Simulation analyzes flow and evaporation characteristics of reducing valves, suggesting improvements in efficiency under varying conditions.
The temperature and pressure reducing valve exhibits complex flow, heat, and mass transfer characteristics under off-design conditions. A three-dimensional simulation model of a multi-stage high-temperature and pressure reducing valve (MSHTPRV) was established through the combination of Euler-Lagrange two-phase flow and droplet evaporation models. The temperature and pressure reduction mechanism, as well as the thermal-mass transfer characteristics during droplet evaporation, were investigated. The influence of valve opening on steam flow rate, thermal-mass transfer capabilities, and flow field characteristics was analyzed.The results indicate that the flow rate increases significantly within the 30%–40% opening range and exhibits relatively slow growth in the 60%–100% range. The pressure, temperature, and turbulent kinetic energy inside the valve all decline as the valve opening decreases. When the valve opening is reduced from 100% to 30%, the average pressure inside the valve decreases from 7.65 MPa to 6.88 MPa, and the average temperature drops from 728.29 K to 713.89 K. The mass fraction of newly evaporated steam at the wall above the second-stage throttling orifice plate increases from 0.13 to 0.27, while the turbulent kinetic energy at the right wall of the first-stage throttling orifice plate rises from 4,039 m 2 /s 2 to 31,708 m 2 /s 2 .The vortex motion of steam between the first- and second-stage throttling orifice plates intensifies, enhancing the mixing of steam and droplets and accelerating droplet evaporation, thereby improving the cooling effect. After passing through the third-stage throttling orifice plate, both the eddy viscosity and turbulent kinetic energy decrease, reducing heat and mass transfer capabilities. At a valve opening of 50%, the droplet evaporation rate reaches its maximum at 90.9%, but the energy loss due to steam work increases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Heyong et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: