Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
3 | May 12, 2014 | © Curtiss-Wright
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
5 | May 12, 2014 | © Curtiss-Wright
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
6 | May 12, 2014 | © Curtiss-Wright
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)
7 | May 12, 2014 | © Curtiss-Wright
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)
8 | May 12, 2014 | © Curtiss-Wright
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
9 | May 12, 2014 | © Curtiss-Wright
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
10 | May 12, 2014 | © Curtiss-Wright
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
11 | May 12, 2014 | © Curtiss-Wright
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
12 | May 12, 2014 | © Curtiss-Wright
LOCA Test Simulation
Safety-Accumulator Injection– Used Rupture Disc to Simulate Instantaneous DP– Specified Upstream Pressure: 700 psig– Actual Burst Test: 850 psig
13 | May 12, 2014 | © Curtiss-Wright
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)
14 | May 12, 2014 | © Curtiss-Wright
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
15 | May 12, 2014 | © Curtiss-Wright
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"
16 | May 12, 2014 | © Curtiss-Wright
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")
17 | May 12, 2014 | © Curtiss-Wright
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
18 | May 12, 2014 | © Curtiss-Wright
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
19 | May 12, 2014 | © Curtiss-Wright
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"
20 | May 12, 2014 | © Curtiss-Wright
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
21 | May 12, 2014 | © Curtiss-Wright
www.curtisswright.com
Haykaz Mkrtchyan, PEEmail: [email protected]