Sie sind auf Seite 1von 21

Noise and Vibration In Marine Applications Seminar

Fluidborne Noise Issues in Valves

Dick Whitson


27'*^ September 2006

Noise and Vibration in Marine Applications Seminar
27 September 2006

Fluidborne Noise Issues in Valves

Dick Whitson, TUV NEL


Valves and other pressure reduction devices are widely used to control the flowrate and
pressure in fluid machinery plant. Surface ships, submarines, unmanned and other underwater
vehicles and delivery platforms use a wide range of valve types in their various hydraulic,
steam, water or gas systems. Fig.1 shows examples of typical valves used for different
purposes ranging from a simple check valve to a "noise reduced" control valve.

a) Check valve b) Safety valve with guided plug c) Control valve with trim

Fig.1 Examples of typical valves

Valves can be a source not only of audible noise but also of vibration and pressure-ripple which
result in structurebome and fluidborne noise respectively [1]. These forms of noise can be of
concern for four primary reasons:
Stealth of military and marine-life survey vessels,
Noise exposure of workforce personnel,
Comfort of passengers and crew and,
Condition and life of mechanical plant.

Valve noise problems on marine vessels and platforms are more often associated with
fluidbome noise and structurebome noise ti^ansmission from valves than they are with direct
audible noise radiated from the casing or immediately adjacent pipework. Direct audible noise
in the vicinity of the valve can however give problems if valves are sited close to workforce or
passenger areas. This is primarily due to the fact that the fundamental sources of noise are in
the fluid inside the valve and that the energy can consequently travel via the fluid or pipework to
regions quite remote from the original valve. Many marine platforms have direct connected sea
systems and any fluidborne or "in-pipe" noise is particulariy important where stealth or marine-
life survey is a key operational requirement.

Noise from, or due to, a valve can be related to one of three causes:
Flow noise
Mechanical transients
Water hammer or pressure transients

A large volume of work exists on the generation of audible flow noise from valves, i.e. noise in
the 15 Hz to 20 kHz range, and there is also a significant amount of published work on flow
noise in the ultrasonic region from gas valves. Much less work is available specifically on in-
pipe noise levels but many authors use this as an intermediate stage in developing predictions
of audible noise at the pipe exterior.

Noise and Vibration in Marine Applications Seminar
27 September 2006

Although this paper will deal primarily with fluidborne noise, pressure-ripple and other In-pipe
issues it also covers the other topics to give the reader a wider appreciation of the subject so
they are better able to address any valve problems they encounter.


Valves tend to generate broadband noise and sometimes tones or whistles if the valve
openings are small. The noise generating mechanisms are however different for liquid and gas
In liquids, noise is generated primarily through cavitation in the liquid.
In gases, noise is Vena-contracta
generated primarily
through fluid-shear and
shock mechanisms. Loss. AP

In both liquid and gas systems noise

is also generated by fluid turbulence
but this generally gives rise to much Recovery
lower levels of pressure-ripple than Pressure
either cavitation or shear and shock Inlet Outiet
mechanisms. Despite these different
noise mechanisms there is a common valve
basic approach taken to prediction of
valve noise [2, 3].
Fig.2 Pressure profile through valve
Fig.2 shows a simplified view of how
the static pressure changes through a control valve or other pressure reduction device.
Immediately upstream of the valve a small pressure rise is encountered before the main static
pressure drop occurs inside the valve becoming lowest at the valve's vena-contracta, i.e.
highest velocity area. There is some pressure recovery downstream of the valve's main
pressure reduction element before the actual pressure drop across the valve is obtained.

The sound power level inside the pipe is derived from the mechanical stream power times an
acoustical efficiency factor, HF- as shown:
/ . ^
i ^ , =10.1g (1)

The mass fiow rate and the fluid density are system related input parameters. The acoustical
efficiency factor (qp) and the differential pressure (Ap) are both valve specific factors that will
vary, not only from one valve to another, but also between valve spool positions.

Once the sound power inside the pipe is known the sound pressure level or pressure ripple
level is obtained thus:
i:,,.=i^,+io.igM-io.ig (2)


3.1 Basic Cause of Valve Flow Noise

In liquids the main source of valve noise is cavitation. An excellent introduction to the subject of
cavitation can be found in [4], Many published works exist on the study of cavitation and
although the majority of these are related to wear and the limitation of erosion damage there is
Noise and Vibration in Marine Applications Seminar
27 September 2006

still a large body of work on cavitation induced noise. This has resulted in a standard [2] for
noise prediction.
now SfpBFBttffB
Cavitation essentially occure in a system -
anywhere the static pressure drops to the formstion of
liquid^s vapour pressure and this results in ^ cavities which then
^ y'implode and cause
the liquid vaporising and thus creating ^ '>' shock waves.
bubbles of gas. Fig.3. The noise is
generated when these bubbles implode as Fig.3 Cavitation at an orifice plate
they are carried in the flow into higher static
pressure regions, for example in the pressure recovery region downstream of a valve. These
implosions generate huge pressures albeit of exti-emely short duration. If the flow velocity is
high enough and the bubble actually in contact with a surface when it implodes the surface can
become pitted and eventually eroded over a period of time. Cavitation onset is not a sudden
phenomenon; as the static pressure lowers, dissolved gas firet comes out of solution and then
with further lowering of the static pressure small liquid vapour bubbles are formed as the vapour
pressure is approached. Dissolved gas takes some time (e.g. 30 s or more) to re-dissolve back
into solution when the static pressure recovers so the gas bubbles collapse {sometimes referred
to as "pseudo" cavitation) rather than implode and in fact the presence of dissolved gas can
actually soften the damaging effects of true cavitation, i.e. vapour bubble implosions.

Care should be taken when referring to published work since there are many different forms of
cavitation number used which often makes it difficult to compare the findings of different

3.2 In-Pipe Flow Noise Prediction

The basic equation (1) is often vwitten in the form:

/.,,,-120-10.1g(/?)-hl0.1glml + lO.!g(Ap)-H0.1g(;7r) (3)

Rather than treat T|F as a variable, the standard [2] gives T^F a fixed value of 10 (as being the
best known at the time of development of the standard) and introduces an additional "valve
specific correction factor", ALF, which has to be obtained independently. Thus the basic
equation becomes:

f \
/,,, =40-10.1gCo)+I0.1g m -Hl0.1g(Ap)-hAZ,^
V ) (4)

Equations (3) and (4) only deal with the non-cavttating flow noise. For cavltating flows the
internal sound power level includes an additional component [2]:

ly \0.0625

^wi (5)

This relationship introduces two new valve specific factors: XF, the differential pressure ratio
and, XF2, the coefficient of cavitation inception. Xf is effectively a cavitation number.
Noise and Vibration in Marine Applications Seminar
27 September 2006

Fig,4 shows the characteristic noise

curve for a control valve operating in
hydrodynamic service. A valve will tlllll I i M t W ^ Ccvitsbng
typically operate in the turbulent and the
cavitating regions and the transition
between these marks the point that
coincides with the coefficient of
cavitation inception. Xf^. There can be a
30 dB range in values between the non-
cavitating and fully choked cavitating
condition (i.e. the crest of the curve). It
is important to iSote that Fig.4 only
shows the noise curve for one valve
spool position, i.e. for a fixed flow
restriction. Fig.4 Classical Xp versus noise characteristic

For any given spool position, measured values will form a scatter-band around this curve rather
than lie actually on the curve. For a typical control valve the spool moves from a fijlly closed
position to either a partially open or fully open position depending on the flow or pressure
required. In effect this produces a series of XF versus noise curves. Fig.5: one for each spool
position. Another important point to note is that the curves move towards lower Xp values as
the valve opening increases.

^ opening


Fig.5 Curves for different spool positions Fig,6 Scatter may form a 3D surface
In TUV NEL's experimental work [5, 6] we have observed that the scatter-band around a
particular XF curve does in fact consist of a collection or family of separate curves and that if the
XF versus noise plot is treated as a 3D surface rather than a 20 plot then scatter in the data
about this 3D surface is much reduced, Fig.6. Further development of this 3D approach is
required but it may point the way towards higher accuracy predictions.

3.3 Different Approaches to How the Parameters are Obtained

As can be seen from equations (3), (4) and (5), the standard [2] approach requires seven
different input coefficients of which five (Ap, ^p, ALF, X ^ and Xf_^ are specific to a given valve;
the other two (mass flow and density), are system parameters. These five parameters can be
conveniently divided into three groups that align themselves with the different stages involved in
the prediction process:

a) Ap and Xf
c) Tjf and Alp.

Three different ways of establishing these values are discussed in the following sections.
Noise and Vibration in Marine Applications Seminar
27 September 2006

3.3.1 Empirical m e t h o d

This basically consists of physically testing a given valve under varying fiow and back pressure
conditions for a range of spool positions and measuring noise (either audible noise, vibration or
pressure-ripple), flowrate and up and downstream static pressures under each test condition.
Xfz is simply obtained by observation of the X f versus noise plot, hf is calculated backwards
from the X F versus noise curve using equation (2) and (3) and knowing the stream power. This
allows a valve to be characterised and design curves derived for the test conditions that can
then be used to predict the noise (or other perfomnance parameter) at other operating

Since noise prediction is complex, this empirical approach is the one most widely adopted.

Although testing is the surest means of knowing the actual noise that will be generated, it
however has the major disadvantage in that it requires a valve to test and a suitable test rig so
the approach taken at the design stage of a new valve is to rely heavily on previous test results
firom similar valves. Since valve noise prediction and measurement has been a subject of
interest for a large number of years many established valve manufacturers have over a period
of years built up large databases on their range of valves so are able to pull information from
these to predict noise in new situations. Such databases are rarely public domain so cannot be
accessed other than through the holder.

3.3.2 First principles m e t h o d

For a numt>er of years TUV NEL [6] have been exploring methods to overcome the reliance on
physical testing. One of these uses orifice plate noise as a basis of noise prediction in other
valves. This is seen as a possible extension of the BS EN 60534-8-4 [2] approach.

The concept here is to first assess the engineering drawings of a valve and to then develop
mathematical models from first principles to predict Ap and consequently, X f for any input flow
or spool position. Prediction of Ap can generally be earned out fairly easily for simple valves but
can quickly become complex as the valve geometry becomes more complex. Ap can usually be
predicted to within 5 or 10%. The next stage is to assess the features that contribute to the total
Ap and to identify those that most closely appear to be orifice-like, for example jets, and to then
infer an equivalent orifice diameter. These features are then treated as orifice plates and the
equations in section 3.4 applied to predict Xf^ and ^F (taking A L F = 0) and then the in-pipe

Testing on a range of valve types has met with some success but the approach needs further
development before it could be endorsed as a method for general use.

3.3.3 CFD method

Another approach to overcoming the need for empirical test data is to use Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) as a tool to obtain the required parameters [7]. Again ALF is taken = 0 and rif
assumed to be variable.

initially this involves construction of a mesh to represent the valve geometry and to obtain a
prediction including the effects of cavitation of Ap and consequentiy, X f for any input flow. This
has to be repeated for different spool positions so involves re-meshing the valve for each
position. Again, Ap can usually be predicted to within 5 or 10%.

By comparison of a number of test results against CFD prediction it has t)een found that the XFZ
value corresponds well with a vapour fraction, X, of 1 % .
Noise and Vibration in Marine Applications Seminar
27 September 2006

For r}f the equation of Baumann & Page [8] is used:

^7. =10-
\^m J

The velocity, Uvc, and vapour fraction, X, at

the vena contracta are obtained from the
CFD. Fig,7. This allows the speed of sound
of the mixture to be calculated [7] for specific
operating conditions.
I Flow > ..
4-^ k""
Since modelling njns need to be repeated for
Region of Highest
different spool positions and for different fiow Velocities
conditions, the process can be time [Vena Contracta)
consuming. Fig.7 Velocity profile through plug valve

The approach has met with some success applied to different types of valve but involves care in
getting CFD models to converge. Although prediction to within 4dB of test results was
obtained the approach would again need further development before it could be endorsed as a
method for general use.

3.4 In-Pipe Flow Noise f r o m Orifice Plates

Orifice plates are a common feature in many marine platforms since they are used as fixed
pressure reduction devices in many liquid systems and often ones where there is a direct
overboard connection ( e g . fire-pump over board leak off lines and ballast systems). However,
when used singly they can produce very high levels of pressure ripple and consequently are a
frequent cause of noise problems. Although there are standards [9] to allow prediction of
pressure drop, there is little guidance on prediction of noise levels other than avoidance of
cavitation conditions to avoid erosion [10].

An orifice plate presents a fixed restriction to the flow so a plate with a given p ratio will only
have one X f versus noise curve (as in Fig,4). TUV NEL have been carrying out commercially
funded work on orifice plate noise for a number of years and have developed the following
methodology [5] as a modified form of the EN 60534 [2] approach for general valve noise. We
use Ap and XF at the vena contracta given by:

^F.- = (8)

The value of Co is obtained from the Reader-Harris/Gallagher equation [9] using Li=1 and
M'2=3,59 (which represents the tapping location of the vena contracta).

The following relationships for Xf^ and rjf have been derived from experimental results [5] on
orifice plates ranging from j3=0.3 to p=0.7 in 102 mm bore water-filled pipe:

Xf^ =0.7-0.67/? (9)

/? = -517.36y9-37.06
5 = 221.89^-1-290.1 (11)

7 = 105.67^-332.2
Noise and Vibration in Marine Applications Seminar
27 September 2006

These formulae have been derived through empirical means rather than from first principles and
we have taken ALf = 0 and used a variable ijf instead.

Combining the results firom equations (8), (9) and (10) with equations (3) and (5) allows
prediction of the in-pipe sound power level, Lw, , and then the sound pressure level using
equation (2), These predictions gave a standard deviation of approximately 2 dB between the
prediction and the experimental results and this corresponds closely to what would be
considered an "Engineering Grade" of accuracy in most acoustic standards.

TUV NEL have successfully applied this orifice work to the design of orifice cascades, i.e.
where the pressure drop is split over a number of plates rather than over a single plate.
Perhaps the most readily used piece of design information is to keep the individual X f values for
each plate below the Xfj value of equation (9). It should be noted here that although Annex D
and Clause 1210 of NES 719 [10] provides guidance on cascade design (albeit using a different
definition of cavitation number) the equation used to predict pressure drop is an approximation
only; equation (7) above and ref [9] should be used in preference to obtain more accurate
pressure drop.

In many systems orifice plates can also be used successfully, if properly sized for low-noise, as
a back pressure device to suppress valve cavitation noise.

3.5 Changes in X f and Noise Level w i t h Spool Position or System Changes

X f values and noise level change either as flow

increases in a fixed-restriction system or as a
valve opens in a constant head or other system.

With a fixed-restriction system there is a set



relationship between Q and Ap. Normally this

obeys a Ap = k.Q^ relationship. As flowrate
increases the operating position moves along
the X f curve. Fig.8, from point "a" at low flow,
\ J '

hence low Ap to point "d" at high fiow and high

Ap. Fig.8 XF variation for fixed restriction

Constant head systems are common in marine

vessels. Ballast systems working at constant
depth or any system where flow is between fixed
head tanks would fall into this category. If the
head at either end of the system is fixed, the
pressure drop across the system is fixed and
hence, particularly for small valve openings or
when Ap over the valve is the dominant loss in the
system, the X f across the valve will be fixed.
Rather than staying on one curve the operating
point. Fig.9, gets progressively noisier as the
valve opens (because there is more stream ,- v . f -i u -j
, ,,,. V I t. I V r II I Fig.9 X f vanation in fixed head system
power). If the X f value is below Xfz for all valve a ^ /
spool positions the valve would be quiet for all spool positions.
If the fixed value of X f were higher than the example used in Fig.9 the noise would increase to a
maximum and then reduce on further valve opening. This might appear good but in fact the
cavitation would be so severe as to cause erosion damage either to the valve or to the pipe.
Noise and Vibration in Marine Applications Seminar
27 September 2006

Other than by changing the flow, changes in Xf can also be made by simply changing the
downstream pressure; i.e. the backpressure. An increase in backpressure will lower the X f
value. Backpressure increase is commonly thought of as a means of suppressing cavitation
(and hence reducing noise) but care should be taken when applying this approach since the
effect depends on where the operating point lies on the X f versus noise curve. If operating
above the X f crest (i.e. in fully choked flow), as in point d of Fig.9, initial increase of the back
pressure will increase the noise. Noise will only begin to reduce once X f works back below the
crest. If the back pressure is raised high enough, which is not always practical, X f can be
brought below the Xf^ value so noise will be minimised. In essence this is what happens in a
quiet cascade where the total Ap is shared between devices and the back pressure on the
upstream elements is high enough to avoid cavitation.

Many systems are neither fixed-restriction nor constant-head so the way in which Xp and noise
change with changes in system conditions can be deduced only if the X f versus noise and Ap
versus Q relationships for various spool positions have been fully characterised. This can be
done either by testing an actual valve or by prediction as described in section 3.3 above.

3.6 Water Hammer and Pressure Transients

Water hammer and pressure transients are terms commonly used to describe pulsation caused
by rapid opening or closing of a valve. This is similar to water-hammer most of us will have
encountered at one time or another with domestic water systems. The problem manifests itself
as a judder, banging or rapid oscillation of the pipework but can if the flow volumes are high and
valve motion is fast, be so severe as to lead to pipe rupture. Generally, the fact that a valve
spool has changed position is communicated back through the fiuid in the form of a pressure
pulse travelling at the speed of sound in the fluid. This pulse then reflects back from system
geometry changes (e.g, branches, blank-ends, bore-changes e t c . . ) and returns to the valve
and can cause a reinforcement of the original pulse. The phenomenon is normally more
associated with long pipe runs than with short runs but this depends on the valve opening time,
the speed of sound in the fluid and the system geometry. The length of system and speed of
sound in the fluid will determine the oscillation frequency since it is related to the return journey
time of a pulse into and back from the system. For example, a 20 m long water-filled pipe (c =
1300 m/s) would result in an oscillation at just over 16 Hz. The classical way of analysing this
type of problem is by use of the "method of characteristics" as described by Wylie & Streeter
[11] although it is more usual now to use commercial software based on finite-difference cells.
Palliative measures include slowing valve opening (or closing) to limit the pressure rise,
installation of surge tank, air chamber or accumulators, system geometry changes and
wavespeed reduction methods ( e g . use of non-circular pipes, flexible hose, intentional air-bleed
to change the speed of sound locally) to disrupt any resonance that may have existed.


4.1 Basic Cause of Flow Noise and Noise Regimes

A large body of publish work exists on noise generated by
gas control valves and this has led to the BS EN 60534
standard [3]. This gives equations for prediction of overall .j(.--**-^t
valve noise in dB(A) exterior to a cylindrical pipe and has
been shown to predict levels to within approximately 3dB in
both light and heavy gases and for complex valve trims.

The standard is complex and has 5 regimes, Fig.10, to cope

with the different noise generation mechanisms that come
into play as the pressure is changed across a valve. The
need for five regimes refiects the fact that flow can vary , - . ' * * l ^ T^TITI^^A ^1*^'
, I, 1 jcr ,, _. t4i. Fiq.10 EN 60534 Noise regimes
from subsonic to sonic or supersonic in different parts of the ^ ^ ^^ ^<^^ ^ ^
valve depending on the strength of the pressure gradients
. , Noise and Vibration in Marine Applications Seminar
27 September 2006

and the mass flow being passed. Singleton [12] provides a simplified overview but this still
provides a complex procedure. Equations that predict the regime boundaries [3] are relatively
simple so are duplicated here since they are useful in themselves.

Firstly, the critical pressure, pvcc, (i.e. the pressure at which the flow is sonic) at tfie vena-
contracta is calculated using: <

Pvcc = PI(2/{Y+1))'^(Y/(V-1)) (12)

Secondly, the critical downstream pressure, P2c, is given by:

P2c = Pi - Fl^ (PI-PVCC) " (13)

Which, by simple rearrangement gives the critical pressure drop. Ape, as;

APc = F P (PI-PVCC) (14)

Next, P2B is the "break-point pressure" (the point at which a shock cell-turbulent mechanism
begins to dominate over the turbulent-shear mechanism) and is given by:

P2B = Pi/a(1/Y)V{Y-1)) (15)

Lastiy, P2CE is the pressure at which constant acoustic efficiency begins and is given by:

P2CE = Pi/(22a) (16)

The regimes as defined by the standard [3] are:

Regime 1 (sub-sonic) P2 ^ P2C

Regime II (sonic-supersonic) P2C> P2 ^ pvcc
Regime lll(supersonic) Pvcc> P2 > P2B
Regime IV P2B> P2 S P2CE
Regime V P2CE> P2

In each regime, the value of P2 is progressively lower and the more severe the noise produced.
P2 r P2C signifies the point at which noise levels increase markedly even into the ultrasonic
region. As an example, by applying equations (12) through (16) for a valve with Fl = 0.79
operating in Natural gas (y = 1.3), we Obtain the following for the regime boundary values:

P2c = 0.717 pn
Pvcc = 0.547 Pi
P2B = 0.419 pi
PzcE = 0.06 Pi
These can be expressed as different types of critical pressure ratios, which again for Y = 1 . 3

Ap/pi = (Prp2)/pi = 0.283, 0,453, 0.581 and 0.94 respectively.

pi/p2 = 1.39, 1.83, 2.38 and 16.7 respectively.

The ratio pi/p: is commonly used (as from equation (12)) and this would give critical values of
1.83 for natural gas. It is worthy of note that pi/pvcc does not depend on the valve's Fl value.

Since y for Air is 1.4 the regime boundaries are within 2 % of the above figures for Natural gas.

Because different authors and different industry sectors have preferences for particular
pressure ratios care needs to be taken when referring to published work to check which
definition of critical pressure is being used.
Noise and Vibration in Marine Applications Seminar
27 September 2006

4.2 In-Pipe Flow Noise Prediction

The sound power, Wa, generated and radiated into the downstream pipe in each regime is given
by equations 15, 23, 26, 28 and 32 of EN 60534 [3] and the internal sound pressure level, Lp, by
equation 36 of the standard [3] namely:

Lf, = 10.Lg{[(3.2x10')W3.p2.C2]/di^} ' (17)

The key Inputs needed for these equations are the valve's liquid pressure recovery factor, Fl,
and Y for the gas. The standard [3] specifically states the assumption that pressure recovery for
gases is the same as for liquids.

Care needs to be exercised in choosing Fl since this can have a marked effect on the regime
indicated and the calculated level of noise. A value of 0.79 was used in the above examples but
Fl depends on the valve type and typical class values are 0.95 for caged globe valves and as
low as 0,5 for butterfly valves. It should also be noted that Fl is not simply constant for a given
valve but is dependent, not only on the valve's orifice geometry and gallery configuration, but
also on the valve opening. Fl is obtained from:

F / - } ^ (18)

The current EN standard [3] specifically assumes that only 25% of the total acoustic power
generated by the valve actually goes into the downstream side: to be correct [3] actually
supplies values for different valve types. There is however still some debate at international
level as to the actual proportion of total sound power that goes into the downstream side but the
standard [3] should be treated as the preferred method.

Whichever value of Fl is used, a combination of equations (12) and (13) result in an equation
that can be used to predict the critical pressure conditions.

P2C = Pi [ 1 - Ft'{1-(2/(Y+1))^(Y/(Y-1))}] (19)

4.3 Spectrum Peak and Shape

The peak frequency, f^, of the noise spectrum is calculated [3], based on Strouhal Number, So,
and is consequently a function of the velocity at the vena-contracta and the effective jet
diameter. The general form of the equation is:

fr-^T^ . (20)

Unfortunately different formulae have to be applied for the jet diameter, Strouhal number and
vena-contracta velocity for each of the five noise regimes so although the general form of the
equation is as in (20) the actual calculation gets progressively more complex. The actual
equations are given by equations 17 for Regime I, equation 24 for Regimes II & 111, equation 29
for Regime IV and V in the standard [3] respectively.

The standard [3] does not give information on the spectral shape but Reethof & Ward [13], on
whose work some of the standard is based, give the following expression:

Lw(^) = Lwi - 10.log10{[1+(f/(2/p))2].[1+(V(2^))']} - 5.3 (21)

Which some authors quote in a more general sense as a correction factor, Li, to be applied to
an overall level, i.e.:

Lw(^) =Lwi-Li (22)

Noise and Vibration in Marine Applications Seminar
27 September 2006

The graph shape for Li is shown in Fig.11.

Summation of the individual octave bands
produces the same combined level as the overall
total level. The spectral shape is based on 6
dB/octave decay above the peak frequency and
a 12 dB/octave drop below the peak frequency.
Some authors note a difference in the spectral
shapes between liquids and gases. Observation
of the spectral shapes obtained in the ultrasonic
region up to 300 kHz by various authors [14] all
show spectra that fall-off more rapidly above the
peak than below. More research is needed on ' / V33 V, '/s ' / , V2 1 2 4 8 15 32 54
Frequency ratio fi/fp
spectral shape before a firm conclusion can be
drawn but these various results would seem to
Fig.11 Spectrum shape inside pipe
indicate that an alternative expression [14] may
be more suited to the ultrasonic region.

4.4 Valve trim design

Many valves are, or can be fitted with 'low noise" trims,


The design of these trims, which vary greatly in geometry

between manufacturers, can have a significant effect on both
the amplitude of in-pipe pressure ripple and on the frequency
range over which the noise will occur. Mostiy these trims are
fitted to reduce the audible noise in the vicinity of a control
valve due to the control valve itself. These steps have been
taken primarily due to the need to limit workforce noise
exposure. Fig,12 "low noise" cage trim [4]

There is various evidence [14] to show that some trim designs shift the problem out of the
audible region and into the ultrasonic region. Whilst this may solve the noise-at-work problem it
can cause new problems for equipment that work in the high frequency or ultrasonic regions.

Many trims are based on the concept of using many small holes to split the jet and shift ite
frequency content out of the audible range to also get the benefits fi-om increased transmission
toss through the pipe wall. This is a common approach in "noise-abatement" trims.

Different approaches are possible. Trims can have a complex and sophisticated geometry that
uses a number of mechanisms to reduce the fundamental pressure oscillations caused during
high pressure drops but frequency data either in the audible or ultrasonic ranges can be difficult
to get from the manufacturers to support their claims.

Clause 6 of standard [3] gives examples and calculation methods for low-noise trims that it
claims are effective in reducing noise. It should however be noted again that the standard Is
specifically referring to audible noise and firom the content of the calculations appears to rely on
the shift in frequencies to a higher region where pipe transmission loss is a better barrier to
noise from inside the pipe escaping. There is no indication, or guarantee given in the standard
that "quiet" trims will result in lower overall in-pipe noise levels.

Much of the published work [14] seems to support the view that low audible-noise valves can
shift the frequencies into the ultrasonic region. It is noticeable that most of the published works
deal with evidence from valves with simple single-stage multi-hole trim designs. It would
appear therefore that the frequency-shift effect is not universal to all forms of trim design and
that it depends on the specific detail design approach used. More complex ti-ims may provide
better in-pipe noise reduction across the wide frequency range but there is little experimental
evidence at present to support this view.

Noise and Vibration in Marine Applications Seminar
27 September 2006 ^


As it name suggests, pressure-ripple is the name given to small fluctuations in pressure within a
fluid be it liquid or gas. Pressure-ripple is synonymous with flow-ripple since one cannot be
present without the other.

Below what is called the "cut-on" frequency of the pipe, propagation of pressure-ripple is by
plane-waves (i.e. longitudinal propagation along the pipe axis). This is the most common mode
at low frequencies and the one under which pressure-ripple can be readily measured. At
higher-order modes (i.e, above the cut-on frequency) propagation can occur across the pipe,
Fig.13, and this is more difficult (if not impossible) to measure.

A number of standard acoustic texts, e g . Fahy [15], provide rigorous mathematical analysis of
wave propagation in pipelines but the concepts can be fairiy readily grasped.

The general expression that is used to define the start of each higher mode is:

J n.p

\ p f>... i -
The table in Fig.13 gives the various B ".j
0 (>0 3C lOl*
values for the mode coefficient, y^, and t - 1 . 16 S.3S* 853-
the wave pattern of the in-pipe noise that 2
- i-Oi
i'fi '
8.CG 1135
will occur for each mode. - 4 > S52 9.* 1268
; 642* 163 1399
6 ^ib 11-73 1523
^ ^ 1 . ^ ^ ^,rM r i i
Plane wave propagation is also referred to
as the 0,0 mode and the cut-on frequency
at which the first higher order mode
occurs (i.e. the 1,0 mode) is given by:
7i.o ~
Fig.13 Mode coefficient value and wave patterns
(24) in circular ducts and pipes

As can be seen. Fig.13, the wave pattern becomes ever more complex at these higher order
modes. Propagation can occur across the pipe as well as round the circumference in addition
to along the axis. Whilst 1.84 was the coefficient for the 1,0 wave mode, the next highest mode
(the 2,0 mode) will start at 3.05. At these higher order modes the pressure-ripple spins down
the pipe and the modes are often referred to as spin-modes [15].

Higher order mode propagation is more of an issue in gas filled pipe than in liquid filled pipe
since the speed of sound in gas is generally much lower than in liquids. For example, for 150
and 600mm diameter, air-filled pipes (c = 340 m/s), this gives cut-on frequencies of 1.3 kHz and
330 Hz respectively. For the same size pipes filled with water (c = 1300 m/s) the cut-on
frequencies become 5.0 and 1,3 kHz respectively. Higher order mode propagation can still
therefore be an issue in large diameter liquid filled pipes or if interest is more toward the high
frequency end of the spectrum.

Since the modes spin, measurement on the wall at a fixed location will average out the wall
effects. Since some of the patterns involve nodal-cylinders, Fig.13, measurements solely at the
walls will not be able to detect these. However, the onset of any of the higher order modes
follow fairiy strictly the cut-on frequencies given by equation (23) so this can at least be used as
a guide to their possible presence.

Noise and Vibration in Marine Applications Seminar
27 September 2006


Pipe wall transmission loss is used in most valve audible noise predictions to translate the in-
pipe pressure ripple levels into sound pressure levels obtained on the exterior of the pipe.
Many authors have explored the subject and its use in the valve noise prediction process. Most
autfiors and the latest standard [3] use a common approach based around three key
parameters, fu fo and fg, associated with the pipe wall given by:

fr = Cp/(Tr,d) (25)
fo= 0.25frC2/343 (26)
fg = Ce' V3 / (7r.t.Cp) = 0.551 Ce^ /(t.Cp) (27)

The ring frequency, fr, is the frequency at which the longitudinal wavelength is equal to the
Circumference of the pipe.

The pipe's 1 ^ internal coincidence frequency, /o, is the frequency at which the internal acoustic
and structural axial wave numbers are equal for a given circumferential mode.

The pipe's external coincidence frequency, fg, is the ft-equency at which the external acoustic
wave speed is equal to the velocity of a bending wave in the pipe.

The degree to which the rn-pipe pressure ripple will couple to pipe wall vibration is a function of
where the spectral peak frequency, fp (as given in section 4.3), lies in relation to each of these
three pipe-related frequencies, f^, f^ and fg.

As an example, applying equations (25) to (27) for a 5mm thick, 150mm bore mild-steel pipe (Cp
= 5000 m/s), filled with and surrounded by air (C2 = Cg = 343 m/s), gives approximate values for
f, = 10.6 kHz, fa = 2.7 kHz and fg = 2.6 kHz respectively.

Fig,14 shows the general form of pipe wall

transmission loss (TL) that defines the
attenuation obtained across the pipe in the
different frequency regions.

There Is still some debate and discussion at

international level as to the slope of each of
the regions. Using 6dB per octave for
frequencies below 4, approximately 4dB per
Octave for frequencies between f^, and fr, and
6dB per octave for frequencies above f,. is
common. EN 60534 [3] includes a detailed fo fr
expression based on the work of Fageriund Frequency (Hz)
[16] to predict the TL of a given pipe and
includes effects due to fg to give results that Fig.14 General form of pipe wall
more closely agree with experimental findings transmission loss
on steel pipe In static air.

Once a TL curve has been obtained for a given pipe and fluid combination, it can then be used
together with the spectral shape information as in Fig.12 (or from equations 21) to predict the
noise level achieved outside the pipe.

If applied in reverse, a known (or predicted) TL for a pipe/fluid combination could possibly be
used to work back from measured external sound pressure band levels to estimate the internal
sound pressure. No published work on any such approach has been found but the idea is
worth developing since in most circumstances it will be easier to measure noise extemal to the
pipe (or vibration on the pipe wall) than it will to measure in-pipe noise levels.

It should however be noted that the pipe wall transmission loss as calculated above is strictly
only applicable for straight pipe njns with no flanges, bends, components etc. and is primarily
for use with pipes surrounded by air.

Noise and Vibration in Marine Applications Seminar
27 September 2006


In addition to flow noise and water hammer, valves can often be a source of transient noise
particulariy where the valve is operated by an actuator under automatic control. By "transient"
we mean here an event of short duration, typically only a few milliseconds long, but of sufficient
amplitude to give a detectable spike in the acoustic signature.

These would manifest themselves as bangs, clangs or thuds and are mainly caused by the
actuator and consequently would occur at the start and end of an opening or closing sequence.
The noise is often caused by too fast a response of the actuator resulting in hard mechanical or
hydraulic knock when the actuator takes up any mechanical looseness or gear backlash and
contacts the valve stem or gear rack. The valve hitting mechanical stops at either end of its
travel are other possible sources of noise but generally are less common than actuator noise.
Manually operated valves if operated too quickly can also give raise to these same effects
either as backlash or looseness is taken up or as valves un-seat from the seal.

Transmission of the noise to other parts of the platform is primarily via vibration and
stnjctureborne noise since the actuator can normally be treated as a self-contained system but
can be a common problem on hull mounted valves. Since the noise can travel away from the
valve, it is sometimes difficult to initially identify the source of the transient as coming from the
valve: unless the valve is being manually operated in which case the source would be obvious.
Time history or spectrogram plots are useful means of identifying the source since the timing of
the transient can more easily be traced back to a known actuation event or control signal event.

Problems of this nature are often overcome by slowing down the actuation solenoid or pilot
spool so initial actuation and mechanical contact is more gradual. This can be done by
introducing damping on the solenoid or control orifices in the pilot spool of a hydraulically
actuated valve. Frequently the actuator has a much faster response than is required taking into
account the generally slow opening time of most valves used in marine service so slowing down
the actuator has minimal effect on the overall valve opening or closing time. For example, a
typical valve might have an opening time of 5 seconds but may be frtted with an actuator that
responds within 5 ms of receipt of its control signal, slowing down the actuator to 100 or 200 ms
would only delay the opening by that same amount.


8.1 In-Pipe Measurement of Pressure-Ripple

Although single measurement points can be used to detect the presence of transients and
pressure ripple [17, 18], TUV NEL's recommendation for general pressure-ripple assessment of
fiow noise would be to use two measurement positions upstream and two or three positions
downstream using piezo-electric transducers for liquids or high pressure gas and microphones
for gas at ambient or low pressures. These are used to perform a two-point [1] or three-point
analysis up and downstream to provide additional information that helps differentiate valve
noise from system noise, checks the speed of sound in the fluid and to correctiy quantify the
amplitudes of any tonal content in the pressure-ripple spectrum. These additional
measurement positions also help identify whether the acoustic response of the system is
causing elevated or depressed levels of pressure-ripple in specific frequency bands. It should
be noted that piezo-electric sensors only detect the change in pressure so do not give a reading
of the static pressure in the system. If static pressure is also of interest then high response
plezo-re si stive sensors can be used but generally these are more limited in their frequency
response and are less accurate than piezo-electric sensore if used either in high pressure
systems or to measure very low levels of valve noise.

Noise and Vibration in Marine Applications Seminar
27 September 2006

8.2 In-Pipe Measurement of Water Hammer

Piezo-resistive transducers are generally used for this type of measurement since this would
normally be carried out in combination with some prediction model of the absolute pressure rise
at a specific location in the system. It is usual to use a number of sensor positions (e.g. one
close to the valve, one half way along the pipe, one at the pipe end etc..) and to measure
absolute pressure rise and phase at each measurement station relative to some reference
position in the circuit; normally the sensor closest to the valve.

Water hammer Is generally a low frequency event typically with vibration occurring at less than
20 cycles per second. When predictive models are run the interest is normally in trying to
establish and limit the amplitude of the maximum pressure rise and where this occurs in the
system rather than control the frequency of the oscillation. If the speed of sound in the fiuid is
known with some certainty, the frequency can provide a useful indication of the system length
causing the problem and if this happens to coincide with a structural resonance of the system,
modifying the frequency can avoid the problem. However the possible effects on speed of
sound in the fluid due to cavitation downstream of a valve must be borne in mind.

8.3 Speed of Sound in Liquid and its Effect on In-Pipe Measurements

The speed of sound, c, in the liquid when bounded by pipe walls is a fairiy basic parameter that
is used in many of the equations already mentioned. The pipe wall effects are taken into
account by applying the Korteweg correction which for thin wall pipes (i.e. t/d < 0.15) is given

c = (28)

Typically this results in a speed of sound between 5 and 25% (depending on the actual pipe
size and properties) lower than in the bulk or free-field medium.

Due to the reduction in static pressure that occurs inside any pressure reduction device,
dissolved gas will come out of solution or cavitation will occur depending on how low the static
pressure drops. Cavitation is normally fairiy localised to the immediate vicinity of the device
since the static pressure generally recovers just downstream. Free bubbles from release of
dissolved gas however can take some time to re-dissolve so "bubbly" liquid can exist for some
significant distance downstream. The effect of any free bubbles is to lower the speed of sound.
Fig.15, depending on the gas fraction.

The effect on speed of sound is generally referred to as "catastrophic" since its value can drop
to 30 m/s (for water). This is because with small volumes of free gas the density of the mixture
Is still relatively dose to that of the liquid but the compressibility is much closer to that of the

Generally, as with cavitation, these regions of catastrophic

reduction are fairty local to the device but there can still t>e
sufficient free bubbles lOOd or more downstream to have a marked
effect on the speed of sound. As an example, in a recent valve I^BC^'i
test, c was measured lOd either side of a cavitating 4" valve and
found to be 1360 m/s upstream but only 350-600 m/s downstream
depending on the test conditions. One way of estimating the
persistence of bubbles is to know the re-dissolve time at the
downstream static pressure and to then use the flow velocity to
estimate the downsti"eam distance to no-bubbles. 0.0001 j^ 100 |S1

Fig.15 Speed of sound

The effect needs to be taken into account when estimating wave reduction in bubbly water
propagation effects (such as water-hammer) or when making
downstream pressure-ripple measurements.

Noise and Vibration in Marine Applications Seminar
27 September 2006

8.4 Audible Noise Measurement at Pipe Exterior

BS EN 60534-8-1 & 8-2 [17, 18] both advocate audible measurement on the exterior of the pipe
using a single microphone with some recommendation for measuring inside a special "anechoic
box" to reduce the effects of extraneous noise in areas where ambient noise is high.

More accurate estimates of Sound power level, Lw, can be derived by using a number of sound
pressure measurements taken at various points around the valve. For example ISO 3746 [19]
uses up to 17 positions to provide a Survey Grade of accuracy but would have difficulty coping
in situations where extraneous noise (e.g. from other parts of the system) were high.

Acoustic intensity to ISO 9614-1 [20] (and other parts of the ISO 9614 series of standards) is an
alternative method that is more tolerant of extraneous noise but requires more sophisticated
measurement and analysis since it uses a microphone-pair and generally involves
measurement at 10 or more points depending on the size of item under test.

8.5 Vibration Measurement on the Pipe Wall

Although there is much published information on audible valve noise external to pipes and also
on in-pipe noise, there are few works on actual levels of pipe vibration induced by valves.
Vibration would be measured by conventional accelerometers taking into account the frequency
range of interest. The levels of vibration are generally difficult to predict since they are so much
influenced by the system and pipework design in the immediate vicinity of the valve and how the
valve is supported.

Estimates can however be made of the

surface vibration levels due to internal
pressure-ripple excitation assuming this
occurs uniformly in the pipe and valve
body (which is a simplification) and taking
account of the pipe and valve body wall
thickness and stiffness. Fig.16 shows a
graph of pipe vibration levels and in-pipe
noise obtained during some orifice plate
tests at TUV NEL [5] on 102 mm bore
schedule 40 pipe. Note the large scatter
in results. The corresponding simple
linear relationship this gives is: Fig.16 Lp, - Lv (dB) from orifice plate tests

I,, =1^,+8.^^-80 (29)

In the absence of any other vibration information, this can be used as a rough guide to the
levels of pipework vibration in the 500-8000 Hz band that might be obtained at the middle of a
pipe span. It should be borne in mind however that this is only the vibration level caused by in-
pipe pressure ripple and may not be indicative of general vibration levels thai would also be due
to flow perturbation, flow asymmetry or structural resonance.

Noise and Vibration in Marine Applications Seminar
27 September 2006


As a final topic it is worth mention of the adverse effects that some gas control valves can have
on ultrasonic flowmeters (USFMs) [21]. The fundamental issue here is that some control
valves, particulariy those fitted with low noise trims, can generate high levels of in-pipe noise in
the ultrasonic frequency region; i.e. above 20 kHz, and interference with a USFM will occur if
the valve noise is in the same frequency region as the meter's transceivers. Although these
f i m s are referred to as "low noise" this is a term used to describe the effect the trim has on
audible noise outside of the valve and does not necessarily mean the noise in the gas inside the
pipe will be less (see section 4.4 above for more detail on trims).

Generally this interference is more prone to happen where:

the USFM transceiver frequency is in the 100 - 200 kHz region,

there is a line-of-sight between the valve and the meter and,
the meter is installed downstream of the valve.

Knowledge of the possible noise amplitudes that could be generated inside the pipe (as firom
section 4.2) in combination with knowledge of the meter's sensor fi"equency and pulse strength
will indicate whether the meter might have a signal-to-noise ratio problem under given operating
conditions. Vermeulen [22] provide a useful approach to estimate the signal-to-noise ratio
based on estimating the valve noise, NUFM- al the fiowmeter using a valve specific "weighing"
factor, Nv, in ODmbination with a system attenuation factor, N^, using the equation:
NuFM = N,.N,.ApVQ (30)

Unfortunately values of N and No need to be obtained through experiment but [22] shows
results for in-pipe pressure-ripple over the range 2-400 kHz.

Paliative measures to overcome this problem (apart from the obvious ones of avoiding line-of-
site situations, downstream locations and using higher firequency sensors) can involve using
system components or silencing devices [14] between the valve and USFM so as to provide
some attenuation of the valve noise. It should however be noted that some caution should be
exercised when applying broad statements such as "blind-t-pieces will give 10 dB attenuation"
since the actual attenuation in given frequency bands will depend on the component geometry
and whilst 10 dB may be achieved in some ft-equency regions this will not necessarily coincide
with the USFM's sensor firequency which is where it is mainly needed. Unfortunately little
information seems to be available on the frequency characteristics of stock pipework
components (or indeed of valves) in the ultrasonic frequency region.

With modern signal processing and trend towards smaller, higher firequency USFM
transceivers, the valve-USFM problem is likely to become less of an issue but with current
systems the potential interference should still be borne in mind.


A range of issues associated with noise generation from valves have been discussed which
have particular relevance to marine applications since most military, merchant and passenger
vessels use significant numbers of valves in their various machinery systems. Many of the
issues are also relevant to underwater UAVs and other form of unden/vater vehicles since these
too can include valves in hydraulic control systems.

Hopefully the content will assist the reader in coping with the general trend for noise reduction
whether it be for reasons of stealth (both in a defence and also a marine-survey context),
workforce exposure or passenger comfort.

Noise and Vibration in Marine Applications Seminar
27 September 2006


Co Orifice discharge coefficient

c Speed of sound (m/s) in fiuid (including the effect of pipe wall flexibility)
Co Speed of sound (m/s) in bulk, free-field fluid.
C2 Speed of sound (m/s) in t h e fluid inside t h e d o w n s t r e a m pipe
Ce Speed of sound (m/s) in t h e fluid o u t s i d e t h e pipe
Cp Speed of sound (m/s) in the pipe wall ( - 5 0 0 0 m/s for mild steel)
Cm Speed of sound (m/s) of the mixture
d Internal diameter (m) of pipe
do Orifice diameter (m)
dt Internal diameter (m) of downstream pipe
d] Effective jet diameter (m)
E Young's Modulus (N/m^) of the pipe wall material
R The valve's liquid pressure recovery factor
/ Frequency (Hz)
fiQ Frequency (Hz) at which the first higher order mode starts in a circular section pipe
fg Extemal coincidence frequency (Hz) of pipe
fnj, Frequency above which the n.p mode can propagate
fo 1 ^ Internal coincidence frequency (Hz) of pipe
fp Spectrum's peak frequency (Hz)
fr Pipe ring frequency (Hz)
Ks Tangent Isotropic bulk modulus (N/m^)
k "k factor" of a restriction
Li Upstream pressure tapping location
Lpi Internal sound pressure level (dB re 20pPa) at the pipe wall
Lv Surface vibration acceleration level (dB re 10"^ m/s )
Lw(^) Sound power level (dB re 10''^ Watts) at octave band centre frequency, f,
Lwi Overall sound power level inside pipe (dB re 10"^^ Watts)
M'2 Downstream pressure tapping point for orifice plate vena contracta
n Number of nodal planes where acoustic pressure = 0
p Number of nodal diameters where acoustic pressure = 0
Pi Upstream pressure (Pa absolute)
P2 D o w n s t r e a m pressure (Pa a b s o l u t e )
Pffl Downsfi-eam pressure (Pa absolute) at change in noise generation mechanism
Pac Critical downstream pressure (Pa absolute)
P2CE Downsti^eam pressure (Pa absolute) for constant acoustic efficiency
Pv Vapour pressure of liquid (Pa absolute)
pvc Pressure at the valve's vena contracta (Pa absolute)
pvcc Critical pressure at the vena contracta (Pa absolute)
Ap Differential pressure (Pa) across valve
Ape Critical differential pressure (Pa) across valve
Q Volume fiowrate (m^/s)
R Intermediate calculation coefficient
S Intermediate calculation coefficient
So Strouhal number
T Intermediate calculation coefficient
t Pipe wall thickness (m)
Uvc Ffow velocity at the jet vena contracta
Wa Sound power (Watts) radiated into the downstream pipe
Wo Reference sound power = 10"^^ Watts
X Void fraction = Volume of gas / Volume of mixture
Xf Differential pressure ratio and ISO Cavitation number = Ap/(pi-pv)
Xft Cavitation number at cavitation inception
Xfe^ Cavitation number at cavitation inception for valve spool position f^
yn,p Mode coefficient for the n,p mode
a Pressure ratio = pvcc/p2c
p Orifice diameter ratio = do/d _ .
Y Ratio of specific heats for the gas

Noise and Vibration in Marine Applications Seminar
27 September 2006

<t) Valve spool position

T^f Acoustic efficiency factor
p Density of fluid (kg/m^)
p2 Density (kg/m^) downstream of the valve


[I] WHITSON, D., "An introduction to fluidbome noise in the marine environment", 1 ^ TUV
NEL Noise and Vibration in Marine Applications Seminar, Portsmouth, 2005.

[2] BS EN 60534-8-4:1994 "Industrial-process control valves - Part 8.4: Noise

considerations - Prediction of noise generated by hydrodynamic flow."
[3] BS EN 60534-8-3:2000 "Industrial process control valves - Part 8.3: Noise
considerations - Control valve aerodynamic noise prediction method."
[4] Technical Information: Part 3 - Cavitation in control valves" SAMSON AG,
2003/11.L351-EN, 2003.
[5] CAIRNS C , WHITSON R.J., STRACHAN P., WHEEL M., "Prediction of noise
generated by orifice plates in liquid systems using a modified form of lEC 534-8-
4:1994". 3"^ International Conference in Advances in Fluid Mechanics, Montreal, May
[6] CAIRNS C , WHITSON R.J., STRACHAN P., WHEEL M., "Towards a methodology for
predicting hydrodynamic control valve noise using orifice plate noise as a reference",
ASME 2000 Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting, Boston USA, June 2000.
[7] RITCHIE, A., WHITSON, R. J., PETERS, J., AND STRACHAN, P., "Noise Prediction in
Hydraulic Control Valves using CFD as a Tool", Valve Wori^shop 2003. At)erdeen, UK,
2 8 ' ' Oct. 2003.
[8] BAUMANN, H. D., PAGE, G. W. Jr., "A method to predict sound levels firom
hydrodynamic sources associated with flow through throttling valves". Noise Control
Eng. J . 43 (5), Sept-Oct 1995.
[9] BS EN ISO 5167-2:2003 "Measurement of fiuid flow by means of pressure differential
devices inserted in circular cross-section conduits running full ~ Part 2: Orifice plates".
[10] DEF STAN 02-719/lssue 1 (NES 719) "Sea water systems for HM surface ships -
Category 2". Apr. 2000.
[II] WYLIE. E.B., STREETER, V.L., "Fluid transients in systems", Prentice Hall, New Yori(,
1993, ISBN 0139344233.
[12] SINGLETON, E.W. "Understanding lEC 534-8-3 in confi-ol valve aerodynamic noise
prediction" ABB control valves, 1999.
[13] REETHOF, G., WARD, W.C. "A theoretical based valve noise prediction method for
compressible fluids." Transactions of the ASME Journal of Vibration, Acoustics, Stress
and Reliability in Design. Vol. 108, pp 329-336, July 1986
[14] WHITSON, R. J., "Technical review of the effects of control valve noise on ultrasonic
gas flow meters". Report No. 2003/199, National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride,
Glasgow. September 2003.

[15] FAHY, F., "Sound and structural vibration - radiation, transmission and response"
Academic Press, 1989, ISBN 0-12-247671-9.

[16] FAGERLUND, A.C., "Pipewall transmission loss as used in valve noise predictions".
Inter-Noise 99, Fort Lauderdale. Florida, USA, December 1999.
[17] BS EN 60534-8-1:2005 "Industrial-process control valves - Part 8.1: Noise
considerations - Laboratory measurement of noise generated by aerodynamic fiow
through control valves."

Noise and Vibration in Marine Applications Seminar
27 September 2006

[18] BS EN 60534-8-2:1993 "Industiial-process confi-ol valves - Part 8.2: Noise

considerations - Laboratory measurement of noise generated by hydrodynamic flow
through control valves."
[19] ISO 3746:1995 "Acoustics - Determination of sound power levels of noise sources
using sound pressure ~ Survey method using an enveloping surface over a reflecting
[20] ISO 9614-1:1993 "Acoustics - Determination of sound power levels of noise sources
using sound intensity - Part 1: Measurement at discrete points"
[21] COULL, C , WHITSON, R, J., "Effect of control valve noise on multi-path ultrasonic gas
flowmeters - Guidance to meter users", Report No. 2003/240, National Engineering
Laboratory, East Kilbride, Glasgow, December 2003.
[22] VERMEULEN, M.J.M., DeBOER, G., BOWEN. J., "A model for estimation of the
ultrasonic acoustic noise levels emitted by pressure regulating valves and its influence
on ultrasonic flowmeters", Instromet. 2000.