CFD Based Relief Valve Design: Accuracy Requirements and CFD Capability

S. Taggart, Christopher Doyle, W. Dempster
{"title":"CFD Based Relief Valve Design: Accuracy Requirements and CFD Capability","authors":"S. Taggart, Christopher Doyle, W. Dempster","doi":"10.1115/pvp2022-83579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Relief valves act as a controlled weak point in a pressurised system to protect against the dangers of an overpressure event. As such, their sound and reliable operation is crucial to the longevity of any pressurised system. The correct operation of a safety valve is established by adhering to the overpressure and blowdown requirements, i.e. the pressures above and below the set pressure which the valve will open and close and for many ASME BPVC regulated valves these pressures are of the order of 3–10% of set pressure. Since the disc forces are directly proportional to pressure, the accuracy requirements of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) prediction techniques need to be much lower to allow CFD prediction to be a reliable tool for valve design and to guide the development of the device. In this paper, the capability of CFD modelling as a design tool for relief valves used in gas service is investigated by assessing the CFD prediction of disc lift-force curves. A full force-lift curve was produced with a maximum uncertainty of 2% in the low-lift region controlling the overpressure and 1.5% in the high-lift region which controls the blowdown and is of the same order as the experimental measurement. When using ASME BPVC Section VIII as an example, where the requirements for overpressure and blowdown are 10% and 7% respectively, the current CFD modelling capabilities can predict disc forces to an acceptable fraction of the Section VIII certification requirements. However, when comparing the CFD error to ASME BPVC Section I requirements which are much stricter at 3% and 4% for overpressure and blowdown, the use of CFD is more challenging with the CFD uncertainty of the same order as the design requirements.","PeriodicalId":23700,"journal":{"name":"Volume 2: Computer Technology and Bolted Joints; Design and Analysis","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volume 2: Computer Technology and Bolted Joints; Design and Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/pvp2022-83579","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Relief valves act as a controlled weak point in a pressurised system to protect against the dangers of an overpressure event. As such, their sound and reliable operation is crucial to the longevity of any pressurised system. The correct operation of a safety valve is established by adhering to the overpressure and blowdown requirements, i.e. the pressures above and below the set pressure which the valve will open and close and for many ASME BPVC regulated valves these pressures are of the order of 3–10% of set pressure. Since the disc forces are directly proportional to pressure, the accuracy requirements of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) prediction techniques need to be much lower to allow CFD prediction to be a reliable tool for valve design and to guide the development of the device. In this paper, the capability of CFD modelling as a design tool for relief valves used in gas service is investigated by assessing the CFD prediction of disc lift-force curves. A full force-lift curve was produced with a maximum uncertainty of 2% in the low-lift region controlling the overpressure and 1.5% in the high-lift region which controls the blowdown and is of the same order as the experimental measurement. When using ASME BPVC Section VIII as an example, where the requirements for overpressure and blowdown are 10% and 7% respectively, the current CFD modelling capabilities can predict disc forces to an acceptable fraction of the Section VIII certification requirements. However, when comparing the CFD error to ASME BPVC Section I requirements which are much stricter at 3% and 4% for overpressure and blowdown, the use of CFD is more challenging with the CFD uncertainty of the same order as the design requirements.
基于CFD的安全阀设计:精度要求和CFD能力
安全阀在加压系统中起到控制薄弱环节的作用,防止发生超压事件的危险。因此,它们的可靠运行对任何加压系统的寿命都至关重要。安全阀的正确操作是通过遵守超压和排污要求来建立的,即高于和低于阀门开启和关闭的设定压力的压力,对于许多ASME BPVC调节阀,这些压力约为设定压力的3-10%。由于阀瓣力与压力成正比,因此计算流体动力学(CFD)预测技术的精度要求需要低得多,才能使CFD预测成为阀门设计和指导设备开发的可靠工具。本文通过评估阀瓣升力曲线的CFD预测,研究了CFD建模作为燃气用溢流阀设计工具的能力。得到了控制超压的低升程区域的最大不确定度为2%,控制排气的高升程区域的最大不确定度为1.5%,与实验测量值相同。以ASME BPVC第VIII部分为例,其中超压和排污要求分别为10%和7%,目前的CFD建模能力可以预测阀瓣力,达到第VIII部分认证要求的可接受部分。然而,当将CFD误差与ASME BPVC Section I的要求进行比较时(ASME BPVC Section I对超压和排空的要求要严格得多,分别为3%和4%),CFD的使用更具挑战性,CFD的不确定性与设计要求相同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信