NOTICE: This is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in

Chemical Engineering Research and Design. Changes resulting from the publishing
process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other
quality control mechanisms, may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have
been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was
subsequently published in Chemical Engineering Research and Design,Volume 87, Issue
12, Pages 1596-1603 (December 2009), DOI: 10.1016/j.cherd.2009.06.008

1
Sensitivity of pipeline gas flow model to the selection of the
equation of state

Maciej Chaczykowski

Warsaw University of Technology, Faculty of Environmental Engineering, Heating and Gas Systems
Department, Nowowiejska 20, 00-653 Warszawa, Poland, email: maciej.chaczykowski@is.pw.edu.pl

ABSTRACT

Real gas effects exert a significant influence on the hydraulics of natural gas transmission
pipelines. In this article the implications of the selection of the equation of state for the
pipeline gas flow model are investigated. A non-isothermal transient gas flow model with
AGA-8 and SGERG-88 equations of state was studied. Models with Soave-Redlich-Kwong
and Benedict-Webb-Rubin equations of state were solved to illustrate the overall gas flow
model inaccuracies. The effect of the selection of different equations of state on the flow
parameters is demonstrated and discussed.

KEYWORDS

Compressibility factor; Equation of state; Natural gas pipeline; Transient non-isothermal flow

NOMENCLATURE:

A - cross-section area of the pipe, m2,

B - second virial coefficient, m3/kmol,
C - third virial coefficient, m6/kmol2,
cp - specific heat at constant pressure, J/(kgK),
cv - specific heat at constant volume, J/(kgK),
D - pipe diameter, mm,
f - Fanning friction coefficient, -,
g - the net body force per unit mass (the acceleration of gravity) m/s2,
h - specific enthalpy, J/kg,
k - heat transfer coefficient, W/(mK),
L - pipeline length, m,
m - heat-transfer element mass, kg,
p - gas pressure, Pa,
q - rate of heat transfer per unit time and unit mass of the gas, W/kg,
Q - volumetric flowrate, m3/s,
R - specific gas constant, J/(kgK),
t - time, s,
T - gas temperature, K,
Tsoil - soil temperature, K,
u - specific internal energy, J/kg,
v - specific volume, m3/kg,
w - flow velocity, m/s,
x- spatial coordinate, m,
z - compressibility factor, -.

2
Greek symbols
- angle between the direction x and the horizontal,
- pipe roughness, mm,
- thermal conductivity, W/(mK),
- viscosity of natural gas, N s/m2,
- density of the gas, kg/m3,
- acentric factor, -.

Subscripts
s - standard conditions,
c - critical,
m - molar,
amb - ambience.

Superscripts
k - iteration index

Note:
Flow rate Qs is shown in the standard conditions of 273.15 K, 0.1 MPa
Substantial derivatives are indicated as d/dt

1. INTRODUCTION

Pipeline simulations are widely used by gas transmission operators, that are obliged to ensure
that the system is balanced and that deliveries of the gas are maintained. According to EU
regulatory framework, the responsibility for the physical balance of the system is imposed on
the pipeline operator and the balancing should be carried out on a daily and monthly basis.
This decision has many ramifications in the field of flow measurement, among other things is
an increased importance of the accuracy of pipeline simulation, which is used for the
determination of system line-pack (gas network accumulation) on a hourly and daily basis.
Pipeline leak detection system based on volume balance methods is another example of where
the accuracy of simulation results is an important matter.
Physical balancing of the system can be considered as a management of system line-pack. The
minimum pipeline line-pack is the amount of gas in the pipeline required to achieve the
desired gas flow, and the required delivery pressure. Physical balancing of the system can be
achieved by an adequate amount of storage capacities as well as through the variations in the
system line-pack. The latter supports the hourly modulation of gas delivery and supply rates
and is determined by means of pipeline simulation in order to preclude pressure values above
permissible limits. Extra line-pack is necessary to provide some flexibility to accommodate
variations in gas demand and a safety margin in emergency situations.
Seeing that safe and efficient gas transmission requires physical balancing of the system as a
necessary condition to ensure correct technical operation of the network, pipeline operators,
and in particular their dispatching centres, control gas transmission parameters such as
flowrates and pressures using real time gas network simulators based on transient flow
models. Gas flow models with literature review of their solution methods are widely
discussed by Thorley and Tiley (1987) and references therein. Many specific contributions
were also discussed by Osiadacz (1996).
Modelling of pipeline flow transients behaviour requires an application of the equation of
state. Modissette (2000) provided a review of equations of state commonly used in the gas
industry for compressibility factor calculations. Some equations reviewed included the NX-

3
19, AGA-8, Benedict-Webb-Rubin (BWR) and Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) equation of
state.
There are two different applications which affect the choice of the equation of state when
modelling flow of natural gas in pipelines. These are custody transfer measurements and
pipeline simulation. Custody transfer has its financial aspects and legal regulations that
impose restrictions on the selection of the equation of state. Natural gas composition and the
range of pressure and temperature values occurring in gas transmission pipelines enable the
use of equations of state of moderate complexity in gas industry. Currently AGA-8 and
SGERG-88 equations of state are widely used by American and European pipeline operators.
In engineering practice, the gross characterization method of gas composition is widely used
in pipeline simulations since a complete compositional analysis of natural gas often is not
available. The method does not consider the detailed gas composition, but considers
hydrocarbons collectively as an equivalent hydrocarbon gas. The molar heating value of the
gas mixture with the equivalent hydrocarbon gas is equal to the heating value of the natural
gas. The calculation of molar mass, molar heating value and mole fraction of the equivalent
hydrocarbon gas is performed iteratively. The convergence criterion is the absolute difference
between the calculated density of the gas mixture with the equivalent hydrocarbon gas and the
density of the natural gas at standard conditions.
Non-isothermal gas flow models are already widely used in pipeline simulations. In regard to
compressibility factor, it is treated either as a constant parameter or as a function of
temperature and pressure in the flow model. However, we are not aware of any published
work in the field of single phase natural gas pipeline simulation, with more complex and
accurate equations of state than two-parameter correlations in the flow model.
The objective in this paper is to focus on a transient gas flow modelling with the application
of various equations of state including those frequently used in gas and petroleum industry. A
sensitivity analysis of transient pipeline gas flow model to the selection of the equation of
state has been carried out. Non-isothermal gas flow model comprises a) AGA-8, b) SGERG-
88, c) BWR and d) SRK equations of state, and their influence on flow parameters, especially
on the gas temperature and pipeline line-pack is presented.

2. TRANSIENT GAS FLOW MODEL

The unsteady one-dimensional compressible flow within a gas pipeline is described by a set
of partial differential equations expressing mass, momentum and energy conservation laws as
follows
( w )
+ =0 (1)
t x
( w) ( p + w ) 2 f w w
2

+ = g sin (2)
t x D
w2 w2
u + + h + w = q wg sin (3)
t 2 x 2
Eqs. (1)(3) may be rewritten in terms of pressure and the volumetric flow rate under
standard conditions instead of density and velocity, respectively. This is a matter of
convenience, since these quantities are commonly measured and used in the gas industry. As a
result, equation of state which would express the density in terms of pressure and temperature
is needed to close the system of the above equations
p
= (4)
zRT

4
Eq. (1) can be rearranged in the form
1 d w
+ =0 (5)
dt x
Rewriting Eq. (4) in logarithmic form and differentiating with respect to time yields
1 d 1 dp 1 dT 1 dz
= (6)
dt p dt T dt z dt
For a given gas composition, the compressibility factor can be expressed as a function of
pressure and temperature z = z ( p, T ) thus
z z
dz = dp + dT (7)
p T T p
Substituting Eq. (7) into Eq. (6) we obtain
1 d 1 1 z dp 1 1 z dT
= + (8)
dt p z p T dt T z T p dt
The velocity in terms of pressure, temperature and volumetric flowrate at standard conditions
Q zRT
w= s s (9)
pA
Differentiation of the logarithmic form of the Eq. (9) with respect to spatial coordinate yields
1 w 1 Qs 1 p 1 T 1 z
= + + (10)
w x Qs x p x T x z x
The last term on the right-hand side of the Eq. (10) can be substituted using the Eq. (7).
Therefore
1 w 1 Qs 1 p 1 T 1 z p 1 z T
= + + + (11)
w x Qs x p x T x z p T x z T p x
Substituting Eqs. (8) and (11) into the Eq. (5) gives the following form of continuity equation
expressed by quantities which are directly measured
1 1 z p 1 1 z T s zRT Qs
+ + =0 (12)
p z p T t T z T p t pA x
Eq. (2) can be rewritten in the form
dw 1 p 2 fw w
+ + + g sin = 0 (13)
dt x D
Differentiating the logarithmic form of Eq. (9) with respect to time we obtain
1 dw 1 dQs 1 d
= (14)
w dt Qs dt dt
Substituting Eq. (8) into Eq. (14) and combining this with Eq. (13) results in
Qs s Qs zRT Qs 1 1 z p s Qs zRT p
+ Qs +
t pA x p z p T t pa x
(15)
1 1 z T s Qs zRT T A p 2 fzRT s Qs Qs
+Qs + + + + =0
T z T p t pA x s x DAp
Some terms in Eq. (3) can be canceled out since the mass and the momentum are also
conserved. Eq. (3) can be converted using Eq. (1) to the following form
dh dw p
w = q wg sin (16)
dt dt t
Combining this with Eq. (2) gives the following derivation

5
 dh dp 2 f w3
= q (17)
dt dt D
By using the thermodynamic identities
p p
dh = du + d , du = cv dT + T p dv
T v
the following form of energy equation is obtained
T s Qs zRT T RT s Qs zRT 1 1 z
+ + zT +
t pA x cv pA T z T
1 Qs 1 1 z p 1 1 z T
+ + (18)
Qs x p z p T x T z T p x

3
2 f zRT s Qs q
=0
cv D Ap cv
The first and the second term of Eq. (18) represent the time rate of change of the temperature
of the gas as it flows along the pipeline. The third term represents the real gas effects resulting
from the enthalpy dependence on pressure and temperature, and in the range of pressure and
temperature values representative for natural gas transmission pipelines it has a positive value,
causing the expanding gas to cool. The fourth term represents heating of the gas from friction.
The last term in Eq. (18) represents the heat transfer from the gas to the pipeline surroundings
and has a significant effect on the gas parameters obtained from the solution of the above
model.
Heat transfer in gas pipelines was studied by Gersten et al. (2001). Based on a steady-state
non-isothermal gas flow model in both onshore and offshore pipelines, they showed that
considering heat transfer reduces uncertainties in planned transport capacities and pressure
losses. Paper (Osiadacz and Chaczykowski, 2001a) presents comparison of isothermal and
non-isothermal pipeline gas flow models. Non-isothermal model contained simplified form of
energy equation with enthalpy and internal energy calculated from ideal gas equations, and
the steady-state heat transfer term for calculation of the heat transfer from the gas to the
surrounding soil. Nevertheless, it has been shown that there exists a significant difference in
the pressure profile along the pipeline between isothermal and non-isothermal flow processes.
The use of an isothermal model may lead to significant errors in calculation of the energy
consumption of the drivers of the compressors. The work of Modisette (2002) concluded that
the accuracy of the heat transfer model affects both line-pack and pressure loss in gas
pipelines. Recently, non-isothermal transient flow of natural gas in a pipeline was studied by
Abbaspour and Chapman (2008). They showed that the effect of cooling of the gas due to
expansion is significant on the temperature distribution, and the effect of treating the gas in a
non-isothermal manner is very necessary for pipeline flow calculation accuracies, especially
for rapid transient process.
Various methods are used for estimation of the heat transfer term in the energy equation, most
of which assume modification of steady-state heat flow expression. Generally, models
describing the heat transfer to the surroundings in gas pipelines are one-dimensional, due to
the lack of accurate data describing ground properties.

3. HEAT-TRANSFER MODEL

In the energy equation, the heat transfer term q represents the amount of heat exchanged
between unit mass of gas and the surroundings per unit time. Application of Fouriers law to

6
calculate the overall heat-transfer between the gas and the ground, for a discretisation section
of a pipeline, yields
q Adx = k (T Tamb ) dx
where k is an overall heat transfer coefficient and Tamb is the ambient temperature at the sane
horizontal level as pipe axis, but at a sufficient lateral distance from the pipe. Therefore
k
q = (T Tamb ) (19)
A
There exists an analytical steady-state solution for k for a cylinder near a half-plane, which
corresponds to the geometry of a buried pipeline. Nevertheless, it is a common practice to
calculate k as for a concentric cylindrical layer, with the distance between the outer boundary
and the pipe equal to the burial depth of the pipe. The ambient temperature is fixed and equal
to the ground temperature at the same horizontal level as the pipe axis, and at a sufficient
lateral distance from the pipe.

Fig. 1. Heat transfer area discretization scheme

In this work, however, the process of heat transfer from the gas to the surrounding
environment is described using unsteady heat transfer model, so that the description of heat
flux could take into consideration the effect of heat capacity of the surroundings of a pipeline.
Using the element method, one-dimensional axial-symmetric heat exchange process can be
expressed by the following set of equations, representing thermal balances of the elements
coaxial cylindrical layers (Fig. 1).
k0
q = (T T1 )
A
m1c p1 T1
= k0 (T T1 ) k1 ( T1 T2 )
dx t
m2 c p 2 T2
= k1 ( T1 T2 ) k2 ( T2 T3 ) (20)
dx t

mn c pn Tn
= kn 1 ( Tn 1 Tn ) kn (Tn Tamb )
dx t
where n is the number of discretization sections of heat-transfer area (equal to number of
elements), mi is element mass (i = 1, ... n), cpi is the is the specific heat of element i, micpi is
the element heat capacity, dx is the discretization section of a pipeline, Ti is the element
temperature and ki is the heat transfer coefficient between elements (i 1) and i (k0 denotes
heat transfer coefficient between the gas and the first element). In case of one-dimensional
approach, the process of heat transfer may be modelled by a minimum two cylindrical layers

7
as heat capacitors. Assuming substantially different heat capacity of the layers, so that their
time constants were different, the near and the remote surrounding of the pipeline would
therefore respond to temperature changes quickly and slowly, respectively. It has been
assumed for the purpose of heat-transfer area discretization in this study, that every element
has the same thermal resistivity. Thus, the temperature difference between consecutive ground
sections (element surfaces) are equal in steady state, and the initial condition can be
accurately modelled. The technique for heat transfer modelling presented above and its
applicability to calculate flow parameters in the gas pipeline has been evaluated in the case
study presented in this work.

4. EQUATIONS OF STATE

According to AGA8/1992 (Compressibility Factor of Natural Gas and Related Hydrocarbon

Gases, AGA Report No. 8, American Gas Association, Arlington, VA.) and ISO 12213-
3:1997 (Natural gas calculation of compression factor Part 3: Calculation using physical
properties), the equation of state for the calculation of compressibility factor of natural gas is
in the form of the virial expansion
Z = 1 + B m + C m2 (21)
where m molar density of the gas, kmol/m . 3

It is convenient to rewrite Eq. (21) as a series in powers of pressure instead of molar density,
which would be somewhat better form considering the dependent variables of the system of
Eqs. (12), (15) and (18). An equivalent form used for calculation of the derivatives of
compressibility factor is
Z = 1 + Bp + C p 2 (22)
Virial coefficients in Eq. (22) are calculated from the original virial coefficients by equating
(21) and (22) and solving the original virial expansion for p. The new virial coefficients in
terms of B, C are
B
B =
RT
C B2
C =
( RT )
2

Therefore the equations for the first derivative of the compressibility factor with respect to
temperature and pressure are
z p dB B p 2 dC dB 2 p 2
= + + 2 3 (B C)
2
2
2 B
T p RT d T T ( RT ) d T d T R T

B 2 (C B )p
2
z
= +
p T RT ( RT )
2

For given gas composition the virial coefficients are functions of temperature only. The
AGA8/1992 and ISO 12213-3:1997 standards give constants, gas parameters and mixing rules
for the calculation of the virial coefficients in Eq. (21).
SRK equation of state and BWR equation of state were taken for comparison of the flow
models. The following form of SRK equation, allowing for convenient compressibility factor
calculations was used in this work
Z 3 Z 2 + Z ( A B B 2 ) AB = 0 (23)
a p
where A =
( RT )
2

8
 bp
B=
RT
R 2Tc2
a = 0.42747
pc
RT
b = 0.08664 c
pc
2
T
= 1 + m 1
Tc
m = 0, 480 + 1,574 0,176 2
For iterative compressibility factor calculations Newtons method was used.
BWR equation of state is in the following form
C c 3
p = RT + B0 RT A0 02 2 + ( bRT a ) 3 + a 6 + 2 (1 + 2 ) e
2

T T
The values of eight coefficients: A0, B0, C0, a, b, c, and depend on gas composition
only. Application of Newtons method enables iterative density calculation. Once the density
is known, compressibility factor is calculated from the Eq. (4).

5. SOLUTION METHOD

Eqs. (11), (14), (17) comprise the set of hyperbolic partial differential equations with pressure,
flow and temperature as a function of time and location. It is solved by the method of lines
with a five-point biased upwind approximation scheme for spatial derivatives
T n Qnj zRT j RT j n Qnj zRT j 1 1 z
= X (T j ) zT +
t pj A cv pj A T j z T
1
1 1 z 1 1 z

X ( Qn j ) X ( p j ) + + ( T )
j
p j z p T T z T p
X
Qnj
3
2 f zRT n Qnj q
+ + = 0, j = 0,1,..., N
cv D Ap j cv
(24)
1 1
p 1 1 z 1 1 z T n zRT j 1 1 z
= + X ( Qn j ) , j = 0,1,..., N
t T j z T p p j z p T t pja p j z p T
Qn n Qn zRT j 1 1 z p Q zRT
= X ( Qn j ) + Qnj + n n X ( pj )
t pj A p j z p T t pa
1 1 z T n Qn zRT T A 2 fzRT j n Qnj Qnj
Qnj + + X ( p j ) , j = 0,1,..., N
T j z T p t p j A x n DAp j
T p
where j is the spatial coordinate discretisation section index and X (T j ) = j , X ( p j ) = j ,
x x
Qn j
X ( Qn j ) = . The five-point differentiation formula for spatial derivative of pressure is
x
given below as an example

9
 dp ( x0 )
dx

dp( x1 )
dx 25 48 36 16 3 0 p( x0 )
3 10 18
6 1 0 p ( x1 )
dp( x2 )
dx 1 8 0 8 1 0 p ( x2 )
1
X (p) = = + O(x 4 )
12x
dp ( x N 2 ) 0 ... 1 8 0 8 1 p( xN 2 )

dx 0 ... 1 6 18 10 3 p( xN 1 )
dp ( xN 1 ) 0
... 3 16 36 48 25 p( xN )
dx

dp ( x N )
dx
This approximation is fourth-order correct, i.e. the truncation error is proportional to x4. The
derivative p(x) approximated at point xj is based on function values at grid points xj2, xj1, xj,
xj+1, xj+2. For a detailed description of the solution algorithm see paper (Osiadacz and
Chaczykowski, 2001b).

6. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In the case study, different equations of state were incorporated into the gas flow model in
order to determine the influence on the flow parameters such as pressure, temperature,
flowrate and line-pack. Line-pack calculations enable the pipeline operator to justify for how
long the supplies of the gas could be continued in case of production stops, and optimize its
operation strategy. The Yamal-West Europe pipeline on Polish territory was selected as a test
network, in particularly the 363 km pipe section between Kondratki and Wloclawek
compressor stations (Fig. 2). This is a typical onshore gas transmission system with a
maximum operating pressure 8,4 MPa.

Fig. 2. Section of the gas transportation system

In the numerical calculations the following data were used: Gas: The gas is a 9-component
mixture with a molar composition x of CH4 - 98.3455, C2H6 - 0.6104, C3H8 - 0.1572, i-C4H10
- 0.0299, n-C4H10 - 0.0253, i-C5H12 - 0.0055, n-C5H12 - 0.0040, N2 - 0.0303 and CO2 - 0.7918.
The density n = 0.695 kg/m3, dynamic viscosity = 12.59 Pas, thermal conductivity =
0.0396 W/mK. Pipe: The distance between the compressor stations is L = 363 km and the
pipe diameter do = 1422 mm. The average roughness of the pipe = 0.0015 mm. The
properties of the pipe wall are listed in Table 3.

10
Soil: The thermal conductivity = 1.0 W/mK, density = 1640 kg/m3, specific heat at
constant pressure cp = 1530 (J/kg K) and the pipe depth z = 1.5 m. The soil temperature is
3.1 C.
The boundary conditions are
p ( 0, t ) = 8.4 MPa
T ( 0, t ) = 296.65 K
Qn ( L, t ) = f ( t )
where f(t) is depicted in Figure 3 with a time interval, t[0, 240]. The period function is
arbitrarily selected. In case of AGA, BWR and SRK equations of state, values of the
derivatives of compressibility factor were calculated based on polynomial regression with
degree two. Van der Waals (classical quadratic) mixing rules were used to calculate the
coefficients of SRK equation of state for gas mixture. Tests have shown that the convergence
in the solutions of SRK and BWR equations is fast, and the results are obtained within three
iterations in this particular case study. Fanning friction coefficient was calculated using
Colebrook-White equation.

Fig. 3. Change of flowrate at x = L (boundary condition)

Figures 4-6 present a graphical interpretation of the calculated flow parameters at the inlet and
outlet nodes of the pipeline. Figures 4 and 5 clearly show a minor effect of the type of the
equation of state in gas flow model on pressure and flowrate values in the pipeline. Changes
of the results obtained from different equations of state are insignificant. It can be seen from
Figure 6 that the value of the gas temperature at the outlet node drops below the surrounding
soil temperature (3.1 C), which is a demonstration of the effect of cooling of the gas due to
expansion. The value of the gas temperature decreases when increasing the flowrate, because
larger pressure drop in the pipeline and larger expansion of the gas downstream of compressor
station is observed. The temperature tends to be lower in the case of SGERG and AGA
equations of state. From this we can assume that compressor station power, calculated based
on the simulation results obtained from these equations, will be a little smaller than in the case
of the SRK and BWR equations of state (reduced cost and/or higher throughput).

11
Figure 7 shows the influence of different equations of state on the pipeline line-pack.
Differences between the equations exist but are relatively moderate. The largest difference
between line-pack value with AGA and BWR equations amounts to 118 000 m3 which
corresponds to 5,9% of the actual flowrate (2 000 000 m3/h) at the outlet node of the pipeline,
and is equal to 0,23% of the average value of the line-pack obtained from the solutions of the
all analysed equations of state.

Fig. 4. Change of suction pressure at Wloclawek (x = L)

Fig. 5. Change of flowrate at Kondratki (x = 0)

12
 Fig. 6. Change of temperature at x = L

Fig. 7. Change of pipeline line-pack

7. CONCLUSION

This paper has considered the possible improvements in the simulation accuracy by studying
the influence of the equation of state on the non-isothermal flow model, which is used in the
evaluation of control and operating strategies of the typical onshore gas pipeline. The results
of comparison of flow parameters and pipeline line-pack values show relatively small
influence of the type of the equation of state on the simulation results. The character of the
results cannot be easily generalized, but closer observation suggests that the form of the

13
equation of state might be regarded as a contributory factor in leak detection systems based on
volume balance methods.
There are many parameters associated with a mathematical description of fluid flow transients
within the pipeline, for which it is difficult to determine appropriate values: friction factor,
heat transfer coefficient, speed of sound, ambient temperature, actual pipeline geometry. By
using measured response data for the pipeline under a range of operation conditions and
regimes, comparison with the simulation results can be made. It is then possible to validate
the model with estimated values of these parameters, and provide a means of establishing an
improved efficiency of the overall operation of the pipeline.

REFERENCES

Abbaspour, M. and Chapman, K.S., 2008, Nonisothermal transient flow in natural gas pipeline, J.
Appl. Mech., Trans. ASME, 75 (3): 0310181-0310188
Gersten, K., Papenfuss, H.D., Kurschat, T., Genillon, F., Fernandez, P., Ravell, N., 2001, Heat
Transfer in Gas Pipelines, Oil Gas Eur. Mag., 27 (1): 30-34.
Modisette, J.L., 2000, Equations of state tutorial, Proceedings of the PSIG The 32th Annual Meeting,
Savannach.
Modisette, J., 2002, Pipeline thermal models, Proceedings of the PSIG The 34th Annual Meeting,
Portland.
Osiadacz, A.J., 1996, Different transient models - Limitations, advantages and disadvantages,
Proceedings of the PSIG - The 28th Annual Meeting, San Francisco.
Osiadacz, A.J. and Chaczykowski, M., 2001a, Comparison of isothermal and non-isothermal pipeline
gas flow models, Chem. Eng. J., 81 (1-3): 41-51.
Osiadacz, A. and Chaczykowski, M., 2001b, The thermodynamics of pipeline gas flow, Arch.
Thermodyn. 22 (1-2): 51-75.
Thorley, A.R.D. and Tiley, C.H., Unsteady and transient flow of compressible fluids in pipelines - a
review of theoretical and some experimental studies, 1987, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 8 (1): 3-15.

14