Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 776786

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Numerical simulation and experimental validation of the cavitating ow

through a ball check valve
Jos R. Valds a,, Jos M. Rodrguez a, Ral Monge a, Jos C. Pea a, Thomas Ptz b
a
Instituto Tecnolgico de Aragn, Mara de Luna 8, 50018 Zaragoza, Spain
b
TRW Automotive, Carl Spaeter Strasse, 56070 Koblenz, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The main objective of this work is to perform and validate a series of CFD simulations of the cavitating
Received 20 September 2013 ow through a ball check valve. Experimental tests are performed in order to obtain the mass ow rate
Accepted 25 November 2013 through the valve under different operating conditions, inducing or preventing the appearance of cavita-
Available online 24 December 2013
tion by conveniently adjusting the pressure level on the valve outlet port. The measurements are com-
pared with the results of numerical (CFD) simulations of the uid ow through the valve, with and
Keywords: without the inclusion of a cavitation model. The characteristic ow coefcient of the valve and the
Cavitation
hydraulic forces on the ball are analysed.
Valves
Fluid ow
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Numerical simulation
CFD
Testing
Validation

1. Introduction
The aim of this work is to run and validate numerical CFD sim-
ulations of the liquid ow through a ball check valve with and
without cavitation. The ultimate aim is to validate the accuracy
of the cavitation model used in the CFD simulations that have been
run in order to reproduce the incompressible, turbulent ow
through a ball check valve used in the Hydraulic Control Unit of
an automotive ABS system. Depending on the operating conditions
of the valve, cavitation phenomena may or may not appear, yield-
ing signicant differences in the mass ow rate through the valve
and thus in the ow coefcient of said valve.
Cavitation is a phase transformation that occurs in liquid ows
when the local pressure drops below the saturation pressure, with
gas cavities that appear, develop and nally collapse when the
pressure is high enough. In hydraulic components, cavitation
may lead to problems such as vibrations, pressure pulsations, noise
and erosion on solid surfaces. Therefore, cavitation and its poten-
tial effects must be considered in the design process of hydraulic
systems.
Valves are generally used to control the ow rate in hydraulic
systems. Ball check valves are designed to open under certain con-
ditions and allow an alternative uid discharge path. In the design
of such valves, it is important to know the characteristics of the
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 976011160.
E-mail address: jrvaldes@ita.es (J.R. Valds).
ow inside the valve, as well as the ow coefcient for its subse-
quent application in design and validation phases; for example,
in the development of lumped parameter models of complete
hydraulic systems for control, performance or stability analysis
[1]. In many cases, because the valve must work with outlet pres-
sure levels that are close to the atmospheric pressure, the appear-
ance of cavitation is not avoidable. However, it is necessary to
know it and take into account its inuence on the mass ow rate,
ow forces and ow coefcients. The inception of cavitation yields
additional energy losses and density variations that can signi-
cantly decrease the mass ow rate, rendering the uid discharge
process less efcient. The ow forces acting on the moving parts
are also modied due to the limitation of the minimum static pres-
sure that can be reached. In hydraulic control valves, having differ-
ent forces for similar pressure differences is a fact that must be
accurately known in order to correctly design the control software.
In check valves, the net forces acting on the ball must be analysed
in order to ensure that the valve opens when necessary.
Existing cavitation models fall into two classes: the Volume Of
Fluid method based on the interface tracking and the homoge-
neous equilibrium ow method [2]. The VOF method deals with
bubble dynamics by solving the vapourliquid interface, but most
of the practical cavitating ows are approached using the
homogeneous ow theory, due to its reduced complexity and
computational cost. In this theory, the uid is considered as a
vapourliquid mixture without explicit phase interfaces containing
a large number of spherical bubbles where the liquidvapour mass

0196-8904/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.11.038
 J.R. Valds et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 776786
Nomenclature
A cross-sectional area
d contraction small diameter
D contraction large diameter
K loss coefcient
n bubble density
P static pressure
Pin inlet pressure
PT total pressure
Q volume ow
Rb bubble radius
V velocity
transfer is governed by a vapour transport equation. This equation
contains two source terms that account for the mass transfer and
that are modelled based on the RayleighPlesset equation [3],
which describes the growth of a single vapour bubble in a liquid.
Many cavitation models based on the homogeneous ow theory
have been put forward in recent years, such as Singhal et al. [4],
Schnerr and Sauer [5], Kunz et al. [6] or Zwart et al. [7].
The full cavitation model developed by Singhal [4] accounts
for all rst order effects (phase change, bubble dynamics, turbulent
pressure uctuations and non-condensable gases dissolved in the
uid). The expressions for the phase-change rates, which depend
upon the local ow conditions as well as the uid properties, are
derived from a reduced form of the RayleighPlesset equation for
bubble dynamics. The rate expressions employ two empirical con-
stants, calibrated with experimental data covering a very wide
range of ow conditions.
The SchnerrSauer model [5] follows a similar approach to
derive the expression for the net mass transfer from liquid to
vapour, but uses a different expression to connect the vapour
volume fraction to the number of bubbles per volume of liquid.
The ZwartGerberBelamri model [7] uses a mass transfer expres-
sion which is similar to that of Singhals, except that it is related to
the vapour phase density, but not to the liquid phase and mixture
densities. It also employs two empirically calibrated coefcients
for evaporation and condensation and a correction to the vapour
volume fraction to account for the incorrect assumption that the
cavitation bubbles do not interact with each other, which is only
true during the earliest stages of cavitation when the bubble grows
from the nucleation site.
Experimental measurements and CFD simulations of the cavi-
tating ow in different hydraulic systems are widely reported in
the literature. Chern et al. [8] performed an analysis, based on
experimental observations, of the ow through a ball valve and
the appearance of cavitation. Jia et al. [9] performed an analysis
of the cavitating ow in a conical spray nozzle by means of numer-
ical CFD simulations using Singhals cavitation model and the Real-
izable ke turbulence model. The mass ow results are compared
with those of experimental measurements, showing a fairly good
correlation, with some signicant differences for high pressure dif-
ferences, due to the use of a 2D model. Salvador et al. [10] per-
formed a study of the internal ow in diesel injector nozzles
modelling the cavitating ow as a homogenous mixture of liquid
and vapour and an RNG ke model for modelling turbulence. Before
carrying out an analysis of the inuence of the needle lift by means
of CFD, a validation of the mass ow rate and momentum ux is
performed at full needle lift conditions, showing a good agreement.
Casoli et al. [11] performed a CFD analysis of a homogenizing valve
using a two-phase ow, the Singhal model to describe phase
777
Greek symbols
a vapour volume fraction
D increment
/ valve orice diameter
n ow coefcient
l viscosity
q density
Subscripts
l liquid phase
v vapour phase
b bubble
changes and the Standard ke approach to model turbulent uctu-
ations. An experimental validation of the mass ow rate as a func-
tion of the pressure difference showed a good correlation using the
two-phase ow, but not so with a one-phase ow. Mimouni et al.
[12] performed an analysis of the numerical simulation of cavita-
tion phenomena with the NEPTUNE CFD code, which is based on
the resolution of the mass, momentum and energy balance for both
liquid and vapour phases, and the occurrence of cavitation by
nucleation at the wall or by pre-existing cavitation nuclei. The
model was validated by comparison with experimental measure-
ments of the void fraction in a critical water ow in a nozzle,
obtaining a good agreement under the assumption that most of
the cavitation nuclei come from the vapour micro bubbles gener-
ated at the wall. Computations of cavitation development down-
stream an orice showed also good agreement with experimental
visualizations.
Li et al. [13] presented a study using a modied k-x model to
predict the unsteady cavitating ows around 2D and 3D hydrofoils
and modelling cavitation with the SchnerrSauer cavitation model.
The results were qualitatively in agreement with experimental
observations of formation and transport of cavitating vortices,
but under-predicted the lift coefcients. Zhao et al. [2] performed
a numerical simulation and validation of the cavitating ow on a
2D NACA0015 hydrofoil under high pressure and temperature.
The Singhal cavitation model was adopted combined with an
improved RNG ke turbulence model.
These analyses and validations indicate that CFD simulations
using homogeneous cavitation models are a valid tool to investi-
gate cavitating ows. All three main ke approaches for modelling
turbulence (standard, RNG and Realizable) seem to provide good
approximation to the measured ows. However none of the previ-
ously mentioned works apply the SchnerrSauer cavitation model
for valve ow simulation, neither do other more recent works such
as those of Shang [14], who has applied and validated the Schnerr
Sauer model in external ows around blunt bodies of submarine
shape; Aung and Li [15] have applied the Singhal model to an elec-
tro-hydraulic servo valve; Mohan et al. [16] have coupled the Schn-
errSauer model to a spray model for simulating a fuel spray; Li
et al. [17] have applied the SchnerrSauer model to the cavitating
ow around a hydrofoil and Zhang and Chen [18] have applied the
ZwartGerberBelamri model to investigate the cavitating ow
within a slanted axial-ow pump.
The present work aims to validate the SchnerrSauer model for
the ow through a ball check valve. Furthermore, no papers have
been located that provide numerical and experimental results for
a hydraulic valve with and without cavitation, under the same
pressure jump conditions. This paper will show numerical and
experimental results of the mass ow through a ball valve, under
778 J.R. Valds et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 776786
a given set of pressure jumps, with and without cavitation, analys-
ing the differences and demonstrating that the SchnerrSauer
cavitation model is able to capture the difference between both.
The way to turn off cavitation in the experimental tests is by
raising the pressure level of the valve outlet port to a sufciently
high level.
Lumped parameter models of check, poppet and spool valves
are widely used for the dynamic simulation of hydraulic systems
[1]. The mass ow through the valve is computed from the pres-
sure upstream and downstream the valve, the area of the critical
restrictions and the characteristic ow coefcient of the valve.
The ow coefcient depends on the Reynolds number and the geo-
metric features of the ow path, except for high Reynolds number
ow, in which the coefcient is a constant which depends only on
the geometry of the ow passage [1922]. Sometimes a constant
ow coefcient is used for modelling purposes, with the corre-
sponding loss of accuracy [19], [23]. This work will also show that
not only the Reynolds number, but also the cavitation conditions
have a signicant inuence on the ow coefcient, and must be
taken into account to increase the accuracy of lumped parametric
models.
2. Description of the valve. CFD model
The ball check valve under study is situated within a control
valve located in the Hydraulic Unit of an ABS system of an automo-
bile (see Fig. 1). The aim of this valve is to allow or cut the ow be-
tween the brake cylinder and the brake calliper. In normal
operation, the ball check valve is closed, and all the uid ows
through the valve main restriction. When the uid ows from
the brakes, the check valve opens in order to facilitate the pressure
release in the brake callipers. The diameter of the ball is 1.4 mm,
which gives an idea of the reduced dimensions of the valve.
CFD simulations using the commercial software ANSYS/FLUENT
are performed in order to obtain the mass ow rate through the
valve as well as the pressure, velocity and phase contours. The con-
tinuity, momentum and turbulence generation and destruction
equations are solved by means of the Finite Volume commercial
code FLUENT [24], assuming the hypotheses of steadystate,
incompressible and isothermal ow. The uid is a typical brake
liquid, which can be considered Newtonian, and has the following
properties at room temperature: density 1055 kg/m3 and viscosity
0.017 kg/m s. The saturation pressure of the uid, considering an
air content of 3%, is 0.22 bar of absolute pressure.
Fig. 1. Location of the ball check valve within the control valve: closed (left) and open (right).
An unstructured tetrahedral mesh of 700,000 cells has been
built. Although this type of mesh could lead to less accurate results
than a structured hexahedral mesh, the complexity of the geome-
try in the ball region makes it difcult to use hexahedral cells.
Building a tetrahedral mesh allows us to reduce the mesh setup
time while facilitating the use of a large number of small cells in
the critical region that exists between the ball and the housing.
Furthermore, the mesh can be easily rened by adapting the cells
by pressure or velocity gradients. Thus, mesh renement studies
are conducted by rening the mesh in regions of high pressure gra-
dients, in order to ensure that the mass ow rate result is indepen-
dent of the mesh. Fig. 2 shows the original mesh and the rened
mesh.
The valve is designed so that it opens completely even for small
DPs. There is no spring, so the ball is thrown against the opposite
wall as soon as the inlet pressure is higher than the outlet pressure.
Therefore, stationary simulations are run for different DPs assum-
ing that the ball is in the position shown in Fig. 2. As will be shown
in Section 4, the ow values correlate well with the experimental
ones, which is an indication that the ball position is correct. The
net force on the ball, derived from the CFD simulations, points
downwards for all the simulated DPs. For other possible positions
of the ball, this downward force would be even higher as the high
pressure region on top of the ball would be larger than the one
shown in Fig. 7, due to the restriction between the ball and the
housing. To be completely sure, CFD simulations for different ball
positions (or a full transient dynamic simulation of the ball motion
with deforming mesh) should be run, but the computational effort
would be high and the assumption that the ball is at the farthest
position seems very likely.
Pressure differences between 0.5 and 100 bar have been simu-
lated. The resulting Reynolds numbers at the valve orice are
between 400 and 7000 (see Table 1). Some of the cases lie within
the turbulent regime, while others belong to the laminar or transi-
tion regimes. The turbulence model used in this analysis is based
on the RANS approach where the instantaneous velocity is divided
into a mean velocity and a uctuation. The so called Reynolds
stresses that appear when this division is introduced in the
NavierStokes equations are modelled using the Bousinessq
hypothesis [24].
While the Standard ke model [25] is valid only for high-
Reynolds numbers, the RNG [26] and Realizable [27] ke models
provide an analytical formula for effective viscosity that accounts
for low Reynolds number effects. The ball valve cases have been
solved using the Realizable ke model, and for Re < 1500, they have
 J.R. Valds et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 776786 779

Fig. 2. Original mesh (left) and rened mesh (right).

Table 1 able to resolve the laminar sublayer, the Enhanced Wall treatment
Mass ow rate values obtained with different turbulent models at low Reynolds [24] solves the whole turbulent boundary layer, including the
numbers.
viscous sublayer. However, the use of a very ne near-wall mesh
DP (bar) Re Mass ow (gr/s) might impose a large computational requirement. The Enhanced
Realizable ke RNG ke Transition SST Laminar ow Wall treatment allows to have a near-wall formulation that can
0.5 412 3.66 3.66 3.68 3.70
be used with coarse meshes as well as ne meshes, without incur-
1 623 5.54 5.52 5.54 5.60 ring in excessive error for intermediate meshes where the rst
5 1502 13.36 13.34 13.54 13.67 node is neither in the fully turbulent region nor at y+ = 1.
10 2170 19.30 19.29 19.37 19.60 The resulting y+ values on the walls for the most critical case
(DP 100 bar) are below 15, as can be seen in Fig. 3. The use of
the Enhanced Wall treatment should ensure accurate results. How-
also been solved considering laminar ow. The differences are ever, an y+-based mesh renement has been performed in order to
lower than 2% (see Table 1). Solving these cases with the RNG analyse the variation in the ow results. Rening the near-wall
ke model or with the transition SST model does not yield signi- mesh so that the y+ is below 11 yields a ow reduction of 0.6%,
cant differences either. and a further renement that lowers it below 7 (see Fig. 4) yields
Turbulent variables have been set by specifying the hydraulic an additional reduction of 1%. Therefore, the original mesh with
diameter of the inlet port and a typical value of the turbulent y+ < 15 is deemed adequate.
intensity of 5%. Cavitation is modelled using the Scherr and Sauer cavitation
The simulations have been carried out using the Enhanced Wall model [5], [24]. Both the Singhal and the SchnerrSauer models
treatment that combines the two-layer near wall model with en- follow a quite similar approach and both are implemented in
hanced wall functions. If the near-wall mesh is ne enough to be ANSYS FLUENT. The main advantage of the Singhal model is that

Fig. 3. y+ Values on the ball wall (left) and housing walls (right).
780 J.R. Valds et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 776786

Fig. 4. y+ Values on the ball (left) and housing walls (right) after two renements of the near-wall mesh.

it can be used to account for the effect of non-condensable gases, Different static pressure levels are imposed at the inlet and out-
with a mass fraction that is assumed to be a known constant. let ports of the valve, in order to evaluate the mass ow rate across
The SchnerrSauer model is the default model, does not have a range of pressure jumps between 0.5 and 100 bar. According to
empirically calibrated constants and its numerical implementation the incompressible ow theory, the ow rate is determined by
is more robust, stable and easy to converge than the Singhal model the net pressure difference. However, if cavitation is taken into ac-
[24]. count, the ow rate depends not only on the net pressure differ-
As in the Singhal model, in the SchnerrSauer model the liquid ence, but also on the intensity of the cavitation effects, which is
vapour mass transfer is governed by the vapour transport directly related with the outlet pressure level.
equation: The SIMPLE scheme [28] is used for the pressurevelocity cou-
pling, and second order upwind spatial discretization is used.
@ ! ! q q da
aqv r aqv V v v l 1
@t q dt
3. Experimental setup
and the simplied bubble dynamics equation derived from the Ray-
leighPlesset equation [3] A hydraulic test rig (see Fig. 5) has been designed and developed
 1=2 in order to measure pressure and mass ow rate in valves and
dRb 2 Pb  P other hydraulic components. The gure on the left shows a picture
2
dt 3 ql of the complete test bench, with the reservoir, the pump and the
electronic equipment. A specic tooling has been designed in
where v is the vapour phase, a is the vapour volume fraction, qv is which different types of valves can be installed for testing, con-
the vapour density and Vv is the vapour phase velocity. The term on necting the inlet and outlet ports to the rest of the hydraulic circuit,
the right hand side of the vapour transport equation is the mass avoiding the apparition of leakages. A detail of the testing tool can
source term, where q is the mixture density and ql is the liquid be observed in Fig. 5 (right).
phase density. In the bubble dynamics equation, Rb is the bubble ra- A scheme of the hydraulic circuit can be seen in Fig. 6. The uid
dius, Pb is the bubble surface pressure (approximated by the satura- is pumped from a reservoir into the circuit where the valve is in-
tion vapour pressure) and P is the local far-eld pressure stalled. For controlling the ow level, a proportional control valve
(approximated by the cell centre pressure). is installed at the outow of the pump. The test bench can generate
The particularity of the SchnerrSauer model is the expression input pressure levels of up to 250 bar at the sample inlet, and ow
used to connect the vapour volume fraction to the number of bub- rates of up to 15 l/min.
bles per volume of liquid For characterizing the valve, it is necessary to measure the pres-
sure at both sides of the valve and the ow passing through it. This
n 43 pR3b
a 3 is done by means of two pressure sensors at the inow and outow
1 n 43 pR3b ports, with operation ranges up to 250 bar and 100 bar, respec-
tively. The ow meter is placed before the inow pressure sensor,
where n is the number of bubbles per volume. Working with the
and has a measuring range of 0.021.8 l/min.
previous expressions, the mass source term can be written as
In order to achieve different levels of outlet pressure during the
 1=2 experimental tests, orices with different diameters are installed
qv ql 2 jPv  Pj 3
a1  a   4 at the outow of the valve, downstream the outow pressure sensor.
q 3 ql a 3 1 1=3
Fig. 7 shows a detail of this sort of orices, which have been manufac-
1a 4p n
tured by means of laser technology from stainless steel plates
In this model the only parameter is the number of bubbles per vol- 0.5 mm thick and are placed between two hydraulic tube adapters.
ume of liquid. Typical values of the bubble density are between 1012
and 1014 bubbles/m3 [5]. The default value in FLUENT is 1013 bub-
bles/m3. Increasing or decreasing this value by an order of magni- 4. Results
tude changes the mass ow rate in less than 0.5%. A similar
conclusion is reached for the steady cavitating ow around a 2D Fig. 8 shows the comparison between the measured mass ow
hydrofoil [2]. rate and the values predicted by the CFD simulation when the
 J.R. Valds et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 776786 781

Fig. 5. Hydraulic test rig (left) and detail of the valve tooling and the pressure sensors (right).

Pressure Pressure
Pressure Gauge Flow Proportional Sensor 1 Sensor 2
control valve
Flow Sensor

Pressure
relief valve
Testing Tool

Motor Pump
Manual flow control
valve
Filter
Bundy Pipes

Tank

Fig. 6. Diagram of the experimental setup.

Inlet pressure
sensor

Outlet pressure sensor

Fig. 7. Orice used for raising the outlet pressure level.

782 J.R. Valds et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 776786
Fig. 8. Mass ow rate results (atmospheric outlet pressure).
Fig. 9. Power function used to t the CFD results (atmospheric outlet pressure).
outlet port is at atmospheric pressure. In this case, CFD simulations
are run with the cavitation model activated.
Fig. 8 shows a very good correlation, with differences between
the experimental results and the CFD values well below 5%, in fact
below 2% in most cases (the solid line on the bottom of the graph
shows the% difference between the numerical and the experimen-
tal values). The differences are shown in absolute values. In order
Fig. 10. Static pressure (bar) atmospheric outlet: DP 20 bar (left) and DP 50 bar (right).
to compute the difference in the whole pressure range, a power
function that ts the CFD results with a correlation coefcient R2
of 99.9% is used to estimate the numerical results for all the pres-
sure values that have been experimentally registered (see Fig. 9).
Fig. 10 shows the static pressure contours and Fig. 11 shows the
liquid phase contours for two of the cases that have been run with
atmospheric outlet pressure and cavitation. The intensity of the
cavitation effects can be observed. They appear in the narrow
restriction between the ball and the housing where the uid is
accelerated as well as in those regions where intense energy dissi-
pation losses take place. These regions are the ow separation
zones in the sharp bends upstream the ball and the wake down-
stream the ball, and can be clearly observed in Fig. 12, which shows
the total pressure in the domain.
Cavitation can be eliminated by raising the value of the outlet
pressure to a sufciently high level. This is achieved by inserting
a 0.7 mm diameter orice downstream the outlet port. The result-
ing outlet pressure levels are shown in Fig. 13.
These values of the outlet pressure are high enough to avoid the
appearance of cavitation effects. From the CFD simulations per-
formed without activating the cavitation model, by registering
the minimum pressure value in the domain, we can deduce the
value of the outlet pressure above which there should be no cavi-
tation effects (see Fig. 14 and Table 2). For example, the right hand
picture of Fig. 14 shows a lowest static pressure of 40 bar. As the
ow is incompressible, this value is not an absolute pressure value
(which would have no physical meaning), but rather the pressure
relative to the zero reference pressure imposed at the valve outlet.
The minimum absolute pressure with physical meaning is the
saturation pressure of 0.22 bar (0.8 bar below the atmospheric
pressure). This means that if the absolute outlet pressure is higher
than 41 bar, the static pressure will be higher than 1 bar every-
where and there will be no cavitation. For lower outlet pressures,
cavitation effects may appear and therefore a cavitation model
should be included in order to limit the minimum pressure to
the saturation pressure value.
Fig. 15 shows the comparison between the measured mass ow
rate and the values predicted by the CFD simulation when the
pressure at the outlet port has been raised by inserting a 0.7 mm
orice. The CFD simulations have been performed in this case
without activating the cavitation model.
The agreement is also excellent, with differences between the
experimental results and the CFD values below 5%, in fact below
 J.R. Valds et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 776786 783

Fig. 11. Liquid phase volume fraction atmospheric outlet: DP 20 bar (left) and DP 50 bar (right).

Fig. 12. Total pressure (bar) atmospheric outlet: DP 5 bar (left) and DP 50 bar (right).

2% in many cases, except for some of the values in the lower DP

Fig. 13. Outlet pressure caused by the insertion of an orice.
range.
For a given pressure jump, the appearance of cavitation phe-
nomena can signicantly change the value of the mass ow rate.
Fig. 16 puts together the experimental results, with and without
orice, and the CFD results, with and without cavitation model.
The excellent agreement between tests and simulations can be ob-
served, as well as the signicant difference in mass ow rate be-
tween both situations. Without cavitation, the mass ow rate is
up to 20% higher (see Fig. 16).
According to the theory of internal incompressible ow [19],
[23], the major energy losses in valves are not the linear viscous
losses typical of straight pipes, but the secondary losses that occur
in contractions, expansions, bends, etc. The ow conguration in
these elements is usually quite complex, and the energy losses
are commonly measured experimentally or numerically (CFD mod-
els) and correlated with the ow parameters. The loss coefcient K
784 J.R. Valds et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 776786

Fig. 14. Static pressure (bar) without cavitation model: DP 5 bar (left) and DP 50 bar (right).

Table 2
Minimum outlet pressure needed for avoiding cavitation and actual pressure
measured in the tests with orice at the valve outlet.

DP (bar) Minimum outlet pressure (bar) Test outlet pressure (bar)

100 70 Not performed
50 40 66
20 15 23
10 6 8.6
5 3 3

Fig. 16. Mass ow rate results (with and without cavitation).

high Reynolds number ow, the loss coefcient is a constant which

depends only on the geometry of the ow passage.
In some simple cases there exist expressions that agree well
with the experiments [23]. For example, for sharp contractions:
Fig. 15. Mass ow rate results (without cavitation). !
2
d
K 0:42  1  6
D2
is usually given as the ratio of the total pressure drop through the where d is the diameter of the small duct and D is the diameter of
device to the kinetic energy: the large duct. For sharp expansions:
!2
 2 2
1 Q d
DP K  q  5 K 1 7
2 A D2

where q is the uid density, Q is the volume ow rate, A is the
cross-sectional area of the restriction and K is the ow resistance
coefcient associated to the element, which is dependent on the
Reynolds number and the geometric features of the ow path. For
These expressions are valid for fully turbulent regime. For laminar
and transition regimes, the viscous forces start to gain importance
and K varies with Re. As can be seen in [20], the loss coefcient com-
puted at the contraction of a hydraulic valve tends asymptotically
towards the value computed with Eq. (6).
 J.R. Valds et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 776786 785

Another way to put Eq. (5) is

s
2  DP
Q An 8
q
where n is the so-called the ow coefcient and represents the ow
reduction with respect to the maximum ow that can be obtained
for a given pressure jump across a given restriction of area A.
In dynamic simulation models of hydraulic systems, the ow
through a restriction is calculated from the pressure upstream
and downstream the restriction and therefore the ow coefcient
is one of the main parameters of the ow calculation block, along
with the restriction area and the uid density.
Sometimes the dependence of K or n on Re is ignored and a con-
stant ow coefcient is used to calculate the ow rate in valves, Fig. 18. Flow coefcient vs. cavitation number.
orices and other hydraulic elements for low Reynolds number
ows and even for slightly compressible ows [19]. However, to
accurately calculate the ow for any regime, the ow coefcient
should be expressed as a function of Re. In the ball check valve,
the Re number has been calculated as

4qQ
Re
lp/
where q is the uid density, Q is the ow rate, l is the viscosity and
/ is the inlet diameter of the valve (see Fig. 14).
Not only the dependence of the ow coefcient on the Reynolds
number, but also the consideration of the inuence of cavitation is
important for the accurate modelling of the valve. The ow coef-
cient of the valve, calculated from Eq. (8) and shown in Fig. 17, is sig-
nicantly different with and without cavitation. If the outlet
pressure is high enough to prevent cavitation, the ow coefcient
follows the normal trend that can be found in the literature
[20,21,29]: linear increase with Re for purely viscous ow, and
asymptotical increase in the transient regime towards the constant
value typical of fully turbulent regime. As the outlet pressure level
decreases, the trend is quite different: at low Reynolds number,
the behaviour is similar due to the low intensity of cavitation, but
drops sharply once cavitation effects become intense, yielding addi-
tional energy losses and thus a reduced ow rate for a similar DP.
The inuence of cavitation on the ow coefcient can be estab-
lished as a function of the degree of cavitation through the cavita-
tion number, dened as [16]:
Pin  Pv
Cv
DP
where Pin is the pressure at the valve inlet, Pv is the uid saturation
pressure and DP is the pressure difference between the inlet and
outlet ports. As can be observed in Fig. 18, there is a critical cavita-
tion number below which cavitation starts and the ow coefcient
9
Fig. 19. Forces on the ball (square markers: atmospheric outlet, diamonds: high
outlet pressure; empty markers: viscous force; crossed markers: pressure force; full
markers: net force).
drops towards the constant value typical of high Reynolds numbers
and full cavitation conditions.
Thus, in order to develop parametric models of valves as accu-
rately as possible, different functions n(Re, Cv) should be consid-
ered, in order to cover the whole range of situations.
Finally, the CFD simulation also allows us to analyse the net
forces acting on the moving parts of the valve. This knowledge is
essential for the design of the control software in control valves
10 and for the analysis of the opening and closing conditions in check
valves. In this case, the net forces acting on the ball are very differ-
ent under cavitating and non-cavitating conditions, due to the dif-
ferent static pressure distribution around the ball and the viscous
forces associated with the different ow rates. Fig. 19 shows the
net forces for the two extreme situations, that is, atmospheric out-
let and high outlet pressure. Both the viscous and pressure forces
act downwards, trying to open the valve. Under full cavitation,
the minimum static pressure is limited and the pressure forces in-
crease rapidly with DP, with a small contribution from the viscous
forces, which also increase with DP. Under non-cavitation condi-
tions, the lowest static pressure is not limited, and therefore the
pressure forces are much lower, although the viscous forces are
higher due to the larger ow rate. The result is that, with no cavi-
tation, the net forces increase much more slowly. This different
behaviour of the net forces must be taken into account when
designing the check valve.

5. Conclusions

A series of numerical CFD simulations of the ow through the

Fig. 17. Flow coefcient of the ball check valve vs. Reynolds number. ball check valve of an ABS control valve have been performed, with
786 J.R. Valds et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 776786
and without the inclusion of a cavitation model, under similar con-
ditions of pressure difference between the inlet and outlet ports. In
parallel, using a test rig specically designed and built for testing
hydraulic valves, a batch of tests have been run, measuring the
mass ow rate through the valve as a function of the pressure
jump. Cavitation has been induced by setting the outlet valve pres-
sure at atmospheric level or eliminated by raising the outlet pres-
sure up to a high enough value to prevent the appearance of gas
phase. The correlation between the measurements and the CFD
predictions is excellent in both cases, thus validating the accuracy
of the simulations and the cavitation model for valve ow predic-
tion. The signicant difference between the cavitating and non-
cavitating conditions shows the importance of taking into account
the cavitation effects in the prediction of the ow rate. The ow
coefcient function has been extracted as a function of the
Reynolds number and the cavitation number, in order to
characterize the valve as accurately as possible in lumped
parameter simulation blocks. The hydraulic forces acting on the
moving parts must also be analysed in detail, as their behaviour
is quite different under cavitating and non-cavitating ow
conditions.
References
[1] Ors J, Rodrguez JM, Ptz T, Schwanke W. Real-time simulation of hydraulic
control unit for brake systems. In: Presented at the 12th EAEC european
automotive congress; 2009.
[2] Zhao W, Zhang L, Shao X. Numerical simulation of cavitation ow under high
pressure and temperature. J Hydrodyn Ser B 2011;23(3):28994.
[3] Brennen CE. Cavitation and bubble dynamics. Oxford University Press; 1995.
[4] Singhal AK, Athavale M, Li HY. Mathematical basis and validation of the full
cavitation model. J Fluids Eng 2002;124(3):61724.
[5] Schnerr GH, Sauer J. Physical and numerical modeling of unsteady cavitation
dynamics. In: Presented at the 4th int. conference of multiphase ow, New
Orleans; 2001.
[6] Kunz RF, Boger DA, Stinebring DR, Chyczewski TS, Lindau JW, Gibeling HJ, et al.
A preconditioned NavierStokes method for two-phase ows with application
to cavitation prediction. Comput Fluids 2000;29(8):84975.
[7] Zwart PJ, Gerber AG, Belamri T. A two-phase ow model for predicting
cavitation dynamics. In: Presented at the 5th int. conference on multiphase
ow, Yokohama, Japan; 2004.
[8] Chern M-J, Wang C-C, Ma C-H. Performance test and ow visualization of ball
valve. Exper Therm Fluid Sci 2007;31(6):50512.
[9] Jia M, Xie M, Liu H, Lam W-H, Wang T. Numerical simulation of cavitation in
the conical-spray nozzle for diesel premixed charge compression ignition
engines. Fuel 2011;90(8):265261.
[10] Salvador FJ, Martnez-Lpez J, Caballer M, De Alfonso C. Study of the inuence
of the needle lift on the internal ow and cavitation phenomenon in diesel
injector nozzles by CFD using RANS methods. Energy Conver Manage
2013;66:24656.
[11] Casoli P, Vacca A, Berta GL. A numerical procedure for predicting the
performance of high pressure homogenizing valves. Simul Modell Practice
Theory 2010;18(2):12538.
[12] Mimouni S, Boucker M, Laviville J, Guel A, Bestion D. Modelling and
computation of cavitation and boiling bubbly ows with the NEPTUNE_CFD
code. Nucl Eng Des 2008;238(3):68092.
[13] Li D, Grekula M, Lindell P. Towards numerical prediction of unsteady sheet
cavitation on hydrofoils. J Hydrodyn Ser B 2010;22(5):7416 [Supplement 1].
[14] Shang Z. Numerical investigations of supercavitation around blunt bodies of
submarine shape. Appl Math Modell 2013;37(2021):883645.
[15] Aung NZ, Li S. A numerical study of cavitation phenomenon in a apper-nozzle
pilot stage of an electrohydraulic servo-valve with an innovative apper
shape. Energy Conver Manage 2014;77(January):319.
[16] Mohan B, Yang W, kiang Chou S. Development of an accurate cavitation
coupled spray model for diesel engine simulation. Energy Conver Manage
2014;77(January):26977.
[17] Li Z, Pourquie M, Van Terwisga TJC. A numerical study of steady and unsteady
cavitation on a 2d hydrofoil. J Hydrodyn Ser B 2010;22(5):7707 [Supplement
1].
[18] Zhang R, Chen H. Numerical analysis of cavitation within slanted axial-ow
pump. J Hydrodyn Ser B 2013;25(5):66372.
[19] Manning N. Hydraulic control systems. John Wiley & Sons; 2005.
[20] Valds JR, Miana MJ, Nez JL, Ptz T. Reduced order model for estimation of
uid ow and ow forces in hydraulic proportional valves. Energy Conver
Manage 2008;49(6):151729.
[21] Payri F, Bermdez V, Payri R, Salvador FJ. The inuence of cavitation on the
internal ow and the spray characteristics in diesel injection nozzles. Fuel
2004;83(45):41931.
[22] Posa A, Oresta P, Lippolis A. Analysis of a directional hydraulic valve by a Direct
Numerical Simulation using an immersed-boundary method. Energy Conver
Manage 2013;65(January):497506.
[23] White FM. Fluid mechanics. McGraw-Hill; 1979.
[24] ANSYS FLUENT Theory Guide; 2012 [release 14.5.12].
[25] Launder BE, Spalding DB. The numerical computation of turbulent ows.
Comput Method Appl Mech Eng 1974;3(2):26989.
[26] Yakhot V, Orszag SA. Renormalization group analysis of turbulence. J Sci
Comput 1986;1(1):151.
[27] Shih TH, Liou WW, Shabbir A, Yang Z, Zhu J. A new k-e eddy-viscosity model
for high reynolds numer turbulent ows-model development and validation.
Comput Fluids 1995;23(3):22738.
[28] Patankar S, Spalding D. A calculation procedure for heat, mass and momentum
transfer in three-dimensional parabolic ows. Int J Heat Mass Transfer
1972;15(10):1787806.
[29] McCloy D, Martin HR. The control of uid power. Wiley; 1973.