, Q), and M(α, Q) depend on the geometry of the valve disc and the
location of the rotational axis. It is convenient to present data describing these
relationships in terms of the dimensionless coefficients F / Fst, FD / Fst, FL / Fst, and
CM, which vary with valve position, α, but not with discharge, Q (Naudascher, 1991).
The “hydrostatic force” Fst is defined as

Fst = ρgA( E u − H d )

in which A = conduit cross-sectional area, E = H + V2/2g = energy, V = average

velocity, H = P/ρg + z = piezometric head, P = average pressure, z = elevation,
ρ = density, and g = acceleration of gravity. Subscripts “u” and “d” refer to upstream
and downstream, respectively. The moment coefficient CM is defined as

M
CM = 3
ρgD ( Eu − H d )

in which D = length of the valve disc (see Figure 1).

Flow past a Coin-Shaped Disc in an Infinite Flow Field

Before modeling the butterfly valve, the ability of FLUENT to predict force
coefficients was evaluated by predicting the drag coefficient of a coin-shaped disc
(100 mm diameter, 2 mm thickness) placed perpendicular to a flow with velocity of
0.1 m/s (see Figure 2). Seven simulations were performed to investigate the
sensitivity of the results to different turbulence models, different discretization
schemes, and grid refinement levels. Table 1 compares the results of these
simulations to each other and compares the predicted drag coefficients to the
experimentally determined value of 1.17 (Hoerner, 1958). The details of the different
turbulence models and discretization schemes listed in Table 1 are available in the
FLUENT user’s manual (Fluent, 2003). The comparisons in Table 1 show that the
best prediction of 1.22 was achieved using the k-ω Shear Stress Transport (SST)
turbulence model, the 2nd order upwind discretization scheme, and 85,000 or more
mesh elements. Use of the other turbulence models led to predictions that were
significantly higher (standard k-ε model with two types of wall functions) or lower
(standard low Reynolds number k-ω model) than those from the k-ω SST turbulence
model. Use of the 1st order upwind discretization scheme led to predictions that were
significantly higher than those from the 2nd order upwind scheme. The results were
less sensitive to grid size, for the range of sizes simulated, than to choice of
turbulence model and discretization scheme. The middle level tested (85,000 mesh
elements) was sufficient to produce grid-independent results.

Figure 2. Predicted Flow Patterns Passing a Coin-Shaped Disc

Table 1. Comparison of CFD Predicted Drag Coefficients

Case No. Turbulence Discretization Grid Size Predicted Error
Model Scheme Drag (%)
Coefficient
nd
1 Standard k-ε with 2 order 43,000 1.30 11.1
wall function upwind
nd
2 Standard k-ε with 2 order 43,000 1.30 11.1
non-equilibrium upwind
wall function
3 Standard k-ω 2nd order 43,000 1.11 -5.1
upwind
nd
4 k-ω SST model 2 order 43,000 1.23 5.1
upwind
st
5 k-ω SST model 1 order 43,000 1.33 13.7
upwind
nd
6 k-ω SST model 2 order 85,000 1.22 4.3
upwind
7 k-ω SST model 2nd order 173,000 1.22 4.3
upwind

The ability of the CFD model to predict the drag coefficient for flow past a disc to
within 5 percent of the experimental value provided confidence that a similar CFD
model, using the k-ω SST turbulence model and 2nd order upwind discretization
scheme, would provide satisfactory predictions of the force coefficients for a partially
open, disc-shaped butterfly valve.
CFD Model for Flow past Partially Open Butterfly Valve

The geometry of the Great Falls Unit 1 butterfly valve is shown in Figure 3, and the
computational domain for the CFD model is shown in Figure 4. Because the valve is
symmetrical in the x-y plane, only half of the flow domain was included in the model.
The modeled flow domain included pipe segments five diameters long upstream from
the valve and ten diameters long downstream from the valve. A uniform x-velocity
over the y-z plane was specified as the upstream boundary condition and uniform
pressure over the y-z plane was specified as the downstream boundary condition.
The computational mesh included about 1.5 million tetra- and hexa-elements (see
Figure 4). All pipe walls and valve surfaces were treated as non-slip walls. For all
simulations, the k-ω SST turbulence model was used for turbulence closure.
y
CFD
Hydraulic Coordinates
Hydraulic Penstock Operator
Butterfly Valve Disc B z
Operator

0.356 m y
1.42 m CFD Coordinates
1.765 m R Flow x
107° 3.66 m DIA

0.305 m 1.42 m

B Section B-B (Elevation)

Elevation -- Valve Open
Valve Open

Figure 3. Geometry of Unit 1 Butterfly Valve

Figure 4. Computational Domain and Meshes

To obtain complete force coefficient curves, seven disc angles, 0o (full open), 10o, 20o,
30o, 40o, 50o, and 70o, were simulated with the CFD model. The flow rates assumed
in each case were 2,000 cfs, 1,500 cfs, 800 cfs, 500 cfs, 300 cfs, 180 cfs and 50 cfs,
respectively. For all simulations, the CFD model represented a valve in submerged
and cavitation-free conditions.

CFD Results for Butterfly Valve

Figures 5 and 6 show computed velocity contours and streamlines for the 50o disc
angle model. These figures demonstrate the capability of the CFD simulations to
capture the complicated downstream swirling flow patterns and wakes behind the
partially open valve. Proper prediction of these flow features (pressure, velocity
gradient, etc.) is required to obtain accurate force coefficients.

Figure 5. Velocity Contours

Figure 6. Streamlines Colored by Pressure

For each disc angle, the drag, lift, and moment coefficients expressed as FD / Fst,
FL / Fst, and CM, respectively, were estimated from the CFD results. The total drag
force, FD; lift force, FL; and moment, M, were calculated by integrating the CFD-
predicted pressure and viscous force distributions over the surface of the disc. The
upstream energy, Eu, and downstream head, Hd, used in the definitions of Fst and CM,
were determined from cross-sectional averages of the CFD-predicted pressures and
velocities. Figure 7 shows the variation in cross-sectional average pressure over the
length of the computational domain as computed by the CFD model for the 50o disc
angle. The frictional pressure gradient was determined by fitting a straight line
through the five upstream-most points, which were unaffected by the presence of the
valve disc downstream at X = 0. The same gradient was applied downstream, offset
to lower pressure, by fitting it through the downstream-most points, beyond the wake
of the valve. The pressure drop across the valve, ∆P, was computed as the difference
between the upstream and downstream pressure gradients at X = 0. The upstream
average velocity, used in the definition of Eu, was computed by dividing the total
discharge by the conduit cross-sectional area. Figure 8 illustrates the variation of the
force coefficients and moment coefficient with disc angle, α, as determined from the
CFD modeling.

1600
Valve Disc at X = 0
1200
Pressure, Pa

800 Pu = -0.2414X + 1370 ∆P = 1360 Pa

Pd = -0.2414X + 9.935
400

-400
CFD data
-800
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

X, m

Figure 7. CFD-Predicted Longitudinal Pressure Variation, 50o Disc Angle

1.4 0.12
1.2 F / Fst 0.10
1.0 0.08

0.8 0.06
F / Fst

CM

0.6 FL / Fst 0.04

0.4 0.02

0.2 FD / Fst 0

0 -0.02
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Disc Angle (α), degrees Disc Angle (α), degrees

Figure 8. CFD-Predicted Force and Moment Coefficients

(symbols indicate CFD data points)

Figure 9 is included as further evidence of the accuracy of the CFD predictions. The
discharge coefficient Cdv is defined as
 Q
C dv =
A 2 g( H u − H d )

The CFD-predicted and experimental discharge coefficients are nearly identical at the
valve angles for which both are available.

3.5

2.5

2 CFD Data
Cdv

1.5
Disc-shaped, butterfly damper, USACE (1988)
1

0.5

0
0 20 40 60 80

Valve Angle, degrees

Figure 9. CFD-Predicted Discharge Coefficients Compared to Experimental Data

Conclusions

CFD modeling can provide reasonable estimates of force and discharge coefficients
for butterfly valves in closed conduit flow. Comparison of CFD-predicted drag
coefficients to experimental data for a coin-shaped disc and of CFD-predicted
discharge coefficients to experimental data for a butterfly valve provides evidence
that CFD modeling can predict hydrodynamic forces with reasonable accuracy for the
submerged and cavitation-free condition. The predicted force and moment
characteristics for a thin, disc-shaped butterfly valve expand the current knowledge
base of butterfly valve hydrodynamic forces.

Reference

CEI (2003), EnSight 7.4 User Manual, Apex, NC, 2003.

Fluent Inc. (2001), FLUENT 6.0 User’s Manual, Fluent Inc., Lebanon, NH, 2000.
Hoerner, S. F. (1958), Fluid-Dynamic Drag, published by author.
Naudascher, E. (1991), Hydrodynamic Forces, IAHR Hydraulic Structures Design
Manual No. 3, A. A. Balkema.
Schohl, G. A. (2003), “Transient Analyses for Great Falls Hydro Plant,”
Proceedings of FEDSM’03, 4th ASME Joint Fluids Engineering Conference,
Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, July 6-11, 2003.
USACE (U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station), 1988, “Hydraulic
Design Criteria,” Eighteenth issue, Vicksburg, MS.

View publication stats