FLUID FLOW AND ROTATING EQUIPMENT SPECIALREPORT

Consider life-cycle costs

in specifying control valves
New approach improves sizing valves
while incorporating total ownership investment
J. KIESBAUER and D. VNUCEC, SAMSON AG, Frankfurt, Germany

T
he life cycle of a control valve is divided into different
phases. The resulting life-cycle cost (LCC) is mainly com-
prised of the acquisition investment and the follow-up costs
for operations and maintenance. Depending on the valve type
and operating conditions, these follow-up costs can account for a
major share of the total investment. Thus, assessing the life cycle
cost is increasingly gaining importance in valve sizing.
FUNDAMENTALS OF LIFE CYCLE COSTING
In the hydrocarbon processing industry, maintenance costs
make up a fundamental share of the total costs for equipment. It is
even more important than the investment to be amortized. Thus,
plant operators strive using plant components with a long service
life to minimize maintenance costs and possible plant downtimes.
An extended service life based on an optimized product almost
always means higher investment as well. This article shows that
the total costs incurred during the entire life cycle should be con-
sidered when selecting a control valve.
The total LCCs are composed of the costs that arise from
different stages in the life cycle as shown in Fig. 1. The basis of
a control valve’s LCC development is laid out at the initial stage
when the product is developed and manufactured. This stage is
characterized by the manufacturer’s potential for using its know-
how to develop and manufacture a control valve that perfectly
matches the process requirements. Due to the high-quality
Service life. During the service life, this cost behavior causes
the control valve to amortize the higher acquisition costs after a
certain point in time. Ideally, the valve should be amortized as
quickly as possible after its installation, i.e., at the beginning of
its service life, so that plant operators can achieve a high savings
potential, making the decision in favor of the control valve with
higher investment costs as the logical step. In this article, we will
show that determining the amortization time requires a very good
knowledge of the service life of the control valve components
depending on possibly critical process conditions.
CONTROL VALVE SELECTION
In the classical sense, the acquisition of a control valve only
involves buying a valve with a matching actuator and possible acces-
sories, such as a positioner. When it comes to reducing the LCCs,
however, the control valve is to be understood as a comprehensive
assembly composed of different components. Apart from the actual
hardware, further factors are of great importance including:
Version 2
Version 1
Time of
Cost

amortization
design and materials used, the valve is of better quality, which
results in higher costs arising for R&D, materials procurement
and manufacturing.
The second stage in a valve’s life cycle is its sale or acquisition.
The valve’s purchase price is composed of selling costs plus pos-
sible sales revenues. During this stage, plant operators also need Time, t
to take into account additional startup costs. As these costs are R&D/ Acquisition/
Service life Disposal
manufacturing selling
independent of the control valve’s sale or use, along with product
Manufacturer

- Development - Selling costs - Warranty costs

development, the valve’s cost development during this stage is costs - Sales revenue - Service revenue
rather similar (see Fig. 1). - Material costs
- Manufacturing
From a plant operator’s point of view, the most important costs

stage in a control valve’s life cycle is the actual service life. Apart - Purchase price - Operating costs (energy,
from the operating costs for energy and operating supplies, the
Operator

- Logistic costs operating supplies...)

- Installation costs - Maintenance costs (material,
costs incurred for service and maintenance during this usage stage - Startup costs labor, plant shutdown)
- Repair costs (material,
are major factors in the valve’s LCC. It is during this stage that, labor, plant shutdown)
depending on the existing operating conditions, the better quality
of a control valve leads to considerably lower maintenance costs FIG. 1 Total LCC and revenue.
than a lower-cost valve version would.

HYDROCARBON PROCESSING AUGUST 2011

I 33
SPECIALREPORT FLUID FLOW AND ROTATING EQUIPMENT

• Engineering tion with as many details as possible. For valve sizing, this means
• Startup support that the process data for the normal, minimum and maximum
• Valve diagnostics and service support operating points must be specified as accurately as possible. Valve
• Product-related training. manufacturers must analyze the provided data to detect critical
As shown in Fig. 2, these factors are all equally important. If a operating and ambient conditions. To provide such an expert
valve manufacturer cannot ensure a similar quality of all listed fac- analysis of reliable quality, manufacturers must know possible
tors, then the overall quality of the entire control valve assembly critical conditions as listed in Fig. 3; the process environment may
is reduced considerably. When it comes to achieving the lowest cause wear in or on a control valve.
possible LCC, not only the engineering and resulting hardware, To size a control valve that functions optimally, the proper-
but also a comprehensive service throughout the control valve’s ties of the process medium should be considered and taken into
entire service life must be ensured. As a result, manufacturers and account. For example, the design and material used for the valve
customers must cooperate to tailor the overall package to the cus- trim must meet stringent requirements if a corrosive media or
tomers’ specific applications so that the customers feel that they media containing solids are to be handled. When handling solids,
are offered an optimal product with the lowest LCC. plug systems guided along their entire circumference are more
susceptible to dirt-induced problems, as the valve can seize up.
Engineering. Sizing a control valve to match the specific Process media. In addition, the process conditions may cause
requirements of an application is essential in selecting the optimal the medium to go through a phase transition when choked flow
control valve. This requires plant operators to provide a specifica- occurs. A temperature minimum at the vena contracta should
be taken into account, particularly when handling compressible
Startup support media. For example with vapors, this condition may contribute
Valve diagnostics to forming wet steam. In such cases, it is recommended to avoid
using thin-walled parts or hardened materials for the valve trim.
Gases and liquids. When handling gases, the valve may freeze
Valve
up so that it can become jammed if no insulating sections are
Actuator included.With liquids, the process conditions may cause the
medium to permanently evaporate at the valve outlet, which is
referred to as “flashing.” Compared to a purely liquid process
Product training
Positioner medium, two-phase flows can considerably increase the veloc-
ity as well as the risk of erosion. This can be prevented by using
hardened materials as well as by providing an unrestricted flow
Service support Engineering path and large outlet volume downstream of the vena contracta.
For the closure member, this means that multistage plug
FIG. 2 Control valve as a comprehensive assembly.
trims are totally unsuitable, as an insufficient volume is available
between the different plug stages; this increases erosion-induced
wear and can additionally lead to plug vibrations. When flashing
occurs, a valve with an angle-style body and direction of the flow-
Medium Process Place of use
to-close (FTC) would be the optimal solution as the two-phase
Phase Wet steam Ambient conditions
Corrosion Flashing Quality of air supply flow can flow off without obstruction to the outlet pipe. The
Solid particles Icing up valve body is additionally protected against wear by including an
High temperature anti-wear sleeve downstream of the vena contracta. If the condi-
tions in the plant impede installing an angle valve, a globe valve
can be used instead. When doing so, however, it is best not to use
Control valve plug versions with maximum seat diameters, as the outlet volume
Valve type, trim design between the vena contracta and the body is insufficient for the
Valve outlet velocity high bubble concentration. This poses the risk of leakage to the
Cavitation atmosphere caused by wear. When using a globe valve, installing
Deposits
Vibration the valve with direction of flow FTC should also be avoided, as this
Direction of flow causes a concentrated two-phase jet flow to hit the bottom of the
Valve load valve body, which can lead to leakage to the atmosphere as well.
Material selection
Outlet velocity. The valve’s outlet velocity is a further criterion
to be considered regardless of the process medium. Outlet velocity
Accessories has a considerable effect on the control valve’s LCC. Two-phase
Actuator sizing flow conditions, such as flashing, saturated steam or cavitation, in
Hysteresis
Control dynamics combination with excessive valve outlet velocities, cause increased
wear due to erosion. In addition, vibration can occur; vibration
Control application
can cause mechanical damage, particularly with plug types only
guided in the valve bonnet.
Control profile
No. of switching cycles/year Cavitation itself does not damage the valve components.
However, high pressure drops and high differential pressures can
FIG. 3 Partial overview of possible critical operating conditions cause cavitation erosion. As a result, it is recommended to refrain
and requirements. from using rotary valves in such operating conditions and to

34
I AUGUST 2011 HydrocarbonProcessing.com
SPECIALREPORT FLUID FLOW AND ROTATING EQUIPMENT
rather equip the valves with multistage plug trims depending on
the differential pressure (Δp > 25 bar).
Leakage requirements. If severe seat leakage requirements
apply, i.e., a high leakage class must be met, then the normal
operating points should not be near the valve’s closed position.
Particularly in combination with two-phase flows or process
media containing solids, increased wear on the facings and,
consequently, an increased seat leakage are to be expected in
such cases.
The actuator and other valve accessories need to be scrutinized
as well. For example, it is recommended to use a relatively stiff
actuator on globe valves with direction of flow FTC to prevent
the plug from slamming into the seat due to the suction effect
and thus damaging the valve trim.
In addition, the required control dynamics must be checked.
Short actuating times in combination with a high number of
switching cycles per year or on/off applications speed up wear,
particularly on the packing, and thus cause leakage to the atmo-
sphere. These and other critical operating conditions are to be
prevented in cooperation with the customer to ensure the selected
control valve is reliable and has the longest possible service life.
Performance monitoring and service. The different
components of a control valve are characterized by their different
service lives. Depending on the application, premature failure
of a component and, consequently, the entire control valve can
occur. Preventing such failures and the resulting unscheduled
plant shutdowns makes a good plant-asset management program
indispensable. One approach to comprehensive asset management
is the predictive maintenance of plant components.
Consider control valves with automatic monitoring; they are
state of the art and are a cost-effective way to meet this require-
ment. In automatic control-valve monitoring, the intelligent
assessment of standardized signals helps detect possible signs of
wear at an early stagea, such as actuator leakage, seat leakage or
changed friction conditions. The assessed diagnostic data from
the control valve are transmitted to the associated process control
system, as shown in Fig. 4. Based on the received messages, plant
operators will have sufficient time to procure the necessary spare
parts for the next scheduled maintenance and to minimize the
time required for the actual service work.
Version 1
Medium state
Cavitation Incipient
Valve outlet velocity < 5 m/s
Plug guiding In the valve bonnet and seat
Maintenance interval One year
800 700
700 Version 1
600
Version 2
Total cost, % LCC
600
500
Cost of LCC
500
400 400
300 300
200
200
100
0 100
0 5 10 15 20 0 tenance routine. If it is detected during a
Time, year
FIG. 4 LCC comparison between two control valve versions.
36
I AUGUST 2011 HydrocarbonProcessing.com
A further essential aspect to be considered in connection with
maintenance, particularly unscheduled plant shutdowns, is how
close the valve manufacturer’s sales and service facilities are located
to the facility. A local inventory of spare parts at the service facilities
allows the valve manufacturers to respond quickly; thus ensuring
minimized shutdown times for maintenance. Certified service
workshops with properly trained staff are a further asset for valve
manufacturers in providing plant operators with optimal engineer-
ing and service support. These specifics, particularly the proximity
of service facilities, represent a cash-value benefit for plant opera-
tors, which becomes apparent as lower costs for plant downtime.
COST ANALYSIS
Valve manufacturers cannot calculate a control valve’s LCC
exactly, as crucial information from the plant operators—including
cost of installation, startup and operation—is not made available to
them. Rather, the LCC calculation is a means of comparing differ-
ent control valve versions. Result: It is sufficient to make a relative
assessment of the LCC by comparing the acquisition costs of a
control valve and the costs of maintenance and service that arise
during the service life. The other cost types incurred during the
acquisition stage, such as the cost of installation and startup, along
with the operating costs during the valve’s service life are relatively
constant for similar valve sizes or control valve dimensions. As a
result, they can be neglected in a relative assessment of the LCC.
In general, the cost of maintenance is calculated based on the
following parameters, which must be known for all control valve
components:
• MTBF—Mean time between failures
• b—Wear behavior over time
• LFCC—Limit for component change
• CMi—Cost of maintenance and spare parts.
To make a qualitative statement on maintenance costs incurred
throughout the control valve’s entire service life, the characteris-
tic MTBF and wear behavior over time must be known for the
assessed process. This means that, based on the mentioned critical
operating conditions, a database must be available that contains
MTBF values determined empirically for each individual control
valve component depending on its state. If possible, these state-
dependent service-life data should be determined by in-house test
series. As manufacturers may not be able to do all state-dependent
tests on their test benches, it is also possible
Version 2 to fall back on characteristic service life data
Liquid gathered in plants. However, this requires
using smart positioner systems, which detect
8 m/s and save faults throughout the control valve’s
In the valve bonnet only entire service life. The cooperation between
valve manufacturers and plant operators
then allows data to be exchanged.
Version 1
Based on the wear behavior over time
Version 2 parameter (degressive, linear, progressive)
and the specific MTBF value, the wear
condition of each control valve component
can be determined at any time. In general,
maintenance costs are divided into the cost
incurred due to failure and the cost that
arises as part of a scheduled, periodic main-
Acquisition Maintenance
maintenance interval that the wear condi-
tion of a component exceeded the permis-
sible change limit LFCC, then the affected
 FLUID FLOW AND ROTATING EQUIPMENT
component needs to be replaced. The change limit itself depends
on the requirements placed on the control valve. For example, if
a valve is expected to meet strict requirements concerning its tight
shut-off (seat leakage), the seat-plug trim must be replaced much
earlier than if normal requirements applied.
Failure-induced maintenance is considered when calculat-
ing the LCC if a component is completely worn out before the
maintenance interval has elapsed. If this is the case, then the
calculation must also include cost of failure due to unscheduled
plant shutdowns. A suitable LCC software tool that includes
the mentioned features, particularly the characteristic state-
dependent values, can be used to compare the relevant LCC of
several control valve versions.
Fig. 4 shows the result of a LCC comparison between two dif-
ferent globe valve versions at incipient cavitation. The comparison
shows that, for a technically ideal valve version (version 1), the
total LCC for a service life of 20 years is essentially made up of
the cost of acquiring the control valve.
Version 2, however, has a smaller nominal valve size and a simpler
plug design only guided in the valve bonnet. As a result, the acquisi-
tion costs of this version are approximately 30% lower than those of
the technically ideal version. But its subsequent maintenance cost is
many times higher. The reason for the considerably higher LCC is
that the smaller nominal valve size causes a higher valve outlet veloc-
ity; in combination with incipient cavitation, it leads to increased
wear, particularly at the valve plug. As a result, the cost saved from
purchasing the second valve version is eaten up by the higher main-
tenance costs after no more than approximately one year in service.
LCC tools can offer the added benefit of determining the opti-
mal maintenance interval; this is advantageous, especially if it is
known in advance that a control valve will be operated under critical
conditions. The example illustrated in Fig. 5 shows that the LCC is
considerably lower with a one-year maintenance interval than with
a two-year interval. The reason for this is that unscheduled service
work becomes necessary with a longer maintenance interval, as all
of the costs for plant downtime increase the total LCC.
Size it right. The LCC can only be calculated properly in
advance if the characteristic service life expressed as the MTBF
of the different control valve components has been determined
empirically for all possible, above all critical, operating conditions.
Using an LCC tool enables to accrurately determine a neutral
assessment of different control valve versions. Meaningful results
900
800 Maintenance interval: 1 year
Maintenance interval: 2 years
700
600
Costs, % of LCC
500
400
300
200
100
0 GEA Process Engineering
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time, years
FIG. 5 LCC comparison between two maintenance strategies.
SPECIALREPORT
can already be achieved by comparing the acquisition costs of a
control valve and maintenance costs arising during the valve’s
service life. HP
LITERATURE CITED
1 Final report on research project no. S 705: “Developing a life cycle concept
for mechanical and plant engineering,” 2007.
2 EN 60300-3-3: “Dependability management: Application guide–Life cycle
costing,” Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, March 2005.
3 Kiesbauer, J., D. Vnucec, M. Roth, and B. Stoffel, “Predicting Cavitation in
Control Valves,” Automatisierungstechnische Praxis, Vol. 47, 2005, 12 ed., pp.
54–62.
4 Kiesbauer, J., “Control Valves for Critical Applications in Refineries” (Stellventile
bei kritischen Prozessbedingungen in Raffinerien), Industriearmaturen, Vulkan
Verlag, Essen, Edition 3, 2001, p. 243–250.
5 König, G., and J. Kiesbauer, Comprehensive Asset Management for Control
Valves, Industriearmaturen, Vulkan Verlag, Essen, 4th Ed. 2005.
Dr.-Ing. Jörg Kiesbauer is member of the executive board for
Research and Development at SAMSON AG in Frankfurt am Main,
Germany. Since 1999, he has been active in Working Group 9 Final
Control Elements of the IEC SC 65B and in DKE K 963 Control Valves
(Stellgeräte für strömende Stoffe). Since 2008, Dr. Kiesbauer has
been a voting member of the ISA SP 75 Standardization Committee for Control Valves.
Domagoj Vnucec is head of the R&D Test Facilities Dept. at
SAMSON AG in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. His main fields of
activity include planning and evaluation of flow and acoustic labo-
ratory tests on control valves, using CFD tools for flow calculation,
development and optimization of calculation and sizing methods
as well as their implementation in valve sizing software.
GJP4.6e11
Jet Mixer System
Liquid jet mixers are used to mix and circulate liquids. With the
jet mixers a three dimensional flow is achieved in the tank without
producing a rotating motion.
Advantages: high efficiency, high operating safety,
long life time, no turning parts so little wear and
tear, simple construction, available in any material
used in the equipment, resistant to fouling.
20 GEA Wiegand GmbH
Am Hardtwald 1, 76275 Ettlingen, Germany
Telefon: +49 7243 705-0, Telefax: +49 7243 705-330
E-Mail: info.gewi.de@geagroup.com, Internet: www.gea-wiegand.com
Select 159 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
37