English
Views: 0 Author: Site Editor Publish Time: 2025-03-21 Origin: Site
Butterfly valves are critical for flow control in pipelines, but selecting between lug and wafer types can profoundly impact system efficiency. This guide analyzes their structural differences, pressure capabilities, and ideal use cases, supported by engineering standards and empirical data.
| Parameter | Wafer Valve | Lug Valve |
|---|---|---|
| Max Pressure | 150 PSI (10 bar) Unidirectional | 300 PSI (20 bar) Bidirectional |
| Temperature Range | -20°C to 120°C (EPDM seat) | -40°C to 200°C (Multi-layer metal + elastomer seals) |
| Flow Direction | Unidirectional (flow arrow marked) | Bidirectional (no flow restrictions) |
| Maintenance | Full system shutdown required | Single-side removal for inline servicing |
| Lifespan | 50,000 cycles (ISO 5752 standard) | 100,000+ cycles (API 609 standard) |
Space-Constrained Systems
Ideal for flange gaps < valve length + 10mm
Example: Ceiling-mounted HVAC ducts
Low-Pressure Unidirectional Fluids
Water/air systems ≤ 10 bar
Avoid pulsating flows or frequent cycling
Cost-Sensitive Projects
35-40% lower upfront cost vs lug valves
Note: Higher total ownership cost (TCO) possible
Rapid Installation Needs
DN150 wafer valve installation ≈ 18 minutes
(vs 25 minutes for lug valves)
Bidirectional Sealing
Fire protection systems, chemical recirculation lines
Medium/High-Pressure Systems
Pressure > 10 bar or with fluctuations
Frequent Maintenance
Enables single-side disassembly without system shutdown
High-Vibration Environments
Lugs withstand >5G vibration (MIL-STD-810G compliant)
Reality:
Structural differences exceed weight:
Lug valve discs are 50% thicker for bidirectional pressure
Stem diameter 20-30% larger (prevents torsion failure)
Multi-layer seals (EPDM + stainless steel reinforcement)
Risk Analysis:
Reverse pressure causes:
Disc misalignment ≥0.5mm → 80% higher leakage
Stem shear stress overload → fracture risk
Case Study: $220,000 leakage incident from modified wafer valves in a power plant
| Standard | Wafer Valve Compliance | Lug Valve Compliance |
|---|---|---|
| Basic | ISO 5752 | API 609 / EN 593 |
| Fire Protection | Not applicable | NFPA 13 / UL 668 |
| Food/Pharma | 3-A SSI (specific models only) | EHEDG + FDA 21 CFR |
| High-Pressure | N/A | ASME B16.34 Class 150 |
| Specification | COVNA Wafer Valve | COVNA Lug Valve |
|---|---|---|
| Body Material | ASTM A536 Ductile Iron | ASTM A995 4A Ductile Iron |
| Seat Material | EPDM (standard) | Triple-layer: PTFE+EPDM+SS |
| Shaft Design | Single-stage | Tapered reinforcement (anti-vibration) |
| Leakage Class | Class A (ISO 5208) | Class D (API 598) |
| Operational Cycles | 50,000 | 150,000 |
Q1: Can I convert a wafer valve to a lug-style valve?
A: Technically impossible. Structural design, sealing systems, and pressure validation differ entirely. Retrofit violates ASME BPE standards.
Q2: Why are lug valves more expensive?
A: Cost differences stem from:
25-30% more material usage
Additional machining (lug thread tolerance ≤±0.05mm)
2× longer bidirectional seal testing
Q3: How to quickly identify valve types?
A: Two-step method:
Check for threaded lugs on the valve body
Review nameplate standards: API 609 = lug, ISO 5752 = wafer
Understanding core differences prevents systemic risks:
Wafer Valves: Economical for unidirectional, low-pressure systems
Lug Valves: Essential for bidirectional sealing, high-pressure, and maintenance flexibility
COVNA Expert Support:
Free Valve Selection Technical Memo (includes ASME calculation templates)
Engineering team available for pipeline drawing reviews and validation
Download technical resources or consult our fluid engineers today:
Download Product Catalog Request Custom Quote/Live Technical Chat
