A common misconception in our industry is that actuating a valve is as simple as putting the most cost-efficient actuator on top of your valve of choice, but the process is much more complicated than that. Selecting the correct actuator for the size and purpose of the valve is key, but it’s only the first step. If the actuator isn’t sized by a knowledgeable and technically trained expert, the results can be disastrous and/or expensive.

When sizing an automated valve, the actuator must operate properly when on demand, especially on Emergency Shutdown Valves (ESDVs). With constantly increasing safety demands, more actuator buyers are taking the extra step of requesting actuator sizing documentation.

As new products are designed, including valve bodies and the parts that comprise the finished valve, prototypes must be created. How that is achieved is what makes the difference in how long it takes to get development done and the product to market.

Prototyping is exceptionally challenging in the valve industry due to the complex, multi-component parts. In the past, all these components would require a full set of custom tooling to prototype. According to Jeff Kane at DFT Valves, tooling is hugely time-consuming and expensive for valve prototyping.

It takes time to create the tools, then build the parts and see if the design works properly the first time. If not, revisions could take many more weeks—anywhere from several weeks to as much as six months, and the cost could be upwards of $500,000 to get a valid prototype. Then the prototype would have to go through testing, validation and verification.

In his presentation at VMA’s 2017 Technical Seminar, Kurt Larson, a process control engineer for Air Products, spoke about the inherent danger of the oxygen production business and how it is particularly important for end users and valve manufacturers to work closely together. Additionally, it’s necessary to have organizations that work to standardize and ensure the safety of plants and people.

One of the distinctions between maintenance requirements in a capital-intensive process facility and those of other industries is the high cost of production equipment and the corresponding cost of maintaining that equipment over its lifecycle. This capital intensity demands a maintenance response like few others in manufacturing.

Adding to this uniqueness is the fact that as a process industry, failure in one part of the operation invariably leads to lost production opportunities in the subsequent processes. In this complex environment, the foremost problem is that of controlling the unexpected and unnecessary loss of production due to equipment failures.