C O N T R O L & S M A RT V A LV E S

A fresh look
How to estimate cavitation noise
half-way between Xfz and the vapor
Estimating cavitation noise on valves has vexed many experts due to the pressure or X = 1. The reason is, that the
apparent complexity of the phenomena. The problem has been tackled by downstream pressure P2 corresponding
private firms[1] and even resulted in an IEC standard 60654-8-4[2]. While to Xfz is very high and, as a result, there
turbulence noise produced with water in control valves can be predicted is a large pressure drop between this P2
and the vapor pressure, causing the vapor
fairly accurately, since it follows standard hydrodynamic and acoustic laws,
bubbles to violently implode. However, at
cavitation still challenges established wisdom. Current methods are either the above described mid-point (defined as
too complicated or not accurate enough. Xy) the P2 pressure is only one half of what
it was at the Xfz level. From valve sizing for
By Dr. Hans D. Baumann, P.E. gases we know, when the pressure drop
in an orifice is less that 50% of the inlet
pressure, then there is no longer choked
This writer also studied the phenomena It is also known, that the mechanical power flow, or consequently sonic velocity. This
for many years[3] and lately found that the of a gas jet follows the U2 relationship. phenomenon happens with liquids too and
slopes and magnitudes of the plotted data Adding all exponents together, one finds as a result, the caviation curve decreases
of cavitation seemed to be all identical the cavitation sound is a function of U6 rapidly till the cavitation sound level is
for a given Xfz (coefficient of incipient and, since at choked flow (sonic velocity) zero, once X = 1 or the vapor pressure
cavitation) value1. This happens irrespective U is a function of inlet pressure2 and not is reached and vapor bubble collapse no
of the underlying turbulence input such of pressure drop such as (P1-P2)0.5. Thus longer occurs.
as flow rate, inlet pressure and so on. one can write LAcav (the sound level of This secondary cavitation process can
This points to the conclusion, that beginning cavitation) is proportional to P6. (somewhat simplified) be described as:
cavitation is not a hydraulic phenomena, Or, even better: LAcav1= 60 log(X / Xfz), LAcav2 = 140 log (X / Xy). The total valve
rather an aerodynamic one caused by where X = (P1 – P2) / (P1 – Pv) and Xfz noise is now: LAext. = Turbulent sound level
rapid pressure fluctuations in the fluid. = the pressure ratio where there is a first + LAcav1 – LAcav2. in dB(A).
discernible flow change due to cavitation.
For example, at a pressure condition with Benefits of the method
Cavitation is an aerodynamic X = 0.4 and an Xfz of 0.25, the sound level The illustration in Figure 1 shows the
phenomenon for cavitation only will be 60 log(0.4/0.25) standard cavitation curves using the above
On closer examination of the seemingly = 12.25 dB. This has to be added to the equations. These curves fit every valve
constant slopes of cavitation produced turbulent sound level at the given pressure and service conditions (subject to some
sound levels led me to investigate the ratio. It may be prudent to add about 3 dB limitations described below). The only
possible causes of these results. to account for the A-weighted correction variable is Xfz. Of interest is the fact that
Laboratory tests conducted already of the higher cavitation peak frequencies the magnitude of cavitation noise increases
several years ago[1] showed that the above 1000 Hz. drastically with lowering of Xfz. The lesson
predominant sound produced by cavitation Offhand, this looks much too simple, here is to select valves having a higher
(imploding vapor bubbles) agreed with yet observations from the test data Xfz to reduce noise and also cavitation
results calculated with aerodynamic noise demonstrate very good correlation. damage.
equations rather than those applied for An old adage states that what goes up Test data have shown this schema is
liquid turbulence. has to go down. This is true as well for the applicable for Xfz values as low as 0.1 and
This led to the following conclusions: cavitation curve. It happens approximately as high as Xfz = 0.7 (see Table 1 below).
First, one has to realize, that vapor
bubbles within the liquid implode where Table 1
the entrained vapor compresses at or Tabulation of cavitation parameters:
near sonic velocity. Sounds produced by Xfz x 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
gas jets at or near sonic velocity, follow a
Xy 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85
mixed bipolar- quadruple pattern, which
is proportional to U4, where U is the jet Max. Magnitude* 44 29 20 15 10.6 7.5 4.4
velocity[4]. * in dB , add 3 dB for A weighted scale

1 See VALVEWORLD, November 2014 issue, pp. 173-177.

2 In this case the downstream pressure at the point where X = Xfz.

80
April 2015
 C O N T R O L & S M A RT V A LV E S

erratic test data, it confirms again the

25FL log(X) turbulent sound trend line.
Finally, it indicates an about 18 dB
maximum cavitation amplitude as would
be expected from figure 1, confirming,
that the cavitation slopes and magnitudes
are independent of valve size and flow
conditions.
It is expected, that this proposed method
will not only greatly simplify noise
calculations but also will improve the
accuracy of such estimates.

When flashing is cavitation

The experimental data shown in Figure 5
indicates pressure ratios extending beyond
the vapor pressure, where the vapor stays
in solution and the bubbles no longer
implode, at least in theory. However, as the
data clearly shows, there is a significant
increase in the sound level beyond X = Pv,
an increase that should not occur, when a
homogeneous liquid / vapor mass travels
through a pipe. In this case, the vapor
pressure was 2 bar and a vacuum was
produced beyond X =1 in order to achieve
higher pressure ratios.
Here is a suggested explanation: Further
decrease in pressure beyond the vapor
Incidentally, the trend line of turbulent
sound between X=0.1 and 1 is
proportional to 25FL log(X), see blue line,
unless small orifice sizes are involved
(to be discussed in subsequent paragraphs).
Figure 2 is another way to show the
accuracy of this method. Here we see the
pipe internal sound levels which, except
for the beginning turbulent portion, has
a slope of (X/Xfz)6, see light blue line. This
agrees with the P6 power discussed ealier.
Figure 3 shows test data of a 0.150 m
butterfly valve with a Cv of 592. Typical for
large valves, this Xfz number is only 0.14
(note double X scale). Even though the test
data is incomplete, it shows the accuracy
of the turbulence and cavitation slopes.
Note, even with only a pressure ratio of 0.4,
the cavitation noise already exceeded the
turbulence noise by 38 dB, as predicted.
Another example is a 0.100m Eccentric
Rotary Plug valve with an Fd of 0.25
and Xfz of 0.3 as given in Figure 4. It
again shows good agreement with both
turbulent and cavitation slopes. Note that
here the additional cavitation noise peaks
at 17 dB in contrast with the previous data
due to the higher Xfz number. Fd is the
ratio between a valve orifice and the sound
producing jet diameter.
Fig 4a shows test data of a 0.025 m
(1 inch) Globe Valve. Despite the rather

83
April 2015
C O N T R O L & S M A RT V A LV E S

Limitations of the method

As far as limitations are concerned, this
method is not applicable for multi-stage
valves, nor pipe sizes where the first
coincidence frequency is below 5,000
Hertz (typically pipes larger than 0.2 m).
This also applies to small valves or
orifice sizes.
A typical example is shown in Fig. 6. Due
to the small jet diameter (0.004 m) the
cavitation peak frequency is high, about
50% of fo. Due to the unsteadiness of the
pipe resonance modes,[7] the transmission
loss in this area vacillates between (fo /
fp)2 and (fo /fp)3 where fo is the pipe’s
first coincidence frequency and fp is the
pipe’s internal peak noise frequency. As
shown in Fig. 6 this seems to happen at
Xfz pressure ratio when, due to the onset
of cavitation, the noise peak frequency fp,
suddenly changes. The graph shows both
slopes in order to indicate the difference.
Here the lower rate matches the turbulence
while the higher rate does fit the predicted
cavitation profile. This poses a great area
of uncertainty and creates difficulties in
correct sound calculations. Luckily, it seems
to affect only small orifices having relatively
high frequencies.
pressure Pv causes the entrapped gas to we have cavitation reoccurring, following A note of caution: All shown test data was
expand at the rate of Pv / P2 following gas at the same rate of increase (60 dB per measured using schedule 40 pipes. While
laws (temperature changes can be ignored decade of X / Xfz), except this time, the heavier pipe walls will reduce the overall
due to the short time spans involved). vapor pressure now is the new Xfz. One can sound level, it is not expected to affect
Using the data from Figure 5 at the argue that, whenever there is a closed pipe the slope and magnitude of the cavitation
pressure ratio X of 1.2, the vapor volume downstream of a valve, one will experience sound itself. However, more research is
now increases, five times (2 / 0.4) from cavitation and associated valve damage. needed in this area.
the 2 bar vapor pressure . This makes the
total volume in the pipe, including the
water, increase substantially. This results
in a velocity-head pressure of nearly 1.6
bar inside the pipe. This in turn requires
a static back pressure of about 2 bar, in
order to push the high volume through
the downstream pipe (in thermo-dynamic
terms, the volume of the entrapped gas
expands from 14.2 m3/kg to 63 m3/kg,
a ratio of 4.43/1 (close to the assumed
pressure ratio). There now exists a pressure
differential of 2 bar minus 0.4 bar ( the
static valve outlet pressure and new vapor
pressure in the pipe) equals 1.6 bar that
could , using the slope relationship of 60
log(1.2 / 1), cause a sound level increase
of 4.8 dB, which is close to the measured
data. This backpressure- created cavitation
causing the often cited destruction of
valve parts, is erroneously attributed to a
process of flashing. Such an occurrence
is confirmed by the upward slope of the
sound level above X = Pv in figure 5 It
clearly shows that instead of flashing,

84
April 2015
C O N T R O L & S M A RT V A LV E S

Conclusions
1. Cavitation is an aerodynamic
phenomenon caused by pressure
changes in the liquid.
2. The slope and magnitude of the cavitation
sound level is determined by the
coefficient of incipient cavitation Xfz.
3. The max. cavitation sound level occurs
midway between Xfz and the vapor
pressure.
4. Typically, all turbulence created sound
between pressure ration of 0.1 and the
vapor pressure follows a 25FL log (X)
relationship.
5. Flashing in a downstream pipe can cause
cavitation in the valve.
Mass Flow, W = 7.7 x 10-4 x Cv x ΔP0.5 kg/s
Jet velocity, Uvc = ( 2 x ΔP / FL2 x ρi)0.5 m/s
Acoustical efficiency factor η = 10-4 x Uvc /
Ci dimensionless
Wmo, the mechanical power converted,
Wmo = W x Uvc2 x FL2/ 2 Watts
Note, Wmo is proportional to P1.5
Acoustic power, Wa = η x Wmo / 4 Watts
Jet diameter, Dj = 0.0045 x Fd x (Cv x FL )0.5 m
Peak frequency of jet noise, fp = Nstr x Uvc
/Dj Hertz. Nstr = 0.08.
Internal sound pressure, Lpi = 10 log(3.2 x
109 x Wa x ρi x Ci / Di2) dB

References
1. Baumann H., Page G. A method to predict
sound levels from hydrodynamic sources, as-
sociated with flow through throttling valves.
NOISE CONTROL ENGINEERING JOURNAL,
43(5). September-October, 1995, pp. 145-158.
2. Industrial –process control valves- part 8-4
Prediction of Noise created by Hydraulic Fluids.,
International Standard IEC 60534-8-4, (Inter-
national Electrotechncal Commission, Geneva,
Switzerland.
3. Kiesbauer J., Baumann H. D. A method to es-
timate hydrodynamic noise produced in valves
by submerged turbulent and cavitating water
jets. NOISE CONTROL ENGINEERING JOURNAL,
52 (2), March-April, 2004.
4. Beranek, L.L, Ver, I.L. NOISE AND VIBRATION
CONTROL ENGINEERING, Second edition, John
Wiley and Sons, Inc. 2001, p.614
5. Baumann H. D. determination of peak internal
sound frequency generated by throttling valves
for the calculation of transmission losses.
NOISE CONTROL ENGINEERING JOURNAL, 36
(2) 1991, pp75-82.
6. This authors own test data.
7. Blake, W.K. Mechanics of Flow-Induced
Sound and Vibration V2: Complex flow…,
Volume 2, AKADEMIA PRESS, June 1986p.
685, figure 0.4.

86
April 2015
 C O N T R O L & S M A RT V A LV E S

LAext. = Cav1- Cav2 dB(A)

NOTE:
LAext. must not be less than Lat.

Thank you
I would like to thank both Edward W.
Singleton of KKI Corp. UK and
Prof. Dr. Michael Johnson of Utah
State University for their helpful
comments and advice.

About the author

Dr. Hans D. Baumann
P.E. is a world renowned
expert on control
valve and acoustic
technologies besides
being an author of over
130 technical papers
Pipe’s first co-incidence frequency fo; fo = Xy = [Xfz + ( P1 –Pv / P1)] / 2 and seven books on control technology
0.586 x Ci / Di Hertz Cav1 = Lat + 60 log(X / Xfz) +NA. dB(A), and acoustics, including “CONTROL
ΔTLfp , frequency dependent transmission where NA is a constant accounting for the VALVE PRIMER – A user guide”,
loss, ΔTLfp = 20 log( fp / fo) contributions by the A-weighted sound published by ISA and now in the fourth
Transmission loss TL = 10 log(Cp x ρP x tp / additions, NA = 3 dB (high frequency edition. For 36 years, he represented the
Co x ρo x Di) + ΔTLfp dB cavitation noise (above 1000 Hz) only). USA as Technical Expert on WG 9 of IEC
Turbulent Sound Level: Lat = Lpi + TL – (Di If X is larger than Xy; committee TC 65. He is the holder of
+2 / Di), dB Z= 60 [(X – Xy / Xy – Xfz) +1] over 100 US patents and he developed
Primary CAVITATION SOUND LEVEL Cav1 , Secondary CAVITATION SOUND LEVEL: the first scientific method to predict
if X is larger than Xfz but equal or less than Cav2 = [Z log(X/Xy) + NA + 25 FL log(1/ aerodynamic sound levels of valves.
Xy where Xy)]. dB(A)