Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part E: Journal of Process Mechanical
Engineering can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://pie.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://pie.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://pie.sagepub.com/content/223/2/81.refs.html
81
Abstract: A buttery valve is a type of ow control device, which is widely used to regulate a uid
owing through a section of pipe. Currently, analyses and optimization are of special important
in the design and usage of buttery valves. For the analysis, nite element method (FEM) is often
used to predict the safety of valve disc, and computational uid dynamics (CFD) is commonly
used to study the ow characteristics of valve. However, it is difcult to obtain accurate results for
the optimization of buttery valve due to the high non-linearities. For this reason, metamodels
or surrogate model methods are extensively employed. This paper integrates metamodel with
FEM and CFD analysis to optimize a traditional buttery valve, where the weight of the valve disc
is the design objective, and the strength safety of disc and the pressure loss coefcient of valve
are constraints. Kriging model is employed as a surrogate model to formulate the objectives and
constrains, and the orthogonal array is used as design of experiment to sample the computer
analysis. The optimum results with the corresponding variable combinations for the valve disc
are obtained easily by this method. Moreover, the structural and uid analyses with the obtained
optimum variable combinations are conducted again to verify the accuracy of the optimization
method. The results demonstrate the capability and potential of this method, which integrates
the Kriging model with FEM and CFD analysis, in solving the optimization of a buttery valve.
Keywords: buttery valve, computer experiment, Kriging model, orthogonal array, optimization
INTRODUCTION
A buttery valve is a type of ow-control device, commonly used as a control valve in applications where
the pressure drop required of the valve is relatively
low. Typical uses would include isolation of the equipment, ll/drain systems, bypass systems, and other
applications where the only criterion for control of the
ow/pressure is that it should be on or off. Unlike a
ball valve, the disc is always present within the ow;
therefore, a pressure drop is always induced in the ow
regardless of the valve position. Because of the notable
inuence of the buttery valve on the uid owing
through it, many researchers have done lots of work to
study the uid characteristics of the buttery valve. For
example, in 1995, Ogawa and Kimura [1] presented two
papers about the study of the buttery valve. One was
Corresponding
82
BUTTERFLY VALVE
Buttery valve
using K1 , a proper valve size can be accurately determined for most applications. This article adopts the
equation calculated by Huang and Kim [2]
2
P1 P 2
2
v1
f L
K1 =
+
2 1+
(1)
2
D
v2
where P1 and P2 refer to the static pressure upstream
and downstream of the valve disc, and v1 and v2 are the
resultant velocities in the upstream and downstream,
respectively. L is the distance between P1 and P2 . D is
the tube hydraulic diameter, which is the valve bore
size. And f is the circular pipe friction factor in the
turbulence ow, which is 0.013 in this research.
3
The pressure loss coefcient is used to relate the pressure loss of a valve to the discharge of the valve for a
given valve-opening angle. Nowadays, K1 is the most
widely used value for valve size and pipe system. By
2.2
(2)
(3)
(5)
k=1
(6)
L(y, , , 2 ) =
Kriging model
83
(2 2 ) 2
|R|
(y f )T R 1 (y f )
exp
(7)
2 2
(8)
)]
)T R 1 (y f
[(y f
ns
(9)
when the correlation matrix and the correlation vector are determined, the approximated model can
be constructed. Similar to previous estimations, the
unknown likelihood estimate for the k can be calculated from the formulation as follows
Maximize
(10)
where is the estimated value of , R 1 is the correlation vector, y is the observed data with ns sampled
data, and f is the vector with ns components of 1. The
)
y = + r T (x)R 1 (y f
(4)
84
variety of options for each of these choices. For the second step, the most basic type of experimental design
is called a full factorial design. This calls for each input
variable or factor to be xed at a certain number of
values or levels, and then a data point sampled for
all the combination of the various factor levels. For
instance, if there are four variables to be explored at
three levels, then a 34 full factorial design needs 81
runs, which is computationally too expensive. Other
experimental designs also have such drawbacks, that
they cannot reduce the total number of runs when
there are many variables with more than two levels
each. However, by applying the Taguchi orthogonal
array (OA) technique, this problem can be overcome
signicantly [8]. The OA is a systematic, statistical
method of computer experiment. They are primarily used in designing experiments [17]. Using OAs in
experimentation allows for multi-factor experiments
to occur, thus reducing the number of runs required
to reach an optimal set of parameters for improvement. For the same four variables/three levels design,
only nine runs are needed. Hence, the OA technique is
adopted in this article.
More information about the OA used in this article,
and the last step, i.e. predict the optimum value, are
described in section 5.
4
Fluid analysis
Fluid analysis is conducted to observe the ow patterns and to measure pressure loss coefcient of this
buttery valve when the buttery valve works with
various opening positions. As shown in Fig. 3, a halfsymmetrical CFD model of the buttery valve is created with a scale of 1:1 to obtain a better result and to
save the computer time. The bolts and nuts for xation
of the disc are simplied despite some impact on the
ow properties in the open position. An upstream pipe
L1 with a length eight times that of diameter (8D) and
4.2
Fig. 2
Structural analysis
85
Fig. 4 The pressure contour (left) and velocity vector (right) at the middle plane at
(a) 15 and (b) 90
86
Fig. 8
DESIGN OPTIMIZATION
Table 1
D.F.
level
A (mm)
B (mm)
C (mm)
D (mm)
F (mm)
G (mm)
1
2
3
7
8
9
12
13.5
15
12
16
20
8.5
9.5
10.5
10.7
12.7
14.7
2
2.4
2.8
Table 2
Exp.
Stress
(MPa)
Coeff.
K1
Weight
(kg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1
138.61
127.09
115.82
129.57
107.26
101.72
115.16
94.80
89.82
129.38
117.26
127.35
120.93
108.04
94.98
108.75
106.88
88.16
0.404 69
0.442 96
0.491 58
0.452 84
0.457 90
0.434 67
0.450 69
0.409 27
0.467 53
0.466 59
0.395 47
0.432 11
0.447 44
0.473 02
0.448 30
0.461 25
0.483 46
0.448 66
2.840
3.055
3.274
3.133
3.357
3.144
3.168
3.376
3.546
3.174
2.903
3.112
3.299
3.088
3.254
3.328
3.488
3.286
Table 3
Exp.
Weight (kg)
Stress (MPa)
Initial model
Optimum model
Reduction %
3.206
3.08
3.93
113.47
135
18.97
0.479 73
0.376 61
21.50
describes the existing condition and the other two levels represent the presumed values (lower and upper
bound) that are expected to achieve an improvement.
In general, the above conditions necessitate a 36 =
729 times analysis by using the full factorial design.
However, by using L18 (21 37 ) OAs, the number of
combinations could be reduced to 18.
87
B = 12.0 mm,
C = 18.83 mm,
D = 8.5 mm,
88
Fig. 10 The uid analysis result: (a) pressure contour and (b) velocity vector of the optimum model
Table 4 Verication of the predicted value
Exp.
Weight (kg)
Stress (MPa)
Prediction
Verication
Error (%)
3.08
2.98
3.2
135
133.10
1.6
0.3766
0.3629
3.6
6 VERIFICATION EXPERIMENT
The purpose of this nal step is to verify whether
the optimum conditions obtained by this method do
indeed give the projected improvement. After determining the optimum values under these conditions, a
computer experiment with optimum variables setting
should be conducted to compare the observed value
with the prediction. If the predicted and observed values are close to each other, it means that this method
is adequate for optimizing the valve; on the contrary, if the observation is drastically different from the
prediction, then this method is inadequate. Another
method should be adopted to optimize the shape of
the valve disc.
Figures 9 and 10 show the stress distribution in
the new disc and the uid eld affected by the new
disc, respectively. Compared with Fig. 4, it can be
seen that the stress at the same distribution is more
uniform than before and there is no serious effect
on the uid pressure or uid velocity distribution.
Table 4 compares the predicted value and the veried
value; error is dened as the difference between the
actual response from the computer analysis, y, and
89
In Proceedings of the 6th World Congresses of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, 30 May3 June 2005.
16 Simpson, T. W., Korte, J. J., Mauery, T. M., and
Mistree, F. Comparison of response surface and
Kriging models for multidisciplinary design optimization. In Proceedings of the 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/
ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis &
Optimization, St. Louis, Missouri, 1998, AIAA paper
98-4755.
17 Hedayat, A. S., Sloane, N. J. A., and Stufken, J. Orthogonal
arrays: theory and applications, 1999 (Springer-Verlag,
New York). Available from http://www.research.att.
com/njas/doc/OA.html.
18 Rao, S. S. Engineering optimization: theory and applications, 3rd edition, 1996, pp. 806814 (John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.).
APPENDIX
Notation
D
f
K1
L
ns
P1
P2
R
R(x i , x j )
v1
v2
k
2
max